2019
DOI: 10.1242/jeb.200998
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A new, practicable and economical cage design for experimental studies on small honey bee colonies

Abstract: Bees are in decline globally as a result of multiple stressors including pests, pathogens and contaminants. The management of bees in enclosures can identify causes of decline under standardized conditions but the logistics of conducting effect studies in typical systems used across several colonies is complex and costly. This study details a practicable, new and economical cage system that effectively houses live honey bee colonies to investigate the impact of physical conditions, biological factors and envir… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4

Relationship

1
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 47 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This included brood development, maintenance of colony temperature, worker and queen bee mortality, gastric health, and bee weight. Although the cage environment provided for successful brood development (Winston, 1987), as evidenced by successful brood development in the controls (Sonter et al, 2019), even at the lowest PFOS exposure concentration of 0.02 mg L −1 , the development from eggs to young adults ceased. Larval death was possibly due to nurse bees feeding the larvae PFOS‐contaminated food, rather than PFOS residue in the brood comb due to the short time period of exposure and use of noncontaminated frames (Wu‐Smart & Spivak, 2016; Zhu et al, 2014).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…This included brood development, maintenance of colony temperature, worker and queen bee mortality, gastric health, and bee weight. Although the cage environment provided for successful brood development (Winston, 1987), as evidenced by successful brood development in the controls (Sonter et al, 2019), even at the lowest PFOS exposure concentration of 0.02 mg L −1 , the development from eggs to young adults ceased. Larval death was possibly due to nurse bees feeding the larvae PFOS‐contaminated food, rather than PFOS residue in the brood comb due to the short time period of exposure and use of noncontaminated frames (Wu‐Smart & Spivak, 2016; Zhu et al, 2014).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The specialized cage system (Sonter et al, 2019) used for this exposure trial was installed in a dedicated bay of the glasshouse complex at the University of New England, Armidale, NSW (Australia) (Supporting Information Figure ). Modifications to the cages and hive boxes to prevent PFOS cross‐contamination included removable covers on hive box lids, water feeders, floors, cage walls, and temperature monitors.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Here, the control mortality derived from the empirical data did not represent mortality experienced by bees within a natural colony when input to the model, leading to unrealistic levels of colony failure ( Figure S1). This discrepancy is expected because honey bees in controlled experiments, where bees are maintained outside the hive environment, are expected to show higher mortality than under normal conditions within the hive (Sonter et al, 2019). We accounted for this discrepancy by transforming our control and treatment bootstrapped data proportional with the baseline mortality in BEEHAVE.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%