Scientific note: colony losses survey in Turkey and causes of bee deaths

Scientific note: colony losses survey in Turkey and causes of bee deaths
复制标题

DOI:
10.1051/apido/2009077
复制
发表时间:
2010-07-01
期刊:
影响因子:
2.4
通讯作者:
Kence, Aykut
Kence, Aykut
中科院分区:
农林科学3区
文献类型:
--
作者:
Giray, Tugrul;Kence, Meral;Kence, Aykut

文献摘要

被引文献

相似文献

在过去几年中,世界不同地区出现了意想不到的、令人震惊的蜂群损失(Oldroyd, 2007; EFSA, 2008;另见vanEngelsdorp等人,2008)。与美国的情况同时,土耳其也报告了大量的蜂群损失(Giray et al., 2007)。在土耳其,蜜蜂的健康具有普遍的重要性,这既是因为当地蜜蜂的生物多样性(见Bodur等人,2007年;在Kence, 2006年进行了综述),也是因为国内蜂群数量众多(550万;FAOSTAT, 2008年),仅次于中国。我们使用问卷调查的方法调查了土耳其损失的程度和原因,该调查于2007年进行,涵盖了前三年。本报告包括对35,597个蜂群的288份调查问卷的分析,与一份初步报告(88份调查问卷;Giray et al., 2007)相比,提供了地理区域的广泛代表性,更好地估计了区域蜂群损失,并对蜂群衰竭失调症(CCD)症状和损失等提出了新的见解。调查问卷是通过养蜂学术和行业杂志、当地养蜂组织、他们的现场代表、互联网和土耳其邮政收集的。返回的问卷(见补充信息S1)包括养蜂人的姓名和联系方式。结果由不同的作者编码和分析
There have been unexpected and alarming colony losses in different regions of the world in the past few years (reviewed in Oldroyd, 2007; EFSA, 2008; see also vanEngelsdorp et al., 2008). Concurrent with those in the US, high colony losses also were reported in Turkey (Giray et al., 2007). Health of honey bees in Turkey is of general importance, both because of native honey bee biodiversity (see Bodur et al., 2007; reviewed in Kence, 2006) and a high number of domestic colonies (> 5 million; FAOSTAT, 2008), which is second only to China. We investigated the extent and causes of losses in Turkey using a questionnaire study, which was conducted in 2007 and covered the three previous years. This report includes analyses of 288 questionnaires reporting on 35 597 colonies and, in contrast with a preliminary report (88 questionnaires; Giray et al., 2007), provides a broad representation of geographical regions, a better estimate of regional colony losses, and novel insights such as on colony collapse disorder (CCD) symptoms and losses. Questionnaires were collected through an academic and trade journal for beekeeping (U. Bee J.), local beekeeping organizations, their field representatives, the internet, and Turkish mail. Returned questionnaires (see supplemental information S1) included names and contacts of beekeepers. The results were coded and analyzed by different authors