Elevated Mating Frequency in Honey Bee (Hymenoptera: Apidae) Queens Exposed to the Miticide Amitraz During Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Most honey bee (Apis mellifera Linnaeus, 1758) (Hymenoptera: Apidae) colonies in the United States have been exposed to the beekeeper-applied miticides amitraz, coumaphos, and tau-fluvalinate. Colonies are also often exposed to agrochemicals, which bees encounter on foraging trips. These and other lipophilic pesticides bind to the beeswax matrix of comb, exposing developing bees. We explored whether queen-rearing beeswax containing pesticides affects the reproductive health of mated queens. We predicted that queens reared in pesticide-free beeswax would have higher mating frequencies and sperm viability of stored sperm compared with queens reared in wax containing pesticides. Mating frequency and sperm viability are two traditional measurements associated with queen reproductive health. To test these hypotheses, we reared queens in beeswax-coated cups that were pesticide free or contained field-relevant concentrations of 1) amitraz, 2) a combination of tau-fluvalinate and coumaphos, or 3) a combination of the agrochemicals chlorothalonil and chlorpyrifos. We then collected queens once they mated to determine sperm viability, using a dual fluorescent cell counter, and mating frequency, genotyping immature worker offspring at eight polymorphic microsatellite loci. Sperm viability did not differ between control queens and those reared in pesticide-laden wax. However, queens exposed to amitraz during development exhibited higher mating frequency than queens reared in pesticide-free beeswax or beeswax containing the other pesticide combinations. Our results suggest that miticide exposure during development affects queen mating frequency but not sperm viability, at least in newly mated queens. This finding, which has practical implications for commercial queen rearing and overall colony health, calls for further study.
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".