BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofit
publishers, academic institutions, research libraries, and research funders in the common goal of maximizing access to
critical research.
A Critical View of Colony Losses in Managed Mayan Honey-
Making Bees (Apidae: Meliponini) in the Heart of Zona Maya
Author(s): Rogel Villanueva-Guti?rrez , David W. Roubik , Wilberto Colli-
Uc?n , Francisco J. G?emez-Ricalde , and Stephen L. Buchmann
Source: Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society, 86(4):352-362. 2013.
Published By: Kansas Entomological Society
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2317/JKES130131.1
URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.2317/JKES130131.1
BioOne (www.bioone.org) is a nonprofit, online aggregation of core research in the
biological, ecological, and environmental sciences. BioOne provides a sustainable online
platform for over 170 journals and books published by nonprofit societies, associations,
museums, institutions, and presses.
Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Web site, and all posted and associated content
indicates your acceptance of BioOne?s Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/page/
terms_of_use.
Usage of BioOne content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non-commercial
use. Commercial inquiries or rights and permissions requests should be directed to the
individual publisher as copyright holder.
A Critical View of Colony Losses in Managed Mayan Honey-Making
Bees (Apidae: Meliponini) in the Heart of Zona Maya
ROGEL VILLANUEVA-GUTIE?RREZ,1 DAVID W. ROUBIK,2 WILBERTO COLLI-UCA?N,1
FRANCISCO J. GU?EMEZ-RICALDE,3 AND STEPHEN L. BUCHMANN4
ABSTRACT: This research considered native Mayan stingless bees, Melipona beecheii, with
special attention to decrease in their managed colonies. From a total of 155 beekeepers located
in 60 communities, 58 were randomly selected to survey in 2011. Their experience ranged from
less than one to 50 years, and initial colonies from one to 100. Both structured and open
interviews were conducted. Participants generally reported they believed bees were obtaining
less food, which could produce colony loss. The present and a previous survey in the Zona
Maya show colony loss averages 4?5% each year. In this study, during an average of 10 years,
27 beekeepers lost none, 9 lost all, and the remainder lost 44% of their colonies. Further
analysis revealed colony loss had no association with relative habitat disturbance, presumed
Africanized honey bee abundance, or beekeeping experience. However, those initially with
more colonies in a meliponary lost them at a greater rate, indicating competition for food.
Initial colony number was near 11, but currently is near 4 per meliponary. Little colony
propagation (husbandry) was the norm until recently, when initiatives including meliponi-
culture workshops stimulated more husbandry. Twenty-six percent of beekeepers had less than
one year experience and they began meliponaries using wild colonies. Because established
meliponicultors were found to very seldom rely on new wild colonies, increased husbandry
efforts are necessary to offset natural mortality of managed colonies. Five meliponicultors
increased their colonies over 300% in two years (40 to 123 colonies), whereas a 34% loss in nine
years (480 to 206 colonies) was found among the individuals randomly surveyed.
KEY WORDS: Colony loss, husbandry, Melipona beecheii, meliponiculture, Mexico, Quintana
Roo, traditional knowledge
Breeding and handling of the ?xunan kab?, the stingless bee Melipona beecheii
Bennett, is part of traditional American meliponiculture or stingless beekeeping
(Fig. 1). Its practice by the Maya predates Hispanic times by approximately
3500 years. Throughout history, Melipona beecheii has been the most extensively
managed bee in Mesoamerica and Mexico. Today, meliponiculture centered on
xunan kab continues nearly in traditional form, although the number of colonies
has greatly diminished for those who practice the art (Quezada-Eua?n et al., 2001;
Villanueva-Gutie?rrez et al., 2005a,b). Not enough data had been presented when
notable decline was interpreted to be due to habitat change, competition with
invasive honey bees, or other variables (e.g., Cairns et al., 2005; Villanueva et al.,
2005b). Our study is an attempt to correct this shortcoming in understanding the
state of managed xunan kab in Yucata?n.
