Bee Scent Article PDF

EVALUATION OF INDIGENOUS BEE ATTRACTANTS
IN Bt COTTON
Thesis submitted to the

University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad
In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
Degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE (AGRICULTURE)
In
AGRICULTURAL ENTOMOLOGY
By
ANJANKUMAR NAIK
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL ENTOMOLOGY

COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, DHARWAD
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES,
DHARWAD – 580 005
JUNE, 2010
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DHARWAD (SHASHIDHAR VIRAKTAMATH)
JUNE, 2010 MAJOR ADVISOR
Approved by :
Chairman : ___________________________
(SHASHIDHAR VIRAKTAMATH)
Members : 1. __________________________
(A.S. VASTRAD)
2. __________________________
(S.S. UDIKERI)
3. __________________________
(S.N. MEGERI)
CONTENTS
Sl. No. Chapter Particulars
CERTIFICATE
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF PLATES
1. INTRODUCTION
2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE
2.1 Pollinator fauna and foraging activity of honey bees on cotton
2.2 Influence bee attractants on bee visitation in two genotypes of Bt

cotton
2.3 Influence of bee attractants on yield parameters of Bt cotton
3. MATERIAL AND METHODS
3.1 Pollinator fauna and foraging activity of honey bees in two

genotypes of Bt cotton
3.2 Influence of indigenous bee attractants on honey bee visitation

in two genotypes of Bt cotton
3.3 Influence of bee attractants on yield parameters of two

4. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

4.2 Influence of indigenous bee attractants on bee visitation in two


5. DISCUSSION
5.1 Pollinator fauna and foraging activity of honeybees on two
5.2 Influence of indigenous bee attractants on bee visitation on two
5.3 Influence of bee attractants on yield and yield parameters of two
6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
REFERENCES
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Title
No.
1. Pollinator fauna in BG-I and BG-II genotypes of Bt cotton
2. Foraging activity of Apis dorsata in BG-I Bt cotton
3. Foraging activity of Apis dorsata in BG-II Bt cotton
4. Foraging activity of Apis cerana in BG-I Bt cotton
5. Foraging activity of Apis cerana in BG-II Bt cotton
6. Foraging activity of Apis florea in BG-I Bt cotton
7. Foraging activity of Apis florea in BG-II Bt cotton
8. Influence of indigenous bee attractants on bee visitation in Bt cotton

(Bunny BG-I) at I spray

(Bunny BG-I) at II spray

(Bunny BG-I) at III spray

(Bunny BG-II) at I spray

(Bunny BG-II) at II spray

(Bunny BG-II) at III spray
14. Influence of indigenous bee attractants on yield and yield parameters of

Bt cotton (Bunny BG-I)
15. Influence of indigenous bee attractants on yield and yield parameters of

Bt cotton (Bunny BG-II)
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Title
No.

(Bunny BG-I) at I spray

(Bunny BG-I) at II spray

(Bunny BG-I) at III spray

(Bunny BG-II) at I spray

(Bunny BG-II) at II spray

(Bunny BG-II) at III spray
7. Influence of bee attractants on number of good opened bolls in BG-I

cotton
8. Influence of bee attractants on number of good opened bolls in BG-II

cotton
9. Influence of bee attractants on number of seeds per boll in BG-I cotton
10. Influence of bee attractants on number of seeds per boll in BG-II cotton
11. Influence of bee attractants on lint yield (q/ha) in BG-I cotton
12. Influence of bee attractants on lint yield (q/ha) in BG-II cotton
13. Influence of bee attractants on seed yield (q/ha) in BG-I cotton
14. Influence of bee attractants on seed yield (q/ha) in BG-II cotton
15. Influence of bee attractants on Kapas yield (/ha) (q/ha) in BG-I cotton
16. Influence of bee attractants on Kapas yield (/ha) (q/ha) in BG-II cotton
LIST OF PLATES
Plate
Title
No.
1. General view of experimental plot (BG I) Bt cotton
2. General view of experimental plot (BG II) Bt cotton
3. Spraying of bee attractants on cotton flowers

1. INTRODUCTION
Cotton is the term used to describe cultivated species of genus Gossypium. The
English word comes from Arabic “qutum” or “kuntum”. It is also known as “White gold”,
“Queen of fibres” and is an important cash crop. Cotton supplies 75% of total raw material
needed by textile industry in our country. About 60 million people depend on activities relating
to cotton cultivation, cotton trade and its processing for their livelihood. In India, it provides
employment to 25 per cent of total industrial work force and earns export of more than Rs
60,000 crores, which is 30-35 per cent of total export earnings (Gumber et al., 2008).
The only country where all four cultivated species of cotton are grown on commercial
scale is India. World total cotton production is 22.04 million metric tons. In India, cotton is
grown in an area of 101.71 lakh hectares with a production of 292.00 lakh bales and
productivity of 488 kg per hectare. In Karnataka, cotton is grown in an area of 4.27 lakh
hectares with a production of 9.50 lakh bales and productivity of 378 kg per hectare
(Anonymous, 2010).
Among the insects, cotton bollworms are the most serious pests of cotton in India
causing annual losses of at least US$300 million. Insecticides valued at US$660 million are
used annually on all crops in India, of which about 55% are used on cotton alone (Manjunath,
2005; Rai et al., 2009).
Using insecticides for control of pests not only increased the cost of production but
also posed problems like pest resurgence, resistance, pesticide residues and so on.
These ever increasing problems have directed the attention of agricultural scientists,
to think about other best alternatives, which can overcome all the limitations of earlier
pesticide intensive pest management strategies. This has lead to novel technique of
development of transgenic crops popularly known as “Bt-technology”.
Bt cotton expressing Cry1Ac gene was first introduced in the USA and Australia in
1996-97. Transgenic cotton era started in India with release of three Mahyco-Monsanto
transgenic Bt cotton hybrids viz., MECH-12, MECH-162 and MECH-184 after approval by
GEAC (Genetic Engineering Approval Committee, Government of India) for commercial
cultivation on 26th March, 2002 (Anonymous, 2004).
Further, gene stacking or pyramiding in which two or more insecticidal proteins are
expressed in the plant is being adopted to obviate the development of resistance by the target
®
pest (Kumar et al., 2009). ‘Bollgard II’ (Cry1Ac and Cry2Ab) is an example of gene
®
pyramided Bt-cotton. Bollgard II was developed by inserting two genes from the soil
bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis Berliner. (Bt) into cotton. These genes produce two proteins
toxic to the insect pests of cotton.
Cotton flower is large, axillary, terminal and solitary. On account of the sympodial
development of fruiting branches, the flower opening follows a spiral course in acropetal and
centrifugal succession. The innermost bud of the lowest and oldest branch is the first to open
while the outermost bud of the highest and youngest branch is the last to do so. When the
flower opens, it is white or creamy white in the American varieties, changing to pink towards
the end of the day and becoming red the following morning. On the third day the petals wither
and fall.
Though self-pollination is the general rule, cross pollination also occurs in cotton.
Pollen grains of cotton are relatively heavy and sticky in nature, therefore wind is not a factor
in the pollination of cotton. Cotton is known to be excellent source of nectar from flowers,
circumbracts, sub-bracts and unipapilla (Punit et al., 1999). Cotton crop can serve as good
honey plant because of its longer flowering duration when other crops complete flowering. So
various pollinators are known to play an important role in cotton pollination (Bhale and Bhat,
1989).
Bee pollination in cotton recorded an increase in yield to an extent of 10-15 per cent
in G. arboreum and 20 to 25 per cent in G. hirsutum. Breeders have reported that, isolated
cotton blossoms usually do not produce as many seeds as or as much lint as open pollinated
ones. This increase in the yield due to cross pollination was related to factors such as,
increased number of pollen over the entire surface of the stigma (within a flower, anther
touches only the base of the stigma) and increased rate of pollen tube formation in pollen
grains from other flowers (Iyengar, 1938). It is also reported that bee pollination helps in
increasing boll retention, higher boll size, higher number of seeds per boll, lint per boll and
other yield parameters (Mohana Rao et al., 1996).
However, these nectar sources are not sufficient and strong enough to attract bees
from other competitive bee flora in the surroundings. Hence, to enhance bee pollination and
ultimately the yield of cotton, use of bee attractants forms the best and ecofriendly option.
Bee attractants can be classified mainly into three categories: food based,
pheromone based, and plant origin. Food based attractants mainly comprise of glucose,
maltose, sucrose, lactose, protein, fat, minerals, vitamins, and gluconic acid. Some of the
commercial products are Bee-Line, Bee Lure, and Bee-Q. Pheromone based attractants are
further divided into nasanov gland pheromone and queen mandibular pheromone and the
commercial forms are Bee-here, Bee scent plus and Fruit boost, respectively.
Earlier studies by Ganapathi (2005) have indicated that application of Fruit boost in Bt
cotton resulted in more good opened bolls, seeds per boll, higher seed yield, lint yield and
kapas yield.
Currently commercial bee attractants viz., Bee-Q, Bee scent plus, Bee here, Fruit
boost, Pollenaid, Bee lure, Pollinus, Api-fix are being used in countries like France, USA and
Canada. Though the Indian companies are involved in importing and marketing some of
these, they are cost prohibitive and are practically far away from the reach of majority of
Indian farmers. Hence there is a need to develop indigenous bee attractants so that use of
bee attractants becomes economically feasible in India. Keeping this in view, the present
investigations were made with the following objectives.
1. To study pollinator fauna and foraging activity of honeybees in two genotypes of Bt
cotton.
2. To study the influence of indigenous bee attractants on bee visitation in two
genotypes of Bt cotton.
3. To study effect of indigenous bee attractants on yield parameters in two genotypes of
Bt cotton.
2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Review of literature pertaining to pollinator fauna, foraging activity of honey bees,
effect of indigenous bee attractants on honey bee visitation and on two genotypes of Bt cotton
are presented in this chapter. The literature pertaining to these objectives in Bt cotton is
limited. Hence literature related to non Bt cotton and other crops are also reviewed in this
chapter.
2.2 Pollinator fauna and foraging activity of honey bees on cotton

Pollinator fauna of cotton
Afzal and Khan (1950) reported three species of Hymenotera viz., Apis dorsata
Fabricius, Anthophora confusa Smith and Elis thoracica Lapel were found to be predominant
pollinators of cotton.
Stephens and Finkner (1953) indicated that cross-pollination in cotton ranged from 5
to 50 per cent or more
Mc Gregor et al. (1955) reported that Mellissodes sp. (Apidae: Hymenoptera) was
predominant pollinator with about 10 times more abundant than any other pollinators.
Sidhu and Singh (1962) found that cotton flowers in the open pollinated plots were
being visited by A. dorsata, A. florea Fabricius, Scolia averipennis Lapel and E. thoracica
Fabricius.
Moffet et al. (1976) found that wild bees were numerous and formed 62 per cent of
Hymenopteran visits compared to 38 per cent of visits by honey bees. Most common wild
bees visited were Mellissodes sp. Agapostemon sp. Halictus sp., Diadasia sp. Bombus sp.
and Xylocopa sp.
Wasps, Elias plumipes Durry, E. thoracica, Compsomeris sp. were found to be
excellent pollinators of cotton in Northern Georgea, India and Arizona, respectively (Moffet et
al., 1974).
On an average, 45.45 honey bees (A. mellifera, A. cerana, A. dorsata and. A. florea),
31.16 wild bees, 17.33 scolids and 55.00 butterflies visited cotton flowers at Ludhiana.
Whereas, 43.25 honey bees, 20.66 scolids and 17.00 butterflies visited the cotton flowers at
Nakodar per 20 observations over 100 flowers (Tanda, 1983). Similarly, out of 0.50 per cent
of average bee visits, 0.44 was by honey bees and 0.06 per cent by wild bees (Waller et al.,
1985).
Among bumble bees, Bumbus pennsylvanicus (De Geer) constituted 90 per cent and
other species like B. freternus (Smith), B. morrisoni (Cresson) collectively formed rest of 10
per cent as reported by Berger et al. (1988).
Non-honey bee floral visitors were Trigona nigerima (Meliponidae), Xylocopa sp.,
Melaitoma euglossoides L., Megachile sp. (Megachilidae), Agapostemon sp., Neocoryanura
sp. (Halictidae), Scolia spp. (Scolidae) and an unidentified wasp belonging to family
Eumenidae (Looper and Davis, 1985).
Mohana Rao et al. (1996) reported that pollinating insects that visited A and B line
flowers of cotton were A. dorsata, A cerana, A. florea and solitary bees. Trigona irdipennis
Smith visited only for floral nectar.
Cotton flowers were visited by honey bees and wild bees with overall average of 0.7
bees per 100 flowers out of which, 0.5 were honey bees and 0.2 non-Apis bees (Vaissiere et
al. 1984).
El-Sarrag et al. (1993) showed that among different hymenopteran pollinators visited,
the most dominant species was A. mellifera (67.80%) which was followed by Bombus sp.
(14.70%). Of the total insect visitors on cotton flowers, hymenopteran visitors constituted 56
per cent.
Nachappa (2004) reported that Bt cotton flowers were visited by A. mellifera, A.
cerana, A. dorsata collectively constituting about 75 per cent of total pollinators. The other
pollinators visited were Xylocopa sp. (Anthoporidae), Megachile sp. (Megachlidae), Megachile
lanata Fab. (Megachilidae), Papilio demoleus Linn. (Papilionidae), Hemimeris sp. (Spingidae),
Telicota sp. (Hesperidae), Catopsilo pyranthae Linn. (Pieridae). Pollinator fauna in Bt-cotton
as well as non-Bt cotton did not vary.
Ganapathi (2005) concluded that honey bees and other pollinators constituted 89.10
and 10.90 per cent, 83.77 and 16.23 per cent of the total pollinators at (MARS), University of
Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad and Maradagi.
Hofs et al. (2008) reported that prevalence of honey bees (Apis mellifera L.), various
Nitidulidae and a unique Meloidae species (Mylabris oculata Thunberg) as flower visiting
insects in Bt and non-Bt cotton plants in the Makhathini Flats region of South Africa. Bt
phenotype had no impact on insect abundance and diversity compared to non-Bt plants.
According to Pleasants and Wendel (2010) primary visitors of Gossypium
tomentosum were introduced species, honey bees and carpenter bees, both of which were
pollinating the flowers. No native bee species were seen visiting flowers.
Bee visitation and foraging activity
Trelease (1879) reported that the floral nectaries were associated with insect
pollination in cotton.
Vansell (1944) found that the bee activity depended on the type and volume of
nectar. Similarly, Kaziev (1961) reported cotton as a good source of nectar for bees.
An individual cotton flower was visited by as many as 80 to 85 bumble bees in a
single day and with an average of 44.9 visits per flower per day as reported by Theis (1953).
Honey bees working in cotton had only 15 to 20 per cent pollen load (Kaziev, 1956a).
Honey bees collected small amount of cotton pollen and transported it to their hive when no
other pollen was available (Minkov, 1956).
Kaziev (1956b) observed the bees working on cotton flowers from 0700 h to 1800 h
daily with peak activity during mid-day when the amount and concentration of nectar was
more. Wafa and Ibrahim (1960) reported similar results.
Dulanto Batra (1958) reported that Melitoma euglossoides Lepel visited a single
cotton flower four times nearer to its nesting site.
Skrebtsov (1964) reported a 33 per cent increase in raw cotton by cross-pollination
within the variety with honey bees, and showed that the bees improved hybrid vigor.
Honey bees showed preference for extra floral nectar of cotton over nectar within the
flower and bees seldom collected pollen for storage in their hives (McGregor 1959). Similarly,
according to Moffet and Smith (1972) cotton flowers were visited by A. mellifera bees
primarily to collect nectar and they rarely collected pollen. But wild bees collected pollen freely
with preference for normal flower (male fertile flower) over male sterile ones.
Sidhu and Singh (1962) reported that A. cerana bees visited 6.63 + 0.59 cotton
flowers per minute and 127.54 flowers per foraging trip.
According to Melnichenko (1963) bee visits declined during afternoon though nectar
and pollen were available in plenty.
Free (1970) observed that the peak period of bumble bee activity occurred between
0900 h and 1030 h with an average of 45 visits per day on each flower.
Moffet and Smith (1972) reported an overall average visit of 15.44 A. mellifera bees
on 100 flowers. But, their visitation on A and B hybrid lines of seed production plots was just
1.67 and 1.0 bees per 100 flowers, respectively.
According to Moffet et al. (1975b), varieties developed from G. anamolum cytoplasm
were more attractive to the bees than flowers of their six other cytoplasms. The bees showed
distinct seasonal trend of high frequency of visits at the beginning of flowering and gradual
decline at the latter part of flowering and A. mellifera spent as much as 60 seconds with an
overall average of 12.5 seconds on each flower.
Moffet et al. (1975a) concluded that neither the absence of glands nor the lack of
extra floral and leaf nectaries greatly altered the number of bee visits compared to other
cultivars with nectar glands indicating that the bees visit cotton flowers for both pollen and
nectar.
Moffet et al. (1976) showed that bee visits on 100 cotton flowers ranged from 0.2 to
10.10 with an average of 4.9 in the first year of study. However, the visits ranged from 0.45 to
3.17 with an average of 1.35 during second year.
McGregor (1976) concluded that 10 honey bees per 100 flowers were sufficient to
cause practically all the stigmas to be coated with pollen. He also opined that cotton is an
important honey crop and bees visited cotton flowers mainly to collect nectar.
According to Moffet et al. (1976) genotypes with higher sugar concentration in floral
nectar attracted more honey bees than genotypes with lower concentrations.
Tanda and Goyal (1978) reported that the bees were sucking nectar in addition to
pollen collection during morning hours, but from 1200 h onwards till evening they collected
nectar only with peak visits at mid-day.
Waller et al. (1981) observed that cotton pollen is generally unacceptable to honey
bees. Henny et al. (1983) concluded that only one or less than one per cent of total pollen
stored by bees was collected from cotton. But, Tanda (1984) noticed the bees collecting and
carrying pollen with 10.3 mg of pollen/trip by A. mellifera and 9.5 mg of pollen per trip by A.
cerana.
A. cerana foragers visited maximum flowers per trip (124.10 flowers/trip) followed by
A. dorsata (94.35 flowers/trip) and A. mellifera (86.60 flowers/trip) in the fields of Asiatic
cotton (Tanda, 1984).
Waller et al. (1985) noticed that honey bees visits to the A line flower varied from 0.4
to 1.7 per cent and on the B line flower, it varied from 0.1 to 1.2 per cent over a five week
period of observation. They suggested that seasonal decrease in visits to cotton flowers was
due to competition from abundant and highly attractive pollen from other sources within flight
range. Similarly, higher bee visits were recorded during first degree day period than last
degree day period (Phillips and Simpson 1989).
Berger et al. (1988) noticed that in the morning more foragers visited male fertile rows
than the male sterile rows but not in the afternoon.
Hoffman and Morales (1989) noticed that there was equal distribution of honey bees
over fertile and sterile male rows. All foragers on sterile male flowers had some cotton pollen
on their bodies. They also reported that 79.2 and 60 per cent sterile male flowers were
pollinated in the row nearest and farthest away from fertile row, respectively. Overall mean of
7.2 honey bees per 100-flowers was observed.
According to Buchmann and Shipman (1990) collection time did not vary between
bees that collected only pollen (0.9 + 0.1 mg/min) and those which collected nectar (0.8 + 0.2
mg/min).
Mahmood et al. (1990) concluded that stigmas of upland cotton male sterile flowers
had highest number of pollen grain deposition corresponding to the higher bee visitation.
They also reported that the peak time of pollen deposition on the stigmas was between 10.00
and 12.00 h corresponding to the peak bee activity.
According to Vaissiere et al. (1984) overall visitation of bees averaged to 0.7 bees per
100 flowers of cotton. Abundant pollen was caught by the hair coating of the bees but cotton
pollen was rarely collected by the bees (Vaissiere and Vinson 1994).
Mohana Rao et al. (1996) reported that that peak visitation of A. dorsata and A.
cerana were observed between 1200 h and 1300 h, both species collected nectar as well as
pollen.
According to Ward and Ward (2002) increasing distance from colony the bee visits
reduced significantly in Bt cotton fields.
Nachappa and Viraktamath (2004) observed no significant difference with respect to
bee visits among Bt (5.81/10 flowers/min) and non-Bt (5.37/10 flowers/min) cotton hybrids.
Peak bee visits was recorded during 1200 h on both Bt and non-Bt cotton. The mean bee
visitation did not differ much between Bt and non-Bt cotton. Peak pollen foragers, nectar
foragers and outgoing foragers were observed at 0800, 1000 and 1200 h among colonies
kept in Bt and non-Bt cotton hybrids
Ganapathi (2005) also concluded that peak activity of A. dorsata, A. mellifera, A.
cerana, A. florea (2.62, 2.33, 1.82 and 1.95, bees/10 flowers/min, respectively) and other
pollinators (1.01 pollinators/10 flowers/min) was observed at 1200 h.
The number of honey bees were 2.14% (2002) and 1.30% (2003) for adjacent rows,
1.71% (2002) and 2.00% (2003) for adjacent plants in glandless parcels in cotton (Taner
Bozbek et al., 2008).
Viraktamath and Ganapathi (2008) noticed that among honey bees A. mellifera was
the most dominant pollinator on Bt cotton hybrids RCH-2 and MECH-12 (28.0 and 44.25%),
followed by A. cerana (26.53 and 26.0%, respectively). A. cerana was the most dominant
visitor (31.02%) of the non-Bt cotton hybrid, followed by A. mellifera (27.34%). Other
pollinators constituted 16.62-27.0% in Bt cotton hybrids, indicating that cotton is a good
source of nectar and pollen for other insects.
2.2 Influence bee attractants on bee visitation in two genotypes

of Bt cotton
Several substances have been screened for their attractant properties to honey bees.
Woodrow et al. (1965) who screened 195 formulations found three alcohols and one
fatty acid having four carbon atoms as attractant to A. mellifera.
Williams et al. (1981) reported that presence of foot print pheromone in the synthetic
nasanov pheromone proved to be useful in attracting honey bees.
Naik et al., (1989) reported that citral E and citral Z contain citral and neral which are
important components of nasanov glands of Indian honey bees.
Sugar syrup containing extract of dried fruits of Fagara budrunga plant were more
attractive to A. cerana than sugar syrup alone (Naik et al., 2003).
Formulations of leaf extract of Swertia densifolia in liquid paraffin of lower
concentrations were repellent, whereas those of higher concentrations were found to be
attractant to A. cerana (Naik et al., 2005).
According to Naik et al. (2007) formulations of the leaf extract of S. densifolia in liquid
paraffin at concentrations of up to 125 mg/ml were repellent and those at higher
concentrations were attractant to A. florea.
Effect of bee attractants on bee visitation in cotton
According to Viraktamath and Ganapathi (2008) in RCH-2 Bt cotton hybrid Fruit boost
spray (0.5 and 1 ml/l) attracted significantly more number of A. dorsata,
A. cerana and A. florea. Bee-Q spray was the second best in attracting significantly higher
number of bees. Sugar solution and tuberose scented water were able to entice significantly
higher number of bees only on the first day after spray.
Effect of bee attractants on bee visitation in other crops
Horticultural crops
Doull (1974) reported benzene extract of pollen as a source of stimulus, which
attracted bees to almond pollen.
Burgett and Fisher (1979) reported that Bee line on red clover did not increase the
amount of pollination. In contrary, Bee line when applied to plots of raspberry at doses of 1, 3
and 5 kg per hectare increased the number of bee visits and average time spent by them.
According to Margalith et al. (1984) Bee line was totally ineffective in attracting bees
to the maternal parent of Delila under summer conditions in the coastal plain of Israel.
In 4-year trials in apple, pear, plum and cherry orchards the effects were compared
of Bee scent (2 quarts/acre) or Bee scent Plus (3 quarts), applied during blossoming to one
acre plots by helicopter or air-blast spraying in 8 and 50 gal/acre, respectively. The
percentage increase in the numbers of foraging bees due to spraying was highly variable (up
to 90%), and the effects lasted for 48-96 h (Mayer et al., 1989).
Mackenzie and Averill (1992) reported that, when queen mandibular pheromone
(QMP) was applied by helicopter to a cranberry in Massachusetts, USA. honey bee
(A. mellifera) foraging activity increased significantly but bumble bees (Bombus spp.) and
other native bees showed no change in activity.
Studies conducted by Henning et al. (1992) revealed that linalool was the only
compound attractive to honey bees at optimized concentration in alfalfa floral volatiles. Bee-
scent and Bee-scent plus when applied on blooming pear, plum and apple trees increased
the number of foraging honey bees (Mayer et al., 1989). Queen mandibular pheromone
enhanced the number of honey bee foragers on apple and pear crops (Currie et al., 1992a)
on cranberry and blue berry crop (Currie et al., 1992b and Mackenzie and Averill, 1992). In
cucumber crop, similar treatments increased the bee visitation (Winston and Slessor, 1993).
Fruit boost enhanced the pollination and fruit set in pear, but failed to do so in sweet
cherry (Ken-Naumann et al., 1994).
Ambrose et al. (1995) reported that application of Bee-scent on both cucurbit
(Cucumis sativa) and watermelon neither increased the bee activity nor the value of
subsequent harvest.
However treating the blooming crops with queen mandibular pheromone enhanced
the pollination by increased recruitment of foragers and greater time spent by the foragers
(Higo et al., 1995).
Niera and Barriga (1995) reported higher number of honey bees visits in raspberry
flowers and average time spent per flower in plots sprayed with Bee-line than untreated plots.
Lavandula extract had a similar effect for some days with the highest concentration.
Tew and Ferree (1999) reported that the apple orchards sprayed with Bee-scent
during early flowering period attracted significantly large number of bees compared to
untreated trees.
A study conducted by Bhat and Sudharshan (1999) revealed that the number of bee
visits doubled (104.8%) in Bee-Q sprayed cardamom.
Kalmath and Sattigi (2002) reported that spraying of cacambe (10%) and jaggery
(10%) attracted maximum number of A. dorsata upto 15 days after first and second spray of
Bee-Q (1.25%) in onion crop. Similarly, a wide range of pollinators including A. mellifera
visited onion umbels sprayed with rose water and spent more time foraging than they did in
unsprayed control (Al Sahf, 2002).
Viraktamath and Anagoudar (2002) reported that two applications of Bee-Q, Bee-here
and sugar solution enticed more number of bees (4.01-4.97 bees/5 flowers/minute) upto fifth
day after first and second spray compared to unsprayed crop (3.25 to 3.59 bees) on
staminate and pistillate flowers of cucumber.
A study by Nidagundi (2004) revealed that spraying cacambe at 10%, Bee-Q at
1.25% and jaggery solution at 10% enhanced bee visitation to the flowers of bitter gourd.
Narayanan and Gavigowda (2005) observed that Sugar syrup treated gherkin plots
2
had significantly higher foraging activity (6.0to 6.50 bees/m /5min) during the first two days
after spraying and the normal activity continued later.
Pateel and Sattigi (2007) observed that spraying of cacambe 10 per cent and Bee-Q
1.25 per cent on cucumber attracted maximum number of bees up to third day after first,
second and third spray. Jaggery solution 10 per cent and sugar solution were next best
attractants.
Chandrashekhar and Sattigi (2009) reported that spraying of bee attractants like
cacambe (10%) and jaggery solution (10%) were significantly superior in enhancing both
quantitative and qualitative parameters of radish seed.
Oil seeds
Viraktamath and Patil (1999) and Patil et al. (2000) reported that bee visitation and
yield were increased significantly on sesamum sprayed with Bee-Q and Bee-here. Similar
results were obtained by Lingappa et al. (1999) on safflower and watermelon. However, Singh
and Sinha (1996) reported that Bee-Q failed to attract additional honey bees to the treated
compared the untreated plots and also reported no effect on yield parameters of sunflower in
Haryana. Similarly, Srimathi et al. (1999) reported that there was no significant effect of Bee-
Q in attracting bees when sprayed on sunflower hybrid KBSH-1.
Sunflower crop sprayed with sugar syrup attracted maximum bees (20.74 bees /5
flowers/minute) followed by Bee-Q (18.10 bees/5 flower/minute) as reported by Sanjivan
Kumar et al. (2000).
Guruprasad (2001) reported that Fruit boost sprayed at 0.5 ml per litre of water
attracted significantly more number of A. dorsata upto seven days after first and second spray
on niger. Bee-Q @ 12.5 g per litre water, cinnamon leaf extract at 5% and tuberose flower
scented water at 10% were the next best treatments in attracting more number of pollinators.
Viraktamath and Patil (2002) concluded that application of Fruit boost and Bee-Q
attracted more bees to sunflower than unsprayed crop Similarly, spraying of Fruit boost and
Bee-Q significantly enhanced visitation by A. dorsata, A. mellifera,
A. cerana and other pollinators on sunflower. However, attractants lost their efficacy after five
days of spraying (Manjunath, 2003). Similarly application of Bee-Q, sugar solution, cinnamon
leaf extract and molasses attracted more pollinators on mustard flowers (Murasingh and
Viraktamath, 2002).
Malerbo-Souza et al. (2004) reported that Bee-here, eugenol, geranol, citral and
lemon grass extract, mainly diluted in water were effective in attracting bees to sweet orange
orchards.
Nagiri and Patnaik, (2006) reported that the bee attractants like Bee-Q or sugar
solution were not effective in enhancing the foraging activity of either A. cerana or
A. florea under Bhubaneswar conditions.
Fruit boost along with Swertia densifolia and citral Z attracted more number of bees.
The bees spent significantly more time on sprayed crop (Srikanta Nath, 2008).
Nithya Chandran (2009) concluded that Citral E, Citral Z, Fagara budrunga, Swertia
densifolia were found to be as good as the commercial bee attractant Fruit Boost in attracting
honey bees to sesame and niger flowers (2.12 to 4.23 and 10.18 to 15.35 bees/5 flowers/min,
on respective crops).
2.3 Influence of bee attractants on yield parameters of Bt cotton

Literature pertaining to the influence of bee attractants on yield parameters is
meager. Hence, effect of bee pollination on yield parameters of cotton and influence of bee
attractants in cotton and other crops is also presented in this section.
Effect of bee visitation on yield parameters of cotton
Kearney (1923) reported that natural crossing will enhance the boll set and hybrid
vigour. Babadzhanov (1953) found increased boll set (30%), raw cotton per boll (5-10%) seed
germination in cross pollinated seed and decreased motes (12.5%).
Areas with colony at the rate of half colony per acre recorded 19.5 per cent increased
cotton production over areas depending only on natural pollinators (Shisikin, 1952).
Dulanto Batra (1958) reported that 51.7 per cent of the flowers were shed if they were
not visited by the bees.
Mc Gregor et al. (1955) reported that Pima-5 cotton caged with bees yielded more
seed cotton (24.5%), higher weight of bolls, more seeds per boll, increased lint yield per boll
than the fields caged without bees.
Kuliev (1958) reported that the hybrid seed set resulting from bee pollination was 11
to 13 per cent more than seed set without assistance of bees.
Mahadevan and Chandey (1959) obtained 23 to 24 per cent and 40 to 53 per cent
more yield in MU-1 and MCV-2 cultivars, respectively in open plots than in plots caged to
exclude bees. Wafa and Ibrahim (1960) also obtained 22.4 per cent more Ashmouni cotton
with honey bees pollination.
Sidhu and Singh (1962) reported that crop caged with bees produced more bolls
reaching maturity (18.53 - 18.96%) and more seed cotton yield (17.45 - 18.98%) than in plots
caged without bees, but intermediate results were obtained in open pollinated crop.
Radoev (1963) obtained 11.04 per cent more cotton from open pollinated plants than
from isolated cotton plants. Bee pollination was most important in yield enhancement even 18
per cent of floral visits contributed to pollination (Radoev, 1965).
Skrebtsov (1964) reported a 33 per cent increase in raw cotton by cross-pollination
within the variety with honey bees.
Kohel (1968) recorded higher average seeds per locule (8.25) in bees pollinated crop
as compared to hand emasculated and pollinated crop (7.15).
Moffet et al. (1976) obtained almost equal yields in male sterile plants as that of
pollen plants (98%) in bee pollinated fields. But, they obtained lower yields (60% of the yield
of pollen parent) on male sterile plants in field without assistance of bees.
Tanda and Goyal (1979) obtained 31 to 33 per cent more matured bolls in cotton
plants caged with A. mellifera and A. cerana compared to control and noticed increased boll
retention (56% - 60%) in bee pollinated crop than self pollinated flowers (28% - 32%). Further,
they reported higher seed cotton yield per boll (7.9% - 8.2%), higher yield of cotton per plant
(349.5 - 354.2 g) in the crop caged with bees as compared to crop caged without bees
(control). Similarly Tanda (1984) reported that the bee pollination of cotton flowers enhanced
boll retention by 25 to 31 per cent.
According to Vassiere et al., (1984) a line plants yielded only 79 per cent of B line in
the fields without bees, but the yield did not vary significantly on A and B lines with bee
pollination. Similar trends were noticed by Waller (1982).
Waller et al. (1985) reported that male sterile produced significantly more seeds per
boll, more lint per boll (1.5 g), average number of seeds per boll (23.6) in plots with bee
colonies, but this trend was not seen in the plots without bees.
Berger et al. (1988) noticed that number of seeds per boll on male sterile and male
fertile were much closer in the crop caged with bumble bees (13.7 Vs 18.7, respectively) than
in the crop caged with honey bees (8.2 Vs 29.6).
Waller and Mahmood (1991) observed that the mean number of pollen grain per
stigma were more in bee pollinated crop and resulted in increase in the mean seed production
per boll.
Mohana Rao et al. (1996) reported that total seed cotton yield per plant, weight of
seeds per boll, number of seeds per boll and 100-seed weight were more in bee pollinated
than in hand pollinated crop.
Significant increase in the total number of bolls harvested (11.1%), total mass of boll
(16.5%), total lint mass (15.8%), total seed mass (19.7%) and total number of seeds per
sample were obtained from plots receiving the highest number of bee visits compared with
plots receiving lowest number of bee visits. Non-significant increase was observed for mass
of 100-seeds (3.8%), average seed weight (3.9%), average number of seeds per boll (4.7%)
and average weight of lint per boll (Rhodes, 2002).
Ward and Ward (2002) observed decline in the yield of Bt-cotton with increasing
distance from bee source, which corresponded with decreasing honey bees foraging activity.
No such trends were observed in Bt-cotton fields without bee colonies.
Influence of bee attractants on yield parameters of cotton and other crops
Cotton
Spray of Fruit boost resulted in good opened bolls, seeds, seed yield, lint yield and
kapas yield in cotton to the extent of 9.08, 8.04, 10.45, 12.28 and 11.30 per cent over the
open pollinated crop in MECH-184 (Ganapathi, 2005).
Viraktamath and Ganapathi (2008) showed that in RCH-2 Bt cotton with Fruit boost
spray recorded higher good opened bolls (24.16/plant), more number of seeds (27.00
seeds/boll), higher seed yield (8.41 q/ha), lint yield (4.88 q/ha) and kapas yield (13.27 q/ha),
which accounted to an extent of 9.46, 6.92, 8.23, 13.48 and 9.96 per cent increase over open
pollination, respectively. Bee-Q was the second best treatment by producing next higher
number of good opened bolls (23.41/plant), seeds (26.65 seeds/boll), seed yield (8.21 q/ha),
lint yield (4.65 q/ha) and kapas yield (12.86 q/ha), which accounted to 6.07, 5.36, 5.66, 8.13
and 6.54 increase over open pollination, respectively.
Horticultural crops
Application of Bee scent increased fruit set by 23 to 27 per cent on Cv. Barlett pear,
44 per cent on Anjou pear, 12 per cent on Van cherries and 5 to 22 per cent on Red delicious
apple. Similarly, bee scent and Bee scent plus when applied on blooming pear, plum and
apple increased the fruit set in treated plots as reported by Mayer et al. (1989). Application of
Bee scent to straw berry Cv. Selva increased fruit weight, reduced the misshapen fruits as
compared to the control treatment (Butts, 1991).
Elmstrom and Maynard (1991) also reported that two sprays of Bee scent applied to
watermelon Cv. florida increased the total fruit yield in three farms (approximately 3000 fruits
per acre compared to 1500 fruits per acre without treatment). The total soluble solid content
of fruit was not affected by the treatment. The number of seeds per fruit was higher with
treatments in three farms. Contrarily, when Bee-scent was sprayed over Citrullus lanatus,
there was no increase in the yield (Looper and Rossette, 1991).
Application of synthetic queen mandibular pheromone on cranberry (Vaccinium
macrocarpum) and blue berry (V. cerubosum) increased the yield in blue berry (Currie et al.,
1992b). The same pheromone when applied to block of apple and pear at the concentrations
of 1000 QEQ per hectare did not improve yield or fruit quality parameters in apple but the fruit
diameter in pear was increased (Currie et al., 1992a). Extensive study made by Winston and
Slessor (1993) revealed that application of queen honey bee mandibular pheromone to pear,
cherry, apple, cranberry and blue berry increased the profit to an extent of 60 per cent in pear,
41 per cent in cranberry and 30 per cent in blue berry.
Application of Bee-here to watermelon cultivar Big crimsen during spring at 2 to 3
litre per hectare during early pistillate bloom stage and full pistillate bloom stage recorded,
early and significantly higher yield and average fruit weight for the whole season (7.10 Vs 3.8
t/ha and 10.60 Vs 9.90 kg, respectively) (Maynard et al., 1992).
Application of Fruit boost @ 100 QEQ (a.i.) per hectare resulted in seven per cent
increase in fruit set of pear but failed to increase yield in cherry plots (Ken-Naumann et al.,
1994).
Bee-scent and Bee-Line on cucumber increased the yield (Schultheis et al., 1994).
Similarly, Viraktamath and Anagoudar (2002) reported the enhanced fruit length, fruit
diameter, higher number of good fruits (121.6), lower number of malformed fruits (12.75 fruits)
and heavier fruits (153.7 g) which resulted in significant higher yield in crops receiving two
applications of Bee-Q and Bee-here in Cucumis sativa L. However, according to Ambrose et
al. (1995), Bee-scent applied on both cucumber and watermelon did not increase the value of
the harvest.
Zvedenok (1996) evaluated onions with secondary attractants and concluded that
they (e.g. citral, geraniol, limonene, carrot seed extract etc.) can significantly improve
pollination. Citral at 0.1-0.3 per cent had the greatest effect.
Increased fruit set (13%) in cardamom sprayed with Bee-Q was obtained by Bhat
and Sudarshan (1999).
Application of Bee-Q enhanced yield and higher weight of fruit in watermelon
(Lingappa et al., 1999 and Sattigi et al., 2001a)
Among various bee attractants evaluated by Kalmath and Sattigi (2002), higher
number of seeds per umbel (968.96), yield (1.46 kg/plot) and high germination per cent were
recorded in onion crop sprayed with cacambe @ 10%. Similarly, rose water spray increased
the flower set from 73.3 to 80.00 per cent from 75.9 to 88.5, from 74.9 to 9.4 per cent in three
onion cultivars (Al Sahf, 2002).
Nidagundi (2004) reported significantly more number of fruits (14.00 Vs 8.40 and 5.33
in open pollinated and caged crop without bees, respectively) in the treatment with cacambe.
Significantly highest length of fruits, seed to pulp ratio, fruit weight and total yield were
obtained in crop sprayed with bee attractants compared to crop caged without bees in bitter
gourd.
Malerbo-Souza et al. (2004) reported that fruit production was 35.30 per cent greater
in uncovered flowers sprayed with Bee-here with more mean fruit weight (180.2 g) than in
covered flowers (168.5 g). Similarly, number of seeds per bud were higher in uncovered
orange flowers sprayed with Bee-here (1 seed/bud) than in covered flowers (0.8 seed/bud).
Oilseeds
Sunflower Cv. Morden when sprayed with 2.5% sucrose produced greater seed yield
than control (Bhosle et al., 1992).
Spraying of Bee-Q at higher dosages (10.00, 12.50 and 15.00 g/l) significantly
enhanced qualitative and quantitative parameters in mustard crop (Murasingh and
Viraktamath, 2002).
Sunflower crop sprayed with trionic acid resulted in maximum seed set (82.31
seeds/head), 1000-seed weight (76.78 g), yield per hectare (24.6 Q) and oil content (39.87%)
(Sanjivan Kumar et al., 2000). Viraktamath and Patil (2002) reported a higher yield of 290.0
and 283.33 g per 10 sunflower plants in the treatments sprayed with Fruit boost and Bee-Q,
respectively as against 236.67 g in unsprayed crop. Likewise, Manjunath (2003) obtained
higher filled seed row (26.02), lower number of unfilled seed row (2.83), higher filled seed
weight (42.61 g) and less unfilled seed weight (1.90 g) in plots sprayed with Fruit boost.
Sattigi et al. (2001b) reported that Bee-Q application @ 12.5 g increased the number
of seeds per head (24.41 - 29.26) and also oil content (38.1%) as compared to control plots of
niger. Similarly, Guruprasad (2001) recorded the highest yield of 4.93 q per hectare in niger
sprayed with Fruit boost.
Srikanta Nath (2008) reported that spray of Fagara budrunga and Swertia densifolia
produced heavier heads in morden variety of sunflower. Number of seeds per head was
highest in S. densifolia, F. budrunga and Citral Z treated crop. S. densifolia sprayed crop
produced highest yield of 19.53 q/ha. Application of bee attractants had no effect on 100 seed
weight, germination percentage, and root length, shoot length and vigour index.
Sudies of Nithya Chandran (2009) showed that Citral Z, Citral E, Fruit Boost and
Sugar solution produced higher number of capsules/ plant (42.32 to 47.12 capsules/plant) in
sesame. Thousand seed weight was higher in sesame treated with Citral Z and Fruit Boost. In
niger Citral E, Fruit Boost, Citral Z, F. budrunga and S. densifolia had greater effect in
producing higher seed weight. Citral Z and Citral E were as good as Fruit Boost producing
yield in sesame and niger F. budrunga and
S. densifolia treated crop produced next higher yield in both the crops. Attractants improved
the seed vigour index in sesame while in niger they were next best to Fruit boost.
3. MATERIAL AND METHODS
The present investigations were carried out at the Govanakoppa village under
Bailahongal taluk in Belgum district. It is situated at 15° 49′ 1.2” North latitude,
74° 52′ 1.2” East longitude and at an altitude of 664 meters above mean sea level. The place
is lying in the Northern transitional zone (zone VIII) of Karnataka, which receives an average
annual rainfall of 700-800 mm. The temperature and relative humidity range from 15.3 º C to
35.8º C and 40 to 75 per cent respectively.
The materials used and techniques adopted to study the pollinator fauna foraging
activity of honey bees, the influence of indigenous bee attractants on bee visitation and yield
parameters of two genotypes of Bt cotton are presented in this chapter.
Two Bt cotton genotypes namely Bunny BG-I and Bunny BG-II were grown in two
plots of one acre separately during Kharif season of 2009 by following the recommended
package of practices. No plant protection measures were taken during entire flowering period
in both the Bt cotton genotypes. Each cropped area was divided into 21 plots of 10 m ×10 m
with a buffer zone of 3 m between replications and also between treatments.

Pollinator fauna
This study was made during flowering period on the crop, which was not sprayed with
any of the attractants. Five spots were selected randomly in the entire crop area. Different
pollinator species visiting from 1000 h to 1200 h and 1400 to 1600 h were recorded for five
minutes in these spots. Different species of honey bees visiting flowers were identified and
counted in the field itself. Other pollinators visiting Bt cotton flowers were collected using a
hand net. The collected pollinators were pinned, labeled and later identified with the help of
specialists.
Foraging activity of honey bees on Bt cotton
The study on foraging activity of different pollinators was made on the unsprayed
plots of the two genotypes of Bt cotton crop raised separately for studying pollinator fauna.
Observations on the honey bees visiting the flowers in 10 m2 area was recorded by counting
bees for 5 minutes by walking slowly and diagonally. Such observations were made at 0930
th th st th th nd
h, 1130 h and 1330 h. Observations were recorded at 7 , 14 , 21 , 28 , 35 , 42 day after
flowering. The data was subjected to ANOVA after √x+0.5 transformation.
3.2 Influence of indigenous bee attractants on honey bee

visitation in two genotypes of Bt cotton
The present experiment was conducted in the above mentioined Bt cotton plots
separately. Two pheromone based attractants namely Citral E and Citral Z and two plant
based attractants viz, Fagara budrunga Roxb. (Rutaceae) and Swertia densifolia (Griseb.)
(Gentianaceae) along with Fruit boost, a commercial bee attractant were selected for the
study. Citral E contained A .cerana pheromone lure while Citral Z contained pheromone of A.
florea. Samples of Citral E, Citral Z, F. budrunga, S.densifolia were obtained from Agharkar
Research institute, Pune, Maharashtra. Fruit boost was obtained from Phero-Tech, Canada.
Randomized block design with seven treatments replicated thrice in both the crops
was used for this experiment. Bee attractants were sprayed three times starting from 10%
flowering at 15 days interval. The details of treatments common to both the crops were as
follows.
T1: Spray of Citral E @ 1.0% concentration
T2: Spray of Citral Z @ 1.0% concentration
T3: Spray of Swertia densifolia @ 1.0% concentration
T4: Spray of Fagara budrunga @ 1.0% concentration
T5: Spray of Fruit boost @ 1.0% concentration
T6: Spray of Sugar solution @ 10% concentration
T7: Control (spray with water).
Plate 1: General view of experimental plot (BG I) Bt cotton
Plate 2: General view of experimental plot (BG II) Bt cotton

The spray solution for the first four treatments was prepared by adding 30 g lure with
30 g of emulsifier (Sandovit) and mixed thoroughly with the help of porcelain mortar and
pestle separately and then diluted to the required concentration by adding water, and made
up to 3.0 litres to get 1.0 per cent concentration. Fruit boost and sugar solution were
prepared by adding required quantity of water while in the control, only water was sprayed.
Observations on bee visitation of different species were made a day before and 1, 2,
3, 4, 5 days after each spray respectively. Honey bees visiting the flowers in each treatment
of 10 m2 area was counted for 5 minutes by walking slowly diagonally. Such observations
were made once in the morning at 1000-1100 h and in afternoon 1400-1500 h. The data was
subjected to ANOVA after √x+0.5 transformation. Means were separated by DMRT.

Following yield parameters were selected for the study.
Number of good and bad opened bolls per plant
During each picking the good and bad opened bolls on 10 randomly selected and
tagged plants were counted and number of good opened bolls per plant was calculated at the
end.
Number of seeds per boll
Number of seeds per boll selected from five bolls per 10 tagged plants were counted
and averaged.
Lint yield
A sample of 500 g kapas from each plot was ginned and the lint obtained was
weighed. Based on ginning outturn lint yield per hectare was worked out.
Seed yield
Sample of 500 g of kapas from each plot was ginned and based on the seed turn out
and seed yield per hectare was worked out.
Kapas yield
Total weight of seed cotton from 10 randomly selected plants was recorded. Based
on this data, kapas yield per hectare was worked out and expressed in quintals per hectare.
All the data were subjected to ANOVA and the means were separated by DMRT for
their significance.
Plate 3: Spraying of bee attractants on cotton flowers

4. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
The results of the investigations carried out to know the pollinator fauna of Bt cotton,
foraging activity of honey bees, influence of indigenous bee attractants on honey bees
visitation and yield parameters of two genotypes of Bt cotton are presented in this chapter.

Pollinator fauna in two genotypes of Bt cotton
As many as eight species of pollinators were recorded visiting Bt cotton flowers
(Table 1). Among these, seven species belonged to the order Hymenoptera and one
belonged to the order Diptera. These pollinators were common in both the genotypes of Bt
cotton. In Hymenoptera, honey bees were the most dominant pollinators. Apis cerana
Fabricius was the dominant pollinator among honey bees with a relative abundance of
35.21% followed by A. florea Fabricius (31.22%) and A. dorsata Fabricius (24.53%).
Foraging activity in BG-I and BG-II Bt cotton.
Observations on foraging activity of A. dorsata in Bunny BG-I Bt cotton genotype are
presented in Table 2.
On the seventh day after flowering 0.19 bees /10 m2/5 min were recorded at 0930 h
2
which remained at the same level at 1130 h. It slightly increased to 0.29 bees /10 m /5 min at
1330 h.
On 14th day after flowering, at 0930 h, 0.24 bees /10 m2/5 min were recorded which
decreased slightly to 0.14 bees /10 m2/5 min at 1130 h and then it slightly increased to 0.29
2
bees /10 m /5 min at 1330 h.
2 st
At 0930 h, 0.24 bees /10 m /5 min were recorded on 21 day after flowering. This
remained at the same level at 1130 h. This visitation slightly decreased to 0.19 bees /10 m2/5
min at 1330 h.
th 2
On 28 day after flowering, 0.24 bees /10 m /5 min were recorded at 0930 h which
2
remained at the same level at 1130 h. Then it slightly increased to 0.29 bees /10 m /5 min at
1330 h.
On 35th day after flowering, 0.29 bees /10 m2/5 min were recorded at 0930 h which
2
further slightly decreased to 0.24 bees /10 m /5 min at 1130 h and then increased to 0.33
2
bees /10 m /5 min at 1330 h.
On 42nd day 0.19 bees /10 m2/5 min were recorded at 0930 h. Bee visits increased to
0.24 bees /10 m2/5 min at 1130 h. This visitation further increased slightly to 0.33 bees /10
2
m /5 min at 1330 h.
2
Overall mean of bee visitation on BG-I cotton ranged from 0.22 to 0.29 bees /10 m /5
min. This visitation did not differ significantly at different time of the day. The visitation
remained similar from 7th to 42nd day after flowering.
2
. In BG-II, on seventh day after flowering 0.19 bees /10 m /5 min were recorded at
0930 h which remained at the same level at 1130 h. This visitation further increased slightly to
0.29 bees /10 m2/5 min at 1330 h (Table 3).
On 14th day after flowering 0.33 bees /10 m2/5 min were recorded at 0930 h and at
2
1130 h it slightly decreased to 0.29 bees /10 m /5 min. Then it increased to 0.33 bees /10
2
m /5 min at 1330 h.
On 21st day after flowering, at 0930 h, 0.19 bees /10 m2/5 min were recorded which
slightly increased to 0.24 bees /10 m2/5 min at 1130 h and then it increased to 0.29 bees /10
2
m /5 min at 1330 h.
nd
Similar trend was observed further up to 42 day after flowering.
Table 1: Pollinator fauna in BG-I and BG-II genotypes of Bt cotton
Sl. Pollinator Relative

Systematic position
No. abundance (%)
1. Apis dorsata Fabricius. Hymenoptera : Apidae 24.53
2. A. cerana Fabricius. Hymenoptera : Apidae 35.21
3. A. florea Fabricius. Hymenoptera : Apidae 31.22
4. Xylocopa sp. Hymenoptera : Apidae
5. Pithitis sp. Hymenoptera : Anthoporidae
6. Sceliphron sp. Hymenoptera :Sphecidae 9.04
7. Polistes sp. Hymenoptera : Vespidae
8. Eristalis obliquus Wiedemann Diptera :Syrphidae

Table 2: Foraging activity of Apis dorsata in BG-I Bt cotton
2
Observation Bees /10m / 5 min
Mean
time 7 DAF 14 DAF 21 DAF 28 DAF 35 DAF 42 DAF
0.19 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.29 0.19 0.22

0930 h-1000 h
(0.83) (0.86) (0.86) (0.86) (0.88) (0.83) (0.85)
0.19 0.14 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24
1130 h-1200 h
(0.83) (0.80) (0.86) (0.86) (0.86) (0.86) (0.84)
0.29 0.24 0.19 0.29 0.33 0.33 0.29

1330 h-1400 h
(0.88) (0.86) (0.83) (0.88) (0.91) (0.91) (0.88)
0.22 0.21 0.22 0.25 0.29 0.25

Mean
(0.85) (0.84) (0.85) (0.87) (0.88) (0.87)
S.Em (±) CD (0.05)
Time (T) 0.015 NS
Weeks (W) 0.021 NS

T×W 0.036 NS
Figures in the parentheses are √ (X + 0.5) transformed values

DAF- Days after flowering
Table 3: Foraging activity of Apis dorsata in BG-II Bt cotton
2
Mean
0.19 0.33 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.24 0.22

0930 h-1000 h
(0.83) (0.91) (0.83) (0.83) (0.83) (0.86) (0.85)
0.19 0.29 0.24 0.24 0.19 0.24 0.23
1130 h-1200 h
(0.83) (0.89) (0.86) (0.86) (0.83) (0.86) (0.85)
0.29 0.33 0.29 0.29 0.24 0.24 0.28

1330 h-1400 h
(0.89) (0.91) (0.89) (0.89) (0.86) (0.86) (0.88)
0.22 0.32 0.24 0.24 0.21 0.24

Mean
(0.85) (0.90) (0.86) (0.86) (0.84) (0.86)
S.Em (±) CD (0.05)
Time (T) 0.01 NS
Weeks (W) 0.014 NS

T×W 0.025 NS

Overall mean of bee visitation in BG-II Bt cotton ranged from 0.22 to 0.28 bees /10
2
m /5 min. At different time of the day this visitation did not vary significantly. The visitation
th nd
remained similar from 7 to 42 day after flowering.
Observations regarding foraging activity of A. cerana on BG-I Bt cotton are presented
in Table 4.
The Indian bee visitation was noticed throughout flowering period. On seventh day
2
after flowering, at 0930 h, 0.24 bees /10 m /5 min were recorded which then slightly
2
decreased to 0.19 bees /10 m /5 min at 1130 h. This visitation then slightly increased to 0.27
bees/10 m2/5 min at 1330 h.
th 2
On 14 day, 0.19 bees /10 m /5 min were recorded at 0930 h and at 1130 h it slightly
decreased to 0.14 bees /10 m2/5 min. It slightly increased to 0.24 bees /10 m2/5 min at 1330
h.
On 21st day, 0.19 bees /10 m2/5 min were recorded at at 0930 h which remained at
2
same level at 1130 h and then increased to 0.24 bees /10 m /5 min at 1330 h. This trend
nd
continued further upto 42 day after flowering.
Overall mean revealed that 0.20 bees /10 m2/5 min visited at both 0930 and 1130 h
which were on par with each other. However significantly higher visitation was recorded at
2 th nd
1330 h (0.28 bees /10 m /5 min). The visitation did not differ significantly from 7 to 42 day
after flowering.
In BG-II Bt cotton on seventh day after flowering 0.14 bees /10 m2/5 min found to be
visiting plots at 0930 h which slightly increased to 0.19 bees /10 m2/5 min at 1130 h. This
2
visitation then increased to 0.24 bees /10 m /5 min at 1330 h (Table 5).
On 14th day after flowering 0.19 bees /10 m2/5 min were recorded at 0930 h while at
1130 h it slightly increased to 0.24 bees /10 m2/5 min. Then it attained maximum number of
0.29 bees /10 m2/5 min at 1330 h.
st 2
On 21 day after flowering 0.10 bees /10 m /5 min visited Bt cotton plots at 0930 h.
which further slightly increased to 0.14 bees /10 m2/5 min at 1130 h and then further
increased to 0.24 bees /10 m2/5 min at 1330 h. The similar trend of bee visitation continued
further upto 42nd day after flowering.
When overall mean of bee visitation in BG-II cotton was considered, a highest of 0.26
2 2
bees /10 m /5 min was observed at 1330 h followed by 0.14 and 0.18 bees /10 m /5 min at
0930 and 1130 h which were on par with each other. The visitation did not vary significantly
th nd
from 7 to 42 day after flowering.
The observations regarding foraging activity of A. florea on BG-I are presented in
Table 6.
On seventh day after flowering, at 0930 h, 0.10 bees /10 m2/5 min were observed
which further slightly increased to 0.19 bees /10 m2/5 min at 1130 h. A maximum of 0.29 bees
2
/10 m /5 min visited Bt cotton plots at 1330 h.
On 14th day after flowering 0.14 bees /10 m2/5 min were observed at 0930 h and at
1130 h it slightly increased to 0.19 bees /10 m2/5 min and to 0.24 bees /10 m2/5 min at 1330
h. A similar pattern of visitation was observed up to 42nd day after flowering.
2
Significantly highest bee visitation of 0.27 bees /10 m /5 min was recorded at1330 h.
2
At 0930 h and 1130 h 0.13 and 0.20 bees /10 m /5 min were observed which were on par
with each other. However bee visitation did not vary significantly during entire flowering
period.
2
In BG-II Bt cotton, on seventh day after flowering 0.14 bees /10 m /5 min were found
to be visiting plots at 0930 h. This further slightly increased to 0.19 bees /10 m2/5 min at 1130
h. and then reached a peak at 1330 h with 0.29 bees /10 m2/5 min (Table 7).
On 14th day after flowering 0.19 bees /10 m2/5 min were recorded at 0930 h which
2 2
increased to 0.17 bees /10 m /5 min at 1130 h with further increase to 0.24 bees /10 m /5 min
at 1330 h which was highest on that day.
Table 4: Foraging activity of Apis cerana in BG-I Bt cotton
Observation Bees /10m2 / 5 min

Mean
0.24 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.14 0.24 0.20

0930 h-1000 h b
(0.86) (0.83) (0.83) (0.83) (0.80) (0.86) (0.83)
0.19 0.14 0.19 0.24 0.19 0.24 0.20
1130 h-1200 h b
(0.83) (0.80) (0.83) (0.86) (0.83) (0.86) (0.83)
0.27 0.24 0.24 0.28 0.29 0.33 0.28
1330 h-1400 h
(0.88) (0.86) (0.86) (0.88) (0.89) (0.91) (0.88)a
0.24 0.19 0.21 0.24 0.21 0.27
Mean
(0.86) (0.83) (0.84) (0.86) (0.84) (0.88)
S.Em (±) CD (0.05)
Time (T) 0.01 0.04
Weeks (W) 0.018 NS
T×W 0.03 NS

Table 5: Foraging activity of Apis cerana in BG-II Bt cotton
Observation Bees /10m2 / 5 min

time 7 DAF 14 DAF 21 DAF 28 DAF 35 DAF 42 DAF Mean
0.14 0.19 0.10 0.14 0.10 0.14 0.14

0930 h-1000 h b
(0.80) (0.83) (0.77) (0.80) (0.77) (0.80) (0.80)
0.19 0.24 0.14 0.14 0.19 0.19 0.18
1130 h-1200 h b
(0.83) (0.86) (0.80) (0.80) (0.83) (0.83) (0.82)
0.24 0.29 0.24 0.19 0.29 0.33 0.26
1330 h-1400 h
(0.86) (0.89) (0.86) (0.83) (0.89) (0.91) (0.87)a
0.19 0.24 0.16 0.16 0.19 0.22

Mean
(0.83) (0.86) (0.81) (0.81) (0.83) (0.85)
S.Em (±) CD (0.05)
Time (T) 0.012 0.04

Weeks (W) 0.018 NS
T×W 0.03 NS

Table 6: Foraging activity of Apis florea in BG-I Bt cotton
2
Mean
0.10 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.13

0930 h-1000 h b
(0.77) (0.80) (0.80) (0.80) (0.80) (0.80) (0.80)
0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.24 0.20
1130 h-1200 h
(0.83) (0.83) (0.83) (0.83) (0.83) (0.86) (0.83)b
0.29 0.24 0.24 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.27

1330 h-1400 h
(0.88) (0.86) (0.86) (0.89) (0.88) (0.89) (0.88)a
0.19 0.19 0.19 0.21 0.21 0.22

Mean
(0.83) (0.83) (0.83) (0.84) (0.84) (0.85)
S.Em (±) CD (0.05)
Time (T) 0.013 0.04
Weeks (W) 0.019 NS

T×W 0.033 NS

Table 7: Foraging activity of Apis florea in BG-II Bt cotton
Bees /10m2 / 5 min

Observation
time
7 DAF 14 DAF 21 DAF 28 DAF 35 DAF 42 DAF Mean
0.14 0.10 0.14 0.10 0.14 0.14 0.13

0930 h-1000 h
(0.80) (0.77) (0.80) (0.77) (0.80) (0.80) (0.79) b
0.19 0.17 0.19 0.10 0.14 0.19 0.16
1130 h-1200 h
(0.83) (0.82) (0.83) (0.77) (0.80) (0.83) (0.81) b
0.29 0.24 0.29 0.14 0.24 0.24 0.24
1330 h-1400 h a
(0.89) (0.86) (0.89) (0.80) (0.86) (0.86) (0.86)
0.21 0.17 0.21 0.11 0.17 0.19

Mean
(0.84) (0.82) (0.84) (0.78) (0.82) (0.83)
S.Em (±) CD (0.05)
Time (T) 0.012 0.035
Weeks (W) 0.016 NS
T×W 0.027 NS

On 21st day after flowering 0.14 bees /10 m2/5 min visited Bt cotton plots at 0930 h
2
which further slightly increased to 0.19 bees /10 m /5 min at 1130 h and with an slight
2
increase to 0.29 bees /10 m /5 min at 1330 h.
This trend of bee visitation continued further up to 42 days after flowering.
When overall mean of bee visitation in BG-II cotton plots was considered, a highest of
2
0.24 bees / m /5 min was observed at 1330 h. The next higher visitation of 0.16 and 0.13
2
bees /10 m /5 min were observed at 1130 h and 0930 which were on par with each other.
From 7th to 42nd day after flowering the visitation did not differ significantly.
4.2 Influence of indigenous bee attractants on bee visitation in

two genotypes of Bt cotton
Influence of bee attractants on bee visitation in BG-I Bt cotton
First spray
A day prior to spray of bee attractants, there was no significant difference in number
of bees visiting among all the treatments which varied from 0.33 to 1.00 bees /10 m2/5 min
(Table 8).
One day after spraying bee visitation was significantly higher on the crop sprayed
2 2
with Citral E (3.67 bees /10 m /5 min) and Citral Z (3.33 bees /10m /minute), Fagara
budrunga (3.17 bees /10 m /5 min) and Swertia densifolia (2.83 bees /10 m2/5 min) which
2
were on par with each other. The next higher number of bees was recorded in the treatment
2
sprayed with Fruit boost (2.50 bees /10 m /5 min). The crop sprayed with sugar solution
2
attracted next higher number of bees (1.83 bees /10 m /5 min) followed by the control (1.17
2
bees /10 m /5 min).
On the second day after spraying higher number of bees was recorded in plots that
2 2
received spray of Citral E (3.00 bees /10 m /5 min), Citral Z (2.67 bees /10 m /5 min), F.
2 2
budrunga (3.17 bees /10 m /5 min), S. densifolia (2.33 bees /10 m /5 min) and Fruit boost
(2.50 bees /10 m2/5 min) which were on par with each other. The next best was sugar
solution which attracted 1.67 bees /10 m2/5 min followed by the control with least number of
2
bees (0.83 bees/10 m /5 min).
After three days of spraying, significantly higher number of bees visited in the
treatments which received Citral E, Citral Z, F. budrunga, S. densifolia and Fruit boost (1.83 to
2.67 bees /10 m2/5 min) which were on par with each other. Sugar solution received plots
2 2
attracted 1.00 bees /10 m /5 min followed by the control (0.50 bees /10 m /5 min).
The overall mean bee visitation was significantly higher and at par in the treatments
that received Citral E, Citral Z, F. budrunga and Fruit boost which attracted 2.67 to 3.11 bees
/10 m2/5 min followed by S. densifolia (2.33 bees/10 m2/5 min). Sugar solution treatment
2
attracted 1.50 bees /10 m /5 min while least number of bees was in control (0.83 bees /10
2
m /5 min).
Second spray
Observations pertaining to second spray in BG-I cotton are presented in Table 9.
One day before spray the number of bees visiting BG-I cotton flowers varied from
2
0.33 to 1.00 bees/10 m /5 min but this visitation did not differ significantly among the
treatments.
Bee visitation was significantly higher (3 to 3.67 bees /10 m2/5 min) in all the plots
treated with indigenous bee attractants and Fruit boost over the sugar solution (1.83 bees
2 2
/10 m /5 min) and control (0.83 bees /10 m /5 min), on the first day after spray.
The treatments with Citral E, Citral Z, F. budrunga, S. densifolia and Fruit boost
attracted significantly higher number of bees (2.83 to 3.33 bees /10 m2/5 min) on second day
2
after spray. The next best treatment was sugar solution which attracted 1.67 bees /10 m /5
2
min while least number of bees visited the control plot (0.67 bees /10 m /5 min).
Table 8: Influence of indigenous bee attractants on bee visitation in Bt cotton (Bunny BG-I) at I spray
Bees / 10m2 /5 min

Treatments Mean*
DBS 1 DAS 2 DAS 3DAS
0.33 3.67 3.00 2.67 3.11
Citral E @ 1% concentration a a a a
(0.88) (2.04) (1.87) (1.77) (1.90)
0.67 3.33 2.67 2.33 2.78
Citral Z @ 1% concentration
(1.05) (1.96)ab (1.77)ab (1.68)a (1.81) ab
1.00 2.83 2.33 1.83 2.33
Swertia densifolia @ 1% concentration ab ab ab b
(1.17) (1.82) (1.67) (1.53) (1.68)
0.33 3.17 3.17 2.50 2.94
Fagara budrunga @ 1% concentration
(0.88) (1.91)ab (1.91)a (1.73)a (1.86) ab
0.33 2.50 2.5 2.17 2.67
Fruit boost @ 1% concentration bc ab a b
(0.88) (1.72) (1.73) (1.63) (1.70)
1.00 1.83 1.67 1.00 1.50
Sugar solution @ 10% concentration
(1.17) (1.53)cd (1.46)b (1.18)bc (1.41) c
0.67 1.17 0.83 0.50 0.83
Control (spray with water). d c c d
(1.00) (1.29) (1.15) (0.98) (1.15)
S.Em (±) 0.23 0.081 0.10 0.13 0.06
CD (0.05) NS 0.25 0.31 0.40 0.18
Means followed by same letter in a column do not differ significantly by DMRT (P= 0.05)
Figures in parentheses are√(X+0.5) transformed values
DAS-Days after spray, DBS- Days Before spray
* Means of all observations of 3 days after spray which differ significantly
Table 9: Influence of indigenous bee attractants on bee visitation in Bt cotton (Bunny BG-I) at II spray
Bees / 10m2/5 min

Treatments Mean*
DBS 1 DAS 2 DAS 3 DAS 4 DAS 5 DAS
0.67 3.67 3.33 2.67 1.67 0.67 2.83
Citral E @ 1% concentration
(1.05) (2.04)a (1.95)a (1.78)a (1.460)a (1.05) (1.83)a
1.00 3.33 3.00 2.50 1.33 0.67 2.54
Citral Z @ 1% concentration a a a ab a
(1.17) (1.95) (1.87) (1.73) (1.34) (1.07) (1.74)
0.67 3.17 2.83 2.33 1.00 0.83 2.33
Swertia densifolia @ 1% concentration
(1.00) (1.91)a (1.82 )a (1.67)a (1.22)abc (1.15) (1.68)a
0.67 3.33 3.00 2.50 1.00 0.83 2.46
(1.05) (1.95)a (1.86)a (1.73)a (1.17)abc (1.14) (1.71)a
0.67 3.00 2.83 2.17 0.67 0.67 2.17
Fruit boost @ 1% concentration a a a abc a
(1.05) (1.87) (1.82) (1.63) (1.05) (1.04) (1.63)
0.67 1.83 1.67 1.33 0.33 0.33 1.29
(1.00) (1.51)b (1.46)b (1.34)b (0.88)bc (0.90) (1.33)b
0.33 0.83 0.67 0.67 0.00 0.33 0.54
Control (spray with water).
(0.88) (1.15)c (1.07)c (1.05)c (0.71)c (0.90) (1.01)c
S.Em (±) 0.17 0.10 0.10 0.08 0.15 0.14 0.07
CD (0.05) NS 0.31 0.31 0.25 0.47 NS 0.21
On third day after spraying, significantly higher numbers of bees were noticed in Citral
2
E, Citral Z, F. budrunga, S. densifolia and Fruit boost (2.17 to2.67 bees /10 m /5 min) treated
2
plots. This was followed by sugar solution (1.33 bees /10 m /5 min) and control (0.67 bees /10
m2/5 min).
On the fourth day after spraying, all the bee attractants attracted significantly higher
2
number of bees (0.67 to 1.67 bees /10 m /5 min) followed by sugar solution (0.33 bees /10
2
m /5 min) while no bees were recorded in the control.
There was no significant difference in the number of bees visiting different plots on
fifth day after spray and visitation ranged from 0.33 to 0.83 bees /10 m2/5 min.
Citral E, Citral Z, F. budrunga, S. densifolia and and Fruit boost were equally effective
in attracting significantly higher number of bees (2.17 to 2.83 bees /10 m2/5 min) when mean
of all four days was considered. The second best was sugar solution (1.29 bees /10 m2/5
min). Least attraction was in the control (0.54 bees /10 m2/5 min).
Third spray
A day before the application of attractants third time the number of bees visiting
different treatments was more or less uniform and average varied from 0.33 to 1.33 bees /10
m2/5 min as presented in table 10.
On the first day after third spray Citral E attracted maximum number of bees (3.67
2
bees /10 m /5 min) which was however on par with Citral Z, F. budrunga ,
S. densifolia and Fruit boost (2.67 to 3.33 bees /10 m2/5 min). Lower number of bees were
recorded in sugar solution (1.67 bees /10 m2/5 min) followed by control (0.33 bees /10 m2/5
min).
On the second day after third spray a similar trend of bee visitation was observed in
different treatments with Citral E (3.17 bees /10 m2/5 min), Citral Z (2.67 bees /10 m2/5 min),
F. budrunga (2.67 bees /10 m2/5 min), S. densifolia (2.33 bees /10 m2/5 min) and Fruit boost
2
(2.50 bees /10 m /5 min) were on par with each other.
On third day after spraying, significantly higher numbers of bees were noticed in the
plots which received Citral E (3.00 bees /10 m2/5 min) and Fruit boost (2.50 bees /10 m2/5
min).However these treatments were on par with the plots that received treatment Citral Z
2 2
(2.33 bees /10 m /5 min), F. budrunga (2.33 bees /10 m /5 min) and S. densifolia (2.00 bees
2 2
/10 m /5 min). The second best treatment was sugar solution (1.00 bees /10 m /5 min)
2
followed by control (0.33 bees /10 m /5 min).
On the fourth day also similar trend was followed with Citral E, Citral Z, F. budrunga,
S. densifolia and Fruit boost which attracted significantly higher number of bees (1.17 to 1.67
bees /10 m2/5 min) which were on par with each other. This was followed by sugar solution
(0.50 bees /10 m2/5 min) and control (0.33 bees /10 m2/5 min).
On fifth day after spray bee visitation did not vary between the treatments .The
visitation in all treatments was as low as control. The range of visitation was 0.33 to 0.67 bees
/10 m2/5 min.
When overall mean bee visitation was considered (1 to 4 days) Citral E, Citral Z, F.
budrunga and Fruit boost significantly attracted higher number of bees (2.25 to 2.88 bees /10
2 2
m /5 min) followed by S. densifolia (2.13 bees /10 m /5 min) and sugar solution with 1.25
2
bees /10 m /5 min.
Influence of bee attractants on bee visitation in BG-II
First spray
As presented in table 11, a day prior to spray the number of bees visiting BG-II
cotton flowers varied from 0.33 to 1.33 bees/10 m2/5 min which did not differ significantly
among the treatments.
Table 10: Influence of indigenous bee attractants on bee visitation in Bt cotton (Bunny BG-I) at III spray
Bees / 10m2 /5 min

Treatments Mean*
DBS 1DAS 2 DAS 3 DAS 4 DAS 5 DAS
0.33 3.67 3.17 3.00 1.67 0.33 2.88
(0.88) (2.03)a (1.91)a (1.82)a (1.47)a (0.88) (1.83)a
0.33 3.33 2.67 2.33 1.50 0.67 2.46
(0.88) (1.95)ab (1.78)ab (1.68)ab (1.38)a (1.05) (1.72)ab
1.33 3.00 2.33 2.00 1.17 0.67 2.13
Swertia densifolia @ 1% concentration ab ab ab ab b
(1.34) (1.81) (1.67) (1.58) (1.29) (1.05) (1.62)
0.67 3.00 2.67 2.33 1.50 0.33 2.38

Fagara budrunga @ 1% concentration ab ab ab a) ab
(1.05) (1.84) (1.77) (1.68) (1.41) (0.88) (1.69)
0.33 2.67 2.50 2.50 1.33 0.67 2.25

Fruit boost @ 1% concentration ab ab a a ab
(0.88) (1.77) (1.73) (1.73) ( 1.35) (1.05) (1.66)
0.00 1.67 1.83 1.00 0.50 0.33 1.25

Sugar solution @ 10% concentration b b bc bc c
(0.71) (1.46) (1.51) (1.22) (1.00) (0.88) (1.32)
0.33 0.33 0.50 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.38
Control (spray with water) c c c c d
(0.88) (0.88) (0.98) (0.88) (0.90) (0.88) (0.92)
S.Em (±) 0.15 0.16 0.12 0.14 0.10 0.16 0.06
CD (0.05) NS 0.50 0.36 0.44 0.31 NS 0.18
Table 11: Influence of indigenous bee attractants on bee visitation in Bt cotton (Bunny BG-II) at I spray
Treatments Bees / 10m2/5 min Mean*

DBS 1 DAS 2 DAS 3 DAS 4 DAS 5DAS
Citral E @ 1% concentration 0.33 3.67 3.33 3.00 1.83 0.83 2.96
(0.88) (2.04)a (1.96)a (1.87)a (1.51)a (1.15) (1.86)a
Citral Z @ 1% concentration 0.67 3.33 3.00 2.83 1.67 0.67 2.71
a ab a a ab
(1.00) (1.95) (1.87) (1.82) (1.46) (1.07) (1.79)
Swertia densifolia @ 1% concentration 0.33 3.11 2.83 2.50 1.33 0.83 2.44
ab ab a ab ab
(0.88) (1.90) (1.82) (1.73) (1.34) (1.15) (1.71)
Fagara budrunga @ 1% concentration 0.33 3.00 3.17 2.83 1.50 0.67 2.63
ab ab a a
(0.88) (1.87) (1.91) (1.80) (1.41) (1.07) (1.76)ab
Fruit boost @ 1% concentration 0.67 2.78 2.50 2.33 1.00 0.50 2.15
(1.00) (1.81)ab (1.73)b (1.68)ab (1.22)ab (1.00) (1.63)
b
Sugar solution @ 10% concentration 0.67 2.22 1.50 1.33 0.50 0.33 1.39
b c b bc c
(1.05) (1.64) (1.41) (1.35) (0.98) (0.9) (1.37)
Control (spray with water) 1.33 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.17 0.33 0.54
(1.27) (1.22)c (1.00)d (0.98)c (0.8)c (0.88) (1.02)d
S.Em (±) 0.26 0.08 0.06 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.06
CD (0.05) NS 0.25 0.18 0.36 0.36 0.30 0.18
Following one day after the spray Citral E (3.67 bees/10 m2/5 min) and Citral Z (3.33
2
bees /10 m /5 min) attracted significantly more number of bees which were on par with S.
2 2
densifolia (3.11 bees /10 m /5 min), F. budrunga (3.00 bees /10 m /5 min), and Fruit boost
2
(2.78 bees /10 m /5 min). Significantly less number of bees were noticed in sugar solution
sprayed (2.22 bees/10 m2/5 min) followed by control (1.00 bees/10 m2/5 min).
On the second day after imposing treatments significantly higher number of bees was
2
noticed in Citral E treated plots (3.33 bees/10 m /5 min) which was on par with Citral Z (3.00
bees /10 m /5 min), S. densifolia (2.83 bees /10 m2/5 min), F. budrunga (3.17 bees /10 m2/5
2
min). The next higher bees were recorded in the treatment with Fruit boost (2.50 bees /10
2 2
m /5 min) followed by sugar solution (1.50 bees/10 m /5 min).
However on the third and fourth day all indigenous bee attractants were as good as
the Fruit boost attracting 2.33 to 3.00 and 1.00 to 1.83 bees /10 m2/5 min respectively. Sugar
solution attracted next higher number of bees (1.33 and 0.50 bees/10 m2/5 min respectively).
On fifth day after spray all treatments were on par to control as the bee visitation
2
varied from 0.33 to 0.83 /10 m /5 min which was statistically at par in different treatments.
The mean bee visitation of all four days showed that Citral E (2.96 bees /10 m2/5
min), Citral Z (2.71 bees / 10 m2/5 min), F. budrunga (2.63 bees /10 m2/5 min) and S.
2
densifolia (2.44 bees /10 m /5 min) had significantly higher bee visitation. The second best
2
was Fruit boost (2.15 bees /10 m /5 min).This was followed by Sugar solution (1.39 bees /10
m /5 min) and control (0.54bees /10 m2/5 min).
2
Second spray
Observations pertaining to second spray in BG-II Bt cotton are presented in Table 12.
One day before spraying of bee attractants, there was no significant difference in
bees visiting different plots which varied from 0.33 to 1.00 bees/10 m2/5 min.
A day after second spraying Citral E, Citral Z, F. budrunga, S. densifolia and Fruit
2
boost attracted significantly more bees (2.67 to 3.67 bees/10 m /5 min) which were on par
with each other. This was followed by sugar solution (2.33 bees/10 m2/5 min) and control
(0.83 bees/10 m2/5 min).
The treatment with Citral E (3.33 bees /10 m2/5 min), Citral Z (2.83 bees /10 m2/5
2 2
min) F. budrunga (2.83 bees /10 m /5 min) and S. densifolia (2.50/ 10 m /5 min) were
superior in attracting more bees on the second day after spray. The second best attractant
was Fruit boost (2.17 bees /10 m2/5 min followed by sugar solution (1.00 bees /10 m2/5 min).
On third day and fourth day after spray all indigenous bee attractants were as good
2
as the Fruit boost attracting 2.00 to 3.00 and 1.17 to 1.67 bees /10 m /5 min. The next best
2
was sugar solution which attracted 1.33 and 0.50 bees/10 m /5 min respectively. This was
followed by control which attracted least number of bees (0.50 and 0.17 bees/10 m2/5 min
respectively).
On fifth day after spray there was no significant difference in the number of bees
visiting different treated plots and visitation ranged from 0.33 to 0.67 bees /10 m2/5 min.
Mean bee visitation of all four days revealed that Citral E, Citral Z and
F. budrunga (2.63 to 2.92 bees /10 m2/5 min) attracted significantly higher number of bees
2
which were on par with each other. The second best was Fruit boost (2.21 bees /10 m /5
2
min) and S. densifolia (2.00 bees /10 m /5 min) which were on par with each other .This was
followed by Sugar solution (1.21 bees /10 m2/5 min) and control (0.46 bees /10 m2/5 min)
which attracted lowest number of bees.
Third spray
There was no significant difference in number of bees visiting different plots a day
before spray of bee attractants and the visitation ranged from 0.33 to 1.00 bees /10 m2/5 min
(Table 13).
Table 12: Influence of indigenous bee attractants on bee visitation in Bt cotton (Bunny BG-II) at II spray
Bees / 10m2/5 min

Treatments Mean*
DBS 1 DAS 2 DAS 3 DAS 4 DAS 5 DAS
0.33 3.67 3.33 3.00 1.67 0.67 2.92
(0.71) (2.04)a (1.96)a (1.86)a (1.47)a (1.05) (1.85) a
0.67 3.17 2.83 2.83 1.50 0.67 2.58
Citral Z @ 1% concentration ab ab a a ab
(1.00) (1.91) (1.82) (1.82) (1.41) (1.07) (1.75)
0.67 2.83 2.50 2.33 1.17 0.83 2.21
(1.05) (1.82)ab (1.73)ab (1.67)a (1.29)a (1.15) (1.64) b
0.67 3.50 2.83 2.83 1.33 0.67 2.63
(1.05) (2.00)ab (1.82)ab (1.82)a (1.35)a (1.07) (1.77) ab
1.00 2.67 2.17 2.00 1.17 0.50 2.00
Fruit boost @ 1% concentration ab b ab a b
(1.22) (1.77) (1.61) (1.58) (1.29) (1.00) (1.58)
0.67 2.33 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.50 1.21
Sugar solution @ 10% concentration b c bc b c
(1.05) (1.67) (1.22) (1.21) (0.98) (0.98) (1.30)
0.33 0.83 0.17 0.50 0.33 0.33 0.46
Control (spray with water) c d c b d
(0.88) (1.15) (0.80) (0.98) (0.90) (0.90) (0.97)
S.Em (±) 0.19 0.10 0.10 0.13 0.08 0.10 0.06
CD (0.05) NS 0.31 0.31 0.40 0.25 NS 0.18
Table 13: Influence of indigenous bee attractants on bee visitation in Bt cotton (Bunny BG-II) at III spray
Bees / 10m2/5 min

Treatments Mean*
DBS 1DAS 2 DAS 3 DAS 4 DAS 5 DAS
0.67 3.67 3.42 3.00 1.83 0.67 2.98
Citral E @ 1% concentration a a a a a
(1.05) (2.04) (1.98) (1.87) (1.53) (1.05) (1.86)
1.00 3.33 2.92 2.67 1.33 0.33 2.56
(1.10) (1.94)ab (1.85)ab (1.78)a (1.35)ab (0.88) (1.75)ab
1.00 2.67 2.50 2.33 1.00 0.33 2.13
(1.17) (1.77)ab (1.73)ab (1.68)a (1.22)abc (0.88) (1.62)b
0.67 3.00 2.83 2.50 1.50 0.67 2.46

Fagara budrunga @ 1% concentration ab ab a ab ab
(1.05) (1.87) (1.82) (1.73) (1.37) (1.05) (1.72)
1.00 2.83 2.33 2.17 1.33 0.33 2.17

Fruit boost @ 1% concentration
(1.17) (1.82)ab (1.68)bc (1.63)ab (1.35)ab (0.88) (1.63)b
0.67 2.00 1.67 1.33 0.67 0.00 1.42

(1.05) (1.56)b (1.46)c (1.34)bc (1.05)bc (0.71) (1.38)c
0.33 0.50 0.67 0.67 0.33 0.33 0.54
Control (spray with water) c d c c d
(1.05) (0.98) (1.07) (1.05) (0.90) (0.88) (1.01)
S.Em (±) 0.20 0.13 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.11 0.06
CD (0.05) NS 0.40 0.25 0.31 0.36 NS 0.18
On the first day after third spray Citral E attracted maximum number of bees (3.67
2
bees /10 m2/5 minute) which was however on par with Citral Z (3.33 bees /10 m /5 min), F.
2 2
budrunga (3.00 bees /10 m /5 min), S. densifolia (2.67 bees /10 m /5 min), and Fruit boost
(2.83 bees /10 m2/5 min). This was followed by sugar solution treated plot (2.00 bees /10 m2/5
min).
On the second day after third spray the treatments with Citral E, Citral Z, F.budrunga,
2
S. densifolia attracted significantly higher numbers of bees (2.83 to3.42 bees /10 m /5 min).
2
Fruit boost was the next best treatment which attracted 2.33 bees /10 m /5 min followed by
sugar solution (1.67 bees /10 m2/5 min).
On third day after spraying, significantly higher numbers of bees were noticed in the
plots which received treatment with Citral E (3.00 bees/10 m2/5 min), Citral Z (2.67 bees /10
m2/5 min), S. densifolia (2.33 bees /10 m2/5 min), F. budrunga (2.50 bees /10 m2/5 min), and
Fruit boost (2.17 bees /10 m2/5 min) which were on par with each other. The next best
2 2
treatment was sugar solution (1.33 bees /10 m /5 min) followed by control (0.67 bees /10 m /5
min) with least attraction to bees.
On the fourth day also similar trend of was noticed with Citral E, Citral Z, F. budrunga,
S. densifolia and Fruit boost attracting significantly higher number of bees (1.33 to 1.83 bees
2
/10 m /5 min) which were on par with each other.
However on fifth day after spray the bee visitation in all treatments was as good as
control. When overall mean bee visitation was considered (1 to 4 days) Citral E, Citral Z and
F. budrunga were superior in attracting bees (2.46 to 2.98 bees /10 m2/5 min) followed by S.
2 2
densifolia (2.13 bees /10 m /5 min) and Fruit boost (2.17 bees /10 m /5 min) which were on
par with each other.
4.3 Influence of Bee attractants on yield parameters of two

The data pertaining to the yield and yield parameters of BG-I and BG-II Bt cotton
genotypes are presented in Table 14 and 15.
Number of good and bad opened bolls per plant
In BG-I (table 14), treatments sprayed with Citral E produced significantly higher
number of good opened bolls (34.80 bolls/plant) which was 16 per cent more than control.
The next higher number of good opened bolls was in the treatment Citral Z (33.73bolls/plant)
S. densifolia (33.00 bolls/plant), F. budrunga (33.40 bolls/plant), and Fruit boost (32.87
bolls/plant) which were on par with each other. The percent increase of good opened bolls in
these treatments over open pollination ranged from 9.57 to 12.53 per cent. This was followed
by sugar solution (31.60 bolls/plant). Lowest number of good opened bolls was recorded in
the control (30.00 bolls/plant).
Similarly in BG-II (table 15), the plots with indigenous bee attractants produced
significantly higher number of good opened bolls (34.40 to 35.27 bolls/plant) which was as
good as Fruit boost (34.40 bolls/plant). The percent increase of good opened bolls in these
treatments over open pollination ranged from 6.83 to 9.53. This was followed by sugar
solution (33.40 bolls/plant)
In BG-I, number of bad opened bolls was significantly higher in control (4.40
bolls/plant) and sugar solution (3.84 bolls/plant) which were on par with each other. The
remaining treatments recorded significantly lower number of bad opened bolls (3.33 to 3.67
bolls/plant). The percent decrease over control was 16.59 to 24.31.
However in BG-II, significantly higher number of bad opened bolls was recorded in
control (5.07 bolls/plant) followed by sugar solution (4.40 bolls/plant). The treatments with bee
attractants recorded significantly lower number of bad opened bolls (3.40 to 3.60 bolls/plant).
The percent decrease over control was 28.99 to 32.93.
Table 14: Influence of indigenous bee attractants on yield and yield parameters of Bt cotton (Bunny BG-I)
Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Total Percent

No. of Lint Seed
GOB/ increase BOB/ decreas increase increase increas (kapas) increas
Treatments seeds yield yield
Plant over Plant e over over over e over yield e over
per boll (q/ha) (q/ha)
control control control control control (q/ha) control
Citral E @ 1% concentration 34.80a 16.00 3.33b 24.31 24.60a 17.14 7.84a 12.96 13.00 a 13.33 22.43a 13.51
Citral Z @ 1% concentration 33.73b 12.43 3.47b 21.13 23.80a 13.33 7.73a 11.38 12.85ab 12.03 22.33a 13.00
Swertia densifolia @ 1%
33.00b 10.00 3.60b 18.18 23.53ab 12.04 7.62ab 9.79 12. 62ab 10.02 22.23 a 12.5
concentration
Fagara budrunga @ 1%
33.40 b 11.33 3.53b 19.77 23.27ab 10.80 7.70a 10.95 12. 76ab 11.76 22.29 a 12.80
concentration
Fruit boost @ 1%
32.87b 9.57 3.67b 16.59 23.13ab 10.14 7.66a 10.37 12.62ab 10.02 22.17 a 12.19
concentration
Sugar solution @ 10% 3.87a
31.60c 5.33 12.04 21.80bc 3.80 7.38b 6.34 12.52b 9.15 21.38b 8.19
concentration b
Control (spray with water) 30.00d - 4.40a - 21.00c - 6.94c - 11.47c - 19.76c -
S.Em (±) 0.33 - 0.19 - 0.53 - 0.08 - 0.12 - 0.20 -

CD (0.05) 1.01 - 0.59 - 1.64 - 0.25 - 0.36 - 0.59 -
GOB-Good opened bolls, BOB-Bad opened bolls
Table 15: Influence of indigenous bee attractants on yield and yield parameters of Bt cotton (Bunny BG-II)
Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent

No. of Lint Seed Total
GOB/ increase BOB/ decrease increase increase increase increase
Treatments seeds yield yield yield
Plant over Plant over over over over over
per boll (q/ha) (q/ha) (q/ha)
control control control control control control
Citral E @ 1% concentration 35.27a 9.53 3.40b 32.93 24.20a 12.40 7.72a 7.82 13.41a 6.51 22.52a 10.66
Citral Z @ 1% concentration 34.67 a 7.67 3.53b 30.37 24.07a 11.79 7.70a 7.54 13.37a 6.19 22.44ab 10.27
Swertia densifolia @ 1%
34.40 a 6.83 3.57b 29.58 23.73ab 7.76 7.63a 6.56 13.32a 5.80 22.39ab 10.02
concentration
Fagara budrunga @ 1%
34.60 a 7.45 3.53b 30.37 23.87ab 10.21 7.68a 7.26 13.36a 6.12 22.40ab 10.07
concentration
Fruit boost @ 1%
34.40 a 6.83 3.60b 28.99 23.73ab 7.76 7.56ab 5.59 13.11ab 4.13 21.97ab 7.96
concentration
Sugar solution @ 10%
33.40 b 3.72 4.40a 13.21 22.80b 5.90 7.36bc 2.79 12.83bc 1.90 21.80bc 7.12
concentration
Control (spray with water). 32.20c - 5.07a - 21.53c - 7.16c - 12.59c - 20.35c -
S.Em (±) 0.28 - 0.25 - 0.41 - 0.08 - 0.10 - 0.19 -
CD (0.05) 0.85 - 0.74 - 1.27 - 0.25 - 0.31 - 0.59 -
GOB-Good opened bolls, BOB-Bad opened bolls
Number of seeds per bolls
In BG-I, significantly higher number of seeds per boll was recorded in the plots that
received Citral E (24.60 seeds/boll) and Citral Z (23.80 seeds/boll) which were on par with F.
budrunga (23.53 seeds/boll), S. densifolia (23.27 seeds/boll) and Fruit boost (23.13
seeds/boll) with 10.14 to 17.14 per cent increase over control. This was followed by sugar
solution (21.80 seeds/boll).
In BG-II also, treatments with Citral E, Citral Z, Fagara budrunga, S. densifolia and
Fruit boost produced significantly higher number of seeds per boll (23.73 to 24.20 seeds/boll)
with 7.76 to 12.40 per cent increase over control. This was followed by sugar solution (22.80
seeds/boll) and control (21.53 seeds/boll) which recorded lower number of seeds per boll.
Seed yield per ha
Seed yield in BG-I yield was significantly higher in the plots sprayed with Citral E
(13.00 q/ha), which was on par with Citral Z (12.85 q/ha), F. budrunga (12.76 q/ha), S.
densifolia (12. 62 q/ha) and Fruit boost (12.62 q/ha) with 10.02 to 13.33 per cent increase
over control This was followed by sugar solution (12.52 q/ha) and control (11.47 q/ha).
In BG-II, all the bee attractant sprayed plots recorded significantly higher seed yield
(13.11 to 13.41 q/ha). The percent increase over control in these treatments ranged from 4.13
to 6.51 per cent. The next best was sugar solution (12.83 q/ha) followed by control which
recorded lesser seed yield (12.59 q/ha).
Lint yield
In BG-I, treatments with Citral E (7.84q/ha), Citral Z (7.73 q/ha), F. budrunga (7.70
q/ha), S. densifolia (7.62 q/ha) and Fruit boost (7.66 q/ha) recorded significantly higher lint
yield, which were on par with each other. The per cent increase over control was 10.37 to
12.96. The next best was sugar solution (7.38 q/ha) followed by control (6.94 q/ha) which
recorded lower seed yield.
Lint yield in BG-II was significantly higher in the plots sprayed with Citral E Citral Z, F.
budrunga, S. densifolia and Fruit boost (7.56 to 7.72 q/ha) with 5.59 to 7.82 per cent increase
over control.
Kapas yield per ha
In BG-I, treatments with Citral E (22.43q/ha), Citral Z (22.33 q/ha), F. budrunga
(22.29 q/ha), S. densifolia (22.23 q/ha) and Fruit boost (22.17 q/ha) produced higher Kapas
yield with 12.19 to 13.51 per cent increase over control. Sugar solution produced (21.38 q/ha)
followed by control which recorded lowest kapas yield (19.76 q/ha).
In BG-II, all the bee attractants sprayed plots recorded significantly higher kapas yield
(21.97 to 22.52 q/ha). The percent increase over control in these treatments ranged from 7.96
to 10.66 per cent.
5. DISCUSSION
The results of the investigations carried out to know pollinator fauna of Bt cotton,
foraging activity, influence of indigenous bee attractants on pollinator visitation and on yield
parameters of Bt cotton are discussed in this chapter.
5.1 Pollinator fauna and foraging activity of honeybees on two

Cotton is generally treated as a self pollinated crop but cross-pollination ranging from
5 to 50 percent or more is also reported (Stephens and Finkner, 1953). Cotton flowers are
extra-axillary, terminal and solitary and are borne on the sympodial branches. Cotton pollen is
relatively large, heavy, sticky and watery and thus wind is not a factor in the pollination of
cotton. Trelease (1879) reported that the floral nectaries were associated with insect
pollination in cotton. An array of pollinators plays a vital role in pollination of cotton. Pollination
takes place usually in the morning during opening of flower and anther dehiscence. Within the
flower, the nectar exudes from a ring of papilli-form cells at the base of the inner side of the
calyx. Though honey bees show preference to floral nectar but often they also collect from
extrafloral nectarines. Kaziev (1961) reported cotton as a good source of nectar for bees. Apis
mellifera bees primarily visit cotton to collect nectar and rarely collected pollen (Moffet and
Smith 1972). Skrebtsov (1964) reported a 33 percent increase in raw cotton yield by cross-
pollination within the variety with honey bees.
In the present study eight species of pollinators were found foraging on Bt cotton
blossoms. Of these, seven species belonged to the order Hymenoptera which formed the
dominant group. The other one belonged to the order Diptera. Among Hymenopterans, honey
bees were predominant. A. cerana (35.21%) was the dominant pollinator among different
honey bees visited followed by A. florea Fabricius (31.22%) and A. dorsata (24.53%).
The present results strengthen the reports of Mc Gregor et al. (1955) and Tanda
(1984), who reported that Hymenopterans were more abundant than any other pollinators.
Waller (1982) also reported that out of 0.5 per cent of average bee visits, 0.44 were by
honeybees and 0.06 per cent by wild bees. Similarly El-Sarrag et al. (1993) noticed that
Hymenopterans constituted 56 per cent of total insect visitors on cotton flowers. Mohana Rao
et al. (1996) reported that pollinating insects that visited flowers of cotton were A. dorsata, A
cerana, A. florea and solitary bees. The results also endorse the findings of Nachappa (2004)
who reported that honeybees constituted 75 per cent of the total visitors of Bt cotton. Similarly
Ganapathi (2005) concluded that honeybees and other pollinators constituted 89.10 and
83.77 per cent of the total pollinators. Primary visitors of Gossypium tomentosum were
honeybees and carpenter bees, both of which were pollinating the flowers (Pleasants and
Wendel, 2010).
Foraging activity of A. dorsata on both Bt cotton hybrids was seen throughout
flowering period without significant variation. Similarly number of bees visiting flowers
remained same on all the days of observation. These results indicated that A. dorsata
collected both pollen and nectar throughout the day in a similar pattern during entire flowering
period.
The present results are in line with the reports of Mohana Rao et al. (1996) who
reported the activity of A. dorsata from 0905 h to 1615 h on cotton. Nachappa (2004) also
noticed that A. dorsata visited blossoms from 0800 h to 1600 h of the day on Bt cotton.
Foraging activity of A. cerana was seen throughout the day as well as throughout the
observation period. However, significantly higher numbers of bees (0.28 and 0.26
2
bees/10m /5min) were observed at 1330 h.
Similarly A. florea visited cotton flowers throughout the day with significantly higher
number of bees at 1330 h in both the Bt cotton hybrids. But the visitation did not differ
th nd
significantly from 7 to 42 day after flowering.
Both A. cerana and A. florea were probably more attracted to nectar secreted by
cotton flowers in the afternoon hours. It is known that glands secreting the nectar would be
active during mid day period which resulted in increased bee visitation at1330 h.
However honey bee visitation did not vary over entire flowering period. This was
obviously due to a longer flowering period with staggered pattern of blossoming in cotton.
This pattern of flowering provides a new flush of flowers daily during entire flowering period
for honey bees.
These results endorse the reports of Kaziev (1956b) who observed bees on cotton
with peak activity during mid-day when the amount and concentration of nectar was more.
Wafa and Ibrahim (1960) reported similar results.
Similarly Tanda (1984) and Mohana Rao et al., (1996) reported foraging activity of A.
cerana from 0930 h to 1545 h in seed production fields of cotton.
Ganapathi also (2005) concluded that peak activity of A. dorsata, A. mellifera, A.
cerana and A. florea at 1200 h.
The present findings on diversity and activity of honey bees in Bt transgenic cotton
are of importance in endorsing sustained activity of pollinators in transgenic ecosystem. Both
in BG-I cotton expressing Cry 1A and BG-II having Cry A+ Cry 2Ab genes, the activity of
honey bees was not hindered.
5.2 Influence of indigenous bee attractants on bee visitation on

Any substance that attracts the bees towards the eliciting source is called as bee
attractant. These bee attractants mainly contain either an attractive food (proteins +sugars) or
pheromones (nasanov or queen mandibular pheromone) or botanical extractions. These
attractants when applied on a target crop which needs pollination would entice more number
of bees thus ensuring optimum pollination and consequently enhancing quantitative and
qualitative yield parameters of target crop. Hence, bee attractants play a beneficial role in
enhancing pollination and yield of crops especially when target crop is not so attractive to the
bees naturally or when the weather conditions are not conducive for foraging by the bees on
target crop.
Two pheromone based attractants namely, Citral E and Citral Z, two plant based
attractants viz., Fagara budrunga and Swertia densifolia along with Fruit Boost, a commercial
bee attractant on Bt cotton were evaluated in the present study.
S. densifolia (Gentianaceae) commonly known as Chirayata is a medicianal plant and
leaf extract of this plant has already been proved to have attractant properties towards A.
cerana (Naik et al., 2005) and A. florea under laboratory conditions (Naik et al., 2007).
Fagara budrunga (Rutaceae), commonly known as Mullilam is another medicinal plant and
fruit extract of this plant is reportd to possess attractant property towards A. cerana under
laboratory conditions (Naik et al., 2003).
However, in advanced countries like France, USA and Canada commercial bee
attractants are mainly either food or pheromone based and these are being exploited to a
greater extent to enhance pollination and ultimately yield of crops. In India, use of bee
attractants is still not practiced and currently a few firms are involved in importing these
attractants and marketing them. However, importing commercial bee attractants is cost
prohibitive and hence they are practically far away from the reach of majority of Indian
farmers.
In the present study, there was uniform bee visitation in two genotypes of Bt cotton on
the day prior to spray of attractants during all the three sprays.
In BG –I, overall mean of all three sprays showed that Citral E, Citral Z,
F. budrunga, S. densifolia attracted significantly more number of bees (2.13 to 3.11 bees
/10m2/5 min) which were on par with each other and were as good as Fruit boost (2.17 to
2
2.67 bees /10m /5 min) (Fig. 1 to 3).
2
Similarly in BG-II, all these indigenous bee attractants (2.13 to 2.96 bees /10m /5
min) were superior in attracting bees and were equal to Fruit boost (2.00 to 2.17 bees /10m2/5
min) (Fig. 4 to 6).
Day before spray Mean of three days after spray
3.50
3.00
2.50
Bee visitation
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
Citral E @ 1% Citral Z @ 1% Swertia densifolia @ Fagara budrunga @ Fruit boost @ 1% Sugar solution @ 10% Control
1% 1%
Treatments
Fig. 1: Influence of indigenous bee attractants on bee visitation in Bt cotton (Bunny BG-I) at I spray
Fig. 1: Influence of indigenous bee attractants on bee visitation in Bt cotton (Bunny BG-I) at I spray
Day before spray Mean of four days after spray
3.00
2.50
2.00
Bee visitation
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
1% 1%
Treatments
Fig. 2: Influence of indigenous bee attractants on bee visitation in Bt cotton (Bunny BG-I) at II spray
Fig. 2: Influence of indigenous bee attractants on bee visitation in Bt cotton (Bunny BG-I) at II spray
3.50
3.00
2.50
Bee visitation
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
1% 1%
Treatments
Fig. 3: Influence of indigenous bee attractants on bee visitation in Bt cotton (Bunny BG-I) at III spray
Fig. 3: Influence of indigenous bee attractants on bee visitation in Bt cotton (Bunny BG-I) at III spray
Day before spray Mean of three days after spray
3.50
3.00
2.50
Bee visitation
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
1% 1%
Treatments
Fig. 4: Influence of indigenous bee attractants on bee visitation in Bt cotton (Bunny BG-II) at I spray
Fig. 4: Influence of indigenous bee attractants on bee visitation in Bt cotton (Bunny BG-II) at I spray
Present results corroborate the earlier reports on the efficacy of botanicals as well as
pheromone based attractants. Doull (1974) reported that benzene extract of the pollen,
attracted bees. Similarly Henning et al. (1992) found that alfalfa volatile linalool attracted
honey bees. Al Sahf (2002) reported that rose water spray was effective in attracting bees to
the onion crop. Attractant properties of botanical based products could be due to the
presence of specific volatile components of these extracts which are yet to be characterized.
Citral E and citral Z contain Citral and neral which are important components of
nasanov glands of Indian honey bees (Naik et al., 1989) which made these treatments
attractive to the honey bees.
Attractancy of the Fruit boost could be attributed to the presence of queen mandibular
pheromone (QMP) that stimulates the foraging activity of workers (Winston and Slessor,
1993). Honey bees stayed significantly longer time and visited more flowers in queen
mandibular pheromone sprayed blueberry and cranberry plots as reported by Higo et al.
(1995).Similar results have been reported in sesame (Viraktamath and Patil, 1999), niger
(Guruprasad, 2001).
Niera and Barriga, (1995) reported the increased number of honey bee visits to bee
attractant treated plots of flowering raspberry. Similar increased bee visitation on the crops
sprayed with attractants was reported in apple and pear (Currie et al., 1992a) berry (Currie et
al., 1992b), pear, plum and apple (Mayer et al., 1989) cardamom (Bhat and Sudharshan,
1999) sunflower (Sanjivan Kumar et al., 2000) and cucumber (Viraktamath and Anagoudar,
2002).
Present findings on the efficacy of indigenous bee attractants also confirm the results
of Srikanta Nath (2008) on sunflower and Nithya Chandran (2009) on sesame and niger.
5.3 Influence of bee attractants on yield and yield parameters of

In the present study all the indigenous bee attractants (Citral E, Citral Z, F.budrunga,
S. densifolia) were able to enhance yield parameters like good opened bolls (6.83 to 16
percent increase over control), seeds per boll (7.76 to 17.14 percent increase over control),
lint yield (6.56 to 12.96% increase over control), seed yield (5.80 to 13.33% increase over
control) and kapas yield (10.02 to 13.51% increase over control). At the same time these
attractants declined the bad opened bolls to the extent of 19.77 to 32.93 per cent increase
over control. The enhancement of yield parameters is comparable to the efficacy of Fruit
boost (Fig, 7 and 8).
Increase in number of good opened bolls and decrease in bad opened bolls are
attributed to cross pollination by bees which caused pollen grains to reach stigma when they
are most receptive. This in turn resulted in lower boll shedding, thus enhancing the boll
retention by plants.
Kearney (1923) also reported decreased boll shedding in the crop pollinated by bees.
Shisikin (1952), Babadzhanov (1953) and Tanda (1984) obtained similar benefits from
supplemental pollination in cotton
For the same reason there was increase in the number of seeds (Fig. 9 and 10) and
seed yield (Fig. 13 and 14). Honey bee pollination ensured the availability of optimum number
of pollen grains for the receptive stigma and resulted in quick germination of pollen grain
which reached carpel quickly and fertilized maximum number of carpels before they were
aborted as reported by Sidhu and Singh (1962). When cotton crop was caged with bees there
was higher seed cotton yield (17.45-18.98%) and more seeds per boll (McGregor et al., 1955
and Sidhu and Singh, 1962)
Higher productivity of cotton in the present present study due to enhanced pollination
is in line with the findings of Babadzhannov (1953), Mahadevan and Chandy (1959), Radoev
(1963), Radoev (1965) and Kohel (1968).
The higher lint yield (Fig. 11 and 12) was due to increased number of bolls per plant
as well as number of seeds per boll due to intensive pollination. Since, lint is produced from
seed coat cells higher number of seeds and bigger seeds increased the lint yield (Kuliev,
1958).
3.5
2.5
Bee visitation
1.5
0.5
0
1% 1%
Treatments
Fig. 5: Influence of indigenous bee attractants on bee visitation in Bt cotton (Bunny BG-II) at II spray
Fig. 5: Influence of indigenous bee attractants on bee visitation in Bt cotton (Bunny BG-II) at II spray
3.50
3.00
2.50
Bee visitation
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
1% 1%
Treatments
Fig. 6: Influence of indigenous bee attractants on bee visitation in Bt cotton (Bunny BG-II) at III spray
Fig. 6: Influence of indigenous bee attractants on bee visitation in Bt cotton (Bunny BG-II) at III spray
GOB/Plant % increase over control
35
30
25
20
GOB/plant
15
10
0
Citral E @ 1% Citral Z @ 1% Swertia densifolia @ Fagara budrunga @ Fruit boost @ 1% Sugar solution @ Control
1% 1% 10%
Treatments
Fig 7: Influence of bee attractants on number of good opened bolls in BG-I cotton
Fig 7: Influence of bee attractants on number of good opened bolls in BG-I cotton
GOB/Plant % increase over control
40
35
30
25
GOB/plant
20
15
10
0
1% 1% 10%
Treatments
Fig 8: Influence of bee attractants on number of good opened bolls in BG-II cotton
Fig 8: Influence of bee attractants on number of good opened bolls in BG-II cotton
No. of seeds per boll % increase over control
25
20
15
10
0
1% 1% 10%
Treatments
Fig 9: Influence of bee attractants on number of seeds per boll in BG-I cotton
Fig 9: Influence of bee attractants on number of seeds per boll in BG-I cotton
No. of seeds per boll % increase over control
25
20
15
10
0
1% 1% 10%
Treatments
Fig 10: Influence of bee attractants on number of seeds per boll in BG-II cotton
Fig 10: Influence of bee attractants on number of seeds per boll in BG-II cotton
Lint yield (q/ha) % increase over control
14
12
10
Lint yield (q/ha)
0
1% 1% 10%
Treatments
Fig 11: Influence of bee attractants on lint yield (q/ha) in BG-I cotton
Fig 11: Influence of bee attractants on lint yield (q/ha) in BG-I cotton
Lint yield (q/ha) % increase over control
5
Lint yield (q/ha)
0
1% 1%
Treatments
Fig 12: Influence of bee attractants on lint yield (q/ha) in BG-II cotton
Fig 12: Influence of bee attractants on lint yield (q/ha) in BG-II cotton
The increased kapas yield (Fig. 15 and 16) was due to increased boll retention and
more number of seeds per boll. This enhancement in yield is comparable to the yield obtained
in Fruit boost treated crop. This beneficial effect was due to placement of sufficient number of
pollen grains from other flowers right on time when the stigma was receptive and carpels
were ready for fertilization, so that each flower produced was converted into fruitful bolls
which inturn resulted into higher yield.
Similarly Tanda and Goyal (1979) obtained 31 to 33 per cent more matured bolls,
increased boll retention (56-60%), higher seed cotton yield per boll (7.9-8.2%), higher yield of
cotton per plant (349.5-354.2 g) in the crop caged with A. mellifera and A. cerana.
Higher yield in Bt cotton due to honey bee pollination is also reported by Ward and
Ward (2002), Ganapathi (2005) and Viraktamath and Ganapathi (2008).
Enhancement of yield due to spray of attractants is well demonstrated in other crops
like sunflower (Bhosle et al., 1992; Sanjivan Kumar et al., 2000; Viraktamath and Patil, 2002
and Manjunath, 2003), niger (Guruprasad, 2001, Sattigi et al., 2001b), sesamum (Viraktamath
and Patil, 1999 and Patil et al., 2000), mustard (Murasingh and Viraktamath, 2002), safflower
(Lingappa et al., 1999), apple (Winston and Slessor, 1993), pear (Mayer et al., 1989 and Ken-
Nauman et al., 1994), cardamom (Bhat and Sudarshan, 1999), watermelon (Sattigi et al.,
2001a), cucumber (Viraktamath and Anagoudar, 2002).
Enhancement of yield due to application of these four indigenous bee attractants is
also demonstrated by Srikanta Nath (2008) in sunflower and Nithya Chandran (2009) in
sesame and niger.
Thus indigenous bee attractants were able to enhance the honey bee visitation as
well as yield parameters which are comparable with commercial bee attractant (Fruit boost) in
both BG-I and BG-II Bt cotton hybrids.
Seed yield (q/ha) % increase over control
14
12
10
Seed yield (q/ha)
0
1% 1% 10%
Treatments
Fig 13: Influence of bee attractants on seed yield (q/ha) in BG-I cotton
Fig 13: Influence of bee attractants on seed yield (q/ha) in BG-I cotton
Seed yield (q/ha) % increase over control
14
12
10
Seed yield (q/ha)
0
1% 1% 10%
Treatments
Fig 14: Influence of bee attractants on seed yield (q/ha) in BG-II cotton
Fig 14: Influence of bee attractants on seed yield (q/ha) in BG-II cotton
Total yield (q/ha) % increase over control
25
20
Kapas yield (/ha)
15
10
0
1% 1% 10%
Treatments
Fig 15: Influence of bee attractants on Kapas yield (/ha) (q/ha) in BG-I cotton
Fig 15: Influence of bee attractants on Kapas yield (/ha) (q/ha) in BG-I cotton
Total yield (q/ha) % increase over control
25
20
Kapas yield (/ha)
15
10
0
1% 1% 10%
Treatments
Fig 16: Influence of bee attractants on Kapas yield (/ha) (q/ha) in BG-II cotton
Fig 16: Influence of bee attractants on Kapas yield (/ha) (q/ha) in BG-II cotton
6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
Results of the investigations carried out during kharif 2009 in two commercial fields at
Govanakoppa (famer’s fields) on pollination fauna, foraging activity of pollinators, influence of
indigenous bee attractants on relative pollination visitation influence of indigenous bee attract
ants on yield components of Bt cotton are summarized below.
As many as eight pollinator species were found to be foraging on Bt cotton flowers.
Of the total pollinator species seven belonged to the order Hymenoptera and one belonged to
order Diptera. Honey bees were dominant species among Hymenoptera. Of the total honey
bees visited Apis cerana Fabricius was the dominant pollinator 35.21% followed by A. florea
Fabricius (31.22%) and A. dorsata Fabricius (24.53%).
In both the genotypes of Bt cotton A. dorsata activity was found throughout the day
and this activity did not differ all over 42 days after flowering. Higher numbers of A.cerana
(0.28 and 0.26 bees /10m2/5min) & A.florea (0.27and 0.26 bees /10m2/5min) bees were
recorded at 1330 h. However no significant difference was found in bee visitation activity over
42 days after flowering on cotton blossoms of two genotypes of Bt cotton.
In both Bt cotton genotypes BG-I and BG-II, Cital E, Cital Z, F. budrunga and S.
denofolia were as good as Fruit boost, a commercial bee attract and all these attractants
significantly attracted higher number of bees over sugar solution and control.
In BG-I plots with Citral E, Citral Z, S. densifolia, F. budrunga were as good as Fruit
boost for producing good opened bolls (32.87 to 34.80 bolls/plant) more number of seeds per
boll(23.13-24.60 seeds/boll), seed weight (12.76-13.00 q/ha), lint yield (7.70-7.84 q/ha) & total
kapas yield (22.29-22.43 q/ha) and least number of bad opened bolls (3.67-3.30) compared to
sugar solution and control. The increase in total yield accounted to an extent of 7.23-12.34
percent over control.
Similarly in BG-II all the indigenous bee attractants were as good as Fruit boost for
producing good opened bolls (32.87 to 34.80 bolls/plant) more number of seeds per
boll(23.13-24.60 seeds/boll), seed weight (12.76-13.00 q/ha), lint yield (7.70-7.84 q/ha) & total
kapas yield (22.29-22.43 q/ha) and least number of bad opened bolls (3.67-3.30) with an
7.23-12.34 percent increase in total yield over control.
Of the total pollinators visited seven belonged to hymenoptera with honey bees as
dominant species. One belonged to order diptera. A. dorsata bee visitation did not vary but A
florea and A cerana had peak visitation between at 1330 h in both genotypes of Bt cotton.
In both BG-I and BG-II Citral E, Cital Z, S. densifolia & F.budrunga were as superior
as Fruit Boost in attracting bees to the cotton blossoms.
Both BG-I & BG-II had significantly higher, good opened bolls, number of seeds per
boll, lint yield, seed yield, kapas yields and least number of bad opened bolls in plots with
Citral Z, Citral E, S. densifolia and F. budrunga, which were as good as Fruit Boost.
REFERENCES
Afzal, M. and Khan, H., 1950, Natural crossing in cotton in Western Punjab. Agron. J., 42:
202-205.
Al-sahf, F. H., 2002, Effect of planting method, rose water spray on seed production in onion
(Alium cepa L.). Emirates J. Agric. Sci., 14: 14-23.
Ambrose, J. T., Schultheis, J. R., Bambara, S. B. and Mangum, W., 1995, An evaluation of
selected commercial bee attractants in the pollination of cucumbers and
watermelons. J. Apic. Res., 135: 267-271.
Anonymous, 2004, Crop biotechnology changing farming dynamics. Crop Care, 30: 55-56.
Anonymous, 2010, Cotton advisory Board meeting, http:/cotcrop.gov.in/current _cotton.asp.
Babadzhanov, F., 1953, Role of intravarietal pollination in increasing the productivity of
cotton. Khlopkovodstvo, 3(7): 34-39.
Berger, L. A., Vaissere, E. B., Moffet, J. O. and Merriti, S. J., 1988, Bombus spp.
(Hymenoptera : Apidae) as pollinators of male sterile upland cotton on the Texas
High Plains. Environ. Entomol., 17 : 789-793.
Bhale, N. L. and Bhat, M. G., 1989, Use of honey bee Apis cerana indica as pollinator in
hybrid seed production in male-sterile lines of upland cotton. Indian J. Agric. Sci.,
59 (1): 74-77.
Bhat, S. S. and Sudarshan, M. R., 1999, Studies on the efficacy of “Bee-Q” in augmenting
pollination, fruit and seed set in cardamom (Elettaria cardamomum Moton.). A
preliminary report. Indian Bee J., 61: 49-54.
Bhosle, B. B., Shetgar, S. S., Bilapate, G. G. and Londhe, G. M., 1992, Effects of attractant
sprays for pollinators on sunflower yield. J. Maha. Agric. Uni. 17:135.
Buchmann, S. C. and Shipman, C. W., 1990, Pollen harvesting rates for Apis mellifera on
Gossypium flowers. J. Kansas Entomol. Soc., 3 (1): 93.
Burgett, M. and Fisher, G. C., 1979, An evaluation of Bee line as a pollinator attractant on red
clover. Am. Bee J., 119: 356-357.
Butts, K. M., 1991, Bee attractants: Improving strawberry quality? Citrus and vegetable
Magazine, 55: 16-17.
Chandrashekhar, G. S. and Sattigi, H. N., 2009, Influence of bee attractants on bee
pollination on seed quality and yield in radish. Karnataka J. Agric. Sci., 22(4):
777-780.
Currie, R. W., Winston, M. L., Slessor, K. N. and Mayer, D. F., 1992a, Effect of synthetic
queen mandibular pheromone sprays on pollination of fruit crops by honey bees
(Hymenoptera: Apidae) J. Econ. Entomol., 85: 1293-1299.
Currie, R. W., Winston, M. L. and Slessor, K. N., 1992b, Effect of synthetic queen mandibular
pheromone spray on honey bee (Hymenoptera : Apidae) pollination of berry
crops. J. Econ. Entomol., 85: 1300-1306.
Doull, K. M., 1974, Effect of attractants and phagostimulants in pollen and pollen supplement
on the feeding behaviour of honeybees in hove. J. Agric. Res., 13: 47-54.
Dulanto Batra, A., 1958, The importance of the ‘bumble bee’ Melitoma euglossoides Lep and
Serv. In the pollination of the flowers of the Tanguis cotton plant. Rev. Peruana
de Ent. Agr., 1(1): 6-11.
Elmstrom, G. W. and Maynard, D. N., 1991, Attraction of honey bees to watermelon with bee
attractant. Proc. Fla. State Hortic. Soc., 103: 130-133.
El-Sarrag, M. S. A., Ahmed, H. M. and Siddig, M. A., 1993, Insect pollinators of certain crops
in Sudan and the effect of pollination on seed yield and quality. J. King Saud
Univ. Agric. Sci., 5(2): 253-262.
Free, J. B., 1970, Insect Pollination of Crops. Academic Press London, p. 544.
Ganapathi, K., 2005, Impact of bee attractants on bee activity and yield parameters of Bt
cotton. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Uni. Agric. Sci., Dharwad (India).
Ganapathi, K. and Viraktamath, S., 2008, Effect of bee attractants on bee visits and yield
parameters of MECH-184 BT hybrid cotton. Ad. Pol. Sp. Res. 25:115-127.
Gumber, R. K., Gill, M. S., Dhaminder Pathak, Gill, J. S. and Sarlach, R. S., 2008, History and
status of cotton. Cotton Res. In Punjab, 1-12.
Guruprasad, G. S., 2001, Maximization of productivity of niger through enhancement of
pollination. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Uni. Agric. Sci., Dharwad (India).
Henning, J. A., Ying-Shin Peng, Montague, M. A. and Teuber, L. R., 1992, Honeybee
(Hymenoptera : Apidae) behavioural response to primary alfalfa floral volatiles. J.
Econ. Entomol., 85 : 233-239.
Henny, B., Loper, G. and Harvey, J., 1983, Chemical detection of penncap – M® capsules in
pollen and methyl parathion residues in honey bees (Apis mellifera L.) and bee
products from colonies near Arizona cotton fields treated with penncap-M. Am.
Bee J., 123(7): 526-529.
Higo, H.A., Winston, M. L. and Slessor, K. N., 1995, Mechanisms by which honey bee
(Hymenoptera: Apidae), queen pheromone sprays enhance pollination. Ann.
Entomol. Soc. Am., 88: 366-373.
Hoffman, G. D. and Morales, T., 1989, Identification and distribution of pollinating honeybees
(Hymenoptera: Apidae) on sterile male cotton. J. Econ. Entomol., 82(2) : 580-
583.
Hofs, J.L., Schoeman, A.S. and Pierre, J., 2008, Diversity and abundance of flower-visiting
insects in Bt and non-Bt cotton fields of Maputaland (KwaZulu Natal Province,
South Africa), Int. J. Trop. Insect Sci., 28:211-219
Iyengar, N. K., 1938, Pollen tube studies in Gossypium. J. Gen., 37: 69-106.
Kalmath, S. B. and Sattigi, H. N., 2002, Effect of different attractants on attracting the bees to
onion (Alium cepa L.) crop. Indian Bee J., 64: 68-71.
Kaziev T. I., 1956b, Activity of honeybees on cotton. Sotsial. Sell Khoz. Azerbaidzhan, 8: 36-
39.
Kaziev, T. I., 1956a, The working of cotton by bees in Western Azerbaidzhan. Uchen. Zap.
Kirovabad. Ped. Inst. (4): 153-156.
Kaziev, T. I., 1961, Nectar secretion in cotton and the role of bees in increasing its yield.
Report of the Inter-University Scientific Conference, The Univ. Contribution to
Agric., Moscow, 68-69.
Kearney, W., 1923, Self fertilization and cross fertilization in pima cotton, United States
Department of Agriculture, Dept. Bulln., 1134, p. 68.
Ken-Naumann, Winston, M. L., Slessor, K. N. and Smirle, M. J., 1994, Synthetic honey bee
(Hymenoptera: Apidae) queen mandibular gland pheromones application affects
pear and sweet cherry pollination. J. Econ. Entomol., 87 : 1595-1599.
Kohel, R. J., 1968, Effect of genotype and heterozygosity of pollen source and method of
application of pollen on seed set and seed and fiber development in cotton. Crop
Sci., 8: 293-295.
Kuliev, A. M., 1958, The use of bees to increase cotton yield, 17th Int. Apic. Cong. Pro.,
Rome, 65-66.
Kumar, B. K., Madanpotra, S. and Kumar, P. A. 2009. Manipulating insect resistance in crop
plants. Bt cotton in India. www.apcoab.org.
Lingappa, S., Viraktamath, S., Vastrad, A. S. and Williams, R., 1999, Utilization of honey bee
Apis cerana F. for pollination of watermelon and safflower. Proc. Apimondia, p.
235.
Looper, G. M. and Davis, D. D., 1985, Disparity of cotton pollen dispersal by honey bees
visiting upland and pima pollen parents. Crop Sci., 25: 585-588.
Looper, G. M. and Rossette, L. M., 1991, Experimental use of Bee scent to influence the
honey bee visitation and yield of watermelon. Am. Bee J., 131: 177-179.
Mackenzie, K. E. and Averill, A. L., 1992, A new honey bee attractant the queen mandibular
pheromone. Cranberries, 56: 13-14.
Mahadevan, V. and Chandy, K. C., 1959, Preliminary studies on the increase in cotton yield
due to honeybee pollination. Madras Agric. J., 47: 23-26.
Mahmood, A. N., Waller, G. D. and Hagler, J. R., 1990, Disposal of upland and pima cotton
pollen by honey bee (Hymenaptera : Apidae) visiting upland male sterile flowers.
Environ. Entomol., 19 : 1034-1036.
Malerbo Souza, D. T., Nogueira - Couto, and R. H. Couto, L. A., 2004, Honey bee attractants
and pollination in sweet orange, citrus sinensis Osbeck, var. Pera-rio. J. Venom.
Anim. Toxins incl. Trop. Dis., 10:362-368.
Manjunath, K., 2003, Field scale evaluation of bee attractants for their efficacy in sunflower.
M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad (India).
Manjunath, T. M., 2005, Safety of Bt cotton: Facts allay fears. AgBioWorld.org/ biotech-
infs/articles/biotech-art/safety-bt-cotton-html.
Margalith, R., Lensky, Y. and Rabinowitch, H.D., 1984, An evaluation of Beeline as a
honeybee attractant to cucumbers and its effect on hybrid seed production. J.
Apic. Res., 23 (1): 50-54.
Mayer, D. F., Britt, R. L. and Lunden, J. D., 1989, An evaluation of Bee scent as a honeybee
attractant. Good Fruit Grower 40: 40.
Maynard, D. N., Elmstrom, G. W. and Mc Cuistion, F. T., 1992, Periodicity of watermelon fruit
set and effect of bee attractant on yield. Proc. Iter. Am. Soc. Tropic. Hort. 36:
81-87.
McGregor, S. E., 1959, Cotton flower visitation and pollen distribution by honeybees. Sci.,
129: 97-98.
McGregor, S. E., 1976, Insect pollination of cultivated crop plants. Agric. Handbook, 496: 171-
190.
McGregor, S. E., Rhyne, C., Worley, S. and Todd, F. E., 1955, Role of honeybees in cotton
pollination. Agron. J., 47: 23-25.
Melnichenko, A. N., 1963, Bees themselves in increase the nectar productivity of flowers.
Biol. Abstracts, 45(7): 5069.
Minkov, S. G., 1956, Nectar productivity of cotton and the role of bees in cross pollination.
Trudy Kazakhskogo Opythaya Stantsiya Pchelovodstva, 1: 109-105.
Moffet, J. O. and Smith, L. S., 1972, Honeybee as pollinators of hybrid cotton. Environ.
Entomol., 1(3) : 368-370.
Moffet, J. O., Smith, L. S. and Shipman, W. C., 1976, Influence of distance from pollen plant
on seed produced by male sterile cotton. Crop Sci., 16: 765-766.
Moffet, J. O., Smith, L. S., Burkhardt, C. C. and Shipman, C. W., 1974, Nectar secretions in
cotton flowers and its relation to floral visits by honeybees. Am. Bee J., 114: 32-
34.
Moffet, J. O., Smith, L. S., Burkhart, C. C., and Shipman, C. W., 1975a, Honeybee visits to
cotton flowers. Environ. Entomol., 4(2) : 203-206.
Moffet, J. O., Smith, L. S., Burkhardt, C. C. and Shipman, C. W., 1975b, Influence of cotton
genotypes on floral visits of honey bees. Crop Sci., 15: 782-784.
Mohana Rao, G. M., Nadre, K. R. and Suryanarayana, M. C., 1996, Studies on the utility of
honey bees on production of foundation seed of cotton cv. NCMHH-20. Indian
Bee J., 58(1): 13-15.
Murasingh, S. and Viraktamath, S., 2002. Role of bee attractants in pollination and
productivity of mustard (Brassica juncea L.). Proceedings of 6th Asian Apiculture
Association (AAA) International Conference and World APIEXPO, Feb-24 to
March 1, Bangalore, p.78.
Nachappa, M.S., 2004, Effect of Bt cotton on the performance of A. mellifera and A. cerana F.
colonies. M.Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad.
Nachappa, M. S. and Virktamath, S., 2004, Foraging activity and performance of European
bee, Apis mellifera (L.) in Bt and non Bt cotton hybrids. Proc. Int. Symp. Strat
Sust. Cotton Prod. – A G Vis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad (India).
Nagiri, S. and Patnaik, H. P., 2006, Foraging activity of Apis cerana indica in response to bee
attractant/stimulant feedings, J. Pl. Prot. Environ., 3: 21-23.
Naik, D. G., Banhatti, P., Chanwda, S. S. and Thomas, D., 2003, Fagara budrunga fruit
extract as an attractant for Apis cerana. J. Apic. Res., 42: 48-49.
Naik, D. G., Dandge, C. and Puntambekar, H., 2007, Swertia densifolia leaf extract as a dose-
dependent attractant or repellent for Apis florae, J. Apic. Res. 46: 15-18.
Naik, D. G., Dandge, C., Puntambekar, H. and Patil, T., 2005, Attractant and repellent
properties of Swertia densifolia leaf extract towards Apis cerana indica. J. Apic.
Res. 44: 116–118.
Naik, D.G., Kapadi, A.H., Singh, M.K., Suryanarayana, M.C., and Kshirsagar, K.K. 1989. Lure
development for Indian honey bees Apis cerana indica Fabr. Indian Bee J.,
51:47-50.
Narayanan, T.S. and Gavigowda, 2005, Influence of insecticidal and sugar syrup spray on
foraging activity of honeybees in gherkin (Cucumis anguria). Indian Bee J., 67:
67-71.
Nidagundi, B., 2004, Pollination potentiality of honeybees on yield of bitter gourd (Momordica
charantia L.). M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad (India).
Niera and Barriga 1995, Honey bee (Apis mellifera L., Hymenoptera: Apidae) pollinating
behaviour on raspberry (Rubus idaeus L., cv. Heritage) under the effect of two
attractant and one repellent treatments. Agro Sur.,. 23:52-59.
Nithya Chandran, 2009, Evaluation of indigenous bee attractants in enhancing the yield
parameters of sesame and niger. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci.,
Dharwad (India).
Pateel, M. C. and. Sattagi H. N., 2007, Effect of different attractants on attracting the bees to
cucumber (Cucumis sativa L.) crop. Karnataka J. Agric. Sci. 20: 761-763.
Patil, B. S., Viraktamath, S., Lingappa, S., Giraddi, R. S., Parameshwarappa, K. and Bhat,
A.R.S., 2000, Effect of Bee-Q and Bee-here on pollinators and yield of sesamum,
Insect Environ., 5: 151-152.
Phillips, S. A. and Simpson, J. L., 1989, Hybrid cotton pollination in relation to accumulated
degree days. Agron. J., 81: 975-980.
Pleasants, J. M. and Wendel, J. F., 2010, Reproductive and Pollination Biology of the
Endemic Hawaiian Cotton, Gossypium tomentosum (Malvaceae) Pacific Sci.,
64(1):45–55
Punit, M., Kairon, M. S. and Mohan, P., 1999, Nectar gland and honey bee pollination in
cotton. Adv. Pl. Sci., 12: 625-626.
Radoev, L., 1963, Studies on the pollination and productivity of cotton. Proc.of 19th Int. Apic.
Cong., Liblic, Czechoslovakia, p. 99.
Radoev, L., 1965, Bee pollination of cotton. Pchelovodstvo, 9: 39-41.
Rai, M., Acharya, S. S., Virmani, S. M. and Aggrawal, P. K. 2009. State of Indian Agriculture.
National Academy Agric. Sci., New Delhi.
Rhodes, J., 2002, Cotton pollination by honeybees. Aus. J. Expt. Agric., 42(4): 513-518.
Sanjivan Kumar, Hari Chand and Singh, R., 2000, Increasing the attractiveness of sunflower
to honey bees pollination. Shashpa, 7: 151-154.
Sattigi, H. N., Rajashekhar, D. W. and Kulkarni, K. A., 2001a, Effect of attractants in
enhancing the productivity of watermelon. Paper presented at Nat. Symp. on
Environ. and Evol. Biol., Dharwad, 1-3 March, 2001.
Sattigi, H. N., Rajashekar, D. W. and Kulkarni, K. A., 2001b, Effect of Bee pollination in niger
seed production. Paper presented at Nat. Symp. on Environ. and Evol. Biol.,
Dharwad, 1-3 March.
Schultheis, J. R., Ambrose, J. T., Bambara, S. B. and Mangum, W. A., 1994, Selective bee
attractants did not improve cucumber and watermelon yield, Hort. Sci., 29: 155-
158.
Shisikin, E. A., 1952, Effect of pollination by honeybees on increasing the productivity of
cotton. In: Pollination of Agricultural Plants (Ed. Krishi Chunas, I. V and Guberi, A.
F.). Moskva, 95-103.
Sidhu, A. S. and Singh, S., 1962, Role of honeybees in cotton production. Indian Cotton
Growers Rev., 16(1): 18-23.
Singh, P. B. and Sinha, S. N., 1996, Effect of Bee-Q on honeybee and seed yield of hybrid
sunflower. Seed Res., 24: 151-153.
Skrebtsov, M.F., 1964, The problem of abundant pollination of cotton by honey bees. Trud.
nauch.-issled Inst. Pchelov., 246-264
Srikanta Nath, 2008, Evaluation of indigenous bee attractants in sunflower, M. Sc. (Agri.)
Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad (India).
Srimathi, P., Vijaya, J., Ananthakalaiselvi, A. and Krishnasamy, V., 1999, Bee-Q effect on
honey bee visit and seed yield of hybrid sunflower KBSH-1, Madras Agric. J., 86:
338-339.
Stephens, S. G. and Finkner, M. D., (1953) Natural crossing in cotton. Econ. Bot. 7(3): 257 -
269.
Tanda, A. S. and Goyal, N. P., 1978, Effect of bee pollination on boll retention in Gossypium
arboreum L. Seeds Farms, 4(8): 45-46.
Tanda, A. S. and Goyal, N. P., 1979, Some observations on the behaviour of Apis mellifera
Linn. and Apis cerana Fab. workers in a field of desi cotton (Gossypium arboreum
Linn). Am. Bee J., 119(2): 106.
Tanda, A. S., 1983, Assessing the role of honeybees in a field of Asiatic cotton (Gossypium
arboreum L.). Am. Bee J., 123(8): 593-594.
Tanda, A. S., 1984, Bee pollination increases yield of 2 interplanted varieties of Asiatic cotton
(Gossypium arboreum L.). Am. Bee J., 124(7): 539-540.
Taner Bozbek, Nedim Ozbek, Volkan Sezener, Oktay Erdogan, Ilkay Yavas, Aydin Unay,
2008, Natural crossing and isolation distance between cotton genotypes in
Turkey, Sci. Agric. (Piracicaba, Braz.), 65:314-317.
TM
Tew, E. and Ferree, D. C., 1999, The influence of synthetic foraging attractant, Bee-scent ,
on the number of honeybee visiting apple blossoms and subsequent fruit
production. Research Circular, Ohino Agricultural Research and Development
Centre, 299: 14-23.
Theis, S. A., 1953, Agents concerned with natural crossing of cotton in Oklahoma. Am. Soc.
Agron. J., 45: 481-484.
Trelease, W. ,1879. Nectar, what it is and some of its uses. U.S. Dept. Agr. Rpt. Cotton
Insects, 319-343.
Vaissiere, B. E. and Vinson, S. B., 1994, Pollen morphology and its effect on pollen collection
by honey bees Apis mellifera L. wilt species reference to upland cotton (G.
hirsutum). Grana, 13: 128-138.
Vaissiere, B. E. Moffet, J. O. and Loper, G. M., 1984, Honeybee as pollinators for hybrid
cotton seed production on the Texas High Plains. Agro. J., 76: 1005-1010.
Vansell, G. H., 1944, Cotton nectar in relation to bee activity and honey production. J. Econ.
Entomol, 37: 528-530.
Viraktamath, S. and Anagoudar, J. A., 2002, Influence of bee attractants in enhancing
pollination and yield parameters in Cucumis sativa L. Indian Bee J. 64: 23-27.
Viraktamath, S. and Patil R. K., 1999, Preliminary studies on the influence of bee attractants
on bee visitation and yield parameters of sesamum, Sesamum indicum L., Indian
Bee J., 61: 55-58.
Viraktamath, S. and Patil, R. K., 2002, Effect of bee pollination in maximization of productivity
th
of sunflower. Proc. of 6 Asian Apic. Association (AAA), Int. Conf. and World,
APIXPO, February 24 to March 1, Bangalore, p. 62.
Viraktamath,S. and Ganapathi.K., 2008, Improving the yield of RCH-2 Bt-cotton hybrid
through enhancement of bee pollination. Ad. Pol. Sp. Res. 25:165-168.
Wafa, A. K. and Ibrahim, S. H., 1960, The effect of honeybee as a pollinating agent on yield of
clove and cotton. Cairo University Faculty, Agric. Bul., 206 : 44.
Waller, G. D. and Mahmood, A. N., 1991, Upland and pima cotton as pollen donors for male
sterile upland seed parents. Crop Sci., 31: 265-267.
Waller, G. D., 1982, Hybrid cotton pollination. Am. Bee J., 122: 555-560.
Waller, G. D., Moffet, J. O., Loper, G. M. and Martin, J. H., 1985, An evaluation of honeybee
foraging activity and pollination efficacy for male sterile cotton. Crop Sci., 25: 211-
214.
Waller, G. D., Wilson, F. D. and Martin, J. H., 1981, Influence of phenotype, season and time
of day on nectar production in cotton. Crop Sci., 21: 507-511.
Ward, N., R and Ward, E. K., 2002, Impact of honeybee pollination activities on Bt cotton
production in Northern Alabama. http://home.hiwaay.net /nmartinb/ impact of
honeybee pollination.htm.
Williams, I. H., Pickett, J. A. and Martin, A. P., 1981, The nasanov pheromone of honey bee
Apis mellifera L. (Hymenoptera : Apidae) Part-II. Bio-assay of the components
using forager. J. Chem. Ecol., 7: 225-237.
Winston, M. L. and Slessor, K. N., 1993, Application of queen honeybee mandibular
pheromone for bee keeping and crop pollination. Bee World, 74: 111-128.
Woodrow, A. W., Nathangreen, Tucker, H., Schonhorst, M. H. and Hamilton, K. C., 1965,
Evaluation of chemicals as honeybee attractants and repellants. J. Econ.
Entomol,, 58 : 1094-1102.
Zvedenok, A. P., 1996, The onion seed crop can be improved. Kartofel i Ovoshchi, 4: 29.
EVALUATION OF INDIGENOUS BEE ATTRACTANTS
ON BT COTTON
ANJAN KUMAR NAIK 2010 DR. S. VIRAKTAMATH
MAJOR ADVISOR
ABSTRACT
Studies on pollinator fauna, foraging activity of honey bees and effect of indigenous
bee attractants on bee visitation and yield parameters of two genotypes of Bt cotton were
made during Kharif season of 2009 at Govanakoppa near Dharwad.
Of the eight species of pollinators recorded on Bunny BG-I and Bunny BG-II Bt cotton
hybrids, honey bees were predominant. Apis cerana F., A. florea F. and
A. dorsata F. constituted 35.21, 31.22, and 24.53 per cent of total pollinators.
Foraging activity of A. dorsata on both Bt cotton hybrids was uniform throughout the
th nd
day and during the entire flowering period (7 to 42 days after flowering). Activity of A.
cerana and A. florea was also uniform but significantly higher numbers of A. cerana and A.
florea bees (0.26 and 0.28, 0.26 and 0.27 bees/10m2/5min) were observed at 1330 h.
In both BG-I and BG –II, application of all the four indigenous bee attractants (Citral
E, Citral Z, Fagara budrunga, Swertia densifolia) were equally effective in attracting
significantly more number of bees (2.13 to 3.11 and 2.13 to 2.96 bees /10m2/5 min) which
was as good as the Fruit boost, a commercial bee attractant.
These indigenous bee attractants were able to enhance yield parameters viz., good
opened bolls (6.83 to 16 per cent increase over control), seeds per boll (7.76 to 17.14 %), lint
yield (6.56 to 12.96%), seed yield (5.80 to 13.33%) and kapas yield (10.02 to 13.51%). At the
same time there was a decline in the bad opened bolls to the extent of 19.77 to 32.93 per
cent over control due to spraying of attractants. The enhancement of yield parameters is
comparable to the efficacy of Fruit boost.

Bee Scent Article PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Bee Scent Article PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

EVALUATION OF INDIGENOUS BEE ATTRACTANTS

Thesis submitted to the

MASTER OF SCIENCE (AGRICULTURE)

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL ENTOMOLOGY

Sl. No. Chapter Particulars

2.1 Pollinator fauna and foraging activity of honey bees on cotton

2.2 Influence bee attractants on bee visitation in two genotypes of Bt

2.3 Influence of bee attractants on yield parameters of Bt cotton

3. MATERIAL AND METHODS

3.1 Pollinator fauna and foraging activity of honey bees in two

3.2 Influence of indigenous bee attractants on honey bee visitation

3.3 Influence of bee attractants on yield parameters of two

4.1 Pollinator fauna and foraging activity of honey bees in two

4.2 Influence of indigenous bee attractants on bee visitation in two

4.3 Influence of bee attractants on yield parameters of two

1. Pollinator fauna in BG-I and BG-II genotypes of Bt cotton

2. Foraging activity of Apis dorsata in BG-I Bt cotton

3. Foraging activity of Apis dorsata in BG-II Bt cotton

4. Foraging activity of Apis cerana in BG-I Bt cotton

5. Foraging activity of Apis cerana in BG-II Bt cotton

6. Foraging activity of Apis florea in BG-I Bt cotton

7. Foraging activity of Apis florea in BG-II Bt cotton

8. Influence of indigenous bee attractants on bee visitation in Bt cotton

9. Influence of indigenous bee attractants on bee visitation in Bt cotton

10. Influence of indigenous bee attractants on bee visitation in Bt cotton

11. Influence of indigenous bee attractants on bee visitation in Bt cotton

12. Influence of indigenous bee attractants on bee visitation in Bt cotton

13. Influence of indigenous bee attractants on bee visitation in Bt cotton

14. Influence of indigenous bee attractants on yield and yield parameters of

15. Influence of indigenous bee attractants on yield and yield parameters of

1. Influence of indigenous bee attractants on bee visitation in Bt cotton

2. Influence of indigenous bee attractants on bee visitation in Bt cotton

3. Influence of indigenous bee attractants on bee visitation in Bt cotton

4. Influence of indigenous bee attractants on bee visitation in Bt cotton

5. Influence of indigenous bee attractants on bee visitation in Bt cotton

6. Influence of indigenous bee attractants on bee visitation in Bt cotton

7. Influence of bee attractants on number of good opened bolls in BG-I

8. Influence of bee attractants on number of good opened bolls in BG-II

9. Influence of bee attractants on number of seeds per boll in BG-I cotton

11. Influence of bee attractants on lint yield (q/ha) in BG-I cotton

12. Influence of bee attractants on lint yield (q/ha) in BG-II cotton

13. Influence of bee attractants on seed yield (q/ha) in BG-I cotton

14. Influence of bee attractants on seed yield (q/ha) in BG-II cotton

1. General view of experimental plot (BG I) Bt cotton

2. General view of experimental plot (BG II) Bt cotton

3. Spraying of bee attractants on cotton flowers

2.2 Pollinator fauna and foraging activity of honey bees on cotton

2.2 Influence bee attractants on bee visitation in two genotypes

2.3 Influence of bee attractants on yield parameters of Bt cotton

3.1 Pollinator fauna and foraging activity of honey bees in two

3.2 Influence of indigenous bee attractants on honey bee

Plate 2: General view of experimental plot (BG II) Bt cotton

3.3 Influence of bee attractants on yield parameters of two

Plate 3: Spraying of bee attractants on cotton flowers

4.1 Pollinator fauna and foraging activity of honey bees in two

Sl. Pollinator Relative

1. Apis dorsata Fabricius. Hymenoptera : Apidae 24.53

2. A. cerana Fabricius. Hymenoptera : Apidae 35.21

3. A. florea Fabricius. Hymenoptera : Apidae 31.22

4. Xylocopa sp. Hymenoptera : Apidae

5. Pithitis sp. Hymenoptera : Anthoporidae

6. Sceliphron sp. Hymenoptera :Sphecidae 9.04

7. Polistes sp. Hymenoptera : Vespidae