Efficacy of control methods for small hive beetle (Aethina tumida): a meta-analysis
Abstract
The small hive beetle (Aethina tumida) is a significant global pest of honey bees, causing colony losses and adversely affecting pollination services. Numerous control strategies have been developed, yet their relative effectiveness remains uncertain making it difficult for beekeepers to select among available options. We conducted a meta-analysis utilising only studies that reported quantitative paired treatment-control results with extractable means, measures of variance, and sample sizes. This resulted in the inclusion of 25 eligible studies, comprising 175 treatment trials. Treatments included chemical pesticides and biological controls (entomopathogenic nematodes), as well as physical traps and barriers. Overall, small hive beetle control methods are highly effective, with treatment category effect sizes ranging from 2.24 to 3.37 Hedges’ g (very large effect relative to untreated controls). On average treatments showed a reduction in beetle survival by 58%. However, despite diverse methodologies and contexts, the meta-analysis revealed no statistically significant differences between the examined treatment categories. Laboratory studies were found to overstate treatment effectiveness in comparison to field conditions (Hedges’ g = 4.45, 95% CrI 3.06–6.12 vs 2.90, 95% CrI 1.16–4.57), indicating field-based evaluations are essential for realistic management expectations. Additionally, moderate heterogeneity among studies (Bayesian I2 = 38%, 95% CrI 19–59%) suggested that treatment outcomes vary depending on other variables such as colony health, management practices, or even environmental conditions. These results indicate that while no single treatment consistently outperforms others, there are several options that can provide a substantial impact on beetle reduction. This demonstrated the necessity for integrated pest management approaches tailored to specific local conditions. Future research should focus on standardised field assessments, exploring synergistic combinations of treatments to enhance hive beetle control efficacy. Importantly, honey bee health also needs to be considered alongside beetle control, but is rarely reported in studies.
Related
- Haplotype diversity and population genetic structure of Aethina tumida, an emerging global beekeeping pest in India
- Insecticidal Efficacy of Silicon Dioxide as Grain Protectant and Surface Treatment Against Two Major Stored-Product Beetle Species.
- A scientific note on Aethina sp. in wild stingless bee nests
- Feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of AdaptRehab VR, an immersive virtual reality system for upper limb stroke rehabilitation: A mixed-methods study in Ethiopia
- Predicting the Efficacy of Myopia Control Spectacle Lenses by Simulating Their Optical Effect on the Retina
BibTeX
@article{larsen2026efficacy,
title = {{Efficacy of control methods for small hive beetle (Aethina tumida): a meta-analysis}},
author = {Thea Larsen and Alexander Mikheyev},
journal = {Apidologie},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.1007/s13592-026-01316-x},
url = {https://hal.science/hal-05793439v1},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Efficacy of control methods for small hive beetle (Aethina tumida): a meta-analysis
AU - Thea Larsen
AU - Alexander Mikheyev
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/10
JO - Apidologie
DO - 10.1007/s13592-026-01316-x
UR - https://hal.science/hal-05793439v1
AB - The small hive beetle (Aethina tumida) is a significant global pest of honey bees, causing colony losses and adversely affecting pollination services. Numerous control strategies have been developed, yet their relative effectiveness remains uncertain making it difficult for beekeepers to select among available options. We conducted a meta-analysis utilising only studies that reported quantitative paired treatment-control results with extractable means, measures of variance, and sample sizes. This resulted in the inclusion of 25 eligible studies, comprising 175 treatment trials. Treatments included chemical pesticides and biological controls (entomopathogenic nematodes), as well as physical traps and barriers. Overall, small hive beetle control methods are highly effective, with treatment category effect sizes ranging from 2.24 to 3.37 Hedges’ g (very large effect relative to untreated controls). On average treatments showed a reduction in beetle survival by 58%. However, despite diverse methodologies and contexts, the meta-analysis revealed no statistically significant differences between the examined treatment categories. Laboratory studies were found to overstate treatment effectiveness in comparison to field conditions (Hedges’ g = 4.45, 95% CrI 3.06–6.12 vs 2.90, 95% CrI 1.16–4.57), indicating field-based evaluations are essential for realistic management expectations. Additionally, moderate heterogeneity among studies (Bayesian I2 = 38%, 95% CrI 19–59%) suggested that treatment outcomes vary depending on other variables such as colony health, management practices, or even environmental conditions. These results indicate that while no single treatment consistently outperforms others, there are several options that can provide a substantial impact on beetle reduction. This demonstrated the necessity for integrated pest management approaches tailored to specific local conditions. Future research should focus on standardised field assessments, exploring synergistic combinations of treatments to enhance hive beetle control efficacy. Importantly, honey bee health also needs to be considered alongside beetle control, but is rarely reported in studies.
SN - 0044-8435
SN - 1297-9678
ER -