# Integration of Scales and Cameras in Nondisruptive Electronic Beehive Monitoring: On the Within-Day Relationship of Hive Weight and Traffic in Honeybee (Apis mellifera) Colonies in Langstroth Hives in Tucson, Arizona, USA

^{1}

^{2}

^{*}

## Abstract

**:**

## 1. Introduction

`GAIN`estimates the hive honey gain (kg),

`ACT`is the average bee activity between 9:00 and 16:00 (bees/h), and ${B}_{0}$ and ${B}_{1}$ are model coefficients. Marceau et al. reported that the honey gain varied from 28.7 to 58.4 kg and that the average bee activity for the 35 observation days varied from 19,403 bees/h for the least productive hive to 27,408 bees/h for the most productive hive. The four resulting models were very similar, with the best curve fitting obtained on the two most productive hives with ${R}^{2}=0.88$ and ${R}^{2}=0.90$. The researchers concluded that the more active a colony was, the more honey it produced, and the minimum activity rate required to obtain a positive daily gain was 14,000 bees/h. When the daily average activity remained below 14,000 bees/h, the hive weight decreased. While the findings by Marceau et al. are significant, their investigation had several important limitations. First, hive weight can be only an approximate estimate of honey gain, because the latter is included in the former. Second, the directionality of bee motion was not taken into account. Specifically, traffic in the vicinity of the hive consists of incoming bees, outgoing bees, and laterally flying bees, which Marceau et al. did not take into account. Third, the researchers made no attempt to distinguish the weight associated with traffic and the weight not associated with it. Fourth, the researchers did not justify why traffic at hive entrance was estimated from 9:00 to 16:00. Research (e.g., [9]) shows that foragers start flying out as early as 5:00 and return to the hive as late 20:30 or even later. Fifth, the datasets described in the article do not appear to be publicly available for replication, standardization, and improvement.

## 2. Materials and Methods

#### 2.1. Data

#### 2.2. Hive Inspection and Treatment

#### 2.3. Random Variables and Correlations

#### 2.4. Weight and Traffic Changes

#### 2.5. Joint Probabilities

**A Necessary Condition for Independence (NCI):**If ${X}_{t}$, ${X}_{t-1}$, ${Y}_{t}$, ${Y}_{t-1}$ are discrete independent random variables, then, for any ${\u03f5}_{X}$ and ${\u03f5}_{Y}$,

#### 2.6. ${X}^{2}$ Tests

**A Sufficiency Condition for Independence (SCI):**Let ${X}_{t}$, ${X}_{t-1}$, ${Y}_{t}$, ${Y}_{t-1}$ are discrete independent random variables. If, for any ${\u03f5}_{X}$ and ${\u03f5}_{Y}$,

## 3. Results

## 4. Discussion

## 5. Conclusions

## Supplementary Materials

## Author Contributions

## Funding

## Institutional Review Board Statement

## Informed Consent Statement

## Data Availability Statement

## Acknowledgments

## Conflicts of Interest

## Abbreviations

EBM | Electronic beehive monitoring |

USDA-ARS | United States Department of Agriculture-Agricultural Research Service |

TB | Terabyte = 1024 gigabytes |

USB | Universal serial bus |

kg, g | Kilogram, gram |

km, m | Kilometer, meter |

h | Hour |

$\xb0$C | Degree Celsius |

MP4 | MPEG-4 Part 14: Motion Picture Experts Group software for real-time data streams |

ID | Identification |

PIV | Particle image velocimetry |

CSV | Comma-separated values |

IN | Incoming bee traffic (bees flying toward the hive) |

OUT | Outgoing bee traffic (bees flying away from the hive) |

LAT | Lateral bee traffic (bees flying in parallel to the hive) |

TOT | Total bee traffic in the vicinity of the hive |

NCI | Necessary condition for independence |

SCI | Sufficiency condition for independence |

REC | Recommendation |

## Appendix A

**Table A1.**Example dataset with nine records of W—weight, IN—incoming traffic, OUT—outgoing traffic, LAT—lateral traffic, and TOT—total traffic; TOT = IN + OUT + LAT.

TIME STEP | W | IN | OUT | LAT | TOT |
---|---|---|---|---|---|

1 | 2 | 20 | 10 | 5 | 35 |

2 | 3 | 12 | 6 | 1 | 19 |

3 | 1 | 10 | 15 | 4 | 29 |

4 | 4 | 18 | 9 | 3 | 30 |

5 | 5 | 13 | 8 | 5 | 26 |

6 | 2 | 8 | 7 | 2 | 17 |

7 | 1 | 11 | 5 | 2 | 18 |

8 | 1 | 17 | 10 | 7 | 34 |

9 | 3 | 3 | 14 | 9 | 26 |

**A Necessary Condition for Independence Theorem**

**(NCIT):**If ${X}_{t}$, ${X}_{t-1}$, ${Y}_{t}$, ${Y}_{t-1}$ are discrete independent random variables, then, for any ${\u03f5}_{X}$ and ${\u03f5}_{Y}$,

**Proof.**

## References

- Meikle, W.; Holst, N. Application of continuous monitoring of honeybee colonies. Apidologie
**2015**, 46, 10–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Buchmann, S.L.; Thoenes, S.C. The electronic scale honey bee colony as a management and research tool. Bee Sci.
**1990**, 1, 40–47. [Google Scholar] - Harbo, J.R. Worker-bee crowding affects brood production, honey production, and longevity of honey bees (Hymenoptera Apidae). J. Econ. Entomol.
**1993**, 86, 1672–1678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Henry, M.; Beguin, M.; Requier, F.; Rollin, O.; Odoux, J.; Aupine, P.; Aptel, J.; Tchamitchianand, S.; Decourtye, A. A common pesticide decreases foraging success and survival in honey bees. Science
**2012**, 336, 348–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Klein, S.; Pasquaretta, C.; He, X.J.; Perry, C.; Sovik, E.; Devaud, J.M.; Barron, A.B. Honey bees increase their foraging performance and frequency of pollen trips through experience. Sci. Rep.
**2018**, 9, 6778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Marceau, J.; Boily, R.; Perron, J.M. The relationship between hive productivity and honeybee flight activity. J. Apic. Res.
**1991**, 29, 28–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Meikle, W.G.; Holst, N.; Mercadier, G.; Derouane, F.; James, R.R. Using balances linked to dataloggers to monitor honey bee colonies. J. Apic. Res.
**2006**, 45, 39–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kulyukin, V.; Mukherjee, S.; Minichiello, A.; Truscott, T. BeePIV: A method to measure apis mellifera traffic with particle image velocimetry in videos. Appl. Sci.
**2021**, 11, 2276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Meikle, W.G.; Holst, N.; Colin, T.; Weiss, M.; Carroll, M.J.; McFederick, Q.S.; Barron, A.B. Using within-day hive weight changes to measure environmental effects on honey bee colonies. PLoS ONE
**2018**, 13, e0197589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Burrill, R.M.; Dietz, A. The response of honey bees to variations in solar radiation and temperature. Apidologie
**1981**, 12, 319–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Devillers, J.; Dore, J.C.; Tisseur, M.; Cluzeau, S.; Maurin, G. Modelling the flight activity of Apis mellifera at the hive entrance. Comput. Electron. Agric.
**2004**, 42, 87–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Clarke, D.; Robert, D. Predictive modelling of honey bee foraging activity using local weather conditions. Apidologie
**2018**, 49, 386–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Meikle, W.G.; Weiss, M.; Stillwell, A. Monitoring colony phenology using within-day variability in continuous weight and temperature of honey bee hivest. Apidologie
**2016**, 47, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Hennessy, G.; Harris, C.; Eaton, C.; Wright, P.; Jackson, E.; Goulson, D.; Ratnieks, F. Gone with the wind: Effects of wind on honey bee visit rate and foraging behaviour. Anim. Behav.
**2020**, 161, 23–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Jiang, J.; Wang, C.H.; Chen, C.H.; Liao, M.S.; Su, Y.L.; Chen, W.S.; Huang, C.P.; Yang, E.C.; Chuang, C.L. A WSN-based automatic monitoring system for the foraging behavior of honey bees and environmental factors of beehives. Comput. Electron. Agric.
**2016**, 123, 304–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Xujiang, H.; Tian, L.Q.; Wu, X.; Zeng, Z.J. RFID monitoring indicates honeybees work harder before a rainy day. Insect Sci.
**2015**, 23, 157–159. [Google Scholar] - Mukherjee, S.; Kulyukin, V. Application of digital particle image velocimetry to insect motion: Measurement of incoming, outgoing, and lateral honeybee traffic. Appl. Sci.
**2020**, 10, 2042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Pearson, K. Mathematical contributions to the theory of evolution. III. regression, heredity and panmixia. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond.
**1896**, 187, 253–318. [Google Scholar] - Spearman, C. The proof and measurement of association between two things. Am. J. Psychol.
**1904**, 15, 72–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kendall, M.G. A new measure of rank correlation. Biometrika
**1938**, 30, 81–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Box, G.E.P.; Jenkins, G.M.; Reinsel, G.C. Time Series Analysis: Forecasting and Control, 3rd ed.; Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliff, NJ, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Moor, D.D.; McCabe, G.P. Introduction to the Practice of Statistics, 2nd ed.; W.H. Freeman and Company: New York, NY, USA, 1993. [Google Scholar]
- Burdun, G.D.; Markov, B.N. Basics of Metrology; Publishing House of Standards: Moscow, Russia, 1985. [Google Scholar]
- Chentsov, N.N. Statistical Decision Rules and Optimal Inferences; Nauka: Moscow, Russia, 1972. [Google Scholar]
- BeePi: A Multisensor Electronic Beehive Monitor. BeePi Open Science Crowdfunder 1. Available online: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/970162847/beepi-a-multisensor-electronic-beehive-monitor (accessed on 16 May 2022).
- BeePi: Honeybees Meet AI: Stage 2. BeePi Open Science Crowdfunder 2. Available online: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/beepihoneybeesmeetai/beepi-honeybees-meet-ai-stage-2 (accessed on 16 May 2022).
- BeePi: Honeybees Meet AI: Stage 3. BeePi Open Science Crowdfunder 3. Available online: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/beepihoneybeesmeetai/beepi-honeybees-meet-ai-stage-3/ (accessed on 16 May 2022).

**Figure 1.**Correlation heat map of weight (W) and 5 types of traffic (T) on the x-axis for hives H17, H19, H41, H43, H47, and H53 on the y-axis; IN—incoming traffic; OUT—outgoing traffic; TOT—total traffic; IN-OUT—difference of IN and OUT; IN+OUT—sum of IN and OUT; TOT = IN + OUT + LAT (sum of IN, OUT, and LAT), where LAT—lateral traffic; IN, OUT, LAT, and TOT are non-negative integers.

**Figure 2.**Autocorrelation plots of weight (

**a**), total traffic (TOT) (

**b**), and change in weight over 1 h (

**c**) for hive H17 given using a standard python method statsmodels.graphics.tsaplots; the lags for (

**a**,

**b**) change from 0 to 145, where value 145 approximately equals 2.5 periods as 54 is the full number of records per day; the lag for (

**c**) runs from 0 to 50 (≈3.5 periods) with a period of 12 (i.e., the number of data points per day for $k=4$); semi-transparent solid blue regions represent confidence intervals for ACF values.

**Figure 3.**Joint probability values (green) and product of marginal probabilities (red) for incoming (IN), outgoing (OUT), total (TOT), difference of incoming and outgoing (IN-OUT), sum of incoming and outgoing (IN+OUT), and all values $0<{\u03f5}_{W}<{\u03f5}_{W}^{*}$ and $0<{\u03f5}_{T}<{\u03f5}_{T}^{*}$; IN, OUT, and TOT are non-negative integers.

**Figure 4.**Weight (kg) vs. time of hives H17, H19, H41, H43, H47, and H53; first (leftmost) and last (rightmost) x-labels depict first and last day of time-aligned weights and video records; additional marks on x-axis in between leftmost and rightmost labels denote periods when videos were not taken due to hardware failures (e.g., 13 June/4 July on x-axis of H53 plot means that in H53 videos were not taken from 13 June 2021 up to 4 July 2021); row (

**A**): weight vs. time for hives with positive correlation coefficients; row (

**B**): weight vs. time with negative correlation coefficients; in row (

**B**) weight vs. time plot of H47 is in gray box; H47 is the only hive for which ${H}_{\rho ,0}$ and ${H}_{{\chi}^{2},0}$ were not rejected.

**Table 1.**A quantitative summary of the curated dataset; the number of records n for each hive specifies the number of time-aligned weight and traffic measurements.

Hive | Num Records (n) | Num Recorded Days | Mean Records per Day |
---|---|---|---|

H17 | 1838 | 36 | 51 |

H19 | 3019 | 56 | 54 |

H41 | 1842 | 40 | 46 |

H43 | 1630 | 30 | 54 |

H47 | 2518 | 46 | 55 |

H53 | 2506 | 56 | 45 |

Total | 13,353 | 56 | ≈50.83 |

**Table 2.**Pearson, Spearman, and Kendall p-values rounded to 3 decimal places for hives H17, H19, H41, H43, H47, and H53 and five traffic types: IN (incoming), OUT (outgoing), TOT (total), IN-OUT (difference of IN and OUT), and IN+OUT (sum of IN and OUT), where TOT = IN+OUT+LAT and LAT is lateral traffic; IN, OUT, LAT, and TOT are non-negative integers; p-values for H47 are bolded, because it was the only hive for which ${H}_{\rho ,0}$ was not rejected at $p\le 0.05$ for any coefficient and any traffic type; HXX refers to H17, H19, H41, H43, and H53, because their p-values were identically 0.

Hive | Pearson | Spearman | Kendall | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

IN | OUT | TOT | IN-OUT | IN+OUT | IN | OUT | TOT | IN-OUT | IN+OUT | IN | OUT | TOT | IN-OUT | IN+OUT | |

H47 | 0.724 | 0.715 | 0.721 | 0.801 | 0.719 | 0.675 | 0.284 | 0.661 | 0.629 | 0.656 | 0.661 | 0.265 | 0.651 | 0.604 | 0.639 |

HXX | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

**Table 3.**Suprema ${\u03f5}_{W}^{*}$ and ${\u03f5}_{T}^{*}$ computed according to Equation (15), for hive H17 and for 5 types of traffic, 5 variances, and 5 means; IN—incoming traffic; OUT—outgoing traffic; TOT—total traffic; LAT—lateral traffic; IN—OUT (difference between IN and OUT), IN + OUT (sum of IN and OUT); TOT = IN + OUT + LAT; W column gives ${\u03f5}_{W}^{*}$ for weight measurements and corresponding lags; IN, OUT, TOT, and LAT are non-negative integers; exact measurement columns give ${\u03f5}_{W}^{*}$ for exact measurements of IN, OUT, TOT, IN-OUT, IN+OUT and lags; variance columns give ${\u03f5}_{T}^{*}$ for ${\sigma}^{2}$(X), where X ∈ {IN, OUT, TOT, IN-OUT, IN+OUT} and lags; mean columns give ${\u03f5}_{T}^{*}$ for $\mu $(X), where where X ∈ {IN, OUT, TOT, IN-OUT, IN+OUT}.

Lag | Exact | Measurement | Variance | Mean | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

(hours) | W | IN | OUT | TOT | IN-OUT | IN+OUT | IN | OUT | TOT | IN-OUT | IN+OUT | IN | OUT | TOT | IN-OUT | IN+OUT |

1 | 0.754 | 7.856 | 7.968 | 8.707 | 6.585 | 8.606 | 11.85 | 11.949 | 13.459 | 10.899 | 13.261 | 6.581 | 6.47 | 7.321 | 5.198 | 7.22 |

2 | 0.807 | 8.463 | 8.659 | 9.328 | 7.223 | 9.246 | 12.083 | 12.051 | 13.652 | 10.4 | 13.45 | 6.58 | 6.383 | 7.249 | 5.143 | 7.167 |

3 | 1.056 | 8.783 | 9.013 | 9.68 | 7.494 | 9.597 | 11.873 | 11.865 | 13.445 | 10.051 | 13.251 | 6.528 | 6.298 | 7.195 | 5.01 | 7.113 |

4 | 1.344 | 8.988 | 9.179 | 9.865 | 7.602 | 9.781 | 11.814 | 11.792 | 13.37 | 9.776 | 13.185 | 6.406 | 6.215 | 7.093 | 4.83 | 7.009 |

5 | 1.43 | 9.129 | 9.326 | 10.008 | 7.719 | 9.926 | 11.762 | 11.753 | 13.324 | 9.608 | 13.14 | 6.331 | 6.133 | 7.012 | 4.723 | 6.93 |

6 | 1.455 | 9.254 | 9.446 | 10.129 | 7.795 | 10.048 | 11.672 | 11.673 | 13.238 | 9.455 | 13.055 | 6.268 | 6.076 | 6.951 | 4.617 | 6.87 |

**Table 4.**The maxima and argmaxima of the absolute difference between the joint probability and the product of marginal probabilities of exact traffic counts and different lags for hive H17; each entry has format ($maxD$, ${\u03f5}_{W}$, ${\u03f5}_{T}$); IN—incoming traffic, OUT—outgoing traffic; TOT—total traffic; IN-OUT—difference between IN and OUT; IN+OUT—sum of IN+OUT; IN, OUT, TOT, IN-OUT, and IN+OUT are integers.

Lag | maxD, ${\mathit{\u03f5}}_{\mathit{W}}$, ${\mathit{\u03f5}}_{\mathit{T}}$ | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|

(hours) | IN | OUT | TOT | IN-OUT | IN+OUT |

1 | (0.072, 0.051, 5.416) | (0.059, 0.059, 6.227) | (0.068, 0.051, 6.339) | (0.029, 0.077, 3.871) | (0.066, 0.051, 6.382) |

2 | (0.059, 0.181, 7.050) | (0.051, 0.145, 7.098) | (0.060, 0.145, 7.848) | (0.038, 0.284, 4.727) | (0.054, 0.145, 7.813) |

3 | (0.051, 0.226, 6.701) | (0.042, 0.214, 6.347) | (0.046, 0.228, 7.496) | (0.044, 0.054, 4.754) | (0.044, 0.228, 7.419) |

4 | (0.071, 0.602, 7.467) | (0.065, 0.602, 7.505) | (0.069, 0.602, 8.305) | (0.045, 0.049, 5.182) | (0.069, 0.602, 8.234) |

5 | (0.055, 0.080, 8.027) | (0.060, 0.080, 8.019) | (0.058, 0.314, 8.971) | (0.078, 0.574, 4.963) | (0.060, 0.295, 8.895) |

6 | (0.077, 0.181, 7.840) | (0.070, 0.113, 7.946) | (0.083, 0.181, 8.695) | (0.053, 0.493, 6.435) | (0.078, 0.181, 8.627) |

**Table 5.**Chi-square statistics and p-values of exact traffic counts for different lags for hive H17; 3 p values smaller than 0.05 are bolded; IN—incoming traffic; OUT—outgoing traffic; TOT—total traffic.

Lag | C and p-Value | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|

(hours) | IN | OUT | TOT | IN-OUT | IN+OUT |

1 | (88.523, 0.023) | (77.522, 0.119) | (90.778, 0.016) | (51.015, 0.880) | (94.585, 0.008) |

2 | (35.668, 0.077) | (27.817, 0.316) | (36.710, 0.061) | (30.741, 0.198) | (33.929, 0.109) |

3 | (16.438, 0.423) | (14.751, 0.543) | (16.985, 0.387) | (26.175, 0.052) | (15.488, 0.489) |

4 | (24.382, 0.081) | (22.313, 0.133) | (24.379, 0.082) | (15.655, 0.477) | (20.985, 0.179) |

5 | (7.203, 0.616) | (12.325, 0.196) | (7.551, 0.580) | (10.224, 0.333) | (7.551, 0.580) |

6 | (10.964, 0.278) | (7.732, 0.561) | (9.093, 0.429) | (13.680, 0.134) | (8.386, 0.496) |

**Table 6.**Lags for which ${H}_{{\chi}^{2},0}$ was rejected for monitored hives; IN—incoming traffic; OUT—outgoing traffic; TOT—total traffic; ${\sigma}^{2}$(X)—variance of X; $\mu $(X)—mean of X; ⋄ means that ${H}_{{\chi}^{2},0}$ was not rejected for any lag; bolded lags are the lags for which both recommendations at the end of Section 2.6 are satisfied.

Traffic Measurement | H17 | H19 | H41 | H43 | H47 | H53 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

IN | 1 | 5,6 | 5,6 | 5 | 4,5 | 4,5,6 |

OUT | ⋄ | 5,6 | 5,6 | 5,6 | 5 | 4,5,6 |

TOT | 1 | 5,6 | 5,6 | 5,6 | 5 | 4,5,6 |

IN-OUT | ⋄ | 5,6 | 6 | ⋄ | 5 | ⋄ |

IN+OUT | 1 | 5,6 | 5,6 | 5 | 5 | 4,5,6 |

${\sigma}^{2}$(IN) | 1,2,3,6 | 3,5 | 6 | ⋄ | 3,4,5,6 | 2,4,5,6 |

${\sigma}^{2}$(OUT) | 1,2,3,6 | 2 | ⋄ | ⋄ | ⋄ | 2,4,5,6 |

${\sigma}^{2}$(TOT) | 1,3 | 1 | 6 | ⋄ | 3,5,6 | 2,4,5,6 |

${\sigma}^{2}$(IN-OUT) | 3,4 | 4 | 3 | ⋄ | ⋄ | 5,6 |

${\sigma}^{2}$(IN+OUT) | 1,2,3 | ⋄ | 6 | ⋄ | 3,6 | 4,5,6 |

$\mu $(IN) | ⋄ | 6 | 6 | ⋄ | 5,6 | 4,5,6 |

$\mu $(OUT) | 1 | 6 | 5,6 | 6 | 4,5 | 4,5,6 |

$\mu $(TOT) | 1,2 | 6 | 4,6 | 1,6 | 5,6 | 4,5,6 |

$\mu $(IN-OUT) | ⋄ | 3,6 | ⋄ | ⋄ | 4,5,6 | 4 |

$\mu $(IN+OUT) | 1,2 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 5,6 | 1,4,5,6 |

**Table 7.**Pearson coefficients and corresponding p-values of different types of traffic measurements and different lags for hive H17; each cell is a tuple $(c,p)$ where c is Pearson and p is p-value; IN—incoming traffic; OUT—outgoing; TOT—total.

Lag (in hours) | IN | OUT | TOT | IN-OUT | IN+OUT |
---|---|---|---|---|---|

1 | (−0.288, 1.33 × 10${}^{-9}$) | (−0.362, 1.17 × 10${}^{-14}$) | (−0.324, 6.76 × 10${}^{-12}$) | (0.490, 3.92 × 10${}^{-27}$) | (−0.329, 3.06 × 10${}^{-12}$) |

2 | (−0.328, 1.98 × 10${}^{-6}$) | (−0.406, 2.15 × 10${}^{-9}$) | (−0.367, 8.61 × 10${}^{-8}$) | (0.539, 1.53 × 10${}^{-16}$) | (−0.372, 5.34 × 10${}^{-8}$) |

