HoneyHQ

The threats facing bees

Bee decline is not one problem with one cause. It is a set of interacting pressures whose relative weight differs between managed honey bees and wild species — and confusing the two produces bad solutions.

PollinationReviewed 2026-08-03

The pressures, and who they hit

Threats by group
ThreatManaged honey beesWild bees
Habitat lossIndirect, via forageThe dominant pressure
Varroa and associated virusesThe dominant pressureNot a direct threat; virus spillover is
PesticidesSignificant, especially at floweringSignificant, and ground nesters are also exposed via soil
Monoculture and forage gapsSignificantSignificant, worse for specialists
Climate changeModerateSerious for range-restricted and montane species
Pathogen spilloverSource as well as recipientA documented pressure from managed bees
Invasive speciesSmall hive beetle, Asian hornetCompetition and displacement

Reading across that table is the point. For managed honey bees the biggest single problem is a parasitic mite. For wild bees it is the loss of the flower-rich habitat and the nesting sites they need. These require completely different responses.

Habitat loss, which is the big one

In Britain, around 97 per cent of flower-rich meadow has been lost since the 1930s. Similar figures apply across much of northern Europe. That is the single largest driver of wild bee decline, and it operates in two ways: less forage, and fewer nesting sites.

Nesting is the half that gets forgotten. Around seventy per cent of bee species nest in the ground and need bare, sunny, undisturbed soil. Most of the rest need hollow stems, dead wood or old walls. A garden full of bee-friendly flowers with no bare soil, no dead wood and no standing stems supports foraging and no reproduction.

The pesticide picture

The evidence on neonicotinoids is now substantial: field-realistic exposure has measurable sublethal effects on foraging, navigation and reproduction in both honey bees and wild bees, and the EU restricted their outdoor use on that basis. Lethal poisoning incidents are the visible end; the sublethal effects are the larger problem.

There is also a widespread and avoidable failure. A great deal of garden and amenity insecticide is applied to plants in flower, which is where the exposure is highest and where the application does least good.

Varroa, and why it is a honey bee problem

Varroa destructor jumped from the Asian honey bee to the western honey bee in the twentieth century and spread worldwide. Apis cerana has co-evolved defences; Apis mellifera has almost none. The mite feeds on developing brood and on adult fat bodies, and it transmits deformed wing virus, which is what actually kills most colonies.

Untreated colonies in most of the world die within two to three years. This is a livestock disease problem, and it is the reason for almost every colony loss statistic that reaches the news.

What is not the cause

The claims on this page

Every substantive claim is placed on a tier, and the top two tiers must also state what they are not claiming.

Established evidence

Supported by systematic reviews, meta-analyses or clinical/regulatory guidance. The claim would survive a careful reader checking it.

Established evidence

Field-realistic neonicotinoid exposure has measurable sublethal effects on bees.

A substantial body of laboratory and field research documents impaired foraging, navigation, colony growth and reproductive output in honey bees and wild bees at exposure levels found in treated crops. The European Union restricted outdoor use of three neonicotinoids on the basis of this evidence, following assessment by its food safety authority.

What this does not claim: This does not claim neonicotinoids are the principal cause of bee decline — habitat loss is larger for wild bees and varroa larger for honey bees. It does not claim all pesticides are equivalent, nor that restricted use has resolved the issue.

  • Assessment Report on Pollinators, Pollination and Food Production — Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) (2016) · Systematic review Link
  • Council Directive 2001/110/EC relating to honey — Council of the European Union (2001) · Regulatory guidance Link

Commonly claimed, but not supported

Widely repeated and not supported by current evidence. Listed so the correction is here rather than only the claim.

Commonly claimed, but not supported

Mobile phone networks do not cause bee colony losses.

The claim traces to a small study that placed handsets inside hives and observed behavioural changes, which was widely misreported as evidence about phone masts. No subsequent work has found population-level effects, and the claim persists in circulation without support. The documented pressures on bees are habitat loss, parasites, pesticides and forage scarcity.

  • Assessment Report on Pollinators, Pollination and Food Production — Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) (2016) · Systematic review Link

Sources

  • Assessment Report on Pollinators, Pollination and Food Production — Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) (2016) · Systematic review Link
  • Bumblebees: Behaviour, Ecology, and Conservation — Oxford University Press (2010) · Monograph
  • Field Guide to the Bees of Great Britain and Ireland — Bloomsbury (2015) · Field guide

How sources are selected and weighted is set out in the sources and evidence policy.

Read next

Tools that use this

HoneyHQ saves your cookie choice on this device. Optional analytics run only if you accept — set a preference now, or change it later on the cookies page.