Selection of Honey Bee (Apis mellifera) Genotypes for Three Generations of Low and High Population Growth of the Mite Varroa destructor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Honey bee (Apis mellifera) population declines have been associated with the parasitic mite, Varroa destructor, which is currently primarily controlled by the use of acaricides. An alternative is to breed for resistance to Varroa, which was conducted in this study by bidirectional selection for mite fall to obtain colonies with low (resistant) or high (susceptible) Varroa population growth (LVG and HVG, respectively). Selection for three generations resulted in approx. 90% lower Varroa population growth in LVG than in HVG colonies. In addition, late summer Varroa infestation rates of brood and adults were both significantly lower in LVG colonies (p < 0.01), which was also significantly associated with lower Deformed Wing Virus (DWV) infection levels (p < 0.01). Survival of Varroa-parasitized bees was almost 50% higher for LVG bees compared to HVG bees (p < 0.01). Also, colony winter survivorship was significantly higher for LVG colonies than for HVG colonies (p < 0.05). However, the higher colony populations observed for LVG colonies were not significantly different from those of HVG colonies. Overall, individual and colony health was improved by selecting colonies for LVG, demonstrating its effectiveness as a means of breeding for controlling Varroa populations in honey bee colonies.
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".