Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 461

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Miscellaneous standard methods for Apis mellifera research

Open access
Human, Hannelie, Brodschneider, Robert, Dietemann, Vincent, Dively, Galen, Ellis, James D, Forsgren, Eva, Fries, Ingemar, Hatjina, Fani, Hu, Fu-Liang, Jaffé, Rodolfo, Jensen, Annette Bruun, Köhler, Angela, Magyar, Josef P, Özkýrým, Asli, Pirk, Christian W W, Rose, Robyn, Strauss, Ursula, Tanner, Gina, Tarpy, David R, van der Steen, Jozef J M, Vaudo, Anthony, Vejsnæs, Fleming, Wilde, Jerzy, Williams, Geoffrey R, Zheng, Huo-Qing·2013·Journal of Apicultural Research

Abstract

SummaryA variety of methods are used in honey bee research and differ depending on the level at which the research is conducted. On an individual level, the handling of individual honey bees, including the queen, larvae and pupae are required. There are different methods for the immobilising, killing and storing as well as determining individual weight of bees. The precise timing of developmental stages is also an important aspect of sampling individuals for experiments. In order to investigate and manipulate functional processes in honey bees, e.g. memory formation and retrieval and gene expression, microinjection is often used. A method that is used by both researchers and beekeepers is the marking of queens that serves not only to help to locate her during her life, but also enables the dating of queens. Creating multiple queen colonies allows the beekeeper to maintain spare queens, increase brood production or ask questions related to reproduction. On colony level, very useful techniques are the measurement of intra hive mortality using dead bee traps, weighing of full hives, collecting pollen and nectar, and digital monitoring of brood development via location recognition. At the population level, estimation of population density is essential to evaluate the health status and using beelines help to locate wild colonies. These methods, described in this paper, are especially valuable when investigating the effects of pesticide applications, environmental pollution and diseases on colony survival.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3896/ibra.1.52.4.10

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 461

Metadata

Authors
Human, H., Brodschneider, R., Dietemann, V., Dively, G., Ellis, J. D., Forsgren, E., Fries, I., Hatjina, F., Hu, F.-L., Jaffé, R., Jensen, A. B., Köhler, A., Magyar, J. P., Özkýrým, A., Pirk, C. W. W., Rose, R., Strauss, U., Tanner, G., Tarpy, D. R., van der Steen, J. J. M., Vaudo, A., Vejsnæs, F., Wilde, J., Williams, G. R., & Zheng, H.-Q.
Venue
Journal of Apicultural Research
Published
2013-01
Volume
52
Issue
4
Pages
1-53
ISSN
  • 0021-8839 (ISSN-L)
  • 2078-6913
OpenAlex
W2001304828
Cited by
461
References
2
FWCI
28.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Miscellaneous standard methods for Apis mellifera research. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3896/ibra.1.52.4.10
The paper
Human, H., Brodschneider, R., Dietemann, V., Dively, G., Ellis, J. D., Forsgren, E., Fries, I., Hatjina, F., Hu, F.-L., Jaffé, R., Jensen, A. B., Köhler, A., Magyar, J. P., Özkýrým, A., Pirk, C. W. W., Rose, R., Strauss, U., Tanner, G., Tarpy, D. R., . . . Zheng, H.-Q. (2013). Miscellaneous standard methods for Apis mellifera research. Journal of Apicultural Research. https://doi.org/10.3896/ibra.1.52.4.10

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.