DOCSLIB.ORG

Subalpin Kesimlerinin Yaprak Böceklerinin (Coleoptera, Chrysomelıdae) Tür Çeşitliliği

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Subalpin Kesimlerinin Yaprak Böceklerinin (Coleoptera, Chrysomelıdae) Tür Çeşitliliği T.C. SÜLEYMAN DEMİREL ÜNİVERSİTESİ FEN BİLİMLERİ ENSTİTÜSÜ KAPI DAĞI (ISPARTA) SUBALPİN KESİMLERİNİN YAPRAK BÖCEKLERİNİN (COLEOPTERA, CHRYSOMELIDAE) TÜR ÇEŞİTLİLİĞİ Serdar BİLGİNTURAN Danışman: Doç. Dr. Ali GÖK YÜKSEK LİSANS TEZİ BİYOLOJİ ANA BİLİMDALI ISPARTA - 2009 i İÇİNDEKİLER Sayfa İÇİNDEKİLER .............................................................................................................i ÖZET.. ......................................................................................................................... v ABSTRACT................................................................................................................ vi TEŞEKKÜR...............................................................................................................vii ŞEKİLLER DİZİNİ...................................................................................................viii ÇİZELGELER DİZİNİ ............................................................................................... ix 1. GİRİŞ ....................................................................................................................... 1 2. MATERYAL VE YÖNTEM ................................................................................... 7 2.1. Çalışma Alanı........................................................................................................ 7 2.2. Çalışma İstasyonları.............................................................................................. 8 2.2.1. Kuzey Yamaç İstasyonları ................................................................................. 8 2.2.2. Güney Yamaç İstasyonları ............................................................................... 10 2.3. Örneklerin Toplanma Metodu ve Preparasyon İşlemi ........................................ 13 2.4. Verilerin Analizi ................................................................................................. 14 3. ARAŞTIRMA BULGULARI ................................................................................ 17 3.1. Tespit Edilen Altfamilya ve Türler ..................................................................... 17 3.1.1. Altfamilya: Criocerinae.................................................................................... 17 3.1.1.1. Lilioceris faldermanni (Guérin, 1829) .......................................................... 17 3.1.2. Altfamilya: Clytrinae ....................................................................................... 17 3.1.2.1. Clytra atraphaxidis (Pallas, 1773) ................................................................ 17 3.1.2.2. Clytra bodemeyeri Weise, 1900.................................................................... 18 3.1.2.3. Clytra laeviuscula Ratzeburg,1837............................................................... 18 3.1.2.4. Clytra novempunctata Oliver, 1808.............................................................. 18 3.1.2.5. Coptocephala unifasciata (Scopoli, 1763).................................................... 18 3.1.2.6. Labidostomis asiatica Faldermann, 1837 ..................................................... 19 3.1.2.7. Labidostomis maculipennis Lefèvre, 1870 ................................................... 19 3.1.2.8. Labidostomis metallica Lefèvre, 1872.......................................................... 19 3.1.2.9. Labidostomis propinqua Faldermann, 1837 ................................................. 20 3.1.2.10. Labidostomis rufa (Waltl, 1838)................................................................. 20 3.1.2.11. Smaragdina biornata Lefèvre, 1872........................................................... 20 3.1.2.12. Smaragdina limbata (Steven, 1806) ........................................................... 20 3.1.2.13. Smaragdina xanthaspis (Germar, 1824) ..................................................... 20 i 3.1.3. Altfamilya: Cryptocephalinae .......................................................................... 21 3.1.3.1. Cryptocephalus bipunctatus (Linnaeus, 1758) ............................................. 21 3.1.3.2. Cryptocephalus duplicatus Suffrian, 1847.................................................... 21 3.1.3.3. Cryptocephalus elegantulus Gravenhorst, 1807 ........................................... 21 3.1.3.4. Cryptocephalus flavipes Fabricius, 1781 ...................................................... 22 3.1.3.5. Cryptocephalus imperialis Laicharting, 1781............................................... 22 3.1.3.6. Cryptocephalus moehringi Weise, 1884....................................................... 22 3.1.3.7. Cryptocephalus octacosmus Bedel, 1891 ..................................................... 22 3.1.3.8. Cryptocephalus octomaculatus Rossi, 1790 ................................................. 23 3.1.3.9. Cryptocephalus prusias Suffrian, 1853......................................................... 23 3.1.3.10. Cryptocephalus sericeus (Linnaeus, 1758)................................................. 23 3.1.3.11. Cryptocephalus trimaculatus Rossi, 1790 .................................................. 23 3.1.3.12. Cryptocephalus turcicus Suffrian, 1847 ..................................................... 24 3.1.3.13. Cryptocephalus virens Suffrian, 1847......................................................... 24 3.1.3.14. Pachybrachis fimbriolatus (Suffrian, 1848) ............................................... 24 3.1.3.15. Pachybrachis limbatus (Ménétriés, 1836) .................................................. 24 3.1.3.16. Pachybrachis tesellatus (Oliver, 1791)....................................................... 24 3.1.4. Altfamilya: Eumolpinae................................................................................... 25 3.1.4.1. Macrocoma rubripes (Schaufuss, 1862)....................................................... 25 3.1.4.2. Bromius obscurus (Linnaeus, 1758) ............................................................. 25 3.1.5. Altfamilya: Chrysomelinae .............................................................................. 25 3.1.5.1. Chrysolina herbacea (Duftschmid, 1825) .................................................... 25 3.1.5.2. Chrysolina sahlbergi (Ménétriés, 1832) ....................................................... 26 3.1.5.3. Entomoscelis suturalis Weise, 1882 ............................................................. 27 3.1.5.4. Gonioctena fornicata Brüggemann, 1873..................................................... 27 3.1.5.5. Timarcha tenebricosa (Fabricius, 1775)....................................................... 27 3.1.6. Altfamilya: Galerucinae................................................................................... 27 3.1.6.1. Calomicrus apicalis Demaison, 1891 ........................................................... 27 3.1.6.2. Calomicrus chevrolati (Joannis, 1866) ......................................................... 28 3.1.6.3. Diorhabda fischeri (Faldermann, 1837) ....................................................... 28 3.1.6.4. Exosoma neglectum Mohr, 1968................................................................... 28 3.1.6.5. Galeruca interrupta (Illiger, 1802)............................................................... 28 3.1.6.6. Galeruca tanaceti (Linnaeus, 1758) ............................................................. 28 3.1.6.7. Luperus xanthopoda (Schrank, 1781)........................................................... 29 ii 3.1.6.8. Nymphius lydius (Weise, 1886) .................................................................... 29 3.1.6.9. Phyllobrotica elegans Kraatz, 1866.............................................................. 29 3.1.7. Altfamilya: Cassidinae..................................................................................... 30 3.1.7.1. Cassida fausti Spaeth et Reitter, 1926 .......................................................... 30 3.1.7.2. Cassida rubiginosa Müller, 1776.................................................................. 30 3.1.7.3. Cassida viridis Linnaeus, 1758..................................................................... 30 3.1.7.4. Hypocassida subferruginae (Schrank, 1776)................................................ 31 3.1.8. Altfamilya: Alticinae........................................................................................ 31 3.1.8.1. Altica oleracea (Linnaeus, 1758).................................................................. 31 3.1.8.2. Apthona pygmae Kutschera, 1861................................................................. 32 3.1.8.3. Apthona atrovirens (Förster, 1849)............................................................... 32 3.1.8.4. Chaetocnema concinna (Marsham, 1802) .................................................... 32 3.1.8.5. Crepidodera aurata (Marsham, 1802).......................................................... 32 3.1.8.6. Derocrepis anatolica Heikertinger, 1922 ..................................................... 33 3.1.8.7. Dibolia kralii Mohr, 1981............................................................................. 33 3.1.8.8. Dibolia timida (Illiger, 1807)........................................................................ 33 3.1.8.9. Longitarsus alfierii klapperichi Mohr, 1962................................................. 34 3.1.8.10. Longitarsus luridus (Scopoli, 1763) ........................................................... 34 3.1.8.11. Longitarsus lycopi (Foudras, 1860) ...........................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Alticinae) of the Fauna of Latvia
    Acta Zoologica Lituanica, 2009, Volumen 19, Numerus 2 DOI: 10.2478/v10043-009-0011-x ISSN 1648-6919 TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF FLEA BEETLES (COLEOPTERA: CHRYSOMELIDAE: ALTICINAE) OF THE FAUNA OF LATVIA. 3. GENERA NEOCREPIDODERA HEIKERTINGER, 1911 AND CREPIDODERA CHEVROLAT, 1836 Andris BUKEJS Institute of Systematic Biology, Daugavpils University, Vienības 13, Daugavpils, LV-5401, Latvia. E-mail: [email protected] Abstract. Faunal data on four species of the genus Neocrepidodera Heikertinger, 1911 and on five spe- cies of the genus Crepidodera Chevrolat, 1836 are presented. A total of 806 specimens of these genera have been processed. The bibliographic information on these flea beetle genera in Latvia is summarised for the first time. One species, Crepidodera lamina (Bedel, 1901), is deleted from the list of Latvian Coleoptera. The annotated list of Latvian species is given, including five species of Neocrepidodera Heikertinger, 1911 and five species of Crepidodera Chevrolat, 1836. Key words: Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae, Alticinae, Neocrepidodera, Crepidodera, fauna, Latvia INTRODUCT I ON and Pūtele 1976; Rūtenberga 1992; Barševskis 1993, 1997; Bukejs and Telnov 2007. The most recent lists of This publication continues our study on flea beetles of Latvian Neocrepidodera and Crepidodera can be found the Latvian fauna (Bukejs 2008b, c). in the published catalogues of Latvian Coleoptera by There are 48 species and subspecies of the genus Neo- Telnov et al. (1997) and Telnov (2004), respectively. crepidodera Heikertinger, 1911 and 17 species of the The imagoes of Crepidodera feed on leaves of Salix genus Crepidodera Chevrolat, 1836 known in the Pa- and Populus. The larvae of Crepidodera aurata (Mar- laearctic region (Gruev & Döberl 1997).
    [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]
  • Data on Cerambycidae and Chrysomelidae (Coleoptera: Chrysomeloidea) from Bucureªti and Surroundings
    Travaux du Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle © Novembre Vol. LI pp. 387–416 «Grigore Antipa» 2008 DATA ON CERAMBYCIDAE AND CHRYSOMELIDAE (COLEOPTERA: CHRYSOMELOIDEA) FROM BUCUREªTI AND SURROUNDINGS RODICA SERAFIM, SANDA MAICAN Abstract. The paper presents a synthesis of the data refering to the presence of cerambycids and chrysomelids species of Bucharest and its surroundings, basing on bibliographical sources and the study of the collection material. A number of 365 species of superfamily Chrysomeloidea (140 cerambycids and 225 chrysomelids species), belonging to 125 genera of 16 subfamilies are listed. The species Chlorophorus herbstii, Clytus lama, Cortodera femorata, Phytoecia caerulea, Lema cyanella, Chrysolina varians, Phaedon cochleariae, Phyllotreta undulata, Cassida prasina and Cassida vittata are reported for the first time in this area. Résumé. Ce travail présente une synthèse des données concernant la présence des espèces de cerambycides et de chrysomelides de Bucarest et de ses environs, la base en étant les sources bibliographiques ainsi que l’étude du matériel existant dans les collections du musée. La liste comprend 365 espèces appartenant à la supra-famille des Chrysomeloidea (140 espèces de cerambycides et 225 espèces de chrysomelides), encadrées en 125 genres et 16 sous-familles. Les espèces Chlorophorus herbstii, Clytus lama, Cortodera femorata, Phytoecia caerulea, Lema cyanella, Chrysolina varians, Phaedon cochleariae, Phyllotreta undulata, Cassida prasina et Cassida vittata sont mentionnées pour la première fois dans cette zone Key words: Coleoptera, Chrysomeloidea, Cerambycidae, Chrysomelidae, Bucureºti (Bucharest) and surrounding areas. INTRODUCTION Data on the distribution of the cerambycids and chrysomelids species in Bucureºti (Bucharest) and the surrounding areas were published beginning with the end of the 19th century by: Jaquet (1898 a, b, 1899 a, b, 1900 a, b, 1901, 1902), Montandon (1880, 1906, 1908), Hurmuzachi (1901, 1902, 1904), Fleck (1905 a, b), Manolache (1930), Panin (1941, 1944), Eliescu et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Brouci Z Čeledi Mandelinkovitých (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) Lokality Hůrka V Hluboké Nad Vltavou
    STŘEDOŠKOLSKÁ ODBORNÁ ČINNOST Brouci z čeledi mandelinkovitých (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) lokality Hůrka v Hluboké nad Vltavou Albert Damaška Praha 2012 STŘEDOŠKOLSKÁ ODBORNÁ ČINNOST OBOR SOČ: 08 – Ochrana a tvorba životního prostředí Brouci z čeledi mandelinkovitých (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) lokality Hůrka v Hluboké nad Vltavou Leaf beetles (Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae) of the locality „Hůrka“ in Hluboká nad Vltavou Autor: Albert Damaška Škola: Gymnázium Jana Nerudy, Hellichova 3, Praha 1 Konzultant: Michael Mikát Praha 2012 1 Prohlášení Prohlašuji, že jsem svou práci vypracoval samostatně pod vedením Michaela Mikáta, použil jsem pouze podklady (literaturu, SW atd.) uvedené v přiloženém seznamu a postup při zpracování a dalším nakládání s prací je v souladu se zákonem č. 121/2000 Sb., o právu autorském, o právech souvisejících s právem autorským a o změně některých zákonů (autorský zákon) v platném znění. V ………… dne ………………… podpis: …………………………… 2 Poděkování Rád bych na tomto místě poděkoval především svému konzultantovi Michaelu Mikátovi za pomoc při psaní textu práce, tvorbě grafů a výpočtech. Dále patří dík Mgr. Pavlu Špryňarovi a RNDr. Jaromíru Strejčkovi za determinaci některých jedinců a za cenné rady a zkušenosti k práci v terénu, které jsem mimo jiné užil i při sběru dat pro tuto práci. Děkuji i Mgr. Lýdii Černé za korekturu anglického jazyka v anotaci. V neposlední řadě patří dík i mým rodičům za obětavou pomoc v mnoha situacích a za pomoc při dopravě na lokalitu. 3 Anotace Mandelinkovití brouci (Chrysomelidae) jsou velmi vhodnými bioindikátory vzhledem k jejich vazbě na rostliny. Cílem práce bylo provedení faunistického průzkumu brouků čeledi mandelinkovitých na lokalitě Hůrka v Hluboké nad Vltavou na Českobudějovicku a zjištěné výsledky aplikovat v ochraně lokality.
    [Show full text]
  • Barcoding Chrysomelidae: a Resource for Taxonomy and Biodiversity Conservation in the Mediterranean Region
    A peer-reviewed open-access journal ZooKeys 597:Barcoding 27–38 (2016) Chrysomelidae: a resource for taxonomy and biodiversity conservation... 27 doi: 10.3897/zookeys.597.7241 RESEARCH ARTICLE http://zookeys.pensoft.net Launched to accelerate biodiversity research Barcoding Chrysomelidae: a resource for taxonomy and biodiversity conservation in the Mediterranean Region Giulia Magoga1,*, Davide Sassi2, Mauro Daccordi3, Carlo Leonardi4, Mostafa Mirzaei5, Renato Regalin6, Giuseppe Lozzia7, Matteo Montagna7,* 1 Via Ronche di Sopra 21, 31046 Oderzo, Italy 2 Centro di Entomologia Alpina–Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Celoria 2, 20133 Milano, Italy 3 Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Verona, lungadige Porta Vittoria 9, 37129 Verona, Italy 4 Museo di Storia Naturale di Milano, Corso Venezia 55, 20121 Milano, Italy 5 Department of Plant Protection, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources–University of Tehran, Karaj, Iran 6 Dipartimento di Scienze per gli Alimenti, la Nutrizione e l’Ambiente–Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Celoria 2, 20133 Milano, Italy 7 Dipartimento di Scienze Agrarie e Ambientali–Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Celoria 2, 20133 Milano, Italy Corresponding authors: Matteo Montagna ([email protected]) Academic editor: J. Santiago-Blay | Received 20 November 2015 | Accepted 30 January 2016 | Published 9 June 2016 http://zoobank.org/4D7CCA18-26C4-47B0-9239-42C5F75E5F42 Citation: Magoga G, Sassi D, Daccordi M, Leonardi C, Mirzaei M, Regalin R, Lozzia G, Montagna M (2016) Barcoding Chrysomelidae: a resource for taxonomy and biodiversity conservation in the Mediterranean Region. In: Jolivet P, Santiago-Blay J, Schmitt M (Eds) Research on Chrysomelidae 6. ZooKeys 597: 27–38. doi: 10.3897/ zookeys.597.7241 Abstract The Mediterranean Region is one of the world’s biodiversity hot-spots, which is also characterized by high level of endemism.
    [Show full text]
  • Beetles from Sălaj County, Romania (Coleoptera, Excluding Carabidae)
    Studia Universitatis “Vasile Goldiş”, Seria Ştiinţele Vieţii Vol. 26 supplement 1, 2016, pp.5- 58 © 2016 Vasile Goldis University Press (www.studiauniversitatis.ro) BEETLES FROM SĂLAJ COUNTY, ROMANIA (COLEOPTERA, EXCLUDING CARABIDAE) Ottó Merkl, Tamás Németh, Attila Podlussány Department of Zoology, Hungarian Natural History Museum ABSTRACT: During a faunistical exploration of Sǎlaj county carried out in 2014 and 2015, 840 beetle species were recorded, including two species of Community interest (Natura 2000 species): Cucujus cinnaberinus (Scopoli, 1763) and Lucanus cervus Linnaeus, 1758. Notes on the distribution of Augyles marmota (Kiesenwetter, 1850) (Heteroceridae), Trichodes punctatus Fischer von Waldheim, 1829 (Cleridae), Laena reitteri Weise, 1877 (Tenebrionidae), Brachysomus ornatus Stierlin, 1892, Lixus cylindrus (Fabricius, 1781) (Curculionidae), Mylacomorphus globus (Seidlitz, 1868) (Curculionidae) are given. Key words: Coleoptera, beetles, Sǎlaj, Romania, Transsylvania, faunistics INTRODUCTION: László Dányi, LF = László Forró, LR = László The beetle fauna of Sǎlaj county is relatively little Ronkay, MT = Mária Tóth, OM = Ottó Merkl, PS = known compared to that of Romania, and even to other Péter Sulyán, VS = Viktória Szőke, ZB = Zsolt Bálint, parts of Transsylvania. Zilahi Kiss (1905) listed ZE = Zoltán Erőss, ZS = Zoltán Soltész, ZV = Zoltán altogether 2,214 data of 1,373 species of 537 genera Vas). The serial numbers in parentheses refer to the list from Sǎlaj county mainly based on his own collections of collecting sites published in this volume by A. and partially on those of Kuthy (1897). Some of his Gubányi. collection sites (e.g. Tasnád or Hadad) no longer The collected specimens were identified by belong to Sǎlaj county. numerous coleopterists. Their names are given under Vasile Goldiş Western University (Arad) and the the names of beetle families.
