The Genetic Relationships between Feral and Domestic Bees in Brisbane Waters National Park - Research Paper Example

THE GENETIC RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN FERAL AND DOMESTIC BEES IN BRISBANE WATERS NATIONAL PARK Student name: Registration number: Module title: Module code: Date of submission: Tutor: Word count: Abstract Appis mellifera, the honeybee, has received worldwide attention due to its ability to transform Agriculture and cause revolutions in scientific research. Although particular attention has been given to the bees regarding their genetic diversity, much is speculated. Of chief interest is the fact that the feral bees are mostly subpopulations of the domestic bees that escape from the hives and later form swarms outside the monitoring of farmers or researchers. The Appis mellifera has wide variations that have been previously stated but not researched on. Understanding the genetic differences between the two populations is therefore critical to the researchers and farmers. The two bee populations have considerable genetic differences. This practical explores the genetic differences and/or similarities between the two given bee populations. Introduction The European honeybee Appis mellifera was introduced to Australia during the first quarter of the 17th century, the year 1820 (Graham, 2000). The primary aims of the introduction of the honeybee to Australia were the production of honey and the pollination of flowering agricultural plants, of course with an aim to increase productivity and output of the crops (Graham, 2000). Although the honeybees were primarily intended to be managed by Australian farmers and farming institutes, some bees escaped from the hives to form feral colonies and swarms that inhabit virtually all habitats in Australia (Graham, 2000, Franck, 2003). Today, both hive/domestic and wild/feral bees exist in almost all ecologies, and some of the few areas that bees do not occupy are the snowy places, especially in winter, because the colonies simply cannot overwinter, and end up dying. The other habitat that Australian honeybee does not colonize are dry areas where there are no sources of water, and plants are few or rare. The presence of the Australian honeybee is controversial because some view it as a blessing in disguise while others claim it causes more harm than good (Graham, 2000). Pyke and Balzer launched an attempt at establishing the effects of honeybees to the ecology in 1982, results of which were published in 1985 (Graham, 2000). There are suggestions that apiaries should not be managed in places where there is a need for environmental conservation, due to the reduction of environmental value (Graham, 2000). Among the negative impacts are; Competition for natural resources with the natural floral and faunal organisms, competition for habitats and nesting places, uncalled for pollination of introduced/exotic species, and low pollination levels on the natural flora. Numerous studies have been conducted on the honeybee, to deduce its social interactions and action in the environment. Among the methods are the molecular techniques used to identify the various races of the bees. In entomology, molecular markers are primarily aimed at understanding the genetic basis of some behaviours, the phylogeny and also comprehend the evolution of insects (Bharat et al., 2012). The report seeks to examine the genetical characteristics of feral and domestic bees to establish their genetical relationship. Wild bee populations have genetic variability from the bees managed in apiaries. The experiment seeks to study the hypothesis; there are significant differences in the genetics of feral and domestic bees. Materials and Methods The sample population was located at Warah and the study was carried out through random sampling of both feral and domestic bees. Feral bees have characteristic black wings while the domestic bees have brown wings and this was used to determine the type of bee. Differences in alleles and loci were used to examine genetic variations. The data collected was scientifically analysed through computer programs and the results are as shown below: Results Results from GENEPOP (Hardy-Weinberg probability test-Results by locus and population) showed a high level of genetic linkage disequilibrium due to wide differences in the genetic makeup of the mitochondria. Genic Differentiation (Exact G test) Number of populations; 2 Number of loci; 3 P value (calculated probability); 0 Standard Error; 0 Number of switches; 55488 Population Domestic bees frequency Feral bees Frequency Loci “A88." "A88." Alleles 131 10 19 29 133 1 0 1 135 29 19 48 138 0 3 3 139 0 1 1 141 39 44 83 145 1 15 16 147 1 2 3 149 18 9 27 150 61 51 112 152 19 8 27 154 2 4 6 156 15 4 19 158 1 4 5 160 0 7 7 165 0 2 2 174 0 1 1 Means 11.58 11.35 22.94 Totals 197 193 390 Frequency of domestic bee alleles on the A88 locus= 197 (p) Frequency of feral bee alleles on the A88 locus= 193 (q) Total number of alleles on the locus = 390 (p+q) Population Domestic bees Frequency Feral bees Frequency Totals Loci “A29” "A29." Alleles 131 56 28 84 132 0 2 2 133 2 12 14 134 0 3 3 138 0 3 3 142 35 47 82 143 0 3 3 144 1 3 4 145 0 3 3 146 0 1 1 147 0 1 1 148 17 11 28 149 59 31 93 150 5 5 10 152 1 9 14 154 0 9 9 156 7 1 8 158 0 6 6 159 3 2 5 16I 0 1 1 162 0 3 3 173 3 0 3 Means 8.59 8.32 8.45 Totals 189 183 372 Frequency of domestic bee alleles on the A29 locus= 189 (p) Frequency of feral bee alleles on the A29 locus= 183 (q) Total alleles on the A29 locus= 372 (p+q) The average mean for the two populations is (8.59+8.32)/2 = 8.455 Domestic bee observed heterozygosity; 8.59-8.455 = 0.135 Feral bee observed heterozygosity; 8.455-8.32 = 0.135 So the two populations are 50% each (according to the means) Expected heterozygosity for the two populations; Domestic population is 189/372 = 0.508 Feral bee population is 183/372 = 0.492 2×0.135×0.508 = 0.137 (observed ˃ expected) domestic bee populations 2×0.135×0.492 = 0.133 (observed < expected) feral bee populations Population inbreeding coefficient (F = Hexp-Hobs/Hexp) Domestic bee population (0.135-0.137)/0.135 = -0.0148 Feral bee population (0.135-0.133)/0.135 = 0.0148 Heterozygosity indices (feral bee + domestic bee) should be equal to 1 Allele number for the domestic bee is 68/304 = 0.22368 (p-bar) Allele number for feral bee is 236/304 = 0.77632 (q-bar) H1based on the observed heterozygosities in the two populations Domestic + feral (0.135*189) + (0.135*183)/372 = 0.135 HSbased on expected heterozygosities in the two populations Domestic + feral (0.508*189) + (0.492*183)/372 = 0.500 HT based on overall expected heterozygosities 2* (q-bar * p-bar) 2* 0.22368* 0.77632 = 0.3473 The F-Statistics FIS [= (HS - HI)/HS] = (0.500-0.135)/0.500 = 0.730 FST [= (HT - HS)/HT] = (0.3473-0.5000)/0.3473 = -0.4397 FIT [= (HT - HI)/HT] = (0.3473-0.135)/0.3473 = 0.6112 The results lead to a deduction that; Domestic bee population is inconsistent with the Hardy Weinberg Equilibrium (HWE). The feral bee population is consistent with the HWE. Division of the populations leads to approximately 44% of the genetic variation in the two populations. Population Domestic bee Frequency Feral bees Frequency Totals Locus Mitochondria Alleles 1 0 68 68 2 140 96 236 Totals 140 164 304 Frequency of domestic bee alleles on the mitochondrial locus = 140 Frequency of feral bee alleles on the mitochondrial locus = 164 Total number of alleles on the mitochondrial locus = 304 Proportion of the allele number 1 is 68/304 = 0.22368 Proportion of the allele number 2 is 236/304 = 0.77632 Total proportion = 1.0000 Discussion From the above-calculated F statistics, it is apparent that the domestic bee populations are inconsistent with the HWE. The feral bee populations fall within the HWE principle, while the population division accounts for at least 44% genetic variation, probably due to subdivisions of the population. While the working null hypothesis is that there are no significant genetic differences between the feral and genetic bee populations, it is apparent that the alternative hypothesis has to be adopted in this case. The bee populations collected at Warrah strongly indicate that there is a significant difference between the two given populations. This practical shows a negative FST value, which is mostly translated to zero. Zero FST values indicate no genetic differences between the two populations being tested or complete panmixis. According to the GENEPOP and the tabulated results, there are many alleles found existing on the feral bee populations yet found missing in the domestic ones, and vice versa. This suggests that there is a major genetic drift since the bees were introduced into Australia. The Ideal HWE results fulfil several conditions (Baldwin, 2014). Among these conditions are that mutations do not occur, there is random mating, and the population is infinitely large (Baldwin, 2014). Previous studies have shown that at any one given bee locus, the wild bees have greater genetic diversities than the managed populations (Deborah, 2011). Based on the results of the mitochondrial DNA, FST values were quite significant (-0.4397). The negative FST values are interpreted to mean that there is little or no inbreeding. Genetic diversity in bee populations helps in the maintenance of healthy colonies, and the lack of it, as shown by a little FST value, may lead to low production or even death of those colonies (Oldroyd, 2012). As opposed to nuclear DNA, mitochondrial analyses are not apt to undergo sexual recombination. As such, they are used to understand phylogenetic relationships (Oldroyd, 2012), as is the case in this practical. The FIS value in this practical is positive (0.730). The value significantly deviates from zero in the upward direction, and the interpretation of this would be that the populations are related in a way that is not highly expected in a population that practices random mating. On the other side, the 0.6112 FIT value, which has highly deviated from Zero, shows that there is a high probability of inbreeding within the populations, which agrees with the FIS value that has been previously looked at to show lots of relationship in the population. This relationship is as a result of inbreeding, a phenomenon that leads to increased homozygosity, as opposed to the desired heterozygosity in any population (Oxley & Oldroyd, 2010). A highly homozygous population is not fit, and the way to the depletion of a population is the high number of homozygous individuals (Oxley &Oldroyd, 2010). The feral bees are highly evolved due to the different sets of environmental/ecological factors they are exposed to. The domestic bees are highly homozygous because they are constrained in one location, and the likelihood of inbreeding is high (Deborah, 2011, Rangel et al. 2016, Magnus, 2010). Equal random mating becomes increasingly difficult with an increase in population. As such, wild populations are more heterozygous. Another observation is that the feral populations have more alleles on the mitochondrial locus. Allele 1 is missing in domestic population while it has a frequency in wild population. The two mitotypes are not randomly distributed, and there is no disequilibrium in the subpopulations, probably due to the 44% from FST. Therefore, the study proves that the null hypothesis is true; there are significant genetic differences between feral and domestic bees. Conclusion This practical sought to characterise feral and domestic bee populations collected from Warrah genetically. The feral populations showed a higher level of genetic diversity, as opposed to the managed bee populations. The disparity in genetic allelic diversity could allude to the inbreeding in domestic bees while there is random mating in the wild ones. A high proportion of alleles is shared between the two populations, and the feral population could be the one keeping the domestic bee population fit and healthy. The study recommends further research on the impact of gene diversity in the feral populations to the ecology. References Baldwin, T. (2014). The Hardy Criterion and Why the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium principle holds. Accessed on May 27, 2017, from http://homepages.math.uic.edu/~jbaldwin/pub/Hardycriterion.pdf BHARAT, N., DIVYA, P., MEETA, M., & SUBODH, K. (2012).MOLECULAR MARKER APPROACH IN HONEY BEE: A REVIEW. International Journal of Pharma and Bio Sciences. Accessed on May 26, 2017, from www.ijpbs.net/download.php?download_file=vol-3/issue-3/bio/31.pdf&did.  Carr, A.  (2011).  Asian  Honeybee:  Potential  Environmental  Impacts. Report for the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. Sustineo Pty Ltd. Canberra. Accessed on May 26, 2017, from https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/16422f90-1acf-4223-a347-740f48401ced/files/asian-bees.pdf Deborah, D. (2011). GENETIC CHARACTERIZATION OF U.S. HONEY BEE POPULATIONS. Accessed on May 27, 2017, from http://www.dissertations.wsu.edu/dissertations/summer2008/d_delaney_070108.pdf Franck, P., Garnery, L., Solingnanc, M., Cornuet, J. (1998) The origin of West European subspecies of honeybees (Apismellifera): New insights from microsatellite and mitochondrial data. Journal of Evolution, Issue 52. Accessed on May 27, 2017, http://esa.ipb.pt/pdf/10.pdf Graham, H. (2000). The introduced Honeybee Apis mellifera and the Precautionary Principle: reducing the conflict. Australian Museum, 6 College Street, Sydney, New South Wales. Accessed on May 26, 2017, from http://publications.rzsnsw.org.au/doi/pdf/10.7882/AZ.1999.018?code=rzsw-site Linda, A. (2012). Determining genetic relatedness in honey bees, Apis mellifera, using microsatellite analysis. Department of Medical Biochemistry and Microbiology, UPPSALA University. Accessed on May 26, from https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:622959/FULLTEXT01.pdf. Magnus, R., & Szalanski, A. (2010). Genetic Evidence for Honey Bees (Apis mellifera L.) of Middle Eastern Lineage in the United States. Accessed on May 27, 2017, from http://www.comp.uark.edu/~aszalan/szalanski.pdf Oldroyd, B. (2012). Domestication of honeybees was associated with the expansion of genetic diversity. Journal of molecular ecology, issue 21. Accessed on May 27, 2017, from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230831542_Domestication_of_honey_bees_was_associated_with_expansion_of_genetic_diversity Oxley, P., & Oldroyd, P. (2010). The Genetic Architecture of Honeybee Breeding: ResearchGate. Accessed on May 27, 2017, from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/241065842_The_Genetic_Architecture_of_Honeybee_Breeding Pinto, A., Rubink, L., Patton, J., Coulson, N., Johnston, J. (2005) Africanization in the United States: Replacement of feral European honey bees (Apis mellifera L.) by an African hybrid swarm. Accessed on May 27, 2017, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15937139 Rangel, J., Giresi, M., Pinto, M., Baum, K., Rubink, W., Coulson, R., & Johnston, J. (2016). Africanization of a feral honey bee (Apis mellifera) population in South Texas: does a decade make a difference? Journal of Ecology and Evolution. Accessed on May 27, 2017, from http://kelab.tamu.edu/coulson/Pdf_pub/Rangel_et_al_16.pdf Yogesh, K., and Khan, M. (2013). Genetic variability of European honey bee, Apis mellifera in mid hills, plains and Tarai region of India. African Journal of Biotechnology. Accessed on May 26, 2017, from http://www.academicjournals.org/journal/AJB/article-full-text-pdf/4C5FCBD43157 Read More