Nesting biology of an Oriental carpenter bee, Xylocopa (Biluna) nasalis Westwood, 1838, in Thailand (Hymenoptera, Apidae, Xylocopinae)

Abstract

The biological study of wild non-Apis bees can provide useful information that may help with the pollination of food crops and native plants in areas where the keeping of honey bee colonies is restricted or affected by CCD. Here, we describe the nesting biology of the Oriental large carpenter bee, Xylocopa (Biluna) nasalis Westwood, 1838. An aggregation of more than 80+ bamboo nests of X. nasalis was discovered in Suan Pheung district, Ratch Buri province, Thailand on the 25 th of May 2012. We collected 27 nests from the site to dissect, measure the external and internal nest architecture, and analyze the pollen composition of the pollen masses. X. nasalis constructs linear unbranched nests with nest entrance mostly located at the open-end of the bamboo culms. The nest length and the branch diameter of the nest entrance (excluding nesting edge) are 25.40 ± 6.95 cm and 17.94 ± 6.00 mm, and the maximum number of provisioned cells is 8. A biased sex ratio of 8♀: 1♂ is reported, with up to 7 adults inhabiting in a single nest. 29 pollen types were identified from 14 pollen masses using an acetolysis method and visualization under both light microscope and scanning electron microscope. 13 pollen types were considered as major pollen sources (contribute ≥ 1% in total pollen volume); however, only 10 can be identified to family and generic levels. The dominant pollen sources are of the families Elaeagnaceae (Elaeagnus cf. latifolia), Euphorbiaceae (Croton), Fabaceae (Senna siamea and Cassia), Fagaceae (Lithocarpus and Castanopsis), and Lythraceae (Trapa) which are mostly native to the region of Southeast Asia. The nesting architectural details should prove to be beneficial to beekeepers and researchers who are interested in trapping and studying X. nasalis, and the polylectic behavior of X. nasalis can be highly valuable for future crop pollination strategies, particularly for plants that require sonication of their poricidal anthers.

Nest Structure, Development and Natural Enemies of Ceratina hieroglyphica Smith, A Stem Nesting Bee Colonizing Cashew Trees in Hilly Terrains

“…Most of the C. hieroglyphica nests had an entrance of 3.0-3.5 mm in diameter, were found in dead thin cashew twigs of 5-20 mm thickness and were seen on sticks with pith exposed especially on pruned ends, while the of Xylocopa nasalis Westwood nests had an average length of 25.4±6.95 cm and a mean branch diameter of 17.9±6.00 mm (Hongjamrassilp & Warrit, 2014). The number of cells per C. hieroglyphica nest ranged between one and fourteen, and up to six adult bees was recorded.…”

“…The number of cells per C. hieroglyphica nest ranged between one and fourteen, and up to six adult bees was recorded. Whereas for X. nasalis, it was between one and eight cells per nest and up to seven adults were seen in a nest (Hongjamrassilp & Warrit, 2014). According to Dutt (1912), the mother C. viridissima bee always confines herself to her own nest.…”

Nesting and foraging behavior of Xylocopa valga in the Ejina Oasis, China

“…The morphology of pollen was observed using an Olympus STM6 optical microscope (the proportions of different types of pollen were determined under an ×10 visual field, and the plants were observed under an ×40 visual field). The observed morphologies were compared with the morphologies of the local plant pollen from the reference glass slides to determine the proportions of different pollen types in the bee food [33,34]. Three subsamples were taken from each sample of bee food, and three visual fields were observed for each subsample under the microscope.…”

Brood development and nest parasitism of Xylocopa (Neoxylocopa) augusti Lepeletier (Hymenoptera: Apidae), a promising crop pollinator in Argentina

“…This is perhaps a reflection of our limited knowledge of many aspects of their biology. Although basic information on the nesting biology and nest architecture of carpenter bees is available for several species worldwide (Ali, Shebl, Alqarni, Owayss, & Ansari, 2017;Anzenberger, 1977;Gerling, 1983;Hongjamrassilp & Warrit, 2014;Raju & Rao, 2006;Sihag, 1993aSihag, , 1993bVicidomini, 1996), most studies are restricted to a few common species and from particular regions. For example, most information in South America is from Brazil (Bernardino & Gaglianone, 2008;Camillo & Garófalo, 1982;Camillo, Garófalo, & Muccillo, 1986;Marchi & Melo, 2010;Pereira & Garófalo, 2010;Sakagami & Laroca, 1971;Viana, Kleinert, & Silva, 2002), with few studies available from other regions (Gonzalez, Gonzalez, & Cuellar, 2009;Lucia, Alvarez, et al, 2014;Lucia et al, 2015Lucia et al, , 2017.…”