Varroa destructor from the Laboratory to the Field: Control, Biocontrol and IPM Perspectives—A Review

Vilarem, Caroline; Piou, Vincent; Vogelweith, Fanny; Vétillard, Angélique

doi:10.3390/insects12090800

Cited by 39 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 279 publications

(369 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…After a shift from its original host, the Eastern honey bee Apis cerana, to the Western honey bee, Apis mellifera, the parasitic mite Varroa destructor (Anderson and Trueman 2000) became the main problem in beekeeping worldwide (Rosenkranz et al 2010;Noël et al 2020;Traynor et al 2020;Vilarem et al 2021;Reams and Rangel 2022). The mite, today found almost worldwide (with the exception of Australia), reached Europe in the 1960s and 1970s, and North America in the late 1980s (Rosenkranz et al 2010;Traynor et al 2020).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spatial clusters of Varroa destructor control strategies in Europe

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Beekeepers have various options to control the parasitic mite Varroa destructor in honey bee colonies, but no empirical data are available on the methods they apply in practice. We surveyed 28,409 beekeepers maintaining 507,641 colonies in 30 European countries concerning Varroa control methods. The set of 19 different Varroa diagnosis and control measures was taken from the annual COLOSS questionnaire on honey bee colony losses. The most frequent activities were monitoring of Varroa infestations, drone brood removal, various oxalic acid applications and formic acid applications. Correspondence analysis and hierarchical clustering on principal components showed that six Varroa control options (not necessarily the most used ones) significantly contribute to defining three distinctive clusters of countries in terms of Varroa control in Europe. Cluster I (eight Western European countries) is characterized by use of amitraz strips. Cluster II comprises 15 countries from Scandinavia, the Baltics, and Central-Southern Europe. This cluster is characterized by long-term formic acid treatments. Cluster III is characterized by dominant usage of amitraz fumigation and formed by seven Eastern European countries. The median number of different treatments applied per beekeeper was lowest in cluster III. Based on estimation of colony numbers in included countries, we extrapolated the proportions of colonies treated with different methods in Europe. This suggests that circa 62% of colonies in Europe are treated with amitraz, followed by oxalic acid for the next largest percentage of colonies. We discuss possible factors determining the choice of Varroa control measures in the different clusters.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spatial clusters of Varroa destructor control strategies in Europe

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It has become necessary to develop alternative control strategies against V. destructor to synthetic control substances that generate drawbacks such as residues and acaricide resistance [ 15 ]. The use of organic acids and compounds from plants are shown as interesting alternatives [ 55 ]. The four varieties of hops presented a high presence of volatile compounds in their oxidized form, partly due to the extraction methodology and the qualities of these extracts.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hydrolats from Humulus lupulus and Their Potential Activity as an Organic Control for Varroa destructor

Iglesias

Fuentes

Mitton

et al. 2022

Plants

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Varroa destructor is a parasitic mite, which is considered a severe pest for honey bees causing serious losses to beekeeping. Residual hydrolats from steam extraction of hop essential oils, generally considered as a waste product, were tested for their potential use as acaricides on V. destructor. Four hop varieties, namely Cascade, Spalt, Victoria, and Mapuche, showed an interesting performance as feasible products to be used in the beekeeping industry. Some volatile oxidized terpenoids were found in the hydrolats, mainly β-caryophyllene oxide, β-linalool, and isogeraniol. These compounds, together with the presence of polyphenols, flavonoids, and saponins, were probably responsible for the promissory LC50 values obtained for mites after hydrolat exposition. Victoria hydrolat was the most toxic for mites (LC50: 16.1 µL/mL), followed by Mapuche (LC50 value equal to 30.1 µL/mL), Spalt (LC50 value equal to 114.3 µL/mL), and finally Cascade (LC50: 117.9 µL/mL). Likewise, Spalt had the highest larval survival, followed by Victoria and Mapuche. Cascade was the variety with the highest larval mortality. In addition, none of the extracts showed mortality higher than 20% in adult bees. The Victoria hydrolat presented the best results, which makes it a good compound with the prospect of an acaricide treatment against V. destructor.

show abstract

“…In fact, each mite has its own infection potential based on the quantity and type of viral variants it carries, which in turn depends on the bees it recently parasitized. This represents a significant source of variability impacting the outcome of V. destructor field or laboratory studies [68].…”

Section: Evolution Of Viral Loads In Mites During the Reproductive Ph...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Transmission of deformed wing virus between Varroa destructor foundresses, mite offspring and infested honey bees

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Varroa destructor is the major ectoparasite of the western honey bee (Apis mellifera). Through both its parasitic life-cycle and its role as a vector of viral pathogens, it can cause major damage to honey bee colonies. The deformed wing virus (DWV) is the most common virus transmitted by this ectoparasite, and the mite is correlated to increased viral prevalence and viral loads in infested colonies. DWV variants A and B (DWV-A and DWV-B, respectively) are the two major DWV variants, and they differ both in their virulence and transmission dynamics. Methods We studied the transmission of DWV between bees, parasitic mites and their offspring by quantifying DWV loads in bees and mites collected in in vitro and in situ environments. In vitro, we artificially transmitted DWV-A to mites and quantified both DWV-A and DWV-B in mites and bees. In situ, we measured the natural presence of DWV-B in bees, mites and mites’ offspring. Results Bee and mite viral loads were correlated, and mites carrying both variants were associated with higher mortality of the infected host. Mite infestation increased the DWV-B loads and decreased the DWV-A loads in our laboratory conditions. In situ, viral quantification in the mite offspring showed that, after an initially non-infected egg stage, the DWV-B loads were more closely correlated with the foundress (mother) mites than with the bee hosts. Conclusions The association between mites and DWV-B was highlighted in this study. The parasitic history of a mite directly impacts its DWV infection potential during the rest of its life-cycle (in terms of variant and viral loads). Regarding the mite’s progeny, we hypothesize that the route of contamination is likely through the feeding site rather than by vertical transmission, although further studies are needed to confirm this hypothesis. Graphical Abstract

show abstract

Varroa destructor from the Laboratory to the Field: Control, Biocontrol and IPM Perspectives—A Review

Cited by 39 publications

References 279 publications

Spatial clusters of Varroa destructor control strategies in Europe

Spatial clusters of Varroa destructor control strategies in Europe

Hydrolats from Humulus lupulus and Their Potential Activity as an Organic Control for Varroa destructor

Transmission of deformed wing virus between Varroa destructor foundresses, mite offspring and infested honey bees

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About