Indoor winter fumigation with formic acid does not have a long-term impact on honey bee (Hymenoptera: Apidae) queen performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SummaryFormic acid fumigation has been used to control infestations of the varroa mite, Varroa destructor Anderson & Trueman, and the tracheal mite, Acarapis woodi (Rennie) in honey bee, Apis mellifera L., colonies in various situations. Studies on the use of formic acid have generally focused on the immediate, direct effects of treatment. However, the potential for long-term effects is also of concern to beekeepers. The obJective of this study was to determine whether indoor winter fumigation of A. mellifera colonies with formic acid affects long-term queen performance by measuring sealed brood production, the frequency of queen supersedure, and honey production.Two experiments, during which A. mellifera colonies were fumigated with formic acid in an indoor wintering facility, were conducted during the winter of 2001–2002. After V. destructor populations were reduced to equivalent levels and A. mellifera populations were equalized, colonies with their original queens were evaluated for brood and honey production and queen supersedure during the summer following the treatments.Performance of queens that had been fumigated with a variety of different formic acid concentration-exposure time combinations during the winter did not differ from unfumigated queens. Previous studies have shown that indoor winter fumigation can be safely administered to A. mellifera colonies without causing immediate harm to workers or queens. This study shows that this treatment also lacks long term effects on queens. Whether a long-term “low” concentration or a short-term “high” concentration was used, surviving queens were as productive as untreated wintered queens.
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".