Developing sustainable agricultural systems requires understanding how landscape composition and agri-environmental measures (AEM) influence natural pest control. Flower fields, implemented as AEMs, can support predatory arthropods, but their landscape-scale effects and how the landscape diversity modulates their effectiveness remain poorly understood. Here we studied interactive effects of landscape diversity and flower field area on predatory arthropods, pests, and pest predation. Using pitfall traps, visual surveys, and aphid cards, we recorded ground- and vegetation-dwelling aphid predators, aphids, and aphid predation. Sampling was carried out across 27 study landscapes in central Germany in 2022 and 2023, before and after establishing 160 ha of flower fields. The landscapes spanned two independent gradients: landscape diversity and landscape-level area of flower fields. Flower field area and landscape diversity interactively affected spider activity, with flower fields being more beneficial in diverse landscapes. Carabid activity was negatively correlated with flower field area, while vegetation-dwelling predators showed no response to landscape diversity or flower field area. Aphid abundance was negatively correlated with carabid activity density. Aphid predation at the vegetation level increased with landscape diversity, whereas ground-level predation was unaffected. Flower fields and predator abundance did not affect aphid predation. Our results indicate that newly established flower fields provide limited support to natural pest control, whereas landscape diversity can provide positive but inconsistent effects. Enhancing natural pest control may require considering landscape composition and successional stage of AEMs rather than establishment of large areas of non-targeted agri-environmental schemes.

Agricultural landscape simplification due to the loss of semi-natural habitats can act as an environmental filter for species and their functional traits. Both local- and landscape-level factors can shape community structure; although through different mechanisms. In this study, we investigated the role of spontaneous grass field margins in enhancing the taxonomic and functional diversity of ground-active spider assemblages in wheat fields along a landscape diversity gradient. Using pitfall traps, we sampled spiders from 16 wheat fields and three habitat types: the inner field, the field edge and the adjacent grass margin. We collected 2119 spiders (1887 adults) from 72 species and 16 families. Linyphiidae and Lycosidae were the dominant families, comprising 50% and 31% of all sampled individuals, respectively. Landscape diversity had a marginally significant positive effect on functional dispersion, a metric of functional diversity, but did not significantly affect spider activity density or richness. Habitat type had a significant effect on functional diversity but had no effect on activity density and species richness. The spider assemblage in the inner field habitat was less functionally diverse than the assemblages in both the field edge and grass margin habitats. Moreover, grass margins hosted a distinct spider assemblage characterised by larger, free-hunting and less ballooning species compared to the inner field and field edge habitats. Our results suggest that habitat type, and to a lesser extent also landscape diversity, can support more functionally diverse spider assemblages and contribute to shaping the functional structure of ground-active spider assemblages. Particularly, spontaneous grass margins can support large, free-hunting spider species that are absent in wheat fields, potentially enhancing biological control in agricultural landscapes. These results are important for designing agricultural landscapes that promote pest control and for understanding how spider functional traits respond to both local- and landscape-scale factors.Read the free for this article on the Journal blog. Die Vereinfachung der Agrarlandschaft durch den Verlust naturnaher Lebensr & auml;ume kann Arten und ihre funktionalen Merkmale beeinflussen, sowohl auf lokaler als auch auf landschaftlicher Ebene. In dieser Studie untersuchten wir die taxonomische und funktionelle Diversit & auml;t bodenaktiver Spinnengemeinschaften in Weizenfeldern und angrenzenden Grasstreifen entlang eines Landschaftsdiversit & auml;tsgradienten. Mittels Bodenfallen beprobten wir Spinnen in 16 Weizenfeldern und drei Habitattypen: dem Feldinneren, dem Feldrand und den angrenzenden Grasstreifen. Wir erfassten 2119 Spinnenindividuen (1887 Adulte), die 72 Arten und 16 Familien zugeordnet werden konnten. Die dominanten Familien Linyphiidae und Lycosidae machten mit 50% bzw. 31% die gr & ouml;ss ten Anteile der Individuen aus. Der Habitattyp hatte einen signifikanten und die Landschaftsdiversit & auml;t einen tendenziell positiven Effekt auf die funktionelle Diversit & auml;t der Spinnen, aber nicht auf deren Aktivit & auml;tsdichte oder Artenreichtum. Die