1 El Colegio de la Frontera Sur, Av. Centenario km 5.5, Apdo. Postal 424, Chetumal, Quintana Roo,
C P 77014, Mexico. e-mail: rvillanu@ecosur.mx
2 Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, Balboa, Republic of Panama, and Unit 9100, DPO AA
34002-9998, USA. e-mail: roubikd@si.edu
3 Universidad de Quintana Roo, Boulevard Bah??a S/N esq. Comonfort, Col. del Bosque, Chetumal,
Quintana Roo CP 77019, Mexico
4 Departments of Entomology, and Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Arizona, Tucson,
Arizona 85721, USA
Accepted 3 May 2013; Revised 16 August 2013
E 2013 Kansas Entomological Society
JOURNAL OF THE KANSAS ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY
86(4), 2013, pp. 352?362
Francisco Javier Clavijero (1824) reported that Mexican meliponicultors owned
up to 500 colonies, similar to even older reports among civilizations in South
America (Roubik, 2000). Honey was the sweetener used before sugar cane
Saccharum officinarum (Poaceae) was known in the American tropics, and there
were no Old World honey bees, genus Apis, thus honey came from native stingless
bees, bumble bees and some wasps (Roubik, 1989, 2000). Honey also was used to
pay tributes, perform various rituals, and in exchange for goods (Gonzalez-Acereto
et al., 2011; Ayala et al., 2013). Today, in the Zona Maya region discussed here, it is
extremely difficult to find a stingless bee-keeper??meliponicultor??with even 50
colonies. Our study species or, more likely, the only named species that represents a
group of closely related Central American and Mexican bees (see Quezada-Eua?n
et al., 2007; Roubik and Camargo, 2012; Roubik, 2013) is widespread, and has
populations in Jamaica and Cuba (Schwarz, 1932; Camargo and Pedro, 2007).
To initiate a meliponary (Fig. 1), Mayan people have traditionally cut logs of hard
wood like Manilkara (Sapotaceae), containing the natural colony, and transported
them to their home area, usually to a garden. Bee colonies are protected, or
transferred to log hives or a box made of boards, or divided and propagated and
even fed, but are always managed for honey. Melipona beecheii was the principal bee
employed among all the local, native honey-producing stingless bees, approximately
15 species in the Yucatecan Mayan region (Ayala, 1999; Roubik et al., 1991). Their
regular colony division and husbandry, permitted by the bee?s unusually mild
behavior, relatively large (among stingless bees) honey storing capacity (1?2 L/y),
and constant queen production, led to advanced meliponiculture known nowhere
else in the world. To propagate a colony, some of the adults and brood with one or
more queens soon to emerge are transferred to a new hive. If a virgin queen mates
with a drone, then a new colony is formed (Nogueira-Neto, 1997).
Fig. 1. Meliponary of the authors in the Zona Maya, at ECOSUR, in Chetumal, Mexico.
VOLUME 86, ISSUE 4 353
Villanueva-Gutie?rrez et al. (2005b) present results from interviews with 23
meliponicultors from 30 communities within the Zona Maya of Quintana Roo.
They detail procurement of ?hobones? or hollow tree sections with nesting bee
colonies. We have observed a Mayan hamlet that had one colony from the wild for
27 years?the ?mother colony??from which a meliponary of 27 colonies was
gradually built (Villanueva-Gutie?rrez, op. cit.), and one wild colony was procured
during 1994?indicating colonies are seldom harvested to augment managed
meliponaries. Further, between 1950 and 1981 at least 755 colonies domiciled in
hobones were owned by the 23 meliponicultors we previously surveyed. By the end
of 2004 they had 89 colonies, and 35% had lost all their colonies. The precise date
and reasons for colony loss were not ascertained and, as in the present work, we
attempt to interpret field data reported to us, including data gained by structured
and open interviews (see Materials and Methods). All but four beekeepers
maintained or demonstrated they had not successfully divided or propagated their
colonies, or obtained more after initiating their meliponaries, up until and
including the year 2011. Thus, colony number was established when their
meliponicultural experience began, and a decline would be detectable, or its
probable cause inferred, given the data we collected. More important, no statistical
analysis of correlations or trends, leading to predictions, could be made from our
first publication, due to lack of rigorous procedure and statistical testing, and
small sample size (see Roubik, 1983, 2001, or LeBuhn et al., 2012), which we
redress herein.
Fig. 2. Map showing the location of meliponaries studied within the Zona of Maya of Quintana Roo
state, Mexico.
354 JOURNAL OF THE KANSAS ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY
Materials and Methods
The present research took place in 24 Maya communities located in the middle of
Quintana Roo, officially designated ?Zona Maya? (Fig. 2). This region is thickly
forested, with trees reaching a height of approximately 20?25 m, termed ?selva
mediana?, and much of the vegetation is of old growth, although frequently
disturbed by hurricanes and fire (Whigham et al., 1991; Roubik and Villanueva-
Gutie?rrez, 2009). Of nearly 200 communities we visited in the Zona Maya, a total of
60 had individuals actively practicing meliponiculture. Maya communities with
populations greater than 50 were chosen and in those, 155 meliponicultors were
found. In 2011 we interviewed a randomly selected sample of 58, representing one-
third of the total meliponine beekeepers. Previous surveys dating to 2004 (Villanueva
et al., 2005b) included almost completely different individuals from the present
study. However, some non-quantitative information from interviews was pooled for
the entire study period, which covers over 30 years?1981 to 2011.
The data are rendered in categories, whereby each variable is divided into two
possible states for statistical analysis in a 2 3 2 contingency table (see below). As a
means of monitoring the habitat quality of vegetation that can support Melipona
beecheii and meliponaries, satellite images (Google Earth, April, 2012) of vegetation,
and our ?ground truth? observations, were combined to describe each meliponary
(Fig. 2) and categorize surrounding land as either cleared of most the native vegetation
and disturbed, or as relatively intact forest. We used an estimated maximum bee flight
range of Melipona beecheii of 5 km (Roubik 1989: 85) to delimit foraging territory.
Variables for a standard questionnaire included meliponicultor age, sex, number
of years keeping colonies, initial colony number, number kept now, total colonies
lost in a meliponary, colony husbandry or division, colony feeding, colony transfer
from natural nests, use of box hives, honey sales, reasons thought likely for colony
losses or other problems, and meliponiculture courses attended. A standard set of
questions in Spanish was asked?in Mayan for those who had difficulty with
Spanish (Villanueva-Gutie?rrez et al., 2005b). No general bee biology was emphasized
(e.g., flight range, longevity of a queen, number of workers in a colony), but rather,
management practice. Most meliponicultors have meager resources, and along with
many who practice apiculture, theirs is a secondary, not a primary, vocational
activity. The categorical variables that were analyzed with colony loss are those
summarized in Table 1. We did not insist meliponicultors recall exactly when they
lost colonies, or other details. Thus, the oldest information includes events
potentially dating from 1961, and particular events, such as hurricanes or droughts
that tend to have an impact on bee colonies (Villanueva-Gutie?rrez et al., 2005a,b;
Roubik and Villanueva-Gutie?rrez, 2009) cannot be examined statistically. Further-
more, in 2011, a large proportion of the study subjects (15 of 58) had not even
practiced meliponiculture for one year, and thus they are not included in the
statistical analyses for colony loss, but were tabulated in general descriptive
statistical results. ?Open? interviews about the main local and regional problems
facing meliponicultors were also performed. We gave no suggestion or expectation as
to assessing the state of meliponiculture during interviews. Our basic approach was
to associate hard data with any possible trend or cause and effect relationship that
beekeepers mentioned or that we deduced.
After tabulating the data, we applied a test of association between two categories,
divided by their medians. This method maximizes the number of raw data counts in
VOLUME 86, ISSUE 4 355
each cell of the 2 3 2 tables we used to perform Fisher?s exact tests (see Gotelli and
Ellison, 2004).
Results
The mean annual colony loss was 3.9%, among the 56 meliponicultors that did not
sell their colonies (only two did so, see below), and 3.8% among the experienced
meliponicultors. Only eight persons in our study have been meliponicultors during
more than 20 years (mean 11.4, SD 10.4 years), and mean beekeeper age was 50 years
(maximum 90, minimum 23) among the 58 people. There were 20 female
meliponicultors, and 25 beekeepers older than the mean. The 15 new meliponicultors
began beekeeping with anywhere from one to 14 colonies, mostly with one. They
obtained them from wild colonies nesting in trees, including also the one given to
each of them, in the program headed by the first author. The maximum colonies kept
among our surveyed meliponicultors was 100, inherited in 1966 by an individual
90 years of age in 2011, and one individual had kept colonies for 50 years. Average
honey harvest was 3.63 liters per year, and those who sold honey (N 5 21) received
an average of 143 Pesos per liter, little more than $10.
Colony loss varied widely, because many of the experienced 43 meliponicultors lost
all or no colonies. In a mean of 10 years, 27 beekeepers lost none, 9 lost all, and the
remainder lost 44% their colonies. The mean average loss in one year was 4.4% for
those who lost neither all nor none. Two more sold their 7 colonies to ecotourist
concerns. More experienced meliponicultors averaged 44% loss of colonies since they
began keeping the bees (an average of 11.4 years), or a loss of 3.8% per year. Among
those more experienced meliponicultors, obvious, but trivial associations, existed
between mean annual loss and total loss?because the later was divided by years, to
obtain the former?and beekeeper age was closely correlated with years of experience
(Table 1). More interesting, perhaps, is that the mean annual loss was positively
associated with the initial number of colonies in the meliponary (P 5 0.043). Larger
meliponaries accrued more losses per year, although the initial number of colonies had
little association with the total loss (P5 0.112). A larger meliponary lost colonies at a
faster rate during at least part of its history. We further interpret this point below.
Our data for the 41 experienced meliponicultors (Table 1), 21 male and 20 female,
indicate male meliponicultors experienced less loss (P 5 0.056), but all female
Table 1. Categorical variables analyzed with colony loss.
Fisher?s exact test (P) Association found Category 1 Category 2
1.000 none annual loss experience
0.758 none initial colonies age
0.744 none total loss experience
0.662 none annual loss habitat quality
0.112 little initial colonies total loss
0.122 little current colonies age
0.081 little initial colonies experience
0.056 positive annual loss gender
0.043 positive annual loss initial colonies
0.029 negative annual loss age
0.001 positive experience age
0.0001 positive total loss annual loss
356 JOURNAL OF THE KANSAS ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY
respondents began rather recently?traditional meliponiculture had been practiced
only by men. Nonetheless, the results given in Table 1 show that greater beekeeper
age was significantly related with lower colony loss (P 5 0.029), but that experience
in meliponiculture was, in general, not correlated with loss, considering the total loss
since beginning (P 5 0.744), or mean loss per year (P 5 1.00). Another finding was
that the rate of colony loss/year was not influenced by relative habitat modification
or conversion from forest to more open or cultivated land (P 5 0.662). The map
given in Fig. 2 contains six sites having little or no forest within several km, as we
saw in our direct observations; they are meliponary sites 6, 7, 12, 15, 22 and 27.
If past trends predict future realities (Table 1), considering mean time engaged in
meliponiculture is about 11 years (for total meliponicultors it is slightly less than
9 years), the prediction of total colony loss tempo is not yet testable, given the
20 years of expected longevity for a meliponary (11 years in existence plus 9 years
more if rate of loss, until 2011, continues). More important, the largest group of
meliponicultors, regardless of their age, gender, initial number of colonies, or years
of experience, have lost no colonies at all. Nonetheless, the main reasons expressed
by respondents as probable causes for colony losses were the lack of food (pollen and
nectar resources from native forest trees) for their bees, hurricanes, and prolonged
drought, and a few maintained that beliefs or knowledge (of what, was not
mentioned) had an influence on bee colony loss.
A small minority of meliponicultors made innovations. Four each used wooden
box hives, or divided their colonies, or obtained new colonies from natural nests in
living trees. A slightly larger minority of 11 stated that they had fed their colonies,
between June and January. Although a total of 14 said they had divided colonies,
only four reported which colonies had been used to make the divisions. The 10 that
did not provide details were not successful in dividing colonies, and lost prospective
new colonies. The likelihood that those 14 individuals in fact had average per capita
colony loss differing from beekeepers who said they never divided a colony or
brought in a new one is further evaluated in our discussion, below.
Discussion
The meliponicultors surveyed were relatively inexperienced by standards of
Mayans through history, who we believe inherited their hives and practiced
meliponiculture, after observing their elders, for most of their lives. We found that
colony numbers had declined about as fast as those seen previously during recent
decades, but not going back several decades (Villanueva-Gutie?rrez et al., 2005b). The
main reason for decline appears to be simply management. The past records had
included data from over a half century ago. But at 24 meliponaries, there had been a
loss of 299 colonies out of 389, during 14 years (1990 to 2004), a mean of 5.5% per
year. In the present study, for 56 beekeepers, 206 colonies, at the end of 2011, came
from an initial 480 colonies, maintained between less than one to 50 years (mean 5
8.55 years), a mean 6.6% loss per year. However, the experienced beekeepers, those
with more than a year of experience, had lost an average of 3.8% of their colonies
each year. Considerable variation was found among the three beekeepers previously
interviewed, B. Kantu?n, P. Cahun Uh, and I. Pen?a Tuz (Villanueva-Gutie?rrez et al.,
2005b). Since 2004, one had lost none, one had gained 10 by colony division, and one
had lost all his colonies. After our 2011 data were taken, up to and including 2013
VOLUME 86, ISSUE 4 357
until August, five meliponicultors that both had and had not been interviewed in
2011 increased their total bee colonies by 308%, or 154% per year?greatly offsetting
the over 6% per year loss experienced by the randomly sampled beekeepers. All of
those 83 new colonies came from divisions made with existing stock.
