## 3 Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Apiary ID**} & **Mean Amount of Bees \({}^{*}\)** & **Mean Amount of Broad \({}^{**}\)** & **Dispersal Mite** & \multirow{2}{*}{**Powdered Sugar Roll**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Natural Mite Fall**} \\  & & & **Infection** & & & \\  & & & **(Mean) \({}^{**}\)** & & & \\ \hline  & & & **Spearman Correlation & **Coefficient of** & **Spearman Correlation** & **Coefficient of** \\  & & & **(\(p\)-Value)** & **Determination** & **(\(p\)-Value)** & **Determination** \\ \hline ITG1 & 16816 a & 24,880 bc & 146 b & 0.564 (0.030) & 0.319 & **0.839 (c.0001)** & **0.704** \\ \hline ITG2 & 12,055 a & 32,746 c & 26 a & 0.623 (0.015) & 0.388 & 0.345 (0.206) & 0.119 \\ \hline NA1 & 17,076 a & 19,756 ab & 76 ab & \(-0.146\) (0.604) & 0.021 & \(-0.072\) (0.802) & 0.005 \\ \hline NA2 & 13,922 a & 15,293 a & 29 a & \(-0.462\) (0.085) & 0.213 & 0.136 (0.625) & 0.018 \\ \hline Total apiaries: 4 & **14,758** & **23,169** & **69** & **0.368 (0.004)** & **0.136** & **0.537 (c.0001)** & **0.289** \\ \hline \multicolumn{7}{l}{\({}^{*}\)ANOVA F(3, 56) = 2.16), \(p<0.102\); \({}^{**}\) ANOVA F(3, 56) = 9.92), \(p<0.01\); \({}^{**}\) [PERSON]’s ANOVA F(3, 26.8) = 11,35), \(p<0.01\), Variances in} \\ \multicolumn{7}{l}{apiaries were different ([PERSON]'s test for equal variances, \(p<0.01\)). Different letters in columns indicate significant differences at \(\alpha=0.05\).} \\ \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Strength of colonies and dispersal mite infestation in the test apiaries. Correlation between the number dispersal mites in colonies and infestation of samples tested using different methods. Protocol 1 \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Colony Category** & **Powdered Sugar Roll** & **Natural Mite Fall** \\ \hline Weak & **0.79 (\(p<0.05\))** & **0.66 (\(p<0.05\))** \\ \hline Strong & 0.60 (\(p<0.05\)) & **0.74 (\(p<0.05\))** \\ \hline Low amount of brood & **0.66 (\(p<0.05\))** & **0.86 (\(p<0.05\))** \\ \hline High amount of brood & **0.84 (\(p<0.05\))** & **0.67 (\(p<0.05\))** \\ \hline Low infested & **0.67 (\(p<0.05\))** & **0.73 (\(p<0.05\))** \\ \hline High infested & 0.48 (\(p>0.05\)) & **0.68 (\(p<0.05\))** \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Spearman correlation between colonies classified according to strength, amount of brood and infestation class, and dispersal infestation level obtained using different methods. Protocol 1. Only Croatian apiaries were included. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Apiary ID** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Mean Amount of** \\ **Bees \({}^{*}\)** \\ \end{tabular}  & \ \begin{tabular}{c} **Mean Amount of** \\ **Brood \({}^{**}\)** \\ \end{tabular}  & \begin{tabular}{c} **Total Mite Infestation** \\ **(Mean) *** \\ \end{tabular}  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Powdered Sugar Roll**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Natural Mite Fall**} \\ \hline  & & & & & **Spearman** & **Cofficient of** & **Spearman** & **Cofficient of** \\  & & & & **Correlation (\(p\)-Value)** & **Determination** & **Correlation (\(p\)-Value)** & **Determination** \\ \hline DG1 & 19,456 b & 32,733 b & 118 a & 0.267 (0.365) & 0.071 & 0.092 (0.773) & 0.008 \\ \hline DG2 & 18,793 b & 28,320 b & 541 b & 0.354 (0.116) & 0.125 & **0.549 (0.011)** & **0.302** \\ \hline JW1 & 16,697 b & 31,167 b & 131 a & 0.044 (0.879) & 0.002 & **0.546  
According to protocol 2, the estimation of bee infestation is highly dependent on the strength of the colonies and the degree of infestation (Table 5). Considering data from all apiaries that adopted the two protocols (Tables 2 and 4), the correlation between the number of dispersal or total mites and the two on-field methods were statistically significant (\(p<0.05\)), but the relation of features was low. Stepwise regression analysis confirmed that other factors, such as the number of adult bees, brood coverage, hive types, and testers, were insignificant in the analysis.