DOCSLIB.ORG

Annual Reports 2017: Compilation of Annual Reports Submitted by the European Diploma Areas

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Annual Reports 2017: Compilation of Annual Reports Submitted by the European Diploma Areas Strasbourg, 4 January 2018 T-PVS/DE (2018) 3 [de03ef_2018.doc] CONVENTION ON THE CONSERVATION OF EUROPEAN WILDLIFE AND NATURAL HABITATS Standing Committee 38th meeting Strasbourg, 27-30 November 2018 Group of Specialists on the European Diploma for Protected Areas 21-22 February 2018 Strasbourg, Palais de l’Europe, Room 8 ANNUAL REPORTS 2017: COMPILATION OF ANNUAL REPORTS SUBMITTED BY THE EUROPEAN DIPLOMA AREAS Document prepared by the Directorate of Democratic Citizenship and Participation This document will not be distributed at the meeting. Please bring this copy. Ce document ne sera plus distribué en réunion. Prière de vous munir de cet exemplaire. T-PVS/DE (2018) 3 - 2 - Table of contents 1. Belgium – Hautes Fagnes Nature Reserve ....................................................................................... - 5 - 2. France – Camargue National Reserve .............................................................................................. - 5 - 3. United Kingdom - Peak District National Park ................................................................................ - 9 - 4. Austria – Krimml Waterfalls Natural Site ...................................................................................... - 13 - 5. Germany - Lüneburg Heath Nature Reserve .................................................................................. - 18 - 6. Sweden – Muddus National Park ................................................................................................... - 24 - 7. Sweden – Sarek and Padjelanta National Parks ............................................................................. - 27 - 8. Switzerland – Swiss National Park ................................................................................................ - 31 - 9. Italy – Abruzzo, Lazio and Molise National Park .......................................................................... - 33 - 10. Germany – Wollmatinger Ried Untersee-Gnadensee Nature Reserve ........................................... - 37 - 11. Netherlands – Boschplaat Nature Reserve ..................................................................................... - 40 - 12. Germany- Siebengebirge Nature Reserve ...................................................................................... - 42 - 13. Germany/Luxembourg – Germano-Luxembourg Nature Park ...................................................... - 46 - 14. France – Vanoise National Park ..................................................................................................... - 46 - 15. Turkey - Kuşcenneti National park ................................................................................................ - 49 - 16. Germany – Weltenburger Enge Nature Reserve ............................................................................ - 51 - 17. Greece – Cretan White Mountains National Park .......................................................................... - 51 - 18. United Kingdom – Minsmere Nature Reserve ............................................................................... - 56 - 19. United Kingdom – Beinn Eighe National Nature Reserve ............................................................. - 60 - 20. United Kingdom – Purbeck Heritage Coast ................................................................................... - 63 - 21. United Kingdom- Fair Isle National Scenic Area .......................................................................... - 67 - 22. France – Scandola Nature Reserve ................................................................................................. - 69 - 23. Italy – Sasso Fratino Integral Nature Reserve ................................................................................ - 69 - 24. Spain – Doñana National Park ....................................................................................................... - 72 - 25. Germany – Bayerischer Wald National Park ................................................................................. - 76 - 26. Spain – Ordesa and Monte Perdido National Park ......................................................................... - 78 - 27. Sweden – Store Mosse National Park ............................................................................................ - 86 - 28. Sweden – Bullerö and Långviksskär Nature Reserves ................................................................... - 90 - 29. Italy – Montecristo Island Nature Reserve ..................................................................................... - 91 - 30. Germany – Wurzacher Ried Nature Reserve ................................................................................. - 97 - - 3 - T-PVS/DE (2018) 3 31. Spain – Teide National Park......................................................................................................... - 100 - 32. Germany – Berchtesgaden National Park .................................................................................... - 100 - 33. France – Ecrins National Park ...................................................................................................... - 104 - 34. Italy – Maremma Regional Park .................................................................................................. - 113 - 35. Portugal – Selvagens Islands Nature Reserve .............................................................................. - 116 - 36. France – Mercantour National Park ............................................................................................. - 118 - 37. Italy – Maritime Alps Nature Park ............................................................................................... - 118 - 38. Austria – Wachau Protected Landscape ....................................................................................... - 122 - 39. Russian Federation – Oka National Biosphere Reserve ............................................................... - 124 - 40. Russian Federation – Teberda National Biosphere Reserve ........................................................ - 131 - 41. Hungary - Ipolytarnóc Protected Area ......................................................................................... - 133 - 42. Hungary - Szénás Hills Protected Area ........................................................................................ - 135 - 43. Belarus – Berezinsky State Biosphere Reserve ............................................................................ - 138 - 44. Netherlands – National Park Weerribben-Wieden ....................................................................... - 141 - 45. Finland – Seitseminen National Park ........................................................................................... - 147 - 46. Finland - Ekenäs Archipelago National Park ............................................................................... - 149 - 47. Belarus – Belovezhskaya Pushcha National Park ........................................................................ - 152 - 48. France – Port-Cros National Park ................................................................................................ - 155 - 49. Ukraine – Carpathian Biosphere Reserve .................................................................................... - 155 - 50. Slovak Republic – Poloniny National Park .................................................................................. - 161 - 51. Poland - Bieszczady National Park .............................................................................................. - 166 - 52. Slovak Republic - Dobročský National Nature Reserve .............................................................. - 173 - 53. Russian Federation – Kostomuksha Strict Nature Reserve .......................................................... - 177 - 54. Russian Federation – Tsentralno-Chernozemny Biosphere Reserve ........................................... - 181 - 55. Netherlands - De Oostvaardersplassen Nature Reserve ............................................................... - 187 - 56. Czech Republic - Bilé Karpaty Protected Landscape Area .......................................................... - 192 - 57. Czech Republic - Karlštejn National Nature Reserve .................................................................. - 192 - 58. Czech Republic – Podyji National Park ....................................................................................... - 192 - 59. Romania – Danube Delta Bisophere Reserve .............................................................................. - 194 - 60. Austria – Thayatal National Park ................................................................................................. - 196 - 61. Estonia – Matsalu National Park .................................................................................................. - 204 - 62. Hungary – Volcanic phenomena of the Tihany Peninsula ........................................................... - 204 - 63. Slovenia – Triglav National Park ................................................................................................. - 206 - T-PVS/DE (2018) 3 - 4 - 64. Netherlands - Naardermeer Nature Reserve ................................................................................. - 211 - 65. Italy – Regional Park of Migliarino, San Rossore and Massaciuccoli ......................................... - 215 - 66. Italy – Gran Paradiso National Park ............................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Lake Baikal Russian Federation
    LAKE BAIKAL RUSSIAN FEDERATION Lake Baikal is in south central Siberia close to the Mongolian border. It is the largest, oldest by 20 million years, and deepest, at 1,638m, of the world's lakes. It is 3.15 million hectares in size and contains a fifth of the world's unfrozen surface freshwater. Its age and isolation and unusually fertile depths have given it the world's richest and most unusual lacustrine fauna which, like the Galapagos islands’, is of outstanding value to evolutionary science. The exceptional variety of endemic animals and plants make the lake one of the most biologically diverse on earth. Threats to the site: Present threats are the untreated wastes from the river Selenga, potential oil and gas exploration in the Selenga delta, widespread lake-edge pollution and over-hunting of the Baikal seals. However, the threat of an oil pipeline along the lake’s north shore was averted in 2006 by Presidential decree and the pulp and cellulose mill on the southern shore which polluted 200 sq. km of the lake, caused some of the worst air pollution in Russia and genetic mutations in some of the lake’s endemic species, was closed in 2009 as no longer profitable to run. COUNTRY Russian Federation NAME Lake Baikal NATURAL WORLD HERITAGE SERIAL SITE 1996: Inscribed on the World Heritage List under Natural Criteria vii, viii, ix and x. STATEMENT OF OUTSTANDING UNIVERSAL VALUE The UNESCO World Heritage Committee issued the following statement at the time of inscription. Justification for Inscription The Committee inscribed Lake Baikal the most outstanding example of a freshwater ecosystem on the basis of: Criteria (vii), (viii), (ix) and (x).
    [Show full text]
  • Gap Analysis in Support of Cpan: the Russian Arctic
    CAFF Habitat Conservation Report No. 9 GAP ANALYSIS IN SUPPORT OF CPAN: THE RUSSIAN ARCTIC Igor Lysenko and David Henry CAFF INTERNATIONAL SECRETRARIAT 2000 This report, prepared by Igor Lysenko, World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC) and David Henry, United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) Global Resource Information Database (GRID)-Arendal, is a technical account of a Gap Analysis Project conducted for the Russian Arctic in 1997-1999 in support of the Circumpolar Protected Areas Network (CPAN) of CAFF. It updates the status and spatial distribution of protected areas within the CAFF area of the Russian Federation and provides, in 22 GIs based maps and several data sets, a wealth of information relevant for present and future management decisions related to habitat conservation in the Russian Arctic. The present Gap Analysis for the Russian Arctic was undertaken in response to the CPAN Strategy and Action Plan requirement for countries to identify gaps in protected area coverage of ecosystems and species and to select sites for further action. Another important objective was to update the Russian data base. The Analysis used a system of twelve landscape units instead of the previously used vegetation zone system as the basis to classify Russia's ecosystems. A comparison of the terrestrial landscape systems against protected area coverage indicates that 27% of the glacier ecosystem is protected, 9.3% of the tundra (treeless portion) and 4.7% of the forest systems within the Arctic boundaries are under protection, but the most important Arctic forested areas have only 0.1% protection. In general, the analysis indicates a negative relationship between ecosystem productivity and protection, which is consistent with findings in 1996.
    [Show full text]
  • Obtaining World Heritage Status and the Impacts of Listing Aa, Bart J.M
    University of Groningen Preserving the heritage of humanity? Obtaining world heritage status and the impacts of listing Aa, Bart J.M. van der IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from it. Please check the document version below. Document Version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Publication date: 2005 Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database Citation for published version (APA): Aa, B. J. M. V. D. (2005). Preserving the heritage of humanity? Obtaining world heritage status and the impacts of listing. s.n. Copyright Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons). Take-down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum. Download date: 23-09-2021 Appendix 4 World heritage site nominations Listed site in May 2004 (year of rejection, year of listing, possible year of extension of the site) Rejected site and not listed until May 2004 (first year of rejection) Afghanistan Península Valdés (1999) Jam,
    [Show full text]
  • A Mineralogy of Anthropocene E
    1 A Minerology for the Anthropocene Pierre FLUCK Institut Universitaire de France / Docteur-ès-Sciences / geologist and archeologist / Emeritus Professor at Université de Haute-Alsace This essay is a follow-up on « La signature stratigraphique de l’Anthropocène », which is also available on HAL- Archives ouvertes. Table of contents 1. Introduction: neoformation minerals in ancient mining galleries 2. Minerals from burning coal mines 3. Minerals from the mineral processing industry 4 ...and metallurgy 5. Neoformations in slags 6. Speciation of heavy metals in soils 7. Metal objects in their archaeological environment, or affected by fire 8. Neoformations in or on the surface of building stones 9. A mineralogy of materials. The “miracle of the potter”. The minerals in cement 10. A mineralogy of the biosphere? Conclusions Warning. This paper is written to be read by both specialists and a wider audience. However, it contains many mineral names. While these may resonate in the minds of mineralogists or collectors, they may not be as meaningful to less discerning readers. Such readers should not be scared, for they may find excellent encyclopaedic records on the web, including chemical composition, crystallographic properties and description of each of these species. This is why we have decided not to include further information in this paper. Acknowledgements. I would like to thank the mineralogists with whom I have had the opportunity to maintain fruitful exchanges for a long time: my pupil Hubert Bari, Éric Asselborn, Cédric Lheur, François Farges. And I would like to honour the memories of René Weil (1901-1983), my master in descriptive mineralogy, and of Jacques Geffroy (1918-1993), pupil of Alfred Lacroix, my master in metallogeny.
    [Show full text]
  • Langourov Et Al 2018 Inventory of Selected Groups.Pdf
    ACTA ZOOLOGICA BULGARICA Zoogeography and Faunistics Acta zool. bulg., 70 (4), 2018: 487-500 Research Article Inventory of Selected Groups of Invertebrates in Sedge and Reedbeds not Associated with Open Waters in Bulgaria Mario Langourov1, Nikolay Simov1, Rostislav Bekchiev1, Dragan Chobanov2, Vera Antonova2 & Ivaylo Dedov2 1 National Museum of Natural History – Sofia, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 1 Tsar Osvoboditel Blvd., 1000 Sofia, Bulgaria; E-mails: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] 2 Institute of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Research, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 2 Gagarin Street, 1113 Sofia, Bulgaria; E-mails: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Abstract: Inventory of selected groups of the invertebrate fauna in the EUNIS wetland habitat type D5 “Sedge and reedbeds normally without free-standing water” in Bulgaria was carried out. It included 47 locali- ties throughout the country. The surveyed invertebrate groups included slugs and snails (Gastropoda), dragonflies (Odonata), grasshoppers (Orthoptera), true bugs (Heteroptera), ants (Formicidae), butterflies (Lepidoptera) and some coleopterans (Staphylinidae: Pselaphinae). Data on the visited localities, identi- fied species and their conservation status are presented. In total, 316 species of 209 genera and 68 families were recorded. Fifty species were identified as potential indicator species for this wetland habitat type. The highest species richness (with more than 50 species) was observed in wetlands near Marino pole (Plovdiv District) and Karaisen (Veliko Tarnovo District). Key words: Gastropoda, Odonata, Orthoptera, Heteroptera, Formicidae, Lepidoptera, Pselaphinae, wetland. Introduction According to the EUNIS Biodiversity Database, all known mire and spring complex according to the wetlands (mires, bogs and fens) are territories with occurrence of rare and threaten plant and mollusc water table at or above ground level for at least half species.
    [Show full text]
  • Terrestrial Insects: Holometabola – Diptera Nematocera: Tipuloidea
    Glime, J. M. 2017. Terrestrial Insects: Holometabola – Diptera Nematocera: Tipuloidea. Chapt. 12-18. In: Glime, J. M. Bryophyte 12-18-1 Ecology. Volume 2. Bryological Interaction. Ebook sponsored by Michigan Technological University and the International Association of Bryologists. Last updated 21 April 2017 and available at <http://digitalcommons.mtu.edu/bryophyte-ecology2/>. CHAPTER 12-18 TERRESTRIAL INSECTS: HOLOMETABOLA – DIPTERA NEMATOCERA: TIPULOIDEA TABLE OF CONTENTS NEMATOCERA............................................................................................................................................ 12-18-2 Cylindrotomidae............................................................................................................................................. 12-18-2 Triogma................................................................................................................................................... 12-18-3 Diogma.................................................................................................................................................... 12-18-4 Cylindrotoma .......................................................................................................................................... 12-18-4 Phalacrocera........................................................................................................................................... 12-18-4 Liogma ...................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Diptera of Lancashire and Cheshire: Craneflies and Winter Gnats
    The Diptera of Lancashire and Cheshire: Craneflies and Winter Gnats by Phil Brighton 32, Wadeson Way, Croft, Warrington WA3 7JS [email protected] Version 1.1 26 November 2017 1 Summary This document provides a new checklist for the craneflies and winter gnats (Tipuloidea, Ptychopteridae and Trichoceridae) to extend the lists of the diptera of Lancashire and Cheshire first published by Kidd and Bindle in 1959. Overall statistics on recording activity are given by decade and hectad. Checklists are presented for each of the three Watsonian vice-counties 58, 59, and 60 detailing for each species the number of records, year of earliest and most recent record, and the number of hectads with records. A combined checklist showing distribution by the three vice-counties is also included, covering a total of 264 species, amounting to 75% of the current British checklist. Introduction This report is the third in a series to update and extend the partial checklist of the diptera of Lancashire and Cheshire published in 1959 by Leonard Kidd and Alan Brindle1. There were two previous updates, in 19642 and 19713. The previous reports in this series cover the soldierflies and allies4 and the Sepsidae5, the latter family not having been covered in Ref 1. The reader is referred to the first two reports for the background and rationale of these checklists, as well as the history of diptera recording and available data sources. The description of methodology is also kept to a minimum in the present report: only significant differences from the previous publications will be outlined.
    [Show full text]
  • Lista Preliminar De Los Heteroptera De La Sierra De Marina (Barcelona)
    Heteropterus Revista de Entomología 2018 Heteropterus Rev. Entomol. 18(2): 207-214 ISSN: 1579-0681 Lista preliminar de los Heteroptera de la Sierra de Marina (Barcelona) J.M. DIÉGUEZ FERNÁNDEZ Gran Via de les Corts Catalanes 1128, 5º 2ª; E-08020 Barcelona; E-mail: [email protected] Resumen Se presenta una lista preliminar de los Heteroptera de la Sierra de Marina que incluye 117 especies, pertenecientes a 20 familias. Palabras clave: Heteroptera, Sierra de Marina, Barcelona, España, catálogo. Laburpena Marina Mendizerrako (Bartzelona) behin-behineko Heteroptera zerrenda Marina Mendizerrako (Bartzelona) behin-behineko Heteroptera zerrenda bat aurkezten da, 20 familiatako 117 espezie dituena. Gako-hitzak: Heteroptera, Marina Mendizerra, Bartzelona, Espainia, katalogoa. Abstract A preliminary list of the Heteroptera of Marina Mountain-chain (Barcelona) A preliminary list of the Heteroptera of Marina Mountain-chain is presented, including 117 species, belonging to 20 families. Key words: Heteroptera, Marina Mountain-chain, Barcelona, Spain, checklist. Introducción mediterránea, compuesta por Pinus halepensis, Quercus coccifera, Quercus suber, Erica arborea, Arbutus unedo, Pis- El estudio de los heterópteros en Cataluña ha sido tacia lentiscus, Rosmarinus officinalis, Bupleurum fruticosum, bastante amplio, como queda reflejado en el catálogo Cistus albidus, Cistus salviifolius, Cistus monspeliensis, Cistus de los heterópteros de Cataluña (Ribes et al., 2004, crispus, etc. Y en los prados (originados en cultivos 2008). En la provincia de Barcelona, se han publicado abandonados y zonas con incendios persistentes) y recientemente los catálogos del Montseny (Ribes y margenes de los caminos, crecen Hyparrhenia hirta, Goula, 1995), Collserola (Ribes y Ribes, 2001), Garraf Spartium junceum, Daphne gnidium, Eryngium campestre, (Gessé y Goula, 2006) y Castelldefels (Gessé, 2011).
    [Show full text]
  • Heteroptera Checklist
    rECOrd Chester Zoological Gardens Upton, Chester RECORD Cheshire, CH2 1LH Tel: 01244 383749 / 383569 The Biodiversity Information System for [email protected] Cheshire, Halton, Warrington and Wirral Provisional Checklist Of Cheshire Heteroptera (True Bugs) Provided by: Steve Judd - Cheshire County Heteroptera Recorder 20th January 1987 - LCES Report & Proceedings Amended by: Steve J. McWilliam - July 2002 Taken from the Lancashire and Cheshire Entomological Society (LCES) Report and Annual Proceedings One Hundred and Tenth Session 1986/87, Pages 60-65. The checklist is based on previous county checklists compiled by Whittaker (1906, 1908), Britten (1930) and Massee (1955). Additional unpublished annotations made by Massee to his 1955 checklist were made available by the Biological Records Centre at Monks Wood. Records were extracted from the Lancashire and Cheshire Fauna Committee cards housed at Manchester Museum. Data has been extracted from the Liverpool Museum collection and all post 1970 records are supported by voucher specimens in the Museum's collection. Scientific Name: English Name: National Status: Aradidae: Aradus depressus (F.) Local Acanthosomatidae: Acanthosoma haemorrhoidalis (L.) Hawthorn Shieldbug Common Elasmostethus interstinctus (L.) Birch Shield Bug Common Elasmostethus tristriatus (F.) Juniper Shieldbug Local Elasmucha grisea (L.) Parent Bug Cydnidae: Sehirus bicolor (L.) Common Scutelleridae: Palomena prasina (L.) Green Shieldbug Common Dolycoris baccarum (L.) Sloe Bug Common Piezodorus lituratus (F.) Gorse Shieldbug Common Pentatoma rufipes (L.) Forest Bug Common Picromerus bidens (L.) Common Troilus luridus (F.) Local Rhacognathus punctatus ((L.) Local Zicrona caerulea (L.) Blue Bug Local Coreidae: Coriomeris denticulatus (Scop.) Common Alydidae: Alydus calcaratus (L.) Local Rhopalidae: Corizus hyoscyami ((L.) Local Rhopalus maculatus ((Fieber) Notable B Chorosoma schillingi (Schum.) Local A Company Limited by Guarantee Registered in England No.
    [Show full text]
  • The Semiaquatic Nematoceran Fly Assemblages of Three Wetland
    The Semiaquatic Nematoceran Fly Assemblages of Three Wetland Habitats and Concordance with Plant Species Composition, a Case Study from Subalpine Fennoscandia Author(s): Jukka Salmela Source: Journal of Insect Science, 11(35):1-28. 2011. Published By: Entomological Society of America DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1673/031.011.0135 URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1673/031.011.0135 BioOne (www.bioone.org) is a nonprofit, online aggregation of core research in the biological, ecological, and environmental sciences. BioOne provides a sustainable online platform for over 170 journals and books published by nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses. Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Web site, and all posted and associated content indicates your acceptance of BioOne’s Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/page/terms_of_use. Usage of BioOne content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non-commercial use. Commercial inquiries or rights and permissions requests should be directed to the individual publisher as copyright holder. BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofit publishers, academic institutions, research libraries, and research funders in the common goal of maximizing access to critical research. Journal of Insect Science: Vol. 11 | Article 35 Salmela The semiaquatic nematoceran fly assemblages of three wetland habitats and concordance with plant species composition, a case study from subalpine Fennoscandia Jukka Salmela Department of Biology, Zoological Museum, FI-20014 University of Turku, Finland Abstract Semiaquatic flies (Diptera, Nematocera) are an ecologically important and species rich group of insects within the boreal and arctic biomes.
    [Show full text]
  • Liley Et Al., 2006B)
    Date: March 2010; Version: FINAL Recommended Citation: Liley D., Lake, S., Underhill-Day, J., Sharp, J., White, J. Hoskin, R. Cruickshanks, K. & Fearnley, H. (2010). Welsh Seasonality Habitat Vulnerability Review. Footprint Ecology / CCW. 1 Summary It is increasingly recognised that recreational access to the countryside has a wide range of benefits, such as positive effects on health and well-being, economic benefits and an enhanced understanding of and connection with the natural environment. There are also negative effects of access, however, as people’s presence in the countryside can impact on the nature conservation interest of sites. This report reviews these potential impacts to the Welsh countryside, and we go on to discuss how such impacts could be mapped across the entirety of Wales. Such a map (or series of maps) would provide a tool for policy makers, planners and access managers, highlighting areas of the countryside particularly sensitive to access and potentially guiding the location and provision of access infrastructure, housing etc. We structure the review according to four main types of impacts: contamination, damage, fire and disturbance. Contamination includes impacts such as litter, nutrient enrichment and the spread of exotic species. Within the section on damage we consider harvesting and the impacts of footfall on vegetation and erosion of substrates. The fire section addresses the impacts of fire (accidental or arson) on animals, plant communities and the soil. Disturbance is typically the unintentional consequences of people’s presence, sometimes leading to animals avoiding particular areas and impacts on breeding success, survival etc. We review the effects of disturbance to mammals, birds, herptiles and invertebrates and also consider direct mortality, for example trampling of nests or deliberate killing of reptiles.
    [Show full text]
  • A Preliminary List of the Heteroptera, Auchenorrhyncha (Hemiptera) and Pipunculidae (Diptera) of the Réserve Naturelle Du Marais De Lavours (France; Ain)
    Entomologist’s Monthly Magazine 152: 139–147 A preliminary list of the Heteroptera, Auchenorrhyncha (Hemiptera) and Pipunculidae (Diptera) of the Réserve Naturelle du Marais de Lavours (France; Ain) BY John hollier, Phil Withers & FaBrice Darinot Jh*: Muséum d’histoire naturelle de Genève, C.P. 6436, CH-1211 Genève 6, Switzerland; e-mail: [email protected] PW: 40 Montée du Cimetière, 01600, Sainte Euphémie, France; e-mail: [email protected] FD: Réserve Naturelle Nationale du Marais de Lavours, 31 Chemin des prés de la Tour, 73310 Chindrieux, France; e-mail: [email protected] accepted: November 16th, 2015; Published: April 29th, 2016 aBstract the insect fauna of the wetland nature reserve of Marais de lavours was sampled using pitfall traps, some Malaise trapping and haphazard direct collecting. an initial list of 130 hemiptera and 23 Pipunculidae is presented, with comments on the assemblage recorded and the limitations of the sampling. Keywords: Carex elata grassland, pitfall traps, leafhopper, big-headed fly, rhône Valley, France introDuction the reserve naturelle du Marais de lavours (department of ain) is a French wetland nature reserve of 474 hectares situated in the rhône Valley between Geneva and lyon (Fig. 1). these wetlands are the remnant of a much larger system which developed as extensive glacial lakes that had formed at the end of the last ice age and gradually dried out. recorded exploitation of the wetlands for grazing and hay goes back to the 12th century, but the richness of the habitat was obviously recognized long before. During the early 20th century agricultural depression in France, the wetland was more or less abandoned and started to become woodland.
    [Show full text]