ISSN: 0973 - 7049

N
Save Nature to Survive
: Special issue, Vol. 1; 115-122; 2010

BIODIVERSITY OF APHIDOPHAGOUS COCCINELLIDS AND

THEIR ROLE AS BIOINDICATORS IN AGRO-FOREST-
ECOSYSTEM

O. Hemchandra et al.,

Agro-forest ecosystem

Aphidophagous

Biodiversity

Bioindicators

Coccinellids

Paper presented in International Conference on

Environment, Energy and Development (from
Stockholm to Copenhagen and beyond)
December 10 - 12, 2010, Sambalpur University

115
 N
Save Nature to Survive

O. HEMCHANDRA*, J. KALITA AND T. K. SINGH1

Biodiversity and Conservation Biology Laboratory, Department of Zoology,
Gauhati University, Guwahati - 781 014, INDIA
1
Entomology Research Laboratory, Department of Life Sciences,
Manipur University, Canchipur - 795 003, INDIA
E-mail: [email protected]

ABSTRACT
The pioneering role in the development of biological pest control has rendered the coccinellids of
great practical and scientific interest. The species found in the agro-ecosystem in terms of biodiversity
can be recruited as bioindicators owing to their climatic and trophic characteristics. Two types of
habitats were selected for the biodiversity study i.e., crop and forest ecosystem. The data obtained
by trapping, hand picking and netting during March – September 2009 and 2010 showed the
diversity, richness and evenness of aphidophagous coccinellids and their role as bioindicators in
these area. A total of 4119 specimens of coccinellids insects were captured out of which 3612
were aphidophagous predator representing 35 species. In forest ecosystem a total of 1756 specimens
were collected in which 1372 were the aphidophagous coccinellids. Similarly 2290 aphidophagous
specimens were collected out of a total 2363 coccinellids in the crop ecosystem. When diversity
of both the areas was compared, it was concluded that the aphidophagous coccinellids was most
diverse in the crop area than forest ecosystem.

*Corresponding author

116
 BIODIVERSITY OF APHIDOPHAGOUS COCCINELLIDS

INTRODUCTION

The word “biodiversity” is a contraction of biological diversity. Biodiversity of insects in forestry parlance
can be summarized with two of its components species richness and evenness. The “richness” indicates the
number of species present in a designated area whereas “evenness” stands for the relative abundance of
each species (Vanclay, 1992).
Crop agro-ecosystems are diversified with different groups of insect predators. Among the predatory insects,
the ladybirds (Coccinellidae: Coleoptera) have been respected through the centuries with extremely diverse
in their habits. The majority of coccinellid species are beneficial because of their predaceous nature. In
spite of their polyphagy, adults tend to prefer certain types of food, which are eaten voraciously. Both the
larvae and adults of the coccinellids feed on soft body insects like scale insects, aphids and other small soft
bodied creatures or their eggs. Coccinellids are also regarded as bioindicators (Iperti and Paoletti, 1999)
and provide more general information about the ecosystem in which they occur (Andersen, 1999). They play
their important role as biocontrol for those crops that are especially susceptible to aphid attack, namely
maize, pigeon pea (Shantibala et al., 1997). Pesticides used in the crop fields where aphids and other preys
are likely to be found cause damage to the predatory coccinellids which ultimately results in the reduction
of biodiversity.
Agro-forests are defined as complex agro-forestry systems that look like and function as natural forest
ecosystems, but are integrated into agricultural management systems (Ishizuka et al., 1995). Typically, the
agro-forest area consists of densely cropped and planted sites which increasing naturalness and surrounded
by decreasing intensity of developmental areas. Through consistent monitoring efforts, these areas can be
treated as field experiments for addressing basic ecological questions and issues related to the impact of
humans on their environment (McDonnell and Pickett, 1990; Niemela, 1999) and for the assessment of
biodiversity.
The objectives of the present study were to explore the predatory ladybeetle fauna of Papum-Pare district of
Arunachal Pradesh, to estimate the diversity, species richness and species evenness of aphidophagous
coccinellids in agro-forest ecosystem and to know about the role of aphidophagy as bioindicators in an agro-
forest habitat.
MATERIALS AND METHODS

Papum-Pare lies from 26º55’ – 28º40’N latitude and 92º40’ – 94º21’ E longitude, at an altitude of 459-1250
msl, it is a land of lush green forests, deep river valleys and beautiful plateau, mostly mountainous with
Himalayan ranges. The agro-forest area of Balijan, situated in the northern part and 78 km away from the
district headquarter, Yupia, was selected for the present study. It consists of 123.00 acre of land under forest
ecosystem that is integrated into agricultural management systems. This agro-forest area was classified
into two parts i.e., crop area and forest area.
Collection was made randomly by netting, hand picking and light trapping (one light traps per part of both
areas) during March – September 2009 and 2010. Sampling was done for 2 consecutive days in each week
and total population per month was counted. All specimens were manually stored and identified to species
level. Mostly the adults of this family were collected in our samples. Some coccinellid larvae also found in
the sampled areas. To minimize counting a species twice, all larvae were carefully examined and if they
might have been the same species as an adult we counted them as a single species. The meteorological data
were recorded to know environmental impact on the dispersal and diversity of coccinellid beetles. Temperature,
relative humidity data were taken for each census day and were averaged for each month.
The data collected was analysed statistically to calculate the diversity, species richness and evenness in
both areas separately. The Shannon diversity index was used which is as follows:

117
O. HEMCHANDRA et al.,

H = Σ pi log2 pi
Hmax = log2S

H
J= (Evenness)
Hmax

D = 1 – J (Dominance)

For Diversity Comparison

H1 -H2
t cal= 2
S H1 - H2
The diversity indices calculated from both of two areas was compared by t-test (Hutcheson, 1970). H1 is the
diversity index from crop area and H2 is the diversity index from forest area. S2H1 – H2 is the standard error
of the difference between two diversity indices.
Estimation of species: Estimation of coccinellid species in the entire area was made as described by
MacArthur and Wilson (1967).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The entire district is mountainous forming part of Eastern Himalayans biodiversity hot spot. The Agriculture
practice though of traditional type, is the important means of sustaining livelihood of the tribal communities
of the district. Shifting cultivation (Jhuming) in the hill slope and wet field cultivation in the foot hills are
the two main agricultural practices. Major agricultural crops are paddy, maize, millets, pulses, oilseed,
sugarcane and tuber crops. Jhuming is deeply rooted with the socio-economic conditions of the hills farmers.
The research study was conducted from March – September in 2009 and 2010. A total of 4119 specimens of
coccinellid insects were captured out of which 3662 were the aphidophagy representing 35 different species.
In crop area, a total 2363 individuals were collected, in which 2290 belonged to the aphidophagy, similarly
1372 aphidophagous species were collected in total of 1756 individuals in the forest area. Cheilomenes
sexmaculata (Fabricius) had more dominated population with mean value of 66.50, following Micraspis
discolor (Fabricius), Coelophora saucia (Mulsant) and Coccinella septempunctata Linn. with the mean
dominancy values of 54.50, 40.50 and 40.00 respectively in the whole agro-forest area (Table 1).
Diversity, species richness and evenness (Table 2) were calculated by Shannon diversity index. This index
considers both the number of species and the distribution of individuals among species. For a given number
of species, the largest value H results when every individual belongs to different species, and J is the
relative measure of diversity (Kikkawa, 1996).
In crop area, there were 35 species of aphidophagous coccinellids with highest population of C. sexmaculata.
The evenness value showed that the whole of the crop area was evenly distributed with only the dominance
of a few species namely C. sexmaculata, C. septempunctata, M. discolor, C. saucia and Pseudaspidimerus
flaviceps (Wajker) with more population as compared to others. The dominance value in crop agro-system
is 0.08 (Table 2) indicated that 8 % of the 35 species dominating the crop area.
In forest-ecosystem, the distribution of 25 species of aphidophagous coccinellids was heterogeneous. H value
showed that these aphidophagy species were less diverse than crop area. J value showed that in forest area
relative abundance or evenness within 25 species was lesser than crop area (0.903) with dominance of 9 %
(Table 2).
Diversity comparison

118
 BIODIVERSITY OF APHIDOPHAGOUS COCCINELLIDS

tcal > ttab

Since tcal lies in the rejection region, therefore, H was rejected. It was concluded that the diversity indices
are not same for the two areas.
The meteorological data were recorded to know environmental impact on the dispersal and diversity of
aphidophagous coccinellid species. Temperature and humidity data were taken for each census day and were
averaged for each month (Table 3). A slight fluctuation in monthly collected population was attributed to the
ecological conditions(Fig. 1). The ecological conditions i.e., the monsoon season and the rapid growth of
plants (Coley and Aide, 1991), habitat quality (Rice and Riley, 2000) and climatic factors (Didham et al.,
1998; Vulinec, 2000) caused the dispersal of insects within this agro-forest area. The random collection
methods also considered for this fluctuation (Kikkawa, 1996) but estimation of the coccinellids over the
entire area overcomes this factor (McArthur and Wilson, 1967).
Estimation of coccinellid species
The collected species were 35 (Table 1) and the estimated number of coccinellid species in the entire area
was 116, as described by MacArthur and Wilson (1967). The number of species of a particular group of
Table 1: Aphidophagous Coccinellids species captured across agro and forest ecosystem of Papumpare district of Arunachal
Pradesh
S. No. Coccinellids Crop area Forest area Mean
1 Anisolemnia dilatata (Fabricius) + + 7.00
2 Brumoides suturalis (Fabricius) + + 5.50
3 Bucolus posticalis Blackburn + - 5.00
4 Cheilomenes sexmaculata (Fabricius) + + 66.50
5 Chilocorus circumdatus Gyllenhal - + 11.00
6 Coccinella septempunctata Linn. + + 40.00
7 C. transversalis Fabricius + + 20.00
8 Coelophora bisselata Mulsant + + 9.00
9 C. saucia (Mulsant) + + 40.50
10 Cryptogonus kapuri Ghorpade + + 9.00
11 C. postmedialis Kapur + - 16.00
12 Cryptogonus quadriguttatus (Weise) + - 13.00
13 Cryptolaemus montrouzieri Mulsant + + 19.00
14 Harmonia dimidiata (Fabricius) + + 27.50
15 H. eucharis (Mulsant) + - 21.00
16 H. octomaculata (Fabricius) + + 14.50
17 Illeis indica Timberlake + - 23.00
18 Jauravia quadrinotata Kapur + + 16.50
19 Micraspis discolor (Fabricius) + + 54.50
20 Nephus bipunctatus Kug + + 9.50
21 Nephus regularis Sicard + + 15.50
22 Oenopia kirbyi Mulsant + - 29.00
23 Oenopia sexareata (Mulsant) + + 22.50
24 Propylea dissecta (Mulsant) + + 26.00
25 Propylea japonica (Thunberg) + + 21.00
26 Propylea luteopustulata (Mulsant) + - 25.00
27 Pseudaspidimerus flaviceps (Walker) + + 24.00
28 Rodolia breviuscula Weise + + 11.00
29 Sasajiscymnus dwipakalpa (Ghorpade) + + 6.00
30 Scymnus (Pullus) castaneus Sicard + - 4.00
31 Scymnus (Scymnus) nubilus Mulsant + - 21.00
32 Scymnus caudalis LeConte + + 8.50
33 Scymnus coniferarum Crotch + - 31.00
34 Scymnus ferrugatus (Moll.) + + 15.00
35 Synonycha grandis (Thunberg) + + 22.00
Total No. of coccinellids 2363 1756
Total No. of aphidophagous coccinellids 2290 1372
Total No. of aphidophagous coccinellids species 35 25
+ = Presence of predators; - = Absence of predators

119
O. HEMCHANDRA et al.,

Table 2: Result of Shannon Weiner Diversity Index for aphidophagous coccinellids

Diversity components Agro-ecosystem Forest ecosystem
Diversity (H) 3.279 2.905
Max. Diversity (H max) 3.555 3.219
Evenness (J) 0.923 0.903
Dominance (D) 0.08 0.09
H = Shannon Weiner diversity index, where absolute diversity = 1.00; J = Evenness or relative diversity,
where absolute evenness = 1.00; D (1 – J) = Dominance or heterogeneity, where absolute dominance = 0.00
Table 3: Seasonal fluctuation of environmental factors for different month
Months Temperature (ºC) Relative humidity (%)
Maximum Minimum Morning Evening
March 29.45 11.34 69.85 56.75
April 32.63 11.62 79.55 65.86
May 36.56 14.34 65.38 60.65
June 38.35 15.91 68.65 63.67
July 37.85 15.68 86.56 85.32
August 36.36 14.54 87.78 80.92
September 33.50 14.32 88.57 80.90
organism increases approximately as the fourth root of the area. In other words, the number of species can
be predicted as
Estimated number of species = Constant X (Area)0.25
The predaceous and bioindicators role of ladybird beetles benefit from the maintenance of field diversity,
which supports the population of prey such as aphids, thrips and mites (Iperti and Paoletti, 1999). It was also
noted that the erosion of predatory potential occurred due to use of pesticides. The ladybird beetles migrated
between various crop fields throughout the season depending upon the availability of prey and habitat
disturbance (Maredia et al., 1992). Gray’s (1989) postulated that in habitats affected by increased disturbance,
diversity should decrease; opportunist species should gain dominance and mean size of the dominant species
decrease. Our results corroborate this hypothesis to some extent. The actual reason, if not, could be the
disturbance in forest area in the form of Jhuming cultivation practices and the deforestation/soil erosion due
to natural calamity causes a decrease in the diversity (Perfecto and Snelling, 1995; Favila and Halffter,
1997; Niemela et al., 2000; Parkash, 2002). Seasonal changes influence the occurrence of aphid outbreaks,
the type of plant infested and thus the behaviour of the aphidophagous coccinellids. In the context of biological
control, the aphidophagous coccinellids represent an important cause of mortality of coccids, aphids and
mites (Iperti and Paoletti, 1999).
CONCLUSIONS

The main objective of this study was the assessment of biodiversity of aphidophagous coccinellids in this
area but their behavior with the changes in environment and with the increase in prey population was also
studied. From the species richness and diversity comparison through t-test, it was concluded that the crop
area was relatively more diverse than forest area. The distribution of 35 species of coccinellids was
heterogeneous in the entire agro forest area. The females deposited its eggs near prey often in small clusters
in protected sites on leaves and stems. The adults live for weeks or months depending on their geographic
location and the availability of the prey. These predatory insects are active searchers for food and have been
known to arrive at heavily aphid-infested fields. These beetles are density dependent predators, their numbers
rise as the prey numbers increase. The prey population, thus thereby determines the ladybird beetle population.
The results of present study agreed to the observations of Dufrene and Legendre (1997) and McGeoch (1998)
also indicated that the aphidophagous coccinellids can be considered as useful ecological indicators.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The authors are thankful to Prof. and Head, Department of Zoology, Gauhati University for encouragement

120
 BIODIVERSITY OF APHIDOPHAGOUS COCCINELLIDS

and providing necessary laboratory facilities during the course of work and University Grants Commission
for financial support to the first author under Dr. D.S. Kothari Postdoctoral Fellowship scheme.
REFERENCES

Andersen, A. N. 1999. My bioindicators or yours? Making the selection. J. Ins. Coserv. 3: 1 – 4.

Coderre, D. 1988. Effectiveness of aphidophagous insects on maize: In: Niemcyzyk, E. and A.F.G. Dixon (Eds.),
Ecology and Effectiveness of Aphidophaga. pp: 211–4. SPB Academic Publishing, Netherlands.
Coley, P. D. and Aide, T. M. 1991. Comparison of herbivory and plant defenses in temperate and tropical broad-
leaved forests. In: Pl. Anim. Interactions: Evolutionary Ecol. in Trop. and Temperate Regions. pp: 25–49. Price,
P.W., T.M. Lewinsohn, G.W. Fernandes and W.W. Benson (Eds.). John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.
Didham, R. K., Lawton, J. H., Hammond, P. M. and Eggleton, P. 1998. Trophic structure stability and
extinction dynamics of beetles (Coleoptera) in tropical forest fragments. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lon. Ser. Biol. Sci.
353: 437–51
Dufrêne, M. and Legendre, P. 1997. Species assemblages and indicator species: the need for a flexible asymmetrical
approach. Ecol. Monogr. 67: 345–66
Favila, E. M. and Halffter, G. 1997. The use of indicator groups for measuring biodiversity as related to community
structure and function. Acta-Zoologica-Mexicana. 72: 1–25
Gray’s, J. S. 1989. Effects of environmental stress on species rich assemblages. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 37: 19–32.
Hutcheson, K. 1970. A test for comparing diversities based on the Shannon formula. J. Theoret. Biol., 29: 151–4.
Iperti, G. and Paoletti, M. G. 1999. Biodiversity of Predaceous Coccinellidae in relation to bioindication and
economic importance. Special issue: Invertebrate biodiversity as bioindicators of Sustainable landscapes. Agriculture-
Ecosystems-and-Environment. 74: 323–42
Ishizuka, K., Hiasajima, S. and Macer, D. R. J. 1995. Agroforests: an original agro-forestry model from
smallholder farmers for environmental conservation and sustainable development. In: Traditional Technology for
Environmental Conservation and Sustainable Development in the Asian-Pacific Region. Proc. Intern. Sem. UNESCO,
Univ. Tsukuba, Japan. pp. 52-58.
Kikkawa, J. 1996. Complexity, diversity and Stability. In: Community Ecol. Pattern and Process. Kikkawa, J. and
D.J. Anderson (Eds.), Blackwell Sci. Pub., Melbourne, Australia.pp.41-65.
MacArthur, R. H. and Wilson, E. O. 1967. The Theory of Island Biogeography. Princeton Univ. Press, NJ.
Maredia, K. M., Gage, S. H., Landis, D. A. and Scriber, J. M. 1992. Habitat use patterns by the seven spotted
lady beetle (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) in a diverse agricultural landscape. Bio. Cont. 2: 159–65.
McDonell, M. J. and Pickett, S. T. A. 1990. Ecosystem structure and function along urban-rural gradients: an
unexploited opportunity for ecology. Ecology. 74: 1232–7.
McGeoch, M. A. 1998. The selection, testing and applicatyion of terrestrial insects as bioindicatoers. Biol. Rev. 73:
181–201.
Niemelä, J. 1999. Ecology and urban planning. Biodiv. Conserv. 8: 119–31.
Niemelä, J., Kotze, J., Ashworth, A., Brandmay, P., Desender, K., New, T., Penev, L., Samways, M. and
Spence, J. 2000. The search for common anthropogenic impacts on biodiversity: a global network. J. Ins. Conserv.
4: 3–9.
Parkash, I. 2002. Fuanal diversity conservation in Rajastan. In: Biodiversity; Monitoring, Management, conservation
and Enhancement. Rallapali, R. and G. Bali (Eds.). A.P.H. Pub. Corp., New Delhi.pp.181-204.
Perfecto, I. and Snelling, R. 1995. Biodiversity and the transformation of a Tropical Agroecosystem-ants in Coffee
Plantations. Ecol. Appl. 5: 1084–97.
Rice, M. E. and Riley, E. G. 2000. Biodiversity and rarity of Phyllophaga (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) in a

121
O. HEMCHANDRA et al.,

temperate hardwood forest. Ann. Ent. Soc. Amer. 93: 277–81.

Shantibala, K., Singh, L. S., Singh, T. K. and Devi, C. L. 1997. Impact of predators and climatic factors on
the population density of the aphid, Cervaphis rappardi indica Basu on Cajanus cajan Mill. J. Aphidology. 11(1):
133 -137.
Vanclay, J. K. 1992. Species richness and Productive Forest Management. Proc. Oxf. Con. Trop. forests. In:
Biodiversity and Environment. pp: 18–31. Agarwal, S.K., S. Trewali and P.S. Dubey (Eds.), A. P. H. Pub. Corp.,
New Delhi, India.
Vulinec, K. 2000. Dung Beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae), Monkeys, and Conservation in Amazonia. Florida
Entomol. 83: 229–41.

122