Abstract
An on-farm pollination experiment was conducted during the June–August and November–February blooming seasons of 2007 to 2008, in 30 small-scale coffee fields characterised by different habitat and vegetation types. The study was conducted in order to determine the best pollinator groups for coffee in Uganda and to collect relevant field information and determine the pollination efficiency of different bee species. Results indicate that across blooming seasons, coffee flowers were visited by 24–36 bee species. Hypotrigona gribodoi was the most frequent flower visitor, comprising over 60% of 5941 bee-visits recorded. Foraging rate and pollination speed varied among bee species. Solitary bees foraged on more flowers than social bees, but they spent less time per flower visited. Solitary bees visited more coffee trees and fields, but deposited less pollen, whereas social bees visited less trees and coffee fields in the landscape, but deposited more pollen on flowers. Fruit set was of 87%, 64% and 0.9%, respectively, in hand-cross pollination, open pollination and controlled-pollination treatments. Fruit abortion due to self-pollination was insignificant in this study. There was variability in pollination efficiency of different bee species. Pollination efficiency varied more significantly with sociality than with other bee functional traits and was not significantly influenced by tongue length and bee body size. Single-flower visits by social and solitary bees resulted in 89.7% and 68.14% fruit set, respectively. The most efficient bee species was Meliponula ferruginea (98.3%) followed by Meliponula nebulata (97.1%). Thus, very good pollinator species were wild social bees (mainly stingless bees) as opposed to honeybees and solitary bees that were previously reported to be the best pollinators of coffee in Panama and Indonesia. Morphological and anatomical characteristics of the bee pollen storage features may explain the difference in foraging behaviour activities and in pollination efficiency of social and solitary afrotropical bee species visiting lowland coffee in Uganda. In addition, pollination efficiency was influenced by land-use intensity, field management systems and habitat types found in the immediate surroundings of coffee fields, but not by coffee field size, coffee genotypes and mass blooming wild vegetation. It is recommended to farmers to adopt pollinator-friendly conservation and farming practices such as keeping an uncultivated portion (25%–30%) of their farms as pollinator reservoirs, protecting semi-natural habitats found in the vicinity of coffee fields, as well as promoting high on-farm tree cover to benefit a functionally diverse pollinator community.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 20
Claim · model-written summary
Coffee flowers were visited by 24–36 bee species across blooming seasons.
- Taxon
- Coffea canephora
Coffea canephorat0 - Interactor
- bee speciesAnthophilae1pollinator
- Outcome
- bee speciese1
- Value
- 24–36 bee speciese1
- Setting
- across blooming seasonse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“visiting coffee (Coffea canephora) flowers in Uganda”
e1“across blooming seasons, coffee flowers were visited by 24–36 bee species”
Claim · model-written summary
Hypotrigona gribodoi was the most frequent flower visitor, with over 60% of 5941 bee visits.
- Taxon
- Coffea canephoraCoffea canephorat0
- Interactor
- Hypotrigona gribodoiHypotrigona gribodoie2pollinator
- Outcome
- frequent flower visitore2
- Value
- over 60%e2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“visiting coffee (Coffea canephora) flowers in Uganda”
e2“Hypotrigona gribodoi was the most frequent flower visitor, comprising over 60% of 5941 bee-visits recorded”
Claim · model-written summary
Foraging rate and pollination speed, and pollination efficiency, varied among bee species.
- Taxon
- Coffea canephoraCoffea canephorat0
- Interactor
- bee speciesAnthophilae3pollinator
- Outcome
- Foraging rate and pollination speede3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“visiting coffee (Coffea canephora) flowers in Uganda”
e3“Foraging rate and pollination speed varied among bee species”
e4“There was variability in pollination efficiency of different bee species”
Claim · model-written summary
Solitary bees foraged on more flowers than social bees and visited more coffee trees and fields.
- Taxon
- Coffea canephoraCoffea canephorat0
- Interactor
- Solitary beese5pollinator
- Outcome
- coffee trees and fieldse6
- Direction
- moree6
- Comparator
- social beese5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“visiting coffee (Coffea canephora) flowers in Uganda”
e5“Solitary bees foraged on more flowers than social bees, but they spent less time per flower visited”
e6“Solitary bees visited more coffee trees and fields, but deposited less pollen, whereas social bees visited less trees and coffee fields in the landscape, but deposited more pollen on flowers”
Claim · model-written summary
Solitary bees spent less time per flower visited than social bees.
- Taxon
- Coffea canephoraCoffea canephorat0
- Interactor
- Solitary beese5pollinator
- Outcome
- time per flower visitede5
- Direction
- lesse5
- Comparator
- social beese5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“visiting coffee (Coffea canephora) flowers in Uganda”
e5“Solitary bees foraged on more flowers than social bees, but they spent less time per flower visited”
Claim · model-written summary
Social bees deposited more pollen on flowers than solitary bees.
- Taxon
- Coffea canephoraCoffea canephorat0
- Interactor
- social beese6pollinator
- Outcome
- pollen on flowerse6
- Direction
- moree6
- Comparator
- Solitary beese6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“visiting coffee (Coffea canephora) flowers in Uganda”
e6“Solitary bees visited more coffee trees and fields, but deposited less pollen, whereas social bees visited less trees and coffee fields in the landscape, but deposited more pollen on flowers”
Claim · model-written summary
Fruit abortion due to self-pollination was not significant in this study.
- Taxon
- Coffea canephoraCoffea canephorat0
- Treatment
- self-pollinatione1
- Outcome
- Fruit abortion due to self-pollinatione1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“visiting coffee (Coffea canephora) flowers in Uganda”
e1“Fruit abortion due to self-pollination was insignificant in this study”
Claim · model-written summary
Pollination efficiency varied more significantly with sociality than with other bee functional traits.
- Taxon
- Coffea canephoraCoffea canephorat0
- Treatment
- socialitye1
- Outcome
- Pollination efficiencye1
- Direction
- varied more significantlye1
- Comparator
- other bee functional traitse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“visiting coffee (Coffea canephora) flowers in Uganda”
e1“Pollination efficiency varied more significantly with sociality than with other bee functional traits and was not significantly influenced by tongue length and bee body size”
Claim · model-written summary
Pollination efficiency was not significantly influenced by tongue length and bee body size.
- Taxon
- Coffea canephoraCoffea canephorat0
- Treatment
- tongue length and bee body sizee1
- Outcome
- Pollination efficiencye1
- Direction
- no_changeinferrede1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“visiting coffee (Coffea canephora) flowers in Uganda”
e1“Pollination efficiency varied more significantly with sociality than with other bee functional traits and was not significantly influenced by tongue length and bee body size”
Claim · model-written summary
Hand-cross pollination gave a fruit set of 87%.
- Taxon
- Coffea canephoraCoffea canephorat0
- Treatment
- hand-cross pollinatione1
- Outcome
- Fruit sete1
- Value
- 87%e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“visiting coffee (Coffea canephora) flowers in Uganda”
e1“Fruit set was of 87%, 64% and 0.9%, respectively, in hand-cross pollination, open pollination and controlled-pollination treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
Open pollination gave a fruit set of 64%.
- Taxon
- Coffea canephoraCoffea canephorat0
- Treatment
- open pollinatione1
- Outcome
- Fruit sete1
- Value
- 64%e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“visiting coffee (Coffea canephora) flowers in Uganda”
e1“Fruit set was of 87%, 64% and 0.9%, respectively, in hand-cross pollination, open pollination and controlled-pollination treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
Controlled pollination gave a fruit set of 0.9%.
- Taxon
- Coffea canephoraCoffea canephorat0
- Treatment
- controlled-pollinatione1
- Outcome
- Fruit sete1
- Value
- 0.9%e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“visiting coffee (Coffea canephora) flowers in Uganda”
e1“Fruit set was of 87%, 64% and 0.9%, respectively, in hand-cross pollination, open pollination and controlled-pollination treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
Single-flower visits by social and solitary bees gave a fruit set of 89.7% for social bees.
- Taxon
- Coffea canephoraCoffea canephorat0
- Treatment
- Single-flower visits by social and solitary beese1
- Interactor
- social and solitary beese1pollinator
- Outcome
- fruit sete1
- Value
- 89.7%e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“visiting coffee (Coffea canephora) flowers in Uganda”
e1“Single-flower visits by social and solitary bees resulted in 89.7% and 68.14% fruit set, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Single-flower visits by social and solitary bees gave a fruit set of 68.14% for solitary bees.
- Taxon
- Coffea canephoraCoffea canephorat0
- Treatment
- Single-flower visits by social and solitary beese1
- Interactor
- social and solitary beese1pollinator
- Outcome
- fruit sete1
- Value
- 68.14%e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“visiting coffee (Coffea canephora) flowers in Uganda”
e1“Single-flower visits by social and solitary bees resulted in 89.7% and 68.14% fruit set, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Meliponula ferruginea was the most efficient bee species, with 98.3% pollination efficiency.
- Taxon
- Coffea canephoraCoffea canephorat0
- Interactor
- Meliponula ferruginea
.jpg?width=60)
Meliponula ferrugineae1pollinator - Outcome
- most efficient bee speciese1
- Value
- 98.3%e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
t0“visiting coffee (Coffea canephora) flowers in Uganda”
e1“The most efficient bee species was Meliponula ferruginea (98.3%) followed by Meliponula nebulata (97.1%)”
Claim · model-written summary
Meliponula nebulata followed the most efficient bee species, with 97.1% pollination efficiency.
- Taxon
- Coffea canephoraCoffea canephorat0
- Interactor
- Meliponula nebulatae1pollinator
- Outcome
- most efficient bee speciese1
- Value
- 97.1%e1
- Qualifier
- followed bye1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“visiting coffee (Coffea canephora) flowers in Uganda”
e1“The most efficient bee species was Meliponula ferruginea (98.3%) followed by Meliponula nebulata (97.1%)”
Claim · model-written summary
Morphological and anatomical characteristics of bee pollen storage may explain the differences in foraging behaviour and pollination efficiency of social and solitary bees.
- Taxon
- Coffea canephoraCoffea canephorat0
- Interactor
- social and solitary afrotropical bee speciese1pollinator
- Outcome
- foraging behaviour activitiese1
- Qualifier
- Morphological and anatomical characteristics of the bee pollen storage featurese1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“visiting coffee (Coffea canephora) flowers in Uganda”
e1“Morphological and anatomical characteristics of the bee pollen storage features may explain the difference in foraging behaviour activities and in pollination efficiency of social and solitary afrotropical bee species visiting lowland coffee in Uganda”
Claim · model-written summary
Pollination efficiency was influenced by land-use intensity, field management systems and habitat types in the surroundings of coffee fields.
- Taxon
- Coffea canephoraCoffea canephorat0
- Treatment
- land-use intensity, field management systems and habitat typese1
- Outcome
- pollination efficiencye1
- Direction
- influencede1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“visiting coffee (Coffea canephora) flowers in Uganda”
e1“pollination efficiency was influenced by land-use intensity, field management systems and habitat types found in the immediate surroundings of coffee fields, but not by coffee field size, coffee genotypes and mass blooming wild vegetation”
Claim · model-written summary
Pollination efficiency was not influenced by coffee field size, coffee genotypes or mass blooming wild vegetation.
- Taxon
- Coffea canephoraCoffea canephorat0
- Treatment
- coffee field size, coffee genotypes and mass blooming wild vegetatione1
- Outcome
- pollination efficiencye1
- Direction
- no_changeinferrede1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“visiting coffee (Coffea canephora) flowers in Uganda”
e1“pollination efficiency was influenced by land-use intensity, field management systems and habitat types found in the immediate surroundings of coffee fields, but not by coffee field size, coffee genotypes and mass blooming wild vegetation”
Claim · model-written summary
Farmers should adopt pollinator-friendly conservation and farming practices, such as keeping 25%–30% of the farm uncultivated as pollinator reservoirs.
- Taxon
- Coffea canephoraCoffea canephorat0
- Outcome
- pollinator-friendly conservation and farming practicese1
- Qualifier
- keeping an uncultivated portion (25%–30%)e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“visiting coffee (Coffea canephora) flowers in Uganda”
e1“It is recommended to farmers to adopt pollinator-friendly conservation and farming practices such as keeping an uncultivated portion (25%–30%) of their farms as pollinator reservoirs”