Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
FACULTY OF SCIENCE
DEPARTMENT OF ZOOLOGY
SEMINAR TOPIC: TERRSTRIAL ARTHROPODS AND THEIR ECOLOGICAL
IMPACTS
SUBMITTED BY
ALFRED ADESOJI SYLVESTER
MATRIC NO: 090809013
IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT TO THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF B.Sc.
ECOTOXICOLOGY AND CONSERVATION
UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF
DOCTOR (MRS) OLALERU
TABLE OF CONTENT
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER TWO
2.0 Ecological importance of terrestrial arthropods
CHAPTER THREE
Beneficial impact
Pollinators
Biological control
Burrowers
Decomposers and nutrient cyclers
Detrimental impact
Pests and disease vectors
CHAPTER FOUR
4.0Case studies
CHAPTER FIVE
5.0 Conclusion and recommendation
CHAPTER SIX
References
ABSTRACT
Arthropods are the most diverse phylum of animals on earth. They have been classified
into subphyla Myriapoda, Uniramia and Chelicerata. Terrestrial arthropods are
ecologically important as pollinators of flowering plants, biological control agents of
other insects, decomposers and nutrient recyclers. They are soil burrowers aiding in soil
aeration, and are major components of terrestrial food webs. Other beneficial uses of
terrestrial arthropods include fibre and medicine production. Some terrestrial arthropods
have been implicated as pests and disease vectors to both plant and animals, including
humans. This poses an immense burden on global health, economic and agricultural
productivity leading to the use of pesticides and other control measures. Efforts should be
taken to conserve terrestrial arthropods from the adverse effect of human activities.
Pesticide application should be target-specific to prevent the destruction of beneficial
arthropods.
INTRODUCTION
There are over 800,000 named species in the Phylum Arthropoda,
named from the Greek arthros (= jointed) and poda (= foot), including
the familiar arachnids, crustaceans, and insects, together with a host
of less familiar critters, like centipedes, millipedes and sea spiders. All
arthropods have jointed appendages. This evolutionary innovation is
probably the key to the stunning success of this diverse group. There
are about 1018 (10 billion billion) arthropods alive at any one time.
There are over three times as many species of arthropods as there are
of all other animals on Earth, and there may be millions more that we
haven't even discovered. Arthropods do everything with legs or
modified legs. They walk, they swim, they creep and crawl, they use
legs to sense with (the antennae), to bite and sting with, and even to
chew with. That's one reason arthropods look so alien when we see
them up close. They chew sideways, and it's all done with legs.
The insects are the most numerous of all terrestrial animals both in
terms of species and totalabundance. However, only a small fraction is
pestiferous (Ewuim, 2004). These insects are therefore strategic in the
welfare of man throughtheir activities. The beetles which constitute
about
two-thirds of all known insects, and about one-third of all known animal
species invariably, participate in various activities, resulting' in several
changes in the ecosystems. The beetles like other insects, oftenevolve
and exists as components of communities ofplants and other animals.
Most of the species areterrestrial even though some are aquatic. In
terms offood and feeding habits, many beetles are planteaters; some
are predacious with others beingscavengers, while some of them are
wood-borers. In
terrestrial ecosystems many of these herbivorous forms constitute
serious pests of crops and causingsignificant damage either directly or
even transmitting diseases even though some are beneficial
herbivours.
Variability in climatic variables such as temperature, humidity, rainfall,
litter amount and slope of the terrain and elevation, and soil nutrients
influence the abundance and diversity of the Arthropods (Samson et
al., 1997; Townsend et al., 2008). Arthropod diversity is also dependent
on habitat heterogeneity expressed as differences in litter pool and
food (e.g., palatable leaf litter, fruits, seeds, and herbivore frass),
toxins, (e.g., phenols and tannins) and structural complexity that
creates habitat (e.g. branches and leaf litter depth) (William et al.,
2000; Dominy et al., 2003; Kaspari et al., 2003). In Rwanda, forest
plantations cover 10% of national territory, of which Eucalyptus
plantation covers 65% (Nsabimana et al., 2008). Thought it is know
that forest ecosystems conserve largest biodiversity, arthropod
diversity has never been studied in Rwanda, suggesting a need for
studying litter arthropods under these plantation species. In spite of
the generalized use of Eucalyptus in forestry in many parts of the
World, there is little information on its impact on the invertebrate fauna
(Florence, 1985; Da Silva et al., 2008). In addition, theresults of
previous studies carried out throughout the World, were not conclusive
about the influence Eucalyptus plantations on the abundance of
invertebrates (Chander and Goyal, 1995).
CHAPTER TWO
ECOLOGICAL IMPORTANCE OF TERRESTRIAL ARTHROPODS
FOOD FOR WILDLIFE
Many different kinds of animals eat insects making them essential
parts of the food chain.Examples: amphibians, reptiles, birds, fish,
arthropods and other invertebrates, mammals (primates including
humans, insectivores focus almost exclusively on insectprey
(hedgehogs, shrews, tenrecs, moles).
CHAPTER THREE
BENEFICIAL IMPACTS
POLLINATION
Approximately on third of the worlds crop production depend directly
or indirectly onpollination by insects. The value of pollination in the
world, most of it by insects, has been estimated at about $117 billion
per year (Costanza et al. 1997).
Examples of crops: coffee, tea cacao (chocolate), vanilla citrus fruits,
nuts (almonds), vegetables, other fruit (figs, cranberries, cherries,
mangos), clover to name afew.
Examples of pollinators: The honey bee (Apis mellifera) is responsible
for the production of approximately $14 billion worth of agricultural
products in the United States in 1998, however other pollinates are
important pollinators as well including bumble bee which are usedto
pollinate tomatoes and cranberries; and carpenter bees which pollinate
wild and domestic tree fruits.
M.S. Guiney and K.S. Oberhauser / Terrestrial Arthropod Reviews 1 (2008) 111123
Insects and their arthropod relatives are responsible for much of the
nutrient cycling,conditioning and aeration of the soil. The value of
nutrient cycling in terrestrial ecosystems is estimated to be over $3
trillion per year (Costanza et al. 1997). Insects and related arthropods
make up half the animal biomass in some tropical forests (Fittkau and
Linge 1973).
Examples of reducers and recyclers: dung beetles, flies, carrion
beetles, millipedes, cockroaches, ants termites.
Lindner [97] was the first to suggest the use of house fly larvae to
recycle organic wastes, specifically human waste, to produce protein
and fat as a useful byproduct. Although insect herbivory is common in
terrestrial ecosystems, it has only recently been considered an
important and persistent control on ecosystem processes and has not
been included as a factor in most ecosystem models. Herbivore
alteration of litter inputs may change litter decomposition rates and
influence ecosystem nutrient cycling too [98].
IMPORTANCE TO HUMANS
neural
networks,
C. COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS
Silk production, the silk worm (Bombyx mori) is the sole sources of
commercial silk.
Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) can self pollinate but can cross pollinate
with services of bees: bumble bee (Bombus spp.) Melissodes bees, and
honey bees (Apis mellifera (MfGregor 1976)
Red cochineal dye for textiles and cosmetics is produced by the scale
insect Datylopius coccus
(Dactylopiidae) native to Mexico and Kermes vermilio (Kermidae)
native to Europe.
Honey is produced by bees and harvested
Beeswax: candles, cosmetics, soap
Shellac: the scale insect Laccifer lacca (Lacciferidae), native to India,
is used to makephonograph records and varnish
Salt production: Brine shrimp cleaned salt is better tasting than salt
containing the organism
that the brine shrimp eat. The price of the salt is affected.
4. ECOLOGICAL MONITORING
Insects are excellent indicators of ecosystem health. The numbers of
species and kinds ofspecies of insects can tell scientists if a particular
ecosystem is healthy or disturbed.
5. HUMAN AND LIVESTOCK HEALTH
Arthropods as vectors of disease insects weaken or kill 200 million
people per year. Examples:
Mosquito borne diseases: malaria, yellow fever, dengue, West Nile
virus, some forms of encephalitis
Tick borne diseases: lyme disease, erlichiosis,tularemia, Q fever,
Colorado tick fever, Rocky
Mountain spotted fever, relapsing fever and more
Flea borne diseases: plague, typhus
6. AESTHETICS
A summer nightsound of crickets and the flash of fireflies.
A spring meadow withthe fluttering beauty of butterflies.
A fly-fisherman withdiversity of insects to fed the trout.
Writers, artists, poets do withthe inspiration and imagery of insects.
CHAPTER FOUR
Case Study
The effect of dung beetles in temperate region of New South Wales, Australia.
By Gollan et al., (2011)
Study sites
Our study was conducted in the Upper Hunter Catchment, NSW,
Australia (320_0__S 1510_0__). The lower lying areas of the valley
floor and riparian corridors have been cleared of native vegetation and
developed for timber harvesting, agriculture, mining, and urban land
use (Peake 2003). Large amounts of money and an innumerable
amount of volunteer time and effort have been spent on native tree
planting, with the goal of protecting, conserving and enhancing native
biodiversity (Anonymous 2003). Study sites (total n = 12) within the
catchment included three replicate locations of: (1) unplanted
grassland (previously cleared of all tall native vegetation and
dominated by low growing exotic forbs and pasture grasses); (2) young
revegetation (replanted with tall growing native species between one
and three years prior to this study); (3) old revegetation (replanted
with tall growing native species between seven and ten years prior to
this study), and (4) mature woodland (containing mature tall native
species [greater than 20 years of age] that had been planted at the
revegetated sites). Unplanted grassland served as an endpoint of
disturbance and a starting point of restoration, mature woodland
served as an endpoint of restoration, while replanted sites were
considered intermediate. Mature woodland was not undisturbed
remnant woodland. There is no remaining natural riparian woodland in
the Upper Hunter Valley as all has been cleared and grazed at some
time and suffers from weed invasion and other effects associated with
fragmentation and water regulation of the Hunter River. Nonetheless,
we considered that mature woodland represented an appropriate
target for restoration because it was dominated by large mature to
over-mature native plant species, there were native herbs and grasses
in the understorey while weeds were only patchy, and the ground was
mostly covered in large woody debris and leaf litter. Locations were
chosen so that they were interspersed to avoid a spatially confounded
design, and site management histories were similar. This approach
known as space-for-time substitution or a chronosequence approach
is an alternative to long-term studies, since a long-term trend is
inferred from locations of differing ages (Pickett 1989). Further detail of
all sites can be found in Gollan et al.(2011a, 2011b).
Dung beetle trapping
Dung beetles were sampled using 10 pitfalls (9 cm in diameter,13 cm
deep) at each of 12 sites. All traps were: one-third filled withethylene
glycol as preservative; placed flush to the ground surface;opened
within 24 h of each other; covered by an upturned pot-plantbase held
above the opening with pegs (to protect the preservativefrom
rainwater and debris), and baited with a small amountof pig manure.
The manure was placed in a nylon mesh (aperture2 mm) bag that
was suspended above the opening of eachtrap using a piece of
galvanized wire. Traps were collected after48 h. The trapping method
we used is a conventional techniqueconsidered effective for trapping
dung beetles (Larsen & Forsyth2005).All dung beetles were counted,
identified to species and lodgedat the Australian Museum, Sydney.
These data and species identifications are published elsewhere (Gollan
et al. 2011b).
Rates of dung removal
Rates of dung removal were measured at the same time as pitfalltraps
were operating. To do this, 10 pellets of pig manure wereplaced
randomly approximately 10 m from each trap in each site.Each pellet
was made by rolling and compressing an equal amount of manure into
a cylindrical shape (5 cm long 2 cm diameter) without internal voids
and with a smooth outer surface devoidof cavities and depressions.
Pellets were placed on bare soil andafter 48 h, dung removal was
recorded by inspecting each pelletand estimating the amount (as a
total percentage) that was missing.Shallow, half-sphere depressions
were apparent where dungbeetles had removed pieces (Fig. 1),
otherwise entire pellets wereremoved. The dung used in this trial was
collected from a commercialpiggery 24 h before any survey work
commenced.
site was recorded. For the costs associated withmeasuring dung beetle
abundance and richness, the time taken tocomplete installation of the
10 pitfall traps, trap collection, and laboratorysorting and identification
was recorded. Total times were divided by 120 (12 sites 10 samples
per site) to indicate an averagetime measure, or transaction cost, per
sample.
Fig. 2. Relationship between the mean percent dung removal, and dung
beetleabundance and species richness. Lines show the linear least
squares regression foreach relationship.
Results
The regression between average percent dung removal anddung
beetle abundance was strongly positive and significant(p < 0.001, r2 =
0.84, n = 12). The relationship between average percentdung removal
and dung beetle richness was also positive andsignificant (p < 0.001,
r2 = 0.69, n = 12; Fig. 2).Across all sites and on a per sample basis,
dung removalranged from 0% (where there were no obvious signs of
Discussion
Even though dung removal was variable among locations of thesame
habitat type, the trajectory in mean dung removal across
therestoration gradient showed an increase from sites recently
revegetatedtoward
those
with
mature
woody
vegetation,
indicatingrecovery of this ecosystem function. Given the strong
correlationsbetween dung removal and dung beetle abundance and
speciesrichness, both numbers of dung beetles and numbers of
differentspecies may be recovering with native revegetation.While
there are many good reasons to include terrestrial arthropodsin
biological monitoring programs, there are also manydisadvantages.
Most disadvantages are due to the requirement ofspecialist knowledge
as well as the time consuming nature of collecting and identifying
terrestrial arthropods, which translates tohigh costs. For our method of
measuring the rate of dung removal,the cost per sample was reduced
by three fold or more. If transferredto a monitoring or survey program,
a greater number of replicates inboth space and time could be
afforded, leading to a greater chanceof detecting a trend or pattern
(i.e. reducing the chance of statisticalerrors). Importantly, our method
of measuring rates of dung removal isnon-lethal. Collecting dung
beetles using baited pitfall traps is notonly lethal to invertebrates, but
also to vertebrates that become trapped. Non-lethal methods align well
with a conservation philosophy. We estimate that thousands of nontarget invertebrateswere killed in our study. Regrettably, 23
vertebrates (15 lizards andeight frogs) were also killed in our pitfall
traps. While none of thespecies killed were rare in the region or
threatened or endangeredunder Australian legislation at the time of
this study, the fact thatany organism was maimed or killed is at odds
with the philosophyof restoration. The fact that the destruction of
organisms inbycatch is inconsistent with the aims of ecological
restoration hasbeen noted by others (e.g. Bowie & Frampton 2004).
While there have been numerous studies investigating the pros and
cons of surveyinginvertebrates using pitfalls traps (e.g. Digweed et al.
1995;Greenslade 1964; Luff 1975; Spence & Niemel 1994; Topping
&Sunderland 1992), none have raised this as an ethical dilemma.
Onecould imagine if methods such as pitfall trapping were employedin
an operational monitoring program (i.e. a program where samplesare
repeated in space and time in order to report on status andtrends in
populations) there is a risk of depleting themperhaps to local
extinction. While techniques are available to limit bycatchsuch as dry
pitfall traps, installing mesh or netting over the opening,or sieving
dung in order to isolate dung beetles, these poseother problems such
as organisms eating each other or excludingorganisms due to size of
mesh. None of these escape the taxonomicimpediment and none
necessarily provide an indication of the levelof the dung removal
occurring in the system.In an effort to minimise stress on animals as
suggesting that proxies like the one we trialedwill (or should) replace
the need for specialists and theirskills, but we do encourage
invertebrate researchers to developmethods and techniques that allow
non-specialist involvement in
invertebrate surveys and conservation. Community involvement in
meaningful invertebrate conservation and habitat restoration should
contribute to overcoming some of the perception problems of
invertebrates, given that a large portion of the populationonly
recognise the dirty cockroach and the nuisance fly (Samways2007).
Despite the strengths of our method, there are also drawbacks.One of
these is the reliance on visual assessment, and thus observeraccuracy
and repeatability could be a potential issue if utilised ina full-scale
monitoring program. An effective operational monitoringprogram
requires reliable information, thus it is important tocontrol for intra and
inter-observer variability (Vos et al. 2000). Anoption to control for this
type of error would be to weigh dungpellets before and after survey.
Weighing would also account fordung removal from the interior of the
pellet that is not observableby superficial examination. Indeed, larvae
of some dung beetlespecies dig their way through dung, ingesting it as
they go. Weighing,however, would require more time and field
equipment (e.g.drying ovens and weighing balance), potentially
negating the gainsin transaction costs of the dung removal method.
Providing trainingcould be useful for ensuring observers collect robust
data. Carefultraining and retraining of observers has been shown to
ameliorateobserver-related biases in a variety of field-collected data
(e.g.Thompson & Mapstone 1997).
A second weakness is that measuring rates of dung removal doesnot
provide indication of the dung beetle species involved in dungremoval,
nor dung beetle species present (whether they removedung or not).
Knowing the dung beetle species and their traits suchas country of
origin, may be important in some situations. Turnoverin species
composition, species inventories or deriving an exoticto-native ratio
are examples that would require knowledge of thespecies responsible.
Indeed, knowledge of the country of origin wasimportant in an analysis
of the dung beetles across the restorationgradient in the larger study
that this trial was part of (seeGollan et al. 2011b). Gollan et al. (2011b)
also showed that dungbeetle species composition differed between
unplanted grasslandand mature woodland. The finding that dung
removal was similarin unplanted habitat and mature woodland (Fig. 3)
illustrates thediscrepancies that can occur.
A final point worth reiterating is that species metrics are not
necessarilydirectly related to ecological function. A temperate
foreststudy in South America, for example, found that effects of
CHAPTER FIVE
Conclusion and Recommendation
The ecological importance of terrestrial arthropods
cannot be
overemphasised.
Efforts should therefore be taken to conserve them from the adverse
effects of human activities.
Pest control measures should be target-specific to prevent the
destruction and loss of beneficial arthropods.
REFERENCES
Abivardi, C. (2001). Iranian Entomology - An Introduction. Faunal Studies. Springer
Verlag, Heidelberg, Volume 1, No 25: 1-444.
Berg, M.P., and Hemerik, L. (2004). Secondary succession of terrestrial isopods,
centipede and millipede communities in grasslands under restoration. Biology and
Fertiity of Soil,40: 163170.
Blackledge, T.A. and Zevenbergen, S.M. (2006). Mesh width influences prey retention in
spider orb webs. Ethology, 112: 1194-1201
Blamires, S.J., Thompson, M.B. and Hochuli, D.F. (2007). Habitat selection and web
plasticity by the orb spider Agiope Keyserling (Argiopidae). Austral Ecology, 32(5):55563.
Bio-Serv Corporation (Rose Exterminator Company / Fisher Pest Control) Technical
Meetings,
Budd, G. E. & Telford, M. J. (2009). The origin and evolution of arthropods. Nature,
457:812-817.
Cupp EW, Cupp MS, Ribeiro JMC, Kunz SE. (1998). Bloodfeeding strategy of
Haematobia irritans (Diptera: Muscidae). Journal of Medical Entomology 35: 591595.
Edwards, J. F., Wikse, S. E., Field, R. W., Hoelscher, C. C., and Herd, D. B. (2000).
Bovine teat atresia associated with horn fly (Haematobia irritans irritans (L) induced
dermatitis, Veterinary Pathology, 37: 360-364.
Ewuim, S.C. (2008). Beetle Fauna of Agro and Forest Ecosystems in a Tropical
Rainforest Habitat, Nigeria. Animal Research International, 5(1): 780 782
Gollan, J. R., Reid, C. A. M., Barnes, P. B., &Wilkie, L. (2011). The ratio of exotic-to
native dung beetles can indicate habitat quality in riparian restoration. Insect
Conservation and Diversity, 4: 123131.
Iloba, B.N. and Ekrakene, T. (2010). Soil Micro Arthropods Recovery Rates from 0-5cm
Depth within 5 Months Period Following Endosulfan (Organochlorine Pesticide)
Treatment in Designated Plots in Benin City, Nigeria. Journal of Entomology, 1(2): 3644.
Kimberling DN. (2004). Lessons from history. Predicting successes and
risks
of intentional introductions for arthropod biological control. Biological
Invasions. 6: 301-318.
Lewis, R., Gaffin, D., Hoefnagels, M., & Parker, B. (2002). Life. New York: McGraw
Hill. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education. Vol. 8, No. 2: 303318.
Galvao, J et al., (2007) Biological Therapy Using Propolis as Nutritional Supplement in
Cancer Treatment, International Journal of Cancer Research, Vol. 3, No. 1: 43-53.
Otieno, M., Woodcock, B.A., Wilby A., Vogiatzakis, I.N., Mauchline, A.I., Gikungu,
M.W. and Potts, S.G. (2011). Local Management and Landscape drivers of Pollination
and biological control services in a Kenyan agro-ecosystem. Biological Conservation.
144: 2424-2431
Schmalfuss, H. (2003). World catalog of terrestrial isopods (Isopoda: Oniscidea).
Stuttgarter Beitrge zur Naturkunde A (Biologie).654: 1341.
Shruthi, E, and Suma, B. S. (2012). Health from the Hive: Potential Uses of Propolis in
General Health. International Journal of Cancer Research, 3 (1): 43-53.
WEB REFERENCES
www.bioweb.uwlax.edu
www.bluedotimages.com
www.Calcademy.org
www.crystalgraphics.com
www.extension.Missouri.edu
www.pbase.com
www.sttudyblue.com
www.lib.Uidaho.edu