Family Apidae > Genus Apis
Apis mellifera
Honey Bee
Non-Native
Species
In Minnesota, there is one described species within the genus Apis—Apis mellifera, the non-native European or Western honey bee. This bee is a domesticated species, largely managed by humans in Minnesota. Apis mellifera nests in man-made hives. Swarming feral colonies may establish nests in tree cavities or other locations. Perennial feral colonies do occur in Minnesota but these aren't as common as feral colonies in warmer climates. Apis mellifera nests are eusocial and perennial, and are extremely large, housing as many as 60,000 bees in summer. The eusocial nest has one primary egg-laying queen, a division of labor, and occupants that practice parental care. In addition, the nest contains multiple generations at one time.
Apis mellifera is golden- or orange-colored, mixed with brown or black. Honey bees have converging eyes, hairs on their compound eyes, three submarginal forewing cells, and a long forewing marginal cell. Females/workers have a corbicula (pollen basket) on each hind leg tibia. Apis mellifera ranges in length from 12 to 20 mm (0.35 to 0.79 inches); workers are smaller than queens.
Apis mellifera worker visiting non-native Dutch white clover.
Wing
position
on flowers
1
no. species
in MN
size range
Phenology
Genus/Species Characteristics
NatureServe State Conservation Status
marginal cell
1
2
3
Forewing with three submarginal cells and a long marginal cell.
Hairs on compound eyes.
Golden-orange coloration mixed with light or dark brown.
female
Corbicula (pollen basket) on each hind leg tibia. Hind leg basitarsus widened.
Impacts on Native Bees
Honey Bee Introduction to North America
Honey bees (Apis mellifera) are not native to North America. They were introduced as early as 1630 and many subsequent introductions followed. European settlers brought honey bees with them to have a ready supply of honey and wax to make candles. Honey bees spread across the country, establishing feral perennial colonies.
Commercial Pollinator of Agricultural Crops
For approximately the past seventy-five years since the end of the Second World War and intensification of agricultural practices resulting in the rise of monoculture production fields, honey bees have been extensively used to commercially pollinate agricultural crops requiring insect pollination. A mass migration of many commercial operations takes place each spring as hives are trucked around the country to pollinate crops such as almonds, small berries, and melons in California, tree fruit and small berries in the Pacific Northwest, blueberries, citrus, and melons in Florida, followed by tree fruit, small berries, and melons in the Great Lakes and Northeast. The transport of hives all over the country can cause stress to the bees as the fields provide limited forage, often requiring their reliance on food supplements. Once unloaded and released to pollinate a crop, many hives are placed together from various operations, increasing the risk of disease transmission through shared resources. Lastly, as they pollinate the crop, they often exposed to agricultural pesticides.
Economic Versus Conservation Concern
As a managed domesticated bee species, hive losses can be significant on an annual basis, but beekeepers can create new colonies by splitting existing hives or by purchasing a queen to establish a new colony. As such, it is an economic concern for beekeepers as having healthy hives and minimizing hive losses ultimately affects their bottom line. However, annual hive losses, an economic concern, cannot be equated with a broader conservation concern as honey bees are not threatened with extinction. In addition, the total number of managed hives is increasing overall. This nuanced difference has caused confusion leading to articles and initiatives that promote beekeeping as a sustainable and environmentally-friendly practice. For example, corporate campuses publishing press releases about the hives placed on their property or roof emphasizing their commitment to help bee populations through these "sustainable" and "green" initiatives is one form of greenwashing.
Impacts to Natural Areas and Native Plant Communities
Natural areas can be negatively impacted by the presence of hives. A Minnesota study by Carr-Markell et al. (2020) analyzed pollen collected by workers returning to hives placed in or near prairies. Much of the pollen sourced by the honey bee workers was from non-native and invasive terrestrial plant species including Rhamnus (buckthorn), Melilotus officinalis (tall sweat clover), Lotus corniculatus (birdsfoot trefoil), Securigera varia (crown vetch), Trifolium repens (Dutch white clover), Centaurea (knapweed), and Carduus (plumeless thistle). The pollination of these non-native and invasive species by honey bees (and native bees) can further their spread through the production of seed resulting from pollination, ultimately impacting the diversity and resiliency of natural areas and native plant communities. Many commerical beekeeping companies place their hives near or next to natural areas during the summer months, to rest the colonies after their intensive spring transport all over the country to pollinate large moncultural crops. Scientists have raised concerns about the impacts of placing numerous hives on or next to public lands, particularly when these lands are known to house species of conservation concern. The Xerces Society has developed land manager recommendations to help stakeholders assess impacts and determine appropriate actions.
Competition for Limited Food Resources
Besides commercial for-profit beekeeping companies, small-scale beekeeping by individuals has become a popular hobby, especially in rural, suburban, and urban yards. Some individuals hearing about hive losses conclude that they can help the situation by adding one or more hives in their yard. Unfortunately, this is not the case as honey bees have such large colonies, each housing 50,000 bees. Where hive densities are too high and the quantity of floral resources is limited, honey bees can cause harm to native bee populations through direct competition for food, and possible pathogen spillover on shared flowers. Likewise, pathogen transmission on shared flowers can increase the risk of disease for honey bees. The geographic footprint of one hive is also alarming where resources are limited; honey bee workers can fly several miles in any direction from their hive. Each hive needs several acres of flowering plants to supply adequate floral resources to feed the colony. It is not possible to provide enough resources when hives are kept in urban, suburban, or exurban residential yards, so keeping hives in yards can create competition for limited resources.
Photo © Jurek Adamski, Shutterstock ID 2490820009
Photo © Cami Johnson, Shutterstock ID 2591960361
Impacts to Threatened and Endgangered Species
Minnesota is home to more 508 species of bees. Fourteen species are non-native and 190 native species are ranked from critically imperiled (S1) to vulnerable of extirpation (S3). One of these species, Bombus affinis (rusty patched bumble bee) is a federally endangered species. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is the federal agency overseeing the Endangered Species Act and recovery of listed species. Their Conservation Management Guidelines recommend that managers not place honey bee hives in natural areas with high quality habitat where rusty patched bumble bees are known or likely to be present. The areas include near nesting sites and within the high potential zone, mapped areas where populations are known to occur. The fact that much of the Twin Cities metropolitan area occurs within the high potential zone illustrates the risk to rusty patched bumble bees if too many hives occur in the metropolitan area, an area where backyard beekeeping is popular. Residential yards are too small and cannot supply adequate resources for a hive containing 50,000 honey bees. This practice creates nutritional stress for native bee populations including the rusty patched bumble bee.
Explore More Apidae Genera
Explore Other Bee Families
Apidae
Bumble, digger, longhorn, squash, carpenter bees
and allies
Citations and Further Reading
Cane, J. H., & Tepedino, V. J. (2017). Gauging the effect of honey bee pollen collection on native bee communities. Conservation Letters, 10(2), 205-210.
Carr-Markell, M. K., Demler, C. M., Couvillon, M. J., Schürch, R., & Spivak, M. (2020). Do honey bee (Apis mellifera) foragers recruit their nestmates to native forbs in reconstructed prairie habitats?. PLoS One, 15(2), e0228169.
Droege, S., Shumar, S., & Maffei, C. (2024). The Very Handy Bee Manual (2.0). Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.12812755
MacInnis, G., Normandin, E., & Ziter, C. D. (2023). Decline in wild bee species richness associated with honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) abundance in an urban ecosystem. PeerJ, 11, e14699.
MacKell, S., Elsayed, H. and Colla, S., 2023. Assessing the impacts of urban beehives on wild bees using individual, community, and population-level metrics. Urban Ecosystems, 26(5), pp.1209-1223.
Portman, Z. M., Gardner, J., Lane, I. G., Gerjets, N., Petersen, J. D., Ascher, J. S., ... & Cariveau, D. P. (2023). A checklist of the bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea) of Minnesota. Zootaxa, 5304(1), 1-95.
Wilson, J. S., & Messinger Carril, O. J. (2016). The bees in your backyard: a guide to North America's bees. Princeton University Press.
Page Photography Credits
Heather Holm
Joel Gardner CC BY-ND-NC 1.0 (Melittidae)
Steve Mlodinow CC BY-NC 4.0 (Brachymelecta)
Michelle Orcutt CC-BY-NC 4.0 (Epimelissodes female)