# 4+ mites enter each cell killing the larvae and themselves



## gww (Feb 14, 2015)

I thought the first few pictures here were interesting.
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q...l+larva&qpvt=voroa+mites+kill+larva&FORM=IGRE

gww


----------



## beepro (Dec 31, 2012)

Is it valid? I don't think so.
Have seen 4-6 mites on a single deformed newly emerged bee before.
Wonder if they have the ability to converse to congregate together toward a target sickly bee.
Of course, the drone larvae can handle up to 12 mites in each cell conservatively.


----------



## Riverderwent (May 23, 2013)

To me, this is a fascinating subject because if only one mother varroa crawls into a cell then the sexually mature daughter varroa can only breed with her own brother. This results in inbreeding and a loss of the adaptive benefits of sexual reproduction. Similarly, if both the mother and fecund daughter varroa leave the cell and go into another cell together, then I suppose that there will be two males, but there will again be inbreeding. This may be why there is a selective advantage to having a phoretic stage (so daughters will move away from their mothers within the hive -- or to a different hive). But it would also arguably create a selective advantage for more than one fecund mother varroa to enter a single larva cell at the same time.


----------



## beepro (Dec 31, 2012)

I have not seen the genes of the mites yet. So there might be many
combination that inbreeding is not an issue. Maybe that was why in my observation 4-6
mites congregating on this sickly deformed newly emerged individual bee. I'm sure they don't
just talk while on the bee. And we know that with inbreeding there will be a potential physical deformity involved later on. We have yet to learn more about the mite genetics. Perhaps in the future fighting the mites at the genetic level like the mosquito is a new break through.


----------



## gww (Feb 14, 2015)

Eduardo made me spend a couple of hours looking for the answer to his question and then I got side tracked looking for the last study tom seeley did on mites and never did find anything but highlights of it. One interesting thing was something on his finding that had to do with no males being in the brood cell on some of the longer surviving feral bees causing lower breed rate but I couldn't find enough to understand what he was talking about.

Since brood break and splitting is my start up plan for mite control, I thought I would look to see how it worked but guess I am just going to do what most newbees do and run on faith untill I get shown better.
Cheers
gww


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Riverderwent said:


> To me, this is a fascinating subject because if only one mother varroa crawls into a cell then the sexually mature daughter varroa can only breed with her own brother. This results in inbreeding and a loss of the adaptive benefits of sexual reproduction. Similarly, if both the mother and fecund daughter varroa leave the cell and go into another cell together, then I suppose that there will be two males, but there will again be inbreeding. This may be why there is a selective advantage to having a phoretic stage (so daughters will move away from their mothers within the hive -- or to a different hive). But it would also arguably create a selective advantage for more than one fecund mother varroa to enter a single larva cell at the same time.


Yes, and I have theorized that keeping ones mite levels low, by whatever means, increases the probability of inbreeding which might result in a reproductively weaker female. I know of no specific proof of this, only that logic tells me that inbreeding can't be good for any species.


----------



## wildbranch2007 (Dec 3, 2008)

can't find the original posts in bee-l but part of a discussion.

http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-LSOFTDONATIONS.exe?A2=ind0708C&L=bee-l&F=&S=&P=18751



> >I do not know about mites in general, but for varroa is it not more 'tend'
> >to inbreed? In a recent lecture Dr Stephen Martin told that mites are
> >clonal, i.e. all varroa destructor are genetically identical


http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-LSOFTDONATIONS.exe?A2=ind0708C&L=bee-l&F=&S=&P=21282



> The best paper I could find on this is by Solignac and colleagues in 2005. There are two types of V. destructor on A. mellifera which seem to trace back to two original strains jumping from A. cerana to A. mellifera. On top of that there has been some mixing between the two strains, and some new generation of mutants giving resistance to pyrethroids (interestingly called 'parathyroids' on one web page I saw this morning!).
> 
> Calling them 'clones' doesn't seem quite right, even though I used the term before and the paper cited below uses the word in its title. 'Quasi-clones' brought about by repeated (but not total) inbreeding, perhaps.


----------



## Eduardo Gomes (Nov 10, 2014)

gww said:


> Eduardo made me spend a couple of hours looking for the answer to his question and then I got side tracked looking for the last study tom seeley did on mites and never did find anything but highlights of it. One interesting thing was something on his finding that had to do with no males being in the brood cell on some of the longer surviving feral bees causing lower breed rate but I couldn't find enough to understand what he was talking about.


gww I hope it has been hours that you spent with pleasure.

On the mechanism of resistance that Tom Seeley found at Arnot forest's sawrms, if memory does not betray me, the strongest hypothesis was that of a coevolution bees / mites that determined a relatively less virulent mite strain. The mechanisms underlying the lower virulence of mites I do not know whether they were studied by Tom Seeley or others.

In Europe, some natural bee colonies resistant to mites have been studied and once again it seems that coevolution mechanisms help to explain this resistance, although apparently they are different mechanisms. You can see here https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3402190/ if you have a little more time.


----------



## Forgiven (Nov 17, 2016)

Hum, I have my doubts. However, it might be interesting subject to study whether the mite load on first brood a new queen lays is actually highest possible as most mites in hive would be waiting to get into a cell. Could use that to remove most mites from hive by cutting out the first parts of brood new queen lays. (Additional disturbance to the bees since already long brood break is extented even futher, but... if the percentage of mites removed thus is high enough, why not.)
I'll probably just use acid during the broodless period to achieve a mite kill for new nucs, but if you don't like treatments, I could see this as a possible way reduce the mites.


----------



## Eduardo Gomes (Nov 10, 2014)

>>In a recent lecture Dr Stephen Martin told that mites are clonal, i.e. all varroa destructor are genetically identical

And even though genetically identical the mite phenotype may be influencing the resistance of these mites to certain acaricides. Source: https://www.researchgate.net/public...estructor_and_its_role_in_acaricide_tolerance


----------



## fatshark (Jun 17, 2009)

jim lyon said:


> Yes, and I have theorized that keeping ones mite levels low, by whatever means, increases the probability of inbreeding which might result in a reproductively weaker female. I know of no specific proof of this, only that logic tells me that inbreeding can't be good for any species.


Robin Moritz recently presented compelling data to show that - at low(er) mite levels - inbreeding tends to rapidly generate homozygotes. This was all to do with how rapidly miticide resistance - a recessive trait - evolves. Within 12 generations 90+% of genotypes are homozygous even in the absence of a selective acaricide. There's statistically significant data to show mites/cell (so chance of inbreeding) is greater in October than June. So ... I think this supports your theory Jim.


----------



## psm1212 (Feb 9, 2016)

Eduardo: When you use the term "acaracide" do you include acids in that definition? Is it generally understood that oxalic acid is or is not an "acaracide?"


----------



## jean-marc (Jan 13, 2005)

Oxalic acid is an acaricide, by definition.

Jean-Marc


----------



## Eduardo Gomes (Nov 10, 2014)

psm1212 said:


> Eduardo: When you use the term "acaracide" do you include acids in that definition?


If I use acids to kill mites (acari) yes. But I do not want to be right.



> Is it generally understood that oxalic acid is or is not an "acaracide?"


psm1212 frankly i have no idea.


----------



## psm1212 (Feb 9, 2016)

jean-marc said:


> Oxalic acid is an acaricide, by definition.
> 
> Jean-Marc


Who's definition? I have seen acaricide defined as a "pesticide" and a "poison." I would say an acid could be something more mechanical. If I squish a mite with my finger, that does not make my finger an acaricide.

But I did not post it to start a semantics debate. I just wanted to know what Eduardo was including in the term "acaricide." It was not obvious to me. But he has now answered that question.


----------



## FlowerPlanter (Aug 3, 2011)

>I have theorized that keeping ones mite levels low, by whatever means, increases the probability of inbreeding which might result in a reproductively weaker female. I know of no specific proof of this, only that logic tells me that inbreeding can't be good for any species. 

Inbreeding is how they reproduce; the first egg, a male fertilizes all of his sisters. Females leave the cell mated and ready to reproduce. There is no outside exchange of genes. The male dies when the cell is opened.

Chemically reducing the mite population in theory is only selecting the strongest remaining mites. The more often you reduce, the harder selection you are doing. Using the same treatment streamlines your selection, alternating treatments will reduce/prevent this. All it take is one resistant mite to replace all of it non resistant cousins.

Life cycle;
http://articles.extension.org/pages/65450/varroa-mite-reproductive-biology

"a single male during each reproductive cycle and this male needs to fertilize all of his sisters (Martin et al. 1997)."

http://www.beeculture.com/a-closer-look-varroa-mite-reproduction/

R Oliver has a very good article about mite reproductive rates and some variable that effect it, including splits;

http://scientificbeekeeping.com/sick-bees-part-12-varroa-management-getting-down-to-brass-tacks/

>Robin Moritz recently presented compelling data to show that - at low(er) mite levels - inbreeding tends to rapidly generate homozygotes.....(so chance of inbreeding) is greater in October than June. So ... I think this supports your theory Jim. 

