MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2152456578 · doi:10.1603/ec11285

Treatment With Synthetic Brood Pheromone (SuperBoost) Enhances Honey Production and Improves Overwintering Survival of Package Honey Bee (Hymenoptera: Apidae) Colonies

2012· article· en· W2152456578 on OpenAlexaffabout
Cameron G. Lait, John H. Borden, Ervin Kovacs, Onour E. Moeri, Michael O’Neal Campbell, Cristina M. Machial

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Economic Entomology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsGolder Associates (Canada)Optech (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyBroodApidaeHymenopteraOverwinteringHoney beeAnimal scienceHorticultureBotanyToxicologyZoology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We evaluated a year-long treatment regime testing synthetic, 10-component, honey bee, Apis mellifera L. (Hymenoptera: Apidae), brood pheromone (SuperBoost; Contech Enterprises Inc., Delta, BC, Canada) on the productivity and vigor of package bee colonies in the lower Fraser Valley of British Columbia, Canada. Fifty-eight newlyestablished 1.3-kg (3-lb) colonies treated three times with SuperBoost at 5-wk intervals starting 30 April 2009 were compared with 52 untreated control colonies. Treated colonies produced 84.3% more honey than untreated control colonies. By 8 September 2009, SuperBoost-treated colonies had 35.4% more adults than untreated colonies. By 28 September, net survival of treated and control colonies was 72.4 and 67.3%, respectively. On 5 October, treated and control colonies were divided into two additional groups, making up four cohorts: SuperBoost-treated colonies treated again during fall and spring build-up feeding with pollen substitute diet (BeePro, Mann Lake Ltd., Hackensack, MN; TIT); controls that remained untreated throughout the year (CCC); colonies treated with SuperBoost in spring-summer 2009 but not treated thereafter (TCC); and original control colonies treated with SuperBoost during the fall and spring build-up feeding periods (CTT). There was no difference among cohorts in consumption of BeePro during fall feeding, but TTT colonies (including daughter colonies split off from parent colonies) consumed 50.8% more diet than CCC colonies during spring build-up feeding. By 21 April, the normalized percentages of the original number of colonies remaining (dead colonies partially offset by splits) were as follows: CCC, 31.4%; CTT, 43.8%; TCC, 53.59%; and TTT, 80.0%. The net benefit of placing 100 newly established package bee colonies on a year-long six-treatment regime with SuperBoost would be US$6,202 (US$62.02 per colony). We conclude that treatment with SuperBoost enhanced the productivity and survival of package bee colonies and hypothesize that similar results could be achieved with established colonies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.286
Threshold uncertainty score0.213

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.198 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Economic EntomologySame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207