REGISTRO DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.8159304
Leticia Alves de Lima¹
Raquel Anne Alencar Martins²
RESUMO
A polinização é um serviço ecossistêmico primordial para a manutenção da biodiversidade em ambientes naturais e a produtividade em ecossistemas agrícolas, visto que os polinizadores proporcionam uma série de benefícios ao meio ambiente como reprodução de plantas nativas, produção agrícola e, à vista disso, segurança alimentar, fazendo-os intimamente ligados ao bem-estar humano. A Chapada do Araripe, abriga uma vasta biodiversidade, entre os agricultores dessa região predomina-se a agricultura convencional. Nesse contexto, tendo a Chapada do Araripe como área de preservação ambiental e a agricultura como principal atividade desenvolvida pela população local, o presente trabalho teve como objetivo apontar o real conhecimento dos agricultores da Associação de Agricultores do Sítio Estância (município de Exu) sobre polinização e interação de agentes polinizadores e as plantas. O estudo foi realizado por meio da pesquisa descritiva e questionários semiestruturados. Dentro desse contexto, torna-se necessário a introdução medidas sociais que possibilite aos pequenos agricultores entender que os agentes polinizadores são importantes e fundamentais agentes no processo de produção.
Palavras-chave: Polinização; Agricultura Familiar; Sustentabilidade
ABSTRACT
Pollination is a key ecosystem service for maintaining biodiversity in natural environments and productivity in agricultural ecosystems, as pollinators provide a number of benefits to the environment such as reproduction of native plants, agricultural production and, in view of this, food safety, making them closely linked to human well-being. Chapada do Araripe is home to a vast biodiversity. Among farmers in this region, conventional agriculture predominates. In this context, having Chapada do Araripe as an environmental preservation area and agriculture as the main activity developed by the local population, the present work aimed to point out the real knowledge of the farmers of the Associação de Farmers Association of Sítio Estância (city of Exu) about pollination and interaction of pollinating agents and plants. The study was carried out through descriptive research and semi-structured questionnaires. Within this context, it is necessary to introduce social measures that enable small farmers to understand that pollinating agents are important and fundamental agents in the production process.
Keywords: Pollination; Family farming; Sustainability
1 INTRODUCTION
Pollination is a key ecosystem service for maintaining biodiversity in natural environments and productivity in agricultural ecosystems (HIPÓLITO et al. 2018). The functions assigned to pollinators provide a series of benefits to the environment, such as the reproduction of native plants, agricultural production and, as a result, food safety, making them closely linked to human well-being, given that one third of vital agricultural products we consume requires the action of pollinators. The pollination process consists of the transfer of pollen grains from the anther to the stigma of the same flower or between different flowers, enabling the sexual reproduction of plants, allowing it to be mediated by wind, water and animals (POTTS et al. 2016).
The Araripe Region, partially located in the Environmental Protection Area (APA) of Chapada do Araripe, is home to a vast biodiversity, where there is also great pressure on natural resources and especially forest resources (BARROS et al. 2010). Man’s action has great intensity in the region, resulting in degraded areas, both due to the consumption of firewood to serve different economic sectors, as is the case of the Polo Gesseiro do Araripe-PE (LIMA; COELHO; RODRIGUES, 2020), as well as due to the model of predominant conventional agriculture. The family farming model also plays an important role in the region, being, for the most part, the main occupation of families in Chapada do Araripe.
In this context, with Chapada do Araripe as an environmental preservation area and agriculture as the main activity carried out by the local population, a study that can point out the real knowledge about the interaction of pollinating agents and plants becomes relevant, in order to describe the importance of preserving natural resources and conscious use of the land.
Bearing in mind the importance of the pollination process, the present work has as its general objective to analyze the Knowledge about Pollination of Small Farmers in Serra do Araripe. Specifically, it is intended to describe the importance of pollination in agricultural production, identify the main pollinators of family farming in the Serra do Araripe and characterize the socioeconomic profile of small farmers in the Serra do Araripe..
2. METHODOLOGY AND STUDY AREA
2.1 STUDY AREA
The study will be carried out in the municipality of Exu/PE, located in the hinterland of the state of Pernambuco, in the Araripe Region, which is part of the Microregion of Araripina. According to the estimate data from the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics – IBGE (2022), the municipality has 31,636 inhabitants, with a territorial area of 1,336.786 km2 and a demographic density of 23.65 inhab/km². The rural population represents 38.57%.
