Significance of Biodiversity in Agriculture Ecosystem

 

 Significance of Biodiversity in Agriculture Ecosystem

Abstract

Biodiversity or Biological Diversity is defined as the variability among living organisms which includes floral, faunal and microbial diversity. Agricultural biodiversity is an important component of general biodiversity which includes all variety and variability of animals, plants, micro-organisms and ecosystems which are necessary to sustain key functions of the agro ecosystem, its structure and processes for food production and food security. Biodiversity is tightly linked to agriculture and its various components. Various plants, animals and numerous microorganisms are closely associated with agro-ecosystem and help agricultural crops in every stage such as production, protection and improvement. We get so many biodiversity services and use them in agriculture but we are less aware of them. Several plant species like Azadirachta indica, Ocimum sanctum, Vitex negundo, etc. are used in the agriculture as bio-fertilizers and bio-pesticides. Numerous fauna like wasps, spiders, birds, bats, snails, fishes, snakes, etc. are also directly or indirectly support the agricultural production system. The vast diversity of microorganisms play important roles in every stage and everywhere in the agro-ecosystem. They increase the fertility of soil, solubilize and mobilize nutrients to crop plants, biologically control pathogens and pests and also contribute their genetic material for improvement of crop performance. But due to many anthropogenic activities like excessive use of pesticides, chemical fertilizers, residue burning, forest fire, monoculture, introduction of invasive weeds and other plant species, these natural friends of farmers and agro-diversity are decreasing day by day. Time has come when we have to protect the biodiversity to protect the agriculture by adopting multi cropping system, integrated farming system, heritage orchards, protection of land races and indigenous varieties of crops and domesticated animals, application of bio-pesticides, bio-fertilizers and creation of mass awareness on the importance of biological diversity in agriculture.

 

Introduction:

The compacted and most convenient term ‘Biodiversity’ was coined by famous naturalist E.O. Wilson in 1986, in a report for the first American Forum on Biological Diversity organized by their National Research Council (NRC). Biodiversity as defined in the Article 2 of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, 1992, is the variability among living organisms from all sources including inter alia terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part; this includes diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems. In a broad sense with simpler understanding, the umbrella term of Biodiversity includes diversity of species, genes, flora, fauna, microorganisms, agriculture, domesticated animals and the diversity of and in ecosystems like wetland, marine, deep ocean, estuary, lagoon, lake, island, seashore, sand dune, river, forest, mountain, dry land, desert, snow covered ecosystem (like tundra) and urban ecosystems. Agricultural biodiversity is a broad term that includes all components of biological diversity of relevance to food and agriculture and all components of biological diversity that constitute the agricultural ecosystems, also named as agro-ecosystems. It includes the variety and variability of animals, plants and micro-organisms, at the genetic, species and ecosystem levels, which are necessary to sustain key functions of the agro-ecosystem, its structure and processes (COP decision V/5, appendix). Agro-biodiversity is by definition the result of the deliberate interaction between humans and natural ecosystems and the species that they contain, often leading to major modifications or transformations. Agro-ecosystems are the product, therefore, of not just the physical elements of the environment and biological resources but vary according to the cultural and management systems to which they are subjected. Agro-biodiversity thus includes a series of social, cultural, ethical and spiritual variables that are determined by local farmers (in the broad sense) at the local community level. Agricultural biodiversity is the outcome of the interactions among genetic resources, the environment and the management systems and practices used by farmers. This is the result of both natural selection and human inventive developed over millennia. Like our understanding on biodiversity in general, agricultural biodiversity can also be considered at three main levels; those of ecological diversity, organism diversity and genetic diversity (Heywood 1995).

 

Various components of biodiversity contribute in a multifaceted way to sustain the key functions of agriculture and food production system i.e. for the production, protection and improvement of crops. Absence of one component may affect adversely the whole agricultural ecosystem. Various types of trees, grasses, shrubs and herbs have tremendous potential for enhancing the crop productivity and protection from pests and pathogens in natural and eco-friendly way. Similarly, a range of animals, birds, fishes and other minor and major fauna contribute towards sustaining agriculture. Like in other plants, a significant part is also played by the vast diversity of microorganisms in soil, air and water in agriculture environment and ecosystem.

 

More than 3 billion people, almost half of the world’s population live in rural areas. Roughly 2.5 billion of these rural people derive their livelihoods from agriculture. For many economies, especially those of developing countries, agriculture can be an important engine of economic growth. Approximately three-quarters of the world’s agricultural value added is generated in developing countries and in many of these, the agriculture sector contributes as much as 30 percent to gross domestic product (GDP) (http://www.fao.org/3/i3107e/i3107e01.pdf). Around 60-70%% of Indian population (directly or indirectly) depends upon agriculture as the largest source of livelihoods and currently agriculture contributes to 16–17% of the GDP. A projection by the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) shows that feeding a world population of 9.1 billion people in 2050 would require raising overall food production by 70%. Production in the developing countries would need to almost double. This implies significant increases in the production of several key commodities; say for instance, annual cereal production would have to grow by almost one billion tons.   (http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/wsfs/docs/Issues_ papers/ HLEF2050_Global_Agriculture.pdf). Under this circumstance, the justification to ‘produce more, and loose less’ is compelling because of the recognized risk of increased pest introductions, floods, drought, frost, excess temperature all due to climate change, increased global trade and increased human mobility. Most of the farmers in developing countries are not financially capable of purchasing chemical fertilizers, pesticides and other farm inputs. In most tribal areas of India, farmers are even unaware of the proper and judicious use of appropriate fertilizer and pesticides. In such a scenario, where they are compelled to continue farm production to sustain their livelihood, dependence on the use of biological diversity around them remains the only option. In the current review, an attempt was made to discuss comprehensively and concisely the significance of floral, faunal and microbial diversity which either contribute or are being utilized in the agricultural ecosystem.

 

Biodiversity and its global essentiality

Biodiversity is recognized at three levels, i.e. diversity of species, genetic diversity and diversity of ecosystem (Wilson, 1984). Biodiversity has social, ecological and economic significance at local, regional, national and global scales. It forms the web of life of which we are an integral part and upon which we so fully depend. So far, about 1.75 million species have been identified, mostly small creatures such as insects. There are about 4,65,688 species of plants are known globally which includes 1021 gymnosperms, 2,68,600 angiosperms, 16,236 bryophytes, 12,000 pteridophytes, 11,813 viruses and bacteria, 40,000 algae, 98,998 fungi and 17,000 species of  lichens (ENVIS Centre on Floral Diversity: http://bsienvis.nic.in). Similarly, kingdom Animalia is represented by 1,552,319 species described in 40 phyla in the new evolutionary classification comprising 31,958 species of Pisces, 7,694 Amphibian, 9,413 reptiles, 9,990 birds and 5,750 of species of Mammalia among others (Chapman 2009; Zhang, 2011). India has a rich heritage of species and genetic strains of flora. Overall about 6% of world’s species are found in India. It is estimated that India is one of the seventeen mega-diversity (eleventh among these in respect to number of endemic vascular plant species*) and tenth among the plant-rich countries of the world as well as sixth among the centers of diversity and origin of agro-diversity. Out of the total 35 biodiversity hotspots in the world, India has four namely Himalaya, Indo-Burma (parts of northeast India and Andaman Islands), Western Ghats (Sri Lanka) and Sundaland (Nicobar Islands) (www.biodiversityhotspots.org). The Odisha state of India, with its unique bio-geographic features supports a large diversity of plants and animals which is a mixture of Indo-Malayan and Afro-Mediterranean biodiversity.

 

Ever since intellectual discussions on biodiversity was the eventual outcome of the cognition that the earth's biological resources are vital to the economic and social development of humanity. As a result, there is a growing recognition that biological diversity is a global asset of tremendous value to present and future generations. The vast array of interactions among the various components of biodiversity makes the planet habitable for all species including humans. Our personal health, the health of our economy and human society depends on the continuous supply of various ecological services that would be extremely costly or impossible to replace. At least 40% of the world’s economy and 80% of the needs of the poor are derived from biological resources. Close to 1.6 billion people in the world depend on forest for their livelihood. Out of this, about 60 million indigenous and tribal people are dependent on forests for livelihood. In India around 275-400 million people depend on forest resources. People living in the forest fringe villages depend upon forest for a variety of goods and services. These includes collection of edible fruits, flowers, tubers, roots and leaves for food and medicines; firewood for cooking (some also sale in the market); materials for agricultural implements, house construction and fencing; fodder (grass and leave) for livestock and grazing of livestock in forest; and collection of a range of marketable non-timber forest products. The biophysical diversity of microorganisms, flora and fauna provides important basis for biological, health and pharmacological development. Significant medical and pharmacological discoveries are made through greater understanding of the earth's biodiversity.  The diversity of medicinal plants is being utilised as the most common medication tool in traditional medicine and are used by 60% of the world’s population.

 

Agriculture diversity cannot be recognized as simply a subset of general biodiversity, rather its scope may extend beyond any biological and non-biological boundary. The agricultural production system may need the assistance of flora, fauna and microbial diversity beyond the agricultural ecosystem. Hence, diverse group organisms could have any level of potential to sustain the food production mechanism. This concept is not something new or novel but people in general are little bit less aware. Even Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) had realized the importance of biological diversity for food security which had reconfirmed much earlier in commitment no.3 of the Rome Declaration on Food Security made at the World Food Summit held in Rome in 1996. Thereafter, FAO is also actively promoting the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity for food and agriculture. The Conference of the Parties (COP) to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) has recognized the “specific nature of agricultural biodiversity and its distinctive features and problems requiring distinctive solutions” and the leading role of FAO in agricultural biodiversity, including leading support to the programme of work on agricultural biodiversity (Decision V/5 Nairobi 2000). The 190 Parties to the CBD have agreed to implement the Convention’s three over-arching objectives-the conservation of biodiversity, its sustainable use and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources through thematic programmes of work, including that on agricultural biodiversity and through cross-cutting initiatives including the ecosystem approach. Many intergovernmental treaties and agreements have also been executed in this regard. The International Plant Protection Convention, the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries and the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources adopted in 2001 are examples of such agreements (www.fao.org/biodiversity; www.cbd.int).

 

Biodiversity and agriculture; complement and supplement each other

The structure and function of agriculture ecosystem is largely supported by an array of biological diversity. Biodiversity is the basis of agriculture and our food systems. It has enabled farming systems to evolve since the origin of agriculture about 10,000 years ago is not just a subset of biodiversity but represents an extension of it so as to embrace units (such as cultivars, pure lines, breeds and strains) and habitats (agro-ecosystems such as farmers’ fields and fisheries) that are not normally considered or even accepted by some conservation biologists as properly part of biological diversity. It includes all those species (including crop wild relatives) and the crop varieties, animal breeds, races and microorganism strains that are used directly or indirectly for food and agriculture, both as human nutrition and as feed (including grazing) for domesticated and semi-domesticated animals and the range of environments in which agriculture is practiced. Agricultural biodiversity also includes habitats and species outside of farming systems that benefit agriculture and enhance ecosystem functions (Heywood, 2003; Heywood, 2013). Agricultural biodiversity is the result of both human and natural selection. Domesticated crops and animals result from human management of biological diversity and their continuous evolution through improvement by breeders and farmers constantly responds to new challenges to maintain and increase productivity. In crop agriculture, for some species this selection has led to the development of many thousands of ‘landraces’ or ‘farmers’ varieties’ (Cromwell, 1999). Agricultural biodiversity provides humans with food, raw materials for goods such as: cotton and wool for clothing, wood for shelter and fuel, plants and roots for medicines and materials for biofuels. According to the FAO, about 7,000 species of plants have been cultivated since humans first began farming. However, today only 30 crops provide an estimated 90% of the world’s population dietary energy requirements, with wheat, rice and maize alone providing about half the dietary energy consumed globally. Of the estimated 15,000 species of mammals and birds, only some 30 to 40 have been domesticated for food production and less than 14 species, including cattle, goats, sheep, buffalo and chickens account for 90% of global livestock production (www.cbd.int). Agricultural biodiversity also performs ecosystem services such as soil and water conservation, maintenance of soil fertility, conservation of biota and pollination of plants, all of which are essential for food production and for human survival.  In addition to that, genetic diversity of agricultural biodiversity provides species with the ability to adapt for changing environments and to evolve by increasing their adaptation to frost, high temperature, drought and submergence as well as their resistances to diseases, insects and parasites (www.worldfoodprize.org). Besides the direct function in agriculture, biodiversity also provides other values indirectly. Due to the presence of hedges, ditches, field margins, hedgerows, etc. the cultural aspects of landscape design are preserved, but these elements also form the specific habitat for insects, birds, plants and other animals. Thus biodiversity has a high cultural and natural value, but can also support agricultural production e.g. nutrition, animal health (as leaves of shrubs and trees contain health-promoting substances) and welfare of livestock (animal behavior and shade), or the provisioning of insects for pollination or biological plague reduction. When aiming for a durable and robust farming system and thus for sustainable agriculture, it is essential to preserve, support, use and promote biodiversity (Erisman, 2016).

 

This is certainly true and often argued that agricultural biodiversity as such is an important asset that delivers substantial benefits in many different realms and that there is increasing evidence that biological diversity needs to be a central element of sustainable agricultural development. Higher diversity is actually more effective in increasing productivity than higher management intensity. It was found that wheat production increased 74% when intercropped with maize and a 53% increase observed when intercropped with soybean. Chickpea improves Phosphorous uptake by wheat and maize via a complex pathway that pits the cereals greater ability to absorb soluble P against the legume’s greater ability to mobilize organic Phosphorous. Intercropping reduces the accumulation of nitrate in the soil, permitting lower application rates of N and reducing downstream effects (Mundt 2002; Li et al., 2004; Frisonet al., 2011).

 

However, agricultural practice has been defamed to be the largest driver of a complex system which leads to major loss of biodiversity. Some of the prominent reasons are conversion of natural ecosystems into farms and ranches, intensification of management in long-established cultural landscapes, release of pollutants, including greenhouse gases and associated value chain impacts, including energy and transport use and food waste (Dudley and Alexander, 2017). At the same time, it should be realized that solutions based on the use of components of biological diversity are at the heart of agro-ecological practices, which intensify production while reducing pressures on the environment. Use of biodiversity-based approaches on the vast area of land can reduce emissions and runoff, decrease the need for synthetic inputs, improve soil quality, encourage pollinators and conserve varieties and species.  (https://www. bioversityinternational.org). Diverse range of organisms contributes to the resilience of agricultural ecosystems to change climatic condition and their capacity to recover from environmental stress (biotic and abiotic) and to evolve and improve genetically. Wide range of biological diversity in and near agricultural ecosystems is essential to sustain many of its functions such as nutrient cycling, decomposition of organic matter, crusted or degraded soil rehabilitation, pest and disease regulation, pesticide and fertilizer degradation, pollination, etc. (www.fao.org/biodiversity). Diversified agricultural production and poly-cultural systems also offer opportunities to expand new markets and further stimulate the conservation of biodiversity important to agriculture. Sustainable use of agricultural biodiversity can provide benefits to environment, economy, society and culture on national, regional and global scales (Scherr and McNeely, 2007).

 

The above discussions clearly depicted that healthy and diverse flora, fauna and microorganisms are very much essential for a sustainable agricultural production system. In the forthcoming sections, specific discussions have been carried out on the various beneficial roles and applications of each group of organisms on various components of agricultural ecosystem.

 

Broad spectrum application of diverse flora

Floral diversity including all plant groups starting from lower plants like algae, bryophytes to higher plants like trees has been traditionally utilized for the betterment of agriculture. Various varieties of crops, land races, wild relatives itself constitute a gene pool of agricultural diversity. The number of cultivated crop species (excluding ornamentals) has been estimated at about 7,000 most of them grown locally and on a small scale (Heywood 2013). Though crop wild relatives (CWR) may not play a significant direct role in human nutrition, but like wild yams in Madagascar, they are an essential source of genetic material for the development of new and better adapted crops (Maxted et al., 2011). Various parts of plants like leaves, bark, stems, flowers, fruits, roots, etc. of common plants have been utilized in numerous ways in agriculture such as for enhancement of soil fertility, application as botanical bio-pesticides, used as tools for habitat manipulation for biological control of pests and served as donor for stress resistance genes. In a review study conducted by Amoabeng et al., 2019, around 283 plant species from 44 plant families have been found to be involved in habitat manipulation. Fifteen of these plant families have some species that have been exploited for their insecticidal properties. Three families viz. Apiaceae, Asteraceae and Lamiaceae have the largest number of species that have been used for both habitat manipulation and botanical insecticides. The four most popular habitat manipulation plants are alyssum Lobularia maritime (L.) Desv. (Brassicaceae), buck wheat Fagopyrum esculentum Moench (Polygonaceae), coriander Coriandrum sativum L. (Apiaceae) and phacelia Phacelia tanacetifolia Benth. (Boraginaceae). Further, Brassicaceae, Asteraceae, Umbelliferae, Solanaceae and many other plant families contain substances showing toxic activity against agricultural pests (Spochaczet al., 2018).

 

Though the acute toxicity of pure plant‐derived substances or plant extracts may be many times lower than the toxicity of synthetic insecticides, their sub-acute toxicity, including repellency or anti-feedant activity has been described (Spochacz et al., 2018). Plant compounds such as essential oils, flavonoids, alkaloids, glycosides, esters and fatty acids are found to have anti-insect effects which can eliminate of insects in different ways, namely as repellents, feeding deterrents/antifeedants, toxicants, growth retardants, chemo-sterilants and attractants (Hikal et al., 2017).

 

Common flora used traditionally in agriculture ecosystem

One of most common and important plant used in agricultural operations is Neem (Azadirachta indica). The properties of Neem as insecticide, antifeedant, hormonal, antifungal, antiviral and nematicide properties are well known. These activities are brought out with neem use in the form of leaves, leaf extracts, seeds, cakes, oil and fruit extracts (Lokanadhan et al., 2012). This plant control about 200 species of insects i.e. Aphids, leaf miners, looper, thrips, mealy bugs etc. It kills all chewing and sucking insects, also disrupts their life cycle and sexual behavior (Kaur and Ohri, 2018). Azadirachtin, salannin, and other limonoids present in neem oil inhibit ecdysone 20-monooxygenase, the enzyme responsible for catalyzing the final step in conversion of ecdysone to the active hormone, 20-hydroxyecdysone, which controls the insect metamorphosis process (Campos et al., 2016). In addition to that the neem seed cake also contains nitrogen (2-5%), phosphorus (0.5-1.0%), potassium (1-2%), calcium (0.5-3%), magnesium (0.3-1%), Sulphur (0.2%-3.0%), Zinc (15ppm-60ppm), Copper (4ppm-20ppm), Iron (500ppm-1200ppm), Manganese (20ppm-60ppm) in pure organic form (Eifediyi et al., 2017).

 

Several plants which are used frequently in Hindu rituals like members of Ocimum and Aegle marmelos are known to possess metabolites having agricultural significance like antifungal and insecticidal properties and other important bioactivities. Ocimum kilim and scharicum known as camphor basil possess insecticidal property against Helicoverpa armigera (Singh et al., 2014). Leaf extract of another common Tulsi (Ocimum sanctum L.) was observed to have insecticidal property against Pulse beetle (Callosobruchus chinensis L.) in stored green gram (Murasing et al., 2017). Leaf extracts of Ocimum sanctum was also found to have anti plant pathogenic effect against Alternaria solani causal organism (c.o.) of early blight disease on tomato plants, Rhizoctonia solani c.o. of sheath blight of rice, etc. (Dheeba et al., 2014). Many other plants also inhibited mycelial growth and sclerotial formation in Rhizoctonia solanisuch as Allamanda cathertica, Lawsonia alba, Duranta plumeiri, etc. Clove extract completely inhibited the growth of R. solani, R. oryzae, R. oryzae-sativae and Sclerotium hydrophilum. Siam weed extract was found to be effective in reducing severity of blast, brown spot and bacterial leaf blight disease of rice (Islam and Monjil 2016). Number of studies have proved all plant parts i.e. leaves, bark and fruits of Aegle marmelos (Bel) to have fungitoxic and fungicidal effect on many agricultural pathogens like Rhizoctonia solani, R. bataticola, Colletotrichum gloeosporioides, Fusarium oxysporum f.sp. pallidorosem, F. oxysporum f.sp. ciceri, Phoma sorghina, Sclerotium rolfsii, Sclerotinia sclerotiorum, Alternaria solani and  A. alternate (Kushwah 2013).

