Impact effects of certain crop protection products applied in organic
and non organic Tomato fields on non-target soil arthropods
Othman B.H. AL-Daikh**, Salah M. Hussein* and A.H.EL-Mabrouk**
** Plant Protection Dept. Faculty of Agric. Minia University Egypt.
*Plant Protection Department, Agricultural Faculty, Omar Al_ Mokhtar University,
Libya.
Keywords : (pests, pesticide, avermectin, spinosade, indoxicarb, neemazone,
biocontrol, Bacillus thurengeinses, algifol, methylsalicylate, soil arthropods,
agroecosystem, Diversity and equitability).
Abstract
Two field experiment were run at the farms of Omar AL-Mokhtar university, in order
to knew the effect of some methods used to control tomato pests on soil arthropod
systemic groups in organic cultivated tomato field such as (BT, algifol, methyl
salicylate, neem oil), Results indicated that application of B. thuringensis and Algifol
achieved the highest performance showing 100% reduction in mites and other soil
arthropods systemic groups, and gave reduction 55.5 and 54.96% in both insect and
total population of soil arthropods collected with pitfall traps. As far as Neemazone
and Methyl salicylate increased the insect population with percentages 132.5 and
310% and total soil arthropods with 133.2% and 308.6% respectively and reduced the
mites and the other arthropods population with 100%. Also results showed that the
pesticides (avermectin, indoxacarb, & neemazone) increased the average number of
the total soil arthropod population groups, and these pesticides showed selective effect,
so that, it will be recommended that in order to preserve the beneficial predators,
carnivorous and parasitoids these biological and selective pesticides in conventional
tomato field should be applied.
According to the results obtained from this work, the changes in diversity and
equitability and decrease or increase of percent population of soil arthropods groups
were differed according to the soil arthropod groups, sampling period, applied plant
protection products and system of agricultural.
INTRODUCTION
Soil arthropods are involved in many aspects of organic matter, partial regulation of
soil arthropod activities, crumbly plant diversity and chemical application. Depending
on their diet (saprophagous. phytophagous or predation), (Tomlin, 1975). They are
contribute to the putrefaction process in soil environments by aperient the breakdown
of organic matter. Insects such as collembolans play a major role in the formation of
the soil microstructure. And they are also food sources for many predators like
carabid beetles and predacious mites (Svendsen et al., 2003).
crop protection products may cause harm to non-target species, and lead to
environmental contamination of water, soil, air, several types of crops and indirectly
to humans (Navalón et al., 2002). Side effects of different compounds are a potential,
largely inevitable consequence of IPM strategies. Many studies have investigated
pesticide effects on natural enemies, but wider studies of impacts on soil arthropods
are relatively rare (Moreby et al., 1997).
A side effect of usage of some compounds results in unfortunate consequences to
non-target organisms. There have been numerous attempts to predict the
environmental impacts of pollutants on soil systems particularly on some soil
arthropods. There is an urgent need to assess the impacts of chemical pollutants on
soil organisms (Morgan & Knacker, 1994; Edwards et al., 1996; Edwards et al.,
1998).
Studies that involved the diversity impacts of these products of management practice
are beyond the scope of this study (Fauvel ,1999, Hussein et al. 2002, Hutton and
Giller 2003,Irmler 2003,Frampton and Dorne 2007and Hussein and Abd El Aziz
2009, El Daidch et al. 2016). The organic Agriculture consider an important way to
protect biodiversity in ecosystem. Studies are particularly rare in AL-Gabal
A-Akhdar region, where climatic and ecological weather are differed. To better
understand the activity of crop protection products in soil and management of the
associated risks, we determined the side effects of a number of compounds used in
controlling Tuta absoluta and other pests in organic and non organic tomato systems
on some groups of soil arthropods.
Materials and Method
The experimental area: The studies on the effect of control of pests treatments of
two tomato agriculture systems i.e. (organic and conventional systems) on soil
arthropods dynamics, species density and diversity were conducted through summer
season of tomato at 2013 season. Studies started from mid of march until late of
September. Two farms at El-Beida district were chosen to carried out the experiments.
The experiment of Organic system treatments were conducted at the farm of the
Environmental and Natural resources college at Omar AL Mokhtar University, where
control measures and mineral fertilization have not been adopted for several years
ago. While as the treatments of non-organic agro ecosystem (conventional) were
done in the Agriculture faculty research farm at the same university.
Effect of different Methods Used in Controlling Tomato Pests in Organic
cultivated field, and this include: The Effect of Neem Oil (750 ml/4200m²).-
Treatment with Bacillus thuringiensis Bacteria (500 gm/4200m²), application of these
compounds were applied after 6 weeks from planting. Effect of (Algifol) which
extracted from marine brown Algea (Ascophyllumnodusum), (10ml/100Lt water) were
applied after 6 weeks from planting. Effect of Methyl Salicylate Used in Plant
Induced Resistance (200ml/100Lt water) were applied after 6 weeks from planting.
The Effect of all the previously mentioned treatments on the following parameters;
the abundance, species density, bio diversity, and the equitability (%) of soil
arthropods systemic groups, were calculated. Three plots with no treatments were
used as control treatments for each treatment.
Treatments in the non–Organic (Conventional) system. All agriculture procedures
were conducted according to procedures utilized by convetional local farmers, weed
control was carried out by mechanical weeding and with herbicide glyphosate
(directed spray) were applied before planting, Furrow irrigation and plant pruning
were performed as often as necessary. Also the entire area received fertilization
nitrogen (Urea). And insecticides used in controlling T. absoluta Meyrick and other
insect pests were applied.
Avermectin, is a biological pesticide extracted from (Streptomyces avermitales).
(Emamectin benzoate), Avid®, 1.8 % Ec, (90cc/4200m2). Spinosad, is a biological
pesticides extracted from fermentation of soil actinomycetes Saccharopoly
sporaspinosa. It is a mixture of spinosyn A and spinosyn D), Success® 480 SC • 150
cc/ hectar, Indoxacarb is a member of the new oxadiazine class of insecticides.
Steward® EC Indoxacarb (15.84%) (500 cc/4200m²). Neemazone: It is extracted
from neem trees the active ingredient is Azadrachtin Azadrachtin, 0.15%. Nemazon
EC 0.15% , (750cc/4200m²)
Soil sampling: Hocker machine was used in collecting soil samples according to the
method of (Steven et al., 1998). One kilogram for each sample. Samples were
transported to laboratory and in Berlese funnels (Tullgren funnels methods) were used
for extracted of soil fauna as described by (Tragardh, 1928).
Berlese funnel was used for extracting insects and mites from soil and leaf litter
and on the soil surface. The soil arthropods moved away from the light and heat
source down through the sieve at the funnel, fell in to Vial containing 70% ethanol
and preserved for identification under a microscope according to methods (Mound et
al., 1976).
Pitfall traps were used to catch soil arthropods that run on the soil surface. Traps are
immersed into the ground, the open side of the traps is to be at the same level with the
soil surface so insects which run along the soil surface will fall into the container.
Plastic containers were used (14 cm × 10 cm × 4 cm).Traps were filled with water up
to its third quarter and adding 3 to 4 drops of any kind of detergent to break surface
tension, to be sure that the insects would stay in the trap. traps were set in the
morning and collected at the same time in the next day, Traps were transported to the
laboratory, contents removed, ethanol 70% was used to preserve for future
examination.(Sunderland et al., 1987).
One soil sample for Berlese funnel extraction and one pitfall trap was used from each
replicate, samples were taken 24h before treatment and one week post treatments.
Insects were identified according to (Meyer, 1993; Mound et al ,. 1976; Mound and
Walker,1982; Kirk,1987; Milne et al ,.1997; Zurstrassen, 2003; Vierbergenet
al.,2010; Eisenbeis &Wichard, 1987; Bland &Jaques, 1978; Chu, 1949)). Mites were
identified with the keys of (Karg, W. 1993; Krantz, G. W. 2009). Spiders were
identified according to (Nardi, 1988; Levi & Levi, 1968). The effects were
determined by three parameters: Abundance, expressed as average number of
individuals/ treatment and the effect of treatment in reducing or increasing in the
population by calculating as Reduction or increasing % using the equation of
(Henderson &Telton 1955)
Reduction % = 1- (Ta×Cb/Tb×Ca) × 100 where
Ta = the number of soil Arthropods in each group of treatment after one week of
application.
Tb = the number of soil Arthropods in each group of treatment before the application.
Cb = the number of soil Arthropods in each group of the control before the
application.
Ca = the number of soil Arthropods in each group of the control after one week post
treatment.
Diversity in soil Arthropods were calculated by the equation of (Shannon & Wiener,
1959):
Diversity (H') = ∑R pi loge pi
1-I
R= the number of the species.
Pi= The number of individuals for each species /The number of all the species
recorded in all the treatments.
Log e= logarithmic value of the number 2.
Equitability (E) in soil arthropods pre and post treatment were calculated using
(Lioyd & Ghelardi, 1964) Equation:
Equitability (E)= (n/N)×100.
Where E% = Equitability percent n = the throritical number of all the species
calculated from the Tables of (Lioyd&Ghelardi., 1964).
N = the number of all the true species recorded in all the experiments of the
ecoosystem suitable for tomato in the organic and Non-organic Agro-system.
ANOVA analysis were used to compare the abundances at different groups of soil
arthropods in different treatments at the two system of agriculture .least significance
difference (LSD) test with significance level set at a=0.05. All statistical analysis were
performed using Costat software programs (Statgraphics, 1994).
Results And Discussion
Effect of some methods used to control tomato pests on the reduction or
increasing percent (%), of soil arthropods collected with pitfall trap in organic
cultivated tomato field.
Results of statistical analysis together with the average reduction or increasing
percentages of different systemic groups of soil arthropods group density are shown in
Fig 1. It is clearly obvious that application of B. thuringiensis and Algifol achieved
the highest performance showing 100% reduction in mites and other soil arthropods
systemic groups, and gave reduction 55.5 and 54.96% in both insect and total
population of soil arthropods collected with pitfall traps. As far as Neemazone and
Methyl salicylate increased the insect population with percentages 132.5 and 310% and
the total population of soil arthropods with 133.2% and 308.6% respectively and
reduced the mites and the other arthropods population with 100%.
Effect of some methods used to control tomato pests on the reduction or
increasing percent (%), of soil arthropods extracted with Berlese funnel in
organic cultivated tomato field
As regards to the effect of application these methods on soil arthropods , that found in
the upper surface of the soil layer, until (30cm depth), which extracted by Berelese
funnel methods, it appears that treatments with Algifol and B. thuringenisis increased
the total population of soil arthropods with 90.7% and 11.94% respectively . On the
other hand all used methods caused 100% reduction in other soil arthropods systemic
groups and were variables in their effect on different systemic groups. Neemazone,
Algifol and Bt, reduced insect population with 48.63%, 61.4% and 68.4 %
respectively. Also these treatments reduced total population with 100% reduction.
Treatments with methyl salicylate caused reduction in all systemic groups with
variable percentages. There were high significance differences between the different
control methods in their effect on different tested systemic groups except other soil
arthropods systematic group.
B. thuringiensis(Bt) is a gram-positive, aerobic, spore-forming, rod-shaped bacterium
that produces a parasporal, crystalline proteinaceous, inclusion during sporulation in
the stationary phase of growth. This inclusion may contain more than one type of
insecticidal crystal protein (ICP). These proteins, which are released with the
endospore upon lysis of the sporangium, exhibit, after appropriate processing, specific
toxicities to insects, many of which are economically important crop pests. The site of
action of the insecticidal toxins of various subspecies of B. thuringiensis is the brush
border membranes of the midgut epithelium of susceptible larvae of Lepidoptera,
Coleoptera, and Diptera (Bravo,et al.1992, Denolf, et al.1993). The nontoxic,
parasporal, crystalline inclusions (protoxins) are solubilized after ingestion by larvae in
the alkaline midgut (pH>10) and proteolytically activated into toxins by specific
proteases (Hofte et al. 1989). The active toxins interact with receptors on midgut
epithelial cells, where the toxins form pores and destroy cells by osmotic lysis (Adang
1991,Wolfersberger, 1990). Larvae of non-target insects also contain receptors but
apparently in lower numbers (Hofte et al. 1989), although, in some cases, also in high
numbers (Garczynski et al. 1991). Few or no effects of Bt Cry proteins were found on
non-target invertebrates in soil, such as earthworms [Saxena et al. 2001, Clark and
Coats,2006), collembolans (Clark and Coats 2006 and Yu et al.1997), isopods
(Cowgill and Atkinson 2003, Escher et al. 2000), mites [Yu et al. 1997, Clark and
Coats,2006], nematodes (Clark and Coats,2006and Manachini and Lozzia 2002).
There are a number of excellent reviews and discussions on the role of induced host
plant resistance (IHPR) in soil arthropod pest management including Kogan (1994),
Maxwell (1985), Smith(1989), van Emden (1991), and Sharma & Ortiz (2002). Stout
et al. (2002) provide a review of the use of elicitors of induced plant resistance in
arthropod pest management and soil arthropods. Here we used methyl salicylate as
elicitors to induce resistance in tomato plants for arthropod pest management in
Tomato organic farming systems and conserve soil arthropods.Although IHPR is
considered has had limited application for the control of arthropod pests in
conventional agriculture. Van Emden (1991) has discussed how the benefit of partial
plant resistance outweigh those of high-level resistance when used in combination with
other control methods.
Effect of different pest control methods on the diversity and
equitability (%) of soil arthropod systemic groups in organic
cultivated tomato field.
Data given below show (Table 1) the systemic groups of soil arthropods that found in
the two used methods (pitfall traps and Berlese funnel) with the values of diversity
indices and Equitability % before and after treatments with different methods of
control pests that used in organic tomato system. Treatment with Neemazone oil
showed a reliable increase in the diversity index from 1.5 in pretreatment to 2.0 in
post treatment and equitability % from 36.3% in pretreatment to 50% post treatment
and B. thuringiensis increased the diversity value from 1.5 to 2.2 after treatment. The
equitability % increased from 44.4% in pretreatment to 46.6% in post treatment. While
as Algifol reduced the diversity from 1.8 pretreatment to 1.5 in post treatment and the
equitability (%) from 45.4 % in pretreatment to 33.3 % in post treatment but Methyl
salicylate increased the diversity and the equitability (%). In general the results showed
that Neemoil and Methyl salicylate increased terrestrial soil arthropods collected by
pitfall traps, while their effect was variable in the superficial soil arthropods, that
found in the upper surface layer of the soil level until (30cm depth) which extracted by
Berelese funnel methods from positive to negative, due to the type of the treatment.
