DOCSLIB.ORG

Protection of Biodiversity in the Risk Management

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Protection of Biodiversity in the Risk Management TEXTE 76 /2015 Protection of Biodiversity in the Risk Assessment and Risk Management of Pesticides (Plant Protection Products & Biocides) with a Focus on Arthropods, Soil Organisms and Amphibians TEXTE 76/2015 Environmental Research of the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety Project No. (FKZ) 3709 65 421 Report No. (UBA-FB) 002175/E Protection of Biodiversity in the Risk Assessment and Risk Management of Pesticides (Plant Protection Products & Biocides) with a Focus on Arthropods, Soil Organisms and Amphibians by Carsten A. Brühl, Annika Alscher, Melanie Hahn Institut für Umweltwissenschaften , Universität Koblenz-Landau, Landau, Germany Gert Berger, Claudia Bethwell, Frieder Graef Leibniz-Zentrum für Agrarlandschaftsforschung (ZALF) e.V., Müncheberg, Germany Thomas Schmidt, Brigitte Weber Harlan Laboratories, Ittingen, Switzerland On behalf of the Federal Environment Agency (Germany) Imprint Publisher: Umweltbundesamt Wörlitzer Platz 1 06844 Dessau-Roßlau Tel: +49 340-2103-0 Fax: +49 340-2103-2285 [email protected] Internet: www.umweltbundesamt.de /umweltbundesamt.de /umweltbundesamt Study performed by: Institut für Umweltwissenschaften, Universität Koblenz-Landau Fortstr. 7 76829 Landau, Germany Study completed in: August 2013 Edited by: Section IV 1.3 Plant Protection Products Dr. Silvia Pieper Publication as pdf: http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/publikationen/protection-of-biodiversity-in-the-risk-assessment ISSN 1862-4804 Dessau-Roßlau, September 2015 The Project underlying this report was supported with funding from the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear safety under project number FKZ 3709 65 421. The responsibility for the content of this publication lies with the author(s). Table of Contents Table of Contents 1. Summary ............................................................................................................................ 1 2. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 6 3. Pesticides and non-target terrestrial invertebrates ............................................................ 12 3.1 Selection of adequate organism groups ..................................................................... 13 3.1.1 Non-target arthropods (NTA) ............................................................................. 13 3.1.2 Soil organisms .................................................................................................... 19 3.2 Characterization of exposed habitats and their biocoenosis ...................................... 23 3.2.1 Exposed habitats ................................................................................................. 23 3.2.2 Quantification of pesticide input ........................................................................ 27 3.2.3 Protection goals .................................................................................................. 31 3.2.4 Biocoenosis in exposed habitats ......................................................................... 36 3.2.5 Ecological sensitivity ......................................................................................... 43 3.3 Pesticide risk assessment practice and proposals for further developments.............. 45 3.3.1 Non-target arthropods (NTA) ............................................................................. 45 3.3.2 Soil organisms .................................................................................................... 61 3.4 Management of terrestrial habitats in support of biodiversity: current situation and suggestions for improvement ..................................................................................... 68 3.4.1 Risk mitigation measures (RMM) for biocides .................................................. 68 3.4.2 Current risk management for terrestrial off-field habitats concerning inputs of plant protection products .................................................................................... 69 3.4.3 Risk management of plant protection products for non-target arthropods ......... 71 3.4.4 Risk management of plant protection products for soil organisms – no-tillage soil cultivation .................................................................................................... 78 4. Assessment of pesticide exposure of amphibians and reptiles in agricultural landscapes in Germany and evaluation of the present pesticide risk assessment practice in EU ........... 82 4.1 Exposure of amphibian species to pesticides in Germany......................................... 83 4.1.1 Amphibians in agricultural landscapes............................................................... 83 4.1.2 Crop management measures involving plant protection products application, its variability across Germany and new management systems ............................... 86 4.1.3 Number of plant protection product applications to field crops and its regional variability across Germany ................................................................................. 89 4.1.4 Linking migration activity and duration of stay of amphibians in terrestrial habitats to plant protection product applications and crop interception ............. 93 4.1.5 Hot spots of amphibian presence in fields ....................................................... 102 I Table of Contents 4.1.6 Temporal coincidence of amphibian populations with the application of slurry to field crops ......................................................................................................... 