DOCSLIB.ORG

A Review of the Invertebrate Assemblage of Acid Mires

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Review of the Invertebrate Assemblage of Acid Mires Report Number 592 A review of the invertebrate assemblage of acid mires English Nature Research Reports working today for nature tomorrow English Nature Research Reports Number 592 A review of the invertebrate assemblage of acid mires D C Boyce 1 Rosemary Lane Dulverton Somerset TA22 9DP 2004 You may reproduce as many additional copies of this report as you like, provided such copies stipulate that copyright remains with English Nature, Northminster House, Peterborough PE1 1UA ISSN 0967-876X © Copyright English Nature 2004 Acknowledgements The author would like to thank Jon Webb, English Nature’s nominated officer for this project for much help and advice. Contents Acknowledgements 1. Introduction....................................................................................................................9 1.1 Scope of report...................................................................................................9 1.1.1 Taxonomic coverage..............................................................................9 1.1.2 Coverage of mire types ........................................................................10 1.2 Methodology ....................................................................................................13 1.2.1 Defining acid mire associates ..............................................................13 1.2.2 Defining acid mire communities..........................................................14 2. Invertebrates associated with acid mires......................................................................16 2.1 Arachnida.........................................................................................................16 2.1.1 Linyphiidae ..........................................................................................16 2.1.2 Araneidae .............................................................................................20 2.1.3 Lycosidae .............................................................................................20 2.1.4 Pisauridae.............................................................................................20 2.1.5 Dictynidae ............................................................................................21 2.1.6 Liocranidae ..........................................................................................21 2.1.7 Clubionidae ..........................................................................................21 2.1.8 Gnaphosidae.........................................................................................21 2.1.9 Zoridae .................................................................................................21 2.1.10 Philodromidae ......................................................................................21 2.1.11 Salticidae..............................................................................................22 2.2 Odonata............................................................................................................22 2.2.1 Coenagrionidae ....................................................................................22 2.2.2 Aeshnidae.............................................................................................23 2.2.3 Libellulidae ..........................................................................................23 2.3 Orthoptera ........................................................................................................23 2.3.1 Acrididae..............................................................................................23 2.3.2 Tettigoniidae ........................................................................................23 2.4 Heteroptera.......................................................................................................24 2.4.1 Hebridae...............................................................................................24 2.4.2 Gerridae................................................................................................24 2.4.3 Notonectidae ........................................................................................24 2.4.4 Corixidae..............................................................................................24 2.5 Lepidoptera ......................................................................................................25 2.5.1 Satyridae ..............................................................................................25 2.5.2 Geometridae.........................................................................................26 2.5.3 Noctuidae .............................................................................................28 2.6 Trichoptera.......................................................................................................29 2.6.1 Phryganeidae........................................................................................29 2.6.2 Limnephilidae ......................................................................................30 2.7 Diptera..............................................................................................................30 2.7.1 Tipulidae ..............................................................................................30 2.7.2 Dolichopodidae ....................................................................................33 2.7.3 Tabanidae.............................................................................................35 2.7.4 Syrphidae .............................................................................................36 2.7.5 Scathophagidae ....................................................................................37 2.8 Coleoptera........................................................................................................38 2.8.1 Carabidae .............................................................................................38 2.8.2 Gyrinidae..............................................................................................41 2.8.3 Dytiscidae ............................................................................................41 2.8.4 Hydrophilidae ......................................................................................42 2.8.5 Staphylinidae........................................................................................43 2.8.6 Scirtidae ...............................................................................................48 2.8.7 Byrrhidae..............................................................................................49 