* Autor para correspondencia:
canorp49@hotmail.com

Recibido: 02/07/2008
Aceptado: 10/08/2009

ABSTRACT

The purpose of the research was to determine, by identifying pollen in corbicular pellets, the different plant species visited by honeybees (Apis mellifera L.) during cantaloupe (Cucumis melo L.) induced pollination. This work was carried out in La Laguna region, located in the states of Coahuila and Durango, Mexico in the spring of 2003. During the first 31 days of cantaloupe bloom, 18 honey bee colonies were placed in a six ha field, nine of which had a bottom pollen trap. Trapped pollen was collected twice per a week weighed and frozen. Through the year, anthers of wild and cultivated flowering plant species around the cantaloupe field and in La Laguna were collected, acetolyzed and preserved for pollen identified. Corbicular pollen from the 5^th, 9^th, 12^th, 20^th, 24^th and 31^st sample dates after start of staminate bloom was processed, identified and counted by microscopy. Pollen size was calculated with the formula: volume V=πa²b where "a" is the major axe and "b" the minor axis and multiplied by the number of pollen grains to get the total volume. Cantaloupe pollen made up 8.7 %, 9.8%, 17.6 %, 9.3 %, 28.1% and 83.5% of that collected (number of pollen grains) on respectively for the sample dates. The percentage of volume basis pollen for cantaloupe was: 51.6%, 85.0%, 66.6 %, 84.4 %, 68.9% and 95.0% respectively. It is concluded that the cantaloupe was the main species visited as a plant pollen source for pollinating honeybees and that the plants present in the sample like mesquite (Prosopis juliflora (Swartz) DC.), alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.), creosote bush (Larrea tridentata (DC) Cov.), cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.), London rocket (Sysimbrium irio L.) and sorghum (Sorghum vulgare L.) were species visited as supplementary pollen sources.

RESUMEN

El objetivo de la investigación fue determinar, a través de la identificación del polen corbicular, las diferentes especies de plantas que son visitadas por las abejas (Apis mellifera L.) durante la polinización inducida del melón (Cucumis melo L.). El trabajo se llevó a cabo en La Laguna localizada en los estados de Coahuila y Durango, México en la primavera del 2003. Durante los primeros 31 días de la floración del melón, un campo de seis hectáreas fue polinizada por 18 colmenas, nueve de las cuales tenía una trampa para captura de polen. El polen fue colectado dos veces por semana, pesado y congelado. Durante el año se colectaron anteras de plantas silvestres y cultivadas en floración alrededor del cultivo y en la región para preservarlas e identificar su polen usando la técnica de acetolisis. El polen corbicular, muestreado los días 5°, 9°, 12°, 20°, 24° y 31° contados a partir del inicio de la aparición de las flores estaminadas, fue procesado y contado en el microscopio óptico. El tamaño del polen fue calculado mediante la fórmula: volumen V=πa²b donde "a" es el eje mayor y "b" el eje menor y multiplicado por el número de granos de polen se obtuvo el volumen total. El polen de melón fue el 8.7 %, 9.8%, 17.6 %, 9.3 %, 28.1% y 83.5% del colectado (en base al número de granos) respectivamente en las fechas de muestreo. El porcentaje del polen de melón en base al volumen fue: 51.6%, 85.0%, 66.6%, 84.4%, 68.9% y 95.0% respectivamente. Se concluye que el melón fue la principal planta visitada por las abejas como fuente de polen y que las especies de plantas con mayor número de granos de polen presentes en las muestras como mezquite (Prosopis juliflora (Swartz) DC.), alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.), gobernadora (Larrea tridentata (DC) Cov.), pepino (Cucumis sativus L.), mostacilla (Sysimbrium irio L.) y sorgo (Sorghum vulgare L.) fueron especies visitadas como fuentes suplementarias de polen.

Palabras clave: Apis mellifera, Cucumis melo, pecoreadoras, polen, acetolisis.

INTRODUCTION

Cantaloupe (Cucumis melo L.) flowers require visiting bees to transfer pollen for seed set (Gorelick 2001; Cane 2002). Flowers that produced fruits had yield and quality associated with higher numbers of visits and higher cumulative durations of these visits by honey bees (Reyes et. al. 1982; Gingras et al. 1999). Many kinds of insects can be found on flowers (Kevan and Baker 1983) and previous studies have compared the pollination values of different bee species solely by the speed with which they handle flowers and the proportion of visited flowers tripped (Cane 2002).The native bee community is important in providing crop pollination services but the temporal fluctuations in bee populations are known to be highly variable across space and time (Kremen et al. 2002). Insecticides, herbicides and cultural practices had been reduced or eliminated the wild population of insects (Kearns et al. 1998) until the point that are not enough to pollinate the commercial crops (DeLaplane and Mayer 1996). This is of economic importance, and farmers should therefore consider enhancement of bee populations as part of their field management (Ricketts et al. 2004), this could be done by a reduced use of pesticides and by improving pollen and nectar availability for bees (Klein et al. 2003).

Scented wild flowers (Dieringer and Cabrera 2002; Bernhardt et al. 2003), ornamentals (Corbet et al. 2001) and blooming crops (Cane and Schiffhauer 2003) with a pollen and nectar reward act as a lure for several pollinator insects. On the other hand, in a study on foraging behavior of commercial honey bee in cucumber and zucchini, it was found that foragers collected 40% higher pollen from those target crops (Pankiw 2004).Thus, many commercial crops depend of the induced pollination by honeybees that at the same time are attracted by other flowers that can be potentially visited by forager–bees.

The purpose of the research was to determine the different plant species visited by honey bees (Apis mellifera L.) during induced cantaloupe (Cucumis melo L.) pollination.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This work was carried out in La Laguna region, which is located in the Mexico states of Coahuila and Durango (101°40' and 104°45' W L and 25°05' y 26°54' N L), during the 2003 spring. In the first blooming month which is considered optimal for pollination and fruit–set (Eischen et al. 1994), 18 bee colonies were placed in a six ha commercial cantaloupe field, each located 25 m from the crop and equidistantly distributed adjacent to one side of the field. Every other colony had a modified–Ontario pollen trap (Waller 1980). The corbicular pollen were collected twice a week, weighed and frozen to preserve until processed. Through the year, anthers of wild and cultivated flowering plant species around the cantaloupe crop and in La Laguna region were collected in order to isolate and identify the pollen, using the acetolyzation technique (Kearns and Inouye 1993; Kapp 2000). Plants were photographed, collected, dried in a plant press and stored in our herbarium (Roubik and Moreno 1991; Kearns and Inouye 1993). The pollen was examined with a microscope (Olympus model BH–2), connected to a TV screen, measured with ocular micrometer at 1000X (using immersion oil). Pollen were photographed at 400X and 1000X with a reflex Minolta SRT 101 camera, Rokkor lens PF 58 mm mounted in a tripod with color slide film (ASA 100). At least two images at different angles were taken and scanned (3500C HP). An aliquot of the corbicular pollen from the 5^th, 9^th, 12^th, 20^th, 24^th and 31^st sample dates after start of staminate bloom was processed by acetolyzation, mounted to identify the pollen and counted in the light microscope by fields at 400X (Jones and Bryant 1998). Pollen volume was calculated with the formula: V=π²b where "V" is volume, "a" is the major axe and "b" the minor axe and multiplied by the number of pollen grains to get the total volume (Kearns and Inouye 1993). In order to stabilize the variances of the original data, they were transformed by arcsine of the sample proportion (Ott 1988), prior to the statistical analysis. Data were examined with analysis of variance and differences among means were evaluated with the LSD.₀₅ test. Pollen amount were correlated with the blooming cantaloupe sample day (Steel and Torrie 1960).

RESULTS

Pollen composition assessed by number of pollen grains.The corbicular pollen collected by bees during the studied period (number basis, Table 1.) showed alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) and mesquite (Prosopis juliflora (Swartz) DC.) as the main plant species in the preference by bees through the first three sample dates. In the 20^th blooming day, creosote bush (Larrea tridentata (DC) Cov.) reached its highest percentage and declined in the 24^th sample blooming date, where the main pollen numerically came from sorghum (Sorghum vulgare L.). Cantaloupe pollen numerically had its highest percentage only on the 31st day of bloom.

Other plant species, grouped as "other species", showed a low percentage of the total. Pollinators respond not only to the flower attributes but also to higher number of flowers and often to bigger inflorescences (Pankiw 2004). Flowers with a higher nectar content and pollen reward can also receive more visits. This sensitiveness to the flower condition, external factors that alter the flower fitness can alter its competitiveness (Krupnick et al. 1999).

Pollen composition assessed by volume. The diameter of creosote bush (L. tridentata) and London rocket (Sysimbrium irio L) pollen (Sawyer 1981): is very small size (≤ 20µm), cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) is small (≤ 30 µm), mesquite (P. juliflora) and alfalfa (M. sativa) are medium (≤ 50µm), and cantaloupe is large size (≤ 100 µm). More than the half of the total pollen collected during the first 31 days of bloom came from cantaloupe. Cantaloupe had the higher pollen percentage varying from 51.55% in the first sample day to higher in subsequent samplings (Table 2).

The number of different plant species including cantaloupe in the samples dates varied from 7 to 21, but the percentage for the "other species" group remained low in every sample. The amount of pollen collected varied significantly (F =3.5, df =8, P =.002) with the blooming periods of the plants and cantaloupe vine growth (Fig. 1).

DISCUSSION

In La Laguna region, mesquite has a short flowering period that ended about the 12^th day of cantaloupe flowering. The same occurred with the alfalfa which is not a reliable pollen and nectar source because growers harvest it prior to peak bloom (see Tables 1 and 2). This is probably the cause for the reduction of pollen collection in the middle of the cantaloupe bloom, from the 9th to the 27th. The supplemental pollen came from creosote bush and sorghum from an undetermined distance.

Research related to pollen availability for bees has shown that environmental conditions can affect pollen production on plants by altering flower number and pollen production per flower (Delph et al. 1997) and selection on the amount of stored pollen in honey bee colonies (pollen hoarding) changes the probability that worker bees will forage for pollen (Amdam et al. 2004) . The honey bee exhibits easily manipulated feeding behavior coupled with extremely high fidelity (Meller and Davis 1996), and olfactory learning (Wright and Smith 2004). The amounts of pollen ingested by worker bees varies with the age, increase within the 1^st three days of a honey bee's life, reach it maximum around age eight days and then decrease continuously to the lowest values, measured in forager bees (Hrassnigg and Crailsheim 1998; Pankiw 2004). At the end of the month we observed the maximum income pollen quantities to the beehives and this increment occurred with the maximum percentages of pollen from the target crop. At this moment the cantaloupe vine was long enough to maintain a larger number of flowers. Correlation between pollen amount and blooming period had a low R² value doing poor for predictive purpose.

In this trial we did not consider the distances of the flowering plants that might be important in an arid zone like La Laguna region, and this may explain the differences among pollen collected. Future research must include vegetative aspects as well as the relationship among the bee–density, foraging–distance and pollen–nectar amount available from target crop and competitor plants.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank Fundación Produce Coahuila, A.C. and Cámara Agrícola y Ganadera de Torreón for the financial support, Lic. Abel Juárez cooperating cantaloupe grower and Universidad Autónoma Agraria Antonio Narro, Unidad Laguna Laboratorio de Biología Ing. Rubi Muñoz–Soto and Agronomy students Lorena Colín, Pedro Murillo and Aldo Ortega for their technical assistance.

LITERATURE CITED

Amdam, G. V., K. Norberg, M. K. Fondrk & R. E. Page 2004. "Reproductive ground plan may mediate colony–level selection effects on individual foraging behavior in honey bees." Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (USA), 101: 11350–11355.        [ Links ]

Bernhardt, P., T. Sage, P. Weston, H. Azuma, M. Lam, L. B. Thien & J. Bruhl 2003. "The pollination of Trimenia moorei (Trimeniaceae): floral volatiles, insect/wind pollen vectors and stigmatic self–incompatibility in a basal angiosperm." Annals of Botany, 92: 445–458.        [ Links ]

Cane, J. H. 2002. "Pollinating bees (Hymenoptera: Apiformes) of U.S. alfalfa compared for rates of pod and seed set." Journal of Economic Entomology, 95: 22–27.        [ Links ]

Cane, J. H. & D. Schiffhauer 2003. "Dose–response relationships between pollination and fruiting refine pollinator comparisons for cranberry (Vaccinium macrocarpon Ericaceae)." American Journal of Botany, 90: 1425–1432.        [ Links ]

Corbet, S. A., J. Bee, K. Dasmahapatra, S. Gale, E. Gorringe, B. La Ferla, T. Moorhouse, A. Trevail, Y. Van Bergen & M. Vorontsova 2001. "Native or exotic? Double or single? Evaluating plants for pollinator–friendly gardens." Annals of Botany, 87: 219–232.        [ Links ]

DeLaplane, K. S. & D. F. Mayer 1996. "Principles and practices of bee conservation." Bee Science, 4: 4–10.        [ Links ]

Delph, L. F., M. H. Johannsson & A. G. Stephenson 1997. "How environmental factors affect pollen performance: Ecological and evolutionary perspectives." Ecology, 78: 1632–1639.        [ Links ]

Dieringer, G. & R. L. Cabrera 2002. "The interaction between pollinator size and the bristle staminode of Penstemon digitalis (Scrophulariaceae)." American Journal of Botany, 89: 991–997.        [ Links ]

Eischen, F., B. A. Underwood & A. Collins 1994. "The effect of delaying pollination on cantaloupe production." Journal of Apicultural Research, 33: 180–184.        [ Links ]

Gingras, D., J. Gingras & D. De Oliveira 1999. Visits of honeybees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) and their effects on cucumber yields in the field. Horticulture Entomology, 92: 435–438.        [ Links ]

Gorelick, R. 2001. "Did insect pollination cause increased seed plant diversity?" Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 74: 407–427.        [ Links ]

Hrassnigg, N. & K. Crailsheim 1998. The influence of brood on the pollen consumption of worker bees (Apis mellifera L.). Journal of Insect Physiology, 44: 393–404.        [ Links ]

Jones, G. D. & V. M. Bryant 1998. "Are all counts created equal?" In: Bryant, V.M. and Wrenn, J.H.(eds.)., New Developments in Palynomorph Sampling, Extraction and Analysis. American Association of Statigraphic Palynologists Foundation. USA: 115–120.        [ Links ]

Kapp, R. 2000. Pollen and spores. The American Association of Statigraph Palinologists. 2nd edition. U.S.A.        [ Links ]

Kearns, C. A. & D. W. Inouye 1993. "Techniques for pollination biologists." University Press of Colorado, Niwot, Colorado, U.S.A.: 78–82.        [ Links ]

Kearns, C. A., D. W. Inouye & N. Waser 1998. Endangered mutualism: The conservation of plant–pollinator interactions Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 29: 83–106.        [ Links ]

Kevan, P. G. & H. G. Baker 1983. Insects as flower visitors and pollinators. Annual Review of Entomology, 28: 407–453.        [ Links ]

Klein, A. M., I. Stefaffan–Dewenter & T. Tscharntke 2003. Bee pollination and fruit set of Coffea arabica and C. canephora (Rubiaceae). American Journal of Botany, 90: 153–157.        [ Links ]

Kremen, C., N. M. Williams & R. W. Thorp 2002. "Crop pollination from native bees at risk from agricultural intensification." Proceedings of the Nationall Academy of Science (U S A), 99: 16812–16816.        [ Links ]

Krupnick, G. A., A. E. Weis & D. R. Campbell 1999. "The consequences of floral herbivory for pollinator service to Isomeris arborea." Ecology, 80: 125–134.         [ Links ]

Meller, V. H. & R. L. Davis. 1996. Biochemistry of insect learning: lessons from bees and flies. Insect Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, 26: 327–335.         [ Links ]

Ott, L. 1988. "An introduction to statistical methods and data analysis." tThird edition PWS–Kent Publishing Co. Boston, Massachusetts, U.S.A.: 945 pp.         [ Links ]

Pankiw, T. 2004. "Brood pheromone regulates foraging activity of honey bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae)." Journal of Economic Entomology, 97: 748–51.         [ Links ]

Reyes, C., J. L., Ma. T. Valdéz P. y D. Ma. Villa C. 1982. La polinización por abejas (Apis mellifera L) en el cultivo del melón (Cucumis melo L.) en la Comarca Lagunera, México. ALCA, 17(1) 17–28         [ Links ]

Ricketts, T. H., G. C. Daily, P. R. Ehrlich & C. D. Michener 2004. "Economic value of tropical forest to coffee production." Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (USA), Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 101: 12759–12582.         [ Links ]

Roubik, D. W. & P. J. E. Moreno 1991. "Pollen and spores of Barro Colorado Island. " Monographs in Systematic Botany from the Missouri Botanical Garden, U.S.A., 36: 270 p.         [ Links ]

Sawyer, R. 1981. "Pollen identification for beekeepers." Cardiff, U.K. University College Cardiff Press, London: 111 pp.         [ Links ]

Steel, R. G. D. & J. H. Torrie 1960. "Principles and procedures of statistics." McGraw–Hill Book Company, Inc. New York, U.S.A.        [ Links ]

Waller, G. D. 1980. "A modification of the O.A.C. pollen trap." American Bee Journal, 120: 119–121.         [ Links ]

Wright, G. A. & B. H. Smith 2004. Different Thresholds for Detection and Discrimination of Odors in the Honey bee (Apis mellifera). Chemical. Senses, 29: 127–135.        [ Links ] ]]> 2004 101 11350-11355 2003 92 445-458 2002 95 22-27 2003 90 1425-1432 2001 87 219-232 1996 4 4-10 1997 78 1632-1639 2002 89 991-997 1994 33 180-184 1999 92 435-438 2001 74 407-427 1998 44 393-404 1998 115-120 2000 2nd 1993 78-82 1998 29 83-106 1983 28 407-453 2003 90 153-157 2002 99 16812-16816 1999 80 125-134 1996 26 327-335 1988 Third 945 2004 97 748-51 1982 17 1 1 17-28 2004 101 12759-12582 1991 36 270 1981 111 1960 1980 120 119-121 2004 29 127-135