J. Curr. Crop Sci. Technol., 2022; https://doi.org/10.29321/MAJ.10.

000693

RESEARCH ARTICLE
Evaluation of Structural Modifications on Bee Hives Using Different Types
of Bottom Board Materials Against Greater Wax Moth Galleria mellonella
L. (Pyralidae, Lepidoptera) Infesting On Apis cerana indica F. Colonies

Jayapal P1*, Anandhabhairavi N2 and Arivarasan S3

1*Department of Animal Genetics & Breeding, Veterinary College and Research
Institute, Namakkal.
2Agricultural
Entomology, School of Agriculture, VELS Institute of Science,
Technology & Advanced Studies (VISTAS), Pallavaram, Chennai.
3
Agricultural Economics, School of Agriculture, VELS Institute of Science,
Technology & Advanced Studies (VISTAS), Pallavaram, Chennai.

ABSTRACT
The greater wax moth, Galleria mellonella caused damage to honey bee
colonies resulting in heavy economic losses to beekeepers. The present
study entitled “Evaluation of structural modifications on Bee hives using
different types of bottom board materials against greater wax moth
Galleria mellonella L. (Pyralidae, Lepidoptera) infesting on Apis cerana
indica F. Colonies”. The results revealed that the Incidence of wax moth
larvae on different treatments on the bottom board, laminated with mica,
showed significantly (p<0.05) effective with less wax moth larvae (1.00),
which was followed by bottom board laminated with glass plate (1.44).
The Incidence of wax moth pupae on different treatments on bottom
board laminated with mica was significantly (p<0.05) superior with the
least wax moth pupae (0.88), which was followed by glass plate (1.88),
cardboard (2.63), OHP sheet (2.81) in the order of effectiveness. The
maximum extent of pupal population that occurred in untreated control
was 3.81. The bottom board laminated with mica, shows significantly less
absconding (0.25), followed by laminated with the glass plate (0.50),
cardboard (0.75), OHP sheet (1.00). However, higher levels of colony
absconding were recorded in the untreated control (1.50). Hence, it is
concluded that the laminating bottom board with mica sheet will be
maintain hygienic condition and prevent cracks and crevices, which will be
unfavorable for egg laying of greater wax moths.

Volume 109 | Issue 10-12 | 1

Keywords: Galleria mellonella; Apis cerana indica; Bottom board; Mica sheet and Marthandam hive
bottom board
INTRODUCTION
A tropical country like India has an advantage over other countries as it has a wide variety of
flora and a suitable climate for beekeeping throughout the year. In the Hymenoptera order, the
superfamily Apoidea containing an estimated 25,000 described species belonging to 250 genera and 13
families, is regarded as the most important insect pollinators. The tremendous scope for increasing the
bee colonies for honey and wax production and also for the pollination of crops. The foraging behavior of
honey bees enhances agricultural productivity through cross-pollination (Anandhabhairavi et al., 2020).
Five species of honey bees are found all over India, namely Apis flora, Apis cerana, A.dorsata,
A.mellifera, and Trigona iridipennis. However, only Apis cerana and A. mellifera were reared in
hives. Many factors like pests, diseases, parasites, pesticides, and the environment influence the
beekeeping honey bee population. These factors act alone or in combination with each other (Meixner,
2010). Several natural enemies like wax moths, mites, hive beetles, ants, wasps, and birds affect Honey
bees, which causes considerable losses (Paddock, 1981).
Among all the species of wax moth, the greater wax moth (Galleria mellonella L.) (Lepidoptera:
Pyralidae) is well distributed all over the world, and it affects the bee hives throughout the year (Kushram
et al., 2022). The greater wax moth is responsible for heavy economic losses reaching up to 60 to 70 per
cent to beekeepers in developing countries (Hanumanthaswamy et al., 2009). The larvae often destroy
the unprotected combs in storage or colonies (Kebede et al., 2015). The larvae build their silken-lined
feeding tunnels in the honeycomb and feed on wax, pollen, and faeces around the cocoon of bee larvae
(Hosamani et al., 2017). This voracious nature of the larvae leads to the destruction of the honeycomb
and the subsequent death of weak colonies (Negi et al., 2019). Adults do not feed on wax combs
(Charriere and Imdorf, 1997). In India, the greater wax moth also caused damage to honey bee colonies,
resulting in heavy economic losses to beekeepers (Kapil and sihag, 1983 Hanumanthasamy et al., 2009).

Biological, chemical methods can control the greater wax moth. But most of these methods are
either inefficient or expensive for small-scale beekeepers (Tsegaye et al., 2014). In addition, most
chemical methods were associated with residue problems in honeybee products (pirk et al., 2016). As a
result, it is necessary to control wax moths by improving the structural integrity of the hives, as floorboard
detritus attract wax moths when the colony becomes weak and the combs are not replenished. This study
was done to reduce the infestation of wax moths in A. cerana colonies as a management approach due
to a lack of information on the physical method of wax moth management.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Description of the study site

The field experiments were conducted at the apiary of the Anbil Dharmalingam Agricultural
College and Research Institute, Tiruchirappalli, at Tamil Nadu Agricultural University [(10.7554ºN,
78.6054ºE, 279’(85m)] above mean sea level). In Tiruchirappalli, winter is cold and summer is
extremely hot, with an average annual maximum and minimum temperature of about 39.8ºC and

Volume 109 | Issue 10-12 | 2

26.5 ºC, respectively. Mean annual precipitation is about 452.6 mm, which is receiv ed from
October to December.

Studies on different types of bottom board

The greater wax moth lays eggs on the bottom board, and attempts were made to study any
differences in egg laying on the bottom board lined with a glass plate, OHP sheet, mica sheet, and
card board were used as treatments. The Marthandam hive bottom board was taken as the control.
The observation was taken on weekly intervals. The experiment was laid out in Randomized Block
Design, comprising of five treatments and four replications.

T1 – Bottom board laminated with glass plate

T2 - Bottom board laminated with OHP sheet
T3 – Bottom board laminated with mica sheet
T4 - Bottom board laminated with cardboard
T5 - Marthandam hive bottom board (Control)
Bottom board laminated with glass plate

The Marthandam hive bottom board was taken, and the glass plate (1 cm) thickness was
placed over the bottom board using Fevicol SR gum. The border space between the bottom board and
glass plate was sealed using plaster of paris. The edge of the bottom board was wrapped using black
tape on all four sides. It was placed on bottom of the hive.

Bottom board laminated with overhead projector sheet (OHP sheet)

The Marthandam hive bottom board was taken, and the overhead projector sheet (100
micron) was laminated using Fevicol SR gum. The gap on the edges was sealed using plaster of paris.
All four sides of the bottom board was wrapped with tape and placed in the hive.

Bottom board laminated with mica sheet

The Marthandam hive bottom board was taken, and mica (1 mm) sheet was placed over it
and pasted with Fevicol SR gum. The empty space was sealed using plaster of paris. The edge of the
bottom board was wrapped using tape on all four sides. It was placed on a bottom of the hive.

Bottom board laminated with cardboard

The Marthandam hive bottom board was taken and cardboard (0.5 mm) thickness was
placed over it and pasted with Fevicol SR gum. The empty space was sealed using plaster of paris.
The edge of the bottom board was wrapped using tape on all four sides. It was placed on the bottom
of the hive.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis for various experiments was done using AGRES- AGDATA software.
The data of various results of laboratory experiments were subjected to a completely randomized
design. The data obtained on the mean number of greater wax moth captured were
analyzed after square root (X + 0.5) transformation (Steel and Torrie, 1980).

Volume 109 | Issue 10-12 | 3

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
A perusal of data in Table 1 revealed that the incidence of wax moth larvae on different
treatments on bottom board, laminated with mica, showed significant (p<0.05) effective less number
of wax moth larvae (1.00), which was followed by bottom board laminated with glass plate (1.44),
bottom board laminate with cardboard (2.25), OHP sheet (2.44) in the order of effectiveness.
Maximum extent of wax moth larval population was witnessed in the untreated control (3.81).

The Incidence of wax moth pupae on different treatments on bottom board laminated with
mica was significantly (p<0.05) superior with least number of wax moth pupae (0.88), which was
followed by glass plate (1.88), cardboard (2.63), OHP sheet (2.81) in the order of effectiveness. The
maximum extent of pupal population occurred in untreated control (3.81), and shown least effect
among the treatments presented in the table. 2.

A perusal of pooled data is presented in figure. 1. It indicates that bottom board laminated
with mica shows significantly less absconding (0.25), followed by laminated with the glass plate
(0.50), cardboard (0.75), OHP sheet (1.00). However, higher levels of colony absconding recorded in
the untreated control (1.50). This study was aimed to create an unfavorable condition for egg laying
by the greater wax moth in the bottom board (Pokhrel et al., 2006). Earb (1925), Kannagara (1940)
and Adamson (1943) observed that the moths emerged during dusk and were attracted to wax
present in the hives, eggs were laid in any place in the hive, preferably in cracks and crevices and
larvae after hatching from the eggs reached the combs.

Figure 1. Absconding colonies of Apis cerana indica on different laminated bottom board

The current findings are consistent with those of (Edward, 2019), who found that keeping a
screened bottom board over a wooden bottom board and sealing it with a laminated white sheet in
between the two boards significantly increased the effectiveness of reducing wax moth infestation in A.
cerana colonies. Rinderer et al., (2003) invented the metal screened bottom for Varroa mite
management because it prevents bee-dislodged mites from falling on the wooden bottom board,
naturally or after dusting powdered sugar, from re-infestation by clinging to the incoming bees
(Fakhimzadeh, 2001).

Volume 109 | Issue 10-12 | 4

 Whitcomb (1936) and Kannagara (1940) advocated the removal of propolis, bur combs and
refused on the bottom board, as these attracted the moths for oviposition and a shelter for the larvae.
The present study shows the mica sheet can be used to laminate the floor board to avoid cracks and
crevices and maintain hygienic conditions. Babarinde et al., (2010) observed sealing cracks and crevices
of the hive with lime Sulphur giving good results.

CONCLUSION

Wax moths remain a frustrating source of problems for beekeepers and honey bee colonies
in the globe and country at large and the study area in particular. Recently, the number of
investigations related to wax moth control has dropped significantly without suggestions referring to
applicable backgrounds for developing countries attempting to supply organic hive products. This
might be primarily due to the perception of wax moths as a secondary pest of the bee colonies and
their importance in rural beekeeping farmers in those developing countries. Laminating bottom board
with mica sheet will maintain hygienic condition and prevent cracks and crevices, which will be
unfavorable for egg laying of greater wax moths. However, we are confident that adding these early-
stage verified preventive methods through our paper to the research.

Acknowledgment
The authors acknowledge facilities provided by Department of Agricultural Entomology to carry out the
research work.
Ethics statement
No specific permits were required for the described field studies because no human or animal subjects
were involved in this research.
Consent for publication
All the authors agreed to publish the content.
Competing interests
There were no conflict of interest in the publication of this content
Originality and plagiarism
This is original research work and any work and/or words of others, has been appropriately cited
Data availability
All the data of this manuscript are included in the MS. No separate external data source is required.
Author contributions
Idea conceptualization- PJ, Experiments- PJ, Guidance –PJ, NA, Writing original draft – PJ, NA, Writing-
reviewing &editing – PJ, NA.

REFERENCES

Adamson, A. M., 1943. Enemies and diseases of the honey bee in Trinidad. Proc. Agric. Soc. Trin. rob., 43
(1): 37-39, 41-43,45, 47-49, 51-53.

Anandhabhairavi, N., Ambethgar, V. and R.Philip Sridhar. 2020. Foraging behavior of Apis ceranaindica
Fab.(Apidae Hymenoptera) on Cucumber. J. Entomol. Zool. Stud., 8(6): 189-192.

Volume 109 | Issue 10-12 | 5

Babarinde, S. A., Akanbi,M.O T., Adebayo,A., Olaifa,J.I., A. F. Odewole. and E. A. Alagbe. 2010. Effect of
polythene and lime applied to top bars hive on colonization, weight gain and pest infestation.
Ann. Biol. Res., 1(4): 61-66.

Charriere, J. D. and A. Imdorf. 1997. Protection of honeycombs from moth damage. Swiss Bee Research
Center Federal Dairy Research Station, Communication No. 21: 1-15.

Earp, E. A. 1925. The wax moth and its control. NZ Jl. Agric., 31 (1): 26-28.

Edward, J.T., 2019. Wax Moth Infestation and its Management in Indian Honey bee, Apis cerana F.
Colonies in Tamil Nadu. Madras Agricultural Journal, 106: 1-3

Fakhimzadeh, K., 2001. Powdered sugar dusting for the control of varroosis. Proc. 37th Int. Apic.
Cong, 28.

Hanumanthaswamy, B. C., Venkatesh,H. and M. V. Nagaraja. 2009. Influence of different species of

honey bee combs on the life stages and biological parameters of greater wax moth, Galleria
mellonella L. Karnataka J. Agric. Sci., 22: 670-671.

Hosamani, V., Hanumantha Swamy, B. C., Kattimani, K. N. and C.M. Kalibavi. 2017. Studies on biology of
greater wax moth (Galleria mellonella L.). Int J Curr Microbiol App Sci., 6: 3811-5.

Kannagara, A.W. 1940. Bee keeping the wax moth. Trop. Agric., 94 (2): 94-98.

Kapil, R. P. and R. C. Sihag. 1983. Wax moth and its control. Indian Bee J., 45:47-49.

Kebede, E., Redda, Y. T., Hagos, Y. and N.A. Ababelgu. 2015. Prevalence of wax moth in modern hive with
colonies in kafta humera. Animal and Veterinary Sciences., 3(5): 132-135.

Kushram, T., Sahu, M.K. and Bairwa, P.L., 2022. Package and practices of apiculture., 11(2): 719-724

Meixner, M. D. 2010. A historical review of managed honey bee populations in Europe and the United
States and the factors that may affect them. Journal of invertebrate pathology, 103: 80-95.

Negi, N., Thakur, M., Sharma, H. K. and K. Rana .2019. Incidence and management of greater wax moth,
Galleria mellonella. Journal of Entomological Research, 43(2):139-143.

Paddock, F. B., 1918. The beemoth or waxworm. Texas Agri. Expt. Station.Bull., 2: 231

Pirk, C. W., Strauss, U., Yusuf, A. A., Démares, F. and H.Human. 2016. Honeybee health in Africa- a
review. Apidologie., 47(3) :276-300.

Pokhrel, S., Thapa, R. B., Neupane, F. P. and S.M. Shrestha. 2006. Absconding behavior and
management of Apis cerana F. honeybee in Chitwan, Nepal. Journal of the Institute of Agriculture
and Animal Science., 27: 77-86.

Rinderer, T. E., De Guzman, L.I., Delatte, G.T. and C. Harper. 2003. An evaluation of ARS Russian honey
bees in combination with other methods for the control of Varroa mites. Americ. Bee J., 143 (5):
410-413.

Tsegaye, A., Wubie, A. J., Eshetu, A. B. and M.Lemma. 2014. Evaluation of different nonchemical wax
moth prevention methods in the backyards of rural beekeepers in the North West dry land areas
of Ethiopia. J. Agric. Vet. Sci., 7(3): 29-36.

Whitcomb, W. J. 1936. The greater wax moth and its control. Circular. U.S.D.A NO, 386: 1.

Volume 109 | Issue 10-12 | 6

Table 1. Influence of different laminated bottom board on the Galleria mellonella in Apis cerana indica
and Incidence of wax moth larva

Mean % of infestation
Treatments Mean
1st week 2nd week 3rd week 4th week
Glass plate 2.00 (1.39) 1.75 (1.31) 1.00 (1.00) 1.00 (1.00) 1.44 (1.17)b
OHP 1.75 (1.29) 4.25 (2.06) 2.75 (1.65) 1.00 (1.00) 2.44 (1.50)c
Mica 1.00(1.00) 1.00 (1.00) 1.00 (1.00) 1.00 (1.00) 1.00 (1.00)a
Cardboard 3.75 (1.92) 1.00 (1.00) 1.00 (1.00) 3.25 (1.80) 2.25 (1.43)c
Control 6.00 (2.44) 2.50 (1.57) 2.75 (1.65) 4.00 (1.99) 3.81 (1.91)d
Mean 2.90 (1.61)c 2.10 (1.39)b 1.70 (1.26)a 2.05 (1.36)ab

The counts are mean of four replications; Figures in parenthesis are square root(X+0.5)
transformed values; CD (P = 0.05)

Between Treatments : 0.11**

Between Counts : 0.99**
Treatments x Counts : 0.22**

Table 2. Influence of different laminated bottom board on the Incidence of wax moth pupae, Galleria
mellonella

Mean % of infestation
Treatments Mean
1st week 2nd week 3rd week 4th week
Glass plate 4.00 (1.99) 2.00 (1.41) 0.50 (0.71) 1.00 (1.00) 1.88 (1.27)b
OHP 3.00 (1.72) 4.00 (1.98) 2.25 (1.49) 2.00 (1.40) 2.81 (1.65)d
Mica 2.00(1.43) 0.25 (0.50) 0.25 (0.50) 1.00 (1.00) 0.88 (0.86)a
Cardboard 3.00 (1.75) 0.50 (0.72) 3.00 (1.75) 4.00 (2.02) 2.63 (1.56)c

Volume 109 | Issue 10-12 | 7

Control 8.00 (2.83) 3.00 (1.74) 2.00 (1.42) 2.25 (1.50) 3.81 (1.87)e
Mean 4.00 (1.94)d 1.95 (1.27)b 1.60 (1.17)a 2.05 (1.39)c

The counts are mean of four replications; Figures in parenthesis are square root(X+0.5)
transformed values; CD (P = 0.05)

Between Treatments : 0.03**

Between Counts : 0.03**
Treatments x Counts : 0.06**

Volume 109 | Issue 10-12 | 8