Next Article in Journal
Some Considerations about Winter Colony Losses in Italy According to the Coloss Questionnaire
Previous Article in Journal
Investigation of the Sandfly Fauna of Central Arid Areas and Northern Humid Regions of Tunisia, with Morphological and Molecular Identification of the Recently Established Population of Phlebotomus (Larroussius) perfiliewi
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Insects
Volume 13
Issue 11
10.3390/insects13111058
insects-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Nesting Biology and Ecology of a Resin Bee, Megachile cephalotes (Megachilidae: Hymenoptera)

by
Waseem Akram
1,
Asif Sajjad
1,*,
Hamed A. Ghramh
2,3,4,
Mudssar Ali
5 and
Khalid Ali Khan
2,3,6,*
1
Department of Entomology, Faculty of Agriculture and Environment, The Islamia University of Bahawalpur, Bahawalpur 63100, Punjab, Pakistan
2
Research Center for Advanced Materials Science (RCAMS), King Khalid University, P.O. Box 9004, Abha 61413, Saudi Arabia
3
Unit of Bee Research and Honey Production, King Khalid University, P.O. Box 9004, Abha 61413, Saudi Arabia
4
Biology Department Faculty of Science, King Khalid University, P.O. Box 9004, Abha 61413, Saudi Arabia
5
Institute of Plant Protection, Muhammad Nawaz Shareef University of Agriculture, Multan 60000, Punjab, Pakistan
6
Applied College, King Khalid University, P.O. Box 9004, Abha 61413, Saudi Arabia
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Insects 2022, 13(11), 1058; https://doi.org/10.3390/insects13111058
Submission received: 6 October 2022 / Revised: 3 November 2022 / Accepted: 9 November 2022 / Published: 16 November 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Insect Societies and Sociality)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

Megachile cephalotes is a solitary bee that is widely distributed in Sindh and Punjab, Pakistan. It has been reported as an effective pollinator of Grewia asiatica and some other crops. Bees are declining around the world, threatening the productivity of field crops, vegetables, and fruits. Among the Megachilini tribe, the only European leaf-cutting bees, Megachile rotundata has been artificially reared and conserved on a commercial scale in different parts of the world. Some recent studies have shown a high pollination potential of M. cephalotes owing to its gregarious nesting and foraging behavior. In the present study, the nesting biology and ecology of M. cephalotes were reported for the first time in this region. The bees remained active during the spring and summer seasons, and females preferred to construct their nests in bamboo sticks and wooden blocks. They used plant resin for the construction of brood cells and placed several types of pollen grains in these cells. The males took fewer days to become adults than the females. The present study will help in the commercial-scale artificial nesting and conservation of M. cephalotes.

Abstract

We report the nesting biology and ecology of Megachile cephalotes Smith, 1853 for the first time in Pakistan. Wooden and bamboo trap nests were deployed at three different locations in Bahawalpur district, Pakistan, from January 2020 to May 2021. A total of 242 nests of M. cephalotes were occupied in all three locations with the maximum abundance in the Cholistan Institute of Desert Studies. Megachile cephalotes remained active from March to September (the spring and summer seasons). In a nest, females made 7–8 brood cells each having a length of 1.2–2.3 cm. Plant resin was used to construct cells and mud or animal dung to plug the nest entrance. A vestibular cell was also made between the outermost brood cell and the nest entrance that ranged from 1.4 to 2.5 cm in length. No intercalary cells were observed in the nests. The males took 65.3 days to become adults, while the females took 74.78 days. The sex ratio was significantly biased toward females in all three locations. Grewia asiatica was the predominant pollen grain species found in the brood cells. Megachile cephalotes were observed collecting resin from Acacia nilotica, Prosopis juliflora, and Moringa oleifera. Three cleptoparasites of this species were also recorded: Euaspis carbonaria, Coelioxys sp., and Anthrax sp. This study set up a background to encourage new studies on artificial nesting and provides tools for proper biodiversity management and conservation.

1. Introduction

Managed bees are considered the most efficient pollinators throughout the world, but wild bees have also received considerable attention for the last few decades due to their high pollination efficiency and because they provide equivalent services to those of managed bees [1,2]. Sometimes wild bees also enhance the pollination services provided by managed bees through their behaviors [3,4]. Among 20,000 species of bees, the majority of the species are wild [5]. The population of bees is declining throughout the world, ultimately threatening the productivity of major crops, vegetables, and fruits [6,7]. Several factors have been attributed to bee decline, e.g., habitat degradation, climate change, intensive use of pesticides, predators, and parasites [8,9,10]. The availability of suitable foraging resources and nesting habitats helps minimize the decline [11,12,13,14].
The family Megachilidae, including more than 4000 species, occurs throughout the world [15,16]. Within Megachilidae, Megachile Latreille, 1802 is the most diverse genus, comprised of 32 subgenera and 431 species only in the neotropical region, along with several unidentified species [16,17,18,19,20]. Numerous species of Megachile are efficient pollinators [21,22,23,24,25,26,27] and only M. rotundata could be artificially reared and conserved on a commercial basis [28,29]. In Pakistan, 18 species of the genus Megachile are known [15], yet no information is available on the nesting biology and ecology of megachilid bees.
Megachile species are solitary and highly adaptive and build their nests in pre-existing cavities, e.g., wooden logs, hollow stems of bamboo and roses, burrows in the soil, cracks and crevices, and slits in rocks or manmade structures [16,30,31,32,33]. For the construction of their brood cells, female Megachile spp. use a variety of materials, e.g., leaf pieces, flower petals, mud, pebbles, and a combination of resin and salivary material [16,30,34,35,36,37,38,39,40]. A recent study reported the use of plastics from wrappings, flags, and bags [41]. This behavior applies to some species, but it is not a general behavior of all Megachile species. Poor knowledge about nesting biology is the main barrier to utilizing the diverse megachilid bees as a management tool for pollination services.
Each nest consists of a linear series of brood cells with pollen provisions (nectar and pollen mixture) packed by the female [42]. The female lays eggs on pollen provisions and finally closes the cell with pieces of leaves [43]. Once the first cell is fully completed, the females repeat this process several times from the closed to the open end of the nesting cavity. When the nest is filled with cells, they close the nest from the outside with masticated leaves or mud to protect their offspring [42]. Depending on their resources, Megachile bees can be oligolectic [44] or polylectic [16,45]. Most research has been conducted on the nesting biology of leafcutter bees [46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53], while resin bees are poorly understood [42,54,55,56,57].
By using bee hotels or trap nests, the nesting biology and ecology of bees are studied for various purposes, i.e., the study of nest architecture [50,58,59], natural history [60,61,62,63], evolution [16], crop pollinators [64], population monitoring and community structure [13,65], bioindication and recording changes in habitat type [66,67,68] and as a tool in conservation [59,69] and quantitative ecology [70,71,72]. The latter includes the quantification of multiple trophic interactions between bees, wasps, their food objects, and natural enemies [73].
Megachile (Callomegachile) cephalotes is a solitary bee that is widely distributed in Sindh and Punjab, Pakistan [15]. From Pakistan, it has been reported as an effective pollinator of Grewia asiatica [25,26]. The genus Grewia has 140 to 150 species, of which only G. asiatica is of commercial importance as a fruit crop in subtropical and tropical regions [74,75]. Little is known about the nesting biology and ecology of this bee [54]. The aim of this study was to provide information about the nesting biology (nest architecture and pollen types used) and ecology (seasonality and plant species providing pollen and nectar) of M. cephalotes for the first time in Pakistan. This nesting behavior differs from that observed in other parts of its range and can provide the basis for comparative studies.

2. Material and Method

2.1. Study Site

The study was conducted from January 2020 to May 2021 at three different sites in Bahawalpur district: Cholistan Institute of Desert Studies (CIDS; 29.3784° N, 71.7696° E), the Agricultural Research Farm (ARF; 29.3714° N, 71.7652° E), and the Fisheries Complex (FC; 29.3863° N, 71.6300° E). CIDS is comprised of a highly diverse landscape of over 40 hectares, including desert, orchards, unmanaged land, lawns, horticultural landscaping, and some agricultural land. A diverse array of floral resources remains available year-round. Natural or artificial nesting resources, i.e., cracks or holes in mud walls, hollow tree branches, and bamboo or reed sheds are also abundant. The ARF is 65 hectares and is comprised of agricultural and horticultural crops. Cotton and maize are the major crops, and the need-based application of insecticides is a usual practice. The FC is 27 hectares and is comprised of G. asiatica fields, citrus orchards, and some other horticultural flowering plants. Natural and artificial nesting resources are also abundant for bees, i.e., cracks or holes in brick walls, empty fish ponds, and hollow tree trunks or branches.
The climate of the district is arid with mild winters and hot summers. There are four seasons in this zone: spring (March to May), summer (June to September), autumn (October to November), and winter (December to February) [76]. The mean daily minimum and maximum temperatures are 28 °C and 42 °C in the summer and 6 °C and 22 °C in the winter, respectively. The average annual rainfall in Bahawalpur is 169.8 mm [77].

2.2. Nesting Material

At each site, one wooden frame with dimensions of 152 cm (length) × 92 cm (width) × 30 cm (depth) was installed on 3 January 2020. Each wooden frame consisted of seven partitions, and each partition was filled with certain nesting material. The nesting materials included wooden logs, mud blocks, wooden blocks, cardboard tubes, bamboo sticks, dry reeds, and plastic straws. Two wooden plates (18 cm long) with longitudinal groves were stacked on each other so that they made complete holes [53]. Five such plates were stacked and tied with adhesive tape to form a wooden block. Only bamboo sticks and wooden blocks were considered for further study, as the females of Megachile cephalotes constructed their nests in bamboo sticks and wooden blocks. One thousand bamboo sticks and one hundred wooden blocks were placed in each wooden frame.

2.3. Nest Sampling

Trap nests were checked weekly for occupied nests. The occupied nests were removed and replaced with new ones. The collected nests were marked with the nest collection date, and the open end was covered with nylon mesh bags to check the adult emergence. All the collected nests were placed in cages, and the emergence of adult M. cephalotes was observed. The date of emergence of male and female individuals was recorded. The time period between nest collection and the emergence of individuals was considered the developmental period. The sex ratio of M. cephalotes was also noted.

2.4. Nesting Biology and Ecology

Five completely occupied wooden blocks were shifted to the laboratory and dissected to study the nest structure. The following parameters were evaluated: total nest length, nest diameter, brood cell length, vestibular cell length, total number of brood cells/nest, and nest closure material. The digital Vernier caliper was used to measure the length and diameter of the nests. For comparison, four occupied nests in bamboo sticks were X-ray-photographed with an X-ray machine (Figure 1).
The floral host plants were recorded by directly observing M. cephalotes foraging at the study sites. The weekly random walks were made between 9:00 am to 5:00 pm to record the plant species foraged by M. cephalotes. The resin collection was also directly observed in the field by focusing on resin-producing plants. To identify and measure the pollen grains of the brood cells, reference glass slides were made first by removing pollen grains from the available blooming plants during the spring and summer seasons when M. cephalotes were active. These vouchers aided in the identification of pollen provisions in brood cells. Pollen provisions were sampled from 15 different brood cells, acetolized, and mounted on glass slides [78,79]. Using the reference slides, pollen grains collected from the brood cells were identified. From each sample, 1000 pollen grains were identified and counted under a 60× stereomicroscope.

2.5. Statistical Analysis

A t-test was applied to compare male and female M. cephalotes in terms of the mean number of days to become adults. The Chi-square goodness of fit test was applied to determine the effect of location on the sex ratio of M. cephalotes.

3. Results

A total of 242 nests (bamboo sticks = 184, wooden blocks = 58) of M. cephalotes were collected from January 2020 to December 2020 at three locations: CIDS, ARF, and FC. The maximum number of nests was collected from CIDS, followed by the FC and ARF (Figure 2).
The first occupied nest was seen on 26 March 2020. The males of M. cephalotes emerged earlier than the females. The emergence started in the last week of April with a sharp increase until July and then a gradual decline until September. We did not observe any emergence from October 2020 to February 2021. These five months represented the hibernation period of M. cephalotes. The emergence of these hibernated populations started again in the first week of March 2021. This showed that M. cephalotes remained active from March to September, comprising the spring and summer seasons (Figure 3 and Figure 4).
For the study of nest architecture, five completely occupied wooden block nests were collected in May 2020. These nests were similar in length and diameter. The number of cells ranged from 7 to 8 with minimum and maximum cell lengths of 1.2 and 2.3 cm, respectively (Table 1). In each nest, all the cells were constructed in a linear series and aligned horizontally. The construction of the first cell started at the base of the nest (Figure 5). Before constructing the first cell, female M. cephalotes collected resin and deposited it at the base of the nest, making a thick layer. The brood cells were slightly rounded at the base and elongated. The female made several trips to collect pollen and nectar to provision the brood cells in the form of pollen lobes at the cell base. After provisioning the first cell, the female laid a single egg on the provision mass. After oviposition, the female made more trips to collect resin, which was used for cell closure. They made seven to eight such cells in a single nest. They also left a space (a vestibular cell) ranging from 1.4 to 2.5 cm long between the outermost brood cell and the nest entrance (Figure 1). The nests were then plugged with mud or animal dung at the entrance (Figure 5).
There was a statistically significant difference in the development period of male and female M. cephalotes. The males became adults earlier than the females, i.e., after 65.30 and 74.78 days, respectively (Table 2). There was no impact of the three locations on the sex ratio of M. cephalotes. The sex ratio of M. cephalotes was significantly biased toward females at all three locations (Table 3).
Grewia asiatica was the predominant pollen grain species found in the brood cells of M. cephalotes, followed by Alhagi graecorum and Parkinsonia aculeata. Among all plant species, the minimum number of pollen grains was found for Rosa indica (Table 4).
The floral host plants of M. cephalotes are presented in Table 5. Females of M. cephalotes visited six plant species. The maximum visits were recorded on G. asiatica, followed by A. graecorum, P. aculeata, and Cajanus cajan (Table 5). Resin-producing plants visited by M. cephalotes are presented in Table 6.

Parasitoids

Adult parasitoids of three species emerged from 242 nests of M. cephalotes. Two belonged to the order Hymenoptera, i.e., Euaspis carbonaria (Megachilidae) (Figure 6a) and Coelioxys sp. (Megachilidae) (Figure 6b), and one belonged to Diptera, i.e., Anthrax sp. (Bombyliidae) (Figure 6c).

4. Discussion

We reported the nesting biology and ecology of Megachile cephalotes for the first time in Pakistan. In the present study, the maximum number of nests was collected from CIDS, followed by the FC and ARF. CIDS consists of a natural semi-desert landscape with abundant nesting cavities (cracks or holes in mud walls, hollow tree branches, and bamboo or reed sheds) and floral resources. The FC is mostly covered with G. asiatica fields that provide adequate nectar and pollen for bees. High species richness and an abundance of flowers usually favor the species richness and abundance of bees [80,81]. Apparently, there are factors other than floral availability that can limit wild bees. Empirical evidence shows that nesting resources affect the abundance of bees. There is a need to study how the availability of natural nesting resources affects solitary bee populations [82,83,84] since this resource is also essential for bee existence.
The results of the present study showed that M. cephalotes remained active from March to September, comprising the spring and summer seasons. The data over several years suggest that solitary bees exhibit marked spatiotemporal fluctuations in their abundance and diversity [16]. The species of the Megachilini tribe are reported to have two generations a year in northwestern India, and emergence occurs from late February or early March until May and again at the start of August until November [85]. Kunjwal et al. [86] reported that in India, M. cephalotes is multivoltine by nature and remains active from March to December. Moreover, they recorded the peak activity of Megachile spp. two times throughout the year: from March to May and from October to November. Rauf et al. [14] also found that M. cephalotes remained active from March to November in Punjab, Pakistan. Kumari and Kumar [85] reported gregarious nesting and foraging behavior in M. cephalotes that could be helpful for pollination. Depending on the locality and resources, Megachile bees remain active during the hottest months of the year [16]. Several seasonal and regional factors might affect the voltinism in Megachile bees. For example, M. rotundata is univoltine in its native range in Eurasia but bi- or multivoltine in North America, where it was accidentally introduced in the late 1940s [87,88,89,90]. Hence, there is a need to study these factors thoroughly in order to determine their effects on voltinism.
In the present study, female M. cephalotes construct their nests in bamboo sticks and wooden blocks with lengths and diameters of 15–16 cm and 7 mm, respectively. This species preferred to construct its nests in bamboo sticks with diameters ranging from 8 to 10 mm [14] and lengths from 8.2 to 18 cm [54]. In our study, females of M. cephalotes constructed 7 to 8 brood cells with minimum and maximum cell lengths of 1.2 and 2.3 cm, respectively. Previously, the nesting biology of this species had been described in India [54]. They reported that females construct 7 to 12 brood cells in castor sticks with minimum and maximum cell lengths of 1.0 and 1.8 cm, respectively. The number of brood cells constructed can vary depending on the sex ratio, nest length, and age of the female provisioner. Cavity nesters typically provision multiple nests. As a female ages and approaches mortality, cavity nesters tend to build fewer cells per nest since if she dies before completing the nest closure, the cells will be unprotected.
In the current study, the vestibular cell was recorded in each nest with lengths ranging from 1.4 to 2.5 cm. Many studies have reported that the majority of Megachile species made a vestibular cell in each nest [50,53,57,91,92]. In the present study, female M. cephalotes constructed their brood cells exclusively using plant resin. Contrarily, Gupta et al. [54] found that this bee solely used mud for its nest construction. Species of the subgenus Callomegachile mostly collect plant resin but sometimes also collect mud for their nest construction, hence the name resin bees [93]. Plant resin is a versatile material that can easily be shaped when fresh and structurally rigid when hardened, and it can be used as a nest substrate or to bind loose structural or camouflaging materials for the construction of brood cells. Resin is also waterproof, which permits moisture regulation in the nest, and some resins display potent anti-microbial properties [94,95,96,97,98,99].
The sex ratio of M. cephalotes was significantly biased toward females at all three locations. Our results are in agreement with those of Torretta et al. [91], who found that the sex ratio in M. gomphrenoides was female-biased. Contrarily, few studies have found that the sex ratio of Megachile spp. is male-biased [51,100]. Nest length, availability of floral resources, and flight distance from the nest to floral resources are the major factors that affect the sex ratio of bees. In short nesting cavities, the sex ratio shifted toward the sex whose brood cells were closest to the nest opening [101]. Gruber et al. [102] found that lengths shorter than 15 cm favored male production, which acted as a shield for females from parasites [103]. A female-biased sex ratio is the outcome of rich floral resources, whereas a male-biased sex ratio is the outcome of low floral resources [104]. Peterson and Roitberg [105] found that more sons were produced with an increase in the flight distance between the nest and floral resources. Furthermore, females provide fewer resources, which also results in fewer offspring.
Grewia asiatica was the predominant pollen grain species found in the brood cells of M. cephalotes, followed by Alhagi graecorum and Parkinsonia aculeata. Megachile cephalotes exhibited a wider range of plant interactions [106]. The yellow flowers of G. asiatica are zygomorphic with a good “side on” advertisement [107]. Bees tend to forage on food resources near their nest site. Bees exhibit floral constancy as a strategy that targets rewards and balances energy expenditure, i.e., they tend to feed on the most dominant species in the landscape [108]. Megachilid bees prefer zygomorphic and yellow-colored flowers, i.e., flowers with high UV reflection and pigmentation patterns and with a “side on” advertisement [109,110,111,112].
In the present study, adult parasitoids of three species, Euaspis carbonaria, Coelioxys sp., and Anthrax sp. emerged from the nests of M. cephalotes. Similarly, Rauf et al. [14] found that the nests of M. cephalotes were parasitized by E. carbonaria and Anthrax sp. All three species have already been reported as cleptoparasites of Megachile spp. in different regions [113,114,115,116,117,118].

5. Conclusions

In the present study, we reported the nesting biology and ecology of M. cephalotes for the first time in the arid zone of Punjab, Pakistan. Megachile cephalotes pursued their nesting activity in the spring and summer seasons (March to September) and hibernated in the autumn and winter seasons (October to February). Bamboo sticks and wooden blocks were the preferred nesting materials of M. cephalotes. Females constructed 7 to 8 brood cells in a single nest with a male-to-female brood ratio of 1:2.8. Males developed into adults earlier than females. Grewia asiatica was the major host plant for adults and broods. Future studies should investigate the effects of ecological and regional conditions on the voltinism of this bee and develop commercial rearing methods for crop pollination.

Author Contributions

W.A., A.S. and H.A.G. conceived the research. A.S. and H.A.G. designed the experiments. W.A., M.A. and K.A.K. collected and prepared the materials. W.A. and A.S. conducted experiments and collected data. A.S. supervised the experiments. A.S., H.A.G., M.A. and K.A.K. analyzed the data. W.A., A.S., M.A. and K.A.K. wrote the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The authors extend their appreciation to the Deanship of Scientific Research at King Khalid University, Saudi Arabia, for funding this work through the Large Groups Project under grant number RGP.2/28/43.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Available on demand.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

References

  1. Winfree, R.; Williams, N.M.; Gaines, H.; Ascher, J.S.; Kremen, C. Wild bee pollinators provide the majority of crop visitation across land-use gradients in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, USA. J. Appl. Ecol. 2008, 45, 793–802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Garantonakis, N.; Varikou, K.; Birouraki, A.; Edwards, M.; Kalliakaki, V.; Andrinopoulos, F. Comparing the pollination services of honey bees and wild bees in a watermelon field. Sci. Hortic. 2016, 204, 138–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. DeGrandi-Hoffman, G.; Watkins, J.C. The foraging activity of honey bees Apis mellifera and non-Apis bees on hybrid sunflowers (Helianthus annuus) and its influence on cross-pollination and seed set. J. Apic. Res. 2000, 39, 37–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Greenleaf, S.S.; Kremen, C. Wild bees enhance honey bees’ pollination of hybrid sunflower. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2006, 103, 13890–13895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Potts, S.G.; Imperatriz-Fonseca, V.; Ngo, H.T.; Biesmeijer, J.C.; Breeze, T.D.; Dicks, L.V.; Garibaldi, L.A.; Hill, R.; Settele, J.; Vanbergen, A.J. The Assessment Report on Pollinators, Pollination and Food Production: Summary for Policymakers; Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Bonn, Germany, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  6. Klein, A.M.; Boreuxa, V.; Fornoffa, F.; Mupepelea, A.C.; Pufal, G. Relevance of wild and managed bees for human well-being. Curr. Opin. Insect Sci. 2018, 26, 82–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Hallmann, C.; Sorg, M.; Jongejans, E.; Siepel, H.; Hofland, N.; Schwan, H.; Stenmans, W.; Ller, A.; Sumser, H.; Hörren, T.; et al. More than 75 percent decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0185809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Goulson, D.; Nicholls, E.; Botías, C.; Rotheray, E.L. Bee declines driven by combined stress from parasites, pesticides, and lack of flowers. Science 2015, 347, 1255957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Sánchez-Bayo, F.; Wyckhuys, K.A. Worldwide decline of the entomofauna: A review of its drivers. Biol. Conserv. 2019, 232, 8–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Soroye, P.; Newbold, T.; Kerr, J. Climate change contributes to widespread declines among bumble bees across continents. Science 2020, 367, 685–688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Gathmann, A.; Tscharntke, T. Foraging ranges of solitary bees. J. Anim. Ecol. 2002, 71, 757–764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Viana, B. Bee Diversity of the costal sand dunes of Brazil. In Pollinating Bees: The Conservation Link between Agriculture and Nature, Proceedings of the Workshop on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Pollinators in Agriculture, Sao Paulo, Brazil, October 1998; Ministry of Environment: Tokyo, Japan, 2002; pp. 135–153. [Google Scholar]
  13. Potts, S.G.; Vulliamy, B.; Roberts, S.; O’Toole, C.; Dafni, A.; Ne’eman, G.; Willmer, P. Role of nesting resources in organising diverse bee communities in a Mediterranean landscape. Ecol. Entomol. 2005, 30, 78–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Rauf, A.; Saeed, S.; Ali, M.; Tahir, M.H.N. Nest preference and ecology of cavity-nesting bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea) in Punjab, Pakistan. J. Asia Pac. Entomol. 2022, 25, 101907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Ascher, J.S.; Pickering, J. Discover Life Bee Species Guide and World Checklist (Hymenoptera: Apoidea: Anthophila). 2020. Available online: http://www.discoverlife.org/mp/20q?guide=Apoidea_species (accessed on 11 June 2022).
  16. Michener, C.D. The Bees of the World, 2nd ed.; Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, MD, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  17. Mitchell, T.B. A revision of the genus Megachile in the Nearctic region. Part I. Classification and description of new species (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae). Trans. Am. Entomol. Soc. 1934, 59, 295–361. [Google Scholar]
  18. Raw, A. New combinations and synonymies of leafcutter and mason bees of the Americas (Megachile, Hymenoptera, Megachilidae). Zootaxa 2002, 71, 1–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Silveira, F.A.; Melo, G.A.R.; Almeida, E.A.B. Abelhas Brasileiras: Sistematica e Identificacao. [Brazilian Bees: Systematics and Identification], 1st ed.; Fundacao Araucaria: Belo Horizonte, Brazil, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  20. Melo, G.A.R.; Parizotto, D. Three new species of Megachile (Chrysosarus) (Hymenoptera, Apidae, Megachilinae). In Ensaios sobre as Abelhas da Regiao Neotropical (Essays on the Bees of the Neotropical Region); Aguiar, A.J.C., Goncalves, R.B., Ramos, K., Eds.; Editora UFPR: Curitiba, Brazil, 2015; pp. 149–164. [Google Scholar]
  21. Cane, J.H.; Schiffhauer, D.; Kervin, L.J. Pollination, foraging, and nesting ecology of the leaf-cutting bee Megachile (Delomegachile) addenda (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae) on cranberry beds. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 1996, 89, 361–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Stubbs, C.S.; Drummond, F.A. Pollination of wild lowbush blueberry, Vaccinium angustifolium by the alfalfa leafcutting bee, Megachile rotundata. Int. Symp. Vaccinium Cult. 1996, 446, 189–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Hall, H.G.; Avila, L. Megachile sculpturalis, the giant resin bee, overcomes the blossom structure of sunn hemp (Crotalaria juncea) that impedes pollination. J. Melittology 2016, 65, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Singh, A.K. Pollinating efficiency of native bee pollinators of pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan) in Nagaland. Russ. J. Ecol. 2016, 47, 310–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Akram, W.; Sajjad, A.; Ali, S.; Farooqi, M.A.; Mujtaba, G.; Ali, M.; Ahmad, A. Pollination of Grewia asiatica (Malvaceae) by Megachile cephalotes (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae): Male vs. female pollination. Sociobiology 2019, 66, 467–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Akram, W.; Sajjad, A.; Ali, M.; Ahmad, A.; Ali, I.; Saddiq, B.; Yasin, M.; Aqueel, M.A. Comparative effectiveness of wild bee pollination on the post-harvest characteristics of Grewia asiatica (Malvaceae). J. Asia Pac. Entomol. 2022, 25, 101958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Kumar, V.; Kumaranag, K.M.; Uthappa, A.R.; Deb, D.; Srivastava, M.; Sridhar, K.B.; Handa, A.K. Wild bee pollination in Grewia flavescens Juss. Int. J. Trop. Insect Sci. 2021, 41, 1087–1093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Nelson, E.V.; Roberts, R.B.; Stephen, W.P. Rearing larvae of the leaf-cutter bee Megachile rotundata on artificial diets. J. Apic. Res. 1972, 11, 153–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Fichter, B.L.; Stephen, W.P.; Vandenberg, J.D. An aseptic technique for rearing larvae of the leafcutting bee Megachile rotundata (Hymenoptera, Megachilidae). J. Apic. Res. 1981, 20, 184–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Michener, C.D. The biology of the leafcutter bee (Megachile brevis) and its associates. Univ. Kans. Sci. Bull. 1953, 35, 1659–1748. [Google Scholar]
  31. Hobbs, G.A.; Lilly, C.E. Ecology of species on Megachile Latreille in the mixed prairie region of southern Alberta with special reference to pollination of alfalfa. Ecology 1954, 35, 453–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Chaudhary, J.P.; Jain, K.L. Nesting and foraging behaviour of a mason bee, Megachile lanata (Megachilidae: Hymenoptera). Indian J. Entomol. 1978, 40, 405–411. [Google Scholar]
  33. Serrano, D. A distributional checklist of the leaf-cutting bees (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae) of Florida. Insecta Mundi 2005, 19, 172–176. [Google Scholar]
  34. Krombein, K.V. Trap-Nesting Wasps and Bees: Life Histories and Nest Associates; Smithsonian Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1967. [Google Scholar]
  35. Klostermeyer, E.C.; Gerber, H.S. Nesting behavior of Megachile rotundata (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae) monitored with an event recorder. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 1969, 62, 1321–1325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. O’Toole, C.; Raw, A. Bees of the World; Blandford Press: London, UK, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  37. Michener, C.D. The Bees of the World; The Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, MD, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  38. Zillikens, A.; Steiner, J. Nest architecture, life cycle and cleptoparasite of the neotropical leaf-cutting bee Megachile (Chrysosarus) pseudanthidioides Moure (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae). J. Kans. Entomol. Soc. 2004, 77, 193–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Allasino, M.L.; Marrero, H.J.; Dorado, J.; Torretta, J.P. Scientific note: First global report of a bee nest built only with plastic. Apidologie 2019, 50, 230–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Wilson, J.S.; Jones, S.I.; McCleve, S.; Carril, O.M. Evidence of leaf-cutter bees using plastic flagging as nesting material. Matters 2020, 6, e202010000003. [Google Scholar]
  41. Quintos-Andrade, G.; Torres, F.; Vivyan, P. Observation of Megachile saulcyi (Guérin-Méneville, 1844) (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae) using plastic for nest construction in Chile. Rev. Chil. Entomol. 2021, 47, 201–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Armbrust, E.A. Resource use and nesting behavior of Megachile prosopidis and M. chilopsidis with notes on M. discorhina (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae). J. Kans. Entomol. Soc. 2004, 77, 89–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Ivanochko, M. Taxonomy, Biology and Alfalfa Pollinating Potential of Canadian Leaf-Cutter Bees-Genus Megachile Latreille (Hymenopter: Megachilidae). Master’s Thesis, McGill University, Quebec, QC, Canada, 1979. [Google Scholar]
  44. Villanueva-Gutierrez, R.; Roubik, D.W. Pollen sources of long-tongued solitary bees (Megachilidae) in the biosphere reserve of Quitana Roo, Mexico. In Solitary Bees: Conservation, Rearing a Management for Pollination; Imprensa Universitaria, Universidade Federal do Ceara: Fortaleza, Brazil, 2004; pp. 185–190. [Google Scholar]
  45. Raw, A. Leafcutter and Mason Bees: A Biological Catalogue of the Genus Megachile of the Neotropics. 2004. Available online: www.webbee.org.br (accessed on 11 July 2022).
  46. Cardoso, F.C.; Silveira, F.A. Nesting biology of two species of Megachile (Moureapis) (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae) in a semideciduous forest reserve in southeastern Brazil. Apidologie 2012, 43, 71–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Alvarez, L.J.; Lucia, M.; Aquino, D.A.; Ramello, P.J.; Abrahamovich, A.H. Nesting biology and associated insect enemies of the exotic leaf cutter bee Megachile (Eutricharaea) concinna (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae) in Argentina. J. Apic. Res. 2015, 54, 305–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Kumar, L.; Khan, M.S.; Srivastava, P. Nesting behaviour of leafcutter bee, Megachile albifrons at Pantnagar: Internal structure of nest and immature stages of larvae. J. Insect Sci. 2015, 28, 312–316. [Google Scholar]
  49. Filho, L.C.R.; Garófalo, C.A. Nesting biology of Megachile (Chrysosarus) guaranitica and high mortality caused by its cleptoparasite Coelioxys bertonii (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae) in Brazil. Aust. Entomol. 2016, 55, 25–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Sabino, W.D.O.; Antonini, Y. Nest architecture, life cycle, and natural enemies of the neotropical leafcutting bee Megachile (Moureapis) maculata (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae) in a montane forest. Apidologie 2017, 48, 450–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Marinho, D.; Muniz, D.B.; Azevedo, G.G. Nesting biology of three Megachile (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae) species from Eastern Amazonia, Brazil. Rev. Bras. Entomol. 2018, 62, 97–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Kunjwal, N.; Khan, M.S.; Srivastava, P. Nesting biology of Megachile (Eutricharea) studiosa Bingham, a leafcutter bee. J. Apic. Res. 2019, 60, 491–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. dos Santos, A.A.; Parizotto, D.; Schlindwein, C.; Martins, C.F. Nesting biology and flower preferences of Megachile (Sayapis) zaptlana. J. Apic. Res. 2020, 59, 609–625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Gupta, R.K.; Naval, R.K.; Charan, S.K.; Rajpurohit, A. Nesting biology of Megachile (Callomegachile) cephalotes Smith, a solitary bee that nests in castor sticks (Hymenoptera, Megachilidae). Mellifera 2004, 4, 53–64. [Google Scholar]
  55. Kunjwal, N.; Khan, M.S.; Srivastava, P. Observations on nesting behaviour and nest structure of the resin bee, Megachile inepta Cameron (Megachilidae: Hymenoptera). Bioscan 2016, 11, 837–840. [Google Scholar]
  56. Kunjwal, N.; Khan, M.S.; Srivastava, P. Observations on nesting behaviour and nest structure of the resin bee Megachile lanata Fabricius (Megachilidae: Hymenoptera). Trends Biosci. 2016, 9, 220–224. [Google Scholar]
  57. Prendergast, K.S. Nesting biology of ‘Megachile ignita’ Smith, 1853 (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae) in artificial nesting blocks in urbanised southwestern Australia. Aust. Entomol. 2018, 45, 139–148. [Google Scholar]
  58. MacIvor, J.S. Cavity-nest boxes for solitary bees: A century of design and research. Apidologie 2017, 48, 311–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Costa, C.C.F.D.; Gonçalves, R.B. What do we know about Neotropical trap-nesting bees? Synopsis about their nest biology and taxonomy. Pap. Avulsos Zool. 2019, 59, e20195926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Clement, S.L.; Rust, R.W. Nesting biology of three species of Hoplitis Klug (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae). Pan-Pac. Entomol. 1976, 52, 110–119. [Google Scholar]
  61. Parker, F.D. New Proteriades reared from trap systems, its biology and nest associates (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae). Pan-Pac. Entomol. 1976, 52, 73–80. [Google Scholar]
  62. Tasei, J.N. Pollen collection and nest provisioning by Osmia caerulescens (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae). Apidologie 1976, 7, 277–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Evans, H.E.; Matthews, R.W.; Hook, A. Notes on the nests and prey of six species of Pison in Australia (Hymenoptera: Sphecidae). Psyche 1980, 87, 221–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Torchio, P.F. Use of Osmia lignaria Say (Hymenoptera: Apoidea, Megachilidae) as a pollinator in an apple and prune orchard. J. Kans. Entomol. Soc. 1976, 49, 475–482. [Google Scholar]
  65. Steffan-Dewenter, I.; Schiele, S. Do resources or natural enemies drive bee population dynamics in fragmented habitats. Ecology 2008, 89, 1375–1387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Frankie, G.V.; Newstrom, L.; Vinson, S.B.; Barthell, J.F. Nesting-habitat preferences of selected Centris bee species in Costa Rican dry forest. Biotropica 1993, 25, 322–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Frankie, G.W.; Thorp, R.W.; Newstrom-Lloyd, L.E.; Rizzardi, M.A.; Barthell, J.F.; Griswold, T.L.; Kim, J.Y.; Kappagoda, S. Monitoring solitary bees in modified wildland habitats: Implications for bee ecology and conservation. Environ. Entomol. 1998, 27, 1137–1148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Tscharntke, T.; Gathmann, A.; Steffan-Dewenter, I. Bioindication using trap-nesting bees and wasps and their natural enemies: Community structure and interactions. J. Appl. Ecol. 1998, 35, 708–719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. MacIvor, J.S.; Packer, L. “Bee hotels” as tools for native pollinator conservation: A premature verdict? PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0122126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Steffan-Dewenter, I. Importance of habitat area and landscape context for species richness of bees and wasps in fragmented orchard meadows. Conserv. Biol. 2003, 17, 1036–1044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Albrecht, M.; Duelli, P.; Schmid, B.; Müller, C.B. Interaction diversity within quantified insect food webs in restored and adjacent intensively managed meadows. J. Anim. Ecol. 2007, 76, 1015–1025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Tylianakis, J.M.; Tscharntke, T.; Lewis, O.T. Habitat modification alters the structure of tropical host-parasitoid food webs. Nature 2007, 445, 202–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Staab, M.; Pufal, G.; Tscharntke, T.; Klein, A.M. Trap nests for bees and wasps to analyse trophic interactions in changing environments-A systematic overview and user guide. Methods Ecol. Evol. 2018, 9, 2226–2239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Ullah, W.; Ghias, U.; Bina, S.S. Ethnic uses, pharmacological and phytochemical profile of genus Grewia. J. Asian Nat. Prod. Res. 2012, 14, 186–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Devi, J.; Bakshi, P.; Wali, V.K.; Bhat, A.; Bhat, D.J. Cost and return analysis of phalsa (Grewia asiatica L.) propagation by semi-hard wood cuttings. Econ. Aff. 2015, 60, 131–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Sajjad, A.; Ali, M.; Saeed, S. Yearlong association of Apis dorsata and Apis florea with flowering plants: Planted forest vs. agricultural landscape. Sociobiology 2017, 64, 18–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  77. Ahmad, A.; Khan, M.R.; Shah, S.H.H.; Kamran, M.A.; Wajid, S.A.; Amin, M.; Khan, A.; Arshad, M.N.; Cheema, M.J.M.; Saqib, Z.A.; et al. Agro-Ecological Zones of Punjab, Pakistan; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2019; Available online: https://www.fao.org/3/ca6938en/ca6938en.pdf (accessed on 8 June 2022).
  78. Beattie, A.J. A technique for the study of insect-borne pollen. Pan-Pac. Entomol. 1971, 47, 82. [Google Scholar]
  79. Kearns, C.A.; Inouye, D.W. Techniques for Pollination Biologists; University of Colorado Press: Niwot, CO, USA, 1984. [Google Scholar]
  80. Holzschuh, A.; Steffan-Dewenter, I.; Kleijn, D.; Tscharntke, T. Diversity of flower visiting bees in cereal fields: Effects of farming system, landscape composition and regional context. J. Appl. Ecol. 2007, 44, 41–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Rubene, D.; Schroeder, M.; Ranius, T. Diversity patterns of wild bees and wasps in managed boreal forests: Effects of spatial structure, local habitat and surrounding landscape. Biol. Conserv. 2015, 184, 201–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Winfree, R. The conservation and restoration of wild bees. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2010, 1195, 169–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Senapathi, D.; Goddard, M.A.; Kunin, W.E.; Baldock, K.C.R.; Wright, G. Landscape impacts on pollinator communities in temperate systems: Evidence and knowledge gaps. Funct. Ecol. 2017, 31, 26–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  84. Bogusch, P.; Horák, J. Saproxylic bees and wasps. In Saproxylic Insects; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; pp. 217–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Kumari, P.; Kumar, N.R. Studies on Megachile Latreille subgenus Callomegachile Michener (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae) from Chandigarh and Haryana plains, India. Zootaxa 2014, 3814, 591–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  86. Kunjwal, N.; Khan, M.S.; Srivastava, P. Species Richness and Seasonal Activity of the Leaf Cutter and Resin Bees (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae) at Pantnagar. Int. J. Sci. Res. 2016, 5, 972–977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Krunic, M.D. Voltinism in Megachile rotundata (Megachilidae: Hymenoptera) in Southern Alberts. Canadian Entomol. 1972, 104, 185–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Hobbs, G.A.; Richards, K.W. Selection for a univoltine strain of Megachile (Eutricharaea) pacifica (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae). Can. Entomol. 1976, 108, 165–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Stephen, W.P. Solitary bees in North American agriculture: A perspective. In For Nonnative Crops, Whence Pollinators of the Future? Cane, J.H., Strickler, K., Eds.; Entomological Society of America: Lanham, MD, USA, 2003; pp. 41–66. [Google Scholar]
  90. Pitts-Singer, T.L.; Cane, J.H. The alfalfa leafcutting bee, Megachile rotundata: The world’s most intensively managed solitary bee. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2011, 56, 221–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  91. Torretta, J.P.; Durante, S.P.; Colombo, M.G.; Basilio, A.M. Nesting biology of the leafcutting bee Megachile (Pseudocentron) gomphrenoides (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae) in an agro-ecosystem. Apidologie 2012, 43, 624–633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  92. Neff, J.L. Megachile sculpturalis, a Novel Host for the Cuckoo Bee Stelis costalis (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae). J. Kans. Entomol. Soc. 2021, 93, 349–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Chatthanabun, N.; Ascher, J.S.; Pinkaew, N.; Thanoosing, C.; Traiyasut, P.; Warrit, N. Resin bees of genus Megachile, subgenera Callomegachile and Carinula (Hymenoptera, Megachilidae) from Thailand with description of a new species. ZooKeys 2020, 997, 95–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Mabry, T.J.; Hunziker, J.H.; DiFeo, D.R., Jr. Creosote Bush: Biology and Chemistry of Larrea in New World Deserts; U.S./IBP Synthesis; Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross: Stroudsburg, PA, USA, 1977. [Google Scholar]
  95. Messer, A.C. Fresh dipterocarp resins gathered by megachild bees inhibit growth of pollen-associated fungi. Biotropica 1985, 17, 175–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Wilson, M.B.; Spivak, M.; Hegeman, A.D.; Rendahl, A.; Cohen, J.D. Metabolomics reveals the origins of antimicrobial plant resins collected by honey bees. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e77512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  97. Drescher, N.; Wallace, H.M.; Katouli, M.; Massaro, C.F.; Leonhardt, S.D. Diversity matters: How bees benefit from different resin sources. Oecologia 2014, 176, 943–953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Shanahan, M.; Spivak, M. Resin use by stingless bees: A review. Insects 2021, 12, 719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. Chui, S.X.; Keller, A.; Leonhardt, S.D. Functional resin use in solitary bees. Ecol. Entomol. 2022, 47, 115–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Straffon-Díaz, S.; Carisio, L.; Manino, A.; Biella, P.; Porporato, M. Nesting, sex ratio and natural enemies of the giant resin bee in relation to native species in Europe. Insects 2021, 12, 545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  101. Roulston, T.A.H.; Goodell, K. The role of resources and risks in regulating wild bee populations. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2011, 56, 293–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  102. Gruber, B.; Eckel, K.; Everaars, J.; Dormann, C.F. On managing the red mason bee (Osmia bicornis) in apple orchards. Apidologie 2011, 42, 564–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  103. Seidelmann, K. Open-cell parasitism shapes maternal investment patterns in the Red Mason bee Osmia rufa. Behav. Ecol. 2006, 17, 839–848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Paini, D.R.; Bailey, W.J. Seasonal sex ratio and unbalanced investment sex ratio in the Banksia bee Hylaeus alcyoneus. Ecol. Entomol. 2002, 27, 713–719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Peterson, J.H.; Roitberg, B.D. Impacts of flight distance on sex ratio and resource allocation to offspring in the leafcutter bee, Megachile rotundata. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 2006, 59, 589–596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Kunjwal, N.; Khan, M.S.; Kumar, G.; Srivastava, P. Notes on the nesting ecology of the Megachile bees from North India. J. Apic. Res. 2020, 60, 807–816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Zia-Ul-Haq, M.; Stanković, M.S.; Rizwan, K.; De Feo, V. Grewia asiatica L., a food plant with multiple uses. Molecules 2013, 18, 2663–2682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Wojcik, V. Pollinators: Their evolution, ecology, management, and conservation. In Arthropods: Are They Beneficial for Mankind? Ranz, R.E.R., Ed.; Intechopen: London, UK, 2021; pp. 1–22. [Google Scholar]
  109. Inouye, D.W.; Pyke, G.H. Pollination biology in the Snowy Mountains of Australia: Comparisons with montane Colorado, USA. Austral Ecol. 1988, 13, 191–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Dyer, J.H. Specialized supplier networks as a source of competitive advantage: Evidence from the auto industry. Strateg. Manag. J. 1996, 17, 271–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Willmer, P. Pollination and Floral Ecology; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  112. Koski, M.H.; Ashman, T.L. Macroevolutionary patterns of ultraviolet floral pigmentation explained by geography and associated bioclimatic factors. New Phytol. 2016, 211, 708–718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  113. Iwata, K. Evolution of Instinct: Comparative Ethology of Hymenoptera; Amerind Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd.: New Delhi, India, 1976. [Google Scholar]
  114. Scott, V.L.; Kelley, S.T.; Strickler, K. Reproductive biology of two Coelioxys cleptoparasites in relation to their Megachile hosts (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae). Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 2000, 93, 941–948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  115. Rozen, J.G., Jr.; Kamel, S.M. Investigations on the Biologies and Immature Stages of the Cleptoparasitic Bee Genera Radoszkowskiana and Coelioxys and Their Megachile Hosts (Hymenoptera: Apoidea: Megachilidae: Megachilini). Am. Mus. Novit. 2007, 1–43. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/2246/5863 (accessed on 16 June 2022).
  116. O’Neill, K.M.; O’Neill, J.F. Brood parasitism of the resin bee Megachile campanulae (Robertson) by Coelioxys modesta Smith (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae). J. Kans. Entomol. Soc. 2016, 89, 117–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Prendergast, K.S. New records of bee fly (Diptera: Bombyliidae) and mite (Acari: Pyemotidae) parasites of Australian ‘Megachile’ bees (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae) in Western Australia. Aust. Entomol. 2018, 45, 51–56. [Google Scholar]
  118. Soh, Z.W.W.; Chua, J.L.E.; How, T.K.; Ascher, J.S. Host associations of the Sunda chilli-tail bee, Euaspis polynesia, in Singapore. Singapore Biodivers. Rec. 2020, 22, 201–203. [Google Scholar]
Insects 13 01058 g001 550
Figure 1. X-ray photographs showing four nests of Megachile cephalotes. Nest entrance is at the left.
Figure 1. X-ray photographs showing four nests of Megachile cephalotes. Nest entrance is at the left.
Insects 13 01058 g001
Insects 13 01058 g002 550
Figure 2. Number of occupied nests of Megachile cephalotes at three different sites from January to December 2020.
Figure 2. Number of occupied nests of Megachile cephalotes at three different sites from January to December 2020.
Insects 13 01058 g002
Insects 13 01058 g003 550
Figure 3. Emergence of male and female Megachile cephalotes from January 2020 to May 2021.
Figure 3. Emergence of male and female Megachile cephalotes from January 2020 to May 2021.
Insects 13 01058 g003
Insects 13 01058 g004 550
Figure 4. Total emergence of male and female Megachile cephalotes in spring and summer seasons from January 2020 to May 2021.
Figure 4. Total emergence of male and female Megachile cephalotes in spring and summer seasons from January 2020 to May 2021.
Insects 13 01058 g004
Insects 13 01058 g005 550
Figure 5. Samples of wooden plates consisted of Megachile cephalotes larval, pre-pupal, and pupal stages.
Figure 5. Samples of wooden plates consisted of Megachile cephalotes larval, pre-pupal, and pupal stages.
Insects 13 01058 g005
Insects 13 01058 g006 550
Figure 6. Parasitoids of Megachile cephalotes (a) Euaspis carbonaria, (b) Coelioxys sp., and (c) Anthrax sp.
Figure 6. Parasitoids of Megachile cephalotes (a) Euaspis carbonaria, (b) Coelioxys sp., and (c) Anthrax sp.
Insects 13 01058 g006
Table
Table 1. Nest measurements of Megachile cephalotes-occupied nests.
Table 1. Nest measurements of Megachile cephalotes-occupied nests.
Nest 1Nest 2Nest 3Nest 4Nest 5
Nest length (cm)161515.51616
Nest diameter (mm)77777
Nest closureMudMudAnimal dungAnimal dungMud
Number of cells88787
Vestibular cell length (cm)1.5221.42.5
Cell length (cm)
1st1.71.81.652.11.8
2nd1.21.61.71.51.65
3rd1.91.51.71.71.3
4th1.91.81.51.51.5
5th1.722.31.61.6
6th1.31.31.51.41.4
7th1.251.21.31.61.4
8th1.61.2-1.6-
Table
Table 2. Mean development days required for male and female Megachile cephalotes.
Table 2. Mean development days required for male and female Megachile cephalotes.
SexMeans ± SEt-Criticalt-Criticaldfp-Value
Male65.30 ± 3.671.98032.09361180.0384
Female74.78 ± 2.69
Table
Table 3. Sex ratio of Megachile cephalotes that emerged from nests in CIDS, ERF, and FC.
Table 3. Sex ratio of Megachile cephalotes that emerged from nests in CIDS, ERF, and FC.
LocationsM:FSex RatioChi-Squarep-Value
CIDS254:5681:2.0119.946<0.0001
ERF44:1211:2.835.933<0.0001
FC118:3331:2.8102.494<0.0001
Table
Table 4. Percentage of pollen types used by Megachile cephalotes.
Table 4. Percentage of pollen types used by Megachile cephalotes.
No. of Brood CellsAlhagi graecorumGrewia asiaticaParkinsonia aculeataRosa indicaProsopis julifloraCajanus cajan
131.2263.751.94-3.09-
2-98.67--1.33-
365.5421.87---12.59
4-19.4479.05-1.51-
5--98.910.450.64-
612.7682.115.13---
772.128.4711.651.17-6.59
80.6799.33----
912.6886.910.350.06--
1092.396.81-0.8--
1136.1962.910.75--0.15
1215.9784.03----
1384.91---7.337.76
14-97.05-0.25-2.7
1510.11-89.73--0.16
Table
Table 5. Floral host plants visited by Megachile cephalotes.
Table 5. Floral host plants visited by Megachile cephalotes.
PlantsFamilyHabitFlower Type and ColorFloral RewardAbundance of M. cephalotesPercent Proportion
Alhagi graecorumFabaceaeH, pZ, piN, P2122.58
Grewia asiaticaMalvaceaeS, dA, yN, P4750.54
Parkinsonia aculeataFabaceaeT, pA, yN, P1212.9
Rosa indicaRosaceaedA, wN11.08
Prosopis julifloraFabaceaeS, e, pA, yN, P33.23
Cajanus cajanFabaceaeS, pZ, yN, P99.68
Column 3: H = herb, S = shrub, T = tree, p = perennial, d = deciduous e = evergreen; Column 4: Z = zygomorphic, A = actinomorphic, pi = pink, y = yellow, w = white; Column 5: N = nectar, P = pollen.
Table
Table 6. Resin-producing plants visited by Megachile cephalotes.
Table 6. Resin-producing plants visited by Megachile cephalotes.
PlantsFamilyHabit
Acacia niloticaFabaceaeT, E
Prosopis julifloraFabaceaeS, P
Moringa oleiferaMoringaceaeT, P, D
Column 3: T = tree, S = shrub, E = evergreen, P = perennial, D = deciduous.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Akram, W.; Sajjad, A.; Ghramh, H.A.; Ali, M.; Khan, K.A. Nesting Biology and Ecology of a Resin Bee, Megachile cephalotes (Megachilidae: Hymenoptera). Insects 2022, 13, 1058. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects13111058

AMA Style

Akram W, Sajjad A, Ghramh HA, Ali M, Khan KA. Nesting Biology and Ecology of a Resin Bee, Megachile cephalotes (Megachilidae: Hymenoptera). Insects. 2022; 13(11):1058. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects13111058

Chicago/Turabian Style

Akram, Waseem, Asif Sajjad, Hamed A. Ghramh, Mudssar Ali, and Khalid Ali Khan. 2022. "Nesting Biology and Ecology of a Resin Bee, Megachile cephalotes (Megachilidae: Hymenoptera)" Insects 13, no. 11: 1058. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects13111058

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop