Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
The pollination biology of Haskap (Lonicera caerulea L.: Caprifoliaceae): floral traits
and pollinator performance of a new Saskatchewan fruit crop.
A Thesis
Submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
For the Degree of
Master of Science
in
Biology
University of Regina
By
Sandra Danae Frier
Regina, Saskatchewan
February, 2016
Copyright 2015: S.D. Frier
UNIVERSITY OF REGINA
FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES AND RESEARCH
SUPERVISORY AND EXAMINING COMMITTEE
Sandra Danae Frier, candidate for the degree of Master of Science in Biology, has presented a thesis titled, The pollination biology of Haskap (Lonicera caerulea L.: Caprifoliaceae): floral traits and pollinator performance of a new Saskatchewan fruit crop., in an oral examination held on December 16, 2015. The following committee members have found the thesis acceptable in form and content, and that the candidate demonstrated satisfactory knowledge of the subject material. External Examiner: Dr. Art Davis, University of Saskatchewan
Co-Supervisor: Dr. Christopher Somers, Department of Biology
Co-Supervisor: Dr. Cory Sheffield, Department of Biology
Committee Member: Dr. Harold Weger, Department of Biology
Chair of Defense: Dr. Rozzet Jurdi, Department of Sociology and Social Studies
i
ABSTRACT
Haskap (Lonicera caerulea L.) is an early flowering fruiting shrub native to
northern regions of Europe, Asia and North America. Commercial growth began in
Europe and Asia over a century ago, but it has only recently been cultivated in North
America. It is self-incompatible, and requires insect pollinators in order to set fruit;
however, very little is currently known about its pollination biology, including associated
pollinators and important floral characteristics. My research compared the pollinating
performance of three groups of bees on Haskap: commercial Apis mellifera and Osmia
lignaria, and wild Bombus spp. I found that Bombus queens had the highest levels of
single visit pollen deposition (SVD), the highest visitation rate, and were observed to be
active even during cooler temperatures experienced during Haskap flowering. Apis
mellifera workers had the lowest levels of SVD, spent nearly three times as long per
flower as Bombus spp., and were not active during cooler temperatures; however, as they
were present in much higher densities than Bombus, they may be effective in
supplementing pollination in pollinator-scarce environments. Osmia lignaria females
were found to have potentially high levels of SVD and intermediate visitation rates,
however, pollen load analysis suggests they prefer alternative forage and are not frequent
visitors to Haskap in field conditions. In addition to pollinator performance, I describe
anthesis length, nectar and pollen dynamics, and stigma receptivity in Haskap flowers. I
observed that un-pollinated flowers bloomed for 3-4 days, but pollination triggered early
senescence. Nectar was present at the onset of anthesis and did not increase significantly
after 16 hours, and any nectar removed during anthesis was replaced. There was no
evidence of nectar resorption. Pollen release began immediately after the flower opened
ii
and continued over the first day, and the stigma showed evidence of receptivity while
still in the bud stage. These results suggest that Haskap flowers exhibit a generalist
pollination strategy that optimizes pollination opportunities in pollinator scarce
environments. Observations that some flowers open in the evening (and possibly
overnight) suggest that nocturnal pollinators such as moths may be important for the
crop, in addition to known diurnal pollinators.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This thesis would not have been possible without a long list of people, all of
which I am incredibly thankful to. First and foremost, a big thank you to my supervisors
Dr. Cory S. Sheffield and Dr. Christopher M. Somers, for giving me guidance and many
opportunities to grow as an individual and a scientist. I would also like to thank Dr.
Harold Weger for serving on my committee and his valuable input to my project.
My field assistants, Branden Henry, Graham Rothwell, Laura Messett, and
Shelby Rosvold, were integral to the success of this project, and I thank them for their
hard work and patience. I am indebted as well to Hamish Graham for allowing us to
work in his orchard, as well as for his gracious hospitality and professional expertise. I
also would like to thank the rest of the members of Haskap Canada and other growers
within the province for their continued support and interest in my work.
I would like to thank Dr. Bob Bors for his advice and expertise, and to
Bayartulga Lkhagvasuren for giving me access to greenhouse plants, without which
much of this work would not have been possible.
Lastly, I give thanks to the rest of the members of the Somers lab, and especially
Leanne Heisler, for both moral support and professional guidance, without whom it
would have been a lonely road.
This work was made possible by funding from the Government of Saskatchewan
Department of Agriculture through the Agriculture Development Fund (ADF) and
Canadian Agriculture Adaptation Program (CAAP).
iv
POST DEFENSE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Dr. Arthur R. Davis graciously agreed to act as my external examiner. His expert
and thorough review has significantly improved the quality of the final version of this
thesis.
v
DEDICATION
To my grandpa, Steve, who gave me an enduring love for the outdoors and an
appreciation for all living things.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract ............................................................................................................................... i
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................... iii
Post Defense Acknowledgements ..................................................................................... iv
Dedication .......................................................................................................................... v
Table of Contents .............................................................................................................. vi
List of Tables .................................................................................................................. viii
List of Figures ................................................................................................................... ix
List of Appendices ............................................................................................................ xi
Chapter 1: General Introduction ........................................................................................ 1
1.1 Background ........................................................................................................... 2
1.2 Floral biology of Haskap ...................................................................................... 3
1.3 Assessing pollinator performance ......................................................................... 4
1.4 Study objectives .................................................................................................... 7
References ................................................................................................................... 8
Chapter 2: Comparing the performance of native and managed pollinators of Haskap
(Lonicera caerulea: Caprifoliaceae), an emerging fruit crop .......................................... 11
1. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 12
2. Methods .................................................................................................................... 15
2.1 Study site ............................................................................................................. 15
2.2 Single visit deposition ......................................................................................... 16
2.3 Visit symmetry and duration .............................................................................. 17
2.4 Pollinator density ................................................................................................ 17
2.5 Pollen load composition of Osmia lignaria ........................................................ 18
2.6 Statistical analysis ............................................................................................... 18
3. Results ...................................................................................................................... 20
3.1 Single visit deposition ......................................................................................... 20
vii
3.2 Visit symmetry and duration ............................................................................... 20
3.3 Pollinator density ................................................................................................ 21
3.4 Pollen load composition of Osmia lignaria ........................................................ 21
4. Discussion ................................................................................................................ 22
5. Conclusions .............................................................................................................. 26
References .................................................................................................................... 27
Chapter 3: Floral longevity, nectar production and pollen release in Haskap (Lonicera
caerulea L.: Caprifoliaceae) ............................................................................................ 37
1. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 38
2. Methods .................................................................................................................... 40
2.1 Study site and plants ........................................................................................... 40
2.2 Length of anthesis ............................................................................................... 41
2.3 Nectar, pollen and stigma dynamics ................................................................... 42
3. Results ...................................................................................................................... 44
3.1 Length of anthesis ............................................................................................... 44
3.2 Nectar, pollen and stigma dynamics ................................................................... 44
4. Discussion ................................................................................................................ 45
5. Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 48
References .................................................................................................................... 49
Chapter 4: General Discussion ......................................................................................... 58
4.1 Synthesis ................................................................................................................. 59
4.2 Conclusions and recommendations ........................................................................ 61
4.3 Suggestions for further research ............................................................................. 64
References .................................................................................................................... 66
APPENDIX A – Haskap floral traits ............................................................................ 71
APPENDIX B – Pollination requirements for fruit set in Haskap ............................... 72
B.1 Methods .............................................................................................................. 72
B.2 Results ................................................................................................................ 74
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Chapter 2
Table 1. The results of a negative binomial GLM comparing the number of pollen grains
found on the stigmas of Haskap (Lonicera caerulea L.) flowers after a single visit by
Apis mellifera L., Bombus spp. or Osmia lignaria Say to an unvisited control. .............. 32
Table 2. The results of a negative binomial GLM regression on the response of Apis
mellifera L. and Bombus spp. densities to the variables time, temperature, wind, cloud
cover and density of the other taxon. ............................................................................... 36
Appendix A
Table A.1. Observed floral visitors to Haskap (Lonicera caerulea L.) in an orchard near
Birch Hills, Saskatchewan in May, 2013. Individuals were identified through several 30
minute surveys conducted over a three day period, as well as through opportunistic
observations and capture events. Bombus spp. were identified on the wing whenever
possible. Small solitary bees as well as unidentified Bombus spp. were collected using a
sweep net and were stored in ethanol to be identified at a later time. Voucher specimens
from this study are stored in the collection at the Royal Saskatchewan Museum, Regina,
Saskatchewan, Canada. .................................................................................................... 71
Appendix B
Table B.1 The results of generalized linear models comparing length, width, weight and
seed number in Haskap (Lonicera caerulea L.) fruit that had either one or both flowers in
the inflorescence pollinated. ............................................................................................ 76
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Chapter 2
Figure 1. Haskap (Lonicera caerulea L.) flowers and fruits. (a) A typical Haskap
inflorescence. The two perfect flowers each have five petals, five stamens and one
stigma; the ovaries of both are enclosed by bracteoles which are fused into a cupule and
are subtended by two bracts. The ovaries and bracteoles develop into a single compound
fruit. (b) Normal compound fruit produced by Haskap. A single fruit results from each
two-flowered inflorescence. (c) Haskap fruit in which the bracteoles have not fused
around the ovaries, showing the two distinct berries which make up the fruit (Photo
credit: Logie Cassells, LaHave Natural Farms, Nova Scotia, Canada). .......................... 31
Figure 2. Single visit pollen deposition (SVD) of pollen on Haskap (Lonicera caerulea
L.) stigmas by three taxa of bees. SVD is derived from the predicted estimates of a
generalized linear model, and represents the total amount of pollen found on visited
stigmas minus the pollen on unvisited controls, the result of internal self-pollination. The
dotted line represents the minimum pollination requirements (i.e., 24 grains deposited)
for each flower to ensure complete fertilization of all the ovules (see Appendix B,
Supplementary Material). ................................................................................................. 33
Figure 3. Mean (± SE) densities of Bombus spp. and Apis mellifera L. in a Haskap
(Lonicera caerulea L.) orchard at each hour from dawn until dusk during flowering. The
data are presented as number of individuals per 400 open flowers. ................................ 34
Figure 4. The relationship between density of foragers and air temperature (˚C) for Apis
mellifera and Bombus spp. across 99 surveys performed from 24-May to 10-June-2014
in a 30ha organic Haskap orchard. Surveys were performed by scan sampling, and a total
of 400 flowers were observed per survey. ....................................................................... 35
Chapter 3
Figure 1. A typical Haskap inflorescence. The downward facing flowers are pale yellow
and each has five petals, five stamens and one stigma; the ovaries of both flowers are
enclosed by the bracteoles, which have fused into a cupule. The ovaries and bracteoles
develop into the Haskap ‘berry’, actually a multiple fruit. .............................................. 53
Figure 2. The length of anthesis (h), from opening of the bud to abscission of the
corolla, for un-pollinated and pollinated Haskap inflorescences that had the anthers
removed or left intact. Vertical bars represent the 95% confidence interval. Bars with
different letters are significantly different at P < 0.05 according to pairwise comparisons
x
using a Mann-Whitney U test with p-values adjusted for multiple comparisons using the
Bonferroni correction. Sample size is reported in brackets beneath each bar. ................ 54
Figure 3. The nectar volume (µL) (left y-axis) and the number of open anthers (right y-
Axis) in Haskap (Lonicera caerulea) inflorescences per time interval (x-axis), starting
the first morning the flowers were open until the end of flowering (i.e., inflorescences
that opened after 9am were begun sampling the following morning). Vertical bars
represent the 95% confidence interval. Plots with different letters are significantly
different at P < 0.05 according to pairwise comparisons using a Mann-Whitney U test
with p-values adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni correction. Sample
size is indicated in brackets under each treatment. .......................................................... 55
Figure 4. The amount of nectar (µL) (left y-axis) and the number of open anthers (right
y-axis) in Haskap (Lonicera caerulea) inflorescences per 8 hour interval after the onset
of anthesis (x-axis). Vertical bars represent the 95% confidence interval. Plots with
different letters are significantly different at P < 0.05 according to pairwise comparisons
using a Mann-Whitney U test with p-values adjusted for multiple comparisons using the
Bonferroni correction. Sample size is indicated in brackets under each treatment. ........ 56
Figure 5. The amount of nectar (µL) in Haskap (Lonicera caerulea) inflorescences that
had nectar removed once per day, up to 3 consecutive days. Vertical bars represent the
95% confidence interval. Plots with different letters are significantly different at P < 0.05
according to pairwise comparisons using a Mann-Whitney U test with p-values adjusted
for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni correction. Sample size is indicated in
brackets under each treatment. ......................................................................................... 57
Appendix B
Figure B.1 The (a) length (mm), (b) width (mm), (c) weight (g) and (d) number of seeds
of Haskap (Lonicera caerulea L.) berries from two cultivars, ‘Indigo Gem’ and
‘Tundra’, in which one (‘Indigo Gem’, n=9; ‘Tundra’, n=9) or both (‘Indigo Gem’, n=9;
‘Tundra’, n=8) of the flowers in the inflorescence were pollinated. Each sample
represents the average measurements from 1-5 berries per shrub, and measurements were
only taken from berries that were fully ripe at the time of harvest. Lower, middle and
upper quartiles are presented by the boxes and maximum and minimum values by the
vertical bars. ..................................................................................................................... 75
Figure B.2 Weight (g) vs seed number in Haskap fruit (r=0.73, t=11.05, df=106, p<
0.001). .............................................................................................................................. 77
xi
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A – Haskap floral traits ............................................................................... 71
APPENDIX B – Pollination requirements for fruit set in Haskap ................................... 72
1
CHAPTER 1: General Introduction
2
1.1 Background
The genus Lonicera (Caprifoliaceae) is a group of temperature fruiting shrubs
found throughout temperate areas of the world, with the highest diversity occurring in
Central and Eastern Asia. There are around 180 described species, and whereas the
majority bear fruits that are inedible to humans, a notable exception is Lonicera caerulea
L. (Miller et al., 2011; Rehder, 1903), commonly known as blue honeysuckle,
honeyberry, and Haskap (Hummer et al., 2012). Various subspecies of L. caerulea grow
native to northern areas of North America, Europe, and Asia, and the fruits were an
important part of the diet of hunter-gatherers in Russia and Hokkaido, Japan, where
people have long recognized their nutritional and medicinal value (Hummer et al., 2012;
Thompson, 2006).
Domestication of L. caerulea as a crop began in Russia in the early 1900’s, and
intensified in the 1950’s, but until recently it has been largely unknown within North
America (Thompson, 2006). A breeding program at Oregon State University in the late
1990’s began raising interest in this new crop (Bors, 2008); today, one of the largest
breeding programs is located at the University of Saskatchewan, in Saskatoon,
Saskatchewan, Canada, which uses germplasm from Russian, Japanese, and Canadian
varieties of L. caerulea (Bors et al., 2012). Cultivars developed and released from this
program use the name ‘Haskap’ to distinguish them from other cultivars, and to pay
homage to the Ainu people from Hokkaido, Japan, who traditionally harvested these
berries (Haskap, also spelled Haskappu, Hascap, and Hascup, is the Ainu name used for
these berries) (Thompson, 2006).
3
Recently, the cultivated Haskap industry has been growing in popularity within
North America, largely due to the perceived health benefits of the fruits, which are high
in vitamins and anti-oxidants (Chaovanalikit et al., 2004; Raudsepp et al., 2013; Rop et
al., 2011; Rupasinghe et al., 2012; Svarcova et al., 2007). The plant is very well suited
for cultivation within northern areas of Canada, as it is extremely winter-hardy and is
able to withstand temperatures as low as -45˚C during winter dormancy. Haskap is
believed to be resistant to most pests and diseases, which makes it a suitable crop for
organic management strategies. It flowers very early in the year, before any other fruit
crops in Canada, and can be harvested as early as June (hand–picked or mechanically
harvested, depending on the cultivar), making it a good companion to other fruit crops.
This early flowering characteristic, alongside its adaptations to cold, make Haskap ill-
suited for cultivation in southern areas, as warming periods during the winter could cause
it to emerge from dormancy too early (Bors et al., 2012).
1.2 Floral biology of Haskap
Haskap inflorescences have a unique structure that is not seen in any other
Lonicera species (Rehder, 1909); the flowers grow in two-flowered cymes, which is
typical of Lonicera, but the bracteoles have fused around the ovaries of both flowers.
The fused bracteoles and ovaries develop into the fruit, meaning that a Haskap “berry” is
really a multiple fruit. The flowers themselves are perfect, with 5 anthers and a single
stigma. The corolla is pale yellow, about 2.5cm long and tubular in shape (Hummer et
al., 2012; Rehder, 1909). Nectar is produced in abundance by nectaries at the bottom of
the corolla, and the numerous rougly-oblate pollen grains are ~50µm in diameter (Bożek
4
and Wieniarska, 2006; Bożek, 2007). The flowers are well adapted to spring conditions
at high latitudes, and can survive temperatures of at least -7˚C (Bors, 2008; Hummer et
al., 2012; Plekhanova, 2000). Despite blooming at a time of year when insects may be
scarce, Haskap is essentially self incompatible and requires insects for cross pollination
(Bors et al., 2012; Hummer et al., 2012); Apis mellifera L. (honey bees), Bombus spp.
(bumble bees), and solitary bees have been recorded as visitors to the plant (Bożek,
2012).
Most research on Haskap to date has focused on the fruit; how to make them
bigger, better tasting, or easier to harvest (Bors et al., 2012). Very little is known about
floral characteristics or pollinators of this crop, and existing studies have been entirely
focused in Europe and Asia (Bożek and Wieniarska, 2006; Bożek, 2007, 2012;
Thompson, 2006). Currently, nothing is known about floral visitors to Haskap in North
America, and important aspects of anthesis such as nectar dynamics have not been
assessed. As this crop requires insect pollinators in order to set fruit, a thorough study of
the effectiveness of its pollinators and a description of floral rewards would benefit
growers by helping to refine pollination management strategies.
1.3 Assessing pollinator performance
There are multiple criteria for determining the potential of a species as a
pollinator of a particular crop (Bosch and Kemp, 2002). Firstly, a candidate species
needs to be active at the same time and under the same conditions as the target crop is
blooming. For Haskap, this means the adult pollinator needs to be active very early in the
spring, and also needs to be tolerant of the cold temperatures that are likely at this time
5
of year. Secondly, there needs to be potential for a sufficiently high density of foragers to
pollinate the crop. This is one of the main benefits of using A. mellifera colonies for
commercial pollination, as a single hive can contain thousands of workers. This contrasts
with many native solitary species, which exist in naturally low densities, although some
may be managed to artificially raise densities to very high levels (e.g. Megachile
rotundata, Osmia lignaria). Next, the candidate species needs to be an effective
(successfully transfers pollen from anther to stigma) and efficient (contributes to high
levels of fruit set) pollinator of the target crop. This can be deduced using proxies such
as visit duration or stigma contact, but is best determined by direct measures of single
visit pollen deposition along with behavioral variables such as visitation patterns and rate
(King et al., 2013; Ne’eman et al., 2010). Lastly, the species has to have a preference for
the target crop, choosing to visit it even in the presence of alternative forage.
Currently, A. mellifera is the most common species managed to supplement
Haskap pollination. Most orchardists that grow Haskap in Saskatchewan either maintain
their own apiary, or partner with local apiarists to bring in A. mellifera colonies during
flowering. Apis mellifera colonies are often a practical solution to pollination deficits, as
they are commonly available and easily transportable, making it possible to apply high
densities of pollinators where needed (Klein et al., 2007). They also appear to be
attracted to Haskap flowers, which can be an abundant early season resource for A.
mellifera as well as for native nectar and pollen-seeking insects. However, they are not
very cold tolerant, which may be problematic for Haskap as temperatures during
flowering are often well below 20˚C, the optimal foraging temperature for A. mellifera
(Tan et al., 2012).
6
Osmia lignaria Say, the blue orchard bee, is another managed species that is
being considered by some growers in Saskatchewan as a potential pollinator for Haskap.
Osmia lignaria is a solitary cavity nesting species that will also nest in artificial nest
boxes, and they can be introduced into orchards in relatively high numbers (Bosch and
Kemp, 2001). They show a particular preference for rosaceous tree fruits, and are
effective in supplementing pollination of several crops, including apple and cherry
(Bosch and Kemp, 1999; Torchio, 1976, 1985). As a native species to Canada, they are
active in cooler temperatures than A. mellifera, and their active period naturally
coincides with the flowering of Haskap. Osmia lignaria is active for about 6 weeks in the
spring, which also means they do not require year-round forage, unlike A. mellifera and
Bombus spp. colonies which require nectar and pollen throughout the growing season.
Wild Bombus are one of the first groups of bees to emerge in the spring and may
be the natural pollinators of many Lonicera species in the wild, including Haskap, and
therefore may be one of the best pollinators of the crop (Hummer et al., 2012). They are
very cold tolerant and are able to fly in temperatures as low as 0˚C (Heinrich, 2004); as
Haskap flowers will survive even through sub-zero temperatures, Bombus may be
integral to pollinating Haskap during cold and unpredictable springs. However,
individual Bombus active in early spring are solitary queens, whose worker brood have
not yet matured. This limits the potential density of foragers available for pollination
early in the season. Additionally, the density of queens in the spring at a given site is
dependent on the size of colonies produced the previous fall (i.e., when the new queens
are finally produced), which in turn means that forage needs to be available for them
year-round.
7
Whereas all three of these groups of bees have potential to be important
contributors to Haskap pollination, none of them have been formally evaluated for this
crop. Importantly, the floral preferences of these groups need to be analyzed, and the
effectiveness and efficiency of each taxon determined.
1.4 Study objectives
The overall purpose of my research was to build knowledge about the interaction
between cultivated Haskap and its insect pollinators. A detailed knowledge of the
pollination of Haskap will contribute to the field of pollination biology as a whole, as
well as providing important information for Haskap producers in order to maintain high
yields.
The specific objectives were to:
1. Determine the performance of A. mellifera, O. lignaria, and wild Bombus as
pollinators of Haskap, using single visit pollen deposition, visit symmetry
(i.e. the likelihood of visiting both flowers in the inflorescence), visit
duration, activity levels, and pollen preferences. Determining the importance
of visit symmetry also necessitated the determination of the effect of different
pollination treatments on fruit development, and minimum pollination
requirements (using seed number and pollen viability) were determined to
relate pollen deposition to fruit set. This research has been published as Frier
et al. (2016).
2. Determine floral longevity, nectar dynamics, pollen release, and stigma
receptivity of Haskap flowers in order to learn more about the plant’s
8
reproductive strategy and its associated animal pollinators. I asked four major
questions:
a. How long are the flowers open for, and is floral longevity affected by
pollination?
b. When is nectar produced, and is total nectar production affected by
nectar removal?
c. When is pollen released from the anthers?
d. How early in anthesis does the stigma become receptive?
This research has been written as a manuscript and has been submitted to
Journal of Pollination Biology.
References
Bors, B., 2008. Growing Haskap in Canada [WWW Document]. U S Fruit Progr. URL
http://www.fruit.usask.ca/articles/growinghaskapinCanada.pdf (accessed 9.21.13).
Bors, B., Thomson, J., Sawchuk, E., Reimer, P., Sawatzky, R., Sander, T., Kaban, T.,
Gerbrandt, E., Dawson, J., 2012. Haskap berry breeding and production - final
report.
Bosch, J., Kemp, W., 1999. Exceptional cherry production in an orchard pollinated with
blue orchard bees. Bee World 80, 163–173.
Bosch, J., Kemp, W., 2001. How to Manage the Blue Orchard Bee As an Orchard
Pollinator, Systematics. Sustainable Agriculture Network.
Bosch, J., Kemp, W.P., 2002. Developing and establishing bee species as crop
pollinators: the example of Osmia spp. (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae) and fruit
trees. Bull. Entomol. Res. 92, 3–16. doi:10.1079/BER2001139
Bożek, M., 2007. Pollen productivity and morphology of pollen grains in two cultivars
of honeyberry (Lonicera kamtschatica (Sevast.) Pojark.). Acta Agrobot. 60, 73–77.
Bożek, M., 2012. The effect of pollinating insects on fruiting of two cultivars of
Lonicera caerulea L. J. Apic. Sci. 56, 5–11. doi:10.2478/v10289-012-0018-6
9
Bożek, M., Wieniarska, J., 2006. Biologia kwitnienia i wydajność cukrowa kwiatów
dwóch odmian Lonicera kamtschatica (Sevast.) Pojark / Blooming biology and
sugar efficiency of two cultivars of Lonicera kamtschatica (Sevast.) Pojark. Acta
Agrobot. 59, 177–182.
Chaovanalikit, A., Thompson, M.M., Wrolstad, R.E., 2004. Characterization and
quantification of anthocyanins and polyphenolics in blue honeysuckle (Lonicera
caerulea L.). J. Agric. Food Chem. 52, 848–852. doi:10.1021/jf030509o
Frier, S.D., Somers, C.M., Sheffield, C.S., 2016. Comparing the performance of native
and managed pollinators of Haskap (Lonicera caerulea: Caprifoliaceae), an
emerging fruit crop. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 219, 42-48.
doi:10.1016/j.agee.2015.12.011
Heinrich, B., 2004. Bumblebee Economics, 2 edition. ed. Harvard University Press.
Hummer, K.E., Pomper, K.W., Postman, J., Graham, C.J., Stover, E., Mercure, E.W.,
Aradhya, M., Crisosto, C.H., Ferguson, L., Thompson, M.M., Byers, P., Zee, F.,
2012. Fruit Breeding. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-0763-9
King, C., Ballantyne, G., Willmer, P.G., 2013. Why flower visitation is a poor proxy for
pollination: measuring single-visit pollen deposition, with implications for
pollination networks and conservation. Methods Ecol. Evol. 4, 811–818.
Klein, A.-M., Vaissière, B.E., Cane, J.H., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Cunningham, S. a,
Kremen, C., Tscharntke, T., 2007. Importance of pollinators in changing landscapes
for world crops. Proc. R. Soc. B 274, 303–13.
Miller, C., Dulac, E., Miller, X., 2011. 5. LONICERA Linnaeus, Sp. Pl. 1: 173. 1753.,
in: Flora of China. pp. 620–641.
Ne’eman, G., Jürgens, A., Newstrom-Lloyd, L., Potts, S.G., Dafni, A., 2010. A
framework for comparing pollinator performance: effectiveness and efficiency.
Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 85, 435–51. doi:10.1111/j.1469-185X.2009.00108.x
Plekhanova, M.N., 2000. Blue honeysuckle (Lonicera caerulea L.) - A new commercial
berry crop for temperate climate: genetic resources and breeding. Acta Hortic. 538,
159–164.
Raudsepp, P., Anton, D., Roasto, M., Meremäe, K., Pedastsaar, P., Mäesaar, M., Raal,
A., Laikoja, K., Püssa, T., 2013. The antioxidative and antimicrobial properties of
the blue honeysuckle (Lonicera caerulea L.), Siberian rhubarb (Rheum rhaponticum
L.) and some other plants, compared to ascorbic acid and sodium nitrite. Food
Control 31, 129–135. doi:10.1016/j.foodcont.2012.10.007
10
Rehder, A., 1903. Synopsis of the genus Lonicera. Missouri Bot. Gard. Annu. Rep.
1903, 27–232.
Rehder, A., 1909. Note on the morphology of the fruit of Lonicera caerulea. Rhodora
11, 209–211.
Rop, O., Řezníček, V., Mlček, J., Juríková, T., Balík, J., Sochor, J., Kramářová, D.,
2011. Antioxidant and radical oxygen species scavenging activities of 12 cultivars
of blue honeysuckle fruit. Hortic. Sci. 38, 63–70.
Rupasinghe, H.P.V., Yu, L.J., Bhullar, K.S., Bors, B., 2012. Haskap (Lonicera
caerulea): A new berry crop with high antioxidant capacity. Can. J. Plant Sci. 3,
1311–1317. doi:10.4141/CJPS2012-073
Svarcova, I., Heinrich, J., Valentova, K., 2007. Berry fruits as a source of biologically
active compounds: the case of Lonicera caerulea. Biomed. Pap. 151, 163–174.
Tan, K., Yang, S., Wang, Z.-W., Radloff, S.E., Oldroyd, B.P., 2012. Differences in
foraging and broodnest temperature in the honey bees Apis cerana and A. mellifera.
Apidologie 43, 618–623. doi:10.1007/s13592-012-0136-y
Thompson, M.M., 2006. Introducing Haskap , Japanese blue honeysuckle. J. Am. Pomol.
Soc. 60, 164–168.
Torchio, P.F.., 1976. Use of Osmia lignaria Say (Hymenoptera : Apoidea ,
Megachilidae) as a pollinator in an apple and prune orchard. J. Kansas Entomol.
Soc. 49, 475–482.
Torchio, P.F., 1985. Field experiments with the pollinator species, Osmia lignaria
propinqua Cresson, in apple orchards: V (1979-1980), methods of introducing bees,
nesting success, seed counts, fruit yields (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae). J. Kansas
Entomol. Soc. 58, 448–464.
11
CHAPTER 2: Comparing the performance of native and managed pollinators of
Haskap (Lonicera caerulea: Caprifoliaceae), an emerging fruit crop
12
1. Introduction
Pollination services for insect pollinated crops can be provided by the
introduction of managed bee species, or by wild populations of native pollinators. Apis
mellifera L. (Hymenoptera: Apidae), the honey bee, is the most widely used managed
pollinator, and many crops directly depend on its use (Klein et al., 2007; McGregor,
1976). As social, generalist, and commercially available foragers, A. mellifera can be a
practical solution for avoiding pollination deficits when native pollinators are scarce
(Klein et al., 2007). However, it is well known that A. mellifera workers are inefficient
pollinators of some crops, and in many cases alternative managed or wild species may do
a better job [e.g. reviewed by Klein et al., 2007; Westerkamp and Gottsberger, 2000;
almond (Bosch and Blas, 1994); blueberry (Javorek et al., 2002); coffee (Klein et al.,
2003); raspberry and blackberry (Cane, 2005); tomatoes (Putra and Kinasih, 2014);
cherry (Bosch and Kemp, 1999); pear (Monzón et al., 2004)]. Even when A. mellifera
are effective pollinators, native bees increase crop yields and buffer against commercial
colony losses (Garibaldi et al., 2011, 2013; Klein et al., 2003; Rader et al., 2013; Winfree
et al., 2007). For many crops the performance of different species of pollinators is still
unknown, and A. mellifera is often used by default even when they may not be the most
effective or efficient option.
Haskap (Lonicera caerulea: Caprifoliaceae), also known as blue honeysuckle or
honeyberry, is a temperate fruiting shrub that is visited by A. mellifera, Bombus spp. (i.e.
bumble bees; Hymenoptera Apidae), and a variety of solitary bees (Bożek, 2012).
Haskap is native to northern regions of North America, Europe, and Asia, and it has
recently gained popularity as a commercial crop in North America (Hummer et al.,
13
2012). Haskap production is increasing in North America due to potential health benefits
of eating the fruit (e.g. Lefèvre et al., 2011; Rupasinghe et al., 2012; Svarcova et al.,
2007), and the slightly tart flavour of its blue berries, which are eaten fresh or used in a
wide variety of food products (Hummer et al., 2012). However, very little is known
about Haskap pollination biology, though it is known to be self-incompatible (Bors et al.,
2012; Hummer et al., 2012), and to require animal pollinators (Bożek, 2012). In Canada,
A. mellifera is the primary managed pollinator used for Haskap production, with most
orchards receiving some level of pollination services from local apiaries. Recently,
Osmia lignaria Say (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae), known commonly as the blue orchard
bee, has also been considered as a potential pollinator of Haskap. Native Bombus spp.,
solitary bees (e.g. Lasioglossum spp., Osmia spp. Halictus spp.), and syrphid flies
(Diptera: Syrphidae) are also regular visitors of Haskap in Canada; however, the
pollination efficacy of both managed and wild floral visitors of Haskap is entirely
unknown.
Haskap flowers have a pale yellow tubular corolla, less than 2.5cm in length, and
grow in two flowered cymes that are typical of other Lonicera species. Many
inflorescences are produced per branch and the flowers nod downwards. The flowering
period for Haskap lasts 2 to 3 weeks and occurs very early in the spring before the plant
leafs out, and the flowers are able to tolerate frosts down to at least -7˚C (Bors, 2008;
Hummer et al., 2012). Only a few insect pollinators can fly during periods of low
temperature characteristic of spring at high latitudes, potentially suggesting a
dependence on cold-tolerant pollinators such as Bombus spp., whose large queens can fly
in temperatures as low as 0˚C (Heinrich, 2004). Fruit development in Haskap is unusual
14
compared to other crops; the bracteoles subtending the flowers have fused together
around the two ovaries (Fig. 1a), and the Haskap berry (actually a multiple fruit) forms
from these combined structures (Figs. 1b and 1c). The development of the Haskap fruit
may depend on the successful pollination of both flowers in the inflorescence, so
pollinator behaviour (e.g. how likely a species is to visit both flowers) may be especially
important for the production of high quality fruit (Woodcock et al., 2013).
The purpose of this study was to assess the pollination performance of
commercially managed A. mellifera and O. lignaria relative to wild Bombus spp. on
Haskap crops in Saskatchewan, Canada. Specifically, we compared single visit pollen
deposition, visit symmetry, visit duration, and pollinator density. In addition, we
analyzed the pollen load composition from female O. lignaria; although A. mellifera and
Bombus spp. are known to forage on Haskap (Bożek, 2012), it is unclear whether O.
lignaria show a preference for the crop. We hypothesized that because Bombus spp. are
active in lower temperature ranges that correspond with flowering, they are likely the
most effective and efficient pollinators of Haskap. We predicted that A. mellifera, which
is a non-native species that prefers warm weather that is unlikely to co-exist with Haskap
under natural conditions, would be less effective and efficient. Osmia lignaria is known
to be an effective pollinator of other fruit crops (Bosch and Kemp, 2001), and is a native
North American species that is well adapted to cool temperatures, so we expected them
to be similar to Bombus spp. in performance. These taxa have never been assessed as
pollinators of Haskap, and the information obtained from this study will help Haskap
orchard managers to implement pollination strategies that optimize fruit yield in a
sustainable manner.
15
2. Methods
2.1 Study site
Our research was conducted in the spring of 2014 within a 30 hectare organic
Haskap orchard in Birch Hills, Saskatchewan, Canada (52.97 N, -105.42 W). The study
orchard was bordered on two sides by a narrow shelter-belt of trees. The surrounding
area was largely agricultural and consisted mostly of crops such as canola, alfalfa, and
wheat. Plants in the area that flowered concurrently to Haskap were primarily willow
(Salix, Salicaceae) and dandelion (Taraxacum, Asteraceae). Various species of insects
were frequently observed visiting Haskap flowers within the orchard, including over 10
species of Bombus (Appendix A, supplementary material). The orchard was established
in 2008 and grows four Haskap cultivars developed in the University of Saskatchewan’s
fruit breeding program. Our research focused on the varieties ‘Tundra’ and ‘Indigo
Gem’, which were chosen because they were well represented within the orchard by
mature plants. Each row within our study area contained approximately 400 plants of the
same cultivar, spaced 1 metre apart, with adjacent rows being different cultivars and a
row of pollinizers (a distantly related cultivar that provides a compatible source of pollen
to the desired cultivars) located every 5th
row. The cultivars ‘Tundra’ and ‘Indigo Gem’
were represented by a total of 13 and 14 rows, respectively.
For the purpose of our experiments, 12 full-strength colonies of A. mellifera
provided by a local apiarist were placed on the eastern edge of the orchard. In addition,
12 nesting boxes of O. lignaria were obtained from Mason Bee Central (Black Creek,
B.C, Canada) for our experiments, with 220 bees (2:1 female to male ratio) in each.
16
2.2 Single visit deposition
To assess pollen deposition by each pollinator taxa, we covered branches of
unopened flowers with pollinator exclusion bags. Once the flowers had opened we
removed the whole branch from the bush and placed it into a single-stem flower tube
containing water and 20-20-20 NPK fertilizer. This branch was then presented to
foraging bees by placing the unvisited flowers just next to a flower that a bee was
visiting. Immediately following a visit, the inflorescence was removed from the branch
and the stigmas of both flowers mounted in gelatin-fuchsine (following Dafni et al.
2005). Unvisited flowers from the same branch were removed at random intervals and
used as controls to account for autogamous pollen that contacted the stigma by means
other than a bee visit (e.g., wind, handling). The amount of pollen deposited by a bee on
a single visit (single visit deposition, hereafter SVD) is the difference between the pollen
from unvisited controls (internal self-pollination) and the total amount of pollen found on
visited stigmas.
The slide-mounted stigmas were digitally photographed using a Canon EOS 5D
camera with a Canon macro photo lens MP-E 65mm 1:2.8 1-5x and a Tamron SP AF
tele-converter 140F –CA 1.4x with dynalite MH2050 lights on a studio-pro dynalite
1600 2/s flash generator. Multiple images at different focal depths (each 0.12mm) were
taken and then stacked (Helicon Focus 5.3.3) to create one image with all pollen grains
in focus. The photographs were then imported to ImageJ (Rasband, 2014) version 1.48
and individual Haskap pollen grains were counted manually using the “cell counter”
plug-in.
17
2.3 Visit symmetry and duration
Visit symmetry was derived alongside data gathered for SVD. For every
successful visit, we recorded whether the bee visited 1 or 2 flowers in the inflorescence.
Visit duration was measured by observing foragers as they visited Haskap
inflorescences. The length of the observation (in seconds) was measured, and the number
of inflorescences visited during the observation was tallied using a hand-held counter.
Timing began when the bee was first observed landing on a single inflorescence, and
ended when the bee moved out of sight of the observer. The number of inflorescences
visited per time interval was then used to calculate the average visit duration for each
observation, and this final measure represents both search and forage time per
inflorescence.
2.4 Pollinator density
Transects were set up at three locations within the study site. Each transect was
placed between two adjacent rows of Haskap, with cultivar ‘Tundra’ on one side and
‘Indigo Gem’ on the other. The transects were surveyed daily every two hours, starting
from the beginning of flowering (24-May-2015) and finishing once the target cultivars
were near the end of their flowering period (10-Jun-2015). Surveys were not performed
when it was raining. Air temperature and average wind speed were measured at the
beginning of each survey using a Kestrel 2000 pocket weather meter. The surveys were
conducted by scan sampling (following Vaissière et al. 2011); a total of 400
inflorescences were sampled per cultivar.
.
18
2.5 Pollen load composition of Osmia lignaria
To obtain more information about the pollen preferences of O. lignaria, we
captured females (i.e. the pollen foragers) as they returned to their nests. We used a
cotton swab to remove pollen from their abdomen before releasing them; the pollen was
then stored dry in a micro-centrifuge vial (after Sheffield et al. 2008). Pollen-loads were
sampled from 12 different nests within the orchard on 4 different sampling dates
throughout the flowering period.
The cotton swabs with pollen samples were put into 70% ethanol and shaken or
mixed using a spatula to disperse the pollen. The ethanol-pollen mixture was filtered
through Whatman #1 filter paper in a Buchner funnel, dried, and slide-mounted using
fuchsine gelatine following Dafni et al. (2005). Slides were photographed using the same
method used for SVD. Photographs were then overlaid with a 5x5 grid using Adobe
Photoshop CS5 Extended (Version 1.2.4 x64), and all the grains within at least 5 grid
spaces were counted. At least 300 pollen grains were counted per sample. Pollen grains
were identified to genus using published references based on size and morphology
(Bassett, 1978; Bożek, 2007; Crompton, 1993).
2.6 Statistical analysis
The data from all experiments were analyzed using a generalized linear model
(GLM) approach, with appropriate error structures and testing for over-dispersion. Pollen
counts from visited flowers were fitted to a negative binomial distribution, with number
of pollen grains as the response and pollinator taxon as the predictor, and using the
unvisited controls as the reference group. SVD was then inferred using the estimates ±
19
SE from the resulting model and compared to the minimum pollen requirement
(Appendix B, supplementary material). Visit symmetry and visit duration were fitted to a
gamma and binomial distribution, respectively. For visit symmetry, the response variable
was a binary response where 1 or 2 flowers were visited, with pollinator taxon as the
predictor. For visit duration, the response variable was average visit time and pollinator
taxon was the predictor. Data from the pollinator density surveys were checked for
autocorrelation, and none was observed, although the data were over-dispersed, and so
were fitted to a quasi-poisson distribution using pollinator density as the response
variable, and temperature, time of day, cloud cover, wind speed and density of other taxa
as predictor variables. Due to low sample sizes, O. lignaria were excluded from the
density analysis. The proportions of each pollen type found in the pollen loads of O.
lignaria females were also over-dispersed and were fitted to a quasi-binomial
distribution and analyzed separately with the proportion of each pollen type as the
response variable and date as the predictor variable. Chi-squared test statistics for each
overall model were obtained by an analysis of variance against the null model, and
multiple comparisons between groups were performed for significance using Tukey’s
method. All statistical analyses were performed in R using the basic stats (R Core Team
2014), MASS (Venables and Ripley, 2002), and multcomp (Hothorn et al., 2008)
packages.
20
3. Results
3.1 Single visit deposition
Much variation was observed in the amount of Haskap pollen found on the
stigmas, regardless of treatment group [A. mellifera (mean=85 sd=64, df=141, range=0-
390), Bombus spp. [mean 99, sd=73, df=122, range=0-356), O. lignaria (mean=107,
sd=92, df=16, range=22-327), control (mean=72.1, sd=64, df=96, range=0-296)]. The
mean amount of pollen deposited on stigmas visited by each taxon was higher than the
unvisited control group, but only significantly so for stigmas visited by Bombus spp.
(Table 1). The estimated mean SVD levels for Bombus spp. and O. lignaria surpassed
the minimum pollination requirements of 24 pollen grains per flower; whereas those for
A. mellifera did not (Fig. 2).
3.2 Visit symmetry and duration
Apis mellifera were slightly less likely than Bombus spp. or O. lignaria to visit
both flowers; 31/88 (35%) of A. mellifera visits included both flowers, versus 44/91
(48%) and 6/11 (55%) for Bombus spp. and O. lignaria, respectively. However, these
differences were not significant (GLM; Χ2=3.85, df=2, p=0.146). Visit duration differed
between taxa (GLM; Χ2=42.90, df=2, p=<0.001) and was lowest in Bombus spp.
(mean=6s, SD=3s, n=107), highest in A. mellifera (mean=15s, SD=7s, n=82), with O.
lignaria intermediate between these two (mean=10s, SD=4s, n=24).
21
3.3 Pollinator density
In total, 99 surveys were performed over a period of 18 days. The mean
temperature recorded from all surveys was 18.0˚C (range=8.3 to 30.5˚C), with mean
wind speeds of 8.9km/h (range=0.0 to 30.8km/h). Apis mellifera and Bombus spp. were
regularly observed foraging within the orchard, however, foraging O. lignaria were
rarely observed, likely due to low retention of nesting females within the orchard (at
maximum, 250 nesting females were observed in the nests). This made the likelihood of
detection within the orchard very low, and therefore O. lignaria was excluded from this
analysis. During peak activity, A. mellifera workers were much more abundant than
Bombus spp. (Fig. 3). However, A. mellifera abundance fluctuated much more
throughout the day, while Bombus spp. numbers stayed relatively constant. Apis
mellifera workers were rarely observed foraging below about 13˚C, whereas Bombus
spp. foragers were present below 10˚C (Fig. 4). A negative binomial regression model
identified time of day as being the only significant predictor variable for density of
foraging Bombus spp., whereas temperature was the only significant variable for density
of A. mellifera (Table 2).
3.4 Pollen load composition of Osmia lignaria
Four different pollen types were observed in pollen loads sampled from female
O. lignaria. Three were identified as belonging to Lonicera caerulea, Salix sp., and
Taraxacum, respectively; one was unable to be identified. Overall, about 63% of the
pollen samples collected from O. lignaria contained no Haskap pollen, and 27% of the
samples contained only trace amounts (>5%) of Haskap. The most common pollen found
22
in the samples was from the genus Salix, with 85% of the samples analyzed containing
more than 90% Salix pollen. We found no temporal differences in the source of pollen.
4. Discussion
Although SVD is considered one of the most direct and practical methods of
assessing pollinator effectiveness (King et al., 2013), the results of SVD analysis in
Haskap are difficult to interpret. The orientation of the anthers in relation to the stigma in
individual flowers means that large amounts of self-pollen can be transferred to the
stigma, making it difficult to determine if pollen was deposited by the pollinators or via
internal (i.e. intra-floral) self-pollination. Removal of the anthers prior to dehiscence is a
possible solution, though manipulation of unopened flowers may affect the attractiveness
of the flowers and therefore the visitation and behaviour of pollinators, which could bias
the results (e.g. Rademaker et al., 1997). Although previous studies have assumed that
species without significantly greater SVD than unvisited controls are ineffective
pollinators (King et al., 2013), we hesitate to draw the same conclusion. Based on high
fruit yields observed in this orchard, we can confidently say that effective cross
pollination of Haskap occurred, and our results suggest that Bombus spp. are the best
pollinators of those we studied, but we do not rule out effective pollination by A.
mellifera or O. lignaria. Rather, it is likely that statistical analysis of SVD on Haskap has
limited power due to a large variation in the amount of self-pollination that occurs, and
future studies on Haskap and similar flowers should consider looking at fruit set rather
than pollen deposition.
23
The high level of self-pollination we observed in Haskap has implications for the
monitoring of Haskap pollination as well as direction for future research. Background
pollination assessments, which examine the average amount of pollen on stigmas of a
flowering crop, are often done to determine whether poor fruit yield is a result of poor
pollination or from compatibility issues. If plenty of pollen is found on the stigmas of
flowering plants but yields remain low, it might be assumed that the problem is with
incompatibility between cultivars and/or insufficient pollinizer abundance. However,
Haskap flowers may have a lot of pollen on the stigma even in the absence of sufficient
pollinator services, due to intra-floral self-pollination. If levels of self-pollination are not
accounted for, this could lead to the erroneous assumption that there are problems with
compatibility. For example, background pollination levels were assessed at our study site
in 2013 (Frier, unpublished data), and 83% of the stigmas analyzed were found to have
the minimum pollen requirement, given maximum seed number and average pollen
viability (Appendix B, supplementary material). However, when we factor in the amount
of intra-floral self-pollination that occurs, only 53% of the flowers were sufficiently
pollinated. In addition, as Haskap is self-incompatible (Bors et al., 2012; Hummer et al.,
2012), these high levels of self-pollination could potentially result in pollen clogging of
the stigma, a type of sexual interference that can result in reduced reproductive success
(Barrett, 2002; Bertin and Sullivan, 1988; Broyles and Wyatt, 1993; Galen et al., 1989;
Waser and Price, 1991).
Despite the difficulties in analyzing SVD, as discussed above, Bombus spp.
appear to be the most effective and efficient pollinators of Haskap on an individual basis.
Bombus spp. have significantly higher SVD levels than the other taxa assessed here, and
24
likely require no more than two visits on average in order to fully pollinate a Haskap
flower, compared to A. mellifera which almost certainly require multiple visits (Fig. 2).
Individual Bombus spp. are also able to visit more inflorescences per day than individual
A. mellifera workers due to their low visit duration times, and Bombus spp. density (and
therefore their assumed individual activity levels) is independent of temperature within
the range experienced during Haskap flowering. This increased effectiveness and
efficiency of wild Bombus pollinators may compensate for their lower density compared
to honey bees, and their cold tolerance may make them essential for ensuring pollination
during cool spring temperatures (Fig. 4). This supports our hypothesis that Haskap,
particularly the early blooming varieties, may rely substantially on pollination by
Bombus spp. in the wild and may have developed specialized characteristics to capitalize
on this relationship. Indeed, Bombus spp. have been recorded as visitors of Haskap
elsewhere in its range (Bożek, 2012; Hummer et al., 2012; Matsumura et al., 2004),
although more thorough study of its floral visitors throughout the distribution of Haskap
is necessary.
Apis mellifera were the least effective pollinators of Haskap when considered
individually. They have lower SVD levels than Bombus spp. or O. lignaria, spend three
times as long as Bombus spp. per floral visit, are less active in low temperatures, and
may be less likely than both Bombus spp. and O. lignaria to visit both flowers in the
inflorescence. However, during fair weather, A. mellifera workers were observed to be
the most abundant visitor to Haskap. As a result, the large pollinator force available in
commercial hives may mean that overall they contribute more than any other species to
Haskap pollination, particularly in orchards with surrounding habitat which is poor for
25
native bees (Kremen et al., 2004; Ricketts et al., 2008). This concept of “brute force”
pollination (Morse, 1991) suggests that even though individuals of A. mellifera may not
be very effective pollinators of some crops, their high density and the mobility of
colonies makes them an ideal solution for pollination deficits. However, we must
emphasize again the low activity levels of A. mellifera in cooler weather; although the
introduction of commercial hives may have a positive impact on yield, the total effect
will be dependent on highly variable weather conditions.
In contrast, O. lignaria performed well in several of the analyses conducted here,
but they are poor overall pollinators of Haskap in field conditions. Visit rate and
symmetry exceeded that of A. mellifera, and although our ability to draw conclusions
about SVD in O. lignaria was limited by low sample size, it appears that they may
deposit as much or more pollen than Bombus spp. (Fig. 2). We speculate that this might
be due to the scopa (the pollen carrying structure), being located on the underside of the
abdomen, a characteristics shared by most Megachilidae (Michener, 2000) that may
enhance the probability of the pollen load contacting the stigma. This could suggest also
that wild Osmia, which were not included in this analysis, could be very effective
pollinators of Haskap. However, analyses of pollen loads from foraging O. lignaria
reveal that this species has a very low affinity for Haskap, and even when they are
nesting in the middle of an orchard in full bloom they prefer alternative pollen sources,
especially Salix. Osmia lignaria will occasionally visit Haskap for nectar and rarely for
pollen collection, as evidenced by Haskap grains found in some pollen load samples as
well as direct observations of foragers on Haskap flowers, but their contribution to
Haskap pollination is likely to be negligible overall in field conditions. Efforts are
26
currently underway at the University of Saskatchewan, Canada, to develop Haskap as a
greenhouse crop; it is possible that O. lignaria may be effective pollinators under these
circumstances, where no other forage is available, but further study into their SVD
should be done to confirm their status as a pollinator of Haskap.
5. Conclusions
Our results suggest that Bombus queens are highly effective as Haskap
pollinators when compared to currently managed A. mellifera workers and female O.
lignaria. While we are unable to make a direct link from pollination performance to fruit
set, it is likely that Haskap production would benefit from high populations of wild
Bombus spp. Importantly, because it is the solitary Bombus queens, and not workers, that
are visiting Haskap, sufficient numbers of Bombus available for pollination in the spring
is dependent on the production of large, healthy colonies with new queen production late
in the summer and fall. Haskap production should be coupled with later-flowering crops,
and uncultivated areas around orchards, such as shelter belts and drainage ditches, and
areas between rows could be planted with bee-friendly ground cover plants such as
clover, which will provide year-round forage and enhance crop visitation by wild bees
(Garibaldi et al., 2011; Ricketts et al., 2008). In Haskap orchards where the surrounding
habitat is poor for bees or where the orchard is particularly large, resulting in low yield,
A. mellifera colonies could be introduced to supplement pollination by native bees.
Mutually beneficial relationships could arise between Haskap growers and apiarists, as
Haskap provides rich and abundant forage for bees early in the year when little else is
available – even when hives are not placed in the orchard, individual A. mellifera
27
foragers have been observed to travel several kilometres to forage on it. It is important to
note, however, that A. mellifera will only be effective pollinators of Haskap during good
weather, and promoting native Bombus may be critical for ensuring good pollination
during inclement conditions. Conversely, O. lignaria appear to be inefficient pollinators
of Haskap due to their preference for alternative pollen sources such as willow, and we
do not recommend that they be used for pollination of Haskap.
References
Barrett, S.C.H., 2002. Sexual interference of the floral kind. Heredity (Edinb). 88, 154–
159.
Bassett, J.I., 1978. An atlas of airborne pollen grains and common fungus spores of
Canada. Research Branch, Canadian Department of Agriculture, Ottawa, Ontario.
Bertin, R.I., Sullivan, M., 1988. Pollen interference and cryptic self-fertility in Campsis
radicans. Am. J. Bot. 75, 1140–1147.
Bors, B., 2008. Growing Haskap in Canada [WWW Document]. U S Fruit Progr. URL
http://www.fruit.usask.ca/articles/growinghaskapinCanada.pdf (accessed 9.21.13).
Bors, B., Thomson, J., Sawchuk, E., Reimer, P., Sawatzky, R., Sander, T., Kaban, T.,
Gerbrandt, E., Dawson, J., 2012. Haskap berry breeding and production - final
report.
Bosch, J., Blas, M., 1994. Foraging behaviour and pollinating efficiency of Osmia
cornuta and Apis mellifera on almond (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae, Apidae). Appl.
Entomol. Zool. 29, 1–9.
Bosch, J., Kemp, W., 2001. How to Manage the Blue Orchard Bee As an Orchard
Pollinator, Systematics. Sustainable Agriculture Network.
Bosch, J., Kemp, W., 1999. Exceptional cherry production in an orchard pollinated with
blue orchard bees. Bee World 80, 163–173.
Bożek, M., 2012. The effect of pollinating insects on fruiting of two cultivars of
Lonicera caerulea L. J. Apic. Sci. 56, 5–11. doi:10.2478/v10289-012-0018-6
Bożek, M., 2007. Pollen productivity and morphology of pollen grains in two cultivars
of honeyberry (Lonicera kamtschatica (Sevast.) Pojark.). Acta Agrobot. 60, 73–77.
28
Broyles, S., Wyatt, R., 1993. The consequences of self-pollination in Asclepias exaltata,
a self-incompatible milkweed. Am. J. Bot. 80, 41–44.
Cane, J., 2005. Pollination potential of the bee Osmia aglaia for cultivated red
raspberries and blackberries (Rubus: Rosaceae). Hortscience 40, 1705–1708.
Crompton, C.W., 1993. Pollen grains of Canadian honey plants. Agriculture Canada,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Dafni, A., Kevan, P.G., Husband, B.C., 2005. Practical Pollination Biology. Enviroquest
Ltd., Cambridge, Ontario.
Galen, C., Gregory, T., Galloway, L., 1989. Costs of self-pollination in a self-
incompatible plant, Polemonium viscosum. Am. J. Bot. 76, 1675–1680.
Garibaldi, L.A., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Kremen, C., Morales, J.M., Bommarco, R.,
Cunningham, S. A, Carvalheiro, L.G., Chacoff, N.P., Dudenhöffer, J.H., Greenleaf,
S.S., Holzschuh, A., Isaacs, R., Krewenka, K., Mandelik, Y., Mayfield, M.M.,
Morandin, L. A, Potts, S.G., Ricketts, T.H., Szentgyörgyi, H., Viana, B.F.,
Westphal, C., Winfree, R., Klein, A.M., 2011. Stability of pollination services
decreases with isolation from natural areas despite honey bee visits. Ecol. Lett. 14,
1062–72.
Garibaldi, L.A., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Winfree, R., 2013. Wild pollinators enhance fruit
set of crops regardless of honey bee abundance. Science 339, 1608–1611.
Heinrich, B., 2004. Bumblebee Economics, 2 edition. ed. Harvard University Press.
Hothorn, T., Bretz, F., Westfall, P., 2008. Simultaneous inference in general parametric
models. Biometrical J. 50, 346–363.
Hummer, K.E., Pomper, K.W., Postman, J., Graham, C.J., Stover, E., Mercure, E.W.,
Aradhya, M., Crisosto, C.H., Ferguson, L., Thompson, M.M., Byers, P., Zee, F.,
2012. Fruit Breeding. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-0763-9
Javorek, S.K., Mackenzie, K.E., Vander Kloet, S.P., 2002. Comparative pollination
effectiveness among bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea) on lowbush blueberry
(Ericaceae: Vaccinium angustifolium). Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 95, 345–351.
King, C., Ballantyne, G., Willmer, P.G., 2013. Why flower visitation is a poor proxy for
pollination: measuring single-visit pollen deposition, with implications for
pollination networks and conservation. Methods Ecol. Evol. 4, 811–818.
Klein, A.-M., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Tscharntke, T., 2003. Fruit set of highland coffee
increases with the diversity of pollinating bees. Proc. R. Soc. BB 270, 955–61.
29
Klein, A.-M., Vaissière, B.E., Cane, J.H., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Cunningham, S. a,
Kremen, C., Tscharntke, T., 2007. Importance of pollinators in changing landscapes
for world crops. Proc. R. Soc. B 274, 303–13.
Kremen, C., Williams, N.M., Bugg, R.L., Fay, J.P., Thorp, R.W., 2004. The area
requirements of an ecosystem service: crop pollination by native bee communities
in California. Ecol. Lett. 7, 1109–1119.
Lefèvre, I., Ziebel, J., Guignard, C., Sorokin, A., Tikhonova, O., Dolganova, N.,
Hoffmann, L., Eyzaguirre, P., Hausmann, J.-F., 2011. Evaluation and comparison of
nutritional quality and bioactive compounds of berry fruits from Lonicera caerulea,
Ribes L. species and Rubus idaeus grown in Russia. J. Berry Res. 1, 159–167.
doi:10.3233/BR-2011-017
Matsumura, C., Yokoyama, J., Washitani, I., 2004. Invasion status and potential
ecological impacts of an invasive alien bumblebee, Bombus terrestris L.
(Hymenoptera: Apidae) naturalized in Southern Hokkaido, Japan. Glob. Environ.
Res. 8, 51–66.
McGregor, S., 1976. Insect pollination of cultivated crop plants. U.S.D.A. Agriculture
Handbook No. 496.
Michener, C., 2000. The bees of the world. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore,
MD.
Monzón, V., Bosch, J., Retana, J., 2004. Foraging behavior and pollinating effectiveness
of Osmia cornuta (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae) and Apis mellifera (Hymenoptera:
Apidae) on “Comice” pear. Apidologie 35, 575–585.
Morse, R.A., 1991. Honeybees forever. Trends Ecol. Evol. (Personal Ed. 6, 337–338.
doi:10.1016/0169-5347(91)90043-W
Putra, R.E., Kinasih, I., 2014. Efficiency of local Indonesia honey bees (Apis cerana L.)
and stingless bee (Trigona iridipennis) on tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill)
pollination. Pakistan J. Biol. Sci. 1, 86-91.
R Core Team (2014) R: A language and environment for statistical computing.
Rademaker, M., Jong, T.J. De, Klinkhamer, P.G.L., 1997. Pollen dynamics of bumble-
bee visitation on Echium vulgare. Funct. Ecol. 11, 554–563.
Rader, R., Reilly, J., Bartomeus, I., Winfree, R., 2013. Native bees buffer the negative
impact of climate warming on honey bee pollination of watermelon crops. Glob.
Chang. Biol. 19, 3103–3110.
Rasband, W.S., 2014. ImageJ version 1.49.
30
Ricketts, T.H., Regetz, J., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Cunningham, S. A., Kremen, C.,
Bogdanski, A., Gemmill-Herren, B., Greenleaf, S.S., Klein, A.M., Mayfield, M.M.,
Morandin, L. A., Ochieng, A., Viana, B.F., 2008. Landscape effects on crop
pollination services: Are there general patterns? Ecol. Lett. 11, 499–515.
Rupasinghe, H.P.V., Yu, L.J., Bhullar, K.S., Bors, B., 2012. Haskap (Lonicera
caerulea): A new berry crop with high antioxidant capacity. Can. J. Plant Sci. 3,
1311–1317. doi:10.4141/CJPS2012-073
Sheffield, C.S., Westby, S.M., Smith, R.F., Kevan, P.G., 2008. Potential of bigleaf
lupine for building and sustaining Osmia lignaria populations for pollination of
apple. Can. Entomol. 140, 589–599.
Svarcova, I., Heinrich, J., Valentova, K., 2007. Berry fruits as a source of biologically
active compounds: the case of Lonicera caerulea. Biomed. Pap. 151, 163–174.
Vaissière, B., Freitas, B., Gemmill-Herren, B., 2011. Protocol to detect and assess
pollination deficits in crops: a handbook for its use. Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
Venables, W.N., Ripley, B.D., 2002. Modern Applied Statistics with S, 4th ed. Springer,
New York.
Waser, N., Price, M., 1991. Reproductive costs of self-pollination in Ipomopsis
aggregata (Polemoniaeae): are ovules usurped? Am. J. Bot. 78, 1036–1043.
Westerkamp, C., Gottsberger, G., 2000. Diversity pays in crop pollination. Crop Sci. 40,
1209–1222.
Winfree, R., Williams, N.M., Dushoff, J., Kremen, C., 2007. Native bees provide
insurance against ongoing honey bee losses. Ecol. Lett. 10, 1105–1113.
Woodcock, B. A., Edwards, M., Redhead, J., Meek, W.R., Nuttall, P., Falk, S.,
Nowakowski, M., Pywell, R.F., 2013. Crop flower visitation by honeybees,
bumblebees and solitary bees: Behavioural differences and diversity responses to
landscape. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 171, 1–8. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2013.03.005
31
Figure 1. Haskap (Lonicera caerulea L.) flowers and fruits. (a) A typical Haskap
inflorescence. The two perfect flowers each have five petals, five stamens and
one stigma; the ovaries of both are enclosed by bracteoles which are fused into a
cupule and are subtended by two bracts. The ovaries and bracteoles develop into
a single compound fruit. (b) Normal compound fruit produced by Haskap. A
single fruit results from each two-flowered inflorescence. (c) Haskap fruit in
which the bracteoles have not fused around the ovaries, showing the two distinct
berries which make up the fruit (Photo credit: Logie Cassells, LaHave Natural
Farms, Nova Scotia, Canada).
32
Table 1. The results of a negative binomial GLM comparing the number of pollen grains
found on the stigmas of Haskap (Lonicera caerulea L.) flowers after a single visit
by Apis mellifera L., Bombus spp. or Osmia lignaria Say to an unvisited control.
Estimate SE t value P-value 95% CI
Intercept (Control) 4.28 0.08 52.72 < 0.001* 4.11 to 4.46
Apis mellifera 0.17 0.11 1.58 0.116 -0.07 to 0.39
Bombus spp. 0.32 0.11 2.91 0.004* 0.08 to 0.55
Osmia lignaria 0.40 0.21 1.85 0.065 -0.05 to 0.89
*indicates a significant effect (P<0.05)
33
Figure 2. Single visit pollen deposition (SVD) of pollen on Haskap (Lonicera caerulea
L.) stigmas by three taxa of bees. SVD is derived from the predicted estimates of
a generalized linear model, and represents the total amount of pollen found on
visited stigmas minus the pollen on unvisited controls, the result of internal self-
pollination. The dotted line represents the minimum pollination requirements
(i.e., 24 grains deposited) for each flower to ensure complete fertilization of all
the ovules (see Appendix B, Supplementary Material).
34
Figure 3. Mean (± SE) densities of Bombus spp. and Apis mellifera L. in a Haskap
(Lonicera caerulea L.) orchard at each hour from dawn until dusk during
flowering. The data are presented as number of individuals per 400 open flowers.
35
Figure 4. The relationship between density of foragers and air temperature (˚C) for Apis
mellifera and Bombus spp. across 99 surveys performed from 24-May to 10-June-
2014 in a 30ha organic Haskap orchard. Surveys were performed by scan
sampling, and a total of 400 flowers were observed per survey.
36
Table 2. The results of a negative binomial GLM regression on the response of Apis
mellifera L. and Bombus spp. densities to the variables time, temperature, wind,
cloud cover and density of the other taxon.
Taxon Variable Estimate SE t-value P-value 95% CI
Density of
foraging A.
mellifera
Intercept -1.89 0.80 -2.37 0.0176 -4.16 to 0.52
Time -0.07 0.04 -1.64 0.1021 -0.18 to 0.04
Temperature 0.26 0.04 6.67 >0.001* 0.16 to 0.38
Wind 0.02 0.03 0.78 0.4382 -0.04 to 0.08
Cloud cover 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.8354 -0.01 to 0.01
Bombus spp. density 0.08 0.05 1.53 0.1261 -0.02 to 0.18
Density of
foraging
Bombus spp.
Intercept -0.41 0.46 -0.90 0.3682 -1.37 to 0.53
Time 0.09 0.02 3.74 >0.001* 0.04 to 0.13
Temperature -0.01 0.02 1.74 0.0822 -0.01 to 0.09
Wind 0.00 0.01 -0.81 0.4167 -0.04 to 0.02
Cloud cover 0.00 0.00 -1.64 0.1014 -0.01 to 0.00
A. mellifera density 0.01 0.00 1.48 0.1389 0.00 to 0.01
*indicates a significant effect (P<0.05)
37
CHAPTER 3: Floral longevity, nectar production and pollen release in Haskap
(Lonicera caerulea L.: Caprifoliaceae)
38
1. Introduction
Haskap (Lonicera caerulea L.: Caprifoliaceae), also known as blue honeysuckle
or honeyberry, is an early flowering, temperate fruiting shrub native to northern parts of
Europe, Asia and North America. Its tart blue berry-like fruit are suspected of having
various health benefits (Svarcova et al. 2007), and it is growing in popularity as a
commercial crop, particularly in North America. Existing research on Haskap cultivation
has focused largely on the shape, taste, and harvestability of this fruit. However, despite
Haskap being self-incompatible (Bors 2008) and requiring insect pollinators in order to
set fruit (Bożek 2012), there has been little focus on its pollination biology. Research on
cultivars of Haskap grown in Poland have found that it produces abundant pollen and
nectar that is favoured by honey bees and bumble bees, as well as a variety of solitary
bees (Bożek & Wieniarska 2006; Bożek 2007). Similar pollinator guilds appear to visit
North American cultivars, and field studies have suggested that bumble bees may be one
of the most important pollinators for this cold-adapted crop (Frier et al. 2016). However,
there is still little known about the specific diversity of floral visitors and their relative
value, including the potential for nocturnal pollinators like moths, which are known to be
important for other Lonicera species (Miyake & Yahara 1998). Additionally, although
floral structure and fruit development is unique (Fig. 1), little is known about specific
floral traits or reproductive strategies of Haskap.
Nectar and pollen are the most common pollinator rewards produced by flowers,
and many pollinators, especially bees, rely entirely on these resources in one or all of
their life stages (Proctor 1996; Armbruster 2012). Therefore, the nutritive composition,
abundance, and availability of these rewards, are often indicative of the pollinator guilds
39
associated with the flowers (Fenster & Armbruster 2004). This may be especially true of
nectar, which is produced specifically to attract pollinators (unlike pollen, where the
reward function is secondary), and its production appears to adapt more quickly to
different pollinator guilds than other floral traits (Ackermann & Weigend 2006). Many
species are found to have distinct patterns of floral nectar production, nutritive
composition, and resorption rates that may be correlated to the abundance, behaviour,
and physiology of their associated pollinators (Galetto & Bernardello 1993, 1996;
Galetto et al. 1997; Witt et al. 1999; Nepi et al. 2001; Fenster & Armbruster 2004; Wolff
et al. 2006; Kulloli et al. 2011; Agostini et al. 2011; Amorim et al. 2013). This reflects
the concept of pollination syndromes, whereby a suite of phenotypic floral traits are
thought to correlate to the primary functional pollinator guild, and contrasts with the
theory that most plants are in fact generalists that are visited by a wide variety of
pollinator guilds (i.e., poliphily) (Waser et al. 1996; Ollerton & Watts 2000; Freitas &
Sazima 2006; Johnson & Nicolson 2008; Petanidou et al. 2008; Ollerton et al. 2009). In
either case, understanding the patterns of nectar production and other intra-floral aspects
during anthesis may be especially important for agriculturally significant plants, where
growers must decide whether to introduce managed pollinators, and more specifically,
what species will be most effective. Currently, the nectar dynamics of Haskap are
entirely unknown; information on nectar production as well as other important aspects of
anthesis will help refine and optimize the pollination strategy for this crop and ultimately
help growers to maximize commercial yield.
The purpose of our study was to determine floral longevity, nectar dynamics,
pollen release, and stigma receptivity of Haskap flowers to learn more about the plant’s
40
reproductive strategy and its associated animal pollinators. Our specific objectives were
to determine: (1) how long flowers are open, and whether floral longevity is affected by
pollination; (2) when nectar is produced during anthesis, and whether total nectar
production is affected by nectar removal; (3) when pollen is released from the anthers;
and (4) how early in anthesis the stigma becomes receptive.
2. Methods
2.1 Study site and plants
All experiments were performed during February 2015 at the University of
Saskatchewan (Saskatoon, Saskatchewan), in a glass research greenhouse with daytime
temperatures held at 15˚C and nighttime temperatures at 10˚C. The Haskap plants were
grown under full spectrum lighting between 6AM and 11 PM, with supplementation by
natural light. We used a total of 8 Haskap bushes from the cultivar ‘Tundra’ for our
experimental treatments, and pollen from a Japanese cultivar compatible with Tundra
was used as a pollen source (we hereafter refer to this cultivar as the pollinizer). Each
potted plant was seven years old (maintained by the breeding program at the University
of Saskatchewan), and kept in cold storage for a period of winter dormancy. Upon
introduction to the greenhouse, the plants required approximately 10-14 days to begin
flowering. Plants were watered every 2 days. As other researchers were using this space,
a commercially purchased colony of Bombus impatiens Cresson (Hymenoptera: Apidae)
was introduced to the greenhouse for pollination four days before the completion of our
experiments. To prevent visitation in our experiments, flowers that remained to be
41
sampled when the bees were present were covered with pollinator exclusion bags
(Delnet® Pollination™ Bags).
2.2 Length of anthesis
Four experimental treatments were used to determine the duration of flowering in
an inflorescence and the effects of pollination on anthesis length: (1) anthers removed
before opening, stigma not pollinated; (2) anthers left intact, stigma not pollinated; (3)
anthers left intact, stigma hand-pollinated; and (4) anthers removed, stigma hand-
pollinated. In each case, the treatments were applied to both flowers in the inflorescence.
Each potted plant received 3 replicates of each treatment, and the treatments were
assigned in a randomized order as inflorescences opened. Anthers were removed
immediately after flower opening, before they had dehisced, and hand pollination was
performed in the morning, after the inflorescences had been open for at least 24 hours.
Freshly collected pollen from a nearby pollinizer was applied to the stigmas of each
inflorescence by hand. The inflorescences were observed once in the morning (9 AM),
afternoon (2 PM) and evening (7 PM), and the beginning and end of anthesis were
recorded, with the end marked by separation of the corollas of both flowers from the
ovaries.
The duration (h) of anthesis for each treatment was compared using a Kruskal-
Wallis test, followed by multiple comparisons using the Mann-Whitney U test, with p-
values adjusted using the Bonferonni correction. In addition, we calculated the
percentage of flowers (including flowers used in nectar and pollen analysis) that were
42
first observed to be open in the morning, versus the afternoon or evening. All statistical
analysis was performed in R (R Core Team 2014).
2.3 Nectar, pollen and stigma dynamics
In order to determine nectar and pollen dynamics, we measured nectar volume
(pooled from both flowers in the inflorescence), and recorded the number of open
anthers per inflorescence at 9 separate intervals (3 per day) throughout anthesis. Upon
opening, an inflorescence was randomly assigned an interval between 1 and 9; this was
replicated three times per bush. Intervals always began at 9AM; if an inflorescence
opened in the morning, the interval 1 began immediately, and if it opened in the
afternoon or evening, interval 1 began the following morning. Each inflorescence was
only sampled once. Nectar sampling was performed by inserting a 5µL micro-capillary
tube into the bottom of the corolla to draw up the nectar. The total nectar volume (Vn)
was calculated by measuring how much of the tube was filled, and then applying the
formula 𝑉𝑛 =5𝜇𝑙
𝐿𝑐∗ 𝐿𝑛. Lc is the length of the capillary tube until the 5µL mark, and Ln is
the length of the tube filled by the nectar sample.
Nectar production and pollen release were analyzed first by interval, to assess
how they varied by time of day. However, because inflorescences did not always open in
the morning, the actual time an inflorescence had been open at each interval varied. To
account for this, we then calculated the number of hours each inflorescence had been
open at time of sampling to produce nine intervals of 8 hours each to examine nectar
production and pollen release over hours of anthesis. Both scenarios were analyzed using
a Kruskal-Wallis test with the sampling interval as the predictor variable and nectar
43
volume as the response, followed by multiple comparisons using the Mann-Whitney U
test, with the P-values adjusted using the Bonferroni correction.
To test for the effect of nectar removal on total nectar production, three
inflorescences were randomly selected from each bush. Starting at the beginning of
anthesis, we removed the nectar from each of the inflorescences at 7PM each day after
opening, and recorded the amount of nectar. This was repeated daily until the end of
anthesis.
The effect of nectar removal on total nectar production was analyzed using the
same method, with sampling day as the predictor and nectar volume as the response. We
then added the total amount of nectar produced by each re-sampled inflorescence, using
only inflorescences that were sampled 3 times total, to get the average nectar produced
over the lifetime of the inflorescence. This was compared to the average maximum
volume of nectar produced by single-sampled inflorescences using a Mann-Whitney U
test.
To determine when the stigmas become receptive with respect to stage of
anthesis, we removed the stigmas from 3 inflorescences at different stages of opening,
beginning with inflorescences that were still tightly closed. The stigmas were removed
from each flower using forceps, and the styles were clipped towards the base as far down
as possible. We ensured there were no pollen grains on the stigma using a hand lens, and
then held the stigma in a 3% hydrogen peroxide solution and watched for the formation
of bubbles on the stigma surface, which would indicate the presence of peroxidases
(Dafni et al. 2005). This was repeated at progressively more advanced stages of anthesis
until the stigmas showed receptivity. As old stigmas can react with hydrogen peroxide
44
even though they are no longer receptive (Dafni & Maues 1998), only the beginning of
receptivity was identified.
3. Results
3.1 Length of anthesis
Though anthesis began at various times throughout the day, the majority [i.e.,
60.7% (162/267)] were first observed to be open in the morning, versus 18.3% in the
afternoon, and 21.0% in the evening. Anthesis length differed between treatments
(H=26.9 df=3, P=6.1-06
; Fig. 2), with pollinated inflorescences flowering for a shorter
duration [59.5± 16.5 h (mean ± SD)] than un-pollinated inflorescences (83.4 ± 25.9 h).
There was no effect of emasculation on length of anthesis. Following hand-pollination,
anthesis lasted another 34.3 ± 15.2 hours.
3.2 Nectar, pollen and stigma dynamics
Nectar was evident as soon as the individual flowers opened and may be
produced even before the onset of anthesis. Nectar volume increased during the first
morning and afternoon, and stabilized by the end of the first full day, with maximum
average volume occurring the second morning (Kruskal-Wallis test, Χ2
= 28.8, df = 5, P
< 0.001; Fig. 3). Discrete hourly intervals showed similar results; nectar production
began immediately and volume did not change significantly after 16 hours of anthesis,
although maximum average volume was observed at hour 40 (Kruskal-Wallis test, Χ2 =
41.2, df = 8, P < 0.001; Fig. 4). In both cases, nectar volume was maintained throughout
45
anthesis and nectar was not resorbed. We observed that the corollas of the flowers would
often abscise from the ovaries with nectar still present.
Anthers began to dehisce almost immediately after flowers opened, and
proceeded rapidly over the first day, with the majority of pollen presented by the second
afternoon (Kruskal-Wallis test, Χ2= 92.7, df = 8, P < 0.001; Fig. 3). Analysis by discrete
hourly intervals suggests pollen is released almost invariably within the first 24 hours
(Kruskal-Wallis test, Χ2 = 130.2, df = 8, P < 0.001; Fig. 4).
After removal, nectar was wholly replenished throughout anthesis (Fig. 5).
Maximum nectar volume recorded at the end of the second day was significantly higher
than on day 1, supporting our previous finding that maximum nectar production occurs
during the second day. Total nectar produced by flowers with their entire volume twice
removed was significantly higher than those without nectar removal (6.1 ± 3.8 µL
compared to 2.3 ± 1.7 µL; Mann-Whitney U test, W = 27, P < 0.001)
Evidence of peroxidase activity on the stigmas was observed in flowers that were
still tightly closed, suggesting that the stigma may be receptive even before the onset of
anthesis.
4. Discussion
The timing of commencement of anthesis is staggered; flowers open throughout
the day, and likely during the night as well. The majority of flowers were first observed
to be open at 9AM; since observations were not made overnight, it’s possible that many
of the flowers observed at this time actually opened many hours earlier, as anthesis
appeared quite advanced in some of these flowers. This could indicate that nocturnal
46
insects such as moths may be important contributors to Haskap pollination, in addition to
diurnal bees and flies. The average duration of anthesis of the flowers is about 3 to 4
days (Fig. 2), however, pollination will significantly shorten this, triggering senescence
of the flowers to within about a day. Our findings are slightly shorter than those of
Bożek and Wieniarska (2006) who found that flowers of Lonicera caerulea var.
kamtschatica lived 4-5 days, but they also noted that flowers excluded from pollinators
were longer lived. This extended floral period means more opportunities for visitation by
insects and increased pollination success, while senescence in response to pollination
reduces the occurrence of repeat visits to flowers that are already pollinated, and may
also reduce damage to the flowers, which can reduce seed set (Young 1988; Burquez &
Corbet 1991). The fact that emasculation has no effect on floral longevity suggests the
plants are completely self-incompatible, and self-pollination does not shorten the
lifespan of the flower, nor does it result in significant stigma clogging that may prevent
cross pollination.
However, we did not quantify actual levels of self-pollination in this study, but
our field studies have shown significant self-pollination of the stigma (Frier et al. 2016).
It is possible that in greenhouse conditions, very little self-pollination actually occurs,
and in more realistic settings (with vigorous disruption by wind and handling by insect
visitors), these factors may be more significant. This is made more likely by the fact that
pollen is released almost immediately following the onset of anthesis (Fig 3 and Fig 4),
leaving little or no prior opportunity for cross-pollination. This strategy could maximize
the chance that pollen is picked up by a floral visitor, but it also could increase the
chance of self-pollen interfering with cross-pollination of the stigma and reducing
47
reproductive success (Bertin & Sullivan 1988; Galen et al. 1989; Waser & Price 1991;
Broyles & Wyatt 1993; Barrett 2002), especially because the anthers and stigma exist in
very close proximity to one another. If this type of stigma clogging is common, this
could suggest some competition or trade-off between male and female reproductive
success in Haskap. It may be worthwhile to explore differences in style length among
Haskap cultivars, as well as compared to wild varieties, as longer styles may be less
likely to experience self-pollination.
Our analysis of nectar production by intervals organized by time of day (Fig. 3) is
congruent to those organized by discrete intervals of time after opening (Fig. 4). Due to
the lack of overlap in the age of flowers in the latter, we base our conclusions on this
analysis, and we have no evidence to suggest that nectar production is affected by
circadian rhythms. Nectar production begins as soon as the flowers open, perhaps even
slightly before, during the bud stage. We have observed bumble bees visiting Haskap
flowers before they are entirely open, and our results suggest that the stigma is receptive
at this stage as well. Early nectar production and stigma receptivity may have evolved to
take advantage of these early visitors and increase the chance of successful pollination.
Nectar volume does not change significantly after the first 16 hours and is maintained
throughout the remainder of anthesis. Considerable variation in the amount of nectar is
consistent with findings that variability in nectar production is correlated with large
floral displays (Biernaskie & Cartar 2004), as risk-averse pollinators pay shorter visits to
a single bush when nectar is variable (Biernaskie et al. 2002). As Haskap produces many
flowers simultaneously and is self-incompatible, this strategy would help decrease the
instance of geitonogamy and promote cross-pollination.
48
We found no evidence of net nectar resorption, and the corolla abscised from the
ovaries with the nectar load intact. However, we only analyzed nectar dynamics in un-
pollinated flowers; in some flowers, reabsorption is triggered by pollination, presumably
to reuse the energy resources in berry development (Luyt & Johnson 2002). However,
Burquez and Corbet (1991) suggest that if the nectary is lost when the corolla dehisces,
as in Lonicera, reabsorption is unlikely. Additionally, the entire nectar volume can be
replaced several times throughout anthesis. This may be an adaptation to nectar robbers
or ineffective pollinators, increasing the possibility of repeat visits to a single flower. We
have commonly observed both honey bees and bumble bees nectar robbing the flowers,
and there is evidence that many legitimate pollinator visits do not deposit sufficient
pollen grains for full fertilization of the ovaries (Frier et al. 2016).
5. Conclusion
The results of this study suggest that Haskap flowers are likely generalized in
their pollinator attraction strategy and may be pollinated by a wide variety of insect
species and functional groups. Haskap flowering occurs very early in the year when few
pollinators are active, and the characteristics described here likely reflect adaptations to
capitalize on every opportunity to receive a successful pollination visit. The flowers,
which open throughout the day (and probably the night as well), remain open for up to
four days, but successful pollination triggers early senescence. Nectar is produced
immediately upon anthesis, potentially beginning in the large bud stage, and after initial
nectar production, the volume is held relatively constant until senescence and any
removed nectar during this period is replaced. The anthers begin to dehisce immediately
49
after the flower opens and continue over the first day. The stigma appears receptive in
the bud stage, and potentially could be pollinated before the flower opens.
As a plant with polyphilic flowers, Haskap is less likely to be pollinator limited
than more specialized species, and it may be effectively pollinated by a wide variety of
managed and wild insects. This means that Haskap could be successfully cultivated in a
wide variety of habitats and geographic locations, and not be limited geographically or to
commercial use of specific pollinators. As the flowers open throughout the day and into
the night, it is also likely that nocturnal insects such as moths are important pollinators of
this crop, not just diurnal bees and flies. Haskap growers should take advantage of this
generalist system by developing and maintaining healthy pollinator habitat in and around
Haskap orchards, as species-rich pollinator populations may be essential to realizing
optimum fruit yields from this crop (Frier et al. 2016)
References
Ackermann M, Weigend M (2006) Nectar, floral morphology and pollination syndrome
in Loasaceae subfam. Loasoideae (Cornales). Annals of Botany 98:503–514.
Agostini K, Sazima M, Galetto L (2011) Nectar production dynamics and sugar
composition in two Mucuna species (Leguminosae, Faboideae) with different
specialized pollinators. Die Naturwissenschaften 98:933–42.
Amorim FW, Galetto L, Sazima M (2013) Beyond the pollination syndrome : nectar
ecology and the role of diurnal and nocturnal pollinators in the reproductive success
of Inga sessilis (Fabaceae). Plant Biology 15:317–327.
Armbruster WS (2012) Evolution and ecological implications of “specialized” pollinator
rewards. In: Patiny S (ed) Evolution of Plant-Pollinator Relationships. Cambridge
University Press, pp 44–67.
Barrett SCH (2002) Sexual interference of the floral kind. Heredity 88:154–159.
Bertin RI, Sullivan M (1988) Pollen interference and cryptic self-fertility in Campsis
50
radicans. American Journal of Botany 75:1140–1147.
Biernaskie JM, Cartar RV (2004) Variation in rate of nectar production depends on floral
size: a pollinator hypothesis display manipulation hypothesis. Functional Ecology
18:125–129.
Biernaskie JM, Cartar RV, Hurly TA (2002) Risk-averse inflorescence departure in
hummingbirds and bumble bees: could plants benefit from variable nectar volumes?
Oikos 98:98–104.
Bors B (2008) Growing Haskap in Canada. U of S Fruit Program
Bożek M (2007) Pollen productivity and morphology of pollen grains in two cultivars of
honeyberry (Lonicera kamtschatica (Sevast.) Pojark.). Acta Agrobotanica 60:73–
77.
Bożek M (2012) The effect of pollinating insects on fruiting of two cultivars of Lonicera
caerulea L. Journal of Apicultural Science 56:5–11.
Bożek M, Wieniarska J (2006) Biologia kwitnienia i wydajność cukrowa kwiatów
dwóch odmian Lonicera kamtschatica (Sevast.) Pojark / Blooming biology and
sugar efficiency of two cultivars of Lonicera kamtschatica (Sevast.) Pojark. Acta
Agrobotanica 59:177–182.
Broyles S, Wyatt R (1993) The consequences of self-pollination in Asclepias exaltata, a
self-incompatible milkweed. American Journal of Botany 80:41–44.
Burquez A, Corbet SA (1991) Do flowers reabsorb nectar? Functional Ecology 5:369–
379.
Dafni A, Kevan PG, Husband BC (2005) Practical Pollination Biology. Enviroquest Ltd.,
Cambridge, Ontario.
Dafni A, Maues MM (1998) A rapid and simple procedure to determine stigma
receptivity. Sexual Plant Reproduction 11:177–180.
Fenster C, Armbruster W (2004) Pollination syndromes and floral specialization. Annual
Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 35:375–403.
Freitas L, Sazima M (2006) Pollination biology in a tropical high-altitude grassland in
Brazil: interactions at the community level. Annals of the Missouri Botanical
Garden 93:465–516.
Frier SD, Somers CM, Sheffield CS (2016) Comparing the performance of native and
managed pollinators of Haskap (Lonicera caerulea: Caprifoliaceae), an emerging
fruit crop. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 219, 42-48.
51
Galen C, Gregory T, Galloway L (1989) Costs of self-pollination in a self-incompatible
plant, Polemonium viscosum. American Journal of Botany 76:1675–1680.
Galetto L, Bernardello L (1993) Nectar secretion pattern and removal effects in three
species of Solanaceae. Canadian Journal of Botany 71:1394–1398.
Galetto L, Bernardello G (1996) Characteristics of nectar secretion by Lycium cestroides,
L. ciliatum (Solanaceae), and their hybrid. Plant Species Biology 11:157–163.
Galetto L, Bernardello G, Rivera GL (1997) Nectar, nectaries, flower visitors, and
breeding system in five terrestrial Orchidaceae from central Argentina. Journal of
Plant Research 110:393–403.
Johnson SD, Nicolson SW (2008) Evolutionary associations between nectar properties
and specificity in bird pollination systems. Biology Letters 4:49–52.
Kulloli SK, Chandore AN, Aitawade MM (2011) Nectar dynamics and pollination
studies in three species of Lamiaceae. Current Science 100:509–516.
Luyt R, Johnson S (2002) Postpollination nectar reabsorption and its implications for
fruit quality in an epiphytic orchid. Biotropica 34:442–446.
Miyake T, Yahara T (1998) Why does the flower of Lonicera japonica open at dusk?
Canadian Journal of Botany 76:1806–1811.
Nepi M, Guarnieri M, Pacini E (2001) Nectar secretion , reabsorption , and sugar
composition in male and female flowers of Cucurbita pepo. International Journal of
Plant Sciences 162:353–358.
Ollerton J, Alarcón R, Waser NM, Price MV., Watts S, Cranmer L, Hingston A, Peter
CI, Rotenberry J (2009) A global test of the pollination syndrome hypothesis.
Annals of Botany 103:1471–1480.
Ollerton J, Watts S (2000) Phenotype space and floral typology: towards an objective
assessment of pollination syndromes. Det Norske Videnskaps-Akademi. I.
Matematisk Naturvidenskaplige Klasse, Skrifter, Ny Serie 39:149–159.
Petanidou T, Kallimanis AS, Tzanopoulos J, Sgardelis SP, Pantis JD (2008) Long-term
observation of a pollination network: Fluctuation in species and interactions,
relative invariance of network structure and implications for estimates of
specialization. Ecology Letters 11:564–575.
Proctor M (1996) The Natural History of Pollination. Whitecap Books.
R Core Team (2014) R: A language and environment for statistical computing.
Svarcova I, Heinrich J, Valentova K (2007) Berry fruits as a source of biologically active
52
compounds: the case of Lonicera caerulea. Biomedical Papers 151:163–174.
Waser NM, Chittka L, Price MV., Williams NM, Ollerton J (1996) Generalization in
pollination systems, and why it matters. Ecology 77:1043–1060.
Waser N, Price M (1991) Reproductive costs of self-pollination in Ipomopsis aggregata
(Polemoniaeae): are ovules usurped? American Journal of Botany 78:1036–1043.
Witt T, Geyer R, Gottsberger G (1999) Nectar dynamics and sugar composition in
flowers of Silene and Saponaria species (Caryophyllaceae). Plant Biology 1:334–
345.
Wolff D, Witt T, Ju A, Gottsberger G (2006) Nectar dynamics and reproductive success
in Saponaria officinalis (Caryophyllaceae) in southern Germany. Flora 201:353–
364.
Young HJ (1988) Differential importance of beetle species pollinating Dieffenbachia
longispatha (Araceae). Ecology 69:832–844.
53
Figure 1. A typical Haskap inflorescence. The downward facing flowers are pale yellow
and each has five petals, five stamens and one stigma; the ovaries of both flowers
are enclosed by the bracteoles, which have fused into a cupule. The ovaries and
bracteoles develop into the Haskap ‘berry’, actually a multiple fruit.
54
Figure 2. The length of anthesis (h), from opening of the bud to abscission of the
corolla, for un-pollinated and pollinated Haskap inflorescences that had the
anthers removed or left intact. Vertical bars represent the 95% confidence
interval. Bars with different letters are significantly different at P < 0.05
according to pairwise comparisons using a Mann-Whitney U test with p-values
adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni correction. Sample size is
reported in brackets beneath each bar.
55
Figure 3. The nectar volume (µL) (left y-axis) and the number of open anthers (right y-
Axis) in Haskap (Lonicera caerulea) inflorescences per time interval (x-axis),
starting the first morning the flowers were open until the end of flowering (i.e.,
inflorescences that opened after 9am were begun sampling the following
morning). Vertical bars represent the 95% confidence interval. Plots with
different letters are significantly different at P < 0.05 according to pairwise
comparisons using a Mann-Whitney U test with p-values adjusted for multiple
comparisons using the Bonferroni correction. Sample size is indicated in brackets
under each treatment.
56
Figure 4. The amount of nectar (µL) (left y-axis) and the number of open anthers (right
y-axis) in Haskap (Lonicera caerulea) inflorescences per 8 hour interval after the
onset of anthesis (x-axis). Vertical bars represent the 95% confidence interval.
Plots with different letters are significantly different at P < 0.05 according to
pairwise comparisons using a Mann-Whitney U test with p-values adjusted for
multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni correction. Sample size is indicated in
brackets under each treatment.
57
Figure 5. The amount of nectar (µL) in Haskap (Lonicera caerulea) inflorescences that
had nectar removed once per day, up to 3 consecutive days. Vertical bars
represent the 95% confidence interval. Plots with different letters are
significantly different at P < 0.05 according to pairwise comparisons using a
Mann-Whitney U test with p-values adjusted for multiple comparisons using the
Bonferroni correction. Sample size is indicated in brackets under each treatment.
58
CHAPTER 4: General Discussion
59
4.1 Synthesis
Despite a long history of cultivation in Europe and Asia, Haskap (Lonicera
caerulea L.) is relatively unknown within North America. However, since the
establishment of a Haskap breeding program at the University of Saskatchewan (Bors et
al., 2012) which has released several new cultivars, small scale production of the crop
has begun in most Canadian provinces and the Yukon Territory (University of
Saskatchewan Fruit Program, n.d.). The flavourful blue fruit are being marketed as the
newest “superfood” due to their nutraceutical properties and perceived health benefits
(Chaovanalikit et al., 2004; Raudsepp et al., 2013; Rop et al., 2011; Rupasinghe et al.,
2012; Svarcova et al., 2007), and the fruits are eaten fresh or used in a variety of food
products such as jam, ice cream, and wine (Bors, 2008).
Haskap flowers are self-incompatible and require insect pollinators in order to set
fruit (Bors et al., 2012; Hummer et al., 2012). However, very little has been studied
regarding the pollination and reproductive biology of this crop. Currently, the honey bee
(Apis mellifera L.) is the main managed pollinator used for this crop, but this species
may not be climatically suited for pollinating this early season crop which flowers when
cool temperatures may discourage workers foraging (Hummer et al., 2012; Tan et al.,
2012). As a result, there is some interest in using other commercial pollinators, including
blue orchard bees (Osmia lignaria Say.), as an alternative managed pollinator. In
addition, as the crop likely receives substantial pollination services from wild pollinators
such as bumble bees (Bombus spp.) (Hummer et al., 2012), there is also interest in
ensuring that their populations are conserved. My research aimed to compare the
performance of these three taxa as pollinators of this crop, in order to assess the potential
60
value of different pollination management strategies. In addition, I described the length
of anthesis, nectar and pollen dynamics, and stigma receptivity of Haskap flowers, which
are unique in terms of structure and fruit development.
In Chapter 2, the performance of the three target taxa, A. mellifera, O. lignaria,
and Bombus spp., was compared as it pertains to Haskap pollination. We observed that
unvisited flowers had high levels of pollen on the stigma (presumably due to intra-floral
pollen transfer), which made it difficult to determine exact levels of inter-floral
pollination by each taxon and has important implications for future studies of Haskap
pollination, which we discuss. However, we were able to determine that Bombus spp.
were the most effective and efficient pollinators of Haskap; they had the highest levels of
single visit pollen deposition (SVD), the highest rate of floral visitation, and actively
foraged even in low temperatures. Apis mellifera workers performed poorly as
individuals; they had low SVD, low visit rate, and were less likely than the other taxa to
visit both flowers in an inflorescence, which was shown to be an important factor for
fruit development (Chapter 2, Appendix B). Despite this, as high numbers of workers are
easily available in managed colonies, they exhibited much higher densities than Bombus
spp., and may contribute significantly to overall fruit production through “brute force”
pollination (Morse, 1991). However, it is important to note that, unlike Bombus, they did
not forage during lower temperatures, which are commonly observed during Haskap
flowering. In contrast to A. mellifera, O. lignaria females performed well in measures of
SVD, visitation rate, and visit symmetry, but analysis of their pollen loads indicated that
they have a low affinity for Haskap, and prefer alternative forage such as Salix spp.
61
Chapter 3 describes anthesis length, nectar production timing and volume, timing
of pollen release, and stigma receptivity period of Haskap cultivar ‘Tundra’, which was
brought to bloom in a greenhouse at the University of Saskatchewan (Saskatoon,
Saskatchewan) campus. We found that the average flowering duration for un-pollinated
inflorescences was between 3 and 4 days, and that pollination would trigger early
senescence, within about a day of the pollination event. Emasculation of the flower had
no significant effect on flowering duration, suggesting that the flowers are completely
self-incompatible and that stigma clogging induced by autogamy does not affect
pollination under these conditions. Nectar was produced very early in anthesis,
potentially beginning in the bud stage. Following the first 16 hours of anthesis, nectar
volume did not change significantly, and nectar removal at any point in anthesis
triggered additional nectar production. Pollen release began at the start of anthesis, and
all anthers had typically dehisced by the end of the first day. Stigmas were reactive to
hydrogen peroxide even while still in the bud stage, suggesting that receptivity to pollen
begins even before anthesis begins. Together, these characteristics suggest that Haskap
flowers exhibit a generalist pollination strategy: long anthesis duration, early, abundant
and replaceable nectar production, early pollen release, and early stigma receptivity,
suggesting a strategy to maximize the probability of a visit in pollinator limited
environments.
4.2 Conclusions and recommendations
Our results are consistent with many other studies (e.g. Artz and Nault, 2011;
Cane and Schiffhauer, 2003; Canto-Aguilar and Parra-Tabla, 2000; Garibaldi et al.,
62
2011, 2013; Greenleaf and Kremen, 2006; Javorek et al., 2002; Klein et al., 2003; Park et
al., 2015; Rader et al., 2013; Rogers et al., 2013; Woodcock et al., 2013) that show that
wild bees are important contributors to crop pollination. Although wild Bombus queens
were present in much lower densities than A. mellifera workers, their higher
effectiveness and efficiency as pollinators could compensate for this difference. We
suggest that pollination strategies for Haskap emphasize the contributions of wild bees,
and encourage the promotion of these important pollinators by providing natural areas
with abundant forage and nesting habitat in areas surrounding Haskap orchards. Since
individual Bombus that forage on Haskap are most often likely to be solitary queens in
the nest initiation stage of their colony cycle, the number observed in a site is related to
the size, health and productivity of colonies the previous fall (i.e., when the new queens
are produced). Therefore, year-round forage for colony development is especially
important for bumble bee colonies, and Haskap should be grown alongside crops that
flower at later times, native wildflower meadows, or other natural habitat, as well as by
allowing the growth of bee-friendly plants and ‘weeds’ such as dandelion. This will also
help to promote other wild bees, which were not analyzed in our study but may still be
important pollinators of Haskap. This is supported by the results of Chapter 3, which
suggest that Haskap has a generalist-pollinator strategy and could be pollinated by a
wide variety of organisms, including nocturnal insects. As well, high average SVD by O.
lignaria suggests that other wild Osmia spp., who also carry their pollen loads in scopa
located on the underside of their abdomen, could be important pollinators of Haskap.
Where local habitat is of poor quality for bees, or where Haskap orchards are
very large, wild pollinators may not be abundant enough to facilitate high yields. In these
63
cases, A. mellifera colonies could be provided to enhance pollination. Apis mellifera
workers will readily forage on Haskap flowers, and despite poor individual performance,
the sheer number of foragers available in a managed colony means that they may be very
effective in improving yields. However, it’s important to emphasize that the foraging
activity of A. mellifera workers is dependent upon temperature, and cold spells during
Haskap flowering could leave much of the crop un-pollinated if wild Bombus queens are
not present during these periods. Importantly, proximity to rich pollinator habitat is
known to enhance pollination by A. mellifera as well as by wild bees (Decourtye et al.,
2010; Woodcock et al., 2013), and so habitat enhancement for pollinators should be a
priority even if A. mellifera are expected to be the primary pollinators. In addition, it may
be worth exploring the benefit of Haskap to apiaries; as Haskap flowers at a time when
there is little other forage available, the flowers may be a good way to nourish A.
mellifera colonies early in the year, and relationships between Haskap growers and
apiarists may benefit both parties.
Although O. lignaria have many attributes that make them seem suitable as a
Haskap pollinator (i.e., their early emergence and limited foraging period), they do not
appear to be a good candidate as a managed Haskap pollinator. Analysis of pollen
collected by females showed that they prefer alternative early-available pollen sources
such as Salix or Taraxacum spp., and are unlikely to visit Haskap with enough frequency
to have a significant impact on fruit set. However, we did observe high average levels of
SVD for O. lignaria, and this could have important implications for their use as a
greenhouse pollinator of Haskap. Commercially available Bombus colonies are often
used in greenhouse settings, but currently the only managed species in Canada is Bombus
64
impatiens. This species is not native to western Canada, and for this reason the use of
Bombus impatiens in greenhouses in Saskatchewan is not recommended due to the risk
of escape and introduction of a non-native species, as well as spread of associated
pathogens. Therefore, O. lignaria could be a potential alternative, since it is found
throughout Canada and is available in most areas, and in the absence of other food
plants, may visit Haskap flowers for pollen.
4.3 Suggestions for further research
There is still a lot that is unknown with respect to Haskap pollination, and the
opportunities for further study are many and varied. While the following does not
constitute a complete list, we have identified three major areas for future study into the
pollination biology of Haskap: comprehensive identification of floral visitors, linking
pollinator performance to fruit set, and aspects of floral morphology.
This thesis has identified a preliminary list of floral visitors to Haskap at our
study site, summarized in Appendix A, but it is by no means comprehensive. Systematic
surveys should be done to identify pollinators that are associated with this crop
throughout its range; not just for cultivated crops, but also for wild populations. Floral
visitors can vary tremendously over spatial and temporal scales (Williams et al., 2001),
and also with respect to local crop management practices (Morandin and Winston, 2005).
For example, preliminary sampling at an orchard near Outlook, Saskatchewan indicated
a much higher diversity and abundance of solitary bees than in Birch Hills,
Saskatchewan. We have also observed hummingbirds and hawkmoths occasionally
visiting the flowers, and they may be important pollinators for later-blooming varieties.
65
This diversity is not altogether unexpected; as our results from Chapter 3 suggest,
Haskap is a very generalist plant, it is probably adaptable to a wide range of pollinator
guilds and communities, including nocturnal pollinators.
The next step in assessing taxa as pollinators is to bridge the gap between Haskap
pollination and fruit set; although we have established that Bombus are effective
pollinators, this may not translate linearly into yield (Cane and Schiffhauer, 2003;
Motten et al., 1981; Olsen, 1997). Experiments such as cage trials, or relating of
pollinator species density to fruit yield in different orchards, could help to link the
activity of different species to actual realized fruit set, as well as to determine how many
individual pollinators are needed to fully pollinate a Haskap orchard. One important
limitation of our methods was the inability to control for factors such as outcrossing and
incompatibility; we could not differentiate between compatible (allogamous, or
outcrossed) vs incompatible (autogamous and/or geitonogamous, or self) Haskap pollen.
Therefore, we were unable to identify whether certain species were more likely to
deposit compatible (i.e., outcrossed) pollen grains; by following a single visit by a
pollinator through to fruit set, it may be possible to elucidate differences in cross-
pollination.
One of the most intriguing things about Haskap is its unique floral structure. No
other Lonicera sp. shares the characteristic fused bracteoles and multiple fruit that is seen
in Haskap (Rehder, 1909), nor any other species, so far as we know. The function of this
dual structure is not clear, though it must have evolved through some relationship with
pollinators, or perhaps seed dispersal. One line of inquiry might address potential
differences between the two flowers; quantifying variation between the paired flowers in
66
nectar or pollen production, timing of anthesis, or stigma receptivity may hint at an
evolutionary function (Bateman and Rudall, 2006; Guitián and Navarro, 1996; Itagaki
and Sakai, 2006). One aspect of floral morphology we were unable to address was that of
nectar sugar concentration and composition; we know from some preliminary studies
that Haskap nectar is around 60% sugar, but we were unable to analyze how this might
vary throughout anthesis (Agostini et al., 2011; Kulloli et al., 2011; Wist and Davis,
2008). In addition, floral characteristics could vary between cultivars, especially those
derived from different germplasm. For example, we have noted differences in the length
of the style in relation to the filaments between cultivars; this could have an effect on
intra-floral pollen transfer, which can interfere with cross pollination (Barrett, 2002;
Galen et al., 1989; Wilcock and Neiland, 2002). In addition, breeding programs can
unintentionally alter important aspects of floral biology, including floral scents and
rewards, which can negatively impact the attractiveness of a cultivar to potential
pollinators (e.g. Abrol, 1995; Klatt et al., 2013; Rodriguez-Saona et al., 2011). If these
traits are not regularly assessed, fruit production could suffer due to insufficient
pollination.
References
Abrol, D.P., 1995. Energetics of nectar production in some almond cultivars as a
predictor of floral choice by honeybees Apis cerana indica F. and Apis mellifera L.
(Hymenoptera: Apidae). Proc. Indian Natl. Sci. Acad. Part B Biol. Sci. 61, 285–
289.
Agostini, K., Sazima, M., Galetto, L., 2011. Nectar production dynamics and sugar
composition in two Mucuna species (Leguminosae, Faboideae) with different
specialized pollinators. Naturwissenschaften 98, 933–42. doi:10.1007/s00114-011-
0844-6
67
Artz, D.R., Nault, B. A, 2011. Performance of Apis mellifera, Bombus impatiens, and
Peponapis pruinosa (Hymenoptera: Apidae) as pollinators of pumpkin. J. Econ.
Entomol. 104, 1153–1161. doi:10.1603/EC10431
Barrett, S.C.H., 2002. Sexual interference of the floral kind. Heredity (Edinb). 88, 154–
159.
Bateman, R.M., Rudall, P.J., 2006. Evolutionary and morphometric implications of
morphological variation among flowers within an inflorescence: a case-study using
European orchids. Ann. Bot. 98, 975–93. doi:10.1093/aob/mcl191
Bors, B., 2008. Growing Haskap in Canada [WWW Document]. U S Fruit Progr. URL
http://www.fruit.usask.ca/articles/growinghaskapinCanada.pdf (accessed 9.21.13).
Bors, B., Thomson, J., Sawchuk, E., Reimer, P., Sawatzky, R., Sander, T., Kaban, T.,
Gerbrandt, E., Dawson, J., 2012. Haskap berry breeding and production - final
report.
Cane, J., Schiffhauer, D., 2003. Dose-response relationships between pollination and
fruiting refine pollinator comparisons for cranberry (Vaccinium macrocarpon). Am.
J. Bot. 90, 1425–1432.
Canto-Aguilar, M., Parra-Tabla, V., 2000. Importance of conserving alternative
pollinators: assessing the pollination efficiency of the squash bee, Peponapis
limitaris in Cucurbita moschata (Cucurbitaceae). J. Insect Conserv. 4, 203–210.
Chaovanalikit, A., Thompson, M.M., Wrolstad, R.E., 2004. Characterization and
quantification of anthocyanins and polyphenolics in blue honeysuckle (Lonicera
caerulea L.). J. Agric. Food Chem. 52, 848–852. doi:10.1021/jf030509o
Decourtye, A., Mader, E., Desneux, N., 2010. Landscape enhancement of floral
resources for honey bees in agro-ecosystems. Apidologie 41, 264–277.
doi:10.1051/apido/2010024
Galen, C., Gregory, T., Galloway, L., 1989. Costs of self-pollination in a self-
incompatible plant, Polemonium viscosum. Am. J. Bot. 76, 1675–1680.
Garibaldi, L.A., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Kremen, C., Morales, J.M., Bommarco, R.,
Cunningham, S. S, Carvalheiro, L.G., Chacoff, N.P., Dudenhöffer, J.H., Greenleaf,
S.S., Holzschuh, A., Isaacs, R., Krewenka, K., Mandelik, Y., Mayfield, M.M.,
Morandin, L. S, Potts, S.G., Ricketts, T.H., Szentgyörgyi, H., Viana, B.F.,
Westphal, C., Winfree, R., Klein, A.M., 2011. Stability of pollination services
decreases with isolation from natural areas despite honey bee visits. Ecol. Lett. 14,
1062–72.
68
Garibaldi, L.A., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Winfree, R., 2013. Wild pollinators enhance fruit
set of crops regardless of honey bee abundance. Science 339, 1608–1611.
Greenleaf, S., Kremen, C., 2006. Wild bees enhance honey bees’ pollination of hybrid
sunflower. PNAS 103, 13890–13895.
Guitián, J., Navarro, L., 1996. Allocation of reproductive resources within inflorescences
of Petrocoptis grandiflora (Caryophyllaceae). Can. J. Bot. 74, 1482–1486.
Hummer, K.E., Pomper, K.W., Postman, J., Graham, C.J., Stover, E., Mercure, E.W.,
Aradhya, M., Crisosto, C.H., Ferguson, L., Thompson, M.M., Byers, P., Zee, F.,
2012. Fruit Breeding. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-0763-9
Itagaki, T., Sakai, S., 2006. Relationship between floral longevity and sex allocation
among flowers within inflorescences in Aquilegia buergeriana var. oxysepala
(Ranunculaceae). Am. J. Bot. 93, 1320–1327.
Javorek, S.K., Mackenzie, K.E., Vander Kloet, S.P., 2002. Comparative pollination
effectiveness among bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea) on lowbush blueberry
(Ericaceae: Vaccinium angustifolium). Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 95, 345–351.
Klatt, B.K., Burmeister, C., Westphal, C., Tscharntke, T., von Fragstein, M., 2013.
Flower volatiles, crop varieties and bee responses. PLoS One 8, e72724.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0072724
Klein, A.-M., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Tscharntke, T., 2003. Fruit set of highland coffee
increases with the diversity of pollinating bees. Proc. R. Soc. BB 270, 955–61.
Kulloli, S.K., Chandore, A.N., Aitawade, M.M., 2011. Nectar dynamics and pollination
studies in three species of Lamiaceae. Curr. Sci. 100, 509–516.
Morandin, L.A., Winston, M.L., 2005. Wild bee abundance and seed production in
conventional, organic, and genetically modified canola. Ecol. Appl. 15, 871–881.
doi:10.1890/03-5271
Morse, R.A., 1991. Honeybees forever. Trends Ecol. Evol. 6, 337–338.
doi:10.1016/0169-5347(91)90043-W
Motten, A.F., Campbell, D.R., Alexander, D.E., 1981. Pollination effectiveness of
specialist and generalist visitors to a North Carolina population of Claytonia
virginica. Ecology 65, 1278–1287. doi:dx.doi.org/10.2307/1937292
Olsen, K., 1997. Pollination effectiveness and pollinator importance in a population of
Heterotheca subaxillaris (Asteraceae). Oecologia 109, 114–121.
Park, M.G., Raguso, R. A., Losey, J.E., Danforth, B.N., 2015. Per-visit pollinator
69
performance and regional importance of wild Bombus and Andrena (Melandrena)
compared to the managed honey bee in New York apple orchards. Apidologie.
doi:10.1007/s13592-015-0383-9
Rader, R., Reilly, J., Bartomeus, I., Winfree, R., 2013. Native bees buffer the negative
impact of climate warming on honey bee pollination of watermelon crops. Glob.
Chang. Biol. 19, 3103–3110.
Raudsepp, P., Anton, D., Roasto, M., Meremäe, K., Pedastsaar, P., Mäesaar, M., Raal,
A., Laikoja, K., Püssa, T., 2013. The antioxidative and antimicrobial properties of
the blue honeysuckle (Lonicera caerulea L.), Siberian rhubarb (Rheum rhaponticum
L.) and some other plants, compared to ascorbic acid and sodium nitrite. Food
Control 31, 129–135. doi:10.1016/j.foodcont.2012.10.007
Rehder, A., 1909. Note on the morphology of the fruit of Lonicera caerulea. Rhodora
11, 209–211.
Rodriguez-Saona, C., Parra, L., Quiroz, a., Isaacs, R., 2011. Variation in highbush
blueberry floral volatile profiles as a function of pollination status, cultivar, time of
day and flower part: implications for flower visitation by bees. Ann. Bot. 107,
1377–1390. doi:10.1093/aob/mcr077
Rogers, S.R., Tarpy, D.R., Burrack, H.J., 2013. Multiple criteria for evaluating pollinator
performance in highbush blueberry (Ericales: Ericaceae) agroecosystems. Environ.
Entomol. 42, 1201–9. doi:10.1603/EN12303
Rop, O., Řezníček, V., Mlček, J., Juríková, T., Balík, J., Sochor, J., Kramářová, D.,
2011. Antioxidant and radical oxygen species scavenging activities of 12 cultivars
of blue honeysuckle fruit. Hortic. Sci. 38, 63–70.
Rupasinghe, H.P.V., Yu, L.J., Bhullar, K.S., Bors, B., 2012. Haskap (Lonicera
caerulea): A new berry crop with high antioxidant capacity. Can. J. Plant Sci. 3,
1311–1317. doi:10.4141/CJPS2012-073
Svarcova, I., Heinrich, J., Valentova, K., 2007. Berry fruits as a source of biologically
active compounds: the case of Lonicera caerulea. Biomed. Pap. 151, 163–174.
Tan, K., Yang, S., Wang, Z.-W., Radloff, S.E., Oldroyd, B.P., 2012. Differences in
foraging and broodnest temperature in the honey bees Apis cerana and A. mellifera.
Apidologie 43, 618–623. doi:10.1007/s13592-012-0136-y
University of Saskatchewan Fruit Program, n.d. Licensed Propagators [WWW
Document]. URL http://www.fruit.usask.ca/propagators.html (accessed 10.27.15).
Wilcock, C., Neiland, R., 2002. Pollination failure in plants: why it happens and when it
70
matters. Trends Plant Sci. 7, 270–7.
Williams, N.M., Minckley, R.L., Silveira, F. a., 2001. Variation in native bee faunas and
its implications for detecting community changes. Ecol. Soc. 5, 1–21. doi:7
Wist, T.J., Davis, A.R., 2008. Floral structure and dynamics of nectar production in
Echinacea pallida var. angustifolia (Asteraceae). Int. J. Plant Sci. 169, 708–722.
doi:10.1086/533602
Woodcock, B. A., Edwards, M., Redhead, J., Meek, W.R., Nuttall, P., Falk, S.,
Nowakowski, M., Pywell, R.F., 2013. Crop flower visitation by honeybees,
bumblebees and solitary bees: Behavioural differences and diversity responses to
landscape. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 171, 1–8. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2013.03.005
71
APPENDIX A – Floral visitors to Haskap
Table A.1 Observed floral visitors to Haskap (Lonicera caerulea L.) in an orchard near
Birch Hills, Saskatchewan in May, 2013. Individuals were identified through
several 30 minute surveys conducted over a three day period, as well as through
opportunistic observations and capture events. Bombus spp. were identified on
the wing whenever possible. Small solitary bees as well as unidentified Bombus
spp. were collected using a sweep net and were stored in ethanol to be identified
at a later time. Voucher specimens from this study are stored in the collection at
the Royal Saskatchewan Museum, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada.
Order Family Species
Apoidea Apidae Apis (Apis) mellifera Linnaeus, 1978 *
Bombus (Pyrobombus) flavifrons Cresson, 1963
Bombus (Pyrobombus) huntii Greene, 1860
Bombus (Pyrobombus) melanopygus Nylander, 1848
Bombus (Pyrobombus) mixtus Cresson, 1878
Bombus (Bombias) nevadensis Cresson, 1874
Bombus (Pyrobombus) perplexus Cresson, 1863
Bombus (Pyrobombus) sylvicola Kirby, 1837
Bombus (Pyrobombus) ternarius Say, 1837
Bombus (Bombus) terricola Kirby 1837
Bombus (Pyrobombus) vagans Smith, 1854
Halictidae Halictus (Protohalictus) rubicundus Christ, 1791
Lasioglossum (Dialictus) laevissimum Smith, 1853
Lasioglossum (Dialictus) sagax Sandhouse, 1924
Lasioglossum (Dialictus) versans Lovell, 1905
Lasioglossum (Leuchalictus) zonulum Smith, 1848
Megachilidae Osmia (Osmia) lignaria Say, 1837 *
Diptera Syrphidae Eristalis sp.
*indicates an introduced and managed species
72
APPENDIX B – Pollination requirements for fruit set in Haskap
B.1 Methods
B.1.1 Pollination Treatments
To determine whether it is important for both flowers in the inflorescence to be
pollinated, we assigned inflorescences to three treatment levels, where 1, 2, or 0 flowers
were pollinated. Stigmas were hand pollinated using freshly collected pollen from a
nearby pollinizer and applied using a wooden toothpick. We removed the stigmas of un-
pollinated flowers to ensure they were not fertilized. Twenty Haskap bushes were used
for this experiment; 10 from one row of ‘Tundra’ and 10 from one row of ‘Indigo Gem’.
Three branches were selected from each bush and randomly assigned to one of the 3
treatments. Each morning we observed the branches, and applied the appropriate
treatment to flowers as they reached a stage just prior to anthesis. We repeated this daily
until a total of 5 flowers had been treated per branch, resulting in a total of 100
inflorescences per treatment. Treatments began at the beginning of flowering, and it took
7 days to complete all treatments.
Just before harvest, fruit from each treatment were collected and categorized as
either being a bud, semi-ripe (still red), or fully ripe. Haskap fruit in this orchard are
harvested mechanically, which often results in the removal of non-ripe berries, therefore
it was not possible to wait for all fruit to ripen. Percent fruit set was calculated per
treatment by dividing the number of fruit obtained by the total number of inflorescences
treated. The length and width of each fruit was measured using electronic calipers and
73
they were weighed using a compact digital scale, and then they were dissected to
determine seed number.
The average length, width, weight, and seed number of fruits was averaged for
each treatment per bush. We then used a generalized linear model (GLM) approach with
appropriate error structures to compare each measured variable separately, with
treatment and cultivar as predictor variables. Length, width and weight were all normally
distributed, whereas seed number was fit to a negative binomial distribution. The
relationship between weight and seed number was then determined using Pearson’s
product-moment correlation.
B.1.2 Minimum pollen requirement for full fertilization
In order to determine the minimum amount of pollen required to fully fertilize
each Haskap flower, we needed to know the maximum number of seeds possible within
a berry, and average percent viability of the pollen. Pollen was collected from four
cultivars within the orchard, including ‘Tundra’, ‘Indigo Gem’, ‘Borealis’, as well as the
pollinizer. We collected freshly dehisced anthers from 100 inflorescences of each
cultivar. For each cultivar, the anthers were mixed together and crushed to release the
pollen, and 10 samples were taken and tested for viability using the MTT test for the
presence of dehydrogenases in pollen (following Rodriguez-Riano, T., Dafni, A., 2000.
A new procedure to assess pollen viability. Sex. Plant Reprod. 12, 241–244). A
minimum of 300 grains were counted in total from each sample, the average percent
viability was calculated for each cultivar separately, and the cultivars were pooled for an
overall average. The minimum pollen requirement for each flower was then calculated
74
by dividing the maximum number of seeds per fruit by 2 (obtained from the pollination
treatment experiments) and dividing by the average percent viability of the pollen from
all cultivars.
B.2 Results
Percent fruit set increased with increasing number of pollinated flowers in the
inflorescence; 19/100 (19%) of the inflorescences set fruit when 0 flowers were
pollinated, 64/100 (64%) when 1 flower was pollinated and 86/100 (86%) when 2
flowers were pollinated. Of these, 4, 49 and 59 fruit were ripe upon harvest, respectively;
since only 4 fruit ripened from the treatment with 0 flowers treated, these were excluded
from further analysis, though all four were considerably smaller than the other
treatments.The mean of all measured variables was greater when 2 flowers were
pollinated versus just 1 (Fig B.1), and significant differences were observed for weight,
width, and number of seeds per fruit, though not for length. Cultivar was found to be a
significant factor for fruit width, but not for length, weight or seed number (Table B.1).
Fruit weight and seed number, pooled between all three treatments, were positively
correlated (r=0.73, t=11.05, df=110, p<0.001; Fig. B.2).
Average pollen viability for each cultivar ranged from 56 ± 3% (the pollinizer
variety) to 72 ± 5% (‘Borealis’). ‘Tundra’ and ‘Indigo Gem’ had intermediate pollen
viability of 61 ± 5% and 68 ± 5%, respectively. Overall, the average pollen viability was
64 ± 5%. The maximum number of seeds found in a fully pollinated fruit was 30 (15 per
ovary), resulting in a per flower minimum pollen grain requirement of 24 grains total.
75
Figure B.1 The (a) length (mm), (b) width (mm), (c) weight (g) and (d) number of seeds
of Haskap (Lonicera caerulea L.) berries from two cultivars, ‘Indigo Gem’ and
‘Tundra’, in which one (‘Indigo Gem’, n=9; ‘Tundra’, n=9) or both (‘Indigo
Gem’, n=9; ‘Tundra’, n=8) of the flowers in the inflorescence were pollinated.
Each sample represents the average measurements from 1-5 berries per shrub,
and measurements were only taken from berries that were fully ripe at the time of
harvest. Lower, middle and upper quartiles are presented by the boxes and
maximum and minimum values by the vertical bars.
76
Table B.1 The results of generalized linear models comparing length, width, weight and
seed number in Haskap (Lonicera caerulea L.) fruit that had either one or both
flowers in the inflorescence pollinated.
Species Variable Estimate Std. Error z-value Pr(>|t|) 95% CI
Length Intercept 15.53 7.76 2.00 0.0541 0.31 to 30.74
Treatment 0.44 0.28 1.55 0.1313 -0.12 to 0.99
Cultivar 0.00 0.01 -0.03 0.9784 -0.02 to 0.02
Width Intercept 21.81 4.40 4.96 <0.0001* 13.19 to 30.43
Treatment 0.48 0.16 3.01 0.0051* 0.17 to 0.79
Cultivar -0.01 0.00 -2.79 0.0088* -0.02 to 0.00
Weight Intercept 1.73 0.92 1.88 0.0696 -0.08 to 3.54
Treatment 0.11 0.03 3.21 0.0030* 0.04 to 0.17
Cultivar 0.00 0.00 -1.26 0.2183 0.00 to 0.00
Seed
Number
Intercept 5.27 2.66 1.98 0.0472* 0.07 to 10.48
Treatment 0.36 0.10 3.70 0.0002* 0.17 to 0.55
Cultivar 0.00 0.00 -1.58 0.1142 -0.01 to 0.00
* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
77
Figure B.2 Weight (g) vs seed number in Haskap fruit (r=0.73, t=11.05, df=106, p<
0.001).