Initial floral visitor identity and foraging time strongly influence blueberry reproductive success

Genotypic variation in blueberry flower morphology and nectar reward content affects pollinator attraction in a diverse breeding population

BACKGROUND

Pollination is crucial to obtaining optimal blueberry yield and fruit quality. Despite substantial investments in seasonal beekeeping services, blueberry producers consistently report suboptimal pollinator visitation and fruit set in some cultivars. Flower morphology and floral rewards are among the key factors that have shown to contribute to pollinator attraction, however little is known about their relative importance for improving yield in the context of plant breeding. Clarifying the relationships between flower morphology, nectar reward content, pollinator recruitment, and pollination outcomes, as well as their genetic components, can inform breeding priorities for enhancing blueberry production. In the present study, we measured ten flower and nectar traits and indices of successful pollination, including fruit set, seed count, and fruit weight in 38 southern highbush blueberry genotypes. Additionally, we assessed pollinator visitation frequency and foraging behavior over two growing seasons. Several statistical models were tested to optimize the prediction of pollinator visitation and pollination success, including partial least squares, BayesB, ridge-regression, and random forest.

RESULTS

Random forest models obtained high predictive abilities for pollinator visitation frequency, with values of 0.54, 0.52, and 0.66 for honey bee, bumble bee, and total pollinator visits, respectively. The BayesB model provided the most consistent prediction of fruit set, fruit weight, and seed set, with predictive abilities of 0.07, -0.08, and 0.42, respectively. Variable importance analysis revealed that genotypic differences in nectar volume had the greatest impact on honey bee and bumble bee visitation, although preferences for flower morphological traits varied depending on the foraging task. Flower density was a major driving factor attracting nectar-foraging honey bees and bumble bees, while pollen-foraging bumble bees were most influenced by flower accessibility, specifically corolla length and the length-to-width ratio.

CONCLUSIONS

Honey bees comprised the majority of pollinator visits, and were primarily influenced by nectar volume and flower density. Corolla length and the length-to-width ratio were also identified as the main predictors of fruit set, fruit weight, seed count, as well as pollen-foraging bumble bee visits, suggesting that these bees and their foraging preferences may play a pivotal role in fruit production. Moderate to high narrow-sense heritability values (ranging from 0.30 to 0.77) were obtained for all floral traits, indicating that selective breeding efforts may enhance cultivar attractiveness to pollinators.

The timing of visits by large and small bees differentially affects pollination success in Mimulus ringens

PREMISE

Cross-fertilization in most flowering plants is facilitated by mobile animals that transport pollen while foraging for floral rewards. The contributions of different visitors can vary widely, depending on the amount of pollen transferred during a single visit and on the frequency and timing of the visits of each pollinator taxon.

METHODS

We used three approaches to measure the pollination value of bees that visit Mimulus ringens: pollinator interviews, field population observations, and caging studies.

RESULTS

The single-visit effectiveness of small bees (primarily Halictidae) was only half that of larger bees (primarily Bombus) for pollen delivery and removal. In five field populations, we found substantial temporal and spatial variation in visitation and pollination. In most sites big bees were active before 08:00 hours, and by 10:00-11:00 hours, stigmas were usually fully pollinated and closed, and little pollen remained in anthers. Small bees seldom visited before 10:00 hours. Excluding big bees from plants confirmed that pollination is reduced and delayed in this ecological context.

CONCLUSIONS

Big bees are the primary pollinators of M. ringens, accounting for at least 75% of seed production. Not only are they more effective per visit, in most situations they also visit before small bees become active. Although small bees are not usually important pollinators of M. ringens, they have the potential to partially replace them as a "fail-safe" pollinator in contexts where big bees are not abundant. In a world where pollinator abundance is declining, such backup pollinators may be important for maintaining plant reproduction.

Honey compositional convergence and the parallel domestication of social bees

Honey collection evolved from simple honey hunting to the parallel and independent domestication of different species of bees in various parts of the world. In this study, we investigate the extent to which the composition of Apis and stingless bee honeys has been a driver in the selection of different bee species for domestication in Mesoamerica (Mexico) and Asia (Thailand) using a sampling design that combines peak honey profiling by H1 NMR spectroscopy with the collection of honeys from domesticated and undomesticated bee species. Our results show that, independently of the region of the world considered, domesticated stingless bees produce honey whose compositional profiles differ from those of the non-domesticated species and exhibit more similarities towards honeys produced by the domesticated Apis species. Our results provide evidence for the first time that the search for natural sweeteners in the environment by our ancestors led to the parallel and independent domestication of social bees producing honeys with similar compositional profiles.