In addition to replacing losses due to natural colony mortality, there is an
economic incentive in what can be called ?boutique honey?, which may sell for
considerably more than the $10 per liter usually received by meliponicultors in Zona
Maya. After care is taken in hygiene and preparation, small decorative bottles of
Mayan honey with a fancy explanatory tag are sold to local tourists, or exported
and, although most Melipona honey still is consumed locally in Mayan villages, some
is sold to medical ?doctors? in Mexico City. It may be that meliponiculture can
become a gainful activity if boutique meliponine honey acquires a market niche
(Courtopassi-Laurino et al., 2006, Vit et al., 2013), but we see no evidence for that
stage, as yet, in Mayan meliponiculture. The mean age of 50 years among Mayan
meliponicultors in Quintana Roo was similar to findings by Gonza?lez-Acereto and
Quezada-Eua?n (2010) in the neighboring state of Yucata?n, where there is less natural
forest or biodiversity in flowering vegetation. The average number of colonies/
meliponicultor in Yucata?n state was 12 (near the more heavily forested states of
Campeche and Quintana Roo), while for the experienced meliponicultors we
surveyed it was only four.
Meliponicultors with many years of experience, as well as those newly trained in
meliponiculture, particularly the women, are motivated to explore this activity as one
that can generate a certain income or benefit. Presumably related to honey sale seen
as lucrative in tourism, two meliponicultors sold all seven of their colonies to
ecotourist concerns in Yucata?n. For this reason, although many have lost colonies
without compensation other than honey sales, others receive $50?$100/colony. Are
the sell-offs perhaps motivated by the certainty that colonies will be lost, whether an
added benefit is derived, or are they motivated by short-term gain? The seven
colonies were sold by meliponicultors of the same age, whereas one had kept colonies
for 10 years and the other for only one year. Their colony sales are more profitable
than honey sales, even at this low level, and we suggest may promote conservation of
the Mayan honey bee, as a flagship species (Kru?ger, 2005). The honey produced by
stingless bees is still used in Mayan traditional medicine for treatment of many
ailments, and provides an incentive for meliponiculturists to adapt and continue.
The motivation for honey production and sale is presumably not monetary, because
the average sales amount to 500 Pesos a year, about $40.
Are colony numbers declining, and why? Many meliponicultors reported they
believe their bees are dying from lack of food. They report witnessing, over time, less
honey production and that the population is diminishing in size to the point colonies
cannot repel natural enemies (Villanueva-Gutie?rrez et al., 2005b). We must consider
other factors, one of which includes the rate of restocking colonies. We think there
are two main reasons for decline that are validated by our data and analysis. First,
the current owners seldom divide their colonies, and second, there are generally no
new hobones coming in. A third reason is that colonies of the same species compete
more often than before for food, when kept in meliponaries (see below). There are no
census data for wild colonies of which we are aware, and there are no data of the
kind required to detect a population decline in Melipona beecheii within Yucatecan
forests (Roubik, 2001). Expressed concerns of biologists who study the meliponas of
358 JOURNAL OF THE KANSAS ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY
Yucata?n and wider areas (see Vit et al., 2013, and Cairns et al., 2005; Quezada Eua?n
et al., 2007; Ayala et al., 2013) lack quantitative methodology or analysis. Our survey
shows that there are no declines in managed colonies kept by roughly half of the
meliponicultors, during a mean observation time of 11.4 years. Moreover, the
predictive variables that we could identify included mainly the age and gender of the
beekeeper, which have very little basis from which to propose a mechanistic
explanation. The best predictor seems to be the management strategies of the
beekeepers themselves. However, apparently only four male meliponicultors, of
those in the planned study and interviews, propagated their colonies.
Because a sample of four is too small to analyze, and because 14 responded that
they had in fact made colony divisions, we used the latter number and its mean
success, in 2 3 2 contingency table tests to compare the colony loss experienced by
those who say they did, and say they did not, divide their colonies. The results, both
with Fisher?s exact test (P 5 0.049) and with a G-test with a correction for small
samples (Yates correction, P 5 0.126) show less colony loss for those who did not
divide colonies. In contrast, the four persons who verified they had made successful
divisions and stated how many colonies they had divided, experienced either no loss
at all (three persons), or a loss of 14% their initial total, well below the expected loss
of 33%. These men were 45 to 80 years in age and practiced meliponiculture for 1, 2,
10 and 25 years. It may be suggested that confidence in their husbandry technique,
with no fear of losing their colonies from the attack of parasites like phorid flies after
colony division (see Villanueva et al., 2005a,b), made these individuals successful,
while 10 of the respondents, new to meliponiculture, failed.
For colonies that do die, natural mortality of stingless bee colonies has been studied
only a few times and they succumb both to starvation and natural enemies (Slaa, 2006;
Roubik, 2006 and DWR, unpubl. data). Individual colonies also are drowned or their
nests ripped asunder by hurricanes, such as Hurricane Sandy that struck the
Caribbean region in 2013, and killed many native exposed solitary bees, and sheltering
colonial bees (DWR, unpubl. data). Bees kept in hives should have lower mortality
because they are protected. Predictions from studies just mentioned and data in
Table 1 are surprisingly consistent, yet based on too few studies. Melipona colonies
may be expected to survive for about 20 years, through a series of queen replacements
and natural matings. If colony density is too low to provide males for outcrossing and
mating, then populations will decline. This point does not seem to have been reached
in Quintana Roo, in the Zona Maya, at least in meliponaries.
In our introduction, we cited an historical figure on meliponary size, and similar
meliponaries have existed in contemporary times, the 1970?s (Roubik, 2000). But
such figures must derive in part from the rate of forest clearing for agriculture and
cattle ranching, or the fences made with wooden posts, in which certain species, like
Melipona favosa, can build their nests (DWR, pers. obs.). That is, the colonies
brought to meliponaries are undoubtedly determined in part by the rate of tree
felling and colony discovery by humans. During three decades of our study, only
four individuals, among established beekeepers, reportedly took in wild colonies in
sections of tree trunks. In contrast, those seeking to establish a meliponary readily
found colonies or, as in the program to reinstate meliponiculture, a person able to
find colonies in the wild was hired to procure them.
Those colonies of Melipona beecheii located in degraded habitats that surround
Mayan villages compete relatively often with Africanized Apis mellifera for floral
VOLUME 86, ISSUE 4 359
resources (Villanueva-Gutie?rrez et al., 2005b, 2013), but perhaps less for nesting
sites. That is because nesting Africanized Apis mellifera readily use many sites besides
tree cavities (Roubik and Boreham, 1990), and often use buildings, while such
behavior is uncommon in M. beecheii (DWR and RGV, pers. obs., see also Baum et
al., 2008). Nonetheless, the greater number of honey bees presumed to be found in
disturbed habitat, like the existence of more versus less disturbed vegetation near
successful meliponaries, had no relation to the longevity of Melipona colonies kept?
but in reality scarcely managed. In contrast, the faster decline in colonies in the
largest meliponaries suggests intraspecific food competition is a more salient factor
than interspecific competition with an invading honey bee, to which native species
adapt via resource partitioning (Roubik and Villanueva, 2009).
Colony loss rate was higher in the initially larger meliponaries, which in our study
were those handed down from the preceding generation, and contained as many as
100 colonies. Currently, meliponaries consist of far fewer colonies, usually less than
5, with the largest having 22 colonies. One possible explanation is that the intensity
of competition for food between members of the same species has increased to the
point that larger meliponaries are not productive or recommended, which is expected
from the local reduction in forest and plant species diversity, including many
preferred by M. beecheii (Villanueva-Gutie?rrez et al., 2005a), other unknown or
undocumented factors, and intensification of agriculture and livestock rearing
(Cairns et al., 2005).
Acknowledgments
We thank Margarito Tuz-Novelo for helping us interview meliponicultors,
Humberto Bahena-Basave for photographic support, Luis G. Dodd for preliminary
translation, S. Javorek for reviewing an early draft, H. Weissenberger for providing
the map, and reviewers who persevered.
Literature Cited
Ayala, R. 1999. Revisio?n de las abejas sin aguijo?n de Me?xico (Hymenoptera: Apidae: Meliponini). Folia
Entomolo?gica Mexicana 106:1?123.
