Pesticide Exposure During Development Does Not Affect the Larval Pheromones, Feeding Rates, or Morphology of Adult Honey Bee (Apis mellifera) Queens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent work demonstrated that honey bee ( Apis mellifera L.) queens reared in pesticide-laden beeswax exhibit significant changes in the composition of the chemicals produced by their mandibular glands including those that comprise queen mandibular pheromone, which is a critical signal used in mating as well as queen tending behavior. For the present study, we hypothesized that pesticide exposure during development would alter other queen-produced chemicals, including brood pheromone in immature queens, thus resulting in differential feeding of queen larvae by nurse workers, ultimately impacting adult queen morphology. We tested these hypotheses by rearing queens in beeswax containing field-relevant concentrations of (1) a combination of tau -fluvalinate and coumaphos, (2) amitraz, or (3) a combination of chlorothalonil and chlorpyrifos. These pesticides are ubiquitous in most commercial beekeeping operations in North America. We observed nurse feeding rates of queen larvae grafted into pesticide-laden beeswax, analyzed the chemical composition of larval queen pheromones and measured morphological markers in adult queens. Neither the nurse feeding rates, nor the chemical profiles of immature queen pheromones, differed significantly between queens reared in pesticide-laden wax compared to queens reared in pesticide-free wax. Moreover, pesticide exposure during development did not cause virgin or mated adult queens to exhibit differences in morphological markers (i.e., body weight, head width, or thorax width). These results were unexpected given our previous research and indicate that future work is needed to fully understand how pesticide exposure during development affects honey bee queen physiology, as well as how various adult queen quality metrics relate to each other.
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".