TY - JOUR
T1 - African endemic stingless bees as an efficient alternative pollinator to honey bees in greenhouse cucumber (Cucumis sativus L)
AU - Kiatoko, Nkoba
AU - Pozo, Maria I.
AU - Van Oystaeyen, Annette
AU - Musonye, Maurice
AU - Kika, Junior
AU - Wäckers, Felix
AU - van Langevelde, Frank
AU - Hundt, Baerbel
AU - Jaramillo, Juliana
PY - 2023/10/20
Y1 - 2023/10/20
N2 - The current honey bee decline necessitates the use of alternative native pollinators to ensure global food security. Here, we compared the pollination behaviour and efficiency of the African honey bee (Apis mellifera) and six African endemic Meliponini (Meliponula bocandei, Dactylurina schmidti, Meliponula lendliana, Hypotrigona gribodoi, Meliponula ferruginea and Meliponula togoensis) in a greenhouse with the non-parthenocarpic cucumber variety Super Marketer. Honey bees and D. schmidti started foraging on introduction in the greenhouse, while M. lendliana and M. togoensis showed the longest delay. In most species, foragers collected nectar and pollen, excepting M. bocandei that specialized in nectar collection, and H. gribodoi and M. togoensis, specialized in pollen collection. African honey bees visited flowers the shortest, while H. gribodoi and D. schmidti had a 2-fold probing time, on average. Most stingless bees species had a lower hive activity with fewer foragers encountered per hour than for honey bees, except D. schmidti. M. bocandei, M. ferruginea, A. mellifera scutellata and H. gribodoi, yielded a seed germination percentage of around 90%. M. lendliana, M. togoensis and D. schmidti yielded a much lower seed germination percentage around 30%, which indicates that the quality of pollination was remarkably lower by using these three species. The highest sugar content was recorded in fruits from flowers pollinated by M. bocandei, African honey bees, D. schimdti or M. togoensis with the same solid content as the gold standard method, i.e., hand cross-pollination. We found that M. bocandei was the most efficient cucumber pollinator of all species tested: because pollination by this species yielded the largest and heaviest fruits and the highest seed numbers.
AB - The current honey bee decline necessitates the use of alternative native pollinators to ensure global food security. Here, we compared the pollination behaviour and efficiency of the African honey bee (Apis mellifera) and six African endemic Meliponini (Meliponula bocandei, Dactylurina schmidti, Meliponula lendliana, Hypotrigona gribodoi, Meliponula ferruginea and Meliponula togoensis) in a greenhouse with the non-parthenocarpic cucumber variety Super Marketer. Honey bees and D. schmidti started foraging on introduction in the greenhouse, while M. lendliana and M. togoensis showed the longest delay. In most species, foragers collected nectar and pollen, excepting M. bocandei that specialized in nectar collection, and H. gribodoi and M. togoensis, specialized in pollen collection. African honey bees visited flowers the shortest, while H. gribodoi and D. schmidti had a 2-fold probing time, on average. Most stingless bees species had a lower hive activity with fewer foragers encountered per hour than for honey bees, except D. schmidti. M. bocandei, M. ferruginea, A. mellifera scutellata and H. gribodoi, yielded a seed germination percentage of around 90%. M. lendliana, M. togoensis and D. schmidti yielded a much lower seed germination percentage around 30%, which indicates that the quality of pollination was remarkably lower by using these three species. The highest sugar content was recorded in fruits from flowers pollinated by M. bocandei, African honey bees, D. schimdti or M. togoensis with the same solid content as the gold standard method, i.e., hand cross-pollination. We found that M. bocandei was the most efficient cucumber pollinator of all species tested: because pollination by this species yielded the largest and heaviest fruits and the highest seed numbers.
KW - behaviour
KW - Conservation
KW - crop yield
KW - cucurbits
KW - Meliponini
KW - pollination
UR - https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.17871917
U2 - 10.1080/00218839.2021.2013421
DO - 10.1080/00218839.2021.2013421
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85122304581
SN - 0021-8839
VL - 62
SP - 1017
EP - 1029
JO - Journal of Apicultural Research
JF - Journal of Apicultural Research
IS - 5
ER -