# Physico-Chemical and Melissopalynological Characterization of Czech Honey
## 3 Results and Discussion
### Pollen Profile of Czech Honey
These honeys do not have a uniform composition because they are produced by different representatives of insects and also differ according to the botanical taxa on which the insect sucks honeydew [31]. The most common sources of honeydew include Coniferae of _Ahies_ sp., Picea excelsa (Lam) Link., _Pinus_ sp., and Latifoliaae of _Quercus_ sp., _Tilia_ sp. These honeys are microscopically characterized by the presence of honeydew elements. [9]. The pollen profile of Czech HD was characterized by a high content of pollen of nectariferous taxa. The highest amount was of _Brassica_ sp. 22% (min-max, 0-63%). In pollen content of _Brassica_ sp. ; however, HD differed from BH, FH, and PH. The secondary pollen in HD was _Myosotiis_ sp. which represented 16%. In the amount of this pollen, HD differed significantly from BH, FH, and PH. In HD, important pollens included _Pyrus_/_Prunus_ 6% (differences with PH), _Plucelia_ sp. 6%, and _Trifolium_ sp. 4% (differences with TH). A non-nectariferous taxon high in content was _Umbellifera_ (7%). A pollen with a low content forming a statistically significant difference was _Rhibinia pseudoaccia_ (differences in RH). Opinions on the content of pollen in honeydew honeys differ, as reported in a European study, and the pollen profile of honeybee honey is composed mainly of non-nectariferous taxa [9]; in Spanish honeydew honeydew honey the average pollen content was 26%, most of which was nectariferous taxa _Castanea_ 42% and _Rubus_ 32%) [44]. Another Spanish study confirmed the presence of _Castanea_ and _Rubus_ as the dominant pollens (>45%) in honeydew honeys, and other frequent taxa included, for example, _Salix_ and _Trifolium_ in Evergreen Oak Honeydew Honeys, among other taxa, such as _Brassica_ sp., _Trifolium_ sp. and _Taraxacum_. The Quercus pollen was present in low levels [45]. Similar results were confirmed by our study. Pollen representation in honeydew honeys was also confirmed in Greek honeydew honey, where the dominant taxon was _Castanea_ (23-92%) and the accompanying taxa included _Trifolium_ sp. and _Quercus_ sp. [46] which were also demonstrated in our study. Lime trees are a very good source of nectar and honeydew. Due to the low pollen-producing capacity of this botanical taxon, the percentage of _Tilia_ pollen is low, with an average of 23% [9,47]. In French lime honeys, the lime pollen content ranged from 5-23% [48]. In the Czech LH, the lime pollen content averaged 23% (min-max, 13-39%). The secondary pollen was _Trifolium_ sp. (19%) where there were differences comparing to BH. The important pollens in TH were _Placelia_ sp. 12% and _Myosofis_ sp. 9% (differences comparing to BH, FH, and PH). Non-nectariferous important pollen was _Umbellifera_ (4%). The presence of other pollen taxa in lime honeys is in accordance with literature. Pollen from dandelions, buckwheat, _Brassica_ sp., and other pollen taxa not demonstrated in our study, were reported in lime honey [48]. The presence of _Brassica_ sp., _Robinia pseudoacacia_, and _Amorpha fruitcosa_ pollen were confirmed in Serbian lime honeys [49]. _Robinia pseudoacacia_ are a good source of nectar and a poor source of pollen. Therefore, their pollen content in RH is low. The average pollen content in one European study was 28% [9]. In the Czech RH, the _Robinia pseudoacacie_ pollen content averaged at 13% (min-max, 12-14%). The secondary pollens in RH were _Brassica_ sp. (15%) and _Myosofis_ sp. (15%), where there were differences comparing to BH, FH, and PH, and _Trifolium_ sp. (9%) with differences comparing to BH, _Vicia_ sp. (10%). Non-nectariferous important pollen was _Umbellifera_ (8%). Robinia honey (Black locust) is more typical for eastern region. In Croatia, other pollen taxa were also confirmed in Robinia honey; the secondary pollen was _Rosaceae_, and other important pollens included _Fabacae_, _Amorphafrutcosae_, and _Oleaceae_[50]. These results are not in agreement with our study, but the differences are given by dissimilar climatic conditions.