Plants used in traditional beekeeping in Burkina Faso

doi:10.4236/oje.2013.35040

Paper Menu >>

Journal Menu >>

Vol.3, No.5, 354-358 (2013) Open Journal of Ecology

http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/oje.2013.35040

Plants used in traditional beekeeping in Burkina Faso

Schweitzer Paul1, Nombré Issa2,3, Ai doo Kwamé4, Boussim I. Joseph2

1Laboratoire d’Analyses et d’Ecologie Apicole Centre d’Etudes Techniques Apicole de Moselle, Guenange, France

2Institut des Sciences, Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso; [email protected]

3Laboratoire de Biologie et Ecologie Végétales UFR Science et Technique Université de Ouagadougou, Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso

4International Stingless Bee Centre, Department of Entomology and Wildlife, University of Cape Coast, Cape Coast, Ghana

Received 4 January 2013; revised 5 August 2013; accepted 25 August 2013

which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

ABSTRACT

Beekeeping is one of the recommended approa-

ches in the imple ment ati on of pover ty allev iation

programs in rural areas of Burkina Faso. How-

ever, plants that are important in beekeeping

have not been identified. The use of parts and

organs of plants by beekeepers and their me-

thods of harvesting remain unknown. These li-

mit the conservation efforts of these important

plants and affect beekeeping development. The

study w as carried out in the south-central, east-

central regions and in Comoé and Boucle of

Mouhoun regions of Burkina Fas o. The objective

of the study was to identify the plants species

used by traditional beekeepers, the different

uses made of these plant parts and organs and

then to discuss the impact of these activities on

the survival of the plant resources. An ethno-

apiculture survey was conducted in the main

apiculture zone of Burkina Faso, using semi-

structured interviews. The methodology of bota-

nical coherence or convergence was applied to

classify botanical species. Results showed that

35 botanical species were used in traditional

beekeeping. The use of plant parts or organs in

traditional hives construction represents 55%,

attraction of wild swarms in new beehives is

37.50% a nd use as a to rc h or as a smoker, 7.50%.

The barks are the organs most used. Trees are

botanical type most used. The results are not

exhaustive and therefore other additional stu-

dies need to be carried out. In order to sustain

the use of these important plants, their growing

in nursery and their planting in the field are re-

commended.

Keywords: Beekeeping; Melliferous Plants;

Pollinating; Biodiversity; Burkina Faso

1. INTRODUCTION

Honeybees are since 2006 victims of colony collapse

disorder or (CCD) ([1-3]). Many well intentioned sug-

gestions as to the possible causes of colony losses, in-

cluding such improbable ideas as mobile telephones, ge-

netically modified crops and nanotechnology, have per-

haps overshadowed much more likely explanations such

as pests and diseases, pesticides, loss of forage and inap-

propriate beekeeping practices [2]. Bees are the major

pollinators of wild plants and crops in terrestrial eco-

systems. Honeybees are known to contribute signifi-

cantly to the provision of this essential ecosystem service

of pollination [4-6]. They are also bio-indicators for en-

vironment pollution [7,8] and beekeeping is an effective

means to generate monetary incomes that support the

livelihood of rural communities. Numerous studies have

demonstrated the economic value of honeybees to the

agricultural industry of the world [9,10]. In Africa, espe-

cially areas in south of Sahara and particularly in Burki-

na Faso, this phenomenon is not fully known because of

the lack of scientific studies [11]. [6] stated that bee-

keepers and honey hunters are sometimes perceived to

cause damages to forests, through the careless use of fire

during harvesting and because they kill trees to make

beehives. So, traditional beekeeping ha s been considered

as harmful to biodiversity conservation [12]. Others au-

thors differentiate traditional beekeeping from honey

hunting as contributing to the increase in honey bee

number. The roles of honeybees in providing ecosystem

services is a function of their number in the beehive and

varies according to the type of beehive used [13].

Burkina Faso has undertaken the modernization of its

apiculture since 1987 . Studies had been done on the mel-

liferous plants [14,15] and on the plant organs used to

attract swarms of the local honeybee Apis mellifera ad-

ansonii Latreille into newly installed beehives [16]. Tra-

ditional beekeeping is widespread in Burkina Faso and

their activities understand in the exploitation of plant

S. Paul et al. / Open Journal of Ecology 3 (2013) 354-358 355

parts and organs described as “extractivism” may have

conservation undertones [17]. Studies on the impact of

this activity on colony loss and oth er effects on th e envi-

ronment have not been carried out. The harvest tech-

nologies of plant organs or parts remain unrecognized,

limiting the conception of preservation efforts of melli-

ferous plants. This lack of information can moreover

constitute a handicap in the development of beekeeping.

It is to contribute to raising this constraint in relationship

with the lack of information that the present study aims

to provide knowledge on the used in traditional bee-

keeping. It will identify the various uses of the plant

parts and organs and discuss their impacts on plant re-

sources sustainability and then suggest solutions for a

sustainable management of the identified plants.

2. MATERIAL AND METHODS

2.1. Study Area

The study was carried out in the villages of Nazinga

(south-central region), Garango (east-central region),

Tiefora (Comoé region) and Dédougou (Boucle of Mou-

houn region ) ( Figure 1).

These communities fall within the main beekeeping

zones made up of the north and south Soudanian phyto-

geographical sector of Burkina Faso.

Agriculture (crop cultivation and animal breeding) is

the main activity of the population. In all the regions,

crops (Sorghum gu in een se Staph., Zea mays Linn., Oryza

sativa Linn., and Dioscorea dumetotum (Kunt) Pax.) are

dominant.

The vegetation is predominantly savannas with arustic-

landscapes dominated by species such Vitellaria para-

doxa Gaertn, Tamarindus indica Linn., Parkia biglobosa

(Jacq.) Benth, Lannea microcarpa Engl. & K. Krause,

Adansonia digitata Linn., Faidherbia albida (Del.) A.

Chev.; the groupings of Anogeissus leiocarpus (DC.)

Figure 1. Location of the study area.

Guil. & Perr. and planted species as Mangifera indica

Linn., Eucalyptus camaldulensis Dehnhard, Azadirachta

indica A. Juss, Khaya senegalensis (Desn.) A. Juss, Ana-

cardium occidentale Linn., Borassus aethiopum Mart.,

Psidium guajava Linn., Cariaca papaya Linn., Annona

squamosa Linn., an d Citrus sinensis (Linn.) Osbe ck .

2.2. Methods

Ethno-apicultural investigations and field observations

were carried out using semi-structured inquiry cards on

traditional beekeepers who are 25 years of age and pos-

sessing colonized traditional beehives. The names of

plants used were transcribed into the following local

languages: Gourounsi for Nazinga zone; Bissa for Ga-

rango zone and Dioula for Tiéfora and Dédougou zones.

The plant species scientific identification was made re-

ferring to [18]. The plants parts and organs used by bee-

keepers were identified from responses obtained from at

least 10 beekeepers. A total of 103 beekeepers were in-

terviewed.

3. RESULTS

3.1. Different Plant Parts or Organs Used

The results showed that the barks and fibers with

37.5% of utilizations constituted the most organs used

(Figure 1). The grass, the aerial organs, the thatches of

graminaceous and the inflorescences constituted the

group of plants aerial pa rt (32.5%). The twigs constituted

12.5%, the fruits and seeds 10%, leave 5% and the tubers

were less used (2.5%).

3.2. Plants Used and Their Utilizations

The parts or organs of 35 botanical species were used in

the traditional beek eeping practices in Burkin a Faso (Ta-

ble 1).

Three kinds of utilization of the plant parts or organs

were dominants (Table 1). The first concerned the use in

the new traditional beehives construction. It repre-

Barks Aerial

parts Twigs LeavesFruitsTubers

Parts or orga n

% o f utiliz ation

Figure 2. Different plant parts or organs used in traditional

beekeeping.

S. Paul et al. / Open Journal of Ecology 3 (2013) 354-358

356

sented 55%. Indeed, beehives can be made with barks,

hollowed out tree trunks, plaited straws or twigs.

The second represented the attraction of wild swarms

into newly established beehives. It represented 37.50%.

Indeed, plant p art s or organs can be used as swarm baits

substituting the Aristée perfumes, the honeybees’ charm

or comb foundation s used in modern beekeeping.

The third is the use as a torch to light beehives inside

or as a smoker during honey harvesting. It represented

7.50%.

3.3. Botanical Type Used

In the biological type, trees were the most used (44%);

followed in order by the grass (31%), the shrubs (22%)

and the lianas (3%) (Figure 3).

Table 1. The use of plant parts and organs in traditional beekeeping in the Burkina Faso.

Scientifique names Parts or organs used Utilizations

Acacia seyal Del. Fruits Swarms attraction

Combretum glutinosum Perr. ex DC Twigs Swarms attraction

Ctenium newtonii Hack. Thatches Swarms attraction

Cymbopogon schoenanthus subsp. proximus (Hochst. ex A. Rich.) M. & W Inflorescences Swarms attraction

Dicoma tomentosa Cass. Aerial organs Swarms attraction

Dioscorea dumetorum (Kun th) Pax Tubers Swarms attraction

Diospyros mespiliformis Hochst. ex A. DC. Leaves Swarms attraction

Guiera senegalensis J. F. Gmel. Twigs Swarms attraction

Hyptis spicigera Lam. Aerial organs Swarms attraction

Leucas martinicensis (Jacq.) Ait. Aerial organs Swarms attraction

Ocimum americanum Linn. Aerial organs Swarms attraction

Parkia biglobosa (Jacq.) Benth. Seeds Swarms attraction

Piliostigma reticulatum (DC.) Hochst. Fruits Swarms attraction

Piliostigma thonningii (Schum.) Milne-Redhead Fruits Swarms attraction

Andropogon ascin odis C. B. Clarke Thatches Honey harvest

Andropogon gayan us Kunth Thatches Honey harvest

Andropogon pseudapricus Stapf Thatches Honey harvest

Andropogon ascin odis C. B. Clarke Thatches Beehive construction

Andropogon gayan us Kunth Thatches Beehive construction

Andropogon pseudapricus Stapf Thatches Beehive construction

Borassus aethiopum Mart. Leaves Beehive construction

Burkea africana Hook. Bark Beehive construction

Daniellia oliveri (Rolfe) Hutch. & Dalz. Bark Beehive construction

Detarium microcarpum Guill. & Perr. Bark Beehive construction

Feretia apodanthera Del. Twigs Beehive construction

Hibiscus asper Linn. Fibers Beehive construction

Isoberlinia doka Craib & Stapf Bark Beehive construction

Lannea acida A. Rich. Fibers Beehive construction

Loudetia togoensis (Pilger) C. E. Hubbard Thatches Beehive construction

Piliostigma reticulatum (DC.) Hochst. Fibers Beehive construction

Piliostigma thonningii (Schum.) Milne-Redhead Fibers Beehive construction

Prosopis africana (Guill. & Perr.) Taub. Bark Beehive construction

Pseudocedrela kotschyi (Schweinf.) Harms Bark Beehive construction

Pterocarpus erinaceus Poir. Bark Beehive construction

Saba senegalensis (A. DC.) Pichon Twigs Beehive construction

Fluggea virosa (Roxb. ex Willd.) Baill Twigs Beehive construction

Tamarindus indica Li nn. Fibers Beehive construction

Terminalia avicennioides Guill. & Perr Bark Beehive construction

Vitellaria paradoxa Gaertn. Bark Beehive construction

Xeroderris stuhlmannii (Taub.) Men Bark Beehive construction

S. Paul et al. / Open Journal of Ecology 3 (2013) 354-358 357

Trees 44%

Sh r ubs 22%

Liana 3%

Grass 31%

Figure 3. Different plants biological types used in traditional

beekeeping.

4. DISCUSSION

In the traditional beekeep ing practices, different plants,

parts or organs are used by the beekeepers in different

ways. The construction of beehives is more important in

the utilization of plants and also their parts or organs.

The technology us ed to remove these parts or organs can

be negative for the environment because it affects the

regeneration and the survival of the plants used. Indeed,

according to [17], the cutting down has negative impacts

on the individual tree, because, even if it presents a po-

tential of stump rejections, they have only very slight

chance to survival. That will appear as habitat degrada-

tion and outright destruction and can be the major causal

factor in the decline of bees [5].

Often, the plants used were also excellent nectar spe-

cies and then the loss of trees has negative implications

for beekeepers because they lose food and nesting sites

for wild bees, materials for building hives and places to

keep hives. However, beekeepers must make deliberate

and conscious efforts to protect and conserve forests in

which their bees forage, despite their dependency on

these resources.

There are also positives impacts on traditional bee-

keeping practices. Indeed, nesting honeybees in appro-

priate way allows them to increase their number that will

increase their role (pollinating, hone y production). Often,

the traditional beekeepers breed their honeybees even if

the hives used are rudimentary; and they only use the

smoke of burned thatch to hunt honeybees during the

harvest [16]. According to [17], the removal or whatever

organ collected is mostly made to secure not only the

survival of the exploited individual, but also the regene-

ration of the resource in a reasonable lapse of time. Fur-

thermore, according to [6], the development of tradi-

tional beekeeping based on keeping colonies, to the de-

triment of the honey hunting can increase the honeybees’

number per beehive and even per region, involving thus

an increase of their pollinating role. This development

minimizes the destructive effects of traditional beekeep-

ing on honeybees on one hand and the environment on

the other. Also, according to [16], the utilization of plant

organs or parts to attract honeybee swarms in newly es-

tablished beehives contributes to reduce the installation

costs of beekeep i n g pr o ject s de vel o pment.

According to [6], the technologically modern man has

contributed to honeybees declines in Africa. This is evi-

dent in that bee diversity and abundance is much greater

on crops in areas surrounded by natural vegetation than

in ecosystems that have been widely transformed by ag-

riculture and other exotics along with removal of natural

vegetation through urbanization.

5. CONCLUSION

Traditional beekeep ing contributes greatly to biodiver-

sity conservation in Burkina Faso. Despite the negative

effects that are attributed to some of its activities, it al-

lows for the establishment and management of wild

swarms of honeybees in appropriated ways for hive

products. The pollinating role of honeybees in the eco-

system is therefore enhanced. Plants, parts and organs are

used at different levels in this system of apiculture. The

effects of the use of plants and their organs in traditional

beekeeping practices on the vegetation and the environ-

ment remain negligible. Traditional beekeepers therefore

sustain the populations of honeybees in the environment

which contribute to the essential ecosystem service of

pollination an d biodiversity conservation. Negativ e prac-

tices of wild honey hunting should be replaced with tra-

ditional bee kee pi n g.

REFERENCES

[1] Chagnon, M. (2008) Causes et effets du déclin mondial

des pollinisateurs et les moyens d’y remédier. Fédération

Canadienne de la Faune. Bureau régional du Québec.

[2] Neumann, P., and Carreck, N.L. (2010) Honey bee colony

losses. Journal of Apicultural Research, 49, 1-6.

doi:10.3896/IBRA.1.49.1.01

[3] Kluser, S., Neumann, P., Chauzat, M.-P. and Pettis, J.S.

(2010) Global honey bee colony disorder and other

threats to insect pollinators. UNEP.

[4] Vaissière, B., Morison, N. and Carré, G. (2005) Abeilles,

pollinisation et biodiversité. Abeilles & Cie, 3, 10-14.

[5] Brown, M.J.F. and Paxton, R.J. (2009) The conservation

of bees: A global perspective, Apidologie, 40, 410-416.

doi:10.1051/apido/2009019

[6] Eardley, C.D., Gikungu, M. and Schwarz, M.P. (2009)

Bee conservation in Sub-Saharan Africa and Madagascar:

Diversity, status and threats, Apidologie, 40, 355-366.

doi:10.1051/apido/2009016

[7] Chauzat, M.-P., Faucon, J.-P., Martel, A.-C., Lachaize, J.,

Cougoule, N. and Aubert, M. (2006) Les pesticides, le

pollen et les abeilles LSA, 216, 11-12.

[8] Bogdanov, S. (2006) Contaminants of bee products. Api-

dologie, 37, 1-18. doi:10.1051/apido:2005043

[9] Krell, R. (1996) Value-added products from beekeeping.

FAO Agricultural Services Bulletin No. 124.

[10] Bradbear, N. (2010) Le rôle des abeilles dans le dévelop-

S. Paul et al. / Open Journal of Ecology 3 (2013) 354-358

358

pement rural. Manuel sur la récolte, la transformation des

produits et services dérivés des abeilles. FAO, Rome,

PFNL 19.

[11] Dietemann, V., Pirk, C.W.W. and Crewe, R. (2009) Is

there a need for conservation of honeybees in Africa?

Apidologie, 40, 285-295. doi:10.1051/apido/2009013

[12] Fisher, F.U. (1993) L’élevage des abeilles dans l’éco-

nomie de base de la savane arborée de Miombo au Centre

de l’Afrique Australe. Document du Réseau Forestier

Pour le Développement Rural, 15, 3-11.

[13] Foucault, B. (2010) Ethonographie de quelques ruches

traditionnelles. Colloque sur les Journées d’échanges sur

l’abeille et l’apiculture, 22-27 Avril 2005, Lille, 121-128

[14] Guinko, S., Guenda, W., Tamini, Z. and Zoungrana, I.

(1992) Les plantes mellifères de la zone Ouest du Bur-

kina Faso. Etudes flor. Vég. Burkina Faso, 1, 27-46.

[15] Nombré, I., Schweitzer, P., Sawadogo, M., Boussim, J.I.

and Millogo-Rasolodimby, J. (2009) Assessment of mel-

liferous plant potentialities in Burkina Faso. African Jour-

nal of Ecology, 47, 622-629.

doi: 10 .1111 /j .1 365 -2028.2009.01034.x

[16] Nombré, I., Schweitzer, P., Boussim, I.J., Millogo/Raso-

lomdimby, J. (2009) Plantes utilisées pour attirer les

essaims de l’abeille domestique (Apis mellifera adansonii

Latreille) au Burkina Faso. International Journal of Bio-

logical and Chemical Sciences, 3, 840-844.

[17] Aubertin, C., De Castro, A.L., Empenire, L., Lescure,

J.-P., Mitja, D. and Pinton, F. (1993) Les activités extrac-

tivistes en Amazonie Centrale: Une première synthèse

d’un projet multidisciplinaire. ORSTOM/INPA.

[18] Arbonnier, M. (2002) Arbres, arbustes et lianes des zones

sèches d’Afrique de l’Ouest. CIRAD, MNHN, UICN.