103 4.2 Effects of other stressors than pesticides on potentially exposed amphibian species ... ................................................................................................................................. 108 4.2.1 Amphibian red list species: Evidences of decline due to agricultural practice 108 4.2.2 Other direct agricultural effects/stressors to amphibians ................................. 109 4.2.3 Indirect effects due to loss of food animals with plant protection product applications ....................................................................................................... 111 4.2.4 Literature study on amphibian stressors: Main focus on non-agricultural stressors ............................................................................................................ 115 4.2.5 FFH (Habitats Directive) conservation activities ............................................. 117 4.3 Risk assessment of plant protection products as related to amphibian species ....... 118 4.3.1 Evaluation of the present risk assessment methodology for birds and mammals exposed to plant protection products ................................................................ 118 4.3.2 Ecotoxicological studies on the dermal toxicity of plant protection products for amphibians (terrestrial phase): Impacts on juvenile survival of the common frog (Rana temporaria) ............................................................................................ 125 4.3.3 Development of supplementary modules for amphibian specific risk assessments in the authorization of plant protection products ......................... 140 4.4 Risk management measures for plant protection products ...................................... 144 4.5 Reptile exposure to plant protection products ......................................................... 152 4.5.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 152 4.5.2 Likelihood and relevance of reptile species exposure to plant protection products in Germany ........................................................................................ 153 4.6 Outlook .................................................................................................................... 159 5. Appendix ........................................................................................................................ 160 5.1 Literature review non-target arthropods .................................................................. 160 5.2 Calculation of the Margin Treatment Index ............................................................ 172 5.3 Preferred habitats ..................................................................................................... 173 5.4 Red list species ........................................................................................................ 176 5.5 Current test systems for arthropods ......................................................................... 178 5.6 Soil-climate-regions (SCR) ..................................................................................... 180 5.7 Treatment Indices for different crops ...................................................................... 181 5.8 Changes in crop share over time .............................................................................. 184 5.9 Changes in plant protection product use over time ................................................. 185 5.10 Analyzed fields per crop ...................................................................................... 186 II Table of Contents 5.11 Soil coverage of different crops, crop specific application of plant protection products and habitat use of adult and juvenile amphibians ................................. 187 5.12 Average soil coverage and interception
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Unexpected Diversity in Neelipleona Revealed by Molecular Phylogeny Approach (Hexapoda, Collembola)
    S O I L O R G A N I S M S Volume 83 (3) 2011 pp. 383–398 ISSN: 1864-6417 Unexpected diversity in Neelipleona revealed by molecular phylogeny approach (Hexapoda, Collembola) Clément Schneider1, 3, Corinne Cruaud2 and Cyrille A. D’Haese1 1 UMR7205 CNRS, Département Systématique et Évolution, Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, CP50 Entomology, 45 rue Buffon, 75231 Paris cedex 05, France 2 Genoscope, Centre National de Sequençage, 2 rue G. Crémieux, CP5706, 91057 Evry cedex, France 3 Corresponding author: Clément Schneider (email: [email protected]) Abstract Neelipleona are the smallest of the four Collembola orders in term of species number with 35 species described worldwide (out of around 8000 known Collembola). Despite this apparent poor diversity, Neelipleona have a worldwide repartition. The fact that the most commonly observed species, Neelus murinus Folsom, 1896 and Megalothorax minimus Willem, 1900, display cosmopolitan repartition is striking. A cladistic analysis based on 16S rDNA, COX1 and 28S rDNA D1 and D2 regions, for a broad collembolan sampling was performed. This analysis included 24 representatives of the Neelipleona genera Neelus Folsom, 1896 and Megalothorax Willem, 1900 from various regions. The interpretation of the phylogenetic pattern and number of transformations (branch length) indicates that Neelipleona are more diverse than previously thought, with probably many species yet to be discovered. These results buttress the rank of Neelipleona as a whole order instead of a Symphypleona family. Keywords: Collembola, Neelidae, Megalothorax, Neelus, COX1, 16S, 28S 1. Introduction 1.1. Brief history of Neelipleona classification The Neelidae family was established by Folsom (1896), who described Neelus murinus from Cambridge (USA).
    [Show full text]
  • Fauna Lepidopterologica Volgo-Uralensis" 150 Years Later: Changes and Additions
    ©Ges. zur Förderung d. Erforschung von Insektenwanderungen e.V. München, download unter www.zobodat.at Atalanta (August 2000) 31 (1/2):327-367< Würzburg, ISSN 0171-0079 "Fauna lepidopterologica Volgo-Uralensis" 150 years later: changes and additions. Part 5. Noctuidae (Insecto, Lepidoptera) by Vasily V. A n ik in , Sergey A. Sachkov , Va d im V. Z o lo t u h in & A n drey V. Sv ir id o v received 24.II.2000 Summary: 630 species of the Noctuidae are listed for the modern Volgo-Ural fauna. 2 species [Mesapamea hedeni Graeser and Amphidrina amurensis Staudinger ) are noted from Europe for the first time and one more— Nycteola siculana Fuchs —from Russia. 3 species ( Catocala optata Godart , Helicoverpa obsoleta Fabricius , Pseudohadena minuta Pungeler ) are deleted from the list. Supposedly they were either erroneously determinated or incorrect noted from the region under consideration since Eversmann 's work. 289 species are recorded from the re­ gion in addition to Eversmann 's list. This paper is the fifth in a series of publications1 dealing with the composition of the pres­ ent-day fauna of noctuid-moths in the Middle Volga and the south-western Cisurals. This re­ gion comprises the administrative divisions of the Astrakhan, Volgograd, Saratov, Samara, Uljanovsk, Orenburg, Uralsk and Atyraus (= Gurjev) Districts, together with Tataria and Bash­ kiria. As was accepted in the first part of this series, only material reliably labelled, and cover­ ing the last 20 years was used for this study. The main collections are those of the authors: V. A n i k i n (Saratov and Volgograd Districts), S.
    [Show full text]
  • Checklist of Springtails (Collembola) from the Republic of Moldova
    Travaux du Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle © Décembre Vol. LIII pp. 149–160 «Grigore Antipa» 2010 DOI: 10.2478/v10191-010-0011-x CHECKLIST OF SPRINGTAILS (COLLEMBOLA) FROM THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA GALINA BUªMACHIU Abstract. The checklist of Collembola from the Republic of Moldova including 223 species is presented. The list is based on literature sources and personal collecting. Résumé. Ce travail présente la liste des 223 espèces de collemboles de la République de Moldova. Cette liste fut réalisée en utilisant des références littéraires et des collections personnelles. Key words: Collembola, checklist, Republic of Moldova. INTRODUCTION The records on Collembola from the Republic of Moldova started about 50 years ago with the first two species included by Martynova in “The key to insects of the European part of the USSR. Collembola” (1964). Some more information on species diversity of Collembola from the soil of Moldavian vineyards was included in Stegãrescu’s work (1967). During the last twenty years, this group has been studied more systematically, with more than 200 species recorded (Buºmachiu 2001, 2004, 2006 a, b, 2008). Since 2002, eleven species new to science were described from the Republic of Moldova by da Gama & Buºmachiu (2002, 2004); Buºmachiu & Deharveng (2008) and Buºmachiu & Weiner (2008). Until now, the faunistic data on Collembola from the Republic of Moldova have not been summarised in the form of a checklist. The present paper includes the complete list of Collembola from the Republic of Moldova using the modern nomenclature. Totally, 223 species are listed. Some problematic and dubious species, such as Pseudanurida clysmae Jackson, 1927, Onychiurus fimetarius (Linnaeus, 1758) and Orchesella divergens Handschin, 1929 recorded by Stegãrescu (1967) and Pseudosinella wahlgrei Börner, 1907, are not included in the list.
    [Show full text]
  • Advances in Genetics, Development, and Evolution of Drosophila
    springer.com Seppo Lakovaara (Hrsg.) Advances in Genetics, Development, and Evolution of Drosophila In 1906 Castle, Carpenter, Clarke, Mast, and Barrows published a paper entitled "The effects of inbreeding, cross-breeding, and selection upon the fertility and variability of Drosophila." This article, 55 pages long and published in the Proceedings of the Amer• ican Academy, described experiments performed with Drosophila ampe• lophila Lov, "a small dipterous insect known under various popular names such as the little fruit fly, pomace fly, vinegar fly, wine fly, and pickled fruit fly." This study, which was begun in 1901 and published in 1906, was the first published experimental study using Drosophila, subsequently known as Drosophila melanogaster Meigen. Of course, Drosophila was known before the experiments of Cas• tles's group. The small flies swarming around grapes and wine pots have surely been known as long Softcover reprint of the original 1st ed. as wine has been produced. The honor of what was the first known misclassification of the 1982, X, 474 p. fruit flies goes to Fabricius who named them Musca funebris in 1787. It was the Swedish dipterist, C.F. Fallen, who in 1823 changed the name of ~ funebris to Drosophila funebris Gedrucktes Buch which was heralding the beginning of the genus Drosophila. Present-day Drosophila research Softcover was started just 80 years ago and first published only 75 years ago. Even though the history 119,99 € | £109.99 | $149.99 of Drosophila research is short, the impact and volume of study on Drosophila has been [1]128,39 € (D) | 131,99 € (A) | CHF tremendous during the last decades.
    [Show full text]
  • Planthopper and Leafhopper Fauna (Hemiptera: Fulgoromorpha Et Cicadomorpha) at Selected Post-Mining Dumping Grounds in Southern Poland
    Title: Planthopper and leafhopper fauna (Hemiptera: Fulgoromorpha et Cicadomorpha) at selected post-mining dumping grounds in Southern Poland Author: Marcin Walczak, Mariola Chruściel, Joanna Trela, Klaudia Sojka, Aleksander Herczek Citation style: Walczak Marcin, Chruściel Mariola, Trela Joanna, Sojka Klaudia, Herczek Aleksander. (2019). Planthopper and leafhopper fauna (Hemiptera: Fulgoromorpha et Cicadomorpha) at selected post-mining dumping grounds in Southern Poland. “Annals of the Upper Silesian Museum in Bytom, Entomology” Vol. 28 (2019), s. 1-28, doi 10.5281/zenodo.3564181 ANNALS OF THE UPPER SILESIAN MUSEUM IN BYTOM ENTOMOLOGY Vol. 28 (online 006): 1–28 ISSN 0867-1966, eISSN 2544-039X (online) Bytom, 05.12.2019 MARCIN WALCZAK1 , Mariola ChruśCiel2 , Joanna Trela3 , KLAUDIA SOJKA4 , aleksander herCzek5 Planthopper and leafhopper fauna (Hemiptera: Fulgoromorpha et Cicadomorpha) at selected post- mining dumping grounds in Southern Poland http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3564181 Faculty of Natural Sciences, University of Silesia, Bankowa Str. 9, 40-007 Katowice, Poland 1 e-mail: [email protected]; 2 [email protected]; 3 [email protected] (corresponding author); 4 [email protected]; 5 [email protected] Abstract: The paper presents the results of the study on species diversity and characteristics of planthopper and leafhopper fauna (Hemiptera: Fulgoromorpha et Cicadomorpha) inhabiting selected post-mining dumping grounds in Mysłowice in Southern Poland. The research was conducted in 2014 on several sites located on waste heaps with various levels of insolation and humidity. During the study 79 species were collected. The paper presents the results of ecological analyses complemented by a qualitative analysis performed based on the indices of species diversity.
