Socio-demographic characteristics of surveyed farmers
Beekeeping is an activity mainly performed by men (97%). Women were among the surveyed farmers and represented 3%. Of surveyed farmers, 76% of farmers had no formal education and others farmers had primary (12%), secondary (9%) and university (3%) levels. The surveyed beekeepers had a mean age of 37.58 ± 1.48 (SD) years. The age group of 20–35 years had the largest number, with 45% of the farmers. Then, others farmers aged 36–50 (37%) and 51–68 (18%). The average number of years of experience was 9.194 ± 0.778 (SD) years with beekeepers with seniority, between 16–20 corresponding to 7% and 4% for more than 20 years of experience.
Inventory of the main treated crops and their requirements for agrochemical treatments in Northern Benin
Whatever the crop, farmers necessarily applied some agrochemical to control weeds or pests of crops. The most popular crop combinations were cotton and maize, cultivated by all the beekepers, followed by sorghum, soya, cowpeas, yam and millet. Among these crops, cotton (100% of farmers), maize (100% of farmers), sorghum (60% of farmers), soy (45% of farmers), cowpeas (20% of farmers), yam (3% of farmers) and millet (2% of farmers) needed agrochemical treatment (Fig. 1).
Correspondence Analysis (CA) realized to show the relationship between honey production areas and herbicide types revealed that the first factor plane formed by axes 1 and 2 explained 87.78% of the total variability. The first axis contributed for 61.18% and the second 26.60%. The projection of the honey production areas in the factorial plan defined by 1 and 2 revealed that the beekeepers from Segbana and Banikoara used the herbicides Atraforce, Callifor and Atrazila in their fields. The beekeepers from Gogounou used the herbicides Cottonex, Herbextra, Adwuma, Kabasate, Butaforce, Malik, Grasskiller and Glyphader. The beekeepers from Kandi used Kalach and Butaplus (Fig. 2). Correspondence analysis (CA) performed to show the association between honey production areas and insecticide types revealed that the first factor plane formed by axes 1 and 2 explained 99.34% of the total variability. The first axis contributed for 94.76% and the second 4.58%. The projection of the honey production areas in the factorial plan defined by 1 and 2 revealed that the beekeepers from Segbana and Banikoara used the insecticides Thalis and LambdaSuper. The beekeepers from Gogounou used the insecticides Emacot and Cypercal. The beekeepers from Kandi used Cotonix (Fig. 3). Correspondence analysis (CA) performed to show the relationship between the treated crops and used herbicides types revealed that the first factor plane formed by axes 1 and 2 explained 68.45% of the total variability. The first axis contributed for 45.54% and the second 22.91%. The herbicides Kabasate, Adwuma and Grasskiller were used in the fields of soy and millet. The herbicides Callifor, Butaforce and Kalach were used in the fields of cowpea, yam and sorghum. Malik, Herbextra, Atraforce, Butaplus were used in the fields of maize. Cottonex and Glyphader were used in the field of cotton. Paraeforce was used in the all fields (Fig. 4). Correspondence Analysis (CA) performed to show the relationship between the treated crops and used insecticides types revealed that the first factor plane formed by axes 1 and 2 explained 89.41% of the total variability. The first axis contributed for 66.17% and the second 23.24%. The insecticides LambdaSuper and Cypercal were used in the fields of soy cowpea and millet. The insecticides Cotonix and Thalis were used in the fields of cotton. Emacot was used in the fields of maize and sorghum. No product was used in the field of yam (Fig. 5).
Major Pesticides Used By Farmers In The Study Area
A total of 19 agrochemicals were used by farmers, including 14 herbicides (73.68%) and 5 insecticides (26.32%). The most used herbicides were Callifor G (15%), Kalach (12%), Atrazila 80 WP (10%), Herbextra (10%), Atraforce (10%), Adwuma wura (480 SL) (9%) and Cottonex (8%). Concerning insecticides, Thalis (48%), Cotonix (36%) and Cypercal P 330 EC (10%) were more used (Table 1). According to the farmers, the effect of the agrochemicals on bees depended on their categories. Herbicides have an indirect effect on honeybees by killing small flowering plants and making the bees' food resources unavailable, while insecticides act directly on them (Table 2).
Table 1
Main pesticides used with their active ingredients
Pesticides | Active ingredients | Percentage of use |
Herbicides | | |
Callifor G | Prometryn + Fluometuron (250 g/kg) | 15 |
Kalach | Glyphosate (Glycine) (700 g/kg) | 12 |
Atrazila 80WP | Atrazine (800 g/kg) | 10 |
Herbextra 720SL | Amino salt (720 g/L) | 10 |
Atraforce | Atrazine 50%SC + 80%WP | 10 |
Adwuma wura (480 SL) | Glyphosate (480 g/L) | 9 |
Cottonex PG 560 SC | Fluometuron (250 g/L) + Prometryn (250 g/L + Glyphosate (60 g/L) | 8 |
Kabasate | Glyphosate 480 g/l SL | 5 |
Buta force EC | Butachlor 50% EC | 5 |
Grass Killer | Cinnamon bark 0.95% | 4 |
Glyphader 75SG | Glyphosate 680 g/kg | 4 |
Malik | Haloxyfos R-methyl | 3 |
Parae force | Dichlorure de Paraquat 276 g/l SL | 3 |
Buta Plus | Lambda cyhalothrin | 2 |
Insecticides | | |
Thalis | Emamectine benzoate 48 g/l-acetamipride 64 g/l. 0.25 | 48 |
Cotonix | Deltamethrin (12 g/L) + Chlorpyriphos-ethyl (300 g/L) + Acetamipride (160 g/L) | 36 |
Cypercal P 330 EC | Cypermethrin (30 g/L) + Profenos (300 g/L) | 10 |
Emacot | Emamectin benzoate | 4 |
Lambda Super 25 EC | Lambda cyhalothrin (25 g/L) | 2 |
Table 2
Farmer’s perception of the consequences of the agrochemical use on bee communities
Pesticide effects on bees | Farmer's percentage |
Herbicides | |
Kill growing herbs, destroy seeds and prevent regrowth of herbs, reducing the availability of bee foods | 60 |
Cause the death of bees | 30 |
Decrease the production capacity of honey | 10 |
Insecticides | |
Repel bees | 35 |
Kill bees | 30 |
Poison the flowers | 12 |
Pollute the air surrounding bees | 10 |
Weaken worker bees and diminish the production capacity of honey | 8 |
Decolonize beehives | 5 |
Farmer’s perception on negative effects of pesticide use on bee communities
A gradual decrease in bees has been observed by beekeepers regardless of breed. By taking the study area in general, 49% of the farmers found the decrease in the big breed and 40% that of the small breed. In the same area, some beekeepers mentioned an increase in the population dynamics of bees; 6% for the small breed and 5% for the big breed (Fig. 6). Statistical analyses showed negative effects of pesticide use (insecticide and herbicide) on big honeybee abundances (Estimate = − 2.45; P = 0.0042) and small honeybee abundances (Estimate = − 0.29; P = 0.001). Farmers collected honey (May - November) during a period of the year following the use of agrochemicals (Fig. 7). Given the gradual pollution of this honey production environment, some farmers adopted agroecological practices such as the installation of hives away from fields treated with pesticides, association of crops, biopesticide use and ecological beekeeping for sustainable production of honey (Fig. 8).
Influence of the distance of beehives from cultivated fields on the honey production and Monte Carlo modeling
The beekeepers were grouped into two groups according to the proximity of the beehives to treated crops. The average honey production per beehive in the first group was 8.08 liters, the second group was 9.75 liters per harvest. The Monte Carlo method showed that the variation in the quantity of honey production with the beehive distance from fields was significant (F = 116.7; Df = 98; P = 0.00001; Fig. 9).
Influence of beehive systems on the quantity and taste of honey
There was no significant effect of the beehive systems types on the quantity of honey produced (P = 0.32; Df = 98). However, there was a significant effect of beehive systems types on the honey taste (P < 0.00001; Df = 98). Tukey's test showed a highly significant difference between the tastes of honey produced from beehives made with sheet metal and beehives made with therapeutic plant woods. The beehives made with therapeutic wood contained honey with a very appreciable taste. The difference was moderately significant between honeys produced from beehives made with therapeutic woods and modern beehives. In addition, there was a low difference between the honey produced from modern beehives and those made from sheet metal (Fig. 10; Table 3).
Table 3
Tukey’s test on the honey taste according to beehive systems types
Beehive systems | diff | lwr | upr | p adj |
Sheet metal-modern | -0.2928105 | -0.39685193 | -0.1887690 | P < 0.00001 |
Wood-modern | 0.1040936 | 0.02357754 | 0.1846096 | 0.0075877 |
Wood-sheet metal | 0.3969040 | 0.29026739 | 0.5035407 | P < 0.00001 |