View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Binus University Repository Article-13 Eco. Env. & Cons. 24 (1) : 2018; pp. (81-90) Copyright@ EM International ISSN 0971–765X The difference on Arthropod communities’ structure within show caves and wild caves in Gunungsewu karst area, Indonesia Isma Dwi Kurniawan1, R.C. Hidayat Soesilohadi1, Cahyo Rahmadi2, Rezzy Eko Caraka3 and Bens Pardamean4 1Faculty of Biology, Universitas Gadjah Mada 2 Museum Zoologicum Bogoriense Indonesian Institute of Science (LIPI) 3School of Mathematical Sciences, Faculty of Science and Technology, The National University of Malaysia 4Computer Science Department, BINUS Graduate Program – Master of Computer Science, Bina Nusantara University (Recieved 15 August, 2017; accepted 28 September, 2017) ABSTRACT This study was conducted to determine the differences on Arthropod communities’ structure and climatic- edaphic factors within wild caves and show caves in Gunungsewu karst area, also analyze the climatic and edaphic components that give the strongest influence on Arthropods community. Arthropod Sampling was done by hand collecting, pitfall and bait traps, and Berlese extractor. The measured components of climatic factor comprise light intensity, air temperature, RH, and CO2 level, while the edaphic comprise soil temperature, SOC, N, P, soil moisture, and pH. Data wereanalyzedby richness, diversity, evenness, and dissimilarity indices measurement. We also conducted statistical analyze through Pearson correlation. All Arthropod samples were classified into six classes, 30 orders, and 209 morphospecies. The dark zones of wild caves with low human disturbance have lower richness, diversity, and evenness than the dark zones of show caves. Species richness of Arthropods in Show Caves is not always lower than wild caves, but the populations of common cavernicolous Arthropods (Rhaphidophora sp., Trachyjulus tjampeanus, Charon sp. and Sarax javensis) in show caves are almost smaller than wild caves. The Arthropod communities of wild caves with low disturbance have high dissimilarity with show cave communities. Highly disturbed show caves possess higher air temperature, light intensity, CO2, soil temperature and pH compared to wild caves particularly in the dark zone, while soil moisture, SOC, N, and P are lower. Light intensity, soil temperature, and SOC show the highest coefficient of correlation values with the indicators of Arthropods community. In conclusion, the recent study indicates that there are differences in the community structure of Arthropods and climatic-edaphic conditions within wild caves and show caves. Light intensity, soil temperature, and SOC give the strongest influences on Arthropod communities’ structure. Key words : Climatic, Edaphic, Cave Management, Conservation. Introduction ognized as a Global Geopark Network (GGN UNESCO). Gunungsewu has many karst caves that Gunungsewu is one of karst areas in Indonesia that hold great potentials in both scientific and economic has been designated as a conservation area and rec- values. Currently, many wild caves in Gunungsewu *Corresponding author’s email: [email protected] 82 Eco. Env. & Cons. 24 (1) : 2018 have been developed into show caves. Developing Arthropods communities’ structure and climatic- caves as the tourist attraction is considered more edaphic factors within wild caves and show caves in sustainable and environmentally friendly than an- Gunungsewu karst area, also analyze the climatic other potential use of caves such as for an extractive and edaphic components that give the strongest in- industry. fluences on Arthropods community. The result of Unfortunately, show cave is often managed less this study is expected to take accurate account of the wisely and economically oriented only. This man- regulatory arrangements and evaluation of show agement has caused many caves to lose their specific caves management. environmental characters due to artificial changes made by cave managers. Furthermore, some of the Materials and Methods caves have even developed into mass tourists and over-exploited. Whereas, the cave has unique and This study was conductedatthreeshow caves (Gong, typical environmental characters such as the ab- Tabuhan, Semedi) and threewild caves (Paesan, sence of natural light, stable temperature, high rela- Kalisat, Ponjen) of Gunungsewu karst area located tive humidity, high level of CO2 and low O2. Also, in the middle of Java Island, Indonesia during De- the lack of food sources (Palacious-Vargas et al., cember 2016-February 2017. Every cave is divided 2011; Simoes et al., 2015; Bento et al., 2016). These into threecommunities determined based on cave characters make cave ecosystem become one of the zones: light, twilight