    [Show full text]
  • CERTAIN INSECT VECTORS of APLANOBACTER STEWARTI ' by F
    CERTAIN INSECT VECTORS OF APLANOBACTER STEWARTI ' By F. W. Poos, senior entomologist, Division of Cereal and Forage Insects, Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine; and CHARLOTTE ELLIOTT, associate pa- thologist, Division of Cereal Crops and Diseases, Bureau of Plant Industry, United States Department of Agriculture ^ INTRODUCTION Bacterial wilt of corn (Zea mays L.) caused by Aplanobacter stewarti (E. F. Sm.) McC. was exceedingly destructive and more widely dis- tributed during 1932 and 1933 than during any previous time in the history of the disease. Since 1897, when it was first described by Stewart, it has been studied by a number of investigators whose work has pointed more and more toward insects as a means of dis- semination of the causal organism. Kand and Cash (7) ^ during 1920-23 found that bacterial wilt could be transmitted from diseased to healthy com plants by two species of flea beetles, Chaetocnema pulicaria Melsh. and C, denticulata (111.), and by the spotted cucum- ber beetle, Diabrotica duodecimpunctata (Fab.). IvanoíF (ö) reported transmission from diseased to healthy plants by the larval stage of the corn rootworm, Diabrotica longicornis (Say), as it attacked the roots of young seedling com plants. He also reported that the bac- teria of A. stewarti entered the corn plants through wounds made by white grubs, the larvae of Phyllophaga sp., feeding upon the roots in infested soil. A summary of this work, together with a brief review of the other literature on this disease, has recently appeared else- where (1), The results of experiments by previous investigators on soil trans- mission of the causal organism indicate that transmission through the soil to uninjured roots of com plants is exceedingly rare, if it ever occurs.
    [Show full text]
  • WO 2015/010026 A2 22 January 2015 (22.01.2015) P O P C T
    (12) INTERNATIONAL APPLICATION PUBLISHED UNDER THE PATENT COOPERATION TREATY (PCT) (19) World Intellectual Property Organization International Bureau (10) International Publication Number (43) International Publication Date WO 2015/010026 A2 22 January 2015 (22.01.2015) P O P C T (51) International Patent Classification: (74) Agents: LANSBERY, Kristan et al; 555 12th Street, C12N 15/82 (2006.01) NW, Washington, District of Columbia 20004-1206 (US). (21) International Application Number: (81) Designated States (unless otherwise indicated, for every PCT/US20 14/047204 kind of national protection available): AE, AG, AL, AM, AO, AT, AU, AZ, BA, BB, BG, BH, BN, BR, BW, BY, (22) Date: International Filing BZ, CA, CH, CL, CN, CO, CR, CU, CZ, DE, DK, DM, 18 July 2014 (18.07.2014) DO, DZ, EC, EE, EG, ES, FI, GB, GD, GE, GH, GM, GT, (25) Filing Language: English HN, HR, HU, ID, IL, IN, IR, IS, JP, KE, KG, KN, KP, KR, KZ, LA, LC, LK, LR, LS, LT, LU, LY, MA, MD, ME, (26) Publication Language: English MG, MK, MN, MW, MX, MY, MZ, NA, NG, NI, NO, NZ, (30) Priority Data: OM, PA, PE, PG, PH, PL, PT, QA, RO, RS, RU, RW, SA, 61/856,137 19 July 2013 (19.07.2013) SC, SD, SE, SG, SK, SL, SM, ST, SV, SY, TH, TJ, TM, 61/899,000 1 November 2013 (01. 11.2013) TN, TR, TT, TZ, UA, UG, US, UZ, VC, VN, ZA, ZM, 61/980,800 17 April 2014 (17.04.2014) ZW. (71) Applicant: MONSANTO TECHNOLOGY LLC (84) Designated States (unless otherwise indicated, for every [US/US]; 800 North Lindbergh Boulevard, Mail Zone kind of regional protection available): ARIPO (BW, GH, E1NA, St.
    [Show full text]
  • Univerzita Palackého V Olomouci PÍrodov Decká Fakulta Katedra Zoologie a Ornitologická Laborato 
    UNIVERZITA PALACKÉHO V OLOMOUCI PÍRODOV DECKÁ FAKULTA KATEDRA ZOOLOGIE A ORNITOLOGICKÁ LABORATO Význam a ochrana bezlesí Hrubého Jeseníku z hlediska biodiverzity brouk (Coleoptera) DOKTORSKÁ DISERTA NÍ PRÁCE Josef Kašák Vedoucí práce: doc. RNDr. Jaroslav Starý, Ph.D. Konzultant: RNDr. Tomáš Kuras, Ph.D. Olomouc 2015 Bibliografická identifikace: Jméno a p íjmení autora: Josef Kašák Název práce: Význam a ochrana bezlesí Hrubého Jeseníku z hlediska biodiverzity brouk (Coleoptera) Typ práce: doktorská diserta ní práce Pracovišt : Katedra zoologie a ornitologická laborato , P írodov decká fakulta, Univerzita Palackého v Olomouci Vedoucí práce: doc. RNDr. Jaroslav Starý, Ph.D. Konzultant: RNDr. Tomáš Kuras, Ph.D. Studijní program: P1527 Biologie Studijní obor: Zoologie Rok obhajoby práce: 2015 Abstrakt: Biodiverzita jako variabilita života poskytuje lidské spole nosti adu nezbytných zdroj , ekosystémových služeb a p edstavuje také významnou kulturní hodnotu. Na druhé stran však dochází sou asn k jejímu ochuzování v souvislosti s rozvojem lidské spole nosti. Z pohledu ochrany p írody se proto horské ekosystémy adí mezi jedno z nejcenn jších a nejohrožen jších prost edí v globálním m ítku. V rámci p edložené doktorské práce byly studovány vybrané potenciáln významné antropické vlivy na biodiverzitu horských bezlesí Hrubého Jeseníku prost ednictvím modelové bioindika ní skupiny brouk (Coleoptera). V prostoru primárního bezlesí arkto- alpinní tundry byl studován vliv sjezdových tratí a invazivní d eviny borovice kle e ( Pinus mugo ) na spole enstva brouk . Na území sekundárních bezlesí podhorských luk a pastvin byl hodnocen vliv zem dlského hospoda ení na brouky a další bezobratlé. Studium vlivu lyža ského areálu prokázalo, že p estože jsou sjezdové trat v alpínské zón zájmového území provozovány zp sobem šetrným k vegetaci, tak pr kazn m ní pvodní spole enstva epigeických brouk .
    [Show full text]
  • Section IV – Guideline for the Texas Priority Species List
    Section IV – Guideline for the Texas Priority Species List Associated Tables The Texas Priority Species List……………..733 Introduction For many years the management and conservation of wildlife species has focused on the individual animal or population of interest. Many times, directing research and conservation plans toward individual species also benefits incidental species; sometimes entire ecosystems. Unfortunately, there are times when highly focused research and conservation of particular species can also harm peripheral species and their habitats. Management that is focused on entire habitats or communities would decrease the possibility of harming those incidental species or their habitats. A holistic management approach would potentially allow species within a community to take care of themselves (Savory 1988); however, the study of particular species of concern is still necessary due to the smaller scale at which individuals are studied. Until we understand all of the parts that make up the whole can we then focus more on the habitat management approach to conservation. Species Conservation In terms of species diversity, Texas is considered the second most diverse state in the Union. Texas has the highest number of bird and reptile taxon and is second in number of plants and mammals in the United States (NatureServe 2002). There have been over 600 species of bird that have been identified within the borders of Texas and 184 known species of mammal, including marine species that inhabit Texas’ coastal waters (Schmidly 2004). It is estimated that approximately 29,000 species of insect in Texas take up residence in every conceivable habitat, including rocky outcroppings, pitcher plant bogs, and on individual species of plants (Riley in publication).
