DOCSLIB.ORG

Evaluierungsstudie Tierökologische Bewertung

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Evaluierungsstudie Tierökologische Bewertung ÖKOTEAM Institut für Tierökologie und Naturraumplanung OG Ingenieurbüro für Biologie A-8010 Graz Bergmanngasse 22 Tel. 0316/ 35 16 50 Fax DW 4 e-mail [email protected] http://www.oekoteam.at Tierökologische Bewertung von WF-Rotflächen im Vergleich zu Nicht-WF-Flächen IM AUFTRAG VON Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft Abteilung II Stubenring 1 A-1012 Wien Graz, im Dezember 2008 T IERÖKOLOGISCHE B EWERTUNG VON WF-ROTFLÄCHEN Inhaltsverzeichnis 1 Kurzzusammenfassung..................................................................................................5 2 Zusammenfassung .........................................................................................................9 2.1 Laufkäfer .................................................................................................................9 2.1.1 Einleitung..............................................................................................................9 2.1.2 Methodik ...............................................................................................................9 2.1.3 Ergebnisse und Diskussion ................................................................................10 2.1.4 Ausblick ..............................................................................................................14 2.2 Spinnen .................................................................................................................15 2.2.1 Methodik .............................................................................................................15 2.2.2 Ergebnisse und Diskussion ................................................................................15 2.2.3 Ausblick ..............................................................................................................17 2.3 Wanzen ..................................................................................................................18 2.3.1 Einleitung............................................................................................................18 2.3.2 Methodik .............................................................................................................18 2.3.3 Ergebnisse und Diskussion ................................................................................18 2.3.4 Ausblick ..............................................................................................................22 2.4 Zikaden ..................................................................................................................24 2.4.1 Einleitung............................................................................................................24 2.4.2 Methodik .............................................................................................................24 2.4.3 Ergebnisse und Diskussion ................................................................................24 2.4.4 Ausblick ..............................................................................................................26 2.5 Anhang IV-Arten der FFH-Richtlinie ...................................................................27 2.5.1 Einleitung............................................................................................................27 2.5.2 Methodik .............................................................................................................27 2.5.3 Ergebnisse und Diskussion ................................................................................27 2.5.4 Ausblick ..............................................................................................................28 3 Ausgangslage und Rahmenbedingungen ..................................................................29 2 T IERÖKOLOGISCHE B EWERTUNG VON WF-ROTFLÄCHEN 4 Projektbeschreibung ....................................................................................................30 4.1 Projektteam ...........................................................................................................30 4.2 Projektkonzept und Projektziele .........................................................................30 4.3 Innovative Aspekte...............................................................................................33 5 Methodik ........................................................................................................................34 5.1 Gebiets- und Flächenauswahl.............................................................................34 5.2 Vegetationskartierung..........................................................................................38 5.3 Zoologische Methoden und Untersuchungsdesign ..........................................38 5.4 Indikatorfunktion der Zeigergruppen im Grünland ...........................................44 5.4.1 Laufkäfer.............................................................................................................44 5.4.2 Spinnen...............................................................................................................44 5.4.3 Wanzen...............................................................................................................45 5.4.4 Zikaden...............................................................................................................47 5.4.5 Anhang IV-Arten der FFH-Richtlinie ...................................................................49 5.5 Naturschutzfachliche Bewertungsparameter ....................................................50 5.5.1 Laufkäfer.............................................................................................................50 5.5.2 Spinnen...............................................................................................................50 5.5.3 Wanzen...............................................................................................................51 5.5.4 Zikaden...............................................................................................................53 5.5.5 Anhang IV-Arten der FFH-Richtlinie ...................................................................53 5.6 Biostatistische Auswerteverfahren.....................................................................54 5.6.1 Material...............................................................................................................54 5.6.2 Auswertung und statistische Analyse .................................................................54 5.7 Methodenkritik ......................................................................................................56 5.7.1 Allgemeines ........................................................................................................56 5.7.2 Freilanduntersuchung.........................................................................................57 5.7.3 Auswertung.........................................................................................................57 6 Untersuchungsflächen .................................................................................................58 6.1 Allgemeine Übersicht...........................................................................................58 6.2 Vegetationskartierung..........................................................................................63 3 T IERÖKOLOGISCHE B EWERTUNG VON WF-ROTFLÄCHEN 6.2.1 Überblick zu den Flächentypen ..........................................................................63 6.2.2 Biotoptypen-Verteilung .......................................................................................64 6.2.3 Rote Liste-Biotoptypen .......................................................................................65 6.2.4 Rote Liste-Pflanzenarten ....................................................................................65 6.2.5 Vergleichende Darstellung der Standortsparameter...........................................65 6.2.6 Ranking aller Flächen nach der Pflanzendiversität.............................................67 7 Ergebnisse und Diskussion .........................................................................................69 7.1 Sektorale Ergebnisse ...........................................................................................69 7.1.1 Laufkäfer.............................................................................................................69 7.1.2 Spinnen.............................................................................................................106 7.1.3 Wanzen.............................................................................................................151 7.1.4 Zikaden.............................................................................................................191 7.1.5 Anhang IV-Arten der FFH-Richtlinie .................................................................222 7.2 Tierökologische Gesamt-Bewertung ................................................................230 7.2.1 WF- und Nicht-WF-Flächen im Vergleich .........................................................230 7.2.2 Vergleich der Flächentypen ..............................................................................232 8 Schlussfolgerungen und Ausblick ............................................................................233 9 Literatur........................................................................................................................235 10 Anhang
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Anisodactylus Binotatus Fabr., a Carabid Beetle New to New Zealand, and a Review of the Exotic Carabid Fauna
    Pacific Insects 5 (4) : 837-847 December 30, 1963 ANISODACTYLUS BINOTATUS FABR., A CARABID BEETLE NEW TO NEW ZEALAND, AND A REVIEW OF THE EXOTIC CARABID FAUNA By R. L. C. Pilgrim DEPT, OF ZOOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF CANTERBURY, NEW ZEALAND Abstract: Anisodactylus binotatus Fabr. 1787 (Col.: Carabidae), an introduced species now established in Canterbury (South Island), New Zealand, is reported for the first time. The literature respecting other carabids sometimes recorded as introduced is reviewed; Ago- nochila binotata (White, 1846), Agonum submetallicum (White, 1846), Hypharpax australasiae (Dejean, 1829) and Pentagonica vittipennis Chaudoir, 1877 are shown to be better considered as endemic to the Australia - New Zealand area. Other species are classed as either native to New Zealand, clearly introduced though not all established, or of doubtful occurrence in New Zealand. Introduction: The Carabidae of New Zealand are predominantly endemic species, but a small number of exotic species has been recorded. This paper reports a further introduc­ tion to the carabid fauna of this country and concludes with a survey of recorded exotic Carabidae in New Zealand. Specimens of the newly-recorded species were collected in domestic gardens in Christ­ church, and were included in a collection sent for identification to Dr. E. B. Britton, British Museum (Nat. Hist.), who kindly drew the writer's attention to the fact that they were so far unreported from New Zealand. Description of adult (from New Zealand specimens) Fig. 1. Anisodactylus binotatus Fabricius, 1787 Color: Head, pronotum, elytra and femora black; tibiae and tarsi light brown to red- black ; palps and antennal segments 1-2 brown, remainder of antennae black; leg spines red-brown; head with small red spot on frons between eyes.
    [Show full text]
  • Arthropod Diversity and Conservation in Old-Growth Northwest Forests'
    AMER. ZOOL., 33:578-587 (1993) Arthropod Diversity and Conservation in Old-Growth mon et al., 1990; Hz Northwest Forests complex litter layer 1973; Lattin, 1990; JOHN D. LATTIN and other features Systematic Entomology Laboratory, Department of Entomology, Oregon State University, tural diversity of th Corvallis, Oregon 97331-2907 is reflected by the 14 found there (Lawtt SYNOPSIS. Old-growth forests of the Pacific Northwest extend along the 1990; Parsons et a. e coastal region from southern Alaska to northern California and are com- While these old posed largely of conifer rather than hardwood tree species. Many of these ity over time and trees achieve great age (500-1,000 yr). Natural succession that follows product of sever: forest stand destruction normally takes over 100 years to reach the young through successioi mature forest stage. This succession may continue on into old-growth for (Lattin, 1990). Fire centuries. The changing structural complexity of the forest over time, and diseases, are combined with the many different plant species that characterize succes- bances. The prolot sion, results in an array of arthropod habitats. It is estimated that 6,000 a continually char arthropod species may be found in such forests—over 3,400 different ments and habitat species are known from a single 6,400 ha site in Oregon. Our knowledge (Southwood, 1977 of these species is still rudimentary and much additional work is needed Lawton, 1983). throughout this vast region. Many of these species play critical roles in arthropods have lx the dynamics of forest ecosystems. They are important in nutrient cycling, old-growth site, tt as herbivores, as natural predators and parasites of other arthropod spe- mental Forest (HJ cies.
    [Show full text]
  • IOBC/WPRS Working Group “Integrated Plant Protection in Fruit
    IOBC/WPRS Working Group “Integrated Plant Protection in Fruit Crops” Subgroup “Soft Fruits” Proceedings of Workshop on Integrated Soft Fruit Production East Malling (United Kingdom) 24-27 September 2007 Editors Ch. Linder & J.V. Cross IOBC/WPRS Bulletin Bulletin OILB/SROP Vol. 39, 2008 The content of the contributions is in the responsibility of the authors The IOBC/WPRS Bulletin is published by the International Organization for Biological and Integrated Control of Noxious Animals and Plants, West Palearctic Regional Section (IOBC/WPRS) Le Bulletin OILB/SROP est publié par l‘Organisation Internationale de Lutte Biologique et Intégrée contre les Animaux et les Plantes Nuisibles, section Regionale Ouest Paléarctique (OILB/SROP) Copyright: IOBC/WPRS 2008 The Publication Commission of the IOBC/WPRS: Horst Bathon Luc Tirry Julius Kuehn Institute (JKI), Federal University of Gent Research Centre for Cultivated Plants Laboratory of Agrozoology Institute for Biological Control Department of Crop Protection Heinrichstr. 243 Coupure Links 653 D-64287 Darmstadt (Germany) B-9000 Gent (Belgium) Tel +49 6151 407-225, Fax +49 6151 407-290 Tel +32-9-2646152, Fax +32-9-2646239 e-mail: [email protected] e-mail: [email protected] Address General Secretariat: Dr. Philippe C. Nicot INRA – Unité de Pathologie Végétale Domaine St Maurice - B.P. 94 F-84143 Montfavet Cedex (France) ISBN 978-92-9067-213-5 http://www.iobc-wprs.org Integrated Plant Protection in Soft Fruits IOBC/wprs Bulletin 39, 2008 Contents Development of semiochemical attractants, lures and traps for raspberry beetle, Byturus tomentosus at SCRI; from fundamental chemical ecology to testing IPM tools with growers.
    [Show full text]
  • Habitat Fragmentation & Infrastructure
    .0-3*/$ Habitat fragmentation & infrastructure Proceedings of the international conference "Habitat fragmentation, infrastructure and the role of ecological engineering" 17-21 September 1995 Maastricht - The Hague The Netherlands B I D O C >j•'-'MM*' (bibliotheek en documentatie) Dienst Weg- en Waterbouwkunde Postbus 5044, 2600 CA DELFT V Tel. 015-2518 363/364 2 6 OKT. 1998 Kfefc Colofon Proceedings Habitat Fragmentation & Infrastructure is published by: Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management Directorate-General for Public Works and Water Management Road and Hydraulic Engineering Division (DWW) P.O. Box 5044 NL-2600GA Delft The Netherlands tel: +31 15 2699111 Editorial team: Kees Canters, Annette Piepers, Dineke Hendriks-Heersma Publication date: July 1997 Layout and production: NIVO Drukkerij & DTP service, Delft DWW publication: P-DWW-97-046 ISBN 90-369-3727-2 The International Advisory Board: Kees Canters - Leiden University, the Netherlands, editor in chief Ruud Cuperus - Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management, the Netherlands Philip James - University of Salford, United Kingdom Rob Jongman - European Centre for Nature Conservation, the Netherlands Keith Kirby - English Nature, United Kingdom Kenneth Kumenius - Metsatahti, Environmental Consultants, Finland lan Marshall - Cheshire County Council, United Kingdom Annette Piepers - Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management, the Netherlands, project leader Geesje Veenbaas - Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management, the Netherlands Hans de Vries - Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management, the Netherlands Dineke Hendriks-Heersma - Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management, the Netherlands, coördinator proceedings Habitat fragmentation & infrastructure - proceedings Contents Preface 9 Hein D. van Bohemen Introduction 13 Kees J.
    [Show full text]
  • Annotated Checklist of the Plant Bug Tribe Mirini (Heteroptera: Miridae: Mirinae) Recorded on the Korean Peninsula, with Descriptions of Three New Species
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENTOMOLOGYENTOMOLOGY ISSN (online): 1802-8829 Eur. J. Entomol. 115: 467–492, 2018 http://www.eje.cz doi: 10.14411/eje.2018.048 ORIGINAL ARTICLE Annotated checklist of the plant bug tribe Mirini (Heteroptera: Miridae: Mirinae) recorded on the Korean Peninsula, with descriptions of three new species MINSUK OH 1, 2, TOMOHIDE YASUNAGA3, RAM KESHARI DUWAL4 and SEUNGHWAN LEE 1, 2, * 1 Laboratory of Insect Biosystematics, Department of Agricultural Biotechnology, Seoul National University, Seoul 08826, Korea; e-mail: [email protected] 2 Research Institute of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Seoul National University, Korea; e-mail: [email protected] 3 Research Associate, Division of Invertebrate Zoology, American Museum of Natural History, New York, NY 10024, USA; e-mail: [email protected] 4 Visiting Scientists, Agriculture and Agri-food Canada, 960 Carling Avenue, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A, 0C6, Canada; e-mail: [email protected] Key words. Heteroptera, Miridae, Mirinae, Mirini, checklist, key, new species, new record, Korean Peninsula Abstract. An annotated checklist of the tribe Mirini (Miridae: Mirinae) recorded on the Korean peninsula is presented. A total of 113 species, including newly described and newly recorded species are recognized. Three new species, Apolygus hwasoonanus Oh, Yasunaga & Lee, sp. n., A. seonheulensis Oh, Yasunaga & Lee, sp. n. and Stenotus penniseticola Oh, Yasunaga & Lee, sp. n., are described. Eight species, Apolygus adustus (Jakovlev, 1876), Charagochilus (Charagochilus) longicornis Reuter, 1885, C. (C.) pallidicollis Zheng, 1990, Pinalitopsis rhodopotnia Yasunaga, Schwartz & Chérot, 2002, Philostephanus tibialis (Lu & Zheng, 1998), Rhabdomiris striatellus (Fabricius, 1794), Yamatolygus insulanus Yasunaga, 1992 and Y. pilosus Yasunaga, 1992 are re- ported for the fi rst time from the Korean peninsula.
    [Show full text]
  • Interaktívna Konferencia Mladých Vedcov 2012
    INTERAKTÍVNA KONFERENCIA MLADÝCH VEDCOV 2012 ZBORNÍK ABSTRAKTOV ISBN 978-80-970712-3-3 Titulná strana: „vedecké fantázie“ Hanka Jašová − kresba olejovým tvrdým pastelom Giocondy Usporiadajúca organizácia Občianske združenie PREVEDA Editoriál Ing. Miroslav Ferko, PhD. Ústav pre výskum srdca, SAV Ing. Pavol Farkaš, PhD. Chemický ústav, SAV Odborní garanti Prof. RNDr. Silvia Pastoreková, DrSc. Virologický ústav, SAV Doc. Ing. Daniela Šmogrovičová, PhD. Ústav biotechnológie a potravinárstva, FCHPT, STU Doc. RNDr. Jozef Marák, CSc. Katedra Analytickej Chémie, Prírodovedecká Fakulta, UK Doc. Ing. Ján Světlík, CSc. Katedra farmaceutickej analýzy a nukleárnej farmácie, Farmaceutická fakulta UK Doc. Ing. Ladislav Welward, PhD. Externý gestor, Katedra environmentálneho inžinierstva, TU Zvolen Doc. RNDr. Iveta Waczulíková, PhD. Katedra jadrovej fyziky a biofyziky, FMFI, UK Recenzenti a moderátori konferencie Ing. Zuzana Brnoliaková, PhD. Ústav experimentálnej farmakológie a toxikológie, SAV Ing. Ján Tkáč, DrSc. Chemický ústav, SAV MUDr. Vladimír Šišovský, PhD. Ústav patologickej anatómie, Lekárska fakulta UK, Univerzitná nemocnica Bratislava Ing. Vladimír Mastihuba, PhD. Chemický ústav, SAV Mgr. Pavol Kenderessy, PhD. Ústav krajinnej ekológie, SAV Ing. Zdena Sulová, CSc. Ústav molekulárnej fyziológie a genetiky, SAV RNDr. Zita Izakovičová, PhD. Ústav krajinnej ekológie Ing. Jaroslav Katrlík, PhD. Chemický ústav, SAV Občianske združenie PREVEDA OZ Preveda vzniklo spojením ľudí, ktorí majú snahu podieľať sa na vytváraní alternatívnych možností v oblasti
    [Show full text]
  • Coleoptera: Carabidae) in a Norway Spruce Forest
    Bulletin of the Transilvania University of Braşov Series II: Forestry • Wood Industry • Agricultural Food Engineering • Vol. 9 (58) No.1 - 2016 IMPACT OF CLEARCUTTING ON GROUND BEETLES (COLEOPTERA: CARABIDAE) IN A NORWAY SPRUCE FOREST Jozef MACKO1 Abstract: The research was conducted in Veľká Fatra Mountains, Slovakia. Pitfall traps were installed in the forest and in the glade. Overall, 20 species of beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) were recorded. In the forest, 1532 individuals belonging to 13 species were recorded. Trechus pulpani had the highest abundance in the forest and represents almost half of all individuals. Paradoxically, on the glade, the numbers of species slightly increased, but their abundance was significantly lower. We recorded only 143 individuals belonging to 16 species. Of the forest species, only Carabus violaceus and Pterostichus unctulatus retained a dominant position, but their abundance has decreased by more than 70%. Key words: Carabidae, clear cut, seasonal dynamics. 1. Introduction ground layer from sunlight and, to some extent, from microclimatic alterations and Clear-cutting represents the method of changes in the bottom- and field-layer wood logging in which most of the wood is vegetation. However, the sheltering removed and taken away. Removing the efficiency depends on the number of trees wood causes the decline of microclimate retained, as indicated by the relationship conditions, significant damages of the between generalist Carabid and tree herbaceous cover, and also destructs the density [11]. Many of the environmental surface of soil in which the beetles live and factors are multifaceted and interlinked in hide [3]. The forest stands are defining the overall structural complexity characterized by a relatively high and of insect habitats [13], [18], [15].
    [Show full text]
  • Ruzickova 2014
    Univerzita Palackého v Olomouci Přírodov ědecká fakulta Katedra zoologie a ornitologická laborato ř Bc. Jana R ůži čková Porovnání vlivu AEO "úhor" a "neošet řovaný pás" na carabidofaunu polí Diplomová práce v oboru Zoologie Vedoucí práce: RNDr. Milan Veselý, Ph.D. Olomouc 2014 Prohlášení Prohlašuji, že jsem diplomovou práci vypracovala samostatn ě pod vedením RNDr. Milana Veselého, Ph.D. a všechny citované zdroje uvádím v seznamu literatury. V Olomouci 30. dubna 2014 ………………………… podpis Pod ěkování V prvé řad ě bych cht ěla pod ěkovat RNDr. Milanovi Veselému, PhD. za vedení práce, kritický pohled a cenné rady. M ůj obrovský dík pat ří taktéž RNDr. Ivanu H. Tufovi, PhD. a Mgr. Honzovi Šipošovi za pomoc se statistickou analýzou. Nesmím opomenout ani všechny sb ěratele dat, svoji rodinu a „kolíky“, bez kterých by se mi pracovalo jen velmi ztuha. A nakonec d ěkuji pardan ům za podporu ve chvílích nejtemn ějších a dugong ům za to, že jsou ozdobou naší planety. Růži čková, J. (2014): Porovnání vlivu AEO "úhor" a "neošet řovaný pás" na carabidofaunu polí. Sou časná zem ědělská politika Evropské unie podporuje opat ření na zvýšení biodiverzity a heterogenity agroekosystém ů. Cílem této práce bylo reáln ě zhodnotit smysluplnost dvou agroenvironmentálních opat ření (úhoru a chemicky neošet řeného pásu plodiny) na st řevlíkovité brouky v polích. Výzkum probíhal b ěhem let 2009 – 2011 na polích na Znojemsku, Královéhradecku a Vyškovsku. Pomocí padacích zemních pastí umíst ěných ve čty řech liniích v různých vzdálenostech od opat ření bylo celkov ě uloveno 58 805 jedinc ů st řevlíkovitých v 99 druzích. Druhová bohatost a po četnost spole čenstva byla nejvyšší v opatření (bez ohledu na typ) a klesala sm ěrem do pole.
    [Show full text]
  • Crop Pollination
    Habitat management and ecological infrastructures -S. Magagnoli, F. Sgolastra & G. Burgio ( University of Bologna, Italy) This project was funded with the support of the European Commission. This publication is binding only on its author and the Commission is not responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein. “No other activity has transformed humanity, and the Earth, as much as agriculture, but Production the environmental effects of high- intensity farming increasingly haunt us”. (Tilman, 1998) Fertilizers Pesticides • Diversified landscapes hold most potential for the conservation of functional biodiversity. • Agriculture intensification can cause a steep drop in biodiversity or alternatively a linear relationship. • Habitat fragmentation and loss of natural areas are the major causes for biodiversity loss. High habitat fragmentation 1. Higher competition among species; 2. Difficulty in moving animals; 3. Simplification of genetic diversity; 4. Edge effect. First step for conservation and valorization of biodiversity: ecological infrastructures Hedgerows Rotational fallows Beetle banks Poor grasslands Agro-ecological service crops Wildflower strips Pro and cons of ecological infrastructures • Pro ✓Increase vegetational complexity; ✓Positive impact on natural enemies by providing food and shelters; ✓Overwintering and reproductive sites for beneficials; ✓Positive impact on soil biota; ✓Prevent soil erosion; ✓In some cases act as wind breaker. • Cons ✓Costs of management; ✓Disservices Scale of application of interventions Landscape scale Farm Global benefits Spatial Field Ecological infrastructures 1) Example in practice • Anthocorids (Anthocoris nemoralis) are effective biocontrol agents of (Simon et al., 1998) the pest Cacopsylla piry; (Souliotis & Moschos, 2008) • Density and distribution of anthocorids are strictly related with the presence of ecological infrastructures (judas trees, elm tree); • Ecological infrastructures provide alternative preys and refugees for natural enemies.
    [Show full text]
  • The Distribution, Habitat, and the Nature Conservation Value of a Natura 2000 Beetle, Carabus Hungaricus Fabricius, 1792 in Hungary
    L. Penev, T. Erwin, T. Assmann (eds) 2008 BACK TO THE ROOTS OR BACK TO THE FUTURE . TOWARDS A NEW SYNTHESIS AMONGST TAXONOMIC , ECOLOGICAL AND BIOGEOGRAPHICAL APPORACHES IN CARABIDOLOGY . Proceedings of the XIII European Carabidologists Meeting, Blagoevgrad, August 20-24, 2007, pp. 363-372 @ Pensoft Publishers Sofia-Moscow The distribution, habitat, and the nature conservation value of a Natura 2000 beetle, Carabus hungaricus Fabricius, 1792 in Hungary Sándor Bérces 1, Gy őző Szél 2, Viktor Ködöböcz 3, Csaba Kutasi 4 1Duna-Ipoly National Park Directorate H-1021 Budapest, H űvösvölgyi út 52., e-mail: [email protected], 2 Hungarian Natural History Museum, H-1088 Budapest, Baross u. 13., 3Hortobágy National Park Directorate, H-4024 Debrecen, Sumen u. 2. 4Bakony Natural History Museum H-8420 Zirc, Rákóczi tér 3-5. SUMMARY Carabus hungaricus Fabricius, 1792 usually inhabits sandy grasslands and dolomitic grass-lands in Hungary. It is listed in the Habitat Directive and it is a characteristic species of the Pannonian biogeographic region. This paper summarizes all available data (literature data, personal communications, all available museum specimens, original research) on the current distribution of Carabus hungaricus in Hungary making use of GIS. The most numerous populations of this carabid beetle live in Pannonic sand steppe biotopes, the most vulnerable of the dolomitic grasslands. In Hungary, Carabus hungaricus is a vulnerable species according to the IUCN criteria. Known habitat types, habitat preferences, co- occurring ground beetle species, and endangering environmental factors are discussed. Keywords : Natura 2000, Carabus hungaricus , nature conservation, distribution, Hungary INTRODUCTION In the Pannonian biogeographical region, Carabus hungaricus Fabricius, 1792 is a species of community interest, whose conservation requires the designation of special areas of conservation.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ground Beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) of Three Horticultural Farms in Lombardy, Northern Italy ()
    Boll. Zool. agr. Bachic. 31 dicembre 2007 Ser. II, 39 (3): 193-209 D. LUPI, M. COLOMBO, S. FACCHINI The ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) of three horticultural farms in Lombardy, Northern Italy () Abstract - Ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) were surveyed across three hor- ticultural farms, located in a peri-urban area, in the Po plain in Lombardy (Northern Italy) from April 2003 to March 2005. Their biodiversity was estimated using pitfall traps. A total of 29 genera and 39 species were collected. Notes on ants and spiders presence were also furnished. Land use seemed to have a significant effect on the number and composition of the species: catches were lower in the conventional farm and higher in biological farms. Apart from land use, all the species detected have already been recorded as frequent in agricultural fields and are characteristic of lowland agroecosystem in Northern Italy. Riassunto - I Coleotteri Carabidi di tre aziende orticole lombarde Si riferisce di un’indagine biennale (aprile 2003 - marzo 2005) effettuata sui Co- leotteri Carabidi di tre aziende orticole lombarde inserite in un contesto periurbano nella Pianura Padana. La biodiversità di tale famiglia è stata stimata utilizzando trappole a caduta. È stato catturato un totale di 39 specie afferenti a 29 generi. Vengono fornite indicazioni anche dei formicidi e ragni catturati nelle stesse trap- pole. La gestione aziendale sembra aver avuto un ruolo significativo sul numero e sulla composizione delle specie: le catture erano significativamente più basse nell’azienda convenzionale rispetto a quelle biologiche. Indipendentemente dalla gestione aziendale le specie catturate sono comunque comuni nei campi coltivati e caratteristiche degli agroecosistemi del nord Italia.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix O19749
    Oikos o19749 Gerisch, M., Agostinelli, V., Henle, K. and Dziock, F. 2011. More species, but all do the same: contrasting effects of flood disturbance on ground beetle functional and species diversity. – Oikos 121: 508–515. Appendix A1 Tabelle1 Table A1. Full species list representing the standardized number of individuals per species for the study sites Steckby, Woerlitz, and Sandau. Density expresses the proportion of species standardized abundances to total abundance. Macropterous = winged, brachypterous = wingless, dimorphic = both forms can appear with a species. Body size is the average of maximum and minimum values found in the literature (for references see below). Wing Reproduction Body size Species names Steckby Woerlitz Sandau Density Morphology Season In mm Acupalpus dubius 0.032 0 0.016 0 macropterous spring 2.6 Acupalpus exiguus 1.838 1.019 0.71 0.005 macropterous spring 2.7 Acupalpus parvulus 0.081 0.038 0.032 0 macropterous spring 3.6 Agonum dolens 0.032 0.038 0.081 0 dimorph spring 8.8 Agonum duftschmidi 14.966 2.755 0.016 0.025 macropterous spring 8.2 Agonum emarginatum 116.659 4.472 25.194 0.208 macropterous spring 7.2 Agonum fuliginosum 0.097 0.038 0 0 dimorph spring 6.7 Agonum lugens 0.177 0 0.081 0 macropterous spring 9 Agonum marginatum 0.371 0.075 0.113 0.001 macropterous spring 9.2 Agonum micans 19.502 4.208 23.71 0.067 macropterous spring 6.6 Agonum muelleri 0 0.019 0 0 macropterous spring 8.2 Agonum piceum 0.468 0 0.016 0.001 macropterous spring 6.4 Agonum sexpunctatum 0.032 0 0.016 0 macropterous spring 8.2 Agonum
    [Show full text]