DOCSLIB.ORG

PVBS Annexes 6 À 9

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
PVBS Annexes 6 À 9 ANNEXE VI : LISTE DES ESPÈCES OBSERVÉES SUR LA COMMUNE DE CAYEUX-SUR- MER POUR LE TRONÇON 4 Liste des espèces nicheuses, hivernantes ou migratrices de la faune sauvage observées sur la commune de Cayeux-sur-Mer pour le Tronçon 4 Les espèces patrimoniales * Grive litorne (Turdus pilaris L.) : Menacé (en danger) - * Fulmar boréal (Fulmarus glacialis (L.)) : Menacé Assez rare - 2013 (vulnérable) - Très rare - 2010 Il s'agit des espèces rares (niveau rare, très rare, * Huîtrier pie (Haematopus ostralegus L.) : Menacé (en * Gobemouche noir (Ficedula hypoleuca (Pallas)) : Menacé exceptionnel) et/ou menacées (catégorie vulnérable, en danger, danger) - Très rare - 2015 (vulnérable) - Rare - 2013 en danger critique d'extinction, disparue) ou déterminantes de * Huppe fasciée (Upupa epops L.) : Menacé (en danger) - * Goéland brun (Larus fuscus L.) : Menacé (vulnérable) - ZNIEFF. Liste classée par niveau décroissant de menace. La Exceptionnel - 2010 Très rare - 2015 dernière année où l'espèce a été observée est précisée en fin de * Hypolaïs ictérine (Hippolais icterina (Vieillot)) : Menacé * Grèbe à cou noir (Podiceps nigricollis Brehm) : Menacé ligne. Lorsque plusieurs communes sont sélectionnées, l'année (en danger) - Rare - 2015 (vulnérable) - Très rare - 2015 est la plus récente toutes communes confondues. * Locustelle luscinioïde (Locustella luscinioides (Savi)) : * Moineau friquet (Passer montanus (L.)) : Menacé ATTENTION, 64 espèces considérées comme sensibles Menacé (en danger) - Rare - 2014 (vulnérable) - Assez commun - 2013 n'apparaissent pas dans cette base de données communale. * Marouette ponctuée (Porzana porzana (L.)) : Menacé (en * Oedicnème criard (Burhinus oedicnemus (L.)) : Menacé danger) - Très rare - 2012 (vulnérable) - Peu commun - 2000 * Panure à moustaches (Panurus biarmicus (L.)) : Menacé * Petit Gravelot (Charadrius dubius (Scopoli)) : Menacé (en danger) - Très rare - 2015 (vulnérable) - Peu commun - 2015 Oiseaux * Pipit rousseline (Anthus campestris (L.)) : Menacé (en * Sterne pierregarin (Sterna hirundo L.) : Menacé danger) - Exceptionnel - 2013 (vulnérable) - Assez rare - 2014 * Chevalier gambette (Tringa totanus (L.)) : Eteint au * Sarcelle d'été (Anas querquedula L.) : Menacé (en * Tarier des prés (Saxicola rubetra (L.)) : Menacé niveau régional - Indéterminé - 2015 danger) - Rare - 2015 (vulnérable) - Assez rare - 2014 * Crabier chevelu (Ardeola ralloides (Scopoli)) : Eteint au * Sarcelle d'hiver (Anas crecca L.) : Menacé (en danger) - * Vanneau huppé (Vanellus vanellus (L.)) : Menacé niveau régional - - 2002 Rare - 2015 (vulnérable) - Peu commun - 2015 * Guifette noire (Chlidonias niger (L.)) : Eteint au niveau * Spatule blanche (Platalea leucorodia L.) : Menacé (en * Avocette élégante (Recurvirostra avosetta L.) : Quasi régional - - 2015 danger) - Très rare - 2015 menacé - Très rare - 2015 * Sterne naine (Sterna albifrons Pallas) : Eteint au niveau * Sterne caugek (Sterna sandvicensis Latham) : Menacé * Bécasse des bois (Scolopax rusticola L.) : Quasi menacé régional - - 2015 (en danger) - Très rare - 2015 - - 2011 * Butor étoilé (Botaurus stellaris (L.)) : Menacé (en danger * Torcol fourmilier (Jynx torquilla L.) : Menacé (en danger) * Bondrée apivore (Pernis apivorus (L.)) : Quasi menacé - critique d'extinction) - Très rare - 2015 - - 2014 Assez commun - 2014 * Courlis cendré (Numenius arquata (L.)) : Menacé (en * Aigrette garzette (Egretta garzetta (L.)) : Menacé * Bouscarle de Cetti (Cettia cetti (Temminck)) : Quasi danger critique d'extinction) - Très rare - 2015 (vulnérable) - Très rare - 2015 menacé - Peu commun - 2015 * Grand Gravelot (Charadrius hiaticula L.) : Menacé (en * Alouette lulu (Lullula arborea (L.)) : Menacé (vulnérable) * Busard Saint-Martin (Circus cyaneus (L.)) : Quasi menacé danger critique d'extinction) - Exceptionnel - 2015 - Assez rare - 2012 - Peu commun - 2015 * Milan noir (Milvus migrans (Boddaert)) : Menacé (en * Bihoreau gris (Nycticorax nycticorax (L.)) : Menacé * Faucon hobereau (Falco subbuteo L.) : Quasi menacé - danger critique d'extinction) - Très rare - 2012 (vulnérable) - Très rare - 2002 Assez commun - 2014 * Rousserolle turdoïde (Acrocephalus arundinaceus (L.)) : * Busard cendré (Circus pygargus (L.)) : Menacé (vulnérable) * Grèbe castagneux (Tachybaptus ruficollis (Pallas)) : Menacé (en danger critique d'extinction) - Exceptionnel - 2008 - Assez rare - 2013 Quasi menacé - Assez commun - 2015 * Traquet motteux (Oenanthe oenanthe (L.)) : Menacé (en * Busard des roseaux (Circus aeruginosus (L.)) : Menacé * Héron garde-boeufs (Bubulcus ibis (L.)) : Quasi menacé danger critique d'extinction) - Très rare - 2015 (vulnérable) - Assez rare - 2014 - Très rare - 2008 * Bécassine des marais (Gallinago gallinago (L.)) : Menacé * Canard chipeau (Anas strepera L.) : Menacé (vulnérable) * Mouette mélanocéphale (Larus melanocephalus (en danger) - Très rare - 2015 - Rare - 2015 Temminck) : Quasi menacé - Rare - 2015 * Blongios nain (Ixobrychus minutus (L.)) : Menacé (en * Canard souchet (Anas clypeata L.) : Menacé (vulnérable) * Pic noir (Dryocopus martius (L.)) : Quasi menacé - - 2012 danger) - Assez rare - 2003 - Rare - 2015 * Rougequeue à front blanc (Phoenicurus phoenicurus (L.)) * Cigogne blanche (Ciconia ciconia (L.)) : Menacé (en * Chevêche d'Athéna (Athene noctua (Scopoli)) : Menacé : Quasi menacé - Peu commun - 2013 danger) - Très rare - 2013 (vulnérable) - Assez commun - 2014 * Tadorne de Belon (Tadorna tadorna (L.)) : Quasi menacé * Cochevis huppé (Galerida cristata (L.)) : Menacé (en * Cisticole des joncs (Cisticola juncidis (Rafin.)) : Menacé - - 2015 danger) - Rare - 2014 (vulnérable) - Très rare - 2009 * Canard colvert (Anas platyrhynchos L.) : Non menacé * Fuligule milouin (Aythya ferina (L.)) : Menacé (en danger) * Echasse blanche (Himantopus himantopus (L.)) : Menacé (préoccupation mineure) - Assez commun - 2015 - Assez rare - 2015 (vulnérable) - Rare - 2015 * Foulque macroule (Fulica atra L.) : Non menacé * Gravelot à collier interrompu (Charadrius alexandrinus L.) * Fuligule morillon (Aythya fuligula (L.)) : Menacé (préoccupation mineure) - Assez commun - 2015 : Menacé (en danger) - Très rare - 2015 (vulnérable) - Assez rare - 2015 * Goéland argenté (Larus argentatus Pontropp) : Non menacé (préoccupation mineure) - Indéterminé - 2015 Indéterminé - 2015 évalué - - 2013 * Grèbe huppé (Podiceps cristatus (L.)) : Non menacé * Bernache nonnette (Branta leucopsis (Bechst.)) : Non * Pluvier argenté (Pluvialis squatarola (L.)) : Non évalué - - (préoccupation mineure) - Assez commun - 2015 évalué - - 2015 2015 * Héron cendré (Ardea cinerea L.) : Non menacé * Bruant des neiges (Plectrophenax nivalis (L.)) : Non * Pluvier doré (Pluvialis apricaria (L.)) : Non évalué - - 2014 (préoccupation mineure) - Peu commun - 2015 évalué - - 2011 * Tournepierre à collier (Arenaria interpres (L.)) : Non * Martin-pêcheur d'Europe (Alcedo atthis (L.)) : Non * Bruant lapon (Calcarius lapponicus (L.)) : Non évalué - - évalué - - 2015 menacé (préoccupation mineure) - Assez commun - 2014 2011 * Bergeronnette flavéole (Motacilla flava flavissima) : - - * Râle d'eau (Rallus aquaticus (L.)) : Données insuffisantes * Buse pattue (Buteo lagopus (Pontopp.)) : Non évalué - - 2014 - Peu commun - 2013 2011 * Cygne de Bewick (Cygnus columbianus Yarrell) : - - 2003 * Sizerin flammé/cabaret (Carduelis flammea (L.)) : * Canard siffleur (Anas penelope L.) : Non évalué - - 2015 * Gorgebleue à miroir (Luscinia svecica (L.)) : - - 2015 Données insuffisantes - Exceptionnel - 2010 * Chevalier aboyeur (Tringa nebularia (Gunnerus)) : Non * Grand Cormoran (Phalacrocorax carbo (L.)) : - - 2015 * Barge à queue noire (Limosa limosa (L.)) : Evaluation de évalué - - 2015 * Oie des moissons (Anser fabalis (Latham)) : - - 2008 la menace non applicable - Exceptionnel - 2015 * Chevalier arlequin (Tringa erythropus (Pallas)) : Non * Bec-croisé des sapins (Loxia curvirostra L.) : Evaluation évalué - - 2015 Mammifères marins de la menace non applicable - Exceptionnel - 2012 * Chevalier culblanc (Tringa ochropus L.) : Non évalué - - * Bernache du Canada (Branta canadensis (L.)) : Evaluation 2015 * Marsouin commun (Phocoena phocoena Linnaeus 1758) de la menace non applicable - Exceptionnel - 2001 * Chevalier guignette (Actitis hypoleucos (L.)) : Non évalué : - Exceptionnel - 2013 * Canard pilet (Anas acuta L.) : Evaluation de la menace - Exceptionnel - 2015 non applicable - Exceptionnel - 2015 * Courlis corlieu (Numenius phaeopus (L.)) : Non évalué Autres mammifères * Combattant varié (Philomachus pugnax (L.)) : Evaluation - - 2015 de la menace non applicable - - 2015 * Eider à duvet (Somateria mollissima (L.)) : Non évalué * Phoque veau-marin (Phoca vitulina Linnaeus 1758) : * Cygne chanteur (Cygnus cygnus (L.)) : Evaluation de la - - 2012 Menacé (vulnérable) - Très rare - 2013 menace non applicable - - 1997 * Fuligule milouinan (Aythya marila (L.)) : Non évalué - - * Cygne tuberculé (Cygnus olor (Gmelin)) : Evaluation de 2015 Batraciens la menace non applicable - Assez commun - 2015 * Garrot à oeil d'or (Bucephala clangula (L.)) : Non évalué * Hibou des marais (Asio flammeus (Pontopp.)) : Evaluation - - 2015 * Rainette verte (Hyla arborea (Linnaeus 1758)) : Menacé de la menace non applicable - Exceptionnel - 2015 * Grande Aigrette (Casmerodius albus (L.)) : Non évalué (vulnérable) - Assez commun - 2015 * Nette rousse (Netta rufina (Pallas)) : Evaluation de la - - 2015 * Crapaud calamite (Bufo calamita (Laurenti 1768)) : Quasi menace non applicable - Exceptionnel - 2014 * Grèbe esclavon (Podiceps auritus (L.)) : Non
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 1.2 RP TVB ANNEXE ABT Especes Et Enjeux
    La connaissance de la biodiversité sur l’Est Cantal un enjeu pour le développement du territoire ! Depuis avril 2017, le SYTEC s’est engagé dans une démarche d’Atlas de la Biodiversité Territoriale, avec l’objectif d’une part, de mieux connaitre la biodiversité du territoire et, d’autre part, d’intégrer les enjeux connus dans les démarches de planification notamment. Dans ce cadre, un ensemble de données naturalistes sur les territoires de l’Est Cantal ont pu être collectées auprès de nombreuses structures (Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, collectivités, associations, naturalistes professionnels…). Des inventaires sont également confiés chaque année par le SYTEC à des structures professionnelles pour compléter les connaissances sur des secteurs mal connus. En complément, des enquêtes participatives, qui rencontrent un vif succès, ont été lancées à destination du grand public, particulièrement des habitants des territoires. Ce travail de collecte a permis de réunir plus d’un million de données depuis le début de la démarche. A la fin de l’année 2018, ce sont 2505 espèces qui ont été répertoriés sur le territoire depuis 10 ans pour la faune (1017 espèces) et au cours de ces 15 dernières années pour la flore, les champignons et les algues (respectivement 1359, 31 et 98 espèces recensés). Parmi elles, 303 espèces sont considérées comme des espèces à enjeux en termes de préservation. Les inventaires se sont poursuivis en 2019 et continueront en 2020, permettant une mise à jour annuelle des connaissances de l’Est Cantal. Afin de partager
    [Show full text]
  • 104612 Sletvoldtrunschkewimm
    1 Separating selection by diurnal and nocturnal pollinators on floral display and spur length 2 in Gymnadenia conopsea 3 4 Nina Sletvold1,2, Judith Trunschke1,3, Carolina Wimmergren1, Jon Ågren1 5 6 1Plant Ecology and Evolution, Department of Ecology and Genetics, Evolutionary Biology 7 Centre, Uppsala University, Norbyvägen 18 D, SE-752 36 Uppsala, Sweden 8 E-mail: [email protected] 9 Phone: +46 18 471 28 71, Fax: +46 18 55 34 19 10 11 2Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Museum of Natural History and 12 Archaeology, N-7491 Trondheim, Norway 13 14 3Present address: Institute of Systematic Botany, University of Zurich, Zollikerstrasse 107, 15 CH-8008 Zürich, Switzerland 16 1 17 Abstract 18 Most plants attract multiple flower visitors that may vary widely in their effectiveness as 19 pollinators. Floral evolution is expected to reflect interactions with the most important 20 pollinators, but few studies have quantified the contribution of different pollinators to current 21 selection on floral traits. To compare selection mediated by diurnal and nocturnal pollinators on 22 floral display and spur length in the rewarding orchid Gymnadenia conopsea, we manipulated 23 the environment by conducting supplemental hand-pollinations and selective pollinator 24 exclusions in two populations in central Norway. In both populations, the exclusion of diurnal 25 pollinators significantly reduced seed production compared to open-pollination, whereas the 26 exclusion of nocturnal pollinators did not. There was significant selection on traits expected to 27 influence pollinator attraction and pollination efficiency in both the diurnal and nocturnal 28 pollination treatment. The relative strength of selection among plants exposed to diurnal and 29 nocturnal visitors varied among traits and populations, but the direction of selection was 30 consistent.
    [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]
  • Nachtvlinders En Micro's Grenspark Kalmthoutse Heide 2020
    Nachtvlinders en micro’s Grenspark Kalmthoutse Heide 2020 Guus Dekkers KNNV Roosendaal Nachtvlinders en micro’s van Grenspark Kalmthoutse Heide 2020 KNNV insectenwerkgroep Roosendaal Pagina 2 Nachtvlinders en micro’s van Grenspark Kalmthoutse Heide 2020 INHOUD 1. Voorwoord ...................................................................................................................................... 4 2. Gebied ............................................................................................................................................. 5 3. Project ............................................................................................................................................. 8 4. Werkwijze ....................................................................................................................................... 9 5. Resultaten 2020 ............................................................................................................................ 14 6. Resultaten t/m 2020 ..................................................................................................................... 20 7. Conclusie ....................................................................................................................................... 28 8. Geraadpleegde literatuur ............................................................................................................. 29 9. Bijlagen ........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Diversity of the Moth Fauna (Lepidoptera: Heterocera) of a Wetland Forest: a Case Study from Motovun Forest, Istria, Croatia
    PERIODICUM BIOLOGORUM UDC 57:61 VOL. 117, No 3, 399–414, 2015 CODEN PDBIAD DOI: 10.18054/pb.2015.117.3.2945 ISSN 0031-5362 original research article Diversity of the moth fauna (Lepidoptera: Heterocera) of a wetland forest: A case study from Motovun forest, Istria, Croatia Abstract TONI KOREN1 KAJA VUKOTIĆ2 Background and Purpose: The Motovun forest located in the Mirna MITJA ČRNE3 river valley, central Istria, Croatia is one of the last lowland floodplain 1 Croatian Herpetological Society – Hyla, forests remaining in the Mediterranean area. Lipovac I. n. 7, 10000 Zagreb Materials and Methods: Between 2011 and 2014 lepidopterological 2 Biodiva – Conservation Biologist Society, research was carried out on 14 sampling sites in the area of Motovun forest. Kettejeva 1, 6000 Koper, Slovenia The moth fauna was surveyed using standard light traps tents. 3 Biodiva – Conservation Biologist Society, Results and Conclusions: Altogether 403 moth species were recorded Kettejeva 1, 6000 Koper, Slovenia in the area, of which 65 can be considered at least partially hygrophilous. These results list the Motovun forest as one of the best surveyed regions in Correspondence: Toni Koren Croatia in respect of the moth fauna. The current study is the first of its kind [email protected] for the area and an important contribution to the knowledge of moth fauna of the Istria region, and also for Croatia in general. Key words: floodplain forest, wetland moth species INTRODUCTION uring the past 150 years, over 300 papers concerning the moths Dand butterflies of Croatia have been published (e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8).
    [Show full text]
  • Database of Irish Lepidoptera. 1 - Macrohabitats, Microsites and Traits of Noctuidae and Butterflies
    Database of Irish Lepidoptera. 1 - Macrohabitats, microsites and traits of Noctuidae and butterflies Irish Wildlife Manuals No. 35 Database of Irish Lepidoptera. 1 - Macrohabitats, microsites and traits of Noctuidae and butterflies Ken G.M. Bond and Tom Gittings Department of Zoology, Ecology and Plant Science University College Cork Citation: Bond, K.G.M. and Gittings, T. (2008) Database of Irish Lepidoptera. 1 - Macrohabitats, microsites and traits of Noctuidae and butterflies. Irish Wildlife Manual s, No. 35. National Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Dublin, Ireland. Cover photo: Merveille du Jour ( Dichonia aprilina ) © Veronica French Irish Wildlife Manuals Series Editors: F. Marnell & N. Kingston © National Parks and Wildlife Service 2008 ISSN 1393 – 6670 Database of Irish Lepidoptera ____________________________ CONTENTS CONTENTS ........................................................................................................................................................1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ....................................................................................................................................1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................2 The concept of the database.....................................................................................................................2 The structure of the database...................................................................................................................2
    [Show full text]
  • The Lepidoptera of Formby
    THE RAVEN ENTOMOLOGICAL — AND — NATURAL HISTORY SOCIETY FOUNDED 1946 THE LEPIDOPTERA OF FORMBY Price: TWO SHILLINGS & SIXPENCE THE RAVEN ENTOMOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY SOCIETY FOUNDED 1946 THE LEPIDOPTERA OF FORMBY — B Y — M. J. LEECH H. N. MICHAELIS With a short biographical note on the late G. de C. Fraser by C. de C. Whiteley For us the wide open spaces, the mountams and valleys, the old walls and the hedges and ditches, wherein lie adventure and interest for to-day, to-morrow, and a lifetime. n Printed by T. B unci-e & Co. L td., Arbroath. GKRALI) i)E C. FRASER rOHEWORl) FOREWORD BY AI,LAN BRJNDLK TT was in August, 1939, that T first liad the pleasure of meeting the Frasers. Together with a small party of entomologists from N.E. I.ancashire. invited to eollect at light near the shore at Formby, I experienced the somewhat overwhelming enthrisiasm and hospitality extended to all at “ Warren Mount” . Fed, feted, and equipped, we were taken by cars to the shore, sheets were laid down in front of the headlights, and a memorable night ensued. The night was dark and warm, the moths arrived in great numbers and, true to the Fraser tradition, work did not cease until a few minutes before the last train left Formby, when a hurried dash to the station deposited a happy party of entomologists on the first stage of the journey home. The next meeting was long delayed. The following week-end saw the black-out in force, and it was not until 1946 that T found the Frasens, still enthusiastic, establishing the Eaven Society.
    [Show full text]
  • Download PDF ( Final Version , 375Kb )
    14 Vergelijkend onderzoek van de macronachtvlinders (Lepidoptera) van enkele uiterwaarden nabij Dordrecht Ruud Vis Dik O. Visser TREFWOORDEN Macrolepidoptera, Heterocera, faunistiek, similarity index Entomologische Berichten 67 (1-2): 14-26 De macronachtvlinders van de uiterwaarden van Kop van het Land, nabij Dordrecht, zijn van 1987 tot en met 2004 onderzocht. Het gebied bestaat uit buitendijkse terreinen die regelmatig onderlopen en waarin weinig onderzoek is gedaan. De Kop van het Land is relatief rijk aan soorten. Enkele soorten zijn opmerkelijk voor dit gebied en deze worden afzonderlijk besproken. De faunistische overeenkomst tussen het onderzochte gebied en de Rhoonse Grienden en de Biesbosch wordt besproken. Mede op basis hiervan kan worden aangegeven welke soorten nog in de Kop van het Land kunnen worden verwacht. Inleiding In 1987 zijn we gestart met een waarnemingsreeks van macro- nachtvlinders (Heterocera, Macrolepidoptera) in de buitendijkse grienden bij de Kop van het Land te Dordrecht. Het is een dyna- misch gebied dat bij hoge waterstanden, vooral in de winter en het voorjaar, gedurende enkele weken gedeeltelijk onderloopt. Aangezien er weinig bekend is van de macronachtvlinders van uiterwaarden is een nadere beschouwing zinvol. Van enkele gebieden in de omgeving zijn ook gegevens van macronachtvlinders beschikbaar. In de Rhoonse Grienden heb- ben Elfferich et al. (sine anno) in de jaren 1995, 1997, 1998 en 1999 de macronachtvlinders geïnventariseerd en in de database van de Werkgroep Vlinderfaunistiek van Stichting European Inverte- brate Survey-Nederland (EIS-Nederland) zijn gegevens over de macronachtvlinders van de Biesbosch voorhanden. Gebied Het onderzochte terrein ligt langs de westoever van de Nieuwe Merwede en is aan de westzijde door een dijk afgesloten van het landbouwgebied van polder de Biesbosch.
    [Show full text]
  • Scottish Macro-Moth List, 2015
    Notes on the Scottish Macro-moth List, 2015 This list aims to include every species of macro-moth reliably recorded in Scotland, with an assessment of its Scottish status, as guidance for observers contributing to the National Moth Recording Scheme (NMRS). It updates and amends the previous lists of 2009, 2011, 2012 & 2014. The requirement for inclusion on this checklist is a minimum of one record that is beyond reasonable doubt. Plausible but unproven species are relegated to an appendix, awaiting confirmation or further records. Unlikely species and known errors are omitted altogether, even if published records exist. Note that inclusion in the Scottish Invertebrate Records Index (SIRI) does not imply credibility. At one time or another, virtually every macro-moth on the British list has been reported from Scotland. Many of these claims are almost certainly misidentifications or other errors, including name confusion. However, because the County Moth Recorder (CMR) has the final say, dubious Scottish records for some unlikely species appear in the NMRS dataset. A modern complication involves the unwitting transportation of moths inside the traps of visiting lepidopterists. Then on the first night of their stay they record a species never seen before or afterwards by the local observers. Various such instances are known or suspected, including three for my own vice-county of Banffshire. Surprising species found in visitors’ traps the first time they are used here should always be regarded with caution. Clerical slips – the wrong scientific name scribbled in a notebook – have long caused confusion. An even greater modern problem involves errors when computerising the data.
    [Show full text]
  • Native Insects on Non-Native Plants in the Netherlands: Curiosities Or Common Practice?
    288 entomologische berichten 72 (6) 2012 Native insects on non-native plants in The Netherlands: curiosities or common practice? Kim Meijer Chris Smit Leo W. Beukeboom Menno Schilthuizen KEY WORDS Herbivorous insects, introduced plants, inventory, phytophagous insects Entomologische Berichten 72 (6): 288-293 In The Netherlands, close to 10% of all plant species occurring in natural habitats are non-native: species that were introduced from e.g. North America or Asia. Insect communities on non-native plants tend to get little attention from many (amateur) entomologists in The Netherlands for two main reasons. First, it is assumed that non-native plant species are not commonly used by herbivorous insects as host plants. Second, many entomologists consider insects associated with non-native plants of minor interest. Here, we give an overview of a large number (99) of native herbivorous insect species collected from non-native plant, clearly showing that non-native plants are used often as host plants. Introduction that species shifting to a novel environment (e.g., ecosystem or Non-native species can cause serious economic damage. In host) suffer less from natural enemies like predators, parasites, North America more than 50,000 species of plants, animals and herbivores and pathogens. Blossey & Nötzold (1995) suggested microbes have been introduced, causing an estimated $137 bil- the ‘Evolution of Increased Competitive Ability Hypothesis’ lion damage annually (Pimentel 2001). Furthermore, in many (EICA) as possible explanation of the success of non-native countries non-native species have a large effect on native spe- species. The EICA predicts that if plants escape from their her- cies and therefore also on the natural ecosystems in which bivores, they will allocate fewer resources to herbivore defence they occur.
    [Show full text]
  • Tarset and Greystead Biological Records
    Tarset and Greystead Biological Records published by the Tarset Archive Group 2015 Foreword Tarset Archive Group is delighted to be able to present this consolidation of biological records held, for easy reference by anyone interested in our part of Northumberland. It is a parallel publication to the Archaeological and Historical Sites Atlas we first published in 2006, and the more recent Gazeteer which both augments the Atlas and catalogues each site in greater detail. Both sets of data are also being mapped onto GIS. We would like to thank everyone who has helped with and supported this project - in particular Neville Geddes, Planning and Environment manager, North England Forestry Commission, for his invaluable advice and generous guidance with the GIS mapping, as well as for giving us information about the archaeological sites in the forested areas for our Atlas revisions; Northumberland National Park and Tarset 2050 CIC for their all-important funding support, and of course Bill Burlton, who after years of sharing his expertise on our wildflower and tree projects and validating our work, agreed to take this commission and pull everything together, obtaining the use of ERIC’s data from which to select the records relevant to Tarset and Greystead. Even as we write we are aware that new records are being collected and sites confirmed, and that it is in the nature of these publications that they are out of date by the time you read them. But there is also value in taking snapshots of what is known at a particular point in time, without which we have no way of measuring change or recognising the hugely rich biodiversity of where we are fortunate enough to live.
    [Show full text]
  • Journal of Avian Biology JAV-01128 Valtonen, A., Latja, R., Leinonen, R
    Journal of Avian Biology JAV-01128 Valtonen, A., Latja, R., Leinonen, R. and Pöysä, H. 2016. Arrival and onset of breeding of three passerine birds in eastern Finland tracks climatic variation and phenology of insects. – J. Avian Biol. doi: 10.1111/ jav.01128 Supplementary material 1 2 3 4 Supplementary material 5 6 Appendix 1. Are first arrival or onset of breeding related to population density? 7 We explored the possibility that the first arrival or onset of breeding are related to population 8 density (e.g., Dunn and Winkler 1999, Tryjanowski and Sparks 2001, Miller-Rushing et al. 2008, 9 Lindén 2011), which might confound the results found. Over the past decades, the breeding 10 populations of the Pied Flycatcher (50% increase in 38 years) and the Great Tit (population doubled 11 in 37 years) and the northern populations of the Common Redstart (population doubled in 35 years) 12 in Finland have significantly increased, while no long-term trend has been found of the Southern 13 populations of the Common Redstart (see population trajectories in Väisänen and Lehikoinen 14 2013). To address these questions, we added the annual breeding population size index (Väisänen 15 and Lehikoinen 2013) of each species as the fifth explanatory variable in the multiple regressions. 16 Nationwide estimates for the Pied Flycatcher and the Great Tit were used, but for the Common 17 Redstart, the population trajectories differed between Southern and Northern Finland; we therefore 18 used the population trajectory of Southern Finland in our analyses. These models were fitted for 19 data of years for which population index data was available (1975-2010 for the Pied Flycatcher, 20 1979-2010 for the Common Redstart, and 1976-2010 for the Great Tit).
    [Show full text]