Compliance with recommended Varroa destructor treatment regimens improves the survival of honey bee colonies over winter

Hernandez, Julie; Hattendorf, Jan; Aebi, Alexandre; Dietemann, Vincent

doi:10.1016/j.rvsc.2021.12.025

Cited by 17 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The mite can only reproduce in sealed honey bee broods, though the reproductive success of mite variants is different in the two host species and in male or female bee brood (Lin et al 2021). There are a number of studies indicating the major role of Varroa in colony losses of the economically important Western honey bee (Brodschneider et al 2010;Genersch et al 2010;Guzmán-Novoa et al 2010;Beyer et al 2018;Morawetz et al 2019;Flores et al 2021;Kulhanek et al 2021;Hernandez et al 2022). The mite primarily consumes fat body tissue (Ramsey et al 2019) with effects, among others, on reduced weight, reserve protein levels and adult longevity of infested larvae (De Jong et al 1982;Amdam et al 2004).…”

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

“…Mites feed on and therefore weaken developing and adult honey bees ( de Jong et al 1982a , Amdam et al 2004 , Aronstein et al 2012 ), and transmit deadly viruses ( Bowen-Walker et al 1999 , Dainat et al 2012 ), leading to colonies usually succumbing within 1–4 yr in absence of varroacidal treatments ( Korpela et al 1992 , Büchler 1994 ). The latter significantly improve colony survival ( Beyer et al 2018 , Haber et al 2019 , Hernandez et al 2022 ) but are not a reliable long-term management strategy ( Dietemann et al 2012 ), as they are costly, can harm the bees ( Rademacher et al 2017 , Gashout et al 2020 ), can generate treatment-resistant mites ( Elzen et al 2000 , Hernández-Rodríguez et al 2021 ), and contaminate bee products ( Bogdanov 2006 , Kast et al 2021 ). To improve colony health, one privileged approach is the selection of honey bees capable of coping with the parasite by means of resistance mechanisms expected to limit the mite infestation level ( Dietemann et al 2012 ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating the Potential of Brood Recapping to Select Varroa destructor (Acari: Varroidae) Resistant Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae)

Guichard

Virag

Dainat

2022

Journal of Economic Entomology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Several resistance traits have been proposed to select honey bees (Apis mellifera L.) that can survive in the presence of parasitic mite Varroa destructor (Anderson and Trueman) and enable a more sustainable apiculture. The interest for uncapping-recapping has recently increased following its identification in several naturally surviving honey bee populations, yet the utility of this trait for human-mediated selection is poorly known. Here, we evaluated the repeatability of recapping and its correlations with mite infestation levels, and assessed the expression of the trait in the often neglected drone brood. We also calculated correlations between recapping, mite infertility, and mite fecundity, expressed either at the level of individual brood cells or of the whole colony. Recapping measured in worker brood showed moderate repeatability (ranging between 0.30 and 0.46). Depending on sample, recapping slightly correlated negatively with colony infestation values. Recapping was also measured in drone brood, with values often comparable to recapping in worker brood, but no significant correlations were obtained between castes. At cell level, recapped cells in drone brood (but not in workers) were significantly less infested than nonrecapped cells, whereas in workers (but not in drones), recapped cells hosted mites with significantly lower fecundity. At colony level, with a few exceptions, recapping did not significantly correlate with mite infertility and fecundity, caste, sample, or number of infested cells considered. These results indicate limited possibilities of impeding mite reproduction and possibly mite infestation of honey bee colonies by recapping, which would need to be confirmed on larger, different populations.

show abstract

“…Mounting contemporary evidence supports the assertion that treating bees for their parasites makes for better colony health ( Haber et al, 2019 ; Hansen, 2021 ; Hernandez et al, 2022 ; Kulhanek et al, 2021 ; Steinhauer et al, 2021 ), this is a simple but important demonstration of an intuitive principle. We can therefore identify multiple frontiers in the effective treatment of parasites in beekeeping: improving uptake of current control strategies amongst beekeepers by identifying barriers to adoption of control strategies (see section 4.0) and developing new control strategies where current options are inadequate (see sections 2.0. and 3.0.).…”

Section: Rationalementioning

confidence: 76%

Frontiers in effective control of problem parasites in beekeeping

Bartlett

2022

International Journal for Parasitology: Parasites and Wildlife

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Compliance with recommended Varroa destructor treatment regimens improves the survival of honey bee colonies over winter

Cited by 17 publications

References 49 publications

Spatial clusters of Varroa destructor control strategies in Europe

Spatial clusters of Varroa destructor control strategies in Europe

Evaluating the Potential of Brood Recapping to Select Varroa destructor (Acari: Varroidae) Resistant Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae)

Frontiers in effective control of problem parasites in beekeeping

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About