    [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]
  • Rare Leafhopper Species in Polish Fauna – Distributional Maps (Hemiptera: Fulgoromorpha Et Cicadomorpha)
    CHEMISTRY, ENVIRONMENT, BIOTECHNOLOGY 2010, X IV, 41–99 Dariusz Świerczewski a, Paweł Gruca b a Institute of Chemistry, Environmental Protection and Biotechnology, Jan Długosz University of Cz ęstochowa, 42-200 Cz ęstochowa, Armii Krajowej 13/15 e-mail: [email protected] b 44 892 Bochum-Langendreer, Wittkampstrasse 39, Germany Rare leafhopper species in Polish fauna – distributional maps (Hemiptera: Fulgoromorpha et Cicadomorpha) Abstract The paper presents detailed localities for 137 rare leafhopper species record- ed in Poland supplemented by distributional maps. Chorological and ecologi- cal data are also provided for each species. Keywords: Insecta, Hemiptera, Fulgoromorpha, Cicadomorpha, Poland, rare species, distributional maps Introduction Leafhoppers represent a group of herbivorous insects belonging to the He- miptera ordo, which includes two separate developmental lineages as suborders – Fulgoromorpha and Cicadomorpha. They are an important component of ter- restrial or semi-aquatic ecosystems, where specimens and species can be found in large numbers 1. They are exclusively phytophagous with many species feed- ing on a certain plant genus or even on one single plant species thus ecological- ly forming a homogenous group known also as 'Auchenorrhyncha'. Phloem sap is their usual food but some families like Cicadidae, Cercopidae and some Ci- cadellidae utilize xylem sap instead, and most Typhlocybinae cicadellids feed on the content of mesophyll cells 2. According to Nickel and Hildebrandt, leaf- hoppers are a useful tool for monitoring the biotic conditions of grassland habi- tats since: i) the numerous species occur in high population densities, ii) being primary consumers they interact with both plants and predators, iii) they show specific life strategies and occupy specific spatial and temporal niches, iv) they respond rapidly to the management regime and v) whole assemblages can be described quickly by sampling several times a year 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Distribution of Spiders in Coastal Grey Dunes
    kaft_def 7/8/04 11:22 AM Pagina 1 SPATIAL PATTERNS AND EVOLUTIONARY D ISTRIBUTION OF SPIDERS IN COASTAL GREY DUNES Distribution of spiders in coastal grey dunes SPATIAL PATTERNS AND EVOLUTIONARY- ECOLOGICAL IMPORTANCE OF DISPERSAL - ECOLOGICAL IMPORTANCE OF DISPERSAL Dries Bonte Dispersal is crucial in structuring species distribution, population structure and species ranges at large geographical scales or within local patchily distributed populations. The knowledge of dispersal evolution, motivation, its effect on metapopulation dynamics and species distribution at multiple scales is poorly understood and many questions remain unsolved or require empirical verification. In this thesis we contribute to the knowledge of dispersal, by studying both ecological and evolutionary aspects of spider dispersal in fragmented grey dunes. Studies were performed at the individual, population and assemblage level and indicate that behavioural traits narrowly linked to dispersal, con- siderably show [adaptive] variation in function of habitat quality and geometry. Dispersal also determines spider distribution patterns and metapopulation dynamics. Consequently, our results stress the need to integrate knowledge on behavioural ecology within the study of ecological landscapes. / Promotor: Prof. Dr. Eckhart Kuijken [Ghent University & Institute of Nature Dries Bonte Conservation] Co-promotor: Prf. Dr. Jean-Pierre Maelfait [Ghent University & Institute of Nature Conservation] and Prof. Dr. Luc lens [Ghent University] Date of public defence: 6 February 2004 [Ghent University] Universiteit Gent Faculteit Wetenschappen Academiejaar 2003-2004 Distribution of spiders in coastal grey dunes: spatial patterns and evolutionary-ecological importance of dispersal Verspreiding van spinnen in grijze kustduinen: ruimtelijke patronen en evolutionair-ecologisch belang van dispersie door Dries Bonte Thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor [Ph.D.] in Sciences Proefschrift voorgedragen tot het bekomen van de graad van Doctor in de Wetenschappen Promotor: Prof.
    [Show full text]
  • Implications for Biogeographical Theory and the Conservation of Nature
    Journal of Biogeography (J. Biogeogr.) (2004) 31, 177–197 GUEST The mismeasure of islands: implications EDITORIAL for biogeographical theory and the conservation of nature Hartmut S. Walter Department of Geography, University of ABSTRACT California, Los Angeles, CA, USA The focus on place rather than space provides geography with a powerful raison d’eˆtre. As in human geography, the functional role of place is integral to the understanding of evolution, persistence and extinction of biotic taxa. This paper re-examines concepts and biogeographical evidence from a geographical rather than ecological or evolutionary perspective. Functional areography provides convincing arguments for a postmodern deconstruction of major principles of the dynamic Equilibrium Theory of Island Biogeography (ETIB). Endemic oceanic island taxa are functionally insular as a result of long-term island stability, con- finement, isolation, and protection from continental invasion and disturbance. Most continental taxa persist in different, more complex and open spatial systems; their geographical place is therefore fundamentally distinct from the functional insularity of oceanic island taxa. This creates an insular-continental polarity in biogeography that is currently not reflected in conservation theory. The focus on the biogeographical place leads to the development of the eigenplace concept de- fined as the functional spatial complex of existence. The application of still popular ETIB concepts in conservation biology is discouraged. The author calls for the Correspondence: Hartmut S. Walter, integration of functional areography into modern conservation science. Department of Geography, University of Keywords California, Los Angeles, P. O. Box 951524, CA 90095-1524, USA. Functional areography, geographical place, eigenplace concept, island biogeog- E-mail: [email protected] raphy, insularity, continentality, conservation biology, nature conservation.
    [Show full text]
  • Redalyc.Biodiversidad De Collembola (Hexapoda: Entognatha) En México
    Revista Mexicana de Biodiversidad ISSN: 1870-3453 [email protected] Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México México Palacios-Vargas, José G. Biodiversidad de Collembola (Hexapoda: Entognatha) en México Revista Mexicana de Biodiversidad, vol. 85, 2014, pp. 220-231 Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México Distrito Federal, México Disponible en: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=42529679040 Cómo citar el artículo Número completo Sistema de Información Científica Más información del artículo Red de Revistas Científicas de América Latina, el Caribe, España y Portugal Página de la revista en redalyc.org Proyecto académico sin fines de lucro, desarrollado bajo la iniciativa de acceso abierto Revista Mexicana de Biodiversidad, Supl. 85: S220-S231, 2014 220 Palacios-Vargas.- BiodiversidadDOI: 10.7550/rmb.32713 de Collembola Biodiversidad de Collembola (Hexapoda: Entognatha) en México Biodiversity of Collembola (Hexapoda: Entognatha) in Mexico José G. Palacios-Vargas Laboratorio de Ecología y Sistemática de Microartrópodos, Departamento de Ecología y Recursos Naturales, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Circuito exterior s/n, Cd. Universitaria, 04510 México, D. F. [email protected] Resumen. Se hace una breve evaluación de la importancia del grupo en los distintos ecosistemas. Se describen los caracteres morfológicos más distintivos, así como los biotopos donde se encuentran y su tipo de alimentación. Se hace una evaluación de la biodiversidad, encontrando que existen citados más de 700 taxa, muchos de ellos a nivel genérico, de 24 familias. Se discute su distribución geográfica por provincias biogeográficas, así como la diversidad de cada estado. Se presentan cuadros con la clasificación ecológica con ejemplos mexicanos; se indican las familias y su riqueza a nivel mundial y nacional, así como la curva acumulativa de especies mexicanas por quinquenio.
    [Show full text]
  • Revision of the Genus Acontia Ochsenheimer, 1816 and the Tribus Acontiini Guenée, 1841 (Old World) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae Acontiinae) by H
    Esperiana Band 15: 359-373 Schwanfeld, 12. Januar 2010 ISBN 978-3-938249-10-9 Revision of the genus Acontia OCHSENHEIMER, 1816 and the tribus Acontiini GUENÉE, 1841 (Old World) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae Acontiinae) by H. H. HACKER, A. LEGRAIN and M. FIBIGER (Esperiana 14: 7-533) Corrigenda and Supplementa (Plates 57, 64) by Hermann H. HACKER Abstract This paper contains some corrigenda of the Acontia revision, published in 2008, and results of several recent investigations made since the publication of the revision. It includes the description of two new species, Acontia hausmanni spec. nov. (Kenya), Acontia eburnea spec. nov. (Ivory Coast), and the following additional taxonomic changes: Acontia OCHSENHEIMER, 1816 = Hypercalymnia HAMPSON, 1910 syn. nov. tribe Acontiini = Hypercalymniini FIBIGER & LAFONTAINE, 2005 syn. nov. Acontia (Acontia) versicolorata HACKER nom. nov. (pro olivescens HAMPSON, 1910, praeocc.) Acontia (Uracontia) viettei HACKER nom. nov. (pro magnifica VIETTE, 1958, praeocc.) Acontia (Acontia) metaxantha HAMPSON, 1910 comb. nov. Acontia (Acontia) ampijoroa (VIETTE, 1965) comb. nov. Acontia (Acontia) laurenconi (VIETTE, 1965) comb. nov. Acontia (Acontia) malagasy (VIETTE, 1965) comb. nov. Acontia (Acontia) gloriosa (KENRICK, 1917) comb. nov. Acontia (Acontia) transducta (VIETTE, 1958) comb. nov. Acontia (Acontia) splendida (ROTHSCHILD, 1924) comb. nov. Acontia (Acontia) accola (FELDER & ROGENHOFER, 1874) comb. nov. Acontia (Uracontia) magnifica (VIETTE, 1958) comb. nov. Acontia (Uracontia) melaphora (HAMPSON, 1910) comb. nov. 1) Corrigenda p. 214 Acontia (Emmelia) esperiana spec. nov., paratypes omitted: 2 xx, 2 ww, [Burkina Faso] "Obervolta, Bobo Dioulasso, 4.viii.1975, 9.viii.1975, 14.viii.1979, 22.viii.1981 (leg. POLITZAR)” (ZSM); 1 x, [Burkina Faso] "Obervolta, Folonzo am Fluss, Comoe, 7.ix.1985 (leg.
    [Show full text]
  • Check List of Noctuid Moths (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae And
    Бiологiчний вiсник МДПУ імені Богдана Хмельницького 6 (2), стор. 87–97, 2016 Biological Bulletin of Bogdan Chmelnitskiy Melitopol State Pedagogical University, 6 (2), pp. 87–97, 2016 ARTICLE UDC 595.786 CHECK LIST OF NOCTUID MOTHS (LEPIDOPTERA: NOCTUIDAE AND EREBIDAE EXCLUDING LYMANTRIINAE AND ARCTIINAE) FROM THE SAUR MOUNTAINS (EAST KAZAKHSTAN AND NORTH-EAST CHINA) A.V. Volynkin1, 2, S.V. Titov3, M. Černila4 1 Altai State University, South Siberian Botanical Garden, Lenina pr. 61, Barnaul, 656049, Russia. E-mail: [email protected] 2 Tomsk State University, Laboratory of Biodiversity and Ecology, Lenina pr. 36, 634050, Tomsk, Russia 3 The Research Centre for Environmental ‘Monitoring’, S. Toraighyrov Pavlodar State University, Lomova str. 64, KZ-140008, Pavlodar, Kazakhstan. E-mail: [email protected] 4 The Slovenian Museum of Natural History, Prešernova 20, SI-1001, Ljubljana, Slovenia. E-mail: [email protected] The paper contains data on the fauna of the Lepidoptera families Erebidae (excluding subfamilies Lymantriinae and Arctiinae) and Noctuidae of the Saur Mountains (East Kazakhstan). The check list includes 216 species. The map of collecting localities is presented. Key words: Lepidoptera, Noctuidae, Erebidae, Asia, Kazakhstan, Saur, fauna. INTRODUCTION The fauna of noctuoid moths (the families Erebidae and Noctuidae) of Kazakhstan is still poorly studied. Only the fauna of West Kazakhstan has been studied satisfactorily (Gorbunov 2011). On the faunas of other parts of the country, only fragmentary data are published (Lederer, 1853; 1855; Aibasov & Zhdanko 1982; Hacker & Peks 1990; Lehmann et al. 1998; Benedek & Bálint 2009; 2013; Korb 2013). In contrast to the West Kazakhstan, the fauna of noctuid moths of East Kazakhstan was studied inadequately.
    [Show full text]