2.8.8 Elateridae .............................................................................................49 2.8.9 Cantharidae ..........................................................................................49 2.8.10 Chrysomelidae .....................................................................................49 2.8.11 Apionidae.............................................................................................50 2.8.12 Curculionidae.......................................................................................50 2.9 Aculeate Hymenoptera.....................................................................................51 2.9.1 Formicidae ...........................................................................................51 2.9.2 Eumenidae............................................................................................51 3. Invertebrate communities of acid mires.......................................................................52 3.1 Key habitat features for acid mire invertebrates..............................................52 3.1.1 Open Sphagnum lawns (SL) ................................................................52 3.1.2 Grass, rush, sedge tussocks and litter (GRS) .......................................52 3.1.3 Ericaceous dwarf shrubs (EDS) ...........................................................53 3.1.4 Still water (SW) ...................................................................................53 3.1.5 Running water (RW)............................................................................53 3.1.6 Scattered trees and scrub (TS) .............................................................53 3.1.7 Bare peat (BP)......................................................................................54 3.2 Invertebrate communities of hydrotopographical mire types ..........................54 3.2.1 Lowland raised bogs ............................................................................54 3.2.2 Blanket bogs.........................................................................................59 3.2.3 Waterfringe bogs..................................................................................64 3.2.4 Sump bogs (basin mires)......................................................................66 3.2.5 Spring-fed bogs and soakways.............................................................70 3.2.6 Run-off bogs ........................................................................................74 4. Future action for the invertebrate fauna of acid mires in England...............................80 5. References....................................................................................................................82 Appendix 1: Important sites for acid mire invertebrates in England.......................................91 Appendix 2: Summary table for acid mire associated
Load more

Recommended publications
  • (Iaps) and Other Small Waterbodies in Northern Ireland Quercus Project QU09-03
    Natural Heritage Research Partnership Important Areas for Ponds (IAPs) and other small waterbodies in Northern Ireland Quercus Project QU09-03 Bog pool at Montiaghs Moss Nature Reserve and ASSI Prepared for the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) by Helen Keeble, Penny Williams, Jeremy Biggs, Pond Conservation & Neil Reid, Natural Heritage Research Partnership, Quercus This report should be cited as: Keeble, H. Williams, P. Biggs, J. & Reid, N. (2009) Important Areas for Ponds (IAPs) and other small waterbodies in Northern Ireland. Report prepared by Pond Conservation and the Natural Heritage Research Partnership, Quercus for the Northern Ireland Environment Agency, Northern Ireland, UK. Pond Conservation c/o Oxford Brookes University Gipsy Lane, Headington Oxford, OX3 0BP www.pondconservation.org.uk Quercus project QU09-03 Quercus hosts the Natural Heritage Research Partnership between the Northern Ireland Environment Agency and Queen's University Belfast. http://www.quercus.ac.uk/ www.quercus.ac.uk Acknowledgements We would like to thank all those who provided data, photos or other information for this assessment, and especially those who took time to visit sites with us in June 2009. In particular: Bob Davidson, Brian Nelson, Catherine McSorley, Jane Preston, John Early, Lynne Rendle, Marcus Malley, Mary Gallagher, Patrick Kelly, Richard Weyl, Seamus Burns and Tony Waterman. Report production: July 2009 Consultation: August 2009 SUMMARY Ponds are an important freshwater habitat that has been shown to play a key role in maintaining biodiversity at landscape level. However, ponds are also vulnerable to environmental degradation and there is evidence that, at a national level, pond quality is declining. In 2007, the biodiversity importance of ponds was recognised when high quality ponds (Priority Ponds) were added to the list of UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) Priority Habitats.
    [Show full text]
  • Guides to British Beetles 8. Elaphrus Peacock Beetles and Blethisa Ground Beetles (Coleoptera; Carabidae)
    ElaphrusBlethisaGuide.qxd:Layout 1 23/3/10 14:47 Page 1 Guides to British Beetles 8. Elaphrus Peacock Beetles and Blethisa Ground Beetles (Coleoptera; Carabidae) These distinctive beetles have large round pits on the elytra containing violet or blue eye- spots. Blethisa lacks these eye-spots but is in a closely related genus. All are diurnal and may be found running on mud in wetland habitats. This guide will enable identification of the four Elaphrus and singe Blethisa found in Britain. Elaphrus lapponicus Northern Peacock Separated from the following species by the shape of the elytra (see diagrams). The pits on the elytra are much shallower than in other species. Dull 8.5 - 10 mm matt upper surface except shiny mirrors. Varies in colour from black, copper, reddish purple, green or blue. Legs are black with metallic reflection. Head about as wide as pronotum. Much flatter in appearance than the next two species. Hind-wings present and capable of flight. Elaphrus lapponicus Northern Peacock A scarce and local species found in lapponicus cupreus sphagnum bogs and mossy flushes in The elytra are narrower at upland areas of Scotland. There are old the base and longer than in records from the Lake District. the other species. Elaphrus cupreus Copper Peacock Similar to uliginosus but separated by the shape of the pronotum which is distinctly narrower than the head . The 8 - 9.5 mm legs have pale tibiae . Tarsi metallic blue. Coppery-green upperparts. Elytra shiny with violet coloured pits. Hind- wings present, flies readily. A common species found throughout Britain in wet habitats such as bogs, edges of cupreus uliginosus pools and streams.
    [Show full text]
  • Coleoptera, Carabidae) 517 Doi: 10.3897/Zookeys.100.1543 Research Article Launched to Accelerate Biodiversity Research
    A peer-reviewed open-access journal ZooKeys 100: 517–532What (2011)do we know about winter active ground beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) 517 doi: 10.3897/zookeys.100.1543 RESEARCH ARTICLE www.zookeys.org Launched to accelerate biodiversity research What do we know about winter active ground beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) in Central and Northern Europe? Radomir Jaskuła, Agnieszka Soszyńska-Maj Department of Invertebrate Zoology & Hydrobiology, University of Łódź, Banacha 12/16, 90-237 Łódź, Poland Corresponding authors: Radomir Jaskuła ([email protected]), Agnieszka Soszyńska-Maj ([email protected]) Academic editor: J. Noordijk | Received 26 November 2009 | Accepted 8 April 2010 | Published 20 May 2011 Citation: Jaskuła R, Soszyńska-Maj A (2011) What do we know about winter active ground beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) in Central and Northern Europe? In: Kotze DJ, Assmann T, Noordijk J, Turin H, Vermeulen R (Eds) Carabid Beetles as Bioindicators: Biogeographical, Ecological and Environmental Studies. ZooKeys 100: 517–532. doi: 10.3897/ zookeys.100.1543 Abstract This paper summarizes the current knowledge on winter active Carabidae in Central and Northern Eu- rope. In total 73 winter active species are listed, based on literature and own observations. Ground beetles are among the three most numerous Coleoptera families active during the autumn to spring period. The winter community of Carabidae is composed both of larvae (mainly autumn breeding species) and adults, as well as of epigeic species and those inhabiting tree trunks. Supranivean fauna is characterized by lower species diversity than the subnivean fauna. The activity of ground beetles decreases in late autumn, is lowest during mid-winter and increases in early spring.
    [Show full text]
  • Key Factors Affecting the Diversity of Sphagnum Cover Inhabitants with the Focus on Ground Beetle Assemblages in Central-Eastern European Peat Bogs
    COMMUNITY ECOLOGY 20(1): 45-52, 2019 1585-8553 © AKADÉMIAI KIADÓ, BUDAPEST DOI: 10.1556/168.2019.20.1.5 Key factors affecting the diversity of Sphagnum cover inhabitants with the focus on ground beetle assemblages in Central-Eastern European peat bogs G. Sushko Department of Ecology and Environmental Protection, Vitebsk State University P. M. Masherov, Moskovski Ave. 33, 21008 Vitebsk, Belarus. E-mail: [email protected] Keywords: Belarus, Carabidae, diversity, environmental factors, Sphagnum dwellers. Abstract. A key structural component in peat bog formation is Sphagnum spp., which determines very specific associated envi- ronmental conditions. The aim of this study was to characterise some of the key factors affecting the diversity, species richness and abundance of sphagnum inhabiting ground beetles and to examine the maintenance of stable populations of cold adapted specialised peat bog species. A total of 52 carabid species were recorded by pitfall traps along six main habitats, such as the lagg zone, pine bog, hollows, hummock open bog and dome. The results are characterised by a low diversity, which vary significantly among habitat types, and include a high abundance of a few carabid species. Among the variables influencing carabid species richness and abundance were plant cover, pH and the conductivity of the Sphagnum mat water. Vascular plant cover was a key factor shaping carabid beetle assemblages in the slope and the dome, while electric conductivity affected carabid beetle assem- blage in the lagg. Whereas, the water level was the most important factor for the hollows. At the same time, peat bog specialists showed low sensitivity to the gradient of the analysed variables.
    [Show full text]
  • Green-Tree Retention and Controlled Burning in Restoration and Conservation of Beetle Diversity in Boreal Forests
    Dissertationes Forestales 21 Green-tree retention and controlled burning in restoration and conservation of beetle diversity in boreal forests Esko Hyvärinen Faculty of Forestry University of Joensuu Academic dissertation To be presented, with the permission of the Faculty of Forestry of the University of Joensuu, for public criticism in auditorium C2 of the University of Joensuu, Yliopistonkatu 4, Joensuu, on 9th June 2006, at 12 o’clock noon. 2 Title: Green-tree retention and controlled burning in restoration and conservation of beetle diversity in boreal forests Author: Esko Hyvärinen Dissertationes Forestales 21 Supervisors: Prof. Jari Kouki, Faculty of Forestry, University of Joensuu, Finland Docent Petri Martikainen, Faculty of Forestry, University of Joensuu, Finland Pre-examiners: Docent Jyrki Muona, Finnish Museum of Natural History, Zoological Museum, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland Docent Tomas Roslin, Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences, Division of Population Biology, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland Opponent: Prof. Bengt Gunnar Jonsson, Department of Natural Sciences, Mid Sweden University, Sundsvall, Sweden ISSN 1795-7389 ISBN-13: 978-951-651-130-9 (PDF) ISBN-10: 951-651-130-9 (PDF) Paper copy printed: Joensuun yliopistopaino, 2006 Publishers: The Finnish Society of Forest Science Finnish Forest Research Institute Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry of the University of Helsinki Faculty of Forestry of the University of Joensuu Editorial Office: The Finnish Society of Forest Science Unioninkatu 40A, 00170 Helsinki, Finland http://www.metla.fi/dissertationes 3 Hyvärinen, Esko 2006. Green-tree retention and controlled burning in restoration and conservation of beetle diversity in boreal forests. University of Joensuu, Faculty of Forestry. ABSTRACT The main aim of this thesis was to demonstrate the effects of green-tree retention and controlled burning on beetles (Coleoptera) in order to provide information applicable to the restoration and conservation of beetle species diversity in boreal forests.
    [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]
  • Lepidoptera in Cheshire in 2002
    Lepidoptera in Cheshire in 2002 A Report on the Micro-Moths, Butterflies and Macro-Moths of VC58 S.H. Hind, S. McWilliam, B.T. Shaw, S. Farrell and A. Wander Lancashire & Cheshire Entomological Society November 2003 1 1. Introduction Welcome to the 2002 report on lepidoptera in VC58 (Cheshire). This is the second report to appear in 2003 and follows on from the release of the 2001 version earlier this year. Hopefully we are now on course to return to an annual report, with the 2003 report planned for the middle of next year. Plans for the ‘Atlas of Lepidoptera in VC58’ continue apace. We had hoped to produce a further update to the Atlas but this report is already quite a large document. We will, therefore produce a supplementary report on the Pug Moths recorded in VC58 sometime in early 2004, hopefully in time to be sent out with the next newsletter. As usual, we have produced a combined report covering micro-moths, macro- moths and butterflies, rather than separate reports on all three groups. Doubtless observers will turn first to the group they are most interested in, but please take the time to read the other sections. Hopefully you will find something of interest. Many thanks to all recorders who have already submitted records for 2002. Without your efforts this report would not be possible. Please keep the records coming! This request also most definitely applies to recorders who have not sent in records for 2002 or even earlier. It is never too late to send in historic records as they will all be included within the above-mentioned Atlas when this is produced.
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolution and Genomic Basis of Beetle Diversity
    The evolution and genomic basis of beetle diversity Duane D. McKennaa,b,1,2, Seunggwan Shina,b,2, Dirk Ahrensc, Michael Balked, Cristian Beza-Bezaa,b, Dave J. Clarkea,b, Alexander Donathe, Hermes E. Escalonae,f,g, Frank Friedrichh, Harald Letschi, Shanlin Liuj, David Maddisonk, Christoph Mayere, Bernhard Misofe, Peyton J. Murina, Oliver Niehuisg, Ralph S. Petersc, Lars Podsiadlowskie, l m l,n o f l Hans Pohl , Erin D. Scully , Evgeny V. Yan , Xin Zhou , Adam Slipinski , and Rolf G. Beutel aDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Memphis, Memphis, TN 38152; bCenter for Biodiversity Research, University of Memphis, Memphis, TN 38152; cCenter for Taxonomy and Evolutionary Research, Arthropoda Department, Zoologisches Forschungsmuseum Alexander Koenig, 53113 Bonn, Germany; dBavarian State Collection of Zoology, Bavarian Natural History Collections, 81247 Munich, Germany; eCenter for Molecular Biodiversity Research, Zoological Research Museum Alexander Koenig, 53113 Bonn, Germany; fAustralian National Insect Collection, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia; gDepartment of Evolutionary Biology and Ecology, Institute for Biology I (Zoology), University of Freiburg, 79104 Freiburg, Germany; hInstitute of Zoology, University of Hamburg, D-20146 Hamburg, Germany; iDepartment of Botany and Biodiversity Research, University of Wien, Wien 1030, Austria; jChina National GeneBank, BGI-Shenzhen, 518083 Guangdong, People’s Republic of China; kDepartment of Integrative Biology, Oregon State
    [Show full text]
  • Bedfordshire and Luton County Wildlife Sites
    Bedfordshire and Luton County Wildlife Sites Selection Guidelines VERSION 14 December 2020 BEDFORDSHIRE AND LUTON LOCAL SITES PARTNERSHIP 1 Contents 1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................ 5 2. HISTORY OF THE CWS SYSTEM ......................................................................................................................... 7 3. CURRENT CWS SELECTION PROCESS ................................................................................................................ 8 4. Nature Conservation Review CRITERIA (modified version) ............................................................................. 10 5. GENERAL SUPPLEMENTARY FACTORS ......................................................................................................... 14 6 SITE SELECTION THRESHOLDS........................................................................................................................ 15 BOUNDARIES (all CWS) ............................................................................................................................................ 15 WOODLAND, TREES and HEDGES ........................................................................................................................ 15 TRADITIONAL ORCHARDS AND FRUIT TREES ................................................................................................. 19 ARABLE FIELD MARGINS........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Microhabitat Mosaics Are Key to the Survival of an Endangered Ground Beetle (Carabus Nitens) in Its Post-Industrial Refugia
    Journal of Insect Conservation (2018) 22:321–328 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-018-0064-x ORIGINAL PAPER Microhabitat mosaics are key to the survival of an endangered ground beetle (Carabus nitens) in its post-industrial refugia Martin Volf1,2 · Michal Holec3 · Diana Holcová3 · Pavel Jaroš4 · Radek Hejda5 · Lukáš Drag1 · Jaroslav Blízek6 · Pavel Šebek1 · Lukáš Čížek1,7 Received: 12 September 2017 / Accepted: 27 April 2018 / Published online: 3 May 2018 © Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018 Abstract Biota dependant on early seral stages or frequently disturbed habitats belong to the most rapidly declining components of European biodiversity. This is also the case for Carabus nitens, which is threatened across Western and Central Europe. We studied one of the last remaining populations of this ground beetle in the Czech Republic, which inhabits post-extraction peat bogs. In line with findings from previous studies, we show that C. nitens prefers patches characterized by higher light intensity and lower vegetation cover. Abundance of females was positively correlated with the cover of plant species requir- ing higher temperature. In addition, we demonstrate its preference for periodically moist, but not wet or inundated plots, suggesting that the transition between dry heathland and wet peat bog might be the optimal habitat for this species. This hypothesis is further supported by results showing a positive correlation between the abundance of C. nitens and vegetation cover comprising of a mix of species typical for heathland, peat bog, and boreal habitats. Our results show that C. nitens mobility is comparable to other large wingless carabids.
    [Show full text]
  • Additions, Deletions and Corrections to the Staphylinidae in the Irish Coleoptera Annotated List, with a Revised Check-List of Irish Species
    Bulletin of the Irish Biogeographical Society Number 41 (2017) ADDITIONS, DELETIONS AND CORRECTIONS TO THE STAPHYLINIDAE IN THE IRISH COLEOPTERA ANNOTATED LIST, WITH A REVISED CHECK-LIST OF IRISH SPECIES Jervis A. Good1 and Roy Anderson2 1Glinny, Riverstick, Co. Cork, Republic of Ireland. e-mail: <[email protected]> 21 Belvoirview Park, Belfast BT8 7BL, Northern Ireland. e-mail: <[email protected]> Abstract Since the 1997 Irish Coleoptera – a revised and annotated list, 59 species of Staphylinidae have been added to the Irish list, 11 species confirmed, a number have been deleted or require to be deleted, and the status of some species and names require correction. Notes are provided on the deletion, correction or status of 63 species, and a revised check-list of 710 species is provided with a generic index. Species listed, or not listed, as Irish in the Catalogue of Palaearctic Coleoptera (2nd edition), in comparison with this list, are discussed. The Irish status of Gabrius sexualis Smetana, 1954 is questioned, although it is retained on the list awaiting further investgation. Key words: Staphylinidae, check-list, Irish Coleoptera, Gabrius sexualis. Introduction The Staphylinidae (rove-beetles) comprise the largest family of beetles in Ireland (with 621 species originally recorded by Anderson, Nash and O’Connor (1997)) and in the world (with 55,440 species cited by Grebennikov and Newton (2009)). Since the publication in 1997 of Irish Coleoptera - a revised and annotated list by Anderson, Nash and O’Connor, there have been a large number of additions (59 species), confirmation of the presence of several species based on doubtful old records, a number of deletions and corrections, and significant nomenclatural and taxonomic changes to the list of Irish Staphylinidae.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ground Beetle Fauna (Coleoptera, Carabidae) of Southeastern Altai R
    ISSN 0013-8738, Entomological Review, 2010, Vol. 90, No. 8, pp. ???–???. © Pleiades Publishing, Inc., 2010. Original Russian Text © R.Yu. Dudko, A.V. Matalin, D.N. Fedorenko, 2010, published in Zoologicheskii Zhurnal, 2010, Vol. 89, No. 11, pp. 1312–1330. The Ground Beetle Fauna (Coleoptera, Carabidae) of Southeastern Altai R. Yu. Dudkoa, A. V. Matalinb, and D. N. Fedorenkoc aInstitute of Animal Systematics and Ecology, Siberian Division, Russian Academy of Sciences, Novosibirsk, 630091 Russia bMoscow Pedagogical State University, Moscow, 129243 Russia e-mail: [email protected] cInstitute of Ecology and Evolution, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, 119071 Russia Received October 1, 2009 Abstract—Long-term studies of the ground beetle fauna of Southeastern Altai (SEA) revealed 33 genera and 185 species; 3 and 15 species are reported for the first time from Russia and SEA, respectively. The following gen- era are the most diverse: Bembidion (47 species), Amara and Harpalus (21 each), Pterostichus (14), and Nebria (13). The subarid (35%) and boreal (32%) species prevail in the arealogical spectrum, while the mountain endem- ics comprise 13% of the fauna. The carabid fauna of SEA is heterogeneous in composition and differs significantly from that of the Western and Central Altai. The boreal mountain component mostly comprises tundra species with circum-boreal or circum-arctic ranges, while the subarid component (typical Mongolian together with Ancient Mediterranean species) forms more than one-half of the species diversity in the mountain basins. The species diver- sity increases from the nival mountain belt (15 species, predominantly Altai-Sayan endemics) to moss-lichen tun- dras (40, mostly boreal, species).
    [Show full text]