DOCSLIB.ORG

Patterns and Process: Biodiversity and Ecosystem Function Response to Changes in the Arable Landscape

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Patterns and Process: Biodiversity and Ecosystem Function Response to Changes in the Arable Landscape University of Plymouth PEARL https://pearl.plymouth.ac.uk 04 University of Plymouth Research Theses 01 Research Theses Main Collection 2018 Patterns and Process: Biodiversity and Ecosystem Function Response to Changes in the Arable Landscape Berkley, Nicholas Alexander James http://hdl.handle.net/10026.1/12825 University of Plymouth All content in PEARL is protected by copyright law. Author manuscripts are made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the details provided on the item record or document. In the absence of an open licence (e.g. Creative Commons), permissions for further reuse of content should be sought from the publisher or author. PATTERNS AND PROCESS: BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM FUNCTION RESPONSE TO CHANGES IN THE ARABLE LANDSCAPE by NICHOLAS ALEXANDER JAMES BERKLEY A thesis submitted to University of Plymouth in partial fulfilment for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY School of Biological and Marine Sciences June 2018 Copyright Statement This copy of the thesis has been supplied on condition that anyone who consults it is understood to recognise that its copyright rests with its author and that no quotation from the thesis and no information derived from it may be published without the author’s prior consent. Nicholas Alexander James Berkley Patterns and Process: Biodiversity and Ecosystem Function Response to Changes in the Arable Landscape Abstract: Land use change is a major driver of species loss worldwide, the extent and intensity of agricultural land use poses particular pressures for biodiversity and the ecosystem services it provides. In recent years, agroecosystems have seen the introduction of 2nd generation bioenergy crops in order to tackle anthropogenic climate change, providing a renewable alternative to fossil fuels. In this thesis I study the impact of cultivating two commercial perennial energy crops (PECs), Miscanthus x giganteus and willow short-rotation coppice, when compared to the cereal crops they replace. I investigate processes relevant to the provisioning of pollination and decomposition services and explore patterns of soil element bioaccessibility alongside analyses of the similarity and diversity of soil bacterial communities. When compared to cereals, I find a consistent increase in pollinator (hoverfly, bumblebee and butterfly/moth) wildflower visitation in the margins of willow but not Miscanthus. In Miscanthus, opposing trends arose for different pollinator taxa: butterflies/moths were more frequent flower visitors in Miscanthus margins than cereal margins, while hoverfly flower visits were most frequent in cereal margins. Furthermore, the availability of margin wildflowers was enhanced in willow but not Miscanthus and the seed set of margin phytometers was similar between Miscanthus and cereals. Cultivation of willow, in particular, may therefore yield local conservation benefits for both wildflowers and pollinators. However, there was no evidence for enhancement of pollinator activity in cereals adjacent to either PEC, indicating that the strategic cultivation of these crops is unlikely to enhance pollinator service provision in the wider agri-environment. For investigated soil elements, bioaccessibility in PECs did not differ significantly to cereal controls, and denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (DGGE) revealed no difference in the diversity of bacterial communities. Similarly, DGGE fingerprint patterns did not indicate the development of crop specific assemblages, demonstrating that the mobility of soil elements and structure of bacterial communities were principally determined by factors other than the identity of the crop cultivated. Investigation of meso-microfaunal decomposition rates in Miscanthus using litter bags demonstrated an impact on decomposition processes, with a significant increase in winter decomposition rates in the PEC when compared to cereals. 1 Table of contents Abstract ............................................................................................................................ 1 Table of contents ............................................................................................................. 2 List of tables and illustrations ........................................................................................ 5 Tables ............................................................................................................................ 5 Figures .......................................................................................................................... 7 Plates ............................................................................................................................. 9 List of appendices ...................................................................................................... 10 Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................ 15 Abbreviations and definitions ...................................................................................... 17 Authors Declaration ...................................................................................................... 18 Chapter 1 : General Introduction ................................................................................ 19 1.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 20 1.2 Agriculture and Insect Pollinator Declines ....................................................... 21 1.3 Mass Flowering Crops: A Means to Reverse Declines? ................................... 26 1.4 Agricultural Land Use Change .......................................................................... 28 1.5 Climate Change and Renewable Energy ........................................................... 29 1.6 Bioenergy and Biomass ....................................................................................... 32 1.7.1 Miscanthus ..................................................................................................... 35 1.7.2 Willow Short-rotation Coppice (SRC) ........................................................ 36 1.8 Bioenergy Crops: Biodiversity, Ecosystem Processes and Services ................ 38 1.8.1 Pollination Processes..................................................................................... 39 1.8.2 Biogeochemical Cycling and Decomposition Processes ............................. 42 1.9 Project Aims ......................................................................................................... 50 Chapter 2 : Influence of bioenergy crops on pollinator activity varies with crop type and distance ........................................................................................................... 52 2.1 Abstract ................................................................................................................ 53 2.2 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 54 2.3 Materials and methods ........................................................................................ 56 2.3.1 Study crop and sites ........................................................................................ 56 2.3.2 Pollinator surveys ........................................................................................... 61 2.3.3 Statistical analysis ........................................................................................... 66 2.4 Results ................................................................................................................... 67 2.4.1 Hoverflies........................................................................................................ 70 2.4.2 Bumblebees ..................................................................................................... 70 2.4.3 Lepidoptera ..................................................................................................... 70 2 2.4.4 Other taxa ........................................................................................................ 71 2.4.5 Floral resources ............................................................................................... 72 2.4.6 Visitation networks ......................................................................................... 77 2.5 Discussion ............................................................................................................. 81 Chapter 3 : Effects of a bioenergy crop and a mass-flowering crop on the seed set of field margin phytometers ......................................................................................... 87 3.1 Abstract ................................................................................................................ 88 3.2 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 89 3.3 Methods ................................................................................................................ 93 3.3.2 Insect visitation rates and margin floral transects ........................................... 96 3.3.3 Statistical analyses .......................................................................................... 96 3.4 Results................................................................................................................... 97 3.4.1 Phytometer seed set .......................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Diptera: Syrphidae
    This is a repository copy of The relationship between morphological and behavioral mimicry in hover flies (Diptera: Syrphidae).. White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/80035/ Version: Accepted Version Article: Penney, HD, Hassall, C orcid.org/0000-0002-3510-0728, Skevington, JH et al. (2 more authors) (2014) The relationship between morphological and behavioral mimicry in hover flies (Diptera: Syrphidae). The American Naturalist, 183 (2). pp. 281-289. ISSN 0003-0147 https://doi.org/10.1086/674612 Reuse Unless indicated otherwise, fulltext items are protected by copyright with all rights reserved. The copyright exception in section 29 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 allows the making of a single copy solely for the purpose of non-commercial research or private study within the limits of fair dealing. The publisher or other rights-holder may allow further reproduction and re-use of this version - refer to the White Rose Research Online record for this item. Where records identify the publisher as the copyright holder, users can verify any specific terms of use on the publisher’s website. Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. [email protected] https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ The relationship between morphological and behavioral mimicry in hover flies (Diptera: Syrphidae)1 Heather D. Penney, Christopher Hassall, Jeffrey H. Skevington, Brent Lamborn & Thomas N. Sherratt Abstract Palatable (Batesian) mimics of unprofitable models could use behavioral mimicry to compensate for the ease with which they can be visually discriminated, or to augment an already close morphological resemblance.
    [Show full text]
  • SYSTEMATICS of the MEGADIVERSE SUPERFAMILY GELECHIOIDEA (INSECTA: LEPIDOPTEA) DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of T
    SYSTEMATICS OF THE MEGADIVERSE SUPERFAMILY GELECHIOIDEA (INSECTA: LEPIDOPTEA) DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for The Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Sibyl Rae Bucheli, M.S. ***** The Ohio State University 2005 Dissertation Committee: Approved by Dr. John W. Wenzel, Advisor Dr. Daniel Herms Dr. Hans Klompen _________________________________ Dr. Steven C. Passoa Advisor Graduate Program in Entomology ABSTRACT The phylogenetics, systematics, taxonomy, and biology of Gelechioidea (Insecta: Lepidoptera) are investigated. This superfamily is probably the second largest in all of Lepidoptera, and it remains one of the least well known. Taxonomy of Gelechioidea has been unstable historically, and definitions vary at the family and subfamily levels. In Chapters Two and Three, I review the taxonomy of Gelechioidea and characters that have been important, with attention to what characters or terms were used by different authors. I revise the coding of characters that are already in the literature, and provide new data as well. Chapter Four provides the first phylogenetic analysis of Gelechioidea to include molecular data. I combine novel DNA sequence data from Cytochrome oxidase I and II with morphological matrices for exemplar species. The results challenge current concepts of Gelechioidea, suggesting that traditional morphological characters that have united taxa may not be homologous structures and are in need of further investigation. Resolution of this problem will require more detailed analysis and more thorough characterization of certain lineages. To begin this task, I conduct in Chapter Five an in- depth study of morphological evolution, host-plant selection, and geographical distribution of a medium-sized genus Depressaria Haworth (Depressariinae), larvae of ii which generally feed on plants in the families Asteraceae and Apiaceae.
    [Show full text]
  • Diptera, Empidoidea) 263 Doi: 10.3897/Zookeys.365.6070 Research Article Launched to Accelerate Biodiversity Research
    A peer-reviewed open-access journal ZooKeys 365: 263–278 (2013) DNA barcoding of Hybotidae (Diptera, Empidoidea) 263 doi: 10.3897/zookeys.365.6070 RESEARCH ARTICLE www.zookeys.org Launched to accelerate biodiversity research Using DNA barcodes for assessing diversity in the family Hybotidae (Diptera, Empidoidea) Zoltán T. Nagy1, Gontran Sonet1, Jonas Mortelmans2, Camille Vandewynkel3, Patrick Grootaert2 1 Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, OD Taxonomy and Phylogeny (JEMU), Rue Vautierstraat 29, 1000 Brussels, Belgium 2 Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, OD Taxonomy and Phylogeny (Ento- mology), Rue Vautierstraat 29, 1000 Brussels, Belgium 3 Laboratoire des Sciences de l’eau et environnement, Faculté des Sciences et Techniques, Avenue Albert Thomas, 23, 87060 Limoges, France Corresponding author: Zoltán T. Nagy ([email protected]) Academic editor: K. Jordaens | Received 7 August 2013 | Accepted 27 November 2013 | Published 30 December 2013 Citation: Nagy ZT, Sonet G, Mortelmans J, Vandewynkel C, Grootaert P (2013) Using DNA barcodes for assessing diversity in the family Hybotidae (Diptera, Empidoidea). In: Nagy ZT, Backeljau T, De Meyer M, Jordaens K (Eds) DNA barcoding: a practical tool for fundamental and applied biodiversity research. ZooKeys 365: 263–278. doi: 10.3897/zookeys.365.6070 Abstract Empidoidea is one of the largest extant lineages of flies, but phylogenetic relationships among species of this group are poorly investigated and global diversity remains scarcely assessed. In this context, one of the most enigmatic empidoid families is Hybotidae. Within the framework of a pilot study, we barcoded 339 specimens of Old World hybotids belonging to 164 species and 22 genera (plus two Empis as outgroups) and attempted to evaluate whether patterns of intra- and interspecific divergences match the current tax- onomy.
    [Show full text]
  • Dipterists Forum
    BULLETIN OF THE Dipterists Forum Bulletin No. 76 Autumn 2013 Affiliated to the British Entomological and Natural History Society Bulletin No. 76 Autumn 2013 ISSN 1358-5029 Editorial panel Bulletin Editor Darwyn Sumner Assistant Editor Judy Webb Dipterists Forum Officers Chairman Martin Drake Vice Chairman Stuart Ball Secretary John Kramer Meetings Treasurer Howard Bentley Please use the Booking Form included in this Bulletin or downloaded from our Membership Sec. John Showers website Field Meetings Sec. Roger Morris Field Meetings Indoor Meetings Sec. Duncan Sivell Roger Morris 7 Vine Street, Stamford, Lincolnshire PE9 1QE Publicity Officer Erica McAlister [email protected] Conservation Officer Rob Wolton Workshops & Indoor Meetings Organiser Duncan Sivell Ordinary Members Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD [email protected] Chris Spilling, Malcolm Smart, Mick Parker Nathan Medd, John Ismay, vacancy Bulletin contributions Unelected Members Please refer to guide notes in this Bulletin for details of how to contribute and send your material to both of the following: Dipterists Digest Editor Peter Chandler Dipterists Bulletin Editor Darwyn Sumner Secretary 122, Link Road, Anstey, Charnwood, Leicestershire LE7 7BX. John Kramer Tel. 0116 212 5075 31 Ash Tree Road, Oadby, Leicester, Leicestershire, LE2 5TE. [email protected] [email protected] Assistant Editor Treasurer Judy Webb Howard Bentley 2 Dorchester Court, Blenheim Road, Kidlington, Oxon. OX5 2JT. 37, Biddenden Close, Bearsted, Maidstone, Kent. ME15 8JP Tel. 01865 377487 Tel. 01622 739452 [email protected] [email protected] Conservation Dipterists Digest contributions Robert Wolton Locks Park Farm, Hatherleigh, Oakhampton, Devon EX20 3LZ Dipterists Digest Editor Tel.
    [Show full text]
  • Flachleibmotten) : 43-46, 3 Abb., Schwerin
    Virgo, Mitteilungsblatt des Entomologischen Vereins Mecklenburg 16. Jahrgang (2013), Heft 1: DEUTSCHMANN, U.: Die Kleinschmetterlinge Mecklenburg-Vorpommerns Teil 16 Depressariidae (Flachleibmotten) : 43-46, 3 Abb., Schwerin Die Kleinschmetterlinge Mecklenburg-Vorpommerns Teil 16 Depressariidae (Flachleibmotten) UWE DEUTSCHMANN Zusammenfassung Nr. Artname MV (BB) (SH) Im Verzeichnis der Schmetterlinge Deutschlands Semioscopis avellanella 2000 * + wurden bis 1999 von den 71 Arten der Familie 1668 (Hübner, 1793) Depressariidae, die in Deutschland nachgewiesen Semioscopis oculella -- + + wurden, insgesamt 32 Arten für das Bundesland 1669 (Thunberg, 1794) Mecklenburg-Vorpommern dokumentiert (GAEDI- Semioscopis steinkellner- 2011 * * CKE & HEINICKE 1999). In der vorliegenden Arbeit iana (Denis & stellt der Autor seine Beobachtungen nach 1980 bis 1670 Schiffermüller, 1775) einschließlich 2013 in Mecklenburg vor. Durch den Luquetia lobella (Denis 2013 * * 1674 & Schiffermüller, 1775) Autor konnten in den vergangenen Jahren bis 2013 Exaeretia allisella 1995 * * insgesamt 26 Arten bestätigt werden. Zwei weitere 1678 Stainton, 1849 Arten wurden für Mecklenburg-Vorpommern neu Agonopterix ocellana 1998 * * nachgewiesen. 1691 (Fabricius, 1775) Interessant sind auch die Nachweise aus Agonopterix assimilella 2013 * + Brandenburg und Schleswig-Holstein. Nach deren 1707 (Treitschke, 1832) Angaben könnten weitere 15 Arten in Mecklen- Agonopterix scopariella 2009 * + burg-Vorpommern vorkommen, da sie in Branden- 1715 (Heinemann, 1870) burg bzw. Schleswig-Holstein
    [Show full text]
  • Final Report 1
    Sand pit for Biodiversity at Cep II quarry Researcher: Klára Řehounková Research group: Petr Bogusch, David Boukal, Milan Boukal, Lukáš Čížek, František Grycz, Petr Hesoun, Kamila Lencová, Anna Lepšová, Jan Máca, Pavel Marhoul, Klára Řehounková, Jiří Řehounek, Lenka Schmidtmayerová, Robert Tropek Březen – září 2012 Abstract We compared the effect of restoration status (technical reclamation, spontaneous succession, disturbed succession) on the communities of vascular plants and assemblages of arthropods in CEP II sand pit (T řebo ňsko region, SW part of the Czech Republic) to evaluate their biodiversity and conservation potential. We also studied the experimental restoration of psammophytic grasslands to compare the impact of two near-natural restoration methods (spontaneous and assisted succession) to establishment of target species. The sand pit comprises stages of 2 to 30 years since site abandonment with moisture gradient from wet to dry habitats. In all studied groups, i.e. vascular pants and arthropods, open spontaneously revegetated sites continuously disturbed by intensive recreation activities hosted the largest proportion of target and endangered species which occurred less in the more closed spontaneously revegetated sites and which were nearly absent in technically reclaimed sites. Out results provide clear evidence that the mosaics of spontaneously established forests habitats and open sand habitats are the most valuable stands from the conservation point of view. It has been documented that no expensive technical reclamations are needed to restore post-mining sites which can serve as secondary habitats for many endangered and declining species. The experimental restoration of rare and endangered plant communities seems to be efficient and promising method for a future large-scale restoration projects in abandoned sand pits.
    [Show full text]
  • The Conservation Management and Ecology of Northeastern North
    THE CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT AND ECOLOGY OF NORTHEASTERN NORTH AMERICAN BUMBLE BEES AMANDA LICZNER A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY GRADUATE PROGRAM IN BIOLOGY YORK UNIVERSITY TORONTO, ONTARIO September 2020 © Amanda Liczner, 2020 ii Abstract Bumble bees (Bombus spp.; Apidae) are among the pollinators most in decline globally with a main cause being habitat loss. Habitat requirements for bumble bees are poorly understood presenting a research gap. The purpose of my dissertation is to characterize the habitat of bumble bees at different spatial scales using: a systematic literature review of bumble bee nesting and overwintering habitat globally (Chapter 1); surveys of local and landcover variables for two at-risk bumble bee species (Bombus terricola, and B. pensylvanicus) in southern Ontario (Chapter 2); identification of conservation priority areas for bumble bee species in Canada (Chapter 3); and an analysis of the methodology for locating bumble bee nests using detection dogs (Chapter 4). The main findings were current literature on bumble bee nesting and overwintering habitat is limited and biased towards the United Kingdom and agricultural habitats (Ch.1). Bumble bees overwinter underground, often on shaded banks or near trees. Nests were mostly underground and found in many landscapes (Ch.1). B. terricola and B. pensylvanicus have distinct habitat characteristics (Ch.2). Landscape predictors explained more variation in the species data than local or floral resources (Ch.2). Among local variables, floral resources were consistently important throughout the season (Ch.2). Most bumble bee conservation priority areas are in western Canada, southern Ontario, southern Quebec and across the Maritimes and are most often located within woody savannas (Ch.3).
    [Show full text]
  • Hoverfly Newsletter No
    Dipterists Forum Hoverfly Newsletter Number 48 Spring 2010 ISSN 1358-5029 I am grateful to everyone who submitted articles and photographs for this issue in a timely manner. The closing date more or less coincided with the publication of the second volume of the new Swedish hoverfly book. Nigel Jones, who had already submitted his review of volume 1, rapidly provided a further one for the second volume. In order to avoid delay I have kept the reviews separate rather than attempting to merge them. Articles and illustrations (including colour images) for the next newsletter are always welcome. Copy for Hoverfly Newsletter No. 49 (which is expected to be issued with the Autumn 2010 Dipterists Forum Bulletin) should be sent to me: David Iliff Green Willows, Station Road, Woodmancote, Cheltenham, Glos, GL52 9HN, (telephone 01242 674398), email:[email protected], to reach me by 20 May 2010. Please note the earlier than usual date which has been changed to fit in with the new bulletin closing dates. although we have not been able to attain the levels Hoverfly Recording Scheme reached in the 1980s. update December 2009 There have been a few notable changes as some of the old Stuart Ball guard such as Eileen Thorpe and Austin Brackenbury 255 Eastfield Road, Peterborough, PE1 4BH, [email protected] have reduced their activity and a number of newcomers Roger Morris have arrived. For example, there is now much more active 7 Vine Street, Stamford, Lincolnshire, PE9 1QE, recording in Shropshire (Nigel Jones), Northamptonshire [email protected] (John Showers), Worcestershire (Harry Green et al.) and This has been quite a remarkable year for a variety of Bedfordshire (John O’Sullivan).
    [Show full text]
  • A Hoverfly Guide to the Bayer Research Farm in Great Chishill
    A hoverfly guide to the Bayer Research Farm in Great Chishill 1 Orchard Farm, Great Chishill • Nesting and visiting birds ayer Crop Science’s farm in • Butterflies and moths Encouraging Hoverflies Great Chishill covers some 20 • Bees Bhectares on a gently undulating • Successful fledging of barn owl 1. Food Sources Hoverflies do not have suitable clay plateau to the south west of chicks (as an indicator of small Growing just about any wildflowers will mouthparts to feed from pea-flowers Cambridge, on the Hertfordshire mammal populations) attract at least some hoverflies and a such as clover, lucerne or sainfoin border. It is a working farm set up variety of species selected to flower that favour bees but will feed from to help the company research and Hoverflies continuously throughout the spring mints, both cornmint and watermint understand better, new crop protection Hoverflies are a group of Diptera (flies) and summer would be preferable. and other Labiates such as thyme, products and new seed varieties. As comprising the family Syrphidae with Traditional wildflower meadows are marjoram and so on. Some Crucifers its name implies, the farm used to be many being fairly large and colourful. often good places to look for hoverflies, are good such as the spring flowering an orchard and indeed, there remains Some of them, such as the Marmalade and there are several plants which cuckoo flower and hedge mustard; some apple and pear trees on the Hoverfly are generally common and are favoured. Common bramble is a later on water cress, oil seed rape and site used for testing of novel crop numerous enough to have a common magnet for various hoverflies and other other mustards are good.
    [Show full text]
  • Hoverfly Newsletter 67
    Dipterists Forum Hoverfly Newsletter Number 67 Spring 2020 ISSN 1358-5029 . On 21 January 2020 I shall be attending a lecture at the University of Gloucester by Adam Hart entitled “The Insect Apocalypse” the subject of which will of course be one that matters to all of us. Spreading awareness of the jeopardy that insects are now facing can only be a good thing, as is the excellent number of articles that, despite this situation, readers have submitted for inclusion in this newsletter. The editorial of Hoverfly Newsletter No. 66 covered two subjects that are followed up in the current issue. One of these was the diminishing UK participation in the international Syrphidae symposia in recent years, but I am pleased to say that Jon Heal, who attended the most recent one, has addressed this matter below. Also the publication of two new illustrated hoverfly guides, from the Netherlands and Canada, were announced. Both are reviewed by Roger Morris in this newsletter. The Dutch book has already proved its value in my local area, by providing the confirmation that we now have Xanthogramma stackelbergi in Gloucestershire (taken at Pope’s Hill in June by John Phillips). Copy for Hoverfly Newsletter No. 68 (which is expected to be issued with the Autumn 2020 Dipterists Forum Bulletin) should be sent to me: David Iliff, Green Willows, Station Road, Woodmancote, Cheltenham, Glos, GL52 9HN, (telephone 01242 674398), email:[email protected], to reach me by 20 June 2020. The hoverfly illustrated at the top right of this page is a male Leucozona laternaria.
    [Show full text]
  • Ad Hoc Referees Committee for This Issue Thomas Dirnböck
    COMITATO DI REVISIONE PER QUESTO NUMERO – Ad hoc referees committee for this issue Thomas Dirnböck Umweltbundesamt GmbH Studien & Beratung II, Spittelauer Lände 5, 1090 Wien, Austria Marco Kovac Slovenian Forestry Institute, Vecna pot 2, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenija Susanna Nocentini Università degli Studi di Firenze, DISTAF, Via S. Bonaventura 13, 50145 Firenze Ralf Ohlemueller Department of Biology, University of York, PO Box 373, York YO10 5YW, UK Sandro Pignatti Orto Botanico di Roma, Dipartimento di Biologia Vegetale, L.go Cristina di Svezia, 24, 00165 Roma Stergios Pirintsos Department of Biology, University of Crete, P.O.Box 2208, 71409 Heraklion, Greece Matthias Plattner Hintermann & Weber AG, Oeko-Logische Beratung Planung Forschung, Hauptstrasse 52, CH-4153 Reinach Basel Arne Pommerening School of Agricultural & Forest Sciences, University of Wales, Bangor, Gwynedd LL57 2UW, DU/ UK Roberto Scotti Università degli Studi di Sassari, DESA, Nuoro branch, Via C. Colombo 1, 08100 Nuoro Franz Starlinger Forstliche Bundesversuchsanstalt Wien, A 1131 Vienna, Austria Silvia Stofer Eidgenössische Forschungsanstalt für Wald, Schnee und Landschaft – WSL, Zürcherstrasse 111, CH-8903 Birmensdorf, Switzerland Norman Woodley Systematic Entomology Lab-USDA , c/o Smithsonian Institution NHB-168 , O Box 37012 Washington, DC 20013-7012 CURATORI DI QUESTO NUMERO – Editors Marco Ferretti, Bruno Petriccione, Gianfranco Fabbio, Filippo Bussotti EDITORE – Publisher C.R.A. - Istituto Sperimentale per la Selvicoltura Viale Santa Margherita, 80 – 52100 Arezzo Tel.. ++39 0575 353021; Fax. ++39 0575 353490; E-mail:[email protected] Volume 30, Supplemento 2 - 2006 LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS C.R.A.A - ISTITUTO N SPERIMENTALE N A PER LA LSELVICOLTURA I (in alphabetic order) Allegrini, M. C.
    [Show full text]
  • HOVERFLY NEWSLETTER Dipterists
    HOVERFLY NUMBER 41 NEWSLETTER SPRING 2006 Dipterists Forum ISSN 1358-5029 As a new season begins, no doubt we are all hoping for a more productive recording year than we have had in the last three or so. Despite the frustration of recent seasons it is clear that national and international study of hoverflies is in good health, as witnessed by the success of the Leiden symposium and the Recording Scheme’s report (though the conundrum of the decline in UK records of difficult species is mystifying). New readers may wonder why the list of literature references from page 15 onwards covers publications for the year 2000 only. The reason for this is that for several issues nobody was available to compile these lists. Roger Morris kindly agreed to take on this task and to catch up for the missing years. Each newsletter for the present will include a list covering one complete year of the backlog, and since there are two newsletters per year the backlog will gradually be eliminated. Once again I thank all contributors and I welcome articles for future newsletters; these may be sent as email attachments, typed hard copy, manuscript or even dictated by phone, if you wish. Please do not forget the “Interesting Recent Records” feature, which is rather sparse in this issue. Copy for Hoverfly Newsletter No. 42 (which is expected to be issued with the Autumn 2006 Dipterists Forum Bulletin) should be sent to me: David Iliff, Green Willows, Station Road, Woodmancote, Cheltenham, Glos, GL52 9HN, (telephone 01242 674398), email: [email protected], to reach me by 20 June 2006.
    [Show full text]