Szent István Egyetem TATÁR SÁNDOR Gödöllő 2017

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Szent István Egyetem TATÁR SÁNDOR Gödöllő 2017 10.14751/SZIE.2018.004 Szent István Egyetem MINTAPROGRAM A LÁPI PÓC (UMBRA KRAMERI WALBAUM, 1792) IN SITU ÉS EX SITU VÉDELMÉNEK MEGALAPOZÁSÁRA TATÁR SÁNDOR Gödöllő 2017 10.14751/SZIE.2018.004 A doktori iskola megnevezése: Állattenyésztés-tudományi Doktori Iskola tudományága: állattenyésztés-tudomány vezetője: Dr. Mézes Miklós tanszékvezető egyetemi tanár, az MTA rendes tagja SZIE Mezőgazdaság- és Környezettudományi Kar, Állattudományi Alapok Intézet, Takarmányozástani Tanszék Témavezető: Dr. Müller Tamás tudományos főmunkatárs, PhD SZIE Mezőgazdaság- és Környezettudományi Kar, Akvakultúra és Környezetbiztonsági Intézet, Halgazdálkodási Tanszék Társ-témavezető: Dr. Specziár András tudományos főmunkatárs, PhD MTA Ökológiai Kutatóközpont, Balatoni Limnológiai Intézet …………………………… …………………………… Az iskolavezető jóváhagyása …………………………… A témavezetők jóváhagyása 10.14751/SZIE.2018.004 Tartalom 1. BEVEZETÉS ............................................................................................................ 1 2. IRODALMI ÁTTEKINTÉS ..................................................................................... 4 2.1. Az Umbridae család jellemzése, a lápi póc törzsfejlődése és taxonómiai helye 4 2.2. A lápi póc elterjedése ......................................................................................... 7 2.3. A lápi póc biológiai jellemzése ........................................................................ 11 2.3.1. Testfelépítés és színezet ........................................................................ 11 2.3.2. Anatómiai és élettani sajátosságok........................................................ 11 2.3.3. Szaporodásbiológia és egyedfejlődés, genetikai jellemzők .................. 12 2.3.4. Táplálkozás és magatartás ..................................................................... 14 2.4. A lápi póc élőhelyi jellemzői, ökológiai igénye ............................................... 16 2.5. Veszélyeztető tényezők, természetvédelmi státusz .......................................... 17 2.5.1. Antropogén hatások, abiotikus tényezők ................................................ 18 2.5.2. Idegenhonos halak ................................................................................. 18 2.5.3. Beltenyészet, betegségek ........................................................................ 20 2.5.4. Természetvédelmi státusz ....................................................................... 20 2.6. Fajmegőrzési törekvések eddigi eredményei ................................................... 21 2.6.1. Külföldi projektek ................................................................................... 21 2.6.2. Hazai projektek ....................................................................................... 23 3. ANYAG ÉS MÓDSZER ........................................................................................ 24 3.1. A természetes lápi póc élőhelyek és a helyettesítő élőhelyek vizsgálata, monitoringja ............................................................................................................ 24 3.1.1. Vízminőség vizsgálatok .......................................................................... 24 3.1.2. Botanikai vizsgálatok .............................................................................. 24 3.1.3. Gerinctelen makrofauna és zooplankton vizsgálatok ............................. 25 3.1.4. Halfaunisztikai vizsgálatok ..................................................................... 26 3.2. A Szadai Mintaterület ...................................................................................... 26 3.3. Élőhely-rekonstrukció, új helyettesítő élőhelyek létrehozása ......................... 27 3.4. Veszélyeztetett állományok mentése, szaporítása, nevelése és telepítése ....... 29 3.4.1. Állománymentések ................................................................................. 29 3.4.2. Szaporítás és ivadéknevelés .................................................................... 29 3.4.3. Telepítések .............................................................................................. 31 4. EREDMÉNYEK .................................................................................................... 33 4.1. A természetes lápi póc élőhelyek ökológiai jellemzői ..................................... 33 4.1.1. Az újonnan felfedezett 1. és 2. sz. Pócos-tó bemutatása ......................... 40 4.2. A lápi póc élőhelyek halközösségei, a póc populációk aktuális helyzete ........ 41 4.3. Helyettesítő élőhelyek kialakítása és monitoringjuk ....................................... 46 4.3.1. Vízminőség ............................................................................................. 47 4.3.2. Vegetáció ................................................................................................. 54 4.3.3. Gerinctelen makrofauna .......................................................................... 55 10.14751/SZIE.2018.004 4.4. Veszélyeztetett állományok mentése, szaporítása és ivadéknevelése ............. 62 4.5. Lápi halak telepítése és monitoringja a helyettesítő élőhelyeken ................... 67 4.6. Telepítések a természetes lápi póc populációk megerősítéséhez .................... 75 4.7. Új tudományos eredmények ............................................................................ 76 5. KÖVETKEZTETÉSEK ÉS JAVASLATOK .......................................................... 77 5.1. A természetes lápi póc élőhelyek ökológiai jellemzői..................................... 77 5.1.1. Vízminőség ............................................................................................. 77 5.1.2. Vegetáció................................................................................................. 78 5.1.3. Gerinctelen makrofauna ......................................................................... 78 5.2. A lápi póc élőhelyek halközösségei, a póc populációk aktuális helyzete ........ 78 5.3. Helyettesítő élőhelyek kialakítása és monitoringjuk ....................................... 80 5.3.1. Vízminőség ............................................................................................. 80 5.3.2. Alternatív stabil állapotok a Szadai Mintaterület tavain ........................ 81 5.3.2.1. Szubmerz hínárnövényzet dominálta vizek ......................................... 83 5.3.2.2. Csillárkamoszatos vizek ...................................................................... 87 5.3.2.3. Cianobaktériumok által dominált vizek ............................................... 87 5.3.2.4. Fonalas zöldmoszatos víz .................................................................... 87 5.3.2.5. Emerz hínárvegetáció uralta víz .......................................................... 88 5.3.3. Vegetáció................................................................................................. 89 5.3.4. Gerinctelen makrofauna ......................................................................... 90 5.3.5. Telepített lápi halállományok megmaradása .......................................... 90 5.4. Veszélyeztetett állományok mentése ............................................................... 92 5.5. Veszélyeztetett állományok szaporítása és nevelése ....................................... 93 5.6. Természetes lápi póc populációk megerősítése ............................................... 94 5.7. Összegzés és javaslatok ................................................................................... 95 6. ÖSSZEFOGLALÁS............................................................................................... 98 7. SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... 100 MELLÉKLETEK ..................................................................................................... 102 M1. melléklet: Irodalomjegyzék .............................................................................. 102 M2. melléklet: Az értekezés témakörében megjelent publikációk jegyzéke ........... 122 M3. melléklet: M1-11. táblázatok ............................................................................ 125 M4. melléklet: M12. táblázat. .................................................................................. 155 M5. melléklet: M1-33. ábrák ................................................................................... 159 Köszönetnyilvánítás ................................................................................................. 174 10.14751/SZIE.2018.004 „A lápi pócz mindenben a réti csík társa, s így különösen ingólápos mocsarakban terem meg bőven…” Herman Ottó (1887) 1. BEVEZETÉS Az egyes ökoszisztémák stabilitása és a bioszféra egésze a fajok sokféleségére épül, ezért a fajok kipusztulását, illetve a biodiverzitás csökkenését (gének, fajok és ökoszisztémák szintjén) a legsúlyosabb következményekkel járó globális környezeti veszélyek között tartják számon (CUNNINGHAM et al. 2003). Az elmúlt évszázadban a növekvő népességszámú emberiség minden korábbinál gyorsabban és kiterjedtebben változtatta meg a földi ökoszisztémákat, többek között az élelmiszer, az ivóvíz, a faanyag és az üzemanyag iránti kereslet növekedése következtében. Az ENSZ által irányított Millennium Ecosystem Assessment eredményei szerint a részletesen elemzett 24 ökoszisztémából 15 esetében (63%) degradációt vagy nem fenntartható használatot mutattak ki, mely az emberiség által igénybevett ökoszisztéma szolgáltatásokat (pl. levegő-
Recommended publications
  • PDF Hosted at the Radboud Repository of the Radboud University Nijmegen
    PDF hosted at the Radboud Repository of the Radboud University Nijmegen The following full text is a publisher's version. For additional information about this publication click this link. http://hdl.handle.net/2066/32097 Please be advised that this information was generated on 2019-01-28 and may be subject to change. Matching species to a changing landscape -Aquatic macroinvertebrates in a heterogeneous landscape- ISBN: 978-90-9022753-5 Layout: A.M. Antheunisse Printed by: Gildeprint Drukkerijen B.V. © 2008 W.C.E.P. Verberk; all rights reserved. Verberk W.C.E.P. (2008) Matching species to a changing landscape - Aquatic macroinvertebrates in a heterogeneous landscape. PhD thesis, Radboud University Nijmegen. This research project was financed by the program Development and Management of Nature Quality (O+BN) of the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality (project number 3911773). Matching species to a changing landscape -Aquatic macroinvertebrates in a heterogeneous landscape- Een wetenschappelijke proeve op het gebied van de Natuurwetenschappen, Wiskunde en Informatica PROEFSCHRIFT ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen op gezag van de rector magnificus prof. mr. S.C.J.J. Kortmann, volgens besluit van het College van Decanen in het openbaar te verdedigen op vrijdag 7 maart 2008 om 10:30 uur precies door Wilhelmus Cornelis Egbertus Petrus Verberk geboren op 30 juni 1976 te Oploo, Nederland Promotores: Prof. dr. H. Siepel Prof. dr. G. van der Velde (Vrije Universiteit, Brussel) Copromotores: Dr. R.S.E.W. Leuven Dr. P.F.M. Verdonschot (Alterra, Wageningen UR) Manuscriptcommissie: Prof. dr. J.M.
    [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]
  • Download Als PDF
    Dieses PDF wird von der Arbeitsgemeinschaft bayerischer Entomologen e.V.für den privaten bzw. wissenschaftlichen Gebrauch zur Verfügung gestellt. Die kommerzielle Nutzung oder die Bereitstellung in einer öffentlichen Bibliothek oder auf einer website ist nicht gestattet. Beiträge zur bayerischen Entomofaunistik 8:4987, Bamberg (2006), ISSN 1430-015X Regionalisierte und kommentierte Checkliste der Wasserkäfer Bayerns (Stand 2005) (Insecta: Coleoptera aquatica) von Ullrich Heckes, Monika Hess, Günter Hofmann, Heinz Bußler, André Skale, Jürgen Schmidl & Franz Hebauer Summary: In addition to the recently published revision of the red list of threatened and endangered animals we present a regionalized checklist of the waterbeetles of Bavaria. Moreover we add comments on selected rare, newly recorded or rediscov- ered species and remarkable records and point out nomenclatural alterations. Zusammenfassung: Im Nachgang zur Neufassung der Roten Listen Bayerns wird eine nach Naturraumgruppen regionalisierte Checkliste der Wasserkäfer für den Bezugsraum vorgestellt. Ausgewählte seltene Arten, Erst- und Wiederfunde, bemerkenswerte Nachweise und nomenklatorische Neuerungen werden kommentiert bzw. dokumentiert. Einleitung Im Zuge der Vorarbeiten zur Neufassung der Roten Liste gefährdeter Wasserkäfer Bayerns (Hebauer et al., [2004]) waren in größerem Umfang aktuelle faunistische Daten zusammenzutragen und Altmeldungen gegenüber zu stellen. Die Autoren kamen überein, diese Arbeiten auch nach dem Erscheinen der Roten Liste weiter zu führen und zur Aufstellung einer Checkliste zu nutzen. Die hiermit vorgelegte kommentierte Liste versteht sich als Aktualisierung und Fortschreibung des Katalogs der bayerischen Wasserkäfer (Hebauer, 1994a, Stand August 1992), der ersten und bislang einzigen Zusammenstellung dieser Art für das Bundesland. Wesentliche Neuerung ist eine nach naturräumlichen Regionen differenzierte Darstellung mit grober artbezogener Bilanzierung der Anzahl bekannter Fundorte.
    [Show full text]
  • Bedfordshire and Luton County Wildlife Sites
    Bedfordshire and Luton County Wildlife Sites Selection Guidelines VERSION 14 December 2020 BEDFORDSHIRE AND LUTON LOCAL SITES PARTNERSHIP 1 Contents 1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................ 5 2. HISTORY OF THE CWS SYSTEM ......................................................................................................................... 7 3. CURRENT CWS SELECTION PROCESS ................................................................................................................ 8 4. Nature Conservation Review CRITERIA (modified version) ............................................................................. 10 5. GENERAL SUPPLEMENTARY FACTORS ......................................................................................................... 14 6 SITE SELECTION THRESHOLDS........................................................................................................................ 15 BOUNDARIES (all CWS) ............................................................................................................................................ 15 WOODLAND, TREES and HEDGES ........................................................................................................................ 15 TRADITIONAL ORCHARDS AND FRUIT TREES ................................................................................................. 19 ARABLE FIELD MARGINS........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Characterisation of Pristine Polish River Systems and Their Use As Reference Conditions for Dutch River Systems
    1830 Rapport 1367.qxp 20-9-2006 16:49 Pagina 1 Characterisation of pristine Polish river systems and their use as reference conditions for Dutch river systems Rebi Nijboer Piet Verdonschot Andrzej Piechocki Grzegorz Tonczyk´ Malgorzata Klukowska Alterra-rapport 1367, ISSN 1566-7197 Characterisation of pristine Polish river systems and their use as reference conditions for Dutch river systems Commissioned by the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality, Research Programme ‘Aquatic Ecology and Fisheries’ (no. 324) and by the project Euro-limpacs which is funded by the European Union under2 Thematic Sub-Priority 1.1.6.3. Alterra-rapport 1367 Characterisation of pristine Polish river systems and their use as reference conditions for Dutch river systems Rebi Nijboer Piet Verdonschot Andrzej Piechocki Grzegorz Tończyk Małgorzata Klukowska Alterra-rapport 1367 Alterra, Wageningen 2006 ABSTRACT Nijboer, Rebi, Piet Verdonschot, Andrzej Piechocki, Grzegorz Tończyk & Małgorzata Klukowska, 2006. Characterisation of pristine Polish river systems and their use as reference conditions for Dutch river systems. Wageningen, Alterra, Alterra-rapport 1367. 221 blz.; 13 figs.; 53 tables.; 26 refs. A central feature of the European Water Framework Directive are the reference conditions. The ecological quality status is determined by calculating the distance between the present situation and the reference conditions. To describe reference conditions the natural variation of biota in pristine water bodies should be measured. Because pristine water bodies are not present in the Netherlands anymore, water bodies (springs, streams, rivers and oxbow lakes) in central Poland were investigated. Macrophytes and macroinvertebrates were sampled and environmental variables were measured. The water bodies appeared to have a high biodiversity and a good ecological quality.
    [Show full text]
  • Beaver Creates Early Successional Hotspots for Water Beetles
    Biodiversity and Conservation (2021) 30:2655–2670 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-021-02213-8 ORIGINAL PAPER Beaver creates early successional hotspots for water beetles Petri Nummi1 · Wenfei Liao2 · Juliette van der Schoor3,4 · John Loehr4 Received: 16 September 2020 / Revised: 16 May 2021 / Accepted: 24 May 2021 / Published online: 4 June 2021 © The Author(s) 2021 Abstract Beavers (Castor spp.) are ecosystem engineers that induce local disturbance and ecological succession, which turns terrestrial into aquatic ecosystems and creates habitat heteroge- neity in a landscape. Beavers have been proposed as a tool for biodiversity conservation and ecosystem restoration. So far, most research has compared biodiversity in beaver wet- lands and non-beaver wetlands, but few studies have explored how beaver-created succes- sion afects specifc taxa. In this study, we investigated how water beetles responded to diferent successional stages of wetlands in a beaver-disturbed landscape at Evo in southern Finland. We sampled water beetles with 1-L activity traps in 20 ponds, including: 5 new beaver ponds, 5 old beaver ponds, 5 former beaver ponds, and 5 never engineered ponds. We found that beaver wetlands had higher species richness and abundance than non-beaver wetlands, and that new beaver wetlands could support higher species richness (321%) and abundance (671%) of water beetles compared to old beaver wetlands. We think that higher water beetle diversity in new beaver ponds has resulted from habitat amelioration (avail- able lentic water, shallow shores, aquatic vegetation, and low fsh abundance) and food source enhancement (an increase of both dead and live prey) created by beaver dams and foods.
