MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4405571773 · doi:10.58682/jsbe.44.1/lnpk2391

Mass production of soil mesofauna from the Terminalia arjuna forest ecosystem for reintroduction into degraded agroecosystems

2024· article· en· W4405571773 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Naresh Kumar, AVINASH T.G., P Nirmala

Notice bibliographique

RevueJOURNAL OF SOIL BIOLOGY AND ECOLOGY · 2024
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEnvironmental Science
ThématiqueSoil and Land Suitability Analysis
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésAgroecosystemSoil mesofaunaAgroforestryEcosystemEnvironmental scienceTerminalia arjunaForest ecologyForestryGeographyEcologySoil biologyAgricultureBiologyTerminaliaSoil scienceSoil water

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract The 24-month greenhouse study conducted at GKVK campus of the University of Agricultural Sciences, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India, aimed to mass-produce soil mesofauna collected from Terminalia arjuna forest plantations. Over the months, the abundance of mesofauna in soil samples from the forest ecosystem varied, showing lower activity in the summer and increased abundance after rainfall. A particularly noteworthy finding was the highest population (1223 mesofauna/400g soil sample) recorded in January 2020, highlighting the remarkable adaptability and resilience of mesofauna in fluctuating conditions. The study suggested that mesofauna can be mass multiplied in soil by providing household vegetable wastes as food and water. The abundance of mesofauna in the soil samples collected from the forest ecosystem ranged from 32.00 to 163.00/400 g at monthly intervals. In the greenhouse, the mean abundance of mesofauna varied from 74.33 to 204.38/400 g of soil over six months, indicating their ability to survive throughout the year regardless of the season. Mesofaunal diversity indices ranged from 0.7 to 0.85 in the natural forest ecosystem and from 0.21 to 0.90 in the greenhouse conditions throughout the year. References Abbott, L., 1989. The influence of fauna on soil structure. In: Majer, J.D. (Ed.). Animals in primary succession: The role of fauna in reclaimed lands. Cambridge University press, City, pp.39-50. Abhilasha, C. R., Kumar, N.G., Narasareddy, G. and Shilpa V. Akkur., 2016. Influence of soil chemical characteristics and microbial biomass carbon on soil mesofauna in baby corn ecosystem. J.Soil Biol.Ecol. 36: 90-95. AL-Daikh, E.B., El-Mabrouk, A. and El-Roby, A.S.M.H., 2016. Effect of glyphosate herbicide on the behaviour of soil arthropods in non-organic tomato system. Adv.Agric.Biol. 5(1):14-19. Ayuke, F. O., Brussaard, L., Vanlauwe, B., Six, J., Lelei, D. K., Kibunja, C. N. and Pulleman, M. M., 2011. Soil fertility management: impacts on soil macro-fauna, soil aggregation and soil organic matter allocation. Applied Soil Ecology, 48(1): 53-62. Ayuke, F. O., Opando-mbai, M. L., Rao, M. R. and Swift, M. J., 2004. An assessment of biomass transfer from green manure to soil macro fauna in agro ecosystem-soil macro fauna biomass. In: Batino, A. (Eds.), Managing nutrient cycles to sustain soil fertility in Sub-Saharan Africa, Academy of Sciences Publishers, Nairobi, Kenya, 4: 65-76. Behan, V., 1972. The effects of urea on Acarina and other arthropods in Quebec Black spruce (PiceamarianaMill.) humus. M. Sc. Thesis, Mc Gill University. Montreal, p. 175. Ben, L. M. M. L., Lydia, B., Dirk, R., Maurice, M. and Stefaan, D. N., 2007. The application of vegetable, fruit and garden waste (VFG) compost in addition to cattle slurry in a silage maize monoculture: Effects on soil fauna and yield. European. J. Soil Biol., 43: 91-100. Bhattacharya, J. and Bhattacharya, T., 1987. Changes in the abundance of soil micro-arthropods in two contrasting sites in the Durgapur Industrial Area. J. Soil Biol. Ecol., 7(2): 110-121. Bhattacharya, T. and Roychoudhuri, D. N., 1979. Monthly variation in the density of soil micro arthropods in relation to some climatic and edaphic factor. Entomon, 4(4):313-318. Bin Liang, Yang and Zhou, 2011. Effects of 17 year fertilization on soil microbial biomass C and N and soluble organic C and N in loessial soil during maize growth. Bio. and Ferti.of Soils, 47: 121-128. Birkhofer, K., Schoning, I., Alt, F., Herold, N., Klarner, B., Maraun, M., Marhan, S., Oelmann, Y., Wubet, T., Yurkov, A., Begerow, D., Berner, D., Buscot, F., Daniel, R., Diekotter, T., Ehnes, R.B., Erdmann ,G., Fisher, C., Foesel, B., Groh, J., Gutknecht, J., Kandeler, E., Lang, C., Lohaus, G., Meyer, A. and Nacke, H., 2012. General relationships between abiotic soil properties and soil biota across spatial scales and different land-use types. PLoS-ONE,7: e43292. Borah, M. and Kakati, L. N., 2013.Abundance and distribution of soil Acarinain natural Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, 4:1694- 1709. Borah, M. and Kakati, L. N., 2014.Population dynamics of soil Acarina in natural and degraded forest ecosystem at Pathalipam, Lakhimpur, Assam. IOSR Journal of Environmental Science, 8: 45-50. Chakravorty, P.P., Haque, A., Sanyal, S. and Dasgupta, R., 2015.Effect of herbicides on Cyphoderusjavanus (Hexapoda: Collembola) under laboratory conditions. J.Ent.Zool.Studies, 3(1):220-223. Cole, L., Buckland, S. M. and Bardgett, R. D., 2008.Influence of disturbance and nitrogen addition on plant and soil animal diversity in Grass land.Soil Bio. Biochem. 40: 505-514. Colinas, C., Ingham, E. and Molina, R., 1994. Population responses of target and non-target forest soil organisms to selected biocides. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 26(1): 41-47. Friebe, B., 1990. The population of soil meso and macro fauna in relation to soil management. Okologie-und-Naturschutz-im-Agrarrarum, 19(2):204-252. Golive Prashnthi, Kumar, N.G., Basana Gowda, G., Naveen Kumar B. Patil and Guru Pirasanna Pandi, G., 2019. Population dynamics of soil mesofauna in soybean. Indian J.Ent. 81(3): 536-540. Gondim, S. C., Souto, J. S., Cavalcante, L. F., Araujo, K. D. and Rodrigues, M. Q., 2010.Bio-fertilizer bovine and water salinity on soil macrofauna cultivated with yellow passion fruit. Revista Verde de Agroecologia e DesenvolvimentoSustentavel, 5(2): 35-45 Gupta, G.P. and Mukharji, S.P., 1976. Qualitative composition of the fauna of cultivated and uncultivated soil. Indian J. Ent., 38(4):313-324. Ipsita Saha, Shuvasree Sarkar, Shelley Bhattacharya and Joy, V. Chacko, 2018. Short-term oxidative stress réponses in Cyphoderusjavanus Borner (Collembola: Insecta) for ecotoxicity evaluation of IGR pesticides in cropland soil. J.Soil Biol.Ecol., 38:150-160. Kaluz, S., Saly, A., Carnogursky, J., Vasileva, G.K., Suchoparova, V.P., Galiulin, R.V., Ananeva, N.D., Bernat, J. and Ragala, P., 1993. The reactions of edaphone to the fungicide metalaxyl and its residues after application in vineyard. Biologia-Bratislava, 48 (2): 149-154. Krogh, P.H., 1991. Perturbation of the soil microarthropod community with the pesticides benomyl and isofenphos. Pedobiologia 35: 71-88. Kumar, N.G., Avinash, T.G. and Nirmala, P., 2020.Mass multiplication of soil mesofauna of natural grassland. J. Soil Biol.Eco.,40(2):52-62. Kumar, N.G., Avinash, T.G. and Nirmala, P., 2021.Mass multiplication of soil mesofauna of natural Leucaena leucocephala plantations. J. Soil Biol.Eco.,41(1):47-58. Lima, S. S. De., Aquino, A. M. De., Leite, L. F. C., Velasquez, E. and Lavelle, P., 2010. Relationship between edaphic macrofauna and soil chemical attributes in different agroecosysterns. Pesquisa Agropecuaria Brasileira, 45(3): 322-331. Malmstrom, A., Persson, T., Ahlstrom, K., Gongalsky, K. B. and Bengtsson, J., 2009. Dynamics of soil meso and macrofauna during a 5-year period after clear-cut burning in a boreal forest. Appl. Soil Ecol., 43: 61-74. Narasareddy, G., 2012. Studies on the inter-relationship between soil mesofauna and nematodes in organic farming system. M.Sc.(Agri) Thesis, University of Agricultural Sciences., Bangalore, p. 160. Naureen, R., Shahnez, A., Hammed, A. and Anjum, S., 2010. Assessment of possible threats to soil macro invertebrates’ diversity in wheat field from high input forming. Int. J. of Agric and Biology. 6:801-808. Palacios, V. J. G., Castaño, G., Gomez. J. A., Martinez, B. E. and Martinez, J., 2007. Litter and soil arthropods diversity and density in a tropical dry forest ecosystem in Western Mexico. Biodiversity and Conservation, 16: 3703-3717. Piffner, L. and Luka, H., 2000. Over wintering of arthropods in soils of arable fields and adjacent semi-natural habitats. Agric. Ecosys. Environ., 78(3):215-222. Prasanna, P. M. and Kumar, N. G., 2011. Effect of FYM and chemical fertilizers on the abundance and diversity of insect pests, soil chemical, growth and yield parameters of soyabean. Res.J. of Agric.Sci., 2:357:363. Purakayastha, T. J., Rudrappa, L., Singh, D., Swarup, A. and Bhadraray, S., 2008. Long-term impact of fertilizers on soil organic carbon pools and sequestration rates in maize–wheat–cowpea cropping systems. Geoderma, 144(1-2): 370-378. Saha, I. And Joy, V.C., 2014. Potential ill effects of IGR pesticides on life-history parameters in ecologically important soil collembolan Cyphoderus javanus Borner. Int. J. Sci. Environ. Tech., 3: 365-373. Sahar, S. and Ahmad, G.A., 2013. Effect of tillage on soil biodiversity. J. Nov. App. Sci. 28: 273-281. Saleem Sakhidad and Kumar, N.G., 2016. Abundance of soil mesofauna in natural forest plantations. J.Soil Biol.Ecol. 36:110-116. Saleem Sakhidad, Kumar, N.G. and Chimmalagi, S.S., 2016. Distribution of soil Acari in Leucaena leucocephala and Vitis vinifera ecosystems. J.Soil Biol.Ecol. 36:76-84. Shashi, D. K., Nisha, K. and Sarkar, A. K., 2007. Effect of pesticides and FYM on soil biological environment. J. Res., 19(1): 1-2. Shrinath Chimmalagi, S., Kumar, N.G. and Prakhash, K.V., 2017. Impact of abiotic factors on soil mesofauna in soybean agro ecosystems.J.Soil Biol.Ecol. 37:166-173 Simpson, E. H., 1949. Measurement of diversity. Nature, 163: 688. Singh, J., Singh, S. and Vig, A.P., 2016.Effect of abiotic factors on the distribution of earthworm in different land use patterns. The Egyptian German Society for Zoology, 74:41-50. Suss, A., Voss-j-von, and Von-voss-J., 1999.Ecotoxic effects of Fenikan (deflufenican + isoproturon) application to winter barley as influenced by different tillage systems. Part 4: Effects on Collembola and soil mites. Nachrichtenblatt-des-deutschen-pflanzenschutzdienstes, 51(8): 205-211. Travlos, I.S., Gkotsi, T., Roussis, L., Kontopoulou, C.K., Kakabouki, L. and Bilalis, D.J., 2017. Effects of the herbicides benfluralin, metribuzin and propyzamide on the survival and weight of earthworms (Octodrilus complanatus).Plant Soil Environ., 63(3):117-124. Yen, J.H., Chang, J.H., Huang

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,209
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,701

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,008
Tête enseignante GPT0,233
Écart entre enseignants0,225 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2024
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJOURNAL OF SOIL BIOLOGY AND ECOLOGYMême sujetSoil and Land Suitability AnalysisTravaux en français237 207