Effect of bee bread on Africanized honey bees infected with spores of <i>Nosema</i> spp.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Floral diversity allows honey bees, Apis mellifera L. (including its hybrids between subspecies) (Hymenoptera: Apidae), to meet their nutritional requirements. However, infection by Nosema spp. (Microsporidia: Nosematidae) destroys a bee's digestive epithelium, hindering the ability to absorb nutrients. In some subtropical regions, such as the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico, nosemosis is one of the most widespread diseases in commercial apiaries. To date, there have been no reports of colony deaths attributable to the disease. It is possible that the naturally occurring diet in the Yucatan Peninsula sustains honey bee health. We tested this hypothesis by evaluating the effect of four diets – bee bread collected in the Yucatan's rainy and dry seasons, sucrose syrup, and a pollen substitute – on the response of caged Africanized honey bees ( A. m. scutellata × A. m. adansonii × A. mellifera ) to nosemosis infection (treatment with spores of Nosema apis Zander and Nosema ceranae Fries). We found that infected and uninfected bees consumed food in similar amounts regardless of the diet, although, overall, they fed at significantly lower rates when provided the pollen‐substitute diet. Bees fed either of the bee bread diets had relatively low fat‐body weight and expression of Vg , proPO , and GOx genes, three genes related to immune function. Bees fed sucrose syrup had low fat‐body weight but relatively high gene expression. Infection from Nosema spores only reduced the individual survival probability for bees fed the bee bread collected in the dry season, yet bees fed the dry‐season bee bread had the lowest infection rates. Our results indicate that natural stored bee bread in honey bee colonies from the Yucatan Peninsula could be one of the main factors influencing their survival and reducing Nosema spp. spore load.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".