Insect Conservation Developments in Central Europe

Chapter

Abstract

Central Europe is situated at the biogeographical crossroads between temperate West and East, between North and South. The character of insect fauna is derived from a long ecological-historical succession which has taken place during Holocene period – at least since the end of the last Pleistocene Ice Age (about 12,000 years B.P.). The Holocene ecological succession started from forest-tundra biomes to various forest types dependent on elevation, diverse geomorphology and postglacial migrations of biota (Firbas 1949; De Lattin 1957; Jeník and Price 1994; Schmitt 2009). During the relatively warmer Holocene postglacial periods only the open mountain ridges, montane glacials cirques and open waterlogged peatbogs and fens preserved non-forest “relict” arctic/subarctic/boreal and alpine insect populations in habitats other than closed forests. Local and scattered dry grassland biomes on rocky limestone or volcanic substrates provided refugia for penetrating xerothermic south-eastern and Mediterranean insect species (De Lattin 1957; Malicky et al. 1983) Both types of azonal locally distributed habitats represent very important paleorefugia (sensu Nekola 1999) for nature conservation projects, with values extending well beyond those for entomology alone. The paleorefugial habitats (biotopes) of dominant forested landscape are preserved in virgin forest conditions also in limited numbers of local places of recent central Europe: natural montane mixed forests, lowland deciduous /oak/ woods and several types of wetland forests. Human-induced impacts on the original postglacial biomes resulted in far-reaching alterations and fragmentation of most types of original ecosystems. For the original primary distribution of natural biomes and reconstruction of vegetation, several mapping projects for some central European countries are available (for example, Neuhäuslová 2001, with plant ecological bibliography) and provide habitat characteristics and basic introductions for investigations of insect communities. Most data are valid across the boundaries of the states and political units, and help to emphasise that the political frontiers of central Europe are not important for local biogeography, insect conservation policy and division of this chapter. The main points that follow apply across the region.

Keywords

Insect Community Central European Country Habitat Conservation Insect Fauna Insect Taxon 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgement

I thank Josef Jaroš for helpful suggestions and field cooperation. Tim New kindly revised the manuscript and improved my English.

