Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Biologia




More options …
Volume 71, Issue 11

Issues

Comparison of Macroheterocera assemblages of four forests in the Bereg Plain (Hungary, Ukraine)

Szabolcs Szanyi / Antal Nagy
  • Institute of Plant Protection, Faculty of Agricultural and Food Sciences and Environment Management, University of Debrecen, Hungary
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Zoltán Varga
  • Department of Evolutionary Zoology, Faculty of Science and Technology, University of Debrecen, Hungary
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2016-12-25 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/biolog-2016-0154

Abstract

We compared the macro-moth assemblages of four forests from which one is extended on the Ukrainian and three on the Hungarian side of the Bereg lowland, and additionally one in the adjacent part of the Hungarian plain (NE of Carpathian Basin). The data were collected by light trapping during at least in five years in all sites. Numerous faunistically significant and/or rare species were recorded. The species composition, faunal types and ecological components were rather similar in all sites, dominated by widely distributed Euro-Siberian species but with considerable participation of Boreo-Continental and Holo-Mediterranean – West Asiatic species. Considering the ecological connections of the species, the largest part of the assemblage is composed by species of different types of deciduous forests (oak woods and hardwood gallery forests) but also with significant proportion of wetland components (marshy-boggy habitats and tall forb communities) and generalist species. The similarity of the species composition proved to be high in all dominant taxonomical groups (Geometridae, Erebidae and Noctuidae, including the most diverse subfamilies). Several species have high conservation significance.

This article offers supplementary material which is provided at the end of the article.

Keywords: night-active; macro-moths; hardwood forests; biogeography; ecological grouping; faunal similarity; light trapping

References

  • Baranyi B. (ed.). 2009. Kárpátalja [Transcarpathia – in Hungarian]. A Kárpát-medence régiói. Die Regionen des Karpaten-Beckens. Bd. 11: Karpaten-Ukraine. Dialóg Campus Kiadó, Pécs-Budapest, 541 pp. ISBN: 9789639899186Google Scholar

  • Boros Á.. 1964. A tőzegmoha és a tőzegmohás lápok Magyarországon [Sphagnum and peat bogs in Hungary]. Vasi Szemle 18 (1): 53–68Google Scholar

  • Deli T., Sümegi P. & Kiss J. 1997. Biogeographical characterisation of the Mollusc fauna on Szatmár-Bereg Plain, pp. 123–129. In: Tóth E. & Horváth R. (eds), Proceedings of the “Research Conservation, Management” Conference (Aggtelek) 1–5 May 1966, ANP Füzetek Aggtelek Vol. I., 500 pp.Google Scholar

  • Fekete G. & Varga Z. (eds). 2006. Magyarország tájainak növényzete és állatvilága [Vegetation and fauna of the landscapes in Hungary]. MTA Társadalomkutató Központ, Budapest, 460 pp.Google Scholar

  • Gálik K., Deli T. & Sólymos P. 2001. Comparative malacological investigations on the Kaszonyi Hill (NE Hungary). Malakológiai Tájékoztató 19: 81–88.Google Scholar

  • Hargitai Z. 1943. Adatok a beregi sík erdeinek ismeretéhez. Debreceni Szemle 17 (3): 64–67.Google Scholar

  • Kanarskyi Y., Geryak Y. & Lyashenko E. 2011. Ecogeographic structure of the moth fauna (Lepidoptera, Drepanoidea, Bombycoidea, Noctuoidea) in upper Tisa River basin and adjacent areas (Ukraine). Transylv. Rev. Syst. Ecol. Res. 11: “The Upper Tisa River Basin”, pp. 143–168.Google Scholar

  • Kormány Gy. 1976. Szabolcs-Szatmár megye éghajlata [The climate of the County Szabolcs-Szatmár]. Szabolcs-Szatmári Szemle 1: 32–40.Google Scholar

  • Ködöböcz V. & Magura T. 1999. Biogeographical connections of the carabid fauna (Coleoptera) of the Beregi-síkság to the Carpathians. Folia Entomol. Hung. 60: 195–203.Google Scholar

  • Magura T., Ködöböcz V., Tóthmérész B., Molnár T., Elek Z., Szilágyi G. & Hegyessy G. 1997. Carabid fauna of the Beregisíkság and its biogeographical relations (Coleoptera Carabidae). Folia Entomol. Hung. 58: 73–82.Google Scholar

  • Nagy A., Batiz Z. & Szanyi Sz. 2015. Orthoptera fauna of the Hungarian part of the Bereg Plain (Northeast Hungary). Buletin de Informare Entomologica 26: 64–80.Google Scholar

  • Podani J. 1997a. Bevezetés a többváltozós biológiai adatfeltárás rejtelmeibe avagy “Mit is kezdjünk azzal a rengeteg adattal?” [Introduction to the multivariate statistics of biological data]. Scientia, Budapest, 658 pp. ISBN: 963 8326 06 9Google Scholar

  • Podani J. 1997b. SYNTAX 5.1.: A new version of PC and Macinthosh computers. Coenoses 12 (2/3): 149–152.Google Scholar

  • Simon T. 1957. Az Északi-Alföld erdői [The forests of the Northern Lowland]. Akadémiai kiadó, Budapest, 172 pp.Google Scholar

  • Simon T. 1960. Die Vegetation der Moore in den Naturschutzgebieten des Nördlichen Alföld. Acta Bot. Acad. Sci. Hung. 6: 249–252.Google Scholar

  • Szanyi Sz 2015. Egy kárpátaljai erdőrezervátum jellemzése az éjjeli nagylepkefauna alapján [Characterisation of a Transcarpathian forest reserve based on night-active moths]. Acta Naturalia Pannonica 8: 91–110.Google Scholar

  • Szanyi Sz., Katona K., Rácz I., Varga Z. & Nagy A. 2015. Orthoptera fauna of the Ukrainian part of the Bereg Plain (Transcarpathia, Western Ukraine). Articulata 30 (1): 91–104.Google Scholar

  • Szanyi Sz. & Varga Z. 2014/15. Changes in butterfly assemblages of meadows in a Transcarpathian game reserve. Entomol. Roman. 19: 41–50.Google Scholar

  • Timm N. H. 2002. Applied Multivariate Analysis. Springer, New York, 695 pp. . ISBN: 978-0-387-95347-2CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Varga Z. 1995. Geographical Patterns of Biodiversity in the Palearctic and in the Carpathian Basin. Acta Zool. Acad. Sci. Hung. 41 (2): 71–92.Google Scholar

  • Varga Z. 2003. A Kárpát-medence állatföldrajza [The zoogeography of the Carpathian basin], pp. 89–119. In: Láng I., Bedő Z. & Csete L. (eds), Növény, állat, élőhely [Plants, Animals, Vegetation], Magyar Tudománytár III., MTA Társadalomkutató Központ, 590 pp. ISBN: 963-09-4359-X, 978-963-09-4359-8Google Scholar

  • Varga Z. (ed). 2012. Magyarország nagylepkéi – Macrolepidoptera of Hungary. Heterocera Press, Budapest, 253 pp. ISBN: 978-963-88014-5-6Google Scholar

  • Varga Z. & Gyulai I. 1978. Die Faunenelemente-Einteilung der Noctuiden Ungarns und die Verteilung der Faunenelemente in den Lokalfaunen. A magyarországi bagolylepkék faunaelembeosztása és az egyes faunaelemek megoszlása a helyi faunákban (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Acta Biol. Debrecina 15: 257–295.Google Scholar

  • Varga Z., Ronkay L., Bálint Zs., László M. Gy. & Peregovits L. 2004. A magyar állatvilág fajjegyzéke, 3. köt., Nagylepkék [Checklist of the fauna of Hungary. Vol. 3, Macrolepidoptera]. Hungarian Natural History Museum, Budapest, 106 pp. ISBN-10: 9637093885, ISBN-13: 978-9637093883Google Scholar

  • Zólyomi B. 1958. Budapest és környékének természetes növénytakarója [The natural vegetation of Budapest and its environment], pp. 511–642. In: Pécsi M. (ed.), Budapest földrajza [The geography of Budapest], Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest. 744 + 8 (map) pp.Google Scholar

About the article

Received: 2016-05-27

Accepted: 2016-10-15

Published Online: 2016-12-25

Published in Print: 2016-11-01


Citation Information: Biologia, Volume 71, Issue 11, Pages 1281–1291, ISSN (Online) 1336-9563, ISSN (Print) 0006-3088, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/biolog-2016-0154.

Export Citation

© 2016 Institute of Zoology, Slovak Academy of Sciences.Get Permission

Supplementary Article Materials

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in