Skip to main content

Table 2 Country, place of installation, maximum occupation rate, type and number of attracted species, materials used in the construction, volume (L), entrance (cm), and key results of studies that have used nest boxes to attract or trap bees

From: How effective are artificial nests in attracting bees? A review

Reference

Country

Place

Occupation rate

Species

Material

Volume

Entrance

Key results

(Barron et al., 2000)

New Zealand

Farm

13%

Bumblebee

Wood

-

2.5

In the intensive farms, occupation was lower than less disturbed sites.

(Inoue et al., 1993)

Indonesia

Forest

6%

Trigona minangkabau

Wood

0.7, 2

-

Arboreal ants occupied one-half of artificial nest sites.

(Coelho and Sullivan, 1994)

USA

Forest

30%

Honeybee

Wood

-

6

The nest boxes were not attractive to bees while the entrances were open.

(Prange and Nelson, 2007)

USA

Forest

10%

Honeybee

Wood

6.7

3.1

Our observations supported the theory that minimum acceptable cavity volume varies geographically.

(Oliveira et al., 2013)

Brazil

Forest

10. 2%

9 Stingless bees

Cardboard, Plastic

0.5, 1, 2, 3

-

Most swarms chose the largest container (3 L).

(Veiga et al., 2013)

Kenya

Forest

31%

Native bee

Wood

3, 7, 15

0.45

Bees were more abundant in forest boxes than savannas.

(Silva et al., 2014)

Brazil

Forest

0.035%

Honeybee and 5 Meliponini

Plastic

1, 2, 3

-

The present study suggests the existence of a minimum volume threshold of approximately 1 L for most local species of stingless bees.

(Efstathion et al., 2015)

Brazil

Forest

51%

Tetragonisca sp, Honeybee

Wood

2.7

2.5

Trap boxes may be effective at reducing the number of bird nest boxes colonized by invasive Africanized honeybees and wasps.

(Le Roux et al., 2016)

Australia

Forest

12.5%

Honeybee

-

-

2, 3, 5.5, 9.5, 11.5

Nest boxes with small (20 and 35 mm), intermediate (55 and 75 mm), and large (95 and 115 mm) entrance sizes were predominately occupied by Apis mellifera.

(Arena et al., 2018b)

Brazil

Forest

5.5%

Scaptotrigona postica

Plastic

3

2.5

We suggest reducing the diameter of the PVC pipes (nest entrances).

(Arena et al., 2018a)

Brazil

Forest

5.5%

Stingless bee

Plastic

3

2.5

Bees showed a preference for occupying artificial shelters that were located in the patches’ cores.

(Guimaraes-Brasil et al., 2020)

Brazil

Forest

6%

Apidae, Megachilidae

Wood

1.5, 6

1,2

Only nest boxes with a volume of 1.5 L were occupied.

(Berris and Barth, 2020)

Australia

Forest

24%

Honeybee

Wood, PVC

-

-

Feral honeybees were less likely to occupy nest boxes made of PVC (5%).

(Gaston et al., 2005)

UK

Urban

0%

Bumblebee

Wood

-

2

No bumblebee nest sites of any of the three designs.

(Lye et al., 2011)

UK

Urban

3.1%

Bumblebee

Wood

6

2, 12, 20

Attempts to use domiciles for conservation or research in the UK are likely to be ineffective.

(Johnson et al., 2019)

Canada

Urban

13.3%

Bumblebee

Wood

3, 6

2

The majority of sites had at least one domicile occupied.