meta hao

. . . . . .

Arthropod Abundance and Diversity in Bt andNon-Bt Rice Fields

a meta-analysis

Hao Wu

Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology

April 25, 2012

. . . . . .

Diversity Index and Domaince Distribution

I Shannon-Weaver diversity index H’

H′= −

∑pi ln pi

where pi is the proportion of the ith species in the total sample.

I The dominance concentration index

C =∑

p2i

I The dominance distribution

The arthropods were split into five guilds: phytophages,parasitoids, predators, detritivores, and others. The dominancedistribution is the percentage of each subcommunity among thetotal communities.

. . . . . .

Objectives

Is there any difference in H ′,C and Dominance distribution betweennon-bt and bt rice?

. . . . . .

Shannon-Weaver diversity index H’

RE Model

−3.67 −1.6 0.46 2.53 4.59

Hedges' g

FY2005KDM1FY2004KDM1JD2005TT9−4JD2005TT9−3JD2004TT9−4JD2004TT9−3JD2003TT9−4JD2003TT9−3HZ2005B6HZ2005B1HZ2004B6HZ2004B1HZ2003B6HZ2003B1

−0.08 [ −1.68 , 1.52 ]−0.82 [ −2.49 , 0.84 ] 0.37 [ −1.24 , 1.99 ]

−0.14 [ −1.74 , 1.46 ] 1.58 [ −0.25 , 3.41 ] 0.57 [ −1.06 , 2.20 ] 0.11 [ −1.49 , 1.72 ] 0.16 [ −1.44 , 1.77 ] 0.04 [ −1.56 , 1.65 ]

−0.13 [ −1.73 , 1.47 ]−0.02 [ −1.62 , 1.58 ]−0.32 [ −1.93 , 1.29 ] 0.00 [ −1.60 , 1.60 ]

−0.10 [ −1.71 , 1.50 ]

0.07 [ −0.37 , 0.50 ]

Study Group Hedges' g [95% CI]

Figure: Difference in H′index between non-bt rice and bt rice

. . . . . .

Dominance concentration

RE Model

−3.37 −1.72 −0.08 1.57 3.22

Hedges' g


0.05 [ −1.55 , 1.65 ] 0.64 [ −1.00 , 2.28 ]

−0.23 [ −1.83 , 1.38 ] 0.50 [ −1.12 , 2.13 ]

−0.77 [ −2.43 , 0.89 ]−0.29 [ −1.90 , 1.32 ]−0.11 [ −1.72 , 1.49 ]−0.22 [ −1.83 , 1.38 ] 0.04 [ −1.56 , 1.64 ] 0.29 [ −1.32 , 1.89 ] 0.06 [ −1.54 , 1.66 ] 0.29 [ −1.32 , 1.89 ] 0.12 [ −1.48 , 1.72 ] 0.36 [ −1.25 , 1.98 ]

0.05 [ −0.38 , 0.48 ]


Figure: Difference of C between non-bt rice and bt rice

. . . . . .

Phytophgous

RE Model

−2.67 −1.3 0.07 1.44 2.81

Hedges' g


0.03 [ −1.57 , 1.63 ]−0.09 [ −1.70 , 1.51 ]−0.27 [ −1.88 , 1.34 ]−0.23 [ −1.84 , 1.37 ] 0.02 [ −1.58 , 1.62 ]

−0.20 [ −1.80 , 1.41 ] 0.17 [ −1.44 , 1.77 ]

−0.07 [ −1.67 , 1.53 ]−0.28 [ −1.89 , 1.33 ]−0.14 [ −1.75 , 1.46 ] 0.27 [ −1.34 , 1.87 ] 0.41 [ −1.21 , 2.03 ]

−0.03 [ −1.63 , 1.57 ] 0.06 [ −1.54 , 1.66 ]

−0.03 [ −0.45 , 0.40 ]


Figure: Difference in dominance distribution of arthropodsubcommunity(Phytophagous)

. . . . . .

Parasitoids

RE Model

−2.89 −1.44 0.02 1.47 2.92

Hedges' g


0.21 [ −1.40 , 1.81 ]−0.15 [ −1.75 , 1.46 ]−0.44 [ −2.06 , 1.18 ]−0.26 [ −1.87 , 1.34 ]−0.07 [ −1.67 , 1.54 ] 0.34 [ −1.27 , 1.95 ] 0.00 [ −1.60 , 1.60 ] 0.18 [ −1.43 , 1.78 ] 0.30 [ −1.31 , 1.91 ] 0.17 [ −1.44 , 1.77 ] 0.38 [ −1.24 , 1.99 ] 0.05 [ −1.55 , 1.65 ] 0.47 [ −1.15 , 2.09 ]

−0.09 [ −1.69 , 1.51 ]

0.08 [ −0.35 , 0.51 ]


Figure: Difference in dominance distribution of arthropodsubcommunity(Parasitoids)

. . . . . .

Predators

RE Model

−3.05 −1.57 −0.08 1.4 2.88

Hedges' g


−0.14 [ −1.74 , 1.47 ] 0.29 [ −1.32 , 1.90 ] 0.38 [ −1.23 , 2.00 ] 0.42 [ −1.20 , 2.03 ]

−0.30 [ −1.91 , 1.31 ]−0.35 [ −1.97 , 1.26 ]−0.29 [ −1.90 , 1.32 ]−0.09 [ −1.69 , 1.51 ]−0.36 [ −1.97 , 1.26 ]−0.52 [ −2.15 , 1.11 ]−0.33 [ −1.94 , 1.28 ]−0.51 [ −2.14 , 1.12 ]−0.57 [ −2.20 , 1.06 ]−0.50 [ −2.13 , 1.12 ]

−0.20 [ −0.63 , 0.23 ]


Figure: Difference in dominance distribution of arthropodsubcommunity(Predators)

. . . . . .

Detritivores

RE Model

−2.89 −1.37 0.15 1.66 3.18

Hedges' g


−0.26 [ −1.86 , 1.35 ] 0.67 [ −0.97 , 2.32 ] 0.42 [ −1.20 , 2.04 ]

−0.05 [ −1.65 , 1.55 ] 0.31 [ −1.30 , 1.92 ] 0.26 [ −1.35 , 1.87 ]

−0.07 [ −1.67 , 1.53 ] 0.35 [ −1.26 , 1.96 ] 0.25 [ −1.35 , 1.86 ]

−0.04 [ −1.64 , 1.56 ]−0.40 [ −2.02 , 1.21 ]−0.36 [ −1.97 , 1.26 ]−0.24 [ −1.84 , 1.37 ] 0.00 [ −1.60 , 1.60 ]

0.06 [ −0.37 , 0.49 ]


Figure: Difference in dominance distribution of arthropodsubcommunity(Detritivores)

. . . . . .

Others

RE Model

−2.38 −1.12 0.13 1.39 2.65

Hedges' g


0.04 [ −1.56 , 1.64 ] 0.05 [ −1.55 , 1.65 ]

−0.06 [ −1.66 , 1.54 ]−0.02 [ −1.62 , 1.58 ] 0.09 [ −1.51 , 1.70 ] 0.31 [ −1.30 , 1.92 ] 0.06 [ −1.54 , 1.66 ] 0.09 [ −1.51 , 1.69 ] 0.15 [ −1.45 , 1.76 ] 0.32 [ −1.29 , 1.93 ] 0.03 [ −1.57 , 1.63 ] 0.20 [ −1.41 , 1.80 ] 0.08 [ −1.52 , 1.68 ] 0.11 [ −1.50 , 1.71 ]

0.10 [ −0.33 , 0.53 ]


Figure: Difference in dominance distribution of arthropodsubcommunity(Others)

. . . . . .

Summary

−0.6

−0.4

−0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

C Detri H others Para Phyto PreDifferent Index

Effe

ct s

ize

Index

C

Detri

H

others

Para

Phyto

Pre

Figure: The effect size of different Index in non-bt and bt rice

. . . . . .

Conclusion

I No significant difference in anthropod abandance and diversityare found in short term period(3 years)

I need more observations to know the long term effects.

meta hao

Business