    [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]
  • Bulletin of the United States Fish Commission Seattlenwf
    WATER BEETLES IN RELATION TO PONDFISH CULTURE, WITH LIFE HISTORIES OF THOSE FOUND. IN FISHPONDS AT FAIRPORT, IOWA. By CHARLES BRANCH WILSON, Ph. D. State Normal School, Department ofScience, WesVield, Mass. Contribution from the U. S. Fisheries Biological Station, Fairport, Iowa• .:I­ CONTENTS. Page. Page. Introduction . 232 Enemies of adults . 247 Importance of water beetles . 232 Turtles . 247 Ignorance of Americanspecies . 232 Birds '" .......•. 247 Lakes versus fishponds...........•.... 233 Toads and frogs ". 248 Methods..•.......................... 233 Electric lights . 248 Ecology .. 235 Beetlesas fish eaters . 249 Modifications of structure and vestiture. 235 Fish as beetle eaters .. 252 Locomotion .. 235 Evidence from fish bait.......•....... 252 Migration from one pond to another . 237 Evidence from fish stomachs•.......... 253 Distribution according to size . 238 General summary and suggestions . 260 . Structural adaptations :. 238 Beetledistributionin Fairportfishponds . 263 For locomotion . 238 Source of material.. 264 Forrespiration . 239 Influence of environment . 264 For flotation . 241 Restriction ofBpecies . 266 For sex functions '" ." . 242 Relative importance of species . 267 For sight . 242 Systematicdescription of Fairportspecies . 267 Enemies of larvse " . 242 Key for identification of larvre . 268 The larva . 242 Key foridentification of pupse . 269 Time of pupation . 243 Peltodytes __ . 271 Dragonfly nymphs . 243 P. edentulus . 271 Mites . 244 Haliplus . 273 Hydra . 244 H. ruficollis . 274 Ants . 244 Coptotomus . 275 Turtles . 244 C. interrogatus . 275 Frogs . 244 Cybister . 277 Snails . 245 C. fimbriolatus. : , 277 Parasites . 245 Dytiscus '" . 282 Enemies of pupre . 245 D. verticalis ; . 282 Water . 245 Hydroporus ,. 285 Imperfect pupation . 246 H. niger ,. 285 Parasites . 246 Laccophilus . 286 The black horsefly . 246 L. maculosus .. 286 Ants . 247 L. proximus.........•............ 290 231 232 BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES.
    [Show full text]
  • Glasgow's Water Beetles
    The Glasgow Naturalist (online 2012) Volume 25, Part 4. Urban biodiversity: Successes and Challenges Urban Biodiversity: Successes and Challenges: Glasgow’s water beetles Garth N. Foster The Aquatic Coleoptera Conservation Trust, 3 Eglinton Terrace, Ayr KA7 1JJ E-mail: [email protected] INTRODUCTION the list of 101 species recorded from 1990 onwards. Water beetles are a well-recorded freshwater group in However several water beetles specialising in pond Britain despite lacking the charisma of dragonflies and habitats have become established in the Glasgow area the angling interest of mayflies and the like. The over a similar period. conference on urban biodiversity held by the Glasgow Natural History Society in October 2010 provided the The following examples of some species in decline and stimulus to assess their status in the area. some on the increase serve to illustrate the range of habitats that can be occupied. Water beetles cannot be precisely excised from beetles Noterus clavicornis (De Geer) This species is usually as a whole. Coleoptera are divided into two major referred to as “The Large Noterus” because the name groups, the Adephaga and the Polyphaga. Within the clavicornis has also been applied to the smaller, Adephaga the name “Hydradephaga” has been coined flightless N. crassicornis (Müller), which is very rare to distinguish diving beetles and related species from in Scotland. The earliest Scottish record is a little the ground beetles in the Carabidae. This works fairly uncertain but by 1946 N. clavicornis was in the garden well so long as one ignores the fact that many ground of the greatest proponent of water beetles, Frank beetles are confined to aquatic emergent vegetation or Balfour-Browne, in Dumfriesshire and it was first to the water’s edge.
    [Show full text]
  • Klapalekiana
    , SUPPLEMETUM KLAPALEKIANA VOL. 43, SUPPLEMENTUM ISSN 1210-6100 Vol. 43 2007 Katalog vodních brouků České republiky Catalogue of water beetles of the Czech Republic KLAPALEKIANA KLAPALEKIANA Pokračování titulu Zprávy Československé společnosti entomologické při ČSAV (ISSN 0862-478X). Vydává Česká společnost entomologická. A continuation of Zprávy Československé společnosti entomologické při ČSAV (ISSN 0862-478X). Published by the Czech Entomological Society. Časopis je pojmenován po prof. Františku Klapálkovi (1863-1919), prvním předsedovi České společnosti entomologické v létech 1904-1919. The journal is named in honour of Prof. František Klapálek (1863-1919), the fi rst chairman of the Czech Entomological Society during 1904-1919. Redakční rada/Editorial Board: Roman Borovec, David S. Boukal, Zdeněk Černý, Martin Fikáček, Jan Horák, Petr Kment, David Král, Jan Liška, Pavel Moravec, Jan Růžička (výkonný redaktor / Executive Editor), Jaromír Strejček, Jaroslav Šťastný, Jiří Ch. Vávra, Jan Vitner (předseda a výkonný redaktor / Chairman and Executive Editor), Vladimír Vrabec. Rozšiřuje vydavatel. Objednávky a rukopisy zasílejte na adresu: Česká společnost entomologická, Viničná 7, 128 00 Praha 2. Distributed by the Publisher. Orders and manuscripts should be sent to the Czech Entomolo- gical Society, Viničná 7, CZ-128 00 Praha 2, Czech Republic. Cena ročníku (bez supplement): Česká republika: 500,- Kč zahraničí: 30,- USD (US$) Annual subscription rates (excl. supplements): Czech Republic: CZK (Kč) 500,- All other countries: USD (US$) 30,-
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction Results
    Seasonal changes in water beetle assemblages in a temporary pond of Lonjsko polje nature Park Martina Temunović 1,2, Lucija Šerić Jelaska 3 1 Faculty of Forestry, University of Zagreb, Svetosimunska 25, 10 000 Zagreb, Croatia 2 Association for Biological Research - BIOM, Sestinski dol 12, 10 000 Zagreb, Croatia; [email protected] 3Group for Systematic Zoology and Entomology, Department of Biology, Faculty of Science, Rooseveltov trg 6, 10 000 Zagreb, Croatia; [email protected] Date (2004) 4/6 16/6 2/7 15/7 22/10 Σ D % 225 Hydrophilidae Family 200 Hydraenidae of Dytiscidae 1. Dytiscidae 107 75 77 18 6 283 19,46 175 Introduction Helophoridae 150 2. Haliplidae 2 3 0 0 1 6 0,41 Hydrochidae 125 3. Helophoridae 9 77 75 34 40 235 16,1 100 4. Hydrophilidae 195 72 37 19 75 398 27,28 abundance Water beetles (Coleoptera, Insecta) constitute one of the main groups of 75 5. Hydraenidae 19 44 98 66 125 352 24,12 aquatic macroinvertebrates in temporary and permanent standing waters 50 6. Hydrochidae 8 26 39 14 63 150 10,28 25 which represent the most important habitats for this group of insects. 7. Dryopidae 5 3 1 0 2 11 0,75 0 4.6. 16.6. 2.7. 15.7. 22.10. Lonjsko polje is one of the largest naturally flooded plains in Europe with a 8. Spercheidae 1 1 0 0 0 2 0,14 date 9. Chrysomelidae 7 3 3 0 3 16 1,09 variety of aquatic habitats, included in Ramsar List of Wetlands of Interna- Figure 3: Seasonal dynamics of eudominant water beetle families 10.
    [Show full text]
  • The Structure and Dynamics of a Water Beetle Community in a Semipermanent Wetland (Vrbenské Rybníky Nature Reserve, South Bohemia)
    Department of Ecosystem Biology Faculty of Science The University of South Bohemia České Bud ějovice The structure and dynamics of a water beetle community in a semipermanent wetland (Vrbenské rybníky Nature Reserve, South Bohemia) Bachelor Thesis Jan Kle čka Supervisor: Ing. MgA. David Boukal, Ph.D. České Bud ějovice 2008 1 Bachelor Thesis Kle čka, J., 2008: The structure and dynamics of a water beetle community in a semipermanent wetland (Vrbenské rybníky Nature Reserve, South Bohemia). BSc. Thesis, in English – 63 pp., Faculty of Science, The University of South Bohemia, České Bud ějovice, Czech Republic. Annotation In my thesis I examined the structure and dynamics of a water beetle community in a semipermanent wetland in an alder carr. The results are based on three years of my field work and processing of material collected by a light trap at the study site during five years. The thesis focuses on: 1. Comparison of selectivity and efficiency of several widely used sampling methods; 2. Seasonal dynamics and effects of environmental variables on flight acitivity; 3. Spatiotemporal dynamics and effects of habitat structure and fluctuations in water levels. General patterns and relationships are highlighted. Prohlašuji, že svoji bakalá řskou práci jsem vypracoval samostatn ě pouze s použitím pramen ů a literatury uvedených v seznamu citované literatury. Prohlašuji, že v souladu s § 47b zákona č. 111/1998 Sb. v platném zn ění souhlasím se zve řejn ěním své bakalá řské práce, a to v nezkrácené podob ě elektronickou cestou ve ve řejn ě přístupné části databáze STAG provozované Jiho českou univerzitou v Českých Bud ějovicích na jejích internetových stránkách.
    [Show full text]