中华蜜蜂和意大利蜜蜂在设施草莓上的授粉行为差异比较

Comparison of foraging behaviors between Apis cerana cerana and Apis mellifera ligustica on greenhouse strawberry

王欢，曲焱焱，刘欣玉，徐希莲

点击：298次 下载：34次

DOI：10.7679/j.issn.2095-1353.2022.132

作者单位：北京市农林科学院植物保护研究所，北京 100097

中文关键词：授粉蜜蜂；采集行为；无线射频识别技术；温度；湿度

英文关键词：pollinating honeybee; foraging behavior; RFID; temperature; humidity

中文摘要：【目的】 中华蜜蜂 Apis cerana cerana 和意大利蜜蜂Apis mellifera ligustica是我国主要饲养和授粉应用的蜜蜂蜂种，但二者在生物学习性上差异较大。因此，研究设施环境中两个蜂种的采集行为差异及其对环境因子的响应，可为更好的利用蜜蜂为农作物授粉提供依据。【方法】 在设施草莓授粉期，应用无线射频识别（Radiofrequency identification，RFID）技术对中华蜜蜂和意大利蜜蜂采集蜂行为进行监测，评价二者的访花效率和授粉效果，同时，监测设施环境内温度和相对湿度的动态变化，分析采集行为与环境因子的关系。【结果】 除低温天气外，意大利蜜蜂的出巢个体数量整体高于中华蜜蜂，但日均工作时间显著低于中华蜜蜂。两种蜜蜂每日的采集高峰时段不同，其中中华蜜蜂呈现双峰，意大利蜜蜂呈单峰。在传粉效率上，中华蜜蜂平均每分钟访花数量显著高于意大利蜜蜂，但二者的单花访问时间差异并不显著。两种蜜蜂均存在轮休现象，且二者的轮休个体比例无显著差异。两种蜜蜂的出巢个体数量以及采集频次均与温度呈正相关，与湿度呈负相关。但是，与中华蜜蜂相比，意大利蜜蜂对温度和湿度变化更为敏感。两种蜜蜂的个体活动数量在第11天（低温天气）显著低于第10天和第12天（均为晴朗天气）。另外，中华蜜蜂或意大利蜜蜂授粉后草莓产量无显著差异。【结论】 中华蜜蜂和意大利蜜蜂均可作为传粉媒介为设施草莓授粉，并且能够响应周围环境因子变化，对群体中的个体活动作出相应调整。因此，深入研究二者的采集行为特性，有助于更好的为农作物提供授粉服务。

英文摘要：[Objectives]  Apis cerana cerana and Apis mellifera ligustica are the main breeding and pollinating bee species in China. However, there are large differences in the biological traits between the two honeybee species. Consequently, it may provide the basis for better utilization of honeybees pollination on crops to investigate the difference in foraging behaviors between A. cerana cerana and A. mellifera ligustica in greenhouse and their responses to the environmental factors. [Methods]  In this study, we monitored the foraging behaviors of A. cerana cerana and A. mellifera ligustica using radiofrequency identification (RFID) technology and the dynamic changes of temperature and relative humidity in greenhouse. Afterwards, the flower visiting efficiency of honeybees and the relationship between foraging behaviors of honeybees and environmental factors was analyzed, and pollination effects were evaluated. [Results]  Except in low temperature weather, the number of A. mellifera ligustica forager was higher than that of A. cerana cerana, but the daily working time of A. cerana cerana was significantly longer than A. mellifera ligustica. The peak periods of daily foraging work between the two bee species were different. There were two foraging peaks per day for A. cerana cerana, while A. mellifera ligustica only had one peak during the daily foraging period. Regarding pollination efficiency, the number of flowers visited by A. cerana cerana was significantly higher than A. mellifera ligustica, but there was no significant distinction in flower visiting time between the two honeybee species. A rotating day-off phenomenon existed in both two bee species, and there was no significant difference in the proportion of forager individuals rotating days off between A. cerana cerana and A. mellifera ligustica. Both the individual number of foragers and their foraging frequency of the two honeybees were affected by the environmental factors including temperature and relative humidity; they were positively correlated with temperature but negatively correlated with relative humidity in the greenhouse. However, compared to A. cerana cerana, A. mellifera ligustica was more sensitive to the changes in temperature and relative humidity. The forager number of these two bees on day 11 (low temperature weather) was significantly lower than that on day 10 and day 12 (sunny weather). Moreover, there was no significant difference in the yield of strawberry pollinated by A. cerana cerana and A. mellifera ligustica. [Conclusions]  Both A. cerana cerana and A. mellifera ligustica could pollinate strawberry efficiently. They can respond to the changes of surrounding environmental factors and adjust the individual activities in the colony accordingly. Further study on their foraging behaviors is helpful to optimize the pollination service on crops.

读者评论

读者ID： 密码：

我要评论：	评论内容不能为空!