Table Of ContentThe introduced Honeybee Apis mellifera and the
Precautionary Principle: reducing the conflict
Graham H. Pyke
Australian Museum, 6 College Street, Sydney, New South Wales 2000
ABSTRACT
For more than 20 years there has been conflict arising from different points of view
concerning the role of the introduced honeybee. There is a strong prima facie argument, and
some supporting evidence, that introduced honeybees are likely to adversely affect the
environment. Some land management agencies have consequently adopted a policy of removal
of hive honeybees from areas devoted primarily to conservation. On the other hand, some
argue that the scientific evidence on the issue remains poor, point out the economic benefits
that arise from the honeybee industry and suggest that removal of apiaries from such areas
is unjustified. It is suggested in this paper that adoption of the Precautionary Principle could
Significantly reduce this conflict. instead of the focus being on obtaining definitive "proof"
concerning possible impacts of honeybees, it could shift to finding ways to reduce the density
of feral honeybees, and hence their impacts on both the natural environment and honeybees
in hives. The focus could also shift to finding sites where reduction in honeybee density is
feasible and the likely conservation gains arising from such a reduction are relatively high. In
this way both the honeybee industry and the natural environment could benefit.
Key words: Apis mellifera, Precautionary, Honeybee, Australia, Feral, Competitor, Pollinator.
INTRODUCTION 1997; Gibbs and Muirhead 1998). Some suggest
that human-managed hives of honeyhees
The Honeybee Apis mellzfira was success-
(i.e., apiaries) should not be permitted in
fully introduced to Australia in the 1820s to
areas of natural vegetation, such as reserves
provide honey and pollination of certain
dedicated largely for conservation and State
agricultural crops (Doull 1973; Pyke and
Forests (Pyke and Balzer 1985). Others see no
Balzer 1985; Pyke 1990; Paton 1996; Manning
justification for such an approach and often
1997; New 1997). It quickly escaped into the
point to the adverse economic consequences
wild and became established as a feral species
that this might have on the honeybee-based
(Paton 1996; New 1997; Oldroyd 1998).
industry (Stace 1993; Manning 1997; Gibbs
Both hive and feral honeybee colonies are and Muirhead 1998).
now widespread in Australia and occur in
This controversy has been raging, off
almost every habitat (Hamilton 1917; Pyke
and on, for about the last 20-25 years (Paton
and Balzer 1985; Pyke 1990; Paton 1996). The
1996; New 1997). Discussion of the issue
only areas where the honeybee is apparently
began in the 1970s (Wilson 1970; Matthews
rare or absent are in places where there is
1976; Douglas 1977; Bond and Brown 1979),
significant snow in the winter and it is pre-
but at that stage there was little evidence one
sumably too cold for colonies to overwinter
way or the other. The first study of possible
(Seeley and Visscher 1985; Pyke 1990; Paton
impacts of honeybees on the Australian
1996), and places where honeyhees are
environment was carried out by Pyke and
presumably unable to obtain sufficient water
Balzer in 1982 and published in 1985 (Pyke
because the climate is very dry and there are
and Balzer 1985; Manning 1997; Schwartz
no artificial water sources (Pyke 1990; Paton
and Hurst 1997). A number of studies (e.g.,
1996; New 1997).
Sugden and Pyke 1991; Paton 1993) and much
Management of honeyhees in the Australian discussion has followed. Quite recently an
environment is a controversial issue (Pyke entire issue of the Victorian Naturalist was
1990; Paton 1996; New 1997). Some authors devoted to the issue (see Victorian Naturalist
suggest or claim that honeyhees have or Vol. 114, 1997), and the Australian Nature
have had a negative impact on native flora Conservation Agency (now Environment
and/or fauna (e.g., Wilson 1970; Matthews Australia) recently commissioned a review of
1976; Douglas 1977; Bond and Brown 1979; the subject (Paton 1996). There is little sign
Donovan 1980; Hawkeswood 1981; Pyke and that this controversy will be resolved soon, if
Balzer 1985; Pyke 1990). Others dispute this ever (Pyke 1990; Paton 1996; Butz Huryn
(e.g., State Forests of NSW 1995; Manning 1997; Gibhs and Muirhead 1998).
Australian Zoologist 31(1) 181
The purposes of this paper are to (i) A preferable approach would, I think, be
consider possible reasons for the continuation one which results in collaboration rather
of this controversy, (ii) present a proposed than conflict among all parties concerned,
strategy for dealing with the issue of honey- especially scientists, conservationists and
bees and the Australian environment, and members of the honeybee industry (Pyke
(iii) develop a management approach to 1990; Paton 1996; Sugden et al. 1996). In the
honeybees that could result from such a following section I describe such an approach
strategy. Adoption of the Precautionary based on adoption of the Precautionary
Principle is an important component of my Principle.
approach (see Deville and Harding 1997).
RELEVANCE OF THE PRECAUTIONARY
ONGOING NATURE OF PRINCIPLE TO THE ISSUE OF
HONEYBEE CONTROVERSY HONEYBEES IN THE AUSTRALIAN
ENVIRONMENT
It is tempting to attribute the ongoing
controversy to a lack of suitable information The Precautionary Principle has been stated
(e.g., Paton 1996; Manning 1997; Oldroyd slightly differently in a variety of documents
1998). Indeed many authors have called (see Deville and Harding 1997). In the present
for further research concerning the honeybee paper, I adopt the following version as stated
in the Australian environment (Pyke 1990; in Deville and Harding (1997):
Paton 1993, 1996; New 1997; Schwartz and
Where there are threats of serious or
Hurst 1997; Oldroyd 1998).
irreversible environmental damage, lack of
In my view, however, this is not the funda- full scientific certainty should not be used
mental reason for the conflict and further as a reason for postponing measures to
information may do little to reduce it. If prevent environmental degradation.
a lack of information was really the basic
The Precautionary Principle, as stated in
reason for the ongoing conflict then it
this form, could easily apply to the honeybee
seems likely that much research on the
issue. Firstly, there is, as I argue below, a
issue would have been carried out and that
strong "fmima facie" case (to continue the
a significant proportion of this research
legal analogy) that honeybees continue to
would have been funded and otherwise
have an adverse impact on the Australian
supported by the honeybee-hased industry.
environment. This case indicates that there are
Instead, the number of published studies of
indeed threats of serious or irreversible
the impacts of honeybees on the Australian
damage from honeybees to the Australian
environment remains relatively small, and
environment.
these research programmes have generally
been supported by government rather than This case is based on the following:
the honeybee industry (e.g., Pyke and Balzer
1. Honeybees overlap in resource use with a
1985; Taylor and Whelan 1988; Sugden
large number of Australian native animals
and Pyke 1991; Vaughton 1992; Paton 1993,
(Pyke 1990; Wills et al. 1990; Park 1993;
1996; Oldroyd et al. 1994; Gross and Mackay
Paton 1993, 1996; Schwartz and Hurst
1997).
1997);
I suggest that the real reason for the
Floral pollen and nectar provide food
ongoing conflict is the general legalistic
not only to honeybees but also to many
approach that has so far been taken to the
other insects including native bees, wasps,
issue with honeybees being judged as in a
butterflies, moths, flies and beetles, as well
court of law and being considered "innocent-
as birds such as honeyeaters and lorikeets
until-proven-guilty". Indeed some authors
and mammals such as fruit bats, possums
have used courtroom jargon to refer to the
and gliders. There are thousands of such
issue. Manning (1997), for example, indicated
species (Pyke 1990; Paton 1993, 1996;
that, in his view, "the jury is still out" on the
Schwartz and Hurst 1997).
issue. Such a legalistic approach would be
expected to foster conflict where scientists are Feral honeybees generally nest in tree
called upon to give evidence in support of one hollows which are also sought as nesting
view or the other, each side disputes the and/or roosting sites by birds such as parmu,
quality and extent of the opposing evidence, cockatoos and owls and mammals such
and further research is not encouraged by the as insectivorous bats (Microchiroptera),
honeybee industry because it might produce possums and gliders (Pyke 1990; Bird
evidence that is perceived to he damaging to Observers Club of Australia Conservation
its cause. This, it seems to me, is exactly what Committee 1993; McDonald 1994; Trainor
has been occurring for quite a long time. 1995; Paton 1996; New 1997 ).
182 Australian Zoologist 31(1)
2. Honeybees are often extremely abundant This situation seems likely to continue
at flowers and often remove or utilize indefinitely. No scientific study is perfect and
high proportions of their available nectar it will always be possible for opposing sides
and/or pollen (Pyke and Balzer 1985; Paton to criticize any research programme (Sugden
1993, 1996; Williams 1993). el al. 1996). Given the enormous number of
species, habitats and geographic locations that
3. It is likely that the abundances of some
could, and arguably should, he investigated, it
native animal species will be limited by
will also be possible to insist that the results
the availablity of nectar, pollen or tree
of any single study represent a "special case"
hollows and that those species that share
and that the general situation is different.
these resources to a significant degree with
honeybees will therefore be reduced in The Precautionary Principle is relevant to
abundance through competition with the the issue of honeybees in the Australian
honeybees (Roubik 1978, 1980, 1982, 1983; environment. It is not clear, however, what the
Schaffer el al. 1983; Roubik et al. 1986; consequences of applying it might be. I shall
Pyke and Balzer 1985; Pyke 1990; Bird discuss this in the next section.
Observers Club of Australia Conservation
Committee 1993; Park 1993; Paton 1993,
APPLICATION OF PRECAUTIONARY
1996; Trainor 1995; Sugden el al. 1996).
PRINCIPLE TO ISSUE OF
4. Honeybees visit a high proportion of HONEYBEES IN THE AUSTRALIAN
Australian native plants in search of floral ENVIRONMENT
rewards (Pyke and Balzer 1985; Wills el al.
1990; Paton 1993, 1996). Virtually all the conflict concerning honey-
bees in the Australian environment has
5. The behaviour of honeybees while foraging
concerned the extent to which beekeepers
for nectar and pollen suggests that they
have access to areas of natural vegetation,
will often be less effective as pollinators
especially areas managed as Conservation
than native pollinators (Pyke and Balzer
Reserves (New 1997). In this context, it
1985; Ramsey 1988; Taylor and Whelan
might be easy to conclude, after adopting
1988; Pyke 1990; Vaugbton 1992; Paton
the Precautionary Principle, that all licences
1996. 1997; Gross and Mackay 1997), will
for beekeepers to place hives in such areas
sometimes reduce the effectiveness of
be revoked. However, I argue that such an
native pollinators through pollen removal
extreme "guilty-until-proven-innocent" approach
(Pyke 1990; Paton 1993, 1996, 1997;
would be facile and inappropriate. It would
Gross and Mackay 1997), and will some-
also be very different from current policy of
times alter the patterns of genetic inter-
land management agencies towards apiary
change amongst plants (Pyke 1990; Paton
honeybees. Present policy of NSW National
1996, 1997). In some cases they may also
Parks and Wildlife Service is, for example,
enhance pollination above natural levels
to allow present licences for apiary sites
(Pyke 1990; Paton 1996, 1997).
in National Parks, Nature Reserves etc. to
6. It is likely that some plant species that continue while not permitting them to be
are visited by honeybees will experience transfered or sold (NSW National Parks and
pollination that differs in nature andlor Wildlife Service 1988)
degree from natural pollination and that
Application of the Precautionary Principle
this will result in changes to the relative
to the issue of honeybees in the Australian
abundances of different plant species and
environment should embrace the following
possibly changes in the genetic character-
realities:
istics of some plant species (Pyke 1990;
Paton 1996). 1. Honeybees continue to make valuable
contributions to our lives through provision
In other words, the presence of honeybees
of honey, crop-pollination and other
in the Australian environment is likely to
products (Martin 1975; Pyke 1993; Moncur
bring about changes in the ahundances of
and Kleinschmidt 1993; Park 1993; New
many native plants and animals. In so far as
1997).
the abundances of native plants and animals
and the various interactions among them have 2. Alterations in the extent of access to areas
coevolved, such recent changes brought about of natural vegetation for beekeepers could
by an introduced animal species can be have significant economic consequences,
regarded as deleterious. especially for the individuals involved (Pyke
1990).
There is also a lack of "conclusive scientific
evidence" concerning the issue (see also Paton 3. From the point of view of management,
1996; Sugden et al. 1996; Butz Huryn 1997). there are two kinds of honeybees in the
Austraiian Zmlogist 31(1) 183
Australian environment - hees in managed CONSEQUENCES OF APPROACH
hives (apiary honeybees) and hees that have BASED ON PRECAUTIONARY
colonies established in the wild (feral PRINCIPLE FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
honeyhees) (Pyke 1990; Paton 1996; New AND COLLABORATION
1997; Oldroyd 1998).
Adoption of the above approach seems likely
4. It is likely that feral and apiary honeyhees to result in the following:
compete with each other for floral
1. Pursuit and encouragement by all parties
resources with the net result that hive
of research concerning the impacts of feral
productivity for the apiary honeyhees is honeyhees on hoth apiary honeyhees and
reduced by the presence of feral honeybees.
native wildlife;
(Since feral honeyhees are generally (This would lead to estimates of the
abundant in areas that are beyond the potential benefits, in terms of hoth conser-
normal foraging range of apiary honey- vation and the honeyhee industry, of any
bees, their background density appears to reductions in feral honeyhee populations.)
he generally high. They apparently utilize
2. Similar enhancement of research concern-
the same floral resources as apiary honey-
ing possihle methods for controlling feral
bees and must therefore reduce the levels
honeyhee populations and their associated
of these resources that are available to the
costs (e.g., Oldroyd 1998);
apiary honeyhees. This should result in
decreases in rates at which individual apiary (This would lead to estimates of the
foragers can harvest nectar and pollen and feasibility and likely effectiveness of various
hence in decreases in the productivities of alternative control methods in different
the apiary hives compared with levels in situations.)
the absence of the feral honeyhees.) 3. Collaborative search for areas where the
likely conservation gains from honeyhee
5. It is possihle that feral honeybees carry
reduction are relatively high and the likely
parasites or diseases that could he detri-
economic losses from reduction in apiary
mental to hive hees.
honeyhees are relatively low;
6. It is also possible that the presence of
4. Similar collaborative search for areas where
apiary honeyhees in an area will lead to
the productivity of apiary honeyhees can be
enhanced ahundance of feral honeybees
enhanced without significant likely adverse
through the escape of swarms from apiary
impacts on conservation values.
hives (Pyke 1990).
In this way a mutually beneficial situation
With these realities in mind, application of
may he achieved where conservation gains
the Precautionary Principle to the issue of
are obtained alongside economic gains to the
honeybees in the Australian environment
honeyhee industry.
could lead to the following approach:
Where feasible and practicable, attempts CONCLUSION
will he made to reduce or eliminate the
I have argued that it is not necessary for the
feral honeybee population (Paton 1996,
conflict concerning the honeyhee in the
1997; Oldroyd 1998);
Australian environment to continue (see also
Hive honeyhees will be removed from some Paton 1996; Sugden el al. 1996). To achieve
areas where this is likely to significantly this result, however, it will be necessary for
reduce the overall honeybee density (in all concerned to change their attitudes and
concert with control of feral honeyhees) and approaches. Everyone must, in particular,
where the resultant conservation gains are cease to focus on the question of whether or
likely to he relatively high (see also Paton not honeyhees have adverse impacts on the
1997); natural environment. This question, though
interesting, is never likely to be satisfactorily
In some areas the productivity of apiary
answered in the context of the honeyhee
honeyhees may be increased through either
conflict. The focus should instead shift to a
replacement of feral honeybees with apiary
determination and pursuit of common goals.
honeybees or increased productivity of
Only then can conservation and economic
apiary honeyhees after reduction in the
gains be pursued simultaneously.
abundance of feral honeybees.
I have also proposed the following as
This approach seems likely to result in
starting points for resolution of the conflict
rather different research and different levels
concerning honeyhees:
of collaboration among interested parties than
presently occurs. I discuss these in the next 1. The prima facie case that there are threats
section. of serious or irreversible damage resulting
184 Australian Zooloaist 31(1)
from the presence of honeybees in the Gibbs, D. M. H. and Muirhead, I. F., 1998. The
Australian environment is accepted. economic value and environmental impact of the
Australian beekeeping industry. Report prepared
2. Reductions in the densities of feral honey- for the Australian Beekeeping Industry
bees are likely to benefit both the honeybee
Gross, C. L. and Mackay, D., 1997. Honeybees reduce
industry and native plants and animals fitness in the pioneer shrub Melaxtoma afine. Cons.
Biol. In press.
3. There are probably situations where
reductions in the densities of hive bees Hamilton, A. G., 1917. Presidential address to the
(perhaps in concert with reductions in feral Linnaen Society of NSW Aoc. Linn. Sol. NSW
42: 15.
honeybees) are likely to be beneficial .to
native plants and animals. Hawkeswood, T: J., 1981. Notes on the pollination
of Nuyfsul floribvnda (Labill.) R.Br. (Loranthaceae)
4. Conversely, there are probably situations and same literature reviewed. West. Aurf. Naf. 15:
where reductions in the densities of hive 17-21.
bees are likely to have little or no beneficial
Manning, R., 1997. The honey bee debate: a critique
impacts on native plants and animals. of scientific studies of haney bees Apir mcllftra
and rheir alleged impact on Australian wildlife. fic.
5. In addition, there are probably situations
Nat. 114: 13-22.
where increases in hive bees are likely to
Martin, E. C., 1975. The use of bees for crop pollination.
have little or no adverse impacts on native
Pp. 579-614 in The hive and the honeybce ed by
plants and animals.
Dadant and Sons. Dadant and Sons: Hamilton,
Illinois.
Adoption of these premises could, I believe,
lead to a collaborative approach with a focus McDonald, D., 1994. Birds, hollows and honeybees. Bird
on finding and implementing practical ways Obrer No. 743: 6-7.
to reduce the densities of feral honeybees, Matthews, E. G., 1976. Insect Ecology. Unir. of
reducing hive bees in situations where this is Queensland Press: Brisbane.
likely to result in significant conservation Moncur, M. \V. and Kleinschmidt, G.J ., 1993. A role for
benefits in terms of native plants and animals, honey bees (Apis mellifern) in eucalypt plantations.
and maintaining or enhancing hive bees where NSWAgrirul. Fish. Bee Bricfr 9: 1-5.
this is unlikely to have significant negative New, T R., 1997. Significance of haney bees in the
impacts on native biodiversity. Australian environment: Setting the scene. Kc. Not.
114: 4-7
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service, 1988. Field
Management Policies. NSW NPWS: Sydney.
I acknowledge and appreciate the support I
Oldroyd, B. P., 1998. Controlling feral honey bee, Apis
have received from the Australian Museum
mrllifera L. (Hymenoptera: Apidae), populations
throughout my involvement in honeybee- in Australia: Methodologies and costs. Aust. J.
related research and the controversy that Entomol. 37: 97-100.
surrounds the honeybee issue. I also appre-
Oldroyd, B. P, Lawler, S. H. and Crozier, R. H., 1994.
ciate comments concerning earlier versions Do feral honey bees (Apis mellifera) and regent
of this paper that I have received from parrots (Polytelis anthopeplus) compete for nest sites?
Caroline Gross, Richard Major, David Paton Aurf. J. Ecol. 19: 444-50.
and Rob Whelan. Park, A,, 1993. Chasing the honeyflow. Aust.Gcogr July-
September: 32-49.
REFERENCES Paton, D. C., 1993. Honeybees in the Australian environ-
ment. Bioscience 43: 95-103.
Bird Observers Club of Australia Conservation
Committee, 1993. Glossy Black-Cockatoos in South Paton, D. C., 1996. Overview of the impacts of feral and
Australia. Bird Obsel: No. 735: 4-5. managed honeybees in Australia: Distribution,
abundance, extent of interactions with native biota.
Bond, H. W and Brown, W. L., 1979. The exploitatian
evidence of impacts and future research. Final report
of floral nectar in Eucalyptus incrossotn by honey-
for Australian Nature Conservation Agency Invasive
eaters and honeybees. Oecologin 44: 105-1 1. -
Species Program Project 50.
Butz Huryn, V. M., 1997. Ecological impacts of
Paton, D. C., 1997. Honey bees Apir mellfiro and the
introduced honey beer. Qunvf. Re". Biol. 72: 275-97.
disruption of plant-pollinator systems in Australia.
Deville, A. and Harding, R., 1997. Applying the Pre- V;c. Nat. 114: 23-29.
cautionary Principle. Federation Press: Sydney.
Pyke, G. H., 1990. Apiarists versus scientists: A
Donovan, B. J., 1980. Interactions between native bittersweet case.Aust. Not. Hisf. 23: 386-92.
and introduced bees in New Zealand. NZ J. Ecol.
Pyke, G. H, and Balzer, L., 1985. The effects of the
3: 104-16.
introduced honeybee (Apis mell@ra) on Australian
Douglas, A. M., 1977. Some inimical effects of the native been. NSW National Parkr and lvildlife
domestic bee on the native fauna and flora. West. Service Occasional Paper Number 7.
Aurt. Nat. 14(1): 1-2.
Ramsey, M. W., 1988. Floret opening in Bonksia nenriesii
Doull, K., 1973. Beer and their role in pollination. Awt. R.Br.; the importance of nectarivorous birds. Awl.
Plants 7: 223, 230-31, 234-36. J. Bot. 36: 225-32.
June 1999 Australian Zoologist 31(1) 185
Roubik. D. W. 1978. Com~etitivei nteractions between State Forests of NSW, 1995. Proposed forestry operations
neotropical pollinators and Africanired honey bees. in the Gloucester and Chichester Management
Srimu 201: 1030-032. Areas. Environmental Impact Statement. Volume A.
Main Report. Published by State Forests of NSW:
Roubik, D. W., 1980: Foraging behaviour of competing Sydney.
Africanired honeybees and stingless bees. Ecology
61: 83645. Sugden, E. A. and Pyke, G. H., 1991. Effects of honey
bees on colonies of Exomra orimillitnn, an Australian
Roubik, D. W., 1982. Ecological impact of Africanized native bee. Aurl. J. Ecol. 16: 171-81.
honeybees on native neotropical pollinators. In
Social InrrcLs in thr Tropics ed by P Jaisson. Presses Sugden, E. A,, Thorp, R. W. and Buchmann, S. L., 1996.
de I'Universite Paris XIII.: Paris, France. Honey bee-native bee competition: focal point for
environmental change and apicultural response in
Roubik. D. W., 1983. Experimental community studies: Australia. Bce World 77: 26-44.
time-series tests of competition between African and
neotropical bees. Ecology 64: 971-78. Taylor, G. and Whelan, R. J., 1988. Can honeybees
pollinate Grevilkn? Aurt. Zool. 44: 193-96.
Roubik, D. W., Mareno, J. E., Vergara, C. and Wittmann,
D., 1986. Sporadic food competition with the Trainor, R., 1995. Sweet danger. How feral bees compete
African honeybee: projected impact on neotropical with hollow-using birds and mammals. Bird Obrcr.
social bees. j. Tmp. Ecol. 2: 97-11 No. 751: 7-9.
Scbaffer, W. M., Zeh, D. W., Buchrnann, S. L., Kleinhans, Vaugbton, G., 1992. Effectiveness of nectarivorous birds
S. and Scbaffer, M. V. 1983. Competition for nectar and honeybees as pollinators of Bankrin rpinuloso
between introduced honey bees and native North (Pmteaceae). Awt. J. Ecol 17: 43-50.
American bees and ants. Ecology 64: 564-77.
Williams, G., 1993. Hidden Rainforests. Subtropical
Schwarz, M. P. and Hurst, P. S., 1997. Effects of rainforests and their invertebrate biodiversity. NSW
introduced honey bees on Australia's native bee University Press: Sydney. 188 pager.
fauna. Wc. Nnl. 114: 7-12.
Wills, R. T., Lyons, M. N. and Bell, D. T., 1990. The
Seeley, F D. and Visscber, P K., 1985. Survival of European honey bee in Western Australian kwongan:
honeybees in cold climates; the critical timing foraging preferences and some implications for
of colony growth and reproduction. Ecol. Ent. 10: management. Proc. Erol. Soc. Awl. 16: 167-76.
81-88.
Wilson, P. G., 1970. A taxonomic revision of the genera
Stace, P.. 1993. Australian honey industry takes lead in Cmweo, Erio5temon and Phbalium (Rutaceae). Nuytsia
developing a quality assurance manual. NSW Agrinrl. l(1): 65.
FGh. Bee Bri& 9: 12-1 6.
186 Australian Zoologist 31(1)
