Identification of major honeybee pests and predators’ and associated risk factors: Emphasis to bee-eater birds (meropidae) in west Shewa zone of Oromia regional state, Ethiopia

Dinaol Belina, Tamiru Daba, Amare Eshetu and Bulto Giro¹

College of Veterinary Medicine, Haramaya University, P O Box 138, Dire Dawa, Ethiopia
belina.timketa@gmail.com
¹ College of Veterinary Medicine and agriculture, Addis Ababa University, P OBox 34, Bishoftu, Ethiopia

Abstract

A cross-sectional study was conducted to identify major honeybee pests and predators’, associated risk factors and to assess community knowledge on beekeeping activity from September 2014 to August 2015 in west Shewa zone of Oromia regional state. In this study, a semi structured questionnaires and or interviews were used and a total of 168 representative households were participated. Sex, age, education level, and previous beekeeping experience of respondents were considered in stratifying respondents to minimize confounder. Season, hive type; agro-ecology and time in a day were also other study variables.

Our study result indicated bee-eater birds (meropidae), ants (dorylus fulvus), wax moth (galleria mellonella), spider ( misumena vatia) and honey badger (mellivora capensis) were the most significant honeybee pets and predators among others, in their descending order. Specifically, 49.4% of the respondents mentioned bee-eater birds as the top challenging honeybee predator with rank index of 0.24 in the area. Phenotypic taxonomic classification of bee-eater birds (meropidae) wwas also conducted from live birds caught and pictures were taken during observational field study. The effect of pests and predators had variation with time in a day and among seasons, where the serious damaging effect 63.79% and 35.52%, were found at any time in a day and during the winter, respectively. Despite all pests and predators constraints, beekeepers were recommended to have training on honeybee marketing and management. Further studies should also be conducted to clearly identify significant honeybee pests and predators’ in west Shewa.

Key words: community knowledge, phenotypic classification, rank index

Introduction

Honeybees produce valuable products including honey without competing with other activities of agriculture and forestry. Moreover, as an insect pollinating efficiently the flowering plants, they pollinate vegetables and trees, playing an important role in promoting agriculture and forestry (Nakamura et al 2009). Although thousands of tones of honey have been produced every year in Ethiopia, the products obtained from the subsector have been observed to be still low as compared to the potential of the country (Edessa 2005). The low yield of honey and other beekeeping products resulted from insufficient management practices and lack of adequate beekeeping training (Bhusal and Thapa 2005; Masuku 2013). Beekeeping in tropical climates frequently suffers from damage caused by different pests. In Ethiopia Honeybee predators has been reported from all classes of vertebrate animals. Reptiles, frogs, toads, birds, lizards, mammals like, monkey or apes, mice and honey badger are common (Amsalu and Desalegn 2001; Kebede and Lemma 2007 ).

More than 15 Honeybee pests have been reported from Ethiopia: Ant (different types), wax moth (greater and lesser wax moths), mice, birds (different types), honey badger, wasps, death's head hawks moth, bee lice (braula coeca), beetles (different types), lizards, toads/frog, prey-mantis, spiders, pseudo scorpions (chelifer species) (Began 2001 ; Amsalu and Desalegn 2001; Desalegn and Yosef 2005; Amsalu et al 2009; Amsalu et al 2010).“Avi base” bird species found in Ethiopia are Red-throated Bee-eater(Merops bulocki), Little Bee-eater(Merops pusillus), Blue-breasted Bee-eater(Merops variegatus), Swallow-tailed Bee-eater(Merops hirundineus), Somali Bee-eater(Merops revoilii), White-throated Bee-eater(Merops albicollis), Green Bee-eater(Merops orientalis), Blue-cheeked Bee-eater(Merops persicus), Madagascar Bee-eater(Merops superciliosus), European Bee-eater(Merops apiaster), Northern Carmine Bee-eater(Merops nubicus) (Lepage 2016). The bee-eaters are a fairly uniform group, morphologically and are highly aerial. They take off strongly from perches, fly directly without undulating, and are able to change directions quickly (Hilary 2001).

The effect of Honeybee colony declining situation on the country’s economy has been reported by different researchers in Ethiopia and is certainly frightening. However, effect of honeybee pests and predators’ is not well studied in the country particularly, in west Shewa zone of Oromia regional state.

Therefore, the objectives of this study were:-to identify important Honeybee pests and predators’ and associated risk factors; and to know status and current knowledge of community on beekeeping activity at west Shewa zone.

Materials and methods

Study Area

The study was conducted from September 2014 to August 2015 in west Shewa zone of Oromia regional state, Ethiopia. The zone has a total population of 2,058,676, of whom 1,028,501 are men and 1,030,175 women; with an area of 14,788.78 square kilometers. Topographically, the zone is located at 9°8'22.13" latitude (north) and 37°51'0.57 longitude (east) in altitude range of 1000 to 3500 meters above sea level. The area encompasses low land, mid land and high land environments with respective shares of 25%, 30% and 45%. The average annual rainfall ranges 750mm-1300mm with temperature range of 13-31^Oc. West Shewa zone has about 20 districts and apiculture is one of socio-economic sector practiced as main and side business in most of the districts. According to the source in 2012, only from Meta robi and Adea berga districts of west Shewa about 20020 honeybee colonies are recorded (NMSA 2013).

Study design

A semi structured questionnaires and or interviews were conducted on representatives of beekeepers selected from the choicen peasant associations(PAs) to know the current knowledge of beekeepers and to identify major honeybee pests and predators’ of the area. During the interviews with beekeepers a total of 168 Honeybee colony owners’ households were participated to mention the main honeybee pests and predators’, their effects, to rank pests and predators’ depending on their challenges, and relate them to associated risk factors such as variation with time in a day, season and habitat. They were also intervied to generate indigenous knowledge and their experience in relation with the modern apiery. Age and education level and previous beekeeping experience of the respondents were also considered for stratification to know their knowledge on beekeeping and its challenges. Detail field investigation and observation of honeybee pests and predators’, and hive types of the study area were also visited.

Sampling Techniques and Procedures

West Shewa zone was purposively selected and two stages stratified sampling technique was employed to select district and peasant associations (PAs). The PAs involved in beekeeping were identified and chosen considering their altitude differences, and number of Honeybee colony found. Then four PAs: Ketketo Jigjigs, Dulla, Huluko birbirsa and Kechema walensu were selected from lowland and midland agro-ecology of the zone. Proportional allocation of beekeepers was employed to select respondents in each PA. Accordingly, a total of 168 beekeepers were systematically selected; where 96 beekeepers were from low altitude area (Dulla and ketketo jijiga) and 72 keepers from mid altitude area (Huluko birbirsa and Kechema walensu) the zone.

Study methodology

Questionnaires and or interviews

Based on the information obtained from secondary data and preliminary survey, semi-structured questionnaire was developed and pre-tested for its consistency and applicability to the objectives of the study, regarding Honeybee pests and predators’, the season and time period in a day at which the pests and predators` challenges are most serious. As well as the respondents were questioned to rank the effect of pests and predators on beekeeping activity and to generate their indigenous knowledge and experience on apairy activity.

Field Investigation

Field observation and direct assessment was conducted to support questionnaires and or Interviews data. During this period, apiaries, pests and predators of the study area were visited and identified as well as pictures were taken. Particularly, trapping nests were prepared to catch the observed bee-eater birds and the caught bee-eater birds were classified based on morphological characterization according to Fry and Fry (2000). In this, birds were caught by covering the hole (underground nest) of the bird with trapping nets made from mosquito nets, after the bird entered into the hole.

Pests and predators rank determination

In this study, rank index calculation for honeybee(Apis melifera) pests and predators was also conducted according to Musa et al (2006), to put them in their challenging order of importance on Honeybee production in the study area. The calculation was made as:

Rank index= sum of (3*number of beekeepers ranked first +2*number of beekeepers ranked second + 1*number of bee keepers ranked third) for individual reason, criteria or preference divided by sum of (3*number of household ranked first +2*number of household ranked second + 1*number of households ranked third).

Data analysis

The data collected from direct observation and questionnaires and or interviews were analyzed using SPSS version 20.0 software. The study variables were analyzed by chi- square and descriptive statistics were also used to calculate prevalence of study variables. Rank index calculation was employed to put honeybee pests and predators’ in order of their importance at the study area.

Results

The study was conducted to identify important honeybee pests and predators’ and to know status and current knowledge of community on beekeeping activity in different PAs of west Shewa.

