Alternative IPM Methods for Varroa destructor (Parasitiformes: Varroidae) (Anderson and Trueman) Mite Control in East Texas apiaries

Authors

  • Alejandro Martinez Department of Entomology Texas A&M University

Abstract

The parasitic mite Varroa destructor (Anderson and Trueman) is a major pest of the honey bee (Apis mellifera (L.)), because large quantities of the mites can cause colony collapse disorder. Over the last two decades, prophylactic treatment of V. destructor using pyrethroid and organophosphate chemicals has caused increased resistance, requiring higher maintenance and treatment costs for beekeepers. This study examines the therapeutic effects of three different IPM methods for the control of V. destructor in two apiaries in East Texas. 24 colonies were separated into four different groups: untreated control colonies, colonies in which the queens were caged, colonies treated with powdered sugar using the “Dustructor” apparatus (Brushy Mountain Bee Farm, Moravian Falls, NC), or colonies treated with thymol (active ingredient ApiLife Var® (Mann Lake Ltd., Hackensack, MN)).  V. destructor populations in each colony were monitored for 54 days using the powdered sugar shake method or via a sticky board hung up for 24-hours.  Powdered sugar shake mite counts reflected lower populations of V. destructor in all colonies treated with any of the three IPM methods compared to those of the untreated controls.  Conversely, sticky board mite counts showed no statistical difference in mite counts based on IPM treatments compared to untreated controls.  These results suggest that the powdered sugar shake method is more accurate when monitoring V. destructor populations than the 24-hour sticky board method. Alternative IPM methods for V. destructor control are effective and serve as a promising new avenue for non-intrusive control of this major honey bee pest.  

References

Adamczyk S, Lázaro R, Pérez-Arquillué C, Conchello P, Herrera A. 2005. Evaluation of residues of essential oil components in honey after different anti-Varroa treatments. J. of Ag. and Food Chem. 53(26): 10085-10090.

Boecking O, Genersch E. 2008. Varroosis—the ongoing crisis in beekeeping. J. Verbr. Lebensm. 3: 221-228.

Boot WJ, van Baalen M, Sabelis MW. 1995. Why do Varroa mites invade worker brood cells of the honey bee despite lower reproductive success? Behav. Ecol. and Sociobio. 6(4): 283-289.

Cicero JM, Sammataro D. 2010. The salivary glands of adult female Varroa destructor (Acari: Varroidae), an ectoparasite of the honey bee, Apis mellifera (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Interntl. J. of Acar. 36(5): 377–386.

Elzen PJ, Westervelt D. 2002. Detection of coumaphos resistance in Varroa destructor in Florida." Amer. Bee J. 142: 291-292.

Jevrosima S, Stanimirović Z, Nada L, Nevenka A, Simeunović P, Kulišić Z. 2011. Safety assessment of sugar dusting treatments by analysis of hygienic behavior in honey bee colonies. Arch. of Biol. Sci. 63(4): 1199-1207.

Lodesani M, Colombo M, Spreafico M. 1995. Ineffectiveness of Apistan® treatment against the mite Varroa jacobsoni Oud in several districts of Lombardy (Italy). Apidologie 26(1): 67-72.

Oliver R. 2013. Powdered sugar dusting-sweet and safe, but does it really work? ScientificBeekeeping.com. Published online December 2013.

Stankus T. 2008. A review and bibliography of the literature of honey bee colony collapse disorder: a poorly understood epidemic that clearly threatens the successful pollination of billions of dollars of crops in America. J. of Agri. & Food Info. 9(2): 115-143.

Downloads

Published

2015-04-08