Summary of winter honey bee colony losses in Slovakia between the years 2009 and 2015
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Received: 2015-07-22 | Accepted: 2015-11-10 | Available online: 2016-03-24 dx.doi.org/10.15414/afz.2016.19.01.22-24 Between the seasons 2009/2010 and 2014/2015 was evaluated 1305 questionnaires in total, received from Slovak beekeepers. Standard questionnaires of COST working group COLOSS were used with sets of questions related to overwintering of bee colonies and possible reasons of its losses. In season 2009/2010 winter losses in Slovakia reached 7,10%, subsequently in 2010/2011 - 5,96%, 2011/2012 - 9,70%, 2012/2013 - 9,50%, 2013/2014 - 8,84%, 2014/2015 - 10,00%. Expected causes of winter mortality (starvation, poor queen´s quality, parasitism, robbery) were evaluated in the study to detect the presence of depopulation syndrome of bee colonies – CCD (colony collapse disorder) reported from some North American and European areas. As acceptable level of winter losses is generally considered level 10%, which was not exceeded in any season, thereby Slovakia ranks among countries with the lowest winter mortality of bee colonies worldwide. Possible reason of this situation is most probably multiple Varroa treatment throughout the year, but other reasons are discussed as well in the study. Keywords : bee colony losses, honey bee, beekeeping References JOHNSON. R. (2007) Recent honey bee colony declines. CRS Report for Congress RL33938. KAPLAN, K. (2008) Colony Collapse Disorder: A Complex Buzz. Agric. Res. Magazine, vol. 6, no.5, pp. 8-11. MARTIN-HERNANDEZ, R. et al. (2007) Outcome of Colonization of Apis mellifera by Nosema ceranae . Appl. Environ. Microbiol., vol. 73, no. 20, pp. 6311-6338. Neumann. P. (2008) An introduction to honeybee colony losses. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Europan Conference of Apidology , Belfast . NEUMANN, P. and CARRECK, N. L. (2010) Honey bee colony losses. Journal of Apicultural Research, vol. 49, no.1, pp. 1-6. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3896/IBRA.1.49.1.01 VAN DER ZEE, R. et al. (2012) Managed honey bee colony losses in Canada, China, Europe, Israel and Turkey, for the winters of 2008–2009 and 2009–2010. Journal of Apicultural Research, vol. 51, no.1, pp. 100-114. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3896/IBRA.1.51.1.12 VAN DER ZEE, R. et al. (2013) Standard survey methods for estimating colony losses and explanatory risk factors in Apis mellifera . Journal of Apicultural Research , vol. 52, no.4. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3896/IBRA.1.52.4.18 VAN DER ZEE, R. et al. (2014) Results of international standardised beekeeper surveys of colony losses for winter 2012-2013: analysis of winter loss rates and mixed effects modelling of risk factors for winter loss. Journal of Apicultural Research , vol. 53, no.1, pp. 19-34. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3896/IBRA.1.53.1.02
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".