Research Article .pdf

ISSN: 2456-7515 International Journal of Advances in Agriculture Sciences (A Monthly Scientific Journal of Kiban Research Publications) www.kibanresearchpublications.com RESEARCH ARTICLE Prevallence of Macro-Invertebrate among Cauliflower (Brassica oleracea var. Capitata) and Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.). Blanco cv. Feutrell’s Early) Naureen Rana, Saira Azam, Sidra Riasat, Ghulam Ruqia, Farah Rasheed, Sobia Kanwal, Shahla Nargis, Afshan Shabir, Munawar Ali, Muhammad Zafar Iqbal* Department of Zoology, Wildlife & Fisheries, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan. *Correspondent Author Email: [email protected] Abstract: The present study was conducted to recorde the “Prevallence of macro-invertebrate among cauliflower (Brassica oleracea var. capitata) and Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.). Blanco cv. Feutrell’s Early)” and among both fields total 565 specimens were collected during entire sampling (7 sampling from each category) and maximum population was recorded from cauliflower field 47.43% (N = 268) and least population was recorded from tomato i.e. 52.56% (N = 297). In case of cauliflower field maximum population was recorded during 4th sampling (39.39) ± 94, followed by (24.95) ± 3 (1st sampling), (19.59) ± 66 (6th sampling) and so on. In case of Tomato fields, maximum population was recorded during 6th sampling (11.72±59.00), followed by 71.11±143.00 (7th sampling), 3.94±48.00 (2nd sampling), and so on. Moreover, from the entire observations that population of order Hymenoptera was high among cauliflower and in case of tomato field population of Haplotaxida was high. Whereas, comparative relative abundance of each species from each field was recorded heterogeneously. Wherein, a lot of species representing one vegetable instead of overall representation. Form cauliflower fields, maximum relative abundance was accessed and recorded that Cylisticus convexus (Cylisticidae) was recorded as an extraordinary contributing species with relative abundance of 14.18% (N = 38). From Tomato fields Labia minor (Labiidae) was recorded abundantly with relative abundance of 9.43% (N = 28). Form cauliflower fields maximum abundance was accessed and recorded extraordinary for genus Cylisticus 14.18% (N = 38). While, From Tomato fields, Pheretima was again recorded as an extraordinary contributing genus with relative abundance of (11.11%; N = 33). From total of (40) recorded families, 29 were recorded from cauliflower and among them, extra ordinary relative abundance (14.18%; N = 38) and from total of 40 recorded families, 33 were recorded from tomato fields and among them, relatively higher abundance (11.11%; N = 33) was recorded for Megascholoidae family. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was among both fields (Tomato and Cauliflower) showed nonsignificant results (F = 0.05; P = 0.8336). Wilcoxon Rank Sum test showed that population of macroinvertebrates were not differ significantly between both orchards but habitat preference was level of significance (P-value = 0.2918). Keywords: Soil macro-fauna, Vegetable crops (Cauliflower and Tomato). Article Received: 30 Oct. 2018 Revised: 14 Nov. 2018 Accepted: 10 Dec. 2018 Introduction Historically, biodiversity focused, especially on aboveground fauna and flora [1]. However, it is well recognized that in most terrestrial ecosystems, the belowground biota supports much greater diversity of organisms than does the aboveground biota, because soils are the central organizing entities in terrestrial ecosystems [2]. It has been reported that of the total number of described species on Earth (1, 500, 000), as many as 23 per cent are soil animals [3]. Muhammad Zafar Iqbal et. al.| Jan. 2019 | Vol.4| Issue 01 |01-09 Soil macro-fauna is imperative to sustain the soil components. They decompose and redistribute the organic matter in soil, play superficial role for re-cycling of nutrients, contribute to soil turnover/structure as well as to sustain ecological niches/pyramids. Moreover, they manage the interactions between above and below ground fauna and play vital role to uphold the biogeochemical cycling of biotic and abiotic factors [4-5]. In simplified agroecosystems, many ecological 1 Available online at: http://ijaas.kibanresearchpublications.com/index.php/IJAAS services associated with the maintenance or enhancements of biodiversity, such as biological control, are compromised [6]. They play an important role in functioning of agroecosystem and altered soil biota diversity negatively affects functional group composition of the agroecosystem [7]. There are strong concerns related to the provision of food to the starving millions of the world. Thus, agricultural intensification remains a major target of research and development. The agricultural Intensification within the frame work of ecological principles is perceived to have scope for the sustainability of these demands [8]. However, agricultural management at the confined range can affect the soil macro-fauna [9]. Landscape management interaction can significantly influence the density of macro-fauna decomposers and the species richness. These communities are most striking feature of soil with massive variation for capitalization of output. They are imperative to fragmentize and redistribute the organic matter as well as soil turnover along with strengthening ecological niches and pyramids, primary resources for food security, pharmaceutical and cosmetic products [10-11-12-5]. Soil macrofauna with size of more than 2 mm consists of miliapoda, isopods, insects, molluscs and earthworms. All of these have an important role in the decomposition of land organic matter, in the supply of nutrients and in the form of material dirt. The relation between soil macrofauna diversity and ecosystem function is very complex but their conservation is very limited. Soil fauna include a large number of species those play many essential roles in ecosystem processes. However, when a natural system is converted into agricultural land or forest purpose, major changes occur in the soil environment faunal community. Macro-faunal organisms are widely accepted as indicators of soil quality, owing to their important role in regulating the soil formation and stability of soil aggregates, nutrient cycling, and soil aeration. Soil organisms are playing a key role in many essential processes that are not directly visible to the human eye. Such processes are Muhammad Zafar Iqbal et. al.| Jan. 2019 | Vol.4| Issue 01 |01-09 decomposition, nutrient cycling, and development of soil structure and aggregation. Soil serves as a refuge to these organisms buffering them from atmospheric extremes such as temperature, moisture, light, and wind. Soil temperature and moisture can affect the survivorship and fecundity of microorganism in different ways. Moderate soil moisture (3 ml) and temperature (20˚) has been shown to be the most suitable environment for maximal survivorship in soil invertebrates such as earthworms. Likewise, these moderate moistures and temperatures can depress aerobic metabolism [13-9-14]. The structure and abundance of soil macro-faunal-communities highly sensitive toward management of the soil plant covers [6]. Significant change in the biomass and diversity of soil macrofauna has been observed due to after establishment of pasture and annual crops. Similarly, owing to soil disturbance and in the absence of a permanent cover, annual cropping system decreases diversity and abundance of soil-faunal-communities. Soil macro organisms (especially earthworms) contribute in soil health and fertility [15]. Materials and Methods Study Design To accomplish the objectives of the present study, a preliminary survey was made to select the fields of cauliflower and tomato having similar nature from Central Punjab (Pakistan). Thereafter, soil sampling was made from these selected fields. Soil Sampling Soil sampling was made from the selected tomato field’s right from the pre-harvesting stage to post-harvesting stage for the whole seasons. Sampling was made on fortnight basis from these fields. Total five quadrate samples were collected from each field for the collection of macro-fauna [4-5]. Sorting of macro-fauna among these sample will be made through (1) direct hand picking, (2) hand sorting, (3) with the help of forceps, and (4) with burlese funnel. Identification Soil samples were brought to the Biodiversity Laboratory, Department of Zoology and Fisheries, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad to sort soil macrofauna. 2 Available online at: http://ijaas.kibanresearchpublications.com/index.php/IJAAS Sorting was done through (a) hand (b) Burlese Funnel and (c) sieving (sieve 0.20, 2.00 and 4.75 mm sieves) to separate macrofauna from soil particles) and the sorted organisms were preserved in glass vials containing laboratory grade alcohol with few drops of glycerin. Each collection made was labeled accordingly containing the date of collection, locality name, Microhabitat (boundary, middle and center), crop name (tomato) and technical name. The collected samples were identified and sorted with the aid of:  Naked eye  Magnifying glass  Microscope All the specimens were identified up to species level according to the taxonomic/ reference material Borror and DeLong, [16] and internet. Identification of the specimens made with the help of reference material in the Biodiversity Laboratory, Department of Zoology, Wildlife and Fisheries, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad. Satistical Analysis The data were analyzed using Microsoft Office 2007 and GWBASIC programmes (www.daniweb.com – online) according to Ludwig and James [17]. Thereafter, all the observed specimens were arranged in table form according to their morphological characters e.g. order, family, genus and species. All statistical tests were conducted at the level of significance α= 0.05 using ANOVA (Microsoft Excel). Results and Discussion Around the world there are numerous soils that have lost their fertility or their capacity to carry out their function due to the impact of man. The causes are mainly related to processes that are accelerated or triggered directly by human activities and that often act in synergy with each other, amplifying the effect. Among them, the most widespread at a worldwide level are erosion, the loss of fertility and a decline in organic matter, compaction, saltinisation, phenomena of flooding and landslides, contamination and the reduction in biodiversity. Reduction of soil biodiversity as a result of urbanization can be even more severe. The 74 Muhammad Zafar Iqbal et. al.| Jan. 2019 | Vol.4| Issue 01 |01-09 Biodiversity Conservation and Utilization in a Diverse World urbanization process leads to the conversion of indigenous habitat to various forms of anthropogenic land use, the fragmentation and isolation of areas of indigenous habitat, and an increase in local human population density. The urbanization process has been identified as one of the leading causes of declines in arthropod diversity and abundance. Soil properties determine ecosystem function and vegetation composition/structure, serve as a medium for root development, and provide moisture and nutrients for plant growth [45]. The abundance, diversity, composition and activity of species of the soil community can be affected by plant species, plant diversity and composition, as well as by animal grazing [5]. The degree of interaction between soil organisms and the soil itself can be highly variable among taxa and dependent on the part of the life cycle that is spent in the soil Wallwork [18]. Keeping in view all these facts, the present research work was conducted to accord “Prevallence of macro-invertebrate among cauliflower (Brassica oleracea var. capitata) and Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.). Blanco cv. Feutrell’s Early)” during the flowering season of these plants in session 2015-16. According to the study design, total seven (7) samplings were accomplished form each field viz. cauliflower and tomatto and lemon orchards. After completing the whole research trial as per lay down under procedure mentioned in the chapter of methodology and taxa composition was recorded as follow: among cauliflower fields, total 52 species were recorded belonging to 610 orders, 20 families and 41 generas; whereas among Tomato fields, total 53 species were counted pertaining to 11 orders, 33 families and 48 generas. Among both fields, total 565 specimens were collected during entire sampling and maximum population was recorded from Tomato fields 52.56637% (N = 297) and least population was recorded from Cauliflower fields i.e. 47.43363% (N = 268). In case of Tomato fields, maximum population was recorded during 7th sampling (71.11) ±143.00, followed by (25.05) ±7.00 (4th and 5th sampling), (22.22) ±11.00 (1st 3 Available online at: http://ijaas.kibanresearchpublications.com/index.php/IJAAS sampling) and so on. While, least and equal values were recorded during 2nd (3.94) ±48.00. Whereas, species abundance was recorded highest in 6th sampling (61 species) at temperature and humidity of 34˚C & 60 respectively. However, least species abundance was recorded during 4th and 5th sampling i.e. 4 species at 35ºC (temperature) and 61% (humidity), 37 (Temprature) and 42 (Humidity) respectively. In case of cauliflower fields, maximum population was recorded during 6th sampling (19.59) ±66, followed by (8.69)±26 (3rd sampling), (3.74)±33, (39.39)±94(2nd and 4th sampling respectively) and so on. While, least value was recorded during 1st sampling (24.95)±3. Whereas species abundance was recorded utmost in 6th (17 species) at temperature and humidity 39 ºC and 41.5 respectively. However, least species st abundance was recorded during 1 sampling i.e. 3 species at 31ºC temperature and 34.5 humidity. The relation between soil macrofauna diversity and ecosystem function is very complex and mostly unknown. The concern to conserve of soil macrofauna biodiversity is very limited [6]. Keeping in view their findings, results of present study was quite analogous with them. However, from the overall findings, significant results were recorded in case of order Lepidoptera from both orchards over the entire study period. Furthermore, diversity of any ecosystem depends upon the relative abundance of that ecosystem; hence, relative abundance of entire population taxa viz. sampling wise, genera wise, family wise and order wise as well as overall was recorded. The relative abundance was recorded maximum from cauliflower fields for order hymenoptera (41.79%) and least for order Dermaptera and Lithoboimorpha (0.37%). Moreover, it is to state from the entire observations that population of order Coleoptera and haplotaxida was high among both fields respectively. Wherein, Dipterans population densities were recorded in conflicting contribution. However, impacts of climatic changes (temperature and humidity) were not significant over the occurrence of both orders in two vegetable fields. Whereas, comparative relative abundance of each species from each fields was recorded heterogeneously (Table - 1), Muhammad Zafar Iqbal et. al.| Jan. 2019 | Vol.4| Issue 01 |01-09 because overall relative abundance of each species was vary from each other and between each fields; some species were recorded more abundantly in one field while other fields were devoid off by them or exist with very lest abundance. Wherein, a lot of species representing one fruit instead of overall representation. For example, from Cauliflower fields, maximum relative abundance 14.18 % (N = 38) was recorded for Cylisticus convexus (Cylisticidae). Thereafter, Oniscus asellus (Oniscidae) was recorded with utmost relative abundance 11.57% (N = 31), followed by Porcellio scaber (Porcellionidae) 10.45% (N = 28), Episyrphus balteatus (Syrphidae) 8.58% (N = 23). Afterward, gradual decrease was recorded for Pheretima posthuma (Megascholoidae) 8.21% (N= 22), Euborellia annulipes (Anisolabididae) and Paedurus littoralis (Staphylinidae) 3.73% (N = 10), Ocypus olens (Staphylinidae) 3.36% (N = 9), Gonocephalum depressum (Tenebrionidae) 2.99% (N = 8), Gonocephalum costatum (Tenebrionidae) 2.61% (N = 7), Trochosa spinipalpis (Lycosidae), Armadillidium vulgare (Armadillidiidae) 2.24% (N = 6). However, least relative abundance (N ≤ 05) was recorded for Taridius piceus (Carabidae), Muscina prolapsa (Muscidae), Formica spp. (Formicidae) and Allocosa chamberlini (Lycosidae) Pheretima elongata (Megascholoidae), Coccinella septempunctata (Coccinellidae), Cyclocephala spp. (Scarabaeidae ), Hybomitra bimaculata (Tabanidae), Eris militaris (Salticidae) and Plodia interpuntella (Pyrallidae), Pheretima morrisi (Megascholoidae), Forficula auricularia (Forficulidae), Calosoma maderae (Carabidae), Bembidion varium (Carbidae), Solenopsis invicta (Formicidae) and Pardosa pullata (Lycosidae), Lumbricus terrestris (Lumbricidae), Labia minor (Labiidae), Pangaeus bilineatus (Pentatomidae), Tritomegas sexmaculatus (Cydnidae), Cicindela scutellaris (Carabidae), Agonum cupripenne (Carbidae), Bembidion laterale (Carbidae), Isohyro palpus (Anthicidae), Curculio spp. (Curculionidae), Gonocephalum simplex (Tenebrionidae), Gonocephalum granulatum (Tenebrionidae), Euetheola subglabra (Scarabaeidae), Phyllophaga spp. (Scarabaeidae), Aphodius rufus (Scarabaeidae), Pieris brassicae 4 Available online at: http://ijaas.kibanresearchpublications.com/index.php/IJAAS (Pieridae), Syrphus torvus (Syrphidae), Cynomyaca daverina (Calliphoridae), Camponotus spp. (Formicidae), Pheidde hyaiti (Formicidae), Dolichonderus spp. (Dolichondrinae), Lithobius forficatus (Lithobiidae), Tigrosa helluo (Lycosidae). Wherein, following taxa: pheretima heterochaeta (Megascholoidae), Allolobophora chlorotica (Lumbricidae), Anisolabis maritima (Anisolabididae), Calosoma sycophanta (Carabidae), Bembidion quadrimaculatum (Carabidae), Auplopus mellipes, Laemohloeus fasciatus (Laemophloeidae), Dermestes maculatus (Dermestidae), Tenebrio molitor (Tenebrionidae), Ataenius strigatus. (Scarabaeidae), Oryctes rhinoceros (Scarabaeidae), Typhaeastercorea (Mycetophagidae), Musca domestica (Muscidae), Atherigona reversura (Muscidae), Diachlorus ferrugatus (Tabanidae), Neocicadahiero glyphica, Leptoglossus occidentalis (Coreidae), Formica sanguine, Iridomyrmex purpureus, Camponotus floridanus (Formicidae), Apis mellifera (Apidae), Apis dorsata (Apidae), Gryllodessi gillatus, Gryllotalpa brachyptera (Gryllotalpidae), Araneus quadrates, (Araneidae), Pisaurina mira (Pisauridae), Eratigena agrestis (Agelenidae), Callobius bennetti (Amaurobiidae), Falconina gracilis (Corinnidae), Callobius pictus (Amaurobiidae), Chrysodeixis chalcites (Noctuidae), Plutellaxylo stella spp. (Plutellidae), Glaucias amyoti (Pentatomidae) were not recorded from cauliflower fields. Formerly, Mutema et al. described the macro-fauna richness under the inspiration of abridged crop and tillage residues. There was a noteworthy association between species richness and biomass. Beetle-larvae, termites and ants were experiential higher in amount among Macro-fauna. A whole of 19 insect pests were documented and five were bio regulator mediators and two were ant types. In these orders, Hemiptera and Lepidoptera were plentiful in quantities that effect warm properties to wheat crops. From Tomato fields Labia minor (Labiidae) was recorded abundantly with relative abundance of 9.43% (N = 28). Thereafter, Oniscus asellus (Oniscidae) was recorded with maximum relative abundance 8.75% (N = 26) and followed by Allolobophora chlorotica (Lumbricidae), 8.08% (N = 24), Muhammad Zafar Iqbal et. al.| Jan. 2019 | Vol.4| Issue 01 |01-09 Tritomegas sexmaculatus (Cydnidae), Pheretima morrisi (Megascholoidae) 5.39% (N = 16), Paedurus littoralis (Staphylinidae) 4.71% (N = 14), Trochosa spinipalpis (Lycosidae) 3.70% (N = 11), and then gradual decrease was recorded for Forficula auricularia (Forficulidae) 3.37% (N= 10), Camponotus floridanus (Formicidae) 3.03% (N = 9), Pheretima heterochaeta (Megascholoidae), Iridomyrmex purpureus (Formicidae),2 .69% (N = 8), Pheretima elongata (Megascholoidae) and Glaucia samyoti (Pentatomidae) 2.36% (N = 7), Lumbricus terrestris (Lumbricidae), Bembidion quadrimaculatum (Carbidae) and Araneus quadratus (Araneidae) 2.02% (N = 6). However, least relative abundance (N ≤ 05) was recorded for Dermestes maculatus (Dermestidae), Atherigona reversura (Muscidae), Formica sanguinea (Formicidae), Pardosa pullata (Lycosidae), Eratigena agrestis (Agelenidae), Callobius bennetti (Amaurobiidae), Calosoma sycophanta (Carbidae), Ataenius strigatus (Scarabaeidae), Cylisticus convexus (Cylisticidae), Falconin agracilis (Corinnidae), Anisolabis maritima (Anisolabididae), Coccinella septempunctata (Coccinellidae), Leptoglossus occidentalis (Coreidae), Solenopsis invicta (Formicidae), Apis dorsata (Apidae), Lithobius forficatus (Lithobiidae), Pheretima posthuma (Megascholoidae), Agonum cupripenne (Carabidae), Laemohloeus fasciatus (Laemophloeidae), Phyllophaga spp. (Scarabaeidae), Diachlorus ferrugatus (Tabanidae), Neocicadahiero glyphica (Coreidae), Apis mellifera (Apidae), Gryllotalpa brachyptera (Gryllotalpidae), Pisaurina mira (Pisauridae), Callobius pictus (Amaurobiidae). Wherein, Curculio spp. (Curculionidae), Tenebrio molitor (Tenebrionidae), Cyclocephala spp. (Scarabaeidae), Oryctes rhinoceros (Scarabaeidae), Typhaea stercorea (Mycetophagidae), Musca domestica (Muscidae), Gryllodes sigillatus (Gryllotalpidae), Tigrosa helluo (Lycosidae), Allocosa chamberlini (Lycosidae), Chrysodeixis chalcites (Noctuidae), Plutellaxylo stella spp. (Plutellidae). Euborellia annulipes (Anisolabididae), Pangaeus bilineatus (Pentatomidae), Calosoma maderae (Carabidae), Cicindela scutellaris (Carabidae), Taridius piceus (Carabidae), Bembidion varium. (Carbidae), Bembidion laterale, (Carbidae), Isohyro palpus (Anthicidae), Gonocephalum 5 Available online at: http://ijaas.kibanresearchpublications.com/index.php/IJAAS depressum, Gonocephalumcostatum, Gonocephalum simplex, Gonocephalum granulatum (Tenebrionidae), Euetheola subglabra (Scarabaeidae), Aphodius rufus (Scarabaeidae), Ocypus olens, (Staphylinidae), Pieris brassicae (Pyralidae), Syrphus torvus Episyrphus balteatus, (Syrphidae), Cynomyaca daverina (Calliphoridae), Muscina prolapsa (Muscidae), Hybomitra bimaculata (Tabanidae), Formica spp. (Formicidae), Camponotus spp., Pheidde hyaiti (Formicidae), Dolichonderus spp. (Dolichondrinae), Porcellio scaber (Porcellionidae), Armadillidium vulgare (Armadillidiidae), Eris militaris (Salticidae), Plodia interpuntella (Pyralidae) were not recorded from Tomato fields. Biodiversity has received national and international importance in recent times [7-4-9-6]. To launch the IPM strategies in a best fitted manner, use of community representative for population suppression or to motivate the beneficial organisms is considered a cornerstone factor. For this purpose, highlighting a diversity and density of various existing families in under reference field provide a realistic approach [10-11-12]. Hence, the fundamental issue, relative abundance was again accessed at family level to overcome these aspects. As far as relative abundance up to family for cauliflower and tomato fields is concerned, in case of cauliflower fields relative abundance was also recorded in the same context as it was observed in species and genera case. From total of (40) recorded families, 29 were recorded from cauliflower and among them, extra ordinary relative abundance (14.18%; N = 38) and then maximum relative abundance was recorded for Cylisticidae family, followed by Oniscidae (11.57%: N = 31), Porcellionidae (10.45%: N = 28), Megascholoidae (10.07%; N = 27), Calliphoridae (8.96%; N = 24), Staphylinidae (7.09%; N = 19), Tenebrionidae (6.34%; N = 17), Lycosidae (5.22%; N = 14), Carabidae (4.48%; N = 12). However, least relative abundance (N ≤ 10) was recorded for family Anisolabididae, Formicidae, Scarabaeidae, Armadillidiidae, Muscidae, Coccinellidae, Tabanidae, Salticidae, Pyralidae, Forficulidae, Lumbricidae, Labiidae, Pentatomidae, Cydnidae, Curculionidae, Anthicidae, Syrphidae, Dolichondrinae, and Muhammad Zafar Iqbal et. al.| Jan. 2019 | Vol.4| Issue 01 |01-09 Lithobiidae. Wherein, from total of the 40 recorded families, 29 families were not recorded lemon orchards. However, from total of 40 recorded families, 33 were recorded from tomato fields and among them, relatively higher abundance (11.11%; N = 33) was recorded for Megascholoidae family. Thereafter, relative abundance was recorded for Lumbricidae (10.10%; N = 30), Labiidae (9.43%; N = 28), Oniscidae (8.75%; N = 26), Formicidae (8.42%; N = 25), Lycosidae, (6.06%; N = 18), Cydnidae (5.39%; N = 16), Staphylinidae (4.71%; N = `14), Carabidae (4.04%; N = 12). However, least relative abundance (N ≤ 10) was recorded for family Forficulidae, Pyralidae, Scarabaeidae, Amaurobiidae, Muscidae, Dermestidae, Coreidae, Apidae, Agelenidae, Cylisticidae, Corinnidae, Anisolabididae, Coccinellidae, Lithobiidae, Gryllotalpidae, Laemophloeidae, Tabanidae, Pisauridae, Curculionidae and Mycetophagidae. Analysis of Variance is used to compare the random impacts of different treatments with regarding to governing factors in a particular area or habitat. During present study, to record the diversity among two fields i.e. cauliflower and tomato under ecological conditions of district Faisalabad. But, among cauliflower fields Orders orthoptera was not recorded. Hence, to compare the overall occurrence, density and diversity of insects in cauliflower and tomato fields, Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was made. After completing the analysis and it was observed that population mean of recorded taxa among both fields (cauliflower nad tomato) showed non-significant results (F = 0.05; P = 0.8336). Wherein to further indicate and highlight the comparative significant between independent and dependent variables (macro-invertebrate in cauliflower and tomato fields) as well as to verify the predictions of ANOVA, KruskalWallis test was applied on the collected and identified data. After completing the analysis, it was conformed that prediction recorded in case of ANOVA were all right (F = 0.03; P = 0. 8568). Normally Wilcoxon Rank Sum test is used in place of t- test to attain the most satisfied results between two independent samples drawn/ taken from the similar inhabited populations or similar conditions. During 6 Available online at: http://ijaas.kibanresearchpublications.com/index.php/IJAAS present study, similar conditions were under observations i.e. Prevallence of macroinvertebrate among cauliflower and tomato fields. So, to check and finalize the prediction with regard to null hypothesis that: weather the macr-invertebrate is inhabited similarly among both fields or not, Wilcoxon Rank Sum test was applied. After completing the entire analysis, it was observed that population of macroinvertebrate were not differ significantly between both fields but habitat preference was level of significance (P-value = 0.2918). Conclusions & Recommendations It is concluded from the above all discussion that: i) taxa composition among the both fields were differeing significantly, ii) maximum population was recorded from cauliflower field 47.43% (N = 268) and least population was recorded from tomato i.e. 52.56% (N = 297). Hense, ss per finding of previous researchers and present study, it is quite obvious that insects inhabit the flowering plant variably. So, keeping in view their ecological role in agro-ecosystem and other areas of this biosphere following recommendations are made for future strategies: Farming community should be aware about their ecological role in agroecosystem and other areas of the earth planet. They also aware about their life histories so that they can play role to safeguard their population. Seminars, symposium and workshops should also be arranged periodically to share and upgrade the knowledge of farmers keeping in view the daily wages research outcomes. Step taking farmers must be appreciated in all crops, vegetables and fruits production to enhance the GDP of the country in best fitted manner. Table 1: Relative Abundance of recorded Species from Cauliflower (Brassica oleracea (Solanum lycopersicum L.). Blanco cv. Feutrell’s Early) fields Phylum Order Family Species Haplotaxida Megascholoidae Pheretimaelongata Pheretimamorrisi Pheretimaposthuma Pheretimaheterochaeta Lumbricidae Lumbricusterrestris Allolobophorachlorotica Dermaptera Labiidae Labia minor Forficulidae Forficulaauricularia Anisolabididae Euborelliaannulipes Anisolabismaritima Hemiptera Pentatomidae Pangaeusbilineatus Glaucias amyoti Cydnidae Tritomegassexmaculatus Coleoptera Carabidae Calosomamaderae Cicindelascutellaris Agonumcupripenne Taridiuspiceus Bembidionvarium Bembidionlaterale Calosomasycophanta Bembidionquadrimaculatum Coccinellidae Coccinellaseptempunctata Curculionidae Curculio sp. Anthicidae Isohyropalpus Laemophloeidae Laemohloeusfasciatus Dermestidae Dermestesmaculatus Tenebrionidae Gonocephalumdepressum Tenebriomolitor Gonocephalumcostatum Gonocephalum simplex Gonocephalumgranulatum Scarabaeidae Cyclocephala spp. Euetheolasubglabra Phyllophagaspp Ataeniusstrigatus Aphodiusrufus Oryctes rhinoceros Staphylinidae Paeduruslittoralis Ocypusolens Mycetophagidae Typhaeastercorea Diptera Syrphidae Syrphustorvus Episyrphusbalteatus Calliphoridae Cynomyacadaverina Muscidae Muscinaprolapsa Muhammad Zafar Iqbal et. al.| Jan. 2019 | Vol.4| Issue 01 |01-09 var. capitata) and Tomato Cauliflower (1.12)3 (0.75)2 (8.21)22 (0.00)0 (0.37)1 (0.00)0 (0.37)1 (0.75)2 (3.73)10 (0.00)0 (0.37)1 (0.00)0 (0.37)1 (0.75)2 (0.37)1 (0.37)1 (1.87)5 (0.75)2 (0.37)1 (0.00)0 (0.00)0 (1.12)3 (0.37)1 (0.37)1 (0.00)0 (0.00)0 (2.99)8 (0.00)0 (2.61)7 (0.37)1 (0.37)1 (1.12)3 (0.37)1 (0.37)1 (0.00)0 (0.37)1 (0.00)0 (3.73)10 (3.36)9 (0.00)0 (0.37)1 (8.58)23 (0.37)1 (1.49)4 Tomato (2.36)7 (5.39)16 (0.67)2 (2.69)8 (2.02)6 (8.08)24 (9.43)28 (3.37)10 (0.00)0 (1.01)3 (0.00)0 (2.36)7 (5.39)16 (0.00)0 (0.00)0 (0.67)2 (0.00)0 (0.00)0 (0.00)0 (1.35)4 (2.02)6 (1.01)3 (0.34)1 (0.00)0 (0.67)2 (1.68)5 (0.00)0 (0.34)1 (0.00)0 (0.00)0 (0.00)0 (0.34)1 (0.00)0 (0.67)2 (1.35)4 (0.00)0 (0.34)1 (4.71)14 (0.00)0 (0.34)1 (0.00)0 (0.00)0 (0.00)0 (0.00)0 7 Available online at: http://ijaas.kibanresearchpublications.com/index.php/IJAAS Tabanidae Coreidae Hymenoptera Formicidae Apidae Lithobiomorpha Orthoptera Dolichondrinae Oniscidae Cylisticidae Porcellionidae Armadillidiidae Lithobiidae Gryllotalpidae Araneae Lycosidae lepidoptera Salticidae Araneidae Pisauridae Agelenidae Amaurobiidae Corinnidae Amaurobiidae Pyralidae Isopoda Noctuidae Plutellidae Total Muscadomestica Atherigonareversura Hybomitrabimaculata Diachlorusferrugatus Neocicadahieroglyphica Leptoglossusoccidentalis Formica spp.1 Formica sanguine Iridomyrmexpurpureus Camponotus spp. Camponotusfloridanus Solenopsisinvicta Pheiddehyaiti Apismellifera Apisdorsata Dolichonderus spp. Oniscusasellus Cylisticusconvexus Porcellioscaber Armadillidiumvulgare Lithobiusforficatus Gryllodessigillatus Gryllotalpabrachyptera Tigrosahelluo Allocosachamberlini Trochosaspinipalpis Pardosapullata Eris militaris Araneusquadratus Pisaurinamira Eratigenaagrestis Callobiusbennetti Falconinagracilis CallobiusPictus Plodiainterpuntella Pieris brassicae Chrysodeixis chalcites Plutellaxylostella sp. (0.00)0 (0.00)0 (1.12)3 (0.00)0 (0.00)0 (0.00)0 (1.49)4 (0.00)0 (0.00)0 (0.37)1 (0.00)0 (0.75)2 (0.37)1 (0.00)0 (0.00)0 (0.37)1 (11.57)31 (14.18)38 (10.45)28 (2.24)6 (0.37)1 (0.00)0 (0.00)0 (0.37)1 (1.49)4 (2.61)7 (0.75)2 (1.12)3 (0.00)0 (0.00)0 (0.00)0 (0.00)0 (0.00)0 (0.00)0 (1.12)3 (0.37)1 (0.00)0 (0.00)0 268 (0.34)1 (1.68)5 (0.00)0 (0.67)2 (0.67)2 (1.01)3 (0.00)0 (1.68)5 (2.69)8 (0.00)0 (3.03)9 (1.01)3 (0.00)0 (0.67)2 (1.01)3 (0.00)0 (8.75)26 (1.35)4 (0.00)0 (0.00)0 (1.01)3 (0.34)1 (0.67)2 (0.34)1 (0.34)1 (3.70)11 (1.68)5 (0.00)0 (2.02)6 (0.67)2 (1.68)5 (1.68)5 (1.35)4 (0.67)2 (0.00)0 (0.00)0 (0.34)1 (0.34)1 297 References 1. Wardle DA (2006) the influence of biotic interactions on soil biodiversity. Ecol. Letters, 9(7): 870-886. 2. Coleman DC, DA Crorsley (2004) Fundamentals of Soil Ecology (2nd Ed.). Academic Press. 3. Decaens T, JJ Jimenez, C Gioia, P Lavelle (2006) Soil invertebrates and ecosystem services. Europ. J. Soil Biol, 10:241. 4. Rana N, M Yaseen, G Ruqia, F Rasheed, S Riasat, S Afzal, M Imran, MZ Iqbal (2018) Distribution of soil macro fauna around dries (Rosa fields) and wet (fish farm) territory under the ecological conditions of district Faisalabad (Punjab), Pakistan. J. Entomology and Zoology Studies, 6(1): 4854. 5. Rana N, SA Rana, A Sohail, MJI Siddiqui, MZ Iqbal (2006) Diversity of soil macrofauna in sugarcane of hip and lip nature: past finding and future priorities. Pak. Entomol, 28:19-26. Muhammad Zafar Iqbal et. al.| Jan. 2019 | Vol.4| Issue 01 |01-09 6. Lavelle P, T Decaens, M Aubert, S Barot, M Blouin, F Bureau, P Margerie, P Mora, JP Rossi (2006) Soil invertebrates and ecosystem services. European Journal of Soil Biology, 42:3-15. 7. Rana N, SA Rana, HA Khan, A Sohail (2010) Assessment of possible threats to soil macro-invertebrate diversity in wheat fields from high input farming. Int. J. Agric. Biol, 12:801-808. 8. Mutema M, PL Mafongoya, I Nyagumbo, L Chikukura (2013) Effects of crop residues and reduced tillage on macro-fauna abundance. J. Organic Syst, 8: 1-12. 9. Ge BM, DZ Zhang, J Cui, HB Zhang, CL Zhou, BP Tang (2014) Biodiversity variations of soil macrofauna communities in forests in a reclaimed coast with different diked history. Pak. J, Zool, 46:1053-1059. 10. Tilman D, RM May, CL Lehman, MA Nowak (1994) Habitat destruction and the extinction debt. Nature, 371:65-66. 8 Available online at: http://ijaas.kibanresearchpublications.com/index.php/IJAAS 11. Tilman D, CL Lehman, CE Bristow (1998) Diversity-stability relationships: statistical inevitability or ecological consequence? American Nature 151:277-282. 12. Tilman D, J Knops, D Wedin, P Reich (2000) Experimental and observational studies of diversity, productivity and stability, In: Functional Consequences of Biodiversity: Experimental Progress and Theoretical Extensions. Princeton University Press, New Jersey. 13. Fackenath S, B Lalljee (1999) The Living Soil, the soil in perspective. Contents of the PROSI Magazine, 365. 14. Dyson KE, MT Bulling, M Solan, G HernandezMilian, DG Raffaelli, PCL White, DM Paterson (2007) Influence of macro faunal assemblages and environmental heterogeneity on miscopy to benthic production in experimental systems. Proc. R. Soc, 274: 2547-2554. 16. Borror DJ, DM Delong (2005) an introduction to the study of insects. Columbus, Ohio,812. 17. Ludwig JA, FR James (1988) Statistical Ecology: A primer on methods and computing. A Wiley-Int, Publication, New York. 1-33. 18. Wallwork JA (1970) Ecology of soil animals. Publisher, McGraw-Hill, London, UK.1-283. 19. Smith RL, TM Smith (1998) Elements of ecology (4th Ed.). The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, Inc. 2725 Sand Hill Road-Menlo Park, CA 94025. 20. Vazirizadeh A, R Kamalifar, A Safahieh, M Mohammadi, A Khalifi, F Namijoo, A Fakhri (2011) Macrofauna community structure of Bardestan mangrove swamp, Persian Gulf. World J. Fish. Marine Sci, 4:323-331. 15. Jiang Y, X Yin, F Wang (2014) Impact of soil mesofauna on the decomposition of two main species litters in a Pinuskoraiensis mixed broad-leaved forest of the Changbai Mountains. Acta Ecol. Sinica, 34; 110-115. Muhammad Zafar Iqbal et. al.| Jan. 2019 | Vol.4| Issue 01 |01-09 9