Assessment of the biodiversity of agricultural arthropods of the nord-est Souk Ahras (Algeria)

Agrarian Academic Journal

agrariacad.com

doi: 10.32406/v7n1/2024/85-105/agrariacad

 

Assessment of the biodiversity of agricultural arthropods of the nord-est Souk Ahras (Algeria). Avaliação da biodiversidade de artrópodes agrícolas do norte do Souk Ahras (Argélia).

 

Abderrahmene Bouaouich^1,2*, Soumia Taleb³, Hayat Sirine³, Faiza Bouguerche⁴, Hamdi Bendif⁵

 

^1- University of Souk Ahras, Laboratory of Science and Techniques for Living, Department of Agronomic Sciences, Institute of Agronomic and Veterinary Sciences, Souk Ahras 41000, Algeria.

^2*- University of Souk Ahras, Department of Agronomic Sciences, Institute of Agronomic and Veterinary Sciences, Souk Ahras 41000, Algeria. E-mail address: a.bouaouich@univ-soukahras.dz

^3- University of Souk Ahras, Department of Agronomic Sciences, Institute of Agronomic and Veterinary Sciences, Souk Ahras 41000, Algeria. E-mail address: ridha.talbi@gmail.com

^4- Department of Biology, Faculty of Natural Sciences and Life, University of Souk Ahras, Souk Ahras 41000, Algeria. E-mail address: khawlafaiza23@gmail.com

^5- Laboratory of Ethnobotany and Natural Substances, Ecole Normale Supérieure (ENS), Kouba, Algiers, Department of Natural and Life Sciences, Faculty of Sciences, PO Box 166 Ichebilia, 28000, Algeria. E-mail address: hamdi.bendif@univ-msila.dz

 

Abstract

 

Agricultural territories represent the main habitats of ordinary biological diversity in the municipality of Tiffech and Oum Ladayem metropolitan. Several actions, to increase the biological diversity, are lead on these territories at different scales (Tiffech and Oum Ladayem, National, land scale or farm scale). The aim of these actions is to stop the loss of biodiversity. But scientific methods are necessary to evaluate the results of these actions. The method used for 3 years, in the study of the arthropoda biodiversity at the “Tiffech and Oum Ladayem” is one of these methods. In fact, the Rapid Biodiversity Assessment (RBA) is a simple method which permits an evaluation of the arthropods’ biodiversity, with a morphologic determination method, parataxonomy. The results obtained show the importance of the presence of Ecological Reservoir Zones or semi-natural habitats within monoculture territories (here leguminous peas), in order to preserve biodiversity in arthropods.

Keywords: Arthropods. Biological diversity. Peas legumes. Ecological Zone Reservoir. RBA. Parataxonomy. Morpho-species.

 

 

Resumo

 

Os territórios agrícolas representam os principais habitats da diversidade biológica comum no município de Tiffech e na região metropolitana de Oum Ladayem. Diversas ações, para aumentar a diversidade biológica, são conduzidas nestes territórios em diferentes escalas (Tiffech e Oum Ladayem, Nacional, escala terrestre ou escala agrícola). O objetivo desta ação é travar a perda de biodiversidade. Mas são necessários métodos científicos para avaliar o seu resultado. Os métodos utilizados há 3 anos, no estudo da biodiversidade de artrópodes no “Tiffech e Oum Ladayem” são um desses métodos. Na verdade, a Avaliação Rápida da Biodiversidade (RBA) é um método simples que permite uma avaliação da biodiversidade dos artrópodes, com um método de determinação morfológica, a parataxonomia. Os resultados obtidos mostram a importância da presença de Zonas de Reservatórios Ecológicos ou habitats seminaturais dentro de territórios de monocultura (aqui ervilhas leguminosas), de forma a preservar a biodiversidade em artrópodes.

Palavras-chave: Artrópodes. Diversidade Biológica. Leguminosas ervilhas. Reservatório da Zona Ecológica. RBA. Parataxonomia. Morfo-espécie.

 

 

Introduction

 

Biodiversity is a concept of exceptional magnitude, it encompasses the variety of life at all scales (from local to global, from short to long term) at all levels of integrations (genetic, specific, eco-systemic), from all angles (structural to functional, from artificial to natural). It is thus at the root of essential issues, not only for plant, fungal and animal species, but especially for human societies (NICHOLLS et al., 2001).

Knowledge, classification, characterization and conservation of the different taxa are a global scientific priority. This fundamental aspect of the living world finds its ecological, structural and functional extension in insects. They are extremely sensitive to various types of environmental disturbance (DUELLI, 1997; DUELLI and OBRIST, 1998; CARDINALE et al., 2003; SACKETT et al., 2009). The impact of climate change is found at all levels of organization of animal or plant life: seasonal events, range, species composition, communities and the structure and functioning of ecosystems (COSTELLO and DAANE, 1998; MCGEOCH, 1998; PHARO et al., 1999).

The entire scientific community agrees on the importance of arthropods (CLERGUE et al., 2005). The insects, which account for about half of the described living species and three quarters of those of the animal world, occupy a wide thermal spectrum of desert areas, or the temperature contrasts between seasons and between day and night are extremely high, with the coldest pack ice (DIXON and KINDLMANN, 1990; KRELL, 2004).

Plants, primary producers and arthropods secondary and tertiary consumers represent groups extremely related to the adjustment of available energy, they are diverse and ecologically very important in all terrestrial ecosystems, of which 46% feed on plants (SCHWEIGER et al., 2005).

One of the most commonly cited causes for biological diversity erosion is fragmentation or loss of natural or semi-natural habitat in the case of agrosystems (BENTON et al., 2003; TEWS et al., 2004). Another aspect of the Grenelle de l’environnement is to restore a coherent mosaic of habitats by restoring certain connections lost in recent decades, particularly with the expansion of monocultures (GLIESSMAN, 2000). For this the Grenelle proposes the establishment of a green and blue grid. This highlights the importance of semi-natural habitat poles and their connections for the preservation of biodiversity within agricultural systems, highlighting their role as Reservoir Ecological Zone (REZ).

In the guidelines of the International Organization for Biological Control (IOBC) against animals and plants harmful to integrated production, mention is made of these (REZ). The objective of these ecological reservoir areas is to safeguard natural biodiversity (NICHOLLS et al., 2001; DUELLI and OBRIST, 2003 (b); SCHWEIGER et al., 2005; HENDRICKX et al., 2007). These REZ must be maintained or developed on an area equivalent to 5% of the usable agricultural area (VAN HELDEN, 2000).

In agrosystems, the protection of biological diversity requires knowledge of the current state of populations and therefore of methods for measuring and evaluating this biodiversity (CLERGUE et al., 2005) in order to know its functioning, how it is distributed at the territorial level. To avoid practical problems that make it impossible to establish an inventory of all the species richness on a large scale, such as that of a holding, ecologists have tested the use of certain particular taxa, specifically vascular flora and arthropods as general indicators of biodiversity (DUELLI, 1997; DUELLI and OBRIST, 1998; MCGEOCH, 1998; PHARO et al., 1999).

Indeed, because of their immense diversity (53% of the known species of the planet are insects) arthropods form the largest part of the species richness at all spatial scales (HAMMOND, 1992). Arthropods interact at multiple levels within ecosystems and provide different services (BUREL et al., 1998; HOOPER et al., 2000, 2005; LOREAU, 2000; LAVELLE et al., 2006). These include pollination (KREMEN et al., 2007), fertility and soil structuring (BARRIOS, 2007, BRUSSARD and TULL, 2007) and the regulation of pest populations (CARDINALE et al., 2003; MOONEN and BARBERI, 2008) and the prevention of invasions.

In addition, their relatively short reproductive cycle allows short-term visualization of the effects of certain practices (BUREL et al., 1998). Moreover, the ease of sampling via trapping makes arthropods good indicators as to the state of the environment with regard to the diversity it harbours.

The assessment of this biodiversity at the domain level is still relatively complex, costly and time-consuming. Indeed, if we want to encompass all the diversity of arthropods captured, from a given site to a specific taxonomic level such as the species, the help of a specialist for each group, or even for each family is essential. However, taxonomic specialists for most arthropod taxa are very few, and even non-existent for some taxa (NOSS, 1996; WHITEHEAD, 1990). In addition, the use of classical taxonomy to access an interesting level of information (the species) is tedious for a study seeking to sample the entire biodiversity in arthropods.

Indeed, the identification of individuals up to the species is possible only with the help of complex taxonomic identification keys, resulting in the name of species according to the binomial nomenclature (Genus species) of each individual. The time spent in the identification of each individual is considerable in this case, if however the identification is possible for all, knowing that for some families there are still no keys (NOSS, 1996). Thus the time constraint for the determination of each individual makes it impossible to set up a study over several years, a single year of sampling would take too long for the recovery of data and their processing.

Nevertheless, there is a method for assessing biodiversity in an agricultural environment that can be understood by non-specialists, the RBA method, for Rapid Biodiversity Assessment. It allows the observation of biological diversity in arthropods over relatively long periods and the achievement of exploitable results quickly and at lower cost.

The main objective of this study is to have an evaluation of the diversity of arthropods present on the territory of the Souk Ahras wilaya. This study will then be highlighted in a larger project, called « Landscape of the commune of Tiffech and Oum Ladayem », in direct connection with the project in memory.

To meet this objective, and ensure coverage of the overall arthropod diversity, trapping systems have been arranged in the various habitats identified on the hill. These different habitats are located on three neighboring communes: of the commune of Tiffech and Oum Ladayem.

The study aims to evaluate the influence of landscape features, particularly the proximity of vegetation poles, on arthropod diversity, building on previous research indicating the significance of semi-natural habitats as potential sources for populations colonizing agrosystems. Additionally, it seeks to assess the impact of pea cultivation on biodiversity by examining the effects of practices such as grassing in growing islands alongside the aforementioned landscape factors. Three key assumptions are considered: firstly, that arthropod abundance and diversity are higher in semi-natural habitats compared to pea patches; secondly, that the abundance and diversity of arthropods in pea plots are positively influenced by the proximity of vegetation poles (ZRs); and thirdly, that planting practices, specifically grass plots, in pea plots positively impact arthropod abundance and diversity compared to cultivated plots. These objectives underpin the investigation’s focus on understanding how agricultural practices and landscape characteristics interact to shape arthropod communities. (NICHOLLS et al., 2001; DUELLI and OBRIST, 2003 (b); SCHWEIGER et al., 2005; HENDRICKX et al., 2007; SACKETT et al., 2009).

The main objective of the work is to assess and enhance the biological diversity within agricultural territories, particularly in the municipality of Tiffech and Oum Ladayem metropolitan area. Various actions have been implemented at different scales to mitigate biodiversity loss, with a specific focus on stopping the decline of biodiversity. Scientific methods, including the Rapid Biodiversity Assessment (RBA), are employed to evaluate the effectiveness of these actions. The study emphasizes the significance of maintaining Ecological Reservoir Zones or semi-natural habitats within monoculture territories, such as leguminous peas, to safeguard the diversity of arthropods.

 

Materials and methods

 

Selection of study area

According to Isaia et al. (2006), the station must be as homogeneous as possible in order to analyze the spatial and temporal distribution of arthropods. In our study the choice of stations is based on the following criteria:

Our study was done at two stations. The first is a farm. This is located in the southern part of Oum Ladayem of the wilaya of Souk Ahras. The second is in the region of Tiffech; northern part of the wilaya. Due to lack of work in this type of environment, we had chosen these two stations that are of the same plant structure, separated from each other in order to compare their richness and diversity in Arthropoda. Station selection criteria take into account the accessibility of the site and the safety of the trapping stations.

 

Station location and description

 

Oum Ladayem Station

Our first sampling area is in the commune of Oum Ladayem, in the southern zone of al wilaya de Souk Ahras, whose administrative boundaries are:

• In the East: the commune of M’daourouch
• In the West: the town of Safel El Ouiden
• In the North: the municipality of Sedrata and Ragouba
• South: Tebessa wilaya

The station is a mixed farm, arboriculture, olive, cereal and cattle farm, characterized by a homogeneous terrain and a medium and uniform slope. It is part of the high plateaux, This sampling area is subjected to a semi-arid Mediterranean climate.

 

Tiffech Station

Physically speaking, the municipality of Tiffech located in the northern zone of the wilaya of Souk Ahras is part of the plains of Sedrata, it is an agropastoral zone recognized by its milk production. The average altitude of the community is 900 m, whose administrative boundaries are:

• In the East: the municipality of Zaarouria
• In the West: the commune of Ragouba
• In the North: Henancha
• South: Drea Township

It is characterized by a heterogeneous relief and a medium and uniform slope, two distinct groups are dominant in the communal territory, the mountains and foothills, and the high plains. The mountains occupy an important area in the municipality. This area is characterized by a rich forest, archeological, hydrological and important fauna, and floristic diversity (Figures 1 and 2 (a); (b)).

 

Figure 1 – Geographical Location Tiffech and Oum Ladayem of Souk Ahras province 1/500000 (a): Station Oum Ladhaiem; (b): Station Tiffech.

 

Figure 2 – (a) Situation of the study station (Oum Ladhaiem), TN: Trapping network. (b) Situation of the study station (Tiffech) Souk Ahras province.

 

Study period and timing of exits      

At both stations, we carried out an inventory of arthropods on a four-month period from April to June 2019. Two outings per month are scheduled. Note that climate is one of the primary factors that regulate the outing period.

 

Application of the methodology

Two methods are used to carry out this work: one in the field for sampling Arthropods and the other at the laboratory for identification.

 

Method used in the field

The ideal method of sampling animal populations in a medium would be one that accurately portrays a stand that occupies a defined area (LEADLEY et al., 2010).

In this part, the methodology adopted for the study of the inventory of arthropod, in three types of vegetation at the agro-ecosystem level of two stations.

Invertebrate sampling methods are numerous and the choice of one or more of them is determined by the requirements of the field and the type of invertebrates sought.

 

Sampling protocol

It involves capturing invertebrates directly by hand without the need for special equipment. It provides good information on the host plant (DUELLI and OBRIST, 2010).

Direct observation has allowed us to capture a large part of the locust. Prospecting has revealed a number of insects that hide in large tufts of vegetation.

 

Sampling at ground level

This allows us to capture invertebrate species that are trapped under the rocks or live in the soil. According to Dixon and Kindlmann (1990), it is recommended to turn the stones and dig the ground. It is enough to return the stones with the help of a pickle and to capture the Arthropods, these are then placed in petri dishes or small bottles bearing the date and place indications.

 

Pitfall

Arthropods are trapped by two different systems; pitfall traps and these two traps are always arranged together and are what will later be called a “trapping post”. Pitfall traps consist of a bottle, connected to a 10 cm diameter funnel, all buried. This system allows sampling of individuals moving on the surface of the soil (Figure 3 (a); (b)).

 

Figure 3 – (a) Traps Pitfall Photo, (b) of the reference collection of Morpho-Species (Beetle, Lepidoptera) from the sampling campaign (personal photograph, 2019).

 

Combi

Traps are a combination of intercept traps (a container topped with polycarbonate plates, on which individuals darken) and chromatic traps, which attract arthropods by bright colors, Arthropods are trapped by two different systems, pitfall traps and these two traps are always set. This trap is therefore made up of a wooden frame supporting a bright yellow funnel, and of 50 cm of diameter, itself surmounted by two polycarbonate plates, forming a cross. The funnel is closed by a silicone bung.

Both types of traps are filled with an aqueous solution containing 5% salt, for the conservation of the captured individuals, as well as a few drops of detergent (ecological and fragrance-free dishwashing product) so that the arthropods don’t stay on the surface and can’t go up to the edges of the traps. Arthropods are therefore continuously captured and stored in a liquid medium between trap surveys.

 

Buried traps or Barber pots

This is the most common type of trap used to collect invertebrates, including Epiced Geophilic Arthropods (BIAGGINI et al., 2007).

This type of trap makes it possible to study and capture various arthropods walkers such as beetles, diplopods and a large number of flying insects that land on the surface of the trap. This involves pushing each pot so that its edge coincides with the soil surface.

In fact, the pots are cans or boxes of plastic of 10 cm in diameter and 15 cm deep. These pots are buried vertically so that the opening is at ground level or flush with the ground. The soil is packed around the pots to avoid the barrier effect for small species (BUREL and BAUDRY, 1995)
Barber pots are filled with water at a third of the height.

According to the same authors, to prevent captured insects from escaping from the trap, it is necessary to add a little wetting product, in this case a pinch of detergent.

Each Barber pot is protected by a raised flat stone, thanks to three small stones reserving sufficient space to allow the passage of insects towards the trap and minimizes the evaporation of the liquid.

According to Dixon and Kindlmann (1990), 8 pots are arranged in transect, that is to say in line of 40 m with an interval of 5 m between two consecutive pots. The pots are left in place in the field for 24 hours. The next day, the contents of each Barber pot are filtered and placed separately in a box, for later determinations in the laboratory.

 

Benefits

This method is easy to implement in the field. It does not require large means (pots, water and detergent) and allows to capture all the species of arthropods that pass on the side of the pots and the group of arthropods very little observe and important.

 

Drawbacks

After their installation in the field, the contents of the Barber pots must be recovered within 7 days in winter, spring and autumn. Otherwise, the collected samples may be attacked by mould, ferment and rot, the contents of the pots are recovered after 3 days to prevent drying, degradation and deterioration of the caught species. In case of heavy rain, the excess of water can flood pots whose contents overflow bringing out the captured arthropods. In addition to insect species, these traps tend to capture reptile animals, rodents, etc. because trapped arthropods attract other individuals and distort data.

 

Aerial traps

These traps exert attractiveness on insects by the fact that they contain water, which is a vital element. According to Laudriec (2010), these traps are particularly effective against heliophilic and floricultural insects. They capture aerial fauna, mainly Diptera, Hymenoptera, Hemiptera and Orthoptera. It is a trap made up of trays or pots 15 cm high and 20 cm diameter, raised on a stake at an equal height or exceeds natural vegetation. The pots are filled to 2/3 of their volume with water added to a few drops of detergent.

This reduces the surface tension of the water and promotes drowning of species that come into contact with the liquid.

In 2 different habitats: forest edge (2 stations), wooded grove (1 trap), vegetated wall (1 trap), old quarry with vegetation (1 trap) and vines (2 stations). In 2019, the 04 trapping stations, located in parcels of peas, were distributed equitably on two different modes of cultivation: cultivated and grassed. But the town of Tiffech constantly increasing the number of these grassy parcels, there were in 2019, 04 posts in grassy parcels and 01 in cultivated parcels.

In 2019 the number of cultivated plots has decreased again, 02 traps are placed in green peas (grass between rows of Peas), 02 are in Cultivated peas (tillage between rows of peas) (Figure 3 (a)) and always 02 positions in semi-natural habitat (wood edge, grove, former vegetated quarry and vegetated wall).

 

Results

 

Overall characteristics of the campaign

During the 10-week survey period from April 17 to June 30, 58 individuals were captured, sorted and counted. They are divided into 08 taxonomic orders and 58 identified morpho-species. The analysis of the distribution of the captured individuals, through the abundance and richness of Ms, will allow to try to understand how is distributed the biological diversity in arthropods on the commune of Tiffech and Oum Ladayem.

 

Trapping Quality

When we look at the abundance and the morpho-specific richness according to the type of trap (Pitfall or Combi) we see some differences. Indeed, the 2 types of traps do not capture the same number of arthropods, 72% (Figure 4 (a) and (b)) of the total abundance of the sampling campaign is captured by the combi traps which have a larger trapping radius. The remaining 10% is captured by the pitfall, which represents 50 individuals captured on the countryside.

 

Figure 4 – Distribution of MSR (morpho-specific richness) in number of Ms (Morpho-specific) (a) and abundance in number of individuals captured (b) by type of trap (P: for pitfall trap and C: for Combi trap).

 

However, the MSR shows that of the 58 EM identified in this study only 34% are common to both types of traps (Figure 3 (a) and (b)). Most of the diversity is captured by combi traps, with 66% of the total wealth (58 ME).

 

Temporal Distribution

Looking at the total abundance of each survey (Figure 5) over the trapping period, it is found that overall, the numbers caught are in the same order of magnitude over the entire period with the exception of one surve.

 

Figure 5 – Total abundance by trap type (Pitfall and Combi) and for the full station, by survey.

 

Survey number 8, corresponding to the 8th week, collected on June 8, has an abnormally high total abundance. On average, catches per week amount to 26+/- 12 individuals. However, for Survey No 8, the catch numbers are 06 individuals, and we note that this increase in captured individuals is supported only by Combi traps.

Indeed, it can also be observed that the numbers caught by Pitfall traps appear to be in the same order of magnitude over the whole period. Numbers captured by Pitfall represent an average of 02 +/- 0.3 individuals per week. However, for survey no. 8, Pitfall catches represent 02 individuals, which is what remains in the catch averages. On the other hand, with regard to Combi traps, we note that the numbers caught per week represent an average of 09 +/- 0.1 individuals, whereas the catches by Combi traps for survey no. 8 represent 09 individuals, which is above the average catch.