Ayala, R., V. H. Gonzalez, and M. S. Engel. 2013. Mexican Stingless Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae):
Diversity, Distribution, and Indigenous Knowledge. In P. Vit, S. R. M. Pedro, and D. W. Roubik
(eds.). Pot-Honey: A legacy of stingless bees, pp. 135?152. Springer Science + Business Media, New
York. 654 pp.
Baum, K. A., A. M. D. Kristen, S. Tchakerian, C. Thoenes, and R. N. Coulson. 2008. Africanized honey
bees in urban environments: A spatio-temporal analysis. Landscape and Urban Planning
85:123?132.
Cairns, C. E., R. Villanueva-Gutie?rrez, S. Koptur, and D. B. Bray. 2005. Bee populations, forest
disturbance, and Africanization in Mexico. Biotropica 37:686?692.
Camargo, J. M. F., and S. R. M. Pedro. 2007. Meliponini Lepeletier, 1836. In Moure, J. S., D. Urban, and
G. A. Melo (eds.). Catalogue of Bees (Hymenoptera, Apoidea) in the Neotropical Region,
pp. 272?578. Sociedad Brasileira de Entomomlog??a, Curitiba, 1058 pp.
Clavijero, F. J. 1824. Historia Antigua de Me?xico. Editorial Porru?a S. A., Mexico, D. F., Mexico. 621 pp.
Cortopassi-Laurino, M., V. L. Imperatriz-Fonseca, D. W. Roubik, A. Dollin, T. Heard, I. Aguilar, G. C.
Venturieri, C. Eardley, and P. Nogueira-Neto. 2006. Global meliponiculture: challenges and
opportunities. Apidologie 37:275?292.
Gonza?lez-Acereto, J. A., and J. J. G. Quezada-Eua?n. 2010. Produccio?n tradicional de miel: abejas nativas
sin aguijo?n (trigonas y meliponas). CICY. Usos de la Biodiversidad. Biodiversidad y Desarrollo
Humano en Yucata?n, pp. 382?384. Me?rida, Yucata?n, Mexico.
360 JOURNAL OF THE KANSAS ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY
Gonza?lez-Acereto, J. A., J. J. G. Quezada-Euan, and L. A. Medina. 2006. New perspectives for stingless
beekeeping in the Yucata?n: results of an integral program to rescue and promote the activity.
Journal of Apicultural Research 45:234?239.
Gonza?lez-Acereto, J. A., C. de Araujo-Freitas, and J. Gonza?lez-Freyre. 2011. Los productos de las abejas
nativas, la salud, la vida y la magia: Elementos asociados en la realidad comunitaria entre los
campesinos mayas de la pen??nsula de Yucata?n. Memorias del VII Seminario Mesoamericano sobre
Abejas Nativas, pp. 18?22. Cuetzalan, Puebla, Me?xico.
Gotelli, N. J., and A. M. Ellison. 2004. A Primer of Ecological Statistics. Sinauer Associates, Inc.,
Sunderland, Massachusetts. 510 pp.
Kru?ger, O. 2005. The role of ecotourism in conservation: panacea or Pandora?s box? Biodiversity and
Conservation 14:579?600.
LeBuhn, G., S. Droege, E. F. Connor, B. Gemmill-Herren, S. G. Potts, R. L. Minckley, T. Griswold, R.
Jean, E. Kula, D. W. Roubik, J. Cane, K. W. Wright, G. Frankie, and F. Parker. 2013. Detecting
insect pollinator declines on regional and global scales. Conservation Biology 27:113?120.
Nogueira-Neto, P. 1997. Vida e Criac?a?o de Abelhas Ind??genas Sem Ferra?o. Editora Nogueirapis, Sa?o
Paulo, Brazil. 445 pp.
Quezada-Eua?n, J. J. G., W. May-Itza?, and J. A. Gonza?les-Acereto. 2001. Stingless beekeeping in Mexico:
problems and perspectives for development. Bee World 82:160?167.
Quezada-Eua?n, J. J. G., R. J. Paxton, K. A. Palmer, W. J. M. Itza?, W. T. Tay, and B. P. Oldroyd. 2007.
Morphological and molecular characters reveal differentiation in a Neotropical social bee,
Melipona beecheii (Apidae: Meliponini) Apidologie 58:247?258.
Roubik, D. W. 1983. Experimental community studies: Time-series tests of competition between African
and Neotropical bees. Ecology 64:971?978.
