Chemical treatments have an important role in integrated pest management (IPM) for treating various pests and diseases of honey bees. In Atlantic Canada, beekeepers need chemical treatments to manage Varroa mites, Nosema (Vairimorpha) and brood diseases. However, there is an ongoing reliance on synthetic treatments, such as Apivar®, when managing these pests. This week’s blog will explain the impact of misusing synthetic treatments, and the benefits of an IPM approach to treatment.
An IPM Series: How Reduced Pesticide Efficacy Occurs
Apivar® (3.3% amitraz) is a synthetic miticide widely used
to manage Varroa mites. Currently, Apivar® is the only recommended synthetic
miticide for Varroa mites in Atlantic Canada. There were other products
available with active ingredients fluvalinate (Apistan®) and coumaphos
(Checkmite+®), but, due to extensive and exclusive use of these products, widespread
reduced efficacy occurred (Rinkevich, 2020). That is why it is essential to
maintain the efficacy of Apivar® by only using the treatment when the
population level is above the economic threshold, and alternating treatment of
Apivar® with other non-synthetic treatments.
Reduced pesticide efficacy is a phenomenon by which organisms can survive higher doses or concentrations of a toxic substance which previously resulted in high levels of mortality (Van Leeuwen and Dermauw, 2016; Whalon et al. 2008). There are various mechanisms of reduced efficacy, including: enhanced detoxification (Field et al. 2001), target-site insensitivity (Rinkevich et al. 2013; Fournier, 2005; González-Cabrera et al. 2013), and reduced cuticular penetration (Balabanidou et al. 2018). The mechanism of reduced efficacy to pyrethroids (Apistan®) in Varroa destructor is well known. It is associated with mutations at the residue L925 of the major target site for pyrethroids—the voltage-gated sodium channel (González-Cabrera et al. 2018; González-Cabrera et al. 2016; Hubert et al. 2014). On the other hand, the precise mechanisms causing the reduced efficacy to coumaphos, and potentially amitraz, in V. destructor are still unknown (Maggi et al. 2009; Maggi et al. 2011). Overall, it is possible that reduced efficacy can develop because synthetic products persist at high concentrations in wax and represent a constant exposure (Traynor et al. 2016).
Amitraz has been used to control Varroa mite populations for
more than 20 years in the USA. Since that time there have been many reported
incidents of reduced efficacy of amitraz (Elzen, 2000; Maggi, 2010; Kamler,
2016). However, Varroa has largely maintained susceptibility to amitraz despite
a long and extensive use history (Rinkevich, 2020). Since amitraz is currently
the only synthetic active ingredient still viable to treat Varroa mites, it is important
to continually test the efficacy of amitraz against mite populations worldwide.
Since 2017, the ATTTA team has tested the efficacy of
Apivar® against Varroa mites in the Maritimes through field-based studies. Although
testing the efficacy of miticide products is important, it is also crucial to
test the efficacy of active ingredients through lab-based studies. This past
summer, ATTTA tested the efficacy of amitraz against populations of mites in
Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. ATTTA previously had no baseline data on the
efficacy of amitraz in Atlantic Canada by use of these methods, which made this
research even more important. Mites were collected by using drone frame, where
for each apiary, 1 drone frame was placed in 3 different hives. A total of 6
beekeepers were included in the study, and data was collected from 206 mites in
total. The amitraz bioassay was adapted from a study done by Rinkevich (2020).
This bioassay tested the efficacy of amitraz at 5 different concentrations to
determine the lethal concentration of 50% of the mites. Mites were exposed to
the treatment for 24hrs, and then mortality was assessed. After calculating the
LC50, a resistance ratio was calculated by comparing the Maritime
population to an amitraz-sensitive USDA Lab population.
The results of the baseline 2023 data indicate that there is
a reduced efficacy of amitraz for the small number of mites tested (n = 206; RR
= 35.4). However, this was the first year for this study, and multiple factors
could impact the results. Overall, the study was conducted on a small number of
mites, from only 6 beekeepers, and there was not a consistent sample size for
each concentration of amitraz tested. ATTTA plans to continue to assess how the
efficacy of amitraz changes year to year, and the goal is to test a larger
number of mites from more Maritime beekeepers. All the Tech Transfer Teams in
Canada, supported by the Canadian Association for Professional Apiculturists,
are working towards a standardized approach to assessing reduced efficacy of
amitraz and Apivar®.
It is critically important to extend the effectiveness of amitraz-based products to control Varroa mites by practicing IPM. Past use of synthetic products has demonstrated that extensive and exclusive use of synthetic products results in reduced efficacy. There are also many reported incidents of reduced efficacy of amitraz in the global beekeeping industry. Therefore, it is the job of all beekeepers to manage Varroa mites using an IPM plan. This includes testing for Varroa mites at least monthly (pre- and post-treatment), and only treating when levels are above the economic threshold. Beekeepers should also implement cultural and physical controls to reduce the need for chemical treatment. Finally, when chemical treatment is warranted, beekeepers should alternate between synthetic and non-synthetic products.
References
Balabanidou, V.,
Grigoraki, L., and Vontas, J. 2018. Insect
cuticle: a critical determinant of insecticide resistance. Current opinion in
insect science. 27: 68 – 74.
Elzen, P.J., Baxter, J.R., Spivak, M., and Wilson,
W.T. 2000. Control of Varroa jacobsoni Oud. resistant to fluvalinate and
amitraz using coumaphos. Apidologie. 31(3): 437 – 441.
Field, L.M., Blackman, R.L., and Devoshire, A.L. 2001.
Evolution of amplified Esterase genes as a mode of insecticide resistance in
aphids. In: Biochemical sites of insecticide action and resistance. 209 – 219.
Fournier, D. 2005. Mutations of acetylcholinesterase
which confer insecticide resistance in insect populations. Chemico-Biol
Inteact. 157: 257 – 261.
Hubert, J., Nesvorna, M., Kamler, M., Kopecky, J.,
Tyl, J., Titera, D., and Stara, J. 2014. Point mutations in the sodium channel
gene conferring tau-fluvalinate resistance in Varroa destructor. Pest
Manag. Sci. 70: 889 – 894.
González-Cabrera, J., Davies, T.G.E., Field, L.M.,
Kennedy, P.J., and Williamson, M.S. 2013. An amino acid substitution (L925V)
associated with resistance to pyrethroids in Varroa destructor. PLoS
One. 8(12): e82941.
González-Cabrera, J., Rodriguez-Vargas, S., Davies,
T.E., Field, L.M., Schmehl, D., Ellis, J.D., Krieger, K., and Williamson, M.S.
2016. Novel mutations in the voltage-gated sodium channel of
pyrethroid-resistant Varroa destructor populations from the Southeastern
USA. PLoS ONE. 11: e0155332.
González-Cabrera, J., Bumann, H., Rodríguez-Vargas,
S., Kennedy, P.J., Krieger, K., Altreuther, G., Hertel, A., Hertlein, G.,
Nauen, R., and Williamson, M.S. 2018. A single mutation is driving resistance
to pyrethroids in European populations of the parasitic mite, Varroa destructor.
J. Pest Sci. 91: 1137 – 1144.
Kamler, M., Nesvorna, M., Stara, J., Erban, T., and
Hubert, J. 2016. Comparison of tau-fluvalinate, acrinathrin, and amitraz
effects on susceptible and resistant populations of Varroa destructor in
a vial test. Experimental and applied acarology. 69(1): 1 – 9.
Maggi, M.D., Ruffinengo, S.R., Damiani, N., Sardella,
N.H., and Eguaras, M.J. 2009. First detection of Varroa destructor
resistance to coumaphos in Argentina. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 47: 317 – 320.
Maggi, M.D., Ruffinengo, S.R., Negri, P., and Eguaras,
M.J. 2010. Resistance phenomena to amitraz from populations of the
ectoparasitic mite Varroa destructor of Argentina. Parasitology
research. 107(5): 1189 – 1192.
Maggi, M.D., Ruffinengo, S.R., Mendoza, Y., Ojeda, P.,
Ramallo, G., Floris, I., and Eguaras, M.J. 2011. Susceptibility of Varroa
destructor (Acari: Varroidae) to synthetic acaricides in Uruguay: Varroa
mites’ potential to develop acaricide resistance. Parasitol. Res. 108: 815 –
821.
Rinkevich, F.D., Du, Y., and Dong, K. 2013. Diversity
and convergence of sodium channel mutations involved in resistance to
pyrethroids Pestic Biochem Physiol. 106: 93 – 100.
Rinkevich, F.D. 2020. Detection of amitraz resistance
and reduced treatment efficacy in the Varroa Mite, Varroa destructor,
within commercial beekeeping operations. PLoS ONE 15(1): e0227264.
Traynor K.S., Pettis J.S., Tarpy, D.R., Mullin, C.A.,
Frazier, J.L., and Frazier, M. 2016 In-hive pesticide exposome: Assessing risks
to migratory honey bees from in-hive pesticide contamination in the Eastern
United States. Scientific reports. 6: 33207.
Van Leeuwen, T., and Dermauw, W. 2016. The molecular evolution of xenobiotic metabolism and resistance in chelicerate mites. Annual Review of Entomology. 61: 475 – 98.
Whalon, M., Mota-Sanchez, D., and Hollingsworth, R. 2008. Global pesticide resistance in arthropods. Cambridge, MA: CABI. 166.
Connecting with ATTTA Specialists
If you’d like to connect with ATTTA specialists or learn more about our program, you can:
visit our website at https://www.perennia.ca/portfolio-items/honey-bees/
Email abyers@perennia.ca