Comparative Laboratory Toxicity of Neem Pesticides to Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae), Their Mite Parasites<i>Varroa jacobsoni</i>(Acari: Varroidae) and<i>Acarapis woodi</i>(Acari: Tarsonemidae), and Brood Pathogens<i>Paenibacillus larvae</i>and<i>Ascophaera apis</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Laboratory bioassays were conducted to evaluate neem oil and neem extract for the management of key honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) pests. Neem pesticides inhibited the growth of Paenibacillus larvae (Ash, Priest & Collins) in vitro but had no effect on the growth of Ascophaera apis (Olive & Spiltoir). Azadirachtin-rich extract (neem-aza) was 10 times more potent than crude neem oil (neem oil) against P. larvae suggesting that azadirachtin is a main antibiotic component in neem. Neem-aza, however, was ineffective at controlling the honey bee mite parasites Varroa jacobsoni (Ouduemans) and Acarapis woodi (Rennie). Honey bees also were deterred from feeding on sucrose syrup containing > 0.01 mg/ml of neem-aza. However, neem oil applied topically to infested bees in the laboratory proved highly effective against both mite species. Approximately 50-90% V. jacobsoni mortality was observed 48 h after treatment with associated bee mortality lower than 10%. Although topically applied neem oil did not result in direct A. woodi mortality, it offered significant protection of bees from infestation by A. woodi. Other vegetable and petroleum-based oils also offered selective control of honey bee mites, suggesting neem oil has both a physical and a toxicological mode of action. Although oils are not as selective as the V. jacobsoni acaricide tau-fluvalinate, they nonetheless hold promise for the simultaneous management of several honey bee pests.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".