Evaluation of Two Commonly Used Field Tests to Assess Varroa destructor Infestation on Honey Bee (Apis mellifera) Colonies
Abstract
:Featured Application
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Location and Timing
2.2. Colony Measurements and Sample Collection
2.3. Powdered Sugar Roll
2.4. Natural Mite Fall
2.5. Test Protocols
- Protocol 1. Dispersal mite infestation assessment
- Protocol 2. Total mite infestation assessment
- 10-day natural mite fall and dispersal varroa population (protocol 1) or total varroa population (protocol 2)
- mites found with the powdered sugar roll method and dispersal varroa population (protocol 1) or total varroa population (protocol 2)
3. Results
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Dietemann, V.; Nazzi, F.; Martin, S.J.; Denis, L.; Anderson, D.L.; Locke, B.; Delaplane, K.S.; Wauquiez, Q.; Tannahill, C.; Frey, E.; et al. Standard methods for varroa research. J. Apic. Res. 2013, 52, 1–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fakhimzadeh, K. Potential of super-fine ground, plain white sugar dusting as an ecological tool for the control of varroasis in the honey bee (Apis mellifera). Am. Bee J. 2000, 140, 487–491. [Google Scholar]
- Bąk, B.; Wilde, J.; Siuda, M.; Kobylińska, M. Comparison of two methods of monitoring honeybee infestation with Varroa destructor mite. Ann. Warsaw Univ. Life Sci. Anim. Sci. 2009, 46, 33–38. [Google Scholar]
- Gregorc, A.; Knight, P.R.; Adamczyk, J. Powdered sugar shake to monitor and oxalic acid treatments to control varroa mites (Varroa destructor Anderson and Trueman) in honey bee (Apis mellifera) colonies. J. Apic. Res. 2017, 56, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, K.V.; Moon, R.D.; Burkness, E.C.; Hutchison, W.D.; Spivak, M. Practical Sampling Plans for Varroa destructor (Acari: Varroidae) in Apis mellifera (Hymenoptera: Apidae) Colonies and Apiaries. J. Econ. Èntomol. 2010, 103, 1039–1050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- De Jong, D.; Roma, D.D.A.; Gonçalves, L.S. A Comparative Analysis of Shaking Solutions for the Detection of Varroa Jacobsoni on Adult Honeybees. Apidologie 1982, 13, 297–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Branco, M.R.; Kidd, N.A.; Pickard, R.S. A comparative evaluation of sampling methods for Varroa destructor (Acari: Varroidae) population estimation. Apidologie 2006, 37, 452–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fakhimzadeh, K. Effectiveness of confectioner sugar dusting to knock down Varroa destructor from adult honey bees in laboratory trials. Apidologie 2001, 32, 139–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Diaz, R.; Duran, N.; Henriquez, P.; Aldea, P. Comparison of the effectiveness and sensitivity of the sugar shake method to detect phoretic varroa mites versus the goal standard method of soapy water washing. In Proceedings of the COLOSS Workshop, Bolognia, Italy, 21–22 March 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Macedo, P.A.; Wu, J.; Ellis, M.D. Using inert dusts to detect and assess varroa infestations in honey bee colonies. J. Apic. Res. 2002, 41, 3–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Droz, B.; Glanzmann, J.; Dietemann, V.; Charrière, J.-D. Evaluation de l’infestation par varroa des colonies: Comparaison entre les méthodes au sucre glace et au CO2 (Varroatester). Rev. Suisse Apic. 2017, 1–2, 24–30. [Google Scholar]
- Gerula, D.; Węgrzynowicz, P.; Panasiuk, B.; Bieńkowska, M. Testing a CO2 counter for assessment of phoretic varroa mites in bee colonies. In Proceedings of the 13th COLOSS Conference, Athens, Greece, 2–3 November 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Bieńkowska, M.; Konopacka, Z. Assessment of honeybee colonies infestation by the mite Varroa destructor based on its natural mortality during the summer season. J. Apic. Sci. 2001, 45, 129–141. [Google Scholar]
- Fries, I.; Aarhus, A.; Hansen, H.; Korpela, S. Comparisons of diagnostic methods for detection of Varroa jacobsoni in honey bee (Apis mellifera) colonies at low infestation levels. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 1991, 10, 279–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rinderer, T.; De Guzman, L.; Sylvester, H.A. Re-examination of the accuracy of a detergent solution for varroa mite detection. Am. Bee J. 2004, 144, 560–562. [Google Scholar]
- Traynor, K.S.; Mondet, F.; de Miranda, J.R.; Techer, M.; Kowallik, V.; Oddie, M.A.; Chantawannakul, P.; McAfee, A. Varroa destructor: A Complex Parasite, Crippling Honey Bees Worldwide. Trends Parasitol. 2020, 36, 592–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Delaplane, K.S.; Van Der Steen, J.; Guzman-Novoa, E. Standard methods for estimating strength parameters of Apis mellifera colonies. J. Apic. Res. 2013, 52, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gregorc, A.; Planinc, I. The Control of Varroa destructor Using Oxalic Acid. Veter. J. 2002, 163, 306–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Büchler, R.; Uzunov, A.; Kovačić, M.; Prešern, J.; Pietropaoli, M.; Hatjina, F.; Pavlov, B.; Charistos, L.; Formato, G.; Galarza, E. Summer brood interruption as integrated management strategy for effective Varroa control in Europe. J. Apic. Res. 2020, 59, 764–773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kruskal, W.H.; Wallis, W.A. Use of ranks in one-criterion variance analysis. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 1952, 47, 583–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kendall, M.G. A new measure of rank correlation. Biometrika 1938, 30, 81–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spearman, C. The Proof and Measurement of Association between Two Things. Am. J. Psychol. 1987, 100, 441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carreck, N.L. Honey bee veterinary medicine: Apis mellifera L. Bee World 2016, 93, 27–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Iatridou, D.; Pohl, L.; Gajger, I.T.; De Briyne, N.; Bravo, A.; Saunders, J. Mapping the teaching of honeybee veterinary medicine in the European Union and European Free Trade Area. Veter. Rec. Open 2019, 6, e000343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Le Conte, Y.; Meixner, M.D.; Brandt, A.; Carreck, N.L.; Costa, C.; Mondet, F.; Büchler, R. Geographical Distribution and Selection of European Honey Bees Resistant to Varroa destructor. Insects 2020, 11, 873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pietropaoli, M.; Rivera Gomis, J. Icing sugar method: Shaking the jar makes the difference. In Proceedings of the Varroa Control Taskforce Workshop, Unije, Croatia, 19–20 May 2016; p. 7. [Google Scholar]
- Oliver, R. Refining the mite wash: Part 3 dislodgement, precipitation, and separation. Am. Bee J. 2020, 160, 1013. [Google Scholar]
- Oliver, R. Refining the mite wash: Part 2 mite release. Am. Bee J. 2020, 160, 885. [Google Scholar]
- Ellis, M.; Nelson, R.; Simonds, C. A comparison of the fluvalinate and ether roll methods of sampling for Varroa mites in honey bee colonies. Am. Bee J. 1988, 4, 262–263. [Google Scholar]
- Calis, J.N.M.; Fries, I.; Ryrie, S.C. Population modelling of Varroa jacobsoni Oud. Apidologie 1999, 30, 111–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bienkowska, M.; Konopacka, Z. Daily summer fall of Varroa destructor [Anderson Trueman 2000] calculated from short [1, 2, 3, and 4-week] sampling periods to be used as an indicator of autumn mite infestation of honeybee colonies. J. Apic. Sci. 2001, 45, 143–160. [Google Scholar]
Method | Reliability | Sample Size | Sensitivity | References |
---|---|---|---|---|
Soapy wash | 90% when bees are frozen and centrifuged at 6342 rpm | Approx. 100 bees | More than 3 mites per 100 bees, when the infestation level is lower than 3%, efficiency is 85% | [2] |
Equally accurate as powdered sugar test (93%) | 250 frozen bees | [3] | ||
Positive correlations between relative number of infested honey bees detected by powdered sugar shake and washing bees with alcohol plus soapy water (r = 0.90 and r = 0.62) | 300–400 bees | [4] | ||
Hand shaking for 1 min 92% | 300 adult bees | [5] 1 | ||
Mechanical shaking for 30 min 100% | Approx. 250 adult bees | [6] | ||
Brood uncapping | More reliable in combination with sampling adult bees | 50 worker brood cells and on average 29 drone brood cells | [7] | |
Powdered sugar roll | 91% | Dusting and CO2 anaesthesia, 761 adult bees (5 replicates) | 10 mites/100 bees, 42 h | [8] |
73.8%/90.98%-low infestation level 76.2%/87.86%-medium infestation level 79.8%/82.16%-high infestation level | Approx. 318 adult bees | Sensitivity in lower infestation levels 84.85%, Sensitivity in medium and high infestation level 100% | [9,10] | |
66.10 ± 35.23% and 94.64 ± 9.56% in August and October | 300–400 bees | [4] | ||
CO2 | 49.5% | 200–600 adult bees on average 415 adult bees | At 22 samples from 32 efficiency was below 80% | [11] |
62.5% | On average 427 adult bees | Range 28.6–85.7% | [12] | |
Natural mite fall | Strong linear correlation between natural mite fall and mite fall after chemical treatment r = 0.951 | 22 colonies | [7] | |
Strong linear correlation between natural mite fall and mite fall after chemical treatment r = 0.41–0.89 | 150 colonies | Correlation depending on the year | [13] | |
76.43% low infestation level 68.26% medium infestation level 66.83% high infestation level | Approx. 318 adult bees | [10] |
Apiary ID | Mean Amount of Bees * | Mean Amount of Brood ** | Dispersal Mite Infestation (Mean) *** | Powdered Sugar Roll | Natural Mite Fall | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Spearman Correlation (p-Value) | Coefficient of Determination | Spearman Correlation (p-Value) | Coefficient of Determination | ||||
ITG1 | 16816 a | 24,880 bc | 146 b | 0.564 (0.030) | 0.319 | 0.839 (<0.0001) | 0.704 |
ITG2 | 12,055 a | 32,746 c | 26 a | 0.623 (0.015) | 0.388 | 0.345 (0.206) | 0.119 |
NA1 | 17,076 a | 19,756 ab | 76 ab | −0.146 (0.604) | 0.021 | −0.072 (0.802) | 0.005 |
NA2 | 13,922 a | 15,293 a | 29 a | −0.462 (0.085) | 0.213 | 0.136 (0.625) | 0.018 |
Total apiaries: 4 | 14,758 | 23,169 | 69 | 0.368 (0.004) | 0.136 | 0.537 (<0.0001) | 0.289 |
Colony Category | Powdered Sugar Roll | Natural Mite Fall |
---|---|---|
Weak | 0.79 (p < 0.05) | 0.66 (p < 0.05) |
Strong | 0.60 (p < 0.05) | 0.74 (p < 0.05) |
Low amount of brood | 0.66 (p < 0.05) | 0.86 (p < 0.05) |
High amount of brood | 0.84 (p < 0.05) | 0.67 (p < 0.05) |
Low infested | 0.67 (p < 0.05) | 0.73 (p < 0.05) |
High infested | 0.48 (p > 0.05) | 0.68 (p < 0.05) |
Apiary ID | Mean Amount of Bees * | Mean Amount of Brood ** | Total Mite Infestation (Mean) *** | Powdered Sugar Roll | Natural Mite Fall | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Spearman Correlation (p-Value) | Coefficient of Determination | Spearman Correlation (p-Value) | Coefficient of Determination | ||||
DG1 | 19,456 b | 32,733 b | 118 a | 0.267 (0.365) | 0.071 | 0.092 (0.773) | 0.008 |
DG2 | 18,793 b | 28,320 b | 541 b | 0.354 (0.116) | 0.125 | 0.549 (0.011) | 0.302 |
JW1 | 16,697 b | 31,167 b | 131 a | 0.044 (0.879) | 0.002 | 0.846 (<0.001) | 0.715 |
JW2 | 18,061 b | 16,911 a | 179 a | 0.221 (0.296) | 0.049 | 0.084 (0.695) | 0.007 |
CC | 12,843 a | 26,915 b | 2478 b | 0.890 (<0.0001) | 0.791 | 0.926 (<0.0001) | 0.857 |
Total apiaries: 5 | 17,210 | 25,981 | 673 | 0.547 (<0.0001) | 0.299 | 0.625 (<0.0001) | 0.391 |
Colony Category | Powdered Sugar Roll | Natural Mite Fall |
---|---|---|
Weak | 0.77 (p <0.05) | 0.77 (p < 0.05) |
Strong | 0.32 (p < 0.05) | 0.30 (p < 0.05) |
Low amount of brood | 0.58 (p < 0.05) | 0.56 (p < 0.05) |
High amount of brood | 0.44 (p < 0.05) | 0.67 (p < 0.05) |
Low infested | 0.44 (p < 0.05) | 0.26 (p > 0.05) |
High infested | 0.52 (p < 0.05) | 0.68 (p < 0.05) |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Pietropaoli, M.; Tlak Gajger, I.; Costa, C.; Gerula, D.; Wilde, J.; Adjlane, N.; Aldea-Sánchez, P.; Smodiš Škerl, M.I.; Bubnič, J.; Formato, G. Evaluation of Two Commonly Used Field Tests to Assess Varroa destructor Infestation on Honey Bee (Apis mellifera) Colonies. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 4458. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11104458
Pietropaoli M, Tlak Gajger I, Costa C, Gerula D, Wilde J, Adjlane N, Aldea-Sánchez P, Smodiš Škerl MI, Bubnič J, Formato G. Evaluation of Two Commonly Used Field Tests to Assess Varroa destructor Infestation on Honey Bee (Apis mellifera) Colonies. Applied Sciences. 2021; 11(10):4458. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11104458
Chicago/Turabian StylePietropaoli, Marco, Ivana Tlak Gajger, Cecilia Costa, Dariusz Gerula, Jerzy Wilde, Noureddine Adjlane, Patricia Aldea-Sánchez, Maja Ivana Smodiš Škerl, Jernej Bubnič, and Giovanni Formato. 2021. "Evaluation of Two Commonly Used Field Tests to Assess Varroa destructor Infestation on Honey Bee (Apis mellifera) Colonies" Applied Sciences 11, no. 10: 4458. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11104458
APA StylePietropaoli, M., Tlak Gajger, I., Costa, C., Gerula, D., Wilde, J., Adjlane, N., Aldea-Sánchez, P., Smodiš Škerl, M. I., Bubnič, J., & Formato, G. (2021). Evaluation of Two Commonly Used Field Tests to Assess Varroa destructor Infestation on Honey Bee (Apis mellifera) Colonies. Applied Sciences, 11(10), 4458. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11104458