982 in Biosciences 7(11): 982-986, 2014

Trends Trends in Biosciences 7 (11), 2014

Evaluation of Indigenous Bee Attractants in Bt Cotton (Bunny BG-II)

ANJAN KUMAR NAIK, SHASHIDHAR VIRAKTAMATH, S.S. UDIKERI, A. S. VASTRAD AND VIVEK
UPPAR
Department of Agricultural Entomology, University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad, Karnataka- 580005
email: naikanjankumar@gmail.com

ABSTRACT pollination and consequently enhancing quantitative and

The present investigations were carried out on the farmer’s
field at Govanakoppa village under Bailahongal taluk in
Belgum district. Bee attractants play a beneficial role in
enhancing pollination and yield of crops especially when target
crop is not so attractive to the bees naturally or when the
weather conditions are not conducive for foraging by the bees
on target crop. In India, importing commercial bee attractants
is cost prohibitive and hence they are practically far away
from the reach of majority of Indian farmers. When overall
mean of all the three sprays was considered it showed that
Citral E, Citral Z, F. budrunga, S. densifolia attracted
significantly more number of bees (2.13 to 2.96 bees /10m2/5
min) which were on par with each other and were as good as
Fruit boost (2.00 to 2.17 bees /10m2/5 min). This could prove
an efficient tool to farmers in enhancing yield and a critical
component of IPM.
Key words Bunny BG-II, Bee attractants, Bee visitation.
Cotton is a shrub which is native to tropical and sub-
tropical regions around the world, including America, India
and Africa. The term cotton is used to describe cultivated
species of genus Gossypium. In India, cotton is grown in
an area of 116.14 lakh hectares with a production of 334.00
lakh bales and productivity of 489 kg per hectare (The
Cotton Corporation of India Ltd., 2012). Cotton is known
to be excellent source of nectar from flowers,
circumbracts, sub bracts and unipapilla (Punit, et al., 1999).
Bee pollination in cotton has resulted in an increase in yield
to an extent of 10-15 per cent in G. arboretum and 20 to 25
per cent in G. hirsutum. The increase in the yield due to
cross pollination is related to factors such as increased
number of pollen over the entire surface of the stigma
(within a flower, anther touches only the base of the stigma)
and increased rate of pollen tube formation in pollen grains
from other flowers.
Any substance that attracts the bees towards the
eliciting source is called as bee attractant. These bee
attractants mainly contain either an attractive food (proteins
+sugars) or pheromones (nasanov or queen mandibular
pheromone) or botanical extractions. These attractants
when applied on a target crop which needs pollination would
entice more number of bees thus ensuring optimum
qualitative yield parameters of target crop. Hence, bee
attractants play a beneficial role in enhancing pollination
and yield of crops especially when target crop is not so
attractive to the bees naturally or when the weather
conditions are not conducive for foraging by the bees on
target crop.
Two pheromone based attractants namely, Citral E
and Citral Z, two plant based attractants viz., Fagara
budrunga and Swertia densifolia along with Fruit Boost, a
commercial bee attractant on Bt cotton were evaluated in
the present study.
S. densifolia (Gentianaceae) commonly known as
Chirayata is a medicianal plant and leaf extract of this plant
has already been proved to have attractant properties
towards A. cerana (Naik, et al., 2005) and A. florea under
laboratory conditions (Naik, et al., 2007). Fagara budrunga
(Rutaceae), commonly known as Mullilam is another
medicinal plant and fruit extract of this plant is reportd to
possess attractant property towards A. cerana under
laboratory conditions (Naik, et al., 2003).
However, in advanced countries like France, USA and
Canada commercial bee attractants are mainly either food
or pheromone based or these are being exploited to a greater
extent to enhance pollination and ultimately yield of crops.
In India, use of bee attractants is still not practiced and
currently a few firms are involved in importing these
attractants and marketing them. However, importing
commercial bee attractants is cost prohibitive and hence
they are practically far away from the reach of majority of
Indian farmers.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Bt cotton genotypes namely Bunny BG-II was grown
in an area of one acre during Kharif, season by following
the recommended package of practices. No plant protection
measures were taken during entire flowering period. Each
cropped area was divided into 21 plots of 10 m ×10 m
with a buffer zone of 3 m between replications and also
between treatments.
Two pheromone based attractants namely Citral E and
Citral Z and two plant based attractants viz, Fagara
 NAIK, et al., Evaluation of Indigenous Bee Attractants in Bt Cotton (Bunny BG-II) 983

Table 1. Influence of indigenous bee attractants on bee visitation in Bt cotton (Bunny BG-II) at I spray
Treatments Bees / 10m2/5 min Mean*
DBS 1 DAS 2 DAS 3 DAS 4 DAS 5DAS
Citral E @ 1% concentration 0.33 3.67 3.33 3.00 1.83 0.83 2.96
(0.88) (2.04) a (1.96) a (1.87) a (1.51) a (1.15)
(1.86)a
Citral Z @ 1% concentration 0.67 3.33 3.00 2.83 1.67 0.67 2.71
(1.00) (1.95) a (1.87) ab (1.82) a (1.46) a (1.07) ab
(1.79)
Swertia densifolia @ 1% concentration 0.33 3.11 2.83 2.50 1.33 0.83 2.44
ab ab a ab
(0.88) (1.90) (1.82) (1.73) (1.34) (1.15) (1.71)ab
Fagara budrunga @ 1% concentration 0.33 3.00 3.17 2.83 1.50 0.67 2.63
(0.88) (1.87) ab (1.91) ab (1.80) a (1.41) a (1.07)
(1.76)ab
Fruit boost @ 1% concentration 0.67 2.78 2.50 2.33 1.00 0.50 2.15
(1.00) (1.81) ab (1.73) b (1.68) ab (1.22) ab (1.00)
(1.63)b
Sugar solution @ 10% concentration 0.67 2.22 1.50 1.33 0.50 0.33 1.39
(1.05) (1.64)b (1.41) c (1.35)b (0.98)bc (0.9)
(1.37)c
Control (spray with water) 1.33 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.17 0.33 0.54
c d c c
(1.27) (1.22) (1.00) (0.98) (0.8) (0.88) (1.02)d
S.Em (±) 0.26 0.08 0.06 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.06
CD (0.05) NS 0.25 0.18 0.36 0.36 0.30 0.18

Means followed by same letter in a column do not differ significantly by DMRT (P= 0.05)
Figures in parentheses are (X+0.5) transformed values
DAS-Days after spray, DBS- Days Before spray
* Means of all observations of 4 days after spray which differ significantly

budrunga Roxb. (Rutaceae) and Swertia densifolia (Griseb.)
(Gentianaceae) along with Fruit boost, a commercial bee
attractant were selected for the study. Citral E contained A
.cerana pheromone lure while Citral Z contained pheromone
of A. florea. Samples of Citral E, Citral Z, F. budrunga,
S.densifolia were obtained from Agharkar Research
institute, Pune, Maharashtra. Fruit boost was obtained from
Phero-Tech, Canada.
Randomized block design with seven treatments
replicated thrice in both the crops was used for this
experiment. Bee attractants were sprayed three times
starting from 10% flowering at 15 days interval. The details
of treatments common to both the crops were as follows.
T1: Spray of Citral E @ 1.0% concentration
T2: Spray of Citral Z @ 1.0% concentration
T3: Spray of Swertia densifolia @ 1.0% concentration
T4: Spray of Fagara budrunga @ 1.0% concentration
T5: Spray of Fruit boost @ 1.0% concentration
T6: Spray of Sugar solution @ 10% concentration
T7: Control (spray with water).
The spray solution for the first four treatments was
prepared by adding 30 g lure with 30 g of emulsifier
(Sandovit) and mixed thoroughly with the help of porcelain
mortar and pestle separately and then diluted to the required
concentration by adding water, and made up to 3.0 litres
to get 1.0 per cent concentration. Fruit boost and sugar
solution were prepared by adding required quantity of water
while in the control, only water was sprayed.
Observations on bee visitation of different species
were made a day before and 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 days after each
spray respectively. Honey bees visiting the flowers in each
treatment of 10 m2 area was counted for 5 minutes by
walking slowly diagonally. Such observations were made
once in the morning at 1000-1100 h and in afternoon 1400-
1500 h. The data was subjected to ANOVA after “x+0.5
transformations. Means were separated by DMRT.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Influence of bee attractants on bee visitation in
BG-II:
First spray:
As presented in table 1, a day prior to spray the
number of bees visiting BG-II cotton flowers varied from
0.33 to 1.33 bees/10 m2/5 min which did not differ
significantly among the treatments
Following one day after the spray Citral E (3.67 bees/
984 Trends in Biosciences 7 (11), 2014

10 m2/5 min) and Citral Z (3.33 bees /10 m2/5 min) attracted
significantly more number of bees which were on par with
S. densifolia (3.11 bees /10 m2/5 min), F. budrunga (3.00
bees /10 m2/5 min), and Fruit boost (2.78 bees /10 m2/5
min). Significantly less number of bees were noticed in
sugar solution sprayed (2.22 bees/10 m2/5 min) followed
by control (1.00 bees/10 m2/5 min).
On the second day after imposing treatments
significantly higher number of bees was noticed in Citral E
treated plots (3.33 bees/10 m2/5 min) which was on par
with Citral Z (3.00 bees /10 m2/5 min), S. densifolia (2.83
bees /10 m2/5 min), F. budrunga (3.17 bees /10 m2/5 min).
The next higher bees were recorded in the treatment with
Fruit boost (2.50 bees /10 m2/5 min) followed by sugar
solution (1.50 bees/10 m2/5 min).
However on the third and fourth day all indigenous
bee attractants were as good as the Fruit boost attracting
2.33 to 3.00 and 1.00 to 1.83 bees /10 m 2 /5 min
respectively.
The mean bee visitation of all four days showed that
Citral E (2.96 bees /10 m2/5 min), Citral Z (2.71 bees / 10
m2/5 min), F. budrunga (2.63 bees /10 m2/5 min) and S.
densifolia (2.44 bees /10 m2/5 min) had significantly higher
bee visitation. The second best was Fruit boost (2.15 bees
/10 m2/5 min).This was followed by Sugar solution (1.39
bees /10 m2/5 min) and control (0.54bees /10 m2/5 min).
Second spray:
Observations pertaining to second spray in BG-II Bt
cotton are presented in Table 2.
One day before spraying of bee attractants, there was
no significant difference in bees visiting different plots
which varied from 0.33 to 1.00 bees/10 m2/5 min. A day
after second spraying Citral E, Citral Z, F. budrunga, S.
densifolia and Fruit boost attracted significantly more
bees (2.67 to 3.67 bees/10 m2/5 min) which were on par
with each other. This was followed by sugar solution (2.33
bees/10 m2/5 min) and control (0.83 bees/10 m2/5 min).
The treatment with Citral E (3.33 bees /10 m2/5 min),
Citral Z (2.83 bees /10 m2/5 min) F. budrunga (2.83 bees /
10 m2/5 min) and S. densifolia (2.50/ 10 m2/5 min) were
superior in attracting more bees on the second day after
spray. The second best attractant was Fruit boost (2.17
bees /10 m2/5 min followed by sugar solution (1.00 bees /
10 m2/5 min).
On third day and fourth day after spray all indigenous
bee attractants were as good as the Fruit boost attracting
2.00 to 3.00 and 1.17 to 1.67 bees /10 m2/5 min. Mean bee
visitation of all four days revealed that Citral E, Citral Z and
F. budrunga (2.63 to 2.92 bees /10 m2/5 min) attracted

Table 2. Influence of indigenous bee attractants on bee visitation in Bt cotton (Bunny BG-II) at II spray
Bees / 10m2/5 min
Treatments Mean*
DBS 1 DAS 2 DAS 3 DAS 4 DAS 5 DAS

0.33 3.67 3.33 3.00 1.67 0.67 2.92

Citral E @ 1% concentration
(0.71) (2.04)a (1.96) a (1.86) a (1.47) a (1.05) (1.85) a

0.67 3.17 2.83 2.83 1.50 0.67 2.58

Citral Z @ 1% concentration
(1.00) (1.91)ab (1.82)
ab
(1.82)
a
(1.41)
a
(1.07) (1.75) ab

0.67 2.83 2.50 2.33 1.17 0.83 2.21

Swertia densifolia @ 1% concentration
(1.05) (1.82)ab (1.73) ab (1.67) a (1.29) a (1.15) (1.64) b

0.67 3.50 2.83 2.83 1.33 0.67 2.63

Fagara budrunga @ 1% concentration
(1.05) (2.00)ab (1.82)
ab
(1.82)
a
(1.35)
a
(1.07) (1.77)
ab

1.00 2.67 2.17 2.00 1.17 0.50 2.00

Fruit boost @ 1% concentration ab
(1.22) (1.77)
ab
(1.61)
b (1.58) (1.29)
a
(1.00) (1.58) b

0.67 2.33 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.50 1.21

Sugar solution @ 10% concentration c
(1.05) (1.67)b (1.22) c (1.21)bc (0.98) b (0.98) (1.30)
0.33 0.83 0.17 0.50 0.33 0.33 0.46
Control (spray with water)
(0.88) (1.15)
c
(0.80)
d
(0.98)
c
(0.90)
b
(0.90) (0.97) d
S.Em (±) 0.19 0.10 0.10 0.13 0.08 0.10 0.06
CD (0.05) NS 0.31 0.31 0.40 0.25 NS 0.18

Means followed by same letter in a column do not differ significantly by DMRT (P= 0.05)
Figures in parentheses are (X+0.5) transformed values
DAS-Days after spray, DBS- Days Before spray
* Means of all observations of 4 days after spray which differ significantly
 NAIK, et al., Evaluation of Indigenous Bee Attractants in Bt Cotton (Bunny BG-II) 985

Table 3. Influence of indigenous bee attractants on bee visitation in Bt cotton (Bunny BG-II) at III spray

Bees / 10m2/5 min

Treatments Mean*
DBS 1DAS 2 DAS 3 DAS 4 DAS 5 DAS
0.67 3.67 3.42 3.00 1.83 0.67 2.98
Citral E @ 1% concentration
(1.05) (2.04) a (1.98) a (1.87) a (1.53) a (1.05) (1.86) a
1.00 3.33 2.92 2.67 1.33 0.33 2.56
Citral Z @ 1% concentration ab ab a ab ab
(1.10) (1.94) (1.85) (1.78) (1.35) (0.88) (1.75)
1.00 2.67 2.50 2.33 1.00 0.33 2.13
Swertia densifolia @ 1% concentration
(1.17) (1.77) ab (1.73) ab (1.68) a (1.22) abc (0.88) (1.62)b
0.67 3.00 2.83 2.50 1.50 0.67 2.46
Fagara budrunga @ 1% concentration
(1.05) (1.87) ab (1.82) ab (1.73) a (1.37) ab (1.05) (1.72) ab
1.00 2.83 2.33 2.17 1.33 0.33 2.17
Fruit boost @ 1% concentration
(1.17) (1.82) ab (1.68) bc (1.63) ab (1.35) ab (0.88) (1.63)b
0.67 2.00 1.67 1.33 0.67 0.00 1.42
Sugar solution @ 10% concentration
(1.05) (1.56)b (1.46) c (1.34)bc (1.05)bc (0.71) (1.38) c
0.33 0.50 0.67 0.67 0.33 0.33 0.54
Control (spray with water)
(1.05) (0.98) c (1.07) d (1.05) c (0.90) c (0.88) (1.01)d
S.Em (±) 0.20 0.13 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.11 0.06
CD (0.05) NS 0.40 0.25 0.31 0.36 NS 0.18

Means followed by same letter in a column do not differ significantly by DMRT (P= 0.05)
Figures in parentheses are (X+0.5) transformed values
DAS-Days after spray, DBS- Days Before spray
* Means of all observations of 4 days after spray which differ significantly

significantly higher number of bees which were on par
with each other. The second best was Fruit boost (2.21
bees /10 m2/5 min) and S. densifolia (2.00 bees /10 m2/5
min) which were on par with each other .This was followed
by Sugar solution (1.21 bees /10 m2/5 min) and control
(0.46 bees /10 m2/5 min) which attracted lowest number
of bees.
Third spray:
There was no significant difference in number of bees
visiting different plots a day before spray of bee attractants
and the visitation ranged from 0.33 to 1.00 bees /10 m2/5
min (Table 3).On the first day after third spray Citral E
attracted maximum number of bees (3.67 bees /10 m2/5
minute) which was however on par with Citral Z (3.33
bees /10 m2/5 min), F. budrunga (3.00 bees /10 m2/5 min),
S. densifolia (2.67 bees /10 m2/5 min), and Fruit boost
(2.83 bees /10 m2/5 min). This was followed by sugar
solution treated plot (2.00 bees /10 m2/5 min). On the
second day after third spray the treatments with Citral E,
Citral Z, F.budrunga, S. densifolia attracted significantly
higher numbers of bees (2.83 to3.42 bees /10 m2/5 min).
Fruit boost was the next best treatment which attracted
2.33 bees /10 m2/5 min followed by sugar solution (1.67
bees /10 m2/5 min).
On third day after spraying, significantly higher
numbers of bees were noticed in the plots which received
treatment with Citral E (3.00 bees/10 m2/5 min), Citral Z
(2.67 bees /10 m2/5 min), S. densifolia (2.33 bees /10 m2/
5 min), F. budrunga (2.50 bees /10 m2/5 min), and Fruit
boost (2.17 bees /10 m2/5 min) which were on par with
each other. On the fourth day also similar trend of was
noticed with Citral E, Citral Z, F. budrunga, S. densifolia
and Fruit boost attracting significantly higher number of
bees (1.33 to 1.83 bees /10 m2/5 min). However on fifth
day after spray the bee visitation in all treatments was as
good as control. When overall mean bee visitation was
considered (1 to 4 days) Citral E, Citral Z and F. budrunga
were superior in attracting bees (2.46 to 2.98 bees /10 m2/
5 min) followed by S. densifolia (2.13 bees /10 m2/5 min)
and Fruit boost (2.17 bees /10 m2/5 min) which were on
par with each other.
In BG –II, overall mean of all three sprays showed
that Citral E, Citral Z,
F. budrunga, S. densifolia attracted significantly more
number of bees (2.13 to 2.96 bees /10m2/5 min) which
were on par with each other and were as good as Fruit
boost (2.00 to 2.17 bees /10m2/5 min).
Citral E and citral Z contain Citral and neral which
are important components of nasanov glands of Indian
honey bees (Naik, et al., 1989) which made these
986 Trends in Biosciences 7 (11), 2014
treatments attractive to the honey bees. Attractancy of the
Fruit boost could be attributed to the presence of queen
mandibular pheromone (QMP) that stimulates the foraging
activity of workers (Winston and Slessor, 1993). Similar
results have been reported in sesame (Viraktamath and Patil,
1999), niger (Guruprasad, 2001). Increased bee visitation
on the crops sprayed with attractants was reported in
cardamom (Bhat and Sudharshan, 1999) sunflower
(Sanjivan Kumar et al., 2000) and cucumber (Viraktamath
and Anagoudar, 2002). Findings on the efficacy of
indigenous bee attractants also confirm the results of
Srikanta Nath, 2008 on sunflower and Nithya Chandran,
2009 on sesame and niger.
Importing commercial bee attractants is cost
prohibitive and hence they are practically far away from
the reach of majority of Indian farmers. So in this context
farmers can use bee attractants prepared indigenously like
Citral E, Citral Z, F. budrunga, S. densifolia and Fruit boost
which attract significantly higher number of bees and utilize
them in increasing the yield. This would serve as a important
tool in enhancing yield and could be a efficient component
of IPM.
LITERATURE CITED
Bhat, S. S. and Sudarshan, M. R., 1999, Studies on the efficacy of
“Bee-Q” in augmenting pollination, fruit and seed set in cardamom
(Elettaria cardamomum Moton.). A preliminary report. Indian
Bee J., 61: 49-54.
Guruprasad, G. S., 2001, Maximization of productivity of niger through
enhancement of pollination. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Uni. Agric.
Sci., Dharwad (India).
Naik, D. G., Banhatti, P., Chanwda, S. S. and Thomas, D., 2003,
Fagara budrunga fruit extract as an attractant for Apis cerana. J.
Apic. Res., 42: 48-49.
Naik, D. G., Dandge, C. and Puntambekar, H., 2007, Swertia densifolia
leaf extract as a dose-dependent attractant or repellent for Apis
florae, J. Apic. Res. 46: 15-18.
Naik, D.G., Kapadi, A.H., Singh, M.K., Suryanarayana, M.C., and
Kshirsagar, K.K. 1989. Lure development for Indian honey bees
Apis cerana indica Fabr. Indian Bee J., 51:47-50.
Nithya Chandran, 2009, Evaluation of indigenous bee attractants in
enhancing the yield parameters of sesame and niger. M. Sc. (Agri.)
Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad (India).
Punit, M., Kairon, M. S. and Mohan, P., 1999, Nectar gland and
honey bee pollination in cotton. Adv. Pl. Sci., 12: 625-626.
Sanjivan Kumar, Hari Chand and Singh, R., 2000, Increasing the
attractiveness of sunflower to honey bees pollination. Shashpa,
7: 151-154.
Srikanta Nath, 2008, Evaluation of indigenous bee attractants in
sunflower, M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad
(India).
The Cotton Corporation of India Ltd., 2012, http://
www.cotcorp.gov.in/statistics.aspx?pageid=5
Viraktamath, S. and Anagoudar, J. A., 2002, Influence of bee attractants
in enhancing pollination and yield parameters in Cucumis sativa
L. Indian Bee J. 64: 23-27.
Viraktamath, S. and Patil R. K., 1999, Preliminary studies on the
influence of bee attractants on bee visitation and yield parameters
of sesamum, Sesamum indicum L., Indian Bee J., 61: 55-58.
Winston, M. L. and Slessor, K. N., 1993, Application of queen
honeybee mandibular pheromone for bee keeping and crop
pollination. Bee World, 74: 111-128.
Recieved on 08-04-2014 Accepted on 28-04-2014