Surveillance of synthetic acaricide efficacy against <i>Varroa destructor</i> in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The parasitic mite Varroa destructor (Mesostigmata: Varroidae) is the main culprit of honey bee (Hymenoptera: Apidae) colony mortality in Ontario, Canada. Most beekeepers use synthetic acaricides to control V. destructor infestations in their colonies, but the use of these products increases the risk of V. destructor developing resistance to the active ingredients, which is a growing concern. This study sought to determine the efficacy of three synthetic acaricides approved for use in Canada for control of V. destructor infestations, amitraz (Apivar™), tau-fluvalinate (Apistan®), and flumethrin (Bayvarol®), using the Pettis test. The mite mortality rate in populations of V. destructor differed for the acaricides tested. Amitraz caused a significantly higher mite mortality rate (92%) than flumethrin (78%) and tau-fluvalinate (72%) did. Amitraz was classified as “mostly effective” (90–97%), whereas flumethrin and tau-fluvalinate were classified as “minimally effective” (< 80%) for V. destructor control in the mite populations studied. Variation in mite mortality due to acaricide exposure was observed between apiaries and regions. The results highlight the importance of periodically assessing the varroacidal activity of acaricides to inform decisions to control the parasite when implementing integrated pest management strategies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".