Preservation of Domesticated Honey Bee (Hymenoptera: Apidae) Drone Semen
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Preservation of honey bee (Apis mellifera L., Hymenoptera: Apidae) sperm, coupled with instrumental insemination, is an effective strategy to protect the species and their genetic diversity. Our overall objective is to develop a method of drone semen preservation; therefore, two experiments were conducted. Hypothesis 1 was that cryopreservation (-196 °C) of drone semen is more effective for long-term storage than at 16 °C. Our results show that after 1 yr of storage, frozen sperm viability was higher than at 16 °C, showing that cryopreservation is necessary to conserve semen. However, the cryoprotectant used for drone sperm freezing, dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO), can harm the queen and reduce fertility after instrumental insemination. Hypothesis 2 was that centrifugation of cryopreserved semen to reduce DMSO prior to insemination optimize sperm quality. Our results indicate that centrifuging cryopreserved sperm to remove cryoprotectant does not affect queen survival, spermathecal sperm count, or sperm viability. Although these data do not indicate that centrifugation of frozen-thawed sperm improves queen health and fertility after instrumental insemination, we demonstrate that cryopreservation is achievable, and it is better for long-term sperm storage than above-freezing temperatures for duration of close to a year.
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".