As for the geographic characteristics, the Caatinga is the main biome found in the region, where the vegetation found is composed of Deciduous Forest and Hypoxerophilic Caatinga, the climate is semi-arid, and the average annual temperature is 24.7 °C. With regard to location, the municipality is adjacent to the municipalities of Santana do Cariri, Moreilândia and Crato, located 37 km from Bodocó/PE. Located at 506 meters above sea level, with the following geographic coordinates: Latitude: 7° 30′ 50” South, Longitude: 39° 42′ 33” West. (see Figure 1)
Source: IBGE, 2022.
Figure 1 shows the geographical location of the Municipality of Exu/PE, for better identification.
2.2 NATURE OF DATA
The data will be obtained from the Association of Farmers of Sitio Estância, located in Sitio Serra Estância, in the rural area of Exu/PE. For the year 2022, the association has 46 members. Thus, sample calculation will not be performed in the study to analyze the population.
2.3 ANALYTICAL METHODS
For the development of the study, research on secondary sources (key documents) will be used, which consists of using bibliography already made public on the phenomenon to be investigated, in addition to secondary data sources. Extensive direct observation will also be used, carried out through the questionnaire instrument, created to collect primary data and formed by a series of questions, covering aspects that support the questions that are sought to be answered in the investigation, such as family income, among others. The technique of deductive analysis based on descriptive statistics will be used in the study to meet the objective of Analyzing the Knowledge about Pollination of Small Farmers in Serra do Araripe.
3. IMPORTANCE OF POLLINATION IN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION
Planet Earth is predominantly inhabited by plant species that depend on pollination. Around 200,000 different animal species contribute as pollinators on a global scale (AHMAD et al. 2021, DEVI et al., 2021). Of these, 1000 are vertebrates such as birds, bats and small mammals, while the rest are invertebrates such as bees, beetles, butterflies, flies and moths. Pollinators pollinate about 180,000 different plant species worldwide (ABROL, 2013). Notoriously, bees are among the most skilled pollinating species and pollinate 87.5% of angiosperms. It is important to emphasize that native bees play an essential role in the pollination of native plants. A bee can visit about 2,000 flowers daily while collecting nectar and pollen (OLLERTON et al., 2011, ABROL, 2013, DEVI et al., 2021). Several works have been developed in ecology with a species and its interactions. However, species are members of communities of species that interact, originating networks of interaction. At the present time, a new generation of studies has been growing at the level of networks. The theory of complex networks is a favorable tool, since it provides a theoretical framework and an appropriate analytical method to evaluate patterns of interactions. The interaction between flowering plant species and their pollinators is dependent, as the plant needs to reproduce, while floral visitors benefit from these interactions, obtaining food in the form of pollen or nectar. Such symbiotic relationships are rarely mutually exclusive. Flowering plants often interact with a range of pollinators, which suggests that generalization is the predominant feature of most pollination systems or floral visitors (ABBASI et al. 2021).
According to Ollerton (2017), impacts caused by anthropic actions in the application of natural resources led to a decrease in pollinator populations, a phenomenon that has been analyzed and recorded by studies carried out in several countries. This decline is driven by vast factors such as habitat fragmentation, excessive use of pesticides, influence of invasive species, pest infestations, diseases caused by pathogens and climate change. There are several forms of agriculture, however, for this work, family agriculture will be considered, taking into account Federal Law No. 11,326, of July 24, 2006, which establishes the guidelines for the formulation of the National Policy on Family Agriculture. A family farmer is considered to be a rural family entrepreneur who practices activities in rural areas and who, at the same time, meets the following requirements: does not hold, in any way, an area larger than four fiscal modules; predominantly use the labor of the family itself in the economic activities of its establishment or enterprise; have family income mainly originating from economic activities of your establishment or enterprise, run their establishment or enterprise with their family. Family farming and traditional knowledge are significant tools in the conservation of natural resources and in the establishment of more sustainable agricultural landscapes from an economic and ecological point of view. Family farming is the main supplier of basic foodstuffs to the population, being responsible for 87% of the total production of cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz) in the country (OLIVEIRA, 2016).
It is estimated that the value of pollination in agriculture represents approximately 10% of the economic value of world agricultural production. It is important to highlight that the main agents responsible for ensuring the permanence of these pollen vectors in the cultivation areas, as well as in nature, are precisely those linked to agricultural practices, that is, the farmers themselves (OLLERTON, 2017).
4. MAIN POLLINATORS OF FAMILY FARMING IN SERRA DO ARARIPE
According to Hippolytus et al. (2018), pollinators are living beings that visit the flowers of a huge variety of plants in search of resources such as nectar, pollen, floral oils, essences, resins, heating, shelter and others. Depending on their visits to the flowers, several of these animals come into accidental or deliberate contact with the stamens and get pollen on their bodies, which ends up being transported to the stigmas when they touch them, effecting pollination.
According to Rambo (2016), many groups of animals can be pollinators, from the most obvious ones, such as insects, to birds, bats, and the most unexpected ones, such as marsupials, rodents, lizards, and even humans. However, it is essential to emphasize that not every floral visitor is a pollinator, since in their search for floral resources, many of them reach their targets without pollinating the flowers. This can happen for a variety of reasons, from the ineffective size of the visitor in relation to the flower, to their performance within the flower or the time of the visit.
Insects are the substantial pollinators of the planet’s flora, particularly bees, butterflies, moths, beetles, flies and ants. However, among all these, bees stand out as the most relevant group of pollinators. Unlike other groups, insects or not, bees feed purely on pollen and nectar and need to visit a colossal amount of flowers per day to supply their individual needs and their offspring’s and, in the case of social species, store food, mainly for the period of scarcity of flowers. Thus, more than any other group of pollinators, bees entirely live by visiting and pollinating flowers. They are responsible for the stability of the base of the food chain in wild ecosystems and replicate the pollination of more than 50% of plants in tropical forests and in the Brazilian cerrado, they are capable of pollinating more than 80% of plant species (ABBASI et al. 2021).
– Regarding the apifauna of the caatinga biome, according to Guimarães et al (2018), despite the low diversity and species richness when compared to other biomes, 200 species of bees are found in the caatinga, distributed in 77 genera, the vast majority of which are made up of rare species. These numbers are the result of data from taxonomic revisions, in addition to isolated experiments with species descriptions and work carried out with pollinating agents of the Caatinga flora. A multitude of studies indicate that the most widely known species of the Caatinga are the locally adapted eusocial bees, such as the jandaíra – Melipona subnitida Ducke (1910), jati – Tetragonisca angustula Latreille (1811), yellow uruçu – Melipona mondury Smith (1863), white girl – Tetragona varia Lepeletier, arapuá – Trigona spinipes Fabricius (1793), cupira – Partamona spp. Smith (1863), mandaçaia – Melipona mandacaia Smith (1863), mosquito – Plebeia cf. flavocincta Cockerell (1912), canudo – Scaptotrigona spp. Moure (1942), tiúba – Melipona fasciculata Smith (1854), munduri – Melipona asilvai Moure (1971) and Apis mellifera africanizada, a species highly adapted to the different regions of Brazil, resulting from natural, although accidental, crossings between the African bee A mellifera scutellata Lepeletier and European subspecies of A. mellifera L.
Bees that have solitary habits are also found abundantly in this biome, with great ecological and agricultural importance. They cover about 85% of the bee species described by science and play an important role as pollinators of numerous plant species. Due to the climatological dynamics of the caatinga biome, the record of solitary bees is broader in the rainy season. And in the dry period, they move around in search of more favorable regions for their development, such as areas with greater availability of water and floral resources. Among the solitary bees that make up the apifauna of the Caatinga, the genera Centris, Dicranthidium, Epanthidium, Euglossa, Hylaeus, Megachile and Xylocopa stand out. One can also mention the uruçu do chão Melipona quinquefasciata, isolated in the interior of the Caatinga, in an enclave of Cerrado, in Chapada do Araripe and Planalto do Ibiapaba, in Ceará (GUIMARÃES et al. 2018).
5 SOCIOECONOMIC PROFILE OF SMALL FARMERS IN SERRA DO ARARIPE
According to Wanderley (2017), the genesis of family farming is based on Indians, African slaves, non-heir whites, mestizos and immigrants, who, although from different cultures, lived in the countryside in a secondary position within the country’s development model since its origin. These countrymen were entrusted with the opening of areas for the establishment of coffee plantations and in exchange they obtained permission to plant the foodstuffs they needed.
Family farming has received several names such as peasant, hick, countryman, tabaréu, caboclo, caiçara, words that have had a double meaning since ancient times, depicting pejorative manifestations such as rustic, backward, among others. Over time many farmers fought for agrarian reform (redistribution of rural properties) and such struggles culminated in changes to the agrarian model, favoring the social interests, both symbolic and political. Even when the government had doubts about the agrarian reform, it declared that its introduction would repeat a family model, enabling the emergence of family farmers as current characters (RAMBO, 2016).
According to Wanderley (2017), exposing the degree of importance between the elements of family, land and work, family farming adapts to different social, economic and political contexts. The segment is a powerful tool to sustain the food safety of the world’s population and future generations. In this way, its development is a key element to reduce hunger, poverty and environmental degradation as long as the small producer has the opportunity to land, water, markets and technologies. The family property is described as a rural property that, directly and personally, is used by the farmer and his family, absorbing the entire workforce with possible help from third parties. It mainly employs the family’s own labor in economic activities and has its family income from rural production activities.
One of the few works of the restricted scientific production on subsistence agriculture in the Chapada do Araripe, mainly cassava, as cassava is predominant in this region, is the work of Menelau (1986), in which, through 61 questionnaires applied in 1970, reports the rural space and the agricultural production units of Chapada do Araripe, serving as a parameter for the other surrounding states. Among the information discussed, the non-uniformity of production among the municipalities studied was highlighted. There were municipalities with increasing production, others where it was decreasing and, in general, a paralyzed production, resulting from probable external factors, such as climatic and socioeconomic conditions and demands from other states that consume cassava flour.
Of the related internal reasons, the low productivity of the crop, the lack of management, the low level of education of the producers and the use of outdated techniques were manifested. Deforestation and the use of the hoe were the main productive practices. The infestation of ants was contained with the intractable task of laying sand and, over this, green leaves, in order to feed their avidity. The workers responsible for the manufacture of the flour house or trim (where the cassava was processed) lived around the property, or, if the production was for a long period, or even the distant swidden, they were set up in a building close to the productive area, since cassava needed to be processed in less than 24 hours. In periods of drought, the value of a bag of flour increased (MENELAU, 1986).
Recently, if we observe the evolution of cassava production in Chapada do Araripe, we can see that there is still a significant number of flour mills that maintain their traditional methods and, parallel to their interest in generating employment, work and income, it is still true that the production chain goes through cycles of excess and absence of the product, which, together with climatic conditions, leave the activity vulnerable, especially in regions and municipalities lacking income and work. It is important to emphasize that there is a very small number of motorized trims, due to the fact that most farmers do not have the purchasing power to pay for the equipment for this industrial process (SILVA, 2013).
6. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
6.1 Socioeconomic matters:
According to the survey data (Table 1), it can be seen that the majority of respondents are male 27 (58.69%) and the minority female 19 (41.31%). According to Silva (2013) Brazilian family farming is responsible for around 38% of the gross value of food production in the country, and constitutes around 10% of agricultural GDP. Furthermore, little consideration is given to the share of these proportions that mention the contribution of women in family production units, given that women are responsible for a large part of this production and are undervalued in the productive sector.
However, according to Wanderley (2017), it is known that worldwide, female farmers actively contribute to the production of basic foodstuffs, being responsible for more than 50% of the foodstuffs produced. In view of this, it can be seen that the work of women in the field is decisive in guaranteeing food security and maintenance of the production unit, making it necessary for women to participate on an equal basis with men in public dialogue and decision-making, because they toil daily in production and effectively collaborate in family reproduction (MENDES et al. 2014).
According to table 2, it is confirmed that none of the interviewees are in the age group of 65 years old. It is also observed that the predominance of age group is 25-35 years old (36.95%), therefore, it is considered young adults, and the smallest age group relates to the 55-65 age group of age (2.18%).
In Graph 1 most of the interviewees completed high school (9) (19.57%), and proportional to these numbers are literate and incomplete high school with 8 (17.38%). In the same context, incomplete primary education and higher education 5 (10.87%) are found, since the lowest percentage of schooling is illiterate 4 (8.69%). This index is much lower compared to the study by Lira et al. (2013), carried out in the state of Pernambuco, where the highest rate is 67% (farmers who have incomplete primary education). And the highest level of education of respondents in this research have completed high school, which is due to the fact that most are between 25-35 years old, considered young adults. Even so, there is still a low level of education that can limit access to technological innovation and information, such as: conservation of soil, water and native vegetation, since continuing studies is difficult, requiring effective public policies.
According to Mendes and Nascimento (2017), the creation of public policies that meet the demands of young farmers, allowing them to continue living in rural areas or even return with new experiences for the economic promotion of the family unit, must take place. thinking of long term.
Table 1 – Absolute and Relative Frequencies of Farmers according to the gender of the interviewees.
| SEX | Absolute Frequency | Relative Frequency% |
| Male | 27 | 58,69 |
| Female | 19 | 41,31 |
| Total | 46 | 100,00 |
Table 2 – Absolute and Relative Frequencies according to age groups of respondents.
| AGES | Absolute Frequency | Relative Frequency% |
| 25-35 | 17 | 36,95 |
| 35-45 | 16 | 34,78 |
| 45-55 | 12 | 26,09 |
| 55-65 | 1 | 2,18 |
| 65 ou Mais | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 46 | 100,00 |
Graph 1 – Respondents’ level of education.
Basing on work data, it appears that the interviewees, for the most part, declared that in their household the monthly family income is between up to one minimum wage, totaling 33 (71.73%). The remainder is between the range of one to three minimum wages with 11 (23.92%), and only 2 (4.35%) are between 3 and 5 minimum wages, yet it is reported that no one manages to obtain earnings above of 5 minimum wages (Table 3). Different data were found in the study by Sangalli et al. (2014) and identified that about 41.6% of farmers earned less than the minimum wage. Furthermore, Silva et al; (2017) reported that 28% receive between 3 and 5 salaries. This divergence of results can be explained by the fact that the research region exposes a predominance of low-income population, that is, poor populations.
With regard to Table 4, the prevalence of the interval between 3-6 people in a residence is identified, and the smallest interval is between 6-9 people (10.87%). In graph 2, it can be seen that the majority of respondents practice agriculture for consumption and commercialization (91.30%), while 6.52% and 2.18% practice only consumption and commercialization, respectively.
All farmers interviewed showed that they plant: corn, beans, fava beans and cassava, since the most profitable and produced according to them is cassava. According to Silva et al. (2013) cassava is grown in association with short-cycle crops, mainly beans, by small family farmers. Production is concentrated in the Agreste region, but the culture is disseminated throughout the state, and is therefore fundamental from the point of view of employing labor.
Table 3 – Absolute Frequencies and Relative Frequencies According to the Monthly Income Value of the Residence of the Respondents
| INCOME | Absolute Frequency | Relative Frequency |
| Up to one Minimal Wage | 33 | 71,73 |
| Between 1 and 3 Minimal Wages | 11 | 23,92 |
| Between 3 and 5 Minimal Wages | 2 | 4,35 |
| Above 5 Minimal Wages | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 46 | 100,00 |
Table 4 – Absolute Frequencies and Relative Frequencies according to how many people live in the household of respondents.
| PEOPLE | Absolute Frequency | Relative Frequency |
| q | ||
| 3-6 | 26 | 56,53 |
| 6-9 | 5 | 10,87 |
| Total | 46 | 100,00 |
Graph 2 – Type of agriculture practiced by respondents
6.2 Matters about Pollination:
Regarding table 5, all farmers reported having seen some insect in the plantation and they are: ant or tanajura, grasshopper, praying mantis and caterpillar. Table 6 shows that all 46 farmers have already observed the presence of an insect that they considered a pest in their plantation.
All the farmers report the presence of leaf-cutting ants as the main pest of the plantations, and then they mentioned caterpillars and grasshoppers. According to Reis et al. (2010) presents in their study, the leaf-cutting ants (quenquém and sauva), of the order Hymenoptera and of the family formicidae, cut the leaves being able to totally destroy the plants and the crops are constantly attacked and damaged by these insects. In quenquens (Acromyrmex spp) anthills are much smaller than those of ants and are usually made up of a single pot. The workers differ in size according to the function they perform, however, they are smaller than the ants. The main differences between ants (Atta sp.) are size (they are larger) and have only three pairs of spines on the back of the thorax. They are more destructive and cause formidable damage compared to the genus Acromyrmex.
According to table 7, it is revealed that the majority of farmers 25 (54.34%) understand the meaning of the word pollination, although 21 (45.66%) did not know how to respond, a worrying percentage, since farmers depend on the action of pollinators for food production and survival. According to Abrol (2013), pollination is one of the main ecosystem functions for homeostasis, biodiversity and protection of human beings in their activities.
In Graph 3, it appears that 30 (65%) assimilate what pollinators are, since 16 (35%) did not know how to answer the question. According to Ollerton (2011), pollinators are agents capable of transferring pollen grains between different flower structures, which originate from seeds and fruits. Pollinating animals are, as a rule, insects, but it also includes vertebrate animals that perform the function of pollinators, such as birds and bats.
On table 8 it is shown that of the pollinators known by the interviewees, bees present 100%, followed by butterflies with 71.73%, since only 4.34% know about pollination by bats, being the least known . According to Maués (2011), among the hymenoptera, bees have a prominent place, as they are the most important suppliers of biotic pollination tasks in the world. Among pollinators, vertebrates are the least representative, among which bats and hummingbirds stand out as the most common pollinators.
Table 5 – Absolute Frequencies and Relative Frequencies according to the interviewees’ knowledge of the presence of insects in the plantation
| FARMERS | Absolute Frequencies | Relative Frequencies |
| Yes | 46 | 100,00 |
| No | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 46 | 100,00 |
Table 6 – Absolute Frequencies and Relative Frequencies according to the interviewees’ knowledge of the presence of pests in the plantation
| FARMERS | Absolute Frequencies | Relative Frequencies |
| Yes | 46 | 100,00 |
| No | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 46 | 100,00 |
Table 7 – Absolute Frequencies and Relative Frequencies according to the interviewees’ knowledge of what pollination is
| FARMERS | Absolute Frequencies | Relative Frequencies |
| Yes | 25 | 54,34 |
| No | 21 | 45,66 |
| Total | 46 | 100,00 |
Graph 3 – Knowledge about what pollinators are by respondents
Table 8 – Absolute Frequencies and Relative Frequencies according to which pollinators the interviewees know
| POLLINATORS | Absolute Frequencies | Relative Frequencies |
| Bees | 46 | 100 |
| Bats | 2 | 4,34 |
| Beetles | 3 | 6,52 |
| Birds | 10 | 21,73 |
| Flies | 4 | 8,46 |
| Butterflies | 33 | 71,73 |
Table 9 shows that 40 (86.95%) of the farmers considered pollinators important, given that 6 (13.05%) said they did not. If related to the study by Carvalho et al. (2015), these indicators are almost equal. 85% considered it important and 15% disregarded its importance.
Of the farmers who said yes, they mentioned being important, as they are extremely interconnected with food production, biodiversity, ecosystem balance, plant reproduction and productivity. This corroborates studies found in the literature, which emphasize that, even in agricultural crops where pollination is not mandatory, the presence of pollinators improves yield (IMPERATRIZ-FONSECA; JOLY, 2017; HIPÓLITO et al. 2018), fruit production top quality, with more seeds and higher nutritional value (MARCO et al. 2012; KLATT et al. 2013, JUNQUEIRA; AUGUSTO, 2016). Furthermore, pollination, in addition to helping to maintain biodiversity in natural ecosystems, is also essential for the productivity of the main crops. (POTTS et al., 2010). In line with Graph 4, it is shown that bees with 46 (100%) stood out in relation to the other pollinators observed in the crops, followed by butterflies with 11 (32.91%). Furthermore, none of the interviewees reported seeing bats in the plantations. In line with Pinheiro et al. (2014), bees need floral resources throughout their life cycle. This dependence demands a large number of 63 visits to flowers, making them the most constant and abundant floral visitors and, therefore, the insects that farmers most observe in flowers. Allied to this, bees have been receiving more attention and prominence than other pollinators, both in scientific research and in the popular media (OLLERTON, 2017), however, in an unbalanced way, compared to their real importance and need for preservation.
Regarding Table 10, it appears that most respondents confirmed the existence of forest areas totaling 73.92% and the rest with 26.08% did not have forest areas on their property. Thus, this index is relevant since bees intrinsically need forests for their survival, according to Ollerton (2017), bees depend on natural habitat with available resources for feeding and nesting.
According to table 11, it is expressed that, mostly, 80.43% of the interviewees said they practice some activity that helps in the preservation of pollinators, although 19.57% of the interviewees answered negatively. It is necessary to safeguard and manage the habitats of these agents to maintain pollination work (GIANNINI et al. 2015).Of the interviewees who said yes, they justified what practices they performed on their property, such as not killing bees or any other pollinator, raising rational bees, and two were the same for all, namely: “planting a fruit tree or not and not deforesting native vegetation”. The benefits of planting trees for nature are already well understood by all, they also help various ecosystems and public spaces. On the other hand, deforestation greatly harms not only pollinators, but any living being, which is why the significance of tree planting activity for the ecosystem is highlighted (MAUÉS, 2011).
Table 9 – Absolute Frequencies and Relative Frequencies according to the pollinators considered important by the interviewees
| FARMERS | Absolute Frequencies | Relative Frequencies |
| Yes | 40 | 86,95 |
| No | 6 | 13,05 |
| Total | 46 | 100,00 |
Graph 4 – Which pollinators the interviewees have observed in their plantations
Table 10 – Absolute Frequencies and Relative Frequencies according to the existence of forest areas in the interviewees’ community
| FARMERS | Absolute Frequencies | Relative Frequencies |
| Yes | 34 | 73,92 |
| No | 12 | 26,08 |
| Total | 46 | 100,00 |
Table 11 – Absolute Frequencies and Relative Frequencies according to the practice of actions that preserve pollinators by respondents
| FARMERS | Absolute Frequencies | Relative Frequencies |
| Yes | 37 | 80,43 |
| No | 9 | 19,57 |
| Total | 46 | 100,00 |
7. FINAL CONSIDERATIONS
Undoubtedly, the pollination process is important for the balance of the ecosystem, and pollinators are indispensable for carrying out this environmental service. In addition, most farmers from the Associação dos Agricultores do Sitio Estância, in the municipality of Exu, know what pollination and pollinators are, since the most popular pollinators and known by all are bees, as they literally live in the flowers . However, not all farmers were able to say what these terms were and because it is a rural community, everyone should understand these terms and know the importance of pollinators.
Therefore, it is necessary to create government policies for environmental education that teach farmers their relevance, as human beings can only preserve what they know and admire.
References
ABROL, D.P. Interação planta-polinizadores não abelhas. In: Biologia da Polinização. Springer, pp. 265-310, 2013.
AHMAD, S A. Khalofah , AS Khan , KA Khan , MJ Jilani , T. Hussain , M. Skalicky , HÁ Ghramh , Z. Ahmad. Efeitos das comunidades de polinizadores nativos sobre os parâmetros fisiológicos e químicos da nespereira (Eriobotrya japonica) sob condições de campo aberto Saudita J. Biol. Ciência, pp . 3235 – 3241, (2021).
BARROS, B. C.; SILVA, J. A. A.; FERREIRA, R. L. C.; REBOUÇAS, A. C. M. Volumetria e sobrevivência de espécies nativas e exóticas no Polo Gesseiro do Araripe/PE. Ciência Florestal, v. 20, n. 4, p. 641-647, 2010.
CARVALHO,A. NICODEMO, D., LOPES, P. R. M. Nível de conhecimento de agricultores sobre a importância dos agentes polinizadores e implicações na produtividade agrícola. 8º Congresso de Extensão Universitária da UNESP, 2015.
DEVI, S., Devi, D., Singh, SJ, Kaushal, B. Estratégias para combater o declínio da população de polinizadores. 2021.
GUIMARÃES, M. Brasil, D. F. Principais recursos florais para as abelhas da Caatinga. Scientia Agraria Paranaensis 17: 149-156 (2018).
HIPÓLITO, J.; BOSCOLO, D.; VIANA, B. F. Landscape and crop management Strategies to conserve pollination services and increase yields in tropical coffee Farms. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, v. 256, p. 218-225, 2018.
KH Abbasi , M. Jamal , S. Ahmad , HÁ Ghramh , S. Khanum , KA Khan , MA Ullah , DM Aljedani , B. Zulfiqar. Padronização de colmeias de abelhas (Apis mellifera) manejadas para polinização da cultura do Girassol (Helianthus annuus) J. King Saud Univ.-Sci. , 33 ( 8 ) (2021 ) , p. 101608.
LIMA, D. J. R.; COELHO, L. F. M.; RODRIGUES, R. G. Influência da Indústria do Gesso e da Agropecuária na Dinâmica da Cobertura Vegetal no Polo Gesseiro do Araripe. Revista Brasileira de Geografia Física. v. 13, n. 7, p. 3326-3335, 2020.
MENELAU, A. S.; et. al. Estudo descritivo do espaço rural e das unidades de produção agrícola da chapada do Araripe, PE. Brasília: EMBRAPA-DDT. (IPA. Documentos, 6) 1986.
OLIVEIRA, P.S. Plantas alimentares de raízes e tubérculos na agricultura familiar: um estudo de caso com enfoque etnobotânico com agricultores do município de Rio Claro. Trabalho de conclusão de curso (licenciatura e bacharelado – Ciências Biológicas) – Universidade Estadual Paulista, Instituto de Biociências de Rio Claro. 2016.
OLLERTON, J. Pollinator diversity: distribution, ecological function, and conservation. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, v. 48, p. 353-376, 2017
OLLERTON,J R. Winfree, S. Tarrant. Quantas plantas com flores são polinizadas por animais? Oikos, 120 (3), pp. 321-326 (2011).
POTTS, S. G.; IMPERATRIZ-FONSECA, V.; NGO, H. T.; AIZEN, M. A.; BIESMEIJER, J. C.; BREEZE, T. D.; DICKS, L. V.; GARIBALDI, L. A.; HILL, R.; SETTELE, J.; VANBERGEN, A. J. Safeguarding pollinators and their values to human well-being. Nature, v. 540, p. 220-229, 2016.
RAMBO, J. R. Produzir e vender? O caso do Programa de Aquisição de Alimentos de agricultores familiares assentados da reforma agrária em Tangará da Serra- MT. 2016. 180 f. Tese (Programa de Pós-Graduação em Agronomia) Faculdade de Engenharia de Ilha Solteira – UNESP, Ilha Solteira, 2016.
SILVA NETO, B. Perda da vegetação natural na Chapada do Araripe (1975/2007) no estado do Ceará. Instituto de Geociências e Ciências Exatas, Universidade Estadual Paulista Júlio de Mesquita Filho, Tese de doutorado, p. 185, 2013.
WANDERLEY, M. N. “Franja Periférica”, “Pobres do Campo”, “Camponeses”: dilemas da inclusão social dos pequenos agricultores familiares. In: DELGADO, G. C; BERGAMASCO,
S. M. (orgs). Agricultura familiar brasileira: desafios e perspectivas de futuro. Brasília: Ministério do Desenvolvimento Agrário, 2017.
MENDES, M. F. et. al. A organização das mulheres extrativistas na região Sudoeste mato- grossense, Brasil. Estudos Feministas, v. 22, n. 1, p. 71-89, 2014.
LIRA, C.C et al. Perfil socioeconômico de agricultores familiares no Município de Barreiros- PE. XIII Jornada de Ensino, Pesquisa e Extensão – JEPEX, 2013.
Mendes, M. A. & Nascimento, J. E. B. Agricultura familiar e juventude rural no agreste de Itabaiana/SE. Campo –Território: Revista de geografia Agrária, 12 (26), 209-237. DOI: 10.14393/RCT122610 (2017).
SILVA, P. V. DA et al. Perfil Socioeconômico e Ambiental dos Agricultores Familiares Participantes do PAA no Município de Diamantino – MT. Anais do XIX ENGEMA, 2017.
REIS, P. R.; SOUZA, J. C. ; SANTOS, J. P. . Pragas do milho e seu controle. Informe Agropecuário, Belo Horizonte, v. 6, n.72, p. 54-61, 2010.
MAUÉS, M.M., VARASSIN, I.G., FREITAS, L., MACHADO, I.C.S., OLIVEIRA, P.E.A.M. 2011. A importância dos polinizadores nos biomas brasileiros. Conhecimento atual e perspectivas futuras para a conservação. In: Polinizadores no brasil; contribuição e perspectivas iniciativas para a biodiversidade, uso sustentável, conservação e serviços ambientais. Imperatriz-Fonseca, V.L., Canhos, D.A.L., Saraiva, A.,M. (ed.). Alves, D.A (associada). Instituto de estudos avançados da Universidade de São Paulo.
SANGALLI, A. R. et al. Produção e geração de renda na agricultura familiar: um diagnóstico do assentamento rural Lagoa Grande em Dourados, Mato Grosso do Sul. Ciência e Natura, v. 36, n. 2, p. 180–192, 2014.
POTTS, S. G.; BIESMEIJER, J. C.; KREMEN, C.; NEUMANN, P.; SCHWEIGER, O.; GET, W. E. Global pollinator declines: Trends, impacts and drivers. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, v. 25, n. 6, p. 345 353, 2010.
PINHEIRO, M. et al. Polinização por abelhas. In: Rech, A. R. et al. (org.) Biologia da polinização. Rio de Janeiro: Projeto Cultural, p. 205 233, 2014.
KLATT, B. K.; HOLZSCHUH, A.; WESTPHAL, C.; CLOUGH, Y.; SMIT, I.; PAWELZIK, E.; TSCHARNTKE, T. Bee pollination improves crop quality, shelf life and commercial value. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, v. 281, n. 1775, 2013.
JUNQUEIRA, C. N.; AUGUSTO, S. C. Bigger and sweeter passion fruits: effect of pollinator enhancement on fruit production and quality. Apidologie, v. 48, n. 2, p. 131 140, 2016.
IMPERATRIZ FONSECA, V. L.; JOLY, C. A. Avaliação Polinizadores, Polinização e Produção de Alimentos da Plataforma Intergovernamental de Biodiversidade e Serviços de Ecossistemas (IPBES). In: CENTRO DE GESTÃO E ESTUDOS ESTRATÉGICOS (CGEE). Importância dos polinizadores na produção de alimentos e na segurança alimentar global. DF, 2017.
GARIBALDI, L. A.; GEMMILL HERREN, B.; D’ANNOLFO, R.; GRAEUB, B. E.;
CUNNINGHAM, S. A.; BREEZE, T. D. Farming Approaches for Greater Biodiversity, Livelihoods, and Food Security. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 2016.
BOMMARCO, R.; MARINI, L.; VAISSIÈRE, B. E. Insect pollination enhances seed yield quality and market value in oilseed rape. Oecologie v. 169, n. 4, p. 1025 1032. 2012.
GIANNINI, T. C.; CORDEIRO, G. D.; FREITAS, B. M.; SARAIVA, A. M.; IMPERATRIZ
FONSECA, V. L. The Crop Dependence for Pollinators and the Economic Value of Pollination in Brazil. Journal of Economic Entomology, v. 108, n. 3, p. 849 857, 2015.
¹Leticia Alves de Lima, Graduanda em Ciências Biológicas pela Universidade Regional do Cariri E-mail: letslima2000@gmail.com
²Me. Raquel Anne Alencar Martins, Professora do curso de Ciências Biológicas pela Universidade Regional do Cariri
E-mail: rachel-alencar@hotmail.com