Evaluation of Visiting Behavior and Pollination Effect of Apis cerana cerana and Bombus terrestris on Forsythia suspensa

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2025-0083

Abstract

Abstract:

To screen suitable pollinating insects for Forsythia suspensa, the foraging behaviors and pollination effects of Bombus terrestris and Apis cerana cerana were observed and compared. In the F. suspensa field, test areas for B. terrestris, A. cerana cerana, and a control area were established. Pollination methods included self-pollination, wind pollination, and entomophily. During the flowering period of F. suspensa, flower branches were selected and tagged to mark the number of flowers. After fruit setting, the fruit setting rate was counted, and at the harvest stage, quantitative indicators such as fruit length, fruit width, fresh weight, and dry weight of F. suspensa fruits under different treatments were statistically analyzed. The results showed that there were significant differences in flower-visiting behaviors between A. cerana cerana and B. terrestris on F. suspensa. The single flower visiting time of A. cerana cerana is (9.77±0.16) s, the flower-visiting frequency is (9.18±0.32) min, visit flower interval time is (3.50±0.60) s, the peak periods for leaving the nest and returning to the nest are 10:00 am (322 individuals) and 14:00 pm (237 individuals), respectively; B. terrestris single flower visit time is (14.65±3.25) min, visit flower frequency is (4.28±0.25) min, visit flower interval time is (7.65±1.35) s, the peak periods for leaving the nest and returning to the nest are 10:00 am (32 individuals) and 14:00 pm (28 individuals). The fruit setting rate of F. suspensa had obvious difference under different pollination treatments, the highest fruit-setting rate was observed in the A. cerana cerana pollination group (79%). While no significant difference existed between the B. terrestris pollination group (58%) and the control group (50%), both groups exhibited significantly higher fruit-setting rates compared to wind pollination (17%) and self-pollination (2%) in F. suspensa. There are significant differences in fruit length, width, fresh weight and dry weight of F. suspensa under different pollination treatments, the agronomic traits of F. suspensa fruit after pollination by A.cerana cerana are significantly better than other treatments. The effective distance for A. cerana cerana to release is 180 m. A. cerana cerana is an excellent bee species for pollinating F. suspensa and has a better pollination effect on F. suspensa.

Key words: Forsythia suspensa, Apis cerana cerana, Bombus terrestris, flower visiting behavior, pollination effect

LI Xiaodong, WU Nan, JIANG Tao, LIU Ming, WEN Chunxiu, GUO Wenxiu, WANG Yuan, ZHANG Xiyue, YU Yi, LIU Lingdi. Evaluation of Visiting Behavior and Pollination Effect of Apis cerana cerana and Bombus terrestris on Forsythia suspensa[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2025, 41(22): 134-140.

Figures/Tables 7

References 36

[1]	国家药典委员会. 中华人民共和国药典:一部[M]. 北京: 中国医学科学出版社, 2015:170-171.
[2]	夏伟, 董诚明, 杨朝帆, 等. 连翘化学成分及其药理学研究进展[J]. 中国现代中药, 2016, 18(12):1670-1674.
[3]	齐丽娜, 陈炫好, 金华, 等. 中药连翘化学成分及药理活性研究进展[J]. 天津中医药大学学报, 2021, 40(2):168-175.
[4]	AIZEN M A, GARIBALDI L A, CUNNINGHAM S A, et al. How much does agriculture depend on pollinators? Lessons from long-term trends in crop production[J]. Annals of botany, 2009, 103(9):1579-1588. doi: 10.1093/aob/mcp076 pmid: 19339297
[5]	KLEIN A M, VAISSIERE B E, CANE J H, et al. Importance of pollinators in changing landscapes for world crops[J]. Proceedings: biological sciences, 2007, 274:303-313.
[6]	GALLAI N, SALLES J M, SETTELE J, et al. Economic valuation of the vulnerability of world agriculture confronted with pollinator decline[J]. Ecological economics, 2009, 68(3):810-821.
[7]	OLLERTON J, WINFREE R, TARRANT S. How many flowering plants are pollinated by animals?[J]. Oikos, 2011, 120:321-326.
[8]	LINDSTROM S A M, HERBERTSSON L, RUNDLOF M, et al. Large-scale pollination experiment demonstrates the importance of insect pollination in winter oilseed rape[J]. Oecologia, 2016, 180(3):759-769. doi: 10.1007/s00442-015-3517-x pmid: 26650584
[9]	谢正华, JONATHAN T, 安建东. 滇东南南瓜传粉昆虫密度对生境丧失的差异性响应[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2017, 25(3):337-344.
[10]	ROSELLINI D, PEZZOTTI M, VERONESI F. Characterization of transgenic male sterility in alfalfa[J]. Euphytica, 2001, 118(3):313-319.
[11]	王志锋, 徐安凯, 杨允菲. 我国苜蓿种子丰产研究现状[J]. 草业科学, 2007(7):43-50.
[12]	朱小强, 魏歌龙, 黄霞. 连翘GAP栽培技术研究[J]. 陕西农业科学, 2004(4):80-82.
[13]	党建昌, 章金刚. 连翘生产技术标准化操作规程(SOP)讨论稿[J]. 中药科技, 2003, 5(9):21-23.
[14]	KLEIN A M, STEFFAN-DEWENTER I, TSCHARNTKE T. Bee pollination and fruit set of Coffea arabica and C. canephora (Rubiaceae)[J]. American journal of botany, 2003, 90(1):153-157.
[15]	李江红. 影响蜜蜂为农作物授粉效能的因素分析[J]. 农学学报, 2015, 5(9):104-109. doi: 10.11923/j.issn.2095-4050.2014-xb0890
[16]	罗文华, 姬聪慧, 刘佳霖, 等. 2种蜂对黄沙白柚的访花行为及授粉效果研究[J]. 西南农业学报, 2019, 32(6):1360-1365.
[17]	张骞. 意大利蜜蜂为河西地区紫花苜蓿种子生产授粉研究[J]. 甘肃畜牧兽医, 2017, 47(5):98-99.
[18]	李秀风. 甘草开花特性及传粉生物学研究[D]. 保定: 河北农业大学, 2010.
[19]	郭媛, 宋卓琴, 张旭风, 等. 西方蜜蜂和地熊蜂为紫花苜蓿授粉效果比较[J]. 应用昆虫学报, 2017, 54(6):1008-1014.
[20]	石风善, 刘祥伟, 于文全, 等. 高加索蜜蜂对俄罗斯紫花苜蓿授粉的效果[J]. 草业科学, 2009, 26(8):147-151.
[21]	RICHARDS K W. Effectiveness of the alfalfa leafcutter bee Megachile rotundata Fab. to pollinate perennial clovers[J]. Journal of apicultural research, 2016, 55(3):259-267.
[22]	孟柏达, 任晓晓, 龚雪阳, 等. 西方蜜蜂对东方蜜蜂采集行为及食物资源利用的影响[J]. 应用昆虫学报, 2019, 56(5):1070-1078.
[23]	方海涛, 斯琴巴特. 蒙古扁桃的花部综合特征与虫媒传粉[J]. 生态学杂志, 2007(2):177-18.
[24]	武敏, 张旭凤, 张云毅, 等. 意大利蜜蜂和苜蓿切叶蜂为紫花苜蓿授粉访花行为比较[J]. 中国蜂业, 2020, 71(12):72-74.
[25]	臧福君, 曾宪波, 陆占忠, 等. 苜蓿切叶蜂繁育及对苜蓿种子产量影响情况初报[J]. 黑龙江畜牧兽医, 1999(8):22-23.
[26]	纪霜, 杨丽, 闫淑君, 等. 植物花部特征与访花昆虫互作关系研究进展[J]. 世界林业研究, 2023, 36(2):26-31.
[27]	周峰, 姚丽媛, 石涵, 等. 传粉熊蜂访花行为的研究进展[J]. 昆虫学报, 2023, 66(3):419-438.
[28]	张青文, 张巍巍, 蔡青年, 等. 苜蓿切叶蜂授粉扩散行为及苜蓿种子增产效应的研究[J]. 应用生态学报, 1999(5):606-608.
[29]	田润炜, 陆嘉惠, 谢良碧, 等. 光果甘草与乌拉尔甘草开花与传粉方式对生殖及种间关系的影响[J]. 西北植物学报, 2012, 32(10):2004-2008.
[30]	董捷, 安建东, 黄家兴, 等. 不同蜂传粉对设施桃果实生长发育和品质的影响[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2011, 19(4):836-842.
[31]	江伟, 马建芳, 张成义, 等. 不同授粉方式在樱桃番茄生产上的应用试验[J]. 浙江农业科学, 2014(10):1530-1531.
[32]	安钰, 李明, 李生兵, 等. 乌拉尔甘草开花习性及种子生产特性研究[J]. 宁夏农林科技, 2017, 58(5):1-3.
[33]	张凯月, 贺春玲, 陈玲玲, 等. 地熊蜂在油用牡丹凤丹上的传粉生态学研究[J]. 河南农业科学, 2019, 48(8):102-109.
[34]	赵博光, 徐光辉, 肖智勇, 等. 油茶熊蜂授粉试验初报[J]. 南京林业大学学报(自然科学版), 2018, 42(1):175-180. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2006.201702010
[35]	王静, 孙涛, 高夫超, 等. 黑龙江省甘南向日葵蜜蜂授粉试验研究[J]. 中国林副特产, 2020(2):8-10.
[36]	郑永惠. 向日葵蜜蜂授粉效果分析[J]. 中国蜂业, 2019, 70(12):26-27.

试验蜂	单花访问时间/s	访花频率/(朵/min)	访花间隔时间/s
中华蜜蜂	9.77±0.16b	9.18±0.32a	3.50±0.60b
地熊蜂	14.65±3.25a	4.28±0.25b	7.65±1.35a

试验蜂	单花访问时间/s	访花频率/(朵/min)	访花间隔时间/s
中华蜜蜂	9.77±0.16b	9.18±0.32a	3.50±0.60b
地熊蜂	14.65±3.25a	4.28±0.25b	7.65±1.35a

授粉方式	花柱类型	果长/mm	果宽/mm	鲜重/g	干重/g	种子数/个
中华蜜蜂授粉	长花柱	20.85±0.21a	9.80±0.22a	0.88±0.03a	0.29±0.02a	34±1.38a
地熊蜂授粉		18.15±0.40bc	8.55±0.68b	0.62±0.14b	0.20±0.01bc	23±0.89b
风传授粉		17.26±0.40c	9.27±0.68a	0.66±0.14b	0.23±0.03b	27±0.44b
自交授粉		19.90±1.33ab	9.01±0.57ab	0.54±0.07c	0.19±0.01bc	24±1.93b
对照组		18.25±0.64bc	8.69±0.13b	0.69±0.01b	0.22±0.01b	31±0.44a
中华蜜蜂授粉	短花柱	19.41±0.17a	9.33±0.29a	0.73±0.03a	0.22±0.01a	31±1.33a
地熊蜂授粉		17.98±0.49ab	7.97±0.18b	0.36±0.01c	0.16±0.02b	22±1.52b
风传授粉		16.93±0.23c	8.93±0.21ab	0.54±0.01b	0.20±0.02a	23±1.11b
自交授粉		18.11±0.40ab	8.74±0.68b	0.58±0.14b	0.18±0.01b	25±0.58b
对照组		17.67±0.24bc	8.55±0.33ab	0.52±0.17b	0.17±0.01b	23±0.83b

授粉方式	花柱类型	果长/mm	果宽/mm	鲜重/g	干重/g	种子数/个
中华蜜蜂授粉	长花柱	20.85±0.21a	9.80±0.22a	0.88±0.03a	0.29±0.02a	34±1.38a
地熊蜂授粉		18.15±0.40bc	8.55±0.68b	0.62±0.14b	0.20±0.01bc	23±0.89b
风传授粉		17.26±0.40c	9.27±0.68a	0.66±0.14b	0.23±0.03b	27±0.44b
自交授粉		19.90±1.33ab	9.01±0.57ab	0.54±0.07c	0.19±0.01bc	24±1.93b
对照组		18.25±0.64bc	8.69±0.13b	0.69±0.01b	0.22±0.01b	31±0.44a
中华蜜蜂授粉	短花柱	19.41±0.17a	9.33±0.29a	0.73±0.03a	0.22±0.01a	31±1.33a
地熊蜂授粉		17.98±0.49ab	7.97±0.18b	0.36±0.01c	0.16±0.02b	22±1.52b
风传授粉		16.93±0.23c	8.93±0.21ab	0.54±0.01b	0.20±0.02a	23±1.11b
自交授粉		18.11±0.40ab	8.74±0.68b	0.58±0.14b	0.18±0.01b	25±0.58b
对照组		17.67±0.24bc	8.55±0.33ab	0.52±0.17b	0.17±0.01b	23±0.83b

蜂种	指标	30 m	60 m	90 m	120 m	150 m	180 m	210 m	240 m	270 m	300 m
中华蜜蜂	座果率/%	74.46a	70.66a	69.35b	67.48b	67.63b	68.2b	57.9c	54.7c	53.2c	50.75d
中华蜜蜂	单果鲜重/g	0.91a	0.82a	0.73b	0.70b	0.70b	0.66c	0.59d	0.58d	0.52e	0.49f
地熊蜂	座果率/%	62.48a	59.35a	55.78b	56.25b	54.88b	55.23b	52.32c	52.69c	50.35c	50.25c
地熊蜂	单果鲜重/g	0.73a	0.68b	0.63c	0.66b	0.62c	0.59d	0.55e	0.53e	0.53e	0.50f