Now that I read his article more carefully I see what you are saying. He states that the results are means +/- the SD. What doesn't make sense is why he states a P value of 0.0001 after the interval he gives. Usually results are stated as a mean +/- 2SD (P<0.05), which is a 95% confidence interval for the true mean. The way he states his results is confusing, and I still wish I could look at the data to make my own conclusion.
Datsdajoke, I think he was simply stating the strength of his analysis by including a p-value significantly below the (P<.05). For example, both P=.049 and P=.0049 are below 5%, but wouldn't you think that the second one is much more significant than then first? I like Seeley. Reading his books answers so many questions about bees in such a short time. Unfortunately I have to reread them to rediscover same facts.