Diptera: Nematocera) Around Springs in Southern Finland
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
© Entomologica Fennica. 23 November 2001 Adult craneflies (Diptera: Nematocera) around springs in southern Finland Jukka Salmela Salmela, J. 2001: Adult craneflies (Diptera: Nematocera) around springs in southern Finland. — Entomol. Fennica 12: 139–152. Adult craneflies were collected along 27 springs and springbrooks in 1999 and 2000 in southern Finland (biogeographical provinces of Ab, N, St and Ta). A total of 95 species (24 Tipulidae, 2 Cylindrotomidae, 54 Limoniidae, 12 Pediciidae and 3 Ptychopteridae) and 2714 individuals were identified. The material was col- lected by Malaise and window traps and by sweep netting. Tricyphona immaculata (Meigen), Pedicia rivosa (Linnaeus), P. straminea (Meigen) and Paradelphomyia fuscula (Loew) were the most common and often most abundant species. Erioptera pederi Tjeder, Molophilus bifidus Goetghebuer, M. bihamatus de Meijere, M. corniger de Meijere, Lipsothrix ecucullata Edwards, Dicranota pavida (Haliday) and Ula mixta Stary are reported for the first time from Finland. Jukka Salmela, Department of Bio- and Environmental Sciences, University of Jyväskylä, P.O. Box 35, FIN-40351 Jyväskylä, Finland; E-mail: [email protected] Received 31 January 2001, accepted 5 May 2001 1. Introduction habitat in which emergent groundwater forms a stenothermic pool. Often the types co-occur, for In temperate regions springs are summer cool and instance when a spring has both helocrene and winter warm habitats and they provide a relatively rheocrene characteristics (Table 1). Emergent stable environment: constant flow and tempera- groundwater flows downstream in a springbrook, ture regime. Northern, cold stenothermic species and with increased distance from a spring source, might have relict populations in springs in south- the physical characteristics of the springbrook ern latitudes and southern species, which are not change and become more like the characteristics able to tolerate below 0 °C winter temperatures, of surface-fed streams in the same area (e.g. are able to survive in springs in northern latitudes McCabe 1998). (e.g. Nielsen 1950). Perhaps no aquatic insect is The dipteran families Tipulidae, Cylindro- strictly confined to spring habitats, but in some tomidae, Limoniidae, Pediciidae and Ptycho- parts of their range they may occur exclusively in pteridae are found througout the Palaearctic re- springs (Lindegaard 1995, Wagner et. al. 1998). gion and their larvae inhabit a diverse array of In this study the major spring types are habitats like moist or dry soil, decaying wood, classified as in Smith (1991): (1) Helocrene: habi- fungi and terrestrial plants. However, a majority tat in which emergent groundwater continuously of limoniid, pediciid and ptychopterid species and percolates through a layer of detritus or a mat of some genera of Tipulidae and Cylindrotomidae vegetation; (2) Rheocrene: habitat in which emer- are considered to be aquatic/semiaquatic or their gent groundwater flows over a substrate consist- larvae dwell in thin films of running water (madi- ing primarily of gravel or sand; (3) Limnocrene: colous or hygropetric habitats) (e.g. Mendl 1978, 140 Table 1. Location of the study springs and their environmental data. Surroundings: NAT = Naturalness (0 = natural state lost, e.g. surroundings partly clearcut or inlet/outlet brooks built; 2 = small scale disturbance, e.g. surroundings with slight silvacultural treatments, small or old constructions; 3 = almost or totally undisturbed); FOR = % Forest; CT = % Clearcut or thicket; BOG = % Open or semi-open bog; TREE = Dominating tree species (D = deciduous tree; P = pine; S = spruce). Spring: AREA = Spring area (0 = <10 m2; 1 = 10–100 m2; 2 = 101–1000 m2; 3 = >1000 m2); HEL = Helocrene ( = vegetation cover, %); RHEO = Rheocrene (emergent groundwater flowing over a sandy substrate, %); LIM = Limnocrene ( = pool area, %); POV = Pool volume (0 = no spring pool; 1 = <1 m3; 2 = 1–10 m3; 3 = >10 m3); BROw = Springbrook width (1 = 0.1–0.5 m; 2 = 0.6–1 m; 3 = >1 m); BROb = dominating bottom material in springbrook (1 = coarse detritus; 2 = mud; 3 = silt-sand; 4 = mosses (esp. Fontinalis). ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— Surroundings (about 50 m radius) Spring —————————————————— ————————————————————————— NAT FOR CT BOG TREE AREA RHEO HEL LIM POV BROw BROb ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 1. Prästkärret, Karjaa (Ab) 3 100 0 0 S 0 0 0 100 2 1 2, 4 2. Varvarinsuo, Karjaa (Ab) 1 0 70 30 D 1 0 100 0 0 2 1, 2 3. Källviken, Parainen (Ab) 2 80 20 0 P 0 80 0 20 1 1 3, 2 4. Ruostelähde, Parainen (Ab) 2 80 20 0 S, D 1 0 0 100 3 2 2 5. Lähdesuo, Perniö (Ab) 3 40 0 60 P, D 2 0 80 20 2 1 2, 1 6. Puolakanlähde, Perniö 3 100 0 0 S 2 0 100 0 0 2 2 7. Yrjännummi, Perniö (Ab) 2 90 10 0 S 1 0 100 0 0 1 2, 4 8. Lohioja, Perniö (Ab) 3 30 0 70 P, S 1 0 80 20 1 2 2, 4 9. Lähteensuo, Perniö (Ab) 350050P 2 01090322 10. Kiehuvalähde, Kiikala (Ab) 2 80 20 0 D, S 1 100 0 0 0 2 3 Salmela 11. Varesjoki Kiikala (Ab) 3 80 0 20 S 3 0 100 0 0 1 1, 2 12. Kultalähde, Kiikala (Ab) 3 90 0 10 S, D 3 0 50 50 3 3 2, 4 13. Lamminlähde, Kiikala (Ab) 1 80 20 0 S, D 2 0 50 50 2 2 2, 4 14. Pyykorpi, Espoo (N) 2 100 0 0 D 2 0 100 0 0 1 1, 2 • ENTOMOL.FENNICA Vol.12 15. Isosuo, Espoo (N) 2 80 20 0 S 1 0 0 100 2 2 2, 4 16. Kiljava, Nurmijärvi (N) 3 100 0 0 S 3 0 100 0 0 2 3, 1 17. Petkelsuo, Hyvinkää (N) 3 80 0 20 S, D 3 0 80 20 3 2 2, 4 18. Hossojanlähde, Kiikala, Somero (Ab, Ta) 2 80 0 20 P 1 0 0 100 2 3 2 19. Yrttikorpi, Somero (Ta) 2 90 10 0 S, D 3 0 95 5 2 2 2, 1 20. Hirviniemenlähde, Tampere (Ta) 2 90 10 0 S, D 0 0 0 100 2 2 2 21. Katajajärventie, Ruovesi (Ta) 3 100 0 0 S 0 0 100 0 0 1 2 22. Viinikka, Ruovesi (Ta) 2 60 40 0 S 2 0 100 0 0 3 3, 4 23. Ryövärinkuoppa, Ruovesi 3 100 0 0 S 2 100 0 0 0 3 3, 4 24. Runeberginlähde, Ruovesi (Ta) 2 100 0 0 D 2 0 0 100 3 3 3, 4 25. Narvin uhrilähde, Jämijärvi (St) 3 100 0 0 S, D 3 0 30 70 3 3 2, 4 26. Konkanneva, Ikaalinen (St) 3 30 0 70 P 1 100 0 0 0 2 3, 2 27. Kivistönlähde, Ikaalinen (St) 1 60 40 0 S, D 2 0 90 10 2 2 2, 3 ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— ENTOMOL. FENNICA Vol. 12 • Adult craneflies around springs in southern Finland 141 Theowald 1978). Some members of the family 3. Observations on the occurence of Tipulidae are important in detritus processing some species and comments on their (Caspers 1980a) and pediciids may be the top in- ecology vertebrate predators in small and shallow water bodies, like springs (Iversen 1988). 3.1. Tipulidae The Finnish cranefly fauna, especially fami- lies Limoniidae and Pediciidae, is relatively poorly Altogether 24 (27% of the Finnish species) tipulid known; both faunistic and ecological notes are species were recorded. A majority of the species scarce. Only two recent papers dealing with the were caught only once and in low numbers of in- cranefly fauna of northern Finland are available dividuals. Along with these occasional species, (Siitonen 1984, Viramo 1992). Tipula fulvipennis, T. variicornis and T. grisescens In northern Europe invertebrates of springs occured in eight or more springs, but never in large have been studied mainly in Denmark (e.g. Linde- numbers of individuals. Tipula fulvipennis and T. gaard et. al. 1998). However, the methods used in variicornis have a wide distribution in Europe these studies, including only benthic samples, have (Oosterbroek & Theowald 1992) and are only oc- not made it possible to identify craneflies to spe- casionally reported in springs or springbrooks cies level due to the poor knowledge of the im- (Dittmar 1955, Maiworm 1984); their larvae may mature stages. In contrast, many emergence or dwell in terrestrial, semiaquatic or hygropetric larval breeding studies have been performed in Central Europe and the cranefly fauna of springs and springbrooks is relatively well known in these Table 2. Sampling methods in springs in southern areas (Dittmar 1955, Gümbel 1976, Maiworm Finland. Malaise = number of Malaise traps; 1984, Fischer et al. 1998, Sternberg 1998, Wagner window = number of window traps; sweepnet = times et al. 1998). These studies show that craneflies when visited to sweep net flies. can be abundant and species diversity can be high ———————————————————————— in springs. Spring Malaise Window Sweepnet ———————————————————————— 1. Prästkärret 1 – – 2. Varvarinsuo 1 – – 2. Material and methods 3. Källvik – 1 7 4. Ruostelähde – – 4 Adult craneflies were collected in 1999 and 2000 by Malaise 5. Lähdesuo – – 4 or window traps or by sweeping adult insects among vegeta- 6. Puolakanlähde – – 5 tion with a sweep net. Ethylene glycol or formaldehyde was 7. Yrjännummi – – 1 used as preservative in the traps and the insects were preserved 8. Lohioja – – 4 in 70% alcohol. The collecting intervals varied between two 9. Lähteensuo – – 4 weeks and two months. The material collected by the sweep 10. Kiehuvalähde – – 2 net was immediately stored in alcohol. The sampling intensity 11. Varesjoki 2 – – varied between springs: some were sweepnetted only once and 12. Kultalähde 1 3 4 others were very intensively sampled, using several Malaise 13. Lamminlähde – 2 2 and window traps and sweepnetting on multiple occasions 14. Pyykorpi 2 – – (Table 2.). The samples were taken within a 30 m radius from 15.