Integrated pest management against<i>Varroa destructor</i>reduces colony mite levels and delays treatment threshold

Delaplane, Keith S.; Berry, Jennifer A.; Skinner, John; Parkman, J. P.; Hood, W. Michael

doi:10.1080/00218839.2005.11101171

Cited by 68 publications

(54 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The other treatment options available for the control of varroa are organic acids such as formic acid (FA), oxalic acid (OA) and essential oil components such as thymol. These pesticides have lower efficacy against the varroa mite but when used in an integrated pest management strategy they have been proven to provide an efficient way to control varroa populations (Rice et al 2004;Sammataro et al 2004, Delaplane et al 2005Calderone 2010). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Evaluation of spring organic treatments against Varroa destructor (Acari: Varroidae) in honey bee Apis mellifera (Hymenoptera: Apidae) colonies in eastern Canada

Giovenazzo

Dubreuil

2011

Exp Appl Acarol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of this study was to measure the efficacy of two organic acid treatments, formic acid (FA) and oxalic acid (OA) for the spring control of Varroa destructor (Anderson and Trueman) in honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) colonies. Forty-eight varroa-infested colonies were randomly distributed amongst six experimental groups (n = 8 colonies per group): one control group (G1); two groups tested applications of different dosages of a 40 g OA/l sugar solution 1:1 trickled on bees (G2 and G3); three groups tested different applications of FA: 35 ml of 65% FA in an absorbent Dri-Loc(®) pad (G4); 35 ml of 65% FA poured directly on the hive bottom board (G5) and MiteAwayII™ (G6). The efficacy of treatments (varroa drop), colony development, honey yield and hive survival were monitored from May until September. Five honey bee queens died during this research, all of which were in the FA treated colonies (G4, G5 and G6). G6 colonies had significantly lower brood build-up during the beekeeping season. Brood populations at the end of summer were significantly higher in G2 colonies. Spring honey yield per colony was significantly lower in G6 and higher in G1. Summer honey flow was significantly lower in G6 and higher in G3 and G5. During the treatment period, there was an increase of mite drop in all the treated colonies. Varroa daily drop at the end of the beekeeping season (September) was significantly higher in G1 and significantly lower in G6. The average number of dead bees found in front of hives during treatment was significantly lower in G1, G2 and G3 versus G4, G5 and G6. Results suggest that varroa control is obtained from all spring treatment options. However, all groups treated with FA showed slower summer hive population build-up resulting in reduced honey flow and weaker hives at the end of summer. FA had an immediate toxic effect on bees that resulted in queen death in five colonies. The OA treatments that were tested have minimal toxic impacts on the honey bee colonies.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Evaluation of spring organic treatments against Varroa destructor (Acari: Varroidae) in honey bee Apis mellifera (Hymenoptera: Apidae) colonies in eastern Canada

Giovenazzo

Dubreuil

2011

Exp Appl Acarol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Once established in an area, V. destructor are difficult to eliminate. Bee researchers and beekeepers have developed and tested numerous biological or biotechnical methods to control this mite, including drone brood removal (Wantuch and Tarpy 2009), which is labor intensive, screens on bottom boards (Harbo and Harris 2004;Delaplane et al 2005), and dusting with a powder such as flour or powdered sugar (Fakhimzadeh 2001), methods which have not always been found effective (Ellis et al 2009;Rosenkranz et al 2010). The most common approach (and until recently the most effective) has been chemical control, which includes synthetic miticides and organic acids as well as plant essential oils (e.g., Ruffinengo et al 2002;Eguaras et al 2005;Damiani et al 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Challenges for developing pathogen-based biopesticides against Varroa destructor (Mesostigmata: Varroidae)

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Control of the major pest of apiculture, the ectoparasitic mite Varroa destructor using pathogenbased biopesticides would resolve many of the problems experienced with other forms of control, such as chemical control, hive manipulation, or selection of resistant honeybee strains. Several research groups have developed and tested fungus-based biopesticides in laboratory and field experiments, with varying results. While biopesticides have many desirable qualities, including much lower risk of honey contamination and of pest resistance, future research needs to focus on: (1) identification of the sub-population(s) of V. destructor affected by biopesticides and the duration and impact of the application on mite population dynamics; (2) development of an effective, easily applied formulation, and (3) evaluation of possible side or sublethal effects on bees themselves. Biopesticides need to be evaluated on the field (colony) level in addition to the laboratory level. Researchers should consider providing data that can be easily used to evaluate effect, such as mite drop counts onto sticky boards coupled with assessments of phoretic mite density or brood cell mite density. Exploration for naturally occurring pathogens should be conducted in the native range of V. destructor in Asia.Apis mellifera / Varroa destructor / biological control / entomopathogenic fungi

show abstract

“…Earlier study also indicated two peaks of V. destructor population (Kokkinis and Liakos, 2004;Delaplane et al, 2005). Average mite population per colony showed a period of stabilization or marginal increase characterized by fluctuation from May to August-September in both the sampling methods in the present study.…”

Section: Effect Of Mite Infestation On Colony Build-up and Storesmentioning

confidence: 49%

Comparative evaluation of sticky paper and hive debris as sampling methods for population assessment of Varroa destructor in Apis mellifera colonies

Asha

Gulati

Sharma

et al. 2015

IJARe

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the present investigation, two sampling methods for V. destructor; hive debris and sticky paper method was compared year around in A. mellifera colonies to know the viable method. Between the two methods, sticky paper method was found significantly better (CD = 0.11; p = 0.05). More mitefall was recorded in sticky paper method (17.58 mites/hive) than in hive debris sampling (11.41 mites/hive). Fortnightly data analysis showed two peaks of Varroa; one in second fortnight of May and other in first fortnight of July in both sampling methods. Maximum number of mites (63.27 mites/hive) was recorded in second fortnight of May in both sampling methods which was significantly higher than the mites recorded at other observation periods (CD = 0.38; p = 0.05).

show abstract

Integrated pest management againstVarroa destructorreduces colony mite levels and delays treatment threshold

Cited by 68 publications

References 13 publications

Evaluation of spring organic treatments against Varroa destructor (Acari: Varroidae) in honey bee Apis mellifera (Hymenoptera: Apidae) colonies in eastern Canada

Evaluation of spring organic treatments against Varroa destructor (Acari: Varroidae) in honey bee Apis mellifera (Hymenoptera: Apidae) colonies in eastern Canada

Challenges for developing pathogen-based biopesticides against Varroa destructor (Mesostigmata: Varroidae)

Comparative evaluation of sticky paper and hive debris as sampling methods for population assessment of Varroa destructor in Apis mellifera colonies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About