Behavioral responses of the small hive beetle,Aethina tumida,to odors of three meliponine bee species and honey bees,Apis mellifera scutellata

Recent studies have shown that honey bees, bumble bees, and some meliponine bee species of the genera Trigona, Meliponula, and Dactylurina are hosts of the small hive beetle (SHB) Aethina tumidaMurray (Coleoptera: Nitidulidae), a pest of honey bee colonies in various regions of the world. Olfaction has been implicated in SHB infestations of honey bee and bumble bee colonies. We used olfactometer bioassays to investigate responses of adult male and female SHBs to odors from intact colonies and separate hive components (pot honey, pot pollen, cerumen, and propolis) of three African meliponine bee species, Meliponula ferruginea (Lepeletier) (black morphospecies), M. ferruginea (reddish brown morphospecies), and Meliponula bocandei (Spinola) (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Although both sexes of the beetle strongly preferred intact colony, pot honey, and pot pollen odors, there was no evidence of attraction to propolis and cerumen odors from the three meliponine bee species. Both sexes of SHB also strongly preferred odors from honey bees, Apis mellifera L. (Hymenoptera: Apidae), over odors from the three meliponine bee species. Our results provide substantial evidence of the host potential of African meliponine bees for the SHB, and we discuss this complex association of the SHB with species within the Apidae family.     

Chimpanzees in Bwindi-Impenetrable National Park, Uganda, use different tools to obtain different types of honey

Evidence of tool use for foraging for honey by chimpanzees in Bwindi-Impenetrable National Park, Uganda, is reported. These are the first records of tool use by chimpanzees in this region of the Albertine Rift. Tools of two types were found at sites of bee activity. Chimpanzees apparently use small stick tools to forage for the honey of a stingless bee [Meliponula bocandei (Trigonidae)] that nests in tree cavities and also in subterranean holes. They use significantly larger, thicker tools to assist in foraging for honey of African honeybees (Apis mellifera).     

Honey‐Making Bee Colony Abundance and Predation by Apes and Humans in a Uganda Forest Reserve1

Honey‐making bee colonies in Bwindi Impenetrable National Park were investigated with Batwa Pygmies locating 228 nests of Apis and five stingless bees (Meliponini). The relative importance of predation, food supply, nesting site, and elevation affecting abundance were studied for meliponines in particular. Nest predation and overall nest abundance had no correlation with elevation along a 1400 m gradient, nor did flowering phenology or pollen collection. Many suitable, large trees were unoccupied by bee nests. In 174 ha of forest plots, 2 Meliponula lendliana, 13 M. nebulata, 16 M. ferruginea, 16 M. bocandei, and 20 Apis mellifera adansonii nests occurred, suggesting a habitat‐wide density of 39 nests/km². Compared to other studies, Ugandan Meliponini were uncommon (0.27 colonies/ha, tropical mean = 1.9/ha), while Apis mellifera was numerous (0.12 nests/ha, tropical mean = 0.06/ha), despite park policy allowing humans to exploit Apis. Meliponine colony mortality from predators averaged 12 percent/yr and those near ground were most affected. Tool‐using humans and chimpanzees caused 82 percent of stingless bee nest predation. Selective factors affecting nest heights and habit may include auditory hunting by predators for buzzing bees, and indirect mutualists such as termites that leave potential nesting cavities. Mobility and free‐nesting by honey bee colonies should enable rapid community recovery after mortality, especially in parks where human honey hunting is frequent, compared to sedentary and nest‐site‐bound Meliponini.     

Temporal resource partitioning and climatological influences on colony flight and foraging of stingless bees (Apidae; Meliponini) in Ugandan tropical forests

We studied the flight activity of two stingless bee species (Meliponula ferruginea and Meliponula nebulata) and the environmental factors influencing their flight. Two morphs of M. ferruginea were studied: M. ferruginea (brown) in Budongo forest and M. ferruginea (black) in Bwindi Park. The two bee species exited their nests in characteristically distinct foraging bouts suggesting that the recruitment methods used may be direct leading or ‘piloting’. The number of individuals in a returning bout was less than that in an exiting bout suggesting recruits do not follow experienced foragers the whole distance to food source, a phenomenon referred to as ‘partial piloting’. Flight period of M. ferruginea (black) and M. nebulata in Bwindi was restricted to a few hours each day. Meliponula nebulata foraged in the drizzle; a survival strategy, which could promote its reproductive fitness. Nectar and pollen foraging took place throughout the day while the removal of debris was greater in the late hours of the morning. Increased temperature resulted in significant increase in number of exiting bees. There was increase in number of exiting bees with decrease in humidity up to an optimal of 78% thereafter, increase in humidity resulted in reduced number of exiting bees.     

