<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!DOCTYPE article  PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v3.0 20080202//EN" "http://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/3.0/journalpublishing3.dtd"><article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" dtd-version="3.0" xml:lang="en" article-type="research article"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">OJE</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>Open Journal of Ecology</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">2162-1985</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Scientific Research Publishing</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4236/oje.2022.123011</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">OJE-115821</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Articles</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="Discipline-v2"><subject>Earth&amp;Environmental Sciences</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>
 
 
  Agronomic Performances of Compost Associated with Pollinating Insects on the Growth and Yield of &lt;i&gt;Glycine max&lt;/i&gt; (L.) Merril under Field Conditions
 
</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Mohamadou</surname><given-names>Moussa</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref><xref ref-type="corresp" rid="cor1"><sup>*</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Kengni</surname><given-names>Beaudelaine Stephanie</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Steve</surname><given-names>Takoukam Toukam</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3"><sup>3</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Albert</surname><given-names>Ngakou</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3"><sup>3</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Tchuenguem</surname><given-names>Fohouo Fernand-Nestor</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3"><sup>3</sup></xref></contrib></contrib-group><aff id="aff1"><addr-line>Department of Parasitology and Parasitic Pathologies, School of Science and Veterinary Medicine, University of Ngaoundere, Ngaoundere, Cameroon</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff2"><addr-line>Department of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Science, University of Maroua, Maroua, Cameroon</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff3"><addr-line>Department of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Science, University of Ngaoundere, Ngaoundere, Cameroon</addr-line></aff><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>14</day><month>03</month><year>2022</year></pub-date><volume>12</volume><issue>03</issue><fpage>175</fpage><lpage>197</lpage><history><date date-type="received"><day>29,</day>	<month>January</month>	<year>2022</year></date><date date-type="rev-recd"><day>11</day>	<month>March</month>	<year>2022</year>	</date><date date-type="accepted"><day>14,</day>	<month>March</month>	<year>2022</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement>&#169; Copyright  2014 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. </copyright-statement><copyright-year>2014</copyright-year><license><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</license-p></license></permissions><abstract><p>
 
 
  Soybean is an oilseed crop legume cultivated for its benefits as a source of protein to human or animal food. The cultivation of soybean will promote the diversification of income sources for rural population. Like other crops, soybean flowers are visited by insects. It is expected that within the biodiversity conservation program, anthophilous insects including bees, generally increase fruit and seed yields of many plant species. Therefore, the effect of insect pollinators and compost on growth and yield parameters of 
  <em>Glycine max </em>was assessed for two cropping seasons (2018 and 2019) in the field. The experiment was set up in a complete randomized block design with three treatments: subplots applied with compost; subplots applied with fertilizer-NPK; subplots applied neither with compost, nor with fertilizer-NPK. Two other treatments were designed by plants with flowers protected against insects or flowers pollination free. Results indicate that root nodules formed by soybean plants in plots that received compost were significantly higher (
  <em>P</em> &lt; 0.001) than those from positive and negative controls. During the 2018 and 2019 cropping seasons, 948 and 593 visits from five insect species were recorded on 
  <em>G. max</em> flowers respectively. 
  <em>Lipotriches collaris</em> was the most insect species frequently observed in the field, with 44.20% and 43.34% visits yearly respectively. The synergistic effect of insects and compost increased the number of seeds per pod by 28.27% and the percentage of normal seeds by 24.47%. Hence, applying 
  <em>Glycine max</em> seeds at sowing with compost and in an environment with hives close to field could be recommended in agricultural development programs of farmers for a sustainable improvement of pods and seed yield of this valuable crop.
 
</p></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>Soybean</kwd><kwd> &lt;i&gt;Lipotriches collaris&lt;/i&gt;</kwd><kwd> Compost</kwd><kwd> Pollination</kwd><kwd> Yields</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><body><sec id="s1"><title>1. Introduction</title><p>Soybean (Glycine max L.) is an important source of vegetable oil and protein in the world [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.115821-ref1">1</xref>]. In Africa, after groundnut and rapeseed-mustard, it is ranked as the third most important oilseed crop [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.115821-ref2">2</xref>]. Soybean is a very important crop as rotation plant [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.115821-ref3">3</xref>]. However, the drought tolerance and ability to produce yield in soils that are too poor are the agronomic values of this crop [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.115821-ref4">4</xref>]. It enriches the soil with nitrogen for other crops through atmospheric nitrogen fixation, through the established symbiosis with Rhizobium, and is therefore beneficial in crop rotation and inter-cropping. In many African countries, Soybean is a highly versatile bean that can be processed into oil, flour and milk [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.115821-ref2">2</xref>]. Nutritionally, it contains 20% oil and protein 40% with 6% - 7% total mineral, 5% - 6% crude fiber, 5% ash and 17% - 19% carbohydrates [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.115821-ref2">2</xref>]. Soybean proteins contain a good amount of isoflavones which helps in preventing heart disease [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.115821-ref2">2</xref>]. It is used for the production of various daily popular consumed products, such as soybeans sauce, cake, milk and for animal feed industries.</p><p>Poor management of soil fertility in most African countries due to massive population growth affects agricultural production by increasing demand for agricultural products, thus intensifying the pressure on natural resources, and consequently the continual depletion of soil fertility [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.115821-ref5">5</xref>]. Yet the amount of nutrients present in the soil during the crop cycle determines the quality of plant mineral nutrition and largely the quantitative yields of crops [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.115821-ref6">6</xref>]. Mineral fertilizers coupled with their low accessibility to growers are limiting factors for plant growth [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.115821-ref7">7</xref>]. Hence, providing organic amendments to soil could be cheaper and more beneficial for maximizing crop yield in the context of the high cost of mineral fertilizers [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.115821-ref8">8</xref>].</p><p>The production of soybean in Cameroon was estimated at 12,544 tonnes for a pressure-demand of over 15,260 tonnes in 2010 [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.115821-ref9">9</xref>]. Therefore, it is important to investigate the possibilities of increasing the production of this valuable plant. In Cameroon, few pieces of research have been reported on the effects of different doses of cattle manure yield components of soybean as second crop organic production [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.115821-ref1">1</xref>], on nutrient management practices for enhancing soybean production [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.115821-ref10">10</xref>] and the residual effects of composted and fresh solid swine (Susscrofa L.) manure on soybean growth and yield [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.115821-ref4">4</xref>]. However, research on pollinating insects has been increased because of their vital importance in the pollination of food crops [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.115821-ref11">11</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.115821-ref12">12</xref>]. In the world, the role of pollinators for many plant species is well known and their activities are essential for ecosystem functioning and agriculture [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.115821-ref13">13</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.115821-ref14">14</xref>]. Up to date, no previous research has been reported in Adamawa Region on the relationships between compost, anthophilous insects and yield of soybean. This work was conducted to gather more data on the relationships between G. max, compost and flower-visiting insects for the optimal management of pollination services. The registration of the activity of insects on G. max flowers, the evaluation of the effect of flowers visiting insects on pollination, pods and seeds yields of this Fabaceae, the estimation of the impact of compost on G. max and the evaluation of the influence of the cumulative action of compost and flowers visiting insects are discussed.</p></sec><sec id="s2"><title>2. Materials and Methods</title><sec id="s2_1"><title>2.1. Study Site, Experimental Plots and Biological Material</title><p>Investigations were carried out in the field from May to September 2018 and 2019 at Dang (latitude 7˚42.264'N, longitude 13˚53.945'E and altitude 1106 m above sea level) in Ngaoundere III Subdivision, Vina Division, Adamaoua Region in Cameroon. The site belongs to the high-altitude Guinean savannah agroecological zone. The climate is characterized by a rainy season (April to October) and dry season (November to March), with an annual rainfall of approximately 1500 mm. The mean annual temperature is 22˚C, while the mean annual relative humidity is 70% [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.115821-ref15">15</xref>]. The animal material was mainly represented by insects naturally present in the environment and 35 colonies of Apismellifera Linnaeus (Hymenoptera: Apidae) found close to the experimental field. The flora surrounding G. max field had various unmanaged and cultivated species. Compost was produced in the Composting Unit established and monitored at the Faculty of Science of the University of Ngaoundere. Approximately 1000 g of compost per hole were applied as a layer into sowing hole before sowing. Glycine max seeds (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref>) were provided by the Institute of Research for Agricultural Development (IRAD) at Wakwa-Ngaoundere (life cycle of 155 to 160 days). The fertilizer-NPK used was of the formula 20:10:10, purchased from a local phytosanitary store. It was applied 14 days after sowing, at a rate of 10g within the rhizosphere of each plantlet.</p></sec><sec id="s2_2"><title>2.2. Land Preparation</title><p>On May 7, 2018 and May 15, 2019, experimental soil was plowed and divided into nine subplots of 3 m<sup>2</sup> each. Three subplots were applied with compost, three with chemical fertilizer-NPK and three others left unapplied neither with compost nor with fertilizer-NPK. Two seeds were sown per hole on three lines per subplot, for a total of 12 holes per line. Holes were separated 25 cm from each other, while lines were 30 cm apart. Weeding was performed manually as necessary to maintain subplots weed-free.</p></sec><sec id="s2_3"><title>2.3. Determination of the Reproduction Mode of Soybean</title><p>On July 24, 2018, six subplots carrying 216 plants with 16,150 flowers at the bud stage were labeled. Three subplots carrying 108 plants with 8246 flowers were left open to be pollinated by insects (treatment 1) (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2</xref>), while three others carrying 7904 flowers were protected with white gauze cages (1 mm<sup>2</sup> mesh) to prevent insect or other pollinating animals visits (treatment 2) (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">Figure 3</xref>). On July 27, 2019, the experiment was repeated. For treatment 3, there are three subplots carrying 108 plants with 10,130 flowers and for treatment 4, there are three subplots carrying 108 plants with 9873 flowers. Twenty days after shading of the last flower, the number of pods was assessed in each treatment. The fruiting index (P<sub>i</sub>) was then calculated as described by [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.115821-ref16">16</xref>]: P<sub>i</sub> = F<sub>2</sub>⁄F<sub>1</sub>, where F<sub>2</sub> is the number of pods formed and F<sub>1</sub> the number of viable flowers initially set. The allogamy rate (Alr) from which derives the autogamy rate (Atr) was expressed as the difference in fruiting indexes between treatment X (unprotected flowers) and treatment Y (bagged flowers) as follows [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.115821-ref17">17</xref>]: Alr = [((P<sub>i</sub>X − P<sub>i</sub>Y))/(P<sub>i</sub>X)]*100, Where P<sub>i</sub>X and P<sub>i</sub>Y are respectively the podding average indexes of treatments X and Y Atr = 100 − Alr.</p></sec><sec id="s2_4"><title>2.4. Assessment of the Influence of Inoculation on Nodulation and Biomass of Soybean</title><p>For each uninoculated subplot (treatment a), subplot inoculated with compost (treatment b), and (subplot applied with fertilizer-NPK (treatment c), sampling for the assessment of plant biomass was done on 15 randomly selected plants per elementary plot at 60 days after planting (DAP), enumerated, sun dried, stored in envelopes, and weighed. Plants were dried in an oven at 72˚C for 12 hours and weighed [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.115821-ref18">18</xref>]. Plant biomass and nodulation were evaluated on the same 45 individual plants of treatments a, b and c.</p></sec><sec id="s2_5"><title>2.5. Determination of the Foraging Activity of Insects on Soybean Flowers</title><p>The frequency of insect visits on G. max flowers was evaluated based on observations scheduled on four daily time frames (09:00-10:00 am, 11:00-12.00 am, 13:00-14:00 pm and 15:00-16:00 pm) in all treatments. From July 27<sup>th</sup> to August 27<sup>th</sup> 2018 and from July 30<sup>th</sup> to August 31<sup>th</sup> 2019, flowers were entirely opened at 09:00 am and closed before 16:00 pm, corresponding to the period of insects activity. All insect visits were recorded on flowers of treatment 1. Specimens of all insect taxa (3 to 5 per species) caught with an insect net on flowers were conserved in 70% ethanol, except Lepidoptera that were kept in curls for subsequent taxonomy determination. All insects observed on flowers were noted, and the cumulated results were expressed in number of visits to determine the relative frequency of each insect species in the anthophilous entomofauna of G. max [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.115821-ref19">19</xref>]. In addition to the determination of the floral insects’ frequency, direct observations of the foraging activity on flowers were made on each insect species in the experimental field. Nectar or pollen harvested by insects during each floral visit was registered based on their foraging behavior [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.115821-ref11">11</xref>].</p><p>In the morning of each sampling date, the number of opened flowers was counted, whereas the duration visits of each insect were recorded (using a stopwatch) for at least three times during each of the following daily time frames: 10:00 am-11:00 am, 12:00 am-13:00 pm and 14.00 am-15:00 pm. Moreover, the number of pollinating visits [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.115821-ref19">19</xref>], the abundance of foragers [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.115821-ref20">20</xref>] and the foraging speed referring to the number of flowers visited by an insect per minute [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.115821-ref21">21</xref>] were determined.</p><p>Abundance of insects per flower was recorded following direct counts. For the abundance per 1000 flowers (A<sub>1000</sub>), the number of foragers was counted at blooming flowers on the same dates and daily periods as for the registration of the duration of visits. (A<sub>1000</sub>) was calculated by the formula: A<sub>1000</sub> = [(A<sub>x</sub>/F<sub>x</sub>)*1000], where F<sub>x</sub> and A<sub>x</sub> are the number of opened flowers and the number of insects effectively counted on these flowers at time x [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.115821-ref19">19</xref>]. The foraging speed was calculated by the formula: V<sub>b</sub> = [(F<sub>i</sub>/d<sub>i</sub>)*60], where d<sub>i</sub> is the time (sec) given by a stopwatch, and F<sub>i</sub>, the number of flowers visited during d<sub>i</sub>.</p><p>Around experimental plot, the disruption of the activity of each insect forager by competitors and the attractiveness exerted by other plant species on G. max insect foragers were assessed. Ambient temperature and relative humidity were recorded at each observation date after every 30 minutes, using a portable thermo-hygrometer (HT-9227).</p></sec><sec id="s2_6"><title>2.6. Evaluation of the Relationship between the Flowering Rhythm of Soybean and the Rhythm of Pollinating Insects</title><p>From start of the flowering of the first flower to the wilting of the last flower, bloomed flowers of treatment 1 were counted. Data obtained were compared with the number of insect visits on the corresponding flowers.</p></sec><sec id="s2_7"><title>2.7. Assessment of the Impact of Compost on Yield of Soybean</title><p>The estimation of this parameter was based on the effect of compost on G. max yield. The comparison of productivity (fruiting rate, mean number of seeds per pod and percentage of normal seeds) of treatments 2 (bagged flowers) and 5 (bagged flowers inoculates by compost) for the first year, 4 (bagged flowers) and 6 (bagged flowers inoculates by compost) for the second year were assessed as influenced by compost on soybean plants.</p></sec><sec id="s2_8"><title>2.8. Assessment of the Cumulative Action of Insects and Compost on Soybean Yield</title><p>This evaluation was based on the impact of both compost and insects on G. max yield. The comparison of yields (fruiting rate, mean number of seed per pod and percentage of normal seeds) of treatment 9 and 10 with those of treatments 2 and 4 were assessed. The contribution of cumulative action of insects and compost on soybean fruiting rate, mean number of seeds per pod and the percentage of normal seeds was calculated using data of treatment 9 or 10 (inoculated flowers open to insects) and those of treatment 2 or 4 (bagged flowers).</p></sec><sec id="s2_9"><title>2.9. Data Analysis</title><p>To analyze the data we used Microsoft Excel 2010 software and four test: Student’s (t) for comparison of means of two samples, correlation coefficient (r) to determine the linear relationship between two variables, Chi-square (χ<sup>2</sup>) to compare two percentages and Statgraghics Centurion for the comparison of means of more than two samples.</p></sec></sec><sec id="s3"><title>3. Results</title><sec id="s3_1"><title>3.1. Reproduction of the Breeding Mode of Soybean</title><p><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref> indicates that the allogamy rate was 14.01% and 12.73%, respectively in 2018 and 2019, whereas the autogamous rate was 85.99% and 87.28% respectively in 2018 and 2019. For the two cumulative years, the allogamy rate was 13.37% and the autogamy rate was 86.63%. Thus, soybean variety used in this experiment has a mixed autogamous allogamous reproduction mode with the predominance of autogamy.</p><table-wrap id="table1" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref></label><caption><title> Allogamy and autogamy rates of soybean in years 2018 and 2019</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Years</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Autogamous rate (%)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Allogamous rate (%)</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >2018</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >85.99</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14.01</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >2019</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >87.28</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.73</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mean (2015/2016)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >86.63</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13.37</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap></sec><sec id="s3_2"><title>3.2. Influence of Compost on Numbers of Flowers, Nodulation and Biomass of Soybean</title><p>Plants inoculated with compost at sowing produced a significantly greater number of nodules, nodule dry weight and plant biomass compared to uninoculated plants in 2018 and 2019 (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref>).</p></sec><sec id="s3_3"><title>3.3. Frequency of Each Insect in Glycine max Entomofauna</title><p>At Dang in 2018 and 2019, 948 and 593 visits of six insect species belonging to three orders were counted on 8246 and 10130 flowers respectively. <xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref> presents the list of the insects with their percentages of visits. This table shows that Hymenoptera was the most important order with 82.09% of 1265 visits. The most represented family was Halictidae, among which Lipotriches collaris ranked first with 43.87%; Diptera and Lepidoptera were poorly represented with 4.80% and 13.11% of visits each for all the treatment and the two years respectively.</p><p>A highly significant difference was obtained between flowers from the control and those from the compost plants (P &lt; 0.001 in 2018 and 2019) and between the control and chemical fertilizer (P &lt; 0.001 in 2018: 2019).</p><table-wrap id="table2" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref></label><caption><title> Variation of nodulation and plant biomass of soybean as affected by compost application in 2018 and 2019</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Years</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Treatments</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Number of nodules per/plant</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Weight of dry nodules (g/plant)</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Plant biomass (g/plant)</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="4"  >2018</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >PC</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >(29.1 &#177; 0.82)a</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >(1.55 &#177; 0.03)a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >(34.36 &#177; 1.21)a</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >PE</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >(18.23 &#177; 0.82)b</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >(0.77 &#177; 0.03)b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >(21.17 &#177; 1.21)b</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >PN</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >(7.42 &#177; 0.82)c</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >(0.29 &#177; 0.03)c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >(11.19 &#177; 1.21)c</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >P-value</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;0.001</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >&lt;0.001</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="4"  >2019</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >PC</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >(32.55 &#177; 1.07)a</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >(1.67 &#177; 0.04)a</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >(36.84 &#177; 1.12)a</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >PE</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >(21.33 &#177; 1.07)b</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >(0.88 &#177; 0.04)b</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >(25.71 &#177; 1.12)b</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >PN</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >(8.11 &#177; 1.07)c</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >(0.31 &#177; 0.05)c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >(14.77 &#177; 1.12)c</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >P-value</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;0.001</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >&lt;0.001</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>In each column, the means followed by the same letter are not significantly different at 5% level.</p><table-wrap id="table3" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref></label><caption><title> Diversity of insects visiting Glycine max flowers in 2018 and 2019 at Dang (number and percentage of insect visits)</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"   rowspan="2"  ></th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Insects</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="5"  >2018</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="5"  >2019</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >2018/2019</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >Subplot</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Total</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >Subplot</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Total</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Total 2018/2019</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Order</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Family</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Genus, species</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >PC</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >PE</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >PN</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >n<sub>1</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >P<sub>1</sub> (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >PC</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >PE</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >PN</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >n<sub>2</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >P<sub>2</sub> (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >n<sub>T</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >P<sub>T</sub> (%)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >Hymenoptera</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Apidae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Apis mellifera (nectar)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >69</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >43</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >31</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >143</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.08</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >41</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >25</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >87</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14.67</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >230</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14.92</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Halictidae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ceratina sp. (nectar, pollen) Lipotriches collaris (nectar, pollen)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >98 172</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >77 131</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >44 116</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >219 419</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >23.10 44.20</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >60 108</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >47 94</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33 55</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >140 257</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >23.61 43.34</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >359 676</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >23.30 43.87</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Total Hymenoptera</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >339</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >251</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >191</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >781</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >82.38</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >209</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >166</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >109</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >484</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >81.62</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1265</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >82.09</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Diptera</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Syrphidae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Episyrphus sp. (pollen)<sup> </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >32</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >25</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >74</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.81</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >74</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.80</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Total Diptera</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >32</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >25</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >74</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.81</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >74</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.80</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >Lepidoptera</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Nymphalidae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Precis sp. (nectar)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >26</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >49</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.26</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >49</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.18</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Pieridae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Eurema sp. (nectar)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >53</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >28</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >93</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.81</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >30</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >60</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.12</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >153</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.93</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Total Lepidoptera</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >53</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >28</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >93</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.81</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >56</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >37</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >109</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18.38</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >202</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13.11</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Total</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >424</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >304</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >220</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >948</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >100</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >265</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >203</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >125</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >593</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >100</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1541</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >100</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="5"  >5 species</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="5"  >5 species</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >6 species</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>PC: subplot with compost; PE: subplot with fertilizer-NPK; PN: uninoculated subplot; n<sub>1</sub> and n<sub>2</sub>: number of visits on 8246 and 10,130 flowers in 23 and 25 days respectively; sp.: undetermined species; P<sub>1</sub> and P<sub>2</sub>: percentages of visits P<sub>1</sub> = (n<sub>1</sub>/929)*100 and P<sub>2</sub> = (n<sub>2</sub>/593)*100.</p></sec><sec id="s3_4"><title>3.4. Activity of Insects on Soybean Flowers</title><p>The abundance, the foraging speed and the duration of insect visits were focused on the two major flowers insects visiting of Lipotriches collaris and Ceratinasp.</p></sec><sec id="s3_5"><title>3.5. Relationships between Insect Visits and Flowering Stages of the Plant</title><p>The number of insect visits is proportional to the number of opened flowers on untreated, compost and chemical subplots of soybean (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig4">Figure 4</xref>). A positive and significant correlation was found between the numbers of opened flowers and the number of insect visits on flower of uninoculated plants (r = 0.44; P &lt; 0.05) in 2018 and 2019 (r = 0.42; P &lt; 0.05), compost affixed plants in 2018 (r = 0.64; P &lt; 0.05) and 2019 (r = 0.86; P &lt; 0.05), and fertilizer-NPK applied plants in 2018 (r = 0.57; P &lt; 0.05), and 2019 (r = 0.47; P &lt; 0.05).</p></sec><sec id="s3_6"><title>3.6. Differences in Rhythm of Visits According to Daily Time Frames</title><p>Insects foraged were abundant on soybean flowers in the afternoon, with a daily pic of activity situated between 01:00 pm and 02:00 pm (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref>). This activity was influenced by ambient temperature, but not by hygrometry. The correlation between the number of insect visits and the temperature was positive and significant on untreated (r = 0.89; P &lt; 0.05), applied compost (r = 0.96; P &lt; 0.05), and fertilizer-NPK applied (r = 0.88; P &lt; 0.05) plants for both years. As for the relative humidity, the correlation with the number of insect visits was negative and not significant on untreated (r = −0.32; P &gt; 0.05), applied compost (r = −0.43; P &gt; 0.05), and chemical fertilizer applied (r = −0.40; P &gt; 0.05) subplots of this crop.</p><table-wrap id="table4" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref></label><caption><title> Number and frequency of insect visits on Glycine max flowers according to daily observation period in 2018 and 2019 at Dang</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="4"  >Insects</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="4"  >Subplot</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="18"  >Daily period days (hours)</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="9"  >2018</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="9"  >2019</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >09 - 10</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >11 - 12</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >13 - 14</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >15 - 16</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >A</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >09 - 10</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >11 - 12</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >13 - 14</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >15 - 16</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >A</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >n</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >P (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >n</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >P (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >n</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >P (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >n</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >P (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >n</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >P (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >n</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >P (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >n</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >P (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >n</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >P (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >Apis mellifera</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >PC</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.56</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >29</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >45.31</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >32</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >50<sup>*</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.12</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >64</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >35</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >47.5<sup>*</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >40</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >PE</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >26</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >50.98<sup>*</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >24</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >47.06</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.96</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >51</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20.83</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >25</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >54.16<sup>*</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >24</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >PN</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >38.71</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >61.29<sup>*</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >31</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >30</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >70<sup>*</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >Ceratina sp.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >PC</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19.73</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >23</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >30.26</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >31</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >40.781<sup>*</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.21</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >76</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16.66</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >37.03<sup>*</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.96</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >54</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >PE</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18.18</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >31.81</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >38.641<sup>*</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.36</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >44</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.66</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >50<sup>*</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >30</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >PN</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >40<sup>*</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >36.67</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >30</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >40</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >45<sup>*</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >Lipotriches collaris</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >PC</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.44</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >37</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >27.20</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >56</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >41.17<sup>*</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16.17</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >136</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.46</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >24</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >24.74</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >47</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >48.45<sup>*</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.34</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >97</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >PE</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.78</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >25</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >26.31</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >42</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >44.21<sup>*</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13.68</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >95</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.07</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >41.77</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >36</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >45.57<sup>*</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.59</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >79</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >PN</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14.28</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >30.16</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >25</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >39.68<sup>*</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.87</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >63</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.32</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >24.39</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >25</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >73.13<sup>*</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.32</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >41</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >Episyrphus sp.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >PC</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >24.69</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >31</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >38.27<sup>*</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >27.16</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.87</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >81</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >PE</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.06</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >31.03</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >27</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >46.55<sup>*</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.34</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >58</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >PN</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.38</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >23.07</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >50<sup>*</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.54</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >26</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >Eurema eximia</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >PC</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16.43</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >23.28</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >32</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >43.83<sup>*</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16.43</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >73</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.09</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >26</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >49.06<sup>*</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >26.41</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.43</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >53</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >PE</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.81</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >29</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >39.18<sup>*</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >28</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >37.83</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.16</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >74</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >29.27</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >41.46<sup>*</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21.95</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.32</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >41</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >PN</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >26.08</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >36.95<sup>*</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >26.08</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.86</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >46</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20.69</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >48.27<sup>*</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >24.14</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.90</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >29</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >Precis sp.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >PC</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.40</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >40.54</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >43.24<sup>*</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.81</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >37</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >PE</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20.83</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >37.50<sup>*</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >24</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >PN</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21.43</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >28.57</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >42.86<sup>*</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.14</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Total</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >136</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14.34<sup>*</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >315</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33.22</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >391</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >41.24<sup>*</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >106</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.18</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >948</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >82</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13.83</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >211</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >35.58</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >251</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >42.33<sup>*</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >49</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.26</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >593</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>n: number of visits in 23 and 25 days; p: percentage of visits; p = (n/A)*100; A: total number of insect visits; <sup>*</sup>: daily peak of visit. PC: subplot with compost; PE: subplot with fertilizer-NPK; PN: uninoculated subplot.</p></sec><sec id="s3_7"><title>3.7. Abundance of Foraging Insects between Treatments</title><p>In 2018 and 2019, the largest number of individuals simultaneously active on a flower was 1 for all the treatments. For both years, the mean abundance per 1000 flowers (MATF) ranged from 35.87, 51.57 and 30 for Ceratina sp. to 37.09, 41.46 and 33.71 for Lipotriches collaris respectively on negative control, compost and fertilizer-NPK applied plants (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">Table 5</xref>).</p></sec><sec id="s3_8"><title>3.8. Duration of Insect Visits Per Flower in Treatments</title><p>In 2018 and 2019, the mean duration of insect’s visit varies from 2.19, 1.75 and 3.15 with Ceratina sp. to 2.99, 2.70 and 2.58 with Lipotriches collaris on untreated, compost and chemical fertilizer subplots respectively (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table6">Table 6</xref>).</p></sec><sec id="s3_9"><title>3.9. Foraging Speed of Insects on Soybean Flowers as Influenced by Treatments</title><p>The foraging speed’s mean of insects on soybean flowers was 10.21, 10.49 and 6.18 with Ceratina sp. to 57.35, 8.81 and 24.73 with Lipotriches collaris on untreated, compost and fertilizer-NPK subplots respectively (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table7">Table 7</xref>).</p><table-wrap id="table5" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">Table 5</xref></label><caption><title> Differences in abundances of Ceratina sp. and Lipotriches collaris on soybean flowers in 2018 and 2019 as influenced by treatments</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Insects</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Subplot</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Year</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >n</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >Abundance per 1000 flowers (AMMF)</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >m</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >s</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Comparison of means</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="9"  >Ceratina sp.</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >PC</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2018</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >64</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >31.02</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18.84</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="9"  >F = 168.42 (df1 = 5; df2 = 453; P &lt; 0.001; THS)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >2019</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >115</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >72.12</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >50.25</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>2018/2019</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >182</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >51.57</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >34.54</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >PE</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2018</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >56</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >31.51</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17.30</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >2019</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >64</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >28.49</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17.75</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>2018/2019</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >120</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >30</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17.52</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >PN</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2018</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >28</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >49.78</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16.04</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >2019</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >35</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21.97</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.34</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>2018/2019</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >63</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >35.87</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13.19</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="9"  >Lipotriches collaris</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >PC</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2018</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >176</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >37.39</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >27.11</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="9"  >F = 413.81 (df1 = 5; df2 = 812; P &lt; 0.001; THS)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >2019</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >183</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >45.54</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >27.72</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>2018/2019</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >359</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >41.46</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >27.41</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >PE</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2018</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >116</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >27.92</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14.41</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >2019</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >137</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >39.50</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21.40</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>2018/2019</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >253</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33.71</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17.90</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >PN</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2018</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >99</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >29.21</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14.70</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >2019</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >107</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >44.98</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20.64</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>2018/2019</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >206</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >37.09</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17.67</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>PC: subplot with compost; PE: subplot with fertilizer-NPK; PN: uninoculated subplot; m: average; s: standard deviation; n: sample size.</p><table-wrap id="table6" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table6">Table 6</xref></label><caption><title> Duration of Ceratina sp. and Lipotriches collaris on soybean flower as influenced by treatments in 2018 and 2019</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Insects</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Subplot</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Year</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >n</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >Duration of insects visits per flower</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >m</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >s</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Comparison of means</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="9"  >Ceratina sp.</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >PC</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2018</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >142</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.30</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="9"  >F = 44.08 (df1 = 5; df2 = 209; P &lt; 0.001; THS)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >2019</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >165</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.41</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.49</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>2018/2019</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >307</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.75</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.89</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >PE</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2018</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >92</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.45</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.07</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >2019</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >162</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.85</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.98</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>2018/2019</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >254</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.15</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.02</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >PN</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2018</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >54</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.18</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.98</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >2019</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >100</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.21</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.85</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>2018/2019</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >154</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.19</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.91</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="9"  >Lipotriches collaris</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >PC</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2018</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >142</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.66</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.49</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="9"  >F = 396.2 (df1 = 5; df2 = 768; P &lt; 0.001; THS)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >2019</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >206</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.74</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.89</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>2018/2019</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >348</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.70</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.69</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >PE</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2018</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >140</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.46</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.30</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >2019</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >198</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.70</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.80</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>2018/2019</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >338</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.58</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.55</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >PN</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2018</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >119</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.93</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.99</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >2019</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >167</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.06</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.12</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>2018/2019</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >286</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.99</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.05</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>PC: subplot with compost; PE: subplot with fertilizer-NPK; PN: uninoculated subplot; m: average; s: standard deviation; n: sample size.