Next Article in Journal
Conservation and Utilization of Livestock Genetic Diversity in the United States of America through Gene Banking
Next Article in Special Issue
Population Growth and Insecticide Residues of Honey Bees in Tropical Agricultural Landscapes
Previous Article in Journal
Diatoms Dominate and Alter Marine Food-Webs When CO2 Rises
Previous Article in Special Issue
Biotic and Abiotic Factors Associated with Colonies Mortalities of Managed Honey Bee (Apis mellifera)
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Diagnosis of Varroa Mite (Varroa destructor) and Sustainable Control in Honey Bee (Apis mellifera) Colonies—A Review

1
Faculty of Agriculture and Life Sciences, University of Maribor, Pivola 10, 2311 Hoče, Slovenia
2
Thad Cochran Southern Horticultural Research Laboratory, USDA, ARS, Poplarville, MS 39470, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Diversity 2019, 11(12), 243; https://doi.org/10.3390/d11120243
Submission received: 15 November 2019 / Revised: 9 December 2019 / Accepted: 12 December 2019 / Published: 16 December 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Monitoring of Honey Bee Colony Losses)

Abstract

:
Determining varroa mite infestation levels in honey bee colonies and the proper method and time to perform a diagnosis are important for efficient mite control. Performing a powdered sugar shake or counting mites that drop from combs and bees onto a hive bottom board are two reliable methods for sampling varroa mite to evaluate the efficacy of an acaricide treatment. This overview summarizes studies that examine the efficacy of organic acids and essential oils, mite monitoring, and brood interruption for integrated varroa mite control in organic beekeeping.

1. Introduction

Varroa mites, Varroa destructor Anderson and Truemann, are the single most devastating global pests of both adult and immature honey bees, Apis mellifera L. Feeding by mites reduces adult bee body weight, life span, and immunity to pathogens [1,2,3,4], Adult female varroa mites are physically large (~1.5–2.0 mm wide) parasitic mites that disperse through phoresy by attaching themselves to worker bees and drones. Before worker bees seal comb cells with wax, varroa mites move into brood cells occupied by mature bee larvae where they will eventually feed on the fat bodies and hemolymph of host pupae [5,6]. If mite populations develop undetected, untreated and infested honey bee colonies usually collapse within a year [3]. Although there are multiple factors contributing to colony mortality, in many cases, the most important are varroa parasitism [4] together with the transmission of an extensive set of honey bee viruses [5]. The chemical control of varroa mites presents a paradox. Toxic acaricides must be used to kill mites, but they can also have toxic side-effects on bees and whole colonies. Thus, acaricides must be applied at their lowest effective dose to minimize a build-up of chemical residues and their by-products in bees, honey, and wax [6], as well as to slow the evolution of acaricide resistance [7]. Improved monitoring for mites and the application of less-persistent, low-residual acaricides could help reduce the amount of toxic active products applied each season. Therefore, we review research regarding improvements in mite monitoring and the efficacy of alternative organic acaricides.

Evaluation of Colonies Infestation with Varroa Mites

Researchers and beekeepers employ various standardized or incidental methods to monitor varroa mites infesting adult honey bees and brood [8]. These methods include counting mites on traps and on such colony contents as hive debris on the bottom boards, brood, as well as the bodies of captured worker bees. Sampling such hive contents is crucial for collecting data for optimally timing acaricide applications and effectively controlling mites [9].
Currently, simple field and laboratory diagnostic procedures are available for assessing overall varroa mite infestation within entire honey bee colonies. Beekeepers have been evaluating for decades the efficacy of an acaricide treatment by counting dead mites that drop from brood frames and bees onto the hive bottom board [10,11]. The number of these fallen mites found within a hive’s debris correlates well with living mite populations infesting the colony above [12]. In fact, researchers studied the correlation between the natural mite mortality and the total number of mites in honey bee colonies. They found that varroa mite populations in colonies with brood can be approximated by multiplying the daily varroa mite mortality detected on hive bottom boards by 20–40 [13]. After performing mite counts and once infestations of varroa have reached or exceeded economic threshold level, e.g., at 3 mites/100 bees in the colony, control is warranted [13]. However, treatment threshold levels will vary according to colony size, location, management and other stress factors [14]. Therefore, keeping data records of natural mite fall levels within a colony is useful for determining (1) the level of mite infestation before and after acaricidal application and (2) seasonal trends in the size of natural mite populations [15]. Bottom board counts are especially useful for estimating total varroa mites per colony and daily mite mortality, even for very small mite populations [16], because varroa mite populations below 100 mites per colony cannot be detected by examining samples of adult bees or brood [17]. However, mite sampling protocols that rely on bottom board mite counts are time consuming, more costly, and may take several days or weeks to establish a relevant colony infestation level. Varroa mite counts may also vary with levels of mite removal by bees (i.e., hygienic behavior) [18].
A simple non-destructive method for sampling varroa mites living on the bodies of adult honey bees is the “sugar shake”. This technique simply involves applying powdered sugar to the bodies of living bees. The powdered sugar will quickly clog the tarsal pads of varroa mites, they lose adhesion, and become permanently dislodged from host bees [19]. The sugar shake method removes 77% to 91% of mites for counting [20,21]. Even in highly infested colonies, 82% recovery of varroa mites is possible using the sugar shake method [22]. The size of mite populations in an entire colony can be extrapolated from counts of mites dislodged from adult bees taken from a single brood frame. Higher precision in estimates of colony infestation simply requires counting dislodged mites from a greater number of captured bees [8]. Hence, the “sugar shake” procedure is a simple and reliable method that beekeepers can use to evaluate the number of varroa mites on adult worker bees, drones, and even throughout an entire colony [22,23]. Sugar shake is also a useful sampling protocol when evaluating different mite controls [24]. There are a few caveats to consider when using the sugar shake method. The efficiency of the powder shake method to extract varroa mites from adult host bees can vary with fluctuations in honey bee population size and environmental conditions. Average effectiveness of the sugar shake method to remove varroa mites from adult honey bees in a hot, humid environment (i.e., 32 °C and 76% RH) is ~66%, a rate below the 94% obtained in drier, cooler conditions (i.e., 26 °C and 71% RH) [25]. Sugar quality is also important for dislodging varroa, with some sugar mixtures outperforming others. For instance, a fine dusting of pure powdered sugar dislodges 70–80% of varroa mites, which greatly exceeds the 50% varroa drop achieved using a mix of powdered sugar and corn starch. Thus, sugar quality combined with a humid environment appears to influence the efficacy of sugar shakes to remove mites [19]. Perhaps, a higher temperature and humidity causes grains to clump, thereby increasing the sugar’s coarseness and reducing rates of tarsal clogging. Generally, dusting honey bees with powdered sugar is considered a safe mechanical method for diagnosing colony infestations and in some cases, can be used to reduce varroa mite infestation in field colonies [24].
A similar approach to removing mites from host bees is to use washing kits, often homemade, with water or alcohol (70%) serving as both the washing and collection fluid [26]. Accurate estimates of the number of varroa mites on adults using either the sugar shake method, water wash, or alcohol wash can be performed in colonies without brood for research or practical beekeeping purposes. When using an alcohol wash, approximately 300 bees are sacrificed without any noticeable effect on colony strength or overall health and productivity. However, alcohol washes will kill both mites and the small number of bees selected for sampling. In fact, accurate assessments of colony infestation obtained with this diagnostic test are crucial to ensuring colony survival and productivity [27]. Based on an established number of varroa mites obtained by sugar shake or alcohol wash, applications of miticides or other treatments may be warranted. Therefore, the efficacy of previous control treatments can be assessed using both methods. Varroa mite levels between 3 percent and 5 percent are tolerable for beekeepers. When mite levels are above 5 percent, immediate varroa mite control needs to be performed [28,29]. A similar wide range of economic threshold for varroa mite populations in colonies was established for beekeeping conditions in the United States at levels between 5 and 12 percent and most beekeepers prefer to use the 5 percent [13]. Precise estimation of varroa mite population size is established by surveying mite loads on adult and pupal bees as well as through counts of dead varroa mites within a colony. The population dynamics of varroa mites mainly depend on the reproductive success of varroa females in worker brood cells [30,31]. Furthermore, mite population size may be estimated by a combination of adult bee and brood samples and compared to the number of mites killed by chemical treatment [32].

2. Varroa Mite Control with Organic Substances

Proper timing of control is best accomplished by regularly monitoring mite levels inside colonies and comparing varroa mite population trends. Organic acids derived mostly from active components of plant and essential oils are widely used for varroa mite control in conventional and organic honeybee colonies [11,33]. Thymol is one such component, which is a natural constituent of thyme (Thymus vulgaris) and a volatile monoterpenoid with acaricidal activity against varroa [28]. The efficacy and environmental safety of several commercial products containing thymol have been evaluated [11,29,30]. It has been established that thymol residues may accumulate in a hive, but they soon dissipate to a natural hive level at or below 1.1 mg thymol/kg honey. Thus, thymol administered to a hive’s population does not alter the taste or nutritional quality of harvested honey [31]. Two popular thymol-based acaricides are available for beekeeping. They include ApiGuard® and Thymovar®. ApiGuard is a registered thymol-based fumigant that in its gel form controls high percentages of varroa mites in honeybee colonies. In broodless colonies, ApiGuard can kill 54 percentage points more varroa mites (77% mortality) than does natural mortality alone (23% natural mortality), [14]. Similarly, Fasbinder et al. [33] attained 64% mortality with ApiGuard. The most effective applications of ApiGuard occur in autumn, a time when this acaricide has little to no negative impact on the growth of early spring bee populations [34]. However, like many other acaricides, the effectiveness of ApiGuard treatments varies according to environmental conditions. Thymovar (Andrematt Biocontrol AG) is another thymol-based product formulated as 15 g of thymol impregnated onto a cellulose wafer. This product is typically applied after the last honey harvest in the beekeeping season. In one of our previous experiments, we found that Thymovar kills 54–66% of varroa mites [32] and in another experiment, [35] attained a mean percentage efficacy of 85%.
Other non-persistent organic acids with high acaricidal activity include formic acid (FA), a common defensive compound sprayed by certain arthropods, and oxalic acid (OA), a minor constituent of honey and a plant substance that, in a normal field context, repels or sickens a plant’s insect antagonists [30,36]. Another organic acaricide with high activity, derived from hop beta plant acids, is HopGuard®. It is particularly effective at killing varroa mites in colonies with both open and sealed brood. The recommended timing of HopGuard is during the months of June and October in colonies with large brood areas [37]. HopGuard efficacy can vary seasonally and among colonies, but it often induces >80% varroa mite mortality in brood-right colonies. HopGuard works quickly and kills 65% of varroa mites within 24 h of application [38].
FA treatment alone kills 43% of mites on the bodies of adult worker bees, but is less effective in autumn when colonies receive double fumigation with 65% FA [39]. Improved formulations of FA (50 mL and 100 mL at 85%) impregnating thin plates of soft treefiber induces 100% mortality of mother mites with 90% of honey bee brood surviving. Higher bee brood loss did occur with a treatment of 100 mL FA [40]. Absorbent cardboard plates (Illertissen mite plates) soaked with 20 mL of 65% formic acid induces 94% varroa mite mortality in Schwarzwald (Black Forest) colonies [41]. Higher varroa mite control efficiencies of 95–97% using FA impregnated soft fiber plates (Pavatex) depended on both concentration and duration [42]. Formic acid as a volatile organic compound dissipates quickly after treatment and hence, has a very short period of residual activity [43]. At higher temperatures, FA evaporation increases, and if hive ventilation is impeded by bees covering vents with propolis, mite mortality may fall, while brood mortality increases [40].
Oxalic acid (OA) is acutely toxic to varroa mites. Due to this acaricide’s high efficacy and low risk of hive contamination, OA has been extensively used by itself and in combination with other mite controls [30,36]. Application typically involves trickling OA in sugar water solution between the frames of a honey bee hive. The recommended application rate per hive is 50 mL of OA solution. Various formulations of OA that have been tested include 3.4% OA dihydrate in 47.6% aqueous sucrose (w/w), 3.7% OA in 27.1% aqueous sucrose, and 3.0% OA in 32.0% aqueous sucrose [44,45]. Oxalic acid can kill 33–69% of varroa mites within the first two days following application, particularly in summer and autumn. From 3 to 11 days post-treatment, OA residual activity drops off significantly to 14–23% after the first 3 and 4 days and to almost 0% after 9 days [46]. Higher concentrations of OA in sugar water does increase varroa mite control but may pose a greater toxicity risk to bees. In fact, honey bees are susceptible to the toxic effects of both conventional and organic acaricides, including OA even at low concentrations [45]. In toxicity tests using caged bees, the highest dosage of OA acaricide is approximately 250 µg per bee, which is a tolerance level 2.5 X higher than previously reported [47]. However, OA is less toxic to honey bees than is the conventional acaricide Apistan®. We suspect that individual bees are killed by direct dermal exposure to OA in both laboratory tests and colony treatments. While some bees are exposed to lethal doses of OA when using the trickling method within colonies, queens have a very low probability of exposure, yet mortality within any caste of honey bee could affect overall colony productivity, unless steps are taken to limit brood and adult exposure during initial acaricide applications [24].
Single applications of OA are the least harmful to bees, but may be insufficient for adequate varroa control. Brødsgaard [48] reported only a 24% efficacy after administering a single OA treatment in the spring using the trickling method. Repeated applications of OA during specific periods of colony development substantially improve varroa mite control. Three consecutive OA treatments in colonies maintained in a temperate environment with brood present reduced varroa mite populations by 39–52%. It seems that colonies with a threshold level less than 1 dead mite found on the hive bottom board per day by the end of July should receive three OA treatments, which will reduce the mite population by approximately 40% [49]. Reducing the mite population ensures a colony’s normal development and winter survival. However, OA efficacy rises considerably to 98–99% when colonies lack brood [49,50]. Other researchers reported similar results with brood-right and broodless colonies in different climactic regimes [32,42,44,48]. Additionally, Nanetti et al, [50] and Imdorf et al. [51] eliminated 97.3–99.5% of mites with OA in broodless colonies, whereas Mutinelli et al. [52] achieved 95% mite control with three applications of 5% OA in colonies with capped brood. When using the trickling method in colonies with capped brood during the winter, the cumulative efficacy of four oxalic acid applications ranged from 90% to 100% with a mean value of 98% [53]. In the study by Toufailia and Ratnieks [53], efficacy values may have been overestimated because the experiment included a final Apistan application, which sometimes is less than 100% effective.
As alluded to previously, acaricidal efficacy of repeated OA applications vary during specific periods of colony development. When compared with a relatively low efficacy during the brood season, oxalic acid application results in higher cumulative varroa mite mortalities in overwintering colonies lacking brood. When capped brood is present, ~70% of the phoretic (adult) varroa are killed within two days of OA treatment [46,54]. Three summer applications of 2.9% OA in 31.9% sugar water (w/w) controls 30–52% of varroa mites [50], a range within that discovered by Toufailia et al. [55] (20–93% mite mortality) using similar OA formulations. In brood-right colonies kept in the Mediterranean area (Sardinia, Italy) with brood present, three OA applications in late autumn resulted in 65% varroa mite mortality [54,56]. Higher mite mortalities occur in winter for OA-treated colonies containing brood and in summer, for colonies receiving repeated OA applications. Further research is necessary to assess bee safety and acaricidal effectiveness of oxalic acid in honey bee colonies overwintering in warm temperate climates. A combination of four successive oxalic acid applications during warm temperate winter conditions ensures a substantial reduction in varroa mite populations before colony growth accelerates in spring. The high correlation between the natural mite-mortality and the mite mortality induced after multiple OA treatments during the summer indicates that the continual monitoring of mite drops within bee colonies is important [46].
As we have seen, greater mite control during cooler months indicates that improved varroa mite control is achievable by integrating OA control with a colony’s broodless period. Broodless periods may not naturally occur in colonies maintained in warm-temperate to tropical climates where honey bees may reproduce year-round. Modelling seasonal mite population dynamics is needed, however, to determine when to artificially or naturally break brood rearing before applying acaricides like OA [57]. However, in warmer regions where bees tend brood in winter, colonies can be rendered artificially broodless by interrupting brood production through brood removal, particularly drone brood, or queen exclusion [30,58,59]. Coupling screened bottom boards with drone brood removal or queen caging can further interfere with mite reproduction and development [17,29,37]. The removal of brood and the queen also concentrates OA treatment on the phoretic form of varroa mites, reducing the likelihood of OA harming brood and reproductives, and hence, a colony’s future productivity. Queen caging combined with a single application of an OA or thymol-based acaricide can increase the efficacy of varroa mite control to 96–97% [60,61]. The temporary caging of the queen, combined with the removal of capped or un-capped brood, has resulted in >93% varroa mite control [62]. The vaporisation OA crystals in colonies without brood is another varroa mites control method. OA crystals are placed into the small cup of the electrically heated applicator inserted under the bee cluster on the hive bottom. Vaporisation 2.25 g of OA per broodless colony induced 97.6% varroa mites mortality with 98% colonies overwinter survival [55]. Experiments were also conducted to test the efficacy of 10 g of OA mixed with 20 mL of glycerin impregnated cellulose strips. The average efficacies in three experimental locations in Argentina were in the rage of 93% to 94% [63].
Colonies with worker bees displaying a propensity to remove varroa mites along with sick brood (bee hygiene) may also be more safely treated with OA. A combination of mite removal by bees and OA applications could be a highly effective method for varroa management, particularly in organic operations where the use of conventional acaricides is prohibited. Comparing all three organic acaricides applied against varroa in colonies containing capped brood, Thymovar is more effective than FA or OA on a per application basis. However, two OA sublimations applied in autumn are as effective, or more effective than Thymol, killing 82% of varroa mites [37]. In contrast, two formic acid treatments did not reach the 85% Thymovar efficacy achieved by [36].

3. Integrated Varroa Mite Management

The main objective of integrated varroa management is to reduce or delay the use of chemical treatments in honey bee colonies. There are two options to limit chemical use: (1) removal of varroa from a colony by non-chemical means or (2) slowing varroa population growth [58]. Grooming and hygienic behavior within bee colonies are also important factors slowing varroa population growth [22,64]. Hygienic behavior resulted in reduced varroa mites infestation levels and therefore, this reflects in reducing varroa mites detected using brood trapping techniques [65] or sugar shake as diagnostic c methods [66]. Likewise, varroa reproduction can be further impeded by genetically selecting and maintaining mite-resistant strains of honey bees, [67,68,69].
One sustainable approach to mite management would be maintaining stocks of genetically resistant bees. Some bee resistance traits show potential for reducing varroa mite populations in colonies and can be used in a selective breeding program. Mite infestation may be reduced by enhancing the ability of bees to hygienically remove varroa mites from brood (i.e., Varroa sensitive hygiene (VSH)) [70,71]. Other useful heritable traits linked to reduced varroa infestation rates are active grooming of phoretic mites, post-capping duration of worker bees [72], suppression of mite reproduction, and the physical damage inflicted upon varroa by bees [68,72,73]. It is evident that proportions of non-reproducing varroa increased by 10–30% in naturally-surviving honey bee populations compared to local susceptible colonies [74]. Breeding for mite resistance is a long-term solution for varroa management in honey bee colonies. In the shorter term, beekeepers maintain strong productive colonies by rearing strong queens, performing diagnostic procedures, and using effective varroa control tactics. Therefore, treatment thresholds have been developed for specific geographic, climatic conditions adopted for specific honey bee breeds [75].
Diagnostic methods, including performing sugar shakes, water washes, and alcohol washes, are essential for evaluating mite densities in honey bee colonies. These same mite density data per adult bee or pupa when run through a life-stage model also help approximate female mite density in a given colony [76]. Assessment methods performed at different times or locations need to be comparable in order to perform effective control [19,26]. It is also evident that differences in the varroa mortality rate may be a function of bee race and climatic conditions. Reduced varroa mite longevity has been reported during winter in temperate climatic conditions [77,78]. Sampling methods including mite removal from adult bees and brood as well as counts of natural varroa mite mortality are important for establishing the level of colony infestation before implementing integrated varroa management.
There are general beekeeping practices to maintain healthy colonies by providing bees with abundant access to protein and carbohydrate. Rich pasture conditions together with regular varroa mite monitoring and organic acaricide applications can produce strong colonies more capable of overwintering and resisting disease [79]. The ultimate aim of accurate monitoring is to keep varroa mite populations well below threshold levels during the spring, summer, and autumn months by means of promoting bee hygienic behavior, drone trapping, and acaricide use [80]. As mite populations begin to rise, commercial pyrethroid-, organophosphate-, or formamidine-based acaricides can be applied [81]. It was found that one Amitraz (formamidine) fumigation was as effective as two applications of Apiguard or Thymovar [82], but efficacy decreased with time because varroa mites have become resistant to acaricides [83,84], so organic treatments are thus more useful. However, varroa populations are evolving resistance to these broad-spectrum products, whether organic or conventional [85,86]. Moreover, these products have residuals that persist in sundry hive products [6] and their formulations are not approved for organic beekeeping. As alternatives, organic substances such as essential oils and organic acids are widespread in nature, some of them occur naturally in honey, and they can be highly effective acaricides [39,55,58].
A variety of integrated varroa mite control management practices are implemented to minimize the use of broad-spectrum organophosphate- and pyrethroid-based acaricides. These practices are suitable for organic and conventional beekeeping and include such active ingredients as organic acids (e.g., formic acid, oxalic acid, and beta plant acids) and the active components of certain essential oils (e.g., thymol) [87,88]. Reliable varroa diagnoses, effective mite control, and healthy colonies are very important issues in apiculture. Therefore, integrated varroa management as a sustainable approach ensures a high quality of honey bee products with prudent use of acaricides to minimize stress on host bees. To achieve sufficient efficacy, these acaricidal substances must be applied at an optimal time to avoid collateral damage to bees and brood. Moreover, specific management practices may enhance the effectiveness of some mite control methods, including seasonal effects on efficacy, treatment protocols, active ingredient rotation, and colony sanitation [64,89]. An attempt has been made by applying ‘Good Beekeeping Practice’ (GBP) to reduce the use of veterinary medicines in apiculture [90]. The ultimate objective of beekeeping is to produce safe honey bee products [91]. Beekeeper activities including organized varroa control in geographical region in all beekeeping operations, beekeepers trainings and education are crucial for improving honeybee health in the context of the one health approach incorporating designing and implementing programmes, policies, legislation and research in the beekeeping sector [92].

4. Conclusions

A variety of diagnostic methods can be used to estimate varroa mite infestation in honey bee colonies, particularly in summer. Summer treatments should be conducted once the natural mite-mortality and the threshold level of the mite infestation have been determined. Differences in climatic and geographic conditions as well as hive management practices will ultimately determine the success of alternative varroa mite controls [93]. Therefore, further experiments need to be conducted in a variety of climatic conditions to determine a colony’s development for specific geographical, climatic, and pasture conditions. Accurate threshold infestation levels need to be established using hive debris test, adult bee examination, or brood examination for specific geographic, climatic, and colony conditions. In addition to mite counts on hive bottom boards (mite fall), the sugar shake method (powdered sugar) helps to remove mites physically from bees and is a quick and accurate monitoring tool for assessing colony infestation levels. Coupling the powdered sugar shake method or mite falls with the use of organic acid- and botanical-based acaricides provides alternative methods of integrated varroa mite control in colonies located in both continental or warm temperate climates. Effectiveness of varroa mite control and likelihood of honey bee colonies surviving winter are further improved by using acaricides in conjunction with brood interruption or total brood removal.

Author Contributions

A.G., and B.S. equally contributed to all studies and wrote the manuscript.

Funding

This research was financially supported by the Slovenian Research Agency, Research Program P1-0164; Research for improvement of safe food and health.

