'Bee hotels' as tools for native pollinator conservation: a premature verdict?
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 25785609.
- Also identified by DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0122126 and PMC identifier 4364699.
- Licence recorded as CC BY.
- The licence permits redistribution, so the abstract is shown in full and the full text is available from the publisher.
Abstract
Society is increasingly concerned with declining wild bee populations. Although most bees nest in the ground, considerable effort has centered on installing 'bee hotels'--also known as nest boxes or trap nests--which artificially aggregate nest sites of above ground nesting bees. Campaigns to 'save the bees' often promote these devices despite the absence of data indicating they have a positive effect. From a survey of almost 600 bee hotels set up over a period of three years in Toronto, Canada, introduced bees nested at 32.9% of sites and represented 24.6% of more than 27,000 total bees and wasps recorded (47.1% of all bees recorded). Native bees were parasitized more than introduced bees and females of introduced bee species provisioned nests with significantly more female larva each year. Native wasps were significantly more abundant than both native and introduced bees and occupied almost 3/4 of all bee hotels each year; further, introduced wasps were the only group to significantly increase in relative abundance year over year. More research is needed to elucidate the potential pitfalls and benefits of using bee hotels in the conservation and population dynamics of wild native bees.
Medical subject headings
- Bees
- Conservation of Natural Resources
- Pollination