</p><table-wrap id="table7" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table7">Table 7</xref></label><caption><title> Foraging speed between treatments of Ceratina sp. and Lipotriches collaris on soybean flowers at Dang in 2018 and 2019</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Insects</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Subplot</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Year</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="4"  >Mean speed of insects visits on flowers</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >n</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >m</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >s</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Comparison of means</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="9"  >Ceratina sp.</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >PC</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2018</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >117</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.15</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="9"  >F = 241.5 (df1 = 5; df2 = 742; P &lt; 0.001; THS)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >2019</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >190</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.88</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.36</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>2018/2019</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >307</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.49</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.25</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >PE</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2018</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >93</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.96</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.39</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >2019</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >157</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.40</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.93</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>2018/2019</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >250</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.18</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.16</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >PN</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2018</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >68</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.85</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.17</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >2019</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >111</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.58</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.44</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>2018/2019</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >179</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.21</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.80</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="9"  >Lipotriches collaris</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >PC</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2018</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >106</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.97</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.89</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="9"  >F = 506,57 (df1 = 5; df2 = 974; P &lt; 0.001; THS)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >2019</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >164</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.66</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.35</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>2018/2019</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >270</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.81</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.62</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >PE</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2018</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >111</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21.13</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.07</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >2019</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >122</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >28.34</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21.29</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>2018/2019</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >233</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >24.73</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16.57</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >PN</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2018</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >75</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >52.03</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >34.63</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >2019</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >96</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >62.67</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >40.87</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >T<sub>2018/2019</sub></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >171</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >57.35</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >37.75</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>PC: subplot with compost; PE: subplot with fertilizer-NPK; PN: uninoculated subplot; m: average; s: standard deviation; n: sample size.</p></sec><sec id="s3_10"><title>3.10. Apicultural Value of Soybean</title><p>During anthesis of soybean, there was low nectar harvesting activity of A. mellifera workers on flowers. This result reveals the low attractiveness of soybean nectar to A. mellifera workers and consequently allows the classification of this plant species among the low bee plant species.</p></sec><sec id="s3_11"><title>3.11. Impact of Insects on Pollination, Pod and Seed Yields of Soybean</title><p>During nectar harvest on soybean, foraging insects always shook flowers and were regularly in contact with anthers and stigma, thus, increasing cross-pollination possibility of G. max fruiting rate, number of seeds per pod and percentage of normal seeds in different treatments (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table8">Table 8</xref>).</p><p>There was a highly significant between fruiting rate of free opened flowers (treatment 1) and that of bagged flowers (treatment 2), the first year (P &lt; 0.001) and the second year (P &lt; 0.001). The fruiting rate of treatment 1 (unprotected flowers) was higher than treatment 2 (protected flowers) in 2018 and in 2019. The fruiting rate due to the action of insects was 19.09 and 18.54% in 2018 and 2019 respectively. For the two cumulated years, the fructification rate due to the influence of insects was 18.81%.</p><p>The mean number of seeds per pod was highly significant between treatments 1 and 2 (P &lt; 0.001). Consequently, a high mean number of seeds per pod in treatment 1 (unprotected flowers) was noticed compared to treatments 2 (bagged flowers). The number of seeds per pod attributed to the activity of insects was 19.27% in 2018 and 21.77% in 2019, giving an overall mean of 20.52%.</p><p>There was a highly significant difference between the percentage of normal seed of treatment 1 and that of treatment 2 in the first year (P &lt; 0.001), as well as the second year (P &lt; 0.001). Thus, the percentage of normal seeds in opened flowers was higher than that of protected flowers in 2018 and 2019. The percentage of the normal seeds due to the action of insects was 14.09% in 2018 and 17.58% in 2019. For all the flowers studied, the percentage of the normal seeds due to flowering insects was 15.83%.</p><table-wrap id="table8" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table8">Table 8</xref></label><caption><title> Yield components of treatments as influenced by protection of soybean flowers from insects in 2018 and 2019</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Years</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Traitements</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >NF</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >NFP</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >FrR (%)</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Seeds/Pod</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >TNS</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >NS</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >% NS</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >m</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >s</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >2018</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1 (Unprotected flowers)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8246</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6388</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >77.46</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.27</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.91</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11,560</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9427</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >81.54</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >2 (Bagged flowers)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7904</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4954</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >62.67</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.64</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.62</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8735</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6119</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >70.05</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >2019</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3 (Unprotected flowers)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10,130</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8145</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >80.40</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.95</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.27</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14,215</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11,990</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >84.34</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >4 (Bagged flowers)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9873</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6466</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >65.49</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.09</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.86</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10,094</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7017</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >69.51</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>NF: Number of flowers; NFP: Number of formed pod; FrR: Fruiting rate; TNS: Total number of seeds; NS: Normal seeds; % NS: Percentage of normal seeds; m: Mean; s: Standard deviation.</p></sec><sec id="s3_12"><title>3.12. Impact of Compost on Pod and Seed Yields of Soybean</title><p>The comparison of the fruiting rate (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table9">Table 9</xref>) showed that the differences observed were highly significant between treatments 2 and 5 (P &lt; 0.001) and treatments 4 and 6 (P &lt; 0.001). The fruiting rate due to compost was 26.86% in 2018, 24.57% in 2019 and 25.71% for the two cumulated years.</p><p>The comparison of the mean number of seeds per pod revealed that differences observed were highly significant between treatments 2 and 5 (P &lt; 0.001) and between treatments 4 and 6 (P &lt; 0.001). The mean number of seeds per pod due to compost was 31.07% in 2018, 33.83% in 2019 and 32.45% for the two cumulated years.</p><p>Hence, in 2018 and 2019, the percentage of the normal seeds from flowers of plants protected and applied with compost (treatments 5 and 6) was higher than that of Bagged flowers and uninoculated (treatments 2 and 4). The percentage of the normal seeds due to compost was 19.40% in 2018, 21.60% in 2019 and 20.50% for the two cumulated years.</p><table-wrap id="table9" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table9">Table 9</xref></label><caption><title> Yield components of soybean in different treatments as influenced by compost in 2018 and 2019</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Years</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Traitements</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >NF</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >NFP</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >FrR (%)</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Seeds/Pod</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >TNS</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >NS</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >% NS</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >m</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >s</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >2018</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5 (Bagged flowers inoculates by compost)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9298</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7968</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >85.69</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.83</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.21</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14,070</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12,229</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >86.91</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >2 (Bagged flowers)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7904</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4954</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >62.67</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.64</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.62</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8735</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6119</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >70.05</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >2019</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6 (Bagged flowers inoculates by compost)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10,576</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9183</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >86.82</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.67</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.38</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16,086</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14,263</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >88.66</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >4 (Bagged flowers)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9873</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6466</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >65.49</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.09</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.86</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10,094</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7017</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >69.51</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>NF: Number of flowers; NFP: Number of formed pod; FrR: Fruiting rate; TNS: Total number of seeds; NS: Normal seeds; % NS: Percentage of normal seeds; m: Mean; s: Standard deviation.</p></sec><sec id="s3_13"><title>3.13. Impact of Fertilizer-NPK on Pod and Seed Yields of Soybean</title><p>The comparison of the fruiting rate (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>0) showed that the differences were highly significant between treatments 7 and 2 (P &lt; 0.001) as well as 8 and 4 (P &lt; 0.001). the fruiting rate from flowers of plants protected and applied with fertilizer-NPK (treatment 7 in 2018; treatment 8 in 2019) was higher than that from flowers of plants protected and uninoculated (treatment 2 in 2018; treatment 4 in 2019). The fruiting rate due to fertilizer chemical was 20.36% in 2018, 21.73% in 2019 and 21.04% for the both years of study.</p><p>The comparison of the mean number of seeds per pod (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>0) showed highly significant differences between treatments 7 and 2 (P &lt; 0.001), as well as 8 and 4 (P &lt; 0.001). Pod and seed yields from flowers of plants protected and applied with fertilizer-NPK (treatment 7 in 2018; treatment 8 in 2019) were higher than that from flowers of plants protected and uninoculated (treatment 2 in 2018; treatment 4 in 2019). The mean number of seeds per pod due to fertilizer chemical was 22.58% in 2018, 34.95% in 2019 and 28.76% for both years of study.</p><p>The comparison of the percentages of normal seeds shows that the differences were highly significant between treatments 7 and 2 (P &lt; 0.001), and treatments 8 and 4 (P &lt; 0.001). The percentage of normal seeds from flowers of plants protected and applied with fertilizer-NPK (treatment 7 in 2018; treatment 8 in 2019) was higher than those protected and uninoculated (treatment 2 in 2018; treatment 4 in 2019). The percentage of the normal seeds due to fertilizer chemical was 13.25% in 2018, 16.55% in 2019 and 14.90% for both years of study.</p><table-wrap id="table10" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>0</label><caption><title> Yield components of soybean in different treatments as influenced by fertilizer-NPK in 2018 and 2019</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Years</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Traitements</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >NF</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >NFP</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >FrR (%)</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Seeds/Pod</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >TNS</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >NS</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >% NS</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >m</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >s</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >2018</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7 (Bagged flowers inoculates by chemical fertilizer)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8763</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6896</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >78.69</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.41</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.83</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12,912</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10,427</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >80.75</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >2 (Bagged flowers)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7904</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4954</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >62.67</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.64</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.62</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8735</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6119</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >70.05</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >2019</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8 (Bagged flowers inoculates by chemical fertilizer)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10,312</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8629</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >83.67</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.75</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.64</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15,843</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13,198</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >83.30</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >4 (Bagged flowers)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9873</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6466</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >65.49</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.09</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.86</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10,094</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7017</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >69.51</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>NF: Number of flowers; NFP: Number of formed pod; FrR: Fruiting rate; TNS: Total number of seeds; NS: Normal seeds; % NS: Percentage of normal seeds; m: Mean; s: Standard deviation.</p></sec><sec id="s3_14"><title>3.14. Cumulative Impact of Insect Pollinators and Compost on the Pollination, Pod and Seed Yields of Soybean</title><p>The comparison of the podding rate (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>1) showed that the differences observed were highly significant between treatments 9 and 2 (P &lt; 0.001) and treatments 10 and 4 (P &lt; 0.001). Therefore, in 2018 and 2019, the podding rate from plants applied compost and opened to insects (treatments 9 and 10 respectively) was higher than that of flowers protected during their flowering period (treatments 2 and 4 respectively). The cumulative effect of flowering insects and compost on the podding rate was 29.95% in 2018, 26.59% in 2019 and 28.27% for the two years of study.</p><p>As far as the mean number of seeds per pod is concerned, there were highly significant between treatments 9 and 2 (P &lt; 0.001) and treatments 10 and 4 (P &lt; 0.001). As a matter of fact, in 2018 and 2019, the mean number of seeds per pod from flowers of applied compost subplot and opened to insect pollinators (treatment 9 in 2018, treatment 10 in 2019) was higher than that of flowers bagged (treatment 2 in 2018, treatment 4 in 2019) during their flowering period. The combined effect of flowering insects and compost activity on the number of seeds per pod was 44.42 % in 2015, 36.42 % in 2016 and 40.42 % for the two cumulative years. For the percentage of normal seeds, the differences observed were highly significant between treatments 9 and 2 (P &lt; 0.001) and treatments 10 and 4 (P &lt; 0.001). Hence, in 2018, as well as 2019, the percentage of normal seeds from flowers opened to insects on applied compost plants (treatment 9 in 2018, treatment 10 in 2019) was higher than that of flowers protected from insect visits (treatment 2 in 2018, treatment 4 in 2019). The percentage of normal seeds due to cumulative effects of flowering insects and compost activity was 23.99 % in 2018, 24.95 % in 2019 and 24.47 % for the two years of study.</p><table-wrap id="table11" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>1</label><caption><title> Yield components of soybean in different treatments as influenced by compost and insect pollinators in 2018 and 2019</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Years</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Traitements</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >NF</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >NFP</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >FrR (%)</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Seeds/Pod</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >TNS</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >NS</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >% NS</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >m</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >s</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >2018</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9 (Inoculated flowers open to insects)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9786</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8756</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >89.47</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.75</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.13</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14,558</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13,417</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >92.16</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >2 (Bagged flowers)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7904</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4954</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >62.67</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.64</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.62</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8735</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6119</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >70.05</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >2019</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10 (Inoculated flowers open to insects)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11,064</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9871</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >89.21</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.86</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.61</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16,574</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15,351</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >92.62</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >4 (Bagged flowers)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9873</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6466</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >65.49</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.09</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.86</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10,094</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7017</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >69.51</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>NF: Number of flowers; NFP: Number of formed pod; FrR: Fruiting rate; TNS: Total number of seeds; NS: Normal seeds; % NS: Percentage of normal seeds; m: Mean; s: Standard deviation.</p></sec><sec id="s3_15"><title>3.15. Combined Impact of Insect Pollinators and Fertilizer-NPK on the Pollination, Pod and Seed Yields of Soybean</title><p>The podding rates were 87.30%, 62.67%, 88.37% and 65.49% in treatments 11, 2, 12 and 4 respectively (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>2). When treatments were compared two by two, the difference observed was highly significant between treatments 11 and 2 (P &lt; 0.001) and between treatments 12 and 4 (P &lt; 0.001). Hence, in 2018 and 2019, the podding rate from plants applied with fertilizer-NPK and opened to insects (treatments 11 and 12) was higher than that from flowers of plants protected (treatments 2 and 4).</p><p>The mean numbers of seeds per pod were 3.73, 2.64, 3.69 and 3.09, 2.96 in treatments 11, 2, 12 and 4 respectively (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>2). The difference observed was significant between treatments 11 and 2 (P &lt; 0.001) as well as between treatments 12 and 4 (P &lt; 0.001). Thus, in 2018 and 2019, the mean number of seeds per pod from plants applied with fertilizer-NPK and opened to insects was higher than that from flowers of plants protected.</p><p>The percentages of normal seeds were 90.88%, 70.05%, 72.36%, 91.89% and 69.51% in treatments 11, 2, 12 and 4 respectively (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>2). Pairwise comparisons showed that the difference observed was highly significant between treatments 11 and 2 (P &lt; 0.001) as well as between treatments 12 and 4 (P &lt; 0.001). For both cropping seasons, the percentage of normal seeds from plants applied with chemical fertilizer and opened to insects was higher than that from flowers of plants protected.</p><p>In 2018, the contribution of cumulative effects of flowering insects and fertilizer-NPK in the podding rate, the mean number of seeds per pod and the percentage of normal seeds were 28.21%, 29.22% and 22.92% respectively. In 2019, the corresponding figures were 25.89%, 16.26% and 24.35%. For the two cumulated years, the numeric contribution of combined effects of flowering insects and chemical fertilizer were 27.05%, 22.74% and 23.63% for the podding rate, the mean number of seeds per pod and the percentage of normal seeds respectively.</p><table-wrap id="table12" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>2</label><caption><title> Yield components of soybean in different treatments as influenced by fertilizer-NPK and insect pollinators in 2018 and 2019</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Years</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Traitements</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >NF</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >NFP</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >FrR (%)</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Seeds/Pod</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >TNS</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >NS</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >% NS</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >m</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >s</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >2018</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11 (Inoculated flowers open to insects)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9421</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8225</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >87.30</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.73</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.52</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14,312</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13,007</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >90.88</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >2 (Bagged flowers)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7904</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4954</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >62.67</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.64</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.62</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8735</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6119</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >70.05</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >2019</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12 (Inoculated flowers open to insects)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10,764</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9512</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >88.37</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.69</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.88</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16,183</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14,871</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >91.89</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >4 (Bagged flowers)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9873</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6466</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >65.49</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.09</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.86</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10,094</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7017</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >69.51</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>NF: Number of flowers; NFP: Number of formed pod; FrR: Fruiting rate; TNS: Total number of seeds; NS: Normal seeds; % NS: Percentage of normal seeds; m: Mean; s: Standard deviation.</p></sec></sec><sec id="s4"><title>4. Discussion</title><sec id="s4_1"><title>4.1. Effect of Compost on Soybean Growth Parameters</title><p>Analysis of the results of the effect of organic manure enrichment on soybean growth parameters showed a significant correlation between the number of nodules, weight of dry nodules and biomass of plants enriched with compost, as compared to those enriched with chemical fertilizer or untreated. Successful nodulation of leguminous crops largely depends on compost, which helps improve the soil’s ability to hold water, an essential factor in the nodulation process [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.115821-ref22">22</xref>]. Compost also created a favorable environment for root development, improve the accessibility of plant roots to phosphorus by making the nutrient available, and reduce crop stress related to factors such as soil acidity [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.115821-ref23">23</xref>]. This result is in line with that of [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.115821-ref24">24</xref>], who reported an increase in the number and weight of nodules obtained with the addition of organic fertilizer in the form of chicken droppings.</p></sec><sec id="s4_2"><title>4.2. Foraging Activity of Insects on Soybean Flowers</title><p>At Dang, during the two cropping season, Hymenoptera were the most important order with 82.09% of 1541 visits. They were mainly represented by Halictidae family, the most important being Lipotrichescollaris (43.87%). Diptera and Lepidoptera were poorly represented with 4.80% and 13.11% of visits each. These results are similar to those recently obtained by [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.115821-ref25">25</xref>] indicating that at Maroua, among soybean entomofauna, Hymenoptera were the most important Order (with 52.59% of visits in 2015 and 24.62% in 2018), among which, Halictidae ranked first (23.58% in 2015 and 5.86% in 2018).</p><p>The high frequency of Halictidae on soybean flowers could be explained by the good attractiveness of its nectar and/or its pollen vis-&#224;-vis of these insects, by its accessibility, its availability and also by the presence of their nests in the experimental field. In addition, the fact that at the flower level, Halictidae only harvests nectar and/or pollen suggests that the floral products of this plant may have stimuli responsible for the attractiveness exerted on them. These are mainly olfactory and taste stimuli. Indeed, for a given plant, the attractiveness of the nectar depends in part on the average concentration of total sugars it has at the level of the flowers, whereas the pollen has its own clean odor [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.115821-ref26">26</xref>], which can be detected by insects, using antennae and palps [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.115821-ref27">27</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.115821-ref28">28</xref>]. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.115821-ref29">29</xref>] further indicated that the smell of pollen was involved precisely in its localization by the insect, its regular harvest being mainly under the influence of taste stimuli. These results confirm those already reported by [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.115821-ref25">25</xref>], who revealed L.collaris as the most frequent insect on flowers of the same plant in Maroua. On the other hand, [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.115821-ref30">30</xref>] and [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.115821-ref31">31</xref>] reported that Apismellifera was the main floral visitor of this Fabaceae, and was able to collect nectar exclusively on G. max in USA and Brazil respectively. This finding shows on one hand that plants have specific food resources available to insects through flowers, and on the other hand that the diversity of soybean insects may vary in time and space.</p><p>The abundance of insect visits on flowers was higher on subplots enriched with compost than on uninoculated subplot. This could be explained by higher number of flowers on subplot enriched with compost. The peak activity of insects on soybean flowers was between 01:00 pm and 02:00 pm, which corresponds probably to the period of higher availability of nectar and/or pollen on this crop. Between 7:00 am and 8:00 am time slot, no insect visits were recorded. This period could correspond to the time when flowers of this Fabaceae are not yet well bloomed. The reduction of insects activity observed on flowers after 4 pm could be linked to the low quantity and/or quality of their respective floral products and to the drop in ambient temperature in the experimental field, thus causing the closure of flowers. In fact, several foraging prefer hot periods for their activity on flowers [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.115821-ref32">32</xref>]. As in all legumes [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.115821-ref33">33</xref>], the leaflets of soybean are arranged vertically in broad daylight, this facilitating the exposure of flowers to insects. Such flowers can therefore receive a higher number of visits. This is true, as the localization of a flower by an insect depends more or less on the visual stimuli emanating from this organ [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.115821-ref26">26</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.115821-ref29">29</xref>]. Similar observations were reported by [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.115821-ref25">25</xref>] on soybean by foraging insects in Maroua. In fact, these insect species does not visit G. max flowers when they are poor in nectar after 03:00 pm. Moreover, according to [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.115821-ref34">34</xref>], a higher temperature along with a very weak relative humidity has a negative influence on the activity of pollinators on flowers.</p></sec><sec id="s4_3"><title>4.3. Impact of Insect Activity on Pollination and Yields of Soybean</title><p>When harvesting pollen and/or nectar on soybean flowers, most insects were frequently in contact with the anthers and the stigma of visited flowers. They could therefore be directly involved in self-pollination, by putting pollen of one flower on to the stigma of the same flower. The fruiting rate, the percentage of seeds per pod and the percentage of normal seeds due to the influence of flowering insects were 25.71%, 32.45% and 20.50% respectively. These results indicate that flowering insects are not only important in the improvement of pod and seed yields of this plant, but they also play an important role in the production of seeds of good quality. According to [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.115821-ref35">35</xref>], the more a flower receives pollen grains, the more it has the potential to turn into a bulky fruit containing many seeds. For this purpose, [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.115821-ref11">11</xref>] pointed out that pollination by insects increases the fruiting rate, the percentage of the number of seeds per pod and the percentage of normal seeds of soybean by 35.87%, 73.09%, 31.1%, respectively. These percentages are high compared to those obtained in this study and could be explained by the presence of more pollinating species in their experimental plots.</p></sec><sec id="s4_4"><title>4.4. Impact of Compost on Pod and Seed Yields of Soybean</title><p>The positive and significant contribution of compost in fruit and seed yields of soybean could be justified by its richness in nutrients such as phosphorus, nitrogen and potassium. In fact, these nutrients are involved in the correction of nutrient deficiencies, ensuring adequate nutrition and maintaining optimal soil fertility conditions, while improving the quality of crops [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.115821-ref36">36</xref>]. Similarly, it could also be attributed to reduction of certain plant disease symptoms that have been reported to field application of compost and derived products [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.115821-ref37">37</xref>].</p></sec><sec id="s4_5"><title>4.5. Impact of Fertilizer-NPK on Pod and Seed Yields of Soybean</title><p>The yields of the subplots that received chemical fertilizer exceeded those of the control plots. This suggests that the fertilizer applied under the crop had positive effects on yields. Indeed, this increase would be due to the improvement of the properties of the soil (in mineral elements), leading to a good development of the roots and a good assimilation of the nutrients released by them [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.115821-ref38">38</xref>]. Similarly, it could also be explained by a difference between the nutrient balances provided by each treatment [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.115821-ref39">39</xref>].</p></sec><sec id="s4_6"><title>4.6. Cumulative Impact of Insect Pollinators and Compost on the Pollination, Pod and Seed Yields of Soybean</title><p>In our experience, compost and pollinating insects greatly increased the fruiting rate, number of seeds per pod and number of normal seeds by 28.27%, 40.42% and 24.47% respectively. Indeed, compost improves plant growth and the diffusion of nutrients to plants through microbiological processes [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.115821-ref40">40</xref>]. Thus, legumes will satisfy, under the right conditions of symbiosis, most of their needs to ensure their growth, flowering and increase their production [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.115821-ref41">41</xref>]. Moreover, to increase the possibilities of pollination, insects facilitate the release of pollen from the anthers for occupation of the stigma [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.115821-ref42">42</xref>].</p></sec></sec><sec id="s5"><title>5. Conclusion</title><p>The results of this study have revealed that soybean benefits enormously from pollinating insects, among which Lipotrichescollaris is the most important. The comparison of pod and seed sets of unprotected flowers with those of flowers visited by insects sustains the value of these insects in increasing pod, seed yields and quality. Furthermore, the comparison of pod and seeds set of uninoculated and bagged flowers with those of plants inoculated with compost and visited by insects indicates the value of cumulative activity of insects and compost in increasing pod and seeds yields. It is suggested that sowing soybean with compost and the preservation of pollinating insects near flowering plants would be a better way of valuing the benefits of pollinators and wastes in agriculture in order to reduce the nutritional needs of population through sustainable intensification of soybean production.</p></sec><sec id="s6"><title>Acknowledgements</title><p>The authors are grateful to the University of Ngaoundere, the Faculty of Science and the Laboratory of Applied Zoology for allowing us to conduct this research.</p></sec><sec id="s7"><title>Conflicts of Interest</title><p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.</p></sec><sec id="s8"><title>Cite this paper</title><p>Moussa, M., Stephanie, K.B., Toukam, S.T., Ngakou, A. and Fernand-Nestor, T.F. (2022) Agronomic Performances of Compost Associated with Pollinating Insects on the Growth and Yield of Glycine max (L.) Merril under Field Conditions. Open Journal of Ecology, 12, 175-197. https://doi.org/10.4236/oje.2022.123011</p></sec></body><back><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="scirp.115821-ref1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Cevheri, C.&amp;#304;. and Yilmaz, A. (2018) The Effects of Different Doses of Cattle Manure on Yield and Yield Components as Second Crop Organic Soybean Production. Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 28, 271-277. https://doi.org/10.29133/yyutbd.425036</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.115821-ref2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Yadav, K., Meena, S.C., Gajanand, J., Ameta Rakesh Khatik, K.D. and Dinesh Chandra, J. (2019) Productivity of Soybean (Glycine max L. Merril) as Influenced by Combined Use of Enriched Compost and Biofertilizers. International Journal of Chemical Studies, 7, 1324-1326.