Roubik, D. W. 1989. Ecology and Natural History of Tropical Bees. Cambridge University Press, New
York. 514 pp.
Roubik, D. W. 2000. Pollination System Stability in Tropical America. Conservation Biology
14:1235?1236.
Roubik, D. W. 2001. Ups and downs in pollinator populations: When is there a decline? Conservation
Ecology 5(1): 2. [online] URL: http://www.consecol.org/vol5/iss1/art2/
Roubik, D. W. 2006. Stingless bee nesting biology (Apidae: Meliponini). Apidologie 37:124?143.
Roubik, D. W. 2013. Why they keep changing the names of our stingless bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae;
Meliponini): a little history and guide to taxonomy. In Vit, P. and D. W. Roubik (eds.). Stingless
bees process honey and pollen in cerumen pots, pp. 1?7. Facultad de Farmacia y Bioana?lisis,
Universidad de Los Andes; Me?rida, Venezuela, (URL: http://www.saber.ula.ve/handle/123456789/
35292 Last Accessed 11/01/2013).
Roubik, D. W., and M. M. Boreham. 1990. Learning to live with Africanized honeybees. Interciencia
15:146?153.
Roubik, D. W., and R. Villanueva-Gutie?rrez. 2009. Invasive Africanized honey bee impact on native
solitary bees: a pollen resource and trap nest analysis. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society
98:152?160.
Roubik, D. W., and J. M. F. Camargo. 2012. The Panama microplate, island studies and relictual species
of Melipona (Melikerria) (Hymenoptera: Apidae: Meliponini). Systematic Entomology 37:189?199.
Roubik, D. W., R. Villanueva, E. Cabrera, and W. Colli-Uca?n. 1991. Las abejas de la reserva de la
Bio?sfera Sian Ka?An. In L. D. Navarro and J. D. Robinson (eds.). Diversidad Biolo?gica en La
Reserva de la Bio?sfera de Sian Ka?an, Quintana Roo, Mexico, pp. 317?320. CIQRO, Chetumal,
Quintana Roo, Mexico.
Schwarz, H. L. 1932. The genus Melipona. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History
58:231?460.
Slaa, J. P. 2006. Population dynamics of a stingless bee community in the seasonal dry lowlands of Costa
Rica. Insectes Sociaux 53:70?79.
Villanueva-Gutie?rrez, R., S. L. Buchmann, A. J. Donovan, and D. W. Roubik. 2005a. Crianza y Manejo de
la Abeja Xunan Cab en la Pen??nsula de Yucata?n. ECOSUR-The Bee Works, Tucson, Arizona. 35 pp.
Villanueva-Gutie?rrez, R., D. W. Roubik, and W. Colli-Uca?n. 2005b. Extinction of Melipona beecheii and
traditional beekeeping in the Yucata?n peninsula. Bee World 2:35?41.
Villanueva-Gutie?rrez, R., and W. Colli-Uca?n. 2011. Rescate de la meliponicultura en la Zona Maya de
Quintana Roo. In Proceedings of the Seventh Mesoamerican Seminar on Native Bees, pp. 28?31.
Cuetzalan, Puebla, Mexico.
VOLUME 86, ISSUE 4 361
Villanueva-Gutie?rrez, R., W. Colli-Uca?n, M. Tuz-Novelo, and M. A. Gracia. 2013. Recuperacio?n de
saberes y formacio?n para el manejo y conservacio?n de la abeja Melipona beecheii en la Zona Maya
de Quintana Roo, Me?xico. In Vit, P. and D. W. Roubik (eds.). Stingless bees process honey and
pollen in cerumen pots, pp. 1?8. Facultad de Farmacia y Bioana?lisis, Universidad de Los Andes;
Me?rida, Venezuela (URL: http://www.saber.ula.ve/handle/123456789/35292 Last accessed: 11/01/
2013).
Vit, P., S. R. M. Pedro, and D. W. Roubik (eds.). 2013. Pot-honey: a legacy of stingless bees. Springer
Science + Business Media, New York. 654 pp.
Whigham, D., I. Olmsted, E. C. Cano, and M. E. Harmon. 1991. The impact of hurricane Gilbert on trees,
litterfall, and woody debris in a dry tropical forest in the northeastern Yucatan peninsula.
Biotropica 23:434?441.
362 JOURNAL OF THE KANSAS ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY