SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Journal of Agricultural Sciences / 2026 / Volume: 26 Issue: 1

The Relationships Between Propolis Collecting Capability and Morphometric Features of Some Honey Bee Races and Ecotypes in Anatolia

Meral Kekeçoğlu(Düzce Üniversitesi, Fen Edebiyat Fakültesi, Biyoloji Bölümü)0000-0002-2564-8343
Nazife Eroğlu(TÜBİTAK MARMARA ARAŞTIRMA ENSTİTÜSÜ, GIDA ENSTİTÜSÜ)0000-0002-8618-2583
Merve Kambur(Düzce Üniversitesi, Fen Edebiyat Fakültesi, Biyoloji Bölümü)0000-0001-9658-6584
Münir Uçak(DÜZCE ÜNİVERSİTESİ, MESLEK YÜKSEKOKULU)0000-0003-1538-6711
Pages
—
Publication Date
2020-03-05
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Therefore, it seems that the enlargement of certain morphological properties with genetic tendency of the honey bee races and ecotypes, primarily the legs and wings, can lead to better propolis collecting capability.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Propolis collecting capacity of the honey bee race, Apis mellifera L., distributed across Anatolia and Thrace regions of Turkey was investigated and correlated with morphometric characteristics.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The mean yield of annual propolis was recorded as the following; Yığılca ecotype (111.6±27.5 g colony) A. m. caucasica (104±20.7 g colony), Muğla ecotype (103±34 g colony), A. m. carnica (91.16±17.6 g colony), and A. m. syriaca (74±6.4 g colony) in descending order.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Therefore, it seems that the enlargement of certain morphological properties with genetic tendency of the honey bee races and ecotypes, primarily the legs and wings, can lead to better propolis collecting capability.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Propolis harvesting · Morphometric characteristics · Correlation

Abstract

Propolis collecting capacity of the honey bee race, Apis mellifera L., distributed across Anatolia and Thrace regions of Turkey was investigated and correlated with morphometric characteristics. Thus, the propolis collecting behaviour of honey bee races and ecotypes naturally have been in Turkey, Apis mellifera caucasica, Apis mellifera carnica, Apis mellifera syriaca and Yığılca and Muğla ecotype of Apis mellifera anatoliaca were monitored. The mean yield of annual propolis was recorded as the following; Yığılca ecotype (111.6±27.5 g colony) A. m. caucasica (104±20.7 g colony), Muğla ecotype (103±34 g colony), A. m. carnica (91.16±17.6 g colony), and A. m. syriaca (74±6.4 g colony) in descending order. The highest propolis collecting activity was recorded for the Yığılca ecotype of A. m. anatoliaca and A. m. caucasica. Morphological features of honey bee samples were evaluated by classic morphometric technique to correlate propolis collecting capability and morphological features. Morphometric results of the present study showed that the largest wing and leg lengths belonged to Yığılca ecotype of A. m. anatoliaca and A. m. caucasica. Furthermore, Pearson correlation showed a significant relationship between some morphometric characteristics including the proboscis and mandibular sections, wing length (WL), wing width (WW), femur length (FL), tibia length (TL), basitarsus length (BL), basitarsus width (BW), and propolis collecting capability (P<0.05). Therefore, it seems that the enlargement of certain morphological properties with genetic tendency of the honey bee races and ecotypes, primarily the legs and wings, can lead to better propolis collecting capability.

🔖

Cite This Article

Kekeçoğlu, M., Eroğlu, N., Kambur, M., Uçak, M. (2020). The Relationships Between Propolis Collecting Capability and Morphometric Features of Some Honey Bee Races and Ecotypes in Anatolia. Journal of Agricultural Sciences, Volume: 26 Issue: 1. https://doi.org/10.15832/ankutbd.447319

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (40)

  1. Abu Fares R J, Nazer I K, Darwish R M, & Abu Zarga M (2008). Honey bee hive modification for Propolis Collection. Jordan Journal of Agricultural Sciences 4(2): 138-147
  2. Adam B (1983). In search of the best strains of honey bee. Dadant Sons, Hamilton Illons, N. Bee Books, West Yorkshire
  3. Ajao A M, Oladimeji Y U, Babatundel S K & Obembe A (2014). Differential morphometric patterns of Apis mellifera and adaptation to climatic variations Global. Journal of Bioscience and Biotechnology 3(1): 34-40
  4. Alpatov W W (1929). Biometrical studies on variation and races of the honey bee (Apis mellifera L.). The Quarterly Review of Biology 4(1): 1-58
  5. Andrich G, Fiorentini R & Consiglieri A (1987). [Characteristics of some samples of propolis from the Ligurian Coast] Caratteristiche di alcuni tipi di propoli della Riviera Ligure. Citta delle Api 28: 30-38
  6. BAB Imaging Systems, Bab Ltd, 1993. Model Bs200Pro. www.bab.com.tr
  7. Buttel-Reepen H V (1906). Apistica. Beiträge zur Systematik, Biologie, sowie zur geschichtlichen und geographischen Verbreitung der Honigbiene (Apis mellifera L.) ihrer Varietaten und der ubrigen Apis-Arten. Mitteilungen Zoologisches Museum Berlin pp. 117-201
  8. Calderone N W & Page Jr R E (1988). Genotypic variability in age polyethism and task specialization in the honey bee, Apis mellifera (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 22(1): 17-25
  9. Goodman L (2003). Form and Function in the Honey Bee, (completed and edited by Richard Cooter and Pamela Munn). International Bee Research Association, Cardiff, U.K.
  10. Crane E (1990). Bees and beekeeping: science, practice and world resources. Heinemann Newnes
  11. Çakmak I (2005). The biodiversity of honey bee races in Turkey. In 3rd European Congress on Social Insects 2005: 58
  12. De Souza D A, Wang Y, Kaftanoğlu O, De Jong D, Amdam G V, Gonçalves L S & Francoy T M (2015). Morphometric Identification of Queens, Workers and Intermediates in In- Vitro Reared Honey Bees (Apis mellifera L.). PloS one 10(4): e0123663
  13. Engel M S (1999). The taxonomy of recent and fossil honey bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae; Apis). Journal of Hymenoptera Research 8(2): 165-196
  14. Fletcher D J C (1978). The African bee, Apis mellifera adansonii, in Africa. Annual Review of Entomology 23: 151-171
  15. Garcia R C, Oliveira N T E D, Camargo S C, Pires B G, Oliveira C A L D, Teixeira R D A & Pickler M A (2013). Honey and propolis collecting, hygiene and defense behaviors of two generations of Africanized honey bees. Scientia Agricola 70(2): 74-81
  16. Ghisalberti E L (1979). Propolis: a Review. Bee World 60(2): 59-84
  17. Gösterit A, Kekeçoğlu M, Çıkılı Y (2012). Yığılca Yerel Bal Arısının Bazı Performans Özellikleri Bakımından Kafkas ve Anadolu Bal Arısı Irkı Melezleri ile Karşılaştırılması. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi 7(1): 107-114
  18. Güler A & Kaftanoğlu O (1999). Türkiye’deki önemli balarısı (Apis mellifera L.) ırk ve ekotiplerinin göçer arıcılık koşullarında performanslarının karşılaştırılması. Turkish Journal of Veterinary and Animal Science 23: 577-581
  19. Hepburn H R & Radloff S E (1997). Honeybees of Africa. Springer, Berlin.
  20. Hodges D (1967). The Function of the ‘Single hair’on the floor of the honey bees corbicula. Bee World 48(2): 58-62
  21. Kumova U, Korkmaz A, Avcı B C & Ceyran G (2002). Propolis: An important bee product. Uludağ Bee Journal 2: 10-24
  22. Kutluca S (2003). The effects of propolis collecting methods on the colony performance and chemical properties of propolis. Atatürk University Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences Department of Animal Sciences, Erzurum, Turkey
  23. Maa T C (1953). An inquiry into the systematics of the tribus Apidini or honey bees (Hymenoptera). Treubia 2(3): 525-640
  24. Manrique A J & Soares A E E (2002). Start of africanized honey bee selection program for increased propolis collecting and its effect on honey production. Interciencia 27(6): 312-316
  25. Medved V, Huang Z Y & Popadić A (2014). Ubx promotes corbicular development in Apis mellifera. Biology Letters 10(1): 20131021
  26. Metz H C (1996). Turkey: a Country Study. Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
  27. Michener C D (1974). The social behavior of the bees: a comparative study (Vol. 73, No. 87379). Harvard University Press
  28. Michener C D, Winston M L & Jander R (1978). Pollen manipulation and related activities and structures in bees of the family Apidae. University of Kansas, Science Bulletin 51(19): 575-601
  29. Mobus B (1972). The importance of propolis to the honey bee. British Bee Journal 19(8): 198-199
  30. Ochi T (1981) A new method to collect propolis. Honey Bee Science 2(1): 16
  31. Ruttner F (1988a). Biogeography and taxonomy of honey bees. Springer Verlag, Berlin
  32. Ruttner F (1988b). Breeding Tecnique and selection for Breeding of Honey bee. G.bread and Sons. Led. Brighton U.K.
  33. Skorikov A S (1929). Eine neue Basis für eine Revision der Gattung Apis L. Reports on Applied Entomology 4: 249-264
  34. SPSS for Windows, Release 15.0. 2005. Standard Version, SPSS Inc., (www.SPSS.com.tr.)
  35. Şahinler N & Gül A (2005). The effects of propolis collecting methods and honey bee genotypes on propolis yield. Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences 8(9): 1212-1214
  36. Thorp R W (1979). Structural, behavioral, and physiological adaptations of bees (Apoidea) for collecting pollen. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 66(4): 788-812.
  37. Thorp R W (2000). The collection of pollen by bees. Plant Systematics and Evolution 222: 211-223
  38. Winston M L (1991). The biology of the honey bee. Harvard University press
  39. Winston M L & Michener C D (1977). Dual origin of highly social behavior among bees. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 74(3): 1135-1137
  40. Wollenweber E & Buchmann S L (1997). Feral Honey Bees in the Sonoran Desert: Propolis Sources Other than Poplar (Populus spp.). Zeitschrift für Naturforschung C 52: 530–535