Distribution of pesticides in agroecosystem food webs differ among trophic groups and between annual and perennial crops

Pesticides threaten biodiversity, but we know little about how they permeate food webs. Few studies have investigated the number, concentration, and composition of pesticides in agroecosystem food webs even though agroecosystems cover one-third of Earth's land area. We conducted a pioneering study on the distribution of pesticides across local (i.e., on farm) and meta food webs (i.e., regional pool of local food webs) within both perennial (N = 8) and annual crops (N = 11), examining four trophic groups-soil (primary resource), plants (primary producers), rodents (herbivores), and spiders (predators)-for the presence of multiple residues, and comparing these findings to pesticides applied by farmers in recent years. We also undertook interviews with farmers to obtain the most precise information about pesticide applications in their fields. We detected a wide spectrum of pesticides in both annual and perennial crop types. Pesticides applied by farmers represented only a small proportion of all detected pesticides, indicating that pesticides entered local food webs from surrounding landscapes. Some detected pesticides had been banned by the European Union several years ago, which is highly alarming. Trophic group mobility and crop type drove pesticides number at local scale, as mobile groups contained larger numbers of pesticides (probably from encountering wider spectra of pesticides). At a meta scale, spiders contained the highest number of detected pesticides in perennial crops but lowest diversity in annual crops. This might be explained by how spiders' functional traits are selected in different crops. Insecticides and fungicides concentrations mostly increased with trophic level, indicating bioaccumulation. Herbicides concentration were highest in plants suggesting (bio)degradation. As bioaccumulation outweighed (bio)degradation, pesticides increased overall with trophic level. Therefore, the distribution of pesticides in agroecosystem food webs was affected simultaneously by several mechanisms and depended upon trophic group, crop type, and, probably, surrounding landscape.OA-hybri

Synchronous population fluctuations of forest and field voles: implications for population management

Tkadlec, E., Suchomel, J., Purchart, L., Heroldová, M., Čepelka, L., Homolka, M

Vole impact on tree regeneration: insights into forest management

Heroldová, M., Homolka, M., Tkadlec, E., Kamler, J., Suchomel, J., Purchart, L., Krojerová, J., Barančeková, M., Turek, K., Baňař, M

The value of plantation forests for plant, invertebrate and bird diversity and the potential for cross-taxon surrogacy

As the area of plantation forest expands worldwide and natural, unmanaged forests decline there is much interest in the potential for planted forests to provide habitat for biodiversity. In regions where little semi-natural woodland remains, the biodiversity supported by forest plantations, typically non-native conifers, may be particularly important. Few studies provide detailed comparisons between the species diversity of native woodlands which are being depleted and non-native plantation forests, which are now expanding, based on data collected from multiple taxa in the same study sites. Here we compare the species diversity and community composition of plants, invertebrates and birds in Sitka spruce- (Picea sitchensis-) dominated and Norway spruce- (Picea abies-) dominated plantations, which have expanded significantly in recent decades in the study area in Ireland, with that of oak- and ash-dominated semi-natural woodlands in the same area. The results show that species richness in spruce plantations can be as high as semi-natural woodlands, but that the two forest types support different assemblages of species. In areas where non-native conifer plantations are the principle forest type, their role in the provision of habitat for biodiversity conservation should not be overlooked. Appropriate management should target the introduction of semi-natural woodland characteristics, and on the extension of existing semi-natural woodlands to maintain and enhance forest species diversity. Our data show that although some relatively easily surveyed groups, such as vascular plants and birds, were congruent with many of the other taxa when looking across all study sites, the similarities in response were not strong enough to warrant use of these taxa as surrogates of the others. In order to capture a wide range of biotic variation, assessments of forest biodiversity should either encompass several taxonomic groups, or rely on the use of indicators of diversity that are not species based

Deretus maderai Purchart, 2012, sp. nov.

<i>Deretus maderai</i> sp. nov. <p>(Fig. 6, 7, 16, 21, 26)</p> <p> <i>Deretus wraniki</i>: Schawaller 2004: 457 (with figure of habitus) (partim, female paratype).</p> <p> <b>Type locality.</b> Yemen, Socotra Island, Shibhon.</p> <p> <b>Type material.</b> <i>Holotype</i> —(13 NMPC): Yemen, Socotra Island, Shibhon, 680 m, N 12°28´1.5´´, E 53°58´31.4´´, 13. vi. 2009, L. Purchart lgt. <i>The paratypes</i> —(23 + 2Ƥ LPCB): same data as holotype; (1 ƤLPCB, 1Ƥ NMPC): Yemen, Socotra Island, Firmihin plato, 400–500 m, N 12°28´45´´, E 54°00´89´´, 18.–19. vi. 2010, V. Hula & J. Niedobová leg.; (1Ƥ SBCB): YEMEN E, Socotra Isl., 6.–24.ix.1999, V. Bejček & K. Šťastný lgt. // COLLECTION STANISLAV BEČVÁŘ {yellow label} // PARATYPUS, Deretus wraniki n. sp., SCHAWALLER 2000 {red label} // Collection Stanislav Bečvář {green label}.</p> <p> <b>Differential diagnosis.</b> This species can be separated from <i>D. hulai</i> <b>sp. nov.</b> by its transverse pronotum (Fig. 16) and smooth elytra (in <i>D. hulai</i> <b>sp. nov.</b> subquadrate—Fig. 15 and sculptured respectively). From <i>D. bezdeki</i> <b>sp. nov.</b> it differs by having smooth elytra, a non dentate pronotum which also lacks extended anterior corners (elytra sculptured, pronotal sides dentate and with extremely protruded anterior corners of pronotum in <i>D. bezdeki</i> <b>sp. nov.</b>). From <i>D. denticollis</i> and <i>D. necopintaus</i> <b>sp. nov.</b> it differs by having a distinctly convex pronotum when viewed laterally (more or less flat in <i>D. denticollis</i> and <i>D. necopinatus</i> <b>sp. nov.</b>), by elytra length / pronotum width ratio less than 1.8 and by the sixth elytral interval with a longitudinal impression at the elytral base (no impressions on elytra in the latter two species). It also differs from <i>D. necopinatus</i> <b>sp. nov.</b> by its shiny body (dull in the latter species). From <i>D. spinicollis</i> it can be distinguished by its much smaller size and unextended anterior pronotal corners.</p> <p> <b>Description.</b> Holotype, body length 7.2 mm, width 2.7 mm. Variability of size in paratypes—females: 5.8–8.3 x 2.5–3.6 mm; males: 5.6–7.8 x 2.3–3.0 mm. Body dark brown, shiny (Fig. 3).</p> <p> <i>Head</i> densely punctate, punctures as large as eye facets. Space between punctures narrower or equal to their diameter. Eyes reniform, not divided by genae. Clypeus with almost straight anterior margin and with several long yellowish setae anteriorly. Labrum transverse, punctate and covered with long yellowish setae. Ventral side of head shiny and punctate. Mentum transverse with midlongitudinal and smooth gibbosity. Apical labial palpomere broadened, triangular in both sexes. Antennae filiform, relatively long, covered by whitish setae. Third antennomere prolonged, approximately as long as the two following joints combined or slightly shorter. Apical antennomere pale brown, longer in males.</p> <p> <i>Pronotum</i> (Fig. 16) transverse, distinctly convex (lateral view), punctate, punctures same as on head. Anterior margin broadly and shallowly emarginated. Both lateral margins irregularly serrate. Basal, lateral, and anterior margins of pronotum distinctly bordered. Anterior margin medially obliterated.</p> <p> <i>Elytra</i> subparallel in males and subovoid in females. Slightly convex (lateral view) with moderate apical declivity (lateral view). Base of elytra bordered only around humeri. Scutellum triangular, finely punctate. Elytral striae conspicuous, composed of punctures, puncture diameter subequal to eye facet. Elytral interstriae glabrous, convex and punctate with punctures smaller than eye facet. Sixth elytral interval with longitudinal impression at elytral base. Elytral epipleuron broad and very finely punctate.</p> <p> <i>Prosternum</i>, hypomeron, mesoventrite, mesepisternum, mesepimeron and metaventrite smooth, glabrous, densely and coarsely punctate. Prosternal process widened behind coxae (ventral view). Abdominal ventrites shallowly punctate, moderately pubescent. Males without patches of sensillae.</p> <p> <i>Legs</i> punctate, covered with yellowish setae. Males with first three protarsomeres distinctly wider than penultimate and apical protarsomeres. Further modifications not present in either sex.</p> <p>Aedeagus see Fig. 21, 26.</p> <p> <b>Etymology.</b> Dedicated to Dr. Petr Madĕra (Czech Republic), botanist and dendrologist. Without his generous offer to join his educational project I would never have had the possibility to visit Socotra Island.</p> <p> <b>Remarks.</b> Schawaller (2004) described <i>D. wraniki</i> Schawaller, 2004 based on two specimens (male holotype and female paratype), which were very similar to each other, and which he believed belonged together. During this work it was discovered that the holotype is identical to the lectotype of <i>D. denticollis</i> and therefore it is synonymised (see also remarks in <i>D. denticollis</i>). Further examination revealed that the female paratype of <i>D. wraniki</i> is a different species, identical to specimens collected during this study, which is described in this paper as <i>D. maderai</i> <b>sp. nov.</b></p>Published as part of <i>Purchart, Luboš, 2012, Biodiversity research of darkling beetles on Socotra Island. Part I. The genus Deretus Gahan, 1900 (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae), pp. 57-68 in Zootaxa 3153</i> on pages 62-63, DOI: <a href="http://zenodo.org/record/211332">10.5281/zenodo.211332</a&gt

Deretus denticollis Gahan 1900

<i>Deretus denticollis</i> Gahan, 1900 <p>(Fig. 3, 4, 14, 20, 25)</p> <p> <i>Deretus denticollis</i> Gahan, 1900: 10.— Gebien 1942: 902 [817]; Koch 1970: 124 –127 (with figure of habitus) (partim). <i>Deretus denticollis</i>: Gahan 1903: 281 –282 (redescription, with figure of habitus).</p> <p> <i>Deretus wraniki</i> Schawaller, 2004: 457 (with figure of habitus) <b>syn. nov.</b></p> <p> (see also <i>Deretus necopinatus</i> <b>sp. nov.</b> and <i>D. maderai</i> <b>sp. nov.</b>)</p> <p> <b>Type locality.</b> Yemen, Socotra Island, Jena-agahan.</p> <p> <b>Type material examined.</b> <i>Deretus denticollis</i>: <i>Lectotype</i> (designated here)—(Ƥ BMNH): Type {white and red, rounded, printed} // Jena-agahan, Sokotra. 1200 feet, Jan. 99, W.R.O. Grant, 99-85 {white, printed} // Deretus denticollis Gahan, Type {white, handwritten}.</p> <p> <i>Deretus wraniki</i>: <i>Holotype</i> —(13 SMNS): ZOOLOGISCHE EXKURSION, Socotra, Diksam, 11. 1997, leg. Wranik {white label, handwritten}// HOLOTYPUS, Deretus wraniki n. sp., Schawaller 2000 {red label, printed}; <i>Paratype</i> [actually <i>D. maderai</i> sp. n.]– (1Ƥ SBSC): YEMEN E, Socotra Isl., 6.–24.ix.1999, V.Bejček & K.Šťastný lgt. {printed}// COLLECTION STANISLAV BEČVÁŘ {yellow, printed} // PARATYPUS, Deretus wraniki n.sp., SCHAWALLER 2000 {red, printed}.</p> <p> <b>Additional material.</b> (43+ 4Ƥ LPCB): Yemen, Socotra Island, wadi Ayhaft, 12°36.5’N, 53°58.9’E, 200 m, 7– 8.xi.2010, L. Purchart lgt.; (43+6Ƥ LPCB): same data as previous, but J. Bezdĕk lgt.; (1Ƥ JBCP): same data as previous, but Jan Batelka leg.; (53+4Ƥ NMPC): same data as previous, but Jiří Hájek leg.; (13 LPCB): same data as previous, but J. Bezdĕk lgt., Alcohol 70 % + acetic acid; (1Ƥ SBCB): Yemen, Socotra Isl., Hadiboh env., 6.– 24.1999, V.Bejček & K.Šťastný lgt.; (13 SBCB): Socotra Isl. (Yemen), Hamadero, 20.–21. xi. 2000, lgt. V. Bejček + K. Šťastný; (13 SBCB): Socotra Isl. (Yemen), Ayhaft, 3. xi. 2000, lgt. V. Bejček + K. Šťastný; (23 SBCB): Socotra Isl. (Yemen), Lahas, 17.–18. xi. 2000, lgt. V. Bejček + K. Šťastný; (23+ 2Ƥ NMPC): Yemen, Soqotra Is., 21.xi.–12.xii.2003, Hadiboh env., ca 10–100 m, N 12°65’02’’ E 54°02’04’’ [GPS], David Král lgt.// Yemen – Soqotra, 2003, Expedition; Jan Farkač, Petr Kabátek & David Král; (23+ 4Ƥ NMPC): Yemen, Soqotra Is., 24– 26.xi.2003, wadi Ayhaft, 190 m, N12°36’38” E53°58’49” [GPS], David Král lgt. // Yemen – Soqotra, 2003, Expedition; Jan Farkač, Petr Kabátek & David Král; (13 JFCP): same as previous, but Jan Farkač lgt.; (13 NMPC): Yemen, Soqotra Is., Homhil protected area, 28–29.xi. 2003, 364 m, N12°34’27” E54°18’32” [GPS], David Král lgt. // Yemen – Soqotra, 2003, Expedition; Jan Farkač, Petr Kabátek & David Král; (33 JFCP): same as previous, but Jan Farkač lgt.; (1Ƥ JFCP): Yemen, Soqotra Is., 6.–7.xii.2003, Noged plain: wadi Ireeh, N 12°23’11” E 53°59’47”, 95 m [GPS]; Jan Farkač lgt. // Yemen – Soqotra, 2003, Expedition; Jan Farkač, Petr Kabátek & David Král; (23 NMPC): Yemen, Socotra Island, Aloove area, Hassan vill. env., 12°31.2’N, 54°07.4’E, 221 m, Jiří Hájek leg., 9.– 10.xi.2010; (1 ƤSMNS): Socotra Archipelago, Socotra, Hadibo, 1.xi.2008, leg. T. van Harten; (33+ 1Ƥ SMNS): Socotra Archipelago, Socotra, Wadi Danegan, 90 m, 30.x.2000, leg. T. van Harten; (1Ƥ SMNS): Yemen, Soqotra Archipelago, Soqotra, Noged, Farnihin, Steroh wadi, 12°24’26‘‘ N,54°08‘10‘‘ E, 24. x. 2010, leg. T. van Harten, SOQ 2000/06.</p> <p> <b>Remarks.</b> <i>D. denticollis</i> was described by Gahan (1900) probably based on a single female, as the only known type is a female deposited in the BMNH. However, Gahan stated neither the number of described specimens nor their deposition. For that reason I designate this specimen as a lectotype.</p> <p> Koch (1970) made a detailed description of a single male specimen deposited in the Frey collection (Natural History Museum, Basel) and designated it as the allotype of <i>D. denticollis</i>. However, this is not a valid name-bearing type (ICZN 1999: 72A) and therefore it cannot be used as a type specimen. Koch undoubtedly believed that this male belonged to the same species as the above mentioned female type specimen in the BMNH. Much later Schawaller (2004) listed an additional 4 females as <i>D. denticollis</i> that were compared with this non-type male described by Koch. The same author also described <i>Deretus wraniki</i> Schawaller, 2004 which was differentiated from <i>D. denticollis</i> mainly by its very small body size.</p> <p> During expeditions to Socotra Island the author collected, with his colleagues, a larger series of <i>Deretus</i> specimens comprising males and females of several species. These specimens were compared with the type material of <i>D. denticollis</i> and <i>D. wraniki</i> and the non-type male of <i>D. denticollis</i> from the Frey collection. The author discovered that the male holotype of <i>D. wraniki</i> is identical to the lectotype of <i>D. denticollis</i> and therefore <i>D. wraniki</i> should be synonymised. He also observed, based on a large series of this species, that the body size of this species is strongly variable and cannot be used for differential diagnoses. The holotype of <i>D. wraniki</i> simply represents one extreme of the body-size range. It was also found that the female paratype of <i>D. wraniki</i> is a different species (see remarks in <i>D. maderai</i> <b>sp. nov.</b>). The most surprising discovery is that all specimens previously identified by Koch and Schawaller as <i>D. denticollis</i> differ from the lectotype (designated in this paper) and from new specimens of <i>D. denticollis</i> collected in the field. These specimens represent a new species, which has been named <i>Deretus necopinatus</i> <b>sp. nov.</b></p> <p> <b>Differential diagnosis.</b> The type specimen was redescribed by Gahan (1903) and figured by Koch (1970). For this reason, and as the male and female do not differ significantly from each other in the shape of habitus (in males the apical antennomere is somewhat longer than in females), the description is not repeated here. Size of lectotype 11.0 x 4.0 mm. Variability of size in females—5.7–11.0 x 2.1–4.1 mm; males—4.7–9.5 x 1.8–3.8 mm.</p> <p> This species, in its general appearance, most resembles <i>D. necopinatus</i> <b>sp. nov.</b> from which it is differentiated by the shiny integument, the broadly rounded pronotal anterior corners (Fig. 14) and by the absence of patchs of sensillae on the abdominal ventrites together with the unmodified metatibia in males. From <i>D. spinicollis</i> and <i>D. bezdeki</i> <b>sp. nov.</b> it can be distinguished mainly by the shape of the pronotum, which in the latter two species is characterized by extremely elongated (extended) anterior corners (Fig. 13, 18). It differs from <i>D. hulai</i> <b>sp. nov.</b> by its smooth, almost glabrous (only ultra-microscopically and very sparsely pubescent), elytra (conspicuously pubescent and sculptured with small tubercles in the latter species). From <i>D. maderai</i> <b>sp. nov.</b> it can be separated by its almost flat pronotum (lateral view) and by its elytra length / pronotum width ratio, that is larger than 2.0. In <i>D. maderai</i> <b>sp. nov.</b> the pronotum is distinctly convex in lateral view and elytra length / pronotum width ratio is less than 1.8.</p>Published as part of <i>Purchart, Luboš, 2012, Biodiversity research of darkling beetles on Socotra Island. Part I. The genus Deretus Gahan, 1900 (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae), pp. 57-68 in Zootaxa 3153</i> on pages 60-61, DOI: <a href="http://zenodo.org/record/211332">10.5281/zenodo.211332</a&gt

Revision of the genus Histeromorphus (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) from the Socotra Archipelago with descriptions of three new species*

Purchart, Luboš (2014): Revision of the genus Histeromorphus (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) from the Socotra Archipelago with descriptions of three new species*. Acta Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae 54: 211-230, DOI: http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.531482

Zarudnionymus Semenov & Bogatchev 1947

Subgenus Zarudnionymus Semenov & Bogatchev, 1947 Zarudnionymus Semenov & Bogatchev, 1947: 175–176. Type species: Zarudnionymus persis Semenov & Bogatchev, 1947 (by monotypy).— Löbl et al. 2008: 121. Zarudnyonymus [sic!]: Ardoin 1976: 148–149; Kaszab 1981: 363, 367; Kwieton 1983: 56–60; Schawaller 1993: 106. Zarudnyonymus [sic!] (subgenus): Kwieton 1983: 60; Lillig & Bremer 2002: 48–49; Purchart 2007: 239–244. Zarudnyomus [sic!]: Purchart 2007: 239, 241, 243, 245. Falsaspila Koch, 1952: 28. Type species: Adelostoma batesi Haag-Rutenberg, 1872 (synonymized by Ardoin, 1976: 149).— Canzoneri 1965: 168–169; Koch 1965: 125; Ardoin 1972: 6; Ferrer 2001: 102. Adelostomoides Carl, 1991: 24 –25. Type species: Adelostoma grande Haag-Rutenberg, 1879 (by monotypy) (synonymized by Purchart, 2007: 240).—Lillig & Pavlíček 2003: 35–36.Published as part of Purchart, Luboš, 2012, Revision of the genus Adelostoma (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae). Part 1: subgenus Zarudnionymus Semenov & Bogatchev, 1947, pp. 17-31 in Zootaxa 3164 on page 19, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3164.1.2, http://zenodo.org/record/21136