A scientific note on reversion of fluvalinate resistance
to a degree of susceptibility in <i>Varroa destructor</i>

Elzen, Patti J.; Westervelt, David

doi:10.1051/apido:2004036

Cited by 15 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While many have reported V. destructor resistance to tau -fluvalinate in the United States ( Baxter et al 1998 , Pettis et al 1998 , Elzen and Westervelt 2004 ), our results show that Apistan can still be used intermittently against the mite. We observed that Apistan at least reduced V. destructor populations for 1 month during the fall of 2014, although no reduction was observed during the fall of 2020.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 49%

Evaluating the seasonal efficacy of commonly used chemical treatments on Varroa destructor (Mesostigmata: Varroidae) population resurgence in honey bee colonies

Jack,

Boncristiani,

Prouty

et al. 2024

Journal of Insect Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this research was to determine how common chemical treatments influence Varroa destructor (Anderson and Trueman) population resurgence rates (defined as time posttreatment for mite populations to reach 3 mites/100 adult bees) in managed honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) colonies seasonally. We conducted 2 experiments that followed the same basic protocol to address this purpose. We established 6 treatment groups in Experiment 1 in the fall of 2014: untreated control, Apivar, Apistan, CheckMite+, ApiLifeVar, and Mite Away II applied to 10 colonies per treatment. In Experiment 2, we applied 8 chemical treatments to each of 4 seasonal (spring, summer, fall, and winter) cohorts of honey bee colonies to determine how mite populations are influenced by the treatments. The treatments/formulations tested were Apivar, Apistan, Apiguard, MAQS, CheckMite+, oxalic acid (dribble), oxalic acid (shop towels), and amitraz (shop towels soaked in Bovitraz). In Experiment 1, Apivar and Mite Away II were able to delay V. destructor resurgence for 2 and 6 months, respectively. In Experiment 2, Apiguard, MAQS, oxalic acid (dribble), and Bovitraz treatments were effective at delaying V. destructor resurgence for at least 2 months during winter and spring. Only the Bovitraz and MAQS treatments were effective at controlling V. destructor in the summer and fall. Of the 2 amitraz-based treatments, the off-label Bovitraz treatment was the only treatment to reduce V. destructor populations in every season. The data gathered through this study allow for the refinement of treatment recommendations for V. destructor, especially regarding the seasonal efficacy of each miticide and the temporal efficacy posttreatment.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 49%

Evaluating the seasonal efficacy of commonly used chemical treatments on Varroa destructor (Mesostigmata: Varroidae) population resurgence in honey bee colonies

Jack,

Boncristiani,

Prouty

et al. 2024

Journal of Insect Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…-A minimum interval of 5 years devoid of amitraz application was required, in accordance with observations indicating a reversion of Varroa resistance in populations unexposed to pyrethroids for at least 4 years [37,38]. -Recent introduction of new queens or merging with colonies exposed to amitraz within the previous 5 years was to be avoided.…”

Section: Determination Of Reference Lc 90 Concentration Of Amitrazsupporting

confidence: 56%

Amitraz Resistance in French Varroa Mite Populations—More Complex Than a Single-Nucleotide Polymorphism

Marsky,

Rognon,

Douablin

et al. 2024

Insects

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Resistance against amitraz in Varroa mite populations has become a subject of interest in recent years due to the increasing reports of the reduced field efficacy of amitraz treatments, especially from some beekeepers in France and the United States. The loss of amitraz as a reliable tool to effectively reduce Varroa mite infestation in the field could severely worsen the position of beekeepers in the fight to keep Varroa infestation rates in their colonies at low levels. In this publication, we present data from French apiaries, collected in the years 2020 and 2021. These data include the field efficacy of an authorized amitraz-based Varroa treatment (Apivar® ,Véto-pharma, France) and the results of laboratory sensitivity assays of Varroa mites exposed to the reference LC90 concentration of amitraz. In addition, a total of 240 Varroa mites from Eastern, Central, and Southern regions in France that were previously classified as either “sensitive” or “resistant” to amitraz in a laboratory sensitivity assay were genotyped. The genetic analyses of mite samples are focused on the β-adrenergic-like octopamine receptor, which is considered as the main target site for amitraz in Varroa mites. Special attention was paid to a single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) at position 260 of the ORβ-2R-L gene that was previously associated to amitraz resistance in French Varroa mites, Varroa. Our findings confirm that amitraz resistance occurs in patches or “islands of resistance”, with a less severe reduction in treatment efficacy compared to pyrethroid resistance or coumaphos resistance in Varroa mites. The results of our genetic analyses of Varroa mites call into question the hypothesis of the SNP at position 260 of the ORβ-2R-L gene being directly responsible for amitraz resistance development.

show abstract

“…Without these treatments a colony typically collapses within 2-3 years in temperate climates (Boecking and Genersch, 2008;Rosenkranz et al, 2010). Various acaricides are available but unfortunately, V. destructor often evolves resistance against these substances within few generations (Elzen and Westervelt, 2004;Lodesani et al, 1995;Pettis, 2004). Additionally, the use of chemicals has been shown to cause residues in the hive products (Martel et al, 2007;Wallner, 1999).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A selective sweep in a Varroa destructor resistant honeybee (Apis mellifera) population

Lattorff

Buchholz

Fries

et al. 2015

Infection, Genetics and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The mite Varroa destructor is one of the most dangerous parasites of the Western honeybee (Apis mellifera) causing enormous colony losses worldwide. Various chemical treatments for the control of the Varroa mite are currently in use, which, however, lead to residues in bee products and often to resistance in mites. This facilitated the exploration of alternative treatment methods and breeding for mite resistant honeybees has been in focus for breeders in many parts of the world with variable results.

show abstract

A scientific note on reversion of fluvalinate resistance to a degree of susceptibility in Varroa destructor

Cited by 15 publications

References 3 publications

Evaluating the seasonal efficacy of commonly used chemical treatments on Varroa destructor (Mesostigmata: Varroidae) population resurgence in honey bee colonies

Evaluating the seasonal efficacy of commonly used chemical treatments on Varroa destructor (Mesostigmata: Varroidae) population resurgence in honey bee colonies

Amitraz Resistance in French Varroa Mite Populations—More Complex Than a Single-Nucleotide Polymorphism

A selective sweep in a Varroa destructor resistant honeybee (Apis mellifera) population

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About