Aleksandar Uzunov

Dr. Aleksandar Uzunov

orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

13Years (2014-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
6 September 2022 in Journal of Apicultural Research
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
Alison GrayAlison Gray
Alison Gray
NANoureddine Adjlane
Noureddine Adjlane
AAAlireza Arab
Alireza Arab
ABAlexis Ballis
Alexis Ballis
VBValters Brusbardis
Valters Brusbardis
RBRobert Brodschneider
Robert Brodschneider
This article presents managed honey bee colony loss rates over winter 2019/20 resulting from using the standardised COLOSS questionnaire in 37 countries. Six countries were from outside Europe, including, for the first time in this series of articles, New Zealand. The 30,491 beekeepers outside New Zealand reported 4.5% of colonies with unsolvable queen problems, 11.1% of colonies dead after winter and 2.6% lost through natural disaster. This gave an overall colony winter loss rate of 18.1%, higher than in the previous year. The winter loss rates varied greatly between countries, from 7.4% to 36.5%. 3216 beekeepers from New Zealand managing 297,345 colonies reported 10.5% losses for their 2019 winter (six months earlier than for other, Northern Hemisphere, countries). We modelled the risk of loss as a dead/empty colony or from unresolvable queen problems, for all countries except New Zealand. Overall, larger beekeeping operations with more than 50 colonies experienced significantly lower losses (p < 0.001). Migration was also highly significant (p < 0.001), with lower loss rates for operations migrating their colonies in the previous season. A higher proportion of new queens reduced the risk of colony winter loss (p < 0.001), suggesting that more queen replacement is better. All three factors, operation size, migration and proportion of young queens, were also included in a multivariable main effects quasi-binomial GLM and all three remained highly significant (p < 0.001). Detailed results for each country and overall are given in a table, and a map shows relative risks of winter loss at the regional level.

15 March 2024 in Journal of Apicultural Research
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
RBRalph Büchler
Ralph Büchler
SASreten Andonov
Sreten Andonov
RBRichard Bernstein
Richard Bernstein
KBKaspar Bienefeld
Kaspar Bienefeld
CCCecilia Costa
Cecilia Costa
Jerzy WildeJerzy Wilde
Jerzy Wilde
1. Adaptation through natural selection is the natural response of bee populations to environmental changes and the challenge of pests and diseases. The richness in biodiversity of races and ecotyp...

29 June 2022 in Journal of Pest Science
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
RBRobert Brodschneider
Robert Brodschneider
JSJohannes Schlagbauer
Johannes Schlagbauer
IAIliyana Arakelyan
Iliyana Arakelyan
ABAlexis Ballis
Alexis Ballis
JBJan Brus
Jan Brus
Alison GrayAlison Gray
Alison Gray
Beekeepers have various options to control the parasitic mite Varroa destructor in honey bee colonies, but no empirical data are available on the methods they apply in practice. We surveyed 28,409 beekeepers maintaining 507,641 colonies in 30 European countries concerning Varroa control methods. The set of 19 different Varroa diagnosis and control measures was taken from the annual COLOSS questionnaire on honey bee colony losses. The most frequent activities were monitoring of Varroa infestations, drone brood removal, various oxalic acid applications and formic acid applications. Correspondence analysis and hierarchical clustering on principal components showed that six Varroa control options (not necessarily the most used ones) significantly contribute to defining three distinctive clusters of countries in terms of Varroa control in Europe. Cluster I (eight Western European countries) is characterized by use of amitraz strips. Cluster II comprises 15 countries from Scandinavia, the Baltics, and Central-Southern Europe. This cluster is characterized by long-term formic acid treatments. Cluster III is characterized by dominant usage of amitraz fumigation and formed by seven Eastern European countries. The median number of different treatments applied per beekeeper was lowest in cluster III. Based on estimation of colony numbers in included countries, we extrapolated the proportions of colonies treated with different methods in Europe. This suggests that circa 62% of colonies in Europe are treated with amitraz, followed by oxalic acid for the next largest percentage of colonies. We discuss possible factors determining the choice of Varroa control measures in the different clusters.

3 September 2020 in Insects
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
Fanny MondetFanny Mondet
Fanny Mondet
MPMelanie Parejo
Melanie Parejo
MMMarina Meixner
Marina Meixner
CCCecilia Costa
Cecilia Costa
PKPer Kryger
Per Kryger
RBRalph Büchler
Ralph Büchler
In the fight against the Varroa destructor mite, selective breeding of honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) populations that are resistant to the parasitic mite stands as a sustainable solution. Selection initiatives indicate that using the suppressed mite reproduction (SMR) trait as a selection criterion is a suitable tool to breed such resistant bee populations. We conducted a large European experiment to evaluate the SMR trait in different populations of honey bees spread over 13 different countries, and representing different honey bee genotypes with their local mite parasites. The first goal was to standardize and validate the SMR evaluation method, and then to compare the SMR trait between the different populations. Simulation results indicate that it is necessary to examine at least 35 single-infested cells to reliably estimate the SMR score of any given colony. Several colonies from our dataset display high SMR scores indicating that this trait is present within the European honey bee populations. The trait is highly variable between colonies and some countries, but no major differences could be identified between countries for a given genotype, or between genotypes in different countries. This study shows the potential to increase selective breeding efforts of V. destructor resistant populations.

27 April 2021 in Agriculture
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
DSDespina Popovska Stojanov
Despina Popovska Stojanov
LDLazo Dimitrov
Lazo Dimitrov
JDJiří Danihlík
Jiří Danihlík
AUAleksandar Uzunov
Aleksandar Uzunov
MGMiroljub Golubovski
Miroljub Golubovski
RBRobert Brodschneider
Robert Brodschneider
Honeybees are of great importance because of their role in pollination as well as for hive products. The population of managed colonies fluctuates over time, and recent monitoring reports show different levels of colony losses in many regions and countries. The cause of this kind of loss is a combination of various factors, such as the parasitic mite Varroa destructor, viruses, pesticides, management practices, climate change, and other stress factors. Having in mind that the economic aspect of honeybee colony losses has not been estimated, a pioneer effort was made for developing a methodology that estimates the economic impact of honeybee colony losses. Winter loss data was based on 2993 answers of the COLOSS standard questionnaire survey of honeybee winter colony losses for 2016/2017. In addition, market and financial data were used for each country. In a comparative analysis, an assessment on the economic impact of colony losses in Austria, Czechia, and Macedonia was made. The estimation considered the value of the colonies and the potential production losses of the lost colonies and of surviving but weak colonies. The direct economic impact of winter honeybee colony losses in 2016/2017 in Austria was estimated to be about 32 Mio €; in Czechia, 21 Mio €; and in Macedonia, 3 Mio €. Economic impact reflects the different value levels in the three countries, national colony populations, and the magnitude of colony losses. This study also suggests that economic losses are much higher than the subsidies, which underlines the economic importance of honeybees for the agricultural sector.

1 January 2014 in Journal of Apicultural Research
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
RFRoy M Francis
Roy M Francis
PKPer Kryger
Per Kryger
MMMarina Meixner
Marina Meixner
MBMaria Bouga
Maria Bouga
EIEvgenia N. Ivanova
Evgenia N. Ivanova
Jerzy WildeJerzy Wilde
Jerzy Wilde
IBRA, the world's longest established apicultural research publishers, promotes the value of bees by providing information on bee science and beekeeping worldwide. A not-for-profit organisation founded in 1949