Bee Species-Specific Nesting Material Attracts a Generalist Parasitoid: Implications for Co-occurring Bees in Nest Box Enhancements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Artificial nests (e.g., nest boxes) for bees are increasingly being used to contribute to nesting habitat enhancement for bees that use preexisting cavities to provision brood. They usually incorporate additional nesting materials that vary by species. Cavity-nesting bees are susceptible to brood parasitoids that recognize their host(s) using visual and chemical cues. Understanding the range of cues that attract parasitoids to bee nests, including human-made analogues, is important if we wish to control parasitism and increase the potential value of artificial nests as habitat-enhancement strategies. In this study, we investigated the cues associated with the orientation of the generalist brood parasitoid Monodontomerus obscurus Westwood (Hymenoptera: Torymidae) to the nests of a common cavity-nesting resin bee Megachile campanulae (Robertson) (Megachilidae). The parasitoids were reared from previously infested M. campanulae brood cells and placed into choice trials where they were presented with pairs of different nest material cues. Among different materials tested, we found that Mo. obscurus was most attracted to fresh resin collected directly from Pinus strobus trees followed by previously used resin collected from the bee nest. The parasitoid also attacked other bee species in the same nest boxes, including those that do not use resin for nesting. Our findings suggest that M. campanulae could act as a magnet, drawing parasites away from other bee hosts co-occurring in nest boxes, or, as an attractant of Mo. obscurus to nest boxes, increasing attacks on co-occurring host bee species, potentially undermining bee diversity enhancement initiatives.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".