1. Ants in the hive: cause for concern?

Objective Understanding why the presence of ants in or on a hive often triggers spontaneous concern, and why the current state of knowledge calls for a more nuanced reading.

The presence of ants in or on a hive often triggers spontaneous concern. It readily evokes the image of a pest, a predator or a parasite of bees. Yet the current state of knowledge calls for a more nuanced reading. In Switzerland, as more broadly across temperate Europe, the available data do not support the idea that ants constitute a major, well-documented pest of strong Apis mellifera colonies. The peer-reviewed literature describes mainly ants present on hives, exploiting certain resources or associated with the ecology of pathogens, but does not provide robust evidence of a directly quantified impact on the productivity, survival or weakening of strong colonies (Dainat et al., 2011; Schläppi et al., 2020; Tiritelli et al., 2025).

This distinction is essential. Saying that ants are not, in Switzerland, a major well-demonstrated problem does not mean they are always unimportant. Field observations and several empirical studies show that they can visit hives, use certain peripheral elements as passage or nesting sites, exploit accessible resources and interact with bee pathogens (Schläppi et al., 2020; Tiritelli et al., 2025). The available European studies do not show, however, in a rigorous and quantified manner, that ants regularly cause brood losses, reduced productivity, measurable weakening or increased mortality in strong colonies under temperate conditions (Tiritelli et al., 2025).

In the Swiss context, the best-supported findings relate mainly to indirect or contextual effects. The most practically robust is probably the bias ants can introduce when interpreting the natural mite drop: by removing fallen mites from the varroa floor insert, they can lead to an underestimation of the observed infestation level (Dainat et al., 2011). Several studies also show that ants associated with hives can carry bee viruses and sometimes allow them to replicate. This clearly places ants within the health ecology of the apiary, even though their exact role in back-transmission to bees has not yet been demonstrated causally under conditions comparable to those in Switzerland (Schläppi et al., 2020; Tiritelli et al., 2025).

The case of ants of the genus Lasius illustrates this nuance well. In Switzerland, Lasius platythorax has been collected directly from hives, and experimental work showed that Lasius ants could acquire certain bee viruses through the alimentary route; for the Acute Bee Paralysis Virus (ABPV), replication was even demonstrated in these ants (Schläppi et al., 2020). In other words, ants present at the apiary are not mere bystanders with no biological interest. But the practical importance of these species as resource robbers or as a direct weakening factor for colonies remains poorly quantified in temperate Europe (Schläppi et al., 2020; Tiritelli et al., 2025).

The opposite error must also be avoided — concluding that ants can never represent a real problem. In other parts of the world, particularly in systems dominated by invasive species such as Linepithema humile or Nylanderia fulva, far more marked interactions have been observed: intensive exploitation of sugar resources, increased colony stress, higher viral loads in bees and, in some cases, colony absconding (Dobelmann et al., 2023; Payne et al., 2020). But these situations involve different species, different densities and different ecological contexts; they cannot therefore be automatically transposed to Swiss apiaries.

The right question is therefore not simply: "Are there ants in the hive?" It is rather: what are they looking for there, what is really known about their effects in Switzerland, and in which cases does their presence become practically or biologically relevant? That is the question this article seeks to answer. Its objective is neither to trivialise the presence of ants nor to dramatise it, but to distinguish what is well established, what remains plausible without being demonstrated, and what still represents a genuine research gap (Dainat et al., 2011; Dobelmann et al., 2023; Payne et al., 2020; Schläppi et al., 2020; Tiritelli et al., 2025).

---

2. Why do ants come to the apiary?

Objective Understanding what attracts ants to the apiary: accessible resources and favourable micro-habitats, rather than a directed attack on the bees.

When ants are observed in or on a hive, it is tempting to see this straight away as a directed attack on the bees. The available literature leads, however, to a simpler and more plausible interpretation: ants seem to be attracted primarily by accessible resources and favourable micro-habitats. In the available European studies, they are described mainly on crown boards, near entrances, in peripheral elements of the hive or in areas where they can benefit from both a food source and a relatively stable environment (Tiritelli et al., 2025).

The first attractant appears to be food. Apiary observations show that ants can exploit various resources available around colonies: sugary substances, honey, nectar, syrup, pollen, dead bees and, in some cases, brood or other organic matter present in the hive environment (Payne et al., 2020; Tiritelli et al., 2025). The authors note that many ant species frequenting hives have a generalist diet, readily oriented towards sugary substances and other easily exploitable resources. From an ant's perspective, hives therefore offer a potentially rich food environment, even if the actual quantitative importance of this exploitation has not yet been measured in temperate Europe (Tiritelli et al., 2025).

The second attractant concerns the micro-habitat. Ants do not come solely to find a single resource: they can also take advantage of the conditions offered by certain elements of the hive. Tiritelli et al. (2025) suggest that hives may provide relatively stable microclimatic conditions as well as a form of indirect protection against certain predators or external disturbances. This hypothesis is consistent with repeated observations of ants installed on crown boards, in crevices or in other peripheral parts of the hive. It is also compatible with broader work on ant ecology, which shows that the choice of nesting sites and nest architecture respond strongly to thermal and microclimatic constraints (Sankovitz & Purcell, 2021). It should be noted, however, that in the case of beehives these mechanisms remain largely inferred from observations and the general ecology of ants, rather than demonstrated by targeted experiments at the apiary.

Observations made outside Europe point in the same direction and help to visualise possible mechanisms more clearly. In apiaries studied in Texas, Payne et al. (2020) observed ants pillaging sugar resources directly inside hives or in feeders, collecting pollen, consuming dead bees, attacking brood and settling between the roof and the crown board, in the wood of the hive or under objects placed on top of it. These data come from a different ecological context with different ant species and sometimes invasive species, so they should not be transferred directly to Switzerland. They are nevertheless useful for understanding why a hive can represent, from an ant's perspective, both a food source and an opportunistic nesting site (Payne et al., 2020).

At this stage, the most robust conclusion is therefore as follows: ants seem to come to the apiary less to "attack bees" than to exploit a combination of resources and favourable conditions. Sugary substances probably play a central role, which is consistent with the foraging ecology of many ants, largely oriented towards liquid carbohydrates and other easily accessible energy resources (Lanan, 2014). At the same time, certain peripheral hive elements may offer physically attractive conditions for ants seeking a relatively sheltered and thermally favourable site (Sankovitz & Purcell, 2021; Tiritelli et al., 2025). But it must be clear about the level of evidence: in the European beekeeping context, these factors are today strongly suggested, not experimentally demonstrated at the level of the hive.

This precision is important for the rest of the article. If ants are attracted primarily by accessible resources and favourable micro-habitats, then their presence at the apiary must be interpreted mainly as an opportunistic phenomenon. This also explains why certain common-sense beekeeping measures — clean feeding practice, limiting syrup spills, reducing unnecessary shelters, attention to peripheral hive elements — appear biologically plausible, even if they have rarely been tested experimentally directly on beehives (Dainat et al., 2011; Thornley et al., 2024; Tiritelli et al., 2025).

---

3. What is really known in Switzerland

Objective Presenting what Swiss and European data actually show: bias in varroa diagnosis, role in virus ecology, but no evidence of directly quantified weakening of strong colonies.

When strictly limited to the Swiss context, the picture that emerges is both interesting and relatively sober. Ants at the apiary are well documented there, but the most robust data do not support the image of a major pest of strong Apis mellifera colonies. Swiss studies and, more broadly, the European peer-reviewed literature show mainly four things: ants are common at the apiary, certain species are closely associated with hives, they can skew the natural mite drop count, and they participate in the virus ecology of bees. There is, however, no robust empirical basis to date showing that they regularly cause direct, quantified weakening of strong, healthy colonies in Switzerland (Dainat et al., 2011; Schläppi et al., 2020; Tiritelli et al., 2025).

A first observation concerns the frequency of their presence. In French-speaking Switzerland, the exploratory survey by Huber suggests that ants are common in or on hives, particularly in peripheral areas such as the crown board, the roof and the floor drawer. This source is useful for describing field reality and recalling that the presence of ants at the apiary is by no means exceptional. It should be noted, however, that this is a non-standardised descriptive study whose methodological limitations the author himself acknowledges. In other words, Huber informs Swiss beekeeping practice well, but does not in itself constitute a scientific demonstration of biological or economic impact on colonies (Huber, 2024).

The best experimentally demonstrated point in Switzerland concerns varroa diagnosis. Dainat et al. (2011) showed that ants present on hive stands can remove fallen mites from varroa floor inserts, leading to artificially lower counts. In their trial, colonies protected by physical barriers against ants showed mite counts that correlated better with estimates of phoretic infestation. In practice, this means that the presence of ants can bias the interpretation of the natural mite drop, not because it directly alters the actual infestation, but because it alters what the beekeeper observes on the insert (Dainat et al., 2011).

The second area solidly documented in Switzerland concerns the question of pathogens, and more particularly the genus Lasius. Schläppi et al. (2020) showed, at a Swiss apiary, that hive-associated ants — identified in the field as Lasius platythorax and tested experimentally with Lasius niger — could acquire bee viruses through the alimentary route. In their experimental system, Deformed Wing Virus (DWV) and ABPV were detected in the ants, but only ABPV showed signs of replication, accompanied by clinical symptoms in the ants. Moreover, all Lasius platythorax samples collected at the apiary carried ABPV as well as DWV-A and DWV-B, with detection of the ABPV negative strand. In Switzerland, Lasius thus appears as the best-documented example of ants closely associated with hives and biologically relevant from a virological standpoint. This study measured neither brood losses, nor production declines, nor colony survival, nor any other direct damage indicator at the colony level (Schläppi et al., 2020). An important limitation must be highlighted here: the best-documented Swiss data concern species of the genus Lasius; other genera are present at Swiss apiaries (notably Formica, Myrmica, Tetramorium), but their practical importance in this context is far less studied. Findings on Lasius therefore cannot be automatically generalised to all ants present at the apiary.

This is where interpretive caution is essential. What the Swiss data show clearly is that ants are neither mere anecdotal details nor, conversely, a well-demonstrated major pest. They are above all an opportunistic and contextual phenomenon: they visit hives, can take advantage of certain resources or micro-habitats, sometimes skew an important beekeeping diagnostic, and form part of the health landscape of the apiary. What the Swiss data do not show, however, is that they regularly and measurably weaken strong colonies. The European literature generally points in the same direction: it documents mainly the presence of ants on hives, their interface with pathogens and their interest in certain resources, but not a directly quantified effect on colony performance or survival (Schläppi et al., 2020; Tiritelli et al., 2025).

The most accurate formulation at this stage is therefore probably as follows: in Switzerland, ants at the apiary are real and sometimes biologically relevant, but their practical importance as a direct weakening factor for colonies remains poorly quantified. This justifies reasonable beekeeping vigilance — particularly for varroa monitoring and the assessment of health issues — without supporting a dramatised view of ants as a major pest of strong colonies (Dainat et al., 2011; Huber, 2024; Schläppi et al., 2020; Tiritelli et al., 2025).

---

4. Pathogens: an important question, but still incompletely resolved

Objective Precisely distinguishing the four levels of ant–pathogen interaction: carriage, viral replication, reservoir role, and transmission back to bees — indicating what is demonstrated and what remains uncertain.

The question of pathogens is probably the most biologically interesting aspect of the interactions between ants and hives. It requires, however, great precision of language. Several studies now show that hive-associated ants can carry bee viruses and sometimes allow them to replicate. But this does not yet mean that their role as vectors back to bees is clearly demonstrated under the conditions of interest here. To correctly interpret the literature, four levels must therefore be distinguished: carriage of pathogens, viral replication in the ant, a possible reservoir role, and finally back-transmission to bees with a measured effect in bees (Dobelmann et al., 2023; Payne et al., 2020; Schläppi et al., 2020; Tiritelli et al., 2025).

The first level, now well established, is carriage. In several systems, hive-associated ants frequently carry viruses known in the honey bee. In Italy, Tiritelli et al. (2025) detected several bee pathogens in ants nesting in or on hives, notably DWV, Black Queen Cell Virus (BQCV) and Chronic Bee Paralysis Virus (CBPV), with high detection frequencies in adults and, for some, also in ant brood. In the United States, Payne et al. (2020) found at least one bee virus in 89% of ant samples collected in or near apiaries, compared with only 15% at sites without apiaries. In Switzerland, Schläppi et al. (2020) showed that ants of the genus Lasius collected at an apiary also carried several bee-associated viruses. At this stage it can be stated without major hesitation that hive-associated ants are indeed part of the environment in which bee pathogens circulate.

The second level is biologically stronger: it concerns viral replication in the ant. Here, ants are no longer simply organisms contaminated by contact with infected resources; they become, for at least certain viruses, genuine biological hosts. This is precisely what the Swiss study by Schläppi et al. (2020) illustrates. In their experiment, Lasius niger acquired DWV and ABPV after ingesting infected material, but only ABPV showed signs of replication, accompanied by clinical symptoms in the ants. In the field, all Lasius platythorax samples collected at the apiary carried ABPV as well as DWV-A and DWV-B, and ABPV also showed replication signals there. In Italy, Tiritelli et al. (2025) go further still, reporting replication signals for several viruses in adult ants and in their brood. These results lead to an important conclusion: depending on the ant species and the viruses considered, ants are not always passive carriers; they can also act as biological hosts.

The third level is that of the reservoir. Here, the question is no longer simply whether a virus can be found or replicate in an ant, but whether it can persist there over time, making ant colonies a durable biological compartment of viral circulation. The available results point in this direction for certain systems, even if their practical significance at the apiary remains difficult to quantify. The work of Schläppi et al. (2020) already supports this idea for ABPV in Lasius, while Tiritelli et al. (2025) interpret the high prevalence and replication of several pathogens in ants nesting on hives as compatible with a reservoir and potential vector role. This hypothesis remains plausible but not yet demonstrated in the strict epidemiological sense. These results make it difficult to regard ants as mere incidental visitors, even if the precise epidemiological importance of their role remains to be established.

The fourth level — and the most delicate — concerns back-transmission to bees, with a measurable effect at the colony level. This is where maximum caution is warranted. To date, the literature does not yet demonstrate directly and causally that an infected ant subsequently transmits a virus to bees in a controlled experiment in which the infection and its consequences in bees are monitored. The most convincing system to date is that of the Argentine ant (Linepithema humile) in New Zealand: Dobelmann et al. (2023) showed that the presence of this invasive species around hives was associated with higher DWV and BQCV loads in bees, as well as signs of colony stress. This result is very important, but it does not yet allow a complete distinction between several possible mechanisms. Back-transmission is therefore plausible, sometimes suggested, but not yet fully causally demonstrated under conditions comparable to those of the Swiss apiary (Dobelmann et al., 2023).

The most accurate formulation is more nuanced: hive-associated ants frequently carry several bee viruses; in several systems, they can also harbour and sometimes replicate some of these viruses; their exact role in back-transmission to bees, and above all its practical importance for colonies in Switzerland, however, remains uncertain (Dobelmann et al., 2023; Payne et al., 2020; Schläppi et al., 2020; Tiritelli et al., 2025). Given the available work, ants are not merely incidental visitors to the apiary; they can participate in the circulation and, depending on the system, in the maintenance of certain viruses in the immediate environment of colonies. This point justifies scientific and practical vigilance, but not simplistic dramatisation (Schläppi et al., 2020; Tiritelli et al., 2025).

---

5. Why other regions of the world experience more serious problems

Objective Explaining why certain situations outside Switzerland are more concerning, and showing that these cases — linked to invasive species in other ecological contexts — are not directly transposable to the Swiss apiary.

If the situation appears relatively undramatic in Switzerland, this does not mean that ants are harmless to bees everywhere. International literature shows, on the contrary, that in certain contexts they can become a real problem for Apis mellifera colonies. But this point must be formulated precisely: the best-documented cases mainly concern invasive or particularly dominant species in systems where ant densities are high and pressure on hives can become constant (Dobelmann et al., 2023; Payne et al., 2020).

The best-documented case in a temperate climate is that of the Argentine ant (Linepithema humile) in New Zealand. In this study, hives were placed at sites with or without the presence of Argentine ants. Exposed colonies showed higher viral loads for DWV and BQCV, as well as signs of increased stress. The study did not, however, show a significant increase in colony mortality over the observation period. This result is important because it shows that a biologically serious effect can exist without immediately causing a visible colony collapse (Dobelmann et al., 2023).

Another type of problematic situation is illustrated by observations made in apiaries in the southern United States. Payne et al. (2020) described there ants belonging to fourteen different genera, with the most frequent interaction being the pillaging of sugar resources directly inside hives or in feeders. The authors also report pollen collection, consumption of dead bees, attacks on brood and occupation of certain parts of the hive. In two apiaries, colonies even absconded following massive robbing attributed to very abundant ants, notably Nylanderia fulva and Linepithema humile. These data nonetheless show that at very high density, certain ants can exceed the simple status of opportunistic visitors (Payne et al., 2020).

Surveys conducted in other beekeeping contexts also suggest an association between ant presence and higher losses, but these data are difficult to interpret and barely transposable to the Swiss context (De Freitas et al., 2023).

These studies allow an important point to be established: yes, systems exist in which ants constitute a real problem for bee colonies. But these situations often involve invasive or highly aggressive species in climatic and ecological contexts different from those of Swiss apiaries. The international contrast therefore does not call into question a measured reading of the Swiss case; on the contrary, it allows that reading to be better justified. It shows that the level of risk depends strongly on the species concerned and on the ecological context (Dobelmann et al., 2023; Payne et al., 2020).

---

6. What to do in practice

Objective Presenting proportionate, non-chemical practical measures recommended at the Swiss apiary: observation, reducing attractive resources, physical barriers, vigilance when monitoring varroa.

When dealing with ants, the most appropriate response at the apiary is generally neither panic nor chemical control, but proportionate and considered management. It must be clear, however, about the level of evidence available. The practical measures recommended today rest on a combination of beekeeping experience, biological plausibility and, in a still very limited number of cases, direct experimental data. The peer-reviewed literature offers very few trials specifically devoted to the non-chemical management of ants on Apis mellifera hives. The best-documented exception concerns the physical exclusion of ants to improve the reliability of the natural mite drop count (Dainat et al., 2011). For the rest, recommendations rely mainly on beekeeping common sense and a coherent ecological logic that has yet to be tested directly at the apiary (Thornley et al., 2024).

The first rule is therefore to observe before acting. A seasonal note is in order from the outset: the presence of ants is most relevant during warm periods and when feeding is taking place; it tends to become marginal in winter, when ants are inactive. A few ants under a roof, on a crown board or on a floor drawer in summer do not automatically mean a serious problem is under way. Intervention becomes more relevant when heavy and repeated visits are observed, clear access to a food source, durable establishment in certain parts of the hive, or interference in an already fragile context (Bee Health Service, 2024).

The second measure is to reduce the attractiveness of the apiary. This is probably the most intuitive recommendation, and also one of the most biologically plausible. In practice this means feeding cleanly, avoiding syrup spills, not leaving fondant or feeding residues accessible outside, removing attractive debris, cleaning soiled elements and avoiding turning certain parts of the hive into a stable shelter (Bee Health Service, 2024; Tiritelli et al., 2025).

The third approach is to physically restrict ant access. This is where the best experimental anchorage exists. In Switzerland, Dainat et al. (2011) showed that a system of hive stands whose legs rested in water-filled containers strongly reduced ant access to varroa floor inserts. To be clear: this study demonstrates the value of physical barriers for preventing a diagnostic bias, not for proving that such barriers directly protect colonies against production loss or measurable weakening. It nonetheless provides a solid practical principle: when ant access poses a problem, physical barriers at hive stand level are a rational and documented option (Dainat et al., 2011).

An example from a very different context illustrates an analogous mechanism, without being directly transposable to Switzerland. Thornley et al. (2024) worked in the specific framework of hives used as elephant barriers in sub-Saharan Africa, with Apis mellifera scutellata colonies and dominant local ant species. They showed that modifications to the placement and design of feeders strongly reduced ant access to the resource. This example is a reminder above all that the design of a device can alter ant access to a resource, without constituting direct evidence transposable to the Swiss apiary. It nonetheless suggests the practical relevance of similar measures: paying attention to hive placement, avoiding plant or material bridges that facilitate access, and giving particular attention to the cleanliness and arrangement of feeders (Thornley et al., 2024).

Particular vigilance is required when monitoring varroa. This is probably the most practically important and scientifically best-supported point. If ants are visiting the varroa floor insert, natural mite drop counts may be artificially reduced. In this case, results should be interpreted with caution and, if necessary, the counting device should be protected against ant access. The real issue here is a concrete risk of underestimating parasitic pressure, with all the consequences that may have for the treatment decision (Dainat et al., 2011; Bee Health Service, 2024).

It should also be recalled that the presence of ants can sometimes be less an autonomous problem than a contextual indicator. A colony already weakened is plausibly less able to absorb additional pressure, even opportunistic; this idea remains, however, biologically plausible rather than directly demonstrated for ants. In this case, the most useful strategy is not necessarily to focus first on the ants themselves, but to correct the conditions making the hive or apiary attractive (Bee Health Service, 2024).

Finally, the clearest practical message is probably as follows: insecticides or toxic baits must not be used against ants at the apiary. This recommendation reflects both beekeeping common sense and health safety. Swiss sources even report serious cases of colony poisoning linked to the use of biocides against ants in the vicinity of bees (Bee Health Service, 2024; Tschuy, 2020). The benefit–risk ratio is unfavourable here: poorly placed chemical control can create for bees a danger far more serious than the one it aims to prevent.

Key takeaway: at the Swiss apiary, ants most often represent an opportunistic and contextual problem. The most appropriate response is generally clean, mechanical and proportionate management, not chemical control.

---

7. Conclusion: limited nuisance, targeted vigilance

Objective Synthesising the article's conclusions: neither a major pest nor a non-issue — an intermediate position faithful to the available literature, grounded in proportionate, non-chemical vigilance.

At the Swiss apiary, ants do not constitute, in the current state of knowledge, a major well-documented pest of strong Apis mellifera colonies. The available data show mainly that they can skew the natural mite drop count and become part of the pathogen ecology around the apiary. Their ability to carry and sometimes replicate bee viruses is well documented, but their exact role in back-transmission to bees remains incompletely resolved (Dainat et al., 2011; Schläppi et al., 2020; Tiritelli et al., 2025).

The absence of solid evidence of directly quantified damage is not proof of absolute harmlessness. It means above all that, in the European context, the question has been little studied from the angle of colony performance. This gap justifies caution in both directions: it would not be justified to dramatise ants as a major enemy, but it would also be imprudent to regard them as entirely without biological or practical interest (Payne et al., 2020; Tiritelli et al., 2025).

Yes, certain studies conducted elsewhere in the world show that invasive species at high density, such as Linepithema humile or Nylanderia fulva, can become a real problem for colonies. But these situations cannot be automatically transposed to Switzerland. The fact that problematic systems exist elsewhere does not contradict a measured reading of the Swiss case; on the contrary, it makes it more rigorous, by showing that the level of risk depends strongly on context (Dobelmann et al., 2023; Payne et al., 2020).

