MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2102837731 · doi:10.1603/ec14048

New Miticides for Integrated Pest Management of <I>Varroa destructor</I> (Acari: Varroidae) in Honey Bee Colonies on the Canadian Prairies

2014· article· en· W2102837731 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Lynae P Vandervalk, Medhat E. Nasr, Lloyd M. Dosdall

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Economic Entomology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect and Pesticide Research
Canadian institutionsAgriculture Food and Rural Development
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Bee Research Fund
KeywordsVarroa destructorAcaricideBiologyDestructorVarroaHoney beeAcariBroodIntegrated pest managementMiteToxicologyVarroa sensitive hygieneIxodidaeBotanyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Varroa destructor Anderson and Trueman 2000 (Acari: Varroidae) is an ectoparasitic mite of the honey bee, Apis mellifera L. (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Honey bee colonies require extensive management to prevent mortality caused by varroa mites and the viruses they vector. New miticides (Thymovar and HopGuard) to manage varroa mites were evaluated during the spring and fall treatment windows of the Canadian prairies to determine their effectiveness as part of an integrated management strategy. Thymovar and HopGuard were evaluated alongside the currently used industry standards: Apivar and formic acid. Results demonstrated that Apivar and formic acid remain effective V. destructor management options under spring and fall conditions. Applications of Thymovar during spring were associated with a reduction in brood area, and therefore should be limited to the fall season. The miticide HopGuard was not effective in managing V. destructor, and alteration of the current delivery system is necessary. This study demonstrates the potential for new effective treatment options to supplement currently used V. destructor integrated pest management systems.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.707
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.230 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations26
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Economic EntomologySame topicInsect and Pesticide ResearchFrench-language works237,207