Sawflies of the Zselic Hills, SW Hungary (Hymenoptera: Symphyta)

Haris, Attila

doi:10.24394/natsom.2009.15.127

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For the discussion of the distribution of sawflies, we consulted the book of Roller and Haris titled Sawflies of the Carpathian Basin, History and Current Research (Roller & Haris 2008), the most recent European checklist of species (Taeger et al 2006) and the monograph of Sundukov of the sawflies of Russia (Sundukov 2017) augmented by other faunistic records from the Carpathian Basin (Mocsáry 1900, Roller 1993, 1994, 1996, 1998, 1999a, b, c, d, e, 2000a, b, c, 2001, 2004, 2005, 2006a, b, 2010, Roller & Lukáš 1999. Roller et al 2006, Roller & Macek, 2017Roller & Olšovský, 2012, Balázs & Haris 2019a, b, Haris 2001a, 2009, 2011, 2012, 2018a, b, Haris & Gyurkovics 2012.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sawflies of the Cserhát Mountains (Hymenoptera: Symphyta)

Haris¹

2021

Natura Somogyiensis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

573 specimens of 110 species were collected in the Cserhát Mountains. The presence of Sterictiphora furcata (Villers, 1789) confirmed and documented first time in the Carpathian Basin. Rare species are: Empria hungarica (Konow, 1895), Aprosthema austriacum (Konow, 1892), Arge pleuritica (Klug, 1834), Monardis plana (Klug, 1817), Hoplocampa pectoralis Thomson, 1871, Pachynematus moerens (Förster, 1854) and Pristiphora abbreviata (Hartig, 1837).

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sawflies of the Cserhát Mountains (Hymenoptera: Symphyta)

Haris¹

2021

Natura Somogyiensis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The same person and the same applied method ensure the reliability and consistency of our data and analysis through the decades. To supplement these databases, we used the following publications, predominantly from the previous authors: Symphyta: Zombori [9][10][11][12][13], Haris [14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23], Haris et al [24] and Roller [25,26]; Aculeata: Józan [27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40]; Diptera: Tóth [41][42][43][44]; Lepidoptera: Ábrahám [45][46][47][48], Ábrahám et al [49], Ábrahám and Uherkovich [50], Uherkovich [51],…”

Section: Data Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Changes in Population Densities and Species Richness of Pollinators in the Carpathian Basin during the Last 50 Years (Hymenoptera, Diptera, Lepidoptera)

Haris,

Józan,

Roller

et al. 2024

Diversity

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Temporal changes in population densities and species richness of three main pollinator groups—moths and butterflies (Lepidoptera); bees, wasps and sawflies (Hymenoptera); and hoverflies, horseflies, tachinids and bee flies (Diptera)—were investigated in the Carpathian Basin. Maintaining pollinator diversity is a crucial factor for preserving our biodiversity and ecosystems; furthermore, several pollinator species have a strong economic role in maintaining crop and fruit cultures. Our conclusions are based on our three and four decades of faunistic surveys in various regions of the Carpathian Basin. Analyzing and comparing our data with the historical data of the last 50 years, we concluded that densities of some pollinators declined during the past decade and a half (Symphyta, hoverflies), although populations of several species of Mediterranean origin grew (Aculeata) and new species even migrated from the warmer regions. In numerous cases, this decrease was dramatic: more than 90% decline of certain butterfly species were detected. On the other hand, the composition of pollinator fauna significantly changed due to the disappearance of some mountainous or mesophile species. The main reason for the decrease in pollinator communities is due partly to climatic change and partly to anthropogenic factors. Different groups of pollinators react differently: some groups like Syrphidae, Tachinidae, most of the butterfly families and bumblebees suffered a strong decline in the last two decades; other warm-loving groups like most of Aculeata and horseflies and bee flies showed a significant increase in population densities. Our conclusion: in our region, the pollinator crisis is present but moderate; however, there is a clear sign of the gradual transition of our pollinator fauna towards the Mediterranean type.

show abstract

“…Sampling of saw ies with sweep nets is also widely used (e.g. Haris 2009Haris , 2010Haris , 2011Haris , 2018aHaris ,b, 2020Haris , 2021a and, if standardised, can be used not only to determine species representation but also for other characteristics of the local species community. However, systematic recording of ying insects with a net throughout the season requires a high personal effort.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effectiveness of the Malaise trap and sweep net sampling in sawfly research (Hymenoptera: Symphyta)

Haris¹,

Vidlička

Majzlan

et al. 2023

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Malaise traps and sweep nets are commonly used to study sawfly fauna, seasonality and communities. Here we analyse a large dataset obtained with these methods in Slovakia and Hungary over the last two and a half decades. The dataset included collections from twenty-one sites, each covering the entire growing season, eleven of which were obtained with the Malaise trap and ten with the sweep net. We conclude that both methods are suitable for faunistic studies of sawflies (Hymenoptera, Symphyta), although they may lead to certain biassed results for some Symphyta groups. Special attention should be paid to Siricidae, Orussidae, Xiphidriidae and Cimbicidae, which were only weakly recorded with both methods. Argidae, Blennocampinae, Dolerinae and Tenthredininae were underrepresented in the Malaise trap samples and Allantinae in the sweep net samples. Both methods gave equally good results in measuring species richness in a one-year study. Ideally, they should be used together as they complement each other well. The net method has a great advantage in determining the exact population density. In contrast, the Malaise trap collections were often heavily dominated by only a few species, with males being preferentially trapped. It can be used preferentially in the study of seasonal flight activity.

show abstract

Sawflies of the Zselic Hills, SW Hungary (Hymenoptera: Symphyta)

Abstract: The first paper on sawflies of Zselicség (Hungary, South-West Transdanubia) is presented. 192 sawfly species are recorded. Paracharactus (Dicrostema) gracilicornis (Zaddach, 1859) is a new record for the Hungarian sawfly fauna.

Cited by 4 publications

References 3 publications

Sawflies of the Cserhát Mountains (Hymenoptera: Symphyta)

Sawflies of the Cserhát Mountains (Hymenoptera: Symphyta)

Changes in Population Densities and Species Richness of Pollinators in the Carpathian Basin during the Last 50 Years (Hymenoptera, Diptera, Lepidoptera)

Effectiveness of the Malaise trap and sweep net sampling in sawfly research (Hymenoptera: Symphyta)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About