    [Show full text]
  • US 2015/0143580 A1 Beattie Et Al
    US 2015O143580A1 (19) United States (12) Patent Application Publication (10) Pub. No.: US 2015/0143580 A1 Beattie et al. (43) Pub. Date: May 21, 2015 (54) COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR filed on Nov. 1, 2013, provisional application No. CONTROLLING LEPTINOTARSA 61/856,137, filed on Jul 19, 2013. (71) Applicant: MONSANTO TECHNOLOGY LLC, Publication Classification St. Louis, MO (US) (51) Int. Cl. (72) Inventors: Jodi Lynn Beattie, Wentzville, MO CI2N 5/82 (2006.01) (US); Michael John Crawford, AOIN57/6 (2006.01) Chesterfield, MO (US); Brian Donovan CI2N IS/II3 (2006.01) Eads, Ballwin, MO (US); Lex Evan (52) U.S. Cl. Flagel, St. Louis, MO (US); Mahak CPC .......... CI2N 15/8286 (2013.01); C12N 15/I 13 Kapoor, Chesterfield, MO (US); (2013.01); C12N 15/8218 (2013.01); A0IN Christina Marie Taylor, Chesterfield, 57/16 (2013.01); C12N 23 10/14 (2013.01) MO (US) (57) ABSTRACT Assignee: (73) MONSANTO TECHNOLOGY LLC, Disclosed herein are methods of controlling insect pests, in St. Louis, MO (US) particular Leptinotarsa spp. which infest crop plants, and methods of providing plants resistant to such pests. Also (21) Appl. No.: 14/335,135 disclosed are polynucleotides and recombinant DNA mol ecules and constructs useful in Such methods, insecticidal (22) Filed: Jul.18, 2014 compositions such as topical sprays containing insecticidal double-stranded RNAs, and solanaceous plants with Related U.S. Application Data improved resistance to infestation by Leptinotarsa spp. Fur (60) Provisional application No. 61/980,800, filed on Apr. ther disclosed are methods of selecting target genes for 17, 2014, provisional application No.
    [Show full text]
  • Scope: Munis Entomology & Zoology Publishes a Wide Variety of Papers
    682 _____________Mun. Ent. Zool. Vol. 11, No. 2, June 2016__________ A COMPARATIVE LIST OF THE LEAF BEETLES OF THE PROVINCES IN MARMARA REGION OF TURKEY, EXCLUDING BRUCHINAE (COLEOPTERA: CHRYSOMELIDAE) Hüseyin Özdikmen* * Gazi University, Science Faculty, Department of Biology, 06500 Ankara, TURKEY. E- mails: [email protected] [Özdikmen, H. 2016. A comparative list of the leaf beetles of the provinces in Marmara Region of Turkey, excluding Bruchinae (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Munis Entomology & Zoology, 11 (2): 682-690] ABSTRACT: This work is presented a comparative list of the leaf beetles of the provinces in Marmara Region of Turkey, excluding Bruchinae. All known taxa from the provinces in Marmara Region of Turkey and thereby European Turkey are given in the present text. KEY WORDS: Coleoptera, Cerambycidae, European Turkey, Marmara Region, Turkey Any direct research on leaf beetles in Marmara Region of Turkey is not present. Therefore fauna of leaf beetles in Marmara Region of Turkey is not sufficiently known. Chiefly, a complete faunistic information about all the leaf beetle taxa established in European Turkey in Marmara Region of Turkey was firstly published by Löbl & Smetana (2010) in their Palaearctic catalogue of Chrysomeloidea. Then, an important study titled “Checklist of leaf beetles (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) of Turkey, excluding Bruchinae” was published by Ekiz et al. (2013). Later works were published by Özdikmen (2014a,b,c), Özdikmen & Kaya (2014), Özdikmen & Mercan (2014), Özdikmen & Cihan (2014), Özdikmen & Özbek (2014), Özdikmen & Kavak (2014) and Özdikmen & Topcu (2014). Although the mentioned studies helped to determine the list of leaf beetles from the provinces in Marmara Region of Turkey, the list needs further corrections to be fully and correctly realized.
    [Show full text]