Mountain landscapes, foraging behaviour and visitation frequencies of insect pollinators on peach (Prunus persia)

Abstract

The pollination services provided by wild insect fauna in peach depends on many factors, among them the diverse landscapes and habitat diversity is of immense importance contributing to foraging characteristics and hourly visitation frequencies. A considerable variation existed in visitation rate; total visits, percent visitation and total time spend on peach flowers by insect pollinators/visitors during our course of study in low maintained mountainous landscapes. Flower handling times consumed by species created a significant variation between total visitation and visitation rate. Most species prefer to collect pollen however the nectar is main reward from flowers, therefore time per flower sought by hymenopteran species were inherently shorter than lepidopteran and dipteran species. Among the members of genus Lasioglossum the total visits, visitation rate and per cent visitation were found highest by species L. marginatum and overall the order hymenoptera showed comparatively higher visitation rate, total visits and per cent visitation on peach flowers. From members of family Apidae species Xylocopa valga and X. violacea makes highest number of total visits followed by family Halictidae. During the two years of studies, almost 95% of the available peach flowers were visited by foraging wild bees varied significantly as per ANOVA; however, the statistical significance across two years of investigation varies too. The time spend by pollinators/visitors on peach flower bout varies among different species. Rank dominance curve (K-dominance curve) were determined with respect to species abundance and inferences were drawn species wise.

Full text

~ 42 ~
International Journal of Chemical Studies 2020; SP-8(6): 42-49
P-ISSN: 2349–8528
E-ISSN: 2321–4902
www.chemijournal.com
IJCS 2020; SP-8(6): 42-49
© 2020 IJCS
Received: 20-09-2020
Accepted: 26-10-2020
Showket A Dar
Assistant Professor, Division of
Entomology, KVK- Kargil, Ladakh Sher-e-
Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences
and Technology of Kashmir, Jammu and
Kashmir, India
Sajad H Wani
Assistant Professor Dept. of Biotechnology,
Govt. Degree College Shopian, Kashmir,
Jammu and Kashmir, India
Kounser Javeed
Assistant Professor Division of Fruit
Science, AAC, Pahnoo Shopian Sher-e-
Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences
and Technology of Kashmir, Jammu and
Kashmir, India
Sajad H Mir
Assistant Professor Division of Entomology,
Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural
Sciences and Technology of Kashmir,
Wadura Sopore, Jammu and Kashmir,
India
Munazah Yaqoob
Associate Professor Division of Entomology,
Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural
Sciences and Technology of Kashmir,
Wadura Sopore, Jammu and Kashmir,
India
Abid Showkat
Junior Agriculture Assistant Department of
Agriculture Govt. Jammu and Kashmir,
India
Ajaz A Kundoo
Research Scholar Division of Entomology,
Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural
Sciences and Technology of Kashmir,
Shalimar, Jammu and Kashmir, India
Rohie Hassan
Research Scholar Department of Zoology,
OPGS University of Rajasthan, India
Umer Bin Farook
Research Scholar Division of Entomology,
Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural
Sciences and Technology of Kashmir,
Wadura Sopore, Jammu and Kashmir,
India
Tajamul Islam
Research Scholar Division of College of
Temperate Sericulture, Sher-e-Kashmir
University of Agricultural Sciences and
Technology of Kashmir, Wadura Sopore
Jammu and Kashmir, India
Corresponding Author:
Showket A Dar
Assistant Professor, Division of
Entomology, KVK- Kargil, Ladakh Sher-e-
Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences
and Technology of Kashmir, Jammu and
Kashmir, India
Mountain landscapes, foraging behaviour and
visitation frequencies of insect pollinators on
peach (Prunus persia)
Showket A Dar, Sajad H Wani, Kounser Javeed, Sajad H Mir, Munazah
Yaqoob, Abid Showkat, Ajaz A Kundoo, Rohie Hassan, Umer Bin Farook
and Tajamul Islam
DOI: https://doi.org/10.22271/chemi.2020.v8.i6a.10916
Abstract
The pollination services provided by wild insect fauna in peach depends on many factors, among them
the diverse landscapes and habitat diversity is of immense importance contributing to foraging
characteristics and hourly visitation frequencies. A considerable variation existed in visitation rate; total
visits, percent visitation and total time spend on peach flowers by insect pollinators/visitors during our
course of study in low maintained mountainous landscapes. Flower handling times consumed by species
created a significant variation between total visitation and visitation rate. Most species prefer to collect
pollen however the nectar is main reward from flowers, therefore time per flower sought by
hymenopteran species were inherently shorter than lepidopteran and dipteran species. Among the
members of genus Lasioglossum the total visits, visitation rate and per cent visitation were found highest
by species L. marginatum and overall the order hymenoptera showed comparatively higher visitation
rate, total visits and per cent visitation on peach flowers. From members of family Apidae species
Xylocopa valga and X. violacea makes highest number of total visits followed by family Halictidae.
During the two years of studies, almost 95% of the available peach flowers were visited by foraging wild
bees varied significantly as per ANOVA; however, the statistical significance across two years of
investigation varies too. The time spend by pollinators/visitors on peach flower bout varies among
different species. Rank dominance curve (K-dominance curve) were determined with respect to species
abundance and inferences were drawn species wise.
Keywords: Pollination, peach, visitation, pollen, nectar, Lasioglossum
Introduction
Insect pollination is one of the most important mechanisms in the maintenance and promotion
of biodiversity, affecting significantly the sustenance of important agricultural crops (Albrecht
et al. 2013) [2]. The maintenance of this vital service depends upon sound management
practices mainly focusing on habitat diversification and management (Dar et al. 2017a, Dar et
al. 2017b, Khan and Khan, 2004) [13, 16, 20]. Generally, orchardists need to protect semi-natural
habitats in their landscapes to guarantee pollination and high yields in fruit crops.
Conservation of semi-natural habitats, which provide nesting sites and additional food
resources before and after stone fruit flowering, enhances gratis ecosystem services, and the
pollination as well (Dar et al.2017c) [10]. The stone fruit crops require only one viable pollen
tube to produce a fruit and in most cases the pollen should arrive from another compatible
blossom at the right time (McGregor 1976) [22], for that the insect pollination is important to
bear a satisfactory commercial yield. Apidae were regarded as the most important and
dominant commercial pollinator (>90%), although other bee species like alkali bees (Nomia),
mason bees (Osmia), leafcutter bees (Megachilidae) and bumble bees (Bombus) were also
performing the pollination. Under Kashmir conditions, wild bee pollination for peaches was
found important (Abrol et al. 1990) [1]. Yokozawa and Yasui (1957) [42] noted the insect
visitors to the flowers of peaches at Italy and observed that Dipteran insects were most
frequently visitors followed by Hymenopterawhile as; Lepidopteran and Coleopteran species
were rarely observed to visit flowers in both years of study. Randhawa et al. (1963) [28]
recorded that honey bees are most important pollinator of peaches, while as

~ 43 ~
International Journal of Chemical Studies http://www.chemijournal.com
Chansigaud (1972) [8] identified that 5-10% of wild bees (16
observed) visiting peach dominated (occurrences and longer
flight periods at peak peach blossoming period) by genus
Andrena especially by species Andrenaarmata, A.
carantonica and A. hoemorrhoa. Serini (1985) [29]
summarized the observations on the species composition of
the pollinating insect of peach in different localities in Italy
and found wild and domesticated bees being dominant; while
as, Syrphids, Calliphorids, Nymphalids, Sphingids and Pierids
were present in small numbers, especially if the orchards were
surrounded by uncultivated areas having wild flowering
plants. Chang et al. (2001) [7] reported that plums were mostly
visited by Apis cerana and A. mellifera, respectively reaching
to their peak pollination activity between 09.00 -11.00 h and
11.00-13.00 h coinciding with time period of maximum nectar
and pollen reward by flowers. Allsopp et al. (2008) [3]
reported that peach and plum pollination service is largely
provided by wild pollinators and honeybees; however the
Dikmen, (2007) [17] reviewed the economic value of using
wild pollinator bees in organic farming and found Halictidae
as one of the biggest groups throughout the pollinator bees
widely distributed in all continents, with pollination efficiency
contributed by their high abundance and large diversity.
Knowing the significance of insect pollinators for stone fruit
production (Dar et al. 2016) [14], especially peaches, current
study was focused to determine the foraging behaviour and
visitation frequency of insect on peach in unmanaged and
scattered fruit trees growing in wild habitat with no inputs
used for the soil culturing.
Material and Methods
Study area and sites
The research were conducted in three far flung locations from
March and April in 2013 and 2014. The average altitude of
three districts is around 2350 meter above mean sea level. The
habitat types selected were having the patches dominated by
tree species of plum plants. The research areas have total
landholding of 1371, 2228 and 1398 Km2respectively in
Budgam, Srinagar and Pulwama.
Field survey and sampling
The experimental locations were visited three times during the
study period. Data were recorded throughout the blooming
period from April to June between 900h to 1700h on each
week by transect walk using plot samplings and a minimum
distance of 50m were left from the forest edge to avoid any
edge effect. Plots were circular with a radius of 10m or 200m
separated from each other. (Owiunji et al., 2004) [27], to cover
the distance of 200 m which is the flight range of the most
wild bees.
Peach plant
Peach is an important stone fruit crop of temperate zone. High
quality peaches are produced in higher hills of Kashmir
region. However, in lower areas generally low quality peaches
are grown, but with the introduction hybrid varieties and
Italian varieties, even lower belts had shown a good yield
performance. It is the third most important temperate fruit
crop of India commercially grown in temperate regions,
subtropical regions and parts of Tamil Nadu. Traditionally
peaches are planted in low density (6 × 6 m, 7 × 7 m)
resulting low yield per unit area. In Kashmir region the
natural and land resources are dwindling very fast and there is
urgent need to opt the judicious and intensive peach
production technologies, adopting all horticultural packages
of practices and sufficient pollination requirements.
Selection of trees
Tree selected for the observations were growing at least 12 m
x 12 m of spacing, otherwise about 200 m away from one
another in similar environments. Plants were grown in similar
environmental conditions of abiotic factors (Dar et al. 2014,
2017f, 2018c) [36, 37, 35] to distinguish the Insect-plant
interactions clearly. Hourly foraging behaviour was calculated
by using formula as given below:
Total visits
Visitation rate
Visitation per cent
Time periods
We recorded visitation between 900-1700 with 10 min of
focal observations during each hour, totaling 100 min day−1,
and in 7 days totaling 700 min of week. Since flowering
period is short, and other competitive flowering plants are in
surroundings during the study periods that divert the bee, so
we took intensely study to get as accurate informations
possible.
Rank abundance values
Whittaker plot is drawn to display the relative species
abundance, a component of biodiversity. The rank abundance
curve visualizes the species richness and species evenness to
overcome the shortcomings of biodiversity indices.
Insect collection
Insects collected from the each peach tree were sorted into
broad categories then identified by comparison with the
preserved specimens. RTCPPPM SKUAST-K, Srinagar assist
in identification of the pollinators. Further, the Lasioglossum
specimens were identified by Dr. Alian Pauly from Belgium,
Europe, Dr. Vickrim Singh Thakur from Patailla, Punjab and
Syrphid flies were identified from Department of Zoological
Survey of India (Kolkatta).
Data collection and Analysis
Recordings were made from the onset of the main blooming
period with temperature ≥ 15oC, low rain ad dry vegetation
(Westpahl et al., 2008) [39]. Depending on the height of the
tree, the use of a telescopic net and smaller ladder in the field
were used to sample the foragers in all parts of the trees. In
order to study the proportion of each species within the local
community, species diversity were recorded (will be
discussed in next paper). ANOVA (one way), Chi square test
(χ2-test), T-test, Kruskal Wallis test and Pearson’s correlation
were performed to the raw data.
Result and Discussion
The chronic honey bee paralysis as well as well defined viral
diseases (Ullah et al. 2020) [38] across the world had caused a
severe symptom, bee mortality and finally the colony loss.
Therefore the research and farmers in the world are shifting to

~ 44 ~
International Journal of Chemical Studies http://www.chemijournal.com
reduce dependence on these commercial crop pollinators and
have started to focus over wild bees and other flower visitors.
The current investigation recorded a considerable variation in
visitation rates, total visits; percent visitation and total time
spend on peach flowers by insect pollinators/visitors (Table-
1). The total visits, visitation rate and the per cent visitation of
4.24 visits/flower bout square meter length (m2), 1.002
visits/insects/m2/10min., and 16.08 visits/bout (m2) ×100,
were performed by Lasioglossum marginatum, with time
spend on flower wereequal to 26±2.94 seconds. Flower
handling times consumed by species created a significant
variation between total visitation and visitation rate. The
observation revealed that most of the Helictid bees and some
Syrphid flies besides collecting nectar forages for pollens as
well. In current study, among the members of genus
Lasioglossum the total visits, visitation rate and per cent
visitation were found highest by species L. marginatum and
lowest were contributed by Sphecodes tantalus (Table-
1).Overall the pollinators of order Hymenoptera
comparatively showed higher visitation rate, total visits and
per cent visitation on peach flowers during the both years of
study. Among the members family Andrenidae the total visits,
visitation rate and per cent visitation varies from minimum of
0.02 visits/flower bout m2, 0.026 visits/insects/m2/10min. and
0.075 visits/bout (m2) ×100 by Andrena barbilabris to
maximum of 0.075 visits/flower bout (m2), 0.854
visits/insects/m2/10min, and 2.881visits/bout (m2)×100 by
Andrena patella, respectively. In family Apidae species
Xylocopa valga and X. violacea makes highest number of
total visitsof 2.89 and 3.10 visits/bout respectively, followed
by family Halictidae. The visitation rate and percent visits
performed by X. valga and X. violaceae were 0.874, 0.817
visits/insects/m2/10min, and 7.299, 8.750 visits/bout (m2)
×100, respectively. Generally, the dipteran species for
example, fruit flies are serious pest especially on stone fruit
crops and vegetables (Mir et al. 2014; Mir et al. 2017) [24, 25].
Among Dipteran species visiting peach flowers
Sphaerophoria bengalensis make comparatively more visits.
Empididae sp. make lowest total visits and visitation rate,
while as Tachinid flay perform 0.65 visits/ m2. Overall the
orders, Hemipteran, Lepidoptera and Odonate makes lowest
foraging activities.During the both years of studies, almost
95% of the available peach flowers were visited by foraging
wild bees. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of % visitation
rates showed high significance with CD=0.98, t-test≤0.043,
Pearson’s corr. = 0.92 and pvalue≤0.05%. However, for the
year 2013 the statistical significance were 0.34 and p-
value≤0.001. While as, for the year 2014, the statistical
significance were 0.29 with p-value≤0.001. The time spend
by pollinators/visitors varies for different species. Among the
species of family Helictidae, the maximum time of 36±0.88s
on peach flower bout were spend by Lasioglossum polyctor;
while as, minimum of only 12±0.054 spend were spend by
Sphecodes tantalus. For mean time spend on peach flowers
the P-value≤ 0.05%, t-test=0.036, C.D=9.90 and Pearson’s
corr. is 0.98. For plant species that require insect interaction
for pollination, insect visitation rates are important because
the visitation rate affects the overall likelihood of effective
pollination. For efficient pollination to be performed by any
insect pollinator, the foraging behavioral elements like total
visits, visitation rate, per cent visitation and time duration
spend/flower is essential. For insects, the visitation rate is
important to their overall success in terms of energy intake
and expenditure. My observations of the interaction between
peach flowers and pollinators/visitors indicated a wide range
of Hymenopteran and Dipteran species as potential pollinators
of this crop in Kashmir division. The difference in flower
size, another position and pollen production between flower
morphs might affect pollinator visitation patterns (Thomson,
2001) [33]. The time spent by insect pollinators on peach
flowers, which is almost entirely accounted for by differences
in flower handling time. Most Helictid bees and Dipteran flies
gather some pollen; however, the nectar is main reward from
flowers. This is in confirmative with the results of Gilbert
(1985) [18] that flower visitor mainly foraging on pollen rather
than nectar. An interaction between pollinator type and floral
trait variation may be a potentially important feature of flower
selection e.g. cherry (Dar et al. 2018a; Wilson and Thomson
1996) [9, 41]. This interaction is likely to be particularly
important since different pollinators often show marked
spatio-temporal variation in abundance (Herrera 1989) [19] and
pollination effectiveness. Regardless of proboscis (tongh)
length, Hymenopterans observed in present investigations
have inherently shorter handling times than Dipterans.
However, the decreasing handling time with increasing
proboscis length were previously found in bumble bee
foraging behavior. Among the members of genus
Lasioglossum the visitation rate and time spent were found
highest in Lasioglossum polyactor visiting peach flowers.
Research showed that Lasioglossum sp. spent 302.7±13.2
seconds on staminate flowers during a single foraging bout;
whileas, only 80s were send on single pistillate flowers
(Oronje et al., 2012) [26].
Hymenoptera showed higher visitation rate and spends
comparatively less time on peach flowers during the both
years of study, this was in accordance with Meerabai (2015)
[23] and Dar et al. (2018b) [15] who showed that visitation rate
and total visits are inversely correlated with time spend on
each flower. In present investigation the number of visits and
visitation rate were in correspondence with number of open
flowers, and inversely related with time spend per flower.
However, this is in partial agreement with the Thomson
(2000) [34] who observed that number of pollinator visits and
time spent is positively related to the number of open flowers
in a patch; and species Andrena falvus made 61 visits in 35
hours of observation. Xylocopa valga spends least time of
about 11.0±0.14 seconds on peach. The tachinid flay make
about 1.20visits/bout; this is in close agreement with
Spackman et al. (2001) [31] that fly visitation varies from 0-
1.85 visits/open corolla/30min; while as, Empididae sp. make
lowest visits/bout and similar to this is observed by Spackman
et al. (2001) [31] that Empididae sp. make lowest 0-0.02
visits/open corolla/30min. In present study, we observed that
possible reason for interspecific differences in flower
visitation rates may be due to differences in time spent flying
between consecutive flower visits (“flight time”) and/or
differences in time spent on each visited flower (handling
time), weather parameters, species composition in area,
population and density of honey bees and hives, nesting
substrate and width of buffer zone area near to peach crop etc.
The time spend/bout varies for different pollinator species
with maximum mean time of 36±0.08seconds were spend on
peach flower (bout length) by L. polyctor. The possible reason
for this long duration may be that Lasioglossum sp. has a
short tongue, and showed two types of foraging behavior; i.e.,
taking pollen with its mouth part from the stamen and then
sucking nectar. Therefore, spends longer times on a single
flower than did the honeybee. From family Helictidae
minimum time on peach flowers were spend by L.
marginatum however Sung et al. (2006) [32] recorded that time

~ 45 ~
International Journal of Chemical Studies http://www.chemijournal.com
spend by Lasioglossum species is 7.9 seconds. Maximum time
duration per flower were spend by ants (Camponotus longs)
with 159±6.9, that is agreement with the results of Blancafort
and Gomez (2005) [6] that ant species Linepithem ahumile and
Camponotus cruentatus spends maximum time duration on
flowers. Among the Hymenopteran pollinators visiting the
flower bout, the minimum time were spend by Xylocopa
valga. Sung et al. (2006) [32] in a field experiment recorded
that C. megacephala, stayed for a long time of 12.3 ± 11.4s on
a single flower and sucked nectar with their proboscis, while
as Herrera (1989) [19] in an experiment found that flower
handling time spent per flower varies among species of
different orders. The possible reason for this may be that
increase in proboscis length produces proportional decreases
of log handling time in insect pollinators. Therefore, Herrera
(1989) [19] observed that Lepidoptera texa did not differ in
mean handling time spent on flowers.
Table 1: Foraging characteristics of insect pollinators on peach flowers during 2 years on sloppy steeps of Kashmir Himalayas

~ 46 ~
International Journal of Chemical Studies http://www.chemijournal.com
Fig 1: Rank abundance curve of insect pollinators of peach (Prunus persica) during 2013-2014
Rank abundance curve (ith rank (K) vs abundance in log@10)
or whittaker plot (Whittaker, 1965) displayed the relative
species abundance (Fig. 1), curve is two dimensional chart
with relative abundance on the Y-axis and the abundance rank
on the X-axis. On X-axis the most abundant species
Lasioglossum marginatum were given rank 1, second most
abundant (L. himalanysis) is 2 and so on.Whileas,ontheY-
axis,usuallymeasuredonlogscale10,andisthemeasureof
abundance (No. insect visitors/m2/10min.) relative to the
abundance of other species. The rank abundance curve
visually depicts both species richness and species evenness.
Species evenness is reflected in the slope of the line that fits
the graph (i.e. logarithmic series @10). A steep gradient
indicates low evenness as the high-ranking species have much
higher abundances than the low-ranking species. A shallow
gradient indicates high evenness as the abundances of
different species of order Diptera are almostsimilar.
K-dominance plot (Kth/S× 100 vs % species abundance)
clearly demonstrates the diversity pattern in three stations. As
the percentage contribution of abundance by each species is
added, the curve extends horizontally [species number with
respective ranks (K) is evident in the X-axis]. While as, the
curve on Y-axis showed the percent abundance of each
species. The curve at the highest peaks accommodate only a
few species (L.marginatum, L. himalayanse and L. nursi),
later it comes down quickly with small peaks representing the
lower abundance per cent of other pollinators compared to the
species of genus Lasioglossum (L. marginatum). As the
percentage contribution of abundance by each species is
added, the curve extends horizontally with species number
evident in the X axis against the percent abundance of each
species on Y-axis. The K-dominance plot represents rich
diversity of pollinator species per experimental site.
The species Accumulation curve
The curve (Fig-2) represents a general characteristics of insect
pollinator communities (insect samples) representing that
number of species accumulates with increasing area sampled
(No. species in three Ex. locations). The curve related to
species–area relationship and species accumulation, and is
concerned with accumulation rates of new pollinators (peach
flower visitors) over the sampled area over three experimental
sites and depending on species identity. Here we took 567
samples (X-Axis) collected from 3 experimental locations
during two years of studies on peach, varying in abundance
during season and in years of investigations. Total species
determined were 46 (Y-axis), and increasing sampling is
parallel to increasing number of species too. The curve
showed an exact exact analytical expression for the
expectance and variance of the species-accumulation curve in
all random subsets of samples from a given area. The curve is
influenced strongly by the distribution of species among the
samples and the spatial relationship of the samples that are
randomized in the experimental areas.The species richness in
larger areas can be drawn taking account of the spatial
relationships between samples collected divided by samples
in single area. For new species and total, to be represented by
the curve, an extrapolated curve is to be obtained from
terminal point. Since our experiments were conducted in large
heterogeneous areas, so the curve fits well. As, the curve is
generally applicable for large heterogeneous areas varying in
the slope and topography and in other parameters (e.g. wild
buffer zones, barren lands, orchards, filed crops, etc).
Fig 2: Species accumulation curve Cumulative number of insect samples (N) collected and species (n) drawn from each sample

~ 47 ~
International Journal of Chemical Studies http://www.chemijournal.com
Hourly abundance
The hourly abundance of insect pollinators of peach were
found maximum in after noon (Table-2). Only opening and
withering of peach flowers, predictably offer no reward to
pollinators. Averaged over day time, the insect pollinator
abundance (members of Helictid family, χ2=0.044) start
raising from early in the morning (900-1000 hrs) and become
peak maximum in late afternoon (1300-1400 hrs). However,
the abundance at dusk hours (1600-1700 hrs) were less
compared to noon hours, but were significantly maximum
then morning hours (900-1000 hrs). Almost a similar trend in
the activity were observed for most of Dipteran pollinators.
The insect pollinators/visitors on peach flower increased in
course of the day; rising from a minimum around the morning
hours (sunrise) to maximum atmidday (1200-1300, 1300-
1400 hrs), then decreases in afternoon (1400-1500 hrs) and
late afternoon (1500-1600 hrs); finally, exhibited sharp
decline around sunset (1700 hrs) onwards. The abundance of
Lasioglossum species remained comparatively good
throughout the day. Whileas, the Andrena species start
foraging at 1000-1100 hours, steadily reached maximum at
1400-1500 and then finished at 1600-1700 hours onwards.
The members of order Lepidoptera were numerically
abundant around 1300-1400 hours. The mean hourly
abundance pattern of insect visitors of peach in Srinagar
(N=35, df= 34, p-value≤0.005, F. critical= 1.49), Budgam
(N=45, df= 44, p-value≤0.009, F. critical= 1.41) and Pulwama
(N=32, df=31, p-value≤0.004, F. critical= 1.45) were almost
similar, but only differing in the density of insect
visitors/meter square flowering branch.
Table 2: Hourly abundance (No. insect pollinators /m2/10 minutes) of insect pollinators/visitors of peach (Prunuspersica) blossom

~ 48 ~
International Journal of Chemical Studies http://www.chemijournal.com
In present investigation, flies were the important pollinator
groups of peach; while as the wild bees were found as the
most common pollinator, followed by bumble bees,
honeybees and Syrphid flies (Bailey, 1944) [4]. Results
showed that various flies and bees shear pollination of peach
however, the difference in % contribution across the three
sites were significantly different. Similarly, depending on the
region, time of day and flowering phenology (Dar et al.
2017d) [11], flies were the exclusive pollinators, and share
pollination services with bees (Ssymank et al. 2008). In
Srinagar, Dipteran species viz. Erisyrphus balteatus, Eristalis
tenax, Sphaerophoria bengalensis and Didea fasciata of
family Syrphidae recorded the maximum abundance; with
species Eristalis cerealis being most abundant in Pulwama,
possibly due to rural gradient. Bates et al. (2011) [5] observed
that hoverfly population abundance change across the Urban-
rural gradient.The results showed that species of family
Syrphidae were potential pollinators of peach which is in
agreement with the Shezad (2011) [30] and Kuhn et al. (2006)
[21] who showed that species viz., Eristalis tenax, Eristalinu
sarvorum, Episyrphus balteatus, Eupeode scorollae and
Ischiodons cutellaris were the important pollinators of fruit
crops and others (apple, mango and lichi). In current
investigation the abundance of insect pollinators on peach
were maximum in Srinagar followed by Pulwama and
Budgam.
Conclusion
Generally, the role of honey bees have been prominently
studied as a potential pollinator of peach and other stone fruits
but with the aid of other bee fauna present in a particular
landscape will definitely help in better fruit set, yield and
quality. The pollination of stone fruits is highly dependent on
foraging characteristics of insect pollinators; previously we
observe that bagged flowers producing only 0-3% of the fruits
compared to open flowers. It is false notion that 2/3rd of all
flower visitors were honey bees, but in real the fruit set is
related to wild insect visitation, presumably due to their
higher pollination efficiency, diversity and overall abundance.
It is confirmed fact that bee visitation increases with
proportion of high-diversity habitats (Dar et al. 2017c) [10] in
the surrounding landscape (1 km radius), as buffer zone
adjacent to orchards (20% recommended). An increase of
high-diversity bee habitats in the landscape from 20% to 50%
enhanced fruit set by 150% (3 times), which was
experimentally shown to be due to pollen limitation.
Visitation and fruit set is independent of ground flower cover
due to vegetation or the bee densities on ground transects. Our
results show that pollination services by wild insects in peach
depends on many factors, and among them the diverse
landscapes and habitat diversity (Dar et al. 2017e) [12], is of
immense importance contributing to foraging characteristics
and hourly visitation frequencies. So, in order to guarantee
high foraging and yield, the farmers need to protect semi-
natural habitats in their landscapes, conservation of semi-
natural habitats (providing nesting sites) and additional food
resources before and after peach flowering enhances gratis
ecosystem services, and thereby, the farmer’s yield. Wild
pollinator visitation to peach flowers is positively related to
yield; however honey bee visitation is not much related to
peach yield in mountainous landscapes of Kashmir due to
their less abundance.
References
1. Abrol DP, Bhat AA, Khan AA. In social insects, an
Indian perspective, (Eds. G.K. Veeresh, A.R.V. Kumar
and T. Shivashankar) 1990, 50-53.
2. Albrecht M, Schmid B, Hautier Y and Müller CB.
Diverse pollinator communities enhance plant
reproductive success. Proceedings of the Royal Society
British: Biological sciences 2013;279:4845-52.
3. Allsopp MH, De-Lange WJ, Veldtman R. Valuing insect
pollination services with cost of replacement. PLOS ONE
2008;3(9):3128.
4. Bailey JS. The Beach Plum in Massachusetts.
Massachusetts Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin
Nature 1944;422:16.
5. Bates AJ, Sadler JP, Fairbrass AJ, Falk SJ, Hale JD,
Matthews TJ. Changing bee and Hoverfly pollinator
assemblages along an urban- rural gradient. PLOS ONE
2011;6:11.
6. Blancafort X, Gomez C. Consequences of the Argentine
ant, Linepithema humile (Mayr), invasion on pollination
of Euphorbia characias (L.) (Euphorbiaceae). Acta
Oecol 2005;28:49-55.
7. Chang YD, Lee MY, Mah Y. Pollination on strawberry in
the vinyl house by Apis Mellifera L. and A. cerena Fab.
Acta Horticulture 2001;561:257- 262.
8. Chasigaud J. Repartition des vols d’ abeilles sauvages
dans quelques vergers de la region parisienne au cours
annees 1969 et 1970. Apidologia 1972;3:126-273.
9. Dar SA, Wani AR, Sofi MA. Diversity and abundance of
insect pollinators of sweet cherry Prunus avium
in Kashmir valley. Indian Journal of Entomology
2018a;80(3):725-736
10. Dar SA, Mir GM, Parry MA, Parry SH, Yaqob M,
Khrusheed R. Potential habitat value for wild bees in
Kashmir valley. Journal of Crop and Weed
2017c;13(1):125-131
11. Dar SA, Hassan GI, Padder BA, Wani AR, Parey SH.
Pollination and evolution of plant and insect interaction.
Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry
2017d;6(3):304-311
12. Dar SA, Lone GM, H Parey Sajad, Gh I Hassan, Bashir A
Rather. Insect pollinators and their conservation. Journal
of Entomology and Zoology Studies 2017e;5(3):1121-
1131.
13. Dar SA, Mir GM, Parry MA, Yaqob M, Mehnaz Nisar.
Threats of anthropogenic pressure on insect pollinators.
Vegetos. A Society for Plant Research 2017a;3(30):469-
476.
14. Dar SA, Mir GM, Parry MA, Ahmad SB, Ganie MA,
Raja TA, Yaqob M. Diversity and Richness Indices and
the Whittaker Plot Value of Insect Pollinators of Peach
Prunus persica in Landscapes of Temperate India.
Academic Journal of Entomology 2016;9(4):62-73
15. Dar SA, Tanweer-Ul-H M, Dar SH, Nissar M, Wani RA,
Kandoo AA. Foraging pattern of Lasioglossum
(Hymenoptera: Halictidae) species on Himalayan indigo
(Fabaceae) in Kashmir. The Pharma Innovation
2018b;7(5):530
16. Dar SA, Mir SH, Rather BA. Importance of hedgerows
for wild bee abundance and richness in Kashmir Valley.
Entomon 2017b;42(1):59-68
17. Dikmen F. The role and the importance of the family
Halictidae (Apiformes: Apoidea) in pollination of natural
and agricultural vegetation. Mellifera 2007;7(13-14):16-
19.
18. Gilbert FS. Diurnal activity patterns in hoverflies
(Diptera, Syrphidae). Ecological Entomology
1985;10:385- 392.
19. Herrera CM. Pollinator abundance, morphology, and
flower visitation rate: analysis of the “quantity”
component in a plant-pollinator system. Oecologia

~ 49 ~
International Journal of Chemical Studies http://www.chemijournal.com
1989;80:241-248.
20. Khan MR, Khan MR. The role of honey bees Apis
mellifera L. (Hymenoptera: Apidae) in pollination of
apple. Pakistan Journal of Biological Science
2004;7:359-362.
21. Kuhn J, Hamm A, Schindler M, Wittmann D.
Ressourcenaufteilung zwischen der oligolektischen
Blattschneiderbiene Megachile lapponica L.(Hym:
Apiformes) und Anderen (Epilobium angustifolium,
Onagrarceae). Mitt Dtsch Ges Allg Angew Ent
2006;15:389-391.
22. Mc-Gregor SF. Insect pollination of cultivated crop
plants. U.S. Dep Agric Handbook 1976, 496.
23. Meerabai G. Visitation Rate, Effectiveness and
Efficiency of pollinators to Cadaba Fruiticosa (Linn)
Druc. The Bioscane 2015;7(3):483-485.
24. Mir SH, SA Dar, GM Mir, SB Ahmad. Biology of
Bactrocera cucurbitae (Diptera: Tephritidae) on
cucumber. Florida Entomologist 2014;97(2):753-758
25. Mir SH, SB Ahmad, Showket A Dar, P Bano. Hemilea
malaisei Hering (Diptera: Tephritidae): The First Record
from India. Entomological News 2017;127(2):151-153
26. Oronje ML, Melanie H, Mary G, Muo K, Manfred K.
Pollinator diversity, behaviour and limitation on
yield of Karela (Momordica charantia L. Cucurbitaceae)
in Western Kenya. African Journal of Agricultural
Research 2012;7(11):1629-1638.
27. Owiunjii I, Nkuutu D, Kujirakwinja D, Plumptre A, Gray
M, McNeilage A. The biodiversity of the virunga
volcanoes. WCS, CFGFI, ICCN, ORTPN, UWA, IGCT,
Kigali 2004, P21-27.
28. Randhawa GS, Yadav IS, Nath N. Studies on the
flowering, pollination and fruit development in peach
grown under subtropical conditions. Journal of
Agriculture Science 1963;33:129-139.
29. Serini GB. Frequency of pollinators in fruit-growing
areas of Lombardy. Atti XIV Congresso Nazionale
Italiano di Entomologia sotto gliauspici dell' Accademia
International Union of Biological Sciences Palermo Erice
Bagheria 1985;28(1):665-672.
30. Shehzad A. Consultancy report. Conservation and
management of pollinators for sustainable agriculture,
through an ecosystem approach PARC Islamabad 2011.
31. Spackman SC, Doyle G, David GA. Visiting insect
diversity and visitation rates for two globally-imperiled
plant species in Colorado’s Mosquito Range 2001, P1-24.
32. Sung IH, Lin MY, Chang CH, Cheng AS, Chen WS.
Pollinators and their behaviors on mango flowers in
Southern Taiwan. Formosan Entomology 2006;26:161-
170.
33. Thomson J. Pollen removal and deposition by honeybee
and bumblebee visitors to apple and almond flowers.
Journal of Applied Ecology 2001;38:1032-1044.
34. Thomson JD. Pollen presentation and pollination
syndromes, with special reference to Penstemon. Plant
Species Biology 2000;15:11-29.
35. Dar EA, Brar AS, Yousuf A. Growing degree days and
heat use efficiency of wheat as influenced by thermal and
moisture regimes. Journal of Agrometerology
2018c;20:168-170
36. Dar EA, Harika AS, Tomar SK, Tyagi AK, Datta A.
Effect of cropping geometry and nitrogen levels on
quality of baby corn (Zea mays L.) as fodder. Indian
Journal of Animal Nutrition 2014;31:60-64
37. Dar EA, Yousuf A, Brar AS. Comparison and evaluation
of selected evapotranspiration models for the Ludhiana
district Punjab. Journal of Agrometerology 2017f;19:274-
276
38. Ullah A, Gajger Tlak I, Majoros A, Dar SA, Khan S,
Kalimullah, et al. Viral impacts on honey bee
populations: a review. Saudi Journal of Biological
Sciences 2020.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sjbs.2020.10.037
39. Westphal C, Bommarco R, Carré G, Lamborn E.
Measuring bee biodiversity in different European habitats
and biogeographical regions. Ecological Monograph
2008;78:653-271.
40. Whittaker RH. Dominance and Diversity in Land Plant
Communities: Numerical relations of species express the
importance of competition in community function and
evolution. Science 1965;147(3655):250-260.
41. Wilson P, Thomson JD. How do flowers diverge? In:
Floral biology (Eds. D.G.B. Lloyd and S.C.H. Barrett).
Studies on floral evolution in animal-pollinated plants.
Chapman and Hall, New York 1996, P88-111.
42. Yokozawa Y, Yasui A. Studies on the pollination of
peach. (I): Insect visitors to the flowers of peach. Journal
of the Japanese Society for Horticultural Science
1957;26(3):185-191.