Impact effects of certain crop protection products applied in organic

and non organic Tomato fields on non-target soil arthropods

Othman B.H. AL-Daikh**, Salah M. Hussein* and A.H.EL-Mabrouk**

** Plant Protection Dept. Faculty of Agric. Minia University Egypt.

*Plant Protection Department, Agricultural Faculty, Omar Al_ Mokhtar University,

Libya.

smhhussein@yahoo.com

Keywords : (pests, pesticide, avermectin, spinosade, indoxicarb, neemazone,

biocontrol, Bacillus thurengeinses, algifol, methylsalicylate, soil arthropods,

agroecosystem, Diversity and equitability).

Abstract

Two field experiment were run at the farms of Omar AL-Mokhtar university, in order

to knew the effect of some methods used to control tomato pests on soil arthropod

systemic groups in organic cultivated tomato field such as (BT, algifol, methyl

salicylate, neem oil), Results indicated that application of B. thuringensis and Algifol

achieved the highest performance showing 100% reduction in mites and other soil

arthropods systemic groups, and gave reduction 55.5 and 54.96% in both insect and

total population of soil arthropods collected with pitfall traps. As far as Neemazone

and Methyl salicylate increased the insect population with percentages 132.5 and

310% and total soil arthropods with 133.2% and 308.6% respectively and reduced the

mites and the other arthropods population with 100%. Also results showed that the

pesticides (avermectin, indoxacarb, & neemazone) increased the average number of

the total soil arthropod population groups, and these pesticides showed selective effect,

so that, it will be recommended that in order to preserve the beneficial predators,

carnivorous and parasitoids these biological and selective pesticides in conventional

tomato field should be applied.

According to the results obtained from this work, the changes in diversity and

equitability and decrease or increase of percent population of soil arthropods groups

were differed according to the soil arthropod groups, sampling period, applied plant

protection products and system of agricultural.

INTRODUCTION

Soil arthropods are involved in many aspects of organic matter, partial regulation of

soil arthropod activities, crumbly plant diversity and chemical application. Depending

on their diet (saprophagous. phytophagous or predation), (Tomlin, 1975). They are

contribute to the putrefaction process in soil environments by aperient the breakdown

of organic matter. Insects such as collembolans play a major role in the formation of

the soil microstructure. And they are also food sources for many predators like

carabid beetles and predacious mites (Svendsen et al., 2003).

crop protection products may cause harm to non-target species, and lead to

environmental contamination of water, soil, air, several types of crops and indirectly

to humans (Navalón et al., 2002). Side effects of different compounds are a potential,

largely inevitable consequence of IPM strategies. Many studies have investigated

pesticide effects on natural enemies, but wider studies of impacts on soil arthropods

are relatively rare (Moreby et al., 1997).

A side effect of usage of some compounds results in unfortunate consequences to

non-target organisms. There have been numerous attempts to predict the

environmental impacts of pollutants on soil systems particularly on some soil

arthropods. There is an urgent need to assess the impacts of chemical pollutants on

soil organisms (Morgan & Knacker, 1994; Edwards et al., 1996; Edwards et al.,

1998).

Studies that involved the diversity impacts of these products of management practice

are beyond the scope of this study (Fauvel ,1999, Hussein et al. 2002, Hutton and

Giller 2003,Irmler 2003,Frampton and Dorne 2007and Hussein and Abd El Aziz

2009, El Daidch et al. 2016). The organic Agriculture consider an important way to

protect biodiversity in ecosystem. Studies are particularly rare in AL-Gabal

A-Akhdar region, where climatic and ecological weather are differed. To better

understand the activity of crop protection products in soil and management of the

associated risks, we determined the side effects of a number of compounds used in

controlling Tuta absoluta and other pests in organic and non organic tomato systems

on some groups of soil arthropods.

Materials and Method

The experimental area: The studies on the effect of control of pests treatments of

two tomato agriculture systems i.e. (organic and conventional systems) on soil

arthropods dynamics, species density and diversity were conducted through summer

season of tomato at 2013 season. Studies started from mid of march until late of

September. Two farms at El-Beida district were chosen to carried out the experiments.

The experiment of Organic system treatments were conducted at the farm of the

Environmental and Natural resources college at Omar AL Mokhtar University, where

control measures and mineral fertilization have not been adopted for several years

ago. While as the treatments of non-organic agro ecosystem (conventional) were

done in the Agriculture faculty research farm at the same university.

Effect of different Methods Used in Controlling Tomato Pests in Organic

cultivated field, and this include: The Effect of Neem Oil (750 ml/4200m²).-

Treatment with Bacillus thuringiensis Bacteria (500 gm/4200m²), application of these

compounds were applied after 6 weeks from planting. Effect of (Algifol) which

extracted from marine brown Algea (Ascophyllumnodusum), (10ml/100Lt water) were

applied after 6 weeks from planting. Effect of Methyl Salicylate Used in Plant

Induced Resistance (200ml/100Lt water) were applied after 6 weeks from planting.

The Effect of all the previously mentioned treatments on the following parameters;

the abundance, species density, bio diversity, and the equitability (%) of soil

arthropods systemic groups, were calculated. Three plots with no treatments were

used as control treatments for each treatment.

Treatments in the non–Organic (Conventional) system. All agriculture procedures

were conducted according to procedures utilized by convetional local farmers, weed

control was carried out by mechanical weeding and with herbicide glyphosate

(directed spray) were applied before planting, Furrow irrigation and plant pruning

were performed as often as necessary. Also the entire area received fertilization

nitrogen (Urea). And insecticides used in controlling T. absoluta Meyrick and other

insect pests were applied.

Avermectin, is a biological pesticide extracted from (Streptomyces avermitales).

(Emamectin benzoate), Avid®, 1.8 % Ec, (90cc/4200m2). Spinosad, is a biological

pesticides extracted from fermentation of soil actinomycetes Saccharopoly

sporaspinosa. It is a mixture of spinosyn A and spinosyn D), Success® 480 SC • 150

cc/ hectar, Indoxacarb is a member of the new oxadiazine class of insecticides.

Steward® EC Indoxacarb (15.84%) (500 cc/4200m²). Neemazone: It is extracted

from neem trees the active ingredient is Azadrachtin Azadrachtin, 0.15%. Nemazon

EC 0.15% , (750cc/4200m²)

Soil sampling: Hocker machine was used in collecting soil samples according to the

method of (Steven et al., 1998). One kilogram for each sample. Samples were

transported to laboratory and in Berlese funnels (Tullgren funnels methods) were used

for extracted of soil fauna as described by (Tragardh, 1928).

Berlese funnel was used for extracting insects and mites from soil and leaf litter

and on the soil surface. The soil arthropods moved away from the light and heat

source down through the sieve at the funnel, fell in to Vial containing 70% ethanol

and preserved for identification under a microscope according to methods (Mound et

al., 1976).

Pitfall traps were used to catch soil arthropods that run on the soil surface. Traps are

immersed into the ground, the open side of the traps is to be at the same level with the

soil surface so insects which run along the soil surface will fall into the container.

Plastic containers were used (14 cm × 10 cm × 4 cm).Traps were filled with water up

to its third quarter and adding 3 to 4 drops of any kind of detergent to break surface

tension, to be sure that the insects would stay in the trap. traps were set in the

morning and collected at the same time in the next day, Traps were transported to the

laboratory, contents removed, ethanol 70% was used to preserve for future

examination.(Sunderland et al., 1987).

One soil sample for Berlese funnel extraction and one pitfall trap was used from each

replicate, samples were taken 24h before treatment and one week post treatments.

Insects were identified according to (Meyer, 1993; Mound et al ,. 1976; Mound and

Walker,1982; Kirk,1987; Milne et al ,.1997; Zurstrassen, 2003; Vierbergenet

al.,2010; Eisenbeis &Wichard, 1987; Bland &Jaques, 1978; Chu, 1949)). Mites were

identified with the keys of (Karg, W. 1993; Krantz, G. W. 2009). Spiders were

identified according to (Nardi, 1988; Levi & Levi, 1968). The effects were

determined by three parameters: Abundance, expressed as average number of

individuals/ treatment and the effect of treatment in reducing or increasing in the

population by calculating as Reduction or increasing % using the equation of

(Henderson &Telton 1955)

Reduction % = 1- (Ta×Cb/Tb×Ca) × 100 where

Ta = the number of soil Arthropods in each group of treatment after one week of

application.

Tb = the number of soil Arthropods in each group of treatment before the application.

Cb = the number of soil Arthropods in each group of the control before the

application.

Ca = the number of soil Arthropods in each group of the control after one week post

treatment.

Diversity in soil Arthropods were calculated by the equation of (Shannon & Wiener,

1959):

Diversity (H') = ∑R pi loge pi

1-I

R= the number of the species.

Pi= The number of individuals for each species /The number of all the species

recorded in all the treatments.

Log e= logarithmic value of the number 2.

Equitability (E) in soil arthropods pre and post treatment were calculated using

(Lioyd & Ghelardi, 1964) Equation:

Equitability (E)= (n/N)×100.

Where E% = Equitability percent n = the throritical number of all the species

calculated from the Tables of (Lioyd&Ghelardi., 1964).

N = the number of all the true species recorded in all the experiments of the

ecoosystem suitable for tomato in the organic and Non-organic Agro-system.

ANOVA analysis were used to compare the abundances at different groups of soil

arthropods in different treatments at the two system of agriculture .least significance

difference (LSD) test with significance level set at a=0.05. All statistical analysis were

performed using Costat software programs (Statgraphics, 1994).

Results And Discussion

Effect of some methods used to control tomato pests on the reduction or

increasing percent (%), of soil arthropods collected with pitfall trap in organic

cultivated tomato field.

Results of statistical analysis together with the average reduction or increasing

percentages of different systemic groups of soil arthropods group density are shown in

Fig 1. It is clearly obvious that application of B. thuringiensis and Algifol achieved

the highest performance showing 100% reduction in mites and other soil arthropods

systemic groups, and gave reduction 55.5 and 54.96% in both insect and total

population of soil arthropods collected with pitfall traps. As far as Neemazone and

Methyl salicylate increased the insect population with percentages 132.5 and 310% and

the total population of soil arthropods with 133.2% and 308.6% respectively and

reduced the mites and the other arthropods population with 100%.

Effect of some methods used to control tomato pests on the reduction or

increasing percent (%), of soil arthropods extracted with Berlese funnel in

organic cultivated tomato field

As regards to the effect of application these methods on soil arthropods , that found in

the upper surface of the soil layer, until (30cm depth), which extracted by Berelese

funnel methods, it appears that treatments with Algifol and B. thuringenisis increased

the total population of soil arthropods with 90.7% and 11.94% respectively . On the

other hand all used methods caused 100% reduction in other soil arthropods systemic

groups and were variables in their effect on different systemic groups. Neemazone,

Algifol and Bt, reduced insect population with 48.63%, 61.4% and 68.4 %

respectively. Also these treatments reduced total population with 100% reduction.

Treatments with methyl salicylate caused reduction in all systemic groups with

variable percentages. There were high significance differences between the different

control methods in their effect on different tested systemic groups except other soil

arthropods systematic group.

B. thuringiensis(Bt) is a gram-positive, aerobic, spore-forming, rod-shaped bacterium

that produces a parasporal, crystalline proteinaceous, inclusion during sporulation in

the stationary phase of growth. This inclusion may contain more than one type of

insecticidal crystal protein (ICP). These proteins, which are released with the

endospore upon lysis of the sporangium, exhibit, after appropriate processing, specific

toxicities to insects, many of which are economically important crop pests. The site of

action of the insecticidal toxins of various subspecies of B. thuringiensis is the brush

border membranes of the midgut epithelium of susceptible larvae of Lepidoptera,

Coleoptera, and Diptera (Bravo,et al.1992, Denolf, et al.1993). The nontoxic,

parasporal, crystalline inclusions (protoxins) are solubilized after ingestion by larvae in

the alkaline midgut (pH>10) and proteolytically activated into toxins by specific

proteases (Hofte et al. 1989). The active toxins interact with receptors on midgut

epithelial cells, where the toxins form pores and destroy cells by osmotic lysis (Adang

1991,Wolfersberger, 1990). Larvae of non-target insects also contain receptors but

apparently in lower numbers (Hofte et al. 1989), although, in some cases, also in high

numbers (Garczynski et al. 1991). Few or no effects of Bt Cry proteins were found on

non-target invertebrates in soil, such as earthworms [Saxena et al. 2001, Clark and

Coats,2006), collembolans (Clark and Coats 2006 and Yu et al.1997), isopods

(Cowgill and Atkinson 2003, Escher et al. 2000), mites [Yu et al. 1997, Clark and

Coats,2006], nematodes (Clark and Coats,2006and Manachini and Lozzia 2002).

There are a number of excellent reviews and discussions on the role of induced host

plant resistance (IHPR) in soil arthropod pest management including Kogan (1994),

Maxwell (1985), Smith(1989), van Emden (1991), and Sharma & Ortiz (2002). Stout

et al. (2002) provide a review of the use of elicitors of induced plant resistance in

arthropod pest management and soil arthropods. Here we used methyl salicylate as

elicitors to induce resistance in tomato plants for arthropod pest management in

Tomato organic farming systems and conserve soil arthropods.Although IHPR is

considered has had limited application for the control of arthropod pests in

conventional agriculture. Van Emden (1991) has discussed how the benefit of partial

plant resistance outweigh those of high-level resistance when used in combination with

other control methods.

Effect of different pest control methods on the diversity and

equitability (%) of soil arthropod systemic groups in organic

cultivated tomato field.

Data given below show (Table 1) the systemic groups of soil arthropods that found in

the two used methods (pitfall traps and Berlese funnel) with the values of diversity

indices and Equitability % before and after treatments with different methods of

control pests that used in organic tomato system. Treatment with Neemazone oil

showed a reliable increase in the diversity index from 1.5 in pretreatment to 2.0 in

post treatment and equitability % from 36.3% in pretreatment to 50% post treatment

and B. thuringiensis increased the diversity value from 1.5 to 2.2 after treatment. The

equitability % increased from 44.4% in pretreatment to 46.6% in post treatment. While

as Algifol reduced the diversity from 1.8 pretreatment to 1.5 in post treatment and the

equitability (%) from 45.4 % in pretreatment to 33.3 % in post treatment but Methyl

salicylate increased the diversity and the equitability (%). In general the results showed

that Neemoil and Methyl salicylate increased terrestrial soil arthropods collected by

pitfall traps, while their effect was variable in the superficial soil arthropods, that

found in the upper surface layer of the soil level until (30cm depth) which extracted by

Berelese funnel methods from positive to negative, due to the type of the treatment.

Similar results were reported by Hussein et al., (2002) who indicated that neem oil and

Bt treatments increased the diversity indices of soil arthropods in cotton ecosystem

fields. B. thuringiensis (Bt) and its toxins is a useful alternative or supplement to

synthetic chemical pesticides in agriculture, forest management, and control some

biting insects. When Incorporated Bt toxins into soil the toxins could accumulate to

concentrations that may enhance the control of target pests or constitute a hazard to

non-target organisms, such as the soil microbiota, beneficial insects (e.g., pollinators,

predators and parasites of insect pests), and other animal classes. The accumulation

and persistence of the toxins could also result in the selection and enrichment of toxin-

resistant target insects. Persistence is enhanced when the toxins are bound on surface-

active particles in the environment (e.g., clays and laomic substances) and, thereby,

rendered more resistant to biodegradation while retaining toxic activity. Hence, they

are xenobiotics with respect to the environment, and their persistence in and effects on

the environment have not been adequately studied and sober risk assessments on a

case-by case basis must be made before major releases of Bt toxins. (Saxena et al.

2008). Abudulai et al. (2013) studied field efficacy of neem (Azadirachta indica) for

managing soil arthropods in Ghana results showed generally that the neem products at

the concentrations tested were efficacious and comparable to chlorpyrifos in lowering

populations of soil arthropods.

Effect of pesticides applied to control tomato pests on reduction or increasing %

of different soil arthropod groups collected with pitfall traps after different

intervals post treatment.

Results in Fig 2 showed that avermectin pesticide increased the average of the total

soil arthropods population with 228.44%, the terrestrial soil insects, with 213.47%

while as treatment with avermictin reduced the other arthropods population group

with 37.92%. Treatment tomato field with spinosad increased the soil insect

population with 496.1%, and the total population of soil arthropods with 193.19% and

reduced the other arthropods with 45.07%, Application of indoxacarb to control T.

absoluta increased both the total population of soil arthropods and insects with 305.89

and 86.77% respectively and reduced the other arthropods, with 78.5%. Result

showed also that treatment with Neemazone pesticide increased both the total

population of soil arthropods systemic groups and insects with 479.89 and 446.19%

respectively. Neemazone treatment reduced the other arthropods with 62.65%. The

treatments with previous pesticides achieved reduction 100% in mites.

Effect of different treatments in nonorganic tomato system

Effect of pesticides applied to control tomato pests on reduction or increasing %

of different soil arthropod groups extracted with Berlese funnel after different

intervals post treatment.

Data shown in this study indicate that the treatments with tested pesticides had a wide

range of reduction or increasing percentages in soil arthropods population groups

extracted with Berlese funnel. Avermectin, spinosad, Indoxacarb, and Neemazone

caused increase in total soil population, soil insect population and soil other

arthropods extracted with Berlese funnel showed that the effect of indoxacarb

pesticide, increased the total population of soil arthropods systemic groups with

228.44,193.19,305.89,479.89; 213.47,496.1,86.77,446.19 and 37.92,15.07,78.5,62.65

in the three groups of soil arthropods respectively all pesticides treatment achieved

reduction 100% in soil mites population.

-150

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

insect mites other arthropod

total arthropods

% R

ed

uct

ion

or

incr

eas

ing

Arthropod groups

Bt pitfall traps Neemazol Berlese Methyl salsalite Berlese Algifol Berlese Bt Berlese

Fig (1) % Reduction or increasing of soil arthropod groups after application

methods to control pest of tomatoes in organic tomato system during 2013

season

Effect of pesticides applied to control tomato pests on the diversity and the

equitability (%) of different soil arthropods in nonorganic cultivated tomato

field

Treatment tomato with avermectin pesticide to control T. absoluta increased the

diversity index from 2.01 in pretreatment count to 2.3 in post treatment, and

increased the equitability %, from 50 % in pretreatment to 53.7 % in post

treatment count. No changes was observed in adversity indices after application

Fig (2): Effect of different pesticides applied against tomato pests cultivated in non -

organic system on different groups of soil arthropods collected by pitfall traps

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

200

% R

ed

ucti

on

or

incre

ase

in

dif

fere

nt

gro

up

s

insects Mites Other arthropods Total

Arthropod systemic groups

Avermectin spinosad Indoxicarb Neemazone

Fig (3):Average effect of application of pesticides used in controlling tomato

pests on different groups of soil arthropods collected by Berlese funnel in non

organic

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

% R

educ

tion

or in

crea

se in

diff

eren

t sys

tem

ic gr

oups

insects Mites Other arthropods Total

Arthropod systemic groups

Avermectin spinosad Indoxicarb Neemazone

of spinosad. Application of neemazone caused increasing in the diversity from 2.2 in

pretreatment to 2.34 in post treatment count. Effects of the insecticides on soil

arthropods were largely as would be expected, with the most persistent effects

observed for the broad-spectrum organophosphate chlorpyrifos and the most selective

and transient effects for the narrow-spectrum pesticides. The spatial distribution of

some species. Sminthurinuselegans, for example, increased markedly in abundance

after cypermethrin treatment but on most sampling dates was almost entirely

restricted in distribution to one field. Synthetic pesticides had a greater negative effect

on predators of Collembola than on the Collembola themselves, leading to a classical

resurgence, and the application of pesticides in soils had a significant effect on soil

fauna and diversity of arthropod species, Hussein et al., (1987). Fauvel (1999)

observed that miridae are very susceptible to chemical sprays and are more easily

eliminated from soils orchards sprayed with pesticides than Anthocoridae.

A recent review of pesticide effects on soil invertebrates recommended that

Collembola (Folsomia candida) should also be tested routinely, as a representative of

soil arthropods, because testing with oligochaetes alone does not identify all

insecticide risks to soil invertebrates ( Frampton et al., 2006). Reviews of the effects

of pesticides on soil invertebrates in laboratory studies ( Frampton et al., 2006) and

field studies ( Jänsch et al., 2006) have confirmed that, except for earthworms, in most

cases there is insufficient data from field studies to validate risk predictions that are

based on laboratory testing. Chlorpyrifos is among the pesticides that have the best

availability of field data for effects on soil invertebrates (Jänsch et al., 2006).

Hussein et al. (2002) studied the quantitative and qualitative effects of certain pesticides

on soil arthropod fauna population and suggested that most pesticides applications

influenced the population of soil arthropods. The reduction % in soil insects was the

highest 70% while it was the least on soil mites .

Hutton and Giller (2003) showed that reduced application of veterinary drugs (e.g.

avermectin), diminished the diversity indices of dung beetles. Also they observed that

using compost in the organic farms have positive impacts on their biodiversity.

Irmler (2003) indicated that variation in tillage practices between organic farms and in

pesticide use between conventional farms, may confound any results, since both deep

tillage and wide-scale pesticide application can have substantial and unpredictable

impacts on beetle communities. Hussein and Abdel Aziz, (2009) concluded that

spinosad, B. t. and avermectin had little effect on the beneficial arthropods in cotton

ecosystem effect so, they considered a good elements in successful release of cotton

integrated control program. Campos et al. (2012) indicated that treatment with

chlorpyriphos did not affect the abundance of soil predatory mites whereas

significantly more mites were found in the experimental plots where composting

manure was added. Natural insecticides (spinosad, Neemazone&Bt) are generally less

Table (1) : Effect of application of different methods of pest control on soil arthropods

diversity in organic Tomato fields collected with Berlese funnel and pitfall traps.

No.

Systemic group

Check Treatments

Nemazol oil B.

thuriniginsis

Marin

algae

Methyl

salselate

Pre- post Pre- post Pre- post Pre- post Pre- post

1 Diptera 5 13 1 7 10 9 15 2 5 12

2 Hymenoptera 17 59 3 34 14 22 49 59 4 159

3 Homoptera 1 4 0 4 2 3 3 2 1 4

4 Hemiptera 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

5 Neuroptera 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 88 0

6 Collombola 29 29 41 15 104 19 55 28 1 30

7 Coleoptera 0 7 1 0 0 1 0 1 4 1

8 Lepidoptera 2 4 0 1 0 3 2 0 1 2

9 Thysanoptera 4 11 4 2 0 2 7 3 0 3

10 Orthoptera 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

11 Ephemiptera 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

12 Dermptera 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 0

13 prostigmata 10 0 8 20 10 4 7 2 181 8

14 Astigmata 17 9 7 7 14 3 6 4 0 16

15 Cryptostigmata 15 0 12 20 11 3 18 6 97 6

16 Notostigmata 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 475 0

17 Mesostegmata 80 0 57 27 70 6 24 13 0 8

18 Teterastigmata 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

19 Chilopoda 2 0 1 0 2 1 1 0 1 1

20 Crustacea 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1

21 spiders 0 0 1 3 0 2 0 2 0 3

Total 182 151 136 141 238 81 197 122 905 256

Diversity index 1.78 1.91 1.59 2.06 1.5 2.2 1.8 1.5 1.14 1.48

Equitability% 50 54.5 36.3 50 44.4 46.6 45.4 33.3 25 433.3

Table(2): Effect of application of pesticides to on soil arthropods diversity in

non organic Tomato fields collected with Berlese funnel and pitfall traps.

No

Systemic

groups

Check

Insecticides

Avermctin

Indoxicarb

spinosad

Nemazol

Pre- post Pre- post

Pre- post Pre- post Pre- post

1 Diptera 10 6 14 8 37 10 23 12 11 10

2 Hymenoptera 4 18 12 44 25 23 10 15 5 42

3 Homoptera 22 2 5 4 4 3 4 4 10 2

4 Hemiptera 124 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1

5 Neuroptera 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 9 14

6 Collombola 12 13 61 15 28 14 35 22 4 6

7 Coleoptera 7 2 9 5 2 4 7 4 0 3

8 Lepidoptera 3 1 8 3 0 2 4 3 1 3

9 Thysanoptera 1 2 2 4 14 4 3 2 3 5

10 Orthoptera 1 7 0 3 0 6 1 4 0 0

11 Ephemiptera 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0

12 Dermptera 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

13 prostigmata 2 3 3 16 1 1 11 2 0 2

14 Astigmata 0 3 0 3 0 2 21 2 7 5

15 Cryptostigmata 9 6 7 7 10 6 9 16 0 0

16 Notostigmata 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

17 Mesostegmata 7 48 27 20 0 4 39 32 7 3

18 Teterastigmata 0 1 0 3 0 3 7 2 0 0

19 Chilopoda 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0

20 Crustacea 13 16 1 11 4 15 15 18 2 21

21 spiders 13 16 14 12 14 16 15 22 20 39

Total

229 144 164 160 139 115

205 161 84

161

Diversity indices

1.73 2.15 2.01 2.3 1.9 2.44

2.4

2.4

2.2

2.3

Equitability%

35.7 42.8 50 53.7 55.5 53.7

53.7

56.6

54.5

54.

stable than synthetic materials and degrade quickly in the environment, meaning that

they are also less potent and have shorter residual periods than their synthetic

counterparts. Therefore, satisfactory arthropod pest management can be achieved only

when insecticide use is integrated with other strategies, such as timing applications to

minimize harmful effects on beneficial organisms. Much work is still needed to

develop insecticide treatment threshold levels for organic farming systems in which

natural enemies are prevalent. One of the major barriers to the commercialization of

new, selective insecticides of natural origin is that there generally must be a large

marketing base in conventional plant protection to cover the high costs associated with

obtaining marketing approval (Isman, 2006). Nonetheless, if the qualityand efficacy of

natural products such as neem extracts, and fermentation products (spinosad) could be

enhanced by commercial research and development programs, better solutions for

typical problems of plant protection in organic farming could be found. The data

obtained from this study, showed that all pesticides used increased the average

numbers of the insects and the total population of soil arthropods systemic groups.

It is clearly obvious that application of B. thuringensis and Algifol achieved the

highest performance showing 100% reduction in mites and other soil arthropods

systemic groups, and gave reduction 55.5 and 54.96% in both insect and total

population of soil arthropods collected with pitfall traps. As far as Neemazone and

Methyl salicylate increased the insect population with percentages 132.5 and 310%

and the total population of soil arthropods with 133.2% and 308.6% respectively and

reduced the mites and the other arthropods population with 100%.

Results indicated that organic soil amendments, algifol, neemazone and methyl

salicylate may be make plants less suitable as insect hosts, with negative effects

including lower fecundity, fewer larvae surviving, slower development of immature

stages, and reduced foliage consumption by immature insects.

As result, of this study, the pesticides (avermectin, indoxacarb, & neemazone) used

increased the average number of the total soil arthropod population groups, and these

pesticides showed selective effect, so that, it will be recommended that in order to

preserve the beneficial predators, carnivorous and parasitoids these biological and

selective pesticides in conventional tomato field should be applied.

References

Abudulai, M.; Abdulai, B. S.; Opare-Atakora, D.; Mohammed, H.; Inusah, I. Y. B.;

Dzomeku, I. K.; Brandenburg, R. L. & Jordan, D. L. (2013). Field Efficacy of

Neem (Azadirachta indica A. Juss) for Managing Soil Arthropods and

Cercospora Leaf Spots Damage for Increased Yield in Peanut. Plant Protection

Science, Vol. 49 Issue 2, p 65.

Adang, M. J. & Maramorosch, K. (1991). Bacillus thuringiensis insecticidal crystal

proteins: gene structure, action, and utilization. Biotechnology for Biological

Control of Pests and Vectors. CRC Press, Boston, MA, USA, pp. 3-24.

Bravo, A.; Hendrickx, K.; Jansens, S. & Peferoen, M. (1992). Immunocytochemical

analysis of specific binding of Bacillus thuringiensis insecticidal crystal

proteins to lepidopteran and coleopteran midgut membranes. J Invertebr

Pathol., 60: 247- 53.

Campos, C.; Aguilar, A. & Garcia-Marí, F. (2012). Aggregation pattern, sampling

plan, and intervention threshold for Pezothrips kellyanus in citrus groves.

Entomol. Exp. Appl. 142: 130-139.

Chu, H. F. (1949). How to Know the immature Insects. Wm C. BrownCo., Dubuque,

IA, 234 pp.

Clark, B. W. & Coats, J. R. (2006). Subacute effects of Cry1Ab Bt corn litter on the

earthworm Eisenia fetida and the springtail Folsomia candida. Environ.

Entomol. Exp. Appl. 35: 1121-9.

Daily, G., S. Alexander & P. Ehrlich, 1997. Ecosystem services: benefits supplied to

human societies by natural ecosystems. Issues in Ecology, 2: 18-24.

Dennis, P. (2003). Sensitivity of upland arthropod diversity to livestock grazing,

vegetation structure and landform. Food, Agriculture & Environment. 1(2):

301-307.

Edwards, C. A., T. Knacker & A. Pokarzhevskii, 1998. The prediction of the fate and

effects of pesticides in the environment using tiered laboratory soil

microcosms. Protection Brighton Pesticide Conferance. Pests and Diseases,

AC-1: 267-272.

Edwards, C. A., T. Knacker, A. Pokarzhevskii, S. Subler & R. Parmelee, 1996. Use of

soil microcosms in assessing the effect of pesticides on soil ecosystems.

Proceedings of the International Symposium on Environmental Behavior of

Crop Protection Chemical, International Atomic Energy Agency, 435-52 pp.

Eisenbeis, G. & Wichard, W. (1987). Atlas on the Biology of Soil Arthropods.

Springer-Verlag. Berlin. Pp, 437.

AL-Daikh , E.B, EL-Mabrouk, A and, A.S.M.H EL Roby (2016):Effect of glyphosate

herbicide on the behavior of soil arthropods in non-organic tomato system,

Adv. Agric. Biol.5 (1), 2016: 14-19 DOI: 10.15192/PSCP.AAB.2016.5.1.1419

http://www.pscipub.com/Journals/Data/JList/Advance%20in%20Agriculture%

20and%20Biology/2016/Volume%205/Issue%201/2.pdf

Fauvel, G. (1999). Diversity of Heteroptera in agrosystems: role of sustainability and

bio indication Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 74: 275–303.

Frampton, G. K. & Dorne, J. L. C. M. (2007). The effects on terrestrial invertebrates

of reducing pesticide inputs in arable crop edges: a meta-analysis. J. Appl.

Ecol., 44: 362–373.

Garczynski, S. F.; Crim J. W. & Adang, M. J. (1991). Identification of putative insect

brush border membrane-binding molecules specific to Bacillus thuringiensis -

endotoxin by protein blot analysis. Appl. Environ. Microbiol., 57: 2816-20.

Henderson, C.F. and Telton, E.W. (1955). Test with acaricides against the brown wheat

mite. J. Econ. Entomol,, 48: 157-161.

Hofte, H. & Whiteley, H. R. (1989). Insecticidal crystal proteins of Bacillus

thuringiensis. Microbiol.Rev., 53: 242–55.

Hussein, S. M. & Abdel Aziz, M. A. (2009). Interspecific diversity and Equitability of

Biological agents after application of pesticides in cotton ecosystem. Minia J.

Agric. Res. Dev., 29: (3): 299-320.

Hussein, S. M.; Abdel Aziz, M. A.; Kamel, E. H. & Eshbah, H. M. (2002).

Approaches to integrated control of cotton bollworms in Middle Egypt in

Minia 1st Conference of Agriculture and environmental Sciences (MCAES 1)

25-28 March 2002.

Hussein, S. M.; Gharib, A. H. & Mourad, G. M. (1987). Changes in cotton soil

arthropod fauna as functions of pesticide treatment in Minia cotton field. Minia

J. Agric. Res. & Dev.., 9(2): 799-814.

Hutton, S. A. & Giller, P. S. (2003.) The effects of the intensification of agriculture

on northern temperate dung beetle communities. J. Appl. Ecol., 40: 994–1007.

Irmler, U. (2003). The spatial and temporal pattern of carabid beetles on arable fields

in northern Germany (Schleswig-Holstein) and their value as ecological

indicators. Agric-ecosystems Environ., 98: 141–151.

Isman, M. B. (2006). Botanical insecticides, deterrents, and repellents in modern

agriculture and increasingly regulated world. Annu. Rev. Entomol.51:45–66.

Jarošı́k, V. (1991). Are diversity indices of carabid beetle (Col.: Carabidae)

communities useful, redundant, or misleading? Acta Entomol.

Bohemoslov.88:273–279.

Karg, W. (1993). Acari (Acarina), Milben, Parasitiformes (Anactinochata), Cohors

Gamasina 482 Leach, Raubmilben. Die Tierwelt Deutschlands (2nd edn), 59G.

Fischer, Jena, Stuttgart, NY 523 pp. 483.

Kirk, W.D.J., (1987). A key to the larvae of some common Australian Flower Thrips

(Insecta: Thysanoptera), with a host-plant survey. Aust. J. Zool., 35.173-185.

Krantz, G. W. (2009). Habits and Habitats. In: Krantz, G.W., Walter, D.E. (eds.) A

Manual of Acarology, Third Edition. Texas Tech. University Press; Lubbock,

Texas, 807 pp. 493.

Lioyd, M. & Ghelardi, R. J. (1964). A table 4 calculating the equitability compound

of species diversity. J. Anim. Ecol; 33:217-225.

Luff, M. L. (1975). Some features influencing the efficiency of pitfall trap. Oecologia

(Berl.), 19: 345–357

Manachini, B. & Lozzia, G. C. (2002). First investigations into the effects of Bt corn

crop on Nemato. fauna. Boll. Zool. Agric. Bachic., Ser. II 2002, 34:85-96.

Maxwell, F. G. (1985). Utilization of host plant resistance in pest management. Insect

Sci. Appl. 6:437–42

Meyer, J. R. (1993). Kwik-key to soil-Dwelling Invertebrates. Vision Press, Raleigh,

NC. pp 43.

Milne, J. R.; Milne, M. & Walter, G. H., (1997). A Key to Larval Thrips

(Thysanoptera) from 513 Granite Belt Stone fruit Trees and a First Description

of Pseudanaphothrips achaetus (Bagnall) 514 Larvae. Aust. J. Entomol.

36,319-326.

Moreby, S. J., N. W. Sotherton & P. W. Jepson, 1997. The effects of pesticides on

species of non-target Heteroptera inhabiting cereal fields in southern England.

Pesticide Science, 51: 39-48.

Morgan, E. & T. Knacker, 1994. The role of laboratory terrestrial model ecosystems

in the testing of potentially harmful substances. Journal of Ecotoxicology, 3:

213-233.

Mound, L. A. & Walker, A. K. (1982). Terebrantia (Insecta: Thysanoptera). Fauna N.

Z. 1, 1-113.

Mound, L. A.; Morison, G. D.; Pitkin, B. R. & Palmer J. M. (1976). Thysanoptera,

hand books for the identification of British insects. Royal Entomological

Society, London 1: 1-79.

Navalón, A., A. Prieto, L. Araújo & J. Vilchez, 2002. Solid-phase microextraction for

herbicide determination in environmental samples. Journal of Chromatography

A, 946: 103-121.

Navarro-Campos, C., Marzal, C., Aguilar, A., Garcia-Marí, F., 2010. Presencia del

microlepidóptero Anatrachyntis badia en cítricos. Descripción,

comportamiento y daños al fruto.

.

Shannon-winner, C. L. (1959). A mathematical theory of communication Bell. system.

Tech. J. 27:379-423.

Sharma, H. C. & Ortiz, R. (2002). Host plant resistance to insects: an eco-friendly

approach for pest management and environment conservation. J. Environ.

Biol., 23:111–35.

Smith, C. M. (1989). Plant Resistance to Insects. New York: Wiley. 286 pp.

Stevens, C.; Khan, V. A.; Brown, J.; Hochmuth, G.; Splittstoesser, W. & Granberry,

D. (1991). Plastic chemistry and technology as related to plastic culture and

solar heating of soil. In Soil solarization. (J. Katan & J. E. DeVay, Eds.). CRC

Press, Boca Raton, Florida. 141-158.

Stevens, P.; Steven, D. & Froud. K. (1998). Kelly´s citrus thrips - a tough customer.

The Orchadist 71: 58-61.

Stout, M. J.; Zehnder, G. W. & Baur, M. E. (2002). Potential for the use of elicitors of

plant resistance in arthropod management programs. Arch. Insect Biochem.

Physiol., 51:222–35.

Sunderland, K. D.; Crook, N. E.; Stacey, D. L. & Fuller, B. J. (1987). A study of

feeding by polyphagous predators on cereal aphids using elisa and gut

dissection. J. Appl. Ecol. 24, 907–933.

Svendsen, T., J. Gronvold, P. Holter & C. Sommer, 2003. Field effects of ivermectin

and fenbendazole on earthworm populations and the disappearance of dung

pats from bolus-treated cattle. Journal of Applied Soil Ecology, 24:207-218.

Tomlin, A. D.,1975. Toxicity of soil applications of insecticides to three species of

springtails (collembola) underlaboratory conditions. Journal of Canada

Entomology, 107: 769-774.

Tragardh, I. (1928). Studies on the fauna of the soil in Swedish forests.

Skoghogskolans Foskskrift, Stockholm.

Van Emden, H. F. (1991). The role of host plant resistance in insect pest mis-

management. Bull. Entomol. Res. 81:123–26

Vierbergen, G.; Kucharczy, k, H. & Kirk, W. D. J. (2010). A key to the second instar

larvae of the 567 Thripidae of the Western Palaeartic region

(Thysanoptera).Tijdschriftvoor Entomol., 153: 99-160.

Wolfersberger, M. G. (1990). The toxicity of two Bacillus thuringiensis -endotoxins

to gypsy moth larvae is inversely related to the affinity of binding sites on

midgut brush border membranes for the toxins. Experientia, 46: 475-7.

Yu, L.; Berry, R. E. & Croft, B. A. (1997). Effects of Bacillus thuringiensis toxins in

transgenic cotton and potato on Folsomia candida (Collembola: Isotomidae)

and Oppia nitens (Acari: Orbatidae). J Econ Entomol., 90: 113-8.

Zurstrassen, R. (2003). Die Terebranten Thysanopteren Europas und des Mittelmeer-

Gebietes. Die Tierwelt Deutschlands 74: 1-271.