Evaluation of potential miticide toxicity to Varroa destructor and honey bees, Apis mellifera, under laboratory conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The honey bee, Apis mellifera L., is the world's most important managed pollinator of agricultural crops, however, Varroa mite, Varroa destructor Anderson and Trueman, infestation has threatened honey bee survivorship. Low efficacy and development of Varroa mite resistance to currently used Varroacides has increased the demand for innovative, effective treatment tool options that exhibit high efficacy, while minimizing adverse effects on honey bee fitness. In this investigation, the toxicity of 16 active ingredients and 9 formulated products of registered miticides for use on crops from 12 chemical families were evaluated in comparison to amitraz on Varroa mites and honey bees using contact surface and topical exposures. It was found that fenpyroximate (93% mortality), spirotetramat (84% mortality) and spirodiclofen (70% mortality) had greater toxicity to Varroa mites, but high dose rates caused high bee mortality (> 60%). With this in mind, further research is needed to investigate other options to minimize the adverse effect of these compounds on bees. The results also found high toxicity of fenazaquin and etoxazole against Varroa mites causing 92% and 69% mortality, respectively; and were found to be safe on honey bees. Collectively, it is recommended that fenazaquin and etoxazole are candidates for a potential Varroacide and recommended for further testing against Varroa mites at the colony level.
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".