University of Agricultural Sciences, GKVK Bangalore-65

Project report On Flower visitors in pollination and pod set of Pigeonpea, Cajanus cajan L. Millsp

Submitted by: Batch III 1. Subhash B Kandakoor (PALB 1021) 2. Rajendra Prasad B S (PALB 1017) 3. Sanjaya C Topagi (PALB 1023) 4. Murali S (PALB 1015) 5. Ajit kumar M A (PALB 1007)

Submitted to: Dr. N. S. BHAT Professor

DEPARTMENT OF APICULTURE UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE GKVK, BANGALORE- 65

Though insects visited flowers. Millsp Pigeonpea. Of these. it is known that generally anthophilous insects and bees in particular usually increase the fruit and seed yields of many plants species. majority species belonged to the order Hymenoptera (Apidae. Chrysididae and Scoliidae) (Table 1). Nevertheless. Although pigeonpea flowers are self compatible and are believed to be selfpollinated and very little information exists on the relationships between flowering insects and many plants species. Further.Flower visitors in pollination and pod set of Pigeonpea. as seeds set even when insects are excluded from visiting flowers the present study provide information on the role played by flower visitors in pollination and their foraging activity and also podset of pigeonpea. through pollinisation provision C. Megachilidae. cajan would be attractive and possibly be pollinated by bees . there is no information on the need for pollinating agents in the production of seeds. Megachile spp. These traits suggest that C. it was not known whether they increased seed yield. Cajanus cajan L. Xylocopa spp were frequent visitors of pigeonpea flowers. Apis spp. Table1: Flower visitors of pigeonpea . cajan flowers have bright corollae and produce nectar and pollen. Mill sp is one of the major grain legume crops grown in the tropics and subtropics.The pollen and nectar in its flowers are however accessible to insects other than bees. requiring the separation of pollinators from other visitors. Cajanus cajan L. Ten species of insects visited flowers of pigeonpea during the study period.

32 33 Apis 23 florea Fab.33 Flower visitors 37 33 Apis dorsta Fab.33 22. 13 15 Trigona spp.10:00 Sl. Table2 : Peak activity of pollinators in a day Time 8:00 .00 h to 12. Before 10 h and after 16 h the pollinator activity was very low (Table 2 & 3).00 h Megachile spp was more active. Honey bee species were observed from morning to evening with peak from 10.00 h and from 12.67 Apidae 13.Peak activity period was observed for 3 days and result showed two peak (Fig1. of pollinators visited / plant I 26 II 24 III 22 34 29 23 12 Mean 24.00 Family 34.No 10:00-12:00 1 12:00-14:00 2 14:00-16:00 3 16:00-18:00 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 No. Along with these some Amegilla spp and vespidea are active.) periods in a day.00 h to 14. 22 Apis cerana Fab.67 31. Xylocopa spp1 Xylocopa spp2 Megachile spp Cuckoo wasp Scolia spp Amegilla spp Xylocopinae Megachilidae Chrysididae Scolidae Halictidae .

33 4.10:00 10:00-12:00 12:00-14:00 14:00-16:00 16:00-18:00 Apis spp 11.84 63.67 Total flower drop 54 47 44 48.23 in caged condition. The per cent flower drop was calculated in both open pollination and caged condition and results showed that 64.21 ± 1. The Differences between Uncaged and Caged plants with respect to pod and seed characters are given in (Table 4 and 5).19 78.90 in caged plants.00 3.05 in caged condition.77 64. of final pod set 26 29 25 26. Table4: Flower drop in uncaged (cross pollination) and caged (self pollination) plants** Cross pollination Replication Total no. of flowers 77 62 71 70 Self pollination No.08 in open pollination whereas 14.37 ± 21.33 7.33 12. of flowers 80 76 69 75 No. of final pod set 12 16 15 14.The number of pods set in inflorescence was 26.67 79.00 Megachile spp 7.24 Total no.00 15.33 3.Table3: peak activity of different species Timings (h) 8:00 .67 ± 0.00 12.00 17.08 in caged plants.25 in open condition where 79.42 74.90 .87 RI RII RIII Mean 55.00 5.33 9. Similarly there was significant increase in the pod weight 14. The results showed there were significant differences between plants that were allowed for open pollination (Uncaged) and those that were prevented from bee visits (Caged) in some of the parameters observed.33 % flower drop 67.67 7.16±28.33 6.33 The importance of pollination by the pollinators was assessed by caging the plants to avoid pollination by pollinators and in another set the plants were allowed for open pollination.16 ± 28.14 and 3.33 total flower drop 65 46 56 % flower drop 84.50 61.33 ± 2. Seeds per pod in open condition 3.37±21.67 ± 2.42 ± 0.00 Others 6.7 in open condition and 8.99 ± 0.

of pods/ inflorescence Pod weight/inflorescence No.** Values presented in the table indicates per inflorescence Table5: Differences between Uncaged and Caged plants with respect to pod and seed characters.33±2.45 Mean 70.05 75.67±0. there is a need to conserve the populations of Apis spp and non-Apis bees.55 Mean RI RII 62 16 9.00±5.08 8.42±0.03 3.82 3.14 3. Amegilla and Xylocopa spp to realise higher production.84 3.21±1. Hence. especially.00±7.45 The results of the present study have clearly shown that flower visitors are important in pod set of Pigeonpea and that there is a significant increase in the per cent pod set and yield by encouraging flower visitors.36 RIII 71 15 8. of seeds/pod 80 26 14.67±2.99±0. of flowers/inflorescence No.08 12 14. Characters Cross pollination Self pollination RI No.23 3.56 3.23 3.57 77 26. Megachile.64 RIII 69 25 14.12 3.82 RII 76 29 16.55 14.97 6. .

.Cuckoo wasp Megachile sp.

Apis dorsata Amigella sp. Trigona sp. In caged conditon Fig2: Different pollinators of pigeonpea .

Fig1: Activity of pollinators during different hours .

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful