ArticleScientific reports2026
Evaluation of late-season Varroa destructor treatments and their impact on amitraz resistant mite populations.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.