References

  1. Aspöck H (2009) Entomofaunistics as a basic discipline for broad biological research exemplified on the Neuropterida of central Europe: a historical account. Commun Abstr SIEEC 21:7–8Google Scholar
  2. Barták M, Kubík J (eds) (2005) Diptera of Podyjí National Park and its environs. ČZU, PrahaGoogle Scholar
  3. Baumann E (1981) Erfolgreiche Wiedereinbürgerung von Zerynthia polyxena auf einem ehemaligen Weinberg am Stadtrand von Graz. Beih Veröff Naturschutz Landschaftspflege Bad-Württ 21:177–179Google Scholar
  4. Bergmann A (1951–1955) Die Gross-Schmetterlinge Mitteldeutschlands. Bd. 1–5. Urania-Verlag, JenaGoogle Scholar
  5. Bezděk A, Jaroš J, Spitzer K (2006) Spatial distribution of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) and moths (Lepidoptera) in the Mrtvý luh bog, Šumava Mts (Central Europe): a test of habitat island community. Biodivers Conserv 15:395–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blab J, Kudrna O (1982) Helfsprogramm für Schmetterlinge. Naturschutz aktuel 6:1–135Google Scholar
  7. Conrad KFR, Warren MS, Fox R, Parsons MS, Woiwod IP (2006) Rapid declines of common widespread British moths provide evidence of an insect biodiversity crisis. Biol Conserv 132:279–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dabrowski JS, Krzywicki M (1982) Extinct and endangered species of Lepidoptera of Polish fauna. Part 1. Papilionoidea, Hesperioidea, Zygaenoidea. Panstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukove, Warszawa (in Polish, English summary)Google Scholar
  9. De Lattin G (1957) Grundriss der Zoogeographie. G. Fischer Verlag, Jena/StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  10. Ebert G, Schmid G (eds) (1981) Biotop- und Artenschutz bei Schmetterlingen. Beih Veröff Naturschutz Landschaftspflege Bad-Würt 21:1–232Google Scholar
  11. Farkač J, Král D, Škorpík M (eds) (2005) Červený seznam ohrožených druhů České republiky. Bezobratlí. Red list of threatened species in the Czech Republic. Invertebrates. AOPK, Praha (In Czech and English)Google Scholar
  12. Firbas F (1949) Spät- und nacheiszeitliche Waldgeschichte Mitteleuropas nördlich der Alpen. Bd.1. Gustav Fischer Verlag, JenaGoogle Scholar
  13. Gepp J (ed) (1983) Rote Listen gefährter Tiere Österreichs. Bundesministerium für. Gesundheit und Umweltschutz, WienGoogle Scholar
  14. Gilg O (2004) Old-growth forests. Characteristics, conservation and monitoring, vol 74, Habitat and species management- technical report. Atelier technique des espaces naturelles, Montpellier, pp 1–96Google Scholar
  15. Hacker H, Müller J (2006) Die Schmetterlinge der bayerischnen Waldreservate. Beiträge zur bayerischnen Entomofaunistik Suplementband 1:5–272Google Scholar
  16. Hausmann A (2001) The geometrid moths of Europe, vol 1. Apollo Books, StenstrupGoogle Scholar
  17. Jeník J, Price MF (1994) Biosphere reserves on the crossroad of central Europe. (Man and biosphere project). Empara MAB, PrahaGoogle Scholar
  18. Kasy F (1981) Naturschutzgebiete in östlichen Österreich als Refugien bemerkenswerter Lepidopterenarten. Beih Veröff Naturschutz Landschaftspflege Bad-Würt 21:109–120Google Scholar
  19. Lepidopterologen-Arbeitsgruppe (1987) Tagfalter und ihre Lebensräume. Band 1. Schweiz Bund für Naturschutz. Fotorotar, BaselGoogle Scholar
  20. Lepidopterologen-Arbeitsgruppe (1997) Schmetterlinge und ihre Lebensräume Band 2. Schweiz Bund für Naturschutz. Fotorotar, BaselGoogle Scholar
  21. Lozan A, Spitzer K, Jaroš J (2009) Good parasitic wasps gone bad: a short review of two stories of the oceanic and habitat islands. Commun Abstr SIEEC 21:59–62Google Scholar
  22. Malicky H, Ant H, Aspöck H, De Jong R, Thaler K, Varga Z (1983) Argumente zur Existenz und Chorologie mitteleuropäischer (extramediterran-europäischer) Faunen-Elemente. Entomol Gen 9:101–119Google Scholar
  23. Moog O (ed) (1995) Fauna aquatica Austriaca (A comprehensive species inventory of Austrian aquatic organisms with ecological notes). Version 1995. Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  24. Nekola JC (1999) Paleorefugia and neorefugia: the influence of colonization history on community pattern and process. Ecology 80:2459–2473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Neuhäuslová Z (ed) (2001) Map of potential natural vegetation of the Czech Republic. Academia, PrahaGoogle Scholar
  26. New TR (1997) Butterfly conservation, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  27. Novák I, Havel L (2006) Atlas šumavských motýlů (Butterflies and moths of the Bohemian Forest Mts – Šumava). Karmášek, České Budějovice (In Czech)Google Scholar
  28. Novák I, Spitzer K (1982) Ohrožený svět hmyzu (Endangered world of insects). Academia, Praha (In Czech)Google Scholar
  29. Olejníček J, Spitzer K (1984) Hydrophorus signiferus Coquillett 1899 (Dolichopodidae, Diptera) recorded from the South Bohemian peat bogs. Sbor Jihočes Muz v Čes Budějovicích Přír Vědy 24:107–108Google Scholar
  30. Palik E (1981) The conditions of increasing menace for the existence of certain Lepidoptera of Poland. Beih Veröff Naturschutz Landschaftspflege Bad-Württ 21:31–33Google Scholar
  31. Pax F (1916) Die Tierwelt der deutschen Moore und ihre Gefährdung durch Meliorierungen Beitr. Naturdenkmal 5:236–248Google Scholar
  32. Pax F (1921) Die Tierwelt Schlesiens. Verlag von G. Fischer, JenaGoogle Scholar
  33. Pils G (1994) Die Wiesen Oberösterreichs. Forschungsinstitut für Umweltinformatik, LinzGoogle Scholar
  34. Rabitsch W, Essl F (eds) (2009) Endemiten. Kostbarkeiten in Österreichs Pflanzen- und Tierwelt. Naturwissenschaftlicher Verein für Kärnten, KlagenfurtGoogle Scholar
  35. Rejmánek M, Spitzer K (1982) Bionomic strategies and long-term fluctuations in abundance of Noctuidae (Lepidoptera). Acta Entomol Bohemoslov 79:81–96Google Scholar
  36. Schmitt T (2009) Mediterran, kontinental und arctoalpin: Die drei biogeographischen. Grundmuster Europas und des Mittelmeerraumes am Beispiel von Schmetterlingen. Entomologie heute 21:3–19Google Scholar
  37. Schtickzelle A, Menneche G, Baguette M (2006) Dispersal depression with habitat fragmentation in the Bog Fritillary butterfly. Ecology 87:1057–1065PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Settele J (1998) Metapopulationsanalyse auf Rasterdatenbasis. UFZ, B.G. Teubner, Verlagsgesellschaft, Stuttgart/LeipzigGoogle Scholar
  39. Settele J (2009) Insect conservation. Science 325(5936):41–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Škapec L (ed) (1992) Red book of the endangered and rare species of plants and animals of Czechoslovakia. Vol. 3 (Invertebrates). Priroda, Bratislava (In Czech and Slovak, English summary)Google Scholar
  41. Soldán T, Papáček M, Novák K, Zelený J (1996) The Šumava Mountains: a unique biocentre of aquatic insects (Ephemeroptera, Odonata, Plecoptera, Megaloptera, Trichoptera and Heteroptera-Nepomorpha). Silva Gabreta 1:179–186Google Scholar
  42. Soldán T, Zahrádková S, Helešic J, Dušek L, Landa V (1998) Distributional and quantitative patterns of Ephemeroptera and Plecoptera in the Czech Republic: a possibility of detection of long-term environmental changes of aquatic biotopes. Folia Fac Sci Nat Univ Masarykianae Brunensis, Biologia 98:1–305Google Scholar
  43. Southwood TRE (1977) Habitat, the templet for ecological strategies? J Anim Ecol 46:337–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Spitzer K, Danks HV (2006) Insect biodiversity of boreal peat bogs. Annu Rev Entomol 51:137–161PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Spitzer K, Jaroš J (2008) Long-term monitoring of moths populations (Lepidoptera) associated with a natural wetland forest: synthesis after 25 years. Terrest Arthropod Rev 1:155–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Spitzer K, Lepš J (1992) Bionomic strategies in Lepidoptera, risk of extinction and nature conservation projects. Nota lepid supplement 4:81–85Google Scholar
  47. Thomas JA, Simcox DJ, Clarke RT (2009) Successful conservation of a threatened Maculinea butterfly. Science 325(5936):80–84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tshikolovets V (2003) Butterflies of Eastern Europe, Urals and Caucasus. Konvoj, Brno/KyivGoogle Scholar
  49. Van Dyck H, Van Strien AJ, Maes D, Van Swaay CAM (2009) Declines in common, widespread butterflies in a landscape under intense human use. Conserv Biol 23:957–965PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Van Swaay CAM, Warren MS (1999) Red data book of European butterflies (Rhopalocera), vol 99, Nature and environment. Council of Europe Publishing, StrasbourgGoogle Scholar
  51. Wells SM, Pyle RM, Collins NM (1983) The IUCN invertebrate red data book. IUCN, GlandGoogle Scholar
  52. Wildermuth H, Gonseth Y, Maibach A (2005) Odonata – die Libellen der Schweiz, vol 12, Fauna Helvetica. CSCF/SEG, NeuchatelGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Biology Centre CASInstitute of EntomologyCeske BudejoviceCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations