DOCSLIB.ORG

Ordo: Coleoptera) in the Western Black Sea Region and Its Environs Of

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ordo: Coleoptera) in the Western Black Sea Region and Its Environs Of www.trjfas.org ISSN 1303-2712 Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 10: 323-332 (2010) DOI: 10.4194/trjfas.2010.0304 Contribution to the Knowledge on Distribution of the Aquatic Beetles (Ordo: Coleoptera) in the Western Black Sea Region and Its Environs of Turkey Esat Tarık Topkara1,*, Süleyman Balık1 1 Ege University, Fisheries Faculty, Department of Hydrobiology, 35100, Bornova, İzmir, Turkey. * Corresponding Author: Tel.: +90.232 3434000/5345; Fax: +90.232 3883685; Received 09 January 2009 E-mail: [email protected] Accepted 04 March 2010 Abstract The collected aquatic Coleoptera specimens from inland water of the Western Black Sea Region between 2002-2005 are examined. In this study, 47 taxa belonging to 9 family were determined and their distribution in Turkey are given. Twenty three of them are the first record for the study area. Keywords: Gyrinidae, Haliplidae, Noteridae, Dytiscidae, Helophoridae, Hydrophilidae, Hydrochidae, Dryopidae, Elmidae. Türkiye’nin Batı Karadeniz Bölgesi ve Civarının Sucul Koleopterlerinin (Ordo: Coleoptera) Dağılımına Katkılar Özet 2002-2005 yılları arasında Batı Karadeniz Bölgesi içsularından toplanan sucul Coleoptera örnekleri değerlendirilmiştir. Bu çalışmada, 9 familyaya ait 47 takson tespit edilmiş ve tespit edilen taksonların Türkiye’deki dağılımları verilmiştir. Tespit edilen taksonlardan yirmiüçü araştırma bölgesinden ilk kez kaydedilmiştir. Anahtar Kelimeler: Gyrinidae, Haliplidae, Noteridae, Dytiscidae, Helophoridae, Hydrophilidae, Hydrochidae, Dryopidae, Elmidae. Introduction taxa), Hydrochidae (6 taxa), Hydraenidae (almost 200 taxa), Elmidae (28 taxa), Dryopidae (9 taxa) were The order Coleoptera is the largest order of identified (Angus, 1988, 1992; Audisio et al., 1993; insects. The species in this order are terrestrial, Balfour-Browne, 1963; Bollow, 1937; Brancucci, semiaquatic or aquatic. Water beetles can be found in 1988; Darılmaz and Kıyak, 2009a-b, 2010; Delève, a many different water habitats, it inhabits freshwater, 1963; Dettner, 1997; Erman, 2005; Erman et al., brackish and salt waters (Hansen, 1987; Nilsson and 2005, 2007; Fery and Erman, 2009; Fery and Nilsson, 1993; Gentili, 1979, 1982, 1988, 1991, 2000; Gentili Homen, 1995). Most species live in stagnant or slowly and rapid streams or pools, ponds, lakes, and Chiesa, 1975; Guéorguiev, 1981; Hájek et al., marshes, ditches, canals, brooks, rivers etc., however, 2005; Hansen, 1987; Hebauer, 1994; Hebauer and members of the Elmidae reside in rocky-bottomed Klausnitzer, 2000; Holmen, 1987; İncekara, 2008; rapid streams from high mountain (Ward, 1992). Guignot, 1947; İncekara et al., 2002, 2003, 2004, While some species have good swimmers, most 2005a-b, 2009; Jäch, 1984a-b, 1988a-b, 1989a-b, 1990, 1991a-b, 1992, 1993, 1994a-b, 1997; Jäch and of the aquatic hydrophiloids are rather poor swimmers and occur among vegetation along the shores Diaz, 2001; Jäch and Kasapoğlu, 2006; Janssens, (Hansen, 1997). 1963a-b, 1965, 1970, 1980; Kasapoğlu and Erman, Hitherto, in the systematic studies about the 2002; Kasapoğlu et al., 2006, 2010; Kıyak et al., aquatic Coleoptera on our country the members of 2006a-b, 2007; Makhan, 2005; Mart and Erman, Gyrinidae (12 taxa), Haliplidae (16 taxa), 2001; Nardi, 2001; Olmi, 1976; Toledo, 2004, 2009; Hygrobiidae (1 taxa), Noteridae (3 taxa), Dytiscidae Topkara and Balık, 2008; Vondel, 1991, 1992, 1997; (136 taxa), Helophoridae (55 taxa), Hydrophilidae (91 Vondel et al., 2006; Zaitsev, 1972). © Published by Central Fisheries Research Institute (CFRI) Trabzon, Turkey in cooperation with Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), Japan 324 E.T. Topkara and S. Balık / Turk. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 10: 323-332 (2010) There are many systematically, ecological and L09: Kurukavak Stream (Düzce); 40°58'37''N zoogeographical studies, by the native and foreign 31°01'52''E; 300 m; 29.06.2004. authors about the water beetles fauna of Turkey but L10: Akçakoca Stream (Akçakoca, Düzce); there is not a comprehensive study in the Western 41°05'06''N 31°06'07''E; 5 m; 30.06.2004. Black Sea Region except this work. The aim of this L11: Akınçay (Akçakoca, Düzce); 41°05'35''N study is to make a contribution to the aquatic 31°13'05''E; 10 m; 30.06.2004. Coleoptera fauna of the Western Black Sea Region. L12: Beyhanlı Stream (Akçakoca, Düzce); 41°06'03''N 31°13'05''E; 5 m; 30.06.2004. Materials and Methods L13: Değirmendere (Akçakoca, Düzce); 41°06'10''N 31°15'07''E; 5 m; 30.06.2004. All samples were collected with a view to L14: Kovukkavlak Stream (Alaplı, Zonguldak); determine on the fauna of inland waters in the 41°08'30''N 31°21'34''E; 5 m; 30.06.2004. Western Black Sea Region and its environs between L15: Salıdere (Ereğli, Zonguldak); 41°16'10''N 2002 and 2005. Specimens were sampled from 31°33'21''E; 20 m; 30.06.2004. various aquatic habitats like lake, river, pond and L16: Aydınlar Stream (Ereğli, Zonguldak); smaller pools, with either a sieve like benthos ladle or 41°14'01''N 31°36'38''E; 60 m; 30.06.2004. aquarium net having a 0.5 mm or 1 mm mesh L17: Ilıksu Stream (Zonguldak); 41°23'58''N diameter. The samples were preserved with 4% 31°41'01''E; 20 m; 30.06.2004. formalin solution in the field. Then they were dried in L18: Emir Stream (Zonguldak); 41°31'13''N Petri dishes and preserved in small sample bottles for 31°56'29''E; 20 m; 01.07.2004. storing long periods in the laboratory. L19: Göbü Stream (Zonguldak); 41°31'51''N First the samples were investigated under 31°57'23''E; 20 m; 01.07.2004. stereomicroscope to take off their aedeagus by L20: Yalnızcı Stream (Çaycuma, Zonguldak); dissecting needles. To remove the muscle tissues of 41°28'22''N 32°04'02''E; 20 m; 01.07.2004. aedeagus, they were stored for 1 to 2 hours in 10% L21: Karadere (Çaycuma, Zonguldak); NaOH solution. The above sea levels (a.s.l.) of the 41°23'08''N 32°02'26''E; 60 m; 01.07.2004. stations were mesured with equipment of GPS. L22: Gerdek Stream (Beycuma, Zonguldak); Materials have been deposited at the Museum of 41°22'01''N 31°59'54''E; 110 m; 01.07.2004. Faculty of Fisheries, Ege University, Izmir, Turkey L23: Döngeller Stream (Devrek, Zonguldak); (ESFM). 41°16'00''N 31°58'43''E; 100 m; 01.07.2004. L24: Göksu Stream (Yenişehir, Bursa); Research Area 40°16'19''N 29°46'52''E; 130 m; 16.08.2004. L25: Göynük Stream (Göynük, Bolu); The most northern end of the research area is 40°23'58''N 30°33'01''E; 380 m; 16.08.2004. starting from the east of Adapazarı to Ayancık L26: Nallıdere (Nallıhan, Ankara); 40°14'18''N (Sinop) and includes coastline of the Black Sea. 31°20'40''E; 780 m; 17.08.2004. Eastern border of the research area is Kızılırmak L27: Aladağ Stream (Seben, Bolu); 40°24'13''N River. Most southern point is Çavdarhisar (Kütahya), 31°34'28''E; 840 m; 17.08.2004. and Mahmudiye (Eskişehir), Güdül-Kızılcahamam are L28: Karaköse Stream (Bolu); 40°35'18''N on the southeastern border. In the most extreme point 31°38'02''E; 1300 m; 17.08.2004. of western there is Göksu River (Yenişehir-Bursa). L29: Ulus Stream (Ulus, Bartın); 41°31'20''N Details of the localities (locality (L), exact 32°34'04''E; 200 m; 18.08.2004. locality (provinces), coordinates, altitude, sampling L30: Ova Stream (Ulus, Bartın); 41°30'35''N dates) are below: 32°34'13''E; 200 m; 18.08.2004. L01: Karamurat Lake (Mudurnu, Bolu); 40°33'N L31: Çerkeş Stream (Çerkeş, Çankırı); 30°57'E; 700 m; 15.08.2002. 40°51'41''N 32°38'20''E; 980 m; 18.08.2004. L02: Melen Lake (Gölyaka, Düzce); 40°46'N L32: Bulak Stream (Kızılcahamam, Ankara); 31°03'E; 118 m; 14.08.2002. 40°30'05''N 32°36'44''E; 1000 m; 18.08.2004. L03: Taşkısığı Lake (Taşkısığı village, Sakarya); L33: Kocaçay (Kızılcahamam, Ankara); 40°52'N 30°24'E, 15 m; 24.06.2003. 40°25'56''N 32°39'01''E; 980 m; 18.08.2004. L04: Abant Lake (Abant, Bolu); 40°35'N L34: Bayındır Stream (Kızılcahamam, Ankara); 31°16'E; 1325 m; 25.06.2003. 40°19'21''N 32°27'53''E; 880 m; 18.08.2004. L05: Sünnet Lake (Mudurnu, Bolu); 40°25'N L35: Seydi Stream (Mahmudiye, Eskişehir); 30°57'E; 820 m; 25.06.2003. 39°30'35''N 30°59'26''E; 900 m; 19.08.2004. L06: Poyrazlar Lake (Poyrazlar, Sakarya); L36: Bardakçı Stream (Çifteler, Eskişehir); 40°50'N 30°27'E; 20 m; 24.06.2003. 39°22'49''N 31°06'37''E; 930 m; 19.08.2004. L07: Karadere (Cumayeri, Düzce); 41°53'56''N L37: Dereboğazı Stream (Kütahya); 39°10'58''N 30°52'56''E; 240 m; 29.06.2004. 29°35'36''E; 19.08.2004. L08: Bıçkı Stream (Düzce); 40°57'15''N L38: Bedir Stream (Çavdarhisar, Kütahya); 31°02'10''E; 360 m; 29.06.2004. 39°12'02''N 29°36'44''E; 620 m; 20.08.2004. E.T. Topkara and S. Balık / Turk. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 10: 323-332 (2010) 325 L39: Çamkışla Stream (Pınarbaşı, Kastamonu); (L8), 7♀♀, ESFM-INS/2004-003; (L18), 2♂♂ 2♀♀, 41°35'04''N 33°05'27''E; 620 m; 14.06.2005. ESFM-INS/2004-018; (L22), 6♂♂, ESFM-INS/2004- L40: Karafasıl Stream (Pınarbaşı, Kastamonu); 023; (L23), 1♂, ESFM-INS/2004-029: (L45), 1♂, 41°39'28''N 33°08'21''E; 360 m; 14.06.2005. ESFM-INS/2005-037; (L48), 3♀♀, ESFM-INS/2005- L41: Devrekani Stream (Pınarbaşı, Kastamonu); 041: (L49), 1♀, ESFM-INS/2005-042: (L53), 3♂♂ 41°40'08''N 33°09'40''E; 14.06.2005.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Coleoptera: Haliplidae: Haliplus) with Descriptions of Three New Species
    Bernhard J. van VONDEL1, Mogens HOLMEN2 & Pyotr N. PETROV3 1Natuurmuseum Rotterdam, The Netherlands 2Hillerød, Denmark 3Moscow South–West Gymnasium, Russia REVIEW OF THE PALAEARCTIC AND ORIENTAL SPECIES OF THE SUBGENUS HALIPLUS S.STR. (COLEOPTERA: HALIPLIDAE: HALIPLUS) WITH DESCRIPTIONS OF THREE NEW SPECIES Vondel, B.J. van, M. Holmen & P. N. Petrov, 2006. Review�������������������������������������� of the Palaearctic and Oriental species of the subgenus Haliplus s.str. (Coleoptera: Haliplidae: Haliplus) with descriptions of three new species. – Tijdschrift voor Entomologie 149: 227-273, figs. 1-231. [issn 0040-7496]. Published 1 December 2006. The species considered to belong to the subgenus Haliplus Latreille, 1802 and known to occur in the Palaearctic region are reviewed. Latreille’s selection of Dytiscus impressus Fabricius, 1787 as [misidentified] type species, is amended in the sense of the nominal species and not the misidentified identity, following iczn article 70.3.1. Dytiscus impressus is here formally selected as type species for Cnemidotus Illiger, 1802 and Hoplitus Clairville, 1806. Three new species are described: Haliplus (Haliplus) fuscicornis Holmen, Van Vondel & Petrov sp.n., H. kirgisiensis Holmen & Van Vondel sp.n. and H. turkmenicus Van Vondel sp.n.. Lectotypes are designated for H. ruficollis var. pedemontanus Fiori, H. lineolatus Mannerheim, H. brevis Wehncke, H. fluviatilis var. maculatus Seidlitz and H. minutus Takizawa. Three new synonymies are estab- lished: H. brevior Nakane, junior synonym of H. japonicus Sharp, H. fluviatilis var. maculatus Seidlitz, junior synonym of H. ruficollis (De Geer) and H. minutus Takizawa, junior synonym of H. simplex Clark. All species are described and figured. A key to the species is presented.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Beetles
    Ireland Red List No. 1 Water beetles Ireland Red List No. 1: Water beetles G.N. Foster1, B.H. Nelson2 & Á. O Connor3 1 3 Eglinton Terrace, Ayr KA7 1JJ 2 Department of Natural Sciences, National Museums Northern Ireland 3 National Parks & Wildlife Service, Department of Environment, Heritage & Local Government Citation: Foster, G. N., Nelson, B. H. & O Connor, Á. (2009) Ireland Red List No. 1 – Water beetles. National Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Dublin, Ireland. Cover images from top: Dryops similaris (© Roy Anderson); Gyrinus urinator, Hygrotus decoratus, Berosus signaticollis & Platambus maculatus (all © Jonty Denton) Ireland Red List Series Editors: N. Kingston & F. Marnell © National Parks and Wildlife Service 2009 ISSN 2009‐2016 Red list of Irish Water beetles 2009 ____________________________ CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................................................... 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...................................................................................................................................... 2 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................................ 3 NOMENCLATURE AND THE IRISH CHECKLIST................................................................................................ 3 COVERAGE .......................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Bioindicators of Water Quality
