Managed honey bee colony losses are of concern in the USA and globally. This survey, which documents the rate of colony loss in the USA during the 2015–2016 season, is the tenth report of winter losses, and the fifth of summer and annual losses. Our results summarize the responses of 5725 valid survey respondents, who collectively managed 427,652 colonies on 1 October 2015, an estimated 16.1% of all managed colonies in the USA. Responding beekeepers reported a total annual colony loss of 40.5% [95% CI 39.8–41.1%] between 1 April 2015 and 1 April 2016. Total winter colony loss was 26.9% [95% CI 26.4–27.4%] while total summer colony loss was 23.6% [95% CI 23.0–24.1%], making this the third consecutive year when summer losses have approximated to winter losses. Across all operation types, 32.3% of responding beekeepers reported no winter losses. Whilst the loss rate in the winter of 2015–2016 was amongst the lowest winter losses recorded over the ten years this survey has been conducted, 59.0% (n = 3378) of responding beekeepers had higher losses than they deemed acceptable.

Declines of pollinators and high mortality rates of honey bee colonies are a major concern, both in the USA and globally. Long-term data on summer, winter, and annual colony losses improve our understanding of forces shaping the viability of the pollination industry. Since the mass die-offs of colonies in the USA during the winter of 2006–2007, generally termed “Colony Collapse Disorder” (CCD), annual colony loss surveys have been conducted. These surveys gage colony losses among beekeepers of all operation sizes, recruited to participate via regional beekeeping organizations, phone calls, and postal mail. In the last three years, these surveys include summer and annual losses in addition to winter losses. Winter losses in this most recent survey include 5,937 valid participants (5,690 backyard, 169 sideline, and 78 commercial beekeepers), collectively managing 414,267 colonies on 1 October 2014 and constituting 15.1% of the estimated 2.74 million managed colonies in the USA. Annual losses are typically higher than either winter or summer losses, as they calculate losses over the entire year. Total reported losses were 25.3% [95% CI 24.7–25.9%] over the summer, 22.3% [95% CI 21.9–22.8%] over the winter, and 40.6% [95% CI 40.0–41.2%] for the entire 2014–2015 beekeeping year. Average losses were 14.7% [95% CI 14.0–15.3%] over the summer, 43.7% [95% CI 42.8–44.6%] over the winter, and 49.0% [95% CI 48.1–50.0%] over the entire year. While total winter losses were lower in 2014–2015 than in previous years, summer losses remained high, resulting in total annual colony losses of more than 40% during the survey period. This was the first year that total losses were higher in the summer than in the winter, explained in large part by commercial beekeepers reporting losses of 26.2% of their managed colonies during summer, compared to 20.5% during winter. Self-identified causes of overwintering mortality differed by operation size, with smaller backyard beekeepers generally indicating colony management issues (e.g., starvation, weak colony in the fall), in contrast to commercial beekeepers who typically emphasize parasites or factors outside their control (e.g., varroa, nosema, queen failure). More than two-thirds of all beekeepers (67.3%) had higher colony losses than they deemed acceptable.

For honey bees (Apis mellifera), colony maintenance and growth are highly dependent on worker foragers obtaining sufficient resources from flowering plants year round. Despite the importance of floral diversity for proper bee nutrition, urban development has drastically altered resource availability and diversity for these important pollinators. Therefore, understanding the floral resources foraged by bees in urbanized areas is key to identifying and promoting plants that enhance colony health in those environments. In this study, we identified the pollen foraged by bees in four developed areas of the U.S., and explored whether there were spatial or temporal differences in the types of floral sources of pollen used by honey bees in these landscapes. To do this, pollen was collected every month for up to one year from colonies located in developed (urban and suburban) sites in California, Texas, Florida, and Michigan, except during months of pollen dearth or winter. Homogenized pollen samples were acetolyzed and identified microscopically to the lowest taxonomic level possible. Once identified, each pollen type was classified into a frequency category based on its overall relative abundance. Species richness and diversity indices were also calculated and compared across states and seasons. We identified up to 64 pollen types belonging to 39 plant families in one season (California). Species richness was highest in CA and lowest in TX, and was highest during spring in every state. In particular, “predominant” and “secondary” pollen types belonged to the families Arecaceae, Sapindaceae, Anacardiaceae, Apiaceae, Asteraceae, Brassicaceae, Fabaceae, Fagaceae, Lythraceae, Myrtaceae, Rhamnaceae, Rosaceae, Rutaceae, Saliaceae, and Ulmaceae. This study will help broaden our understanding of honey bee foraging ecology and nutrition in urban environments, and will help promote the use of plants that serve the dual purpose of providing aesthetic value and nutritious forage for honey bee colonies placed in developed landscapes.

In the honey bee,Apis mellifera, colonies are composed of one queen, thousands of female workers, and a few thousand seasonal males (drones) that are reared only during the reproductive season when colony resources are plentiful. Despite their transient presence in the hive, drones have the important function of mating with virgin queens, transferring their colony’s genes to their mates for the production of fertilized, worker-destined eggs. Therefore, factors affecting drone health and reproductive competency may directly affect queen fitness and longevity, having great implications at the colony level. Several environmental and in-hive conditions can affect the quality and viability of drones in general and their sperm in particular. Here we review the extant studies that describe how environmental factors including nutrition, temperature, season, and age may influence drone reproductive health. We also review studies that describe other factors, such as pesticide exposure during and after development, that may also influence drone reproductive quality. Given that sperm development in drones is completed during pupation prior to adult emergence, particular attention needs to be paid to these factors during drone development, not just during adulthood. The present review showcases a growing body of evidence indicating that drones are very sensitive to environmental fluctuations and that these factors cause drones to underperform, potentially compromising the reproductive health of their queen mates, as well as the overall fitness of their colony.

Honey bee (Apis mellifera) colonies invest a substantial amount of colony resources in the production of drones during the reproductive season to enable mating with virgin queens from nearby colonies. Recent studies have shown significant differences in the production of sperm cells that are viable (i.e., sperm viability) and can fertilize an ovule among sexually mature drones that are exposed to different environmental conditions during development or as adults. In particular, sperm viability may be negatively affected during drone development from exposure to pesticides in contaminated beeswax. To assess whether sperm viability is negatively affected during drone development from exposure to beeswax contaminated with in-hive pesticides, we compared the viability of sperm collected from drones reared in pesticide-free beeswax with that of drones reared in beeswax contaminated with field-relevant concentrations of the pesticides most commonly found in wax from commercial beekeeping operations in the United States. These pesticides include the miticides fluvalinate, coumaphos and amitraz, and the agro-chemicals chlorothalonil and chlorpyrifos. Sperm from drones collected at 10 and 18 days post emergence were classified as viable or non-viable to calculate sperm viability. For all pesticide treatment groups, drones that were reared in pesticide-laden beeswax had lower sperm viability compared to those reared in pesticide-free beeswax. This difference was especially pronounced among drones reared in miticide-laden wax. Our results reinforce the notion that pesticide contamination of beeswax negatively affects the reproductive quality of drones, which can affect the queens they mate with, ultimately compromising colony health.