Influence of cell type and mandibular dentition on the ability of captive honey bee workers and drones (<i>Apis cerana indica</i> Fabr. and <i>Apis mellifera</i> L.) to uncap brood cells: biological implications for parasitic mites (<i>Varroa</i> spp.)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Experiments to study the ability of adults (workers and drones) of the eastern honey bee, Apis cerana indica Fabr., and the western honey bee, Apis mellifera L., to uncap brood cells were undertaken in Bangalore, India. Using halved gelatin capsules, individual adults were confined opposite the intact cap that sealed vacant, isolated brood cells. From inside the cell, workers and drones of both species penetrated the drone-cell cap of A. mellifera with regularity. When placed outside the cell, workers of both species were successful in perforating the same cap. Similarly, A. c. indica workers easily perforated the cap of A. c. indica worker cells from inside. However, significant caste-specific differences in success at perforating the cap of A. c. indica drone cells were observed; whereas drones did so regularly, A. c. indica workers usually perished when so challenged. When held facing the cap while inside or outside the drone cell, none or only 10% of workers, respectively, managed to chew a hole in it. Even when two workers faced the same drone-cell cap, one from each side, only 20% of caps were perforated. These results are consistent with the hypothesis that the tough apex of the drone cocoon of A. cerana is typically impervious to uncapping from outside, and hence has provided an opportunity for the uninterrupted reproduction of invading parasitic mites (Varroa spp.). The mandibles of drones of both species possess a diminutive apical tooth along the distal margins that is absent in workers. The lack of mandibular teeth in workers may explain the disparity in ability to penetrate the tough cocoon of A. c. indica drones. The mandibles of both castes suffer wear.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".