5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Guidelines for the monitoring of Osmoderma eremita and closely related species

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Osmoderma eremita (Scopoli, 1763) is a saproxylic scarab beetle protected by the Habitats Directive in the European Union. The present paper is part of a special issue on monitoring of saproxylic beetles protected in Europe and starts with a revision of the current knowledge on systematics, ecology, ethology and conservation of O. eremita and its allied species, followed by experimental tests of different methods for monitoring its populations. Two methods were compared in several localities of central Italy: (1) the widely used pitfall traps into tree cavities and (2) black cross windows traps baited with a specific pheromone produced by male beetles. The first method, often used in northern and central Europe, did not give acceptable results in Italy probably because of the scarcity of veteran trees with large hollows. It could only be used successfully in areas where: 1) tree hollows were abundant, large enough and with sufficient amounts of wood mould for planting pitfall traps and 2) the team is composed of several operators in order to ensure the checking of at least 150 traps every two days during the whole period of mating activities (15 July–25 August). The second method, consisting of hanging 30 black cross window traps during the mating period and checking them every two days, turned out to be better for capturing a significant number of individuals but cannot be used every year because of the possible disturbance on mating activities of the species.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 60

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Editorial

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Family-group names in Coleoptera (Insecta)

            Abstract We synthesize data on all known extant and fossil Coleoptera family-group names for the first time. A catalogue of 4887 family-group names (124 fossil, 4763 extant) based on 4707 distinct genera in Coleoptera is given. A total of 4492 names are available, 183 of which are permanently invalid because they are based on a preoccupied or a suppressed type genus. Names are listed in a classification framework. We recognize as valid 24 superfamilies, 211 families, 541 subfamilies, 1663 tribes and 740 subtribes. For each name, the original spelling, author, year of publication, page number, correct stem and type genus are included. The original spelling and availability of each name were checked from primary literature. A list of necessary changes due to Priority and Homonymy problems, and actions taken, is given. Current usage of names was conserved, whenever possible, to promote stability of the classification. New synonymies (family-group names followed by genus-group names): Agronomina Gistel, 1848 syn. nov. of Amarina Zimmermann, 1832 (Carabidae), Hylepnigalioini Gistel, 1856 syn. nov. of Melandryini Leach, 1815 (Melandryidae), Polycystophoridae Gistel, 1856 syn. nov. of Malachiinae Fleming, 1821 (Melyridae), Sclerasteinae Gistel, 1856 syn. nov. of Ptilininae Shuckard, 1839 (Ptinidae), Phloeonomini Ádám, 2001 syn. nov. of Omaliini MacLeay, 1825 (Staphylinidae), Sepedophilini Ádám, 2001 syn. nov. of Tachyporini MacLeay, 1825 (Staphylinidae), Phibalini Gistel, 1856 syn. nov. of Cteniopodini Solier, 1835 (Tenebrionidae); Agronoma Gistel 1848 (type species Carabus familiaris Duftschmid, 1812, designated herein) syn. nov. of Amara Bonelli, 1810 (Carabidae), Hylepnigalio Gistel, 1856 (type species Chrysomela caraboides Linnaeus, 1760, by monotypy) syn. nov. of Melandrya Fabricius, 1801 (Melandryidae), Polycystophorus Gistel, 1856 (type species Cantharis aeneus Linnaeus, 1758, designated herein) syn. nov. of Malachius Fabricius, 1775 (Melyridae), Sclerastes Gistel, 1856 (type species Ptilinus costatus Gyllenhal, 1827, designated herein) syn. nov. of Ptilinus Geoffroy, 1762 (Ptinidae), Paniscus Gistel, 1848 (type species Scarabaeus fasciatus Linnaeus, 1758, designated herein) syn. nov. of Trichius Fabricius, 1775 (Scarabaeidae), Phibalus Gistel, 1856 (type species Chrysomela pubescens Linnaeus, 1758, by monotypy) syn. nov. of Omophlus Dejean, 1834 (Tenebrionidae). The following new replacement name is proposed: Gompeliina Bouchard, 2011 nom. nov. for Olotelina Báguena Corella, 1948 (Aderidae). Reversal of Precedence (Article 23.9) is used to conserve usage of the following names (family-group names followed by genus-group names): Perigonini Horn, 1881 nom. protectum over Trechicini Bates, 1873 nom. oblitum (Carabidae), Anisodactylina Lacordaire, 1854 nom. protectum over Eurytrichina LeConte, 1848 nom. oblitum (Carabidae), Smicronychini Seidlitz, 1891 nom. protectum over Desmorini LeConte, 1876 nom. oblitum (Curculionidae), Bagoinae Thomson, 1859 nom. protectum over Lyprinae Gistel 1848 nom. oblitum (Curculionidae), Aterpina Lacordaire, 1863 nom. protectum over Heliomenina Gistel, 1848 nom. oblitum (Curculionidae), Naupactini Gistel, 1848 nom. protectum over Iphiini Schönherr, 1823 nom. oblitum (Curculionidae), Cleonini Schönherr, 1826 nom. protectum over Geomorini Schönherr, 1823 nom. oblitum (Curculionidae), Magdalidini Pascoe, 1870 nom. protectum over Scardamyctini Gistel, 1848 nom. oblitum (Curculionidae), Agrypninae/-ini Candèze, 1857 nom. protecta over Adelocerinae/-ini Gistel, 1848 nom. oblita and Pangaurinae/-ini Gistel, 1856 nom. oblita (Elateridae), Prosternini Gistel, 1856 nom. protectum over Diacanthini Gistel, 1848 nom. oblitum (Elateridae), Calopodinae Costa, 1852 nom. protectum over Sparedrinae Gistel, 1848 nom. oblitum (Oedemeridae), Adesmiini Lacordaire, 1859 nom. protectum over Macropodini Agassiz, 1846 nom. oblitum (Tenebrionidae), Bolitophagini Kirby, 1837 nom. protectum over Eledonini Billberg, 1820 nom. oblitum (Tenebrionidae), Throscidae Laporte, 1840 nom. protectum over Stereolidae Rafinesque, 1815 nom. oblitum (Throscidae) and Lophocaterini Crowson, 1964 over Lycoptini Casey, 1890 nom. oblitum (Trogossitidae); Monotoma Herbst, 1799 nom. protectum over Monotoma Panzer, 1792 nom. oblitum (Monotomidae); Pediacus Shuckard, 1839 nom. protectum over Biophloeus Dejean, 1835 nom. oblitum (Cucujidae), Pachypus Dejean, 1821 nom. protectum over Pachypus Billberg, 1820 nom. oblitum (Scarabaeidae), Sparrmannia Laporte, 1840 nom. protectum over Leocaeta Dejean, 1833 nom. oblitum and Cephalotrichia Hope, 1837 nom. oblitum (Scarabaeidae).
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A framework for understanding ecological traps and an evaluation of existing evidence.

              When an animal settles preferentially in a habitat within which it does poorly relative to other available habitats, it is said to have been caught in an "ecological trap." Although the theoretical possibility that animals may be so trapped is widely recognized, the absence of a clear mechanistic understanding of what constitutes a trap means that much of the literature cited as support for the idea may be weak, at best. Here, we develop a conceptual model to explain how an ecological trap might work, outline the specific criteria that are necessary for demonstrating the existence of an ecological trap, and provide tools for researchers to use in detecting ecological traps. We then review the existing literature and summarize the state of empirical evidence for the existence of traps. Our conceptual model suggests that there are two basic kinds of ecological traps and three mechanisms by which traps may be created. To this point in time, there are still only a few solid empirical examples of ecological traps in the published literature (although those few examples suggest that both types of traps and all three of the predicted mechanisms do exist in nature). Therefore, ecological traps are either rare in nature, are difficult to detect, or both. An improved library of empirical studies will be essential if we are to develop a more synthetic understanding of the mechanisms that can trigger maladaptive behavior in general and the specific conditions under which ecological traps might occur.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Nature Conservation
                NC
                Pensoft Publishers
                1314-3301
                1314-6947
                August 28 2017
                August 28 2017
                : 20
                : 79-128
                Article
                10.3897/natureconservation.20.12658
                © 2017

                Comments

                Comment on this article