Ditemukan tiga ordo dan sembilan spesies serangga penyerbuk pada tanaman jarak pagar, yaitu Anoplolepis sp., Prenolepis sp., X. confusa, A. cerana, A. dorsata (Hymenoptera), G. agamemnon, A. ariadne ariadne, J. orithya (Lepidoptera), dan E. tenax (Diptera). Serangga penyerbuk dominan pada tanaman jarak pagar termasuk dalam ordo Hymenoptera. Waktu kunjungan X. confusa tanaman jarak di pagi, siang, dan sore hari. Kunjungan A. cerana dan A. dorsata banyak terjadi di pagi dan sore hari. Hal ini berkaitan dengan jumlah pakan yang tersedia dan parameter lingkungan. Jumlah kunjungan X. confusa, A. cerana, dan A. dorsata paling tinggi dibandingkan dengan keenam spesies serangga penyerbuk lainnya. Durasi kunjungan per bunga A. dorsata paling tinggi dibandingkan dengan X. confusa dan A. cerana, sedangkan durasi kunjungan per tanaman paling lama pada A. cerana dibandingkan X. confusa dan A. dorsata. Tiga spesies ini diduga memiliki efektivitas tinggi dalam penyerbukan bunga jarak pagar. Serangga penyerbuk meningkatkan hasil panen tanaman jarak pagar.
7 SARAN
Perlu diadakan penelitian lanjutan untuk mengetahui efektivitas lebih lanjut dari X. confusa, A. cerana dan A. dorsata dalam penyerbukan tanaman jarak pagar. Efek geitonogami dan xenogami juga perlu dikaji lebih lanjut untuk mengetahui adanya efek self incompability pada tanaman jarak pagar. Analisis kualitas buah dan biji hasil penyerbukan serangga, terutama kandungan minyak perlu dilakukan untuk mengetahui kadar dan kualitas minyak yang dihasilkan sebagai bahan baku pembuatan kosmetik dan bahan bakar alternatif. Penelitian lebih lanjut tentang pengaruh hama terutama kutu putih dan thrips perlu dilakukan untuk menjaga pertumbuhan dan hasil panen yang maksimal. Pengunaan insektisida perlu dibatasi untuk memelihara keseimbangan ekosistem, termasuk serangga penyerbuknya.
Ashman TL, King EA. 2005. Are f lower-visiting ant mutualist or antagonist? A study in a Gynodioecious wild strawberry. Am. J. Bot. 91: 891-895.
Almeida AM, Figueiredo RA. 2003. Ant visit nectarines of Epidendrum denticulatum (Orchidaceae) in a Brazilian rainforest: effects on herbivory and pollination. Braz. J. Biol. 63: 51-558.
Ambrosino MD, LunaJM, Jepson PC, Wratten SD. 2006. Relative frequencies of
visits to selected insectary plants by predatory hoverflies (Diptera: Syrphidae), other beneficial insects, and herbivores [Abstrak]. Environ. Entomol. 35: 94-400.
Atmowidi T et al. 2007. Diversity of pollinator insects in relation of seed set of Mustard (Brassica rapa L.: Cruciferae). HAYATI J Biosci. 14: 155-161. Atmowidi T. 2008. Keanekaragaman dan Perilaku Kunjungan Serangga
Penyerbuk serta Pengaruhnya dalam Pembentukan Biji Tanaman Caisin (Brassica rapa L.: Brassicaceae) [Disertasi]. Bogor: Institut Pertanian Bogor.
Atmowidi T, Rianti P, Sutrisna A. 2008. Pollination effectiveness of Apis cerana Fabricus and Apis mellifera Linnaeus in Jatropha curcas L. (Euphorbiaceae). Biotropia 15: 29-134.
Banjo AD, Lawal OA, Aina SA. 2006. The entomofauna of two medicinal Euphorbiaceae in Southwestern Nigeria. J. Appl. Sci. Res. 2: 858-863.
Barth FG. 1991. Insects and Flowers. The Biology of a Partnership. New Jersey: Princeton Univ. Press.
Bhattacharya A, Datta K, Datta SK. 2005. Floral biology, floral resource constraints and pollination limitation in Jatropha curcas L. Pak. J. Sci. 8: 456-460.
Blancafort X, Gomez C. 2005. Consequences of the Argentine ant, Linepithema humile (Mayr), invasion on pollination of Euphorbia characias (L.) (Euphorbiaceae) [abstrak]. Acta Oecologica 28: 49-55.
Bolton B. 1994. Identification Guide to the Aant Genera of the World. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press.
Bosch J, Retana J, Cerda X. 1997. Flowering phenology, floral traits and pollinator composition in a herbaceous Mediterranean plant community. Oecologia 109: 583–591.
Boulter SL, Kitching RL, Howlett BG, Goodall K. 2005. Any which way will do the pollination biology of a northern Australian rainforest canopy tree (Syzygium sayer: Myrtaceae). Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 149: 69-84.
Broufas GD, Koveos DS. 2000. Effect of different pollens on development, survivorship, and reproduction of Euseius finlandicus (Acari: Phytoseiidae). Environ. Entomol. 29: 743–749.
Chang-wei L, Li Kun, Chen You, Yong-yu S. 2007. Floral display and breeding system of Jatropha curcas L. For. Stud. Chi. 9: 114-119.
Collevatti RG, Schoereder JH, Campos LAO. 2000. Foraging behavior of bee pollinators on the tropical weed Triumfetta semitriloba: flight distance and directionality. Rev. Brasil. Biol. 60: 29-37.
Cook SM, Awmack CS, Murray DA, Williams IH. 2003. Are honey bees’ foraging preferences affected by pollen amino acid composition?. Ecol. Entomol. 28: 622–627.
Dafni A. 1992. Pollination Ecology: A Practical Approach. New York: Oxford University Press.
Delaplane KS, Mayer DF. 2000. Crop Pollination by Bees. Oxon: CABI Publishing.
Dobson HEM. 1994. Floral volatiles in insect biology. Insect–Plant interactions vol. 5. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Dobson HEM & Bergstrom G. 2000. The ecology and evolution of pollen odors. Plant. System. Evol. 222: 63–87.
Dupont YL, Hansen DM, Olesen YM. 2003. Structure of a plant-flower-visitor network in a high altitude sub-alpine desert of Tenerife, Canary Islands. Ecography 26: 301-310.
Elzinga RJ. 2004. Fundamentals of Entomology. Ed ke-6. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Faheem M, Aslam M, Razaq M. 2004. Pollination ecology with special reference to insects a review. J. Res. Sci. 4: 395-409.
Felger R, Moser MB. 1985. People of the desert and sea: ethnobotany of the Seri Indians. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Foidl N, Foidl G, Sanchez M, Mittelbach M, Hackel S. 1997. Jatropha curcas L.: as a source for the production of biofuel in Nikaragua. Biores. Technol. 58: 77-82.
Grimm C, Maes JM. 1997. Artrhopod fauna associated with Jatropha curcas L. in Nikaragua:a synopsis of spesies, their biology and pest status. Graz: DBV- Verlag. hlm 31-39.
Grimm C, Fuhrer E. 1998. Population dynamics of true bugs (Heteroptera) in physic nut (Jatropha curcas) Plantations in Nikaragua. J. App. Entomol. 122: 515-521.
Grimm C. 1999. Evaluation of damage physic nut (Jatropha curcas L.) by true bugs. Entomol. Exper. et. Appli. 92: 137-136.
Gübitz GM, Mittelbach M, Trabi M. 1999. Exploitation of the tropical oil seed plant Jatropha curcas L. Biores. Tech. 67: 73-82.
Hadisoesilo S, Otis GW, Meixner M. 1995. Two distinct populations of cavity nesting honey bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) in South Sulawesi, Indonesia. Journal of the Kansas Entomol. Soc. 68: 399-407.
Harder LD, Jordan CY, Gross WE, Routley MB. 2004. Beyond floricentrism:The pollination fuction of inflourescences. Plant. Sp. Biol. 19:137-148.
Hartati RS. 2006. Persentase bunga betina sebagai salah satu faktor penentu produksi benih jarak pagar (Jatropha curcas L.). InfoTek Jarak Pagar 1: 17. Hartati RS. 2007. Jarak pagar, menyerbuk silang atau menyerbuk sendiri? InfoTek
Jarak Pagar 2: 37.
Hardwicke K. 2003. Implications for angiosperm-insect coevolution: Differential thermoregulation abillities of pollinators due to behavior and morphology (Coleoptera, Diptera, Hymenoptera, and Lepidoptera) affect distribution, community composition, and floral visitation behavior in range of environments [Review paper]. Insect Behavior 507: 1-12.
Hasnam. 2006a. Biologi bunga jarak pagar (Jatropha curcas L.). InfoTek Jarak Pagar 1: 13.
Hasnam. 2006b. Karakteristik pembungaan (Jatropha curcas L.). InfoTek Jarak Pagar 1: 18.
Hasnam, Mahmud Z. 2006. Panduan umum perbenihan jarak pagar pagar (Jatropha curcas L.). Ed ke-2. Bogor: Pusat Penelitian dan Pengembangan Perkebunan.
Hasnam. 2008. Perkembangan produksi biofuel di Negara-negara ASEAN. Di dalam: Prosidings of ASEAN Cost 3: New Energy Forum for Suistanable Environment (NEFSE). Kyoto: 25-27 May 2008.
Heller J. 1996. Promoting the conservation and used of under utilized and neglected crops: physic nut (Jatropha curcas L). Roma: IPGRI.
Henning R. 1997. Fuel production improves food production: the Jatropha project in Mali. Graz: Dbv-Verlag. hlm 92-97.
I Hsin S, Ming Ying L, Chin shing C, Ann Shiou C, Wen Shyong C. 2006. Pollinators and their behaviours on mango flower in Southern Taiwan. Form. Entomol. 26:161-170.
Indrawanto C, Pranowo D. 2008. Bungkil Jarak Pagar untuk Bahan Biogas. Infotek Jarak Pagar 8: 31.
Junker R, Chung AC, bluthgen N. 2007. Interaction between flower, ant, and pollinators: additional evidence for floral repellence against ants. Ecol. Res. 22: 665-670.
Karmawati E. 2008. Konferensi jarak pagar internasional. Infotek Jarak Pagar 3: 29.
Kato M, Takimura A, Kawakita A. 2003. An obligate pollination mutualism and reciprocal diversification in the tree genus Glocidion (Euhorbiaceae). PNAS. 100: 5264-5267.
Kephart S, Theis K. 2003. Pollinator-mediated isolation in sympatric milkweeds (Asclepias): do floral morphology and insect behavior influence species boundaries? New Phytologist 161: 265-277.
and its implications for honey production and apiary management. Di dalam: Kevan PG, editor. The Asiatic Hive Bee: Apiculture, Biology, and Role in Sustainable Development in Tropical and Subtropical Asia. Ontario: Enviroquest Ltd. Hlm 223-228.
Kevan PG. 1999. Pollinators as bioindicators of the state of the environment: species, activity, and diversity. Agric. Ecosyt. Environ. 74: 373-393.
Klein AM, Steffan Dewenter I, Buchori D, Tscharntke T. 2002. Effects of landuse intensity in tropical agroforestry systems on coffe flower-visiting and trapnesting bees and wasps. Conserv. biol. 16: 1003-1014.
Klein AM, Steffan Dewenter I, , Tscharntke T. 2003. Bee pollination and fruit set of Coffe arabica and C. cabephora (Rubiaceae). Am. J. bot. 90: 153-157. Klinkhamer PGL, de Jong TJ, Linnebank LA. 2001. Small-scale spatial patterns
determine ecological relationships:an experimental example using nectar production rates. Ecology Letters 4: 559-567.
Kremen C, William MN, Thorp RW. 2002. Crop pollination from native bees at risk from agricultural intensification. PNAS. 99: 16812-16819.
Krsteska V. 2008. Hoverflies (Diptera: Syrphidae) on Tobacco in the Prelep re-
gion. Di dalam: Proceedings 43rd Croatian and 3rd International Symposium
on Agriculture. Croatia: Field Crop Prod. Hlm 707-710.
Kumar RV, Ahlawat SP, Handa AK, Gupta VK. 2004. Jatropha curcas the fuel of the future. Employment News 29: 1-2.
Lach L. 2005. Interference and exploitation competition of three nectar-thieving invasive ant species. Insect. Soc. 52: 257-262.
Lester PJ, Tavite A. 2004. Long-legged ants, Anoplolepis graciipes (Hy- menoptera; Formicidae), have invaded Tokelau, changing competition and dynamics of ant and invertebrate communities. Pas. Sci. 58: 391-401.
Lughadha EN, Proenca C. 1996. A survey of the reproductive biology of the Myr- toideae (Myrtaceae). Annal. Miss. Bot. Gard. 83: 480-503.
Luo C, Li K, Chen Y, Sun Y. 2004. Floral display and breeding system of Jat- ropha curcas L [Abstrak]. Forestry Studies I China. ISSN: 1008-1321.
Magurran AE. 1987. Ecological Diversity and Its Measurement. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Mahmud Z. 2006. Serangga penyerbuk pada tanaman jarak pagar. InfoTek Jarak Pagar 1: 19.
Mahmud Z, Rivale AA, Allorerung D. 2006. Petunjuk teknis budidaya jarak pagar (Jatropha curcas L). Ed ke-2. Bogor: Pusat Penelitian dan Pengembangan Perkebunan.
Malo JE, Baonza J. 2002. Are there predictable clines in plant-pollinators interactions along altitudinal gradiens? The example of Cytisus scoparius (L.) link in the Sierra de Guadarrama (central Spain). Diversity and Distribution 8: 365-371.
Melendez-Ramirez et al. 2004. Mixed mating strategies and pollination by insect and wind in coconot palm (Cocos nucifera L (Arecaceae)): important in production and selection. Agri. For. Entomol. 6: 155-163.
Michener .2000. The Bees of the World. Baltimore:The John Hopkins Univ. Press. Momose K et al. 1998. Pollination biology on a dipterocarp forest in Sarawak
Malaysia. I. Characteristic of the plant pollinator community in the lowland dipterocarp forest. Am. J. Bot. 85: 1477-1501.
Mohr H, Schopfer P, Lawlor G. 1995. Plant Physiology. Berlin: Springer-verlag. Moog U, Fiala B, Federle W, Maschwitz U. 2002. Thrips pollination of the
dioecious ant plant Macaranga hullettii (Euphorbiaceae) in Southest Asia [Abstrak]. Am. J. Bot. 89: 50-59.
Mound LA. 2005. Thysanoptera: Diversity and Interactions. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 50: 247-269.
Neupane KR, Dhakal DD, Thapa RB, Gautam DM. 2006. Foraging preference of giant honeybee, Apis dorsata F, to selected horticultural crops. J. Inst. Agric. Anim. Sci. 27: 87-92.
Nuryani Y. 2007. Pemanfaatan jarak pagar sebagai obat. InfoTek Jarak Pagar 2: 33.
Osborne JL. 1999. A lanscapescale study of bumble bee forging range and constancy using harmonic radar. J. Appl. Ecol. 36: 519-533.
Partap U, Shukla AN, Verma LR. 2000. Comparative attractiveness of broad leaf mustard, cauliflower, and radish to Apis cerana in Kathmandu valley of Nepal. Di dalam: Matsuka M, Verma LR, wongsiri S, Shrestha KK, Partap U. Asian Bees and Beekeeping: Progress of Research and Development. New delhi: Oxford & IBH Publ. Co, Pvt. Ltd.
Patil K, Singh V. 1991. Jatropha curcas: oil gloom to oil boom. Satpur: Shree Offset Press.
Peggy D, Amir M. 2006. Practical Guide to the Butterflies of Bogor Botanic Garden. Bogor: LIPI.
Petanidou T, Ellis WN. 1996. Interdependence of native bee faunas and floras in changing Mediterranean communities. The Conservation of Bees. Linnean Society Symposium Series 18. London: Academic Press.
Pinheiro JC, Bates DM. 2000. Statistics and Computing: Mixed-Effects Models in S and S-Plus. New York: Springer.
Poteet MD. 2006. Biodiesel crop implementation in Hawaii.
http://hawaiiagriculturalresearch/journal/biodiesel.html [7 Juni 2007]. Potts SG, Dafni A, Ne’eman G. 2001. Pollination of a core flowering shrub
species in Mediterranean phrygana: variation in pollinator diversity, abun- dance and effectiveness in response to fire. Oikos 92: 71–80.
Potts SG. 2004. Nectar resource diversity organises flower-visitor community structure. Entomol. Experimen. App. 113: 103–107.
Prastowo B et al. 2007. Research and development of physic nut, Jatropha curcas
L Di dalam: Proceedings World renewable energy regional congress and
exhibition. Jakarta. Oktober 2007.
Proctor M, Yeo P, Lack A. 1996. The Natural History of Pollination. London: Harper Collins Publishers.
Price MV, et al. 2005. Temporal and spatial variation in pollination of a montane herb:a seven-year study. Ecol. 86: 2106-2116.
Ramana SP, Atluri JB, Reddi CS. 2003. Autecology of the tailed jay butterfly Graphium agamemnon (Lepidoptera: Rhopalocera, Papilionidae). J. Envi- ron. Biol. 24: 295-303.
Ramdhani Ep, Purwatiningsih, Soesilohadi RCCH, Sastrodihardjo S. 2000. Eva- luasi serangga penyerbuk tanaman pertanian. Di dalam: Prosiding Simpo- sium Keanekaragaman Hayati Arthropoda pada Sistem Produksi Pertanian. Cipayung, 16-18 Oktober 2000.
Raju AJS, Ezradanam V. 2002. Pollination ecology and fruiting behavior in a monoecious species, Jatropha curcas L. (Euphorbiaceae). Cur. Science. 83: 1395-1398.
Raju AJS. 2006. Bio diesel: an eco-friendly sustainable fuel source. http://indiaeconomicindustry/biodiesel/jatropha.html. [7 Juni 2007].
Rattee S. 2004. A preliminary study of physic nut (Jatropha curcas L) in Thailand. Pakis. J. Biol. Sci. 7: 1620-1623.
Raw A. 2000. Foraging behavior of wild bees at hot pepper flower (Capsicum an- num) and its possible influence on cross pollination. Annals. Bot. 85: 187-192.
Richter MR. 2000. Social wasp (Hymenoptera: Vespidae) foraging behavior. An- nu. Rev. Entomol. 45: 121-150.
Rickson FR, Rickson MM. 1998. The cashew nut, Annacardium occidentale (An- nacardiaceae), and its perennial association with ants: extrafloral nectar lo- cation and the potensial of ant defense. Am. J. Bot. 85: 835-849.
Rossi J et al. 2006. Hoverflies in organic apple orchards in north-western Italy. Bull. Insect. 59: 111-114.
Roubik DW. 1989. Ecology and Natural History of Tropical bees. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Rumini W. 2006. Serangga pada pertanaman jarak pagar yang tertangkap dengan “malaise trap”. InfoTek Jarak Pagar 1: 15.
Rusim M, Joko H, Yeyen PW. 2006. Pengaruh tingkat kemasakan buah jarak pagar terhadap kadar minyak. InfoTek Jarak Pagar 1: 23.
Ruttner F. 1988. Biogeography and Taxonomy of Honeybess. German: Springer. Sakai S. 2001. Thrips pollination of androdioecious Castilla elastica (Moraceae)
Schoonhoven LM, Jermy T, van Loon JJA. 1998. Physiology to Evolution: Insect-Plant Biology. London: Chapman&Hall.
Shepered M, Buchmann SL, Vaughan M, Black SH. 2000. Pollinator concervation handbook. The Xerces Society. Oregon: Portland.
Soetopo D, Heriyanto B. 2008. Potensi jarak pagar sebagai pestisida nabati. Infotek Jarak Pagar 3(40): 14.
Solsoloy AD, Solsoloy TS. 1997. Insecticidal efficacy of formulated Jatropha curcas oil on pets of selected field crops. Graz: DBV-Verlag. hlm 216-226. Sudradjat HR. 2007. Non edible plants for bioenergy: national policy perspective
on the use of natural resources in Indonesia. Di dalam: Proceedings World renewable energy regional congress and exhibition. Jakarta. November 2007.
Tamura S, Kudo G. 2000. Wind pollination and insect pollination of two temper- ate willow species, Salix miyabena and Salix sachalinensis. Plant Ecol. 147: 185-192.
Terry I. 2003. Thrips: the primaveral pollinators?. Di dalam: Thrips and Tospoviruses: Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on
Thysanoptera. Hlm 157-162.
Tiwary, B.K. 2004. Bio-diesel: can it avert crisis? Yojana June Issue hlm 36-42. Torres-Hernandez L, Rico Gray V, Castillo Guevara C, Vergara JA. 2000. Effect
of nectar foraging ants and wasps on the reproductive fitness of Turnera ulmifolia (Turneraceae) in a coastal sand dune in Mexico. Acta. Zool. Mex. (n.s.). 81: 13-21.
Trabi M, Gübitz GM, steiner W, Foidl N. 1997. Toxicity of Jatropha curcas seeds. Graz: DBV-Verlag. hlm 173-178.
Triplehorn CA, Johnson NF. 2005. Borror and Delong’s Introduction to the Study of Insects. USA: Brooks/Cole Thomson Learning, Inc.
Van Rijn PCJ, Van Houten YM, Sabelis MW. 2002. How plants benefit from pro- viding food to redators even when it is also edible to herbivores. Ecology. 83: 2664–2679.
Wink M, Koschmieder C, Sauerwein M, Sporer F. 1997. Phorbol esters of Jatropha curcas-biological activities and potential applications. Graz: DBV- Verlag. hlm 160-166.
Winston ML. 1987. The Biology of the Honey Bee. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press.
Zoller H, Lenzin H, Erhardt A. 2002. Pollination and breeding system of: Eritrichium nanum (Bogariaceae) [Abstrak]. Plant. Syst. Evol. 233: 1-14.
Lampiran 1
Korelasi Pearson antara jumlah bunga, volume nektar, dengan jumlah individu harian
Lampiran 2
Korelasi Pearson antar variabel parameter lingkungan dengan jumlah spesies dan individu
Ket: Sp: Jumlah spesies, N: Jumlah individu, angin: kecepatan angin, chy: intensitas cahaya, suhu: suhu udara, lembab: kelembaban udara, nektar: volume nektar
individu bunga nektar individu 1
bunga 0.45 1
nektar -0.34 -0.54 1
Sp N kelimpahan evenness shannon angin chy suhu lembab nektar
Sp 1 N 0.68 1 kelimpahan 0.72 -0.02 1 evenness 0.5 -0.3 0.96 1 shannon 0.78 0.07 1 0.93 1 angin -0.16 -0.83 0.57 0.78 0.49 1 cahaya -0.85 -0.19 -0.98 -0.88 -0.99 -0.39 1 suhu -0.59 -0.99 0.13 0.4 0.04 0.89 0.08 1 kelembaban 0.38 0.94 -0.37 -0.61 -0.28 -0.97 0.16 -0.97 1 nektar 0.33 0.92 -0.42 -0.65 -0.33 -0.98 0.22 -0.96 1 1
Lampiran 3
Uji T buah per malai Welch Two Sample t-test
data: malai by perlakuan
t = 17.1639, df = 13.935, p-value = 9.082e-11
alternative hypothesis: true difference in means is not equal to 0 95 percent confidence interval:
5.833241 7.500093 sample estimates:
mean in group buka mean in group kurung 9.433333 2.766667
Lampiran 4
Uji T buah per tanaman Welch Two Sample t-test
data: malai1 + malai2 + malai3 by perlakuan t = 17.1639, df = 13.935, p-value = 9.082e-11
alternative hypothesis: true difference in means is not equal to 0 95 percent confidence interval:
17.49972 22.50028 sample estimates:
mean in group buka mean in group kurung 28.3 8.3
Lampiran 5
Uji T diameter buah per tanaman Welch Two Sample t-test
data: diameter by perlakuan
t = 5.887, df = 105.199, p-value = 4.748e-08
alternative hypothesis: true difference in means is not equal to 0 95 percent confidence interval:
0.08801858 0.17742057 sample estimates:
mean in group buka mean in group kurung 2.300671 2.167952
Lampiran 6
Uji T jumlah biji per tanaman Welch Two Sample t-test
data: biji by perlakuan
t = 2.3567, df = 88.565, p-value = 0.02064
alternative hypothesis: true difference in means is not equal to 0 95 percent confidence interval:
0.01156331 0.13590997 sample estimates:
mean in group buka mean in group kurung 2.989399 2.915663
sum in group buka sum in group kurung (10 tanaman)
Lampiran 7
Uji T berat biji per tanaman Welch Two Sample t-test
data: berat by perlakuan
t = 21.2814, df = 161.037, p-value < 2.2e-16
alternative hypothesis: true difference in means is not equal to 0 95 percent confidence interval:
0.1261158 0.1519157 sample estimates:
mean in group buka mean in group kurung 0.4572085 0.3181928
sum in group buka sum in group kurung (10 tanaman)
129.39 26.41
Lampiran 8
Uji T kecambah Welch Two Sample t-test
data: kecambah by perlakuan
t = 7.6277, df = 7.707, p-value = 7.49e-05
alternative hypothesis: true difference in means is not equal to 0 95 percent confidence interval:
1.855115 3.478219 sample estimates:
mean in group buka mean in group kurung 8.833333 6.166667
Lampiran 9
Korelasi Pearson jumlah buah dengan serangga penyerbuk
Keterangan: individu: jumlah individu serangga
tanaman tandan1 tandan2 tandan3 individu
tanaman 1
tandan1 0.89 1
tandan2 0.4 0.24 1
tandan3 0.66 0.41 0.56 1
Lampiran 10
ANOVA jumlah kunjungan per menit Analysis of Variance
Source Type III SS df Mean Squares F-ratio p-value
SPESIES 5974.203 8 746.775 107.355 0.000
Error 459.105 66 6.956
Tukey's Honestly-Significant-Difference Test
Sp(i) Sp(j) Difference p-value 95.0% Confidence Interval
Lower Upper 1 2 0.35 1.000 -3.88 4.58 1 3 -19.99 0.000 -24.22 -15.76 1 4 -17.26 0.000 -22.08 -12.44 1 5 -12.56 0.000 -17.01 -8.11 1 6 -1.36 0.999 -8.44 5.72 1 7 -0.84 1.000 -7.92 6.23 1 8 0.53 1.000 -5.65 6.71 1 9 0.42 1.000 -6.66 7.49 2 3 -20.34 0.000 -23.02 -17.67 2 4 -17.61 0.000 -21.15 -14.07 2 5 -12.91 0.000 -15.93 -9.9 2 6 -1.71 0.994 -7.98 4.56 2 7 -1.19 0.999 -7.47 5.08 2 8 0.18 1.000 -5.06 5.42 2 9 0.07 1.000 -6.21 6.34 3 4 2.73 0.261 -0.8 6.27 3 5 7.43 0.000 4.42 10.44 3 6 18.63 0.000 12.36 24.91 3 7 19.15 0.000 12.88 25.42 3 8 20.52 0.000 15.29 25.76 3 9 20.41 0.000 14.14 26.68 4 5 4.7 0.005 0.89 8.5 4 6 15.9 0.000 9.21 22.59 4 7 16.41 0.000 9.73 23.1 4 8 17.79 0.000 12.06 23.52 4 9 17.67 0.000 10.99 24.36 5 6 11.2 0.000 4.78 17.63 5 7 11.72 0.000 5.29 18.14 5 8 13.09 0.000 7.68 18.51 5 9 12.98 0.000 6.55 19.4 6 7 0.52 1.000 -7.94 8.97 6 8 1.89 0.997 -5.83 9.61 6 9 1.78 0.999 -6.68 10.23 7 8 1.38 1.000 -6.35 9.1 7 9 1.26 1.000 -7.2 9.72 8 9 -0.12 1.000 -7.84 7.61 Ket: Sp= Spesies 1 = Anoplolepis sp. 2 = Prenolepis sp. 3 = X. confusa 4 = A. cerana 5 = A. dorsata 6 = A. ariadne 7 = G. agamemnon 8 = J. orithya 9 = E. tenax
Lampiran 11
ANOVA lama kunjungan per bunga Analysis of Variance
Source Type III SS Mean Squares F-ratio p-value
SPESIES 260136.970 32517.121 2264.164 0.000
Error 22906.830 14.362
Tukey's Honestly-Significant-Difference Test
Sp(i) Sp(j) Difference p-value 95.0% Confidence Interval
Lower Upper 1 2 -4.45 0 -8.04 -0.86 1 3 24.82 0 21.23 28.41 1 4 24.42 0 20.8 28.04 1 5 23.71 0 20.13 27.3 1 6 8.47 0 2.79 14.16 1 7 7.22 0.01 0.88 13.56 1 8 -7.74 0.05 -15.39 -0.08 1 9 -3.97 0.91 -13.01 5.06 2 3 29.26 0 28.45 30.07 2 4 28.87 0 27.93 29.8 2 5 28.16 0 27.37 28.95 2 6 12.92 0 8.44 17.4 2 7 11.67 0 6.38 16.96 2 8 -3.29 0.86 -10.1 3.52 2 9 0.48 1 -7.86 8.81 3 4 -0.4 0.92 -1.33 0.53 3 5 -1.11 0 -1.89 -0.32 3 6 -16.35 0 -20.83 -11.87 3 7 -17.6 0 -22.88 -12.31 3 8 -32.55 0 -39.37 -25.74 3 9 -28.79 0 -37.12 -20.46 4 5 -0.71 0.28 -1.62 0.2 4 6 -15.95 0 -20.45 -11.45 4 7 -17.2 0 -22.51 -11.89 4 8 -32.16 0 -38.98 -25.33 4 9 -28.39 0 -36.74 -20.05 5 6 -15.24 0 -19.72 -10.77 5 7 -16.49 0 -21.78 -11.21 5 8 -31.45 0 -38.26 -24.64 5 9 -27.68 0 -36.01 -19.36 6 7 -1.25 1 -8.13 5.63 6 8 -16.21 0 -24.32 -8.1 6 9 -12.44 0 -21.87 -3.02 7 8 -14.96 0 -23.54 -6.37 7 9 -11.19 0.01 -21.03 -1.36 8 9 3.77 0.98 -6.97 14.5 Ket: Sp= Spesies 1 = Anoplolepis sp. 2 = Prenolepis sp. 3 = X. confusa 4 = A. cerana 5 = A. dorsata 6 = A. ariadne 7 = G. agamemnon 8 = J. orithya 9 = E. tenax
Lampiran 12
ANOVA lama kunjungan per tanaman Analysis of Variance
Source Type III SS df Mean Squares F-ratio p-value
SPESIES 8226778.459 8 1028347.307 473.427 0.000
Error 108606.857 50 2172.137
Tukey's Honestly-Significant-Difference Test
Sp(i) Sp(j) Difference p-value 95.0% Confidence Interval
Lower Upper 1 2 -1005.44 0 -1094.81 -916.07 1 3 -14.21 1 -103.58 75.16 1 4 -4.91 1 -94.28 84.46 1 5 -100.56 0.02 -189.93 -11.19 1 6 36.62 0.96 -64.71 137.96 1 7 31.83 0.98 -65.68 129.34 1 8 -14.04 1 -182.94 154.85 1 9 10.37 1 -105.01 125.75 2 3 991.23 0 923.67 1058.79 2 4 1000.53 0 932.97 1068.08 2 5 904.88 0 837.32 972.44 2 6 1042.06 0 959.32 1124.8 2 7 1037.27 0 959.26 1115.28 2 8 991.4 0 832.96 1149.83 2 9 1015.81 0 916.37 1115.25 3 4 9.3 1 -58.26 76.85 3 5 -86.35 0 -153.91 -18.79 3 6 50.83 0.56 -31.91 133.57 3 7 46.04 0.61 -31.97 124.05 3 8 0.17 1 -158.27 158.6 3 9 24.58 1 -74.86 124.02 4 5 -95.65 0 -163.2 -28.09 4 6 41.54 0.79 -41.21 124.28 4 7 36.75 0.84 -41.26 114.75 4 8 -9.13 1 -167.57 149.31 4 9 15.28 1 -84.16 114.73 5 6 137.18 0 54.44 219.92 5 7 132.39 0 54.38 210.4 5 8 86.52 0.7 -71.92 244.95 5 9 110.93 0.02 11.49 210.37 6 7 -4.79 1 -96.27 86.68 6 8 -50.67 0.99 -216.15 114.82 6 9 -26.25 1 -136.58 84.07 7 8 -45.88 0.99 -209.04 117.29 7 9 -21.46 1 -128.28 85.36 8 9 24.41 1 -150.02 198.85 Ket: Sp= Spesies 1 = Anoplolepis sp. 2 = Prenolepis sp. 3 = X. confusa 4 = A. cerana 5 = A. dorsata 6 = A. ariadne 7 = G. agamemnon 8 = J. orithya 9 = E. tenax