Insights from U.S. beekeeper triage surveys following unusually high honey bee colony losses 2024-2025

Anthony Nearman; Christopher L. Crawford; Maria Marta Guarna; Priyadarshini Chakrabarti; Katie Lee; Steven C. Cook; Elizabeth Hill; Arathi Seshadri; Garett P. Slater; Zachary S. Lamas; Yanping Chen; Danielle Downey; Jay Daniel Evans

doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2025.180650

The Science of The Total EnvironmentOct 8, 2025EcologyPeer-reviewed journal article

Insights from U.S. beekeeper triage surveys following unusually high honey bee colony losses 2024-2025

Anthony Nearman iD, Christopher L. Crawford iD, Maria Marta Guarna iD, Priyadarshini Chakrabarti iD, Katie Lee iD, Steven C. Cook iD, Elizabeth Hill, Arathi Seshadri iD, Garett P. Slater, Zachary S. Lamas iD, Yanping Chen iD, Danielle Downey, Jay Daniel Evans iD

PDF DOI Preprint Data

In-depth full-text digest available · Jump to digest ↓

Abstract

In January of 2025, U.S. commercial beekeepers reported unusually high honey bee colony losses as they prepared colonies for almond pollination. Two industry groups launched nationwide surveys to document colony losses between June 2024 and March 2025 across all scales of beekeeping. This study analyzes these survey data to assess colony losses, estimate financial impacts, and identify correlations with beekeeper management practices and geographical locations. Unlike past surveys, commercial beekeepers experienced more severe losses than smaller-scale beekeepers during this period. Respondents, managing over half of U.S. colonies, most frequently cited Varroa mites as the cause for their losses. Varroa mites were followed by pesticides and pathogens in the case of commercial beekeepers and by queen failure and weather in the case of smaller-scale beekeepers. Although Varroa was the most frequently cited cause, losses did not significantly differ between users and non-users of amitraz, suggesting that rising amitraz resistance alone does not explain observed trends. Differences in protein and carbohydrate feeding frequencies also played a role in net losses. While colony loss rates and financial concern varied widely among respondents, commercial beekeepers understandably showed higher sensitivity to financial impacts, with concerns increasing linearly with loss severity. This study highlights the value of beekeeper surveys which, alongside direct analyses of bee samples and longitudinal studies, help identify effective management strategies and environmental risks. Such insights are crucial for addressing the leading causes of colony losses on a national scale, and ultimately aid in safeguarding honey bee health, pollination services, and agricultural production. HighlightsO_LIUnprecedented honey bee colony losses C_LIO_LIIndications of disease stress C_LIO_LIHigh economic pain for commercial beekeepers and growers C_LI

In-depth summary

Claude Opus 5.5 · xhigh effort · 8 Nov 2026 · from the full text of version 2 (22 Aug 2025) · CC0 1.0

Industry surveys covering over half of U.S. managed colonies found widespread 2024-2025 honey bee losses, worst in commercial operations, and no excess loss with amitraz use.

In January 2025 commercial beekeepers reported unusually severe colony losses while preparing for almond pollination, and long-running national surveys, which average roughly 40% annual loss, capture few commercial operations. Two rapid industry surveys reached 280 commercial respondents in the PAm survey alone (versus an average of 41 in recent years of the national Beekeeping Survey) and tested Varroa control, feeding, wintering and climate against losses.

Key results

ShownLosses from June 2024 to early 2025 were widespread across the country. In the PAm survey, commercial operations (>500 hives) lost a significantly larger share of colonies than hobbyists. The ABF survey showed similarly broad but generally lower losses.
PAm: 842 responses (280 commercial, 161 sideliner, 393 hobbyist); commercial vs hobbyist net loss df=2, chi-square 11.925, p=0.003. ABF: 107 responses (87 commercial, 20 smaller-scale), generally lower losses. Respondents covered over 50% of U.S. colonies; recent U.S. Beekeeping Survey years averaged 41 commercial respondents. · 2.1 Survey design and deployment; 3 Results; 4 Discussion
ShownAmitraz use was not linked to extra loss despite known Varroa resistance to it: users of non-amitraz products only lost similar shares. Higher net losses came from commercial beekeepers who did not name their miticide, and from hobbyists using no chemical treatment (compared with non-amitraz users).
PAm (821 Varroa-treatment responses): commercial unnamed-chemistry group vs named-product groups df=3, chi-square 12.78, p=0.005; untreated vs non-amitraz hobbyists df=4, chi-square 13.336, p=0.010. ABF amitraz users had losses comparable to non-users. Mean treatments June to December: 4.7 commercial, 3.5 sideliner, 2.1 hobbyist. · 3 Results; 4 Discussion
SuggestedNeither protein feeding nor carbohydrate feeding frequency was linked to net loss in commercial or hobbyist operations. Only sideliners showed effects: higher loss when protein was given once and lower loss when carbohydrates were fed more than four times.
Protein fed vs not: commercial chi-square 3.536, p=0.060; sideliner 1.992, p=0.158; hobbyist 0.949, p=0.330. Sideliner protein frequency df=3, chi-square 11.960, p=0.008. Sideliner carbohydrate frequency df=1, chi-square 4.808, p=0.028. Only 6 commercial respondents skipped sugar feeding, too few to balance. · 3 Results; 4 Discussion
SuggestedFor sideliners and hobbyists, but not commercial beekeepers, lower losses went with warmer winter minimum temperatures, more active-season rainfall and warmer active-season temperatures. Reported summer loss predicted winter loss in all classes.
Covariate statistics are in Table S1 and Figures S1 to S4, not the main text; mean daily active-season precipitation was non-significant for all classes. Authors attribute the commercial null to migratory or multi-site operations; the summer-winter link was driven mainly by beekeepers with <25% losses. · 3 Results; 4 Discussion
ShownVarroa was the most commonly perceived cause of loss, with pesticides second among commercial operators. Financial concern was highest for commercial beekeepers and rose with their losses. Shed and outdoor wintering gave similar losses (PAm commercial; ABF respondents with over 50 colonies).
Varroa top cause for commercial (n = 280) and sideliner (n = 160) respondents; hobbyists (n = 347) chose Varroa and weather. Multiple causes cited by 18.9% of commercial vs 12.5% sideliner and 8.9% hobbyist respondents. 32% of commercial respondents gave maximal concern on a 10-point Likert scale; sideliner concern rose above ca. 30% loss, hobbyists above 75%. · 3 Results; 4 Discussion

Methods, data and reproducibility

Two industry beekeeper surveys (Project Apis m., 16 questions; American Beekeeping Federation) gathered self-reported June 2024 to early 2025 colony losses and management data. Per-class covariate-balancing weights (WeightIt) built on PRISM state climate variables fed weighted beta regressions of proportion lost, with emmeans contrasts.

Project Apis m. (PAm) colony loss survey, 16 questions, open February 1 to March 15, 2025, recruited via industry outlets and snowball sampling · honey bee (U.S. managed colonies) · n = 842 responses (280 commercial, 161 sideliner, 393 hobbyist)
PAm follow-up survey on operation size, used to estimate total colonies lost · honey bee (U.S. managed colonies) · n = 110 responses (mean sizes from N = 6 sideliners, N = 90 commercial)
American Beekeeping Federation (ABF) member survey on losses, miticides, queen replacement and winter storage · honey bee (U.S. managed colonies) · n = 107 responses (87 commercial, 20 smaller-scale)
PRISM state-level climate: June to September 2024 precipitation and mean temperature; November 2024 to January 2025 mean minimum temperature · n = lower 48 U.S. states
NOAA U.S. Climate Zones used to group respondents' first-listed summer states into regions

Methods & tools: R v4.5.0, WeightIt v1.4.0 (ebal and energy covariate balancing), betareg v3.2-2 (beta regression), emmeans v1.11.1, multcomp v1.4-28 (compact letter display), ggplot2 v3.5.2, PRISM climate data, NOAA U.S. Climate Zones, Community beekeeper surveys (PAm and ABF)
Data & accessions: https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/reference-maps/us-climate-regions
Reagents & environment: R v4.5.0; WeightIt v1.4.0; betareg v3.2-2; emmeans v1.11.1; multcomp v1.4-28; ggplot2 v3.5.2
Reproducibility gaps: Cleaned, de-identified survey data and field metadata are said to be in Supplementary Material (Tables S4-S6), but no repository URL, accession or analysis code is given; the survey instrument is Supplemental file S1.

Limitations (6)

Participation was voluntary and self-reported, so the authors flag possible response bias: commercial respondents may have been more likely to have had high losses. · stated by the authors
The authors acknowledge that these rapid surveys are less complete than long-running colony health surveys such as those of USDA NASS, and they call for field-vetted data. · stated by the authors
The data cannot distinguish migratory from multi-state commercial operations or their losses at each location, which the authors note restricts location-specific analysis of commercial losses. · stated by the authors
Beekeeper classes that could not be covariate-balanced, usually because few responded (e.g., only 6 commercial non-sugar feeders), were left out of significance testing. · stated by the authors
Totals of colonies lost rest on mean operation sizes from a follow-up with only N = 6 sideliners and N = 90 commercial operators, plus an assumed five hives per hobbyist, so the totals carry unquantified uncertainty. · noted in this summary
Many separate weighted tests across questions and classes are reported without correction across questions, so isolated sideliner feeding effects may be chance; the financial-concern loss thresholds also differ between Introduction (40-60%, 80%) and Results (ca. 30%, 75%). · noted in this summary

Read this if you work on honey bee health, Varroa management or pollination economics and want survey evidence on which practices did or did not track with the 2024-2025 U.S. colony losses.