Varroa destructor resistance to tau-fluvalinate: relationship between in vitro phenotypic test and VGSC L925V mutation.

BACKGROUND: Varroa destructor is a parasitic mite of the honey bee, Apis mellifera. Its presence in colonies can lead to a collapse within a few years. The use of acaricides has become essential to manage the hive infestation. However, the repeated and possibly incorrect use of acaricide treatments, as tau-fluvalinate, has led to the development of resistance. The in vitro phenotypic test allows the proportion of susceptible or resistant individuals to be known following an exposure to an active substance. In Varroa mites, resistance to tau-fluvalinate is associated with the presence of mutations at the position 925 of the voltage-gated sodium channel (VGSC). RESULTS: Here, we compared the results obtained with an in vitro phenotypic test against tau-fluvalinate and those obtained with an allelic discrimination assay on 13 treated and untreated Varroa populations in France. The correlation between the phenotype and the genetic profile rate is found to be 0.89 Varroa mites having resistant phenotypic profile have a probability of 63% to present the L925V mutation (resistance detection reliability). However, 97% of the Varroa mites having the susceptible phenotype do not present the L925V mutation (susceptible detection reliability). CONCLUSION: The L925V mutation explains most of the resistance to tau-fluvalinate in V. destructor in the populations tested. However, other mutations or types of resistance may also be involved to explain the survival of Varroa mites in the phenotypic test. © 2022 The Authors. Pest Management Science published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society of Chemical Industry.

Modelling the impact of Apivar treatment on a Varroa mite population and the influence of resistance.

BACKGROUND: Varroa destructor is a parasite of honeybees. It causes biological damage leading to the colony collapse in the absence of treatment. In recent years, acaricide resistance has emerged in Varroa mites, leading to a decrease in treatment efficacy. We modelled the action of Apivar (amitraz) treatment, using three input parameters: treatment duration, treatment period, and daily mortality due to the treatment. The output parameters were cumulative mite mortality during treatment, the residual number of Varroa mites, and treatment efficacy, expressed as a percentage. RESULTS: The model was validated by monitoring efficacy in the field, in 36 treated hives. According to the model, treatment in the absence of brood is optimal. For a long period without egg laying during the winter, an initial infestation of 100 mites and a start date for treatment of August 7, a minimal treatment efficacy of 98.8% is required for stabilization of the mite population for year to year. More effective treatment is associated with lower cumulative numbers of dead Varroa mites over the entire treatment period. Thus, the total number of dead mites observed during the monitoring of field efficacy provides information about more than just the initial level of colony infestation. The proportion of resistant mites can be modelized by a decrease of daily mortality rate influencing treatment efficacy. Management of the initial Varroa mite infestation of the colony by the beekeeper can compensate for the decrease in treatment efficacy for resistance thresholds of up to 40% of resistant mites. CONCLUSION: Treatment efficacy depends on several parameters, including initial level of infestation, treatment period and the presence of acaricide resistance. Amitraz resistance may lead to treatment failure, even if the beekeeper is able to keep initial infestation rates low. © 2021 Society of Chemical Industry.

Inventory of Varroa destructor susceptibility to amitraz and tau-fluvalinate in France.

Varroa destructor is one of the greatest threats for the European honeybee, Apis mellifera. Acaricides are required to control mite infestation. Three conventional chemical acaricide substances are used in France: tau-fluvalinate, flumethrin and amitraz. Tau-fluvalinate was used for over 10 years before experiencing a loss of effectiveness. In 1995, bioassay trials showed the first mite resistance to tau-fluvalinate. In some countries, amitraz was widely used, also leading to resistance of V. destructor to amitraz. In France, some efficiency field tests showed a loss of treatment effectiveness with amitraz. We adapted the bioassay from Maggi and collaborators to determine mite susceptibility to tau-fluvalinate and amitraz in France in 2018 and 2019. The lethal concentration (LC) which kills 90% of susceptible mite strains (LC90) is 0.4 and 12 µg/mL for amitraz and tau-fluvalinate, respectively. These concentrations were chosen as the determining factors to evaluate mite susceptibility. Some mites, collected from different apiaries, present resistance to amitraz and tau-fluvalinate (71% of the mite samples show resistance to amitraz and 57% to tau-fluvalinate). As there are few active substances available in France, and if mite resistance to acaricides continues to increase, the effectiveness of the treatments will decrease and therefore more treatments per year will be necessary. To prevent this situation, a new strategy needs to be put in place to include mite resistance management. We suggest that a bioassay would be a good tool with which to advise the policymakers.