Dévai, György

Farkas, Anna

Mérő, Thomas Oliver

Móra, Arnold

University of Debrecen Electronic Archive

 23
Acta Biol. Debr. Oecol. Hung. 32: 23–29, 2014 
 
 
 
 
URBAN DRAGONFLIES: DATA ON THE ODONATA FAUNA OF THE DANUBE 
AT BUDAPEST 
 
A. FARKAS1* – T.O. MÉRŐ2  – A. MÓRA3 – GY. DÉVAI1  
 
1University of Debrecen, Centre of Arts, Humanities and Sciences, Faculty of 
Science and Technology, Department of Hydrobiology, Egyetem tér 1, H-4032 
Debrecen, Hungary 
2University of Debrecen, Centre of Arts, Humanities and Sciences, Faculty of 
Science and Technology, Department of Ecology, Egyetem tér 1, H-4032 Debrecen, 
Hungary 
3MTA Centre for Ecological Research, Balaton Limnological Institute, Klebelsberg 
Kuno 3, H-8237 Tihany, Hungary 
*Corresponding author, e-mail: flavipes@gmail.com 
 
 
 
NAGYVÁROSI SZITAKÖTŐK: ADATOK A DUNA BUDAPESTI 
SZAKASZÁNAK SZITAKÖTŐ-FAUNÁJÁHOZ (ODONATA) 
 
FARKAS ANNA1  –  MÉRŐ  THOMAS OLIVER2  – MÓRA 
ARNOLD3 – DÉVAI  GYÖRGY1  
 
1Debreceni Egyetem, Természettudományi és Technológiai Kar, Hidrobiológiai 
Tanszék, 4032 Debrecen, Egyetem tér 1.  
2Debreceni Egyetem, Természettudományi és Technológiai Kar, Ökológiai 
Tanszék, 4032 Debrecen, Egyetem tér 1. 
3Magyar Tudományos Akadémia, Ökológiai Kutatóközpont, Balatoni 
Limnológiai Intézet, 8237 Tihany, Klebelsberg Kuno út 3. 
 
 
ABSTRACT: Although the Danube is the largest river in Hungary, its Odonata 
fauna is scarcely known, especially that of the river section in Budapest. In this 
paper new data on the Odonata fauna of the latter Danube section are 
presented. In 2013 the collections of exuviae and observations on adults were 
made at five sites along the Danube in Budapest. During this work 414 exuviae 
(including dead larvae found in early phases of emergence) were collected and 
36 mature adults were observed. Altogether seven species were recorded, 
among them the rare and vulnerable Ophiogomphus cecilia and 
Onychogomphus forcipatus. Except for Gomphus vulgatissimus, all species 
found are new for the fauna of the main branch of the Danube in Budapest. The 
composition of Odonata assemblage may indicate the improving water quality 
state of the river. 
 
Key words: faunistics; larvae; exuviae; adults; Gomphidae 
 
KIVONAT: Annak ellenére, hogy a Duna hazánk legnagyobb folyója, szitakötő-
faunája kevéssé ismert. Különösen igaz ez a folyó fővárosi szakaszára, 
amelynek szitakötő-faunájához közlünk új adatokat. 2013-ban 
 24
exuviumgyűjtéseket és imágómegfigyeléseket végeztünk a Duna budapesti 
szakaszán, összesen öt mintavételi helyen. A felmérés során 414 exuviumot 
(beleértve a vedlés közben elpusztult lárvákat is) gyűjtöttünk, valamint 36 
kifejlett egyedet figyeltünk meg. Összesen hét faj előfordulását bizonyítottuk, 
közöttük a hazánkban ritka és sérülékeny Ophiogomphus cecilia és 
Onychogomphus forcipatus fajokkal. A Gomphus vulgatissimus kivételével 
mindegyik megtalált faj új a Duna-főág budapesti szakaszának faunájára. A 
szitakötő-fajegyüttes összetétele a folyó javuló vízminőségi állapotára utal. 
 
