AYHAN GÖSTERİT, Yakup ÇIKILI, MERAL KEKEÇOĞLU

Comparison of swarming tendency and defensive behavior of Yığılca local and other commonly used honeybee genotypes in Turkey

Bu çalışmada, Yığılca yerel bal arısının oğul verme eğilimi ve savunma davranışının belirlenmesi ve Türkiye’de yaygın olarak kullanılan diğer bal arısı genotipleri ile karşılaştırılması amaçlanmıştır. Araştırmada, doğal çiftleşmiş ana arılar ile oluşturulan Yığılca bal arısı genotipinden 10 koloni, Anadolu ve Kafkas ırkı melezlerinden ise 12’şer koloni olmak üzere toplam 34 adet bal arısı kolonisi kullanılmıştır. Oğul verme mevsimi süresince Yığılca bal arısı kolonilerinin (49.86±18.00) hem Anadolu ırkı melezi kolonilerinden (13.00±7.00) hem de Kafkas ırkı melezi kolonilerinden (8.00±1.15) daha fazla ana arı yüksüğü yaptıkları belirlenmiştir. Benzer şekilde sokma testi sonuçlarına göre, en yüksek iğne sayısı Yığılca bal arısı kolonilerinde (18.38±4.24) belirlenirken, bu grubu Anadolu ırkı melezi (5.50±2.15) ve Kafkas ırkı melezi (3.75±0.62) koloniler takip etmiştir. Araştırma sonuçları Yığılca yerel bal arısı genotipinin Anadolu ve Kafkas ırkı melezlerine göre daha fazla oğul verme eğilimi gösterdiği ve daha hırçın olduğunu ortaya koymuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler:

Türkiye, Apis mellifera, Apis mellifera caucasica, melezler, savunma, genotip, bal arısı kolonileri, bal arısı, türlerarası melezleme, sosyal böcekler

Yığılca yerel bal arısının oğul verme eğilimi ve savunma davranışı bakımından Türkiye’de yaygın olarak kullanılan diğer genotipler ile karşılaştırılması

In this study, swarming tendency and defensive behavior of Yığılca local honeybee were determined and compared with other commonly used honeybee genotypes in Turkey. Colonies were headed by naturally mated queens and 10 colonies of Yığılca local honeybee, 12 colonies of of Apis mellifera caucasica cross and 12 colonies of of Apis mellifera anatoliaca cross were used in the experiment. In swarming season, Yığılca honeybee colonies constructed more queen cells (49.86±18.00) than both A.m. anatoliaca cross (13.00±7.00) and A.m. caucasica (8.00±1.15) cross colonies. Similarly, according to results of sting test, the highest number of stings was determined in Yığılca honeybee colonies (18.38±4.24), followed by A.m. anatoliaca (5.50±2.15) and A.m. caucasica (3.75±0.62) crosses. Results showed that Yığılca local honeybee genotype has a more swarming tendency and is more defensive than A.m. anatoliaca and A.m. caucasica crosses.

Keywords:

Turkey, Apis mellifera, Apis mellifera caucasica, crosses, defence, genotypes, honey bee colonies, honey bees, interspecific hybridization, social insects,

PDF

___

1. Ruttner F: Biogeography and taxonomy of honeybees. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1988.
2. Sheppard WS, Arias MC, Grech A, Meixner MD: Apis mellifera ruttneri, a new honey bee subspecies from Malta. Apidologie, 28, 287-293, 1997.
3. Sheppard WS, Meixner MD: Apis mellifera pomonella, a new honey bee subspecies from Central Asia. Apidologie, 34, 367-375, 2003.
4. Strange JP, Garnery L, Sheppard WS: Morphological and molecular characterization of the Landes honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) ecotype for genetic conservation. J Insect Conserv, 12, 527-537, 2008.
5. Bouga M, Alaux C, Bienkowska M, Büchler R, Carreck NL, Cauia E, Chlebo R, Dahle B, Dall’Olio R, De la Rua P, Gregorc A, Ivanova E, Kence A, Kence M, Kezic N, Kiprijanovska H, Kozmus P, Kryger P, Le Conte Y, Lodesani M, Murilhas AM, Siceanu A, Soland G, Uzunov A, Wilde J: A review of methods for discrimination of honey bee populations as applied to european beekeeping. J Apicult Res, 50 (1): 51-84, 2011.
6. Genç F, Dülger C, Kutluca S, Dodoloğlu A: Comparison of some behavioural characteristics of Caucasian, Central Anatolian and Erzurum honeybee (Apis mellifera L.) genotypes in the conditions of Erzurum. Turk J Vet Anim Sci, 23, 651-656, 1999.
7. Andere C, Palacio MA, Rodriguez EM, Figini E, Dominguez MT, Bedascarrasbure E: Evaluation of the defensive behavior of two honeybee ecotypes using a laboratory test. Genet Mol Biol, 25 (1): 57-60, 2002.
8. Strange JP, Garnery L, Sheppard WS: Persistence of the Landes ecotype of Apis mellifera mellifera in southwest France: Confirmation of a locally adaptive annual brood cycle trait. Apidologie, 38, 259-267, 2007.
9. Guzman-Novoa E, Hunt GJ, Uribe-Rubio JL, Prieto-Merlos D: Genotypic effects of honey bee (Apis mellifera) defensive behavior at the individual and colony levels: the relationship of guarding, pursuing and stinging. Apidologie, 35, 15-24, 2004.
10. Villa JD: Swarming behavior of honey bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) in Southeastern Louisiana. Ann Entomol Soc Am, 97 (1): 111-116, 2004.
11. Kandemir I, Kence A, Allozyme variability in a Central Anatolian honeybee (Apis mellifera L.) population. Apidologie, 26, 503-10, 1995.
12. Smith DR, Slaymaker A, Palmer M, Kaftanoglu O: Turkish honey bees belong to the east Mediterranean mitochondrial lineage. Apidologie, 28, 269-274, 1997.
13. Kandemir I, Kence M, Kence A: Genetic and morphometric variation in honeybee (Apis mellifera L.) populations of Turkey. Apidologie, 31, 343- 56, 2000.
14. Palmer MN, Smith DR, Kaftanoglu O: Turkish honeybees: Genetic variation and evidence for a fourth lineage of Apis mellifera mtDNA. J Hered, 91, 42-46, 2000.
15. Adl MBF, Gençer HV, Firatli Ç, Bahreini R: Morphometric characterization of Iranian (Apis mellifera meda), Central Anatolian (Apis mellifera anatoliaca) and Caucasian (Apis mellifera caucasica) honey bee populations. J Apicult Res Bee World, 46 (4): 225-231, 2007.
16. Güler A: A morphometrics model for determining the effect of commercial queen bee usage on the native honeybee (Apis mellifera L.) population in Turkish province. Apidologie, 41, 622-635, 2010.
17. Güler A, Kaftanoğlu O: Türkiye’deki önemli balarısı (Apis mellifera L.) ırk ve ekotiplerinin morfolojik özellikleri-I. Turk J Vet Anim Sci, 23, 565-570, 1999.
18. Kekeçoğlu M: Honey bee biodiversity in Western Black Sea and evidence for a new honey bee ecotype in Yığılca province. Res J Biol Sci, 2 (1): 73-78, 2009.
19. Kekeçoğlu M, Soysal Mİ: Genetic diversity of bee ecotypes in turkey and evidence for geographical differences. Rom Biotech Lett, 15 (5): 5646-5653, 2010.
20. Güler A, Bıyık S, Güler M: Morphological characteristics of the honey bee (Apis mellifera) population of the Western Black Sea Region. 7th National Animal Science Congress, Sep 14-16, Adana, Turkey, 2011.
21. Laidlaw HH: Contemporary queen rearing. A Dadant Publication, Dadant and Sons, Hamilton, Illinois, U.S.A., 1985
22. Arechavaleta-Velasco ME, Hunt GJ: Genotypic variation in the expression of guarding behavior and the role of guards in the defensive response of honey bee colonies. Apidologie, 34. 439-447, 2003.
23. Guzman-Novoa E, Page RE: Selective breeding of honeybees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) in Africanized areas. J Econ Entomol, 92, 521-525, 1999.
24. Akyol E, Şahinler N, Özkök D: Honeybee (Apis mellifera) races, ecotypes and their general characteristics in Turkey. J Anim Vet Adv, 5 (9): 771-774, 2006.
25. Yücel B, Kösoğlu M: Comparisons of Mugla ecotype and Italian cross honey bees for some performances in Aegean Region (Turkey). Kafkas Univ Vet Fak Derg, 17 (6): 1025-1029, 2011.
26. Garnery L, Franck P, Baudry E, Vautrin D, Cornuet JM, Solignac M: Genetic diversity of the west European honey bee (Apis mellifera mellifera and Apis m. iberica), II Microsatellite loci. Genet Sel Evol, 30, 49-74, 1998.