ASSESSMENT OF SYNERGIES OF THE SYNCHRONIZED BIODIVERSITY OF WHEAT AND SUGARCANE CROPS IN FAISALABAD DISTRICT
By
MUHAMMAD NADEEM ABBAS
M. Phil. (UAF)
A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN ZOOLOGY
DEPARTMENT OF ZOOLOGY AND FISHERIES FACULTY OF SCIENCES
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE FAISALABAD PAKISTAN 2012
i
TO
THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS,
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE,
FAISALABAD.
We the supervisory committee, certify that the contents and form of thesis submitted by
Mr. Muhammad Nadeem Abbas, Regd. No. 2004-ag-531, have been found satisfactory and recommend that it be processed for evaluation by the external examiner(s) for the award of degree.
SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE
1) SUPERVISER ______
(Prof. Dr. Shahnaz Akhtar Rana)
2) MEMBER ______
(Dr. Hammad Ahmad Khan)
3) MEMBER ______
(Prof. Dr. Khalil-ur-Rehman)
ii Declaration
I hereby declare that contents of the thesis, “Assessment of Synergies of the Synchronized Biodiversity of Wheat and Sugarcane Crops in Faisalabad District” are product of my own research and no part has been copied from any published source (except the references, some standard mathematical / equations / 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 above statement is found inaccurate at any stage”.
Muhammad Nadeem Abbas 2004-ag-531
iii Acknowledgements
First of all I’d thank to Almighty Allah, the compassionate and merciful, who enabled me to complete this project. Thereafter, I would like to thank my supervisor, Professor Dr. Shahnaz Akhtar Rana, for providing me kind guidance and freedom of thought, making this time a bench mark of learning as well as a memorable experience. I would like to thank Dr. Muhammad Mahmood-ul-Hassan, Associate Professor, Department of Zoology and Fisheries, whose guidance throughout the compilation of this dissertation is admirable. I would also like to thank the members of my supervisory committee, Dr. Hamad Ahmed Khan, Associate Professor, Department of Zoology and Fisheries and Dr. khalil-ur-Rehman, Professor, Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry for their valuable support in the completion of project. I would like thank Dr. Naureen Rana, Lecturer, Department of Zoology and Fisheries inspiring my interest in learning statistical tools. I am very much obliged to Professor Dr. Anjum Suhail, Chairman Department of Entomology, for his convincing guidline in the taxonomy of insects during my research work. My thanks are also due to Dr. Inayat Khan, Chairman Department of Statistics, for his statistical advice; Dr. Mansoor Hameed, Associate Professor, Department of Botany, for weeds identification; Dr. Muhammad Shahid, Associate Professor, Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, for providing laboratory facilities for phytochemical evaluation of weeds. My special thanks are to my colleagues, research mates, laboratory staff and family members who constantly inspired me to maintain my interest toward this project. I would like to acknowledge the Higher Education Commission, Islamabad, Pakistan for funding to accomplish this work under the Research Project No. 20-813/R and D/HEC.
Muhammad Nadeem Abbas August 2012.
iv CONTENTS Chapter No. Title Page Acknowledgements List of Tables List of Figures List of Annexure List of annexure tables CHAPTER 1 1 Introduction 1.1 Objectives CHAPTER 2 2 Review of literature 2.1 Faunal Assemblages of Agro-ecosystem 2.2 Causes and consequences of biodiversity decline 2.3 Biological control 2.4 Trophic Interactions 2.5 Weeds in agro-ecosystem 2.6 Weeds as Source of Food and Medicines CHAPTER 3 3 Materials and methods 3.1 Study Area 3.2 Selection and description of sites 3.2.1 Surrounding crops 3.2.2 Plant species on the sampling sites 3.3 Sampling technique 3.4 Identification of macro- invertebrates 3.5 Identification of weeds 3.6 Statistical Analysis/Softwares’ used 3.6.1 Shannon’s Index of Diversity 3.6.2 Cannonical Correspondence Analysis 3.7 Predator–prey ratios 3.7.1 Estimation of predator to prey (p/p) ratio 3.8 Phytochemical Evaluation 3.9 Weed seeds 3.10 Weeds root, stem and leaves 3.11 Preparation of extracts 3.12 Phytochemical screening 3.13 Qualitative determination of
v the chemical constituency 3.13.1 Tannins 3.13.2 Saponins 3.13.3 Flavonoids 3.13.4 Steriods 3.13.5 Terpenoids 3.13.6 Cardiac glycosides 3.13.7 Alkaloids 3.13.8 Anthraquinones 3.14 Quantitative determination of the chemical constituency 3.14.1 Preparation of fat free sample 3.14.2 Alkaloid 3.14.3 Tannin 3.14.4 Saponin 3.14.5 Flavonoids 3.15 Traditional uses of weeds CHAPTER 4 RESULTS
diversity of foliage macro- invertebrates 4.1 Wheat 4.1.1 Abundance of Various Macro-Invertebrate Assemblages 4.1.2 Habitat related variation. 4.1.3 Season related variation 4.2 Sugarcane 4.2.1 Abundance of Various Macro-Invertebrate Assemblages 4.2.2 Habitat related variation. 4.2.3 Season related variation CHAPTER 5 5 Impact Of Weeds On Macro- Invertebrates Communities 5.1 Wheat weeds 5.2 Sugarcane weeds CHAPTER 6 6 PREDATOR–PREY RATIOS OF MACROINVERTEBRATES
vi
6.1 Predator-prey association in wheat 6.2 Predator-prey association in Sugarcane CHAPTER 7 7 Discussion 7.1 Wheat 7.2 Sugarcane 7.3 Weeds of wheat and sugarcane 7.4 Predator and prey interaction 7.5 Phytochemical Evaluation Summery References
vii LIST OF TABLES
Chapter No. Title Page
3.1 Sampling localities and agricultural management practices used for wheat 14 cultivation. 3.2 Sampling localities and agricultural management practices used for 16 sugarcane cultivation. 3.3 Weed species and their functional group recorded from wheat and 18 sugarcane fields. 4.1 Relative abundance of macro-invertebrates recorded from wheat and its 23 associated weeds. 4.2 Values for Richness, diversity and evenness of macro-invertebrates 28 recorded from wheat and its associated weeds. 4.3 Relative abundance of macro-invertebrates recorded from edge and center 29 of Wheat and its associated weeds. 4.4 Relative abundance of macro-invertebrates recorded from Wheat and its 31 associated weed plants during autumn, winter and spring. 4.5a Values for temporal variations in richness, diversity and evenness of 31 macro-invertebrates recorded from wheat fields. 4.5b A comparison of diversity of foliage macro-invertebrates recorded from 31 wheat and its associated weeds during different seasons. 4.6 Relative abundance of macro-invertebrates recorded from sugarcane and 33 its associated weeds. 4.7 Values for variations in richness, diversity and evenness of macro- 39 invertebrates recorded from edge and center of sugarcane fields. 4.8 Relative abundance of macro-invertebrates recorded from edge and center 40 of sugarcane and its associated weeds. 4.9 Relative abundance of macro-invertebrates recorded from sugarcane and 42 its associated weeds during autumn, winter and spring. 4.10a Values for temporal variations in richness, diversity and evenness of 43 macro-invertebrates recorded from sugarcane. 4.10b A comparison of diversity of foliage macro-invertebrates recorded from 43 Sugarcane and its associated weeds during different seasons. 5.1 Number of families, species and individuals of macro-invertebrates 45 recorded on the weeds associated with wheat and sugarcane. 5.2 Relative abundance of macro-invertebrates recorded on the various weeds 47 associated with the wheat. 5.3 A comparison of the macro-invertebrate diversity recorded on various 48 species of weeds in two habitats i.e. edge and center of the wheat fields. Cannonical correspondence analysis of the abundance of macro- 51 invertebrate fauna at the environmental factor (weeds) in wheat fields. Relative abundance of macro-invertebrates recorded on the weeds 52 associated with the sugarcane fields. A comparison of the macro-invertebrate diversity recorded on various 55 species of weeds in two habitats i.e. edge and center of the sugarcane
viii fields. Cannonical correspondence analysis of the abundance of macro- 60 invertebrate fauna at the environmental factor (weeds) in sugarcane fields. Coefficient of determination value (R2) for some coleopterans, 61 hymenopterans and arachnids predators with selected prey species in wheat and sugarcane agro-ecosystems. Phytochemical analysis of the root, stem and leaves of some weeds occurring from agro-ecosystem.
ix LIST OF FIGURE
Figure No. Title Page
3.1 Mean monthly maximum (black bars) and minimum (white bars) 12 temperatures and rainfall (Red line), from 2008 to 2010, recorded at the Agricultural Meteorology Cell in university of Agriculture Faisalabad. 3.2 A map showing the location of Faisalabad district in Punjab (Pakistan) 13 from where macro-invertebrates were collected during the course of present study. The study area lies in the land tract between rivers Rive and Chenab 3.3 A map showing the position of the sampling site in the Faisalabad 15 district % species of macro-invertebrates on wheat and its associated weeds 25 Seasonal dynamics of macro-invertebrates of wheat fields edge 32 Seasonal dynamics of macro-invertebrates of wheat fields center 32 % species of macro-invertebrates on sugarcane and its associated weeds 35 Seasonal dynamics of macro-invertebrates of sugarcane fields edge 44 Seasonal dynamics of macro-invertebrates of sugarcane fields center 44 Canonical correspondence analysis (CCA) biplot showing association of 49 macro-invertebrates species with weed species in the whea fields. Canonical correspondence analysis (CCA) biplot showing association of 53 macro-invertebrates species with weed species in sugarcane fields. Extent of variation in the abundance ratio of C. septumpunctata with 58 hemipterans species in wheat-weeds agroecosystem. Extent of variation in the abundance ratio of C. sexmaculata with 58 hemipterans species in wheat-weeds agroecosystem. Extent of variation in the abundance ratio of Camponotus spp. with 59 hemipterans species in wheat-weeds agroecosystem. The polynomial regression between C. septumpunctata and S. 60 graminum in wheat-weeds agro-ecosystem. The polynomial regression between C. septumpunctata and A. nerii 60 wheat-weeds agroecosystem. The polynomial regression between C. sexmaculata and P. perpusilla 61 wheat-weeds agro-ecosystem. The polynomial regression between C. sexmaculata and A. gosspii 61 wheat-weeds agroecosystem. The polynomial regression between C. sexmaculata and A. nerii wheat- 62 weeds agroecosystem. The polynomial regression between Camponotus spp. and A. gosspii 62 wheat-weeds agroecosystem. Extent of variation in the abundance ratio of C. septumpunctata with 64 hemipterans species in sugarcane-weeds agroecosystem. Extent of variation in the abundance ratio of C. trifaciata with 64 hemipterans species in sugarcane-weeds agroecosystem. Extent of variation in the abundance ratio of O. seratus with 65
x hemipterans species in sugarcane-weeds agroecosystem. Extent of variation in the abundance ratio of O. javanus with 65 hemipterans species in sugarcane-weeds agroecosystem. The polynomial regression between C. sexmaculata and P. perpusilla 66 sugarcane-weeds agroecosystem. The polynomial regression between C. trifaciata and P. perpusilla 66 sugarcane-weeds agroecosystem. The polynomial regression between O. seratus and C. saccharivorus 67 sugarcane-weeds agroecosystem. The polynomial regression between O. javanus and X. californicus 67 sugarcane-weeds agroecosystem.
xi LIST OF ANNEXURE TABLES
Annexure Title Page
Relative abundance (%) of macro-invertebrates in wheat and its associated weeds. Relative abundance (%) of macro-invertebrates belonging to order (a) Hemiptera, (b) Coleoptera, (c) Diptera, (d) Orthoptera and (e) Araneae in sugarcane and its associated weeds. Relative abundance (%) of macroinvertebrates belonging to order (f) Hymenoptera, (g) Pulmonata and (h) Lepidoptera in (i) sugarcane and its associated weeds. Relative abundance (%) of macroinvertebrates belonong to order Isopoda, Mantodea, Blattaria, Neuroptera, Odonata, Dermaptera and Thysanura in sugarcane and its associated weeds. Relative abundance (%) of macro-invertebrates in wheat during Autumn, Winter and spring seasons. Relative abundance (%) of macro-invertebrates in wheat weeds during autumn, winter and spring seasons. Relative abundance (%) of macro-invertebrates in sugarcane during autumn, winter and spring seasons. Relative abundance (%) of macro-invertebrates in sugarcane weeds during autumn, winter and spring seasons. Diversity and relative abundance of macro-invertebrate fauna occurring on some weeds associated with wheat crop. Diversity and relative abundance of macro-invertebrate fauna occurring on some weeds associated with sugarcane crop.
xii LIST OF ANNEXURE
Annexure Title Page
Chemical evaluation of weed seeds mixed with wheat grains at Harvest Status of trophic guild of invertebrates utilizing weeds of wheat and sugarcane fields of Faisalabad
xiii ABSTRACT
The diversity of macroinvertebrates assemblages in wheat-weeds and sugarcane-weeds agroecosystems were recorded. In addition, phytochemical potential of weeds recorded from both crops were determined to evaluate assessment of synergies of the synchronized biodiversity of wheat and sugarcane crops in Faisalabad district. A total of 72 species of macroinvertebrates
(n=4228) were recorded from wheat-weeds agroecosystem. Of these, 58 species inhabited both wheat and weeds while the remaining 14 were recorded only from weeds. Arthropoda (92.41%) and the Mollusca (7.59%) were most recorded macro-invertebrate taxa. Hemiptera (29.09%),
Coleoptera (24.77%), Diptera (23.07%), Orthoptera (5.34%) and Pulmonata (8.69%) were the dominant groups of macroinvertebrates in wheat. Diptera (30.92%), Hemiptera (26.49%),
Coleoptera (13.53%), Hymenoptera (9.97%) Pulmonata (6.81) and Orthoptera (6.16%) on the other hand, were the most recorded macroinvertebrates on wheat weeds. A higher number of macroinvertebrates (n= 2930) was recorded at the edges in comparison to the centers (n= 1298) of wheat fields. The diversity (H′), richness (S) and evenness (E) indicated a highly significant difference in species composition in most of the habitat combinations.
A total of 232 species of macroinvertebrates (n = 5665) were recorded from sugarcane- weeds agroecosystem. Of these, 53 were recorded only from sugarcane while 61 were recorded exclusively from weeds. Arthropods were the most abundant group of macroinvertebrates collected from sugarcane (94.26%) and its associated weeds (98.22%). Hemiptera Coleoptera,
Diptera, Orthoptera and Araneae collectively constituted 82% of the macroinvertebrates. A comparison of the diversity (H′) values indicated a highly significant difference in species richness (S) and evenness (E) in all the habitat combinations. The diversity (H′), richness (S) and evenness (E) were higher at the edge than the center of both habitats under consideration. Seeds of fifteen weeds and vegetative parts (roots, stem, and leaves) of seventeen weeds were subjected to analysis to evaluate their phytochemicals. Flavinoids, saponins, tannins, steroids, glycosides, alkaloids, anthrequinones and terpenoids were recorded. This baseline study documents that weeds provide phytomorphic heterogeneity for heterogeneity of macroinvertebrates feeding, breeding and over wintering and taking refuge in various niches.
They seem help in maintaining a balance between predator-prey population dynamics and in turn, warrant sustainable crop production with least amount of pesticides and fertilizers used.
The weeds that are already being used as traditional medicines could have great economic potential to be used as synergizers fortifying the wheat flour quality (as seeds) and green manure as well. 1
Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION
Pakistan is one of the nine South Asian countries. It is the second most populous country of the region and the fifth most populous country of the world. Most of the people live in villages and as a whole the agriculture sector plays a vital role in the economy of the country (Sheikh et al., 2005; GoP, 2010-2011). The agriculture provides food to around 162 million people and employment opportunities to more 62 million people (Afzal and Ahmad, 2009; FAO, 2012). Birth rate is 24.81 births/1,000 populations/ year (Malik, 2011). Consequently, the arable land share has decreased from above one acre per head in 1947 to less than one fifth of an acre at the present.
Agriculture is still a hope to feed millions of hungry people that form one part of the total population of the country each year, therefore, it is the only way to warrant qualitative and quantitative food security as well as achieve sustainable a economy (Alam and
Naqvi, 2003; Sheikh et al., 2005; Khan, 2010).
Population explosion in the last four decades has led the country towards agricultural intensification. Attempts to maximize crop yield from a limited and already degrading land resource through better yielding varieties, increased use of fertilizers and pesticides, and excessive mechanization has led the country towards a green revolution
(Malik, 1992; Urama, 2005). However this so called ‘green revolution’ further worsened the situation as it was realized at the cost of biodiversity as is sacrificed the country’ s biodiversity (Stoate et al., 2001; Bengtsson et al., 2005; Foley et al., 2005; Tscharntke et al., 2005; Billeter et al., 2008). Expansion of agriculture caused interruption of natural ecosystems. Most of the natural habitat was converted into agricultural lands that led the 2 country towards habitat degradation, habitat fragmentation, reduction of genetic variability of the managed plants and animals, alteration of soil and landscapes and above all: pollution of air, land and water due to intensive use of fertilizers and pesticides
(Mustafa and Pingali, 1995; Kurz et al., 2005; Rodriguez et al., 2004; Jacobson, 2008;
Briggs and Coortney, 1989; Jimoh et al., 2003; Foley et al., 2005; Aisha et al., 2007;
Flohre et al., 2011).
Two types of farming systems were adopted to maximize production. The rich landlords adopted mechanized agriculture with intensive inputs of fertilizers and pesticides whereas the owners of small land holdings followed traditional way of agriculture. They had the option of hireing machinery from rich land owners but were unable to use excessive fertilizers and/ or pesticides (Ceccarelli, 1996). The degree to which agricultural practices affected local biodiversity varied accordingly with these two types of agricultural practices (organic and conventional) (Siddiqui et al., 2005).
Traditional agriculture posed less adverse impact on biodiversity than the models with high inputs and intensification (Stoate et al., 2001; Bengtsson et al., 2005; Gabriel et al.,
2006; Liira et al., 2008; Kleijn et al., 2009). Modern intensive agriculture has reduced the amount of biodiversity and species populations in the ecosystem, as well as at the genetic level (Richards, 2001; Varela, 2001; Teyssèdre, 2007; Firbank et al., 2008).
The agriculture system of the country comprises two locally distinct growing
seasons: i.e. ‟the Kharif” (April-June) and ‟the Rabi” (October-December) seasons in
which all the major and minor crops are sown. Kharif crops include rice Oryza sativa,
sugarcane Saccharum officinarum, maize Zea mays, onion Allium cepa, tomato Solanum
lycopersicum, pulses and fodders (millet Panicum miliaceum and sorghum Sorghum 3 bicolor) while Rabi crops consist of wheat Triticum aestivum, barly Hordeum vulgare, potato Solanum tuberosum, gram, berseem Trifolium alexandrinum, rapeseed Brassica napus and sugarcane Saccharum officinarum (Kumar et al., 2000; Arifullah, 2007;
Arifullah et al., 2009).
Sugarcane is one of the most important cash crops, making Pakistan ranks 5th in world’s sugarcane acreage and 15th in sugarcane production. The total cultivated area
under Sugarcane in Pakistan is 990, 000 hectares; of which Punjab shares 670, 000
hectares (Shafiq-Ur-Rehman, 2011). In Pakistan, yield per hectare of sugarcane is low in
comparison to many other countries yielding sugarcane (Anonymous, 2008). Among
several factors responsible for this low yield are a variety of insect pests, such as borers that infest this crop heavily, are one of the several factors responsible for the low yield.
These include top borer (Scirpophaga nivella F.), stem borer (Chilo infuscatellus Snell),
root borer (Emmalocera depressella Swin.) and Gurdaspur borer (Acigona steniellus
Hampson) (Ashraf and Fatima, 1980; Baloch et al., 2002; Malik and Gurmani, 2005).
Similarly annual production of wheat, the people’s staple diet has been stagnant (Khalil
and Jan, 2000; Wajid, 2004), is stagnant for the last seven years (Hassan, 2007), and
macroinvertebrate pests (e.g. arthropod) are one of the important factor for this stagnation
in yield (Shahid, 2003; Malschi, 2003; Oerke and Dehne, 2004). Pesticides and
herbicides have not only become unsuccessful in increasing wheat yield, but also have
adversely affected non-target organisms (Briggs and Coortney, 1989; Eisley and
Hammond, 2007). Therefore, the biological control of insect pests is the only viable
solution for controlling pests, given its ability to self-perpetuating once established and
usually does not harm non-targeted organisms. In addition, biologically controlling pests 4 is environmentally friendly, not leaving any biodegradable residues (Paine et al., 1993;
Joung and Côté, 2000; Charlet et al., 2002; Laurence et al., 2002; Balaram, 2005).
Sugarcane and wheat harbour a wide range of floristic and faunal diversity. Both weeds and invertebrates provide numerous ecosystem services: such as decomposition, recycling, pollination and predation, sustaining their inhabited biological system
(LaSalle, 1999) (McGregor, 1979). Weeds add phytomorphic heterogeneity to crops.
Invertebrates use weeds as reservoirs of food and shelter, whereas vertebrates use these life forms (herbs, shrubs, trees) as food a source and for other structural niches (Lawton,
1983; Capinera, 2005; Norris and Kogan, 2005). The presence of a weed canopy also modifies ecosystem microclimate.
Intercropping (the growth of more than one plant species in the same field) provides a practical application of basic ecological principles such as competition, diversity and facilitation. Intercropping has been reported to increase yield and yield stability (Willey 1979), enhance resource use efficiently, especially of nitrogen (Jensen,
1996), reduce weed infestation (Hauggaard-Nielsen et al., 2001) and may also influence subsequent nutrient losses by reducing the nitrate leaching potential after grain legumes
(Hauggaard-Nielsen et al., 2003).
Mixed species cropping has been considered a promising technique in developing sustainable farming systems because it often has multifunctional roles and has been show to provide a number of ecosystem services within the farm system. For example, the addition and recycling of organic material, protection of soil from erosion, water management and suppression are all benefits derived from mixed species croping. This 5 functional diversity contributes to ecological processes, promoting the sustainability of the entire farm system (Altieri, 1999).
In the view of the role played by the faunal and floristic diversity in enhancing crop yield, this present study was designed to evaluate the role of biodiversity in croplands, as well as achieving following objectives:
1.2 OBJECTIVES
1. Document the diversity of macro flora and fauna of the wheat and sugarcane crops.
2. Evaluate the impacts of plant biodiversity on faunal population of both sugarcane
and wheat crops.
3. Evaluate potential synergies that the above biodiversity may provide to
sustainability of the crop system.
6
Chapter-2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Biodiversity constitutes an immense richness and variation of the living world
(Groom et al., 2006), addressing multiple levels of organizations at many different spatial and temporal scales (Noss, 1990). The hierarchal structure of biodiversity is recognized at the genetic, population, species, community, ecosystem and landscape level. Each of these levels is further sub-divided into compositional, structural and functional components (Noss, 1990). Biodiversity plays a vital role in stabilizing both natural and man-made ecosystems. Agroecosystems constitute a significant part of the man-made ecosystem, where biodiversity controls a number of key factors such as recycling of nutrients, control of microclimate, regulation of hydrological processes, detoxification of harmful chemicals, pollination, survival and reproduction of beneficial plants and animals and pest control in an agroecosystem (Altieri, 1994; Isaacs et al., 2009; Olfert et al.,
2002).
Biodiversity was considered to be in conflict with agriculture in most of the developing countries from early 60s to late 90s. Agricultural intensification in that era resulted in replacement of traditional production systems of agriculture to high-input yield-oriented agriculture with a focus to eradicate wide range of unrelated biodiversity from the crops; beneficial or not. This sort of “modern agriculture” was characterized by its large scale approache to production, expanded use of irrigation, mechanization and a strong reliance on chemical fertilizers and pesticides (Varela, 2001). These approaches 7 caused an irreparable damage to the cropland biodiversity, as it developed resistance among pests and brought many non-target top order predators, for example, the bald eagle, to the verge of extinction.
2.1 Faunal Assemblages of Agroecosystem
Nearly a third of our planet's land is dominated by agricultural crops or planted
pastures (Cassman and Wood, 2005), and regulation of ecological functions in these
agricultural areas largely depend on their animal and plant communities (Altieri, 1999).
Arthropods (Orthoptera, Araneae, Hemiptera, Coleoptera, Lepidoptera, Hymenoptera,
Odonata, Diptera, Thysanoptera, Neuroptera, Prostigmata) and Molluscs have been
frequently recorded from agroecosystems (Coombs and Woodroffe, 1968; Mead, 1978;
David et al., 1986; Hall, 1988; Showler et al., 1990; Young and Edwards, 1990; Wratten and Powell, 1991; Jianguo, 1994; White et al., 1995; Lövei and Sunderland, 1996;
Kumarasinghe, 1999; Holland et al., 1999; Ganehiarachchi and Fernando, 2000; Morris and Waterhouse, 2001; Meagher and Legaspi, 2003; Ahmed et al., 2004; Hall et al.,
2005; Teodorescu and Cogălniceanu, 2005; Siddiqui, 2005; Posey et al., 2006; Rao and
Chalam, 2007; Clough et al., 2007; Adiroubane and Kuppammal, 2010; Ruby et al.,
2010; Ruby et al., 2011; Ghafoor and Mahmood, 2011; Nasir et al., 2011; Mahmood et al., 2011; Birkhofer et al., 2011; Abbas et al., 2012) in different parts of the world. This diversity plays an important role in maintain a healthy balance between pests and their natural predators in the agroecosystem (Balaram, 2005).
Arthropods include insects, spiders, and mites. Pests such as armyworms
(Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), aphids (Homoptera: Aphididae), corn borers (Ostrinia
nubilalis Hübner), moth (Plutella xylostella L.), beetles (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae), 8 hoppers (Orthoptera: Acrididae), sunflower beetle (Zygogramma exclamationis F.), midge (Sitodiplosis mosellana Géhin), and the bugs (Hemiptera: Miridae) have a major impact on crop losses (Pitan and Odebiyi, 2001). Molluscs such as the grey field slug
Deroceras reticulatum is notorious pest in sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) and soybean
(Glycine max L.) crops (Tulli et al., 2009).
Hall, et al. (2005) reported the desert corn flea beetle, Chaetocnema ectypa Horn
(Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae); a leafmining buprestid beetle, Aphanisticus cochinchinae seminulum Obenberger (Coleoptera: Buprestidae); an armored scale, Duplachionaspis divergens (Green) (Hemiptera: Diaspididae); a spider mite, Oligonychus grypus Baker and Pritchard (Acarina: Tertranychidae); the Diaprepes root weevil Diaprepes abbreviatus (L.) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae); and the pink sugarcane mealybug,
Saccharicoccus sacchari (Cockerell) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae), these pest species associated to sugarcane crop causing economic losses.
Shanower & Hoelmer (2004) Wheat stem sawflies, Cephus spp. and Trachelus spp. (Hymenoptera: Cephidae) are important pests of wheat in Europe, North America and the Mediterranean region. These species have similar life history patterns and share a number of biological attributes. Larvae feed in the stems of cultivated (e.g. wheat, barley, rye, durum) and uncultivated (e.g. Agropyron, Bromus, Elymus) grasses.
Hymenoptera include a diverse assemblage of over 115,000 species of phytophagous (plant-feeding predatory, and parasitic insects that play a vital role in the functioning of an agroecosystem. Hymenoptera function as pollinators and wax producers as well as parasitoids that help us in the biological control of other insect pests
(Bhardwaj et al., 2012). 9
Larvae of green lacewings (Chrysoperla sp.) and beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) eat a variety of pests and protect crops against infestations. Carabid beetles (Scarites anthracinus) predate on juvenile slugs (Deroceras reticulatum) and pillbugs
(Armadillidium vulgare) (Tulli et al., 2009). Coccinellids (e.g. Coccinella septempunctata L., Hippodamia variegata etc) are important predators that suppress aphid populations (Cotes et al., 2010). Similarly, braconid parasitoid wasps have been found as effective parasitoids against eucalyptus longhorned borer, Phoracantha semipunctata F. (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) (Paine et al., 1993).
2.2 Causes and consequences of biodiversity decline
The use of pesticides, particularly herbicides, and synthetic fertilizers have
increased dramatically since green revolution. Farming practices have fundamentally
changed over the past 60 years (Boatman et al., 2007). Changes in land use patterns, in
combination with high agrochemical input in crop fields, are the primary causes for the
rapid decrease of biodiversity in many of these landscapes (Robinson and Sutherland
2002; Benton et al., 2003).
Agricultural intensification has been considered an important cause of the rapid
decline in farmland biodiversity. The leftover agroecosystem diversity is now
concentrated only on field edges and non-crop habitats. This simplification of landscape
composition and the resultant decline of biodiversity has adversely affected the structure
and function of natural pest control (Bianchi et al., 2006; Hendrickx et al., 2007;
Geigera et al., 2010).
Pesticides deprive predators of their food by reducing the population size of
insects, and decrease the amount of suitable habitats by suppressing growth of weeds that 10 acting as refugia. Herbicides change habitats by altering vegetation structure and soil biochemistry (Boatman et al., 2007). Losses among a majority of endangered species are more often related to the rate of pesticide use in comparison to agricultural area in a region and species losses are highest in areas with intensive agriculture (Gibbs et al.,
2010).
Declining agroecosystem biodiversity adversely affects the delivery of many ecosystem services (Hooper et al., 2005) of which biological control of pests (Tscharntke et al., 2005), crop pollination (Biesmeijer et al., 2006) and protection of soil fertility
(Brussaard et al., 1997) are considered most at risk from agricultural intensification.
2.3 Biological control
The term “biological control” was originally defined as “the action of parasites,
predators, or pathogens in maintaining population density of other organisms (pests) at a
lower average than would occur in their absence (De Bach, 1964).” This type of pest
control method is generally accepted as an appropriate, long-term, self-sustaining and environmentaly friendly way of managing insect pest and weeds in agroecosystem as it contributes towards the sustainability of both crops and lands by reducing their pest load.
(Quimby et al., 2002). Complex landscapes maintain a comparatively higher proportion
of predators than the simple ones and such a landscape-driven pest suppression results in
a lower crop injury. A strong association has been recorded between activity of predators
and herbaceous habitats (e.g. fallows, field margins). These diversified landscapes hold
the most potential for the conservation of biodiversity and sustaining the pest control
function (Bianchi et al., 2006). Efforts to minimize negative impact of intensive 11 farming through organic farming and other strategies resulted in an increase in weed and carabid populations (Geigera et al., 2010).
Species richness and evenness play a significant role in maintaining ecosystem functions and imbalances have adverse impacts on ecosystem processes. In organic farms where even communities of pathogen and predator (biological control agents) are found have strongest positive impact on the pest control and crop yield whereas, conventionally managed fields, biological control agents are less even and have high pest densities and low plant biomass (Crowder et al., 2010). Winqvist et al. (2011) stated that organic farming increases the biodiversity of macroinvertebrates, plants and birds in agroecosystem in turn enhance biological control of damaging pests.
2.4 Trophic Interactions
Biological control systems involve a diverse community of natural enemies
(Snyder and Ives, 2003). Specialist predators, such as parasitoids, generally cause little
immediate reduction in pest (e.g. aphid) population growth, but a large decline after a
delay corresponding to their generation time whereas the generalist guilds cause an
immediate decline in the aphid population growth rate but do not exert effective density-
dependent control (Elliott et al., 2002). Elliott et al. (2002) investigated the numerical
response of the predatory to aphids in three geographically separated alfalfas. This
investigation showed regression parameters differed among the three fields for most
predator species, indicating that the numerical response was dependent on geographical
location. Landscape matrix also determines the abundance of aphid predators in alfalfa
fields. 12
Inayat et al. (2011) showed that Coccinellids such as Cheilomenes sexmaculata,
Hippodamia variegata and Coccinella septempunctata are good biological control agents and efficiently control pest species e.g. Macrosiphum miscanthi, Aphis maidis, Schizaphis graminum (Aphids) and Empoasca kerri (jassid) in the agroecosystem. Predation rate of these predators increased with the increase in prey density of each species. Adult
Cheilomenes sexmaculata and Hippodamia variegata have greater predation rate compared to C. septempunctata; larval feeding rate was similar on prey species of aphids and jasids and Predator species prefer aphids over jassids.
2.5 Weeds in agroecosystem
Weeds are generally considered as a major barrier in crop production and are
suppressed from the fields to minimize competition with food crops (Marshall et al.,
2009). However weeds, may provide food, fiber, shelter, fuel, traditional medicines, raw
material for pharmaceutical industry, dyes and poisons and are used in cultural and
religious ceremonies (Ruby et al., 2011). Weeds and landscape of a region determine the
type and density of its macroinvertebrate community dwelling over there. Like humans,
predatory insects also utilize weeds as food during larval stages and as laying sites later at breeding stages. Weeds thus enhance crop productivity by maintaining a healthy balance between pests and their predators (Shalaby, 1974; Lawton, 1983; Bugg, 1993; Heywood and Skaula, 1999; Altieri, 1999; Capinera, 2005)
Several studies (e.g. Paoletti and Lorenzoni, 1989; Burgio et al., 2007) have documented the positive impact of weeds bordering crop fields on the dynamics of colonizing macroinvertebrate pest species, especially when weed plants are botanically related to the crop. In contrast, certain weeds (Asteraceae, Fabaceae and Apiaceaeand 13 families) play an important ecological role by nurturing a complex of beneficial macroinvertebrates (Norris and Kogan, 2005). Field boundaries, if appropriately managed, can supply alternate food sources and habitats to predator species that move into neighboring crops (Altieri, 1999). However, Girma et al. (2000) stated that the effect of boundaries on pest infestations of cultivated crops and their role as refuge for predator species cannot be generalized and depends on the specific macroinvertebrates. Moonen et al. (2006) illustrated that the phytomorphic heterogeneity of the boundaries complex was inversely correlated with the abundance of agriculturally important weeds in the complex, but also with the abundance of aphid predator species; mainly Syrphidae and
Coccinellidae. Therefore, it is likely that the same level of habitat diversity turns into higher or lower expression of agro-ecological functions, depending on the given ecological features of weed species and macroinvertebrates components.
2.6 Weeds as source of food and medicines
Historically, weeds are used to manufacture traditional medicines for various
diseases such as stomach and heart diseases (Stauth, 1993; Burits and Bucar, 2002;
Schuier, et al, 2005; Okwu and Omodamiro, 2005; Okwu and Emenike, 2006; Sharma, et al., 2007; Enzo, 2007). In Pakistan, field of phytochemistry is new and few studies are found in different areas of the country (Ali and Fefevre, 1996; Baquar, 1989; Rubina,
1998; Ibrar, 1999; Ur-Rahman, 1999, 2000, 2001; Ibrar, 2000; Bhatti et al., 2001; Rashid and Arshad, 2002; Ahmad et al., 2003; Ali et al., 2003; Ahmad et al., 2005; Ahmad et al., 2006; Hussain et al., 2006; Mujtaba and Khan, 2007; Nisar et al., 2010a, 2010b, 2011;
Abbas et al., 2012; Zia-Ul-Haq et al., 2012 ), but no such study is available in the study
area (Faisalabad). 14
Edeoga et al. (2005) demonstrated that the plant species such as Cleome nutidosperma, Emilia coccinea, Physalis angulata, Euphorbia heterophylla,
Richardia bransitensis, Scopania dulcis, Spigelia anthelmia, Sida acuta, Tridax procumbens and Stachytarpheta cayennensis have phytochemical potential and all the plants were found to have alkaloids, flavonoids and tannins except for the absence of tannins in S. acuta and flavonoids in S. cayennsis respectively.
Hussain et al. (2010) investgated phytochemical potential and vitamins in
Sonchus asper and Sonchus eruca and showed the presence of bioactive constituents such as alkaloids, saponins, flavonoids, phenols, saponins and tannins. The medicinal plants also contained ascorbic acid, riboflavin, thiamine and niacin.
El-Sayed et al. (1999) evaluated the four flavonol glycosides, three aglycones and one coumarin from Chenopodium murale and reported glycosides, 3-rhamnoside-7- xylosyl(1 4 2)-rhamnoside, kaempferol as well as other compounds such as kaempferol, its 7-rhamnoside, 3-rhamnoside 7-glucoside and 3,7-dirhamnoside, quercetin, scopoletin and herbacetin.
Ahmad and Javed (2007) studied the six most prominently used medicinal and food species viz., Artemisia scoparia, Galium aparine, Adhatoda vasica, Hedera nepalensis, Amaranthus viridis and Urtica dioica and recorded that these six species have great phytochemical and nutritional value and a good sources of important nutrients for human.
Latha and Panikkar (1999) studied the use of Psoralea corylifolia L. (Fabaceae) seeds are used in traditional medicine. Topical application of 100 mg:kg body weight of the active fraction (AF) of seed of P. corylifolia inhibited the growth and delayed the 15 beginning of papilloma formation in mice, initiated with 7,12-dimethyl benz(a) anthracene and promoted utilizing croton oil. The AF at the identical dose, when administered orally, inhibited the growth of subcutaneously injected 20- methylcholanthrene (MCA)-induced soft tissue fibrosarcomas significantly.
16
Chapter-3
MATERIALS
AND
METHODS
3.1 Study Area
Pakistan is roughly rhomboidal and oblique lying between 24° and 36.7° north
latitude and 61.0° and 75.0° east longitude. It comprises a total of 807048 km2 area that
can topographically be subdivided into two distinct regions, (a) the mountain terrain and
tableland in the north, (b) gradational flat plains in the south the Indus plains. The
Indogangetic plains were formed in the tertiary when great depression in front of the
newly up heaved Himalayas appeared. The process of alluviation from the high lands and
the subsequent severances of the river Indus from the Ganges River following the uplift
of the Siwalik system resulted in the present form of the Indus and Gangetic Plains
(Wadia, 1953). The plain is generally featureless, sloping gently toward the sea – an
important hydrographic feature in relation to flooding and irrigation. The Indus is the
only south- flowing river in Pakistan, and is fed by glaciers in the Karakorum Range. The
total length of the river in Pakistan is 2,900km and the total basin area is 259,210 km2 comprising nearly one third of the total area of the country (Roberts, 1997).
This study was conducted in Faisalabad (30° 31.5 N and 73° 74 E with an elevation of 184.4 m asl) that lies in northeast of Punjab (Fig. 3.1). Faisalabad is the third most populous city with Chenab, flowing about 30 km (19 mi) to the northwest, and the
Ravi roaming about 40 km (25 mi) south-east of the city. The lower Chenab canal is the 17 key source of irrigation water, which meets the requirements of 80% of cultivated land.
The soil of Faisalabad comprises alluvial deposits mixed with loess, having calcareous characteristics, making the soil very fertile (City District Government Faisalabad). May,
June, and July are the hottest months of the year, with mean maximum temperature reaching 39°C and maximum daily temperatures up to 49°C. The monsoon rains mostly fall in July and August, the wettest months. December and January are the coldest months with a mean minimum temperature of 6°C and occasionally passing below freezing
(Mahmood-ul-Hassan et al., 2010).
The total annual rainfall in the second year of sampling (2010) was 625.9 mm above than the first year of sampling (2009) that was (285.6 mm). However the mean annual maximum and minimum temperature in both sampling years were almost similar.
The mean annual maximum and minimum temperature in the first year of sampling
(2009) was 31.23°C, and 18.07°C, respectively while during the second year of sampling that was 31.15°C, 18.50°C (Fig. 3.2)
3.2 Selection and description of sampling sites
Sampling sites were selected in the Faisalabad district along the peripheral
cultivation belt from 30 to 60 km distant from the University of Agriculture Faisalabad
which is situated amidst the city (Fig. 3.3). Wheat and sugarcane fields were randomly
selected at 20 sites for sampling of macroinvertebrates.
18
Fig. 3.1. A map of Punjab showing the location of Faisalabad district from where macroinvertebrates were collected during the course of present study.
19
20
3.2.1 Crops of study area
Maize (Zea mays), berseem (Trifolium alexandrinum), brassica (Brassica campestris), garlic (Allium sativum), carrot (Daucus carota), raddish (Raphanus sativus), cauliflower (Brassica oleracea), bitter gourd (Momordica charantia) and turnip (Brassica rapa rapa), Spinch (Spinacea oleracea) pumpkin (Cucurbita maxima) crops were recorded in the wheat and sugarcane sampling sites throughout the sampling period.
3.2.2 Plant species of study area
Babul or arabic tree (Acacia Arabica), Neem (Azadirachta indica), guava
(Psidium guajava), blue gum (Eucalyptus globules), simbal, Sour Chinese Date
(Zizyphus jujube), Oak (Quercus alba), calotrope (Calotropis procera), shisham
(Dalbergia sissoo), orange tree (Citrus sinensis), white mulberry (Morus alba), lemon
(Citrus limon) and Lombardy poplar (Populus nigra) were the plant species recorded from sampling sites throughout the sampling period.
The information regarding management practices used by the local farmers for cultivation of wheat and sugarcane were collected each year by direct observation and
conducting interviews from land owners/farmers, with specific reference to the use of
agrochemicals and mechanical operations at farms. Sampling sites vary with reference to
the use of agrochemicals. Local poor farmers mainly depend on animal manure and use minimum fertilizers and other chemicals as farm inputs (Table 3.1and 3.2).
21
Fig. 3.3. A map of Faisalabad showing the position of the sampling sites.
S1= Chak 217 Chokaira, S2= Chak 61 Dharor, S3= Chak 57 Bara Kayla, S4= Chak 5
JB, Kamal pur, S5= Chak 3 Ramdowali, S6= Chak 157 Bhatti wala, S7= Chak 204
bawiyanwala, S8= Chak 117 Dhonola, S9= Chak 118 Dhonola, S10= Chak 202 Ghatti,
S11= Chak 198 RB Monian wala, S12= Khurrianwala, S13= Chak 208 RB Dogranwala,
S14= Chak 209 R. B, S15= Chak 243 RB Roshanwala, S16= Chak no. 235 RB, S17=
Chak no. 238 Awanwala, S18= Chak 54 J.B Totiyan, S19= Chak 241 Chancheyryan
wala and S20=PARS
11
Table 3.1. Sampling sites and agricultural management practices used for wheat cultivation of Faisalabad district.
Fertilizers application
Sampling sites Application of agro-chemicals Organic Sowing time Irrigation time fertilizers Chak 235 RB DAP (1 bag), Urea (1 bag) /acre, Sona urea (1 bag) /acre - 2, 4-D, bromoxynil (Buctril) Chak 238 Awanwala DAP (1 bag), Urea (1 bag) /acre, - Lambda, Cyhalathrin 2.5EC Chak 5 JB, Kamal pur DAP (1 bag), Urea (1 bag) /acre Urea (1 bag) /acre - 2, 4-D, bromoxynil (Buctril) Chak 117 Dhonola DAP (1 bag)/acre, Urea (1 bag) /acre Urea (1 bag)/acre - 2, 4-D, bromoxynil (Buctril), Poma Super Chak 202 Ghatti DAP(1 bag), Urea (1 bag) /acre, Gypsum Urea(1 bag) /acre Manure Negligible Weedicides Chak 198 RB Monian wala DAP(1 bag)/acre, Urea (1 bag) /acre Urea(1 bag)/acre manure Arelon, Topik Chak 118 Dhonola Urea (1 bag) /acre Urea (1 bag) /acre - 2, 4-D, bromoxynil (Buctril), Arelon Chak 3 Ramdowali DAP (1 bag , Urea (1 bag) /acre Urea (2 bag ) /acre Manure 2, 4-D, bromoxynil (Buctril), Poma Super Chak 243 RB Roshanwala DAP(1 bag), Urea (1 bag) /acre Urea(1 bag) /acre Manure 2, 4-D, bromoxynil (Buctril), MCPA Chak 208 RB Dogranwala DAP(1 bag)/acre,, Urea (1 bag) /acre Urea (1 bag) /acre - 2, 4-D, bromoxynil (Buctril), Topik Chak 217 Chokaira DAP(1 bag)/acre, Urea(2 bag)/acre Manure Arelon Khurrianwala DAP(2 bag)/acre, Nitrophase (4 bag)/acre Manure 2, 4-D, bromoxynil (Buctril) Chak 157 Bhatti wala Urea (1 bag)/acre Urea (1 bag)/acre Chak 241 Chancheyryan wala DAP(1 bag)/acre,Urea (1 bag)/acre Urea (1 bag)/acre Manure MCPA, bromo kernel Chak 54 J.B Totiyan DAP(1 bag)/acre,Urea (1 bag)/acre Urea (1 bag)/acre - Topik, 2, 4-D, bromoxynil (Buctril) Chak 204 bawiyanwala DAP(1 bag)/acre,Urea (1 bag) /acre Urea (1 bag) /acre - 2, 4-D, bromoxynil (Buctril) Chak 61 Dharor Urea (1 bag) /acre Urea (1 bag) /acre Manure - Chak 209 R. B DAP (1 bag), Urea (1 bag) /acre Urea (1 bag) /acre Manure Emamectin (ins), atrazine (w), deltmethrin PARS DAP(1 bag)/acre,Urea (1 bag) /acre Urea (1 bag) /acre Manure Poma Super and Topik Chak 57 Bara Kayla Urea (1 bag) /acre Urea (1 bag) /acre Manure -
1 bag DAP, Urea (with various brand names) = 50kg
12
Table 3.2. Sampling sites and agricultural management practices used for cane cultivation of Faisalabad district.
Fertilizers application Sampling sites Inorganic fertilizers Organic Application of agro-chemicals Sowing time Irrigation time fertilizers Chak 235 RB DAP (1 bag) Super phosphate (1bag) /acre Sona urea (1 bag) /acre - Negligible Chak 238 Awanwala DAP (1 bag ) /acre - Manure Negligible Chak 5 JB, Kamal pur DAP (1 bag) /acre Urea (1 bag) /acre Manure Negligible Chak 117 Dhonola DAP (1 bag)/acre, Urea (1 bag)/acre - Negligible Chak 202 Ghatti DAP (1/2 bag) /acre 1/2 (Bag) Urea Manure Negligible Chak198 RB Monian wala DAP (1 bag)/acre Urea (1 bag)/acre Manure Negligible Chak 118 Dhonola DAP (1 bag)/acre Sona urea (1 bag) /acre - Negligible Chak 3 Ramdowali DAP(2 bag) /acre Urea (2 bag) /acre Manure Negligible Chak 243 RB Roshanwala DAP (1 bag) /acre Urea (1 bag) /acre - Negligible Chak 208 RB Dogranwala DAP (2 bag) /acre Urea (1 bag) /acre Manure Negligible Chak 217 Chokaira DAP (1 bag)/acre Urea (1 bag)/acre Manure Negligible Khurrianwala DAP(2 bag)/acre or Nitrophase (4 bag)/acre - Manure Negligible Chak 157 Bhatti wala DAP (1 bag)/acre Urea (1 bag)/acre Negligible Chak 241 Chancheyryan wala DAP (1 bag)/acre Urea (1 bag)/acre Manure Negligible Chak 54 J.B Totiyan DAP (1 bag)/acre Urea (1 bag)/acre - Negligible Chak 204 bawiyanwala DAP (1 bag) /acre Urea (1 bag) /acre - Negligible Chak 61 Dharor DAP (1 bag) /acre Urea (1 bag) /acre Manure Negligible Chak 209 R. B DAP (2 bag) /acre Urea (1 bag) /acre Manure Negligible PARS DAP (2 bag) /acre Urea (1 bag) /acre Manure Negligible Chak 57 Bara Kayla DAP (2 bag) /acre Urea (1 bag) /acre Manure Negligible
1 bag DAP, Urea (with various brand names) = 50kg 11
3.3 Sampling technique
This study was conducted within a radius of 30 to 60 km of the University of
Agriculture Faisalabad. One block each of wheat and sugarcane (area = 4.05 ha) was
Selected on 24 randomly selected sites. Three plots (area = 0.405 ha) from each of these randomly selected blocks of wheat and sugarcane were again randomly selected and two quadrates (area = 1m2 each) of foliage macroinvertebrates were sampled from each of these three plots in such a way that one of these quadrates was sampled from edge and
the other from the center of the field. Sampling was done on weekly basis and each
sampling session comprised of three hours in the afternoon until sunset. Sampling was
done for two consecutive cropping seasons of wheat and sugarcane. Sweep nets were
used to capture flying and foliage insects present above the canopy of the weed and crop
plants. All the collected macroinvertebrates were preserved in glass vials containing 70% ethanol. Weeds occurring within two randomly selected quadrates of wheat and sugarcane fields were also recorded.
3.4 Identification of macroinvertebrates Macroinvertebrate taxa (arthropods, arachnids and pulmonates) were identified by
consulting relevant literature was used for arachnids Sevory (1964) Pocock (1900a)
Tikader (1982, 1987), Insects by Stephens (1839) Hampson (1894, 1895) Bingham
(1903) Distant (1908) Jacoby (1908) Burr (1910) Morley (1913) Kirby (1914) Marshall
(1916) Arrow (1917) Brunetti (1923) Esben-Petersen (1928) Andrewes (1929, 1935)
Cameron (1930) Barraud (1934) Pratt (1935) Bell and Scott (1937) Talbot (1939, 1947)
Pope (1953) Van Emden (1965) Chopard (1969) Triplehorn (1972) Davies and Richards
(1977) Von Hayek (1979) Ananthakrishnan and Sen (1980) Ghosh (1984). The identification macroinvertebrates were also done with the help of the research 12 laboratories and museums at the University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan and
Museum of CABI (Centre for Applied Bioscience International). Regional Biosciences
Centre, Daata Ganj Bakhsh Road, Rawalpindi, Pakistan were visited.
3.5 Identification of weeds
Weeds were identified by using keys relevant given by Chaudhry (1969) Nasir and Ali (1993). Weeds taxonomists in the Department of Botany, University of
Agriculture were also consulted.
3.6 Statistical Analysis/Softwares’ used:
The data was 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 at required levels.
3.6.1 Shannon’s Index of Diversity (H′),
Data was analyzed statistically to determine species diversity, species richness and
species evenness with Shannon diversity index (H′) (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 of S species in the sample
and N is the total number of individuals in the sample.
The variance of H′ is calculated as: 13
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:
Degrees 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.
3.6.2 Cannonical Correspondence Analysis (CCA)
Canonical Correspondence Analysis (CCA) was performed on macroinvertebrate
fauna collected from weeds of both wheat and sugarcane fields against soil weeds by
using MVSP software (version 3.13f) of Kovach (2003).
3.7 Predator-prey ratios
The present study was carried out for two consecutive years during 2009 and
2010, with sample being taken on weekly basis from randomly selected sites in the periphery of Faisalabad city. All the arthropod predators of wheat-weeds and sugarcane- 14 weeds agro-ecosystems were captured using sweep net and by hand picking. These included Coccinella septempunctata, Chilomenes sexmaculata, Coccinella trifasciata,
Oxyopes sertatus, Oxyopes javanus, Camponotus spp., Solenopsis invicta and Solenopsis xyloni and their suspected preys Pyrilla perpusilla, Dysdercus cingulatus, Acyrthosiphon gossypii, Schizaphus graminum Aphis nerii, Xyonysius californicus, Cavelerius saccharivorus and Perkinsiella saccharicida were captured from wheat and sugarcane agro-ecosystems in Faisalabad district. The macro-invertebrtaes captured from the edges and centers of wheat-weeds and sugarcane-weeds agro-ecosystems were polled respectively to calculate their relationship.
The captured macroinvertebrate groups were preserved in glass vials and brought to lab located at the Department of Zoology and Fisheries, University of Agriculture
Faisalabad. All the specimens were identified to species level by consulting available literature and electronic keys available on internet.
3.7.1 Estimation of predator to prey (p/p) ratio
The number arthropod species collected during each month was categorized either
as predator(s) or prey(s) on the basis of literature (Inayat et al., 2010). Abundance ratio of
predator with its different available preys (p/p ratio) was then calculated by dividing the
density of preys with the density of a predator in a particular month. This ratio ( y-axis)
was plotted on graph using Microsoft Excel 2007 against the months (x-axis) and the
most straight line was chosen to represent the best indicator of association between
predator and prey species (Inayat et al., 2011) . The significance of association was tested using polynomial regression R-values were calculated by using Microsoft Excel 2007.
15
3.8 Phytochemical Evaluation 3.9 Weed seeds
Seeds of wheat weeds (Vicia sativa, Galium aparine, Rumex dentatus, Avena fatua,
Lathyrus aphaca, Phalaris minor, Carthamus oxycantha, Convolvulus arvensis,
Chenopodium album, Coronopus didymus, Melilots indica, Cichorium intybus, Anagallis arvensis,Chenopodium murale and Euphorbia sp.) that had already been taxonomically identified and stored in the “Seed Bank, Ayuab Agriculture Research Institute, Faisalabad
Pakistan” were collected and were packed in sterilized polythene bags.
3.10 Weeds root, stem and leaves
Seventeen weeds species that are Chenopodium murale,Convolvulus arvensis,
Rumex dentatus, Parthenium hysterophorus, Euphorbia heliscopia,Coronopus didymus,
Brassica compastris, Malva neglecta, Solanum nigrum, Sonchus oleroceous, Eclipta alba, Poa annua, Ricinus communis, Anthem graveolens, Cynodon dactylon, Melilotus indica and Malvastrum coromandelianum were collected from agro-ecosystem of
Faisalabad district. All the weed species were identified by taxonomists from the
Department of Botany, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad.
The weeds collected from agro-ecosystem were brought to the laboratory, cleaned and air dried under shade. The roots, stems and leaves of each weed were carefully chopped by knife so that mixing of each part is avoided. The respective parts of weeds were ground with an electric grinder and preserved in airtight glass bottles for further use for chemical analysis.
16
3.11 Preparation of extracts
The seeds were crushed into fine powder using a mill grinder and 25 g of each
weed seeds powder and root, stem and leaves powder were dissolved separately in 100
ml of commercially available pure ethanol. The solution was kept at room temperature
for seven days to allow the extraction of compounds from seeds. The solution for each
weed variety was stirred every 24 h using a sterile glass rod. After seven days, the
solution was filtered through Whatman filter paper no. 1 and a greenish filtrate was
obtained. The solvent was evaporated and a black sticky substance was obtained that was
stored in the refrigerator and suspended in 10% dimethyl sulfoxide prior to use.
3.12 Phytochemical screening
Chemical tests were carried out both on the ethanolic extract and on the powdered specimens using standard procedures to identify the constituents as described by
Harborne (1973), Trease and Evans (1989) and Sofowara (1993). The specific procedure involved for the evaluation of a particular group of chemicals is mention below.
3.13 Qualitative determination of the chemical constituency
3.13.1 Tannins
One ml of water and 1-2 drops of ferric chloride solution were added in 0.5 ml of
extracted solution. Blue colour was observed for gallic tannins and green black for
catecholic tannins (Iyengar, 1995).
3.13.2 Saponins
Foam test: Small amounts of extract were shaken with little quantity of water. If
foam produced persists for ten minutes it indicates the presence of saponins (Roopashree,
et al., 2008). 17
3.13.3 Flavonoids (Alkaline Reagent Test)
Extracts were treated with few drops of sodium hydroxide solution. Formation of intense yellow colour, which becomes colourless on addition of dilute acid, indicates the presence of flavonoids (Roopashree, et al., 2008).
3.13.4 Steriods
Two ml of acetic anhydride was added to 0.5 g ethanolic extract of each sample with 2 ml H2S04. The colour changed from violet to blue or green in some samples
indicating the presence of steroids.
3.13.5 Terpenoids (Salkowski test)
Five ml of each extract was mixed in 2 ml of chloroform, and concentrated
H2SO4 (3 ml) was carefully added to form a layer. A reddish brown colouration of the
interface was formed to show the presence of terpenoids.
3.13.6 Cardiac glycosides (Keller-Killani test)
Five ml of each extract was treated with 2 ml of glacial acetic acid containing one
drop of ferric chloride solution. This was underlayed with 1 ml of concentrated sulphuric
acid. A brown ring of the interface indicates a deoxysugar characteristic of cardenolides.
A violet ring may appear below the brown ring, while in the acetic acid layer, a greenish ring may form just gradually throughout thin layer.
3.13.7 Alkaloids
An alkaloids are basic nitrogenous compounds with definite physiological and pharmacological activity. Alkaloid solution produces white yellowish precipitate when a few drops of Mayer’s reagents are added (Siddiqui and Ali, 1997).
3.13.8 Anthraquinones 18
Borntrager’s test was used for detecting the presence of anthraquinones. In this case, 0.5 g of the plant extract was shaken with benzene layer separated and half of its own volume of 10% ammonia solution was added. A pink, red or violet colouration in the ammoniacal phase indicated the presence of anthraquinone.
3.14 Quantitative determination of the chemical constituency
3.14. 1 Preparation of fat free sample
Two g of the sample were defatted with 100 ml of diethyl ether using a soxhlet
apparatus for 2 hours.
3.14.2 Alkaloid
Harborne (1973) method was used to determine alkaloid. Five gram of the
sample was weighed into a 250 ml beaker and 200 ml of 10% acetic acid in ethanol was
added and covered and allowed to stand for 4 h. This was filtered and the extract was
concentrated on a water bath to one quarter of the original volume. Concentrated
ammonium hydroxide was added drop wise to the extract until the precipitation was
complete. The whole solution was allowed to settle and the precipitated was collected and
washed with dilute ammonium hydroxide and then filtered. The residue is the alkaloid,
which was dried and weighed.
3.14.3 Tannin
Van-Burden and Robinson (1981) method was used to determine Tannin. For
this, 500 mg of the sample was weighed into a 50 ml plastic bottle. Fifty ml of distilled
water was added and shaken for 1 h in a mechanical shaker. This was filtered into a 50 ml volumetric flask and made up to the mark. Then, 5 ml of the filtered was pipetted out into 19
a test tube and mixed with 2 ml of 0.1 M FeCl3 in 0.1 N HCl and 0.008 M potassium
ferrocyanide. The absorbance was measured at 605 nm within 10 min.
3.14.4 Saponin
Obadoni and Ochuko (2001) method was used to quantify Saponin. Samples
were ground and 20 g of each were put into a conical flask and 100 Cm3 of 20% aqueous
ethanol were added. Samples were heated over a hot water bath for 4 h with continuous
stirring at about 55°C. The mixture was filtered and the residue re-extracted with another
200 ml 20% ethanol. The combined extracts were reduced to 40 ml over water bath at
about 90°C. The concentrate was transferred into a 250 ml separatory funnel and 20 ml of
diethyl ether was added and shaken vigorously. The aqueous layer was recovered while
the ether layer was discarded. The purification process was repeated and 60 ml of n
butanol was added. The combined n-butanol extracts were washed twice with 10 ml of
5% aqueous sodium chloride. The remaining solution was heated in a water bath. After
evaporation the samples were dried in the oven to a constant weight; the saponin content
was calculated as percentage.
3.14.5 Flavonoids
Bohm and Kocipai-Abyazan (1994) method was used to determine flavonoid. For
This, Ten g of the plant sample was extracted repeatedly with 100 ml of 80% aqueous methanol at room temperature. The whole solution was filtered through Whatman filter
paper No 42 (125 mm). The filtrate was later transferred into a crucible and evaporated
into dryness over a water bath and weighed to a constant weight.
Statistical analysis. All values have been expressed as mean ± standard deviation.
20
3.15 Traditional uses of weeds
A total of 28 weeds were analyzed for their phytochemical potential. The traditional medicinal use of the weeds reviewed in Table 3.3.
11
Table 3.3. Brief review of various weed species used to analyze phytochemical potential during the present study.
Family Botanical Name Traditional Uses References Vicia sativa Antiseptic Dwivedi, 2008; Jabeen et al., 2009 Famine food. Dwivedi, 2008; Jabeen et al., 2009; Lathyrus aphaca Fabaceae Jabeen et al., 2009 Astringent, aphrodisiac, heart diseases, burning sensation, skin diseases Reddy and Ramachandra, 2008 Melilotus indica and eye diseases. Diuretic, Dropsies, Gravel and Calculi, Tonic Lymphatic alterative, Proving Report 2006; Rubiaceae Galium aparine Anti-inflammatory, Astringent, Anti-neoplastic Polygonaceae Rumex dentatus Treatment for pneumonia, Cough, Bscesses, stomach-ache and smallpox Hussain et al., 2006; Kumar, 2010 Avena fatua Seeds are nerve tonic, stimulant and laxative. Islam et al., 2006; Poaceae Poa annua Phalaris minor The seed can be ground into a flour and used in making bread, cakes etc. Moerman, 1998. Poaceae Laxative, brain and heart tonic, aphrodisiac, alexipharmic, emetic, Agharkar, 1991 Cynodon dactylon emmenagogue, expectorant, carminative and useful against grippe in children, and for pains, inflammations, and toothache Antihyperlipidemic, Antihyperglycemic, Antinephrolithiatic and Bukhsh et al., 2007; Jabeen et al., Asteraceaae Carthamus oxycantha Hepatoprotective. 2009 Roots are purgative and possess blood coagulating properties due to Khan, 2004; Gorsi and Rizwan, 2002 Convolvulaceae Convolvulus arvensis presence of vitamin K like substances, Used as animal feed. Antipruritic and Antinociceptic. Yadav et al., 2007; Jabeen et al., Chenopodiaceae Chenopodium album 2009; Qureshi et al., 2009 Chenopodiaceae Chenopodium murale The leaves are used in salads. Yadav et al., 2007; Antiallergic, Antipyretic, Hypoglycemic and hepatoprotective. Qureshi et al., 2009; Busnardo, et al., Brassicaceae Coronopus didymus 2009 The leaves and flowers are added to bathwater for the external treatment Shinwari,2000; Jabeen et al., 2009 Leguminosae Melilots indica for warts, Rheumatism, and wounds. Ocular infections are also treated. liver tonic, cardiotonic, diuretic, stomachic, cholagogue, depurative, Sala, 1994; Jabeen et al., 2009 emmenagogue, hepatomegaly, cephalalgia, inflammations, anorexia, Asteraceae Cichorium intybus dyspepsia, flatulence, colic, jaundice, splenomegaly, amenorrhea dysmenorrhea, and asthma, etc. 12
Table 3.3. (Continued)
Parthenium Fever, diarrhoea, neurologic disorders, urinary infections, dysentery, Surib-Fakim et al., 1996; Ramos et hysterophorus malaria and as emmenagogue al., 2001 Anticancer, antidiarrheal, anti-inflammatory,calms the nerves, Jimoh et al., 2011 Sonchus oleroceous cathartic, clears infections, cure for opium addiction, digestive purgative, diuretic Eclipta alba Several diseases of liver, skin and stomach. Sharma and Smita, 2010. Skin diseases: infected wounds. Akerreta et al., 2007; Jabeen, et al., Primulaceae Anagallis arvensis 2009; Kumar, 2010 Stem pound and mother liquor used (Mtakalang'onyo) to expel retained Komwihangilo et al., 1995; Euphorbia sp. Placenta. Guèye,2002 Antiarthritic, antiamoebic, spasmolytic, antiviral, Hepatoprotective, and Bani et al., 2000; Tona et al., 2000 Euphorbiaceae Euphorbia heliscopia antitumor activity Ricinus communis Human laxative-cathartic agent Stubiger et al., 2003 Brassica compestris Cough, respiratory system and digestive system, also have Anti- Mavi et al., 2004; Gurbuz et al., 2005 Brassicaceae Malva neglecta ulcerogenic, and antioxidant properties. Malvastrum Antibacterial and antifungal activities Ndunga et al.,1997; Abad et al., 2007 coromandelianum Solanaceae Solanum nigrum Digestive system, antiulcerogenic and ulcer healing properties Jainu et al ., 2006. Antimycobacterial, antioxidant, cancer chemopreventive, stomachic, Stavri and Gibbons, 2005; Singh et Apiaceae Anthem graveolens diuretic al., 2006; Amin et al., 2007.
23
Chapter-4
RESULTS
DIVERSITY OF FOLIAGE MACROINVERTEBRATES
4.1 Wheat
Macroinvertebrates belonging to the Arthropoda (92.41%) and the Mollusca
(7.59%) were recorded from the wheat-weeds agroecosytem. Diptera (27.65%),
Hemiptera (27.58%) Coleoptera (18.21%), Hymenoptera (7.36%) and Orthoptera
(5.82%) formed a little above 80% of the arthropods in this type of agroecosystem.
Hemiptera (29.09%), Coleoptera (24.77%), Diptera (23.07%), Orthoptera (5.34%) and
Pulmonata (8.69%) were the most recorded taxa in wheat, as well as weeds, whereas
Diptera (30.92%), Hemiptera (26.49%), Coleoptera (13.53%), Hymenoptera (9.97%)
Pulmonata (6.81) and Orthoptera (6.16%) were the dominant macroinvertebrates (Table
4.1).
4.1.1 Abundance of Various Macroinvertebrate Assemblages
Foliage fauna of wheat-weed based agroecosystem was comprised of 72 species of macroinvertebrates (n = 4228) of which a majority were arthropods (92.41%). Among arthropods, insects belonged to the orders Orthoptera, Hemiptera, Coleoptera, Diptera,
Hymenoptera, Neuroptera and Lepidoptera (89.06%) while among arachnids only
Araneae (3.36%) was recorded. The rest were pulmonate gastropodes (7.59%).
Arthropods consisted of 49 species of insects (26 families, 41 genera), twelve species of arachnids (six families, ten genera) and nine species of pulmonates (eight families, nine
24 genera). Of the 72 species, 58 inhabited both wheat as well as weeds whereas 14 macroinvertebrate species were recorded only from weeds in this type of agroecosystem.
Table 4.1. Relative abundance (%) of macroinvertebrates recorded from Wheat and its associated weed plants (n is the number of individuals of each order).
% Relative abundance (n) Phylum/Order Crop Weeds Total Arthropoda 91.31 (1607) 93.19 (2300) 92.41 (3907) Orthoptera 5.34 (94) 6.16 (152) 5.82 (246) Hemiptera 29.09 (512) 26.49 (654) 27.58 (1166) Coleoptera 24.77 (436) 13.53 (334) 18.21 (770) Diptera 23.07 (406) 30.92 (763) 27.65 (1169) Hymenoptera 3.69 (65) 9.97 (246) 7.36 (311) Neuroptera - 0.73 (18) 0.43 (18) Lepidoptera 1.93 (34) 2.07 (51) 2.01 (85) Araneae 3.41 (60) 3.32 (82) 3.36 (142) Pulmonata 8.69 (153) 6.81 (168) 7.59 (321) Total 1760 2468 4228
25
Araneae (n = 12 species) was the most abundant Order, while Thomisidae was the most recorded Family (n = 4 species) among aranids. Orthoptera and Coleoptera (n = 11 species each) ranked second with respect to species richness. Coccinellidae (Coleoptera) and Acrididae (Orthoptera), with seven and six species were the dominant families, respectively. Pulmoanata (n = nine species, Oxychilidae and Planorbidae = two species each) Hemiptera (n = eight species; Aphididae = four species). Diptera and Hymenoptera
(n= seven species each), Formicidae and Syrphidae were the dominant families with four and three species respectively. Neuroptera (n =1 species) and Lepidoptera (n= 4 species) were the least abundant groups of macroinvertebrates . Variation of species richness in percentage on wheat and associated weeds were shown in Figure 4.1.
Species richness, of the foliage macroinvertebrate populations on wheat as well as on its weeds, varied significantly at a statistical level (p = 0.036 df = 2.096). Araneae (n
=11), Othoptera (n = 9), Coleoptera (n = 9), Hemiptera (n = 7), Pulmonata (n = 7),
Diptera (n = 6), Hymenoptera (n = 6) and Lepidoptera (n = 3) were the most species rich
Orders while Thomisidae, Acrididae, Coccinellidae, Aphididae, Oxychilidae, Syrphidae,
Formicidae, Pieridae were the most species rich familes, respectively. Orthoptera (n =
11), Coleoptera (n = 11), Araneae (n = 9), Hemiptera (n = 7), Diptera (n = 7), Pulmonata
(n = 7) and Hymenoptera (n = 6) on the other hand were the species rich Order recorded
on weed leaves with Acrididae, Coccinellidae, Thomisidae, Aphididae, Syrphidae,
Planorbidae, Formicidae, respectively as the species rich Families. Lepidoptera (n = 3)
has the same richness on both wheat and weed leaves, while Neuroptera (n = 1) recorded
for the first time on wheat was absent on weeds leaves.
26
1. Orthoptera 2. Hemiptera 3. Coleoptera 4. Diptera 5. Hymenoptera 6. Neuroptera 7. Lepidoptera 8. Araneae 9. Pulmonata
27
Of the twelve species of arachnids, eight were recorded both from wheat and weed leaves, three from wheat leaves only and one from weed leaves. Oxyopes javanus
(38.73%) was the most recorded arachnid species on wheat (16.90%) as well as on weeds
(21.83%) that Oxyopes javanus (38.73%), Tetragnatha vermiformis (28.17%), Phintella piatensis (4.93%) collectively constituted little above the 70% of the arachnids and followed a 1:2 pattern on wheat and weed leaves, respectively.
Among othopterans (n = 11), eight species were recorded jointly from wheat and
weed leaves and three from only weed leaves. However, orthopterans on weed leaves
(23.98%) had a numerical superiority over those recorded from wheat (9.35%).
Acrididae nymphs (33.33%) were the most recorded foliage taxa. and along with Acrida
exaltata (14.63%), Lepidogryllus spp. (11.79%) and Trigonidium cicindeloides (10.98%)
constituted 70% of the orthopteran fauna in this type of agroecosystem. They were
recorded in a 2:3 on wheat and weed leaves, respectively.
Five species of pulmonates were recorded both from wheat and weed leaves, two
each from wheat and weed leaves only. Cernuella jonica (24.92%), recorded only from
wheat, was the most abundant pulmonate species that along with Planorbarius corneus
(18.07%), Daudebardia rufa (15.58%), Punctum pygmaeum (12.77%) formed a little
above 70% of the pulmonates. They constituted almost 1:1 on wheat and weeds,
respectively.
Of the eight species of hemipterans, five harboured both types of mirohabitats,
one harboured wheat while the remaining two species were recorded exclusively from
weed leaves. Schizaphus graminum (42.62%) was the most abundant species that formed
15.69% of hemipterans on wheat and 26.93% on weeds. Dysdercus cingulatus (15.78%),
28
Acyrthosiphon gossypii (13.38%) and Pyrilla perpusilla (11.06%) were the other three species that along with Schizaphus graminum (42.62%) constituted a little above 80% of hemipterans population in the wheat-weeds agroecosystem. They constituted 36.09% on wheat and 46.74% on weed leaves.
Two species of coleopterans were recorded exclusively from wheat and one from weed leaves while five were recorded both from wheat and weed leaves. Adults of
Coccinella septempunctata (67.92%), its larvae (11.04%) and pupae (17.92%) formed a bulk of the coleopterans Chilomenes sexmaculata (22.47%) was the other important coleopteran species. Almost 53% of coleopterans were recorded on wheat leaves and
37.54% on weed leaves.
Six dipteran species were sampled both from wheat and weed leaves while one was recorded from weed leaves only. Episyrphus balteatus (48.25%) and Culex pipiens
(31.31%) were the two most recorded species that formed a little less than 80% of the dipterans. They were recorded in a 1:3 on wheat and weed leaves respectively.
Among (n = seven), five species of hymenopterans were recorded jointly from wheat and weed leaves and one each from wheat and weed leaves only. Camponotus spp.
(35.37%) and Solenopsis xyloni (25.72%) were the two most recorded taxa that formed little above the 60% of the hymenopterans. They were recrded in a 1:10 on wheat and weed leaves respectively. The Order Neuoptera (n= 1) and Lepidoptera (n= 4) formed only a fraction of the macroinvertebrate fauna (Annexure table 1).
Over all, richness of macroinvertebrate populations in wheat-weed agroecosystem was (S = 72), diversity (H´= 3.36) and evenness (E = 0.402). However, the richness (S =
58), diversity (H´= 3.23) and evenness (E = 0.79) on cane while the richness (S = 61),
29 diversity (H´= 3.16) and evenness (E = 0.77) on weeds in wheat-weed agroecosystem
(Table 4.2).
4.1.2 Habitat related variation. Arthropods constituted more than 80% of all the macroinvertebrates recorded from the two microhabitats (i.e. edges and center) of the wheat-weeds agroecosystem (Table 2). Hemiptera (32.62%), Coleoptera (22.93%),
Diptera (25.62%) and pulmonates (5.49%) were dominant on the wheat edges while
Hemiptera (25.62%), Coleopotera (26.23%) Diptera (20.22%) and Pulmonata (12.27%) dominanted weed edges. On the other hand, Coleoptera (26.23%), Hemiptera (25.63%),
Diptera (20.22%) and Pulmonata (12.27%) were dominant in the center of wheat, whereas Hemiptera (33.40%), Diptera (19.91%), Hymenoptera (13.06%) and Coleoptera
(12.63%) were the most abundant macroinvertebrate assemblages on the weed center.
Neuroptera was exclusively found on weeds in both the microhabitats, but its
contribution was low (Table 4.3).
Comparison of the diversity (H′) indicated a highly significant difference in species richness (S) and evenness (E) in all the habitat combinations except wheat edge and center with wheat weeds edge and center (Table 4.2). The diversity (H′), richness (S) and evenness (E) was higher at the edge than the center of both habitats under consideration except in the wheat center.
30
Table 4.2. Richness, diversity and evenness values for macroinvertebrates recorded from Wheat and its associated weed plants.
Wheat field S H´ E S H´ E df t-value p-value WE/WC 50 2.984 0.762 48 3.210 0.829 >120 4.920 <0.001*** WE/WWE 50 2.984 0.762 60 3.163 0.772 >120 3.716 <0.001*** WE/WWC 50 2.984 0.762 38 2.925 0.804 >120 1.480 0.139ns WC/WWE 48 3.210 0.829 60 3.163 0.772 >120 1.585 0.113ns WC/WWC 48 3.210 0.829 38 2.925 0.804 >120 4.682 <0.001*** WWE/WWC 60 3.163 0.772 38 2.925 0.804 >120 3.192 <0.001*** WC/WW 58 3.23 0.79 61 3.16 0.77 2.096 4010 0.036**
WE: Wheat edge, WC: Wheat center, WWE: Wheat weeds edge, WWC: Wheat weeds center, TW: Total wheat and TW: Total weeds
Table 4.3. Relative abundance (%) of macroinvertebrates recorded from edge and center of Wheat and its associated weed plants (n is the number of individuals of each order)
% Relative abundance (n) Phylum/Order Wheat crop Wheat weeds Edge Center Edge Center Arthropoda 92.25 (857) 83.03 (690) 90.90 (1819) 85.44 (399) Orthoptera 5.17 (48) 5.54(46) 6.40 (128) 5.14 (24) Hemiptera 32.62 (303) 25.63(213) 24.89 (498) 33.40 (156) Coleoptera 22.93 (213) 26.23(218) 13.74 (275) 12.63 (59) Diptera 25.62 (238) 20.22(168) 33.48 (670) 19.91 (93) Hymenoptera 3.88 (36) 3.61(30) 9.25 (185) 13.06 (61) Neuroptera - - 0.80 (16) 0.43 (2) Lepidoptera 2.05% (19) 1.81(15) 2.35 (47) 0.86 (4) Araneae 2.26 (21) 4.69(39) 2.60 (52) 6.42 (30) Pulmonata 5.49 (51) 12.27(102) 6.50 (130) 8.14 (38) Total 929 831 2001 467
31
4.1.3 Seasonal related variation. The abundance data for all foliage macroinvertebrates recorded from edges and centers of wheat-weeds agroecosystems were pooled season-wise. Phenological patterns for the two years data of macroinvertebrates in the edges and enters of the fields between wheat and its associated weeds have been depicted in Figure 4.2 and 4.3 Hemipterans, coleopterans, dipterans, and pulmonates emerged as the most common recorded macroinvertebrates both from wheat and its associated weeds throughout the study period. However their order of abundance varied seasonally (Table 4.4).
Species richness (S), evenness (E) and diversity (H') of various macroinvertebrate groups were significantly higher in weeds than wheat in all the seasonal samples except; winter when their evenness (E) was higher in wheat. A comparison of these values for three seasonal samples of wheat and their weeds depicted that macroinvertebrate diversity did not vary significantly in autumn and spring but was higher than winter
(Table 4.5a,b).
32
Table 4.4. Relative abundance (%) of macroinvertebrates recorded from wheat and its associated weed plants during autumn, winter and spring (n is the number of individuals of each order) % Relative abundance (n) Phylum/Order Crop Weeds Autumn Winter Summer Autumn Winter Summer Arthropoda 75.758(125) 95.659 (617) 91.053 (865) 79.724(173) 95.233(939) 93.913(1188) Orthoptera 19.394(32) 7.442 (48) 1.474 (14) 9.217(20) 5.680(56) 6.008(76) Hemiptera 13.333(22) 32.868 (212) 29.684 (282) 12.903(28) 36.815(363) 20.791(263) Coleoptera 9.091(15) 12.868 (83) 35.053 (333) 12.442(27) 14.097(139) 13.281(168) Diptera 16.364(27) 35.349 (228) 15.895 (151) 22.581(49) 22.718(224) 38.735(490) Hymenoptera 10.909(18) 2.791 (18) 3.158 (30) 13.825 (30) 9.229(91) 9.881(125) Neuroptera - - - - 0.507(5) 1.028(13) Lepidoptera - 0.775 (05) 3.053 (29) 3.226(7) 2.738(27) 1.344(17) Araneae 6.667(11) 3.566 (23) 2.737 (26) 5.530(12) 3.448(34) 2.846(36) Pulmonata 24.242(40) 4.341 (28) 8.947 (85) 20.276(44) 4.767(47) 6.087(77) Total 165 645 950 217 986 1265
Table 4.5a. Temporal variations in richness, diversity and evenness values for macroinvertebrates recorded from wheat fields in Faisalabad district.
Wheat Weeds Test statistics Seasons S H´ E S H´ E Df t-value p-value Autumn 29 2.812 0.57335 3.228 0.721 >120 4.682 <0.001*** Winter 18 2.154 0.47935 2.538 0.361 >120 3.607 0.003** Spring 21 2.562 0.61752 3.308 0.525 >120 10.936 <0.001***
Table 4.5b. A comparison of diversity of foliage macroinvertebrates recorded from wheat and its associated weed plants in different seasons.
Wheat Weeds Seasons Autumn Winter Spring Autumn Winter Spring Autumn Winter 0.200ns 1.238ns Spring 0.035* 3.228ns <0.133ns <0.001***
33
Wheat weeds Wheat crop
240 220 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 No. of species per traping session session traping per species of No. v v c n r r ov ec b ar pr ec eb e eb A N -No -No -D D -De -Jan -Jan F -F F M -Ma -Ma - 9- 3 3-Dec 9 3 8 5-Ja 3 5 6- 4 6 11 20-Nov2 21- 2 1 2 12- 2 28- 13 19-Mar2 10-Apr 2 30-Apr
Fig. 4.2. Seasonal dynamics of macroinvertebrates of wheat fields edge.
Wheat weeds Wheat crop
240 220 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 No. of species per traping session session traping per species of No. v r r r r r o ov c b b b a a ar p -N -N -Nov -De -Fe -Fe -Fe Ma -M -M -M -A 9-Nov 1 0 3 3-Dec 9 8-Jan 2 5 8 6- 3 9 0 1 2 2 21-Dec 23-Dec 15-Jan 23-Jan 1 2 2 1 1 24 10-Ap 26-Apr 3
Fig. 4.3. Seasonal dynamics of macroinvertebrates of wheat fields center.
4.2 Sugarcane
34
Macroinvertebrates belonging to two phyla and fifteen orders were recorded from sugarcane and associated weeds (Table 1). Arthropods were the most abundant group of macroinvertebrates collected from sugarcane (94.26%) and its associated weeds
(98.22%). Among the arthropods, Hemiptera (30.01%), Coleoptera (18.01%), Diptera
(16.78%), Orthoptera (10.295) and Araneae (7.31%) constituted a 82% of of the macroinvertebrates . Hemiptera (37.37%), Coleoptera (28.45%), Isopoda (8.36%) and
Araneae (6.92%) were the dominant on sugarcane whereas Diptera (28.39 %), Hemiptera
(23.29%), Orthoptera (19.34%) and Coleoptera (8.47%) were the dominant on its associated weeds (Table 4.6).
4.2.1 Abundance of Various Macroinvertebrate Assemblages
Foliage macroinvertebrates of sugarcane and associated weeds were represented
by two phyla of the animal kingdom Arthropoda and Mollusca. Among arthropods,
twelve Orders of the Class Insecta (84.95%) and one of Class Arachnida (7.31%) and
Malacostraca (4.12%) were recorded. Molluscs (3.6%) formed only a fraction of
macroinvertebrates and all of them were pulmonates. In total, 178 species of insects
belonging to 79 Families and 12 Orders, 35 species of arachnids belonging to 13 families
and one Order and three species of isopods belonging to two families and one Order were
recorded while pulmonates (16 species) belonged to 10 families and one Order. Thus, a
total of 232 species of macroinvertebrates (n = 5665) were recorded both from sugarcane
and associated weeds (Table 2). Of these, 118 were common both to sugarcane and its
weeds, 53 were recorded only from sugarcane while the remaining (n = 63) were
recorded exclusively from weeds present in the cane fields.
35
Table 4.6. Relative abundance (%) of macroinvertebrates recorded from sugarcane and its associated weeds in Punjab (Pakistan). (n is the number of individuals of each order).
Phylum/Order % Relative abundance (n) Crop Weeds Total Arthropoda 94.27 (2548) 98.22 (2910) 96.35 (5458) Thysanura - 0.07 (2) 0.04 (02) Odonata 0.07 (02) - 0.04 (02) Orthoptera 0.48 (13) 19.24 (570) 10.29 (583) Dernaptera 0.07 (02) - 0.04 (02) Mantodea 0.15 (04) 4.66 (138) 2.51 (142) Blattaria 1.11 (30) 0.41 (12) 0.74 (42) Hemiptera 37.37 (1010) 23.29 (690) 30.01 (1700) Coleoptera 28.45 (769) 8.47 (251) 18.01 (1020) Neuroptera 0.11 (3) 0.07 (02) 0.09 (05) Hymenoptera 5.88 (159) 3.47 (103) 4.63 (262) Lepidoptera 1.22 (33) 2.26 (67) 1.76 (100) Diptera 4.07 (110) 28.39 (841) 16.79 (951) Araneae 6.92 (187) 7.66 (227) 7.31 (414) Isopoda 8.36 (226) 0.24 (07) 4.12 (233) Pulmonata 5.73 (155) 1.77 (52) 3.65 (207) Total 2703 2962 5665
36
Coleoptera was the most specious Order (n = 42) with Coccinellidae was the most dominant Family with nine species. Araneae, comprising of 35 species, was second in decreasing order of species richness. Clubionidae with eight species was the most dominant Family among arachnids. Diptera (n = 34), Hemiptera (n = 32), Hymenoptera
(n = 25), Orthoptera (n = 20), Lepidoptera and Pulmonata (n = 16 each) were the other species rich assemblages in Family Chloropidae, Lygaeidae, Formicidae, Acrididae,
Noctuidae and Hygromiidae, respectively. The Order Isopoda, Odonata, Dermaptera and
Neuroptera (n = 2 each), Thysanura, Mantodea and Blattaria (n = 1each) formed only a fraction of the total macroinvertebrates recorded collectively from the cane and weed leaves (Fig. 4.4).
The Order of richness was different when either cane or weed foliage fauna was studied separately. Although Coleoptera (n = 38), and Araneae (n = 29) remained to be the two most species rich assemblages inhabiting cane leaves, the order of richness for the remaining groups varied and included Hemiptera (n = 23), Hymenoptera (n = 21),
Diptera (n = 18), Lepidoptera (n = 10), Pulmonata (n = 14) and Orthoptera (n = 6) in order of their species richness. Coccinellidae, Clubionidae, Formicidae, Chloropidae,
Noctuidae, Hygromiidae and Gryllidae were the most species rich familes, respectively.
The Orders Isopoda (n = 3), Dermaptera and Odonata (n = 2), Mantodea, Neuroptera and
Blattaria (n = 1) represented a fraction of the macroinvertebrates inhabiting sugarcane leaves. Representation of various macroinvertebrate Orders varied with respect to their species richeness in weeds too.
37
1. Orthoptera, 2. Hemiptera, 3. Coleoptera, 4. Diptera 5. Lepidoptera, 6. Hymenoptera, 7. Araneae, 8. others, 9. Pulmonata
38
Here, the Orders Thysanura was recorded for the first time and was not recorded on cane leaves. Various Orders with respect to their species richnesses on weed leaves included Diptera (n = 31), Hemiptera (n = 30), Coleoptera (n = 21),
Araneae (n = 19), Hymenoptera and Orthoptera (n = 18 each), Pulmonata (n = 11) with Chloropidae Lygaeidae, Coccinellidae, Oonopidae, Formicidae, Acrididae, and
Bradybaenidae as dominant families, respectively. The Order Isopoda (n = 3) Neuroptera
(n = 2), Thysanura, Mantodea and Blattaria (n = 1 each) formed only a fraction of the macroinvertebrate fauna.
Among hemipterans (n = 32 species), 20 were recorded both from cane and weed leaves, nine from weed leaves and three from cane leaves only, respectively. Pyrilla perpusilla (27.06%) was the most recorded foliage species, constituting 34.36% of hemipterans on cane leaves and 16.38% on weeds. Pyrilla perpusilla (27.06%),
Perkinsiella saccharicida (16.12%), Cavelerius saccharivorus (14.65%), Xyonysius californicus (12.82%) and Aphis nerii (7.18%) were the five most recorded hemipteran species that collectively constituted 80% of the hemipteran fauna in this type of agroecosystem. They were recorded in a 3:2 on cane and weed leaves respectively.
Among coleopterans (n= 42 species), 18 were documented from cane and weeds leaves, 20 from on sugarcane and four from the weed leaves respectively. Coccinella septempunctata (43.04%) was most recorded species. It contributed 24.58% of coleopterans on cane leaves and 16.33% on weed leaves. However, 24.18% and 9.16% of
C septempunctata were recorded in larval form on cane and weed leaves, respectively.
Coccinella septempunctata (43.52%), C. trifasciata (14.61%), Stenolophus sp. (5%),
Enoclerus rosmarus (4.51%) and Paederus littoralis (4.31%) collectively formed 70% of
39 coleopterans in sugarcane-weed agroecosystem and individually contributed 75% and
43% to coleopteran foliage fauna of cane and weeds, respectively.
Fifteen species of dipterans (n = 34) were common to both cane and weed foliage fauna, whereas 16 species were recorded from weeds and three from cane leaves.
Dolichopus plumipes (22.29%), Culex pipiens (14.20%), Anatrichus erinaceus (9.46),
Chironomus grande (7.36%) and Aedes dorsalis (5.68%) constituted ≤ 60% of the dipterans fauna. They were recorded in equal ratio on cane weed leaves.
The overall number of orthopteran species (n = 20) were recorded from suagarcane-weed agroecosystem. Weeds harboured more orthopterans (n = 14) exclusively than cane (n = 3). Nymphs of Acrididae (27.79%), and adults of
Phyllopalpus pulchellus (26.59%), Acheta domesticus (22.13%), Melanoplus bivittatus
(5.66%) contributed almost 80% of the orthopterans. They formed 1:4 on cane and weeds respectively. Nymphs of Acrididae and adults of Melanoplus bivittatus were confined to weeds only.
More arachnids (11 species) were recorded from crop than from weeds (n = 6) whereas the combined number of arachnid species recorded both from cane and weeds foliage was 18. Oxyopes sertatus (21.74%), O. javanus (17.39%), Clubiona phargmitis
(10.87%) and Clubiona lutescens (8.94%), collectively constituted 60% of the arachnid fauna.
Of the 25 species, seven species of hymenopterans were recorded from cane while four from weed leaves. Solenopsis invicta (30.92%), Camponotus pennsylvanicus (8.02),
Polyrachis sp. (7.63%), Camponotus fallax (5.73%), Apis mellifera (5.34%) and
Solenopsis xyloni (5.34%), constituted a little over 60% of the hymenopterans
40 macroinvertebrates. Their contribution was almost similar to both cane and weed macrofuana.
Among the pulmonates (16 species), eight were recorded both from cane and weed leaves, six from crop and two from weed. Candidula gigaxii (19.32%), Bradybaena similaris (18.84%), Cepaea nemoralis (17.39%), Hellicela itala (10.63), Oxychilus cellarius (8.70%) and Candidula unifasciata (6.76%) collectively constituted almost
80%. They contributed almost 3:2 on weeds and cane respectively. Hellicela itala was recorded only on cane.
Among the 16 species, three lepidopteran species were commonly recorded from cane and weed leaves. Of the 16 species, seven were recorded from cane and six from weed leaves. Sepsid spp. (41%), Helicoverpa armigera (16%), Agrotis ipsilon larvae
(10%), Palpita flegia (4%) and Pyralidae caterpillar (4%) collectively constituted a little over 70% on cane and weeds. Their abundance pattern was almost 3:4 on cane and weed leaves, respectively. Agrotis ipsilon larvae and Pyralidae caterpillar were only recorded from crop whereas Sepsid spp. was found on weed leaves (Annexure table 2).
Over all, the richness of macroinvertebrates in sugarcane-weed agroecosystem was (S = 232), diversity (H´= 4.25) and evenness (E = 0.30). However, the richness (S =
169), diversity (H´= 3.67) and evenness (E = 0.71) on cane, while the richness (S = 162), diversity (H´= 4.06) and evenness (E = 0.80) on weeds in sugarcane-weed agroecosystem
(Table 4.7).
4.2.2 Habitat related variation. Arthropods constituted more than 93% of all the macroinvertebrates recorded from the edges as well as center of the sugarcane-weed agroecosystem. Hemiptera (31.47%), Coleoptera (30.13%), Isopoda (8.27%), Araneae
41
(7.87%) and Hymenoptera (6.80%) were the most dominant arthropod groups recorded from the edge of the sugarcane while Diptera (26.93%), Hemiptera (24.41%),
Orthoptera (22.45%), Coleoptera (8.87%) and Araneae (7.37%) were dominant at the edge of the weeds. Hemiptera (44.76%), Coleoptera (26.29%) and Isopoda (8.49 %) were the most abundant macroinvertebrate orders in the center of the cane, while Diptera
(32.23%), Orthoptera (25.15%), Hemiptera (20.39%), and Araneae (8.425%) were dominant in the center of weeds (Table 4.8).
Comparison of the diversity (H′) values indicated a highly significant difference in species richness (S) and evenness (E) in all the habitat combinations (Table 4.7). The diversity (H′), richness (S) and evenness (E) was higher at the edge than the center of both habitats under consideration (Table 4.7).
4.2.3 Season related variation. A two-year catch of the macroinvertebrates from
the sugarcane and its associated weeds was pooled season-wise. Hemipterans emerged as
the most common macroinvertebrates in both sugarcane and its associated weeds
throughout the study period. Coleoptera and Araneae were the other most recorded
arthropods in sugarcane, except in spring, when Isopdes replaced Araneae (Table 4.8).
The orthopterans, and dipterans, in addition to hemipterans, were the most abundant
macroinvertebrates in weeds but their order of abundance varied in each season.
Dipterans were most abundant in winter and spring, while hemiptrans were the most
recorded in autumn from the weeds. Phonological patterns for the two years data of
macroinvertebrates in the edges and enters of the fields between sugarcane and its
associated weeds has been depicted in Figure 4.5 and 4.6.
42
Table 4.7. Variations in richness, diversity and evenness values for macroinvertebrates recorded from edge and center of sugarcane fields in Faisalabad district.
Sugarcane field S H´ E S H´ E df t-value p-value SE/SC 140 3.695 0.747 112 3.363 0.712 >120 5.745 <0.001*** SE/SWE 140 3.695 0.747 149 4.054 0.810 >120 7.815 <0.001*** SE/SWC 140 3.695 0.747 79 3.560 0.814 >120 2.494 0.012** SC/SWE 112 3.363 0.712 149 4.054 0.810 >120 13.373 <0.001*** SC/ SWC 112 3.363 0.712 79 3.560 0.814 >120 3.335 <0.001*** SWE/SWC 149 4.054 0.810 79 3.560 0.814 >120 10.391 <0.001*** TS / TW 169 3.673 0.716 162 4.075 0.801 5150 10.861 <0.001***
SE: Sugarcane edge, SC: Sugarcane center, SWE: Sugarcane weeds edge, SWC: Sugarcane weeds center, TS: Total Sugarcane and TW: Total Weeds
Table 4.8. Relative abundance (%) of macroinvertebrates recorded from edge and center of sugarcane and associated weeds in Punjab (Pakistan). (n is the number of individuals of each order).
Sugarcane crop Sugarcane weeds Phylum/Order Edge Center Edge Center Arthropoda 93.533% (1403) 95.17% (1144) 98.600 %(2113) 97.314% (797) Thysanura - - 0.05 (01) 0.12 (01) Odonata 0.13 (02) - - - Orthoptera 0.67 (10) 0.25 (03) 22.45 (481) 25.15 (206) Dernaptera - 0.17 (02) - - Mantodea - 0.33 (04) 0.89 (19) 0.24 (02) Blattaria 1.67 (25) 0.42 (05) 0.52 (11) 0.12 (01) Hemiptera 31.47 (472) 44.76 (538) 24.41 (523) 20.39 (167) Coleoptera 30.13 (453) 26.29 (316) 8.87 (190) 7.45 (61) Neuroptera 0.13 (02) 0.08 (01) 0.09 (2) - Hymenoptera 6.80 (102) 4.74 (57) 3.97 (85) 2.19 (18) Lepidoptera 1.40 (21) 0.99 (12) 2.75 (59) 0.98 (8) Diptera 5.00 (75) 2.92 (35) 26.93 (577) 32.23 (264) Araneae 7.87 (118) 5.74 (69) 7.37 (158) 8.43 (69) Isopoda 8.27 (124) 8.49 (102) 0.33 (7) - Pulmonata 6.47 (97) 4.83 (58) 1.40 (30) 2.69 (22) 1501 1202 2143 819
43
Table 4. 9. Relative abundance (%) of macroinvertebrates recorded from sugarcane and its associated weeds in Punjab (Pakistan) (n is the number of individuals of each order).
Crop Weeds Phylum/Order Autumn Winter Spring Autumn Winter Spring Arthropoda 98.37(301) 96.96(797) 92.06(1450) 96.25(282) 98.08(1072) 98.73(1556) Thysanura - - - - - 0.13(02) Odonata - 0.12(01) 0.06(01) - - - Orthoptera 0.65(02) 0.73(06) 0.32(05) 23.89(70) 20.68(226) 24.81(391) Dermaptera - 0.12(01) 0.06(01) - - - Mantodea - 0.12(01) 0.19(03) 0.68(02) 0.73(08) 0.70(11) Blattaria 0.98(03) 2.43(20) 0.44(07) - - 0.76(12) Hemiptera 37.91(116) 41.24(339)35.24(555) 25.94(76) 22.69(248) 23.22(366) Coleoptera 27.12(83) 17.76(146) 34.29(540) 6.83(20) 9.06(99) 8.38(132) Neuroptera 0.33(01) - 0.13(02) 0.34(01) 0.09(01) 0.00 Hymenoptera 5.56(17) 6.08(50) 5.84(92) 4.78(14) 4.21(46) 2.73(43) Lepidoptera 3.59(11) 1.58(13) 0.57(09) - 2.20(24) 2.73(43) Diptera 3.92(12) 1.82(15) 5.27(83) 19.45(57) 29.46(322) 29.31(462) Araneae 13.07(40) 13.38(110) 2.35(37) 13.65(40) 8.87(97) 5.71(90) Isopoda 5.23(16) 11.56(95) 7.30(115) 0.68(02) 0.09(01) 0.25(04) Pulmonata 1.63(05) 3.04(25) 7.94(125) 3.75(11) 1.92(21) 1.27(20) Total 306 822 1575 293 1093 1576
44
The richness (S), diversity (H') and evenness (E) of macroinvertebrate populations was significantly higher in weeds than sugarcane in all the seasonal samples
(Table4.10a).
A comparison of these values for three seasonal samples of cane showed that macroinvertebrate diversity in autumn and spring was statistically samilarily significantly higher than winter whereas in weeds it was same during autumn and winter but significantly lower than spring (Table 4.10b).
45
Table 4.10b. A comparison of diversity of foliage macroinvertebrates recorded from Sugarcane and its associated weeds during different seasons.
Seasons Sugarcane Weeds Autumn Winter Spring Autumn Winter Spring Autumn Winter <0.001*** 0.443ns Spring 0.868ns <0.001*** <0.001*** <0.001***
Table 4.10a. Temporal variations in richness, diversity and evenness values for macroinvertebrates recorded from sugarcane fields in Faisalabad district.
Sugarcane Weeds Test statistics Seasons S H´ E S H´ E df t-value p-value Autumn 56 3.188 0.43366 3.589 0.548 >120 3.593 <0.001*** Winter 48 2.624 0.28770 3.479 0.463 >120 9.017 <0.001*** Spring 86 3.095 0.256118 4.130 0.527 >120 15.807 <0.001***
Richness (S), Diversity (H´), Evenness (E)
46
Sugarcane weeds Sugarcane crop
220 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 No. of species per traping session session traping per species of No. r r r r r r c c n a a a p e e Ja eb Ap Ap -Nov -Nov -Nov -D -D - -F -M -M - - 9 0 3 3-Dec 9-Dec 1 3 8 2 6 4 6 0 11-Nov 2 2 2 2 15-Jan 23-Jan 1 25-Feb 28-Feb 13-Mar 19-M 2 10-A 2 3
Fig. 4.5. Seasonal dynamics of macroinvertebrates of sugarcane fields edge.
Sugarcane weeds Sugarcane crop
220 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 No. species of per traping session r r r r v c n b b b ar ar pr p p Jan e e e -Dec -Ja -Jan -Ma -Ma -M M -A -A 9-No 3 9-Dec 8- 5 3 6 3 9 0 6 11-Nov 20-Nov 23-Nov 21-Dec 23-De 1 2 12-F 25-F 28-F 1 1 24- 1 2 30-A
Fig. 4.6. Seasonal dynamics of macroinvertebrates of sugarcane fields center.
47
CHAPTER 5
RESULTS
IMPACT OF WEEDS ON MACROINVERTEBRATES COMMUNITIES
Twenty seven weed species growing in both wheat and sugarcane were recorded
(Table 5.1). They were divided into four functional groups based up on their phenological, morphological, and physiological characteristics. These groups were designated on the basis of plant attributes within the agroecosystem and not with respect to their influences on macroinvertebrates. Grasses with C3 photosynthetic pathway have larger tissue nitrogen in comparison to grasses with C4 photosynthetic pathway. Forbs comprising herbaceous dicots, including legumes fix atmospheric nitrogen (Tilman,
1987), while woody weeds produce a perennial stem. Twenty seven species of weeds belonging to twelve families were recorded both from wheat and sugarcanes fields. Ten of them were recorded only from wheat and twelve from sugarcane fields, whereas five were common to both fields.
A total of 5,431 macroinvertebrates were captured from wheat and sugarcane fields. Diptera was the largest taxa, representing seven species (30.92%) from wheat weeds and 31 species (28.39%) from sugarcane weeds, whereas Neuroptera was the least abundant taxa representing one species (0.73%) from wheat weeds and two (0.07%) from sugarcane weeds. Mantodea, Blattaria and Isopoda were recorded from the sugarcane associated weeds only (Table 5.2).
48
Table 5.1. Weed species and their functional group recorded from wheat and sugarcane fields. Functional Botanical family Species Sugarcane Wheat C /C 3 4 group Sonchus oleraceus1 - + C3 Forbs Asteraceae Parthenium hysterophorus2 + C3 Forbs Phalaris minor3 + + C3 Grassy Poa annua2 + - C3 Grassy Cenchrus setigerus1 - + C4 Grassy Poaceae Cynodon dactylon3 + + C4 Grassy Dichanthium annulatum2 + - C4 Grassy Avena fatua1 - + C3 Grassy Desmostachya bipinnata1 - + C4 Grassy Euphorbia prostrata1 - + C4 Forbs Euphorbiaceae Euphorbia heliscopia2 + - C3 Forbs Ricinus communis2 + - C3 legume Polygonum plebejum1 - + Forbs Polygonaceae Rumex dentatus1 - + C3 Forbs Brassica campastris1 - + C4 Forbs Brassicaceae Coronopus didymus2 + C4 Forbs Anethum graveolens3 + + Forbs Apiaceae Coriandrum spp.2 + - Forbs Amaranthus viridis2 + - Forbs Amaranthaceae Chenopodium album2 + - C3 Forbs Chenopodium murale1 - + C3 Forbs Convolvulaceae Convolvulus arvensis3 + + C3 Forbs Compositae Cnicus arvensis3 + + C3 Forbs Malvastrum coromandelianum2 + - Forbs Malvaceae Malva neglecta2 + - C3 Forbs Papaveraceae Corydalis Ambigua2 + - C3 Forbs Ephedraceae Ephedra spp1 - + CAM woody
Note: Superscript 1= weeds exclusively found in wheat, 2= weeds exclusively found sugarcane and 3= weeds found common in both wheat and sugarcane.
49
5.1 Wheat weeds
Abundance of macroinvertebrates on various wheat weeds was significantly different. Cynodon dactylon alone harboured 33.47% (n = 826) macroinvertebrates
including both arthropods and pulmonates. Arthropods formed 90.56% of the
macroinvertebrates, of which Diptera (49.03%), Coleoptera (11.50%), Orthoptera
(8.47%), Hemiptera (8.11%) and Hymenoptera (7.38%) were more abundant whereas
Lepidotera and Araneae collectively constituted (5.69%). Pulmonates formed just 9.44% of the macroinvertebrates on C. dactylon. Lowest number of macroinvertebrates 2.71%
(67) was collected from S. olearaceus (Table 5.3).
Richness and diversity of macroinvertebrates was significantly higher on the
weeds growing at the edge than those in the center, but their distribution was more even
in the center of the field. The maximum diversity of macroinvertebrates was found on
Phalaris minor (H' = 2.894) and least on Ephedra spp. (H' = 2.147) growing on field edges. While in the center of the field maximum diversity was recorded on Cynodon
50
Table 5.2. Number of families, species and individuals of macroinvertebrates recorded on the weeds associated with wheat and sugarcane crops.
Wheat weeds Sugarcane weeds No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of Order family species individuals No. species individuals (%) family (%) Thysanura - - - 01 01 02 (0.07) Orthoptera 04 11 152 (6.16) 04 17 571(19.24) Mantodea - - - 02 02 138(4.66) Blattaria - - - 01 01 12(0.41) Hemiptera 04 07 654 (26.50) 16 29 690(23.30) Coleoptera 04 11 334 (13.53) 08 21 251(8.47) Neuroptera 01 01 18 (0.73) 01 02 02(0.07) Hymenoptera 03 06 246 (9.97) 06 18 103(3.48) Lepidoptera 03 03 51(2.07) 06 09 67(2.26) Diptera 05 07 763(30.92) 20 31 841(28.39) Araneae 05 09 82 (3.32) 10 19 227(7.66) Isopoda - - - 01 01 07(0.24) Pulmonata 06 07 168(6.81) 08 11 52(1.76) Total 35 62 2468(100) 84 162 2963(100)
51
Table 5.3. Relative abundance (%) of macroinvertebrates recorded on the various weed plants associated with the wheat fields (n is the number of individuals).
Percentage (Number) of macroinvertebrates found on weed plants Phylum/Order 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 90.56 86.57 94.58 86.84 76.42 93.20 92.59 100 100 100 90.13 100 99.17 99.24 97.85 Arthropoda (748) (58) (192) (66) (81) (137) (75) (76) (123) (126) (137) (140) (119) (131) (91) 8.47 4.48 2.46 6.58 12.26 6.80 6.58 5.69 9.52 3.95 2.14 5.00 3.03 3.23 Orthoptera (70) (03) (05) (05) (13) (10) - (05) (07) (12) (06) (03) (06) (4) (03) 8.11 25.37 43.84 11.84 14.15 34.69 37.04 35.53 39.84 13.49 42.11 50.71 53.33 40.15 33.33 Hemiptera (67) (17) (89) (09) (15) (51) (30) (27) (49) (17) (64) (71) (64) (53) (31) 11.50 2.99 15.76 32.89 7.55 14.97 14.81 26.32 13.82 23.81 6.58 10.00 13.33 15.15 11.83 Coleoptera (95) (2) (32) (25) (08) (22) (12) (20) (17) (30) (10) (14) (16) (20) (11) 49.03 25.37 20.20 28.95 25.47 16.33 30.86 14.47 17.89 18.25 23.03 28.57 9.17 23.48 31.18 Diptera (405) (17) (41) (22) (27) (24) (25) (11) (22) (23) (35) (40) (11) (31) (29) 0.36 3.94 1.23 1.43 1.67 0.76 1.08 Neuroptera (03) - (08) - - - (01) - - - - (02) (02) (01) (1) 7.38 17.91 7.88 16.98 15.65 8.64 15.79 17.07 24.60 5.92 3.57 10.00 10.61 5.38 Hymenoptera (61) (12) (16) - (18) (23) (07) (12) (21) (31) (09) (05) (12) (14) (05) 1.21 2.99 0.49 6.58 2.04 1.32 2.44 0.79 5.26 1.43 4.17 5.30 3.23 Lepidoptera (10) (02) (01) (05) - (03) - (01) (03) (01) (08) (02) (05) (07) (03) 4.48 7.46 2.72 3.25 9.52 3.29 2.14 2.50 0.76 8.60 Araneae (37) (05) - - - (04) - - (04) (12) (05) (03) (03) (01) (08) 9.44 13.43 5.42 13.16 23.58 6.80 7.41 9.87 0.83 0.76 2.15 Pulmonata (78) (09) (11) (10) (25) (10) (06) - - - (15) - (01) (01) (02) 33.47 2.71 8.23 3.08 4.29 5.96 3.28 3.08 4.98 5.11 6.16 5.67 4.86 5.35 3.77 Total (826) (67) (203) (76) (106) (147) (81) (76) (123) (126) (152) (140) (120) (132) (93)
1. Cynodon dactylon3,2. Sonchus olearaceus1, 3. Convolvulus arvensis3, 4. Euphorbia prostrata1, 5. Polygonum plebejum1, 6. Brassica campastris1, 7. Ephedra spp.1, 8. Anethum graveolens3, 9. Avena fatua1, 10. Phalaris minor3, 11. Cnicus arvensis3 , 12. Chenopodium murale1, 13. Cenchrus setigerus1, 14. Rumex dentatus1 and 15. Desmostachya bipinnata1
Note: Superscript 1= weeds exclusively found in wheat, 2= weeds exclusively found in sugarcane and 3= weeds found common in both wheat and sugarcane.
52
dactylon (H' = 2.447) and least on Chenopodium murale (H' = 0.950). The t-test
comparison among the weeds growing in the field edges and center of the fields showed
significant difference (p <0.001) Table 5.4.
The CCA ordination of macroinvertebrate species based on their importance value showed that P. minor, B. campastris, A. fatua, C. arvensis, Cnicus arvensis, C. dactylon
and C. murale important gradients to determine the distribution of macroinvertebrate
species in the area (Figure 5.1 and Table 5.5) and this ordination further revealed that
most of the macroinvertebrate species are associated with P. minor, B. campastris, A.
fatua, C. arvensis, Cnicus arvensis, C. dactylon and C. murale first two axis.
The first two axes of this ordination collectively explained 70.388% variation in
the distribution of macroinvertebrate species. Amongst the community parameters Cnicus arvensis, C. dactylon and C. murale showed a strongly correlated positively with the first environmental axis (r = 0.906, r = 0.637, r = 0.544) respectively. Whereas to the second axis P. minor and B. campastris correlated positively (r = 0.848, r = 0.703) respectively following the C. arvensis correlated negatively (r = -0.810) to the second axis.
5.2 Sugarcane weeds
Macroinvertebrate abundances varied significantly among weed species growing
in sugarcane fields. Cynodon dactylon represented a little more than half of the total
(52.01%) of macroinvertebrate (Table 5). Diptera 31.93%, Orthoptera 22.32%,
Hemiptera 18.88% and Coleoptera 6.68% were the most recorded taxa, whereas
Thysanura, Mantodea, Blattaria, Neuroptera, Hymenoptera, Lepidoptera, Araneae and
53
Table 5.4. A comparison of the macroinvertebrate diversity recorded on various species of weeds in two habitats i.e. edge and center of the wheat fields. (S = species richness; H′ = Shannon’s index; E = evenness; ns: p>0.05, *: p<0.05, * *: p<0.01, * * *: p<0.001).
Edge Center Test statistics Wheat weeds S H´ E S H´ E df t-value p-value Cynodon dactylon3 48 2.726 0.31 18 2.447 0.64 308 3.39 <0.001*** Phalaris minor3 26 2.894 0.69 13 2.120 0.64 41 3.92 <0.001*** Brassica campastris1 24 2.803 0.68 08 1.808 0.76 31 5.50 <0.001*** Convolvulus arvensis3 21 2.649 0.67 10 1.739 0.56 80 5.74 <0.001*** Chenopodium murale1 21 2.126 0.39 03 0.950 0.86 35 6.02 <0.001*** Rumex dentatus1 21 2.599 0.64 06 1.340 0.63 30 6.01 <0.001*** Desmostachya bipinnata1 21 2.559 0.61 06 1.537 0.77 66 5.17 <0.001*** Cnicus arvensis3 19 2.325 0.53 07 1.639 0.73 50 3.73 <0.001*** Cenchrus setigerus1 19 2.321 0.53 07 1.721 0.79 64 3.43 <0.001*** Avena fatua1 18 2.619 0.76 11 2.205 0.82 40 3.22 0.002** Polygonum plebejum1 17 2.543 0.74 10 2.233 0.93 32 2.84 0.007* Anethum graveolens3 17 2.486 0.70 04 1.078 0.73 24 5.8 <0.001*** Euphorbia prostrata1 16 2.449 0.72 07 1.679 0.76 22 3.46 0.002** Sonchus olearaceus1 13 2.328 0.78 06 1.644 0.86 38 3.99 <0.001*** Ephedra spp. 1 11 2.147 0.77 06 1.531 0.77 39 3.58 <0.001***
Note: Superscript 1= weeds exclusively found in wheat, 2= weeds exclusively found in sugarcane and 3= weeds found common in both wheat and sugarcane.
54
Table 5.5. CCA of the abundance of macroinvertebrate fauna at the environmental factor (weeds) in wheat fields.
Summary of analysis Axis 1 Axis 2 Axis 3 Axis 4 Axis 5
Eigenvalues 0.137 0.111 0.054 0.030 0.020
Percentage 38.903 31.485 15.342 8.672 5.598
Cum. Percentage 38.903 70.387 85.729 94.402 100.00
Cum.Constr.Percentage 38.903 70.387 85.729 94.402 100.00
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. minor -0.332 0.848 0.079 0.009 -0.405 B. campastris 0.439 0.703 -0.163 0.137 -0.517 A. fatua 0.026 0.495 -0.077 -0.865 -0.010 C. arvensis 0.190 -0.810 0.388 0.391 -0.069 Cnicus arvensis 0.906 0.162 -0.048 0.364 0.136 C. dactylon 0.637 0.320 -0.068 0.697 0.036 C. murale 0.544 -0.550 0.357 0.524 -0.007
55
Figure 5.1. Canonical correspondence analysis (CCA) biplot showing association of macroinvertebrates species with weed species in the whea fields.
18 1.3
P. minor 1.1 19 0.8 B. campastris 9 14 1 0.5 A. fatua 7 15 C. dactylon Axis 2 17 16 0.3 12 4 2 C. arvensis 13 8 20 10 -1.1 -0.8 -0.5 -0.3 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.1 1.3 6 -0.3 11 3 5 -0.5 C. murale -0.8 C. arvensis -1.1 Axis 1
Key to species: 1. Acrididae nymph 2. Dysdercus cingulatus 3. Acyrthosiphon gossypii 4. Schizaphus graminum 5. Aphis nerii 6. Coccinella pupae 7. Coccinella septempunctata 8. Chilomenes sexmaculata 9. Mayetiola destructor 10. Episyrphus balteatus 11. Culex pipiens 12. Apis mellifera 13. Camponotus spp.14. Solenopsis xyloni 15. Pseudaletia unipuncta 16. Oxyopes javanus 17. Tetragnatha vermiformis 18. Punctum pygmaeum 19. Daudebardia rufa 20. Planorbarius corneus
56
Isopoda collectively constituted 18.09%. , Pulmonates shared only 2.08% of the foliage biota. R. communis harbouring 1.35% (40) of macroinvertebrates represented the lowest number of macroinvertebrates (Table 5.6).
Weeds at the edges of field harboured more diverse fauna than those at the center.
Cynodon dactylon growing both at the edge (H' = 3.786) and center (H' = 3.157)
harboured the most diverse fauna with 110 species and 57 species, respectively while P.
hysterophorus at the edge (H'= 2.060) and E. heliscopia at the center (H' = 0.955) had the
lowest diversity. Amaranthus viridis, Ricinus communis and Anethum graveolens were
only recorded from the field edges. A comparison among the weeds growing at the edges
and center of the fields showed significant difference in their foliage fauna (p <0.001)
Table 5.7.
The CCA ordination of macroinvertebrate species based on their importance value
showed that C. dactylon, C. arvensis, P. hysterophorus, C. album, C. didymus, P. minor
and Cnicus arvensis important gradients to determine the distribution of
macroinvertebrate species in the area (Figure 5.2and Table 5.8) and this ordination
further revealed that most of the macroinvertebrate species are associated with C.
dactylon, C. arvensis, P. hysterophorus, C. album, C. didymus, P. minor and Cnicus
arvensis first two axis.
The first two axes of this ordination collectively explained 64.884% variation in the distribution of macroinvertebrate species. Amongst the community parameters C. dactylon and C. arvensis showed a strongly correlated negatively with the first environmental axis (r = -0.660, r = -0.691) respectively while P. hysterophorus correlated positively (r = 0.598). Whereas to the second axis Cnicus arvensis correlated negatively (r = -0.579).
57
Table 5.6. Relative abundance (%) of macroinvertebrates recorded on the weed plants associated with the sugarcane fields (n is the number of individuals). Orders Percentage (Number) of macroinvertebrates found on sugarcane weed plants 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 97.92 100 96.18 98.63 97.76 96.00 100 99.08 100 95.93 100 100 98.08 100 97.92 100 100 Arthropoda (1509) (41) (151) (72) (131) (48) (216) (108) (145) (118) (40) (49) (51) (44) (47) (63) (77) 0.06 0.64 ------Thysanura (01) (01) 22.32 56.10 21.02 4.11 8.96 36.00 12.96 15.60 3.45 30.89 17.50 2.04 9.62 22.73 25.00 12.70 7.79 Orthoptera (344) ()23 (33) (03) (12) (18) (28) (17) (05) (38) (07) (01) (05) (10) (12) (08) (06) 4.35 4.88 6.37 10.96 2.24 4.00 0.46 4.59 0.69 14.63 2.50 4.08 1.92 13.64 6.35 9.09 - Mantodea (67) (02) (10) (08) (03) (02) (01) (05) (01) (18) (01) (02) (01) (06) (04) (07) 0.32 0.64 4.00 0.69 2.04 1.92 1.30 ------Blattaria (05) (01) (02) (01) (01) (01) (01) 18.88 2.44 19.75 35.62 67.91 4.00 20.83 17.43 66.90 22.76 12.50 32.65 13.46 11.36 18.75 11.11 12.99 Hemiptera (291) (01) (31) (26) (91) (02) (45) (19) (97) (28) (05) (16) (07) (05) (09) (07) (10) 6.68 2.44 14.65 3.73 7.87 4.59 8.97 7.32 10.00 26.53 9.62 6.82 6.25 14.29 49.35 Coleoptera (103) (01) (23) (05) (17) (05) (13) (09) (04) (13) (05) (03) (03) (09) (38) 0.06 2.00 ------Neuroptera (01) (01) 2.79 2.44 0.64 1.37 14.00 0.93 13.76 4.14 1.63 22.50 10.20 5.77 6.82 8.33 1.59 Hymenoptera (43) (01) (01) (01) (07) (02) (15) (06) (02) (09) (05) (03) (03) (04) (01) 3.05 2.44 0.64 6.02 0.69 0.81 4.17 1.30 ------Lepidoptera (47) (01) (01) (13) (01) (01) (02) (01) 31.93 4.88 19.75 30.14 12.69 16.00 46.76 36.70 14.48 8.13 15.00 14.29 38.46 25.00 27.08 42.86 16.88 Diptera (492) (02) (31) (22) (17) (08) (101) (40) (21) (10) (06) (07) (20) (11) (13) (27) (13) 7.20 24.39 12.10 16.44 2.24 12.00 4.17 6.42 9.76 20.00 8.16 17.31 13.64 8.33 9.52 1.30 Araneae (111) (10) (19) (12) (03) (06) (09) (07) (12) (08) (04) (09) (06) (04) (06) (01) 0.26 4.00 1.59 ------Isopoda (04) (02) (01) 2.08 3.82 1.37 2.24 4.00 0.92 4.07 1.92 2.08 ------Pulmonata (32) (06) (01) (03) (02) (01) (05) (01) (01) 52.01 1.38 5.30 2.46 4.52 1.69 7.29 3.68 4.89 4.15 1.35 1.65 1.75 1.48 1.62 2.13 2.60 (1541) (41) (157) (73) (134) (50) (216) (109) (145) (123) (40) (49) (52) (44) (48) (63) (77) 1. Cynodon dactylon3, 2. Poa annua2, 3. Convolvulus arvensis3, 4. Malvastrum coromandelianum2, 5. Parthenium hysterophorus2, 6. Amaranthus viridis2, 7. Chenopodium album2, 8. Coronopus didymus2, 9. Phalaris minor3, 10. Cnicus arvensis3, 11. Ricinus communis2, 12. Corydalis Ambigua2, 13. Euphorbia heliscopia2, 14. Anethum graveolens3, 15. Malva neglecta2, 16. Dichanthium annulatum2and 17. Coriandrum spp.2 Note: Superscript 1= weeds exclusively found in wheat, 2= weeds exclusively found sugarcane and 3= weeds found common in both wheat and sugarcane.
58
Table 5.7. A comparison of the macroinvertebrate diversity recorded on various species of weeds in two habitats i.e. edge and center of the sugarcane fields. (S = species richness; H′ = Shannon’s index; E = evenness; ns: p>0.05, *: p<0.05, * *: p<0.01, * * *: p<0.001).
Edge Center Test statistics Sugarcane weeds S H´ E S H´ E df t-value p-value Cynodon dactylon3 110 3.786 0.40 57 3.157 0.41 1300 9.679 <0.001*** Convolvulus arvensis3 38 3.237 0.67 17 2.415 0.65 94 4.711 <0.001*** Cnicus arvensis3 28 2.719 0.54 08 1.793 0.75 27 4.184 <0.001*** Parthenium hysterophorus2 24 2.060 0.32 13 2.149 0.65 95 -0.111 0.909ns Chenopodium album2 24 2.145 0.35 12 2.192 0.74 66 0.366 0.714ns Anethum graveolens3 24 3.018 0.85 ------Euphorbia heliscopia2 23 2.834 0.73 03 0.955 0.86 12 6.394 <0.001*** Coronopus didymus2 21 2.355 0.50 06 1.738 0.94 35 3.642 <0.001*** Malvastrum coromandelianum2 20 2.405 0.55 04 1.277 0.89 11 4.274 <0.001*** Dichanthium annulatum2 19 2.706 0.78 08 1.970 0.89 25 3.774 <0.001*** Corydalis Ambigua2 19 2.661 0.75 04 1.321 0.93 17 5.459 <0.001*** Amaranthus viridis2 18 2.571 0.72 ------Phalaris minor3 18 2.089 0.44 06 1.166 0.53 34 3.767 <0.001*** Ricinus communis2 18 2.608 0.75 ------Coriandrum spp.2 18 2.539 0.70 07 1.798 0.86 37 4.037 <0.001*** Malva neglecta 17 2.583 0.77 04 1.330 0.94 09 4..772 <0.001*** Poa annua2 13 2.237 0.72 06 1.609 0.83 18 2.289 0.033*
Note: Superscript 1= weeds exclusively found in wheat, 2= weeds exclusively found sugarcane and 3= weeds found common in both wheat and sugarcane.
59
Table 5.8. CCA of the abundance of macroinvertebrate fauna at the environmental factor (weeds) in sugarcane fields.
Summary of analysis Axis 1 Axis 2 Axis 3 Axis 4 Axis 5
Eigenvalues 0.172 0.127 0.079 0.052 0.031
Percentage 37.219 27.665 17.157 11.211 6.748
Cum. Percentage 37.219 64.884 82.041 93.252 100.000
Cum.Constr.Percentage 37.219 64.884 82.041 93.252 100.000
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 C. dactylon -0.660 -0.206 -0.422 -0.555 -0.191 C. arvensis -0.691 0.181 0.042 -0.699 -0.013 P. hysterophorus 0.598 0.306 -0.324 -0.664 0.049 C. album 0.001 -0.135 -0.734 -0.665 0.016 C. didymus -0.224 -0.106 -0.808 -0.269 0.461 P. minor -0.092 -0.215 -0.809 -0.533 0.084 Cnicus arvensis -0.168 -0.579 -0.015 -0.793 0.083
60
Figure 5.2. Canonical correspondence analysis (CCA) biplot showing association of macroinvertebrates species with weed species in sugarcane fields.
1.4
1.2 24 26 0.9 P. hysterophorus 0.6 7 6 14 25 22 C. arvensis 0.3 15 4 Axis 2 12 3 5 19 2 1 10 11 18 13 21 -0.3 -1.4-1.2 -0.9 -0.6 20 0.3 23 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.4 C didymus -0.3 C. album17 16 C. dactylon 8 P. minor -0.6 9
-0.9
Cnicus arvensis -1.2 -1.4 Axis 1
Key to species: 1.Acrididae Nymph 2. Melanoplus bivittatus 3. Acheta domesticus 4. Phyllopalpus pulchellus 5.Gryllidae Nymph 6. Miridae nymph 7. Oxycarenus spp.8. Agalliopsis sp.9. Perkinsiella saccharicida 10. Aphis nerii 11. Pyrilla perpusilla 12. Coccinella septempunctata 13. Brumoides suturalis 14. Culex pipie, 15. Aedes dorsalis 16. Anatrichus erinaceus 17. Oscinella frit 18. Musca domestica 19. Dolichopus plumipes 20. Chironomus grande 21. Empis pennipes 22. Sargus bipunctatus 23. Sepsid spp.24. Solenopsis invicta 25. Oxyopes sertatus 26. Oxyopes javanus
61
CHAPTER 6
RESULTS
PREDATOR–PREY RATIOS OF MACROINVERTEBRATES
Seven predator species (Coccinella septempunctata, Coccinella trifasciata,
Chilomenes sexmaculata (Coleoptera) Solenopsis invicta, Camponotus spp., Solenopsis xyloni (Hymenoptera), Oxyopes sertatus and Oxyopes javanus (Archnida)) and their seven suspected prey (Xyonysius californicus, Cavelerius saccharivorus, Pyrilla perpusilla, Dysdercus cingulatus, Acyrthosiphon gossypii, Schizaphus graminum and
Aphis nerii (Hemiptera)) were selected from foliage macroinvertebrate population of both wheat-weeds and sugarcane-weeds agro-ecosystems, selection was made on their monthly abundance to assess predator-prey relationship among selected species.
Monthly predator-prey abundance ratio of each selected predators with all the prey species was plotted. Constant or nearly constant predator-prey ratios were showed as straight line parallel to the time scale, for some of the predator species in wheat-weeds and sugarcane-weeds agro-ecosystems (Figure 6.1 to 6.18) as well as Table 6.1 depicted the summary of the polynomial regression.
6.1 Predator-prey association in wheat
Polynomial regression analysis on the selected predator and prey species in
wheat-weeds agro-ecosystem depicted that S. graminum (R2 = 0.7139), A. nerii (R2 =
0.9702) P. perpusilla (R2 = 0.9661), A. gosspii (R2 = 0.8462) and A. nerii (R2 = 0.9971)
were recorded the preferred prey for C. septumpunctata species
62
Table 6.1. Coefficient of determination value (R2) for some coleopterans, hymenopterans and arachnids predators with selected prey species in wheat and sugarcane (Statistically significant R2 values represented in bold). Crops Predator Prey Wheat Sugarcane Xyonysius californicus - 0.529 Cavelerius saccharivorus - 0.416 Pyrilla perpusilla 0.508 0.800 Coccinella septempunctata Dysdercus cingulatus 0.583 - Acyrthosiphon gossypii 0.386 - Schizaphus graminum 0.713 - Aphis nerii 0.970 0.517 Xyonysius californicus - 0.437 Cavelerius saccharivorus - 0.505 Pyrilla perpusilla - 0.831 Coccinella trifasciata Dysdercus cingulatus - - Acyrthosiphon gossypii - - Schizaphus graminum - - Aphis nerii - 0.431 Xyonysius californicus - - Cavelerius saccharivorus - - Pyrilla perpusilla 0.966 - Chilomenes sexmaculata Dysdercus cingulatus 0.446 - Acyrthosiphon gossypii 0.846 - Schizaphus graminum 0.672 - Aphis nerii 0.997 - Xyonysius californicus - 0.672 Cavelerius saccharivorus - 0.606 Pyrilla perpusilla - 0.257 Solenopsis invicta Dysdercus cingulatus - - Acyrthosiphon gossypii - - Schizaphus graminum - - Aphis nerii - 0.811 Xyonysius californicus - - Cavelerius saccharivorus - - Pyrilla perpusilla 0.908 - Camponotus spp. Dysdercus cingulatus 0.410 - Acyrthosiphon gossypii 0.794 - Schizaphus graminum 0.127 - Aphis nerii 0.653 - Xyonysius californicus - 0.384 Cavelerius saccharivorus - 0.725 Oxyopes sertatus Pyrilla perpusilla - 0.202 Dysdercus cingulatus - - Acyrthosiphon gossypii - -
63
Table 6.1. (Continued)
Schizaphus graminum - - Aphis nerii - 0.477 Xyonysius californicus - 0.957 Cavelerius saccharivorus - 0.192 Pyrilla perpusilla - 0.537 Oxyopes javanus Dysdercus cingulatus - - Acyrthosiphon gossypii - - Schizaphus graminum - - Aphis nerii - 0.433
64
(Figure 6.4 6.5, 6.6, 6.7, 6.8) respectively. Whereas A. gosspii (R2 = 0.7941) was
recorded the most preferred prey for Camponotus spp. (Fig.6.9)
6.2 Predator-prey association in sugarcane
Polynomial regression analysis was applied to evaluate relationship among
selected predator and prey species in sugarcane-weeds agro-ecosystem. P. perpusilla (R2
= 0.8001) was the preferred prey species of C. septumpunctata (Figure 6.14) as well as P.
perpusilla (R2 = 0.831) was also recorded as preferred prey species of C. trifaciata
(Figure 6.15). C. saccharivorus (R2 = 0.725) of O. seratus (Figure 6.16), X. californicus
(R2 = 0.7255) of O. javanus (Figure 6.17) whereas A. nerii (R2 = 0.8113) was the
preferred prey species of S. invicta (Figure 6.18).
65
C. septempunctata vs P. perpusilla C. septempunctata vs D. cingulatus C. septempunctata vs A. gossypii C. septempunctata vs S. graminum C. septempunctata vs A. nerii 2500
2000
1500
1000 Prey/predator ratio 500
0 Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. March April
Fig. 6.1. Extent of variation in the abundance ratio of C. septumpunctata with hemipterans species in wheat-weeds agroecosystem. C. sexmaculata vs P. perpusilla C. sexmaculata vs D. cingulatus C. sexmaculata vs A. gossypii C. sexmaculata vs S. graminum C. sexmaculata vs A. nerii
1200
1000
800
600
400
Prey/predator ratio 200
0 Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. March April
Fig. 6.2. Extent of variation in the abundance ratio of C. sexmaculata with hemipterans species in wheat-weeds agroecosystem.
66
Camponotus spp. vs P. perpusilla Camponotus spp. vs D. cingulatus Camponotus spp. vs A. gossypii
Camponotus spp. vs S. graminum Camponotus spp. vs A. nerii
1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 Prey/predator ratio 100 0 Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. March April
Fig. 6.3. Extent of variation in the abundance ratio of Camponotus spp. with hemipterans species in wheat-weeds agroecosystem.
67
3 2 160 y = -0.002x + 0.2071x - 3.2968x + 22.659 R2 = 0.7139 140 120
100 Series1 80 Poly. (Series1) 60
C. septumpunctata 40
20 0 0 1020304050607080 S. graminum
Fig. 6.4. The polynomial regression between C. septumpunctata and S. graminum in wheat-weeds agroecosystem.
y = 0.0196x2 - 1.0395x + 25.396 60 R2 = 0.9702 50
40
Series1 30 Poly. (Series1) 20 C. septumpuncata 10
0 0 1020304050607080 A. nerii
Fig. 6.5. The polynomial regression between C. septumpunctata and A. nerii wheat-weeds agroecosystem.
68
90 y = -0.0168x2 + 2.4363x - 9.0219 2 80 R = 0.9661 70 60 50 Series1 40 Poly. (Series1) 30
C. sexmaculata 20 10 0 -10 0 20406080100120 P. perpusilla
Fig. 6.6. The polynomial regression between C. sexmaculata and P. perpusilla wheat-weeds agroecosystem.
y = -0.0074x2 + 1.3573x + 4.0449 70 R2 = 0.8462 60
50
40 Series1 30 Poly. (Series1)
C. sexmaculata sexmaculata C. 20
10
0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 A. gosspii
Fig. 6.7. The polynomial regression between C. sexmaculata and A. gosspii wheat-weeds agroecosystem.
69
y = -0.0125x2 + 1.2706x + 24.015 60 R2 = 0.9971 50
40
Series1 30 Poly. (Series1) 20 C. sexmaculata
10
0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 A. nerii
Fig. 6.8. The polynomial regression between C. sexmaculata and A. nerii wheat-weeds agroecosystem.
y = -0.0719x2 + 4.6868x - 18.514 70 R2 = 0.7941 60
50
40 Series1 30 Poly. (Series1)
20 Camponotus spp.
10
0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 A. gosspii
Fig. 6.9. The polynomial regression between Camponotus spp. and A. gosspii wheat-weeds agro-ecosystem.
70
C. septempunctata vs X. californicus C. septempunctata vs C. saccharivorus C. septempunctata vs P. perpusilla C. septempunctata vs P. saccharicida C. septempunctata vs A. nerii
5000 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 Prey/predator ratio 500 0 Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. March April
Fig. 6.10. Extent of variation in the abundance ratio of C. septumpunctata with hemipterans species in sugarcane-weeds agroecosystem.
C. trifasciata vs X. californicus C. trifasciata vs C. saccharivorus C. trifasciata vs P. perpusilla C. trifasciata vs P. saccharicida C. trifasciata vs A. nerii
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
Prey/predator ratio 500
0 Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. March April
Fig. 6.11. Extent of variation in the abundance ratio of C. trifaciata with hemipterans species in sugarcane-weeds agroecosystem.
71
O. sertatus vs X. californicus O. sertatus vs C. saccharivorus O. sertatus vs P. perpusilla O. sertatus vs P. saccharicida O. sertatus vs A. nerii
1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300
Prey/predator ratio 200 100 0 Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. March April
Fig. 6.12. Extent of variation in the abundance ratio of O. seratus with hemipterans species in sugarcane-weeds agroecosystem.
O. javanus vs X. californicus O. javanus vs C. saccharivorus O. javanus vs P. perpusilla O. javanus vs P. saccharicida O. javanus vs A. nerii
900 800 700 600 500 400 300
Prey/predator ratio 200 100 0 Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. March April
Fig. 6.13. Extent of variation in the abundance ratio of O. javanus with hemipterans species in sugarcane-weeds agroecosystem.
72
2 350 y = -0.0191x + 5.0843x - 88.456 R2 = 0.8001 300
250
200 Series1 150 Poly. (Series1) 100
C. septumpunctata 50
0 0 50 100 150 200 250 -50 P. perpusilla
Fig. 6.14. The polynomial regression between C. sexmaculata and P. perpusilla sugarcane-weeds agroecosystem. y = 0.0958x2 - 3.5979x + 55.172 350 R2 = 0.8311 300
250
200 Series1 150 Poly. (Series1) C. trifaciata trifaciata C. 100
50
0 0 1020304050607080 P. perpusilla
Fig. 6.15. The polynomial regression between C. trifaciata and P. perpusilla sugarcane-weeds agroecosystem.
73
90 y = 0.8699x3 - 38.963x2 + 561.1x - 2544.5 R2 = 0.7255 80 70 60
50 Series1 40 Poly. (Series1)
O. seratus 30 20 10 0 0 5 10 15 20 C. saccharivorus
Fig 6.16. The polynomial regression between O. seratus and C. saccharivorus sugarcane-weeds agro-ecosystem. y = 1.1589x2 - 18.724x + 73.438 80 R2 = 0.9574 70
60 50
40 Series1 30 Poly. (Series1) O. javanusO. 20 10
0 0 5 10 15 20 -10 X. californicus
Fig. 6.17. The polynomial regression between O. javanus and X. californicus sugarcane-weeds agro-ecosystem.
74
Fig. 6.18. The polynomial regression between S. invicta and A. nerri sugarcane- weeds agro-ecosystem.
75
PHYTOCHMEICAL EVALUATION OF WEEDS
The preliminary results of phytochemical constituents of studied weed species are summarized in Table 6.2. Root, stem and leaves of weed species were recorded rich in alkaloids, saponins, terpenoids.
The root, stem and leaves of Chenopodium murale, Brassica compastris, Anthem graveolens and Malvastrum coromandelianum contained saponins, Cronopus didymus,
Sonchus olearaceus, Anthem graveolens, and Malvastrum coromandelianumin constituted terpenoids whereas cardiac glycosides was present in all parts of Rumex dentatus, Euphorbia helioscopia, Cronopus didymus, Solanum nigrum, Anthem graveolens.
Phlobatannin was recorded in least distribution in the root, stem and leaves of the studied weed species.
76
Table 6.2. Phytochemical analysis of the root, stem and leaves of some weeds occurring from the agro-ecosystem of Faisalabad district.
Weed species Plant parts Alkaloids Tannin Saponin Steroid (extract) Phlobatannin Flavonoid Terpenoid (extract) Cardic glycoside (extract) Root - - + + - - + + Chenopodium murale Stem + - + - - + + + Leaves - + + + - + - - Root + + + - - - + + Convolvulus arvensis Stem - - + + - - - - Leaves - + - + - - - - Root - + + - - - - + Rumex dentatus Stem ------+ + Leaves + - + - - - + + Root - - - + - - - + Parthenium hysterophorus Stem + + + - + - + - Leaves - + - + + - - - Root - + + - - + + + Euphorbia helioscopia Stem + + + - - - + + Leaves - + - + - - - + Root ------+ + Cronopus didymus Stem + - - - - + + + Leaves - - + + - - + + Root - - + - - + - - Brassica compastris Stem - - + - - - + + Leaves - + + + - - + + Root Malva neglecta Stem + - + + - - + - Leaves - + + + - - - - Root - - + - - - + + Solanum nigrum Stem + - - - - + + + Leaves + + + - + + - + Root + + - - - + + - Sonchus olearaceus Stem + + - - + - + - Leaves + + - + - + + + Root - + + + - - + - Eclipta alba Stem - + + + - - + + Leaves - - + + - - + - Poa annua Root - + - - + - - -
77
Table 6.19. (Continued) Stem - + + + - - + - Leaves + - - - - - + - Root Ricinus communis Stem Leaves + + - - - + - - Root - + + + - - + + Anthem graveolens Stem + + + + - + + + Leaves - + + + - + + + Root ------Cynodon dactylon Stem ------Leaves - - + - - + - Root - + ------Melilotus indicus Stem - - - + - - - + Leaves - - + - + - + - Root - - + - - + + + Malvastrum coromandelianum Stem - - + - - + + + Leaves - - + - + + + -
+: Present - : Absent
11
DISCUSSION
7.1 Macroinvertebrates diversity in wheat
The diversity, richness and abundance of foliage microhabitats varied in both
types of microhabitats (Odum, 1971; Marshall and Moonenb, 2002; Turner et al., 2003) but contrary to the general findings it was more diverse at centers than the edge, while richness was recorded higher on edges (Anjum-Zubair et al., 2010). However, when diversity of foliage macroinvertebrates of either wheat or its weeds is compared alone, edges emerge as more diverse habitat then the centers (Clough et al., 2007). Wheat plants near edges were sparsely distributed due to anthropogenic disturbances. Furthermore, shade of woody plants on the edges did not allow more wheat to grow on the edge thereby, allowing more macroinvertebrates to establish over there (edge) (Honek, 1988)
and distribution of macroinvertebrates in wheat-weeds agroecosystem (Coombes and
Sotherton, 1986; Jensen et al., 1989; Riedel, 1995; Holopainen, 1995).
Weeds, either annual, biennial, or perennial, naturally flourished on crop edges
provide phytomorphic heterogeneity (Speight and Lawton, 1976; Capinera, 2005; Ruby
et al., 2011) food, overwintering sites (Pfiffner and Luka, 2000; Thomas and Marshall,
1999), significantly more diverse on edges than in centers of crop (Johnson and Beck
1988; Hinsley and Bellamy 2000; Perfecto and Vandermeer 2002; Duelli and Obrist
2003; Van Buskirk and Willi 2004; Hof and Bright, 2010), weedy field margins in
agroecosystem have fundamental effects on increasing the abundance of
macroinvertebrate populations (Hof and Bright, 2010). Abundance of macroinvertebrate
populations was recorded significantly higher on weeds present on edges (Paoletti and
Lorenzoni, 1989; Burgio et al., 2007). Many reported that weedy field edges have life-
12 supporting functions and have a vital impact on diversity of macroinvertebrate population and self emerging plants (Johnson and Beck 1988; Hinsley and Bellamy 2000; Perfecto and Vandermeer 2002; Duelli and Obrist 2003; Van Buskirk and Willi 2004). Overall, wheat and weeds on the field edges constituted significantly higher diversity of macroinvertebrate populations (Hˈ=3.16) and (Hˈ= 3.163) respectively.
Arthropods were the most diverse and dominant group of macroinvertebrates recorded on both wheat and its allied weeds (Kadappa et al., 2008). Of which, Archnida
(Twelve spp.) Orthoptera (Eleven spp.), Hemiptera (Eight spp.), Coleoptera (Eight spp.),
Diptera (Seven spp) and Hymenoptera (seven spp) were most recorded group of macroinvertebrates (Strong et al., 1984; Basset et al., 2003; Ruby et al., 2010).
Temporal fluctuation in abundance and diversity of macroinvertebrate fauna depicted statistically significant differences in all the seasons (autumn, winter and spring). A sharp decline in the abundance macroinvertebrate groups were recorded during autumn season (n= 382) and significantly higher during winter and spring seasons (n=
1631) and (n= 2415) respectively. Kutschbach-Brohl, et al. (2010) reported the temporal variations in abundance and diversity of various macroinvertebrate groups such as
Orthoptera, Hemiptera and Auchenorrhyncha. Seasonal flactuations can be explained as macroinvertebrate species have different phenologies and as a result difference in activity periods depending on temperature (Ayal and Merkl 1994; Booij et al., 1995).
7.2 Macroinvertebrates diversity in Sugarcane
This study highlights the diversity of foliage macroinvertebrates in a sugarcane- weed based agroecosystem. A total of 232 species of macroinvertebrates comprising of
178 species of insects (79 Families; 12 Orders), 35 species of arachnids (13 Families; one
13
Order), 16 species of pulmonates (10 Families; One Order) and three species of isopods
(2 Families; One Order) were recorded during the present study. The number of insect species recorded from similar habitat during the present study was higher than
Kumarasinghe (1999), Ahmed et al. (2004). Kumarasinghe (1999) from sugarcane in Sri
Lanka, documented 103 insect species associated with sugarcane comprising of
Coleopteran (31 spp), Dictyoptera (2spp), Diptera (5spp), Hemiptera (12spp), Homoptera
(18spp), Hymenoptera (7spp), Isoptera (3spp), Lepidoptera (13spp), Orthoptera (9 spp) and one species of each of Thysanoptera, Neuroptera and Trichoptera. Ahmed et al.
(2004) recorded 117 species of insects belonging to 10 Orders. The arachnid richness was higher than Ghafoor and Mahmood (2011) but lower than Young and Edwards (1990). In
Ghafoor and Mahmood (2011) recorded 22 species belonging to seven Families while
Young and Edwards (1990) recorded 137 species of spider from sugarcane fields.
The species richness of macroinvertebrate population was recorded higher because during the recent study, 12 sampling areas all around the City was taken, samples were brought on weekly basis for two consecutive years in comparison to
Ahmed et al. (2004), three sampling areas, samples were taken on fortnightly basis and study duration was one year. The similar is in the case of arachnid richness as Ghafoor and Mahmood (2011) studied two sampling localities for on year.
Genetically and ecologically diverse agroecosystems often are more productive than simpler ones (Hector and Hooper, 2002). Weeds are important component of agricultural areas that act as major drivers of macroinvertebrate diversity (Southwood and
Way, 1970; Landis, et al., 2000). These unwanted plants are usually eradicated in intensive agriculture practices to (a) reduce competition among crop plants and weeds,
14 and (b) to increase net yield (Bisen and Tiwari, 1983; Balyan and Bhan, 1984; Rajput et al., 1992; Hillocks, 1998; Bryan et al., 2011).) Comprising phytomporphic heterogeneity that serves as an alternative food for phytophagus macroinvertebrates (Capinera, 2005;
Ruby et al., 2011). Weeds provide shelter and optimum microclimate suitability for arthropod populations (Johnson et al., 1996) thereby enhancing biodiversity of the agroecosystems (Marshall et al., 2002). The present study also supported the same ideas.
Weeds harboured more foliage macroinvertebrates (n = 2962) than the crop (n = 2703) itself. The abundance on weeds was recorded higher than crop but both support different groups of macroinvertebrates yet some were little fluctuated on them. Orthoptera and
Diptera were abundant on weeds while on crop Hemiptera and Coleoptera were recorded abundant macroinvertebrate groups. Crop and weeds were significantly different in terms of macroinvertebrates abundance and diversity, weeds being more diverse than crop itself.
Field margins had major impact on the abundance and diversity of various invertebrate taxa (Dauber et al., 2003; Jeanneret et al., 2003; Clough et al., 2005; Gabriel et al., 2005; Clough, et al., 2007; present study). These margins harboured diverse assemblage of annual, biennial and perennial plants which served as shelter as well as alternate food sources. Macroinvertebrate abundances and diversity were also influenced by seasonality which is a combined effect of a number of factors such as temperature, humidity, day light, vegetation diversity and food availability (Mani, 1968; Denlinger,
1980; Margaret, 1982; present study).
The present study confirmed that weeds offer phytomorphic heterogeneity to support macroinvertebrate diversity while field margins ensure this diversity and warrant
15 increased agricultural production (Altieri, 1994; Jeanneret et al., 2003; Tscharntke et al.,
2005; Frison et al., 2011).
7.3 Impact of weeds on macroinvertebrates in wheat and sugarcane
This study examined the macroinvertebrates communities associated with weed
species occurring in wheat and sugarcane in agroecosystem of Faisalabad district, Punjab
(Pakistan). In general, it appears reasonable to conclude that recognizable weed
macroinvertebrate associations do exist in agroecosystem. Only a small fraction of the total macroinvertebrate taxa is exclusively associated with particular weed species.
In the present study, twenty seven weed species were recorded from both wheat and sugarcane agroecosystem, Whereas, previously Ashiq et al. (2003) has documented almost 50 weed species in the agroecosystem of Punjab of which ten weed species were grassy. The presence of grassier weed species especially wide spread of Phalaris minor
instead of Vicia sativa in our study area is an indication of changed condition of soil from
light sandy to loamy. The application of fertilizers and canal irrigation in the fields are among the major factor changing soil conditions. In addition the farming practices and tillage also has a great impact on weed flora (Siddiqui, 2005).
Previously Ruby et al. (2011) recorded eight macroinvertebrate taxa on weeds of
wheat, sugarcane, fodder and mustard whereas, thirteen macroinvertebrate groups viz.,
Thysanura, Orthoptera, Mantodea, Blattaria, Hemiptera, Coleoptera, Neuroptera,
Hymenoptera, Lepidoptera, Diptera, Araneae, Isopoda and Pulmonata were recorded associated to weed plants of wheat and sugarcane during the present study. The obvious difference occurs due to more sampling efforts during the present study that extended up
16 to two consecutive years while previous work by Ruby et al. (2011) was conducted for one year.
Overall abundance and richness of macroinvertebrates groups including
Thysanura, Orthoptera, Mantodea, Blattaria, Hemiptera, Coleoptera, Neuroptera,
Hymenoptera, Lepidoptera, Diptera, Araneae, Isopoda and Pulmonata were significantly higher on the weeds growing on the field edges of both the wheat and sugarcane as field edges comprsed of diverse weed flora regardless of the management practices (Romero et
al., 2007). Sugarcane associated weeds harboured abundant and species rich faunal
populations, the reason may be the little disturbance because sugarcane is being a long
duration crop (Bahadar et al., 2004) as well as more weed diversity. Ali et al. (1984) concluded that more relative abundance of macroinvertebrates in weedy than weed-free habitat. Penagos et al. (2003) reported in the maize agroecosystem that presence or absence of weed species has significant impact on the macroinvertebrates including arthropods and pulmonates and the loss of weed species propagates from agroecosystem through food webs, greatly decreasing arthropod species richness, shifting a predator- dominated trophic structure to being herbivore dominated, and likely impacting ecosystem functioning and services (Haddad et al., 2009).
Many researchers reported that Diversity of macroinvertebrates generally found
higher in the field edges than in the centers, and the edges seemed to be significantly
important refuges for arthropods (Thomas and Marshall, 1999; Thomas et al., 2001;
Meek et al., 2002; Smith et al., 2008). Siemann et al. (1998) suggested that macroinvertebrates diversity in the field edges is high because of diversity of vegetations on the field edges than the center of crop fields. In the present study weeds found on
17 edges in both wheat and sugarcane showed more Macroinvertebrates diversity than weeds occurring in the centers and Individual weed species also showed similar trends for macroinvertebrates diversity. Macroinvertebrates diversity plays a key role in enhancing biological control of insect pests (Norris and Kogan, 2005). Whereas vegetational diversity also enhance predator populations and minimize pest-related damage in the crops (Kleijn and Snoeijing, 1997; Showler and Greenberg, 2003; Marshall et al., 2003; Gove et al., 2007). According to Marshall and Moonen (2002) field edges has major impact on the production of crops by increasing predatory species which in turn reducing pest load on the crops.
7.4 Predator and prey interaction
Health of an ecosystem depends upon balanced prey-predator ratios and the
productivity of an agroecosystem is significantly relying on it as well as the balanced
prey-predator ratios ensures high and good quality yield (Laurence et al., 2002; Inayat et
al., 2011). Assessment of prey-predator ratios from the selected macroinvertebrates
groups in wheat-weeds and sugarcane-weeds agroecosystems were conducted in the
present study. Regression analysis method should be considered as the best choice for
analyzing prey-predator ratios. The major problem with using simple ratios to evaluate
prey-predator ratio is one of sampling bias due to variation in animal methodologies or
behavior. Jeffries and Lawton (1985) documented that the variations in prey-predator
ratios between studies may be partly due to different sampling intensities and Cameron
(1972) reported that sampling may be significantly biased by the insects behavior (Fenton
and Howell 1957, Morris 1960).
18
Predator-prey models (about straight line through time scale), infer that the rate of consumption generally as a behavioral phenomenon. According to classical hypothesis predators encounter prey randomly and the trophic function entirely depends on abundance of prey. The trophic function should be considered on the slow time scale of population dynamics at which the models operate. It is logical to suppose that the trophic function depends on the ratio of prey to abundances of predator (Arditi and Ginzburg,
1989).
Significant fluctuations were recorded in most of p/p ratios and this assumption was further confirmed by non-significant R-values derived from majority of regression analysis both in wheat-weeds and sugarcane-weeds agroecosystems. Species rich agroecosystem favours high p/p ratio (Jeifries and Lawton, 1985) .The intensification by chemical and mechanical technologies in the agroecosystems is the more important factor for imbalance in p/p ratios (Krauss et al., 11). Siddiqui (2005) reported that the use of agrochemicals has been significantly increased in past few decades in such types of agroecosystems in Punjab, which inturn is responsible for change the frequency of predators, preys/pests and parasitoids species, ultimately decreasing crop yields.
In conclusion, the present study will be provide valuable information regarding p/p ratios in wheat-weeds and sugarcane-weeds agroecosystems to the farmers, and enable them to develop strategies to cope with insect pests by their natural enemies
(predators) which in turn lead to enhance yield and sustain the food webs in such types of agroecosystems.
19
7.5 Phytochemical Evaluation of weeds
Phytochemical evaluation of medicinal plants is very imperative in recognizing new sources of therapeutically and industrially important chemical compounds (Kamboj,
2000). In the present study root, stem and leaves of seventeen weed species belonging to twelve families were investigated for their phytochemical potential. Farmers eradicate weeds from their fields to get better yield, irrespective of their importance as they are a rich source of naturally occurring chemicals, pharmaceutical companies use these chemicals to manufacture various medicines and drugs to treat numerous ailments
(Králová and Masarovièová, 2006; Dhole et al., 2009; Immanuel and Elizabeth, 2009).
Alkaloids, cardiac glycosides, flavonoids, steroids, saponins, terpenoids and tannins were recorded in root, stem and leaves of all the weeds, whereas Alkaloids, saponins, terpenoids and cardiac glycosides were the most frequently found phyto-contstituents
(Sofowara, 1993). (Nathiya and Dorcus, 2012). These phyto-constituents recorded in the studied weeds exhibit various pharmacological and biochemical actions in the human body and other animals on ingestion (Evans, 2002). Patwardhan et al. (2004) stated that almost 30% of medicines and drugs based on natural products are sold throughout the world. Saponins, terpenoids and cardiac glycosides have wide range of distribution in plants (Hostettmann, et al., 1995; Abbas et al., 2012) and are known to have various medicinal and dietary impacts on human life such as saponins has dietary as well as nutriceuticals effects (Asl and Hosseinzadeh, 2008), terpenoids is an imperative pharmaceutical agent e.g. the anticancer agents like taxol (Roberts, 2007; Goto et al.,
2010).
20
The present work showed that the stem and root of studied weeds serve as good source of pharmacologically active phytochemicals may also be useful as supplements in human and animal nutrition. Similar results also reported by Akubugwo et al. (2008),
Chitravadivu et al. (2009) and Sher et al. (2011).
Wheat comprises of various phytochemicals such as phytic acid, lignans and phenolic acids which are also reported to protect humans against cancer (Lei, 2009). It is a rich source of dietary fibre, polyphenol, tocopherol and carotenoides (Di Silvestro et al., 2012). Antitumour activities of wheat bran from various wheat cultivars differ significantly (Drankhan et al., 2003).
The present study revealed that seeds of the fifteen weed species recorded from wheat fields of Faisalabad district contain considerable amounts of flavinoids, tannins, saponins, streroides, gylocides, anthraquinines, alkloides and terpenoids acids. These phytochemicals would have their own additional benefits if used in conjunction with wheat flour (Abbas et al., 2011). These seeds unfortunately are not consumed by humans and are discarded as a cultural practice by sieving either at commission shops or by the women at domestic level who clean wheat grains for milling. Thus by consuming pure wheat flour, we remain devoid of the additional benefits of the phytochemicals available in weed seeds.
Tannins, flavinoids, alkaloids, saponins, steroids, glycosoids, terpenoids and anthraquinones are extremely beneficial to humans and safeguard them from a number of diseases (Abbas et al., 2012). Alkaloids, for example, act as stimulators, inhibitors and growth terminators in different situations (Rowson, 1958; Waller, 1978; Nazrullaev, et al., 2001). Similarly, saponin has been reported as antinutrient, found in different plant
21 parts and in low quantitiy in seeds and as deleterious properties and reveal structure dependent biological activity (Savage, 1993; Akubugwo et al., 2007). Steroidal compounds help in the synthesis of sex hormones (Okwu, 2001) similarly, terpenoids are widely used to cure artemisinin and taxol as malaria and cancer (Goto et al., 2010). The biological functions of flavonoiods include protection against inflammatory allergies, free radical scavenging, ulcers, microbes, hepatoxins, platelets aggregation, viruses and tumors (Okwu and Omodamiro, 2005; Okwu and Emenike, 2006).
Weeds can also be consumed directly by humans to prepare various dishes. Bathu
(Chenopodium album) for example is widely used in villages to prepare “sag” (a dish relished the whole subcontinent wherever wheat is grown), leaves of Krund
(Chenopodium murale) used for salad purpose, leaves of Pohli (Carthamus oxycantha) are used as a vegetable, whereas seeds are used in cooking. The fruit is used as bird feed.
Flowers are used to treat cerebral thrombosis, male infertility, bronchitis and rheumatism
(Anjani, 2005). Weeds are also used as animal forage.
It is concluded from the above discussion that weed seeds contain valuable phytochemicals which protect body from a number of aliments. It is suggested that wheat grains and weed seeds should be ground together to synergize wheat flour and to provide additional nutritious compounds to humans. These compounds will not only strengthen human immune system but also save them from various physiological disorders.
22
SUMMARY
The main emphasis of the present study was to enumerate the diversity of macro- invertebrates found in wheat-weeds and sugarcane-weeds agroecosystems for two consecutive years and phytochemical potential of weed species occurring in both of these fields, commonly eradicated by the local farmers using agro-chemicals. A total of 72 species of macroinvertebrates (n= 4228) were recorded in wheat fields and the weeds in wheat fields. Of these, 58 species of macroinvertebrates inhabited both wheat and weeds while the remaining 14 were recorded only from weeds in the wheat-weeds agroecosystem. Arthropoda (92.41%) and the Mollusca (7.59%) were most recorded macroinvertebrate taxa. Hemiptera (29.09%), Coleoptera (24.77%), Diptera (23.07%),
Orthoptera (5.34%) and Pulmonata (8.69%) were the dominant groups of macroinvertebrates in wheat, whereas Diptera (30.92%), Hemiptera (26.49%), Coleoptera
(13.53%), Hymenoptera (9.97%) Pulmonata (6.81) and Orthoptera (6.16%) were the most recorded macroinvertebrates on weeds.
The edges had high abundance of macroinvertebrates (n= 2930) in comparison to the centers (n= 1298). The diversity (H′), richness (S) and evenness (E) indicated a highly significant difference in species composition in most of the habitat combinations.
A total of 232 species of macroinvertebrates (n = 5665) were recorded both from sugarcane and its associated weeds. Of these, 118 were common both to sugarcane and its weeds, 53 were recorded only from sugarcane while the remaining 61 were recorded exclusively from weeds present in the cane fields. Arthropods were the most abundant group of macroinvertebrates collected from sugarcane (94.26%) and its associated weeds
(98.22%). Among the arthropods, Hemiptera (30.01%), Coleoptera (18.01%), Diptera
23
(16.78%), Orthoptera (10.295) and Araneae (7.31%) constituted a 82% of the macroinvertebrates. Comparison of the diversity (H′) values indicated a highly significant difference in species richness (S) and evenness (E) in all the habitat combinations. The diversity (H′), richness (S) and evenness (E) were higher at the edge than the center of both habitats under consideration.
A total of twenty seven weed species were recorded both from wheat and sugarcane fields. These weeds collectively harboured 5,431 macro-invertebrates, of which 2468 were recorded from wheat associated weeds. Cynodon dactylon, Sonchus
olearaceus and Brassica campastris harboured least under 50% of the total
macroinvertebrates, whereas remaining almost 50% were shared by Convolvulus
arvensis, Euphorbia prostrata, Polygonum plebejum, Ephedra spp., Anethum graveolens,
Avena fatua, Phalaris minor, Cnicus arvensis, Chenopodium murale,Cenchrus setigerus,
Rumex dentatus and Desmostachya bipinnata in wheat fields. T-test comparisons among
wheat weeds in the edge and center showed statistically significant difference (p <
0.001).
While 2,963 macroinvertebrate individuals were collected from sugarcane
associated weeds, Cynodon dactylon alone formed little above 50% of the total macro-
invertebrates, whereas Poa annua, Convolvulus arvensis, Malvastrum coromandelianum,
Parthenium hysterophorus, Amaranthus viridis, Chenopodium album, Coronopus
didymus, Phalaris minor, Cnicus arvensis, Ricinus communis, Corydalis Ambigua,
Euphorbia heliscopia, Anethum graveolens, Malva neglecta, Dichanthium annulatum
and Coriandrum spp. collectively harboured about 50% of macro-invertebrates. The
comparisons between edge and center of all these weeds showed statistically significant
24 differences (p < 0.001) except Chenopodium album. Qualitative synergy level of prey/predator invertebrate population on weeds of both wheat and sugarcane were also evaluated on the basis of their relative occurrence on weeds (see attached published paper).
Coccinella septempunctata, Coccinella trifasciata, Chilomenes sexmaculata
(Coleoptera) Solenopsis invicta, Camponotus spp., Solenopsis xyloni (Hymenoptera),
Oxyopes sertatus and Oxyopes javanus (Archnida) were the dominant predator species and Xyonysius californicus, Cavelerius saccharivorus, Pyrilla perpusilla, Dysdercus cingulatus, Acyrthosiphon gossypii, Schizaphus graminum and Aphis nerii (Hemiptera) were found dominant in order of their abundance throughout the sampling period in both wheat and sugarcane fields.
Seeds of fifteen weed species commonly found in wheat fields were investigated for qualitative and quantitative phytochemical potential (see attached published paper).
The roots, stem and leaves of seventeen weed species viz., Chenopodium murale,
Convolvulus arvensis, Rumex dentatus, Parthenium hysterophorus, Euphorbia heliscopia,Coronopus didymus, Brassica compastris, Malva neglecta, Solanum nigrum,
Sonchus oleroceous, Eclipta alba, Poa annua, Ricinus communis, Anthem graveolens,
Cynodon dactylon, Melilotus indica and Malvastrum coromandelianum were evaluated for their qualitative phytochemical potential. The root, stem and leaves of Chenopodium murale, Brassica compastris, Anthem graveolens and Malvastrum coromandelianum contain saponins whereas, Cronopus didymus, Sonchus olearaceus, Anthem graveolens, and Malvastrum coromandelianumin contained terpenoids and cardiac glycosides, as well
25 as present in all parts (root, stem and leaves) of Rumex dentatus, Euphorbia helioscopia,
Cronopus didymus, Solanum nigrum, Anthem graveolens.
26
REFERENCES
Abbas, M. N., S. A. Rana, H. A. Khan and Khalil-ur-Rehman. 2012. Status of trophic guild of invertebrates utilizing weeds of wheat and sugarcane fields of Faisalabad. Pak. J. Agric. Sci., 49: 189-198. Abbas, M. N., S. A. Rana, M. Shahid, N. Rana, M. Mahmood-ul-Hassan, M. Hussain. 2012. Chemical evaluation of weed seeds mixed with wheat grains at harvest. JAPS., 22: 283-288. Adiroubane, D. and P. Kuppammal. 2010. Lepidopteran fauna of Agri-Horticultural ecosystem in Karaikal Region. J. Biopest., 3: 001-010. Afzal, N. and S. Ahmad. 2009. Agricultural input use efficiency in Pakistan: key issues and reform areas. Res. Briefings, 1: 1–12. Ahmad, M., M. Aziz, M.A. Khan and M. Zafar. 2005. Household remedies of herbal cosmetics in District Attock Pakistan. Proc. National Conf. on conservation of natural resources of herbs and medicinal plants for commercial exploitation, AFP Islamabad, pp. 39-54. Ahmad, M., M.A. Khan and R.A. Qureshi. 2003. Ethnobotanical study of some cultivated plants of Chhuchh region (District Attock). Hamdard Medicus XLVI (3):15-19. Ahmad, M., M.A. Khan, M. Zafar and S. Sultana M. 2006. Ethnomedicinal demography and ecological diversification of some important weeds from district Attock- Pakistan. Pak J.Weed Sci. Res., 12: 37-46. Ahmad, S.S. and S. Javed. 2007. Exploring the economic value of underutilized plant species in ayubia national park. Pak. J. Bot., 39: 1435-1442. Ahmed S., W. Akbar and M.A. Riaz. 2004. Effect of crop rotation and intercropping on subterranean termites in wheat at Faisalabad. Int. J. Agric. Biol., 26: 25-30. Ahmed, A., A. Suhail, Zain-ul-Abdin, S. Iftikhar and K. Zahoor. 2004. Biodiversity of insects associated with sugarcane crop in Faisalabad. Pak. Entomol., 26: 1. Aisha, H.A., Fatma A. Rizk., A.M. Shaheen and Mona M. Abdel-Mouty, 2007. Onion plant growth, bulbs yield and its physical and chemical properties as affected by organic and natural fertilization. Res. J. Agric. Biol. Sci., 3: 380-388.
27
Akubugwo, I. E., A. N. Obasi and S. Ginika. 2007. Nutritional Potential of Leaves and Seeds of Black Nightshade Solanum nigrum L. Var virginicum from Afikpo- Nigeria. Pakistan J. Nutr., 6: 323-326. Alam, S. M. and M.H. Naqvi. 2003. Pakistan Agriculture. The gap between the supply and demand of agricultural products is widening day by day. http://www.pakistaneconomist.com/pagesearch/Search-Engine2003/S.E155.asp. Alam, S.M. and M.H. Naqvi. 2007. Pakistan agriculture 2003. Pakistan and Gulf Economist, Issue 28.ALP (Agricultural Linkages Program).
28
Anjani. 2005. Genetic variability and character association inwild safflower (Carthamus oxycantha). Indian J. Agric. Sci., 75(8): 516-518. Anjum-Zubair, M., M.H. Schmidt-Entling, P. Querner and T. Frank. 2010. Influence of within-field position and adjoining habitat on carabid beetle assemblages in winter wheat. Agric. For. Entomol., 12:301-306. Anonymous. 2005. Economic Survey of Pakistan, Economic Advisor’s Wing, Finance Division, Islamabad. Anonymous. 2008. Fortnightly mill wise statement for 15-05-2008; Pakistan Sugar Mills Association, Islamabad, Pakistan, p. 1-4. Anonymous. 2010. Government of Pakistan. Pakistan Economic Survey Ministry of Finance, Eco. Advisor’s Wing, Finance Division, Islamabad, Pakistan. Anonymous. 2010-2011. Economic Survey of Pakistan, Economic Advisor’s Wing, Finance Division, Islamabad. Anonymous. 2011. Economic Survey of Pakistan, Economic Advisor’s Wing, Finance Division, Islamabad. Arditi, R. and L.R. Ginzburg, 1989. Coupling in Predator-prey Dynamics: Ratio Dependence. J. Theor. Biol., 139: 311-326 Arifullah, S. A. 2007. Pakistan’s Crop Sector: An Economic Evaluation. PhD Dissert. Deptt. of Agric. Econ., NWFP Agric. Univ., Peshawar. Arifullah, S. A., A. F. Chishti, M. Zulfiqar and N. Farid. 2009. Natural resource management issues of Pakistan’s agriculture: the cases of land, labour and irrigation. Pak. J. Agric. Sci., 46(2). Arrow, G.J. 1917. Fauna of British India including Ceylon and Burma: Coleoptera; Scarabaeidea. Taylor and Frances, Red Lion Court, Fleet Street, London, pp. 1- 367. Arshad, S. 2012. Food Security Indicators, Distribution and Techniques for Agriculture Sustainability in Pakistan. Int. J. Appl. Sci. Technol., 2: 5. Ashiq, M., M. M. Nayyar and J. Ahmad 2003. Weed Control Handbook for Pakistan. Directorate of Agronomy. Ayub Agricultural Research Institute, Faisalabad. Ashraf, M. and B. Fatima.1980. Status of research work on sugarcane borers in Pakistan. The Nucleus, 17: 9-17.
29
Asl, M.N., H. Hosseinzadeh. 2008. Review of pharmacological effects of Glycyrrhiza sp. and its bioactive compounds. Phytother Res., 22: 709-24. Atta-ur-Rahman and M.I. Choudhary. 1998. New natural products from medicinal plants of Pakistan. Pure Appl. Chem., 70: 385-389. Ayal, Y. and O. Merkl. 1994. Spatial and temporal distribution of tenebrionid species (Coleoptera) in the Negev Highlands, Israel. J. Arid Environ., 27: 347-361. Azhar, B. A., M. G. Chaudhary and M. Shafique. 1972. A Model for Forecasting Wheat Production in the Punjab. Pakistan Development Review, 11: 407-415. Bahadar, K., M. Jama and H. Azim. 2004. Effect of weeds on cane yield and content of sugarcane. Pak. Weed Sci. Res., 10:47-50. Balaram, P. 2005. Current science, Vol., 88. No. 10. Baloch, S.M., I.H. Shah, I. Hussain and K. Abdullah. 2002. Low sugar production in Pakistan Causes and Remedies. Pak. Sugar. J., 17: 13-14. Balyan, R. S. and V. M. Bhan. 1984. Promising herbicides for weed control in chickpea. Indian J. Weed Sci., 16: 69-75. Baquar, S. R. 1989. Medicinal and Poisonous Plants of Pakistan. Printas Karachi, Pakistan. pp. 343-344. Barraud, P.J. 1934. Fauna of British India including Ceylon and Burma. Dipter: Culicidae Vol. V. Tribes Megarhinini and Culicini, R. B. S. Sewell and F. W. Edwards (eds.). Taylor and Frances, Red Lion Court, Fleet Street, London, pp. 1-463. Bashir, M. H., M. Afzal, S. F. Honey and B. S. Khan. 2011. First Evidence of the Genus Rhizoglyphus (Acari: Acaridae) from Pakistan. Pak. j. life soc. Sci., 9(2). Basset, Y., R. Kitching, S. Miller and V. Novotny, 2003. Arthropods of tropical forest. Spatio-temporal dynamics and resource use in the canopy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA. Bell and Scott. 1937. Fauna of British India including Ceylon and Burma. Moths. Sphingidae. Vol. 5. Taylor and Frances, Red Lion Court, Fleet Street, London, pp. 1-537. 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.
30
Benton, T.G., J.A. Vickery and J.D. Wilson. 2003. Farmland biodiversity: is habitat heterogeneity the key? Trends Ecol. Evol., 18:182-88. Bhardwaj, A., N. Singhal, S. Verma, S. Srivastava and K. Tripathi. 2012. influence of ripening on antioxidant activity of cell wall polysaccharides in Prunus armaniaca Linn. IJPSR., 3: 2082-2085. Bhatti, G.R., R. Qureshi and M. Shah. 2001. Final Technical report Floristic study of Arid zone (Desert Nara Region) Sindh, Pakistan conducted under Pakistan Science Foundation Project number. S/O–SALU/ Envr. (45). Bianchi, F. J. J. A., C. J. H. Booij and T. Tscharntke. 2006. Sustainable pest regulation in agricultural landscapes: a review on landscape composition, biodiversity and natural pest control. Proceedings of the Royal Society B., 273: 1715-1727. Biesmeijer, J. C., S. P. M. Roberts, M. Reemer, R. Ohlemüller, M. Edwards, T. Peeters, A.P. Schaffers, S. G. Potts, R. Kleukers, C. D. Thomas, J. Settele and W. E. Kunin. 2006. Parallel declines in pollinators and insect-pollinated plants in Britain and the Netherlands. Science, 313: 351-354. Billeter, R., J. Liira, D. Bailey, R. Bugter, P. Arens, I. Augenstein, S. Aviron, J. Baudry, R. Bukacek, F. Burel, M. Cerny, G. De Blust, R. De Cock, T. Diekötter, H. Dietz, J. Dirksen, C. Dormann, W. Durka, M. Frenzel, R. Hamersky, F. Hendrickx, F. Herzog, S. Klotz, B. Koolstra, A. Lausch, D. Le Coeur, J. P. Maelfait, P. Opdam, M. Roubalova, A. Schermann, N. Schermann, T. Schmidt, O. Schweiger, M.J.M. Smulders, M. Speelmans, P. Simova, J. Verboom, W.K.R.E. van Wingerden, M. Zobel, and P.J. Edwards. 2008. Indicators for biodiversity in agricultural landscapes: a pan-European study. Journal of Applied Ecology 45:141-150. Bingham, R. 1983. Barriers to conversion to organic farming practices in the Midwestern United States. In: Environmentally Sound Agriculture, W. Lockeretz (ed.). praeger, New York, pp. 263-278. Birkhofer, K., A. Fließbach, D.H. Wise and S. Scheu. 2011. Arthropod food webs in organic and conventional wheat farming systems of an agricultural long-term experiment: a stable isotope approach. Agric. For. Entomol., 13: 197-204. Bisen, C.R. and J.P. Tiwari, 1983. Chemical weed control in gram. Indian J. Weed Sci., 15: 223-225.
31
Boatman, N., R. Bradbury, C. Critchley, J. Holland, Marshall J, & Ogilvy S. (eds.) 2007. Aspects of Applied Biology Vol. 81, Delivering Arable Biodiversity. Boham, B. A. and R. Kocipai-Abyazan. 1994 . Flavonoids and condensed tannin from leaves of Hawaiian Vccinium vaticulatum and V. calycinium. Pacific Sci., 48:458- 463. Booij, C. J. H., den L.J.M.F. Nijs and J. Noorlander. 1995. Spatiotemporal patterns in activity density of some carabid species in large scale arable fields. Acta Jutlandica, 70: 175-184. Borromeo, T.H. 2001. Biodiversity and the quest for sustainable rice production systems. Philipp J. Crop Sci., 26: 15-20. Briggs, D. and F. Courtney. 1989. Agriculture and environment. The physical geography of temperate agricultural systems. Longman Scientific and Technical, Essex, England. Brunetti, E. 1923. Fauna of British India including Ceylon and Burma. Diptera 3. Pipunculidae, Syrphidae, Conopidae, Oestridae. Taylor and Frances, Red Lion Court, Fleet Street, London, pp. 1-424. Brussaard A.B., K.S. Kits, R.E. Baker, W.P. Willems, J.W. Leyting-Vermeulen, P. Voorn, A.B. Smit, R.J. Bicknell and A.E. Herbison. 1997. Plasticity in fast synaptic inhibition of adult oxytocin neurons caused by switch in GABAA receptor subunit expression. Neuron, 19: 1103-1114. Bryan, B.A., D. King and J. Ward. 2011. Modelling and mapping agricultural opportunity costs to guide landscape planning for natural resource management. Ecological Indicators 11, 199-208. Bugg, R.L. 1993. Habitat manipulation to enhance the effectiveness of aphidophagous hover flies (Diptera: Syrphidae). Sustainable Agriculture: News and Technical Reviews from the University of California Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program, 5: 12-15. Burgio, G, A. Lanzoni, P. Navone, K. Van Achterberg and A. Masetti. 2007 Parasitic Hymenoptera fauna on Agromyzidae (Diptera) colonising weeds in ecological compensation areas in northern Italian agroecosystems. J. Econ. Entomol., 100: 298-306.
32
Burits, M. and F. Bucar. 2002. Antioxidant activity of Chrysphylum albidum essential oil. Phtother Res. 14:323-328. Burr, M. 1910. Fauna of British India including Ceylon and Burma. Dermaptera. Taylor and Frances, Red Lion Court, Fleet Street, London, pp. 1-217. Cameron, G. N. 1972. Analysis of insect trophic diversity in two salt marsh communities. Ecology, 53:58-73. Cameron, M. 1930. Fauna of British India including Ceylon and Burma. Coleoptera; Staphylinidae. Vol. I. Taylor and Frances, Red Lion Court, Fleet Street, London, pp. 1-381. Capinera, J. L. 2005. Relationship between insect pests and weeds: an evolutionary perspective. J. Weed Sci., 53:892-901. Cassman, K. G. and S. Wood. 2005. Cultivated systems. In Ecosystems and human well- being: Current state and trends, ed. R. Hassan, R. Scholes, and N. Ash. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Ceccarelli, S. 1996. Adaptation to low/high input cultivation. Euphytica, 92 : 203-214. CENBIO. 1998. Estudio Nacional sobre la Diversidad Biológica en la República de Cuba. Charlet, L.D., D. Olson, P.A. Glogoza. 2002. Biological Control of Insect and Weed Pests in North Dakota Agriculture. North Dakota State University Fargo, North Dakota 58105. E-1225. Chaudhry, S. A. 1969. Flora IN Lyallpur and the adjeacent canal-colony district. Basic Sciences and Arts. West Pakistan, Agriculture University, Lyallpur, pp. 1-177. Chopard, L. 1969. Fauna of British India and adjacent countries. Orthoptera: Grylloidea Vol. 2. R. B.S. Sewell (ed.) Manager of publication, Governament of India, pp. 1-421.
Clough, Y., A. Holzschuh, D. Gabriel, T. Purtauf, D. Kleijn, A. Kruess, I. Steffan- Dewenter and T. Tscharntke. 2007. Alpha and beta diversity of arthropods and plants in organically and conventionally managed wheat fields. J. Appl. Ecol., 44:804-812.
33
Clough, Y., A. Kruess and T. Tscharntke. 2007. Local and landscape factors in differently managed arable fields affect the insect herbivore community of a non-crop plant species. J. Appl. Ecol., 44: 22-28. Clough, Y., A. Kruess D.Kleijn and T. Tscharntke. 2005. Spider diversity in cereal fields: comparing factors at local, landscape and regional scales. J. Biogeogr., 32: 2007- 2014. Coombes, D. S. and N. W. Sotherton. 1986. The dispersal and distribution of predatory Coleoptera in cereals. Ann. Appl. Biol., 108: 461-474. Coombs, C. W. and G. E. Woodroffe. 1968. Changes in the arthropod fauna of an experimental bulk of stored wheat. Ann. Appl. Biol., 3: 563-574. Corbett, A. and J.A. Rosenheim. 1996. Impact of natural enemy overwintering refuge and its interaction with the surrounding landscape. Ecol. Entomol., 21: 155-164. Cotes, B., M. Campos, F. Pascual and F. Ruano. 2010. The Ladybeetle Community (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) in Southern Olive Agro-ecosystems of Spain. Environ. Entomol., 39: 79-87. Crowder, D.W., T.D. Northfield, M.R. Strnd, W.E. Synder. 2010. Organic agriculture promotes evenness and natural pest control. Nature, 466: 109-112. Daily, G.C., S. Alexander, P.R. Ehrlich, L. Goulder, J. Lubchenko, P.A. Matson, H.A. Mooney, S. Postel, S.H. Schneider, D. Tilman and G.M. Woodwell. 1997. Ecosystem services: benefits supplied to human societies by natural ecosystems. Issues in Ecology 2: 2-16 Dauber, J., M. Hirsch, D. Simmering, R. Waldhardt, A. Otte and V. Wolters. 2003. Landscape structure as an indicator of biodiversity: matrix effects on species richness. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 98: 321-329. David, H., S. Easwaramoorthy, R. Jayanthi (Editors). 1986. Sugarcane entomology in India: Sugarcane Breeding Institute (ICAR), Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India, pp. 564. Davies, R.G. and O.W. Richards. 1977. Imm ̓ General Text Book of Entomology. Vol. II. Chapman and Hall, London, pp. 1-440. DeBach, P. 1964. Successes, trends and future possibilities. In DeBach P (editor). Biological Control of Insect Pests and Weeds. Chapman and Hall Ltd., London.
34
Denlinger, D. L. 1980. Seasonal and annual variation of insect abundance In the Nairobi National Park, Kenya. Biotropica, 12: 100-6. Dhole, J.A., N.A. Dhole and S. S. Bodke. 2009. Ethnomedicinal Studies of Some Weeds in Crop Fields of Marathwada Region, India. Ethnobotanical Leaflets, 13: 1443- 52. Di Silvestro, R., I. Marotti, S. Bosi, V. Bregola, A. S. Carretero, I. Sedej, A. Mandic, M. Sakac, S. Benedettelli and G. Dinelli. 2012. Health-promoting phytochemicals of Italian common wheat varieties grown under low-input agricultural management. J Sci Food Agric., (14):2800-10. Didham, R.K., J. Ghazoul, N.E. Stork and A. Davis. 1996. Insects in fragmented forests: a functional approach. Trends Ecol. Evol., 11: 255-260. Distant, W.L. 1908. Fauna of British India including Ceylon and Burma. Homoptera Rhynchota, vol. IV. Taylor and Frances, Red Lion Court, Fleet Street, London, pp. 41-501. Drankhan, K., J. Carter, R. Madl, C. Klopfenstein, F. Padula, Y. Lu, T. Warren, N. Schmitz, D. J. Takemoto. 2003. Antitumor activity of wheats with high orthophenolic content. Nutrition and Cancer, 47, (2), 188-194. Duelli, P. and M. K. Obrist. 2003. Regional biodiversity in an agricultural landscape: the contribution of sem-inatural habitat islands. Basic Appl. Ecol., 4: 129-138. Edeoga, H.O., D.E. Okwu and B.O. Mbaebie. 2005. Phytochemical constituents of some Nigerian medicinal Plant. African J. Biotechnol., 4: 685- 688. Eisley, B. and R. Hammond. 2007. Control of insect pests in field crops. The Ohio State University. El-Sayed, H. M., S. A. H. A. El-Nor, A. M. Kholif and M. A. Tawila. 1999. In vivo evaluation of coffee bean shell as a component in ruminant rations. Egyptian J. Nutr. Feeds, 2: 1-7 Enzo, A. P. 2007. Traditional plants and herbal remedies used in the treatment of diarrheal disease: Mode of action, quality, efficacy and safety considerations. Modern Phytomedicine Turning Medicinal Plants in to Drugs. WileyvchVerlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim. pp. 248-260.
35
Erwin, T. L. 1982. Tropical forests: their richness in Cole-optera and other arthropod species. Coleopts. Bull., 36:74-75. Esben-Petersen, P. 1928. Other orders of insects. Neuroptera. Pp. 89-108 In: Insects of Samoa and other Samoan Terrestrial Arthropods. Br, Mus. Nat. Hist, Lond., 7:129. Evans, W.C. 2002. Trease and Evans Pharmacognosy. 15 edition. WB Saunders Company; Bailliere Tindall, 197-393. F.A.O., 2003: Year Book Annual Production. Vol-57. Fallah, H.S.M., H.R. Alavian, M.R. Heydari, K. Abolmaali. 2005. The efficacy of Liv- 52 on liver cirrhotic patients: a randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled first approach. Phytomedicine, 12: 619-624. FAO. 2012. FAO & Pakistan 60 Green Years of Partnership and Counting. Food and Agriculture organization of the United Nations. Farnsworth, N.R. 1966. Biological and phytochemical screening of plants. J. Pharm. Sci., 55: 225-276. Fenton, F. A., and D. E. Howell. 1957. A comparison of five methods of sampling alfalfa fields for arthropod populations. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am., 50: 606-611. Fernandes, F. L., L. Bacci and M. S. Fernandes. 2010. Impact and Selectivity of Insecticides to Predators and Parasitoids. Entomo Brasilis, 3: 01-10. Firbank, L.G., S. Petit, S. Smart, A. Blain and R.J. Fuller. 2008. Assessing the impacts of agricultural intensification on biodiversity: a British perspective. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B., 363: 777-787. Flohre, A., C. Fischer, T. Aavik, J. Bengtsson, F. Berendse, R. Bommarco, P. Ceryngier, L.W. Clement, C. Dennis, S. Eggers, M. Emmerson, F. Geiger, I. Guerrero, V. Hawro, P. Inchausti, J. Liira, M.B. Morales, J.J. Onate, T. Part, W.W. Weisser, C. Winqvist, C. Thies and T. Tscharntke. 2011. Agricultural intensification and biodiversity partitioning in European landscapes comparing plants, carabids, and birds. Ecological Applications, 21: pp. 1772-1781. Foley J.A., R. DeFries, G.P. Asner, C. Barford, G. Bonan, S.R. Carpenter, F.S. Chapin, M.T. Coe, G.C. Daily, H.K. Gibbs, J.H. Helkowski, T. Holloway, E.A. Howard,
36
C.J. Kucharik, C. Monfreda, J.A. Patz, I.C. Prentice, N. Ramankutty and P.K. Snyder. 2005. Global consequences of land use. Science, 309:570-574. Frison, E. A., J. Cherfas and T. Hodgkin. 2011. Agricultural biodiversity is essential for a sustainable improvement in food and nutrition security. Sustainability, 3: 238- 253. Gabriel, D., C. Thies and T. Tscharntke. 2005. Local diversity of arable weeds increases with landscape complexity. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics, 7: 85-92. 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. Ganehiarachchi, G. A. S. M. and I. V. S. Fernando. 2000. Natural enemies of sugarcane plant hopper Pyrilla perpusilla Walker (Homoptera:Lophopidae) in the wet zone of Sri Lanka. Journal of the National Science Foundation of Sri Lanka, 28: 205- 213. Ganehiarachchi, G. A. S. M. and I. V. S. Fernando. 2000. Natural enemies of sugarcane plant hopper Pyrilla perpusilla Walker (Homoptera:Lophopidae) in the wet zone of Sri Lanka. Journal of the National Science Foundation of Sri Lanka, 28: 205- 213. Geiger, F., J. Bengtssonb, F. Berendse, W.W. Weisser, M. Emmerson, M.B. Morales, P. Ceryngier, J. Liira, T. Tscharntke, C. Winqvist, S. Eggers, R. Bommarco, T. Part, V. Bretagnolle, M. Plantegenest, L.W. Clement, C. Dennis, C. Palmer, J.J. Onate, I. Guerrero, V. Hawro, T. Aavik, C. Thies, A. Flohre, S. Hanke, C. Fischer, P.W. Goedhart and P. Inchausti. 2010. Persistent negative effects of pesticides on biodiversity and biological control potential on European farmland. Basic Appl. Ecol., 11: 97-105. Ghafoor, A. and A. Mahmood. 2011. Population dynamics of the Araneid fauna from district Gujranwala, Pakistan. JAPS., 21: 812-816. Ghosh, A. 1984. Fauna of British India and adjacent countries. Homoptera: Aphidoidea 3. Pemphiginae. Taylor and Frances, Red Lion Court, Fleet Street, London, pp. 1- 431.
37
Gibbsa, H. K., A. S. Rueschb, F. Achardc, M. K. Claytond, P. Holmgrene, N. Ramankuttyf and J. A. Foleyg. 2010. Tropical forests were the primary sources of new agricultural land in the 1980s and 1990s. PNAS., 1-6. Girma, S., D. Greenway and K. Wakelin. 2000. Who Benefits from Foreign Direct Investment in the UK? Presented at the Royal Economic Society Annual Conference, St. Andrews, July. Goto, T., N. Takahashi, S. Hirai and T. Kawada. 2010. Various Terpenoids Derived from Herbal and Dietary Plants Function as PPAR Modulators and Regulate Carbohydrate and Lipid Metabolism. Hindawi Publishing Corporation PPAR Research. Article ID 483958, p. 9. Gove, B., S. A. Power, G. P. Buckley and J. Ghazoul. 2007. Effects of herbicide spray drift and fertilizer overspread on selected species of woodland ground flora: comparison between short-term and long-term impact assessments and field surveys. J. Appl. Ecol., 44: 374-384. Gove, B., S.A. Power, G.P. Buckley and J. Ghazoul. 2007. Effects of herbicide spray drift and fertilizer overspread on selected species of woodland ground flora: comparison between short-term and long-term impact assessments and field surveys. J. Appl. Ecol., 44: 374-384. Greenberg, R., P. Bichier, A.C. Angon, C. Macvean, R. Perez and E. Cano. 2000. The impact of avian insectivory on arthropods and leaf damage in some Guatamalan coffee plantations. Ecology, 81:1750-1755. Groom, M., Meffe, G., and C. Carroll. 2006. Principles of Conservation Biology. Sinauer Associates, Inc. Third Edition. Gurmani, Z. A., M. Zia-ul-Hassan, M. Imran, A. R. Jamali and M. Bashir. 2006. Cost benefit analysis of wheat barley and oat crops for grain production. J. Agric. Res., 44: 335-339. Haddad, N.M., D. Tilman, J. Haarstad, M. Ritchie and J.M.H. Knops. 2001. Contrasting Effects of Plant Richness and Composition on Insect Communities: A Field Experiment, 158: 1 the American naturalist.
38
Haddad, N.M., G.M. Crutsinger, K. Gross, J. Haarstad, J.M.H. Knops and D. Tilman. 2009. Plant species loss decreases arthropod diversity and shifts trophic structure. Ecology Letters, 12: 1029-1039. Hall, D. G. 1988. Insects and mites associated with sugarcane in Florida. Florida Entomol., 71: 138-150. Hall, D. G., A. S. Konstantinov, G. S. Hodges, O. Sosa, C. Welbourn and R. L. Westcott. 2005. Insects and mites new to florida sugarcane. ASSCT., Vol. 25. Hampson, G. 1994. The fauna of British India including Ceylon and Burma. Moths. 2. Arctiidae, Agaristidae, Noctuidae. Taylor and Francis, Red Lion Court, Fleet Street, London, pp. 1-609. Hampson, G. 1995. The fauna of British India including Ceylon and Burma. Moths. Noctuidae (Cont.). Taylor and Francis, Red Lion Court, Fleet Street, London, pp. 1-546. Harborne, J. B. 1973. Phytochemical methods, London. Chapman and Hall, Ltd., pp. 49- 188. Hassan, B. 2007. Wheat yield and food security. The daily “Dawn”. Dated 12.02.2007. Hauggaard-Nielsen, H., P. Ambus and E. S. Jensen. 2001. Interspecific competition, N use and interference with weeds in pea-barley intercropping. Field Crop Res., 70: 101-109. Hauggaard-Nielsen, H., P. Ambus and E. S. Jensen. 2003. The comparison of nitrogen use and leaching in sole cropped versus intercropped pea and barley. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosys., 65: 289-300. Hector, A. and R.E. Hooper. 2002. Darwin and the first ecological experiment. Science, 295:639. Hendrickx, H. F., J. Maelfait,W. V. Wingerden, O. Schweiger, M. Speelmans, S. Aviron, I. Augenstein, R. Billeter, D. Bailey, R. Bukacek, F. Burel, T. Diekötter, J. Dirksen, F. Herzog, J. Liira, M. Roubalova, V. Vandomme and R. Bugter. 2007. How landscape structure, land-use intensity and habitat diversity affect components of total arthropod diversity in agricultural landscapes. J. Appl. Ecol., 44: 340-351
39
Heywood, V. and M. Skoula. 1999. The MEDUSA Network: Conservation and sustainable use of wild plants of the Mediterranean region. In: J. Janick (ed.), perspectives on new crops and new uses. P 148-151. Alexandria, VA. Hillocks, R. J. 1998. The Potential Benefits of Weeds with Reference to Small Holder Agriculture in Africa. Integrated Pest Management Reviews, 3:155-167. Hinsley, S. A. and P. E. Bellamy. 2000. The influence of hedge structure, management and landscape context on the value of hedgerows to birds: a Review J. Environ. Manage., 60: 33-49. Hodek, I. and A. Honek. 1996. Ecology of Coccinellidae. Series Entomologica, 54:480. Hof, A. R. and P. W. Bright. 2010. The impact of grassy field margins on macro- invertebrate abundance in adjacent arable fields. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 139: 280-283. Holland, J.M., J.N. Perry and L. Winder. 1999. The within-field spatial and temporal distribution of arthropods in winter wheat. Bull. Entomol. Res., 89:499-513. Holopainen, J. K. 1995. Spatial distribution of polyphagous predators in nursery fields. Acta Jutl., 70: 213-220. Honek, A. 1988. The effect of crop density and microclimate on pitfall trap catches of Carabidae, Staphylinidae (Coleoptera), and Lycosidae (Araneae) in cereal fields. Pedobiologia, 32: 233-242. Hooper, D.U., F.S. Chapin, J.J. Ewel, A. Hector, P. Inchausti, S. Lavorel, J.H. Lawton, D.M. Lodge, M. Loreau, S. Naeem, B. Schmid, H. Seta¨la¨, A.J. Symstad, J. Vandermeer and D.A. Wardle. 2005. Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning a consensus of current knowledge. Ecol. Monogr., 75: 3-35. Hunter. M.D. and P.W. Price. 1992. Playing chutes and ladders: hetero-geneity and the relative roles of bottom up and top down forces in natural communities. Ecology, 73: 724-732 Hussain, F., M. Islam and A. Zaman. 2006. Ethnobotanical profile of plants of Shawar Valley, District Swat, Pakistan. Int. J. Biol. Biotec., 3: 301-307. Hussain, K., K. Nawaz, A. Majeed, F. Khan, F. Lin, A. Ghani, G. Raza, S. Afghan, S. Zia- ul-Hussnain, K. Ali and A. Shahazad. 2010. Alleviation of salinity effects by
40
exogenous applications of salicylic acid in pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br.) seedlings. African J. Biotechnol., 9: 8602-8607. Hutcheson, K. 1970. A test for comparing diversities based on the Shannon formula. J. Theoret. Biol.., 29: 151-154. Ibrar, M. 1999. Pharmacognastic and Phytochemical studies of Hedra helix L. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Botany University of Peshawar, Pakistan. 109-113. Ibrar, M., 2000. Atomic absorption spectrophotometeric analysis of the hypoglycemic trace elements of Ivy, Hedra helix L. leaves. Hamdrad Medicus., 43: 68-71. Immanuel, R.R. and L.L. Elizabeth. 2009. Weeds in Agro-ecosystems: A Source of Medicines for Human Healthcare. Int. J. Pharm.Tech. Res., 1: 375-385. Inayat, T. P., S. A. Rana, H. A. Khan and Khalil-ur-Rehman. 2010. Diversity of insect fauna in croplands of district Faisalabad. Pak. J. Agri. Sci., 47:245-250. 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. Isaacs, R., J. Tuell, A. Fiedler, M. Gardiner and D. Landis. 2009. Maximizing arthropod- mediated ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes: the role of native plants. Front. Ecol. Environ., 7: 196-203. Jacobson, M. Z. 2008. Short-term effects of agriculture on air pollution and climate in California, J. Geophys. Res., 113, D23101. Jacoby, M. 1908. Fauna of British India including Ceylon and Burma. Chrysomelidae 1. Eudopes, Camptosmes, Cyclica. Taylor and Francis, Red Lion Court, Fleet Street, London, pp. 1-534. Javanmardi, J., C. Stushnoff, E. Locke and J.M. Vivanco. 2003. Antioxidant activity and total phenolic content of Iranian Ocimum accessions. J. Food Chem., 83: 547-550. Jayakumar, S. and A. Sankari. 2010. Spider population and their predatory efficiency in different rice establishment techniques Aduthuria, Tamil Nadu. J. biopest., 3: 020- 027.
41
Jeanneret, P., B. Schüpbach, L. Pfiffner and T. Walter. 2003. Arthropod reaction to landscape and habitat features in agricultural landscapes. Landscape Ecol., 18: 253-263. Jeffries, M. J., and J. H. Lawton. 1985. Predator-prey ratios in communities of freshwater invertebrates: the role of enemy free space. Freshwater Biol., 15:105-112. Jensen, E. S. 1996. Grain yield, symbiotic N2 fixation and interspecific competition for inorganic N in pea-barley inter-crops. Plant Soil, 182: 25-38. Jensen, T.S., L. Dyring, B. Kristensen, B.O. Nielsen and E.R. Rasmussen. 1989. Spring dispersal and summer habitat distribution of Agonum dorsale (Col. Carabidae). Pedobiologia, 33:115-165. Jianguo, C. 1994. Community Structure of Common Arthropods in Wheat Fields of Qingzhou,Skandong at Winter Time[J]. cje., 5: 59-62. Jimoh, O. D., M. A. Ayodeji and B. Mohammed. 2003. Effects of agrochemicals on surface waters and groundwaters in the Tunga-Kawo (Nigeria) irrigation scheme. Hydrolog Sci. J., 48: 1013-1024. Johnson, R.J. and M.M. Beck. 1988. Influences of shelterbelts on wildlife management and biology. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 22: 301-335. Johnson, W.C., J.W. Todd, A.K. Culbreath and B.G. Mullinix. 1996. Role of warm-season weeds in spotted wilt epidemiology in the southeastern coastal plain. J. Agron., 88: 928-933. Joung, K. and J. Côté. 2000. A review of the environmental impacts of the microbial insecticide Bacillus thuringiensis. Horticultural R & D Centre, Saint-Jean-sur- Richelieu, Qc. Technical Bulletin No. 29. Kadappa, P. M., H. M. Singh, A. K. Singh, V. K. Singh. 2008. Arthropod diversity in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) crop and their correlation with abiotic factors. J. Appl. Zool. Res., 19:179-182. Kamboj, V.P., 2000. Herbal medicine. Curr. Sci., 78: 35-39. Khalil, I. A. and A. Jan. 2000. Cereal crops. In: Cropping Technology. National Book Foundation Islamabad. pp.169-203. Khan, R.E.A. 2010. Agricultural Land Expansion in Pakistan:An Empirical Analysis. EABR & ETLC Conference Proceedings. Dublin, Ireland.
42
Kirby, W.F. 1914. Fauna of British India including Ceylon and Burma. 1 Orthoptera, Acridiidae. Taylor and Frances, Red Lion Court, Fleet Street, London, pp. 1-276. Kleijn, D. and G.I.J. Snoeijing. 1997. Field boundary vegetation and the effects of agrochemical drift: botanical change caused by low levels of herbicide and fertilizer. J. Appl. Ecol., 34: 1413-1425. Kleijn, D., F. Kohler, A. Baldi, P. Batary, E. D. Concepcion, Y. Clough, M. Diaz, D. Gabriel, A. Holzschuh, E. Knop, A. Kovacs, E. J. P. Marshall, T. Tscharntke and J. Verhulst. 2009. On the relationship between farmland biodiversity and land- use intensity in Europe. Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 276: 903-909. Koricheva, J., C.P.H. Mulder, B. Schmid, J. Joshi and K. Huss-Danell. 2000. Numerical responses of different trophic groups of invertebrates to manipulations of plant diversity in grasslands. Oecologia, 125: 271-282. Kovach, W. 2003. (Ver 3.13f): Multivariate statistical package, Kovach computing
services, wales, UK.
Králová, K. and E. Masarovièová. 2006. Plants for the future. Ecol. Chem. Eng., 13:11. Krauss J., I. Gallenberger and I. Steffan-Dewenter. 2011. Decreased Functional Diversity and Biological Pest Control in Conventional Compared to Organic Crop Fields. PLoS ONE, 6(5): e19502. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0019502 Kumar, B., R. P. R. Sharma and S. B. Singh. 2000. Yield and Nitrogen uptake in Wheat grown after different Kharif crops. Indian J. of Agric. Res., 34: 239-242. Kumarasinghe, N.C. 1999. Insect fauna associated with sugarcane plantations in Sri Lanka Division of Pest Management, Sugarcane Research Institute, Uda Walawe 70190, Sri Lanka. Kurz, I., H. Tunney and C.E Coxon . 2005. The impact of agricultural management practices on nutrient losses to water: data on the effects of soil drainage characteristics. Water Sci. Technol., 51:73-81. Kutschbach-Brohl, L., B.E. Washburn, G.E. Bernhardt, R.B. Chipman and L.C. Francoeu. 2010. Arthropods of semi-natural grassland in an urban environment: the John F. Kennedy International Airport, New York. J. Insect Conserv., 14:347-358.
43
Landis, D.A., S.D. Wratten and G.M. Gurr. 2000. Habitat management to conserve natural enemies of arthropod pests in agriculture. Annu. Rev. Entomol., 45: 175- 201. LaSalle, J. 1999. Insect biodiversity in agroecosystems: function, value and optimization. In Wood, D. and Lenne, J. M.(eds) Agrobiodiversity: Characterization, Utilization and Management, CABI Publishing . New York, pp: 155-182. Latha, P.G. and K.R.Panikkar. 1999. Modulatory effects of Ixora coccinea flower on cyclophosphamide-induced toxicity in mice. Phytother. Res., 13: 517-520. Laurence, W.F., T. E. Lovejoy, H.L. Vasconcelos, E. M. Bruna, R.K. Didham, P.C. Stouffer, C. Gascon, R.O. Bierregaard, S. G. Laurance and E. Sampaio. 2002. Ecosystem decay of Amazonian Forest fragments: a 22-year investigation. Conserv. Biol., 16: 605-618. Lawton, J.H. 1994. What do species do in ecosystems? Oikos 71:367-374. Lawton, J. H. 1983. Plant architecture and the diversity of phytophagus insects. Annu. Rev. Entomol., 28:23-29. Lei, L. 2009. Phytochemical and pharmacological perspectives of wheat grain and lupin seed. PhD thesis, Southern Cross University, Lismore, NSW. Liira, J., S. Torsten, A. Tsipe, A. Paul, A. Isabel, B. Debra, B. Regula, B. Roman, B. Françoise, D. Geert, D. Raphaël, D. Jolanda, E. J. Peter, H. Roman, H. Felix, K. Stefan, K. Ingolf, L. Didier, M. Pavlina, R. Martina, S. Oliver, S. J.M. Marinus, van W. K.R.E.Walter, B. Rob and Z. Martin. 2008. Plant functional group composition and large-scale species richness in the agricultural landscapes of Europe. J. Veg. Sci., 19:3-14. Lövei, G. L. and K. D. Sunderland. 1996. Ecology and behaviour of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Ann. Rev. of Entomol., 41: 231-256. Ludwig, J.A. and F.R. James. 1988. Statistical Ecology: A primer on methods and computing. A Willey-International Publication, New York, pp.1-337. Magurran, A. E. 1988. Ecological Diversity and its Measurement. Princeton University Press, New Jersey.
44
Mahmood, S. U., M. H. Bashir, M. Afzal and B.S. Khan. 2011. Estimation of Germination Losses Caused by Mites in Wheat drawn from Farmer's Holdings of Tehsil Toba Tek Singh. Pak. Entomol., 33: 143-146. Mahmood-Ul-Hassan, M., T.L. Gulraiz, S.A. Rana and A. Javid. 2010. The Diet of Indian Flying-Foxes (Pteropus giganteus) in Urban Habitats of Pakistan. Acta Chiropterol., 12:341-347. Malik, K.B. and M.H. Gurmani. 2005. Cane Production Guide Dewan Farooque Sugarcane Research Institute Dewan City, District Thatta, Sind Pakistan. Malik, S. 1992. A Study of Rural Poverty in Pakistan with Special Reference to Agricultural Price Policy. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Sussex, United Kingdom. Malik, Z.I., M.N. Amin and Y. Irfan. 2011. Training Manual Use of Data for Educational Planning and Management. National Education Management Information System Academy of Educational Planning and Management Ministry of Professional and Technical Training Islamabad. pp.125. Malschi, D. 2003. Research on the integrated wheat pests control (Actual strategy of integrated pests management as part of agro-ecological system for sustainable development of wheat crop, in Transylvania). Agricultural Research and Development Station (A.R.D.S.), 401100 Turda, Cluj County. Mani, M. S. 1968. Ecology and Biogeography of High Altitude Insects. The Hague: Dr. W. Junk BV Publishers : pp. 524. Marshall, A.K. 1916. Fauna of British India including Ceylon and Burma. Coleoptera: Rhynchophora. Curculionidae. Taylor and Frances, Red Lion Court, Fleet Street, London, pp. 1-367. Marshall, E.J.P. and A.C. Moonen. 2002. Field margins in northern Europe: their functions and interactions with agriculture. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 89: 5-21. Marshall, E.J.P. and A.C. Moonenb. 2002. Field margins in northern Europe: their functions and interactions with agriculture. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 89: 5-21. Marshall, E.J.P., W.K. Brownt, N.D. Boatman, P.J.W. Lutman, G.R. Squire and L.K. Ward. 2009. The role of weeds in supporting biological diversity within crop fields. The Official Journal of the European Weed Research Soc., 43: 88-89.
45
Marshall, J., H. Jones, R. Karsten and R. Wardle. 2002: Can eddies set ocean stratification? J. Phys. Oceaongr., 32, 26-39. McGregor, S.E. 1979. Insect pollination of cultivated crop plants. Handbook No. 496, US Deptt. of Agri., Washington, DC. Mead , F. W. 1978. Sugarcane aphid, Melanaphis sacchari (Zehntner)--Florida--New Continental United States Record. Cooperative Plant Pest Report, 3: 475. Meagher, R. L. and J. C. Legaspi. 2003. within-field distribution of three Homopteran species in Texas Sugarcane. Southwest. entomol., 28:1. Meek, B., D. Loxton, T. Sparks, R. Pywell, H. Pickett and M. Nowakowski. 2002. The effect of arable field margin composition on invertebrate bio-diversity. Biol. Conserv., 106: 259 -271. Moonen, A. and P. Barberi. 2007. Functional biodiversity: An agroecosystem approach. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 127: 7-21. Moonen, P., B. Blocken, S. Roels and J. Carmeliet. 2006. Numerical modeling of the flow conditions in a closed-circuit low-speed wind tunnel, International Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 94: 699-723 pp. Morley, C. 1913. Fauna of British India including Ceylon and Burma. Hymenoptera 3. Ichneumones Deltoidei-reprint. Taylor and Frances, Red Lion Court, Fleet Street, London, pp. 1-531. Morris, H. and D.F. Waterhouse. 2001. The distribution and importance of arthropod pests and weeds of agriculture in Myanmar. AClAR Monograph, 67: 73 pp. Morris, R. F. 1960. Sampling insect populations. Ann. Rev. Entomol., 5:243-264. Mujtaba, G. and M. A. Khan. 2007. Check list of medicinal plants of siran valley mansehrapakistan. Leaflet Quaid-I-Azam University, Islamabad-Pakistan. pp.15. Mustafa, U. and P.L. Pingali. 1995. Intensification-induced degradation irrigated infrastructure: The case water logging and salinity in Pakistan. The Pakistan development Review, 34: 733-750. Nasir, E. and S. I. Ali. 1993. Flora of Pakistan Nos. Pak. Agric. Res. Counc. Islamabad, pp. 1-172. Nasir, S., W. Akram, F. Ahmed and S.T. Sahi. 2011. Biodiversity of staphylinids in cropped area of the Punjab (Pakistan). Pak. J. Agri. Sci., 48:125-128.
46
Nathiya, M. and D. Dorcus. 2012. Preliminary phytochemical and anti-bacterial studies on Physalis minima Linn. Int. J. Curr. Sci., 24-30 Nayyar, M. M., M. Shafi, T. Mahmood and A.M. Randhwa. 1995. Effect of herbicides on monocot weeds in wheat. J. Agric. Res., 32: 149-155. Nazrullaev, S. S., I. A. Bessonova and K. S. Akhmedkhodzhaeva (2001). Estrogenic activity as a function of chemical structure in Haplophyllum quinoline alkaloids. Chemistry of Natural Compounds. 37:551-555. Nisar, M., M. Qayum, M.R. Shah, W.A. Kaleem, I. Ali and M. Zia-Ul-Haq. 2010a. Antimicrobial screening of Impatiens bicolor royle. Pak. J. Bot., 42: 523-526. Nisar, M., W.A. Kaleem, M. Qayum, A. Hussain, M. Zia-Ul-Haq, I. Ali and M.I. Choudhary. 2011. Biological screening of Zizyphus oxyphylla Edgew stem. Pak. J. Bot., 43: 311-317. Nisar, M., W.A. Kaleem, M. Qayum, M. Zia-Ul-Haq, I. Ali and M.I. Choudhary. 2010b. Biological screening of Zizyphus oxyphylla edgew leaves. Pak. J. Bot., 42: 4063- 4069. Norris, R.F and M. Kogan. 2005. Ecology interactions between weeds and arthropods. Ann. Rev. Entomol., 50:479-503. Noss, R.F. 1990. Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: a hierarchical approach. Conserv. Biol., 4: 355-364. Obdoni, B. O. and P. O. Ochuko. 2001. Phytochemical studies and comparative efficacy of the crude extracts of some Homostatic plants in Edo and Delta States of Nigeria. Global J. Pure Appl. Sci., 8b:203-208. Odum, E. P. 1971. Fundamentals of Ecology, 3rd edn.,W. B. Saunders, Philadelphia, PA. Oerke, E. C. and H.W. Dehne, 2004. Safe-guarding production-losses in major crops and the role of crop protection. Crop Protection, 23:275-285. Offermann F. and H. Nieberg (a cura di). 2000. Economic Performance of Organic Farms in Europe. Organic Farming in Europe. Economics and Policy, Volume 5. Hohenheim, Universität Hohenheim. Okwu, D. E. 2001. Evaluation of the chemical composition of indigenous spices and flavouring agents. Global J. Pure Appl. Sci., 7: 455-459.
47
Okwu, D. E. and I. N.Emenike. 2006. Evaluation of the phyto-nutrients and vitamins content of the citrus fruit. International J. Molecular Med. Advan. Sci., 2:1-6. Okwu, D. E. and O. D. Omodamiro. 2005. Effect of hexane extract and phytochemical content of Xylopia aethiopica and Ocimum gratissium on uterus of Guinea pig . Bio-Rese., 3: 40-44.
Olfert. O., D. G. Johnson, S. A. Brandt and A. G. Thomas. 2002. Use of arthropod diversity and abundance of evaluate cropping system. Agron. J., 94: 210-216.
Paine, T.D., J.G. Millar, T.S. Bellows, Jr., L.M. Hanks and J.R. Gould. 1993. Integrating classical biological control with plant health in the urban forest. J. Arbori., 19: 125-130. Paoletti, M. G. and G. G. Lorenzoni. 1989. Agroecology patterns in Northern Italy. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 27:139-154. Patwardhan, B., A.D.B. Vaidhya and M. Chorghade. 2004. Ayurveda and Natural products drug discovery. Curr. Sci., 86: 789-799. Penagos, D. I., R. Magallanes, J. Valle, J. Cisneros, A. M. Martinez, D. Goulson, J. W. Chapman, P. Caballero, R. D. Cave, and T. Williams. 2003. Effect of weeds on insect pests of maize and their natural enemies in southern Mexico. Int. J. Pest Manage., 49:155-161. Perfecto, I. 1990. Indirect and direct effects in a tropical agro-ecosystem: the maize-pest- ant system in Nicaragua. Ecology, 71: 2125-2134. Perfecto, I. and J. Vandermeer. 2002. Quality of agroecological matrix in a tropical montane landscape: ants in coffee plantations in southern Mexico. Conserv. Biol., 16: 174-182. Pfiffner, L. and H. Luka. 2000. Overwintering of arthropods in soil of arable fields and adjacent semi-natural habitats. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 78: 215-222. Piper, J.K. 1999. Natural systems agriculture. In W.W. Collins and C.O. Qualset (eds). Biodiversity in Agroecosystems. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. p. 167-196.
48
Pitan, O. O. R. and J. A. Odebiyi. 2001. Crop losses in cowpea due to the pod-sucking bugs Riptortus dentipes, Mirperus jaculus, Anoplocnemis curvipes and Nezara viridula. International Journal of Tropical Insect Science. 21: 237-241. Pocock, R.I. 1900a. Arachinda In: the Fauna of British India Including Ceylon and Burma, W.T. Blandford (ed.). Reprintned in 1975. New Delhi: Today and tomorrow ̓ s printers and publishers, pp. 1-279. Pope, R.D. 1953. Handbooks for the identification of British insects. Coleoptera: Coccinellidae and Sphingidae. Taylor and Frances, Red Lion Court, Fleet Street, London, pp. 1-12. Posey, F. R., W. H. White, F. P F. Reay-Jones, K. Gravois, M. E. Salassi, B. R. Leonard, and T. E. Reagan. 2006. Sugarcane Borer (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) Management Threshold Assessment on Four Sugarcane Cultivars. J. Econ. Entomol., 99: 966- 971. Prakash, C.S. and G. Conko. 2004. Technology that will save billions from starvation. The American Enterprise, pp. 16-20. Pratt, H.S. 1935. A Manual of the common Invertebrate animals (Exclusive of insects). Maple Press Company, New York, pp. 320-553.
Quddus, M.A. and U. Mustafa. 2011. Comparative Advantage of Major Crops Production in Punjab: An Application of Policy Analysis Matrix. The Lahore Journal of Economics, 16: 63-94. Quimby, P.C., L.R. King and W.E. Grey. 2002. Biological control as a means of enhancing the sustainability of crop/ land management systems. Agr. Ecosystems Environ., 88: 147-152. Rajput, M. J., A. S. Larik and M. I. Soomoro. 1992. Evaluation of herbicides for weed control and their cost benefit assessment in lentil (Lens culinaris L.). Pak. J. Weed Sci. Res., 5: 25-32. Rana, N., S.A. Rana, H.A. Khan and A. Sohail. 2010. Assessment of possible threats to soil macro-invertebrate diversity in wheat fields from high input farming. Int. J. Agric. Biol., 12: 801-808.
49
Rao, V. R. S. and M.V.S. Chalam. 2007. Biodiversity of plant hopper fauna (Delphacidae, Hemiptera) associated with rice and sugarcane crop-ecosystems in South India. Hexapoda, 14:129-141. Rashid, A. and M. Arshad. 2002. Medicinal plant diversity, threat imposition and interaction of a mountain people community. In Proceeding of Workshop on Curriculum Development in Applied Ethnobotany. Published by the Ethnobotany Project, WWF Pakistan, 34-D/2, Sahibzada Abdul Qayuum Road Peshawar, Pakistan. pp. 84-90. Raza, A. 2011. Grain and Feed Annual 2011. USDA foreign Agriculture service, Global agriculture information network. Raza, A. 2011. Grain and Feed Annual. GAIN Report. Richards, A.J. 2001. Does Low Biodiversity Resulting from Modern Agricultural Practice Affect Crop Pollination and Yield?. Ann. Bot., 88: 165-172. Riedel, W. 1995. Spatial distribution of hibernating polyphagous predators within field boundaries. Acta Jutlandica, 70: 221-226. Robert F. Norris and M. Kogan. 2005. Ecology of interactions between weeds and arthropods. Ann. Rev. Entomol., 50: 479-503. Roberts, T.J. 1997. Mammals of Pakistan. Revised Ed. Oxford Univ. Press. Oxford. Robinson, R. and W. Sutherland. 2002. Post-war changes in arable farming and biodiversity in Great Britain. J. Appl. Ecol., 39: 157-176. Rodriguez. E., R. Sultan and A. Hilliker. 2004. Negative Effects of Agriculture on Our Environment. Effects of Agriculture 28 The Traprock, 28-32. Romero, A., L. Chamorro and F. X. Sans. 2008. Weed diversity in crop edges and inner fields of organic and conventional dryland winter cereal crops in NE Spain. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 124: 97-104. Roopashree T. S., R. Dang, R. H. S. Rani and C. Narendra. 2008. Antibacterial activity of antipsoriatic herbs: Cassia tora, Momordica charantia and Calendula officinalis. International J. App. Res. Nat.l Prod., 1: 20-28. Root, R.S. 1973. Organization of a plant-arthropod association in simple and diverse habitats: the fauna of collards (Brassica oleracea). Ecol. Monograph., 43: 95-120.
50
Rowson, J. M. 1958. Alkaloids and plant taxonomt. Proceedings of the linnean society of London. 169: 212-216. Rubina, A.R. 1998. Need of conservation for endangered Medicinal Plants”, Proceedings of wild medicinal plant resources of Northern Pakistan, May 11-12, PFI, Peshawar, Pakistan. Ruby, T., S. A. Rana, M. Afzal and M. Hameed. 2010. Biodiversity of Foliage Arthropods in the Mixed Crop Zone and Cotton-Wheat Zone in Punjab Province, Pakistan. Int. J. Agric. Biol., 12:861-866. Ruby, T., S. A. Rana, N. Rana, T. P. Inayat, M. J. I. Siddiqui and N. A. Khan. 2011. Weeds as viable habitat for arthropod species in croplands of central Punjab. Pak. J. Agri. Sci., 48:141-148. Russel, E.P. 1989. Enemy hypothesis: a review of the effect of vegetational diversity on predatory insects and parasitoids. Environ. Entomol., 18: 590-599. Savage, G.P. 1993. Saponins. In: Encyclopedia of Food Science, Food Technology and Nutrition. R. Macrae, R.K. Robinson and M.J. Sadler (eds) Academic Press 24/28 Oval Road, London NW17DX. pp. 3998-4001. Savory, T. 1964. Arachnida. Academic Presss, London and New York. 291pp. Schläpfer F, Schmid B (1999) Ecosystem effects of bio-diversity: a classification of hypotheses and exploration of empirical results. Ecol. Appl., 9:893-912. Schuier, M., H. Sies, B. Illek and H. Fischer. 2005. Cocoa-related flavonoids inhibit CFTR mediated chloride transport across T84 human colon epithelia. J. Nutr. 135: 2320-5. Seufert, V., N. Ramankutty and J.A. Foley. 2012. Comparing the yields of organic and conventional agriculture. Nature, 485:229-232. Sevory, T.H. 1964. Arachnida. Academic Press, London. Ent QL 451. S28, pp. 1-291. Shafiq-Ur-Rehman, M. 2011. Sugar Annual. GAIN Report. Shah, G.M. and M.A. Khan. 2006. Check List of Medicinal Plants of Siran Valley Mansehra-Pakistan. Ethnobotanical Leaflets, 10: 63-71. Shahid, M. 2003. Principles of Insect Pest Management. Dept. Ento. Agric. Univ. Pesh. Pak., 172-173.
51
Shahid, M. A., Dr. M.A. Parvez, Dr. R. M. Balal, T. Abbas. 2011. Wheat and Rice of Pakistan in the Scenerio of WTO. Shalaby, F.F. 1974. Studies on insects associated with weeds. Ph.D. Thesis, Fac. of Agric., Cairo Univ., 278 pp. Shanower, T. G. and K. A. Hoelmer. 2004. Biological control of wheat stem sawflies: past and future. J. Agric. Urban Entomol., 21: 197-221. Sharma, V. K., A. Bhattacharya, A. Kumar and H. K Sharma. 2007. Health Benefits of Tea Consumption. Tropical J. Pharmaceutical Res., 6: 785-792. Sheikh, B.A., S.A. Sheikh and G.H. Soomro. 2005. Pakistan Agriculture in Global Perspective. Pak. J. Agri., Agril. Engg., Vet. Sc., 21(2). Shinwari, Z.K. 2010. Medicinal plants research in Pakistan. J. Med. Plants Res., 4: 161- 176. Showler, A. T., T. E. Reagan and R. M. Knaus. 1990. Sugarcane weed community interactions with arthropods and pathogens. Int. J. Tropical Insect Sci., 11: 1-11. Showler, A.T. and S.M. Greenberg. 2003. Effects of weeds on selected arthropod herbivore and natural enemy populations, and on cotton growth and yield. Environ. Entomol., 32:39-50. Siddiqui, A. A. and M. Ali. 1997. Practical Pharmaceutical chemistry. Ist ed., CBS Publishers and Distributors, New Delhi, pp. 126-131. Siddiqui, M.J.I., S.A. Rana, N. Rana and A. Sohail. 2005. Biodiversity of insects in high and low input wheat (Triticum aestivum) fields agro-ecosystems of Punjab. Pak. Entomol., 27: 2. Siemann, E, D. Tilman, J. Haarstad and M. Ritchie. 1998. Experimental Tests of the Dependence of Arthropod Diversity on Plant Diversity. vol. 152, no. 5 the american naturalist. Smith, J., S. G. Potts, B. A. Woodcock and P. Eggleton. 2008. Can arable field margins be managed to enhance their biodiversity, conservation and functional value for soil macrofauna?. Journal of Applied Ecology, 45: 269-278. Snyder, W.E. and A.R. Ives. 2003. Interactions between specialist and generalist natural enemies: parasitoids, predators, and pea aphid biocontrol. Ecology, 84: 91-107 pp.
52
Sofowara, A. 1993. Medicinal plants and Traditional medicine in Africa. Spectrum Books Ltd, Ibadan, Nigeria. p. 289. Sofowara, A. 1993. Medicinal plants and Traditional medicine in Africa. Spectrum Books Ltd, Ibadan, Nigeria, p. 289. Southwood, R.E. and M.J. Way. 1970. Ecological background to pest management. In: Rabb, R.C., Guthrie, F.E. (Eds.), Concepts of Pest Management. North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, pp. 6-29. Speight, M. R. and J. H. Lawton. 1976. The influence of weed cover on the mortality imposed on artificial prey by predatory ground beetles in cereal fields. Oecologia, 23:211-223. Stauth, D. 1993. Studies force new view on biology of flavonoids", EurekAlert. Adapted from a news release issued by Oregon State University. URL accessed . Stephens, J.F.A. 1839. Manual of British Coleoptera, or Beetles. Taylor and Francis , Red Lion Court, Fleet Street, London, pp.1-443. Stoate, C., N. D. Boatman, R. J. Borralho, C. R. Carvalho, G. R. de Snoo and P. Eden. 2001. Ecological impacts of arable intensification in Europe. J. Environ. Manage., 63:337-365. Stork, N.E. 1991. Insect diversity: facts, fiction and speculation. Biol. J. Linn. Soc., 35: 321–337. Strong, D.R., J.H. Lawton and R. Southwood. 1984. Insects on Plants. Community Patterns and Mechanisms. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford. Talbot, G. 1939. Fauna of British India including Ceylon and Burma. Butterflies. Papilionidae, Pieridae. Taylor and Frances, Red Lion Court, Fleet Street, London, pp. 1-600. Talbot, G. 1947. Butterflies. Vol. 2. Danaidae to Acraeidae. Taylor and Frances, Red Lion Court, Fleet Street, London, pp. 1-506. Teodorescu, I. and D. Cogălniceanu, 2005. Rapid assessment of species diversity changes after pesticide application in agricultural landscapes. App. Ecol. Environ. Res., 4: 55-62. Teyssèdre, A. and D. Couvet. 2007. Expected impact of agriculture expansion on the world avifauna. C. R. Biologies, 330: 247-254.
53
Thies, C. and T. Tscharntke. 1999. Landscape structure and biological control in agroecosystems. Science, 285: 893-895 Thomas, C.F.G. and E.J.P. Marshall. 1999. Arthropod abundance and diversity in differently vegetated margins of arable fields. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 72:131- 144. Thomas, C.G., L. Parkinson, G.J.K. Griffiths, A.F. Garcia, E.J.P. Marshall. 2001. Aggregation and temporal stability of carabid beetle distributions in field and hedgerow habitats. J. Appl. Ecol., 38:100-109. Tickder, B.K. 1982. The Fauna of India. Spiders: Araneae. Vol. II. Director Zoological Survey of India, Calcuta, pp. 1-533. Tickder, B.K. 1987. Handbook of Indian Spiders. Zoological Survey of India, Calcuta, pp. 1-251. Tilman, D. 1999. The ecological consequences of changes in biodiversity: a search for general principles. Ecology, 80: 1455-1474. Trease, G. E. and W.C. Evans. 1989. Pharmacognsy. 11th edn. Brailliar Tiridel Can. Macmillian publishers. Triplehorn, C.A. 1972. A review of the Genus Zopherus of the world (Coleoptera: tenebrionidae). Taylor and Frances, Red Lion Court, Fleet Street, London, pp. 1- 24. Tscharntke, T. 2000. Parasitoid populations in the agricultural landscape. In: Hochberg ME and Ives AR (eds) Parasitoid Population Biology, pp 235–254. Princeton University Press, Princeton. Tscharntke, T., A. M. Klein, A. Kruess, I. Steffan-Dewenter, and C. Thies. 2005. Landscape perspectives on agricultural intensification and biodiversity-ecosystem service management. Ecology Letters, 8:857-874. Tscharntke, T., T. Rand and F. Bianchi. 2005. The landscape context of trophic interactions: insect spillover across the crop– noncrop interface. Ann. Zool. Fennici., 42: 321-332. Tulli, M.J., F.B. Cruz, A. Herrel, B. Vanhooydonck and V. Abdala. 2009. The interplay between claw morphology and microhabitat use in neotropical iguanian lizards. Zoology, 112: 379-392.
54
Turner, N. J., I. J. Davidson-Hunt and M. O. Flaherty. 2003. Living on the Edge: Ecological and Cultural Edges as Sources of Diversity for Social–Ecological Resilience. Human Ecol., 31: 3. Urama, K. C. 2005. Land-use intensification and environmental degradation: empirical evidence from irrigated and rain-fed farms in south eastern Nigeria. J. Environ. Manage., 75: 199-217. Ur-Rahman, M., 1999. Medicinal plants of Swat, Udyana Today, News Letter, 6. p.9. Ur-Rahman, M., 2000. Medicinal plants of Swat, Udyana Today, News Letter, 7. p.7. Ur-Rahman, M., 2001. Medicinal plants of Swat, Udyana Today, News Letter, 8. p.10. Van Buskirk, J. and Y. Willi. 2004 Enhancement of farmland biodiversity within set-aside land. Conserv. Biol., 18: 987-994. Van Emden, F.I. 1965. Fauna of British India and adjacent countries. Diptera. Vol. 7. Mucidae part I. Manager of publication, Governament of India, pp. 1-648. Van-Burden, T. P. and W.C. Robinson. 1981. Formation of complexes between protein and tannin acid. J. Agric. Food Chem., 1:77. Vandermeer, J., Perfecto, I. (1995): Breakfast of biodiversity: the truth about rainforest destruction. Food First Books, Oakland. 185pp. Varela, A. M. 2001. Managing Agricultural Resources for Biodiversity Conservation. Case study Brazil, Cuba and Mexico. Study commissioned by ELCI., pp. 1-43. Von Hayek, C.M.F. 1979. Addition and corrections to A reclassification of the subfamily Agrypninae (Coleopetra: Elateridae), Wrappers. Bull. Br. Mus. Nat. Hist. Ent., 38:79. Wadia, D.N. 1953. Geology of India. 3rd Edition. McMillon Pub. Lonton, England. Wajid, S. A. 2004. Modeling development, growth and yield of wheat under different sowing dates, plant populations and irrigation levels. Ph.D. Thesis Dept. of Agron. University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan. Waller, G. R. 1978. Alkaloid Biology and Metabolism in Plants Springer. Wazir, S.M., A.A. Dasti and J. Shah. 2004. Common medicinal plants of Chapursan valley, Gojal II, Gilgit-Pakistan. J. Res., 15: 41-43.
55
White, W. H., T. E. Reagan and O. Sosa, Jr. 1995. The sugarcane Delphacid (Homoptera: Delphacidae) extends its North American range into Louisiana. Florida Entomol., 78: 617-619. Willey, R.W. 1979. Intercropping - Its Importance and research Needs. Part 1. Competition and Yield Advantages. Field Crop Abstracts, 32: 1-10. Winqvist, C., J. Bengtsson, T. Aavik, F. Berendse, L. W. Clement, S. Eggers, C. Fischer, A. Flohre, F. Geiger, J. Liira, T. Pärt, C. Thies, T. Tscharntke, W. W. Weisser and R. Bommarco. 2011. Mixed effects of organic farming and landscape complexity on farmland biodiversity and biological control potential across Europe. J. App. Ecol., 48, 570-579. Wratten, S. D. and W. Powell. 1991. Cereal aphids and their natural enemies. pp. 233-257 in L.G.Firbank, N.Carter, J. F. Darbyshire and G.R. Potts (Eds). The ecology of temperate cereal fields. Oxford, Blackwell Scientific Publications Ltd. Young, O. P. and G. B. Edwards. 1990. Spiders in united states field crops and their potential effect on crop pests. J. Arachnol., 18:1-27. Zafar, M., M.A. Khan, M. Ahmad, G. Jan, S. Sultana, K. Ullah, S.K. Marwat, F. Ahmad, A. Jabeen, A. Nazir, A.M.Z.R. Abbasi, Z. Ullah. 2010. Elemental analysis of some medicinal plants used in traditional medicine by atomic absorption spectrophotometer (AAS). J. Med. Plants Res., 4: 1987-1990. Zia-Ul-Haq M, Shahid SA, Ahmad S, Qayum M, khan I (2012). Antioxidant potential of various parts of Ferula assafoetida L. J. Med. Plants. Res., 6: 3254-3258.