That line of mites would be at a competitive disadvantage "normal" mites, and be quickly outbred.

Consider this: when virtually all mites were susceptible to coumaphos, those very rare mites that had the advantage of being resistant completely out competed and replaced the susceptible mites in only three years in Calif.  It only takes one foundress mite that is more successful at reproduction to completely change genetics of the entire mite population of a continent in only a few years.


The coumaphos  problem I completely understand.  We bred a restraint strain by interfering on a LARGE scale (side note we continue to on every other miticide)  We created no choice or variations


Not true with what I will call for discussion a Weaker mite.  One that does not completely take over a hive.   As hasd been discussed here at length,  it would be more likely that a weaker mite would fare better in the long run.  A Virulant mite that continually collapses hives it inhabits is dooming itself.  If those hives collapse mid winter as is typical farther north,  the mite bomb theory fizzles.


So in fact the mite that is "weaker"  but still successful survives at a much higher rate.

I admit,  nothing but theory at this point,  but if I knew a darn thing about how to look at mites this way I would be looking.


Charles

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html