and dark zones(Culver and most fragile ecosystems (Culver and White, 2012; White, 2005). Jones, 2016). Some previous studies indicated that Arthropods Sampling cave development for tourism identified as one of the majors’ threat to cave biodiversity and ecosys- Arthropods collection was done by hand collecting, tem (Macud and Nuneza, 2014). pitfall and baits traps, and soil extraction with Most animals living inside caves were considered Berlese extractor. The direct collection was done as “cavernicolous” and classified to accidental, with the help of gloves, brushes, and tweezers for 90 trogloxene, troglophile, and troglobite according to minutes (30 minutes x 3 observers) in each zone. Pit- the degree of using cave environment for their life fall traps were made by vial bottles (5 cm in diam- cycles (Barr, 1963; Romero, 2009). Arthropods are eter) and filled with 96% alcohol and glycerin (9:1 in the most abundant cavernicolous fauna that plays ratio), while the bait traps based on Hunt and Millar critical roles in cave ecosystem. They are maintain- (2001) design with cheese bait. Pitfall traps are in- ing the sustainability of food webs and the balance stalled in each cave zone of 5 pieces each, while the of cave ecosystem (Rahmadi, 2002). Changes in cave bait traps are two pieces and left for 48 hours. The environmental conditions due to tourism activities Berlese extractor’s modification used 15W bulb can disrupt the Arthropods community then dam- lamps and placed 20 cm above the samples. Samples age the entire cave ecosystem. of soil were taken as much as 1 liter (each zone 2 Until now, evaluation for show caves manage- samples) and extracted for four days. All collected ment in Indonesia is still scarcely undertaken. Ad- Arthropods are identified based on morphological verse impacts of tourism activities on cave ecosys- characters to the lowest possible taxon level. tems are not yet widely studied. Information about Abiotic Sampling the previous condition of show cave ecosystems is often insufficient, making trying to monitor the dy- The abiotic measurements include climatic and namics of ecosystem changes that occur. Compari- edaphic factors. Climatic factor measurement was son of the ecological condition of caves that have performed directly in the field. Light intensity was been developedinto show caves with unspoiled measured by lux meter (Lutron LX-107), air tem- caves (wild caves) can be used as an alternative way perature and humidity by logger (eTemperature to learn the influences of tourism activities on cave version 8.31), while CO2 level by CO2 meter (Telaire ecosystems sustainability. T7001). The measurement of edaphic factor com- Considering their essential roles in cave ecosys- prises soil temperature was carried out directly in tem, Arthropods can be used as an indicator to de- the field with soil thermometers. Besides, soil scribe the condition of cave ecosystem. The present samples were collected and tested in the laboratory study aims to determine the differences in of the Agency for Agricultural Research and Devel- KURNIAWAN ET AL 83 opment in Yogyakarta to measure the content of soil Table 1. The number of Arthropods morphospecies in organic carbon (SOC), nitrogen (N), phosphate (P), each order soil pH, and moisture. No Class Order/Group Number of Data Analysis Morphospecies 1 Arachnida Acari 28 The data were analyzed by calculating richness in- Amblypygi 2 dex according to Margalef: Aranea 44 D : (Dao-Hong, 2007) Opiliones (Laniatores) 2 Pseudoscorpiones 3 Diversity and evenness indices according to Sh- Schizomida 1 annon-Wienner: 2 Chilopoda Geophilomorpha 2 H’ : (Schowalter, 2011) Lithobiomorpha 1 Scolopendromorpha 1 E : (Pielou, 1966) H Scutigeromorpha 1 Moreover, dissimilarity index according to Bray- 3 Collembola Entomobryomorpha 20 Curtis: Poduromorpha 4 Dissimilarity : (Schowalter, Symphypleona 5 4 Crustacea Isopoda 3 2011). 5 Diplopoda Polydesmida 3 The Dissimilarity index calculation and dendro- Spirostreptida 2 gram of dissimilarity arrangement were performed 6 Insecta Blattodea 2 using MVSP program version 3.1. The statistical Coleoptera 28 analysis was taken through Pearson correlation test Dermaptera 1 using SPSS software version 23. Diplura 2 Diptera 9 Results and Discussions Hemiptera 5 Hymenoptera 20 Isoptera 1 Arthropods Taxa in All Caves Lepidoptera 1 Arthropods collected from all caves consist of 6 Microcoryphia 1 Neuroptera 1 classes, 30 orders, and 209 morphospecies. The num- Orthoptera 5 ber of morphospecies in each order can be seen in Psocoptera 3 Table 1. Insecta possesses the highest species rich- Thysanoptera 1 ness, followed by Arachnida, Collembola, Immature Insect 7 Myriapoda (Diplopoda and Chilopoda), and Crus- Total 209 tacea (Fig.