Influence of Pollen Diet in Spring on Development of Honey Bee (Hymenoptera: Apidae) Colonies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of changes in spring pollen diet on the development of honey bee, Apis mellifera L. (Hymenoptera: Apidae), colonies were examined in a 3-yr study (2002-2004). Pollen-supplemented and pollen-limited conditions were created in colonies every spring, and brood rearing and honey yields were subsequently monitored throughout the summer. In all 3 yr, colonies that were supplemented with pollen or a pollen substitute in the spring started rearing brood earlier than colonies in other treatment groups and produced the most workers by late April or early May. In 2002, these initial differences were reflected by a two-fold increase in annual honey yields by September for colonies that were pollen-supplemented during the spring compared with pollen-limited colonies. In 2003 and 2004, differences between treatment groups in the cumulative number of workers produced by colonies disappeared by midsummer, and all colonies had similar annual honey yields (exception: in one year, productivity was low for colonies supplemented with pollen before wintering). Discrepancies between years coincided with differences in spring weather conditions. Colonies supplemented with pollen or a substitute during the spring performed similarly in all respects. These results indicate that an investment in supplementing the pollen diet of colonies would be returned for situations in which large spring populations are important, but long-term improvement in honey yields may only result when spring foraging is severely reduced by inclement weather. Beekeepers should weigh this information against the nutritional deficiencies that are frequently generated in colonies by the stresses of commercial management.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".