Advertisement

Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

, Volume 58, Issue 3, pp 305–316 | Cite as

New approach for habitat characterization based on species lists of aquatic and semiaquatic bugs

  • L. Hufnagel
  • G. Bakonyi
  • T. Vásárhelyi
Article

Abstract

A new approach is proposed for the environmental impact assessment of fresh waters. New indices and the cenological values of aquatic and semiaquatic bug (Hemiptera) species have been obtained through multivariate analysis based on the species list of 157 localities in Hungary. The 45 species involved in this study can be characterized by their preference for habitat types on a linear scale ranging from small, shallow waters to large, deep waters. The habitats themselves can be characterized by the added cenological values of the species found.

aquatic bug indicator value multivariate analysis semiaquatic bug 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bakonyi, G.: 1977, ‘Agrárökológiai vizsgálatok vízi élettérben, halkártevő Heteropterák alapján’ ('Ecological investigations in water habitats on the basis of Heteropteran pests of fishes'). (Manuscript, GATE, Gödöllő), pp. 145.Google Scholar
  2. Bakonyi, G. and Vásárhelyi, T.: 1981, ‘Contribution to the Heteroptera Fauna of the Hortobágy National Park’, in S. Mahunka (ed.), The Fauna of the Hortobágy National Park, I, Akadémiai Press, Budapest, pp. 55–63.Google Scholar
  3. Bakonyi, G. and Vásárhelyi, T.: 1987, ‘The Heteroptera fauna of the Kiskunsági National Park’, in S. Mahunka (ed.), The Fauna of the Kiskunság Natational Park II, Akadémiai Press, Budapest, pp. 85–106.Google Scholar
  4. Bakonyi, G. and Vásárhelyi, T.: 1993a, ‘Aquatic and semiaquatic bugs of the Bükk National Park (Heteroptera: Nepomorpha et Gerromorpha)’, in S. Mahunka (ed.), The Fauna of the Bükk National Park, MTM Press, Budapest, pp. 65–67.Google Scholar
  5. Bakonyi, G. and Vásárhelyi, T.: 1993b, ‘Szakértői tanulmány a Szigetköz akvatikus és szemiakvatikus poloskafaunájának vizsgálatáról az 1990–93 években’ ('Aquatic and semiaquatic bug fauna of the Szigetköz region between 1990 and 1993') (Manuscript).Google Scholar
  6. Bröring, U. and Niedringhaus, R.: 1988a, ‘Zur Ökologie aquatischer Heteropteren (Hemiptera: Nepomorpha) in Kleingewässern der ostfriesischen Insel Norderney’ Arch. Hydrobiol. 111, 559–574.Google Scholar
  7. Bröring, U. and Niedringhaus, R.: 1988b, ‘Die Verbreitung aquatischer und semiaquatischer Heteroptera (Hemiptera: Nepomorpha, Gerromorpha) auf küstennahen Düneninseln der Nordsee’ Abh. Naturw. Verein Bremen 41, 7–16.Google Scholar
  8. Dufrene, M. and Legendre, P.: 1997, ‘Species assamblages and indicator species: the need for a flexible asymmetrical approach’ Ecol. Monographs 67, 345–366.Google Scholar
  9. Eyre, M. D. and Foster, G. N.: 1989, ‘A comparison of aquatic Heteroptera and Coleoptera communities as a basis for environmental and conservation assessments in static water sites’ J. Appl. Ent. 108, 355–362.Google Scholar
  10. Halászfy, É.: 1953, ‘Bátorliget szipókás faunája – Rhynchota. ('Rhynchota Fauna of Bátorliget'), in V. Székessy (ed.), Fauna of Bátorliget, Akadémiai Press, Budapest, pp. 395–401.Google Scholar
  11. Herodek, S.: 1986, ‘Phytoplancton Changes During Eutrophication and P and N Metabolisms’, in L. Somlyódy and G. van Straten (eds.), Modeling and Managing Shallow Lake Eutrophication’, Springer Verl. Berlin, pp. 183–204.Google Scholar
  12. Hill, M. O.: 1979, ‘TWINSPAN: a fortran program for arraging multivariate data in an ordered twoway table by classification of the individuals and attributes’ Ecology and Systematics, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, U.S.A.Google Scholar
  13. Horváth, G.: 1923, ‘A Fertő-tónak és közvetlen környékének Hemiptera-faunája’ ('Hemiptera fauna of Lake Fertő') Annales Musei Nationalis Hungarici 20, 182–199.Google Scholar
  14. Horváth, G.: 1931, ‘A Balaton vízében és víztükrén élő hemipterák’ ('Aquatic and semiaquatic Hemiptera of Lake Balaton'), A Magyar Biol. Kut. Int. I. Osztályának munkáiból. 4, 1–5.Google Scholar
  15. Hufnagel, L.: 1994, ‘Adatok a Naplás tó és környéke élővilágához. III. A Naplást ó és környéke vízi és vízfelszini poloskafaunája’ ('Contributions to the flora and fauna of lake Naplás. III. Aquatic and semiaquatic bug fauna of Lake Naplás'), Calandrella 8, 94–102, (Debrecen).Google Scholar
  16. Macan, T. T.: 1938, ‘Evolution of aquatic habitats with special reference to the distribution of Corixidae’, J. Anim. Ecol. 7, 1–19.Google Scholar
  17. Macan, T. T.: 1954, ‘A contribution to the study of the ecology of Corixidae (Hemipt.).’ J. Anim. Ecol. 23, 115-141.Google Scholar
  18. Moldoványi, L.: 1977, ‘Adatok a Hortobágyi vizek poloskafaunájának ismeretéhez (Heteroptera)’, ('Contribution to the aquatic bug fauna of Hortobágy National Park'), Folia Entomologica Hungarica 30, 77–82.Google Scholar
  19. Moldoványi, L.: 1984, ‘Faunisztikai vizsgálatok a Rakaca tározó poloskáin (Heteroptera)’, ('Faunistical studies on water bug fauna of the storage-lake Rakaca'), Folia Entomologica Hungarica 45, 231–235.Google Scholar
  20. Moller-Andersen, N.: 1982, ‘The semiaquatic bugs’, Entomonograph 3, 1–455.Google Scholar
  21. Podani, J.: 1993a, ‘SYN-TAX Version 5.0 Users Guide’, Scientia, Budapest.Google Scholar
  22. Podani, J.: 1993b, ‘SYN-TAX. Computer programs for multivariate data analysis in ecology and systematics’, Abstracta Botanica 17, 289–302.Google Scholar
  23. Podani, J.: 1994, Multivariate Data Analysis in Ecology and Systematics, SPB Publishing, The Hague.Google Scholar
  24. Savage, A. A.: 1982, ‘Use of water boatmen (Corixidae) in the classification of lakes’, Biol. Conserv. 23, 55–70.Google Scholar
  25. Savage, A. A.: 1990, ‘The distribution of Corixidae in lakes and the ecological status of the North West Midland Meres’, Field Studies 7, 516–530.Google Scholar
  26. Savage, A. A.: 1994a, ‘The distribution of Corixidae in relation to the water quality of British lakes: a monitoring model’, Freshwater Forum 4, 32–61.Google Scholar
  27. Savage, A. A.: 1994b, ‘Corixidae and water quality’, Freshwater Forum 4, 214–216.Google Scholar
  28. Savage, A. A. and Pratt, M. M.: 1976, ‘Corixidae (water boatmen) of the Northwest Midland Meres’, Field Studies 4, 465–476.Google Scholar
  29. Sládecek, V. and Sládecková, A.: 1994, ‘Corixidae as indicators of organic pollution’, Freshwater Forum 4, 211–213.Google Scholar
  30. Spellerberg, I. F.: 1991, ‘Monitoring ecological change’, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  31. Vásárhelyi, T.: 1985, ‘A Barcsi borókás poloskafaunájának alapvetése (Heteroptera)’, ('Heteroptera fauna of the Barcs Natural Reserves') DunántÚli Dolgozatok Természettudományi sorozat 5, 101–104.Google Scholar
  32. Vásárhelyi, T.: 1989, ‘Microhabitat preference of the pondweed bug Mesovelia furcata (Heteroptera: Mesovelidae)’ Folia Entomologica Hungarica 50, 165–168.Google Scholar
  33. Vásárhelyi, T.: 1995, ‘A nádasok állatvilága’, ('Fauna of reed stands') Hungarian Natural History Museum, Budapest, 199 p.Google Scholar
  34. Vásárhelyi, T. and Bakonyi, G.: 1998, ‘Aquatic and semiaquatic bugs of the Lake Balaton (Heteroptera)’, Folia Entomologica Hungarica 49, 240–242.Google Scholar
  35. Vásárhelyi, T., Kondorossy, E. and Bakonyi, G.: 1990, ‘The Heteroptera Fauna of the Bátorliget Nature Reserves’, in S. Mahunka (ed.), The Bátorliget Nature Reserves – After Fifty Years’, pp. 347–355.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Zoosystematics and EcologyL. Eötvös UniversityBudapest, Puskin u. 3Hungary
  2. 2.Department of Zoology and EcologyGödöllő University of Agricultural SciencesGödöllő, Páter K. u. 1Hungary
  3. 3.Hungarian Natural History MuseumBudapest, Baross u. 13Hungary

Personalised recommendations