Scientific Studies Examine How Introduced Honeybee Colonies Influence Wild Bumblebee Foraging and Habitat Use

Dublin, Ireland, December 10th, 2025.
A growing body of ecological research has documented the ways in which introduced or transported honeybee colonies, often brought into landscapes for seasonal flowering events, exert measurable influence on the behavior, body size, and abundance of native wild bees. Newly published work from THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY B has brought renewed attention to the issue by examining how honeybee arrivals during the heather bloom in Irish heathlands coincide with notable changes in the foraging patterns of local bumblebee species. Although the full text of the study remains behind a restricted access portal, the journal listing confirms that researchers investigated bumblebee foraging in areas experiencing seasonal inflows of managed honeybee hives and compared those findings with sites where honeybee presence was less pronounced. According to the journal’s public information, the research was conducted by Burns and colleagues and is recorded under the digital object identifier number 10.1098 slash rspb dot 2025 dot 1915.

The broader scientific literature contains several fully accessible field investigations that have examined similar ecological interactions. One such study, published by SCIENTIFIC REPORTS, evaluated crop farms where honeybee hives were either present or absent and measured the abundance and species richness of wild bee communities. The authors of that study reported that farms with honeybee hives had fewer wild bees, lower species richness, and reduced fruit count for certain crops, suggesting that introduced honeybees may, under some conditions, depress both wild bee numbers and agricultural output. The results were drawn from direct observation and stand as first hand evidence of competition for floral resources within agricultural systems.

A second investigation, also published in SCIENTIFIC REPORTS, took place in Mediterranean shrubland dominated by rosemary. The researchers measured wild bee visitation rates at varying distances from honeybee apiaries and found that wild bee presence declined nearer to the apiaries, with higher honeybee colony density producing stronger negative effects. The study further noted that the reduction in wild bees became more pronounced after a period of approximately one year, indicating that competitive pressures may accumulate over time.

In addition, work carried out in alpine meadows located on the eastern Tibetan Plateau recorded significant decreases in the abundance of native wild bees following the introduction of Apis mellifera colonies. This study, published in BIOLOGY and fully accessible to the public, documented changes within fifteen native bee species, nine of which showed lower abundance in areas near honeybee hives. Five rare species disappeared entirely from the honeybee introduction sites during the course of the experiment. The researchers noted that the plant communities in the study plots were similar between sites and that the observed declines were therefore likely due to direct competition for floral resources rather than changes in the botanical environment.

Long term time series work published in THE JOURNAL OF ANIMAL ECOLOGY provides additional context. In that study, researchers monitored honeybee and bumblebee populations over a period of fifteen years in coastal California. During early years of the study, feral honeybee numbers were substantially reduced by disease; later, honeybee numbers increased. The authors found that bumblebee numbers declined as honeybee numbers rose and that the dietary overlap between the species shifted over the period of observation. The study also noted that drought related reductions in floral resources contributed to bumblebee declines, illustrating how habitat stress and interspecific competition can interact.

Two major reviews offer broader scientific synthesis. A review published in ENVIRONMENTAL ENTOMOLOGY evaluated nineteen experimental studies involving resource competition and found that six of seven experiments measuring reproductive output or colony growth detected negative impacts from honeybee presence. Several of these experiments focused on bumblebee species. An updated review published in CURRENT OPINION IN INSECT SCIENCE examined ninety five studies involving competition and reported that approximately sixty eight percent of exploitative competition cases yielded negative outcomes for wild bees. The authors of that review emphasized that competitive pressure from managed honeybees appears strongest when floral resources are limited or when honeybee colonies are introduced in substantial numbers.

Urban field work published in CITIES AND THE ENVIRONMENT has also shown that honeybees and bumblebees frequently overlap in floral use and that bumblebees shift their floral preferences in areas with higher honeybee abundance. These studies further underline the ecological principle that both families of bees draw on many of the same floral resources and that resource overlap becomes more consequential when landscape level floral abundance decreases or when managed honeybees are introduced at high density.

The scientific literature additionally addresses disease related pathways. A review published in CURRENT OPINION IN VIROLOGY summarized evidence that viruses commonly found in managed honeybees, particularly the deformed wing virus, are now appearing in a variety of wild bee species. The authors concluded that disease spillover is a documented phenomenon and that it may contribute to native bee population declines in areas with high densities of managed honeybees.

Together these studies present a coherent and increasingly detailed picture of how introduced honeybee colonies influence wild bee communities. While the precise outcomes vary by habitat, season, and floral abundance, the first hand field results repeatedly show that managed honeybees can, under many circumstances, reduce wild bee abundance, alter foraging patterns, and in some systems diminish reproductive success among native bees. The question of long term displacement remains dependent on local ecological conditions, yet the weight of primary evidence indicates that competitive interactions between introduced honeybees and native wild bees are both real and measurable and merit continued scientific attention.

The Appalachian Post is an independent West Virginia news outlet dedicated to clean, verified, first-hand reporting. We do not publish rumors. We do not run speculation. Every fact we present must be supported by original documentation, official statements, or direct evidence. When secondary sources are used, we clearly identify them and never treat them as first-hand confirmation. We avoid loaded language, emotional framing, or accusatory wording, and we do not attack individuals, organizations, or other news outlets. Our role is to report only what can be verified through first-hand sources and allow readers to form their own interpretations. If we cannot confirm a claim using original evidence, we state clearly that we reviewed first-hand sources and could not find documentation confirming it. Our commitment is simple: honest reporting, transparent sourcing, and zero speculation.

Sources

Primary First Hand Sources

• THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY B, Burns, K. et al., “Honeybees have consequences for foraging bumblebees in Irish heathlands,” doi 10.1098 slash rspb dot 2025 dot 1915.
• SCIENTIFIC REPORTS, Cariveau, D. et al., “Honey bee hives decrease wild bee abundance, species richness, and fruit count on farms regardless of wildflower strips.”
• SCIENTIFIC REPORTS, Lecocq, T. et al., “Controlling the impact of the managed honeybee on wild bees in protected areas.”
• BIOLOGY, Wang, J. et al., “Introduced Western Honeybees Dramatically Reduce the Abundance of Wild Bees in Alpine Meadows, Eastern Tibet Plateau.”
• THE JOURNAL OF ANIMAL ECOLOGY, Thomson, D., “Local bumble bee decline linked to recovery of honey bees, drought effects on floral resources.”
• ENVIRONMENTAL ENTOMOLOGY, Mallinger, R. and Gratton, C., “Floral Resource Competition Between Honey Bees and Wild Bees: Is There Clear Evidence and Can We Guide Management and Conservation?”
• CURRENT OPINION IN INSECT SCIENCE, Linsley Noakes, C. et al., “Mounting evidence that managed and introduced bees have negative impacts on wild bees: an updated review.”
• CITIES AND THE ENVIRONMENT, Kerekes, T. et al., “Floral Use Competition Between Honey Bees and Bumble Bees Within an Urban Community.”
• CURRENT OPINION IN VIROLOGY, Manley, R. et al., “Impact of managed honey bee viruses on wild bees.”

Secondary Attribution Based Sources

• Science News reporting summarizing the Royal Society findings.
• Bumblebee Conservation Trust position statement summarizing ecological research on competition and disease spillover.