不同蜂在温室草莓园的访花行为和传粉生态学比较

应用意大利蜜蜂、本土小峰熊蜂和引自欧洲的地熊蜂3种蜂在北京为温室草莓传粉,对其传粉行为和生态特性进行研究。结果表明:意大利蜜蜂的出巢温度、工作起点温度、平均单花停留时间和访花间隔时间均显著高于小峰熊蜂和地熊蜂(P<0.01),而这些行为在2种熊蜂之间差异不显著(P>0.05);3种蜂携带花粉回巢的比例依次为意大利蜜蜂>小峰熊蜂>地熊蜂,而其携带的花粉活性依次为意大利蜜蜂>小峰熊蜂=地熊蜂;2种熊蜂开始活动的时间比意大利蜜蜂早,日活动时间比意大利蜜蜂长;地熊蜂在一天中的活动频率最高(P<0.01);经3种蜂授粉的草莓果实营养品质差异不显著(P>0.05),与对照相比也无差异,而经过3种蜂授粉的草莓果实畸形率降低、单果质量增大;经2种熊蜂授粉的草莓果实畸形率低于意大利蜜蜂(P<0.05)。本土小峰熊蜂能够有效替代意大利蜜蜂或地熊蜂为温室草莓授粉。     

明亮熊蜂和意大利蜜蜂在温室桃园的访花行为和传粉生态学比较

2004—2006年连续3年应用明亮熊蜂和意大利蜜蜂在北京为温室桃园传粉,对其访花行为和传粉生态学进行研究.结果表明：两种蜂都可以替代人工掸花为温室桃园提供有效的传粉服务.两种蜂的访花行为和传粉效果不同,明亮熊蜂偏爱于采集花粉,主要以震动翅膀的方式来使花粉释放和传播,而意大利蜜蜂偏爱于采集花蜜,主要以身体接触的方式来粘附和传播花粉;明亮熊蜂的活动起点温度低、日工作时间长、访花速度快,在低温条件下比意大利蜜蜂的传粉效果好;意大利蜜蜂的趋光性强,飞撞温室塑料薄膜的现象严重,受温度和光照条件的影响较大,对温室环境的适应性较差.     

西方蜜蜂和地熊蜂为紫花苜蓿授粉效果比较

【目的】为了解决紫花苜蓿传粉昆虫不足的问题,提高苜蓿种子产量。【方法】比较了西方蜜蜂Apis mellifera和地熊蜂Bombus terrestris采集规律及为苜蓿授粉的效果。【结果】发现两种蜂日工作时间和出巢温度没有显著差异,但采集行为不同,地熊蜂利用体重优势更容易打开龙骨瓣,访花频率显著高于意大利蜜蜂,单花访问时间短于意大利蜜蜂,二者授粉后结荚率及单株产量没有显著差异。蜂种、携粉回巢率、访花频率是影响苜蓿种子生产的主要因素。【结论】试验数据表明意大利蜜蜂和地熊蜂为苜蓿传粉效果都很好,但意大利蜜蜂饲养管理技术成熟,价格低廉,适合苜蓿制种及规模化生产中应用。     

明亮熊蜂和意大利蜜蜂为温室草莓的授粉行为比较观察

蜜蜂和熊蜂都是理想的授粉昆虫,但熊蜂比蜜蜂更适合为温室果菜授粉,主要由于熊蜂和蜜蜂授粉时的活动方式不同。作者对明亮熊蜂和意大利蜜蜂为日光温室草莓授粉时的行为和活动方式进行了比较研究。结果表明,明亮熊蜂和意大利蜜蜂的授粉行为相似,但活动方式不同。明亮熊蜂开始访花的时间（8:00～8:05）比意大利蜜蜂（9:25～9:40）早,停止访花的时间（15:55～16:05）却比意大利蜜蜂（15:20～15:30）晚;开始访花的温度（12～13℃）也比意大利蜜蜂（>15℃）低,意大利蜜蜂在早晨和阴天不访花。明亮熊蜂个体的日活动时间271.43±4.48 s,明显比意大利蜜蜂个体的日活动时间180.00±2.64 s长,差异显著;而采集时间为105.71±1.16 s,显著长于意大利蜜蜂的76.43±3.83 s。明亮熊蜂每分钟平均访花数为8.44±0.44,极显著高于意大利蜜蜂每分钟的平均访花数2.38±0.15;明亮熊蜂访花间隔为3.81±0.42 s,极显著短于意大利蜜蜂的6.0±0.48 s。明亮熊蜂访花具有选择性,每天访早期花平均为55%,意大利蜜蜂则无选择性,每天访早期花平均为34%,二者差异显著;在9:00～12:00明亮熊蜂访早期花平均为75%,意大利蜜蜂访早期花则仅为31%。熊蜂在花间和花簇间活动频繁,平均移动距离为5.2 m;而意大利蜜蜂很少在花簇间移动,平均移动距离只有1.1 m。据此得出明亮熊蜂为日光温室草莓授粉的活动特性优越于意大利蜜蜂,从而产生更高的授粉效益。     

意大利蜜蜂和中华蜜蜂为蓝莓授粉的行为比较研究

应用意大利蜜蜂和中华蜜蜂为蓝莓授粉,对其授粉行为和活动方式进行了比较研究。结果表明:(1)采集过程中意蜂和中蜂的行为存在差异,意蜂头部探进铃铛花,将喙伸入花管中吸食花蜜,头部粘附花粉,花粉一部分被收集到花粉框,另一部分被带到其他花上;中蜂采集行为不同,一部分采集蜂探入铃铛花采食,采集时间短暂,另一部分采集蜂停靠在花托部位,采食花瓣掉落的花朵,不易粘附花粉和携带花粉。(2)授粉活动方式不同,意大利蜜蜂每分钟平均访花数为5.05±0.14次,中华蜜蜂为4.77±0.13次,两者差异不显著;而意蜂单次访花时间为9.16±0.43 s极显著长于中蜂的4.89±0.22 s,意蜂较中蜂在花朵的采集时间长,采集间隔时间短,而中蜂较意蜂寻找花朵的时间长,采集间隔时间长。单位面积意蜂采集蜂数量为平均12.00±0.90头,中蜂采集蜂数量平均为1.73±0.42头,两者差异极显著。同时意蜂蓝莓花粉携粉率27.51%,中蜂采集蓝莓花粉携粉率为11.38%,意蜂的授粉蜂数量及授粉专一性优于中蜂。本研究阐明了蓝莓花期不同蜂种的授粉行为及活动方式,据此得出意蜂为蓝莓授粉的行为和活动特性优越于中蜂,两者相比意蜂具有更高的授粉效率。     

锦鸡儿(Caragana sinica(Buchoz) Rehd)传粉生物学研究

对唐家河国家自然保护区内锦鸡儿(Caragana sinica(Buchoz)Rehd)的花期、访问者、有效传粉者种类及行为、花蜜分泌节律和繁育系统等进行定点观察和实验处理。结果表明:锦鸡儿单花花期约5d,种群花期约20d。拥有以吸蜜为主的条蜂属(Anthophora)、熊蜂属(Bombus)和太阳鸟属(Aethopyga)3种传粉者功能群。综合访花频率和花粉落置数,茜条蜂(Pyganthophora rubricus Dours)和蓝喉太阳鸟(Aethopyga gouldiae)为主要有效传粉者,熊蜂(Bombus)为次要有效传粉者;蚂蚁(formicidae)和西方蜜蜂(Apis mellifera Linnaeus)为主要盗蜜者。套袋处理结果表明,花蜜分泌日变化中,最大花蜜量发生在16:00左右;花蜜随单花花期变化中,花蜜体积最大发生于单花第5天;分泌均呈递增趋势。花蜜分泌节律与访花频率呈正相关。繁育系统检测显示,花粉胚珠比为3779±320.92,柱头最适可授期在开花第2—3天;结合不同授粉处理表明:锦鸡儿自交不亲和,需要传粉者,为蜂媒兼鸟媒植物。     

不同蜂为设施辣椒授粉的授粉效果比较

蜜蜂授粉对开花植物的结实具有重要作用,但目前的研究主要集中在蜜蜂授粉对异花授粉作物的授粉效果上,而对自花授粉植物的授粉效果鲜有报道。本研究以设施农业中主要的自花授粉作物—辣椒为研究对象,研究了意大利蜜蜂(意蜂)和小峰熊蜂(熊蜂)为设施辣椒授粉时的出巢访花活动规律及其授粉效果,并初步估算了其可能带来的经济效益。对两种蜂为辣椒授粉过程中的出巢访花活动规律研究表明:意蜂的出巢和工作起点温度均显著高于熊蜂,表明熊蜂每天可比意蜂多工作1.0-1.5 h。对不同蜂的授粉效果的研究表明:两种蜂授粉后的结实率差异不显著,但均显著高于自花授粉的结实率;三种授粉方式的坐果时间长短依次为自花授粉意蜂授粉熊蜂授粉;花后30 d三种授粉方式的单果重和果实长度差异显著,单果重依次为43.04、57.23和67.58 g,对应果实长度依次为17.41、19.14和20.28㎝。两种蜂授粉后的果实籽粒数(121.35和127.25粒)显著高于人工授粉后的105.40粒。研究表明意蜂和熊蜂可使单位面积自花授粉的设施辣椒增产6.62%和9.79%,具有较好的增产效果,相应的,辣椒对两种蜂的依赖度D值分别为0.06和0.09,采用国际通用的生物经济的方法初步推算出这两种授粉方式在本世纪前十年每年均可使我国辣椒的经济效益得到可观的增加。     

西方蜜蜂和兰州熊蜂在设施桃园的访花偏好性比较

【目的】为了比较西方蜜蜂 Apis mellifera 和兰州熊蜂 Bombus lantschouensis 在设施桃园内对不同时期桃花的访花偏好性、以及这种偏好性与花粉活力和采集花粉花蜜之间的关系。【方法】记录2种蜂在温室桃园内访问早期花、中期花和晚期花的比例,测定桃花不同时期的花粉活力以及2种蜂携带的花粉活力,观察2种蜂采集花蜜和采集花粉的成功率,统计2种蜂访花过程中桃花所处的枝条数及植株数。【结果】桃花不同时期的花粉活力差异显著,早期花花药未开裂,花粉未释放,中期花花粉活力（58.3%）显著高于晚期花花粉活力（34.2%）（P<0.01）;西方蜜蜂更加偏好访问中期花,对中期花的访问率高达75.3%,显著高于兰州熊蜂对中期花的访问率（49.2%）（P<0.01）;西方蜜蜂携带的花粉活力（92.1%）显著高于兰州熊蜂携带的花粉活力（72.9%）,但是西方蜜蜂采集花粉和采集花蜜的成功率均低于兰州熊蜂（P<0.01）;在访问一定数量的桃花过程中,兰州熊蜂在设施桃园内访问的枝条数和植株数较多,分布范围较广（P<0.01）。【结论】和兰州熊蜂相比,西方蜜蜂对活力花粉的辨别能力更强,更加偏好访问花粉活力较高的花朵,这种偏好性导致其采集花粉花蜜的成功率降低。     

壁蜂及蜜蜂授粉对苹果和大樱桃授粉服务功能分析

【目的】传粉昆虫在果树生产中发挥着非常重要的授粉服务功能。但有关壁蜂授粉、蜜蜂授粉对苹果和大樱桃的服务功能不清楚。本论文针对苹果、大樱桃传粉昆虫不足、果品品质不高等科学问题,连续3年系统地调查和分析了胶东半岛主要传粉昆虫(壁蜂、蜜蜂)对苹果、大樱桃的产量与品质促进作用,以评价传粉昆虫对苹果与大樱桃的生态服务功能。【方法】2015-2018年在山东省胶东半岛选择了6个果园进行了壁蜂、蜜蜂释放与不放蜂对照处理,系统测定了经壁蜂授粉、蜜蜂授粉、常规授粉等不同的授粉处理后苹果、大樱桃的座果率、Vc含量、可溶性固形物、总糖及产量的变化。【结果】利用壁蜂、蜜蜂授粉可以显著提高苹果、大樱桃的座果率、Vc含量、可溶性固形物、总糖、总酸含量及风味(固酸比)值;可以增加苹果、大樱桃产量,显著提高其果品品质;而且壁蜂授粉的效果均高于蜜蜂授粉。【结论】在胶东果园可以通过释放壁蜂和蜜蜂,以提高苹果、大樱桃的授粉服务功能;且由于壁蜂具有耐低温、采集速度快、授粉效率高、管理简便、应用成本低的优势,壁蜂的应用前景更为广阔。     

中华蜜蜂和意大利蜜蜂夏季高温下为长季节栽培设施西瓜授粉行为观察

应用中华蜜蜂和意大利蜜蜂为设施西瓜授粉,对其高温条件下的授粉行为进行对比观察。结果表明:两种蜜蜂的授粉行为相似,但在访花时间、访花间隔、访花频率和采集专一性等行为上存在差异。中华蜜蜂和意大利蜜蜂的棚内活动时间分别为5.54 h和5.50 h,与西瓜开花时间基本重合;意大利蜜蜂的单花访花时间3.03±0.17 s比中华蜜蜂的访花时间2.66±0.15 s长,而访花间隔3.22±0.24 s显著低于中华蜜蜂的4.07±0.30 s,访花频率9.53±0.38朵/min显著高于中华蜜蜂的8.09±0.29朵/min。中华蜜蜂在5∶00-7∶00、7∶00-9∶00、9∶00-11∶00采集花粉中西瓜花粉的比例分别为11.03%、13.31%和12.62%,意大利蜜蜂在相应时间段采集花粉中西瓜花粉的比例分别为54.31%、55.97%和32.32%,差异显著。本研究认为中华蜜蜂和意大利蜜蜂都能高效地完成设施西瓜的授粉任务,而且意大利蜜蜂在西瓜授粉上更具优势。     

Foraging by Male and Female Solitary Bees with Implications for Pollination

Both male and female solitary bees visit flowers for rewards. Sex related differences in foraging efficiency may also affect their probability to act as pollinators. In some major genera of solitary bees, males can be identified from a distance enabling a comparative foraging-behavior study. We have simultaneously examined nectar foraging of males and females of three bee species on five plant species in northern Israel. Males and females harvested equal nectar amounts but males spent less time in each flower increasing their foraging efficiency at this scale. The overall average visit frequencies of females and males was 27.2 and 21.6 visits per flower per minute respectively. Females flew shorter distances increasing their visit frequency, relative foraging efficiency and their probability to pollinate. The proportion of conspecific pollen was higher on females, indicating higher floral constancy and pollination probability. The longer flights of males increase their probability to cross-pollinate. Our results indicate that female solitary bees are more efficient foragers; females seem also to be more efficient pollinators but males contribute more to long-distance pollen flow.     

Bees provide pollination service to Campsis radicans (Bignoniaceae), a primarily ornithophilous trumpet flowering vine

1. Pollination syndromes refer to stereotyped floral characteristics (flower colour, shape, etc.) that are associated with a functional group of pollinators (bee, bird, etc.).
2. The trumpet creeper Campsis radicans, endemic to the southeast and mid‐west United States, has been assigned to the hummingbird‐pollination syndrome, due mainly to its red, trumpet‐shaped flowers.
3. Previous studies demonstrated that the ruby‐throated hummingbird Archilochus colubris is C. radicans' primary pollinator, but anecdotal data suggest various bee species may provide pollination service when hummingbirds are absent.
4. This study characterised C. radicans nectar volume and concentration by time of day. Nectar volume was suitable for hummingbirds, but concentration was higher than typical hummingbird‐pollinated plants (～20% w/w); at ～30% w/w, it approached the concentration expected in bee‐pollinated plants (～50% w/w). We also found substantial amounts of nectar at night.
5. Two C. radicans populations received virtually no hummingbird visits, but the number of bees were markedly higher than in the populations previously described. Interestingly, there were no night‐time visitors despite the large quantity of nocturnal nectar.
6. Based on previously published pollen delivery per visit by various species, this study estimated that cumulative deposition by bees routinely reached pollen deposition thresholds for setting fruit in C. radicans. They are, unequivocally, the predominant pollinators in these populations, thus providing pollination service in the absence of hummingbirds.
7. These results highlight C. radicans as a food source for native bees and add to the understanding of how floral phenotypes can facilitate pollination by disparate functional groups.

     

Honey bee (Hymenoptera: Apidae) distribution and potential for supplementary pollination in commercial tomato greenhouses during winter

This study examined the use of honey bees, Apis mellifera L., to supplement bumble bee, Bombus spp., pollination in commercial tomato, Lycopersicon esculentum Miller, greenhouses in Western Canada. Honey bee colonies were brought into greenhouses already containing bumble bees and left for 1 wk to acclimatize. The following week, counts of honey and bumble bees foraging and flying throughout the greenhouse were conducted three times per day, and tomato flowers open during honey bee pollination were marked for later fruit harvest. The same counts and flower-marking also were done before and after the presence of honey bees to determine the background level of bumble bee pollination. Overall, tomato size was not affected by the addition of honey bees, but in one greenhouse significantly larger tomatoes were produced with honey bees present compared with bumble bees alone. In that greenhouse, honey bee foraging was greater than in the other greenhouses. Honey bees generally foraged within 100 m of their colony in all greenhouses. Our study invites further research to examine the use of honey bees with reduced levels of bumble bees, or as sole pollinators of greenhouse tomatoes. We also make specific recommendations for how honey bees can best be managed in greenhouses.     

Netted crop covers reduce honeybee foraging activity and colony strength in a mass flowering crop

The widespread use of protective covers in horticulture represents a novel landscape‐level change, presenting the challenges for crop pollination. Honeybees (Apis mellifera L) are pollinators of many crops, but their behavior can be affected by conditions under covers. To determine how netting crop covers can affect honeybee foraging dynamics, colony health, and pollination services, we assessed the performance of 52 nucleus honeybee colonies in five covered and six uncovered kiwifruit orchards. Colony strength was estimated pre‐ and postintroduction, and the foraging of individual bees (including pollen, nectar, and naïve foragers) was monitored in a subset of the hives fitted with RFID readers. Simultaneously, we evaluated pollination effectiveness by measuring flower visitation rates and the number of seeds produced after single honeybee visits. Honeybee colonies under cover exhibited both an acute loss of foragers and changes in the behavior of successful foragers. Under cover, bees were roughly three times less likely to return after their first trip outside the hive. Consequently, the number of adult bees in hives declined at a faster rate in these orchards, with colonies losing on average 1,057 ± 274 of their bees in under two weeks. Bees that did forage under cover completed fewer trips provisioning their colony, failing to reenter after a few short‐duration trips. These effects are likely to have implications for colony health and productivity. We also found that bee density (bees/thousand flowers) and visitation rates to flowers were lower under cover; however, we did not detect a resultant change in pollination. Our findings highlight the need for environment‐specific management techniques for pollinators. Improving honeybee orientation under covers and increasing our understanding of the effects of covers on bee nutrition and brood rearing should be primary objectives for maintaining colonies and potentially improving pollination in these systems.     

Production of greenhouse tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum) using Nannotrigona perilampoides, Bombus impatiens and mechanical vibration (Hym.: Apoidea)

Importation of exotic bumblebees for greenhouse pollination may be restricted in México, thus making it necessary to evaluate the potential of native species as pollinators in enclosures. We studied the foraging activity and fruit production of tomato using one colony of Nannotrigona perilampoides (NP) and one colony of Bombus impatiens (BI) in greenhouses with ≈1000 plants. Mechanical vibration (MV) was included as a test treatment. The foraging activity was measured as the number of flowers visited within 5 min, the time spent on a flower collecting pollen, the number of visits that a flower received and the duration of a foraging trip. BI collected pollen more rapidly, visited more flowers within 5 min and did more visits per flower when compared with NP that also lasted longer in their trips. Significant correlations were found between environmental variables and the number of bees entering the hive and the number of bees on the flowers. For NP, the highest correlation was found for light intensity whilst in BI a negative effect of environmental temperature was detected. Regarding the quantity of fruit, BI resulted in higher fruit set when compared with NP, but the latter performed similarly to MV. However, the weight of the fruit and seed number was significantly higher for BI when compared with NP, and this was higher than for MV. Our results demonstrate that at the densities of tomato plants tested, one colony of BI was more efficient pollinator when compared with NP. We suggest that pollination efficiency of NP could have been limited by a reduced number of foragers on the plants at a given time and their limited flight range when compared with BI. Therefore, it will be necessary to evaluate if increasing densities of colonies of NP could improve tomato yield in tropical greenhouses.     

Intra‐floral resource partitioning between endemic and invasive flower visitors: consequences for pollinator effectiveness

1. Sympatric flower visitor species often partition nectar and pollen and thus affect each other's foraging pattern. Consequently, their pollination service may also be influenced by the presence of other flower visiting species. Ants are solely interested in nectar and frequent flower visitors of some plant species but usually provide no pollination service. Obligate flower visitors such as bees depend on both nectar and pollen and are often more effective pollinators. 2. In Hawaii, we studied the complex interactions between flowers of the endemic tree Metrosideros polymorpha (Myrtaceae) and both, endemic and introduced flower‐visiting insects. The former main‐pollinators of M. polymorpha were birds, which, however, became rare. We evaluated the pollinator effectiveness of endemic and invasive bees and whether it is affected by the type of resource collected and the presence of ants on flowers. 3. Ants were dominant nectar‐consumers that mostly depleted the nectar of visited inflorescences. Accordingly, the visitation frequency, duration, and consequently the pollinator effectiveness of nectar‐foraging honeybees (Apis mellifera) strongly decreased on ant‐visited flowers, whereas pollen‐collecting bees remained largely unaffected by ants. Overall, endemic bees (Hylaeus spp.) were ineffective pollinators. 4. The average net effect of ants on pollination of M. polymorpha was neutral, corresponding to a similar fruit set of ant‐visited and ant‐free inflorescences. 5. Our results suggest that invasive social hymenopterans that often have negative impacts on the Hawaiian flora and fauna may occasionally provide neutral (ants) or even beneficial net effects (honeybees), especially in the absence of native birds.