You have a study? Are you talking about this one?;

"the constant brother-sister mating of Varroa has led to almost clonal population-specific mite types, which have differentiated considerably with time as they were taken away from their native region into allopatry. These extreme characteristics of the mite set the stage for the potential alloxenic speciation [36] of highly specific and most virulent types."

"to a lack of heterozygotes which is expected as a result from obligate brother-sister mating and inbreeding in the Varroa life cycle.";

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0135103

>On the mechanism of resistance that Tom Seeley found at Arnot forest's sawrms, if memory does not betray me, the strongest hypothesis was that of a coevolution bees / mites that determined a relatively less virulent mite strain.

My theory on the whole coevolution bees/mites; First it would be very difficult to find a truly isolated area to test this, it would have to be 100% bee/mite free. It took only a few years for mites to spread across the entire US, there was no mite isolated areas, to include Arnot forest. It would be fair to say that mites are still spreading across the country. So if coevolution did developed in a bee population this population would also have mites with origins from every part of the country continually coming in. Any mite that did developed a lower reproductive rate would soon be displaced. Making it near impossible for a lower reproductive mite to outbreed the mites already inexistence and still migrating in. Seeing their gene pool is closed from outside interference every mite in a hive would all have to coevolution at the same time or it's cousins would displace them all while staying isolated form incoming mites. 

Where as queens/bees mate with many drones to exchange genes, the genetic gene pool in an area will soon or a later mix into the entire local populations, either gaining or reducing mite resistance. Most if not all true TF bees can be traced back to open mated queens with the feral populations. It's also not surprising that the closed genetic mated bees are also the least resistant to mites.


----------



## Riverderwent (May 23, 2013)

fatshark said:


> There's statistically significant data to show mites/cell (so chance of inbreeding) is greater in October than June.


If the number of foundress mites per cell is greater, then the chance of inbreeding should be smaller in October, not greater.


----------



## AR Beekeeper (Sep 25, 2008)

Studies have shown that when multiple foundress mites are in a cell their egg laying is affected and their reproduction is reduced. Many do not lay eggs and some eggs do not hatch. Why this happens is unclear in the studies where it is mentioned. All studies agreed that with multiple infestation of a larva the varroa growth rate is less than if only one foundress mite is in the cell.

I have not found a study that states how many mites a larva can be infested with and not survive, most state that with multiple mites the adult bee's lifespan is very short.


----------



## Eduardo Gomes (Nov 10, 2014)

Thank you AR Beekeeper.

That's exactly what I've been reading: reducing prolificity of the mites when several enter a single cell. I have never read that the mother mites died under these circumstances.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Flower Planter: Please don't interject chemical control into my statement, as low mite levels can be achieved with other manipulations as well. My point is really quite simple. The higher the mite loads, the higher the chance of mite cross breeding, keeping in mind that the initial male mite will breed with a female contained in the same cell. Two different females within the same cell would certainly make this a possibility if not a probability.


----------



## fatshark (Jun 17, 2009)

FlowerPlanter said:


> >Robin Moritz recently presented compelling data to show that - at low(er) mite levels - inbreeding tends to rapidly generate homozygotes.....(so chance of inbreeding) is greater in October than June. So ... I think this supports your theory Jim.
> 
> You have a study? Are you talking about this one?;
> 
> ...


No, not that one as it doesn't discuss Apistan resistance. He presented it at the ICE meeting in Florida this year. It may not be published or it may be a simple extrapolation of biology of the mite ...


----------



## beepro (Dec 31, 2012)

Riverderwent said:


> If the number of foundress mites per cell is greater, then the chance of inbreeding should be smaller in October, not greater.


In June, for some beekeeping areas it is the start of the short season. Because in April it is still
cold with snows on the ground. A non treated hive coming out of winter will have lots of mites in the hive to increase the breeding activity avoiding the inbreeding issue. This is the starting of the colony's expansion mode!
Comes October, the brood nest got reduced significantly as the winter contraction mode is on. In this stage the queen will
cut back egg laying in smaller patches. This will forced the mites to go in fewer cap cells there are. This is also the time that the inbreeding is increased or greater because of the less available cap cells. Think of contraction of the brood nest where all
the surviving, free running mites are concentrating on fewer cap cells. With the brood nest more concentrated and smaller now the mites inbreeding will be greater that they don't have to travel far. Besides, how far can they go with a reduced brood nest now. Going back to my mite observation this year at the winter contraction mode with the nuc hives manipulation. All nucs' cap broods got transferred into a vsh queen's hive. With new drawn frames in, the queens will lay up to 30-40 cells right in the middle of the frame. After these larvae got capped, the queens continued to expand her little patches of broods until half of the frame is covered with new eggs, depending on how many bees are there to cover the frame or cells. Majority of the free running mites will race to be inside these 30-40 cap cells. When the first 30-40 cells got cap with broods in them that was the time with the most heavy mite infestation. If a cell infestation is greater than 6 mites per cell (a reduced brood nest will force the mites into a smaller area) then the larva will be dead. Now factor in the small cell where the larva is smaller! And this colony have no resistant bees either. 
Going back to the June expansion mode here, the bees are many and so are the mites that has less of a chance of inbreeding. This is because the mites are more spread out throughout the colony. They will have a greater chance to mate with other mites probably of different genetics brought back by the forager bees. At this stage, think of the expansion model where all the bees are spread out on all frames that they have a greater chance to mate with other mites. So the above statement by fatshark quote is correct. Inbreeding is greater not smaller in October than June! This statement correspond to my own mites and bees little nucs (observation) experiment. 
If I don't get those mites out of my nuc hives now comes Spring time they will crashed my hives for sure like it did 2 years ago. Below pics are the
reduced brood nest from open larvae to the cap broods on the October contraction mode. Notice how smart the queens are to lay the first patch of the smaller size broods that got cap first and then expand her brood nest more with the 2nd brood patch laying covering as many cells as she can. This will concentrate the mites on the first cap broods as much as possible. What caused these queens to lay in such a small pattern first and then expand again, I do not know. Something that needs to be observe at the genetic or behavioral level, maybe.

p.S. The queen flying 5 miles to mate with drones carrying the foreign mites will also increase the chance of the mite
genetic diversity. Some tf hives this season have 5-8 mites on the drones though still strong enough to mate. This is another observation this season though all of my virgin queens emerged in a mite infested hives. So I cannot tell which mite is the foreign one from my local hives. I've never thought about her mating flights that can bring back the foreign mites either.



October reduced brood nest with cap broods where the mites are concentrated:


----------



## Riverderwent (May 23, 2013)

beepro said:


> Think of contraction of the brood nest where all
> the surviving, free running mites are concentrating on fewer cap cells. With the brood nest more concentrated and smaller now the mites inbreeding will be greater that they don't have to travel far. Besides, how far can they go with a reduced brood nest now.


I understand that ordinarily a single foundress mite goes into a cell, the cell is capped and the foundress mite lays her first egg which is a sterile egg that hatches and, being haploid, is male. She then lays fertilized eggs that become females. (These females are diploid.) The single male mite, while still in the capped cell, mates with only one of the female mites, who is, of course in this scenario, his sister. The male and the other unmated sisters die. Only the original foundress and the one mated daughter survive.

If the original foundress female then goes into another cell by herself, she will have another son who will mate with his sister. If she goes into another cell with her own now fecund daughter from the first litter, then a daughter from the second litter of the first foundress will mate with either the inbred son of the first foundress mother or the inbred grandson of the first foundress mother. The female daughter of the second foundress mite will either mate with her uncle or her brother.

If the original foundress mite goes into a cell at the same time as another foundress mite who is not her daughter then there is a chance that a male mite will mate with a female mite who is not his sister or his niece. 

So, the fewer the number of cells with bee larva relative to the number of mites the more likely it is that a male mite will mate with someone other than his sister. So there would be less inbreeding in October than June considering that there are more mites and less bee brood in October.

Now, here is where someone needs to educate me. Considering the haploid nature of the male mite, does less inbreeding result from the male mite breeding with his neice rather than his sister or is the amount of inbreeding in that situation the same? Either way, having fewer bee brood cells would still cause less inbreeding, but inbreeding would be made even lesser by fewer cells if less inbreeding results from the male mite mating with his niece rather than his sister.


----------



## FlowerPlanter (Aug 3, 2011)

>keeping ones mite levels low, by whatever means, increases the probability of inbreeding which might result in a reproductively weaker female. I know of no specific proof of this, only that logic tells me that inbreeding can't be good for any species. 

>My point is really quite simple. The higher the mite loads, the higher the chance of mite cross breeding, 

Your saying two completely opposite things here. Inbreeding is the norm for this species and it's working very well for them.

>Flower Planter: Please don't interject chemical control into my statement,

If not by chemical how are you maintaining low levels "by whatever means"? 

Not saying that you do, just saying in general, a great portion of beekeepers do. And controlling them repeatable the same way every time in order to keep mite levels low; is selection at it's best. It is very likely that high mite counts kill the larva and no offspring are raised. It is also very likely that clone breeding happens every time brood levels are low; dearths, swarms, splits, OTS splits as Mel suggests, fall shut down, spring build up and any time preferred drone brood levels are low. Those that limit drone production may play a greater part with increased chance that the drone larva may support more females per cell and breed more offspring that make it to maturity. With a clonal population little to no genetic differences to worry about other than your neighbor creating chemically selected mites in order to maintain a low mite level through the year. And if it happens it won't matter, his mites will end up in your and my hives as a more virulent varroa.

>inbreeding tends to rapidly generate homozygotes.....(so chance of inbreeding) is greater in October than June.

>He presented it at the ICE meeting in Florida this year. It may not be published or it may be a simple extrapolation

They reproduce by inbreeding; "lack of heterozygotes which is expected as a result from obligate brother-sister mating and inbreeding in the Varroa life cycle.". Is he contradicting his own study?

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0135103

>Considering the haploid nature of the male mite, does less inbreeding result from the male mite breeding with his neice rather than his sister or is the amount of inbreeding in that situation the same? Either way, having fewer bee brood cells would still cause less inbreeding, but inbreeding would be made even lesser by fewer cells if less inbreeding results from the male mite mating with his niece rather than his sister. 

If they are all clones what does it matter,(unless they were chemically selected as stated above). In his study Robin Moritz seems to have concern with sub spices crossbreeding and wash backs in Asia than clone breeding.


----------



## beepro (Dec 31, 2012)

Riverderwent said:


> So, the fewer the number of cells with bee larva relative to the number of mites the more likely it is that a male mite will mate with someone other than his sister. So there would be less inbreeding in October than June considering that there are more mites and less bee brood in October.


Your logic does not goes with reality or what I had observed in 2 years chasing after the mites with a small sharp razor blade.
You see once the brood nest got reduced in October the many more mites will go inside the first cap broods. With the high infestation either the larva is dead or the bees will uncap the infested larvae if they are hygienic enough. The subsequent number of mites emerged will be less compared to when they first went inside the cap broods. Now with less mites than before and concentrated in a smaller brood nest size the chance of inbreeding in October got increased. At this time without the other outside mites influenced the genetics of the mites are inbreed only. So logic said they are increasing not decreasing the chance of inbreeding at this stage of the mite life cycle. How can they breed with other mites when flying weather is closed to nil at this time and there are less bees flying out to forage anyways? If this logic and observation cannot support his findings then I don't know what else to say. Also, your other mite reasoning gave me headache while reading. It all boils down to concentrated mites that increased the inbreeding of them with a reduced brood nest size. Only at the expansion phase when more foragers are out there that they are able to find more mites with diverse genes to breed with. Got that?


----------



## beepro (Dec 31, 2012)

Riverderwent said:


> So, the fewer the number of cells with bee larva relative to the number of mites the more likely it is that a male mite will mate with someone other than his sister. So there would be less inbreeding in October than June considering that there are more mites and less bee brood in October.


Your logic does not goes with reality or what I had observed in 2 years chasing after the mites with a small sharp razor blade.
You see once the brood nest got reduced in October the many more mites will go inside the first cap broods. With the high infestation either the larva is dead or the bees will uncap the infested larvae if they are hygienic enough. The subsequent number of mites emerged will be less compared to when they first went inside the cap broods. Now with less mites than before and concentrated in a smaller brood nest size the chance of inbreeding in October got increased. At this time without the other outside mites influenced the genetics of the mites are inbreed only. So logic said they are increasing not decreasing the chance of inbreeding at this stage of the mite life cycle. How can they breed with other mites when flying weather is closed to nil at this time and there are less bees flying out to forage anyways? If this logic and observation cannot support his findings then I don't know what else to say. Also, your other mite reasoning gave me headache while reading. It all boils down to concentrated mites that increased the inbreeding of them with a reduced brood nest size. Only at the expansion phase when more foragers are out there that they are able to find more mites with diverse genes to breed with. Got that?


----------



## FlowerPlanter (Aug 3, 2011)

Bee Pro brings up a good point;
According to the definitions of "Inbreeding" vs. "Crossbreeding" this species is only inbreeding. So it may not matter how many mites enter the cell they are all cloned cousins so inbreeding takes place. They are either breeding with their cloned siblings or cloned cousins it's still only inbreeding. So the time of the year, mite load or amount of brood make no different; they are inbreeding all of the time.

Crossbreeding could take place in Asia as Robin Moritz's study suggests (listed in post #25) where the different strains of varroa are on different bee species often kept together could jump back and forth then crossbreed and creating a hybrid that could potential be worse.


----------



## Riverderwent (May 23, 2013)

FlowerPlanter said:


> They are either breeding with their cloned siblings or cloned cousins it's still only inbreeding. So the time of the year, mite load or amount of brood make no different; they are inbreeding all of the time.


That's the thing about population bottlenecks from limited host-shift events with adelphogamatic mating and pseudo-arrhenotoky.


----------



## FlowerPlanter (Aug 3, 2011)

Correct me if I'm wrong but I do believe that all of the varroa sub species to include Apis cerana V. also inbreed exactly the same way. It's not so much bottleneck as they evolved to solely reproduce this way, any more than a single cell divisions of a protozoa.

Diversity has come for the different varroa stains that are on different bees (in Asia). And as we have chemically selected them with several chemical already and continue selecting them with more.

Inbreeding gives them the ability to quick adapt and not have to have breed it into the entire population.


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

So bottlenecking and inbreeding promote adaptation?


----------



## Riverderwent (May 23, 2013)

FlowerPlanter said:


> Inbreeding gives them the ability to quick adapt and not have to have breed it into the entire population.





Daniel Y said:


> So bottlenecking and inbreeding promote adaptation?


  No. There is a distinction between the glacially slow adaptation from genetic mutation and the relatively quicker adaptation from the varying combination of genes that results from non-adelphogamic sexual reproduction. Although, varroa's slow adaptation due to adelphogamatic mating and pseudo-arrhenotoky may be a survival mechanism in a backhanded kind of way. This is because their reproductive cycle being so much faster than that of their host _might_ otherwise give them the ability to adapt too quickly to defensive adaptation by their host thus killing their host colony and, because they cannot survive without their host, themselves. All of this arguably supports what Kirk Webster told us awhile back.


----------



## Nordak (Jun 17, 2016)

FlowerPlanter said:


> Inbreeding gives them the ability to quick adapt and not have to have breed it into the entire population.


I think this is a popular West Virginia theory.


----------



## Eduardo Gomes (Nov 10, 2014)

FlowerPlanter said:


> Diversity has come for the different varroa stains that are on different bees (in Asia).


There are two varroa species: Varroa destructor and Varroa jacobsoni

Varroa jacobsoni shows completely lack the ability to reproduce on A. mellifera

From Varroa destructor specie only two haplotypes (of six) infests and reproduces on A. mellifera: Japanese/Thailand haplotype and Korean haplotype. 

These two haplotypes are considered a quasi clonal population structure.

FlowerPlanter to what varroa diversity are you referring to that has interest / impact on the a. mellifera?


----------



## FlowerPlanter (Aug 3, 2011)

Eduardo Gomes said:


> FlowerPlanter to what varroa diversity are you referring to that has interest / impact on the a. mellifera?


Yes the ones you are quoting from the study I posted above.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0135103


----------



## Eduardo Gomes (Nov 10, 2014)

My source was another: http://www.moraybeedinosaurs.co.uk/Varroa/Rosenkranz-Biology-Control-Varroa.pdf

Now that I have read your source I understand your reference to diversity and the possibility of having different "strains" of varroa mites invading A. mellifera. Thank you FP.

"Although some Varroa types are apparently strongly specific (Vietnam), others are more generalist (Philippines). If those generalist mites would spread to mainland Asia, it is likely that they would also invade both A. mellifera, but also A. cerana colonies." source: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/art...l.pone.0135103


----------



## gww (Feb 14, 2015)

In the vidio of "Ghost in the hive" in the question and answer portion at the end, the resercher sorta gives credence to mels statement that a loading up of mites kills the brood larva and the mites in the loaded up cell.
Cheers
gww


----------

