Nesting habitat of ground‐nesting bees: a review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
About 3/4 of all wild bee species nest in the soil and spend much of their life cycle underground. These insects require suitable environmental conditions for nest construction and for the development and survival of their offspring. However, there is little quantitative information on the nesting habitat requirements and preferences of ground‐nesting bees. Moreover, there are almost no data on the effects of nesting conditions on these bees' fitness. Here, to better understand the factors that influence nest‐site selection in ground‐nesting bees, we synthesise the literature on the nesting‐habitat associations of these important pollinators. We also review techniques that can be used to study the nesting preferences of ground‐nesting bees. Our review reveals enormous variation among bee species in their associations with such nesting‐habitat attributes as soil texture, compaction, moisture, temperature, ground surface features, and proximity to conspecifics or floral resources. However, more studies—particularly experimental ones—are needed to segregate the influence of each factor on bees' choices of nesting location, since multiple factors are often correlated. It is also unclear whether nesting‐habitat associations vary geographically or seasonally within species, or phylogenetically among ground‐nesting bee species, partly because we lack information on nesting habitat for many species. We argue that studies using established habitat‐selection methods are essential to properly identify nesting‐habitat preferences of ground‐nesting species. Finally, more research on nesting ecology is needed (especially in agroecosystems) to determine how best to support this diverse group of bees and the vital ecosystem service they provide.
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.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it