At the Swiss apiary, ants are generally neither a major pest of strong colonies nor a non-issue. They are above all an opportunistic phenomenon, a possible nuisance factor, a potential diagnostic bias and an element of the pathogen ecology around hives. It is precisely this intermediate position — neither alarmist nor dismissive — that appears today most faithful to the available literature (Dainat et al., 2011; Schläppi et al., 2020; Tiritelli et al., 2025).

---

See also:

• Practical Guide: 1.5.1 Measuring the natural varroa mite drop
• Practical Guide: 2.8 Varroosis
• Deformed Wing Virus
• Practical Guide: 2.10 Chronic Bee Paralysis Virus
• Practical Guide: 2 Diseases and pests
• The fascinating secrets of hive debris analysis

---

Bibliography

Dainat, B., Kuhn, R., Cherix, D., & Neumann, P. (2011). A scientific note on the ant pitfall for quantitative diagnosis of Varroa destructor. Apidologie, 42(6), 740–742. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13592-011-0071-3

De Freitas, C. D., Oki, Y., Resende, F., Zamudio, F., De Freitas, G., De Rezende, K., De Souza, F., De Jong, D., Quesada, M., Carvalho, A., Pires, C., & Fernandes, G. (2023). Impacts of pests and diseases on the decline of managed bees in Brazil: A beekeeper perspective. Journal of Apicultural Research, 62(5), 969–982. https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.2022.2099188

Dobelmann, J., Felden, A., & Lester, P. J. (2023). An invasive ant increases deformed wing virus loads in honey bees. Biology Letters, 19(1), Article 20220416. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2022.0416

Huber, M. (2024). Étude sur les fourmis dans les ruches en Suisse romande. Revue suisse d'apiculture, 145(1–2), 83–88. https://www.e-periodica.ch/digbib/view?lang=fr&pid=api-005%3A2024%3A145%3A%3A88

Lanan, M. (2014). Spatiotemporal resource distribution and foraging strategies of ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Myrmecological News, 20, 53–70.

Payne, A. N., Shepherd, T. F., & Rangel, J. (2020). The detection of honey bee (Apis mellifera)-associated viruses in ants. Scientific Reports, 10, Article 2923. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-59712-x

Sankovitz, M., & Purcell, J. (2021). Ant nest architecture is shaped by local adaptation and plastic response to temperature. Scientific Reports, 11, Article 21363. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-02491-w

Schläppi, D., Chejanovsky, N., Yañez, O., & Neumann, P. (2020). Foodborne transmission and clinical symptoms of honey bee viruses in ants Lasius spp. Viruses, 12(3), Article 321. https://doi.org/10.3390/v12030321

Bee Health Service. (2024). 3.4. Fauna at the apiary (V 2410). https://abeilles.ch/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2023/05/3.4_faune_au_rucher.pdf

Thornley, R., Cook, R., Spencer, M., Parr, C. L., & Henley, M. D. (2024). Interspecific competition between ants and African honeybees (Apis mellifera scutellata) may undermine the effectiveness of elephant beehive-deterrents in Africa. Conservation Science and Practice, 6(1), e13041. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.13041

Tiritelli, R., Giannetti, D., Schifani, E., Grasso, D. A., & Cilia, G. (2025). Neighbors sharing pathogens: The intricate relationship between Apis mellifera and ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) nesting in hives. Insect Science, 32(3), 943–956. https://doi.org/10.1111/1744-7917.13433

Tschuy, M. (2020). Des abeilles et des fourmis : Que faire quand les fourmis envahissent le rucher ? Revue suisse d'apiculture, 141(1–2), 30–31. https://doi.org/10.5169/seals-1068268

---

Abbreviations

ABPV: Acute bee paralysis virus
BQCV: Black Queen Cell Virus
CBPV: Chronic Bee Paralysis Virus
DWV: Deformed Wing Virus
DWV-A: Variant A of Deformed Wing Virus
DWV-B: Variant B of Deformed Wing Virus
BHS: Bee Health Service