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.115821-ref3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ar&amp;#305;o&amp;#287;lu, H. (1994) Ya&amp;#287; Bitkileri (Soya ve Yerf&amp;#305;st&amp;#305;&amp;#287;&amp;#305;) &amp;#199;.&amp;#220;. Ziraat Fakültesi Ders Kitab&amp;#305; No. 35, Adana.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.115821-ref4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">McAndrews, G.M., Liebman, M., Cambardella, C.A. and Richard, T.L. (2006) Residual Effects of Composted and Fresh Solid Swine (Sus scrofa L.) Manure on Soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr] Growth and Yield. Agronomy Journal, 98, 873-882. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2004.0078</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.115821-ref5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Vanlauwe, B., Descheemaeker, K., Giller, K., Huising, J., Merckx, R., Nziguheba, G., Wendt, J. and Zingore, S. (2015) Integrated Soil Fertility Management in Sub-Saharan Africa: Unravelling Local Adaptation. Soil, 1, 491-508. https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-1-491-2015</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.115821-ref6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Bacye, B. (1993) Influence of Cropping Systems on the Evolution of the Organic and Mineral Status of Ferruginous and Hydromorphic in the Sudano-Sahelian Zone (Yatenga Province, Burkina Faso). Doctoral Thesis, University of Aix Marseille III, Marseille, 243 p.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.115821-ref7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Djakbé, J.D., Ngakou, A., Wékéré, C., Fa&amp;#239;bawa, E. and Tchuenguem, F.F.N. (2017) Pollination and Yield Components of Physalis minima (Solanaceae) as Affected by the Foraging Activity of Apis mellifera (Hymenoptera: Apidae) and Compost at Dang (Ngaoundere, Cameroon). International Journal of Agronomy and Agricultural Research, 11, 43-60. http://www.innspub.net</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.115821-ref8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Kitabala, M.A., Tshala, U.J., Kalenda, M.A., Tshijika, I.M. and Mufind, K.M. (2016) Effects of Different Doses of Compost on Production and Yield of Tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill) in Kolwezi Town, Lualaba Division, Congo. Journal of Applied Biosciences, 102, 9669-9679.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.115821-ref9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">MINADER (2013) Subsistence Agriculture and Exploitation. Chamber of Commerce, Industry, Mines and Handicrafts. June 2013.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.115821-ref10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Hellal, F.A. and Abdelhamid, M.T. (2013) Nutrient Management Practices for Enhancing Soybean (Glycine max L.) Production. Acta Biológica Colombiana, 18, 239-250. http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=319028011013</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.115821-ref11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Kengni, S.B., Tchuenguem, F.F.N. and Ngakou, A. (2015) Impact of the Foraging Activity of Apis mellifera adansonii Latreille (Hymenoptera: Apidae) and Bradyrhizobium Fertilizer on Pollination and Yield Components of Glycine max L. (Fabaceae) in the Field. International Journal of Biological Research, 3, 64-71. https://doi.org/10.14419/ijbr.v3i2.5211</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.115821-ref12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Dounia</surname><given-names> Tamesse</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> J.L. and Tchuenguem</surname><given-names> F.F.N. </given-names></name>,<etal>et al</etal>. (<year>2016</year>)<article-title>Foraging and Pollination Activity of Lipotriches collaris Vachal 1903 (Hymenoptera: Halictidae) on Flowers of Glycine max (L.) (Fabaceae) at Maroua-Cameroon</article-title><source> Journal of Animal &amp; Plant Sciences</source><volume> 29</volume>,<fpage> 4515</fpage>-<lpage>4525</lpage>.<pub-id pub-id-type="doi"></pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.115821-ref13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Muo, K., Kraemer, M., Martius, C. and Wittmann, D. (2009) Diversity and Activity of Bees Visiting Crop Flowers in Kakamega, Western Kenya. Journal of Apicultural Research, 48, 134-139. https://doi.org/10.3896/IBRA.1.48.2.08</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.115821-ref14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Klein, A.M., Brittain, C., Hendrix, S.D., Thorp, R., Williams, N. and Kremen, C. (2012) Wild Pollination Services to California Almond Rely on Semi-Natural Habitat. Journal of Applied Ecology, 49, 723-732. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2012.02144.x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.115821-ref15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Amougou, J.A., Abossolo, S.A. and Tchindjang, M. (2015) Variability of Precipitations at Koundja and Ngaoundere Based on Temperature Changes of Atlantic Ocean and El NINO. Ivory Coast Review of Science and Technology, 25, 110-124.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.115821-ref16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Tchuenguem, F.F.N., Kingha, T.B.M. and Brückner, D. (2014) Diversity of Insects and Its Impact on Fruit and Seed Yields of Arachis hypogaea L. (Fabaceae) at Dang (Ngaoundere-Cameroon). International Journal of Biological and Chemical, 8, 983-997. https://doi.org/10.4314/ijbcs.v8i3.14</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.115821-ref17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Demarly (1977) Genetic and Plants Improvement. Masson, Paris, 577 p.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.115821-ref18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ngakou, A., Nwaga, D., Nebane, C.L.N., Ntonifor, N.N., Tamò, M. and Parh, I.A. (2007) Arbuscular-Mycorrhizal Fungi, Rhizobia and Metarhizium anisopliae Enhance P, N, and Mg, K, and Ca Accumulations in Fields Grown Cowpea. Journal of Plant Science, 2, 518-529. https://doi.org/10.3923/ijar.2007.754.764</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.115821-ref19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Tchuenguem, F.F.N. (2005) Foraging and Pollination Activity of Apis mellifera adansonii Latreille (Hymenoptera: Apidae, Apinae) on Flowers of Three Plants at Ngaoundere (Cameroon): Callistemon rigidus (Myrtaceae), Sygygium guineense var. macrocarpum (Myrtaceae) and Voacanga africana (Apocynaceae). State Doctorate Thesis, University of Yaounde I, Yaounde, 103 p.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.115821-ref20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Tchuenguem, F.F.N., Messi, J., Brückner, D., Bouba, B., Mbofung, G. and Hentchoya, H.J. (2004) Foraging and Pollination Behaviour of the African Honey Bee (Apis mellifera adansonii) on Callistemon rigidus Flowers at Ngaoundere (Cameroon). Journal of the Cameroon Academy of Sciences, 4, 133-140.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.115821-ref21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Jacob-Remacle, A. (1989) Foraging Behaviour of Domestic and Wild Bees within the Apple Orchards in Belgium. Apidologie, 20, 271-285. https://doi.org/10.1051/apido:19890401</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.115821-ref22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Jacob, K., N’guessan, K., Alphonse, A., Jo&amp;#235;l, Y., Koutoua, A. and Justin, Y. (2019) Influence of Mineral Fertilization on the Capacity of Nodulation of Three Species of Legumes (Groundnut, Cowpea and Soybean). American Journal of Plant Sciences, 10, 2208-2218. https://doi.org/10.4236/ajps.2019.1012156</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.115821-ref23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Fairhurst, T. (2012) Handbook for Integrated Soil Fertility Management. Africa Soil Health Consortium, Nairobi, 7 p. https://doi.org/10.1079/9781780642857.0000</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.115821-ref24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation publication-type="book" xlink:type="simple">Yeboah, G. (2013) Effects of NPK and Poultry Manure Rates on the Growth, Nitrogen Fixation and Grain Yield of Soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merrill). Thesis for Master Degree BSc. Natural Resources Management (Hons); DipEd., Faculty of Agriculture of the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, 57 p.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.115821-ref25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Pando, J.B., Djonwangwé, D., Balti, M.O., Tchuenguem, F.F.N. and Tamesse, J.L. (2019) Insect Pollinators and Productivity of Soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr. 1917] at Maroua, Far North, Cameroon. World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 4, 117-129. https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2019.4.2.0101</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.115821-ref26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Faegri, K. and Pijl, L.V.D. (1979) The Principles of Pollination Ecology. 3rd Revised Edition, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 244 p. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-023160-0.50020-7</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.115821-ref27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Von Frisch, K. (1972) Bees. Their Vision, Chemical Senses and Language. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, 157 p.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.115821-ref28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation publication-type="book" xlink:type="simple">Schneider, D. (1987) Plant Recognition by Insects: A Challenge for Neuro-Ethological Research. In: Labeyrie, V., Ed., Insects Plants, Junk Publisher, Dordrecht, 117-122.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.115821-ref29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Pham-Delégue, M.H., Arnold, G., Thierry, D. and Fonta, C. (1987) Bees Have Computerized the Language of Scents. Science and Life, Fabulous Insects, 69, 34-40.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.115821-ref30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Rortais, A., Arnold, G., Halmb, M.P. and Touffet Briens, B.F. (2005) Modes of Honey Bees Exposure to Systemic Insecticides: Estimated Amounts of Contaminated Pollen and Nectar Consumed by Different Categories of Bees. Apidologie, 36, 71-83. https://doi.org/10.1051/apido:2004071</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.115821-ref31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Milfont, M.O., Rocha, E.E.M., Lima, A.O.N. and Freitas, B.M. (2013) Higher Soybean Production Using Honeybee and Wild Pollinators, a Sustainable Alternative to Pesticides and Autopollination. Environmental Chemistry Letters, 11, 335-341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-013-0412-8</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.115821-ref32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Kasper, M.L., Reeson, A.F., Mackay, D.A. and Austin, A.D. (2008) Environmental Factors Influencing Daily Foraging Activity of Vespula germanica (Hymenoptera: Vespidae) in Mediterranean Australia. Social Insects, 55, 288-296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00040-008-1004-7</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.115821-ref33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Vallardir, F. (1964) Encyclopedia of the Plant World. Lidis (éd.). Paris, Tome I, 568 p.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.115821-ref34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation publication-type="book" xlink:type="simple">Bramel, J., Kiran, S., Reddy, J., Ford-Lloyd, B. and Chancra, S. (2004) Degree and Distribution of Pigeon Pea Landrace Morphological Diversity in Traditional Cropping Systems in Andhra Pradesh. In: Bramel, P.J., Ed., Assessing the Risk of Losses of Biodiversity in Traditional Cropping Systems: A Case Study of Pigeon Pea in Andhra Pradesh, ICRISAT, Patancheru, 1-45.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.115821-ref35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Proctor, M., Yeo, P. and Lack, A. (1996) The Natural History of Pollination. HarperCollins, New York, 462 p.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.115821-ref36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">El Kadiri Boutchich, G., Tahiri, S., Mahi, M., Sisouane, M., Kabil, E.M. and El Krati, M. (2016) Effects of Different Mature Composts Made from Sewage Sludge and Organic Substrates on the Morphological and Physiological Properties of Two Wheat Varieties. Journal of Materials Environmental Science, 7, 5810-5827.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.115821-ref37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ngakou, A., Koehler, H. and Ngueliaha, H.C. (2014) The Role of Cow Dung and Kitchen Manure Composts and Their Non-Aerated Compost Teas in Reducing the Incidence of Foliar Diseases of Lycopersicon esculentum (Mill). International Journal of Agricultural Research Innovation &amp; Technology, 4, 88-97. https://doi.org/10.3329/ijarit.v4i1.21100</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.115821-ref38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Nyembo, K.L., Useni, S.Y., Chinawej Mbar, M.D., Kyabuntu, I.D., Kaboza, Y., Mpundu Mubemba, M. and Baboy Longanza, L. (2014) Improvement of the Physical and Chemical Properties of the Soil under the Combined Input of Bio-Waste and Mineral Fertilizers and Influence on the Behaviour of Corn (Zea mays L. Variety Unilu). Journal of Applied Biosciences, 74, 6121-6130. https://doi.org/10.4314/jab.v74i1.7</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.115821-ref39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Larounga, T., Dzola, A.K. and Kodjo Akonta, D.K. (2020) Effect of the Combination of Organic and Mineral Fertilizers (NPK 15-15-15 and Urea) on the Yield of Lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) in Southern Togo. Journal of Applied Biosciences, 151, 15540-15549. https://doi.org/10.35759/JABs.151.3</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.115821-ref40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Mulaji, K.C. (2011) Utilization of Composts from Kitchen Biowastes for the Improvement of Fertility of Acidic Soils in Kinshasa Division. Doctorate Thesis, University of Liege, Liege, 172 p.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.115821-ref41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ngakou, A., Ngo Nkot, L., Gomoung, D. and Adamou, S. (2012) Mycorrhiza-Rhizobium Vigna subterranean Dual Symbiosis: Impact of Microbial Symbionts for Growth and Sustainable Yield Improvement. International Journal of Agriculture and Biology, 14, 915-921. https://doi.org/10.4236/ajps.2017.88131</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.115821-ref42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Abrol, D.P. (2012) Pollination Biology: Biodiversity Conservation and Agricultural Production. Springer, Dordrecht, 792 p.</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>