DOCSLIB.ORG

Aquatic Insect Community Structure in Urban Ponds: Effects of Environmental Variables

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Aquatic Insect Community Structure in Urban Ponds: Effects of Environmental Variables Aquatic insect community structure in urban ponds: effects of environmental variables Johan Andersson Degree project in biology, Master of science (2 years), 2014 Examensarbete i biologi 45 hp till masterexamen, 2014 Biology Education Centre and Department of Ecology and Genetics, Uppsala University Supervisor: Frank Johansson Table of Contents 1. ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................................... 2 2. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 2 3. METHODS ....................................................................................................................................... 4 3.1 STUDY SITES ................................................................................................................................................ 4 3.2 INSECT SAMPLING ...................................................................................................................................... 5 3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL VARIABLES .................................................................................................................. 6 3.4 VEGETATION COVER AND SHORELINE .................................................................................................... 6 3.5 CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF WATER SAMPLES ............................................................................................ 7 3.6 LAND USE AND GIS ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................. 7 3.7 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................. 8 4. RESULTS ......................................................................................................................................... 8 4.1 PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS ON ENVIRONMENTAL VARIABLES .............................................................. 8 4.2 INSECT RECORDS, ABUNDANCE AND DIVERSITY ................................................................................. 10 4.3 INSECT ASSEMBLAGES AND POND CHARACTERISTICS ....................................................................... 10 4.4 RICHNESS, ABUNDANCE AND DIVERSITY .............................................................................................. 12 5. DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................................ 13 5.1 THE EFFECT OF URBANIZATION ON AQUATIC INSECT COMMUNITY STRUCTURE .......................... 13 5.2 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ON SPECIES RICHNESS, ABUNDANCE AND DIVERSITY ....................... 14 5.3 SPECIES DETERMINATION – HIGHER TAXON APPROACH ................................................................... 15 5.4 NEWT PRESENCE ...................................................................................................................................... 16 5.5. SPECIES OF CONSERVATION CONCERN ................................................................................................ 16 5.6 FINAL CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................. 16 6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................................... 17 7. REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................. 17 8. APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................... 21 8.1 APPENDIX 1 – SPECIES LIST, OCCURRENCE AND FREQUENCY .......................................................... 21 8.2 APPENDIX 2 – INSECT ORDER SPECIFIC RDA BIPLOTS ..................................................................... 24 8.3 APPENDIX 3 – LAND USE DETAIL SPECIFICATIONS ............................................................................ 26 8.4 APPENDIX 4 – POND DESCRIPTIONS ..................................................................................................... 28 1 1. Abstract I sampled aquatic insects in 26 ponds of varying types in the urban landscape of the city of Stockholm and related insect community structure to environmental variables. I also related environmental factors to species richness, diversity and abundance of the sampled aquatic insects. A Redundancy Analysis (RDA) showed that the most important variables in explaining insect community structure was the remoteness to developed area and the amount of emergent vegetation in the ponds. Species richness increased with distance from developed area, diversity was related to floating vegetation and abundance of insects increased with distance from developed area and with higher amount of forestation and vegetation. The results of my study shows that urbanization effects divide the insect community into clusters of species that are tolerant or intolerant to effects of urbanisation. One internationally red-listed species, the dragonfly Leucorrhinia pectoralis was found in five (19,2%) of the ponds. My result suggested two important factors that should be considered when planning urban ponds. First, it is important to re-create varying types of ponds and include green buffer areas and second, plant colonisation should be facilitated to better mimic the natural states of ponds. 2. Introduction The urban landscape is continually expanding along with rising population levels. The proportion of people living in urban areas is forecasted to grow from 50% in 2008, to 69% globally in 2050 (United Nations Population Division 2011). In recent years the field of conservation biology has widened its trajectory from a view of preserving pristine ecosystems to also include areas highly influenced by human activities as important areas for nature and wildlife conservation (London Biodiversity Partnership 2001, Harrison & Davies 2002, Alvey 2006). Such areas could for example be green spaces within cities (Goddard et al. 2010), which is defined as an undeveloped open space at least partly covered with vegetation including community gardens, cemeteries and parks that often contain water (EPA 2013). Studies indicate that urbanization degrades biodiversity through various processes including e.g. habitat fragmentation (Dickman 1987), land conversion (Moore 1990) and introduction of alien species (Kowarik 2008). The future projections on extinction rates are depressive and the risk of more species becoming red-listed is increasing with urban development (McDonald et al. 2008). However it has also been shown that suburban areas contain a large biodiversity of organisms, often higher than the rural outskirts and the central urban areas. This is due to a broad variety of different habitats (McKinney 2008). For example, the common frog (Rana temporaria) in Great Britain has declined in rural areas, but has increased its abundance in urban areas (Carrier & Beebee 2003). Factors important for a stable population density of species in the urban landscape differ. For some species landscape barriers hinder migration and 2 dispersal (Blakely et al. 2006), whereas the major concern among other species is the habitat patch quality (Angold et al. 2006). These factors might be especially important in urban areas such as large cities because of the high fragmentation and the low habitat quality. Unfortunately they are not well studied in large cities and warrant more research focusing on the relationship between biodiversity and habitat quality in these areas. Even though ponds are not green in colour they are an important part of green spaces (Fontanarosa et al. 2013). The proportion of green-space associated with water can be quite large in cities (see refs in Gledhill et al. 2008). Traditionally ponds and smaller waters were filled in cities, but nowadays many ponds are often restored and new ones created (Gledhill & James 2012). These newly created ponds are used for urban drainage, nature conservation, ornament features and more (Sutherland & Hill 1995), and studies have suggested that ponds are important for human quality of life (Lees & Evans 2003). The biodiversity in ponds is affected by many abiotic and biotic factors. For example, it has been shown that size and connectedness of the ponds affect the species composition, with different species occurring in larger ponds than in a set of smaller ponds. Interestingly, a few smaller ponds can even harbour larger microfaunal diversity than one large pond (Oertli et al. 2002). Many life history traits of aquatic insects rely on interactions with plants. The relationships between species richness of insects and plants are quite well studied and some of the more important aspects of insect-plant interactions are: herbivory, oviposition, predator evasion and foraging (McGaha 1952). Numerous aquatic insects are susceptible to fish predation and presence of fish has been shown to play a key role in structuring aquatic insect communities (Bendell & McNicol 1987). Additionally the local water chemistry is affecting aquatic insect composition, where e.g. pH is a critical factor during the development of the larval stages with many species having problems coping with a too acidic environment (Bell 1971). Biodiversity in city ponds is also affected by land use/land-cover
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • An Updated Checklist of the Water Beetles of Montenegro 205-212 ©Zoologische Staatssammlung München/Verlag Friedrich Pfeil; Download
    ZOBODAT - www.zobodat.at Zoologisch-Botanische Datenbank/Zoological-Botanical Database Digitale Literatur/Digital Literature Zeitschrift/Journal: Spixiana, Zeitschrift für Zoologie Jahr/Year: 2016 Band/Volume: 039 Autor(en)/Author(s): Scheers Kevin Artikel/Article: An updated checklist of the water beetles of Montenegro 205-212 ©Zoologische Staatssammlung München/Verlag Friedrich Pfeil; download www.pfeil-verlag.de SPIXIANA 39 2 205-212 München, Dezember 2016 ISSN 0341-8391 An updated checklist of the water beetles of Montenegro (Coleoptera, Hydradephaga) Kevin Scheers Scheers, K. 2016. An updated checklist of the water beetles of Montenegro (Co- leoptera, Hydradephaga). Spixiana 39 (2): 205-212. During a short collecting trip to Montenegro in 2014, 26 locations were sampled and 692 specimens belonging to 45 species of water beetles were collected. The following species are recorded for the first time from Montenegro: Haliplus dal- matinus J. Müller, 1900, Haliplus heydeni Wehncke, 1875, Haliplus laminatus (Schaller, 1783), Hydroporus erythrocephalus (Linnaeus, 1758), Hyphydrus anatolicus (Guignot, 1957), Melanodytes pustulatus (Rossi, 1792) and Rhantus bistriatus (Bergsträsser, 1778). The addition of these seven species brings the total of Hydradephaga known from Montenegro to 91 species. The new records are presented and an updated checklist of the Hydradephaga of Montenegro is given. Kevin Scheers, Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO), Kliniekstraat 25, 1070 Brussels, Belgium; e-mail: [email protected] Introduction of the sampling sites were obtained using a GPS (Garmin eTrex Vista HCx). The material was collected with a The first data on the Hydradephaga of Montenegro small sieve and a hydrobiological handnet. Traps were were given by Guéorguiev (1971).
    [Show full text]
  • Scope: Munis Entomology & Zoology Publishes a Wide Variety of Papers
    _____________ Mun. Ent. Zool. Vol. 4, No. 1, January 2009___________ I MUNIS ENTOMOLOGY & ZOOLOGY Ankara / Turkey II _____________ Mun. Ent. Zool. Vol. 4, No. 1, January 2009___________ Scope: Munis Entomology & Zoology publishes a wide variety of papers on all aspects of Entomology and Zoology from all of the world, including mainly studies on systematics, taxonomy, nomenclature, fauna, biogeography, biodiversity, ecology, morphology, behavior, conservation, paleobiology and other aspects are appropriate topics for papers submitted to Munis Entomology & Zoology. Submission of Manuscripts: Works published or under consideration elsewhere (including on the internet) will not be accepted. At first submission, one double spaced hard copy (text and tables) with figures (may not be original) must be sent to the Editors, Dr. Hüseyin Özdikmen for publication in MEZ. All manuscripts should be submitted as Word file or PDF file in an e-mail attachment. If electronic submission is not possible due to limitations of electronic space at the sending or receiving ends, unavailability of e-mail, etc., we will accept “hard” versions, in triplicate, accompanied by an electronic version stored in a floppy disk, a CD-ROM. Review Process: When submitting manuscripts, all authors provides the name, of at least three qualified experts (they also provide their address, subject fields and e-mails). Then, the editors send to experts to review the papers. The review process should normally be completed within 45-60 days. After reviewing papers by reviwers: Rejected papers are discarded. For accepted papers, authors are asked to modify their papers according to suggestions of the reviewers and editors. Final versions of manuscripts and figures are needed in a digital format.
    [Show full text]
  • Guidelines for the Capture and Management of Digital Zoological Names Information Francisco W
    Guidelines for the Capture and Management of Digital Zoological Names Information Francisco W. Welter-Schultes Version 1.1 March 2013 Suggested citation: Welter-Schultes, F.W. (2012). Guidelines for the capture and management of digital zoological names information. Version 1.1 released on March 2013. Copenhagen: Global Biodiversity Information Facility, 126 pp, ISBN: 87-92020-44-5, accessible online at http://www.gbif.org/orc/?doc_id=2784. ISBN: 87-92020-44-5 (10 digits), 978-87-92020-44-4 (13 digits). Persistent URI: http://www.gbif.org/orc/?doc_id=2784. Language: English. Copyright © F. W. Welter-Schultes & Global Biodiversity Information Facility, 2012. Disclaimer: The information, ideas, and opinions presented in this publication are those of the author and do not represent those of GBIF. License: This document is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0. Document Control: Version Description Date of release Author(s) 0.1 First complete draft. January 2012 F. W. Welter- Schultes 0.2 Document re-structured to improve February 2012 F. W. Welter- usability. Available for public Schultes & A. review. González-Talaván 1.0 First public version of the June 2012 F. W. Welter- document. Schultes 1.1 Minor editions March 2013 F. W. Welter- Schultes Cover Credit: GBIF Secretariat, 2012. Image by Levi Szekeres (Romania), obtained by stock.xchng (http://www.sxc.hu/photo/1389360). March 2013 ii Guidelines for the management of digital zoological names information Version 1.1 Table of Contents How to use this book ......................................................................... 1 SECTION I 1. Introduction ................................................................................ 2 1.1. Identifiers and the role of Linnean names ......................................... 2 1.1.1 Identifiers ..................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Morphological Evolution of the Adephaga (Coleoptera)
    Systematic Entomology (2019), DOI: 10.1111/syen.12403 The morphological evolution of the Adephaga (Coleoptera) ROLF GEORG BEUTEL1, IGNACIO RIBERA2 ,MARTIN FIKÁCEˇ K 3, ALEXANDROS VASILIKOPOULOS4, BERNHARD MISOF4 andMICHAEL BALKE5 1Institut für Zoologie und Evolutionsforschung, FSU Jena, Jena, Germany, 2Institut de Biología Evolutiva, CSIC-Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain, 3Department of Zoology, National Museum, Praha 9, Department of Zoology, Faculty of Science, Charles University, Praha 2, Czech Republic, 4Center for Molecular Biodiversity Research, Zoological Research Museum Alexander Koenig, Bonn, Germany and 5Zoologische Staatssammlung, Munich, Germany Abstract. The evolution of the coleopteran suborder Adephaga is discussed based on a robust phylogenetic background. Analyses of morphological characters yield results nearly identical to recent molecular phylogenies, with the highly specialized Gyrinidae placed as sister to the remaining families, which form two large, reciprocally monophyletic subunits, the aquatic Haliplidae + Dytiscoidea (Meruidae, Noteridae, Aspidytidae, Amphizoidae, Hygrobiidae, Dytiscidae) on one hand, and the terrestrial Geadephaga (Trachypachidae + Carabidae) on the other. The ancestral habitat of Adephaga, either terrestrial or aquatic, remains ambiguous. The former option would imply two or three independent invasions of aquatic habitats, with very different structural adaptations in larvae of Gyrinidae, Haliplidae and Dytiscoidea. Introduction dedicated to their taxonomy (examples for comprehensive studies are Sharp, 1882; Guignot, 1931–1933; Balfour-Browne Adephaga, the second largest suborder of the megadiverse & Balfour-Browne, 1940; Jeannel, 1941–1942; Brinck, 1955, > Coleoptera, presently comprises 45 000 described species. Lindroth, 1961–1969; Franciscolo, 1979) and morphology. The terrestrial Carabidae are one of the largest beetle families, An outstanding contribution is the monograph on Dytiscus comprising almost 90% of the extant adephagan diversity.
    [Show full text]
  • Foster, Warne, A
    ISSN 0966 2235 LATISSIMUS NEWSLETTER OF THE BALFOUR-BROWNE CLUB Number Forty Five February 2020 Liopterus haemorrhoidalis (Fab.) found in a heathland pool in Dorset, England by Peter Sutton. ADDRESSES The addresses of authors of articles and reviewed works are mainly given at the end of this issue of Latissimus. The address for other correspondence is: Professor G N Foster, 3 Eglinton Terrace, Ayr KA7 1JJ, Scotland, UK – [email protected] 1 LATISSIMUS 45 February 2020 TOWARDS A PHOTOGUIDE FOR THE LARGER BRITISH WATER BEETLES Peter Sutton For some time now, I have been working on a sequel to The Larger Water Beetles of the British Isles (Sutton 2008) in a bid to photograph all of the large and spectacular aquatic Coleoptera of Britain. The trials and tribulations of the search for these fascinating insects are described in a recent article in British Wildlife (Sutton 2017). This article also reveals that some of the medium-sized species of interest, such as those of the genus Rhantus have been included, as have species from other groups, including the raft spider, Dolomedes plantarius (Clerck) and a rare wasp, Chalcis sispes (L.), parasitic on soldierflies (Stratiomyidae), which collectively highlight the conservation importance of some of the very special habitats in which they may be found. Figure 1 Rhantus frontalis (Marsham), brackish pool, Canvey Island, South Essex February 2020 LATISSIMUS 45 2 The prospective book, therefore, covers a good number of medium-sized water beetles (7- 13 mm), from the Piles Beetle Liopterus haemorrhoidalis (Fab.) (6.3-7.9 mm) to the comparatively large Ilybius ater (12.5 -14.5 mm), known by some in Britain as the Mud Dweller.
    [Show full text]
  • A World Catalogue of the Family Noteridae, Or the Burrowing Water Beetles (Coleoptera, Adephaga)
    A World Catalogue of the Family Noteridae, or the Burrowing Water Beetles (Coleoptera, Adephaga) Version 16.VIII.2011 Prepared by Anders N. Nilsson, University of Umeå, Sweden E-mail: [email protected] Noterus crassicornis, N. clavicornis, Suphis cimicoides, Noterus laevis, and Hydrocanthus grandis copied from plate 24 of the Aubé Iconographie (1836-1838). Distributed by the Author Distributed electronically as a PDF-file that can be downloaded and freely distributed from the following URL: www2.emg.umu.se/projects/biginst/andersn/WCN/wcn_index.htm Nilsson A.N. 2011: A World Catalogue of the Family Noteridae. Version 16.VIII.2011 Contents The number of included species is given for each taxon. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 3 Catalogue .................................................................................................................................. 4 NOTERIDAE - 258.................................................................................................................. 4 Noterinae - 240 ......................................................................................................................... 4 Neohydrocoptini - 29................................................................................................................. 4 Neohydrocoptus - 29 .................................................................................................................. 4 Noterini - 207 ...........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Water Beetles of Dagestan, Russia (Coleoptera: Noteridae, Dytiscidae, Haliplidae, Gyrinidae, Hydrophilidae, Spercheidae)
    34 Koleopt. Rdsch. 83 (2013) Koleopterologische Rundschau 83 35–52 Wien, September 2013 VONDEL, B.J. van 2010: Revision of the Haliplidae of the Afrotropical Region including North Africa (Coleoptera). – Tijdschrift voor Entomologie 153: 239–314. Water beetles of Dagestan, Russia VONDEL, B.J. van 2011: Description of Haliplus larvae from Lebanon (Coleoptera: Haliplidae). – Koleo- pterologische Rundschau 81: 41–54. (Coleoptera: Noteridae, Dytiscidae, Haliplidae, Gyrinidae, VONDEL, B.J. van & BERGSTEN, J. 2012: Review of the Haliplidae of Madagascar, with descriptions of Hydrophilidae, Spercheidae) two new species (Coleoptera). – Tijdschrift voor Entomologie 155: 57–66. REKHOV HAVERDO LYINA HAPOVALOV VONDEL, B.J. van & SPANGLER, P.J. 2008: Revision of the Haliplidae of the Neotropical Region O.G. B , H.V. S , E.V. I & M.I. S including Mexico (Coleoptera: Haliplidae). – Koleopterologische Rundschau 78: 69–194. WATTS, C.H.S. & MCRAE, J. 2010: The identity of Haliplus (Coleoptera: Haliplidae) from the Pilbara Abstract region of Australia, including the description of four new species. – Records of the Western Records of 102 species and one subspecies of water beetles of six families: Noteridae (2 spp.), Australian Museum 25: 387–398. Dytiscidae (62 spp., 1 ssp.), Haliplidae (4 spp.), Gyrinidae (6 spp.), Hydrophilidae (27 spp.), and Spercheidae (1 sp.) from Dagestan (Russia) are listed, based on collected material and information WILLIAMS, R.N., ELLIS, M.S. & FICKLE, D.S. 1996: Insects in the Killbuck Marsh Wildlife Area, Ohio: from the literature. The family Spercheidae (incl. one species) and 43 species and one subspecies of 1994 Survey. – The Ohio Journal of Science 96 (3): 34–40.
    [Show full text]
  • Surviving Submerged—Setal Tracheal Gills for Gas Exchange in Adult Rheophilic Diving Beetles
    JOURNAL OF MORPHOLOGY 270:1348–1355 (2009) Surviving Submerged—Setal Tracheal Gills for Gas Exchange in Adult Rheophilic Diving Beetles Siegfried Kehl* and Konrad Dettner Department of Animal Ecology II, University of Bayreuth, 95440 Bayreuth, Germany ABSTRACT The gas exchange in adult diving beetles 2002). Adult Dytiscidae (predaceous diving beetles) (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae) relies on a subelytral air store, are often used as a prime example of aquatic which has to be renewed in regular intervals at the insects having a transportable air store for respi- water surface. The dive duration varies from a few ration. This air store in the subelytral cavity, must minutes to 24 h depending on the species, activity, and be renewed at regular intervals at the water sur- temperature. However, some species remain submerged for several weeks. Stygobiont species do not ascend to face (Alt, 1912; Wesenberg-Lund, 1912; Ege, 1915; the surface and gas exchange of these species remains Rahn and Paganelli, 1968; Gilbert, 1986; Wichard unclear, but it is assumed that they require air filled et al., 2002; Balke, 2005). The spiracles of the voids for respiration or they use cutaneous respiration. adult beetles open into the subelytral cavity (Gil- In this study, we investigate the gas exchange in the bert, 1986). For gas exchange, adult Dytiscidae running water diving beetle Deronectes aubei, which break the water surface with the tip of the abdo- survive submerged for over 6 weeks. The diffusion dis- men and atmospheric air enters the subelytral cav- tance through the cuticle is too great for cutaneous res- ity and flows into the emptied tracheae.
    [Show full text]
  • Survey of Ponds at Stow Bedon Fuel Allotment a Report for the Freshwater Habitats Trust
    Survey of ponds at Stow Bedon Fuel Allotment A report for the Freshwater Habitats Trust Martin Hammond Ecology [email protected] & July 2016 Updated October 2016 Summary Stow Bedon Fuel Allotment is part of Stow Bedon Common, a landscape containing numerous natural ponds formed in the late Ice Age by freezing and thawing of upwelling ground water. Such ponds are referred to as pingos or palsa-scars and are a characteristic feature of the Breckland Commons of West Norfolk. Neighbouring Thompson Common is famous for the rich biodiversity of its pingos, but the wildlife interest of the ponds on Stow Bedon Common is much less well-recorded. In spring/summer 2016, 16 ponds on Stow Bedon Fuel Allotment were surveyed for wetland plants and aquatic macro-invertebrates using National Pond Survey methodology. One further pond was sampled briefly in early October. Nine of these ponds were also evaluated using PSYM, the recognised methodology for monitoring the ecological quality of permanent or semi-permanent ponds. Eight of these were categorised as being of high ecological quality. All pingo/palsa-scar ponds are classed as Priority Ponds and are therefore Habitats of Principal Importance as defined under Section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act; eleven of the sixteen ponds surveyed also qualified as Priority Ponds under other criteria such as the presence of rare species or their exceptionally diverse plant or invertebrate assemblages. Although not as rich as neighbouring Thompson Common, the site produced an impressive list of aquatic invertebrates including several ‘relict fen’ rarities which are restricted to ancient wetlands.
    [Show full text]