Patterns of distribution of the genus Carabus L. in Europe: approaches and preliminary results

  • L. D. Penev
  • H. Turin
Chapter
Part of the Series Entomologica book series (SENT, volume 51)

Summary

The factors determining species’ distributions and assemblage compositions can be divided into three main groups: regional, caused mostly by historical reasons, zonal, reflecting macroclimatic gradients, and local, determined by local ecological conditions. This paper aims to analyze the distribution of species and the variation of species assemblages at various spatial scales within the European continent, and summarizes some preliminary results of an extensive biogeographical project.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arnoldi, K.V. (1965) [The forest-steppe of the Russian plain: an attempt of zoogeographical and coenological characteristics on the basis of studies on insects] (In Russian). Trudy Tsentralno-chernozemnogo zapovovednika,7, 138–166.Google Scholar
  2. Baev, P.V., Penev, L.D. (1991) “BIODIV”, a program for calculating biological diversity parameters, similarity, niche overlap, and cluster analysis. Institute of Animal Evolutionary Morphology, Ecology, Moscow.Google Scholar
  3. Balleto, E., Casale, A. (1991) Mediterranean insect conservation. The conservation of insects and their habitats (eds M. Collins, J. Thomas ). Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
  4. Chernov, Yu.I. (1975) [The zonation of nature and the ter- restrial animals] (In Russian). Mysl, Moscow,1–222.Google Scholar
  5. De Lattin, G. (1967) Grundriss der Zoogeographie. Fischer Verlag, Jena.Google Scholar
  6. Eyre, M.D., Luff, M.L. (1990) A preliminary classification of European grassland habitats using carabid beetles. The Role of Ground Beetles in Ecological and Environmental Studies (ed N.E. Stork), pp. 227–236. Intercept, Andover.Google Scholar
  7. Golovatch, S.I. (1984) Distribution and faunogenesis of Diplopoda of the European part of the USSR (In Russian). Faunogenez and fzlotsenogenez (ed Yu.I. Chernov), pp. 92–138. Nauka, Moscow.Google Scholar
  8. Grigoryev, A.A. (1954) [The geographic zonation and some of its regularities] (In Russian). Izvestiya AN SSSR, seriya geograficheskikh nauk,5, 17–39, 6, 41–50.Google Scholar
  9. Hengeveld, R. (1987) Scales of variation: their distinction and ecological importance. Annales Zoologici Fennici, 24, 195202.Google Scholar
  10. Hengeveld, R. (1990) Dynamic biogeography. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1–249.Google Scholar
  11. Hill, M.O. (1979) “TWINSPAN”, a FORTRAN program for arranging multivariate data in an ordered two-way table by classification of individuals and attributes. Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.Google Scholar
  12. Holdhaus, K. (1954) Die Spuren der Eiszeit in der Tierwelt Europas. Abhandlungen der zoologisch-botanischen Geselschaft Wien XVIII, Innsbruck, 1–493, I—Lu.Google Scholar
  13. Penev, L.D. (1989) [Fauna and zonal distribution of click beetles (Coleoptera, Elateridae) of the Russian Plain] (In Russian, with Engl. summ.). Zoologicheskij zhurnal,68, 193–205.Google Scholar
  14. Penev, L.D. (1991) The distribution of the genus Carabus L. in East European reserves: local diversity in relation to climatic and habitat factors. Fourth European Congress of Entomology, XIII Internationales Symposium far Entomofaunistik Mitteleuropas, Gödölö, Abstract Volume, p. 171.Google Scholar
  15. Pesenko, Yu.A. (1982) [Principles and methods of quantitative analysis in faunistic investigations] (In Russian). Nauka, Moscow,1–287.Google Scholar
  16. Schmidt, V.M. (1976) On two trends in the development of the method of concrete floras (In Russian, with Engl. summ.). Botanicheskij zhurnal, 61, 1658–1669.Google Scholar
  17. Shelyag-Sosonko, Yu.R. (1980) On a concrete flora and the method of concrete floras (In Russian, with Engl. summ.). Botanicheskij zhurnal, 65, 791–774.Google Scholar
  18. Ter Braak, C.J.F. (1988) “CANOCO”, a FORTRAN program for canonical community ordination by partial, de-trended canonical correspondence analysis, principal components analysis and redundancy analysis (version 2.1.). ITI-TNO, Wageningen.Google Scholar
  19. Tolmachev, A.I. (1931) [On the methods of comparative floristic investigations. 1. On the term “flora” in the comparative floristics] (In Russian). Zhurnal Russkogo botanicheskogo obshchestva,16, 111–124.Google Scholar
  20. Turin, H., Alders, K., den Boer, P.J., van Essen, S., Heijerman, Th., Laane W., Penterman, E. (1991) Ecological characterization of carabid beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) in the Netherlands from thirty years of pitfall sampling. Tijdschrift voor Entomologie, 134, 279–304.Google Scholar
  21. Turin, H., A. Casale, O.L. Kryzhanovskij, K.V. Makarov, L.D. Penev (1993). Checklist and atlas of the genus Carabus Linnaeus in Europe (Coleoptera, Carabidae). Universal Book Services, Leiden: 1–79Google Scholar
  22. Wulf, E.E. (1944) [Historical geography of plants] Moscow-Leningrad, Izdatelstvo AN SSSR,1–545.Google Scholar
  23. Yurtsev, B.A. (1975) Some trends in the development of the concrete flora method (In Russian, with Engl. summ.). Botanicheskij zhurnal, 60, 69–83.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • L. D. Penev
    • 1
  • H. Turin
    • 3
  1. 1.Severtsov’s Institute of Animal Evolutionary Morphology & EcologyMoscowRussia
  2. 2.SofiaBulgaria
  3. 3.National Museum of Natural HistoryLeidenNetherlands
  4. 4.RenkumThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations