Naureen Rana M

BIODIVERSITY OF SOIL MACROINVERTEBRATES IN LOW AND HIGH INPUT FIELDS OF WHEAT (Triticum aestivum L.) AND SUGARCANE (Saccharum officinarum L.) IN DISTRICT FAISALABAD

By Naureen Rana M. Sc. (U.A.F) A THESIS SUBMITTED IN THE PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF REQUIREMENT FOR THE DEGREE OF

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN ZOOLOGY

DEPARTMENT OF ZOOLOGY AND FISHERIES

FACULTY OF SCIENCES UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE FAISALABAD 2012

DECLARATION

I hereby declare that the contents of the thesis, “Biodiversity of soil macro invertebrates in low and high input fields of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) and sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.) in district Faisalabad” are product of my own research and no part has been copied from any published source (except the references, standard mathematical or equations/formula/protocols etc). I further declare that this work has not been submitted for award of any other diploma/degree. The university may take action if the information provided is found incorrect at any stage, (In case of any default the scholar will be proceeded against as per HEC plagiarism policy).

Signature of the student Name: Naureen Rana Regd. No. 1987-ag-988

The Controller of Examinations,

University of Agriculture,

Faisalabad.

We, the Supervisory Committee, certify that the contents and form of the thesis submitted by Mrs. Naureen Rana 1987-ag-988 have been found satisfactory and recommend that it be processed for evaluation by the External Examiner (s) for the award of degree.

SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE

______CHAIRPERSON: Prof. Dr. Shahnaz Akhter Rana

______MEMBER: Dr. Hammad Ahmed Khan

______MEMBER: Prof. Dr. Anjum Suhail

DEDICATED TO MY MOTHER

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I feel highly privileged to take this opportunity to express my heartiest gratitude and deep sense of indebt to my worthy supervisor, Prof. Dr. Shahnaz Akhter, Department of Zoology & Fisheries, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad. Throughout the period of my thesis writing, she encouraged me provided sound advice, good guidance, and a lot of good ideas. I also thank Dr. Hammad Ahmed Khan, Associate Professor, Department of Zoology & Fisheries and Prof. Dr. Anjum Suhail, Chairman Department of Entomology for their availability and interest in this academic pursuit.

I pay my cordial gratitude to Dr. Muhammad Mahmood-ul-Hassan, Associate Professor, Department of Zoology & Fisheries, for his skillful guidance, healthy criticism, His art of working, useful suggestions and skillful criticism at all times motivated me until the completion of this manuscript. My thanks are also due to Dr. Inayat Khan (Chairman) Department of Statistics for his sober statistical advice. Here I must not underestimate the contributions of Farm Owner, Rafaqat Ali Mojahid (Gatti Faisalabad), for allowing me free access to his fields. I shall be failing in my duty if I do not say words of thanks to my colleagues, Dr. Abida Butt (Associate Professor Punjab University) for cooperating and inspiring me to complete this manuscript. The write up of this dissertation and many other technical formalities were incomplete without the help of Dr. Shabana Naz (Assistant Professor G.C. University Faisalabad). I cannot adequately express my appreciation for the efforts of Muhammad Zafar Iqbal Janjua (Directorate of Advanced Studies) and Muhammad Nadeem Abbas (Ph. D Scholar Zoology) who laboured long with me for sampling and processing the specimens.

I also thank Mr. Ajmal Khan (Agricultural chemist, soils), Mr. Shakeel Ahmad Anwar (Assistant Research officer), Mr. Tahir Majeed (Assistant Research officer), Mr. Khalid Rashid (Assistant Research officer), Mr. Muhammad Khalid (Assistant Research officer) for their skillful guidance and useful suggestions during soil analysis at Soil Chemistry section, Ayub Agricultural Research Institute, Faisalabad.

My heartiest thanks are also due to those respectable individuals who patronized me on all fronts with all sincerity. Some of these dignitaries are Dr. Riaz Hussain Qureshi (Ex.

V.C. UAF), Dr. Mirza Azhar Beg (Ex. Dean, Sciences), Dr. Muhammed Ashraf (Dean Sciences), Dr. Junaid Iqbal Qureshi (Ex. Chairman, Zoology), Dr. Akbar Ali Khan (Ex. Chairman, Zoology), Dr. Abdul Wahid (Chairman Botany), Muhammed Shafqat (Deputy Registrar), Sadia Malik, Sajida Mushtaq, Sumera Naz, Huma Habib Students department of Zoology and Fisheries.

Last but not the least; I feel utmost pleasure in acknowledging the selfless help and cooperation rendered by Muhammad Pervez Iqbal (Husband), Samreen Rana (Daughter), Mehreen Rana (Daughter) and Usama Shahzore (Son) in completing this academic work. Also, I wish to thank all the members of my family especially my brothers Dr. Muhammed Ashfaq T.I. (Dean, Agriculture), Muhammad Ishtiaq, Dr. Muhammad Akhlaq, Muhammad Afaq, my sister Shahida Khalil and brother-in-law Muhammad Khalil-ur-Rahman, for providing an envisaging environment to me.

Mrs. Naureen Rana

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER # TITLE PAGE # Title page I Dedications II Declaration III \ Acknowledgements IV Signature page VI Table of contents VII List of tables IX List of figures XI List of annexures XIII 01 Introduction 01 Objectives 03 02 Review of Literature 04 Importance of soil biodiversity in agroecosystem 04 Constituents of soil community 05 Role of micro and macro soil constituents in global biodiversity 06 Occurrence of soil macroinvertebrates 06 Examples of soil macroinvertebrates 08 Advantages of soil macrofauna 08 Factors affecting the abundance of soil macroinvertebrates 09 Macroinvertebrates and pest and predator ratio 10 Need of restoration of ecological communities 11 03 Materials and Methods 13 Study area 13 Map of Study Area 14 Sampling strategy 15 Sorting and identification of soil organisms 20 Soil analyses 20 Statistical analysis/softwares’ used 21 Shannon’ s index of diversity 21 Polynomial regression 23 CCA (Canonical correspondence analysis) 23 04 RESULTS 25 Section – I 25 Diversity of soil macroinvertebrates 25 Wheat 25 Microhabitat related variations in the abundance of soil 27 macrofauna in wheat Temporal variations in the abundance of soil macro- 30 fauna in wheat Sugarcane 33 Microhabitat related variations in the abundance of soil 35 macrofauna in sugarcane Temporal variations in the abundance of soil 38 macrofauna in sugarcane

vii

CHAPTER # TITLE PAGE # Section – II 40 Probable interactions among faunal populations 40 Predator-prey associations in wheat 40 Predator-prey associations in sugarcane 49

Section - III 69 Effect of weeds on the faunal populations 69 Wheat crop 69 Sugarcane crop 76 Section – IV 81 Effect of agrochemicals on diversity of soil 81 invertebrates Adaphic factors 81 Canonical correspondence analysis (CCA) 84 Physical factors 94 Hydrogen ion concentration 103 Electrical conductivity 103 Chemical factors 104 05 DISCUSSION 105 Diversity of soil macro-invertebrates 105 Probable interaction among faunal populations 109 Effect of weeds on faunal populations 110 Effects of agrochemicals on diversity of soil macro- 112 invertebrates 06 SUMMARY 116 CONCLUSIONS 119 RECOMMENDATIONS 119 REFERENCES 125

viii

LIST OF TABLES

No Title Page # 3.1 Recommended doses of agrochemical notified by the Govt. of Punjab, 15 Pakistan during 2009. 3.2 Recommended doses of insecticides and pesticides notified by the 16 Govt. of Punjab, Pakistan for sugarcane and wheat crops . 4.1.1 Relative abundance (%) of soil macro-invertebrates recorded from LIP 26 and HIP treated wheat fields in Punjab (Pakistan). 4.1.2 Values of the richness, diversity, and evenness indices calculated for 28 the soil macro-invertebrates recorded from LIP and HIP treated wheat fields in Punjab (Pakistan). 4.1.3 Relative abundance (%) of soil macro-invertebrates recorded from 28 three microhabitats (MHs) in LIP and HIP treated wheat fields in Punjab (Pakistan). 4.1.4 A comparison of diversity of soil macro-invertebrates recorded from 31 microhabitats in wheat under LIP and HIP treatments in Punjab (Pakistan). 4.1.5 Relative abundance (%) of soil macro-invertebrates recorded during 31 winter and spring in LIP and HIP treated wheat fields in Punjab (Pakistan). 4.1.6 Temporal variations in richness, diversity and evenness values for soil 32 macro-invertebrates recorded from microhabitats in wheat under LIP and HIP treatments in Punjab (Pakistan). 4.1.7 Relative abundance (%) of soil macro-invertebrates recorded from LIP 34 and HIP treated cane fields in Punjab (Pakistan). 4.1.8 Values of the richness, diversity, and evenness indices calculated for 34 the soil macro-invertebrates recorded from LIP and HIP treated cane fields in Punjab (Pakistan). 4.1.9 Relative abundance (%) of soil macro-invertebrates recorded from 37 three microhabitats (MHs) in LIP and HIP treated cane fields in Punjab (Pakistan). 4.1.10 A comparison of diversity of soil macro-invertebrates recorded from 37 microhabitats in wheat under LIP and HIP treatments in Punjab (Pakistan). 4.1.11 Relative abundance (%) of soil macro-invertebrates recorded during 39 winter and spring in LIP and HIP treated wheat fields in Punjab (Pakistan). 4.1.12 Temporal variations in richness, diversity and evenness values for soil 39 macro-invertebrates recorded from microhabitats in sugarcane under LIP and HIP treatments in Punjab (Pakistan). 4.2.1 Association (R2) of various predators (% relative abundance) and their 41 preys (% relative abundance) in the wheat fields. 4.2.2 Abbreviations used in polynomial regression analysis for various 41 predators and their preys recorded from wheat fields 4.2.3 Association (R2) of various predators (% relative abundance) and their 50 preys (% relative abundance) in the sugarcane fields. 4.2.4 Abbreviations used in polynomial regression analysis for various 51 predators and their prey recorded from sugarcane fields. ix

4.3.1 A list of weeds recorded from wheat and sugarcane fields of Faisalabad 70 district. 4.3.2 Comparison of richness (S), Diversity (H/) and evenness (E) values for 72 some weeds recorded from edge and center of wheat crop. 4.3.3 CCA of the abundance of invertebrate fauna at the sampled weeds from 75 the wheat crop in Faisalabad. 4.3.4 Comparison of richness (S), Diversity (H') and evenness (E) values for 78 some weeds recorded from edge and center of sugarcane crop. 4.3.5 CCA of the abundance of invertebrate fauna at the sampled weeds from 80 the Sugarcane crop in Faisalabad. 4.4.1 Relative abundance (%) of the various groups of soil macro- 82 invertebrates in low (LIP) and high (HIP) in put treatments of wheat and sugarcane in Faisalabad district. 4.4.2 Mean values of various soil nutrients recorded from three microhabitats 83 (MHs) of the LIP and HIP treated fields 4.4.3 CCA of the abundance of soil macro-fauna at the soil nutrients of the 86 LIP wheat fields of Faisalabad 4.4.4 CCA of the abundance of soil invertebrate fauna at the soil nutrients of 88 the HIP wheat fields of Faisalabad Summary of analysis 4.4.5 CCA of the abundance of soil macro-fauna at soil nutrients of the LIP 91 sugarcane fields of Faisalabad 4.4.6 CCA of the abundance of soil macro-invertebrates at the soil nutrients 93 of the HIP sugarcane fields of Faisalabad 4.4.7a. Association of various soil macro-invertebrates to organic matter 95 (OM), electrical conductivity (EC), hydrogen ion concentration (pH), Iron (Fe) copper (Cu), Boron (B), Zinc (Zn), Manganese (Mn), phosphorous (P), and Potassium (K) in low input wheat fields. 4.4.7b. Association of various soil macro-invertebrates to organic matter 97 (OM), electrical conductivity (EC), hydrogen ion concentration (pH), Iron (Fe) copper (Cu), Boron (B), Zinc (Zn), Manganese (Mn), phosphorous (P), and Potassium (K) in high input wheat fields. 4.4.8a Association of various soil macro-invertebrates to organic matter 99 (OM), electrical conductivity (EC), hydrogen ion concentration (pH), Iron (Fe) copper (Cu), Boron (B), Zinc (Zn), Manganese (Mn), phosphorous (P), and Potassium (K) in low input sugarcane fields. 4.4.8b Association of various soil macro-invertebrates to organic matter 101 (OM), electrical conductivity (EC), hydrogen ion concentration (pH), Iron (Fe) copper (Cu), Boron (B), Zinc (Zn), Manganese (Mn), phosphorous (P), and Potassium (K) in high input sugarcane fields.

LIST OF FIGURE No Title Page # 3.1 Map of Study Area 14 3.2 Field and laboratory equipment used to sample soil and extract soil 19 macro-organisms (a) Burlese funnel, (b) Quadrangle, (c) Core sampler and (d) Sieve 4.1.1a Relative abundance of various orders of phylum arthropoda in 29 different micro-habitats of LIP Wheat open edge 4.1.1b Relative abundance of various orders of phylum arthropoda in 29 different micro-habitats of LIP Wheat under tree 4.1.1c Relative abundance of various orders of phylum arthropoda in 29 different micro-habitats of LIP Wheat inside field 4.1.1d Relative abundance of various orders of phylum arthropoda in 29 different micro-habitats of HIP Wheat open edge 4.1.1e Relative abundance of various orders of phylum arthropoda in 29 different micro-habitats of HIP Wheat under tree 4.1.1f Relative abundance of various orders of phylum arthropoda in 29 different micro-habitats of HIP Wheat inside field 4.1.2a Relative abundance of various orders of phylum arthropoda in 36 different micro-habitats of LIP sugarcane open edge 4.1.2b Relative abundance of various orders of phylum arthropoda in 36 different micro-habitats of LIP sugarcane under tree 4.1.2c Relative abundance of various orders of phylum arthropoda in 36 different micro-habitats of LIP sugarcane inside field 4.1.2d Relative abundance of various orders of phylum arthropoda in 36 different micro-habitats of HIP sugarcane open edge 4.1.2e Relative abundance of various orders of phylum arthropoda in 36 different micro-habitats of HIP sugarcane under tree 4.1.2f Relative abundance of various orders of phylum arthropoda in 36 different micro-habitats of HIP sugarcane inside field 4.2.1 Association of Formica spp.2 to its prey (a, b, c, d) 42 4.2.1a-d Polynomial regression curves showing association of Formica spp. 2 42 to its preys 4.2.2 Association of Clubiona obesa to its prey (a, b, c, d) 43 4.2.2a-d Polynomial regression curves showing association of Clubiona obesa 43 to its preys 4.2.3 Association of Camponotus spp. to its prey (a, b, c, d) 44 4.2.3a-d Polynomial regression curves showing association of Camponotus 44 spp. to its preys 4.2.4 Association of Formica spp.1 to its prey (a, b, c, d) 45 4.2.4a-d Association of Formica spp. 1 (Fs) to its preys 45 4.2.5 Association of Oxychilus alliarius to its prey (a, b, c, d) 46 4.2.5a-d Polynomial regression curves showing association of Oxychilus 46 alliarius to its preys 4.2.6 Association of Dolichoderus taschenbergi to its prey (a, b, c, d) 47 4.2.6a-d Polynomial regression curves showing association of Dolichoderus 47 taschenbergi to its preys 4.2.7 Association of Solenopsis invicta to its prey (a, b, c, d) 48 xi

4.2.7a-d Polynomial regression curves showing association of Solenopsis 48 invicta to its preys 4.2.8 Association of Solenopsis invicta to its prey (a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i) 52 4.2.8a-i Polynomial regression curves showing association of Solenopsis 52-53 invicta to its preys 4.2.9 Association of Formica exsectoides to its prey (a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i) 54 4.2.9a-i Polynomial regression curves showing association of Formica 54-55 exsectoides to its preys 4.2.10 Association of Hippasa partita to its prey (a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i) 56 4.2.10a-i Polynomial regression curves showing association of Hippasa partita 56-57 to its preys 4.2.11 Association of Formica sanguinea to its prey (a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i) 58 4.2.11a-i Polynomial regression curves showing association of Formica 58-59 sanguinea to its preys 4.2.12 Association of Formica spp. to its prey (a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i) 60 4.2.12a-i Polynomial regression curves showing association of Formica spp. 1 60-61 to its preys 4.2.13 Association of Formica spp. 3 to its prey (a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i) 62 4.2.13a-i Polynomial regression curves showing association of Formica spp. 3 62-63 to its preys 4.2.14 Association of Camponotus pennsylvanicus to its prey (a, b, c, d, e, f, 64 g, h, i) 4.2.14a-i Polynomial regression curves showing association of Camponotus 64-65 pennsylvanicus to its preys 4.2.15 Association of Formica spp. 2 to its prey (a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i) 66 4.2.15a-i Polynomial regression curves showing association of Formica spp. 2 66-67 to its preys 4.3.1 CCA ordination biplot showing the distribution of invertebrate species 74 on different weed of wheat crop in Faisalabad. 4.3.2 CCA ordination biplot showing the distribution of arthropod species 79 on different weed of Sugarcane crop in Faisalabad 4.4.1 Association of various soil macro-invertebrates to organic matter 85 (OM), electrical conductivity (EC), hydrogen ion concentration (pH), Iron (Fe) copper (Cu), Boron (B), Zinc (Zn), Manganese (Mn), phosphorous (P), and Potassium (K) in low input wheat fields. 4.4.2 Association of various soil macro-invertebrates to organic matter 87 (OM), electrical conductivity (EC), hydrogen ion concentration (pH), Iron (Fe) copper (Cu), Boron (B), Zinc (Zn), Manganese (Mn), phosphorous (P), and Potassium (K) in high input wheat fields. 4.4.3 Association of various soil macro-invertebrates to organic matter 90 (OM), electrical conductivity (EC), hydrogen ion concentration (pH), Iron (Fe) copper (Cu), Boron (B), Zinc (Zn), Manganese (Mn), phosphorous (P), and Potassium (K) in low input sugarcane fields. 4.4.4 Association of various soil macro-invertebrates to organic matter 92 (OM), electrical conductivity (EC), hydrogen ion concentration (pH), Iron (Fe) copper (Cu), Boron (B), Zinc (Zn), Manganese (Mn), phosphorous (P), and Potassium (K) in high input sugarcane fields.

xii

LIST OF ANNEXURE

Annexure Title Page # I Number of soil macroinvertebrates recorded from low (LIP) and high 146 (HIP) in put treated wheat and cane fields in Faisalabad district during the study period II Distribution of various soil macroinvertebrates in three micro- 153 habitats of low (LIP) and high (HIP) in put treated wheat and cane fields in Faisalabad district during the study period III Richness (S), Diversity (H´) and evenness (E) values calculated for 161 soil macro-fauna recorded from three microhabitats in LIP and HIP treated fields IV Monthly variations in the number of soil macro-invertebrates 163 recorded from low (LIP) and high (HIP) in put treated wheat fields in Faisalabad district during the study period V Monthly variations in the number of soil macro-invertebrates 170 recorded from low (LIP) and high (HIP) in put treated sugarcane fields in Faisalabad district during the study period VI Richness (S), Diversity (H) and evenness (E) values calculated for 178 soil macro-fauna recorded from three microhabitats in LIP and HIP treated fields VII Temporal variations in the abundance of soil macrofauna of wheat 180 and sugarcane fields VIII(a) Abundance of various insect species recorded on the weeds 187 inhabiting edges of the wheat fields VIII(b) Abundance of various insect species recorded on the weeds 189 inhabiting center of the wheat fields IX (a) Abundance of various insect species recorded on the weeds 191 inhabiting edges of the sugarcane fields IX (b) Abundance of various insect species recorded on the weeds 196 inhabiting center of the sugarcane fields X Soil macro-invertebrates (%) of the low (LIP) and high (HIP) in put 200 treated wheat field used in the CCA analysis in Faisalabad district during the study period XI Soil macro-invertebrates (%) of the low (LIP) and high (HIP) in put 202 treated wheat field used in the CCA analysis in Faisalabad district during the study period

xiii

Title: Biodiversity of Soil Macro-invertebrates in the Low and High Input Fields of Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) and Sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.) in District Faisalabad.

Abstract Pakistan experienced profound and accelerating ecological changes resulting from rapid human population growth rate. But, the development syndrome that we are witnessing today, together with the current interest in sustainable development, food production systems and biodiversity conservation bring into focus the soil, which underpins all major developments. Soil processes are important for maintaining normal nutrients cycling in ecosystem including agroecosystem. Plant growth rate is dependent on the microbial immobilization and soil food web interaction to mineralize nutrients. In natural ecosystems, the process of immobilization and mineralization are tightly coupled to plant growth but in chemically disturbed systems like crop systems, this coupling may be lost or reduced. Nutrients may be no longer retained within the system. Measuring such disrupted systems of intensive chemical farming may allow determination of a problem long before the sustainability of the farming is altered and the natural production potential is lost leading humans at stake. By monitoring soil organism’s dynamics and detecting detrimental changes in soil profile, crop systems may be saved from further degradation. Thus the present study is aimed at knowing the effects of high input (with use of chemicals) farming on the soil macro-invertebrates among two of the major crops, sugarcane and wheat, in district Faisalabad. Soil samples were collected and soil macroinvertebrates were identified from both crops. Three microhabitats within each crop were sampled to know the effect of phytomorphic heterogeneity on the fauna. Species richness and evenness of the two crop systems was described. The probable role and interactions of various macro-organisms has also been explored.

CHAPTER # 01 INTRODUCTION

Biodiversity is an indispensable pre-requisite for ecosystem stability as its loss reduces crop production (Hughes et al., 2002). Although this loss may take place at different levels, loss at genetic level results in a uniform cropping pattern (i.e. monoculture). The use of modern genetic engineering techniques are accelerating monoculture practices and making species less adaptable to the environmental changes. Further development may even stop the process of evolution in cropping system, destabilizing complex ecosystems and resulting in increased food insecurity for humans (FAO, 2010). Expansion and intensification in agriculture sector is among the predominant global challenges of this century. This challenge has been addressed by adopting different strategies such as use of high-yielding crop varieties, intensive fertilization, increased irrigation and high pesticide in put for increasing food production over the last 50 years. This intensification was named as “The Green Revolution”. This era began in Pakistan in 1960 with the cultivation of high yielding seed varieties, intensive fertilization, increased irrigation and high in put of pesticides (Naylor, 1996; Koul, 2008). Although agricultural intensification increased produce many folds, it negatively impacted to local biodiversity, increased erosion, minimized soil fertility and weaken predator-prey relationships. In addition, it also resulted in pollution of ground water, eutrophication of rivers and lakes at regional level and atmospheric pollution at global level (Cassman et al., 1995; Nambiar, 1994). In India, for instance concerns have developed over the long term intensification of rice-wheat systems. Environmental consequences of this intensification have started showing serious decline in agricultural production associated with loss of soil quality and increased plant health problems (Birkhofer et al., 2008a). Agricultural intensification exerts strongest effect on species-poor soil biota, thus supporting the hypothesis that biodiversity has an "insurance" function (Ruiz and Lavelle, 2008). Soil biota plays an important role in functioning of agroecosystem and altered soil biota diversity negatively affects functional group composition of the agroecosystem (Postma-Blaauw et al., 2010). There are strong concerns related to the provision of food to the starving millions of the world. Thus, agricultural intensification remains a major target of research and development. These two needs are to be protected in future. The agricultural intensification within the frame work of ecological principles is perceived to have scope for the sustainability of these demands (Matson et al., 2007). 1

Pakistan has experienced profound ecological changes resulting from a rapidly increasing human population (Roberts, 1997; Mallick and Ghani, 2005). With dramatic geological history, broad latitudinal spread and immense altitudinal range, it spans remarkable number of the world’s broad ecological regions (Govt. of Pakistan, 2000). According to various classification systems Pakistan includes examples of three of the world’s eight bio-geographic ‘realms’ (Indo-Malayan, Palaearctic and Africo-tropical Realm), four of the worlds ten ‘biomes’ (desert, temperate grassland, tropical seasonal forest and mountain biomes) and three of the worlds’ four ‘domains’ (polar / montane, humid temperate and dry domain) (Michael, 2006). Biodiversity at all levels is in continuous threat in Pakistan due to unwise management of community structure developed for higher yields of agricultural products to feed the rapidly increasing human population (Chaudhry et al., 1999). The use of chemicals has increased many folds during recent years that have become serious threat to soil fauna. The structure and function of soil food web has been suggested as a prime indicator of ecosystem health (Karlen et al., 2001) and food web pyramid is a better indicator of stability (Susilo et al., 2004). While plant growth is dependent on microbial nutrient immobilization and soil food web interactions to mineralize nutrients (Berg et al., 2003). Food interactions among soil macroinvertebrates e.g. nematodes, oligocheats, arthropods and molluscs maintain nutrient recycling. Varying in number in different soil types, the soil arthropods (millipedes, centipedes, spiders, beetles and earwigs etc.) have several functions. They chew the plant leaf material, roots, stems and boles of trees into smaller pieces increasing the surface area to enhance bacterial decomposition. These “commuting” arthropods increase decomposition rates by 2-100 times (Carvalho et al., 2001). The interactions among sub-terranean organisms are just like the food web structures occurring above ground. The above ground trophic structure would not exist unless web structures below the ground are intact (Yardeners’ Advisor Newsletter, 1999). In order to maintain a healthy ecosystem, study and comparison of the sub-terranean food web structures is as important as their study above the ground. In conventional farming, an overload of pesticides and chemical fertilizers, and disturbance through tillage increases vulnerability of the agroecosystem there by upsetting the balance between the soil inhabiting predators and preys. But, lamentably no such study relating to neither natural nor agro-ecosystems has been conducted in this country (Welbaum et al., 2004). Farmers in Pakistan usually have small holdings and use different agronomical 2

practices in different zones of Punjab. Many of them are unable to use the expensive mechanization and agrochemicals. They are usually hard pressed to use their own resources like household organic manures (cow dung), less toxic synthetic pesticides and sub-optimal level of fertilizers (low input). However, the farmers that possess large land holdings use conventional agricultural intensification (high input i.e. expensive mechanization and use recommended doses of chemicals) (Iqbal, 2009). Wheat and sugarcane are important and widely cultivated crops of the country. They contribute about 20% of gross domestic product (GDP) in agriculture sector and about 5% in total GDP and have great importance in food security and export earning (Govt. of Pakistan, 2010). Based on previous experience of Green Revolution and several experiments conducted in favor of farming practices with reduced (low inputs) or chemical free (zero inputs), a self reliant agricultural system is needed to be modeled. The soil macro-fauna that plays a key role in the sustainability of this system (low inputs) is also needed to be explored and continuously monitored. The present study was planned to fill both these gaps and aimed to: i) record the changes in diversity and relative abundance of various macro- invertebrate species in the low and high input fields of sugarcane and wheat, ii) to study the probable interactions among these soil faunal assemblages, iii) effect of plant weed biodiversity on the faunal populations, iv) compare the credibility of invertebrate populations in the pair fields of the two crops.

CHAPTER # 02 REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Soil, the most precious resource for human beings, also known as the upper habitable part of the planet earth, has been formed as a result of complex interactions of various evolutionary biotic and abiotic forces. Soil macro organisms, ranging in size from ants and snails to rodents define most of the physical and chemical properties of the soil and play a pivotal role in determining its fertility on which most our present day agriculture is dependent (Facknath and Lalljee, 1999; Frouz and Ali, 2004). Many of these organisms are capable of significant ecosystem engineering, modifying both the magnitude and direction of resource flows in ex-situ and in-situ environments (Jones et al., 1994). Their role in determining special landscape features that arose as a consequence of ecosystem engineering by these soil animals has been acknowledged universally (Dangerfield et al., 1998). Conservation of soil biodiversity is thus extremely important in order to determine the direction and continuity of energy flow from producers to consumers and to ensure resilience in soil ecosystem functions against possible disturbances i.e. “insurance hypotheses” (Liiri et al., 2002).

Importance of soil biodiversity in agro-ecosystem

Presently, bio-diversity on the biosphere is the result of 4 billion years of evolution. According to few evidences, life had been well-organized about 100 million years ago after the formation of the Earth, but, up till now, origin of life is not well known. Nearly, 600 million years ago, this diversity was consisting of bacteria and single-cell organisms (Alroy et al., 2001; Benton, 2010). But today there are more than 45 major subdivisions of living organisms that range from viruses to mammals and single celled algae to the gigantic red wood trees. There are 989,761 recognized species of arthropods in the world and there are many that are yet to be discovered (Wilson et al., 1999).

Liiri et al. (2002) studied the ecological co-relation of species diversity for primary production among agro-ecosystems and reported positive effects on ecosystem functioning. The relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning has been found asymptotic, indicating the importance of species number for affecting system functioning as decreasing with increasing species richness, rather some species and their activities were redundant (Schläpfer and Schmid, 1999; Schwartz et al., 2000; Naeem et al., 1996; Tilman, et al. 1996; Symstad et al., 1998; Hector et al., 1999; Huston, 1997).

Constituents of soil community

A natural soil community generally comprises a large number of species that play a key role in various ecosystem functions such as soil organic matter turn-over and establishment of soil structure dynamics (Giller, 1996; Barros et al., 2004). The majority of soil animals range in size from ants, snails to large rodents has directly or indirectly significant affects on soil physical properties as well as biological processes those are so critical for plant and animal life (Fackenath and Lalljee, 1999). In between them, many are capable of significant ecosystem engineering, modifying both the magnitude and direction of resource flows in ex-situ and in-situ environments (Jones et al., 1994).

Soil dwelling arthropods (i.e. Springtails, ants, termites, beetle and adults woodlice), spiders, mites, centipedes, millipedes and scorpions) constitute meso- and macro-fauna of soil. Their population varies according to the temperature and humidity of the soil. Under conditions of high temperature and low rainfall, the arthropods either aestivate or move down to the deeper layers. Their mass mortality reduces the rate of litter decomposition and decreasing soil fertility. Litter decomposition by arthropods is optimum at 30-35° C. At higher temperatures, litter decomposition is accelerated with consequent leaching and volatilization of released nutrients (Rana et al., 2006).

The beneficial soil arthropod fauna includes predatory Hymenoptera (ants and wasps), Coleoptera (carabid, coccinellid, and staphylinid beetles), Heteroptera (pirate, assassin, and ambush bugs), Neuroptera (lacewings), Diptera (syrphid and chamaemyiid flies) as well as mites and spiders. On the basis of their size, has lumped beneficial soil organisms into three categories which include macro-, meso-, and microfauna. Soil macrofauna include soil- inhabiting life stages of insects, spiders, snails, and earthworms. Soil mesofauna include mites, collembolans, and millipedes while soil microfauna include organisms such as protozoa, nematodes, tardigrades, and rotifers etc. Species structure of a soil community is dynamic and varies with time owing to cyclic rhythm with respect to frequency of temperature and humidity (Dibog et al., 1998 and Jimenez et al., 1998). Soil management, on the contrary, influences soil invertebrate communities leading to modifications in soil functioning (Beare et al., 1997; Barros et al., 2002, 2003; Decaens et al., 2004).

In spite of their role in soil decomposition and substantia1 part of the global biodiversity (Giller, 1996; Adams and Wall, 2000), species dynamics among many agro- 5

ecological zones are not yet explored completely, even specificity of lots of common soil species is uncertain (Laasolo and Setala, 1999; Hagvar, 1998; Mebes and Filser, 1998). Owing to this, we know little about soil fauna communities those can respond to different environmental variables indicating environmental stress through changes in species or community structure (Hàgvar, 1994; Van Straalen, 1998), those can be used as important indicators. It has been also acknowledged that some landscapes are a consequence of ecosystem engineering by soil animals (Dangerfield et al., 1998), therefore, to avoid stern decline of these soil communities, insurance against possible disturbances of ecosystem functions is dire need of today.

Role of micro and macro soil constituents in global biodiversity

Soil macroinvertebrates constitute a major portion global biodiversity but unfortunately many of these species remain poorly known. Even the functional specificity of many common soil organisms is unclear. Avoiding severe declines in the diversity of soil communities, we are in need of an insurance against possible disturbances of ecosystem functions. However, on a community level we know that soil fauna responds to many different environmental variables (Hågvar, 1994; Van Straalen, 1998) and thus can be used as important indicators of the soil health.

Soil management options can have dramatic effects upon soil invertebrate communities (Beare et al., 1997; Barros et al., 2002, 2003 and Decaen et al., 2004) and many therefore, lead to important changes in soil functioning. Species also vary through time, as they have seasonal rhythms mainly regulated by temperature and humidity (Dibog et al., 1998 and Jimenez et al., 1998).

Occurrence of soil macroinvertebrates

There is more life concentrated in the three inches below the soil surface than above the soil anywhere in the world. The macro-organisms like earthworms, springtail and mites, move through the air spaces in soil while micro-organisms like bacteria, fungi and some nematodes live in the water film (Yardeners’ Advisor Newsletter, 1999). Such organisms help to reduce the use of fertilizer and pesticides. Micro-and-macrofauna interacts with one another and with various plants and animals in the ecosystem, forming a complex food web. Soil organisms can act as bio-filters by decomposing pollutants pesticides, fertilizers, heavy

metals and toxic wastes. Many organic chemicals are degraded by the soil biota; however their effectiveness is modified by the soil environment (Facknath and Lalljee, 1999).The most promising use of soil macro-organisms as bio-indicators is in the field of ecotoxicity. The use of earthworms as bio-indicators for assessing the environmental effects of chemical pollution is well established (Wang et al., 1998; Hinton and Veiga, 1999).

Responses of soil arthropods to temperature alterations may include shifts in fecundity, reproductive pattern or competitive ability (Hopkin, 1997; Walter and Proctor, 1999). They play an important role in total N, Ca, K, P and Mg mineralization. However, termites (which can make up 65% of soil faunal biomass in certain parts of Africa) can reduce surface C, N and P by incorporating them into their mounds (termitaria), nurseries and fungal combs. The C can escape as CO2 and contribute for the buildup of greenhouse gasses. On the other hand, the overall activity of soil fauna can reduce green house gas production by their influence on soil porosity and aeration. Hence soil biota can decide if the soil act as a source or sink (Facknath and Lalljee, 1999).

Agro-forestry systems are presented as a valuable alternative to pastures to sustain crop production in forested areas (Barros et al., 2002). Soil organisms contribute a wide range of essential services to the sustainable functioning of the ecosystems. They act as the primary driving agents of nutrient cycling, regulating the dynamics of soil organic matter, soil carbon sequestration and greenhouse gas emissions; modifying soil physical structure and water regimes; enhancing the amount and efficiency of nutrient acquisition by the vegetation, and enhancing plant health. These services are not only critical to the functioning of natural ecosystems but constitute an important resource for sustainable agricultural systems (Mboukou-Kimbatsa et al., 1998).

Scientific research has demonstrated that organic agriculture significantly increases the density and species of soils’ life. Suitable conditions for soil fauna and flora as well as soil forming, conditioning and nutrient cycling are encouraged by organic practices such as manipulation of crop rotations and strip cropping green manuring and organic fertilization (animal manure compost, crop residues), minimum tillage and avoidance from the use of pesticides and herbicides (Scialabba, 2000). Similarly, the total abundances of soil fauna were negatively affected by the addition of solid fertilizer whereas fertilization in combination with irrigation had slightly positive effect. This interaction effect was also seen

in community composition and could at least partly be explained by the possibility that irrigation in combination with the fertilizer (high input) counteracted harmful toxic effects and high salt concentrations induced by high input in solid form. Similar to the drought and irrigation in another experiment, it was noted that a number of other abiotic and biotic factors were probably affected by the treatments and could have indirectly influenced the soil fauna along with ground vegetation (Petersen, 1995 and Bengtsson et al., 1998).

Examples of soil macroinvertebrates

Recently some studies have begun to investigate more links between the patterns of diversity in the vegetation, especially floristic variation and below ground diversity (Haagsma and Rust, 1993; Hooper et al., 2000 and Wolters et al., 2000). Whiles there are strong correlations between herbivorous insects and plant diversity; it seems likely that patterns in above ground biodiversity will be relatively poor indicators for the diversity of below ground soil fauna.

Soil macro-fauna indulged in predation (spiders and ants) of pest species plays role with meso-fauna in relation to their diet which mainly consists of primary and secondary consumers and contributes to processing of organic matter and soil structure Olfert et al. (2002). As microenvironment in the soil tremendously impacts arthropod populations, arthropods communities living in the soil influence living organisms above the soil i.e. the extent of cropping diversity, rotational regimes, and soil preparation. However, species richness and the biological success of specific communities are positively linked with diversity of niches and soil microenvironments.

Advantages of soil macrofauna

The major advantage of natural enemies in the soil is suppression of phyto-phagous insect pests. Abundance of beneficial soil organisms indicates at least some level of adaptation to agro-ecosystems. The diversity of these organisms is often linked to natural habitats. It is important that these linkages should be explored and preserved (Stary and Pike, 1999) as much knowledge is required to entirely understand the deep rooted relationships of beneficial arthropods and their habitat (Olfert et al., 2002).

Soil macro organisms (especially earthworms) contribute in health and fertility of soil (Gupta et al., 1997; Edwards and Bater, 1992; Hinton and Veiga, 1999; Jennifer et al., 2002;

ISO, 1993, 1998, 1999 and Wang et al., 1998, 2007). The structure and function of the soil food web has been suggested as a prime indicator of ecosystem health (Coleman et al., 1992) for example, nematode communities can indicate problems long before the natural vegetation lost or human health problems occur (Bongers, 1990).

Soil invertebrates play an important role in soil communities. Some directly consume detritus, other consume detritivores, whereas others are higher level carnivores that can indirectly control decomposition by their predatory effects on lower level of the food web (Gist and Crossley, 1975). Soil invertebrates affect litter decomposition rates, soil aeration, nutrient, mineralization, primary production and other ecosystem services related to soil ecosystem function and agro-ecological conservation (Six et al., 2002).

Factors affecting the abundance of soil macroinvertebrates

The structure and abundance of soil macro-faunal-communities is highly sensitive to management of the soil plant cover (Lavelle et al., 1992). Soil community diversity is at least partially determined by plant community diversity covering the soil (Siemann et al., 1998). Significant change in the biomass and diversity of soil macro-fauna has been observed after establishment of pasture and annual crops. Similarly, owing to soil disturbance and in the absence of a permanent cover, annual cropping system decreases diversity and abundance of soil-faunal-communities (Lavelle and Pashanasi, 1989).

Manures and most fertilizers (low input) increase both richness and abundance of soil inhabiting species (Marshall, 1977).

Widespread use of pesticides to enhance agricultural output and to meet the requirements of massively growing population has led to many problems (Stevenson et al., 2002). The most important of these is the killing of non-target beneficial soil organisms (Edwards and Thompson, 1973) that help in maintaining nutrient cycles within the soil (Linden et al., 1994). The lethal effects of using insecticides and herbicides are difficult to separate from each other as some herbicides also act as insecticides and that various insecticides affect arthropod populations differently e.g. aphid specific pirimicarb does not harm most predators directly whereas dimethoate and pyrethoids (e.g. “Karate”) have broad range effects on arthropod populations (Koehler, 1992; Candolfi et al., 1999; Barbercheck, 2008). Triazine like herbicide and some fungicides even in low concentrations are deleterious

to most soil fauna (Edwards and Stafford, 1979; Andrén and Lagerlöf, 1983; Mueller et al., 1990). Insecticides and fungicides can reduce the numbers of non-target soil arthropods either directly or indirectly through alterations of the microhabitat (Pfiffner and Niggli, 1996). Herbicides can render plants more susceptible to plant pathogens (Levesque and Rahe, 1992). Reduction in use of pesticides enhances soil biological and chemical properties (Scow et al., 1994) thereby enhancing nutrient recycling and reducing nutrient losses and water contamination (Arden-Clarke and Hodges, 1988).

The organic farming system is much cheaper and environment friendly than the conventional farming system. Organic farming does not pose any risk to ground and surface water pollution from synthetic pesticides (Stolze et al., 2000, Köpke and Haas, 1997). Herbicide, pesticide and fertilizer applications are potentially crucial factors affecting soil biological activity and biodiversity. In comparison of environmental burdens of organic and conventional systems, the social costs associated with green house gases, nitrate leaching and pesticide residues are much higher than the profit gained by adopting conventional farming system. O'Riordan and Cobb (2001) estimated the total cost for each system to range from £10 to £15 per hectare for organic systems and from £25 to £40 per hectare for the conventional systems. A significant part of the costs of the conventional systems were for the removal of pesticide residues from drinking water in order to meet European standards, whereas no such charge was attached to the calculations for organic systems. But such standards are not maintained in most of the third world countries and the farmers usually prefer conventional system to the organic system.

Macroinvertebrates and pest and predator ratio

Several standards have been proposed to account the constant predator-prey ratio, including competition for enemy-free space (Jeffries and Lawton, 1985), constraints on food- web structure caused by predator-prey population dynamics (Mithen and Lawton, 1986) and constraints on the number of species of prey a predator can feed on (Cohen and Newman, 1985; Warren and Lawton, 1987). Inayat et al. (2011) investigated a multi-species system with predator-prey interactions and proposed that the succession by which an area is colonized determines the dynamics of the populations involved. Food webs, which depict networks of trophic relationships in ecosystems, provide complex yet tractable depictions of biodiversity, species interactions, and ecosystem structure and function. Although food web

studies have long been central to ecological research (May, 1986; Pimm et al., 1991; Levin, 1992), there are many controversies to explain regularities in food web structure (Paine, 1988).

All soil animals are indicators of soil conditions. Predators are particularly valued because their presence, population density, behaviour and body composition can provide a summation of most of the information provided separately by the organisms lower down in the food web. Predators within the air spaces and water film, and highly mobile burrowers would seem likely candidates for this role (Hill, 1985). Karg (1968) has, long ago, stressed the value of using predatory soil mites as indicators. Greenslade and Greenslade (1983) make a similar case for using ants. Predatory nematodes would probably serve a similar function within the water film. Among the non-predators, earthworms are already widely regarded by farmers as indicators of soil health and have been successfully used as indicators of soil pollution by pesticides and industrial chemicals (Edwards, 1979, 1980). Ghilarov (1965) and Krivolutsky (1975) have proposed to use soil fauna as indicators of soil type. An increase in the number of links in a food web increases ecosystem’s stability (Rana et al., 2010a,b).

Need for restoration of ecological communities

Restoration of ecological communities is important to counteract global losses in biodiversity. However, restoration on agricultural land is thought to be costly because of losses in agricultural production (Bullock et al., 2001). The positive relationship between diversity and productivity enhances agricultural production. Pest populations were low in abundance at organic farms of the Pakistan (Siddiqui, 2005). Reduced plant species richness decreases plant productivity, herbivore biomass, stability of plant biomass, resistance and resilience of plant biomass to perturbation, and uptake and retention of soil nutrients (Schlapfer and Schemid, 1999). The restoration of species-rich communities is a major tool to counteract biodiversity losses (Pywell and Putwain, 1996; Young, 2000). However, restoration of previously intensively managed land generally results in a declined production as many species-rich communities have been lost or degraded by activities which sought to increase productivity by the application of fertilizers and pesticides or re-sowing (Fry, 1989; Ehrlich, 1995).

Studies related to the relationship of soil fauna and agriculture comprise three aspects; (1) the pest species and their control (2) the beneficial species and their effects and (3) the 11

effects of agricultural practices on soil animals. Clean cultivation, monoculture, row crops, use of pesticides and certain synthetic fertilizers simplify the soil community and reduce the beneficial contribution of soil animals (Edwards and Lofty, 1969; Edwards and Thompson, 1973; Andren and Steen, 1978).

Systems of agriculture that aim to increase “productivity”, “profit” and “power” as their primary goals, are not sustainable and lead to the degradation of person and planet. This is because these goals know no limits. They are exhausting the resources and are unresponsive to their harmful side-effects. A greater social conscience among scientists and translation of that conscience into research goals such as nourishment, fulfillment, flexibility, and sustainability (Hill, 1982; Hill and Ott, 1982 and Hill, 1984a) is the need of the hour. Studies on the role of soil macroinvertebrates worldwide have indicated the value of using such organisms as bio-indicators of the soil (Karg, 1968). Such studies are sparingly available in Pakistan. Only a handful of biologists have used these approaches in this part of the world (Ghafoor et al., 2008). Since there is a growing concern to strengthen food web structure and minimize soil degradation by using organic farming and minimum tillage techniques to enhance agricultural productivity using soil fauna (Stinner and Crossley, 1983), the present study is designed to fill this gap of knowledge in Pakistan.

CHAPTER # 03 MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study Area:

The present study was carried out from June 2008 to May 2010 in Faisalabad district that lies between 30o 40´to 31o 47´N; 72o 42´ to 73o 40´E, 605 feet above sea level (City District Gov. Faisalabad, 2010) and represents mixed crop zone (Punjab, Bureau of Statistics 1988). Rice (Oryza sativa), sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum), cotton (Gossypium spp.), maize (Zea mays) etc. are grown during “Kharif” (summer season) while wheat (Triticum aestivum), gram (genus Vigna), tobacco (genus Nicotiana), mustard (genus Brassica) etc are grown during “Rabi” (winter season). Mean annual temperature during the study period remained 25.76oC, mean maximum temperature was 32.49oC, mean minimum temperature was 19.03oC and annual rain fall was 38.84mm during the study period Ref. The composition of soil texture is sand 59 %, silt 19 %, clay 22 %, while soil is sandy clay loam (Khan et al., 2010).

Wheat is the staple food item in Pakistan cultivated on 9.05 hectares (22.36 million acres) with 24M tons production in 2009. Sugarcane is another important cash crop that along with meeting fodder requirements provides raw material for many industries, including sugar industry. Pakistan ranks 5th among the highest sugarcane producing countries of the world. It was cultivated over 1080 M hectares, with production of 53.6 MMT in 2009 (Govt. of Pakistan, 2010).

Sampling strategy

A field was designated either as low input and high input was made on the basis of conventional standards notified by the Govt. of Punjab, Pakistan (Govt. of Punjab, 2009) (Table 3.1). Wheat and cane fields that were employed recommended doses of chemicals (fertilizers, insecticides, weedicides and fungicides) were designated as high input (HIP fields) while those wheat and cane fields in which afore mentioned chemicals were employed in considerably lower than recommended levels were designated as low input (LIP fields).

An intensive field survey was conducted to identify those wheat and cane fields that were already under both HIP and LIP types of cultivations. LIP fields were selected near Gatti village located in the north-east of the Faisalabad city at about 24 km where as

Table 3.1: Recommended doses of agrochemical notified by the Govt. of Punjab, Pakistan during 2009

Fertilizers/Acre (kg) Wheat Sugarcane

Nitrogen 70 92

Phosphors 50 46

Potassium 70-80 50

Calcium 07 -

Sulfur 12 -

Magnesium 12 -

Green Fertilizer + Organic Manure - 2400-3200

Table 3.2: Recommended doses of insecticides and pesticides notified by the Govt. of Punjab, Pakistan, for sugarcane and wheat crops

Sr. Sugarcane insecticides No. Common name Brand name DOSE/ACRE Target pests 01 Chlorpyrifos Lorsban 40 EC 1255mL Termites (2000) 02 Ethoprophos Ocap 5G (1988) 32 kg Borers 03 Phorate Thimet 5G 15 kg Borers (2000) 04 Carbofuran Curaterr 3G 8-10kg Borers (1978) 05 Furadan 3G 14kg Borers (1974) 06 Cypermethrin Polytrin-C 440 400mL Gurdaspur EC (1983) Borer Sugarcane weedicides 07 Ametryne+ atrazine Gesapax combi 1-2kg Weeds 80 W (1977) 08 Gesapax combi 1000gm Broad leaf (new recipi) weeds and (2000) grasses 09 Cynazine 33% + atraazine 16% Bladex plus 3-4L Weeds (1985) 10 Diuron Karmex 80 WP 1.4kg Weeds (1985) 11 Isoxaflutole+atrazine 500+500 Mirlin extra 600mL Broad leaf (2002) weeds and grasses 12 Metribuzin Sencor 70WP 330gm Weeds (1992) 13 Phenoxy DMA-6 (1986) 3L Weeds 14 s-metolachlor Dual gold 960 1000mL Weeds EC (2003) 15 Tebuthiury Perflan 80 WP 800mL weeds (1990) Wheat weedicides 16 Bromoxynil+ MCPA Brominol-M 40 500mL Dicot weeds E(1985) 17 Buctril-M 40 E 500mL Dicot weeds (1980) 18 Buctril-M 40 E 500mL Broad leaf (new recipe) weeds (2003) 19 Sectral-M 40 500mL Broad leaf EC (2003) weeds 20 Chlortoluron+ MCPA Dicuran MA 60 0.9-1.2 kg Broad leaf

WP (1979) weeds, wild oat, dumbi sitti 21 Clodinafop propargyl Topic 15 WP 100gm Jangli jai, (2003) dumbi sitti 22 Fenoxaprop-P-ethyl Puma-S 69 EW 360-440 mL Grassy Weeds (1992) 23 Puma super 75 400mL Avena fatua EW (1999) 24 Punjing 10 EC 200mL Jangli jai, (2003) dumbi sitti 25 Isoproturon Arelon 75 SP 600gm Broad leaf (1983) weeds, Grassy Weeds 26 Tolkan 50 SP 800gm Dicot grasses (1986) and post emerging sedges 27 Graminon 500 1.5L Phalaris minor FW (1986) and avena fatua 28 Graminon 500 800ml Grasses FW (1999) 29 Arelon 50 800gm Broad leaf dispersion weeds, Grassy (1988) Weeds 30 Kenoran 75 WP 600-700gm Broad leaf (1988) weeds, Grassy Weeds 31 Isoproturon+bromoxynil+MCPA DOUBLET 47 1L Broad leaf SC (1992) weeds, Grassy Weeds 32 Isoproturon+diflufonican Panther 52 SC 800ml Broad leaf (1992) weeds, Grassy Weeds 33 Isoxaben Flexidor 12.5 400ml Weeds EC (1990) 34 matoxuron Dosanex 80WP 600gm Phalaris minor (1983) and wild oat 35 Metribuzin Sencor 70WP 100gm Phalaris minor (1999) 36 Pendimethlin Stomp 330 E 1.5L Broad leaf (1980) weeds, Grassy Weeds 37 Stomp 330 E 1.5L Jangli jai, (1985) dumbi sitti 38 Phenoxy DMA-6 (1986) 6-7L Weeds

HIP fields selected at the Ayub Agriculture Research Institute (AARI), Faisalabad. After selecting the appropriate fields following procedure was adopted.

1. Three blocks of both wheat and sugarcane fields comprising of ten acres each at Gatti (LIP) and AARI (HIP) were randomly selected using Random Number Table and were sampled throughout the study period. 2. One acre from each of these ten acre blocks was sampled on each visit and selection was again based on Random Number Table. 3. The soil macro-fauna of three microhabitats in each of the randomly selected acre of wheat and sugarcane fields was extracted. These microhabitats were defined as follows. (a) Open edge. It is an elevated ridge along the crop fields marking their boundary. Samples were taken from any place on this ridge without any shade of tree plant on it. (b) Under tree. Samples collected from edge of the field under the shade of a tree. (c) Inside field. Samples were taken from inside, in the field. 4. The soil was sampled using an iron square quadrangle measuring 30 cm3 from edge of the field at two places i.e. (a) open edge and (b) under tree. Three soil samples were taken from each microhabitat in every sample. 5. A core sampler measuring 7.6 cm diameter (Edward, 1991) was used to collect the soil samples from third micro habitat i.e. inside the crop field. Three core samples were taken as the triplets of three, at a depth of 30 cm inside the fields (Dangerfield, 1990; Magurran, 1988). 6. For weeds and weeds’ fauna at least 2 sites comprising an area of 1m sq. were selected from each of three sugarcane and wheat fields, one from the corner and other from the center of the field. All the weed plants interspersed among and along sugarcane and wheat crops were counted and the fauna was captured from each plant within the prescribed quadrate.

7. Collection of invertebrates from different weeds was done by hand picking method, using hand net and forceps.

(a) (b)

Fig. 3.2: Field and laboratory equipment used to sample soil and extract soil macro-organisms (a) Burlese funnel, (b) quadrangle, (c) core sampler and (d) sieve

Sorting and identification of soil macroinvertebrates

Soil samples were brought to the Biodiversity Laboratory, Department of Zoology and Fisheries, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad to sort soil macro-fauna. Sorting was done through (a) hand (b) Burlese Funnel and (c) sieving (sieve 0.20, 2.00 and 4.75 mm sieves) (Fig. 3.2) to separate macrofauna from soil particles) and the sorted organisms were preserved in glass vials containing laboratory grade alcohol with few drops of glycerin. Each collection made was labeled accordingly containing the date of collection, locality name, Microhabitat (edge or center), crop name (Sugarcane or wheat) and technical name.

The collected macroinvertebrates were identified up to species level with the help of available, related taxonomic material. All soil macroinvertebrates were also labeled either as predators of preys on the basis of their feeding habits mentioned in the literature (Blanford, 1898; Borror and Delong, 1970; Pocock, 1990; Holloway et al., 1992; Triplehorn and Johnson, 2005; Rafi et al., 2005) and Weeds were identified with the help of Chaudhary, 1969; Nasir and Ali, 1993, also from online electronic keys present on web sites. The trophic guild was confirmed with the help of recent available literature. The most abundant and common species of predators and pests/prey present in collected data were selected to analyze their association. The predator/prey ratio (predator with different available preys) was determined by dividing the preys with the predators (by density) in each set of monthly sample and results were plotted as a line graph in Microsoft excel 2007 to achieve best association.

Soil analyses

Soil analysis was performed in Soil Chemistry Laboratory Ayub agriculture research institute (AARI) following Ryan et al. (2001) for micro and macronutrients and organic matter was evaluated after McKeague et al. (1978). For micronutrients (Zn, Cu, Fe, and Mn) atomic absorption spectrophotometer (Varian Spectra AA-250 PLUS) was used. Genesys 5 spectrophotometer for B. While P and K were evaluated by using a flame photometer (Model digiflame 2000; GDV, Italy). Electrical conductivity (EC) was determined by using an EC meter (Corning model 220) and hydrogen ion concentration (pH) was determined by using a corning pH meter 10.

Statistical Analysis/ Softwares’ used: The data were analyzed using Microsoft Office 2007 and GWBASIC programmes (www.daniweb.com – online) according to Ludwig and James (1988). All statistical tests were conducted at the level of significance α = 0.05 using t distribution (Microsoft Excel). Following diversity indices were used to estimate diversity.

Shannon’s Index of Diversity (H′), Data (from soil of wheat and cane crops along with weeds and weeds, fauna of the same crops) were analyzed statistically to determine species diversity, species richness and species evenness with Shannon diversity index (H′) Shannon (1948), (Magurran, 1988) as: H′ = -  pi ln pi The quantity pi is the proportion of individuals found in the ith species. The value of pi is estimated as ni / N.

H′ = -  [(ni/N)ln(ni/N)] where ni is the number of individuals belonging to the ith species in the sample and N is the total number of individuals in the sample.

The variance of H′ is calculated as:

pi (ln pi)2-(pi ln pi)2 S-1

Var H′ = +

N 2N2 t-test Analysis:

t-test analysis (Hutcheson, 1970) was made to record significance differences between samples as:

H′1 –H′2

t =

1/2 (Var H′1 + Var H′2 )

Where H′1 is the diversity of sample 1 and Var H′1 is its variance.

Degree of Freedom:

Degree of freedom is calculated using the equation:

2 (Var H′1 + Var H′2)

df =

2 2 (Var H′1) / N1 + Var H′2) / N2

N1 and N2 being the total number of individuals in samples 1 and 2 respectively.

Hill’s Diversity Numbers (N0) Ludwig and James (1988)

N0 = S (where S is the total number of species in the sample)

N1 = eH where H′ is the Shannon’s index of diversity, and

N2 = 1/ where  is the Simpson’s index of diversity.

Index of Evenness, the Hill’s Modified Ratio (E), Ludwig and James (1988)

(1/ ) N 2-1 E= =

eH-1 N 1-1

Where, E is the index of evenness, λ is the Simpson’s index of diversity and N1 and N2 are the number of abundant and very abundant species respectively in the sample. The richness, diversity and evenness indices were computed by using the Programme SPDIVERS.BAS.

Index of Richness:

Where,

 S = species richness  n = total number of species present in sample population  k = number of "unique" species (of which only one organism was found in sample population)

Dominance index

D = 1-E

Where, “E” is evenness.

Polynomial Regression

Polynomial regression was applied by using the Microsoft office excel 2007. The data was analyzed for prey predator association by selecting dependant (predators) and independent (preys) variables in order to determine the optimum relationship by R2-value.

Canonical Correspondence Analysis (CCA)

Canonical Correspondence Analysis (CCA) was performed on macroinvertebrates collected both from LIP and HIP treated sugarcane and wheat fields against soil macro and micronutrients along with physical factors viz. pH, electric conductivity (EC) and organic matter by using MVSP software (version 3.13f) of Kovach (2003). In canonical correspondence analysis ‘r’ value depicts positive or negative correlation between two axes.

CCA ordination of invertebrate species was used to explore relationships between natural species distribution shown in the classification and the micro/macro nutrients present in soils. The analysis was based on the order of importance in which a set of species was related directly to a set of measured variables and the axes of ordination were restricted to linear groupings of variables (Jongman et al., 1995). The first two axes of CCA ordination collectively explained the variation in distribution of macroinvertebrates. 9

CCA ordination of invertebrate species was also performed to evaluate the association of invertebrate fauna to major weeds of wheat and sugarcane. The analysis was performed on most abundant macro-invertebrate species found in present data while rare species were down-weighted to reduce distortion of the analysis (McCune and Mefford, 1999; Qadir et al., 2008).

CHAPTER # 04 RESULTS

SECTION – 1: DIVERSITY OF SOIL MACROINVERTEBRATES

WHEAT

Macroinvertebrates belonging to three phyla were recorded from wheat under Low Input (LIP) and High Input (HIP) treatments in Punjab (Table 4.1.1). These phyla included Annelida (1.5%), Arthropoda (61.8%) and Mollusca (36.7%). Among arthropods, Hymenoptera (25.8%), Coleoptera (14.9%) and Isopoda (7.7%) were the most abundant while pulmonates, the only group recorded amongst the molluscs formed (36.7%) of the total soil macro-invertebrates. Arthropods (51.2%) constituted almost half of the soil macro-invertebrate in LIP treated fields where Hymenoptera (20.6%) and Coleoptera (15.9%) were the most abundant. On the contrary, Hymenoptera (39.6%) and Isopoda (16.3%) were the dominant arthropods (89.6%) in HIP treated fields. Pulmonates were the second abundant group of soil macroinvertebrates in LIP (47.5%) and HIP (8.3%) treated fields (Table 4.1.1). From the entire population dynamic structure, Pulmonata, Hymenoptera, Coleoptera, Isopoda and Dermaptera were the most abundant in descending array. Monadenia fidelis, Formica spp., Camponotus spp., Solenopsis invicta, Oxychillus alliarius, Armadillidium vulgare, Harpalus spp., Megomphix hemphilli, Formica spp., Armadillidium nasatum, Oxychillus cellarium, Haplotrema vancouverense, Forficula auricularia, Oxychillus draparnaudi, Dolichoderus taschenbegi, Camponotus pennsylvanicus, Ischyropalpus fuscus, Hippasa partita and Microtermes obesi in sliding order were the most prominent species under both treatments (Annexure I).

Table 4.1.1: Relative abundance (%) of soil macroinvertebrates recorded from LIP and HIP treated wheat fields in Punjab (Pakistan). (‘n’ is the number of individuals of each order)

% Relative abundance (n) Phylum/Order LIP HIP Total Annelida 1.3(11) 2.1(7) 1.5(18) Haplotaxida 1.3(11) 2.1(7) 1.5(18) Arthropoda 51.2(440) 89.6(292) 61.8(732) Diplura - 0.6(2) 0.2(2) Collembolla 0.1(1) - 0.1(1) Orthoptera - 3.4(11) 0.9(11) Isoptera - 5.8(19) 1.6(19) Dermaptera 3.1(27) 3.4(11) 3.2(38) Hemiptera 0.8(7) 2.1(7) 1.2(14) Coleoptera 15.9(137) 12.3(40) 14.9(177) Lepidoptera 0.2(2) 2.8(9) 0.9(11) Diptera - 2.1(7) 0.6(7) Hymenoptera 20.6(177) 39.6(129) 25.8(306) Araneae 2.9(25) 1.2(4) 2.4(29) Julida 0.5(4) - 0.3(4) Geophilomorpha 2.6(22) - 1.9(22) Isopoda 4.4(38) 16.3(53) 7.7(91) Mollusca 47.5(408) 8.3(27) 36.7(435) Pulmonata 47.5(408) 8.3(27) 36.7(435) Total (859) (326) (1185)

The richness (S) and diversity (H′) values for LIP were higher than HIP while evenness (E) under HIP treatment was higher than LIP (Table 4.1.2). A comparison of the three indices showed that species diversity was highly significantly different (t= 3.369; df >120; p<0.001) in LIP treated fields than HIP treated fields. Microhabitat related variations in the abundance of soil macro-fauna in wheat

Three microhabitats (MHs) viz., open field edges (MH1), field edge under shade of the tree (MH2), and inside of the field (MH3) were sampled during the present study (Annexure II). Annelids were recorded from each of the three microhabitats i.e. MH1, MH2 and MH3 in HIP treated fields and from MH1, MH2 and MH3 in LIP treated fields (Table 4.1.3). The Arthropod abundance also varied in three MHs in both LIP and HIP treated fields. They constituted 51.6%, 42.2% and 94.6% in LIP treated fields and 85.7%, 96.6% and 81.5% in HIP treated fields in three MHs, respectively (Table 4.1.3). Molluscs formed almost half of the soil macro-fauna (45.2% and 57.6%) at the open edges (MH1) and shadowed part of the fields (MH2) respectively but formed only a fraction (5.4%) of the total soil macro-fauna inside the fields (MH3) in LIP treated fields. The contribution of pulmontes was low in three MHs in HIP treated fields viz., 10.2% in MH1, 2.7% in MH2 and 16.0% MH3 (Table 4.1.3). Thus, arthropods were the most abundant in three MHs in HIP treated fields while arthropods and molluscs were equally abundant MH1 and MH2 in LIP treated fields. The contribution of each arthropod order in the diversity of soil macro-fauna of the three microhabitats is represented in Fig. 4.1.1a-f.

Table 4.1.2: Values of the richness, diversity, and evenness indices calculated for the soil macroinvertebrates recorded from LIP and HIP treated wheat fields in Punjab (Pakistan) LIP HIP t-value df p-value Richness (S) 102 62 3.369 >120 <0.001*** Diversity (H′) 3.848 3.611 Evenness (E) 0.452 0.706

Table 4.1.3: Relative abundance (%) of soil macroinvertebrates recorded from three microhabitats (MHs) in LIP and HIP treated wheat fields in Punjab (Pakistan). (n is the number of individuals of each order)

% Relative abundance (n) Treatment→ LIP HIP * Microhabitat type→ MH1 MH2 MH3 MH1 MH2 MH3 Phylum/Order ↓ Annelida 3.2(10) 0.2(01) - 4.1 (04) 0.7 (01) 2.5 (02) Haplotaxida 3.2(10) 0.2(01) - 4.1 (04) 0.7 (01) 2.5 (02) Arthropoda 51.6(162) 42.2(191) 94.6(87) 85.7(84) 96.6(142) 81.5(66) Diplura - - - 2.0 (02) - - Collembolla - 0.2(01) - - - - Orthoptera - - - - 7.5 (11) - Isoptera - - - - 12.9 (19) - Dermaptera 6.4(20) 0.7 (03) 4.3 (04) 2.0 (02) 1.4 (02) 8.6 (07) Hemiptera 1.0 (03) 0.7 (03) 1.1 (01) 2.0 (02) 0.7 (01) 4.9 (04) Coleoptera 18.8 (59) 11.5 (52) 28.3 (26) 15.3 (15) 4.1 (06) 23.5(19) Lepidoptera 0.6 (02) - - 6.1 (06) 2.0 (03) - Diptera - - - 3.1 (03) 0.7 (01) 3.7 (03) Hymenoptera 20.1(63) 16.8 (76) 41.3 (38) 36.7 (36) 49.0 (72) 25.9(21) Araneae 1.0(03) 3.1 (14) 8.7 (08) 1.0 (01) 2.0 (03) - Julida - 0.9 (04) - - - - Geophilomorpha - 4.9 (22) - - - - Isopoda 3.8(12) 3.5 (16) 10.9 (10) 17.3 (17) 16.3 (24) 14.8 (12) Mollusca 45.2(142) 57.6 (261) 5.4 (05) 10.2 (10) 2.7 (04) 16.0 (13) Pulmonata 45.2(142) 57.6 (261) 5.4 (05) 10.2 (10) 2.7 (04) 16.0 (13) Total number of (314) (453) (92) (98) (147) (81) specimens

* Microhabitat type: MH1= open edge; MH2 = under tree; MH3 = inside field

a-f: Relative abundance of various orders of phylum arthropoda in different micro-habitats of wheat - ■ Dermaptera, ■ Hem tera, ■ Lepidoptera, ■ Hymenoptera, ■ Araneae, ■ Isopoda, ■ Collembolla, ■ Julida, ■ Geophilomorpha, ■ Diplura, ■ optera, ■ Isoptera

29 Comparison of diversity (H´), richness (S) and evenness (E) values among three micro-habitats (MHs) was highly significant (Table 4.1.4; Annexure II and III) depicting that variation in the diversity of soil macroinvertebrates exist with accelerating frequency in LIP treated fields (Table 4.1.4). Temporal variations in the abundance of soil macrofauna in wheat

The monthly data for the soil macroinvertebrates recorded from both in LIP and HIP treated fields (Annexure IV) was pooled season-wise (Table 4.1.5). Arthropods (48.20%) and molluscs (51.29%), were the most abundant macroinvertebrates during winter in LIP treated fields while arthropods alone constituted 89.4% of the total macroinvertebrates in HIP treated fields. Hymenopterans were the most abundant in LIP (winter = 17.1%; spring = 29.71%) and HIP (winter = 42.33%; spring = 35.77%) treated fields. Coleopterans were second most abundant both in LIP and HIP treated fields except in winter when they constituted only 4.23% of the soil macroinvertebrates in HIP treated fields. Isopods were abundant in HIP treated fields both during winter (15.79%) and spring (16.8%). Isoptera (10.05%), Orthoptera (5.82%) and Diptera (3.70%) were recorded only during winter in HIP treated fields while Geophilomorpha (winter = 3.07%; spring = 1.26%) and Julida (winter = 0.32%; spring = 0.87%) were recorded only from LIP treated fields (Table 4.1.5). Table 4.1.6 showed that richness (S) and diversity (H′) values in winter were higher for LIP than HIP whereas, evenness values were almost similar. In spring, similar trend was recorded with least values.

Table 4.1.4: A comparison of diversity of soil macroinvertebrates recorded from microhabitats in wheat under LIP and HIP treatments in Punjab (Pakistan)

HIP MH1 MH2 MH3 MH1 P<0.001*** P<0.001*** P<0.001*** LIP MH2 P<0.001*** P<0.001*** P<0.001*** MH3 P<0.001*** P<0.001*** P<0.001***

* Microhabitat type: MH1 (open edge); MH2 (under tree); MH3 (inside field)

Table 4.1.5: Relative abundance (%) of soil macroinvertebrates recorded during winter and spring in LIP and HIP treated wheat fields in Punjab (Pakistan). (n is the number of individuals of each order)

% Relative abundance (n) Season→ Winter Spring * Treatments→ LIP HIP LIP HIP Phylum/Order ↓ Annilida 0.49 (3) 1.59 (3) 3.35(8) 2.92 (4) Haplotaxida 0.49 (3) 1.59 (3) 3.35(8) 2.92 (4) Arthropoda 48.2(299) 89.4(169) 59.0(141) 89.7(123) Diplura - - - 1.46 (2) Collembolla - - 0.42(1) - Orthoptera - 5.82 (11) - - Isoptera - 10.05(19) - - Dermaptera 3.39(21) 1.59 (3) 2.52(6) 5.84(8) Hemiptera 0.65(4) 1.59(3) 1.26(3) 2.92(4) Coleoptera 17.25(107) 4.23(8) 12.56(30) 23.36(32) Lepidoptera 0.16(1) 3.18(6) 0.42(1) 2.19(3) Diptera 0 (0) 3.70(7) 0 (0) - Hymenoptera 17.10(106) 42.33(80) 29.71(71) 35.77(49) Araneae 2.26 (14) 1.06(2) 4.61(11) 1.46(2) Julida 0.32(2) 0 (0) 0.87(2) - Geophilomorpha 3.07(19) 0 (0) 1.26(3) - Isopoda 4.03(25) 15.87(30) 5.44(13) 16.79(23) Mollusca 51.29(318) 9.00(17) 37.66(90) 7.30(10) Pulmonata 51.29(318) 9.00(17) 37.66(90) 7.30(10) Total (620) (189) (239) (137)

Table 4.1.6: Temporal variations in richness, diversity and evenness values for soil macroinvertebrates recorded from microhabitats in wheat under LIP and HIP treatments in Punjab (Pakistan)

Season↓ Indices LIP HIP t-value df p-value

Richness (S) 86 46 4.305 >120 <0.001*** Winter Diversity (H′) 3.719 3.357 Evenness (E) 0.8349 0.876 Richness (S) 48 36 1.964 >120 0.050* Spring Diversity (H′) 3.438 3.322 Evenness (E) 0.888 0.927

SUGARCANE

Macroinvertebrates recorded in each month both from LIP and HIP treated cane fields (Annexure I) were pooled phylum-wise and are represented in (Table 4.1.7). Annelids (10.2%), arthropods (60.9%) and molluscs (29.0%) were recorded. Among arthropods, Isopoda (21.8%), Hymenoptera (18.0%), Coleoptera (9.0%) and Araneae (4.1%) formed 86% of the soil arthropod fauna where as pulmonates alone contributed 29.0% of the total soil macro-invertebrates. Arthropods (47.3%) and pulmonates (41.9%) formed 89.2% of the soil macroinvertebrates in LIP treated fields while arthropods alone constituted 86.6% of the soil macroinvertebrates in HIP treated fields. Hymenoptera (16.2%), Isopoda (13.4%), Coleoptera (6.6%) and Araneae (5.4%) in LIP while Isopoda (37.8%), Hymenoptera (21.4%) and Coleoptera (13.6%) were numerically important arthropods in HIP treated fields (Table 4.1.7). Punctum spp., Cryptaustenia spp. and Caecilloides spp. were highly dominant and recorded only from LIP treated fields whereas no species was found dominant and restricted to HIP fields. The species Trachelipus rathkei, Formica spp., Hawaiia minuscule, Solenopsis invicta, Pheretima posthuma, Forficula auricularia and Planorbis planorbis were almost equally abundant in both LIP and HIP fields (Annexure I). Richness (S) and diversity (H′) and evenness (E) values were higher for LIP than HIP (Table 4.1.8). A comparison of both fields showed that species diversity between LIP and HIP fields was highly significant (t= 10.24; df = 111; p<0.001).

Table 4.1.7: Relative abundance (%) of soil macroinvertebrates recorded from LIP and HIP treated cane fields in Punjab (Pakistan). (‘n’ is the number of individuals of each order) % Relative abundance (n) Phylum/Order LIP HIP Total Annelida 10.9(152) 8.9(66) 10.2(218) Haplotaxida 10.9(152) 8.9(66) 10.2(218) Arthropoda 47.3 (662) 86.6 (639) 60.9 (1301) Orthoptera 0.3(4) 3.1(23) 1.3(27) Dermaptera 2.6(37) 4.6(34) 3.3(71) Hemiptera 2.4(33) 4.6(34) 3.1(67) Coleoptera 6.6(93) 13.6(100) 9.0(193) Hymenoptera 16.2(227) 21.4(158) 18.0(385) Araneae 5.4(76) 1.5(11) 4.1(87) Geophilomorpha 0.3(4) - 0.2(4) Isopoda 13.4(188) 37.8(279) 21.8(467) Mollusca 41.9(586) 4.5(33) 29.0(619) Pulmonata 41.9(586) 4.5(33) 29.0(619) Total (1400) (738) (2138)

Table 4.1.8: Values of the richness, diversity, and evenness indices calculated for the soil macroinvertebrates recorded from LIP and HIP treated cane fields in Punjab (Pakistan)

LIP HIP t-value df p-value

Richness (S) 79 61 10.24 111 <0.001*** Diversity (H′) 3.630 2.932 Evenness (E) 0.590 0.31

Microhabitat related variations in the abundance of soil macro-fauna in sugarcane

Sampling in three microhabitats (MHs) showed that annelids were present in all of them both in LIP and HIP treated fields (Table 4.1.9). Arthropods formed 42.9%, 45.5% and 63.2% of the total soil macro-fauna in LIP treated fields whereas in HIP treated fields they constituted 86.5%, 85.2% and 89.2% respectively (Table 4.1.9). Molluscs (pulmonates) formed 48.8% of the soil macroinvertebrates in MH1, 42.8% in MH2 and 21.9% in MH3 in LIP treated fields. Their contribution was low (viz., 6.5%, 3.1% and 2.5% respectively), in all three MHs of HIP treated fields (Table 4.1.9). The contribution of various arthropod taxa in the diversity of soil macrofauna of the three MHs is represented in Fig. 4.1.2a-f. Among open edge micro-habitats, richness (S) and diversity (H′) was privileged for LIP than HIP, and in the same context, species distribution in LIP treated fields was higher than HIP A comparison of both habitats showed that difference in species diversity between LIP and HIP fields was extremely significant (p<0.001). From edges under the shade of a tree micro-habitats, richness (S) and diversity (H′) was privileged for LIP than HIP, whereas, species distribution in LIP treated fields was also similar. The richness (S) and diversity (H´) values for LIP were higher than HIP while evenness (E) under HIP treatment was higher than LIP. A comparison of both habitats showed that species diversity between LIP and HIP fields was vastly significant (p<0.001) (Table 4.1.10).

a-f: Relative abundance of various orders of phylum arthropoda in different micro-habitats of sugarcane ■ Dermaptera, ■ Hem tera, ■ Lepidoptera, ■ Hymenoptera, ■ Araneae, ■ Isopoda, ■ Julida, ■ Geophilomorpha, ■ Diplura, ■ Diptera, ■ Orth

36 Table 4.1.9: Relative abundance (%) of soil macroinvertebrates recorded from three microhabitats (MHs) in LIP and HIP treated cane fields in Punjab (Pakistan). (n is the number of individuals of each order)

(MH1 (open edge); MH2 (under tree); MH3 (inside field); MHs (Microhabitats)

% Relative abundance (n) Treatment→ LIP HIP * Microhabitat type→ MH1 MH2 MH3 MH1 MH2 MH3 Phylum/Order ↓ Annelida 8.4 (48) 11.7 (70) 14.9 (34) 7.1 (23) 11.7 (30) 8.3 (13) Haplotaxida 8.4 (48) 11.7 (70) 14.9 (34) 7.1 (23) 11.7 (30) 8.3 (13) Arthropoda 42.9(246) 45.5(272) 63.2(144) 86.5(281) 85.2(218) 89.2(140) Orthoptera 0.5 (3) - 0.4 (1) 0.9 (3) 3.9 (10) 6.4 (10) Dermaptera 3.0 (17) 1.2 (7) 5.7 (13) 6.5 (21) 2.3 (6) 4.5 (7) Hemiptera 1.7 (10) 1.8 (11) 5.3 (12) 3.7 (12) 3.5 (9) 8.3 (13) Coleoptera 8.4 (48) 6.2 (37) 3.5 (8) 26.5 (86) 3.5 (9) 3.2 (5) Hymenoptera 13.1 (75) 17.2 (103) 21.5 (49) 15.7 (51) 27.7 (71) 22.9 (36) Araneae 6.1 (35) 5.2 (31) 4.4 (10) 1.2 (4) 1.2 (3) 2.5 (4) Geophilomorpha 0.3 (2) 0.3 (2) - - - - Isopoda 9.8 (56) 13.5 (81) 22.4 (51) 32.0 (104) 43.0 (110) 41.4 (65) Mollusca 48.8 (280) 42.8 (256) 21.9 (50) 6.5 (21) 3.1 (8) 2.5 (4) Pulmonata 48.8 (280) 42.8 (256) 21.9 (50) 6.5 (21) 3.1 (8) 2.5 (4) Total (574) (598) (228) (325) (256) (157)

Table 4.1.10: A comparison of diversity of soil macroinvertebrates recorded from microhabitats in wheat under LIP and HIP treatments in Punjab (Pakistan)

HIP MH1 MH2 MH3 MH1 <0.001*** <0.001*** <0.001*** LIP MH2 <0.05* <0.001*** <0.001*** MH3 <0.001*** <0.001*** <0.001***

(MH1 (open edge); MH2 (under tree); MH3 (inside field); MHs(Microhabitats)

A comparison of species diversity in three MHs of LIP and HIP treated fields showed that a significant difference in all such comparison (Table 4.1.10).

Temporal variations in the abundance of soil macrofauna in sugarcane

Monthly data for the soil macroinvertebrates recorded from both in LIP and HIP treated fields (Annexure IV) was pooled season-wise. Annelids and arthropods both were recorded throughout the sampling seasons from both the treatments (Table 4.1.11). Arthropods consisted of 41.9% and 52.1.2% of the total soil macro-fauna in LIP treated fields whereas, their frequency in HIP treated fields was 81.2% and 89.8% respectively (Table 4.1.11). Hymonoptera (16.67 and 24.82%) Isopoda (9.01% and 26.62%) and Coleoptera (5.86% and 10.07%) were recorded during summer in both the treatments whereas Hymenoptera (15.8% in LIP and 19.35% in HIP) and Coleoptera (7.36% in LIP and 15.65% in HIP) were abundant during autumn whereas, Geophilomorpha, although its contribution was negligibly small, was recorded only in LIP treated fields during autumn. Table 4.1.11 also showed that arthropods and molluscs were nearly almost equally abundant in both the seasons in LIP treated fields while arthropods alone comprised more than 80% of the soil macroinvertebrates in HIP treated fields in both the seasons.

The results in Table 4.1.12 are pertaining to seasonal variations showed that richness (S), evenness (E) and diversity (H′) were higher in summer for LIP than HIP whereas in autumn, similar trend was documented (4.1.12).

Table 4.1.11: Relative abundance (%) of soil macroinvertebrates recorded during winter and spring in LIP and HIP treated wheat fields in Punjab (Pakistan). (n is the number of individuals of each order).

% Relative abundance (n) Season→ Summer Autumn * Treatments→ LIP HIP LIP HIP Phylum/Order ↓ Annilida 12.46(83) 12.23(34) 9.40(69) 6.96(32) Haplotaxida 12.46(83) 12.23(34) 9.40(69) 6.96(32) Arthropoda 41.9(279) 81.2(226) 52.1(383) 89.8(413 Orthoptera 0.30(2) 2.16(6) 0.27(2) 3.70(17) Dermaptera 3.30(22) 9.35(26) 2.04(15) 1.74(8) Hemiptera 1.95(13) 7.55(21) 2.72(20) 2.83(13) Coleoptera 5.86(39) 10.07(28) 7.36(54) 15.65(72) Hymenoptera 16.67(111) 24.82(69) 15.80(116) 19.35(89) Araneae 4.81(32) 0.72(2) 5.99(44) 1.96(9) Geophilomorpha - - 0.54(4) - Isopoda 9.01(60) 26.62(74) 17.44(128) 44.57(205) Mollusca 45.65(304) 6.47(18) 38.42(282) 3.26(15) Pulmonata 45.65(304) 6.47(18) 38.42(282) 3.26(15) Total 666 278 734 460

Table 4.1.12: Temporal variations in richness, diversity and evenness values for soil macroinvertebrates recorded from microhabitats in sugarcane under LIP and HIP treatments in Punjab (Pakistan) Indices LIP HIP t-value df P-value Summer Richness (S) 62 45 5.828 >120 <0.001*** Diversity (H′) 3.438 2.935 Evenness (E) 0.833 0.771 Autumn Richness (S) 67 49 7.578 >120 <0.001*** Diversity (H′) 3.367 2.67 Evenness (E) 0.800 0.686

CHAPTER # 04

SECTION – II: PROBABLE INTERACTIONS AMONG FAUNAL POPULATIONS

PREDATOR-PREY ASSOCIATIONS IN WHEAT

The predator-prey interactions were determined on the basis of numerical superiority of a predator and its prey in a particular field. Analysis of the variety of predator and preys (which in most of the cases were also the pests on wheat) showed that Formica spp. 1 (25.74%), Camponotus spp. (25.74%), Solenopsis invicta (18.15%), Oxychillus alliarius (12.87%), Formica spp2 (8.58%), Dolichoderus taschenbergi (4.95%), and Clubiona obesa (3.965) were the dominant predators (Table 4.2.1) while Armadilidium vulgare (35.85%), Megomphix hemphilli (27.36%), Armadilidium nasatum (23.58%) and Pangaeus bilineatus (13.21%) (Table 4.2.1) were dominant preys in order of their abundance in the field (Inayat et al., 2011).

Polynomial regression analysis revealed that A. vulgare was the preferred prey of Formica spp 2. (R2 =0.955) (Fig. 4.2.1a), C. obesa (R2 =0.839) (Fig. 4.2.2 b), Camponotus spp. (R2 =0.737) (Fig. 4.2.3 a), Formica spp. 1 (R2 =0.674) (Fig. 4.2.4 a). M. hemphilli was the preferred prey of C. obesa (R2 =0.972) (Fig. 4.2.2 a), O. alliarius (R2 = 0.943) (Fig. 4.2.5 a) and Formica spp.2 (R2 = 0.638) (Fig. 4.2.1c). A. nasatum was predated by D. taschenbergi (R2 = 0.667) (Fig. 4.2.6 b), Formica spp. 2 (R2 = 0.670) (Fig. 4.2.1 b) and C. obesa (R2 = 0.586) (Fig. 4.2.2c) while P. bilineatus was most the most preferred prey of D. taschenbergi (R2 = 0.857) (Fig. 4.2.6 a) and S. invicta (R2 = 0.761 ) (Fig. 4.2.7 a) (Table 4.2.1).

Table 4.2.1: Association (R2) of various predators (% relative abundance) and their preys (% relative abundance) in the wheat fields of Faisalabad district recorded from 2008to 2010

Predator (%) Prey (%) R2 Fig. No. Formica spp. 2 (8.58) Armadillidium vulgare (35.85) 0.955 4.2.1 a Armadillidium nasatun (23.58) 0.670 4.2.1 b Megomphix hemphilli (27.36) 0.638 4.2.1 c Clubiona obese (3.96) Megomphix hemphilli (27.36) 0.972 4.2.2 a Armadillidium vulgare (35.85) 0.839 4.2.2 b Armadillidium nasatun (23.58) 0.586 4.2.2 c Camponotus spp. (25.74) Armadillidium vulgare (35.85) 0.737 4.2.3 a Formica spp.1 (25.74) Armadillidium vulgare (35.85) 0.674 4.2.4 a Oxychillus alliarius (12.87) Megomphix hemphilli (27.36) 0.943 4.2.5 a Pangaeus bilineatus (13.21) 0.424 4.2.5 b Dolichoderus taschenbergi (4.95) Pangaeus bilineatus (13.21) 0.857 4.2.6 a Armadillidium nasatun (23.58) 0.667 4.2.6 b Solenopsis invicta (18.15) Pangaeus bilineatus (13.21) 0.761 4.2.7 a

Table 4.2.2: Abbreviations used in polynomial regression analysis for various predators and their preys recorded from wheat fields of Faisalabad district during 2008 to 2010

Predator Prey Formica spp.1 (Fs 1) Armadillidium vulgare (Av) Camponotus spp. (Cs) Pangaeus bilineatus (Pb) Solenopsis invicta (Si) Armadilidium nastum (An) Dolichoderus taschenbergi (Dt) Megomphix hemphilli (Mh) Formica spp. 2 (Fs 2) Clubiona obesa (Co) Oxychillus alliarius (Oa)

Fig. 4.2.1: Association of Formica spp. 2 (FS2) to its preys (a), (b), (c), (d)

( a) (b)

Fig. 4.2.1a-d: Polynomial regression curves showing association of Formica spp. 2 to its preys

Fig. 4. 2.2: Association of Clubiona obese (Co) to its preys (a), (b), (c), (d)

(a) (b)

Fig. 4. 2.2a-d: Polynomial regression curves showing association of Clubiona obesa to its preys

Fig. 4. 2.3: Association of Camponotus spp. (Cs) to its preys (a), (b), (c), (d)

(a) (b)

Fig. 4. 2.3a-d: Polynomial regression curves showing association of Camponotus spp. to its preys

Fig. 4.2.4: Association of Formica spp. 1 (Fs) to its preys (a), (b), (c), (d)

(a) (b)

y = 0.0588x2 ‐ 1.3829x + 16.673 30 2 25 R = 0.242 20 15 10 5 spp.1 0 051015 (P reda tor)

Formica Megomphix hemphilli ( Prey)

Fig. 4.2.4a-d: Polynomial regression curves showing association of Formica spp.1 to its preys

Fig. 4.2.5: Association of Oxychilus alliarius (Oa) to its preys (a), (b), (c), (d)

(a) (b)

Fig. 4.2.5a-d: Polynomial regression curves showing association of Oxychilus alliarius to its preys

Fig. 4.2.6: Association of Dolichoderus taschenbergi (Dt) to its preys (a), (b), (c), (d)

(a) (b)

Fig. 4.2.6a-d: Polynomial regression curves showing association of Dolichoderus taschenbergi to its preys

Fig. 4.2.7: Association of Solenopsis invicta (Si) to its preys(a), (b), (c), (d)

(a) (b)

Fig. 4.2.7a-d: Polynomial regression curves showing association of Solenopsis invicta to its preys

PREDATOR-PREY ASSOCIATIONS IN SUGARCANE

In sugarcane, Formica spp. 1 (35.62 %), Solenopsis invicta (32.68%), Camponotus pennsylvanicus (6.21%), Formica spp. 2 (6.21%), Hippasa partita (5.88%) Formica sanguinea (4.90%), Formica spp. 3 (4.90%), and Formica exsectoides (3.59%), were the dominant predators (Table 5.3) while Trachelipus rathkei (64.38%), Hawaiia minuscule (14.89%), Pangaeus bilineatus (4.23%), Biomphalaria havanensis (3.94%), Planorbis merguiensis (3.65%) Tritomegas sexmaculatus (3.36%) Planorbis nanus (2.77%), Gonocephalum stocklieni (1.46%), and Pentodon idiota (1.31%) were dominant preys (Table 4.2.3).

Maximum association was showed by S. invicta and T. rathkei (R2 = 0.988) (Fig. 4.2.8a). Similarly F. exsectoides showed significant association with P. idiota (R2 = 0.942) (Fig. 4.2.9a) and H. minuscule (R2 = 0.923) (Fig. 4.2.9b), and H. partita with T. rathkei (R2 = 0.914) (Fig. 4.2.10a). F. sanguinea showed a significant association with P. idiota (R2 = 0.884) (Fig. 4.2.11a) and H. minuscule (R2 = 0.884) (Fig. 4.2.11b) whereas Formica spp.1 was associated with T. rathkei (R2 = 0.843) (Fig. 4.2.12a), S. invicta with P. idiota (R2 = 0.842) (Fig. 4.2.8b) and Formica spp. 3 with T. rathkei (R2 = 0.836) (Fig. 4.2.13a). F. sanguinea was associated with P. bilineatus (R2 = 0.798) (Fig. 4.2.11c), C. pennsylvanicus with P. idiota (R2 = 0.789) (Fig. 4.2.14a), F. exsectoides with P. bilineatus (R2 = 0.788) (Fig. 4.2.9c), H. partita with P. idiota (R2 = 0.757) (Fig. 4.2.10 b), F. sanguinea with T. rathkei (R2 = 0.721) (Fig. 4.2.11d) and Formica spp.1 with B. havanensis (R2 = 0.713) (Fig. 4.2.12 b). Association of H. partita with T. sexmaculatus (R2 = 0.698) (Fig. 4.2.10c), Formica spp.3 with G. stocklieni (R2 = 0.686) (Fig. 4.2.13b), Formica spp.2 with T. rathkei (R2 = 0.678) (Fig. 4.2.15a) C. pennsylvanicus with P. merguiensis (R2 = 0.662) (Fig. 4.2.14 b), F. exsectoides with T. sexmaculatus (R2 = 0.654) (Fig. 4.2.9 d), and Formica spp. 1 with T. sexmaculatus (R2 = 0.653) (Fig. 4.2.12c) was weak (Table 4.2.3).

Table 4.2.3: Association (R2) of various predators (% relative abundance) and their preys (% relative abundance) in the sugarcane fields of Faisalabad district recorded from 2008to 2010

Predator (%) Prey (%) R2 -Value Fig No. Solenopsis invicta (32.68) Trachelipus rathkei (64.38) 0.988 4.2.8 a Pentodon idiota (1.31) 0.842 4.2.8 b Formica exsectoides (3.59) Pentodon idiota (1.31) 0.942 4.2.9 a Hawaiia minuscule (14.89) 0.923 4.2.9 b Pangaeus bilineatus (4.23) 0.788 4.2.9 c Tritomegas sexmaculatus (3.36) 0.654 4.2.9 d Hippasa partita (5.88 ) Trachelipus rathkei (64.38) 0.914 4.2.10 a Pentodon idiota (1.31) 0.757 4.2.10 b Tritomegas sexmaculatus (3.36) 0.698 4.2.10 c Formica sanguinea (4.90) Pentodon idiota (1.31) 0.884 4.2.11 a Hawaiia minuscule (14.89) 0.884 4.2.11 b Pangaeus bilineatus (4.23) 0.798 4.2.11 c Trachelipus rathkei (64.38) 0.721 4.2.11 d Formica spp.1 (35.62) Trachelipus rathkei (64.38) 0.843 4.2.12 a Biomphalaria havanensis (3.94) 0.713 4.2.12 b Tritomegas sexmaculatus (3.36) 0.653 4.2.12 c Formica spp.3 (4.90) Trachelipus rathkei (64.38) 0.836 4.2.13 a Gonocephalum stocklieni (1.46) 0.686 4.2.13 b Camponotus pennsylvanicus (6.21) Pentodon idiota (1.31) 0.789 4.2.14 a Planorbis merguiensis (3.65) 0.662 4.2.14 b Formica spp.2 (6.21) Trachelipus rathkei (64.38) 0.678 4.2.15 a

Table 4.2.4: Abbreviations used in polynomial regression analysis for various predators and their preys recorded from sugarcane fields of Faisalabad district during 2008 to 2010

Predator species Prey species

Formica spp.1 (Fs 1) Pangaeus bilineatus (Pb)

Solenopsis invicta (Si) Tritomegas sexmaculatus (Ts)

Camponotus pennsylvanicus (Cp) Gonocephalum stocklieni (Gs)

Formica sanguinea (Fs) Pentodon idiota (Pi)

Formica exsectoides (Fe) Trachelipus rathkei (Tr)

Formica spp.2 (Fs 2) Planorbis merguiensis (Pm)

Formica spp.3 (Fs 3) Planorbis nanus (Pn)

Hippasa partita (Hp) Biomphalaria havanensis (Bh)

Hawaiia minuscule (Hm)

8 Si vs Pb 7 Si vs Ts 6 Si vs Gs 5 Si vs Pi 4 Si vs Tr

Ratios 3 Si vs Pm 2 Si vs Pn 1 Si vs Bh 0 Si vs Hm Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov.

Months

Fig. 5.2.8: Association of Solenopsis invicta (Si) to its preys (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i)

(a) (b)

(e) (f)

(g) (h)

(i)

Fig. 4.2.8a-i: Polynomial regression curves showing association of Solenopsis invicta to its preys

Fe vs Pb 100 Fe vs Ts 80 Fe vs Gs Fe vs Pi 60 Fe vs Tr 40

Ratios Fe vs Pm

20 Fe vs Pn Fe vs Bh 0 Fe vs Hm Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov.

Months

Fig. 4.2.9: Association of Formica exsectoides (Fe) to its preys a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i)

(a) (b)

(e) (f)

(g) (h)

(i)

Fig. 4.2.9a-i: Polynomial regression curves showing association of Formica exsectoides to its preys

40 Hp vs Pb 35 Hp vs Ts 30 Hp vs Gs 25 Hp vs Pi 20 Hp vs Tr

Ratios 15 Hp vs Pm 10 Hp vs Pn 5 Hp vs Bh 0 Hp vs Hm Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov.

Months

Fig. 4.2. 10: Association of Hippasa partita (Hp) to its preys (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i)

(a) (b)

(e) (f)

(g) (h)

(i)

Fig. 4.2.10a-i: Polynomial regression curves showing association of Hippasa partita to its preys

Fs vs Pb 10 Fs vs Ts 8 Fs vs Gs

6 Fs vs Pi Fs vs Tr 4 Ratios Fs vs Pm 2 Fs vs Pn Fs vs Bh 0 Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Fs vs Hm

Months

Fig. 4.2.11:Association of Formica sanguinea (Fs) to its preys (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i)

(a) (b)

(e) (f)

(g) (h)

(i)

Fig. 4.2.11a-i: Polynomial regression curves showing association of Formica sanguinea to its preys

Fs 1 vs Pb 10 Fs 1 vs Ts 8 Fs 1 vs Gs

6 Fs 1 vs Pi Fs 1 vs Tr 4 Ratios Fs 1 vs Pm 2 Fs 1 vs Pn Fs 1 vs Bh 0 Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Fs 1 vs Hm

Months

Fig. 4.2.12:Association of Formica spp.1 (Fs1) to its preys (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i)

2 y = 0.2787x + 0.0215x + 7.8963 y = ‐0.0023x2 + 0.7844x ‐ 4.2197 60 80 R 2 = 0.7139 2 50

R = 0.8438 60 .1

(P re da tor) 40 pp 1

40 s 30 Formica spp.

20 20 0 10 0 ‐20 0 100 200 300 400 Formica 0 5 10 15

Trachelipus rathk ei (P rey) B iomphalaria havanens is (P rey)

(a) (b)

2 ) y = ‐1.106x + 13.197x ‐ 0.9009 2 60 60 ) y = ‐5.0405x + 23.31x + 10.719 R 2 = 0.6538 50 50 R 2 = 0.5603 Predator

40 ( 40 Predator

( .1

30 30 .1 pp

20 s 20 pp

s 10 10 0 0 Formica Formica ‐10 024681012 0123456

Tritomegas s exmaculatus (P rey) P lanorbis nanus (P rey)

) 60 y = ‐9.4762x + 28.619x + 5.2143

60 2 ) 50 R 2 = 0.2062 50 y = ‐0.791x + 8.6397x + 7.3472 R 2 = 0.3195 40 Predator

( 40

Predator

( 30 1

30 . 1

. 20 pp

s 20

s 10 10 0 0 Formica 024681012 01234 Formica

Planorbis merguiensis (P rey) G onocephalum stocklieni (P rey)

(e) (f)

2 ) 2 y = ‐0.2449x + 1.7197x + 19.04

) 60 60 y = ‐0.875x + 8.1705x + 8.6818 2 50 R = 0.1697 50 R 2 = 0.0742 Predator

40 ( 40 Predator ( 30 .1 30 1

. pp

20 s 20 pp

s 10 10 0 0 Formica

Formica ‐10 0 5 10 15 01234

P angaeus bilineatus (P rey) Pentodon idiota (P rey)

(g) (h)

60 y = ‐0.0167x2 + 1.1671x + 13.916 50 R 2 = 0.0708

(P re d a to r) 40

30 20 s pp.

10 0

Formica 0 20406080

Hawaiia minuscula (P rey)

(i)

Fig. 4.2.12a-i: Polynomial regression curves showing association of Formica spp. 1 to its preys

16 Fs 3 vs Pb 14 Fs 3 vs Ts 12 Fs 3 vs Gs 10 Fs 3 vs Pi 8 Fs 3 vs Tr

Ratios 6 Fs 3 vs Pm 4 Fs 3 vs Pn Fs 3 vs Bh 2 Fs 3 vs Hm 0 Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov.

Months

Fig. 4.2.13: Association of Formica spp. 3 (Fs) to its preys (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i)

2 ) y = ‐0.0003x + 0.0952x + 0.3286 10 R 2 = 0.8359 8 Predator ( 6

pp 4 s

2 0 Formica 0 100 200 300 400

Trachelipus rathk ei (P rey)

(a) (b)

(e) (f)

(g) (h)

(i)

Fig. 4.2.13a-i: Polynomial regression curves showing association of Formica spp. 3 to its preys

70 Cp vs Pb 60 Cp vs Ts 50 Cp vs Gs Cp vs Pi 40 Cp vs Tr 30 Cp vs Pm Ratios 20 Cp vs Pn Cp vs Bh 10 Cp vs Hm 0 Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov.

Months

Fig. 4.2.14: Association of Camponotus pnensylvanicus (Cp) to its preys a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i)

(a) (b)

(e) (f)

(g) (h)

(i)

Fig. 4.2.14a-i: Polynomial regression curves showing association of Camponotus pennsylvanicus to its preys

50 Fs 2 vs Pb 45 Fs 2 vs Ts 40 Fs 2 vs Gs 35 30 Fs 2 vs Pi 25 Fs 2 vs Tr

Ratios 20 Fs 2 vs Pm 15 Fs 2 vs Pn 10 Fs 2 vs Bh 5 Fs 2 vs Hm 0 Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov.

Months

Fig. 4.2.15: Association of Formica spp. 2 (Fs2) to its preys a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i)

(a) (b)

(e) (f)

(g) (h)

(i)

Fig. 4.2.15a-i: Polynomial regression curves showing association of Formica spp. 2 to its preys

Summarizing the present study, Armadillidium vulgare followed by Megomphix hemphilli were preferred prey by the most of the predators in wheat fields while Trachelipus rathkei and Pentodon idiota were the most preferred by majority of predators in sugarcane crop. Highly significant R-values support the hypothesis.

CHAPTER # 04

SECTION – III: EFFECT OF WEEDS ON THE FAUNAL POPULATIONS

Weeds are integral part of agroecosystem they provide phytomorphic heterogeneity to the crop and food, shelter, and reproductive habitat to macroinvertebrates. In the recent studies a total of twenty six weed species were recorded from sugarcane and wheat crops. Of these ten were recorded exclusively from wheat i.e. Avena fatua, Ageratum conyzoides, Cenchrus setigerus, Rumex dentatus, Malva neglecta, Ephedra spp., Euphorbia prostrate, Brassica campestris, Chenopodium murale, and Polygonum plebejum while another ten viz., Amaranthus viridus, Conyza ambigua, Coronopus didymus, Parathenum hystorophorus, Coriandrum spp. Chenopodium album, Sacchrum spp., Dichanthium annulatum, Anagalliss arvensis and Malvestrum coromendelianum were recorded only from sugarcane. The remaining six that is Anethum graveolens Convolvulus arvensis, Cynodon dactylon, Cnicus arvensis, Vaccaria hispanica and Phalaris minor common to both wheat and sugarcane (Table 4.3.1).

Wheat crop

Species richness of the macro-invertebrate fauna was high on the weeds growing at the edges than center of the wheat fields. The highest richness and maximum diversity of macro invertebrates was recorded on A. graveolens (S = 9; H' = 1.908) while the lowest richness and minimum diversity of macroinvertebrates was recorded on C. murale (S = 3; H' = 0.683). B. campestris and C. arvensis were the species rich and divers weeds growing the in center of wheat fields (S = 6; H' = 0.565 and S = 6; H' = 0.523) respectively. The distribution of macroinvertebrates was found more even on the weeds of center as compared to the weeds occurring on edge of crop (Table 4.3.2).

Table 4.3.1: A list of weeds recorded from wheat and sugarcane fields of Faisalabad district.

Sr. No. Weed species Sugarcane Wheat Category 01 Avena fatua Broad leaved weed 02 Ageratum conyzoides Broad leaved weed 03 Cenchrus setigerus Broad leaved weed 04 Rumex dentatus Broad leaved weed 05 Malva neglecta Broad leaved weed 06 Ephedra spp. Broad leaved weed 07 Euphorbia prostrate Broad leaved weed 08 Brassica campestris Broad leaved weed 09 Chenopodium murale Broad leaved weed 10 Polygonum plebejum Grassy weed 11 Amaranthus viridus Broad leaved weed 12 Conyza ambigua Broad leaved weed 13 Coronopus didymus Broad leaved weed 14 Parathenum hystorophorus Broad leaved weed 15 Coriandrum spp Small leaved weed 16 Chenopodium album Broad leaved weed 17 Sacchrum spp Grassy weeds 18 Dichanthium annulatum Grassy weeds 19 Anagalliss arvensis Grassy weeds 20 Malvestrum coromendelianum Grassy weeds 21 Anethum graveolens Broad leaved weed 22 Convolvulus arvensis Broad leaved weed 23 Cynodon dactylon Grassy weed 24 Cnicus arvensis Grassy weed 25 Vaccaria hispanica Grassy weed 26 Phalaris minor Grassy weed

A. graveolens, A. fatua, B. campestris, C. dactylon, C. arvensis, E. prostrate, P. minor and P. plebejum showed significant difference (p > 0.05) with respect to the macro-invertebrate fauna they harbored. R. dentatus, V. hispanica, Ephedra spp., M. neglecta, C. arvensis, C. setigerus and A. conyzoides showed no statistically significant difference (Table 4.3.2).

Schizaphus graminum (n = 19.487%), Dysdercus cingulatus (n = 11.966%), Camponotus spp. (n = 8.718%), Acyrthosiphon gossypii (n = 8.718%), Coccinella septempunctata (n = 6.667), Solenopsis xyloni (n = 6.154%), Mayetiola destructor (n = 5.299%), Micraspis allardi (n = 27), Acyrthosiphon pisum (n = 4.615%), Apis mellifera (n = 3.590%) were the most abundant species of macroinvertebrates inhabiting weeds growing at the edges of the wheat fields while Acyrthosiphon pisum (n = 5.882%), Schizaphus graminum (n = 9.804%) were the main refuge of macroinvertebrates in the center of the fields (Annexure-VIIIa-b).

Table 4.3.2: Comparison of richness (S), Diversity (H/) and evenness (E) values for some weeds recorded from edge and center of wheat crop.

Edge Center S H' E S H' E t-test df p-value Anethum graveolens 9 1.908 0.749 5 1.47 0.87 2.412 28.88 0.022** Avena fatua 9 1.965 0.793 4 1.277 0.896 2.813 11.1 0.016** Ageratum conyzoides 5 1.409 0.818 5 1.494 0.891 0.308 12.28 0.762ns Brassica campestris 11 2.018 0.684 6 1.565 0.797 2.792 26.26 0.009** Cynodon dactylon 5 1.311 0.742 2 0.636 0.944 2.268 4.55 0.077* Convolvulus arvensis 8 1.302 0.459 6 1.523 0.764 0.403 26.55 0.689ns Cenchrus setigerus 4 1.197 0.827 3 1.055 0.957 1.138 6.737 0.293ns Cnicus arvensis 9 1.58 0.539 3 1.04 0.942 1.932 7.278 0.092* Chenopodium murale 3 0.683 0.660 2 0.693 1.00 0.282 5.121 0.788ns Euphorbia prostrate 7 1.529 0.659 2 0.693 1.00 2.317 3.573 0.089* Ephedra spp. 4 1.306 0.922 4 1.33 0.944 0.707 7.229 0.501ns Malva neglecta 4 1.014 0.689 1 - - 5.193 18 6.115ns Phalaris minor 7 1.408 0.583 3 1.011 0.916 1.840 11.12 0.092* Polygonum plebejum 5 1.483 0.880 3 1.011 0.916 2.443 7.22 0.044** Rumex dentatus 7 0.903 0.352 4 1.241 0.864 0.015 28.08 0.318ns Vaccaria hispanica 4 1.161 0.797 2 0.693 1.00 1.872 2.269 0.186ns

Shannon diversity indices of weed’s fauna in wheat crop. P-value for the factor are given (ns: p>0.05, *: p<0.05, * *: p<0.01, * * *: p<0.001). Where S is the total number of species in the sample, H′ is the Shannon’s index of diversity, and E is the index of evenness.

Biomphalaria peregrine (n = 0.168%) was recorded both from the soil fauna and wheat weeds fauna (1.164%). Camponotus spp. was also recorded from both habitats, but more abundantly found from soil (n = 6.582%) whereas Camponotus pennsylvanicus (n = 1.181%) was recorded from the soil only. Genus Formica was also found abundantly in the soil samples (n = 9.282%, 2.328%) respectively. Strongylium saracenum species were recorded from both habitat but this species was abundant on weeds n = 0.727% (weeds), n = 0.168% (soil samples). The genera Solenopsis and Syrphus were recorded on both soil samples and weeds fauna the representative species of Solenopsis in soil samples were Solenopsis invicta (n = 4.641%) and Solenopsis japonica (n = 1.687%) as well as on weeds was Solenopsis xyloni (n = 6.550%). Syrphus genus representative were Syrphus torvus (n = 0.168%) in soil and Syrphus ribesii (n = 0.291%) on weeds.

The CCA ordination of invertebrate species based on their importance value revealed that S. olearaceus, C. arvensis, C. didymus and P. plebejum are important gradients to determine the distribution of invertebrate species in the area.

The first two axes of this ordination collectively explained 59.104% variation in the distribution of invertebrate species. Amongst the community parameters S. olearaceus E. prostrate, Ephedra spp., C. didymus and P. plebejum strongly correlated positively as (r = 0.829, r = 0.984, r = 0.527, r = 0.829, r = 0.829) respectively and C. arvensis correlated negatively as (r = -0.603) with the first environmental axis. The parameter like A. graveolens, R.dentatus, C. arvensis and C. arvensis positively correlated as (r = 0.855, r = 0.822, r = 0.549, r = 0.695) respectively while P. minor negatively correlated as (r = -0.587) with the second environmental axis. The parameter S. olearaceus C. didymus and P. plebejum positively correlated as (r = 0.529, r = 0.529, r = 0.529) respectively and Ephedra spp. and M. neglecta negatively correlated as (r = - 0.789, r = -0.789) respectively with third environmental axis (Table 4.3.3, Fig. 4.3.1).

5.41

4.33

3.25 C. arvensis A. graveolens R. dentatus 2.16 EV=0.353,23.268%

2, C. arvensis 1 5 1.082

Axis C. didymus

9 E. prostrata S. olearaceus

CCA 7 11 4 1214 P. plebejum 13 10 E. -2.16C. murale-1.08 6 83 1.08 M. neglecta2.16 3.25 4.33 5.41 A. fatua C. setigerus -1.08 B. campastris C. dactylon A. conyzoides P. minor -2.16 CCA Axis 1, EV= 0.528, 34.806%

Figure 4.3.1: Ordination biplot showing the distribution of invertebrate species on different weed of wheat crop in Faisalabad.

1. Camponotus spp. 2. Chrysoperla carnia 3. Coccinella septempunctata 4. Episyrphus balteatus 5. Micraspis allardi 6. Acyrthosiphon gossypii 7. Acyrthosiphon pisum 8. Apis mellifera 9. Biomphalaria peregrine 10. Cernuella jonica 11. Dysdercus cingulatus 12. Mayetiola destructor 13. Schizaphus graminum 14. Solenopsis xyloni.

Table 4.3.3: CCA of the abundance of invertebrate fauna at the sampled weeds from the wheat crop in Faisalabad.

Eigenvalues

Axis 1 Axis 2 Axis 3

Eigenvalues 0.528 0.353 0.249

Percentage 34.804 23.268 16.448

Cum. Percentage 34.804 58.072 74.520

Cum.Constr.Percentage 44.246 73.827 94.737

Spec.-env. correlations 1.000 0.889 0.989

Interset correlations between env. variables and site scores Axis 1 Axis 2 Axis 3 S. olearaceus 0.829 0.119 0.529 P. minor 0.486 -0.587 -0.228 A. conyzoides 0.051 -0.592 0.179 E. prostrata 0.984 0.074 0.153 P. plebejum 0.829 0.119 0.529 C. didymus 0.829 0.119 0.529 B. campestris 0.371 -0.242 -0.454 Ephedra spp. 0.527 -0.083 -0.789 A. graveolens -0.071 0.695 -0.424 M. neglecta 0.527 -0.083 -0.789 A. fatua 0.111 -0.435 -0.409 C. arvensis -0.322 0.822 0.072 C. arvensis -0.603 0.549 0.481 C. dactylon -0.299 -0.126 0.113 C. murale -0.164 -0.276 0.409 C. setigerus -0.164 -0.276 0.409 R.dentatus -0.251 0.855 0.014

Sugarcane crop

Maximum numbers of macroinvertebrates were recorded from weeds growing at the edges of both wheat and sugar cane fields (Table 3.3.2 and 3.3.4). The highest richness and maximum diversity of macroinvertebrates was found on C. dactylon (S = 99; H' = 3.576) at the edge as compared to the center of the field (R = 56; H' = 3.244) whereas the lowest richness and minimum diversity of macroinvertebrates was found on A. gravelensis on the edge (S = 2; H' = 0.693) and C. didymus (S = 1 and H' = 0.000) in the center of the field. Macro invertebrates were evenly distributed on the weeds at the center as compared to the edge of crop (Table 3.3.4).

t- test comparison depicted that the weeds namely C. dactylon, A. virdus, C. arvensis, C. ambigua, C. didymus, P. hystorophorus, A. arvensis and S. spp showed significant difference (p > 0.05) with respect to the macro-invertebrate species they harbored whereas the diversity of macroinvertebrates recorded from D. annulatum, C. spp, A. hgravelensis, C. album, C. arvensis and P. minor showed a non significant difference (Table 3.3.4).

The most abundant species of macro invertebrates found on the weeds at the edges were Acheta domesticus ( n = 9.137%), Aphis nerii (n = 7.208%), acrididae Nymph (n = 6.599%), Anatrichus erinaceus (n = 5.990%) and Collinus spp., (n = 3.452%), Oxyopes sertatus (n = 3.452%). While in the center weeds were namely Pyrilla perpusilla (n = 16.360%), Xyonysius californicus (n = 14.724%), Acrididae Nymph (n = 5.726%), Acheta domesticus (n = 4.090%), Euschistus servus (n = 4.090%), and Anatrichus erinaceus (n = 4.090%).

Camponotus and Formica were recorded both from weeds and the soil. Camponotus herculeanus (n = 1.029%) and C. pennsylvanicus (n = 0.889%) were recorded from the soil as members of the former genus while, Formica exsectoides (n = 0.514%), F. rufa (n = 0.327%), F. sanguine (n = 0.702%), Formica spp.1 (n = 5.098%) and Formica spp.2 (n = 0.889%) were recorded from soil as representatives of the latter genus whereas F. fusca (n = 0.305%) and Formica spp (n = 0.271%) were recorded from the weeds in

sugarcane fields. Solenopsis invicta occurred in both habitats (n = 4.677%, and 0.814%, respectively) whereas Solenopsis molesta (n = 0.271%) was exclusively found on weeds (annexure-IXa-b).

Canonical Correspondence analysis revealed that C. Dactylon, C. arvensis, C. arvensis, and C. ambigua were important factors that determined the distribution of invertebrate species in sugarcane fields, (Figure 3.3.2 and Table 3.3.5).

The first two axes of this ordination collectively explained 59.104% variation. Amongst the community parameters P. hystorophorus, Sacchrum spp., C. album and D. annulatum strongly correlated positively as (r = 0.946, r = 0.765, r = 0.882 r = 0.882) respectively and Coriandrum spp., C. arvensis, A. viridus and C. Dactylon correlated negatively as (r = -0.616, r = -0.84, r = -0.733, r = -0.488) respectively with the first environmental axis. The parameter like C. didymus and M. cormandelianum positively correlated as (r = 0.575, r = 0.899) respectively while C. arvensis and C. Dactylon (r = - 0.519, r = -0.466) respectively with the second environmental axis. The parameter C. arvensis, A. graveolens and A. arvensis positively correlated as (r = 0.545, r = 0.918, r = 0.807) respectively and C. ambigua and C. Dactylon negatively correlated as (r = -0.580, r = -0.602) respectively with third environmental axis.

Table 4.3.4: Comparison of richness (S), Diversity (H') and evenness (E) values for some weeds

recorded from edge and center of sugarcane crop.

Edge Center ' ' S H E S H E t-test df p-value Cynodon dactylon 99 3.576 0.778 56 3.244 0.805 4.096 564 0.000*** Amaranthus virdus 14 2.367 0.896 9 1.972 0.897 2.467 24 0.021** Convolvulus arvensis 34 3.004 0.593 13 2.414 0.860 3.981 49.37 0.000*** Phalaris minor 9 1.98 0.804 8 1.749 0.719 0.820 37.123 0.417ns Conyza ambigua 8 1.979 0.904 4 1.028 0.698 2.820 25.821 0.009** Coronopus didymus 23 2.901 0.791 1 0 1 23.594 52 0.056* Chenopodium album 4 1.255 0.877 2 0.636 0.944 1.582 6.576 0.160ns Cnicus arvensis 13 2.14 0.654 8 2.025 0.947 0.992 24.62 0.330ns Edge Center ' ' S H E S H E t-test df p-value Parathenum hystorophorus 14 2.434 0.814 13 1.807 0.468 2.548 72.80 0.012** Anagalliss arvensis 17 2.719 0.892 12 2.275 0.810 1.797 54.39 0.077* Dichanthium annulatum 6 1.54 0.777 4 1.386 1 0.821 9.293 0.431ns Coriandrum spp 10 2.084 0.804 2 0.682 0.989 5.089 23.599 3.474ns Anethum gravelensis 2 0.693 1 4 1.127 0.771 1.582 13.952 0.135ns Sacchrum spp 12 2.224 0.770 2 0.693 1 3.969 3.047 0.027**

Shannon diversity indices of weeds’ fauna in Sugarcane crop. P-value for the factor are given (ns: p>0.05, *: p<0.05, * *: p<0.01, * * *: p<0.001). Where S is the total number of species in the sample, H′ is the Shannon’s index of diversity, and E is the index of evenness. 78

14 2.5

2.0 M. cormandelianum 1.5 7

13 C. didymus P. minor 1.0 10 25.146% 0.5 S. spp. 15 C.spp 1 4 6 5 -2.5 -2.0C. ambigua-1.5 -1.0 2 -0.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

EV=0.175, 1112

3 C. arvensis A. viridus 8 C. Palbum. hystorophorus

2, -0.5 9 D. annulatum A. graveolens A. arvensis Axis C. arvensis -1.0

CCA C. Dactylon -1.5

-2.0

-2.5 CCA Axis 1, EV = 0.236, 33.958%

Figure 4.3.2: Ordination biplot showing the distribution of arthropod species on different weed of Sugarcane crop in Faisalabad

1. Nymph 2. Acheta domesticus 3. Phyllopalpus pulchellus 4. Xyonysius californicus 5. Nymph 6. Stirellus bicolor 7. Euschistus servus 8. Aphis nerii 9. Pyrilla perpusilla 10. Enodercus rosamarus 11. Coccinella septempunctata 12. Brumoides suturalis 13. Micraspis allardi 14. Coccinella septempunctata 15. larvae 16. Aphthona czwalinae 17. Culex pipiens 18. Aedes dorsalis 19. Empis chioptera 20. Anatrichus erinaceus Solenopsis invicta 21. Xystcus atrimaculatus 22. Oxyopes sertatus 23. Oxyopes salticus.

Table 4.3.5: CCA of the abundance of invertebrate fauna at the sampled weeds from the sugarcane crop in Faisalabad.

Eigenvalues

Axis 1 Axis 2 Axis 3 Axis 4 Axis 5

Eigenvalues 0.236 0.175 0.109 0.105 0.070

Percentage 33.958 25.146 15.744 15.141 10.011

Cum. Percentage 33.958 59.104 74.848 89.989 100.000

Cum.Constr.Percentage 33.958 59.104 74.848 89.989 100.000

Spec.-env. correlations 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

Interset correlations between env. variables and site scores

Axis 1 Axis 2 Axis 3 Axis 4 Axis 5 C. Dactylon -0.616 -0.519 -0.580 0.120 -0.031 C. arvensis -0.845 -0.466 -0.041 0.025 -0.259 A. viridus -0.392 -0.284 -0.388 -0.729 -0.288 C. ambigua -0.733 -0.167 -0.602 0.233 -0.138 C. arvensis -0.496 -0.299 0.545 0.550 0.255 P. hystorophorus 0.946 -0.156 -0.207 0.038 0.191 C. didymus 0.207 0.575 0.088 -0.292 0.730 A. arvensis 0.300 -0.427 0.807 0.130 -0.242 A. graveolens -0.133 -0.360 0.918 0.054 -0.081 Sacchrum. spp. 0.765 0.185 -0.242 0.370 -0.430 D. annulatum 0.882 -0.234 -0.212 0.171 -0.307 C. album 0.882 -0.234 -0.212 0.171 -0.307 P. minor -0.386 0.478 -0.267 0.734 -0.114 M. cormandelianum 0.161 0.899 0.168 -0.108 -0.354 Coriandrum spp. -0.488 0.034 -0.352 0.795 0.069

CHAPTER # 04

SECTION – IV: EFFECT OF AGROCHEMICALS ON DIVERSITY OF SOIL INVERTEBRATES

A total of 3323 specimens belonging to 192 species were recorded from wheat and sugarcane fields of Faisalabad. Species richness was higher in wheat than in sugarcane. Pulmonates and Coleopterans were more frequent in both the crops. Hymenoptera (twelve species) after Coleoptera, was the other dominant insect order in each crop. Isopoda (eight species), Dermaptera (five species), Isoptera, Diptera, and Aranae (for species each) and Geophilomorpha, Haplotaxida, and Lepidoptera (three species each) were dominant insect orders recorded in wheat. Diplura, Collembola, Isoptera, Lepidoptera, Diptera, and Julida were not recorded from sugarcane. Instead, Aranae (eight species), Haplotaxida (six species) and Hemiptera (five species) were the important insect orders recorded in sugarcane (Table 4.4.1). In wheat, species richness was higher in LIP treated fields (102 species) than in HIP treated fields (62 species). Members of Collembola, Julida and Geophilomorpha were not recorded from HIP treated fields whereas Orthoptera, Isoptera, and Diptera were solely recorded from HIP fields. In sugarcane, LIP fields harbored almost the double number of specimens than HIP fields but species richness was almost the same in both treatments. Number of Pulmonates and Aranae were considerably low in HIP treated cane fields (Table 4.4.1). ADAPHIC FACTORS

Soil samples were analyzed for organic matter (OM), electric conductivity (EC), hydrogen ion concentration (pH), available phosphorus (P), potassium (K), boron (B), copper (Cu), iron (Fe), and manganese (Mn) (Table 4.4.2). HIP treated wheat fields had higher pH, P, K, B, Zn, Fe, and Mn levels than LIP treated fields. The EC, OM and Cu were however higher in LIP treated wheat fields. In contrast, LIP treated cane fields had higher EC, P, K, B, Fe, and Cu whereas levels of pH, OM, Zn and Mn were higher in HIP treated cane fields.

Table 4.4.1: Relative abundance of the various groups of soil macro-invertebrates in low (LIP) and high (HIP) in put treatments of wheat and sugarcane in Faisalabad district (‘n’ is the number of species of each order)

Wheat Sugarcane Phylum Orders LIP HIP Total LIP HIP Total G. Total Annelida Haplotaxida 11(03) 07(03) 18(03) 152(06) 66(06) 218(06) 236(07) Arthropoda Diplura - 02(01) 02(01) - - - 02(01) Collembolla 01(01) - 01(01) - - - 01(01) Orthptera - 11(01) 11(01) 04(02) 23(02) 27(02) 38(02) Isoptera - 19(04) 19(04) - - - 19(04) Dermaptera 27(05) 11(02) 38(05) 37(02) 34(02) 71(02) 109(05) Hemiptera 07(01) 07(01) 14(01) 33(05) 34(05) 67(05) 81(05) Coleoptera 137(25) 40(15) 177(31) 93(17) 100(20) 193(29) 370(55) Lepidoptera 02(02) 09(03) 11(03) - - - 11(03) Diptera - 07(04) 07(04) - - - 07(04) Hymenoptera 177(9) 129(10) 306(12) 227(12) 158(10) 385(12) 691(16) Araneae 25(04) 04(02) 29(04) 76(07) 11(03) 87(08) 116(10) Julida 04(01) - 04(01) - - - 04(01) Geophilomorpha 22(03) - 22(03) 04(01) - 04(01) 26(03) Isopoda 38(05) 53(06) 91(08) 188(05) 279(04) 467(05) 558(09) Mollusca Pulmonata 408(43) 27(10) 435(44) 586(22) 33(09) 619(24) 1054(66) 859 326 1185 1400 738 2138 3323 Total (102) (62) (126) (79) (61) (94) (192) 82

Table 4.4.2: Mean values of various soil nutrients recorded from three microhabitats (MHs) of the LIP and HIP treated fields

Nutrients LIP HIP (mg/kg) MH1 MH2 MH3 MH1 MH2 MH3 Wheat P 8.29 8.59 6.57 6.43 4.45 7.4 K 230 238 188 232 256 189 B 0.39 0.45 0.35 0.43 0.33 0.35 Zn 1.091 1.331 0.77 0.99 1.573 1.64 Cu 2.76 2.383 1.67 2.28 2.924 1.76 Fe 8.82 10.1 6.03 7.26 14.76 5.58 Mn 11.92 11.42 6.2 10.85 11.22 8.006 OM% 0.85 0.75 0.69 0.68 0.83 0.71 EC dSm-1 0.37 0.42 0.23 0.38 0.39 0.20 Soil pH 7.81 7.76 7.88 7.79 7.94 7.86 Sugarcane P 4.51 10.98 8.12 4.27 8.23 6.86 K 206 260 210 242 236 179 B 0.44 0.64 0.43 0.41 0.234 0.43 Zn 1.147 0.93 1.27 1.091 1.676 1.07 Cu 1.563 1.36 1.967 1.715 2.03 1.66 Fe 6.58 6.38 6.61 3.89 6.47 5.48 Mn 14.26 16.85 11.34 10.61 14.39 9.63 OM % 0.74 0.8 0.84 0.76 0.696 0.75 EC dSm-1 0.44 0.35 0.29 0.26 0.41 0.78 Soil pH 7.86 7.70 7.80 7.92 7.95 7.98

Canonical correspondence analysis (CCA)

Canonical Correspondence Analysis (CCA) was applied to determine the effect of some adaphic factors on the distribution of soil macroinvertebrates collected from LIP and HIP treated wheat and sugarcane fields (Figures 4.4.1- 4.4.4). The ordination space represented a relationship of various species of soil macroinvertebrates to adaphic factors like pH, EC and OM, nutrients (P, K, Mn, Fe, Zn, Cu, B). Highly abundant species were taken in to account for CCA analysis as they were the best representatives of field samples and the responses of various faunal species towards physical and chemical soil factors in LIP and HIP treated wheat and sugarcane fields (Table 4.4.3 - 4.4.6). Canonical Correspondence Analysis revealed that P, K, Zn, Cu, Fe, Mn, B, OM, EC and pH are important ingredients to determine the distribution of various macro-invertebrate species in LIP treated wheat field (Figure 4.4.1 and Table 4.4.3). Most of the species were associated with pH, Fe, Mn and Zn on the first two axes as compared to K, Cu, B, EC, P and OM. The first two axes of this ordination collectively explained 75.861% variation in the distribution of invertebrate species. Amongst the community parameters Cu and pH showed a strong positive correlation with environment (r = 0.529 and r = 0.637), respectively while P, K, Mn, and EC were negatively correlated (r = - 0.600, r = - 0.546, r = - 0.581 and r = - 0.804), respectively. Zn and Fe were negatively correlated to second axis as (r = -0.710, r = - 0.545) respectively. B and Soil pH were negatively correlated to third axis as (r = -0.637 and r = -0.610) respectively. P, K, Zn, Cu, Fe, Mn, B, O.M %, EC and pH determined the distribution of soil macroinvertebrates in HIP treated wheat field (Figure 4.4.2 and Table 4.4.4) where most of the invertebrate species were associated with K, pH, Fe and B on the first two axis as compared to Zn, Cu, Mn, EC and OM.

1.7

1.4 5

1.0

EC dSm -1 18 19 0.7 Cu P

0.3 B

% O.M % 2417 13 9 k 10

14 -1.7-1.4 -1.0 -0.7 -0.3 20 0.3 2 70.7 1.0 1.4 1.7 22 21 -0.3 6 Soil pH 11 23 Mn 4 3 -0.7

12 16 -1.0 Fe CCA Axis 2,EV= 0.194, 26.707 Zn -1.4

-1.7 CCA Axis 1,EV= 0.357, 49.154%

Figure: 4.4.1: Association of various soil macro-invertebrates to phosphorous (P), Potassium (K) Zinc (Zn), copper (Cu), Iron (Fe), Manganese (Mn), Boron (B), organic matter (OM), electrical conductivity (EC), and hydrogen ion concentration (pH), in low input wheat fields LIP

2. Forficula auricularia 3. Forficula spp. 4. Pangaeus bilineatus 5. Harpalus spp. 6. Formica spp.17. Camponotus spp. 9. Solenopsis invicta 10. Dolichoderus taschenberg 11. Formica spp.2 12. Clubiona obesa 13. Armadillidium vulgare 14. Armadillidium nasatun 16. Armadillidium spp.2 17. Monadenia fidelis 18. Haplotrema vancouverense 19. Megomphix hemphilli 20. Balea perversa 21. Cochlodina laminate 22. Oxychillus alliarius 23. Oxychillus cellarium 24. Oxychillus draparnandii

Table 4.4.3: CCA of the abundance of soil macro-fauna at the soil nutrients of the LIP wheat fields of Faisalabad

Summary of analysis Axis 1 Axis 2 Axis 3 Axis 4 Eigenvalues 0.357 0.194 0.102 0.040 Percentage 49.154 26.707 14.060 5.531 Cum. Percentage 49.154 75.861 89.921 95.452 Cum.Constr.Percentage 49.154 75.861 89.921 95.452 Spec.-env. correlations 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

Interset correlations between env. variables and site scores Envi. Axis 1 Envi. Axis 2 Envi. Axis 3 Envi. Axis 4 P -0.600 0.249 -0.190 0.212 k -0.546 0.087 0.010 -0.032 Zn 0.347 -0.710 -0.071 0.338 Cu 0.529 0.342 -0.611 0.479 Fe 0.250 -0.545 -0.008 -0.420 Mn -0.581 -0.341 -0.239 -0.680 B 0.020 0.179 -0.637 -0.250 O.M % -0.408 0.097 0.124 -0.889 EC dSm-1 -0.804 0.409 -0.270 -0.057 Soil pH 0.637 -0.213 -0.610 0.357

1.3 Soil pH

1.0 12 Cu

0.8 4 14 Zn B 0.5

9 5 % 0.3 2 10 Fe 7 P

-1.0-0.8 -0.5 15 -0.3 6 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.0 8 1.3

-0.3 13 Mn -0.5 EC dSm -1

CCA Axis 2,EV= 0.140, 31.653 k O.M % -0.8 11

-1.0

CCA Axis 1, EV= 0.192, 43.393%

Figure: 4.4.2: HIP wheat

2. Forficula auricularia 4. Pangaeus bilineatus 5. Harpalus spp. 6. Formica spp.1 7. Camponotus spp. 8. Solenopsis japonica 9. Solenopsis invicta 10. Dolichoderus taschenberg 11. Formica spp.2 12. Clubiona obesa 13. Armadillidium vulgare 14. Armadillidium nasatun 15. Armadillidium spp.1

Table 4.4.4: CCA of the abundance of soil invertebrate fauna at the soil nutrients of the HIP wheat fields of Faisalabad

Summary of analysis

Axis 1 Axis 2 Axis 3

Eigenvalues 0.192 0.140 0.076

Percentage 43.393 31.653 17.155

Cum. Percentage 43.393 75.046 92.202

Cum.Constr.Percentage 43.393 75.046 92.202

Spec.-env. correlations 1.000 1.000 1.000

Interset correlations between env. variables and site scores

Envi. Axis 1 Envi. Axis 2 Envi. Axis 3

P 0.357 0.102 -0.491 k -0.283 -0.526 -0.385

Zn 0.273 0.510 0.659

Cu -0.346 0.772 -0.460

Fe 0.629 0.164 0.629

Mn 0.891 -0.352 0.193

B 0.668 0.459 -0.175

O.M % 0.720 -0.589 0.137

EC dSm-1 0.011 -0.421 -0.837

Soil pH 0.052 0.987 0.130

The first two axes of this ordination collectively explained 75.046% variation in the distribution of invertebrate species. Fe, Mn, B and OM showed a strong positive correlation with the environment (r = 0.629, r = 0.891, r = 0.668 and r = 0.820), respectively. Zn, Cu and pH were also positively correlated to second axis as (r = 0.510, r = 0.772 and r = 0.987) respectively, while K and OM were negatively correlated (r = -0.526 and r = -0.589). Zn and Fe were positively correlated to third axis as (r = 0.659 and r = 0.629) and EC was negatively correlated (r = -0.837). Distribution of soil macro- invertebrate in LIP treated cane fields was also determined by P, K, Zn, Cu, Fe, Mn, B, OM %, EC and pH (Figure 4.4.3 and table 4.4.5) and as compared to K, Zn, Cu, Mn, B, EC, most of the species were associated with pH, Fe, P, and OM on the first two axis. The first two axes of this ordination collectively explained 68.589% variation in the distribution of invertebrate species. P and Fe showed a strong positive correlation with the first environmental axis (r = 0.596 and r = 0.728), respectively while EC was negatively correlated (r = - 0.567). Zn, Cu and EC were positively correlated to second axis as (r = 0.574, r = 0.773 and r = 0.735), respectively. K, Fe, Mn and B were positively correlated to third axis as (r = 0.562, r = 0.651, r = 0.502 and r = .608), respectively while P and pH were negatively correlated as (r = -0.608 and r = -0.794) respectively. Canonical Correspondence Analysis of HIP treated sugarcane fauna revealed that P, K, Zn, Cu, Fe, Mn, B, O.M %, EC and pH were important gradients to determine the distribution of invertebrate species (Figure 4.4.4 and table 4.4.6) and most of the invertebrate species were associated with pH, Fe and P on the first two axis.

1.5 47 EC dSm -1 Cu 1.2

Mn Zn 0.9 O.M % 28 11

0.6 k 44 9 40 % 42 10.3 6 39 26 B 45 50 -1.2 -0.9 -0.6 -0.3 48 53 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 10 27 Fe 38 4 -0.3 34 46 2 25 33 51 43 41 52 -0.6 P 49 Soil pH CCA Axis 2,EV =0.325, 32.346 =0.325, 2,EV Axis CCA

-0.9

-1.2

CCA Axis 1,EV= 0.365, 36.243%

Figure: 4.4.3 LIP sugarcane

1. Pheretima elongate 2. Forficula auricularia 4. Pangaeus bilineatus 6. Formica spp.1 9. Solenopsis invicta 10. Dolichoderus taschenbergi 11. Formica spp.2 25. Pheretima posthuma 26. Pheretima morrisi 27. Pheretima hawayana 28. Pheretima suctoria 33. Camponotus herculeanus 34. Camponotus pensylvanicus 38. Hippasa madhuae 39. Hippasa partita 40. Trachelipus rathkei 41. Punctum spp.1 42. Planorbis planorbis 43. Planorbis convexiusculus 44. Planorbis merguiensis 45. Planorbis nanus 46. Biomphalaria havanensis 47. Hawaiia minuscule 48. Pupoides spp 49. Caecilloides spp. 50. Glessula spp. 51. Curvella spp. 52. Cryptaustenia spp. 53. Bensonia spp

Table 4.4.5: CCA of the abundance of soil macro-fauna at soil nutrients of the LIP sugarcane fields of Faisalabad Summary of analysis

Axis 1 Axis 2 Axis 3 Axis 4 Axis 5

Eigenvalues 0.365 0.325 0.159 0.092 0.064

Percentage 36.243 32.346 15.850 9.159 6.403

Cum. Percentage 36.243 68.588 84.438 93.597 100.000

Cum.Constr.Percentage 36.243 68.588 84.438 93.597 100.000

Spec.-env. correlations 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

Interset correlations between env. variables and site scores

Envi. Axis 1 Envi. Axis 2 Envi. Axis 3 Envi. Axis 4 Envi. Axis 5

P 0.596 -0.325 -0.608 -0.039 0.411 k -0.027 0.293 0.562 -0.759 0.147

Zn 0.299 0.574 -0.128 -0.683 0.315

Cu -0.152 0.773 -0.065 -0.058 0.610

Fe 0.728 -0.079 0.651 -0.040 0.197

Mn -0.302 0.582 0.502 -0.550 0.124

B 0.237 0.000 0.608 -0.531 -0.541

O.M % -0.408 0.476 0.052 -0.763 -0.146

EC dSm -1 -0.567 0.735 0.138 0.031 -0.344

Soil pH 0.321 -0.352 -0.794 0.113 0.361

1.8

k 1.5 4 Mn Fe 1.1 Zn B 46 Cu 11 9 O.M % 0.7 25 44

29 0.4 1

% 7 39 40 6 32 26 -1.8-1.5 -1.1 -0.7 -0.4 0.4 0.7 1.1 1.5 1.8 35 P EC dSm -1 -0.4 36 Soil pH

-0.7 47

2 -1.1

CCA Axis 2,EV=0.210, 25.343 2,EV=0.210, Axis CCA 30

-1.5

-1.8

CCA Axis 1, EV= 0.344, 41.534%

Figure: 4.4.4: HIP sugarcane

1. Pheretima elongata 2. Forficula auricularia 4. Pangaeus bilineatus 6. Formica spp.1 9. Solenopsis invicta 10. Dolichoderus taschenbergi 11. Formica spp.2 25. Pheretima posthuma 26. Pheretima morrisi 27. Pheretima hawayana 28. Pheretima suctoria 33. Camponotus herculeanus 34. Camponotus pensylvanicus 38. Hippasa madhuae 39. Hippasa partita 40. Trachelipus rathkei 41. Punctum spp.1 42. Planorbis planorbis 43. Planorbis convexiusculus44. Planorbis merguiensis 45. Planorbis nanus 46. Biomphalaria havanensis 47. Hawaiia minuscule 48. Pupoides spp 49. Caecilloides spp. 50. Glessula spp. 51. Curvella spp. 52. Cryptaustenia spp. 53. Bensonia spp

Table 4.4.6: CCA of the abundance of soil macroinvertebrates at the soil nutrients of the HIP sugarcane fields of Faisalabad Summary of analysis

Axis 1 Axis 2 Axis 3 Axis 4 Axis 5

Eigenvalues 0.344 0.210 0.138 0.079 0.058

Percentage 41.534 25.343 16.614 9.548 6.962

Cum. Percentage 41.534 66.876 83.490 93.038 100.00

Cum.Constr.Percentage 41.534 66.876 83.490 93.038 100.00

Spec.-env. correlations 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

Interset correlations between env. variables and site scores

Envi. Axis 1 Envi. Axis 2 Envi. Axis 3 Envi. Axis 4 Envi. Axis 5

P 0.801 -0.072 -0.094 0.001 -0.587 k -0.518 0.795 0.313 -0.017 -0.038

Zn 0.002 0.555 0.605 0.011 -0.571

Cu -0.339 0.413 0.523 -0.368 -0.552

Fe 0.372 0.617 0.011 -0.515 0.465

Mn -0.717 0.588 0.368 -0.042 0.049

B -0.450 0.521 0.326 0.111 0.639

O.M % -0.703 0.387 0.459 0.302 -0.234

EC dSm -1 -0.832 -0.104 0.398 0.062 0.367

Soil pH 0.715 -0.264 -0.166 0.080 -0.621

The first two axes of this ordination collectively explained 66.877% variation in the distribution of invertebrate species. Amongst the community parameters P and pH showed a positive correlation with the first environmental axis (r = 0.801 and r = 0.715) respectively while K, Mn, OM and EC were negatively correlated (r = - 0.518, r = - 0.717, r = - 0.703 and r = - 0.832) respectively. K, Zn, Fe, Mn and B were positively correlated to the second axis (r = 0.795, r = 0.555, r = 0.617, r = 0.588 and r = 0.521) respectively. Zn and Cu were positively correlated to third axis as (r = 0.605 and r = 0.523), respectively. PHYSICAL FACTORS

Organic matter (OM)

Both LIP and HIP treated wheat fields showed higher values of OM as compared to those of sugarcane, respectively. A total of 14 soil invertebrates responded to OM in all the four types of fields. In LIP wheat pulmonates namely, Monadenia fidelis (27.1%) Oxychillus draparnandii (3.14%) was observed to have association with OM whereas Solenopsis japonica (11.1%) showed affiliation towards OM in HIP wheat fields (Annexure-X). In sugarcane fields, seven species viz., Pheretima morrisi (2.13%), Formica spp.1, (4.27%) Solenopsis invicta (6.75%), Dolichoderus taschenbergi (0.85%), Hippasa partita (1.02%), Trachelipus rathkei (14.6%), Planorbis planorbis (3.93%) in LIP soils and four species namely Gryllotalpa orientalis (3.29%), Camponotus spp. (4.12), Hippasa partita (0.99%), Trachelipus rathkei (44.5%), responded positive to OM in HIP fields (Annexure-XI). It was noteworthy that the two later species a spider and an isopod respectively responded in both types of sugarcane fields. About G.orientalis, (3.29%) was associated with OM, Cu, B and Mn too in HIP of sugarcane only. Haplotoxid Pharetima morrisi showed significant association with OM in LIP sugarcane fields (Table 4.4.7a and b, 4.4.8a and b).

Table 4.4.7a: Association of various soil macro-invertebrates to organic matter (OM), electrical conductivity (EC), hydrogen ion concentration (pH), Iron (Fe) copper (Cu), Boron (B), Zinc (Zn), Manganese (Mn), phosphorous (P), and Potassium (K) in low input wheat fields(LIP)

Order Species No. Species OM EC pH Fe Cu B Zn Mn P K allotted in CCA

01 Pheretima elongata Haplotaxida 02 Forficula auricularia + Dermaptera 03 Forficula spp. + +

04 Pangaeus bilineatus + + Hemiptera 05 Harpalus spp. Coleoptera 06 Formica spp.1 + Hymenoptera 07 Camponotus spp. +

08 Solenopsis japonica

09 Solenopsis invicta +

10 Dolichoderus taschenbergi + O

11 Formica spp.2 O O

12 Clubiona obesa O + Araneae 13 Armadillidium vulgare + + Isopod 14 Armadillidium nasatun +

16 Armadillidium spp.2 + +

17 Monadenia fidelis + + + + Pulmonata 18 Haplotrema vancouverense + O

19 Megomphix hemphilli O

20 Balea perversa +

21 Cochlodina laminata + +

22 Oxychillus alliarius +

23 Oxychillus cellarium + +

24 Oxychillus draparnandii + + + +

Total Number of species in LIP wheat fields included in CCA= 23 (+) Species closer to the effect of different factors, (O) Species in the same axis but not too close

Table 4.4.7b: Association of various soil macro-invertebrates to organic matter (OM), electrical conductivity (EC), hydrogen ion concentration (pH), Iron (Fe) copper (Cu), Boron (B), Zinc (Zn), Manganese (Mn), phosphorous (P), and Potassium (K) in high input wheat fields(HIP)

Order Species No. Species OM EC pH Fe Cu B Zn Mn P K allotted in CCA

01 Pheretima elongata Haplotaxida 02 Forficula auricularia Dermaptera O + O + 04 Pangaeus bilineatus Hemiptera + 05 Harpalus spp. Coleoptera + 06 Formica spp.1 Hymenoptera + 07 Camponotus spp. O + O O O 08 Solenopsis japonica O O 09 Solenopsis invicta O 10 Dolichoderus taschenbergi + + 11 Formica spp.2 + 12 Clubiona obesa Araneae O 13 Armadillidium vulgare Isopod + 14 Armadillidium nasatun O 15 Armadillidium spp.1 O

Total Number of species in HIP wheat fields included in CCA= 14

(+) Species closer to the effect of different factors, (O) Species in the same axis but not too close

Table 4.4.8a: Association of various soil macro-invertebrates to organic matter (OM), electrical conductivity (EC), hydrogen ion concentration (pH), Iron (Fe) copper (Cu), Boron (B), Zinc (Zn), Manganese (Mn), phosphorous (P), and Potassium (K) in low input sugarcane fields(LIP)

Species No. Species OM EC pH Fe Cu B Zn Mn P K allotted in CCA Order Haplotaxida 01 Pheretima elongata 25 Pheretima posthuma 26 Pheretima morrisi + + + 27 Pheretima hawayana + + 28 Pheretima suctoria O Orthoptera 02 Forficula auricularia Hemiptera 04 Pangaeus bilineatus + Hymenoptera 06 Formica spp.1 O 33 Camponotus herculeanus O 09 Solenopsis invicta + O 10 Dolichoderus taschenbergi + + O + + O 34 Camponotus pensylvanicus O 11 Formica spp.2 O O + Araneae 38 Hippasa madhuae 39 Hippasa partita O Isopod 40 Trachelipus rathkei O Pulmonata 41 Punctum spp.1 + + 42 Planorbis planorbis O 43 Planorbis convexiusculus O 44 Planorbis merguiensis O

45 Planorbis nanus + + 46 Biomphalaria havanensis 47 Hawaiia minuscula 48 Pupoides spp 49 Caecilloides spp. O 50 Glessula spp. + + O 51 Curvella spp. + O 52 Cryptaustenia spp. + 53 Bensonia spp + O +

Total Number of species in LIP sugarcane field included in CCA= 29

(+) Species closer to the effect of different factors, (O) Species in the same axis but not too close

100

Table 4.4.8b: Association of various soil macro-invertebrates to organic matter (OM), electrical conductivity (EC), hydrogen ion concentration (pH), Iron (Fe) copper (Cu), Boron (B), Zinc (Zn), Manganese (Mn), phosphorous (P), and Potassium (K) in high input sugarcane fields(HIP)

Species No. Species OM EC pH Fe Cu B Zn Mn P K allotted in CCA Order Haplotaxida 01 Pheretima elongata O 25 Pheretima posthuma O 26 Pheretima morrisi + Orthoptera 29 Gryllotalpa orientalis + O + + O 02 Forficula auricularia O Hemiptera 04 Pangaeus bilineatus + 30 Tritomegas sexmaculatus O Coleoptera 32 Pentodon idiota + + Hymenoptera 06 Formica spp.1 + + + 07 Camponotus spp. + O O 09 Solenopsis invicta O 35 Formica sanguinea + 36 Formica exsectoides + 11 Formica spp.2 O 39 Hippasa partita + O O + O Isopod 40 Trachelipus rathkei + + O Pulmonata 44 Planorbis merguiensis O 46 Biomphalaria havanensis + 47 Hawaiia minuscula + Total Number of species in HIP sugarcane field included in CCA = 19

101

(+) Species closer to the effect of different factors, (O) Species in the same axis but not too close

102

Hydrogen ion concentration (pH)

A total of 23 species in all four types of fields was observed sensitive to hydrogen ion concentration (pH) of the soil. Of these, ten responded positively to a pH 7.2 in LIP treated sugarcane fields These included pulmonates (Punctum spp., Planorbis convexiuseulus, Caccillorides spp., Currella spp., Cryptaustenia spp. and Bensonia spp), hymenopterans (Camponotus herculeanus, Dolichoderus taschenbergi and camponotus pennsylvanicus) and an earthworm (Pheretima morrisi). Another seven species viz., Forficula anricularia (Dermaptera), Tritomegas sexmaculatus (Hemiptera), Pentodon idiota (Coleoptera), Formica spp. Formica sanguinea, Formica Exsetoides ( Hymenoptera) and a Pumonata, Hawaiia minuscule were recorded soil with pH 7.6 in HIP sugarcane fields. Three species in each LIP and HIP of wheat fields preferred pH of 5.25 and 7.2 respectively. The respective species included F. auricularia, Formica spp. and Camponotus spp. and P. bilineatus (Hemiptera), Harpalus spp. (Coleoptera) and Camponotus spp. The later species seemed tolerate wide range of pH as depicted from its association in both type of wheat fields (Table 4.4.7a-b, table 4.4.8a-b).

Electrical conductivity (EC)

EC is an indicator of dissolved metals measuring soluble salts present in the soil. EC is a Physical property of matter describing how easily electric current flows through a given material. The mean value of EC of two types of sugarcane and wheat fields has been given in table 4.4.2.

The CCA ordination of the soil in vertebrates based on their importance value revealed that four pulmonates (Monodenia fidelis, Haplotrema vancouverense, Megomphix hemphilli and Oxychillus draparndii), three Hymenopterans (D. taschenbergi, Solenopsis invicta, Formica spp.), an earthworm (Pharetima morrisi) and an ispode (Armadillidium vulgare) showed strong association to EC in LIP fields of sugarcane and wheat respectively (4.4.8a-b). Isopode, Trachelipus rathkii, a detrivore species showed association towards EC in HIP sugarcane fields, and to OM in LIP sugarcane (4.4.8b).

103

CHEMICAL (NUTRIENT) FACTORS

The availability of P in the soil was preferred by ten species of soil invertebrates of which a majority were pulmonates i.e. (4 out 6) in LIP sugarcane and mostly (3 out of 4) in LIP treated wheat. Species specific response towards P was not so discernible in HIP treated fields of both crops. Hymenopteran (three species), Oligochaets and pulmonates (two species each) and hemipterans (one species) showed affiliation to Fe in HIP treated sugarcane fields whereas a majority (six species) responded towards Fe in LIP treated wheat fields. The response of soil invertebrates towards Zn and Cu was significant for six and five species in wheat fields of LIP and HIP respectively. Similarly few species responded positively towards the other chemical factors such as B, Zn and Mn. The response of soil macroinvertebrates to various adaphic factors varied with the vegetation. For example most of the pulmonates preferred to live in the sugarcane with the soil pH of 7.6, where hymenopterans and isopods showed association with organic matter in these fields even at high pH i.e. 8.2. In the acidic wheat fields with the mean pH of 5.25, the pulmonates and few isopods preferred EC of 0.30 dSm-1. Similarly other preferences of various soil invertebrate species were evidenced through CCA ordination.

104

CHAPTER # 05 DISCUSSION

DIVERSITY OF SOIL MACROINVERTEBRATES

Sustainable agriculture is based on long-term goals accompanied with filling the gap between supply and demand Low input (LIP) agriculture farming is one of the several alternative farming systems whose methods are adaptable in sustainable agriculture. Low input farming practices are not only human friendly and high yielding but also are environment friendly, Compatible with the demands of the earth's ecosystem and compete with food scarcity. Hence, it is necessary to utilize the planet's resources wisely and in an economically understanding about various approaches to human friendly ecological agricultural practices. Both wheat and sugarcane fields under low input treatments had greater macroinvertebrate diversity than those under high input practices importance has also been acknowledged by Rana et al. (2010a, b), Siddiqui et al. (2005), Barros, et al. (2004), Barros et al. (2003), Liiri et al. (2002) and Tilman et al. (1996).

Low-input farming practices are based on less reliance on chemicals both fertilizers and pesticides and their replacement them with natural manures and bio-pesticides. It also includes crop rotation, crop residue, legumes, off-farm organic wastes, mechanical cultivation. The LIP farming provides strategies for maintenance of soil productivity, supply of nutrients to plant, and to biological control insects, weeds, and other invading pests. Farmers adopt these practices primarily to reduce costs and to minimize adverse impact on the environment (USDA, 1980; Beus and Dunlap, 1990; Francis et al., 1990). However, some chemicals/ elements are helpful to examine the LIP farming with alternative HIP farming systems in existence and these are largely based on exclusive use of synthesized chemicals against biological farming practices. During present investigations, it has been observed from that LIP agriculture practices are only one umbrella under which all of the above-mentioned strategies fall and important in sustainable agriculture for achieving long- term goals (Francis, et al., 1990).

Ecological co-relation to species diversity for primary production and ideal ecosystem functioning have been acknowledged by Rana, et al. (2006, 2010a,b), Siddiqui et al. (2005), Barros et al. (2004), Decaen et al. (2004), Barros, et al. (2002, 2003), Liiri et al. (2002), Schwartz et al. (2000), Tilman et al. (1996). They have reported asymptotic relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. However, soil community comprises a large 105

number of species which play central role in various ecosystem functions like soil organic matter turn-over and establishment of its structure dynamics, while, soil management have dramatic possessions upon soil invertebrate communities and lead to imperative modifications in soil functioning. Species structure also varies with time owing to cyclic cadence with respect to frequency of temperature and humidity. Keeping in view their importance in soil decomposition and substantia1 part of the global biodiversity, the species dynamics of subterranean macroinvertebrates in agriculture sector is explored with regard to LIP and HIP farming, as well as micro-habitats viz. open edge, under tree and inside field among wheat and sugarcane.

Among wheat fields, total 1185 specimens belonging to 16 orders, 57 families and 126 species were recorded and identified up to species level from the both low- and high- input fields (LIP and HIP). Monadenia fidelis (12.41%), Formica spp. (6.58%) and Componotus spp. (6.58%), Solenopsis invicta (4.64%), Oxychillus alliarius (3.29%), Armadillidium vulgare (3.21%), Harpalus spp. (2.95%), Megomphix hemphilli (2.45%), Formi spp. (2.19%), Armadillidium nasatum (2.11%), Oxychillus cellarium (1.86%), Haplotrema vancouverense (1.69%), Forficula auricularia (1.52%), Oxychillus draparnaudi (1.43%), Dolichoderus taschenbegi (1.27%), Componotus pennsylvanicus (1.18%), Ischyropalpus fuscus (1.18%), Hippasa partita (1.01%) and Microtermes obesi (1.01%) were the most prominent species from the entire collection among low input and high input fields. However, low input farming was recorded with higher abundance (859) as compared to high input, where only (326) specimens were recorded.

As for as sugarcane fields are concerned, total 2138 specimens of macroinvertebrates were captured out of which 1400 from the low input farming system representing 10 orders, 32 families, and 79 species as well as 738 specimens from the high input farming system representing again 10 orders 32 families and 61 species. Coleoptera, Hymenoptera and Pulmonata were the dominant orders. Thus LIP farms were more species rich than HIP farms. Three species viz Punctum spp (5.94%), Cryptaustenia spp. (3.74%) and Caecilloides spp. (1.87%) were highly abundant and restricted to the low input only to this habitat. No species with respect to HIP fields of sugarcane. Majority of species showed such a numerical superiority and restriction were almost equally abundant in both LIP and HIP farming systems. These include Trachelipus rathkei (20.63%), Formica spp. (5.10%), Hawaiia minuscule (4.77%), Solenopsis invicta 106

(4.68%), Pheretima posthuma (4.12%), Forficula auricularia (3.09%), Planorbis planorbis (2.29%) and Pheretima elongata (1.78%) were recorded from both the farming system, occurance of these soil macroinvertebrates indicated that they are resistant to synthetic chemicals which are used to eliminate the pests from the HIP farms. Thus high input farming is significantly influencing the population of soil macro-fauna and their ecological role (Matson et al.,1997) present study confirmed that pesticide and insecticides resistance has become a ubiquitous problem (Scheu and Schulz, 1996; Tilman et al., 2002; Doring and Kromp, 2003; Purtauf et al.,2005; Birkhofer et al., 2008a, b; Bengtsson et al., 2005). Owing to these aberrations, it has been realized that more sustainable agriculture is needed to ensure long-term productivity and stability of ecosystems.

In wheat higher richness was recorded in low input (102) than in high input (62). Similarly, among the micro-habitats, low input fields had high species richness under tree (74), followed by open edge (57) and inside field (21), while, among high input fields, species richness was higher 34 at open edge other 29 than under tree and 29 inside fields. The diversity index was high in low input (3.848) as compared to high input fields (3.611), highlighting bare differences of disturbance. However, species diversity in microhabitats was higher in low input among open edge, sub-shadow (3.458), (3.566), while, inside the field, high input field was dominant (3.194). Evenness was (0.452) in low input and (0.706) in high input fields. In sugarcane fields, comparison of LIP and HIP fields have showed significantly differences (p<0.001). But, the comparison of LIP and HIP microhabitat viz., open edge, under tree and inside the fields have also showed significant differences (p<0.001). These results indicated that HIP had deteriorating effects not only on abundance but also on the diversity of macroinvertebrates as previous field studies (Siddiqui et al., 2005; Rana et al., 2006; Kapagianni et al., 2010) have reported negative association between low (organic) and high input (conventional) farming with sever deterioration in high input system..

Species evenness (E) in both the crops and in all the microhabitats under study was higher in low input fields than high input. In the same milieu, t-test analysis was also significant (p < 0.01) among three micro-habitats. These estimates supported the previous findings of Schinner et al. (1993) and Mader et al. (2002) who opined that organically managed soils exhibit greater biological activity than the conventionally managed soils. 107

Use of pesticides reduces the numbers of non-target soil arthropods through alterations of the microhabitat (Pfiffner and Niggli, 1996). Reduction in use of pesticides can enhance soil biological and chemical properties (Scow et al., 1994), enhance nutrient cycling and reduce nutrient losses from soils (Arden-Clarke and Hodges, 1988), and reduce contamination of ground and water supplies. For future strategies, their numbers, biomass, activity and community structure is important to perform critical processes and functions of soil to establish ideal agro-climatic ecosystem because they are responsible for nutrient retention in soil. If, nutrients are not retained contained by any soil, further output will not be superlative (Schwartz, et al., 2000; Symstad et al., 1998, Hector et al., 1999; Huston, 1997; Tilman 2000; Siddiqui et al., 2005; Rana et al., 2006). Because, scientific research has demonstrated that organic agriculture significantly increases the density and species of soils’ life. Suitable conditions for soil fauna and flora as well as soil forming, conditioning and nutrient cycling can be encouraged by organic practices such as; manipulation of crop rotations and strip cropping green manuring and organic fertilization (animal manure, compost, crop residues); minimum tillage; and of course, avoidance of pesticides and herbicides use (Scialabba, 2000).

The t-test analysis of wheat fields was significant (t = 3.369; p < 0.000) among LIP and HIP cultivations. Whilst, t-test analysis was significant among open edge (t = 2.259; p < 0.02), under tree (t = 6.881; p < 0.000) and inside field (t = -5.084; p < 0.001) between LIP and HIP cultivations. In relation to this, it has been observed that use of pesticides and artificial fertilization has reduced the numbers of non-target soil arthropods either directly or indirectly through alterations of the microhabitat as already reported by Pfiffner and Niggli (1996). Reduction in use of pesticides can enhance soil biological and chemical properties (Scow et al., 1994), and it will enhance nutrient cycling and reduce nutrient losses from soils (Arden-Clarke and Hodges, 1988), along with reduction in contamination of soil and ground water supplies. The t-test analysis was significant (t = 10.24; p < 0.000) among LIP and HIP cultivations. Whilst, t-test analysis was significant among open edge (t = 5.553; p < 0.000), under tree (t = 8.310; p < 0.000) and inside field (t = 5.105; p < 0.000) between LIP and HIP cultivations. Similarities as wheat fields owing to effects of use of pesticides and artificial fertilizers were recorded among sugarcane fields (Pfiffner and Niggli, 1996). Therefore, reduction in use of pesticides to enhance the soil biological and chemical properties for ideal

108

nutrient cycling and reduction in nutrient losses and contamination soil and ground water supplies is necessary.

It has been realized that LIP farming is important for sustainable agriculture to ensure long-term productivity and stability of ecosystems. As it significantly increases the density and diversity of soil macro-fauna (present study). In contrast, high input (HIP) farming has introduced momentous deterioration to population dynamics of soil macro-fauna, disrupting the ecological censes of soil as viewed by Scheu & Schulz, 1996; Tilman et al., 2002; Doring & Kromp, (2003); Purtauf et al. (2005); Birkhofer, et al. (2008a, b) and Bengtsson ,et al. (2005).

Soil chemical and physical parameters displayed fewer differences in present study and exhibited higher soil aggregate stability in the low input than in the high input and also exhibited healthy ecosystems owing to high species diversity. Many farmers are turning towards organic or ‘low input’ farming as a strategy for economic survival in advanced world (Terry and Linda, 1986). In previous study, Siddiqui et al. (2005) and Rana et al. (2006) reported negative association between low and high input farming on foliage and soil macro-fauna in wheat and sugarcane crops, with regard to micro-habitats.

PROABLE INTERACTION AMONG FAUNAL POPULATIONS Predators are said to play an important role in environmental sanitations. But their number should not exceed the optimum range otherwise they will become the pest and damage the natural balance of organisms (Schmitz, 2009). There is a large degree of specialization among the predators. The specialists are usually particularly well suited to capturing their preferred prey while generalist captures each and every available prey item. An alternative view about predation is that it is a form of competition: the genes of both the predator and prey are competing for their survival (Doghairi, 2004).

Predator-prey models based on temporal basis interpret the consumption rate as a part of behavioral phenomenon. One of the classical assumption is that a predator encounter different preys at random and the trophic function depends on the abundance of prey only. It is reasonable to say that trophic function depends on abundance ratio of predator and prey. Several field and laboratory studies support this hypothesis (Arditi and Ginzburg, 1989). The predator prey ratio appeared to be constant in food webs of

109

different habitats of agro-ecosystems (Gaston, 1996). Similar trend was observed in the present study. After two year study on predator prey ratio in soil arthropods based on species richness and diversity, Lockwood et al. (1990) found that a constant p/p ratio had lower values in more sensitive density ratios, which showed significant variation in time and space. Similar situation was observed in case of C. septumpuncata with four prey species as depicted in the form of horizontal straight line and significant R-values but with lower p/p ratio. When the taxa within the food web are aggregated to larger trophic groups, little changes were observed in predator-prey density ratio (Closs et al. 1999). There are examples that most of the insect predators share same prey but some species are preferred over the other (Omkar et al., 1997). Prominent fluctuations were observed in majority of p/p ratios. The non- significant R-values were further confirming the assumption. One of the probable cause for this imbalance is the crop intensification methodologies. Use of chemicals has increased to a greater extent in past few decades as observed in wheat farm based agroecosystem of Punjab. The application of chemicals in these crop fields alters the predator, pest or parasitoid ratios thus causing more loss than benefit (Siddiqui, 2005). Thus, the present study will be helpful to agronomists in providing the baseline information of arthropod p/p relationship of two zones. On these basis species specific control programmes could be designed to control different pest species, which would be useful in sustaining the crop system. This will not only lead to increase in crop yield but also stabilize the food web of agroecosystem.

EFFECT OF WEEDS ON FAUNAL POPULATIONS

Weeds constitute an important alternative food resource for insects that affects crops indirectly via their influence on beneficial insects. They also affect the ability of dispersing insects to locate crop plants. Weeds on the other hand are considered major constraint in getting increased crop production. Weeds are important for crop system as they provide refuge to natural predators of insect pests of that crop system (Capinera, 2005). Higher abundance and diversity of both ground and foliage associated predators and preys in weedy habitats enhance crop production (Ali and Reagan, 1985).

110

Studies have revealed that a diverse cropping system plays significant role in increasing crop production (Gomez, 1999; Geno and Geno, 2001). Will (1998) reported that the polyculture system give significantly greater production, concluded by comparing the productivity of monoculture cropping system of corn with the conventional polyculture system of corn, beans and squash. A diverse plant community ensures resistance to disturbance and resilience in the face of environmental perturbation (Altieri and Nicholls, 1999). Twenty six weeds were recorded from wheat and sugarcane crops in Faisalabad district. Of these were nine grassy weed species. Whereas, Ashiq et al., (2003) reported about 50 weed species in the agroecosystem of Punjab, of which fifteen were grassy weeds. The occurrence of grassy weeds in wheat-sugarcane based agroecosystem showed changed soil conditions from light sandy to loamy. Factors determining weed flora in wheat-sugarcane agroecosystem of Faisalabad might be extensive use of inorganic fertilizers, farming practices and tillage. (Siddique, 2005). Weeds like Brassica campastris, Anethum graveolens, Avena fatua and Rumex dentatus, Cynodon dactylon, Amaranthus virdus, Convolvulus arvensis, Coronopus didymus, Parathenum hystorophorus, Anagalliss arvensis, Coriandrum spp, and Sacchrum spp support variety of macroinvertebrates and thus enhance the diversity of macroinvertebrates in the agroecosystem (Schellhorn and Sork, 1997; Landis et al., 2000; Saska, 2007).

Fields margins consisting of trees, herbs and shrubs play a key role in supporting macroinvertebrate diversity. Both in sugarcane and wheat crops weeds occurring on the field margins carry significantly high macro invertebrate diversity (Hopwood, 2008 and Griﬃths et al., 2008).

Comparison between weeds occurring on the edge and center of the crop showed that Anethum graveolens, Avena fatua, Brassica campastris, Cynodon dactylon, Cnicus arvensis, Euphorbia prostrate, Phalaris minor and Polygonum plebejum significantly different in wheat crop and Cynodon dactylon, Amaranthus virdus, Convolvulus arvensis, Conyza ambigua, Coronopus didymus, Parathenum hystorophorus, Anagalliss arvensis and Sacchrum spp showed in sugarcane a significant difference (p >0.05). Weeds that give spatial heterogeneity to an agroecosystem can be categorized into three zones within an agricultural field viz., the central part of the field, the field edge, and the adjacent unploughed (border) zone(Weibull et al., 2003; Gabriel et al., 2006). The diversity and 111

assemblage of macroinvertebrates varies from the edge to the center of the crop fields. And is due to differences in microclimatic variations between the edge and the center of the field (Tshernyshev, 2001; Olson and Wackers, 2007; present study).

EFFECTS OF AGROCHEMICALS ON DIVERSITY OF SOIL MACROINVERTEBRATES Soil is formed by the combined effect of physical, chemical, biological and anthropogenic forces on soil parent rock material. Soil formation depends greatly upon the local climate and soil from different climatic zones show distinctive characteristics (Birkeland, 1999). Biological factors such as plants, animals, fungi, bacteria and humans also effect a soil formation. This process of exchange of materials from living beings to soil and from soil to living being continues to evolve until it gets stability through successional process and forms a natural ecosystem. In natural ecosystems due to continuous recycling there is no depletion of materials. In agro-ecosystems however the materials are continuously depleted due to harvesting of crops.

A natural system is modified by human activities for agricultural purposes. Major changes occur to soil environment and floral and faunal populations and community present. For soil macro fauna, the type of soil and crop species both are valuable (Olechowicz, 2004). Practices generally considered as having negative effect on soil fauna community include use of pesticides particularly insecticides, nematicides, fungicides and weedicides. Thus the combination of various practices adopted by farmers at a particular site are important in determining the soil fauna community, enhancing their beneficial activities and reducing their negative effects on soil fertility and agricultural production (IPCC., 2007).

Activities carried out by soil fauna may be considered as significant determinant of soil formation, as they facilitate the stabilization of acid organic compounds by mixing them with clay mineral elements. Soil invertebrate activities are a part of multiple factors that determine microbial activities. Soil microorganisms, roots and invertebrates have complementary adaptive strategies, with which they help different processes in soils like decomposition of organic matter, formation and maintenance of soil structure and nutrient and water supply to plants (Lavelle et al., 1993).

112

Susceptibility of Plants species to its insects pests, changes with fertilization of crops because of alteration in plant tissues nutrients. Soil fertility is exhibited by presence of high organic matter and other nutrient such as Fe, Cu, B, Zn, Mn, P and K present in the soil. These nutrients are required in less quantity, but are necessary for plant growth. Heavily fertilized soils show low abundance of soil macroinvertebrates. Excessive use of fertilizers also disturbs nutrient balance in the soil and induction of resistance in pests. Pentodon idiota of Coleoptera, Formica spp. of Hymenoptera, Hippasa partita of Aranae, Trachelipus rathkei of Isopoda and two species of pulmonata showed close association with organic matter and some of above given nutrients in case of HIP sugarcane while Componotus spp., Pheretima elongata, Solenopsis invicta, Formica spp. 2, Hippasa partita and Planorbis merguiensis showed less association with Fe, Cu, B, Zn, Mn and K. (Altieri and Nicholls, 2003; Matson et al., 1997). In HIP Wheat Forficula auricularia, Componotus spp. and Solenopsis japonica, Clubiona obesa, Armadillidium nasatum have showed less association with Fe, Cu, B, Zn, Mn and K while A. vulgare Formica spp. 1 Harplus spp. had a strong association with Cu, P and K (Slansky and Rodriguez,1987).

Sugarcane is an annual crop and receives fewer amounts of pesticides and negligible amount of weedicides as compared to other crops. Wheat, one of the cash crop of the area receives heavy doses of weedicides along with few pesticides. In a disturbed agro ecosystem there are more chances of an outbreak of a pest species. There are examples which clearly indicate that high abundance of a species is also an indicator of the environmental conditions going over there. More diversity of species is of indication that given system is more reliable and stable for the organisms (Anderson and Weigel, 2000). As it was observed in the present study that more abundance of faunal species was recorded from wheat soil while more diversity of species was observed in sugarcane soils. More species diversity is a proof of less disturbed agro ecosystem as compared to less diverse system with outbreak of a specific species.

Among different faunal species, order pulmonata is dominant one. Majority of the snails are crop pests, cause damage to different parts of plants especially the leaves. Few gastropods are predators and play a positive role within the crop system (Barros et al., 2002). The order coleoptera, hymenoptera and araneae were the next dominant orders in field data. Majority of the species are generalist while few specialist predators belonged to this category. A significant role of all the predators against many known pest of the 113

cropland is evident from many studies (Barros et al., 2002, 2003, 2004). Coccinellids live in all terrestrial ecosystems, euryphagous in feeding and euryhaline in nature. Such species could be used as bioindicator insects owing to their climatic and trophic characteristics. In the context of biological control, the coccinellids represent an important cause of mortality of coccids, aphids and mites. Spiders are insectivorous in foraging, thus are suspected to play an important predatory role in agroecosystems, woodlands and other terrestrial ecosystems. Closs et al. (1999) found that few hymenopterans are efficient pollinators; few are specialist predators against hemipteran pests while some specific species are bioindicators of an agro based land.

Soil analysis based on the contents present like organic matter, soil pH and EC; micronutrients: B, Zn, Mn, Fe, Cu and macronutrients: P and K. It was a general observation that in low input fields of both the crops i.e. wheat and sugarcane, organic matter and soil pH, among micronutrients Zn, while P and K were the important soil ingredients affecting the faunal distribution. According to Lavelle (1994) small invertebrate species present in the litter normally ingest small amount of litter, are active agent of fragmentation and transfer litter material to deep strata. The type of soil with high contents of organic matter, macronutrients and micronutrients in balance supports more faunal diversity over there.

In high input fields of both the crops few differences were observed. Again the organic matter and soil pH, among the micronutrients Zn and Cu while P and K were attractive for majority of faunal species in both the crop fields. Whereas, in sugarcane soil EC, Mn and B were also affecting the faunal distribution. In a study by Hassall and Dangerfield (1997) it was concluded that most of the collembolans, isopods and worms accelerate decomposition by deposition of their fecal matter in humid microsites, deeper in soil profile. Thus the distribution of such species is of great importance for specific soil texture.

CCA analysis showed that herbivore species such as Gryllotalpa orientalis and Forficula auricularia (Orthoptera) showed less association with organic matter while P. Morris (Haplotaxida) showed close association with all the nutrients in LIP sugarcane (Morales et al., 2001). While in case of HIP sugarcane same species showed close association with OM and other Nutrients such as B and Mn. In case of Wheat LIP certain

114

species of Dermaptra, Hemiptra, Hymenoptera, Isopoda and pulmonata significant association with OM, EC and soil nutrients like Fe, Cu, B, Zn, Mn, P and K.

Diversity of the soil fauna may be altered due to change in pH by anthropogenic activities (Hagvar, 1998). In LIP Sugarcane Camponotus herculeanus, Dolichoderus taschenbergi , Camponotus pennsylvanicus, Planorbis convexiusculus and Caecilloides spp. had less association with pH. While Pheretima hawayana and some species of pulmonata showed close association with pH of soil. Close association with pH was shown by the members of Hymenoptera, Coleoptera and Pulmonata in Sugarcane HIP and relatively less association was shown by F. auricularia and T. sexmaculatus. On the other hand in Wheat LIP some species of order Hymenoptera and Dermaptra showed more association with pH, while member of order Hemiptera showed close association with pH in case of Wheat HIP. Therefore, presence or absence of particular fauna indicates the alteration in soil properties (Paoletti et al., 1991).

115

CHAPTER # 06 SUMMARY

DIVERSITY OF SOIL MACROINVERTEBRATES: Present study was conducted to underline the diversity of soil macrofauna among wheat and sugarcane crops for two consecutive years by comparing low input faring verses high input farming system. Both crops had different habitats, climate and resources for the survival of macro-invertebrate fauna, total of 1185 specimens belonging to 16 orders, 57 families and 126 species were recorded in wheat fields. Low input farms had higher abundance (n = 859) as compared to high input, where only (326). Macroinvertebrates belonged to three phyla i.e. Annelida (1.5%), Arthropoda (61.8%) and mollusca (36.7%). Among arthropods, Hymenoptera (25.8), Coleoptera (14.9) and Isopoda (7.7%) were the most abundant while pulmonates, formed (36.7%) of the total soil macroinvertebrates. Arthropods (51.2%) constituted almost half of the soil macro- invertebrate in LIP treated fields where Hymenoptera (20.6%) and Coleoptera (15.9%) were the most abundant. On the contrary, Hymenoptera (39.6%) and Isopoda (16.3%) were the dominant arthropods (89.6%). in HIP treated fields. Pulmonates were the other most abundant group of soil macroinvertebrates in LIP (47.5%) and HIP (8.3%) treated fields. The contribution of pulmontes was low in three MHs in HIP treated fields viz., 10.2% in MH1, 2.7% in MH2 and 16.0% MH3. Thus, arthropods were the most abundant in three MHs in HIP treated fields while arthropods and mollusks were equally abundant MH1 and MH2 in LIP treated fields. In sugarcane fields total of 2138 specimens of macroinvertebrates were captured out of which 1400 from the low input farming system representing 10 orders, 32 families, and 79 species and 738 specimens were captured from the high input farming system again representing 10 orders 32 families and 61 species. These macroinvertebrates belonged to phylum annelids (10.2%), arthropods (60.9%) and molluscs (29.06%), Isopoda (21.8%), Hymenoptera (18.0%), Coleoptera (9.0%) and Araneae (4.1%) formed 86% of the soil arthropod fauna. Arthropods (47.3%) and pulmonates (41.9%) formed 89% of the soil macroinvertebrates in LIP treated fields while arthropods alone constituted 86.6% of the soil macroinvertebrates in HIP treated fields. Among three microhabitats (MHs), annelids were present in all of them both in LIP and HIP treated fields. Arthropods formed 42.9%, 45.5% and 63.2% of the total soil macro-fauna in LIP treated fields whereas in HIP treated fields they constituted 86.5%, 85.2% and 89.2%,

116 respectively. Molluscs (pulmonates) formed 48.8% of the soil macroinvertebrates in MH1, 42.8% in MH2 and 21.9% in MH3 in LIP treated fields. Their contribution was low (viz., 6.5%, 3.1% and 2.5%, respectively), in all three MHs of HIP treated fields. PROBABLE INTERACTIONS AMONG FAUNAL POPULATIONS Analysis of the variety of predator and preys showed that Formica spp. 1 (25.74%), Camponotus spp. (25.74%), Solenopsis invicta (18.15%), Dolichoderus taschenbergi (4.95%), Formica spp2 (8.58%), Clubiona obesa (3.965) and Oxychillus alliarus (12.87%) were the dominant predators while Armadilidium vulgare (35.85%), Pangaeus bilineatus (13.21%), Armadilidium nasatum (23.58%), and Megomphix hemphilli (27.36%) were dominant preys in order of their abundance in wheat fields. In sugarcane fields, Formica spp. (35.62 %), Solenopsis invicta (32.68%), Componotus pensylvanicus (6.21%), Formica spp. 2 (6.21%), Hippasa partita (5.88%) Formica sanguine (4.90%), Formica spp. 3 (4.90%), and Formica exsectoides (3.59%), were the dominant predators (Table 5.2) while Trachelipus rathkei (64.38%), Hawaiia minuscule (14.89%), Pangaeus bilineatus (4.23%), Biomphalaria havanensis (3.94%), Planorbis merguiensis (3.65%) Tritomegas sexmaculatus (3.36%) Planorbis nanus (2.77%), Gonocephalum stocklieni (1.46%), and Pentodon idiota (1.31%) were dominant preys. EFFECT OF WEEDS ON THE FAUNAL POPULATIONS

Species richness of the macro-invertebrate fauna in wheat fields was high on the weeds growing at the edges than center of the wheat fields. The highest richness and maximum diversity of macro invertebrates was recorded on A. graveolens (S = 9; H' = 1.908) while the lowest richness and minimum diversity of macroinvertebrates was recorded on C. murale (S = 3; H' = 0.683). Among sugarcane fields, highest richness and maximum diversity of macroinvertebrates was found on C. dactylon (S = 99; H' = 3.576) at the edge as compared to the center of the field (S = 56; H'= 3.244) whereas the lowest richness and minimum diversity of macroinvertebrates was found on A. gravelensis on the edge (S = 2; H' = 0.693) and C. didymus (S = 1 and H' = 0.000) in the center of the field. EFFECT OF AGROCHEMICALS ON DIVERSITY OF SOIL INVERTEBRATES

In wheat, species richness was higher in LIP treated fields (102 species) than in HIP treated fields (62 species). Members of Collembola, Julida and Geophilomorpha 117 were not recorded from HIP treated fields whereas Orthoptera, Isoptera, and Diptera were solely recorded from HIP fields. In sugarcane, LIP fields harbored almost the double number of specimens than HIP fields but species richness was almost the same in both treatments. Number of Pulmonates and Aranae was considerably low in HIP treated cane fields. Canonical Correspondence Analysis (CCA) was applied to determine the effect of some adaphic factors on the distribution of soil macroinvertebrates collected from LIP and HIP treated wheat and sugarcane fields. The ordination space represented a relationship of various species of soil macroinvertebrates to adaphic factors like pH, EC and OM, nutrients (P, K, Mn, Fe, Zn, Cu, and B). Highly abundant species were taken in to account for CCA analysis as they were the best representatives of field samples and the responses of various faunal species towards physical and chemical soil factors in LIP and HIP treated wheat and sugarcane fields. Canonical Correspondence Analysis revealed that P, K, Zn, Cu, Fe, Mn, B, OM, EC and pH are important ingredients to determine the distribution of various macro- invertebrate species in LIP treated wheat field Distribution of soil macro- invertebrate in LIP treated cane fields was also determined by P, K, Zn, Cu, Fe, Mn, B, OM %, EC and pH and as compared to K, Zn, Cu, Mn, B, EC, most of the species were associated with pH, Fe, P, and OM on the first two axis.

118

CONCLUSION Introduction of intensive agriculture farming has caused unmanageable losses to soil macro-faunal diversity. Deterioration of soil-macrofauna is higher in high input farming than low input farming. Further intensive use of agrochemicals will result in malfunctioning and decreased eco-efficiency of the agroecosystem. For future sustainability, strategies to manage biogeochemical cycling of soil, capitalization of biotic components, use of organic matter and reliance on low input farming is imperative. It is particularly important that following measures should be adopted to improve soil conditions. 1. Soil biodiversity programme is unique in scale of the effort that has been made to understand a single patch of soil. It represents new thinking by ecologist about the importance of this diversity because there is an extensive unexplored diversity across a range of microbial and small eukaryotic taxa.

2. Diversity of soils demonstrates that they retain soil function even when their biological structure has been radically altered.

3. HIP farming is deteriorating the macrofauna of all soil inhabiting macroinvertebrates as well as malfunctioning of agro-eco-system.

4. To manage the biogeochemical cycles, stability and proper recycling of organic matter through organic / LIP farming is need of the hour as has been depicted by the unusual abundance of saprophagous species in the HIP fields.

5. The insect group collected during the study did not exhibit similar richness and abundance pattern. This phenomenon suggested that diversity patterns varied widely among taxa and that relying on just a few groups of insects would not optimally provide information to preserve others.

RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The presence of rare species (indicated that due to some anthropogenic practices these have decreased in number and their lower population needed help for conservation) could be used as a guide for management and conservation of biodiversity.

119

2. Greater diversity of predator species was present on weeds as compared to pest or prey species. In addition to this 50% phytophagous insect use weeds as food/harbourage/refuge. Thus weeds are playing a positive role up to a threshold level that needs targeted work

3. The nature of farming systems should be changed to minimize the negative impacts on biodiversity and sustainability of the agroecosystems.

4. Consumers should be sufficiently informed so as to be able to play a role in preserving biodiversity.

5. Establishing forums for research, training and education on the preservation of farm biological diversity.

Taking Community Action

While problems persist, there has been a lot of substantive progress in agricultural reform over the past two decades. Yields have improved and waste has been reduced. Improved methods have been found for applying fertilizer more economically, and alternative methods of pest control have been successfully used in place of more dangerous chemical ones. Biotechnologies which enable favourable genes to be transplanted from one plant to another promise much for tomorrow's agriculture.

By mobilizing your organization and your community, you can do a lot to improve the efficient use of land resources. This section introduces some suggestions that your community could consider when drawing up its action plan to help preserve the sustainability of agicultural production.

 Encourage the Development of Appropriate Technologies. Attention needs to be given to what the most appropriate technology is for a particular situation, rather than using the most advanced technology available. The traditional farming methods already available in a country should also be considered, as they may often be more appropriate. Studies have shown that with the right combination of crops, the amount of inputs required, such as chemicals and fertilizer, can be reduced. This, in turn, will decrease the amount of agricultural pollution and allow the land to regenerate more quickly. Although production

120

may decrease in the short term, sustainable agriculture techniques will help prevent land degradation, allowing for longer use of the land.

 Support education and training initiatives. Some people advocate shipping food from countries with a surplus to those with a shortage. While this approach is appropriate in famine-relief situations, it will not provide a long-term solution. It is often said that it is much better to enable a person to fish for himself, rather than merely giving him a fish. There is a need for intensive education and training on issues relating to food security. This education and training should focus on areas such as basic food production, new technologies and how agricultural markets work. Education and training in food production methods should enable people to select and implement technologies and practices which fit their particular environment and culture. Your community organization could help promote these initiatives by visiting with educational institutes and asking what help they may need.

 Work with small-scale farmers. Your organization could work with those farmers who have chosen to establish cooperatives with other farmers in their area. This type of cooperation between farmers can enable them to purchase machinery and tools, seeds and others necessary items at lower prices and also to market their products both locally and abroad at higher prices. A community organization could help in this endeavour by providing economic counseling, financial assistance or even the labour to build the cooperative.

 Promote sustainable consumer practices. We all need to be aware of how our choice of food products affects the health of the environment. As well, what we put into our mouths that is bad for the planet is often not the best thing for our bodies. By being more environmentally conscious, we become more health conscious as well. Community organizations could develop awareness campaigns on food nutrition, in cooperation with consumer associations, schools and ministries of health. An advertising campaign could also show the effects of excessive consumption patterns on people, particularly children, pregnant or nursing mothers and the elderly.

121

 Work with your government to promote sustainable agriculture. By working with your local and national governments, your organization could influence regulatory standards to change consumer behaviour. These standards could discourage the use of environmentally unsafe products, provide more details on food ingredients and their production source, and set consistent standards for environment-friendly agricultural products to promote consumer confidence in using them. The introduction of such standards will make consumers more aware of their consumption habits and ensure they receive the same types of information from all producers. Well-organized communities also could change governmental consumption practices by convincing the government to award contracts to "green" suppliers.

 Work with other organizations. Community organizations, such as youth groups, senior citizen groups and religious groups can not only work together but can approach organizations and institutions that are already involved in sustainable food production and offer their help. The larger the numbers of people who choose to work together toward a common goal, the better their chances of accomplishing it.

 Conduct market research. Many groups have actually managed to change the priorities of food producing companies so that they focus on sustainable food production methods and products. Study a specific company (such as the company you might be working for) and examine its production methods or area of business. Then, research the market to see if there are more sustainable alternatives to its products or production methods and investigate what demand there might be for such products. Finally, present this research to the management of the company and suggest that the company either produce the new product alongside of, or instead of, its current product.

 Write now, right now. If a company does not appear to be producing food items in a way that is consistent with accepted sustainable practices, you could write, or have your organization write, a letter declaring that all your members will henceforth boycott the products of that company. A letter from a group is much more effective if handwritten letters from each group member are sent. Even a single letter has been effective in getting

122

companies to change policies because many companies believe that one person who takes the time to write a letter might represent thousands who do not write.

 Produce a cookbook. Your organization could promote or write your own cookbook which emphasizes eating healthier and using fewer processed foods. The cookbook should present delicious recipes using easily available ingredients. You should also mark the recipes which are quick and easy to prepare. You could gather different recipes for the cookbook from within your own country or community and give credit to each person who donates a recipe. This type of project is also often effective in raising money for projects. Some groups have developed international cookbooks with recipes from around the world.

 Launch an advertising campaign. Your organization could create an advertisement campaign to combat excess food consumption, poor dietary habits, and consumption of certain goods. The advertisements should be hard-hitting to challenge some of the beliefs of people and be dramatic enough to change their consumption habits. Some could demonstrate the negative effects of certain food consumption patterns.

 Get involved with youth groups. Extremely effective campaigns to promote sustainable agriculture and consumption patterns could be conducted at the community level by having local citizens and especially school children develop posters. Prizes can be offered (perhaps donated by community organizations) and posters displayed in public places. Students also could write and present plays and skits about consumption and nutrition practices. These productions can be presented locally and can even be taped and shared with other communities. The production of professional quality print, audio and video material could be done with the assistance of people learning about the media industry, such as students who are learning from your local college or university. Students are often eager to participate in activities that benefit the community. International organizations such as the Environmental Liaison Centre International (ELCI) or Greenpeace could also be approached to assist in supplying background material and advice for the campaign.

123

Feed the Soil, Not the Crop: A Success Story

After discovering that intensive systems involving large amounts of chemical fertilizer, pesticides, hybrid seeds and mechanized irrigation systems are not only too costly for developing countries, but are contributing to soil degradation and loss of plant diversity, the Kenya Institute of Organic Farming (KIOF) was established in 1986 to encourage more sustainable methods of agriculture, mainly among smallholder farmers.

KIOF staff visit farmers' groups in the field, demonstrating methods and following up with later visits. Exchange visits between groups are arranged. Successful farmers from the groups were initially enrolled as paid promoters to encourage training in their areas and recruit new members. After progress has been assured, the promoter may be moved to another area. To date there are about 100 groups comprising some 3000 farmers.

KIOF has concentrated so far on the central and eastern provinces of Kenya, but by collaborating with other sustainable farming institutions and groups sponsored by churches, a wider audience has been reached and student exchanges have taken place. Workshops have been held, both for local participants and groups from other African countries. There have been exchanges with Botswana, Malawi, Mauritius, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

KIOF's slogan is "Feed the soil, not the crop." Chemical farming, say KIOF directors, creates a vicious cycle: more fertilizer, more pests, more biocide, more cost, poor soil, lower yield. When grown organically, plants are less susceptible to pests and diseases because they are naturally healthy. Cell walls are thicker and cell sap is correctly balanced. The result is a healthier, stronger crop, and healthier, stronger people.

124

REFERENCES

Adams, G. A. and D. H. Wall. 2000. Biodiversity above and below the surface of soils and sediments: linkages and implications for global change. Biol. Sci., 50:1043- 1048.

Ali, A. D. and I. E. Reagan. 1985. Vegetation manipulation impact on predator and prey populations in Louisiana sugarcane ecosystem. J. Econ. Entomol., 78:1409-1414.

Alroy, J., C. R. Marshall, R. K. Bambach, K. Bezusko, M. Foote, F. T. Fürsich, T. A. Hansen, S. M. Holland , L. C. Ivany, D. Jablonski, D. K. Jacobs, D. C. Jones, M. A. Kosnik, S. Lidgard, S. Low, A. I. Miller, P. M. NovackGottshall, T. D. Olszewski, M. E. Patzkowsky, D. M. Raup, K. Roy, J. J. Sepkoski, M. G. Sommers, P. J. Wagner and A. Webber. 2001. Effects of sampling standardization on estimates of Phanerozoic marine diversiﬁcation: Proceed. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA, 98: 6261-6266.

Altieri, M. A. and C. I. Nicholls. l999. Biodiversity, ecosystem function and insect pest management in agricultural systems. In: Biodiversity in Agroecosystems. W.W. Collins and C.O. Qualset (Eds.). CRC Press, Boca Raton. pp. 69-84.

Anderson, T. H. and H. J. Weigel. 2004. Soil biodiversity a sensible soil indicator? Considerations on its role and function in soil ecosystems. In: Francaviglia R. (Eds.): Agricultural impacts on soil erosion and soil biodiversity: Developing indicators for policy analysis. Proceed. OECD Expert Meeting, Rome, Italy, March 2003, pp. 467-484.

Andrén, O. and E. Steen. 1978. Effects of pesticides on soil organisms. 1. Soil fauna (In Swedish, with English summary) SNV Stockholm. PM., pp. 1082-95.

Andrén, O. and J. Lagerlöf. 1983. Soil fauna (microarthropods, enchytraeids, nematodes) in Swedish agricultural cropping systems. Acta Agric. Scand., 33: 33-52.

Arden-Clarke, C. and R. D. Hodges. 1988. The environmental effects of conventional and organic/biological farming systems. II. Soil ecology, soil fertility, and nutrient cycles. Biol. Agric. Hortic., 5: 223-287.

125

Arditi, R. and L. R. Ginzburg. 1989. Coupling in predator-prey dynamics: ratio dependence. J. Theoretic. Biol., 139:311-326.

Ashiq, M., M. M. Nayyar and J. Ahmed. 2003. Weed Control Handbook for Pakistan. Directorate of Agronomy, Ayub Agriculture Research Institute, Faisalabad, pp. 11-184.

Balabane, M., D. Faivre, F. Van Oort and H. Dahmani-Muller. 1999. Mutual effects of soil organic matter dynamics and heavy metals fate in a metallophyte grassland. Environ. Pollut., 105: 45-54.

Barbercheck, M. 2008. Balancing pest management and soil quality for sustainable and organic agricultural systems. The Pennsylvania State University: University Park – Pennsylvania, Project Online, pp. 1-7.

Barros, E., B. Pashanasi, R. Constantino and P. Lavelle. 2002. Effects of land-use system on the soil macrofauna in western Brazilian Amazonia. Biol. Fertile Soils, 35: 338-347.

Barros, E., A. Neves, E. Blanchart, E. C. M. Fernandes, E. Wandelli and P. Lavelle. 2003. Development of the soil macrofauna community under silvopastoral and agro- silvi-cultural systems in Amazonia. Pedobiologia, 47:273-280.

Barros, E., M. Grimaldi, M. Sarrazin, A. Chauvel, D. Mitja, T. Desjardins and P. Lavelle. 2004. Soil physical degradation and changes in macrofaunal communities in Central Amazon. Appl. Soil Ecol., 26: 157-168.

Beare, M. H., M. V. Reddy, G. Tian and S. C. Srivastava. 1997. Agricultural intensification, soil biodiversity and agro-ecosystem function in the tropics: the role of decomposer biota. Appl. Soil Ecol., 6: 87-108.

Bengtsson, J., H. Lundkvist, P. Saetre, B. Sohlenius and B. Solbreck. 1998. Effects of organic matter removal on the soil food web: Forestry practices meet ecological theory. Appl. Soil Ecol., 9: 137-143.

Bengtsson, J., J. Ahnstrom and A. C. Weibull. 2005. The effects of organic agriculture on biodiversity and abundance: a meta-analysis. J. Appl. Ecol., 42: 261-269.

126

Blanford, W. T. 1898. The fauna of British India: including Ceylon and Burma. 2nd (Ed.), Publisher: Taylor & Francis, India.

Benton, M. J. 2010. Studying Function and Behavior in the Fossil Record. PLoS Biol., 8:321-371.

Berg, G., N. Roskot, A. Steidle, L. Eberl, A. Zock and K. Smalla. 2003. Plant-dependent genotypic and phenotypic diversity of antagonistic rhizobacteria isolated from different Verticillium host plants. Appl. Environ. Microbiol., 68:3328-3338.

Beus, C. E. and R. E. Dunlap. 1990. Conventional versus alternative agriculture: The paradigmatic roots of the debate. Rural Sociology, 55: 590-616.

Birkeland, P. W. 1999. Soils and Geomorphology, 3rd (Ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

Birkhofer, K., T. M. Bezemer, J. Bloem, M. Bonkowski, S. Christensen, D. Dubois, F. Ekelund, A. Fliessbach, L. Gunst, K. Hedlund, P. Mader, J. Mikola, C. Robin, H. Setala, F. Tatin-Froux, W. H. Van der Putten and S. Scheu. 2008a. Long term organic farming fosters below and aboveground biota: implications for soil quality, biological control and productivity. Soil Biol. Biochem., 40:2297-2308.

Birkhofer, K., A. Flielssbach, D. H. Wise and S. Scheu. 2008b. Generalist predators in organically and conventionally managed grass-clover fields: implications for conservation biological control. Ann. Appl. Biol., 153: 271-280.

Blanford, W.T. 1898. The Fauna of British India, Including Ceylon and Burma. Birds. Taylor and Francis, London, pp. 681-70.

Bongers, T. 1990. The maturity index: An ecological measure of environmental disturbance based on nematode species composition. Oecologia, 83: 14-19.

Borror, D. J. and D. M. Delong. 1970. An introduction to the study of insects. Ed. 3rd. Ohio State University, USA, pp. 110-158.

Bullock, J. M., R. F. Pywell, M. J. W. Burke and K. J. Walker. 2001. Restoration of biodiversity enhances agricultural production. Ecol. Lett., 4:185-189.

127

Candolfi, M. P., F. Bakker, V. Cañez, M. Miles, C. Neumann, E. Pilling, M. Primiani, K. Romijn, R. Schmuck, S. Storck-Weyhermüller, A. Ufer and A. Waltersdorfe. 1999. Sensitivity of non-target arthropods to plant protection products: Could Typhlodromus pyri and Aphidius spp. be used as indicator species. Chemosphere, 39: 1357-1999.

Capinera, J. L. 2005. Relationship between insect pests and weeds: an evolutionary perspective. J. Weed Sci., 53: 892-901.

Carvalho, G., A. C. Barros, P. Moutinho and D. C. Nepstad. 2001. Sensitive development could protect the Amazon instead of destroying it. Nature, 409:131.

Cassman, K. G., S. K. De Datta, D. C. Olk, J. Alcantara, M. Samson, J. Descalsota and M. A. Dizon. 1995. Yield decline and the nitrogen economy of long-term experiments on continuous, irrigated rice systems in the Tropics. In: R. Lal and B.A. Stewart (Eds.) Soil management: Experimental basis for sustainability and environmental quality. Adv. Soil Science, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. Pp. 181- 222.

Chaudhary, S. A. 1969. Flora in Lyallpur and the adjacent Canal-Colony Districs. Basic Sciences and Arts. West Pakistan, agriculture University, Lyallpur, pp. 1-77.

Chaudhry, M. H., S. Hussain, S. B. Khan, F. Hussain and J. Anwar. 1999. Food requirements of Pakistan in the First decade of 21st Century-Role of Wheat Research in Punjab. J. Sci. Tech. Dev., 18:1-5.

City District Govt. Faisalabad. 2010. Geography.

Closs, G. P., S. R. Balcombe and M. J. Shirley. 1999. Generalist predators, interaction strength and food web stability. Advan. Ecol. Res., 28: 93-126.

Cohen, J. E. and C. M. Newman. 1985. A schochastic theory of community food webs. I. modelsand aggregated data proceedings of the Royal Societyof London. Biol. Sci., 224: 421-448.

Coleman, D. C., E. P. Odum, and D. A. Crossley, Jr. 1992. Soil biology, ecology and global change. Biol. Fertile Soils, 14:104-111.

128

Dangerifield, J. M. 1990. Abundance, Biomass and Diversity of Soil Macrofauna in Savanna and Associated Managed Habitats, Pedobiologia, 34:141–150.

Dangerfield, J. M., T. S. McCarthy and W. N. Ellery. 1998. The mound-building termite Macrotermes michaelseni as an ecosystem engineer. J. Trop. Ecol., 14:507-520.

Decaens, T., J. J. Jimenez, E. Barros, A. Chauvel, E. Blanchart, C. Fragoso and P. Lavelle. 2004. Soil macrofaunal communities in permanent pastures derived from tropical forest or savanna. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 103:301-312.

Dibog, L., P. Eggleton and F. Forzi. 1998. Seasonality of soil termites in a humid tropical forest, Mbalmayo, southern Cameroon. J. Trop. Ecol., 14:841-849.

Doghairi, M. A. 2004. Evaluation of food consumption rates by three Coccinellid species (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae). J. Agric. Sci., Saudi Arabia, 1: 71-78.

Doring, T. F. and B. Kromp. 2003. Which carabid species benefit from organic agriculture? A review of comparative studies in winter cereals from Germany and Switzerland. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 98: 153-161.

Edwards, C. A. and J. R. Lofty. 1969. The influence of agricultural practice on soil microarthropod populations. In: J.G. Sheals (Eds.). The Soil Ecosyst. Symp. Publ., 8. Syst. Assoc., London. pp. 237-247.

Edwards, C. A. and A. R. Thompson. 1973. Pesticides and the soil fauna. Residue Rev., 45:1-79.

Edwards, C. A. and C. J. Stafford. 1979. Interactions between herbicides and the soil fauna. Ann. Appl. Biol., 91: 132-137.

Edwards, C. A. 1979. Tests to assess the effects of pesticides on beneficial soil organisms, Pp 249-253. In: Tests for the Ecological Effects of Chemicals. Pub. Erich. Schmidt, Verlag, Berlin.

129

Edwards, C. A. 1980. Interactions between agricultural practice and earthworms. pp 3-12. In: D.L. Dindal (Ed.). Soil Biology as Related to Land Use Practices. Proc. 7th Int. Soil Zool. Colloq., Syracuse, N.Y. EPA-560/ 13-80-038. EPA, Wash.

Edwards, C. A. 1991. The assessment of populations of soil-inhabiting invertebrates. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 34: 145-176.

Edwards, C. A. and J. E. Bater.1992. The use of earthworms in environmental management. Soil Biol. and Biochem., (Special Issue) 24(12): 1683-1697.

Ehrlich, P. R. 1995. The scales of the human enterprise and biodiversity loss. In: Extinction Rates (Eds. Lawton, J. H. and May, R. M.). Cambridge Press, Cambridge, U.K. pp. 214-226.

Facknath, S. and B. Lalljee.1999. The Living Soil, The soil in perspective. Contents of the PROSI Magazine, No. 365.

FAO. 2010. What are the environmental benefits of organic agriculture? Organic Agriculture, 1-3. Online: http://www.fao.org/ ( accessed 27th May, 2010)

Francis, E. Z., C. A. Kimmel and D. Rees. 1990. Workshop on the qualitative and quantitative comparability of human and animal developmental neurotoxicity: Summary and implications. Neurotoxicol. Teratol., 12:285-292.

Frouz, J. and A. Ali. 2004. Influence of Chironomidae (Diptera) faecal pellet accumulation on lake sediment quality and larval abundance of pestiferous midge Glyptotendipes paripes. Hydrobiologia, 518:169-177.

Fry, G. L. A. 1989. Conservation in agricultural systems. In: The scientific management of temperate communities for conservation (Eds. Spellberg, I. F., Goldsmith, F. B. and Morris, M. G.). Blackwell Scientific Publications, UK., pp. 415-443.

Gabriel, D., I. Roschewitz, T. Tscharntke and C. Thies. 2006. Beta diversity at different spatial scales: plant communities in organic and conventional agriculture. Ecol. Appl., 16: 2011-2021.

Gaston, K. J. 1996. What is biodiversity? In Biodiversity: a biology of numbers and differences, K. J. Gaston (Ed.) Blackwell Science Ltd., Oxford, pp. 1-9.

130

Geno, L. and B. Geno. 2001. Polyculture Production Principles, Benefits and Risks of Multiple Cropping Land Management Systems for Australia, Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Canberra.

Ghafoor, A., M. Hassan and Z. H. Alvi, 2008. Biodiversity of earthworm species from various habitats of district Narowal, Pakistan. Int. J. Agric. Biol., 10: 681-4.

Ghilarov, M. S. 1965. Zoological Methods of Soil Diagnosis. pp. 278.

Giller, P. S. 1996. The diversity of soil communities, the "poor man's tropical rainforest". Biodiv. Cons., 5:135-168.

Gist, C. S. and D. A. Crossely, Jr. 1975. A model of mineral-element cycling for an inverte-brate food web in a southeastern hardwood forest litter community. In Mineral cycling in Southeast ecosystems. In: J.B. Gentry and M.H. Smith (Eds.). National Technical Information Service, U.S. Dept. Commerce, Washington, DC., pp. 84-106.

Gomez, M. 1999. Ecologically Sustainable Agriculture. pp 1-9. URL:http://ccwf.cc.utexas.edu/-fugue/perennial/pp1.html Govt. of Pakistan. 2000. Biodiversity action plan for Pakistan. Ministry of Environment, Local Government and Rural Development in collaboration with WWF and IUCN, Pakistan, pp. 4-5.

Govt. of Pakistan. 2010. Agriculture Statistics, Federal Bureau of Statistics, Ministry of Economics Affairs and Statistics, Pakistan.

Govt. of Punjab. 2008. Ziratnama Lahore. www.agripunjab.gov.pk.

Govt. of Punjab. 2009. Ziratnama Lahore. www.agripunjab.gov.pk.

Govt. of Punjab. 2011. Ziratnama Lahore. www.agripunjab.gov.pk.

Greenslade, P. J. M. and P. Greenslade. 1983. Ecology of soil invertebrates. In: Soils, an Australian Viewpoint. Division of Soils, CSIRO, Melbourne, Academic Pr., London. pp. 645-669.

131

Griffths, G. J. K., J. M. Holland, A. Bailey and M. B. Thomas. 2008. Efficacy and economics of shelter habitats for conservation biological control. Biol. Control., 45: 200-209.

Gupta, L. P., V. Subramanian and V. Ittekot. 1997. Biogeochemistry of particulate organic matter transported by the Godavari River, India. Biogeochemistry, 38:103-128.

Haagsma, K. A. and M. K. Rust. 1993. Two marking dyes useful for monitoring field populations of Reticulitermes hesperus (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae). Sociobiology, 23: 155-164.

Hågvar, S. 1994. Log-normal distribution of dominance as an indicator of stressed soil microarthropod communities? Acta Zoolo. Fennica, 195:71-80.

Hågvar, S. 1998. The relevance of the Rio-Convention on biodiversity to conserving the biodiversity of soils. Appl. Soil Ecol., 9: 1-7.

Hassall, M. and J. M. Dangerfield. 1997. The population dynamics of a woodlouse Armadillidium vulgare: an example of biotic compensatory mechanisms amongst terrestrial macrodecomposers? Eur. J. Soil Biol., 41: 342-360.

Hector, A., B. Schmid and C. Beierkuhnlein. 1999. Plant diversity and productivity experiments in European grasslands. Science, 96: 1123-1127.

Hector, A., B. Schmid, C. Beierkuhnlein, M. C. Caldeira, M. Diemer, P. G. Dimitrakopoulos, J. A. Finn, H. Freitas, P. S. Giller, J. Good, R. Harris, P. Högberg, K. HussDanell , J. Joshi, A. Jumpponen, C. Körner, P. W. Leadley, M. Loreau, A. Minns, C. P. H. Mulder, G. O'Donovan, S. J. Otway, J. S. Pereira, A. Prinz, D. J. Read, M. Scherer-Lorenzen, E. D. Schulze, A. S. D. Siamantziouras, E. M. Spehn, A. C. Terry, A. Y. Troumbis , F. I. Woodward, S. Yachi and J. H. Lawton.1999. Plant diversity and productivity experiments in

European grasslands. Science, 96:1123-1127.

Hill, S. B. 1982. A global food and agriculture policy for western countries: laying the foundations. Nutr. Health, 1: 107-117.

132

Hill, S. B. and P. Ott. 1982. Basic Techniques in Ecological Farming. 365. Birkhausser, Basel, Switzerland.

Hill, S. B. 1984a. Controlling pests ecologically. Soil Assoc. Quart. Rev., March: 13-15.

Hill, S. B. 1985. Soil Fauna and Agriculture: Past Findings and Future Priorities, EPA Publication, pp. 1-8.

Hinton, J. and M. M. Veiga.1999. Earthworms as Bioindicators of Mercury Pollution. U.S., Department of Mining and Mineral Process Engineering, University of British Columbia. Article available online: at Earthworms as Bioindicators of Mercury Pollution.

Holloway, J. D., J. D. Barely and D. J. Carter. 1992. The guide to the insects of importance to man. Lepidoptera. International Institute of entomology 56, Queen’s Gate London. SW7. 55R UK. pp. 55-92.

Hooper, D. U., D. E. Bignell, V. K. Brown, L. Brussaard, J. M. Dangerfield, D. H. All, D. A. Wardle, D. C. Coleman, K. E. Giller, P. Lavelle, W. H. van der Putten, P. C. de Ruiter, J. Rusek, W. Silver, J. M. Tiedje and V. Wolters. 2000. Inter-actions between above- and belowground biodiversity in terrestrial ecosystems: Patterns, mechanisms, and feedbacks. BioScience, 50:1049-1061.

Hopkin, S. P. 1997. Biology of the Springtails (Insecta: Collembola). Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Hopwood, J. L. 2008.The contribution of roadside grassland restorations to native bee conservation. Biol. Conserv., 141: 351-359.

Hughes, J. B., G. C. Daily, and P. R. Ehrlich. 2002. Conservation of tropical forest birds in countryside habitats. Ecol. Lett., 121-129.

Huston, M. A. 1997. Hidden treatments in ecological experiments: re-evaluating the ecosystem function of biodiversity. Oecologia, 96:449-460.

133

Hutcheson, K. 1970. A test for comparing diversities based on Shannon formula. J. Theor. Biol., 29: 151-154.

Inayat, T. P., S. A. Rana, N. Rana, T. Ruby, M. J. I. Siddiqi and M. N. A. Khan. 2011. Predator-prey relationship among selected species in the croplands of central Punjab, Pakistan. Pak. J. Agri. Sci., 48: 149-153.

IPCC. 2007. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contributions of Working Groups I, Ii, and Iiito the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva: IPCC.

Iqbal, M. Z. 2009. Farmers’ perceptions about bio-control of arthropods and hazardous impacts of pesticides in cotton fields. M.Phil. Thesis, Department of Zoology and Fisheries, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, pp. 80-92.

ISO. 1993. ISO 11268-1: Soil quality-Effects of Pollutants on earthworms (Eisenia fetida) – Part 1: Determination of acute toxicity using artificial soil substrate. Geneva, Switzerland, International Organization of Standardization.

ISO. 1998. ISO 11268-2: Soil quality-Effects of Pollutants on earthworms (Eisenia fetida) Part 2: Determination of effects on reproduction. Geneva, Switzerland, International Organization of Standardization.

ISO. 1999. ISO 11268-3: Soil quality-Effects of Pollutants on earthworms (Eisenia fetida) Part 1: Guidance on the determination of effects in field situations. Geneva, Switzerland, International Organization of Standardization.

Jeffries, M. J. and J. H. Lawton. 1985. Predator-prey ratios in communities of freshwater invertibrates: the role of enemy free space. Freshwater Biol., 15: 12-105.

Jennifer, G. H., A. M. Derry and A. M. Reitzel. 2002. Metacommunity biology as an eco- evolutionary framework for understanding exotic invasion in aquatic ecosystems. Amer. Soc. Limno. Oceanogra., pp. 93-109.

Jimenez, J. J., A. G. Moreno, P. Lavelle and T. Decaens.1998. Population dynamics and adaptive strategies of Martiodrilus carimaguensis (Oligochaeta, Glossoscolecidae), a native species from the well-drained savannas of Colombia. Appl. Soil Ecol., 9: 153-160.

134

Jones, C. G., J. H. Lawton and M. Shachak.1994. Organisms as ecosystem engineers. Oikos, 69: 373-386.

Jongman, R. H. G., C. J. F. Ter Braak and O. F. R. Van Tongeren. 1995. Data analysis in community and landscape ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Kapagianni, P. D., G. Boutsis, M. D. Argyropoulou,, E. M. Papatheodorou and G. P. Stamou. 2010. The network of interactions among soil quality variables and nematodes: short-term responses to isturbances induced by chemical and organic disinfection. Appl. Soil Ecol., 44: 67-74.

Karg, W. 1968. Bodenbiologische Untersuchungen uber die Eignung von Milben, insbesondere von parasitiformen Raubmilben, als Indicatoren. Pedobiologia, 8: 30 39.

Karlen, D. L., M. J. Mausbach, J. W. Doran, R. G. Cline, R. F. Harris and G. E. Schuman. 2001. Soil quality: a concept, definition, and framework for evaluation. Soil Sci. Societ. Amer. J., 61:4-10. Khan, N. I., A. U. Malik, F. Umer and M. I. Bodla. 2010. Effect of tillage and farm yard manure on physical properties of soil. Int. J. Plant Sci., 1: 075-82.

Koehler, H. H. 1992. The use of soil mesofauna for the judgement of chemical impact on ecosystems. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 40: 193-205.

Köpke, U. and G. Haas. 1997. Umweltrelevanz des Ökologischen Landbaus. Landbauforschung Völkenrode, SH 175, “Ökologischer Landbau: Entwicklung, Wirtschaftlichkeit, Marktchancen und Umweltrelevanz”, FAL-Tagung 26. u. 27. Sept. 1996, pp. 119 - 146.

Koul, O. 2008. Phytochemicals and insect control: An antifeedant approach. Critic. Rev. Plant Sci., 27: 1-24.

Kovach, W. 2003. MVSP (Ver 3.13f): Multivariate Statistical Package, Kovach Computing Services, Wales, UK.

135

Krivolutsky, D. A. 1975. Oribatoid mite complexes as the soil type bioindicator, pp. 217- 221. In: J. Vanek (Eds.). Progress in Soil Zoology. Academia, Prague. pp. 630.

Laaslo, J. and H. Setala. 1999. Sensitivity of primary production to change in the architecture of belowground food webs. Oikos, 87:57-64. Landis, D. A., S. D. Wratten and G. M. Gurr. 2000. Habitat management to conserve natural enemies of arthropod pests in agriculture. Ann. Rev. Entomol., 45:175- 201.

136

Lavelle, P. and B. Pashanasi. 1989. Soil macrofauna and land management in Peruvian Amazonia (Yurimaguas, loreto). Pedobiologia, 33: 283-291. Lavelle, P., E. Blanchart, A. Martin, A.V. Spain and S. Martin. 1992. The impact of soil fauna on the properties of soils in the humid tropics. In: Sanchez P.A., Lal R. (Eds.) Myths and science of soils of the tropics. (SSSA special publication) SSSA, Madison, Wis., pp. 157-185. Lavelle, P., E. Blanchart, A. Martin, S. Martin, I. Barois, F. Toutain, A. Spain and R. Schaefer. 1993. A hierarchical model for decomposition in terrestrial ecosystems. Application to soils in the humid tropics. Biotropica, 25: 130- 150. Lavelle, P. 1994. Faunal activities and soil processes: adaptive strategies that determine ecosystem function. In: XVth ISSS Congress, I, Acapulco, Mexico. pp. 189-220. Levesque, C. A. and J. E. Rahe. 1992. Herbicide interactions with fungal root pathogens, with special reference to glyphosate. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol., 30: 579-602. Levin, E. D. 1992. Nicotinic systems and cognitive functions . phycopharmacology, 108: 417-431. Liiri, M., H. Setälä, J. Haimi, T. Pennanen and H. Fritze. 2002. Relationship between soil microarthropod species diversity and plant growth does not change when the system is disturbed. Oikos, 96:137-149. Linden, D. R., P. F. Hendrix, D. C. Coleman and P. C. J. van Vliet. 1994. Faunal indicators of soil quality. In: (J. W. Doran, D. C. Coleman, D. F. Bezdicek, and B. A. Stewart, Eds.) Defining soil quality for a sustainable environment. SSA Special Publication No. 35, Madison, WI. pp. 91-106. Lockwood, J. A., T. A. Christiansen and D. E. Legg. 1990. Arthropod prey-predator ratios in a sagebrush habitat: methodological and ecological implications. Ecology, 71: 996-1005.

Ludwig, J. A. and F. R. James. 1988. Statistical Ecology: A primer on Methods and Computing. A Wiley-International Publication, New York. pp. 1-337.

Mader, P., A. Fliessbach, D. Dubois, L. Gunst, P. Fried and U. Niggli. 2002. Soil fertility and biodiversity in organic farming. Science, 296:1694-1697. 137

Malik, R. N. and S. Z. Husain. 2006. Spatial distribution of ecological communities using remotely sensed data. Pak. J. Bot., 38: 571-582.

Mallick, S. and N. Ghani. 2005. A review of the relationship between poverty, population growth, and environment. Pak. Devel. Rev., 44(4 Pt 2):597-614. Marshall, V. G. 1977. Effects of manures and fertilizers on soil fauna: a review. Common wealth Bureau of Soils. Spec. Publ., 3: 79. CAB, Farnham Royal, U.K.

Matson, P. A., W. J. Parton, A. G. Power and M. J. Swift. 1997. Agriculture intensification and ecosystem properties. Science, 277: 504-509.

Magurran, A. E. 1988. Ecological diversity and its management, Princeton University Press, New Jersey, pp. 34-37.

May, R. M. 1986. Stability and complexity in model ecosystems. Princeton university press, princeton New Jersey.

Mboukou-Kimbatsa, I. M. C., F. Bernhard-Reversat and J. J. Loumeto.1998. Change in soil macrofauna and vegetation when fast-growing trees are planted on savanna soils. Forest Ecol. Manag., 110: 1-12.

McCune, B. and M. J. Mefford. 1999. Multivariate Analysis of Ecological Data, Ver. 3.0. MJM Software, Glenden Beach, Oregon.

McKeague, J. A., G. J. Ross and D. S. Gamble. 1978. Properties, criteria of classification and genesis of podzolic soils in Canada. In: Mahaney W. C. (Ed.) Conference on quaternary research, Norwich. Quaternary Soils, 3: 27-60.

Mebes, K. H. and J. Filser. 1998. A method for estimating the significance of surface dispersal for population fluctuations of collembola in arable land. Pedobiologia, 41: 115-122.

Michael, L. R. 2006. A promising cluster of contributions. Evol. Ecol. Res., 8: 575.

Mithen, S. J. and J. H. Lawton. 1986. Food web models that generate constant predator- prey ratios. Oecologia, 69: 542-550.

138

Morales, H., I. Perfecto and B. Ferguson. 2001. Traditional fertilization and its effect on corn insect populations in Guatemalan highlands. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 84:145-155.

Mueller, B. R., M. H. Beare and D. A. Crossley Jr. 1990. Soil mites in detrital food webs of conventional and no-tillage agroecosystems. Pedobiologia, 34: 389-401.

Naeem, S., K. Hakansson, J. H. Lawton, M. J. Crawley and L. J. Thompson. 1996. Biodiversity and plant productivity in a model assemblage of plant species. Oikos, 76:259-264.

Nambiar, K. K. M. 1994. Soil Fertility, and Crop Productivity Under Lonng-Term fertilizer use in India. New Delhi, India: Indian Council of Agricultural Research.

Nasir, E. and S. I. Ali, 1993. Flora of Pakistan Nos. Pak. Agric. Res. Counc. Islamabad, pp. 1-172.

Naylor, R. L. 1996. Annual Review Energy Environoment - 21, 99. Pedobiologia, 47: 273-280.

Olechowicz, E. 2004. Community structure of soil-litter macrofauna in shelterbelt and adjacent crop field. Pol. J. Ecol., 52:135-153. Olfert, O., G. D. Johnsonb, S. A. Brandta and A. G. Thomas. 2002. Use of Arthropod Diversity and Abundance to Evaluate Cropping Systems. Agron. J., 94:210-216.

Olson, D.M. and F. L. Wackers. 2007. Management of field margins to maximize multiple ecological services. J. Appl. Ecol., 44: 13-21.

Omkar, A., S. Srivastava and B. E. James. 1997. Prey preference of a ladybeetle, Coccinella septempunctata Linnaeus (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae). J. Adv. Zool., 18: 96-97.

O'Riordan, T. and D. Cobb. 2001. Assessing the consequences of converting to organic agriculture. J. Agric. Ecol., 52: 22-35.

Paine, R. T. 1988. Intertidal food webs: does connectance describe their essence? pp. 11- 16.

139

Paoletti, M. G., M. R. Favertto, B. R. Stinner, F. F. Purrington and J. E. Bater. 1991. Invetebrates as bioindicator as soil use: In modern techniques in soil ecology. D. A. Crossely, Jr., D. C. Coleman, P. F. Hendrix, W. Cheng, D. H. Wright, M. H. Beare and C. A. Edwards. (Eds.). Elsevier, N. Y., pp. 341-362.

Petersen, H. 1995. Temporal and spatial dynamics of soil Collembola during secondary succession in Danish heathland. Acta Zoolo. Fennica, 196: 190-194.

Pfiffner, L. and U. Niggli. 1996. Effects of bio-dynamic, organic and conventional farming on ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) and other epigaeic arthropods in winter wheat. Biol. Agric. Hortic., 12: 353-364.

Pimm, S. L., J. H. Lawton and J. E. Cohen. 1991. Food web patterns and their consequences. Nature, 350: 669-674.

Pocock, R. I. 1900. The fauna of British India, including Ceylon and Burma. Arachnida. Taylor & Francis, London, pp. 279.

Postma-Blaauw, M. B., R. G. M. D. Goede, J. Bloem, J. H. Faber and L. Brussaard. 2010. Soil biota community structure and abundance under agricultural intensification and extensification. Ecology, 91:460-473.

Punjab, Bureau of Statistics. 1988. Punjab development statistics. Lahore: Government of Punjab.

Purtauf, T., I. Roschewitz, J. Dauber, C. Thies, T. Tscharntke and V. Wolters. 2005. Landscape context of organic and conventional farms: Influences on carabid beetle diversity. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 108: 165-174.

Pywell, R. F. and P. D. Putwain. 1996. Restpration and conservation gain. In: Conservation Biology (Eds. I. F. Spellerberg). Longman, Harlow, UK., pp. 203- 221.

Qadir, A., R. N. Malik and S. Z. Husain. 2008. Spatio-temporal variations in water quality of Nullah Aik-tributary of the river Chenab, Pakistan. Environ. Monit. Assess., 140:43-59.

140

Rafi, M. A., M. Irshad and M. Inyatullah. 2005. Predatory ladybird beetles of Pakistan. Ed. 1st. National Agriculture Research Center, Islambad, pp. 16-50.

Rana, N., S. A. Rana, A. Sohail, M. J. I. Siddiqui and M. Z. Iqbal. 2006. Diversity of Soil Macrofauna in Sugarcane of HIGH INPUT and LOW INPUT Nature: Past Finding and Future Priorities. Pak. Entomol., 28: 19-26.

Rana, N., S. A. Rana, H. A. Khan and A. Sohail. 2010a. Assessment of handicaps owing to high input (hip) farming on the soil macro-invertebrates diversity in sugarcane field. Pak. J. Agric. Sci., 47: 271-278.

Rana, N., S. A. Rana, H. A. Khan and A. Sohail. 2010b. Assessment of Possible Threats to Soil Macro-invertebrate Diversity in Wheat Fields from High Input Farming. Int. J. Agric. Biol., 12: 801-808.

Roberts, T. J. 1997. The Mammals of Pakistan. Oxford University Press, London. 3-5.

Ruiz, N. and P. Lavelle. 2008. Soil Macro-fauna Field Manual. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, pp. 1-100.

Ryan, J., G. Estefan and A. Rashid. 2001. Soil and plant laboratory manual. Second Edition. Jointly publshed by International Center for Agriculture and Research Center (NARC). Aleppo, Syria.

Saleem, A. and Ibrar-ul-Haq. 2003. Pesticides standardized in Punjab doses (S), crops (S) and target pests(S). Govt. of the Punjab Agriculture Department.

Saska, P. 2007. Composition of a weed assemblage: determinant of granivorous carabid diversity? Abstracts, EWRS Workshop, Weeds and Biodiversity, Salem, Germany.

Schellhorn, N. A. and V. L. Sork. 1997. The impact of weed diversity on insect population dynamics and crop yield in collards, Brassica oleraceae (Brassicaceae. Oecologia, 111:233 240.

141

Scheu, S. and E. Schulz. 1996. Secondary succession, soil formation and development of a diverse community of oribatids and saprophagous soil macro-invertebrates, Biodivers. Conserv., 5: 235-250.

Schinner, F., E. Kandeler, R. Öhlinger and R. Margesin. 1993. Bodenbiologische Arbeitsmethoden. 2nd (Ed.), Springer Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg.

Schläpfer, F. and B. Schmid. 1999. Ecosystem effects of biodiversity: a classification of hypotheses and exploration of empirical results. Ecol. Appl., 96: 893-912.

Schmitz, O. J. 2009. Effects of predator functional diversity on grassland ecosystem function. Ecology, 90:2339-2345.

Schwartz, M. W., C. A. Bringham and J. D. Hoeksema. 2000. Linking biodiversity to ecosystem function: implications for conservation ecology. Oecologia, 96:297- 305.

Scialabba, N. E. 2000. Organic agriculture and soil biodiversity extracted from organic farming enhances soil fertility and biodiversity: results from a 21 year old field trial, research institute of organic farming (fibl), frick, Switzerland, August 2000.

Scow, K. M., O. Somasco, N. Gunapala, S. Lau, R. Venette, H. Ferris, R. Miller and S. Shennan. 1994. Transition from conventional to low-input agriculture changes soil fertility and biology. California Agric., 48: 20-26.

Shannon, C. E. 1948. A mathematical theory of communication. J. Bell Syst. Tech., 27: 379-423.

Siddiqui, M. J. I. 2005. Studies on the biodiversity of invertebrates in the wheat Triticum aestivum farm agroecosystems of Punjab, Pakistan. Ph. D. thesis, Department of Zoology and Fisheries, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad.

Siddiqui, M. J. I., S. A. Rana., A. Sohail and N. Rana. 2005. Biodiversity of insects in high and low input wheat (Triticum aestivum) fields agroecosystems of Punjab. Pak. Entomol., 27: 25-28.

Siemann, E., D. Tilman, J. Haarstad and M. Ritchie. 1998. Experimental tests of the dependence of arthropod diversity on plant diversity. Am. Nat., 152:738-750. 142

Six, J., C. Feller, K. Denef, S. M. Ogle, J. C. de Moraes Sa and A. Albrecht. 2002. Soil organic matter, biota and aggregation in temperate and tropical soils - Effects of no-tillage. Agronomie, 22:755-775.

Slansky, F. and J. G. Rodriguez. 1987. Nutritional ecology of insects, mites, spiders and related invertebrates. Wiley, New York Chichester. Stary, P. and K. S. Pike. 1999. Uses of beneficial insect diversity in agroecosystem management. In W.W. Collins and C.O. Qualset (Ed.) Biodiversity in agroecosystems. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. pp. 49-67.

Stevenson, K., V. Richard and G. V. Anderson. 2002. The Density and Diversity of Soil Invertebrates in Conventional and Pesticide Free Corn. Transactions of the Illinois State Acad. Sci., 95:1-9.

Stinner, B. R. and D. A. Crossley. 1983. Nematodes in no-tillage agroecosystems, In: Freckman, D. (Editor Nematodes in Ecosystems. Univ. Texas Pr., Austin, TX. pp. 14-28.

Stolze, M., A. Piorr, A. Häring and S. Dabbert. 2000. The environmental impacts of organic farming in Europe. Organic farming in Europe: Economics and Policy, Volume 6. University of Hohenheim: Stuttgart-Hohenheim, Germany.

Susilo, F. X., A. M. Neutel, M. V. Noordwijk, K. Hairiah, G. Brown and M. J. Swift. 2004. Soil biodiversity and food webs. In below–ground interactions in tropical agroecosystems, concepts and models in multiple plant component, pp. 285-307.

Symstad, A. J., D. Tilman, J. Willson and J. M. H. Knops. 1998. Species loss and ecosystem functioning: effects of species identity and community composition. Oikos, 96: 389-397.

Terry, C. and L. L. Linda. 1986. The economic implications of organic farming. Ecological Agriculture Projects, McGill University (Macdonald Campus) Ste- Anne-de-Bellevue, QC, H9X 3V9 Canada, 1: 25-29.

Tilman, D. 2000. Causes, consequences and ethics of biodiversity. Nature, 405:208-211.

143

Tilman, D., D. Wedin and J. Knops. 1996. Productivity and sustainability influenced by biodiversity in grassland ecosystems. Nature, 96: 718-720.

Tilman, D., K. G. Cassman, P. A. Matson, R. Naylor and S. Polasky. 2002. Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature, 418: 671-677.

Triplehorn, C. A. and N. F. Johnson. 2005. Borror and DeLong’s Introduction to the Study of Insects (7th Ed). Brooks / Thomson Cole USA.

Tshernyshev, W. B. 2001. Ecological pest manage-ment. Arthropods in agroecosystem. Mos-cow. Moscow University Press, pp. 136.

Van Straalen, N. M. 1998. Evaluation of bio-indicator systems derived from soil arthropod communities. Appl. Soil Ecol., 9: 429-437.

Walter, D. E. and H. C. Proctor. 1999. Mites: Ecology, Evolution and Behaviour. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, Oxon.

Wang, Z., Z. You-mei, G. Young-can, X. Wei-sheng and L. Zhong-wu. 1998. Monitoring of soil heavy metal pollution by earthworms. J. Environ. Sci., 10, Beijing.

Wang, D., L. Huixin, H. Feng and W. Xia. 2007. Role of earthworm-straw interactions on phytoremediation of Cu contaminated soil by ryegrass. Acta Ecol. Sinica, 27(4): 1292-1299. Warren, P. H. and J. H. Lawton. 1987. Invertebrate predator-prey body size relationships. An explanation for upper triangular food webs and pattern in food web structure? Oecologia, 74: 5-231.

Weibull, A. C., O. Ostman and A. Granqvist. 2003. Species richness in agroecosystems: the effect of landscape, habitat and farm management. Biodivers. Conser., 12: 1335-1355.

Welbaum, G., A.V. Sturz, Z. Dong and J. Nowak. 2004. Fertilizing soil microorganisms to improve productivity of agroecosystems. Critic. Rev. Plant Sci., 23: 175-193.

Will, O. H. 1998. Native American Heritage Seed Garden.

URL:http://www2.kenyon.edu/bfec/bethweb.html.

144

Wilson, A. B., K. A. Naish and E. B. Boulding. 1999. Multiple dispersal strategies of the nvasive quagga mussel (Dreissena bugensis) as revealed by microsatellite analysis. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 56:2248-2261.

Wolters, V., W. L. Silver, D. E. Bignell, D. C. Coleman, P. Lavelle, W. H. van der Putten, P. de Ruiter, J. Rusek, D. H. Wall, D. A. Wardle, L. Brussaard, J. M. Dangerfield, V. K. Brown, K. Giller, D. U. Hooper, O. Sala, J. Tiedje and J. A. van Veen. 2000. Effects of global changes on above- and belowground biodiversity in terrestrial ecosystems: implications for ecosystem functioning. BioScience, 50:1089-1098.

Yardeners’Advisor Newsletter. 1999. Why Care about Soil Critters? pp. 1-2.

Young, T. P. 2000. Restoration ecology and conservation biology. Biol. Conser., 92: 73- 84.

145

Annexure-I: Number of soil macroinvertebrates recorded from low (LIP) and high (HIP) in put treated wheat and cane fields in Faisalabad district during the study period

Phylum Class Order Family Species Wheat Sugarcane LIP HIP Total LIP HIP Total Annelida Oligochaeta Haplotaxida (earthworms) Megascholoida Pheretima elongata 05 02 07 28 10 38 Pheretima heterochaeta 03 02 05 - - - Pheretima posthuma 03 03 06 57 31 88 Pheretima morrisi - - - 25 08 33 Pheretima hawayana - - - 19 05 24 Pheretima houlleti - - - 02 03 05 Pheretima suctoria - - - 21 09 30 Arthropoda Insecta Diplura (bristletails) Japygidae Japyx spp. - 02 02 - - - Collembolla (springtails) Entomobryidae Isotomorus palustris 01 - 01 - - -

Orthoptera (grasshoppers and Gryllotalpidae Gryllotalpa orientalis - 11 11 02 20 22 Gryllidae Nemobius fasciatus - - - 02 03 05 Isoptera (termites) Rhinotermitidae Prototermes adamsoni - 03 03 - - - Prototermes spp. - 02 02 - - - Termitidae Microtermes obesi - 12 12 - - -

Odontotermis obesus - 02 02 - - - Dermaptera (ear wigs) Labiduridae Labidura riparia 01 - 01 - - - Anisolabis martima 11 - 11 - - - Labiidae Labia minor 03 02 05 - - -

Forficulidae Forficula auricularia 09 09 18 34 32 66 Forficula spp. 03 - 03 03 02 05 Hemiptera (true bugs) Cydnidae Pangaeus bilineatus 07 07 14 21 08 29 Tritomegas sexmaculatus - - - 07 16 23

Tritomegas spp. - - - 01 03 04 Pentatomidae Thynata custator - - - 02 05 07 Thynata spp - - - 02 02 04 146

Coleoptera (beetles) Cicindelidae Cicindela scutellaris - 02 02 Carabidae Scaphinotus angulatus - 01 01 14 - 14

Calosoma maderae 12 01 13 - - - Calosoma scurutator 09 - 09 - - - Harpalus spp. 30 05 35 - - - Calosoma spp 06 03 09 - - - Oryctes rhinoceros - - - - 02 02

Carabus auratus - - - - 01 01 Anthicidae Ischyropalpus fuscus 14 - 14 - - - Meloidae Macrobasis unicolor - 02 02 - - -

Tetanops aldrichs 01 - 01 - - - Tenebrionidae Merinus leavis 02 - 02 - Geotrupes spp. 01 - 01 - - - Promethis valgipes 05 - 05 - - - Strongylium saracenum 02 - 02 - - -

Gymnopleurus mospsus - 02 02 - - - Calosoma obscurus 01 - 01 - - - Tribolium castaneum - 03 03 - - - Gonocephalum elderi 07 - 07 - 03 03

Gonocephalum misellum - - - - 01 01 Gonocephalum terminale - - - 07 - 07 Adelina plana 07 - 07 - - - Platydema spp. 08 02 10 - - -

Neomida bicornis 07 - 07 - - - Gonocephalum depressum 02 04 06 - 18 18 Tenebrio molitor 02 04 06 - - - Eleodes spp. 02 - 02 - - -

Tribolium confusum 01 02 03 01 02 03 Tenebrio. spp 03 02 05 Gonocephalum stocklieni - - - 07 03 10 147

Gonocephalum vagum - - - 01 18 19 Eleodes hirtipennis - - - 02 06 08

Balps muronota - - - - 06 06 Heleus waitei - - - 07 - 07 Blastinus spp. - - - 03 - 03 Platydema subcostatum - - - 08 06 14 Promethis nigra - - - 06 - 06

Mylabridae Acanthoscelides obtectus 02 - 02 - - - Scarabaeidae Oryctes nasicornis 04 - 04 - - - Osmoderma eremite 04 - 04 - - -

Pentodon idiota 01 04 05 04 05 09 Pentodon bispinosus - - - 01 07 08 Pentodon punctatus - - - - 01 01 Phyllophaga protoricensis 04 - 04 - - - Gymnopleurus miliaris - - - - 04 04

Curculionidae Nyctoporis carinatus - 03 03 Hypolixus truncatulatus - - - 13 04 17 Esamus princeps - - - 04 - 04 Cleonus jaunus - - - - 01 01

Liophoeus tessulatus - - - 01 - 01 Cleonus riger - - - - 02 02 Chrysomelidae Hispellinus moestus - - - - 08 08 Chrysochus auratus - - - 01 - 01

Staphylinidae Paedurus littoralis - - - - 02 02 Coccinellidae Adalia decempunctata - - - 13 - 13 Lepidoptera (moths and Noctuidae Agrotis spp. 01 03 04 Phalaenidae Alomogina eumata - 03 03 - - -

Laphygma frugiperde 01 03 04 - - - Diptera (true flies) Asilidae Leptogaster annulates - 01 01 - - - Syrphidae Syrphus torvus - 02 02 - - - 148

Ceratopogonidae Forcipomyia spp. - 03 03 - - - Trypetidae Euxesta stigmatias - 01 01 - - -

Hymenoptera (sawflies, Tiphiidae Neozeleboria spp. - 01 01 - - - wasps, bees and ants) Formicidae Formica spp.1 48 30 78 50 59 109 Camponotus spp. 50 28 78 09 25 34 Camponotus herculeanus - - - 22 - 22 Solenopsis japonica 01 19 20

Solenopsis invicta 30 25 55 79 21 100 Pheidde hyaiti - 01 01 Dolichoderus taschenbergi 09 06 15 10 09 19

Camponotus pennsylvanicus 14 - 14 15 04 19 Formica sanguinea - 06 06 04 11 15 Formica exsectoides - - - 03 08 11 Formica rufa - - - 07 - 07 Formica spp.2 14 12 26 10 09 19

Formica. spp.3 05 01 06 10 05 15 Anoplolepis gracilipes 08 07 15 Dolichondrinae Dolichonderus spp. 06 - 06 - - - Arachnida Araneae (spiders) Anyphaenidae Hibana spp. - - - 05 - 05

Lycosidae Hippasa madhuae 05 - 05 27 03 30 Hippasa partita 06 01 07 12 06 18 Clubionidae Clubiona obesa 09 03 12 - - - Clubiona spp 05 - 05 - - -

Cheiracanthium - - - 09 - 09 b Salticidae Phintella piatensis - - - 03 03 Spartaeus uplandicus - - - - 02 02 Oxyopidae Oxyopes javanus - - - 12 - 12 Dyschiriognatha Tetragnathidae - - - 08 - 08 Diplopoda Julida (millipedes) Julidae hCylindroiulus boleti 04 - 04 Chilopoda Geophilomorpha Schendylidae Schendyla nemorensis 07 - 07 04 - 04 149

(centipedes) Geophilidae Necrophleophagus 07 - 07 - - - lGeophilus carpophagus 08 08 - - -

Malacostraca Isopoda (pillbug) Oniscidae Oniscus asellus 02 07 09 - - - Platyarthrus - 01 01 - - - Trichoniscidae hffTrichoniscus spp. 02 - 02 - - - Armadillidiidae Armadillidium vulgare 17 21 38 - - - Armadillidium nasatun 11 14 25 06 - 06

Armadillidium spp.1 - 07 07 03 03 06 Armadillidium spp.2 06 - 06 04 03 07 Armadillidium spp.3 - - - 04 03 07

Trachelipodidae Trachelipus rathkei - 03 03 171 270 441 Gastropoda Pulmonata (snails Lancidae Lanx spp. 02 - 02 - - - Mollusca & slugs) Lymnaeidae Galba truncatula 05 - 05 - - -

Lymnaea cubensis 04 - 04 - - - Lymnaea stagnalis - 01 01 Aciculidae Acicula lineate 04 - 04 - - - Platyla polita 04 - 04 - - -

Endontidae Punctum spp.1 - - - 127 - 127 Punctum spp. 2 - - - 07 - 07 Punctum spp. 3 - - - 04 - 04

Punctum spp. 4 - - - 02 - 02 Physidae Physella acuta 04 - 04 - - - Physa acuta 03 - 03 - - - Planorbidae Anisus leucostoma 03 - 03 - - - Planorbis planorbis 04 03 07 46 03 49

Planorbis convexiusculus - - - 33 - 33 Planorbis merguiensis - - - 19 06 25 Planorbis nanus - - - 17 02 19 Biomphalaria peregrine 02 - 02 Biomphalaria havanensis - - - 21 06 27 150

Hawaiia minuscula - - - 92 10 102 Planorbis spp - - - 02 01 03

Pupillidae Pupoides spp - - - 15 - 15 Bradybaenidae Monadenia fidelis 147 - 147 Discidae Discus rotundatus 03 - 03 Ferrussaciidae Caecilloides spp. - - - 40 - 40 Glessula spp. - - - 12 - 12

Haplotrematidae Haplotrema vancouverense 20 - 20 - - - Helicidae Planispira nagporensis 02 - 02 - - - Monacha cartusiana 04 02 06 - - -

Monacha spp. 04 01 05 - - - Hygromiidae Cernuella jonica 03 - 03 - - - Xerocrassa mesosterna 02 - 02 - - - Hygromia cinctella 02 - 02 - - - Helicella profuga 02 01 03 - - -

Xerosecta cespitum 03 03 06 - - - Metafruticicola nicosiana 01 - 01 - - - Euomphalia strigella 02 - 02 - - - Trichia hispida 02 - 02 - - -

Xerosecta spp. 02 05 07 - - - Megomphicidae Megomphix hemphilli 29 - 29 - - - Clausiliidae Balea perversa 09 - 09 - - - Cochlodina laminata 10 - 10 - - -

Cochlostoma septemspirale 04 - 04 - - - Achatinellidae Achatinella bulimoides 01 - 01 - - - Achatinidae Achatina fulica 02 - 02 - 03 03 Enidae Jaminia quadridens 03 03 06 - - -

Mastus olivaceus 03 04 07 - - - Paramastus episomus 05 02 07 - - - Punctidae Punctum pygmaeum 01 - 01 - - - 151

Pristilomatidae Oxychillus alliarius 39 - 39 - - - Microphysula cookie 05 - 05 - - -

Subulinidae Obeliscus sallei - 03 03 - - - Zootecus spp. - - - 07 - 07 Curvella spp. - - - 22 - 22 Subulina octona - - - 10 01 11 Opeas hannese - - - 05 - 05

Succineidae Succinea spp. - - - 03 - 03 Valloniidae Planogyra clappi 11 - 11 - - - Helixarionidae Euconulus fulvus 09 - 09 - - -

Zonitidae Oxychillus cellarium 22 - 22 - - - Oxychillus draparnandii 17 - 17 - - - Oxychillus spp. 01 - 01 - - - Aegopinella nitidula 03 - 03 - - - Vitrina spp. - - - 06 - 06

Cryptaustenia spp. - - - 80 - 80 Bensonia spp - - - 16 - 16 Total number of 859 326 1185 1400 738 2138 Total number of 102 62 126 79 61 94

152

Annexure-II: Distribution of various soil macroinvertebrates in three micro-habitats of low (LIP) and high (HIP) in put treated wheat and cane fields in Faisalabad district during the study period

Order Family Species Wheat Sugarcane

LIP HIP LIP HIP

Open Under Inside Total Open Under Inside Total Open Under Inside Total Open Under Inside Total edge tree field edge tree field edge tree field edge tree field Haplotaxida Megascholoida Pheretima elongata 05 - - 05 01 01 02 07 08 13 28 03 05 02 10

Pheretima - 02 - - - heterochaeta 02 01 - 03 - 02 - - - - -

Pheretima posthuma - - 03 11 14 06 31 03 - - 03 03 16 30 11 57 Pheretima morrisi ------05 16 4 25 04 04 08

Pheretima hawayana ------02 12 05 19 03 02 05 Pheretima houlleti ------01 01 02 01 02 03 Pheretima suctoria ------17 04 21 01 05 03 09 Diplura Japygidae Japyx spp. - - - - 02 02 ------Collembolla Entomobryidae Isotomorus palustris - 01 01 ------Gryllotalpa orientalis Orthoptera Gryllotalpidae - - - - - 11 11 01 01 02 02 08 10 20

Gryllidae Nemobius fasciatus ------02 02 01 02 03 Prototermes Isoptera Rhinotermitidae - - - - - 03 - 03 ------adamsoni Prototermes. spp. - - - - - 02 - 02 ------

Termitidae Microtermes obesi - - - - - 12 - 12 ------

Odontotermis obesus - - - - - 02 - 02 ------Dermaptera Labiduridae Labidura riparia - 01 - 01 ------

Anisolabis martima 11 - - 11 ------

Labiidae Labia minor 03 - - 03 - - 02 02 ------

Forficulidae Forficula auricularia 04 01 04 09 02 02 05 09 16 6 12 34 20 06 06 32 Forficula spp. 02 01 03 - - - - 01 01 01 03 01 - 01 02 Hemiptera Cydnidae Pangaeus bilineatus 03 03 01 07 02 01 04 07 06 10 05 21 - - 08 08 Tritomegas 01 06 10 05 01 sexmaculatus ------07 16

Tritomegas spp. ------01 - - 01 01 01 01 03

153

Pentatomidae Thynata custator ------01 - 01 02 01 03 01 05 Thynata spp. ------02 - - 02 - - 02 02 Cicindela scutellaris Coleoptera Cicindelidae - - - - 02 - - 02 ------

Scaphinotus Carabidae ------01 01 08 06 - 14 - - - - angulatus Calosoma maderae 12 - - 12 01 - - 01 ------

Calosoma scurutator 09 - - 09 ------

Harpalus spp. 15 10 05 30 01 02 02 05 ------

Calosoma spp - - 06 06 - - 03 03 ------

Oryctes rhinoceros ------02 02 Carabus auratus ------01 01

Ischyropalpus fuscus Anthicidae - 14 - 14 ------Meloidae Macrobasis unicolor - - - - 02 - - 02 ------

Tetanops aldrichs 01 - - 01 ------

Tenebrionidae Merinus leavis 02 - - 02 ------

Geotrupes spp. 01 - - 01 ------

Promethis valgipes - 05 - 05 ------

Strongylium - 02 - saracenum 02 ------

Gymnopleurus mospsus ------02 02 ------

Tenebrio obscurus - 01 - 01 ------

Tribolium castaneum - - - - 03 - - 03 ------

Gonocephalum elderi 04 03 - 07 ------03 - - 03

Gonocephalum ------01 - - 01 misellum Gonocephalum 07 terminale ------07 - - - -

Adelina plana - - 07 07 ------

Platydema spp. - - 08 08 01 - 01 02 ------

Neomida bicornis 03 04 - 07 ------

Gonocephalum 01 01 - 02 02 - 02 04 - - - - 17 - 01 18 depressum Tenebrio molitor 01 01 - 02 - 04 04 ------

Eleodes spp. 01 01 - 02 ------

154

Tribolium confusum - 01 - 01 - - 02 02 01 01 02 02

Tenebrio spp. 03 - - 03 - - 02 02 ------Gonocephalum stocklieni ------04 03 - 07 03 - - 03 Gonocephalum 01 - - 17 - 01 vagum ------01 18 Eleodes hirtipennis ------02 - 02 04 02 - 06

Balps muronota ------06 - - 06 Heleus waitei ------03 04 07 - - - -

Blastinus spp. ------02 01 03 - - - - Platydema subcostatum ------02 06 - 08 01 05 - 06 Promethis nigra ------06 - 06 - - - - Mylabridae Acanthoscelides obtectus - 02 - 02 ------Scarabaeidae Oryctes nasicornis 02 02 - 04 ------Osmoderma eremite 04 - 04 ------Pentodon idiota - 01 - 01 - - 04 04 02 01 01 04 02 02 01 05 Pentodon bispinosus ------01 - - 01 07 - - 07 Pentodon punctatus ------01 - - 01 Phyllophaga protoricensis - 04 - 04 ------Gymnopleurus 04 - - miliaris ------04 Curculionidae Nyctoporis carinatus - - - - 03 - - 03 ------

Hypolixus truncatulatus ------02 11 - 13 04 - - 04

Esamus princeps ------04 - 04 - - - -

Cleonus jaunus ------01 - - 01 Liophoeus tessulatus ------01 01 - - - - Cleonus riger ------02 - - 02 Chrysomelidae Hispellinus moestus ------08 - - 08

Chrysochus auratus ------01 01 - - - - Staphylinidae Paedurus littoralis ------02 02 Adalia Coccinellidae 10 3 - decempunctata ------13 - - - - 155

Lepidoptera Noctuidae Agrotis spp. 01 - - 01 03 - - 03 ------

Phalaenidae Alomogina eumata - - - 03 - - 03 ------

Laphygma frugiperde 01 - - 01 03 - 03 ------Diptera Asilidae Leptogaster annulates - - - - - 01 - 01 ------

Syrphidae Syrphus torvus ------02 02 ------Ceratopogonida Forcipomyia spp. - - - - 03 - - 03 ------e Trypetidae Euxesta stigmatias ------01 01 ------Hymenoptera Tiphiidae Neozeleboria spp. - - - - - 01 - 01 ------

Formicidae Formica spp1 22 13 13 48 11 12 07 30 18 22 10 50 22 30 07 59

Camponotus spp. 27 11 12 50 15 07 06 28 05 02 02 09 06 15 04 25

Camponotus herculeanus ------08 12 02 22 - - - -

Solenopsis japonica 01 - - 01 - 19 - 19 ------

Solenopsis invicta 09 12 09 30 04 14 07 25 15 45 19 79 05 05 11 21

Pheidde hyaiti - - - - - 01 - 01 ------

Dolichoderus taschenbergi 02 05 02 09 02 03 01 06 06 01 03 10 04 04 01 09

Camponotus pennsylvanicus - 14 - 14 - - - - 07 06 02 15 01 02 01 04

Formica sanguinea - - - - - 06 - 06 03 01 04 03 06 02 11 Formica exsectoides ------01 01 01 03 03 02 03 08 Formica rufa ------01 01 05 7 - - - - Formica spp.2 02 10 02 14 03 09 - 12 08 02 10 02 05 02 09 Formica spp.3 - 05 - 05 01 - - 01 10 10 01 04 05 Anoplolepis gracilipes ------03 03 02 08 04 02 01 07

Dolichoderus spp. - 06 - 06 ------Araneae Anyphaenidae Hibana spp. ------05 05 - - - -

Lycosidae Hippasa madhuae - 05 05 - - - - 18 06 03 27 01 01 01 03

Hippasa partita - 06 06 01 - 01 05 01 06 12 02 01 03 06

Clubionidae Clubiona obesa 03 03 03 09 01 02 - 03 ------

Clubiona spp. - - 05 05 ------

156

Cheiracanthium tigbauanensis ------09 - 09 - - - -

Salticidae Phintella piatensis ------02 01 03 - - - -

Spartaeus uplandicus ------01 01 02 Oxyopidae Oxyopes javanus (Thorell) ------12 - - 12 - - - - Tetragnathidae Dyschiriognatha hawigtenera ------08 - 08 - - - - Julida Julidae Cylindroiulus boleti - 04 04 ------Geophilomor Schendylidae Schendyla nemorensis pha - 07 07 - - - - 02 02 - 04 - - - - Geophilidae Necrophleophagus longicornis - 07 - 07 ------Geophilus carpophagus - 08 - 08 ------Isopoda Oniscidae Oniscus asellus - - 02 02 03 04 - 07 ------

Platyarthrus hoffmannseggi - - - - 01 - - 01 ------

Trichoniscidae Trichoniscus spp. 02 02 ------Armadillidiidae Armadillidium vulgare 05 11 01 17 02 14 05 21 ------Armadillidium nasatum 01 05 05 11 05 06 03 14 - 04 02 06 - - - -

Armadillidium spp.1 - - - - 03 - 04 07 02 01 - 03 03 - 03 Armadillidium spp.2 04 02 06 - - - - 03 01 - 04 02 01 - 03 Armadillidium spp.3 ------04 - 04 02 01 - 03

Trachelipusidae Trachelipus rathkei - - - - 03 03 47 75 49 171 100 105 65 270 Pulmonata Lancidae Lanci.spp. 02 - 02 ------

Lymnaeidae Galba truncatula 03 02 - 05 ------

Lymnaea cubensis 02 02 - 04 ------Lymnaea stagnalis ------01 01 Aciculidae Acicula lineate - 04 - 04 ------

Platyla polita - 04 - 04 ------Endontidae Punctum spp.1 ------37 85 05 127 - - - -

157

Punctum spp.2 ------07 - - 07 - - - -

Punctum spp.3 ------04 04 - - - - Punctum spp.4 ------02 02 - - - -

Physidae Physella acuta 04 - 04 ------

Physa acuta 03 - 03 ------

Planorbidae Anisus leucostoma 01 02 - 03 ------

Planorbis planorbis 02 02 - 04 - 02 01 03 24 10 12 46 02 01 - 03

Planorbis convexiusculus ------33 33 - - - -

Planorbis ------11 03 05 19 04 01 01 06 merguiensis

Planorbis nanus ------09 04 04 17 01 01 02

Biomphalaria peregrine - 02 - 02 ------

Biomphalaria ------21 - - 21 06 - - 06 havanensis Hawaiia minuscula ------70 14 08 92 04 04 02 10

Planorbis spp. ------01 01 02 - 01 - 01 Pupillidae Pupoides spp ------03 11 01 15 - - - -

Bradybaenidae Monadenia fidelis 48 99 147 ------Discidae Discus rotundatus 01 02 03 ------

Ferrussaciidae Caecilloides spp. ------10 29 01 40 - - - -

Glessula spp. ------05 02 05 12 - - - -

Haplotrematidae Haplotrema vancouverense 02 18 - 20 ------

Helicidae Planispira nagporensis - 02 - 02 ------Monacha cartusiana - 04 - 04 - - 02 02 ------

Monacha spp - 04 -- 04 01 01 ------Hygromiidae Cernuella jonica - 03 - 03 ------

Xerocrassa mesosterna - 02 - 02 ------

Hygromia cinctella - 02 - 02 ------

Helicella profuga - 02 - 02 - - 01 01 ------158

Xerosecta cespitum 01 02 - 03 - - 03 03 ------

Metafruticicola nicosiana - 01 - 01 ------

Euomphalia strigella - 02 - 02 ------

Trichia hispida - 02 - 02 ------Xerosecta spp. - 02 - 02 02 01 02 05 ------Megomphicidae Megomphix hemphilli 12 16 01 29 ------

Clausiliidae Balea perversa 03 06 - 09 ------

Cochlodina laminata 10 - -- 10 ------Cochlostoma septemspirale 04 - - 04 ------Achatinellidae Achatinella bulimoides 01 - 01 ------Achatinidae Achatina fulica 02 - - 02 ------03 03 Enidae Jaminia quadridens - 03 - 03 01 - 02 03 ------

Mastus olivaceus - 03 - 03 02 - 02 04 ------Paramastus episomus - 03 02 05 02 - - 02 ------Punctidae Punctum pygmaeum 01 - - 01 ------

Pristilomatidae Oxychillus alliarius 11 28 - 39 ------

Microphysula cookie 02 02 01 05 ------

Subulinidae Obeliscus sallei - - - - 03 - - 03 ------

Zootecus spp. ------07 07 - - - - Curvella spp. ------08 13 01 22 - - - -

Subulina octona ------06 04 10 01 01 Opeas hannese ------05 05 - - - - Succineidae Succinea spp. ------03 03 - - - - Valloniidae Planogyra clappi 11 - - 11 ------Helixarionidae Euconulus fulvus 09 - - 09 ------Zonitidae Oxychillus cellarius 08 13 01 22 ------

159

Oxychillus draparnandii 05 12 - 17 ------

Oxychillus spp. - 01 - 01 ------

Aegopinella nitidula 01 02 - 03 ------

Vitrina spp. ------01 05 - 06 - - - - Cryptaustenia spp. ------22 58 - 80 - - - - Bensonia spp ------05 11 16 - - - - Total number of specimens 314 453 92 859 98 147 81 326 574 598 228 1400 325 256 157 738

Total number of species 57 74 21 102 34 29 29 62 63 55 43 79 55 35 32 61

160

Annexure-III: Richness (S), Diversity (H') and evenness (E) values calculated for soil macrofauna recorded from three microhabitats in LIP and HIP treated wheat fields

Microhabitats/Microhabitats LIP HIP t-value df p-value Open edge vs. open edge Richness 57 34 16.05 >120 <0.001*** Diversity 3.458 3.237 Evenness 0.855 0.891 Open edge vs. Under tree Richness 57 29 23.732 >120 <0.001*** Diversity 3.458 2.949 Evenness 0.855 0.875 Open edge vs. Inside field Richness 57 29 7.589 >120 <0.001*** Diversity 3.458 3.194 Evenness 0.855 0.948 Under tree vs. Open edge Richness 74 34 8.523 >120 <0.001*** Diversity 3.566 3.145 Evenness 0.828 0.891 Under tree vs. Under tree Richness 74 29 20.018 >120 <0.001*** Diversity 3.566 2.949 Evenness 0.828 0.875 Under tree vs. Inside field Richness 74 29 9.022 >120 <0.001*** Diversity 3.566 3.194 Evenness 0.828 0.948 Inside field vs. Open edge Richness 22 34 6.078 >120 <0.001*** Diversity 2.741 3.145 Evenness 0.886 0.891 Inside field vs. Under tree Richness 22 29 6.784 >120 <0.001*** Diversity 2.741 2.949 Evenness 0.886 0.875 Inside field vs. Inside field Richness 21 29 10.891 >120 <0.001*** Diversity 2.741 3.194 161

Evenness 0.886 0.948 Annexure-III Continue Total Wheat fauna (LIP vs. LIP) Richness 102 62 3.369 >120 <0.001*** Diversity 3.848 3.611 Evenness 0.452 0.706 LIP LIP t-value df p-value Open edge vs. Under tree Richness 57 74 -1.264 >120 0.207ns Diversity 3.458 3.566 Evenness 0.635 0.434 Open edge vs. Inside field Richness 57 21 7.805 >120 <0.001*** Diversity 3.458 2.741 Evenness 0.635 0.934 Under tree vs. Inside field Richness 74 21 8.855 >120 <0.001*** Diversity 3.566 2.741 Evenness 0.434 0.934 HIP HIP t-value df p-value Open edge vs. Under tree Richness 34 29 2.836 >120 <0.005* Diversity 3.237 2.949 Evenness 0.842 0.852 Open edge vs. Inside field Richness 34 29 0.484 >120 0.629ns Diversity 3.237 3.194 Evenness 0.842 1.152 Under tree vs. Inside field Richness 29 29 >120 <0.004** Diversity 2.949 3.194 Evenness 0.852 1.152 Shannon diversity indices of sub-habitat of low input and high input of wheat fields. P-value for the factor are given (ns: p>0.05, *: p<0.05, * *: p<0.01, * * *: p<0.001).NUMBER 1: N0 = S where S is the total number of species in the sample, NUMBER 2: N1 = H where H′ is the Shannon’s index of diversity, and where E is the index of evenness, and N1 and N2 are the number of abundant and very abundant species respectively in the sample.

162

Annexure-IV: Monthly variations in the number of soil macro-invertebrates recorded from low (LIP) and high (HIP) in put treated wheat fields in Faisalabad district during the study period

Order Family Wheat LIP HIP Species Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Total Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Total Haplotaxida Megascholoida Pheretima elongata - - - - 05 - 05 - - 01 01 02 Pheretima heterochaeta 03 - - - - 03 - - 02 - - - 02

Pheretima posthuma - - - - - 03 03 03 03

Pheretima morrisi ------Pheretima hawayana ------

Pheretima houlleti ------Pheretima suctoria ------Diplura Japygidae Japyx spp. ------02 02 Collembolla Entomobryidae Isotomorus palustris - - - - 01 - 01 ------Orthoptera Gryllotalpidae Gryllotalpa orientalis ------11 11

Gryllidae Nemobius fasciatus ------Isoptera Rhinotermitidae Prototermes adamsoni ------03 - - - - 03

Prototermes spp. ------02 - - - - 02

Termitidae Microtermes obesi ------12 - - - - 12

Odontotermis obesus ------02 - - - - 02 Dermaptera Labiduridae Labidura riparia - - 01 - - - 01 ------

Anisolabis martima - - 11 - - - 11 ------

Labiidae Labia minor 03 - - - - - 03 02 02 Forficulidae Forficula auricularia 02 - 02 03 01 01 09 01 01 01 01 04 01 09

Forficula spp. - 01 01 - 01 - 03 ------Hemiptera Cydnidae Pangaeus bilineatus 01 02 01 - 03 - 07 - 02 01 01 01 02 07 Tritomegas sexmaculatus ------

Tritomegas spp. ------

163

Pentatomidae Thynata custator ------Thynata spp ------Coleoptera Cicindelidae Cicindela scutellaris ------02 - - - - 02

Carabidae Scaphinotus angulatus ------01 - - - 01

Calosoma maderae - 12 - - - - 12 - - 01 - - - 01

Calosoma scurutator - 09 - - 09 ------

Harpalus spp. - 05 10 - - 15 30 01 01 01 01 01 05

Calosoma spp. 03 03 - - - 06 03 03

Oryctes rhinoceros ------

Carabus auratus ------Anthicidae Ischyropalpus fuscus 14 - - - - - 14 ------Meloidae Macrobasis unicolor ------02 02 Tetanops aldrichs - - - - 01 - 01 ------Tenebrionidae Merinus leavis 02 - - - - - 02 ------

Geotrupes spp. 01 - - - - - 01 ------

Promethis valgipes 05 - - - - - 05 ------

Strongylium saracenum - - 02 - - - 02 ------

Gymnopleurus mospsus ------02 02

Tenebrio obscurus - 01 - - - - 01 ------

Tribolium castaneum ------03 03 Gonocephalum elderi - - 07 - - - 07 ------Gonocephalum misellum ------

Gonocephalum terminale ------

Adelina plana 07 - - - - - 07 ------

Platydema spp. 08 - - - - - 08 02 - - - - - 02 Neomida bicornis 07 - - - - - 07 ------Gonocephalum depressum 02 - - - - - 02 - - - - 04 04 Tenebrio molitor 01 01 - - - 02 - - - - - 04 04 Eleodes spp. - - 01 01 - - 02 ------Tribolium confusum - 01 - - - - 01 - - - - 02 - 02 164

Tenebrio. spp. - - 03 - - - 03 - - - - - 02 02 Gonocephalum stocklieni ------Gonocephalum vagum ------Eleodes hirtipennis ------Balps muronota ------Heleus waitei ------Blastinus spp. ------Platydema subcostatum ------Promethis nigra ------Mylabridae Acanthoscelides obtectus - - - - 02 - 02 ------Scarabaeidae Oryctes nasicornis 02 - - - 02 - 04 ------Osmoderma eremite - - 04 - - - 04 ------Pentodon idiota - 01 - - - - 01 - - - 02 02 04

Pentodon bispinosus ------

Pentodon punctatus ------Phyllophaga protoricensis - - 04 - - - 04 ------Gymnopleurus miliaris ------Curculionidae Nyctoporis carinatus ------03 03 Hypolixus truncatulatus ------Esamus princeps ------

Cleonus jaunus ------

Liophoeus tessulatus ------Cleonus riger ------Chrysomelidae Hispellinus moestus ------Chrysochus auratus ------Staphylinidae Paedurus littoralis ------Coccinellidae Adalia decempunctata ------Lepidoptera Noctuidae Agrotis . spp. - - 01 - - - 01 - - 03 - - - 03 Phalaenidae Alomogina eumata ------03 - - - 03 Laphygma frugiperde - - - - 01 - 01 - - - - 03 - 03 Diptera Asilidae Leptogaster annulates ------01 - - - - 01 165

Syrphidae Syrphus torvus ------02 - - - 02 Ceratopogonidae Forcipomyia spp. ------03 - - - 03 Trypetidae Euxesta stigmatias ------01 - - - 01 Hymenoptera Tiphiidae Neozeleboria spp. ------01 - - - 01

Formicidae Formica spp1 07 04 16 12 06 03 48 06 03 09 03 07 02 30

Camponotus spp. 09 05 21 05 06 04 50 03 08 06 05 04 02 28

Camponotus herculeanus ------Solenopsis japonica - 01 - - - - 01 - 10 - - 09 - 19 Solenopsis invicta 06 05 05 05 04 05 30 04 03 06 06 02 04 25

Pheidde hyaiti ------01 - - - - 01

Dolichoderus taschenberg 03 01 01 02 01 01 09 - 02 01 01 02 - 06 Camponotus pennsylvanicus 07 07 - - - - 14 ------Formica sanguinea ------04 - 01 - 01 06

Formica exsectoides ------

Formica rufa ------

Formica spp.2 02 04 02 03 03 14 05 04 03 - - - 12 Formica spp.3 - - - 03 02 - 05 - 01 - - - - 01 Anoplolepis gracilipes ------Dolichondrinae Dolichonderus spp. - - - - 06 - 06 ------Araneae Anyphaenidae Hibana spp. ------Lycosidae Hippasa madhuae - 05 - - - - 05 ------

Hippasa partita - 06 - - - - 06 - - 01 - - - 01 Clubionidae Clubiona obesa - - 03 03 03 - 09 - 01 - 01 - 01 03 Clubiona spp - - - - 05 - 05 ------Cheiracanthium ------tigbauanensis Salticidae Phintella piatensis ------Spartaeus uplandicus ------Oxyopidae Oxyopes javanus (Thorell) ------Tetragnathidae Dyschiriognatha ------166

hawigtenera Julida Julidae Cylindroiulus boleti 01 - 01 - 01 01 04 ------Geophilomorpha Schendylidae Schendyla nemorensis 04 - - 03 - - 07 ------

Geophilidae Necrophleophagus - - 07 - - - 07 ------longicornis Geophilus carpophagus 08 - - - - - 08 ------Isopoda Oniscidae Oniscus asellus - - 02 - - - 02 - - 01 01 04 01 07

Platyarthrus hoffmannseggi ------01 - - - - 01

Trichoniscidae Trichoniscus spp. - - - - 02 02 ------Armadillidiidae Armadillidium vulgare 06 05 02 02 01 01 17 06 06 04 02 02 01 21

Armadillidium nasatun 04 02 02 02 01 - 11 - 02 03 04 03 02 14

Armadillidium . spp.1 ------01 - 03 01 02 - 07 Armadillidium . spp.2 - - 02 02 02 06 ------Armadillidium spp.3 ------Trachelipodidae Trachelipus rathkei ------03 03 Pulmonata Lancidae Lanx spp. - 02 - - - 02 ------Lymnaeidae Galba truncatula 01 02 - - 02 - 05 ------Lymnaea cubensis 01 03 - - - - 04 ------

Lymnaea stagnalis ------Aciculidae Acicula lineate - 02 - - 02 - 04 ------Platyla polita - 04 - - - 04 ------Endontidae Punctum spp.1 ------Punctum spp. 2 ------Punctum spp. 3 ------Punctum spp. 4 ------Physidae Physella acuta 04 - - - - - 04 ------Physa acuta - - - - 03 - 03 ------Planorbidae Anisus leucostoma 02 - - 01 - - 03 ------Planorbis planorbis - 04 - - - - 04 - - 02 - 01 - 03

167

Planorbis convexiusculus ------Planorbis merguiensis ------Planorbis nanus ------Biomphalaria peregrine 02 02 Biomphalaria havanensis ------Hawaiia minuscula ------Planorbis spp ------Pupillidae Pupoides spp ------Bradybaenidae Monadenia fidelis 43 75 04 23 02 - 147 ------Discidae Discus rotundatus - 03 - - - - 03 ------Ferrussaciidae Caecilloides spp. ------

Glessula spp. ------Haplotrematidae Haplotrema vancouverense 14 06 - - - - 20 ------Helicidae Planispira nagporensis 01 01 - - - - 02 ------Monacha cartusiana 04 - - - - 04 02 - - - - - 02

Monacha . spp. 04 - - - - - 04 - - - - 01 01 Hygromiidae Cernuella jonica 03 - - - - 03 ------Xerocrassa mesosterna - - - - - 02 02 ------

Hygromia cinctella 02 - - - - 02 ------Helicella profuga 02 - - - - - 02 - - - 01 - - 01 Xerosecta cespitum 02 - - - 01 - 03 - - 03 - - - 03 Metafruticicola nicosiana - - - - 01 - 01 ------Euomphalia strigella - - - - 02 - 02 ------Trichia hispida 02 ------02 ------Xerosecta spp. - - - 02 - - 02 01 01 01 - 01 01 05 Megomphicidae Megomphix hemphilli 10 14 01 - 01 03 29 ------Clausiliidae Balea perversa - 05 02 02 - - 09 ------

Cochlodina laminata - 05 03 - 02 - 10 ------Cochlostoma septemspirale - 01 01 01 01 - 04 ------

168

Achatinellidae Achatinella bulimoides 01 - - - - - 01 ------Achatinidae Achatina fulica - 02 - - - - 02 ------Enidae Jaminia quadridens - 01 02 - - - 03 01 - - 01 01 - 03 Mastus olivaceus - - 03 - - - 03 02 -- - 02 - 04

Paramastus episomus - 02 02 - 01 - 05 01 - - - - 01 02 Punctidae Punctum pygmaeum - - 01 - - - 01 ------Pristilomatidae Oxychillus alliarius 01 22 01 11 04 - 39 ------

Microphysula cookie - - 02 01 02 - 05 ------Subulinidae Obeliscus sallei ------03 - - - 03 Zootecus spp. ------

Curvella spp. ------Subulina octona ------Opeas hannese ------Succineidae Succinea spp. ------Valloniidae Planogyra clappi - 06 - - 05 - 11 ------Helixarionidae Euconulus fulvus - - 09 - - - 09 ------Zonitidae Oxychillus cellarium - 07 03 07 04 01 22 ------Oxychillus draparnandii 04 10 - 02 01 17 ------Oxychillus spp. 01 - - - - - 01 ------Aegopinella nitidula - 03 - - - - 03 ------Vitrina spp. ------

Cryptaustenia spp. ------

Bensonia spp ------Total number of specimens 211 259 150 105 94 40 859 36 73 80 37 72 28 326 Total number of species 43 44 40 23 39 12 102 14 23 28 18 27 16 62

169

Annexure-V: Monthly variations in the number of soil macro-invertebrates recorded from low (LIP) and high (HIP) in put treated sugarcane fields in Faisalabad district during the study period

Sugarcane LIP Sugarcane HIP Order Family Species Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Total Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Total Haplotaxida Megascholoida Pheretima elongata 02 06 05 09 05 01 28 01 04 01 02 02 10

Pheretima ------heterochaeta

Pheretima posthuma 11 10 22 04 03 07 57 05 06 09 03 - 08 31 Pheretima morrisi 01 03 08 06 03 04 25 - 01 01 06 - - 08

Pheretima 03 04 03 02 03 04 19 01 04 - - - 05 hawayana Pheretima houlleti - - 01 01 - - 02 - 01 01 01 -- 03 Pheretima suctoria 01 - 03 09 07 01 21 01 - - - 06 02 09 Diplura Japygidae Japyx spp. ------Collembolla Entomobryidae Isotomorus palustris ------Orthoptera Gryllotalpa Gryllotalpidae - - 01 01 - - 02 - - 05 13 - 02 20 orientalis Gryllidae Nemobius fasciatus 01 - - 01 - - 02 01 - - 02 - - 03 Prototermes Rhinotermitidae ------adamsoni Isoptera Prototermes spp. ------

Termitidae Microtermes obesi ------Odontotermis ------obesus Dermaptera Labiduridae Labidura riparia ------

Anisolabis martima ------Labiidae Labia minor ------

Forficula Forficulidae - 13 07 06 - 08 34 - 19 06 03 02 02 32 auricularia Forficula spp. - 01 01 01 - - 03 01 - - 01 - - 02 Hemiptera Cydnidae Pangaeus bilineatus 04 02 03 - 04 08 21 - - 01 02 - 05 08

170

Tritomegas - 01 01 03 02 - 07 - 10 03 02 01 - 16 sexmaculatus Tritomegas spp. - 01 - - - - 01 - - 02 - - 01 03

Pentatomidae Thynata custator 01 - - - - 01 02 - 01 02 01 01 - 05

Thynata spp - - - - 02 - 02 - 02 - - - 02 Coleoptera Cicindelidae Cicindela scutellaris ------

Scaphinotus - - - 14 - - 14 ------angulatus Carabidae Calosoma maderae ------

Calosoma ------scurutator Harpalus spp. ------

Calosoma spp. ------Oryctes rhinoceros ------02 02

Carabus auratus ------01 - - - 01 Ischyropalpus Anthicidae ------fuscus Macrobasis Meloidae ------unicolor Tetanops aldrichs ------

Tenebrionidae Merinus leavis ------

Geotrupes spp. ------

Promethis valgipes ------Strongylium ------saracenum Gymnopleurus ------mospsus

Tenebrio obscurus ------

Tribolium ------castaneum Gonocephalum ------01 02 - - - 03 elderi Gonocephalum ------01 01 misellum Gonocephalum - - - 07 07 ------terminale 171

Adelina plana ------

Platydema spp. ------Neomida bicornis ------

Gonocephalum ------01 17 - - 18 depressum

Tenebrio molitor ------Eleodes spp. ------

Tribolium confusum - - - - - 01 01 - - - 02 02 Tenebrio. spp ------

Gonocephalum 03 01 01 - 02 07 - - 02 01 - - 03 stocklieni

Gonocephalum - 01 - - - - 01 - - 02 16 - - 18 vagum Eleodes hirtipennis - - 01 01 02 - - 06 - - 06 Balps muronota ------06 - - 06 Heleus waitei - - - 07 - - 07 ------Blastinus spp. - - - - - 03 03 ------Platydema - 02 06 - - - 08 01 - - 05 - - 06 subcostatum Promethis nigra - - - - - 06 06 ------Acanthoscelides Mylabridae ------obtectus Scarabaeidae Oryctes nasicornis ------

Osmoderma eremite ------Pentodon idiota - 01 01 01 01 04 - 01 02 01 01 05

Pentodon bispinosus - 01 - - - 01 - 07 - - - - 07 Pentodon punctatus ------01 - - - 01 Phyllophaga ------protoricensis Gymnopleurus ------04 - - - 04 miliaris Nyctoporis Curculionidae ------carinatus Hypolixus - - 09 - - 04 13 - 04 - - - - 04 172

truncatulatus

Esamus princeps - - 04 - - 04 - - - - - Cleonus jaunus ------01 - - - 01 Liophoeus - - - 01 01 ------tessulatus Cleonus riger ------02 - - 02 Chrysomelidae Hispellinus moestus ------08 - - 08

Chrysochus auratus 01 01 ------Staphylinidae Paedurus littoralis ------Adalia Coccinellidae - 13 - - - - 13 - - - - 02 02 decempunctata Noctuidae Agrotis . spp. ------Lepidoptera Phalaenidae Alomogina eumata ------Laphygma ------frugiperde Diptera Leptogaster Asilidae ------annulates Syrphidae Syrphus torvus ------

Ceratopogonidae Forcipomyia spp. ------Trypetidae Euxesta stigmatias ------Hymenoptera Tiphiidae Neozeleboria spp. ------

Formica spp1 04 29 13 04 50 01 06 26 20 06 - 59 Formicidae

Camponotus spp. 02 02 03 02 - - 09 - - 08 17 - - 25

Camponotus 04 10 02 02 02 02 22 ------herculeanus

Solenopsis japonica ------

Solenopsis invicta 07 03 07 51 06 05 79 04 02 05 02 04 04 21

Pheidde hyaiti ------

Dolichoderus 03 - 06 01 - 10 07 - 02 -- - - 09 taschenberg

Camponotus 05 02 03 03 01 01 15 - - - 02 02 - 04 pennsylvanicus

Formica sanguinea - 02 01 01 - - 04 - 02 01 06 02 - 11

173

Formica exsectoides - 01 01 01 - - 03 - 02 04 02 - 8 Formica rufa - 02 02 03 - - 07 ------Formica spp.2 01 - - 07 02 - 10 - - 02 01 03 03 09 Formica spp.3 - 03 05 - -- 02 10 - - 01 02 - 02 05 Anoplolepis - - 01 05 02 08 - - - 07 - - 07 gracilipes Dolichondrinae Dolichonderus spp. ------Araneae Anyphaenidae Hibana spp. - 05 - - - - 05 ------

Lycosidae Hippasa madhuae - 15 06 06 - - 27 - - - 03 - - 03

Hippasa partita - 03 03 05 01 12 - - 01 04 01 - 06

Clubionidae Clubiona obesa ------Clubiona spp ------

Cheiracanthium - - - 09 - - 09 ------tigbauanensis Salticidae Phintella piatensis - - - 03 - - 03 ------Spartaeus ------01 - 01 - - 02 uplandicus Oxyopes javanus Oxyopidae - - - 12 - - 12 ------(Thorell) Dyschiriognatha Tetragnathidae - - - 08 - - 08 ------hawigtenera Julida Julidae Cylindroiulus boleti ------Geophilomorpha Schendyla Schendylidae - - - - - 04 04 ------nemorensis Necrophleophagus Geophilidae ------longicornis

Geophilus ------carpophagus Isopoda Oniscidae Oniscus asellus ------

Platyarthrus ------hoffmannseggi

Trichoniscidae Trichoniscus spp. ------Armadillidium Armadillidiidae ------vulgare Armadillidium - - - 02 04 - 06 ------174

nasatun

Armadillidium . - 01 02 - - - 03 - - - 03 - - 03 spp.1 Armadillidium . - 01 03 - - - 04 - - - 03 - - 03 spp.2 Armadillidium - - 01 03 - - 04 - 03 - - - - 03 spp.3 Trachelipodidae Trachelipus rathkei - 12 40 106 03 10 171 - 21 50 184 04 11 270 Lancidae Lanx spp. ------Pulmonata Lymnaeidae Galba truncatula ------

Lymnaea cubensis ------

Lymnaea stagnalis 01 01 Aciculidae Acicula lineate ------

Platyla polita ------

Punctum spp.1 47 09 01 10 17 43 127 ------Endontidae Punctum spp. 2 01 - 02 01 01 02 07 ------

Punctum spp. 3 01 - 01 01 01 - 04 ------

Punctum spp. 4 - - - 01 01 - 02 ------Physidae Physella acuta ------

Physa acuta ------

Anisus leucostoma ------Planorbis planorbis - 07 13 26 - - 46 - 01 01 01 - - 03 Planorbidae Planorbis 06 09 - 09 - 09 33 ------convexiusculus Planorbis 05 - 04 03 07 - 19 01 - 01 - 04 - 06 merguiensis

Planorbis nanus 04 - 03 02 04 04 17 01 - - - 01 - 02

Biomphalaria ------peregrine Biomphalaria 04 03 09 03 - 02 21 - - 04 01 - 01 06 havanensis Hawaiia minuscula 01 05 02 12 70 02 92 05 01 03 01 10

Planorbis spp 01 01 - - - - 02 ------175

Pupillidae Pupoides spp 01 06 04 01 02 01 15 01 01

Bradybaenidae Monadenia fidelis ------Discidae Discus rotundatus ------

Ferrussaciidae Caecilloides spp. 13 15 11 01 40 ------

Glessula spp. 03 - - 03 02 04 12 ------

Haplotrema Haplotrematidae ------vancouverense Planispira Helicidae ------nagporensis

Monacha cartusiana ------

Monacha . spp. ------

Hygromiidae Cernuella jonica ------

Xerocrassa ------mesosterna

Hygromia cinctella ------

Helicella profuga ------

Xerosecta cespitum ------

Metafruticicola ------nicosiana Euomphalia ------strigella Trichia hispida ------

Xerosecta spp. ------Megomphix Megomphicidae ------hemphilli Balea perversa ------Clausiliidae Cochlodina ------laminata Cochlostoma ------septemspirale Achatinella Achatinellidae ------bulimoides Achatinidae Achatina fulica 01 02 03 Enidae Jaminia quadridens ------

176

Mastus olivaceus ------

Paramastus ------episomus Punctidae Punctum pygmaeum ------Pristilomatidae Oxychillus alliarius ------Microphysula ------cookie Obeliscus sallei ------Subulinidae Zootecus spp. 03 03 01 07 ------

Curvella spp. 09 04 04 01 03 01 22 ------

Subulina octona 06 04 - - - - 10 - - - - - 01 01 Opeas hannese - - 03 - 02 - 05 ------Succineidae Succinea spp. - 02 01 - - - 03 ------738 Valloniidae Planogyra clappi ------Helixarionidae Euconulus fulvus ------Zonitidae Oxychillus ------cellarium Oxychillus ------draparnandii Oxychillus spp. ------

Aegopinella nitidula ------Vitrina spp. 04 02 06 ------Cryptaustenia spp. 35 16 12 05 05 07 80 ------Bensonia spp 03 01 03 02 07 16 ------Total number of specimens 193 214 259 402 174 158 1400 24 95 159 364 49 47 738 Total number of species 32 44 48 53 33 32 79 11 20 34 40 20 16 61

177

Annexure-VI: Richness (S), Diversity (H) and evenness (E) values calculated for soil macro-fauna recorded from three microhabitats in LIP and HIP treated fields

LIP HIP t-value df p-value Open edge vs. open edge Richness (S) 63 55 11.676 >120 <0.001*** Diversity (H') 3.570 3.058 Evenness (E) 0.861 0.763 Open edge vs. Under tree Richness (S) 63 35 10.662 >120 <0.001*** Diversity (H') 3.570 2.469 Evenness (E) 0.861 0.694 Open edge vs. Inside Richness (S) 63 32 23.93 >120 <0.001*** Diversity (H') 3.570 2.488 Evenness (E) 0.861 0.717 Under tree vs. Open edge Richness (S) 55 55 2.548 >120 0.010** Diversity (H') 3.256 3.058 Evenness (E) 0.812 0.763 Diversity (H') 3.256 2.469 Evenness (E) 0.812 0.694 Under tree vs. Inside Richness (S) 55 32 39.398 >120 <0.001*** Diversity (H') 3.256 2.488 Evenness (E) 0.812 0.717 Inside field vs. Open Richness (S) 43 55 3.50 >120 <0.001*** Diversity (H') 3.157 3.058 Evenness (E) 0.839 0.763 Inside field vs. Under Richness (S) 43 35 7.20 >120 <0.001*** Diversity (H') 3.157 2.469 Evenness (E) 0.839 0.694 Inside field vs. Inside Richness (S) 43 32 29.624 >120 <0.001*** Diversity (H') 3.157 2.488 Evenness (E) 0.839 0.717 Sugarcane fauna LIP vs. Richness (S) 79 61 10.24 111 <0.001*** 178

Diversity (H') 3.630 2.932 Annexure-VI Continue Evenness (E) 0.59 0.31 LIP LIP t-value df p-value Open edge vs. Under tree Richness (S) 63 55 4.958 >120 <0.001*** Diversity (H') 3.566 3.256 Evenness (E) 0.670 0.610 Open edge vs. Inside Richness (S) 63 43 4.972 >120 <0.001*** Diversity (H') 3.566 3.145 Evenness (E) 0.670 0.583 Under tree vs. Inside Richness (S) 55 43 1.275 >120 0.203ns Diversity (H') 3.256 3.145 Evenness (E) 0.610 0.583 HIP HIP t-value df p-value Open edge vs. Under tree Richness (S) 55 35 4.723 >120 <0.001*** Diversity (H') 3.058 2.469 Evenness (E) 0.38 0.39 Open edge vs. Inside Richness (S) 55 32 3.996 >120 <0.001*** Diversity (H') 3.058 2.488 Evenness (E) 0.38 0.39 Under tree vs. Inside Richness (S) 35 32 -0.126 >120 0.899ns Diversity (H') 2.469 2.488 Evenness (E) 0.39 0.39 Shannon diversity indices of sub-habitat of low input and high input of sugarcane fields. P-value for the factor are given (ns: p>0.05, *: p<0.05, * *: p<0.01, * * *: p<0.001).NUMBER 1: N0 = S where S is the total number of species in the sample, NUMBER 2: N1 = H where H′ is the Shannon’s index of diversity, and where E is the index of evenness, and N1 and N2 are the number of abundant and very abundant species respectively in the sample.

179

Annexure-VII: Temporal variations in the abundance of soil macrofauna of wheat and sugarcane fields

Wheat Sugarcane Family Species Order Winter Spring Summer Autumn LIP HIP LIP HIP LIP HIP LIP HIP Haplotaxida Pheretima elongata -01050113051505

Megascholoida Pheretima heterochaeta 03 02 ------

Pheretima posthuma - - 03 03 43 20 14 11 Pheretima morrisi ----12021306 Pheretima hawayana ----100509- Pheretima houlleti ----01010102 Pheretima suctoria ----04011708 Diplura Japygidae Japyx spp. ---02-- -- Collembolla Entomobryidae Isotomorus palustris --01--- -- Orthoptera Gryllotalpidae Gryllotalpa orientalis -11-- 01050115

Gryllidae Nemobius fasciatus ----01010102 Isoptera Rhinotermitidae Prototermes adamsoni -03------

Prototermes spp. -02------

Microtermes obesi Termitidae -12------Odontotermis obesus -02------Dermaptera Labiduridae Labidura riparia 01 ------

Anisolabis martima 11 ------

Labiidae Labia minor 03 - - 02 - - - - Forficulidae Forficula auricularia 04 03 05 06 20 25 14 07 Forficula spp. 02 - 01 - 02 01 01 01 Hemiptera Cydnidae Pangaeus bilineatus 04 03 03 04 09 01 12 07

Tritomegas sexmaculatus ----02130503

Tritomegas spp. ----0102-01 Pentatomidae Thynata custator ----01030102

Thynata spp - - - - - 02 02 - Coleoptera Cicindelidae Cicindela scutellaris -02------

180

Carabidae Scaphinotus angulatus -01-- - - 14-

Calosoma maderae 12 01 ------

Calosoma scurutator --09--- --

Harpalus spp. 15 02 15 03 - - - - Calosoma spp. 06 - - 03 - - - - Oryctes rhinoceros ------02 Carabus auratus -----01-- Anthicidae Ischyropalpus fuscus 14 ------

Meloidae Macrobasis unicolor ---02-- --

Tetanops aldrichs --01--- -- Tenebrionidae Merinus leavis 02 ------

Geotrupes spp. 01 ------Promethis valgipes 05 ------

Strongylium saracenum 02 ------

Gymnopleurus mospsus ---02-- --

Tenebrio obscurus 01 ------

Tribolium castaneum ---03-- -- Gonocephalum elderi 07 - - - - 03 - -

Gonocephalum misellum ------01 Gonocephalum terminale ------07-

Adelina plana 07 ------

Platydema spp. 08 02 ------Neomida bicornis 07 ------

Gonocephalum depressum 02 - - 04 - 01 - 17 Tenebrio molitor 02 - - 04 - - - -

Eleodes spp. 01 - 01 - - - - -

Tribolium confusum 01 - - 02 - - 01 02

Tenebrio. spp 03 - - 02 - - - - Gonocephalum stocklieni ----04020301 Gonocephalum vagum ----0102-16 Eleodes hirtipennis - - - - 01 - 01 06

181

Balps muronota ------06 Heleus waitei ------07-

Blastinus spp. ------03-

Platydema subcostatum ----0801-05 Promethis nigra ------06- Mylabridae Acanthoscelides obtectus --02--- -- Scarabaeidae Oryctes nasicornis 02 - 02 - - - - -

Osmoderma eremite 04 ------

Pentodon idiota 01 - - 04 02 01 02 04

Pentodon bispinosus ----0107-- Pentodon punctatus -----01-- Phyllophaga protoricensis 04 ------Gymnopleurus miliaris -----04-- Curculionidae Nyctoporis carinatus ---03-- --

Hypolixus truncatulatus ----090404-

Esamus princeps ------04-

Cleonus jaunus -----01-- Liophoeus tessulatus ------01- Cleonus riger ------02 Chrysomelidae Hispellinus moestus ------08

Chrysochus auratus ------01- Staphylinidae Paedurus littoralis ------Coccinellidae Adalia decempunctata ----13- -02 Lepidoptera Noctuidae Agrotis . spp. 01 03 ------

Phalaenidae Alomogina eumata -03------

Laphygma frugiperde - - 01 03 - - - - Diptera Asilidae Leptogaster annulates -01------

Syrphidae Syrphus torvus -02------

Ceratopogonidae Forcipomyia spp. -03------Trypetidae Euxesta stigmatias -01------Hymenoptera Tiphiidae Neozeleboria spp. -01------

182

Formicidae Formica spp1 27 18 21 12 33 33 17 26

Camponotus spp. 35 17 15 11 07 08 02 17

Camponotus herculeanus ----16-06-

Solenopsis japonica 01 10 - 09 - - - - Solenopsis invicta 16 13 14 12 17 11 62 10 Pheidde hyaiti -1 ------

Dolichoderus taschenberg 05 03 04 03 09 09 01 - Camponotus pennsylvanicus 14 - - - 10 - 05 04

Formica sanguinea - 04 - 02 03 03 01 08

Formica exsectoides ----02020106

Formica rufa ----04-03- Formica spp.2 08 12 06 - 01 02 09 07 Formica spp.3 - 01 05 - 08 01 02 04 Anoplolepis gracilipes - - - - 01 - 07 07 Dolichondrinae Dolichonderus spp. --06--- -- Araneae Anyphaenidae Hibana spp. ----05- --

Lycosidae Hippasa madhuae 05 - - - 21 - 06 03

Hippasa partita 06 01 - - 06 01 06 05 Clubionidae Clubiona obesa 03 01 06 02 - - - -

Clubiona spp --05--- -- Cheiracanthium tigbauanensis ------09- Salticidae Phintella piatensis ------03-

Spartaeus uplandicus -----01-01

Oxyopidae Oxyopes javanus (Thorell) ------12- Tetragnathidae Dyschiriognatha hawigtenera ------08- Julida Julidae Cylindroiulus boleti 02 - 02 - - - - - Geophilomorpha Schendylidae Schendyla nemorensis 04 - 03 - - - 04 -

Geophilidae Necrophleophagus longicornis 07 ------

Geophilus carpophagus 08 ------Isopoda Oniscidae Oniscus asellus 02 01 - 06 - - - -

Platyarthrus hoffmannseggi -01------

183

Trichoniscidae Trichoniscus spp. --02--- -- Armadillidiidae Armadillidium vulgare 13 16 04 05 - - - -

Armadillidium nasatun 08 05 03 09 - - 06 -

Armadillidium . spp.1 - 04 - 03 03 - - 03

Armadillidium . spp.2 02 - 04 - 04 - - 03 Armadillidium spp.3 ----010303- Trachelipodidae Trachelipus rathkei - 03 - - 52 71 119 199 Pulmonata Lancidae Lanx spp. 02 ------Lymnaeidae Galba truncatula 03 - 02 - - - - -

Lymnaea cubensis 04 ------

Lymnaea stagnalis ------01 Aciculidae Acicula lineate 02 - 02 - - - - -

Platyla polita 04 ------Endontidae Punctum spp.1 ----57-70-

Punctum spp. 2 ----03-04-

Punctum spp. 3 ----02-02-

Punctum spp. 4 ------02- Physidae Physella acuta 04 ------Physa acuta --03--- -- Planorbidae Anisus leucostoma 02 - 01 - - - - -

Planorbis planorbis 04 02 - 01 20 02 26 01

Planorbis convexiusculus ----15-18-

Planorbis merguiensis ----09021004 Planorbis nanus ----07011001 Biomphalaria peregrine 02 ------

Biomphalaria havanensis ----16040502 Hawaiia minuscula ----08068404

Planorbis spp ----02- --

Pupillidae Pupoides spp - - - - 11 - 04 01 Bradybaenidae Monadenia fidelis 122 - 25 - - - - - Discidae Discus rotundatus 03 ------

184

Ferrussaciidae Caecilloides spp. ----39-01- Glessula spp. ----03-09-

Haplotrematidae Haplotrema vancouverense 20 ------

Planispira nagporensis Helicidae 02 ------Monacha cartusiana 04 02 ------

Monacha . spp. 04 - - 01 - - - - Cernuella jonica 03 ------Hygromiidae Xerocrassa mesosterna --02--- --

Hygromia cinctella 02 ------

Helicella profuga 02 - - 01 - - - - Xerosecta cespitum 02 03 01 - - - - - Metafruticicola nicosiana --01--- -- Euomphalia strigella --02--- -- Trichia hispida 02 ------

Xerosecta spp. -030202- - --

Megomphicidae Megomphix hemphilli 25 - 04 - - - - - Clausiliidae Balea perversa 07 - 02 - - - - - Cochlodina laminata 08 - 02 - - - - -

Cochlostoma septemspirale 02 - 02 - - - - - Achatinellidae Achatinella bulimoides 01 ------

Achatinidae Achatina fulica 02 - - - - 03 - -

Jaminia quadridens Enidae 03 01 - 02 - - - - Mastus olivaceus 03 02 - 02 - - - -

Paramastus episomus 04 01 01 01 - - - - Punctidae Punctum pygmaeum 01 ------Pristilomatidae Oxychillus alliarius 24 - 15 - - - - -

Microphysula cookie 02 - 03 - - - - -

Obeliscus sallei Subulinidae -03------Zootecus spp. ----06-01-

Curvella spp. ----17-05- Subulina octona ----10- -01

185

Opeas hannese ----03-02- Succineidae Succinea spp. ----03- -- Valloniidae Planogyra clappi 06 - 05 - - - - - Helixarionidae Euconulus fulvus 09 ------Oxychillus cellarium 10 - 12 - - - - - Zonitidae Oxychillus draparnandii 14 - 03 - - - - -

Oxychillus spp. 01 ------Aegopinella nitidula 03 ------Vitrina spp. ----06- -- Cryptaustenia spp. ----63-17- Bensonia spp ----04-12- Total number specimens 620 189 239 137 666 278 734 460 Total number of species 86 46 48 36 62 45 67 49

186

Annexure-VIII (a): Abundance of various insect species recorded on the weeds inhabiting edges of the wheat fields

Weeds .

Insect species spp % Total Avena fatua Avena fatua Ephedra Phalaris minor Malva neglecta Cnicus arvensis Rumex dentatus Cynodon dactylon Cenchrus setigerus Vaccaria hispanica Brassica campastris Anethum graveolens Euphorbia prostrata Polygonum plebejum Polygonum plebejum Ageratum conyzoides Convolvulus arvensis Chenopodium murale Polistes olivaceus - 01 ------1 0.171 Apis mellifera - - - 21 ------21 3.590 Camponotus spp. ------51 - 51 8.718 Solenopsis xyloni ------25 11 - - 36 6.154 Linepithema humile 02 ------2 0.342 Formica spp. - - - 03 - - 05 ------8 1.368 Dysdercus cingulatus 06 05 3 15 - 08 09 01 08 02 05 - - 06 02 - 70 11.966 Mayetiola destructor - 08 9 ------03 - - - 11 - - 31 5.299 Episyrphus balteatus 14 ------14 2.393 Syrphus ribesii 01 - - 01 ------2 0.342 Melanostoma mellinum 03 ------3 0.513 Musca domestica - - 4 ------4 0.684 Culex pipiens - - - 07 ------7 1.197 Coccinella pupae - - - 01 - 01 ------2 0.342 Coccinella larvae ------02 ------2 0.342 Coccinella septempunctata 02 - - 05 08 05 - 03 - - - 06 08 - 02 - 39 6.667 Hyperaspis maindroni - - - - - 01 ------01 0.171

187 Micraspis allardi - - 01 - - - 11 ------05 10 27 4.615 Hippodamia convergens ------01 ------01 0.171 Chilomenes sexmaculata ------02 02 0.342 Strongylium saracenum - 02 ------02 - - - 04 0.684 Disonycha stenosticha ------1 ------01 0.171 Chilorophanus viridis ------01 ------01 0.171 Chrysoperla carnia - - - 01 - - - - 01 - - 01 - - - 10 13 2.222 Amsacta lactinea ------01 ------01 0.171 Pieris rapae - - - - - 01 ------01 0.171 Pseudaletia unipuncta ------04 ------04 0.684 Biomphalaria peregrine ------03 - - - 02 - - 05 0.855 Cernuella jonica - - - 08 ------12 - 20 3.419 Enoplognatha malapahabanda - - - 01 ------01 0.171 Chrysso argyrodiformis - - - - 01 ------01 0.171 Misumenoides pabilogus ------01 ------01 0.171 Diaea tadtadtinika ------01 - - - - 01 0.171 Chrotogonus robertsi ------01 ------01 0.171 Acrida exaltata - 02 ------02 0.342 Hypochlora alba ------01 - 01 0.171 Melanoplus spp. ------01 ------01 0.171 Duronialla laticornis - 02 ------01 - - - 03 0.513 Schistocerca nitens ------01 - 01 0.171 Acrididae nymph 02 - - - 02 ------04 0.684 Trigonidium cicindeloides ------01 - - - 01 0.171 Neoconocephalus triopes ------0.000 Meconema thalassinum ------01 ------01 0.171 Lepidogryllus spp. - 01 - - - 02 ------03 0.513 Acyrthosiphon gossypii 06 04 - 10 11 11 - - - - 5 - 04 - - - 51 8.718 Acyrthosiphon pisum - 07 - 13 ------04 - 24 4.103 Schizaphus graminum 08 - 08 - - 43 07 20 - - 12 10 06 - - - 114 19.487 Total 44 32 25 83 25 72 28 38 10 11 22 18 47 42 66 22 585 100

188 Annexure-VIII (b): Abundance of various insect species recorded on the weeds inhabiting center of the wheat fields

Weeds .

Insect species spp % Total Avena fatua Avena fatua Ephedra Phalaris minor Rumex dentatus Cnicus arvensis Cynodon dactylon Cenchrus setigerus Brassica campastris Anethum graveolens Polygonum plebejum Polygonum plebejum Ageratum conyzoides Convolvulus arvensis

Apis mellifera - - 01 ------01 0.980 Camponotus spp. ------01 03 04 3.922 Solenopsis xyloni 02 - - 07 ------09 8.824 Linepithema humile ------02 - - - 02 1.961 Formica spp. - 03 - - - - 01 02 - - 02 - 08 7.843 Dysdercus cingulatus 04 ------05 09 8.824 Mayetiola destructor 01 - 01 04 - 02 ------08 7.843 Episyrphus balteatus - 01 ------01 0.980 Culex pipiens - - - - - 01 ------01 0.980 Coccinella pupae ------2 - - 02 1.961 Coccinella larvae ------01 - - - - 01 0.980 Coccinella septempunctata - - 02 ------01 03 2.941 Hyperaspis maindroni ------02 - - - - - 02 1.961 Micraspis allardi - - 01 01 02 02 ------06 5.882 Strongylium saracenum ------01 - - 01 0.980 Chrysoperla carnia ------01 - - - - 01 0.980 Pseudaletia unipuncta - - - - - 01 - - - - - 01 0.980

189 Biomphalaria peregrine ------03 - 03 2.941 Cernuella jonica - - - 02 ------02 1.961 Acrididae nymph - - - 01 ------01 0.980 Lepidogryllus spp. ------01 - - - 01 0.980 Acyrthosiphon gossypii 2 02 - - - 02 ------06 5.882 Acyrthosiphon pisum 5 01 03 - 01 02 02 03 2 19 18.627 Schizaphus graminum - - - 03 - 07 ------10 9.804 Total 14 07 08 18 03 15 05 4 5 6 6 11 102 100

190 Annexure-IX (a): Abundance of various insect species recorded on the weeds inhabiting edges of the sugarcane fields

Weeds

spp Species of insects spp % Sacchrum Phalaris minor Cnicus arvensis Coriandrum Conyza ambigua Cynodon dactylon Anagalliss arvensis arvensis Anagalliss Coronopus didymus Amaranthus viridus Chenopodium album Anethum gravelensis Convolvulus arvensis Dichanthium annulatum Parathenum hystorophorus Total Blattela asahinan 01 02 01 ------04 0.406 Brumoides suturalis larvae 04 - 01 - - 01 - - - 01 - - - - 07 0.711 Brumoides suturalis 04 - 02 01 02 ------01 - 01 11 1.117 Calosoma spp 03 - 06 ------09 0.914 Camponotus spp. 03 ------03 0.305 Ceromya bicolor 01 ------01 0.102 Chamaemya spp. 01 - - - - 01 ------02 0.203 Cheilomenes sexmaculata ------01 ------01 02 0.203 Cheriacanthium spp ------01 ------01 0.102 Cheriacanthium vire ------03 ------03 0.305 Clubiona phargmitis 01 - - - 01 ------02 0.203 Coccinella septempunctata larvae 06 - - - - - 01 ------05 12 1.218 Coccinella septempunctata pupa ------03 ------03 0.305 Coccinella septempunctata 03 - 01 02 03 - 03 - 0201 - - - - 15 1.523 Coccinella novemnotata - - 01 ------01 0.102 Collinus spp. 10 06 07 - - 04 - - 05 02 - - - - 34 3.452 Euschistus servus 03 - 01 ------01 - - 05 0.508 Enodercus rosamarus 03 - 08 ------05 - - 16 1.624

191 Geocoris uliginosus 02 ------02 0.203 Ichneumonia sarcitris 01 ------01 0.102 Iridomymis purpureus 01 ------01 0.102 Lestes spp. 01 ------01 0.102 Melanostoma mellinum 02 ------01 - - - 03 0.305 Micraspis allardi 02 - - - - 02 - - - 02 - 03 - - 09 0.914 Misumenops importinos 02 ------01 - - - - - 03 0.305 Monomorium minimum 01 ------01 0.102 Maymena ambita 01 ------01 0.102 Mysmena tasmaniae 01 ------01 0.102 Neoconocephalus triops 01 ------01 0.102 Oonops pulcher 06 ------06 0.609 oonops spp. 01 ------01 0.102 Oxoypes salticus 11 ------11 1.117 Oxyopes sertatus 21 - 11 - 01 01 ------34 3.452 Oxyopes javanus 08 - - - 01 ------09 0.914 Palpita flegia 01 ------01 0.102 Phyllomyza spp. 02 - - 1 ------03 0.305 Stenochironomus hilaris 01 ------01 0.102 Staphylinus olens larvae 17 01 02 - - 01 - 01 01- - - 02 - 25 2.538 Solenopsis invicta 03 - - 2 - - - - - 01 - - - 03 09 0.914 Thesprotia graminis 02 - 04 - - 02 - - - - - 01 - - 09 0.914 Thomisidae Ruptured morpho species 07 ------01 - - - 08 0.812 Trite spp. - - 01 ------01 0.102 Xystcus atrimaculatus 04 - - - - 01 - - - 01 - 01 - - 07 0.711 Yumates nesophila 01 ------01 0.102 Anagrapha falcifera 01 ------01 0.102 Acrida ungarica - - 01 ------01 0.102 Acanalonia spp 05 ------05 0.508 Acanthocephalan delinis 01 - 01 - - 01 ------03 0.305 Acheta domesticus 61 06 12 - - 04 - - 05 02 - - - - 90 9.137 Nymph Acrididae 52 05 01 3 - 01 - 01 01- 01 - - - 65 6.599

192 Anatrichus erinaceus 48 - 01 - - - - 01 04 - 05 - - - 59 5.990 Aphis glycines 02 ------02 - - - - 04 0.406 Aphis nerii 57 ------05 - - 03 - - 06 71 7.208 Aphthona czwalinae 16 ------16 1.624 Aphthona spp. 09 ------09 0.914 Anthonomus spp. 02 ------02 0.203 Aulacophora femoralis 01 ------01 0.102 Bibio marci 01 ------01 0.102 Bradybaena similaris 01 02 - - - 01 ------04 0.406 Caeciliusidae Nymph 01 ------01 0.102 Carychium exigum ------02 - - - - 02 0.203 Cepaea nemaralis 01 ------01 0.102 Chloealtis spp. 01 ------01 0.102 Crambus albellus 01 ------01 0.102 Dysdercus kalmii 01 - - - 01 ------02 0.203 Dysdercus mimulus - - 01 ------01 - - - - 02 0.203 Euschistus servus 03 - 01 ------01 - - 05 0.508 Estigmana ccea - - - - 01 ------01 0.102 Helicoverpa zea - - 01 ------01 - - 02 0.203 Hemileuca maia - - 01 - 02 ------03 0.305 Lygaeus turcicus nymph 06 ------06 0.609 Nymph Lygaeidae 02 - 02 - - - - 10 03 - - - - - 17 1.726 Lasius niger 01 ------01 0.102 Melanoplus bivittatus 01 ------01 - - 02 0.203 Miridae nymph 02 01 - 01 - - - 01 ------05 0.508 Neoconocephalus triops 01 ------01 0.102 Noctuidae Caterpillar - - 01 ------01 0.102 Operoptera brumata 03 ------03 0.305 Oxyopes salticus 11 ------01 01 - - - - 13 1.320 Phytomyza vetianati - - 02 ------02 0.203 Podagrica fuscicornis ------01 0.102 Porcellionides pruinosus - - 01 ------01 - - - - 02 0.203

193 Pyrilla perpusilla 16 - - 06 - 01 - 01 ------24 2.437 Solenopsis molesta 01 ------01 0.102 Stirellus bicolor 12 - - - - 02 ------14 1.421 Schistocerca nitens 04 02 01 - - 01 - - 01 01 - - - - 10 1.015 Schistocerca rubiginosa 01 ------01 0.102 Triplax thoracica 01 ------01 0.102 Thysamoplusia arichalcera 02 ------01 ------03 0.305 Taylorilygus apicalis 01 ------01 0.102 Tapinoma sessile 07 ------07 0.711 Tetrix brunneri 01 01 ------02 0.203 Tetrix subulata - - 01 ------01 0.102 Nymph Tettigonidae - - - - - 08 ------08 0.812 Xyonysius californicus 11 - - 04 - - - 05 - - - - - 01 21 2.132 Calycomyza spp 06 ------06 0.609 Musca domestica - - 01 ------02 0.203 Musca antunnalis ------02 02 0.203 Dociostaurus maroccanus 02 ------02 0.203 Otiorhynchus ligustici 01 ------01 0.102 Sylvicola spp. 02 ------02 0.203 Xerosecta cespitusm - - - - - 02 ------02 0.203 Culex pipiens 12 - - - - 04 ------16 1.624 Aedes vexasn ------01 - 1 - - - - 02 0.203 Aedes dorsalis 35 01 - - - 02 - - 02 04 - - - - 44 4.467 Simulium meriai ------01 01 0.102 Cepaea nemaralis 01 ------01 0.102 Platypezia spp. - - - 01 ------01 02 0.203 Steroplerina spp - 01 ------01 02 0.203 Drosophila melanogaster 01 ------01 01 - - - - 03 0.305 Oxychilus cellarius - - 01 ------01 0.102 Simulium meriai ------01 01 0.102 Musca antunnalis ------02 02 0.203 Musca spp. 01 03 02 - - 02 - - 03 01 - - - - 12 1.218

194 Acheta spp. 04 ------04 0.406 Blattela asahinan 01 02 01 ------04 0.406 Columella edentula 02 ------03 - - - - 05 0.508 Gryllidae Nymph 05 ------02 - - 02 - - 09 0.914 Phyllopapluspulchellus 37 01 05 - - 01 - 01 01 - - - 02 - 48 4.873 Chamaemya spp 01 - - - - 01 ------02 0.203 Suillia parva 01 ------01 0.102 Empis chioptera 16 - 02 ------18 1.827 Empis pennipes 02 ------02 0.203 Lasioglosscum spp. 01 ------01 0.102 Polleniardis spp. 01 ------01 0.102 Formica fusca - - - - - 03 ------03 0.305 Nesovitrea electrina/ Fungivore 01 ------01 0.102 Total 626 34 86 21 12 47 8 32 33 28 12 17 4 25 985

195 Annexure-IX (b): Abundance of various insect species recorded on the weeds inhabiting center of the sugarcane fields

Weeds

Species of insects

% r

spp spp

alvestrum coromendelianum ichanthium annulatum arathenum hystorophorus arvensis nagalliss nethum gravelensis maranthus viridus halaris mino Total Conyza ambigua Coronopus didymus Chenopodium album Cnicus arvensis M P A D Coriandrum A Sacchrum Cynodon dactylon A Convolvulus arvensis P Acheta domesticus 19 01 ------20 4.090 Brumoides suturalis larvae 01 ------01 0.204 Brumoides suturalis 09 - - - 01 ------10 2.045 Camponotus spp. 03 - - 02 ------05 1.022 Chamaemya spp ------01 - - - 01 0.204 Cheriacanthium vire ------01 ------01 0.204 Clubiona phargmitis 01 - 01 ------02 0.409 Coccinella septempunctata larvae - - 04 ------04 0.818 Coccinella septempunctata 06 - - 03 - - 02 - - - 01 - - - 01 13 2.658 Collinus spp. ------01 ------01 0.204 Dipatzon laetatorcus - - - 01 ------01 0.204 Euschistus servus 05 ------15 - - - - - 20 4.090 Enodercus rosamarus 02 ------04 - - 06 1.227 Ehemnophila aureanotate 01 ------01 0.204 Geocoris uliginosus 01 ------01 0.204 Hippodmia tredecimpunctata 01 ------01 0.204 Ichneumonia spp 01 ------01 0.204

196 Melanostoma mellinum 01 ------01 - - - - - 02 0.409 Micraspis allardi 02 - 01 ------03 0.613 Misumenops importinos ------01 - - - - 01 0.204 Monomorium minimum 01 ------01 0.204 Mysmena tasmaniae ------01 - - - - 01 0.204 Oonops domesticus 01 ------01 0.204 oonops spp. 01 ------01 0.204 Oxoypes salticus ------01 01 - - - - 02 0.409 Oxyopes sertatus 09 01 01 ------03 - - - - 14 2.863 Paedercus littorarius 02 - 03 - - - - 02 - - - - 03 - - 10 2.045 Phyllomyza spp 01 ------01 0.204 Platypalpus agilis 01 ------01 - - - - - 02 0.409 Phyllopapluspulchellus - - 03 - - - - 01 - - - - - 01 - 05 1.022 Staphylinus olens larvae ------02 - - - - - 02 0.409 Solenopsis invicta 02 - - 01 ------03 0.613 Tapinesthis cespitum - - 01 ------01 0.204 Thesprotia graminis 03 ------03 0.613 Triorla interrupta ------01 ------01 0.204 Xystcus atrimaculatus 03 - 02 ------01 - - - - - 06 1.227 Yumates nesophila ------01 01 0.204 Aphthona cryparia 02 ------02 0.409 Acanalonia spp 02 01 ------03 0.613 Acanthocephalan delinis 01 ------01 0.204 Nymph Acrididae 18 03 01 01 - 01 - 01 - - 03 - - - - 28 5.726 Anatrichus erinaceus 20 ------20 4.090 Aphis glycines 02 - 01 ------03 0.613 Aphis nerii 05 ------06 - - - - 11 2.249 Aphthona czwalinae 02 ------02 0.409 Anthonomus spp. 08 ------08 1.636 Aulacophora femoralis ------01 - - - - 01 0.204 Bibio marci ------03 - - - - 03 0.613 Bradybaena similaris 02 ------02 0.409

197 Dysdercus kalmii 01 ------02 - - - - - 03 0.613 Dysdercus mimulus ------01 - 01 0.204 Dalopius marginodus 01 ------01 0.204 Entylia carinata 01 ------01 0.204 Formica spp ------01 - - - 01 0.204 Gryllodes supplicans 06 - 03 ------09 1.840 Halysidota tessellaris ------01 ------01 0.204 Helicella itala 02 ------01 - - - 03 0.613 Helicoverpa armigera 03 - - 01 ------04 0.818 Lygaeus sp ------01 - - - - - 01 0.204 Nymph Lygaeidae 01 - - - 01 ------02 0.409 Minettia spp ------02 ------02 0.409 Miridae nymph 01 ------02 - - - - 03 0.613 Musca spp. ------01 - - - - - 01 0.204 Porcellionides pruinosus 02 02 ------04 0.818 Pyrilla perpusilla 63 - - 08 09 ------80 16.360 Pyrrhorcita isabella 01 ------01 0.204 Stirellus bicolor 03 ------03 0.613 Schistocerca nitens 02 ------02 0.409 Tetrix brunneri 04 ------04 0.818 Xyonysius californicus 07 - - 02 08 - - 01 54 ------72 14.724 Musca domestica 01 ------01 0.204 Sylvicola spp. ------01 - - - - - 01 0.204 Xerosecta cespitusm ------02 ------02 0.409 Culex pipiens 08 - 01 ------02 04 - - - - 15 3.067 Aedes dorsalis 01 ------06 - 07 1.431 Cepaea nemaralis 05 01 ------06 1.227 Steroplerina spp ------01 - - - - - 01 0.204 Oxychilus cellarius ------01 ------01 0.204 Musca antunnalis 06 01 ------07 1.431 Musca spp. ------01 - - - - - 01 0.204 Musca spp. ------01 - - - - - 01 0.204

198 Gryllidae Nymph 02 ------02 0.409 Phyllopapluspulchellus - - 03 - - - - 01 - - - - - 01 - 05 1.022 Chamaemya spp ------01 - - - 01 0.204 Empis chioptera ------04 - 04 0.818 Nesovitrea electrina/ Fungivore ------01 - - - - 01 0.204 Total 260 10 25 19 19 01 02 10 59 31 27 04 07 13 02 489

199 Annexure X. Soil macro-invertebrates (%) of the low (LIP) and high (HIP) in put treated wheat field used in the CCA analysis in Faisalabad district during the study period

Sr LIP HIP No Order Species Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Total % Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Total % 1 Pheretima - - - - 05 - 05 0.92 - - 01 - 01 - 02 1.17 Haplotaxida elongata 2 Forficula 02 - 02 03 01 01 09 1.66 01 01 01 01 04 01 09 5.26 Dermaptera auricularia 3 Forficula spp. - 01 01 - 01 - 03 0.55 ------4 Pangaeus 01 02 01 - 03 - 07 1.29 - 02 01 01 01 02 07 4.09 Hemiptera bilineatus 5 Coleoptera Harpalus spp. - 05 10 - - 15 30 5.54 01 01 - 01 01 01 05 2.92 6 Hymenoptera Formica spp.1 07 04 16 12 06 03 48 8.86 06 03 09 03 07 02 13 7.6 7 Camponotus spp. 09 05 21 05 06 04 50 9.23 03 08 06 05 04 02 28 16.4 8 Solenopsis - 01 - - - - 01 0.18 - 10 - - 09 - 19 11.1 japonica 9 Solenopsis invicta 06 05 05 05 04 05 30 5.54 04 03 06 06 02 04 25 14.6

10 Dolichoderus 03 01 01 02 01 01 09 1.66 - 02 01 01 02 - 06 3.51 taschenbergi 11 Formica spp.2 02 04 02 03 03 - 14 2.58 05 04 03 - - - 12 7.02 12 Araneae Clubiona obesa - - 03 03 03 - 09 1.66 - 01 - 01 - 01 03 1.75 13 Isopod Armadillidium 06 05 02 02 01 01 17 3.14 06 06 04 02 02 01 21 12.3 vulgare 14 Armadillidium 04 02 02 02 01 - 11 2.03 - 02 03 04 03 02 14 8.19 nasatun 15 Armadillidium ------01 - 03 01 02 - 07 4.09 spp.1 16 Armadillidium - - 02 02 02 - 06 1.11 ------spp.2 17 Pulmonata Monadenia fidelis 43 75 04 23 02 - 147 27.1 ------18 Haplotrema 14 06 - - - - 20 3.69 ------vancouverense 19 Megomphix 10 14 01 - 01 03 29 5.35 ------hemphilli 20 Balea perversa - 05 02 02 - - 09 1.66 ------

200 21 Cochlodina - 05 03 - 02 - 10 1.85 ------laminata 22 Oxychillus 01 22 01 11 04 - 39 7.2 ------alliarius 23 Oxychillus - 07 03 07 04 01 22 4.06 ------cellarium 24 Oxychillus 04 10 - 02 01 - 17 3.14 ------draparnandii Total No. of specimens 112 179 82 84 51 34 542 100 27 43 38 26 38 16 171 100 Total No. of species 14 19 19 15 19 09 23 - 08 12 11 11 12 09 14 -

201 Annexure-XI: Soil macro-invertebrates (%) of the low (LIP) and high (HIP) in put treated wheat field used in the CCA analysis in Faisalabad district during the study period

Sr. LIP HIP Order Species No Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Total % Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Total % 1 Haplotaxida Pheretima elongata 02 06 05 09 05 01 28 2.39 - 01 04 01 02 02 10 1.65

25 Pheretima posthuma 11 10 22 04 03 07 57 4.87 05 06 09 03 - 08 31 5.11

Pheretima morrisi 26 01 03 08 06 03 04 25 2.13 - 01 01 06 - - 08 1.32 27 Pheretima hawayana 03 04 03 02 03 04 19 1.62 01 - 04 - - - 05 0.82 28 Pheretima suctoria 01 - 03 09 07 1 21 1.79 01 - - - 06 02 09 1.48 29 Orthoptera Gryllotalpa orientalis - - 01 01 - - 2 0.17 - - 05 13 - 02 20 3.29

2 Forficula auricularia - 13 07 06 - 08 34 2.9 - 19 06 03 02 02 32 5.27 4 Hemiptera Pangaeus bilineatus 04 02 03 - 04 08 21 1.79 - - 01 02 - 05 08 1.32 30 Tritomegas sexmaculatus - 01 01 03 02 - 07 0.6 - 10 03 02 01 - 16 2.64 31 Coleoptera Gonocephalum stocklieni 03 01 - 01 - 02 07 0.6 - - 02 01 - - 03 0.49 32 Pentodon idiota - 01 01 01 01 - 04 0.34 - 01 - 02 01 01 05 0.82 6 Hymenoptera Formica spp.1 - 04 29 13 04 - 50 4.27 01 06 26 20 06 - 59 9.72

7 Camponotus spp. 02 02 03 02 - - 09 0.77 - - 08 17 - - 25 4.12

Camponotus herculeanus 33 04 10 02 02 02 02 22 1.88 ------‐ 9 Solenopsis invicta 07 03 07 51 06 05 79 6.75 04 02 05 02 04 04 21 3.46 Dolichoderus 10 03 - 06 - 01 - 10 07 - 02 - - - 09 taschenbergi 0.85 1.48 Camponotus 34 05 02 03 03 01 01 15 1.28 - - - 02 02 - 04 0.66 pennsylvanicus 35 Formica sanguinea - 02 01 01 - - 04 0.34 - 02 01 06 02 - 11 1.81 36 Formica exsectoides - 01 01 01 - - 03 0.26 - 02 - 04 02 - 08 1.32 11 Formica spp.2 01 - - 07 02 - 10 0.85 - - 02 01 03 03 09 1.48 37 Anoplolepis gracilipes - - 01 05 02 - 08 0.68 - - - 07 - - 07 1.15 38 Araneae Hippasa madhuae - 15 06 06 - - 27 2.31 - - - 03 - - 03 0.49

39 Hippasa partita - 03 03 05 01 - 12 1.02 - - 01 04 01 - 06 0.99 40 Isopod Trachelipus rathkei - 12 40 106 03 10 171 14.6 - 21 50 184 04 11 270 44.5

202

41 Pulmonata Punctum spp.1 47 09 01 10 17 43 127 10.8 ------0

42 Planorbis planorbis - 07 13 26 - - 46 3.93 - 01 01 01 - - 03 0.49

Planorbis convexiusculus 43 06 09 - 09 - 09 33 2.82 ------0 44 Planorbis merguiensis 05 - 04 03 07 - 19 1.62 01 - 01 - 04 - 06 0.99 45 Planorbis nanus 04 - 3 2 4 4 17 1.45 ------02 0.33

46 Biomphalaria havanensis 04 3 9 3 - 2 21 1.79 - - 04 - - 02 06 0.99 47 Hawaiia minuscula 01 05 02 12 70 02 92 7.86 - 05 01 - 03 01 10 1.65 48 Pupoides spp 01 01 - - - - 02 0.17 - - - - 01 - 01 0.16

49 Caecilloides spp. 01 6 04 01 02 01 15 1.28 ------

50 Glessula spp. 13 15 11 - - 01 40 3.42 ------51 Curvella spp. 03 - - 03 02 04 12 1.02 ------52 Cryptaustenia spp. 09 04 04 01 03 01 22 1.88 ------53 Bensonia spp 35 16 12 05 05 07 80 6.83 ------Total No. of specimens 176 170 219 319 160 127 1171 100 20 77 137 284 44 43 607 100 Total No. of species 25 29 32 33 25 22 37 ‐ 07 13 21 21 16 12 29 ‐

203