Spinnengemeinschaften im Feldinneren wiesen eine geringere funktionelle Diversit & auml;t auf als die Gemeinschaften in den Feldr & auml;ndern und Grasstreifen. Au ss erdem beherbergten die Grasstreifen im Vergleich zu dem Feldinneren und Feldr & auml;ndern einzigartige Spinnengemeinschaften, die sich durch gr & ouml;ss ere, frei-jagende und weniger ausbreitungsf & auml;hige Arten auszeichneten. Unsere Ergebnisse zeigen, dass der Habitattyp und in einem geringeren Ma ss auch die Landschaftsdiversit & auml;t die funktionelle Diversit & auml;t bodenaktiver Spinnengemeinschaften beeinflussen. Insbesondere Grasstreifen an Feldr & auml;ndern k & ouml;nnen gro ss e und frei-jagende Spinnenarten f & ouml;rdern, welche nicht im Weizenfeld vorkommen und somit m & ouml;glicherweise die biologische Sch & auml;dlingsbek & auml;mpfung in der Agrarlandschaft erh & ouml;hen. Diese Ergebnisse sind wichtig f & uuml;r die Gestaltung von Agrarlandschaften, die die Sch & auml;dlingsbek & auml;mpfung f & ouml;rdern und erweitern unser Verst & auml;ndnis davon, wie Spinnen mit unterschiedlichen funktionellen Merkmalen auf lokale und landschaftsbezogene Faktoren reagieren.

Abstract Biodiversity, through species interactions, underpins numerous ecosystem functions that can lead to ecosystem services and disservices. Quantifying these functions is crucial for evaluating the effectiveness of conservation and management strategies, as well as the impacts of land use change. However, several ecosystem functions remain underexplored or are monitored indirectly by tracking changes in the abundance of function providers rather than directly measuring the processes themselves. Here, we propose a broadened and consistent use of the sentinel approach, which relies on experimentally placed “sentinels” to measure ecosystem functions. This approach offers several advantages: it allows direct and comparable measurements across multiple functions, is suitable for monitoring both ecosystem services and disservices, facilitates the monitoring of understudied ecosystem functions, and avoids harming the providers of important services as well as the disadvantages of using proxies. While sentinel‐based methods are well‐established for some functions (e.g. predation, pollination), they remain underused for others (e.g. herbivory or scavenging), particularly for functions associated with ecosystem disservices (e.g. intraguild predation, pollination of weeds). Moreover, these processes are often studied in isolation, even though management interventions may generate trade‐offs or synergies among them. Our suggested toolkit enables the quantification of ten ecosystem functions using sentinels: predation, parasitism, scavenging, detritivory, coprophagy, fruit consumption, herbivory, plant infection, seed predation, and pollination. In addition, six other ecosystem functions (aboveground and belowground primary production, soil fertility, water availability, aboveground and belowground secondary production) can be assessed using direct (non‐sentinel‐based) methods. Although focusing on ecosystem functions comes at the cost of taxonomic resolution compared to species‐level monitoring, this approach provides sufficient information when the primary goal is to assess the intensity and continuity of ecological functions. These methods yield complementary, non‐overlapping information and can be used alongside traditional species‐level monitoring.

Restoring biodiversity in agricultural landscapes requires non-crop habitats that provide complementary and additional resources to those provided by agricultural land. In the European Union, flower strips have become the most popular restoration measure in the last decade, due to their esthetic value, benefits for flower visitors and fast implementation. However, the overreliance on annual flower strips rather than on landscape-wide habitat diversity undermines the agri-environmental goal of a heterogeneous landscape promoting multitaxa biodiversity. Annual flower strips support only a limited spectrum of plant and animal species and we argue that successful biodiversity conservation needs many types of habitats, such as diversified and small-scale croplands in combination with annual, perennial and woody semi-natural terrestrial habitats as well as running and stagnant freshwater bodies. Spatial and temporal habitat heterogeneity and resource continuity allows for spillover across multiple habitat types, meta-community dynamics, high beta diversity and the provision of major ecosystem services such as crop pollination and biological pest control. Implementation of agri-environmental schemes should be more diversified and broadened from the field and farm to the landscape level, based on collaboration of farmers and other stakeholders. We need to foster socio-ecological multifunctionality in biodiversity-friendly agricultural landscapes characterized by diversified and small-scale farming as well as restoration of at least 20 % semi-natural habitat.

