2023
|
Odemer, Richard; Odemer, Franziska; Liebig, Gerhard; de Craigher, Doris Lohnt sich das Schneiden von Drohnenbrut? Journal Article In: Schweizerische BienenZeitung, iss. 02-23, pp. 20-24, 2023. @article{nokey,
title = {Lohnt sich das Schneiden von Drohnenbrut?},
author = {Richard Odemer and Franziska Odemer and Gerhard Liebig and Doris de Craigher},
url = {http://vibee-project.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/VIBEE_Drohnenbrut_SchweizerischeBienenZeitung.pdf},
year = {2023},
date = {2023-01-27},
journal = {Schweizerische BienenZeitung},
issue = {02-23},
pages = {20-24},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
|
2022
|
Schödl, Isabel; Odemer, Richard; Becher, Matthias; Berg, Stefan; Otten, Christoph; Grimm, Volker; Groeneveld, Jürgen Simulation of Varroa mite control in honey bee colonies without synthetic acaricides: Demonstration of Good Beekeeping Practice for Germany in the BEEHAVE model Journal Article In: Ecology & Evolution, vol. 12, iss. 11, pp. 1-14, 2022. @article{nokey,
title = {Simulation of Varroa mite control in honey bee colonies without synthetic acaricides: Demonstration of Good Beekeeping Practice for Germany in the BEEHAVE model},
author = {Isabel Schödl and Richard Odemer and Matthias Becher and Stefan Berg and Christoph Otten and Volker Grimm and Jürgen Groeneveld},
url = {http://vibee-project.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Schoedl_et_al_2022.pdf},
doi = {10.1002/ece3.9456},
year = {2022},
date = {2022-11-08},
urldate = {2022-11-08},
journal = {Ecology & Evolution},
volume = {12},
issue = {11},
pages = {1-14},
abstract = {The BEEHAVE model simulates the population dynamics and foraging activity of a single honey bee colony (Apis mellifera) in great detail. Although it still makes numerous simplifying assumptions, it appears to capture a wide range of empirical observations. It could, therefore, in principle, also be used as a tool in beekeeper education, as it allows the implementation and comparison of different management options. Here, we focus on treatments aimed at controlling the mite Varroa destructor. However, since BEEHAVE was developed in the UK, mite treatment includes the use of a synthetic acaricide, which is not part of Good Beekeeping Practice in Germany. A practice that consists of drone brood removal from April to June, treatment with formic acid in August/September, and treatment with oxalic acid in November/December. We implemented these measures, focusing on the timing, frequency, and spacing between drone brood removals. The effect of drone brood removal and acid treatment, individually or in combination, on a mite-infested colony was examined. We quantify the efficacy of Varroa mite control as the reduction of mites in treated bee colonies
compared to untreated bee colonies. We found that drone brood removal was very effective, reducing mites by 90% at the end of the first simulation year after the introduction of mites. This value was significantly higher than the 50–67% reduction expected by bee experts and confirmed by empirical studies. However, literature reports varying percent reductions in mite numbers from 10 to 85% after drone brood removal. The discrepancy between model results, empirical data, and expert estimates indicate that these three sources should be reviewed and refined, as all are based on simplifying assumptions. These results and the adaptation of BEEHAVE to the Good Beekeeping Practice are a decisive step forward for the future use of BEEHAVE in beekeeper education in Germany and anywhere where organic acids and drone brood removal are utilized.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
The BEEHAVE model simulates the population dynamics and foraging activity of a single honey bee colony (Apis mellifera) in great detail. Although it still makes numerous simplifying assumptions, it appears to capture a wide range of empirical observations. It could, therefore, in principle, also be used as a tool in beekeeper education, as it allows the implementation and comparison of different management options. Here, we focus on treatments aimed at controlling the mite Varroa destructor. However, since BEEHAVE was developed in the UK, mite treatment includes the use of a synthetic acaricide, which is not part of Good Beekeeping Practice in Germany. A practice that consists of drone brood removal from April to June, treatment with formic acid in August/September, and treatment with oxalic acid in November/December. We implemented these measures, focusing on the timing, frequency, and spacing between drone brood removals. The effect of drone brood removal and acid treatment, individually or in combination, on a mite-infested colony was examined. We quantify the efficacy of Varroa mite control as the reduction of mites in treated bee colonies