    Ephemeroptera | Mayflies ACE-11 Coleoptera | Beetles Using this guide Coleoptera with the data sheets Bioindicators of Water Quality Beetles Quick–Reference Guide Coleoptera (Beetles) Authors: Julie Speelman and Natalie Carroll | Photographer (unless otherwise noted): Julie Speelman | Design and Layout: Purdue Agricultural Communication Family Tolerance Number Family Tolerance 4 3 7 Value Found Score 5 5 5 Dryopidae 5 0 0 Dryopidae (larvae) Baetidae Baetiscidae Dytiscidae Dytiscidae (adult) Caenidae Dytiscidae 5 2 10 This publication shows aquatic insects that can be used as Long-toed Water Beetle Predaceous Diving Beetle Predaceous Diving Beetle Small Minnow Mayfly Armored Mayfly Small Square-gill Mayfly Biotic Water Quality Degree of Organic Elmidae 5 0 0 bioindicators of water quality in Indiana waterways. Bioindicators 5 are biological systems that are sensitive to environmental changes Index Rating Pollution Gyrinidae 4 0 0 organic pollution Dryopidae and, therefore, can indicate when pollution is present in the water. 0.00–3.75 excellent Long-toed Water Beetle Haliplidae 7 0 0 unlikely A tolerance score is included for each insect in this publication. Hydrophilidae 5 3 15 slight organic The tolerance score, ranging from 0–10, represents the insect’s 3.76–4.25 very good Psephenidae 4 0 0 sensitivity to pollution and can be used to estimate the quality of pollution possible the water in which the insect was found. Insects with a score of some organic Order Total 5 25 4.26–5.00 good 0 are intolerant to pollution, meaning they cannot tolerate any pollution probable water pollution, while insects with a score of 10 are very tolerant of fairly substantial 5 5 4 1 polluted water.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessing Potential Areas of Ecotourism Through a Case Study in Ilgaz Mountain National Park
    Chapter 5 Assessing Potential Areas of Ecotourism through a Case Study in Ilgaz Mountain National Park Mehmet Cetin and Hakan Sevik Additional information is available at the end of the chapter http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/62573 Abstract The changing demands of tourism provide greater benefits to tourists and generate competitive advantages that develop diversity in tourism. Elements of ecotourism fit within this context, and such tourism includes, but is not limited to, activities such as visiting natural and cultural resources without destroying nature, which are carried out with an aim toward sustainability. Ilgaz Mountain has a wealth of natural, cultural, historical, and recreational features, and its location near the Black Sea gives the area significant tourism potential. In order to evaluate the impact, potential, and possibili‐ ties of ecotourism in this protected area, we used geographic information systems (GIS) to determine the nature of protection required based on implementation availability. In this study, we used ecology-based identification of the natural and cultural values to characterize the features. The study consists of four parts: (1) the concept of ecotourism, (2) discussion of sustainable growth of tourism, (3) sustainability of ecotourism using GIS and how this is related to sustainable ecotourism in protected areas, such as in Turkey, (4) results and evaluation. By assessing these results, we aim to determine potential areas for ecotourism in terms of sustainable development, and we expect the results to provide useful ideas for further research. Keywords: Ecotourism potentials, Impacts, Possibilities, Protected area, Sustainabili‐ ty, SWOT 1. Introduction Ecotourism is an abbreviation of ecological tourism, which refers to understanding and protecting the freedom of tourism in nature.
    [Show full text]
  • COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL 04 518823-Ch01.Qxp 9/24/088:11Pmpage2
    04_518823-ch01.qxp 9/24/08 8:11 PM Page 1 1 Family Highlights of Turkey COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL 04_518823-ch01.qxp 9/24/08 8:11 PM Page 2 TURKEY 0 100 mi R U S S I A 0 100 km BLACKB L A C K SEAS E A BULGARIAB U L G A R I A G E O R G I A EdirneEdirnEdirne SinopSinop 16 AmasraAmasra 4 ZonguldakZonguldak BartinBartin Bafra Family Highlights of Turkey KastamonuKastamonu Artvin SafranboluSafranbolu Ardahan TerkirdaTerkirdağ IstanbulIstanbul EregliEregli 27 KeKeşanan 1 30 20 Samsun Trabzon Rize KarabukKarabuk Ünye Ordu SeaSea ofof MMarmaraarmara GebzeGebze KocaelKKocaeliocaeli SakaryaSakarya DüzceDüzceüzce Kars GallipoliGallipoli 28 BoluBolu Giresun A R M E N I A AegeanAegean YalovYYalovaalova 32 ÇankiriÇankiri SeaSea IIznikznik ÇorumÇorum Amasya Gümüşhane Yerevan IznikIznik22 9 12 BandirmaBandirma GölüGölü Tokat Bayburt 11 ÇanakkaleÇanakkale Turhal BursaBursa InegolInegol Erzurum SincanSincan Karakose BalıkesirBalıkesir ş AnkaraAnkara Doğubayazıt BozüyükBozBozüyüküyük EskiEski ehirehir 5 YozgatYozgat 7 KirikkaleKirikkale Sivas Erzincan PolatliPolatli LesboLLesbosesbos KütahyaKütahya TURKEYT U R K E Y Kemaliye Erçis AkhisarAkhisar Tunceli I R A N KirKirşehirehir Bingol ManisaManisa Mus Uşakak AfyonAfyon Van Gölü ş IzmirIzmir TurgutluTurgutlu KayseriKayseri Van ÇeÇe meme 21 TuzTuz GGölüölü Bitlis SalihliSalihli ÜrgüpÜrgüp Elazığ 14 13 3 AkAkşehirehir 17 OOdOdemisdemismis AksarayAksaray Malatya AegeanAegean ş DinarDinar KuKu adasiadasi 19 HoyranHoyran Siirt SeaSea 24 AydinAydin Diyarbakır SamosSamos 26 GölüGölü NiNiğdede Göksun Batman KonyaKonya
    [Show full text]
  • Hungerford's Crawling Water Beetle (Brychius Hungerfordi)
    COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Hungerford’s Crawling Water Beetle Brychius hungerfordi in Canada ENDANGERED 2011 COSEWIC status reports are working documents used in assigning the status of wildlife species suspected of being at risk. This report may be cited as follows: COSEWIC. 2011. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Hungerford’s Crawling Water Beetle Brychius hungerfordi in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. ix + 40 pp. (www.sararegistry.gc.ca/status/status_e.cfm). Production note: COSEWIC would like to acknowledge Colin Jones for writing the status report on Hungerford’s Crawling Water Beetle (Brychius hungerfordi) in Canada, prepared under contract with Environment Canada. This report was overseen and edited by Paul Catling, Co-chair of the COSEWIC Arthropods Specialist Subcommittee. For additional copies contact: COSEWIC Secretariat c/o Canadian Wildlife Service Environment Canada Ottawa, ON K1A 0H3 Tel.: 819-953-3215 Fax: 819-994-3684 E-mail: COSEWIC/[email protected] http://www.cosewic.gc.ca Également disponible en français sous le titre Ếvaluation et Rapport de situation du COSEPAC sur l’haliplide de Hungerford (Brychius hungerfordi) au Canada. Cover illustration/photo: Hungerford’s Crawling Water Beetle — Photo provided by S.A. Marshall, University of Guelph. ©Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2011. Catalogue No. CW69-14/627-2011E-PDF ISBN 978-1-100-18679-5 Recycled paper COSEWIC Assessment Summary Assessment Summary – May 2011 Common name Hungerford’s Crawling Water Beetle Scientific name Brychius hungerfordi Status Endangered Reason for designation A probable early postglacial relict, this water beetle is endemic to the upper Great Lakes and is Endangered in the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • County Wexford Biodiversity Action Plan 2013-2018
    County Wexford Biodiversity Action Plan 2013-2018 Endorsed by the Elected Members of Wexford County Council on the 11 th November 2013 Protecting County Wexford’s Biodiversity Through Actions and Raising Awareness COUNTY WEXFORD BIODIVERSITY ACTION PLAN 2013-2018 Endorsed by the Elected Members of Wexford County Council on the 11 th November 2013 To Protect County Wexford’s Biodiversity Through Actions and Raising Awareness ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to gratefully acknowledge all those who made a submission to the plan and the members of the Wexford Biodiversity Working Group for their valuable contribution to the plan. Thanks are also extended to the Steering Committee members, which included Cliona O’Brien from the Heritage Council and Lorcan Scott, NPWS. Thanks are also extended to Dr.Amanda Browne & Padraic Fogarty who prepared the audit and review of the biological resource. Art and photography credits are paid to the entrants of the 2011 Biodiversity Art and Photography competitions. ACRONYMS BAP – Biodiversity Action Plan BoCCI - Birds of Conservation Concern in Ireland BWG – Biodiversity Working Group cSACs - Candidate Special Areas of Conservation Flora Protection Order - Flora (Protection) Order, S.I. No. 94 of 1999. Habitats Directive - 1992 EU Directive on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora IUCN - International Union for the Conservation of Nature NBAP – National Biodiversity Action Plan, (. National Biodiversity Action Plan, Dúchas. 2002, and ‘Actions for Biodiversity 2011-2016, Ireland’s National Biodiversity Plan’, Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, 2011. NHA – Natural Heritage Area SAC – Special Area of Conservation SPA – Special Protection Area The Convention – UN Convention on Biological Diversity, signed at Rio Earth Summit 1992 The Guidelines – Guidelines for the Production of Local Biodiversity Action Plans, Heritage Council, 2003.
    [Show full text]
  • 1St International Eurasian Ornithology Congress
    1st International Eurasian Ornithology Congress Erdoğan, A., Turan, L., Albayrak, T. (Ed.) 1ST INTERNATIONAL EURASIAN ORNITHOLOGY CONGRESS Antalya, Turkey 8-11 April 2004 Jointly organized by Akdeniz University - Antalya and Hacettepe University - Ankara i 1st International Eurasian Ornithology Congress Ali Erdoğan, Levent Turan, Tamer Albayrak (Editorial Board) 1ST INTERNATIONAL EURASIAN ORNITHOLOGY CONGRESS Antalya Turkey 8-11 April 2004 ISBN: 975-98424-0-8 Print: Sadri Grafik 2004 Antalya ii 1st International Eurasian Ornithology Congress HONORARY PRESIDENTS (ALPHABETICALLY ORDERED) Prof. Dr. Tunçalp ÖZGEN Rector of Hacettepe University, Ankara Prof.Dr.Yaşar UÇAR Rector of Akdeniz University, Antalya CONGRESS CHAIRMAN Prof.Dr. İlhami KİZİROĞLU Hacettepe University EXECUTİVE COMMİTTEE Prof. Dr. Ali ERDOĞAN (Chairman) Prof. Dr. İlhami KİZİROĞLU Assoc. Prof. Dr. Levent TURAN (Vice Chairman) Cengiz GÖKOĞLU (Mayor of Bogazkent ) SCIENTIFIC CONGRESS SECRETARY Tamer ALBAYRAK (Akdeniz University, Antalya) iii 1st International Eurasian Ornithology Congress SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE Özdemir ADIZEL, (Yüzüncüyıl U. Van, Turkey ) Zafer AYAŞ, (Hacettepe U. Ankara, Turkey) Yusuf AYVAZ, (S. Demirel U. Isparta,Turkey) Walter BÄUMLER, (TU, Münich, Germany ) Franz BAIRLEIN, (Journal f.Ornithologie, Germany) Stuart BEARHOP, (University of Glasgow, UK) Einhard BEZZEL, (Falke, Germany) Mahmut BILGINER, (Ondokuz Mayıs U. Samsun, Turkey) Dan CHAMBERLAIN, (University of Stirling, UK) Ali ERDOĞAN, (Akdeniz U. Antalya, Turkey) Michael EXO, (Institut fuer Vogelforschung,
    [Show full text]
  • An Updated Checklist of the Water Beetles of Montenegro 205-212 ©Zoologische Staatssammlung München/Verlag Friedrich Pfeil; Download
    ZOBODAT - www.zobodat.at Zoologisch-Botanische Datenbank/Zoological-Botanical Database Digitale Literatur/Digital Literature Zeitschrift/Journal: Spixiana, Zeitschrift für Zoologie Jahr/Year: 2016 Band/Volume: 039 Autor(en)/Author(s): Scheers Kevin Artikel/Article: An updated checklist of the water beetles of Montenegro 205-212 ©Zoologische Staatssammlung München/Verlag Friedrich Pfeil; download www.pfeil-verlag.de SPIXIANA 39 2 205-212 München, Dezember 2016 ISSN 0341-8391 An updated checklist of the water beetles of Montenegro (Coleoptera, Hydradephaga) Kevin Scheers Scheers, K. 2016. An updated checklist of the water beetles of Montenegro (Co- leoptera, Hydradephaga). Spixiana 39 (2): 205-212. During a short collecting trip to Montenegro in 2014, 26 locations were sampled and 692 specimens belonging to 45 species of water beetles were collected. The following species are recorded for the first time from Montenegro: Haliplus dal- matinus J. Müller, 1900, Haliplus heydeni Wehncke, 1875, Haliplus laminatus (Schaller, 1783), Hydroporus erythrocephalus (Linnaeus, 1758), Hyphydrus anatolicus (Guignot, 1957), Melanodytes pustulatus (Rossi, 1792) and Rhantus bistriatus (Bergsträsser, 1778). The addition of these seven species brings the total of Hydradephaga known from Montenegro to 91 species. The new records are presented and an updated checklist of the Hydradephaga of Montenegro is given. Kevin Scheers, Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO), Kliniekstraat 25, 1070 Brussels, Belgium; e-mail: [email protected] Introduction of the sampling sites were obtained using a GPS (Garmin eTrex Vista HCx). The material was collected with a The first data on the Hydradephaga of Montenegro small sieve and a hydrobiological handnet. Traps were were given by Guéorguiev (1971).
    [Show full text]
  • A Genus-Level Supertree of Adephaga (Coleoptera) Rolf G
    ARTICLE IN PRESS Organisms, Diversity & Evolution 7 (2008) 255–269 www.elsevier.de/ode A genus-level supertree of Adephaga (Coleoptera) Rolf G. Beutela,Ã, Ignacio Riberab, Olaf R.P. Bininda-Emondsa aInstitut fu¨r Spezielle Zoologie und Evolutionsbiologie, FSU Jena, Germany bMuseo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Madrid, Spain Received 14 October 2005; accepted 17 May 2006 Abstract A supertree for Adephaga was reconstructed based on 43 independent source trees – including cladograms based on Hennigian and numerical cladistic analyses of morphological and molecular data – and on a backbone taxonomy. To overcome problems associated with both the size of the group and the comparative paucity of available information, our analysis was made at the genus level (requiring synonymizing taxa at different levels across the trees) and used Safe Taxonomic Reduction to remove especially poorly known species. The final supertree contained 401 genera, making it the most comprehensive phylogenetic estimate yet published for the group. Interrelationships among the families are well resolved. Gyrinidae constitute the basal sister group, Haliplidae appear as the sister taxon of Geadephaga+ Dytiscoidea, Noteridae are the sister group of the remaining Dytiscoidea, Amphizoidae and Aspidytidae are sister groups, and Hygrobiidae forms a clade with Dytiscidae. Resolution within the species-rich Dytiscidae is generally high, but some relations remain unclear. Trachypachidae are the sister group of Carabidae (including Rhysodidae), in contrast to a proposed sister-group relationship between Trachypachidae and Dytiscoidea. Carabidae are only monophyletic with the inclusion of a non-monophyletic Rhysodidae, but resolution within this megadiverse group is generally low. Non-monophyly of Rhysodidae is extremely unlikely from a morphological point of view, and this group remains the greatest enigma in adephagan systematics.
    [Show full text]
  • In Vitro Propagation of Digitalis Trojana Ivanina., an Endemic Medicinal Plant of Turkey Nurşen Çördük and Cüneyt Aki
    Chapter In Vitro Propagation of Digitalis trojana Ivanina., an Endemic Medicinal Plant of Turkey Nurşen Çördük and Cüneyt Aki Abstract Digitalis trojana Ivanina is a member of the Plantaginaceae family and known by its common name, Helen of Troy foxglove. It is perennial endemic to Çanakkale and Balıkesir, northwestern Turkey. In order to develop an efficient shoot regen- eration protocol, the leaf explants of D. trojana were cultured on Murashige and Skoog (MS) medium containing 6-benzyl adenine (0.1, 0.5, 1.0, 3.0, 5.0 mg/L) and α-naphthalene acetic acid (0.1, 0.5, 1.0 mg/L), 3% (w/v) sucrose and 0.8% (w/v) agar. The highest number of regenerated shoots was obtained from leaf explants that were cultured on MS medium with 3.0 mg/L BA+0.1 mg/L NAA. Regenerated shoots were rooted on MS medium without plant growth regulators. Rooted plants (2–3 cm) were separately transferred to pots containing a mixture of peat and perlite (2:1 v/v) and acclimatized successfully in a growth chamber. Keywords: endemic, foxglove, in vitro, propagation, regeneration 1. Introduction Turkey has a rich biodiversity as a result of its location, its geological struc- ture and different climatic zones. Turkey hosts three biogeographical regions: Mediterranean, Euro-Siberian and Irano-Turanian. As a result of located on the meeting point of these three different regions, Turkey is one of the most important areas in the world in terms of biological diversity. It is one of the world’s richest countries with regard to diversity of plant species, hosting 167 families, 1320 genera and 9996 species [1].
    [Show full text]
  • A Manual for the Survey and Evaluation of the Aquatic Plant and Invertebrate Assemblages of Grazing Marsh Ditch Systems
    A manual for the survey and evaluation of the aquatic plant and invertebrate assemblages of grazing marsh ditch systems Version 6 Margaret Palmer Martin Drake Nick Stewart May 2013 Contents Page Summary 3 1. Introduction 4 2. A standard method for the field survey of ditch flora 5 2.1 Field survey procedure 5 2.2 Access and licenses 6 2.3 Guidance for completing the recording form 6 Field recording form for ditch vegetation survey 10 3. A standard method for the field survey of aquatic macro- invertebrates in ditches 12 3.1 Number of ditches to be surveyed 12 3.2 Timing of survey 12 3.3 Access and licences 12 3.4 Equipment 13 3.5 Sampling procedure 13 3.6 Taxonomic groups to be recorded 15 3.7 Recording in the field 17 3.8 Laboratory procedure 17 Field recording form for ditch invertebrate survey 18 4. A system for the evaluation and ranking of the aquatic plant and macro-invertebrate assemblages of grazing marsh ditches 19 4.1 Background 19 4.2 Species check lists 19 4.3 Salinity tolerance 20 4.4 Species conservation status categories 21 4.5 The scoring system 23 4.6 Applying the scoring system 26 4.7 Testing the scoring system 28 4.8 Conclusion 30 Table 1 Check list and scoring system for target native aquatic plants of ditches in England and Wales 31 Table 2 Check list and scoring system for target native aquatic invertebrates of grazing marsh ditches in England and Wales 40 Table 3 Some common plants of ditch banks that indicate salinity 50 Table 4 Aquatic vascular plants used as indicators of good habitat quality 51 Table 5a Introduced aquatic vascular plants 53 Table 5a Introduced aquatic invertebrates 54 Figure 1 Map of Environment Agency regions 55 5.
    [Show full text]