Effects of treatments with Apivar<sup>®</sup> and Thymovar<sup>®</sup> on <i>V. destructor</i> populations, virus infections and indoor winter survival of Canadian honey bee (<i>Apis mellifera</i> L.) colonies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Efficacies of two miticides, Apivar® and Thymovar®, were evaluated as a fall treatment against V. destructor. The effect of treatment with miticides was further evaluated by monitoring both viral load and rate of indoor overwintering survival of colonies of European honey bees (Apis mellifera L.) in the vicinity of Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada. Forty-five colonies were randomly assigned to three treatment groups with 15 hives per group: Group 1; 2 strips of Thymovar® (thymol); Group 2; 2 strips of Apivar® (Amitraz); and Group 3; no treatment (control). Significant decreases in the rates of colony infestation (Mites per hundred bees, MPHB) by V. destructor were observed (p < 0.05) between colonies of bees treated with Apivar® in October 2013 when compared to control colonies. Efficacy of Apivar® and Thymovar® against V. destructor after treatment for 22 days were 76.5 and 26.7%, respectively. After 22 days, concentrations of the two miticides in bees were 15.4 ng amitraz/g wet mass (wm) and 64,800 ng thymol/g wm. There were no significant differences (p > 0.05) in the percentage of colonies infected by deformed wing virus (DWV) and Israeli acute paralysis virus (IAPV) either before or after treatment with Apivar® or Thymovar® in October 2013 and 7 months post treatment in April 2014. Only the Apivar® treatment group showed IAPV infections in April 2014. The group treated with Apivar® exhibited a better overwintering rate of survival (93%), than hives treated with Thymovar® (67%). These results suggest volatile miticides like Thymovar® should be avoided in geographical areas with colder fall temperatures.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".