Influence of Honey Bee Genotype and Wintering Method on Wintering Performance of<i>Varroa destructor</i>(Parasitiformes: Varroidae)-Infected Honey Bee (Hymenoptera: Apidae) Colonies in a Northern Climate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of a cooperative breeding program designed to enhance winter survival of honey bees (Apis mellifera L.) when exposed to high levels of varroa (Varroa destructor Anderson and Trueman) in outdoor-wintered and indoor-wintered colonies. Half of the colonies from selected and unselected stocks were randomly assigned to be treated with late autumn oxalic acid treatment or to be left untreated. Colonies were then randomly assigned to be wintered either indoors (n = 37) or outdoors (n = 40). Late autumn treatment with oxalic acid did not improve wintering performance. However, genotype of bees affected colony survival and the proportion of commercially viable colonies in spring, as indicated by greater rates of colony survival and commercially viable colonies for selected stock (43% survived and 33% were viable) in comparison to unselected stock (19% survived and 9% were viable) across all treatment groups. Indoor wintering improved spring bee population score, proportion of colonies surviving, and proportion of commercially viable colonies relative to outdoor wintering (73% of selected stock and 41% of unselected stock survived during indoor wintering). Selected stock showed better "tolerance" to varroa as the selected stock also maintained higher bee populations relative to unselected stock. However, there was no evidence of "resistance" in selected colonies (reduced mite densities). Collectively, this experiment showed that breeding can improve tolerance to varroa and this can help minimize colony loss through winter and improve colony wintering performance. Overall, colony wintering success of both genotypes of bees was better when colonies were wintered indoors than when colonies were wintered outdoors.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".