4.6 Article

Courgette Production: Pollination Demand, Supply, and Value

Journal

JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC ENTOMOLOGY
Volume 110, Issue 5, Pages 1973-1979

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/jee/tox184

Keywords

agroecology; cucurbit; economic valuation; fruit set; pollination dependence

Categories

Funding

  1. Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board, United Kingdom [CP118]
  2. Natural Environment Research Council United Kingdom [NE/J014893/1]
  3. NERC [NE/J014893/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  4. Natural Environment Research Council [NE/J014893/1] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Courgette Cucurbita pepo L.) production in the United Kingdom is estimated to be worth 6.7 pound million. However, little is known about this crop's requirement for insect-mediated pollination (pollinator dependence) and if pollinator populations in a landscape are able to fulfil its pollination needs (pollination deficit). Consequently, pollination experiments were conducted over 2 yr to explore pollinator dependence and pollination deficit in field-grown courgette in the United Kingdom. Results showed that pollination increased yield by 39% and there was no evidence of pollination limitation on crop yield. This was evidenced by a surprisingly low pollination deficit (of just 3%) and no statistical difference in yield (length grown, circumference, and weight) between open- and hand-pollinated crops. Nonetheless, the high economic value of courgettes means that reducing even the small pollination deficit could still increase profit by similar to 166 pound/ha. Interestingly, 56% of fruit was able to reach marketable size and shape without any pollination. Understanding a crop's requirement for pollinators can aid growers in their decision-making about what varieties and sites should be used. In doing so, they may increase their agricultural resilience and further their economic advantage.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available