compared to untreated bee colonies. We found that drone brood removal was very effective, reducing mites by 90% at the end of the first simulation year after the introduction of mites. This value was significantly higher than the 50–67% reduction expected by bee experts and confirmed by empirical studies. However, literature reports varying percent reductions in mite numbers from 10 to 85% after drone brood removal. The discrepancy between model results, empirical data, and expert estimates indicate that these three sources should be reviewed and refined, as all are based on simplifying assumptions. These results and the adaptation of BEEHAVE to the Good Beekeeping Practice are a decisive step forward for the future use of BEEHAVE in beekeeper education in Germany and anywhere where organic acids and drone brood removal are utilized. |
Odemer, Richard; Tausch, Frederic; Schmidt, Katharina; Borlinghaus, Parzival Evaluation of bee counters - a new protocol for measuring the accuracy of daily losses Presentation Posterpräsentation, 29.09.2022. @misc{nokey,
title = {Evaluation of bee counters - a new protocol for measuring the accuracy of daily losses},
author = {Richard Odemer and Frederic Tausch and Katharina Schmidt and Parzival Borlinghaus},
url = {http://vibee-project.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Poster_ICPPR_CounterProtocol_2022_V3.pdf},
year = {2022},
date = {2022-09-29},
howpublished = {Posterpräsentation},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {presentation}
}
|
Odemer, Richard; Odemer, Franziska; Liebig, Gerhard; de Craigher, Doris Temporal increase of Varroa mites in trap frames used for drone brood removal during the honey bee season Journal Article In: Journal of Applied Entomology, 2022. @article{nokey,
title = {Temporal increase of Varroa mites in trap frames used for drone brood removal during the honey bee season},
author = {Richard Odemer and Franziska Odemer and Gerhard Liebig and Doris de Craigher},
url = {http://vibee-project.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Odemer-et-al.-2022-Temporal-increase-of-Varroa-mites-in-trap-frames-used-for-drone-brood-removal-during-the-honey-bee-season.pdf},
doi = {10.1111/jen.13046},
year = {2022},
date = {2022-06-29},
urldate = {2022-06-29},
journal = {Journal of Applied Entomology},
abstract = {Varroa mites are highly attracted to drone brood of honey bees (Apis mellifera), as it increases their chance of successful reproduction. Therefore, drone brood removal with trap frames is common practice among beekeepers in Europe and part of sustainable varroa control. However, it is considered labour-intensive, and there are doubts about the effectiveness of this measure. At present, it is mostly unknown how many mites a drone frame can carry at different times of the season, and how many mites can be removed on average if this measure is performed frequently. Therefore, we sampled a total of 262 drone frames with varying proportion of capped cells (5–100%) from 18 different apiaries. Mites were washed out from brood collected from mid-April to mid-July based on a standard method to obtain comparable results. We found that a drone frame carried a median of 71.5 mites, and with the removal of four trap frames, about 286 mites can be removed per colony and season. In addition, mite counts were significantly higher in June and July than in April and May (Tukey-HSD, P < 0.05). The number of mites and the proportion of capped cells, however, were not correlated (R2 < 0.01, P < 0.05). Our results suggest that drone brood removal is effective in reducing Varroa destructor numbers in colonies, supporting the findings of previous studies on the efficacy of this measure. Although mite counts varied, we believe that increasing sample size over different seasons and locations could elucidate infestation patterns in drone brood and ultimately improve drone brood removal as an integrated pest management tool for a wider audience of beekeepers.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Varroa mites are highly attracted to drone brood of honey bees (Apis mellifera), as it increases their chance of successful reproduction. Therefore, drone brood removal with trap frames is common practice among beekeepers in Europe and part of sustainable varroa control. However, it is considered labour-intensive, and there are doubts about the effectiveness of this measure. At present, it is mostly unknown how many mites a drone frame can carry at different times of the season, and how many mites can be removed on average if this measure is performed frequently. Therefore, we sampled a total of 262 drone frames with varying proportion of capped cells (5–100%) from 18 different apiaries. Mites were washed out from brood collected from mid-April to mid-July based on a standard method to obtain comparable results. We found that a drone frame carried a median of 71.5 mites, and with the removal of four trap frames, about 286 mites can be removed per colony and season. In addition, mite counts were significantly higher in June and July than in April and May (Tukey-HSD, P < 0.05). The number of mites and the proportion of capped cells, however, were not correlated (R2 < 0.01, P < 0.05). Our results suggest that drone brood removal is effective in reducing Varroa destructor numbers in colonies, supporting the findings of previous studies on the efficacy of this measure. Although mite counts varied, we believe that increasing sample size over different seasons and locations could elucidate infestation patterns in drone brood and ultimately improve drone brood removal as an integrated pest management tool for a wider audience of beekeepers. |
Borlinghaus, Parzival; Odemer, Richard; Tausch, Frederic; Schmidt, Katharina; Grothe, Oliver Honey bee counter evaluation – Introducing a novel protocol for measuring daily loss accuracy Journal Article In: Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, vol. 197, 2022. @article{nokey,
title = {Honey bee counter evaluation – Introducing a novel protocol for measuring daily loss accuracy},
author = {Parzival Borlinghaus and Richard Odemer and Frederic Tausch and Katharina Schmidt and Oliver Grothe},
url = {http://vibee-project.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Borlinghaus_et_al_2022.pdf},
doi = {10.1016/j.compag.2022.106957},
year = {2022},
date = {2022-04-26},
urldate = {2022-04-26},
journal = {Computers and Electronics in Agriculture},
volume = {197},
abstract = {Automated bee counters advanced over the last hundred years and became increasingly diverse. However, to date, there is no method for standardized validation of counting accuracy and thus no reliable data on daily bee losses, or background mortality in colonies. However, such data are in urgent need by regulators to establish future guidelines for pesticide risk assessment. In this work, existing approaches were combined to form a novel protocol for validating bee counters. In a case study, we demonstrated that the protocol is sufficiently feasible to determine the measurement accuracy of a commercial counting system. Measurement accuracy was modeled by the difficulty of specific measurement conditions. Daily loss, i.e., the difference between incoming and outgoing bees, can be used to assess colony health, environmental impacts, and infer the effect of pesticides on bee colonies. The developed protocol makes innovations in this field measurable and creates a foundation for the benchmarking of different types of bee counting systems. We discuss how it can be utilized in an effort to move the sector forward in the future.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Automated bee counters advanced over the last hundred years and became increasingly diverse. However, to date, there is no method for standardized validation of counting accuracy and thus no reliable data on daily bee losses, or background mortality in colonies. However, such data are in urgent need by regulators to establish future guidelines for pesticide risk assessment. In this work, existing approaches were combined to form a novel protocol for validating bee counters. In a case study, we demonstrated that the protocol is sufficiently feasible to determine the measurement accuracy of a commercial counting system. Measurement accuracy was modeled by the difficulty of specific measurement conditions. Daily loss, i.e., the difference between incoming and outgoing bees, can be used to assess colony health, environmental impacts, and infer the effect of pesticides on bee colonies. The developed protocol makes innovations in this field measurable and creates a foundation for the benchmarking of different types of bee counting systems. We discuss how it can be utilized in an effort to move the sector forward in the future. |
Schödl, Isabel; Odemer, Richard; Becher, Matthias; Berg, Stefan; Otten, Christoph; Grimm, Volker; Groeneveld, Jürgen Modelling the control of Varroa destructor infestation in honey bees with BEEHAVE Presentation Posterpräsentation, 05.04.2022. @misc{nokey,
title = {Modelling the control of Varroa destructor infestation in honey bees with BEEHAVE},
author = {Isabel Schödl and Richard Odemer and Matthias Becher and Stefan Berg and Christoph Otten and Volker Grimm and Jürgen Groeneveld},
url = {https://vibee-project.net/bee_poster_isabel/},
year = {2022},
date = {2022-04-05},
urldate = {2022-04-05},
