Skip to main content
PMC home page
Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences logoLink to Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences
. 2018 Dec 4;26(7):1548–1552. doi: 10.1016/j.sjbs.2018.12.005

Pollination biology of Albizia lebbeck (L.) Benth. (Fabaceae: Mimosoideae) with reference to insect floral visitors

Abdul Latif a,⁎, Saeed Ahmad Malik a,b, Shafqat Saeed c, Syed Muhammad Zaka d, Zahid Mahmood Sarwar d, Muqarrab Ali e, Muhammad Farooq Azhar f, Muhammad Javaid c,g, Muhammad Ishtiaq c, Unsar Naeem-Ullah c, Mamoona Naoreen h, Khalid Ali Khan i,j, Hamed A Ghramh i,j,k, Muhammad Ahmed Shahzad l
PMCID: PMC6864188  PMID: 31762624

Abstract

Indian siris, Albizia lebbeck (L.) Benth. (Fabaceae: Mimosoideae) has significant importance to human beings for its multipurpose use. Insects play a crucial role in the pollination biology of flowering plants. In the current study, we studied the pollination biology of A. lebbeck with special reference to insect floral visitors. The effectiveness of floral visitors was investigated in term of visitation frequency, visitation rate and pollen load during 2012 and 2013. In the second experiment, effect of pollinators on yield of A. lebbeck was studied in open and cage pollination experiments. Floral visitor fauna of A. lebbeck included eight-bees, two wasps, two flies, and two butterflies species. Among them, Apis dorsata, Apis florea, Amegilla cingulata, and Nomia oxybeloides had maximum abundance ranging from 349–492, 339–428, 291–342 and 235–255 numbers of individuals, respectively during two flowering seasons. A. dorsata had the highest visitation frequency (6.44 ± 0.49–8.78 ± 0.48 visits/flower/5min) followed by Amegilla cingulata (6.03 ± 0.43–7.99 ± 0.33 visits/flower/5min) and A. florea (3.61 ± 0.31–4.44 ± 0.18 visits/flower/5min). A. dorsata, N. oxybeloides, and Amegilla cingulata had the highest visitation rates (18.904 ± 1.53–11.43 ± 1.17 flower visited/min) and pollen load (15333 ± 336.22–19243 ± 648.45 pollen grains). The open pollinated flowers had significantly higher capsule weight (4.97 ± 0.21 g), seed weight (1.04 ± 0.05 g), seed numbers per pod (9.80 ± 0.34) and seed germination percentage (84.0 ± 1.78%) as compared to caged flowers. The results suggested bees especially A. dorsata, N. oxybeloides and Amegilla cingulata could be effective pollinators of A. lebbeck.

Keywords: Bees, Floral visitors, Open pollination, Visitation frequency, Visitation rate

1. Introduction

Insects play a pivotal role in pollination of flowering plants (Kluser et al., 2010, Mallinger and Prasifka, 2017, Vanbergen and Initiative, 2013). According to Klein et al. (2007), >75% of the wild plant species and agriculture crops depends upon insect pollination. Some crops even do not fruit and produce seeds in the absence of insects’ visitation to flowers. Insects are also responsible for yield increase in self-pollinated and cross pollinated crops, and ensure global food supply and other services to mankind, for review see Crenna et al. (2017).

Albizia is very important genus belonging to family Fabaceae and sub-family Mimosoideae. The members of this family are fast growing trees and shrubs that are mostly found in tropical and subtropical areas of Asia and Africa (Allen and Allen, 1981, Council, 1979). Indian siris, A. lebbeck (L.) Benth. (Fabaceae: Mimosoideae) is native to Asia and is abundantly located India, Burma, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh including Pakistan (Babu et al., 2009). This species is known for its multiple uses for example its wood is used for making different furniture items and agriculture implements. The gum obtained from its cut bark is a substitute for gum got from Acacia senegal Willd. (Council, 1979, Farooqi and Kapoor, 1968). The other parts of A. lebbeck (leaves, seeds, bark and roots) are used for making different traditional medicines to cure cancer, blood diseases, piles, paralysis and many other diseases of skin teeth and gums (Ganguly and Bhatt, 1993, Kumar et al., 2007, Tripathi et al., 1979, Verma and Srivastav, 2011). Apart from all its uses, it is also planted as a shade tree and host for lac insects (Venkataramany, 1968).

The flowers of A. lebbeck are cream-coloured mimosa-like with long stamens and appeared on lateral stalks in round clusters during April to May (Parrotta, 1988). Its flowers are self-compatible plant, but for flower tripping, it requires pollinator’s visitation (Lowry et al., 1994). Although, importance of insect visitors has been proposed in the pollination of A. lebbeck but none have conducted detailed studies on its different floral visitors. The visitation and activity rate of pollinators varies among pollinators hence influence the fruit and seed setting in plants (Cane, 2002, Cane and Schiffhauer, 2003). In the current study, we hypothesized that insects play a significant role in the pollination of A. lebbeck. We documented different floral visitors of A. lebbeck along with their visitation frequencies and rates for the first time. We also experimentally proved the effectiveness of floral visitors on the yield parameters of A. lebbeck.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Study site

The studies were conducted at Dera Ghazi Khan (longitude 70° 29′ 7″ E and latitude 29° 57′ 38″ N) Punjab, Pakistan. The climate of Dera Ghazi Khan is tropical to sub-tropical with erratic rainfall, low humidity, long summer and very short winter. The site has mix plantation of many tree species including A. lebbeck, Acacia arabica, Dalbergia sissoo, Prosopis cineraria and Eucalyptus spp.

2.2. Foraging behavior of floral visitors

The foraging behavior of floral visitors was assessed in term of their abundance (total numbers of individuals of species in an area), visitation frequency (numbers of visits/flower/5 min) and visitation rate (numbers of flowers visited/min) by following the methodology of Tidke and Tidke and Thorat, 2011, Saeed et al., 2012. The study was conducted during the flowering season (April-May) 2012 and 2013. For visitation frequency, 200 branches from 40 plants were selected randomly each year. Each branch was observed for five minutes at three times of the day (08:00, 12:00 and 16:00 h) to count the numbers of visits of different visitors per flower. The data of visitation frequency were taken on weekly basis for a total of seven weeks during each season. For visitation rate, each floral visitor species was observed at three times a day (08:00, 12:00, and 16:00 h). A total of 40 readings of each visitor were taken with the help of stop watch during each flowering season. For calculation of visitation frequency and visitation rate of each floral visitor, the data of three readings of each day (08:00, 12:00 and 16:00 h) was pooled together to obtain one reading for one day and then used for data analysis.

2.3. Identification of floral visitors

The different floral visitors of A. lebbeck were captured with the help of sweep net, killed by ethyl acetate fumes in killing bottle and preserved in 80% ethanol solution for future identification. Each floral visitor was identified using keys of Michener, 2000, Vockeroth, 1969 up to at least genus level. However, identification to species level was done with the help of an expert (see acknowledgment).

2.4. Pollen load analysis

The analysis of pollen load on each floral visitor was done by following the methodology of Latif et al. (2016). Briefly, we carefully captured 40 samples of each floral visitor with the help of sweep net, killed and preserved glass vials separately in ethanol as described earlier. We did all this process with great care to avoid loss of pollen grains from the bodies of floral visitors. Ethanol was added into each vial to make 10 mL volume. A small quantity of detergent was also added into each vial to remove maximum numbers of pollen grains from the body of each floral visitor. After this, 7 µL volume was taken with the help of micropipette and transferred to haemocytometer. The numbers of pollen in 7 µL suspension were counted by observing haemocytometer under microscope and then total numbers of pollen grains in 10 mL suspension were calculated using the methodology of (Sutyemez, 2011).

2.5. Reproductive success of A. lebbeck in open and cage pollination experiment

We explored the reproductive success of A. lebbeck in open and caged pollination experiments. For open pollination experiment, 40 flower buds from 20 plants were selected and tagged at the start of flowering seasons. The flowers were kept open so that any floral visitor (especially bees in this case) can visit the flowers. However, for cage pollination experiment, 40 flower buds from 20 plants were selected and covered with nylon mesh cages (Seedburo Equipment Co., Des Plaines, IL, USA). The nylon mesh cages ensured the air passage but prevented the visitation of flowers by different floral visitors throughout the experiment that resulted in self-pollination. At the end of both experiments, the capsule weight, seed weight and seed numbers per flower in open and cage pollination experiments were recorded. The germination percentage of obtained seeds was also evaluated. For this purpose, we placed five seeds in glass Petri dish having moist filter paper at room temperature and germination percentage of seeds was calculated by following the methodology of Islam et al. (2002).

2.6. Data analysis

The data of floral visitors’ characters (visitation frequency, visitation rate and pollen load) and reproductive success parameters in open and cage pollination experiments were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) and their means were separated by Tukey’s HSD by using Statistix version 8.1 (McGraw-Hill, 2008).

3. Results

3.1. Floral visitors of A. lebbeck

The floral visitors of A. lebbeck are presented in Table 1 and belonged to insect orders Hymenoptera, Diptera, and Lepidoptera.

Table 1.

Abundance of different pollinator species of Albizia lebbeck during 2012 and 2013.

Floral visitor Order Taxonomic group Family
Amegilla cingulata Hymenoptera Bees Apidae
Amegilla sp.1 Hymenoptera Bees Apidae
Apis dorsata Hymenoptera Bees Apidae
Apis florea Hymenoptera Bees Apidae
Ceratina sexmaculata Hymenoptera Bees Apidae
Xylocopa aestuans Hymenoptera Bees Apidae
Megachile bicolor Hymenoptera Bees Megachilidae
Nomia oxybeloides Hymenoptera Bees Halictidae
Vespa dorylloides Hymenoptera Wasp Vespidae
Vespa orientalis Hymenoptera Wasp Vespidae
Ischiodon scutellaris Diptera Fly Syrphidae
Paragus serratus Diptera Fly Syrphidae
Eurema hecabe Lepidoptera Butterfly Pieridae
Zizeeria krasandra Lepidoptera Butterfly Lycaenidae
Open in a new tab

3.2. Abundance of floral visitors

Apis dorsata (349–492 numbers) was the most abundant species on the flowers of A. lebbeck followed by Amegilla cingulata (339–428 numbers), A. florea (291–342 numbers) and Nomia oxybeloides (235–255 numbers). However, Paragus serratus (38–59 numbers), Ceratina sexmaculata (57–63 numbers) and Megachile bicolor (50–73 numbers) were the least abundant species during 2012 and 2013 (Table 2).

Table 2.

Abundance of different pollinator species of Albizia lebbeck during 2012 and 2013.

Floral visitor 2012 2013
Amegilla cingulata 428 339
Amegilla sp.1 69 90
Apis dorsata 492 349
Apis florea 291 342
Ceratina sexmaculata 63 57
Xylocopa aestuans 209 228
Megachile bicolor 73 50
Nomia oxybeloides 235 255
Vespa dorylloides 156 184
Vespa orientalis 149 99
Ischiodon scutellaris 87 75
Paragus serratus 59 38
Eurema hecabe 80 114
Zizeeria krasandra 215 270
Open in a new tab

3.3. Visitation frequency of floral visitors

Floral visitors differed significantly in term of visitation frequency (F13,91 = 62.96; P < 0.001, 2012 and F13,91 = 62.17; P < 0.001, 2013) with highest values recorded for A. dorsata (6.44 ± 0.49–8.78 ± 0.48 visits/flower/5min), Amegilla cingulata (6.03 ± 0.43–7.99 ± 0.33 visits/flower/5min) and A. florea (3.61 ± 0.31–4.44 ± 0.18 visits/flower/5min) during 2012 and 2013. M. bicolor had significantly low visitation frequency (0.91 ± 0.05–1.31 ± 0.12 visits/flower/5 min), followed by P. serratus (0.94 ± 0.15–1.56 ± 0.22 visits/flower/5 min), C. sexmaculata (1.01 ± 0.11–1.12 ± 0.11 visits/flower/5 min) (Table 3).

Table 3.

Visitation frequency (numbers of visits/flower/5 min, Mean ± SEM) of different pollinator species of Albizia lebbeck during 2012 and 2013. Means sharing the same letters are not significantly different (P > 0.05; Tukey’s HSD, Statistix 8.1).

Floral visitor 2012 2013
Amegilla cingulata 7.99 ± 0.33 A 6.03 ± 0.43 A
Amegilla sp.1 1.42 ± 0.20 D-F 1.25 ± 1.00 C
Apis dorsata 8.78 ± 0.48 A 6.44 ± 0.49 A
Apis florea 3.61 ± 0.31 BC 4.44 ± 0.18 B
Ceratina sexmaculata 1.13 ± 0.11 F 1.02 ± 0.11 C
Xylocopa aestuans 3.73 ± 0.26 BC 4.02 ± 0.29 B
Megachile bicolor 1.31 ± 0.12 EF 0.91 ± 0.05 C
Nomia oxybeloides 4.19 ± 0.32 B 6.17 ± 0.36 A
Vespa dorylloides 2.83 ± 0.15 B-D 3.44 ± 0.17 B
Vespa orientalis 2.66 ± 0.38 C-E 1.83 ± 0.14 C
Ischiodon scutellaris 1.57 ± 0.39 D-F 4.67 ± 0.36 B
Paragus serratus 1.56 ± 0.22 D-F 0.94 ± 0.15 C
Eurema hecabe 1.43 ± 0.34 D-F 1.37 ± 0.05 C
Zizeeria krasandra 3.83 ± 0.35 BC 2.07 ± 0.23 C
Open in a new tab

3.4. Visitation rate of floral visitors

Visitation rates of different floral visitors differed significantly during two years (F13,91 = 25.59; P < 0.001, 2012 and F13,91 = 14.50; P < 0.001, 2013). The highest values were recorded for A. dorsata (14.53 ± 1.27–18.91 ± 1.53 flower visited/min) followed by Amegilla cingulata (15.37 ± 2.41–16.16 ± 0.54 flower visited/min) and N. oxybeloides (11.43 ± 1.17–12.54 ± 0.85 flower visited/min) during 2012 and 2013. Statistically low visitation rates were observed for P. serratus (3.57 ± 0.55 flower visited/min) and Zizeeria krasandra (5.62 ± 0.79 flower visited/min) during 2012 followed by C. sexmaculata (5.61 ± 0.20–5.65 ± 0.23 flower visited/min) and Vespa dorylloides (5.72 ± 0.64–5.84 ± 0.66 flower visited/min) during 2012 and 2013 (Table 4).

Table 4.

Visitation rate (numbers of flower visited/min, Mean ± SEM) of different pollinator species of Albizia lebbeck during 2012 and 2013. Means sharing the same letters are not significantly different (P > 0.05; Tukey’s HSD, Statistix 8.1).

Floral visitor 2012 2013
Amegilla cingulate 16.16 ± 0.54 A 15.37 ± 2.41 AB
Amegilla sp.1 7.58 ± 0.65 C 6.33 ± 0.24 D
Apis dorsata 14.53 ± 1.27 AB 18.91 ± 1.53 A
Apis florea 6.42 ± 0.30 CD 10.49 ± 0.67 B-D
Ceratina sexmaculata 5.65 ± 0.23 CD 5.61 ± 0.20 D
Xylocopa aestuans 6.11 ± 0.63 CD 8.98 ± 1.64 CD
Megachile bicolor 5.85 ± 0.49 CD 7.35 ± 0.38 D
Nomia oxybeloides 11.43 ± 1.17 B 12.54 ± 0.85 BC
Vespa dorylloides 5.72 ± 0.64 CD 5.84 ± 0.66 D
Vespa orientalis 6.79 ± 0.83 CD 7.25 ± 0.87 D
Ischiodon scutellaris 6.34 ± 0.69 CD 5.99 ± 0.14 D
Paragus serratus 3.57 ± 0.55 D 9.89 ± 0.86 CD
Eurema hecabe 5.74 ± 0.40 CD 6.40 ± 0.37 D
Zizeeria krasandra 5.62 ± 0.79 CD 8.74 ± 1.00 CD
Open in a new tab

3.5. Pollen load of floral visitors

Floral visitors were also significantly different in term of pollen load on their bodies (F13,247 = 114.67; P < 0.001, 2012 and F13,247 = 122.51; P < 0.001, 2013). Pollen load was maximum on the bodies of A. dorsata (18298 ± 815.92–19243 ± 648.45) followed by N. oxybeloides (16028 ± 418.93–17449 ± 426.73) and A. cingulata (15333 ± 336.22–16229 ± 410.06). Ischiodon scutellaris had statistically the lowest numbers of pollen grains (4705 ± 186.02–4860 ± 174.63) on its body followed by V. orientalis (6124 ± 338.12–6390 ± 262.34), Z. krasandra (6295 ± 285.56–6564 ± 291.99) and P. serratus (6250 ± 371.22–7195 ± 172.82) in two years of study (Table 5).

Table 5.

Pollen load (Numbers of pollen grains/visitor, Mean ± SEM) of different pollinator species of Albizia lebbeck during 2012 and 2013. Means sharing the same letters are not significantly different (P > 0.05; Tukey’s HSD, Statistix 8.1).

Floral visitor 2012 2013
Amegilla cingulata 16229 ± 410.06 AB 15333 ± 336.22 C
Amegilla sp.1 15572 ± 244.94 BC 15772 ± 372.70 BC
Apis dorsata 18298 ± 815.92 A 19243 ± 648.45 A
Apis florea 14116 ± 431.22 C 14095 ± 495.53 C
Ceratina sexmaculata 8754 ± 524.25 DE 11689 ± 689.68 D
Xylocopa aestuans 14529 ± 665.98 BC 15164 ± 524.94 C
Megachile bicolor 15019 ± 383.41 BC 14332 ± 364.73 C
Nomia oxybeloides 16028 ± 418.93 BC 17449 ± 426.73 AB
Vespa dorylloides 7385 ± 385.03 EF 7818 ± 322.86 EF
Vespa orientalis 6124 ± 338.12 FG 6390 ± 262.34 FG
Ischiodon scutellaris 4705 ± 186.02 G 4860 ± 174.63 G
Paragus serratus 6250 ± 371.22 FG 7195 ± 172.82 F
Eurema hecabe 10609 ± 247.45 D 9353 ± 389.30 E
Zizeeria krasandra 6295 ± 285.56 FG 6564 ± 291.99 FG
Open in a new tab

3.6. Reproductive success of A. lebbeck in open and cage pollination experiment

3.6.1. Pod weight

The weight of A. lebbeck pods was significantly different in open and caged pollinated flowers (F1,39 = 112.43; P < 0.001). Statistically higher pod weight was observed in open pollinated flowers (4.97 ± 0.21 g) as compared to the flowers deprived of floral visitors in cages (2.61 ± 0.13 g).

3.6.2. Seed weight

Significant differences were observed in open-pollinated flowers and caged pollinated flowers in term of seed weight (F1,39 = 203.98; P < 0.001). Seeds obtained from open-pollinated flowers had significantly higher seed weight (1.04 ± 0.05 g) compared to those that were recovered from caged flowers (0.41 ± 0.02 g).

3.6.3. Seed number

The numbers of seeds per pod in open and caged flowers differed significantly (F1,39 = 44.82; P < 0.001) with statistically more numbers of seeds produced in open-pollinated flowers (9.80 ± 0.34 numbers) as compared to seeds produced in flowers in cages deprived of pollinators (6.47 ± 0.38 numbers).

3.6.4. Seed germination

Germination (%) was significantly higher (F1,39 = 57.90; P < 0.001) in seeds obtained from open pollinated flowers (84.0 ± 1.78%) compared to seeds recovered from flowers in cages deprived of pollinators (57.0 ± 2.73%).

4. Discussion

A. lebbeck is an important tree in tropical and sub-tropical areas of the world. It is grown for shade, timber, soil conservation, forage for ruminants and for making medicines (Everist, 1986, Gabhane et al., 1995, Ganguly and Bhatt, 1993, Keating and Bolza, 1982). Gupta (1993) stated that the flowers of A. lebbeck are rich source of light-coloured honey but none have studied floral visitors. In the current study, we investigated different floral visitors of A. lebbeck for the first time. We recorded 14 types of insects from its flowers including eight bee species, two wasps, two flies and two butterflies. Bees had highest abundance, visitation frequency, visitation rate and pollen load as compared to other floral visitor groups. Higher yield was obtained in open pollinated flowers as compared to flowers that were deprived of floral visitors in cages. Based on the findings, bees were regarded as the efficient pollinators of A. lebbeck.

Our results showed that five bee species, A. dorsata, Amegilla cingulata, A. florea, N. oxybeloides and Xylocopa aestuans were the most abundant species among all other floral visitors. These five species have been reported as the most abundant species in various crops. According to Anderson and Symon (1988), the species belonging to genus Nomia and Amegilla were most abundant on the flowers of Solanum in Australia. However, A. dorsata and A. florea have been reported as the most abundant species on the flowers of bitter gourd Saeed et al. (2012), canola (Akhtar et al., 2018, Ali et al., 2011, Kumar and Singh, 2005, Shakeel et al., 2019).

The visitation frequency and rate are often used to determine the pollination effectiveness of floral visitors (Proctor et al., 1996, Singh et al., 2006). The floral visitors having higher values of visitation frequency and rate are considered as effective pollinators of flowering plants (Zameer et al., 2017). In the current study, the visitation frequency and rate values were higher for A. dorsata, Amegilla cingulate, N. oxybeloides and A. florea (Table 3, Table 4). Our results are similar to several previous studies. For example, A. dorsata and A. florea had higher values of visitation frequency and rate on various crops (Saeed et al., 2012, Siregar et al., 2016). In another study, Ali et al. (2011) observed higher visitation rate of Nomia sp. on the flowers of pumpkin as compared to all other pollinators. Amegilla sp. was the most frequent visitor (along with highest visitation rate) and was regarded as effective pollinators of Capparis aphylla flowers in Dera Ghazi Khan, Pakistan (Latif et al., 2017).

Among the other factors that determine the pollination of efficiency of floral visitors, pollen load is also very important (Canto-Aguilar and Parra-Tabla, 2000). In the current study, maximum numbers of pollen grains were recovered from the bodies of A. dorsata, N. oxybeloides and Amegilla cingulata. In previous study, Ali et al. (2011) found that Nomia sp. and A. dorsata deposited maximum numbers of pollen grains (376.60 ± 23.01, 204.15 ± 20.63) on the stigma of pumpkin flowers and were considered as the most efficient pollinators as compared to all other pollinators.

The pollination experiment suggested that pollinators had significant effect on the pollination of A. lebbeck. The flowers that were mostly visited by bees in open pollination experiment had significantly higher capsule weight, seed weight, seed numbers and better seed germination percentage as compared to flowers that were deprived of pollinators in cages. Our results are similar to the findings of Free (1966) who obtained higher numbers of bean seeds in open pollinated flowers as compared to flowers in cages without insect visitation. In other study, higher pods and seeds numbers per pod, seed weights and germination was observed in open pollinated flowers in comparison to caged Brassica flowers (Atmowidi et al., 2007). This could be due to the fact that more insect visitation on the flowers accompanied by higher pollen load increase the chances of cross pollination in open flowers leading to higher yield (Heering, 1993).

5. Conclusion

Bees were the most abundant floral visitors of A. lebbeck as compared to all other groups. Three bee species, A. dorsata, N. oxybeloides and Amegilla cingulata are considered as effective pollinators of A. lebbeck. The probable higher visitation frequency, rate and pollen load of above three bees caused significant increase in yield of A. lebbeck.

Acknowledgements

Authors are thankful to Higher Education Commission, Pakistan for providing funds to conduct this study through 5000 Indigenous PhD Fellowship. Authors are grateful to Dr. Asif Sajjad (Department of Entomology, Islamia University, Bahawalpur, Pakistan) for help in identification of pollinator species.

Footnotes

Peer review under responsibility of King Saud University.

