Bitter gourd holds a prominent position among vegetables due to its high nutritional and medicinal value. However, various factors contribute to its lower production, including attacks by several pests such as the red pumpkin beetle, fruit fly, jassids, aphids, and whitefly, affecting different stages (seedling, vegetative, and reproductive) and parts (stem, leaves, flowers, and fruits) of the plant. From February to July 2023, a total of 12,481 individual arthropods belonging to 80 species from 45 families, 74 genera, and 10 orders, across two classes (Insecta and Arachnida), were documented in the bitter gourd ecosystem. The order Coleoptera was the most diverse, with 22 species from eight families, followed by Hymenoptera with 15 species from eight families, Lepidoptera (10 species, four families), Hemiptera (nine species, seven families), Diptera (eight species, eight families), Odonata (five species, two families), Orthoptera (three species, two families), Mantodea (two species, one family), and Thysanoptera (one species, one family). Additionally, five spider species from five genera and four families were recorded. Among the arthropods, predators represented the largest group with 34 species, followed by pests (22 species), pollinators (19 species), parasitoids (two species), and tourists (three species). The highest species diversity and richness were recorded in Narasipuram, with a Shannon-Weiner diversity index of 3.268, followed by TNAU Orchard (3.182), and Thondamuthur (2.914). Pollachi exhibited the lowest diversity (2.681).
Research Article
Diversity and Abundance of Agriculturally Important Insects and Pests in the Bitter Gourd Ecosystem at Selected Locations in Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India
https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5208247/v1
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License
You are reading this latest preprint version
pest
arthropod diversity
bitter gourd
species diversity
relative abundance
Bitter gourd, also known as balsam pear, bitter melon, pare, karela, bitter cucumber, or African cucumber, is a warm-season vegetable crop, scientifically known as Momordica charantia L. belongs to the family cucurbitaceae often produced in the monsoon and summer months (Heiser, 1979). It is widely cultivated in India, Indonesia, Malaysia, China, Singapore, Japan, and tropical Africa (Naik et al.,2019). Across Asia, India and China account for more than half of the production (Krishnendu and Nandini, 2016). In India, bitter gourd was cultivated over an area of 111,400 hectares, yielding 1,391.8 metric tonnes (MT) annually, with a productivity rate of 12.5 MT per hectare according to the first advance estimates from Indiastat (2023). In Tamil Nadu alone, it was cultivated on 5,940 hectares, producing 146.74 MT per annum with a productivity of 24.68 MT per hectare (Indiastat, 2023).
The yield of bitter gourd is influenced by factors such as variety, season, growing techniques, and several other environmental conditions. Typically, fruit yields range between 8 to 10 tonnes per hectare, but productivity is often reduced due to abiotic and biotic stresses. Biotic stresses include a range of insect pests and diseases that significantly hinder production. Pests such as fruit flies, pumpkin beetles, gall flies, leaf miners, hadda beetles, semi-loopers, stem borers, aphids, whiteflies, thrips, and jassids are among the major threats to this crop, with fruit flies causing the most severe damage (Butani and Jotwani, 1984). Losses in bitter gourd yields can range from 30–100%, depending on environmental conditions (Gupta and Verma, 1992; Dhillon et al., 2005). Among the most damaging pests is Aphis gossypii, a polyphagous aphid species that feeds on plant sap, causing direct damage and spreading several plant viruses (Chan et al., 1991). Globally, over 5,100 species of aphids have been recorded (Singh and Singh, 2021).
2.1. Materials for the collection of arthropods
Sweep nets, pheromone traps, yellow pan traps, light traps, aspirator, polythene transparent covers are utilised for the collection of arthropods. Effendop tubes (2ml), Borosil glass test tubes(5ml) are utilized to preserve small insects and natural enemies.
2.2. Equipment's used
Leica M 205A with camera attachment DFC 42O to take clear neat pictures of pests, predators, parasitoids at insect museum (Department of agricultural entomology, TNAU, Coimbatore).
2.3. Experimental sites
The arthropods present in bitter gourd ecosystem located in TNAU orchard (Agricultural college and Research Institute), Thondamuthur, Narasipuram and Pollachi regions (Table 1) were collected using different methods.
2.4. Methodology for Collection of arthropods to study its diversity
The arthropods in bitter gourd fields and other related crops like ridge gourd, bottle gourd etc were collected using various sampling methods and techniques from February 2023 to June 2023 at western region in Tamil Nadu.
2.4.1. Sampling methods
For quantitative sampling of arthropods, collections were made in bitter gourd vines randomly from selected plants in different parts of the plant (leaf, fruit, vine) using different methods viz, active searching, sweep nets, yellow pan traps, pheromone traps, light traps. The surveillance of bitter gourd crop was initiated at seedling emergence stage of the crop and continued till the early picking to visualize for the presence of insects. Insect fauna were collected in the early hours of the day from 7:00-9:00 am at weekly intervals.
2.4.1.1. Active searching
Active searching was done in the early morning or evening hours. Five plants were selected at random and actively searched for arthropods. Spiders were collected by walking diagonally in the fields and capture them without injury and transferring to polythene bags for future studies.
a. Sucking insects: The total number sucking insects in case of jassid Amrasca biguttula biguttula; aphids, A. gossypii; white fly, Bamesia tabaci; thrips, Thrips palmi were observed from five leaves of randomly selected plants and expressed in terms of number per leaf and number of insects per vine.
b. Flower feeders: Pumpkin beetle, Aulacophora spp , Raphidopalpa foveicollis; hadda beetle, Epilachna spp were observed from top, bottom, middle of the five randomly selected plants and expressed as number of insects per vine or number of grubs per vine
c. Leaf feeders: Pumpkin caterpillar, Diaphania indica was observed from top, middle and bottom leaves of the randomly selected plants and expressed in number per leaf.
d. Monitoring fruit fly using cue lure trap: The traps were installed in bitter gourd fields to record fruit fly count. The total no of fruit flies trapped in the trap were recorded at 3rd,5th, and 14th days after installation. Ten fruits were randomly selected to calculate the damage percentage using the formula.
e. Gall midge: The observations on gall midge, Neolasiptera falcata was recorded using two methods
i. Number of maggots infesting bitter gourd fruit or vine
ii. Number of galls per vine.
f. pollinators and natural enemies
The population of natural enemies viz., spiders and coccinellids and pollinators were also counted from randomly selected five plants and its average were calculated and expressed as number per plant.
2.4.1.2. Pitfall traps
Pit fall trap was used to measure the diversity of organisms active within leaf litter. Maximum soil dwelling and nocturnal insects were collected using pit fall trap. A plastic container of 15 cm height and 10cm width was buried in a depth of 20 cm into the soil. Water containing few drops of teepol was kept in the traps and was changed at weekly intervals. Observations were recorded in the morning on the number and type of arthropods trapped in each container.
2.4.1.3. Sweep nets
The arthropod species were collected using sweeping net. Flying and jumping insects were collected using sweeping nets. It is used to collect grasshoppers and active flies from 9:00 am to 12:00 pm. The sweeps were made on vegetation for collecting insects.
2.4.1.4. Yellow pan traps
Many insect-like aphids are attracted to bright yellow colour. Based on this principle, yellow pan traps are placed in bitter gourd fields. It was filled with water along with detergent and pinch of salt to break the surface tension and to reduce the rate of evaporation and rotting of trapped insects.
2.4.1.5. Hand collection
Arthropods were manually collected using hands during the daytime. Collecting involved actively searching for the arthropods on the ground, in leaf litters and grasses, under the leaf, vines and other substrates. They were directly collected by hand or by using forceps or paint brush and stored in small plastic jars for further studies.
2.4.1.6. Beating and jerking
The plant parts were beaten by placing a simple sheet under the plant parts. The insects fallen on the sheet were collected and stored for identification.
2.4.1.7. Aspirator
A vacuum suction sampler (aspirator) was also used to capture very small insects.
2.5. Preservation and identification
2.5.1. Preparation and preservation of specimens collected
Insects collected were killed with chloroform dipped in cotton by placing in poison bottle. Adult moths and butterflies were killed separately and pinned using setting board to avoid contamination with scales. Small beetles were preserved using carding technique. Large beetles were pinned with insect pins. Soft bodied insects like white flies, thrips, aphids were preserved in 70 % alcohol.
2.5.2. Identification of arthropods
The collected arthropods were brought from the experimental field to the Entomology laboratory for counting total abundance. The arthropods were killed by storing in a freezer at 4oC. All the specimens (insects, spiders) were identified to the lowest possible taxon i.e., to species or genus level and separated as pest, predator, pollinator and other category. For identification, the collected arthropods were compared with the specimens of the labelled collection in the museum and compared with pictures or descriptions. Insect pests were identified based on the basic knowledge gained during course work. Other specimens were identified by the taxonomic experts at the Department of Agricultural Entomology, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore and from the repository collection of the Insect Museum of Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore.
2.6. Arthropod diversity analysis in bitter gourd ecosystem
The observations were recorded from five randomly selected plants avoiding the borders of the field on three leaves per plant representing the top, middle and bottom of the crop canopy. Insect counting's were taken at weekly intervals based on standard mean week from early stage to maturity stage of the crop in the morning hours. For counting natural enemies observations were taken from whole plant.
2.6.1. Relative abundance (Singh and Rai,2000)
The relative abundance is the percent composition of an arthropod of a particular kind relative to the total number of arthropods in particular area.
Where,
R= Relative abundance
A= Total population of a particular species
N= Total population of all the species/taxon.
2.6.2. Diversity analysis of arthropods in bitter gourd ecosystem
The following indices were used to assess and compare the diversity and distribution of arthropods in bitter gourd. Species richness and diversity programmes were used to assess and compare the diversity of arthropods in bitter gourd ecosystem.
2.6.2.1. Species richness
1. Margalef”s D (Clifford and Stephenson, 1975)
Margalef”s D is calculated using the formula
Where,
DMg =Margalef”s D
S = Number of individual species in the sample
N = Total number of species in the sample.
Ln = logarithm of the total number of species (N)
2. Shannon diversity index (Senguttuvand Kuttalam, 2018)
Shannon–weiner diversity index is calculated using the formula. This program
calculates the index using the natural logarithm.
H’ = ∑ PiLnPi
Where,
H’=Shannon diversity index
Ʃ= Sum
Ln= logarithm of Proportion of individuals in the ith species (Pi)
Pi= Proportion of individuals in the ith species.
3. Simpson’s diversity index (Simpson 1949)
Simpson’s index describes the probability that a second individual drawn from a
population should be of the same species as the first.
Where,
D=Simpson’s diversity index
Ʃ= Sum
Ni= the number of individuals in the ith species,
Nt = the total number of individuals in the sample.
2.7. Data Analysis
Data Analysis was done based on their abundance and habit through Shannon Wiener diversity indices, Evenness indices as well as Marglef’s indices for richness by using agess software.
The results of this study provide a comprehensive assessment of the diversity, abundance, and richness of arthropods in a bitter gourd field across four selected locations. Over the course of the research period, conducted from February to July 2023, a total of 12,481 individual arthropods were collected, representing 80 species, 45 families, 74 genera, and 10 orders from two classes: Insecta and Arachnida, as outlined in Table 2. In addition to species identification, the relative abundance of the recorded arthropods was analyzed, and the findings are presented in Table 2. Furthermore, diversity in relation to ecological function was investigated, with results summarized in Table 3.
3.1. Arthropod diversity in bitter gourd at four selected locations
A total of 12481 individuals belonging to 45 families and 80 species were recorded in bitter gourd ecosystem at four selected locations during study as mentioned in table 4.a. The specimens observed during the study were categorized into two arthropod classes viz., insecta and arachnida. These specimens were classified into various taxonomic groups, extending up to the levels of orders, families and some specimens unto genus and species level. Class Insecta was the most predominant with 75 insect species under 69 genera, 41 families and 9 orders. Among the insect orders coleopterans were more diversed with 22 species followed by hymenoptera (15), lepidoptera (10), hemiptera (9), diptera (8), odonata (5), orthoptera (3), mantoidae (2) and thysanoptera (1). When it comes to families, there were eight families documented within coleoptera, diptera, and hymenoptera, followed by seven families in hemiptera, four families in lepidoptera, two families each in odonata and orthoptera, one family each in mantoidae and thysanoptera. Among class arachnida, the araneae order exhibited the highest abundance, with a total of five spider species under five genera which falls in four families were documented throughout the study duration as mentioned in table 4.a. An examination of the total number of collected individuals revealed significant variations. Additionally, the study investigated the relative abundance of individuals across different species. The percentage distribution of insects is presented in Table 4.a. In this study, the Shannon-Weiner index (species diversity), Simpson's index (1-D), and Marglef's index (species richness) were computed using the data to enable comparisons between the selected locations as mentioned in table 4.b. Among the four locations, location 3 (Narasipuram) exhibited the highest total diversity and richness, followed by location 1 (TNAU Orchard), location 2 (Thondamuthur), and the lowest values were observed in location 4 (Pollachi). The highest Shannon-Weiner diversity index was recorded in Narasipuram (3.268) followed by TNAU orchard (3.182), Thondamuthur (2.914) and Pollachi (2.681). Simpson’s index (1-D) was highest in Narasipuram (0.923) followed by TNAU orchard (0.915), Thondamuthur (0.887) and least at Pollachi (0.875).
Diversity in relation to ecological function at selected locations
Based on the ecological roles, the 80 species of collected insects were classified into four categories: pests, pollinators, predators, and parasitoids as mentioned in table 4.c. Predators were the most abundant group, comprising 34 different species in which maximum predators were found in order coleoptera with fourteen species followed by hymenoptera and odonata with five species in each, class arachnida with five species, diptera with three species and mantoidae with two species were reported as predators. Regarding pest status, nine hemipteran insect species were identified as major sucking pests. Additionally, there were five species from coleoptera, three species from diptera, and one species each from lepidoptera and thysanoptera considered as other major pests affecting bitter gourd. Orthoptera, with three species, were classified as minor pests. In total, 22 species were identified as pests in bitter gourd fields across the four selected locations. In pollinators, the highest diversity was observed in the order lepidoptera with nine species, hymenoptera with eight species and diptera with two species. A total of 19 species of pollinators were identified in the bitter gourd fields. Two parasitoid species were identified from the hymenoptera order. One species of rhinoceros beetle and two species of jewel beetles were identified as tourist as the crop is inter cropped with coconut.
3.2 Arthropod diversity in bitter gourd at TNAU orchard
A total of 4112 individuals were recorded in bitter gourd ecosystem in TNAU orchard. The details of arthropods collected from the TNAU orchard during the course of study were provided in Table 5. Class Insecta was the most predominant with 66 insect species under 61 genera, 38 families and 9 orders. In terms of insect orders, Coleoptera exhibited the highest diversity with 20 species, followed by hymenoptera with thirteen species, lepidoptera with nine species, hemiptera and diptera with seven species each, odonata with five species, orthoptera with three species, and mantoidae and thysanoptera with one species each. Regarding families, coleoptera had eight families, while diptera and hemiptera had seven families each. hymenoptera had six families, lepidoptera had four families, odonata and orthoptera exhibited two families each and thysanoptera and mantoidae were having one family each. Among class arachnida, the araneae order exhibited the highest abundance, with a total of five spider species under five genera which falls in four families were documented throughout the study duration. The various diversity indices of arthropods viz., Shannon-Weiner diversity index (3.182), Simpson’s index (1-D) (0.915) and Marglef’s indices (Species’ richness) (8.61) were recorded as mentioned in table 5.
Diversity in relation to ecological function in bitter gourd at TNAU orchard
Predators were the most abundant group, comprising 31 different species in which maximum predators were found in coleoptera (12 species) followed by hymenoptera and odonata (5 species each), diptera (3 species), class arachnida (5 species) and mantoidae (1 species). Regarding pest status, seven species of hemipteran insects, five species of coleopterans, two species of dipteran and one species each of lepidoptera and thysanoptera were considered as major pests affecting bitter gourd. Orthoptera, with three species, were identified as minor pests. In total, 19 species were identified as pests in bitter gourd fields located in TNAU orchard. When it comes to pollinators, the highest diversity was observed in the lepidoptera and hymenoptera each with eight species played a significant role in pollination, while diptera, with two species, made a comparatively smaller contribution. In total, there were 18 species of pollinators identified in the bitter gourd fields. Rhinoceros beetles were identified as tourist as the crop is surrounded with coconut plantations. Two more jewel beetles were also identified in orchard as tourist. (Table 5).
3.3. Arthropod diversity in bitter gourd at Thondamuthur
A total of 2570 individuals were recorded in bitter gourd ecosystem at Thondamuthur. The details of arthropods collected from the bitter gourd fields at Thondamuthur during the course of study were provided in Table 6. Class Insecta was the most predominant with 55 insect species under 51 genera, 29 families and 8 orders. In terms of insect orders, coleoptera and hymenoptera exhibited the highest diversity with thirteen species in each, followed by lepidoptera with nine species, hemiptera six species, diptera and odonata with five species each, orthoptera with three species and thysanoptera with one species. Regarding families, hymenoptera had six families, while diptera, coleoptera and hemiptera had five families each, lepidoptera had three families, odonata and orthoptera exhibited two families each and thysanoptera having one family. Among class Arachnida, the Araneae order exhibited the highest abundance, with a total of five spider species under five genera which falls in four families were documented throughout the study duration. The various diversity indices of arthropods viz., Shannon-Weiner diversity index (2.914), Simpson’s index (1-D) (0.887) and Marglef’s indices (Species’ richness) (7.67) were recorded as mentioned in table 6.
Diversity in relation to ecological function in bitter gourd at Thondamuthur
Predators were the most abundant group, comprising 26 different species in which maximum predators were found in coleoptera (9) followed by hymenoptera (5), odonata (5), diptera (2). Class arachnida included five species reported as predators. Regarding pest status, all the eight species of hemipteran insects were identified as major sucking pests. Additionally, there were four species from coleoptera, one species each from diptera and thysanoptera considered as other major pests affecting bitter gourd. Orthoptera,with three species, were recorded as minor pests. In total, 17 species were identified as pests in bitter gourd fields at Thondamuthur.In pollinators, the highest diversity was observed in the lepidoptera (9) followed by hymenoptera (8) which played a significant role in pollination, while diptera, with two species, made a comparatively smaller contribution. In total, there were 19 species of pollinators identified in the bitter gourd fields (Table 6).
3.4. Arthropod diversity in bitter gourd at Narasipuram
A total of 3819 individuals were recorded in bitter gourd ecosystem at Narasipuram. The details of arthropods collected from the bitter gourd fields at Narasipuram during the course of study were provided in Table 7. Class Insecta was the most predominant with 66 insect species under 62 genera, 39 families and 9 orders. In terms of insect orders, coleoptera and hymenoptera exhibited the highest diversity with16 and 15 species respectively, followed by lepidoptera (9), hemiptera and diptera (8 each), odonata (5), orthoptera (3)and thysanoptera (1). Regarding families, hymenoptera and diptera had eight families each, while coleoptera had seven families, hemiptera had six families, lepidoptera had four families, odonata and orthoptera exhibited two families each and thysanoptera and mantodeae having one family each. Among class Arachnida, the order araneae exhibited the highest abundance, with five spider species under five genera which falls in four families throughout the study duration. The various diversity indices of arthropods viz., Shannon-Weiner diversity index (3.268), Simpson’s index (1-D) (0.923) and Marglef’s indices (Species’ richness)(8.68) were recorded as mentioned in table 7.
Diversity in relation to ecological function in bitter gourd at Narasipuram
Predators were the most abundant group, comprising 30 different species in which maximum predators were found in coleoptera (11) followed by hymenoptera (5), odonata (5), diptera (3) and mantodeae (1). Class arachnida included five species reported as predators. Regarding pest status, eight species of hemipteran insects were identified as major sucking pest. Additionally, there were three species each from coleoptera and diptera and one species each from thysanoptera and lepidoptera were considered as other major pests affecting bitter gourd. Orthoptera, with three species, were recorded as minor pests. In total, 19 species were identified as pests in bitter gourd fields at Narasipuram. In pollinators, the highest diversity was observed in the lepidoptera and hymenoptera with eight species each which played a significant role in pollination, while diptera, with two species, made comparatively smaller contribution. In total 18 species of pollinators were identified in the bitter gourd fields. Two species of coleopterans were identified as tourists and two species of hymenopterans were reported as parasitoids (Table 7).
3.5. Arthropod diversity in bitter gourd at Pollachi
A total of 1981 individuals were recorded in bitter gourd ecosystem at Pollachi. The details of arthropods collected from the bitter gourd fields at Pollachi during study were provided in Table 8. Class Insecta was the most predominant with 47 insect species under 47 genera, 32 families and 8 orders. In terms of insect orders hymenoptera exhibited the highest diversity with 12 species, followed by coleoptera with eight species, lepidopterawith seven species, odonata and diptera with five species each, hemiptera with six species, orthoptera with three species and thysanoptera with one species. Regarding families, hymenoptera had six families, diptera with five families while coleoptera, lepidoptera and hemiptera with four families each. Odonata and orthoptera were with two families each and thysanoptera having one family. Among class arachnida, the araneae order exhibited the highest abundance, with a total of five spider species under five genera which falls in four families were documented throughout the study duration. The various diversity indices of arthropods viz., Shannon-Weiner diversity index (2.681), Simpson’s index (1-D) (0.875) and Marglef’s indices (Species’ richness) (6.76) were recorded in Pollachi as mentioned in table 8.
Diversity in relation to ecological function in bitter gourd at Pollachi
Predators were the most abundant group, comprising 17 different species, with coleoptera having 6 species, followed by odonata (5), hymenoptera (4) and diptera (2). Class arachnida included 5 species reported as predators.Regarding pest status, all hemipteran insects were identified as major sucking pests, with a total of six species falling into this category. Additionally, there were two species from coleoptera, one species each from diptera, lepidoptera and thysanoptera were considered as other major pests affecting bitter gourd fields at Pollachi. Orthoptera, with three species, were classified as minor pests. In total, 14 species were identified as pests in bitter gourd fields at Pollachi. In pollinators, the highest diversity was observed in the hymenoptera with eight species, followed by lepidoptera (6) and diptera (2) which played a significant role in pollination. In total, there were 16 species of pollinators identified in the bitter gourd fields as mentioned in table 8.
Bitter gourd is an important vegetable belongs to cucurbitaceous family and highly susceptible to insect infestations. Insect diversity plays a pivotal role in understanding the relative abundance, whether the species is beneficial or a pest and helps in taking control measures against major pests and safe guard the beneficial insects. This study shows insect diversity in bitter gourd ecosystem at four selected locations (Fig. 1). In the present study, extensive catalogue of insect species documented in Narasipuram, as revealed that this region boasts a higher level of biodiversity compared to the other three locations viz., TNAU orchard, Thondamuthur and Pollachi. This dynamics in diversity can be attributed due to several key factors, including the judicious use of chemical pesticides, the establishment of an apiary and the cultivation of flower crops, which create a conducive environment for pollinators to frequent the fields. Moreover, the presence of coconut trees as intercrop and adjacent banana cultivation contribute to sightings of species like rhinoceros beetles in the area. In terms of species richness, the TNAU orchard also stands out, with its diversity being enhanced by the presence of various crops and adjacent cultivation of ridge gourd, bottle gourd, papaya and coconut. So, there is a influence of agro-ecological practices and surrounding vegetation on insect diversity.
This study identified a total of 80 species from 45 different families, nine orders, and two classes, highlighting the rich biodiversity present in the examined locations. Notably, the order coleoptera emerged as the most dominant among all orders, with eight families and 22 species, constituting 27.5% of the overall species abundance (Fig. 2). Within the order coleoptera, family coccinellidae was particularly prevalent, with its members primarily serving valuable ecological roles as predators, except hadda beetle, which acts as a pest. Our findings align with previous research by Nalepa, (2013) also emphasized the prominence of coccinellidae as a family of coleoptera with predators.
In terms of relative species abundance, Hymenoptera ranked second with 18.75% (Fig. 2). Pollinators, which are crucial components of biodiversity offering essential services to both crops and wild plants, were well-represented within this order. Additionally, insects from the order lepidoptera played a significant role in pollination, making up 12.5% of the relative species abundance (Fig. 2). Within the lepidoptera order, four families comprising ten species were documented, with the families pieridae, nymphalidae and papilionidae recognized as pollinators. However, certain lepidopteran species in their larval stages, such as the crambidae (pumpkin caterpillar), pose serious threats as pests.
The order Hemiptera recorded the highest number of pests, with several families including Aleyrodidae, Aphididae, Cicadellidae, Pentatomidae, Pyrrhocoridae, and Coreidae identified as pests which are detrimental to agricultural systems. Conversely, the order Diptera exhibited a mix of beneficial species and pests, comprising 10.0% of the relative species abundance (Fig. 2). Notably, various species of fruit flies from the family Tephritidae were responsible for significant damage to vegetable and fruit crops, including bitter gourd. The pest status of Bactrocera cucurbitae has been well-documented by several authors (Lefroy, 1909; Narayanan, 1953; Narayanan and Batra, 1960; Nishida, 1963; Wen, 1985; Wong et al., 1983; Uchida et al., 1990; Pareek and Kavadia, 1994; Weems et al., 2001).
Odonata, comprising predatory insects, was represented by five species from two families, contributing 6.25% to the relative species abundance, with a higher abundance observed in TNAU Orchard (Fig. 2). The Orthoptera order, primarily consisting of herbivorous insects inhabiting grassland ecosystems, included two families and three species, with Narasipuram showing greater orthopteran diversity. Furthermore, spiders from the class Arachnida were exclusively represented as predators across all locations, with higher numbers in TNAU Orchard and Narasipuram. These variations may be attributed to differences in sampling methods, host plants, and ecological factors, as highlighted by Fayyaz et al. (2016). Our findings align with those of González Tokman et al. (2017), who emphasized the diverse nature of Coleoptera and Hymenoptera groups. Additionally, studies by Baptista et al. (2001) and Jankielsohn (2018) corroborate the dominance of coleopterans in insect diversity.
Among the study locations, Narasipuram exhibited the highest total diversity and richness, recording the highest Shannon-Weiner diversity index of 3.268, followed closely by TNAU Orchard (3.182). Thondamuthur displayed slightly lower diversity (2.914), while Pollachi had the lowest diversity, with a Shannon-Weiner index of 2.681. A similar trend was observed in Simpson's index (1-D), with Narasipuram scoring the highest (0.923), followed by TNAU Orchard (0.915), Thondamuthur (0.887), and Pollachi (0.875) (Fig. 3).
In terms of ecological functions, predator species were the most diverse, encompassing 34 species across multiple orders, including Coleoptera (14), Hymenoptera (5), Odonata (5), Araneae (5), Diptera (3), and Mantodea (2). Pest species ranked second in diversity, with 22 species identified across Hemiptera (9), Coleoptera (5), Diptera (3), Orthoptera (3), Thysanoptera (1), and Lepidoptera (1). Pollinator species diversity ranked third, comprising 19 species distributed among Lepidoptera (9), Hymenoptera (8), and Diptera (2) (Fig. 4).
Notably, only two parasitoids from the hymenoptera were reported at Narasipuram. The highest diversity of functional roles was observed at TNAU Orchard and Narasipuram, while Thondamuthur and Pollachi recorded the lowest diversity (Fig. 4). Throughout the study, various insect pests were identified, including aphids, leafhoppers, thrips, red pumpkin beetles, bugs, and caterpillars of Lepidoptera
The findings of this study align with several previous research finding efforts on insect diversity and their roles in bitter gourd and other cucurbit crops. Fayyaz et al. (2016) investigated the diversity and relative abundance of arthropods in pumpkins, highlighting similar patterns of insect diversity. Roy et al. (2019) identified three key pollinator groups—Hymenoptera, Lepidoptera, and Diptera in bitter gourd fields, which is consistent with the present study. Additionally, Balina et al. (2012) noted three important Hymenoptera families (Apidae, Halictidae, and Megachilidae) as major pollinators in bitter gourd ecosystems, corroborating the significance of these insects in pollination.
Yogapriya et al. (2019) similarly recognized Hymenoptera and Lepidoptera as the dominant pollinator groups in bitter gourd, with Diptera playing a secondary role. Jawad et al. (2017) reported Hemiptera as major pests of medicinal plants, a finding echoed in this study, where Hemipterans were identified as significant pests in bitter gourd fields. The consistent reports of Lepidoptera, especially pumpkin caterpillars, as pests in cucurbits by authors such as Vanisree et al. (2005) and Ganehiarachchi (1997) further support the current findings. Several studies have documented infestations of cucurbits by epilachna beetles. Nayar et al. (1976), Abbas and Nakamura (1985), Ahmed and Khatun (1996), Mahalya and Jesudasan (1996), and Sreekala and Ushakumari (1997) all noted such infestations, particularly in relation to Epilachna species in bitter gourd and other cucurbits. Young and Lockley (1990) explored the role of predatory spiders in crop ecosystems, a finding consistent with this study, which identified spiders (Araneae) as important predators in the bitter gourd fields.
Deyto and Cervancia (2009) observed insects from Hymenoptera, Lepidoptera, Coleoptera, and Diptera visiting bitter gourd blossoms, reinforcing the ecological importance of these insect groups in pollination and pest control. Lekshmi et al. (2014) emphasized the role of coccinellids in managing pests in bitter gourd, a finding supported by the present study’s observation of predatory coccinellids. Other predators, such as chrysopids, syrphids, mantids, and spiders, have been reported by Satti et al. (2010) in bitter gourd ecosystems, which aligns with the functional diversity observed in this study. In Tamil Nadu, Sangeetha et al. (2019) documented yellowing and malformed bitter gourd fruits caused by Cucumber aphid-borne yellows virus (CABYV), transmitted by aphids, highlighting the threat posed by Hemipteran pests. Lasioptera bryoniae (Schiner), a gall midge recognized as a serious pest of bitter gourd, has also been reported to significantly reduce crop yields (Muthukumar et al., 2019). Additionally, Dar et al. (2015) documented insects infesting brinjal crops in Kashmir, identifying species from six orders and ten families, which reflects similar patterns of insect diversity and pest presence found in bitter gourd ecosystems.
The comprehensive study of arthropod diversity in bitter gourd fields across four distinct locations provides significant insights into the ecological dynamics of this crop system. With the collection of 12,481 arthropods from 80 species across 45 families, the study reveals the rich biodiversity present within these ecosystems. Class Insecta emerged as the most dominant group, with coleopterans exhibiting the highest species diversity. Narasipuram was identified as the site with the greatest species richness and diversity, as evidenced by the highest Shannon-Weiner and Simpson's indices, followed closely by the TNAU Orchard. Predator species dominated the arthropod community, reflecting a healthy balance of natural enemies, while pest species ranked second, highlighting the need for ongoing pest management strategies. Functional diversity was most pronounced in TNAU Orchard and Narasipuram, further emphasizing the ecological complexity of these areas. In contrast, Thondamuthur and Pollachi displayed lower biodiversity and functional roles. Overall, these findings contribute valuable knowledge for sustainable pest management and conservation efforts in bitter gourd cultivation, reinforcing the importance of biodiversity in promoting ecological balance and crop health.
DECLARATION OF COMPETING INTEREST
Authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors acknowledge the facilities provided by the Department of Agricultural Entomology, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore.
ETHICAL APPROVAL: Not applicable
CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE: Not applicable
CONSENT TO PUBLISH: Not applicable
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: The authors declare no conflicts of interests.
FUNDING: The authors declare that no funding, grants were received during the study period
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this article.
AUTHORS’ CONTRIBUTIONS: Conceptualization and Vadilation – K.N. Ragumoorthi; Methodology, Original draft preparation– Chirasani Naga Rani, Sake Manideep, Tulasi B. Investigation, Writing, review, and editing: Chirasani Naga Rani, Sake Manideep, Tulasi B, Aswini R and Talapala sai kumar.
- Abbas I, Nakamura K (1985) Adult population parameters and life tables of an epilachnine beetle (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) feeding on bitter cucumber in Sumatra. Res Popul Ecol 27:313-324.
- Ahmed K, Khatun M (1996) The biology of epilachna beetle, Epilachna septima Dieke (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae: Epilachninae) infesting bittergourd in Bangladesh. Bangladesh J Sci Ind Res 31(1):147-152.
- Balina PK, Sharma SK, Rana MK (2012) Diversity, abundance and pollination efficiency of native bee pollinators of bitter gourd (Momordica charantia L.) in India. J Apic Res 51(3):227-231.
- Baptista DF, Buss D, Dorvillé L, Nessimian J (2001) Diversity and habitat preference of aquatic insects along the longitudinal gradient of the Macaé river basin, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Rev Bras Biol 61:249-258.
- Butani DK, Jotwani MG (1984) Insects in vegetables. Periodical Expert Book Agency, New Delhi, pp 356.
- Caselli A, Petacchi R (2021) Climate change and major pests of Mediterranean olive orchards: are we ready to face the global heating? Insects 12(9):802. https://doi.org/XXXX
- Chan C, Forbes A, Raworth D (1991) Aphid transmitted viruses and their vectors of the world. Research Branch Agriculture Canada, pp 216.
- Cheng SS, Huang CG, Chen YJ, Yu JJ, Chen WJ, Chang ST (2009) Chemical compositions and larvicidal activities of leaf essential oils from two eucalyptus species. Bioresour Technol 100:452-456.
- Clifford HT, Stephenson W (1975) An Introduction to Numerical Classification. Academic Press, New York, pp 229.
- Dar SA, Wani AR, Raja TA, Mir SH (2015) Insect biodiversity of brinjal crop in Kashmir. Indian Ecol Soc 42(2):295-299.
- Deepa J, Gokulakrishnan J, Baranitharan M, Dhanasekaran S (2015) Larvicidal activity of Indian medicinal plants on the dengue fever mosquito, Aedes aegypti Linnaeus. Int J Pure Appl Zool 3:130-136.
- Deyto RC, Cervancia CR (2009) Floral biology and pollination of Ampalaya (Momordica charantia L.). Philipp Agric Sci 92(1):8-18. https://doi.org/XXXX
- Dhillon M, Singh R, Naresh J, Sharma H (2005) The melon fruit fly, Bactrocera cucurbitae: A review of its biology and management. J Insect Sci 5(1):1-40.
- Fayyaz U, Kausar A, Saeed K, Akhtar N (2016) Diversity and relative abundance of insects (Arthropoda) in pumpkin plantations in District Haripur, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. J Zool Stud 3(3):11-17.
- Finney DJ (1971) A statistical treatment of the sigmoid response curve. In: Probit analysis. Cambridge University Press, London, pp 633.
- Gandhi N, Pillai S, Patel P (2010) Efficacy of pulverized leaves of Punica granatum (Lythraceae) and Murraya koenigii (Rutaceae) against stored grain pest, Tribolium castaneum (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae). Int J Agric Biol 12:616-620.
- Ganehiarachchi G (1997) Aspects of the biology of Diaphania indica (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). J Natl Sci Coun Sri Lanka 25(4):203-209.
- González Tokman D, Martínez Morales I, Farrera A, del Rosario Ortiz-Zayas M, Lumaret JP (2017) Effects of an herbicide on physiology, morphology, and fitness of the dung beetle Euoniticellus intermedius (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Environ Toxicol Chem 36(1):96-102.
- Gupta D, Verma A (1992) Population fluctuations of the maggots of fruit flies (Dacus cucurbitae Coquillett and Dacus tau Walker) infesting cucurbitaceous crops. Adv Plant Sci 5:518-523.
- Heiser C (1979) The gourd book. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Okla, pp 248.
- Jankielsohn A (2018) The importance of insects in agricultural ecosystems. Adv Entomol 6(2):62-73.
- Jawad SM, Noureen S, Khatoon N, Ali MZ, Ashfaq M (2017) Medicinal plants feeding insect fauna of district Karak, KP, Pakistan. J Entomol Zool Stud 5(6):2563-2566.
- Krishnendu J, Nandini P (2016) Nutritional composition of bitter gourd types (Momordica charantia L.). Int J Adv Eng Res Sci 3(10):96-104.
- Lefroy HM (1909) Indian Insect Life. A Manual of the Insects of the Plains (Tropical India). Thacker, Spink & Company, pp 786.
- Lekshmi VN, Sharma R, Sinha S, Sharma K (2014) Pest succession and population dynamics of major pests and natural enemies in bitter gourd. Indian J Entomol 76(4):303-307.
- Mahalya JL, Jesudasan RA (1996) Biology of Epilachna septima Dieke (Coccinellidae: Coleoptera) infesting Momordica charantia with a note on its feeding damage. Uttar Pradesh J Zool 16(2):83-86.
- Muthukumar M, Sridharan S, Kennedy J, Jeyakumar P, Arumugam T (2019) Morphological and biochemical basis of Gall Midge Lasioptera bryoniae (Schiner) resistance in bitter gourd. Ann Plant Protect Sci 27(1):13-17.
- Naik SO, Kannan G, Chakravarthy A (2019) Impact of integrated pest management modules on natural enemies of whiteflies, Bemisia tabaci (Genn.) in bitter gourd ecosystem. J Biol Control 33(1):63-69.
- Nalepa CA (2013) Coccinellidae captured in blacklight traps: seasonal and diel pattern of the dominant species Harmonia axyridis (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae). Eur J Entomol 110(4):593.
- Narayanan E (1953) Seasonal pests of crops. The mustard sawfly Athalia proxima Klug a pest in the nurseries of the cabbage family. Indian Farming 3(8-9):30-31.
- Narayanan E, Batra H (1960) Fruit flies and their control. Indian Council of Agricultural Research, pp. 68.
- Nayar KK, Ananthakrishnan TN, David BV (1976) General and applied entomology. Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Company Ltd., New Delhi, pp. 589.
- Nishida T (1963) Zoogeographical and ecological studies of Dacus cucurbitae (Diptera: Tephritidae) in India. Hawaii Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Hawaii 54:28.
- Pareek A, Meena B, Sharma S, Tetarwal M, Kalyan R, Meena B (2017) Impact of climate change on insect pests and their management strategies. Climate Change and Sustainable Agriculture 253-286.
- Pareek B, Kavadia V (1994) Relative preference of fruit fly, Dacus cucurbitae Coquillett on different cucurbits. Indian J Entomol 56(1):72-75.
- Roy S, Singh N, Vanitha S, Prasad R, Singh J (2019) Acuity analysis of the vegetable experts to determine the priorities in sustainable vegetable production technologies. Vegetable Science 46(1-2):126-129.
- Sangeetha B, Malathi VG, Renukadevi P (2019) Emergence of cucurbit aphid-borne yellow virus in bitter gourd (Momordica charantia) in Tamil Nadu, India. Plant Dis 103(6):1441.
- Satti AA, Ellaithy ME, Mohamed AE (2010) Insecticidal activities of neem (Azadirachta indica A. Juss) seeds under laboratory and field conditions as affected by different storage durations. J Agric Biol 1:1001-1008.
- Senguttuvan K, Kuttalam S (2018) Biodiversity of arthropod fauna in Tamil Nadu cabbage ecosystems. J Res ANGRAU 46(2):1-14.
- Simpson EH (1949) Measurement of diversity. Nature, London, pp. 688.
- Singh NN, Rai S (2000) Relative abundance of different coccinellids in mustard ecosystem. Indian J Entomol 62(4):422-426.
- Sreekala S, Ushakumari R (1997) Epilachna beetle complex in vegetables (Doctoral dissertation, Department of Agricultural Entomology, College of Horticulture, KAU, Vellanikkara).
- Uchida G, Vargas R, Beardsley J, Liquido N (1990) Host suitability of wild cucurbits for melon fly, Dacus cucurbitae Coquillett, in Hawaii, with notes on their distribution and taxonomic status. Proc Hawaiian Entomol Soc 30:37-52.
- Vanisree K, Rajasekhar Rao P, Rao VRS, Rao VS (2005) Seasonal incidence of pumpkin caterpillar Diaphania indica (Saunders) on cucumber in Krishna-Godavari zone. J Plant Prot Environ 2:127-129.
- Weems H, Heppner J, Fasulo T (2001) Melon fly, Bactrocera cucurbitae Coquillett (Insecta: Diptera: Tephritidae). Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Division of Plant Industry, University of Florida Publication, EENY, Florida, pp. 199.
- Wen H (1985) Field studies on melon fly (Dacus cucurbitae) and attractant experiment in southern Taiwan. J Agric Res China 34(1):228-235.
- Wong TT, Nishimoto JI, Mochizuki N (1983) Infestation patterns of Mediterranean fruit fly and the oriental fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) in the Kula area of Maui, Hawaii. Environ Entomol 12(4):1031-1039.
- Yogapriya A, Usharani B, Suresh K, Vellaikumar S, Shanthi M (2019) Diversity of floral visitors in bitter gourd in Madurai district, Tamil Nadu. Indian J Entomol 81(4):805-810.
- Young O, Lockley T (1990) Autumnal populations of arthropods on aster and goldenrod in the Delta of Mississippi. J Entomol Sci 25(1):185-195.
Table 1. Experimental sites for arthropod diversity
|
S.No |
Place |
Crop diversification |
|
1. |
AC &RI, Coimbatore
|
Main crop- bitter gourd, Adjacent crops- ridge gourd, bottle gourd, sponge gourd, papaya, banana and coconut around field bunds |
|
2. |
Thondamuthur |
Main crop- bitter gourd, Adjacent crops- bottle gourd, ridge gourd, bhendi |
|
3. |
Narasipuram |
Main crop- bitter gourd, Inter crop- coconut, Adjacent crops- banana, ridge gourd |
|
4. |
Pollachi
|
Main crop- bitter gourd, Inter crop- coconut, Adjacent crops- bottle gourd, ridge gourd |
Table 2. Arthropod diversity in bitter gourd at four selected locations within Coimbatore district
|
Order |
Family |
Common name |
Scientific name |
Ecological function |
L1 |
L2 |
L3 |
L4 |
Total |
Relative Abundance (%) |
|
CLASS ARACHNIDA |
||||||||||
|
Araneae |
Argiopidae |
Web spiders |
Argiope sp. |
Predator |
19 |
11 |
21 |
17 |
68 |
0.54 |
|
Oxyopidae |
Lynx Spiders |
Oxyopes sp. |
Predator |
39 |
16 |
32 |
8 |
95 |
0.75 |
|
|
Salticidae |
Jumping Spiders |
Telamonia sp. |
Predator |
69 |
9 |
54 |
18 |
150 |
1.20 |
|
|
Jumping Spiders |
Thyene sp. |
Predator |
77 |
23 |
59 |
21 |
180 |
1.44 |
||
|
Thomisidae |
Crab Spiders |
Thomisus sp. |
Predator |
28 |
9 |
31 |
6 |
74 |
0.59 |
|
|
CLASS INSECTA |
||||||||||
|
Coleopterea |
Buprestidae |
Jewel beetle |
Sternocera sp. |
Tourist |
2 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
6 |
0.05 |
|
|
Jewel beetle |
Eurythyrea sp. |
Tourist |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0.01 |
|
|
Carabidae |
Ground beetles |
Anthia sexguttata |
Predator |
2 |
1 |
5 |
0 |
8 |
0.06 |
|
|
Ground beetles |
Pterostichus sp. |
Predator |
0 |
1 |
4 |
0 |
5 |
0.04 |
||
|
|
Chrysomellidae |
Red pumpkin beetle |
Aulocophora foveicollis |
Pest |
59 |
48 |
65 |
28 |
200 |
1.60 |
|
Pumpkin beetle |
Aulacophora intermedia |
Pest |
26 |
18 |
12 |
0 |
56 |
0.45 |
||
|
Pumpkin beetle |
Aulacophora indica |
Pest |
31 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
31 |
0.25 |
||
|
Coccinelidae |
Three-striped ladybird-beetle |
Brumoides suturalis |
Predator |
21 |
8 |
26 |
3 |
58 |
0.46 |
|
|
zigzag ladybird beetle |
Cheilomenes sexmaculate |
Predator |
22 |
6 |
32 |
11 |
71 |
0.57 |
||
|
Ladybird beetle |
Anegleis cardoni |
Predator |
0 |
0 |
18 |
0 |
18 |
0.14 |
||
|
Seven-spot ladybird beetle |
Coccinella septempunctata |
Predator |
35 |
23 |
0 |
0 |
58 |
0.46 |
||
|
Transverse ladybird beetle |
Coccinella transversalis |
Predator |
14 |
0 |
34 |
0 |
48 |
0.38 |
||
|
Ladybird beetle |
Micraspis discolor |
Predator |
32 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
32 |
0.26 |
||
|
Ladybird beetle |
Illeis sp. |
Predator |
59 |
32 |
62 |
19 |
172 |
1.38 |
||
|
Mealybug ladybird beetle |
Cryptolaemus montrouzieri |
Predator |
43 |
28 |
52 |
18 |
141 |
1.13 |
||
|
Ladybird beetle |
Propylea dissecta |
Predator |
11 |
0 |
21 |
0 |
32 |
0.26 |
||
|
Ladybird beetle |
Scymmus sp. |
Predator |
43 |
23 |
41 |
19 |
126 |
1.01 |
||
|
Hadda beetle |
Epilachna sp. |
Pest |
21 |
10 |
0 |
3 |
34 |
0.27 |
||
|
Elateridae |
Click beetles |
Unknown |
Predator |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
0.02 |
|
|
Meloidae |
Blister beetle |
Mylabris pustulata |
Pest |
12 |
9 |
18 |
0 |
39 |
0.31 |
|
|
Scarabaeidae |
Rhinocerous beetle |
Oryctes rhinoceros |
Tourist |
16 |
0 |
13 |
0 |
29 |
0.23 |
|
|
Staphylinidae |
Rove beetle |
Paederus sp. |
Predator |
31 |
13 |
31 |
11 |
86 |
0.69 |
|
|
Diptera |
Agromyzidae |
Leaf-miner |
Liriomyza sp. |
Pest |
21 |
0 |
18 |
0 |
39 |
0.31 |
|
Asilidae |
Robber fly |
Unknown |
Predator |
18 |
13 |
21 |
9 |
61 |
0.49 |
|
|
Calliphoridae |
Blow Fly |
Calliphora sp. |
Predator |
9 |
0 |
11 |
0 |
20 |
0.16 |
|
|
Cecidomyiidae |
Gall midge |
Lasioptera sp. |
Pest |
0 |
0 |
24 |
0 |
24 |
0.19 |
|
|
Muscidae |
House fly |
Musca sp. |
pollinator |
34 |
23 |
21 |
19 |
97 |
0.78 |
|
|
Sacrophagidae |
Flesh fly |
Sacrophaga sp. |
Predator |
19 |
14 |
27 |
7 |
67 |
0.54 |
|
|
Tephritidae |
Fruit fly |
Bactrocera cucurbitae |
Pest |
109 |
95 |
139 |
49 |
392 |
3.14 |
|
|
Syrphidae |
Hover fly |
Syrphus sp. |
Pollinator |
21 |
12 |
8 |
5 |
46 |
0.37 |
|
|
Hemiptera |
Aleyrodidae |
Whitefly |
Bemisia tabaci |
Pest |
471 |
493 |
398 |
303 |
1665 |
13.34 |
|
|
Aphididae |
Aphids |
Aphis gossypii |
Pest |
734 |
397 |
532 |
319 |
1982 |
15.88 |
|
Cicadellidae |
Jassids |
Amrasca biguttula biguttula |
Pest |
598 |
321 |
643 |
431 |
1993 |
15.97 |
|
|
Coreidae |
Leaf-footed bug |
Clavigralla sp. |
Pest |
11 |
9 |
0 |
0 |
20 |
0.16 |
|
|
Pentatomidae |
Green stink bug |
Nezara viridula |
Pest |
38 |
21 |
47 |
13 |
119 |
0.95 |
|
|
Painted bug |
Bagrada sp. |
Pest |
0 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
4 |
0.03 |
||
|
Pentatomidae bug |
Catacanthus sp. |
Pest |
0 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
3 |
0.02 |
||
|
Pyrrhocoridae |
Red cotton bug |
Dysdercus sp. |
Pest |
9 |
0 |
31 |
0 |
40 |
0.32 |
|
|
Scultellaridae |
Jewel bugs |
Chrysocoris sp. |
Pest |
2 |
0 |
5 |
0 |
7 |
0.06 |
|
|
Hymenoptera |
Formicidae |
Carpenter ant |
Camponotus sp. |
Predator |
69 |
46 |
82 |
23 |
220 |
1.76 |
|
Weaver ant |
Oecophylla smaragdina |
Predator |
39 |
29 |
43 |
0 |
111 |
0.89 |
||
|
Ichneumonidae |
Darwin wasps |
Unknown |
Parasitoid |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
0.02 |
|
|
Sphecidae |
Black mud-dauber wasp |
Sceliphron sp. |
Predator |
13 |
8 |
19 |
4 |
44 |
0.35 |
|
|
Vespidae |
Yellow banded hornet |
Vespa tropica |
Predator |
9 |
7 |
19 |
2 |
37 |
0.30 |
|
|
Paper wasp |
Ropalidia sp. |
Predator |
14 |
2 |
18 |
5 |
39 |
0.31 |
||
|
Evaniidae |
ensign wasp |
Unknown |
Parasitoid |
0 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
3 |
0.02 |
|
|
Apidae |
Indian bee |
Apis cerana indica |
Pollinator |
84 |
28 |
43 |
19 |
174 |
1.39 |
|
|
Itallian bee |
Apis mellifera |
Pollinator |
32 |
21 |
87 |
11 |
151 |
1.21 |
||
|
Rock bee |
Apis dorsata |
Pollinator |
19 |
6 |
8 |
11 |
44 |
0.35 |
||
|
Little bee |
Apis florea |
Pollinator |
43 |
29 |
32 |
19 |
123 |
0.99 |
||
|
Blue banded bee |
Amegilla sp. |
Pollinator |
8 |
3 |
9 |
4 |
24 |
0.19 |
||
|
stingless bee |
Trigona iridipennis |
Pollinator |
31 |
29 |
22 |
17 |
99 |
0.79 |
||
|
Xylocopidae |
Carpenter bee |
Xylocopa sp. |
Pollinator |
12 |
9 |
15 |
8 |
44 |
0.35 |
|
|
Megachilidae |
Leaf cutter bee |
Megachile sp. |
Pollinator |
8 |
3 |
11 |
2 |
24 |
0.19 |
|
|
Lepidoptera |
Crambidae |
Cucumber caterpillar |
Diaphania indica |
Pest |
49 |
0 |
29 |
19 |
97 |
0.78 |
|
|
Papilionidae |
Crimson rose butterfly |
Pachliopta sp. |
Pollinator |
39 |
21 |
38 |
19 |
117 |
0.94 |
|
Citrus butterfly |
Papilio demoleus |
Pollinator |
18 |
8 |
21 |
6 |
53 |
0.42 |
||
|
Pieridae |
Common jezebel |
Delias eucharis |
Pollinator |
0 |
13 |
18 |
0 |
31 |
0.25 |
|
|
Cabbage butter fly |
Pieris sp. |
Pollinator |
12 |
9 |
17 |
0 |
38 |
0.30 |
||
|
Orange tip butterfly |
Anthocharis cardamines |
Pollinator |
13 |
11 |
23 |
6 |
53 |
0.42 |
||
|
Mottled emigrant |
Catopsilia sp. |
Pollinator |
19 |
9 |
11 |
8 |
47 |
0.38 |
||
|
Nymphalidae |
Tiger butterfly |
Danaus chrysippus |
Pollinator |
18 |
11 |
7 |
12 |
48 |
0.38 |
|
|
Danaid mimic butterfly |
Hypolimnas misippus |
Pollinator |
7 |
12 |
0 |
0 |
19 |
0.15 |
||
|
Milkweed butterflies |
Euploea core |
Pollinator |
17 |
7 |
9 |
3 |
36 |
0.29 |
||
|
Mantoidae |
Mantidae |
Asian ant mantid |
Odontomantis sp. |
Predator |
4 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
0.03 |
|
Preying mantid |
unknown |
Predator |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0.01 |
||
|
Odonata |
Cocnagrionidae |
Damselfly |
unknown |
Predator |
21 |
18 |
29 |
11 |
79 |
0.63 |
|
Lebullelidae |
Dragonfly |
Crocothemis sp. |
Predator |
42 |
29 |
31 |
19 |
121 |
0.97 |
|
|
|
Percher dragon fly |
Diplacodes sp. |
Predator |
52 |
32 |
42 |
27 |
153 |
1.23 |
|
|
|
Globe wandererdragon fly |
Pantala flavescens |
Predator |
43 |
29 |
32 |
19 |
123 |
0.99 |
|
|
|
Flutterer dragon fly |
Rhyothemis sp. |
Predator |
4 |
0 |
9 |
8 |
21 |
0.17 |
|
|
Orthoptera |
Acritidae |
Long headed grasshopper |
Acrida sp. |
Pest |
32 |
28 |
49 |
21 |
130 |
1.04 |
|
|
Grasshopper |
Cyrtacanthacris sp. |
Pest |
24 |
21 |
34 |
12 |
91 |
0.73 |
|
|
|
Tettigonidae |
Long horn grasshopper |
Phaneroptera sp. |
Pest |
12 |
9 |
18 |
8 |
47 |
0.38 |
|
Thysanoptera |
Thripidae |
Thrips |
Thrips tabaci |
Pest |
495 |
395 |
423 |
321 |
1634 |
13.09 |
|
Total no. of individuals |
4112 |
2570 |
3818 |
1981 |
12481 |
100.00 |
||||
|
Shannon- Weiner Diversity index |
3.182 |
2.914 |
3.268 |
2.681 |
|
|
||||
|
Simpson’s index (1-D) |
0.915 |
0.887 |
0.923 |
0.875 |
|
|
||||
|
Margalef richness index |
8.61 |
7.67 |
8.68 |
6.76 |
|
|
||||
L1 - TNAU orchard, L2 - Thondamuthur, L3 - Narasipuram, L4 – Pollachi.
Table 3: Arthropod diversity in relation to ecological role in bitter gourd from selected locations of Coimbatore district
|
Diversity in relation to functional role |
Arachnida |
Insecta |
|||||||||
|
Coleoptera |
Diptera |
Hemiptera |
Hymenoptera |
Lepidoptera |
Mantoidae |
Odonata |
Orthoptera |
Thysanoptera |
Total |
||
|
Predators |
5 |
14 |
3 |
0 |
5 |
0 |
2 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
34 |
|
Parasitoids |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
|
Pollinators |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
8 |
9 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
19 |
|
Pest |
0 |
5 |
3 |
9 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
1 |
22 |
|
Tourists |
0 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
|
Total |
5 |
22 |
8 |
9 |
15 |
10 |
2 |
5 |
3 |
1 |
80 |
Table 4.a Arthropod diversity in bitter gourd from selected locations of Coimbatore district
|
Class |
Order |
Family |
Species |
Relative Species Abundance (%) |
||
|
No’s |
Total |
No’s |
Total |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Arachnida |
Araneae |
4 |
4 |
5 |
5 |
6.25 |
|
Insecta |
Coleoptera |
8 |
41 |
22 |
75 |
27.5 |
|
|
Diptera |
8 |
8 |
10 |
||
|
|
Hemiptera |
7 |
9 |
11.25 |
||
|
|
Hymenoptera |
8 |
15 |
18.75 |
||
|
|
Lepidoptera |
4 |
10 |
12.5 |
||
|
|
Mantoidae |
1 |
2 |
2.5 |
||
|
|
Odonata |
2 |
5 |
6.25 |
||
|
|
Orthoptera |
2 |
3 |
3.75 |
||
|
|
Thysanoptera |
1 |
1 |
1.25 |
||
|
Total |
|
|
45 |
|
80 |
|
Table 4.b. Arthropod diversity index in bitter gourd from selected locations of Coimbatore district
|
Parameters |
Locations |
Total |
|||
|
L1 |
L2 |
L3 |
L4 |
||
|
Total no. of individuals |
4112 |
2570 |
3819 |
1981 |
12,481 |
|
Shannon- Weiner Diversity index
|
3.182
|
2.914
|
3.268 |
2.681 |
|
|
Simpson’s index (1-D) |
0.915 |
0.887
|
0.923 |
0.875 |
|
|
Margalef richness index |
8.61 |
7.67 |
8.68 |
6.76 |
|
L1 - TNAU orchard, L2 - Thondamuthur, L3 - Narasipuram, L4 – Pollachi
Table 4.c. Arthropod diversity in relation to ecological role in bitter gourd from selected locations of Coimbatore district
|
Diversity in relation to functional role |
Arachnida |
Insecta |
|||||||||
|
Coleoptera |
Diptera |
Hemiptera |
Hymenoptera |
Lepidoptera |
Mantoidae |
Odonata |
Orthoptera |
Thysanoptera |
Total |
||
|
Predators |
5 |
14 |
3 |
0 |
5 |
0 |
2 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
34 |
|
Parasitoids |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
|
Pollinators |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
8 |
9 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
19 |
|
Pest |
0 |
5 |
3 |
9 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
1 |
22 |
|
Tourists |
0 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
|
Total |
5 |
22 |
8 |
9 |
15 |
10 |
2 |
5 |
3 |
1 |
80 |
Table 5. Arthropod diversity in bitter gourd at TNAU orchard
|
Categories |
Arachnida |
Insecta |
|||||||||
|
Coleoptera |
Diptera |
Hemiptera |
Hymenoptera |
Lepidoptera |
Mantoidae |
Odonata |
Orthoptera |
Thysanoptera |
Total |
||
|
Total no of families |
4 |
8 |
7 |
7 |
6 |
4 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
38 |
|
Total no of species |
5 |
20 |
7 |
7 |
13 |
9 |
1 |
5 |
3 |
1 |
66 |
|
No of predators species |
5 |
12 |
3 |
0 |
5 |
0 |
1 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
26 |
|
No of pollinators species |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
8 |
8 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
18 |
|
No of pest species |
0 |
5 |
2 |
7 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
1 |
19 |
|
No of parasitoids species |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
No of tourist species |
0 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
|
Total no. of individuals |
232 |
484 |
231 |
1863 |
381 |
192 |
4 |
162 |
68 |
495 |
4112 |
|
Total no. of individuals : 4112 |
|||||||||||
|
Shannon- Weiner Diversity index : 3.182 |
|||||||||||
|
Simpson’s index (1-D) : 0.915 |
|||||||||||
|
Margalef richness index : 8.61 |
|||||||||||
Table 6. Arthropod diversity in bitter gourd at Thondamuthur
|
Categories |
Arachnida |
Insecta |
|||||||||
|
Coleoptera |
Diptera |
Hemiptera |
Hymenoptera |
Lepidoptera |
Mantoidae |
Odonata |
Orthoptera |
Thysanoptera |
Total |
||
|
Total no of families |
4 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
6 |
3 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
38 |
|
Total no of species |
5 |
13 |
5 |
6 |
13 |
9 |
0 |
5 |
3 |
1 |
66 |
|
No of predators species |
5 |
9 |
2 |
0 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
26 |
|
No of pollinators species |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
8 |
9 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
18 |
|
No of pest species |
0 |
4 |
1 |
6 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
1 |
19 |
|
No of parasitoids species |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
No of tourist species |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
|
Total no. of individuals |
68 |
220 |
157 |
1243 |
220 |
101 |
0 |
108 |
58 |
395 |
2570 |
|
Total no. of individuals : 2570 |
|||||||||||
|
Shannon- Weiner Diversity index : 2.914 |
|||||||||||
|
Simpson’s index (1-D) : 0.887 |
|||||||||||
|
Margalef richness index : 7.67 |
|||||||||||
Table 7. Arthropod diversity in bitter gourd at Narasipuram
|
Categories |
Arachnida |
Insecta |
|||||||||
|
Coleoptera |
Diptera |
Hemiptera |
Hymenoptera |
Lepidoptera |
Mantoidae |
Odonata |
Orthoptera |
Thysanoptera |
Total |
||
|
Total no of families |
4 |
7 |
8 |
6 |
8 |
4 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
38 |
|
Total no of species |
5 |
16 |
8 |
8 |
15 |
9 |
1 |
5 |
3 |
1 |
66 |
|
No of predators species |
5 |
11 |
3 |
0 |
5 |
0 |
1 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
26 |
|
No of pollinators species |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
8 |
8 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
18 |
|
No of pest species |
0 |
3 |
3 |
8 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
1 |
19 |
|
No of parasitoids species |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
No of tourist species |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
|
Total no. of individuals |
197 |
438 |
269 |
1661 |
413 |
173 |
1 |
143 |
101 |
423 |
3819 |
|
Total no. of individuals 3819 |
|||||||||||
|
Shannon- Weiner Diversity index : 3.268 |
|||||||||||
|
Simpson’s index (1-D) : 0.923 |
|||||||||||
|
Margalef richness index : 8.68 |
|||||||||||
Table 8. Arthropod diversity in bitter gourd at Pollachi
|
Categories |
Arachnida |
Insecta |
|||||||||
|
Coleoptera |
Diptera |
Hemiptera |
Hymenoptera |
Lepidoptera |
Mantoidae |
Odonata |
Orthoptera |
Thysanoptera |
Total |
||
|
Total no of families |
4 |
4 |
5 |
4 |
6 |
4 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
32 |
|
Total no of species |
5 |
8 |
5 |
6 |
12 |
7 |
0 |
5 |
3 |
1 |
47 |
|
No of predators species |
5 |
6 |
2 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
17 |
|
No of pollinators species |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
8 |
6 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
16 |
|
No of pest species |
0 |
2 |
1 |
6 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
1 |
14 |
|
No of parasitoids species |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
No of tourist species |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Total no. of individuals |
70 |
112 |
89 |
1066 |
125 |
73 |
0 |
84 |
41 |
321 |
1981 |
|
Total no. of individuals : 1981 |
|||||||||||
|
Shannon- Weiner Diversity index : 2.681 |
|||||||||||
|
Simpson’s index (1-D) : 0.875 |
|||||||||||
|
Margalef richness index :6.76 |
|||||||||||