Evaluation of Dry and Wet Formulations of Oxalic Acid, Thymol, and Oregano Oil for Varroa Mite (Acari: Varroidae) Control in Honey Bee (Hymenoptera: Apidae) Colonies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The efficacy and safety of dry and wet formulations of three nonsynthetic compounds, oxalic acid (OA), thymol (T), and oregano oil (OO), for the control of Varroa destructor Anderson and Trueman infestations in honey bee (Apis mellifera Linnaeus) colonies were determined. The treatments were OA in dust, OA diluted in glycerin solvent embedded in a towel, T in dust, T in glycerin solvent and towel, OO in dry microcapsules, OO in glycerin solvent and towel, and the control. The treatments were applied weekly for 4 wk during the fall season. The rates of acaricide efficacy, weekly mite fall, bee mortality, colony survivorship, and strength, were determined for each of the treatments. All formulations, with the exemption of OO microcapsules, were effective at controlling infestations of V. destructor. The most effective formulations were T dust (96.6%), T glycerin (92.4%), and OA glycerin (79%). More than 85% of the mites were killed during the first 2 wk of treatment with T formulations, compared to less than 30% for the OA glycerin formulation. The lowest efficacy rate was for OO microcapsules (21.3%), and the only treatment that significantly increased bee mortality was OA glycerin. The rates of winter colony survival and honey bee populations were related to the varroacidal efficacy of the formulations. The implications of these findings are discussed.
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) | 0.000 | 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".