[log in to unmask] wrote:
>
> I have been told that honey bees are an important pollinator of cotton.
>
Mcgregor agrees. In part...

Shishikin (1946) was the first to use the term "saturation pollination"
- the uniform distribution of colonies of honey bees among cotton
fields. He showed that saturation pollination, at the rate of one- half
colony per acre, increased production of cotton 19.5 percent more than
areas dependent upon only local pollinators. The increase over cotton
grown in cages, excluding all insects, was 43 percent. ....

     In a sense, Babadzhanov (1953) duplicated the test by Kearney
(1923) and obtained a similar benefit from supplemental pollination. He
reported that it increased the boll set of cultivar '108-F' by 30
percent, the raw cotton per boll by 5 to 10 percent, the seed
germination from 93 percent in selfed seed to 98 percent in
cross-pollinated seed, and decreased the motes by 12.5 percent.
Ter-Avanesyan (1952) showed that crossing within the cultivar varied
with the cultivar tested: 8.4 percent in 'Sreder', 14.4 in '8582', and
22 percent in '915'.

     These tests were supported in theory by Miravalle (1964), who
compared the effects of bulked pollen from several plants with pollen
from one flower of the same selection. He found that 76 percent of the
bolls set, with 34.47 viable seeds per boll, when the flowers were
pollinated with bulked pollen, but only 70 percent set, with only 27.07
seeds per boll, when the flowers were pollinated with pollen from one
flower of the same plant.
...In their test, 'Pima S-1' produced 24.5 percent more cotton in cages
with bees than in cages without bees. This increase was caused by the
set of more bolls, with more seeds per boll. The presence of bees did
not increase total production of upland 'A-33' or 'A- 44', but the crop
set earlier. In an area with a short season, this effect would doubtless
be reflected in a greater total yield. Also, the cotton was handpicked,
with extreme care taken to collect every seed. If machine harvesting had
been used, doubtless more cotton would have been collected where there
were fewest motes - in the bee cages. The lock usually breaks if motes
are prevalent, and the remaining lint remains unharvested in the base of
the burr.
...


        Honeybees are an important pollinator of cotton however, (in more ways
than 1) it does not necessarily mean that we are chasing out the natural
pollinators. When the Europeans arrived on this continent, there was not
the widespread cultivation that is present now. Natural pollinators
would not be able to handle the shifting presence of food plants
available infrequently throughout the year. As it is we must introduce
and remove pollinators periodically. In order to effectively pollinate
the crops we need more pollinators than those supportable year round.
When I pollinate and bring in honeybees to pollinate blueberries (for
example) I remind that the honeybees should be seen as supplementary and
advise the creation of habitat for additional pollinators. It is in the
best interest of the farmer to have to have a diverse group of
pollinators as they all have their own advantages. Bumble bees will work
in cooler weather, rainier and earlier in fog for instance.

Thom Bradley
Thom's Honeybees