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.