Out of 168 total respondents, 133(79.2%) people do not knew about apiculture, they were engaged in beekeeping only due to inheritance from parents. Only 8(4.76%) knew well what apiculture is and why they were occupied in beekeeping activity. Majority of the respondents 129(76.8%) took beekeeping activity as side business whereas 39(23.2%) people engaged to apiculture as their main activity as source of income. All of the respondents had information about Honeybee pests and predators’; however, only 13(7.74%) experienced about Honeybee disease. Some of the respondents had also no to very little knowledge on feedstock (things which are used as raw material in honey production) which are mandatory for honey production. Our study also indicated only 39(23.21%) of the beekeepers had market access to sell honey and its byproducts and were supplying to market to get income. 111(66.1%) the respondents had either no market access to sell or did not know whether honey and or its byproducts was sold in market, whereas the rest 18(10.7%) beekeepers believed that selling honey and or its byproducts is culturally shame (table.1).

From the demographic characteristics of the respondents in the questionnaire survey, most of the interviewed beekeepers were male (95.8%), the rest (4.20%) were female. The educational status of beekeepers included in the study were 46.4% illiterate, whereas government employed agricultural professionals were only 2.40 % (n=168) (table 2).

The study result indicated traditional hive type was highly dominating (96.2%) the other hives. Engagement of the respondents in apiary activities was by far higher in low altitude agro-ecology particularly in Dulla than the other PAs included in the study. In the study area, only six (6) modern hive types (0.55%) was found which was in Huluko birbirsa PA (table 3, graph 1).

Graph 1. Proportions of hive types at  the study area

As respondents and district bee experts update on the challenges of pests and predators ants, bee-eater birds, wax moth, spider and honey badger were listed as a major cause of Honeybee and their product losses. Whereas other predators like lizard, hamagot, snake and mice were listed as those with minor effects (table: 4). The Rank index result of the survey data analysis also indicated bee-eater birds and ants were the first two most important predators challenging the beekeeping business being the first and the second challenging predators with rank index of 0.24 and 0.23, respectively (graph. 1).

Graph 2. Ranking pests and predators in their challenings

The respondents were also asked the effect of pests and predators in relation to variation of time in the day (morning, afternoon, night etc.) and season on their beekeeping business. There was a great difference among individual pests and predators where 94.1% of the respondents described honeybee production loss during the rainy season (summer) was due to ants, whereas none of the respondents mentioned the challenge of spider during the rainy season. In relation to variations of time in the day, majority of the respondents (63.8%) mentioned the challenge of pests and predators had no specific time, rather Honeybee pests and predators’ were challenging at any time in the day(table 5).

During field observation the nest of bee-eater birds were found on hilly area of riverside banks and the direction of the bird trapping were from bottom or top of the bird nest that bird couldn’t recognize the movement. Birds caught were removed from the nets as soon as they were trapped. By using this method, bee-eater birds were caught and their phenotypic and body shape appearance were recorded (table: 6).

All of the respondents had information about honeybee pests and predators’; they mostly use local names (Afan Oromo) while explaining their challenging effects on honey bee and their products (table 7).

Picture indicating bee-eater bird caught and nest (habitat) at the study period

Photo 1. Nest of bee-eater birds

Photo 2. Bee-eater birds on tree branches from Dulla

Photo 3. Bee-eater birds an on the tree branch after bird capture

Discussion

In this study, majority of the study participants had poor level of knowledge on apiculture; only 8(4.76%) knew well what apiculture is and why they were occupied in beekeeping activity. Among the total respondents, 133(79.2%) people do not knew about apiculture, they were engaged in beekeeping only because of adoption of it from parents and from the surrounds. This low knowledge level of the community may be related to traditional adoption of beekeeping from families or the surrounding commutes with negative attitudes to the sector. The level of beekeepers' experience in continuously engaged to beekeeping also determines the level of respondents’ knowledge. Based on their exposure, young people gradually move on to become independent beekeepers as soon as they can obtain their own hives. Jatema and Abebe (2015) also suggested formal training programs giving emphasis to practical demonstration of essential concepts especially in improved beekeeping for illiterate local people in Ethiopia. Majority of the respondents (76.8%) took beekeeping activity as side business in their socio-economic life. Unlikely, Wambua et al (2016), reported from Kenya that about 58.0% respondents consider beekeeping as a major economic activity.

The bees and their products are vulnerable to various diseases, parasites and pests. According to Begna (2015), three microbial diseases, namely Nosema apis, Malpighamoeba mellificae and Ascosphaera apis are investigated being associated with local honey bees in Ethiopia. However, in this study, only 13(7.74%) of the respondents were experienced about honeybee disease, though they had fully informed about honeybee pests and predators. Similarly, Kebede and Lemma (2007), also reported that none of their interviewed beekeepers are responded for the availability of bee diseases. Such missed information may be raised from difficulty in understanding honeybee disease in comparison to livestock diseases.

Honey is a sweet syrupy substance produced by honeybees from nectar of flowers and used by humans as a sweetener and a spread. It is comprised of 17-20% water, 76-80% glucose, and fructose, pollen, wax, and mineral salts (Petrosillo 2008). Apart from this, only 33.93% and 94.64% of the respondents had good knowledge about the use of water and flowering plants/forest in honey production. Our study result indicated, 66.1% of the respondents had either no market access to sell or did not know whether honey and or its byproducts were sold in market. On the other hand, 10.7% beekeepers believed that selling honey and or its byproducts is culturally shame. They used honey for preparation of a culturally respected and locally familiar drink called tej brewery/daadhii. Belie (2009), also stated in his study on honeybee production and marketing systems in Burie, Ethiopia; the market for honey is generally not well developed in Burie district mainly due to limited number of buyers relative to the number of producers. This author also explained, in the country as a whole collecting and selling of beeswax by beekeepers is not known. In agreement to this, at our study area also about 23.2% of beekeepers had refused selling of honey and or its byproducts because of cultural norms; they believed since honey is highly respected, they kept it in their house to drink with their respected guests/relatives on festival days.

In this study, the general respondents characteristics such as sex, age and educational status were considered and associated to apiculture practiced in the west Shewa zone. Most of the interviewed bee keepers were male (95.8%), the rest (4.20%) were females. The limited number of female participants in beekeeping activity is agreed with Mujuni et al (2012); Kebede and Tadesse (2014). Getu and Birhan (2014), also reported males engaged in beekeeping activity than females. This is because of the fact that traditionally cultural norms in Ethiopia consider beekeeping as men’s job only. Belie (2009) also described that participation of women in beekeeping activities is very low mainly because of fear of bee stings and lack of experience.

Majority of the respondents (46.4%) who had been engaged with beekeeping were illiterate local people where only 2.40% of beekeepers at the study area were employed agricultural professionals. This may be due to the fact that illiterate local people have good knowledge of their environment, provide substantial inputs, in the form of labor and technical skills on traditional system of practicing beekeeping than literate. They have a capacity for self organization and posses’ social and cultural wealth. The study result agreed with the findings of Jatema and Abebe (2015), who reported 42.9% of beekeepers in Oromia special zone Walmara district cannot read and write. These authors also reported that only 14.3% and 0.80% of respondents attended high school and higher level, respectively. However, in our study 20.2% and 13.1% were attended high school, and college and university levels, respectively. Unlike the current study, the Wambua et al (2016), reported from Kenya that beekeeping adoption rate is high at higher education level. In none and primary education levels, the rate of adoption is relatively low. The variation may be due to differences in study area where people in different regions or countries may have different attitudes. On the other hand, beekeeping is a traditional art among the local community and adoption is passed-on from generation to generation traditionally.

In current study, age of respondents was also considered as important factor and large proportion of the beekeepers (36.3%) were those between ages of 37 and 47 years which is the productive ages in Ethiopia. In attribute to this Beyene and Verschuur (2014) also reported from Wonchi district of south west Shewa zone that farmers in the most productive age are actively engaged in beekeeping activities. Those less than age of 25 years were the least involved in beekeeping. This finding is also consistent with the findings of Wambua et al (2016) who explained that the youth in the 18-30 year age bracket may often have a negative attitude towards beekeeping and are reluctant to take up the practice.

The current result showed traditional hive was the leading (96.2%) hive type that had been used in the west Shewa where transitional and modern hives constitute only 3.28% and 0.55%, respectively, (table 3). In the traditional beekeeping method, beekeepers got knowledge from experienced beekeepers with the knowledge being passed from generation to generation. Hence, majority of beekeepers had been using traditional hive types. Beekeepers also preferred local hive for its convenience to construct, quantity of wax produced and cost effectiveness and less dependency on external inputs. Attributing to our result CSA (2013), reported in the national bee hive usage status 95.0% of the beekeepers are traditional beehive owners but the rest are modern and transitional beehives owners. However, these findings are definitely different from the study by Haftu et al (2015), in central zone of Tigray who reported 41% household heads use both traditional and modern beehives and the rest 27.7%, 30.1% and 1.20% only owns traditional, modern and transitional beehives, respectively. This may be due to intentional difference between the two regions and continuous training program for beekeepers may also improve the beekeeping management practice. In most PAs of west Shewa, apiculture is considered as side business in traditional method where farmers primary engaged in crop and livestock productions as source of income.

The present survey data analysis result indicated the beekeepers listed major pests and predators challenging the study area ranking as bee-eater birds, ants, wax moth, spider and, honey badger though other predators (hamagot, snake, death head hawks moth, mice and lizard) were also reported. Bee-eater birds were significantly (p<0.05; with rank index of 0.24) serious honeybee predator of the study area. Ants mentioned as the second most challenging, constituting 42.86% with rank index of 0.23 while wax moth and spiders were the third and fourth most challenging pests and predators with rank index of 0.19 and 0.13, respectively, (table. 4). This result agreed with the finding of Jatema and Abebe (2015), who ranked bee-eater birds as top challenging honeybee predators followed by ants. However, the current finding contradicted with the report of Belie (2009), in which ants were identified as the top ranking pests followed by bee lice and wax moth. This result also contradicted with the report of Hailemariam et al (2015), who ranked as: wax moth, honey badger, ants, bee-eater birds, monkey, lizard, spider, prey mantis, bee lice, beetles, wasps and snake in order of decreasing importance. Unlike the report of Wambua et al (2016), from Kenya that honey badger is top challenging honeybee predators, followed by ants. These differences may be due to the variation in agro-ecology of the study areas as the Ethiopian climate variation among different regions is not only favorable for honey bees but also for different pests and predators.

Seasonal predator effect comparison was also another factor investigated in this study. Beekeepers were asked to associate pests and predators’ effects with seasonal variation (table.3). The effect of honeybee pests and predators’ in relation to the permanent Ethiopian seasonal environmental change showed significantly there was differences (p<0.05). Bee-eater birds were the top challenging predator during the spring at the study area whereas the second important pest(ants) were mentioned with serious damages during summer (rainy season). While the effects of wax moth and spider arose during winter (dearth period). This finding is partially agreed with report of Jatema and Abebe (2015) who described the serious damage of pests and predators occur during autumn, spring, summer and winter in decreasing order of importance. The study also tried to identify the time period in a day at which the effects of pests and predators were more serious and the time in a day at which the pests and predators affect the apiary was statistically significant (p=0.00). Accordingly, 65.5% of the respondents mentioned the bee-eater birds were highly challenging during the morning. While 29.8% of the responded beekeepers mentioned, the effects of bee-eater birds were equally high during the morning and the late afternoon producing the same damaging effect. The study also revealed 85.7% and 95.2% of the respondents listed ants and wax moth were damaging beekeeping business any time, respectively (table: 5).

Knowing the habitat of the organism was one of the most important things used to prevent pests and predators from the apiary. Habitat is one of the most important features determining the distribution and settlement of species (Fry and Fry 2000). The current study also tried to reveal the habitats of the major predators harming honey bees of the study area. The most important habitats of bee-eater birds were in hole (underground nest) and tree (bush) branches. These differences may be due variations in soil types following the altitudinal differences of low and mid altitudes; because bee-eater birds prefer sandy soiled area to dig their nests where they live. Habitat selection may vary from the geographical region to the landscape level and further down to the optimal patch (Desalegn and Yosef 2005).

In current study, all observed and caught bee-eater bird species were taxonomically classified and comparison was made according to the previous findings of (Lessel and Ovenden 1989; Hugh 1949; Ali and Ripley 1973; Fry and Fry 2000; Alan and Peterson 2005; Yosef et al 2006). The bee-eater birds caught, in the bird-trapping nets were described and identified morphologically by the shape of their body; length of the bird; the shape of their beak; colors of their feathers; the face, chin, throat, chest, flanks and belly, the shape and color of their eyes, mandible, crown, nape, tail, legs, and the shape of the feet, length of wing and etc. (table: 5).

The results showed that the bee-eater birds found at all PAs were morphologically similar where they were richly colored, green upper part, yellow throat and blue breast band. This result made confusion with four species of bee-eater birds namely; Merops variegates Merops pusillus,Merops areobates and Merops hirundineus. However, since they lacked white lashes on the neck side which found on merops variegates, merops areobate and merops hirundineus, the species of bee-eater bird identified as the top challenging honeybee predator in west Shewa was found to be Merops pusillus (litter bee-eater).

Conclusions

• West Shewa had huge number of honeybee colonies, which were managed traditionally.
  
  
• Our study also showed due to different constraints mainly honeybee pests and predators’ such as bee-eater birds, ants, wax moth, spider and other predators, and unsatisfactory technological and profession support, the rural beekeepers had not  sufficiently benefited from the sector.
  
  
• Among pests and predators bee-eater birds were the top challenge in honeybee production and business.
  
  
• Awareness creation on the use of modern beehivess and professional training on technology of colony management, and the role of enhancing apiculture as climate smart agriculture sector should be given attention in west Shewa zone.
  
  
• Strategic mechanism for prevention and control of honeybee pests and predators should also be adopted for future increment of the production.

References

Alan P and Peterson M D 2005 Merops superciliosus Linnaeus (Olive bee-eater).Zoonomen zoological Nomenclature Resource, 11:05, website, version 05. http://www.zoonomen.net

Ali S and Ripley S D 1973 Handbook of the birds of India and Pakistan. Oxford University Press: 4(2)108–111. http://www.abebooks.co.uk/book-search/title/handbook-of-the-birds-of-india-and-pakistan/author/ali/

Amsalu B Alemayehu G Gemechis L and Kibebew W 2010 Diagnostic survey of Honeybee diseases and pests in Ethiopia. Annual Report of Holeta Research Center.

Amsalu B and Desalegn B 2001 Survey of Honeybee pest and Pathogen in South and South west parts of Ethiopia. 16^th Proceedings of E.V.A., 86-93.

Amsalu B Dessaleg B Alemayehu G and Taye 2009 Diagnostic survey of honeybee diseases and pests with emphasis to varroa mite: a parasitic mite of honey bees (Apis mellifera L.) in Oromia. Holeta bee research centre, Annual report 3-5.

Begna D 2015 Honeybee diseases and Pests research progress in Ethiopia: A review. Afri. J. Insects. 3(1), 093-096. http://internationalscholarsjournals.org/journal/aji/articles/honeybee-diseases-and-pests

Began D 2001 Honeybee pests and predators of Ethiopia. 3^rd Proceedings of National Conference of Ethiopian Beekeeping Association, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. 59-67.

Belie T 2009 Honeybee production and marketing systems, constraints and opportunities in Burie District of Amhara Region, Ethiopia. MSc thesis (Animal Production). 116p. Bahir Dar (Ethiopia): Bahir Dar University. https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/721

Beyene T and Verschuur M 2014 Assessment of constraints and opportunities of honey production in Wonchi district South West Shewa Zone of Oromia, Ethiopia.American Journal of Research Communication, 2(10): 342-353, ISSN: 2325-4076. www.usa-journals.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Beyene_Vol210.pdf

Bhusal S J and Thapa R B 2005 Comparative study on the adoption of improved beekeeping technology for poverty alleviation. J. Inst. Agric. Anim. Sci. 26:117-125. www.idosi.org/ajn/3(1)14/2.pdf

Block W M and Brennan L A 1993 The habitat concept in ornithology. Current Ornithology. Theory and application.11: 35-91.

CS A 2013 Agricultural Sample Survey, Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Volume II Report on Livestock and Livestock Characteristics (Private Peasant Holdings). Addis Ababa, Ethiopia; 21-45.

Desalegn B and Yosef K 2005 Survey of Honeybee pests and pathogens in Addis Ababa Region. 5^th Proceedings of Annual Conference of Ethiopian Beekeeping Association. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Edessa N 2005 Survey of Honey Production System in West Shewa Zone. In Proceedings of the 4th Ethiopian Beekeepers Association (EBA), Held in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, October 25-26, 2005.

Fry K and Fry C H 2000 Kingfishers, Bee-Eaters and Rollers. A Hand book. 1^st ed. Princeton University Press, New jersey. 128-133. https://www.amazon.com/Kingfishers-Bee-Eaters-Rollers-Hilary-Fry/dp/0691087806

Getu A and Birhan M 2014 Chemical analysis of honey and major honey production challenges in and around gondar. Ethio. Acad. J. Nutr., 3(1): 06-14. www.idosi.org/ajn/3(1)14/2.pdf

Hailemariam A Tolemariam T and Debele k 2015 Assessment of honey production and marketing systems in three selected woredas of Tigray region, Ethiopia. Basic Res. J. Agric. Res. Rev. 4(10), 304-315. www.basicresearchjournals.org/agric/pdf/Hailemariam%20et%20al.pdf

Haftu K Daniel D Gebru B Tsegay G Guash A Guesh G Mulualem Z and Gebrekiros G 2015 Analysis of honey Production Opportunities and Challenges in central zone of Tigray northern, Ethiopia. J. Sci. and Res. Pub. 5(4): 2250-3153. www.ijsrp.org/research-paper-0415/ijsrp-p4071.pdf

Hilary F 2001 “Family Meropidae (Bee-eaters)". In del Hoyo, Josep; Elliott, Andrew; Sargatal, Jordi. Handbook of the Birds of the World. Volume 6, Mousebirds to Hornbills. Barcelona: Lynx Edicions. pp. 286–325. ISBN 978-84-87334-30-6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handbook_of_the_Birds_of_the_World

Hugh W. 1949 Popular Handbook of Indian Birds.4^th Edition, Gurney and Jackson 295–296, https://archive.org/details/popularhandbooko033226mbp

Jatema D and Abebe B 2015 Survey on Major Honeybee Pests and Predators in Oromia Special Zone Surrounding Finfine in Walmara District. IDOSI. ejbs.7(2): 62-70, ISSN 2079-2085. www.idosi.org/ejbs/7(2)15/4.pdf

Kebede H and Tadesse G 2014 Survey on Honeybee production system, challenges and opportunities in selected areas of Hadya Zone, Ethiopia. J. Agri. Biotech. and sustain. dev. 6(6):60-66. www.academicjournals.org/journal/JABSD/article-full-text-pdf/21B0A8448244

Kebede T and Lemma T 2007 Study of honey production system in Adami Tulu Jido Kombolcha district in mid rift valley of Ethiopia. LRRD;19(11). www.lrrd.org/lrrd19/11/kebe19162.htm

Lepage D 2016 Bird check list of the world, Ethiopia. Clements, version 2015. http://avibase.bsc-eoc.org/checklist.jsp?lang=EN&region=et&list=clements

Lessells C and Ovenden G 1989 Heritability of Wing Length and Weight in European Bee- Eaters (Merops apiaster). The Condor 91(1): 210-214. www.planetofbirds.com/european-bee-eater-article-2

Masuku M B 2013 Socio economic analysis of beekeeping in Swaziland: A case study of the Manzini region, Swaziland. J. Dev. Agri. Econ. 5(6): 236-241. www.academicjournals.org/journal/JDAE/article-full-text-pdf/9E01CC12281

Mujuni A Natukunda K and Kugonza D R 2012 Factors affecting the adoption of beekeeping and associated technologies in Bushenyi District, Western Uganda. LRRD. 24(8). www.lrrd.org/lrrd24/8/muju24133.htm

Musa L M Peters K J and Ahmed M A 2006 On farm characterization of Butana and Kenana cattle breed production systems in Sudan. Livestock research for rural development. 18(12). www.lrrd.org/lrrd18/12/musa18177.htm

Nakamura J Gikungu M W Kano Y Hanzawa K Gichora M Morimoto Y Ogawa H Fujiyosi H and Udagawa 2009 Development of Beekeeping in Developing Countries and Practical Procedures ,Case Study in Africa .JAICAF, Japan. www.jaicaf.or.jp/English/bee_en.pdf

NMSA 2013 National Metrological Service Agency. Meta robi branch, A. Report.

Petrosillo N 2008 "Natural Products and Wound Management: A Never-Ending Story". Clinical Infectious Diseases. 47(5): 730-1. http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/47/5/730.2.full

Wambua B M Musimba N K R and Muli E 2016 Assessment of performance indices of frame hive beekeeping and the traditional technology in Kenya: A case of Kitui County. Ijern. 4(5). ISSN: 2411-5681. www.ijern.com/journal/2016/May-2016/20.pdf

Yosef R Markovets L Mitchell L and Tryjanowski P 2006 Body condition determinant for stopover in bee-eaters (Merops apiaster) on spring migration in the Arava Valley, southern Israel. elsevier. J. of Arid Environments. 64(3): 401-411. www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140196305001503

Received 8 August 2016; Accepted 8 October 2016; Published 1 December 2016

Go to top