IMPACT OF WATER POLLUTION ON THE EXISTENCE

OF SOIL MACRO-FAUNA AMONG CAULIFLOWER

(BRASSICA OLERACEA L. VAR. BOTRYTIS) AND

TOMATO (SOLANUM LYCOPERSICUM L.) FIELDS

BY

SOBIA KANWAL

M.Phil. (GCUF)

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT

FOR THE DEGREE OF

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

IN

ZOOLOGY

DEPARTMENT OF ZOOLOGY, WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES

FACULTY OF SCIENCES

UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE

FAISALABAD

(2019)

i

ii

iii

iv

v

I dedicate this thesis to

my treasured Parents, my loving husband

and respected teachers

for their constant support, unconditional love and

encouragement

vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

In the name of ALLAH, the Most Gracious and the Most Merciful

First and foremost, praise is to ALLAH, the Almighty, and the greatest of all, on whom ultimately,

we depend for sustenance and guidance. I would like to thank ALLAH for giving me opportunity,

determination and strength to do my research.. May Peace and blessings of Allah be upon His

Prophet Muhammad (SAW) for whom HE created the whole universe.

I would like to express my special appreciation and thanks to my supervisor Dr. Naureen

Rana (Assistant Prof. Dept. Zoology, Wildlife and Fisheries, UAF) for being a tremendous mentor

for me. I would like to thank her for encouraging my research and for allowing me to grow as a

research scientist. I feel very fortunate to have an opportunity to work under her patient

supervision. I would also like to thank my respected committee members, Prof. Dr. Muhammad

Afzal (Dept. of Zoology, Wildlife and Fisheries, UAF) and Prof. Dr. Zafar Iqbal (Ex-Dean Faculty

of Animal Husbandry, UAF) for their brilliant comments and suggestions.

My heartfelt thanks toMr. Muhammad Zafar Iqbal Janjua (M. Phil, UAF), without

his keen interest and positive criticism, I would not be able to complete this project. A

cordial thanks to the really supportive and cooperative lab PhD fellows, Ms. Nazia Ehsan,

Muhammad Hanif, Shahla Nargis, Imran Ahmed Raja, Mahnoor Ijaz (M.Phil)

(U.A.Faisalabad) and other lab fellows for their support and encouragement.

Above and beyond all, my heartfelt gratitude to my family especially my sweet mom, my

husband Safdar Latif , brothers and sisters for their much-needed support, patience,

understanding, and encouragement in all possible ways and at every step of my degree.

SOBIA KANWAL

vii

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table

No.

Title

Page

No.

3.1 Operational conditions employed in the determination of toxic

metals by Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer 22

4.1.1a Overall population dynamics of invertebrate macro-fauna recorded

from Tomato and Cauliflower fields 29

4.1.1b

Relative Abundance of soil macro-fauna regarding different

species amongthree microhabitats in Tomato and Cauliflower

(Control and Treated) fields

29

4.1.1 c Taxa composition of invertebrate macro-fauna recorded from

Tomato and Cauliflower fields 30

4.1.2a Relative abundance of soil macro-fauna recorded up to order level

from Tomato fields (Control and treated) 34

4.1.2b Table 4.1.2b Relative abundance of soil macro-fauna orders

recorded from cauliflower fields (Control and treated) 35

4.1.3a Analysis of variance for abundance (log10 transformation) 53

4.1.3b Comparison of log10 (mean±SE) 53

4.1.4a Comparison (t-test) between treated and control for tomato crop

with respect to orders 54

4.1.4b Comparison (t-test) between treated and control for cauliflower

crop with respect to orders 54

4.1.5a

Comparison (t-test) between treated and control for tomato crop

with respect to species 55

4.1.5b Comparison (t-test) between treated and control for cauliflower

crop with respect to species 55

ix

4.2.1.a Sampling Wise Diversity Indices of Soil Macro-fauna recorded

from Tomato control fields 58

4.2.1.b Sampling Wise Diversity Indices of Soil Macro-fauna recorded

from Tomato treated fields 58

4.2.1.c Sampling Wise Diversity Indices of Soil Macro- fauna recorded

from Cauliflower control fields 59

4.2.1.d Sampling Wise Diversity Indices of Soil Macro- fauna recorded

from Cauliflower treatedfields 59

4.2.2 Shannon diversity index, Dominance, Evenness and Richness

regarding recorded taxa of soil macro-fauna. 62

4.2.3

Analysis of Variance table for comparison of average number of

Specimens showing non-significant difference between average

numbers of specimens in four types of fields

77

4.2.4a Comparison (t-test) between treated and control regarding Shannon

diversity index for tomato crop with respect to species. 78

4.2.4b

Comparison (t-test) between treated and control regarding Shannon

diversity index for cauliflower crop with respect to specie 78

4.3.1 Testing for equality of proportion of trophic level of soil macro-

fauna 87

4.4.1 Order-wise, species richness in tomato and cauliflower fields 90

4.4.2

Soil analysis of tomato and cauliflower fields (overall average

value of macro nutrients i.e. N, P, K; Micro nutrients i.e. Pb, Cr, Ni

and pH, EC)

92

4.4.3a

Soil analysis of tomato control fields (average value of macro

nutrients i.e. N, P, K; Micro nutrients i.e. Pb, Cr, Ni and pH, EC) 94

4.4.3b Soil analysis of tomato treated fields (average value of macro

nutrients i.e. N, P, K; Micro nutrients i.e. Pb, Cr, Ni and pH, EC) 94

x

4.4.3c Soil analysis of tomato control fields (average value of macro

nutrients i.e. N, P, K; Micro nutrients i.e. Pb, Cr, Ni and pH, EC) 95

4.4.3d

Soil analysis of tomato and cauliflower fields (overall average

value of macro nutrients i.e. N, P, K; Micro nutrients i.e. Pb, Cr,

Ni and pH, EC)

95

4.4.4 CCA of the association of the soil macro-fauna at the soil nutrients

from tomato and cauliflower (control and treated) fields 98

4.4.5 CCA of the association of the soil macro-fauna at the soil nutrients

from tomato (control and treated) fields 105

4.4.6 CCA of the association of the soil macro-fauna at the soil nutrients

from cauliflower(control and treated) fields 110

4.4.7

CCA of the association of the soil macro-fauna at the soil nutrients

as well as micro-habitats from the cauliflower control and treated

fields

114

xi

LIST OF FIGURES

Fig. No. Title Page

No.

3.1 Micro-habitats of each field; B= Boundary, M= Middle, C=Center 19

3.2a Pre-Harvest Cauliflower Treated field 20

3.2b Post-Harvest Tomato control field 20

3.2c Control vegetable fields 20

3.2d Quadrate Sampling 20

3.2.e Treated vegetable fields 20

3.2f Burlese funnel 20

3.3 Different phases of Soil Analysis 21

3.4 Atomic Absorption Instruments 23

4.1.1a Overall abundance of soil macro-fauna among Tomato and

Cauliflower(Control and Treated) fields 30

4.1.1b Distribution of soil invertebrates among microhabitats of selected

Tomato and Cauliflower (Control and Treated) fields 31

4.1.1c Taxonomic hierarchy of soil macro-fauna among Tomato and

Cauliflower (Control and Treated) fields 31

4.1.2a-d Relative abundance of different phylum of soils macro- fauna

among all four fields 33

4.1.3a-f Relative abundance of soil macro-fauna recorded from tomato

(control and treated) fields 39

4.1.3 g-i Relative abundance of soil macro-fauna recorded from

cauliflower (control and treated) fields 40

4.1.4a. Pie graph represent the overall relative abundance soil macro-

fauna fauna recorded from Tomato Treated fields 42

4.1.4b Pie graph represent the overall relative abundance soil macro-

fauna recorded from Tomato Control field 42

4.1.4c Pie graph represent the overall relative abundance soil macro-

fauna recorded from cauliflower treated field 42

4.1.4d Pie graph represents overall relative abundance soil macro-fauna

recorded from cauliflower control field 42

xii

4.1.5(a-

d)

Impact of humidity and temperature on soil macro-fauna among

Tomato Control fields 51

4.2.1a-d Impact of humidity and temperature on diversity of soil macro-

fauna among tomato control fields 66

4.2.1e-f Impact of humidity and temperature on dominance of soil macro-

fauna among tomato control fields 69

4.2.1i-l Impact of humidity and temperature on evenness of soil macro-

fauna among tomato control fields 71

4.2.1m-p Impact of humidity and temperature on richness of soil macro-

fauna among tomato control fields 73

4.2.2

Comparison of density of soil macro-fauna between tomato

control and treated fields (TT, Tomato Treated; TC Tomato

Control; CT, Cauliflower Treated; CC, Cauliflower Control)

74

4.2.3a

Comparison of sampling-wise density/ m2 of soil macro fauna

among tomato control and treated fields 76

4.2.3b:

Comparison of sampling-wise density/ m2 of soil macro fauna

among tomato control and treated fields 76

4.3 a-i

Trophic status of soil macro-fauna among tomato and cauliflower

fields (Fig 4.3.1 a-i) Tomato Control, Tomato Treated,

Cauliflower Control, Cauliflower Treated

85

4.4.1 CCA of abundance of soil macro-fauna at soil nutrients in tomato

and cauliflower fields 97

4.4.2 CCA of abundance of soil macro-fauna at soil nutrients in tomato

control and treated fields 104

4.4.3 CCA of abundance of soil macro-fauna at soil nutrients in

cauliflower control and treated fields 109

4.4.4 Correlation among soil macro-nutrients (N, P and K), micro-

nutrients (Pb, Cr and Ni) and pH, EC 114

xiii

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix

No. Title Page No.

Appen. 1 Order-wise comparision of soil macro fauna recorded from

tomato and cauliflower vegetable fields 185

Appen. 2 Family wise comparison of soil macro fauna recorded from

tomato and caulfiflower vegetable fields 186-195

Appen. 3 Species-wise relative abundance of tomato and cauliflower fields 195-201

Appen. 4

Soil analysis of tomato and cauliflower fields (Micro-habitat-wise

average value of macro-nutrients i.e. N, Pm K; micr-nutrients i.e.

Pb, Cr, Ni and pH, Ec); (B-Ave=boundary Average, M-Ave=

middle average, C= Ave= center average

202

Appen. 5 Trophic structure of soil macro funa recorded from tomato and

Caulflower (Control and Treated) field 203-225

Appen. 6 Sampling wise Temperature and Humidity record of both tomato

and cauliflower (control and treated fields) 226

Appen. 7 Protcol for N, P and K determination 227-230

xiv

ABSTRACT

Contaminated sewage wastewater intended for irrigation purpose is a principal hazard for

decline in soil macro-invertebrates’population. As, soil macro-invertebrates perform many

imperative roles to uphold the soil’s profile for improved productivity, so, to uphold their

integrity is direly needed for prospect concern. The current study was intended to observe

and record the astounding impact of polluted sewage wastewater on the survival of soil

macro-fauna among tomato and cauliflower fields, selected from Faisalabad district

(Pakistan). Total 7845 specimens were collected from tomato and cauliflower (control and

treated) and maximum population 35.24% (N=2766) was recorded from tomato control

fields and the least population 8.91% (N=699) was recorded from cauliflower treated fields.

Population dynamics amongst the four fields (tomato control, tomato treated, cauliflower

control and cauliflower treated) were different significantly (R2=0.818; r2=0.904). Soil

macro-fauna belonging to three phyla were documented from all fields, maximum relative

abundance of soil macro-fauna was recorded for phylum Arthropoda (72.76%), followed

by phylum Mollusca (26.86%) and phylum Annelida (0.36%). Hymenoptera (45.71%),

Coleoptera (15.91%), Isopoda (12.24%), Araneae (10.16%) and Orthoptera (9.79%) were

the most abundant orders while, from cauliflower treated fields, arthropods, orders

Hymenoptera (43.15%), Coleoptera (17.8 %) and Araneae (12.66%) and Isopoda (7.45%)

were the mainly abundant, whereas Haplotaxida, was the group among the Annelida

formed (4.00%) of the total soil macro-fauna. Comparison (t-test) between treated and

control fields showed highly significant (t=17.51; p<0.000) results among tomato control

and treated fields’ microhabitats. Whilst, t-test analysis was recorded significant among

boundary (t=3.70; p<0.05), highly significant among middle (t=14.1; p<0.001) and center

(t=10.09; p<0.001) between control fields and treated fields cultivations. Similarly, t-test

analysis exhibited significant results (t=28.14; p<0.000) among cauliflower control and

treated fields. Even as, t-test analysis, among boundary (t=7.83; p<0.001), middle (t=20.28;

p<0.001) and center (t=11.12; p<0.001) between control fields and treated fields

cultivations was recorded significant. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was recorded highly

significant (P<0.01) among control fields and treated tomato fields cultivations. Whilst,

analysis of variance was non-significant among boundary, middle and center between

control fields and treated fields of both vegetables’ cultivations. The diversity index was

recorded maximum in tomato control field (2.937). The dominance was high in tomato

treated field (0.497). Higher evenness was recorded in cauliflower treated fields (0.846). In

tomato fields higher richness was recorded in tomato control field (75). The t-test analysis

showed significant results (t=-0.98516, p<0.05) by comparing the means of control fields

and treated fields. Average no. of specimens per cubic feetin control fields (tomato and

cauliflower) were higher (15.30) than in treated fields (tomato and cauliflower) (8.91).

Canonical Correspondence Analysis (CCA) was applied to determine the effect of soil

microhabitats (boundary, middle and center) as well as micro/ macro nutrients, pH and EC,

on soil macro-fauna distribution, collected from tomato and cauliflower fields. Chi-square

test showed significant results (p<0.0001) for all trophic status of soil macro-fauna among

tomato and cauliflower fields. CCA analysis of soil macro-fauna from both fields revealed

that N, P, K, Pb, Cr. Ni, pH and EC, all were important factors to find out the distribution

of species and most of them were linked with pH, K and Ni on the first two axes. Pb and

Cr were negatively correlated with each other. The N concentration slightly impacts and

correlated to following species i.e. C. herculeanus, T. ruricola, M. barbarous, T.

spinipalpisand P. pullata among tomato control fields at center.While, Pb showed positive

correlation, with T. atrica, A. demetica, S. mandibularis, T. tomentosa, E. agrestes, G.

xv

pennsyvanicus, M. paganaandand C. convescus. Correlation structure of soil parameters,

field type and species among cauliflower control and treated fields was analyzed and in

first two axis, outcomes of N, K and Cr were highly positively correlated, while, Pb and P

showed negative correlation with them. Species in cauliflower control fileds at middle as

well as among cauliflower treated fields at middle were P. fuliginosa and H. lenta. Nutrients

such as K and Cr showed a positive correlation to A. caliginosa, C. chromaiodes, Formica.

spp, O. asellus and T. septempunctata, while N showed a positive correlation to S.

lubricipeda.

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Soil, being a living entity, entails different gases, liquids and solid particles that altogether

support the lives of relevant fauna and flora. Their overall strength in a specific area is called

“biodiversity”. They carry biological intensification of soil to maintain its equilibrium for

environment health (Crossley et al., 1992; Brevik et al., 2015; Smith et al., 2015; Berendse et

al., 2015). Soil devoid of them becomes malfunctioned (Readet al., 2008); because they

perform vital roles in agro-ecosystem to attain the realistic maturation and in accordance with

body size, they may be categorized as micro- (<0.2mm), meso- (0.2mm-<2mm) (Karyanto et

al., 2010) and macro-fauna (>2mm) (Dunger, 1964; Wallwork, 1970;Swift et al., 1979; Bignel

et al., 2010; Rana et al., 2010a). Micro-fauna cause soil profile modifications via

immobilization and mobilization of N (nitrogen) (Fierer et al., 2012); while meso- and macro-

fauna cause adjustment for N availability and appropriateimplications. They are extremely

inconsistent and adaptable pertaining to their feeding approaches (Anderson, 1987; Wallwork,

1970; Folgarait et al., 2004; Frouz and Jilkova, 2008; Carrillo et al., 2011). Feeding nature

illustrates the consumer-resource relations, stands for the basis of population/community

ecology. As per Root (1967) the “guild” conceptionis denoted to “group of species with parallel

management outlines”, by adding their mode of feeding, as per a secondary factor support the

characterization for further divisions (Root, 1973; Hawkins and MacMahon, 1989; Brussaard

et al., 2004); while, the term “guild” is reffered to a wider species classification than a

functional group (Brussaard, 1998; Brussaard et al., 2007; Rückamp et al., 2010).

The significance of feeding niche for unfolding diverse functional levels of soil macro-faunal

populations is supported by rate of energy transfer (nature of soil food-webs). As interactions

among them are uneven, complex and diverse for example, predator/ prey relationship,

parasitism and commensalism etc., their extent may be greatly irregular amongst the relating

taxa, patch to patch and time to time (Wallwork, 1970; Persson et al., 1980;; Hunt et al., 1987;

Moore and De Ruiter, 1991; De Ruiter et al., 1993; Bengtsson et al., 1995; Moore et al., 2004;

Rana et al., 2010). Study of soil ecology are crucial to study the directions of managed and

unmanaged soils for future prospectuses (Virginia and Wall, 2000; Philip et al., 2012);

especially about their diversity and abundance at below-ground as well as above-ground

2

(Lavelle and Pashanasi, 1989; Giller et al., 1996; Virginia and Wall, 2000; Barros et al., 2002;

Wardle, 2002). As land use practicesapply a strong impact on the total abundance, biomass,

diversity and the community configuration of macro-fauna (Barrios et al., 2005).

Soil macro-fauna have strong impact on soil properties and processes (Lee and Foster, 1991;

Lavelle et al., 1997; Six et al., 2004; Barrios, 2007; Le Bayon and Milleret.2009); they are

principal constituents of soil ecosystem integrity by accelerating decomposition of organic

matters and transferring as well as availability of nutrients for ideal functioning (Xin et al.,

2012). They further affect decomposition either directly by fragmentation of litter organic

matter or indirectly by changing microbial function (Lavelle et al., 2006). They mostly exist

in upper surface layers where nutrients are richly available (Ruiz et al., 2008), support in

nutrients cycling and decomposition processes as well as modification of soil physical

properties (Swift et al., 1994; Mathieu et al., 2004). Land use practices are mostly associated

with soil macro-fauna diversity, abundance and different communities such as presence of soil

cover; addition of high quality mulch; presence of structurally and taxonomically diverse

vegetation within fields (Lavelle and Pashanasi, 1989; Dangerfield, 1990; Roth et al., 1994;

Giller et al., 1996; Perfecto and Snelling, 1995; Bestelmeyer and Wiens, 1996; Tian et al.,

1997; Vohland and Schroth 1999; Barros et al., 2003; Thomas et al., 2004; Birang, 2004;

Wardle et al., 2006; Pauli et al., 2010).

Moreover, many vital roles are played by macro-invertebrates to sustain the soil composition

and richness in natural as well as man- customized habitats (Pankhurst et al., 1997; Paoletti,

1999). They are valuable indicators of soil health and control the biological behavior of soil

for improved results (Bautista et al., 2009). Though, the controlled relation amongst the fauna,

below and above the ground carry the biological and chemical recycling of the different biotic

and abiotic factors components. That's why, for reliability and maintenance of active soil, their

existence is crucial. Whereas, heavy metals directed soilscontrol the soil macro-invertebrate

populations, that lead to unwantedalteration in soil functioning (Barros et al., 2001, 2002;

Decaëns et al., 2004; Ruiz et al., 2008). Ecological successions in different time period in each

agro-ecosystem, affect their diversity and abundance (Gupta et al., 2008). Still, as per soil

profile, humidityand temperature, the species structure of every soil fluctuates time to time as

well as, patch to patch (Jimenez et al., 1998; Dibog et al., 1998).

3

Conversely, the use of fertilizers in the agriculture fields disrupts macro-faunal communities,

and direct to severe decline in species density above the short-range (Black and Okwakol,

1997; Netuzhilin et al., 1999; Rossi et al., 2010; Barraclough, 2015). At the preliminary

disturbance levels, soil macro-fauna density decline primarily and then increase or maintain

(Barros et al., 2004; Sileshi and Mafongoya, 2006a; Bhadauria and Saxena,

2010).Biodiversity, is in unremitting threat in Pakistan,at all points due to reckless

administration and intensification of agro-ecosystem to cope with the per capita desire for

heavy population (Chaudhry et al., 1999; Rana et al., 2012).The major threat to soil macro-

fauna is use of synthesized fertilizers and pesticides in agricultural cultivation to enhance yield

and control the invading insect/other pests that has been increased over many folds in recent

years (Govt. of Pak., 2010). Whereas, with `the commonly use of agriculture pesticides along

with them have adverse affects on integrity of soil components; such as contamination level,

soil profile and turnover (Hendrix et al., 1990).

The stability of soil is indicated by food web pyramids and the health of ecosystem is primarily

indicated by soil food web structure (Karlen et al., 2001). Hence, ideal structure of biodiversity,

performs different ecological services; recycling of nutrients, detoxification of harmful

chemicals, hydrological processes and control of adverse organisms, in any soil (Singh et al.,

2013; Jimenez et al., 1998). Whereas, soil biota e.g. ants, annelids, snails, termites and

millipedes, usually found to directly involve in the process of organic decomposition of

substances (Breure, 2004). However, useful soil organisms such as order Coleopteran (carabid,

and coccinellid), Heteropteran includes bugs, order Hymenoptera (ants, wasps), Dipteran

(flies), Neuropteran (lacewings) and Aranea (mites and spiders) (Dibog et al., 1998).

As the food consumption increased, intensification of agriculture is continuously in-practice

that has induced numerous problems to maintain the soil profile and existing macro-organisms

(Cassman et al., 1995). While agricultural extension has amplified production many folds, it

hadnegative impacts on local biodiversity, as it harm the soil fertility, increased erosion, and

decline feeding relationship of organisms, caused soil pollution of groundwater, eutrophication

of ground water at small level and environmental pollution in the world level (Nambiar, 1994;

Birkhofer et al., 2008a).

4

Use of sewage water for irrigation purpose is a worldwide practice (Kruse and Barrett 1985;

Ali et al., 2010). In developing countries of the world, use of sewage water for crop production

is considered as alternative tool and highly economical method: Municipal sewage effulents

contain great quantity of plant nutrientsthat are essential to crop growth and substantially

reduce the reliance on chemical fertilizers (Bond, 1999; Salehi et al., 2008; Chambers et al.,

2002; Wang and Tao, 1998). In suburban areas, the use of industrial and municipal waste water

is common practice in many parts of the world including India and Pakistan (Feign et al., 1991;

Singh et al., 2004; Ullah et al., 2011). The use of sewage effluents for irrigating agricultural

land is a worldwide practice (Feign et al., 1991; Mohammad and Ayadi, 2004). Though, it may

contains potentially harmful components (heavy metals) that contaminate the crop

disturbingsoil biota, accumulate in soil biological systems, and prove dangerous (Ratan et al.,

2005). Therefore, when sewage water is used for irrigation purposes, the problems associated

with its use should also be considered (Emongor and Ramolemana, 2004).

Soil pollution and contamination by its use, has introduced hazards to soil quality and its

efficiency (Bond, 1999). Nevertheless, effects of sewerage waste water on the soil veracity has

not completely explored yet (Chander and Brookes 1993; Kandeler et al., 1996). Soil pollution

with heavy metals is a serious global environmental disaster (Wei and Chen, 2001). Whilst,

bioaccumulation takes place, when diverse metal substances are entered in food chain using

sewage wastewater as irrigation source. It becomes dangerous when many heavy metals like

Mercury (Mg), (Zn), (Pb), (Cd), (Cu), (As), (Cr), (Mn) and (Ni) exceed the permissible limit

in the prevailing soil (Rodella and Chiou, 2009; Ettler et al., 2004). Their accumulation causes

concerns to humam beings and ecosystemsustainability; their interations with the soil at

prolong time period reduces the yield product as well as their quality of food (Cortet et al.,

1999). Their contamination may amend the soil ecosystem execution, both qualitaty and

quantity wise and present in appropriate decomposition, Nitrogen-mineralization, respiration

and process of nitrogen cycle, carbon, sulphur and phosphorus (Shah et al., 2005). Pollution

of hazardous heavy metals lowers the faunal activities causing disturbance in the activity level

of organisms, deformality in protein structure and devastation of soil qulaity; follow-on

production imbalance. Such as, Annelids a bio indicator organism of the soil contaminant and

their number survive according to the led level (Takeshi and Kazuyoshi, 2011). Furthermore,

earthworm biomass in plowed fallow plots of previously used for pineapple orchard was three

5

times greater among organically managed plots than in inorganically fertilized plots. However,

fertilization with combination of both supported their biomass (Peijnenburg, 2002).

Cauliflower (Brassica oleracea L.var. botrytis) belonging to the genus Brassica,

family Brassicaceae (Haynes et al., 2009; OECD, 2012; Campbell et al., 2012; Vincent et al.,

2017). It is an annual plant that reproduces by seed, normally, only the head is eaten. It is a

winter season and summer vegetable, that have a environmental requirement for cultivation

(Girish et al., 2010). It is a good source of human food having high nutritive values (Vincent

et al., 2017) also includes numerous beneficial phyto-chemicals for example sulforaphane

compounds (that protect against cancer); as well as the carotenoids and glucosinolates (Ishida

et al., 2014; Iqbal, 2014). It has high economic importance throughout the world and different

varieties/ cultivars are utilized, most of them are locally consumed. In Pakistan, it is grown for

its edible value and is one of the main cash crops of Pakistan (Shah et al., 2013; Govt. of Pak.,

2017). As agro-productions are backbone of Pakistan’s economy and majority of the people

are directly or indirectly depending upon agricultural productions. Vegetable production holds

an important status in the edible products of Pakistan. Although cauliflower is amongst minor

crops of Pakistan and is typically grown in small farms and cauliflower is one of the most

cultivated vegetable in Punjab (Bakhsh et al., 2004).

Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) is another member of fruit community and grown on

extensivebase to use as fruit, salad formations and vegetable having adequate quantity of

different types of vitamin such as components compounds to maintain the nutrients kevel

(Mofeke et al., 2003; FAO, 2007; Passamet al., 2007). Tomato needs mineral soils to grow

which have proper water holding capacity and aeration (Atiyeh et al., 2000; Odunsi et al.,

2004; Dorais et al., 2008). Amongst the vegetables, tomato is one of the most important

vegetables in terms of acreage, production, yield, commercial use and consumption. It is

cultivated all over the country due to its adaptability to a wide range of soil and climate (Bhat

et al., 2011).

They have different in nature in many ways e.g. irrigation schedule, fertilization level,

temperature, humidity range, agronomic and horticulture practices as well as canopy structure

that control the associated soil macro-fauna. As a result, diversity of occupying soil macro-

organisms alters according to the soil type and their function. Soil environment directly affect

6

soil macro-fauna diversity which may influence the performance of soil organisms that are

primary consumers and influence the higher trophic levels. Interactions and functioning

relationship of different trophic levels in an ecosystem may clarify reasons of disturbance and

challenge of restoring and recovering disturbed sites. In natural conditions, extensive studies

may present evidences about the complexity and nature of trophic relationship in ecosystems,

similarly numerous other factors that affect activities and abundance of species. Level of heavy

metals (Pb, Cr and Ni) is high in soil treated with sewage sludge and municipal wastewater

that are associated with urban pollution and industrial effluents. These heavy metals possess

toxic potential impacts and may affect the richness and dominanace ofbiota. Monitoring of

their bioaccumulation in soil and over grown plants is important in order to avoid excessive

build-up of these metals in the human food chain. These results propose further researches

considering variations in different metals uptake for various plant species, fertilization, and

impact of heavy metals on soil biota. Hence, research was to document the resence of biota in

vegetable fields.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

1- To record the existence of soil macro-fauna among polluted and non-polluted

cauliflower and tomato fields

2- To underline the hazardous impacts of polluted water on the diversity and density of

soil macro-fauna among these fields

3- To weigh up the food web dynamics among these fields

4- To analyze the inter-specific responses of soil macro-fauna with regard to level of

macro (N: P: K), micro (Pb: Cr: Ni) nutrients, pH and EC

7

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Soil is an imperative element for all ecosystems (terrestrial and aquatic: grassland, desert,

tundra, freshwater and marine ecosystem) (Giller et al., 1997) to sustain the different ongoing

functions viz. productiveness, decomposition, nutrient cycling and energy flows (Kibblewhite

et al., 2008) for ideal production of cultivated crops. It also has diverse living communities to

accomplish these services (Torsvik et al., 1994); that are depend upon the bio-chemical

functions carried out by that biota via their interactions with physical and chemical components

of soil (Hawksworth, 1991; Torsvik et al., 1994; Walter and Proctor, 1999; Brown et al., 2006).

These functions ensure the organic matter processing, nutrient recycling and soil structuring

etc. (Lavelle et al., 1992). They are carried out by various organisms’ communities delivering

differential roles e.g. decomposers, microbial regulators, soil engineers, and predators etc.

(Neher, 1999; Lavelle et al., 2006). For example, 01 gram of the soil, consists over million

types of microorganisms (Torsvik et al., 1994; Hawksworth, 1991); wherein over the world,

soil hosts about 100,000 species of protozoa, 500,000 species of nematodes (Hawksworth and

Mound, 1991), 3000 species of earthworms (Lee, 1985), various groups of meso-fauna e.g.

class Collembola; mites and Enchytraeids; macro-fauna e.g. ants, termites, beetles and spiders

etc. (Brown et al., 2001).

Their diversity over the large extent is more vulnerable to sustain the ecological pyramids

(Crossley et al., 1992), energy flow “Law of Entropy” (Usher et al., 1979; Jorgensen and Brain,

2004), sustainability of food web and consequently, food security (Brussaard et al., 2007).

Whilst, being principal reservoir of biodiversity, there is scarcity of information about the

communities living in soil (Anderson, 1975) - inspite of this, they are fundamentally

responsible for good function in the relevant ecosystem. As well as the body size concerns,

then the soil biota usually is divides in to the three types i.e. micro-, meso- and macro-fauna

(Wallwork, 1970; Swift et al., 1979; Giller, 1996). They accomplish biogeochemical cycling

(H2O, C, N and P) (Hutchinson and King 1980), support to run the domestic and wild

ecosystems in realistic manner (Kibblewhite et al., 2008), and participate in climate regulation

(Lavelle, 1996; Zeriri et al., 2013). Their existence is principally governed by the interactions

between the compositely living groups (Handa et al., 2014), soil type (Six et al., 2000), plant

8

cover (Hooper et al., 2005), agronomic and horticultural practices, climatic successions (Wall

et al., 2008), edaphic factors (Thakur and Kaur, 2016) and ultimately, nature of water used for

irrigation (Patricia et al., 2003; Tessaro et al., 2016).

Soil, water and plant pollution have been raised over many folds due to increase in use of

municipal water generated by extension of urbanization and industrialization (Emongor and

Ramolemana 2004). Wastewater contain high level of toxic heavy metals along with high

fertilizing values required by agriculture production (Arora et al., 1985; Narwal et al., 1993),

organic contaminants and excess of soluble salts, governing negative implications (Antil and

Narwal, 2005, 2008; Antil et al., 2004, 2007). It also contains many inorganic pollutants such

as heavy metals with significance tendency of absorption by soil colloids and subsequently

these metals released into the soil components. While, some of these metals e.g. iron (Fe), zinc

(Zn), copper (Cu), nickel (Ni) and manganese (Mn) are play a vital role as micronutrients in

many chemical reaction and are important part of the microorganisms and plants, wherein

others like cadmium (Cd), chromium(Cr) and lead (Pb) are harmful beyond certain limits

(Bruins et al., 2000).

Fundamentals of Soil Community

A fertile soil usually includes a variety of faunal species that participate by playing important

roles in a different ecosystem functions e.g. development of the soil structure dynamics and

organic matter turn-over etc. (Barros et al., 2004). They may be small (ants, snails), large

(rodents) and they exert effects on soil composition directly or indirectly as well as biological

processes, important for animal and plant life (Fackenath and Lalljee, 1999; Giller, 1996).

Scale and direction of resource flow modifying by the numbers of the ecosystem engineers in

the designed environments depends upon their abundance, diversity and density (Jones et al.,

1994). Categorically, soil macro-fauna comprises soil inhabiting insects, snails, spiders and

earthworms etc. (Jouquet et al., 2006); meso-fauna include mites, collembolans, and millipedes

(Gormsen et al., 2004); while, micro-fauna comprises organisms such as protozoa, rotifers and

nematodes etc. (Yeates, 2003).

Wherein in many agro-ecological zones, the common soil species’ dynamics is still, not fully

explored (Hagvar, 1998). Due to this reason, the scientists are still working on soil fauna to

explore the different environmental variables that cause changes in species communities and

9

their structure, which are important indicators for these environmental stresses (Hàgvar, 1998;

Van Straalen, 1998). It has been endorsed that soil engineering by faunal communities is

affected in some landscaping, hence, there is dire need of proper management against possible

disturbance of ecosystem function (Dangerfield et al., 1998).

Significance of Soil Macro-Fauna

There are about 20 animal groups that are related to the macro-fauna found all over the world

and they are observable with the naked eye e.g. mollusks, arthropods (Brown et al., 2001;

Culliney, 2013), and earthworms etc. Coleopteran (beetles) are the diverse group of the insects

found in soil macro-fauna (Jacot, 1940); including millipedes, centipedes, spiders, woodlice,

ants, slugs, earthworms and termites etc. (Paton et al., 1995). They are the key stone species

that enhance the ideal and smooth functioning of the soil (Lavelle et al., 2006). They maintain

soil sustainability by excavating channels through burrowing in soil as well as enhancing the

activity of the microorganisms and also involve in the litter decomposition, organic matter

recycling and mineral transformation; they also play a vital role in altering the aggregation,

protect against the pathogens and pests (Menta et al., 2012; Lavelle et al., 2006; Wolters,

2000). The function of soil macro-fauna is largely depending upon their abundance and soil

health (Lavelle, 1997).

Nutrient recycling and specific mineralization of carbon is done primarily by the decomposers

present in the soil (Swift and Anderson, 1993); however, soil micro (protozoan), meso

(collembolan, mites) macro (snails, earthworms, isopods) essentially control the rates at which

these processes take place (Handa et al., 2014). Among them, detritivores feeding on leaf litter

play a significant role in process of decomposition (Handaet al., 2014). They organize

decomposition process in various ways e.g. by fragmentation of litter material (Hattenschwiler

and Gasser, 2005; Hedde et al., 2007); mixing of organic and mineral particles and modify the

chemistry of organic matter and mixing of organic and mineral particle during metabolic

procedures (Jones et al., 1994; Kadamannaya and Sridhar, 2009).

Amongst the invertebrates, macro-fauna is of key importance for soil functioning by

maintaining soil structure via digging burrows; regulate microbial diversity and activity, and

modifying aggregation (Wolters, 2000; Lavelle et al., 2006). Gastropods play diverse role in

10

maintaining the terrestrial ecosystem. In humid conditions, these organisms reallocate nitrogen

and recycle the macro-nutrients in the soil (Jones and Shachak, 1990; Joneset al., 1994).

Ecosystem manager species are important providers of ecosystem services. Schwartz et al.

(2000) have also confirmed the hypothesis ‘Drivers and Passengers’ illustrated by Walker

(1992), that some driver species are important in the management of ecosystem as they have

keystone nature and work as ecosystem engineers (Jones et al., 1994; Lavelle 1997). They

form the profile structure of the soil and provide the useful resources for othe organisms. From

invertebrates, few macro-invertebrates such as ants, termites and earthworms play a significant

role in the excavation of the soil and produce different type of organo-minerals by

fragmentation and mixing of the soil particles. Their structures have been illustrated as

“biogenic structures” (Anderson and Ingram, 1993) as they form a complex interactions with

other soil biota, for example, the soil microbial activities are also fulfilled and stimulated by

biogenic structure such as nests, casts and burrows of termites and earthworms (Lavelle, 1997).

Earthworms are important group of the macro-fauna that release the nutrients into soil for

plants by mineralization of the organic matter in their gut by microbial activity. While, the

long-term nutrients and carbon storage in soil slow down due to reduce in mineralization of

the old cast (Martinson et al., 2008). Therefore, their biogenic structures and activities can

modify the structure and abundance of occupying species in the soil (Jones et al., 1994, 1997).

Macro-fauna enhances the exchange of the gasses and water, formation of soil structure,

stimulation of microbial action etc. through the pedological processes (Lavelle, 1997).

Earthworms increase the cycling of phosphorus in soil through a sequence of biological

processes (Nziguheba and Beunemann, 2005). They alter the soil profile through bringing

subsoil to the surface by burrowing that help in soil formation to preserve its permeability

(Edwards and Bohlen, 1996; Brossard et al., 1996; Ansari and Ismail, 2012).Nevertheless, any

disruption in soil environment affects the soil diversity in many ways such as deterioration in

the required resources for the life of the organisms and the habitat (Chapuis-Lardy et al., 1998,

2009; Lavelle et al., 2006; Le-Bayon and Milleret, 2009). They act as the bio-indicator having

their abundance, biomass and population composition, because, these variation of the soil traits

and conversion of the land used are determined by the presence of these species (Barrios et al.,

2005; Azul et al., 2011). Soil beneficial organisms include beetles (carabid, coccinellidae, and

staphylinid beetles), Dipteran (chamaemyiid flies and syrphid), Heteropteran (pirate, assassin,

11

andambush bugs, and pirate), order Hymenoptera (such as ants and wasps), order spider, mites

(Brussaard et al., 2007; Rana et al., 2012).

Sewage Wastewater Pollution

Unwanted change in the lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere are commonly known as the

environmental pollution. As the improvements in the industrial sector are needed for the

comforts of human being on one side, simultaneously it also creates many problems in the

environment due to release of unfavorable gasses, liquids and solid particles; laterally these

compounds pollute the natural environment. Currently, large amount of the untreated waste

water is being discharged into the natural environment and into other water bodies (Saleemi,

1993), and due to shortage of water, farmers irrigate their crops and vegetable fields with the

sewage wastewater, contains many inorganic and organic materials which enhance the crop

production as compared to natural water. Soil degradation also occurs due to heavy metals

from sewage wastewater and their presence effects the environment and ecosystem globally

(Li et al., 2013; Chen et al., 2012). ATSDR (1993) acknowledged that long term Cd exposure

in the agriculture cropland cause kidney diseases in the animal when these animals consume

this food stuff containing Cd.

Wastewater is major source of water for irrigation in developing countries, and more than

twenty M hectares is irrigated by this water over the world (Dreschsel et al., 2002); the cost

for the wastewater is cheap source of water for irrigation. Even there are many environmental

and health issues of wastewater, but it is income saving for farmers and for the better

production of the crops (Scott et al., 2004). Major source of the wastewater are industries,

households, commercial premises and municipal drains and this water contain undesired

organic compounds, heavy metals and hazardous chemicals etc. (Cornish et al., 1999). The

concentration of P (phosphorous) and N (nitrogen) is high in this wastewater which are

essential and play a major role in crops (IWMI and Rauf, 2002). Furthermore, it is

contaminated with many nonessential elements like lead, zinc, copper, chromium, nickle etc.

many of which induce toxic effects to plants, human being and other animals (Kanwar and

Sandha, 2000; Chibuike and Obiora, 2014).

Many studies showed that the concentration of heavy metals was recorded higher in the plants

grown in soil irrigated with wastewater as compare to the reference soil (Khan et al., 2008;

12

Singh et al., 2010; Gupta et al., 2010). Contamination of Pb, Cd, and Ni in different portion of

vegetables due to irrigation of cropland with untreated wastewater caused potential health risk

in the long term (Sharma et al., 2007, 2008). In fewer developing countries uneducated farmers

prefer to use wastewater for irrigation to avoid the use of additional fertilizer (Khodadoust et

al., 2004; Lock and Zeeuw, 2003). Like other developing countries, untreated wastewater is

extensively used in Pakistan for cropping practices. The concentration of heavy metals depends

on flow of water in canals and rivers. The amount of some heavy metals such as Ni, Pb, Cr and

Cd were higher than their approved concentration which leads to the diseases;

whileconcentrations of Mn, Zn and Cu were in safe limits of WHO and USEPA standards (for

drinking and irrigation purposes) (Khan et al., 2003).

Source of Wastewater Pollution

Considering foregoing water demand, large amount of wastewater is generated by the variety

of industrial and agro-industrial activities. Residues from industrial factories, sewage sludge

and intensive fertilization are the major source of pollution of soil, water and plants. In

suburban areas, the use of industrial and municipal wastewater is common practice in many

parts of the world (Urie, 1986; Feign, et al., 1991; Rauf et al., 2002; Singh et al., 2004). Now a

days, sewage wastewater effluents are used for irrigation of cropland and vegetable fields that

contaminate the soil (Feign et al., 1991). These practices are common in the developing

countries, where water treatment cost is high and limited water resources are available (Ratan

et al., 2005). As the domestic wastewater contains great amount of organic matter and likewise

contains major micro-nutrients, owing to disposal of these vital nutrient farmers avail the

opportunity existing by way of sewage effluents. Consequently, the level of nutrients rises in

soils when constantly irrigated by wastewater (Yadav et al., 2002) that may have benefit or not

for soil macro-fauna. Liu,et al. (2013) reported that Swine liquid manure had more

environmental/ pollution effect in case of domestic source of wastewater, when it used on large

extent in cropland with high load of N (nitrogen), P (phosphors), heavy metals and other

nutrients found in it with least consumption in natural way in soil characteristics.

13

Soil Pollution vs. Soil Macro-Fauna

Soil pollution by heavy metal is notorious boasting negative impacts on soil macro-fauna

(Nahmani et al., 2005; Tessaro et al., 2013). Ants are considered good indicator of areas that

have suffered human actions by soil management, industrial pollution as well as successful

rehabilitation of degraded areas, high abundance and species richness, ease sampling,

separation into morpho-species and specialized taxa able to perceive environmental changes,

presence of Cu (copper) and Pb (lead) level ((Tessaro, 2013). According to Brown (1999),

another major group of soil macro-fauna, order Coleoptera, represented by beetles, is one of

the most important soil bio-indicator. It is classified into 160 families that show the

evolutionary success of the group. Tessaro et al. (2013) endorsed that beetles responded when

exposed to organic and chemical fertilizer to improve the soil quality for better production.

They significantly affected by the combination of these factors. Many organisms of

coleopteran feeds on the feces of other organisms so application of fertilizer in the soil with

pig manure may increase their abundance of beetles as compare to the man-made treatments.

Organic residues and organic matter concentration in the soil determine the coleopteran

frequencies (Wardle et al., 1997). Zn and Cu metals cause negative effect on springtails

population, which may lead to reproduction failures (Santorufo et al., 2012).

In many studies, it has been reported that nickel cause many toxic effects on soil-dwelling

invertebrates, especially earthworm species regard to its concentrations e.g. increase in Ni level

results in high mortality and vice versa. It was observed that when Ni was applied on the top

layer of the soil, they avoided coming in the layer, where Ni was in high concentration (van de

Meent et al., 1990). Chromium (Cr) in soil and water, usually present in trivalent and

hexavalent ions form, and it mainly depends on soil pH, redox potential, granulometric

composition and humus level. It depresses the biological activity and influence the enzymatic

activity of soil fauna (Chen and Hao, 1998). Verheijen et al. (2010) reported that higher level

of Cu (Copper), Zn (Zinc), Cr (Chromium) and Ni (Nickel) in biochar formulated from sewage

sludge had ecological risk association with mixture of these compounds. Soni and Abbasi

(1981) endorsed that earthworms (Phretima posthuma) mortality decrease with the increase in

chromium levels; however, their reproduction and regeneration succeed accordingly. Lead

(Pb) can be stored permanently within waste nodules of earthworms (Lee, 1985).

14

Many soil organisms perform specific function to control internal concentration of vital

elements by limiting uptake or with an active excretion from the storage in inert form or

excretion of the detoxified metal (Rainbow, 2002). Heikens et al. (2001) illustrated that the

relationship between heavy metal content in soil and the internal metal content of soil macro-

fauna, tended to the order of Pb> Cd> Cu>Zn. It has been considered that in soil macro-fauna,

Cu and Zn may be regulated to a definite degree, consequential in a constant body

concentration above the range in soil concentrations (Heikens et al., 2001, Santorufo et al.,

2012). In isopods (wood lice), high accumulation of Cd has been reported due to the ability of

the hepatopancreas to store this metal (Hopkin, 1989; Donker et al., 1996; Rainbow, 2007).

Edaphic Factors and Soil Macro-Fauna

Since huge number of soil macro-fauna respond to climate changes, edaphic factors,

availability from the primary sources and their quality; hence, integrated information is

required for their conservation (Loreau et al., 2001; Hooper et al., 2005), especially in terms

of their responses and influences on soil processes. Since influence and responses on

environmental conditions, ecosystem properties and diversity are better observable dynamic

variable (Hooper et al., 2005). Soil processes and soil biota are the important characteristics of

soil to determine the changes in pH, moisture condition and soil texture. Soil macro-fauna play

important role in the soil for example, endogeic earthworms play vital role in maintaining and

formation of the sandy soil; however, earthworms play a secondary role in clay soil and they

mainly effect on the organic material and roots of the plants (Blanchart et al., 1997).

Absorption of the heavy metals depends on organic matter and pH of the soil. Heavy metals

accumulation is reduced by reclamation and remediation in the plants and soil which are

irrigated by the wastewater (Six et al., 2004).

There are many factors involve in increase of soil acidity such as But, the level of alkalinity of

soil is increased by high concentration of sodium (Na), magnesium, (Mg) potassium (K) and

calcium (Ca) (Ferreira et al., 2007). They are mainly affected by the acidity of soil in number

of situations. Many species of soil invertebrates tolerate differently to acidic pH, even within

closely related species. However, trends in tolerance of the species to the acidic pH across a

wide range of situations; finally member of family Enchythraeidae and many other arthropods

showed maximum abundances in acid soils (pH 5), while, earthworms and nematodes prefer

15

slightly acid pH (5 to 6) (Petersen and Luxton, 1982). In France, across 3000 sites, there are

about 65 species of earthworms distributed and are mainly divided into three groups i.e.

endogenic which prefer to live in soil and are geophagic and prefer to live in pH of 6-7, anecic

that lives in burrows and regularly come to the surface and ingest litter and epigeic species

which are much more tolerated acidic pH than the anecic and they feed on the litter system

(Bouche, 1972; Perel 1977; Straube et al., 2009).

Electrical conductivity (EC) consider as a physical indication parameter regarding amount of

water and water-soluble nutrients available for plant uptake such as nitrate-N. (Adviento-Borbe

et al., 2006). Increase in EC of the soil leads to decline in the activities of fauna, nitrification,

de-nitrification, decomposition, resultantly respiration become slower or may be stopped.

Chemical profile of the soil become influenced by EC in many ways such as salinity, porosity,

chemical contamination, cation exchange capability and temperature (Morrow et al., 2010;

Swift et al., 1994; Walther et al., 2002; Woodward, 2010; Brose et al., 2012).

The concentration of macro-elements carbon (C), phosphorus (P) and nitrogen (N) describe

their ecological stoichiometry; how their proportions are imperative for organisms for their

biological structures and regulate physiological processes e.g. development; activity and

growth(Fanin et al., 2013; Frost,et al., 2005; Hillebrand et al., 2009; Sterner and Elser, 2002;

Ott et al., 2014b). In consequence, the importance of ecological stoichiometry for

decomposition processes was recognized (Martinson et al., 2008).

Changes happening to the soil surface effect soil macro-faunal activities that play important

role in nutrient cycling, resulting disturbed primary production and trophic structure and soil

food web (Ayuke et al., 2009). Soil macro-fauna modify with respect to land use, soil

preparation and cultivation, climate changes and with addition of organic matter (Baretta,

2003). Soil macro-fauna are used as key indicator for determining management options in

agricultural systems and they are considered a parameter that is sensitive to the impact of

production systems (Silva et al., 2006).

16

Food Web and Trophic Structure

Soil organic matter consists of about five percent of the living portion. Earthworms and some

insects help in break down and decomposition of manure and crop residues by recycling of

nutrients and energy via ingesting these products and mixing them with the minerals in the soil

(Scheu and Setala, 2002). The presence of soil macro-fauna is largely affected by the food

sources; hence, their presence is not uniformly distributed throughout the soil nor uniformly

present all year. The presence of organisms is also affected by organic matter’s nature

consequently, soil organisms are found abundantly: around roots, on humus, in litter, on the

surface of soil aggregates and in spaces between aggregates. In spite of their complexity, some

interactions between species in the soil are not easily classified by food webs. Soil species

communities are strongly affected by the mutualists, litter transformers, and ecosystem

engineers. Many species help in litter transformation such as isopods, use dead plants (Abd El-

Wakeil, et al., 2015), ecosystems engineers, e.g. earthworms, modify their environment and

create habitat for other smaller organisms. They also help to increase the moisture and aeration

of soil and stimulate microbial activities; during alteration of soil, they transport organic

material into the ground where these compounds are utilized by other soil fauna (Wardle,

2002).

Whereas, earthworms cannot describe all relations, so soil food webs linger as ahelpful tool

for considerate ecosystems’ status. The interactions between species in the soil and their effect

on decomposition continue to be well studied. The knowledge of food webs change over time

and soil food webs stability is critical to recognize that how food webs upset significantly

qualities such as soil structure, fertility and productivity (Wardle, 2004). Different species of

earthworm’s effects on the soil qualities differently with respect to ecological condition and

species involvement (Bouche, 1977; Lavelle, 1981; Brown et al., 1999). Termites play

important role in the soil in various regions of the world. Major food of the termites is living

plants sources while; some species of termites are serious agricultural pests where dead

residues are scarce. The major food sources for termites include: roots, woody materials, seeds,

dead foliage, plant-decaying materials, and the feces of higher animals (Lavelle and Spain,

1995, 2001). Ants significantly play role to enhance the structure of the soil. Nevertheless, they

have less importance for the soil managements than earthworms and termites because of their

feeding habits. Beetles (Coleoptera) are diverse group of animals taxonomically and differ

17

widely in size and play different ecological role for management soil and litter. They are either

predator, phytophagous and saprophagous (Lavelle and Spain, 2001).

Pest and Predator Ratio

Ideal presence of pest vs predator is important due to their role in the food web structure.

Mostly, predators present in the air sacs of soil and water filled area, and active burrowers play

major role for these purposes. Soil mites are indicator of soil health and also play role as

predator within the soil (Hill, 1985). Soil type can also be indicated by the presence and type

of soil fauna. As the food web is complex, the stability of the ecosystem is strong (Rana et al.,

2010a, b).

Biodiversity is globally decreased with restoration of ecological communities. Due to loss in

agricultural production, it seems to restore the loss at quickly very difficult and costly

process (Bullock et al., 2011). Agricultural production can be enhanced by maintaining

effective relationship between diversity and productivity of the crop. Previously, diversity

and abundance of pests were low in Pakistan in agriculture farms (Siddiqui, 2005). The

biodiversity losses can be restored by restoration of those communities which are rich in

species (Pywell et al., 2002).

18

CHAPTER 3

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study Area:

The present study was done for two consecutive seasons i.e. 2014-15 and 2015-16 at

Faisalabad research area located between 30o 40´to 31o 47´N; 72o 42´ to 73o 40´E, and elevation

is 605 feet (City district Govt., 2010). To obtain the accurate objective and the goals of the

experimental design a preliminary study survey for research purpose was conducted to finalize

the research fields that were used with polluted sewage water and tube-well water for irrigation

purpose of two different vegetables such as (cauliflower and tomato). Both research sites

containing equall topography were selected from the same location. The fields those were

irrigated with tube well water used as control research fields, While, the fields those were

irrigated with the sewage waste-water were taken as treated fields.

Sampling Strategy:

The fortnightly sampling was conducted in the selected research sites of cauliflower and

tomato vegetables, started from end at the post-harvesting stage for 02 consecutive seasons of

the vegetables. Soil along with fauna samples from both research area were sampled from

treated sites (irrigated with polluted sewerage water) and control (irrigated with tube-well

water). Overall 09 quadrat samples were collected from each microhabitat site and to sustain

the reliability, 03 soil samples were collected from each microhabitat research site i.e.

boundary, center and middle from 02 research fields of selected sites- as, the density and

richness of the soil macro-biota and the frequency of heavy metals vary according to the soil

conditions and the abiotic factors of the environment.

19

Fig.3.1: Micro-

habitats of each field; B= Boundary of the field, M= Middle C=Center

Sorting and identification of soil macro-fauna

For soting of soil biota, soil samples along with soil fauna were carried to Biodiversity Lab;

Dpt of Zoology, Wildlife and Fisheries, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad. Soil macro-

organisms was sorted via (i) direct hand picking (ii) with hand sorting (iii) forceps (iv) and

with burlese funnel (Rana et al., 2010 a, b; Dangerfield, 1990; Magurran, 1988) then sorted

faunal species were kept in separate glass vials having alcohol and few drops of glycerin. Every

vial was labeled with the, locality of field, collection date and research micro-habitat

(boundary/middle/center), research field (Tomato or Cauliflower) and also with edaphic

factors.

Total collected soil organisms were identified up to species level with the help of different

taxonomic keys from the literature (Borror and Delong, 1970, 2005; Triplehorn and Johnson,

2005, Blanford, 1898; Pocock, 1990; Holloway et al., 1992;) and then identified soil macro-

fauna were also marked as preys, predators, detritivores etc. based on of their feeding

tendenciescited in the (Rafi et al., 2005; Triplehorn and Johnson, 2005; Rana et al., 2010a, b).

The feeding relationship was recognized from the currentaccessible literature. The common

and highly abundant fauna found in research data were to study their association.

B

M

B M C M B

M

B

20

Fig.3.2a: Pre-Harvest Cauliflower Treated

field Fig. 3.2b: Post-Harvest Tomato control

field

Fig: 3.2c: Control vegetable fields Fig. 3.2d: Quadrat Sampling

Fig. 3.2.e: Treated vegetable fields Fig.3.2f: Burlese funnel

21

Soil Analysis:

Soil sampl analysis were conducted in the “Soil Chemistry Laboratory Ayub Agriculture

Research Institute” (AARI), Faisalabad, Ryan et al. (2001) and Rana et al. (2010a, b) for

macro-nutrients and micro-nutrients among control and treated field following Tendon (1993).

In case of macro-nutrients, phosphorus (P) was determined by Genesys 5 spectrophotometer,

while for potassium (K) estimation, a flame photometer (Modeldigiflame 2000; GDV, Italy)

was used and for Nitrogen (N estimation, Kjeldhal’s Apparatus was applied (Protocol

Appendix). For micronutrients, Lead (Pb), Chromium (Cr) and Nickel (Ni) atomic absorption

spectrophotometer (Varian Spectra AA-250 PLUS) was applied. Electrical conductivity (EC)

was recorded by an EC meter (Corning model 220) and H+ concentration (pH) was determined

by Acorning pH meter 10.

Fig. 3.3. Atomic Absorption Instruments

22

Determination of Toxic Metals Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer

Toxic metals, Lead (Pb), Nickel (Ni) and Chromium (Cr) in the prepared samples were

determined by using Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer (Hitachi Polarized Zeeman AAS,

Z-8200, Japan) following the conditions described in AOAC (1990). The instrumental

operating conditions for the said elements are summarized in Table3.1.1:

Table3.1: Operational Conditions Employed in the Determination of Toxic Metals

by Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer

Parameters Set Values

Pb Ni Cr

Wavelength (nm) 283.3 232.0 359.3

Slit Width (nm) 1.3 0.2 1.3

Lamp Current (mA) 7.5 10.0 7.5

Burner Head Standard type Standard type Standard type

Flame Air-C2H2 Air-C2H2 Air-C2H2

Burner Height (mm) 7.5 7.5 7.5

Oxidant gas pressure (Flow rate) (kpa) 160 160 160

Fuel gas pressure (Flow rate) (kpa) 7 7 12

23

a C

b

D

Fig. 3.4: Different phases of Soil Analysis (a: Soil samples; b: Weighing of soil samples;

c: Samples for soil analysis; d: Samples after digestion)

24

Statistical Analysis:

Various issues regarding Diversitywere calculated in accordance with Shannon’s Diversity

Index (Shanon, 1948) ANOVA, t-test, CCA, Equality of Proportion. Subsequently, all

identified specimens were set in tabulated form according to their morphological and

taxonomic characters e.g. order, family, genus and species. Feeding status of fauna from the

both vegetables fields; (treated and control); and relation of soil faunal species according to

(Steel et al., 1997).

The data recorded was analyzed by Microsoft Office 2007 and GWBASIC programs

(www.daniweb.com–online) following Ludwig and James (1988). All statistical analysis were

performed at level of significance α = 0.05 using t distribution (Microsoft Excel). However, to

sustain the consistency and to decreaseambiguity, combined (pool) data of two seasons were

used for results presentation. The diversity indices formulas which were used to find the faunal

diversity were following:

Shannon’s Index of Diversity (H′),

Data collected (specimen from soil samples of tomato and cauliflower fields) were analyzed

statistically to determine species diversity, species richness and species evenness with Shannon

diversity index (H′) Shannon (1948), (Magurran, 1988) as:

H′ = -∑pi ln pi

The quantity pi is the proportion of individuals found in the ith species. The value of pi is

estimated as ni/ N.

H′ = - ∑ [(ni/N) ln (ni/N)]

Where ni is the number of individuals belonging to the ith species in the sample and N is the

total number of individuals in the sample.

The variance of H′ is calculated as:

Var H′= ∑𝑝𝑖(ln 𝑝𝑖)2 −∑ (𝑝𝑖ln 𝑝𝑖)2

N +

𝑆−1

2𝑁2

25

t-testAnalysis:

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

as:

t = 𝐻′1 –𝐻′2

(Var 𝐻′1+𝑉𝑎𝑟𝐻′2)1/2

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

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

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

N1 = eH′ (where H′ is the Shannon’s index of diversity) and

N2= 1/ﾵ (where ﾵ is the Simpson’s index of diversity)

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

𝐸 =(

1

𝜆)

𝑒𝐻−1=

𝑁2 − 1

𝑁1 − 1

Index of Richness:

Where,

S = species richness

n = total number of species present in sample population

k =number of "unique" species (of which only one organism was found in sample population)

Dominance index

D = 1-E

Where, “E” is evenness.

26

ANOVA

To compare the total significance, density and diversity composition of soil fauna in both

vegetables cauliflower and tomato , Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was applied.

Canonical Correspondence Analysis (CCA)

CCA was performed on soil macro-fauna data, collected from tomato and cauliflower (control

and treated) fields with reference to soil macro- and micro- and macro-nutrients together with

edaphic factors such as pH, EC, via help of MVSP software (version 3.13f) of Kovach (2003).

In CCA ‘r’ stands for positive coorelation. The ordinations representing macro-fauna species

were used to study relationship between faunal distribution and the micro as well as macro-

nutrients found in the soils. The first 02 axes of CCA ordination equally established the change

in distribution pattern of soil macro-fauna. The analysis test was done on highly abundant

macro-fauna species present in the research data (McCune and Mefford, 1999; Qadir et al.,

2008; Triplehorn and Johnson, 2005).

27

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS

SECTION 4.1: Existence of soil macro-fauna among polluted and

non polluted cauliflower and tomato fields

Population dynamics of soil macro-fauna recorded from Tomato and

Cauliflower fields

The present study was conducted to document the distribution of invertebrate soil macro-

fauna in selected tomato and cauliflower (control and treated) fields at Faisalabad district.

Among all four research fields; total 7845 specimens were collected during entire sampling

(07 sampling from each category) and maximum population was recorded from tomato

control fields 35.25% (n=2766) followed by 27.95% (n=2192) in cauliflower control fields,

27.89% (n=2188) in tomato treated fields and the least population abundance 8.91%

(n=699) was found from cauliflower treated fields (Table 4.1.1a). Population dynamic

amongst the four fields (tomato control, tomato treated, cauliflower control and cauliflower

treated fields) were significantly different (R2=0.818; r2=0.904) (Table4.1.1a; Fig.4.1.1a).

Population dynamics, microhabitat-wise

In tomato control fields,among tmicrohabitats, maximum population abundance was found

at boundary 44.46% (n=1230), followed by center 30.11% (n=833) and middle 25.41%

(n=703); while, from tomato treated fields, abundance at center was maximum 41.77%

(n=914), followed by middle 29.47% (n=645) and boundary 28.74% (n=629). In

cauliflower control fields, high population abundance was recorded at center 37.18%

(n=815), followed by boundary 31.88% (n=699) and middle 30.93% (n=678); while,

among cauliflower treated fields, recorded as highest amongst at center 41.05% (n=287),

followed by middle 32.04% (n=224) and boundary 26.89% (n=188) (Table 4.1.1b;

Fig.4.1.1b).

28

Taxa Composition

Overall from tomato control fields, soil macro-fauna population was consisted of 75

species, 64 genera and 35 families belonging to eight (8) orders, and from tomato treated

fields, it was consisted of 60 species, 48 genera and 33 families belonging to 10 orders.

Similarly, from cauliflower control fields, their population was consisted of 52 species, 44

genera and 24 families belonging to nine (9) orders, and from cauliflower treated fields, it

was consisted of 58 species, 51 genera and 60 families belonging to 12 orders (Table

4.1.1c; Fig.4.1.1c).

29

Table4.1.1a: Overall population dynamics of soil macro-fauna recorded from

Tomato and Cauliflower fields

Table 4.1.1b: Relative abundance of soil macro-fauna regarding different species

amongthree microhabitats in Tomato and Cauliflower (Control and

Treated) fields

Field Field Type Side Population

Dynamics

Tomato Treated (TT) Boundary 28.74 % (n= 629)

Middle 29.47 % (n= 645)

Centre 41.77 % (n= 914)

Total (TT) 2188

Control (TC) Boundary 44.46 % (n=1230)

Middle 25.41% (n= 703)

Centre 30.11% (n= 833)

Total (TC) 2766

Total (TT+TC) 4954

Cauliflower Treated (CT) Boundary 26.89 % (n= 188)

Middle 32.04 % (n= 224)

Centre 41..05 % (n= 287)

Total (CT) 699

Control (CC) Boundary 31.88 % (n= 699)

Middle 30.93 % (n= 678)

Centre 37.18 % (n= 815)

Total (CC) 2192

Total (CT+CC) 2891

Total of all fields (TT+TC+CT+CC) 7845

Field Type Population Dynamic

Tomato control 35.25% (n = 2766)

Tomato treated 27.89% (n = 2188)

Cauliflower control 27.95% (n = 2192)

Cauliflower treated 8.91 % (n = 699)

30

Table 4.1.1c: Taxa composition of invertebrate soil macro-fauna recorded from

Tomato and Cauliflower fields

Fig. 4.1.1a: Overall abundance of soil macro-fauna among Tomato and Cauliflower

(Control and Treated) fields

R² = 0.818

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Tomato control Tomato treated

Cauliflower control Cauliflower treated

Field Type Order Family Genera Species

Tomato Control 8 35 64 75

Tomato Treated 10 33 48 60

Cauliflower Control 9 24 44 52

Cauliflower Treated 12 60 51 58

31

Fig. 4.1.1b: Distribution of soil invertebrates among microhabitats of selected

Tomato and Cauliflower (Control and Treated) fields

Fig. 4.1.1c: Taxonomic hierarchy of soil macro-fauna among Tomato and

Cauliflower (Control and Treated) fields

Boundary Middle Centre Boundary Middle Center Boundary Middle Center Boundary Middle Center

Treated Control Treated Control

Tomato Cauliflower

Series1 629 645 914 1230 703 833 188 224 287 699 678 815

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Ab

un

da

nce

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Order Family Genera Species

Taxa Composition

Tomato Control Tomato Treated Cauliflower Control Cauliflower Treated

32

Relative Abundance

Relative abundance of soil macro-fauna in a landscape is keystone to formulate any strategy

for ideal production as well as conservational basis. Their existence depends upon the

nature of cultivated crop, soil profile, climatic conditions, agronomic/ horticultural

practices etc. Hence, the relative abundance was calculated in both tomato and cauliflower

fields (Appendix 1).

Tomato Fields: Soil macro-fauna recorded during present study from tomato treated and

control fields consisted of three phyla- Arthropoda, Annelida and Mollusca. The maximum

relative abundance was recorded for phylum Arthropoda (72.76%), followed by phylum

Mollusca (26.86%) and least from phylum Annelida (0.36%) (Table4.1.2a).

Control Fields: Order Hymenoptera (45.78%) was the most abundant order of soil macro-

fauna, followed by Isopoda (22.29%), Araneae (14.49%), Coleoptera (9.82%) and

Dermeptera (5.22%); while, least was for order Orthoptera (2.30%) amongst the phylum

Arthropoda. Among the phylum Mollusca, order Stylommatophora (98.27%) was the most

abundant and Basommatophora (1.72%) was the least recorded (Table4.1.2a). Wherein

Arthropods orders; Amphipoda, Blattodea, Diptera, Hemiptera, Lithobiomorpha,

Lepidoptera, Haplotaxida, were not found from control research site.

Treated Fields: Order Isopoda (75.16%) was the most abundant, followed by

Hymenoptera (7.46%), Dermaptera (7.04%), Coleoptera (4.19%), Araneae (3.22%), and

Orthoptera (1.75%); while order Lepidoptera (0.64%) was least recorded amongst phylum

Arthropoda; whereas, order Haplotaxida, was the only group amongst the phylum Annelida

which formed the least ration (0.36%) of the total soil macro-organisms recorded from

tomato treated fields. Amongst the phylum Mollusca, their population was not recorded

(Table 4.1.2a). Wherein, orders Blattodea, Diptera, Lithobiomorpha were also not found.

Cauliflower fields

Soil macro-fauna belonging to three phyla were observed from cauliflower treated and

control fields. The highest relative abundance of soil macro-fauna was recorded for phylum

Mollusca (58.18%), followed by Arthropoda (41.05%) and Annelida (1.66%), respectively

(Table 4.1.2b).

Control fields: Amongst all the recorded soil macro-fauna from control fields, orders;

Hymenoptera (45.71%), Coleoptera (15.91%), Isopoda (12.24%), Araneae (10.61%) and

Orthoptera (9.79%) were the most abundant orders of soil macro-fauna, while,

33

Stylommatophora (90.40%) and Basommatophora (0.46%) were recorded amongst the

phylum Mollusca (Table 4.1.2b).

Treated fields: Orders; Hymenoptera (45.15%), Coleoptera (17.88%), Araneae (12.66%)

and Isopoda (7.45%) were the most abundant orders, whereas, order Haplotaxida was the

only group amongst the Annelida which formed (4.00%) of the total soil macro-fauna

recorded, while, amongst the phylum Mollusca no data was recorded (Table 4.1.2b).

a b

c d

Fig.4.1.2 (a-d): Relative abundance of different phylum of soils macro-fauna among

all four fields

28%

0%72%

Tomato Control

ARTHROPODA ANNELIDA MOLLUSCA

38%

62%

0%Tomato Treated

ARTHROPODA ANNELIDA MOLLUSCA

23%

1%

76%

Cauliflower Control

ARTHROPODA ANNELIDA MOLLUSCA

77%

3%

20%

Cauliflower Treated

ARTHROPODA ANNELIDA MOLLUSCA

34

Table 4.1.2a: Relative abundance of soil macro-fauna recorded up to Order level

from Tomato fields (control and treated)

Phylum/Order Tomato Control Tomato Treated Tomato total

Arthropoda

Amphipoda 0.00(0) 0.27 (6) 0.16 (6)

Araneae 14.49 (208) 3.22 (70) 7.71 (278)

Blattodea 0.00(0) 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0)

Coleoptera 9.82 (141) 4.19 (91) 6.43 (232)

Dermaptera 5.22 (75) 7.09 (154) 6.35 (229)

Diptera 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00 (0)

Hemiptera 0.00(0) 0.09 (2) 0.05 (2)

Hymenoptera 45.78 (657) 7.46 (162) 22.71 (819)

Isopoda 22.29 (320) 75.16 (1631) 54.11 (1951)

Orthoptera 2.3 (34) 1.75 (38) 1.99 (72)

Lithobiomorpha 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00 (0)

Lepidoptera 0.00(0) 0.64 (14) 0.38 (14)

Amphipoda 0.00(0) 0.09 (2) 0.05 (2)

Sub-total (a) 39.80 (1435) 60.22 (2170) 72.76 (3605)

Annelida

Haplotaxida 0.00 (0) 100 (18) 100 (18)

Sub-total (b) 0.00 (0) 100 (18) 0.36 (18)

Mollusca

Stylommatophora 98.27 (1308) 0.00(0) 98.27 (1308)

Basommatophora 1.72 (23) 0.00(0) 1.72 (23)

Sub-total (c) 100 (1331) 0.00(0) 26.86 (1331)

Grand Total

(a+b+c)

55.83(2766) 44.17(2188) 100(4954)

35

Table 4.1.2b: Relative abundance of soil macro-fauna recorded upto order level

from cauliflower fields (control and treated)

Phylum/Order Cauliflower

Control

Cauliflower

Treated Total

Arthropoda

Amphipoda 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.08(8)

Araneae 10.61 (52) 12.66 (85) 4.74(137)

Blattodea 0.00(0) 0.29 (2) 0.07(2)

Coleoptera 15.91 (78) 17.88 (120) 6.85(198)

Dermaptera 3.26 (16) 5.06 (34) 1.73(50)

Diptera 0.00(0) 1.78 (12) 0.42(12)

Hemiptera 0.81 (4) 0.59 (4) 0.08 (8)

Hymenoptera 45.71 (224) 45.15 (303) 18.23 (527)

Isopoda 12.24 (60) 7.45 (50) 3.80(110)

Orthoptera 9.79 (48) 4.61 (31) 2.73 (79)

Lithobiomorpha 0.00 (0) 0.29 (2) 0.07(2)

Lepidoptera 1.63 (8) 4.17 (28) 1.25(36)

Sub-total (a) 22.35 (490) 95.99 (671) 41.05 (1161)

Annelida

Haplotaxida 0.91(20) 4.00(28) 1.66(48)

Sub-total (b) 0.91(20) 4.00(28) 1.66(48)

Mollusca

Stylommatophora 90.40 (1672) 0.00(0) 90.40 (1672)

Basommatophora 0.46(10) 0.00(0) 0.35 (10)

Sub-total (c) 76.73 (1682) 0.00(0) 58.18 (1682)

Grand Total

(a+b+c) 75.82 (2192) 24.17 (699) 100(2891)

36

Relative Abundance Micro-Habitat-Wise

Tomato Control: In tomato control fields, the relative abundance of various orders of soil

macro-fauna was recorded at three micro-habitats as follow: (a) boundary, (b) middle and

(c) center of the fields (Fig.4.1.3d-f).

Data presented in (Fig.4.1.3d), was related to the comparison of relative abundance among

the most abundantaly orders of soil macro-fauna from boundary of the tomato control.

Relative abundance among the phylum found from boundary of the tomato control fields

was maximum as order Pulmonata (63.00%), followed by Hymenoptera (11.78%), Isopoda

(10.40%), Araneae (7.72%), Coleoptera (3.41%), Dermaptera (3.17%) and Orthroptera

(0.48%).

Data presented in (Fig.4.1.3e), exhibited from middle of the tomato control site was

maximum in case of order Pulmonata (41.25%), and followed by Hymenoptera (20.06%),

Isopoda (19.91%), Coleoptera (7.96%), Dermaptera (3.98%), Orthoptera (3.69%) and

Araneae (3.12%).

soil fauna from centre of the tomato control was maximum in case of order Hymenoptera

(45 %), followed by, Pulmonata (29.17%), Araneae (10.92%), Isopoda (6.24%), Coleoptera

(5.16%), Stylommatophora (2.76%), Dermaptera (0.96%) and Orthroptera (0.24%)

(Fig.4.1.3f).

Tomato Treated: In tomato treated fields, the relative abundance of various orders of soil

macro-fauna was recorded at three micro-habitats i.e. boundary, middle and centre of the

fields (Fig.4.1.3a-c).

Data presented in (Fig.4.1.3a), was associated to the comparison of relative abundance

indices among the most abundant orders of soil macro-biota from boundary of the tomato

treated. Relative abundance recorded from boundary of the tomato treated fields was

maximum in case of order Isopoda (69.6%), followed by Dermaptera (10.88%),

Hymenoptera (7.84%), Coleoptera (4.96%), Areneae (4.16%), Orthroptera (1.60%) and

Amphipoda (0.64%), while, least abundant order was Lepidoptera (0.34%).

Data presented in (Fig.4.1.3b), showed the comparison of relative abundance indices

among the most abundant from middle of the tomato treated fields was maximum in case

of order Isopoda (81.71%), followed by Coleoptera (7.13%), Dermaptera (3.10%),

37

Orthroptera (2.48%), Hymenoptera (1.55%), Areneae (1.53%) and Lepidoptera (0.93%);

whereas order Amphipoda, showed the least relative abundance (0.31%).

Data presented in (Fig.4.1.3c), showed the comparison of relative abundance indices among

the most abundant orders from centre of the tomato treated fields. from center of the tomato

treated fields was recorded maximum in case of order Isopoda (73.36%), followed by

Hymenoptera (11.29%), Dermaptera (7.23%), Areneae (3.72%), Coleoptera (1.53%),

Orthroptera (1.31%), Haplotaxida (0.87 %) and Lepidoptera (0.65%).

Cauliflower Control: In cauliflower control fields, soil macro-fauna was recorded at three

micro-habitats (Fig.4.1.3j-l).

Data presented in (Fig.4.1.3j), showed the comparison of relative abundance indices among

the most abundant orders in boundary of the cauliflower control fields. Relative abundance

recorded from boundary of the cauliflower control fields was maximum in case of order

Pulmonata (77.68%), followed by Hymenoptera (14.59%), Orthroptera (4.00%), Araneae

(1.43%), Coleoptera (1.43%), Haplotaxida (0.59%) and the least for order Lepidoptera

(0.28%).

Data presented in (Fig.4.1.3k), showed the comparison of relative abundance indices

among the most abundant orders from middle of the cauliflower control fields. from middle

of the cauliflower control was maximum in case of order Pulmonata (80.97%), followed

by Hymenoptera (7.81%), Araneae (4.42%), Coleoptera (8.25%), Dermaptera (1.47%),

Stylommatophora (1.47%), Hemiptera (0.29%) and Lepidoptera (0.29%).

Data presented in (Fig.4.1.3l), showed the comparison of relative abundance indices among

the most abundant orders of fauna in center of the cauliflower control. in center of the

cauliflower control fields was maximum in case of order Pulmonata (71.16%), then as

Hymenoptera (8.46%), Isopoda (7.36%), Coleoptera (5.64%), Orthoptera (2.45%),

Haplotaxida (1.96%), Araneae (1.47%), Dermaptera (0.73%) and Lepidoptera (0.49%).

Cauliflower Treated: In cauliflower treated fields, the relative abundance of various

orders of soil macro-fauna was recorded at three micro-habitats i.e. (Fig.4.1.3g-i).

Data presented in (Fig.4.1.3g) interpreted the comparison of relative abundance indices

among the most abundant orders of soil fauna from boundary of the cauliflower treated.

from boundary of the cauliflower treated fields was recorded maximum in case of order

Hymenoptera (55.31%), followed by Dermaptera (10.63%), Coleoptera (6.38%), Araneae

(4.26%), Isopoda (4.25%) and Orthroptera (2.12%).

38

Data presented in (Fig.4.1.3h), showed the comparison of relative abundance indices

among the most abundant orders from middle of the cauliflower treated fields. from middle

was maximum of cauliflower treated fields in case of order Hymenoptera (31.25%),

followed by Araneae (26.33%), Coleoptera (26.33%), Diptera (5.35%), Lepidoptera

(5.35%), Haplotaxida (3.57), whereas Dermaptera (1.78%), showed the least relative

abundance.

Data presented in (Fig.4.1.3i), showed the comparison of relative abundance indices among

the most abundant orders from center of the cauliflower treated fields. Relative abundance

from center of the cauliflower treated fields was maximum in case of order Hymenoptera

(44.94%), followed by Coleoptera (17.07%), Isopoda (14.63%), Orthroptera (9.40%),

Araneae (6.27%), and Dermaptera (2.09%) whereas, Hemiptera (0.69%), showed the least

relative abundance.

39

Fig.4.1.3a-f: Microhabtat-wise Relative abundance of soil macro-fauna recorded from tomato (control and treated) fields

(Hymenoptera■ Araneae■, Isopoda■, Coleoptera■, Dermeptera■, Orthoptera■, Hemiptera■, Amphipoda■,

Lepidoptera■, Pulmonata■, Stylommatomorpha■, Haplotaxida■)

a

b

c

d

e

f

1% 4% 5%11%

1%

8%

69%

1% 0%

Tomato Treated Control

Amphipoda

Araneae

Coleoptera

Dermaptera

Haplotaxida

Hymenoptera

2%

7% 3%

1%

0% 2%

82%

2% 1%0%

TomatoTreated Middle

Araneae

Coleoptera

Dermaptera

Haplotaxida

Hemiptera

Hymenoptera

0%

4% 2%7%

1%11%

73%

1%1%

TomatoTreated Center

Amphipoda

Araneae

Coleoptera

Dermaptera

Haplotaxida

Hymenoptera

8% 3% 3%

12%

10%

1%

63%

Tomato Control BoundaryAraneae

Coleoptera

Dermaptera

Hymenoptera

Isopoda

Orthoptera

Pulmonata

3% 8%4%

20%

20%

4%

41%

Tomato Control MiddleAraneae

Coleoptera

Dermaptera

Hymenoptera

Isopoda

Orthoptera

Pulmonata

11%5%

1%

45%

6%

0%

29%

3%

Tomato Control Center Araneae

Coleoptera

Dermaptera

Hymenoptera

Isopoda

Orthoptera

Pulmonata

Stylommatophora

40

Fig.4.1.3 g-i: Microhabtat-wise Relative abundance of soil macro-fauna recorded from cauliflower (control and treated) fields

(Hymenoptera■ Araneae■, Isopoda■, Coleoptera■, Dermeptera■, Orthoptera■, Hemiptera■, Amphipoda■,

Lepidoptera■, Pulmonata■, Stylommatomorpha■, Haplotaxida■)

g

h

i

J

k

l

4% 7%13%

11%

1%

55%

4%

2%

1%

2%

Cauliflower Treated Boundary Araneae

Coleoptera

Dermaptera

Haplotaxida

Hemiptera

Hymenoptera

Isopoda

Orthoptera

Lithobiomorpha

Lepidoptera

26%

26%

2%6%4%

31%

5%

Cauliflower Treated Middle

Araneae

Coleoptera

Dermaptera

Deptera

Haplotaxida

Hymenoptera

Lepidoptera

6% 1%

17%2%1%

45%

15%

9% 4%

Cauliflower Treated Center

Araneae

Blattodea

Coleoptera

Dermaptera

Hemiptera

Hymenoptera

Isopoda

1%

1%

1%

15%4%

0%

78%

Cauliflower Control Boundary

Araneae

Coleoptera

Haplotaxida

Hymenoptera

Orthoptera

Lepidoptera

Pulmonata

4% 3%2%0%8%0%

81%

2%

Cauliflower Control Middle Araneae

Coleoptera

Dermaptera

Hemiptera

Hymenoptera

Lepidoptera

Pulmonata

Stylommatophora

2% 6% 1%2%

0% 8%

7%

2%

1%71%

Cauliflower Control CenterAraneae

Coleoptera

Dermaptera

Haplotaxida

Hemiptera

Hymenoptera

Isopoda

Orthoptera

Lepidoptera

Pulmonata

41

Overall relative abundance soil macro-fauna in tomato treated and control fields

Overall relative abundance of soil macro-fauna was also recorded at three micro-habitats

i.e. boundary, middle and center of the fields. Data presented in (Fig.4.1.4a) is pertaining

to the comparison of relative abundance indices among all the macro-fauna recorded from

tomato treated field. from all micro-habitats of the tomato treated field was, maximum from

center (41.8%) as compared to middle (29.5%) and boundary (28.7%) of the fields.

In the same context, relative abundance of all soil fauna was at three micro-habitats i.e. of

the tomato control fields. (Fig.4.1.4b), shows comparison of relative abundance recorded

from all micro-habitats of the tomato control field was, maximum from boundary (44.5%)

as compared to center (30.1%) and middle (25.4%) of the field (Fig.4.1.4b).

Relative abundance soil macro-fauna in cauliflower treated and control fields

Overall relative abundance of all the macro-fauna was recorded at three micro-habitats i.e.

boundary, middle and center of the fields. Data presented in (Fig.4.1.4c) is pertaining to

Relative abundance recorded from all micro-habitats of the cauliflower treated field was,

maximum from center (41.1%) as compared to middle (32.0%) and boundary (26.9%) of

the fields.

In the same context, relative abundance of all the macro-fauna was recorded at three micro-

habitats i.e. boundary, middle and centre of the cauliflower control fields. Data presented

in (Fig.4.1.4d) is pertaining to the comparison of relative abundance indices among all the

macro-fauna in cauliflower control fields. from all micro-habitats of the cauliflower control

field was, maximum from center (37.2%) as compared to boundary (31.9%) and middle

(30.9%) of the field (Fig.4.1.4d).

42

Fig.4.1.4a

Fig.4.1.4b

Fig.4.1.4c

Fig.4.1.4d

Fig. 4.1.4 (a-d): Pie graph represent the overall relative abundance% soil macro-fauna recorded from

tomatotreated, tomato control, cauliflower treated and tomato control field

42%

29%

29%

Tomato Treated

Boundary Middle Center

45%

30%

25%

Tomato Control

Boundary Middle Center

27%

32%

41%

Cauliflower Treated

Boundary Middle Center

32%

31%

37%

Cauliflower Control

Boundary Middle Center

43

Relative abundance of soil macro-fauna Family-wise recorded from

tomato field

During the present study period family-wise relative abundance of soil macro-fauna was

recorded from tomato fields was as follow:

Overall among all the treated and control fields family-wise maximum from tomato control

35.25% (n=2766), whereas minimum from tomato treated 27.89% (n=2188) fields

(Appendix-2).

The maximum was in tomato control for family Succineidae 44.10% (n=1220), followed

by Formicidae 23.68 % (n=655), Lycosidae 6.47% (n=179), Porcelliondae 3.90% (n=108).

Whereas, it was recorded the least for family Gryllotalpidae, Acrididae, Histeridae,

Theridiidae, Desidae, Meloidae, Curculionidae were with equal value i.e. (n≤10),

(Appendix-1).

The maximum was in tomato treated for family Porcellionidae 53.97% (n=1181), followed

by Trachelipodidae 10.83% (n=225), Formicidae 7.04% (n=162) and Chelisochidae 6.12%

(n=134). Whereas, it was recorded minimum for Melitidae, Gryllotalpidae, Cimicidae,

Labiidae, Dermestidae, Eutichuridae, Thomisidae and Pisauridae were with equal

abundance i.e. (n≤10), (Appendix-2).

Overall among all the treated and control fields maximum from tomato control 35.25%

(n=2766) whereas minimum relative abundance was recorded from tomato treated 27.89%

(n=2188) fields (Appendix-2).

The maximum relative abundance was recorded from cauliflower control fields for family

Succineidae 69.36% (n=1519), followed by Family Formicidae10.22% (n=224),

Polygyridae 5.79% (n=127). However, following families were recorded with the least

relative abundance i.e., Pyralidae, Carabidae and Dictynidae, were all have the equal

abundance and Enidae, Cimicidae, and Erebidae, Cerambycidae were with equal relative

abundance i.e. (n≤10), (Appendix-1).

The maximum was from cauliflower treated for family Formicidae 43.34% (n=303),

followed by Staphylinidae 11.15% (n=78), Lycosidae7.58% (n=53). Whereas, it was

recorded minimum for Family Lithopiidae, Porcelliondae, Acanthosomatidae,

Pyrrhocoridae, Curculionidae, Coccinellidae, Blattellidae, Megascolecidae, Labiduridae,

Chrysomelidae, Sicariidaewere, Erebidae, Oniscidae, Labiidae and Elateridae were equal

abundance i.e. (N≤10), (Appendix-2).

44

Relative abundance of soil macro-faunaGenera-wise recorded from

tomato field

During the present study period genera-wise relative abundance of invertebrate macro-

fauna was recorded from tomato field.

The maximum in tomato control fields for genus Succinea 44.10% (n=1220), followed by

Iridomyrmex 5.53% (n=153), Trochosa 4.12% (n=114), Messor 5.35% (n=148),

Porcellio3.90% (n=108); whereas, least relative abundance for the genus Badumna,

Gryllotalpa, Aiolopus, Apiscomponotus, Carcinops, Cissites, Meloe, Phyllobius, Agonum,

Pterostichus, Eleodes, Scaphidema, Harmonia, Arctosa, Parasteatoda, Tegenaria,

Agelenopsis, Camponotus, Liophloeus, Feronia, Cyclocephala, Hogna, Eratigena, were

recorded as same level of abundance i.e. (n≤10) (Appendix-3).

The maximum was highlighted from tomato treated fields for genus Porcellio 53.97%

(n=1181), followed by Trachelipus 10.83% (n=225) Chelisoches 6.12% (n=134),

Solenopsis 4.38% (n=96). Whereas, it was recorded minimum for the genera Maerella,

Phragmatobia, Gryllotalpa, Teleogryllus, Cimex, Labia, Eleodes, Scaphidema, Promethis,

Dermestes, Hogna, Cheiracanthium, Xysticus, Pisaurawere have the equal abundance i.e.

0.09% (n=02), Aporrectodea, Crioceris, Pentodom, Rabidosa, Spilosoma, were equal

abundance i.e. 0.18% (n=04) and genera Arctiostrotus, Euborellia, Cerotoma, Malthonica,

Arcitalitrus were with the same abundance level i.e. (n≤10), (Appendix-3).

The maximum was observed from cauliflower control fields for genus Succinea 69.29%

(n=1519), followed by Messor 61.78% (n=1353), Praticolella 5.79% (n=127), whereas,

minimum relative abundance was recorded for Tegenaria, Cicurina, Tigrosa, Harpalus,

Galleria, Phragmatobia, Xerosecta all having the equal abundance i.e. 0.09% (n=02),

whereas, Tachyporus, Cimex, Dolichoderus, Spilosoma, Masthus, Paederus, Derobrachus,

Leptinotarsa, Pheidolerhea, were with same abundance i.e. (n≤10), (Appendix-2).

The maximum relative abundance was found from the cauliflower treated fields for genera

Solenopsis 16.59% (n≥116) followed by Messor 9.72% (n≥68), Monomorium 8.86% (62),

Ocypus 8.29% (n≥58). Whereas, minimum was bserved for genera Agelenopsis, Blattella,

Dinaraea, Coccinella, Gonocephalum, Alphitobius, Bius, Dendroctonus, Cardiophorus,

Pyrrhocoris, Elasmostethus, Porcellio, Lithobius, Achroia, Galleria, Agrotis and

45

Phragmatobia were have the same level i.e., 0.28% (n≤02), while, genera Spilosoma,

Scapteriscus, Prenolepis, Amynthas, Labidura, Tenebrio, Gonocephalum, Aphthona,

Loxosceles, Horistonotus, Labia, Formica, Oniscus and Plodia, were with equall level

values i.e. (n≤10), (Appendix-2).

46

Relative abundance of soil macro-fauna species-wise recorded from

tomato field and cauliflower fields

During the study period species-wise relative abundance of soil macro-fauna was recorded

from tomato field.

Tomato Control

The highest was elaborated from tomato control fields for species Succinea spp.

(Stylommatophora: Succineidae) 35.249% (n=975), followed by Succinea putris

(Stylommatophora: Succineidae) 8.857% (n=245), Iridomyrmex purpureus (Hymenoptera:

Formicidae), 5.531% (n=153), Solenopsis mandibularis (Hymenoptera: Formicidae)

3.362% (93), Trichoniscus pusillus (Isopoda: Trichoniscidae) 2.566% (71), Froggatella

kirbii (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) and Porcellio spinicornis (Isopoda: Porcelliondae)

2.205% (n=61), Messor barbarous (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) 5.350% (n=148),

Trachelipus rathkii(Isopoda: Trachelipodidae) 2.133% (n=59), Formica rufa

(Hymenoptera: Formicidae) 1.916% (n=53), Pheropsophus catoirei (Coleoptera:

Carabidae) 2.33% (n=51), Porcellio scaber (Isopoda: Porcelliondae) 1.699% (n=47),

Formica ligniperdos (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) 1.626% (n=45), Monomorium pharaonis

(Hymenoptera: Formicidae) and Subulina octona (Stylommatophora: Subulinidae) 1.482%

(n=41) (Appendix-3).

The least recorded species were, Agelenopsis spp.(Araneae: Agelenidae), Tegenaria atrica

(Araneae: Agelenidae), Parasteatoda tepidariorum (Araneae: Theridiidae), Harmonia

axyridis (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae), Scaphidema metallicum (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae),

Eleodes hirtipennis (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae), Pterostichus melanarius (Coleoptera:

Carabidae), Agonum spp. (Coleoptera: Carabidae), Phyllobius spp. (Coleoptera:

Curculionidae), Meloe niger (Coleoptera: Meloidae), Cissites auriculata niger (Coleoptera:

Meloidae), Carcinops pumilio (Coleoptera: Histeridae), Aiolopus strepens (Orthoptera:

Acrididae), Gryllotalpa orientalis (Orthoptera: Gryllotalpidae), Tigrosa annexa (Araneae:

Lycosidae) , Tigrosa aspersa (Araneae: Lycosidae), Hogna lenta; Arctosa spp. ( Araneae:

Lycosidae), Cyclocephala lurida (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae), Coccinella hieroglyphica;

Harmonia axyridis (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae), Feronia nigrita (Coleoptera: Carabidae),

Liophloeus tessulatus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), Camponotus lateralis (Hymenoptera:

Formicidae) and Componotus florictanus (Hymenoptera: Formicidae), with equal relative

abundance (n≤05) (Appendix-3).

47

Tomato Treated

The utmost level of abundance was found from Tomato treated fields for species Porcellio

scaber (Isopoda: Porcelliondae) 53.97% (n=1181), followed by Trachelipus rathkii

(Isopoda: Trachelipodidae) 10.28% (n=225), Chelisoches morio (Dermaptera:

Chelisochidae) 6.124% (n=134). While other prominent species were Armadillidium

vulgare (Isopoda: Armadidllidae) 3.747% (n=82), Trichorhina tomentosa (Isopoda:

Platyarthridae) 3.244% (n=71), Pheropsophus catoirei (Coleoptera: Carabidae) 2.33%

(n=51), Oniscus asellus (Isopoda: Oniscidae) 1.828% (n=40), Camponotus vagus

(Hymenoptera: Formicidae) 1.553% (n=34), Acheta domesticus (Orthoptera: Gryllidae)

1.005% (n=22) and Formica spp. (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) 0.731% (n=16) (Appendix-

3).

The least recorded species were Pisaura mirabilis (Araneae: Pisauridae), Xysticus cristatus

(Araneae: Thomisidae), Cheiracanthium inclusum (Araneae: Eutichuridae), Tigrosa

georgicola, Trochosa spp., Tochosa. terricola, Trochosa spinipalpis, Pardosa amentata,

Paederus riparius (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae), Dermestes lardarius (Coleoptera:

Dermestidae), Promethis nigra (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae), Gonocephalum pussilum

(Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae), Cimex lectularius (Hemiptera: Cimicidae), Camponotus

pennsylvanicus (Hymenoptera: Formicidae),Gryllus veletis (Orthoptera: Gryllidae),

Teleogryllus commodus (Orthoptera: Gryllidae), Gryllotalpa gryllotalpa (Orthoptera:

Gryllotalpidae), Phragmatobia fuliginosa (Lepidoptera: Erebidae), Maerella spp.

(Araneae: Melitidae), Rabidosa rabida (Araneae: Lycosidae), Pentodon idiota (Coleoptera:

Scarabaeidae), Crioceris asparagi (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae), Aporrectodea caliginosa

(Haplotaxida: Lumbricidae), Solenopsisinvicta(Hymenoptera: Formicidae) and Spilosoma

lubricipeda (Lepidoptera: Erebidae) Tigrosa annexa (Araneae: Lycosidae) and Hogna

lenta (Araneae: Lycosidae), with equal relative abundance (n≤5) (Appendix-3).

48

Cauliflower Control

The maximum level of abundance was observed from cauliflower control fields of species

Succinea spp. (Stylommatophora: Succineidae) 61.724% (n=1335), Succinea putris

(Stylommatophora: Succineidae) 7.572% (n=166), Mastus abundans (Stylommatophora:

Enidea) 5.79% (n=127), Messor barbarous (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) 2.965% (n=65),

Monomorium pharaonis (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) 2.463% (n=54),

Trichorhina tomentosa (Isopoda: Platyarthridae) 1.414% (n=31), Oniscus asellus (Isopoda:

Oniscidae) 1.322% (n=29), Coccinella septempunctata (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae)

1.003% (n=22); Acheta domesticus (Orthoptera: Gryllidae)1.003% (n=22), and

Aporrectodea caliginosa (Haplotaxida:Lumbricidae 0.912% (n=20).

The least recorded species were Coccinella undecimpunctata (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae),

Cicurina arcuata (Araneae: Dictynidae), Tigrosa helluo (Araneae: Lycosidae), Pardosa

amentata (Araneae: Lycosidae), Harpalus rufipes (Coleoptera: Carabidae), Galleria

mellonella (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae), Phragmatobia fuliginosa (Lepidoptera: Erebidae),

Acicula spp. (Stylommatophora: Aciculidae), Tegenaria atrica (Araneae: Agelenidae),

Tachyporus obtusus (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae), Cimex lectularius (Hemiptera:

Cimicidae), Spilosoma lubricipeda (Lepidoptera: Erebidae)and Promenetus umbilicatellus

(Basommatophora: Planorbridae),with equal relative abundance (n≤5) (Appendix-3).

Cauliflower Treated

The species,Solenopsis mandibularis (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) exhibited maximum

relative abundance9.728% (n=68) in cauliflower treated fieldsfollowed by Dolichoderus

taschenbergi (Hymenoptera:Formicidae) 8.869% (n=62), Camponotus

vagus(Hymenoptera: Formicidae) 8.583% (n=60), Dinaraea angustula (Coleoptera:

Staphylinidae) 8.297% (n=58), Philoscia muscorum (Isopoda: Philosidae) 6.008% (n=42),

Solenopsis invicta (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) 5.293 % (n = 37), Nala lividipes

(Dermaptera: Labiduridae) 3.433% (n=24), Gryllotalpa gryllotalpa (Orthoptera:

Gryllotalpidae) 3.290% (n=23), Formica invicta(Hymenoptera: Formicidae) 2.718%

(n=19) and Paederus riparius (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae) 2.575% (n=18).

The least abundant species recorded were; Agelenopsis spp. (Araneae: Agelenidae),

Derobrachus germinates (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae), Coccinella undecimpunctata

(Coleoptera: Coccinellidae), Scaphidema metallicum (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae), Bius

thoracicus (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae), Formica exsectoides (Hymenoptera: Formicidae),

49

Paederus littoralis (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae), Pheropsophus catoirei (Coleoptera:

Carabidae), Elasmostethus crucitus (Hemiptera: Acanthosomatidae), Messor barbarous

(Hymenoptera: Formicidae), Iridomyrmex purpureus; Solenopsis molesta (Hymenoptera:

Formicidae), Forelius pruinosus (Hymenoptera: Formicidae), Trachelipus rathkii

(Isopoda: Trachelipodidae), Lithobius forficatus (Lithobiomorpha: Lithopiidae), Galleria

mellonella (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae), Agrotis spp. (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), Phragmatobia

fuliginosa (Lepidoptera: Erebidae), Dermestes lardarius (Coleoptera: Dermestidae),

Eleodes hirtipennis (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae), Alphitobius laevigatus (Coleoptera:

Tenebrionidae), Cimex lectularius (Hemiptera: Cimicidae), Crematogaster spp.

(Hymenoptera|: Formicidae), Achroia grisella (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae), Formica

exsectoides (Hymenoptera: Formicidae), Scapteriscus spp. (Orthoptera: Gryllotalpidae),

Gryllotalpa spp. (Orthoptera: Gryllotalpidae), Spilosoma lubricipeda (Lepidoptera:

Erebidae), with equal relative abundance (n≤5) (Appendix-3).

50

Impact of environmental factors (humidity and temperature) on

abundance of soil macro-fauna

The (Fig. 4.1.5a) represented the impacts of humidity and temperature on relative

abundance of soil macro-fauna in tomato control fields area. Non-significant results (R2=

0.538) were recorded with respect to humidity and temperature. The abundance of macro-

fauna was increased with increase in temperature, whereas, in case of humidity results were

different; as the level of abundance of macro-fauna was decreased with increase in

humidity.

In (Fig. 4.1.5b) the data presented that the effects of humidity and temperature on

abundance of soil macro-fauna among tomato treated (fields). The high level of abundance

was found during 2nd sampling and the least was found in 5th sampling. Temperature and

humidity had no significant impact (R2=0.371; R2=0.659) on soil macro-fauna abundance.

However, along the horizontal and seasonal distribution, with the increase in temperature,

abundance of soil macro-fauna was decreased. Whereas, in case of humidity results were

varied; with the rise in humidity, existence of soil macro-fauna was decreased.

In (Fig. 4.1.5c) the graph presented that the impact of a-biotic factors (humidity and

temperature) on abundance of soil macro-fauna in cauliflower (control) research fields.The

highest abundance level was found during 4th research sampling, whereas, the least

abundance was observed in 2nd sampling. Temperature and humidity had no significant

impact of soil macro- fauna abundance. However, along the horizontal and seasonal

distribution, with the decrease in temperature, abundance of soil macro-fauna was

increased. Whereas, in case of humidity results were analogous; with the high level in

humidity, existence of soil macro-fauna was increased.

In (Fig. 4.1.5d) the data presented that the impact of a-biotic factors (humidity and

temperature) on abundance of soil macro-fauna among cauliflower (treated fields). The

maximum level of abundance was observed during 6th research sampling and the least was

recorded in 1st sampling. Temperature and humidity have no significant effect on soil

macro- fauna abundance. However, along the horizontal and seasonal distribution, with the

increase in temperature, abundance of soil macro-fauna was increased. Whereas, in case of

humidity results were varied; with the decrease in humidity, existence of soil fauna was

increased.

51

Fig. 4.1.5(a-d): Impact of humidity and temperature on soil macro-fauna among (a) tomato control, (b) tomato treated, (c) cauliflower

control (d) cauliflower treared fields

A b

C d

52

ANOVA

The results of Analysis of Variance were, non-significant (P>0.05) among overall tomato

and cauliflower fields cultivations, highly significant (P<0.01) among control fields and

treated tomato fields cultivations, whilst, non-significant (P>0.05) among micro-habitats

(boundary, middle and center) of tomato and cauliflower (control and treated) fields. The

comparison of log10 (mean±SE) explained significant results between tomato treated and

tomato control fields. Similarly, significant results were shown between cauliflower control

fields and treated fields cultivations (Table4.1.3).

Level of Significance with respect to orders:

t-test analysis showed highly significant results (t=14.61; p<0.001) in tomato (control

fields) and tomato treated fields, similarly, it showed significant results (t=17.28; p<0.001)

in cauliflower control fields and treated fields (Table4.1.4a).

The t-test analysis was significant among boundary (t=1.84; p<0.05), highly significant

among middle (t=12.82; p<0.001) and center (t=8.96; p<0.001) between control fields and

treated fields cultivations. Whilst, it was significant among boundary (t=8.18; p<0.001),

middle (t=12.01; p<0.001) and center (t=7.32; p<0.001) between cauliflower control fields

and treated fields cultivations (Table4.1.4b).

Level of Significance with respect to species:

Comparison (t-test) between treated and control showed highly significant (t=17.51;

p<0.000) results among tomato control and treated field microhabitats with respect to

species. The t-test result was recorded significant (t=28.14; p<0.000) among cauliflower

control fields and treated fields (Table4.1.5a.).

Whilst, t-test was significant in boundary (t=3.70; p<0.05), highly significant among

middle (t=14.1; p<0.001) and center (t=10.09; p<0.001) between control fields and treated

fields cultivations (Table4.1.3.a). Whereas, t-test results was significant in boundary

(t=7.83; p<0.001), middle (t=20.28; p<0.001) and center (t=11.12; p<0.001) between

cauliflower control fields and treated fields cultivations (Table4.1.5b).

53

Table4.1.3a: Analysis of variance for abundance (log10 transformation)

Source of variation Degrees

of

freedom

Sum of squares Mean squares F-value

Microhabitats

Field Type

Microhabitats × Field Type

Error

Total

2

3

6

359

370

1.0799

6.0581

0.6133

103.7340

0.5400

2.0194

0.1022

0.2890

1.87NS

6.99**

0.35NS

* = Significant (P<0.05); NS = Non-significant (P>0.05); ** = Highly significant (P<0.01)

Table4.1.3b: Comparison of log10 (mean±SE)

Treatment Side Mean

Boundary Middle Centre

TT 0.712±0.105 0.654±0.087 0.752±0.092 0.708±0.054 B

TC 0.859±0.099 0.853±0.076 1.081±0.107 0.917±0.054 A

CT 0.615±0.086 0.689±0.073 0.706±0.074 0.675±0.044 B

CC 0.885±0.125 0.980±0.128 1.043±0.118 0.970±0.071 A

Mean 0.776±0.053 A 0.778±0.044 A 0.875±0.050 A

Means sharing similar letter in a row or in a column are statistically non-significant (P>0.05)

54

Table4.1.4a: Comparison (t-test) between treated and control for tomato crop with

respect to orders

Side Treatment S N t-value P-value

Boundary Treated 9 629 1.84* ≥ 0.0328

Control 7 1230

Middle Treated 10 645 12.82** ≤ 0.0001

Control 7 703

Center Treated 9 914 8.96** ≤ 0.0001

Control 8 833

Total Treated 10 2188 14.61** ≤ 0.0001

Control 8 2766

NS = Non-significant (P>0.05); * = Significant (P<0.05); ** = Highly significant (P<0.01)

Table4.1.4b: Comparison (t-test) between treated and control for cauliflower crop

with respect to orders.

Side Treatment S N t-value P-value

Boundary Treated 10 188 8.18** ≤ 0.0001

Control 7 699

Middle Treated 7 224 12.01** ≤ 0.0001

Control 8 678

Center Treated 9 287 7.32** ≤ 0.0001

Control 10 815

Total Treated 12 699 17.28 ≤ 0.0001

Control 11 2192

NS = Non-significant (P>0.05); * = Significant (P<0.05); ** = Highly significant (P<0.01)

55

Table4.1.5.a. Comparison (t-test) between treated and control for tomato crop with

respect to species

Side Treatment S N Var H t-value P-value

Boundary Treated 30 629 0.00431 3.70** ≤ 0.0001

Control 40 1230 0.00227

Middle Treated 35 645 0.00517 14.10** ≤ 0.0001

Control 43 703 0.00227

Center Treated 40 914 0.00255 10.09** ≤ 0.0001

Control 31 833 0.00124

Total Treated 60 2188 0.00151 17.51** ≤ 0.0001

Control 75 2766 0.00100

NS = Non-significant (P>0.05); * = Significant (P<0.05); ** = Highly significant (P<0.01)

Table4.1.5.b. Comparison (t-test) between treated and control for cauliflower crop

with respect to species

Side Treatment S N Var H t-value P-value

Boundary Treated 24 188 0.00779 7.83** ≤ 0.0001

Control 23 699 0.00359

Middle Treated 30 224 0.00283 20.28** ≤ 0.0001

Control 19 678 0.00388

Center Treated 32 287 0.00415 11.12** ≤ 0.0001

Control 24 815 0.00282

Total Treated 59 699 0.00151 28.14** ≤ 0.0001

Control 51 2192 0.00168

NS = Non-significant (P>0.05); * = Significant (P<0.05); ** = Highly significant (P<0.01)

56

SECTION 4.2: Hazardous impacts of polluted water on the diversity and

density of soil macro-fauna among these fields

Diversity

Considering the significance of soil macro-fauna in soil decomposition and its value as a

considerable role in the biodiversity, the species diversity of soil macro-fauna in agriculture

division was determined via different diversity indices (Shannon, 1948) sampling-wise,

overall and microhabitat-wise. initially, they were illustrated as sampling wise:

Diversity (Hʹ)

In tomato control research fields, maximum (Hʹ) was recorded 2.379 during (6th) sampling,

followed by 2.201 (5th), 2.197 (1st), 2.169 (3rd), 2.136 (4th), 1.735 (7th) sampling, whereas,

the least (Hʹ) 1.392 was found for 2nd sampling (Table 4.2.1a). In tomato treated fields,

maximum diversity (Hʹ) was recorded 2.249 during (4th) sampling, followed by 1.618 (6th),

1.555 (1st), 1.521 (7th), 1.032 (5th) and 0.977 (3rd) sampling, Although, the least (Hʹ) 0.757

was observed for (2nd) sampling (Table 4.2.1b).

In cauliflower control research site, maximum (Hʹ) was illustrated 2.103 during 6th

sampling, then followed by 1.578 (2nd), 1.514 (3rd), 1.414 (7th), 1.062 (5th), 1.054 (5th) and

the least (Hʹ) 1.005 was recorded for1st sampling (Table 4.2.1c).

In cauliflower treated fields, maximum (Hʹ) was noted 2.459 during (7th) sampling,

followed by 2.436 (6th), 2.135 (3rd), 2.039 (4th), 1.925 (5th), 1.809 (2nd) whereas, the least

(Hʹ) 1.782 was recorded for 1st sampling (Table 4.2.1d).

Dominance (D)

As Tomato control research site was concerned, maximum (D) 0.3957 was noted in (2nd)

sample, as followed by 0.3876 (7th), 0.3163 (3rd), 0.2985 (4th), 0.2398 (1st), 0.2345 (6th) and

lowest level dominance (D) 0.2185 was noted in 4th sample (Table 4.2.1a).

As Tomato treated research fields, high level of dominance (D) 0.6712 was noted in (2nd)

sampling, as followed by 0.6191 (3rd), 0.5845 (5th), 0.4893 (1st), 0.4766 (6th), 0.4738 (7th)

sampling and least dominance ,0.2220 , was observed in 4th sample (Table 4.2.1b).

As from the Cauliflower treated research fields, high level of (D) 0.3057 was found in (5th)

sample, as followed by 0.2454 (2nd), 0.2000 (6th), 0.1796 (4th), 0.1678 (3rd), 0.1650 (7th)

sampling and least (D) 0.0842 was noted in 1st sample (Table 4.2.1c).

57

As in Cauliflower control fields, highest level of dominance (D) 0.5858 was found in (4th)

sampling, as followed by 0.5424 (1st), 0.4934 (5th), 0.4103 (7th), 0.3148 (5th), 0.2859 (6th)

sampling and least dominance (D) 0.2220 was noted in 3rd sample (Table 4.2.1d).

Evenness (E)

In tomato control sites, utmost (E) 0.782 was found in (6th) sample, then 0.765 (3rd), 0.760

(1st), 0.701 (4th), 0.684 (5th), 0.612 (7th) sampling and the least evenness 0.604 was recorded

in 2nd sampling (Table 4.2.1a).

In tomato treated research fields, utmost evenness (E) 0.778 was observed in (4th) sample,

then 0.526 (7th), 0.523 (6th), 0.511 (1st), 0.416 (5th), 0.381(3rd) sampling and the least (E)

value 0.329 was recorded in 2nd sampling (Table 4.2.1b).

While, in cauliflower control area, maximum Evenness (E) 0.778 was noted in (3rd) sample,

then 0.714 (2nd), 0.685 (3rd), 0.590 (7th), 0.507 (5th), 0.458 (6th) sampling and least

Evenness, 0.414, was observed in 7th sample (Table 4.2.1c).

Whereas, from cauliflower treated field area, utmost evenness (E) 0.916 was observed in

(1st sampling), then 0.835 (7th), 0.832 (3rd), 0.820 (4th), 0.800 (5th), 0.755 (3rd) sampling and

least Evenness (E) 0.694 in 7th sample (Table 4.2.1d).

Richness (R)

In tomato control field area, maximum (R) (3.834) was noted in (5th) sample, 3.349 in (4th),

3.261 in (6th), 3.119 (1st), 2.831 in (3rd), 2.465 in (7th) sample and least richness (R) 1.680

in 2nd sample (Table 4.2.1a).

In tomato treated field area, maximum richness (R) (3.489) was observed during (6th)

sample, then as 3.384 (1st), 3.163 during (7th), 3.064 during (4th), 2.090 (5th) 2.084 was

recorded in (3rd) sampling and least richness (R) 1.486 in 2nd sampling (Table 4.2.1b).

Whereas, in cauliflower control fields area, highest (R) (2.961) was noted from (6th) sample,

then 1.961 (4th), 1.814 (2nd), 1.676 (7th), 1.509 (1st) 1.175 was recorded in (5th) sample and

least richness (R) 1.154 in 3rd sampling (Table 4.2.1c).

In the cauliflower treated field area, highest (R) (3.881) was found from (6th) sample, then

3.692 (7th), 3.087 (5th), 2.746 (3rd), 2.698 (4th) 2.234 was recorded in (2nd) sampling and the

lowest richness (R) 1.627 from 1st sample (Table 4.2.1d).

58

Table 4.2.1.a: Sampling wise diversity indices of soil macro-fauna recorded from tomato control fields

Sampling 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Diversity (H´) 2.197 1.392 2.169 2.136 2.201 2.379 1.735

Evenness (J) 0.760 0.604 0.765 0.701 0.684 0.782 0.612

Dominance (D) 0.2398 0.3957 0.2345 0.2985 0.3163 0.2185 0.3876

Richness (R) 3.119 1.680 2.831 3.349 3.834 3.261 2.465

Table 4.2.1.b: Sampling wise diversity indices of soil macro-fauna recorded from tomato treated fields

Sampling 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Diversity (H´) 1.555 0.757 0.977 2.249 1.032 1.618 1.521

Evenness (J) 0.511 0.329 0.381 0.778 0.416 0.523 0.526

Dominance (D) 0.4893 0.6712 0.6191 0.2220 0.5845 0.4766 0.4738

Richness (R) 3.387 1.486 2.084 3.064 2.090 3.489 3.163

59

Table 4.2.1.c: Sampling wise diversity indices of soil macro-fauna recorded from cauliflower control fields

Sampling 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Diversity (H´) 1.005 1.578 1.514 1.062 1.054 2.103 1.414

Evenness (J) 0.458 0.685 0.778 0.414 0.507 0.714 0.590

Dominance (D) 0.5424 0.3148 0.2220 0.5858 0.4934 0.2859 0.4103

Richness (R) 1.509 1.814 1.154 1.961 1.175 2.961 1.676

Table 4.2.1.d: Sampling wise diversity indices of soil macro- fauna recorded from cauliflower treated fields

Sampling 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Diversity (H´) 1.782 1.809 2.135 2.039 1.925 2.436 2.459

Evenness (J) 0.916 0.755 0.832 0.820 0.694 0.800 0.835

Dominance (D) 0.0842 0.2454 0.1678 0.1796 0.3057 0.2000 0.1650

Richness (R) 1.627 2.234 2.746 2.698 3.087 3.881 3.692

60

Overall Temporo-Spatial diversity of soil macro-fauna

Diversity: The Diversity index was higher in tomato control fields (2.937) as compared to

tomato treated field (2.060), highlighting bare differences of disturbance. Whereas, the

diversity index was higher in cauliflower treated field (3.451) as compared to control fields

(1.864), indicating difference of disturbance (Table4.2.2).

Dominance: The dominance was higher in tomato treated field (0.497) as compared to tomato

control field (0.32), highlighting bare differences of disturbance. Whereas, dominance was

higher in cauliflower control field (0.526) as compared to treated fields (0.153), highlighting

bare differences of disturbance (Table4.2.2).

Evenness: Evenness was higher (0.680) in tomato control than in treated fields (0.503).

Evenness was higher in treated fields (0.846) in cauliflower and (0.474) in control cauliflower

fields (Table4.2.2). .

Richness: In tomato fields richness was recorded higher in tomato control field (9.337) than

in treated field (7.671). In cauliflower fields higher richness was recorded in treated field

(8.855) than in control field (6.499) (Table4.2.2).

Micro-habitat-wise temporo-spatial pattern diversity of soil macro-fauna

(a) Boundary

Diversity: Diversity index in tomato fields at boundary was higher in control fields (2.058)

than in treated fields (1.758). Similarly, in cauliflower fields at boundary diversity was higher

(2.421) in treated fields than in control fields (1.586).

Dominance: Dominance recorded in tomato fields at boundary was higher (0.483) in treated

fields than in control fields (0.442). Similarly, dominance recorded at boundary was higher

(0.494) among control fields than treated (0.238) from cauliflower fields.

Evenness: Evenness at boundary in tomato fields was recorded higher (0.558) in control fields

than treated fields (0.517). Similarly, in cauliflower fields, it was higher (0.762) in treated

fields than control fields (0.506).

61

Species Richness: Speciesrichness in tomato fields at boundary was higher (5.4816) in control

fields than treated fields (4.5002). Speciesrichness in cauliflower fields at boundary was higher

(4.3923) in treated fields than control fields (3.3590) (Table4.2.2).

(b) Middle

Diversity: Diversity index in tomato fields at middle was higher in control fields (2.866) than

in treated fields (1.650).While, diversity in cauliflower fields at middle was higher (3.007) in

treated fields than in control fields (1.345).

Dominance: The dominancein tomato fields recorded at middle was higher (0.536) in treated

fields than in control fields (0.238). Similarly, in cauliflower fields, at middle, the dominance

was higher (0.543) in control fields than in treated fields (0.116).

Evenness: Evenness at middle in tomato fields was higher (0.762) in control fields than treated

fields (0.464).Whereas, in cauliflower fields, at middle evenness was higher (0.884) among

treated fields than control fields (0.457).

Species Richness: Speciesrichness in tomato fields at middle was higher (6.4070) in control

fields than treated fields (5.2556). Species richness in cauliflower fields at middle was recorded

higher (5.3588) in treated fields than control fields (2.7611) at middle (Table4.2.2).

(c) Center

Diversity: Diversity index in tomato fields at center was higher in control fields (0.778) than

in treated fields (2.157). Similarly, diversity in cauliflower fields at center was higher (2.838)

in treated fields than in control fields (1.910).

Dominance: Dominance in tomato fields at center was higher (0.415) in treated fields than in

control fields (0.191), whereas, it was higher (0.399) in control fields at center than treated

fields (0.181).

Evenness: evenness at boundary in tomato fields was higher (0.558) in control fields than

treated fields (0.517). Similarly, in cauliflower fields, it was higher (0.762) in treated fields

than control fields (0.506).

62

Species Richness: Species richness in tomato fields at center was higher (5.7203) in treated

fields than control fields (4.4609). Similarly, species richness in cauliflower fields at center

was higher (5.4775) in treated fields than control fields (3.4312) (Table4.2.2).

Table4.2.2: Shannon diversity index, Dominance, Evenness and Richness regarding

recorded taxa

Field Treatment Site S

(richness)

H′

Shannon

E

Evenness

Dominance

Tomato Treated Boundary 4.5002 1.758 0.517 0.4830

Middle 5.2556 1.650 0.464 0.5360

Centre 5.7203 2.157 0.585 0.4153

Total

(TT) 7.6716 2.060 0.503 0.4969

Control Boundary 5.4816 2.058 0.558 0.4420

Middle 6.4070 2.866 0.762 0.2379

Centre 4.4609 2.778 0.809 0.1910

Total

(TC) 9.3374 2.937 0.680 0.3196

Total

(TT+TC) 12.5765 3.062 0.654 0.3461

Cauliflower Treated Boundary 4.3923 2.421 0.762 0.2383

Middle 5.3588 3.007 0.884 0.1159

Centre 5.4775 2.838 0.819 0.1810

Total

(TT) 8.8554 3.451 0.846 0.1536

Control Boundary 3.3590 1.586 0.506 0.4943

Middle 2.7611 1.345 0.457 0.5432

Centre 3.4312 1.910 0.601 0.3990

Total

(TC) 6.4998 1.864 0.474 0.5259

Total

(TT+TC) 11.5442 2.676 0.590 0.4097

Overall Total (TT+TC+ TT+TC) 17.7304 3.186 0.628

0.3722

63

Impact of environmental factors (temperature and humidity) on soil

macro-faunal diversity indices

The activities and diversity of soil fauna are largely determined by a set of a-biotic and biotic

factors that are hierarchically structured (Lavelle et al., 1993; Schadt et al., 2003). Climate,

soil environment and human activities are important factors that directly affect the

productivity, structure and functioning of soil biota. The developmental rate of soil macro-

fauna is often temperature-dependent (Hopkin 1997; Walter and Proctor 1999; Montoya and

Raffaelli, 2010). Altogether this indicates that a changing climate with altered moisture and

temperature regimes probably effect the soil fauna. However, this alteration not only will

depend upon the abiotic factors acting on the component species, but also upon the interactions

between different species and studies on them by community level are needed.

The present study was designed to illustrate the impacts of climatic conditions (temperature

and humidity) on the faunal populations’ diversity indices between tomato and cauliflower

(control and treated fields). The (Fig. 4.2.4 a-p) represented the relationship between

temperature and humidity and their impact on diversity indices of fauna among all 04 types of

fields (tomato control, tomato treated, cauliflower control and cauliflower treated) by

fortnightly seven samplings from pre harvest to post harvest cultivation for each vegetable

field.

64

Diversity

Tomato Fields

Comparative response of diversity (H′) noted from tomato control research fields (Fig. 4.2.1a;

Table 4.2.3) towards environmental factors (temperature and humidity) was recorded non-

significant. Diversity was recorded least (1.392) during 2nd sampling at high temperature (18

⁰C) and high humidity (60%); whereas, highest diversity (2.379) was recorded during 6th

sample at high temperature (17⁰C) and low humidity level (80%). Wherein during 3rd and 4th

sampling diversity was recorded almost equal, and in 5th sampling by sudden fall of

temperature (7⁰C) and abrupt groom of humidity (100%), diversity observed was increased

(2.201). However, diversity (H′) was recorded high at pre-harvest stage (2.197), then it fall

abruptly down, and then enhanced and so on.

From tomato treated (Fig. 4.2.1b; Table 4.2.3), least diversity indices (0.757) was recorded

during 2nd sampling at high temperature (18⁰C) and high humidity (100%), while, highest

diversity (2.249) was noted in 4th sample at low temperature (7⁰C) and humidity level (71%).

Whereas, diversity was recorded equal at pre- and postharvest, however, diversity was

recorded high at pre harvest stage, then it fall down drastically as like control during 2nd

sampling, then again started increasing and attained peak at 4th sampling therefore non–regular

trend was recorded regardless to temperature and humidity.

Cauliflowers Fields

From cauliflower control fields (Fig. 4.2.1c; Table 4.2.3), diversity was recorded least (1.005)

at pre-harvest stage by virtue of high temperature (28⁰C) and humidity (60%) and maximum

diversity (2.103) was observed in 6th sample at low temperature (11⁰C) and high humidity level

(84%). However, during 2nd sampling drastic increase in diversity (1.578) was recorded with

low temperature (21⁰C) and high humidity (88%); therefore, from 3rd and 5th sampling

declining trend was observed with overall decrease in humidity and practical decrease in

temperature. While, in 6th sampling diversity was recorded at peak at low temperature and high

humidity, however at post-harvest stage again it decline (1.414) with increase in temperature

(24⁰C) and decrease in humidity (50%), showing positive co-relation at this stage.

65

In case of cauliflower treated fields (Fig. 4.2.1d; Table 4.2.3), severe impacts of treatments

were observed e.g. least diversity (1.782) was recorded during pre-harvest sampling at high

temperature (30⁰C) and high humidity (82%). Similarly, utmost diversity (2.459) was recorded

during post-harvest sampling at low temperature (12⁰C) and high humidity (84%) depicting

that temperature increase may affect diversity indices as during 2nd sampling, diversity

increased slightly (1.809) with decrease in temperature (20⁰C) and increase in humidity (93%)

and said trend remained intact during 3rd sampling (1.514); hereafter, diversity decreased in

descending order during 4th and 5th sampling (1.062 and 1.054 respectively); then start

increasing and reached at peak in 6th sampling (2.103) at high temperature (18⁰C) and

decreased humidity (50%); addressing the hard impacts polluted water on the soil macro-flora

diversity in cauliflower treated fields and vice versa.

66

Fig.4.2.1a: Impact of humidity and temperature on soil macro-fauna diversity of tomato control field

Fig.4.2.1b: Impact of humidity and temperature on soil macro-fauna diversity of tomato treated field

Fig.4.2.1c: Impact of humidity and temperature on soil macro-fauna diversity of cauliflower control field

Fig.4.2.1d: Impact of humidity and temperature on soil macro-fauna diversity of cauliflower treated field

Fig.4.2.1a Fig.4.2.1b

Fig.4.2.1c Fig.4.2.1d

67

Dominance

Tomato Fields

Results of dominance (D) from tomato control fields, were recorded with minor reflectionof

diversity (H′) indices; as diversity was high during 6th sampling, while, dominance was

recorded low during 6thsampling and during 2nd sampling dominance was recorded high

wherein diversity was recorded low during this sampling and vice versa. After 2nd sampling,

dominance increased drastically, reached up to the peak;however, at post-harvest stage (7th

sampling), it increased after 6th sampling, at high temperature (22⁰C) and low humidity (72%).

While, in 3rd and 6th sampling drastic decrease in dominance was recorded regardless to

temperature and humidity (Fig.4.1.2e).

Analogous to tomato control fields, the results of dominance ratios were also recorded for

tomato treated fields, (Fig.4.1.2f), least dominance (0.222) was observed during 4th sampling

at low temperature (7⁰C) and high humidity (71%), when diversity was observed high; wherein

during 2nd sampling highest ratio (0.6712) was observed when diversity was recorded low

(0.757) at high temperature (18⁰C) and high humidity (60%). However after pre-harvest

sampling, drastic increase was observed in 2nd sampling and reciprocal results were recorded

in 4th sampling- depicting co- relation with temperature and humidity (lowest temperature and

higher humidity) and vice versa.

Cauliflower Fields

In case of cauliflower control fields, lowest dominance ratio (0.2220) was noted in 3rd sample

at high temperature (26⁰C) and humidity level (90%) as well; whereas highest dominance was

recorded in 4th sampling (0.5858) at low temperature (21⁰C) and humidity (81%) also.

However maximum increase in dominance was recorded during 3rd to 4th sampling with the

increase in temperature and humidity, while, after 4th sampling, gradual decrease was recorded

in 5th sampling by decrease in humidity and rise in temperature – wherein at post- harvest

stage (7th sampling) dominance again increased; depicting that with the end of field/ crop

activities, dominate groups of soil macro-fauna tend to move towards favorable conditions

(Fig. 4.2.1g).

68

In case of cauliflower control fields (Fig. 4.2.1h; Table 4.2.3), least dominance (0.0842) was

observed during pre- harvest stage (1st sample) at high temperature and humidity level, while,

highest dominance was noted in 5th sample at low temperature and high humidity; however

dominance highly fluctuated in 2nd sampling by decreasing temperature and increasing

humidity. It started increasing gradually from 3rd to 5th sampling with decrease in temperature

- because due to hard impacts of treatments like diversity indices, presentation was governed

by least number of soil macro-fauna groups and results observed accordingly.Thereafter, in 6th

sampling, it dropped dominance because owing to least treatments, diversity started increasing

and vice versa.

69

Fig. 4.2.4e Fig. 4.2.4f

Fig. 4.2.4g Fig. 4.2.4h

Fig. 4.2.4e:Impact of humidity and temperature on soil macro-fauna dominance among tomato control field

Fig. 4.2.4f:Impact of humidity and temperature on soil macro-fauna dominance among tomato treated field

Fig.4.2.1g: Impact of humidity and temperature on soil macro-fauna dominance among cauliflower control field

Fig.4.2.1h: Impact of humidity and temperature on soil macro-fauna dominance among cauliflower treated field

70

Evenness

Tomato Fields

Evenness usually relates to richness of the existing of the existing species, at the beginning of

cropping season along the existing soil macro- fauna, from the adjoining fields with the

concern of favorable conditions, tend to move inside the newly harvested fields.

In case of tomato control fields (Fig. 4.2.1i; Table 4.2.3), least evenness (0.604) was found in

second sample at high temperature and high humidity level, while it was observed high (0.782)

from 6th samle at high temperature level and low humidity. Whereas, evenness was recorded

higher at pre- harvest stage than post- harvest stage- confirming that with the start of soil

preparation macro- fauna move in and with the end of season, end or slowdown of activities,

evenness tend to decrease. Whereas, during 5th sampling, when humidity recorded reached at

peak and temperature fall down, evenness value was observed regardless to these factors.In

case of tomato treated fields (Fig. 4.2.1j; Table 4.2.3), least evenness (0.329) was observed

from 2nd sample at high temperature and humidity level, while, maximum ratio (0.778) was

observed in 4th sample at low temperature and high humidity. From 5th sampling at peak of

humidity level with the low temperature, evenness dropped drastically; however, during 6th

and 7th sampling, evenness was recorded equal regardless to temperature and humidity

decreased.

Cauliflower field

In case of cauliflower control fields (Fig. 4.2.1k; Table 4.2.3), least evenness (0.414) was

recorded in 4th sample at low temperature and humidity level, while high (0.778) evenness was

observed in 3rd sample at high temperature and low humidity level. But, overall, in with the

increase/ decreased in temperature and humidity i.e. 4th and 7th sampling, evenness decreasing

trend was observed. In case of cauliflower treated fields (Fig. 4.2.1l), least evenness (0.694)

was observed in 5th sampling at low temperature and high humidity while, maximum evenness

(0.916) was observed at pre- harvest sampling- depicting the hardness of treatments. While,

inn 2nd and 5th sampling, evenness decreased with decrease in temperature and humidity;

wherein during 6th sampling, evenness increased by rise in temperature and fall of humidity,

however, overall non regular trend was seen.

71

Fig. 4.2.4i Fig. 4.2.4j

Fig. 4.2.4k Fig. 4.2.4l

Fig.4.2.1i:Impact of humidity and temperature on soil macro-fauna evenness among tomato control field

Fig.4.2.1.j: Impact of humidity and temperature on soil macro-fauna evenness among tomato treated field

Fig.4.2.1k: Impact of humidity and temperature on soil macro-fauna evenness among cauliflower control field

Fig.4.2.1l: Impact of humidity and temperature on soil macro-fauna evenness among cauliflower treated field

72

Richness:

Tomato Fields

Richness of soil macro- fauna tend to increase according to feasible nature of crop fields,

suitable temperature and humidity as well as soil profile. Ideal richness of that fauna may

support the productivity; however, it fluctuate over time and space as per above mentioned

factors. Currently from tomato cauliflower fields (Fig. 4.2.1m; Table 4.2.3), the lowest richness

(1.680) was noted in 2nd sample at high temperature and relative humidity, whereas, highest

(3.834) was observed from 5th sample at low temperature and high relative humidity. However,

in 6th and 7th sampling evenness showed positive co-relation with humidity as humidity

decrease, richness decreased.

In case of tomato treated fields (Fig. 4.2.1n; Table 4.2.3), lowest richness (1.486) was observed

in 2nd sampling at high temperature and humidity, whereas highest richness (3.489) was

observed in 6th sample at low temperature and high relative humidity. However, in 5th sampling

at peak humidity and rise in temperature a decreased in richness was recorded.

Cauliflower Fields

In case of cauliflower control fields (Fig. 4.2.1o; Table 4.2.3), lowest richness (1.54) was

observed in third sample at high temperature and relative humidity, whereas, highest richness

was observed in 6th sample (2.961) at lowest temperature and high humidity and peak was also

recorded there. At post- harvest stage, by increasing temperature and decreasing humidity

richness declined – depicting significant impacts of humidity on the existence of soil biota. On

the other hand, increase in temperature also suppressed their existence and vice versa.

In case of cauliflower treated fields (Fig. 4.2.1p; Table 4.2.3), richness was lowest (1.627) at

pre-harvest stage and highest (3.881) was recorded at 6th sampling depicting the hardness of

treatment, because as pollution level was existing accordingly, richness ratio was observed e.g.

during 3rd and 6th sampling with the increase in temperature richness increased and during 5th

sampling with lowest temperature, richness again increased.

73

Fig. 4.2.4m

Fig. 4.2.4n

Fig. 4.2.4o Fig. 4.2.4p

Fig.4.2.1m: Impact of humidity and temperature on soil macro-fauna richness among tomato control field

Fig.4.2.1n: Impact of humidity and temperature on soil macro-fauna richness among tomato treated field

Fig.4.2.1o: Impact of humidity and temperature on soil macro-fauna richness among cauliflower control field

Fig.4.2.1p: Impact of humidity and temperature on soil macro-fauna richness among cauliflower treated field

74

Density

Overall comparison of soil macro-fauna density/ft3 among tomato and

cauliflower (control and treated) fields

The Figure 4.2.2 showed the comparison of densities (average no. of specimen per one

cubic feet) of soil macro-fauna between tomato and cauliflower (control and treated) fields.

The overall density of soil macro-fauna among tomato fields was higher in control fields.

Similarly, among cauliflower fields, the density of soil macro-fauna was higher in control

fields.

Fig.4.2.2: Comparison of density of soil macro-fauna between tomato control and

treated fields (TT, tomato treated; TC tomato control; CT, cauliflower treated; CC,

cauliflower control)

75

Sampling-wise comparison of soil macro-fauna density/cubic feet (ft3)

among tomato and cauliflower (control and treated) fields

In the 1st, 2nd and 3rd samplings the density /ft3 of soil macro-fauna was higher among treated

fields than control fields. While in the 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th samplings the density of soil

macro-fauna was greater among control fields than treated fields (Fig.4.2.3a). Whereas in

cauliflower, the density indices overall were higher amongst the all samplings in control

fields as compared to treated fields (Fig.4.2.3b).

76

Fig.4.2.3a: Comparison of sampling-wise density/ cubic feet (ft3) of soil macro fauna

among tomato control and treated fields

Fig.4.2.3b: Comparison of sampling-wise density/ cubic feet (ft3) of soil macro fauna

among cauliflower control and treated fields

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Den

sity

of

soil

ma

cro

-fa

un

a/

ft3

Sampling

Tomato

Treated

Tomato

control

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Den

sity

of

soil

ma

cro

-fa

un

a/

ft3

Sampling

Cauliflower

Treated

Cauliflower

Control

77

ANOVA:

To determine the exact level of significance from overall collected soil fauna in four type

of fields (viz. tomato control; tomato treated; cauliflower control and cauliflower treated)

analysis of variance (ANOVA) was applied; result showed non-significant (p>0.05)

difference between average number of specimens (Table4.2.3).

Table 4.2.3: Analysis of Variance table for comparison of average number of

specimens showing non-significant difference between average numbers

of specimens in four types of fields

t-test:

The t-test analysis was highly significant (t=17.51; p<0.001) from tomato control

and treated field microhabitats regarding Shannon diversity index with respect to species.

Whilst, t-test analysis was significant among boundary (t=3.70; p<0.05), highly significant

among middle (t=14.1; p<0.001) and center (t=10.09; p<0.001) between control fields and

treated fields cultivations (Table4.2.2). While, the t-test analysis was recorded significant

(t=28.14; p<0.001) among cauliflower control and treated fields cultivations; whilst, t-test

analysis was significant among boundary (t=7.83; p<0.001), middle (t=20.28; p<0.000) and

center (t=11.12; p<0.001) among control fields and treated fields (Table4.2.4).

Df Sum of

sq Mean Sq F value Pr(>F)

Field Type 3 14479 4826 0.707 0.548

Residuals 644 437773 6829

78

Table 4.2.4a Comparison (t-test) between treated and control regarding Shannon

diversity index for tomato crop with respect to species.

Side Treatment Shannon

diversity (H)

t-value P-value

Boundary Treated 1.758 3.70** 0.0001

Control 2.058

Middle Treated 1.650 14.10** 0.00001

Control 2.866

Center Treated 2.157 10.09** 0.00001

Control 2.778

Total Treated 2.060 17.51** 0.00001

Control 2.937

NS = Non-significant (P>0.05); * = Significant (P<0.05); ** = Highly significant (P<0.01)

Table 4.2.4bComparison (t-test) between treated and control regarding Shannon

diversity index for cauliflower crop with respect to species.

Side Treatment Shannon

diversity (H)

t-value P-value

Boundary Treated 2.421 7.83** 0.0000

Control 1.586

Middle Treated 3.007 20.28** 0.0000

Control 1.345

Center Treated 2.838 11.12** 0.0000

Control 1.910

Total Treated 3.451 28.14** 0.0000

Control 1.864

NS = Non-significant (P>0.05); * = Significant (P<0.05); ** = Highly significant (P<0.01)

79

Impact of Environmental Factors (temperature and humidity) on soil

macro-faunal density

Tomato Fields:

Ideal density per unit area is most vulnerable factor for sustainable land. It varies patch to

patch, over time and space as well as biological rhythm. From tomato treated fields

(Fig.4.2.3a), highest density per cubic feet was noted in the 6th sample at lowest temperature

and highest relative humidity. After the 6th sampling, density level dropped with increase

in temperature and fall of humidity. However, during the 2nd and 6th sampling, density level

was partially equal regardless to humidity level and almost equal temperature. However, in

the 2nd to 5th sampling density decreased steadily with almost equal values.

While, from tomato treated fields area, highest density was observed at post- harvest stage

and lowest during the 2nd stage at high temperature and humidity. Whereas from the 2nd to

5th sampling density recorded was decreased gradually at almost equal values of

temperature and humidity upto the 4th sampling; wherein its peak was observed.

Cauliflower Fields:

Wherein, cauliflower control fields area (Fig.4.2.3b), highest density value was noted in 4th

sample at low of environmental factors, while, least value was noted in 2nd sample at low

temperature and high relative humidity. However, in the 4th and 6th sampling diversity was

partially with almost equal range of humidity, whereas during both samplings temperature

fall down and diversity recorded increased. However during post-harvest sampling with

increase in temperature and drop in humidity, density decreased.

In case of cauliflower treated, the lowest diversity per cubic feet was recorded at pre-

harvest stage at high temperature. However, during the 2nd sampling density increased with

fall in temperature and rise in humidity upto maximum value, while, in the 3rd and 4th

sampling density decreased with decrease in temperature and humidity, but in the 5th

sampling, density showed antagonistic trend with lowest value of temperature and high

humidity value density recorded was increased.

80

SECTION 3: Trophic status among tomato and cauliflower fields

At presentstudy trophic levels of recorded soil biota living in tomato and cauliflower

fields(control and treated) were observed (Appendix 5; Figure 4.3 a-i).

Predators:

Totall 29.42% (n=814) specimens were noted as predators in tomato control fields

containing to following species: Agelenopsis spp., Eratigena agrestis, Malthonica pagana,

Badumna insignis, Parasteatoda tepidariorum, Pholcus phalangioides, Tigrosa helluo,

Tigrosa georgicola, Tigrosa annexa, Tigrosa aspersa, Trochosa terricola, Trochosa

ruricola, Trochosa spinipalpis, Pardosa pullata, Pardosa agricola, Hogna lenta, Arctosa

spp., Paederus littoralis, Coccinella undecimpunctata, Coccinella hieroglyphica, Anatis

ocellata, Harmonia axyridis, Pterostichus melanarius, Agonum japonica, Feronia nigrita,

Meloe niger, Carcinops pumilio,Chelisoches morio, Anisolabis maritime, Solenopsis

mandibularis, Iridomyrmex purpureus, Camponotus lateralis, Componotus florictanus,

Dolichoderus taschenbergi, Froggatella kirbii, Formica spp1, Formica ligniperdos,

Formica rufa, Gryllus pennsylvanicus, Subulina octona, Promenetus exacuous and

Promenetus umbilicatellus.

However, 17.77% (n=389) were found as predators: Eratigena agrestis, Malthonica

pagana, Pisaura mirabilis, Xysticus cristatus, Cheiracanthium inclusum, Rabidosa rabida,

Tigrosa georgicola, Trochosa terricola, Trochosa ruricola, Trochosa spp., Trochosa

spinipalpis, Pardosa amentata, Pardosa pullata, Tigrosa helluo, Tigrosa annexa, Hogna

lenta, Paederus littoralis, Paederus riparius, Pheropsophus catoirei, Chelisoches morio,

Euborellia annulipes, Solenopsis mandibularis, Formica spp., Gryllus pennsylvanicus and

Lumbricus terrestris.

Total of 7.39% (n=162) were predators: Eratigena agrestis, Cicurina arcuata, Tigrosa

helluo, Trochosa spp., Pardosa pullata, Pardosa amentata, Hogna lenta, Paederus

littoralis, Tachyporus obtsus, Coccinella undecimpunctata, Curinus coeruleus, Cassida

circumdata, Harpalus rufipes, Formica spp., Dolichoderus taschenbergi, Solenopsis

geminate, Solenopsis macdonaghi, Formica rufa, Subulina octona, Praticolella Mexicana

and Promenetus umbilicatellus.While, 34.19% (n=239) were recorded as predators among

cauliflower treated fields pertaining to following taxa: Agelenopsis spp., Malthonica

pagana, Loxosceles rufescens, Trochosa spp., Trochosa terricola, Pardosa pullata, Hogna

lenta, Paederus littoralis, Ocypus olens, Dinaraea angustula, Bius thoracicus, Labidura

81

riparia, Solenopsis mandibularis, Formica spp., Iridomyrmex purpureus, Prenolepis

impairs, Forelius pruinosus, Lithobius forficatus and Lumbricus terrestris.

Pests:

From tomato control fields was 40.38% (n=1117) specimens pertaining to; Pentodon

idiota, Cyclocephala lurida, Dermestes maculates, Promethis nigra, Eleodes hirtipennis,

Liophloeus tessulatus, Phyllobius spp., Cissites auriculata, Nala lividipes, Camponotus

herculeanus, Gryllodes sigillatus, Gryllus veletis, Aiolopus strepens, Gryllotalpa

orientalis, Succinea spp. and Xerosecta arigonis.Whereas, from the total of recorded

population, 2.1% (n=46) specimens were recorded as pest from tomato treated fields

comprising of following taxa: Pentodon idiota, Crioceris asparagi, Cerotoma trifurcate,

Dermestes lardarius, Promethis nigra, Cimex lectularius, Solenopsis invicta, Camponotus

pennsylvanicus, Camponotus herculeanus, Gryllus veletis and Aporrectodea caliginosa.

Pest among cauliflower control fields was 64.46% (n=1413) specimens pertaining to taxa;

Derobrachus germinates, Leptinotarsa decemlineata, Cimex lectularius, Camponotus

pennsylvanicus, Galleria mellonella, Laphygma frugiperda, Agrotis spp., Aporrectodea

caliginosa, Succinea spp. and Monacha Cartusiana.Whereas, from the total of recorded

population, 23.03% (n=161) specimens were recorded as pest from cauliflower treated

fields comprising of following taxa; Aphthona flava, Alphitobius laevigatus, Dendroctonus

ponderosae, Horistonotus uhleri, Cardiophorus ebeninus, Lyctoxylon dentatum,

Elasmostethus crucitus, Solenopsis invicta, Formica exsectoides, Gryllotalpa orientalis,

Scapteriscus spp. Gryllotalpa spp., Plodia interpunctella, Achroia grisella, Galleria

mellonella and Aporrectodea caliginosa.

Detritivores:

Among tomato control 11.07% (n=306) specimens were recorded as detritivores pertaining

to following taxa: Trichorhina tomentosa, Trichoniscus pusillus,Haplophiloscia couchii,

Porcellio spinicornis, Porcellio scaber, Trachelipus rathkii and Philoscia

muscorum.Whereas, from the total of population recorded, 72.89% (n=1595) were noted

as detritivores among tomato treated fields having following taxa: Arcitalitrus sylvaticus,

Maerella spp., Labia minor, Trichorhina tomentosa, Trichoniscus pusillus, Hyloniscus

riparius, Armadillidium vulgare, Hyloniscus riparius, Armadillidium vulgare, Porcellio

scaber, Trachelipus rathkii and Arctiostrotus vancouverensis.From the total of recorded

population, only 1.41% (n=31) were found as detritivores in cauliflower control pertaining

82

to following taxa: Trichorhinatomentosa.While, 7.72% (n=54) specimens were recorded as

detritivores among cauliflower treated fields having following taxa: Labia minor, Porcellio

scaber, Trachelipus rathkii and Amynthas agrestis.

Omnivores:

Only (n=10) 0.36% specimens were found as omnivore from tomato control fields

pertaining to taxa; Tegenaria atrica and Acheta domesticus.Wherein, 3.29% (n=72)

specimens were noted as omnivores from tomato treated fields having taxa; Tegenaria

atrica, Camponotus vagus, Acheta domesticus, Teleogryllus commodus, Gryllotalpa

gryllotalpa, Spilosoma lubricipeda.From the total of recorded population, only 3.23%

(n=71) were noted as omnivore from cauliflower control fields; Tegenaria atrica,

Camponotus vagus, Camponotus chromaiodes, Acheta domesticus, Gryllus spp. and

Gryllus assimilis. Wherein, from the total of recorded population, 8.72% (n=61) specimens

were found as omnivores among cauliflower treated fields pertaining to taxa; Tegenaria

atrica, Blattella germanica, Tenebrio molitor, Camponotus vagus, Camponotus

chromaiodes, Solenopsis molesta and Formica invicta.

Scavenger:

Total 4.19% (n=116) specimen were noted as scavenger from tomato control having:

Scaphidema metallicum, Gonocephalum elderi, Monomorium pharaonis, Forficula

auriculariaand Cylisticus convexus.Whereas 3.01% (n=66) specimens were noted as

scavenger from tomato treated fields having: Gonocephalum pussilum, Cylisticus

convexus, Forficula auricularia and Oniscus asellus.

While 4.51% (n=99) were observed as scavenger from cauliflower control having:

Scaphidema metallicum, Gonocephalum elderi, Forficula auricularia, Monomorium

pharaonis and Oniscus asellus. Whereas, from the total of recorded population, 14.02%

(n=98) specimens were documented as scavenger from cauliflower treated fields having:

Gonocephalum pussilum, Forficula auricularia, Monomorium pharaonis, Cylisticus

convexus and Oniscus asellus.

Herbivores:

Total, 8.85% (n=245) herbivore/ saprophagous from tomato control fields having to

Succinea putris, while, no representative was recorded from tomato treated fields. From the

total of recorded population, 14.91% (n=327) fauna were noted as herbivore in cauliflower

83

control fields having; Calligrapha multipunctata, Myrmecorhynchus emeryi, Chorthippus

brunneus, Mastus abundans, Acicula spp. andSuccinea putris, while, no fauna was found

from cauliflower treated fields.

Polyphagous:

Total 0.54% (n=12) biota were polyphagous from tomato treated fields: Coccinella

septempunctata andPhragmatobia fuliginosa, whereas, no fauna was noted from tomato

control fields.

Total 1.09% (n=24) specimens were polyphagous among cauliflower control fields:

Coccinella septempunctata and Phragmatobia fuliginosa.

only 0.57% (n=4) specimens were found as scavenger from cauliflower treated; Coccinella

septempunctata and Phragmatobia fuliginosa.

Pollinators:

No data was found in tomato fields.

1.71% (n=12) specimens were found as herbivore/ saprophagous in cauliflower treated

fields pertaining to taxa; Calligrapha multipunctata, Myrmecorhynchus emeryi,

Chorthippus brunneus, Mastus abundans, Acicula spp. andSuccinea putris, while, no

specimen was observed from cauliflower control site.

Grainivores:

5.71% (n=158) specimens were noted as scavenger in tomato control having: Messor

barbarous and Pheidole rugulosa.

Whereas, total of recorded fauna, only 0.36% (n=8) fauna were scavenger in tomato treated

fields pertaining to Messor barbarous.

(n=65) 2.96% specimens were observed as scavenger in cauliflower control pertaining to

following taxa: Messor barbarous. Whereas, from the total of recorded population, 10.01%

(n=70) specimens were noted as scavenger among cauliflower treated fields pertaining to

Messor barbarous and Pyrrhocoris apterus,

84

A

b

c

D

e

f

24%

51%

15%

10%Predator TomatoTreatedTomatoControlCauliflowerTreatedCauliflowerControl

2%

41%

6%

51%

Pest TomatoTreated

TomatoControl

CauliflowerTreated

34%

5%

28%

33%

Omnivore TomatoTreatedTomatoControlCauliflowerTreatedCauliflowerControl

80%

15% 3% 2%

Detritivore TomatoTreatedTomatoControlCauliflowerTreatedCauliflowerControl

17%

31%26%

26%

ScavengerTomatoTreatedTomatoControlCauliflowerTreatedCauliflowerControl

0%

43%

0%

57%

HerbivoreTomatoTreatedTomatoControlCauliflowerTreatedCauliflowerControl

85

G

h

i

Fig.4.3 (a-i): Trophic status of soil macro-fauna among tomato and cauliflower fields (Fig. 4.3.1 a-i) Tomato Control■

Tomato Treated■ Cauliflower Control■ Cauliflower Treated■

0%

0%

100%

0%Pollinator Tomato

TreatedTomatoControlCauliflowerTreatedCauliflowerControl

30%

0%

10%

60%

Polyphagous TomatoTreatedTomatoControlCauliflowerTreatedCauliflowerControl

3%

52%23%

22%

Grainivorous TomatoTreatedTomatoControlCauliflowerTreatedCauliflowerControl

86

Equality of Proportion

Testing for equality of proportions between two samples means, if the row variables have only

two types (success/failure) and columns represents population labels rather than levels of a

second variable, the chi-square test of independence is called a test for equality of proportions.

In present study the different trophic status were analyzed using testing for equality of

proportion among all four fields viz. tomato control, tomato treated, cauliflower control and

cauliflower treated (Table4.3.1).

In the data represented that number of predators among all four fields (tomato control, tomato

treated, cauliflower control and cauliflower treated) were significantly different (P<0.0000).

The number of pests among all four fields (tomato control, tomato treated, cauliflower control

and cauliflower treated) were significantly different (P<0.0000).The number of detritivores

among all four fields (tomato control, tomato treated, cauliflower control and cauliflower

treated) were significantly different (P<0.0000). The number of omnivores among all four

fields (tomato control, tomato treated, cauliflower control and cauliflower treated) were

significantly different (P<0.0000). The number of scavengers among all four fields (tomato

control, tomato treated, cauliflower control and cauliflower treated) were significantly

different (P<0.0000).The number of herbivores among all four fields (tomato control, tomato

treated, cauliflower control and cauliflower treated) were significantly different

(P<0.0000).The number of polyphagous among all four fields (tomato control, tomato treated,

cauliflower control and cauliflower treated) were significantly different (P<0.0000).The

number of pollinators among all four fields (tomato control, tomato treated, cauliflower control

and cauliflower treated) were significantly different (P<0.0000).The number of grainvorous

among all four fields (tomato control, tomato treated, cauliflower control and cauliflower

treated) were significantly different (P<0.0000).

87

Table 4.3.1: Testing for equality of proportion of trophic level of soil macro-fauna

Trophic Status of

soil macro-fauna

χ2 cal. P-Value

Predators 633.61 0.0000

Pests 2045.3 0.0000

Detritivores 3334.3 0.0000

Omnivores 48.54 0.0000

Scavengers 13.792 0.0000

Herbivores 595.51 0.0000

Polyphagus 33.6 0.0000

Pollinators 36 0.0000

Grainvorous 152.86 0.0000

Highly significance = ** df=3 χ2 tab. = 7.82

88

Abundance sequence of predator was as follow: tomato control > tomato treated >

cauliflower treated > cauliflower control.

Abundance sequence of pests was as follow: cauliflower control > tomato control >

cauliflower treated > tomato treated.

Abundance sequence of detritivores was as follow: tomato treated > tomato control >

cauliflower treated > cauliflower control

Abundance sequence of omnivores was as follow: tomato treated > cauliflower control >

cauliflower treated > tomato control.

Abundance sequence of scavenger was as follow: tomato control > cauliflower control >

cauliflower treated > tomato treated.

Abundance sequence of herbivore was as follow: cauliflower control > tomato control (no

specimen recorded from tomato treated and cauliflower treated.

Abundance sequence of polyphagous was as follow: cauliflower control > tomato treated >

cauliflower treated. (No specimen recorded from tomato control).

Abundance sequence of pollinator was as follow: only recorded from cauliflower treated.

Abundance sequence of grainivore was as follow: tomato control > cauliflower treated >

cauliflower control > tomato treated.

89

SECTION-4.4: Inter-specific responses of soil macro-fauna regarding

level of macro- (N: P: K), micro- (Pb: Cr: Ni) nutrients, EC and pH

Pollution of soils, due to heavy metals, is particularly hazardous to living organisms (plants

and animals). Invertebrates are sensitive towards changes in soil profile; therefore, they may

be considered invaluable indicators of soil disruptions (Chrzan, 2017; Skwaryło-Bednarz 2006;

Laskowski et al. 1995). Excessive quantities of heavy metals pose a significant threat to plants

and humans as well as to soil fauna (Butovsky, 2011; Santorufo et al. 2012). The presence of

heavy metals in the soil and plants is an environmental indicator (El-Falakay et al., 1991). That

is why there is a need to systematically monitor their contents in environmental components.

Total specimens recorded were 7845, belonging to 161 species from tomato and cauliflower.

Species richness recorded was utmost in tomato (135) than in cauliflower (110). Coleoptera

was more frequent (44 species) order in both fields. Araneae (35 species), Coleoptera (30

species), Hymenoptera (20 species), Isopoda (16 species), Orthoptera (11 species), Demeptera

(eight species), Pulmonata (five species) were dominant insect orders recorded in tomato

fields. Hymenoptera (26 species), Coleoptera (24 species), Lepidoptera (10 species),

Orthoptera and Pulmonata (Seven each), Members of Dermeptera and Haplotaxida (four each)

were the important insect orders recorded in cauliflower fields. Blattodea, Diptera,

Lithobiomorpha orders were not recorded in tomato fields, whereas, members of Amphipoda

order was not recorded in cauliflower order (Table 4.4.1).

In tomato field, species richness was utmost in control fields (75 species) while in treated fields

(60 species). Specimens of Amphipoda, Haplotaxida, Hemiptera, Lepidoptera were not found

from control fields whereas Amphipoda, Haplotaxida, Hemiptera, Lepidoptera were only

found from treated fields.

In cauliflower fields, control, the triple number of specimens than treated fields but species

richness was the same in both fields. Members of order Pulmonata were only harbored in

control fields, whereas, members of Blattodea, Lithobiomorpha and Diptera were recorded in

treated research site (Table 4.4.1).

90

Table4.4.1: Order-wise, species richness in tomato and cauliflower fields

Sr.

No.

Order

Tomato Tomato Total Cauliflower

Treated

Cauliflower

Control

Total Grand Total

Treated Control Tomato Cauliflower

1 Amphipoda 2 - 2 - - - 2

2 Araneae 17 18 35 8 8 16 26

3 Blattodea - - 0 1 - 1 1

4 Coleoptera 10 20 30 14 10 24 44

5 Dermaptera 4 4 8 3 1 4 7

6 Diptera - - 0 1 - 1 1

7 Haplotaxida 3 - 3 3 1 4 4

8 Hemiptera 1 - 1 2 1 3 3

9 Hymenoptera 7 13 20 13 13 26 29

10 Isopoda 8 8 16 3 2 5 11

11 Lepidoptera 3 - 3 7 3 10 8

12 Lithobiomorpha - - 0 1 - 1 1

13 Orthoptera 5 6 11 3 4 7 13

14 Pulmonata - 5 5 - 7 7 8

15 Stylommatophora - 1 1 - 1 1 2

Total 60 75 135 59 51 110 160

91

Macro -nutrients (N, P and K), Micro nutrients (Pb, Cr and Ni), pH and EC

Soil samples were examined for EC, pH, nitrogen (N), available phosphorus (P), potassium

(K), lead (Pb), Chromium (Cr), and nickel (Ni). In tomato, treated fields had higher values of

Nitrogen (N) (0.08) than in control fields (0.07). Whereas it has same value in both, cauliflower

treated and control fields (0.06 each).

Phosphorus (P) has higher value (13.26) in treated fields than in control fields (12.13). In

cauliflower, its value recorded was higher (14.01) in treated fields than in control fields

(11.8).Potassium (K) has higher value in treated fields (291.9) than control fields (251.42). In

cauliflower, its value recorded was higher (306.66) in control fields than in treated fields

(287.85).

The value of Lead (Pb) was recorded higher in tomato control fields (1.54) than in treated fields

(1.04). In cauliflower, its value recorded was higher (0.79) in control fields than in treated

fields (0.77).The value of Chromium (Cr) was higher in treated fields (1.9) than in control

fields (1.23). In cauliflower, its value recorded was higher (0.94) in control fields than in

treated fields (0.39). Nickel (Ni) value was higher in treated fields (1.33) than in control fields

(1.17). In cauliflower, its value recorded was higher (1.96) in treated fields than in control

fields (1.39).

EC value recorded was somewhat high in treated (3.56) than control fields (3.36). In

cauliflower, its value recorded was higher (3.18) in control fields than in treated fields (2.94).

Whereas, the value of pH recorded was higher in control (8.15) than treated fields (8.13). In

cauliflower, its value recorded was higher (8.02) in treated fields than in control fields (7.98)

(Table 4.4.2).

92

Table 4.4.2 Soil analysis of tomato and cauliflower fields (average value of macro

nutrients i.e. N, P, K; Micro nutrients i.e. Pb, Cr, Ni and pH, EC)

Vegetable Fields

N

mg/kg

P

mg/kg

K

mg/kg

Pb

ppm

Cr

ppm

Ni

ppm pH EC

Tomato Treated

0.08 13.26 291.9 1.04 1.9 1.33 8.13 3.56

Tomato Control

0.07 12.13 251.42 1.54 1.23 1.17 8.15 3.36

Cauliflower Treated

0.06 14.01 287.85 0.77 0.39 1.96 8.02 2.94

Cauliflower Control

0.06 11.8 306.66 0.79 0.94 1.39 7.98 3.18

Soil samples were analyzed for electric conductivity (EC), hydrogen ion concentration (pH),

available phosphorus (P), potassium (K), nitrogen (N), lead (Pb), chromium (Cr), and nickel

(Ni) and then their average values were taken for further sampling wise analysis. In tomato

control fields N, P and K had highest values in the 3rd 6th and (5th, 6th each) sampling,

respectively, while their least value was recorded during 7th sampling each, respectively. In

case of Pb, Cr and Ni the highest values were recorded during the 1st, (3rd, 4th each) and 5th

sampling, respectively, whereas the lowest values for these micro-nutrients were recorded

sampling wise in the 7th each, respectively. The highest values for EC and pH were recorded

during the 3rd and 4th samplings, respectively, whereas the lowest values were during the 7th

sampling each, respectively (Table 4.4.3a).

In tomato treated fields N, P and K had highest values in the 1st, 4th and 1st sampling,

respectively, while their least value was recorded during the (5th, 6th each), 2nd and5th sampling,

respectively. In case of Pb, Cr and Ni the highest values were recorded during the 2nd, 1st and

1stsampling, respectively, while the lowest values recorded for these micro-nutrients were in

the 7th, 5th and the 7th sampling, respectively. The highest values for EC and pH were recorded

93

during the 1st sampling each, respectively, whereas the lowest values were during the 5th and

(4th, 6theach) sampling, respectively (Table 4.4.3b).

In cauliflower control fields,highest values of N in the 1st, P in 7thand K in the 7th sampling

were recorded, while their least value was recorded during the 6th, 3rd and the 2nd samplings

each, respectively. In case of Pb, Cr and Ni the highest values were recorded during the 4th,

7th and 2ndsampling, respectively, while least values for these micro-nutrients were recorded

in the 6th, 3rd and 7th sampling, respectively. The highest values for EC and pH were recorded

during 1st and the 5th sampling, respectively, whereas the lowest values were during the 3rd

and (4th, 7th) sampling, respectively (Table 4.4.3c).

In cauliflower treated fields N, P and K had highest values in the 7th, 6th and (2nd, 4th each)

sampling, respectively, while their least value was recorded during the (4th, 5th each), 1st and

the 1st sampling, respectively. In case of, Pb, Cr and Ni the highest values were recorded during

the 1st, (3rd, 4th) and 5th sampling, respectively, while lowest values for these micro-nutrients

were sampling wise recorded in the 3rd,7th and 1st, respectively. The highest values for EC and

pH were recorded during the 2nd and 1st sampling, respectively, whereas the lowest values were

during the 7th and 5thsampling, respectively (Table 4.4.3d).

94

Table 4.4.3a Soil analysis of tomato control fields (average value of macro nutrients i.e.

N, P, K; Micro nutrients i.e. Pb, Cr, Ni and pH, EC)

Tomato Control

Nutrients/Factors Samplings

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

N 0.058 0.048667 0.171 0.0595 0.05433 0.053 0.029111

P 11.55 11.55 9.7 10.1167 11.3333 13.86667 4.755556

K 253.333 226.6667 270 220 263.333 263.3333 173.3333

Pb 2.76667 0.733333 2.13333 1.8 1.96667 0.5 0.488889

Cr 0.9 1 1.53333 1.53333 1.5 1.1 0.622222

Ni 1.3 0.9 1.2 1.43333 1.7 0.666667 0.4

pH 8.06667 6.716667 8.13333 8.31667 8.13333 8.116667 5.555556

EC 3 3.255 3.73667 3.45667 3.15333 2.985 2.217778

Table4.4.3b Soil analysis of tomato treated fields (average value of macronutrients i.e. N,

P, K; Micro nutrients i.e. Pb, Cr, Ni and pH, EC)

Tomato Treated

Nutrients/Factors Samplings

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

N 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.038667

P 12.07 10.40 15.33 16.73 5.95 14.82 10.44444

K 300.00 220.00 234.44 241.11 123.33 217.78 198.8889

Pb 1.17 1.63 0.91 0.69 1.10 0.67 0.3

Cr 1.50 1.34 0.99 0.81 0.77 0.89 0.877778

Ni 1.37 0.79 0.46 0.74 0.43 0.61 0.322222

pH 8.23 5.33 5.24 5.22 3.95 5.22 5.233333

EC 2.54 2.52 2.50 3.44 0.79 1.43 1.207222

95

Table4.4.3c: Soil analysis of tomato control fields (average value of macro nutrients i.e.

N, P, K; Micro nutrients i.e. Pb, Cr, Ni and pH, EC)

Nutrients/Factors

Cauliflower Control

Sampling

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

N 0.0805 0.065167 0.06583 0.06317 0.069 0.061833 0.063333

P 10.7333 11.65 8.88333 10.9667 14.7333 10.15 15.48333

K 293.333 226.6667 263.333 280 330 350 403.3333

Pb 0.76667 0.933333 0.9 1 0.7 0.566667 0.866667

Cr 0.73333 0.478333 0.345 0.7 1.46667 1.4 1.5

Ni 1.7 1.9 1 0.93333 1.6 1.366667 1.266667

pH 8 8.016667 8.03333 7.9 8.08333 7.933333 7.9

EC 3.92333 3.135 2.35 3.36667 3.33167 3.225 2.968333

Table4.4.3d: Soil analysis of tomato and cauliflower fields (average value of macro

nutrients i.e. N, P, K; Micro nutrients i.e. Pb, Cr, Ni and pH, EC)

Nutrients/Factors Cauliflower Treated

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

N 0.06283 0.061 0.06217 0.05933 0.06283 0.05935 0.073167

P 10.2333 16.55 10.8833 10.6 16.4833 17.20667 16.13333

K 208.333 233.3333 290 286.667 313.333 316.6667 366.6667

Pb 0.83333 0.933333 0.5 0.93333 0.66667 0.6 1.2

Cr 0.155 0.178333 0.87833 0.80667 0.275 0.343333 0.106667

Ni 1.33333 1.833333 0.93333 1.58333 4.66667 1.9 1.5

pH 8.16667 8.05 7.95 8.06667 7.83333 7.933333 8.15

EC 3.43167 3.815 2.60333 1.62333 3.69167 3.153333 2.296667

96

Canonical correspondence analysis (CCA)

In present study, Canonical Correspondence Analysis (CCA) was implemented to evaluate the

related contributions of diverse environmental variables, micro-nutrients (Pb, Cr, Ni), macro

nutrients (N, P, K), soil micro-habitats (boundary, middle and center) and some edaphic factors

such as (pH and electric conductivity (EC) on the existence and distribution of soil macro-

fauna collected from control and treated, tomato and cauliflower fields.

In (Table4.4.4, Fig.4.4.1), data presented the correlation of soil parameters (mentioned above),

microhabitat and soil macro-faunal species. It was observed that EC, pH and N were positively

correlated to each other. Whereas, pH and Cr showed strong correlation, as per observed from

tomato treated fields micro-habitats (center, boundary and middle). Whereas, the high value of

nitrogen was positively significantly correlated to T. rathkii. A negative correlation of Pb and

P was observed, Pb showed a strong positive correlation with the S. Lubricipita. The nutrients,

K and Ni showed a weak positive correlation with each other, K and Ni were high in

cauliflower fields than that tomato fields. The average values, recorded for pH, Cr and N, were

higher in tomato treated than tomato control fields, Pb was higher in tomato control center,

cauliflower control boundary and cauliflower treated center. Whereas Ni and K were most

important characteristics component for cauliflower (control and treated) fields and the

following species H. lenta, P. fuliginosa, M. pagana, A. caliginosa, P. littoralis, Formica spp.,

S. mandibularis, M. barbarous, O. asellus, T. tomentosa, P. pullata, A. domesticus and E.

agrestis were highly correlated to K and Ni (tomato control middle, tomato control boundary,

cauliflower control center and cauliflower treated boundary). Species M. phoranis was

abundant in cauliflower treated fields at center. Canonical Correspondence Analysis of tomato

and cauliflower (control and treated) fields soil macro-fauna revealed that N, P, K, Pb, Cr. Ni,

EC and pH were important factors to determine the distribution of soil macro-fauna species

(Table 4.4.4, Fig.4.4.1). Most of the soil macro-fauna species were associated with, K, Pb and

Ni on the first two axes as compared to P, N, pH and EC.

The first two axes of this ordination collectively explained 86.04% variation in the distribution

of soil macro-fauna species. Amongst the community parameters in the first axis, Cr, pH and

P showed a strong positive correlation with environment (r=0.869; r=0.783 and r=0.588),

respectively while K and Pb showed weak negative correlation with environment (r=-0.340

97

and r= -0.394), respectively. Ni showed a positive correlation to second axis (r=0.538) while,

Pb was negatively correlated to the second axis as (r= -0.516). K was weakly positively

correlated to third axis as (r=0.430). K was strongly positively related in the 4th axis (r=0.711),

while Pb showed negative correlation in the 4th axis (- 0.506). N was strongly negatively

correlated to environment in the 5th axis, Ni showed positive correlation in the 6th axis (Table

4.4.4).

Fig.4.4.1. CCA of abundance of soil macro-fauna at soil nutrients in tomato and cauliflower

fields

98

Table 4.4.4: CCA of the association of the soil macro-fauna at the soil nutrientsfrom

tomato and cauliflower (control and treated) fields

Call:

CCA (X = species, Y = soil)

Partitioning of mean squared contingency coefficient:

Inertia Proportion

Total 1.7732 1.0000

Constrained 1.5256 0.8604

Unconstrained 0.2476 0.1396

Eigenvalues, and their contribution to the mean squared contingency coefficient

Importance of components:

CCA1 CCA2 CCA3

Eigenvalue 0.6222 0.3538 0.2055

Proportion Explained 0.3509 0.1995 0.1159

Cumulative Proportion 0.3509 0.5504 0.6663

CCA4 CCA5 CCA6

Eigenvalue 0.135000.13034 0.04525

Proportion Explained 0.07613 0.07351 0.02552

Cumulative Proportion 0.74247 0.815970.84149

CCA7 CCA8

Eigenvalue 0.02221 0.01122

Proportion Explained 0.01253 0.00633

Cumulative Proportion 0.85402 0.86035

CA1 CA2 CA3

Eigenvalue 0.15112 0.05308 0.04343

Proportion Explained 0.085230.029930.02449

Cumulative Proportion 0.94558 0.975511.00000

Accumulated constrained eigenvalues

Importance of components:

CCA1 CCA2 CCA3

Eigenvalue 0.6222 0.3538 0.2055

99

Proportion Explained 0.4078 0.2319 0.1347

Cumulative Proportion 0.4078 0.6398 0.7745

CCA4 CCA5 CCA6

Eigenvalue 0.13500 0.13034 0.04525

Proportion Explained 0.08849 0.08544 0.02966

Cumulative Proportion 0.86298 0.94842 0.97808

CCA7 CCA8

Eigenvalue 0.02221 0.01122

Proportion Explained 0.01456 0.00736

Cumulative Proportion 0.99264 1.00000

Scaling 2 for species and site scores

* Species are scaled proportional to eigenvalues

* Sites are unscaled: weighted dispersion equal on all dimensions

Species scores

CCA1 CCA2 CCA3 CCA4 CCA5 CCA6

Eratigena agrestis -0.27198 0.6336 0.95771 0.13834 0.19577 -0.05941

Malthonica pagana -0.54823 1.1466 -0.66317 0.13392 0.98273 -0.16111

Tegenaria atrica -0.45123 1.1303 -0.28371 0.47439 1.07408 -0.13915

Pardosa pullata -0.88991 0.1139 -0.49610 -0.34455 -0.42027 -0.43495

Hogna lenta -0.84728 1.8219 -1.14624 1.42653 1.06754 -0.52307

Paederus littoralis -0.73930 0.7013 -0.86237 0.22508 -0.86237 0.22508

Forficula auricularia -0.67866 1.0006 -0.39753 0.11170 -0.20247 0.96096

Messor barbarus -1.20909 0.3021 -0.03707 -0.16777 -0.68669 -0.08674

Solenopsis mandibularis -0.25839 0.4114 -0.37704-0.53398 0.24942 -0.17841

Formica spp. 0.03076 0.5108 1.39977 -0.03130 0.52783 -0.20406

Monomorium pharaonis -1.75223 -1.7702 -0.02853 0.48844 0.28622 0.03766

Trichorhina tomentosa 0.05599 0.3619 0.72500-0.20571 0.26645 -0.01649

100

Oniscus asellus -0.03384 0.4614 0.40860 0.18954 -0.07906 0.07018

Porcellio scaber 0.73739 -0.1546 -0.10017 0.15576 -0.12696 -0.01060

Trachelipus rathkii 0.09899 -0.3522 0.02440 -0.59630 0.38315 0.13307

Acheta domesticus -0.31494 0.2108 0.95350 0.06645 0.01923 -0.38120

Spilosoma lubricipeda -0.59797 -0.4824 1.16459 -0.11476 0.90181 0.19917

Phragmatobia fuliginosa -0.38270 1.3774 -1.01542 1.57785 0.59509 -0.16838

Aporrectodea caliginosa -0.90076 1.0596 1.25359 0.84423 0.07315 0.17257

Site scores (weighted averages of species scores)

CCA1 CCA2 CCA3 CCA4 CCA5 CCA6

TTB 0.8727 -0.2249 -0.30471 0.44167 -0.43039 -0.29656

TTM 0.9485 -0.2220 -0.07418 0.88933 -0.60734 0.06773

TTC 0.5685 -0.1444 0.21992 -0.79979 0.68646 0.08601

TCB -0.0835 1.1010 -0.19206 -0.55599 0.27000 2.79522

TCM -0.7531 0.7327 -0.77380 -1.94144 0.08405 -0.61099

TCC -1.5460 -0.3901 -0.62085 -1.10009 -1.70548 -1.94782

CTB -1.3358 1.6042 0.05643 0.14209 -2.09452 3.49813

CTM -1.0769 2.3501 -1.67224 1.52536 2.50634 -2.45423

CTC -1.5239 -2.2571 -0.31245 -0.01732 1.86257 1.19040

CCB -2.3541 -2.5247 0.31121 2.18974 0.01022 -0.32772

CCM -1.4319 2.3017 -2.18749 2.24603 -0.13805 1.01619

CCC -0.5941 1.3100 4.21495 0.59166 0.14243 -0.07167

Site constraints (linear combinations of constraining variables)

CCA1 CCA2 CCA3 CCA4 CCA5 CCA6

TTB 0.7965 -0.40572 -0.47910 0.39809 -0.411021 -0.593130

TTM 0.8891 -0.10778 -0.24127 0.88382 -0.631688 0.099147

TTC 0.6998 -0.08618 0.53028 -0.75502 0.685455 0.393616

TCB -0.5962 0.89791 -0.97197 -0.68569 0.409961 0.442819

TCM -0.9757 0.73229 -1.54365 -2.02899 -0.003904 -0.404871

101

TCC -1.2748 -0.26741 0.07734 -1.00174 -1.689453 -1.465441

CTB -1.1723 1.74612 0.37775 0.20005 -2.124734 4.106101

CTM -0.7488 2.72621 -0.94722 1.66077 2.461037 -1.388153

CTC -1.5720 -2.38842 -0.45116 -0.04974 1.867578 1.068528

CCB -2.3216 -2.20149 0.37634 2.23779 -0.029355 -0.004692

CCM -1.2884 1.51377 -1.85777 2.18895 -0.044068 0.783878

CCC -0.9216 1.02733 3.41466 0.46047 0.152407 -0.864636

Biplot scores for constraining variables

CCA1 CCA2 CCA3 CCA4 CCA5 CC6

N 0.08098 -0.220692 -0.13437 0.3600-0.66513 -0.44058

P0.588250.218862 -0.03843 0.2762 0.35105 0.34356

K-0.340430.1115220.430100.7111 0.09647 0.16194

Pb-0.39407-0.516749 -0.20678-0.5061 0.31645 0.23403

Cr0.86914-0.200671 0.06263 -0.1197 -0.22947 -0.18878

Ni-0.09805 0.538168 0.19437 0.3390 0.11523 0.53007

pH0.78387 -0.159755 -0.33140 -0.3514 -0.27523 -0.13809

EC 0.36531 -0.001451 0.37123 -0.3948 0.19279 -0.05971

102

Data presented in (Table4.4.5, Fig.4.4.2) interpreted the correlation structure of soil

parameters, field’s type and species among tomato control and treated fields. In first two axes

of ordination P, K and Cr were highly positively correlated to each other. The values of P, K

and Cr were highly positively correlated with micro habitats (boundary, middle, and center) of

tomato treated. T. morio, P. scaber and T. rathkii were correlated to tomato treated fields and

were positively correlated with nutrients P, Cr and K.

Pb and Cr were negatively correlated with each other. The N concentration had slightly impacts

and was correlated to the following species i.e. C. herculeanus, T. ruricola, M. barbarous, T.

spinipalpis and P. pullata among tomato control fields at center. While, the Pb showed positive

correlation with T. atrica, A. demetica, S. mandibularis, T. tomentosa, E. agrestes, G.

pennsyvanicus, M. paganaand C. convescus. The Species like P. idiota and T. pussilum were

related to tomato control fields at center. While, species T. helluo, remained restricted to

tomato control at boundary.

The first two axes of this ordination collectively explained 100 % variation in the distribution

of soil macro-fauna species. Amongst the community parameters in the first axis, P and Cr

showed a strong negative correlation with environment (r= -0.9918; r= -0.8116), respectively.

Pb and K also showed negative correlation in first axis (r= -0.7352; r= -0.6266) respectively

while K and Pb showed weak negative correlation with environment (r= -0.340 and r= -0394),

respectively. N and Cr showed a positive correlation to the second axis (r=0.613; r=0.503),

respectively. While, Pb was weakly negatively correlated to the environment in the second axis

as (r= -0.454). N was positively correlated to fourth axis as (r=0.764). K was negatively

correlated in the 5th axis (r= -0.650) (Table4.4.5, Fig.4.4.2).

103

Fig.4.4.2: CCA of abundance of soil macro-fauna at soil nutrients in tomato control and

treated fields

104

Table 4.4.5: CCA of the association of the soil macro-fauna at the soil nutrients from

tomato control and treated fields

Call:

cca (X = tomato species, Y = tomato soil)

Partitioning of mean squared contingency coefficient:

InertiaProportion

Total 1.315 1

Constrained 1.315 1

Unconstrained 0.000 0

Eigenvalues and their contribution to the mean squared contingency coefficient

Importance of components:

CCA1 CCA2 CCA3 CCA4 CCA5

Eigenvalue 0.5840 0.3207 0.2929 0.09126 0.02613 0

Proportion Explained 0.4441 0.2439 0.2227 0.06940 0.01987 0

Cumulative Proportion 0.4441 0.6880 0.9107 0.98013 1.00000 1

Accumulated constrained eigenvalues

Importance of components:

CCA1 CCA2 CCA3 CCA4 CCA5

Eigenvalue 0.5840 0.3207 0.2929 0.09126 0.02613

Proportion Explained 0.4441 0.2439 0.2227 0.06940 0.01987

Cumulative Proportion 0.4441 0.6880 0.9107 0.98013 1.00000

Scaling 2 for species and site scores

* Species are scaled proportional to eigenvalues

* Sites are unscaled: weighted dispersion equal on all dimensions

Species scores

CCA1 CCA2 CCA3 CCA4 CCA5

Eratigena agrestis -0.30267 -0.72516 0.96627-0.175943 -0.434246

Malthonica pagana 0.42232 -0.80674 -1.00634 -0.055106 -0.275360

Tegenaria atrica -0.04184 -0.25400 -0.52342 -1.036467 -0.237923

Trochosa spp. 1.65105 1.10516 0.70818 0.122987 0.129877

Tigrosa helluo 0.17685 -1.95177 1.98229-0.050785 -0.005033

Trochosa terricola 0.20475 -1.77704 2.45791 0.117335 0.145673

Trochosa ruricola 0.48351 0.63597 0.69976 -0.007521 -0.010321

105

Pardosa pullata 0.32416 0.32829 0.54374 0.2729620.124328

Trochosa spinipalpis 0.32899 0.39344 -0.09118 0.303247 0.393763

Paederus littoralis 0.47617-0.87800 -1.07939 0.406301 -0.077518

Pentodon idiota 0.92066 -1.31979 -1.43471 -0.051993 0.143373

Promethis nigra 0.37124 -1.68593 0.78594 0.382504 -0.185430

Chelisoches morio -0.33031 0.23478 -0.01778-0.198920 -0.151172

Forficula auricularia 0.06305 -1.52303 1.42915 0.253898 -0.243492

Messor barbarus 0.89516 0.56463 0.03606 0.165176 -0.352779

Solenopsis mandibularis 0.41668-0.35521 0.08930 -0.299656 0.104748

Camponotus herculeanus 0.75474 0.96069 0.36058 0.069612 -0.021627

Trichorhina tomentosa -0.30274 -0.48834 0.59583 -0.400299 -0.100502

Cylisticus convexus 0.32456 -0.87436 -0.68750 0.513324 0.144305

Oniscus asellus -0.55079 0.22988 -0.14305 -0.172585 -0.247140

Trichoniscus pusillus 1.17569 -1.60189 -1.67789 0.262957 -0.009229

Porcellio scaber -0.54763 0.18962 -0.04487 0.172113 -0.171186

Trachelipus rathkii 0.01408 0.09536 -0.25766 -0.649587 0.515870

Acheta domesticus -0.05361 -0.28440 -0.58262 0.129330 -0.004176

Gryllus pennsylvanicus -0.04080 -0.74729 0.15617 0.432983 -0.092456

Site scores (weighted averages of species scores)

CCA1 CCA2 CCA3 CCA4 CCA5

TTB -0.59968 0.3753 -0.06345 0.53010 1.73812

TTM -0.75690 0.3052 -0.10718 1.27179 -1.29416

TTC -0.39185 0.1336 -0.19205 -1.39446 -0.32108

TCB 0.08934 -2.2707 2.84023 0.07741 0.02587

TCM 1.35817 -1.8042 -1.84893 0.39549 0.09472

TCC 2.27874 1.5014 0.77382 0.14369 -0.12890

Biplot scores for constraining variables

CCA1 CCA2 CCA3 CCA4 CCA5

N 0.1346 0.612870.13890 0.763804 0.05986

106

P -0.99180.07109 0.04667 0.005336 0.09571

K -0.62660.29923 0.30839 0.013078 -0.65002

Pb 0.7352 -0.45431 -0.08499 -0.413835 -0.27314

Cr -0.81160.50351-0.25775 -0.073402 -0.12624

Data presented in (Table 4.4.6; Fig.4.4.3) interpreted the correlation structure of soil

parameters, field type and species among cauliflower control and treated fields. In the first two

axes, N, K and Cr were highly positively correlated to the environment. While Pb and P showed

negative correlation with each other. Species pertaining to cauliflower control filed at middle

as well as among cauliflower treated fields at middle were P. fuliginosa and H. lenta.

Concentration of P was highly correlated with F. auricularia that inhabited in Cauliflower

treated fields. P. pullata and M. barbarous among cauliflower treated fields at boundary.

Whereas, K, N and Cr, were highly positively correlated to each other and they also showed

association at center with cauliflower control.

Nutrients such as K and Cr showed a positive correlation to the soil macro-fauna species A.

caliginosa, C. chromaiodes,Formica spp., O. asellus and T.septempunctata. Nitrogen was

recorded positively correlated to the species S.lubricipeda. On other hand, Pb was correlated

with the cauliflower treated at center and also with the species, G.mellonella. However,

M.phora, showed high correlation with cauliflower treated field at boundary.

The first two axes of this ordination collectively explained 100% variation in the distribution

of soil macro-fauna species. Amongst the community parameters in first axis, Pb was highly

positively correlated with environment (r=0.669). N showed negative correlation to the

environment in the 2nd axis (r= -0.340), whereas it was positively correlated to the axes the 3rd

and 4th as (r=0.598; r=0.420), respectively. In 5th axis, P and Pb showed strong positive

correlation (r=0.8883; r=0.557), respectively, while, K and Cr were strongly negatively

correlated to environment in the 5th axis as (r= -0.9878; -0.815).

107

Fig.4.4.3: CCA of abundance of soil macro-fauna at soil nutrients in cauliflower control and

treated fields

108

Table 4.4.6: CCA of the association of the soil macro-fauna at the soil nutrients as well

as micro-habitats from the cauliflower control and treated fields

Call:

cca(X = cauliflower species, Y = cauliflower soil)

Partitioning of mean squared contingency coefficient:

Inertia Proportion

Total 1.39 1

Constrained 1.39 1

Unconstrained 0.00 0

Eigenvalues, and their contribution to the mean squared contingency coefficient

Importance of components:

CCA1 CCA2 CCA3 CCA4 CCA5

Eigenvalue 0.6154 0.4294 0.1893 0.12702 0.02843 0

Proportion Explained 0.4429 0.3090 0.1362 0.09141 0.02046 0

Cumulative Proportion 0.4429 0.7519 0.8881 0.97954 1.00000 1

Accumulated constrained eigenvalues

Importance of components:

CCA1 CCA2 CCA3 CCA4 CCA5

Eigenvalue 0.6154 0.4294 0.1893 0.12702 0.02843

Proportion Explained 0.4429 0.3090 0.1362 0.09141 0.02046

Cumulative Proportion 0.4429 0.7519 0.8881 0.97954 1.00000

Scaling 2 for species and site scores

* Species are scaled proportional to eigenvalues

* Sites are unscaled: weighted dispersion equal on all dimensions

Species scores

CCA1 CCA2 CCA3 CCA4 CCA5

Tegenaria atrica -0.06917 0.8263 -0.02721 -1.303579 0.29765

Rabidosa rabida 0.28646 0.8878 0.43683 -0.053609 -0.27770

Pardosa pullata 0.41280 0.4851 0.24143 0.193352 0.44794

109

Hogna lenta -0.03270 1.3671 0.54597 -0.464256 -0.09535

Paederus littoralis 0.22499 0.6904 0.11063 -0.002247 0.36242

Coccinella septempunctata -1.45961 -0.7591 0.57490 0.041404 -0.10069

Forficula auricularia -0.32119 0.4904 -0.68385 0.453563 0.14322

Messor barbarus -0.07897 0.1092 -0.48713 0.002474 -0.08317

Camponotus vagus 0.59201 0.6522 0.60754 0.899677 -0.06374

Formica spp. -1.34663 -0.5751 0.56965 -0.120781 -0.03882

Monomorium pharaonis 1.12368 -0.7785 0.09108 -0.108001 -0.01274

Camponotus chromaiodes -1.23366 -0.3912 0.56441 -0.282965 0.02306

Oniscus asellus -1.37367-0.7207 0.09886 0.247230 -0.01232

Galleria mellonella 0.30015 -0.2683 -1.38825 -0.205971 -0.40808

Spilosoma lubricipeda -0.17608-0.8122 0.61442 0.379679 0.57310

Phragmatobia fuliginosa 0.01335 1.3928 0.55316 -0.144664 -0.26418

Aporrectodea caliginosa -0.72623 -0.1585 -0.18321 -0.291630 0.04526

Site scores (weighted averages of species scores)

CCA1 CCA2 CCA3 CCA4 CCA5

CTB -0.4123 0.3536 -2.2273 0.4582 0.7139

CTM -0.2169 1.2642 0.5172-1.7426 0.5799

CTC 1.2204 -0.6813 0.6487 0.5558 1.3088

CCB 1.0126 -0.8901 -0.5491 -0.8701 -1.5300

CCM 0.2436 1.5215 0.5891 1.4533 -1.1083

CCC -1.5726 -0.9430 0.5801 0.2036 -0.1626

Site constraints (linear combinations of constraining variables)

CCA1 CCA2 CCA3 CCA4 CCA5

CTB -0.4123 0.3536 -2.2273 0.4582 0.7139

CTM -0.2169 1.2642 0.5172 -1.7426 0.5799

CTC 1.2204 -0.6813 0.6487 0.5558 1.3088

CCB 1.0126 -0.8901 -0.5491 -0.8701 -1.5300

CCM 0.2436 1.5215 0.5891 1.4533 -1.1083

CCC -1.5726 -0.9430 0.5801 0.2036 -0.1626

110

Biplot scores for constraining variables

CCA1 CCA2 CCA3 CCA4 CCA5

N -0.09146 -0.5303870.598880.42047-0.4182

P -0.22329 0.356885-0.06818 -0.17042 0.8883

K -0.15420 -0.002704 0.01462 0.01614 -0.9878

Pb 0.66934 -0.367605 0.16907 0.27925 0.5570

Cr -0.34013 -0.255287 0.28159 0.27459-0.8151

111

In (Fig.4.4.4) data represented correlation among soil macro-nutrients (N, P and K), micro-

nutrients (Pb, Cr, and Ni) and pH, EC. The data presented that K had very weak positive

correlation with EC and Ni, whereas it was negatively correlated with P, Pb and strongly

negatively correlated with pH. While, EC was weakly positively correlated with pH and very

strongly positively correlated with Cr, whereas it was negatively correlated with P, and Ni.

Whilst, P has slightly negative correlation with Pb, N and Cr, whereas, it was strongly

positively correlated with Ni. In case of Ni a strong negative correlation was recorded with Cr,

Pb, N and pH. The result also interpreted very weak negative correlation of Pb with N and Cr,

while, with pH it showed very slight positive correlation. The N showed positive correlation

with Cr and pH whereas Cr had very strong positive correlation with pH.

112

Fig.4.4.7: Correlation among soil macro-nutrients (N, P and K), micro- nutrients (Pb, Cr

and Ni) and pH, EC

113

CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION

5.1: Existence of soil macro-fauna among polluted and non-polluted cauliflower and

tomato fields

Soil communities are principal source to run the bio-geo-chemical cycling in soil and support

to above-ground relevant cycling for the sustainability of ecosystem. Soil acts as protection

and source of nutrition for their growth. Especially, soil type and nature of its profile directly

or indirectly influence their lives (Ranaet al., 2012). Among all, soil fauna are of pristine nature

and play pivotal role in soil sustainability e.g. improve fertility, decomposition of soil organic

matter and nutrients cycling etc. (Pietramellaraet al., 2002) Wherein as convenient and low-

cost alternative for the ultimate dumping of several toxic depositsin soil has reduced the action

of soil engineers, whereas modifications inrelated ecosystem cause decline in agricultural

production (Stork and Eggleton, 1992; Jones et al., 1997), relative to biotic factors e.g. soil

fauna(Siddiqui et al., 2005; Ranaet al., 2006, 2010a,b) and soil quality malfunctioning

(Birkhofer et al., 2008, 2016).

Among all four fields, total 7845 specimens were collected during entire sampling and

maximum population was recorded from tomato control fields 35.24% (N=2766) while least

population was recorded from cauliflower treated fields i.e. 8.91% (N=699) (Table 4.1.1 a). It

is due to the fact that industries generatesubstantial quantity of gaseous,liquid or solid wastes,

which cause environmental pollution. Contaminated groundwater, soils, as well as, food

resources are due to dumping the waste materials into water stream and resources (Suther,

2008). Moreover, industrial activities are the reason of heavy metal release into the

environments which has great impact on soil quality and faunadevelopment living within it

(Brito-Vega and Espinosa-Victoria, 2009; Wu et al., 2010).

Population dynamics amongst the all four fields were different significantly (R2=0.818;

r2=0.904) (Fig.4.1.1). Land use practices exercised animmense influence on overall

abundance; diversity; community composition and soil fauna biomass (Lavelle and Pashanasi,

1989; Gilleret al., 1997; Barros et al., 2002; Barrios et al., 2005).Because of polluting potential

of sewage wastewater, many studies geared to their impact on soil physico-chemical

properties, pollution of surface and groundwaterand their contribution to crop yields. This

pollution causes a trauma in bio-indicator organisms by altering their physiological and

114

biochemical capacities in different levels (Lucas et al., 2013; Kessler et al., 2013; Maggi et al.,

2011; Zeririet al., 2013).

In tomato fields higher abundance was recorded in control fields (2766) than in treated fields

(2188), analogous to this form of the cauliflower crop higher diversity was found high in

control fields (2192) than in treated fields (699).While, high diversity of these soil biota in

control fields indicated that by using non polluted irrigation system, significantly sustain the

number of biota and their function (Antoniolli et al., 2013) thus, research concluded that heavy

metals contamination can alter functioning of soil ecosystem by disturbing the soil macro-

fauna activities and it has been turned into an ubiquitous problem (Tilman et al., 2002;

Santorufo et al., 2012; Khan et al., 2003; Ghafoor , 2008;Verheijen et al., 2010;Soni and

Abbasi,1981).

From tomato research area, of phylum: Arthropoda, order Hymenoptera (45.78%) was the most

abundant order biota from tomato research area control fields, from phylum Mollusca the

maximum relative abundance of soil biota was documented for order Stylommatomorpha

(98.27%), while from phylum Annelida no specimen was recorded. Similarly, among tomato

treatedresearch area, Isopoda (74.54%) was most abundant order, while, from phylum

Annelida order Haplotaxida (100%), whereas no soil macro fauna was recorded from phylum

Mollusca (Table4.1.2a).

In case of cauliflower fields, from phylum Arthropoda, order Hymenoptera (45.71%) was the

most abundant order of soil organisms from cauliflower control fields, while from phylum

Mollusca was absent. Similarly, from cauliflower research area, orders hymenoptera (Phylum:

Arthropoda) was most abundant order recorded, whereas no soil macro fauna was recorde d

from phylum Mollusca (Table 4.1.2b). The abundance of most arthropods, tended to reduce

due to warm weather.Earthworms often lose weight, increase their burrowing activity, or enter

into serenity or diapause when soils are too dry (Booth et al., 2000; Holmstrup, 2001).

In tomato control fields, species Succinia spp. 35.249% (n=975), in tomato treated fields for

species Porcellio scaber 53.97% (n=1181), in cauliflower control fields for species Coccinella

septempunctata 1.003% (n=22) and from cauliflower treated fields for species Solenopsis

mandibularis 9.728% (n=68) were recoded (Appendix-3). Previously, it was endorsed that

ecosystem manager species are significant contributor of ecosystem services (Schwartzet al.,

115

2000);as hypothesis ‘Drivers and Passengers’ illustrated by Walker, (1992), that some driver

species are vital in management ecosystem management as they have keystone nature and work

as ecosystem engineers (Jones et al., 1994; Lavelle 1997; Thompson and Starzomski, 2007).

The analysis of variance (ANOVA) was non-significant (P>0.05) among overall tomato and

cauliflower fields cultivations, whereas highly significant (P<0.01) among control fields and

treated tomato fields cultivations. Whilst, among micro-habitats of tomato and cauliflower

(control and treated) fields, analysis of variance was non-significant (P>0.05). As result of

previous studies explained that how soil characters play an important role in manipulating the

abundance, structure and distribution of macro-faunal communities (Heanes, 1984). Similarly

as tomato research area have impacts of use of polluted sewage wastewater were recorded

among cauliflower fields (Pfiffner and Niggli, 1996). Polluted water caused high heavy metal

load in the soil that in turn reduced the functioning of soil biota (Kandeleret al., 1996). So, it

was concluded that existence of organisms were present regardless toward edaphic factors and

were particularly governed by soil pollution. Few species respond eagerly toward the use of

polluted water for irrigation, whereas quite a large number of species either showed least

response or may move away; resultantly making the soil malfunctioned.

116

SECTION 5.2: Hazardous impacts of polluted water on the diversity and

density of soil macro-fauna among these fields

Soil being supreme diverse and imperative habitat has species rich communities and includes

one of the optimum combinations of soil fauna and florawith variable diversity indices

(Khodashenaset al., 2012; Lavelle et al., 2006). Amongst them, soil macro-fauna has distinct

diversity and in some ecosystemsand local variations about them are much superior. Their

diversity and abundance was used as tension-time index for soil profile (Palacios-Vargas et al.,

2007); having great importance in litter decomposition and nutrients cycle, also accounts to

depict the current status of area and could be used as the best factor in determination of soil

quality as well (Moghimian and Kooch, 2013; Xin et al., 2012). They are one of the main

constituents of ecosystem because their function to accelerate decomposition of organic

matters and moving nutrients (Xin et al., 2012; Lavelle et al., 2006; Ruiz et al., 2008; Mathieu

et al., 2005; Moghimian and Kooch, 2013). Determination of diversity, richness, evenness and

abundance indices of fauna are required for ecological studies, habitat management and

conservation programs for ecosystem evaluation (Nahmaniet al., 2005). The objective of this

study was to address the indices of diversityas well as density of soil organisms in tomato

vegetable and cauliflower vegetable (treated and control) fields.

During present study, the diversity index was higher in tomato research area cotrol (2.937) as

compared toresearch area of tomato treated (2.060), whereas, in cauliflower treated fields it

was higher (3.451) as compared to control fields (1.864). The dominance was higher in tomato

treated fields (0.497) as compared to tomato control fields (0.32), whereas, in cauliflower

control fieldsit was higher (0.526) when relate to treated (0.153). Evenness was higher (0.680)

in tomato control than in treated fields (0.503) and in treated fields it was recorded higher

(0.846) in cauliflower and (0.474) in control cauliflower fields. In tomato fields richness was

recorded higher in tomato control fields (9.337) than in treated fields (7.671), while, in

cauliflower fields higher richness was recorded in treated fields (8.855) than in control fields

(6.499) (Table4.2.2). It was recorded, diversity of macro-fauna were used as tension index for

soil (Palacios-Vargas et al., 2007). However, use of polluted water results in long-term soil

degradationand reduces the number of soil macro-fauna through alterations of the

117

microhabitats (Pfiffner and Niggli, 1996; Ruiz et al., 2008). They endorsed present findings

that soil pollution in any way is hazardous for soil macro-fauna.

Soil fauna is affected by many activities (physical and chemical) (Tilman, 2000). Other threats

to them include climate change, landslides and toxic wastes such as heavy metals and untreated

waste water irrigation in agricultural lands.In previous studies many scientists observed that

climate change strongly influenced the physiology of soil macro-fauna, through altering the

soil temperature and moisture (Booth et al., 2000; Holmstrup, 2001;Lurgiet al., 2012; Brose et

al., 2012; Brown et al., 2004).Present study result was supported by previous work in which

scientists described that temperature is considered, a dominant factor that influences ants’

distributions, globally (Diamond et al., 2012; Dunn et al., 2009). Ants exhibited high levels of

species dominance with variation in elevation (Burwell et al., 2011; , Sanders, 2002;

Robertson, 2002; Boteset al., 2006) indicating that their distribution patterns were probable

highly sensitive to overall temperature change (Deutsch et al., 2008; Del Toro et al., 2015).

High abundance of C. cheesmani (Coleoptera beetle) was correlated to higher temperature and

lower humidity as beetles prefer warm and dry conditions (Pfeiffer and Axtell, 1980).

Anisolabis maritima (earwig) abundance was somewhat related to low temperature, high

humidity and high soil moisture. Briones et al. (1997) described impacts of temperature

changes on macro-fauna, whilefurther studies were also concerned about effects of changed

moisture regime (Salinet al., 1998; Anonymous, 2013).

118

SECTION 5. 3 Trophic Structures

Food web dynamics are natural interconnections of what-eats-what by consumer-resource

system. These linkages illustrated via food web represent feeding pathways, and that is

simplified illustration of the various methods of feeding that links an ecosystem into a unified

system of exchange. Food web dynamic as well as trophic level of an organism is its position

that it attains in the food chain and it is course of energy transfer in natural way. (van Emden

and Wratten, 1991; Ranaet al., 2010; Lopez-Hernandez, 2001; Tillman 2000; Jouquetet al.,

2011; Sileshiet al., 2005; Shearinet al., 2007; Ge et al., 2014; Kale and Karmegam 2010;

Goncalves and Pereira 2012; Jeyaparvathiet al., 2013; Witmeret al., 2003).

From total recorded population, 20.44% (n=1604) specimens were documented as predators

from both tomato and cauliflower (control and treated) research area. In tomato control fields

29.42% (n=814) specimens, from tomato treated 17.77% (n=389), from cauliflower control

7.39% (N =162) and from cauliflower treated fields 34.19% (n=239) specimens were recorded

as predators. As per these findings, Schmitz (2009) said that predators play an important role

in purification of environment. Although, if their number. Thus, predators increase the

biodiversity of communities by avoiding a particular species from becoming dominant. For

example, arachnids, familyAraneae (spiders) is a group of important predators in soils, which

feed on insects such as beetles. Chilopoda (centepedes) isanother group of important predators

that feed on most soft-bodied fauna of reasonable size(Botkin and Keller, 2010). Centipedes

are predators and feed on other soil fauna (e.g. collembola and earthworms). The effect of soil

pH indirectly affected their occurrence by influencing availability of food substrates and the

distribution of their prey (Whalen et al., 2000).

From total recorded population, 34.88% (n=2737) fauna were present as pests from both

tomato and cauliflower (control and treated) research area. pest density from tomato control

fields was recorded upto 40.38% (n=1117), from tomato treated 2.1% (n=46), from cauliflower

control 64.46% (n=1413), while, from cauliflower treated fields were recorded 23.03%

(n=161). In previous studies it was reported that chemicals used in some agro- ecosystems/

crop fields has distorted the (Siddiqui, 2005). Other previous research had also described the

relationship between the ecosystem functions and biodiversity of soil macrofauna in soil

structures (Coleman et al., 2005; Fu et al., 2009).

119

From all biota, 25.31% (n=1986) specimens were detritivores (control and treated fields). From

tomato control fields 11.07% (n=306) specimens were recorded as detritivores, 72.89%

(n=1595) among tomato treated fields, 1.41% (n=31) specimens cauliflower control and 7.72%

(n=54) specimens were recorded as detritivores among cauliflower treated fields. Detritivore

accomplish decomposition in terrestrial ecosystem through feeding and digestion, and

microbial degradation of detritus (Wood, 1974). In previous studies it was observed that both

earthworms and isopods perform leaf litter decomposition and have been suggested to species‐

specifically affect soil microbiota and decomposition processes (Scheu, 1993;Kautz et al.,

2006;Scheu et al., 2002; Zimmer, 2002).

From all biota, 2.72% (n=214) specimens were omnivores Only (n=10) 0.36% specimens were

recorded as omnivore among tomato control fields, 3.29% (n=72) specimens among tomato

treated fields, 3.23% (n=71) specimens among cauliflower control fields and 8.72% (N=61)

specimens among cauliflower treated fields. In preceding studies it was observed that Ants live

in complex colony structures with typically 10,000 to 12,000 worker ants (Whalen and

Sampedro, 2010). They were often generalized predators, scavengers, or opportunistic

omnivores. Some species constructed mounds aboveground while others constructed their

nests within the soil (Folgarait et al., 2004; Frouz and Jilkova, 2008).

From total biota, 4.83% (n=379) specimens were scavengers (control and treated fields).

While, 4.19% (n=116) were scavenger among tomato control, 3.01% (n=66) specimens were

among tomato treated fields, 4.51% (n=99) specimens among cauliflower control and 14.02%

(n=98) specimens among cauliflower treated fields. Use of untreated sewage water for

irrigation of leafy and other vegetables, has outcomed in accumulation of heavy metals in soils

and their transport to the different crops under cultivation and via food web transferred to soil

fauna (Mohsen and Mohsen, 2008). In other studies it was observed that agricultural

intensification directly resulted in a decline of soil biodiversity of the tropical rainforest

clearance where the diversity of plant and animal species was reduced catastrophically

(Gilleret al., 1997).

From totalbiota, 7.29% (n=572) specimens as herbivores from tomato and cauliflower (control

and treated fields). In which 8.85% (n=245) specimens as herbivore/ in tomato control fields,

while, no representative from tomato treated fields, 14.91% (n=327) specimens cauliflower

120

control fields and no representative was recorded from cauliflower treated fields. Previous

several studies had revealed that large herbivores are important drivers of N cycling in

grassland ecosystems (Bardgett and Wardle, 2003). Depending on the productivity and grazing

intensity of an ecosystem, they can accelerate or slow down soil N mineralization (Wardle,

2002). The outcome of herbivore-induced changes in N mineralization depends on the quantity

and quality of resources that are returned to the soil (Bakker et al., 2004).

From all biota, 0.50% (n=40) specimens were polyphagous in tomato and cauliflower (control

and treated fields). Only 0.54% (n=12) were in tomato treated fields, only 0.57% (n=4)

specimens among cauliflower treated fields and 1.09% (n=24) specimens were recorded

among cauliflower control fields. The Coleopterans are documented as polyphagous predators

and are important natural enemy of insect pests. (Wyckhuys and O'Neil, 2006).The results of

present studies illustrated that nutrients present by non- polluted water irrigation in control

field supported the polyphagous population in control fields, whereas, no specimen was

recorded treated fields which revealed that treated fields irrigated with polluted water had not

supported the existence of herbivores as they contain high level of nutrients/ edaphic factors

viz. P, Ni and pH than control field (Table 4.4.3). Conversely, in cauliflower, polyphagous was

contradictory. It was higher in treated fields than control fields which showed that cauliflower

fields irrigated with polluted water supported the existence of polyphagous species as they

contain high level of nutrients/edaphic factors viz. P, Ni andpH than control field (Table 4.4.3).

From all biota, 0.51% (n=12) specimens were pollinator in tomato and cauliflower research

(control and treated fields). Only 1.71% (n=12) were in cauliflower treated, and absent in other

fields. Results were same to previous studies in which scientists described decline in

abundance and diversity of pollinator populations which has been recorded

worldwide.Carvalheiroet al. (2010) said that pollinator declineoccurred by alteration in

habitat(amplification in agro-ecosystems)and a-biotic and biotic factors, influenced these

parameters in the wild: predators, pest, , parasites, pathogens, and the accessibility of key

resources (Biesmeijeret al., 2006; Kremen et al., 2007).

From total recorded population, 3.83% (n=301) were as grainivores in tomato and cauliflower

(control and treated fields). Where 5.71% (n=158) in tomato control, only 0.36% (n=8)

121

specimens among tomato treated fields pertaining, (n=65) 2.96% specimens among

cauliflower control and 10.01% (n=70) in cauliflower treated.

Soil pH, total carbon, phosphorus and exchangeable bases are correlated and have had a

combined effect on the occurrence of millipedes. Millipedes require calcium for their

exoskeleton development (Ashwini and Sridhar 2008) and availability of calcium in soils is

pH dependent. Since millipedes feed on litter (decaying leaves and other dead plant matter) an

increase in litter inputs may have resulted in increased abundance of millipedes and other litter-

feeding organisms (Berg and Hemerick, 2004). The increased abundance may have led to

competition for the available food, resulting to depletion, hence decreased millipede

abundance.

Section-5.4: Impact of water pollution on soil marco-fauna

Soil fauna populations are affected by pollution butthere is little information available about

it, (Mahmoud and El-Kader, 2015; Riding et al., 2015; Roy and McDonald, 2015; Wang et al.,

2015). Soil, water and plant pollution is toward increase because of intensification in

urbanization and industrialization, which generates more sewage wastewater (Emongor, 2007).

Resultantly, main changes found in environment and also in faunal, floral diversity, of soil

organisms the soil structure and diversity in crop are significant (Olechowicz, 2004).

Soil analysis (CCA) was based on edaphic factors: soil pH and EC; micronutrients: Pb, Cr and Ni

as well as macronutrients: P and K. in control research fields of both the vegetables ; tomato,

cauliflower, soil pH, Pb and N were key soil elements that affect faunal distribution. As Lavelle

(1994) studied that small invertebrates in litter usually digest few quantity ofdebris material, are

means of disintegration and transport debris oresent in deep soil. Another time the soil salinity,

from the mentioned Cr, Ni, while, P and K (macro-nutrients) showed imperative in many of

organisms belongs to the all species of biota. many collembolans, isopoda orders and many

earthworms speed up decomposition due to the depositing debris material in moist micro-sites,

down to the earth soil (Hassall and Dangerfield, 1997). Therefore, the disperasal of such type of

biota are linked with thesoil type. For example, considering interactions of soil macro-fauna toward

soil elements (Table4.4.3, Fig.4.4.1), data presented the correlation of soil parameters and soil

macro-faunal species: high value of the N recorded was significantly positively correlated to

T. rathkii. The Pb showed a strong positive correlation with the S. Lubricipeda. Most of the

122

soil macro-fauna specieslinked to, K, Pb and Ni on the starting two points as related to P, N,

pH and EC. That result was analogous tothe findings of some researchers about sewage sludge

disposal in soil. They focused on its effects on soil fertility, plant development and

contamination by heavy metals and organic compounds (Yadav et al., 2002; Feigh et al., 1991;

Rattan and Datta, 2005; liu et al., 2013; Matos et al., 2004). However, use of sewage

wastewater alter biological, physical and chemical properties of the soils, subsequently the

dynamics of its soil fauna, organic matter decomposition, nutrient cycling, physical structure

of the soil (Andreoliet al., 1999; Gilleret al., 1998; Fernandeset al., 2005; Santos and Bettiol,

2003, Ghiniet al., 2007, Dyniaet al., 2006).

The starting two arrows showed 86.04% alterations in the dispersal soil macro-fauna. As well

as the community concerned, in first axis, Cr, pH and P explained impact with the atmosphere.

while K and Pb showed weak negative correlation with environment. The Ni showed a positive

correlation to second axis while, the Pb was negatively correlated to second axis. The K was

weakly positively correlated to third axis. The K was strongly positively related in the 4th axis,

while Pb showed negative correlation in 4th axis. The N was strongly negatively correlated to

environment in 5th axis, Ni showed positive correlation in the 6th axis (Table4.4.3, Fig.4.4.1).

Previously, Chrzan (2017) also determined the content of the heavy metals Pb, Cd, Ni, Zn and

Cu in the soil of selected habitats of Niepołomice Forest and the fauna inhabiting them, and

also to determine the effect of these metals on the density, diversity and trophic structure of

the fauna studied and found that pollution of soils with heavy metals is particularly dangerous

to living organisms. Invertebrates are sensitive to changes in soil conditions, and, therefore,

may be considered invaluable indicators of soil disruptions (Chrzan, 2017).

Correlation structure of soil parameters, field’s type and species among tomato control and

treated fields (Table4.4.4, Fig.4.4.2): in first two axes of ordination P, K and Cr were highly

positively correlated to each other. The values of P, K and Cr were highly positively correlated

with micro habitats (boundary, middle, and center) of tomato treated. T.morio, P. scaber and

T. rathkii were correlated to tomato treated fields and were positively correlated with nutrients

P, Cr and K.

123

Pb and Cr were negatively correlated with eachother. N concentration slighty impacts and

correlated to following species i.e. C. herculeanus, T. ruricola, M. barbarous, T. spinipalpis,

P. pullata among tomato control fields at center.While, Pb showed positive correlation with T.

atrica, A. demetica, S. mandibularis, T. tomentosa, E. agrestes, G. pennsyvanicus, M.

paganaand C. convescus. Species like P. idiota and T. pussilum were related to tomato control

fields at center. While, T. helluo remain restricted to tomato control at boundary. Heavy-metal

contaminated soils may transfer pollutants to further levels/elements of the trophic chain i.e.

plants, animals and humans; resultantly it constitutes a source of secondary pollution of air and

water; therefore, impacting humans directly, without passing through the trophic chain. As

opposed to air and water, the soil cleaning process is very slow. Right assessment of soil

pollution with heavy metals and resulting threats there, is very important to the environment,

and, therefore, to the living organisms (Rana, et al., 2010).

The starting two arrows donated the 100 % alteration in the division at different area soil

macro-fauna species. In community, in first axis, P and Cr showed a strong negative effect

with environment. The Pb and K also showed negative correlation in first axis while K and Pb

showed weak negative correlation with environment. The N and Cr showed a positive

correlation to second axis. The N was positively correlated to fourth axis. The K was negatively

correlated in the 5th axis. In previous studies it was acknowledged that sewage disposal was a

serious issue that often exhausted to the agricultural fields to irrigate crops and vegetables. The

sewage effluents were loaded with organic matter (OM) and other nutrients like N, P, K along

with elevated level of heavy metals (Fe, Mn, Cu, Zn, Hg, Pb, Cr, Ni, Cd and Co) when reaching

to the cultivating fields (Singh et al., 2004).

As per correlation structure of soil parameters, field type and species among cauliflower

control and treated fields (Table 4.4.5; Fig.4.4.3): in first two axes, N, K and Cr were highly

positively correlated to the environment. WhilePb and P showed negative correlation to

oneanother. Species that pertaining to cauliflower control filed at middle as well as among

cauliflower treated fields at middle were P. fuliginosa and H. lenta. Concentration of P was

highly correlated with F. auriculariathat inhabited in Cauliflower treated fields. P. pullata and

M. barbarous among cauliflower treated fields at boundary. Whereas, K, N and Cr, were highly

positively correlated to each other and they also showed association with cauliflower control,

at center of the field.

124

Heavy metals does not degraded and are accumulated into soil fauna, which cause damage

depending on level of exposure i.e. severe or chronic exposure (Pendrinhoet al., 2009).

Nutrients such as K and Cr showed a positive correlation to the species A. caliginosa, C.

chromaiodes,Formica spp., O. asellusand T.septempunctata. Nitrogen was recorded positively

correlated to the species S.lubricipeda. On other hand, Pb was correlated with the cauliflower

treated at center and also with the species, G.mellonella. However, M.phora, showed high

correlation with cauliflower treated field at boundary.

The increase in heavy metals is freeze up to a certain limit these days in the developing

countraries chiefly, in the environment and local fauna and floras. The starting axis denoted

100% dispersal variation of soil macro-fauna species. In community, first axis, Pb denoted

positive with the abiotic factors. N showed negative correlation to the environment in 2nd axis

(r=-0.340), whereas it was positively correlated to the axes 3rd and 4th. In 5th axis,.Sliveet al.

(2008) observed that the total amoun of heavy metals in soil are higher in plots fertilized with

Barueri sewage sludge in relation to those quantified in areas treated with sludge (domestic

waste). In other studies, it was observed that soil pH strongly affects soil macro-fauna

abundance and distribution (Kuperman 1996; Ayukeet al., 2009; Sarcinelliet al., 2009;

Auclercet al., 2012). Soil pH significantly affected earthworm and beetle taxa distribution.

Earthworms’ thrive best in soil with a pH range of between 4.5 and 7.0.The lower and upper

limits of Kiberashi soil was 5.3 and 7.9 respectively. This upper limit was higher than what

most earthworms’ species could thrive best in. It was observed that earthworms decreased with

an increase in soil pH. The high soil pH may have affected the availability of soil nutrients

(available phosphorus) which determine availability of food source for the earthworms. These

were consistent with the findings by Fragoso and Lavelle, (1992) and Marichalet al. (2012).

Similarly, the results showed that occurrence of centipedes decreased with an increase in soil

pH.

125

In norms and standards, land degradation due to heavy metals has undesirable effects on

environment and relevant ecosystem worldwide. Diffusion of heavy metals in irrigated

soils,relevant macro-fauna, over grown plantsresults in the pollution of food that may be

harmful to humans and animals. Therefore, precautionary measure regarding use of such water

may be undertaken and untreated that water may be banned as per endorsements of (Ghoneimet

al., 2014; Li et al., 2013; Chen et al., 2012; Jolly et al., 2013)

126

CHAPTER 6

SUMMARY

SECTION 6.1: Existence of soil macro-fauna among polluted and non

polluted cauliflower and tomato fields

Present study was conducted to highlight the distribution of invertebrate soil macro-fauna

among tomato and cauliflower (control and treated) fields at Faisalabad district (Punjab),

Pakistan. Among all four areas, 7845 were found in whole sampling, maximum in tomato

control fields 35.25% (n=2766), followed by 27.95% (n=2192) cauliflower control fields,

27.89% (n = 2188) tomato treated fields, and lowest in cauliflower treated fields i.e. 8.91%

(n=699). Population dynamic amongst the four fields (tomato control, tomato treated,

cauliflower research control and cauliflower treated research fields) were significantly

different (R2 =0.818; r2 =0.904).

Among the microhabitats, tomato control fields had maximum population abundance at

boundary 44.46% (n=1230), followed by center 30.11% (n=833) and middle 25.41% (n=703);

while, from tomato treated fields, abundance at center was maximum 41.77% (n=914),

followed by middle 29.47% (n=645) and boundary 28.74% (n=629). In cauliflower control

fields, among the micro-habitats, high population abundance was recorded at center 37.18%

(n=815), followed by boundary 31.88% (n=699) and middle 30.93% (n=678); while, among

cauliflower treated fields, it was recorded highest amongst at center 41.05% (n=287), followed

by middle 32.04% (n=224) and boundary 26.89% (n=188).

Overall from tomato control fields, soil macro-fauna population was consisted of 75 species,

64 genera and 35 families belonging to eight (8) orders, and from tomato treated fields, it was

consisted of 60 species, 48 genera and 33 families belonging to 10 orders. Similarly, from

cauliflower control fields, their population was consisted of 52 species, 44 genera and 24

families belonging to nine (9) orders, and from cauliflower treated fields, it was consisted of

58 species, 51 genera and 60 families belonging to 12 orders.

Soil biota during present study in tomato treated also control research area pertained to three

phyla- Arthropoda, Annelida and Mollusca. The maximum relative abundance of soil macro-

fauna was recorded for phylum Arthropoda (72.76%), followed by phylum Mollusca (26.86%)

127

and phylum Annelida (0.36%).From control fields pertaining to population of soil macro-

fauna, order Hymenoptera (45.78%) was the most abundant order of soil macro-fauna,

followed by Isopoda (22.29%), Araneae (14.49%), Coleoptera (9.82%) and Dermeptera

(5.22%). Similarly, from treated fields, order Isopoda (74.54%) was the most abundant,

followed by Hymenoptera (7.40%), Dermaptera (7.04%), Coleoptera (4.19%), Araneae

(3.22%), and Orthoptera (1.75%).

The maximum abundance for Mollusca (58.18%), followed by Arthropoda (41.05%) and

Annelida (1.66%), respectively. Amongst all the recorded soil biota in control area, for

arthropoda, Hymenoptera (45.71%), Coleoptera (15.91%), Isopoda (12.24%), Araneae

(10.16%) and Orthoptera (9.79%) were the most abundant orders of soil macro-fauna, while,

Stylommatophora (90.40%) and Basommatophora (0.46%) were recorded amongst the phylum

Mollusca.Similarly, amongst all the recorded soil macro-fauna from cauliflower treated fields,

arthropods, orders Hymenoptera (43.15%), Coleoptera (17.88%), Araneae (12.66%) and

Isopoda (7.45%) were the most abundant orders, whereas, order Haplotaxida was the only

group amongst the Annelida which formed (4.00%) of the total soil macro-fauna recorded,

while, amongst the phylum Mollusca soil macro-fauna recorded, was absent.

Tomato Control: Abundance of various orders of biota was recorded at three micro-habitats

as follow: (a) boundary, (b) middle and (c) center of the fields. Relative abundance among the

phylum recorded from boundary of the tomato control fields was maximum in case of order

Pulmonata (63.00%), followed by Hymenoptera (11.78%), Isopoda (10.40%), Araneae

(7.72%), Coleoptera (3.41%), Dermaptera (3.17%) and Orthroptera (0.48%).in middle of the

tomato control area was maximum in case of order Pulmonata (41.25%), followed by

Hymenoptera (20.06%), Isopoda (19.91%), Coleoptera (7.96%), Dermaptera (3.98%),

Orthoptera (3.69%) and Araneae (3.12%).Relative abundance among the soil macro-fauna

recorded from centre of the tomato control fields was maximum in case of order Hymenoptera

(16.58%), followed by, Pulmonata (29.17%), Araneae (10.92%), Isopoda (6.24%), Coleoptera

(5.16%), Stylommatophora (2.76%), Dermaptera (0.96%) and Orthroptera (0.24%).

Tomato Treated: in the boundary, tomato treated area was maximum in case of order Isopoda

(69.6%), followed by Dermaptera (10.88%), Hymenoptera (7.84%), Coleoptera (4.96%),

Areneae (4.16%), Orthroptera (1.60%) and Amphipoda (0.64%), while, least abundant order

128

was Lepidoptera (0.34%). In middle, tomato treated was maximum in case of order Isopoda

(81.71%), followed by Coleoptera (7.13%), Dermaptera (3.10%), Orthroptera (2.48%),

Hymenoptera (1.55%), Areneae (1.53%) and Lepidoptera (0.93%); whereas order Amphipoda,

showed the least relative abundance (0.31%). In tomato treated was maximum in case of order

Isopoda (73.36%), followed by Hymenoptera (11.29%), Dermaptera (7.23%), Areneae

(3.72%), Coleoptera (1.53%), Orthroptera (1.31%), Haplotaxida (0.87 %) and Lepidoptera

(0.65%).

Cauliflower Control: in boundary, cauliflower control was maximum in case of order

Pulmonata (77.68%), followed by Hymenoptera (14.59%), Orthroptera (4.00%), Araneae

(1.43%), Coleoptera (1.43%), Haplotaxida (0.59%) and the least for order Lepidoptera

(0.28%).Relative abundance from middle of the cauliflower control fields was maximum in

case of order Pulmonata (80.97%), followed by Hymenoptera (7.81%), Araneae (4.42%),

Coleoptera (8.25%), Dermaptera (1.47%), Stylommatophora (1.47%), Hemiptera (0.29%) and

Lepidoptera (0.29%).in center; cauliflower, control fields was maximum in case of order

Pulmonata (71.16%), then Hymenoptera (8.46%), order Isopoda (7.36%), Coleoptera (5.64%),

Orthoptera (2.45%), Haplotaxida (1.96%), Araneae (1.47%), Dermaptera (0.73%) and

Lepidoptera (0.49%).

Cauliflower Treated: in boundary; cauliflower treated was recorded maximum in case of

order Hymenoptera (55.31%), followed by Dermaptera (10.63%), Coleoptera (6.38%),

Araneae (4.26%), Isopoda (4.25%) and Orthroptera (2.12%). Relative abundance from middle

was maximum of cauliflower treated fields in case of order Hymenoptera (31.25%), followed

by Araneae (26.33%), Coleoptera (26.33%), Diptera (5.35%), Lepidoptera (5.35%),

Haplotaxida (3.57%), whereas Dermaptera (1.78%), showed the least relative

abundance.Relative abundance from center of the cauliflower treated fields was maximum in

case of order Hymenoptera (44.94%), followed by Coleoptera (17.07%), Isopoda (14.63%),

Orthroptera (9.40%), Araneae (6.27%), and Dermaptera (2.09%) whereas, Hemiptera (0.69%),

showed the least relative abundance.

From total biota, was also recorded at three micro-habitats i.e. boundary of field and the middle

and the center of the fields. abundance from all micro-habitats of the tomato treated field was,

maximum from center (41.8%) as compared to middle (29.5%) and boundary (28.7%) of the

129

fields.In the same context, relative abundance at three micro-habitats i.e. boundary, middle and

centre of the tomato control fields. (Fig.4.1.4b), shows comparison of relative abundance

recorded from all micro-habitats of the tomato control field was, maximum from boundary

(44.5%) as compared to centre (30.1%) and middle (25.4%) of the field.

In total, soil biota was recorded at three micro-habitats i.e. boundary of field , middle of field

and center of the fields. from all micro-habitats of the cauliflower treated field was, maximum

from center (41.1%) as compared to middle (32.0%) and boundary (26.9%) of the fields.In the

same context, relative abundance of all the macro-fauna was recorded at three micro-habitats

i.e. boundary, middle and centre of the cauliflower control fields. Relative were in all micro-

habitats of the cauliflower research control field was, maximum from center (37.2%) as

compared to boundary (31.9%) and middle (30.9%) of the field.

Overall among all the treated and control fields family-wise maximum abundance in tomato

control research area 35.25% (n=2766), whereas minimum in tomato treated area 27.89%

(n=2188) fields.The maximum in tomato control area for family Succineidae 44.10%

(n=1220), followed by Formicidae 23.68 % (n=655), Lycosidae 6.47% (n=179), Porcelliondae

3.90% (n=108). Whereas, it was recorded the least for family Gryllotalpidae, Acrididae,

Histeridae, Theridiidae, Desidae, Meloidae, Curculionidae were same i.e. (n≤10). The

maximum in tomato treated area for family Porcellionidae 53.97% (n=1181), followed by

Trachelipodidae 10.83% (n=225), Formicidae 7.04% (n=162) and Chelisochidae 6.12%

(n=134). Whereas, it was recorded minimum for Melitidae, Gryllotalpidae, Cimicidae,

Labiidae, Dermestidae, Eutichuridae, Thomisidae and Pisauridae were same i.e. (n≤10).

Overall among all the treated and control fields maximum in tomato control area 35.25%

(n=2766) whereas minimum in tomato treated area 27.89% (n=2188).The maximum was in

cauliflower control fields for family Succineidae 69.36% (n=1519), followed by family

Formicidae10.22% (n=224), Polygyridae 5.79% (n=127). However, following families were

recorded with the least relative abundance i.e. Pyralidae, Carabidae, Dictynidae, were all have

the equal abundance and Enidae, Cimicidae, and Erebidae and Cerambycidae were with

equality i.e. (n≤10).

The maximum in cauliflower treated area for family Formicidae 43.34% (n = 303), followed

by Staphylinidae 11.15% (n=78), Lycosidae7.58% (n=53). Whereas, it was recorded minimum

130

for Family Lithopiidae, Porcelliondae, Acanthosomatidae, Pyrrhocoridae, Curculionidae,

Coccinellidae, Blattellidae Megascolecidae, Labiduridae, Chrysomelidae, Sicariidaewere,

Erebidae, Oniscidae, Labiidae and Elateridae were with equality i.e. (N≤10).

The maximum was in tomato control fields as genus Succinea 44.10% (n=1220), followed by

Iridomyrmex 5.53% (n=153), Trochosa 4.12% (114), Messor 5.35 % (148), Porcellio 3.90%

(108); whereas, the maximum in tomato treated fields for genus Porcellio 53.97% (n=1181),

followed by Trachelipus 10.83% (n=225) Chelisoches 6.12% (n=134), Solenopsis 4.38%

(n=96). Whereas, the maximum in cauliflower control fields for genus Succinea 69.29%

(n=1519), followed by Messor 61.78% (n=1353), Praticolella 5.79% (n=127). However, the

maximum in cauliflower treated area for genera Solenopsis 16.59% (n≥116) followed by

Messor 9.72% (n≥68), Monomorium 8.86% (62) and Ocypus 8.29% (n≥58).

Tomato: The maximum in tomato control fields for species Succinea spp. (Stylommatophora:

Succineidae) 35.249% (n=975), followed by Succinea putris (Stylommatophora: Succineidae)

8.857% (n=245), Iridomyrmex purpureus (Hymenoptera: Formicidae), 5.531% (n=153),

(Hymenoptera: Formicidae) 3.362% (93), Trichoniscus pusillus (Isopoda: Trichoniscidae)

2.566% (71), Froggatella kirbii(Hymenoptera: Formicidae) and Porcellio spinicornis

(Isopoda: Porcelliondae) 2.205% (n=61), Trachelipus rathkii (Isopoda: Trachelipodidae)

2.133% (n=59), Formica rufa (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) 1.916% (n=53), Pheropsophus

catoirei (Coleoptera: Carabidae) 2.33% (n=51), Porcellio scaber (Isopoda: Porcelliondae)

1.699% (n=47), Formica ligniperdos (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) 1.626% (n=45),

Monomorium pharaonis (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) and Subulina octona (Stylommatophora:

Subulinidae) 1.482% (n=41).

The maximum in Tomato treated fields for species Porcellio scaber (Isopoda: Porcelliondae)

53.97% (n=1181), followed by Trachelipus rathkii (Isopoda: Trachelipodidae) 10.28%

(n=225), Chelisoches morio (Dermaptera: Chelisochidae)6.124% (n=134). While other

prominent species were Armadillidium vulgare (Isopoda: Armadidllidae) 3.747% (n=82),

3.244% (n=71), Pheropsiiophus catoirei 2.33% (n=51), Oniscus asellus (Isopoda: Oniscidae)

1.828% (n=40), Camponotus vagus (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) 1.553% (n=34), Acheta

domesticus (Orthoptera: Gryllidae) 1.005% (n=22) and Formica spp.(Hymenoptera:

Formicidae) 0.731% (n=16).

131

Cauliflower: maximum in cauliflower control area as species Succinea species .

(Stylommatophora: Succineidae) 61.724% (n=1335), Succinea putris (Stylommatophora:

Succineidae) 7.572% (n=166), Mastus abundans (Stylommatophora: Enidea) 5.793% (n=127),

Messor barbarous (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) 2.965% (n=65), Monomorium pharaonis

(Hymenoptera: Formicidae) 2.463% (n=54), (Isopoda: Platyarthridae) 1.414% (n=31),

1.003% (n=22), Coccinella septempunctata (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) 1.003% (n=22) and

Aporrectodea caliginosa (Haplotaxida:Lumbricidae 0.912% (n=20).

The maximum in cauliflower treated area for species Solenopsis mandibularis9.728% (n=68)

followed by Dolichoderus taschenbergi(Hymenoptera: Formicidae) 8.869% (n=62),

Camponotus vagus(Hymenoptera: Formicidae) 8.583% (n=60), Dinaraea angustula

(Coleoptera: Staphylinidae) 8.297% (n=58), Philoscia muscorum (Isopoda: Philosidae)

6.008% (n=42), Solenopsis invicta (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) 5.293% (n=37), Nala lividipes

(Dermaptera: Labiduridae) 3.433% (n=24), Gryllotalpa gryllotalpa (Orthoptera:

Gryllotalpidae) 3.290% (n=23), Formica invicta(Hymenoptera: Formicidae) 2.718% (n=19)

and Paederus riparius (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae) 2.575% (n=18).

The analysis of variance was non-significant (P>0.05) among overall tomato and cauliflower

fields cultivations. The Analysis of Variance was highly significant (P<0.01) among control

fields and treated tomato fields cultivations. Whilst, Analysis of Variance was non-significant

(P>0.05) among micro-habitats of tomato and cauliflower (control and treated) fields. The

comparison of log10 (mean±SE) explained significant results between tomato treated and

tomato control fields. Similarly, significant results were shown between cauliflower control

fields and treated fields cultivations.

SECTION 6.2: Hazardous impacts of polluted water on the diversity and

density of soil macro-fauna among these fields

Diversity (Hʹ)

In tomato controlarea (Hʹ) was 2.379 in (6th) sample, then 2.201 (5th), 2.197 (1st), 2.169 (3rd),

2.136 (4th), 1.735 (7th) sampling, whereas, the least (Hʹ) 1.392 was recorded for2ndsampling. In

tomato treated area, (Hʹ) was 2.249 in (4th) sample, then 1.618 (6th), 1.555 (1st), 1.521 (7th),

1.032 (5th) and 0.977 (3rd) sample. Although, the minimum (Hʹ) 0.757 for (2nd) sample. In

cauliflower controlarea, highest (Hʹ) 2.103 in 6thsampling, then 1.578 (2nd), 1.514 (3rd), 1.414

132

(7th), 1.062 (5th), 1.054 (5th) and the least (Hʹ) 1.005 was for1stsampling. In cauliflower treated

fields, maximum (Hʹ) was recorded 2.459 in (7th) sample, then 2.436 (6th), 2.135 (3rd), 2.039

(4th), 1.925 (5th), 1.809 (2nd) whereas, the least (Hʹ) 1.782 was recorded for 1stsampling. Overall

diversity index was higher in tomato control (2.937) than tomato treated field (2.060),

highlighting bare differences of disturbance. Whereas, the diversity index was higher in

cauliflower treated field (3.451) as compared to control fields (1.864), indicating difference of

disturbance.

Dominance (D)

In tomato control area, highest (D) 0.3957 was in (2nd) sample, then by 0.3876(7th), 0.3163

(3rd), 0.2985 (4th), 0.2398(1st), 0.2345(6th) and lowest (D) 0.2185 was in the 4th sample. In

Tomato treatedarea, maximum (D) 0.6712 was in the (2nd) sample, then 0.6191 (3rd), 0.5845

(5th), 0.4893 (1st), 0.4766 (6th), 0.4738 (7th) sampling and least dominance,0.2220, was in the

4th sample. In cauliflower treated area, highest (D) 0.3057 was in the (5th) sample, then 0.2454

(2nd), 0.2000 (6th), 0.1796 (4th), 0.1678 (3rd), 0.1650 (7th) sampling and least (D) 0.0842 was in

the 1st sample. In cauliflower control area, maximum (D) 0.5858 was in (4th) sample, then

0.5424 (1st), 0.4934 (5th), 0.4103 (7th), 0.3148(5th), 0.2859(6th) sampling and lowest (D) 0.2220

was in the 3rd sample. Overall, the dominance was higher in tomato treated field (0.497) as

compared to tomato control field (0.32), highlighting bare differences of disturbance. Whereas,

dominance was higher in cauliflower control field (0.526) as to treated (0.153), highlighting

bare differences of disturbance.

Evenness (E)

In tomato control area, utmost (E) 0.782 was in (6th) sample, then 0.765 (3rd), 0.760 (1st), 0.701

(4th), 0.684(5th), 0.612 (7th) sampling and the least evenness 0.604 was in 2nd sample. In tomato

treated area, utmost (E) 0.778 was in (4th) sample, then 0.526 (7th), 0.523 (6th), 0.511 (1st),

0.416 (5th), 0.381(3rd) sampling and the least (E)value 0.329 was in 2nd sample time. In

cauliflower control, maximum (E) 0.778 was in (3rd) sample time, then the 0.714 (2nd), 0.685

(3rd), 0.590 (7th), 0.507(5th), 0.458 (6th) sampling and least Evenness, 0.414, was in 7th sample

time period. In cauliflower treated fields site, utmost (E) 0.916 was in (1st sample time), then

at 0.835 (7th), 0.832(3rd), 0.820 (4th), 0.800 (5th), 0.755(3rd) sample time and least (E) 0.694

was in the 7th sample time period. Overall, evenness was higher (0.680) in tomato control than

133

in treated (0.503). Evenness was utmost level in treated site (0.846) in cauliflower and (0.474)

in control cauliflower fields.

Richness (R)

In tomato control site, maximum (R) (3.834) was in (5th) sample time period, 3.349 in (4th),

3.261 in (6th), 3.119 (1st), 2.831 in (3rd), 2.465 in (7th) sample of the time and least (R) 1.680 in

2nd sample time. In tomato treatedsite, maximum (R)(3.489) was in (6th) sample time, then at

3.384 (1st), 3.163 during (7th), 3.064 during (4th), 2.090 (5th) 2.084 was recorded in (3rd)

sampling and least (R) 1.486 was in 2nd sample time. In the cauliflower control site, utmost

(R)(2.961) was in (6th) sampling, then the 1.961 (4th), 1.814 (2nd), 1.676 (7th), 1.509 (1st) 1.175

was recorded in (5th) sampling and lowest (R) 1.154 in 3rd sample time. In cauliflower treated

site, maximum (R)(3.881) was in (6th) sample time, then in the 3.692 (7th), 3.087 (5th), 2.746

(3rd), 2.698 (4th) 2.234 was recorded in (2nd) sampling and the least richness (R) 1.627 in the

1st sampling. Overall, In tomato fields richness was recorded higher in tomato control field

(9.337) than in treated field (7.671). In cauliflower fields higher richness was recorded in

treated field (8.855) than in control field (6.499).

(a) Boundary

Diversity index in tomato fields at boundary was higher in control fields (2.058) than in treated

fields (1.758). Similarly, in cauliflower fields at boundary diversity was higher (2.421) in

treated fields than in control fields (1.586). Dominance from tomato fields at boundary was

higher (0.483) in treated fields than in control fields (0.442). Similarly, dominance recorded at

boundary was higher (0.494) among control fields than treated (0.238) from cauliflower fields.

Evenness at boundary in tomato fields was higher (0.558) in control fields than treated fields

(0.517). Similarly, in cauliflower fields, it was higher (0.762) in treated fields than control

fields (0.506).Species richness in tomato fields at boundary was higher (5.4816) in control

fields than treated fields (4.5002). Species richness in cauliflower fields at boundary was higher

(4.3923) in treated fields than control fields (3.3590).

134

(b) Middle

Diversity index in tomato fields at middle was higher in control fields (2.866) than in treated

fields (1.650).While, diversity in cauliflower fields at middle was higher (3.007) in treated

fields than in control fields (1.345). The dominancein tomato fields at middle was higher

(0.536) in treated fields than in control fields (0.238). Similarly, in cauliflower fields, at

middle, the dominance was higher (0.543) in control fields than in treated fields (0.116).

Evenness at middle in tomato fields was higher (0.762) in control fields than treated fields

(0.464).Whereas, in cauliflower fields, at middle evenness was higher (0.884) among treated

fields than control fields (0.457). Species richness in tomato fields at middle was higher

(6.4070) in control fields than treated fields (5.2556). Species richness in cauliflower fields at

middle was recorded higher (5.3588) in treated fields than control fields (2.7611) at middle.

(c) Center

Diversity index in tomato fields at center was higher in control fields (0.778) than in treated

fields (2.157). Similarly, diversity in cauliflower fields at center was higher (2.838) in treated

fields than in control fields (1.910).Dominance in tomato fields at center was higher (0.415) in

treated fields than in control fields (0.191), whereas, it was higher (0.399) in control fields at

center than treated fields (0.181). Evenness at boundary in tomato fields was higher (0.558) in

control fields than treated fields (0.517). Similarly, in cauliflower fields, it was higher (0.762)

in treated fields than control fields (0.506).Species richness in tomato fields at center was

higher (5.7203) in treated fields than control fields (4.4609). Similarly, species richness in

cauliflower fields at center was higher (5.4775) in treated fields than control fields (3.4312).

Density

The overall density of soil fauna in tomato sites was higher in control fields. Similarly, among

cauliflower fields, the density of soil macro-fauna was higher in control fields.

In the 1st, 2nd and 3rd sampling the density /ft3 of fauna was higher among treated area than

control site. While in the 4, 5, 6 and 7 sample time the density of soil macro-fauna was greater

among control fields than treated fields. Whereas in cauliflower, the density indices overall

were higher amongst the all samplings in control fields as compared to treated fields.

135

Analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed non-significant (p>0.05) difference between average

number of specimens.

The t-test showed significant (t=17.51; p<0.001) among tomato control, treated field

microhabitats regarding Shannon diversity index with respect to species. Whilst, t-test analysis

was significant among boundary (t=3.70; p<0.05), highly significant among middle (t=14.1;

p<0.001) and center (t=10.09; p<0.001) between control fields and treated fields cultivations

(Table4.2.2). While, the t-test represent significant (t=28.14; p<0.001) in cauliflower control

fields and treated fields; then, t-test revealed significant in the boundary (t=7.83; p<0.001),

middle (t=20.28; p<0.000) and center (t=11.12; p<0.001) between control fields, treated fields

sites.

SECTION 6.3: Trophic status of soil macro-fauna among tomato and

cauliflower fields

From total recorded population, 20.44% (n=1604) specimens were predators in the both tomato

area and cauliflower (control area and treated) fields. tomato control fields 29.42% (n=814)

specimens, from tomato treated 17.77% (n=389), from cauliflower control 7.39% (n=162) and

from cauliflower treated fields 34.19% (n=239) specimens were predators.

34.88% (n=2737) specimens were pests in both tomato area and cauliflower area

(control and treated) sites. Diversity of pest in tomato control site was upto 40.38% (n=1117),

tomato treated 2.1% (n=46), from cauliflower control 64.46% (n=1413), then in, from

cauliflower treated fields 23.03% (n=161).

From total, 25.31% (n=1986) specimens as detritivores among tomato area and cauliflower

site. In the tomato control research area 11.07% (n=306) specimens were recorded as

detritivores, 72.89% (n=1595) among tomato treated fields, 1.41% (n=31) specimens

cauliflower control and 7.72% (n=54) specimens as detritivores from cauliflower treated

research area.

2.72% (n=214) specimens were discovered as omnivores among tomato research area

and cauliflower (control site and treated fields). Only (n=10) 0.36% fauna were omnivore

among tomato control fields, 3.29% (n=72) specimens among tomato treated fields, 3.23%

136

(n=71) specimens among cauliflower control fields and 8.72% (n=61) specimens among

cauliflower treated research site.

4.83% (n=379) specimens were scavengers in the tomato and cauliflower (control area

and treated fields). While, 4.19% (n=116) were scavenger from the tomato research control,

3.01% (n=66) specimens were among tomato treated fields, 4.51% (n=99) specimens among

cauliflower control and 14.02% (n=98) specimens among cauliflower treated research site.

7.29% (n=572) specimens were herbivores in the tomato and cauliflower (control site

and treated fields). In which 8.85% (n=245) fauna illustrated as herbivorein the tomato control

fields, while, no representative was in the tomato treated 14.91% (n=327) specimens among

cauliflower control fields others were absent in cauliflower treated.

0.50% (n=40) specimens were polyphagous in the tomato and cauliflower (control and

treated fields). Only 0.54% (n=12) showed as polyphagous in the tomato treated research site.

whereas, others were absent at this locality. only 0.57% (n=4) specimens in the cauliflower

treated site and 1.09% (n=24) specimens as polyphagous from the cauliflower controlresearch

area.

0.51% (n=12) specimens’ pollinator in the tomato and cauliflower (control and treated

fields). Only 1.71% (n=12) pollinators from the cauliflower treated site, while, others was not

found in the cauliflower control and the tomato control and tomato treated.

3.83% (n=301) specimens were as grainivores in tomato field and cauliflower (control

site and treated fields). Where 5.71% (n=158) showed as the grainivores in the site of tomato

control area, only 0.36% (n=8) specimens among tomato treated fields pertaining, (n=65)

2.96% specimens among cauliflower control and 10.01% (n=70) were not found at the

grainivores in the cauliflower treated localities

Overall number of predators, pests, detritivores, omnivores, scavengers, herbivores,

polyphagus, pollinators and grainvorousamong all four fields (tomato control, tomato treated,

cauliflower control and cauliflower treated) were significantly different (P<0.0000).

137

Section-6.4:The inter-specific responses of soil macro-fauna with regard to level of

macro (N: P: K), micro (Pb: Cr: Ni) nutrients, pH and EC

A total of 7845 fauna of the 161 species were noted in the field of tomato, cauliflower research

sites. Overall richness was utmost in tomato (135), cauliflower (110). Coleoptera was the most

frequent (44 species) order in both fields. Araneae (35 species), Coleoptera (30 species),

Hymenoptera (20 species), Isopoda (16 species), Orthoptera (11 species), Demeptera (eight

species), Pulmonata (five number of species) were dominant orders in tomato fields.

Hymenoptera (26 species), Coleoptera (24 species), Lepidoptera (10 species), Orthoptera and

Pulmonata (7 each), members of Dermeptera and Haplotaxida (four each) in cauliflower fields.

Blattodea, Diptera, Lithobiomorpha orders were absent in the tomato site, whereas, members

of Amphipoda order were not recordedabsent from cauliflower order. In tomato locality,

richness was utmost at in control fields (75) and from treated fields (60). Amphipoda,

Haplotaxida, Hemiptera and the Lepidoptera were absent in control area. Amphipoda,

Haplotaxida, Hemiptera, Lepidoptera rare in treated research site. Cauliflower fields, control

fields triple number of specimens as compared to the treated fields. Members of order

Pulmonates were only harbored from the control, whereas, members of Blattodea,

Lithobiomorpha and Diptera were recorded in treated fields.

In tomato, treated fields had higher values of nitrogen (N) (0.08) than in control fields (0.07).

Whereas it has same value in both, cauliflower treated and control fields (0.06 each).

Phosphorus (P) has higher value (13.26) in treated fields than in control fields (12.13). In

cauliflower, its value recorded was higher (14.01) in treated fields than in control fields (11.8).

Potassium (K) has higher value in treated fields (291.9) than control fields (251.42). In

cauliflower, its value recorded was higher (306.66) in control fields than in treated fields

(287.85).The value of lead (Pb) was recorded higher in tomato control fields (1.54) than in

treated fields (1.04). In cauliflower, its value recorded was higher (0.79) in control fields than

in treated fields (0.77).The value of chromium (Cr) was higher in treated fields (1.9) than in

control fields (1.23). In cauliflower, its value recorded was higher (0.94) in control fields than

in treated fields (0.39). Nickel (Ni) value was higher in treated fields (1.33) than in control

fields (1.17). In cauliflower, its value recorded was higher (1.96) in treated fields than in

control fields (1.39). EC value recorded was somewhat high in treated (3.56) than control fields

138

(3.36). In cauliflower, its value recorded was higher (3.18) in control fields than in treated

fields (2.94).Whereas, the value of pH recorded was higher in control (8.15) than treated fields

(8.13). In cauliflower, its value recorded was higher (8.02) in treated fields than in control

fields (7.98).

In tomato control fields N, P and K had highest values in the 3rd, 6th and (5th, 6th each) sampling,

respectively, while their least value was recorded during the 7th sampling each, respectively. In

case of Pb, Cr and Ni the highest values were recorded during the 1st, (3rd, 4th each) and the 5th

sampling, respectively, whereas the lowest values for these micro-nutrients were recorded

sampling wise in the 7th each, respectively. The highest values for EC and pH were recorded

during the 3rd and 4th samplings, respectively, whereas the lowest values were during the 7th

sampling each, respectively.

In tomato treated fields N, P and K had highest values in the 1st, 4th and 1st sampling,

respectively, while their least value in (5th, 6th each), 2nd and5th sample time, respectively. Pb,

Cr and Ni the highest in the 2nd, 1st and 1st sample time, respectively, while the lowest values

recorded for these micro-nutrients were in the 7th, 5th and 7th sampling, respectively. The

highest values for EC and pH were recorded during 1st sampling each, respectively, whereas

the lowest values were during the 5th and (4th, 6theach) sampling, respectively.

In cauliflower control fields N, P and K had highest values in the 1st, 7th and7th sampling,

respectively, while their least value was recorded during the 6th, 3rd and 2nd samplings each,

respectively. In case of Pb, Cr and Ni the highest values were recorded during the 4th, 7th and

2nd sampling, respectively, while least values for these micro-nutrients were recorded in the 6th,

3rd and 7th sampling, respectively. The highest values for EC and pH were recorded during the

1st and 5th sampling, respectively, whereas the lowest values were during 3rd and (4th, 7th)

sampling, respectively.

In cauliflower treated fields N, P and K had highest values in 7th, 6th and (2nd, 4th each)

sampling, respectively, while their least value was in (4th, 5th each), 1st and 1st sample time ,

respectively. In case of, Pb, Cr and Ni the highest values were recorded during the 1st, (3rd, 4th)

and 5th sampling, respectively, while lowest values for these micro-nutrients were sampling

wise recorded in the 3rd ,7th and 1st , respectively. The highest values for EC and pH were

139

recorded during the 2nd and 1st sampling, respectively, whereas the lowest values were during

the 7th and 5th sampling, respectively.

In present study, canonical correspondence analysis (CCA) was carried out to evaluate the

relative contributions of different environmental variables, micro-nutrients (Pb, Cr, Ni), macro

nutrients (N, P, K), soil micro-habitats (boundary, middle and center) and some edaphic factors

such as (pH and electric conductivity (EC) on the existence and distribution of soil macro-

fauna collected from control and treated, tomato and cauliflower fields. Correlation of soil

parameters (mentioned above), microhabitat and soil macro-faunal species;it was observed that

EC, pH and N were positively correlated to each other. Whereas, pH and Cr showed strong

correlation, as per observed from tomato treated fields micro-habitats (center, boundary and

middle). Whereas, the high value of nitrogen was positively significantly correlated to T.

rathkii. A negative correlation of Pb and P was observed, Pb showed a strong positive

correlation with the S. lubricipeda. The nutrients, K and Ni showed a weak positive correlation

with each other, K and Ni were high in cauliflower fields than that tomato fields. The average

values, recorded for pH, Cr and N, were higher in tomato treated than tomato control fields,

Pb was higher in tomato control center, cauliflower control boundary and cauliflower treated

center. Whereas Ni and K were most important characteristics component for cauliflower

(control and treated) fields and the following species H. lenta, P. fuliginosa, M. pagana, A.

caliginosa, P. littoralis, Formica spp., S. mandibularis, M. barbarous, O. asellus, T.

tomentosa, P. pullata, A. domesticus, E. agrestis were highly correlated to K and Ni (tomato

control middle, tomato control boundary, cauliflower control center and cauliflower treated

boundary). Species M. phoranis was abundant in cauliflower treated fields at center.Canonical

Correspondence Analysis of tomato and cauliflower (control and treated) fields soil macro-

fauna revealed that N, P, K, Pb, Cr, Ni, EC and pH were factors to evaluate the dispersal pattern

of the of soil biota fauna species. Most of the soil macro-faunawere positively relation to the ,

K, Pb and Ni on the first two arrows, whereas, P, N, pH and EC. The starting arrows of the

ordination collectively explained 86.04% variation in the distribution of soil macro-fauna

species. Amongst the community parameters in first axis, Cr, pH and P showed a strong

positive correlation with environment (r=0.869; r=0.783 and r=0.588), respectively while K

and Pb showed weak negative correlation with environment (r= -0.340 and r= -0.394),

respectively. Ni showed a positive correlation to the second axis (r=0.538) while, Pb was

140

negatively correlated to the second axis as (r= -0.516). K was weakly positively correlated to

third axis as (r = 0.430). K was strongly positively related in the 4th axis (r= 0.711), while Pb

showed negative correlation in the 4th axis (-0.506). N was strongly negatively correlated to

environment in the 5th axis, Ni showed positive correlation in 6th axis.

Correlations structure of soil parameters, field’s type and species in tomato control and

treatedresearch site. In the first two axes of ordination P, K and Cr were highly positively

correlated to each other. The values of P, K and Cr were highly positively correlated with micro

habitats (boundary, middle, and center) of tomato treated. T.morio, P. scaberand T. rathkii

were correlated to tomato treated fields and were positively correlated with nutrients P, Cr and

K.Pb and Cr were negatively correlated with eachother. The N concentration had slightly

impacts and was correlated to the following species i.e. C. herculeanus, T. ruricola, M.

barbarous, T. spinipalpis, P. pullata among tomato control fields at center. While, the Pb

showed positive correlation with T. atrica, A. demetica, S. mandibularis, T. tomentosa, E.

agrestes, G. pennsyvanicus, M. paganaand C. convescus. Species like P. idiota and T. pussilum

wererelated to tomato control fields at center. While, species T. helluo, remained restricted to

tomato control at boundary. The starting two side of the angles explained 100% variability in

the soil macro-faunabiota. In the species structure, in first axis, P and Cr depicted a strong

negative reliability with environment (r= -0.9918; r= -0.8116), respectively. Pb and K also

showed negative correlation in first axis (r= -0.7352; r= -0.6266) respectively while K and Pb

showed weak negative correlation with environment (r= -0.340 and r= -0394), respectively.

The N and Cr showed a positive correlation to second axis (r=0.613; r=0.503), respectively.

While, Pb was weakly negatively correlated to the environment in second axis as (r= -0.454).

N was positive to fourth angle as (r=0.764). K was negatively correlated in 5th axis (r= -0.650).

Correlation structure of soil parameters, field type and species in the cauliflower control and

treated fields. first two axes, N, K and Cr were highly positively correlated to the environment.

While Pb and P showed negative correlation with each other. Species pertaining to cauliflower

control filed at middle as well as among cauliflower treated fields at middle were P. fuliginosa

and H. lenta. Concentration of P was highly correlated with F. auricularia that inhabited in

Cauliflower treated fields. P. pullata and M. barbarous among cauliflower treated fields at

boundary. Whereas, K, N and Cr, were highly positively correlated to each other and they also

showed association at center with cauliflower control. Nutrients such as K and Cr showed a

141

positive correlation to the soil macro-fauna species A. caliginosa, C. chromaiodes, Formica.

spp., O. asellus and T.septempunctata. Nitrogen was recorded positively correlated to the

species S.lubricipeda. On other hand, Pb was correlated with the cauliflower treated at center

and also with the species, G.mellonella. However, M.phora, showed high correlation with

cauliflower treated fields at boundary. The starting two angle of the explained 100% variability

in the dispersal of the macro-fauna species. In species values, in first axis, Pb showed a strong

positive correlation with environment (r=0.669). N showed negative correlation to the

environment in 2nd axis (r= -0.340), whereas it was positively correlated to the axes 3rd and 4th

as (r=0.598; r=0.420), respectively. In the 5th axis, P and Pb showed positive relation

(r=0.8883; r=0.557), whereas, K, Cr had strongly negative relation to environment in the 5th

axis as (r= -0.9878; -0.815).

Correlations among (N, P and K), and the (Pb, Cr, and Ni) and pH, EC. The data presented that

K had very weak positive correlation with EC and Ni, whereas it was negatively correlated

with P, Pb and strongly negatively correlated with pH. While, EC was weakly positively

correlated with pH and very strongly positively correlated with Cr, whereas it was negatively

correlated with P, and Ni. Whilst, P has slightly negative correlation with Pb, N and Cr,

whereas, it was strongly positively correlated with Ni. In case of Ni a strong negative

correlation was recorded with Cr, Pb, N and pH. The result also interpreted very weak negative

correlation of Pb with N and Cr, while, with pH it showed very slight positive correlation. The

N showed positive correlation with Cr and pH whereas Cr had very strong positive correlation

with pH.

142

CONCLUSIONS

Ideal diversity and density of soil macro-fauna per unit area is fundamental tool for sustaining the

agricultural productions but their existence varies patch to patch, over time and space, soil profile

as well as biological rhythm.Wherein usage of sewage wastewater for irrigation of agri-crop fields

is triggering riotous victims to soil macro-faunal communities. Their deterioration was much

alarming in polluted fields than controlled. Diversity indices, density, and food web dynamic

disturbed as mirror reflection as per intensity of heavy metals and exceeding frequency of NPK

value beyond the limit. Consequently, soil and eco-efficiency of cultivated crop become

malfunctioned. Hence, to ensure future and safeguard living beings, strategic plan may have to

launch to sustain the integrity of biogeochemical cycling for soil capitalization along the biotic

and abiotic components.Particularlyfollowing to that measures:

1. Scale turn programme have to plan asaunique key to underline the diversity of soil

biotaunder various circumstances: everywhere to weigh up crop/ species specific

ecological role and relating handicaps, to provide vector line to the researchers to

further accord their importance on modern research and to draw various correlations

about heavy metals impacts, micro- and meso-fauna.

2. Diversity and density ofsoil macro-faunathathold upsoil biological, chemical and

physical processes have to specified as per population structure crop wise and season

wise as it alter owing to treatments and casually by edaphic factors.

3. Usage of sewage wastewater is deteriorating the inhabiting macro-fauna in both

vegetable fields, hence, sanitary/ phyto-sanitary measure have to adopted to avoid

malfunctioning of agro-ecosystem.

4. To the cyclic rhythum, stability and idealistic farming treated wastewater as norms and

standards of heavy metals and NPK, EC & pH have to use or have to ban for the

conservation and proper existence soil macro-fauna as well as their food web dynamic to

ensure nature.

5. Population dynamic, existing frequencies, diversity indices, density, food web dynamics

and between species/ heavy metals, EC & pH as well as NPK level during present study

were recorded significantly different between the vegetables and among the fields;

accordingly abundance, dominance, evenness, and richness pattern were recorded

143

variably among existing taxa supporting null hypothesis that ecological pyramids were

optimally not streamlined and disquieting others. In general:

1. Existence of soil macro-fauna among polluted and non polluted cauliflower and tomato fields

Among all foursites , 7845 biota were found, maximum population in tomato control

research site 35.25% (n=2766), and lowest at cauliflower treated 8.91% (n=699).

Population dynamic amongst the four fields (tomato control, tomato treated, cauliflower

control and cauliflower treated) were significantly different (R2 =0.818; r2 =0.904).

Overall from tomato control fields, soil macro-fauna population was consisted of 75

species, 64 genera and 35 families belonging to eight (8) orders, and from tomato treated

fields, it was consisted of 60 species, 48 genera and 33 families belonging to 10 orders.

From cauliflower control fields, their population was consisted of 52 species, 44 genera

and 24 families belonging to nine (9) orders, and from cauliflower treated fields, it was

consisted of 58 species, 51 genera and 60 families belonging to 12 orders.

Among the microhabitats, tomato control fields had maximum population abundance at

boundary 44.46% (n=1230), followed by center 30.11% (n=833) and middle 25.41%

(n=703).

From tomato treated fields, abundance at center was maximum 41.77% (n=914), followed

by middle 29.47% (n=645) and boundary 28.74% (n=629).

In cauliflower control fields, among the micro-habitats, high population abundance was

recorded at center 37.18% (n=815), followed by boundary 31.88% (n=699) and middle

30.93% (n=678).

Among cauliflower treated fields, it was recorded highest amongst at center 41.05%

(n=287), followed by middle 32.04% (n=224) and boundary 26.89% (n=188).

The maximum abundance in tomato control site for species Succinea spp.

(Stylommatophora: Succineidae) 35.249% (n=975), and in tomato treated area for species

Porcellio scaber (Isopoda: Porcelliondae) 53.97% (n=1181).

The maximum abundance in cauliflower control locality for species Succinea spp.

(Stylommatophora: Succineidae) 61.724% (n=1335), and from cauliflower treated fields

for species Solenopsis mandibularis (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) 9.728% (n=68).

The analysis of variance was non-significant (P>0.05) among overall tomato and

cauliflower fields cultivations.

144

The analysis of variance was highly significant (P<0.01) among control fields and treated

tomato fields cultivations. Whilst, Analysis of Variance was non-significant (P>0.05)

among micro-habitats of tomato and cauliflower (control and treated) fields.

The comparison of log10 (mean±SE) explained significant results between tomato treated

and tomato control fields. Similarly, significant results were shown between cauliflower

control fields and treated fields cultivations.

t-test depicted significant (t=14.61; p<0.001) in the control locality and treated tomato

fields. Similarly, t-test (t=17.28; p<0.001) significant in the cauliflower control fields and

treated fields cultivations.

2: Hazardous impacts of polluted water on the diversity and density

In tomato control area, (Hʹ) was 2.379 in the (6th) sample time period, and least 1.392 was

in the 2nd sample time.

Tomato treated locality, (Hʹ) was 2.249 in the (4th) sample time, and least 0.757 was in the

(2nd) sample time.

Cauliflower control, (Hʹ) 2.103 in the 6th sample, and least 1.005 was in the 1st sampling.

Cauliflower treated, (Hʹ) was 2.459 in the (7th) sample time, and least 1.782 in the for

1stsampling time period.

Overall diversity index was higher in tomato control (2.937) then treated field (2.060), and

diversity index was higher in cauliflower treated field (3.451) as compared to control fields

(1.864), indicating difference of disturbance.

In case of tomato control fields, maximum (D) 0.3957 in (2nd) sample time; tomato treated,

maximum (D) 0.6712 was in (2nd) sample time period; cauliflower treated, maximum (D)

0.3057 was (5th) sampling; and cauliflower control maximum (D) 0.5858 was in (4th)

sample.

Tomato control, utmost (E) 0.782 was in (6th) sample time ; tomato treated, utmost (E)

0.778 was in (4th) sample time; cauliflower control, maximum (E) 0.778 was in (3rd)

sample; cauliflower treated, utmost (E) 0.916 was (1st sampling).

In case of tomato control fields, maximum (R) (3.834) was in (5th) sample time; tomato

treated, maximum (R)(3.489) was in (6th) sample; cauliflower control, maximum

(R)(2.961) was at (6th) sample; cauliflower treated, maximum (R) (3.881) was at the (6th)

sampling.

145

The overall density in tomato fields was higher in control fields.

Similarly, among cauliflower fields, the density of soil macro-fauna was higher in control

fields.

In 1st, 2nd and 3rd sampling the density / cubic feet (ft3) was higher among treated area than

control site.

While in 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th sample period the density of soil macro-fauna was greater

among control fields than treated fields.

Whereas in cauliflower, the density indices overall were higher amongst the all samplings

in control fields as compared to treated fields.

Analysis of variance (ANOVA) depicted the non-significant (p>0.05) difference between

average number of specimens.

The t-test presented the highly significant (t=17.51; p<0.001) in tomato control and treated

field microhabitats regarding Shannon diversity index with respect to species.

The t-test analysis was significant among boundary (t=3.70; p<0.05), highly significant

among middle (t=14.1; p<0.001) and center (t=10.09; p<0.001) between control fields and

treated fields cultivations.

The t-test was significant (t=28.14; p<0.001) in the cauliflower control fields and treated;

whilst, t-test illustrated the significant in the boundary (t=7.83; p<0.001), middle (t=20.28;

p<0.000) and center (t=11.12; p<0.001) between control fields and treated fields.

3: Trophic status of soil macro-fauna among tomato and cauliflower fields

Overall number of predators, pests, detritivores, omnivores, scavengers, herbivores,

polyphagus, pollinators and grainvorous among all four fields (tomato control, tomato

treated, cauliflower control and cauliflower treated) were significantly different

(P<0.0000).

146

4: The inter-specific responses of soil macro-fauna with regard to level of macro, micro-nutrients,

pH and EC

Total 7845 biota 161 species were in the tomato and cauliflower.

Overall richness was higher in tomato (135), as compared to the cauliflower (110).

Coleoptera was most frequent (44 species) order in both fields. Araneae (35 species),

Coleoptera (30 species), Hymenoptera (20 species), Isopoda (16 species), Orthoptera (11

species), Demeptera (eight species), Pulmonata (five number of species) were dominant

recorded in tomato fields. Hymenoptera (26 species), Coleoptera (24 species), Lepidoptera

(10 species), Orthoptera and Pulmonata (seven each), members of Dermeptera and

Haplotaxida (four each in cauliflower fields. Blattodea, Diptera, Lithobiomorpha orders

were absent at tomato fields, whereas, members of Amphipoda order was absent at

cauliflower order. In tomato, R was higher in control (75 species) than in treated site (60).

In tomato, treated fields had a higher values of nitrogen (N) (0.08) than in control fields

(0.07). Whereas it has same value in both, cauliflower treated and control fields (0.06 each).

Phosphorus (P) has higher value (13.26) in treated fields than in control fields (12.13). In

cauliflower, its value recorded was higher (14.01) in treated fields than in control fields

(11.8).

Potassium (K) has higher value in treated fields (291.9) than control fields (251.42). In

cauliflower, its value recorded was higher (306.66) in control fields than in treated fields

(287.85).

The value of lead (Pb) was recorded higher in tomato control fields (1.54) than in treated

fields (1.04). In cauliflower, its value recorded was higher (0.79) in control fields than in

treated fields (0.77).

The value of chromium (Cr) was higher in treated fields (1.9) than in control fields (1.23).

In cauliflower, its value recorded was higher (0.94) in control fields than in treated fields

(0.39).

Nickel (Ni) value was higher in treated fields (1.33) than in control fields (1.17). In

cauliflower, its value recorded was higher (1.96) in treated fields than in control fields

(1.39).

147

EC value recorded was somewhat higher in treated (3.56) than control fields (3.36). In

cauliflower, its value recorded was higher (3.18) in control fields than in treated fields

(2.94).

Whereas, the value of pH recorded was higher in control (8.15) than treated fields (8.13).

In cauliflower, its value recorded was higher (8.02) in treated fields than in control fields

(7.98).

High value of nitrogen was significantly positively correlated to T. rathkii. A negative

correlation of Pb and P was observed and Pb showed a strong positive correlation with the

S. Lubricipeda.

Ni and K were most important characteristics component for cauliflower (control and

treated) fields and the following species H. lenta, P. fuliginosa, M. pagana, A. caliginosa,

P. littoralis, Formica spp., S. mandibularis, M. barbarous, O. asellus, T. tomentosa, P.

pullata, A. domesticus and E. agrestis were highly correlated to K and Ni (tomato control

middle, tomato control boundary, cauliflower control center and cauliflower treated

boundary).

Species M. phoranis was abundant in cauliflower treated fields at center.Canonical

correspondence analysis of tomato and cauliflower (control and treated) fields soil macro-

fauna revealed that N, P, K, Pb, Cr, Ni, EC and pH were crucial.

Amongst the community parameters in first axis, Cr, pH and P showed a strong positive

correlation with environment (r=0.869; r=0.783 and r=0.588), as to the K and Pb showed

weak negative correlation with environment (r= -0.340 and r= -0.394), respectively.

Ni showed a positive correlation to second axis (r=0.538) while, Pb was showed negative

relation at the second angle as (r= -0.516).

148

K was weakly positive correlate to third angle as (r = 0.430). K was strongly positively

related in 4th axis (r= 0.711), while Pb showed negative correlation in 4th axis (-0.506). N

was strongly negatively correlated to environment in 5th axis, Ni showed positive

correlation in 6th axis.

149

RECOMMENDATIONS

1.The existence of few species at the high frequencies or much lower frequencies (rare)

as per control/ non-polluted fields indicate that disruption of sewage wastewater

usage not favorable for soil macro-fauna; so conservational measures are needed to

safeguard them for conservation of biodiversity and soil integrity in accordance to

their supreme role for soil and crop.

2. Enhanced predators’ population in non-polluted fields indicate their efficiency over

prey and pest species; thus according to overhead protocol, ideal population guide

exists in control/ non-polluted fields and it becomes deteriorate (few species tolerate

and exist extensively; while quite a large number become die or eliminate) resulting

in malfunctioned soil that over time run toward non-production. Thus, sustaining of

their roleuptoathresholdlevel, needtargetedwork.

3. Use of sewage wastewater (polluted water) in farming systems should be minimized

to overcome with the negative impacts on soil macro-fauna/ biodiversity and agro-

ecosystems.

4. Farming community should be aware about handicaps about the use of sewage

wastewater (polluted water) made them able to play their role in preserving soil

macro-fauna as the basic functional unit.

5.Media campaign, research on modern lines, trainings and education reforms should be

made for the preservation of soil macro-fauna as well as prohibition of wastewater

without treatment; recommended guide lines should be shared with the farming

community as idealistic approach.

150

LITERATURE CITED

Abd El-Wakeil, K. F., A. H. Obuid-Allah, A. H. Mohamed and F. E. Z. A. A. El Aziz. 2015. A

comparison of molluscan communities in a section of the Nile River at Assiut, Egypt, with

different chemical and thermal pollution. J., Mollusk. Res. 35:73-80.

Adviento-Borbe, M. A. A., J. W. Doran, R. A. Drijber and A. Dobermann. 2006. Soil electrical

conductivity and water content affect nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide emissions in

intensively managed soils. J. Environ. Quality, 35:1999-2010.

Ahmad, I., S. Hayat, A. Ahmad, A. Inam and I. Samiullah. 2005. Effect of heavy metal on survival

of certain groups of indigenous soil microbial population. J. Appl. Sci. Environ. Manag.,

9: 115-121.

Alexander, R. D. 1968. Life cycle origins, speciation, and related phenomena in crickets. Quart.

Rev. Biol., 43: 1–41.

Ali, H. M., E. M. El-Mahrouk, F. A. Hassan and M. H. Khamis. 2010. Nanotechnology in life

sciences; Alasa City at King Faisal University. Growth, Chemical Compositions and Soil

Properties of Tipuanaspeciosa irrigated with sewage effluent. The 25th meeting of Saudi

Biological Society.

Anderson, J. M. 1975. Succession, diversity and trophic relationships of some soil animals in

decomposing leaf litter. J. Anim. Ecol., 44:475-495.

Anderson, J. M. 1987. Tropical soil biology and fertility: A handbook of methods. CAB

International, Wallingford, UK. pp. 221.

Anderson, J. M. and J. S. I. Ingram. 1993. Tropical soil biology and fertility: A handbook of

methods. CAB International, Wallingford, UK. pp. 221.

Ansari, A. A. and S.A. Ismail. 2012. Role of earthworms in vermitechnology. J. Agri. Tech.,

8: 405-415.

Antil, R. S. and R. P. Narwal. 2005. Problems and prospectus of utilization of sewer water in

Haryana. In: Management of Organic Wastes for Crop Production, K.K. Kapoor, P.K.

Sharma, S.S. Dudeja & B.S. Kundu, (Ed.), Department of Microbiology, CCS Haryana

Agricultural University, Hisar, India, pp. 159-168.

Antil, R. S. and R. P. Narwal. 2008. Influence of sewer water and industrial effluents on soil and

plant health. In: Groundwater resources: Conservation and management, V.D. Puranik,

151

V.K. Garg, A. Kaushik, C.P. Kaushik, S.K. Sahu, A.G. Hegde, T.V. Ramachandarn, I.V.

Saradhi & P. Prathibha, (Ed.), Department of Environmental Science and Engineering,

GJU Science and Technology Hisar, India, 37-46.

Antil, R. S., S. S. Dinesh and Dahiya. 2007. Utilization of sewer water and its significance in INM.

Proceedings of ICAR sponsored Winter School on Integrated Nutrient Management, pp

79-83, Department of Soil Science and Directorate of Human Resource Management, CCS

Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar, India, Dec. 4-24, 2007.

Antil, R. S., V. Kumar, T. S. Kethpal, R. P. Narwal, S. K. Sharma, S. B. Mittal, J. Singh and M.

S. Kuhad. 2004. Extent of land degradation in different agro-climatic zones of Haryana.

Fertilizer News, 49: 47-59.

Antoniolli, Z. I. et al. 2013. Heavy metal, pesticides and fuels: effect in the population of

collembola in the soil. Ciência Rural, 43: 992-998.

Arora, B. R., A.S. Azad, B. Singh and G. S. Sekhon. 1985. Pollution potential of municipal waste

waters of Ludhiana, Punjab. Ind. J. Ecol., 12: 1-7.

Atiyeh, R. M, N. Arancon, C. A. Edwards, and J. D. Metzger. 2000. Influence of Earthworm-

processed pig manure on the growth and yield of greenhouse tomatoes. Bioresource Tech.,

75:175-180.

ATSDR. 1993. Toxicological profile for lead. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human

Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry; 1993.

Ayuke, F. O., N. K. Karanja, E. M. Muya, B. K. Musombi, J. Mungatu and G. H. Nyamasyo.

2009. Macro-fauna diversity and abundance across different land use systems in Embu,

Kenya. Trop. Subtrop. Agroecosyst., 11:371-384.

Bakhsh, K., W. Akram, M. A. Raza and I. Hassan. 2004. Determination of factors affecting

cauliflower yield in Punjab, Pakistan. Int. J. Agric. Biol., 6: 1056-1058.

Bakker, E. S., H. Olff, M. Boekhoff, J. M. Gleichman, and F. Berendse. 2004. Impact of herbivores

on nitrogen cycling: contrasting effects of small and large species. Oecologia 138: 91–101.

Bardgett, R. D. and D. A. Wardle. 2003. Herbivore mediated linkages between above-ground and

below-ground communities. Ecol., 84:2258-2268.

Baretta, D. 2003. Atributos biológicos do solo em diferentes agroecossistemas na região sul do

Brasil. Lages, Universidade do Estado de Santa Catarina,. pp. 123.

152

Barnes, J. K. 2003. Brown recluse and Mediterranean recluse spiders, University of Arkansas

Arthropod Museum. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_house_spider.

Barraclough, T. G. 2015. How do species interactions affect evolutionary dynamics across whole

communities?Ann. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst., 46: 25-48.

Barrios E., J. G. Cobo, I. M. Rao, R. J. Thomas, E. Amezquita, J. J. Jimenez and M. A. Rondon.

2005. Fallow management for soil fertility recovery in tropical Andean 519

agroecosystems in Colombia. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ., 110: 29-42.

Barrios, E. 2007. Soil biota, ecosystem services and land productivity. Ecol. Econ., 64: 269- 285.

Barros, E., A. Neves, E. Blanchart, E. C. M. Fernandes, E. Wandell and P. Lavelle. 2003.

Development of the soil macro-fauna community under silvo-pastoral and agro-silvi-

cultural systems in Amazonia. Pedobiologia, 47: 273-280.

Barros, E., B. Pashanasi, R. Constantino and P. Lavelle. 2002. Effects of land use system on the

soil macro-fauna in western Brazilian Amazonia. Biol. Fertil. Soil, 35: 338-347.

Barros, E., B. Pashansi and R. Contantino. 2002. Encyclopedia of agriculture and food system.

Barros, E., M. Grimaldi, M. Sarrazin, A. Chauvel, D. Mitja, T. Desjardins and P. Lavelle. 2004.

Soil physical degradation and changes in macrofaunal communities in Central Amazon.

Appl. Soil Ecol., 26:157-168.

Barros, E., P. Curmi, V. Hallaire, A. Chauvel and P. Lavelle. 2001. The role of macro-fauna in the

transformation and `reversibility of soil structure of an oxisol in the process of Forest to

pasture conversion. Geoderma, 100: 193-213.

Bautista, F., C. Castelazo and M. Robles. 2009. Changes in soil macro fauna in agro ecosystems

derived from low deciduous tropical forest on leptosols from karstic zones. Trop. Subtrop.

Agro-Ecosys., 10: 185-197.

Bengtsson, J., H. Setala and D. W. Zheng. 1995. Food webs and nutrient cycling in soils:

Interactions and positive feedbacks, in Food Webs: Patterns and Processes, Polis, G. and

K. Winemiler(Ed.). London: Chapman and Hall, pp 30-38.

Berendse, F., J. van Ruijven, E. Jongejans, and S. Keesstra. 2015. Loss of plant species diversity

reduces soil erosion resistance, Ecosystems, 18: 881–888.

Bestelmeyer, B. T. and J. A., Wiens. 1996. The effects of land use on the structure of ground

foraging ant communities in the Argentine Chaco. Ecol. Appl., 6: 1225-1240.

153

Bhadauria, T. and K. G. Saxena. 2010. Role of earthworms in soil fertility maintenance through

the production of biogenic structures. Appl. Environ. Soil Sci., 5: 15-20.

Bhat, D. M., R. C. Bhagat and A. Qureshi. 2011. “A survey of insect pests damaging vegetable

crops in Kashmir Valley (India), with some new records”. J. Entomol. Res., 35: 85-91.

Biesmeijer, J.C, S. P.M. Roberts, M. Reemer, R. Oholemuller, M. Edwards, et al. 2006. Parallel

declines in pollinators and insect-pollinated plants in Britain and the Netherlands. Science

313: 351–54.

Bignel, D. et al. 2010. Macrofauna. In: Moreira, F.S. et al. Manual de biologia dos solos tropicais.

Lavras: UFLA, pp.79-129.

Birang, M. 2004. Soil macrofauna community structure along a gradient of land use intensification

in the humid forest zone of Southern Cameroon. PhD Thesis, Wageningen University,

Wageningen, Netherlands.

Birkhofer K, Bezemer TM, Bloem J, et al. 2008. Long-term organic farming fosters below- and

aboveground biota: implications for soil quality, biological control and productivity. Soil

Biology and Biochemistry 40: 2297-2308.

Birkhofer, K., Arvidsson F, Ehlers D, et al. 2016. Landscape complexity and organic farming

independently affect the biological control of hemipteran pests and yields in spring barley.

Landscape Ecology 31: 567-579.

Black, H. and M. Okwakol. 1997. Agricultural intensification, soil biodiversity and agroecosystem

function in the tropics: the role of termites. Appl. Soil Ecol., 6: 37-53.

Blanchart, E., P. Lavelle, E. Braudeau, Y. Le Bissonnais and C. Valentin. 1997. Regulation of soil

structure by geophagous earthworm activities in humid savannas of Cote d'Ivoire. Soil

Biol. Biochem., 29: 431-439.

Blanford, W.T. 1898. The Fauna of British India, Including Ceylon and Burma. Birds. Taylor and

Francis, London, pp. 681-70.

Bond, W. J. 1999. Effluent irrigation- an environmental challenge for soil science. Austr. J. Soil

Res., 543: 13.

Booth, L. H., V. Heppelthwaite and A. McGlinchy. 2000. The effect of environmental parameters

on growth, cholinesterase activity and glutathione S-transferase activity in the earthworm

(Apporectodea caliginosa). Biomarkers, 5: 46-55.

154

Borror, D. J. and D. M. Delong. 1970. An introduction to the study of insects (3rd Ed.). Ohio State

University, USA. pp. 110-158.

Borror, D. J. and D. M. DeLong. 2005. An Introduction to the Study of Insects. Columbus, Ohio,

812 pp.

Botes A, M. A. McGeoch, H. G. Robertson, A. Niekerk, H. P. Davids, S. L. Chown. 2006. Ants,

altitude and change in the northern Cape Floristic Region. Journal of Biogeography, 33:71–

90.

Botin, D. and E. Kellere. 2010. Environmental Science: Earth as a living planet. Wiley, john and

sons, incorporated, 7th Ed. pp. 725.

Bouche, M. B. 1977. Strategies Lombriciennes. Ecol. Bull., 25: 122-132.

Brady, A.R. 2012. "Nearctic species of the new genus Tigrosa (Araneae: Lycosidae)", Journal of

Arachnology, 40: 182–208.

Breure, A. M. 2004. Soil biodiversity: Measurements, indicators, threats and soil functions. Int.

Conference Soil Compost. Ecol. Biol., 3: 83-96.

Brevik, E. C., Cerdà, A., Mataix-Solera, J., Pereg, L., Quinton, J. N., Six, J., and Van Oost, K.

2015. The interdisciplinary nature of SOIL, Soil: 1, 117-129.

Briones, M. J. I., Ineson, P., and Piearce, T. G. 1997. Effects of climate change on soil fauna;

responses of enchytraeids, Diptera larvae and tardigrades in a transplant experiment. Appl.

Soil Ecol. 6, 117–134.

Brose, U., J. A. Dunne, J. M. Montoya, O. L. Petchey, F. D. Schneider and U. Jacob. 2012. Climate change

in size-structured ecosystems. Phil. Trans. R. Soc., 367: 2903-2912.

Brossard, M., P. Lavelle and J. Y. Laurent. 1996. Digestion of a vertisol by the endogeic earthworm

Polypheretima elongata, Megascolecidae, increases soil phosphate extractability. Eur. J.

Soil Biol., 32: 107-111.

Brown, G. G., O. Alberton, O. BrandãoJr., G. P. Saridakis and E. Torres. 2001. Numero e volume

dos buracos de corós (Scarabaeidae) emplantiodireto e convencionalnaEmbrapa Soybean.

In: Anais da VIII Reuniao Sul-BrasileiraSobrePragas de Solo, Oliveira, L. J. and C. B.

Hoffman-Campo (Eds.). EmbrapaSojaDocumentos172, Londrina, Brazil. pp. 212-217.

Brown, G., B. Pashanasi, C. Villenave, J. C. Patron, B. K. Senapati, S. Giri, I. Barois, P. Lavelle,

E. Blanchart, R. J. Blakemore, A. V. Spain and J. Boyer. 1999. Effects of earthworms on

155

plant production in the tropics. In: Lavelle, P. L. Brussaard, P. Hendrix, (Eds.) – Earthworm

management in tropical agroecosystems. CABI, Wallingford. pp. 87-148.

Brown, G., P. Amarildo, B. Norton, M. D. Adriana, E. Maria and C. Maria. 2001. Diversity and

functional role of soil macro-fauna communities in brazilian no-tillage agroecosystems: A

preliminary analysis. Oral presentation at the International Symposium on Managing

Biodiversity in Agricultural Ecosystems. Montreal, Canada.

Brown, G.G.; Römbke, J.; Hofer, H.; Verhaag, M.; Sautter, K.D.; Santana, D.L.Q. 2006.

Biodiversity and function of soil animals in Brazilian agroforestry systems. In: Gama-

Rodrigues, A.C.; Barros, N.F.; Gama-Rodrigues, E.F.; Freitas, M.S.; Viana, A.P.; Jasmin,

J.M.; Marciano, C.R.; CARNEIRO, J.G.A. (Ed.). Sistemas agroflorestais: bases cientícias

para o desenvolvimento sustentado. Campos dos Goytacazes: UENF,. pp. 217-242.

Bruins, M. R., S. Kapil, and F. M. Oehme. 2000. Microbial resistance to metals in the environment.

Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 45: 198-207.

Brussaard, L. 1998. Soil fauna, guilds, functional groups and ecosystem processes. Appl. Soil

Ecol., 9: 123-135.

Brussaard, L., M. M. Pulleman, E. Ou′edraogo, E. Mando and J. Six. 2007. Soil fauna and soil

function in the fabric of the food web. Pedobiologia 50, 447-462.

Brussaard, L., P. C. de Ruiter and G. G. Brown. 2007. Soil biodiversity for agricultural

sustainability. Agric. Ecosys. Environ., 121: 233-244.

Bullock, J. M, J. Aronson, A. C. Newton, R. F. Pywell and J. M. Rey Benayas. 2011. Restoration

of ecosystem services and biodiversity: conflicts and opportunities. Trends Ecol Evol.,

26:541-9.

Burwell C. J, Nakamura A. 2011. Distribution of ant species along an alitutdinal transect in

continuous rainforest in subtropiucal Queensland, Australia. Memoirs of the Queensland

Museum | Nature. 55: 391–412.

Campbell, B., D. Y. Han, C. M. Triggs, A. G. Fraser and L. R. Ferguson. 2012. Brassicaceae:

Nutrient analysis and investigation of tolerability in people with Crohn’s disease in a New

Zealand study. Funct. Foods Health. Dis., pp. 2460-486.

Campbell, C., W. Cone. 1999. Consumption of damson-hop aphids (Phorodon humuli) by

larvae of Coccinella transversoguttata and Hippodamia convergens (Coleoptera:

Coccinellidae). Biocontrol Sci. and Tech, 9: 75-78.

156

Carrillo, Y., B. A. Ball, M. A. Bradford, C. F. Jordan and M. Molina. 2011. Soil fauna alter the

effects of litter composition on nitrogen cycling in a mineral soil. Soil Biol.Biochem., 43:1-

10.

Carvalheiro L.G., C. L. Seymour, R. Veldtman and S. W. Nicolson. 2010. Pollination services

decline with distance from natural habitat even in biodiversity‐rich areas. J. App. Ecol.,

47:810–820.

Cassman, K.G., S. K. De Datta, D. C. Olk, J. M. Alcantara, M. I. Samson, J. P. Descalsota, M. A.

Dizon. 1995. Yield decline and the nitrogen economy of long-term experiments on

continuous, irrigated rice systems in the tropics R. Lal, B.A. Stewart (Eds.), Soil

Management: Experimental Basis for Sustainability and Environmental Quality,

Lewis/CRC Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 181-222

Chambers, B., S. Royle, S. Hadden and S. Maslen. 2002. The use of biosolids and other organic

substances in the creation of soil-forming materials. J. Chartered Inst. Water Environ.

Manage.,16: 34-39.

Chander, K. and P. C. Brookes. 1993. Residual effects of zinc, copper and nickel in sewage sludge

on microbial biomass in a sandy loam. Soil Biol. Biochem., 25: 1231-1239.

Chapuis-Lardy L., R. S. Ramiandrisoa, L. Randriamanantsoa, C. Morel, L. Rabeharisoa and E.

Blanchart. 2009. Modification of P availability by endogeic earthworms

(Glossoscolecidae) in ferralsols of the Malagasy Highlands. Biol. Fertil. Soils, 45:415-422.

Chapuis-Lardy, L., M. Brossard, P. Lavelle and E. Schouller. 1998. Phosphorus transformations

in a Ferralsol through ingestion by Pontoscol excorethrurus, a geophagous earthworm. Eur.

J. Soil Biol., 34:61-67.

Chaudhry, M. F., K. M. Khokhar, S. I. Hussain, T. Mahmood and S. M. Iqbal. 1999. Comparative

performance of some local and exotic tomato cultivars during spring and autumn seasons.

Pakistan J. Arid Agric. 2: 7-10.

Chen J. M. and O. J. Hao. 1998. Microbial chromium (VI) reduction. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci.

Technol., 28: 218- 219.

Chen, X. W., W. J. Tsz-Fung, W. Y. Mo, Y. B. Man, C. Wang-Wai Ng, and M. H. Wong. 2012.

Ecological performance of the restored South East New Territories (SENT) Landfill in

Hong Kong (2000–2012), Land Degrad. Dev., 1: 1–13.

157

Chibuike, G. U. and S. C. Obiora,. 2014. Heavy Metal Polluted Soils: Effect on plants and

bioremediation methods, Appl. Environ. Soil Sci., pp. 12. `

City District Govt. Faisalabad. Pakistan. 2010. Geography.

Clerck, C. 1757. Svenska spindlar, uti sina hufvud-slågter indelte samt under några och sextio

särskildte arter beskrefne och med illuminerade figurer uplyste., Stockholmiae, pp. 154.

Coleman, D. C and W. B. Whitman. 2005. Linking species richness, biodiversity and ecosystem

function in soil systems. Pedobiologia, 49: 479-497.

Common, I. F. B. 1954. "A study of the ecology of the adult bogong moth, Agrotis infusa (Boisd)

(Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), with special reference to its behaviour during migration and

aestivation". Aus. J. Zool. 2: 223–263.

Cornish, G. A., E. Mensah and P. Ghesquire. 1999. Water quality and peri-urban. An assessment

of surface water quality irrigation and its simplifications for human health in the peri-urban

of Kumasi, Ghana. HR Wallington, UK.

Cortet, J., A. Gomot-de Vauflery, N. P. Balaguer, L. Gomot, C. Texier and D. Cluzeau. 1999. The

use of invertebrate soil fauna in monitoring pollutant effects. Eur. J. Soil Biol., 35:115-134.

Crossley, D. A., B. R. Mueller and J. C. Perdue. 1992. Biodiversity of Micro-Arthropods in

agricultural soils: Relations to processes. Agri. Ecol. Environ., 40: 37-46.

Culliney, T. W. 2013. Role of Arthropods in maintaining soil fertility. Agriculture, 3: 629-659.

Cuttelod, A., M. Seddon, and E. Neubert. 2011. European Red List of Non-marine Molluscs.

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

Decaëns, T., J. J. Jiménez, L. Mariani and P. Lavelle. 2004. Earthworms as ecosystem engineers

and providers of ecosystem services— a case study, in: V. Reddy (Ed.), Ecology of

Earthworms and Termites, in press.

Dangerfield, J. M. 1990. Abundance, biomass and diversity of soil macro-fauna in savanna

woodland and associated managed habitats. Pedobiologia, 34: 141-151.

Dangerfield, J. M.; Mccarthy, T. S.; Ellery, W. N. 1998. The Mound-Building

Termite Macrotermes michaelseni as an ecosystem engineer. J. Tropical ecol., 14: 507-

520.

de Ruiter, P. C., J. C. Moore, K. B. Zwart, L. A. Bouwman, J. Hassink and J. Bloem. 1993.

Stimulation of nitrogen mineralization in the below-ground food webs of two winter wheat

fields. J. Appl. Ecol., 30: 95-106.

158

Decaens, T., J. J. Jimenez, C. Gioia, G. J. Measey and P. Lavelle. 2004. The values of soil animals

for conservation biology. Eur. J. Soil Biol., 42: 23-38.

Del Toro I, Silva R. R, Ellison A.M. , Andersen A. 2015. Predicted impacts of climatic change on

ant functional diversity and distributions in eastern North American forests. Diversity and

Distributions, 21:781–91.

Dermestes lardarius. Department of Entomology, Penn State.Hide and larder beetles - Insects in

the City

Deutsch, C. A., J. J. Tewksbury, R. B. Huey, K. S. Sheldon, K. G. Cameron, D. C. Haak, and P.R.

Martin. 2008. Impacts of climate warming on terrestrial ectotherms across latitude.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

105:6668–72.

Diamond, S., D. M. Sorger, J. Hulcr, S. L. Pelini, I. Del Toros and C. Hirsch, et al. 2012. Who

likes it hot? A global analysis of the climatic, ecological, and evolutionary determinants of

warming tolerance in ants. Global Change Biology. 18: 448-56.

Dibog, L., P. Eggleton and F. Forzi. 1998. Seasonality of soil termites in a humid tropical forest,

Mbalmayo, southern Cameroon. J. Trop. Ecol., 14: 841-849.

Dibog, L., P. Eggleton, L. Norgrove, D. E. Bignell and S. Hauser. 1999. Impacts of canopy cover

on soil termite assemblages in an agri-silvi-cultural system in southern Cameroon. Bull.

Ent. Res., 89: 125-132.

Donker, M.H., Raedecker, M.H., van Straalen, N.M., 1996. The role of zinc regulation in the zinc

tolerance mechanism of the terrestrial isopod Porcellio scaber. J. Appl. Ecol. 33, 955-964.

Dorais, M., D. L. Ehret and A. P. Papadopoulos. 2008. Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) health

components: from the seed to the consumer. Phytochemistry Reviews, 2008; 7: 231-250.

Dreschsel, P., U. J. Blumenthal and B. Keraita. 2002. Balancing Health and Livelihoods. Adjusting

Wastewater Irrigation Guidelines for Resource-Poor Countries. Urban Agriculture

Magazine, 8: 7-9.

Dunger, W. 1964. Tiereimboden. Ziemsen Verlag, Wittenberg Lutherstadt, Germany.

Dunn, R. R., D. Agosti, A. N. Andersen, X. Arnan, C. A. Bruhl, Cerdá X, et al. 2009. Climatic

drivers of hemispheric asymmetry in global patterns of ant species richness. Ecol. Letters.

12: 324–33.

159

Edwards, C. A. and P. J. Bohlen.1996. Biology and ecology of earthworm. (3rd Ed.). Chapman and

Hall, London. pp. 426.

Emongor, V. E. and G. M. Ramolemana. 2004. Treated waste water effluent (water) potential to

be used for horticultural production in Botswana. Phys. Chem. Earth., 229: 1101-1108.

Ettler, V., M. Mihaljevic and M. Komárek. 2004. CP-MS measurements of lead isotopic ratios in

soils heavily contaminated by lead smelting: Tracing the sources of pollution. Ann.

Bioanal. Chem., 378:311-317.

Evans, E.W. 2009. Lady beetles as predators of insects other than Hemiptera. Biological Control

51: 255-267.

Fackenath, S. and B. Lalljee. 1999. The living soil, the soil in perspective. Contents of the PROSI

Magazine, Number 365.

Fanin, N., N. Fromin, B. Buatois, and S. Hättenschwiler. 2013. An experimental test of the

hypothesis of non-homeostatic consumer stoichiometry in a plant litter-microbe system.

Ecology Letters, 16:764-772.

FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization). 2007. FAO Stat, core production. pp. 32.

Feign, A., I. Ravina and J. Shalhevet. 1991. Irrigation with treated sewage effluent: Management

for environmental protection. Springer, Berlin. pp. 20-33.

Ferreira, C. A. M., J. A. C. Ponciano, D. S. Vaitsman and D. V. Perez. 2007. Evaluation of the

corrosivity of the soil through its chemical composition. Sci. T. Environ., 388: 250-255.

Fierer, N., N. Leff, J. W. Adams, B. J. Nielsen, U. N. Bates and S. T. C. Lauber. 2012. Cross-

biome metagenomic analyses of soil microbial communities and their functional

attributes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 109: 21390-21395.

Fitch, H. S. 1963. Spiders of the University of Kansas Natural History Reservation and Rockefeller

Experimental Tract. "Spotted Wolf Spiders - Pardosa amentata - UK

Safari". www.uksafari.com.

Folgarait, P. J., P. D’adamo, L. E. Gilbert. 2004: A grassland ant community in Argentina: the

case of Solenopsis richteri and Camponotus punctulatus (Hymenoptera: Formicidae)

attaining high densities in their native ranges. Annals of the Entomological Society of

America 97: 450–457.

Frank, J. H., K. J. Ahn. 2011. Coastal Staphylinidae (Coleoptera): A worldwide checklist,

biogeography and natural history. ZooKeys 107: 1–98.

160

Frost, P. C., M. A. Evans-White, Z. V. Finkel, T. C. Jensen and V. Matzek. 2005. Are you what

you eat? Physiological constraints on organismal stoichiometry in an elementally

imbalanced world. Oikos. 109: 18-28.

Frouz, J. and V. Jilkova. 2008. The effect of ants on soil properties and processes Hymenoptera:

Formicidae). Myrmecological News, 11: 191-9.

Fu, S.L., X. M. Zou, D. Coleman. 2009. Highlights and perspectives of soil biology and ecology

research in China. Soil Biol. Biochem., 41:868-876.

Ge, B. M., D. Z. Zhang, J. Cui, H. B. Zhang, C. L. Zhou and B. P. Tang. 2014. Biodiversity

variation of soil macro-fauna communities in forests in a reclaimed coast with different

diked history. Pak. J. Zool., 46: 1053-1059.

Ghafoor, A., M. Hassan and Z. H. Alvi. 2008. Biodiversity of earthworm species from various

habitats of district Narowal, Pakistan. Int. J. Agric. Biol., 10: 681-684.

Ghoneim, A. M., S. Al-Zahrani, S. El-Maghraby, and A. Al-Farraj. 2014. Heavy metal distribution

in Fagonia indica and Cenchrus ciliaris native vegetation plant species, J. Food Agric.

Environ., 12: 320–324.

Giller, K. E., M. Beare, M. H., P. Lavelle, A. M. N. Izac and M. J. Swift. 1997. Agricultural

intensification, soil biodiversity and agroecosystem functioning. Applied Soil Ecology, 6,

3–16.

Giller, P. S. 1996. The diversity of soil communities, the ‘poor man's tropical rainforest’.

Biodivers.Conserv., 5: 135-168.

Girish, C., T. S. Verma and S. Sharma. 2010. “Nutrient Content of Cauliflower (Brassica oleracea

L. var. botrytis) as Influenced by Boron and Farmyard Manure in North West Himalayan

Alfisols”, J. of the Ind. Soci. of Soil Sci., 58: 248- 251.

Goncalves, M. F. and J. A. Pereira. 2012. Abundance and diversity of soil arthropods in the Olive

Grove Ecosystem. J. Insect Sci., 12: 1-14.

Gormsen, D., P.A. Olsson and K. Hedlund. 2004. The influence of collembolans and earthworms

on AM fungal mycelium, Appl. Soil Ecol., 27: 211-220.

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

Affairs and Statistics, Pakistan.

Graefe, U. and A. Beylich, 2003. Critical values of soil acidification for annelid species and the

decomposer community. Newslett. Enchytraeidae 8, 51–55.

161

Gupta, S., S. Satpati, S. Nayek, and D. Garai. 2010. Effect of wastewater irrigation on vegetables

in relation to bioaccumulation of heavy metals and biochemical changes, Environ. Monit.

Assess., 165: 169-177.

Gupta, V., S. Neate and E. Leonard. 2008. Life in the soil. Cooperative Res. Centre Soil Land

Manag., 2: 31-36.

Haes, E. C. M and J. A. Marshall.1988. Grasshoppers and Allied Insects of Great Britain and

Ireland. Harley Books, Colchester.

Hagvar, S. 1998. Nature as an arena for the quality of life: Psycho-spiritual values the next main

focus in nature conservation?. The Environmentalist. 19. 163-169.

Hallander, H. 1970. Prey, cannibalism and microhabitat selection in the wolf spiders Pardosa

chelata O. F. Mu¨ller and P. pullata Clerck. Oikos 21:337–340.

Handa, I. T., R. Aerts, F. Berendse, M. Berg, A. Bruder, O. Butenschoen, E. Chauvet, M. Gessner,

J. Jabiol, M. Makkonen, B. Mckie, B. Malmqvist, E. Peeters, S. Scheu, B. Schmid, J.

Ruijven, V. Vos, S. Hättenschwiler. 2014. Consequences of biodiversity loss for litter

decomposition across biomes. Nature. 509. 218-21.

Hardle, W and S. Leopold. 2007. Canonical correlation analysis.’Applied Multivariate Statistical

Analysis. pp. 321-330.

Hassall, M., and Dangerfield, J. M., 1997. The population dynamics of a woodlouse,

Armadillidium vulgare: an example of biotic compensatory mechanisms amongst

terresh·ial macrodecomposers? Pedobiologia, 41: 342-360.

Hattenschwiler, S. and P. Gasser. 2005. Soil animals alter plant litter diversity effects on

decomposition. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 102: 1519-1524.

Hawkins, C. P. and J. A. M. Mahon. 1989. Guilds: The multiple meanings of a concept. Ann. Rev.

Ent. 34: 423-451.

Hawksworth, D.L. 1991. The fungal dimension of biodiversity: Magnitude, significance, and

conservation. Mycological Research 95:641- 655.

Haynes, C., E. Everhart, R. Jauron, D. Nelson and J. Lenahan, 2009. Cole Crops. Iowa State

University, University Extension (online).

Heanes, D. L. 1984. Determination of organic C in soils by an improved chromic digestion and

spectro-photometric procedure. Communications in soil science and plant Analyses.

15:1191-1213.

162

Hedde, M., F. van Oort and I. Lamy. 2012. Functional traits of soil invertebrates as indicators for

exposure to soil disturbance. Envir Pollut., 164: 59-65.

Heikens, A., Peijnenburg, W., Hendriks, A. J., 2001. Bioaccumulation of heavy metals in

terrestrial invertebrates. Environmental Pollution, 113: 385–393.

Hendrix, P. F., D. A. Crossley Jr, J. M. Blair and D. C. Coleman. 1990. Soil biota as components

of sustainable agroecosystems. In: Sustainable agricultural systems, Edwards, C. A., R.

Lal, P. Madden, R. H. Miler and G. House (Eds.). SWCS, Ankeny, USA. pp. 637-654.

Heterick, B. E. 2006. A revision of the Malagasy ants belonging to genus Monomorium Mayr,

1855 (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Proceedings of the California Academy of Sciences. 57:

69-202.

Hide and larder beetles - Insects in the Cityhttps://citybugs.tamu.edu/factsheets/household/food-

fabric/ent-2014/

Hill, S. B. 1985. Soil fauna and Agriculture: Past Findings and Future Priorities. Quaestiones

Entomologicae. 21: 637-644.

Hillebrand, H., E. T. Borer, M. E. S. Bracken, B. J. Cardinale, J. Cebrian, E. E. Cleland, J. J. Elser,

et al. 2009. Herbivore metabolism and stoichiometry each constrain herbivory at different

organizational scales across ecosystems. Ecology Letters 12:516–527.

Hillebrand, H., J. M. Cowles, A. Lewandowska, D. B. Van de Waal, and C. Plum. 2014. Think

ratio! a stoichiometric view on biodiversity-ecosystem functioning research. Basic and

Applied Ecology 15:465–474.

Holloway, J. D., J. D. Barely and D. J. Carter. 1992. The guide to the insects of importance to man.

Lepidoptera. International Institute of Entomology 56, Queen’s Gate London. SW7. 55R

UK. pp. 55-92.

Holmstrup, M. 2001. Sensitivity of life history parameters in the earthworm Aporrectodea

caliginosa to small changes in soil water potential. Soil Biol. Biochem., 33: 1217-1223.

Hooper, D. U., Chapin, F. S. III., Ewel, J. J, Hector, A., Inchausti, P., Lavorel, S., et al. 2005.

Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a consensus of current knowledge. Ecol.

Monogr., 75: 3-35.

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

Oxford.

163

Hopkin, S.P., 1989. Ecophysiology of Metals in Terrestrial Invertebrates. Elsevier,

London.

https://citybugs.tamu.edu/factsheets/household/food-fabric/ent-2014/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_house_spider

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthworm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formica.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_imported_fire_ant.

https://www.britannica.com/animal/flea-beetle#ref775588

https://www.extension.umn.edu/garden/insects/find/colorado-potato-beetles/

https://www.naturespot.org.uk/species/tachyporus-obtusus

Huber, F., T. E. Moore, W, Loher. 1989. Cricket Behavior and Neurobiology. Cornell University

Press, Ithaca, NY. pp. 565.

Hunt, H. W., D. C. Coleman, E. R. Ingham, R. E. Ingham, E. T. Elliott and J. C. Moore. 1987. The

detrital food web in a shortgrass prairie. Biol. Fertil. Soils, 3: 57-68.

Hutcheson, K. 1970. A test for comparing diversities based on Shannon formula. J. Theor. Biol.,

29: 151-154.

Hutchinson, K. J. and K. L. King. 1980. The effects of sheep stocking level on invertebrate

abundance, biomass and energy utilization in a temperate, sown grassland. J. Appl. Ecol.,

17: 369-387.

Iqbal, S. 2014. Designing bio-intensive integrated pest management module for the control of

cabbage butterfly (Pieris brassicae L.) (Pieridae: Lepidoptera). Ph.D. Thesis, depeartment

of Entomology, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad. pp. 17-21.

Is a tomato a fruit or a vegetable? Oxford Dictionaries (US), oxforddictionaries.com

Ishida, M., M. Hara, N. Fukino, T. Kakizaki and Y. Morimitsu. 2014. Glucosinolate metabolism,

functionality and breeding for the improvement of Brassicaceae vegetables.Breed. Sci., 64:

48-59.

IWMI (International water management institute) and RUAF (Resource Centre on Urban

Agriculture and Forestry). 2002. Agricultural use of untreated urban wastewater in low

income countries. E- mail conference, Lima, Colombia.

Jackson, M. L. 1956. "Soil Chemical Analysis", Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Jacot, A. P. 1940. The fauna of the soil. Q. Rev. Biol., 15: 28-58.

164

Jeyaparvathi, S., S. Baskaran and G. Bakavathiappan. 2013. Population dynamics of spiders in

selected cotton fields of Virudhunagar district, Tamil, Nadu, India. Mun. Ent. Zool., 8:

560-570.

Jimenez, J. J., A. G. Moreno, P. Lavelle and T. Decaens. 1998. Population dynamics and adaptive

strategies of Martiodriluscarimaguensis (Oligochaeta: Glossoscolecidae), a native species

from the well-drained savannas of Colombia. Appl. Soil Ecol., 9:153-160.

Jolly, Y. N., Islam, A., and Akbar, S. 2013. Transfer of metals from soil to vegetables and possible

health risk assessment, Springer Plus, 2: 1–8.

Jones, C. G. and M. Shachak. 1990. Fertilization of the desert soil by rock-eating snails. Nature,

346: 839-841.

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

373-386.

Jones, C. G., J. H. Lawton and M. Shachak. 1997. Positive and negative effects of organisms as

ecosystem engineers. Ecology, 78: 1946-1957.

Jones, C.G. and M. Shachak. 1994. Desert snail’s daily grind. Natural History, 103: 56-61.

Jongman, R. H. G., C. J. F. Ter Braak and O. F. R. Van Tongeren. 1995. Data analysis in

community and landscape ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Jorgensen, S. E. and Fath, Brian. 2004. Application of thermodynamic principles in ecology.

Ecological Complexity. 1. 267-280.

Jouquet, P., J. Dauber, J. Lagerlof, P. Lavelle and M. Lepage. 2006. Soil invertebrates as ecosystem

engineers: Intended and accidental effects on soil and feedback loops. Appl. Soil Ecol., 32:

153-164.

Jouquet, P., S. Traore, C. Choosai, C. Hartmann and D. Bignell. 2011. Influence of termites on

ecosystem functioning “Ecosystem services provided by termites”. Eur. J. Soil Biol., 47:

215-222.

Kadamannaya, B. S. and K. R. Sridhar,. 2009. Leaf litter ingestion and assimilation by two

endemic pill millipedes (Arthrosphaera). Biology and Fertility of Soils. 45. 761-768.

Kale, R. D. and N. Karmegam. 2010. Role of earthworms in tropics with emphasis on Indian

ecosystem. Applied and Environ. Soil Sci., pp. 16.

165

Kandeler, F., C. Kampichler and O. Horak. 1996. Influence of heavy metals on the functional

diversity of soil microbial communities in biology and fertility in soils. Biol. Fertil. Soils,

23: 299-306.

Kanwar, J. S. and M. S. Sandha. 2000. Waste water pollution injury to vegetable crops: A review.

Agric. Review, 21: 133-136.

Karlen, D.L., Andrews, S.S. and Doran, J.W. 2001. Soil quality: Current concepts and applications.

Advances in Agronomy. 74. 1-40.

Karyanto, A., C. Rhamadi, E. Franklin, F. X. Susilo, J. Wellington-de-Morais. 2010. Collembola,

Acari e outros grupos da mesofauna do solo – O método de Berlese. In: Moreira, F.S. et al.

Manual de biologia dos solos tropicais. Lavras: UFLA., pp. 43-76.

Kautz, T.; Fando, C.L.; Ellmer, F. 2006. Abundance and biodiversity of soil microarthropods as

influenced by different types of organic manure in a long-term field experiment in Central

Spain. Appl. Soil Ecol., 33: 278–285.

Kessler, N. C. H. et al. 2013. Swine wastewater associated with mineral fertilization in black oat

(Avena sativa) cultures: 8th production cycle. Intern. J. Food, Agri. and Environ., 11: 1437-

1443.

Khan, S., Q. Cao, Y. M. Zheng, Y. Z. Huang and Y. G. Zhu. 2008. Health risks of heavy metals

in contaminated soils and food crops irrigated with wastewater in Beijing, China Environ.

Pollut., 152: 686-692.

Khan, T. I., A. K. Dular, D. M. Solomon., 2003. Biodiversity conservation in the thar desert; with

emphasis on endemic and medicinal plants. The Environmentalist, 23: 137-144.

Khodadoust, A. P., K. R. Reddy and K. Maturi. 2004. Removal of nickel and phenanthrene from

kaolin soil using different extractants. Environ. Enginr. Sci., 21: 691-704.

Khodashenas, A., A. Koocheki, P. Rezvani Moghaddam and A. Lakzian. 2012. Evaluation of

structural biodiversity in natural systems of arid and semiarid regions: 1- Soil characteristic

and biodiversity. J.Natural Environ., 6: 165-173.

Kibblewhite, M. G., K. Ritz and M. J. Swift. 2008. Soil health in agricultural systems. Philos.

Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci., 363: 685-701.

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

Services, Wales, UK.

166

Kremen, C., Williams NM, Aizen MA, Gemmill-Herren B, LeBuhn G, Minckley R, Packer L,

Potts SG, Roulston T, SteffanDewenter I, Vazquez DP, Winfree R, Adams L, Crone EE,

Greenleaf SS, Keitt TH, Klein A-M, Regetz J & Ricketts TH .200). Pollination and

otherecosystem services produced by mobile organisms: a conceptualframework for the

effects of landuse change. Ecology Letters 10, 299-314

Kruse, E. A. and G. W. Barrett. 1985. Effects of municipal sludge and fertilizer on heavy metal

accumulation in earthworms. Environ. Pollut., 38: 235-244.

Ktsuyuki, K., Takeda, M., and Hamamura. T. 2007. Insecticide susceptibility of a generalist

predator Labidura riparia. Applied Entomol. and Zool., 42: 501-505.

Lavelle, P. 1997. Faunal activities and soil processes: Adaptive strategies that determine ecosystem

function. Adv. Ecol. Res., 27: 93-132.

Lavelle, P. and A. Spain. 2001. Soil ecology. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands. pp. 654.

Lavelle, P. and A. V. Spain. 1995. Soil ecology. Chapman and Hall, London, UK. pp. 189-220.

Lavelle, P., E. Blanchart, A. Martin, A.V. Spain and S. Martin. 1992. Impact of soil fauna on the

properties of soils in the humid tropics. In: Myths and science of soils of the tropics, Lal,

R. and P. Sanchez (Eds.). SSSA Special Publication Nº 29, Madison, USA. pp. 157-185.

Lavelle, P., Pashanasi, B. 1989. Soil macrofauna and land management in Peruvian Amazonia 607

(Yurimaguas, Loreto). Pedobiologia 33, 283-291.

Le Bayon, R. C. and R. Milleret. 2009. Effects of earthworms on phosphorus dynamics-a review.

Soil Dyn. Plant, 3:21-27.

Lee, K. Foster, R., 1991. Soil fauna and soil structure. Aust. J. Soil Res., 290: 45-775.

Lee, K.E. 1985. Earthworms: Their Ecology and Relationships with Soils and Land Use. Academic

Press, London, England, pp. 411.

Li, X. L., J. Gao, G. Brierley, Y. M. Qiao, J. Zhang and Y. W. Yang. 2013. Rangeland degradation

on the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau: implications for rehabilitation, Land Degrad. Dev., 24:72-

80.

Liu, J., L. Liu, B. Gao, and F. Yang. 2013. Integration of bio-electrochemical cell in membrane

bioreactor for membrane cathode fouling reduction through electricity generation. J.

Membrane Sci., 430: 196-202.

167

Lock, K. and H. de Zeeuw. 2003. Health and environmental risks associated with urban

agriculture. Paper presented at a workshop on health risks and benefits in urban agriculture

and livestock farming in sub Saharan Africa. Nairobi, Kenya. pp. 9-12.

Long, A. 1999. Ultraeasy slug solution. Organic Gardening, 46:11.

Lopez-Hernandez, D. 2001. Nutrient dynamics (C, N and P) in termite mounds of Nasutitermes

ephratae from savannas of the Orinoco Llanos (Venezuela). Soil Biology and Chemistry

33:747-753.

Loreau, M., S. Naeem, P. Inchausti, J. Bengtsson, J. P. Grime and A. Hector. 2001. Biodiversity

and ecosystem functioning: Current knowledge and future challenges. Science, 294: 804-

808.

Lucas, S. D. M. et al. 2013. Long-term behavior of Cu and Zn in soil and leachate of an intensive

no-tillage system under swine wastewater and mineral fertilization. African J. Agri. Res.,

8:639-647.

Ludwig, J. A. and F. R. James. 1988. Statistical Ecology: A primer on Methods and Computing.

A Wiley-International Publication, New York, pp.1-337.

Lurgi M., López B. C. and Montoya J. M. 2012. Climate change impacts on body size distribution

and food web structure in mountain ecosystems. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal

Society of London. Series B: Biol. Sci., 367:3050-3057.

Maggi, C. F. et al. 2011. Leaching of nutrients in cultivated soils under application of residual

water of pig farming. Revista Brasileira de Engenharia Agrícola e Ambiental, 15:170-177..

Magurran, A. E. 1988. Ecological diversity and its management, Princeton University Press, New

Jersey. 34-37 pp.

Martinson, H. M., K. Schneider, J. Gilbert, J. E. Hines, P. A. Hambäck and W. F. Fagan. 2008. Detritivory:

Stoichiometry of a neglected trophic level. Ecol. Res., 23: 487-491.

Mathieu, J., J. P. Rossi, M. Grimaldi, P. Mora, P. Lavelle and C. Rouland. 2004. A multi-scale

study of soil macrofauna biodiversity in Amazonian Pastures. Biol. Fertil. Soils, 40: 300-

305.

Matos, A.T., M. P. F. Fontes, L.M. da Costa, M.A. Martinez.1999. Mobility of heavy metals as

related to soil chemical and mineralogical characteristics of Brazilian soils. Environ.

Pollut., 111:429-435.

McCune, B. and M. J. Mefford. 1999. Multivariate Analysis of Ecological Data, Ver. 3.0. .

168

Mofeke, A. L. E., A. Ahmada and O. J. Mudiane. 2003. “Relationship between yield and seasonal

water use for tomatoes, onions, and potatoes grown under fadama irrigation”. Asset Series

A. 3: 35-46.

Moghimian, N. and Y. Kooch. 2013. The effect some of physiographic factors and soil physico-

chemical features of hornbeam forest ecosystem on earthworms biomass. J. of Wood and

Forest Sci. and Techn., 20: 1- 21.

Mohammad, M. J. and M. Ayadi. 2004. Forage yield and nutrient uptake as influenced by

secondary treated wastewater. J. Plant Nutr., 27: 351-365.

Mohsen B and S Mohsen. 2008. Investigation of metals accumulation in some vegetables irrigated

with wastewater in Shahre Rey-Iran and toxicological implications. Am-Eur. J. Agri.

Environ. Sci., 4: 86-92.

Moore, J. C. and P. C. de Ruiter. 1991. Temporal and spatial heterogeneity of trophic interactions

within below-ground food webs. Agri.Ecosyst. Environ., 34: 371-397.

Moore, J. C., E. L. Berlow, D. C. Coleman, P. C. Ruiter, Q. Dong, A. Hastings and K. Nadelhoffer.

2004. Detritus, trophic dynamics and biodiversity. Ecol. Lett., 7: 584-600.

Morrow, F. J., M. R. Ingham and J. A. McConchie. 2010. Faunal activity in acid soils. J.

Hydrol., 389: 69-77.

Nahmani, J. and J. P. Rossi. 2003. Soil macro-invertebrates as indicators of pollution by heavy

metals. Biologies., 326: 295-303.

Nahmani, J. and P. Lavelle. 2002. Effects of heavy metal pollution on soil macrofauna in a

grassland of Northern France. Eur. J. Soil Biol., 38: 297-300.

Nahmani, J., Y. Capowiez and P. Lavelle. 2005. Effects of metal pollution on soil

macroinvertebrate burrow systems. Biology and Fertility of Soils, 42: 31-39.

Nambiar, K. K. M., 1994. Soil Fertility and Crop Productivity under Long-term Fertilizer Use

in India. ICAR Publication, New Delhi.

Narwal, R. P., A. P. Gupta, A. Singh and S. P. S. Karwasra. 1993. Composition of some city waste

waters and their effect on soil characteristics. Annals of Biology, 9: 239-245.

Neher, D. A. 1999. Soil community composition and ecosystem processes comparing agricultural

ecosystems with natural ecosystems. Agroforestry Systems, Kluwer Academic Publishers,

45: 159-185.

169

Netuzhilin, I., P. Chacon, H. Cerda, D. Lopez-Hernandez, F. Torres and M. G. Paoletti. 1999.

Assessing agricultural impact using ant morphospecies as bioindicators in the Amazonian

savanna-forest ecotone (Puerto Ayacucho, Amazon State), Venezuela. In: Reddy, M.V.

(Ed), Management of Tropical Agroecosystems and the Beneficial Soil Biota. Science

Publishers Inc, Enfield, pp. 288-350.

Nziguheba, G. and E. K. Beunemann. 2005. Organic phosphorus dynamics in tropical

agroecosystems. In: Turner, B. L. E. Frossardand D. S. Baldwin (Eds.).Organic phosphorus

in the environment. CABI, Wallingford. pp. 243-268.

Odunsi, Akingbade and G.O. Farinu. 2004. Effect of bovine blood-rumen digesta mixture on

growth performance, nutrient retention and carcass characteristics of broiler chickens. J.

Anim. Vet. Adv., 3: 662–666.

OECD. 2012. Consensus document on the biology of the Brassica crops (Brassica spp.). OECD

Environment, Health and Safety Publications Series on Harmonisation of Regulatory

Oversight in Biotechnology, No. 54. Paris: Environment Directorate, Organization for

Economic Co-operation and Development. Olechowicz, E. 2004. Community structure of soil-litter macrofauna in shelterbelt and adjacent

crop field. Pol. J. Ecol., 52:135-153.

Ott, D., C. Digel, B. C. Rall, M. Maraun, S. Scheu, and U. Brose. 2014b. Unifying elemental

stoichiometry and metabolic theory in predicting species abundances. Ecology Letters

17:1247–1256.

Palacios-Vargas, j. G., l. Q. Cutz-pool and Y. D. A. Es Trada-Barcenas. 2007. Collembola. pp.

113-126, en: Luna, I., J. J. Morrone y D. Espinosa (eds.). Biodiversidad de la Faja

Volcánica Transmexicana. Las Prensas de Ciencias. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de

México, México.

Pankhurst, C. E., B. M. Doube and V. V. S. R. Gupta. 1997. Bioindicators of soil health. CAB

International, Wallingford, U.K.

Paoletti, M. G. 1999. Invertebrate biodiversity as bioindicators of sustainable landscapes: Potential

use of invertebrates to assess sustainable land use. Elsevier, Amsterdam, Holland.

Passam, H. C., I. C. Karapanos, P. J. Bebeli and D. Savvas. 2007. A review of recent research on

tomato nutrition, breeding and post-harvest technology with reference to fruit quality. Eur.

J. Plant Sci. Biotechnol., 1:1-21.

170

Paton, T. R., G. S. Humphreys and P. B. Mitchell. 1995. Soils: A new global view. Yale University

Press, London. pp. 213.

Patricia, J. F., F. Thomas, T. Desjardins, M. Grimaldi, I. Tayasu, P. Curmi and P. M. Lavelle.

2003. Soil properties and the macro-fauna community in abandoned irrigated rice fields of

northeastern Argentina. Biol. Fertil. Soils, 38: 349-357.

Pauli, N., E. Barrios, A. J. Conacher and T. Oberthur. 2012. Farmer knowledge of the relationships

among soil macrofauna, soil quality and tree species in a smallholder agroforestry system

of western Honduras. Geoderma, 189: 186-198.

Pauli, N., T. Oberthur, E. Barrios, A. J. Conacher. 2010. Fine-scale spatial and temporal variation

in earthworm surface casting activity in agroforestry fields, western Honduras.

Pedobiologia, 53: 127-139.

Peijnenburg, W. J. G. M. 2002. Bioavailability of metals to soil invertebrates. In Allen HE, ed,

Bioavailability of Metals in Terrestrial Ecosystems: Importance of Partitioning for

Bioavailability to Invertebrates, Microbes, and Plants. SETAC, Pensacola, FL, USA, pp

89–112.

Perel, T. S. 1977. Differences in Lumbricid Organization Connected with Ecological properties.

Ecological Bulletins 25:56-63.

Perfecto, I. and R. Snelling. 1995. Biodiversity and the transformation of a tropical agroecosystem:

ants in coffee plantations. Ecol. Appl., 5: 1084-1097.

Persson, T., E. Baath, M. Clarholm, H. Lundkvist, B. E. Soderström and B. Sohlenius. 1980.

Trophic structure, biomass dynamics and carbon metabolism of soil organisms in a Scots

pine forest, in structure and function of Northern Coniferous Forest:An ecosystem study,

Persson, E. T. (Ed.). Ecol. Bull., 34:19-459.

Petersen, H. and M. Luxton. 1982. A comparative analysis of soil fauna populations and their role

in decomposition processes. Oikos., 39: 287- 388.

Pfeiffer, D. G. and R. C. Axtell. 1980. Coleoptera of poultry manure in North Carolina. Environ.

Entomol., 9: 21-28.

Pfiffner, L. and U. Niggli. 1996. Effects of bio-dynamic, organic and conventional farming on

ground beetles (Col. Carabidae) and other epigaeic arthropods in winter wheat. Biol. Agr.

Hort. 12:353-364.

171

Philip, J. W., J. W. Crawford, M. C. D. Álvarez and R. G. Moreno. 2012. Soil Management for

Sustainable Agriculture. Appl. Environ. Soil Sci., 2012:1-3.

Pietramellara, G., J. Ascher, M. T. Ceccherini, G. C. Renella. 2002. Soil as a biological system.

Annals of Microbiology, 52:119-131.

Pocock, R. I. 1900. The fauna of British India, including Ceylon and Burma. Arachnida. Taylor

& Francis, London, pp. 279.

Pywell, R. F., J. M. Bullock, A. Hopkins, K. J. Walker, T. H. Sparks, M. J. W. Burke and S. Peel.

2002. Restoration of species-rich grassland on arable land: assessing the limiting processes

using a multi-site experiment. J. Appl. Ecol., 39:294-309.

Qadir, A., R. N. Malik and S. Z. Husain. 2008. Spatio-temporal variations in water quality of

Nullah Aik-tributary of the river Chenab, Pakistan. Environ. Monit. Assess., 140:43-59.

Rafi, M. A., M. Irshad and M. Inyatullah. 2005. Predatory ladybird beetles of Pakistan. Ed. 1st.

National Agriculture Research Center, Islambad, pp. 16-50.

Rainbow, P. S., 2002. Trace metal concentrations in aquatic invertebrates: why and so what?

Environ. Pollut. 120, 497-507.

Rainbow, P.S., 2007. Trace metal bioaccumulation: models, metabolic availability, and toxicity.

Environ. Int. 33, 576-582.

Rajeswaran, J., P. Duraimurugan and P. S. Shanmugam. 2005. Role of spiders in agriculture and

horticulture ecosystem. J. Food Agri. Environ., 3: 147-152.

Ramos-Elorduy, J., Avila Gonzalez, E. ; Rocha Hernandez, A. ; Pino, J. M., 2002. Use of Tenebrio

molitor (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) to recycle organic wastes and as feed for broiler

chickens. J. Econ. Entomol., 95: 214-220.

Rana, N., S. A. Rana, A. Sohail, M. J. I. Siddiqui and M. Z. Iqbal. 2006. Diversity of Soil

Macrofauna in Sugarcane of high input and low input nature: Past Finding and future

priorities. Pak. Entomol., 28: 19-26.

Rana, N., S. A. Rana, H. A. Khan and A. Sohail. 2010b. Assessment of possible threats to soil

macro-invertebrate diversity in wheat fields from high input farming. Int. J. Agric. Biol.,

12: 801-808.

Rana, R. M., S. N. Dong, Z. Ali, A.I. Khan and H. S. Zhang, 2012. Identification and

characterization of the Bcl-2-associated athanogene (BAG) protein family in rice. Afr. J.

Biotechnol., 11: 88–99.

172

Ratan, R. K., S. P. Datta, P. K. Chhonkar, K. Suribabu and A. K. Singh. 2005. Long-term impact of

irrigation with sewage effluents on heavy metal content in soils, crops and groundwater—a case

study.Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.,109: 310-322.

Read, C. F., D. H. Duncan, P. A. Vesk and J. Elith. 2008. Biological soil crust distribution is related

to patterns of fragmentation and land use in a dry land agricultural landscape of southern

Australia. Landscape Ecol., 23: 1093-1105.

Rezac, M., S. Pekar. 2007. Evidence for Woodlice-specialization in Dysdera Spiders: Behavioural

Versus Developmental Approaches. Physiological Entomology, 32: 367-371.

Riding, M. J., Martin, F. L., Jones, K.C., and Semple, K. T. 2015. Carbon nano materials in clean

and contaminated soils: environmental implications and applications, SOIL, 1, 1–21.

Robertson, H. G. 2002. Comparison of leaf litter ant communities in woodlands, lowland forests

and montane forests of north-eastern Tanzania. Biodivers. and Conserv., 11:1637–52.

Rodella, A. A. and D. G. Chiou. 2009. Copper, zinc and manganese mobilization in a soil

contaminated by a metallurgy waste used as micronutrient source. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant

Ann., 40: 1634-1644.

Root, R. B. 1967. The niche exploitation pattern of the blue-gray gnatcatcher. Ecol. Monogr., 37:

317-350.

Roth, D.S., I. Perfecto, B. Rathcke. 1994. The effects of management systems on ground foraging

ant diversity in Costa Rica. Ecol. Appl., 4: 423-436.

Rückamp, D., W. Amelung, N. Theisz, A. G. Bandeira, and C. Martius. 2010. Phosphorous forms

in Brazilian termite nests and soils: relevance of feeding guild and

ecosystems. Geoderma 155: 269-279.

Ruiz, N., P. Lavelle and J. Jimenez. 2008. Soil macro fauna field manual. FAO of the United

Nations. pp.1-100.

Ryan, J., G. Estefan and A. Rashid. 2001. Soil and Plant Analysis Laboratory Manual.

International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA), Islamabad,

Pakistan. pp. 172.

Saleemi, M. A. 1993. Environmental assessment and management of irrigation and drainage

scheme for sustainable agriculture growth. Environmental Protection Agency Bulletins

(Lahore), pp. 64.

173

Salehi, A., M. Tabari, J. Mohammadi and A. R. Ali-Arab. 2008. Effect of irrigation with municipal

effluent on soil and growth of Pinuseldarica (M.) trees. Iran. J. Poplar Res., 16: 186-196.

Salin, C., P. Vermon, G. Vannier. 1998.The supercooling and high temperature stupor points of

the adult lesser mealworm Alphitobiusdiaperinus (Coleoptera :Tenebrionidae). J. Stored

Products Res., 34: 385-394.

Samuelson, G. A., B. Kumashiro, D. W. Jamieson. 1999: Cassida circumdata Herbst established

in the Hawaiian Islands (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Occasional papers of the Bernice P.

Bishop Museum, 59: 29-31.

Sanders, N. J. 2002. Elevational gradients in ant species richness: area, geometry, and Rapoport's

rule. Ecography. 25: 25-32.

Santorufo, L., C. A. M. van Gestel, A. Rocco and G. Maisto. 2012. Soil invertebrates as

bioindicators of urban soil quality. Environ. Pollu, 16: 157-63.

Sarcinelli, T. S., C. E. G. Schaefer, L. de Souza Lynch, H. D. Arato, J. H. M. Viana, M. R. de

Albuquerque Filho and T. T. Gonçalves. 2009. Chemical, physical and

micromorphological properties of termite mounds and adjacent soils along a toposequence

in Zona da Mata, Minas Gerais State, Brazil. Catena, 76:107-113.

Schadt, C.W., Martin, A.P., Lipson, D.A. and Schmidt, S.K. 2003. Seasonal dynamics of

previously unknown fungal lineages in tundra soils. Science., 301: 1359-1361.

Schatz, B. and M. Hossaert-Mckey. 2003."Interactions of the Ant Crematogaster Scutellaris with

the Fig/fig Wasp Mutualism." Ecol Ent., 28: 359-68.

Scheu, S. and H. Setälä. 2002. Multitrophic interactions in decomposer food webs. In Multitrophic

level interactions (Tscharntke, T. and B. A. Hawkins Eds.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge

University Press, 223-264.

Schmitz, Hermann. 2009. Der Leib, der Raum und die Gefühle. Bielefeld ; Basel : Aisthesis

Verlag. pp. 95.

Schultz, G. A. 1965. "The distribution and general biology ofHyloniscus riparius (Koch) (Isopoda,

Oniscoidea) in North America"_ Crustaceana. 8: 131–140.

Schwartz, M. W., S. C. Woods, D. Jr. Porte, R. J. Seeley and D. G. Baskin. 2000. Linking

biodiversity to ecosystem function: Implications for conservation ecology. Oecologia. 122:

297-305.

174

Scott, C. A., N. I. Faruqui and I. Raschid-Salli. 2004. Wastewater use in irrigated agriculture

confronting the livelihood and environmental realities. CABI Publishers, USA.

Shah, R., S. Ahmed and A. Poswal. 2013. Population dynamics of insect pests, parasitoids and

predators in cabbage and cauliflower agro-ecosystems. J. Entomol. Res., 37: 129-137.

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

Sharma, R. K., M. Agrawal and F. Marshall. 2007. Heavy metal contamination of soil and

vegetables in suburban areas of Varanasi, India. Ecotox. Environ. Saf., 66: 258-266.

Sharma, R. K., M. Agrawal and F.M. Marshall. 2008. Heavy metal (Cu, Zn, Cd and Pb)

contamination of vegetables in urban India: A case study in Varanasi. Environ. Pollut., 154:

254-263.

Shearin, A. F., S. C. Reberg-Horton and E. R. Gallandt. 2007. Direct effect of tillage on the activity

density of ground beetle (Coleoptera: Carabidae) weed seed predators. Environ. Entomol.,

36: 1140-1146.

Siddiqi, M. J. I. 2005. Studies on the biodiversity of invertebrates in the wheat (Triticum aestivum)

farm agroecosystems of Punjab (Pakistan). Ph.D. Theses, University of Agriculture,

Faisalabad. pp.108.

Sileshi, G., P. L. Mafongoya. 2006a. The short-term impact of forest fire on soil invertebrates in

the miombo. Biodiversity and Conservation 15: 3153-3160.

Singh, A., R. K. Sharma, M. Agrawal and F. M. Marshall. 2010. Health risk assessment of heavy

metals via dietary intake of foodstuffs from the wastewater irrigated site of a dry tropical

area of India. Food Chem. Toxicol., 48: 611- 619.

Singh, D., P. Jain, A. Gupta and R. Nema. 2013. Soil diversity: A key for natural management of

biological and chemical constitute to maintain soil health and fertility. Int. J. Bio-Sci. Bio-

Technol., 5:1-7.

Singh, K. P., D. Mohan, S. Sinha and R. Dalwani. 2004. Multivariate statistical techniques for the

evaluation of spatial and temporal variations in water quality of Gomti River (India) - a

case study.Chemosphere, 55: 227-255.

Six, J., E. T. Elliott and K. Paustian. 2000. Soil structure and soil organic matter: A normalized

stability index and the effect of mineralogy. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 64: 1042-1049.

Six, J., H. Bossuyt, S. Degryze and K. Denef. 2004. A history of research on the link between

(micro) aggregates, soil biota and soil organic matter dynamics. Soil Till. Res., 79:7-31.

175

Smith, M. R. 1965. House-infesting ants of the eastern United States. Their recognition, biology,

and economic importance. United States Department of Agriculture, Technical Bulletin

1326.

Smith, S. J., J. Edmonds, C. A. Hartin, A. Mundra and K. Calvin. 2015. Near-term acceleration

in the rate of temperature change; Nature Climate Change, 5: 333–336.

Soni, R. and S. A. Abbasi. 1981. Research report: Mortality and Reproduction in Earthworms

Pheretimaposthuma: Exposed to Chromium (VI). J. Environ.Stud., 17:147-149.

Steel, R. G. D., J. H. Torrie and D. A. Dicky. 1997. Principles and Procedures of Statistics, A

Biometrical Approach. (3rd Ed.). McGraw Hill, Inc. Book Co. N.Y. USA. pp. 352-358.

Sterner, R. W. and J. J. Elser. 2002. Ecological stoichiometry: The biology of elements from

molecules to the biosphere. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press,

Stork, N. E. and P. Eggleton. 1992. Invertebrates as determinants and indicators of soil quality.

Am. J. Alt. Agr., 7: 38-47.

Straube, D., E. A. Johnson, D. Parkinson, S. Scheu and N. Eisenhauer. 2009. Nonlinearity of

effects of invasive ecosystem engineers on abiotic soil properties and soil biota. Oikos

118:885-896.

Stüber, K. 1999. "Biology of *Pholcus phalangioides*" (On-line). Accessed October 2, 2001 at

http://caliban.mpiz-koeln.mpg.de/~stueber/essays/pholcus/pholcus_phalangioides.html.

Su, N. Y. and R. H. Scheffrahn. 1990. Comparison of eleven soil termiticides against the formosan

subterranean termite and Eastern subterranean termite (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae). J.

Economic. Entomol., 83: 1918-1924.

Swift, M. J. and J. M. Anderson. 1993: Biodiversity and ecosystem function in agricultural

systems. pp. 15-42 In: E.D. Schultze and H. Mooney, (Eds) Biodiversity and Ecosystem

Function. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

Swift, M. J., O. W. Heal and J. M. Anderson. 1979. Decomposition in Terrestrial Ecosystems.

University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. pp. 384.

Swift, M., Bohren, L., Carter, S., Izac, A., Woomer, P. 1994. Biological management of tropical

soils: integrating process research and farm practice. In: Woomer, P., Swift, M. (Eds) The

Biological Management of Tropical Soil Fertility. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, pp.

209-228.

Takeshi, H. and K. Tamae. 2011. Earthworms and Soil Pollutants. Sensors, 11:157-167.

176

Tao, S. 1998. Spatial structures and relations of heavy metal content in wastewater irrigated

agricultural soil of Beijing’s eastern farming regions. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol., 61:

261-268.

Tendon, H. L. S. 1993. Methods of Analysis of Soil, Plants, Water and Fertilizers. Fertilization

Development and Consultation Organization, New Delhi, India.

Tessaro, D, S. C. and S. A. P. A. Castaldelli. 2013. Wastewater use in agriculture and potential

effects on meso and macrofauna soil. Soil Sci. Ciencia Rural, Santa Maria, 46: 976-983..

Thakur, A. and Kaur, H. 2016. Influence of soil edaphic factors on population density of slug,

Filicaulis alte and snail, Macrochlamys indica, Intern. J. of Applied and Pure Sci. and Agri.

(IJAPSA), 2: 60-64.

Thomas, C. D., A. Cameron, R.E. Green, M. Bakkenes, et al. 2004. Extinction risk from climate

change. Nature, 427: 145-148.

Tian, G., B. Kang, L. Brussaard. 1997. Effect of mulch quality on earthworm activity and nutrient

supply in the humid tropics. Soil Biol. Biochem., 29: 369-373.

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

Torsvik, V., J. Goksoyr, F. L. Daae, R. Sorheim, J. Michalsen, and K. Salte. 1994. Use of DNA

analysis to determine the diversity of microbial communities. In: Ritz, K., Dighton, J.,

Giller, K.E. (Eds.), Beyond the Biomass. Wiley, Chichester, pp. 39-48.

Triantis, K. and K. Vardinoyannis, 2011. Acicula multilineata. The IUCN Red List of Threatened

Species. 68-99.

Triplehorn, C. A. and N. F. Johnson. 2005. Borror and DeLong’s Introduction to the Study of

Insects (7th Ed.). Brooks / Thomson Cole USA. .

Ulagaraj, S. M. 1975b. Food habits of mole crickets (Orthoptera: Gryllotalpidae: Scapteriscus). J.

Georg. Entomol. Soc. 10: 229-231

Ullah, H., I. Khan and I. Ullah. 2011. Impact of sewage contaminated water on soil, vegetables

and underground water of peri-urban Peshawar, Pakistan. Environ. Monit. Assess. 184: 11-

21.

Urie, D. H. 1986. The status of waste water irrigation of forest University of Washington Press,

Seattle, WA, USA. pp. 26-40.

177

US Environmental Protection Agency: Screening level ecological risk assessment protocol for

hazardous waste combustion facilities, Vol. 3, Appendix E: Toxicity reference values,

EAP530- D99-001C, 1999.

USEPA, 2001. Best Management Practices for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Range (EPA/

902-B-01-001). RCRA Compliance Branch, New York.

Usher, M. B., P. Davis, J. Harris and B. Longstaff. 1979. A profusion of species? Approaches

towards understanding the dynamics of the populations of microarthropods in decomposer

communities. In: Population dynamics (Anderson,R. M., B. D. Turner and L. R.

TaylorEds.). Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications, pp. 359-84.

Van Emden, H. E and S.D. Wratten. 1991. Tri-trophic interactions involving plants in the

biological control of aphids. p. 29-43, In: Peters, D.C., J.A. Webster and C.S. Chlouber

(ed.) Aphid- Plant Interactions: Populations to Molecules. Stillwater, Oklahoma State

University, Oklahoma, USA.

Van de Meent, D., T. Aldenberg, J. H. Canton, C.A.M. van Gestel and W. Sloff. 1990. Desire for

levels. Background study for the policy document Setting Environment'al Quality

Standards for Water and Soil." RIVM annex to rep. 670101 002. National Institute of

Public Health and Environmental Protection, Bilthoven, The Netherlands.

Van Herk, W. 2009. "Limonius: wireworm research site

Van Straalen, N. M. 1998. Evaluation of bioindicator systems derived from soil arthropod

communities. Appl. Soil Ecol., 9: 429-437.

Verheijen, F., S. Jeffery, A. C. Bastos, M. van der Veldeand I. Diafas. 2010. Biochar Application

to Soils: A Critical Scientific Review of Effects on Soil Properties, Processes and

Functions. JRC Scientific and Technical Reports, JRC European Commission, EUR

pp. 78.

Vincent A. F, C. J. Rosen, M. A. Grabowski, W. D. Hutchison, R. L. Becker, C. Tong, J. A. Wright

and T. T. Nennich. 2017. Growing broccoli, cabbage and cauliflower in Minnesota.

University of Minnesota Extension, Garden-Growing Vegetables.

Virginia, R. A. and D. H. Wall. 2000. Ecosystem function, basic principles of. In: Levin S.A. (ed.)

Encyclopedia of Biodiversity Vol. 2. Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 345–352.

178

Vohland, K., Schroth, G., 1999. Distribution patterns of the litter macrofauna in agroforestry and

monoculture plantations in central Amazonia as affected by plant species and management.

Appl. Soil Ecol., 13: 57-68.

Walker, B. H. 1992. Biodiversity and ecological redundancy. Conservation Biology 6:18-23.

Wall, D. H., M. A. Bradford, M. G. S. John, J. A. Trofymow, V. Behan-Pelletier, D. D. E. Bignell,

J. M. Dangerfield , et al . 2008 . Global decomposition experiment shows soil animal

impacts on decomposition are climate dependent. Global Change Biology 14 : 2661 – 2677

.

Wallwork, J. A. 1970. Ecology of soil animals. McGraw-Hill, London. pp. 200.

Walter, D. E., H. C. Proctor. 1999. Mites: Ecology, Evolution and Behaviour. Sydney: University

of NSW Press. pp. 322.

Walther, G. R., E. Post, P. Convey, A. Menzel, C. Parmesan, T. J. C. Beebee, J. M. Fromentin, O. Hoegh-

Guldberg and F. Bairlein. 2002. Ecological responses to recent climate change. Nature, 416: 389-

395.

Wang, H.-Q., Zhao, Q., Zeng, D.-H., Hu, Y.-L., and Yu, Z.-Y. 2015. Remediation of a magnesium-

contaminated soil by chemical amendments and leaching, Land Degrad. Dev., 26, 613–

619.

Wang, X. J., S. Tao .1998. Spatial structures and relations of heavy metal content in wastewater

irrigated agricultural soil of Beijing’s Eastern farming regions Bulletin of Environmental

Contamination and Toxicology, 61: 261-268.

Wardle, D. A., 2002. Communities and Ecosystems: linking the aboveground and belowground

components. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J. pp. 392.

Wardle, D. A., O. Zackrisson, G. Hörnberg and C. Gallet. 1997. The Influence of Island Area on

Ecosystem Properties. Sci., 277:1296-1299.

Wei, C. and T. Chen. 2001. Hyperaccumulators and phytoremediation of heavy metal

contaminated soil: A review of studies in China and abroad. Acta. Ecol. Sin., 21: 1196-

1203.

Whalen J. K., C. Chang, G. W. Clayton and J. P. Craefoot. 2000. Cattle manure amendments can

increase the pH of acid soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 64: 962-966.

Whalen, J. K. and L. Sampedro. 2010. Soil Ecology and Management. CABI, Wallingford.

179

Wheeler, W. M. 1930. The ant Prenolepis imparis Say. Annals of the Entomological Society of

America, 23:1-26.

WHO. 1989. Health Guidelines for the Use of Wastewater in Agriculture and Aquaculture; WHO:

Geneva, Switzerland.

Witmer, J. E., J. A. Hough-Goldstein and J. D. Pesek. 2003. Groung-dwelling and foliar arthropods

in four cropping systems. Environ. Entomol., 32: 366-376.

Wolters, V. 2000. Invertebrate control of soil organic matter stability. Biol. Fertility Soils, 31: 1-

19.

Woodward, G. 2010. Ecological networks in a changing climate. In Ecological

networks (Woodward, G. Ed.). Academic Press, New York, NY., pp. 72-122.

Wu, P., S. Liu and X. Liu. 2012. Composition and spatio-temporal changes of soil

macroinvertebrates in the biodiversity hotspot of northern Hengduanshan Mountains,

China. Plant soil, 357: 321-338.

Wyckhuys, K. A. G., and R. J. O’Neil. 2006. Population dynamics of Spodoptera frugiperda Smith

(Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) and associated arthropod natural enemies in Honduran

subsistence maize.Crop Protection (Guildford, Surrey), 25:1180–1190.

Xin, W.D., Yin, X.Q., Song, B., 2012. Contribution of soil fauna to litter decompsition in Songnen

sandy lands in northeastern China. Journal of Arid Environments 77: 90-95.

Yadav, S. K. and R. Singh, 2002. Starch metabolism in developing seeds of Brassica campestris

L. J. Plant Biol., 29: 279-286.

Yeates, G. W. 2003. Nematodes as soil indicators: functional and biodiversity aspects. Biol. Fert.

Soil, 37:199-210.

Zeriri, I., A. Tadjine, N. Belhaouchet, H. Berrebbah, M. R. Djebar and M. Baha. 2013.

Contribution to the identification of (Oligochaeta: Lumbricidae) in the region of Annaba

in eastern Algeria. Eur. J. Exp. Biol., 3: 229-232.

Zimmer, M. 2002. Nutrition in terrestrial isopods (Isopoda: Oniscidea): An evolutionary-

ecological approach. Biol. Rev., 77: 55-493.

180

Appendix-1: Order-wise comparison of soil macro-fauna recorded from tomato and cauliflower vegetable fields

Phylum Order Tomato

Treated

Tomato

Control Total tomato

Cauliflower

Treated

Cauliflower

Control

Total

cauliflower

Art

hro

pod

a

Amphipoda 0.36 (8) 0.00(0) (8) 0.00(0) 0.00(0) (0)

Araneae 3.20(70) 7.52(208) (278) 12.16(85) 2.37(52) (137)

Blattodea 0.00(0) 0.00(0) (0) 0.29(2) 0.00(0) (2)

Coleoptera 4.16(91) 5.09(141) (232) 17.17(120) 3.56(78) (198)

Dermaptera 7.04(154) 2.71(75) (229) 4.86(34) 0.73(16) (50)

Diptera 0.00(0) 0.00(0) (0) 1.72(12) 0.00(0) (12)

Hemiptera 0.09(2) 0.00(0) (2) 0.57(4) 0.18(4) (8)

Hymenoptera 7.40(162) 23.75(657) (819) 43.35(303) 10.22(224) (527)

Isopoda 74.54(1631) 11.57(320) (1951) 7.15(50) 2.74(60) (110)

Orthoptera 1.73(38) 1.23(34) (72) 4.43(31) 21.90(48) (79)

Lithobiomorpha 0.00(0) 0.00(0) (0) 0.29(2) 0.00(0) (2)

Lepidoptera 0.64(14) 0.00(0) (14) 4.00(28) 0.37(8) (36)

Anneilada Haplotaxida 0.82(18) 0.00(0) (18) 4.00(28) 0.91(20) (48)

Mollusca Stylommatophora 0.00(0) 47.29(1308) (1308) 0.00(0) 76.28(1672) (1672)

Basommatophora 0.00(0) 0.83(23) (23) 0.00(0) 0.46(10) (10)

Grand Total 2188 2766 4954 699 2192 2891

181

Appendix-2: Family-wise comparison of soil macro-fauna recorded from tomato and cauliflower vegetable fields

Order Family Tomato

Treated

Tomato

Control

Total

Tomato

Cauliflower

Treated

Cauliflower

Control

Total

Cauliflower

Amphipoda Talitridae 0.36 (8) 0.00(0)

(8) 0.00(0)

0.00(0)

(0)

Araneae Agelenidae 1.09(24) 0.57(16) (40) 4.00(28) 0.63(14) (42)

Sicariidae 0.00(0) 0.00(0) (0) 0.57(4) 0.00(0) (4)

Pisauridae 0.09 (2) 0.00(0) (2) 0.00(0) 0.00(0) (0)

Desidae 0.00(0) 0.03(1) (1) 0.00(0) 0.00(0) (0)

Theridiidae 0.00(0) 0.07(2) (2) 0.00(0) 0.00(0) (0)

Thomisidae 0.09(2) 0.00(0) (2) 0.00(0) 0.00(0) (0)

Dictynidae 0.00(0) 0.00(0) (0) 0.00(0) 0.09(2) (2)

Eutichuridae 0.09 (2) 0.00(0) (2) 0.00(0) 0.00(0) (0)

Pholcidae 0.00(0) 0.36(10) (10) 0.00(0) 0.00(0) (0)

Lycosidae 1.82(40) 6.47(179) (219) 7.58(53) 1.64(36) (89)

Blattodea Blattellidae 0.00(0) 0.00(0) (0) 0.28(2) 0.00(0) (2)

Coleoptera Staphylinidae 0.45 (10) 0.36(10) (20) 11.15(78) 0.45(10) (88)

Cerambycidae 0.00(0) 0.00(0) (0) 0.00(0) 0.27(6) (6)

Scarabaeidae 0.18(4) 0.57(16) (20) 0.00(0) 0.00(0) (0)

Coccinellidae 0.45(10) 1.55(43) (53) 0.28(2) 1.46(32) (34)

Chrysomelidae 0.45(10) 0.00(0) (10) 0.57(4) 1.27(28) (32)

Dermestidae 0.09(2) 0.43(12) (14) 0.00(0) 0.00(0) (0)

Tenebrionidae 0.18(4) 1.44(40) (44) 2.00(14) 0.00(0) (14)

Carabidae 2.33(51) 0.28(8) (59) 0.00(0) 0.09(2) (2)

Curculionidae 0.00(0) 0.21(6) (6) 0.28(2) 0.00(0) (2)

182

Meloidae 0.00(0) 0.14(4) (4) 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0)

Histeridae 0.00(0) 0.07(2) (2) 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0)

Elateridae 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 1.14(8) 0.00(0) (8)

Bostrichidae 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 1.71(12) 0.00(0) (12)

Dermaptera Chelisochidae 6.12(134) 0.50(14) (148) 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0)

Labiidae 0.09(2) 0.00(0) (2) 0.85(6) 0.00(0) (6)

Anisolabididae 0.27(6) 0.28(8) (14) 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0)

Forficulidae 0.54(12) 1.19(33) (45) 3.43(24) 0.73(16) (40)

Labiduridae 0.00(0) 0.72(20) (20) 0.57(4) 0.00(0) (4)

Diptera Calliphoridae 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 1.71(12) 0.00(0) (12)

Haplotaxida Lumbricidae 0.54(12) 0.00(0) (12) 3.43(24) 0.91(20) (44)

Acanthodrilidae 0.27(6) 0.00(0) (6) 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0)

Megascolecidae 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.57(4) 0.00(0) (4)

Hemiptera Cimicidae 0.09(2) 0.00(0) (2) 0.00(0) 0.18(4) (4)

Pyrrhocoridae 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.28(2) 0.00(0) (2)

Acanthosomatida

e 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.28(2) 0.00(0) (2)

Hymenoptera Formicidae 7.40(162) 23.68(655) (817) 43.34(303) 10.22(224) (527)

Apidae 0.00(0) 0.07(2) (2) 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0)

Isopoda Platyarthridae 3.24(71) 1.01(28) (99) 0.00(0) 1.41(31) (31)

Cylisticidae 0.54(12) 0.50(14) (26) 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0)

Oniscidae 1.82(40) 0.00(0) (40) 0.85(6) 1.32(29) 35

Trichoniscidae 0.91(20) 2.56(71) 91 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0)

Armadidllidae 3.74 (82) 0.43(12) 94 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0)

183

Porcelliondae 53.97(1181) 3.90(108) 1,289 0.28(2) 0.00(0) 2

Trachelipodidae 10.83(225) 2.13(59) 284 6.00(42) 0.00(0) 42

Philosidae 0.00(0) 1.01(28) 28 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0)

Orthoptera Gryllidae 1.64(36) 1.08(30) 66 0.00(0) 1.64(36) 36

Acrididae 0.00(0) 0.07(2) 2 0.00(0) 0.54(12) 12

Gryllotalpidae 0.09(2) 0.07(2) 4 4.43(31) 0.00(0) 31

Lithobiomorpha Lithopiidae 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.28(2) 0.00(0) 2

Lepidoptera Pyralidae 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 1.43(10) 0.09(2) 12

Noctuidae 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 1.71(12) 0.00(0) 12

Erebidae 0.27(6) 0.00(0) 6 0.85(6) 0.27(6) 12

Crambidae 0.36(8) 0.00(0) 8 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0)

Amphipoda Melitidae 0.09(2) 0.00(0) 2 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0)

Stylommatophora Succineidae 0.00(0) 44.10(1220) 1220 0.00(0) 69.36(1519) 1,519

Arionidae 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0)

Subulinidae 0.00(0) 0.36(10) 10 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0)

Enidea 0.00(0) 1.33(37) 37 0.00(0) 0.18(4) 4

Aciculidae 0.00(0) 1.48(41) 41 0.00(0) 0.45(10) 10

Polygyridae 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 5.79(127) 127

Hygrommidae 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.54(12) 12

Basommatophora Planorbridae 0.00(0) 0.83(23) 23 0.00(0) 0.45(10) 10

Grand Total

2188

2766

4954

699

2192

2891

184

Appendix 3: Genera-wise Comparison of invertebrate macro-fauna recorded from tomato and cauliflower vegetable fields

Order Family Genera Tomato

Treated

Tomato

Control

Total

Tomato

Cauliflower

Treated

Cauliflower

Control

Total

Cauliflower

Amphipoda Talitridae Arcitalitrus 0.36(8) 0.00(0) 8 0.00(0) 0.00(0) -

Araneae Agelenidae Agelenopsis 0.00(0) 0.07(2) 2 0.28(2) 0.00(0) 2

Eratigena 0.45(10) 0.21(6) 16 0.00(0) 0.54(12) 12

Malthonica 0.27(6) 0.21(6) 12 2.00(14) 0.00(0) 14

Tegenaria 0.36(8) 0.07(2) 10 1.71(12) 0.09(2) 14

Sicariidae Loxosceles 0.00(0) 0.00(0) - 0.57(4) 0.00(0) 4

Pisauridae Pisaura 0.09(2) 0.00(0) 2 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0)

Desidae Badumna 0.00(0) 0.03(1) 1 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0)

Theridiidae Parasteatoda 0.00(0) 0.07(2) 2 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0)

Thomisidae Xysticus 0.09(2) 0.00(0) 2 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0)

Dictynidae Cicurina 0.00(0) 0.00(0) - 0.00(0) 0.09(2) 2

Eutichuridae Cheiracanthiu

m 0.09(2) 0.00(0) 2 0.00(0) 0.00(0) -

Pholcidae Pholcus 0.00(0) 0.36(10) 10 0.00(0) 0.00(0) -

Lycosidae Tigrosa 0.54(12) 2.13(59) 71 0.00(0) 0.09(2) 2

Pardosa 0.36 (8 ) (1.30) 36 44 (1.75)12 (0.18)4 16

Trochosa 1.00(22) 4.12 (114) 136 5.43 (38) 1.09(24) 62

Rabidosa 0.18(4) 0.00(0) 4 0.00(0) 0.00(0) -

Hogna 0.09(2) 0.14(4) 6 2.14(15) 0.45(10) 25

Arctosa . 0.00(0) 0.07(2) 2 0.00(0) 0.00(0) -

185

Blattodea Blattellidae Blattella 0.00(0) 0.00(0) - 0.28( 2) 0.00(0) 2

Coleoptera Staphylinidae Paederus 0.45(10) 0.36(10) 20 2.57(18) 0.27(6) 24

Tachyporus 0.00(0) 0.00(0) - 0.00(0) 0.18(4) 4

Ocypusolens 0.00(0) 0.00(0) - 8.29(58) 0.00(0) 58

Dinaraea 0.00(0) 0.00(0) - 0.28( 2) 0.00(0) 2

Cerambycidae Derobrachus 0.00(0) 0.00(0) - 0.00(0) 0.27(6) 6

Scarabaeidae Pentodon 0.18(4) 0.43(12) 16 0.00(0) 0.00(0) -

Cyclocephala 0.00(0) 0.14(4) 4 0.00(0) 0.00(0) -

Coccinellidae Coccinella 0.45(10) 0.43(12) 22 0.28(2) 1.09(24) 26

Anatis 0.00(0) 1.04(29) 29 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0)

Harmonia 0.00(0) 0.07(2) 2 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0)

Curinus 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.36(8) 8

Chrysomelidae Crioceris 0.18(4) 0.00(0) 4 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0)

Cerotoma 0.27(6) 0.00(0) 6 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0)

Leptinotarsa 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.27(6) 6

Calligrapha 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.54(12) 12

Cassida 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.45(10) 10

Aphthona 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.57(4) 0.00(0) 4

Dermestidae Dermestes 0.09(2) 0.43(12) 14 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0)

Tenebrionidae Promethis 0.09(2) 0.36(10) 12 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0)

Gonocephalum 0.09(2) 0.00(0) 2 0.28( 2) 0.00(0) 2

Scaphidema 0.00(0) 0.07(2) 2 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0)

186

Gonocephalum 0.00(0) 0.93(26) 26 0.57(4) 0.00(0) 4

Eleodes 0.00(0) 0.07(2) 2 - 0.00(0) 0.00(0)

Tenebrio 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.57(4) 0.00(0) 4

Alphitobius 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.28(2) 0.00(0) 2

Bius 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.28(2) 0.00(0) 2

Carabidae Pheropsophus 2.33(51) 0.00(0) 51 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0)

Pterostichus 0.00(0) 0.07(2) 2 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0)

Agonum 0.00(0) 0.07(2) 2 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0)

Feronia 0.00(0) 0.14(4) 4 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0)

Harpalus 0.00(0) 0.00(0) - 0.00(0) 0.09(2) 2

Curculionidae Liophloeus 0.00(0) 0.14(4) 4 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0)

Dendroctonus 0.00(0) 0.00(0) - 0.28(2) 0.00(0) 2

Phyllobius 0.00(0) 0.07(2) 2 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0)

Meloidae Meloe 0.00(0) 0.07(2) 2 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0)

Cissites 0.00(0) 0.07(2) 2 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0)

Histeridae Carcinops 0.00(0) 0.07(2) 2 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0)

Elateridae Horistonotus 0.00(0) 0.00(0) - 0.85(6) 0.00(0) 6

Cardiophorus 0.00(0) 0.00(0) - 0.28(2) 0.00(0) 2

Bostrichidae Lyctoxylon 0.00(0) 0.00(0) - 1.71(12) 0.00(0) 12

Dermaptera Chelisochidae Chelisoches 6.12(134) 0.50(14) 148 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0)

Labiidae Labia 0.09(2) 0.00(0) 2 0.85(6) 0.00(0)

- 6

187

Anisolabididae Euborellia 0.27(6) 0.00(0) 6 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0)

Anisolabis 0.00(0) 0.28(8) 8 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0)

Forficulidae Forficula 0.54(12) 1.19(33) 45 3.43(24) 0.73(16) 40

Labiduridae Nala 0.00(0) 0.72(20) 20 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0)

Labidura 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.57(4) 0.00(0) 4

Diptera Calliphoridae Chrysomya 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 1.71(12) 0.00(0) 12

Haplotaxida Lumbricidae Lumbricus 0.36(8) 0.00(0) 8 1.14(8) 0.00(0) 8

Aporrectodea 0.18(4) 0.00(0) 4 2.28(16) 0.91(20) 36

Acanthodrilidae Arctiostrotus 0.27(6) 0.00(0) 6 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0)

Megascolecidae Amynthas 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.57(4) 0.00(0) 4

Hemiptera Cimicidae Cimex 0.09(20 0.00(0) 2 0.00(0) 0.18(4) 4

Pyrrhocoridae Pyrrhocoris 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.28(2) 0.00(0) 2

Acanthosomatid

ae Elasmostethus 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.28(2) 0.00(0) 2

Hymenoptera Formicidae Messor 0.36(8) 5.35(148 ) 156 9.72(68) 2.96(65) 133

Solenopsis 4.2(92) 3.36(93) 189 16.59(116) 0.63(14) 130

Camponotus 1.91(42) 1.19(33) 75 2.57(18) 1.867(41) 59

Formica 0.73(16) 2.06(57) 73 0.85( 6 ) 0.45(10) 16

Iridomyrmex 0.00(0) 5.53(153 ) 153 2.43(17) - 17

Camponotus 0.00(0) 0.14(4) 4 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0)

Pheidole 0.00(0) 0.36(10) 10 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0)

Componotus 0.00(0) 0.07(2) 2 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0)

Monomorium 0.00(0) 1.48(41) 41 8.86(62) 2.46(54) 116

188

Dolichoderus 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.18(4) 4

Froggatella 0.00(0) 2.20(61) 61 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0)

Crematogaster 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.63(14) 14

Myrmecorhync

hus 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.36(8) 8

Pheidole rhea 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.27(6) 6

Formica rufa 0.00(0) 1.91(53) 53 0.00(0) 0.36(8) 8

Prenolepis 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.57( 4) 0.00(0) 4

Forelius 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 1.71(12) 0.00(0) 12

Apidae Apis 0.00(0) 0.07(2) 2 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0)

Isopoda Platyarthridae Trichorhina 3.24(71) 1.01(28) 99 0.00(0) 1.41(31) 31

Cylisticidae Cylisticus 0.54(12) 0.50(14) 26 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0)

Oniscidae Oniscus 1.82(40) - 40 0.85( 6) 1.32(29) 35

Trichoniscidae Trichoniscus 0.36(8) 2.56(71) 79 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0)

Hyloniscus 0.54(12) 0.00(0) 12 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0)

Armadidllidae Armadillidium 3.74(82) 0.00(0) 82 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0)

Haplophiloscia 0.00(0) 0.43(12) 12 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0)

Porcelliondae Porcellio 53.97(1181) 3.90(108 ) 1,289 0.28( 2) 0.00(0) 2

Trachelipodidae Trachelipus 10.83(225) 2.13(59) 284 6.00(42) 0.00(0) 42

Philosidae Philoscia 0.00(0) 1.01(28) 28 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0)

Orthoptera Gryllidae Gryllodes 0.00(0) 0.28(8) 8 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0)

Acheta 1.00(22) 0.28(8) 30 0.00(0) 1.00(22) 22

189

Gryllus 0.54(12) 0.50(14) 26 0.00(0) 0.63(14) 14

Teleogryllus 0.09(2) 0.00(0) 2 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0)

Acrididae Aiolopus 0.00(0) 0.07(2) 2 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0)

Chorthippus 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.54(12) 12

Gryllotalpidae Gryllotalpa 0.09(2) 0.07(2) 4 3.86(27) 0.00(0) 27

Scapteriscus 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.57(4) 0.00(0) 4

Lithobiomorp

ha Lithopiidae Lithobius 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.28(2) 0.00(0) 2

Lepidoptera Pyralidae Plodia 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.85(6) 0.00(0) 6

Achroia 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.28(2) 0.00(0) 2

Galleria 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.28(2) 0.09(2) 4

Noctuidae Laphygma 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 1.43(10) 0.00(0) 10

Agrotis 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.28(2) 0.00(0) 2

Erebidae Spilosoma 0.18(4) 0.00(0) 4 0.57(4) 0.18(4) 8

Phragmatobia 0.09(2) 0.00(0) 2 0.28(2) 0.09(2) 4

Crambidae Herpetogramm

a 0.36(8) 0.00(0) 8 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0)

Stylommatoph

ora Succineidae Succinea 0.00(0) 8.85(245 ) 245 0.00(0) 7.57(166) 166

Succinea 0.00(0) 35.24(975 ) 975 0.00(0) 61.78(1353) 1,353

Arionidae Arion 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0)

Subulinidae Subulina 0.00(0) 0.36(10) 10 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0)

Enidea Mastus 0.00(0) 1.33(37) 37 0.00(0) 0.18(4) 4

190

Aciculidae Acicula 0.00(0) 1.48(41) 41 0.00(0) 0.45(10) 10

Polygyridae Praticolella 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 5.79(127) 127

Hygrommidae Xerosecta 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.09(2) 2

Monacha 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.00(0) 0.45(10) 10

Basommatoph

ora Planorbridae Promenetus 0.00(0) 0.83(23) 23 0.00(0) 0.45(10) 10

Grand Total 2188 2766 4954

699

2192

2891

191

Appendix-4: Species-wise relative abundance of tomato and cauliflower fields

Order Family Species Tomato

Treated

Tomato

Control

Cauliflower

Treated

Cauliflower

Control

Amphipoda Talitridae Arcitalitrus sylvaticus 0.274 (6) 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0)

Araneae Agelenidae Agelenopsis spp. 0.00 (0) 0.072 (2) 0.286 (2) 0.00 (0)

Eratigena agrestis 0.457 (10) 0.216 (6) 0.00 (0) 0.547 (12)

Malthonica pagana 0.274 (6) 0.216 (6) 2.002(14) 0 (0)

Tegenaria atrica 0.365 (8) 0.072 (2) 1.716 (12) 0.091 (2)

Sicariidae Loxosceles rufescens 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0) 0.572 (4) 0.00 (0)

Pisauridae Pisaura mirabilis 0.091 (2) 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0)

Desidae Badumna insignis 0.00 (0) 0.036 (1) 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0)

Theridiidae Parasteatoda tepidariorum 0.00 (0) 0.072 (2) 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0)

Thomisidae Xysticus cristatus 0.091 (2) 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0)

Dictynidae Cicurina arcuata 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0) 0.091 (2)

Eutichuridae Cheiracanthium inclusum 0.091 (2) 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0)

Pholcidae Pholcus phalangioides 0.00 (0) 0.361 (10) 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0)

Lycosidae Tigrosa helluo 0.365 (8) 1.265 (35) 0 0.091(2)

Trochosa spp. 0.091 (2) 0(0) 0 0.821 (18)

Rabidosa rabida 0.182 (4) 0 (0) 2.288 (16) 0.00 (0)

Tigrosa georgicola 0.091 (2) 0.578 (16) 0 (0) 0.00 (0)

Trochosa terricola 0.091 (2) 0.867 (24) 0(0) 0.00 (0)

Trochosa ruricola 0.274 (6) 1.012 (28) 1.430 (10) 0.00 (0)

Pardosa pullata 0.365 (8) 1.301 (36) 0 (0) 0.182 (4)

Pardosa agricola 0.00 (0) 0.723 (20) 1.716 (12) 0.00 (0)

192

Pardosa amentata 0.091 (2) 0 (0) 0.00 (0) 0.091 (2)

Trochosa spinipalpis 0.091 (2) 0.216 (6) 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0)

Tigrosa annexa 0.091 (2) 0.144 (4) 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0)

Hogna lenta 0.0919(2) 0.144 (4) 0.00 (0) 0.456 (10)

Tigrosa aspersa 0.00 (0) 0.144 (4) 2.145(15) 0.00 (0)

Arctosa spp. 0.00 (0) 0.072 (4) 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0)

Blattodea Blattellidae Blattella germanica 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0)

Coleoptera Staphylinidae Paederus littoralis 0.365 (8) 0.361 (10) 0.286 (2) 0.273 (6)

Paederus riparius 0.091 (2) 0.00 (0) 2.575 (18) 0.00 (0)

Tachyporus obtusus 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0) 0 (0) 0.182(4)

Ocypus olens 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0) 0 (0) 0.00 (0)

Dinaraea angustula 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0) 8.297 (58) 0.00 (0)

Cerambycidae Derobrachus germinatus 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0) 0.286 (2) 0.273 (6)

Scarabaeidae Pentodon idiota 0.182 (4) 0.433 (12) 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0)

Cyclocephala lurida 0.00 (0) 0.144 (4) 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0)

Coccinellidae Coccinella septempunctata 0.457 (10) 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0) 1.003 (22)

Coccinella undecimpunctata 0.00 (0) 0.289 (8) 0.286 (2) 0.091 (2)

Coccinella hieroglyphica 0.00 (0) 0.144 (4) 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0)

Anatis ocellata 0.00 (0) 1.048 (29) 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0)

Harmonia axyridis 0.00 (0) 0.072 (2) 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0)

Curinus coeruleus 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0) 0.364 (8)

Chrysomelidae Crioceris asparagi 0.182 (4) 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0)

Cerotoma trifurcata 0.274 (6) 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0)

Leptinotarsa decemlineata 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0) 0.273 (6)

193

Calligrapha multipunctata 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0) 0.547 (12)

Cassida circumdata 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0) 0.456 (10)

Aphthona flava 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0)

Dermestidae Dermestes lardarius 0.091 (2) 0.00 (0) 0.572 (4) 0.00 (0)

Dermestes maculatus 0.00 (0) 0.433 (12) 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0)

Tenebrionidae Promethis nigra 0.091 (2) 0.361 (10) 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0)

Gonocephalum pussilum 0.091 (2) 0 (0) 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0)

Scaphidema metallicum 0.00 (0) 0.072 (2) 0.286 (2) 0.00 (0)

Gonocephalum elderi 0.00 (0) 0.939 (26) 0 (0) 0.00 (0)

Eleodes hirtipennis 0.00 (0) 0.072 (2) 0.572 (4) 0.00 (0)

Tenebrio molitor 0.00 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0.00 (0)

Alphitobius laevigatus 0.00 (0) 0 (0) 0.572 (4) 0.00 (0)

Bius thoracicus 0.00 (0) 0 (0) 0.286 (2) 0.00 (0)

Carabidae Pheropsophus catoirei 2.33 (51) 0 (0) 0.286 (2) 0.00 (0)

Pterostichus melanarius 0.00 (0) 0.072 (2) 0 (0) 0.00 (0)

Agonum spp 0.00 (0) 0.072 (2) 0 (0) 0.00 (0)

Feronia nigrita 0.00 (0) 0.144 (4) 0 (0) 0.00 (0)

Agonum muelleri 0.00 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0.00 (0)

Harpalus rufipes 0.00 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0.091 (2)

Curculionidae Liophloeus tessulatus 0.00 (0) 0.144 (4) 0 (0) 0.00 (0)

Dendroctonus ponderosae 0.00 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0.00 (0)

Phyllobius spp. 0.00 (0) 0.072 (2) 0.286 (0) 0.00 (0)

Meloidae Meloe niger 0.00 (0) 0.072 (2) 0 (0) 0.00 (0)

Cissites auriculata 0.00 (0) 0.072 (2) 0 (0) 0.00 (0)

194

Histeridae Carcinops pumilio 0.00 (0) 0.072 (2) 0 (0) 0.00 (0)

Elateridae Horistonotus uhleri 0.00 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0.00 (0)

Cardiophorus ebeninus 0.00 (0) 0 (0) 0.858 (0) 0.00 (0)

Bostrichidae Lyctoxylon dentatum 0.00 (0) 0 (0) 0.286 (0) 0.00 (0)

Dermaptera Chelisochidae Chelisoches morio 6.124 (134) 0.506 (14) 1.716 (0) 0.00 (0)

Labiidae Labia minor 0.091 (2) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0.00 (0)

Anisolabididae Euborellia annulipes 0.274 (6) 0 (0) 0.858 (6) 0.00 (0)

Anisolabis maritima 0.00 (0) 0.289 (8) 0 (0) 0.00 (0)

Forficulidae Forficula spp. 0.00 (0) 0(0) 0 (0) 0.00 (0)

Forficula auricularia 0.548 (12) 1.193 (33) 0 (0) 0.729 (16)

Labiduridae Nala lividipes 0.00 (0) 0.723 (20) 3.433 (24) 0.00 (0)

Labidura riparia 0.00 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0.00 (0)

Diptera Calliphoridae Chrysomya megacephala 0.00 (0) 0 (0) 0.572 (4) 0.00 (0)

Haplotaxida Lumbricidae Lumbricus terrestris 0.365 (8) 0 (0) 1.716 (12) 0.00 (0)

Aporrectodea caliginosa 0.182 (4) 0 (0) 1.144 (8) 0.912 (20)

Acanthodrilidae Arctiostrotus vancouverensis 0.274 (6) 0 (0) 2.288 (16) 0.00 (0)

Megascolecidae Amynthas agrestis 0.00 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0.00 (0)

Hemiptera Cimicidae Cimex lectularius 0.091 (2) 0 (0) 0.572 (4) 0.182 (4)

Pyrrhocoridae Pyrrhocoris apterus 0.00 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0.00 (0)

Acanthosomatidae Elasmostethus crucitus 0.00 (0) 0 (0) 0.286 (2) 0.00 (0)

Hymenoptera Formicidae Messor barbarus 0.365 (8) 5.350 (148) 0.286 (2) 2.965 (65)

Solenopsis mandibularis 4.204 (92) 3.362 (93) 9.728 (68) 0.00 (0)

Solenopsis invicta 0.182 (4) 0 (0) 5.293 (37) 0.00 (0)

Camponotus vagus 1.553 (34) 0 (0) 8.583 (60) 0.775 (17

195

Camponotus pennsylvanicus 0.091 (2) 0 (0) 2.002 (14) 0.547 (12)

Camponotus herculeanus 0.274 (6) 1.193 (33) 0 (0) 0.00 (0)

Formica spp. 0.731 (16) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0.456 (10)

Iridomyrmex purpureus 0.00 (0) 5.531 (153) 0.286(2) 0.00 (0)

Camponotus lateralis 0.00 (0) 0.144 (4) 2.432 (17) 0.00 (0)

Pheidole rugulosa 0.00 (0) 0.361 (10) 0 (0) 0.00 (0)

Componotus florictanus 0.00 (0) 0.144 (4) 0 (0) 0.00 (0)

Monomorium pharaonis 0.00 (0) 1.482 (41) 0 (0) 2.463 (54)

Dolichoderus taschenbergi 0.00 (0) 0 (0) 8.869 (62) 0.182 (4)

Froggatella kirbii 0.00 (0) 2.205 (61) 0 (0) 0.00 (0)

Formica spp 1 0.00 (0) 0.433 (12) 0 (0) 0.00 (0)

Formica ligniperdos 0.00 (0) 1.626 (45) 0 (0) 0.00 (0)

Camponotus chromaiodes 0.00 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0.547 (12)

Crematogaster spp. 0.00 (0) 0 (0) 0.572 (4) 0.638 (14)

Myrmecorhynchus emeryi 0.00 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0.364 (8)

Pheidole rhea 0.00 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0.273(6)

Solenopsis geminata 0.00 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0.547 (12)

Solenopsis macdonaghi 0.00 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0.091 (2)

Formica rufa 0.00 (0) 1.916 (53) 0 (0) 0.364 (8)

Formica spp 0.00 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0.00 (0)

Prenolepis imparis 0.00 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0.00 (0)

Formica exsectoides 0.00 (0) 0 (0) 0.572(4) 0.00 (0)

Solenopsis molesta 0.00 (0) 0 (0) 0.286 (2) 0.00 (0)

Formica invicta 0.00 (0) 0 (0) 2.718 (19) 0.00 (0)

196

Forelius pruinosus 0.00 (0) 0 (0) 0.286 (2) 0.00 (0)

Isopoda Platyarthridae Trichorhina tomentosa 3.244 (71) 1.012 (28) 1.716 (12) 1.414 (31)

Cylisticidae Cylisticus convexus 0.548 (12) 0.506 (14) 0 (0) 0 (0)

Oniscidae Oniscus asellus 1.828(40) 0 0 (0) 1.322 (29)

Trichoniscidae Trichoniscus pusillus 0.365 (8) 2.566 (71) 0.858 (6) 0.00 (0)

Hyloniscus riparius 0.548 (12) 0 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0)

Armadidllidae Armadillidium vulgare 3.747 (82) 0 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0)

Haplophiloscia couchii 0.00 (0) 0.433 (12) 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0)

Porcelliondae Porcellio spinicornis 0.00 (0) 2.205 (61) 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0)

Porcellio scaber 53.976 (1181) 1.699 (47) 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0)

Trachelipodidae Trachelipus rathkii 10.283 (225) 2.133(59) 0.286 (2) 0.00 (0)

Philosidae Philoscia muscorum 0.00 (0) 1.012 (28) 6.008 (42) 0.00 (0)

Orthoptera Gryllidae Gryllodes sigillatus 0.00 (0) 0.289 (8) 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0)

Acheta domesticus 1.005 (22) 0.289 (8) 0.00 (0) 1.003 (22)

Gryllus veletis 0.091 (2) 0.216 (6) 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0)

Gryllus pennsylvanicus 0.457(10) 0.289 (8) 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0)

Gryllus spp. 0.00 (0) 0 0.00 (0) 0.547 (12)

Gryllus assimilis 0.00 (0) 0 0.00 (0) 0.091 (2)

Teleogryllus commodus 0.091 (2) 0 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0)

Acrididae Aiolopus strepens 0.00 (0) 0.072 (2) 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0)

Chorthippus brunneus 0.00 (0) 0 0.00 (0) 0.547 (12)

Gryllotalpidae Gryllotalpa orientalis 0.00 (0) 0.072 (2) 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0)

Scapteriscus spp 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0) 0.572 (4) 0.00 (0)

Gryllotalpa spp 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0) 0.572 (4) 0.00 (0)

197

Gryllotalpa gryllotalpa 0.091 (2) 0.00 (0) 3.290 (23) 0.00 (0)

Lithobiomorpha Lithopiidae Lithobius forficatus 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0) 0.286 (2) 0.00 (0)

Lepidoptera Pyralidae Plodia interpunctella 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0) 0.858 (6) 0.00 (0)

Achroia grisella 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0) 0.286 (2) 0.00 (0)

Galleria mellonella 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0) 0.286 (2) 0.091 (2)

Noctuidae Laphygma frugiperda 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0) 1.430 (10) 0.00 (0)

Agrotis spp. 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0) 0.286 (2) 0.00 (0)

Erebidae Spilosoma lubricipeda 0.182 (4) 0.00 (0) 0.572 (4) 0.182 (4)

Phragmatobia fuliginosa 0.091 (2) 0.00 (0) 0.286 (2) 0.091 (2)

Crambidae Herpetogramma phaeopteralis 0.365 (8) 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0)

Amphipoda Melitidae Maerella spp 0.091 (2) 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0)

Stylommatophora Succineidae Succinea putris 0.00 (0) 8.857 (245) 0.00 (0) 7.572(166)

Stylommatophora Succinea spp. 0.00 (0) 35.249(975) 0.00 (0) 61.724 (1335)

Stylommatophora Arionidae Arion hortensis 0.00 (0) 0 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0)

Basommatophora Planorbridae Promenetus exacuous 0.00 (0) 0.361 (10) 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0)

Promenetus umbilicatellus 0.00 (0) 1.337 (37) 0.00 (0) 0.182 (4)

Stylommatophora Subulinidae Subulina octona 0.00 (0) 1.482 (41) 0.00 (0) 0.456 (10)

Stylommatophora Enidea Mastus abundans 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0) 5.793 (127)

Aciculidae Acicula spp. 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0) 0.091 (2)

Polygyridae Praticolella mexicana 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0) 0.456 (10)

Stylommatophora Hygrommidae Xerosecta arigonis 0.00 (0) 0.831 (23) 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0)

Monacha Cartusiana 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0) 0.456 (10)

100 (2188) 100 (2766) 100 (699) 100 (2192)

198

Appendix 4: Soil analysis of tomato and cauliflower fields (Micro-habitat-wise average value of macro-nutrients i.e. N, P, K;

Micro-nutrients i.e. Pb, Cr, Ni and pH, EC); (B-Ave= boundary Average, M-Ave= middle average, C-Ave=

center average

Nutrients Tomato treated

Nutrients Tomato control

B-Ave M-ave C-ave B-ave M-ave C-ave

N 0.607 0.646 0.372 N 0.394 0.404 0.713

P 94.87 94.2 92.75 P 90.5 83.55 80.75

K 1780 1990 1890 K 1860 1640 1780

Pb 1 4.9 4.7 Pb 8 6.2 4.6

Cr 12.3 13.4 13.2 Cr 7.9 8.7 9.3

Ni 9.9 8.8 9.3 Ni 10.2 7.7 6.7

pH 57.7 57.3 57.3 Ph 56.9 57.3 57

EC 21.93 23.885 25.52 EC 23.5 24.13 23.025

Nutrients Cauliflower treated

Nutrients Cauliflower control

B-ave M-ave C-ave B-ave M-ave C-ave

N 0.42 0.431 0.47 N 0.47 0.478 0.492

P 98.27 101.05 94.95 P 77.3 84.7 89.3

K 2070 2095 1880 K 2550 2490 2330

Pb -0.4 0.5 0.3 Pb -0.7 2.1 1.8

Cr 2.715 2.66 2.855 Cr 6.8 7.4 7.7

Ni 18.1 13.9 9.25 Ni 8.9 9.5 11.7

199

Appendix 5: Trophic Structure of Soil Macro-fauna recorded from Tomato and Cauliflower (Control and Treated) field

pH 56.35 56 56.1 Ph 55.75 55.85 55.7

EC 19.685 20.8 21.36 EC 22.79 24.5 24.74

Order Family Species Common

name Food habit Reference

Tomato

Control

Tomato

Treated

Cauliflower

Control

Cauliflower

Treated

PREDATORS

Araneae

Agelenidae

Agelenopsis

spp.(Walckenaer,

1802)

American

grass spiders Prey on insects Walckenaer, 1802. 2 - - 2

Eratigena

agrestis

Funnel web

spider Prey on insects Walckenaer, 1802 6 10 12 -

Malthonica

pagana

(Walckenaer,

1802)

Mediterrane

an grass

spiders

Prey on insects Walckenaer, 1802 6 6 - 14

Sicariidae

Loxosceles

rufescens

(Dufour, 1820 )

Mediterrane

an Recluse

Spider

Hunt for

firebrats,

crickets,

cockroaches,

and other soft-

bodied insects

Barnes, Jeffrey K.

(2003), - - - 4

Pisauridae Pisaura mirabilis Nursery web

spiders

feed on small

insects Filmer, 1997 - 2 - -

Desidae

Badumna

insignis (L.

Koch, 1872)

Black house

spider

feed on small

insects

www.wikipedia.com.

17-01-2018

1 - - -

Theridiidae Parasteatoda

tepidariorum

Common

house spider

feed on small

insects and

household pests

Fitch, 1963 2 - - -

200

such as flies,

mosquitoes,

ants and wasps.

Thomisidae Xysticus cristatus Crab spider

feeding on

small insect,

probably a

Heteropter

Filmer, 1997 - 2 - -

Dictynidae Cicurina arcuata Meshweaver

Spider.

Feeds on other

insects Keyserling, 1887 - - 2 -

Eutichuridae Cheiracanthium

inclusum

Black-footed

yellow sac

spide

predators,

feeding on a

variety of

arthropods such

as insects and

other spiders

Amalin,.et al. 2001 - 2 - -

Pholcidae Pholcus

phalangioides Skull spiders

feed on other

spiders and

small insects

Stüber, 1999 10 - - -

Lycosidae Tigrosa helluo Wolf spiders feed on smaller

prey Hopkin, 2009 35 8 2 -

Trochosa spp. Wolf spiders feed on smaller

prey, Ribeiro, et al., 1990 - 2 18 16

Rabidosa rabida Rabid wolf

spider

Wolf spider

preying on a

grasshopper

Ribeiro, et al. 1990 - 4 - -

Tigrosa

georgicola

(Thorell, 1856)

Wolf spider feed on small

prey Hopkin, 2009 16 2 - -

Trochosa

terricola

(Thorell, 1856)

Ground

wolf-spider

They live in

pastures and

fields and feed

on smaller prey,

Hopkin, Steve 2009 24 2 - 10

201

Trochosa

ruricola De

Geer, 1778

Rustic Wolf

spiders

Feed on smaller

prey Hopkin, Steve 2009 28 6 - -

Pardosa pullata

Clerck, 1757

Common

wolf spider

Feed on smaller

prey Hallander, 1970 36 8 4 12

Pardosa agricola

Thorell, 1856 Wolf spider

Feed on smaller

prey 20 - - -

Pardosa

amentata

Clerck, 1757

Wolf

spider or spo

tted wolf

spider

Diet consists

largely of flies

and other small

insects.

www.uksafari.com. 16-

01-2018 - 2 2 -

Trochosa

spinipalpis

(Pickard-

Cambridge,

1895)

Wolf spiders Feed on smaller

prey

http://www.uksafari.co

m/spottedwolf.htm 6 2 - -

Tigrosa annexa Wolf spiders Feed on small

prey Brady, 2012 4 2 - -

Hogna lenta (

Hentz, 1844) Wolf spiders

Feed on smaller

prey Ribeiro, et al., 1990 4 2 10 15

Tigrosa aspersa Wolf

spiders

Feed on smaller

prey. Hopkin, 2009. 4 - - -

Arctosa spp. Sand bear-

spider

Feed on insects

like plant

hoppers and act

as biological

control agent

too.

Heong and Hardy 2009. 2 - - -

Blattodea Staphylinidae

Paederus

littoralis

(Gravenhorst,

1802)

Rove beetles

Feeds on insects

and other

invertebrates

Frank and Ahn,

2011/Frank and

Kanami, 1987

10 8 6 18

202

Appendix 6: Sampling-wise Temperature and Humidity record of both tomato and cauliflower (control and treated fields)

Paederus

riparius Rove beetles

Both larvae and

adults are

predatory on

other insects.

Frank and Kanamit,

1998) - 2 - -

Tachyporus

obtsus Rove beetles

Feeds on aphids

and other tiny

insects

https://www.naturespot.

org.uk/species/tachypor

us-obtusus

- - 4 -

Ocypus olens

Devil's

coach-horse

beetle/

Cocktail

beetle

It is a predator,

hunting mainly

by night,

feeding on

invertebrates

including

worms and

woodlice, as

well as carrion

Ainmeacha, 1978 - - - 58

Dinaraea

angustula Rove beetle

Feeds on aphids

and other tiny

insects

https://www.naturespot.

org.uk/species/tachypor

us-obtusus

- - - 2

Coleopter

a Coccinellidae

Coccinella

undecimpunctata

Eleven-

spotted lady

beetle

Feed on aphids

and larvae of

various insects.

Quinn, 2006. 8 - 2 -

Coccinella

hieroglyphica Ladybird

Prey on insects

and aphids. Hadek et al., 2012. 4 - - -

Anatis ocellata Eyed

ladybug

Feed on aphids

and scale

insects.

Hodek et al., 2012. 29 - - -

Harmonia

axyridis

Asian

ladybeetle

Feed

on aphids and sc

ale insects

Campbell and Cone.

1999 2 - - -

Curinus

coeruleus

Metallic

Blue Lady

Beetle

Prey on insects

and aphids. Evans, 2009 - - 8 -

203

Chrysomelidae Cassida

circumdata

Green

Tortoise

Beetle

Feed on aphids

and scale

insects. Leaves

Samuelson, et al., 1999 - - 10 -

Tenebrionidae Bius thoracicus Darkling

beetle

They feed on

dead wood. Artfakt, 2012 - - - 2

Carabidae Pheropsophus

catoirei

Ground

beetles

carnivorous and

actively hunt

invertebrate

prey.

Kladivko et al., 1997 - 51 - -

Pterostichus

melanarius

Ground

beetles

carnivorous and

actively hunt

invertebrate

prey.

Kladivko et al., 1997 2 - - -

Agonum japonica Ground

beetles

Feed on small

invertebrates

and insects.

"Carabidae Taxa".

Carabidae of the

World. 2011. Retrieved

24 Jun 2011.

2 - - -

Feronia nigrita African

black beetle

Nocturnal

creature feed on

other

invertebrates.

Golley, 2002. 4 - - -

Harpalus rufipes Strawberry

seed beetle

feed on seeds,

prey on weed

seeds

Harrison and Gallandt,

2012

- - 4 -

Meloidae Meloe niger Oil beetles

Prey on alkali

bee and other

variety of

arthropods.

Mayer et al., 1978. 2 - - -

Histeridae Carcinops

pumilio Hister Beetle

Prey on house

fly (Diptera:

Muscidae) eggs

and larvae.

Prey on house fly

(Diptera: Muscidae)

eggs and larvae.

2 - - -

204

Dermapter

a Chelisochidae

Chelisoches

morio

Black

earwig

omnivore,

eating plants

and ripe fruit as

well as actively

hunting

arthropods

Weiss, and Garrick, M.

1998 14 134 - -

Anisolabididae Euborellia

annulipes

Ring legged

earwig

omnivores, and

their diet

consists of the

larvae of leaf-

mining insects,

as well as

certain types of

vegetation

Family

CHELISOCHIDAE".

Australian Faunal

Directory. Australia:

Australian

Government:

Department of the

Environment, Water,

Heritage and the Arts.

2008-10-09

- 6 - -

Anisolabis

maritima Earwig

Prey on variety

of insects.

Fabian and Henderickx

2002. 8 - - -

Labiduridae Labidura riparia Striped

earwig

diet consists

entirely of

insects, or

scavenged meat

Ktsuyuki, et al., 2007 - - - 4

Hymenopt

era Formicidae

Solenopsis

mandibularis Fire ant

Insects, Spiders,

centipedes,

millipedes

USDA, 1993 93 92 - 37

Formica spp.

wood ants,

mound ants,

thatching

ants

They maintain

large

populations of

aphids on

whose

secretions they

feed, and which

the ants defend

from other

predators. They

USDA, 1993 - 16 10 2

Fields Environmental Factors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Tomato

Control

Temperature (⁰C) 13 18 16 18 7 17 22

Humidity (%) 50 60 61 60 100 80 72

Tomato

Treated

Temperature (⁰C) 13 18 16 7 18 17 22

Humidity (%) 50 60 61 71 100 80 72

Cauliflower

Control

Temperature (⁰C) 28 21 26 21 28 11 24

Humidity (%) 60 88 90 81 52 84 50

Cauliflower

Treated

Temperature (⁰C) 30 20 29 24 10 18 12

Humidity (%) 82 93 58 54 85 50 84

205

also prey on

other insects.

Iridomyrmex

purpureus

Wood ants,

mound ants,

thatching

ants

They maintain

large

populations of

aphids on

whose

secretions they

feed, and which

the ants defend

from other

predators. They

also prey on

other insects.

USDA, 1993 153 - - 17

Camponotus

lateralis Sugar ant

Feed on insects

and other

arthropods, also

nectar and

honey dew.

Pereria et al., 2004. 4 - - -

Componotus

florictanus

Carpenter

Ant/ sugar

ant

Feed on insects

and other

arthropods, also

nectar and

honey dew.

Pereria et al., 2004. 2 - - -

Dolichoderus

taschenbergi

Shiny little

black ant,

(Winged Ant

Feeding upon

honeydew and

small

arthropods

Bolton, 2003 2 - 4 -

206

Froggatella

kirbii Acrobat ant

Feed on small

and large prey. Freddie, 2013. 61 - - -

Formica spp 1

Wood ants,

mound ants,

thatching

ants

They maintain

large

populations of

aphids on

whose

secretions they

feed, and which

the ants defend

from other

predators. They

also prey on

other insects.

USDA, 1993 12 - - -

Formica

ligniperdos

Carpenter

ant

Feed on

honeydew

produced by the

insects.

John, 1998. 45 - - -

Crematogaster

spp. Cocktail ants

Feed by

predation of

other insects,

like wasps

Schatz and Hossaert-

Mckey, 2003 - - 14 -

Solenopsis

geminata - - 12 -

Solenopsis

macdonaghi Fire ant

Feeds mostly on

young plants,

seeds, and

sometimes crick

et

- - 2 -

Formica rufa

Red wood

ant/ southern

wood ant/

horse ant

Diet is aphid

honeydew and

prey on

invertebrates

such as insects

and arachnids

Robinson and William,

2005 53 - 10 -

207

Prenolepis

imparis Winter ant

eat honey-dew”

of aphids and

coccids, the

nectar of

flowers

Wheeler, 1930 - - - 4

Forelius

pruinosus Ant

Food consists of

living & dead

insects

Smith, 1965 - - - 12

Orthopter

a Gryllidae

Gryllus

pennsylvanicus Field cricket

omnivorous

and feeding

patterns depend

upon seasonal

variation in the

availability of

different types

of prey (plant or

animal)

Carmona et al., 1999 8 10 - -

Lithobiom

orpha Lithopiidae

Lithobius

forficatus

Brown

centipede or

stone

centipede

Centipedes are

predominantly

carnivorous

Lewis, 2007 - - - 2

Haplotaxi

da Lumbricidae

Lumbricus

terrestris

lob worm/

dew worm

Earthworms are

commonly

found living in

soil, feeding on

live and dead

organic matter

Cleveland, 1984. - 8 - 8

Stylomma

tophora Arionidae Arion hortensis Garden slug

diet consists

mostly of fungi

and plants, but

is occasionally

supplemented

by worms,

insects,

decaying

Long, 1999 - - 2 -

208

vegetation, and

feces. Slugs

Subulinidae

Subulina octona

(Hubricht L.

1985)

Snail Feed on other

snails

Almeida and Bessa,

2001. 41 - 10 -

Polygyridae Praticolella

mexicana

Peripatetic

Scrubsnail

Feeds on dead

fish and on

other snails.

www.Wikipedia.com

16-01-2018 - - 10 -

Basommat

ophora Planorbridae

Promenetus

exacuous

ramshorn

snails

feed on mud or

vegetation. 10 - - -

Promenetus

umbilicatellus

Umbiliate

sprite

Planorbid snails

feed on

macrophytes

and algae.

Ponder et al., 2000. 37 - 4 -

814 389 162 239

PEST

Coleopter

a Cerambycidae

Derobrachus

germinatus

Palo verde

borer beetle

Feed on roots of

living trees Hovore etal., 1987 - - 6 -

Scarabaeidae Pentodon idiota Scarab

beetle Plant eater. Ibrahim et al., 2009. 12 4 - -

Cyclocephala

lurida

Southern

masked

chafer

Feed on the

roots of grasses.

"JIPM Article on

Masked Chafer Grubs

in Turfgrass Explains

Management

Techniques".

Entomology Today.

Retrieved 29 March

2016.

4 - - -

Chrysomelidae Crioceris

asparagi

common

asparagus

beetle

strip the needle-

like leaves off

the asparagus

fronds,

Integrated Taxonomic

Information System,

2011

- 4 - -

209

Chrysomelidae Cerotoma

trifurcata

Bean leaf

beetle

The beetle feeds

mostly on

vegetables

(cucumbers,

cucurbits,

pumpkin, and

squash) It also

consumes

legumes

Koch, et al., 2012 - 6 - -

Chrysomelidae Leptinotarsa

decemlineata

Colorado

potato

beetle/

Colorado

beetle

Pest of potatoes

and other

solanaceous

plants.

www.wikipedia.com

19-01-2018 - - 6 -

Chrysomelidae Aphthona flava Flea beetle

important pests

of cultivated

plants: the

adults feed on

the leaves and

the larvae on the

roots.

https://www.britannica.

com/animal/flea-

beetle#ref775588

- - - 4

Dermestidae Dermestes

lardarius larder beetle

eats animal

products, such

as dried meats

and fish, pet

food, skins and

hides, feathers,

cheese, and

museum

specimens such

as dried insects

also plant grains

Dermestes

lardarius. Department

of Entomology, Penn

State.

- 2 - -

Dermestes

maculatus

Hide and

larder

beetles

leather goods,

hides, skins,

dried fish, pet-

food, bacon,

Hide and larder beetles

- Insects in the City 12 - - -

210

cheese, and

feathers.

Tenebrionidae Promethis nigra Darkling

beetle Plant eater. Richard, 2004. 10 2 - -

Tenebrionidae Eleodes

hirtipennis Circus beetls

Stored grain

and flour.

Borror and Delong

2005. 2 - - -

Alphitobius

laevigatus

Mealworm/li

tter beetle

Consumes litter,

bird

droppings and b

at

guano, mold, fe

athers, eggs,

and carrion

Dunford and Kaufman,

2006 - - - 2

Curculionidae Liophloeus

tessulatus Beetle

Feeding on a

wide range of

wild plants such

as Creeping

Thistle, Cow

Parsley and

Hogweed.

http://www.naturespot.

org.uk/species/liophloe

us-tessulatus_

Retrieved 28/4/16.

4 - - -

Dendroctonus

ponderosae

Mountain

pine beetle

Feeds on wood,

cambium, roots,

leaves, seeds,

fruits, flowers

Bob Ward, 2014 - - - 2

Phyllobius spp. Snout and

bark beetles

Larva cause

damage to roots

and adults eat

leaf of plant

Hill, 2012. 2 - - -

Meloidae Cissites

auriculata

Blister

beetle

Feed on plants

which include

ornamental,

vegetable crops

and foliage of

plants.

http://www.orkin.com/

other/beetles/blister-

beetles/ Retrieved

26/4/16.

2 - - -

211

Elateridae Horistonotus

uhleri Click beetles Feed on plants van Herk, 2009 - - - 6

Cardiophorus

ebeninus

Snapping

beetles/

spring

beetles or

skipjacks

Feeding on

decaying

vegetation and

the roots of

plants

Herk, 2009 - - - 2

Bostrichidae Lyctoxylon

dentatum

Powderpost

beetles

Woodboring

beetles most

often attack

dying or dead

trees

Hickin, 1958 - - - 12

Dermapter

a Labiduridae Nala lividipes

Black field

earwig

Damage to plant

growth. Simpson, 2007. 20 - - -

Hemiptera Cimicidae Cimex lectularius Bed bugs Feed on human

blood

Goddard and Shazo,

2009 - 2 4 -

Acanthosomatid

ae

Elasmostethus

crucitus

Red-cross

shield (stink)

bug)

Feed on crops

(cotton, corn,

sorghum,

soybeans, native

and ornamental

trees, shrubs,

vines, weeds

Paiero et al., 2013 - - - 2

Hymenopt

era Formicidae

Solenopsis

invicta

Red

imported fire

ant

damage plant

roots, lead to

loss of crops,

and interfere

with mechanical

cultivation

Mlotet al., 2011 - 4 - 60

Camponotus

pennsylvanicus

Black

carpenter ant

Feed on dead

trees and other

dead wood.

http://lancaster.unl.edu/

pest/resources/carpant0

04.shtm

- 2 12 -

212

Camponotus

herculeanus

Carpenter

Ant/ sugar

ant

feed on insects

and other

arthropods, also

nectar and

honey dew

Hahn, 2013 33 6 - -

Formica

exsectoides

Allegheny

mound ant

They hunt a

wide assortment

of arthropods as

a protein source

and collect

aphid honeydew

as a source of

sugars

Peirson, 1922 - - - 2

Orthopter

a Gryllidae

Gryllodes

sigillatus

House

crickets

Feed on Plants

and other

material.

Endo, 2008. 8 - - -

Gryllus veletis Spring field

cricket

Feed on plant

leaves and also

get food from

algae, fungi,

and bacteria

into their diet.

Costa, 2006. 6 2 - -

Acrididae Aiolopus

strepens Grasshopper

Feed on plant

and weeds. Latreile, 1910. 2 - - -

Gryllotalpidae Gryllotalpa

orientalis

Oriental

mole cricket

Feed on plants

(Weeds). Endo, 2008. 2 - - 4

Scapteriscus spp two-clawed

mole cricket

pests

of lawns, pastur

es, and gardens,

feed on plants

and seedlings

Ulagaraj, 1975 b - - - 4

Gryllotalpa spp Mole

cricket

Feed on plants

(Weeds). Endo, 2008. - - - 23

213

Lithobiom

orpha Lithopiidae

Plodia

interpunctella

Indian meal

moth

pest of stored-

products and

processed food

commodities.

Mohandass, et al., 2007 - - - 6

Lepidopte

ra Pyralidae Achroia grisella

Lesser wax

moth

Their diet

typically

consists of

honey, beeswax,

stored pollen,

bee shell

casings

Grabe, 1942 - - - 2

Galleria

mellonella

Greater wax

moth or

honeycomb

moth

Feed on

the honeycomb

inside bee nests

Grabe, 1942 - - 2 2

Noctuidae Laphygma

frugiperda Owlet moth

Feeds upon

grass and cotton

leaves

Howard, 1897 - - - 10

Agrotis spp. Moth

wheat, cabbages

, cauliflowers, si

lver beet, peas,

and potatoes

Common, 1954 - - - 2

Crambidae Herpetogramma

phaeopteralis

dusky

herpetogram

ma or

tropical sod

webworm,

feed on the

leaves of

grasses, and are

pests of turf

grass companies

and golf courses

Robin, 2006 - 8 - -

Haplotaxi

da Lumbricidae

Aporrectodea

caliginosa Grey worm

Their nutrition

comes from

things in soil,

such as

decaying roots

and leaves.

Animal manures

Bobby, 2008. - 4 20 16

214

are an important

food source for

earthworms.

Stylomma

tophora Succineidae Succinea spp. Amber snail

Marshy

vegetation. Horst, 1965. 975 - 1,353 -

Hygrommidae Xerosecta

arigonis

air-

breathing lan

d snails

Feed on a wide

variety of

plants.

Shattuck, 2015. 23 - - -

Monacha

Cartusiana Helicid snail

Feed on a wide

variety of

plants.

Shattuck, 2015. - - 10 -

1,117 46 1,413 161

DETRITI

VORES

Amphipod

a Talitridae

Arcitalitrus

sylvaticus

Lawn

shrimp

Feed on dead

plant material Bisbyet al., 2011 - 6 - -

Melitidae Maerella spp Freshwater

shrimp

Heterotrop

obtain nutrients

by consuming

detritus

Wetzel, 2001 - 2 - -

Dermapter

a Labiidae Labia minor

Lesser

earwig or sm

all earwig

Housefly egg

and

larvae larvae

/feeds on

decaying plant

material and

other detritus

Mourier, 1988 - 2 - 6

Isopoda Platyarthridae Trichorhina tome

ntosa

Dwarf

tropical

woodlice

Feed on dead

plant matter.

http://arachnoboards.co

m/threads/dwarf-

tropical-woodlice-

trichorhina-tomentosa_

Retrieved 26/4/16.

28 71 31 -

215

Trichoniscidae Trichoniscus

pusillus

Pygmy

woodlouse Detritus feeders. Sloderbeck, 2004. 71 8 - -

Hyloniscus

riparius Wood louse Detritus feeders. Schultz, 1965 - 12 - -

Armadidllidae Armadillidium

vulgare

Common

pill

woodlouse

eat decomposin

g leaves and

other decaying

matter.

Rezac and Pekar, 2007 - 82 - -

Haplophiloscia

couchii Woodlouse Detritus feeders. Hedde et al., 2007. 12 - - -

Porcelliondae Porcellio

spinicornis

Painted

woodlouse Detritus feeders. Sloderbeck, 2004. 61 - - -

Porcellio scaber Rough

woodlouse Detritus feeders. Sloderbeck, 2004. 47 1,181 - 2

Trachelipodidae Trachelipus

rathkii

Rathke's

woodlouse Detritus feeders. Schmidt et al., 1992. 59 225 - 42

Philosidae Philoscia

muscorum

Common

striped

woodlouse

Feed on dead

organic matter

and commonly

detritus feeder.

Sutton, 1972. 28 - - -

Haplotaxi

da Acanthodrilidae

Arctiostrotus

vancouverensis

segmented

worm

Feed on

decaying roots

and leaves.

Animal manures

https://en.wikipedia.org

/wiki/Earthworm - 6 - -

Megascolecidae Amynthas

agrestis crazy worm

feeding on live

and dead

organic matter

Cleveland, 1984 - - - 4

306 1,595 31 54

216

OMNIV

ORE

Araneae Agelenidae

Tegenaria atrica

(Walckenaer,

1841)

Giant house

spider

ground-nesting

bee species.

Seeds, fruits,

leaves, roots,

bark, nectar,

sap, fungi, and

carrion are all

fire ant

Nathan et al., 2011 2 8 2 12

Blattodea Blattellidae Blattella

germanica

German

cockroach

Meats,

starches, sugars,

and fatty foods

Michael et al, 1994 - - - 2

Coleopter

a Tenebrionidae Tenebrio molitor

Yellow

Mealworm

feed on insects,

plants and

animal

byproducts,

insects larvae

Ramos-Elorduy et al.,

2002 - - - 4

Hymenopt

era Formicidae

Camponotus

vagus

West

Palaearctic c

arpenter ant

Feeding upon

the honeydew

and imbibe

plant juices

Rico-Gray and

Sternberg, 1991 - 34 17 14

Camponotus

chromaiodes

Red

carpenter ant

Imbibe plant

juices and feed

on live and dead

insects

Hansen and Akre, 1985 - - 12 4

Solenopsis

molesta

Thief

ants/grease

ants

Feed on

vegetables,

seeds, fruits,

and honeydew,

and even

scavenge dead

insects

Vinson and Rao, 2004 - - - 19

217

Formica invicta

Red

imported fire

ant

Eat dead

mammals,

arthropods,

insects, seeds,

and sweet

substances

www.wikipedia.com

18-01-2018

- - - 2

Orthopter

a Gryllidae

Acheta

domesticus

House

cricket

Feeding on

flowers, fruit,

and leaves,

seedlings,

grasses, pieces

of leaf, and the

shoots of young

plants

Huber, 1989 8 22 22 -

Gryllus spp. Field cricket

Feeds: seeds,

plants, or

insects (dead or

alive)

Huber et al., 1989 - - 12 -

Gryllus assimilis Jamaican

field cricket

eating seedling

plants and

sometimes eatin

g fly pupae

Alexander, 1968 - - 2 -

Teleogryllus

commodus

Black field

cricket

their diet is

rather broad but

they mostly

feed on plants

Zajitschek et al - 2 - -

Gryllotalpidae Gryllotalpa

gryllotalpa

European m

ole cricket

feeding on

roots, tubers and

rhizomes and a

range of soil

invertebrates

Haes and Marshall,

1988 - 2 - -

Lepidopte

ra Erebidae

Spilosoma

lubricipeda

White

Ermine

Feed on various

herbaceous

plants

- 4 4 4

218

10 72 71 61

SCAVEN

GERS

Coleopter

a Tenebrionidae

Gonocephalum

pussilum

Darkling

beetle

Feed on

decaying leaves,

rotting wood,

fresh plant

matter, dead

insects, and

fungi.

"Species Bolitotherus

cornutus - Forked

Fungus Beetle"

Retrieved 29/4/16.

- 2 - 2

Scaphidema

metallicum

Darkling

beetles

Feed on

decaying leaves,

rotting wood,

fresh plant

matter, dead

insects

http://www.thewcg.org.

uk/pages/tenebrionidae.

htm

2 - - -

Gonocephalum

elderi

darkling

beetle

Most species

are generalistic

omnivores, and

feed on

decaying leaves,

rotting wood,

fresh plant

matter, dead

insects, and

fungi as larvae

and adults

Species

Bolitotheruscornutus -

Forked Fungus Beetle

26 - - 4

Dermapter

a Forficulidae

Forficula

auricularia

Common

earwig or Eu

ropean

earwig

Food ranging

from plant

matter to small

insects

Costa, 2006 33 12 16 24

Hymenopt

era Formicidae

Monomorium

pharaonis Tramp ants Feed on food

materials, dead Heterick, 2006 41 - 54 62

219

animals and

insects

Isopoda Cylisticidae Cylisticus

convexus

Curly

woodlouse

There are many

who live by

grazing algae

and other

microorganisms

Hickman, C. Integrated

Principles of Zoology .

McGraw-Hill, 15 ed.,

2010

14 12 - -

Oniscidae Oniscus asellus Common

woodlouse

Dead organic

matter, animal

waste or rotting

wood and other

plant material

Sutton, 1972 - 40 29 6

116 66 99 98

HERBIV

ORE

Coleopter

a Chrysomelidae

Calligrapha

multipunctata

Common

willow

Calligrapha

Feeds on the

leaves of

dogwood plants

Robertson, 1966 - - 12 -

Hymenopt

era Formicidae

Myrmecorhynchu

s emeryi Ant

On vegetation

or tree trunks Shattuck, 2015 - - 8 -

Orthopter

a Acrididae

Chorthippus

brunneus

Common

field grassho

pper

Feed primarily

on grasses

Bushell and Hochkirch,

2014 - - 12 -

Stylomma

tophora Enidea Mastus abundans land snails

eating leaves,

stems, soft bark,

fruit,

vegetables,

fungi and algae

Cuttelod, et al., 2011 - - 127 -

Aciculidae Acicula spp. land snails eating leaves,

stems, soft bark,

fruit,

Triantis and

Vardinoyannis, 2011 - - 2 -

220

vegetables,

fungi and algae

Succineidae Succinea putris Amber

snails

Feed on reeds

and other plants. Anderson, 2008 245 - 166 -

245 - 327 -

POLYPH

AGUS

Coleopter

a Coccinellidae

Coccinella

septempunctata

(Linnaeus, 1758)

Seven-spot

ladybird

Feeding on soft

bodied insect

pests (Ali and

Rizvi, 2009)

Ben Quinn, 2006 - 10 22 2

Lepidopte

ra Erebidae

Phragmatobia

fuliginosa Ruby tiger

Feeding on a

wide range of

herbaceous

plants including

dandelion,

plantain, dock

and heather

- 2 2 2

- 12 24 4

POLLIN

ATOR

Diptera Calliphoridae Chrysomya

megacephala

Oriental

latrine fly

pollinators,

being attracted

to flowers with

strong odors

Goodman, 1964 - - - 12

- - - 12

GRAINI

VOROUS

221

Hemiptera Pyrrhocoridae Pyrrhocoris

apterus Firebug

Their diet

consists

primarily of

seeds from lime

trees and mallo

ws

Gerhard and Taborsky,

2004 - - - 2

Hymenopt

era Formicidae Messor barbarus

Harvester

ant Feed on seeds Gergely et al., 2009 148 8 65 68

Pheidole

rugulosa

Seed

harvester-ant

Feed on seeds

and store seeds

in their small

nest.

Walter et al., 1981. 10 - - -

158 8 65 70

2766 2188 2192 699

222

Appendix-6: Protocol for N, P AND K determination

Determination of Sodium (ppm)

Sodium was estimated by flame photometer. For this purpose, first standards from NaCl were

prepared.

Preparation of Stock Solution:

For the preparation of 1000-ppm stock solution of sodium from NaCl, Na required to

dissolve in to 1L redistilled water. For this purpose following calculations were made

Atomic weight of sodium = 23

Molecular weight of sodium chloride = 23+35.5 = 58.5

23 g sodium obtained from = 58.5 g NaCl

1 g sodium available in NaCl = 58.5/23g NaCl

= 2.54

2.54 g NaCl was dissolved in redistilled water and retained volume up to 1000 ml. This was

the 1000ppm stock solution of Na.

Standards preparation:

From stock solution of Na, standards were prepared by the following formula:

C1V1 = C2V2

Where

C1 = Concentration of stock solution

V1 = Volume of stock solution

C2 = Concentration of standard solution

V2 = Volume of standard solution

e.g. 100ppm standard solution of Na was prepared as follows:

C1V1 = C2V2

1000 ×V1 = 100 ×100

223

V1 = 100 ×100/1000 = 10mL

Ten mL of stock solution was taken and maintained volume up to 100mL with distilled water.

This was the 100ppm standard solution. Similarly standards of 10, 20, 40 and 80ppm were

prepared from stock solution by following the formula.

Procedure

First adjusted the flame photometers’ knobs on Na then standards of sodium were run through

flame photometer to check the absorbance. Then adjusted the reading on zero with distilled

water and read the absorbance of the sample on flame photometer.

Standard curve:

Standard curve was obtained by plotting absorbance of standards against its concentration

Fig. 3.5. Standard curve of Sodium

Standard concentration (ppm) Absorbance

0 0

10 0.07

20 0.11

40 0.17

80 0.25

y = 0.0025x + 0.0561R² = 0.98

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0 20 40 60 80 100

Ab

so

rba

nc

e

CONC. (ppm)

SODIUM

224

Calculations

Sodium concentration of sample was measured from regression line obtained from standard

curve that is as follow:

Y = 0.0025x + 0.0561

X = Y- 0.0561/0.0025

Where,

X = Concentration of sample

Y = Absorbance of sample

2. Determination of Potassium (ppm)

Potassium was estimated by flame photometer. For this, first prepared standards from KCl

Preparation of Stock Solution:

For the preparation of 1000-ppm stock solution of sodium from KCl. K is required to dissolve

in to 1L-redistilled water. For this purpose following calculations were made

Atomic weight of potassium = 39

Molecular weight of potassium chloride = 39+35.5 = 74.5

23 g potassium obtained from = 74.5g KCl

1 g potassium available in KCl = 74.5/39g KCl

= 1.91g

2.54g KCl l was dissolved in redistilled water and maintained volume up to 1000ml. This was

the 1000ppm stock solution of K.

Standards preparation:

From stock solution of K, standards were prepared by the following formula:

C1V1 = C2V2

Where

C1 = Concentration of stock solution

225

V1 = Volume of stock solution

C2 = Concentration of standard solution

V2 = Volume of standard solution

e.g. 100ppm standard solution of K was prepared as follows:

C1V1 = C2V2

1000 × V1 = 100 ×100

V1 = 100 × 100/1000 = 10mL

Ten mL of stock solution was taken and maintained volume up to 100mL with distilled water.

This was the 100ppm standard solution. Similarly standards of 10, 20, 40 and 80ppm were

prepared from stock solution by following the formula.

Procedure

First adjusted the flame photometers’ knobs on K. Standards of Kwere run through flame

photometer to check the absorbance. Then adjusted the reading on zero with distilled water

and read the absorbance of the sample on flame photometer.

226

Standard curve:

Standard curve was obtained by plotting absorbance of standards against its concentratio

Standard concentration (ppm) Absorbance

0 0

10 0.22

20 0.36

40 0.83

Fig. 3.6. Standard curve of Potassium

y = 0.0208x - 0.015

R² = 0.9874

00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9

0 10 20 30 40 50

Ab

so

rban

ce

CONC. (ppm)Fig. 9: Standard curve of potassium

POTASSIUM

227

Calculations

Potassium concentration of sample was measured from regression line obtained from standard

curve that is as follow:

Y = 0.0208x + 0.015

X = Y- 0.015/0.0208

Where,

X = Concentration of sample

Y = Absorbance of sample

Determination of Nitrogen (ppm)

Nitrogen from soil samples was estimated by

Kjeldahl Method (Jackson, 1956).

Apparatus:

Kjeldahl Digestion Assembly,

Ammonia Distillation Assembly

Digestion: Fig.: Kjeldahl Method Apparatus

Digestion of the organic material was done by digesting the sample with Con. H2SO4 in the presence

of CuSO4.H2O as a catalyst and K2SO4 which raise the digestion temperature. The organic material

decomposes into several components i.e

C → CO2, O → H2O and N → NH3

In the organic matter, some nitrates are present, most of which are lost during the digestion.

The loss may be disregarded for most soils. Since the amount of NO3- - N was far lesser than

the Organic Nitrogen.

2 C6H3 (OH) NH2COO + 26 H2SO4 → (NH4) 2SO4 + 25 SO2 + 14 CO2 + 28H2O

228

Distillation:

The Ammonia content of the digest was determined by distillation with excess NaOH and

absorption of the evolved NH3 was in standard HCl.

(NH4)2SO4 + 2 NaOH → Na2SO4 + 2 NH3 + 2 H2O

NH3 +HCl → NH4Cl

Volumetric Analysis:

The excess of standard HCl is titrated against standard NaOH using Methyl Red as an

indicator. The decrease in the multi equivalence of acid as determined by acid-base titration,

gives a measure of the N content of the sample. The end point is determined by a change

of colour from pink to yellow.

2HCl + 2NaOH → 2NaCl + H2O

Procedure:

In 500 mL Kjeldahl flask, 50 g of processed soil sample was taken.Then 1g CuSO4, 10g

K2SO4 and 30mL Con. H2SO4were added. After this step, shaked the contents of the flask

thoroughly and let to stand for 30 min at least, with frequent shaking or until complete solution

was obtained. The contentswere digested until greenish color appears. K2SO4 raises the boiling

point of the acid. So that, the loss of acid volatile solution, was prevented. CuSO4.5H2O was

digestion a, ccelerator which catalyzes the speed of digestion process. Digestion was done on

the Kjeldahl Digestion Rack at low flame for the first 10-30min and then gradually more

strongly until the sample was completely charred. The temperature was gradually raised until

the acid reaches approximately one third the way up the digestion-flask. The flame was not

allowed to touch the flask above the part of the liquid. Extreme boiling might results in

volatilization of the acid before the organic matter was oxidized. The contentswere cooledand

diluted to 100mL with distilled water. Spinned the flask for 2 minutes and transferred the fluid

part to a 1000mL distillation flask. Washed the residues left in the Kjeldahl flask with 4 or 5

229

lots of 50–60mL distilled water, decanting the washings into the distillation flask.Fit the flask

with two neck joints to one neck dropping funnel was connected for adding 40% NaOH while

to the other neck Kjeldahl trap, which is used to trap the NaOH coming with the distillate. The

trap was connected to the condenser with a delivery tube which immersed into 50mL of 0.1N

HCl contained in a conical flask, with one or two drops of Methyl Red Indicator.About

125mL (or 100ml if bumping is a problem) of 40% NaOH solution was added till the

contents were alkaline in reaction (about 5 times the volume of Con. H2SO4 used during the

digestion). Heat the flask and the ammonia formed was allowed to be absorbed in standard

HCl. Washed the end of tube and 150mL distilled water was added to the conical flask. When

no more ammonia was stop the distillation. Excess of the acid with 0.1N NaOH solution till

the pink color changed to yellow.From the titer value calculated the multi equivalence of the

acid participating in the process of ammonia absorbing during digestion.

Calculation:

i. Blank:

Volume of HCl taken for blank = a mL

Volume of NaOH used = b mL

Volume of HCl consumed by liberated NH3 present in blank = a – b = z mL

ii. Sample:

Volume of HCl taken for sample = v mL

Volume of NaOH used = u mL

Volume of HCl consumed by liberated NH3 present in sample = v – u = w mL

Volume of HCl consumed for NH3 liberated by sample only = w – z = y mL

1000mL 1N HCl = 1000mL 1N NH3 = 17g NH3 = 14g N

1mL 1N HCl = 1mL 1N NH3 = 0.014g N

1mL 0.1N HCl = 1mL 0.1N NH3 = 0.0014g N

Weight of Nitrogen in 5g of Sample = y x 0.0014g N = q g N

% of N in sample =q × 100

5= 𝑝%

230

Appendix-7: Comparison of density/ ft3 of soil macro-fauna between tomato and

cauliflower (control and treated) fields (TT, Tomato Treated; TC Tomato

Control; CT, Cauliflower Treated; CC, Cauliflower Control)

Sampling

No.

Cauliflower

Treated

Cauliflower

Control Tomato Treated Tomato control

1 4.444 22.333 40.777 25.888

2 9.777 15.888 47.444 23.555

3 8.777 20.111 35.222 31.666

4 6.555 50.444 28.555 43.555

5 14.333 42.888 21.444 58.111

6 19.222 48.555 45.666 51.222

7 14.555 43.333 24 73.333