To counteract the negative effects of agricultural intensification, several European countries support the use of flower strips or fields as part of agri-environment-climate measures. These habitats provide refuge and food resources for many taxa, including ecosystem service providers. Ground-active predators are important pest control agents. However, comprehensive evidence on how to design these flower areas to maximize their benefits for ground-active predators remains limited. We conducted a meta-analysis of 36 studies spanning the Mediterranean region, Central and Northern Europe to quantify the impact of flower areas on the abundance and species richness of ground-active predators. We also examined whether the overall effects varied in terms of different reference habitats (i.e. semi-natural habitats and crop fields) and regions. Moreover, we identified which characteristics (shape, age and sown plant species richness) contribute to the effectiveness of the flower areas. Flower areas had a moderate positive effect on species richness (Hedges' g = 0.65, 95% CI = 0.22-1.09) and a small positive effect on the abundance of ground-active predators (Hedges' g = 0.21, 95% CI = -0.05-0.48). The effects varied in terms of reference habitats and across regions. Flower areas supported substantially higher species richness compared to crop fields, with an effect size 7.9 times higher than when compared to semi-natural habitats. The positive effect of flower areas on the abundance of ground-active predators in the Mediterranean region was the highest (Hedges' g = 1.03, 95% CI = 0.60-1.45). Among flower area characteristics, linear strips were more effective than large fields in enhancing the species richness of ground-active predators, with an effect size approximately 4.3 times higher. While flower area age and sown plant species richness did not significantly influence either predator abundance or species richness. Synthesis and applications. Our meta-analysis highlights the value of flower areas in supporting ground-active predators, particularly in intensively managed landscapes dominated by crop fields. The strong positive effects observed in the Mediterranean warrant further investigation into underlying mechanisms. We recommend the implementation of flower areas as linear strips, especially in conservation programmes targeting enhancing ground-active predator diversity and associated pest control services.

Compared to monocultures, intercropping systems offer many agronomic benefits, including higher yield stability. In this study, we assessed whether cropping systems that are beneficial for yield stability are also beneficial for pollinator communities and whether the effect is modulated by the landscape type. Using a replicated block design in one heterogeneous and one homogeneous agricultural landscape, we studied the pollinator communities in eight populations (i.e., genotypes) of white clover (Trifolium repens) grown as a monoculture or as a twospecies mixture (together with perennial ryegrass, Lolium perenne) or three-species mixture (together with perennial ryegrass and chicory, Cichorium intybus). We recorded 1486 honey bees and 1254 wild pollinators belonging to 46 species. Bumble bees were the most abundant wild pollinators (49.6 %), followed by hover flies (23.4 %), and non-Bombus wild bees (21.5 %). Lepidoptera accounted for only 5.4 % of the wild pollinators. We found a higher species richness and abundance of wild pollinators in monocultures than in two-species mixtures, but white clover population did not influence pollinators. Moreover, species richness and abundance were also higher in the homogeneous landscape than in the heterogenous one. Most species were foraging on white clover. However, 18 species (39.1 %, n = 18/46) were recorded foraging on chicory and/or weeds, and ten of these wild pollinator species were never recorded on white clover. Our study highlights that diverse pollinator communities require both abundant floral resources and diverse plant communities, that their needs are not in conflict with the goal of achieving yield stability, and that the landscape type can modulate the effect of the cropping system. Moreover, the lack of pollinator preference for different white clover populations suggests that farmers can select mixtures that enhance yield stability without negatively affecting pollinator communities. Overall, these results highlight that intercropping systems comprising several plant species and plant genotypes can guarantee yield stability without compromising the pollinator community, showing that win-win situations for farmers and biodiversity are possible.

Diversified Farming (DF) practices are strategies to support biodiversity in agricultural landscapes. Despite the potential ecological benefits of DF practices, their acceptance among farmers remains limited. Therefore, understanding farmer's perceptions is essential for effective policy decision-making and applicable agri-environmental policies. We conducted structured face-to-face interviews with 145 farmers in Lower Saxony to estimate the ecological-economic performance of DF practices based on farmers' perceived changes in yield, variable costs, and gross margin of cereal production. Farmers expected diversified crop rotation to increase gross margin (20%), while reduced tillage, direct seeding and flower strips would decrease it (58%, 61% and 13%). Cover crops were expected to provide ecological benefits with only slightly reduced profit (1%). Farm soil fertility was positively related to the perceived gross margin, while farmers' risk attitude and the number of DF practices applied showed no significant influence. Farmers working on mixed farms, i.e., integrating livestock and crops, expected lower variable costs than farmers working on arable farms. Our findings highlight that DF practices can be valued differently, with the greatest benefits seen in improved crop rotation. The acceptance of DF practices that farmers perceive as negative, such as reduced tillage and direct seeding, would require adapted agri-environmental incentives.

Predation is a crucial interaction in ecosystems, transferring energy between trophic levels, enhancing ecosystem stability through its impact on herbivore populations, promoting species diversity, and exerting evolutionary pressure. Predation may also provide benefits for humans: preying on pest species translates into biological control with enormous economic value. Ecologists have long sought to quantify predation, which is challenging, especially by and on invertebrates. One of the approaches is the sentinel method, when a known number of prey items is exposed under field conditions for a specific period (usually 24 h), and subsequently recording the numbers of prey that have been attacked, consumed or disappeared. Such prey can be real or artificial. Speight and Lawton (1976) exposed Drosophila pupae and from their rate of disappearance attempted to quantify beetle predation in wheat fields. Turner (1961) used artificial sentinels made of a mixture of flour and lard to quantify insectivorous bird predation on differently coloured prey. The use of real sentinels creates a more "natural" set of conditions, while artificial sentinels may allow the identification of predators from attack marks (Howe et al., 2009). Since the formal description of the method (Howe et al., 2009), there have been numerous articles from virtually all continents that sought to identify various aspects of predation (Lövei & Ferrante, 2017). The use of sentinel prey has also been recommended to characterise natural pest control as an ecosystem service (Meyer et al., 2015). In an international experiment, Rodriguez-Campbell et al. (2024) measured predation rates using live and dead Zophobas morio larvae and artificial caterpillars made of modelling clay with the intention of "validating" the efficacy of artificial sentinel prey. They found no significant differences in predation rates measured with live and dead larvae, whereas patterns of predation measured with artificial sentinel prey were not always consistent with those recorded using real ones. The authors concluded that artificial sentinel prey are inadequate for comparing predation rates across sites and suggested that this approach should be abandoned for biogeographical studies. In this commentary, we aim to highlight certain logical fallacies in the study by Rodriguez-Campbell et al. (2024), discuss some misunderstandings regarding the use of artificial sentinel prey, and provide recommendations for best practice. The first fallacy is the assumption that by using real prey we can quantify actual predation levels because "Live prey should most closely reflect predation on wild prey; dead prey have realistic visual and scent cues but lack movement and behavioural cues; and clay prey have only coarsely realistic visual cues." Rodriguez-Campbell et al. acknowledge that "clay prey only appeal to a subset of potential predators". However, the same is valid for any sentinel prey, including real ones. Once a sentinel is chosen, its features can either help or hinder predators in recognising it as prey and deciding to attack. One obvious feature is the status of the sentinel (dead, alive or artificial), as different prey types possess distinct chemical profiles, and many predators rely on chemical cues for hunting. However, the sentinel will also have a specific size, shape, texture, colouration, behaviour (or lack of it, if artificial or immobilised/dead) and taste. Because of such differences, inconsistent predation patterns have been, unsurprisingly, observed also in studies employing multiple real prey (McHugh et al., 2020). Comparing results obtained from different prey types assuming that one can serve as a true baseline to validate the other is futile; Rodriguez-Campbell et al. provide evidence that different sentinel types can result in different predation levels and patterns (see, for example, their Figure 2d–f for invertebrate predators). It is worth stressing, though that the sentinel prey method does not aim at obtaining absolute estimates of predation levels (Howe et al., 2009) but intends to provide relative comparisons (more on this later). Using multiple types of sentinel prey can provide additional information because they could appeal to different (non-overlapping or partly overlapping) subsets of predators. Finally, using dead sentinel prey may be interpreted as a measure of scavenging rather than predation and using live and dead prey can produce different patterns, even if in the study by Rodriguez-Campbell et al. it did not. The second fallacy is that we must record actual predation levels to be able to draw any useful conclusion. According to the authors, "clay models should be abandoned for comparing predation rates among sites…but that a possible exception is when studies target an appropriate predator group" and "clay prey may still be useful for assessing predation differences within sites…However, caution should be used…whenever the relative importance of predator guilds is likely to vary". If artificial sentinel prey are attacked by a specific guild (e.g. invertivorous birds), they can be used to compare predation rates by them in different sites, habitats, or treatments. Predator communities are rarely static, either between- or within-sites, but this does not make real sentinel prey more suitable than artificial ones, or relative estimates of predation less useful. Imagine an experiment where the researcher was able to simultaneously record predation rates in two habitats (a and b) using two real prey types: (1) by releasing a large number of caterpillars and accurately recording their fate 24 h later (which is of course impossible in real life) and (2) by using immobilised caterpillars (as in numerous real-life cases). Imagine that in both habitats the predator community consists only of two predators, an invertivorous bird and a web-building spider, both having identical killing rate per capita. In Habitat (a), the birds make up 80% of the community and web-building spiders make up 20%, while in Habitat (b), birds make up 20% and web-building spiders 80% (Figure 1). Both predators consume freely moving caterpillars, but only birds consume immobilised caterpillars because web-building spiders do not actively search for prey. After 24 h, predation rates on free caterpillars would be identical in the two habitats (albeit due to the different contributions of each predator guild), whereas predation rates on immobilised caterpillars would be higher in Habitat (a) due to the higher number of birds in this habitat. Of course, in many cases, we have no information about the exact composition of the predator community or the preference of each predator species for different prey types. Yet, the fundamental question is: was the part of the experiment using immobilised prey useless because it did not reflect the predation rates measured using free caterpillars (supposedly "closer to the true predation")? We claim that the immobilised prey gave useful information on the predation pressure exerted by birds in these two habitats. This can be very useful if the aim was to characterise the efficiency of a management intervention to encourage birds as possible biocontrol agents. This aspect was clearly articulated in the original description of the artificial caterpillar method (Howe et al., 2009). We believe that we do not always need absolute quantification to advance our understanding of ecological processes and that relative information can also be useful (e.g. differences between farming practices or conservation interventions). The sentinel prey method is intended, and should only be used, for comparisons between habitats or treatments and within the same predator guild (Howe et al., 2009). When used in combination with biodiversity sampling and/or other types of sentinels, they provide different, complementary information. Most often the challenge is to find techniques that can be used in a standardised way and replicated in sufficient numbers to perform robust statistical analyses. Ultimately, the sentinel approach aims to quantify ecological processes relying on the applicability and repeatability of standardised monitoring tools. This applies not only to predation, but also to other ecosystem functions that can be measured using the sentinel approach (Ferrante et al., 2022). To fulfil these important requirements, which are the essence of the scientific method and allow us to obtain comparable results, ecologists may use "unnatural" tools. We agree that sentinels do not necessarily reflect the real situation, but experiments are always a simplification of reality in the interest of answering a central question. Once this premise is accepted, it makes sense to look for a method that allows controlling most variables (e.g. prey type and size, density, distribution, exposure time), is easy to use and replicable in large sample sizes, is cost-effective, and provides information about the identity of the predators. Artificial prey (1) enable standardisation, since they can be produced from the same material with consistent characteristics (e.g. coloration and size), whereas real prey can vary in terms of their chemical composition, taste, smell, size, age, status (live prey can die under field conditions due to abiotic factors, which may cause some of the prey to be dead and some to be alive at the time when the researcher collects the results); (2) they are cost-effective to produce and can be manufactured in large quantities ensuring high replicability and statistical robustness; and (3) allow the identification of predators, even if with varying taxonomic resolution. The artificial sentinel prey method can do this, thus it can be useful despite its (recognised) limitations. If Z. morio larvae, a species found only in Central and South America, would have been used for a global predation study, other advantages and limitations would have emerged. Tethering a given sentinel prey to a substrate may also influence predator searching behaviour; attaching sentinel prey using glue, thread, pins or bulldog clips on popsicle sticks (the latter two used by Rodriguez-Campbell et al.) potentially introduce other biases to measurements and should be acknowledged. M.F. and G.L.L. conceived the comment. M.F. wrote the first draft. All authors contributed to the submitted first and the revised version of the manuscript. Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. The authors declare that they do not have any conflict of interest. Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study. Marco Ferrante is a postdoctoral fellow in the Functional Agrobiodiversity & Agroecology group, University of Göttingen, Germany. His research interests include arthropod ecology, biodiversity conservation, ecosystem services and disservices, and sustainable agriculture. Andy G. Howe is a Research Fellow at University of the Sunshine Coast, Australia. His research addresses insect diversity, insect community interactions (predation, parasitism) and invasions in forest, urban and agricultural ecosystems. Gabor L. Lövei is Senior Scientist Emeritus at Aarhus University, Denmark and Professor at the Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Godollo, Hungary. His research covers agroecology, biosafety and invasion biology.

Natural habitats adjacent to vineyards are presumed to have a positive effect on the diversity of natural enemies within the vineyards. However, these habitats differ in vegetation structure and seasonal phenology and in turn could affect the species composition of natural enemies. Here, we compared the species richness and diversity and the composition of spider assemblages in several locations within three commercial vineyards and the nearby natural habitats in a Mediterranean landscape in northern Israel. We sampled spiders by means of pitfall traps in early and in late summer. Both the time in the season and the habitat (natural versus vineyard) affected spider species richness and diversity. More species were found in early summer (47) than in late summer (33), and more occurred in the natural habitat (34 species) than in the vineyards (27–31 species). Fifteen species were found exclusively in the natural habitat, and only 11 species were shared by the vineyards and natural habitat, four of which were the most abundant and geographically widely distributed species in the samples. In late summer, spider diversity in the natural habitat was higher than within the vineyards: the spider assemblages in the vineyards became dominated by a few species late in the crop season, while those of the natural habitat remained stable. Overall, the natural habitat differed in assemblage composition from all within-vineyard locations, while the three locations within the vineyard did not differ significantly in assemblage composition. Season (early vs. late summer), however, significantly affected the spider assemblage composition. This study documents the large diversity of spiders in a local Mediterranean vineyard agroecosystem. Over 60% of the known spider families in the region occurred in our samples, highlighting the importance of this agroecosystem for spider diversity and the potential for conservation biocontrol, where natural habitats may be a source of natural enemies for nearby vineyards.

The Azores holds the largest population of Cory's shearwater Calonectris borealis (Cory, 1881) (Aves, Procellariiformes) in the world. Apart from a few mammal-free islets, the bulk of the population breeds in coastal areas on the main human-inhabited islands, where several non-native predators have been introduced. Throughout the entire year of the 2019 breeding season, we used motion-triggered cameras and regularly visited three colonies of Cory's shearwater to identify nest predators and the factors affecting nest predation. A total of 292,624 photos were obtained, of which 97.7% were of Cory’s shearwaters, 1.7% of non-target species (e.g. other birds, rabbits) and 0.52% of potential predators. Of the monitored nests, 25.7% were predated (n = 9), mainly by black rats (n = 8), but also by cats (n = 1). The relative abundance of black rats in the nests was the main factor explaining nest mortality. This variable was significantly and negatively related with the daily survival rate of Cory’s shearwater nestlings. Identification of the main nest predators is crucial for the management and conservation of native bird populations, particularly on oceanic islands, which harbour an important number of threatened and endemic species.

One of the important stages of mass breeding of parasitoid bees is storing these bees at low temperatures in insectariums.The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of cold on the possibility of keeping whole insects and pupae of parasitoid bees.In this research, 5-day-old pupae and one-day-old bee insects were stored for different periods in refrigerator conditions (absolute darkness and temperature of five degrees Celsius) and the effect of cold on various parameters of reproduction and Bee biology was evaluated.In storage for 30 days or more, one hundred percent of the pupae died, while after one week of storage, nearly 93% of the pupae turned into full-fledged insects, which is different from the control.Nevertheless, storing the pupae in the cold even for one week caused a significant reduction in the fertility and lifespan of the bees removed compared to the control.Storing whole bee insects in the refrigerator hurt their survival according to the duration of storage.The highest losses of female bees were observed after 60 days of storage, while female bees suffered losses in one and two weeks of storage.Unlike pupae, the storage of female bees in the refrigerator did not hurt the lifespan and egg-laying rate of the survivors.According to the results of this research, it is not recommended to store bee pupae in the refrigerator for one week, but female bees can be stored in the refrigerator for one week.The results of this study can be used in the mass breeding and storage of parasitoid bees in insectariums.