Mite non-reproduction, recapping behavior, and hygienic behavior (freeze-kill method) linked to Varroa destructor infestation levels in selected Apis mellifera colonies

5Citations
Citations of this article
22Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

The genetic selection of honey bees (Apis mellifera) possessing specific social hygienic behaviors offers the beekeeping industry the possibility of controlling the Varroa destructor parasite and thus reducing its dependence on acaricides. However, the links between these behavioral traits are not yet well defined, which limits genetic progress in breeding programs. We measured the following behavioral varroa resistance traits: freeze-kill brood (FKB) and pin-kill brood (PKB) assays, varroa-sensitive hygiene (VSH), pupae removal, mite non-reproduction (MNR), and recapping activity. We found 2 negative and significant relationships: 1) between the recapping of cells infested with varroa and the total number of recapped cells, and 2) between the recapping of cells infested with varroa and VSH. We also selected the best predictive model of varroa infestation levels using the “step-wise” approach based on the Akaike information criterion. Our model revealed that MNR and FKB were significantly related to the varroa population levels, with a negative relationship; recapping was significantly related to mite infestation levels, with a positive relationship. Thus, a higher MNR or FKB score was linked to lower levels of mite infestation in colonies on August 14 (prior to fall infestation treatments); a higher recapping activity was linked to a higher level of mite infestation. Recapping behavior could be a useful trait to aid the selection of varroa-resistant bee lineages.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Morin, M. L., & Giovenazzo, P. (2023). Mite non-reproduction, recapping behavior, and hygienic behavior (freeze-kill method) linked to Varroa destructor infestation levels in selected Apis mellifera colonies. Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation, 35(6), 655–663. https://doi.org/10.1177/10406387231172141

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free