 

Extracts of various parts of common plants like Pyllanthus emblica and Syzygium cumini could impart up to 90% Larvicidal and antifeedant activity against agriculturally important pests like Plutellaxyl ostella which could cause 90% crop loss in crucifers (Riat and Ohri, 2018). Similarly, antifeedant, larvicidal, pupicidal and biochemical effects of extracts of Solanum xanthocarpum were observed against Helicoverpa armigera, a pest which causes about 40% or more yield loss of vegetables and other crops such as tomato, pigeon pea, rice, chick pea, cow pea, sorghum, alfa alfa and tobacco (Baskar et al., 2018). In addition to their medicinal and therapeutic use, plants like Adhatoda vasica, Acorus calamus and Vitex nugendo also act as a source of phago-antifeedant against cabbage butterfly Pieris brassicae and cabbage aphid Brevicorynebrassicae (Bajpai and Chandel, 2009; Haifa and Ali, 2016).Similarly, ethanolic extract of Thymus vulgaris plant showed 98% of mortality rate towards tomato pest Tuta absoluta where LD90 value was 89383mg/l (Nilahyaneet al., 2012). Plant extracts of Rhododendron luteum was proved to affect the fecundity rate of Tetranychus urticae, a pest of ornamentals and vegetables (Cazaux, et al., 2014). Very common plants are also used to control storage insects which are great threats to stored agricultural products in many countries. Wild and cultivated Rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis) has useful chemical constituents like L-camphor, L-borneol, 1, 8-Cineole and boranyl acetate which were proven to have insecticidal properties against storage peat Trogoderm granarium and Tribolium castaneum (Alvarozet al., 2016). Similarly, plants like Peganum harmala, Aristoelochia baetica, Ajugavia and Raphanus raphanistrum exhibited deleterious toxic effectives against both larvae and adult of Tribolium castaneum, stored grain pest (Riat and Ohri, 2018).

 

As discussed earlier in this section, many of the botanicals might have less effect than synthetic pesticides but unlike some common plants like Bidenspilosa, Lantana camara, Lippia javanica, Tephrosia vogelii, Tithonia diversifolia, and Vernonia amygdalina, the beneficial and non-target flora and fauna are less disturbed simultaneously enhancing the crop yield. This is most notable with the use of T. vogeliiin Tanzania where the yields were statistically comparable for cowpea (1,016–1,125 kg/ha) and pigeon pea (4,407-4,464kg/ha) and where the bean yield was statistically higher for T. vogelii compared to the positive control (2,044 vs. 1,659kg/ha) (Tembo et al., 2018).

 

Underrated function of faunal diversity in agriculture

Food security as defined by the WHO is the (ready) access to sufficient, safe, nutritious food to maintain a healthy and active life”, supposed to be achieved from sources having high-quality, balanced and highly bioavailable protein and numerous critical micronutrients, including iron, zinc, and vitamins B-12 and A, many of which are deficient in a large portion of the world's population. Animal products like meat, milk, eggs, fish and other sea foods may largely serve in this purpose. In addition to this, faunal diversity which includes lower groups dwelling under soil like many arthropods, isopods, insects, annelids to higher animal groups like amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals contribute vitally to agriculture ecosystem for its sustenance and functioning. Farm animals contribute not only a source of high-quality food that improves nutritional status but also additional resources such as manure for fertilizer, on-farm power, and other by-products, and, in addition, provide economic diversification and risk distribution. Livestock contribute around 12.9% of global calories and 27.9% of protein directly through provision of meat, milk, eggs and offal (Reynolds et al., 2015; www.fao.org). However, the services of animals to agriculture have been largely underestimated.

 

Ecosystem services of faunal diversity towards agriculture production system

Like plant diversity, various common faunal species associated with and around agro ecosystem contribute in unique ways for food production. One of such actions is pollination which is performed in approximately 80% of angiosperms by many animals and insects, which was estimated to about 300,000 flower-visiting species. More than half of plant species are self-incompatible or dioecious and completely dependent on biotic pollination. Pollinators help maintain the diversity of ecosystems by facilitating the reproduction of many plant species. Examples of pollinators include flies, moths and butterflies (Lepidoptera), wasps, beetles, bats, sun bird, sugar bird, hummingbirds, Pteropodid bats, but bees (Apidae) are the principal agents of crop pollination. Several thousand species of bees and other pollinating insects are essential agents for the production of many crops especially most major fruit and nut crops, many vegetable crops like soybean and sunflower and a number of forage crops (Cromwell, 1999; https://www.cbd.int/doc/c/3bf6/6dd2/f2282b216e6ae4bd24943d44/sbstta-22-inf-21-en.pdf). Apart from this, various fauna act in unique ways to increase the soil health and fertility. Different types of earthworms improve soil hydraulic properties through their burrowing activities, enhance water availability to crops and modify soil organic matter. These are used for decomposition of organic matters into humic rich manure a process known as vermi-composting. They also remove various contaminants of soil like PCBs, PAHs from soil (Lim et al. 2016; Luepromchai et al. 2002). The isopods help to develop aeration under the below ground soil. When enhancement of soil fertility is discussed, the contribution of farm animals like cow, buffalos, bullocks, cattle and poultry are enormous help to develop soil fertility. Cows dung is a most important source of bio-fertilizer but at the same time cow’s urine, cow’s horn and a dead body of a cow can be used for preparing effective bio-fertilizer. Cow dung is a very good source for maintaining the production capacity of soil and enhances beneficial microbial population. The application of cow dung manure and vermin compost increases soil organic matter content and this leads to improved water infiltration and water holding capacity as well as an increased cation exchange capacity (Raj et al., 2014; Yadav et al., 2013). Farmyard Manure (FYM) which is composed of partially composed dung, urine, bedding and straw generally contains approximately 5-6 kg nitrogen, 1.2-2.0 kg phosphorus and 5-6 kg potash per ton. Though FYM is the most common organic manure in India, the farmer, in general, do not give adequate attention to the proper conservation and efficient use of the resource (Chandra 2005). It has been observed that culturing fish with rice could increase the yield up to 20% having higher concentration of NO₃ (Tsuruta et al., 2011). Major effects and benefits of ecological and biological of fish farming in rice cultivation include weeds control, effective pest control, conservation and increasing soil fertility, environmental protection and improved status of environmental, biological pollution reduction, environmental sustainability and community health benefits and also the effects of fish on rice including the effects on content of nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, chlorophyll content, leaf area expansion, roots network activity, the accumulation of dry material in rice plant (Niyaki and Lakani, 2013; Nayak et al., 2018).

 

Apart from playing vital role in the enhancement of crop production directly, various lower and higher group fauna act as natural enemies of crop pests and effectively control their infestation in crops. It is well known that insects, spiders and other arthropods often act as natural enemies of crop pests. Table-2 depicts this role of various fauna group which act as biological control agents against harmful pests in agricultural ecosystem. These natural enemies such as predators, parasitoids and pathogens remain tightly linked to the plant and are little affected by the larger environment, play an important role in the population dynamics and ecology of crop pests both in field condition and during storage. Populations of various pests of staple foods like Nephotettix virescens, Sogatella furcifera, Nilaparvatha lugens, Scirphophaga incertulas, Mythimina separate, Cnaphalocrosis medinalis, Lepidopterans, Leptocorisa acuta, Agareen leafhopper, have been effectively controlled by many species of spiders (Mathirajan et al., 2001). Common pests like Aphids, mites, thrips, mealy bugs, etc. are predated by Beetles (Coleopters), Bugs (Hemipteras), etc. (Getanjaly et al., 2015).There are reports of 7-100% repression of stored insect pest populations by natural enemies. Populations of invasive weeds like water hyacinth could be suppressed by specialized herbivorous insects that feed on them such as Neochetina eichhorniae and N. bruchi (Hoddle and Driesche, 2009). The water hyacinth is also eaten and their population controlled by specialized fresh water turtles that inhabits in different ponds. Research on Japanese rice fields has shown that arthropod communities are structured in such a way that the dynamics of seasonal succession consistently lead to high levels of pest suppression by natural enemies, with little chance of major pest outbreaks (Cromwell, 1999). The wasp Trichogramma ostriniae which is an egg parasitoid is used as a biological control agent against European corn borer that, in its caterpillar stage, damages seeds and fruits of corn and solanaceous (nightshade) plants, including peppers, eggplants, potatoes, and tomatoes (Russell and Bessin 2009). These natural enemies are self-perpetuating. The risk of natural enemies contaminating processed commodities is a concern, but their ability to find and greatly reduce residual stored-product insect pest populations is likely to reduce the overall risk of insect contamination (Hagstrum et al., 2013). Higher fauna like small green Bee eater, Indian Roller, common Myna, Black drongo, House sparrow, bulbul, etc. also feed on numerous crop pests and efficiently control their population (Narayana et al., 2011 & 2014). Bats are the only flying mammal group which play a relevant action in the protection of economically important crops against lepidopteran pests. The diet of some European species of bats (e.g. Rhinolophus spp., Hypsugosavi, Nyctalus leisleri, N. noctula, Barbastella barbastellus, Plecotus spp., Myotis brandtii, M. bechsteinii, Eptesicus serotinus) includes high percentages of moths (Lepidoptera) and many of them are pests of economic importance. Mexican free-tailed and Yuma myotis bats fed on moths, water boatmen, beetles, flies, midges, mosquitoes and plant bugs (Riccucci and Lanza, 2014; Long et al., 1998).

 

Figure1: A Wasp feeding on larva of pest

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comprehensive performance of ubiquitous microbial diversity

Microorganisms which include Bacteria, fungi, algae, protozoa, actinomycetes, lichens and viruses are the entities within the vast resources of activities of microbial diversity. These microscopic ecosystem players have been neglected over the years but are now a topic of global attention, following the realization that microbes harbor a wealth of gene pools that could be a source of material for effective cloning and expression in plants to achieve traits such as stress tolerance and pest resistance. The uniqueness of microorganisms and their unpredictable nature and  biosynthetic capabilities make them quite adaptable in specific environmental and cultural conditions to solve various problems related with crop improvement and disease suppression of more immediate significance to farmers’ production systems, microbes play varied roles in plant development and agriculture (Cromwell, 1999). These vast groups of beneficial microbes, frequently unknown or ill-defined, are known as “Agriculturally Important Microorganisms” (AIM). Beneficial AIMs which are characterized and simultaneously having the potential to be applied in the soil to increase the native microbial diversity are known as Effective Microorganisms (EMs) (Bhattacharyya et al., 2016).

 

Microbes for crop production

Diverse microbial species have already registered their function especially in agriculture at various stages. They support the crop production system by increasing the soil fertility by acting as biofertilizers, protect the crops from pest infestation by acting as biopesticides and contribute genetic materials which are incorporated in crop plants for improved performance. Biological Nitrogen fixation by non-symbiotic or free living bacteria (Azotobacter chroocochum, Azotobacter vinelandii, Glucanobacter diazotrophicus, Acetobacter xylinum and Azospirillum lipoferum, etc), symbiotic bacteria (Rhizobium leguminosarum, R. tripoli,  R. phaseoli, R. lupine, R. japonicum, R. meliloti, Bradyrhizobium, etc.), Cyanobacteria (Aulosira, Tolypothrix, Scytonema, Nostoc, Anabaena and Plectonema), Actinomycete genus Frankia, is a very important phenomenon that occurs in the crop field leading to the enrichment of soil with plant available Nitrogen. Crops belonging to Leguminous family like clover (Trifolium) and alfalfa (Medicago); as well as the food crops soybeans (Glycine max), peanuts (Arachis hypogaea), peas (Pisum), beans (Phaseolus) with symbiotic nitrogen fixing bacteria have been harnessed to improve soil fertility. Cyanobacterial species like Anabaena lives in association with water fern named Azola, and their symbiosis can produce as much as 50 kilograms of nitrogen per hectare annually, enough to fertilize a productive crop of rice. The 50-60% N requirement is met through the combination of mineralization of soil organic N and Biological Nitrogen Fixation by free living and rice plant associated bacteria. (Singh et al., 2017; Wagner, 2011; Roy et al., 2013; Mishra et al., 2013).Other modes in which microbes increase soil fertility are the mobilization and solubilization of nutrients for plants. Common soil bacteria known as PSB (Phosphate solubilizing bacteria) belonging to the genera Pseudomonas, Bacillus, Burkholderia, Achromobacter, Agrobacterium, Microccocus, Aereobacter, Flavobacterium and Erwinia and Fungi belonging to Aspergillus species can solubilize insoluble inorganic phosphate compounds, such as tricalcium phosphate, dicalcium phosphate, hydroxyapatite and rock phosphate (Egamberdiyeva et al., 2004; Mishra et al., 2013).Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) which are a group of helpful microbiota known for their symbiotic associations with the roots of higher plants, further enhance uptake of phosphorus and other micronutrients like calcium, copper, zinc etc., which are otherwise inaccessible to the plant, with the help of the fine absorbing hyphae of the fungus (Bhattacharya et al., 2016). Proteobacteria species Frateuria aurentia and other microbes like Aspergillus, Bacillus and Clostridium are capable of mobilizing available Potash into near the roots of the plants (Mohammadi and Sohrabi, 2012). Similarly, zinc can be solubilized by microorganisms viz., B. subtilis, Thiobacillus thioxidans and Saccharomyces sp. Potentiality of a special group of microorganisms like Aspergillus niger, A. chroococcum, Azospirillum brasilense, Bacillus subtilis, Pseudomonas corrugata, Pseudomonas fluorescens, Pseudomonas putida, Rhizobium sp. and Streptomyces nojiriensis which are known as Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria (PGPR), has been illustrated in enhanced growth of plants along with pest and disease suppression were reported (Bhattacharya et al., 2016; Singh et al., 2017). In vitro as well as pot experiments confirmed the potentiality of rhizosphere and endospore bacteria in improving the plant growth and tolerance during stress. The plant growth of microbial inoculated plants increased up to 40% suggesting the potentiality of PGP microbes in agriculture (Perez-Montano et al., 2014).

 

Microbes for crop protection

The utilization of extensive chemicals as pesticides to extinguish plant pathogens has provided effective solutions in agriculture. At present-day, public health and safety concerns about the environmental impact of chemical pesticides have led to consideration of biological control specifically using microbial agents as a natural enemy of plant pests as a vital approach to maintaining crop health. Biological control is the inhibition of growth, infection or reproduction of one organism using another organism which is environmentally safe and in some cases is the only option available to protect plants against pathogens (Baker 1987; Cook 1993).

 

Various species of bacteria, fungi and viruses have been evaluated and being used to control a wide range of diseases and pests of crops. One of such commonly used bacterial Genus is Pseudomonas having many unique features that make them an efficient bio-control agent, such as colonization and proliferation within the plant, production of wide array of secondary metabolites like 2,4-diacetylphloroglucinol, etc. Common species belonging to this genus include P. fluorescens, P. chlororaphis, P. aureofaciens, P. putida which have high biological control efficacy against the plant pathogens to increase mortality and promote effective colonization (Keel et al 1992; Raaijmakers et al. 1997).

 

Bacillus, a genus of spore-forming, Gram-positive, rod-shaped bacteria positively influence the plant growth and have beneficial effects of the induction of this response in the plant by protecting them from infections by various pathogens such as fungi, bacteria, viruses and nematodes. Most of them generate a wide range of biologically active molecules that have inhibitory properties towards the growth of pathogens like Bacillus megaterium pv. cerealiscauses White Blotch Incited in Wheat, B. circulanswhich causes the death of date seedlings, Bacillus polymyxacauses blight tomato and Bacillus subtilis YM 10-20 can produces compounds which resist against fungi. So, as Bacillus thuringiensis contains etorins that is effective in protecting the berry leaves against Colletotrichum dematium. Significantly B. amyloliquefaciens, B. subtilis, B. pasteurii, B. cereus, B. pumilus, B. mycoides and B. sphaericusare some beneficial organisms having great potential to inhibit pathogens and diseases in crops (Kloepperet al. 2004).

 

Having characteristics of both bacteria and fungi; actinomycetes possess enough distinctive features to delimit into the kingdom of bacteria. By containing high guanine - cytosine (57-75%) in their genome, they are ubiquitous and form a stable and persistent population in various ecosystems especially in soil. Actinomycetes belonging to Streptomyces spp. present in the rhizosphere soil are antagonistic against the plant pathogens like Alternaria brassicicola, Collectotrichum gloeosporioides, F. oxysporum, Penicillium digitatum and Sclerotium rolfsii (Khamna et al., 2009). In addition to having anti-fungal activity actinomycetes isolates were effective against Fusarium wilt of chickpea and various organisms like Rhizoctonia bataticola (causal agent of dry root rot in chickpea) and Macrophomina phaseolina (causal agent of charcoal rot in sorghum) (Gopalakrishnan et al., 2011).

 

Fungal diseases are responsible for tremendous losses in world-wide agriculture. Biocontrol fungi (BCF) are beneficial organisms that reduce the negative effects of plant pathogens and promote positive responses in the plant by improve photosynthetic efficiency, especially in plants subjected to various stresses. Most of the early work on biocontrol of plant diseases by Trichoderma spp. revolved due to prolific production of extracellular proteins and fungitoxic substances. Several diseases are reported to be controlled effectively against both foliar and soil borne pathogens by in vitro antagonistic activity of Trichoderma viridae against phytopathogens like Sclerotium rolfsii, Fusarium oxysporum f.s.p. ciceri, Fusarium oxysporum f.s.p. which has been reported for cucumber, strawberry, bean and tomato against Botrytis cinerea and powdery mildew in cucumber (Puyam et al., 2013; Levy et al., 2015).

 

 

Figure-2: Diversity of Trichoderma sp. isolated from agricultural soil: Potential biological control agent. (Source: Dr. Arup Kuamr Mukherjee).

 

Cyanobacteria or blue green algae are prokaryotic oxygenic phototrophs that require little moisture and diffused light for growth. The regular application of Cyanobacterial metabolites not only improves the nutrient status, physico-chemical and biological properties of the soil but also helps in the development of pathogen suppressive soil in several crops. Application of microbial bioagents results in slower suppression of pest populations than most pesticides in the field. So, utilizing biorational pesticides, in soil may reduce nematode infestation and increase plant yield. By incorporation of blue green algae, Anabaena oryzae Fritsch, Nostoc calcicola Brebisson and Spirulina spp. in soil significantly reduced the number of egg masses and galls induced by the root-knot nematode, M. incognita and improved plant growth of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.) and increased the number of rhizobial nodules. Also, Synechococcus nidulans in soil caused obstructed incursion of M. incognita in roots of brinjal (Solanum melongena L.) and a significant reduction in the population build-up of the nematode on brinjal plants, resulting in an increase in the fresh weight of the plant (Prasanna et al., 2013).

 

Potential of several groups of microorganisms to control wide range of plant pathogens, insects and nematodes are now being exploited by agricultural scientists in many laboratories and private agricultural companies. Several products have also been prepared with number of applicable formulations. However, much work needs to be carried out for the enhancement of efficiency of these biopesticides so as to compete with synthetic chemicals. Further, awareness needs to be created among farmers and cultivators towards the use of microbial biopesticides for a big leap towards green agriculture.

 

Why we need to worry about loss of agriculture diversity

Biodiversity for food and agriculture include all the plants and animals (wild and domesticated) which  provide food, feed, fuel, fiber and also the myriad of organisms that support food production through ecosystem services known as “associated biodiversity”. This includes all the plants, animals and micro-organisms such as insects, bats, birds, mangroves, corals, sea grasses, earthworms, soil-dwelling fungi and bacteria that keep soils fertile, pollinate plants, purify water and air, keep fish and trees healthy, and fight crop and livestock pests and diseases. However, the first-ever global report launched by Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations in 2019 on “The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture” depicted that such biodiversity which sustain our food systems is disappearing day by day. This puts the future of our food, livelihoods, health, and environment under severe threat (www.fao.org).Agriculture globally is facing many challenges including climate change, biodiversity loss and rising demands for food production. Earth’s biodiversity is being lost at an alarming rate, putting in jeopardy the sustainability of ecosystem services and agriculture and their ability to adapt to changing conditions. Everywhere, the genetic erosion of agricultural biodiversity is also exacerbated by the loss of forest cover, coastal wetlands and other ‘wild’ uncultivated areas. This leads to losses of wild relatives and losses of the wild foods that are essential for food provision (Cromwell, 1999). Many modernizing interventions and colonial administrations have ignored the importance of local knowledge and skills, resulting in an erosion of knowledge and an undermining of formal and informal institutions that were central for the sustainable management of agricultural biodiversity. A significant cause of agricultural biodiversity erosion is local people’s loss of access rights to and control over, these resources, severely reducing their incentive to conserve resources and undermining local livelihood security. The expansion of global markets and trade liberalization tend to have a homogenizing effect on agricultural biodiversity by standardizing food production and consumption. There are many situations in which inequitable land tenure, forest concession policies, colonization programmes, land use and fishing policies are the root causes behind the biodiversity loss induced by growth in human numbers or migrations (Pimbert, 1999). Industrialization of agriculture and changes in food habits are emerging as the main factors in accelerating the global erosion of crop genetic diversity. Many species, including pollinators, soil organisms and the natural enemies of pests, that contribute to vital ecosystem services are in decline as a consequence of the destruction and degradation of habitats, overexploitation, pollution, and other threats. Crop genetic resources are being wiped out at the rate of 1-2% every year. Since the beginning of this century, about 75% of the genetic diversity of agricultural crops has been lost. In the United States, more than 7000 apple varieties were grown in the last century. Today, over 85% of those varieties, more than 6000 are extinct. Just two apple varieties account for more than 50% of the entire US crop. In the Philippines, where small farmers once cultivated thousands of traditional rice varieties, just two Green Revolution varieties occupied 98% of the entire rice growing area in the mid-1980s (Shand, 1997).

 

On the other hand, agricultural production system which accounts for 44% of anthropogenic methane emissions and about 70% of nitrous oxide gases, has been blamed as the major cause of biodiversity loss mainly from the conversion of new land to agriculture and use of nitrogen fertilizer (www.cbd.int). Current trends in climate change and the changing environment due to anthropogenic activities have tested the sustainability of the biosphere globally. Conversion of natural habitats for agriculture, mining, or construction is a major contributor to environmental degradation, an important precursor to climate change. These activities are carried out in an effort to provide food, shelter and energy for the ever- increasing human population. Specifically, agricultural intensification has concentrated on gearing all effort toward maximum yield including application of chemical fertilizers, pesticides and extensive use of machinery without any consideration for soil biodiversity. These practices have been identified as unsustainable and incompatible with nature and their consequence is loss of soil biodiversity (Wachira et al., 2014; Dudley and Alexander, 2017). The expansion and intensification of agriculture during the 20th century contributed to poverty alleviation and improved food security globally, but these benefits came at a cost to the environment (Tilman 1999). Natural ecosystems have been destroyed or damaged and the ecosystem services they provide to man degraded or lost (Millenium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). According to IUCN data, agriculture is a major cause of global endangerment and recent analyses have shown that endangerment is closely linked with agricultural land-use (Scharlemann et al., 2005). The detrimental impact of agriculture on ecosystems and their associated biodiversity is, therefore, set to continue through the 21st century. The need for agro-ecosystems to play a major role in biodiversity conservation is becoming increasingly recognized (Fischer et al., 2006; Perrings et al., 2006). If biodiversity losses are to be halted, agricultural landscapes must be managed more effectively to maximize biodiversity retention, while providing sufficient agricultural outputs to meet current and future demand (Norris, 2008).

 

Protection and conservation measures

One of society’s most pressing challenges is to slow the rate of global biodiversity loss and extinction. There is now overwhelming evidence that the loss of species impacts the functioning of ecosystems and that many services provided by species have important economic value. But conservation of biodiversity in agricultural fields remains a major challenge. The Third Meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD/COP/III) adopted decision III/11 on the conservation and sustainable use of agricultural biological diversity (https://www.thegef.org/ sites/default/files/documents/OP_13_final.pdf). Programmes in numerous countries have attempted to reduce the severity of agriculture’s negative influence on biodiversity by paying farmers to reduce management intensity through reduced pesticide inputs, synthetic fertilizer inputs or by converting farms to organic practices (Gonthier, 2014). If human survival into the indefinite future is to be assured, globalizing humanity has to put all its efforts into increasing crop genetic diversity and not fatalistically accept its accelerating decrease. In the second half of the twentieth century, many scientists and scientific institutions realized that the world’s future food supply was in danger because of crop genetic erosion and that something had to be done. The simplistic action was to store in gene banks the crop genetic diversity that would have disappeared otherwise. There are now many gene banks around the world that are trying to save as much crop genetic diversity as they can (http://www. fao.org/3/i2043e/i2043e02a.pdf).

 

In order to protect and restore biodiversity in agricultural landscapes, it is essential to increase the quantity and quality of habitat on and around farms while optimizing farm yield and profitability. This includes establishing farm edge habitats, un-cropped or set-aside areas such as field margins, field corners, buffer zones and protected areas. Diversified crop rotations and green manuring, cover crops, intercropping and conservation tillage–affect water content, nutrient levels, the number, variety and health of the micro- and macro-organisms in the soil.Hansen et al. (2001), reviewing several studies on soil biology, found that organic farming is usually associated with a significantly higher level of biological activity, represented by bacteria, fungi, springtails, mites and earthworms, due to its versatile crop rotations, reduced applications of nutrients, and the ban on pesticides. Microbial biomass and activity increased under organic management; root length colonized by mycorrhizae in organic farming systems was 40% higher than in conventional systems. Biomass and abundance of earthworms were from 30 to 32% higher in the organic plots as compared with conventional. Extensive analysis suggests that organic farming is generally associated with higher levels of biodiversity with regards to both flora and fauna. A wide meta-analysis by Bengtsson et al. (2005) indicated that organic farming often has positive effects on species richness and abundance: 53 of the 63 studies analyzed (84%) showed higher species richness in organic agriculture systems, but a range of effects considering different organism groups and landscapes (Gomiero, 2011).

 

Farming approaches can be tailored to benefit wildlife and biodiversity, which in turn can increase ecosystem stability in the face of environmental change, without reducing the potential for agricultural yield. Strong ecological modernization of agriculture, hereafter called biodiversity-based agriculture, is similar to “ecologically intensive agriculture” or “eco-functional intensification” or “sustainable intensification of agriculture”. It refers to an eco-centric approach that relies on high biological diversification of farming systems and intensification of ecological interactions between biophysical system components that promote fertility, productivity, and resilience to external perturbations. It relies on the development and management of on-farm agro-biodiversity to generate ecosystem services and in turn drastically reduce the use of exogenous anthropogenic inputs. It requires site, space and time-specific agricultural practices and production systems. Biodiversity-based agriculture allows several agricultural aspects of the current multi domain crisis to be addressed. It provides a range of ecosystem services allowing chemical input use to be reduced (Duru et al., 2015).

 

Figure-3: Synoptic representation of the main characteristics of the efficiency/substitution-based agriculture (brown) and the biodiversity-based agriculture (green), i.e., agricultural production mode based on efficient (optimized) use of anthropogenic inputs to one harnessing biodiversity to promote input (ecosystem) services (biodiversity-based agriculture). These two opposing strategies develop two different types of agro-ecosystem. The color code (brown to green) indicates the relative intensities of inputs (anthropogenic vs. input services) and of the main types of outputs in both strategies.(courtesy: Duru et al., 2015).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Conclusion:

Biological diversity is a global asset of tremendous value to present and future generations. The structure and function of agriculture ecosystem is the basis of agriculture and our food production systems. Species structure and function of flora, fauna and microorganisms are very much essential for a sustainable agriculture ecosystem. However, in the current time lots of anthropogenic pressure resulted in the extinction of many vital organisms especially the insects whish are pollinators. It has been predicted that if the current scenario destructive activities continues then the food productivity will be drastically reduced. This may lead to the change in food intake patterns of human beings and subsequently the outbreak of diseases and malnutrition issues may not be avoided. It is therefore very essential for the Governments, farmers and food growers to adopt ecofriendly approaches for agricultural operations. Definitely vast responsibility lies upon the researchers and scientists to develop biological methods for crop management like biofertilizers, biopesticides, etc. Last but not the least, general public or the consumers should show wide adaptability and acceptance to foods which are grown without harming the nature rather involving the biological diversity.

 

Acknowledgement:

Authors are grateful to the Chairman and Member Secretary, Odisha Biodiversity Board, Bhubaneswar.

 

Table-1: Role of faunal diversity in agricultural production system:

SL NO.	Organisms	Role in Agro-ecosystem	Reference
1	Yellow and Black wasp (Vespula vulgaris), Jewel wasp, European Honeybee (Apis meliffera), Non-apis bees (Bombus impatiens cresson), Flower visiting flies (Diptera), Weevil (Elaeidobius kamerunicus), Fig wasps (Blastophaga Psenes)	Pollination in Cranberry, greenhouse tamato, Carrot, Leek, Mustard, almond, Oil Palm, Smyra and capri fig	https://www.buzzaboutbees.net/ (Marvin Gerdts and Jack Kelly Clark)
2	Earthworm	Known as black gold or vermicast, modify soil organic matter, nutrient supply for plant growth, carbon sequestration, improve soil hydraulic properties and water availability to crops, remove various contaminants like PCBs, PAHs, from soil and enhances soil fertility	Lim et al., 2016; Luepromchai et al., 2002
3	Fish	Improve oxygen levels and increased nutrient uptake and root development of the rice, promote fertilizer decomposition, Increase mineralization of the organic matter, reduce insect, pests, diseases and weeds.	Nayak et al., 2018; Tsuruta et al., 2011; Niyaki and Lakani, 2013
4	Poultry litter	Degradation of Roxarsone, increases soil carbon sequestration, fertilised trace elements in soil, availability of Nitrogen and Phosphorus to soil.	Garbarino et al., 2001
5	Cow manure	Decreased metal availability, mineralisation of organic matter by releasing phosphates and other salts, NH3 volatilization from field-applied fresh manure	Walker et al., 2003; Raj et al., 2014; Yadav et al., 2013; Chandra, 2005

 

Table-2: Faunal diversity as natural enemies of crop pests.

SL NO.	PREDATOR	PEST	REFERENCE
01	Beetles (Coleoptera)	Aphids, mites, thrips, mealybugs, moth eggs including Heliothis spp., Alfalfa weevils, Wasp (Bathyplectes curculionis Thomson)	Getanjaly et al., 2015
02	Bugs (Hemiptera)	Aphids, Diamondback moth, eggs of and larvae of Heliothis spp., cutworms (Spodoptera litura), False loopers	Getanjaly et al., 2015; Evan 1994
03	Braconid larval parasitoid (Cotesia marginiventris)	Caterpillars	Turlings et al., 1990
04	Mites(Acarina), Predatory mite (A. victoriensis)	Blue Oat mite, Lucerne flea, Red legged earth mite, Eucalyptus torelliana, F. Muell	Smith et al., 1996.
05	Lacewings	Aphids, moth larvae and eggs, whitefly, thrips, mites and mealybugs	Getanjaly et al., 2015
06	Spider Group: Paradosa sp., Tetragnatha sp., Oxyoopes sp., Afypena Formosa, Dictyna arundinacea, Thomisus shivajienis, Clubionaab botti, Hippasa haryanesis	Nephotettix virescens, Sogatella furcifera, Nilaparvatha lugens, Scirphophaga incertulas, Mythimina separate, Cnaphalocrosis medinalis, Lepidopteran pest of rice field, Leptocorisa acuta, Agareen leafhopper	Jagadeesan et al., 2005
07	Caterpillar Parasitoids	Moth larvae, Sorghum midge, Heliothis, looper, Armyworm, Grasshopper	Getanjaly et al., 2015
08	Helicoverpa Egg parasitoids, Whitefly Parasitoids, GVB egg parasitoids, Macrolophus pygmaeus Rambur	Helicoverpa and other Lepidoptera, Whitefly Green vegetable bug Aphids in sweet pepper plant	Messelink et al., 2011
09	Nesidiocoris tenuis, Dicyphus maroccanus Wagner, M. pygmaeus, Amblyseius swirskii and minute pirate bug (Orius laevigatus)	Sweet Potato whitefly (Bemisia Tabaci) and South American Tamato Pinworm (Tuta absoluta), western flower thrips (Frankliniella ocidentalis)	Molla et al.,2014
10	Aphidius colemani Viereck	Myzus persicae (Sulzer), Aphis gossypii Glover,Macrosiphum euphorbiae Thomas, Aulacorthum solani Kaltenbach	Belliure et al., 2008
11	Propylea japonica	Maize Aphid Rhopalosiphum maidis(Fitch) in cotton and maize	Gao et al., 2010
12	Water strider (Gerris insperatus), Lady bird beetle (Coleomegilla maculate), Backswimmer (Notonecta spp.), Mirid bugs	Brown plant hopper,Native leaf Beetle	Rice knowledge Bank (www.IRRI.org)
13	Galerucella nymphaeae, Galerucella birmanica	Nuphur lutea, Trapa natans	Ding and Blossey 2005
14	Zoophytophagous Bug (OrthotylusmarginalisReuter), (Closterotomus fulvomaculatus),(Anthocoris nemorum)	Arthropod pests in Perennial bioenergy crops	Dalin et al., 2009
15	Tachinid fly, Istocheta aldrichi (Mesnil), Tiphiid wasps (Tiphiavernalis Rohwer) and (Tiphia popilliavora Rohwer)	Japanese beetle grubs(Popillia japonica Newman)	Fleming 1976
16	Alfalfa weevil(Hypera postica)	Bathyplectes curculionis	Evans and Staci England 1996
17	Polistes fuscatus	Cotton pests, Lapidopterous pest of Cabbage, Cabbage worm (Pieris rapae), Diamondback moth (Putella xylostella)	Gould &Jeanne 1984
18	Edovum puttleri Grissell, Pediobius foveolatus crawforel	Colorado potato beetle (Leptinotarsa decemlineata say)	Patt et al.,1997
19	Amblyseius victoriensis (Womersley)	Phytophagous eriophyid (Tegolophus australis Keifer)	Smith & Papacek 1991
20	Anagrus (Hymenoptera:Mymaridae)	Grape leafhopper (Erythroneura elegantula Osborne)	Doutt RL and Nakata J. 1973.
21	Avi fauna: Great tits (Parus major), Small green bee eater (Merops orientalis), Indian Roller (Coracias benghalensis), Common Myna (Acridotherus tristis), Black drongo (Dicrurus macrocercus), House sparrow, Red-vented bulbul, Pycnonotus cafer	Reduced caterpillar damage, pest control of Catopsilla sp. larvae in medicinal crop	Narayana et al 2011, 2014
22	Bats	moths, water boatmen, beetles, flies, midges, mosquitoes, plant bugs and crop pests	Riccucci and Lanza, 2014; Long et al., 1998

 

Table-3 Role of Microbes in Agriculture:

 

SL NO.	Microbes	Roles	Reference
01	Nitrogen fixers Rhizobium; Bacillus, Azotobacter, Pseudomonas Azosprillum, Enterobactor	Colonizes the roots of specific legumes for ammonia production	Venkatashwarlu B. 2008
02	Azospirillum: A.amazonense, A. halopraeferens, A. brasilense, A.lipoferum	fix nitrogen on salts of organic acids.	Mishra et al., 2012
03	Azotobacter: A. chroococcum, A. vinelandii, A. beijerinckii, A. insignis and A. macrocytogenes	anti-fungal antibiotics activity in the root region	Mishra et al., 2012
04	Blue Green Algae (Cyanobacteria) and Anabaena azollae.	Organic and Bio manure	Mishra et al., 2012
05	Phosphate solubilizers: pseudomonas, Bacillus, Rhizobium, Burkholderia, Achromobacter, Agrobacterium, Microccocus, Aereobacter, Flavobacterium and Erwinia.	Solubilize insoluble inorganic phosphate compounds	Mishra et al., 2012
06	Zinc solubilizers: B. subtilis, Thiobacillus thioxidans and Saccharomyces sp	bio-fertilizers for solubilization of fixed micronutrients.	Mishra et al., 2012
07	Cyanobacteria, Nostoc, Anabaena,	used as a biofertilizer for different crops	Singh et al. 2011; Roy etal., 2013
08	Chlorella vulgaris and Spirulinaplatensis	Algal bio-fertilizers in rice field	Dineshkumar et al., 2017
09	Pseudomonas sp. RM3M, Bacillus amyloliquefaciensBcA27, Arthrobacter simplex ArS43, and Rhizobium meliloti	Dissolves organophosphates and mobilise more P into plants.	Egamberdiyeva et al., 2004
10	Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi	increases the potential for nutrient and water uptake	Bhattacharya et al., 2016
11	KSM organisms; Aspergillus, Bacillus and Clostridium	potassium solubilisation	Mohammadi and Sohrabi, 2012

 

References:

1. Alvaroz M. R., Heralde F., & Quiming N. (2016). Screening for Larvicidal Activity of Ethanolic and Aqueous Extracts of Selected Plants against Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus Larvae. Journal of Coastal Life Medicine; 4(2): 143-147.

 

2. Amoabeng B. W., Johnson A. C., & Gurr G. M. (2019). Natural enemy enhancement and botanical insecticide source: a review of dual use companion plants. Applied entomology and zoology; 54(1): 1-19.

 

3. Bajpai R., & Chandel B. S. (2009). Evaluation of Adhatoda vasica, Acorus calamus and Vitex nugendo as a source of phago-antifeedant against cabbage butterfly, Pieris brassicaeLinn. (Lepidoptera: Pieridae) on mustard, Brassic campestris (Linn.). International Journal of Biotechnology and Biochemistry; 5(4); 451-458.

 

4. Baker K. F. (1987). Evolving concepts of biological control of plant pathogens. Annual Review of Phytopathology; 25(1): 67-85.

 

5. Baskar K., Ananthi J., & Ignacimuthu S. (2018). Toxic effects of Solanum xanthocarpum Sch&Wendle against Helicoverpa armigera (Hub.). Culex quinquefasciatus (Say.) and Eisenia fetida (Savigny, 1826). Environmental Science and Pollution Research; 25(3): 2774-2782.

 

6. Belliure B., Janssen A., & Sabelis M. W. (2008). Herbivore benefits from vectoring plant virus through reduction of period of vulnerability to predation. Oecologia; 156(4): 797-806.

 

7. Bengtsson J., Ahnström J., & Weibull A. C. (2005). The effects of organic agriculture on biodiversity and abundance: a meta‐analysis. Journal of applied ecology; 42(2): 261-269.

 

8. Bhattacharyya P. N., Goswami M. P., & Bhattacharyya L. H. (2016). Perspective of beneficial microbes in agriculture under changing climatic scenario: A review. Journal of  Phytology; 26-41.

 

9. Campos E. V., De Oliveira J. L., Pascoli M., De Lima R., & Fraceto L. F. (2016). Neem oil and crop protection: from now to the future. Frontiers in plant science; 7: 1494.

 

10. Cazaux M., Navarro M., Bruinsma K. A., Zhurov V., Negrave T., Van Leeuwen T., & Grbic M. (2014). Application of two-spotted spider mite Tetranychusurticae for plant-pest interaction studies. JoVE (Journal of Visualized Experiments); (89): e51738.

 

11. Chandra K. (2005). Organic manures. Booklet Released on the occasion of 10 days training programme on “Production and Quality Control of Organic Inputs” Kottayam, Kerala. Regional Director Regional Centre of Organic Farming No. 34, 5th Main Road Hebbal, Banglaore-24.

 

12. Chapman A.D. (2009). Numbers of living species in Australia and the world. Second edition. Australian Biodiversity Information Services, Toowoomba.

 

13. Cook R. J. (1993). Making greater use of introduced microorganisms for biological control of plant pathogens. Annual review of phytopathology; 31(1): 53-80.

 

14. Cromwell E., Brodie A., & Southern A. “Agriculture, biodiversity and livelihoods: issues and entry points.”(1999). London, UK: Overseas Development Institute.

 

15. Dheeba B., Niranjana R., Sampathkumar P., Kannan K., & KannanM. (2015). Efficacy of neem (Azadirachta indica) and tulsi (Ocimum sanctum) leaf extracts against early blight of tomato. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, India Section B: Biological Sciences; 85(1): 327-336.

 

16. Dineshkumar R., Narendran R., Jayasingam P., & Sampathkumar P. (2017). Cultivation and chemical composition of microalgae Chlorella vulgaris and its antibacterial activity against human pathogens. Journal of Aquaculture and Marine Biology; 5: 00119.

 

17. Ding J., & Blossey B. (2005). Invertebrate predation on the water lily beetle, Galerucellanymphaeae (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae),and its implications for potential biological control of water chestnut, Trapanatans. Biological Control; 35(1): 17-26.

 

18. Doutt R. L., & Nakata J. (1973). The Rubus leafhopper and its egg parasitoid: an endemic biotic system useful in grape-pest management. Environmental Entomology; 2(3): 381-386.

 

19. Dudley N., & Alexander S. (2017). Agriculture and biodiversity; a review. Biodiversity conservancy international.

 

20. Duru M., Therond O., Martin G., Martin-Clouaire R., Magne M. A., Justes E., & Sarthou J. P. (2015). How to implement biodiversity-based agriculture to enhance ecosystem services: a review. Agronomy for sustainable development; 35(4):1259-1281.

 

21. Egamberdiyeva D., Juraeva D., Poberejskaya S., Myachina O., Teryuhova P., Seydalieva L., & Aliev A. (2004). Improvement of wheat and cotton growth and nutrient uptake by phosphate solubilizing bacteria. In Proceeding of 26th annual conservation tillage conference for sustainable agriculture. Auburn (pp. 58-65).

 

22. Eifediyi E. K., Ahamefule H. E., Remison S. U., Aliyu T. H., & Akanbi N. (2017). Effects of Neem Seed Cake and NPK Fertilizer on the Growth and Yield of Sesame (Sesamum indicum L.). Cercetari Agronomice in Moldova; 50(2): 57-72.

 

23. Erisman J. W., Van EekerenN., De Wit J., Koopmans C., Cuijpers W., Oerlemans N., & KoksB. J. (2016). Agriculture and biodiversity: a better balance benefit both. AIMS Agriculture and Food; 1(2): 157-174.

 

24. Evans E. W., & England S. (1996). Indirect interactions in biological control of insects: pests and natural enemies in alfalfa. Ecological Applications; 6(3): 920-930.

 

25. Fischer J., Lindenmayer D. B., & Manning A. D. (2006). Biodiversity, ecosystem function, and resilience: ten guiding principles for commodity production landscapes. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment; 4(2): 80-86.

 

26. Fleming W. E. (1976). Integrating control of the Japanese beetle: A historical review (No. 1545). US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service.

 

27. Frison E. A., Cherfas J., & Hodgkin T. (2011). Agricultural biodiversity is essential for a sustainable improvement in food and nutrition security. Sustainability; 3(1): 238-253.

 

28. Gao F., Jifon J., Liu X. H., & Ge F. (2010). An energy budget approach for evaluating the biocontrol potential of cotton aphid (Aphis gossypii) by the ladybeetle Propylaea japonica. Entomologia experimentalis et applicata; 136(1): 72-79.

 

29. Garbarino J. R., Rutherford D. W., & Wershaw R. L. (2001). Degradation of roxarsone in poultry litter. In USGS Workshop on Arsenic in the Environment. Denver. CO.

 

30. Gerdts M., & Clark J. (1979). Caprification: A unique relationship between plant and insect. California Agriculture; 33(11): 12-14.

 

31. Getanjaly V. L. R., Sharma P., & Kushwaha R. (2015). Beneficial insects and their value to agriculture. Research Journal of Agriculture and Forestry Sciences; 2320. 6063.

 

32. Gomiero T., Pimentel D., & Paoletti M. G. (2011). Environmental impact of different agricultural management practices: conventional vs. organic agriculture. Critical reviews in plant sciences; 30(1-2): 95-124.

 

33. Gonthier D. J., Ennis K. K., Farinas S., Hsieh H. Y., Iverson A. L., Batáry P., & Perfecto I. (2014). Biodiversity conservation in agriculture requires a multi-scale approach. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences; 281(1791): 20141358.

 

34. Gopalakrishnan S., Pande S., Sharma M., Humayun P., Kiran B. K., Sandeep D., & Rupela O. (2011). Evaluation of actinomycete isolates obtained from herbal vermicompost for the biological control of Fusarium wilt of chickpea. Crop Protection; 30(8): 1070-1078.

 

35. Gould W. P., & Jeanne R. L. (1984). Polistes wasps (Hymenoptera: Vespidae) as control agents for lepidopterous cabbage pests. Environmental entomology; 13(1): 150-156.

 

36. Hagstrum D., Klejdysz T., Subramanyam B., & Nawrot J. (2013). Pest Management.Atlas of stored–product Insects and Mites. AACC International PRESS. Inc. USA, St. Paul, Minnesota. 577-589.

 

37. Haifa N.M., & Ali S.M. (2016) Insecticidal effect of crude plant extract of Adhatodavasica against Brevicorynebrassicae. World journal of experimental Biosciences; 49(1): 49-52.

 

38. Hansen, B., Altroe, H.F. & Kristensen, E.S. (2001). Approaches to assess the environmental impact of organic farming with particular regard to Denmark. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment; 83: 11-26.

 

39. Heywood V. H. (2003). Conservation strategies, plant breeding, wild species and landraces. In Methods for Risk Assessment of Transgenic Plants (pp. 141-157). Birkhäuser. Basel.

 

40. Heywood V. H. (2013).Overview of agricultural biodiversity and its contribution to nutrition and health. In Diversifying Food and Diets. Routledge. (pp. 67-99).

 

41. Heywood V.H. (1999) ‘Trends in agricultural biodiversity’, in J. Janick (ed.) Perspectives on New Crops and New UsesASHS Press. Alexandria,VA.pp.2–14.

 

42. Heywood V. H., & WatsonR. T. Global biodiversity assessment (1995). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Vol.1140).

 

43. Hikal W. M., Baeshen R. S., & Said-Al Ahl H. A. (2017). Botanical insecticide as simple extractives for pest control. Cogent biology; 3(1): 1404274.

 

44. Islam M. M., & Monjil M. S. (2016). Effect of aqueous extracts of some indigenous medicinal plants on sheath blight of rice. Journal of the Bangladesh Agricultural University; 14(1): 7-12.

 

45. Jarvis D.I. (2007). Biodiversity, agriculture, and ecosystem services. Managing Biodiversity in Agricultural Ecosystems. New York: Columbia University Press 1- 12.

 

46. Kalirajan K. P., & Shand R. T. (1997). Sources of output growth in Indian agriculture. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics; 52(4): 693-706.

 

47. Keel C., Schnider U., Maurhofer M., Voisard C., Laville J., Burger U., Wirthner P., Haas D., & Défago G. (1992). Suppression of root diseases by Pseudomonas fluorescens CHA0: importance of the bacterial secondary metabolite 2,4-diacetylphloroglucinol. Molecular Plant–Microbe Interaction; 5: 4-13.

 

48. Khamna S., & Yokota Lumyong, S. (2009). Actinomycetes isolated from medicinal plant rhizosphere soils: diversity and screening of antifungal compounds, indole-3-acetic acid and siderophore production. World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology; 25: 649e655.

 

49. Kloepper J. W., Reddy M. S., Rodríguez-Kabana R., Kenney D. S., Kokalis-Burelle N., Martinez-Ochoa N., & Vavrina C. S. (2004). Application for rhizobacteria in transplant production and yield enhancement. Acta Horticulturae; 217-230.

50. Kushwah B. (2013). Evaluation of fungitoxicity of Bael (Aegle marmelos) extracts against some fungal pathogens (Doctoral dissertation, Department of Plant Pathology, Rajmata VijayarajeScindia Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya).

 

51. Levy N.O., Harel Y.M., Haile Z.M., Elad Y., RavDavid E., Jurkevitch E., & Katan J. (2015). Induced resistance to foliar diseases by soil solarization and Trichoderma harzianum. Plant Pathology; 64(2): 365–374.

 

52. Li S. M., Li L., Zhang F. S., & Tang C. (2004). Acid phosphatase role in chickpea/maize intercropping. Annals of Botany; 94(2): 297-303.

 

53. Lim S. L., Lee L. H., & Wu T. Y. (2016). Sustainability of using composting and vermicomposting technologies for organic solid waste biotransformation: recent overview, greenhouse gases emissions and economic analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production; 111.: 262-278.

 

54. Locke H. (2013). “Nature Needs Half: A Necessary and Hopeful New Agenda for Protected Areas.” PARKS 19 (2): 13–21

 

55. Lokanadhan S., Muthukrishnan P., & Jeyaraman S. (2012). Neem products and their agricultural applications. Journal of Biopesticides; 5: 72.

 

56. Long R., Simpson T., Ding T., Heydon S., & Reil W. (1998). Bats feed on crop pests in Sacramento Valley. California Agriculture; 52(1):  8-10.

 

57. Luepromchai E., Singer A.C., Yang C.H., & Crowley D.E. (2002) Interactions of earthworms with indigenous and bioaugmented PCB-degrading bacteria. FEMS Microbiology Ecology; 41:191–197.

 

58. Mathirajan V. G. (2001). Diversity and predatory potential of spiders in cotton and rice ecosystem applied with Thiamethoxam. Ph.D. thesis. Tamilnadu Agricultural University. Coimbatore-3.

 

59. Maxted N., Kell S., & Magos Brehm J. (2011) Options to promote food security: on farm management and in situ conservation of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Rome. Italy.

 

60. Messelink G. J., Van Maanen R., Van Holstein-Saj R., Sabelis M. W., & Janssen A. (2010). Pest species diversity enhances control of spider mites and whiteflies by a generalist phytoseiid predator. Bio Control; 55(3): 387-398.

 

61. Millenium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: wetlands and water. World Resources Institute. https://www. millenniumassessment.org/documents/document. 356.aspx.pdf.

 

62. Mishra D., Rajvir S., Mishra U., & Kumar S. S. (2013). Role of bio-fertilizer in organic agriculture: a review. Research Journal of Recent Sciences; 2277: 2502.

 

63. Mohammadi K., & Sohrabi Y. (2012). Bacterial biofertilizers for sustainable crop production: a review. Journal of Agricultural and Biological Science; 7: 307-316.

 

64. Molla O., Biondi A., Alonso-Valiente M., & Urbaneja A. (2014). A comparative life history study of two mirid bugs preying on Tutaabsoluta and Ephestiakuehniella eggs on tomato crops: implications for biological control. Bio Control; 59(2): 175-183.

 

65. Mundt C. C. (2002). Use of multiline cultivars and cultivar mixtures for disease management. Annual review of phytopathology; 40(1): 381-410.

 

66. Murasing C., Das P., Sathish K., & Hazarika L. K. (2017). Bio efficacy of Ocimum sanctum L. (Lamiaceae) leaf extracts against Pulse beetle (Callosobruchus chinensis L.) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) in stored green gram (Vigna radiate L.). Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies; 5(4): 586-590.

 

67. Narayana B. L. (2011). Status, Disribution, and Diversity of Avifauna in the Agricultural ecosystem of Sherpally, Nalgonda District, Andhra Pradesh, Southern India (Doctoral dissertation. M. Sc. Thesis. Bharathidasn University.Thiruchapalli).

 

58. Narayana B. L., Rao V. V., & Reddy V. V. (2014). Foraging behavior of Black drongo (Dicrurusmacrocercus) in Nalgonda district of Andhra Pradesh. India. The Bioscan; 9(2): 467-471.

 

59. Nayak P. K., Nayak A. K., Panda B. B., Lal B., Gautam P., Poonam A., & Jambhulkar N. N. (2018). Ecological mechanism and diversity in rice based integrated farming system. Ecological Indicators; 91: 359-375.

 

60. Nilahyane A., Bouharroud R., Hormatallah A., & Taadaouit N. A. (2012). Larvicidal effect of plant extracts on Tutaabsoluta (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae). IOBC–WRPS Bulletin; 80: 305-310.

 

Noorhosseini-Niyaki S. A., & Bagherzadeh-Lakani F. (2011). Ecological and biological effects of fish farming in rice fields. In Regional Congress of Sustainable Management Science-based in Agriculture and Natural Resources. Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources. Iran (pp. 21-22).

 

61. Norris K. (2008). Agriculture and biodiversity conservation: opportunity knocks. Conservation letters; 1(1): 2-11.

 

62. Patt J. M., Hamilton G. C., & Lashomb J. H. (1997). Foraging success of parasitoid wasps on flowers: interplay of insect morphology, floral architecture and searching behavior. Entomologia experimentalis et applicate; 83(1): 21-30.

 

63. Perez-Montano F., Alías-Villegas C., Bellogín R. A., Del Cerro P., Espuny M. R., Jiménez-Guerrero I.,  & Cubo T. (2014). Plant growth promotion in cereal and leguminous agricultural important plants: from microorganism capacities to crop production. Microbiological Research; 169(5-6): 325-336.

 

64. Perrings C., Jackson L., Bawa K., Brussaard L., Brush S., Gavin T., & De Ruiter P. (2006). Biodiversity in agricultural landscapes: saving natural capital without losing interest. Conservation biology; 20(2). 263-264.

 

65. Pimbert M. (1999). Sustaining the multiple functions of agricultural biodiversity. Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Livelihoods Programme, International Institute for Environment and Development.

 

66. Prasanna R., Kumar A., & Babu S. (2013) Deciphering the biochemical spectrum of novel cyanobacterium-based biofilms for use as inoculants. Biological Agriculture and Horticulture; 29:145–158

 

67. Puyam A., Shahid M., Srivastava M., & Singh A. (2013). Effect of different physiological parameters on growth and sporulation of Trichoderma  viride. Plant Disease Research; 28(2): 146-151

 

68. Raaijmakers J. M., Weller D. M., & Thomashow L. S. (1997). Frequency of antibiotic-producing Pseudomonas spp. in natural ecosystems. Applied Environmental Microbiology; 63: 881-887.

 

69. Raj A., Jhariya M. K., & Toppo P. (2014). Cow dung for eco-friendly and sustainable productive farming. Environmental Science; 3(10): 201-202.

70. Rajeswaran J., Duraimurugan P., & Shanmugam P. S. (2005). Role of spiders in agriculture and horticulture ecosystem. Journal of Food Agriculture and Environment; 3(3/4): 147.

 

71. Reynolds L. P., Wulster-Radcliffe M. C., Aaron D. K., & Davis T. A. (2015). Importance of animals in agricultural sustainability and food security. The Journal of nutrition; 145(7): 1377-1379.

 

72. Riat A. K. and Ohri S. (2018) Effect of phytochemicals against different Pest: A Review. International Journal of Advanced Research; 6(6): 999-1003.

 

73. Riccucci M. and Lanza B. (2014). Bats and insect pest control: a review. Vespertilio. 17. 161-169. Role of faunal diversity in agricultural production system:

 

74. Roy M., & Srivastava R. C. (2013). Assembling BNF system in rice plant: frontier areas of research. Current Science; 326-334.

 

75. Russell, K., & Bessin, R. (2009). Integration of Trichogramma ostriniae releases and habitat modification for suppression of European corn borer (Ostrinia nubilalis Hübner) in bell peppers. Renewable agriculture and food systems; 24(1): 19-24.

 

76. Scharlemann J. P., Balmford A., & Green R. E. (2005). The level of threat to restricted-range bird species can be predicted from mapped data on land use and human population. Biological Conservation; 123(3): 317-326.

 

77. Scherr S. J., & McNeely J. A. (2007). Biodiversity conservation and agricultural sustainability: towards a new paradigm of ‘ecoagriculture’landscapes. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences; 363(1491): 477-494.

 

78. Singh, A., Bach, L. T., Fischer, T., Hauss, H., Kiko, R., Paul, A. J., Stange, P., Vandromme, P., & Riebesell, U. (2017). Niche construction by non-diazotrophs for N₂ fixers in the eastern tropical North Atlantic Ocean. Geophysics Research Letters; 44: 6904–6913.

 

79. Singh J. S., Pandey V. C., & Singh D. P. (2011). Efficient soil microorganisms: a new dimension for sustainable agriculture and environmental development. Agriculture, ecosystems & environment; 140(3-4): 339-353.

 

80. Singh S., Singh B. K., Yadav S. M., & Gupta A. K. (2014). Potential of biofertilizers in crop production in Indian agriculture. American Journal of Plant Nutrition and Fertilization Technology; 4(2): 33-40.

 

81. Smith D., & Papacek D. F. (1991). Studies of the predatory mite Amblyseius victoriensis (Acarina: Phytoseiidae) in citrus orchards in south-east Queensland: control of Tegolophusaustralis and Phyllocoptruta oleivora (Acarina: Eriophyidae), effect of pesticides, alternative host plants and augmentative release. Experimental & Applied Acarology; 12(3-4): 195-217.

 

82. Smith M. W., Arnold D. C., Eikenbary R. D., Rice N. R., Shiferaw A., Cheary B. S., & Carroll B. L. (1996). Influence of ground cover on beneficial arthropods in pecan. Biological Control; 6(2): 164-176.

 

83. Spochacz M., Chowański S., Walkowiak‐Nowicka K., Szymczak M., & Adamski Z. (2018). Plant‐Derived Substances Used Against Beetles–Pests of Stored Crops and Food–and Their Mode of Action: A Review. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety; 17(5): 1339-1366.

 

84. Tembo Y., Mkindi A. G., Mkenda P. A., Mpumi N., Mwanauta R., Stevenson P. C., & Belmain, S. R. (2018). Pesticidal plant extracts improve yield and reduce insect pests on legume crops without harming beneficial arthropods. Frontiers in plant science; 9.

 

85. Tilman D. (1999). Global environmental impacts of agricultural expansion: the need  or sustainable and efficient practices. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences; 96(11): 5995-6000.

 

86. Tsuruta T., Yamaguchi M., Abe S. I., & Iguchi K. I. (2011). Effect of fish in rice-fish culture on the rice yield. Fisheries Science; 77(1): 95-106.

 

87. Turlings T. C., Tumlinson J. H., & Lewis W. J. (1990). Exploitation of herbivore-induced plant odors by host-seeking parasitic wasps. Science; 250(4985). 1251-1253.

 

88. Van Driesche, R., & Hoddle, M. (2009). Control of pests and weeds by natural enemies: an introduction to biological control. John Wiley & Sons.

 

89. Venkateswarlu B., Desai S., & Prasad Y.G. (2008) Agriculturally important microorganisms for stressed ecosystems: Challenges in technology development and application’’. In: Khachatourians G.G., Arora D.K., Rajendran T.P. and Srivastava A.K. (eds) Agriculturally important Microorganisms. vol 1. Academic World, Bhopal. 225–246.

 

90. Wachira P., Kimenju J., Okoth S. & Kiarie J. (2014). Conservation and sustainable management of soil biodiversity for agricultural productivity. In Sustainable Living with Environmental Risks Springer, Tokyo. 27-34.

 

91. Wagner S. C. Biological Nitrogen Fixation. (2011). Nature Education Knowledge; 3(10): 15.

 

92. Walker D. J., Clemente R., Roig A., & Bernal M. P. (2003). The effects of soil amendments on heavy metal bioavailability in two contaminated Mediterranean soils. Environmental Pollution; 122(2): 303-312.

 

93. Wilson E.O. (1984). Biophilia Harvard university press. Cambridge, Massachusetts.

 

94.Yadav A., Gupta R., & Garg V. K. (2013). Organic manure production from cow dung and biogas plant slurry by vermin composting under field conditions. International Journal of Recycling of organic waste in agriculture; 2(1): 21.

 

95. Zhang Z.Q. (2011). Animal biodiversity: An introduction to higher-level classification and taxonomic richness. “Zootaxa.”  Magnolia Press. Auckland, New Zealand. (3148). 7–12.