The paper invovled "Passive acoustic monitoring provides a fresh perspective on fundamental ecological questions" can be found here 🧪
besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10....
2/2

The paper invovled "Passive acoustic monitoring provides a fresh perspective on fundamental ecological questions" can be found here besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10....
2/2

The paper invovled "Passive acoustic monitoring provides a fresh perspective on fundamental ecological questions" can be found here besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.... 2/2

Also we've highlighted general issues with how data is reported. It's harder than it should be to do a comparative analysis, probably due to a lack of unified reporting standards.
Which has limited our capacity to get as specific as we'd like to (i.e. analysing dosage)
So plenty more work to do!

As much as anything it's allowed us to highlight where data is lacking;
Honey bee health metrics are measured way less than mite mortality. Particularly longer term health (if it's measured it's usually something short term).
Controlled studies of options like resistant bee strains.
Bee genotype

In terms of how we're measuring the efficacy. We're working with what has been previously published, so what we can do reflects that.
Mite count (Varroa mortality) is one analysis we've done. There's a big focus on that in the published literature
We've looked at other metrics also

Does this link work doi.org/10.1016/j.sc...?

Maybe also google the DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.178228

If not my institution should be putting out a summary blog on it later this week, I'll share it. Character limits here are tight!