واکنش جامعه ماکروفون‌ خاک به تغییر در مدیریت زراعی و نوع محصول در منطقه شیروان

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استادیار دانشکده کشاورزی شیروان،دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد

2 استاد گروه زراعت، دانشگاه علوم کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی گرگان

3 استادیار دانشکده کشاورزی شیروان، دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد

4 عضو هیأت علمی دانشکده کشاورزی شیروان، دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد

چکیده

ماکروفون‌های ساکن در خاک از اجزای مهم تنوع‌زیستی خاک به‌شمار می‌روند. با هدف بررسی تأثیر نوع محصول و شیوه مدیریت زراعی بر جامعه ماکروفون خاک سه زیستگاه شامل مزارع یونجه، مزارع کم‌نهاده گندم و مزارع پرنهاده گندم مورد پیمایش قرار گرفت. برای هر زیستگاه شش واحد نمونه­گیری منظور گردید. در هر واحد نمونه گیری ماکروفون‌های خاک با استفاده از تله‌های چاله‌ای جمع آوری و به تفکیک خانواده شمارش شدند. تجزیه و تحلیل داده ها با استفاده از آنالیزهای تقابل، تشابه و تجزیه به مولفه‌های اصلی انجام گرفت. نتایج آنالیز تقابل نشان داد که شاخص شانون در محصول یونجه (11/2) بیش از محصول گندم ( 88/1) می‌باشد. انجام آنالیز تشابه حاکی از اختلاف در ترکیب جامعه ماکروفون خاک دو محصول داشت به نحوی که ماکروفون های مفید شامل عنکبوتیان، سوسک زمینی و کرم­های خاکی در محصول یونجه فراوان تر بودند. پایائی و تخریب کمتر محصول یونجه عامل اصلی این فراوانی تشخیص داده شد. در حالی که اختلاف محسوسی بین دو شیوه مدیریت کم‌نهاده و پرنهاده گندم از نظر شاخص‌های تنوع مشاهده نگردید با این وجود ترکیب متفاوتی از ماکروفون‌ها در دو شیوه مدیریتی شکل گرفت. گرایش ماکروفون‌های مفید خاک به سکونت در زیستگاه کم‌نهاده قابل درک بود. عمده اختلاف در ترکیب ماکروفون‌ها به عدم کاربرد علف‌کش‌ها و مصرف کمتر کودهای نیتروژنه در زیستگاه کم‌نهاده گندم نسبت داده شد. به طور کلی نتیجه گرفته شد که بهبود تنوع‌زیستی ماکروفون های خاک نیازمند بکارگیری مدیریت کم‌نهاده و وارد کردن بقولات در برنامه تناوب زراعی می­باشد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Response of Soil Macrofauna Community to Variation of Crop Type and anagement in Shirvan Region

نویسندگان [English]

  • Gh. Rassam 1
  • A. Soltani 2
  • A. Dadkhah 3
  • A. Khoshnood Yazdi 4
1 Assistant Prof,, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad. Shirvan College of Agricultural Sciences. Plant Production Department
2 Assistant Prof,, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad. Shirvan College of Agricultural Sciences. Plant Production Department
3 Assistant Prof. Ferdowsi University of Mashhad. Shirvan College of Agricultural Sciences. Plant Production Department
4 Lecturer, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad. Shirvan College of Agricultural Sciences. Plant Production Department
چکیده [English]

Soil macrofauna are important components of soil biodiversity. Three habitats of macrofauna were selected in alfalfa fields, low-input and high-input wheat fields to study the effect of crop type and management on soil macrofauna community in Shirvan region.  Six sample units were considered in each habitat. In each sample unit, the macrofauna collected in pitfall traps were sorted and counted in terms of family. Data were analyzed using contrast analysis, ANOSIN and PCA. The contrast analysis showed that Shannon index in alfalfa (SI: 2.11) was larger than wheat (SI: 1.88). The ANOSIN analysis revealed that the soil macrofauna communities of the two crops were different, since beneficial macrofauna such as spiders, ground beetles and earthworms were more abundant in the alfalfa field. Major reason for this abundance was lower soil disturbance and the perennial mode of growth of alfalfa. Although there was no significant difference between low-input and high-input management of wheat, different compositions of macrofauna were formed in the two managements. The greater tendency of the soil beneficial macrofauna to reside in low-input wheat fields was attributed to lack of herbicides application and low use of nitrogen in low-input management. Overall, it was concluded that improvement of soil macrofauna biodiversity required application of low-input management and inclusion of legumes in crop rotation.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Biodiversity
  • Alfalfa
  • Low-input wheat
  • High-input

مراجع

  1. Bardgett, R.D. 2002. Causes and consequences of animal diversity in soil. Zoology. 105: 367–374.
  2. Barrios, E. 2007. Soil biota, ecosystem services and land productivity. Ecological Economics. 64: 269-285.
  3. Biaggini, M., Consorti, R., Dapporto, L., Dellacasa, M., Paggetti, E. and Corti, C. 2007. The taxonomic level order as a possible tool for rapid assessment of Arthropod diversity in agricultural landscapes. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment. 122: 183–191.
  4. Brevault, T.,  Bikay, S., Maldes, J.M. and Naudin, K. 2007. Impact of a no-till with mulch soil management strategy on soil macrofauna communities in a cotton cropping system. Soil and Tillage Research. 97: 140–149.
  5. Burrssaard, L., Ruiter, P. C. and Brown, G. G. 2007. Soil biodiversity for agricultural sustainability. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment. 121: 233-244.
  6. Clark, KR. 1993. Non-parametric multivariate analysis of changes in community structure. Australian Journal of Ecology. 18:117–143.
  7. Clough, Y., Kruess, A., Kleijn, D. and Tscharntke, T. 2005. Spider diversity in cereal fields: comparing factors at local, landscape and regional scales. Journal of Biogeography. 32: 2007–2014.
  8. Decaens, T., Jiménez, J.J.,  Gioia, C.,  Measey, G.J.  and Lavelle, P. 2006. The value of soil animals for conservation biology. European Journal of Soil Biology. 42: S23–S38.
  9. Diekotter, T., Wamser, S., Wolters, V. and Birkhofer, K. 2010. Landscape and management effects on structure and function of soil arthropod communities in winter wheat. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment. 137: 108–112.
  10. Eduardo, C. and Grelle, V. 2002. Is higher-taxon analysis an useful surrogate of species richness in studies of Neotropical mammal diversity?. Biological Conservation. 108:101-106.
  11. Gobbi, M. and Fontaneto, D. 2008. Biodiversity of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in different habitats of the Italian Po lowland. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment. 127: 273–276.
  12. Harwood, J.D., Sunderland, K. D. and Symondson, W.O. C.  2001. Living where the food is: web location by linyphiid spiders in relation to prey availability in winter wheat. Journal of Applied Ecology. 38: 88-99.
  13. Honek, A., Martinkova, Z. and Jarosik, V. 2003. Ground beetles (Carabidae) as seed predators. European Journal of Entomology. 100: 531–544.
  14. Kladivko, E.J. 2001. Tillage systeme and soil ecology. Soil and Tillage Research. 67: 61-76.
  15. Lavelle, P., Decaens, T., Aubert, M., Barota, S., Blouin, M., Bureau, F., Margerie, P., Mora, P.  and Rossic, J.P. 2006. Soil invertebrates and ecosystem services. European Journal of Soil Biology. 42: 3-15.
  16. Legendre, P. and Legendre, L. 1998. Numerical Ecology. 2nd ed. Amsterdam, Elsevier. 853p.
  17. Legere, A., Stevenson, F. C. and Benoit, D. L. 2005. Diversity and assembly of weed communities: contrasting responses across cropping systems. Weed Research. 45: 303-315.
  18. Maudsley, M.J., Seeley, B. and Lewis, O. 2002. Spatial distribution patterns of predatory arthropods within an English hedgerow in early winter in relation to habitat variables. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment. 89: 77–89.
  19. Melnychuk, N.A., Olfert, O.,  Youngs, B. and Gillott, C. 2003. Abundance and diversity of Carabidae (Coleoptera) in different farming systems. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment. 95: 69-72.
  20. Paoletti, M.G. and Hassal, M. 1999. Woodlice (Isopoda: Oniscidea): their potential for assessing sustainability and use as bioindicators. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment. 74: 157–165.
  21. Read, J.L. and Andersen, A.N. 2000. The value of ants as early warning bioindicators: responses to pulsed cattle grazing at an Australian arid zone locality. Journal of Arid Environment. 45: 231–251.
  22. Schellhorn, N.A. and Sork, V.L. 1997. The impact of weed diversity on insect population dynamics and crop yield in collards, Brassica oleraceae (Brassicaceae). Oecologia. 111: 233-240.
  23. Seymour, C.L. and Dean, W.R.J. 1999. Effects of heavy grazing on invertebrate   assemblages in the Succulent Karoo, South Africa. Journal of Arid Environment. 43: 267–286.
  24. Sileshi, G. and Mafongoya, P.L. 2006. Long-term effects of improved legume fallows on soil invertebrate macrofauna and maize yield in eastern Zambia. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment. 115: 69–78.
  25. Ter Braak, C.J.F. and Smilauer, P. 1998. CANOCO Reference manual and user’s guide to Canoco for Windows: Software for Canonical Community Ordination (version 4). Microcomputer Power, Ithaca.
  26. Weibull, A.C., Ostman, O. and Granqvist, A. 2003. Species richness in agroecosystems: the effect of landscape, habitat and farm management. Biodiversity and Conservation. 12: 1335–1355.
  27. Woodcock, B.A. and Pywell, R.F. 2010. Effects of vegetation structure and floristic diversity on detritivore, herbivore and predatory invertebrates within calcareous grasslands. Biodiversity and Conservation. 19: 81–95.
زیست شناسی خاک
دوره 1، شماره 1
شهریور 1392
صفحه 25-33

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار