EVALUATION AT THE UPPER TAXON LEVEL OF BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY PARAMETERS OF EPIGEAN SPECIES IN MAYER LEMON AGRO-ECOSYSTEMS USED DIFFERENT APPLICATION

Öz

This study was carried out to evaluate the biodiversity parameters at upper taxon level of epigean species in mandarin agro-ecosystems with different applications between 2019 and 2022. Field studies were carried on the land of Çukurova University, Faculty of Agriculture Revolving Fund, on a 50-decare Mayer lemon variety orchard. For this purpose four parcels were chosen: (i) Chemical (herbicide was applied periodically for weed control and weed growth was not allowed), (ii) Weed cutting (in-row mulching and inter-row weed cutting applications are made), (iii) Vetch (in-row mulching and inter-rows covering plant with vetch (Vicia sativa L. (Fabaceae: Leguminosae)), and (iv) Control (where conventional agriculture is applied). Pitfall trap sampling method was used to measure the biodiversity parameters at the upper taxon level of the epigean (epigeal) species. Atrhropoda, Chordata, Mollusca (3 phylum) and Amphibia, Arachnida, Insecta, Gastropoda, Malacostraca and Reptilia (6 classes) were sampled over 3 years in the study. When the data were evaluated together with all the study years it was seen that the highest Shannon-Wiener diversity value was calculated in the vetch plot as 1.9981. The dominance value increasing or decreasing inversely with the diversity was calculated highest in the control (0.2746), weed cutting (0.2290), chemical (0.2172), and vetch (0.1686) plots, respectively. It was determined that the habitat with the lowest dominance was the vetch parcel. According to percent similarity the most similar parcel was found weed cutting and control parcels to each other and this similarity rate was calculated as 83,879 %. Vetch parcel was found 71,688 % similar to the group formed by control and weed cutting parcels. Besides chemical parcel was found %52.04 similar to the group formed by the rest of the study areas. Although vetch and chemical parcels were within the same garden boundaries, they were found to be only 58.012 % similar to each other. According to the results of this study; it can be said that the biodiversity in the agro-ecosystems where cover crops are applied, may have a higher biodiversity value than diversity of conventional agriculture lands. In addition, when these two different application methods are compared in terms of similarity, the rate of dissimilarity may increase due to the difference in epigean species living those agro-ecosystems.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• epigean species
• conventional agriculture
• pesticide application
• weed cutting
• cover plant
• Shannon-Wiener
• Simpson diversity
• similarity
• dominancy

FARKLI UYGULAMALAR KULLANILAN MAYER LİMON AGRO-EKOSİSTEMLERİNDE EPIGEAN TÜRLERİN BİYOLOJİK ÇEŞİTLİLİK PARAMETRELERİNİN ÜST TAKSON SEVİYESİNDE DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ

Öz

Bu çalışma, 2019-2022 yılları arasında farklı uygulamaların yapıldığı mandarin agro-ekosistemlerinde epigean türlerinin biyoçeşitlilik parametrelerinin üst takson seviyesinde değerlendirilmesi amacıyla yapılmıştır. Çalışma alanı olarak Çukurova Üniversitesi, Ziraat Fakültesi Döner Sermaye İşletmesi sınırları içerisinde bulunan 50 dekarlık Mayer limon bahçesi seçilmiştir. Bu amaca ulaşmak için bahçede dört parsel belirlenmiştir. Bunlar; (i) Kimyasal (yabancı ot kontrolü için periyodik olarak herbisit uygulanmış ve yabancı ot büyümesine izin verilmemiştir), (ii) Yabancı ot kesimi (sıra içi malçlama ve sıra arası yabancıot kesim uygulamaları yapılmıştır), (iii) Fiğ (sıra içi malçlama ve fiğ bitkisi (Vicia sativa L. (Fabaceae: Leguminosae) ekimi) ve (iv) Kontrol (geleneksel tarımın uygulaması) parselleri olarak belirlenmiştir. Örtücü bitkinin etkinliğini belirlemek amacı ile çukur tuzak örnekleme yöntemi epigean türlerin üst takson seviyesinde değerlendirilmesi amacı için kullanılmıştır. Çalışma süresince Atrhropoda, Chordata, Mollusca Şubelerine bağlı Amphibia, Arachnida, Insecta, Gastropoda, Malacostraca ve Reptilia sınıfa ait epigean türler örneklenmiştir. Veriler tüm çalışma yılları ile birlikte değerlendirildiğinde en yüksek Shannon-Wiener çeşitlilik değerinin 1.9981 olarak fiğ parselinde hesaplandığı görülmüştür. Çeşitlilik ile ters orantılı olarak artan veya azalan dominantlık değeri en yüksek sırasıyla kontrol (0,2746), yabancı ot biçme (0,2290), kimyasal (0,2172) ve fiğ (0,1686) parsellerinde hesaplanmıştır. Dominantlığın en düşük olduğu habitatın fiğ parseli olduğu belirlenmiştir. Yüzde benzerliğe göre birbirine en çok benzeyen parsellerin yabancı ot biçme ve kontrol parselleri olduğu ve bu benzerlik oranının % 83.879 olarak hesaplandığı görülmüştür. Fiğ parseli, kontrol ve yabancı ot kesme parsellerinin oluşturduğu gruba % 71.688 oranında benzer bulunmuştur. Ayrıca kimyasal parsel, çalışma alanlarının geri kalanının oluşturduğu gruba %52.04 oranında benzer olarak hesaplanmıştır. Fiğ ve kimyasal uygulanan parseller aynı bahçe sınırları içinde olmasına rağmen sadece % 58.012 oranında birbirine benzer bulunmuşlardır. Bu çalışmanın sonuçlarına göre; örtücü bitkilerinin uygulandığı agro-ekosistemlerdeki biyolojik çeşitliliğin, konvansiyonel tarım uygulamasının olduğu agro-ekosistemlere göre daha yüksek bir biyolojik çeşitlilik değerine sahip olduğu ortaya çıkarılmıştır. Ayrıca bu iki farklı uygulama yöntemi benzerlik açısından karşılaştırıldığında, o agro-ekosistemlerde yaşayan epigean türlerinin farklılığından dolayı benzemezlik oranlarının artabileceği söylenebilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Epigean türler
• geleneksel tarım
• pestisit uygulamaları
• yabancıot kesimi
• bitki örtüsü
• Shannon-Wiener
• Simpson çeşitlilik
• benzerlik
• dominantlık.

Kaynakça

1. Abudulai, M., Nboyine, J. A., Quandahor, P., Seidu, A., & Traore, F. 2022. Agricultural Intensification Causes Decline in Insect Biodiversity. In (Ed.), Global Decline of Insects. IntechOpen. https://doi.org/ 10.5772/intechopen.101360
2. Aktar, M. W., Sengupta, D., & Chowdhury, A. 2009. Impact of pesticides use in agriculture: their benefits and hazards. Interdisciplinary toxicology, 2(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10102-009-0001-7
3. Arndt E., Aydın N., Aydın G., 2005. Tourism impairs tiger beetle Cicindeldae populations a case studyin a Mediterranean beach habitat. Journal of Insect Conservation, 9(3), 201-206., Doi: 10.1007/S10841-005-6609-9
4. Aydın, 2006. Evaluation of Insects As Bio-Indicators for Sustainable Land Use In Çukurova Delta. Çukurova University, Institute of Natural and Applied Sciences, Department of Plant Protection. PhD Thesis. 307 p.
5. Aydın G., 2011. Plant-Insect Interaction in Biological Diversity: Agro-ecosystems, Natural and Semi-Natural Habitats. Süleyman Demirel University Journal of Natural and Applied Sci. 15 (3), 178-185.
6. Aydın, G., 2021a. Comparison of Insect Biological Diversity Parameters in Natural and Degraded Habitats in Gölcük Nature Park Forest (Isparta, Turkey). Turkish Journal of Forestry, 22(4), 362-365
7. Aydın G., 2021b. What’s Difference Between Faunistic and Biodiversity Studies? Journal of Biosystems Engineering. 2(2), 110-118
8. Aydın, G. 2022. An Alternative Agriculture Method Versus Conventional Agriculture that have Negative Effects on Protected Areas: Organic Agriculture. E. Arabacı (Ed.), Science and Engineering Studies: Multidisciplinary Evaluations (p. 1-8). Klaipeda: SRA Academic Publishing

9. Aydın G. & Demir Ü., 2020. Investigation of Antropogenic Effect on Insect Biological Diversity in Antalya Kurşunlu Waterfall Natural Park. Turkish Journal of Forestry. 21(4), 349-354.
10. Aydın G. & Karaca İ., 2018. The Effects of pesticide application on biological diversity of ground beetle (Ceoloptera: Carabidae). Fresenius Environmental Bulletin, 27(12), 9112-9118
11. Aydın G. & Kazak C., 2007. Evaluation of insect as bio-indicators for human activities in biotopes of Çukurova Delta (Adana). Turkish Journal of Entomology, 31(2), 111-128.
12. Aydın G. & Kazak C., 2010. Selecting Indicator Species Habitat Description and Sustainable Land Utilization: A Case Study in a Mediterranean Delta. International Journal of Agriculture Biology, 12(6), 931-934
13. Aydın G., Şekeroğlu E. & Arndt E., 2005. Tiger beetles as bioindicators of habitat degradation in the Çukurova Delta Southern Turkey. Zoology in the Middle East, 36(1), 51-58., Doi: 10.1080/09397140.2005.10638127
14. Aydın G. & Şen İ., 2020. Determination of arthropod biodiversity and some ecological parameters of Erdal Şekeroğlu (Isparta, Turkey) and Kadıini (Antalya, Turkey) cave ecosystems with evaluation of usability of insects in cave mapping. Turkish Journal of Entomology. 44(4), 539-557.
15. Ballal, C.R., Sreedevi, K., Salini, S., Gupta, A., Amala,U., Varshney,R. 2022. Biodiversity of Agriculturally Important Insects: Status, Issues, and Challenges. In: Kaur, S., Batish, D., Singh, H., Kohli, R. (eds) Biodiversity in India: Status, Issues and Challenges. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-9777-7_12
16. Dinç O.Ö., Yaşar B. & Aydın G., 2015. Organik ve Konvansiyonel Yağ Gülü Rosa damascena Miller Rosales Rosaceae Yetiştirilen Alanlarda Böcek Biyolojik Çeşitlilik Değerlerinin Karşılaştırılması Isparta Örneği. Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, 19(2), 161-173
17. Fransson, E., & Tekla, T. 2022. Exploring the biodiversity of aquatic insects in wetlands near conventional and organic agriculture areas : A descriptive pilot study with field- and laboratory work conducted in rice crop areas in the southern Brazilian Pampas biome. A study with aquatic insects used as bioindicators together with water parameters, to discuss future sustainable agriculture and the Agenda 2030 goals. Retrieved from http://urn.kb.se/ resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:hh:diva-46908
18. Heimann, D., 2004, EvenDiv 1.1. Based on a DBase Program Code Supplied by Jörg Perner and Martin Schnitter. Institute of Ecology, University of Jena.
19. Ho-fung, H. & Zhan, S., 2013. 'Industrialization and the City: East and West', in Peter Clark (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Cities in World History (2013; online edn, Oxford Academic, 2 Apr. 2013), https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199589531.013.0034, Accessed 16 Oct. 2022.
20. Kapur, S., Mermut, A.R. Stoops, G., 2008. New Trends in Soil Micromorphology. Springer. 290 P.
21. Karaca, İ., N. Uygun & E. Şekeroğlu, 1993. Farklı ekosistemlerin çeşitlilik ve benzerliklerinin karşılaştırılması. Çukurova Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 8 (3): 141-150.
22. Kovach, W. L., 1999. A Multi variate Statistical Package. United Kingdom: Kovach Computing Services.
23. Krebs, C. J., 1999. Ecological Methodology. An Imprint of Addison Wesley Longman, Inc., 620 p.
24. Magurran, A. E., 1988. Ecological Diversity and Its Measurement. Princeton University Press., 179 p.
25. Magurran, A. E., 2004. Measuring Biological Diversity. Blackwell Science Ltd., 256 p.
26. Marschalek, D.A & Deutschman, D.H., 2022. Differing insect communities and reduced decomposition rates suggest compromised ecosystem functioning in urban preserves of southern California. Global Ecology and Conservation. 33: e01996, ISSN 2351-9894,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2021.e01996.
27. Markl, G., Hinneberg, H. and Tarmann, G., 2022. Drastic decline of extensive grassland species in Central Europe since 1950: Forester moths of the genus Jordanita (Lepidoptera, Zygaenidae) as a type example. Ecology and Evolution, 12(9): e9291. https://doi.org/10.1002/ ece3.9291
28. Mirzabaev, A., J. Wu, J. Evans, F. García-Oliva, I.A.G. Hussein, M.H. Iqbal, J. Kimutai, T. Knowles, F. Meza, D. Nedjraoui, F. Tena, M. Türkeş, R.J. Vázquez, M. Weltz, 2019. Desertification. In: Climate Change and Land: an IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems [P.R. Shukla, J. Skea, E. Calvo Buendia, V. Masson-Delmotte, H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, P. Zhai, R. Slade, S. Connors, R. van Diemen, M. Ferrat, E. Haughey, S. Luz, S. Neogi, M. Pathak, J. Petzold, J. Portugal Pereira, P. Vyas, E. Huntley, K. Kissick, M. Belkacemi, J. Malley, (eds.)]. 343 p.
29. New, T.R., 1998. Invertebrate Surveys for Conservation. Oxford Uni. Press. 240 p.
30. Oğuz G., Aydın G. & Ulusoy M. R., 2021. Balcalı (Adana)’da Farklı Ekosistemlerde Yaşamını Toprak Yüzeyinde Sürdüren Epigean Hexapoda Türlerinin Biyolojik Çeşitlik Parametrelerinin Karşılaştırılması. Türk Bilim ve Müh. Derg., 3(2), 69-76.
31. Outhwaite, C.L., McCann, P. & Newbold, T. 2022. Agriculture and climate change are reshaping insect biodiversity worldwide. Nature 605, 97–102. https://doi.org/ 10.1038/s41586-022-04644-x
32. Perera F. 2017. Pollution from Fossil-Fuel Combustion is the Leading Environmental Threat to Global Pediatric Health and Equity: Solutions Exist. International journal of environmental research and public health, 15(1), 16. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/ijerph15010016 Shane A. Blowes, Gergana N. Daskalova, Maria Dornelas, Thore Engel, Nicholas J. Gotelli, Anne E. Magurran, Inês S. Martins, Brian McGill, Daniel J. McGlinn, Alban Sagouis, Hideyasu Shimadzu, Sarah R. Supp, Jonathan M. Chase, 2022. Local biodiversity change reflects interactions among changing abundance, evenness, and richness, Ecology, 10.1002/ecy.3820.
33. Silay S., Aydın G., Karaca İ., 2021. Isparta İli Elma Bahçelerinde Çukur Tuzak Örnekleme Yöntemi İle Yakalanan Carabidae Familyasına Ait Biyoçeşitlilik Parametrelerinin Hesaplanması. Türk Bilim ve Mühendislik Dergisi, 3(1), 50-56
34. Soler, R., Benítez, J., Sola, F., Lencinas, M.V. 2022. Biodiversity Islands at the World’s Southernmost City: Plant, Bird and Insect Conservation in Urban Forests and Peatlands of Ushuaia, Argentina. In: Montagnini, F. (eds) Biodiversity Islands: Strategies for Conservation in Human-Dominated Environments. Topics in Biodiversity and Conservation, vol 20. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-030-92234-4_16
35. Storch, D., Šímová, I., Smyčka, J., Bohdalková, E., Toszogyova, A., Okie, J.G., 2022. Biodiversity dynamics in the anthropocene: how human activities change equilibria of species richness. Ecography, 4 (2022), pp. 1-19
36. Šlachta, M. and Vokoun, J. 2011. Impact of a Pyrethroid Insecticide Application on Ground Beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in a Winter Rape Stand. Acta Univ. Agric. Silvic. Mendel. Brun. 22(3), 179- 184.
37. Ríos-Touma, B., Villamarín, C., Jijón, G., Checa, J., Granda-Albuja, G., Bonifaz, E. & Guerrero-Latorre, L., 2022. Aquatic biodiversity loss in Andean urban streams. Urban Ecosyst. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11252-022-01248-1
38. UNCCD., 1995. ‘The United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification in those Countries Experiencing Serious Drought and/or Desertification, Particularly in Africa, Text with Annexes’. Geneva:United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).