3 | (−0.367, 1.64 × 10${}^{-5}$) | (−0.445, 1.01 × 10${}^{-7}$) | (−0.406, 1.50 × 10${}^{-6}$) | (0.579, 4.22 × 10${}^{-13}$) | (−0.411, 1.09 × 10${}^{-6}$) |

4 | (−0.394, 6.03 × 10${}^{-5}$) | (−0.480, 5.82 × 10${}^{-7}$) | (−0.436, 7.10 × 10${}^{-6}$) | (0.627, 4.71 × 10${}^{-12}$) | (−0.442, 5.11 × 10${}^{-6}$) |

5 | (−0.399, 8.17 × 10${}^{-4}$) | (−0.483, 3.55 × 10${}^{-5}$) | (−0.440, 1.95 × 10${}^{-4}$) | (0.628, 1.24 × 10${}^{-8}$) | (−0.446, 1.54 × 10${}^{-4}$) |

6 | (−0.496, 4.17 × 10${}^{-5}$) | (−0.582, 7.16 × 10${}^{-7}$) | (−0.539, 6.07 × 10${}^{-6}$) | (0.716, 6.08 × 10${}^{-11}$) | (−0.545, 4.71 × 10${}^{-6}$) |

**Table 8.**Frames of bees in monitored hives; frames of bees is a visual count of frames completely covered with bees on both sides; all inspection dates in columns were in 2021; NA—not available.

Hive | 27 May | 8 June | 30 July | 28 July | 13 August |
---|---|---|---|---|---|

H17 | 8 | 9 | 13 | 18 | 18 |

H19 | 12 | 11 | 13 | 14 | 18 |

H41 | 6 | 6 | 4 | 4 | 4 |

H43 | 7 | NA | 7 | 8 | 15 |

H47 | 6 | NA | 4 | 3 | 5 |

H53 | 10 | 8 | 7 | 10 | 15 |

**Table 9.**Mite drop measurements in monitored hives; mite drop is the mean number of mites per day on a sticky board under the hive; all periods in columns refer to 2021; the start and end of each period are in the month/day format; a new period started on 7 August 2021 after new Apivar strips were installed in monitored hives; the last row represents Apivar treatment periods; Apivar is a polymer strip used to treat Varroa mites.

Hive | 27 May–7 June | 7 June–6 July | 6 July–8 July | 8 July–16 August |
---|---|---|---|---|

H17 | 2.3 | 7 | 9.5 | 19.3 |

H19 | 13 | 26 | 42 | 29.7 |

H41 | 3.7 | 2.5 | 7.5 | 4.7 |

H43 | 6.3 | 6 | 11 | 8.3 |

H47 | 1.7 | 6.5 | 4.5 | 3.7 |

H53 | 10 | 9 | 17 | 10.3 |

Pre-treatment | Mite treatment | Post-treatment |

**Table 10.**Brood quality measurements in monitored hives; STR—straight; SPT—spotty; PMS—parasitic mite syndrome; NA—not available; colonies with PMS have white larvae that appear chewed or sunken on the side of the cell.

Hive | 27 May | 8 June | 30 July | 28 July | 13 August |
---|---|---|---|---|---|

H17 | STR | STR | STR | STR | STR |

H19 | STR | STR | STR | STR | STR |

H41 | SPT | PMS | SPT | STR/SPT | SPT |

H43 | NA | NA | STR | STR/SPT | STR/SPT |

H47 | NA | NA | SPT/PMS | SPT/PMS | SPT |

H53 | STR | STR | SPT | STR | SPT |

**Table 11.**Bee mass (kg) in monitored hives measured using the method in [9]; N/A—not applicable.

Hive | 8 June 2021 | 30 June 2021 | 13 August 2021 |
---|---|---|---|

H17 | 2.32 | N/A | 4.42 |

H19 | N/A | 2.12 | 4.10 |

H41 | 0.86 | N/A | 1.32 |

H43 | N/A | 2.05 | 3.15 |

H47 | N/A | 0.79 | 1.45 |

H53 | N/A | 1.36 | 3.08 |

**Table 12.**Queen status inspections of monitored hives; all dates in columns were in 2021; blu—queen from breeder 1 colored blue; gr—queen from breeder 2 colored green; yel—queen from breeder 2 colored yellow; Q+—queen spotted; Q+?—queen not spotted but its presence is clear from eggs in cells; Q?—queen not spotted; SSQR—supersedure queen removed; QR—queen spotted and removed; N/A – not available.

Hive | 19 May | 27 May | 8 June | 30 June | 28 July | 13 August |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

H17 | Q+blu | Q+blu | Q+blu | Q+blu | Q+? | Q+blu |

H19 | Q+yel | Q+? | Q+yel | Q+yel | Q+yel | Q? |

H41 | Q+yel | Q+yel | SSQR | Q+yel | Q+yel | Q+yel |

H43 | Q+blu | Q? | N/A | Q+blu | Q+blu | Q? |

H47 | QR+blu | Q+yel | N/A | Q+yel | Q+yel | Q+yel |

H53 | Q+gr | Q+gr | Q+gr | Q+gr | Q+gr | Q+gr |

Lag (in Hours) | ${\mathit{H}}_{{\mathit{\chi}}^{2},0}$-Rejected/Number of Tests |
---|---|

1 | 13/90 ≈ 14.4% |

2 | 9/90 = 10.0% |

3 | 11/90 ≈ 12.2% |

4 | 20/90 ≈ 22.2% |

5 | 40/90 ≈ 44.4% |

6 | 49/90 ≈ 54.4% |

**Table 14.**Lags and ${H}_{{\chi}^{2},0}$ rejection ratios for which the domains of ${W}_{t}$ and ${T}_{t}$ were split into the numbers of intervals satisfying the recommendations $RE{C}_{1}$ and $RE{C}_{2}$.

Lag (in Hours) | ${\mathit{H}}_{{\mathit{\chi}}^{2},0}$-Rejected/Number of Tests |
---|---|

1 | 13/90 ≈ 14.4% |

2 | 4/45 ≈ 8.9% |

3 | 2/15 ≈ 13.3% |

**Table 15.**${H}_{{\chi}^{2},0}$ rejection ratios for exact traffic measurements (i.e., counts), traffic measurement variances, and traffic measurement means.

Traffic Measurements | ${\mathit{H}}_{{\mathit{\chi}}^{2},0}$-Rejected/Number of Tests |
---|---|

Exact traffic measurements | 46/180 ≈ 25.6% |

Traffic measurement variances (${\sigma}^{2}$) | 50/180 ≈ 27.8% |

Traffic measurement means ($\mu $) | 46/180 ≈ 25.6% |

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |

© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Kulyukin, V.; Tkachenko, A.; Price, K.; Meikle, W.; Weiss, M.
Integration of Scales and Cameras in Nondisruptive Electronic Beehive Monitoring: On the Within-Day Relationship of Hive Weight and Traffic in Honeybee (*Apis mellifera*) Colonies in Langstroth Hives in Tucson, Arizona, USA. *Sensors* **2022**, *22*, 4824.
https://doi.org/10.3390/s22134824

**AMA Style**

Kulyukin V, Tkachenko A, Price K, Meikle W, Weiss M.
Integration of Scales and Cameras in Nondisruptive Electronic Beehive Monitoring: On the Within-Day Relationship of Hive Weight and Traffic in Honeybee (*Apis mellifera*) Colonies in Langstroth Hives in Tucson, Arizona, USA. *Sensors*. 2022; 22(13):4824.
https://doi.org/10.3390/s22134824

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Kulyukin, Vladimir, Anastasiia Tkachenko, Kristoffer Price, William Meikle, and Milagra Weiss.
2022. "Integration of Scales and Cameras in Nondisruptive Electronic Beehive Monitoring: On the Within-Day Relationship of Hive Weight and Traffic in Honeybee (*Apis mellifera*) Colonies in Langstroth Hives in Tucson, Arizona, USA" *Sensors* 22, no. 13: 4824.
https://doi.org/10.3390/s22134824