Loading…
Parameters influencing queen body mass and their importance as determined by machine learning in honey bees (Apis mellifera carnica)
Most parameters describing queen bee quality are reflected in the queen’s body mass, which is in turn considered a robust measure and the best indicator of queen quality. State-of-the-art machine learning was used for the first time to jointly evaluate both biological and rearing parameters influenc...
Saved in:
Published in: | Apidologie 2019-10, Vol.50 (5), p.745-757 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c397t-c6fe46d451f813fd47e36bd21d58e143fb4018c527b720643b589900cb8570153 |
---|---|
cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c397t-c6fe46d451f813fd47e36bd21d58e143fb4018c527b720643b589900cb8570153 |
container_end_page | 757 |
container_issue | 5 |
container_start_page | 745 |
container_title | Apidologie |
container_volume | 50 |
creator | Prešern, Janez Smodiš Škerl, Maja Ivana |
description | Most parameters describing queen bee quality are reflected in the queen’s body mass, which is in turn considered a robust measure and the best indicator of queen quality. State-of-the-art machine learning was used for the first time to jointly evaluate both biological and rearing parameters influencing queen body mass. Three different models were developed using different combinations of parameters. Regardless of the model composition, we achieved high precision of classification. The parameters “ovary mass” and “breeder” were the most important factors for model predictions. Differences in rearing practices and vegetation were masked by “breeder,” demonstrating the pitfall of this method. Separate analysis confirmed the importance of the time spent in the hive after mating and the phytogeographical region as an indirect indication of food sources. Rearing practices together with phytogeographical information are not enough to explain variation in queen body mass, yet they can contribute to the prediction of queen body mass if “breeder” is excluded from the model. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s13592-019-00683-y |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_hal_p</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_hal_primary_oai_HAL_hal_02925836v1</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2311233973</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c397t-c6fe46d451f813fd47e36bd21d58e143fb4018c527b720643b589900cb8570153</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kc1r3DAQxUVpoNuk_0BPgl6Sg5PRly0fl9B8wEJ6SM9ClsdZBVveSt6A7_3DI8clveU0w_B7j8c8Qr4zuGQA1VViQtW8AFYXAKUWxfyJbBivq6IuK_2ZbACkLLQU6gv5mtIzAONayQ35-8tGO-CEMVEfuv6IwfnwRP8cEQNtxnamg02J2tDSaY8-Uj8cxjjZ4JDaRNtFOviALW0W1O3zTnu0MSw2PtD9GHCmDWKi59uDT3TAvvcdRkvdQjl7cUZOOtsn_PZvnpLfNz8fr--K3cPt_fV2VzhRV1Phyg5l2UrFOs1E18oKRdm0nLVKI5OiayQw7RSvmopDKUWjdF0DuEarCpgSp-Ri9d3b3hyiH2yczWi9udvuzHIDXnOlRfnCMvtjZQ9xzM9Ik3kejzHkeIYLxrjIkUSm-Eq5OKYUsXu3ZWCWZszajMnNmLdmzJxFYhWlDIcnjP-tP1C9AoaLkZY</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2311233973</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Parameters influencing queen body mass and their importance as determined by machine learning in honey bees (Apis mellifera carnica)</title><source>Springer Nature</source><creator>Prešern, Janez ; Smodiš Škerl, Maja Ivana</creator><creatorcontrib>Prešern, Janez ; Smodiš Škerl, Maja Ivana</creatorcontrib><description>Most parameters describing queen bee quality are reflected in the queen’s body mass, which is in turn considered a robust measure and the best indicator of queen quality. State-of-the-art machine learning was used for the first time to jointly evaluate both biological and rearing parameters influencing queen body mass. Three different models were developed using different combinations of parameters. Regardless of the model composition, we achieved high precision of classification. The parameters “ovary mass” and “breeder” were the most important factors for model predictions. Differences in rearing practices and vegetation were masked by “breeder,” demonstrating the pitfall of this method. Separate analysis confirmed the importance of the time spent in the hive after mating and the phytogeographical region as an indirect indication of food sources. Rearing practices together with phytogeographical information are not enough to explain variation in queen body mass, yet they can contribute to the prediction of queen body mass if “breeder” is excluded from the model.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0044-8435</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1297-9678</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s13592-019-00683-y</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Paris: Springer Paris</publisher><subject>Animal breeding ; Apis mellifera ; Artificial intelligence ; Bees ; Biomedical and Life Sciences ; Body mass ; Body size ; Entomology ; Food sources ; Learning algorithms ; Life Sciences ; Machine learning ; Mathematical models ; Menopause ; Original Article ; Parameters</subject><ispartof>Apidologie, 2019-10, Vol.50 (5), p.745-757</ispartof><rights>INRA, DIB and Springer-Verlag France SAS, part of Springer Nature 2019</rights><rights>INRA, DIB and Springer-Verlag France SAS, part of Springer Nature 2019.</rights><rights>Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c397t-c6fe46d451f813fd47e36bd21d58e143fb4018c527b720643b589900cb8570153</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c397t-c6fe46d451f813fd47e36bd21d58e143fb4018c527b720643b589900cb8570153</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-2479-6106</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,885,27922,27923</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://hal.science/hal-02925836$$DView record in HAL$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Prešern, Janez</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smodiš Škerl, Maja Ivana</creatorcontrib><title>Parameters influencing queen body mass and their importance as determined by machine learning in honey bees (Apis mellifera carnica)</title><title>Apidologie</title><addtitle>Apidologie</addtitle><description>Most parameters describing queen bee quality are reflected in the queen’s body mass, which is in turn considered a robust measure and the best indicator of queen quality. State-of-the-art machine learning was used for the first time to jointly evaluate both biological and rearing parameters influencing queen body mass. Three different models were developed using different combinations of parameters. Regardless of the model composition, we achieved high precision of classification. The parameters “ovary mass” and “breeder” were the most important factors for model predictions. Differences in rearing practices and vegetation were masked by “breeder,” demonstrating the pitfall of this method. Separate analysis confirmed the importance of the time spent in the hive after mating and the phytogeographical region as an indirect indication of food sources. Rearing practices together with phytogeographical information are not enough to explain variation in queen body mass, yet they can contribute to the prediction of queen body mass if “breeder” is excluded from the model.</description><subject>Animal breeding</subject><subject>Apis mellifera</subject><subject>Artificial intelligence</subject><subject>Bees</subject><subject>Biomedical and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Body mass</subject><subject>Body size</subject><subject>Entomology</subject><subject>Food sources</subject><subject>Learning algorithms</subject><subject>Life Sciences</subject><subject>Machine learning</subject><subject>Mathematical models</subject><subject>Menopause</subject><subject>Original Article</subject><subject>Parameters</subject><issn>0044-8435</issn><issn>1297-9678</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kc1r3DAQxUVpoNuk_0BPgl6Sg5PRly0fl9B8wEJ6SM9ClsdZBVveSt6A7_3DI8clveU0w_B7j8c8Qr4zuGQA1VViQtW8AFYXAKUWxfyJbBivq6IuK_2ZbACkLLQU6gv5mtIzAONayQ35-8tGO-CEMVEfuv6IwfnwRP8cEQNtxnamg02J2tDSaY8-Uj8cxjjZ4JDaRNtFOviALW0W1O3zTnu0MSw2PtD9GHCmDWKi59uDT3TAvvcdRkvdQjl7cUZOOtsn_PZvnpLfNz8fr--K3cPt_fV2VzhRV1Phyg5l2UrFOs1E18oKRdm0nLVKI5OiayQw7RSvmopDKUWjdF0DuEarCpgSp-Ri9d3b3hyiH2yczWi9udvuzHIDXnOlRfnCMvtjZQ9xzM9Ik3kejzHkeIYLxrjIkUSm-Eq5OKYUsXu3ZWCWZszajMnNmLdmzJxFYhWlDIcnjP-tP1C9AoaLkZY</recordid><startdate>20191001</startdate><enddate>20191001</enddate><creator>Prešern, Janez</creator><creator>Smodiš Škerl, Maja Ivana</creator><general>Springer Paris</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><general>Springer Verlag</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>1XC</scope><scope>VOOES</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2479-6106</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20191001</creationdate><title>Parameters influencing queen body mass and their importance as determined by machine learning in honey bees (Apis mellifera carnica)</title><author>Prešern, Janez ; Smodiš Škerl, Maja Ivana</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c397t-c6fe46d451f813fd47e36bd21d58e143fb4018c527b720643b589900cb8570153</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Animal breeding</topic><topic>Apis mellifera</topic><topic>Artificial intelligence</topic><topic>Bees</topic><topic>Biomedical and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Body mass</topic><topic>Body size</topic><topic>Entomology</topic><topic>Food sources</topic><topic>Learning algorithms</topic><topic>Life Sciences</topic><topic>Machine learning</topic><topic>Mathematical models</topic><topic>Menopause</topic><topic>Original Article</topic><topic>Parameters</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Prešern, Janez</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smodiš Škerl, Maja Ivana</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Hyper Article en Ligne (HAL)</collection><collection>Hyper Article en Ligne (HAL) (Open Access)</collection><jtitle>Apidologie</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Prešern, Janez</au><au>Smodiš Škerl, Maja Ivana</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Parameters influencing queen body mass and their importance as determined by machine learning in honey bees (Apis mellifera carnica)</atitle><jtitle>Apidologie</jtitle><stitle>Apidologie</stitle><date>2019-10-01</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>50</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>745</spage><epage>757</epage><pages>745-757</pages><issn>0044-8435</issn><eissn>1297-9678</eissn><abstract>Most parameters describing queen bee quality are reflected in the queen’s body mass, which is in turn considered a robust measure and the best indicator of queen quality. State-of-the-art machine learning was used for the first time to jointly evaluate both biological and rearing parameters influencing queen body mass. Three different models were developed using different combinations of parameters. Regardless of the model composition, we achieved high precision of classification. The parameters “ovary mass” and “breeder” were the most important factors for model predictions. Differences in rearing practices and vegetation were masked by “breeder,” demonstrating the pitfall of this method. Separate analysis confirmed the importance of the time spent in the hive after mating and the phytogeographical region as an indirect indication of food sources. Rearing practices together with phytogeographical information are not enough to explain variation in queen body mass, yet they can contribute to the prediction of queen body mass if “breeder” is excluded from the model.</abstract><cop>Paris</cop><pub>Springer Paris</pub><doi>10.1007/s13592-019-00683-y</doi><tpages>13</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2479-6106</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0044-8435 |
ispartof | Apidologie, 2019-10, Vol.50 (5), p.745-757 |
issn | 0044-8435 1297-9678 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_hal_primary_oai_HAL_hal_02925836v1 |
source | Springer Nature |
subjects | Animal breeding Apis mellifera Artificial intelligence Bees Biomedical and Life Sciences Body mass Body size Entomology Food sources Learning algorithms Life Sciences Machine learning Mathematical models Menopause Original Article Parameters |
title | Parameters influencing queen body mass and their importance as determined by machine learning in honey bees (Apis mellifera carnica) |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-10T03%3A23%3A29IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_hal_p&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Parameters%20influencing%20queen%20body%20mass%20and%20their%20importance%20as%20determined%20by%20machine%20learning%20in%20honey%20bees%20(Apis%20mellifera%20carnica)&rft.jtitle=Apidologie&rft.au=Pre%C5%A1ern,%20Janez&rft.date=2019-10-01&rft.volume=50&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=745&rft.epage=757&rft.pages=745-757&rft.issn=0044-8435&rft.eissn=1297-9678&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s13592-019-00683-y&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_hal_p%3E2311233973%3C/proquest_hal_p%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c397t-c6fe46d451f813fd47e36bd21d58e143fb4018c527b720643b589900cb8570153%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2311233973&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |