Tesi Dottorato 1 Epetralia
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
CATANIA UNIVERSITY OF STUDY FACULTY OF AGRICULTURE FACULTY OF MATHEMATICS, PHYSICS AND NATURAL SCIENCES ETTORE ALFREDO ANTONIO PETRALIA Analysis of the ground Coleoptera communities of agro-ecosystems within the Oriented Natural Reserve “Pino d’Aleppo” (Ragusa, Sicily) and their use for assessing the environmental quality INTERNATIONAL PhD IN ENTOMOLOGICAL SCIENCE AND THE DEFENSE OF AGROECOSYSTEMS XXIV CYCLE Coordinator: Prof. Carmelo Rapisarda Tutor: Prof.ssa Vera D’Urso Cotutor: Prof. Giorgio Sabella YEARS 2008-2011 A Ombretta e Diego e Leandro, ancora in viaggio SUMMARY ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................................ 3 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................. 7 2 THE STUDY AREA ............................................................................................................................................ 11 2.1 GENERAL FRAMEWORK .............................................................................................................. 11 2.2 CLIMATE FRAMEWORK .............................................................................................................. 12 2.3 GEOLOGIC FRAMEWORK ............................................................................................................ 13 2.4 FLORO-VEGETATION FRAMEWORK ............................................................................................ 15 2.5 LAND-USE FRAMEWORK ............................................................................................................ 17 2.6 FAUNAL FRAMEWORK ................................................................................................................ 19 3 MATERIALS AND METHODS ..................................................................................................................... 21 3.1 SAMPLING METHOD .................................................................................................................... 21 3.2 BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLING STATIONS ............................................................................ 22 3.3 METHOD OF DATA STANDARDIZATION ...................................................................................... 29 3.4 METHODS OF EVALUATION FOR THE QUALITY AND QUANTITY COMPARISON ......................... 30 4 GENERAL ANALYSIS OF SAMPLING REGARDING THE FAMILIES OF COLEOPTERA ......................................................................................................................................................... 33 4.1 ANALYSIS OF THE STATIONS FOR COLEPTERA FAMILIES .......................................................... 47 5 GENERAL ANALYSIS OF SAMPLING FOR SPECIES OF CARABIDAE, TENEBRIONIDAE AND STAPHYLINIDAE ............................................................................................. 59 5.1 COLEOPTERA CARABIDAE .......................................................................................................... 59 5.2 COLEOPTERA TENEBRIONIDAE .................................................................................................. 79 5.3 COLEOPTERA STAPHYLINIDAE ................................................................................................... 98 6 ANALYSIS PER STATION FOR SPECIES OF CARABIDAE, TENEBRIONIDAE, STAPHILINIDAE .................................................................................................................................................. 118 6.1 COLEOPTERA CARABIDAE ........................................................................................................ 118 6.2 COLEOPTERA TENEBRIONIDAE ................................................................................................ 128 6.3 COLEOPTERA STAPHYLINIDAE ................................................................................................. 137 7 BIODIVERSITY, EVENNESS AND SIMILARITY INDICES ....................................................... 148 7.1 BIODIVERSITY AND EVENNESS INDICES .................................................................................. 148 7.2 COMPARISON AMONG THE INDICES OF BIODIVERSITY AND EVENNESS .................................. 156 7.3 SIMILARITY INDEX OF SØRENSEN ............................................................................................ 158 8 OVERALL ANALYSIS OF INDIVIDUAL STATIONS .................................................................... 170 9 MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF THE COMMUNITIES ............................................................. 190 9.1 NON METRIC MULTIDIMENSIONAL SCALING BASED ON THE BRAY-CURTIS MATRIX ............. 190 10 COMPARISON AMONG INVESTIGATED STATIONS DURING THE PRESENT RESEARCH AND STATIONS OF A PREVIOUS RESEARCH ....................................................... 229 10.1 METHODS ................................................................................................................................ 229 10.2 BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF STUDY-2009 STATIONS ...................................................................... 230 10.3 GENERAL RESULTS ANALYSIS ................................................................................................ 230 10.4 MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF THE COMMUNITIES ................................................................. 243 1 11 INDEX OF FAUNAL VALUE FOR STATIONS (INV) BASED ON SPECIES OF CARABIDAE ........................................................................................................................................................... 250 12 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................................... 256 BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................................................. 262 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................................................... 277 ANNEX I – MAP OF NATURALITY AND FAUNAL VALUE INDEX ......................................... 278 2 ABSTRACT The agricultural systems that have been established in recent decades are characterized by a high productivity thanks to a series of external factors that raise the efficiency and/or quality. While this practice leads to increase production and make it economically advantageous, the other result is a more substantially simplification of agro-ecosystems and a significant reduction of biodiversity. Today various authors claim that at a reduction of biodiversity correspond a low level of ecosystem stability; for this reason they propose agronomics management systems based on crops diversification and increase of natural marginal areas neighboring the agro-ecosystems; this practice improve biodiversity, especially for generalist and specific predators, insect pollinators etc., with a possible decrease of human interventions like the use of pesticides. Most researches in this field aimed to establish the relationship between a certain type of agronomical practice and a specific group of insects, with results that differ in relation to insect species, selected agronomical practice and location. Seldom the attention was focused on a wider scale of biodiversity with reference to landscape mosaic, to understand its effect on agro-ecosystem biocoenosis composition, dynamic and homeostatic. Recent studies showed that increasing or maintaining a high level of biodiversity in agriculture depend not so much on the reduction of conventional farming practices but rather on other factors, where the most significantly appears to be the patchy structure of landscape. In the Mediterranean area, human activity has dramatically reversed the relationship between open spaces and forests, reducing the latter to fragments inserted in a matrix profoundly changed: in flatland and hilly areas the extension of the forest has been drastically reduced and they are now comparable to islands more or less large. The “Pino d’Aleppo” Natural Reserve, where the present research was conducted, shows a typical situation: a mosaic of natural and semi-natural habitats fragmented and isolated at various degree, within an environmental matrix strongly modified by human actions, first of all the intensive use of land for agricultural activities. This research concerned the study of ground Coleoptera communities of three different agro- ecosystems: Arable land with Carob trees ( AC ), Olive grove ( Ol ) and Citrus grove ( Ci ) and of a residual patch of Mediterranean maquis ( Tk ) investigated by pit-fall traps. Therefore, the study focused on Coleoptera , for which has been developed the examination of Families , with particular reference to species of Carabidae , Tenebrionidae and Staphylinidae (excluding Aleocharinae ). Inside each station five pit-fall traps have been installed filled with a solution of water, vinegar and table salt in saturation; the gatherings of the pit-fall traps took a year from June 2009 to July 2010. An amount of 10.402 specimens of Coleoptera (belonging to a total of 42 Families) have been collected, with 2.064 specimens belonging to a total of 38 Carabidae species, 1.899 specimens belonging to a total of 26 Tenebrionidae species and 1.026 specimens belonging to a total of 46 Staphylinidae species (excluding Aleocharinae ). The sampling data