Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41851221›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2026

Evaluation of late-season Varroa destructor treatments and their impact on amitraz resistant mite populations.

Rogan Tokach, Frank D Rinkevich, Dan Aurell, Nathan Egnew, Kloe Cargo, Geoffrey R Williams

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Rogan TokachBee Center, Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, USA. rogan.tokach@ndsu.edu.
Frank D RinkevichGenetics and Physiology Laboratory, USDA-ARS Honey Bee Breeding, Baton Rouge, LA, USA.
Dan AurellBee Center, Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, USA.
Nathan EgnewGenetics and Physiology Laboratory, USDA-ARS Honey Bee Breeding, Baton Rouge, LA, USA.
Kloe CargoGenetics and Physiology Laboratory, USDA-ARS Honey Bee Breeding, Baton Rouge, LA, USA.
Geoffrey R WilliamsBee Center, Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, USA. williams@auburn.edu.

Funding

Agricultural Research Service 58-6066-3-029Alabama Department of Agriculture and Industries ADAI-PROJ 2-2025National Institute of Food and Agriculture Multi-state Hatch Project NC1173National Institute of Food and Agriculture SCRI #2023-51181-41246Project Apis m. M-SGA 312
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Varroa destructor mites are a leading cause of honey bee (Apis mellifera) colony losses worldwide. The acaracide amitraz has been among the most preferred Varroa treatments for more than a decade because of its high effectiveness and convenience of application. As a result, over reliance on amitraz has led to Varroa resistance to amitraz. Here, we evaluated U.S. registered Varroa treatments with differing active ingredients on Varroa infestation rates and their impact on amitraz resistant Varroa to identify alternative treatment options for commercial beekeepers just prior to winter, a critical time of year to have low mite infestation. Treatment groups included an untreated Control, Apivar (active ingredient amitraz), FormicPro (a.i. formic acid), HopGuard 3 (a.i. hops β-acids) and Api-Bioxal vapor (a.i. oxalic acid, “OA” Vapor). Treatments were implemented in late September; colonies were assessed in late November and early February, 63 and 133 days later. We found that the Apivar, FormicPro and HopGuard treatment groups maintained Varroa infestation rates, whereas Varroa infestation rates significantly increased in the untreated Control and OA Vapor treatment groups. Genetic analysis showed that the frequency of the amitraz resistance genotype significantly increased from Day 0 to Day 63 after the application of Apivar, but this change was reversed by Day 133 after the overwintering period. Comparatively, the amitraz resistance genotype frequency was not impacted by any other treatment group. This indicates there is no cross-resistance of amitraz to other active ingredients tested, and that amitraz resistance may not have a large fitness cost.

Indexed as

AcaricidesDrug ResistanceToluidinesVarroidaeAnimalsBeesSeasonsAcaricidesamitrazToluidines

Identifiers

PMID41851221
PMCPMC13168439

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.