122 American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS) ISSN (Print) 2313-4410, ISSN (Online) 2313-4402 © Global Society of Scientific Research and Researchers http://asrjetsjournal.org/ Dynamics of Macro Fauna under Conservation and Conventional Agriculture in Maize /Legume Cropping System at Sidama Zone in Southern Ethiopia Genet Getachew * Hawassa Agricultural Research Center, P.O.BOX-06, Hawassa, Ethiopia Email: genetgetachew31@ gmail.com; Tel. +251910104531, Fax: +251462200084 Abstract Conservation agriculture (CA) is based on three principles of minimum soil disturbance, surface crop residue retention, crop rotations and is one of the available options in southern Ethiopia. CA has been intensively promoted for more than a decade to combat declining soil fertility and to stabilize crop yields. Soil macro fauna have almost the same important role as soil microorganisms in affecting soil characteristics. However, data regarding the population and the biodiversity of soil macro fauna in Ethiopia are still rare. The objectives of this study were to determine dynamics of macrofauna in conservation agriculture of maize legume cropping system. Research results from Boricha and Locabaya, southern Ethiopia, indicate that load and type of macrofauna dominated CA and increment of macrofauna in number from year to year determined . High percentage of macrofauna in Hawassa (59.9%) in 2014 from plots of maize intercropped with common bean. From the same treatment in Boricha ,as to that of Hawassa, during 2014 and 2015, (108.8%) and (419.6%) were recorded, respectively. In lockabaya, high percentages 24.3% and 210.5%, were recorded due to maize intercropped with cowpea in 2014 and 2015 respectively. In Conventional agriculture , total decline of macrofauna observed. it was concluded that CA favors the growth and load of macrofauna which resulted in reduced soil fertility and have a large impact on food security. Keywords: Ants; Centipedes; Earthworms; intensification; intercropping; legume; maize; termites. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ * Corresponding author. American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS) (2020) Volume 67, No 1, pp 122-130 123 1. Introduction Biodiversity is related to ecosystem variation as well as that of all sorts of animals, plants and microorganisms throughout the biosphere. Every differences in energy input and/or physical conditions of soil greatly affect the populations and the biodiversity of soil organisms. The activities of soil flora and fauna are intricately interwoven, and therefore very difficult to study separately [1]Soil macro fauna, together with soil microorganisms, play an important role in the process of decomposition, namely in chewing and tearing plant tissues, and moving the soil organic matter on the soil surface from one place to another, often into the soil. Together with soil micro flora, soil animals utilize the energy content of plant residues [2] The total amount of soil biomass (macro, meso and micro-organisms) in soil organic matter fraction is very small, in nature soil biomass varies between 1 to 5% of the total soil organic matter. Biomass activities have long been recognized as a key factor influencing many soil processes such as soil genesis and ecosystem productivity. They also play major role in the biochemical and physical aspects of soil fertility, soil structure, and water relationships [3,4] soil macrofauna live in the soil, its organic matter and the solution that fills its porosity [5] gives a more reliable and relevant measure of ecological risk, because they integrate all the physical and chemical conditions of the soil [6] According to [7] organisms that belong to soil macro fauna in general have a body size greater than 2 mm. Macro fauna found in soils include earthworms, termites, ants, snails, mites, centipedes, millipedes, insects and small mammals. Conservation agriculture (CA) is based on the three principles of minimum soil disturbance, surface crop residue retention and crop rotations. In Ethiopia conservation agriculture practiced in different areas few years back. In most of southern Ethiopia few farmers practice conservation agriculture in parts of moisture stress areas. Problem of our people not practicing conservation agriculture is because of they don’t know importance of it in soil fertility case. Not only that are not aware how conservation agriculture favorable in global warming case. In conservation agriculture soil became fertile due to inner nutrient enrichment by activities of macrofauna and microorganisms. There were different macrofauna established due to CA time to time practicing with continuous way. In southern Ethiopia there was little practice of CA which is one of the available options and there is no information on load of macrofauna in that few practices. Therefore the objective of the current study was to evaluate dynamics of macrofauna in conservation and conventional agriculture in maize/ legume cropping system of Sidama zone in Hawassa, Locabaya and Boricha district. 2. Materials and methods An experiment was carried out in Hawassa (1700m asl and sandy loam soils), Lokabaya (1650m asl and clay loam) and Boricha (1850m asl and sandy clay loam) districts between 2014 and 2015 to explore dynamics of macrofauna in conservation and conventional agriculture systems. Six treatments comprising sole maize and common beans, intercropped maize/common bean and cow pea, rotations of maize/bean under conservation and conventional tillage were laid in CRBD in three replications. Macrofauna was counted at the harvesting time from random samples of three 0.25m x 0.25m sized quadrants in each plot. Sample preparation and material use (for the presence and abundance of soil macro-fauna were according to sampling methodology of tropical soils biology and fertility institute (TSBF method) [8] The counts were averaged to obtain treatment means, and then converted in hectare basis. The obtained data were analyzed using SAS 9.1 computer software and treatment means were separated using LSD at 5% level of probability. American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS) (2020) Volume 67, No 1, pp 122-130 124 3. Result and Discussion 3.1. Population of Macro fauna in 2014 and 2015 Results of this study have demonstrated the benefits of conservation agriculture in enhancing soil fauna richness and abundance. Total number of macrofauna were high in number when maize intercropped with common bean in Hawassa(1820.5) and Boricha (1033.9). Whereas, in Locabaya it was 884 when maize intercropped with cow pea during 2014 (Figure 1). High number of 8573 and 5950 macrofauna observed in Boricha and Lokabaya during 2015, respectively when maize intercropped with common bean and cowpea under conservation tillage (Figure 2). Higher macrofauna taxonomic richness and abundance of mesofauna in CA treatments than in CT without residue application are related to an improved microclimate and access to food in the CA system[13] Changes in tillage, residue, and rotation practices induce major shifts in the number and composition of soil fauna and flora, including both pests and beneficial organisms [15,16]. From year to year high increment of macrofauna detrmined in conservation agriculture but decline of macrofauna determined in conventional agriculture from Year to Year in the study . this study in line with [17] which means Soil organisms respond to tillage-induced changes in the soil physical/chemical environment and they, in turn, have an impact on soil physical/chemical conditions, i.e. soil structure, nutrient cycling, and organic matter decomposition. Disturbances caused by tillage operations and residue removal (CT) are known to negatively affect sensitive fauna [13]. this result also in line with [1] Intensive tillage has reduced the soil organic matter content. Although this soil had the lowest organic matter content, it had the highest soil reaction, which would affect the population of the soil macro fauna. Figure 1: Total number of Macro fauna between treatments in different locations on 2014 American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS) (2020) Volume 67, No 1, pp 122-130 125 Figure 2: Total number of Macro fauna between treatments in different locations on 2015 3.2. Mean number of Macro fauna in different location on year 2014 The number of termites, earth worm and ants were not variable in 2014 in Hawassa district. However, there was significant (p<0.05) variation in numbers of millipeds and centipeds among treatments. Results showed that significantly highest number of millipeds were recorded due to CA/MZ/intercrope compared to CA sole MZ. However, the counts of millipeds were invariable in other treatments the significantly (<0.05) lower counts of millipeds in sole maize and sole common bean plots were attributed to nutrient decline when compared to intercropped one. From this study there was no earthworm count found in Hawassa district as indicated in (Table 1). Significantly (p<0.05) higher count of centipeds were recorded due to CA/Mz /cb intercrops compared to other treatment levels. There was no significant difference between treatments in locabaya district to macro fauna counts. However, high count value obtained in treatment under conservation agriculture maize intercropped with cowpea in case of termite, ants and others. Where as high count obtained in treatment of maize intercropped with common bean under conservation agriculture in the case of earth worm and centipedes. Lowest count obtained in termite by the treatment of maize with common bean rotation under conservation agriculture. Lowest count of termite by the treatment mz/cb rotation was due to the chemical intensity associated with managing the crop. Although lowest count in the case of earth worm, ants, centipedes and others macrofauna. obtained in treatment of sole common bean under conservation agriculture, There was no count in whole treatments in the case of millipede macrofauna in locabaya district (Table 1). There were no significant mean values found between treatments in Boricha districts. Though high and lowest count of macrofauna obtained in different treatment. For instance, high count found in treatment of sole maize in macrofauna under conservation agriculture of termite, ants, millipede and centipedes. On the other hand, high count in macrofauna of others attained by maize intercropped with common bean under conservation agriculture. Lowest count of American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS) (2020) Volume 67, No 1, pp 122-130 126 macrofauna of ants, millipeds, centipeds and others obtained in the sole common bean under conservation agriculture by. Except termite and earth worm which is lowest count obtained when maize with common bean intercropped under conventional agriculture (Table 1). Table 1: Mean of Macro fauna count in 2014 in Boricha, Loka Abaya and Hawassa areas under CN and CA Hawassa N o Treatment termite earthworm ant millipeds centipeds other 1 CN mz/cb 264.5ab 0 471.1ab 98.1ab 124ab 180.6a 2 CA mz/cb intercropped 447.2a 0 846.3a 125.9a 168.9a 232.25a 3 CA mz/cow pea 269.9ab 0 604.8ab 107ab 98.85bc 225.95a 4 CA sole maize 264.5ab 0 571.9ab 50bc 57.0c 180.6a 5 CA sole common bean 202.65b 0 445.7ab 0c 41.85bc 83.7a 6 CA rotation mz /cb 147.35b 0 353.0b 69.25abc 91.85bc 114a Mean 265.6 0 548.8 75.03 97.1 169.5 CV 28.6 0 30.5 37.8 26.6 36.2 LSD 5% 195.1 0 430.25 72.8 66.5 157.72 Significance ns ns ns * * ns Lokabaya 1 CN mz/cb 250.65a 108.95a 149.9a 0 66.15a 135.4ab 2 CA mz/cb intercropped 203.8a 129a 186.4a 0 74.1a 133.65ab 3 CA mz/cow pea 278.5 72.4a 296.2a 0 63.75a 173.4a 4 CA sole maize 266.7a 55.9a 262.2a 0 43.3 171.25a 5 CA sole common bean 204a 50a 147.9a 0 0a 85.35b 6 CA rotation mz /cb 107.25a 90.2a 193.3a 0 0a 135.5ab Mean 218 84.4 205 0 41.2 139.1 CV 44.6 39.2 60.7 0 108.8 16.2 LSD 5% 250.6 85.1 321.77 0 115.3 57.8 Significance ns ns ns ns ns Boricha 1 CN mz/cb 69.25b 0a 186.6a 0a 50a 190ab 2 CA mz/cb intercropped 317.2a 0a 364.7a 50a 100a 202a 3 CA mz/cow pea 258.8ab 0a 335.9a 27.4a 38.75a 328ab 4 CA sole maize 173.0ab 27.4a 215.2a 38.75a 38.75a 221ab 5 CA sole common bean 125.3ab 27.4a 169.4a 0a 0a 65ab 6 CA rotation mz /cb 220.25ab 0 289.9a 0a 77.4a 223b Mean 193.9 9.1 260 19.3 50.8 203 CV 46.5 219 43 163.4 80.5 31.6 LSD 5% 232.1 51.4 288.1 81.3 105.1 166 Significance ns ns ns ns ns ns Where: Others: - bettles, spiders, scorpions,white grub and crickets 3.3. Mean number of Macro fauna in different location on year 2015 There was significant difference observed between treatments in Boricha district in 2015. From table 2 there were an increment of macrofauna when compared to 2014 in all CA plots such as termites ,ants, centipeds and others macrofauna (the most dominating group). Except CN which was tremendous decline by count of all macrofauna types when compared to CA practices in 2015. There was no earth worm count at all on 2015 this was due to elino case which were few found at 2014 and disappear 2015. There were no significant differences obtained in locabaya district in 2015 between treatments. Millipeds macrofauna few or not found in locabaya American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS) (2020) Volume 67, No 1, pp 122-130 127 districts the same as previous results (2014) this was an indication of soil and climate of the area which was not favored the growth of millipeds. On the other hand, termite, ants, centipeds and others are the most dominating group in CA plots. This attributed to the fact that CA enhanced the soil macrofauna activities in the absence of soil disturbance due to repeated tillage. Moreover, macro fauna, can alleviate excessive build up of soil organic matter in the surface horizons. Whereas, in CN, there were total decline of macrofauna when compared to 2014 (Table 2 ). Table 2: Mean of macrofauna count in 2015 in Boricha and Loka Abaya areas under CN and CA Boricha N o Treatment termites earthworms ants millipeds centipeds others 1 CN mz/cb 55de 0 237.5c 36.25b 113a 145.8bc 2 CA mz/cb intercropped 2919.5a 0 2394.5ab 225a 231a 408.5ab 3 CA mz/cow pea intercropping 492.5c 0 2206.5b 31c 285a 300abc 4 CA sole maize 1e 0 2631a 1c 1.5b 275bc 5 CA sole common bean 1635b 0 586.5c 2c 97.5b 130c 6 CA rotation mz /cb 191.5d 0 666.5c 105b 305a 485a Mean 891.58 . 1493.3 72.75 191 315 CV 6.75 . 10.76 18.79 25.7 23.5 LSD 5% 154.77 . 413.2 35.14 126.05 190.72 Significance * . * * * * Locabaya 1 CN mz/cb 16.6a 0 555.5bc 0a 0b 66.6 a 2 CA mz/cb intercropped 165a 0 1500bc 100a 366.5 416.5a 3 CA mz/cow pea intercropped 216.5a 0 5183.5a 0a 50b 500a 4 CA sole maize 0a 0 2350b 0a 150ab 350a 5 CA sole common bean 415a 0 1300c 0a 50b 150a 6 CA rotation mz /cb 150a 0 1400bc 0a 100ab 400a Mean 166.08 . 2233.3 16.6 119.4 336.08 cv 111.08 . 17.7 346.4 92.96 76.22 LSD 5% 474.28 . 1020.4 148.4 285.37 658.51 Significance ns . * ns ns ns Where: Others: - bettles, spiders, scorpions,white grub and crickets 3.4. Percentage of Macro fauna The percentage of macro fauna between treatments when substracting the control shows that high percentage of macro fauna were recorded in Hawassa location by the treatments conventional agriculture maize with comment American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS) (2020) Volume 67, No 1, pp 122-130 128 bean intercropped . by the same treatment in Boricha location high percentage as well as increament of macro fauna in year 2015 were obtained. In Locabaya case high frequency of macro fauna were obtained by treatment conservation agriculture maize with cow pea intercroped in 2014 and 2015 (Table 3). Table 3: Percentage of Macro fauna in different location 2014 2015 No Treatment Hawassa (%) Boricha (%) Lockabaya (%) Boricha (%) Locabaya (%) 1 CNmz/cb 0 0 0 0 0 2 CA mz/cb intercropped 59.9 108.5 2.24 419.6 33.0 3 CA mz/cow pea 14.7 99.4 24.3 234.6 210.5 4 CA sole maize -1.25 44.01 12.4 235.8 48.7 5 CA sole common bean -32 -21.9 -31.5 84.1 -0.1 6 CA rotation mz /cb -31.8 63.5 -25.9 46.6 7.0 From the above result there were increments of macrofauna in conservation agriculture practices . The result of an improvement in species richness upon adoption of CA clearly demonstrates the importance of reduced tillage in protecting fauna activity and habitat. Similar study showed that Analysis of variance showed significant (P<0.001) treatments and sites effects on the results. Correlations between amount of crop residue cover applied in CA systems and abundance and also species richness were positive[19]. In all locations termites and antes were the most dominated macrofauna in study. Termites are renowned primary shredders of most dry organic materials; hence their populations tend to increase with increasing amounts of organic material applied as soil cover. this finding in agremment with [19] Termites were the most predominant macrofauna group across all the sites. There was a significantly higher macrofauna population in CA systems than conventional practice. This was true for all the groups; i.e. termites, ants, centipedes and beetle-larvae. In the CA systems, abundance increased with increasing amount of crop residues applied. This was due to the residue effects which had more nutrient availability for the soil and keep the environment safe for macrofauna perpetuation. This result in agreement with [9] which is large organisms appear to be especially sensitive to agro ecosystem management. Although crop rotations could theoretically beneficial for soil macrofauna populations through greater biomass returns to the soil. The higher counts of millipeds and centipeds in CA/Mz/cb intercrops were due to major benefit of weed, pest and disease management. legume cover crops and short duration fallows of fast-growing legume trees can fix substantial amounts of N2 from the air [10] and improve soil fertility giving strong increases in the yield of subsequent serial crops [11] as well as providing substantial biomass for mulch [12] Also finding of the above result also showed decline of macrofauna in conventional agriculture practices when compared to 2014 to 2015. For the reason that in disturbed (tilled) soil macro fauna eaten by birds, hens and the like. In turn of this finding the same author said that tillage, through direct physical disruption as well as habitat distruction strongely reduces the populations of both litter transformers and ecosystem engineers [12] In addition earthworm macrofauna found in this study few in first year of study in different district and absent in second year (2015) study. This were due to climate change of the region in ELINO case since earth worm prefer dark American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS) (2020) Volume 67, No 1, pp 122-130 129 environment for growth. this finding disagree with [13] which means earth worm activity is also reported to be related to increased infiltration in zero tillage soils through enhanced soil surface roughness and increased soil macroporosity, especially when populations are significant. Also Earthworms which are a major component of the soil macrofauna are important in soil fertility dynamics as their burrowing activities aid in improvement of soil aeration and water infilitration . the fact that the population of earthworms are affected by tillage practices has been documented in ploughless tillage review by [18]. Moreover in current study in locabaya district millipeds were absent in two of consecutive years. This may be attributed to soil type of locabaya district did not favor the growth of millpeds. The same study {19] shows Millipedes (Diplopoda), earthworms (Haplotaxida), crickets (Orthoptera) and mites (Acarina) were also observed on a few occasions but their numbers were very low. Therefore according to [20] Therefore, species diversity and evenness appeared to depend on the quality of organic material retained on the soil surface. Total number of macrofauna increase from year to year in conservation agriculture in study this were in agreement with [12,20] . 4. Conclusion and Recommendation From the current study it was concluded that macrofauna type and dominance diversified and increase year to year in conservation agriculture and the reverse holds true in conventional agriculture. This means Conservation agriculture practices have potential to increase agricultural productivity through better efficiency in utilization of inputs and other resources due to improved soil conditions. In Boricha and Hawassa conservation agriculture maize intercropped with common bean recommended for farmers. whereas in Locabaya conservation agriculture maize cowpea intercrope recommended for farmers . Therefore Maize residue retention yielded superior macrofauna diversity under conservation agriculture practices. Finally, conservation agriculture exhibited potential to attract higher levels of macrofauna and this is important as the initial stage in natural rehabilitation of degraded arable lands. Soil macrofauna are important regulators of decomposition, nutrient cycling, soil organic matter dynamics, and pathways for aeration and water movement as a consequence of their feeding and burrowing activities. Further study also needed to establish conservation agriculture in different Region of Ethiopia. Acknowledgements I would like to thank southern Agricultural Research Institute for funding me the research. My thanks goes to Kefyalehu Logita for instantly paying my publication fees. References [1]. Gunawan D. and Siswa.T (2006). Study of soil macro fauna on different crop land types in andisol Pasir Sarongge, west Java. 15 (4). 355-36. [2]. Brady, N. C. 1974. The Nature and Properties of Soil. 8th Ed. Macmillan Publishing Co. New York. Collier Macmillan Publisher. 640. London [3]. McGill, W. B. & Cole C. V. 1981. Comparative aspects of cycling of organic C, N, S, and P through soil organic matter. Geoderma 26: 267−286 American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS) (2020) Volume 67, No 1, pp 122-130 130 [4]. Stevenson, F. J. 1986. Cycles of Soil: Carbon, Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Sulfur, Micronutrients. A WileyInterscience Publication. John Wiley & Son, 380pp. New York [5]. Eglin T., Blanchart E., Berthelin J., de Cara S., Grolleau G., Lavelle P., Richaume-Jolion A., BardyM., Bispo A., 2010. La vie cachée des sols, MEEDDM, 20 . [6]. Lavelle P. and Spain A. V. 2001. Soil Ecology.Kluwer Academic Publishers.Dordrecht, TheNetherlands. 654 . [7]. Woomer, P. L. and Swift M. J. 1994. The biological Management of Tropical Soil Fertility. Tropical Soil Biology and Fertility Program (TSBF). Sayce Publishing. United Kingdom. 243. [8]. Anderson, J.M. and Ingram, J.S.I. 1993. Tropica soil biology and fertility: a Handbook of methods, 2 nd ed. CAB International, Wallingford, UK. [9]. Verhulst,N.,Carrillo-garcia,A.,Moeller,c.,Trethowan,R.,Sayre,K.D.,Govarets,B.,2011. Conservation agriculture for wheat-based cropping systems under gravity irrigation: increasing resilence through improved soil quality.plant soil 340,467-480. [10]. Giller., K.E., (2001) Nitrogen Fixation in Tropical Cropping systems, 2nd edition. CABI Publishing, Walling Ford, UK . Pp. 56-58. [11]. Sánchez, M. and González, J. L. (2005) The fertilizer value of pig slurry. I. Values depending on the type of operation. Bioresource Technology, v. 96, p. 1117-1123. [12]. Silva R F. Bertollo G.B, Antoniolli Z I, Corassa M.G and Kuss C. (2016) Population fluctuation in soil meso- and macrofauna by the successive application of pig slurry. Revista Ciência Agronômica, 47( 2). 221-228 [13]. Govaerts,B.,Mezzalama,M.,Unno,Y.,Sayre,K.D.,LunaGuido,M.,Vanherck,K.,Dendooven,L., and Deckers,J.,( 2007). influence of tillage ,residue management ,and crop rotation on soil microbial biomass and catabolic diversity.Appl.soil Ecol. .37,18-30. [14]. Ayuke, F. O., Brussaard, L., Vanlauwe, B., Six, J., Lelei, D. K., and Kibunja, C., (2011). Soil fertility management: impacts on soil macrofauna, soil aggregation and soil organic matter allocation. Appl. Soil Ecol. 48, 53–62. [15]. Bockus, W.W. and Shroyer, J.P. (1998). The impact of reduced tillage on soilborne plant pathogens. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 36:485-500. [16]. Andersen, A. ., (1999). Plant protection in spring cereal production with reduced tillage. II. Pests and beneficial insects. Crop prot. 18:651-657. [17]. Kladivko, E.J. (2001). Tillage systems and soil ecology. Soil Till. Res. 61:61-76. [18]. Rasmussen, K.J , (1999). Impact of ploughless soil tillage on yield and soil quality: A Scandinavian review. Soil and tillage research ,53 3-14. [19]. Mutema M. , Mafongoya P. L., Nyagumbo I. and Chikukura L., (2013). Effects of crop residues and reduced tillage on macrofauna abundance. Journal of Organic Systems, 8(1):1:16 [20]. Verhulst, N., Govaerts, B., Verachtert, E., Castellanos-Navarrete, A., Mezzalama, M., Wall, P., Deckers, J. & Sayre, K. D. (2010). Conservation Agriculture Improving Soil Quality for sustainable Production Systems? In: Lal, R. & Stewart, B. A. (Eds.). Advances in Soil Science: Food Security and Soil Quality. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA. 37-208.