Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38298391›Full record

ArticleRoyal Society open science2024

Comparison of pooled semen insemination and single colony insemination as sustainable honeybee breeding strategies.

Manuel Du, Richard Bernstein, Andreas Hoppe

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Royal Society open science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Manuel DuInstitute for Bee Research Hohen Neuendorf, Friedrich-Engels-Strasse 32, 16540 Hohen Neuendorf, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-2264-1610
Richard BernsteinInstitute for Bee Research Hohen Neuendorf, Friedrich-Engels-Strasse 32, 16540 Hohen Neuendorf, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7777-4272
Andreas HoppeInstitute for Bee Research Hohen Neuendorf, Friedrich-Engels-Strasse 32, 16540 Hohen Neuendorf, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5181-6411
Institute for Bee Research · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Instrumental insemination of honeybees allows for two opposing breeding strategies. In single colony insemination (SCI), all drones to inseminate a queen are taken from one colony. In pooled semen insemination (PSI), sperm of many genetically diverse drones is mixed and queens are fertilized from the resulting drone pool. While SCI allows for maximum pedigree control, proponents of PSI claim to reduce inbreeding and maintain genetic variance. Using stochastic simulation studies, we compared genetic progress and inbreeding rates in small honeybee populations under SCI and PSI. Four different selection criteria were covered: estimated breeding values (EBV), phenotypes, true breeding values (TBV) and random selection. Under EBV-based truncation selection, SCI yielded 9.0% to 44.4% higher genetic gain than PSI, but had vastly increased inbreeding rates. Under phenotypical or TBV selection, the gap between SCI and PSI in terms of genetic progress narrowed. Throughout, PSI yielded lower inbreeding rates than SCI, but the differences were only substantial under EBV truncation selection. As a result, PSI did not appear as a viable breeding strategy owing to its incompatibility with modern methods of genetic evaluation. Instead, SCI is to be preferred but instead of strict truncation selection, strategies to avoid inbreeding need to be installed.

Indexed as

genetic gaininbreedinginstrumental inseminationpooled semensustainable breeding

Identifiers

PMID38298391
PMCPMC10827426
OpenAlexW4391889679

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.