| Literature DB >> 35908078 |
Narottam Kumar Meena1, Ram Swaroop Meena2, Ravindra Singh2, Arvind Kumar Verma2, Sharda Choudhary2, Balraj Singh3, Ram Dayal Meena2, Ravi Y2, Murlidhar Meena2.
Abstract
Dill seeds (Anethum graveolens L.) is the most valuable medicinal seed spice crop of Apiaceae. It bears small yellow flowers in the form of umbels. Being a cross-pollinated crop, floral visitors play vital role in pollination and seed sets. Hence, the present study was conducted at the ICAR-National Research Centre on Seed Spices, Ajmer (Rajasthan), India to discover the pollinator's community, foraging behaviour and abundance of most frequent pollinators and different modes of pollination on seed yield and quality of this seed spice crop. The insect visitors community of dill seeds was composed of 28 insect species belonging to 14 families of 6 orders. Most of floral visitors started their foraging activity at 8.00 h, reached peak activity between 12.00 and 14.00 h and their activity ceased at 18.00 h. Apis florea, A. dorsata, A. mellifera, solitary bee, Halictus sp. and two unidentified species of Hymenoptera; Episyrphus balteatus (DeGeer), Episyrphus sp., Eristalis sp and two other Musca species of Diptera were identified as potential and regular floral visitors of dill seeds. The highest seed yield of 1505.63 kg/ha was recorded in the treated plots provided with only 10% jaggery solution and was at par with the open pollination. A lower seed yield of 1432.5 kg/ha was recorded in plots pollinated only with A. mellifera inside insect cages. Open pollination with 10% jaggery solution spray increased the seed yield of dill seed crop by 57%, one-thousand seed test weight by 96% and the essential oil content by 27% over control plots. These results show that managed pollination is a much better way to enhance yields and quality of dill seed crop than other treatments including only honeybee-based pollination.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35908078 PMCID: PMC9338944 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-17397-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.996
Weekly weather data of study period during cropping season of the years 2016–2017 to 2017–2018.
| Meteorological week | 2016–2017 | 2017–2018 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Temperature °C | Relative humidity (%) | Rainfall (mm) | Temperature °C | Relative humidity (%) | Rainfall (mm) | |||||
| Min | Max | Morning 7.40 h | Day time 14.40 h | Min | Max | Morning 7.40 h | Day time 14.40 h | |||
| 40 | 23.3 | 32.6 | 92.3 | 69.4 | 136.8 | 19.7 | 36.4 | 82.3 | 47.3 | 0.0 |
| 41 | 22.4 | 32.8 | 90.7 | 59.3 | 0.0 | 16.9 | 37.4 | 73.7 | 34.3 | 0.0 |
| 42 | 19.9 | 33.6 | 80.6 | 59.3 | 0.0 | 15.4 | 36.6 | 69.7 | 30.0 | 0.0 |
| 43 | 17.9 | 33.1 | 82.9 | 40.6 | 0.0 | 12.4 | 34.6 | 70.0 | 31.6 | 0.0 |
| 44 | 12.3 | 32.0 | 88.9 | 30.9 | 0.0 | 12.7 | 33.0 | 54.7 | 44.6 | 0.0 |
| 45 | 10.1 | 31.4 | 90.7 | 36.0 | 0.0 | 11.4 | 31.4 | 72.1 | 46.3 | 0.0 |
| 46 | 9.4 | 29.7 | 93.6 | 41.7 | 0.0 | 11.9 | 26.7 | 75.4 | 59.4 | 0.0 |
| 47 | 8.0 | 30.4 | 92.1 | 39.7 | 0.0 | 5.6 | 27.9 | 76.6 | 48.3 | 0.0 |
| 48 | 8.3 | 30.4 | 92.3 | 42.6 | 0.0 | 7.1 | 27.6 | 75.4 | 51.9 | 0.0 |
| 49 | 7.7 | 28.6 | 93.1 | 44.3 | 0.0 | 8.0 | 24.9 | 69.9 | 61.1 | 0.0 |
| 50 | 10.9 | 28.1 | 93.6 | 48.0 | 0.0 | 7.6 | 21.6 | 81.0 | 77.7 | 7.2 |
| 51 | 6.3 | 27.4 | 92.6 | 57.1 | 0.0 | 5.0 | 26.4 | 89.3 | 72.0 | 0.0 |
| 52 | 7.0 | 26.4 | 92.0 | 49.7 | 0.0 | 5.0 | 25.4 | 73.4 | 70.6 | 0.0 |
| 1 | 8.0 | 23.4 | 93.3 | 60.9 | 0.0 | 3.1 | 23.6 | 85.3 | 62.1 | 0.0 |
| 2 | 3.1 | 19.4 | 91.6 | 58.9 | 0.0 | 3.9 | 25.0 | 83.9 | 61.3 | 0.0 |
| 3 | 5.4 | 21.9 | 90.6 | 45.6 | 0.0 | 4.9 | 26.9 | 88.4 | 46.4 | 0.0 |
| 4 | 10.9 | 23.4 | 93.7 | 64.6 | 24.3 | 4.4 | 24.9 | 87.9 | 59.4 | 0.0 |
| 5 | 8.8 | 24.9 | 93.4 | 69.9 | 0.0 | 7.1 | 26.6 | 81.6 | 50.6 | 0.0 |
| 6 | 4.9 | 23.1 | 91.9 | 54.7 | 0.0 | 7.0 | 25.3 | 85.3 | 50.6 | 0.0 |
| 7 | 8.1 | 29.4 | 91.1 | 46.9 | 0.0 | 6.9 | 28.2 | 85.3 | 44.9 | 0.0 |
| 8 | 7.1 | 28.1 | 91.7 | 51.1 | 0.0 | 13.0 | 31.4 | 80.3 | 46.4 | 0.0 |
| 9 | 10.1 | 30.5 | 91.3 | 42.9 | 0.0 | 12.9 | 32.6 | 81.7 | 37.9 | 0.0 |
| 10 | 10.1 | 27.4 | 90.0 | 54.9 | 0.0 | 11.6 | 32.4 | 75.9 | 39.6 | 0.0 |
| 11 | 11.6 | 31.3 | 91.9 | 37.9 | 0.0 | 14.9 | 33.8 | 81.9 | 55.8 | 0.0 |
| 12 | 16.4 | 36.3 | 91.0 | 36.4 | 0.0 | 15.5 | 32.3 | 81.1 | 52.4 | 0.0 |
| 13 | 21.3 | 37.4 | 91.3 | 36.6 | 0.0 | 14.9 | 37.8 | 71.4 | 39.9 | 0.0 |
| 14 | 16.0 | 36.1 | 83.3 | 28.0 | 0.0 | 22.2 | 39.2 | 73.0 | 32.6 | 0.0 |
| 15 | 21.9 | 41.4 | 87.6 | 40.0 | 0.0 | 21.4 | 38.0 | 86.1 | 35.4 | 0.0 |
| 16 | 25.7 | 38.8 | 85.1 | 42.4 | 0.0 | 22.3 | 38.3 | 73.6 | 26.9 | 0.0 |
| 17 | 22.0 | 38.1 | 91.0 | 44.4 | 0.0 | 24.1 | 40.9 | 64.7 | 31.3 | 0.0 |
Figure 1Design of field experiment showing insect cages for pollination study in dill seed crop.
Figure 2Flower biology of dill seeds (A flower bud stage; B flower bud opening stage; C partially opened flower, D fully opened flower).
Diversity of floral visitors on dill (Anethum graveolens L.) during rabi in semi-arid region.
| Name of species | Order | Family | Mean abundance/m2 day−1 | Proportion (%) of total visitors |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hymenoptera | Apidae | 19.6 | 9.44 | |
| Apidae | 62.6 | 30.14 | ||
| Apidae | 32.62 | 15.71 | ||
| Apidae | 4.5 | 2.17 | ||
| Vespidae | 0.9 | 0.43 | ||
| Apidae | 1 | 0.48 | ||
| Formicidae | 2.02 | 0.97 | ||
| Halictidae | 9.81 | 4.72 | ||
| Unidentified hym sp. 1 | 3.62 | 1.74 | ||
| Unidentified hym sp. 2 | 6.6 | 3.18 | ||
| Total Hymenoptera | 143.27 | 68.99 | ||
| Diptera | Syrphidae | 12.96 | 6.24 | |
| Syrphidae | 6.33 | 3.05 | ||
| Syrphidae | 5.85 | 2.82 | ||
| Syrphidae | 3.2 | 1.54 | ||
| Muscidae | 6.09 | 2.93 | ||
| Musca sp 1 | Muscidae | 0.42 | 0.20 | |
| Musca sp 2 | Muscidae | 2.81 | 1.35 | |
| Musca sp 3 | Muscidae | 0.43 | 0.21 | |
| Total Diptera | 38.09 | 18.34 | ||
| Hemiptera | Pyrrhocoridae | 2.49 | 1.20 | |
| Lygaeidae | 2.6 | 1.25 | ||
| Pentatomidae | 0.9 | 0.43 | ||
| Coleoptera | Coccinellidae | 11.23 | 5.41 | |
| Coccinellidae | 5.38 | 2.59 | ||
| 0.5 | 0.24 | |||
| Neuroptera | Chrysopidae | 0.3 | 0.14 | |
| Lepidoptera | Noctuidae | 0.72 | 0.35 | |
| Pieridae | 1.1 | 0.53 | ||
| Lepidoptera sp (unidentified) | 1.1 | 0.53 | ||
| Total others | 26.32 | 12.67 | ||
| Grand total | 207.68 |
The data given in table are the pooled data of 2 years research (2016–2017 & 2017–2018).