Acknowledgments

Research topic is part of Varroa control Task Force activities. Coloss is Association, which aims to explain and prevent massive honey bee colony losses. (Prevention of honey bee COlony LOSSes).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Jong, D.D.; Jong, P.H.D.; Gonçalves, L.S. Weight Loss and Other Damage to Developing Worker Honeybees from Infestation with Varroa Jacobsoni. J. Apic. Res. 1982, 21, 165–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Martin, S.J. Ontogenesis of the mite Varroa jacobsoni Oud. in worker brood of the honeybee Apis mellifera L. under natural conditions. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 1994, 18, 87–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Büchler, R. Varroa Tolerance in Honey Bees—Occurrence, Characters and Breeding. Bee World 2015, 75, 54–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Roberts, J.M.K.; Anderson, D.L.; Durr, P.A. Absence of deformed wing virus and Varroa destructor in Australia provides unique perspectives on honeybee viral landscapes and colony losses. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. McMenamin, A.J.; Genersch, E. Honey bee colony losses and associated viruses. Curr. Opin. Insect Sci. 2015, 8, 121–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Wallner, K. Varroacides and their residues in bee products. Apidologie 1999, 30, 235–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Ruijter, A. Issues in the control of Varroa infestation. In New Perspectives on Varroa; Mathenson, A., Ed.; IBRA: Cardiff, UK, 1994; pp. 24–26. [Google Scholar]
  8. Lee, K.V.; Moon, R.D.; Burkness, E.C.; Hutchison, W.D.; Spivak, M. Practical sampling plans for Varroa destructor (Acari: Varroidae) in Apis mellifera (Hymenoptera: Apidae) colonies and apiaries. J. Econ. Entomol. 2010, 103, 1039–1050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. OIE (World Organisation for Animal Health). Varoosis of honey bees. Chapter 2.2.7. In OIE. Manual of Diagnostic Tests and Vaccines for Terrestrial Animals (Mammals, Birds and Bees); OIE: Paris, France, 2008; Volume 6, pp. 424–430. [Google Scholar]
  10. Ritter, W. Varroa Disease of the Honeybee Apis Mellifera. Bee World 1981, 62, 141–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Gregorc, A.; Jelenc, J. Control of Varroa Jacobsoni Oud. in honeybee colonies using Apilife-Var. Zb. Vet. Fak. Univ. Ljubljana 1996, 33, 231–235. [Google Scholar]
  12. Liebig, G.; Schlipf, U.; Fremuth, W.; Ludwig, W. Ergebnisse der untersuchungen über die befallsentwicklung der Varroa-Milbe in Stuttgart-Hohenheim 1983. Allg. Dtsch. Imkerztg. 1984, 18, 185–190. [Google Scholar]
  13. Harris, J. Managing Varroa Mites in Honey Bee Colonies | Mississippi State University Extension Service. Available online: http://extension.msstate.edu/publications/managing-varroa-mites-honey-bee-colonies (accessed on 9 December 2019).
  14. Mattila, H.R.; Otis, G.W. The efficacy of Apiguard against varroa and tracheal mites, and its effect on honey production: 1999 trial. Am. Bee J. 2000, 140, 969–973. [Google Scholar]
  15. Martin, S. A population model for the ectoparasitic mite Varroa jacobsoni in honey bee (Apis mellifera) colonies. Ecological Modelling 109. Ecol. Model. 1998, 109, 267–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Branco, M.R.; Kidd, N.A.; Pickard, R.S. A comparative evaluation of sampling methods for Varroa destructor (Acari: Varroidae) population estimation. Apidologie 2006, 37, 452–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Ritter, W. Neuester Stand der diagnostischen und terapeutischen Massnahmen zur Bekämpfung der Varroatose. Tierarztl. Umsch. 1984, 39, 122–127. [Google Scholar]
  18. Spivak, M.; Reuter, G.S. Varroa destructor Infestation in Untreated Honey Bee (Hymenoptera: Apidae) Colonies Selected for Hygienic Behavior. J. Econ. Entomol. 2001, 94, 326–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Fakhimzadeh, K.; Ellis, J.D.; Hayes, J.W. Physical control of varroa mites (Varroa destructor): the effects of various dust materials on varroa mite fall from adult honey bees (Apis mellifera) in vitro. J. Apic. Res. 2011, 50, 203–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Fakhimzadeh, K. The effects of powdered sugar varroa control treatments on Apis mellifera colony development. J. Apic. Res. 2001, 40, 105–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Aliano, N.P.; Ellis, M.D. A strategy for using powdered sugar to reduce varroa populations in honey bee colonies. J. Apic. Res. 2005, 44, 54–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Macedo, P.A.; Wu, J.; Ellis, M.D. Using inert dusts to detect and assess varroa infestations in honey bee colonies. J. Apic. Res. 2002, 41, 3–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Dietemann, V.; Nazzi, F.; Martin, S.J.; Anderson, D.L.; Locke, B.; Delaplane, K.S.; Wauquiez, Q.; Tannahill, C.; Frey, E.; Ziegelmann, B.; et al. Standard methods for varroa research. J. Apic. Res. 2013, 52, 1–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Gregorc, A.; Alburaki, M.; Sampson, B.; Knight, P.R.; Adamczyk, J. Toxicity of Selected Acaricides to Honey Bees (Apis mellifera) and Varroa (Varroa destructor Anderson and Trueman) and Their Use in Controlling Varroa within Honey Bee Colonies. Insects 2018, 9, 55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  25. Gregorc, A.; Alburaki, M.; Werle, C.; Knight, P.R.; Adamczyk, J. Brood removal or queen caging combined with oxalic acid treatment to control varroa mites (Varroa destructor) in honey bee colonies (Apis mellifera). Apidologie 2017, 48, 821–832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Toufailia, H.M.A.; Amiri, E.; Scandian, L.; Kryger, P.; Ratnieks, F.L.W. Towards integrated control of varroa: effect of variation in hygienic behaviour among honey bee colonies on mite population increase and deformed wing virus incidence. J. Apic. Res. 2014, 53, 555–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Medina, L.M.; Martin, S.J. A Comparative Study of Varroa Jacobsoni Reproduction in Worker Cells of Honey Bees (Apis Mellifera) in England and Africanized Bees in Yucatan, Mexico. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 1999, 23, 659–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Lindberg, C.M.; Melathopoulos, A.P.; Winston, M.L. Laboratory evaluation of miticides to control Varroa jacobsoni (Acari: Varroidae), a honey bee (Hymenoptera: Apidae) parasite. J. Econ. Entomol. 2000, 93, 189–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Imdorf, A.; Bogdanov, S.; Ibáñez Ochoa, R.; Calderone, N.W. Use of essential oils for the control of Varroa jacobsoni Oud. in honey bee colonies. Apidologie 1999, 30, 209–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Giacomelli, A.; Pietropaoli, M.; Carvelli, A.; Iacoponi, F.; Formato, G. Combination of thymol treatment (Apiguard®) and caging the queen technique to fight Varroa destructor. Apidologie 2016, 47, 606–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Bogdanov, S.; Kilchenmann, V.; Imdorf, A.; Fluri, P. Residues in honey after application of thymol against varroa using the Frakno Thymol Frame (Reprinted from Schweizerisch Bienen-Zeitung, vol 121, pg 224–226, 1998). Am. Bee J. 1998, 138, 610–611. [Google Scholar]
  32. Nanetti, A.; Stradi, G. Varroasi: trattamento chimico con acido ossalico in sciroppo zuccherino. L’APE Nostra Amica 1997, 5, 6–14. [Google Scholar]
  33. Fassbinder-Orth, C.; Grodnitzky, J.; Coats, J. Monoterpenoids as possible control agents for Varroa destructor. J. Apic. Res. 2002, 41, 83–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Melathopoulos, A.P.; Gates, J. Comparison of two thymol-based acaricides, Api Life Var (R) and Apiguard (TM), for the control of Varroa mites. Am. Bee J. 2003, 43, 489–493. [Google Scholar]
  35. Coffey, M.F.; Breen, J. Efficacy of Apilife Var® and Thymovar® against Varroa destructor as an autumn treatment in a cool climate. J. Apic. Res. 2013, 52, 210–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Gregorc, A.; Adamczyk, J.; Kapun, S.; Planinc, I. Integrated varroa control in honey bee (Apis mellifera carnica) colonies with or without brood. J. Apic. Res. 2016, 55, 253–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. DeGrandi-Hoffman, G.; Ahumada, F.; Probasco, G.; Schantz, L. The effects of beta acids from hops (Humulus lupulus) on mortality of Varroa destructor (Acari: Varroidae). Exp. Appl. Acarol. 2012, 58, 407–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  38. Rademacher, E.; Harz, M.; Schneider, S. The development of HopGuard® as a winter treatment against Varroa destructor in colonies of Apis mellifera. Apidologie 2015, 46, 748–759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Wilson, W.; Collins, A. Failure of formic acid to control Varroa jacobsoni in a hot climate. Am. Bee J. 1993, 133, 863–872. [Google Scholar]
  40. Fries, I. Treatment of sealed honey bee brood with formic acid for control of Varroa jacobsoni. Am. Bee J. (USA) 1991, 131, 313–314. [Google Scholar]
  41. Hoppe, H.; Ritter, W.; Stephen, E.W.C. The control of parasitic bee mites: Varroa jacobsoni, Acarapis woodi, and Tropilaelaps clarae with formic acid. Am. Bee J. 1989, 129, 739–742. [Google Scholar]
  42. Imdorf, A.; Charrière, J.-D.; Maquelin, C.; Kilchenmann, V.; Bachofen, B. Alternative Varroa control. Am. Bee J. 1996, 136, 189–193. [Google Scholar]
  43. Liu, T.P. Formic acid and bee mites. Am. Bee J. (USA) 1991, 131, 311–312. [Google Scholar]
  44. Nanetti, A. Oxalic Acid for Mite Control—Results and Review; Coordination in Europe of research on integrated control of Varroa mites in honey bee colonies; Commission of the European Communities: Brussels, Belgium; Luxembourg, 1999; pp. 7–14. [Google Scholar]
  45. Charriére, J.-D.; Imdorf, A. Oxalic acid treatment by trickling against Varroa destructor: recommendations for use in central Europe and under temperate climate conditions. Bee World 2002, 83, 51–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Gregorc, A.; Planinc, I. Dynamics of Falling Varroa Mites in Honeybee (Apis mellifera) Colonies Following Oxalic Acid Treatments. Acta Vet. Brno 2004, 73, 385–391. [Google Scholar]
  47. Aliano, N.P.; Ellis, M.D.; Siegfried, B.D. Acute contact toxicity of oxalic acid to Varroa destructor (Acari: Varroidae) and their Apis mellifera (Hymenoptera: Apidae) hosts in laboratory bioassays. J. Econ. Entomol. 2006, 99, 1579–1582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  48. Brødsgaard, C.J.; Jansen, S.E.; Hansen, C.W.; Hansen, H. Spring treatment with oxalic acid in honey bee colonies as varroa control. DIAS Rep. Horticult. 1999, 6, 16. [Google Scholar]
  49. Gregorc, A.; Planinc, I. Acaricidal effect of oxalic acid in honeybee (apis mellifera) colonies. Apidologie 2001, 32, 333–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Nanetti, A.; Massi, S.; Mutinelli, F.; Cremasco, S. L’acido ossalico nel controllo della varroasi: Note preliminari. Apitalia 1995, 22, 29–32. [Google Scholar]
  51. Imdorf, A.; Charrière, J.-D.; Bachofen, B. Efficiency checking of the Varroa jacobsoni control methods by means of oxalic acid. Apiacta 1997, 32, 89–91. [Google Scholar]
  52. Mutinelli, F.; Baggio, A.; Capolongo, F.; Piro, R.; Prandin, L.; Biasion, L. A scientific note on oxalic acid by topical application for the control of varroosis. Apidologie 1997, 28, 461–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Toufailia, H.A.; Ratnieks, F.L.W. How effective is Apistan® at killing varroa? Results from a LASI trial. Bee Craft 2016, 98, 7–11. [Google Scholar]
  54. Bacandritsos, N.; Papanastasiou, I.; Saitanis, C.; Nanetti, A.; Roinioti, E. Efficacy of repeated trickle applications of oxalic acid in syrup for varroosis control in Apis mellifera: influence of meteorological conditions and presence of brood. Vet. Parasitol. 2007, 148, 174–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Toufailia, H.A.; Scandian, L.; Ratnieks, F.L.W. Towards integrated control of varroa: 2)comparing application methods and doses of oxalic acid on the mortality of phoretic Varroa destructor mites and their honey bee hosts. J. Apic. Res. 2015, 54, 108–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Floris, I.; Satta, A.; Mutinelli, F.; Pradin, L. Efficacy of winter applications of oxalic acid against Varroa jacobsoni Oudemans in beehives in a Mediterranean area (Sardinia, Italy). Redia 1998, 81, 143–150. [Google Scholar]
  57. Vetharaniam, I. Predicting reproduction rate of varroa. Ecol. Model. 2012, 224, 11–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Delaplane, K.S.; Berry, J.A.; Skinner, J.A.; Parkman, J.P.; Hood, W.M. Integrated pest management against Varroa destructor reduces colony mite levels and delays treatment threshold. J. Apic. Res. 2005, 44, 157–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Rosenkranz, P.; Aumeier, P.; Ziegelmann, B. Biology and control of Varroa destructor. J. Invertebr. Pathol. 2010, 103, 96–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Nanetti, A.; Higes, M.; Baracani, G.; Besana, A. Control de la varroa con ácido oxálico en combinación con la interrupción artificial de la puesta de cría. In Proceedings of the II Congreso Ibérico de Apicultura, Guadalajara, Spain, 24 October 2012; pp. 18–20. [Google Scholar]
  61. Pietropaoli, M.; Giacomelli, A.; Milito, M.; Pizzariello, M.; Carla, G.; Scholl, F.; Formato, G. Integrated Pest Management strategies against Varroa destructor: the use of oxalic acid combined with innovative cages to obtain the absence of brood. Eur. J. Integr. Med. 2013, 15, 93. [Google Scholar]
  62. Calis, J.N.M.; Boot, W.J.; Beetsma, J.; van den Eijnde, J.H.P.M.; de Ruijter, A.; van der Steen, J.J.M. Effective biotechnical control of varroa: applying knowledge on brood cell invasion to trap honey bee parasites in drone brood. J. Apic. Res. 1999, 38, 49–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Maggi, M.; Tourn, E.; Negri, P.; Szawarski, N.; Marconi, A.; Gallez, L.; Medici, S.; Ruffinengo, S.; Brasesco, C.; De Feudis, L.; et al. A new formulation of oxalic acid for Varroa destructor control applied in Apis mellifera colonies in the presence of brood. Apidologie 2016, 47, 596–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Spivak, M.; Gilliam, M. Hygienic behaviour of honey bees and its application for control of brood diseases and varroa: Part II. Studies on hygienic behaviour since the Rothenbuhler era. BEE World 1998, 79, 169–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Schulz, A.E. Reproduktion und populationsentwicklung der parasitischen milbe varroa jacobsoni oud. In abhängigkeit vom brutzyklus ihres wirtes apis mellifera l. (i. Teil). Apidologie 1984, 15, 401–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Fakhimzadeh, K. Potential of Super-Fine Ground, Plain White Sugar Dusting as An Ecological Tool for the Control of Varroasis in the Honey Bee (Apis mellifera). Available online: https://eurekamag.com/research/003/530/003530144.php (accessed on 19 October 2019).
  67. Spivak, M. Honey bee hygienic behavior and defense against Varroa jacobsoni. Apidologie 1996, 27, 245–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Harbo, J.R.; Harris, J.W. Selecting honey bees for resistance to Varroa jacobsoni. Apidologie 1999, 30, 183–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Harbo, J.R.; Hoopingarner, R.A. Honey bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) in the United States that express resistance to Varroa jacobsoni (Mesostigmata: Varroidae). J. Econ. Entomol. (USA) 1997, 90, 893–898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Danka, R.G.; Harris, J.W.; Villa, J.D. Expression of Varroa Sensitive Hygiene (VSH) in Commercial VSH Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 2011, 104, 745–749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Ibrahim, A.; Spivak, M. The relationship between hygienic behavior and suppression of mite reproduction as honey bee (Apis mellifera) mechanisms of resistance to Varroa destructor. Apidologie 2006, 37, 31–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Moritz, R.F.A. Heritability of the postcapping stage in Apis mellifera and its relation to varroatosis resistance. J. Hered. 1985, 76, 267–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Fries, I.; Camazine, S.; Sneyd, J. Population Dynamics of Varroa Jacobsoni: A Model and a Review. Bee World 1994, 75, 5–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Oddie, M.; Büchler, R.; Dahle, B.; Kovacic, M.; Le Conte, Y.; Locke, B.; de Miranda, J.R.; Mondet, F.; Neumann, P. Rapid parallel evolution overcomes global honey bee parasite. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 7704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Locke, B. Natural Varroa mite-surviving Apis mellifera honeybee populations. Apidologie 2016, 47, 467–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  76. Martin, S. Population modelling and the production of a monitoring tool for Varroa jacobsoni an ectoparasitic mite of honey bees. Asp. Appl. Biol. 1999, 53, 105–112. [Google Scholar]
  77. Moritz, R.F.A.; Mautz, D. Development of Varroa jacobsoni in colonies of Apis mellifera capensis and Apis mellifera carnica. Apidologie 1990, 21, 53–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  78. Ruttner, F.; Hänel, H. Active defense against Varroa mites in a Carniolan strain of honeybee (Apis mellifera carnica Pollmann). Apidologie 1992, 23, 173–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Giovenazzo, P.; Dubreuil, P. Evaluation of spring organic treatments against Varroa destructor (Acari: Varroidae) in honey bee Apis mellifera (Hymenoptera: Apidae) colonies in eastern Canada. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 2011, 55, 65–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Genersch, E. Honey bee pathology: Current threats to honey bees and beekeeping. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2010, 87, 87–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Norain Sajid, Z.; Aziz, M.A.; Bodlah, I.; Rana, R.M.; Ghramh, H.A.; Khan, K.A. Efficacy assessment of soft and hard acaricides against Varroa destructor mite infesting honey bee (Apis mellifera) colonies, through sugar roll method. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Gregorc, A.; Planinc, I. Use of Thymol Formulations, Amitraz, and Oxalic Acid for the Control of the Varroa Mite in Honey Bee (Apis mellifera carnica) Colonies. J. Apicult. Sci. 2012, 56, 61–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  83. Sammataro, D.; Untalan, P.; Guerrero, F.; Finley, J. The resistance of varroa mites (Acari: Varroidae) to acaricides and the presence of esterase. Int. J. Acarol. 2005, 31, 67–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Mathieu, L.; Faucon, J.-P. Changes in the response time for Varroa jacobsoni exposed to amitraz. J. Apic. Res. 2000, 39, 155–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Mozes-Koch, R.; Slabezki, Y.; Efrat, H.; Kalev, H.; Kamer, Y.; Yakobson, B.A.; Dag, A. First detection in Israel of fluvalinate resistance in the varroa mite using bioassay and biochemical methods. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 2000, 24, 35–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Floris, I.; Cabras, P.; Garau, V.L.; Minelli, E.V.; Satta, A.; Troullier, J. Persistence and Effectiveness of Pyrethroids in Plastic Strips Against Varroa jacobsoni (Acari: Varroidae) and Mite Resistance in a Mediterranean Area. J. Econ. Entomol. 2001, 94, 806–810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Imdorf, A.; Charrière, J.-D.; Kilchenmann, V.; Bogdanov, S.; Fluri, P. Alternative strategy in central Europe for the control of Varroa destructor in honey bee colonies. Apiacta 2003, 38, 258–285. [Google Scholar]
  88. Calderone, N. Evaluation of Drone Brood Removal for Management of Varroa destructor (Acari: Varroidae) in Colonies of Apis mellifera (Hymenoptera: Apidae) in the Northeastern United States. J. Econ. Entomol. 2005, 98, 645–650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Currie, R.W.; Gatien, P. Timing acaricide treatments to prevent Varroa destructor (Acari: Varroidae) from causing economic damage to honey bee colonies. Can. Entomol. 2006, 138, 238–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Beekeeping | TECA—Technologies and Practices for Small Agricultural Producers | Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Available online: http://www.fao.org/teca/forum/beekeeping/en (accessed on 22 October 2019).
  91. D’Ascenzi, C.; Formato, G.; Martin, P. Chemical hazards in honey. In Chemical Hazards in Foods of Animal Origin; ECVPH Food safety assurance; Wageningen Academic Publishers: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2018; Volume 7, pp. 443–475. ISBN 978-90-8686-326-6. [Google Scholar]
  92. WHO | One Health. Available online: http://www.who.int/features/qa/one-health/en/ (accessed on 22 October 2019).
  93. Trouiller, J.; Watkins, M. Experimentation on Apiguard—A controlled release gel of thymol against honey bee diseases. In Proceedings of the 37th International Apicultural Congress, Durban, South Africa, 28 October–1 November 2001. [Google Scholar]

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Gregorc, A.; Sampson, B. Diagnosis of Varroa Mite (Varroa destructor) and Sustainable Control in Honey Bee (Apis mellifera) Colonies—A Review. Diversity 2019, 11, 243. https://doi.org/10.3390/d11120243

AMA Style

Gregorc A, Sampson B. Diagnosis of Varroa Mite (Varroa destructor) and Sustainable Control in Honey Bee (Apis mellifera) Colonies—A Review. Diversity. 2019; 11(12):243. https://doi.org/10.3390/d11120243

Chicago/Turabian Style

Gregorc, Aleš, and Blair Sampson. 2019. "Diagnosis of Varroa Mite (Varroa destructor) and Sustainable Control in Honey Bee (Apis mellifera) Colonies—A Review" Diversity 11, no. 12: 243. https://doi.org/10.3390/d11120243

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop