Culturing chelifers (Pseudoscorpions) that consume Varroa mites

Read, S.F.J.; Howlett, Brad G.; Donovan, B. J.; Nelson, Warrick; Toor, R. F. van

doi:10.1111/jen.12096

Cited by 13 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In Europe, Chelifer cancroides was interested in predatory species of beekeeping (Schiffer, 2017) and showed the most promising roles for the biological control of Varroa (Read et al, 2014). Rangel and Ward (2018) reported that predatory mite (Stratiolaelaps scimitus; Mesostigmata: Laelapidae) could control Varroa under laboratory and field conditions.…”

Section: Biological Agentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Honeybee keeping constraints and future prospects

Wakgari

Wendimu

Tejada

2021

Cogent Food & Agriculture

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Honeybee is a beneficial insect for human beings. However, their valuable products and colonies became decline from time to time. For instance, in the USA alone it declined from 60% to 26% from 1947 to 2008. However, the demand increased since it is important for a wide variety of uses. This review paper is, therefore, aimed to explore the major constraints of honeybee productions that were sourced from both abiotic and biotic factors and their management. Most of the constraints were extreme temperatures, relative humidity, drought, deforestation, poor apicultural practices, unsafe pesticide utilization, and pests. The constraints managed by different methods. For instance, foulbrood disease managed by destructing the infected comb, avoiding spore contaminations, drying the combs, ventilating, sanitation, and feed honeybees with sugar-syrup. The Varroa destructor is also managed by removing the infested combs, splitting colony, ventilating, and applying organic acids (e.g., lactic, oxalic, and formic like Mite-Away Quick Strips ®), ethereal oils, synthetic pyrethroids, fluvalinate, flumethrin, and predatory mites. The tetracycline antibiotics, chemotherapeutics, and sodium sulfathiazole used for antagonizing the honeybee pathogens while feeding the antibiotic fumagillin with 25 mg/1Litre sugar-syrup manages nosema. Chalkbrood managed by improving the ABOUT THE AUTHORS

show abstract

Section: Biological Agentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Honeybee keeping constraints and future prospects

Wakgari

Wendimu

Tejada

2021

Cogent Food & Agriculture

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Fagan et al (2012) reported that 25 pseudoscorpions were sufficient to manage the population of Varroa within hives. Mass-rearing methods for two pseudoscorpions (Nesochernes gracilis and Heterochernes novaezealandiae) were developed in New Zealand, and N. gracilis showed the most promising role for biological control of Varroa (Read et al 2014). Also, a molecular technique based on detection of Varroa DNA in extractions of pseudoscorpion DNA was developed to confirm the predation in commercial hives without the need for observation (van Toor et al 2015).…”

Section: Predatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Present and future perspectives of using biological control agents against pests of honey bees

Abou‐Shaara

Staron

2019

Egypt J Biol Pest Control

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Honey bee, Apis mellifera L., is considered as an essential organism to the agricultural sector due to its role in pollination and alleviation of poverty in rural areas. Many pests attack honey bee colonies causing severe damages and economic losses. These pests include Varroa mites, Vespa hornets, wax moths, small hive beetles, and parasitic flies. Using chemical methods to control these pests causes some negative effects on honey bees and contaminates their products, while using biological control agents is promising and has no serious hazards. This article aimed to review available studies on the role of biological control agents mainly predators, parasitoids, and pathogens in controlling bee's pests and to present new perspectives. Also, obstacles of using biocontrol agents inside and outside the hives were presented. This article is essential for planning integrated management programs for honey bee pests.

show abstract

“…Chelifer cancroides (chelifer) was collected from lucerne nesting material of leaf-cutting bees (Megachile rotundata) in a chicken coop at Prebbleton, Canterbury, New Zealand, in December 2013. The pseudoscorpions were maintained on a diet of fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster) and apterous aphids (Acyrthosiphon pisum), in gauze-vented plastic containers containing fine sand for nesting material and bark for refuge as per Read, Howlett, Donovan, Nelson, and van Toor (2014). Approximately, 30 adults were in each container.…”

Section: Pseudoscorpion Culturesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ingestion of Varroa destructor by pseudoscorpions in honey bee hives confirmed by PCR analysis

Toor

Thompson

Gibson

et al. 2015

Journal of Apicultural Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The pseudoscorpions, Nesochernes gracilis and Chelifer cancroides, appear to have potential for control of varroa mites (Varroa destructor), but have not been observed to predate on varroa in honey bee hives. A molecular method was developed to determine, without the need for observation, whether a candidate predator was eating varroa in commercial hives. DNA extracted from pseudoscorpions, which had been observed to have fed on varroa, and DNA from those that had not come in contact with varroa were amplified by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) with primers that target the cytochrome oxidase subunit 1 gene specific to V. destructor. Varroa DNA was detected up to four weeks after a known varroa feeding event from extractions of pseudoscorpion DNA. No varroa DNA could be detected in the pseudoscorpions not exposed to varroa mites. Varroa DNA was reliably extracted and identified from pseudoscorpions known to have preyed upon varroa, including C. cancroides confined within a varroa-infested commercial honey bee hive. This molecular technique can therefore be used as an indicator of varroa predation by chelifers without requiring visual observation of predation.Confirmació n por análisis de PCR de la ingestion de Varroa destructor por pseudoescorpiones en colmenas de abeja de la miel.Los pseudoescorpiones Nesochernes gracilis y Chelifer cancroides parecen tener el potencial de controlar los ácaros de varroa (Varroa destructor), pero no han sido observados depredando al ácaro en las colmenas de abeja melífera. Se ha desarrollado un método molecular para determinar, sin necesidad de observació n, si un depredador candidato ha estado comiendo varroa en las colmenas comerciales. Se extrajo ADN de pseudoescorpiones que habían sido observados alimentándose de varroa y de aquellos que no habían estado en contacto con varroa. Se amplificó mediante reacció n en cadena de la polimerasa (PCR) con cebadores del gen de la subunidad 1 de citocromo oxidasa específicos para V. destructor. El ADN de varroa se detectó en las extracciones del ADN de los escorpiones hasta 4 semanas después de que éstos se alimentaran del ácaro. No se detectó ADN de varroa en los pseudoescorpiones que no estuvieron expuestos a los ácaros. El ADN de varroa fue extraído e identificado correctamente de los pseudoescorpiones que habían depredado sobre varroa, incluyendo C. cancroides, que se encontró en una colmena comercial de abeja melífera infestada de varroa. Por tanto, esta técnica molecular puede utilizarse como un indicador de la depredació n sobre varroa por parte de quelíceros sin requerir la observació n visual de la depredació n.

show abstract

Culturing chelifers (Pseudoscorpions) that consume Varroa mites

Cited by 13 publications

References 16 publications

Honeybee keeping constraints and future prospects

Honeybee keeping constraints and future prospects

Present and future perspectives of using biological control agents against pests of honey bees

Ingestion of Varroa destructor by pseudoscorpions in honey bee hives confirmed by PCR analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About