Inventory of Varroa destructor susceptibility to amitraz and tau-fluvalinate in France

Almecija, Gabrielle; Poirot, Benjamin; Cochard, Précillia; Suppo, Christelle

doi:10.1007/s10493-020-00535-w

Cited by 24 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 69 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Not only were we able to repeat dose-dependence in both the vial and Apiarium assays after 24 h post-treatment, our results confirm that the Apiarium was comparable to the vial test in mite mortality assessment. Similar to Almecija et al [17], we found a relationship of dose-dependency between amitraz dilution and mite mortality in susceptible mite populations. Achieving dose-dependency, in addition to high mite mortality, is a promising metric for using the Apiarium to evaluate toxicity values (i.e.…”

Section: Plos Onesupporting

confidence: 91%

“…Historically, laboratory bioassays have evaluated the effects of biotic and abiotic factors on honey bees using cages made from plexiglass, wood, or plastic material. Some investigations have also used Petri dishes [16,17], plastic caps [18], polycarbonate [19], or cardboard boxes [20]. For instance, the grooming behavior of A. mellifera against Varroa, and how Nosema spp.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

New bioassay cage methodology for in vitro studies on Varroa destructor and Apis mellifera

Bahreini¹,

Nasr²,

Docherty³

et al. 2021

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Varroa destructor Anderson and Trueman, is an ectoparasitic mite of honey bees, Apis mellifera L., that has been considered a major cause of colony losses. Synthetic miticides have been developed and registered to manage this ectoparasite, however, resistance to registered pyrethroid and organophosphate Varroacides have already been reported in Canada. To test toxicity of miticides, current contact-based bioassay methods are designed to evaluate mites and bees separately, however, these methods are unlikely to give an accurate depiction of how miticides interact at the colony level. Therefore, the objective of this study was to develop a bioassay cage for testing the toxicity of miticides on honey bees and Varroa mites simultaneously using amitraz as a reference chemical. A 800 mL polypropylene plastic cage holding 100–150 bees was designed and officially named “Apiarium”. A comparison of the effects of three subsequent dilutions of amitraz was conducted on: Varroa mites placed in glass vials, honey bees in glass Mason jars, and Varroa-infested bees in Apiariums. Our results indicated cumulative Varroa mortality was dose-dependent in the Apiarium after 4 h and 24 h assessments. Apiarium and glass vial treatments at 24 h also had high mite mortality and a positive polynomial regression between Varroa mortality and amitraz dose rates. Moreover, chemical application in the Apiarium was less toxic for bees compared to the Mason jar method. Considering these results, the Apiarium bioassay provides a simple, cheap and reliable method for simultaneous chemical screening on V. destructor and A. mellifera. Furthermore, as mites and bees are tested together, the Apiarium simulates a colony-like environment that provides a necessary bridge between laboratory bioassay testing and full field experimentation. The versatility of the Apiarium allows researchers to test a multitude of different honey bee bioassay experiments including miticide screening, delivery methods for chemical products, or development of new mite resistance-testing methodology.

show abstract

Section: Plos Onesupporting

confidence: 91%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

New bioassay cage methodology for in vitro studies on Varroa destructor and Apis mellifera

Bahreini¹,

Nasr²,

Docherty³

et al. 2021

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some efficient field experiments in France revealed that amitraz reduced treatment effectiveness. Some mites obtained from various apiaries show resistance to amitraz and tau-fluvalinate (71 percent of mite samples indicate resistance to amitraz and 57 percent to tau-fluvalinate), and if mite resistance to acaricides continues to rise, mite resistance to acaricides will become a problem [35] . Honeybees and their products are good bioindicators because they are inextricably linked to the natural environment they inhabit; the beekeepers should be interested in identifying bee-sensitive and beekeeping sites to obtain good products and free from any environmental contaminants.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Controlling varroa mites infesting honeybees (Apis mellifera L.) Using some essential oils and amitraz under colony conditions

Aljedani¹

2021

J. Entomol. Zool. Stud.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…We placed 15 to 20 mites in contact with amitraz (PESTANAL, 100% purity, Sigma Aldrich) in a Petri dish containing 0.4 μg mL –1 acaricide and incubated them for 1 h (30 ± 1°C and 60 ± 10%HM) (four replicates). This concentration corresponds to the discriminating concentration capable of killing 90% of a susceptible population of mites 30–32 . At the end of the one‐hour incubation period, the mites were transferred to uncontaminated Petri dishes together with nymphs, for feeding.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modelling the impact of Apivar treatment on a Varroa mite population and the influence of resistance

Almecija

Poirot²,

Ventelon

et al. 2021

Pest Management Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND Varroa destructor is a parasite of honeybees. It causes biological damage leading to the colony collapse in the absence of treatment. In recent years, acaricide resistance has emerged in Varroa mites, leading to a decrease in treatment efficacy. We modelled the action of Apivar (amitraz) treatment, using three input parameters: treatment duration, treatment period, and daily mortality due to the treatment. The output parameters were cumulative mite mortality during treatment, the residual number of Varroa mites, and treatment efficacy, expressed as a percentage. RESULTS The model was validated by monitoring efficacy in the field, in 36 treated hives. According to the model, treatment in the absence of brood is optimal. For a long period without egg laying during the winter, an initial infestation of 100 mites and a start date for treatment of August 7, a minimal treatment efficacy of 98.8% is required for stabilization of the mite population for year to year. More effective treatment is associated with lower cumulative numbers of dead Varroa mites over the entire treatment period. Thus, the total number of dead mites observed during the monitoring of field efficacy provides information about more than just the initial level of colony infestation. The proportion of resistant mites can be modelized by a decrease of daily mortality rate influencing treatment efficacy. Management of the initial Varroa mite infestation of the colony by the beekeeper can compensate for the decrease in treatment efficacy for resistance thresholds of up to 40% of resistant mites. CONCLUSION Treatment efficacy depends on several parameters, including initial level of infestation, treatment period and the presence of acaricide resistance. Amitraz resistance may lead to treatment failure, even if the beekeeper is able to keep initial infestation rates low. © 2021 Society of Chemical Industry.

show abstract

Inventory of Varroa destructor susceptibility to amitraz and tau-fluvalinate in France

Cited by 24 publications

References 69 publications

New bioassay cage methodology for in vitro studies on Varroa destructor and Apis mellifera

New bioassay cage methodology for in vitro studies on Varroa destructor and Apis mellifera

Controlling varroa mites infesting honeybees (Apis mellifera L.) Using some essential oils and amitraz under colony conditions

Modelling the impact of Apivar treatment on a Varroa mite population and the influence of resistance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About