A Brief Review of the Literature: The Potential Cause and Effect of Colony Collapse

Disorder and the Impact on Human and Environmental Health

University of San Francisco

Anna Allison
MPH 632
October 21, 2013

I . I ntroduction

About 35 percent of global food production depends on animal pollination (Genersch,
2010). Without such pollination, these plants would be unable to reproduce. Self-propagation
is vital for agriculturalists, who rely on this years crop to produce next years. Honeybees
are the most relied upon animal propagator, both in the natural environment and on
commercial farms. Genersch asserts, Honeybees are vital for an economic, sustainable
agriculture and for food security. In addition, honeybees also pollinate a variety of wild
flowers and, therefore, contribute to the biodiversity of many ecosystems (Genersch, 2010).
Formerly an unsung hero, honeybees came into public awareness on February 22,
2007, when media reports first started broadcasting news of a disturbing phenomenon called
colony collapse disorder (CCD) (Oldroyd, 2007). Some colony loss is to be expected in early
spring, especially after a particularly cold winter. But where most keepers have come to
except a loss of around 10 percent, keepers in 22 states across the U.S. reported losses of 80
to 100 percent of their colonies (Oldroyd, 2007). Colony collapse disorder began in North
America, but soon spread to Europe and has reappeared every year since 2006. In the winter
of 2006, bee losses in the U.S. reached 33 percent, in 2007 losses rose to 36 percent. In 2008,
losses were only 29 percent, but in recent years, losses have fluctuated wildly, totaling
anywhere from 36 to 60 percent (Stindl & Stindl, 2010). While many news outlets exaggerate
the loss of bees, or sensationalize the repercussions of such loss, it is clear that a strange and
disturbing pattern is threatening the bees in the United States and the rest of the world. The
cause, severity and repercussions of which are still hotly debated.

I I . Possible Causes of CCD

Despite extensive investigation, we have found no single cause of CCD, perhaps
because it is not caused by a single factor. Hypothetical causes include newly emerged
diseases, insecticides, increase in genetically modified crops, strengthened pathogens due to
antibiotics fed to livestock, global warming and deforestation (Oldroyd 2007). As new
information and research emerges, it is becoming increasingly likely that one, or all, of these
factors play a role in CCD (vanEngelsdorp & Meixner 2009).
While no conclusions have been found, investigation into causes of CCD has led to a
much-broadened understanding of bee pathology. In an effort to catalog and study diseases
that might lead to CCD, Evans and Schwarz have reviewed all the microbes known to affect
honeybees, and have highlighted areas of surging and lagging research. They note that while
bees are affected by microbes spanning several kingdoms, the most damaging threats, and
hence the most researched groups are viruses, bacteria and fungi (Evans & Schwarz, 2011).
When considering viruses, Evans and Schwarz note that, while bees are affected by
DNA viruses, RNA viruses are by far the predominate malady (Evans & Schwarz, 2011). It
is important to note, however, that a diverse sequencing analysis has not been performed on
the DNA viruses that may affect bees. The apparent trending toward RNA viruses may
simply highlight a gap in the research, rather than an actual trend.
Some studies point to parasites as a potential cause of CCD in the United States.
Oldroyd is particularly interested in V. destructor, noting that colonies infected with the
parasite do not usually experience collapse until about two years after infestation (Oldroyd,
2007). A delayed collapse could partly explain the fluctuation of bee loss worldwide. For
example, widespread infestation may occur in 2007, but the loss will not be experienced until
2009. This would explain comparatively light losses one year, and heavy losses in following
years.
In an interesting break from the norm, Stindl and Stindl propose that CCD is not
caused by parasite or pathogen, but by shortening telomeres. Telomeres are found at the end
of DNA sequences, and provide a buffer against the shortening of DNA sequences when
duplicated. When telomere reserves are exhausted in humans, issues such as impaired tissue
regeneration, age-associated diseases, cancer and cardiovascular disease are reported (Stindl
& Stindl, 2010). Stindl and Stindl propose that telomere shortening is affecting bees at an
increasing rate. This hypothesis includes a potential explanation for why CCD is primarily
seen in the early spring. Preliminary reports show that bee generations born in winter suffer
from telomere shortening more than larvae born in other months. If winter bees were more
impacted than other bees, colonies would primarily collapse in early spring. While the cause
of telomere shortening is not easily apparent, genetic and environmental factors likely play a
role. Exposure to pesticides and insecticides, especially as larvae, may greatly influence
bees development.

I I I . Effects of CCD

Albert Einstein is famously reported to have said: If the bee disappears from the
surface of the earth, man would have no more than four years to live (Stindl & Stindl,
2010). To our great relief, this is probably overstated. It is fair to assume, however, that if
bees were to die, it would have significant impact on human and environmental health
worldwide.
While other insects can be used to pollinate crops and plants, the importance of the
honeybee is in no way overstated. Honeybees, when used in crop production, increased
yields 96 percent of the time (Potts, Biesmeijer & Kremen et al, 2010). In other words, they
are the best pollinators for naturally and commercially grown crops. Due to their
overwhelming success, we have long relied almost solely on the honeybee for commercial
pollination (Potts, Biesmeijer & Kremen et al, 2010). This single-mindedness is worrisome,
now that bees are at risk.
While there is still some debate on the severity of the situation, that is to say, whether
or not bees are heading towards mass decline, it is clear that nearly all the feral colonies have
disappeared from the U.S. and Europe (Potts, Biesmeijer & Kremen et al, 2010). This
extinction of wild bees is echoed by the decrease in beekeepers in the U.S. and most
European countries. Despite the decline in commercial beekeeping in recent years, there are
still 45 percent more captive bees then there were in 1961. The production of food, however,
has increased by more than 300 percent, meaning that the ratio of bees to crops has decreased
dramatically, despite the overall increase of bee colonies (Potts, Biesmeijer & Kremen et al,
2010).
Among wild plants, 80 percent are directly dependent on insect pollination for fruit
and seed set. In 54 studies, utilizing 89 different types of plants, pollinator decline was the
primary reason for reproductive impairment in plants was pollinator decrease (Potts,
Biesmeijer & Kremen et al, 2010). Luckily, plants often utilize several different pathways for
growth and pollination. If bees were become extinct, many plants would experience
pollination limitation. However, it is very likely that only the most specialized plants would
be at risk for extinction. Although, when other issues, such as deforestation and climate
change, exacerbate pollination limitation it could lead to large-scale collapse, despite the
relative hardiness of most flora (Potts, Biesmeijer & Kremen et al, 2010).
Large scale CCD would also threaten crop production. While some crops, such as rice
and wheat, utilize wind pollination, bee pollinated crops have steadily increased since 1961
(Potts, Biesmeijer & Kremen et al, 2010). A large portion commercially grown fruits,
including apples, melons and berries, rely on insect pollination. It is likely that these crops
would experience losses should bee populations continue to decline. While difficult to
calculate, it is estimated that complete pollinator extinction would lead to a current
consumption deficit of -12 percent for fruit and -6 percent of vegetables. In other words, we
would be entirely unable to meet current consumption needs (Potts, Biesmeijer & Kremen et
al, 2010).

I V. Effect on Human Health

The correlation between widespread colony collapse and human health is intimately
tied with food. While insect pollinates 75 percent of crop species used in human consumption,
only 35 percent of overall crop yields are due to insect pollination (Potts, Biesmeijer &
Kremen et al, 2010). Since our highest yielding crops are wind pollinated, effects of mass bee
extinction will not impact the amount of available food so much as the diversity. This is not
to understate the danger of food shortages. An estimated 842 million people worldwide do
not have enough to eat (Potts, Biesmeijer & Kremen et al, 2010). Based on this widespread
hunger, it is not presumptive to assume reducing the available food by 35 percent would
cause great suffering. However, bees pollinate many of our most nutrient rich foods. Should
bees experience mass CCD; there would probably be worldwide fruit and vegetable shortages.
Today, lack of access to produce is linked with obesity, heart disease and diabetes. Should
there be a decline in produce, these diseases would likely increase in incidence.

V. Future Research

There is a clear need for continued and increased research into the causes of CCD.
VanEngelsdorp and Meixner note that our delay in understanding colony collapse may not be
solely from the complexity of the issue, but how we attempt to study it. They assert that it is
not effective to study colony collapse after it already happened. It may be several months
until a keeper notices that a particular hive has collapsed. By this time, much of the evidence
may have degraded. Even if a collapse is noted quickly, it is not always possible to determine
cause of death without seeing any of the symptoms or timeline of the disease (vanEngelsdorp
& Meixner 2009). With this in mind, VanEngelsdorp and Meixner urge long term
longitudinal studies that examine hives across time. Hives could then be exposed or protected
from potential risk factors to more accurately assess the effect of potential instigators of
CCD.
VanEngelsdorp and Meixner are not the only scientists to object to studying CCD
after the fact. Instead of attempting to ascertain cause of death after the fact, many scientists
choose to study causes of death that are easily induced in a lab. Therefore, a large portion of
the research is focused on pathogens, rather than more complex environmental factors. While
there is much research on bacterial, viral and fungal infections, there is less research on the
effects of deforestation, poisoning from pesticides and pollution, climate change and
introduction of non-native species (vanEngelsdorp & Meixner 2009). VanEngelsdorp and
Meixner try and address these concerns in their comprehensive study. However, much more
research is needed before reliable conclusions can be drawn.

VI . References

Evans, J. D., & Schwarz, R. S. (2011). Bees brought to their knees: microbes affecting honey
bee health. Trends in Microbiology , 19(12).

Genersch, E. (2010). Honey bee pathology: current threats to honey bees and beekeeping.
Applied Microbiology Technology, 87(1), 87-97.

Oldroyd, B. P. (2007). What's killing American honey bees?. PLoS Biology , 5(6).

Potts, S. G., Biesmeijer, J. C., Kremen, K., Neumann, P., Schweiger, O., & Kunin, W. E.
(2010). Global pollinator declines: trends, impacts and drivers. Trends in Ecology and
Evolution, 25(6), 345-353.

Stindl, R., & Stindl, W. (2010). Vanishing honey bees: Is the dying of adult worker bees a
consequence of short telomeres and premature aging?. Medical Hypotheses, 5(7),
387-390.

vanEngelsdorp, D., & Meixner, M. D. (2009). A historical review of managed honey bee
populations in Europe and the United States and the factors that may affect them.
Invertebrate Pathology, 103(2010), 580-595.