J. Env. Bio-Sci., 2015: Vol.

29 (2):475-481
(475) ISSN 0973-6913 (Print), ISSN 0976-3384 (On Line)

USE OF NATUTRAL BEE ATTRACTANTS ON BEE VISITATION AND YIELD OF

LUCERNE
Chavan Vikas Tukaram*, S. Viraktamath and A.K. Karnatak
Department of Agricultural Entomology, Indian Grassland and Fodder Research Institute, Dharwad
University, Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad 580 005, Karnataka
[Corresponding author E-mail*: vikasgchavan58@gmail.com]

Received: 10-08-2015 Accepted: 22-09-2015

In the present investigation, one pheromone based attractant namely Citral- Z and three plant based lures like fruit extract of
Fagara budrunga, leaf extract of Swetia densifolia and tuberose scented water have been evaluated along with sugar solution and
a commercial queen mandibular pheromone based attractant namely Fruit boost. After first spraying of bee attractants both Fruit
boost (8.23 bees/1m2/5 minute) and sugar solution were superior enticing more bees. The plant based attractants viz., S. densifolia,
F. budrunga and tuberose floral scented water as well as the pheromone based Citral Z were on par with each other and attracted
next higher number of bees. A similar trend was also observed after second spraying of bee attractants. The results of present
investigation clearly showed that all the four indigenous bee attractants were significantly superior over control but second best
to the commercial bee attractant.

Lucerne (Medicago sativa L., family Leguminosae) is a MATERIAL AND METHODS

leguminous fodder as well as green manure crop called as
The lucerne crop was grown in one acre area during Kharif
alfalfa. It is cultivated over an area of 35 million hectares in the
season (2012) by following the recommended package of
world. Forage yield is 5 to 75 mt/ha/annually with 8 to 12
practices. There were seven treatments in this experiment
cuttings. Seed yield is 186 to 280 kg/ha annually1. One of the
and each treatment was replicated thrice. Each cropped area
major problems in lucerne seed production is variation in seed
was divided into 21 plots of 11 m × 9 m with a buffer zone of
yield. Lucerne crop requires the flowers to be tripped for
1×1 m between replications and also between treatments.
pollination to take place. Pollination is mainly dependent on
honey bees and other solitary bees2. The details of treatments were as follows.
T1: Spraying with Swertia densifolia @ 1%
Use of bee attractants is one of the ecofriendly techniques to
T2: Spraying with Fagara budrunga @ 1%
lure the bees to the target crop for enhancing pollination and
T3 : Sugar solution @ 10%
thereby yield of the crop. Bee attractants can be classified
T4: Spraying with Citral Z @ 1%
mainly into three categories, food and pheromone based and
T5: Spraying with Fruit boost @ 1%
plant origin. Food based attractants are mainly comprised of
T6: Spraying with tuberose floral scented water
glucose, maltose, sucrose, lactose, protein, fat, minerals,
T7: Control (Water spray)
vitamins and gluconic acid. Some of the commercial products
One pheromone based attractant like Citral Z and three plant
are Bee-Line, Bee Lure and Bee-Q. Pheromone based
based attractants viz, Fagara budrunga, Swertia densifolia,
attractants are divided further into nasonov gland pheromone
and tuberose floral scented water along with a commercial
(e.g. Bee-here, Pollinus and Bee-Scent) and queen mandibular
pheromone based bee attractant Fruit boost and sugar solution
pheromone (Fruit boost and Bee boost). Plant based bee
were selected for the study. The spray solution of each
attractants like extracts of Fagara budrunga and Swertia
attractant was prepared by adding 15 ml of attractant and 15
densifolia have been successfully demonstrated in Apis cerana
ml of sandovit in a porcelain cubicle and mixed thoroughly by
and A. florea under the semi-field conditions3. However, their
pestle and mortar and required concentration was made by
performance under field condition is yet to be confirmed. Hence,
adding 1.5 litre of water. But the Fruit boost was diluted directly
commercial bee attractants of plant origin are not yet available.
by adding water. The Bee attractants were sprayed twice at
10 and 50 per cent of flowering.

NAAS Rating (2016)-4.20

Print to PDF without this message by purchasing novaPDF (http://www.novapdf.com/)

 USE OF NATUTRAL BEE ATTRACTANTS ON BEE VISITATION (476)

Table-1.Influence of bee attractants on bee visitation in lucerne at 10 per cent flowering.

Means followed by the same letter in a column do not differ significantly by DMRT (P= 0.05)
Figures in the parenthesis are x +0.5 transformed values. DBS = Day before first spray DAS = Days after first spray..

Table-2.Influence of bee attractants on bee visitation in lucerne at 50 per cent flowering.

Means followed by the same letter in a column do not differ significantly by DMRT (P= 0.05)
Figures in the parenthesis are x +0.5 transformed values.DBS = Day before first spray DAS = Days after first spray..

Print to PDF without this message by purchasing novaPDF (http://www.novapdf.com/)

 (477) TUKARAM, VIRAKTAMATH AND KARNATAK

Table-3.Influence of bee attractants on quantitative parameters of lucerne

Means followed by the same letter in a column do not differ significantly by DMRT (P= 0.05)

Table-4.Influence of bee attractants on qualitative parameters of lucerne.

Means followed by the same letter in a column do not differ significantly by DMRT (P= 0.05)

Print to PDF without this message by purchasing novaPDF (http://www.novapdf.com/)

 USE OF NATUTRAL BEE ATTRACTANTS ON BEE VISITATION
The honey bees and other pollinators visits in one square meter
area per five minutes were observed a day before spraying
and one, two, three, and five days after each spray. Such
observations were made twice a day i.e. between 0800-1000
hr in the morning and 1400-1600 hr in the afternoon. The means
of both observations were calculated and the data were
subjected to ANOVA.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Influence of bee attractants on bee visitation in lucerne
First spray at 10 per cent flowering: The number of bee
visits a day before spraying varied from 2.33 to 3.00 bees/m 2/
5 minutes, but this variation between the treatments did not
differ significantly (Table-1). Significantly higher number of bees
was noticed on the crop sprayed with Fruit boost and sugar
solution (7.00 and 6.83 bees/m 2/5 minutes respectively) on
one day after spray followed by S. densifolia (4.50 bees/m 2 /5
minutes). Next higher number of bees was recorded in the
crop sprayed with Citral Z (4.00 bees/m 2/5 minutes) and tube
rose floral scented water (4.00 bees/m2/ 5 minutes) which was
on par with F. budrunga (3.67 bees/m2/5 minutes). Significantly
less number of bees was noticed in the control plot (3.33 bees/
m 2 /5 minutes).
On the second day, after first spray the Fruit boost attracted
significantly higher number of bees (8.17 bees/m 2/5 minutes)
followed by sugar solution (6.33 bees/m 2/5 minutes) and F.
budrunga (5.33 bees/m 2/5 minutes). S. densifolia, tuberose
floral scented water and Citral Z, (4.67, 4.50 and 4.33 bees/
m 2/5 minutes respectively) were at par with each other as well
as the control (4.00 bees/m 2/5 minutes). Considerably higher
number of bees was noticed in the crop applied with Fruit
boost and sugar solution (8.00 and 7.00 bees/ m 2/ 5 minutes)
on the third day after spraying, followed by the crop treated
with S. densifolia (6.33 bees/m 2/ 5 minutes). Spraying with F.
budrunga, tuberose floral scented water and Citral Z was
equally effective and attracted next higher number of bees
(5.00, 5.00 and 4.67 bees/m2/5minutes). Least number of bees
(3.67 bees/m 2/5 minutes) was noticed in the control plot.
On the fourth day after spraying, highest number of bees was
recorded in the plot treated with Fruit boost (8.67 bees/m 2/5
minutes) followed by sugar solution (7.17 bees/m 2/5 minutes)
and tube rose floral scented water (6.00 bees/m 2 /5 minutes).
Print to PDF without this message by purchasing novaPDF (http://www.novapdf.com/)
(478)
S. densifolia and F. budrunga were at par with each other and
attracted next higher number of bees (5.00 and 5.00 bees/m2/
5 minutes) followed by Citral Z (4.50 bees/m2/5 minutes). While
significantly less number of bees was observed in the control
(4.00 bees/ m 2/ 5 minutes) plot.
Significantly higher number of bees was noticed in Fruit boost
treated plot (9.33 bees/m2/5 minutes) on fifth day after spraying
followed by sugar solution (7.33 bees/m 2 / 5 minutes) and S.
densifolia which recorded next higher number of bees (5.67
bees/ m 2/ 5 minutes). F. budrunga, Citral Z and tuberose floral
scented water were equally effective and attracted next higher
number of bees (5.33,5.00 and 4.33 bees/m 2/ 5 minutes)
followed by the control (4.00 bees bees/m 2/5 minutes).
Fruit boost and sugar solution (8.23 and 6.93 bees/m 2/5
minutes) attracted significantly more number of bees and were
superior over all other treatments when mean of all the five
days of observation was considered. S. densifolia, F. budrunga,
Citral Z and tuberose floral scented water were at par with
each other, while control recorded lowest number of bees (3.67
bees bees/m 2/5 minutes).
Second spray at 50 percent flowering: A day before spray
of bee attractants the number of bee visits varied from 4.00 to
5.67 bees/m 2/5 minutes which however did not differ
significantly (Table-2).
Following one day after spraying Fruit boost and sugar solution
attracted significantly higher number of bees (12.00 and 9.33
bees/m 2/ 5 minutes). Spraying with S. densifolia, F. budrunga,
Citral Z and tube rose floral scented water was equally effective
attracting next higher number of bees (7.67 to 8.33 bees/m 2/
5minutes), while significantly less number of bees was noticed
in control (5.00 bees/ m 2/ 5 minutes) plot.
Highest number of bees was noticed in Fruit boost (12.17
bees/ m 2/ 5 minutes) on second day after spraying followed
by sugar solution (10.00 bees/ m2/ 5 minutes) and S. densifolia
(8.67 bees/ m 2/ 5 minutes). F. budrunga and Citral Z were at
par with each other (8.33 and 7.67 bees/m2 / 5 minutes) followed
by tuberose floral scented water (7.00 bees/m 2/ 5 minutes).
Significantly less number of bees was noticed in control (4.67
bees/ m 2/ 5 minutes) plot.
Treatment with Fruit boost was superior in attracting more
number of bees on third day after spraying (12.67 bees/ m 2/ 5
 (479) TUKARAM, VIRAKTAMATH AND KARNATAK
minutes). Next higher number of bees was recorded in the
treatment with sugar solution and F. budrunga (10.33 and 9.67
bees/m 2/5 minutes). Spraying with S. densifolia and Citral Z
(9.00 and 8.67 bees/ m 2/ 5 minutes) were at par with each
other followed by tuberose floral scented water (8.33 bees/
m 2/ 5 minutes). Significantly less number of bees was recorded
in the control (5.00 bees/ m 2/ 5 minutes).
On fourth day after spraying, Fruit boost (13.00 bees/ m 2/ 5
minutes) continued to be superior in attracting more bees
followed by sugar solution (11.00 bees/ m2/ 5 minutes). Spraying
with S. densifolia, Citral Z , F. budrunga and tuberose floral
scented water was equally effective and attracted next higher
number of bees (8.33 to 9.33 bees/m 2/5 minutes), while
significantly less number of bees was noticed in control (5.67
bees/ m 2/ 5 minutes) plot.
The treatment with Fruit boost was superior in attracting more
number of bees on fifth day after spraying (13.67 bees/ m 2/ 5
minutes) followed by sugar solution (11.00 bees/ m2/ 5 minutes)
and F. budrunga (9.50 bees/ m 2/ 5 minutes). Citral Z, and S.
densifolia were at par with each other and attracted 9.00, and
8.33 bees/m 2/ 5 minutes, respectively, followed by tuberose
floral scented water (8.17 bees/ m 2/ 5 minutes) and control
(5.67 bees/m 2/5 minutes).
The mean bee visitation of all the five days showed that Fruit
boost and sugar solution significantly attracted more bees
(12.70 and 10.33 bees/ m 2/ 5 minutes). F. budrunga, S.
densifolia,Citral Z, (8.90,8.73,8.43 bees/ m 2/ 5 minutes) and
tuberose floral scented water (7.70 bees/ m 2/ 5 minutes) were
at par with each other and attracted next higher bees (7.95 to
8.36 bees/m 2/ 5 minutes) followed by the control. The results
of present investigation clearly showed that all the four
indigenous bee attractants were significantly superior over
control but second best to the commercial bee attractant. The
efficacy of Fruit boost could be attributed to the presence of
queen mandibular gland pheromone (QMP) that stimulate the
foraging activity of workers4. Efficacy of Fruit boost is clearly
demonstrated on apple5. Spraying of Fruit boost @ 0.5 ml/l
had significant influence in attracting more number of pollinators
in niger as reported by earlier workers6. The present results
also confirm the report of earlier workers who found significant
effect of Fruit boost on bee visitation in sunflower hybrids7.
Similary some workers also reported that application of Fruit
Print to PDF without this message by purchasing novaPDF (http://www.novapdf.com/)
boost attracted more bees to sunflower than unsprayed crop8.
Some workers observed increase in number of honey bee visits
to attractant treated plots on sesame9. Similar results are also
reported in apple and pear , sunflower and cucumber by various
researchers10-12.
Fruit boost is superior for attracting the different pollinators as
compared to other bee attractants, but it is not used in field
level because it is only test attractant for that sugar solution is
best over fruit boost. Application of sugar solution for one
hectare area the recommended dose is 5 kg sugar in 50 litre
of water.
Influence of bee attractants on yield parameters of
lucerne
Influence of bee attractants on quantitative parameters
of lucerne: The data on the effect of attractants on quantitative
yield parameters viz number of pods per plant, number of seeds
per pod, 1000 seed weight and seed yield are presented in
Table-3.
1. Number of pods per plant: Significantly highest number
of pods was recorded in the crop receiving Fruit boost (44.80
pod/plant). Sugar solution recorded the next higher number
of pods (44.20 pod/plant) followed by F. budrunga (43.60 pod/
plant). Tuberose floral scented water and Citral Z (43.47 and
43.40 pods /plant) were on par with each other followed by S.
densifolia (43.20 pod/plant) while significantly less number of
pods was noticed in control (42.87 pods/ plant) plot.
2. Number of seeds per pod: Number of seeds per pod
showed significant differences among the treatments.
Treatment with Fruit boost and sugar solution recorded higher
seeds per pod (5.57 and 5.47 seeds/ pod) followed by F.
budrunga (5.30 seeds/ pod). Tuberose floral scented water,
Citral Z and S. densifolia were at par with each other with 5.13
to 5.20 seeds/pod. However, the control plot recorded lowest
number of seeds (5.03 seeds/ pod).
3. 1000 seed weight: Considerably higher seed weight was
noticed in treatments with Fruit boost and sugar solution (3.32
and 3.29 g/ 1000 seeds). F. budrunga, tuberose floral scented
water, Citral Z and S. densifolia were at par with each other
(3.14 to 3.16 g/seeds), while significantly less seed weight
was noticed in control (3.11 g/ 1000 seeds).
4. Seed yield: The crop sprayed with Fruit boost produced
 USE OF NATUTRAL BEE ATTRACTANTS ON BEE VISITATION
significantly highest seed yield of (220 kg/ha) resulting in an
increase of 83.33 per cent over control (120 kg/ha). The crop
that received sugar solution produced next higher yield (200
kg/ha) with an increase of 66.66 per cent over control followed
by F. budrunga (180 kg/ha) tube rose floral scented water (152
kg/ha), S. densifolia (150 kg/ha) and Citral Z (145 kg/ha). The
crop which was not sprayed with any attractants produced
significantly lower yield (120 kg/ha). Application of bee
attractants had beneficial effect in improving the number of
pods on the plant. This was attributed to the retention of flower
due to optimum pollination which produced more number of
pods. Such enhancement of pod number to the extent of 61.38
% due to bee pollination in other leguminous crop13.
A similar beneficial effect was also observed in the number of
seeds per pods. Crop sprayed with Fruit boost recorded
significantly higher number of seeds per pod (5.57 seeds/pod) 14.
Similarly, some workers found that spraying of Fruit boost @
0.5 ml/l enhanced number of fruits /plant to 19.00 and 17.00
fruits when compared to 10.66 fruits / plant in open pollinated
ridge gourd crop15. The crop applied with indigenous attractants
also recorded higher seeds per pod (43.20 to 43.47 seeds/
pod) over control (42.87seeds/pod).
Significantly, heavier seeds were found in the crop treated with
Fruit boost (3.32 g/ 1000 seeds) and sugar solution (3.29 g/
1000 seeds) followed by F. budrunga (3.16 g/ 1000 seeds),
tube rose floral scented water (3.16 g/ 1000 seeds), Citral Z
(3.15 g/ 1000 seeds), and S. densifolia (3.14 g/1000 seeds).
Similarly, seed weight was also enhanced due to application
of indigenous bee attractants in other oil seeds like sunflower 16.
Though significantly highest seed yield was produced in the
crop treated with Fruit boost (220 kg /ha) followed by sugar
solution (200 kg /ha) other plots which received sprays of
indigenous attractants also produced significantly higher yield
compared to control. Thus, the yield was enhanced from 20.83
to 83.33 per cent over control. The increase in the yield was
attributed to the cumulative effect of higher pods/plant, more
seeds/pod and heavier seeds in crop applied with bee
attractants.
Present results endorse the finding of earlier researchers who
obtained increased seed yield in lucerne when the crop was
sprayed with sugar syrup17. Such increase in yield due to honey
Print to PDF without this message by purchasing novaPDF (http://www.novapdf.com/)
(480)
bee pollination in lucerne is clearly demonstrated by several
workers18-20. Similar increase in yield due to application of
attractants is reported in cranberry and blue berry, cucumber
and watermelon, cotton by earlier workers21-23.
Influence of bee attractants on qualitative parameters
of lucerne.Results of the studies on the influence of
attractants on qualitative parameters of lucerne like germination,
root length, shoot length and seed vigour index are presented
in the Table-4
1. Germination: Considerably higher germination was noticed
in the seeds from the crop sprayed with Fruit boost and sugar
solution (81.67 and 81.00 per cent) folllowed by F. budrunga
(78.67 per cent), S. densifolia (76.33 per cent) and tuberose
floral scented water (74.67 per cent) which was at par with
Citral Z (74.33 per cent). Significantly less germination was
noticed in the seeds from the control (71.33 per cent/ 100
seeds) plot.
2. Root Length: Root length of seedlings was significantly
higher in Fruit boost sprayed crop (5.33 cm) followed by sugar
solution (5.26 cm). Citral Z and tuberose floral scented water
(4.98 and 4.93 cm) were on par with each other followed by F.
budrunga (4.91cm), S densifolia (4.86 cm) and the control
(4.73 cm).
3. Shoot Length: The shoot length was highest in treatment
sprayed with Fruit boost (7.06 cm) than all other treatments
followed by sugar solution (6.89 cm). In Citral Z and tuberose
floral scented water treatment (6.66 and 6.56 cm) the root
length was on par with each other which were followed by F.
budrunga (6.53 cm) and S. densifolia, (6.47 cm).
4. Vigour Index: Significantly highest seed vigour index
(1011.60) was recorded in the treatment with Fruit boost
followed by sugar solution (984.54). F. budrunga (900.67). S.
densifolisa, Citral Z and tuberose floral scented water (865.33,
864.89 and 860.27) were on par with each other while lowest
vigour index was recorded in the control. Honey bee pollination
not only enhances the quantitative parameters but also
qualitative parameters like seed germination and seed vigour.
In the present studies also, application of bee attractants
significantly improved the germination percentage of seeds,
(14.5%), root length (12.68%), shoot length (15.74%) and
thereby the seed vigour (30.87%).
 (481) TUKARAM, VIRAKTAMATH AND KARNATAK

The vigour index of seedlings was higher in treatment with 7. Nath, S. (2008). In: M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci.,
Fruit boost (1011.60) and resulted in an increase of 23.63 per Dharwad (India).
cent over control (unsprayed crop). The sugar solution also 8. Viraktamath, S. and Patil, R. K. (2002). In: Proc. of 6th Asian Apic.

enhanced the vigour index to the extent of 21.53 per cent over
control. Similarly other attractants like F. budrunga, S.
9.
densifolia, Citral Z and tube rose floral scented water also
10.
found effective and enhanced the vigour index to the tune of
10.20 to 23.63 per cent over control. These results endorse
11.
the report of some workers who recorded enhancement of vigour
index due to application of Fruit boost as well as indigenous 12.
attractants24.
13.
The present studies revealed Fruit boost as the best attractant
in enticing higher pollinators resulting in more than 80 per
14.
cent enhancement in yield. However, as it is not available in
India its utility is limited. The sugar solution which is locally 15.
available, was the next best attractant enhancing the yield by
more than 66 per cent. As little as 5 kg sugar is required to 16.
spray one hectare lucerne crop. Hence spraying of 10% sugar
solution could be considered for recommendation to the farmers 17.
if it is proved to be efficient in large scale evaluation. Other bee
attractants (F. budrunga, S. densifolia, Citral Z and tube rose
floral scented water) showed promising efficiency and hence 18.
Assoc. (AAA), Int. Conf. and World, APIXPO, February 24 to
March 1, Bangalore.
Viraktamath, S. and Patil R. K. (1999). Indian Bee J., 61: 55.
Currie, R. W., Winston, M. L., Slessor, K. N. and Mayer, D. F.,
(1992a). J. Econ. Entomol., 85: 1293.
Sanjivan Kumar, Hari Chand and Singh, R. (2000). Shashpa, 7:
151.
Viraktamath, S. and Anagoudar, J. A. (2002). Indian Bee J. 64:
23.
Wainer C.C., Vagner A. A. and Maria C.C. (2005). Brazilian
Arch. Biol. Technol., 48 (1): 31.
Guruprasad, G. S. and Viraktamath S. (2003). J. Palynol., 39:
31.
Jayaramappa, K.V., Pattabhiramaiah, M. and Bhargava, H.R.
(2011). W. Appl. Sci. J., 15 (4): 457.
Manjunatha, K. (2003). In: M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Uni. Agric. Sci.
Dharwad (India).
Jevtic G., Radovic J., Lugic Z., Sokolovic D. and Vasic, T. (2007).
In: Institut za ratarstvo i povrtarstvo, Novi Sad, Zbornik radova,
Vol. 44, No. I: 99.
Pedersen M. W., Petersen H. L. and Bohart G. H., (1956). Agron.

commercial formulation of these attractants need to be J., 48:177.

19. Berg, K., (1980) In: Honey bee pollination of alfalfa. Western
developed and evaluated.
Regional Extension Publication.
REFERENCES 20. Gachchinamath, J. K. (1983). In: M. Sc. Thesis (Agri), Uni. Agri.
Sci., Dharwad (India).
1. Aganga, G. (2003).Pak. J. Nutrition, 2 (2): 46.
21. Currie, R. W., W inston, M. L., Slessor, K. N. and Mayer D.F.
2. Anonymous, (2011). In: Report of Indian grassland and fodder
(1992b). J. Econ. Entomol., 85: 1300.
research institute, Jhansi. Crop profile, IGFRI website http://
22. Ambrose, J. T., Schultheis, J. R., Bambara, S. B. and Mangum,
igfri.ernet.in
W. (1995). J. Apic. Res., 135: 267.
3. Naik, D. G., Dandge, C. and Puntambekar, H. (2007). J. Apic.
23. Naik, A. K. (2010). In: M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Uni. Agri. Sci.
Res., 46: 15.
Dharwad (India).
4. Winston, M. L. and Slessor, K.N. (1993). Bee World, 74: 111.
24. Chandran, N. (2009). In: M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Uni. Agri. Sci.
5. Tewa, E. and Ferree, D. C. (1999). In: Research Circular, Ohio
Dharwad (India).
Agricultural Research and Development Centre, 299: 14.
6. Guruprasad, G. S. (2001). In: M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Uni. Agric.
Sci., Dharwad (India).

Print to PDF without this message by purchasing novaPDF (http://www.novapdf.com/)