1. Arthropod Abundance and Diversity in Bt and
Non-Bt Rice Fields
a meta-analysis
Hao Wu
Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology
April 25, 2012
. . . . . .

2. Diversity Index and Domaince Distribution
Shannon-Weaver diversity index H’
′
∑
H =− pi ln pi
where pi is the proportion of the ith species in the total sample.
The dominance concentration index
∑
C= pi2
The dominance distribution
The arthropods were split into five guilds: phytophages,
parasitoids, predators, detritivores, and others. The dominance
distribution is the percentage of each subcommunity among the
total communities.
. . . . . .

3. Objectives
Is there any difference in H ′ ,C and Dominance distribution between
non-bt and bt rice?
. . . . . .

4. Shannon-Weaver diversity index H’
Study Group Hedges' g [95% CI]
HZ2003B1 −0.10 [ −1.71 , 1.50 ]
HZ2003B6 0.00 [ −1.60 , 1.60 ]
HZ2004B1 −0.32 [ −1.93 , 1.29 ]
HZ2004B6 −0.02 [ −1.62 , 1.58 ]
HZ2005B1 −0.13 [ −1.73 , 1.47 ]
HZ2005B6 0.04 [ −1.56 , 1.65 ]
JD2003TT9−3 0.16 [ −1.44 , 1.77 ]
JD2003TT9−4 0.11 [ −1.49 , 1.72 ]
JD2004TT9−3 0.57 [ −1.06 , 2.20 ]
JD2004TT9−4 1.58 [ −0.25 , 3.41 ]
JD2005TT9−3 −0.14 [ −1.74 , 1.46 ]
JD2005TT9−4 0.37 [ −1.24 , 1.99 ]
FY2004KDM1 −0.82 [ −2.49 , 0.84 ]
FY2005KDM1 −0.08 [ −1.68 , 1.52 ]
RE Model 0.07 [ −0.37 , 0.50 ]
−3.67 −1.6 0.46 2.53 4.59
Hedges' g
′
Figure: Difference in H index between non-bt rice and bt rice
. . . . . .

5. Dominance concentration
Study Group Hedges' g [95% CI]
HZ2003B1 0.36 [ −1.25 , 1.98 ]
HZ2003B6 0.12 [ −1.48 , 1.72 ]
HZ2004B1 0.29 [ −1.32 , 1.89 ]
HZ2004B6 0.06 [ −1.54 , 1.66 ]
HZ2005B1 0.29 [ −1.32 , 1.89 ]
HZ2005B6 0.04 [ −1.56 , 1.64 ]
JD2003TT9−3 −0.22 [ −1.83 , 1.38 ]
JD2003TT9−4 −0.11 [ −1.72 , 1.49 ]
JD2004TT9−3 −0.29 [ −1.90 , 1.32 ]
JD2004TT9−4 −0.77 [ −2.43 , 0.89 ]
JD2005TT9−3 0.50 [ −1.12 , 2.13 ]
JD2005TT9−4 −0.23 [ −1.83 , 1.38 ]
FY2004KDM1 0.64 [ −1.00 , 2.28 ]
FY2005KDM1 0.05 [ −1.55 , 1.65 ]
RE Model 0.05 [ −0.38 , 0.48 ]
−3.37 −1.72 −0.08 1.57 3.22
Hedges' g
Figure: Difference of C between non-bt rice and bt rice
. . . . . .

6. Phytophgous
Study Group Hedges' g [95% CI]
HZ2003B1 0.06 [ −1.54 , 1.66 ]
HZ2003B6 −0.03 [ −1.63 , 1.57 ]
HZ2004B1 0.41 [ −1.21 , 2.03 ]
HZ2004B6 0.27 [ −1.34 , 1.87 ]
HZ2005B1 −0.14 [ −1.75 , 1.46 ]
HZ2005B6 −0.28 [ −1.89 , 1.33 ]
JD2003TT9−3 −0.07 [ −1.67 , 1.53 ]
JD2003TT9−4 0.17 [ −1.44 , 1.77 ]
JD2004TT9−3 −0.20 [ −1.80 , 1.41 ]
JD2004TT9−4 0.02 [ −1.58 , 1.62 ]
JD2005TT9−3 −0.23 [ −1.84 , 1.37 ]
JD2005TT9−4 −0.27 [ −1.88 , 1.34 ]
FY2004KDM1 −0.09 [ −1.70 , 1.51 ]
FY2005KDM1 0.03 [ −1.57 , 1.63 ]
RE Model −0.03 [ −0.45 , 0.40 ]
−2.67 −1.3 0.07 1.44 2.81
Hedges' g
Figure: Difference in dominance distribution of arthropod
subcommunity(Phytophagous) . . . . . .

7. Parasitoids
Study Group Hedges' g [95% CI]
HZ2003B1 −0.09 [ −1.69 , 1.51 ]
HZ2003B6 0.47 [ −1.15 , 2.09 ]
HZ2004B1 0.05 [ −1.55 , 1.65 ]
HZ2004B6 0.38 [ −1.24 , 1.99 ]
HZ2005B1 0.17 [ −1.44 , 1.77 ]
HZ2005B6 0.30 [ −1.31 , 1.91 ]
JD2003TT9−3 0.18 [ −1.43 , 1.78 ]
JD2003TT9−4 0.00 [ −1.60 , 1.60 ]
JD2004TT9−3 0.34 [ −1.27 , 1.95 ]
JD2004TT9−4 −0.07 [ −1.67 , 1.54 ]
JD2005TT9−3 −0.26 [ −1.87 , 1.34 ]
JD2005TT9−4 −0.44 [ −2.06 , 1.18 ]
FY2004KDM1 −0.15 [ −1.75 , 1.46 ]
FY2005KDM1 0.21 [ −1.40 , 1.81 ]
RE Model 0.08 [ −0.35 , 0.51 ]
−2.89 −1.44 0.02 1.47 2.92
Hedges' g
Figure: Difference in dominance distribution of arthropod
subcommunity(Parasitoids) . . . . . .

8. Predators
Study Group Hedges' g [95% CI]
HZ2003B1 −0.50 [ −2.13 , 1.12 ]
HZ2003B6 −0.57 [ −2.20 , 1.06 ]
HZ2004B1 −0.51 [ −2.14 , 1.12 ]
HZ2004B6 −0.33 [ −1.94 , 1.28 ]
HZ2005B1 −0.52 [ −2.15 , 1.11 ]
HZ2005B6 −0.36 [ −1.97 , 1.26 ]
JD2003TT9−3 −0.09 [ −1.69 , 1.51 ]
JD2003TT9−4 −0.29 [ −1.90 , 1.32 ]
JD2004TT9−3 −0.35 [ −1.97 , 1.26 ]
JD2004TT9−4 −0.30 [ −1.91 , 1.31 ]
JD2005TT9−3 0.42 [ −1.20 , 2.03 ]
JD2005TT9−4 0.38 [ −1.23 , 2.00 ]
FY2004KDM1 0.29 [ −1.32 , 1.90 ]
FY2005KDM1 −0.14 [ −1.74 , 1.47 ]
RE Model −0.20 [ −0.63 , 0.23 ]
−3.05 −1.57 −0.08 1.4 2.88
Hedges' g
Figure: Difference in dominance distribution of arthropod
subcommunity(Predators) . . . . . .

9. Detritivores
Study Group Hedges' g [95% CI]
HZ2003B1 0.00 [ −1.60 , 1.60 ]
HZ2003B6 −0.24 [ −1.84 , 1.37 ]
HZ2004B1 −0.36 [ −1.97 , 1.26 ]
HZ2004B6 −0.40 [ −2.02 , 1.21 ]
HZ2005B1 −0.04 [ −1.64 , 1.56 ]
HZ2005B6 0.25 [ −1.35 , 1.86 ]
JD2003TT9−3 0.35 [ −1.26 , 1.96 ]
JD2003TT9−4 −0.07 [ −1.67 , 1.53 ]
JD2004TT9−3 0.26 [ −1.35 , 1.87 ]
JD2004TT9−4 0.31 [ −1.30 , 1.92 ]
JD2005TT9−3 −0.05 [ −1.65 , 1.55 ]
JD2005TT9−4 0.42 [ −1.20 , 2.04 ]
FY2004KDM1 0.67 [ −0.97 , 2.32 ]
FY2005KDM1 −0.26 [ −1.86 , 1.35 ]
RE Model 0.06 [ −0.37 , 0.49 ]
−2.89 −1.37 0.15 1.66 3.18
Hedges' g
Figure: Difference in dominance distribution of arthropod
subcommunity(Detritivores) . . . . . .

10. Others
Study Group Hedges' g [95% CI]
HZ2003B1 0.11 [ −1.50 , 1.71 ]
HZ2003B6 0.08 [ −1.52 , 1.68 ]
HZ2004B1 0.20 [ −1.41 , 1.80 ]
HZ2004B6 0.03 [ −1.57 , 1.63 ]
HZ2005B1 0.32 [ −1.29 , 1.93 ]
HZ2005B6 0.15 [ −1.45 , 1.76 ]
JD2003TT9−3 0.09 [ −1.51 , 1.69 ]
JD2003TT9−4 0.06 [ −1.54 , 1.66 ]
JD2004TT9−3 0.31 [ −1.30 , 1.92 ]
JD2004TT9−4 0.09 [ −1.51 , 1.70 ]
JD2005TT9−3 −0.02 [ −1.62 , 1.58 ]
JD2005TT9−4 −0.06 [ −1.66 , 1.54 ]
FY2004KDM1 0.05 [ −1.55 , 1.65 ]
FY2005KDM1 0.04 [ −1.56 , 1.64 ]
RE Model 0.10 [ −0.33 , 0.53 ]
−2.38 −1.12 0.13 1.39 2.65
Hedges' g
Figure: Difference in dominance distribution of arthropod
subcommunity(Others) . . . . . .

11. Summary
0.4
0.2
Index
C
Detri
Effect size
0.0 H
others
Para
−0.2 Phyto
Pre
−0.4
−0.6
C Detri H others Para Phyto Pre
Different Index
Figure: The effect size of different Index in non-bt and bt rice
. . . . . .

12. Conclusion
No significant difference in anthropod abandance and diversity
are found in short term period(3 years)
need more observations to know the long term effects.
. . . . . .