Ground-active arthropod diversity under energycane and biomass sorghum production

Authors: YANG, YUBIN - Texas A&M Agrilife; BERA, TANUMOY - Texas A&M Agrilife; ARAJI, HAMIDREZA - Texas A&M Agrilife; DOU, FUGEN - Texas A&M Agrilife; WILSON, LLOYD - Texas A&M Agrilife; ROONEY, WILLIAM - Texas A&M University; MORRISON, JESSE - Mississippi State University; BALDWIN, BRIAN - Mississippi State University; Knoll, Joseph; JIFON, JOHN - Texas A&M Agrilife; WRIGHT, ALAN - University Of Florida; ODERO, CALVIN - University Of Florida; SANDHU, HARDEV - University Of Florida; Hale, Anna; Mula-Michel, Himaya; WANG, JING - Texas A&M Agrilife

Submitted to: Insects
Publication Type: Peer Reviewed Journal
Publication Acceptance Date: 4/21/2025
Publication Date: 4/23/2025
Citation: Yang, Y., Bera, T., Araji, H.A., Dou, F., Wilson, L.T., Rooney, W., Morrison, J., Baldwin, B., Knoll, J.E., Jifon, J., Wright, A., Odero, C., Sandhu, H.S., Hale, A.L., Mula-Michel, H.P., Wang, J. 2025. Ground-active arthropod diversity under energycane and biomass sorghum production. Insects. 16(5), 442. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects16050442.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/insects16050442

Interpretive Summary: Energycane and biomass sorghum are two of the most promising cellulosic energy crops in the southeast United States. Research on these two energy crops has focused mainly on biomass production and there is a lack of knowledge on their ability to promote environmental sustainability and ecosystem services. This paper presents results of a comprehensive study on ground-active arthropod diversity across seven sites in five southeast US states, contrasting energycane, biomass sorghum, and conventional crop production. Depending on site, conventional crops included rice, corn, grain sorghum, or cotton. Energycane was grown in seven sites from 2021 to 2022 and biomass sorghum was grown in six of the seven sites from 2020 to 2022. Pitfall traps were deployed and collected four times during the crop season from the energy crops and a local reference conventional crop. Arthropod abundance (individuals/trap/day) was significantly higher in conventional crop (4.9) than in energycane (2.6), but there was no significant difference in arthropod abundance between biomass sorghum (3.7) and conventional crop or between the two bioenergy crops. Species richness, a measure of the total species observed, in biomass sorghum (5.3) was significantly higher than in energycane (4.8), but there was no significant difference in species richness between biomass sorghum and conventional crop (5.2) and between the two energy crops. Two diversity indexes (Shannon and Simpson indexes) were calculated, which take into account the number of species and the relative abundance of each. There was no significant difference in Shannon diversity or Simpson diversity between the three crop types. These results suggest there is no major difference in arthropod diversity in fields of biomass sorghum compared to conventional crops, and there was a slightly negative effect on arthropod diversity from growing energycane. These results highlight the need to better understand the impact of environments on species abundance and diversity and to design production systems that promote both biomass production and ecosystem services.

Technical Abstract: Energycane and biomass sorghum are two of the most promising cellulosic energy crops in the southeast United States. Research on these two energy crops has focused mainly on biomass production and there is a lack of knowledge on their ability to promote environmental sustainability and ecosystem services. This paper presents results of a comprehensive study on ground-active arthropod diversity across seven sites in five southeast US states, contrasting energycane, biomass sorghum, and conventional crop production. Energycane was grown in seven sites from 2021 to 2022 and biomass sorghum was grown in six of the seven sites from 2020 to 2022. Pitfall traps were deployed and collected four times during the crop season from the energy crops and a local reference conventional crop. Arthropod abundance (individuals/trap/day) was significantly higher in conventional crop (4.9) than in energycane (2.6), but there was no significant difference in arthropod abundance between biomass sorghum (3.7) and conventional crop or between the two bioenergy crops. Species richness in biomass sorghum (5.3) was significantly higher than in energycane (4.8), but there was no significant difference in species richness between biomass sorghum and conventional crop (5.2) and between the two energy crops. There was no significant difference in Shannon diversity and Simpson diversity between the three crop types. These results suggest there is no major advantage in species richness or biodiversity growing biomass sorghum compared to conventional crops, and there was a slightly negative effect growing energycane. The effective number of species for the two energy crops decreased from 5.0 (Species richness – Hill order of q=0) to 3.4 (Shannon diversity – Hill order of q=1) to 2.9 (Simpson diversity – Hill order of q=3). With the increasing order of diversity, a decreasing difference in diversity and a decreasing explained variability were measured, suggesting less sensitivity to environmental factors with increasing emphasis on dominant species. These results highlight the need to better understand the impact of environments on species abundance and diversity and to design production systems that promote both biomass production and ecosystem services.