Indoor Winter Fumigation of Apis mellifera (Hymenoptera: Apidae) Colonies Infested with Varroa destructor (Acari: Varroidae) with Formic Acid Is a Potential Control Alternative in Northern Climates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Formic acid treatment for the control of the ectoparasitic varroa mite, Varroa destructor Anderson & Trueman, infesting honey bee, Apis mellifera L., colonies is usually carried out as an in-hive outdoor treatment. This study examined the use of formic acid on wintered colonies kept indoors at 5 degrees C from 24 November 1999 to 24 March 2000. Colonies were placed in small treatment rooms that were not treated (control) or fumigated at three different concentrations of formic acid: low (mean 11.9 +/- 1.2 ppm), medium (mean 25.8 +/- 1.4 ppm), or high (mean 41.2 +/- 3.3 ppm), for 48 h on 22-24 January 2000. Queen bee, worker bee, and varroa mite mortality were monitored throughout the winter, and tracheal mite, Acarapis woodi (Rennie), prevalence and mean abundance of nosema, Nosema apis Zander, spores were assessed. This study revealed that formic acid fumigation of indoor-wintered honey bees is feasible and effective. The highest concentration significantly reduced the mean abundance of varroa mites and nosema spores without increasing bee mortality. Tracheal mite prevalence did not change significantly at any concentration, although we did not measure mortality directly. The highest concentration treatment killed 33.3% of queens compared with 4.8% loss in the control. Repeated fumigation periods at high concentrations or extended fumigation at low concentrations may increase the efficacy of this treatment method and should be tested in future studies. An understanding of the cause of queen loss and methods to prevent it must be developed for this method to be generally accepted.
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".