Comparison of Release Mechanisms for Botanical Oils to Control <I>Varroa destructor</I> (Acari: Varroidae) and <I>Acarapis woodi</I> (Acari: Tarsonemidae) in Colonies of Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two major parasitic pests threaten honey bee populations, the external mite Varroa destructor and the internal mite Acarapis woodi (Rennie). Varroa are beginning to develop resistance to the main chemical defense fluvalinate, and alternative control methods are being pursued. Previous studies have shown that botanical oils, especially thymol, can be effective. Six release devices for either thymol or a blend of botanical oils known as Magic 3 were tested in beehives. The release devices were as follows: (1) low density polyethylene (LDPE) sleeves filled with Magic 3, (2) Magic 3-infused florist blocks, (3) thymol infused florist blocks, (4) a canola oil and thymol mixture wick release, (5) a plastic strip coated with calcium carbonate and Magic 3, and (6) an untreated control. There were significant decreases in varroa levels with the use of Magic 3 sleeves, but brood levels also decreased. Tracheal mite levels significantly decreased with the Magic 3 sleeve treatment, the Magic 3 florist block treatment, and the thymol canola wick treatment. A second experiment showed that changing the location of Magic 3 sleeves in the colony did not detrimentally effect brood levels, but also did not effectively control varroa mites.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".