References

  1. Akhtar T., Aziz M.A., Naeem M., Ahmed M.S., Bodlah I. Diversity and Relative Abundance of Pollinator Fauna of Canola (Brassica napus L. Var Chakwal Sarsoon) with Managed Apis mellifera L. in Pothwar Region, Gujar Khan, Pakistan. Pakistan J. Zool. 2018;50:567–573. [Google Scholar]
  2. Ali M., Saeed S., Sajjad A., Whittington A. In search of the best pollinators for canola (Brassica napus L.) production in Pakistan. Appl. Entomol. Zool. 2011;46:353–361. [Google Scholar]
  3. Allen O.N., Allen E.K. Univ of Wisconsin Press; 1981. The Leguminosae, a Source Book of Characteristics, Uses, and Nodulation. [Google Scholar]
  4. Anderson G.J., Symon D. Insect foragers on Solanum flowers in Australia. Ann. Mo. Bot. Gard. 1988:842–852. [Google Scholar]
  5. Atmowidi T., Buchori D., Manuwoto S., Suryobroto B., Hidayat P. Diversity of pollinator insects in relation to seed set of mustard (Brassica rapa L.: Cruciferae) HAYATI J. Biosci. 2007;14:155–161. [Google Scholar]
  6. Babu N.P., Pandikumar P., Ignacimuthu S. Anti-inflammatory activity of Albizia lebbeck Benth., an ethnomedicinal plant, in acute and chronic animal models of inflammation. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2009;125:356–360. doi: 10.1016/j.jep.2009.02.041. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Cane J.H. Pollinating bees (Hymenoptera: Apiformes) of US alfalfa compared for rates of pod and seed set. J. Econ. Entomol. 2002;95:22–27. doi: 10.1603/0022-0493-95.1.22. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Cane J.H., Schiffhauer D. Dose-response relationships between pollination and fruiting refine pollinator comparisons for cranberry (Vaccinium macrocarpon [Ericaceae]) Am. J. Bot. 2003;90:1425–1432. doi: 10.3732/ajb.90.10.1425. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Canto-Aguilar M.A., Parra-Tabla V. Importance of conserving alternative pollinators: assessing the pollination efficiency of the squash bee, Peponapis limitaris in Cucurbita moschata (Cucurbitaceae) J. Insect Conserv. 2000;4:201–208. [Google Scholar]
  10. Council N.R. National Academy of Sciences x, 331p.-Illus., col. illus., maps Icones, Maps. Geog; Washington DC: 1979. Tropical Legumes: Resources for the Future; pp. 2–7. [Google Scholar]
  11. Crenna E., Sala S., Polce C., Collina E. Pollinators in life cycle assessment: towards a framework for impact assessment. J. Cleaner Prod. 2017;140:525–536. [Google Scholar]
  12. Everist S.L. Department of Primary Industries; Indooroopilly, Queensland, Advisory Leaflet: 1986. Use of Fodder trees and Shrubs; p. 1024. [Google Scholar]
  13. Farooqi M., Kapoor L. Some Indian plant gums-their botany, chemistry and utilization. Indian Forester. 1968;94:662–666. [Google Scholar]
  14. Free J. The pollination requirements of broad beans and field beans (Vicia faba) J. Agric. Sci. 1966;66:395–397. [Google Scholar]
  15. Gabhane V., Pagar P., Patil B., Pattiwar V. Impact of multipurpose tree species on nutrient status of black soil. J. Soils Crops. 1995;5:166–168. [Google Scholar]
  16. Ganguly N., Bhatt E. Mode of action of active principles from stem bark of Albizia lebbeck benth. Indian J. Exp. Biol. 1993;31:125–129. [Google Scholar]
  17. Gupta R.K. Oxford & IBH Publishing Co.; 1993. Multipurpose Trees for Agroforestry and Wasteland Utilisation. [Google Scholar]
  18. Heering J. The reproductive biology of three perennial Sesbania species (Leguminosae) Euphytica. 1993;74:143–148. [Google Scholar]
  19. Islam M.M., Ahmed I., Akter N., Rahman M.M., Rahman M.L., Sultana N. Seed viability and vigour tests in Jute (Corchorus spp.) J. Agron. 2002;1:44–46. [Google Scholar]
  20. Keating, W.G., Bolza, E., 1982. Characteristics, properties and uses of timbers. Volume 1. South-east Asia, Northern Australia and the Pacific. Characteristics, properties and uses of timbers. Volume 1. South-east Asia, Northern Australia and the Pacific.
  21. Klein A.-M., Vaissiere B.E., Cane J.H., Steffan-Dewenter I., Cunningham S.A., Kremen C., Tscharntke T. Importance of pollinators in changing landscapes for world crops. Proc. R. Soc. London B: Biol. Sci. 2007;274:303–313. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2006.3721. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Kluser, S., Neumann, P., Chauzat, M.-P., Pettis, J.S., Peduzzi, P., Witt, R., Fernandez, N., Theuri, M., 2010. Global honey bee colony disorders and other threats to insect pollinators.
  23. Kumar A., Saluja A., Shah U., Mayavanshi A. Pharmacological potential of Albizzia lebbeck: a review. Pharmacogn. Rev. 2007;1:171. [Google Scholar]
  24. Kumar N., Singh R. Relative abundance of honeybees on toria bloom Brassica campestris var. toria. Pusa, India. Shashpa. 2005;12:26–30. [Google Scholar]
  25. Latif A., Iqbal N., Ejaz M., Malik S.A., Saeed S., Gulshan A.B., Alvi A.M., Dad K. Pollination biology of Callistemon viminalis (Sol. Ex Gaertn.) G. Don (Myrtaceae), Punjab, Pakistan. J. Asia-Pac. Entomol. 2016;19:467–471. [Google Scholar]
  26. Latif, A., Malik, S.A., Alvi, A.M., Saeed, Q., Saeed, S., Shuja, M.A., Ejaz, M., Iqbal, N., 2017. Pollinators’ community of Capparis aphylla at Dera Ghazi Khan, Punjab, Pakistan.
  27. Lowry J.B., Prinsen J., Burrows D. Albizia lebbeck-a promising forage tree for semiarid regions. Forage Tree Legumes Tropical Agric. 1994:75–83. [Google Scholar]
  28. Mallinger R., Prasifka J. Benefits of insect pollination to confection sunflowers differ across plant genotypes. Crop Sci. 2017;57:3264–3272. [Google Scholar]
  29. McGraw-Hill, C., 2008. Statistix 8.1 (Analytical Software, Tallahassee, Florida). Maurice/Thomas text.
  30. Michener, C., 2000. The Bees of the World John Hopkins University Press Baltimore. Maryland Google Scholar.
  31. Parrotta, J.A., 1988. Albizia Lebbek (L.) Benth: Siris, Leguminosae (Mimosaceae), Legume Family. USDA Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station, Institute of Tropical Forestry.
  32. M. Proctor P. Yeo A. Lack Proctor, M., Yeo, P., Lack, A., 1996. The natural history of pollination Harper Collins London Google Scholar.
  33. Saeed S., Malik S.A., Dad K., Sajjad A., Ali M. In search of the best native pollinators for bitter gourd (Momordica charantia L.) pollination in Multan, Pakistan. Pakistan J. Zool. 2012;44 [Google Scholar]
  34. Shakeel M., Ali H., Ahmad S., Said F., Khan K.A., Bashir M.A., Anjum S.I., Islam W., Ghramh H.A., Ansari M.J. Insect pollinators diversity and abundance in Eruca sativa Mill. (Arugula) and Brassica rapa L. (Field mustard) crops. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2019;26:1704–1709. doi: 10.1016/j.sjbs.2018.08.012. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Singh J., Agarwal O., Mishra R. Foraging rates of different Apis species visiting parental lines of Brassica napus L. Zoos’ print J. 2006;21:2226–2227. [Google Scholar]
  36. Siregar E.H., Atmowidi T., Kahono S. Diversity and abundance of insect pollinators in different agricultural lands in Jambi, Sumatera. HAYATI J. Biosci. 2016;23:13–17. [Google Scholar]
  37. Sutyemez M. Pollen quality, quantity and fruit set of some selfcompatible and self-incompatible cherry cultivars with artificial pollination. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2011;10:3380–3386. [Google Scholar]
  38. Tidke J., Thorat S. Observations on reproductive biology of Madhuca longifolia (Koen) Maccbr. Int. J. Reprod. Biol. 2011;3:1–8. [Google Scholar]
  39. Tripathi R., Sen P., Das P. Further studies on the mechanism of the anti-anaphylactic action of Albizzia lebbeck, an Indian indigenous drug. J. Ethnopharmacol. 1979;1:397–406. doi: 10.1016/s0378-8741(79)80004-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Vanbergen A.J., Initiative I.P. Threats to an ecosystem service: pressures on pollinators. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2013;11:251–259. [Google Scholar]
  41. Venkataramany P. Silviculture of genus Albizia and species. Silviculture Indian Trees. 1968;54 [Google Scholar]
  42. Verma N., Srivastav R. Analgesic, antipyretic and antiinflammatory activities of Albizia lebbeck Benth. seeds. Pharma. 2011;3:1209–1216. [Google Scholar]
  43. Vockeroth J. A revision of the genera of the Syrphini (Diptera: Syrphidae) Memoirs Entomol. Soc. Canada. 1969;101:5–176. [Google Scholar]
  44. Zameer S.U., Bilal M., Fazal M.I., Sajjad A. Foraging behavior of pollinators leads to effective pollination in radish Raphanus sativus L. Asian J. Agric. Biol. 2017;5:221–227. [Google Scholar]

Articles from Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences are provided here courtesy of Elsevier

RESOURCES