Wild honey bees on English landed estates

What new research means for BIBBA members

For many years, debate has continued about whether so‑called “wild” honey bee colonies in Britain are genuinely self‑sustaining populations shaped by natural selection, or simply short‑lived swarms escaping from managed apiaries. This new 3.5‑year field study from southeast England provides the strongest evidence to date that, at least in some English landscapes, wild colonies are both numerous and viable.

For BIBBA members, whose aims centre on locally adapted bees, reduced intervention and sustainable improvement, the findings are highly relevant.

by the Scientific & Technical Working Group: Karl Colyer and Paul Verrier

What the researchers did

Researchers systematically searched six landed estates (wood pasture, parkland and deer parks) in southeast England, focusing on veteran trees and old buildings. They:

Located 63 wild honey bee nest sites
Monitored them three times per year (spring, summer, autumn)
Tracked survival across seasons and winters
Analysed nest site characteristics and spatial patterns

The estates surveyed were typical of many English landscapes, with scattered ancient oaks, open pasture and limited woodland.

Key findings – the headline results

Wild colonies are more common than previously thought

Average density: 2.5 wild colonies per km²
This is far higher than figures reported from Germany and parts of central Europe (<0.5 colonies/km²)
Densities were closely linked to the presence of veteran trees, not woodland cover

This suggests that England’s historic parkland and wood‑pasture landscapes are particularly well suited to wild honey bees.

Survival rates indicate self‑sustaining populations

Annual survival rate: ~0.41 (41%)
Winter survival: ~49%

From these figures, the authors calculated that colonies would need to produce about 1.4 swarms per year to maintain a stable population. This is well within the known swarming rates of unmanaged colonies.

Conclusion: these wild colonies are not merely ephemeral escapees – they can persist long‑term without beekeeper support.

Veteran trees are critical habitat

89% of nests were in living trees
Most were in cavities formed by decay, storm damage or woodpeckers
Colony presence increased with the density of veteran trees, not overall woodland area

Importantly, nest sites were not in short supply. Many suitable cavities remained unoccupied, indicating that food availability and colony survival – not nesting space – are likely the main constraints.

Some nest types offer better winter survival
Winter survival differed by nest site type:

Excavated tree cavities: highest survival
Rot holes: intermediate
Buildings: lowest survival

Entrance height alone did not explain this pattern, suggesting that cavity structure, insulation and microclimate are important – a point of direct relevance to hive design and siting.

Wild colonies may contribute significantly to local mating populations
In many areas around the estates:

Estimated managed colony density: 1–3 colonies per km²
Wild colony density was similar or higher

Because wild colonies typically produce large numbers of drones and queens, they may exert a substantial influence on local gene pools – especially where beekeepers use locally mated queens.

Comments from the Scientific and Technical Team:

The sample size is quite small, being 6 locations. The number of nests being monitored was quite small (about 65) and there was a very large range of veteran tree density compared with the nest density.

In southern England, there is an indication of something of a recovery of the wild honeybee population. This might be happening because:
1. the long-term part of the wild population, unencumbered by anti-varroa chemical medications, is moving towards mutual tolerance between bee and mite (aka 'mite resistance’).
2. the very high predicated swarming rates exceed the still quite high colony loss rates.
It is unclear whether the high swarming rates (and the consequential and impressive population presence) are in part down to the benign environment for bees and/or the mongrelisation (from importation) of the bee stocks. A comparison of swarming rates for known bee colonies in the area to free-living bees would have been useful.

Reference

Visick, O.D. & Ratnieks, F.L.W. (2026). Density and survival of wild honey bee colonies in English wood pasture, parkland and deer parks. Apidologie, 57:5.

What this means for BIBBA members

1. Local adaptation is already happening
This study provides strong evidence that English landscapes can support honey bees surviving under natural selection, including exposure to:

Varroa
Pathogens
Climatic stress
Unmanaged forage variability

For BIBBA members, this reinforces the principle that local bees are already adapting – and that these adaptations are accessible through local mating rather than imports.

2. Queen importation risks undermining local progress
The authors highlight the steady rise in imported queens into the UK. Imports:

Dilute locally adapted genetics
Increase biosecurity risks
Reduce the impact of natural selection

For bee improvement, the message is clear: selection works best when local populations are not continually swamped by imported stock.

3. Selection for survival, not intervention
Wild colonies succeed without:

Routine chemical treatments
Artificial swarm prevention
Regular comb replacement

This does not mean copying wild conditions blindly, but it does suggest that BIBBA improvement programmes benefit from:

Selecting breeders from colonies that survive winters well
Valuing longevity and resilience over maximum honey yield
Allowing controlled swarming or colony reproduction where possible

4. Rethinking swarm use and rescue
The study shows that many swarms fail to overwinter, while others establish long‑term. This raises useful questions for members:

Should every swarm be rescued and managed intensively?
Or should some be allowed to contribute to local natural selection?

BIBBA‑aligned apiaries may wish to observe and select from swarm‑derived colonies, rather than immediately suppressing natural behaviours.

5. Habitat matters – and beekeepers can help
Veteran trees are shown to be key to wild colony success. While beekeepers cannot create ancient oaks overnight, members can:

Advocate for protection of veteran trees
Support parkland and wood‑pasture conservation
Plant long‑lived, nectar‑rich trees for future generations

Bee improvement is not only genetic – it is ecological.

A wider perspective

The authors conclude that wild honey bees in southeast England would likely qualify as “least concern” under IUCN criteria – a rare situation in Europe. This challenges the narrative that honey bees can only survive through constant human intervention.

For BIBBA members, this research strongly supports: