IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2013) 4-1

Research articleerd

One Way of Expressing Bio-diversity based on Simpson andFisher Indexes
AYA IKAWA*
Research Center, Institute of Environment Rehabilitation and Conservation, Tokyo, Japan
Email: kt.ay_ikawa@me.scn-net.ne.jp

MACHITO MIHARA
Faculty of Regional Environment Science, Tokyo University of Agriculture, Tokyo, Japan /Institute of Environment Rehabilitation and Conservation, Tokyo, Japan

MASAHARU KOMAMURA
Professer Emeritus at Tokyo Univercity of Agriculuture, Tokyo, Japan
Received 15 December 2012

Accepted 30 January 2013(*Corresponding Author)

Abstract For making out soil lives in upland field and field properties clearly, microarthropods living in farmland soils were picked up, and population, genera, diversity indexof Simpson   (1/λ)   and   that   of   Fisher   (α+1)   were   employed   for   evaluating   soil   microarthropods under different management were investigated in this study. Also soil physicaland chemical properties were measured. Soil samples were gathered from the fields at
Hachioji, Tama and Machida in Tokyo, Japan. Planting and fertilized types were collected.
And for making out of relationships in diversity of soil micro-arthropods and soil moisture
conditions, soil micro-arthropods in some types of drip irrigation fields and tube irrigation
fields in green house were observed. The fields in this study were categorized into twogroups based on the history of dressing or land degradation. There was no certain
difference in population, number of genera and two types of diversity indices between
decollated and not-decollated   fields.   Fisher’s   diversity   index   seemed   to   be   larger   than  Simpson’s  in  soil  dressed  fields,  while  Simpson’s  diversity  index  seemed  to  be  larger  than  Fisher’s  in  non-dressed fields. The difference in types of diversity may be caused by yearsof cultivation in those fields. Also, based on the results of multiple regression analysis,population,   number   of   genera   and   Simpson’s   diversity   index   were   related   with   macro  porosity. So, it was concluded that those two types of diversity indices are useful formaking clear difference of bio-diversities  in  upland  field’s  soils.
Keywords soil micro arthropods, bio-diversities, soil physical property

INTRODUCTION
Bio-diversities in farmlands are important for sustainable land use. Soil conditions in agricultural
fields are hard for lives. That limits richness of lives of soils. And low application of organic
fertilizers caused declining the richness of soil lives is said. But in Japan, ecosystems in uplandfields were less interested  than  that  in  paddy  fields.  So  there  are  few  surveys  on  upland  field’s  biodiversity and its effects on their soils in Japan. One cause is that farmers avoid their fields
disturbing many places for research, especially in farming season. It is need that solve that problem
will be solved for evaluating farming fields in biological diversity.
Micro-arthropods are kinds of group of soil lives, sort of insects and mites. And microarthropods are known to have large population and high species richness, especially in high contentof  organic  matters.  That  fits  ‘good’  soil.  Effects  of  their  density  or  species  richness  on  soil  chemical  properties were investigated in Europe (Cole et al., 2004). Enough population is need forevaluating bio-diversity, so there is some possibility of evaluating farmland with bio-diversity
disturbing minimum space.
Ⓒ ISERD

7

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2013) 4-1

OBJECTIVES
Surveys   on   upland  field’s  micro-arthropods in Japan were mainly in just biological. Cropping or
harvesting methods in their surveys were limited 2 or 3 types, and soil physical properties were notdiscussed. So making out some relationship between upland  field’s  micro-arthropods diversity andits soils, and suggesting method of the evaluating the farming fields with the biological diversity
are objectives in this study.
METHODOLOGY
Field survey
Soil   samples   were   gathered   from   the   farmers’   fields   at   Hachioji,   Tama   and   Machida   in   Tokyo,  Japan. The fields were located in west hill side of Tokyo, there are called Tama hills. There are
mixed residential area and farm fields. Some of farm fields were dressing or land degradation formaking residential area. So the fields in this study were categorized into two groups based on
dressing  or  land  degradation  affected  or  not.  We  use  “decollated  fields”  for  the  fields that dressingor land degradation affected in this study.
Soil sampling carried out Aug. 2003 to Nov. 2003 and Aug. 2005 to Nov. 2005. Autumn is theseason that micro-arthropods’   population  is  the   most.   All   of  the  fields   were  for   vegetables,   but   a  few sampling had the same plant. Fertilizing is independent in each field. And no herbicides norpesticides were used. 5 cm depth, total 400 ml surface soil was sampled for gathering soil microarthropods. Physical properties of soils and amounts of fertilizers were  collected.  Total  22  fields’  samples were measured.
Experimental survey
For making out of relationships in diversity of soil micro-arthropods and soil moisture conditions,soil micro-arthropods in some types of drip irrigation fields and tube irrigation fields in green
house were observed. Drip irrigation plots were typed with water mass (standard, less and little),and interval were 2 or 3 days, irrigated 3-5 mm/day in standard plot. Less irrigation plot was 0.75
times, little irrigation plot was 0.5 times less than the standard plot. Tube irrigation field was there
were micro-pored tube on the ground base with minimum pressured and irrigated full of soil waterpore volume within the plant growth. Soil sampling carried out Jun. 2006 to Oct. 2006. 5 cm depth(same as field survey), 200ml soil was sampled from each plots in each 2 weeks within irrigatingfor plants.
This green house is built in Setagaya, Tokyo, about 20 km far from field survey area. And soil
category of this field is same as decollated fields in field survey. The green house of this survey
was also used test at supplying gathered rain water falling on top of green house. So the tanked rainwater was used for irrigation in this survey.
TokyoSampling Area
Tama River
Green House

Fig. 1 Study Site
Ⓒ ISERD

8IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2013) 4-1

Gathering soil micro-arthropods
Micro-Arthropods in this study are mainly in collembola and mites. They are called soil animals orsoil meso-fauna in Japan (Fig.2). Soil macro-fauna are larger than 2 mm, include earth worms andinsects. Soil micro-fauna are smaller than 0.2 mm, lives in soil water.
Tullgren’s  apparatuses  (Fig.  3)  were  used  for  gathering  soil  fauna.  Apparatus  was  made  from  2mm opening sieve, stain-less funnel and 40 W heating light stand. Soil samples for investigating
micro-arthropods were put on stainless sieve set on funnel under the heating light for 48 hours.
Glass beaker with 70% alcohol was set for catching arthropods dropped through funnels. Thenmicro-arthropods  were  classified  into  genera,  and  then  each  species’  population  was  counted  with  a  microscope. Pictorial Keys to Soil Animals of Japan (Edited by Aoki, 1999) was used forclassifying.

40W electric
lump
15cm
15cm

1mm

10cm
10cm

ふるいSieve(φ2mm)

Beaker

Fig.2 Soil micro-arthropods                                                              Fig.3  Tullgren’s  apparatuses  Diversity indices
If   their   species’   richness   (one of the diversity index) was discussed, it is not compared in othersituation. Because of the environment of every field is different. It needs some standard that thebio-diversity can use evaluation of farming fields.
Two types of diversity indexes were employed for evaluating soil micro-arthropods under
different management were investigated in this study. Fisher et al. (1943) suggested that some of
number  of  species  and  number  of  individuals  in  random  sample  fitting  logarithmic  distribution.  α  is  fixed and calculated from Eq. (1) as uses total population (N) and total species (S). Simpson
suggested   λ   as   the   index   which   independent   of   sample   size   (Simpson,   1949).   λ   is   calculated   in  Eq.(2). Simpson also said, we obtain Eq. (3) when the individuals of population are under thelogarithmic  population.  This  is  the  point  that  the  Fisher’s  diversity  index  (α+1) is the expectation ofthe  Simpson’s  diversity  index  (1/λ)  at  the  identified  total  population  (N)  and  total  species  (S).  An  expectation  can   use   the   one   kind   of   standard.   So   1/λ   and   α+1   are   used   as   diversity   index   in   this  study.
S D (ln N D  1)

(1)

6Ni ( Ni  1)
N ( N  1)

(2)

O

(3)

1/ O D 1Ⓒ ISERD

9

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2013) 4-1

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Field survey
Population, number of genera and two types of diversity indices are shown in Table 1. Total
population and total genera in non-decollated fields were larger than those in decollated fields. It
would depend on the difference of land use around the sampling fields. There are many houses andasphalt pavement roads around the decollated fields, and woods and bamboo forest around nondecollated field. But there was no certain difference in population, number of genera and two typesof diversity indices between decollated and not-decollated fields. those are suggests that the severe
impact for soil micro-arthropods from farming activity (cultivating, tillage, weed control, etc.) .
But  in  relationships  between  two  types  of  diversity  indices  (Fig.  4),  Fisher’s  diversity  index  seemed   to   be   larger   than   Simpson’s   in   soil   decollated   fields,   while   Simpson’s   diversity   index  seemed  to  be  larger  than  Fisher’s  in  non-decollated fields. The difference in types of diversity maybe caused by years of cultivation in those fields.
Based on the results of multiple regression analysis (Table 2), population, number of generaand   Simpson’s   diversity   index   were   related   with   macro   porosity   (d ＞0.3mm, measured watersuction by 10 cm high capillary rise) and water content (dry base) at the sampling day. The macro
porosity was almost same space as air phase 6-12 hour after rain or irrigation. That air space insoils limits the micro-arthropods’  population.  
Experimental survey
Results of averages and medians of population, genera and two types of diversity indices in eachsampling in experimental survey are shown in Table 3. Tube irrigation plot had the least populationand number of genera. Those results can be express as same as in field survey, the air phase in tube
irrigation plot was lowest in experimental survey. But there was no certain difference in population,
number of genera and two types of diversity indices between each plot.
But in relationships between two types of diversity indices (Fig. 5), both standard irrigatedplot in drip irrigation and underground water irrigation plot were stable conditions of diversity
indices. Because standard irrigated plot was the most stable soil moisture conditions in drip
irrigated fields, there were same tendency that both standard irrigation plot and tube irrigation had
similar expanse of the distribution. And high correlation coefficient of tube irrigation plot wascaused by stabilized soil moisture in their field. This result suggests that soil moisture condition is
the most important factor for sampling times minimized.
Table 1 Population, number of genera and two types of diversity indices in field survey
No.

Pop.

Decollated fields
Gen.
1/λα+1No.

Non-Decollated fields
Pop.
Gen.
1/λα+1

No.1
No.2
No.3
No.4
No.5
No.6
No.7
No.8
No.9
No.10
No.11
Ave.
Med.
Total

682
235
100
5367
8812
170
135
205
104.8
88.0
1153

51824
1215
16
18
6
19
14
11
14.4
15.0
46

15.1
8.1
7.7
4.6
8.0
7.7
7.8
5.8
6.5
4.9
3.5
7.2
7.7
10.6

No.12
No.13
No.14
No.15
No.16
No.17
No.18
No.19
No.20
No.21No.22
Ave.
Med.
Total

52
360
53369
281
211
4365
1077
135
150.5
77.0
1656

10.8
4.2
8.8
5.8
9.1
4.1
6.5
7.1
3.5
12.1
4.5
7.0
6.5
11.5

15.0
10.6
8.5
5.5
11.9
5.0
7.3
6.6
6.7
5.2
2.4
7.7
6.7
11.4

Ⓒ ISERD

1018
15
1621
2913
1215
4
23
13
16.3
15.0
53

11.5
1.3
8.2
4.1
3.8
3.2
8.9
5.2
2.1
11.7
3.3
5.8
4.1
5.9

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2013) 4-120r = 0.84**

α+1

15105005101520

1/λDecollated

Non-Decollated

Fig. 4 Relationship between two types of diversity indexes
in decollated and non-decollated fields
Table 2 Results of multiple regression analysis between bio-indexes andsoil physical properties in field survey
Criterion
variable

Predictor
variable

Population*(log)

Macro porosity*
Water content*
Water content**
Macro porosity
Macro porosity-Genera*1/λα+1Partialregression
coefficient
0.588
0.561
0.685
0.332
-0.431-F factor
8.481
7.719
11.3342.669
3.870-

Partialcorrelation
coefficient
0.589
0.570
0.644
0.378
-0.431-Correlation
coefficientMultiplecorrelation
coefficient

0.391
0.354
0.568
0.091
-0.431-* p<0.05, **p<0.01

Table 3 Results of averages and medians of population, genera and two types ofdiversity indexes in each sampling in experimental survey

Population
Genera1/λ

α+1Average
S.D.
MedianAverage
S.D.
MedianAverage
S.D.
MedianAverage
S.D.
MedianDrip irrigation fieldStandardLittle
Less(×1.0)(×0.75)(×0.5)
41.9
41.2
35.1
28.7
28.2
27.3
44
34
26
7.3
8.6
9.1
3.2
3.3
3.3
899
4.1
5.4
6.5
1.4
3.1
2.9
4
4.6
7.2
4
5.1
5.8
1.0
2.4
1.7
4.2
4.3
5.9

Ⓒ ISERD

11Tubeirrigation
field
26.3
18.7
19
7.3
4.2
6
4.4
1.4
4.35
4.8
1.7
4.95

0.597
0.589
0.371
-IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2013) 4-1

128?+1400
standard
standard
y = 0.941x
R = 0.0902

41/λ

less
less
y = 0.8295x
R = 0.0357

8littlelittle
y = 0.816x
R = -0.155

12tubetube
y = 1.104x
R = 0.8607

Fig. 5 Relationship between two types of diversity indexes in irrigated plot
CONCLUSION
Using  Fisher’s  diversity  index  as  the  expectation  of  Simpson’s  diversity index, it makes clearly thatthe difference in types of diversity may be caused by years of cultivation in those fields. Field
survey shows that the soil macro porosity (sometimes same as gas phase) is important for soil
micro-arthropods. And through the field survey and the experimental survey, soil moisture
condition is most important factor for soil sampling minimum.
So we concluded that those two types of diversity indexes are useful for making clear
difference of bio-diversities in upland fields soils.
REFERENCES
Cole, L., Dromph, K.M., Boaglio, V. and Bardgett, R.D. 2004. Effect of density and species richness of soil
mesofauna on nutrient mineralisation and plant growth. Biological Fertility of Soils, 39, 337-343.
Aoki, J. (ed.). 1999. Pictorial keys to soil animals of Japan. Tokai University Press, Japan. (Japanese)
Fisher, R.A., Corbet, A.S. and Williams, C.B. 1943. The relation between the number of species and thenumber of individuals in a random sample of an animal population. Journal of Animal Ecology, 12, 4258.
Simpson, E.H. 1949. Measurement of diversity. Nature, 163, 688.
Kaneko, A., Mihara, M. and Komamura, M. 2007. Diversity of soil meso-fauna in volcanic ash soil dressing
field. Trans of JSIDRE, 248, 1-6. (in Japanese)
Kaneko, A., Mihara, M. and Komamura, M. 2006. Relationship between diversity of soil meso-fauna and soil
physical properties in upland fields. Papers on environmental information science, 20, 43-48. (inJapanese)
Ikawa, A., Mihara M. and Komamura, M. 2010. Relationship between diversity of soil meso-fauna and soil
moisture condition in green house. Journal of Agriculture Science, 55(1), 56-62. (in Japanese)Ⓒ ISERD

12