Effects of release pattern and room ventilation on survival of varroa mites and queens during indoor winter fumigation of honey bee colonies with formic acid
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study examined the effects of indoor fumigation with formic acid on survival of honey bee, Apis mellifera L. (Hymenoptera: Apidae), queens and varroa mites ( Varroa destructor Anderson and Trueman (Acari: Varroidae)). A relationship between cumulative formic acid concentration and varroa mite mortality was established for colonies subjected to high-concentration fumigation while held indoors at 2–4 °C during winter. We also examined the effects of the formic acid release pattern and room ventilation rate on queen loss and treatment efficacy during fumigation. Two experiments were conducted in a wintering building. In both experiments, room air had higher formic acid concentrations than hive air. In experiment 1, 50% and 95% of mites were killed when exposed to in-hive concentration × time combinations of 49 ppm × days (CT 50 product) and 111 ppm × days (CT 95 product), respectively. No queen loss was observed under either the increasing-concentration or constant high concentration fumigation pattern. In experiment 2, 33% of queens were lost when minimum ventilation was used with room air concentrations of 57 ± 8 ppm (mean ± SE), whereas no queens were lost in controls or colonies exposed to room air concentrations of 27 ± 8 ppm with variable ventilation. Queen loss was associated with peak in-hive formic acid concentrations >20 ppm, but not with CT product, suggesting that queens are affected by acute rather than chronic exposure to formic acid. Formic acid fumigation significantly reduced the mean abundance of mites under both minimum- and variable-ventilation treatments.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".