Effects of Various Agroecosystem Landscape on Arthropod Diversity: A Study Case in Kemiri Village, Jember, Indonesia

(1)

http://dx.doi.org/10.11594/jtls.12.03.14

How to cite:

Research Article

Effects of Various Agroecosystem Landscape on Arthropod Diversity: A Study Case in Kemiri Village, Jember, Indonesia

Agung Sih Kurnianto ¹*, Nilasari Dewi ¹, Ahmad Ilham Tanzil ¹, Wildan Muhlison¹, Nur Laila Magvira ¹, Luhur Septiadi ²

1 Agrotechnology Study Program, Agriculture Faculty, University of Jember, 68121, Indonesia

2 Department of Biology, Faculty of Science, Chulalongkorn University, Pathumwan 10330, Bangkok, Thailand

Article history:

Submission July 2022 Revised July 2022 Accepted August 2022

ABSTRACT

Agroecosystem landscapes have been studied extensively and it is known that there is a relationship between the spatial structure and the ecological processes. The composition of arthropods in the agroecosystem shows population differences that are closely related to the location. This study aims to isolate and analyze the interactions of arthropods and landscape structures and features of different agroecosystems landscapes in Kemiri, Jember, Indonesia. The plot method (20x20 m and 1x1 m dimension) was carried out to observe seedling, sapling, and tree (seedling h = 0-1.5 m, sapling h ≥ 1.5 m, tree D > 20 cm). The trees' species name, distance, number, and DBH were collected. Arthropods were sampled using PFT and SN methods. A vial (d=5 cm) was used for PFT, and SN was applied at a distance of 1x10 meters with 3 repetitions. Plants with the role of weeds in monoculture dominate (TA=45). Droso- philidae is the most recorded family in monoculture. Polyculture and agroforestry systems increased the diversity of arthropods in the vegetation, and Formicidae predom- inated by PFT (TA=28% and 81%, respectively). PCA shows the role of detrivores is mostly found in agroforestry, and herbivores dominate the monoculture. CCA shows that detrivore association in agroforestry is influenced by humidity, and herbivores are particularly interested in monoculture systems that provide high light, temperature, and wind intensity.

Keywords: Agroforestry, Arthropods, Effects, Monoculture, Polyculture

*Corresponding author:

E-mail: agung.sih.kurnianto@- unej.ac.id

Introduction

Kemiri Village (-8.616667 S, 113.5767 E), located on the slopes of the Argopuro Mountains, East Java, is very vulnerable to ecological disasters. In 2006 and 2022, there were major floods that swept the village. One of the causes is the loss of the original landscape structure and conversion to agricultural areas. However, hedge plants can survive and reduce damage to commodities.

According to the farmers, rice fields and poly- cultures without hedgerows are highly threatened by erosion, while agroforestry systems survive. It is highly suspected that management differences also significantly impact diversity. Research on the ecological impacts of landscape changes, especially in vulnerable areas, is very important and promises to provide recommenda-tions for

preventing environmental disasters. Species' spatial and temporal distribution is always related to various ecological factors and changing landscape structures. Many authors have focused on this, such as the presence of disturbance, success- ion, and various physical conditions [1]. Changes in agroecosystem systems are always expected to link agronomic and ecological needs [2].

Agroecosystem landscapes have been studied extensively, and it is known that there is a relationship between the spatial structure and the ecological processes within it [3]. Previous studies have used the diversity of soil arthropods to demon- strate their sensitivity to landscape structu-res [4].

The composition of arthropods in the agroecosystem shows population differences that are closely

(2)

diversity has an impact on the diversity of arthropods. Natural enemy richness increased dramatically and tended to be stable over longer distance variations compared to land with less diverse vegetation areas. Hedgerows significantly affect pest reduction, natural enemy enhancement, and diversity stability over longer distances. There is little overlap between the roles of arthropods that can be found in the center and the edges that are directly adjacent to other vegetation [5]. The loss of hedgerows results in the isolation of several arthropod populations and an imbalance of roles [6].

In Indonesia, the vegetation diversity in hedgerows is mostly replaced by heterogeneous management, such as polyculture and complex agroforestry. However, previous studies have not observed the impact of integrating multiple landscapes due to different management and arthropod diversity. This study aims to isolate and analyze the interactions of arthropods and land-scape structures and features of various agroecosystem landscapes in Kemiri, Jember, Indonesia.

Material and Methods Study area

The Kemiri Landscape is an agricultural area with commodities of corn (Zea mays), albizia (Al- bizia chinensis), and horticulture, most of them are surrounded by hedgerows. This area was previ- ously affected by flooding and this study is pro- jected to be able to illustrate the recommen-dation of the importance of vegetation diversity for the resilience of agroecosystems. The study area con- sists of corn monoculture, polyculture, and agroforestry. Corn is planted with 80x25 cm dimension in monoculture. Polyculture is managed with several types of commodities and vegetation levels.

Agroforestry is managed with commodities at the tree level (Albizia).

Vegetation and arthropods sampling

A vegetation analysis was carried out to determine the character of the landscape. The plot with a 20x20 m and 1x1 m observation area was carried out to cover all vegetation structures (seedling h=0-1.5 m, sapling h≥1.5 m, tree D>20 cm). The species name, distance, abundance, and DBH (for trees) were collected. A two-dimen- sional area picture is provided by species location, distance, and degrees. Microclimate physical data

also collected to provide a broad picture of the interaction of physical factors with the landscape and arthropods.

Arthropods were sampled using the pitfall trap (PFT) and sweep net (SN) methods. PFT is used to collect ground-walking arthropods, and a sweep net is used to collect flying arthropods or live in vegetation [7]. PFT was applied with 3 repetitions on the edges and the center of the land. A vial with a mouth diameter of 5 cm was used with alcohol and soap as a fixative and preservative solution.

Samples were taken after 24 hours and carried out for identification and inventory in the laboratory.

A sweep net was applied with a distance of 1x10 meters with 3 repetitions on the edge and center of the land. Samples were transferred to bottles containing 70% ethanol, then identified and inventoried in the laboratory [8].

Data analysis

Vegetation data were analyzed using Microsoft Excel to provide abundance and Important Value Index (IVI). Arthropod data were analyzed using Microsoft Excel and PAST3 to provide an overview of relative abundance and the Bray-Curtis similarity index (see Formula 1).

Arthropod preferences for landscapes are provided through Principal Component Analysis (PCA).

Then, with physical factors, they are analyzed to reveal the influence and preference through Canonical Correspondence Analysis (CCA).

𝐼𝐵𝐶 = 1 −^{∑|𝑋𝑖−𝑌𝑖|}

∑|𝑋𝑖+𝑌𝑖| ………... (1) Keys

IBC : Bray-Curtis Similarity Index Xi : Arthropod abundance in habitat 1 Yi : Arthropod abundance in habitat 2 Results and Discussion

The analysis results show that different vegetation types are recorded in the 3 landscapes (Fig- ure 1). In corn monoculture, only seedling type was recorded. In a study plot, there are only 5 in- dividuals of corn as a commodity. Mono-culture is dominated by weeds (TA=45). Polyculture is dominated by seedlings as a crop (TA =101).

Then, seedling as a weed (TA=42), and tree as crop (TA=21). In agroforestry, trees are the dominant vegetation (TA=143). Uniquely, the seedling

(3)

type has a fairly large population as refugia (TA

=36), and then with the lowest population as a weed (TA=7).

Drosophilidae is the most recorded family in monoculture, both through PFT and SN. This illustrates that Drosophilidae, as herbivores, bene- fits from the presence of corn in very large numbers. Drosophilidae exists to benefit from the spoilage process that occurs in corn, where this process makes the fruit easy to eat. These conditions are suitable for laying eggs, thus triggering more widespread fruit rot [9]. Polyculture describes Formicidae as the dominant family by PFT, while Pyrgomorphidae through SN. Formicidae has an ecological role as omnivores which are commonly found in polyculture. This role su- pports a progressive transitional character between monoculture landscapes towards vegeta-tion complexity, such as in polyculture landscapes [10].

Pyrgomorphidae, which are mostly collected, are herbivores that also appear in heterogeneous vegetation. Although it has the potential to damage plants, generally, Pyrgo-morphidae is not the main pests. Pyrgomorphidae mostly inhabits seedling vegetation. This herbivorous family gets its food from the diversity of polyculture vegetation [11].

Formicidae also became the arthropods with the highest population in agroforestry landscapes collected by PFT. Gryllidae is the detrivore that has the highest population collected through SN. This family is strongly influenced by vegetation and litter [10].

The Bray-Curtis Similarity Index shows that

the management of Polyculture and Agroforestry has an impact on the high similarity of soil arthropod diversity (Figure 2). Both are also very different from the soil arthropod characters in monoculture landscapes. However, the results of the sweeping net show that polyculture and mono-culture landscapes have a close relationship, while agroforestry does not. Soil arthropods are stronger in describing landscape characters. Ecological events, such as decay, decreased temperature and increased humidity due to dense vegetation, are recorded more clearly through the character of soil arthropods [13]. As recorded by sweep net, arthropods with local migration capacity cannot describe the landscape character well. This is due to its abil- ity to avoid changing landscapes [14, 15].

The differences recorded by the two collection methods can be seen clearly with PCA. The PCA shows the role groupings of the families in the landscape (Figure 3). All families with various roles are not mutually exclusive. This illustrates that detrivore, carnivore, and herbivore can be found in all landscapes. This analysis also shows that some landscapes are preferred by arthropod families as habitats. Agroforestry, both by pitfall and sweep net, shows its suitability as a Detrivore habitat. Herbivore Arthropods are commonly found in monoculture landscapes. Carnivore has a small population in all types of study landscapes.

However, the population follows its prey in monoculture and polyculture landscapes. Polyculture, which is a transitional form, has a fairly abundant herbivore population compared to agroforestry.

Figure 1. Comparison of total abundance in vegetation classification and the ecological role of plants in the landscape. Notes: C=Crop; RP=Refugia Potential; W=Weed.

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

W RP C C C

SeedlingSaplingTree

Total Abundance (TA)

Agroforestry Polyculture Monoculture

(4)

Corn commodity which is managed in monoculture, has the potential to be the main factor in the emergence of large herbivores. The type of agroforestry management impacts the emergence of large numbers of Detrivores. The more ecolo-gi- cally stable agroforestry habitat spaces tend to bal- ance arthropod populations with multiple roles

[16]. Albizia communities and other trees in large numbers in agroforestry provide large amounts of litter and organic material on the agroecosystem floor so that detrivor arthropods appear in large numbers and play a role in the decomposition process of these materials [12].

The relationship between the arthropod re- Table 1. The average results of microclimate physical measurement at the study sites

Parameters Corn Monoculture Polyculture Agroforestry

Temperature (^oC) 30 29 27

Wind (Km/Hours) 9 9 7

UV Index 8 (Very high) 6 (High) 1 (Very low)

Humidty (%) 63 63 72

Figure 2. An overview of the study landscape representation with 3 types of management (size 15x6m), relative abundance pie graph and a Bray-Curtis simmiliarity index dendrogram with 2 collection methods.

Image Caption: a. Lemongrass (Cymbopogon citratus), b. Taro (Colocasia esculenta), c. Albizia (Falcataria moluccana), d. Chili Pepper (Capsicum frutescens), e.Guava (Psidium guajava), f.Coco- nut (Cocos nucifera), g. Katuk (Saurapus androgynus), p. Banana (Musa spp.), i. Papaya (Carica papaya). Description of dendogram: blue line = Pit Fall Trap; black line=Sweep Net; P=Polyculture;

A=Agroforestry, C=Corn Monoculture. Pie Chart Description: PFT=Pit Fall Trap; SN=SweepNet.

(5)

cord and its habitat was supported by CCA. The CCA analysis describes in detail how management types and environmental factors can affect arthropod populations (Figure 4). Monoculture landscapes are open, so they are exposed to large physical factors. This is also in line with the amount of

UV exposure and temperature due to radiation (Table 1). Several arthropods favor this environmental, physical character with various ecological roles, such as Drosophilidae (Her), Linyphiidae (Car), Lycosidae (Car), Cicadellidae (Her), and Carabidae (Car). Staphylinidae is the only family Figure 3. Principal Components Analysis (PCA) graph with parameters of ecological role group, family, and

landscape-collection method. Notes: Her=Herbivore (Aqua Blue), Det=Detrivore (Dark Blue), Car=Carnivore (Black), PFTC=Pit Fall Trap Corn Monoculture, SNC=Sweep Net Corn Monoculture, PFTP=Pit Fall Trap Polyculture, SNP=Sweep Net Polyculture, PFTA= Pit Fall Trap Agroforestry, SNA=Sweep Net Agroforestry.

Figure 4. Canonical Correspondence Analysis (CCA) graph shows family preferences in 3 landscapes with 4 environmental factors as parameters (Wind, Temperature, UV index, and Humidity). Notes: A=Ag- roforestry, P=Polyculture, C=Corn monoculture.

(6)

of an open environment and is affected by exposure to wind and sun. Humidity is a physical factor that influ-ences the emergence of several arthropods with the role of detrivores, such as Armadil- lidae and Gryllidae. Chrysomelidae is a herbivore Arthro-poda that can be affected by humidity and appears in many types of agroforestry management.

Agroforestry has the capacity to combine a wide variety of crops, even with other mana-ge- ment models. The ecological stability of agro-forestry has been recognized as having a major influence on fauna diversity [14]. Humidity, temperature, and vegetation influences have significantly impacted the observed changes in arthropod communities. Heterogeneous agroforestry landscapes provide stable habitats for arthropods. Polyculture land is a transitional form that gives an impressive number of heterogeneous and stable effects on soil arthropods. However, the smaller tree population and seedling vegetation that receives a lot of sun- light provide the opportunity for herbivorous arthropods to inhabit this landscape temporally.

Monoculture landscapes are widely applied in Indonesia. This management provides a landscape for above-ground arthropods to have larger populations. The frequent changes in the microclimate due to unstable vegetation conditions greatly con- tribute to the records of dominant herbivorous and carnivorous arthropods.

Conclusion

Research and agriculture will face the challe- nge of expanding the role of arthropods, not just as pests and natural enemies, but also as regulator of decomposition and nutrient cycling within ecosystems. Future research focusing on conservation tillage is urgently needed. To minimize the domi- nance of herbivorous arthro-pods, we advise the use of monoculture refugia plants (e.g., full-sun plants).

Acknowledgment

The authors thank Yusnan Hadi, who has given permission for the field activity. The authors also thank LPPM University of Jember for providing an incentive grant for this research.

References

1. Serafini VN, Priotto JW, Gomez MD (2019) Effects of agroecosystem landscape complexity on small mammals:

a multi-species approach at different spatial scales.

2. Jeanneret P, Aviron S, Alignier A et al. (2021) Agroecology landscapes. Landscape Ecology 36 (8):

2235–2257. doi: 10.1007/s10980-021-01248-0.

3. Felipe-Lucia MR, Comín FA, Bennett EM (2014) Interactions among ecosystem services across land uses in a floodplain agroecosystem. Ecol Soc. doi:

10.5751/ES-06249-190120

4. Suheriyanto D, Zuhro Z, Farah IE, Maulidiyah A (2019) The potential of soil arthropods as bioindicator of soil quality in relation to environmental factors at apple farm, Batu, East Java, Indonesia. J Phys Conf Ser. doi:

10.1088/1742-6596/1217/1/012180

5. Morandin LA, Long RF, Kremen C (2014) Hedgerows enhance beneficial insects on adjacent tomato fields in an intensive agricultural landscape. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 189 164–170. doi:

10.1016/j.agee.2014.03.030.

6. Previati E, Anna Fano E, Leis M (2007) Arthropods Biodiversity in Agricultural Landscapes: Effects of Land Use and Anthropization. Italian Journal of Agronomy 2 (2): 135. doi: 10.4081/ija.2007.135.

7. Gist CS, Crossley DA (1973) A Method for Quantifying Pitfall Trapping 1. Environmental Entomology 2 (5):

951–952. doi: 10.1093/ee/2.5.951.

8. Beall G (1935) Study of Arthropod Populations by the Method of Sweeping. Ecological Society of America 16 (2): 216–225.

9. Guilhot R, Rombaut A, Xuéreb A et al. (2021) Influence of bacteria on the maintenance of a yeast during Drosophila melanogaster metamorphosis. Animal Microbiome 3 (1): 0–8. doi: 10.1186/s42523-021-00133- 0.

10. Crist TO (2009) Biodiversity, species interactions, and functional roles of ants (hymenoptera: Formi-cidae) in fragmented landscapes: a review. Myrmecological News 12 (September 2009): 3–13.

11. Soomro S, Sultana R (2020) diversity with position of habitat of pyrgomorphidae brunner von wattenwyl, 1874 (orthoptera: caelifera) from khairpur, sindh. International journal of current research 12 (7): 12647–12650. doi:

https://doi.org/10.24941/ijcr.39171.07.2020.

12. Louzada J, Nichols L (2012) Seed-Sucking Bugs (Heteroptera). Insect Bioecology and Nutrition for Integrated Pest Management (March): 313–342. doi:

10.1201/b11713-20.

13. Menta C, Remelli S (2020) Soil health and arthropods:

From complex system to worthwhile investigation.

Insects. doi: 10.3390/insects11010054

14. Duelli P, Studer M, Marchand I, Jakob S (1990) Population movements of arthropods between natural and cultivated areas. Biological Conservation 54 (3): 193–

207. doi: 10.1016/0006-3207(90)90051-P.

15. Maleque MA, Maeto K, Ishii HT (2009) Arthropods as bioindicators of sustainable forest management, with a focus on plantation forests. Applied Entomology and Zoology 44 (1): 1–11. doi: 10.1303/aez.2009.1.

16. Udawatta RP, Rankoth LM, Jose S (2019) Agroforestry and Biodiversity. Sustainability 11 (2879): 1–22. doi:

10.3390/su11102879.

17. Udawatta RP, Rankoth LM, Jose S (2019) Agroforestry and Biodiversity. Sustainability 11(10): 2879. doi:

10.3390/su11102879.

(7)

(8)

This page is intentionally left blank.