Western red cedar ( <i>Thuja plicata</i> ) beehives have no impact on honey bee ( <i>Apis mellifera</i> ) overwintering colony survival or detoxification enzyme expression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In North America, wooden honey bee hives are most often constructed from pine, but some companies also produce and sell boxes made of western red cedar ( Thuja plicata ) as a result of its local availability and desirable properties. However, there is debate within the beekeeping community about whether cedar is a safe hive material for bees, since resins within the wood are known to be insecticidal or insect deterrents. There is very little empirical evidence to support or refute these arguments. Here, we recorded health metrics of honey bee nucleus colonies hived in western red cedar and pine boxes (n = 10 each) to determine if the type of wood affects colony outcomes. Colonies were produced and introduced into these boxes in late July, with monitoring continued until the following spring. We found no significant differences in adult bee populations, brood areas, or Varroa mite prevalence among colonies hived in cedar versus pine boxes at either the end of summer (September 1 st ) or spring (April 1 st ) assessments. Overwintering survival was identical in the two groups at 90%. Hemolymph detoxification enzyme expression differed strongly between callow (day-old) workers and foragers but did not differ with hive material. Overall, we did not find evidence that hiving honey bee colonies in boxes constructed of western red cedar has any negative or positive effect on bee physiology or colony outcomes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".