An endangered species categorisation of the Hungarian Trichoptera has been proposed by NÓOMDI and UHERKOVICH(1999). However, their list did not allow a quantitative evaluation of

the degree of endangerment. Here an attempt is made to calculate an index of endangerment among the different groups of the endangered species categorisation of NÓOMDI and UHERKQVICH (1999)

Schmera, Dénes

Repository of the Academy's Library

101Lauterbomia 40: 101-107. D-86424 Dinkelscherben, 2001-02-28A method for the quantitative evaluation of the endanger-ment status of Trichoptera assemblages in HungaryDénes SchmeraWith 1 figure and 2 tablesKeywords: Trichoptera, Insecta, Hungary, endangennent status, conservation, nature protectionSchlagwörter: Trichoptera, Insecta, Ungam, Gefáhrdung, Schutz, NaturschutzAn endangered species categorisation of the Hungarian Trichoptera has been proposed byNÓOMDI & UHERKOVICH (1999). However, their list did not allow a quantitative evaluation ofthe degree of endangerment. Here an attempt is made to calculate an index of endangermentamong the different groups of the endangered species categorisation of NÓOMDI & UHERKQ-VICH (1999).1 IntroductionConservation ecology is an applied science connecting the science of ecologywith the conservation practice. Among others, two major tasks of this scientitictieId is (1) the estimation of the ecological status value of different localities,and (2) indication of these changes in time (trends). Based on plant and animaIcommunities a reference is given for the evaluation of their habitats. Obviously,the special characteristics of the communities (spectrum of species, number ofspecies, number of individuals, diversity etc.) give no directly usable informa-tion to the unprofessional. Instead, conservation practice requires a quantitativemethod for evaluation of the conservation value of the given locality.The conservation value of a site may be the number of the endemic and/orthreatened species (BROOKS & al. 1999). EYRE & RUSHTON (1989) suggest the useof rarity indices and a typicalness measurement to estimate the conservationvalue of a site. By typicalness the authors meant the distance from the origo inan ordination space. In my opinion, conservation value of a site has to includemany criteria, like rarity, diversity, threatened value, etc.Actually, an index to be able to quality the value of a community could bebased on the number of the protected species. This number however, wouldshow a crude value of the assemblage, because if, for instance, the number andthe occurrence of the protected species are low, the sensitivity of this methodcan be insufticient for estimation, too. This is due to the low probability of raTespecies entering the sampIe. It is no good using this method in the case of Tri-choptera in Hungary, because the number of protected caddisfly species is low.102There are altogether 10 species (NÓGRÁDI & UHERKOVICH 1994), and aU of themare very rare.Here an attempt is made to suggest the degree of endangerment as a compo-nent of the conservation value, both at species and community levels, based ondata of the studied caddisfly assemblages and on the endangered species catego-risation of NÓGRÁDI & UHERKOVICH (1999).2 Interpretation of endangerment parameters and indices of en-dangementNÓGRÁDI & UHERKOVICH (1999 merely produced a list of species, wich did notallow a quantitative evaluation of endangerment of caddisfly assemblages. Inthis study, I propose endangerment parameters and indices, both at species andcommunity levels as a method to quantitatify the status of caddisfly assemblagesin Hungary.The endangerment categorisation is a listing of the caddisfly fauna of Hun-gary into different groups that represents the endangerment of the species (e.g.extinct or vanished, endangered, vulnerable, presumed vulnerable and not-threatened). The endangerment parameters is frequency of species or individu-als, expressed as percentage, among the given threatened species categories. Isuggest to use a so-called "endangerment index" that quantifies the endanger-ment of the community and in which the endangered groups have differentweights, based on their endangerment status.3 Calculation of endangerment parametersThere are different ways to determine the endangerment categorisation (EC).Let mark the author and the description year with "a": EC[a]. Then the code ofthe EC of NóGRADI & UHERKOVICH (1999) is EC[NUI999].There are degrees of endangering (= threatened species categories) in thisEC. Let the total number of categories be "G", where the single categories aresigned as "i" (i= 1 to G): EC[a](i).NÓGRÁDI & UHERKOVICH (1999) described 6 threatened species categories:unknown, extinct or vanished, endangered, vulnerable, presumed vulnerable,not-threatened. 9 species have no evaluation, they are omitted from further cal-culation.1 give the following numerical values to these categories: i = 1: not -threat-ened, i=2: presume vulnerable, i=3: vulnerable, i=4: endangered, i=5: ex-tinct or vanished. For instance EC[NUI999](4) means the "endangered species-group" of the EC of NÓGRÁDI & UHERKOVICH (1999).The Value of EC, based on data [a], in the case of the i-th group and j-thspecies is coded as: VEC[a](i,j), where j = 1 to 8. (8 is the total number of the103Trichoptera species in Hungary: presently 207, see NÓGRÁDI & UHERKOVICH1999.) The value of VEC[a](i,j) can be zero or one, denoting whether or not aspecies (j) belongs to the i-th group. One species can belong to one group only:VEC[a](i,j) = O or 1, with the limit:cL VEC [a](i, j) =1;=1The next step is the formulation of endangerment parameters both for speciesand community levels. The species level (1) shows only the occurrence of thegiven species among the different groups. The community level (2) shows theoccurrence of individuals among the different groups. Let nj the number of theindividuals of the j-th species and I decode "species level occurrence" of the i-thgroup in the case of the EC[a] as follows: SO(i)EC[a]. It may be calculated as:s~(VEqa](i,j) * k) * 100j=1SO(i)EC[a] % =c sLL(VEC[a](i,j) * k);=\ j=\where "k" shows the presence/absence of the j-th species. The value of k= 1, ifnj>O and k=O, ifnj=O.The "community level occurrence" of the i-th group in the case of theVEC[a](i,j) is: CO(i)EC[a]. Similarly, it can be calculated as:sL(VEC[a](i,j) * nj) * 100j=lCO(i)EC[a] % =As a result, the endangennent parameters of a community can be expressed bythe help of SO(i)EC[a] % that shows a frequency distribution of sampled spe-cies and by the help of CO(i)EC[a] % that shows a frequency distributions ofthe members of the community (individuals) among the given threatened speciescategories.1044 Calculation of endangerment indicesAt the species level 1 denote the indices as EI(s) and at the community level asEI(c).The value of EI(s) and EI(c) ranges from one to five. Theoretically, numberfive denotes a community represented by only extinct or vanished species,whereas number one refers to a community having only no threatened species.The larger the value of the index, the higher the endangerment of the commu-nity.5 ApplicationThe applicability of the endangerment parameters and indices was tested onlight trap-collected caddisfly assemblages. Different areas and habitats wererepresented, based on own and literature data (Table 1). The endangerment in-dices were calculated for each site (Table 2). If only qualitative data were avail-able, the species level EI was used.Figure 1 shows the endangerment parameters of two caddisfly assemblages atBemecebaráti and Pacsa. Bemecebaráti s a nature area in the Börzsöny Moun-tains without human disturbance. The light trap was situated near the Bemeceistream. The other site at Pacsa is a typical agriculture area with significant hu-man disturbance. The endangerment parameters are based on caddisfly commu-nities.At species level endangerment parameters at Pacsa (Fig. liA) show a highvalue (more than 60 %) of the not-threatened species-group. The presumed vul-nerable species-group is represented by less than 40 %. No other EC species-group is represented at Pacsa. At the community level endangerment parametersat Pacsa (Fig. 1/B) are represented by a higher value of the not-threatened, andby a lower value of the presumed vulnerable species-group. Based on these en-dangerment of the community at Pacsa seems to be low.At the other site at Bemecebaráti the species-level endangerment parameters(Fig. 11C) are represented by 4 species-groups (not-threatened, presumed vul-nerable, vulnerable and endangered). The proportions of not-threatened and pre-sumed vulnerable species are over 30 %, of the vulnerable species over 20 %105Tab. 1. The studied sitesData ReferencePlace YearBernecebaráti 1998 quantitative unpublishedSzarvaskö 1989,1990,1997 qualitative KISS & al. 1999Fertörákos 1976-1980 qualitative ANORIKOVlCS & UJHELYI1983Magyarszombatfa 1984 quantitative UHERKOVlCH &NÓGRÁOI 1992Nagyvisnyó 1984 qualitative KISS 1987Pacsa 1986 quantitative SCHMERA 1999Pilismarót 1984-1986 quantitative NÓGRÁOI & al. 1991Veröce 1980 qualitative CHANTARAMONGKOL 1983Vörös kö Valley 1981 qualitative KISS 1984Tab. 2: Endangerment index of the different sitesA B10050o2 3 4CO(I)EC[NU1999]5c D51 2 3 4~1)B:[~999]Fig 1.: Endangerment parameters of the caddisfly communities at Pacsa (A and 8) and8ernecebaráti (C and D). A and C species level, 8 and D the community level106and of the endangered species under 10 %. The community level endangermentpararneters at Bernecebaráti ace shown in fig. 1/D. Percentages of the not-threatened and presumed vulnerab1e species ace about 20 %, of the vulnerablespecies-groupabout 50 % and of the endangered species-group about 5 %.Figures 11C and D demonstrate that endangerment of the caddistly communityat Bernecebaráti is higher than at Pacsa. On the other hand, the results of thespecies- and community-level endangerment pararneters at Bernecebaráti showlarge differences, because the species-level evaluation of endangermentrepresents only the percentage of the species within the different endangeredspecies-groups.The evaluation of data from literature and from my own collection (Table 1)illustrates that the highest value of EI(c) is 2.65 and of EI(s) is 2.2 at Nagy-visny6, whereas the lowest values were found communities ace at Veröce andPacsa. In the case of Veröce the result refers to the caddistly community of theDanube, in the case of Pacsa to agriculture areas.It seems that the endangerment of caddistly communities, based on endanger-ment pararneters and indices yield a negative correlation with the value of thehuman disturbance. This result supports the validity of the EC of NÓGRAol &UHERKOVICH (1999) and the method suggested above.Acknowledgement1 thank Dr. Árpád Szentesi for his comments on the manuscript. This research was supported by theNational Scientific Research Grant (OTKA) No. FO26608.ReferencesANDRIKOVICS, S. 11. S. UJHEL VI (1983): Trichoptera of the Hungarian part of the Lake Fertö (a fau-nistical and ecologica1 treatise).- Folia Entomologica Hungarica 44: 5-8, BudapestBROOKS, M. T., S. L. PIMM, V. KApos 11. C. RAVILIOUS (1999): Threat from deforestation to mon-tane and lowland birds and mammals in insular South-east Asia.- Journal of animai ecology 68:1061-1078, OxfordEVRE, M. D. 11. S. P. RUSHTON (1989): Qualification of conservation criteria using invertebrates.-Journal of applied ecology 26: 159-171, OxfordCHANTARAMONGKQL, P. (1983): Light-trapped caddisflies (Trichoptera) as water quality indicatorsin large rivers: Re!'!llts from the Danube at Veröce, Hungary.- Aquatic Insects 5: 33-37, LisseKISS, o. (1984): Fénycsapdával gyüjtött Trichopterák a Bükk hegységi Vöröskö-völgyböl (Trichop-tera collected by light-trap from Vöröskö-Valley in the Bükk Mountains).- Acta Academiae Pae-dagogiensis Agriensis 17: 709-718, Eger (In Hungarian)KISS, O. (1987): A Bükk hegységi Nagy-völgy (Nagyvisny6) fénycsadával gyüjtött Trichopterái.(Trichoptera collected by light-trap from Nagy-Valley (Nagyvisny6) in Bükk Mountains).- ActaAcademiae Paedagogiensis Agriensis 18: 3-8, Eger (In Hungarian)KISS, O., S. ANDRIKOVICS, G. SZIGETVÁRI 11. 1. FISLI (1999): Trichoptera from a light trap near theEger brook at Szarvaskö (Bükk Mountains, North Hungary).- Proceedings of the 91h Interna-tional Symposium on Trichoptera: 165-170, Chiang MaiNÓGRÁDI, S 11. A. UHERKOVICH (1994): Protected species in Hungary.- Braueria 21: 25, LunzNÓGRÁDI, S 11. A. UHERKOVICH (1999): Protected and threatened caddisflies (Trichoptera) in Hun-gary.- Proceedings of the 91h International Symposium on Trichoptera: 291-297, Chiang Mai107NÓGRÁDI, S., A. UHERKOVICH ...S. ANDRIKOVICS (1991): Foundation of the caddisfly (Trichop-tera) fauna of the Visegrádi Mountains.- Opuscula Zoologica 25: 143-158, BudapestSCHMERA D. (1999): Adatok néhányagrárterület tegzeseinek (Trichoptera) ismeretéhez (Data to theTrichoptera of some agricultural areas in Hungary.)- Növényvédelem 35: 105-107, Budapest (InHungarian)UHERKOVICH A... S. NÓGRÁDI (1992): The Trichoptera fauna of Nagyszombatfa, West Hungary.-Janus Pannonius Múzeum Évkönyve 36: 13-30, PécsAuthor's address: Dénes Schmera, Plant Protection Institute, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, H-1525 Budapest, P. O. Box 102, Hungary, e-mail: h8458sch@ella.huReceived: 2(xx)-07-12

A method for the quantitative evaluation of the endangerment status of Trichoptera assemblages in Hungary

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Repository of the Academy's Library