Kulcsszavak: faunisztika; lárva; exuvium; imágó; Gomphidae 
 
 
 
Introduction 
 
During an earlier study carried out along the Danube upstream Budapest all 
four gomphid species (Gomphidae: Gomphus flavipes, G. vulgatissimus, 
Onychogomphus forcipatus, Ophiogomphus cecilia) were found, each of them 
protected in Hungary [100/2012. (IX. 28.) VM regulation]. Among these species O. 
forcipatus was new for the fauna of the Danube in Hungary, while O. cecilia was 
previously recorded from only one locality along the main branch. Moreover, G. 
flavipes, a species of community interest in need of strict protection (listed on Annex 
IV of the Habitats Directive of the European Union; COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION 
2006), was fairly abundant (FARKAS et al. 2013). Based on this knowledge, we 
aimed to study the nearby Danube section in Budapest, where dragonflies face 
several unfavorable factors, such as water pollution, modification of the river-bed 
and the river-bank and shipping. Our main aims were to find out whether species 
composition and abundances are affected by urbanization and what is the ratio of 
mortality caused by anthropogenic factors during emergence. In this paper 
faunistical data of this study is given, since all new records for the Danube are of 
great importance: although the Danube is the largest river in Hungary, its Odonata 
fauna is rather understudied and mostly sporadic data are available (AMBRUS et al. 
1996, 1998a, 1998b; ANDRIKOVICS et al 2006; BÁNKUTI 2009; KOVÁCS, K. et al. 2010; 
KOVÁCS, T. and AMBRUS 2003, 2010; KOVÁCS, T. et al. 2004, 2006; MÜLLER et al. 
2006; OERTEL et al. 2005, 2010; ROZNER 2011; SZEKERES et al. 2009; TÓTH 1992, 
2011; UJHELYI 1993; VIZSLÁN and PINGITZER 1997, 1998–99, 2001). Furthermore, 
the Odonata fauna of the Danube in the capital is even more scarcely known 
(AMBRUS et al. 1998a), such as that of other streams or rivers in urban areas of 
Hungary. 
 
Materials and methods 
 
Our study was largely based on the systematic and frequent collections of 
gomphid exuviae. In addition, collections of exuviae of other species and 
observations on adults were also made to complete our knowledge on the Odonata 
fauna of the studied river section. Collections and observations were carried out at 
altogether five sites along the main branch of the Danube in Budapest (Table 1, Fig. 
1) between 3 July and 3 August in 2013 on 28 days. During collections the ground, 
the vegetation and other artificial objects were searched intensively for the exuviae 
in an area of the bank up to 15 meters in width. Mortality events during emergence 
were also recorded. Data based on larvae include those specimens that died or 
damaged in early phases of emergence (in larval stage or still in the exuviae). Data 
 25
based on adults include only observations on mature, fully colored individuals (which 
indicate that maturation was successfully completed), while tenerals were not taken 
into account due to that their exuviae should have been collected and therefore 
indicate no new records. Larvae, exuviae and adults were identified using keys and 
descriptions by ASKEW (2004), GERKEN and STERNBERG (1999).  
 
Table 1. Sampling sites along the Danube at Budapest (listed downstream) 
with their administrative units, the exact geographical co-ordinates and the 
10×10 km UTM-grid codes (in case of geographical terms the original 
Hungarian form is given: part = bank, híd = bridge; abbreviations: rb = right 
bank; lb = left bank). 
Co-ordinate Code Sampling site 
N E 
UTM 
code 
BP1 Danube, rb, Római part (Budapest) 47°34'45.00" 19°03'59.90" CT57 
BP2 Danube, lb, Margit híd (Budapest) 47°30'40.45" 19°02'44.92" CT56 
BP3 Danube, lb, Erzsébet híd (Budapest) 47°29'32.66" 19°03'00.56" CT56 
BP4 Danube, rb, Erzsébet híd (Budapest) 47°29'21.83" 19°02'54.45" CT56 
BP5 Danube, lb, Csepel (Budapest) 47°24'50.57" 19°02'51.51" CT55 
 
 
 
 
Figure 1. Location of sampling sites (BP1–BP5) along the Danube at Budapest 
(for codes see Table 1). 
 26
In the species list new records contain the following information: locality (as 
the code of the sampling site according to Table 1), date of collection, total number 
of individuals, in brackets the numbers of males and females as well (a third number 
indicates the number of individuals with undetermined sex) and names of collectors 
in alphabetic order. The dates of collection follow Hungarian order (YYYY.MM.DD). 
The names of collectors are given by abbreviations: FA = Anna Farkas, MA = Arnold 
Móra, MTO = Thomas Oliver Mérő. 
 
Results 
 
Collections resulted in the occurrence of 414 larvae and exuviae belonging to 
five species (Calopteryx splendens, G. vulgatissimus, G. flavipes, O. cecilia, O. 
forcipatus). Moreover, 36 adult specimens belonging to four species (C. splendens, 
Ischnura elegans, G. flavipes, Orthetrum albistylum) were observed. Among them G. 
flavipes and C. splendens were found at all studied sites, while the other species 
were collected or observed only at one (I. elegans, G. vulgatissimus, O. forcipatus, 
O. albistylum) or two (O. cecilia) localities. Based on abundances of exuviae, G. 
flavipes proved to be the most dominant gomphid species, whereas G. 
vulgatissimus, O. forcipatus and O. cecilia were found in rather few (1 or 2 exuviae) 
numbers. 
 
New records 
 
Data based on larvae 
 
Gomphus flavipes (Charpentier, 1825) – BP1: 2013.07.13., 1(0+0+1), FA-MA – 
BP2: 2013.07.04., 1(0+0+1), FA; 2013.08.01., 1(1+0), FA-MTO – BP5: 
2013.07.11., 1(0+0+1), FA; 2013.07.19., 2(1+1), FA-MTO; 2013.07.27., 
1(0+1), FA-MA. 
Ophiogomphus cecilia (Fourcroy, 1758) – BP5: 2013.07.19., 1(1+0), FA-MTO. 
 
Data based on exuviae 
 
Calopteryx splendens (Harris, 1782) – BP2: 2013.07.08., 1(0+0+1), FA – BP3: 
2013.07.18., 1(0+1), FA-MTO – BP5: 2013.07.31., 1(1+0), FA-MTO. 
Gomphus vulgatissimus (Linnaeus, 1758) – BP5: 2013.07.03., 1(1+0), FA-MTO. 
Gomphus flavipes (Charpentier, 1825) – BP1: 2013.07.05., 6(2+4), FA; 
2013.07.09., 18(9+9), FA; 2013.07.13., 11(3+8), FA-MA; 2013.07.17., 
5(2+2+1), FA-MTO; 2013.07.21., 10(3+7), FA; 2013.07.29., 3(1+2), FA; 
2013.08.02., 6(4+1+1), FA-MTO – BP2: 2013.07.04., 4(2+2), FA; 2013.07.08., 
5(2+3), FA; 2013.07.12., 8(1+7), FA; 2013.07.16., 22(12+10), FA-MTO; 
2013.07.20., 24(9+15), FA-MTO; 2013.07.28., 21(7+13+1), FA-MA; 
2013.08.01., 13(7+5+1), FA-MTO – BP3: 2013.07.10., 1(1+0), FA; 
2013.07.18., 7(1+6), FA-MTO; 2013.07.22., 2(1+1), FA-MA; 2013.07.30., 
1(1+0), FA-MTO – BP4: 2013.07.18., 1(0+1), FA-MTO; 2013.07.22., 9(2+7), 
MA – BP5: 2013.07.03., 24(11+13), FA-MTO; 2013.07.07., 27(14+11+2), FA; 
2013.07.11., 35(21+14), FA; 2013.07.15., 40(21+18+1), FA-MTO; 
2013.07.19., 45(16+29), FA-MTO; 2013.07.27., 37(17+18+2), FA-MA; 
2013.07.31., 15(5+10), FA-MTO. 
Ophiogomphus cecilia (Fourcroy, 1758) – BP4: 2013.07.18., 1(0+1), FA-MTO. 
Onychogomphus forcipatus (Linnaeus, 1758) – BP5: 2013.07.27., 1(1+0), FA-MA. 
 27
Data based on adults 
 
