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

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

Peak activity period was observed for 3 days and result showed two peak (Fig1.) periods in a day. Honey bee species were observed from morning to evening with peak from 10.00 h to 12.00 h and from 12.00 h to 14.00 h Megachile spp was more active. Along with these some Amegilla spp and vespidea are active. Before 10 h and after 16 h the pollinator activity was very low (Table 2 & 3). Table2 : Peak activity of pollinators in a day Time 8:00 - 10:00 Sl.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. of pollinators visited / plant I 26 II 24 III 22 34 29 23 12 Mean 24.00 Family 34.67 31.33 22.67 Apidae 13.33

Flower visitors 37 33 Apis dorsta Fab. 32 33 Apis 23 florea Fab. 22 Apis cerana Fab. 13 15 Trigona spp. Xylocopa spp1 Xylocopa spp2 Megachile spp Cuckoo wasp Scolia spp Amegilla spp

Xylocopinae Megachilidae Chrysididae Scolidae Halictidae

Table3: peak activity of different species Timings (h) 8:00 - 10:00 10:00-12:00 12:00-14:00 14:00-16:00 16:00-18:00 Apis spp 11.00 17.33 12.33 9.33 6.00 Megachile spp 7.00 12.00 15.67 7.33 4.00 Others 6.00 5.33 3.33 7.00 3.33

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. 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. The Differences between Uncaged and Caged plants with respect to pod and seed characters are given in (Table 4 and 5).
The per cent flower drop was calculated in both open pollination and caged condition and results showed that 64.37 21.25 in open condition where 79.16 28.90 in caged plants.The number of pods set in inflorescence was 26.67 2.08 in open pollination whereas 14.33 2.08 in caged plants. Similarly there was significant increase in the pod weight 14.99 0.7 in open condition and 8.21 1.23 in caged condition. Seeds per pod in open condition 3.67 0.14 and 3.42 0.05 in caged condition. Table4: Flower drop in uncaged (cross pollination) and caged (self pollination) plants** Cross pollination Replication Total no. of flowers 80 76 69 75 No. of final pod set 26 29 25 26.67 Total flower drop 54 47 44 48.33 % flower drop 67.50 61.84 63.77 64.3721.24 Total no. of flowers 77 62 71 70 Self pollination No. of final pod set 12 16 15 14.33 total flower drop 65 46 56 % flower drop 84.42 74.19 78.87

RI RII RIII Mean

55.67 79.1628.90

** Values presented in the table indicates per inflorescence

Table5: Differences between Uncaged and Caged plants with respect to pod and seed characters. Characters Cross pollination Self pollination RI No. of flowers/inflorescence No. of pods/ inflorescence Pod weight/inflorescence No. of seeds/pod 80 26 14.82 3.82 RII 76 29 16.03 3.64 RIII 69 25 14.12 3.55 Mean RI RII 62 16 9.23 3.36 RIII 71 15 8.56 3.45 Mean 70.007.55 14.332.08 8.211.23 3.420.05

75.005.57 77 26.672.08 12 14.990.97 6.84 3.670.14 3.45

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. Hence, there is a need to conserve the populations of Apis spp and non-Apis bees, especially, Megachile, Amegilla and Xylocopa spp to realise higher production.

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