aquatic beetles (coleoptera: adephaga, hydrophiloidea, … · 2019. 9. 7. · pennis, cercyon...

A N N A L E SU N I V E R S I T A T I S M A R I A E C U R I E - S K Ł O D O W S K A

L U B L I N – P O L O N I AVOL. LXIV,1 SECTIO C 2009

Aquatic beetles (Coleoptera: Adephaga, Hydrophiloidea, Staphylinoidea, Byrrhoidea) of the Polish part of the Roztocze Upland

1Department of Zoology, Maria Curie-Skłodowska University, Akademicka 19, 20-033 Lublin, Poland; [email protected]

2Department of Systematic Zoology, Faculty of Biology, Adam Mickiewicz University, Collegium Biologicum, Umultowska 89, 61-614 Poznań, Poland;

[email protected] 7/275, 20-843 Lublin, Poland; [email protected]

Chrząszcze wodne (Coleoptera: Adephaga, Hydrophiloidea, Staphylinoidea, Byrrhoidea) polskiej części Roztocza

PAWEŁ BUCZYŃSKI1, MAREK PRZEWOŹNY2, PRZEMYSŁAW ZIĘBA3

SUMMARY

The occurrence of aquatic beetles in the Roztocze Upland was researched, which is one of the most environmentally valuable areas of the south-east Poland. During 6 years (1999 and 2002–2005), at 126 sites 138 species were recorded, from which the most interesting were: Gy-rinus paykulli, Haliplus laminatus, H. sibiricus, Hydrovatus cuspidatus, Hydroporus fuscipennis, H. memnonius, Hydroporus scalesianus, Deronectes latus, Rhantus incognitus, Graphoderus biline-atus, Dytiscus circumflexus, Berosus signaticollis, Laccobius striatulus, Enochrus bicolor, E. fusci-pennis, Cercyon bifenestratus, C. granarius, Hydraena excisa and Dryops viennensis. The ecologi-cal analysis of the material was conducted and evaluated with regard to significance of Roztocze for protection of aquatic beetles and defining natural values of the region. It turned out that Roztocze is characterized by rich fauna, very well preserved in most habitats and this region has a great signifi-cance of keeping qualitative wealth, assemblages and particular species of beetles – in the range of the whole country and Eastern Europe.

STRESZCZENIE

Badano występowanie chrząszczy wodnych na Roztoczu, jednym z najcenniejszych przyrod-niczo obszarów Polski południowo-wschodniej. W ciągu 6 lat (1999 i 2002–2005) na 126 stanowi-skach wykazano 138 gatunków, z których najbardziej interesujące były: Gyrinus paykulli, Haliplus laminatus, H. sibiricus, Hydrovatus cuspidatus, Hydroporus fuscipennis, H. memnonius, Hydropo-

10.2478/v10067-010-0007-8

Unauthentifiziert | Heruntergeladen 07.09.19 00:39 UTC

rus scalesianus, Deronectes latus, Rhantus incognitus, Graphoderus bilineatus, Dytiscus circumfle-xus, Berosus signaticollis, Laccobius striatulus, Enochrus bicolor, E. fuscipennis, Cercyon bifene-stratus, C. granarius, Hydraena excisa i Dryops viennensis. Przeprowadzono analizę ekologiczną materiału oraz oceniono go pod kątem znaczenia Roztocza dla ochrony chrząszczy wodnych i okre-ślenia walorów przyrodniczych regionu. Okazało się, że Roztocze cechuje fauna bogata, bardzo do-brze zachowana w większości środowisk, i że ten region ma duże znaczenie dla zachowania bogac-twa jakościowego, zgrupowań i poszczególnych gatunków chrząszczy – w skali całego kraju i Eu-ropy Środkowo-Wschodniej.

K e y w o r d s: Coleoptera, aquatic beetles, Poland, Roztocze Upland, faunistics, ecology, as-semblage, evaluation, protection

INTRODUCTION

The literature on aquatic beetles of Poland is relatively rich, especially for most examined: Dytiscidae and Hydrophilidae. But one can sense shortage of complex studies showing in a wide aspect composition and functioning of local and regional faunas. Such analyses are particularly important to learn relations between beetles and their habitats; also they significantly increase knowledge of zoogeographic location of many species. In the last decades there occurred some number of such studies concerning the Polish lowland (3, 6, 15, 18, 26, 38, 44, 51); there is also a bit older study on the Karkonosze Mts. (4). It gives some, though still incomplete, picture of the situation in these areas. But still there is lack of such studies on highlands and uplands stretching through southern Poland, except for data from the Lublin Upland (16). The goal that authors had while starting the research, and whose results are presented in this work, was to carry out a detailed analysis of the coleopterofauna of Roztocze. This upland was regarded as a particularly rewarding subject of such studies and one of the most environmentally interesting regions of Poland – because of a good preservation state of environment and geographical location (zone borderland of upland valleys and highlands, on the way of migration fauna from the south-eastern Europe).

The data about aquatic beetles of Roztocze is rich enough. However, most of them come from the beginning of the 20th century: until today the main source of information has been Tenenbaum’s works (59, 60). Next, a bigger number of data have come with monographic studies of beetles of Poland (21, 22, 23, 28, 29) and further contributions (8, 10, 14, 40, 52). But these are faunistic and fragmentary works. There is still lack of full analysis: with taking into consideration all water habitats, assemblages of beetles settling them, their significance for keeping specific richness and for preservation of endangered species. The goal of the authors is exactly this kind of analysis.

Defining borders of Roztocze has been based on the most generally used, geographical regionalisation by Kondracki (37) – not on division into faunistic regions used in The Catalogue of Polish Fauna (21), which originally emerged as temporary and is very inaccurate and greatly differs from results of geographical research (Fig. 1).

STUDY AREA

Roztocze is an upland situated in south-eastern Poland and north-western Ukraine. It is a nar-row hump of creataceous rocks, partly with Miocene sandstones, with absolute heights to over 380 m above sea level and relative – to 60–80 m. The Polish part of Roztocze covers the area of about 2200 km2 and is divided into Roztocze: Western, Central and Eastern. Western Roztocze is si-tuated within loess cover, in the rest of mesoregions the area is covered by limestone and sand for-mations. The lay of the land is dominated by top parts of the uplands with monochromatic and flat

88 PAWEŁ BUCZYŃSKI, MAREK PRZEWOŹNY, PRZEMYSŁAW ZIĘBA


surfaces, made of cretaceous rocks; river valleys are filled with Tertiary sands. Roztocze is charac-terized by high woodiness. Forest complexes are thick and of a big degree of natural state. A sys-tem of surface waters in Roztocze belongs to very rare in Poland, which results from a considera-ble depth on which ground waters are situated: on top parts of uplands even to over 80 m. Therefore most surface waters are located in river valleys. There are numerous springs, whose waters are car-ried by streams and rivers forming basins: the Tanew, Wieprz and the Sołokija. Next to them there occur small water bodies, mostly being formed because of river overflows or infiltration of ground waters. In forests there are numerous peat bogs and local marshes. As for anthropogenic waters, the biggest area is occupied by fish ponds (20, 27, 37, 42). Locally small dam reservoirs and water bo-dies in sandpits are present.

Roztocze is characterized by one of the smallest average year states of the sky (64–66%). Aver-age year temperature is 6.9–7.6° C, average temperature in July: 17.0–17.7° C. A vegetative period lasts approximately 205–207 days. Average yearly rainfall reaches values from low to medium in the country scale, in various parts of the region is from 583 to 746 mm (20).

The following rivers are being monitored by the Provincial Inspectorate of Environment Protection in Lublin: the Wieprz, Biała Łada, Tanew, Sołokija and the Por. During conducting the research, apart from spring segments, they were classified in a general categorization to the 3rd category of cleanliness or unclassified waters (in an old scale covering categories I–III and unclassified waters). Declassing factors were mainly physiochemical (suspension, oxidization, phosphorus compounds) and bacteriological parameters. However, hydrobiological indicators were better generally since, except the Sołokija, they were included within II–III category (1, 19).

Figure 1. The boundaries of the Roztocze Upland: A – after the Catalogus faunae Poloniae, B – in the geographical division by Kondracki (2000)

AQUATIC BEETLES (COLEOPTERA: ADEPHAGA, HYDROPHILOIDEA, STAPHYLINOIDEA... 89


RESEARCH SITES

The material was collected from 126 sites, whose list is given below. There were distinguished sites located in national (N.P.) and landscape parks (L.P.): * The Roztoczański N.P.,# Szczebrzeszyński L.P., & L.P. of Solska Forest, X Krasno-brodzki L.P., ^ Southern-Roztocze L.P.

1. Wólka Batorska (UTM: FB03), meadow ditch; 2. Zagrody (FB11), river Biała Łada; 3. Zagrody (FB11), side spring of Biała Łada (limnocrene); 4. Zagrody (FB11) a small temporary water body on the edge of afforestation and meadows; 5. Goraj (FB11), fish ponds; 6. Goraj (FB11), r. Biała Łada; 7. Goraj (FB11), spring stream; 8. Stara Wieś (FB21), side spring of Biała Łada (limno-crene); 9. Stara Wieś (FB21), r. Biała Łada; 10. Żurawie (FB22), r. Por; 11. Podlesie Małe (FB22)#, spring (helocrene); 12. Podlesie Małe (FB22)#, fish pond; 13. Zaporze (FB22)#, r. Por; 14. Radecznica (FB22)#, r. Gorajec; 15. Stara Wieś (FB22)#, r. Gorajec; 16. Stara Wieś (FB22)#, meadow canal; 17. Czarnystok (FB31)#, r. Gorajec; 18. Czarnystok (FB31)#, ditch in the valley of Gorajec; 19. Ruś (FB20)#, r. Gorajec; 20. Ruś (FB20)#, stream with no name (tributary of Gorajec); 21. Ruś (FB20)#, a small temporary water body in alder swamp in the valley of Gorajec; 22. Ignatówka (FB20), water bodies in sandpit, 23. Panasówka (FB30)#, dystrophic water body W from the village; 24. Tereszpol Kukiełki (FB30)#, village pond; 25. Szczebrzeszyn (FB31)#, side spring of Wieprz (limnocrene); 26. Szczebrzeszyn (FB31)#, r. Wieprz; 27. Brody Małe (FB41)#, regulated meadow stream in the valley of Wieprz; 28. Brody Małe (FB41)#, r. Wieprz; 29. Brody Małe (FB41)#, oxbows of Wieprz; 30. Brody Małe (FB41)#, temporary water bodies in the valley of Wieprz; 31. Żurawnica (FB31)#, r. Wieprz; 32. Kosobudy (FB40)*, dystrophic water body; 33. Wywłoczka (FB30)#, side spring of Wieprz (limnocrene); 34. Zwierzyniec (FB30), r. Wieprz in the city park; 35. Zwierzyniec (FB30), a pond with church on water; 36. Zwierzyniec (FB30)*, spring near the Echo ponds; 37. Zwierzyniec (FB30)*, inforest canal supplying the Echo ponds; 38. Zwierzyniec (FB30)*, the Echo ponds; 39. Zwierzyniec (FB40), dystrophic water body in the range Płowe Lake; 40. Zwierzyniec Rudka (FB30), reservoir on Wieprz; 41. Zwierzyniec Rudka (FB30), r. Wieprz lower down the reservoir; 42. Obrocz (FB40)*, side spring of Wieprz (rheolimnocrene); 43. Obrocz (FB40)*, r. Wieprz; 44. Obrocz (FB40)*, temporary swamp in the valley of Wieprz; 45. Obrocz (FB40)*, alder swamp in the valley of Wieprz; 46. Roztoczański N.P. (FB40)*, r. Wieprz near Stokowa Góra; 47. Roztoczański N.P. (FB40)*, oxbow of Wieprz near Stokowa Góra; 48. Roztoczański N.P. (FB40)*, a filled with water fallen willow tree in marshy meadow near Stokowa Góra; 49. Bondyrz (FB40), r. Wieprz; 50. Bondyrz (FB40), oxbow of Wieprz; 51. Guciów (FB40), r. Wieprz; 52. Guciów (FB40), temporary meadow water body in the valley of Wieprz; 53. Roztoczański N.P. (FB40)*, canal flowing out of Czarny Staw (Black Pond); 54. Roztoczański



N.P. (FB40)*, Czarny Staw (Black Pond); 55. Roztoczański N.P. (FB40)*, peaty holes in the woods near Czarny Staw; 56. Roztoczański N.P. (FB40)*, r. Świerszcz above Czarny Staw; 57. Roztoczański N.P. (FB40)*, Florianecki Lake; 58. Roztoczański N.P. (FB40)*, protection ground Florianka, dept. 316, dystrophic reser-voir; 59. Roztoczański N.P. (FB40)*, protection ground Kruglik, swamps near old beaver lodges by the Wygoda road; 60. Majdan Kasztelański (FA49), r. Krupiec by the road to Górecko Kościelne; 61. Majdan Kasztelański (FA49), r. Szum by the road to Górecko Kościelne; 62. Majdan Kasztelański (FA49), pond near a mill; 63. Majdan Kasztelański (FA49), ditch in swamp forest; 64. Majdan Kasztelański (FA49), inforest peat bog S from the village; 65. Górniki Stare (FA49), stream in sandpit; 66. Górniki Stare (FA49), reservoirs in sandpit; 67. Józefów Roztoczański (FA49), r. Świerz by the Zwierzyniec-Józefów road; 68. Józefów Roztoczański (FA49), reservoir on Świerz near Senderka forester’s lodge, 69. Józefów Roztoczański (FA49), spring pond of Krupiec; 70. Józefów Roztoczański (FA49), Krupiec at spring; 71. Józefów Roztoczański (FA49), trickles by the Krupiec spring; 72. Górecko Stare (FA59), r. Szum; 73. Górecko Stare (FA59), a small pond by Szum; 74. Górecko Stare (FA59), a small water body in alder swamp in the valley of Szum; 75. Górecko Stare (FA59), dam reservoir on Szum below nature reserve “Szum”; 76. Tarnowola (FA49), dystrophic water body; 77. Tarnowola (FA49), alder swamp; 78. Tarnowola (FA49), ditch on the edge of peat bog; 79. Tarnowola (FA49), peat bog; 80. Morgi (FA49), range Jęzior, peaty dystrophic water body; 81. Morgi (FA49), Jęzior, fen; 82. Józefów (FA49), reservoir by springs of Niepryszka; 83. Józefów (FA49), water body in sandpit; 84. Długi Kąt (FA59), water bodies in sandpit; 85. Hamernia (FA59), peat bog SE from the village; 86. Nowiny (FA59), side spring of Sopot (limnocrene); 87. res. “Czartowe Pole” (FA59)&, r. Sopot above chutes; 88. res. “Czartowe Pole” (FA59)&, r. Sopot, zone with chutes; 89. Majdan Sopocki (FA59), r. Sopot above the reservoir; 90. Majdan Sopocki (FA59), reservoir on Sopot; 91. Ciotusza Nowa (FA59), stream with no name (tributary of Sopot); 92. Husiny (FA59)x, spring of Sopot (rheolimnocrene); 93. Husiny (FA59)x, Sopot 500 m from springs; 94. Namule (FB50)x, spring pond; 95. Hutki (FB50)x, fish pond; 96. Hutki (FB50)x, alder swamp by the Hutki-Krasnobród road; 97. Majdan Wielki (FB60), r. Wieprz; 98. Tarnawatka (FA69), inflow canal in the complex of fish ponds; 99. Tarnawatka (FA69), alder swamp near fish ponds; 100. Tarnawatka (FA69), the Pasternik pond; 101. Tarnawatka (FA69), swamp behind Pasternik; 102. Tarnawatka Tartak (FA79), r. Wieprz; 103. Dąbrowa Tarnawacka (FA79), Uroczysko Dąbrowa, dystrophic water body; 104. Dąbrowa Tarnawacka (FA79), Uroczysko Dąbrowa, outlet from dystrophic water body; 105. Dąbrowa Tarnawacka (FA79), Uroczysko Dąbrowa, ruts on a forest path; 106. Dąbrowa Tomaszowska (FA79), alder swamp; 107. Wieprzów Ordynacki (FA79), for many years not restocked ponds and bordering small temporary water bodies (spring reservoirs of Wieprz); 108. Susiec (FA58)&,



Morskie Oko (spring pond of Łosiniecki stream); 109. Susiec (FA58)&, stream Jeleń; 110. Wólka Łosiniecka (FA68), r. Olszanka; 111. Kunki (FA59)x, peat bog; 112. Kunki (FA59)x, water body on fen; 113. Zawadki (FA69), spring of stream with no name (tributary of Olszanka); 114. Zawadki (FA69), stream with no name (tributary of Olszanka); 115. Wioska (FA59), village pond; 116. Rebizanty (FA58)&, r. Tanew in res. “Nad Tanwią” (“Szumy”); 117. Huta Szumy (FA58)&, r. Tanew; 118. Huta Szumy (FA58)&, a small reservoir with Sphagnum in the valley of Tanew; 119. Żyłka, ponds in ecological farmland “Leliszka”; 120. Lipsko (FA68), stream (tributary of Tanew); 121. Lipsko (FA68), r. Tanew; 122. Lipsko (FA68), dam of stream in alder swamp (tributary of Tanew); 123. Dębiny (FA67)^, spring of Tanew (rheolimnocrene); 124. Dębiny (FA67)^, temporary forest swamp; 125. Dębiny (FA67)^, peat bog; 126. Huta Złomy (FA67)^, peat bog (range Kobyle Jezioro).

According to The Catalogue of Polish Fauna (Burakowski et al. 1976), research sites are situated in the area of: The Lublin Upland (1–5), Roztocze (6–119), the Sandomierz Lowland (120–126).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The material was collected in the years: 1999 (part of peat bogs) and 2002–2005 (systematic research of all environments). The main method was catching imagines with a hydrobiological scoop; about 500 samples were collected. From scoop samples were gained the easiest to determine larvae Dytiscus spp. and Cybister lateralimarginalis. Sporadically there were also used: bottle traps with bait (lyophilized commercial feed for cats) (20 samples), light traps (10 samples) and collecting beetles from singled out ones situated on stones and wood in water.

6,284 imagines were collected (6,133 with hydrobiological scoop, 4 – with “hand picking” me-thod, 147 with light traps, 172 with bottle traps) and 20 larvae (all with scoop). Evidence collection and research documentation are located in authors’ collections.

Division of beetles into ecological elements was accepted in accordance with Przewoźny et al. (51), and of unclassified species in this study – on the basis of monographic analyses of coleoptero-fauna of Poland (28, 29, 65) and results of own studies.

In the faunistic-ecological analysis of the material there were used factors of: dominance, fre-quency, qualitative similarity of Jaccard, Biesiadka’s formula of quantitative similarity (5). Divi-sion of species with regard to values of dominance indicator has been accepted according to Tro-jan (63).

In sozological analyses there were used: protected species (55), Red list of beetles of Poland (47), Red list of beetles of Lublin province (58), list of umbrella species (25). On the basis of the-se sources, in the collected material there were distinguished species: a) endangered in the country scale, of high importance (≥VU), giving it 5 points; b) endangered in the country scale, of low im-portance (categories LC and NT) – 4 points; c) endangered in the region scale only, of high impor-tance – 3 points; d) endangered in the region scale only, of low importance – 2 points; e) having only indication significance – 1 point. Each species was taken into account only once, considering only the highest from the groups, which it belonged to. Summing up resulting from here scoring for particular sites and habitats, the data of high importance for specific protection of beetles were obtained.



RESULTS

In the collected material 138 species were distinguished. Information about their occurrence at particular sites and habitats are given in Table 1. Below there are given more detailed data about stating species particularly interesting due to reasons: zoogeographic, faunistic and sozological. If not given differently, the ma-terial was collected with scoop.

• Gyrinus paykulli – 84 (16 X 03 and 14 X 2003, by 1 ex.); 97 (14 X 03, 1 ex.). Caught in coastal zones of water bodies, along with Gyrinus marinus and G. natator.

• Haliplus laminatus – 7 (18 IX 02, 1 ex.); 40 (16 IX 02, 3 exx., 15 IX 03, 1 ex., 13 X 03, 2 exx.); 90 (12 VIII 03, 1 ex). Species caught in a small num-ber of specimens, associated with streams and dam reservoirs.

• Haliplus sibiricus (=H. wehnckei Gerh.) – 2 (13 VIII 03, 1 ex.); 5 (16 VIII 03, 1 ex); 6 (18 X 02, 1 ex., 16 X 02, 1 ex.); 7 (18 X 02, 3 exx.); 8 (13 VIII 03, 1 ex.); 28 (12 V 03, 1 ex., 14 VII 03, 1 ex., 11 VIII 03, 10 exx., 15 IX 03, 1 ex., 13 X 03, 1 ex.); 29 (16 IX 02, 1 ex.); 31 (16 VI 03, 1 ex., 14 VII 03, 2 exx.); 38 (15 IX 03, 1 ex.); 39 (15 IX 03, 1 ex.); 40 (16 IX 02, 14 exx., 14 X 02, 1 ex., 14 VII 03, 6 exx., 15 IX 03, 6 exx.); 43 (14 VII 03, 1 ex.); 59 (15 IV 03, 2 exx.); 68 (16 X 02, 1 ex.; 16 VI 03, 3 exx.); 69 (19 VI 02, 2 exx., 17 IX 03, 2 exx.); 78 (8 VI 04, 1 ex.); 82 (17 IX 02, 2 exx., 17 VI 03, 6 exx., 13 VIII 03, 7 exx., 14 X 03, 6 exx.); 90 (15 VII 03, 19 exx.); 93 (17 IX 92, 1 ex., 12 VIII 03, 15 exx., 16 IX 03, 11 exx.); 94 (16 IV 03, 1 ex., 13 V 03, 5 exx., 15 VII 03, 9 exx., 16 IX 03, 2 exx., 14 X 03, 8 exx.); 97 (13 V 03, 1 ex., 16 IX 03, 1 ex.); 105 (14 X 03, 1 ex.); 108 (17 IX 02, 6 exx.). Wide--spread species inhabiting: springs, streams, rivers and water bodies con-nected with them (ponds, reservoirs). In part of sites the most numerous re-presentative Haliplidae.

• Hydrovatus cuspidatus – 38 (14 VIII 03, 2 exx., 15 IX 03, 1 ex.). Caught only in the Echo ponds in Zwierzyniec, occurring in silted up rushes domi-nated by Phragmites australis and Typha latifolia.

• Hydroporus fuscipennis – 23 (3 VI 05, 1 ex.); 79 (14 IX 03, 1 ex.). Caught in a dystrophic water body in Panasówka and in damp Sphagnum in peat bog in Tarnowola.

• Hydroporus memnonius – 48 (16 IX 02, 3 exx.); 125 (17 VI 03, 2 exx.). Caught in the depths of “Sphagnum puddle” in temporary peat bog and among decaying leaves in a small water body in the valley of the Wieprz.

• Hydroporus scalesianus – 118 (8 VI 04, 1 ex.). Caught in damp Sphagnum in a peaty edge of the Tanew oxbow in Huta Szumy.

• Deronectes latus – 34 (14 IX 02, 1 ex., 16 VI 03, 1 ex., 11 VIII 03, 8 exx., 15 IX 03, 1 ex., 13 X 03, 1 ex.); 72 (17 IX 03, 20 exx., 15 X 03, 10 exx.);



Spec

ies

Stud

y si

tes

Bio

tope

sN

DF

AB

CD

EF

GH

IJ

KL

Gyr

inid

ae1.

Gyr

inus

mar

inus

Gyl

l.22

,24,

43,8

4,95

,98

16

4223

721.

141.

82.

G. m

inut

us F

abr.

222

20.

030.

2

3.G

. nat

ator

(L.)

15,1

9,28

,34,

37,3

8,43

,49,

54,6

7,84

,88,

97,

103,

117

855

102

110

31.

634.

4

4.G

. pay

kulli

Och

s84

,97

12

30.

050.

6

5.G

. sub

stri

atus

Ste

ph.

2, 9

,13-

15,1

9,28

,34,

37,3

8,43

,49,

53,5

4,56

, 59

,67,

69,7

0,87

,89,

97,1

09,1

10,1

16,1

17,1

216

321

023

101

253

4.01

8.6

6.O

rect

ochi

lus v

illos

us (O

.F. M

üll.)

6,14

,15,

19,2

6,38

,31,

34,8

8,97

,116

,117

,121

224

224

3.55

6.4

Hal

iplid

ae7.

Bryc

hius

ele

vatu

s (Pa

nz.)

3,28

,31,

34,4

1,43

,116

1988

107

1.70

4.6

8.H

alip

lus c

onfin

is S

teph

.38

,39

17

80.

130.

6

9.H

. flav

icol

lis S

turm

5,24

,28,

35,3

8-40

,57,

66,6

9,73

,75,

84,9

0,93

, 95

,112

48

126

251

71

397

6.30

9.0

10.

H. fl

uvia

tilis

Aub

é5,

19,2

2,28

,41,

43,9

3,97

229

132

0.51

3.0

11.

H. h

eyde

ni W

ehnc

ke7,

38,3

9,48

,57,

59,6

6,68

,69,

76,8

0,82

,93,

96,9

7,10

2, 1

06,1

211

122

44

211

540.

865.

2

12.

H. i

mm

acul

atus

Ger

h.7,

90,9

42

12

50.

080.

813

.H

. lam

inat

us (S

chal

l.)7,

40,9

01

78

0.13

1.0

14.

H. l

inea

toco

llis (

Mar

sh.)

2,7-

9,68

-70,

72,9

2,93

621

61

701.

113.

615

.H

. obl

iquu

s (Fa

br)

35,3

8,39

,69

25

411

0.17

0.8

16.

H. r

ufico

llis (

DeG

.)6,

21,2

4,31

,38,

39,4

9,57

,62,

69,7

6-78

,80,

82,

84,9

6,97

,103

,104

81

41

1127

22

560.

895.

0

17.

H. s

ibir

icus

Mot

sh.

2,5-

8,28

,29,

31,3

8-40

,43,

59,6

8,69

, 78,

82,9

0,93

,94

,97,

105,

108

363

5071

13

51

170

2.70

8.8

18.

H. v

ariu

s Nic

.39

11

0.02

0.2

Tabl

e 1.

Aqu

atic

bee

tles (

Col

eopt

era)

col

lect

ed in

the

Roz

tocz

e U

plan

d in

the

year

s 199

9–20

05. B

ioto

pes:

A –

sprin

gs, B

– st

ream

s, C

– ri

vers

, D

– d

itche

s and

can

als,

E –

dam

rese

rvoi

rs, F

– o

xbow

s, G

– p

onds

, H –

mea

dow

smal

l wat

er b

odie

s, I –

fore

st sm

all w

ater

bod

ies,

J – sa

nd p

its, K

– fe

ns, L

– S

phag

num

pea

t bog

s. N

– n

umbe

r of s

peci

men

s col

lect

ed, D

– d

omin

ance

(%),

F –

freq

uenc

y (%

)



19.

Pelto

dyte

s cae

sus (

Duf

t.)39

11

0.02

0.2

Not

erid

ae20

.N

oter

us c

lavi

corn

is (D

eG.)

5,12

,22-

24,3

8,57

,84,

95,9

6,10

0,11

231

78

344

0.70

5.6

21.

N. c

rass

icor

nis (

O.F

. Mül

l.)5,

7,12

,22-

24,2

9,35

,38-

40,4

4,50

,57-

59,6

6,

76,7

9-81

,84,

85,9

0,94

,96,

98,

100,

102,

106,

10

7,11

1,11

2,11

8, 1

19,1

25,1

261

920

15

311

79

4617

2024

272

4.31

16.0

Dyt

isci

dae

22.

Agab

us a

ffini

s (Pa

yk.)

79,8

53

30.

050.

623

.A.

bip

ustu

latu

s (L.

)4,

6,13

,24,

48,5

5,69

,102

,105

23

13

716

0.25

2.0

24.

A. c

onge

ner (

Thun

b.)

64,7

9,10

3,10

9,11

7,11

8,12

51

11

13

70.

111.

425

.A.

gut

tatu

s (Pa

yk.)

71,8

62

20.

030.

426

.A.

pal

udos

us (F

abr.)

6,68

,70,

91,9

3,12

02

51

80.

131.

4

27.

A. st

urm

ii (G

yll.)

6,8,

24,2

8,31

,37,

39,4

2,51

,57,

59,6

9,73

,74,

79,8

2,84

, 91,

93,9

4,11

4,12

0, 1

25,1

2650

513

14

36

26

901.

437.

2

28.

A. u

ndul

atus

(Sch

rank

)23

,58,

77,8

0,96

,120

18

90.

141.

229

.Ily

bius

aen

esce

ns T

hom

s.63

,80,

81,1

111

14

60.

100.

830

.I.

ater

(DeG

.)19

,28,

38,5

0,84

,107

22

31

80.

131.

231

.I.

fene

stra

tus (

Fabr

.)5,

22,2

4,39

,40,

84,9

0,98

,100

,107

,112

111

531

41

711.

134.

0

32.

I. fu

ligin

osus

(Fab

r.)5,

6,14

,15,

19,2

0,28

,31,

34,3

7,38

,40,

43,6

6,68

,78,

82, 8

4,93

,97,

108,

117,

120-

122

38

503

53

21

751.

198.

8

33.

I. gu

ttige

r (G

yll.)

20,3

8,81

,118

,121

11

11

15

0.08

1.0

34.

I. ne

glec

tus (

Er.)

35,1

051

12

0.03

0.4

35.

I. qu

adri

gutta

tus (

Laco

rd.)

17,3

9,50

,52,

79,1

03,1

17,1

213

11

41

100.

161.

836

.I.

sim

ilis T

hom

s.38

22

0.03

0.2

37.

I. su

baen

eus E

r.38

,43,

84,9

0,93

,107

,112

21

101

115

0.24

1.8

38.

Plat

ambu

s mac

ulat

us (L

.)1,

2,6,

9,14

,15,

19,2

8,31

,34,

37,4

0,49

,61,

72,

86-8

9,97

, 105

,116

,117

,121

126

86

11

277

4.39

15.0

39.

Col

ymbe

tes f

uscu

s (L.

)4,

22,7

6,80

,107

,108

11

12

16

0.10

1.2

40.

C. p

ayku

lli E

r.82

,97

11

20.

030.

441

.C

. str

iatu

s (L.

)12

61

10.

020.

242

.Rh

antu

s exs

olet

us (F

orst

)22

,23,

38,5

7,84

,112

51

27

150.

241.

643

.R.

fron

talis

(Mar

sh.)

5,23

,38

41

50.

080.

6



44.

R. g

rapi

i (G

yll.)

5,29

,38,

43,6

8,79

,81,

821

21

81

417

0.27

1.8

45.

R. in

cogn

itus R

. Sch

olz

17,1

212

20.

030.

446

.R.

latit

ans (

Shar

p)5,

103

11

20.

030.

447

.R.

not

atic

ollis

(Aub

é)82

,116

11

20.

030.

2

48.

R. su

tura

lis (M

acL.

)4,

6,7,

12,1

3,22

,24,

38,3

9,49

,57,

68,

76,8

0,81

,90,

93, 9

7,10

0,10

2,10

5,10

84

933

215

15

51

751.

196.

6

49.

R. su

ture

llus (

Har

r.)85

,111

44

0.06

0.6

50.

Liop

teru

s hae

mor

rhoi

dalis

(Fab

r.)5,

23,3

8,85

,96

53

19

0.14

1.4

51.

Acili

us c

anal

icul

atus

(Nic

.)19

,22-

24,2

8,31

,34,

38,3

9,49

,57,

67,6

8,73

, 76

,80,

84,9

3,94

,97,

99,1

00,1

03,1

07,1

08,

111,

116,

121,

126

329

836

109

297

1.54

10.4

52.

A. su

lcat

us (L

.)24

,38,

69,8

4,10

7,10

83

82

150.

241.

653

.G

raph

oder

us b

iline

atus

(DeG

.)38

11

0.02

0.2

54.

G. c

iner

eus (

L.)

23,2

8,80

,85,

107

117

21

210.

331.

055

.G

. zon

atus

(Hop

pe)

80,8

1,11

13

11

50.

080.

856

.C

ybis

ter l

ater

imar

gina

lis (D

eG.)

35,3

8,10

711

110.

171.

057

.D

. circ

umci

nctu

s (A

hr.)

4,28

,107

,115

13

15

0.08

0.8

58.

Dyt

iscu

s circ

umfle

xus F

abr.

107

22

0.03

0.4

59.

D. d

imid

iatu

s Ber

gstr.

19,2

8,34

,85,

93,1

077

261

340.

541.

8

60.

D. m

argi

nalis

L.

2,4,

19,2

3,28

,66,

76,8

7,93

,104

,107

,108

,112

, 11

6, 1

21,1

221

17

151

32

21

691.

093.

6

61.

Hyd

atic

us se

min

iger

(DeG

.)13

,19,

23,2

8,50

,52,

68,8

0,81

,84,

85,9

3,94

,96

,100

,107

14

21

51

35

13

260.

413.

6

62.

H. t

rans

vers

alis

(Pon

t.)5,

38,9

3,10

71

67

0.11

1.0

63.

Bide

ssus

uni

stri

atus

(Sch

rank

)80

11

0.02

0.2

64.

Hyd

rogl

yphu

s gem

inus

(Fab

r.)5,

7,15

,22,

24,3

1,38

-40,

43,4

9,57

,62,

66,7

9,

83-8

5,91

,93,

94,1

01,1

261

1477

123

75

128

2.03

6.4

65.

Der

onec

tes l

atus

(Ste

ph.)

34,7

2,12

143

430.

681.

666

.G

rapt

odyt

es g

ranu

lari

s (L.

) 43

,80,

81,1

241

25

80.

130.

8

Spec

ies

Stud

y si

tes

Bio

tope

sN

DF

AB

CD

EF

GH

IJ

KL



67.

G. p

ictu

s (Fa

br.)

2,5,

14,1

6,19

,30,

39,4

3,48

,57,

68,7

3,93

,97,

102,

112

161

135

31

400.

635.

2

68.

Hyd

ropo

rus a

ngus

tatu

s Stu

rm7,

19,5

2,68

,78,

80,8

4,93

,94,

96,9

8,10

2,12

1,12

52

17

11

14

12

200.

323.

2

69.

H. e

ryth

roce

phal

us (L

.)39

,58,

66,7

8,85

,86,

96,9

71

62

514

0.22

1.6

70.

H. f

usci

penn

is S

chau

m23

,79

11

20.

030.

4

71.

H. i

ncog

nitu

s Sha

rp4,

29,3

0,45

,48,

55,6

0,69

,79,

86,9

4,96

,102

,10

3,10

5,12

55

21

1225

954

0.86

4.0

72.

H. m

emno

nius

Nic

.48

,125

32

50.

080.

473

.H

. obs

curu

s Stu

rm64

,79,

81,8

5,11

1,11

8,12

5,12

61

245

480.

763.

4

74.

H. p

alus

tris

(L.)

4,6,

7,14

,17,

19-2

1,30

,38,

39,4

3,47

,48,

50,

69,7

8, 8

9,93

,96,

97,1

02,1

03,1

05,1

20,1

2513

420

291

2312

15

216

3.43

7.6

75.

H. p

lanu

s (Fa

br.)

63,7

9,81

,93,

125

21

36

0.10

1.0

76.

H. s

cale

sian

us S

teph

.11

81

10.

020.

277

.H

. str

iola

(Gyl

l.)31

,38,

47,7

8,80

,85,

93,1

02,1

11,1

263

31

18

160.

252.

8

78.

H. t

rist

is (P

ayk.

)5,

21,2

2,29

,38,

58,6

3,68

,79,

84,8

5,93

,111

,11

8,12

4-12

611

41

512

112

7816

02.

545.

6

79.

H. u

mbr

osus

(Gyl

l.)52

,79,

81,9

0,93

,96,

105,

107,

118,

125

11

110

21

420

0.32

2.2

80.

Porh

ydru

s lin

eatu

s (Fa

br.)

28,3

8,57

,73,

80,8

4,93

,97,

103

59

41

190.

302.

681

.Su

phro

dyte

s dor

salis

(Fab

r.)5,

78,8

0,81

,124

12

31

70.

111.

282

.H

ydro

vatu

s cus

pida

tus (

Kun

ze)

383

30.

050.

483

.H

ygro

tus d

ecor

atus

(Gyl

l.)7,

52,5

8,78

,89,

96,1

061

16

92

190.

301.

684

.H

. im

pres

sopu

ncta

tus (

Scha

ll.)

5-7,

52,8

0,81

,84,

85,1

00,1

261

14

17

24

323

0.36

2.8

85.

H. i

naeq

ualis

(Fab

r.)7,

24,3

0,38

,39,

43,5

8,73

,77,

80,8

4,85

,93,

96,9

7,1

00,1

02,1

11,1

2210

112

113

245

0.71

5.6

86.

Hyp

hydr

us o

vatu

s (L.

)5,

19,2

2,35

,38-

40,4

8,49

,51,

57,5

8,66

,69,

73,

80,8

2, 8

3,93

,97,

98,1

02,1

121

92

235

174

171

1.13

7.2

87.

Lacc

ophi

lus h

yalin

us (D

e G

.)5,

35,4

0,62

,84,

90,9

3,95

,97,

9820

222

763

113

1.79

4.0

88.

L. m

inut

us (L

.)13

,14,

19,2

2,24

,31,

38-4

0,51

,57,

66, 7

3,82

-85,

93,9

5,97

,100

,108

,112

617

217

82

153

0.84

6.8

89.

L. p

oeci

lus K

lug

381

10.

020.

2H

elop

hori

dae

90.

Hel

opho

rus a

equa

lis T

hom

s.11

71

10.

020.

2



91.

H. d

orsa

lis (M

arsh

.)8

11

0.02

0.2

92.

H. fl

avip

es F

abr.

8,34

,38,

42,4

9,50

,52,

79,8

1,84

,93,

102,

103,

105,

116,

118

37

11

536

14

464

1.02

3.8

93.

H. g

rand

is Il

l.38

,50,

691

12

40.

060.

6

94.

H. g

ranu

lari

s (L.

)5,

7,8,

14,1

5,22

,28,

30-3

2,36

,38-

40,5

2,59

,66,

68,

69,7

8,79

,81-

85,9

0,91

,93,

96,9

7,10

3,10

5,10

815

3947

1356

747

301

425

94.

1112

.0

95.

H. g

rise

us H

erbs

t85

11

0.02

0.2

96.

H. l

atic

ollis

Tho

ms.

121,

124

11

20.

030.

497

.H

. min

utus

Fab

r.5-

7,15

,22,

24,3

8,57

,84,

102

43

86

210.

332.

498

.H

. str

igifr

ons (

Thom

s.)48

,50,

118

11

35

0.08

0.6

Hyd

roch

idae

99.

Hyd

roch

us b

revi

s (H

erbs

t)11

81

10.

020.

210

0.H

. cre

natu

s (Fa

br.)

112

11

0.02

0.2

Hyd

roph

ilida

e10

1.An

acae

na li

mba

ta (F

abr.)

5,9,

10,1

4,18

,28,

30,4

0,44

,48-

50,9

7,10

2,11

822

11

110

81

440.

704.

4

102.

A. lu

tesc

ens (

Step

h.)

5,7-

9,14

,15,

17,1

9,21

-24,

27,2

8,30

,31,

33,

34,3

7-39

, 44,

48-5

0,57

-59,

62, 6

4-68

,72,

74,

76,7

8,79

,82,

84-9

0,93

,96,

97,1

02,1

03,1

05,

110-

113,

116-

118,

124-

126

133

286

323

433

8417

213

760

701

11.1

228

.2

103.

Bero

sus l

urid

us (L

.)39

,57,

68,8

4,10

3,10

4,11

1,11

21

11

61

111

220.

352.

410

4.B.

sign

atic

ollis

(Cha

rp.)

851

10.

020.

210

5.C

ymbi

odyt

a m

argi

nella

(Fab

r.)31

11

0.02

0.2

106.

Enoc

hrus

affi

nis (

Thun

b.)

5,13

,17,

22-2

4,31

,38,

43,5

8,63

,64,

68,7

6,78

-80,

82,

84,8

5,91

,93,

94,1

08,1

12,1

25,1

266

15

316

148

145

991.

578.

4

107.

E. b

icol

or (F

abr.)

100

11

0.02

0.2

108.

E. c

oarc

tatu

s (G

redl

.)5,

28,3

8,63

,80,

82,9

8,10

0,11

8,12

61

21

42

22

140.

222.

010

9.E.

fusc

ipen

nis (

Thom

s.)5

33

0.05

0.2

110.

E. m

elan

ocep

halu

s (O

liv.)

5,38

,90

62

80.

130.

811

1.E.

och

ropt

erus

(Mar

sh.)

52,5

9,81

,85,

111

12

25

100.

161.

2

112.

E. q

uadr

ipun

ctat

us (H

erbs

t)5,

24,3

4,35

,38,

40,4

8,57

,68,

79,8

0,93

,97,

117,

118,

126

43

71

22

190.

303.

4

113.

E. te

stac

eus (

Fabr

.)12

,22,

38,8

4,94

,100

14

1924

0.38

2.0

Spec

ies

Stud

y si

tes

Bio

tope

sN

DF

AB

CD

EF

GH

IJ

KL



114.

Hel

ocha

res o

bscu

rus (

O. F

. Mül

l.)5,

15,2

2-24

,28,

31,3

8,39

,49,

58,6

8,80

,81,

84,

85,9

3,10

7,10

8,11

2,11

7,12

61

85

1919

96

572

1.14

7.6

115.

Hyd

robi

us fu

scip

es (L

.)5,

7,11

,13,

14,2

1,48

,68,

79,8

5,86

,91,

93,9

4,97

,103

, 111

,118

,120

54

121

231

65

570.

904.

8

116.

Hyd

roch

ara

cara

boid

es (L

.)3,

5,23

,38,

39,5

2,69

,80,

84,9

3,96

,102

,107

,108

54

333

43

520.

824.

011

7.H

ydro

philu

s ate

rrim

us (E

schc

h.)

19,3

8,80

11

13

0.05

0.6

118.

Lacc

obiu

s bip

unct

atus

(Fab

r.)5,

8,15

,28,

30,4

2,43

,59,

75,8

6,90

,120

31

85

61

125

0.40

2.6

119.

L. m

inut

us (L

.)5,

9,13

,15,

22,2

4,38

,40,

43,4

4,73

,82,

84,9

0,91

,93,

95,1

12,1

151

875

161

51

107

1.70

5.8

120.

L. st

riat

ulus

(Fab

r.)68

,82,

931

23

0.05

0.6

121.

Coe

lost

oma

orbi

cula

re (F

abr.)

23,2

4,57

,81,

118

43

11

90.

141.

012

2.C

ercy

on b

ifene

stra

tus K

üst.

5,11

72

1315

0.24

0.4

123.

C. c

onve

xius

culu

s Ste

ph.

48,4

9,11

7,11

82

112

150.

241.

212

4.C

. gra

nari

us E

r.15

11

0.02

0.2

125.

C. m

arin

us T

hom

s.5,

13,9

7,11

74

2024

0.38

0.8

126.

C. t

rist

is (I

ll.)

521

10.

020.

212

7.C

. ust

ulat

us (P

reys

sl.)

15,2

82

20.

030.

4H

ydra

enid

ae12

8.H

ydra

ena

exci

sa K

iese

nw.

87,8

8,11

64

40.

060.

8

129.

H. r

ipar

ia K

ug.

5,9,

14,1

5,28

,31,

40,4

6,48

,49,

57,8

4,93

,94,

97,1

17,1

181

614

21

201

901.

436.

6

130.

Lim

nebi

us a

tom

us (D

uft.)

2,5,

7,28

,43,

57,9

3,97

,100

47

2132

0.51

2.0

131.

L. c

rini

fer (

Rey

)7,

8,13

-15,

28,3

1,43

,48,

49,5

7,89

,94,

102,

117

43

465

580.

925.

2

132.

L. p

arvu

lus (

Her

bst)

2,5,

6,9,

14-1

6,22

,28,

31,3

3,38

,39,

50,5

2,57

, 66

,68,

69, 7

5,79

,80-

82,8

4,90

-94,

96,9

7,10

3,

105,

108,

117,

118,

124

51

3112

111

214

161

196

1.52

10.6

133.

L. tr

unca

tellu

s (Th

unb.

)85

11

0.02

0.2

134.

Och

theb

ius m

inim

us (F

abr.)

2,5,

28,3

3,48

,57,

68,9

3,97

,105

18

23

418

0.29

2.2

Elm

idae

135.

Elm

is a

enea

(Mül

l.)9,

14,1

5,19

,28,

31,3

4,49

,72,

87-8

9,97

,116

,11

7,12

35

216

221

3.51

0.2

136.

Lim

nius

vol

cmar

i (Pa

nz.)

14,8

7,88

,116

1818

0.29

2.4

137.

Oul

imni

us tu

berc

ulat

us (P

h. M

üll.)

14,2

8,48

,97

31

40.

060.

8D

ryop

idae

138.

Dry

ops v

ienn

ensi

s (C

ast.)

521

10.

020.

2



Figure 2. The percentage share of non-eurytopic species in the collected material. Upper diagram – qualitative data, lower diagram – quantitative data. A–L – habitats (like in Table 1). Ecological

elements: ar – argilophiles, ps – psammophiles, kf – krenophiles, rf – rheophiles, tf – tyrphophiles, tb – tyrphobiontes, hy – hylophiles, ha – halophiles

121 (17 IX 02, 1 ex.). The beetle caught in rivers (Wieprz, Tanew, Szum), always only among tree roots revealed due to washing away of coastal banks.

• Rhantus incognitus – 17 (9 VI 04, 1 ex.). One specimen was caught in the river Gorajec, between sand bottom and the zone of coastal flora.

• Graphoderus bilineatus – 38 (16 VI 03, 1 ex.). Caught in silted up rush Phragmites australis in the eutrophic Echo pond.

• Dytiscus circumflexus – 107 (VIII 03, 1 ex., 05, 1 ex.). Caught in bottle traps in Wieprzów Ordynacki – in unstocked, seasonally filled with water fish ponds and small temporary water bodies.

• Berosus signaticollis – 85 (17 VI 05, 1 ex.). Caught in “Sphagnum puddle” in temporary drying out peat bog near Hamernia.



• Laccobius striatulus – 68 (17 IX 03, 1 ex.); 82 (13 VIII 03, 1 ex.); 93 (16 IX 03, 1 ex.). Caught in the coastal zone of dam reservoirs and in lenitic habi-tat in the upstream of the river Sopot.

• Enochrus bicolor – 100 (14 X 2003, 1 ex.). Caught among rush flora in po-lytrophic pond Pasternik in Tarnawatka.

• Enochrus fuscipennis – 5 (28 VII 05, 3 exx.). Caught in light trap over the complex of eutrophic fish ponds in Goraj.

• Cercyon bifenestratus – 5 (28 VII 07, 13 exx.); 117 (8 VI 04, 2 exx.). Caught in the zone of coastal flora (sunk land grasses, Glyceria spp.) in eutrophic ponds in Goraj and in the river Tanew in Huta Szumy.

• Cercyon granarius – 15 (14 VII 03, 1 ex.). Caught in the river Gorajec in Gorajec-Stara Wieś, amidst drifting decaying leaves and hay on the edge of the zones: lotic and lenitic.

• Hydraena excisa – 87 (11 VII 03, 1 ex., 12 VII 03, 1 ex.); 88 (11 VII 03, 1 ex.); 116 (12 VII 03, 1 ex.). Caught in sand or stone bottoms, in the lotic zone (usually with strong current), at sites 88 and 116 in Fontinalis antipi-retica.

• Dryops viennensis – 52 (1 VI 05, 1 ex.). Caught among sedges in a small water body on a meadow in the valley of the river Wieprz in Guciów.

In the faunistic regionalization used in The Catalogue of Polish Fauna (21), there were listed: from Roztocze – 136 species, the Lublin Upland – 17 species, the Sandomierz Valley – 41 species (Table 1).

The structure of dominance of the collected material is very even. There were distinguished only one eudominant and dominant (Anacaena lutescens – 11.12%, Haliplus flavicollis – 6.30%). There were also noticed: 10 subdominants (Hydro-glyphus pusillus, Hydroporus tristis, Haliplus sibiricus, Hydroporus palustris, El-mis aenea, Orectochilus villosus, Gyrinus substriatus, Helophorus granularis, Noterus crassicornis, Platambus maculatus), 16 recedents and 110 accessory spe-cies (Table 1).

The highest value of frequency indicator – 28.2% – had Anacaena lutescens. Values of this indicator exceeding 10% achieved also: Noterus crassicornis, Platambus maculatus, Helophorus granularis, Limnebius parvulus and Acilius canaliculatus. Moreover, 21 species were within the range 5.1–10.0%, 26 – in the range 2.1–5.0%, 30 – in the range 1.1–2.0%, and 55 did not exceed 1.0% (Table 1).

Anacaena lutescens was the most widespread species, it was noticed at 50.8% of sites. For more than 10% sites there were noticed in total 38 species, from which, along with A. lutescens were distinguished: Limnebius parvulus (30.2%), Noterus crassicornis (28.6%), Helophorus granularis (27.0%) and Acilius cana-liculatus (23.0%). In the range 5.1–10.0% were 23 species, in the range 2.1–5.0% – 39 species, in the range 1.1–2.0% – 15 species, below 1.0% – 23 species.



Table 2. Special care species and indicatory species of aquatic beetles collected in the Roztocze Upland in the years 1999–2005. Sp – species protection, Rl–Pl – the Red list of animals of Poland, Rl-LD – the Red list of animals of the Lublin District, Um – umbrella species(a – for running waters, b – for lakes, c – for small water bodies, d – for fens and peat bogs). NL –number of localities. Habitats like in Table 1.

Species Sp Rl-Pl Rl-LD Um NL Habitats

Gyrinus paykulli LC 2 c, jBrychius elevatus LC LC 7 a, cHaliplus confinis LC 2 g, iH. laminatus LC 3 b, gH. varius VU 1 kHydrovatus cuspidatus NT 1 gHydroporus fuscipennis LC 2 iH. memnonius LC 2 i, lH. scalesianus EN 1 hDeronectes latus NT EN 3 cAgabus affinis NT 2 lA. guttatus LC 2 aIlybius fenestratus b 11 d, e, g, i, j, kI. fuliginosus c 25 a, b, c, d, e, g, j, lI. similis LC 1 gPlatambus maculatus a 24 a, c, d, e, iRhantus incognitus EN VU 2 cColymbetes paykulli LC 2 c, eLaccophilus poecilus VU 1 gGraphoderus bilineatus x LC d 1 gDytiscus circumflexus LC 1 gHelophorus aequalis DD 1 cHelophorus grandis NT 3 a, f, gH. strigifrons NT 3 f, h, iBerosus signaticollis LC 1 lEnochrus bicolor EN LC 1 gHydrophilus aterrimus x VU NT 3 c, g, iCercyon tristis LC 1 hHydraena excisa LC 3 cOulimnius tuberculatus NT 4 c, iDryops viennensis LC 1 h

Total: 2 6 27 4 – –- % of all: 40% 13% 27% 50% – –



Figure 3. Faunistic similarities between aquatic beetles assemblages in the studied habitats (in %). Upper diagram – qualitative data, lower diagram – quantitative data

Table 3. Research sites of importance for the protection of aquatic beetles. P – points, N – the number of research sites

P Research sites N

17 38 111 121 110 34 18 28,97 27 19,116,118 36 31,39,48,52,100 55 17,40,43,72,80 54 3,14,41,50,79,84,117 73 82,87,88,90,107 52 2,5,6,7,15,23,37,69,71,85,86,125 131 1,9,20,24,49,61,68,78,89,93,98,105,108,112,120,122 16

Total: 59



Narrow scope of inhabited environments was specific for most of the spe-cies. It was the biggest for Anacaena lutescens and Noterus crassicornis, which were caught in all 12 examined habitats. In 11 habitats there was noted Limnebius parvulus, in 10 – Hydaticus seminiger and Helophorus granularis. In 7–9 habi-tats 26 species were noted, in 6 or less – 107 species (including even 73 species in 1–3 habitats).

In the collected material there are species representing 9 ecological elements: argilophiles (2 species), psammophiles (1), crenophiles (1), rheophiles (17), tyr-phobionts (3), tyrphophiles (29), hylophiles (4), halophiles (1) and eurytopes (80). As for quantity, eurytopes dominated: 46.83% specimens. Not very numer-ous were tyrphophiles (21.91%) and rheophiles (18.89%). The share of other eco-logical elements was the following: psammophiles – 6.30%; hylophiles – 3.05%; argilophiles – 2.13%; tyrphobionts – 0.86%; crenophiles – 0.03%; halophiles – 0.02%.

In all habitats, a big quality and quantity share was obtained by eurytopes. From other ecological elements, the widest range of settled habitats was charac-

Figure 4. Sozological importance of particular habitats in the Roztocze Upland for aquatic beetles: I – the total sums of points, II – average values for one research site, P – points, A–L – habitats (like in Table 1)



teristic of tyrphophiles – noted in all habitats, usually in a big number of speci-mens (Fig. 2). It resulted mainly (but not only) from very wide spreading of Ana-caena lutescens in the research area. In a big amount of habitats were also caught: rheophiles (10), argilophiles (9), hylophiles (8 habitats) and psammophiles (7). A very narrow habitat range was characteristic of the rest of ecological elements. Tyrphobionts were found only in small meadow water bodies, sandpits and Spha-gnum peat bogs – and only in the peat bogs they were present in a bigger number of specimens. Occurrence of crenophiles was limited to springs and streams. Ha-lophiled Enochrus bicolor was caught in a polytrophic pond.

Share of eurytopes and stenotopes was formed differently in various habitats (Fig. 2). The least numbers of eurytopes were recorded in Sphagnum peat bogs, oxbows and rivers, the largest ones – in sandpits and fens.

The most important for species occurrence of beetles in the research area turned out to be rivers, where 86 species were caught. The richest in quantity ma-terial was collected there (35.4% of caught specimens). The second, as regards quantity and quality of coleopterofauna, were ponds (81 species and 21.3% spe-cimens), and the third – small forest water bodies (72 species and 12.4%). On the other hand, the poorest were faunas of oxbows and ditches and canals: 16 species and 0.8-0.9% of collected material.

In natural habitats 127 species were recorded (92% of all), in anthropogenic waters – 94 species (68%). Alone in natural habitats 44 species were noted, and in anthropogenic – 11 species (Table 1).

In diagram of quality similarities between faunas of particular habitats (Fig. 3), at the highest level of similarity (>50%) are located habitats situated in the val-leys of rivers and streams, usually being in permanent or temporary hydrologi-cal contact such as: rivers with ponds and streams with oxbows. The pair of ha-bitats: rivers–ponds is grouped at relatively high level (>40%) with various kinds of waters, usually located in the river valleys like: dam reservoirs, springs, sand-pits, small forest reservoirs. The biggest distinction is specific for Sphagnum peat bogs, ditches and canals.

The biggest value of quantity similarity indicator is found in springs and dam reservoirs (20.8%) (Fig. 3). Besides, even 10 from 12 sites make a block standing out at high level >15%, while in most cases similarity values are close to or exceed 19%. The biggest faunistic distinction can be found in ditches and canals and oxbows (values of Biesiadka’s indicator of approx. 10%).

In the analyzed material there were found: 2 species protected in Poland, 6 species from the national Red list of beetles (3 from the categories of high risk), 27 from the Red list of beetles from Lublin province (8 from the categories of high risk), 4 umbrella species, Table 2).

In sozological assessment most points were obtained by rivers (101), and then: fish ponds (29), small forest water bodies (20), dam reservoirs and small



meadow water bodies (13 each) and springs (10). The other habitats got below 10 points, the lowest place had fens (1 point) (Fig. 4). This situation results from the number of particular habitats in their research area. After taking into account the number of sites (average “per site”), particular habitats obtained from 0.5 to 3.0 points. In this classification, the biggest score had: rivers (3.0), small meadow res-ervoirs (2.6), dam reservoirs (2.2) and ponds (2.1). Over 1 point got also oxbows, Sphagnum peat bogs and forest reservoirs (Fig. 4).

59 sites got scores in the sozological value classification. Definitely the most valuable ones were the “Echo” ponds in the Roztocze National Park (17 points). Among sites with the highest score (>5), dominated sites on the rivers: Wieprz (4 places), Tanew (3), Gorajec (1). Apart from them, some small forest and meadow water bodies can be included as well as ponds.

With approximate number of sites in protected areas and beyond them, al-most equal number of points was noted in the sozological classification, namely: 108 and 106. Among the protected areas most scores obtained: the Szczebrzeszyń-ski Landscape Park (36) and the Roztoczański National Park (30), then the Sol-ska Forest Landscape Park (12), the reserve “Nad Tanwią” (7), ecological ground “Ponds in Tarnawatka” (7), the nature reserve “Czartowe Pole” (6), the Krasno-brodzki Landscape Park (2) and the South-Roztocze Landscape Park (1).

DISCUSSION 138 species have been recorded: 41% of species from analyzed families oc-

curring in Poland and connected with water habitat, 57% of species known from the central-eastern Poland and 80% of species from Roztocze given during the whole history of the region research (7, 17, 53). It is a lot, but a few times there have been observed even bigger species richness of aquatic beetles in area-com-parable territories. For instance, in the valley of the central Bug 151 were distin-guished, in the Białowieża Forest – 153. However in case of the valley of Bug, we deal with the area of extremely big dynamics of surface waters and the fauna sup-plied by species from neighbouring the Łęczyńsko-Włodawska Plain, also rich in waters. Whereas the Białowieża Forest is one of the longest and most intensively examined areas of Poland (17, 43, 51).

Collected data is a significant supplement to the knowledge of faunas’ spe-cies composition of particular faunistic regions (according to The Catalogue of Polish Fauna (21)). Despite research intensification in the last years and good examination in this respect of Roztocze itself there have been shown for the first time: from Roztocze – 14 species (Gyrinus paykulli, Agabus guttatus, Ilybius gut-tiger, Colymbetes paykulli, Rhantus latitans, Hydroporus fuscipennis, H. mem-nonius, H. obscurus, H. scalesianus, Hydrovatus cuspidatus, Helophorus minu-



tus, H. strigifrons, Hydrochus brevis, Laccobius crinifer); from the Lublin Upland – one (Enochrus fuscipennis); from the Sandomierz Lowland – 13 (Haliplus hey-deni, Agabus congener, A. paludosus, A. sturmii, Colymbetes striatus, Rhantus in-cognitus, Hydroporus angustatus, H. memnonius, H. striola, Helophorus laticol-lis, Enochrus affinis, Laccobius bipunctatus, Elmis aenea) (17, 18). It indicates still incomplete knowledge of geographical location of many species in Poland and thus an urgent need of further faunistic exploration of these regions.

The species distinguished in chapter “Results” are noteworthy due to various reasons. Some of them occur in Poland at sparse sites situated in not many fauni-stic regions, at least nowadays. These are: Dytiscus circumflexus, Hydroporus fu-scipennis, Hydrovatus cuspidatus and Cercyon granarius. Whereas these species: Gyrinus paykulli, Haliplus laminatus, H. sibiricus, Graphoderus bilineatus, Hy-droporus memnonius, Berosus signaticollis, Enochrus bicolor, Laccobius stria-tulus, Cercyon biferenstratus and Hydraena excisa – are widely settled but in large dispersion, and they are described as ‘rarely caught’ species. It is worth pay-ing special attention to: surprisingly often met in Roztocze H. sibiricus and halo-phile E. bicolor found in freshwater habitat. Some of these species are certainly more spread than it results from literature but they are difficult to catch with the use of hydrobiological methods (ripicoles) or they are mistaken with similar spe-cies of the same genus.

The last group of the distinguished species are beetles with little home ran-ge or present in not many geographical provinces in Poland. These are: Deronec-tes latus and Dryops viennensis, occurring mainly in the southern Poland, and Rhantus incognitus, with little acreage covering only a small part of Central and Eastern Europe (2, 6, 8, 9, 11–14, 16, 17, 21, 30-33, 36, 39, 41, 45, 46, 48-54, 56, 57, 62, 64, 66, 67).

We observe species richness of Roztocze aquatic fauna, it is ecologically diverse and occurrence of many stenotopes proves that coleopterofauna is well preserved. The same refers to most of the examined sites, except for spring area of the river Wieprz. Number and share of found ecological elements are equal to share of particular sites in the research area: among stenotopes dominate species associated with running waters and peat bogs and water bodies with acidic water. Only a small number of caught specimens and crenophile species can prove a bad state of some springs.

Rheophiles recorded in rivers in Roztocze are typical of small watercourses, fast-flowing, with stony bottoms and often submontane (29, 35 and own data). However, there was not noted a relatively common in the nearby Bug – Macrony-chus quadrituberculatus Ph. Müll., a classic indicator of potamal (34, 35). Therewas not Elmis maugetti Latr. either, typical of lowland rivers; Oulimnius tuber-culatus was very rare and sparse. But fauna of the rivers was generally typical of clean waters, of a good quality, which correlates with biological data collected by



national services of environment inspection (1, 19). The exception was only an in-itial fragment of the Wieprz, clearly polluted and eutrophized.

A special characteristic of Roztocze is small significance of oxbows for spe-cies richness of beetles, in comparison with many dominated by rivers areas of Poland and Central Europe and the valleys of: the Bug (51), Narew (6), Kłodnica (32), Danube (24, 61). Small and usually rapidly flowing rivers of Roztocze form few oxbows and they are small and shallow, very shaded and full of rotting leaves and are prone to fast succession. Therefore, like in e.g. the Kozłowieckie Forests (18), beside small water bodies, the most important habitat for beetles were not oxbows but fish ponds. So important that in the region poor in water, apart from the river valleys, they are situated near habitat complexes connected with rivers – so they form a convenient refuge during states of low waters. It confirms sug-gestions that with proper management ponds are very valuable for protection of aquatic invertebrates (9).

Close neighbourhood of most habitats has had influence on big faunistic similarities between them – both in little precise quality indicator (sensitive to random migrations of individual specimen) and in quantity indicator reflecting quantity structure of groups. They can be compared to results obtained in the area much denser territorially – in the valley of one river – e.g. the Bug (51) and the Narew (6).

The data presented in this project allow to conclude that Roztocze is still the area of high natural values. For Poland and Central-Eastern Europe it is very significant since it helps to preserve: species richness of aquatic beetles, their groups, populations of many rare and endangered species. It concerns both beetles connected with natural habitats and those inhabiting anthropogenic waters – espe-cially fish ponds need special attention. Many of most valuable sites and habitats are located in protected areas (mainly in landscape parks), but some rivers would need taking protection actions – both passive (creating nature reserves and ecolo-gical farmlands) or active (interference in succession or keeping present method of usage). It concerns particularly the Wieprz, which in Roztocze is the most valu-able river but also the most endangered as far as degradation is concerned.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to thank Edyta Buczyńska, Krzysztof Pałka, Robert Stryjecki and Witold Wawrzkiewicz for the fruitful co-operation in field studies, and Stefan Mielewczyk for the determination of some materials collected in the year 1999.

REFERENCES

1. Bańkowska-Królikowska J., Piebiak E., Pomorska E. (eds) 2003. Raport o stanie środowiska województwa lubelskiego w 2002 roku. Biblioteka Monitoringu Środowiska, Lublin.



2. Bidas M., Przewoźny M. 2003: Materiały do poznania kałużnic (Coleoptera: Hydrophiloidea) Gór Świętokrzyskich. Wiad. Ent. 22, 5–12.

3. Biesiadka E. 1971. Chrząszcze wodne z podrzędu Adephaga Pojezierza Międzychodzko-Siera-kowskiego. Bad. Fizjogr. Pol. Zach. 24, 9–33.

4. Biesiadka E. 1973. Chrząszcze wodne (Coleoptera) torfowisk wysokich Karkonoszy i Gór Izerskich. Prz. Zool. 17, 441–445.

5. Biesiadka E. 1977. Coleoptera. In: Bottom fauna of the heated Konin lakes. A. Wróblewski (ed.). PWN, Warszawa–Kraków, 259–280.

6. Biesiadka E., Pakulnicka J. 2004. Chrząszcze wodne (Coleoptera) Łomżyńskiego Parku Krajo-brazowego Doliny Narwi. Parki Nar. Rez. Przyr. 23, 427–447.

7. Bogdanowicz W., Chudzicka E., Pilipiuk I., Skibińska E. (eds) 2004. Fauna Polski. Charakte-rystyka i wykaz gatunków. Muzeum i Instytut Zoologii PAN, Warszawa.

8. Borowiec L., Kania J. 1991. Nowe stanowiska polskich Hydrophilidae (Coleoptera). Wiad. Ent. 10, 133–142.

9. Buczyńska E., Buczyński P., Lechowski L., Stryjecki R. 2007. Fish pond complexes as refugia of aquatic invertebrates (Odonata, Coleoptera, Heteroptera, Trichoptera, Hydrachnidia): A case study of the pond complex in Zalesie Kańskie (Central-East Poland). Nature Conserv. 64, 39–55.

10. Buczyński P. 1999: Elophorus micans Fald, 1835 – nowy dla fauny Polski przedstawiciel Hy-draenidae (Coleoptera: Hydrophiloidea). Wiad. Ent. 18, 9–10.

11. Buczyński P. 2001: New records of Rhantus incognitus R. Scholz in Poland with comments on its distribution and habitat preferences (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae). Pol. Pismo Ent. 70, 253–257.

12. Buczyński P. 2008: Przyczynek do poznania chrząszczy wodnych (Coleoptera) Górnego Ślą-ska. Wiad. Ent. 27, 113–114.

13. Buczyński P., Czachorowski P., Lechowski L. 2001. Niektóre grupy owadów wodnych (Odo-nata, Heteroptera, Coleoptera, Trichoptera) projektowanego rezerwatu „Torfowiska wiszące nad jeziorem Jaczno” i okolic: wyniki wstępnych badań. Rocz. Nauk. Pol. Tow. Ochr. Przyr. „Salamandra” 5, 27–42.

14. Buczyński P., Kowalik W. 2005. Aquatic beetles (Coleoptera) in the collection of Zoological Department of University of Agriculture in Lublin. Annls Univ. M. Curie-Skłodowska, sec. C, 60, 19–39.

15. Buczyński P., Piotrowski W. 2002. Materiały do poznania chrząszczy wodnych (Coleoptera) Poleskiego Parku Narodowego. Parki Nar. Rez. Przyr. 21, 185–194.

16. Buczyński P., Przewoźny M. 2002. Wodne chrząszcze (Coleoptera) Krzczonowskiego Parku Krajobrazowego. Parki Nar. Rez. Przyr. 21, 283–297.

17. Buczyński P., Przewoźny M. 2006. Stan poznania chrząszczy wodnych (Coleoptera: Adepha-ga, Hydrophiloidea, Byrrhoidea) Polski środkowowschodniej. Wiad. Ent. 25, 133–155.

18. Buczyński P., Przewoźny M., Guz M. 2007. Chrząszcze wodne (Coleoptera: Hydradephaga, Hydrophiloidea, Staphylinoidea, Byrrhoidea) Kozłowieckiego Parku Krajobrazowego. Parki nar. Rez. Przyr. 26, 93–111.

19. Burdzicki M., Piebiak E. (eds) 2005. Raport o stanie środowiska województwa lubelskiego w 2003 roku. Biblioteka Monitoringu Środowiska, Lublin.

20. Buraczyński J. (ed.) 2002: Roztocze. Środowisko Przyrodnicze. Wydawnictwo Lubelskie, Lu-blin.

21. Burakowski B., Mroczkowski M., Stefańska J. 1976. Katalog fauny Polski. Część XXIII, tom 4. Chrząszcze Coleoptera. Adephaga prócz Carabidae, Myxophaga, Polyphaga: Hydrophilo-idea. PWN, Warszawa.



22. Burakowski B., Mroczkowski M., Stefańska J. 1983. Katalog fauny Polski. Część XXIII, tom 9. Chrząszcze Coleoptera. Scarabeodidea, Dascilloidea, Byrrhoidea i Parnoidea. PWN, War-szawa.

23. Burakowski B., Mroczkowski M., Stefańska J. 2000: Katalog fauny Polski. Część XXIII, tom 22. Uzupełnienia do tomów 2–21. Muzeum i Instytut Zoologii PAN, Warszawa.

24. Csabai Z., Nosek J.N. 2006. Aquatic beetle fauna of Gemenc Landscape Protection Area, south Hungary (Coleoptera: Hydradephaga, Hydrophiloidea). Acta Biol. Debr. Oecol. Hung. 14: 67–76.

25. Czachorowski S., Buczyński P., Walczak U., Pakulnicka J. 2000. Gatunki osłonowe (parasolo-we) w ochronie owadów. Przegl. Przyrodn. 11, 139–148.

26. Czachorowski S., Lewandowski K., Wasilewska A. 1993. The importance of aquatic insects for landscape integration in the catchment area of the River Gizela (Masurian Lake Districts, nor-theastern Poland). Acta Hydrobiol. 35, 49–64.

27. Fijałkowski D. 1993. Lasy Lubelszczyzny. Lubelskie Tow. Naukowe, Lublin.28. Galewski K. 1990. Fauna słodkowodna Polski. Zeszyt 10A. Chrząszcze (Coleoptera). Rodzina

Kałużnicowate (Hydrophilidae). PWN, Warszawa29. Galewski K., Tranda E. 1978. Fauna słodkowodna Polski. Zeszyt 10. Chrząszcze (Coleopte-

ra). Rodziny: Pływakowate (Dytiscidae), Flisakowate (Haliplidae), Mokrzelicowate (Hygro-biidae), Krętakowate (Gyrinidae). PWN, Warszawa–Poznań.

30. Gawroński A. 2005: Walory przyrodnicze i zagrożenia południowej części Puszczy Drawskiej. Bociek 3 (83), 13–18.

31. Greń C. 2003a. Chrząszcze wodne (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae, Hydrophilidae, Gyrinidae) rezer-watu „Ochojec“ w Katowicach. Acta Ent. Siles. 9–10, 41–43.

32. Greń C. 2003b. Wpływ okresowych wylewów zanieczyszczonych wód Kłodnicy na zgrupowa-nia chrząszczy wodnych (Coleoptera: Haliplidae, Dytiscidae, Gyrinidae, Hydraenidae, Sper-cheidae, Hydrophilidae) zasiedlających jej starorzecza. Acta Ent. Siles. 9–10, 45–52.

33. Gutowski J. M., Ruta R. 2004. Waloryzacja przyrodnicza gminy Tuczno (Pojezierze Zachod-niopomorskie) w oparciu o wyniki wstępnych badań nad chrząszczami (Insecta: Coleoptera). Nowy Pam. Fizjogr. 3, 27–60.

34. Jaskuła R., Buczyński P., Przewoźny M., Wanat M. 2005. New localities evidence that Macro-nychus quadrituberculatus Müll. (Coleoptera: Elmidae) is not rare in Poland. Lauterbornia 55, 35–41.

35. Klausnitzer B. 1996. Käfer im und am Wasser. Westarp Wissenschaften, Spektrum Akademi-sche Verlag, Magdeburg–Heidelberg–Berlin–Oxford.

36. Klukowska M., Tończyk G. 2002: Materiały do znajomości bezkręgowców wodnych Tuchol-skiego Parku Krajobrazowego. [In:] Ławrynowicz M., Rózga B. (ed.). Tucholski Park Krajo-brazowy 1985–2000, stan poznania. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego, Łódź, 441–450.

37. Kondracki J. 2000. Geografia regionalna Polski. PWN, Warszawa.38. Kornobis S. 1979. Chrząszcze (Coleoptera) zbiorników wodnych Wolina i południowo-

wschodniej części Uznamu. Bad. Fizjogr. Pol. Zach. (C) 32, 19–44.39. Kubisz D., Szafraniec S. 2003: Chrząszcze (Coleoptera) masywu Babiej Góry. In: Wołoszyn B.

W., Wołoszyn D., Celaryt W. (ed.). Monografia Fauny Babiej Góry. Wydawnictwo i Drukarnia Towarzystwa Słowaków w Polsce, Kraków, 163–221.

40. Kubisz D., Szwałko P. 1991. Nowe stanowiska Cercyon laminatus Sharp i Berosus bispina Re-iche et Saulcy (Coleoptera, Hydrophilidae). Wiad. Ent. 10, 128.

41. Kubisz D.. Szwałko P., Wojas T. 1998. Materials to the fauna of Coleoptera of the Western Bieszczady Mts. (Polish Eastern Carpathians). Roczn. Muz. Górnośl. (Przyr.) 15, 5–15.

42. Michalczyk Z. (ed.) 1996. Źródła Roztocza. Monografia hydrograficzna. Wydawnictwo UMCS, Lublin.



43. Mielewczyk S. 2000. Stan poznania wodnych Adephaga (Haliplidae, Dytiscidae, Gyrinidae) Puszczy Białowieskiej. Parki Nar. Rez. Przyr. 19, 85–101.

44. Mielewczyk S. 2003. Wiosenny stan entomofauny (Odonata, Heteroptera, Coleoptera) w rzece Warcie i zbiornikach przyrzecznych w Nadwarciańskim Parku Krajobrazowym. Rocz. Nauk. Pol. Tow. Ochr. Przyr. „Salamandra” 7, 87–99.

45. Pakulnicka J. 2003: Wstępne dane na temat chrząszczy wodnych (Coleoptera) zasiedlających zbiorniki powyrobiskowe Pojezierza Olsztyńskiego. Przegl. Przyrodn. 14, 84–94.

46. Pakulnicka J. 2008. The formation of water beetle fauna in anthropogenic water bodies. Oce-anol. hydrobiol. Stud. 37, 31–42

47. Pawłowski J., Kubisz D., Mazur M. 2002. Coleoptera Chrząszcze. [In:] Czerwona lista zwie-rząt ginących i zagrożonych w Polsce. Z. Głowaciński (ed.). Wydawnictwo Instytutu Ochrony Przyrody PAN, Kraków, 88–110.

48. Przewoźny M. 2004. Nowe stanowiska kałużnic (Coleoptera: Hydrophiloidea) w Polsce. Wiad. Entomol. 23, 69–80.

49. Przewoźny M., Barłożek T. 2007. Nowe stanowiska rzadziej spotykanych Hydrophiloidea i Hy-draenidae (Staphylinoidea) w Polsce. Wiad Ent. 26, 122–123.

50. Przewoźny M., Buczyński P. 2008. Przyczynek do wiedzy o chrząszczach wodnych (Coleopte-ra: Dytiscidae, Hydrophilidae, Dryopidae) Górnego Śląska. Wiad Ent. 27, 165–166.

51. Przewoźny M., Buczyński P., Mielewczyk S. 2006. Chrząszcze wodne (Coleoptera: Adephaga, Hydrophiloidea, Byrrhoidea) doliny Bugu w województwie lubelskim (południowo-wschodnia Polska). Nowy Pam. Fizjograf. 4, 23–54.

52. Przewoźny M., Lubecki K. 2006a. Nowe stanowiska rzadziej spotykanych przedstawicie-li chrząszczy z rodziny pływakowatych (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae) w Polsce. Wiad. Ent. 25, 157–163.

53. Przewoźny M., Lubecki K. 2006b: New localities of Rhantus (Rhantus) incognitus in western Poland (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae). Ent. Prob. 36, 91–92.

54. Przewoźny M., Mazur M. 2007. Materials to knowledge of aquatic and hygrophilous beetles (Coleoptera: Dytyscidae, Hydrophilidae, Heteroceridae) of the Opole Silesia region. Nature J. 40, 49–51.

55. Rozporządzenie Ministra Środowiska z dnia 28 września 2004 r. w sprawie gatunków dziko występujących zwierząt objętych ochroną. Dz. U. 220 poz. 2237.

56. Sienkiewicz P., Konwerski S. 2004. Znaczenie rezerwatu „Krajkowo” koło Poznania dla ochro-ny chrząszczy (Coleoptera) środowisk dolin rzecznych. Wiad. Ent. 23 (Supl. 2), 189–191.

57. Sienkiewicz P., Konwerski S. 2005. Rare and endangered beetles (Coleoptera) from Krajkowo Nature Reserve in the middle course of the Warta river in Western Poland. [In:] Protection of Coleoptera in the Baltic Sea Region. J. Skłodowski, S. Huruk, S. Barsevskis, S. Tarasiuk (eds.). Warsaw Agricultural University Press, Warsaw, 57–63.

58. Staniec B., Buczyński P., Gosik R., Przewoźny M. in press. Chrząszcze (Coleoptera). [In:] Czerwona lista roślin i zwierząt województwa lubelskiego. M. Kucharczyk (ed.). Wydawnic-two Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej, Lublin.

59. Tenenbaum S. 1913. Chrząszcze (Coleoptera) zebrane w Ordynacyi Zamojskiej. Pam. Fizjogr. 21, 1–72.

60. Tenenbaum S. 1918. Dodatek do spisu chrząszczy z Ordynacyi Zamojskiej. Pam. Fizjogr. 25, 1–35.

61. Tockner K., Schiemer F., Baumgartner C., Kum G., Weegand E., Zweigmüller I., Ward J.V. 1999. The Danube Restoration Project: species diversity patterns across connectivity gradients in the floodplain system. Regul. Riv. Res. Manage. 15, 245–258.

62. Tończyk G., Pakulnicka J. 2004: Wstępna analiza wybranych grup owadów wodnych (Odona-ta, Heteroptera i Coleoptera) Łodzi. [In:] Indykiewicz P., Barczak T. (eds.). Fauna miast Euro-py Środkowej 21. wieku. Wydawnictwo LOGO, Bydgoszcz, 95–101.



63. Trojan P. 1977. Ekologia ogólna. PWN, Warszawa.64. Trzeciak A. 2000. Nowe stanowisko Hydrochara flavipes (Steven) (Coleoptera: Hydrophili-

dae) w Beskidzie Zachodnim. Wiad. Ent. 19, 53.65. Więźlak W. W. 1986. Klucze do oznaczania owadów Polski. Część XIX, Chrząszcze – Coleop-

tera. Zeszyt 48, 49 Parnidae, Limniidae, Psephenidae. PWN, Warszawa–Wrocław.66. Zawal A., Buczyński P., Pietrzak L. 2004. Aquatic invertebrates of the lowland peatbog Kręp-

skie Bagno (Northern Poland). [In:] The future of the Polish mire. Wołejko L., Jasnowska J. (eds.). Agriculture University of Szczecin, Szczecin, 199–204.

67. Zych A., Wolender M. 2004. Chrząszcze Coleoptera wybranych środowisk w okolicach Jezio-ra Głębokiego w Szczecinie. Przegl. Przyrodn. 15, 29–41.



aquatic beetles (coleoptera: adephaga, hydrophiloidea, … · 2019. 9. 7. · pennis, cercyon...

Documents