>Anyway, the important points are range AND average. To which we would add percent survival at the end of the sampling period. This study had only 15% surviving after two years, which is pretty grim. At that rate, likely none would have gotten past three years.

I have now had a look at the paper (nice to find one that does not require a subscription) and it seems to me that there are some serious flaws.

Consider these statements:

'The colonies were started as package bees or nuclei...'
Lack of consistency - particularly as they were started in October.  I am surprised that the packages made it through the winter.

'Queen introduction was completed on 1 October 2009 which was therefore defined as starting date for the survival test.'
and
' For these analyses 1 October 2009 was used as a common starting date, identified as the earliest date where all colonies, at all locations, were established and populated by the experimental queens’ progeny.'
So these were started at the beginning of winter and the progeny were certainly not from the introduced queens - in fact it would have been well into the following spring before most the old (winter) bees would have died and been replaced by the new queens' progeny.  Should the 'starting date' not have been, perhaps, 1 May 2010?

'Much of the variability in the survival of colonies is connected to the test locations, actually representing differences in climate, 
vegetation, infestation pressure, and colony management.'

So where were the controls?  Is it possible to draw any valid conclusions at all from the study?

Best wishes

Peter 
52°14'44.44"N, 1°50'35"W

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html