Pollen diets and niche overlap of honey bees and native bees in protected areas

The decline of both managed and wild bee populations has been extensively reported for over a decade now, with growing concerns amongst the scientific community. Also, evidence is growing that both managed and feral honey bees may exacerbate threats to wild bees. In Australia, there are over 1600 native bee species and introduced European honey bees (Apis mellifera) have established throughout most landscapes. There is a major gap in knowledge of the interactions between honey bees and native bees in Australian landscapes, especially floral resource use.Here we report on the pollen diets of wild bees in protected areas of coastal heathland, an ecosystem characterised by mass flowering in late winter and spring. We sampled bees within three sites and DNA metabarcoding was used to compare the pollen diets of honey bees and native bees. We recorded 2, 772 bees in total, with 13 genera and 18 described species identified. Apis mellifera was the most common species across all locations, accounting for 42% of all bees collected. Native bee genera included eusocial Tetragonula (stingless bees) (37%), and semi-social Exoneura and Braunsapis (19.8% combined). Metabarcoding data revealed both Tetragonula and honey bees have wide foraging patterns, and the bipartite network overall was highly generalised (H₂’ = 0.24). Individual honey bees carried pollen of 7–29 plant species, and significantly more species than all other bees. We found niche overlap in the diets of honey bees and native bees generally (0.42), and strongest overlap with stingless bees (0.70) and species of Braunsapis (0.62). A surprising finding was that many species carried pollen from Restionaceae and Cyperaceae, families generally considered to be predominantly wind-pollinated in Australia. Our study showed introduced honey bee use of resources overlaps with that of native bees in protected heathlands, but there are clear differences in their diet preferences.     

PVC nest boxes are less at risk of occupancy by feral honey bees than timber nest boxes and natural hollows

Feral European Honey Bee (Apis mellifera) has been identified as a potential nest competitor for Australian hollow nesting species, but few studies have investigated the impact of feral honey bee competition on Threatened species. Our study used data from Glossy Black‐cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus lathami halmaturinus) nests on Kangaroo Island, monitored and managed over an 11‐year period, and found 12% of nests became occupied by feral honey bees during that period. Our results indicate that feral honey bees were less likely to occupy nest boxes made of PVC (5%) compared with wooden nest boxes (24%) or natural hollows in Eucalyptus trees (14%). The removal of feral honey bee hives from nests is a priority for long‐term conservation of glossy black‐cockatoos on Kangaroo Island. We recommend that PVC nest boxes are chosen for future nesting habitat restoration, due to the more frequent use of wooden nest boxes by feral honey bees.     

Review of bees as guests in termite nests,with a new record of the communal bee, <Emphasis Type="Italic">Gaesochira obscura</Emphasis> (Smith, 1879) (Hymenoptera,Apidae), in nests of <Emphasis Type="Italic">Anoplotermes banksi</Emphasis> Emerson, 1925 (Isoptera,Termitidae, Apicotermitinae)

Associations between bees and termites are documented infrequently, but records are available for bee species ranging in behavior from solitary to highly eusocial. The subtribe Meliponina (stingless bees) is the most common bee group reported in termite nests, and, for some species, the occupancy of termite nests may be obligatory. The records of solitary bees nesting within termite nests include species of the tribes Emphorini, Centridini, Megachilini, and Paracolletini. Most of these bees can probably nest in other substrates, and their relationships with termite nests are presumably opportunistic. This study provides a review of published records of bees as guests in termite nests, and also describes the aggregation of nests of Gaesochira obscura within one nest of Anoplotermes banksi in Brazilian Amazonia. One termite nest contained at least ten nest entrances of G. obscura, with burrows 4–6 mm in diameter and about 10 cm long. Each burrow ended in brood cells in different stages of food provisioning and larval development. As commonly reported for other associations of this nature, there was no connection between the tunnels of bees and those of termites. This record adds important data on the biology of A. banksi. Because this is a single record, it is impossible to classify G. obscura either as a termitophile or termitariophile; this species may be opportunistic in relation to nesting substrate.     

Exploitation of underground bee nests by three sympatric consumers in Loango National Park,Gabon

Honey represents a highly nutritious resource for animals, but is difficult to obtain given bees' defensive strategies. We investigated exploitation of the underground nests of stingless bees (Meliplebeia lendliana) by three sympatric consumers in Loango National Park, Gabon: the central African chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes troglodytes), forest elephant (Loxodonta cyclotis) and honey badger (Mellivora capensis). Given the differences in their respective morphological traits and sensory abilities, we hypothesized that chimpanzees would be more limited in digging out the bee nests, compared to the other two competitors, and would show behavioral strategies to overcome such constraints. Our dataset comprised camera trap footage recorded over 60 mo at 100 different bee nests. Chimpanzees visited the nests more often than the other consumers, showing a frequency of extraction success comparable to that observed in honey badgers, the most efficient digger. Both chimpanzees and honey badgers increased their extractive attempts across the dry season, whereas elephants did not. The soil hardness was greater during the dry season than the wet season and, possibly in order to compensate for this, chimpanzees showed a tendency toward digging at nests found in relatively softer soil. They also seemed to be inhibited by indirect cues left by other consumers, possibly as a risk‐avoidance strategy. Overall, chimpanzees and honey badgers extracted the underground nests of stingless bees with similar frequencies, whilst forest elephants did so only occasionally. Moreover, chimpanzees can use tools and other behavioral strategies to overcome the physical limitations that may constrain their exploitation of this resource.     

Pollination of strawberry by the stingless bee,Trigona minangkabau,and the honey bee,Apis mellifera: An experimental study of fertilization efficiency

To know basic information about the stingless bee, Trigona minangkabau, and the European honey bee, Apis mellifera, as pollinator of strawberry, we set three greenhouse areas: the honey bee introduced area, the stingless bee introduced area and the control area. Foraging and pollination efficiencies of the two bee species were studied comparatively. During the experimental period (10 days), the stingless bee foraged well and the nest weight did not change, though the honey bee often foraged inefficiently and the nest weight decreased by 2 kg. The average nectar volume of a flower was lower in the honey bee area (0.02 μl) and nearly the same in the other two areas (0.1 μl). We make a numerical model to describe pollination and fertilization process. This model shows that one visit of the honey bee pollinated 11% of achenes and one visit of the stingless bee did 4.7% on average and that 11 visits of the honey bee or 30 visits of the stingless bee are required per flower to attain normal berry (fertilization rate, 87%). In this study, the rate of deformed berries in the stingless bee area (73%) was lower than that of the control area (90%), but higher than that of the honey bee area (51%). From our numerical model, we conclude the stingless bee could pollinate strawberry as well as the honey bee if we introduced 1.8 times of bees used in this experiment.     

Influence of functional traits on foraging behaviour and pollination efficiency of wild social and solitary bees visiting coffee (Coffea canephora) flowers in Uganda

An on-farm pollination experiment was conducted during the June–August and November–February blooming seasons of 2007 to 2008, in 30 small-scale coffee fields characterised by different habitat and vegetation types. The study was conducted in order to determine the best pollinator groups for coffee in Uganda and to collect relevant field information and determine the pollination efficiency of different bee species. Results indicate that across blooming seasons, coffee flowers were visited by 24–36 bee species. Hypotrigona gribodoi was the most frequent flower visitor, comprising over 60% of 5941 bee-visits recorded. Foraging rate and pollination speed varied among bee species. Solitary bees foraged on more flowers than social bees, but they spent less time per flower visited. Solitary bees visited more coffee trees and fields, but deposited less pollen, whereas social bees visited less trees and coffee fields in the landscape, but deposited more pollen on flowers. Fruit set was of 87%, 64% and 0.9%, respectively, in hand-cross pollination, open pollination and controlled-pollination treatments. Fruit abortion due to self-pollination was insignificant in this study. There was variability in pollination efficiency of different bee species. Pollination efficiency varied more significantly with sociality than with other bee functional traits and was not significantly influenced by tongue length and bee body size. Single-flower visits by social and solitary bees resulted in 89.7% and 68.14% fruit set, respectively. The most efficient bee species was Meliponula ferruginea (98.3%) followed by Meliponula nebulata (97.1%). Thus, very good pollinator species were wild social bees (mainly stingless bees) as opposed to honeybees and solitary bees that were previously reported to be the best pollinators of coffee in Panama and Indonesia. Morphological and anatomical characteristics of the bee pollen storage features may explain the difference in foraging behaviour activities and in pollination efficiency of social and solitary afrotropical bee species visiting lowland coffee in Uganda. In addition, pollination efficiency was influenced by land-use intensity, field management systems and habitat types found in the immediate surroundings of coffee fields, but not by coffee field size, coffee genotypes and mass blooming wild vegetation. It is recommended to farmers to adopt pollinator-friendly conservation and farming practices such as keeping an uncultivated portion (25%–30%) of their farms as pollinator reservoirs, protecting semi-natural habitats found in the vicinity of coffee fields, as well as promoting high on-farm tree cover to benefit a functionally diverse pollinator community.     

Mutualistic Association between a Tiny Amazonian Stingless Bee and a Wax-Producing Scale Insect1

The Amazonian stingless bee Schwarzula sp. houses and attends, in its nest, soft scale insects, Cryptostigma sp. (Coc‐cidae), from which obtains sweet secretions (honeydew) for their feeding and additional wax to build their nests. The bees nests in tunnels burrowed by moth larvae in branches of Campsiandra angustifolia, Caesalpiniaceae.     

Resource overlap and possible competition between honey bees and wild bees in central Europe

Evidence for interspecific competition between honey bees and wild bees was studied on 15 calcareous grasslands with respect to: (1) foraging radius of honey bees, (2) overlap in resource use, and (3) possible honey bee effects on species richness and abundance of flower-visiting, ground-nesting and trap-nesting wild bees. The grasslands greatly differed in the number of honey bee colonies within a radius of 2 km and were surrounded by agricultural habitats. The number of flower-visiting honey bees on both potted mustard plants and small grassland patches declined with increasing distance from the nearest apiary and was almost zero at a distance of 1.5–2.0 km. Wild bees were observed visiting 57 plant species, whereas honey bees visited only 24 plant species. Percentage resource overlap between honey bees and wild bees was 45.5%, and Hurlbert’s index of niche overlap was 3.1. In total, 1849 wild bees from 98 species were recorded on the calcareous grasslands. Neither species richness nor abundance of wild bees were negatively correlated with the density of honey bee colonies (within a radius of 2 km) or the density of flower-visiting honey bees per site. Abundance of flower- visiting wild bees was correlated only with the percentage cover of flowering plants. In 240 trap nests, 1292 bee nests with 6066 brood cells were found. Neither the number of bee species nor the number of brood cells per grassland was significantly correlated with the density of honey bees. Significant correlations were found only between the number of brood cells and the percentage cover of shrubs. The number of nest entrances of ground-nesting bees per square metre was not correlated with the density of honey bees but was negatively correlated with the cover of vegetation. Interspecific competition by honey bees for food resources was not shown to be a significant factor determining abundance and species richness of wild bees. Received: 22 March 1999 / Accepted: 24 September 1999     

Tool-use to obtain honey by chimpanzees at Bulindi: new record from Uganda

Honey-gathering from bee nests has been recorded at chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) study sites across tropical Africa. Different populations employ different strategies, ranging from simple ‘smash-and grab’ raids to use of sophisticated tool-sets, i.e., two or more types of tool used sequentially in a single task. In this paper I present evidence of tool-use, and the probable use of a tool-set, for honey-gathering by unhabituated chimpanzees at Bulindi, a forest–farm mosaic south of the Budongo Forest in Uganda. Between June and December 2007, 44 stick tools were found in association with 16 holes dug in the ground, corresponding to the period when stingless bees (Meliponula sp.) appeared in chimpanzee dung. In 11 cases the confirmed target was a Meliponula ground nest. Two potential tool types were distinguished: digging sticks encrusted with soil, and more slender and/or flexible sticks largely devoid of soil that may have functioned to probe the bees’ narrow entry tubes. Reports of chimpanzees using tools to dig for honey have been largely confined to Central Africa. Honey-digging has not previously been reported for Ugandan chimpanzees. Similarly, use of a tool-set to obtain honey has thus far been described for wild chimpanzee populations only in Central Africa. Evidence strongly suggests that Bulindi chimpanzees also use sticks in predation on carpenter bee (Xylocopa sp.) nests, perhaps as probes to locate honey or to disable adult bees. These preliminary findings from Bulindi add to our understanding of chimpanzee technological and cultural variation. However, unprotected forests at Bulindi and elsewhere in the region are currently severely threatened by commercial logging and clearance for farming. Populations with potentially unique behavioral and technological repertoires are being lost.     

Subtle visits despite guards: Theft from nest of stingless bee (Meliponini) by orchid bee (Euglossini)

The theft of food items and building materials from nests of stingless bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae: Meliponini) is most commonly carried out by other Meliponini bee species, especially by those related to genus Lestrimelitta Friese, 1903. In this note, we recorded the theft of cerumen and propolis made by a species of the orchid bee, Euglossa annectans Dressler, 1982 (Apidae: Euglossini) from the nest of the stingless bee Tetragonisca angustula (Latreille, 1811). We noticed that the guard workers of T. angustula did not attack the thief bee even though it did not come sufficiently close to the entrance tube of the nest.     

The cuticular profiles of Australian stingless bees are shaped by resin of the eucalypt tree Corymbia torelliana

Bees are known to collect pollen and nectar to provide their larvae and themselves with food. That bees, especially the tropical stingless bees (Apidae: Meliponini), also collect plant resins has, however, been barely addressed in scientific studies on resource use in bees. Resins are used for nest construction, nest maintenance and nest defence. Furthermore, some South‐East Asian species transfer resin‐derived terpenes to their cuticular profiles. The resin requirement of bees is in turn used by certain plant species, which attract bees either for pollination by providing resin in their inflorescences, or for seed dispersal by providing resin in their seed capsules (mellitochory). Mellitochory is found in the eucalypt tree Corymbia torelliana, the resin of which is collected by Australian stingless bees. We investigated how the interaction between C. torelliana and resin‐collecting bees affects the chemical ecology of two Australian stingless bee genera by comparing the chemical profiles of eight bee species with resin from C. torelliana fruits. The two bee genera differed significantly in their chemical profiles. Similar to South‐East Asian stingless bees, 51% of all compounds on the body surfaces of the five Tetragonula species were most likely derived from plant resins. Up to 32 compounds were identical with compounds from C. torelliana resin, suggesting that Tetragonula species include C. torelliana compounds in their chemical profiles. By contrast, few or none resinous compounds were found on the body surfaces of the three Austroplebeia species sampled. However, one prominent but as yet unknown substance was found in both C. torelliana resin and the chemical profiles of all Tetragonula and four Austroplebeia colonies sampled, suggesting that most colonies (76%) gathered resin from C. torelliana. Hence, C. torelliana resin may be commonly collected by Australian stingless bees and, along with resins from other plant species, shape their chemical ecology.     

A push‐pull integrated pest management scheme for preventing use of parrot nest boxes by invasive Africanized honey bees

Africanized honey bees (Apis mellifera scutellata) compete with endangered parrots for nest boxes and can hamper conservation efforts. We tested an integrated pest management push‐pull protocol in the Atlantic Forest in São Paulo, Brazil, in an effort to prevent bee swarms from colonizing nest boxes (N = 30 in the forest plus five in aviaries) meant for use by Vinaceous‐breasted Amazons (Amazona vinacea). Fifteen parrot nest boxes were treated with a permethrin insecticide to “push” scout bees away and each parrot box was paired with a bee trap box containing a pheromone lure to “pull” bees. Over a 1‐yr period (March 2013 to March 2014), 29 insect colonies moved into 18 of the 35 trap boxes. Nine Africanized honey bee, three native Jatai bee (Tetragonisca sp.), and 17 wasp colonies occupied trap boxes. Only one experimental push‐pull pair untreated parrot box was invaded by bees and no parrot boxes in aviaries were colonized. Four of the parrot nest boxes were occupied by birds during our study. Although none were used by Vinaceous‐breasted Amazons, Southern House Wrens (Troglodytes musculus), Green‐winged Saltators (Saltator similis), and Plain Parakeets (Brotogeris tirica) nested in the boxes and all nests were successful. Although long‐term studies are needed before drawing conclusions about the effectiveness of trap boxes, our results suggest that a push‐pull protocol may prove useful for reducing the use of nest boxes meant for parrots and other cavity‐nesting birds by Africanized honey bees and other insects.     

Nests of the soil dwelling sweat bee Augochloropsis caerulans (Hymenoptera: Halictinae) in a waterlogged environment in southern Brazil

A swampy nest site of the sweat bee Augochloropsis caerulans (Vachal, 1903) in southern Brazil is reported. The bees colonized small earth mounds scattered throughout a water-covered area. Although the substrate of these mounds has high organic matter content, the risk of microbial infestation seems not to be enhanced owing to permanent water saturation. The nests are shallow and can be found 3 cm above the water table. Each nest consists of a cluster of vertically oriented cells on pillars in an oval shaped cavity. The specific nest architecture is thought to mitigate microbial infestation of the brood and to prevent water excess. Nests of A. caerulans are not restricted to water-saturated substrates, but the specific nest architecture presumably enables the bee to propagate in such habitats.     

Red mason bees cannot compete with honey bees for floral resources in a cage experiment

Intensive beekeeping to mitigate crop pollination deficits and habitat loss may cause interspecific competition between bees. Studies show negative correlations between flower visitation of honey bees (Apis mellifera) and wild bees, but effects on the reproduction of wild bees were not proven. Likely reasons are that honey bees can hardly be excluded from controls and wild bee nests are generally difficult to detect in field experiments. The goal of this study was to investigate whether red mason bees (Osmia bicornis) compete with honey bees in cages in order to compare the reproduction of red mason bees under different honey bee densities. Three treatments were applied, each replicated in four cages of 18 m³ with 38 red mason bees in all treatments and 0, 100, and 300 honey bees per treatment with 10–20% being foragers. Within the cages, the flower visitation and interspecific displacements from flowers were observed. Niche breadths and resource overlaps of both bee species were calculated, and the reproduction of red mason bees was measured. Red mason bees visited fewer flowers when honey bees were present. Niche breadth of red mason bees decreased with increasing honey bee density while resource overlaps remained constant. The reproduction of red mason bees decreased in cages with honey bees. In conclusion, our experimental results show that in small and isolated flower patches, wild bees can temporarily suffer from competition with honey bees. Further research should aim to test for competition on small and isolated flower patches in real landscapes.     

Competition between honey bees and wild bees and the role of nesting resources in a nature reserve

The European honey bee exploits floral resources efficiently and may therefore compete with solitary wild bees. Hence, conservationists and bee keepers are debating about the consequences of beekeeping for the conservation of wild bees in nature reserves. We observed flower-visiting bees on flowers of Calluna vulgaris in sites differing in the distance to the next honey-bee hive and in sites with hives present and absent in the Lüneburger Heath, Germany. Additionally, we counted wild bee ground nests in sites that differ in their distance to the next hive and wild bee stem nests and stem-nesting bee species in sites with hives present and absent. We did not observe fewer honey bees or higher wild bee flower visits in sites with different distances to the next hive (up to 1,229 m). However, wild bees visited fewer flowers and honey bee visits increased in sites containing honey-bee hives and in sites containing honey-bee hives we found fewer stem-nesting bee species. The reproductive success, measured as number of nests, was not affected by distance to honey-bee hives or their presence but by availability and characteristics of nesting resources. Our results suggest that beekeeping in the Lüneburg Heath can affect the conservation of stem-nesting bee species richness but not the overall reproduction either of stem-nesting or of ground-nesting bees. Future experiments need control sites with larger distances than 500 m to hives. Until more information is available, conservation efforts should forgo to enhance honey bee stocking rates but enhance the availability of nesting resources.     

Dispersal of Eucalyptus torelliana seeds by the resin-collecting stingless bee,Trigona carbonaria

Ants are the only group of invertebrates currently identified as significant dispersers of seeds, but we report here the dispersal of Eucalyptus torelliana seeds by bees. Fruits of E. torelliana produce resin which is collected by workers of the stingless bee Trigona carbonaria. Seeds adhere to resin in the workers' corbiculate and are transported to the nest. Workers transported seeds distances of more than 300 m from the parent tree and seeds at the nest were viable and capable of germination. Seeds were removed from the nests by workers and discarded away from the nest, and E. torelliana trees became established in the vicinity of colonies of T. carbonaria. Mellitochory may be a novel method of seed dispersal where bees are dispersers, and associated with fruits that produce resin as an attractant for bees.