Figure 3Fluctuation in populations (number of floral visitors/m2 bloom area per 5 min) of (a) bees, (b) Syrphids, and (c) other pollinators on dill seeds during flowering in semi-arid region.
Temporal abundance of important floral visitors on dill crop in semi-arid region during winter cropping season.
| Insect visitor | Mean population of floral visitors per 1 m2 boom canopy/minute during different hours | Mean | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 06.00 | 07.00 | 08.00 | 09.00 | 10.00 | 12.00 | 14.00 | 16.00 | 18.00 | ||
| 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.15 | 2.5 | 4.6 | 8.05 | 7.36 | 2.18 | 0.4 | 2.82 | |
| 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.6 | 5.43 | 11.64 | 17.23 | 20.65 | 9.2 | 0.0 | 7.19 | |
| 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.08 | 4.53 | 8.6 | 13.25 | 15.45 | 5.74 | 0.0 | 5.29 | |
| 0.0 | 0.05 | 1.02 | 1.95 | 3.3 | 5.05 | 5.83 | 2.69 | 0.51 | 2.27 | |
| 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 1.3 | 2.9 | 3.55 | 3.6 | 1.6 | 0.0 | 1.45 | |
| Unidentified Hymenoptera sp 2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.55 | 3.05 | 3.8 | 4.45 | 1.6 | 0.01 | 1.61 |
| 0.0 | 0.1 | 1.55 | 1.58 | 3.56 | 6.6 | 6.03 | 2.97 | 1.0 | 2.6 | |
| 0.0 | 1.0 | 1.09 | 2.15 | 1.7 | 5.3 | 6.52 | 3.0 | 0.0 | 2.31 | |
| 0.0 | 0.05 | 0.55 | 2.95 | 1.58 | 3.96 | 4.15 | 2.4 | 0.0 | 1.74 | |
| 0.1 | 0.58 | 0.35 | 1.48 | 2.13 | 4.13 | 2.1 | 1.55 | 1.1 | 1.5 | |
| Mean | 0.01 | 0.19 | 0.55 | 2.54 | 4.31 | 7.09 | 7.61 | 3.29 | 0.30 | 2.88 |
| SE (m) ± | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.07 | 0.08 | 0.10 | 0.32 | 0.46 | 0.30 | 0.01 | – |
| CD (p = 0.05) | 0.03 | 0.06 | 0.22 | 0.23 | 0.30 | 0.97 | 1.38 | 0.91 | 0.04 | – |
The data given in table are the pooled data of 2 years research (2016–17 & 2017–18).
*√x + 1 transformed value of tabulated data were used for statistical analysis.
Figure 4Foraging rates of honeybee pollinators on dill seeds flowers (a) number of umbels visited per minute, (b) no of plant visited/five minutes during full bloom in February under semi-arid region.
Effect of different modes of pollination on yield and quality of dill seeds in semi-arid region during winter cropping season.
| Treatment | Seed yield (kg/ha) | Per cent change compared to | Test weight per 1000 seeds (g) | Essential oil (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WIP | OP | BP | ||||
| T1-WIP-caged | 958.7d | – | − 52.2 | − 49.4 | 1.70b | 1.71b |
| T2-OP | 1459.48ab | 52.2 | – | − 1.8 | 3.21a | 2.16a |
| T3-BP-caged | 1432.5b | 49.4 | − 1.8 | – | 3.24a | 2.19a |
| T4-Jaggery solution 10% | 1505.63a | 57.0 | 3.1 | 5.1 | 3.34a | 2.17a |
| T5-Sugar solution 10% | 1317.5c | 37.4 | − 9.7 | − 8.0 | 3.16a | 2.06a |
The data given in the table are pooled of 2 years research (2016–17 & 2017–18); values are average of 4 replications.
WIP without insect pollination, OP open pollination, BP bee pollination is not all bees pollination but just honeybee pollination.
Averages followed by the common letters in a column are not statistically different at (P ≤ 0.05) according to Duncan’s multiple range test (DMRT).