Effect of Fumagilin-B treatment timing on nosema (<i>Vairimorpha</i> spp.; Microspora: Nosematidae) abundance and honey bee (Hymenoptera: Apidae) colonies under winter management in the Canadian Prairies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fumagilin-B is used to treat nosema infection in honey bee colonies; however, it is unclear whether treatment consistently reduces Vairimorpha ceranae (Fries et al.) abundance and improves colony strength and survival in the Canadian Prairies. This study assessed spring and fall fumagillin treatments on nosema abundance, colony strength, and mortality in 2 different beekeeping regions within Alberta, using both indoor and outdoor wintering management at each site. We compared 4 fumagillin treatments: Spring-only, Fall-only, Spring-and-Fall, and Control (no treatment). The spring treatment dose was ~68 mg/colony, whereas the fall treatment dose was 120 or 48 mg/colony, depending on the year. We found that the colonies were infected predominately with V. ceranae, with V. apis (Zander) present only in mixed infections in a subset of colonies. Although treatment in either the spring or fall did reduce nosema abundance in the short term, it did not eliminate the infection, making continued monitoring necessary. Colony strength was improved by spring treatment in some locations but not consistently, possibly due to the treatment timing or low dose. The combined spring and fall treatment increased colony survival over winter in one of 2 yr. Wintering method did not interact with treatment to affect nosema abundance in the spring. There does not appear to be a significant residual benefit of fall treatment as it did not reduce spring nosema abundance or increase colony population. Therefore, spring treatment should be applied to reduce spring V. ceranae abundance rather than relying on residual efficacy from previous fall treatments.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".