Diversity of Diurnal Insect Pollinators of Mustard

Diversity of Diurnal Insect Pollinators of Mustard | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Diversity of Diurnal Insect Pollinators of Mustard Lala S Chaudhary, Lalitkumar V Ghetiya, Dinesh H Chaudhary, Ganesh D Bagul, and 1 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8489619/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 16 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract A field study was conducted to assess the diversity and community structure of diurnal insect pollinators associated with mustard. Pollinators were recorded through quadrate observations, sweep netting and visual counts during the flowering period. Five insect orders were documented, among which hymenoptera showed the highest species richness (16 species), followed by diptera (11 species) and lepidoptera (10 species). Hymenoptera exhibited maximum diversity (Shannon–Wiener index, H′ = 2.30; Simpson’s index = 8.02) with low dominance (Berger–Parker index = 0.19). Diptera and lepidoptera also recorded high diversity and evenness, whereas coleoptera and hemiptera were comparatively species-poor but more evenly distributed. The study highlights the ecological significance of diverse diurnal insect pollinators in mustard Agro-ecosystems and supports the need for their conservation to sustain pollination services. Biodiversity Pollination Mustard Diversity Index and Hymenoptera Introduction Pollination is a critical ecosystem service that underpins agricultural productivity, crop quality and biodiversity conservation (FAO, 2013 ; Klein et al., 2007 ). Insect pollinators play a central role in the sexual reproduction of angiosperms and contribute to nearly one-third of global food production (Potts et al., 2010 ; Ollerton et al., 2011 ). In oilseed crops, effective pollination is essential for improved seed set, uniform pod development and yield stability, with insects accounting for approximately 90 per cent of cross-pollination, predominantly by bees (Abrol, 2007 ; Jatav et al., 2023 ). Mustard ( Brassica juncea (L.) Czern. & Coss.; Brassicaceae) is a major oilseed crop in India and is highly attractive to insect pollinators due to its rich pollen and nectar resources (Masierowska, 2003 ). Honey bees are recognized as the primary pollinators of Brassica crops; however, a diverse assemblage of other diurnal insects also contributes significantly to pollination services (Atmowidi et al., 2007 ; Shakeel et al., 2019 ). India cultivates mustard over 91.83 lakh hectares, with Gujarat leading the country in productivity, highlighting the crop’s economic importance and dependence on efficient pollination (Anon., 2024). Pollinator diversity enhances ecosystem resilience and ensures stable pollination under varying environmental conditions. Insufficient or simplified pollinator communities can reduce seed set and yield in mustard (Free, 1999 ). Despite its importance, region-specific information on the diversity of diurnal insect pollinators associated with mustard remains limited. Therefore, the present study documents the diversity and composition of diurnal insect pollinators in mustard Agro-ecosystems to strengthen understanding of their ecological role and support sustainable pollination management. Material and Method For diversity study, the diurnal insect visitors of order hymenoptera, lepidoptera, diptera, coleoptera, hemiptera, odonata and orthoptera on flowers from agricultural landscaping were observed during its peak activity period of the day (Mostly middle of the day) for its abundance and diversity study. Species wise insect pollinators from crop flowers were recorded. Various insect pollinators were observed and collected from the mustard crop (Beginning from the flowering period) at an interval of five days and data were recorded in the datasheet. The population of diurnal foragers of mustard visited in large numbers at blooming were recorded for two minutes from the four-square feet area of randomly selected five spots in the bloomed crop. The observations were recorded from the commencement to end of flowering. The population per 100 square feet area was worked out. The foragers with the smallest numbers (Dipteran, coleopteran, lepidopteran, hymenopteran, etc .) were recorded from 100 square feet cropped area. Shannon-Wiener species diversity index, Simpson’s species diversity index and Simpson’s evenness were worked out using standard statistical methods. Pollinators of hymenoptera The hymenopteran pollinators ( i.e. Apis and non-Apis bees) were recorded from four square feet area for two minutes through random spot selection utilizing quadrate, with four equal division, made from the iron rod. The species wise pollinators were counted from each part of quadrate by four men. The count data of foragers per quadrate was summed up and recorded. Pollinators of diptera The dipteran insects from four square feet demarked area were observed for two minutes through utilizing quadrate, with four equal division, made from the iron rod. The species wise pollinators were counted from each part of quadrate by four men. The species wise number of pollinators was summed up and recorded in the data book. Pollinators of lepidoptera The diurnal species of lepidopteran insects stayed on flowers were observed from the 5.0 m × 5.0 m demarked area. The method of observations described. Pollinators of coleoptera The coleopteran pollinators ( i.e. beetle species) were recorded from a four-square feet area for two minutes through random spot selection utilizing a quadrate, with four equal divisions, made from the iron rod. The species-wise beetle pollinators were counted from each part of the quadrate by four men. The count data of foraging beetles per quadrate was summed up and recorded. Pollinators of hemiptera The hemipteran pollinators from a four-square feet demarcated area were observed for two minutes using a quadrate, with four equal divisions, made from the iron rod. The species wise pollinators were counted from each part of the quadrate by four men. The species wise number of hemipteran pollinators was summed up and recorded in the data book. Pollinators of odonatan The odonate pollinators from a four-square feet demarcated area were observed for two minutes using a quadrate, with four equal divisions, made from the iron rod. The species-wise pollinators were counted from each part of the quadrate by four men. The species wise number of odonate pollinators was summed up and recorded in the data book. Pollinators of orthoptera The orthopteran pollinators from a four-square feet demarcated area were observed for two minutes using a quadrate, with four equal divisions, made from the iron rod. The species wise pollinators were counted from each part of the quadrate by four men. The species wise number of orthopteran pollinators was summed up and recorded in the data book. Species Diversity Index Shannon-Wiener species diversity index In order to study the proportion of each species within the pollinators’ community of the study area, the diversity index for insect pollinators was computed using Shannon- Wiener species diversity index formula (Shannon, 1948 ). Species Diversity Index (H′) = k 1n p i - ∑ p i i = 1 Where, p i - Proportion of i th species in the total sample p i - f i /n f i - Number of specimens of the i th species n - Total number of specimens in sample k - Total number of species 1n - Natural logarithm (log e ) Simpson’s species diversity index Simpson’s diversity index (D) is a simple mathematical measure that characterizes species diversity in a community. The proportion of species was relative to the total number of species (p i ) will be calculated and squared. The squared proportion for all the species was summed up and the reciprocal was taken (Simpson, 1949 ). D = 1 ∑P i 2 Where, D - Diversity index p i - Proportion of i th species in the total sample Species Evenness Evenness compares the similarity of the population size of each of the species present in the study area. In order to estimate the equitability component of diversity; the species evenness of a community was calculated by Pielou's evenness index (Pielou, 1966 ). Pielou's evenness index (J') = H' H' max Where, H' - Number derived from the Shannon diversity index H' max - Maximum possible value of H' H' max = n -∑ ln N i = 1 Where, N - Total number of species Simpson’s Evenness For a given species richness (S), diversity (D) increases as equitability increases and for a given equitability D increases as richness increases. Equitability (ED) can be calculated by taking Simpson's diversity index (D) and expressing it as a proportion of the maximum value D could assume, if individuals in the community were completely evenly distributed (D max , which equals S as in a case where there was one individual per species). For calculating Simpson’s evenness, Simpson’s diversity index (D) was divided by D max . Equitability takes a value between 0 and 1, with 1 being complete evenness (Simpson, 1949 ). E D = D D max Where, E D - Simpson’s Evenness D - Simpson’s diversity index D max - Maximum possible value of D Berger-Parker Dominance Index The Berger–Parker Dominance Index (DBP) was used to determine the dominance structure of insect pollinator communities in mustard fields. This index provides a simple measure of species dominance by focusing on the proportion of individuals belonging to the most abundant species in the community. The index was calculated using the formula: $$\:D=\frac{\text{N}\text{m}\text{a}\text{x}}{N}$$ Where, 𝑁 max - Number of individuals in the most abundant species N- Total number of individuals in the sample The dominance index values range from 0 to 1, where higher values indicate greater dominance of a single species and lower values reflect a more even distribution of species within the community. Pollinator insects were collected/recorded using quadrate observations, sweep netting and visual counts during peak flowering hours. Each species was identified up to the lowest possible taxonomic level and the abundance of each species was recorded. For each site and sampling period, the total number of individuals (N) and the maximum abundance of the dominant species (N max ​) were determined. Margalef’s Species Richness Margalef’s Species Richness Index (d) was employed to evaluate the richness of insect pollinator communities associated with mustard crops. This index is widely used in ecological studies as it accounts for both the number of species present and the total number of individuals collected. The index was calculated using the following formula: $$\:d=\frac{S-1}{\text{ln}\left(N\right)}$$ Where, S - Total number of species recorded N - Total number of individuals of all species in the sample ln - Natural logarithm Margalef’s index was then calculated separately for each location and sampling period to assess the comparative richness of pollinator communities. Higher values of the index indicated greater species richness, while lower values reflected reduced richness of pollinators in the mustard ecosystem. Field observations of pollinators were conducted using standard entomological methods, including quadrate observations, sweep net collection and direct visual counts at peak flowering hours. All collected specimens were identified up to the lowest possible taxonomic level and their abundance was recorded. For each site and treatment, species richness (S) and total individuals (N) were computed. Gini Coefficient (G ) The Gini Coefficient (G) was used to measure the inequality in the distribution of pollinator abundances across different species in mustard ecosystems. Originally developed for economic studies of income inequality, the Gini coefficient is widely adapted in ecological research to describe how evenly individuals are distributed among species in a community. The Gini coefficient was calculated using the formula: G= \(\:\frac{\sum\:_{i=}^{n}\sum\:_{j=1}^{n}\mid\:\text{x}\text{i}-\text{x}\text{j}\mid\:}{2n^2\text{x}̄}\) Where, xi​ and xj - Abundance of species i and j n - Total number of species recorded x̄- Mean abundance of all species The Gini coefficient was derived from the Lorenz curve as the ratio of the area between the line of equality and the observed curve to the total area under the line of equality. The values of G range between 0 and 1, where 0 indicates perfect equality (all species equally abundant) and 1 indicates maximum inequality (a single species dominates the community). Pollinator observations were made through quadrate sampling, sweep net collections and direct visual counts during peak foraging hours. The abundance of each pollinator species was recorded for every sampling location and period. The abundance data were then organized in ascending order and used to construct a Lorenz curve, where the cumulative proportion of species was plotted against the cumulative proportion of individuals. Buzas and Gibson's Index The Buzas and Gibson’s Evenness Index (E) was employed to evaluate the evenness of pollinator distribution in mustard fields. This index is a modification of Shannon’s diversity index and provides an estimate of how equally individuals are distributed among the species in a community. The index was calculated using the formula: $$\:E={\frac{e}{S}}^{H{\prime\:}}$$ Where, H′- Shannon–Wiener diversity index S - Total number of species recorded e- Base of the natural logarithm (2.718) Values of E range between 0 and 1, where numbers close to 1 indicate a highly even distribution of individuals among species, while values closer to 0 signify uneven distribution with dominance by a few species. Results and Discussion The analysis of species diversity across different insect orders revealed considerable variation in richness, diversity, evenness and dominance indices (Table 1). A total of five orders were documented, among which hymenoptera emerged as the richest group with 16 species, followed by diptera (11 species) and lepidoptera (10 species). The lowest richness was recorded in hemiptera (4 species) and coleoptera (5 species). This pattern indicates that hymenoptera and diptera contribute substantially to overall pollinator richness, while hemiptera represents a comparatively minor component of the assemblage. Diversity index The Shannon diversity index (H′) revealed that hymenoptera (2.30) exhibited the highest diversity among all orders, followed closely by diptera (2.13) and lepidoptera (2.08), indicating well-balanced and heterogeneous communities within these groups. Coleoptera (2.81) showed a relatively high Shannon value despite fewer species, suggesting a more even distribution of species across individuals. Hemiptera (2.09) exhibited moderate diversity. Simpson’s diversity index followed a similar pattern, with maximum values recorded in hymenoptera (8.02), diptera (6.94) and lepidoptera (6.94), indicating low dominance and greater species heterogeneity within these groups. Coleoptera (4.52) and hemiptera (3.37) recorded comparatively lower Simpson’s diversity, reflecting more concentrated species compositions. Similarly, Bhowmik et al. (2014) noted that Shannon-Weiner diversity index H’ was found to be of 1.49 for order hymenoptera, 1.40 for the species of order diptera and 1.22 for the species from order lepidoptera. Kumar et al. ( 2024 ) revealed that Shannon index of 1.38 and Simpson index of 0.72 in mustard from 896 individuals. Priyadarshini et al. ( 2025 ) calculated that Shannon’s diversity index of insect pollinators of mustard crops was recorded as 2.77. Vanitha and Raviprasad ( 2019 ) reported a Shannon index of 2.3 in cashew plantations, corroborating the present findings of rich pollinator diversity in agricultural landscapes. The moderate Shannon and Simpson indices observed for hemiptera (H′ = 2.09; D = 3.37) and coleoptera (H′ = 2.81; D = 4.52) suggested fewer species but relatively stable populations consistent with observations by Bandyopadhyay and Chatterjee ( 2022 ) in West Bengal. Brien and Arathi, ( 2019 ) reported that diversity index values for bee genera: Shannon-Weiner Index, H = 1.81, and Simpson index, D = 4.22 in mustard. Evenness Shannon’s evenness index was highest in hymenoptera (1.91), suggesting a more equitable distribution of species. Diptera (1.77) and lepidoptera (1.73) also exhibited considerable species balance. Moderate evenness values were recorded in coleoptera (1.30) and hemiptera (1.06), indicated fewer uniform species distributions. Simpson’s evenness values were relatively similar among the major groups, with lepidoptera (2.99) showing highest equitability, followed by hymenoptera (2.89) and diptera (2.89). Hemiptera (1.28) displayed the lowest Simpson’s evenness, suggesting dominance of certain species. Overall, the results revealed that hymenoptera and diptera maintained the highest equitability in terms of Shannon’s evenness, while hemiptera showed the least balanced species distribution. Conversely, coleoptera was characterized by greater dominance according to Simpson’s evenness, whereas other orders showed moderate and comparable levels of species equitability. These results are closely agreement with Priyadarshini et al. ( 2025 ) revealed species evenness index (0.94) with a great extent moving towards one indicated huge species inequatability within the insect pollinator’s community. Kumar et al. ( 2024 ) revealed the 0.711 evenness index recorded from 896 individuals. Berger–Parker dominance, Margalef richness and Buzas and Gibson's Index The Berger–Parker dominance index was lowest in hymenoptera (0.19) and lepidoptera (0.19), indicated a well-distributed community without any single species dominating. Diptera (0.22) also showed low dominance. Higher dominance values in coleoptera (0.32) and hemiptera (0.39) reflected reduced species balance and a greater influence of dominant species within these orders. The Margalef index indicated that hymenoptera (1.58) had the highest species richness when standardized for sample size, followed by diptera (1.21) and lepidoptera (1.39). Coleoptera (0.84) and hemiptera (0.62) showed comparatively lower richness, consistent with their smaller species pools. Buzas and Gibson’s evenness index values were highest in lepidoptera (0.79) and diptera (0.77), indicating more uniform species distribution. Hymenoptera (0.62) recorded moderate evenness, suggesting moderate equitability. Coleoptera (0.95) showed high equitability despite fewer species, while hemiptera (0.90) also exhibited near-uniform species distribution. These are indices new pave for future research should focus on using the Berger–Parker dominance, Margalef richness and Buzas and Gibson’s evenness indices to assess pollinator community structure across different crops and landscapes. Temporal studies are needed to reveal how these indices fluctuate with seasons, climate, and agricultural practices. Integrating these indices with functional and ecological data will enhance our understanding of pollinator diversity and ecosystem stability. This result is most related with Bandyopadhyay and Chatterjee ( 2022 ) reported that Margalef’s species richness index and Berger-Parker Dominance Index were 2.00 and 0.21, respectively were observed of insect pollinators of mustard. Gini coefficient The Gini coefficient, which measures inequality in species abundance was highest in hymenoptera (0.52) indicated moderate species unevenness within this order. Diptera (0.39) and lepidoptera (0.36) showed moderate inequality. Coleoptera (0.15) and hemiptera (0.23) exhibited the lowest Gini coefficient values proposed a more uniform distribution of individuals among species. This result is most related with Bandyopadhyay and Chatterjee ( 2022 ) reported that Gini coefficient value (0.55) was observed of insect pollinators of mustard. Conclusion Hymenoptera emerged as the most diverse and species-rich group, with high Shannon and Simpson diversity and relatively high evenness. Diptera and lepidoptera also showed strong diversity and balanced species representation. Coleoptera and hemiptera though species-poor demonstrated high equitability and lower inequality based on Buzas–Gibson’s index and Gini coefficient, indicating stable community structures. Together, these indices highlight clear ecological differences among insect orders and contribute to understanding their roles in community composition and ecosystem functioning. Declarations Funding Declaration If there was no funding Ethics Declaration Not Applicable Author Contribution Lala S Chaudhary conceived the research idea, conducted the field investigations, analyzed the data, and prepared the original manuscript. Dr. Lalitkumar V. Ghetiya provided overall supervision of the research, including experimental design, interpretation of results, and critical revision of the manuscript. Dr. Dinesh H. Chaudhary contributed academic guidance and assisted in improving the scientific content and formatting of the manuscript as per journal requirements. Gnaesh D Bagul contributed to drafting and revision of the manuscript. Divyesh A Akbari assisted in data compilation and preparation of the initial draft. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. Acknowledgement The authors gratefully acknowledge Navsari Agricultural University, Navsari, Gujarat, India, for providing the necessary facilities, infrastructure, and institutional support to carry out the present research work. Data Availability Yes. Original research data were generated through field observations and experimental investigations and were analyzed as part of this study. References Abrol DP (2007) Foraging behaviour of Apis mellifera L. and Apis cerana F. as determined by the energetics of nectar production in different cultivars of Brassica campestris var. toria. J Apic Sci 51(2):19–23 Anonymous (2024) District-wise area, production and yield of important food & non-food crops in Gujarat state (Year: 2021-22, 2022-23 and 2023-24). (gujarat.gov.in) Published by: Directorate of Agriculture, Krishibhavan, Sector-10 A, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar. 110 p. http://dag.gujarat.gov.in retrieved on 27-11-2025 Atmowidi T, Buchori D, Manuwoto S, Suryobroto B, Hidayat P (2007) Diversity of pollinator insects in relation to seed set of mustard ( Brassica rapa L.: Cruciferae). HAYATI J Biosci 14(4):155–161. 10.4308/hjb.14.4.155 Bandyopadhyay S, Chatterjee TK (2022) Diversity of visiting insects and butterflies on mustard ( Brassica sp.) flower at Ghatal, Midnapore, West Bengal, India. Int J Sci Res 12(6):1451–1454. 10.21275/SR23612130324 Brien DJ, Arathi HS (2019) Bee diversity in agroecosystems and the role of native species in crop pollination. J Agricultural Environ Sci 7(2):34–45 FAO (2013) Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Statistical Division, 2013. See http://faostats.fao.org/default.aspx Free JB (1999) Pollination in the Tropics. Beekeep Dev 51:6–7 Jatav PK, Yadav AS, Balpande S, Mahore P (2023) Influence of attractants on bees’ pollination and enhancing the yield of mustard. Biol Forum Int J 15(1):643–646 Klein AM, Vaissiere BE, Cane JH, Tscharntke T (2007) Importance of pollinators in changing landscape for world crops. Royal Soc B: Biol Sci 274:303–313. 10.1098/rspb.2006.3721 Kumar K, Fartyal RS, Kanwal KS, Khanduri S, Topal P (2024) Diversity and flower-visiting frequency of insect pollinators associated with mustard blooms ( Brassica campestris ) in Kullu Valley, Himachal Pradesh. Environ Conserv 25(4):1120–1126. https://doi.org/10.36953/ECJ.29882946 Masierowska ML (2003) Floral nectaries and nector production in brown mustard ( Brassica junea L.) and white mustard ( Sinapis alba ) (Brassicaceae). Plant Systematic Evolution , 238: 97–107. 10.1007/s00606-002-0273-2 Ollerton J, Winfree R, Tarrant S (2011) How many flowering plants are pollinated by animals? Oikos 120(3):321–326. 10.1111/j.1600-0706.2010.18644.x Pielou EC (1966) The measurement of diversity in the different type of biological collections. J Theor Biol 13:131–144. 10.1016/0022-5193(66)90013-0 Potts SG, Biesmeijer JC, Kremen C, Neuamm P, Scjweiger O, Kunin WE (2010) Global pollinator declines: trends, impacts and drivers. Trends Ecol Evol 25(6):345–353. 10.1016/j.tree.2010.01.007 Priyadarshini P, Satapathy SN, Sahoo BK, Panigrahi CK, Bhowmik P (2025) Diversity and relative abundance of insect pollinators on mustard, Brassica juncea L. Hexapoda Insecta Indica 32(1):55–60. 10.55446/hexa.2025.572 Shakeel M, Ali H, Ahmad S, Said F, Khan KA, Bashir MA, Anjum SI, Islam W, Ghramh HA, Ansari MJ, Ali H (2019) Insect pollinators diversity and abundance in Eruca sativa Mill. (Arugula) and Brassica rapa L. (Field mustard) crops. Saudi J Biol Sci 26(7):1704–1709. 10.1016/j.sjbs.2018.08.012 Shannon CE (1948) A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Syst Tech J 27(3):379–423. 10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x Simpson EH (1949) Measurement of diversity. Nature 163(4148):688. 10.1038/163688a0 Vanitha K, Raviprasad TN (2019) Diversity, species richness and foraging behaviour of pollinators in cashew. Agricultural Res 8(2):197–206 Tables Table 1 is available in the Supplementary Files section. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files diversitytable.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Reviews received at journal 19 Apr, 2026 Reviews received at journal 16 Apr, 2026 Reviews received at journal 15 Apr, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 13 Apr, 2026 Reviews received at journal 13 Apr, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 07 Apr, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 07 Apr, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 06 Apr, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 06 Apr, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 05 Apr, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 05 Apr, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 05 Apr, 2026 Reviewers invited by journal 05 Apr, 2026 Editor assigned by journal 19 Jan, 2026 Submission checks completed at journal 19 Jan, 2026 First submitted to journal 31 Dec, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-8489619","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":619170155,"identity":"e1063853-240d-4d76-bdd6-faeda3522470","order_by":0,"name":"Lala S Chaudhary","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Navsari Agricultural University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Lala","middleName":"S","lastName":"Chaudhary","suffix":""},{"id":619170157,"identity":"0b423bff-1bbf-4a45-a235-e7f140a7a12c","order_by":1,"name":"Lalitkumar V Ghetiya","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Anand Agricultural University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Lalitkumar","middleName":"V","lastName":"Ghetiya","suffix":""},{"id":619170158,"identity":"d5a1082d-4448-462c-997a-8ba8023ba219","order_by":2,"name":"Dinesh H Chaudhary","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Navsari Agricultural University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Dinesh","middleName":"H","lastName":"Chaudhary","suffix":""},{"id":619170160,"identity":"021c05b3-4c4e-4e74-907a-c517e06edf25","order_by":3,"name":"Ganesh D Bagul","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Navsari Agricultural University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ganesh","middleName":"D","lastName":"Bagul","suffix":""},{"id":619170163,"identity":"ab3b7ce5-78c6-448c-932f-808a6f6ba9b2","order_by":4,"name":"Divyesh A Akbari","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Navsari Agricultural University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Divyesh","middleName":"A","lastName":"Akbari","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-12-31 12:08:42","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8489619/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8489619/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":106727622,"identity":"e55ef9f9-6b3e-406a-8c27-65e49f70df50","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-12 18:39:34","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":647897,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8489619/v1/820f0f7a-3ad6-4b01-aa8d-c087e30ab458.pdf"},{"id":106644246,"identity":"8b0c8b71-b7de-4bbf-adfe-94b83d8525da","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-10 19:26:15","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":15810,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"diversitytable.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8489619/v1/aab6148f30b74cfda5d605fb.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003eDiversity of Diurnal Insect Pollinators of Mustard\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003ePollination is a critical ecosystem service that underpins agricultural productivity, crop quality and biodiversity conservation (FAO, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Klein et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e). Insect pollinators play a central role in the sexual reproduction of angiosperms and contribute to nearly one-third of global food production (Potts et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Ollerton et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). In oilseed crops, effective pollination is essential for improved seed set, uniform pod development and yield stability, with insects accounting for approximately 90 per cent of cross-pollination, predominantly by bees (Abrol, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e; Jatav et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMustard (\u003cem\u003eBrassica juncea\u003c/em\u003e (L.) Czern. \u0026amp; Coss.; Brassicaceae) is a major oilseed crop in India and is highly attractive to insect pollinators due to its rich pollen and nectar resources (Masierowska, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e). Honey bees are recognized as the primary pollinators of Brassica crops; however, a diverse assemblage of other diurnal insects also contributes significantly to pollination services (Atmowidi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e; Shakeel et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). India cultivates mustard over 91.83 lakh hectares, with Gujarat leading the country in productivity, highlighting the crop\u0026rsquo;s economic importance and dependence on efficient pollination (Anon., 2024).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePollinator diversity enhances ecosystem resilience and ensures stable pollination under varying environmental conditions. Insufficient or simplified pollinator communities can reduce seed set and yield in mustard (Free, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e). Despite its importance, region-specific information on the diversity of diurnal insect pollinators associated with mustard remains limited. Therefore, the present study documents the diversity and composition of diurnal insect pollinators in mustard Agro-ecosystems to strengthen understanding of their ecological role and support sustainable pollination management.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Material and Method","content":"\u003cp\u003eFor diversity study, the diurnal insect visitors of order hymenoptera, lepidoptera, diptera, coleoptera, hemiptera, odonata and orthoptera on flowers from agricultural landscaping were observed during its peak activity period of the day (Mostly middle of the day) for its abundance and diversity study. Species wise insect pollinators from crop flowers were recorded.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eVarious insect pollinators were observed and collected from the mustard crop (Beginning from the flowering period) at an interval of five days and data were recorded in the datasheet. The population of diurnal foragers of mustard visited in large numbers at blooming were recorded for two minutes from the four-square feet area of randomly selected five spots in the bloomed crop. The observations were recorded from the commencement to end of flowering. The population per 100 square feet area was worked out. The foragers with the smallest numbers (Dipteran, coleopteran, lepidopteran, hymenopteran, \u003cem\u003eetc\u003c/em\u003e.) were recorded from 100 square feet cropped area. Shannon-Wiener species diversity index, Simpson\u0026rsquo;s species diversity index and Simpson\u0026rsquo;s evenness were worked out using standard statistical methods.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003ePollinators of hymenoptera\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe hymenopteran pollinators (\u003cem\u003ei.e.\u003c/em\u003e Apis and non-Apis bees) were recorded from four square feet area for two minutes through random spot selection utilizing quadrate, with four equal division, made from the iron rod. The species wise pollinators were counted from each part of quadrate by four men. The count data of foragers per quadrate was summed up and recorded.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003ePollinators of diptera\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe dipteran insects from four square feet demarked area were observed for two minutes through utilizing quadrate, with four equal division, made from the iron rod. The species wise pollinators were counted from each part of quadrate by four men. The species wise number of pollinators was summed up and recorded in the data book.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003ePollinators of lepidoptera\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe diurnal species of lepidopteran insects stayed on flowers were observed from the 5.0 m \u0026times; 5.0 m demarked area. The method of observations described.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003ePollinators of coleoptera\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe coleopteran pollinators (\u003cem\u003ei.e.\u003c/em\u003e beetle species) were recorded from a four-square feet area for two minutes through random spot selection utilizing a quadrate, with four equal divisions, made from the iron rod. The species-wise beetle pollinators were counted from each part of the quadrate by four men. The count data of foraging beetles per quadrate was summed up and recorded.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003ePollinators of hemiptera\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe hemipteran pollinators from a four-square feet demarcated area were observed for two minutes using a quadrate, with four equal divisions, made from the iron rod. The species wise pollinators were counted from each part of the quadrate by four men. The species wise number of hemipteran pollinators was summed up and recorded in the data book.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003ePollinators of odonatan\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe odonate pollinators from a four-square feet demarcated area were observed for two minutes using a quadrate, with four equal divisions, made from the iron rod. The species-wise pollinators were counted from each part of the quadrate by four men. The species wise number of odonate pollinators was summed up and recorded in the data book.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003ePollinators of orthoptera\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe orthopteran pollinators from a four-square feet demarcated area were observed for two minutes using a quadrate, with four equal divisions, made from the iron rod. The species wise pollinators were counted from each part of the quadrate by four men. The species wise number of orthopteran pollinators was summed up and recorded in the data book.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eSpecies Diversity Index\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eShannon-Wiener species diversity index\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn order to study the proportion of each species within the pollinators\u0026rsquo; community of the study area, the diversity index for insect pollinators was computed using Shannon- Wiener species diversity index formula (Shannon, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1948\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"No\" id=\"Taba\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSpecies Diversity Index (H\u0026prime;)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e=\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ek\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1n \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003ei\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e- \u0026sum;\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003ei\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ei\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"4\"\u003eWhere,\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u003csub\u003e \u003cem\u003ei\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/sub\u003e - Proportion of \u003cem\u003ei\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003eth\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e species in the total sample\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u003csub\u003e \u003cem\u003ei\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/sub\u003e - \u003cem\u003ef\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003ei\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e/n\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003ef\u003c/em\u003e \u003csub\u003e \u003cem\u003ei\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/sub\u003e - Number of specimens of the i\u003csup\u003eth\u003c/sup\u003e species\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003en - Total number of specimens in sample\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003ek\u003c/em\u003e - Total number of species\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e1n - Natural logarithm (log\u003csub\u003ee\u003c/sub\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eSimpson\u0026rsquo;s species diversity index\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSimpson\u0026rsquo;s diversity index (D) is a simple mathematical measure that characterizes species diversity in a community. The proportion of species was relative to the total number of species (p\u003csub\u003ei\u003c/sub\u003e) will be calculated and squared. The squared proportion for all the species was summed up and the reciprocal was taken (Simpson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1949\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"No\" id=\"Tabb\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eD\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e=\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u0026sum;P\u003c/b\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cb\u003ei\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cb\u003e2\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"3\"\u003eWhere,\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"3\"\u003eD - Diversity index\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ep\u003csub\u003ei\u003c/sub\u003e - Proportion of i\u003csup\u003eth\u003c/sup\u003e species in the total sample\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eSpecies Evenness\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eEvenness compares the similarity of the population size of each of the species present in the study area. In order to estimate the equitability component of diversity; the species evenness of a community was calculated by Pielou's evenness index (Pielou, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1966\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"No\" id=\"Tabc\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePielou's evenness index (J')\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e=\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eH'\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eH'\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003emax\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"3\"\u003eWhere,\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eH'\u003c/b\u003e - Number derived from the Shannon diversity index\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eH'\u003c/b\u003e \u003csub\u003e \u003cb\u003emax\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/sub\u003e - Maximum possible value of \u003cb\u003eH'\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"No\" id=\"Tabd\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eH'\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003emax\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e=\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003en\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u0026sum; ln N\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ei\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"3\"\u003eWhere,\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"3\"\u003e\u003cb\u003eN\u003c/b\u003e - Total number of species\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eSimpson\u0026rsquo;s Evenness\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor a given species richness (S), diversity (D) increases as equitability increases and for a given equitability D increases as richness increases. Equitability (ED) can be calculated by taking Simpson's diversity index (D) and expressing it as a proportion of the maximum value D could assume, if individuals in the community were completely evenly distributed (D\u003csub\u003emax\u003c/sub\u003e, which equals S as in a case where there was one individual per species). For calculating Simpson\u0026rsquo;s evenness, Simpson\u0026rsquo;s diversity index (D) was divided by D\u003csub\u003emax\u003c/sub\u003e. Equitability takes a value between 0 and 1, with 1 being complete evenness (Simpson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1949\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"No\" id=\"Tabe\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eE\u003csub\u003eD\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e=\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eD\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eD\u003csub\u003emax\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"3\"\u003eWhere,\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"3\"\u003eE\u003csub\u003eD\u003c/sub\u003e - Simpson\u0026rsquo;s Evenness\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"3\"\u003eD - Simpson\u0026rsquo;s diversity index\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"3\"\u003eD\u003csub\u003emax\u003c/sub\u003e - Maximum possible value of D\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eBerger-Parker Dominance Index\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Berger\u0026ndash;Parker Dominance Index (DBP) was used to determine the dominance structure of insect pollinator communities in mustard fields. This index provides a simple measure of species dominance by focusing on the proportion of individuals belonging to the most abundant species in the community. The index was calculated using the formula:\u003cdiv id=\"Equa\" class=\"Equation\"\u003e\u003cdiv format=\"TEX\" class=\"mathdisplay\" id=\"FileID_Equa\" name=\"EquationSource\"\u003e\n$$\\:D=\\frac{\\text{N}\\text{m}\\text{a}\\text{x}}{N}$$\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhere,\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026#119873;\u003csub\u003emax\u003c/sub\u003e- Number of individuals in the most abundant species\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eN- Total number of individuals in the sample\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe dominance index values range from 0 to 1, where higher values indicate greater dominance of a single species and lower values reflect a more even distribution of species within the community.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePollinator insects were collected/recorded using quadrate observations, sweep netting and visual counts during peak flowering hours. Each species was identified up to the lowest possible taxonomic level and the abundance of each species was recorded. For each site and sampling period, the total number of individuals (N) and the maximum abundance of the dominant species (N\u003csub\u003emax\u003c/sub\u003e​) were determined.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eMargalef\u0026rsquo;s Species Richness\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eMargalef\u0026rsquo;s Species Richness Index (d) was employed to evaluate the richness of insect pollinator communities associated with mustard crops. This index is widely used in ecological studies as it accounts for both the number of species present and the total number of individuals collected. The index was calculated using the following formula:\u003cdiv id=\"Equb\" class=\"Equation\"\u003e\u003cdiv format=\"TEX\" class=\"mathdisplay\" id=\"FileID_Equb\" name=\"EquationSource\"\u003e\n$$\\:d=\\frac{S-1}{\\text{ln}\\left(N\\right)}$$\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhere,\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eS - Total number of species recorded\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eN - Total number of individuals of all species in the sample\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eln - Natural logarithm\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMargalef\u0026rsquo;s index was then calculated separately for each location and sampling period to assess the comparative richness of pollinator communities. Higher values of the index indicated greater species richness, while lower values reflected reduced richness of pollinators in the mustard ecosystem.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eField observations of pollinators were conducted using standard entomological methods, including quadrate observations, sweep net collection and direct visual counts at peak flowering hours. All collected specimens were identified up to the lowest possible taxonomic level and their abundance was recorded. For each site and treatment, species richness (S) and total individuals (N) were computed.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eGini Coefficient (G\u003c/b\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Gini Coefficient (G) was used to measure the inequality in the distribution of pollinator abundances across different species in mustard ecosystems. Originally developed for economic studies of income inequality, the Gini coefficient is widely adapted in ecological research to describe how evenly individuals are distributed among species in a community. The Gini coefficient was calculated using the formula:\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eG=\u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\(\\:\\frac{\\sum\\:_{i=}^{n}\\sum\\:_{j=1}^{n}\\mid\\:\\text{x}\\text{i}-\\text{x}\\text{j}\\mid\\:}{2n^2\\text{x}̄}\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhere,\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003exi​ and xj - Abundance of species i and j\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003en - Total number of species recorded\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ex̄- Mean abundance of all species\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Gini coefficient was derived from the Lorenz curve as the ratio of the area between the line of equality and the observed curve to the total area under the line of equality. The values of G range between 0 and 1, where 0 indicates perfect equality (all species equally abundant) and 1 indicates maximum inequality (a single species dominates the community).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePollinator observations were made through quadrate sampling, sweep net collections and direct visual counts during peak foraging hours. The abundance of each pollinator species was recorded for every sampling location and period. The abundance data were then organized in ascending order and used to construct a Lorenz curve, where the cumulative proportion of species was plotted against the cumulative proportion of individuals.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eBuzas and Gibson's Index\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Buzas and Gibson\u0026rsquo;s Evenness Index (E) was employed to evaluate the evenness of pollinator distribution in mustard fields. This index is a modification of Shannon\u0026rsquo;s diversity index and provides an estimate of how equally individuals are distributed among the species in a community. The index was calculated using the formula:\u003cdiv id=\"Equc\" class=\"Equation\"\u003e\u003cdiv format=\"TEX\" class=\"mathdisplay\" id=\"FileID_Equc\" name=\"EquationSource\"\u003e\n$$\\:E={\\frac{e}{S}}^{H{\\prime\\:}}$$\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhere,\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eH\u0026prime;- Shannon\u0026ndash;Wiener diversity index\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eS - Total number of species recorded\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ee- Base of the natural logarithm (2.718)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eValues of E range between 0 and 1, where numbers close to 1 indicate a highly even distribution of individuals among species, while values closer to 0 signify uneven distribution with dominance by a few species.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Results and Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe analysis of species diversity across different insect orders revealed considerable variation in richness, diversity, evenness and dominance indices (Table\u0026nbsp;1). A total of five orders were documented, among which hymenoptera emerged as the richest group with 16 species, followed by diptera (11 species) and lepidoptera (10 species). The lowest richness was recorded in hemiptera (4 species) and coleoptera (5 species). This pattern indicates that hymenoptera and diptera contribute substantially to overall pollinator richness, while hemiptera represents a comparatively minor component of the assemblage.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eDiversity index\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Shannon diversity index (H\u0026prime;) revealed that hymenoptera (2.30) exhibited the highest diversity among all orders, followed closely by diptera (2.13) and lepidoptera (2.08), indicating well-balanced and heterogeneous communities within these groups. Coleoptera (2.81) showed a relatively high Shannon value despite fewer species, suggesting a more even distribution of species across individuals. Hemiptera (2.09) exhibited moderate diversity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSimpson\u0026rsquo;s diversity index followed a similar pattern, with maximum values recorded in hymenoptera (8.02), diptera (6.94) and lepidoptera (6.94), indicating low dominance and greater species heterogeneity within these groups. Coleoptera (4.52) and hemiptera (3.37) recorded comparatively lower Simpson\u0026rsquo;s diversity, reflecting more concentrated species compositions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSimilarly, Bhowmik \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e (2014) noted that Shannon-Weiner diversity index H\u0026rsquo; was found to be of 1.49 for order hymenoptera, 1.40 for the species of order diptera and 1.22 for the species from order lepidoptera. Kumar et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e) revealed that Shannon index of 1.38 and Simpson index of 0.72 in mustard from 896 individuals. Priyadarshini et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e) calculated that Shannon\u0026rsquo;s diversity index of insect pollinators of mustard crops was recorded as 2.77. Vanitha and Raviprasad (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) reported a Shannon index of 2.3 in cashew plantations, corroborating the present findings of rich pollinator diversity in agricultural landscapes. The moderate Shannon and Simpson indices observed for hemiptera (H\u0026prime; = 2.09; D\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.37) and coleoptera (H\u0026prime; = 2.81; D\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.52) suggested fewer species but relatively stable populations consistent with observations by Bandyopadhyay and Chatterjee (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) in West Bengal. Brien and Arathi, (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) reported that diversity index values for bee genera: Shannon-Weiner Index, H\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.81, and Simpson index, D\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.22 in mustard.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eEvenness\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eShannon\u0026rsquo;s evenness index was highest in hymenoptera (1.91), suggesting a more equitable distribution of species. Diptera (1.77) and lepidoptera (1.73) also exhibited considerable species balance. Moderate evenness values were recorded in coleoptera (1.30) and hemiptera (1.06), indicated fewer uniform species distributions. Simpson\u0026rsquo;s evenness values were relatively similar among the major groups, with lepidoptera (2.99) showing highest equitability, followed by hymenoptera (2.89) and diptera (2.89). Hemiptera (1.28) displayed the lowest Simpson\u0026rsquo;s evenness, suggesting dominance of certain species. Overall, the results revealed that hymenoptera and diptera maintained the highest equitability in terms of Shannon\u0026rsquo;s evenness, while hemiptera showed the least balanced species distribution. Conversely, coleoptera was characterized by greater dominance according to Simpson\u0026rsquo;s evenness, whereas other orders showed moderate and comparable levels of species equitability. These results are closely agreement with Priyadarshini et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e) revealed species evenness index (0.94) with a great extent moving towards one indicated huge species inequatability within the insect pollinator\u0026rsquo;s community. Kumar et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e) revealed the 0.711 evenness index recorded from 896 individuals.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec22\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eBerger\u0026ndash;Parker dominance, Margalef richness and Buzas and Gibson's Index\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Berger\u0026ndash;Parker dominance index was lowest in hymenoptera (0.19) and lepidoptera (0.19), indicated a well-distributed community without any single species dominating. Diptera (0.22) also showed low dominance. Higher dominance values in coleoptera (0.32) and hemiptera (0.39) reflected reduced species balance and a greater influence of dominant species within these orders.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Margalef index indicated that hymenoptera (1.58) had the highest species richness when standardized for sample size, followed by diptera (1.21) and lepidoptera (1.39). Coleoptera (0.84) and hemiptera (0.62) showed comparatively lower richness, consistent with their smaller species pools.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBuzas and Gibson\u0026rsquo;s evenness index values were highest in lepidoptera (0.79) and diptera (0.77), indicating more uniform species distribution. Hymenoptera (0.62) recorded moderate evenness, suggesting moderate equitability. Coleoptera (0.95) showed high equitability despite fewer species, while hemiptera (0.90) also exhibited near-uniform species distribution. These are indices new pave for future research should focus on using the Berger\u0026ndash;Parker dominance, Margalef richness and Buzas and Gibson\u0026rsquo;s evenness indices to assess pollinator community structure across different crops and landscapes. Temporal studies are needed to reveal how these indices fluctuate with seasons, climate, and agricultural practices. Integrating these indices with functional and ecological data will enhance our understanding of pollinator diversity and ecosystem stability. This result is most related with Bandyopadhyay and Chatterjee (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) reported that Margalef\u0026rsquo;s species richness index and Berger-Parker Dominance Index were 2.00 and 0.21, respectively were observed of insect pollinators of mustard.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec23\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eGini coefficient\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Gini coefficient, which measures inequality in species abundance was highest in hymenoptera (0.52) indicated moderate species unevenness within this order. Diptera (0.39) and lepidoptera (0.36) showed moderate inequality. Coleoptera (0.15) and hemiptera (0.23) exhibited the lowest Gini coefficient values proposed a more uniform distribution of individuals among species. This result is most related with Bandyopadhyay and Chatterjee (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) reported that Gini coefficient value (0.55) was observed of insect pollinators of mustard.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eHymenoptera emerged as the most diverse and species-rich group, with high Shannon and Simpson diversity and relatively high evenness. Diptera and lepidoptera also showed strong diversity and balanced species representation. Coleoptera and hemiptera though species-poor demonstrated high equitability and lower inequality based on Buzas\u0026ndash;Gibson\u0026rsquo;s index and Gini coefficient, indicating stable community structures. Together, these indices highlight clear ecological differences among insect orders and contribute to understanding their roles in community composition and ecosystem functioning.\u003c/p\u003e "},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eFunding Declaration\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eIf there was no funding\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eEthics Declaration\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eNot Applicable\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eLala S Chaudhary conceived the research idea, conducted the field investigations, analyzed the data, and prepared the original manuscript. Dr. Lalitkumar V. Ghetiya provided overall supervision of the research, including experimental design, interpretation of results, and critical revision of the manuscript. Dr. Dinesh H. Chaudhary contributed academic guidance and assisted in improving the scientific content and formatting of the manuscript as per journal requirements. Gnaesh D Bagul contributed to drafting and revision of the manuscript. Divyesh A Akbari assisted in data compilation and preparation of the initial draft. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAcknowledgement\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe authors gratefully acknowledge Navsari Agricultural University, Navsari, Gujarat, India, for providing the necessary facilities, infrastructure, and institutional support to carry out the present research work.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Availability\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eYes. Original research data were generated through field observations and experimental investigations and were analyzed as part of this study.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAbrol DP (2007) Foraging behaviour of \u003cem\u003eApis mellifera\u003c/em\u003e L. and \u003cem\u003eApis cerana\u003c/em\u003e F. as determined by the energetics of nectar production in different cultivars of \u003cem\u003eBrassica campestris\u003c/em\u003e var. toria. J Apic Sci 51(2):19\u0026ndash;23\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAnonymous (2024) District-wise area, production and yield of important food \u0026amp; non-food crops in Gujarat state (Year: 2021-22, 2022-23 and 2023-24). (gujarat.gov.in) Published by: Directorate of Agriculture, Krishibhavan, Sector-10 A, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar. 110 p. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://dag.gujarat.gov.in\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://dag.gujarat.gov.in\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e retrieved on 27-11-2025\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAtmowidi T, Buchori D, Manuwoto S, Suryobroto B, Hidayat P (2007) Diversity of pollinator insects in relation to seed set of mustard (\u003cem\u003eBrassica rapa\u003c/em\u003e L.: Cruciferae). HAYATI J Biosci 14(4):155\u0026ndash;161. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.4308/hjb.14.4.155\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.4308/hjb.14.4.155\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBandyopadhyay S, Chatterjee TK (2022) Diversity of visiting insects and butterflies on mustard (\u003cem\u003eBrassica\u003c/em\u003e sp.) flower at Ghatal, Midnapore, West Bengal, India. Int J Sci Res 12(6):1451\u0026ndash;1454. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.21275/SR23612130324\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.21275/SR23612130324\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBrien DJ, Arathi HS (2019) Bee diversity in agroecosystems and the role of native species in crop pollination. J Agricultural Environ Sci 7(2):34\u0026ndash;45\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFAO (2013) Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Statistical Division, 2013. See \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://faostats.fao.org/default.aspx\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://faostats.fao.org/default.aspx\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFree JB (1999) Pollination in the Tropics. Beekeep Dev 51:6\u0026ndash;7\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJatav PK, Yadav AS, Balpande S, Mahore P (2023) Influence of attractants on bees\u0026rsquo; pollination and enhancing the yield of mustard. Biol Forum Int J 15(1):643\u0026ndash;646\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKlein AM, Vaissiere BE, Cane JH, Tscharntke T (2007) Importance of pollinators in changing landscape for world crops. Royal Soc B: Biol Sci 274:303\u0026ndash;313. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1098/rspb.2006.3721\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1098/rspb.2006.3721\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKumar K, Fartyal RS, Kanwal KS, Khanduri S, Topal P (2024) Diversity and flower-visiting frequency of insect pollinators associated with mustard blooms (\u003cem\u003eBrassica campestris\u003c/em\u003e) in Kullu Valley, Himachal Pradesh. Environ Conserv 25(4):1120\u0026ndash;1126. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.36953/ECJ.29882946\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.36953/ECJ.29882946\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMasierowska ML (2003) Floral nectaries and nector production in brown mustard (\u003cem\u003eBrassica junea\u003c/em\u003e L.) and white mustard (\u003cem\u003eSinapis alba\u003c/em\u003e) (Brassicaceae). \u003cem\u003ePlant Systematic Evolution\u003c/em\u003e, 238: 97\u0026ndash;107. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1007/s00606-002-0273-2\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s00606-002-0273-2\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOllerton J, Winfree R, Tarrant S (2011) How many flowering plants are pollinated by animals? Oikos 120(3):321\u0026ndash;326. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1111/j.1600-0706.2010.18644.x\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/j.1600-0706.2010.18644.x\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePielou EC (1966) The measurement of diversity in the different type of biological collections. J Theor Biol 13:131\u0026ndash;144. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/0022-5193(66)90013-0\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/0022-5193(66)90013-0\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePotts SG, Biesmeijer JC, Kremen C, Neuamm P, Scjweiger O, Kunin WE (2010) Global pollinator declines: trends, impacts and drivers. Trends Ecol Evol 25(6):345\u0026ndash;353. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.tree.2010.01.007\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.tree.2010.01.007\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePriyadarshini P, Satapathy SN, Sahoo BK, Panigrahi CK, Bhowmik P (2025) Diversity and relative abundance of insect pollinators on mustard, \u003cem\u003eBrassica juncea\u003c/em\u003e L. Hexapoda Insecta Indica 32(1):55\u0026ndash;60. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.55446/hexa.2025.572\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.55446/hexa.2025.572\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eShakeel M, Ali H, Ahmad S, Said F, Khan KA, Bashir MA, Anjum SI, Islam W, Ghramh HA, Ansari MJ, Ali H (2019) Insect pollinators diversity and abundance in \u003cem\u003eEruca sativa\u003c/em\u003e Mill. (Arugula) and \u003cem\u003eBrassica rapa\u003c/em\u003e L. (Field mustard) crops. Saudi J Biol Sci 26(7):1704\u0026ndash;1709. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.sjbs.2018.08.012\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.sjbs.2018.08.012\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eShannon CE (1948) A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Syst Tech J 27(3):379\u0026ndash;423. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSimpson EH (1949) Measurement of diversity. Nature 163(4148):688. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1038/163688a0\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1038/163688a0\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVanitha K, Raviprasad TN (2019) Diversity, species richness and foraging behaviour of pollinators in cashew. Agricultural Res 8(2):197\u0026ndash;206\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Tables","content":"\u003cp\u003eTable 1 is available in the Supplementary Files section.\u003c/p\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"international-journal-of-tropical-insect-science","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"jtis","sideBox":"Learn more about [International Journal of Tropical Insect Science](http://link.springer.com/journal/42690)","snPcode":"42690","submissionUrl":"https://www.editorialmanager.com/jtis/default2.aspx","title":"International Journal of Tropical Insect Science","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"Biodiversity, Pollination, Mustard, Diversity Index and Hymenoptera","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8489619/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8489619/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eA field study was conducted to assess the diversity and community structure of diurnal insect pollinators associated with mustard. Pollinators were recorded through quadrate observations, sweep netting and visual counts during the flowering period. Five insect orders were documented, among which hymenoptera showed the highest species richness (16 species), followed by diptera (11 species) and lepidoptera (10 species). Hymenoptera exhibited maximum diversity (Shannon\u0026ndash;Wiener index, H\u0026prime; = 2.30; Simpson\u0026rsquo;s index\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;8.02) with low dominance (Berger\u0026ndash;Parker index\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.19). Diptera and lepidoptera also recorded high diversity and evenness, whereas coleoptera and hemiptera were comparatively species-poor but more evenly distributed. The study highlights the ecological significance of diverse diurnal insect pollinators in mustard Agro-ecosystems and supports the need for their conservation to sustain pollination services.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Diversity of Diurnal Insect Pollinators of Mustard","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-04-10 19:26:11","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8489619/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-04-19T21:30:52+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-04-16T07:46:38+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-04-15T05:17:30+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"272794608107187595479696289719053435926","date":"2026-04-14T03:11:59+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-04-13T07:42:12+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"125612586244453015108452341831228937414","date":"2026-04-07T15:38:05+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"36035021909951584489668641080592168632","date":"2026-04-07T15:27:29+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"299298305068038871205440388537925574178","date":"2026-04-06T13:15:27+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"161697496731718102857047739235629519566","date":"2026-04-06T06:33:42+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"34447124234115994424464605117379301235","date":"2026-04-06T03:38:20+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"9144032268857353480196740457549524016","date":"2026-04-05T17:36:29+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"133352910856123924524629465827872486679","date":"2026-04-05T14:29:15+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2026-04-05T14:18:04+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2026-01-19T12:54:33+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2026-01-19T12:53:35+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"International Journal of Tropical Insect Science","date":"2025-12-31T11:51:07+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"international-journal-of-tropical-insect-science","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"jtis","sideBox":"Learn more about [International Journal of Tropical Insect Science](http://link.springer.com/journal/42690)","snPcode":"42690","submissionUrl":"https://www.editorialmanager.com/jtis/default2.aspx","title":"International Journal of Tropical Insect Science","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"71010f93-4ab1-42b2-b9fb-6ef0ca920ee8","owner":[],"postedDate":"April 10th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-04-10T19:26:11+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-04-10 19:26:11","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8489619","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8489619","identity":"rs-8489619","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}