Methods for rearing ground-nesting bees under laboratory conditions

Abstract

Ground-nesting bees are largely undervalued, both in terms of their use as model species for behavioural studies, and in terms of their agricultural benefit as pollinators in crop systems. But, why? One potential barrier limiting their use as model species may be our understanding of how to effectively establish and maintain groundnesting bees in the laboratory. Here we review how artificial nests are used to study ground-nesting bees and provide guidelines for building, starting and maintaining artificial nests. Ultimately, appropriate design and maintenance of artificial nests will allow researchers to explore a suite of interesting questions related to this important group of pollinating insects, from natural history to the origins of eusociality and the effects of environmental contaminants. ground-nesting bee / artificial nest / rearing / Lasioglossum

Nesting habitat of ground‐nesting bees: a review

“…(Cucurbitaceae), and have, therefore, been reared in cages or greenhouses to investigate the effects of agricultural practices on ground‐nesting bees. A few species of ground‐nesting bees have even been reared in the laboratory (reviewed in Leonard and Harmon‐Threatt 2019), using observation chambers with glass windows to investigate their behaviour and nest architecture (Michener et al ., 1955). These nest boxes, similar to the ones commonly used to study ants, kept below‐ground or moved above‐ground, have been used to observe Lasioglossum zephyrum (Smith) (Batra, 1964, 1968; Michener & Brothers, 1971), Nomia melanderi (Batra, 1970), Macrotera portalis (Timberlake) (Danforth, 1991) and Anthophora sp.…”

“…Alkali bees (Nomia melanderi Cockerell), which are sometimes managed for alfalfa pollination, are known for nesting in clay soils with a pH > 8 and a high moisture level (Cane, 2003(Cane, , 2008Vinchesi et al, 2013). Fortel et al (2016) found no influence of soil texture on species richness or abundance of ground-nesting bees in experimental plots set up for this purpose; however, this result could mask interspecific differences, since species likely differ in their soil-texture preferences (Leonard & Harmon-Threatt, 2019). Seemingly contradictory results could also be due to the use of different methods for soil textural analysis, from sieving and weighing different soil fractions, to particle size analysis either with a hydrometer (Bouyoucos method) or a pipette (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Plant Industry, Soils, 1951).…”

“…These nest boxes, similar to the ones commonly used to study ants, kept below-ground or moved above-ground, have been used to observe Lasioglossum zephyrum (Smith) (Batra, 1964(Batra, , 1968Michener & Brothers, 1971), Nomia melanderi (Batra, 1970), Macrotera portalis (Timberlake) (Danforth, 1991) and Anthophora sp. (Batra & Norden, 1996), among others (see Leonard and Harmon-Threatt 2019). However, this method works mainly with social and communal bees (mostly halictids), and even with these, attempts are sometimes unsuccessful (Michener et al, 1955).…”

“…Although the ground-nesting strategy is observed in every bee family, in solitary and social species, and in every habitat in which bees occur, ground-nesting bees are proportionally far less studied than cavity-nesters (Winfree, 2010). The latter can be observed using artificial nesting structures, but nests of ground-nesters are typically difficult to locate, and there are few easy methods for studying within-nest behaviour of these bees (but see Leonard & Harmon-Threatt, 2019). Field and laboratory studies of living ground-nesting bees are scarce relative to the number of species in this group, and there is nesting information for only 26% of the 527 bee species that were studied in a recent review (Harmon-Threatt, 2020).…”

Record of Anthophora (Clisodon) terminalis in a wooden trap-nesting block and comparison to available nesting information (Hymenoptera: Apidae)

“…This does not seem necessarily due to rarity, as the species is distributed across 24 counties in Minnesota in the University of Minnesota insect collection (as of September 2019). Development of variations in "nest trap" designs (e.g., Sheffield et al, 2015) and rearing methods (e.g., Graham et al, 2015;Leonard & Harmon-Threatt, 2019) may lead to alternate nest trapping methods for bees with atypical nesting substrate use, such as A. terminalis.…”