Ecology and Biodiversity of Agriculturally

ECOLOGY AND BIODIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURALLY
IMPORTANT RICE FIELD ARTHROPODS
Thesis
Submitted to the
University of Madras
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
by
J. Diraviam
Post Graduate & Research Department of Zoology
Loyola College (Autonomous)
Chennai 600 034
June 2005
INTRODUCTION
Rice cultivation
• Rice is the staple food for over 65% of the
Indian population, grown in the country in an
area of about 45 million hectares.
• In Tamil Nadu state, rice is cultivated under
irrigated condition to a large extent and under
semi-dry & dry conditions to a limited extent.
• North-eastern zone of Tamil Nadu has a large
area under rice in three overlapping seasons
due to its favourable climatic conditions.
• The high humidity prevailing during the
monsoon season triggers the build-up of
important insect pests and diseases.
Rice cultivation
Indiscriminate Application of Insecticides
Resulted in the reduction of biodiversity of
natural enemies,
Development of pesticide-induced resistance,
and
Outbreak of secondary pests (Garg et al.,
2004).
Believed to be the oldest form of intensive
agriculture (Fernando, 1977)
Dates back to nearly 9000 years ago
It is thought to have originated in northeast
Thailand (Bray, 1986)
Biological Diversity
It is the full range of variety &
variability within and among living
organisms, their associations, and
habitat-oriented ecological complexes.
The term encompasses:
ecosystem,
species, and
Landscape, as well as
intra-specific (genetic) levels of
diversity
(Fielder and Jain, 1992)
Biological Diversity
NATURAL RESOURCES: Soil, Water,
Biodiversity, Atmosphere, etc.
BIODIVERSITY of Plants, Animals,

Microbes:
Enormous direct economic benefit to
humankind
An array of indirect essential services
thro’ natural ecosystems, and
Plays a prominent role in modulating
ecosystem function & stability (Singh,
2002)
ARTHROPODS
The most diverse & numerous of all
living organisms,
Form the most important
components of diverse ecosystems,
as well as
The major players in the functioning
of those ecosystems (Wilson, 1987;
Miller, 1993; Kim, 1993)
Rice Ecosystem
Considered as man-modified
environment,
An integrated water
dependent system, which
includes:
rice plant,
animals and plants,
humans,
and crops other than rice
(Kiritani, 1979).
Earlier Studies
Several workers conducted
faunistic surveys of the
arthropod taxa in rice
ecosystems
Others developed inventories
for rice arthropods based on
published information
Newly kindled interest on the
study of arthropod biodiversity
Based on the rice ecosystem, Kiritani
(2000) further proposed a new
concept called:
‘Integrated Biodiversity Management’
(IBM) under which
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and
conservation ecology are integrated.
Role played by the biotic &
abiotic factors on arthropod
diversity
Rice field undergoes several
disturbances due to agronomic
practices such as:
tillage, irrigation, fertilization,
pesticide application, &
weeding, which influence the
biodiversity (McLaughlin and Mineau,
1995; Bambaradeniya, 2003).
Role played by the biotic & abiotic
factors on arthropod diversity
Weather factors such as
temperature,
relative humidity and
rainfall
also affect the population dynamics &
abundance of arthropods (Dyck et al.,
1979; Dale, 1994; Singh et al., 2000), which in
turn affect the biodiversity (Way and
Heong, 1994).
Biotic Influences
Predation, parasitism & disease
incidence also affect the arthropod
abundance in rice ecosystem (Ooi and
Shepard, 1994; Rombach et al., 1994;
Narayanasamy, 1998,2001).
There is an increased awakening
regarding the need for conservation
of arthropod fauna in different
ecosystems (Kim, 1993; Ghosh, 1996;
Kiritani, 2000).
Study on prey-predator relationships
& the influence of agronomic factors
• Gains importance while considering
the conservation perspective (Settle et
al., 1996; Drechsler and Settele, 2001; Sigsgaard et
al., 2001a,b).
• Application of organic matter forms
the key factor in the conservation of
generalist predators by enhancing
the population of the neutrals that
serve as alternate prey (Settle et al., 1996).
Objectives
1. To study the species composition of
agriculturally important arthropods in
rice ecosystems,
2. To quantify the biodiversity in terms
of species diversity, richness and
evenness using various indices,
3. To study the influence of agronomic
practices on the biodiversity,
4. To study the population dynamics of
important arthropods,
Objectives (contd.)
5. To study the effects of weather

factors on important arthropods,
6. To study the spatial distribution of
important arthropods,
7. To study the ecological succession
of important arthropods, and
8. To study the predator- prey
relationship among important
arthropods to promote integrated
rice insect pest management.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Biodiversity of arthropods in rice
ecosystem has received lot of
attention during the past one decade
(Way and Heong, 1994; Settle et al., 1996; Schoenly et al.,1998;
Kiritani, 2000; Bambaradeniya, 2003)
• This awakened interest is

largely due to the
occurrence of
wide range of insects,
arachnids and
other arthropods
that closely interact with
each other & help in the
stability of the ecosystem
(Cohen et al., 1994).
COMMUNITY TURNOVER OF TAXA (%TO)
• To estimate the succession rates of
fauna in an ecosystem.
• Schoenly et al. (1998): %TO increased
over the cropping season in the canopy
as well as the floodwater.
• Maximum difference in %TO occurred
during canopy closure & the reason for
the increase in %TO was due to the
difference between the taxa observed in
the earlier & the later stages of the crop.
ARTHROPOD POPULATION
in Rice Ecosystem
> 350 species of
insects attack rice
crop in India
• Only five species are
considered as major
pests
• Another four species
as minor pests
(Chelliah et al., 1989;
Gunathilagaraj and Kumar,
1997a).
Main Reasons for Pest Abundance
• Widespread planting of pest
susceptible modern varieties
• Closer planting
• Excessive dose of nitrogenous
fertilizer
• Indiscriminate application of
insecticides
• Rapid expansion of irrigation
systems, &
• Inadequate weed control (Kenmore
1980)
SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION
• Distribution patterns of many
arthropods,
within-plant &
between-plant,
are relatively unstudied for the paddy
ecosystem (Heong et al., 1991).
As such, it is difficult to design a
comprehensive IPM without adequate
information on distribution statistics
& parameters.
Weediness in Rice Fields &
Arthropod Biodiversity
• Rank abundance values exhibited
that GLH & BPH were the dominant
species in weeded plots.
• Among the natural enemies,
damselfly, mirid bug, spiders,
bethylids, braconids & coccinellids
were dominant in unweeded plots.
Kandibane et al. (2003)
MATERIALS AND METHODS
• STUDY SITES: Kancheepuram,
Tiruvallur, Vellore & Villupuram
districts in Tamil Nadu.
• Most studies confined to Kovur
village of Kancheepuram dt.,
where rice is raised in three
seasons:
• Navarai (January-April),
Sornavari (April - August) and
Samba (August - December).
STUDY SITES: Farmers’ rice fields:
KANCHEEPURAM dt. (6)
• Kovur, Vallam, Nanmangalam
• Malaiyambakkam, Girugambakkam,
Katrambakkam
TIRUVALLUR dt. (5)
• Budur, Kavarapettai, Venkathur-
Kandigai, Nandimangalam,
Narasingapuram
VELLORE dt. (1): Senthamangalam
VILLUPURAM dt. (1): Jakkampettai
Study Area in
Kovur Village
• STUDY SITES in Kovur: Not applied
with pesticides for over six years.
Observations in 5 seasons.
• SEMI-DRY: Vallam, Kancheepuram
dt. & WET: Budur in Tiruvallur dt.:
At least one season study was
made.
• Other locations (8 in 4 districts):

roving surveys (1 to 3 observations).
SPECIES COMPOSITION
• Surveys & collection of field
arthropods: hand collection, visual
observation, & net sweep collection;
Light Trapping
• Identification: All Arthropods were
grouped based on their taxonomic
order, & identified up to genera &
species levels, wherever possible.
• They were preserved as per
procedures given by Borror et al.
(1989).
Identification of Insects / Spiders
BY TAXONOMISTS AT:
UAS, Bangalore
Sacred Heart College, Kochi
University of Calicut
Annamalai University
PDBC, ICAR, Bangalore
IARI, New Delhi
Guru Nanak College, Chennai
St. Xavier’s College, Palayamkottai
Delhi University, Delhi, &
ZSI, Regional Station, Jodhpur.
BIODIVERSITY INDICES
• α or within-habitat diversity;
• β or between-habitat diversity
(Whittakar, 1972)
• Shannon-Weaver (1940) index
of diversity (H’)
• Evenness Index (vide Ludwig and
Reynolds, 1988).
• Relative-abundance curves
(Krebs, 1985)
Richness Indices
Hill’s Number 0 (N0)
Margalef (1958) index (R1):
R1 = S – 1
ln(n)
Menhinick (1964) index (R2):
R2 = S
√n
Rarefraction method (Hurlbert, 1971)
s
E (Sn) = Σ 1- N - ni N
i=1 n n
Diversity Indices
λ): (1949)
• Simpson’s index (λ
s
λ = Σ pi2
i=1
Shannon’s index (H’): (1949)
s
H’ = Σ (pi ln pi)
i=1
Evenness Indices
E 1 = H’ = ln (N1) (Pielou, 1977)
ln(S) ln (N0)
E 2 = eH’ = N1 (Sheldon, 1969)
S N0
E 3 = eH’ - 1 = N1 – 1 (Heip, 1974)
S -1 N0 - 1
E 4 = 1/λλ = N2 (Hill, 1974)
eH’ N1
E 5 = (1/λλ) – 1 = N2 – 1
eH’ - 1 N1 -1 (Ludwig &
Reynolds, 1988)
β Biodiversity Indices:
Index of Similarity
Jaccard Index of Similarity:
Cj = j / (a + b – j)
(Magurran 1988)
• Sorensen Index of Similarity:

Cs = 2 j / (a + b)
(Southwood, 1978)
INFLUENCE OF AGRONOMIC
PRACTICES ON THE BIODIVERSITY
Relative abundance (Krebs, 1985)::

No. of individuals of particular species x 100
Total numbers of individuals of all species
Pest: Natural enemy ratio
Community turnover of taxa (Diamond,
1969):
% TO(t) = 100 x [(a + b) / (c + d – e)]
Impact of soil application of carbofuran
on the biodiversity of predatory fauna
Field experiments: Navarai 2002 season
IPM field: FYM 20 t/ha; No chemical
fertilizers & pesticides.
Farmers’ practice field: One soil appln.
of carbofuran 3G at 6 kg/ha, 30 DAT in
standing water.
# Weekly observations on pests &
predators from transplanting.
# Experimental plot: 50-cents; 5 micro-
plots of 1 cent each; 5 hills per plot;
Total 25 hills / treatment.
Effect of fertilizer & carbofuran on
predatory arthropod fauna
# Sornavari 2002 season; ADT 43
# IPM field: Interplanted with Sesbania
rostrata in rogue spacing; FYM 15 M.
T/ha; No pesticide.
# Farmer’s practice field: No S.
rostrata; FYM 5 M.T./ha; Water surface
appln. of carbofuran 3G at 6 kg/ha on 65
DAS.
# Both fields applied with equal levels
of one basal and two top dressings with
N & K fertilizers.
# Weekly observations on pests &
predators on 25 hills.
Sesbania rostrata
interplanted in the
IPM rice field in Kovur
Stem nodules in
S. rostrata plants
in flowering stage
Effect of monocrotophos &
profenofos on predatory spiders
Navarai season 2003
Plot size 50 cents
Weekly observations on leaf
folder incidence & damage, &
spider population on 10 hills
from 30 DAS
First spray with monocrotophos
at 120 ml/ha on 35th DAP.
Second round with profenofos
at 120 ml/ha on 45 DAP.
Impact of neem oil on the
biodiversity of arthropods
• IPM Field: One round of neem oil @

900 ml/ac
• 50 double sweep net samples
• Specimens grouped into three
guilds, viz., pests, entomophages
and neutrals.
EFFECT OF WEATHER FACTORS ON
ARTHROPOD POPULATION
• Population in a 2000 sq. m. plot rice was
computed by taking weekly
observations on 25 hills
• Also during Sornavari 2003 season,
sweeping by sweep net was used.
• Correlation and regression analysis
• Different groups of spiders were
combined.
• Major pests & predators were kept
separately, whereas minor groups were
combined together.
WEATHER PARAMETERS
• Max. & min. temp., RH & RF
i. Weekly mean for temp. RH data, &
Ii. Weekly total rainfall
• Mean weather factors were used for
season-wise data as well as for all
seasons’ data.
• Extreme weather factors recorded
during the preceding week.
• Pest incidence over 5 per 25 hills
were alone considered.
• Worked out using index of dispersion
((Ludwig & Reynolds, 1988)(Ludwig & Reynold
• Pests or predators, which occurred at
least five times in a season, were alone
considered.
• Spatial distribution was measured using
the Index of Dispersion (ID):
ID = s2
-------- Significance of ID
2 = ID (N-1)
x
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
• Biodiversity indices observed in
different seasons and in IPM & non-
IPM fields were analyzed by ANOVA
(Snedecor & Cochran, 1967) using the
software ‘ANOVA Package for
Researchers’ (Version 7.01).
• Correlation and regression analysis
(Snedecor & Cochran, 1967) were done by
the computer software MS Excel.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
SPECIES COMPOSITION
SPECIES COMPOSITION OF DIFFERENT
AGRICULTURALLY IMPORTANT
ARTHROPODS
• 313 taxa of insects under 110

families & 15 orders
• 61 taxa of spiders under 16
families,
• 5 taxa of mites under 3 suborders
& 5 families
were observed in rice nurseries /
main fields in all locations.
INSECTA: HERBIVORES
• Orthoptera (grasshoppers),
• Hemiptera (black bug, orange bug),
• Homoptera (leaf hopper, planthopper,
whitefly),
• Thysanoptera (thrips),
• Lepidoptera (leaf folder, stemborer,
cutworm, skipper),
• Coleoptera (flea beetles, hispa), and
• Diptera (gall fly).
HERBIVORES
• Orthoptera: Oxya nitidula, O. fuscovittata, Acrida
exaltata, Eyprepocnemis alacris, Truxalis indicus,
Atractomorpha crenulata, Ailopus thalassinus
tamulus
• Hemiptera: Scotinophara lurida, S. bispinosa,
Menida histrio, Leptocorisa oratorius, Eysarcoris
guttiger
• Homoptera: Nephotettix virescens, Deltocephalus
dorsalis, Empoascanara indica, Sogatella
furcifera, Nilaparvata lugens, Hysteroneura
setariae, Rhopalosiphum nymphaeae, Bemisia
tabaci, Pyrilla perpusilla, Nisia nervosa
HERBIVORES (CONTD.)
Thysanoptera: Haplothrips ganglbaueri,

Stenchaetothrips biformis, Podothrips
lucasseni, Anaphothrips sudanensis
• Lepidoptera: Cnaphalocrocis medinalis),
Pelopidas mathias, Scirpophaga incertulas,
Mythimna loreyi & M. separata, Spodoptera
mauritia, Melanitis leda ismene & Psalis
pennatula, Amsacta lineola.
• Coleoptera: Chaetocnema concinnipennis,
Dicladispa armigera, Chaetocnema sp.,
Lema sp., & Monolepta signata
• Diptera: Orseolia oryzae
ENTOMOPHAGES: PREDATORS
• Odonata: Dragonfly & damselfly
• Hemiptera: Assassin bug, mirid bug,
anthocorid bug & water bug
• Coleoptera: Ground beetle, rove beetle &
ladybird beetle
• Dermaptera: Earwig
• Hymenoptera: Ant & wasp
• Orthoptera: Long-horned grasshopper,
cricket
• Diptera: predatory ephydrid fly
• Neuroptera: Ant-lion & owl fly
• Mantodea: preying mantis
• Odonata: Agriocnemis pygmaea,
Ischnura senegalensis, Pantala
flavescens & Diplacodes trivialis
• Hemiptera: Cyrtorhinus lividipennis,
Polididus armatissimus, Andrallus
spinidens, Proboscidocoris distanti,
Geocoris sp., Nabis sp.
• Coleoptera: Ophionea indica,
Micraspis discolor, Paederus
fuscipes, Brumoides suturalis,
Scymnus (Neopullus) hoffmani
• Dermaptera: Euborellia sp.
• Hymenoptera: Ropalida marginata,
Camponotus rufoglaucus, C. sericeus,
C. paria, Monomorium floricola,
Monomorium sp., Myrmicaria brunnea
• Orthoptera: Conocephalus maculates,
Euconocephalus incertus
• Diptera: Ochthera sp.
• Neuroptera: Palparus carinatus
ENTOMOPHAGES: PARASITOIDS
• HYMENOPTERA: Braconids,
chalcidids, eulophids, elasmids,
ichneumonids, mymarids,
pteromalids, scelionids &
trichogrammatids
• DIPTERA: Pipunculids, Tachinids

• HYMENOPTERA:
Paraphylax sp. (Ichneumonidae),
Gonatoceros sp. (Mymaridae),
Trichomalopsis nigra (Pteromalidae),
Telenomus sp. (Scelionidae),
Trichogramma sp. (Trichogrammatidae),
Calliscelio sp., Holoteleia sp., Lepto-
teleia sp. & Psilanteris sp. (Scelionidae).
• DIPTERA:
Palexorista solennis, Peribaea orbata,
Pseudoperichaeta insidiosa,
Blepharella lateralis (Tachinidae) &
Tomosvaryella oryzaetora (Pipunculidae)
NEUTRALS
• Diptera (chironomids, sciomyzids,
chloropids & phorids)
• Coleoptera (bruchids, chrysomelids,
curculionids, hydrophilids &
tenebrionids)
• Hemiptera (lygaeids and plataspid)
• Hymenoptera (bees & fig wasps)
• Lepidoptera (geometrids)
• Collembola (spring tails)
• Ephemeroptera (mayflies), &
• Psocoptera (psocids).
NEUTRALS
• DIPTERA: Sepedon sp. (Sciomyzidae)
• COLEOPTERA:
Apion sp., Nanophyes sp. (Apionidae),
Callosobruchus sp. (Bruchidae),
Cryptocephalus sp., Aphthona sp., Zygogramma
bicolorata, Phyllotreta chotanica (Chrysomelidae),
Sibinia spp., Ceuthorrhynchus sp., Myllocerus
dentifer, Xanthochelus faunus (Curculionidae),
Aeloderma sp. (Elateridae),
Calandra sp. (Rhynchophoridae),
Gonocephalum sp. (Tenebrionidae)
NEUTRALS
• HEMIPTERA:
Nysius spp. (Lygaeidae),
Coptosoma sp. (Plataspididae),
Clavigralla sp. (Coreidae)
Micronecta sp. (Corixidae)
Halys dentatus (Pentatomidae)
• LEPIDOPTERA:
Amata pasalis (Amatidae)
Grammodes geometrica, Spodoptera litura
(Noctuidae)
ARACHNIDA
• HERBIVORES: Acari: Oligonychus sp.
• PREDATORS: Araneae: 15 families; most

common were Araneidae, Lycosidae, Salticidae &
Tetragnathidae
Acari: Predatory mites: Amblyseius
longispinosus (Phytoseiidae), Lasioseius
parberlesei (Ascidae)
PARASITOIDS: Acari: An undet. sp.
(Trombididae)
NEUTRALS: Acari: An undet. sp. (Crypto-
stigmata)
• Biodiversity studies in India in
rice ecosystems by Premila et al.
(2003) & Singh et al. (2003).
• Biodiversity inventory of the

fauna associated with rice
agro-ecosystems in coastal
districts of Orissa by Behera et
al. (2003).
• Diversity of predatory beetles of
Karaikal region (Manisegaran et al., 2005);
• Spiders in Kerala & their seasonal
variation (Sebastian et al., 2005;
Sudhikumar et al., 2005) &
• Spiders in Gujarat (Kumar and

Shivakumar, 2005)
• Not many detailed studies are

available on the biodiversity of
important arthropods in Tamil Nadu.
SPECIES COMPOSITION
Li et al. The arthropods in paddy fields
included:
(2001):
2 classes, 13 orders,
China
95 families, 192 genera &
261 species.
Bambara- Arthropods were the dominant
deniya et group of:
al. (2004): Invertebrates comprising of
Sri Lanka 405 species, of which
55 species were rice pest
insects, &
>200 species were natural
enemies of pest insects.
ENTOMOPHAGES
ARTHROPOD NATURAL ENEMIES
OF RICE PEST INSECTS:
• PREDATORS: Spiders & insects
such as carabid beetles, aquatic &
terrestrial predatory bugs and
dragon flies
• PARASITOIDS: Hymenopteran
wasps & a few dipteran flies
Fungal infections
In grasshopper
(top) and
moth (bottom)
• Ooi and Shepard (1994): The
long histories of rice cultivation
in Asia have allowed stable
relationships to evolve between
rice insect pests & their natural
enemies.
• Insects as natural enemies in
paddy fields of Chongqing
region of China included:
• 7 orders, 27 families, 53 genera &
64 species (Li et al., 2001).
Anbalagan & Narayanasamy (1999):
Spider species diversity was found
to be directly related to the growth
stages of the rice plant.
Kandibane et al. (2003):
Arthropods exhibited greater
diversity during successional age
of crop.
New Records of Insects from rice
ecosystem during the study
Order Family Genus/species
Hemiptera Reduviidae Euagoras plagiatus (Burmeister)
Pygolampis unicolor Walker
Thysanoptera Thripidae Exothrips sp.
Hydatothrips sp.
Megalurothrips sp.
Coleoptera Coccinellidae Scymnus (Neopullus) hoffmani
Weise
Hymenoptera Chalcididae Dirhinus auratus Ashmead
Psilochalcis carinigena
(Cameron)
Hymenoptera Diapriidae Oxypria sp.
Elasmidae Elasmus binocellatus Mani &
Saraswat
E. Indicoides Mani & Saraswat
Encyrtidae Copidosomyia ambiguous
(Subba Rao)
Doliphoceras sp.
Eulophidae Hemitarsinus sp.
Platygasteridae Amitus sp.
Pteromalidae Norbanus sp.
Spalangia endius (Ashmead)

Hymenoptera Pteromalidae Trichomalopsis nigra Saraswat
& Mani
Scelionidae Calliscelio sp.
Ceratobaeus sp.
Holoteleia sp.
Leptoteleia sp.
Psilanteris sp.
New Records of Insects and mites from
rice ecosystem in India during the study
Order/ Family Genus/species
Sub order
Insect
Hymenoptera Braconidae Dolichogenidia sp.
Eurytomidae Eurytoma quadrispina Narendran
Mites
Acari
Mesostigmata Ascidae Lasioseius parberlesei
Bhattacharyya
ecosystem in Tamil Nadu during the study

Hymenoptera Bethylidae Bethylus sp.
Braconidae Ademon sp.
Orgilonia sp.
Ceraphronidae Aphanogmus sp.
Scelionidae Macroteleia chandelii Sharma
New Records of spiders from rice
Family Genus/species
Araneidae Araneus inustus (C.L. Koch)
Cyclosa sp.
Cyrtophora citricola (Forskal)
Neoscona elliptica (Tikader & Bal)
Neoscona nautica (L. Koch)
Argiopidae Argiope aemula (Walckenaer)
Clubionidae Oedignatha microsculata Reimoser
Corinnidae Castianeira zetes Simon
Castianeira sp.
Eusparassidae Heteropoda sp.
Gnaphosidae Zelotes sp.
Linyphiidae Atypena adelinae Barrion & Litsinger
Atypena spp. 1 - 3
Erigone bifurca Locket
Lycosidae Arctosa sp.
Lycosa madani Pocock
Pardosa amkhaensis Tikader
Pardosa mackenziei (Gravely)
Pardosa sp. 1
Miturgidae Cheiracanthium danieli Tikader
Oxyopidae Oxyopes birmanicus Tikader
Philodromidae Thanatus parangvulgaris Barrion &
Litsinger
Salticidae Bianor albobimaculatus Proszynski
Bianor carli Reimoser
Cosmophasis sp.
Epeus sp.
Hasarius sp.
Hyllus pudicus Thorell
Hyllus diardi (Walckenaer)
Salticidae Hyllus semicupreus Simon
Myrmarachne maratha Tikader
Myrmarachne orientalis Tikader
Myrmarachne sp.
Phintella vittata Koch
Plexippus petersi (Karsch)
Tetragnathidae Dyschirognatha hawigtenera Barrion
& Litsinger
Tetragnatha nitens (Audouin)
Tetragnatha virescens Okuma
New Records of spiders from rice ecosystem
in Tamil Nadu/India during the study
Theridiidae Achaearanea durgae Tikader
Coleosoma floridanum Banks#
Dipoena ruedai Barrion & Litsinger
Enoplognatha sp.
Theridion manjithar Tikader
Theridion tikaderi Patel
Thomisidae Runcinia sp.
# New Record for India

Fig. 2. Distribution of insects in rice ecosystems in N.E. zone of Tamil Nadu
P s o c o pt e ra
C o lle m bo la No. of families No. of species
E phe m e ro pt e ra
M a nt o de a
D e rm a pt e ra
N e uro pt e ra
O do na t a
Orders
T hys a no pt e ra
O rt ho pt e ra
D ipt e ra
Le pido pt e ra
H e m ipt e ra
H o m o pt e ra
C o le o pt e ra
H ym e no pt e ra
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
No. of families/species
Fig. 3. Distribution of spiders in rice ecosystem s in N.E. zone of Tam il Nadu
P hilo dro m ida e
M it urgida e
M e t ida e
G na pho s ida e
E us pa ra s s ida e
T ho m is ida e
O xyo pida e
Fam ily
C o rinnida e
C lubio nida e
A rgio pida e
Linyphiida e
T he ridiida e
T e t ra gna t hida e
A ra ne ida e
Lyc o s ida e
S a lt ic ida e
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
No. of species
BIODIVERSITY INDICES
BIODIVERSITY INDICES: α Biodiversity
# 3 Richness Indices:
Hill’s number (N0)
Margalef index (R1)
Menhinick index (R2),
# 4 Diversity Indices
Simpson’s index (l)
Shannon’s index (H’)
Hill’s diversity No. 1 (N1) & No. 2 (N2)
# 5 Evenness Indices (E1 to E5)
were used for quantification of
arthropod biodiversity
Table 3. Biodiversity indices of arthropods in rice field in Kovur observed
by visual count (IPM field) – Navarai 2002 (12th Feb – 17th Apr)
Indices Days after planting

9 16 23 30 37 45 61 66 73
Hill's No. (N0) 5 10 11 16 13 18 9 14 10
Margalef's (R1) 1.21 2.17 2.35 3.78 2.62 3.66 2.06 2.99 2.31
Menhinick (R2) 0.96 1.26 1.31 2.2 1.32 1.77 1.29 1.6 1.43
λ)
Simpson (λ 0.62 0.37 0.46 0.17 0.32 0.28 0.26 0.22 0.26
Shannon (H’) 0.83 1.42 1.34 2.21 1.67 1.9 1.69 1.92 1.71
Hill's Div.No.1 (N1) 2.28 4.13 3.83 9.16 5.32 6.66 5.43 6.79 5.51
Hill’s Div. No. 2 (N2) 1.62 2.73 2.15 5.91 3.12 3.59 3.84 4.55 3.78
E1 0.51 0.62 0.56 0.8 0.65 0.66 0.77 0.73 0.74
E2 0.46 0.41 0.35 0.57 0.41 0.37 0.6 0.48 0.55
E3 0.32 0.35 0.28 0.54 0.36 0.33 0.55 0.45 0.50
E4 0.71 0.66 0.56 0.65 0.59 0.54 0.71 0.67 0.69
E5 0.48 0.55 0.41 0.6 0.49 0.46 0.64 0.61 0.62
by visual count (Non-IPM field) – Navarai 2002 (15th Feb – 10th Apr)

12 16 23 32 37 45 61 66
Hill's No. (N0) 6 9 9 9 13 12 13 11
Margalef's (R1) 1.46 1.96 1.97 2.23 3.1 3.09 3.01 2.52
Menhinick (R2) 1.08 1.17 1.18 1.5 1.88 2.03 1.77 1.51
λ)
Simpson (λ 0.71 0.55 0.45 0.28 0.3 0.21 0.16 0.17
Shannon (H’) 0.7 1.07 1.28 1.65 1.77 1.96 2.16 2.04
Hill's Div.No.1 (N1) 2.02 2.93 3.58 5.18 5.86 7.13 8.68 7.66
Hill’s Div. No. 2 (N2) 1.41 1.83 2.21 3.56 3.31 4.69 6.31 5.89
E1 0.39 0.49 0.58 0.75 0.69 0.79 0.84 0.85
E2 0.34 0.33 0.4 0.58 0.45 0.59 0.67 0.7
E3 0.2 0.24 0.32 0.52 0.41 0.56 0.64 0.67
E4 0.7 0.62 0.62 0.69 0.56 0.66 0.73 0.77
E5 0.4 0.43 0.47 0.61 0.48 0.6 0.69 0.73
Navarai 2002
IPM FIELD:
• Richness Indices showed 3 peaks (30, 45 & 73 DAP)
• Diversity Indices: Maximum diversity on 30 DAP
• Evenness Indices fluctuated throughout the
season.
NON-IPM FIELD:
• Richness Indices remained low till 32 DAP &
reached a peak on 37 DAP
• Diversity Indices gradually increased & attained
the peak on 61 DAP.
• Evenness Indices E1, E2 & E3 showed increasing
trend in the cropping season.
• E4 & E5 fluctuated between 0.56 to 0.77 & 0.4 to
0.73, resp.
by visual count (IPM field) – Sornavari 2002 (4th Jun – 6th Aug)

11 18 25 32 46 53 60 67 74
Hill's No. (N0) 6 8 10 14 15 17 16 12 12
Margalef's (R1) 1.89 2.52 2.41 3.06 2.58 3.17 2.68 1.91 2.41
Menhinick (R2) 1.60 2.00 1.54 1.67 1.00 1.36 0.98 0.67 1.22
λ)
Simpson (λ 0.19 0.18 0.16 0.17 0.37 0.20 0.22 0.20 0.19
Shannon (H’) 1.71 1.89 1.98 2.12 1.45 2.04 1.89 1.85 2.00
Hill's Div.No.1 (N1) 5.53 6.62 7.27 8.36 4.28 7.69 6.63 6.37 7.36
Hill’s Div. No. 2 (N2) 5.16 5.57 6.17 6.03 2.72 4.96 4.64 5.08 5.28
E1 0.95 0.91 0.86 0.80 0.54 0.72 0.68 0.75 0.80
E2 0.92 0.83 0.73 0.60 0.29 0.45 0.41 0.53 0.61
E3 0.91 0.80 0.70 0.57 0.23 0.42 0.38 0.49 0.58
E4 0.93 0.84 0.85 0.72 0.63 0.65 0.70 0.80 0.72
E5 0.92 0.81 0.82 0.68 0.52 0.59 0.65 0.76 0.67
by visual count (Non-IPM field) – Sornavari 2002 (4th Jun – 23rd Jul)

11 18 25 32 46 53 60
Hill's No. (N0) 7 10 11 9 12 12 10
Margalef's (R1) 2.12 3.62 2.79 2.01 2.10 2.04 1.70
Menhinick (R2) 1.70 2.89 1.83 1.24 0.88 0.81 0.71
λ)
Simpson (λ 0.24 0.11 0.12 0.19 0.51 0.46 0.31
Shannon (H’) 1.65 2.25 2.22 1.84 1.15 1.30 1.50
Hill's Div.No.1 (N1) 5.19 9.52 9.18 6.31 3.15 3.68 4.48
Hill’s Div. No. 2 (N2) 4.19 9.00 8.20 5.27 1.94 2.19 3.27
E1 0.85 0.98 0.92 0.84 0.46 0.52 0.65
E2 0.74 0.95 0.83 0.70 0.26 0.31 0.45
E3 0.70 0.95 0.82 0.66 0.20 0.24 0.39
E4 0.81 0.94 0.89 0.84 0.62 0.60 0.73
E5 0.76 0.94 0.88 0.80 0.44 0.44 0.65
Sornavari 2002
IPM FIELD
• Richness Indices N0 & R1 reached peak
during middle of the season on 53 DAP
• 2 Diversity Indices H’ & N1 gradually
increased, reached a peak on 32 DAP
• Other 2 diversity indices λ & N2 reached the
peak on 25 DAP itself
NON-IPM FIELD
• Maximum Richness (R1= 3.62 & R2= 2.89)
was observed on 18 DAP
• Diversity was also maximum (λ λ = 0.11, H’ =
2.25, N1 = 9.52 & N2 = 9.00) on 18 DAP
by visual count (IPM field) – Samba 2002 (1st Oct – 10th Dec.)

12 19 26 33 40 48 54 61 68 76 82
Hill's No. (N0) 6 12 12 11 13 11 14 14 13 14 21
Margalef's (R1) 1.43 2.49 2.21 2.10 2.49 1.87 2.53 2.80 2.49 2.93 4.34
Menhinick (R2) 1.04 1.32 1.00 1.02 1.16 0.76 1.07 1.37 1.17 1.52 2.10
λ)
Simpson (λ 0.32 0.32 0.48 0.37 0.36 0.52 0.50 0.14 0.19 0.12 0.12
Shannon (H’) 1.35 1.65 1.27 1.52 1.60 1.19 1.28 2.24 2.00 2.29 2.54
Hill's Div.No.1 (N1) 3.85 5.19 3.57 4.56 4.96 3.28 3.60 9.43 7.41 9.87 12.65
Hill’s Div. No. 2 (N2) 3.08 3.14 2.10 2.68 2.80 1.94 1.99 7.40 5.24 8.37 8.09
E1 0.75 0.66 0.51 0.63 0.62 0.50 0.49 0.85 0.78 0.87 0.83
E2 0.64 0.43 0.30 0.41 0.38 0.30 0.26 0.67 0.57 0.70 0.60
E3 0.57 0.38 0.23 0.36 0.33 0.23 0.20 0.65 0.53 0.68 0.58
E4 0.80 0.60 0.59 0.59 0.56 0.59 0.55 0.78 0.71 0.85 0.64
E5 0.73 0.51 0.43 0.47 0.45 0.41 0.38 0.76 0.66 0.83 0.61
by visual count (Non-IPM field) – Samba 2002 (24th Sept – 4th Dec.)

8 15 22 29 36 43 51 57 64 71 78
Hill's No. (N0) 4 11 9 12 11 13 13 13 13 12 8
Margalef's (R1) 1.11 3.03 2.04 2.30 2.12 2.13 2.07 2.43 3.02 3.38 2.52
Menhinick (R2) 1.03 2.12 1.27 1.10 1.03 0.78 0.72 1.10 1.79 2.35 2.00
λ)
Simpson (λ 0.38 0.17 0.27 0.51 0.40 0.65 0.70 0.49 0.12 0.14 0.29
Shannon (H’) 1.14 2.02 1.67 1.27 1.39 0.92 0.75 1.24 2.28 2.22 1.65
Hill's Div.No.1 (N1) 3.12 7.57 5.31 3.55 4.00 2.50 2.12 3.47 9.75 9.16 5.19
Hill’s Div. No. 2 (N2) 2.65 5.74 3.71 1.96 2.48 1.54 1.43 2.04 8.24 7.35 3.46
E1 0.82 0.84 0.76 0.51 0.58 0.36 0.29 0.48 0.89 0.89 0.79
E2 0.78 0.69 0.59 0.30 0.36 0.19 0.16 0.27 0.75 0.76 0.65
E3 0.71 0.66 0.54 0.23 0.30 0.12 0.09 0.21 0.73 0.74 0.60
E4 0.85 0.76 0.70 0.55 0.62 0.62 0.68 0.59 0.84 0.80 0.67
E5 0.78 0.72 0.63 0.37 0.49 0.36 0.39 0.42 0.83 0.78 0.59
Samba 2002
IPM FIELD:
Richness Indices were initially very low on 5
DAP, but increased & fluctuated till 76 DAP and
reached the peak on 82 DAP.
Likewise, Diversity Indices were initially low
but fluctuated & reached the peak on 82 DAP.
Evenness Indices were initially high, but they
declined & reached the lowest during 54 DAP.
NON-IPM FIELD:
Richness Indices initially increased by 15 DAP
but declined & fluctuated till 57 DAP.
Peak diversity was attained on 64 DAP
Evenness Indices were initially high on 8 & 15
DAP and gradually declined.
by visual count (IPM field) – Navarai 2003 (18th Feb – 15th Apr)

17 24 31 38 45 53 59 66 73
Hill's No. (N0) 10 15 15 17 17 20 13 15 13
Margalef's (R1) 2.49 3.24 3.11 3.89 3.43 4.20 2.66 2.90 2.59
Menhinick (R2) 1.64 1.73 1.58 2.18 1.65 2.09 1.36 1.34 1.29
λ)
Simpson (λ 0.31 0.19 0.21 0.23 0.15 0.14 0.20 0.14 0.20
Shannon (H’) 1.64 2.01 1.95 1.87 2.26 2.38 1.96 2.18 1.96
Hill's Div.No.1 (N1) 5.18 7.50 7.06 6.49 9.57 10.84 7.13 8.83 7.09
Hill’s Div. No. 2 (N2) 3.27 5.29 4.75 4.31 6.82 7.21 5.03 6.91 5.02
E1 0.71 0.74 0.72 0.66 0.80 0.80 0.77 0.80 0.76
E2 0.52 0.50 0.47 0.38 0.56 0.54 0.55 0.59 0.55
E3 0.46 0.46 0.43 0.34 0.54 0.52 0.51 0.56 0.51
E4 0.63 0.71 0.67 0.66 0.71 0.67 0.71 0.78 0.71
E5 0.54 0.66 0.62 0.60 0.68 0.63 0.66 0.75 0.66
Table 10. Biodiversity indices of arthropods in rice field in Kovur
observed by visual count (IPM field) – Sornavari 2003 (10th Jun – 19th Aug)

15 22 29 36 43 50 57 63 71 85
Hill's No. (N0) 4 4 17 12 12 14 17 20 18 10
Margalef's (R1) 1.17 0.92 3.75 2.67 2.49 2.59 3.57 4.13 3.10 3.11
Menhinick (R2) 1.11 0.78 2.02 1.52 1.32 1.14 1.81 2.01 1.16 2.36
λ)
Simpson (λ 0.43 0.52 0.16 0.21 0.18 0.12 0.20 0.18 0.29 0.12
Shannon (H’) 1.07 0.89 2.18 1.92 1.97 2.25 2.03 1.93 1.79 2.22
Hill's Div.No.1 (N1) 2.92 2.45 8.86 6.85 7.15 9.51 7.64 6.88 5.99 9.17
Hill’s Div. No. 2 (N2) 2.32 1.91 6.16 4.87 5.49 8.02 5.04 5.52 3.39 8.53
E1 0.77 0.65 0.77 0.77 0.79 0.85 0.72 0.64 0.62 0.96
E2 0.73 0.61 0.52 0.57 0.60 0.68 0.45 0.34 0.33 0.92
E3 0.64 0.48 0.49 0.53 0.56 0.65 0.41 0.31 0.29 0.91
E4 0.79 0.78 0.69 0.71 0.77 0.84 0.66 0.80 0.57 0.93
E5 0.68 0.63 0.66 0.66 0.73 0.82 0.61 0.77 0.48 0.92
Table 11. Biodiversity indices of arthropods in rice field in Kovur during
different seasons observed by visual count
Navarai 2002 Sornavari 2002 Samba 2002 Navarai Sornavar F value
Indices 2003 i 2003
IPM N-IPM IPM N-IPM IPM N-IPM IPM IPM

Hill's (N0) 12.83 10.83 13.33 10.67 12.17 11.50 15.67 10.50 1.78 NS
Marg. (R1) 2.77 2.56 2.74 2.38 2.28 2.28 3.39 2.27 2.13 NS
Men. (R2) 1.53 1.59 1.43 1.39 1.06 1.17 1.81 1.32 1.43 NS
λ)
Simp. (λ 0.31abc 0.33abc 0.22c 0.28bc 0.43ab 0.45a 0.21c 0.27c 2.49 *
Shan. (H’) 1.71 1.65 1.90 1.71 1.42 1.34 2.02 1.71 1.97 NS
Hill's (N1) 5.76 5.56 6.81 6.05 4.19 4.18 7.77 6.29 2.01 NS
Hill’s (N2) 3.56abc 3.65abc 5.02a 4.98a 2.44 c 2.81bc 5.28a 4.80ab 2.35 *
E1 0.68 0.69 0.75 0.73 0.57 0.56 0.74 0.77 2.19 NS
E2 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.58 0.35 0.38 0.50 0.62 2.12 NS
E3 0.40 0.45 0.52 0.54 0.29 0.32 0.46 0.56 2.03 NS
E4 0.62de 0.65cde 0.73abc 0.77a 0.58e 0.66cde 0.68bcd 0.76ab 4.98 **
E5 0.53cd 0.55bcd 0.68ab 0.69ab 0.44d 0.49d 0.62abc 0.70a 4.29 **
Table 13. Biodiversity indices of arthropods in rice field in
Kovur observed by visual count (IPM field) – All Seasons
Biodiversity Seasons
Indices Navarai Sornavari Samba Navarai Sornavari F Ratio
2002 2002 2002 2003 2003
Hill's No. (N0) 12.83 13.33 12.17 15.67 10.50 1.62 NS
Margalef's (R1) 2.77ab 2.74ab 2.28a 3.39b 2.27a 2.75*
Menhinick (R2) 1.53ac 1.43abc 1.06b 1.81c 1.32ab 4.15**
λ)
Simpson (λ 0.31ab 0.22a 0.43b 0.21a 0.27a 3.03*
Shannon (H’) 1.71 1.90 1.42 2.02 1.71 2.43 NS
Hill's Div.No.1 (N1) 5.76 6.81 4.19 7.77 6.29 2.68 NS
Hill’s Div. No. 2 (N2) 3.56 5.02 2.44 5.28 4.80 2.67 NS
E1 0.68ab 0.75b 0.57a 0.74b 0.77b 2.97*
E2 0.45 0.55 0.35 0.50 0.62 2.46 NS
E3 0.40ab 0.52bc 0.29a 0.46bc 0.56c 4.79**
E4 0.62ab 0.73cd 0.58a 0.68bc 0.76d 10.39**
E5 0.53a 0.68b 0.44a 0.62b 0.70b 12.02**
ALL 5 SEASONS
IPM & NON-IPM FIELDS
• Richness: Richness Indices did not differ
significantly among the seasons as well as
between the IPM & non-IPM fields.
• Diversity: Only two diversity indices were
λ) &
statistically significant, viz., Simpson’s index (λ
Hill’s diversity No. 2 (N2).
• Between IPM & non-IPM fields, there was no
significant difference in diversity.
• However, among seasons, Samba 2002 had
significantly lower diversity than Sornavari
season. In 2003, no significant difference between
Navarai & Sornavari seasons.
Evenness
• Only E4 & E5 were statistically significant.
• Between IPM & non-IPM fields, there was no
significant difference in evenness.
• Among the seasons in 2002, Sornavari
recorded significantly higher evenness (E5
= 0.68) compared to Navarai (E5 = 0.53) &
Samba (E5 = 0.44) seasons.
• No marked difference in evenness between
Navarai & Sornavari seasons in 2003.
Table 12. Expected number of species E(Sn) during different seasons in
Kovur rice fields based on rarefraction method
Indices Navarai Sornavari Samba Navarai Sornavari

2002 2002 2002 2003 2003
IPM Non- IPM Non- IPM Non- IPM IPM
IPM IPM IPM
E(S48) 12 - 11 7 16 7 15 12
Actual 18 13 17 12 21 13 20 20
maximum no. of
species
recorded
Total no. of 104 48 156 186 100 281 92 99
individuals per
25 hills
RAREFRACTION METHOD
• Highest E (Sn) of 16 was recorded in the IPM
fields in Samba 2002.
• Lowest E (Sn) of 7 recorded in Sornavari
2002 season in the non-IPM field.
RICHNESS:
Margalef index (R1) & Menhinick index
(R2) were statistically significant.
Richness of Navarai 2003 season was
significantly higher than Samba 2002 and
Sornavari 2003
DIVERSITY
• Only Simpson’s index (λ λ) was
statistically significant.
• In 2002, Samba season had
significantly lower diversity than
Sornavari season.
• In 2003, there was no significant
difference between Navarai &
Sornavari.
Evenness
• Among the 5 evenness indices, all but
E2 were statistically significant.
• In 2002, Sornavari recorded significantly
higher evenness compared to Navarai &
Samba.
• In E1 and E3 indices the Sornavari 2002
was superior than Samba 2002.
• In 2003, there was significant difference
in evenness between Navarai &
Sornavari, only in the case of E4.
Vallam observed by visual count (Semidry rice-cv. BPT 5204) –
Samba 2002
Biodiversity Days after sowing
Indices 20 27 34 41 46 54 61 69 83 91 105 119
Richness
Hill's No. (N0) 7 7 5 8 12 17 19 15 12 20 15 16
Margalef's (R1) 2.52 3.23 2.55 2.9 3.52 4.54 5.1 3.34 2.65 4.32 2.82 2.54
Menhinick (R2) 2.13 2.77 2.28 2.39 2.51 2.92 3.26 1.85 1.51 2.21 1.25 0.84
Diversity
Simpson (l) 0.19 0.22 0.26 0.18 0.14 0.13 0.09 0.25 0.28 0.22 0.18 0.26
Shannon (H') 1.81 1.72 1.45 1.88 2.16 2.33 2.58 1.91 1.76 2 2.02 1.63
Hill's Div.No.1 (N1) 6.08 5.59 4.24 6.54 8.65 10.3 13.2 6.74 5.8 7.36 7.51 5.12
Hill's Div.No.2 (N2) 5.4 4.57 3.79 5.68 7.02 7.5 10.9 3.94 3.54 4.62 5.48 3.86
Evenness
E1 0.93 0.88 0.9 0.9 0.87 0.82 0.88 0.7 0.71 0.67 0.74 0.59
E2 0.87 0.8 0.85 0.82 0.72 0.6 0.7 0.45 0.48 0.37 0.5 0.32
E3 0.85 0.77 0.81 0.79 0.7 0.58 0.68 0.41 0.44 0.33 0.47 0.27
E4 0.89 0.82 0.89 0.87 0.81 0.73 0.83 0.58 0.61 0.63 0.73 0.75
E5 0.87 0.78 0.86 0.84 0.79 0.7 0.81 0.51 0.53 0.57 0.69 0.69
Nursery - Different locations
• Among the 10 villages, Kavarapettai
(cv. ADT 43) recorded the maximum
richness (N0 = 42; R1 = 5.25).
• It was followed by cv. ADT 36 in the
same village.
• Pesticide applied fields had lower
richness than the no pesticide fields.
• Lowest richness was recorded in the
pesticide-applied field in Malaiyam-
bakkam (cv. ADT 43) (N0 = 20; R1 =
2.82).
Table 15. Biodiversity indices of arthropods in rice
field in Kovur observed by net sweeps (IPM field) –
Sornavari 2003
Biodiversity Days after planting
Indices 15 22 29 36 43 50 57 63 71
Richness
Hill's No. (N0) 9 21 19 20 20 24 23 17 18
Margalef's (R1) 1.44 2.83 2.32 3.03 3.09 3.55 2.74 2.18 2.92
Menhinick (R2) 0.56 0.62 0.39 0.87 0.93 0.94 0.41 0.43 0.98
Diversity
Simpson (l) 0.64 0.31 0.29 0.17 0.15 0.18 0.45 0.69 0.2
Shannon (H') 0.83 1.48 1.43 2.01 2.15 2.14 1.23 0.84 2.03
Hill's Div.No.1 (N1) 2.28 4.38 4.19 7.43 8.57 8.47 3.43 2.32 7.64
Hill's Div.No.2 (N2) 1.57 3.24 3.42 5.79 6.69 5.58 2.23 1.45 4.95
Evenness
E1 0.38 0.49 0.49 0.67 0.72 0.67 0.39 0.3 0.7
E2 0.25 0.21 0.22 0.37 0.43 0.35 0.15 0.14 0.42
E3 0.16 0.17 0.18 0.34 0.4 0.32 0.11 0.08 0.39
E4 0.69 0.74 0.82 0.78 0.78 0.66 0.65 0.62 0.65
E5 0.44 0.66 0.76 0.75 0.75 0.61 0.51 0.34 0.59
Kovur observed by net sweeps
(Non-IPM field) – Sornavari 2003
Days after planting
Biodiversity Indices 15 22 29 36 43 50
Richness
Hill's No. (N0) 22 31 29 27 26 19
Margalef's (R1) 3.59 4.14 4.15 4.33 4.12 2.84
Menhinick (R2) 1.18 0.83 1 1.34 1.25 0.8
Diversity
Simpson (l) 0.35 0.5 0.36 0.24 0.19 0.26
Shannon (H') 1.57 1.29 1.57 2.01 2.14 1.84
Hill's Div.No.1 (N1) 4.82 3.65 4.82 7.44 8.52 6.32
Hill's Div.No.2 (N2) 2.84 2.01 2.79 4.16 5.19 3.8
Evenness
E1 0.51 0.38 0.47 0.61 0.66 0.63
E2 0.22 0.12 0.17 0.28 0.33 0.33
E3 0.18 0.09 0.14 0.25 0.3 0.3
E4 0.59 0.55 0.58 0.56 0.61 0.6
E5 0.48 0.38 0.47 0.49 0.56 0.53
Table 17. Biodiversity indices of arthropods in rice
nursery fields in different villages observed by net
sweeps – Sornavari 2003
No pesticide Fields Pesticide applied Fields

Biodiversity Budur Narasinga- Kovur Malai- Kavarapettai Kavarapettai Nan- Kovur Malai- Sentha-
puram (IPM yambakkam (cv. ADT 43) (cv. ADT 36) mangalam (Non-IPM yambakkam mangalam
Indices
Field) Field)
17-May-03 20-May-03 23-May-03 27-May-03 30-May-03 30-May-03 20-Jun-03 23-May-03 27-May-03 06-Jun-03
Richness
(N0) 29 29 27 29 42 35 27 23 20 29
(R1) 3.68 3.74 4.31 3.96 5.25 4.48 3.77 4.12 2.82 3.7
(R2) 0.65 0.69 1.33 0.84 0.85 0.79 0.86 1.59 0.69 0.66
Diversity
λ)
(λ 0.46 0.18 0.34 0.28 0.19 0.15 0.32 0.38 0.36 0.33
(H’) 1.35 2.08 1.73 1.82 2.16 2.26 1.77 1.7 1.35 1.71
(N1) 3.87 7.99 5.62 6.18 8.68 9.59 5.87 5.49 3.85 5.54
(N2) 2.19 5.41 2.93 3.54 5.35 6.48 3.14 2.66 2.8 3.02
Evenness
E1 0.4 0.62 0.52 0.54 0.58 0.64 0.54 0.54 0.45 0.51
E2 0.13 0.28 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.27 0.22 0.24 0.19 0.19
E3 0.1 0.25 0.18 0.19 0.19 0.25 0.19 0.2 0.15 0.16
E4 0.56 0.68 0.52 0.57 0.62 0.68 0.54 0.49 0.73 0.55
E5 0.41 0.63 0.42 0.49 0.57 0.64 0.44 0.37 0.63 0.45
Table 18. Expected number of species E(Sn) in
nursery fields based on rarefraction method
No pesticide Fields Pesticide applied Fields

Narasinga- Kovur Malai- Kavarapettai Kavarapettai (cv. Nan- Kovur (Non- Malai- Sentha-
Biodiversity Budur puram (IPM field) yambakkam (cv. ADT 43) ADT 36) mangalam IPM Field) yambakkam mangalam
Indices 17/05/03 20/05/03 23/05/03 27/05/03 30/05/03 30/05/03 20/06/03 23/05/03 27/05/03 06/06/03
E (S 209) 14 17 19 a 16 20 19 17 - 11 17
Actual no. of
species recorded 29 29 27 29 42 35 27 23 20 29
Total no. of
individuals per 50
sweeps 2020 1786 414 1181 2463 1974 981 209 847 1927
Note: a – the maximum possible value for n < {N – max

(Ni)}; for the current data n should be < 184 hence no.
of species worked out at E(S183)
Expected number of species E (Sn)
• Highest E (Sn) of 20 recorded in
Kavarapettai (cv. ADT 43) in no
pesticide fields (sample of n = 209)
• Also corresponded with the highest N0
of 42 recorded in the same field.
• Lowest E (Sn) of 11 recorded in the
Malaiyambakkam pesticide applied
field; lowest N0 of 20 recorded in the
same field.
Fig. 8. Arthropod guilds in rice nurseries in various
locations during Sornavari 2003
Ko v ur Pest Predator Parasitoids Neutrals

M a la iya m ba k k a m
S e nt ha m a nga la m
Ko v ur
M a la iya m ba k k a m
N a ra s inga pura m
B udur
Ka v a ra pe t t a i
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Population per 50 sw eeps
Table 20. Qualitative similarity indices between IPM and
non-IPM fields in Kovur village during Navarai,
Sornavari and Samba 2002 seasons
Season/ Similarity Indices (Weeks after planting)

Index
I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X Mean+ SD
Navarai 2002
Jaccard
Index 0.19 0.54 0.17 0.63 0.5 0.47 0.47 0.42 + 0.18
Sorensen
Index 0.32 0.7 0.3 0.77 0.67 0.64 0.64 0.57 + 0.19
Sornavari 2002
Jaccard
Index 0.63 0.5 0.75 0.44 0.42 0.53 0.63 0.56 + 0.12
Sorensen
Index 0.77 0.67 0.86 0.61 0.59 0.69 0.77 0.71 + 0.10
Samba 2002
Jaccard
Index 0.43 0.57 0.5 0.64 0.71 0.5 0.59 0.42 0.63 0.53 0.54 + 0.10
Sorensen
Index 0.6 0.73 0.67 0.78 0.83 0.67 0.74 0.59 0.77 0.69 0.69 + 0.09
β BIODIVERSITY:
Qualitative Similarity Indices
• Similarity of taxa between IPM & non-IPM

fields was tested using Jaccard & Sorensen
Indices. Sornavari 2002 recorded the
maximum mean similarity followed by
Samba 2002 & Navarai 2002.
• In Sornavari 2002, the mean similarity
values were higher than in Navarai & Samba
• Mean similarity indices were higher in
Samba 2002.
Devarassou & Adiroubane (2005)
studied the biodiversity of arthropod
fauna in IPM & non-IPM fields in
Karaikal
Species richness,
Diversity indices and
Evenness indices
were higher in IPM field than non-
IPM field.
In Kerala, species diversity was
low in Kuttanad rice ecosystem,
where pesticides were applied
rampantly
It was moderate in Trivandrum dt.,
where pesticides were applied
judiciously
It was highest in Pokkali in
Ernakulam dt., where no
insecticides were applied (Premila
et al., 2003).
PRACTICES ON THE
BIODIVERSITY
PRACTICES ON THE BIODIVERSITY
• Effects of different agronomic

practices, viz.,
fertilizer,
chemical pesticide and
botanical pesticide applications
were studied in Kovur during
Navarai 2002, Sornavari 2002 &
Sornavari 2003, & in Budur during
late Navarai 2003.
Table 21. Relative abundance of pests and predators
in rice fields in Kovur during three seasons
(Navarai 2002 – Samba 2002)
Weekly mean relative abundance (%)

Pests/Predators Navarai 2002 Sornavari 2002 Samba 2002
IPM Non-IPM IPM Non-IPM IPM Non-IPM
Pests
Brown planthopper 2.11 1.94 17.16 17.94 10.3 7.03
White-backed planthopper 0.16 1.94 22.97 49.51 45.55 67.01
Green leaf hopper 3.68 5.7 3.14 5.15 2.13 1.28
Black bug 1.02 1.08 0.89 1.66 1.53 2.92
Grasshopper 3.99 4.3 2.5 2.08 3.43 1.11
Predators
Web spiders 56.93* 55.16* 26.59 9.18 10.91 4.63
Jumping spiders - - 3.22 2.08 2.36 1.37
Hunting spiders - - 6.85 6.26 9.61 5.92
Mirid bug 0.55 0.86 7.74 1.53 3.96 0.86
Ophionea indica 0.55 0.86 1.29 0 2.13 1.72
Rove beetle 5.95 0.86 0.73 0.14 0.07 0.08
M icraspis discolor complex. 15.11 12.37 3.38 0.97 2.21 2.4
Fig. 4. Effect of carbofuran on spiders in non-IPM rice field during
Navarai 2002
14
12
Population per 5 hills
10
carbofuran
8
0
1 2 3 4 5 7 9 10
Weeks after sow ing
IPM field Non-IPM field

Fig. 5. Effect of carbofuran on Micraspis discolor in non-IPM rice field
during Navarai 2002
5
carbofuran
2
0
1 2 3 4 5 7 9 10
Weeks after sow ing
IPM field Non-IPM field

Fig. 6. Effect of fertilisers and carbofuran on rice fields in
Kovur during Sornavari 2002
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
0
1 2 3 4 6 7 8
Weeks after sowing
Planthoppers IPM Spiders IPM Planthoppers non-IPM Spiders non-IPM

•Reduction in the population of
spiders due to the application of
carbofuran has been reported by
Kumar and Velusamy (1997b)
• Fertilizers have been cited as one of
the major causes for the increased
prevalence of BPH (Abraham and
Nair, 1975; Velusamy et al., 1975;
Kalode, 1976; Visarto et al. 2001) and
WBPH (Majid et al., 1979).
Fig. 7. Effect of monocrotophos and profenophos on leaf folder
incidence and spider population in rice during late Navarai 2003
25
Population per hill or Damage (%)
Profenophos
Monocrotophos
20
15
10
0
30 37 43 51 65 73
Days after planting
Leaffolder number Leaffolder damage Spider

Several workers have reported
the toxic nature of
monocrotophos to predatory
insects and spiders (Patel et al.,
1997;Geetha and Gopalan, 1998,
Panda et al., 2002).
Panda et al. (2002) reported that
Profenofos was one of the safest
insecticides for spiders, which
was on a par with the control
(untreated check).
Table 27. Effect of neem oil* on the pests,
entomophages and neutrals of rice in Kovur
Population / 50 double net sweeps
Pre treatment Post treatment 10 DAT 17 DAT
Taxa 17.6.2003 (3 DAT) 24.6.2003 1.7.2003 8.7.2003
IPM Non-IPM IPM Non-IPM IPM Non-IPM IPM Non-IPM
Field Field* Field Field Field Field Field Field
22 DAP 29 DAP 29 DAP 36 DAP 36 DAP 43 DAP 43 DAP 50 DAP
Pests
White backed
planthopper 22 24 20 10 5 5 9 14
Green
leafhopper 22 11 56 24 55 26 36 17
Bemisia
tabaci
233 169 877 85 129 36 59 35
Thrips 276 45 759 21 65 18 29 27
Grasshoppers 2 15 9 19 9 21 23 14
Others 6 14 8 13 2 6 1 1
Predators
Spiders 25 9 22 8 13 7 1 5
Odonata 7 7 12 7 15 10 13 11
Parasitoids
Hymenoptera 25 57 60 23 90 38 78 66
Neutrals
Diptera 534 470 542 174 128 82 93 87
Impact of neem oil on Arthropods- Non-
IPM Field
Pre- Post %
Taxa/ Group
treatment treatment reduction
85
Whitefly 169 49.7
53.3
Thrips 45 21
Parasitic
57 23 59.6
hymenoptera
63.4
Dipteran flies 470 172
Effect of neem oil appln. in adjacent field
(Non- IPM field ) on Arthropods in IPM Field
Pre- Post
Taxa/ Group % increase
treatment treatment
233 877 73.4
Whitefly
276 759 63.6

Thrips
Parasitic 25 60 58.3
hymenoptera
534 542 1.5
Dipteran flies
Effect of Neem oil on Beneficial
Rice Arthropods
•Safe to Parasites & Predators – TNAU Neem oil
( Ragini & David, 2003)
•Safe to spiders and mirid bugs – NO 3% (Dash et al.,
1996); - NO:Urea 1:10 (Babu et al., 1998)
•Predatory spiders reduced by 43.5% in kharif and
27.4% in rabi – NO 3% (Shukla and Kaushik, 1994)
•Initial reduction of L. pseudoannulata and mirid bug;
recolonization better than in plots treated with
monocrotophos (Mohan et al. 1991)
Impact of neem oil application on
arthropods
•Neem oil reduces the incidence of
whitefly and thrips, it also reduces the
number of parasitic hymenoptera and
dipteran flies
•Parasitic hymenoptera reach the
pretreatment level 17 days after treatment
•In the case of the pests the effect of
neem is present till 17DAT
RELATIVE ABUNDANCE
• SPECIES RICHNESS & ABUNDANCE of
predator populations may be greater
than those of the pest populations,
when little or no insecticides are used
(Way and Heong, 1994).
• Bambaradeniya (2000) observed that
more than 50% of the terrestrial
arthropod species consisted of
predators, with spiders being the
dominant group in Sri Lanka.
POPULATION DYNAMICS OF
IMPORTANT ARTHROPODS
Table 38 & 39. Population of pests/predators in rice fields in
Kovur during five seasons (Navarai 2002 – Sornavari 2003)
Weekly mean population per 5 hills

Name of Pest/
Navarai Sornavari Samba Navarai Sornavari
Predator
2002 2002 2002 2003 2003
Pest
Brown planthopper 0.27 4.26 2.25 0.58 3.68
White-backed
planthopper 0.02 5.7 9.95 1.1 1.76
Green leaf hopper 0.47 0.78 0.47 0.32 1.32
Grasshopper 0.51 0.62 0.75 0.44 0.88
Predator
Web spiders 7.27* 6.6 2.38 5.59 3.04
Jumping spiders - 0.8 0.52 1.14 0.46
Hunting spiders - 1.7 2.1 3.3 3.68
Mirid bug 0.07 1.92 0.87 0.07 1.32
Ophionea indica 0.07 0.32 0.47 0.04 0.18
Rove beetle 0.76 0.18 0.02 0.09 0.04
Table 40. Population of pests in rice IPM field in Kovur
during Sornavari 2003 observed by net sweep
Jun-03 Jul-03 Aug. 03
Date 10th 17th 24th 1st 8th 15th 22nd 28th 5th
Days after planting 15 22 29 36 43 50 57 63 71
PESTS
Orthoptera
ACRIDIDAE 2 9 9 23 55 46 24 40
Homoptera
CICADELLIDAE
Nephotettix virescens 1 22 56 55 36 31 69 47 29
Leafhopper nymphs 3 22 34 15 6
DELPHACIDAE
Nilaparvata lugens 2 1 2 1
Sogatella furcifera 22 20 5 9 16 2 7
ALEYRODIDAE
Bemisia tabaci 4 233 877 129 59 8 9 1
Thysanoptera
Thrips 29 276 759 65 29 124 681 59 13
Table 41. Population of entomophages in rice IPM field in Kovur
during Sornavari 2003 observed by net sweep
PREDATORS
Araneae 4 25 22 13 1 4 2 6 3
Odonata
Damselfly 4 12 13 12 24 8 5 14
Coleoptera
Micraspis discolor
complex 2 2 12 36 26 35
Hemiptera
MIRIDAE
Cyrtorhinus
lividipennis 3 2 2 7 4 1
ANTHOCORIDAE 1 1 14 9 5
Acari
ASCIDAE 1 10 110 216 1960 1282 133
PARASITOIDS
Hymenoptera 10 25 60 90 78 86 133 40 16
Table 42. Population of neutrals in rice IPM field in
Kovur during Sornavari 2003 observed by net sweep
SCIOMYZIDAE 4 6 9 5 2
SYRPHIDAE 1
Other Diptera 201 534 542 124 87 25 97 19 36
BRUCHIDAE 1
CHRYSOMELIDAE 1 1
CURCULIONIDAE 1
HYDROPHILIDAE 1
OTHERS 2 2 2
TETRIGIDAE 1
CORIXIDAE 1
PSYLLIDAE 1 1
AGOANIDAE 1
Collembola 2 2 1
Acari
CRYPTOSTIGMATA 3 1 1
Table 43. Population of pests in rice fields in different
villages observed by net sweeps Sornavari 2003
Girugam- Nan- Venkathur Nandi-
Pests bakkam Budur mangalam Kandigai mangalam
Date 2.5.03 9.5.03 20.6.03 27.6.03 27.6.03
ACRIDIDAE 4 3 5
Nephotettix virescens 13 5 2 31 59
Zigzag leaf hopper 1
Blue leaf hopper 1 59 56
Cicadulina bipunctata 1
Other leaf hoppers 1
Leafhopper nymphs 48 33 34 271
Nilaparvata lugens 1 2
Sogatella furcifera 4 3 1 9 72
Bemisia tabaci 21 5 27 386 546
Thrips 189 62 19 505 296
PYRALIDAE 21 2 3 2
HESPERIDAE 4 1
Table 44. Population of entomophages in rice fields in
different villages observed by net sweep – Sornavari 2003

Entomophages bakkam Budur mangalamKandigai mangalam
Date 2.5.03 9.5.03 20.6.03 27.6.03 27.6.03
PREDATORS
Araneae 12 5 9 32 86
Odonata
Damselfly 17 8 5 6 6
Dragonfly 2
Coleoptera
Micraspis discolor complex 43 2 5 15
Cyrtorhinus lividipennis 7 5 5 8
ANTHOCORIDAE 8 2 1 1
Ant 1 9 5
ASCIDAE 2 189 202
PARASITOIDS
Hymenoptera 261 42 11 159 449
Table 45. Population of neutrals in rice fields in different
villages observed by net sweeps – Sornavari 2003

Neutrals bakkam Budur mangalam Kandigai mangalam
Date 2.5.03 9.5.03 20.6.03 27.6.03 27.6.03
Diptera
SCIOMYZIDAE 13 3 1 8
Other Diptera 248 56 122 1072
Coleoptera
BRUCHIDAE 3 1
CHRYSOMELIDAE 2
ELATERIDAE 1
HYDROPHILIDAE 3 1 3 2 1
CRYPTOSTIGMATA 14
Table 46. Population of pests in various rice
nurseries by net sweeps-Sornavari 2003
No Pesticide Fields Pesticide applied Fields

Narasinga-
mangalam
mangalam
Kavarapettai
Kavarapettai
(cv. ADT 43)
(cv. ADT 36)

yambakkam
yambakkam
(Field A)
(Field B)
Pests
Sentha-
puram
Budur
Kovur
Kovur
Malai-
Malai-
Nan-
Date 17/05/03 20/05/03 23/05/03 27/05/03 30/05/03 30/05/03 20/06/03 23/05/03 27/05/03 06/06/03
ACRIDIDAE 1 459 59 19 62 208 18 1 42
Nephotettix virescens 12 6 1 5 16 5 3 1 10 14
Zigag leaf hopper 9 6 1 1 13 11 5 1 12
Blue leaf hopper 5 4 48 46 1 1 1 3 28
Other leaf hoppers 1 4 1 6 1 16
Leafhopper nymphs 50 188 16 97 583 145 2 16 36
Nilaparvata lugens 10 1 1 7 2 1
Sogatella furcifera 75 3 10 1 1 2 6
Bemisia tabaci 121 72 3 153 77 47 129 6 241 159
Menida histrio 1 1 17
Thrips 54 113 10 89 53 15 60 17 102 318
PYRALIDAE 21 5 1 4 2 2 2
HESPERIDAE 4 1 5
Table 47. Population of entomophages in various rice
nurseries by net sweeps-Sornavari 2003
Narasinga-
mangalam
mangalam
Kavarapettai
Kavarapettai
(cv. ADT 43)
(cv. ADT 36)

yambakkam
yambakkam
(Field A)
(Field B)
Pests
Sentha-
puram
Budur
Kovur
Kovur
Malai-
Malai-
Nan-
Date 17/05/03 20/05/03 23/05/03 27/05/03 30/05/03 30/05/03 20/06/03 23/05/03 27/05/03 06/06/03
PREDATORS
Araneae 16 49 5 26 95 175 29 5 63
Odonata 12 3 14 1 1 1 35 3 3
Coleoptera
Micraspis discolor
complex 2 16 3 5 53 65 3 1 2
Ophionea sp. 1 52 1 7 37 116 32 1 1
Paederus fuscipes 8 3 4 40 4 12
ANTHICIDAE 1 1 4 2
Cyrtorhinus
lividipennis 5 4 2 1 3 2
Brown mirid 1 19 1 1 1 3
Ant 3 21 2 12 1 2 2
VESPIDAE 2 1
TETTIGONIDAE 16
TRIDACTYLIDAE 13 1
Acari - ASCIDAE 10
PARASITOIDS
Hymenoptera 267 188 37 97 361 445 81 12 22 87
Table 48. Population of neutrals in various rice nurseries by
net sweeps - Sornavari 2003

Narasinga-
mangalam
mangalam
Kavarapettai
Kavarapettai
(cv. ADT 43)
(cv. ADT 36)

yambakkam
yambakkam
Pests
(Field A)
(Field B)
Sentha-
puram
Budur
Kovur
Kovur
Malai-
Malai-
Nan-
Date 17/05/03 20/05/03 23/05/03 27/05/03 30/05/03 30/05/03 20/06/03 23/05/03 27/05/03 06/06/03
SCIOMYZIDAE 1 8 1 24 21 4 8
Other Diptera 1330 533 230 583 786 529 528 125 432 1041
APIONIDAE 1 1 1 31 32 1
BRUCHIDAE 3 5 28 2 1
CHRYSOMELIDAE 2 7 1 1 4
CUCUJIDAE 3 5
HYDROPHILIDAE 12 3 5 122 75 19 13 1
TETRIGIDAE 1 10
LYGAEIDAE 1 1 5
TINGIDAE 6
Collembola 24
Acari 2 2 25
Fig. 9. Composition and proportion of different groups
of guilds in rice nursery fields in Narasingapuram
during Sornavari 2003
Fig. 9e. Composition of guilds in Narasingapuram Fig. 9f. Proportion of guilds Narasingapuram
100%
1000
Population per 50 sweeps
80%
800
Proportion
60%
600
40%
400
200 20%
0 0%
Pests Predators Parasitoids Neutrals Pests Predators Parasitoids Neutrals
Guilds Guilds
Grasshopper Hoppers Whitefly Grasshopper Hoppers Whitefly
Thrips Lepidopteran pests Other pests Thrips Lepidopteran pests Other pests
Spiders Mirid bug Ladybird beetles Spiders Mirid bug Ladybird beetles
Other predators Par. Hymenoptera Other parasitoids
Other predators Par. Hymenoptera Other parasitoids
Dipterans Beetles Other neutrals
Dipterans Beetles Other neutrals
of guilds in rice nursery fields in Budur during
Sornavari 2003
Fig. 9a. Composition of guilds in Budur Fig. 9b. Proportion of guilds in Budur
1600 100%
1400
80%
1200
1000 60%
Proportion
800
40%
600
400
20%
200
0 0%
Guilds Guilds
of guilds in rice nursery fields in Kavarapettai during
Sornavari 2003
Fig. 9d. Proportion of guilds in Kavarapettai (cv. ADT 43)

Fig. 9c. Composition of guilds in Kavarapettai (cv. ADT 43)
1200 100%
1000
80%
800
60%
Proportion
600
40%
400
20%
200
0 0%
Guilds Guilds
Table 49. Comparison between net sweeps and visual
observation in Kovur during Sornavari 2003 season
Ranking among Relative
Taxa/ Group Total individuals the Taxa abundance Correlation
1 2 1 2 1 2
Net sweep Visual Net sweep Visual Net sweep Visual Coefficient
Pests
Oxya spp. 208 42 2 7 24.38 4.99 0.768
Nephotettix
virescens 346 64 1 5 40.56 7.6 0.306
Nilaparvata
lugens 6 182 7 2 0.7 21.62 0.45
Sogatella
furcifera 81 88 4 3 9.5 10.45 0.059
Predators
Spiders 80 351 5 1 9.38 41.69 -0.382
Micraspis
discolor
complex 113 49 3 6 13.25 5.82 0.717
Cyrtorhinus
lividipennis 19 66 6 4 2.23 7.84 0.479
Note: 1 Total individual for 50 net sweeps
2 Visual observations from 25 hills
Rice Arthropods
Beevi et al. (2003):
• Entomophages, viz., predators and

parasitoids, were the most
dominant group followed by
phytophages and then the
detritivores in transplanted rice in
six villages in Kerala.
NEUTRAL INSECTS
• Comprised 16.98 & 6.82% of the
total rice arthropod species in early
& late rice fields, resp. (Liu et al., 2002).
• BPH & GLH were the most
abundant pest species in 2 sites of
Orissa & Bihar, resp.
• Among the natural enemies, mirids &
spiders (Lycosidae & Tetragnathidae)
were the most abundant taxa in both
the states. (Chakraborty et al., 1990).
EFFECTS OF WEATHER FACTORS ON
Table 50. Correlation coefficients of weather factors vs. arthropods
interaction in rice ecosystem in Kovur Village (Navarai 2002)
Pest / Natural Max. Min. Rel.
Rainfall
enemy Temp. Temp. Hum.
Nilaparvata -
lugens -0.332 -0.363 -0.374
Nephotettix -
virescens -0.096 -0.077 0.057
Cofana spectra -
0.167 0.149 -0.139
Oxya spp. -
0.599 0.624 -0.242
Web spiders -0.719 -0.503 -0.183
Jumping spiders 0.835* 0.778 -0.548
Hunting spiders -0.849* -0.889* 0.531
Rove beetle -0.797 -0.61 -0.02 -
Micraspis -
discolor complex 0.758
*
0.719 0.016
Earwig -0.124 -0.163 0.176 -
interaction in rice ecosystem in Kovur Village (Sornavari 2002)
Rainfall
Sornavari 2002
Nilaparvata
lugens 0.006 -0.069 -0.331 0.023
Sogatella
*
furcifera 0.534 0.702 -0.241 -0.183
Nephotettix
virescens -0.196 0.058 0.172 -0.107
Oxya spp. -0.358 -0.332 -0.326 0.063
Web spiders -0.188 -0.111 -0.172 0.015
Jumping spiders -0.118 -0.277 0.336 0.893**
Hunting Spiders -0.079 0.233 -0.421 -0.107
Cyrtorhinus
lividipennis 0.136 -0.061 -0.488 0.086
Table 50. Correlation coefficients of weather factors vs.
arthropods interaction in rice ecosystem in Kovur Village
(Samba 2002)
Rainfall
Samba 2002
Nilaparvata
lugens -0.475 -0.515 -0.118 0.071
Sogatella
furcifera -0.491 -0.012 0.833** 0.920**
Oxya spp. -0.628* -0.509 0.263 0.186
Web spiders -0.324 -0.524 -0.131 -0.224
Jumping spiders -0.458 -0.059 0.204 0.26
Hunting Spiders 0.429 0.154 -0.234 -0.37
Cyrtorhinus
lividipennis -0.639* -0.849** -0.112 -0.099
Table 51. Effect of weather parameters on pest and predator
population in IPM Field in Kovur – Regression Coefficients
Pest/Predator vs Weather Factors Regression Equation 2
R
Navarai 2002
Jumping spiders (Y) vs Max. Y = -31.553 + 0.996X 0.697*
temperature
Hunting spiders (Y) vs Max. Y = 58.897 – 1.568X 0.720*
temperature
Hunting spiders (Y) vs Min. Y = 31.936 – 1.099X 0.790*
temperature
M. discolor (Y) vs Max. temperature Y = -125.341 + 4.05X 0.582*
M. discolor (Y) vs Min. temperature Y = -61.206 + 3.035X 0.516*
Rove beetle (Y) vs Max. temperature Y = 82.19 – 2.317X 0.631*
Sornavari 2002
S. furcifera (Y) vs Min. temperature Y = -918.925 + 34.973X 0.493*
Jumping spiders (Y) vs Rainfall Y = 1.773 + 0.174X 0.798**
Samba 2002
S. furcifera (Y) vs Relative humidity Y = -560.418 + 7.346X 0.695**
S. furcifera (Y) vs Rainfall Y = 17.105 + 0.529X 0.846**
1
S. furcifera (Y) vs Weather factors Y = -180.04 - 6.559X1 + 11.61X2 + 1.654X3 + 0.347X4 0.893*
Oxya spp. (Y) vs Max. temperature Y = 22.768 – 0.603X 0.389*
C. lividipennis (Y) vs Max. temp. Y = 34.783 – 0.966X 0.407*
C. lividipennis (Y) vs Min. temp. Y = 54.341 – 2.089X 0.722**
1 0.868**
C. lividipennis (Y) vs Weather factors Y = 99.97 – 0.69X1 - 1.504X2 – 0.459X3 + 0.004X4
Table 52. Correlation coefficients of weather factors vs.
arthropods interaction in rice ecosystem in Kovur
Village (Navarai 2003 )
Pest / Natural Mean Mean Mean Total
enemy Max. Min. Rel.
Temp. Temp. Hum. Rainfall
Navarai 2003
Nilaparvata
0.389 0.266 -0.697* 0.14
lugens
Sogatella
-0.225 -0.298 -0.129 0.192
furcifera
Nephotettix
0.197 0.165 -0.534 -0.195
virescens
Oxya spp. 0.126 0.158 -0.554 0.526
Web spiders 0.710* 0.633 -0.365 -0.031
Jumping spiders 0.956** 0.909** -0.289 0.111
Hunting spiders 0.061 -0.22 -0.465 -0.435
Micraspis
0.947** 0.932** -0.294 0.182
discolor complex
Earwig 0.893** 0.908** -0.354 -0.078
interaction in rice ecosystem in Kovur Village (Sornavari 2003)
Pest / Natural Mean Mean Mean Total
enemy Max. Min. Rel. rainfall
Nilaparvata
lugens -0.357 -0.545 0.606 0.445
Sogatella
furcifera -0.559 -0.364 -0.222 0.496
Nephotettix
virescens -0.272 -0.212 -0.274 0.643*
Oxya spp. -0.651* -0.567 0.319 0.472
Web spiders -0.308 -0.375 0.342 0.496
Jumping spiders -0.363 -0.5 0.197 0.264
Hunting Spiders -0.562 -0.389 0.071 0.384
Cyrtorhinus
lividipennis -0.629 -0.587 0.365 0.466
Micraspis
discolor complex -0.518 -0.464 0.551 0.048
Table 53. Effect of weather parameters on pest and predator
population in IPM Field in Kovur –Regression Coefficients
Pest/Predator vs Weather Factors Regression Equation 2

R
Navarai 2003
N. lugens (Y) vs Relative humidity Y = 28.731 – 0.369X 0.486*
Web spiders (Y) vs Max. temperature Y = -68.946 + 2.88X 0.504*
Jumping spiders (Y) vs Max. temperature Y = -88.529 + 2.801X 0.913**
Jumping spiders (Y) vs Min. temperature Y = 55.258 + 2.566X 0.826**
M. discolor complex (Y) vs Max. temp. Y = -151.588 + 4.757X 0.896**
M. discolor complex (Y) vs Min. temp. Y = -98.647 + 4.506X 0.868**
1 0.952**
M. discolor complex (Y) vs weather factors Y = -171.729 + 4.746X1 + 0.274X2 + 0.191X3 + 0.140X4
Earwig (Y) vs Max. temperature Y = -65.788 + 2.134X 0.797**
Earwig (Y) vs Min. temperature Y = -43.638 + 2.089X 0.824**
1 0.877*
Earwig (Y) vs weather factors Y = -28.635 - 0.188X1 + 2.183X2 – 0.152X3 – 0.140X4
Sornavari 2003
N. virescens (Y) vs Rainfall Y = 3.466 + 0.096X 0.413*
Oxya spp. (Y) vs Max. Temperature Y = 36.07 - 0.877X 0.424*
Note:1 - x1, x2, x3 and x4 are maximum temperature, minimum

temperature, relative humidity and rainfall, respectively
Table 54. Correlation coefficient of rice
arthropod fauna in Kovur Village during
Sornavari 2003 - IPM field – Net sweeps
Weather Oxya spp. GLH Bemisia Thrips Micraspis Ascid Parasitic Other
Parameter tabaci discolor mites Hymeno Diptera
complex ptera (Neutrals)
Max. Temp. -0.848** -0.435 0.468 0.133 -0.673* -0.503 -0.484 0.682*
Min. Temp. -0.904** -0.199 0.542 0.257 -0.775* -0.378 -0.235 0.739*
RH 0.451 -0.02 -0.575 -0.324 0.797* 0.396 -0.223 -0.451
Rainfall 0.688* -0.045 -0.348 -0.391 0.24 -0.219 0.172 -0.557
Table 55. Regression coefficients of weather parameters vs.
arthropod population in Kovur Sornavari 2003 Net sweeps
Pest/Predator/ Neutrals vs, Weather Factors Regression Equation 2

R
Oxya spp. (Y) vs Max. Temperature Y = 237.973 - 5.919X 0.718**

Oxya spp. (Y) vs Min. Temperature Y = 324.638 – 11.303X 0.818**
Oxya spp. (Y) vs Rainfall Y = 11.787 + 0.345X 0.473*
Oxya spp. (Y) vs Weather factors Y = 566.284 + 1.74X1 – 19.867X2 – 1.09X3 – 0.088X4 0.892*
M . discolor complex (Y) vs Max. temperature Y = 144.952 – 3.647X 0.453*
M . discolor complex (Y) vs Min. temperature Y = 213.188 – 7.521X 0.601*
M . discolor complex (Y) vs Relative humidity Y = -83.321 + 1.423X 0.636*
M . discolor complex (Y) vs weather factors Y = 375.199 + 3.654X1 – 18.473X2 + 0.11X3 – 0.302X4 0.886*
Diptera (Neutrals) (Y) vs Max. temperature Y = -1611.441 + 49.489X 0.465*
Diptera (Neutrals) (Y) vs Min. temperature Y = -2374.255 + 95.932X 0.546*
Table 56. Correlation coefficients of mean weather
factors vs. arthropods in rice ecosystem in Kovur
Village (Cumulative of all seasons)
Mean Mean Mean
Pest / Natural Max. Min. Rel. Total
enemy Temp. Temp. Hum. Rainfall
Nilaparvata lugens 0.235 0.177 -0.054 -0.056
Sogatella furcifera -0.317 -0.068 0.566** 0.725**
Nephotettix
virescens 0.364 0.332 -0.505 0.456
Oxya spp. 0.336 0.448 -0.287 0.023
All pests -0.137 0.133 0.306* 0.622**
Web spiders 0.074 -0.012 -0.271 -0.187
Jumping spiders 0.099 0.113 -0.118 -0.011
Hunting Spiders -0.078 -0.097 -0.167 0.034
Cyrtorhinus
lividipennis 0.471 0.368 -0.639* -0.263
Micraspis discolor
complex 0.236 0.223 0.049 -0.418
All predators 0.018 -0.045 -0.249 -0.119
Table 57. Correlation coefficients of extreme weather
factors vs. arthropods in rice ecosystem in Kovur
Village (Cumulative of all seasons)
Pest / Natural Highest Lowest Highest Lowest
enemy Max. Min. Rel. Rel.
Temp. Temp. Hum. Hum.
Nilaparvata lugens 0.27 0.189 0.033 -0.081
Sogatella furcifera -0.317 0.149 0.576** 0.525**
Nephotettix
virescens 0.479 0.34 -0.597* -0.416
Oxya spp. 0.267 0.429 -0.242 -0.097
All pests -0.053 0.088 0.399** 0.304*
Web spiders 0.069 0.164 -0.218 -0.265
Jumping spiders 0.123 -0.053 -0.046 -0.152
Hunting spiders -0.027 -0.232 -0.197 -0.127
Cyrtorhinus
lividipennis 0.418 0.401 -0.536* -0.584*
Micraspis discolor
complex 0.215 0.29 -0.15 0.114
All predators 0.028 -0.012 -0.193 -0.235
Fig. 10. Relationship between S. furcifera and relative humidity
(cumulative of all seasons)
160
120
y = - 117.59 + 2.208x
80
R2 = 0.321**
40
0
40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Mean Weekly Relative hum idity (%)
Fig. 11. Relationship between S. furcifera and Rainfall
(cumulative of all seasons)
160
120
80 y = 23.591+ 0.452x
R2 = 0.525**
40
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Weekly total rainfall (mm.)
Table 58. Regression Coefficients of weather parameters vs.
arthropod populationin Kovur – (Cumulative of all Seasons)
Pest/Predator vs. Weather Factors Regression Equation 2

R
Mean Weather Factors
S. furcifera (Y) vs Relative humidity Y = -117.591 + 2.208X 0.321**
S. furcifera (Y) vs Rainfall Y = 23.591 + 0.452X 0.525**
1 0.645**
S. furcifera (Y) vs Weather factors Y = -368.929 + 4.667X1 + 3.153X2 + 2.175X3 + 0.388X4
C. lividipennis (Y) vs Relative humidity Y = 85.194 – 0.936X 0.409*
Extreme Weather Factors
S. furcifera (Y) vs Highest relative humidity Y = -180.372 + 2.672X 0.332**
S. furcifera (Y) vs Lowest relative humidity Y = -50.385 + 1.488X 0.276**
1
S. furcifera (Y) vs Weather factors Y = -254.282 – 4.041X1 + 11.881X2 + 0.957X3 +1.306X4 0.535**
N. virescens vs Highest relative humidity Y = 31.275 – 0.272X 0.357*
All pests (Y) vs Highest relative humidity Y = -148.38 + 2.401X 0.159*
C. lividipennis (Y) vs Highest relative humidity Y = 90.614 – 0.88X 0.288*
C. lividipennis (Y) vs Lowest relative humidity Y = 60.672 – 0.696X 0.341*
Kalaisekar and Ramamurthy (2004):
The beetle diversity in rice

ecosystems of IARI, New Delhi
was similar in degree between
kharif 2000 and 2001 seasons,
indicating a significant
role of climate on species
diversity.
BPH - optimum temperature for egg
and nymphal development ranged
between 25 and 30oC (Kulshrestha et
al., 1974; Kalode, 1976)
Wet season and relative humidity
favoured WBPH (Tao and Ngoan, 1970;
Majid et al., 1979),
Rainfall was positively related to GLH
population (Ramakrishnan et al., 1994;
Mallick and Chowdhury, 1999)
High temperature had negative
influence on the egg hatchability
of Hieroglyphus sp. (Dale, 1994).
Lensing et al. (2005) observed that
rainfall had varied impact on
different groups of spiders, while
lycosids were unaffected;
thomisids and theridiids did not
show clear response but
gnaphosids were affected.
Spatial Distribution
• Brown planthopper and white-backed
planthopper recorded clumped
distribution (ID > 1.64) during 29.17% and
37.04% instances, - all seasons’ data
(irrespective of population level). Clumped
distribution was 71.43% and 63.64%,
respectively, when observations were
minimum of 1/ hill
• Green leaf hopper (92.59%) and
grasshopper (96.88%) had predominantly
random distribution.
Spatial Distribution
• Maximum clumped distribution
- mirid bug (21.05%) all
seasons’ data (irrespective of
population level) it recorded
100% clumped distribution
(when 1/ hill).
• All the other predators were

randomly distributed (>90%).
Table 59. Spatial distribution of rice insects and
spiders in Kovur during Navarai 2002
Index of Dispersion
Pest / Natural enemy 05-Mar-02 12-Mar-02 20-Mar-02 05-Apr-02 10-Apr-02 17-Apr-02
30 DAP 37 DAP 45 DAP 61 DAP 66 DAP 73 DAP
Pests
Brown planthopper - - 0.96 - - 1.4
White backed planthopper - - - - - 0.96
Green leafhopper - 1.46 0.92 - 0.83 -
Grasshopper - 0.92 0.88 0.96 0.96 0.92
Predators
Web spiders 1.07 1.2 0.84 0.89 1.17 1.17
Jumping spiders 0.96 - - 0.92 1.4 0.83
Hunting spiders 0.9 0.97 0.83 0.92 2.08 0.96
Rove beetle 1.61 1.88 0.96 - - -
M . discolor complex Adult 0.75 - 2.1 0.79 1.13 1.88
M . discolor complex Grub - - 0.92 1.58 0.75 -
Earwig - 0.88 2.08 0.96 - -

Table 60. Spatial distribution of rice insects and
spiders in Kovur during Sornavari 2002
Index of Dispersion
Pest / Natural enemy 18-Jun-02 25-Jun-02 09-Jul-02 16-Jul-02 23-Jul-02 30-Jul-02 06-Aug-02
25 DAP 32 DAP 46 DAP 53 DAP 60 DAP 67 DAP 74 DAP

Pests
Brown planthopper - 0.96 1.34 0.97 2.87 2.58 1.46
White backed planthopper 1.14 0.77 4 1.77 0.94 1.98 -
Green leafhopper 1.14 0.88 0.96 0.97 1.06 1.61 0.92
Black bug - 2.44 - - - - 0.96
Grasshopper - 0.92 - 0.96 0.79 0.77 0.92
Predators
Web spiders 1.91 0.73 1.62 0.79 1.29 0.99 1.69
Jumping spiders 0.96 - 0.92 0.79 0.83 0.88 0.89
Hunting spiders 1.05 0.69 0.82 0.97 1.25 0.77 0.97
Mirid bug - - 1.4 1.05 1.36 4.01 1.25
Rove beetle - 0.96 1.61 0.92 - - -
Ground beetle - 0.96 0.96 0.92 0.92 - 0.92
M. discolor Adult 1.14 - - 0.83 0.92 0.88 0.88
M. discolor Grub - - - 0.96 0.92 1.94 -
Table 61. Spatial distribution of rice insects
and spiders in Kovur during Samba 2002
Index of Dispersion
Pest / Natural enemy
19 DAP 26 DAP 33 DAP 40 DAP 48 DAP 54 DAP 61 DAP 68 DAP 76 DAP 82 DAP
Pests
Brown planthopper - - 0.9 1.14 1.56 1.14 1.58 2.24 1.24 1.25
White backed planthopper 1.48 1.97 1.49 1.37 2.55 0.72 1.56 2.21 0.96 0.92
Green leafhopper - - 0.92 - - 0.96 1.25 0.83 0.83 0.97
Black bug - - - 0.92 - - - 0.96 3.05 0.88
Flea beetle 1.14 1.25 1.92 2 0.92 - - - - -
Grasshopper 1.61 0.96 - 0.77 0.79 0.92 0.88 1.4 1.25 1.25
Predators
Web spiders 1.35 1.13 0.54 0.54 0.67 1.05 1.04 1.2 1.03 0.84
Jumping spiders 1.61 0.92 0.96 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.88 0.92 - 0.92
Hunting spiders 0.72 0.64 1.49 0.75 0.71 0.97 0.77 0.72 0.89 0.83
Mirid bug - - - 2 0.83 0.83 1.46 1.34 1.25 0.9
M. discolor complex Adult - 0.96 0.88 - - - 1.4 - 0.96 0.83
Ground beetle 0.96 0.96 1.4 0.88 1.4 0.88 0.96 0.96 - 0.96
and spiders in Kovur during Navarai 2003
Index of Dispersion
17 DAP 24 DAP 31 DAP 38 DAP 45 DAP 53 DAP 59 DAP 66 DAP 73 DAP
Pests
Brown planthopper - - - 1.49 1.75 1.4 0.84 2.44 -
White backed planthopper - 0.83 1.25 - 1.8 2.98 0.95 - -
Green leafhopper - 0.96 - 0.96 0.88 - - - 1.61
Grasshopper - - 0.88 0.96 1.25 0.83 - - 0.88
Predators
Web spiders 0.79 0.76 0.88 1.16 0.83 0.92 0.98 1.53 1.13
Jumping spiders 0.96 - 2 0.92 0.83 0.83 1.21 1.62 1.05
Hunting spiders 0.75 1.35 0.83 0.69 1.03 1.15 1.99 0.77 1.45
M. discolor complex Adult - - - - 0.96 0.97 0.84 1.13 1.15
M. discolor complex Grub - - - - 1.14 0.88 1.42 0.63 0.96
Earwig 1.61 1.61 0.96 1.14 1.14 0.83 0.84 1.46 0.77
and spiders in Kovur during Sornavari 2003
Index of Dispersion
29 DAP 36 DAP 43 DAP 50 DAP 57 DAP 63 DAP 71 DAP
Pests
Brown planthopper 0.96 0.92 1.04 1.49 0.88 3.98 4.63
White backed planthopper 1.05 1.25 0.91 2.71 1.81 1.25 0.92
Green leafhopper 1.58 1.13 0.79 2.11 1.4 0.79 1.83
Grasshopper 0.88 0.92 0.96 1.23 0.83 0.88
Predators
Web spiders 0.94 0.77 0.83 0.91 0.63 1.25 0.89
Jumping spiders 1.4 0.92 0.96 0.96
Hunting spiders 1.05 0.63 1 1.17 0.97 1.07 0.99
Mirid bug 0.96 0.96 1.4 1.79 1.25 2 1.25
M. discolor complex Adult 0.92 0.75 0.9 1.14
M. discolor complex Grub 0.96 0.96 1.76
Ground beetle 0.92 0.88
Table 64. Spatial Distribution of Rice Insects and
Spiders in Kovur (Cumulative of all seasons)
Pest / Predator % Random 1 % Clumped1 % Random 2 % Clumped2
Pests
BPH 70.83 29.17 28.57 71.43
WBPH 62.96 37.04 36.36 63.64
GLH 92.59 7.41 - -
Black bug 57.14 42.86 - -
Flea beetle 60 40 - -
Grasshopper 96.88 3.13 - -
Predators
Web spiders 95 5 93.33 6.67
Jumping spiders 96.77 3.23 - -
Hunting spiders 94.87 5.13 100 0
Mirid 78.95 21.05 0 100
Micraspis discolor
complex Adult 92 8 100 0
M. discolor - -
complex Grub 90.91 9.09
Ground beetle 100 0 - -
Earwig 91.67 8.33 - -
Random distribution observed in the
case of immigrant adults of BPH
(Hoppe, 1973; Kalode, 1976) as well as
during the early stage of the crop, but
clumped afterwards (Chen, 1976; Otake
and Hokyo, 1976; Dyck et al., 1979;
Kamal et al., 1995).
Kamal et al. (1995) observed the change
in the spatial pattern from random to
clumped distribution as crop growth
progressed in the case of other
arthropods such as GLH, mirid bug,
carabids and ladybird beetles
Dale (1994) reported that distribution
pattern of BPH and WBPH was different
with BPH following a clumped pattern
while it was not so in the case of WBPH.
However, Zhou et al. (2003) observed
WBPH to follow clumped distribution
even under low density.
Distribution pattern of the predators
particularly spiders corresponded with
their prey, viz., planthoppers (Ye et al.,
1982; Wang and Yan, 1989)
ECOLOGICAL SUCCESSION OF
Fig. 14. Ecological succession of Rice insect pests in
Kovur Village during Sornavari 2002
Vegetative Stage Reproductive Stage Ripening Stage
Brown planthopper
White backed
planthopper
Green leaf hopper
White leaf hopper

Zigzag leaf hopper
Black bug
Orange bug
Leaf folder
Stem borer
Skipper
Yellow hairy caterpillar

Cutworm
Grasshopper
Hispa
Flea beetle
Fig. 15. Ecological succession of Rice Predatory
fauna in Kovur Village during Sornavari 2002
Vegetative Stage Reproductive Stage Ripening Stage
Web spider
Jumping spider
Hunting spider
Mirid bug
Rove beetle
Ophionea indica
Micraspis discolor complex Adult
M. discolor complex Grub
M. discolor complex Pupa
S hoffmani
Earwig
Assassin bug
Preying mantis
Brown Planthopper
Sornavari and Samba seasons - 2 &
3 distinct peaks, respectively.
Maximum peak - ripening stage .
Two major peaks per year (July-

August & late November).
Fig. 22. Seasonal fluctuation of Brown planthopper
during different seasons
30
25
20
15
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Weeks after planting
Navarai 2002 Sornavari 2002 Samba 2002

Navarai 2003 Sornavari 2003
Fig. 23. Seasonal occurrence of Brown planthopper in a rice field in Kovur (2002-03)
30
Aug 5
25
20 Jul 30
15
Nov 26
10
Navarai 2002 Sornavari 2002 Samba 2002 Navarai 2003 Sornavari 2003
White-backed planthopper
1 to 2 peaks - Sornavari and Samba

seasons.
Peak population - reproductive stage
Two major peaks/ year (early to mid

July & early November)
Fig. 24. Seasonal fluctuation of White-backed
planthopper during different seasons
35
30
25
20
15
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Sornavari 2002 Samba 2002 Navarai 2003 Sornavari 2003

Fig. 25. Seasonal occurrence of White-backed planthopper in a rice field in Kovur
(2002-03)
35
Nov 6
30 Jul 9
25
20
15
10 Jul 15
Green leaf hopper
Reproductive stage supported
maximum peak population during
Navarai 2002, Sornavari 2003
seasons except Sornavari 2002
season - ripening stage.
Major peaks - mid-March & mid

to late July.
Fig. 26. Seasonal fluctuation of Green leaf hopper
4
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Fig. 27. Seasonal occurrence of Green leaf hopper in a rice field in Kovur (2002-03)
4 Jul 15
3.5
3 Jul 23
2.5
Mar 12
2
1.5
0.5
Oxya spp.
Samba 2002 and Sornavari 2003 -
peaks during reproductive stage;
Sornavari 2002 season: peak -

ripening stage.
2 major peaks/ year (mid to end of

July and end of October.
Fig. 28. Seasonal fluctuation of Oxya spp. during
different seasons
3
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Fig. 29. Seasonal occurrence of Oxya spp. in a rice field in Kovur (2002-03)
2.5
Oct 29 Jul 15
Jul 30
2
1.5
0.5
Spiders
3 peaks/season except Sornavari
2002. Highest peak - ripening stage
except Navarai 2002 (reproductive
stage).
2 major peaks/year (mid March to

early April & late July to early
August).
Fig. 30. Seasonal fluctuation of Spiders
25
20
15
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Fig. 31. Seasonal occurrence of Spiders in a rice field in Kovur (2002-03)
25 Jul 23
20
15 Mar 12 Apr 8 Aug 5
10
Cyrtorhinus lividipennis
2 peaks during Sornavari

seasons, but one peak during
Samba.
Maximum peak occurred mostly

during ripening stage. 1 major
peak/year (July).
Fig. 32. Seasonal fluctuation of C. lividipennis
14
12
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Sornavari 2002 Samba 2002 Sornavari 2003

Fig. 33. Seasonal occurrence of C.lividipennisin a rice field in Kovur (2002-03)
14
Jul 30
12
10
6
Jul 15
4
Micraspis discolor
1 peak in the crop growth period
except Navarai 2002 (2 peaks).
Maximum peak - ripening stage

in all 3 seasons.
2 major peaks/year (early April &

end July).
Fig. 34. Seasonal fluctuation of M. discolor during
different seasons
5
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Navarai 2002 Navarai 2003 Sornavari 2003

Fig. 35. Seasonal occurrence of M. discolor in IPM field in Kovur (2002-03)
6
Apr 10
5 Apr 8 Jul 28
3
Jul 30
ECOLOGICAL SUCCESSION
• Spiders were the first to colonize wetland
rice In Philippines (Reddy and Heong (199)
• S. geminata flourished within fields, not
only during the crop season, but also
throughout the dry season fallows &
aggressively predatory (Way et al., 2002).
• In Vadodara dt., Gujarat, maximum
population of spiders was collected from
rice fields during September than other
months (Kumar and Shivakumar, 2005).
ECOLOGICAL SUCCESSION
• The fauna recorded from the rice

field were observed to follow an
uniform pattern of seasonal
colonization and succession
during successive rice
cultivation cycles (Bambaradeniya et
al., 2004).
PREY- PREDATOR RELATIONSHIP
AMONG IMPORTANT ARTHROPODS
Table 72. Prey-predator relationship in IPM and non-IPM fields
during different seasons – Correlation coefficients
Navarai 2002 Sornavari 2002 Sornavari 2002 Samba 2002 Samba 2002 Sornavari
IPM IPM Non-IPM IPM Non-IPM 2003 IPM
Chrysomelid
Predator/ Prey
White LH
WBPH
WBPH
BPH
GLH
BPH
GLH
BPH
GLH
BPH
BPH
a a
Web spiders 0.751 0.560 0.912** 0.667* 0.983** 0.508 0.42 0.036 0.669* 0.209 0.086 0.748*
a a
Jumping spiders -0.553 -0.711 0.202 0.187 0.61 0.776* -0.063 0.372 0.158 0.432 0.788** -0.018
a a
Hunting spiders 0.102 0.860 * 0.55 0.612 0.628 0.396 0.805* -0.175 0.057 0.125 0.225 0.399
C. lividipennis - - 0.825** 0.092 0.369 0.747 0.343 0.730** 0.826** 0.162 -0.095 0.348
Rove beetle -0.308b 0.733b * - - - - - - - - - -
M . discolor complex 0.438b - - - - - - - - -0.142 -0.3 0.482
Ophionea indica - - - - - - - - - 0.53 0.817** -
Ear wig 0.715b * 0.220b - - - - - - - - - -
Other predators 0.167b 0.667b 0.750* 0.53 -0.181 0.441 -0.216 0.311 0.706* 0.699* 0.389 0.821**
aSignificance of r = 0.811 (5 %) and 0.917 (1 %) for 4 df; b Significance of r =

0.707 (5 %) and 0.834 (1 %) for 6 df. In other seasons the df did not
change; * significant at 5%; ** significant at 1%
Table 73. Prey and Predator Relationships in IPM Field
in Kovur – Regression Coefficients
Prey – Predator Regression Equation 2
R
Navarai 2002
C. spectra (Y) vs Earwig Y = 0.311 + 0.634X 0.511*
Chrysomelid beetle (Y) vs Hunting spiders Y = -0.844 + 0.469X 0.740*
Chrysomelid beetle (Y) vs Rove beetle Y = 0.846 + 0.183X 0.537*
Sornavari 2002
1
N. lugens (Y) vs Predators Y = 0.088 + 0.782X1 + 1.13X2 + 0.556X3 + 1.127X4 – 2.8X5 0.977**
N. lugens (Y) vs Web spiders Y = -8.498 + 0.903X 0.832**
N. lugens (Y) vs C. lividipennis Y = 8.795 + 1.303X 0.681**
N. virescens (Y) vs Web spiders Y = 0.937 + 0.09X 0.445*
Samba 2002
N. virescens (Y) vs Web spiders Y = -0.706 + 0.255X 0.447*
N. virescens (Y) vs C. lividipennis Y = 0.499 + 0.423X 0.682**
Sornavari 2003
N. lugens (Y) vs Web spiders Y = -24.105 + 2.796X 0.559*

2 Y = -12.811 + 6.12X 0.674**
N. lugens (Y) vs Other predators
S. furcifera (Y) vs C. lividipennis Y = 3.224 + 0.845X 0.430*
Note: 1 x1, x2, x3, x4 and x5 are web spiders, jumping spiders, hunting spiders, C. lividipennis and other
predators, respectively 2 Other predators include brown mirid bug, M. discolor complex, S. hoffmani,
reduviid bug, O. indica, black carabid, earwig, rove beetle, long-horned grasshopper, and ants.
Table 74. Prey and Predator Relationships in non-
IPM Field in Kovur – Regression Coefficients
Prey - Predator Regression Equation 2

R
Sornavari 2002
S. furcifera (Y) vs Jumping spiders Y = -19.931 + 24.776X 0.603*
N. virescens (Y) vs Hunting spiders Y = -1.438 + 0.735X 0.647*
Samba 2002
S. furcifera (Y) vs Jumping spiders Y = 10.956 + 41.281X 0.621**
S. furcifera (Y) vs O. indica Y = -13.737 + 46.605X 0.668**

Table 75. Prey-predator relationship in IPM
field (Cumulative of all seasons) –
Correlation coefficients
Interacting Pest/Predator BPH WBPH GLH
Web spiders 0.506** -0.018 0.371*
Jumping spiders 0.036 -0.043 -0.044
Hunting spiders 0.284 -0.013 0.378**
C. lividipennis 0.636** 0.135 0.299*
Web spiders + C. lividipennis 0.635** 0.042 0.397**
Jumping spiders + C. lividipennis 0.614** 0.117 0.272
Hunting spiders + C. lividipennis 0.627** 0.093 0.429**
Significance of r = 0.288 (5%) and 0.372 (1%) at 45 df.

Fig. 36. Prey - predator relationship between
N. lugens and web spiders
140
N. lugens population per 25 hills
120
100
80
y = - 2.706 + 0.656x
60
R2 = 0.256**
40
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Web spiders population per 25 hills
Fig. 37. Prey - predator relationship between
N. lugens and C. lividipennis
140
N. lugens population per 25 hills
120
100
80
60 y = 5.111 + 1.49x
40 R2 = 0.405**
20
0
0 20 40 60 80
C. lividipennis population per 25 hills
Table 76. Prey and Predator Relationships in IPM Field in Kovur
(Cumulative of all Seasons)- Linear Regression
Prey - Predator Regression Equation R2

N. lugens (Y) vs Web spiders + C. lividipennis Y = -4.456 + 0.609X 0.403**
N. lugens (Y) vs Jumping spiders + C. lividipennis Y = 0.999 + 1.365X 0.377**
N. lugens (Y) vs Hunting spiders + C. lividipennis Y = -6.253 + 1.085X 0.393**
N. lugens (Y) vs Predators1 Y = -5.832 + 0.368X1- 0.446X2 + 0.53X3 + 1.117X4 – 0.041X5 0.489**
N. virescens (Y) vs Web spiders Y = 1.671 + 0.081X 0.138*
N. virescens (Y) vs Hunting spiders Y = 1.041 + 0.201X 0.143*
N. virescens (Y) vs C. lividipennis Y = 2.946 + 0.118X 0.089*
N. virescens (Y) vs Web spiders + C. lividipennis Y = 1.755 + 0.064X 0.157*
N. virescens (Y) vs Hunting spiders + C. lividipennis Y = 1.430 + 0.124X 0.182*
N. virescens (Y) vs Predators1 Y = 0.121 + 0.087X1- 0.033X2 + 0.2X3 + 0.031X4 – 0.084X5 0.304**
Note:1 - x1, x2, x3, x4 and x5 are web spiders, jumping spiders,
hunting spiders, C. lividipennis and other predators, respectively
* significant at 5%; ** significant at 1%
PREY- PREDATOR RELATIONSHIP
• LONG TERM ECOLOGICAL

STUDIES in rice fields in Thailand:
• Importance of combined activity of
many different natural enemies, and
also that of non-specific predators
& parasitoids.
• Predators such as Odonata &
spiders were essential for the
control of some adult pests, & were
maintained on chironomids in the
absence of pests (Yasumatsu, 1983)
Correlation Frequency
• Between population density of
spider sub-community & BPH for 11
years, & found it to be +0.64 in
China (Liu et al. 2002)
• Spider population exhibited
significant + correlation with WBPH
population, whereas rove beetles
showed significant + correlation
with leaf folder infestation in New
Delhi (Chander & Singh, 2003)
• Predatory habits may vary from those with
a wide prey range as in the case of
spiders, rove beetles, earwigs and
carabids to that with narrow prey range as
in the case of mirids and ladybirds
(Reissig et al., 1986; Heong et al., 1991;
Settle et al., 1996).
• Application of insecticide in the non-IPM
field substantially affected their
relationship. Such detrimental effects of
insecticides have been already reported
(Kenmore et al., 1984; Ooi, 1986).
Summary
Species composition: 11 villages, 4
districts
INSECTS: 313 taxa; 110 families & 15
orders,
SPIDERS: 61 taxa; 16 families, &
MITES: 5 taxa; 3 suborders & 5 families.
Biodiversity indices: α & β diversity
Richness; Diversity; Evenness;
Rarefraction
Similarity indices: Jaccard index;
Sorensen index
Influence of agronomic practices on
biodiversity
Population dynamics – Visual count,
Netsweeps; Nursery & main field
Effect of weather factors on
important arthropods: Individual
seasons, all five seasons; mean
WF & extreme WF
Spatial distribution
Ecological succession
Prey- predator relationship
Future Studies Suggested
• Validation of data on a larger scale in
different rice ecosystems (Tankfed, delta
& well irrigated)
• To enhance entomophage diversity for
natural pest management
• To develop methods for the conservation
and enhancement of most promising
predatory and parasitoid fauna
• To undertake biosystematic and
taxonomic studies on the important
groups of arthropods
• To bring out a monograph on arthropods
in rice ecosystem
Cteniopus sulphureus
Thank you

Ecology and Biodiversity of Agriculturally

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ecology and Biodiversity of Agriculturally

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ECOLOGY AND BIODIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURALLY

IMPORTANT RICE FIELD ARTHROPODS

BIODIVERSITY of Plants, Animals,

5. To study the effects of weather

• This awakened interest is

• Other locations (8 in 4 districts):

• Sorensen Index of Similarity:

Relative abundance (Krebs, 1985)::

• IPM Field: One round of neem oil @

• 313 taxa of insects under 110

Thysanoptera: Haplothrips ganglbaueri,

• DIPTERA: Pipunculids, Tachinids

• PREDATORS: Araneae: 15 families; most

• Biodiversity inventory of the

• Spiders in Gujarat (Kumar and

• Not many detailed studies are

Order Family Genus/species

Order Family Genus/species

# New Record for India

C o lle m bo la No. of families No. of species

P hilo dro m ida e

Indices Days after planting

Indices Days after planting

Indices Days after planting

Indices Days after planting

Indices Days after planting

Indices Days after planting

Indices Days after planting

Indices Days after planting

IPM N-IPM IPM N-IPM IPM N-IPM IPM IPM

Indices Navarai Sornavari Samba Navarai Sornavari

No pesticide Fields Pesticide applied Fields

No pesticide Fields Pesticide applied Fields

Note: a – the maximum possible value for n < {N – max

Ko v ur Pest Predator Parasitoids Neutrals

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Season/ Similarity Indices (Weeks after planting)

• Similarity of taxa between IPM & non-IPM

• Effects of different agronomic

Weekly mean relative abundance (%)

IPM field Non-IPM field

IPM field Non-IPM field

Planthoppers IPM Spiders IPM Planthoppers non-IPM Spiders non-IPM

Leaffolder number Leaffolder damage Spider

276 759 63.6

Weekly mean population per 5 hills

Girugam- Nan- Venkathur Nandi-

Girugam- Nan- Venkathur Nandi-

No Pesticide Fields Pesticide applied Fields

(cv. ADT 36)

(cv. ADT 36)

No Pesticide Fields Pesticide applied Fields

(cv. ADT 36)

Pests Predators Parasitoids Neutrals Pests Predators Parasitoids Neutrals

Fig. 9d. Proportion of guilds in Kavarapettai (cv. ADT 43)

Beevi et al. (2003):

• Entomophages, viz., predators and

Pest/Predator vs Weather Factors Regression Equation 2

Note:1 - x1, x2, x3 and x4 are maximum temperature, minimum

Pest/Predator/ Neutrals vs, Weather Factors Regression Equation 2

Oxya spp. (Y) vs Max. Temperature Y = 237.973 - 5.919X 0.718**

Pest/Predator vs. Weather Factors Regression Equation 2

The beetle diversity in rice

Web spiders + C. lividipennis 0.635 0.042 0.397

Hunting spiders + C. lividipennis 0.627 0.093 0.429