abstract = {The BEEHAVE model simulates the dynamics in the hive and the foraging activity of an individual bee colony in great detail. Although it still makes numerous simplifying assumptions, it appears to capture a wide range of empirical observations. It could therefore, in principle, also be used as a tool in beekeeper education, as it allows the implementation and comparison of different management options. Here we focus on treatments aimed at controlling the mite Varroa destructor. However, because BEEHAVE was developed in the UK, its Varroa destructor treatments do not reflect Good Beekeeping Practice in Germany, which includes drone brood removal from April to June, formic acid treatment in August/September, and oxalic acid treatment in November/December. We implemented these measures, focusing on the timing, frequency, and spacing between drone brood removals. The acid treatment is measured by its efficiency in killing mites. The effect of drone brood removal and medical treatment, individually or in combination, on a mite-infested colony of the Deformed Wing Virus variety was examined. The measure of effectiveness was the reduction of mites in the colony and the development of the mite population within the simulated year. We found that drone brood removal was very effective, reducing mites by 90% at the end of the first simulated year compared to simulations without drone brood removal. This value was significantly higher than the 50 to 67% reduction expected by bee experts. However, a wide range of percent reductions in the number of mites due to drone brood removal is reported in the literature, with the highest value being 85%. The discrepancy between model results and expert estimates indicates that both BEEHAVE and expert estimates should be reviewed and refined, as both are based on simplifying assumptions. These results and the adaptation of BEEHAVE to the Good Beekeeping Practice in Germany are decisive steps forward for the future use of BEEHAVE in beekeeper education.},
howpublished = {Posterpräsentation},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {presentation}
}
The BEEHAVE model simulates the dynamics in the hive and the foraging activity of an individual bee colony in great detail. Although it still makes numerous simplifying assumptions, it appears to capture a wide range of empirical observations. It could therefore, in principle, also be used as a tool in beekeeper education, as it allows the implementation and comparison of different management options. Here we focus on treatments aimed at controlling the mite Varroa destructor. However, because BEEHAVE was developed in the UK, its Varroa destructor treatments do not reflect Good Beekeeping Practice in Germany, which includes drone brood removal from April to June, formic acid treatment in August/September, and oxalic acid treatment in November/December. We implemented these measures, focusing on the timing, frequency, and spacing between drone brood removals. The acid treatment is measured by its efficiency in killing mites. The effect of drone brood removal and medical treatment, individually or in combination, on a mite-infested colony of the Deformed Wing Virus variety was examined. The measure of effectiveness was the reduction of mites in the colony and the development of the mite population within the simulated year. We found that drone brood removal was very effective, reducing mites by 90% at the end of the first simulated year compared to simulations without drone brood removal. This value was significantly higher than the 50 to 67% reduction expected by bee experts. However, a wide range of percent reductions in the number of mites due to drone brood removal is reported in the literature, with the highest value being 85%. The discrepancy between model results and expert estimates indicates that both BEEHAVE and expert estimates should be reviewed and refined, as both are based on simplifying assumptions. These results and the adaptation of BEEHAVE to the Good Beekeeping Practice in Germany are decisive steps forward for the future use of BEEHAVE in beekeeper education. |
Odemer, Richard; Wernecke, Anna Evaluation of electronic bee counter precision using robber bees Presentation Posterpräsentation, 05.04.2022. @misc{nokey,
title = {Evaluation of electronic bee counter precision using robber bees},
author = {Richard Odemer and Anna Wernecke},
url = {http://vibee-project.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/RobbersTest_Poster_AG_Tagung_JKI_Odemer.pdf},
year = {2022},
date = {2022-04-05},
urldate = {2022-04-05},
abstract = {Automatic bee counters have been developed and used for various scientific purposes for exactly 100 years. But the majority of publications provide only marginal or no information about the validation of these devices. This means that the published data is of limited value, as the counting precision of the devices used is insufficiently reported.
As part of the research project "Establishing digital indicators of bee vitality in agricultural landscapes", or "VIBee" (www.vibee-project.net), launched in 2020, two prototype counters of the "BeeCheck" are being used in both field and semi-field trials. To validate a device, robber bees were utilized. An empty beehive with a food source attracted the robbers to count them afterwards. The balance of incoming and outgoing bees of this " Robbers Test" must result constantly in zero by the end of the day. Deviations represent the percentage error of the device.
When applied to our flight data, the percentage error for prototype P1 was -7.2% and for prototype P2 -5.7%. Thus, the second generation BeeCheck showed an improvement in precision compared to the old model. However, the variation of the error was larger.
The method is intended to allow validation of different devices, improve precision, and establish scientific comparability. This is especially helpful to evaluate flight data and substantially facilitate progress for new prototypes that are currently being developed.
},
howpublished = {Posterpräsentation},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {presentation}
}
Automatic bee counters have been developed and used for various scientific purposes for exactly 100 years. But the majority of publications provide only marginal or no information about the validation of these devices. This means that the published data is of limited value, as the counting precision of the devices used is insufficiently reported.
As part of the research project "Establishing digital indicators of bee vitality in agricultural landscapes", or "VIBee" (www.vibee-project.net), launched in 2020, two prototype counters of the "BeeCheck" are being used in both field and semi-field trials. To validate a device, robber bees were utilized. An empty beehive with a food source attracted the robbers to count them afterwards. The balance of incoming and outgoing bees of this " Robbers Test" must result constantly in zero by the end of the day. Deviations represent the percentage error of the device.
When applied to our flight data, the percentage error for prototype P1 was -7.2% and for prototype P2 -5.7%. Thus, the second generation BeeCheck showed an improvement in precision compared to the old model. However, the variation of the error was larger.
The method is intended to allow validation of different devices, improve precision, and establish scientific comparability. This is especially helpful to evaluate flight data and substantially facilitate progress for new prototypes that are currently being developed.
|
2021
|
Odemer, Richard; Wernecke, Anna Validierung eines elektronischen Bienenzählers zur Bestimmung der Flugaktivität Presentation Posterpräsentation, 23.09.2021. @misc{nokey,
title = {Validierung eines elektronischen Bienenzählers zur Bestimmung der Flugaktivität},
author = {Richard Odemer and Anna Wernecke},
url = {https://www.openagrar.de/receive/openagrar_mods_00073975
http://vibee-project.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/VIBee-Poster_DPST_2021.pdf},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-09-23},
urldate = {2021-09-23},
abstract = {Seit nunmehr 100 Jahren werden automatische, meist elektronische Bienenzählgeräte entwickelt und zu unterschiedlichen Fragestellungen in der Wissenschaft eingesetzt. Hierbei enthalten die allermeisten Publikationen entweder keine oder limitierte Angaben zur Validierung ihrer Geräte. D.h. die veröffentlichten Daten sind damit nur bedingt aussagekräftig, da die Zählgenaugikeit der verwendeten Geräte unzureichend beschrieben wurde. Im Rahmen des im Jahre 2020 gestarteten Verbundprojekts „Etablierung digitaler Indikatoren der Bienenvitalität in Agrarlandschaften“ kurz „VIBee“ (www.vibee-project.net) wird der am JKI mitentwickelte „BeeCheck“ - ein elektronischer Bienenzähler - in Feld- und Freilandversuchen eingesetzt, um das Flugverhalten von Bienenvölkern unter reellen Bedingungen über eine ganze Bienensaison abzubilden. Hierbei werden die Geräte in speziell designten „Räubertests“ validiert und die Methode weiterentwicklet und vereinheitlicht. Tagesgenaue Flugbilanzen um eine externe Futterquelle werden erstellt und so die Zählgenauigkeit bestimmt. Vorläufige Ergebnisse schwanken, je nach Flugaufkommen. Je höher der Bienenflug, desto größer ist die Zählungenauigkeit. Derzeit befindet sich die Präzision des „BeeChecks“ bei etwa 95 %. Mit der Methode soll zukünftig sichergestellt werden, dass eine Validierung verschiedener Geräte möglich ist, die Präzision verbessert und eine internationale Vergleichbarkeit etabliert werden kann. Dies ist insbesondere im Hinblick auf die Entwicklung vieler neuer Prototypen im letzten Jahrzehnt eine Hilfestellung um Flugdaten zu bewerten und Geräte zu optimieren.},
howpublished = {Posterpräsentation},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {presentation}
}
Seit nunmehr 100 Jahren werden automatische, meist elektronische Bienenzählgeräte entwickelt und zu unterschiedlichen Fragestellungen in der Wissenschaft eingesetzt. Hierbei enthalten die allermeisten Publikationen entweder keine oder limitierte Angaben zur Validierung ihrer Geräte. D.h. die veröffentlichten Daten sind damit nur bedingt aussagekräftig, da die Zählgenaugikeit der verwendeten Geräte unzureichend beschrieben wurde. Im Rahmen des im Jahre 2020 gestarteten Verbundprojekts „Etablierung digitaler Indikatoren der Bienenvitalität in Agrarlandschaften“ kurz „VIBee“ (www.vibee-project.net) wird der am JKI mitentwickelte „BeeCheck“ - ein elektronischer Bienenzähler - in Feld- und Freilandversuchen eingesetzt, um das Flugverhalten von Bienenvölkern unter reellen Bedingungen über eine ganze Bienensaison abzubilden. Hierbei werden die Geräte in speziell designten „Räubertests“ validiert und die Methode weiterentwicklet und vereinheitlicht. Tagesgenaue Flugbilanzen um eine externe Futterquelle werden erstellt und so die Zählgenauigkeit bestimmt. Vorläufige Ergebnisse schwanken, je nach Flugaufkommen. Je höher der Bienenflug, desto größer ist die Zählungenauigkeit. Derzeit befindet sich die Präzision des „BeeChecks“ bei etwa 95 %. Mit der Methode soll zukünftig sichergestellt werden, dass eine Validierung verschiedener Geräte möglich ist, die Präzision verbessert und eine internationale Vergleichbarkeit etabliert werden kann. Dies ist insbesondere im Hinblick auf die Entwicklung vieler neuer Prototypen im letzten Jahrzehnt eine Hilfestellung um Flugdaten zu bewerten und Geräte zu optimieren. |
Odemer, Richard Approaches, challenges and recent advances in automated bee counting devices: A review Journal Article In: Annals of Aplied Biology, 2021. @article{nokey,
title = {Approaches, challenges and recent advances in automated bee counting devices: A review},
author = {Richard Odemer},
url = {http://vibee-project.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Odemer_2021_BeeCounter_Review.pdf},
doi = {10.1111/aab.12727},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-08-08},
urldate = {2021-08-08},
journal = {Annals of Aplied Biology},
abstract = {For nearly 100 years, electronic bee counters have been developed using various technologies to track the foraging activity of mostly honey bee colonies. These counters should enable remote monitoring of the hives without disturbing natural flight behavior while generating precise scientific data. Today, however, there are not many counters on the market, that are able to fulfill this task. One main challenge is the lack of standardized methods to validate a counter’s precision, but validation is crucial to categorize and judge the data produced by the counter, especially for scientific purposes. Another challenge is the interpretation of flight data to measure the effects of environmental or anthropogenic sources. Nevertheless, recent developments in the field are promising. This review describes the historic development of automated bee flight measurement and critically compares validation methods to encourage their improvement. Lastly, to increase the comparability of future analyses with bee counters, current advances in data interpretation are also presented.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
For nearly 100 years, electronic bee counters have been developed using various technologies to track the foraging activity of mostly honey bee colonies. These counters should enable remote monitoring of the hives without disturbing natural flight behavior while generating precise scientific data. Today, however, there are not many counters on the market, that are able to fulfill this task. One main challenge is the lack of standardized methods to validate a counter’s precision, but validation is crucial to categorize and judge the data produced by the counter, especially for scientific purposes. Another challenge is the interpretation of flight data to measure the effects of environmental or anthropogenic sources. Nevertheless, recent developments in the field are promising. This review describes the historic development of automated bee flight measurement and critically compares validation methods to encourage their improvement. Lastly, to increase the comparability of future analyses with bee counters, current advances in data interpretation are also presented. |
2020
|
Bermig, Sven; Odemer, Richard; Gombert, Alina J.; Frommberger, Malte; Rosenquist, Ralf; Pistorius, Jens Experimental validation of an electronic counting device to determine flight activity of honey bees (Apis mellifera L.) Journal Article In: Journal fur Kulturpflanzen, vol. 72, pp. 132-140, 2020, ISSN: 1867-0938. @article{Bermig2020,
title = {Experimental validation of an electronic counting device to determine flight activity of honey bees (Apis mellifera L.)},
author = {Sven Bermig and Richard Odemer and Alina J. Gombert and Malte Frommberger and Ralf Rosenquist and Jens Pistorius},
url = {http://vibee-project.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/JKPF_BeeCheck_Artikel_final.pdf},
doi = {10.5073/JfK.2020.05.03},
issn = {1867-0938},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-05-01},
urldate = {2020-05-01},
journal = {Journal fur Kulturpflanzen},
volume = {72},
pages = {132-140},
publisher = {Eugen Ulmer KG},
abstract = {In this work, a functional prototype of the BeeCheck counting device was evaluated for its accuracy to validate its suitability for scientific purposes. Two different approaches were applied: (i) we manually compared electronic data of the counting device by video recordings of entry and exit events, and (ii) by using the so-called "robber's test" in a tunnel tent. The results showed an expected temperature dependency of the general flight activity. Difficulties occurred with certain activities at the hive entrance. The various running speeds of individuals, approaching or stuck bees, and bees moving back and forth in the tube were a challenge for sensor technology and the mathematical algorithm. To minimize such mistakes and to increase the counting accuracy, it is necessary to correct the algorithm accordingly. This will be addressed in the "V-I-Bee" follow-up project and future perspectives of using an improved counting device are discussed.
This article was not funded by the project, but can be considered as predecessor which is why it is presented here.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
In this work, a functional prototype of the BeeCheck counting device was evaluated for its accuracy to validate its suitability for scientific purposes. Two different approaches were applied: (i) we manually compared electronic data of the counting device by video recordings of entry and exit events, and (ii) by using the so-called "robber's test" in a tunnel tent. The results showed an expected temperature dependency of the general flight activity. Difficulties occurred with certain activities at the hive entrance. The various running speeds of individuals, approaching or stuck bees, and bees moving back and forth in the tube were a challenge for sensor technology and the mathematical algorithm. To minimize such mistakes and to increase the counting accuracy, it is necessary to correct the algorithm accordingly. This will be addressed in the "V-I-Bee" follow-up project and future perspectives of using an improved counting device are discussed.
This article was not funded by the project, but can be considered as predecessor which is why it is presented here. |