Calopteryx splendens (Harris, 1782) – BP1: 2013.07.05., 1(0+1), FA; 2013.07.17., 
1(1+0), FA-MTO; 2013.08.02., 1(1+0), FA-MTO – BP2: 2013.07.08., 1(1+0), 
FA; 2013.07.28., 1(1+0), FA-MA – BP3: 2013.07.06., 1(0+1), FA; 2013.07.18., 
1(1+0), FA-MTO – BP4: 2013.08.03., 1(1+0), FA – BP5: 2013.07.03., 5(3+2), 
FA-MTO; 2013.07.07., 2(1+1), FA; 2013.07.11., 1(1+0), FA; 2013.07.19., 
1(1+0), FA-MTO. 
Ischnura elegans (Vander Linden, 1820) – BP3: 2013.07.18., 1(1+0), FA-MTO. 
Gomphus flavipes (Charpentier, 1825) – BP1: 2013.07.13., 1(0+1), FA-MA – BP5: 
2013.07.07., 1(0+1), FA; 2013.07.11., 7(6+1), FA; 2013.07.31., 8(2+6), FA-
MTO. 
Orthetrum albistylum (Selys, 1848) – BP5: 2013.07.19., 1(1+0), FA-MTO. 
 
 
Discussion 
 
Although urbanization may have several unfavorable effects on dragonflies, 
which may primarily cause the disappearance of rare species (e.g. ALIBERTI 
LUBERTAZZI and GINSBERG 2010; PAUL and MEYER 2001), not only the two frequent 
Gomphus-species but the much scarcer O. forcipatus and O. cecilia were also found 
as larvae/exuviae along the Danube in the capital. This two species were detected 
at few localities up to date: O. forcipatus was previously found only along the main 
and side Danube branches surrounding the island Szentendrei-sziget (FARKAS et al. 
2013), while O. cecilia, besides the same localities (FARKAS et al. 2013), was 
collected from the Mosoni-Duna and from the main branch at Zebegény as well 
(AMBRUS et al. 1998a, 1998b; KOVÁCS, T. and AMBRUS 2003; KOVÁCS, T. et al. 2006).  
Dealing with the Odonata fauna of the Danube in Budapest only some sporadic data 
are available (AMBRUS et al. 1998a). Four species (Platycnemis pennipes, I. 
elegans, Anax imperator, Orthetrum cancellatum) were recorded from the Ráckevei-
Soroksári-Duna, whereas from the main branch only G. vulgatissimus was collected 
as larvae at Erzsébet Bridge. Accordingly, all species found in this study are new for 
the fauna of the main branch of the Danube in Budapest, except for G. 
vulgatissimus. However, O. forcipatus has already been reported from Budapest 
(UJHELYI 1993), but this data was based on a single adult collected in 1963, and no 
exact place of sampling was given. 
Although we found only one exuviae of the earliest emerging G. 
vulgatissimus, it is most likely that this species is much more frequent along the 
studied river section. The strikingly low number of specimens must be due that 
collections could have begun late in the season, after the extremely large flood in 
early summer had subsided. 
In conclusion, more Odonata species were found along the Danube in 
Budapest than it had been expected. The occurrence of rare and vulnerable species 
(i.e. O. cecilia, O. forcipatus) may be attributed to the improving water quality state 
of the river (LIŠKA et al. 2008). 
 
 
Acknowledgement – This research was supported by the European Union and the 
State of Hungary, co-financed by the European Social Fund in the framework of 
TÁMOP-4.2.4.A/ 2-11/1-2012-0001 ‘National Excellence Program’. 
 
 28
References 
 
ALIBERTI LUBERTAZZI, M.A. – GINSBERG, H.S. (2010): Emerging dragonfly diversity at 
small Rhode Island (U.S.A.) wetlands along an urbanization gradient. – Urban 
Ecosystems 13: 517–533. 
ANDRIKOVICS, S. – NOSEK, J. – OERTEL, N. (2006): Szitakötő (Odonata) 
lárvavizsgálatok a Szigetközben [The Odonata fauna of Szigetköz on the 
basis of larval investigations]. – Acta Biologica Debrecina Supplementum 
Oecologica Hungarica 14: 9–19. 
AMBRUS, A. – BÁNKUTI, K. – CSÁNYI, B. – JUHÁSZ, P. – KOVÁCS, T. (1998a): Larval data 
to the Odonata fauna of Hungary. – Odonata – stadium larvale 2: 41–52. 
AMBRUS, A. – BÁNKUTI, K. – KOVÁCS, T. (1996): Lárva és imágó adatok Magyarország 
Odonata faunájához [Larval and imaginal data to the Odonata fauna of 
Hungary]. – Odonata – stadium larvale 1: 51–68. 
AMBRUS, A. – BÁNKUTI, K. – KOVÁCS, T. (1998b): The Odonata fauna of the Szigetköz. 
– Odonata – stadium larvale 2: 17–39. 
ASKEW, R.R. (2004): The dragonflies of Europe. Second edition. – Harley Books, 
Colchester, 308 pp. 
BÁNKUTI, K. (2009): Adatok Magyarország szitakötő-faunájához (Odonata) az 1987. 
december 31-ig végzett szórványgyűjtéseim alapján [Data on the dragonfly 
(Odonata) fauna of Hungary according to my scatter-collections by December 
31, 1987]. – Studia odonatologica hungarica 10: 5–10. 
COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION (2006): Council directive 2006/105/EC of 20 
November 2006 adapting Directives 73/239/EEC, 74/557/EEC and 
2002/83/EC in the field of environment, by reason of the accession of Bulgaria 
and Romania. – Official Journal of the European Union 49/L363: 368–408. 
FARKAS, A. – MÓRA, A. – DÉVAI, GY. (2013): Adatok a Duna szitakötő-faunájához 
(Odonata) a Szentendrei-szigetet közrefogó fő- és mellékágnál végzett 
felmérések alapján [Data on the dragonfly (Odonata) fauna of the Danube 
based on the surveys of the main and side branches along the island 
Szentendrei-sziget]. – Studia odonatologica hungarica 15: 107–120. 
GERKEN, B. – STERNBERG, K. (1999): Die Exuvien Europäischer Libellen (Insecta, 
Odonata). – Arnika & Eisvogel, Höxter & Jena, VI + 354 pp. 
KOVÁCS, K. – AMBRUS, A. – ROBOTKA, Á.G. (2010): Újabb adatok a folyami szitakötők 
(Odonata: Gomphidae) északnyugat-magyarországi előfordulásához [New 
data to the occurrence of the riverine dragonfly-species (Odonata: 
Gomphidae) in North-West Hungary]. – Hidrológiai Közlöny 90/6: 75–77. 
KOVÁCS, T. – AMBRUS, A. (2003): Data to the Odonata fauna of the Szigetköz. – Folia 
historico-naturalia Musei Matraensis 27: 73–80. 
KOVÁCS, T. – AMBRUS, A. (2010): Lárva és exuvium adatok Magyarország Odonata 
faunájához III. [Larval and exuvial data to the Odonata fauna of Hungary III.] – 
Folia historico-naturalia Musei Matraensis 34: 29–35. 
KOVÁCS, T. – AMBRUS, A. – JUHÁSZ, P. – BÁNKUTI, K. (2004): Lárva és exuvium adatok 
Magyarország Odonata faunájához [Larval and exuvial data to the Odonata 
fauna of Hungary]. – Folia historico-naturalia Musei Matraensis 28: 97–110. 
KOVÁCS, T. – AMBRUS, A. – JUHÁSZ, P. (2006): Lárva és exuvium adatok 
Magyarország Odonata faunájához II. [Larval and exuvial data to the Odonata 
fauna of Hungary II.]. – Folia historico-naturalia Musei Matraensis 30: 167–
179. 
 29
LIŠKA, I. – WAGNER, F. – SLOBODNÍK, J. (eds.) (2008): Joint Danube Survey 2. Final 
scientific report. – International Commission for the Protection of the Danube 
River, Vienna, 242 pp. 
MÜLLER, Z. – JUHÁSZ, P. – KISS, B. (2006): Faunistical results of the Odonata 
investigations carried out in the frames of the ecological survey of the surface 
waters of Hungary (ECOSURV) in 2005. – Folia historico-naturalia Musei 
Matraensis 30: 333–338. 
OERTEL, N. – NOSEK, J. – ANDRIKOVICS, S. (2005): A magyar Duna-szakasz litorális 
zónájának makroszkopikus gerinctelen faunája (1998–2000) 
[Macroinvertebrates in the littoral zone of the Hungarian Danube section 
(1998-2000)]. – Acta Biologica Debrecina Supplementum Oecologica 
Hungarica 13: 159–185. 
OERTEL, N. – NOSEK, J. – BÓDIS, E. – BORZA, P. – TÓTH, B. (2010): Dunai 
makrogerinctelen-mintavételek tanulságai a Gödi-sziget térségében 
[Learnings of macroinvertebrate sampling int he river Danube at the locality of 
„Gödi-sziget” (island of Göd)]. – Acta Biologica Debrecina Supplementum 
Oecologica Hungarica 21: 139–152. 
PAUL, M.J. – MEYER, J.L. (2001): Streams in the urban landscape. – Annual Review 
of Ecology and Systematics 32: 333–365. 
ROZNER, GY. (2011): Adatok Magyarország szitakötő-faunájához (Odonata) az 1987. 
december 31-ig végzett szórványgyűjtéseim alapján [Data on the dragonfly 
(Odonata) fauna of Hungary according to my scatter-collections by December 
31, 1987]. – Studia odonatologica hungarica 13: 49–54. 
SZEKERES, J. – MOLNÁR, M. – CSÁNYI, B. – SZALÓKY, Z. (2009): A Duna rajkai és szobi 
keresztszelvényeinek makrozoobenton vizsgálata mélységi kotort minták 
alapján [Macrozoobenthon investigations on two Danube crosssections 
(Rajka and Szob) with dredging method]. – Acta Biologica Debrecina 
Supplementum Oecologica Hungarica 20: 209–218. 
TÓTH, S. (2011): Adatok Magyarország szitakötő-faunájához (Odonata) az 1987. 
december 31-ig végzett szórványgyűjtéseim alapján [Data on the dragonfly 
(Odonata) fauna of Hungary according to my scatter-collections by December 
31, 1987]. – Studia odonatologica hungarica 12: 33–46. 
UJHELYI, S. (1993): Adatok Magyarország szitakötő-faunájához (Odonata) az 1987. 
december 31-ig végzett szórványgyűjtéseim alapján [Data on the dragonfly 
(Odonata) fauna of Hungary according to my scatter-collections by December 
31, 1987]. – Studia odonatologica hungarica 1: 53–61. 
VIZSLÁN, T. – PINGITZER, B. (1997): Adatok Magyarország szitakötő-faunájához 
(Odonata) II. [Contribution to the knowledge of the dragonfly fauna of 
Hungary]. – Folia historico-naturalia Musei Matraensis 22: 99–108. 
VIZSLÁN, T. – PINGITZER, B. (1998–99): Adatok Magyarország szitakötő-faunájához 
(Odonata) III. [Data to the Odonata fauna of Hungary III]. – Folia historico-
naturalia Musei Matraensis 23: 179–190. 
VIZSLÁN, T. – PINGITZER, B. (2001): Adatok a Dunántúl Odonata faunájához II. [Data 
to the dragonfly fauna of Transdanubia II.] – Folia historico-naturalia Musei 
Matraensis 25: 127–134. 
 
 30
 
 
 


Urban dragonflies: data on the Odonata fauna of the Danube at Budapest

https://dea.lib.unideb.hu/dea/bitstream/2437/213953/1/file_up_mavige11_03_farkas_en_final.pdf

Urban dragonflies: data on the Odonata fauna of the Danube at Budapest

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Debrecen Electronic Archive