Similar results were reported by Hussein et al., (2002) who indicated that neem oil and
Bt treatments increased the diversity indices of soil arthropods in cotton ecosystem
fields. B. thuringiensis (Bt) and its toxins is a useful alternative or supplement to
synthetic chemical pesticides in agriculture, forest management, and control some
biting insects. When Incorporated Bt toxins into soil the toxins could accumulate to
concentrations that may enhance the control of target pests or constitute a hazard to
non-target organisms, such as the soil microbiota, beneficial insects (e.g., pollinators,
predators and parasites of insect pests), and other animal classes. The accumulation
and persistence of the toxins could also result in the selection and enrichment of toxin-
resistant target insects. Persistence is enhanced when the toxins are bound on surface-
active particles in the environment (e.g., clays and laomic substances) and, thereby,
rendered more resistant to biodegradation while retaining toxic activity. Hence, they
are xenobiotics with respect to the environment, and their persistence in and effects on
the environment have not been adequately studied and sober risk assessments on a
case-by case basis must be made before major releases of Bt toxins. (Saxena et al.
2008). Abudulai et al. (2013) studied field efficacy of neem (Azadirachta indica) for
managing soil arthropods in Ghana results showed generally that the neem products at
the concentrations tested were efficacious and comparable to chlorpyrifos in lowering
populations of soil arthropods.
Effect of pesticides applied to control tomato pests on reduction or increasing %
of different soil arthropod groups collected with pitfall traps after different
intervals post treatment.
Results in Fig 2 showed that avermectin pesticide increased the average of the total
soil arthropods population with 228.44%, the terrestrial soil insects, with 213.47%
while as treatment with avermictin reduced the other arthropods population group
with 37.92%. Treatment tomato field with spinosad increased the soil insect
population with 496.1%, and the total population of soil arthropods with 193.19% and
reduced the other arthropods with 45.07%, Application of indoxacarb to control T.
absoluta increased both the total population of soil arthropods and insects with 305.89
and 86.77% respectively and reduced the other arthropods, with 78.5%. Result
showed also that treatment with Neemazone pesticide increased both the total
population of soil arthropods systemic groups and insects with 479.89 and 446.19%
respectively. Neemazone treatment reduced the other arthropods with 62.65%. The
treatments with previous pesticides achieved reduction 100% in mites.
Effect of different treatments in nonorganic tomato system
Effect of pesticides applied to control tomato pests on reduction or increasing %
of different soil arthropod groups extracted with Berlese funnel after different
intervals post treatment.
Data shown in this study indicate that the treatments with tested pesticides had a wide
range of reduction or increasing percentages in soil arthropods population groups
extracted with Berlese funnel. Avermectin, spinosad, Indoxacarb, and Neemazone
caused increase in total soil population, soil insect population and soil other
arthropods extracted with Berlese funnel showed that the effect of indoxacarb
pesticide, increased the total population of soil arthropods systemic groups with
228.44,193.19,305.89,479.89; 213.47,496.1,86.77,446.19 and 37.92,15.07,78.5,62.65
in the three groups of soil arthropods respectively all pesticides treatment achieved
reduction 100% in soil mites population.
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
insect mites other arthropod
total arthropods
% R
ed
uct
ion
or
incr
eas
ing
Arthropod groups
Bt pitfall traps Neemazol Berlese Methyl salsalite Berlese Algifol Berlese Bt Berlese
Fig (1) % Reduction or increasing of soil arthropod groups after application
methods to control pest of tomatoes in organic tomato system during 2013
season
Effect of pesticides applied to control tomato pests on the diversity and the
equitability (%) of different soil arthropods in nonorganic cultivated tomato
field
Treatment tomato with avermectin pesticide to control T. absoluta increased the
diversity index from 2.01 in pretreatment count to 2.3 in post treatment, and
increased the equitability %, from 50 % in pretreatment to 53.7 % in post
treatment count. No changes was observed in adversity indices after application
Fig (2): Effect of different pesticides applied against tomato pests cultivated in non -
organic system on different groups of soil arthropods collected by pitfall traps
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
% R
ed
ucti
on
or
incre
ase
in
dif
fere
nt
gro
up
s
insects Mites Other arthropods Total
Arthropod systemic groups
Avermectin spinosad Indoxicarb Neemazone
Fig (3):Average effect of application of pesticides used in controlling tomato
pests on different groups of soil arthropods collected by Berlese funnel in non
organic
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
% R
educ
tion
or in
crea
se in
diff
eren
t sys
tem
ic gr
oups
insects Mites Other arthropods Total
Arthropod systemic groups
Avermectin spinosad Indoxicarb Neemazone
of spinosad. Application of neemazone caused increasing in the diversity from 2.2 in
pretreatment to 2.34 in post treatment count. Effects of the insecticides on soil
arthropods were largely as would be expected, with the most persistent effects
observed for the broad-spectrum organophosphate chlorpyrifos and the most selective
and transient effects for the narrow-spectrum pesticides. The spatial distribution of
some species. Sminthurinuselegans, for example, increased markedly in abundance
after cypermethrin treatment but on most sampling dates was almost entirely
restricted in distribution to one field. Synthetic pesticides had a greater negative effect
on predators of Collembola than on the Collembola themselves, leading to a classical
resurgence, and the application of pesticides in soils had a significant effect on soil
fauna and diversity of arthropod species, Hussein et al., (1987). Fauvel (1999)
observed that miridae are very susceptible to chemical sprays and are more easily
eliminated from soils orchards sprayed with pesticides than Anthocoridae.
A recent review of pesticide effects on soil invertebrates recommended that
Collembola (Folsomia candida) should also be tested routinely, as a representative of
soil arthropods, because testing with oligochaetes alone does not identify all
insecticide risks to soil invertebrates ( Frampton et al., 2006). Reviews of the effects
of pesticides on soil invertebrates in laboratory studies ( Frampton et al., 2006) and
field studies ( Jänsch et al., 2006) have confirmed that, except for earthworms, in most
cases there is insufficient data from field studies to validate risk predictions that are
based on laboratory testing. Chlorpyrifos is among the pesticides that have the best
availability of field data for effects on soil invertebrates (Jänsch et al., 2006).
Hussein et al. (2002) studied the quantitative and qualitative effects of certain pesticides
on soil arthropod fauna population and suggested that most pesticides applications
influenced the population of soil arthropods. The reduction % in soil insects was the
highest 70% while it was the least on soil mites .
Hutton and Giller (2003) showed that reduced application of veterinary drugs (e.g.
avermectin), diminished the diversity indices of dung beetles. Also they observed that
using compost in the organic farms have positive impacts on their biodiversity.
Irmler (2003) indicated that variation in tillage practices between organic farms and in
pesticide use between conventional farms, may confound any results, since both deep
tillage and wide-scale pesticide application can have substantial and unpredictable
impacts on beetle communities. Hussein and Abdel Aziz, (2009) concluded that
spinosad, B. t. and avermectin had little effect on the beneficial arthropods in cotton
ecosystem effect so, they considered a good elements in successful release of cotton
integrated control program. Campos et al. (2012) indicated that treatment with
chlorpyriphos did not affect the abundance of soil predatory mites whereas
significantly more mites were found in the experimental plots where composting
manure was added. Natural insecticides (spinosad, Neemazone&Bt) are generally less
Table (1) : Effect of application of different methods of pest control on soil arthropods
diversity in organic Tomato fields collected with Berlese funnel and pitfall traps.
No.
Systemic group
Check Treatments
Nemazol oil B.
thuriniginsis
Marin
algae
Methyl
salselate
Pre- post Pre- post Pre- post Pre- post Pre- post
1 Diptera 5 13 1 7 10 9 15 2 5 12
2 Hymenoptera 17 59 3 34 14 22 49 59 4 159
3 Homoptera 1 4 0 4 2 3 3 2 1 4
4 Hemiptera 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
5 Neuroptera 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 88 0
6 Collombola 29 29 41 15 104 19 55 28 1 30
7 Coleoptera 0 7 1 0 0 1 0 1 4 1
8 Lepidoptera 2 4 0 1 0 3 2 0 1 2
9 Thysanoptera 4 11 4 2 0 2 7 3 0 3
10 Orthoptera 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
11 Ephemiptera 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
12 Dermptera 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 0
13 prostigmata 10 0 8 20 10 4 7 2 181 8
14 Astigmata 17 9 7 7 14 3 6 4 0 16
15 Cryptostigmata 15 0 12 20 11 3 18 6 97 6
16 Notostigmata 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 475 0
17 Mesostegmata 80 0 57 27 70 6 24 13 0 8
18 Teterastigmata 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
19 Chilopoda 2 0 1 0 2 1 1 0 1 1
20 Crustacea 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1
21 spiders 0 0 1 3 0 2 0 2 0 3
Total 182 151 136 141 238 81 197 122 905 256
Diversity index 1.78 1.91 1.59 2.06 1.5 2.2 1.8 1.5 1.14 1.48
Equitability% 50 54.5 36.3 50 44.4 46.6 45.4 33.3 25 433.3
Table(2): Effect of application of pesticides to on soil arthropods diversity in
non organic Tomato fields collected with Berlese funnel and pitfall traps.
No
Systemic
groups
Check
Insecticides
Avermctin
Indoxicarb
spinosad
Nemazol
Pre- post Pre- post
Pre- post Pre- post Pre- post
1 Diptera 10 6 14 8 37 10 23 12 11 10
2 Hymenoptera 4 18 12 44 25 23 10 15 5 42
3 Homoptera 22 2 5 4 4 3 4 4 10 2
4 Hemiptera 124 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1
5 Neuroptera 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 9 14
6 Collombola 12 13 61 15 28 14 35 22 4 6
7 Coleoptera 7 2 9 5 2 4 7 4 0 3
8 Lepidoptera 3 1 8 3 0 2 4 3 1 3
9 Thysanoptera 1 2 2 4 14 4 3 2 3 5
10 Orthoptera 1 7 0 3 0 6 1 4 0 0
11 Ephemiptera 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0
12 Dermptera 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
13 prostigmata 2 3 3 16 1 1 11 2 0 2
14 Astigmata 0 3 0 3 0 2 21 2 7 5
15 Cryptostigmata 9 6 7 7 10 6 9 16 0 0
16 Notostigmata 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
17 Mesostegmata 7 48 27 20 0 4 39 32 7 3
18 Teterastigmata 0 1 0 3 0 3 7 2 0 0
19 Chilopoda 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0
20 Crustacea 13 16 1 11 4 15 15 18 2 21
21 spiders 13 16 14 12 14 16 15 22 20 39
Total
229 144 164 160 139 115
205 161 84
161
Diversity indices
1.73 2.15 2.01 2.3 1.9 2.44
2.4
2.4
2.2
2.3
Equitability%
35.7 42.8 50 53.7 55.5 53.7
53.7
56.6
54.5
54.
stable than synthetic materials and degrade quickly in the environment, meaning that
they are also less potent and have shorter residual periods than their synthetic
counterparts. Therefore, satisfactory arthropod pest management can be achieved only
when insecticide use is integrated with other strategies, such as timing applications to
minimize harmful effects on beneficial organisms. Much work is still needed to
develop insecticide treatment threshold levels for organic farming systems in which
natural enemies are prevalent. One of the major barriers to the commercialization of
new, selective insecticides of natural origin is that there generally must be a large
marketing base in conventional plant protection to cover the high costs associated with
obtaining marketing approval (Isman, 2006). Nonetheless, if the qualityand efficacy of
natural products such as neem extracts, and fermentation products (spinosad) could be
enhanced by commercial research and development programs, better solutions for
typical problems of plant protection in organic farming could be found. The data
obtained from this study, showed that all pesticides used increased the average
numbers of the insects and the total population of soil arthropods systemic groups.
It is clearly obvious that application of B. thuringensis and Algifol achieved the
highest performance showing 100% reduction in mites and other soil arthropods
systemic groups, and gave reduction 55.5 and 54.96% in both insect and total
population of soil arthropods collected with pitfall traps. As far as Neemazone and
Methyl salicylate increased the insect population with percentages 132.5 and 310%
and the total population of soil arthropods with 133.2% and 308.6% respectively and
reduced the mites and the other arthropods population with 100%.
Results indicated that organic soil amendments, algifol, neemazone and methyl
salicylate may be make plants less suitable as insect hosts, with negative effects
including lower fecundity, fewer larvae surviving, slower development of immature
stages, and reduced foliage consumption by immature insects.
As result, of this study, the pesticides (avermectin, indoxacarb, & neemazone) used
increased the average number of the total soil arthropod population groups, and these
pesticides showed selective effect, so that, it will be recommended that in order to
preserve the beneficial predators, carnivorous and parasitoids these biological and
selective pesticides in conventional tomato field should be applied.
References
Abudulai, M.; Abdulai, B. S.; Opare-Atakora, D.; Mohammed, H.; Inusah, I. Y. B.;
Dzomeku, I. K.; Brandenburg, R. L. & Jordan, D. L. (2013). Field Efficacy of
Neem (Azadirachta indica A. Juss) for Managing Soil Arthropods and
Cercospora Leaf Spots Damage for Increased Yield in Peanut. Plant Protection
Science, Vol. 49 Issue 2, p 65.
Adang, M. J. & Maramorosch, K. (1991). Bacillus thuringiensis insecticidal crystal
proteins: gene structure, action, and utilization. Biotechnology for Biological
Control of Pests and Vectors. CRC Press, Boston, MA, USA, pp. 3-24.
Bravo, A.; Hendrickx, K.; Jansens, S. & Peferoen, M. (1992). Immunocytochemical
analysis of specific binding of Bacillus thuringiensis insecticidal crystal
proteins to lepidopteran and coleopteran midgut membranes. J Invertebr
Pathol., 60: 247- 53.
Campos, C.; Aguilar, A. & Garcia-Marí, F. (2012). Aggregation pattern, sampling
plan, and intervention threshold for Pezothrips kellyanus in citrus groves.
Entomol. Exp. Appl. 142: 130-139.
Chu, H. F. (1949). How to Know the immature Insects. Wm C. BrownCo., Dubuque,
IA, 234 pp.
Clark, B. W. & Coats, J. R. (2006). Subacute effects of Cry1Ab Bt corn litter on the
earthworm Eisenia fetida and the springtail Folsomia candida. Environ.
Entomol. Exp. Appl. 35: 1121-9.
Daily, G., S. Alexander & P. Ehrlich, 1997. Ecosystem services: benefits supplied to
human societies by natural ecosystems. Issues in Ecology, 2: 18-24.
Dennis, P. (2003). Sensitivity of upland arthropod diversity to livestock grazing,
vegetation structure and landform. Food, Agriculture & Environment. 1(2):
301-307.
Edwards, C. A., T. Knacker & A. Pokarzhevskii, 1998. The prediction of the fate and
effects of pesticides in the environment using tiered laboratory soil
microcosms. Protection Brighton Pesticide Conferance. Pests and Diseases,
AC-1: 267-272.
Edwards, C. A., T. Knacker, A. Pokarzhevskii, S. Subler & R. Parmelee, 1996. Use of
soil microcosms in assessing the effect of pesticides on soil ecosystems.
Proceedings of the International Symposium on Environmental Behavior of
Crop Protection Chemical, International Atomic Energy Agency, 435-52 pp.
Eisenbeis, G. & Wichard, W. (1987). Atlas on the Biology of Soil Arthropods.
Springer-Verlag. Berlin. Pp, 437.
AL-Daikh , E.B, EL-Mabrouk, A and, A.S.M.H EL Roby (2016):Effect of glyphosate
herbicide on the behavior of soil arthropods in non-organic tomato system,
Adv. Agric. Biol.5 (1), 2016: 14-19 DOI: 10.15192/PSCP.AAB.2016.5.1.1419
http://www.pscipub.com/Journals/Data/JList/Advance%20in%20Agriculture%
20and%20Biology/2016/Volume%205/Issue%201/2.pdf
Fauvel, G. (1999). Diversity of Heteroptera in agrosystems: role of sustainability and
bio indication Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 74: 275–303.
Frampton, G. K. & Dorne, J. L. C. M. (2007). The effects on terrestrial invertebrates
of reducing pesticide inputs in arable crop edges: a meta-analysis. J. Appl.
Ecol., 44: 362–373.
Garczynski, S. F.; Crim J. W. & Adang, M. J. (1991). Identification of putative insect
brush border membrane-binding molecules specific to Bacillus thuringiensis -
endotoxin by protein blot analysis. Appl. Environ. Microbiol., 57: 2816-20.
Henderson, C.F. and Telton, E.W. (1955). Test with acaricides against the brown wheat
mite. J. Econ. Entomol,, 48: 157-161.
Hofte, H. & Whiteley, H. R. (1989). Insecticidal crystal proteins of Bacillus
thuringiensis. Microbiol.Rev., 53: 242–55.
Hussein, S. M. & Abdel Aziz, M. A. (2009). Interspecific diversity and Equitability of
Biological agents after application of pesticides in cotton ecosystem. Minia J.
Agric. Res. Dev., 29: (3): 299-320.
Hussein, S. M.; Abdel Aziz, M. A.; Kamel, E. H. & Eshbah, H. M. (2002).
Approaches to integrated control of cotton bollworms in Middle Egypt in
Minia 1st Conference of Agriculture and environmental Sciences (MCAES 1)
25-28 March 2002.
Hussein, S. M.; Gharib, A. H. & Mourad, G. M. (1987). Changes in cotton soil
arthropod fauna as functions of pesticide treatment in Minia cotton field. Minia
J. Agric. Res. & Dev.., 9(2): 799-814.
Hutton, S. A. & Giller, P. S. (2003.) The effects of the intensification of agriculture
on northern temperate dung beetle communities. J. Appl. Ecol., 40: 994–1007.
Irmler, U. (2003). The spatial and temporal pattern of carabid beetles on arable fields
in northern Germany (Schleswig-Holstein) and their value as ecological
indicators. Agric-ecosystems Environ., 98: 141–151.
Isman, M. B. (2006). Botanical insecticides, deterrents, and repellents in modern
agriculture and increasingly regulated world. Annu. Rev. Entomol.51:45–66.
Jarošı́k, V. (1991). Are diversity indices of carabid beetle (Col.: Carabidae)
communities useful, redundant, or misleading? Acta Entomol.
Bohemoslov.88:273–279.
Karg, W. (1993). Acari (Acarina), Milben, Parasitiformes (Anactinochata), Cohors
Gamasina 482 Leach, Raubmilben. Die Tierwelt Deutschlands (2nd edn), 59G.
Fischer, Jena, Stuttgart, NY 523 pp. 483.
Kirk, W.D.J., (1987). A key to the larvae of some common Australian Flower Thrips
(Insecta: Thysanoptera), with a host-plant survey. Aust. J. Zool., 35.173-185.
Krantz, G. W. (2009). Habits and Habitats. In: Krantz, G.W., Walter, D.E. (eds.) A
Manual of Acarology, Third Edition. Texas Tech. University Press; Lubbock,
Texas, 807 pp. 493.
Lioyd, M. & Ghelardi, R. J. (1964). A table 4 calculating the equitability compound
of species diversity. J. Anim. Ecol; 33:217-225.
Luff, M. L. (1975). Some features influencing the efficiency of pitfall trap. Oecologia
(Berl.), 19: 345–357
Manachini, B. & Lozzia, G. C. (2002). First investigations into the effects of Bt corn
crop on Nemato. fauna. Boll. Zool. Agric. Bachic., Ser. II 2002, 34:85-96.
Maxwell, F. G. (1985). Utilization of host plant resistance in pest management. Insect
Sci. Appl. 6:437–42
Meyer, J. R. (1993). Kwik-key to soil-Dwelling Invertebrates. Vision Press, Raleigh,
NC. pp 43.
Milne, J. R.; Milne, M. & Walter, G. H., (1997). A Key to Larval Thrips
(Thysanoptera) from 513 Granite Belt Stone fruit Trees and a First Description
of Pseudanaphothrips achaetus (Bagnall) 514 Larvae. Aust. J. Entomol.
36,319-326.
Moreby, S. J., N. W. Sotherton & P. W. Jepson, 1997. The effects of pesticides on
species of non-target Heteroptera inhabiting cereal fields in southern England.
Pesticide Science, 51: 39-48.
Morgan, E. & T. Knacker, 1994. The role of laboratory terrestrial model ecosystems
in the testing of potentially harmful substances. Journal of Ecotoxicology, 3:
213-233.
Mound, L. A. & Walker, A. K. (1982). Terebrantia (Insecta: Thysanoptera). Fauna N.
Z. 1, 1-113.
Mound, L. A.; Morison, G. D.; Pitkin, B. R. & Palmer J. M. (1976). Thysanoptera,
hand books for the identification of British insects. Royal Entomological
Society, London 1: 1-79.
Navalón, A., A. Prieto, L. Araújo & J. Vilchez, 2002. Solid-phase microextraction for
herbicide determination in environmental samples. Journal of Chromatography
A, 946: 103-121.
Navarro-Campos, C., Marzal, C., Aguilar, A., Garcia-Marí, F., 2010. Presencia del
microlepidóptero Anatrachyntis badia en cítricos. Descripción,
comportamiento y daños al fruto.
.
Shannon-winner, C. L. (1959). A mathematical theory of communication Bell. system.
Tech. J. 27:379-423.
Sharma, H. C. & Ortiz, R. (2002). Host plant resistance to insects: an eco-friendly
approach for pest management and environment conservation. J. Environ.
Biol., 23:111–35.
Smith, C. M. (1989). Plant Resistance to Insects. New York: Wiley. 286 pp.
Stevens, C.; Khan, V. A.; Brown, J.; Hochmuth, G.; Splittstoesser, W. & Granberry,
D. (1991). Plastic chemistry and technology as related to plastic culture and
solar heating of soil. In Soil solarization. (J. Katan & J. E. DeVay, Eds.). CRC
Press, Boca Raton, Florida. 141-158.
Stevens, P.; Steven, D. & Froud. K. (1998). Kelly´s citrus thrips - a tough customer.
The Orchadist 71: 58-61.
Stout, M. J.; Zehnder, G. W. & Baur, M. E. (2002). Potential for the use of elicitors of
plant resistance in arthropod management programs. Arch. Insect Biochem.
Physiol., 51:222–35.
Sunderland, K. D.; Crook, N. E.; Stacey, D. L. & Fuller, B. J. (1987). A study of
feeding by polyphagous predators on cereal aphids using elisa and gut
dissection. J. Appl. Ecol. 24, 907–933.
Svendsen, T., J. Gronvold, P. Holter & C. Sommer, 2003. Field effects of ivermectin
and fenbendazole on earthworm populations and the disappearance of dung
pats from bolus-treated cattle. Journal of Applied Soil Ecology, 24:207-218.
Tomlin, A. D.,1975. Toxicity of soil applications of insecticides to three species of
springtails (collembola) underlaboratory conditions. Journal of Canada
Entomology, 107: 769-774.
Tragardh, I. (1928). Studies on the fauna of the soil in Swedish forests.
Skoghogskolans Foskskrift, Stockholm.
Van Emden, H. F. (1991). The role of host plant resistance in insect pest mis-
management. Bull. Entomol. Res. 81:123–26
Vierbergen, G.; Kucharczy, k, H. & Kirk, W. D. J. (2010). A key to the second instar
larvae of the 567 Thripidae of the Western Palaeartic region
(Thysanoptera).Tijdschriftvoor Entomol., 153: 99-160.
Wolfersberger, M. G. (1990). The toxicity of two Bacillus thuringiensis -endotoxins
to gypsy moth larvae is inversely related to the affinity of binding sites on
midgut brush border membranes for the toxins. Experientia, 46: 475-7.
Yu, L.; Berry, R. E. & Croft, B. A. (1997). Effects of Bacillus thuringiensis toxins in
transgenic cotton and potato on Folsomia candida (Collembola: Isotomidae)
and Oppia nitens (Acari: Orbatidae). J Econ Entomol., 90: 113-8.
Zurstrassen, R. (2003). Die Terebranten Thysanopteren Europas und des Mittelmeer-
Gebietes. Die Tierwelt Deutschlands 74: 1-271.