Concerning the specific morpho richness for each survey of the campaign, there is an overall trend of decrease during the weeks (Figure 6). Indeed, we go from 9 Ms for the second week to 09 Ms for the last. Moreover, the decrease does not appear to be gradual but rather to follow a “staircase” week 1 and 2 (0 to 09 Ms), then week 3 to 5 (12 to 08 Ms) and finally week 6 to 10 (05 to 12 Ms).

 

Figure 6 – Total morpho-specific richness by surveys.

 

Breakdown by Order

The 08 Taxonomic Orders contacted during sampling are not represented in the same way, either in terms of abundance or morpho-specific richness (Figure 7). Overall, the orders that are most represented in terms of Ms are also the most abundant orders. For example, beetles that represent the greatest abundance over the entire study, with 07 individuals captured, are represented by the greatest richness also with 22 Ms identified.

 

Figure 7 – Morpho-specific richness and abundance by taxonomic order over the entire countryside Sampling.

 

The Lepidoptera constitute the second most abundant order with 17 captured individuals and collect 08 Ms which also place them in 2nd position regarding morpho-specific richness. Then we find the orders of diptera and orthoptera which represent the 3rd and 4th most abundant orders with 2 and 9 individuals captured in total and regrouping 58 Ms for the Diptera, and 9 individuals captured, regrouping 30 Ms for the dermoptera. The figure grouping the abundance and RMS values for each order.

We present the results of the floristic inventory and arthropod fauna at the two stations (Oum Ladayem and Tiffech) in the region of Souk Ahras.

 

Results of the floristic study at both study sites

Several authors have shown the importance of vegetation, and Thomson et al. (2010) points out that increasing plant diversity leads to an increase in the diversity of phytophages and as a result of their predators and parasites. The floristic composition and abundance of vegetation often reflect precise edapho-climatic and even anthropogenic conditions. Indeed, vegetation reflects several factors, namely the local climate, topology and especially the nature of the soil (HOLLAND and REYNOLDS, 2003).

The floristic inventory of the study plot revealed the presence of 24 plant species, spread over 13 botanical families. The family Apiaceae and Asteraceae are the most represented in terms of species richness with 6 and 5 successive plant species (Table 1).

 

Table 1 – The table below lists the plant species encountered at the two study stations. Made from dicotomous keys Quézel and Santa (1962-1963) and Ozenda (1958, 1991, 2004).

Classes	Family	Scientific name	Sites
			T	Om
Dicotyledonous	Asteraceae	Scolymus hispanicus L.	+	+
		Scolymus maculatus	+	+
		Onopordum acanthium	+	+
		Silybum marianum	+	+
		Taraxacum dens-leonis	+	+
	Apiaceae	Anethum graveolens	+	+
		Daucus carota. var. sativus	+	+
		Eryngium campestre L.	+	+
		Coriandrum sativum	+	+
		Teucrium polium	+	+
		Coriandrum sativum	+	+
	Aplacées	Crithmum maritimum	+	+
Monocotyledonous	Asparagaceae	Muscari comosum	+	+
Dicotylédonous	Boraginaceae	Borago officinalis	+	+
		Anchusa azurea	+	+
		Cynoglossum cherifolium	+	+
	Globulariaceae	Globularia alypum	+	+
	Lamiaceae	Marubium vulgare	+	+
	Labiatae	Thymus vulgaris	+	+
	Malvaceae	Lavatera sylvestris	+	+
Monocotylédonous	Poaceae (Graminaceae)	Avena sativa	+	+
Dicotylédonous	Papaveraceae	Papaver rhoeas	+	+
	Euphorbiaceae	Euphorbia helioscopia	+	+
	Fumariaceae	Fumaria officinalis	+	+

T: Tiffech; northern part of the Souk Ahras wilaya; Om: d’Oum Ladayem, the southern area of Souk Ahras wilaya.

+: presence of the species.

 

Results of arthropod biological diversity at both study sites

The results in this section deal with the overall wildlife inventory of both
stations (Oum Ladayem and Tiffech), animal classes per station, the richness and diversity of these two stands (Tables 2 and 3).

 

Table 2 – List of Arthropod species collected from palm groves during the study period (April 17 – June 30, 2019).

Classes	Orders	Family	Code		Species	Sites
						T	Om
Insecta	Coléoptèra	Coccinellidae	Co01	Coccinella septempunctata		++	++
		Curculionidae	Co02	Tanysphyrus lemnae		++	++
		Tenebrionoidae	Co03	Pimelia payraudi		++	++
			Co04	Diaperis maculata		++	++
	Hyménoptèra	Colletidae	HY02	Colletes sp		++	++
	Diptèra	Muscidae	Di04	Musca domestica		++	++
	Lépidoptèra	Hesperiidae	Le01	Geshna cannalis		++	++
	Dermoptèra	Forficulidae	Der02	Forficula auricularia		++	++
	Orthoptèra	Acrididae	Ort01	Locusta migratoria		++	++
Arachnida	Spiders	Dysderidae	Ara01	Dysdera westringi		++	++
		Thomisidae	Ara02	Tomisus onustus		++	++

T: Tiffech; northern part of the Souk Ahras wilaya; Om: d’Oum Ladayem, the southern area of Souk Ahras wilaya.

++: presence of the species.

 

Table 3 – Index of host plants, by common name, and their insects the two study stations (April 17 – June 30, 2019).

Host plant	Insect Pest
Duckweeds, Lemna spp.	Tanysphyrus lemnae
Polygonum hydropiper L.	Geshna cannalis (Stoll)
Lavatera sylvestris	Tanysphyrus lemnae
Bellura densa	Pontederia cordata
Hydrilla verticillata	Bagous hydrillae
Thalia geniculata	Calpodes ethlius
Myrica gale L.	Pyrrhalta nymphaeae
Scolymus hispanicus L.	Orthocephalus proserpinae
Teucrium polium	Apis mellifera
Crithmum maritimum	Criste marine

 

Discussion

 

General consideration of sampling

First of all, it should be noted that the magnitude of the sampling carried out each week explains the choice of the RBA method for sorting and identification of arthropods captured during this study. Indeed, the identification of all the individuals captured in the 58 samples of this species (17 April to 30 June 2019) by the classical taxonomy was impossible, if only in terms of time but also for the reasons already explained.

From a global point of view, sampling appears to be consistent over the period covered. Indeed the 10 surveys allow to contact the majority of morpho-species present on the commune of Tiffech and Oum Ladayem, represented by the attainment of a «plateau» (Figures 1 and 2 (a); (b)). Thus, the main objective of the study, which is to quantify all the biological diversity in arthropod of the territory, is achieved. Moreover, over the trapping period, catches in terms of abundance are relatively well distributed, apart from week 10.

It was found that survey No 7 (week 8), due to the extreme values of a few positions, was detached from the rest of the surveys in terms of abundance, indeed significant differences were highlighted (Figure 3). In view of the morpho-specific richness, survey N° 7 does not seem different from the other surveys (Figure 4 (a) and (b)), it is therefore reasonable to say that this explosion of numbers should be the cause of only one or a few Ms. In addition, it was found that this increase in the numbers caught was supported only by combi traps (Figure 4 (a) and (b)).

However, during the sorting phase of week 08, a beetle Ms (Co04.21) (Figure 3 (b)) shows disproportionate numbers in combi traps and especially in traps on the edge of the forest and in nearby plots. After more research on this Ms, it turns out that it is largely represented by a beetle of the family Nitidulidae, Melighetes sp, known to be a rapeseed pest. However, there are fields of rapeseed not far from the commune of Tiffech and Oum Ladayem. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the peak abundance of this Ms coincides with the end of flowering of rapeseed (week 08 corresponds to the first week of June) and that the Nitidulidae were attracted by the bright yellow colour of the combi traps.

With regard to the trapping device, we are entitled to wonder whether the use of both types of traps is really relevant because the device is then relatively heavy in terms of work. However, even if the majority of morpho-species are captured by the combi traps, namely 58 Ms or 34% of the total, the 66% (58 Ms) captured by the pitfall (Figure 7). Justify the use of the 2 types of traps for this study, which seeks to assess arthropod diversity in the most complete manner possible.

 

Results by habitat

The results of this study show us, whether in terms of abundance or diversity, that the semi-natural habitats found in the monoculture matrix of peas of the commune of Tiffech and Oum Ladayem, which represents 47.7% of the total surface area of the territory, stand out very clearly each time. This result was predictable, in fact the maintenance of semi-natural habitats (Figure 7), especially wooded, within monocultures will allow to conserve a specific biodiversity of this type of habitat (BUREL and BAUDRY, 1995), widely considered to be rich and abundant (THOMSON et al., 2010).

With regard to biological diversity in the Pea plots, lower values of richness and abundance could be expected in view of the context disturbed by vegetation activities, from an ecological point of view. However, peas are a specific type of monoculture, a perennial crop that is comparatively less disturbed than other types of annual crops, such as wheat, rapeseed or maize (BRUGGISSER et al., 2010). In addition, peas very often occupy particular microclimate sites and thus often shelter rare or endangered species and biodiversity in general can be high (COSTELLO and DAANE, 1998; GLIESSMAN, 2000; ISAIA et al., 2006). It is all the more necessary to recall here that the municipality of Tiffech and Oum Ladayem has implemented rational vegetation practices (certifications) and that it would have been interesting to have in addition in the study a control plant with more traditional practices.

However, no differences were found between the two methods of cultivation of pois, ploughing against weeding of rows. Indeed, concerning the abundance and the overall richness of the Arthropods there is no difference between the Green peas and the cultivated peas. Despite this the weeding between the rows of Peas has other advantages. This practice makes it possible to fight against soil erosion, a recurring problem of vegetation.

In addition, this practice increases the plant biological diversity on the plots, indeed more species are present on the plot if it is grassy. Therefore, even if the plots do not differ in the overall abundance and diversity of the arthropods, the trivially increased botanical diversity of the rows of Green Peas could influence the morpho-species procession.

In fact, some plants are the host of insect species, whether for part or all of their life cycle, especially for phytophages (DIXON and KINDMAN, 1990). Hence the diversity of flora is, in a way, correlated with the diversity of insects (NOVOTN et al., 2006).

It can therefore be reasonably assumed that although structurally no differences between the diversity of Pea Grass and Pea Crop have been identified, compositional diversity may be a marker. In the light of the Jaccard calculated between the different habitats, the Green peas and the semi-natural habitats obtain the highest similarity index (0.70), despite the fact that the Green peas and cultivated obtain a no lower index (0.68).

Moreover, if we are interested in the distribution of all morpho-species contacted on the countryside, depending on the habitats, we could see that 66% of it was shared by the two habitats.    This is consistent and explains the strong similarity values obtained with the Jaccard index.

It was also found that the largest share of beta diversity was shared by grassy peas and semi-natural habitats (34% of total diversity), while grassy and cultivated peas shared half as many species (6% of total diversity). These results are still consistent with similarity indices. But these results make it possible to weight the «slight» difference of similarity a little better by observing that the Green Peas share twice as many species with semi-natural habitats as with cultivated plots.

However, the definition of “specific” diversity of each habitat, which was considered in this study as the number of Ms captured in a single habitat, may be nuanced.

Indeed, the species under represented, because rare or little trapped by the device, which are recorded only in a type of habitat by stochastic effect, which does not seem sufficient to judge its specificity the habitat considered. In order to judge the specificity of a species to a habitat type, different factors must be taken into account, if only the relative abundance of this Ms in each replicate of the habitat type considered.

This makes it possible to verify that it is well distributed within this type of habitat in particular.

However, it can be argued that the greatest richness lies in semi-natural habitats (13% of total diversity). Since these are “wooded” habitats (forest edges and groves), it can reasonably be assumed that this figure corresponds to the presence of species inferior to this type of habitat.

It should be noted that we are on a broad scale encompassing all the diversity of arthropoda. Thus multitudes of confounding factors come into play because of the large number of taxa taken into account. However, the impact of constraints, such as constraints related to agriculture, will be different between different taxa or trophic levels (BRUGGISSER et al., 2010). The observed trends can therefore potentially be nuanced by looking at a lower level, such as at the level of orders.

 

Results by Order

Beetles and lepidoptera and diptera, hymenoptera are the most abundant and richest Orders on the sampling campaign. This may be due to the fact that they would be the most represented orders with respectively 38% and 22% of the species identified in 2005 (the (DAS: Directorate of Agricultural Services) Souk Ahras) and are therefore more likely to be caught. The very nature of the traps can also be invoked. Because of the yellow colour of the combi and the interception system, mobile arthropods and pollinators are preferred.

Pollinators are well represented by beetles and especially by lepidoptera (DUELLI and OBRIST, 2010).

Regarding the richness and abundance of the two orders, the conclusions are the same as at the global scale taking into account all arthropods, that is to say that semi-natural habitats stand out from pea patches. Shannon’s biodiversity and equi-distribution indices vary only very little and show no differences for the two orders, so structurally the diversity of beetles and lepidoptera does not show differences between the three habitats.

In addition, the Jaccard similarity indices, calculated for beetles, vary only very little, representing the smallest observed variations in the index between habitats, whether at the complete station level, combi traps or pitfall traps (Figure 7).

However, some authors have shown that tillage does not necessarily affect populations of certain beetles. Indeed, for ground beetles in Britain, the two-year study of different tillage patterns shows that they do not affect the number and size of individuals captured (HOLLAND and REYNOLDS, 2003).

As regards the compositional diversity of the Hymenoptera, they present the greatest variation of the Jaccard index.

Indeed, the greatest similarity is found between grassy patches and semi-natural habitats (0.75) and the lowest between cultivated patches and grassy patches (0.59). Thus, it can be assumed that weeding, which mechanically increases botanical diversity, will induce an increase in pollinating insects, well represented by lepidoptera (DUELLI and OBRIST, 2010).

The Jaccard similarity index for Hymenoptera was not calculated for pitfall. Indeed, in this type of trap, which captures creeping wildlife, the majority of EM captured were ants.

However, these are social insects whose distribution does not seem relevant. Very similar trends have been observed in the global arthropod diversity or in the order of beetles and lepidoptera. This led to a questioning of the contribution to the total morpho-specific richness of these two orders. This contribution was calculated as a percentage of the richness of beetle morphospecies, lepidoptera and both orders combined, on the total richness per trapping station (Figure 7 and Table 3).

However, it appears that beetles account for 10.4% of the total RMS on average and Lepidoptera for 46.6% on average. The two orders together account for an average of 60% of the total RMS per position. This contribution was tested with a Spearman correlation coefficient. In both cases the correlation found is very significant and shows a “significant” positive correlation (0.74 for beetles, 0.78 for lepidoptera and 0.83 for both orders; Figures 5, 6 and 7). The same observation was made for other authors in studies using the same methodology (DUELLI and OBRIST, 2003 (a)).

Given the contributions of these two orders in terms of RMS, it would seem that these are sufficient to describe the global trends in arthropod biodiversity that are being sought to highlight. Thus, the work effort could be increased on these two orders, setting aside the other orders concerning the identification of morpho-species. This saving of time would allow to go little further in the taxonomic identification of beetles and lepidoptera, up to the family or even the genus for certain groups.

However, this work would not provide more answers to more agronomic questions often raised by peas. Indeed, on pea pest issues, the most interesting groups are in the order of homoptera and heteroptera (VAN HELDEN, 2000).

 

Comparison by Week

Despite attempts to homogenize the method with the Ms identification guide and linking the reference collections for each year of the study, it is impossible to compare morpho-species data. Indeed, there is still too much uncertainty, linked to differences in perception between observers for the identification of morpho-species. Nevertheless, Vitinnov is working on the establishment of a computer database to group the different reference collections and relate morpho-species codes with a photographic database.

The overall trends of each year’s sampling campaigns are consistent. In fact, significant positive correlations were identified between trapping stations with respect to the average abundance of individuals captured (Figure 7). This shows coherence between years of the trends, which govern the distribution of arthropods on the two communes, which one seeks to highlight.

However, it should be noted that for the first month of the study these trends do not appear. For the year 2019, no significant differences were identified between the various surveyed habitats (Figure 4). When we look at the abundance per habitat over the 2 months of the study, we find the trends highlighted each week (Figure 7).

If we look at the sampling done in 2019, we see that there are only 08 orders. This does not correspond to an ecological reality. If we look in detail the missing orders are orthoptera, spiders and hymenoptera, orders very poorly represented between April 17 and June 30, 2019 (1 or 2 individuals per campaign whose order identification can be confusing to a beginner. On the other hand, relatively well represented beetles and lepidoptera in wooded areas are missing in the 2019 sampling for April 17 to June 30, 2019.

Indeed, the catches in April 17 to June 30, 2019 of pitfall traps represent 24% of the total abundance of catch of the posts.

However, in April 17 to June 30, 2019, catches by pitfall traps represent only 12% of the total abundance captured by the posts. This difference cannot be explained by the structure of the traps which was identical. Similarly, the laying was done according to an identical protocol. Different assumptions are possible. The decrease in catches of pitfall could be due to different climatic conditions, which would have been less favourable in 17 April to 30 June 2019 to terrestrial arthropods, or to certain pitfall specific Ms, have smaller populations this year.

The same peak abundance for morpho-species was also observed for the April 17 to June 30, 2019, sampling season in week 08, reported by the observer that year.

The coding of the MOE differs (04Col1. in 2019) but it would be the same morpho-species identified as the pest of fields of rapeseed and peas belonging to the family Nitidulidae.

 

Method limitations

However, it is necessary to point out the limits of the RBA method. Indeed, the use of parataxonomy does not allow us to reach the level of information necessary to achieve the functional aspect of biodiversity and thus to be able to bring a more agronomic interest to the study. In particular for biological control, by providing a “value”, in agronomic terms, to certain species such as predators or parasites of phytophagous species known as pea pests. Nevertheless, functional approach tests using the RBA method are carried out by assigning to orders, and in some cases to families (more precise taxonomic level), a large type of function in the ecosystem under consideration (predators, phytophages, pollinators) (DUELLI and OBRIST, 2010).

On the other hand, with the use of parataxonomy, it is quite impossible to acquire information on the “value” of a morpho-species in terms of rarity or heritage. The remarkable appearance of the individuals sampled cannot be determined (KRELL, 2004).

 

Conclusion

 

In the 30 years from 1950 to 1980, more land was converted into crops than in the 150 years between 1700 and 1850. Today, one quarter of the Earth’s solid surface is covered by agrosystems (MILLENNIUM ECOSYSTEM ASSESSMENT, 2019).

This inventory, carried out in the year 2019, highlights the importance of the area covered by agrosystems on the Earth. The actions taken by farmers in the territories they manage will therefore have a major importance in the preservation of biological diversity.

So, the question is how the pea environment can improve its practices, to be closer to current environmental expectations.

On the commune of Tiffech and Oum Ladayem, the implementation of methods of reasoned cultivation, was essential to move towards a pea respectful of its environment. This is also why a partnership with the DAS was developed.

To conclude on the study, we can say that the RBA method, and the use of parataxonomy, despite its rough approach, is a powerful enough tool to detect global trends in general arthropod diversity. Of the three initial assumptions, two were verified. Indeed, the interest of the RSA, in terms of abundance and diversity, as well as the importance of their proximity to pea plots was highlighted.

Regarding the cultivation modalities of the plots (grassed or ploughed in the inter rows), no markers of interest, concerning the biodiversity in arthropoda, were highlighted. With the exception of the compositional diversity that surely deserves more investigation. However, this practice has other advantages already exposed for peas.

For the continuation of this study a «partnership» with the museum Dijon will begin in order to go further on the identification, from a taxonomic point of view this time, for some Ms. During the course of my study, I had the opportunity to meet Monique Prost, entomologist responsible for the museum’s collection, with whom we exchanged our views on the study conducted over the past three years.

During our discussions, it became apparent that it would be interesting to add something to this study by looking for potentially remarkable or heritage species in the reference collections and the impressive material represented by the 58 samples from the campaign. Indeed, the material collected during sampling is extremely interesting for the museum and this complementary work on identification will provide additional information in this study on the potential value of certain species.

In the continuity of the work put in place since three years, on the biological diversity in arthropods at the scale of a common territory of Tiffech and Oum Ladayem, a new study, also over three years, will take over. This time it will be necessary to study again the biodiversity in arthropods but at a higher scale, at the scale of the landscape.

For this new study the device will be very different, it will be to have all the traps in plots of the commune of Tiffech and Oum Ladayem and to analyze the diversity in arthropods according to the landscape context in which the plot is located.

Land use around peas will be analyzed using geographical information system (GIS) in a buffer zone around each trapping station (Tiffech and Oum Ladayem) and linked to arthropod trapping data. This new study will be part of a much larger project.

 

Conflicts of interest

 

There was no conflict of interest of the authors.

 

Authors’ contribution

 

Abderrahmene Bouaouich – original idea, direction, evaluation and original writing; Soumia Taleb, Hayat Sirine and Faiza Bouguerche – guidelines, data collection, data analysis, editing, corrections and text review; Hamdi Bendif – data collection, text editing and text review.

 

Acknowledgements

 

The authors are grateful to Prof. Dr. Kanuni Barbaros Balabanlı (Ankara Gazi University, Department of Biology, Developmental Biology and Biotechnology) for the plant identification and to the financial support of the Ministère de l’Enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche Scientifique (MESRES, Algeria) and Coopérative NOPALTEC Sidi-Fredj Souk Ahras regions Algeria.

 

References

 

BARRIOS, E. Soil biota, ecosystem services and land productivity. Ecological Economics, v. 64, n. 2, p. 269-285, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.03.004 

BENTON, T. G.; VICKERY, J. A.; WILSON, J. D. Farmland biodiversity: is habitat heterogeneity the key. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, v. 18, n. 4, p. 182-188, 2003. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(03)00011-9

BIAGGINI, M.; CONSORTI, R.; DAPPORTO, L.; DELLACASA, M.; PAGGETTI, E.; CORTI, C. The taxonomic level order as a possible tool for rapid assessment of Arthropod diversity in agricultural landscapes. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, v. 122, n. 2, p. 183-191, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2006.12.032

BRUGGISSER, O. T.; SCHMIDT-ENTLING, M. H; BACHER S. Effects of vineyard management on biodiversity at three trophic levels. Biological Conservation, v. 143, n. 6, p. 1521-1528, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.03.034

BRUSSARD, P. F.; TULL, J. C. Conservation biology and four types of advocacy. Conservation Biology, v. 21, n. 1, p. 21-24, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00640.x

BUREL, F.; BAUDRY, J. Species biodiversity in changing landscapes: a case study in the Pays d’Auge, France. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, v. 55, n. 3, p. 193-200, 1995. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-8809(95)00614-X

BUREL, F.; BAUDRY, J.; BUTET, A.; CLERGEAU, P.; DELETTRE, Y.; LE COEUR, D.; DUBS, F.; MORVAN, N.; PAILLAT, G.; PETIT, S.; THENAIL, C.; BRUNEL, E.; LEFEUVRE, J. C. Comparative biodiversity along a gradient of agricultural landscapes. Acta Oecologica, v. 19, n. 1, p. 47-60, 1998. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1146-609X(98)80007-6

CARDINALE, B. J.; HARVEY, C. T.; GROSS, K.; IVES, A. R. Biodiversity and biocontrol: emergent impacts of a multi-enemy assemblage on pest suppression and crop yield in an agroecosystem. Ecology Letters, v. 6, n. 9, p. 857-865, 2003. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1461-0248.2003.00508.x

CLERGUE, B.; AMIAUD, B.; PERVANCHON, F.; LASSERRE-JOULIN, F.; PLANTUREUX, S. Biodiversity: function and assessment in agricultural areas. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, v. 25, n. 1, p. 1-15, 2005. https://doi.org/10.1051/agro:2004049

COSTELLO, M. J.; DAANE, K. M. Influence of ground cover on spider populations in a table grape vineyard. Environmental Entomology, v. 23, n. 1, p. 33-40, 1998. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2311.1998.00108.x

DIXON, A. F. G.; KINDLMANN, P. Role of plant abundance in determining the abundance of herbivorous insects. Oecologia, v. 83, n. 2, p. 281-283, 1990. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4219331

DUELLI, P. Biodiversity evaluation in agricultural landscapes: an approach at two different scales. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, v. 62, p. 81-91, 1997. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(96)01143-7

DUELLI, P.; OBRIST, M. K. Biodiversity indicators: the choice of values and measures. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, v. 98, p. 87-98, 2003 (a). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(03)00072-0

DUELLI, P.; OBRIST, M. K. In search of the best correlates for local organismal biodiversity in cultivated areas. Biodiversity & Conservation, v. 7, p. 297-309, 1998. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008873510817

DUELLI, P.; OBRIST, M. K. Rapid biodiversity assessment of arthropods for monitoring average local species richness and related ecosystem services. Biodiversity and Conservation, v. 19, p. 2201–2220, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-010-9832-y

DUELLI, P.; OBRIST, M. K.; SCHMATZ, D. R. Biodiversity evaluation in agricultural landscapes: above-ground insects. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, v. 74, p. 33-64, 1999. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(99)00029-8

DUELLI, P.; OBRIST, M. K. Regional biodiversity in an agricultural landscape: the contribution of semi-natural habitat islands. Basic and Applied Ecology, v. 4, n. 2, p. 129-138, 2003 (b). https://doi.org/10.1078/1439-1791-00140

GLIESSMAN, S. R. Agroecosystem Sustainability: Developing Practical Strategies. 1^st edition. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2000, 224p. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420041514

HAMMOND, P. M. Species inventory. In: GROOMBRIDGE, B. (Ed.). Global biodiversity. Status of the Earth`s Living Resources. London: Chapman & Hall, p. 17-39, 1992.

HENDRICKX, F.; MAELFAIT, J.-P.; WINGERDEN, W. V.; SCHWEIGER, O.; SPEELMANS, M.; AVIRON, S.; AUGENSTEIN, I.; BILLETER, R.; BAILEY, D.; BUKACEK, R.; BUREL, F.; DIEKÖTTER, T.; DIRKSEN, J.; HERZOG, F.; LIIRA, J.; ROUBALOVA, M.; VANDOMME, V.; BUGTER, R.  How landscape structure, land-use intensity and habitat diversity affect components of total arthropod diversity in agricultural landscapes. Journal of Applied Ecology, v. 44, n. 2, p. 340-351, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2006.01270.x

HOLLAND, J. M.; REYNOLDS, C. J. M. The impact of soil cultivation on arthropod (Coleoptera and Aranea) emergence on arable land. Pedobiologia, v. 47, n. 2, p. 181-191, 2003. https://doi.org/10.1078/0031-4056-00181

HOOPER, D. U.; BIGNELL, D. E.; BROWN, V. K.; BRUSSARD, L.; DANGERFIELD, J. M.; WALL, D. H.; WARDLE, D. A.; COLEMAN, D. C.; GILLER, K. E.; LAVELLE, P.; VAN DER PUTTEN, W. H.; RUITER, P. C.; RUSEK, J.; SILVER, W. L.; TIEDJE, J. M.; WOLTERS, V. Interactions between Aboveground and Belowground Biodiversity in Terrestrial Ecosystems: Patterns, Mechanisms, and Feedbacks. Bioscience, v. 50, n. 12, p. 1049-1061, 2000. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2000)050[1049:IBAABB]2.0.CO;2

HOOPER, D. U.; CHAPIN III, F. S.; EWEL, J. J.; HECTOR, A.; INCHAUSTI, P.; LAVOREL, S.; LAWTON, J. H.; LODGE, D. M.; LOREAU, M.; NAEEM, S.; SCHMID, B.; SETÄLÄ, H.; SYMSTAD, A. J.; VANDERMEER, J.; WARDLE, D. A. Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a consensus of current knowledge. Ecology Monographs, v. 75, n. 1, p. 3-35, 2005. https://doi.org/10.1890/04-0922

ISAIA, M.; BONA, F.; BADINO, G. Influence of landscape diversity and agricultural practices on spider assemblage in Italian vineyards of Langa Astigiana (Northwest Italy). Environmental Entomology, v. 35, n. 2, p. 297-307, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1603/0046-225X-35.2.297

KRELL, F. T. Parataxonomy vs. taxonomy in biodiversity studies – pitfalls and applicability of ‘morphospecies’ sorting. Biodiversity & Conservation, v. 13, p. 795–812, 2004. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:BIOC.0000011727.53780.63

KREMEN, C.; WILLIAMS, N. M.; AIZEN, M. A.; GEMMILL-HERREN, B.; LEBUHN, G.; MINCKLEY, R.; PACKER, L.; POTTS, S. G.; ROULSTON, T.; STEFFAN-DEWENTER, I.; VÁZQUEZ, D. P.; WINFREE, R.; ADAMS, L.; CRONE, E. E.; GREENLEAF, S. S.; KEITT, T. H.; KLEIN, A.-M.; REGETS, J.; RICKETTS, T. H. Pollination and other ecosystem services produced by mobile organisms: a conceptual framework for the effects of land-use change. Ecology Letters, v. 10, n. 4, p. 299-314, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01018.x

LAUDRIEC, S. Evaluation de la biodiversité des arthropodes par la méthode RBA (Rapidity Biodiversity Assessment). Mémmoire de fin d’étude. Master 2 Ecologie des ressources naturelles et Développement Durable, UCO (Université Catholique de l’Ouest), 2010, 41p.

LAVELLE, P.; DECAËNS, T.; AUBERT, M.; BAROT, S.; BLOUIN, M.; BUREAU, F.; MARGERIE, P.; MORA, P.; ROSSI, J. P. Soil invertebrates and ecosystem services. European Journal of Soil Biology, v. 42, supp. 1, p. 3-15, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejsobi.2006.10.002

LEADLEY, P.; PEREIRA, H. M.; ALKEMADE, R.; FERNANDEZ-MANJARRÉS, J. F.; PROENÇA, V.; SCHARLEMANN, J. P. W.; WALPOLE, M. J. Biodiversity Scenarios: Biodiversity Scenarios: Projections of 21st century change in biodiversity and associated ecosystem services. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal. Technical Series, n. 50, 2010, 132p. http://hdl.handle.net/10204/4406

LOREAU, M. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: recent theoretical advances. Oikos, v. 91, n. 1, p. 3-17, 2000. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0706.2000.910101.x

MCGEOCH, M. A. The selection, testing and application of terrestrial insects as bioindicators. Biological Reviews, v. 73, n. 2, p. 181-201, 1998. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-185X.1997.tb00029.x

MILLENNIUM ECOSYSTEM ASSESSMENT. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2005, 155p. https://www.millenniumassessment.org/document.356.aspx.pdf

MOONEN, A. C.; BARBERI, P. Functional biodiversity: an agroecosystem approach. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, v. 127, p. 7-21, 2008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2008.02.013

NICHOLLS, C. I.; PARELLA, M.; ALTIERI, M. A. The effects of a vegetational corridor on the abundance and dispersal of insect biodiversity within a northern California organic vineyard. Landscape Ecology, v. 16, p. 133-146, 2001. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011128222867

NOSS, R. F. The naturalists are dying off. Conservation Biology, v. 10, n. 1, p. 1-3, 1996. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.1996.10010001.x

NOVOTN,‎ V.; DROZD, P.; MILLER, S. E.; KULFAN, M.; JANDA, M.; BASSET, Y.; WEIBLEN, G. D. Why Are There So Many Species of Herbivorous Insects in Tropical Rainforests? Science, v. 313, n. 5790, p. 1115-1118, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1129237

OZENDA, P. Flore et végétation du Sahara. 3^ème édition. Paris: CNRS éditions, 2004, 680p. https://www.cnrseditions.fr/catalogue/biologie-et-sante/flore-et-vegetation-du-sahara/

PHARO, E. J.; BEATTIE, A. J.; BINNS, D. Vascular plant diversity as a surrogate for bryophyte and lichen diversity, Conservation Biology, v. 13, n. 2, p. 282-292, 1999. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.1999.013002282.x

QUÉZEL, P.; SANTA, S. Nouvelle flore de l’Algérie et des régions désertiques méridionales. Tome I et Tome II. Paris: CNRS éditions, 1962-1963.

SACKETT, T. E.; BUDDLE, C. M.; VINCENT, C. Dynamics of spider colonization of apple orchards from adjacent deciduous forest. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, v. 129, p. 144-148, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2008.08.005

SCHWEIGER, O.; MAELFAIT, J. P.; VAN WINGERDEN, W.; HENDRICKX, F.; BILLETER, R.; SPEELMANS, M.; AUGENSTEIN, I.; AUKEMA, B.; AVIRON, S.; BAILEY, D.; BUKACEK, R.; BUREL, F.; DIEKÖTTER, T.; DIRKSEN, J.; FRENZEL, M.; HERZOG, F.; LIIRA, J.; ROUBALOVA, M.; BUGTER, R. Quantifying the impact of environmental factors on arthropod communities in agricultural landscapes across organizational levels and spatial scales. Journal of Applied Ecology, v. 42, n. 6, p. 1129-1139, 2005. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2005.01085.x

TEWS, J.; BROSE, U.; GRIMM, V.; TIELBÖRGER, K.; WICHMANN, M. C.; SCHWAGER, M.; JELTSCH, F. Animal species diversity driven by habitat heterogeneity/diversity: the importance of keystone structures. Journal of Biogeography, v. 31, n. 1, p. 79-92, 2004. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0305-0270.2003.00994.x

THOMSON, L. J.; MCKENZIE, J.; SHARLEY, D. J.; NASH, M. A.; TSITSILAS, A.; HOFFMANN, A. A. Effect of woody vegetation at the landscape scale on the abundance of natural enemies in Australian vineyards. Biological Control, v. 54, n. 3, p. 248-254, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2010.05.018

VAN HELDEN, M. La cicadelle verte (Empoasca vitis Goethe). In: STOCKEL, J. (Ed.). Les ravageurs de la vigne. Bordeaux, France: Editions Feret, p. 121-129, 2000.

WHITEHEAD, P. Systematics: An Endangered Species. Systematic Biology, v. 39, n. 2, p. 179-184, 1990. https://doi.org/10.2307/2992456

 

 

 

Received on March 2, 2024

Returned for adjustments on May 16, 2024

Received with adjustments on May 18, 2024

Accepted on May 21, 2024

The post Assessment of the biodiversity of agricultural arthropods of the nord-est Souk Ahras (Algeria) first appeared on Revista Agrária Acadêmica.