Abstract
Some solitary bees establish their nests in preexisting cavities. Such nesting behavior facilitates the investigation of their life history, as well as the monitoring of their populations in natural, semi-natural and cropped habitats. This study aimed to evaluate the acceptance of artificial substrates by cavity-nesting bees in a heterogeneous landscape. We investigated the percentage of occupation of the different trap-nests, the monthly fluctuations in the nesting activity, offspring sex ratio, mortality and parasitism, in two phytophysiognomies: herbaceous-shrub restinga (site 1) and arboreal restinga (site 2). We used as trap-nests, bamboo canes, large and small straws of cardboard inserted into solid wooden blocks. Five bee species established 193 nests, from which 386 adults emerged. Centris tarsata Smith was the most abundant species. Large straws were signifi cantly more occupied than small straws (χ² = 19.951; df = 1; p < 0.0001). Offspring mortality rate for unknown reasons was signifi cant diff erent between sites, 11% (site 1) and 20% (site 2) (χ² = 4.203; df = 1; p = 0.04). The cavity-nesting bee guild had similar composition in both phytophysiognomies, there was a similar rate of occupation of trap-nests in both sites, as well as dominance of C. tarsata nests. Offspring mortality and parasites attack rates seem to be the more distinctive aspects between the herbaceous shrub and arboreal restinga sampled. Our study indicated that remnant fragments of coastal native habitats may be important nesting sites for the maintenance of bee populations, some of which have been indicated as candidates for management as pollinators of cultivated plants in Brazil.
Highlights
Bee populations are dependent of key resources related to their feeding, mating and nesting (Westrich, 1996)
This study aimed to evaluate the acceptance of artificial substrates for nest by cavity-nesting bees in a heterogeneous landscape covered by different phytophysiognomies of ”restingas”
Five bee species nested in the trap-nests (Table 1)
Summary
Bee populations are dependent of key resources related to their feeding, mating and nesting (Westrich, 1996). The loss of local biodiversity, primarily by fragmentation and habitat loss can reduce the availability of nesting sites and food resources, and threaten bee communities and pollination services (Viana et al, 2012). It has been used to answer questions related to breeding and nesting biology (Garofalo et al, 2012). It has allowed a management of bee pollinators in agricultural and natural landscapes, resulting in the increasing of the agricultural production (Bosch & Kemp, 2000; Magalhães & Freitas, 2013; Yamamoto et al, 2014)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
