scholarly journals Effects of Honey Bee Pollination on Pumpkin Fruit and Seed Yield

HortScience ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 370-373 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Alan Walters ◽  
Bradley H. Taylor
Keyword(s):  
Honey Bee ◽  
Honey Bees ◽  
Cucurbita Pepo ◽  
Fruit Set ◽  
Fruit Size ◽  
Field Conditions ◽  
Bee Pollination ◽  
Fruit Number ◽  
Carpenter Bees ◽  
Bee Colonies

The objective of this study was to measure honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) impact on seed set, fruit set, and yield of jack-o-lantern (Cucurbita pepo L.), large-sized (C. maxima Duch.), and processing pumpkins (C. moschata Duch. ex Poir.) under field conditions. There were sufficient natural pollinators [including bumblebees (Bombus spp.), carpenter bees (Xylocopa spp.), honey bees, and squash bees (Peponapis pruinosa Say)] provided under field conditions to induce fruit set of jack-o-lantern pumpkins as fruit number obtained per hectare was not affected by the addition of a honey bee colony. However, the addition of honey bees did increase fruit number per hectare of the C. moschata and C. maxima cultivars evaluated. Honey bee pollination resulted in larger-sized fruit, increasing individual fruit size of all but small-sized pumpkins (<0.5 kg). Individual pumpkin fruit weights of the Cucurbita pepo, C. moschata, and C. maxima cultivars evaluated increased by about, 26%, 70%, and 78%, respectively, when honey bee colonies were included. Natural pollination was insufficient to stimulate maximum fruit size development and seed number and seed weight per fruit. Although pumpkin fruit set will occur with natural pollinators, the addition of honey bee colonies will ensure the presence of pollinators to maximize fruit size. Since pumpkins are generally sold on a weight basis, growers may generate greater revenues with the addition of honey bee colonies in pumpkin fields.

scholarly journals Influence of Honey Bees on Pumpkin Yields in Illinois

HortScience ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 39 (4) ◽  
pp. 866A-866
Author(s):  
S. Alan Walters* ◽  
Bradley H. Taylor
Keyword(s):  
Honey Bee ◽  
Honey Bees ◽  
Fruit Set ◽  
Fruit Size ◽  
Weight Basis ◽  
Growing Seasons ◽  
Bee Colony ◽  
Insect Pollinators ◽  
Potential Benefits ◽  
Bee Colonies

Most small pumpkin growers in Illinois have traditionally relied upon natural insect pollinators to achieve fruit set and development. Many growers fail to understand the importance of pollination and are not aware of the potential benefits of using honey bee colonies to improve pollination and subsequent fruit set of pumpkin. Therefore, a study was conducted over the 2000 and 2001 growing seasons to measure the effectiveness of honey bee colonies on jack-o-lantern pumpkin production. Yields (kg·ha-1) of several cultivars (e.g., `Appalachian' and `Howden') almost doubled when honey bee colonies were present during flowering. Pumpkin weights with the inclusion of honey bees averaged 31,547 kg·ha-1 compared to 22,353 kg·ha-1 for those without honey bees. However, the number of pumpkins per ha was not as drastically influenced by the addition of honey bees; total pumpkin fruits per ha averaged 1,896 with honey bees as compared to 1,704 without honey bees. These results indicate that there were sufficient natural pollinators to induce pumpkin fruit set under field conditions during the study, but fruit size can be significantly increased with the addition of a strong honey bee colony during flowering. Since pumpkins are generally sold on a weight basis, growers should realize greater revenues with the inclusion of honey bee colonies in pumpkin fields.

scholarly journals An easy-to-manage two-entrance honey bee hive system for greenhouse pollination that improves fruit production

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (11) ◽  
pp. e589101120029
Author(s):  
Beatriz de Jesus Rodrigues ◽  
Omar Jorge Sabbag ◽  
Gustavo do Valle Polycarpo ◽  
David De Jong ◽  
Daniel Nicodemo
Keyword(s):  
Honey Bees ◽  
Cucurbita Pepo ◽  
Female Flower ◽  
Fruit Production ◽  
Total Production ◽  
Labor Costs ◽  
Bee Pollination ◽  
Flight Direction ◽  
Hand Pollination ◽  
Bee Colonies

An alternative two-entrance hive system demonstrated here is less taxing for the bee colonies. Bees are directed to forage inside the greenhouse when the crop is in flower, and only have access to the outside after anthesis. Consequently, there are no bees in the greenhouse in the afternoon, facilitating crop management. This system allows the farmer to control bee access to the crop without the need for a smoker or protective equipment. Using this system, we compared pollination by honey bees (Apis mellifera) to hand pollination of zucchini squash (Cucurbita pepo) in greenhouses, during two crop seasons. Data included number of flower visits by the bees, fruit production, and the time and consequent labor costs needed to control bee flight direction versus the costs of hand pollination. In the greenhouses with bees, each female flower received a mean of more than 40 bee visits. When eight or more bees visited a flower, the fruits were significantly heavier than with manual pollination (313 versus 232 g, respectively). Total production was increased 41% with bee pollination. Using bee pollination increased profit over 12%, taking into account hive rental and labor costs for hand pollination versus manipulating the hive entrances.

scholarly journals Honey-bee-mediated Cross- versus Self-pollination of `Sharpblue' Blueberry Increases Fruit Size and Hastens Ripening

1991 ◽  
Vol 116 (5) ◽  
pp. 770-773 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregory A. Lang ◽  
Robert G. Danka
Keyword(s):  
Apis Mellifera ◽  
Honey Bee ◽  
Honey Bees ◽  
Fruit Set ◽  
Fruit Size ◽  
Vaccinium Corymbosum ◽  
Cross Pollination ◽  
Early Ripening ◽  
Southern Highbush ◽  
Early Market

To study self- and cross-pollination effects on fruit development in southern highbush (mainly Vaccinium corymbosum L.) blueberries, `Sharpblue' plants were caged with honey bees (Apis mellifera L.) and other `Sharpblue' or `Gulfcoast' plants at anthesis. Ratios of pollinizer: fruiting flowers ranged from 2.1 to 4.5. Cross-pollination increased fruit size by ≈14% and seed count by 27% but did not influence fruit set. Overall, seed count decreased by 58% during the 30 days of harvest, but this did not directly affect fruit size. Seed count appeared to influence earliness of ripening as much as it influenced fruit size. Cross-pollination increased the harvest percentage of early-ripening fruits by ≈140% and of premium market fruits (those ≥ 0.75 g) by 13% and decreased the percentage of small fruits by 66%. Consequently, a 43% increase in premium early market crop value (nearly $5000/ha) resulted from optimizing `Sharpblue' cross-pollination.

scholarly journals Honey Bee Pollination Requirements for Triploid Watermelon

HortScience ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 40 (5) ◽  
pp. 1268-1270 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Alan Walters
Keyword(s):  
Honey Bee ◽  
Honey Bees ◽  
Fruit Set ◽  
Citrullus Lanatus ◽  
Hollow Heart ◽  
Subsequent Development ◽  
Soluble Solids ◽  
Bee Pollination ◽  
Male Flowers ◽  
Triploid Watermelon

Honey bees (Apis mellifera L.) are important pollinators of triploid watermelon [Citrullus lanatus (Thunb.) Matsum & Nakai]. Pistillate (or female) watermelon flowers require multiple honey bee or other wild bee visitations after visiting staminate (or male) flowers for fruit set, and pollination is even more of a concern in triploid watermelon production since staminate flowers contain mostly nonviable pollen. Six honey bee visitation treatments—1) no visitation control, 2) two visits, 3) four visits, 4) eight visits, 5) 16 visits, and 6) open-pollinated control—were evaluated to determine the effectiveness of honey bee pollination on `Millionaire' triploid watermelon fruit set, yield, and quality utilizing `Crimson Sweet' at a 33% pollenizer frequency. `Millionaire' quality characters (hollow heart disorder or percent soluble solids) did not differ (P > 0.05) between honey bee pollination treatments. The open-pollinated control provided the highest fruit set rate (80%) and the greatest triploid watermelon numbers and weights per plot compared to all other honey bee visitation treatments. Fruit set, and fruit numbers and weights per plot increased linearly as number of honey bee visits to pistillate flowers increased from 0 (no visit control) to the open-pollinated control (about 24 visits). This study indicated that between 16 and 24 honey bee visits are required to achieve maximum triploid watermelon fruit set and yields at a 33% pollenizer frequency, which is twice the number of honey bee visits required by seeded watermelons to achieve similar results. This is probably due to many honey bees visiting staminate triploid watermelon flowers (that are in close proximity) before visiting pistillate flowers thus providing mostly nonviable pollen that is useless for fruit set and development. Therefore, more honey bee visits to pistillate triploid watermelon flowers would be required to achieve maximum fruit set and subsequent development compared to seeded watermelons.

Are Non-Target Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) Exposed to Dinotefuran From Spotted Lanternfly (Hemiptera: Fulgoridae) Trap Trees?

2019 ◽  
Vol 112 (6) ◽  
pp. 2993-2996 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robyn Underwood ◽  
Brian Breeman ◽  
Joseph Benton ◽  
Jason Bielski ◽  
Julie Palkendo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Honey Bee ◽  
Honey Bees ◽  
High Performance ◽  
Host Plants ◽  
The United States ◽  
Quechers Method ◽  
Significant Damage ◽  
Lycorma Delicatula ◽  
Bee Colonies ◽  
Worker Bee

Abstract The spotted lanternfly, Lycorma delicatula, is an introduced plant hopper that causes significant damage to host plants in the United States. Because of its affinity for tree of heaven, Ailanthus altissima, control efforts have focused on the use of the systemic insecticide, dinotefuran, in designated trap trees. There is concern about exposure to this pesticide by non-target species, especially honey bees, Apis mellifera, via lanternfly honeydew. Therefore, honey bee colonies were established in areas of high densities of trap trees and samples of honey, bees, and beeswax were collected in May, July, and October of 2017 for analysis. Samples were extracted by the QuEChERS method and analyzed using high-performance liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry to determine the presence and quantity of dinotefuran. Additionally, honeydew from lanternflies was analyzed for dinotefuran and informal observations of trap tree visitors were made. None of the worker bee, wax, or honey samples indicated detectable levels of dinotefuran; however, honeydew samples collected did contain dinotefuran above the detection limit with amounts ranging from 3 to 100 ng per sample. The lack of dinotefuran in honey bee products matches the general absence of honey bees at trap trees in informal observations.

scholarly journals Winter Survival of Individual Honey Bees and Honey Bee Colonies Depends on Level of Varroa destructor Infestation

PLoS ONE ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. e36285 ◽  
Author(s):  
Coby van Dooremalen ◽  
Lonne Gerritsen ◽  
Bram Cornelissen ◽  
Jozef J. M. van der Steen ◽  
Frank van Langevelde ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Honey Bee ◽  
Honey Bees ◽  
Varroa Destructor ◽  
Winter Survival ◽  
Bee Colonies

scholarly journals Deformed wing virus variant shift from 2010 to 2016 in managed and feral UK honey bee colonies

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. L. Kevill ◽  
K. C. Stainton ◽  
D. C. Schroeder ◽  
S. J. Martin
Keyword(s):  
Honey Bee ◽  
Honey Bees ◽  
Small Study ◽  
Deformed Wing Virus ◽  
Virus Variant ◽  
The Usa ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Bee Colonies ◽  
Existing Data

AbstractDeformed wing virus (DWV) has been linked to the global decline of honey bees. DWV exists as three master variants (DWV-A, DWV-B, and DWV-C), each with differing outcomes for the honey bee host. Research in the USA showed a shift from DWV-A to DWV-B between 2010 to 2016 in honey bee colonies. Likewise, in the UK, a small study in 2007 found only DWV-A, whereas in 2016, DWV-B was the most prevalent variant. This suggests a shift from DWV-A to DWV-B might have occurred in the UK between 2007 and 2016. To investigate this further, data from samples collected in 2009/10 (n = 46) were compared to existing data from 2016 (n = 42). These samples also allowed a comparison of DWV variants between Varroa-untreated (feral) and Varroa-treated (managed) colonies. The results revealed that, in the UK, DWV-A was far more prevalent in 2009/10 (87%) than in 2016 (43%). In contrast, DWV-B was less prevalent in 2009/10 (76%) than in 2016 (93%). Regardless if colonies had been treated for Varroa (managed) or not (feral), the same trend from DWV-A to DWV-B occurred. Overall, the results reveal a decrease in DWV-A and an increase in DWV-B in UK colonies.

scholarly journals Probabilistic assessment of nectar requirements for nectar-foraging honey bees

Apidologie ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 51 (2) ◽  
pp. 180-200 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara Rodney ◽  
Vincent J. Kramer
Keyword(s):  
Honey Bee ◽  
Honey Bees ◽  
Dietary Exposure ◽  
Food Storage ◽  
Regulatory Agencies ◽  
American Government ◽  
The North ◽  
Dietary Requirements ◽  
Bee Colonies ◽  
Insight Into

AbstractRecent concerns regarding potential effects of pesticides on pollinators have prompted regulatory agencies to estimate dietary ingestion rates for honey bees (Apis mellifera). The task is difficult because of the complex caste and food storage systems in honey bee colonies. Considerable data on the nutrition and energetics of honey bees have recently been collated. These data were used to parameterize a probabilistic model estimating nectar requirements of nectar foragers. Median estimates were more than 6× lower than the recommended median value from the North American government agencies, of 292 mg nectar/bee/day. The distribution of estimates had much greater variability than those of the agencies. The differences are due primarily to the disparate assumptions regarding how much time nectar foragers spend flying and foraging. Risk assessors considering honey bee dietary exposure should take account of current and emerging data providing insight into nectar forager dietary requirements, foraging activity, and feeding behavior.

scholarly journals Varroa jacobsoni infestation of adult Africanized and Italian honey bees (Apis mellifera) in mixed colonies in Brazil

1999 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 321-323 ◽  
Author(s):  
Geraldo Moretto ◽  
Leonidas João de Mello Jr.
Keyword(s):  
Apis Mellifera ◽  
Honey Bee ◽  
Honey Bees ◽  
Mite Infestation ◽  
Varroa Jacobsoni ◽  
Africanized Honey Bees ◽  
African Honey Bees ◽  
Africanized Bees ◽  
Bee Colonies ◽  
Different Levels

Different levels of infestation with the mite Varroa jacobsoni have been observed in the various Apis mellifera races. In general, bees of European races are more susceptible to the mite than African honey bees and their hybrids. In Brazil honey bee colonies are not treated against the mite, though apparently both climate and bee race influence the mite infestation. Six mixed colonies were made with Italian and Africanized honey bees. The percentage infestation by this parasite was found to be significantly lower in adult Africanized (1.69 ± 0.44) than Italian bees (2.79 ± 0.65). This ratio was similar to that found in Mexico, even though the Africanized bees tested there had not been in contact with varroa, compared to more than 20 years of the coexistence in Brazil. However, mean mite infestation in Brazil on both kinds of bees was only about a third of that found in Mexico.

scholarly journals Note: Recording of Some Beetles in Honey Bee Colonies

2018 ◽  
Vol 51 (2) ◽  
pp. 85-90 ◽  
Author(s):  
H.F. Abou-Shaara ◽  
M.E. Ahmad ◽  
J. Háva
Keyword(s):  
Honey Bee ◽  
Honey Bees ◽  
The Other ◽  
Beetle Species ◽  
Large Numbers ◽  
The World ◽  
Bee Bread ◽  
Small Hive Beetles ◽  
Bee Colonies ◽  
Different Parts

Abstract Honey bees are very valuable to human. These social insects contribute in the pollination of many crops. Also, the products from honey bee colonies have many nutritional and medicinal benefits. Thus, keeping honey bees are very valuable and can be considered as source of income to many families. There are many diseases and pests that attack honey bee colonies. The pests attack bee colonies include: hornets, wax moths, bee-eater birds, and beetles. Such challenges can impact the survival and productivity of honey bee colonies. In this study, some beetle species belong to Fam. Nitidulidae, Dermestidae and Mycetophagidae were detected in honey bee colonies in Egypt, during spring. Despite the presence of many beetle species in the agricultural environment, only few species preferred the invasion of the colonies for feeding. These beetles do not attack stages of honey bees. They only feed on stored pollen or bee bread, especially those fallen on the bottom of the beehives. This is an alarm to follow the feeding behavior and distribution of these beetles. These beetles’ species can be considered as potential pests to weak honey bee colonies, housed in old or damaged beehives. The presence of large numbers of these beetles in weak colonies may disturb the activities of the bees and may passively impact the survival of the colonies. Listing these beetles is very important to better understanding the interaction between honey bees and beetles. On the other side, small hive beetles were not detected in the colonies. These beetles are currently one of the major problems facing honey bees in different parts of the world. This study confirms the absence of small hive beetles from Egypt.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document