J.

(9)Env. Bio-Sci., Vol. 24 (1): 13-17, 2010

ISSN 0973-6913 (Print), ISSN 0976-3384 (On Line)

SECONDARY PRODUCTIVITY OF ENTOMOFAUNA IN FRUIT ORCHARDS OF

DISTRICT NAINITAL, UTTARAKHAND, INDIA
P.C. Joshi and Naveen C. Joshi
Department of Zoology and Environmental Sciences
Gurukula Kangri University, Haridwar-249404, India.
E-mail : ncjoshi83@yahoo.com

Secondary productivity of herbivorous insects in fruit orchards of Mukteshwar area of district Nainital was estimated. A
total of 112 species of herbivorous insects belonging to 8 orders and 31 families were collected. The population density and
biomass of insects ranged between 0.43 to 28.69 ha-1 and 10.62 and 184.45 mg ha-1, respectively. The cumulative net secondary
productivity was 253.51 mg ha-1 in the first year and 183.57 mg ha-1 in the second year of study.

Mukteshwar area in district Nainital is known as the bowl of fruits. It is a sub-tropical region with many
orchards of apple, peach, pears and citrus, which support a large number of herbivores. The secondary productivity
is the rate of energy storage in the form of organic substances at consumer level1, or rate of production or rate of
elaboration of living matter through the interaction between the organism and the space where it lives,2 or the
amount of living matter elaborated per unit area per unit time.3 Therefore, the organism's success in environment
might be a function of its ability to fix and retain energy4. Moreover, secondary production is not a distinct entity to
itself, rather it is a part of a larger scheme of the movement of material through the ecosystem, and this is based
on the activities of individuals and population of animals.5
Futherwise, it is one of the most important components of energy budget6. Entomofauna has always
played a very important role in life of an orchard. Insects being mostly phytophagous, depend on the type of
vegetation. The distribution of herbivorous insects is thus exclusively dependent upon the availability of their food
plants7. Many studies on population dynamics, biomass and energetics, have been carried out in many temperate
and tropical grasslands8-14, however, such studies from the fruit orchards of Himalayas is still lacking.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study Area: Nainital is well known in the map of uttarakhand for its fruit production including apple, peach, pears
and citrus. Mukteshwar (latitude 290 28' 56.7'' N and longitude 790 38' 42.0'' E) under the Ramgarh block is full
of orchards of these fruits and a major fruit producing area.
Abiotic Factors: The temperature and humidity of the study area was recorded on each sampling date with the
help of thermo-hygrometer. Whereas, the rainfall was measured with the help of the rain guage.
Estimation of population Density Biomass and Trophic Structure of Insects: Population density of entofauna
was studied using the sampling method of Gadagkar et al.15. Random sampling was carried out to study the
population density at a regular interval of 30 days. The collected insects were transferred into jars containing ethyl
acetate soaked cotton. The insects thus collected were brought into the laboratory and stretched, pinned and
oven dried at 600C for 72 hours in order to preserve and weighed with the help of a single pan electric balance with

SECONDARY PRODUCTIVITY OF ENTOMOFAUNA IN FRUIT ORCHARDS

(10)

an accuracy of 0.01 mg in order to determine their biomasses. The insect species were also grouped into different
trophic levels on the basis of their feeding habits. Species which could not be identified in laboratory were sent to
IARI, New Delhi and Forest Research Institute, Dehradun for their further identification.
In the present investigation the exuvial production has not been taken into consideration while calculating
the secondary production. Only the tissue production, which is one of the most important aspects of secondary
production by the consumers, has been considered. Production of eggs was also not measured seperately but
was included to the extent that they performed the part of body weight of mature females. The tissue production
estimates of herbivores in the present study is based on the calculation of the mean biomass of herbivores on
each collection date during 2007-2009. The mean value of biomass was calculated by dividing the total biomass
(per ha.) with the total number of individuals (per ha.) on the respective dates of every month. The results are
expressed as mg/ha.
Secondary productivity: Secondary production comprises that portion of energy which is assimilated by the
consumer and is transferred into organic matter, useful as source of energy for other organisms in ecosystem.
Time series biomass data was analyzed by using Wiegert16 equation for the estimation of secondary production:
n

P=S+

(Ni + Ni - 1) Wi - Wi - 1
i=2

Where, Ni = Number of insect present at time i, Wi = Mean weight per insect at time i, i= Sampling time; S=
Standing crop at time when i=1; When Wi is less than Wi-1, production is considered as zero.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Abiotic factors: The temperature in the study area varied from 12.20C (Dec.) to 320C (April) during the first year
and 7.40C (Dec.) to 27.10C (June) in the second year. Humidity ranged between 18% (March) to 65% (May) during
the first year and between 24% (April) to 66% (May) in second year. Whereas, the rainfall ranged between 0.00
mm (November 2007) to 430.60 mm (July) for the first year and 0.00 mm (October) to 345.60 mm (August) during
the second year.
Biotic components: A total of 133 species of plants which included 59 species of trees, 49 species of shrubs and
20 species of herbs were recorded from the entire study area. The highest numbers of species were recorded
during the rainy reason.
Herbivorous entomofauna: A total of 112 species of herbivorous insects belonging to 31 families and 8 insect
orders were recorded during study period. Maximum number of identified species belonged to Order Lepidoptera
(53), followed by Hymenoptera (20), Coleoptera (14), Diptera (9), Orthoptera (8), Odonata (4), Hemiptera (2) and
Heteroptera (2). Maximum number of individuals belonged to order Lepidoptera, which contributed 39.51% and
46.81% during 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 respectively, followed by Hymenoptera (19.76% and 19.15%), Coleoptera
(13.58% and 13.83%), Diptera (9.88% and 6.38%), Orthoptera (8.64% and 5.32%), Odonata (3.70% and 4.26%),

JOSHI AND JOSHI

(11)

Hemiptera (2.47% and 2.13%) and Heteroptera (2.47% and 2.13%) during 2007-2008 and 2008-2009, respectively.
Population density, biomass and secondary productivity: Population density of herbivorous insects was recorded
maximum in the month of March, 2008 (34.88 insects ha-1), whereas, it was minimum (3.78 insects ha-1) in the
month of February during the first year of study, while during second year maximum density was recorded in the
month of April 2009 (36.61 insects ha-1) whereas, minimum found in the month of January 2009 (6.46 insects ha1

). The maximum insect activities in the area were observed during March and April, which is the flowering season

and has the optimal temperature and humidity required for the survival of insects and also co-insides with availability
of large number of food plants in the area. The reason for minimum values of density during winter months may be
attributed to the harsh climatic conditions prevailing in the study area from November to the end of February, when
moderate amount of snow fall also takes place, which is considered good for growing apple and other fruits in the
area.
For calculating the secondary productivity the exuvial production has not been taken into consideration.
Only the tissue production, which is one of the most important aspects of secondary production by the
consumers, has been considered. Production of eggs was also not measured seperately but was included to
the extent that they performed the part of body weight of mature females. The tissue production estimates of
herbivores in the present study is based on the calculation of the mean biomass of herbivores on each
collection date during 2007-2009. The results are presented in Table-1 and expressed in mg/ha. Net secondary
production of herbivore insects in the present study during 2007-2008 was 253.71 mg/ha (494.73 KJ/ha,
when converted to Jules by multiplying with 19.5 J mg-1 as per Kaushal and Vats9). During 2008-2009, the
secondary production was 183.57 mg/ha (357.96 KJ ha-1yr-1).
The maximum value of net secondary production was obtained in the rainy season and towards the beginning
of winter season during both the years of study when adults with higher weight were collected. In comparison, Vats
and Kaushal10 reported that the net secondary production of total Lepidoptera was 100.25 mg/m2 during the first
year and 39.25 mg/m2 during the second year of study in grassland at Kurukshetra. Kohler et al.11 reported that the
net secondary production of total herbivorous insects in grassland of West Germany was 3407.0 KJ/m2. Similarly
Kaushal and Joshi17, while studying the entomofauna of a grassland ecosystem in Naukuciatal, Nainital have
reported a secondary production of 29.4 and 545.0 mg m-2. Joshi and Sharma13 have reported a cumulative net
secondary production of 210.8 mg/m2 from a cropland in district Hardwar. Joshi and Arya7 have recorded the
maximum population density and biomass of herbivorous insects as 37.99 ha-1 and 1985.29 mg ha-1, respectively
from Pindari area of Nanda Devi Biosphere and reported 74 species of herbivorous insects belonging to 28 families
of 6 insect orders. Tewari and Kaushal14 recorded the mean secondary net production due to herbivorous, which
was 47.9 KJ m-2 yr-1. Though the secondary productivity in the present case is less than what has been reported
from different ecosystems in the previous case by different workers, but it certainly varies with biomass and
population density recorded from different habitats, however, it constitutes an important portion of energy in the
food chain of any ecosystem.

SECONDARY PRODUCTIVITY OF ENTOMOFAUNA IN FRUIT ORCHARDS

(12)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The first author is thankful to Uttarakhand State Council for Science and Technology, Dehradun for sanctioning him
a research project to conduct the study in Mukteshwar area. Thanks are also due to Scientists from Forest
Research Institute and Botanical Survey of India, Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun and Gobind Ballabh Pant
Institute of Himalayan Environment and Development, Kosi, Almora for their help in identifying the insect and plant
species.
Table 1: Secondary Productivity of herbivorous insects collected from the study area
during the study period (November 2007 - October 2009).

Year

Density
(m-2)

Mean Biomass
(mg insect-1)

Secondary Productivity
(mg m-2)

Cumulative Secondary Net

Production
(mg m-2)

2007-08
NOV

9.05

152.24

152.24

152.24

DEC

1.11

94.21

28.71

180.95

JAN

1.13

80.42

6.86

187.81

FEB

0.53

35.84

22.20

210.01

MAR

0.43

25.32

5.11

215.12

APR

3.13

10.62

7.09

222.21

MAY

3.83

54.23

0.00

222.21

JUN

3.17

36.87

8.47

230.68

JUL

2.53

21.72

7.41

238.09

AUG

2.3

158.53

0.00

238.09

SEP

2.06

126.76

15.62

253.71

OCT

1.72

184.45

0.00

253.71

NOV

17.16

36.81

72.61

72.61

DEC

8.22

20.75

7.96

80.3

JAN

6.46

122.37

0.00

80.3

2008-09

FEB

9.04

12.24

54.56

134.86

MAR

32.37

48.92

0.00

134.86

APR

36.61

38.21

5.15

140.01

MAY

28.19

31.62

3.20

143.21

JUN

28.61

82.55

0.00

143.21

JUL

28.69

48.86

16.40

159.61

AUG

26.88

102.16

0.00

159.61

SEP

24.61

81.74

10.02

168.63

OCT

19.7

53.45

13.94

183.57

JOSHI AND JOSHI

(13)

REFERENCES
1.

Odum, E. P., (1971). In: Fundamentals of Ecology, Sounders Company, Philadlphia.

2.

Wheatson, B. (1979). In: Rivers, Lakes and Marshes. Hadder and Stoughton Ltd., London.

3.

Downing, J. A. (1984). In: Downing, J. A. and Ringler, F. H. (eds.). A manual on method for the assessment of secondary
production in freshwater. IBP Handbook No. 17, Blackwell, Oxford.

4.

Lindeman, R. L. (1942). The trophic-dynamic aspect of ecology. Ecology, 23: 399-418.

5.

Endmondson, W. T. (1974). Limnol. 20: 229.

6.

Ajeel, S. G., Ali, M. H. and Salman, S. D. (2006). Marina mesopotamica, 1(1): 38.

7.

Joshi, P.C., Arya, M. (2005). Environmental Biology and Conservation, 10: 37.

8.

Gyllenberg, G. (1969). Acta Zoologica Fannica, 123: 1.

9.

Kaushal, B. R. and Vats, L. K. (1984). Acta Oecologia/Oecologia Generalis, 5: 333.

10.

Vats, L. K. and Kaushal, B. R. (1980). Agro. Ecosystem, 6: 161.

11.

Kohler, G., Brodhur, H. P. and Schaller, G. (1987). Oecologia, 74: 112.

12.

Blummer, P. and Diemer, M. (1996). Arctic and alpine research, 28: 435.

13.

Joshi, P. C. and Sharma, R. (1998). Uttar. Pradesh. Jour. Zool., 18(1): 1.

14.

Tewari, Manisha and Kaushal, B.R. (2007). Tropical Ecol., 48(1): 71.

15.

Gadegkar, R., Chandrashekhara, K. and Nair, P. (1990). J. Bom. Nat. Hist. Soc., 87: 337.

16.

Wiegert, R. G. (1965). Oikos, 16:161.

17.

Kaushal, B.R. and Joshi, P.C. (1988). Proc. Ind. Acad. Sci. (Anim. Sci.) 4: 319.

(14)