bulletin of the natural history museum -...

Bulletin of the Natural HistoryMuseum - Plovdiv

Supplement 1 2018

Faunistic diversity of the city of Plovdiv(Bulgaria), Volume 1 – Invertebrates

Ivelin Mollov, Dilian Georgiev, Ognyan Todorov (Editors)

REGIONAL NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM – PLOVDIV

UNIVERSITY OF PLOVDIV PUBLISHING HOUSE

Periodicity: Annually – one issue per year (December).

Type: Open Access, hard copy and electronically. Free of charge to publish.

About the JournalIn 1970, the Natural History Museum - Plovdiv issues Volume 1 of the journal

"Bulletin of the Natural Science Museum Plovdiv”. In 1973 Volume 2 was released.Before the release of the independent journal of the Natural History Museum -

Plovdiv, researchers at the museum published their articles in "Annuals of the Museumsin the Plovdiv Region" and from 1975 in "Bulletin of the museums in Southern Bulgaria",which was published until 1995 (a total of 21 volumes).

With the creation of the Bulletin of the Natural History Museum - Plovdiv, theRegional Museum of Natural History - Plovdiv resumed issuing its scientific journal. Inthe magazine accepted for posting short messages (up to 4 pages), original research papers(from 4 to 10 pages) and review articles (over 10 pages) in the above mentioned fields andshaped according to the instructions for authors.

The logo of the journal is the paleoendemic beetle Rhodopaea angelovi Gruev &Tomov, 19681, known only from a small area in the Rhodope Mountains, south ofPlovdiv. The species is named after Professor Emeritus Pavel Angelov, one the firstdirectors of the museum, who collected the type specimens.

From the Editorial Board

1 Gruev B., V. Tomov. 1968. A new genus and species Rhodopaea angelovi gen. et sp. n. (Coleoptera,Chrysomelidae) from Bulgaria. Rev. Ent. URSS, XLVII(3):553-555 (in Russian with English summary).

iii

Online ISBN: 978-619-202-462-8 (http://rnhm.org/en/jurnal/index/24)

Print ISBN: 978-619-202-461-1

Bulletin of the Natural History Museum – Plovdiv“ (Bull. Nat. Hist. Mus. Plovdiv) is the official scientific bulletin of the Natural History Museum – Plovdiv, published by Plovdiv University Press. The journal accepts submissions of original studies in the field of paleontology, natural history, geology and speleology, zoology, botany, ecology, biogeography, museology, history of natural studies, information about museum collections, etc.

The official language of the journal is English. Exceptions are possible, certain manuscript may be published in Bulgarian language, with extensive abstract in English.

Editorial Board

Editor-In-Chief:Chief Assist. Prof. Ognyan Todorov, PhD(Regional Natural History Museum – Plovdiv, Bulgaria)

Co-Editor-In-Chief:Assoc. Prof. Ivelin Mollov, PhD(University of Plovdiv “Paisii Hilendarski”, Faculty of Biology, Department of Ecology andEnvironmental Conservation - Plovdiv, Bulgaria)

Editorial Secretary:Gergana Kicheva(Regional Natural History Museum – Plovdiv, Bulgaria)

Associate Editors: Assoc. Prof. Dilian Georgiev, DSc(University of Plovdiv “Paisii Hilendarski”, Faculty of Biology, Department of Ecology andEnvironmental Conservation - Plovdiv; Regional Natural History Museum – Plovdiv, Bulgaria)

Prof. Dimitar Bechev, DSc(University of Plovdiv “Paisii Hilendarski”, Faculty of Biology, Department of Zoology - Plovdiv, Bulgaria)

Prof. Ruslan Kostov, DSc(University of Mining and Geology - Sofia, Bulgaria)

Prof. Radoslav Andreev, PhD(Agricultural University - Plovdiv, Bulgaria)

Prof. Zlatozar Boev, DSc(National Museum of Natural History, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences - Sofia, Bulgaria)

Assoc. Prof. Toshko Liubomirov, PhD(Institute of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Research. Bulgarian Academy of Sciences - Sofia,Bulgaria)

Cover photo: View to the hills of Plovdiv. Photo: Ilian Bozhanov.

Contact Publisher

Regional Natural History Museum – Plovdiv

34 Hrysto G. Danov Str., Plovdiv 4000, BULGARIA; Phone: +359 32 626683;

University of Plovdiv Publishing House

24 Tsar Assen Str., 4000 Plovdiv, BULGARIA

E-mail: [email protected] Web: http://rnhm.org/en/

iv

Bulletin of the Natural History Museum – Plovdiv

Mollov I., D. Georgiev, O. Todorov (Eds.)Faunistic diversity of the city of Plovdiv (Bulgaria), Volume 1 – Invertebrates

2018, Supplement 1 - Contents

Review of species of the phylum Acanthocephala recorded from the Region of Plovdiv CityZlatka M. Dimitrova, Margarita H. Marinova .............................................................................1-6

Zooplankton in Plovdiv Area, Now and a Quarter Century AgoDoychin I. Terziyski, Dzhordzh K. Grozev .................................................................................7-12

Myriapoda (Chilopoda and Diplopoda) of the City of PlovdivBoyan L. Vagalinski, Pavel E. Stoev, Plamen G. Mitov ...........................................................13-18

Terrestrial Gastropods (Mollusca: Gastropoda) in the City of PlovdivAtanas A. Irikov ......................................................................................................................... 19-28

The Freshwater Molluscs (Mollusca: Gastropoda et Bivalvia) of the City of PlovdivDilian G. Georgiev .....................................................................................................................29-30

Urban Тardigrades from Plovdiv City and Some Ecological RemarksMaria L. Yankova, Dilian G. Georgiev.....................................................................................31-36

Species Composition, Distribution and Seasonal Dynamics of Ixodidae Ticks Invaded PastureAnimals in the Region of Plovdiv CityAtanas Arnaudov, Dimo Arnaudov......................................................................................... 37-46

Psocoptera Records from the City of PlovdivDilian G. Georgiev...................................................................................................................... 47-48

Проучване на видовия състав на комарите от семейство Culicidae в град ПловдивТанчо Агушев............................................................................................................................. 49-55

The Chalcid Wasp Fauna (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea: Eurytomidae, Eupelmidae, Ormyridae andTorymidae) of the City of PlovdivAnelia M. Stojanova, Miroslav I. Antov ....................................................................................57-68

Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera (Insecta) from Water Bodies in the Region of Plovdiv CityYanka N. Vidinova, Vesela V. Evtimova, Violeta G. Tyufekchieva .......................................69-79

Checklists of Insects of the City of Plovdiv. Part 1: “Otdih i kultura” ParkDesislava N. Arnaudova, Dimitar N. Bechev............................................................................81-93

The Freshwater Crab Potamon ibericum (Crustacea: Decapoda: Potamidae) in the Maritsa River inPlovdiv CityDimitar N. Bechev....................................................................................................................... 95-96

v

Selected Aquatic Invertebrate Animal Groups in the City of Plovdiv, Reported in “Fauna of Thrakia”Dilian G. Georgiev.................................................................................................................... 97-101

Ecological Properties of Epigeal Invertebrate Communities in Green Areas in the City of Plovdiv.Part 1 - Urban City ParksIvelin A. Mollov, Peter S. Boyadzhiev, Bozhana N. Bozhinova.............................................103-119

Ecological Properties of Epigeal Invertebrate Communities in Green Areas in the City of Plovdiv.Part 2 - The Hills of PlovdivIvelin A. Mollov, Peter S. Boyadzhiev, Mina D. Dincheva....................................................121-137

vi

Foreword

This is the first comprehensive collective monograph on the faunistic diversity of the city ofPlovdiv (South Bulgaria). It is published as Supplement 1 of the Bulletin of the Natural HistoryMuseum – Plovdiv and contains 16 articles on various invertebrate groups. The papers summarizeboth already published data and original data about recent Acanthocephala; Myriapoda (Chilopodaand Diplopoda); terrestrial and aquatic Gastropoda; freshwater Bivalvia; Tardigrada; Acari:Ixodidae; Psocoptera; Diptera: Culicidae; Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea: Eurytomidae, Eupelmidae,Ormyridae and Torymidae; Ephemeroptera; Plecoptera; Trichoptera; synopsis on Insecta andfreshwater invertebrates localities; zooplankton and some ecological properties of epigealinvertebrates communities from the urban city parks and the Plovdiv Hills. This edition is Volume1 of a two-part book. Volume 2 will include the rest of the articles on the invertebrates, which forvarious reasons did not make it to this edition and all of the articles on Vertebrata. The secondvolume is planned to be published in 2020.

The Editors

vii


Bulletin of the Natural History Museum – PlovdivBull. Nat. Hist. Mus. Plovdiv, 2018, Supplement 1: 1-6

Review of species of the phylum Acanthocephalarecorded from the Region of Plovdiv City

Zlatka M. Dimitrova*, Margarita H. Marinova

Thracian University, Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Biology and Aquaculture, Student Campus, BG-6000 Stara Zagora, BULGARIA

*Corresponding author: [email protected]

Abstract. A review of acanthocephalan species recorded from the region of Plovdiv City. A totalof 11 species were reported: 3 from fish, 1 from amphibians, 6 from birds and 1 from mammals;3 species has been identified at the generic level only. As hosts, 14 vertebrate species wererecorded: 2 fishes, 6 amphibians, 5 avian and 1 mammalian species. A host-parasite list ispresented.

Key words: Acanthocephala, fish, amphibians, birds, mammals, Plovdiv City, review.

IntroductionMost of the studies summarised in the

present review aimed revealing the helminthparasites of amphibians (BACHVAROV, 1962;1968; 1972; 1986; 1987; BACHVAROV et al.,1975), birds (VASILEV, 1962; BACHVAROV,1988) and fishes (KIRIN, 2000a; b; c; 2006).There is only one study on theacanthocephalans of mammals in the studiedregion (GEORGIEV, 1970). There are noinvestigations of the reptiles (paratenic hosts) inthe Region of Plovdiv City.

In addition, the primary data obtained bythe above-mentioned studies have also beenpresented in review publications on thehelminth parasites from the fauna of Bulgaria.These are the Catalogue of the helminthparasites of amphibians in Bulgaria(BACHVAROV, 1977); the monograph on thehelminth parasites of freshwater fishes inBulgaria (KAKACHEVA-AVRAMOVA, 1983); themonograph on the helminth parasites ofinsectivores and rodents (GENOV, 1984) and

the survey of avian acanthocephalans(DIMITROVA et al., 2000).

The present review includes theacanthocephalan species recorded from theRegion of Plovdiv City until 2016. The specieslist is arranged according to the classificationproposed by AMIN (2013). In addition, data ofgeneral distribution of the reported specieswere presented. The nomenclature of the hostsfollows Fauna Europaea (DE JONG et al., 2014).

List of acanthocephalan species from theRegion of Plovdiv City

Class Archiacanthocephala Meyer, 1931Order Gigantorhynchida Southwell & MacFie, 1925

Family Gigantorhynchidae Hamann, 1892Genus Mediorhynchus Van Cleave, 1916

(1) Mediorhynchus sp. Recorded from small intestine of Meleagris

gallopavo Linnaeus, 1758 (VASILEV, 1962).

© Bull. Nat. Hist. Mus. Plovdivhttp://rnhm.org/en/

Regional Natural History Museum – PlovdivUniversity of Plovdiv Publishing House

Review of species of the phylum Acanthocephala recorded from the Region of Plovdiv City

Order Oligacanthorhynchida Petrochenko, 1956Family Oligacanthorhynchidae

Southwell & MacFie, 1925Genus Macracanthorhynchus Travassos, 1917

(2) Macracanthorhynchus hirudinaceus(Pallas, 1781) Travassos, 1917

Recorded from small intestine of Sus scrofaf. domestica Linnaeus, 1758 (GEORGIEV, 1970).

General distribution: Holarctic, Palaeotropical(GENOV, 1984; KHOKHLOVA, 1986; ARAKI, 2003),Neotropical (Mexico) (SALGADO-MALDONADO,2005) and Australian (SMALES, 2003).

Class Palaeacanthocephala Meyer, 1931Order Echinorhynchida Southwell & MacFie, 1925

Family Echinorhynchidae Cobbold, 1876Genus Acanthocephalus Koelreuther, 1771

(3) Acanthocephalus anguillae (Müller,1780) Lühe, 1911

Recorded from small intestine of Squaliuscephalus (Linnaeus, 1758) (= Leuciscus cephalus(Linnaeus, 1758)) (KIRIN, 2000 a; b; c).

General distribution: Palaearctic - Europe(GIBSON, 2013). The records from Lena Riverand Ob River (PUGACHEV, 1983) as well asthose from North America by PETROCHENKO

(1956) and MCDONALD (1988) seem to needadditional confirmation.

(4) Acanthocephalus ranae (Schrank, 1788)Lühe, 1914)

Recorded from small intestine of Trituruskarelinii (Strauch, 1870) (previously identifiedas Triturus cristatus (Laurenti, 1768);experimental infections), Bombina variegata(Linnaeus, 1758), Rana dalmatina Fitzinger,1839, Rana temporaria Linnaeus, 1758, Ranaridibunda Pallas, 1771, Rana esculentaLinnaeus, 1758, Asellus aquaticus (Linnaeus,1758) (natural and experimental infections)(BACHVAROV, 1962; 1968; 1986; 1987;BACHVAROV et al., 1975).

General distribution: Palaearctic - Europe(GIBSON, 2013), Southwest Asia (Azerbaidjan,Turkey) (KURBANOV, 1979; AMIN et al., 2012;YILDIRIMHAN & ÍNGEDOĞAN, 2013) andCentral Asia (Tajikistan) (BYCHOVSKIY, 1935;RYZHIKOV et al., 1980).

The records from East and Southeast Asia -China (WANG & WANG, 1989; XIA et al., 2015)and Thailand (CHAIYABUTR & CHANHOME,

2002), as well as from the North America -USA (VAN CLEAVE, 1915) and South America-Brazil (PILATI et al., 2013) seem to be doubtful.

(5) Acanthocephalus tenuirostris (Achmerov& Dombrowskaja-Achmerova, 1941) Yamaguti,1963

Recorded from small intestine of Esoxlucius Linnaeus, 1758, Squalius cephalus (=Leuciscus cephalus) (KIRIN, 2000a; b; c; 2006).

General distribution: Palaearctic - Europe(GIBSON, 2013) and Russian Far East(PUGACHEV, 1983).

Acanthocephalus sp. Recorded from small intestine of Triturus

karelinii (previously identified in Bulgaria asTriturus cristatus) (BACHVAROV, 1972).

Family Pomphorhynchidae Yamaguti, 1939Genus Pomphorhynchus Monticelli, 1905

(6) Pomphorhynchus laevis (Zoega inMüller, 1776) Van Cleave, 1924

Recorded from small intestine of Esoxlucius, Squalius cephalus (= Leuciscus cephalus)(KIRIN, 2000a; b, c; 2006).

General distribution: Palaearctic: Europe (infreshwater and estuarine fishes) (GIBSON,2013).

Order Polymorphida Petrochenko, 1956Family Centrorhynchidae Van Cleave, 1916

Genus Centrorhynchus Lühe, 1911

(7) Centrorhynchus aluconis (Müller, 1780)Lühe, 1911

Recorded from small intestine of Strixaluco Linnaeus, 1758 (BACHVAROV, 1988).

General distribution: Palaearctic andOriental (DIMITROVA & GIBSON, 2005).

(8) Centrorhynchus buteonis (Schrank,1788) Kostylev, 1914

Recorded from small intestine of Buteorufinus (Cretzschmar, 1827) (BACHVAROV, 1988).

General distribution: Palaearctic andOriental (DIMITROVA & GIBSON, 2005).

(9) Centrorhynchus conspectus Van Cleaveand Pratt, 1940

Recorded from small intestine of Buteobuteo (Linnaeus, 1758) (BACHVAROV, 1988).

General distribution: Holarctic and Oriental(DIMITROVA et al., 2000). The record ofHARTWICH (1956) from Chile seems doubtful.

2

Zlatka M. Dimitrova, Margarita H. MarinovaFamily Plagiorhynchidae Golvan, 1960

Genus Plagiorhynchus Lühe, 1911

(10) Plagiorhynchus (Plagiorhynchus)odhneri Lundström, 1942

Recorded from small intestine of Buteobuteo (BACHVAROV, 1988).

General distribution: Palaearctic - Europe(DIMITROVA, 2009; GIBSON, 2013).

Family Polymorphidae Meyer, 1931Genus Arhythmorhynchus Lühe, 1911

(11) Arhythmorhynchus longicollis (Villot,1875) Lühe, 1912

Synonyms: Arhythmorhynchus invaginabilis(von Linstow, 1902)

Recorded from small intestine of Buteorufinus (BACHVAROV, 1988).

General distribution: Holarctic (DIMITROVA

et al., 2000) and Neotropical (Belize) (CANARIS

& KINSELLA, 2001). Arhythmorhynchus sp. (= Skrjabinorhynchus sp.)Recorded from small intestine of Ardea

cinerea Linnaeus, 1758 (BACHVAROV, 1988).

Genus Filicollis Lühe, 1911

(12) Filicollis anatis (Schrank, 1788) Lühe,1911

Recorded from small intestine of Ardeacinerea (BACHVAROV, 1988).

General distribution: Palaearctic - Eurasia(DIMITROVA et al., 2000).

Host-parasite checklistDefinitive hosts

Class ActinopterygiiOrder EsociformesFamily EsocidaeEsox lucius L.

Acanthocephalus tenuirostris Pomphorhynchus laevis

Order CypriniformesFamily CyprinidaeSqualius cephalus (L.). Synonym: Leuciscus

cephalus (L.)Acanthocephalus anguillae A. tenuirostris Pomphorhynchus laevis

Class Amphibia

Order UrodelaFamily SalamandridaeTriturus karelinii (Strauch) Synonym:

Triturus cristatus (Laurenti), pro parteAcanthocephalus ranae (experimental

infection) Acanthocephalus sp.

Order AnuraFamily BombinatoridaeBombina variegata (L.)

Acanthocephalus ranae Family RanidaeRana dalmatina Fitzinger

A. ranae Rana temporaria L.

A. ranae Rana ridibunda Pallas

A. ranae Rana esculenta L.

A. ranae Class AvesOrder CiconiiformesFamily ArdeidaeArdea cinerea L.

Filicollis anatis Arhythmorhynchus sp.

Order FalconiformesFamily AccipitridaeButeo buteo (L.)

Centrorhynchus conspectus Plagiorhynchus (P.) odhneri

Buteo rufinus (Cretzschmar)Centrorhynchus buteonis Arhythmorhynchus longicollis

Order GalliformesFamily PhasianidaeMeleagris gallopavo L.

Mediorhynchus sp. Order StrigiformesFamily Strigidae Strix aluco L.

Centrorhynchus aluconisClass MammaliaOrder ArtiodactylaFamily SuidaeSus scrofa f. domestica L.

Macracanthorhynchus hirudinaceus

Intermediate hosts

Class CrustaceaOrder Isopoda

3


Family AsellidaeAsellus aquaticus (L.)

Acanthocephalus ranae (natural andexperimental infection)

DiscussionAs seen from the above survey, 11

acanthocephalan species were recorded fromthe region of Plovdiv City. In addition, 3species has been identified at the generic levelonly. Six of the acanthocephalan species arefrom avian hosts, 3 from fish host and 1 fromamphibians and mammals, respectively. Theacanthocephalans recorded belong to 8 genera,7 families, 4 orders and 2 classes. As definitivehosts, 14 vertebrate species have beenrecorded. These are 2 fish, 6 amphibian, 5 avianand 1 mammalian species.

ReferencesAMIN O. M. 2013. Classification of the

Acanthocephala. Folia Parasitologica,60(4): 273-305.

AMIN O. M., S. DÜŞEN, M. C. OĞUZ. 2012.Review of the helminth parasites ofTurkish anurans (Amphibia). ScientiaParasitologica, 13(1): 1-16.

ARAKI J. 2003. Acanthocephalans in Japan.Progress of Medical Parasitology inJapan, 7: 147-159.

BACHVAROV G. 1962. Helminth fauna of ecaudateamphibians in Plovdiv District. Izvestiyana Tsentralnata HelmintologichnaLaboratoriya, 7: 103-111. (In Bulgarian,Russian and English Summary).

BACHVAROV G. 1968. Ecological investigationof the helminth fauna of the marsh frog(Rana ridibunda Pall.) from the statefish-farm in Plovdiv. Nauchni Trudovena Visshiya Pedagogicheski Institut,Plovdiv, 6(2): 143-152. (In Bulgarian,Russian and French Summary).

BACHVAROV G. 1972. Contribution to theknowledge of helminth fauna of caudateamphibians (Amphibia – Caudata) inBulgaria. Nauchni Trudove naPlovdivskiya Universitet “P. Hilendarski”,10(1): 163-165. (In Bulgarian, Russian andFrench Summary).

BACHVAROV G. 1977. Catalogue of the helminthparasites of amphibians in Bulgaria.

Plovdivski Universitet “P. Hilendarski”,Plovdiv, 54 p. (In Bulgarian).

BACHVAROV G. K. 1986. Helminths ofamphibians in Bulgaria (morphology,taxonomy, fauna, biology and ecology).Summary of Doctorate Thesis. P.Hilendarski University of Plovdiv,Plovdiv, 52 p. (In Bulgarian).

BACHVAROV G. 1987. Study of the developmentcycle of Acanthocephalus ranae (Schrank,1788) (Echinorhynchidae) – parasite onthe amphibians in Bulgaria. TravauxScientifiques de l’Universite de Plovdiv,Biologie, 25(6): 107-111. (In Bulgarian,Russian and English Summary).

BACHVAROV G. 1988. Contribution to the knowledgeof acanthocephalans (Acanthocephala) ofwild birds in Bulgaria (first report). TravauxScientifiques de l’Universite de Plovdiv,Biologie, 26(6): 255-262. (In Bulgarian,Russian and English Summary).

BACHVAROV G., P. PETROV, B. CHOCHEV1975. Contribution to the knowledge ofhelminth fauna of anuran amphibians(Amphibia – Ecaudata) in PlovdivRegion. II. Travaux Scientifiques del’Universite de Plovdiv, Biologie, 13(4):41-51. (In Bulgarian, Russian andEnglish Summary).

BYCHOVSKIY B. E. 1935. Parasitic worms ofamphibians in Kulyaba, Tadjikistan. TrudyTadjikskoy Basy, 5: 135-149. (In Russian).

CANARIS A. G., J. M. KINSELLA .2001.Helminth parasites in six species ofshorebirds (Charadrii) from the coast ofBelize. Memórias do Instituto OswaldoCruz, 96: 827-830.

CHAIYABUTR N., L. CHANHOME. 2002.Parasites in snakes of Thailand. Bulletinof the Maryland Herpetological Society,38(2): 39-49.

DE JONG Y., M. VERBEEK, V. MICHELSEN, P.BJØRN, W. LOS, F. STEEMAN, N. BAILLY,C. BASIRE, P. CHYLARECKI, E.STLOUKAL, G. HAGEDORN, F.T.WETZEL, F. GLÖCKLER, A. KROUP A, G.KORB, A. HOFFMANN, C. HÄUSER, A.KOHLBECKER, A. MÜLLER, A. GÜNTSCH,P. STOEV, L. PENEV. 2014. FaunaEuropaea - all European animal specieson the web. Biodiversity Data Journal, 2:e4034. doi: 10.3897/BDJ.2.e4034.

4

Zlatka M. Dimitrova, Margarita H. MarinovaDIMITROVA Z. M. 2009. Acanthocephalans of

the nominotypical subgenus ofPlagiorhynchus (Plagiorhynchidae) fromcharadriiform birds in the collection ofthe Natural History Museum, London,with a key to the species of thesubgenus. ZooKeys, 6: 75-90. doi:10.3897/zookeys.6.94.

DIMITROVA Z. M., B. B. GEORGIEV, T.GENOV 2000. Review of the avianacanthocephalans from Bulgaria. ActaZoologica Bulgarica, 52(3): 3-22.

DIMITROVA Z. M., D. GIBSON 2005. Somespecies of Centrorhynchus Lühe, 1911(Acanthocephala: Centrorhynchidae)from collection of the Natural HistoryMuseum, London. SystematicParasitology, 62: 117-134.

GENOV T. 1984. Helminths of insectivores androdents in Bulgaria. Publishing Houseof the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences,Sofia, 348 p. (In Bulgarian, Russian andEnglish Summary).

GEORGIEV B. 1970. Helminths andhelminthoses in large pig-raising farms.1. Report. Helminth fauna andhelminthocenosis in large pig-raisingfarms. Veterinarnomeditsinski Naukiy,7(5): 35- 40 (In Bulgarian).

GIBSON D. I. 2013. Acanthocephala. FaunaEuropaea version 2.6.2. Аvailable at:http://www.faunaeur.org.

HARTWICH G. 1956. SüdamerikanischeAcanthocephalen aus der ZoologischenSammlung des Bayerischen Staates.Zoologischer Anzeiger, 156: 299-308.

KAKACHEVA-AVRAMOVA D. 1983. Helminthsof freshwater fishes in Bulgaria.Publishing House of the BulgarianAcademy of Sciences, Sofia, 261 p. (InBulgarian).

KHOKHLOVA I. G. 1986. Acanthocephalans ofterrestrial vertebrates from the fauna ofUSSR. Moscow, Nauka, 277 p. (InRussian).

KIRIN D. A. 2000a. Ecologofaunistical study ofthe helminthological communities ofLeuciscus cephalus L. from MaritsaRiver. Nauchni Trudove na Sayuza naUchenite, Plovdiv, Seriya B, 1: 405-408.(In Bulgarian).

KIRIN D. A. 2000b. Biodiversity and ecologicalcharacteristics of the helminth sets ofLeuciscus cephalus (L., 1758) from theRiver Mesta and the River Maritsa. In:Sbornik Dokladi of the InternationalScientific Conference "Man, Nature,Health", 3-4 November 2000,Pamporovo, 1: 78-81. (In Bulgarian).

KIRIN D. A. 2000c. Biodiversity and ecologicalassessment of the condition offreshwater ecosystems of the RiverMaritsa. In: Sbornik Dokldi of theInternational Scientific Conference"Man, Nature, Health", 3-4 November2000, Pamporovo, 1: 82-85. (InBulgarian).

KIRIN D. A. 2006. Biodiversity of the helminthspecies and helminth communities ofEsox lucius (L., 1758) from Maritsa River,Bulgaria. In: Science Papers of Faculty ofAnimals Science, Bucharest. The 35th

International Scientific CommuicationsSession of the Faculty of Animal Science,Bucharest, Romania, 135-140.

KURBANOV M. H. 1979. Species compositionof acanthocephalans (Acanthocephala)of Azerbaijan’s animals and several oftheir biological features. NauchnyeTrudy Specialnova ObrazovaniyaAzerbaidzhanskoy SSR, 4: 27-30 (InRussian).

MCDONALD M. E. 1988. Key toAcanthocephala reported in waterfowl.Washington, D. C., Fish and WildlifeService, Resourse Publication 173, 45 p.

PETROCHENKO V. I. 1956. Acanthocephalansof domestic and wild animals. Vol. 1.Publishing House of the Academy ofScience of the USSR, Moscow, 435 p.(In Russian).

PILATI C., R. M. DE QUADROS, K. A. A.BRANCO., M. A. ANDRADE, S. M. T.MARQUES 2013. Acanthocephalus ranae(Echinorhynchidae) infecting Rhinellaicterica (Bufonidae) in Santa Catarina,Brazil. Ciência Animal, 23(1): 3-8.

PUGACHEV O. N. 1983. Helminths offreshwater fishes of Northeast Asia.Trudy Zoologicheskovo Instituta,Leningrad, 121: 90-113 (In Russian).

5


RYZHIKOV K. M., V. P. SHARPILO, N. N.SHEVCHENKO 1980. Helminths ofamphibians from the fauna of USSR.Moscow (Nauka), 276 p. (In Russian).

SALGADO-MALDONADO G. 2005. Catálogo ydirectorio de autoridades parahelmintos parásitos. Departamento deZoología, Instituto de Biología,Universidad Nacional Autónoma deMéxico. Base de datos SNIB-Conabio,proyectoK028, 134 p.

SMALES L. R. 2003. An annotated checklist ofthe Australian Acanthocephala frommammalian and bird hosts. Records ofthe South Australian Museum, 36: 59-82.

VAN CLEAVE H. J. 1915. Acanthocephala inNorth American Amphibian. TheJournal of Parasitology, 1(4): 175-178.

VASILEV I. 1962. Helminth fauna of the turkey(Meleagris gallopavo L.) in Bulgaria.Izvestiya na TsentralnataHelmintologichna Laboratoriya, 7: 19-27 (In Bulgarian, Russian and EnglishSummary).

WANG P., Y. WANG 1989. Helminths of Ranaspinosa from Fujian Province, includingthe description of a new speciesMetangusticaecum ranae. Journal ofFujian Normal University (NaturalScience Edition), 2: 75-81 (In Chinese,English Summary).

XIA W., B. HUANG, S. ZHU, M. QIFEI, H.HONGYU, D. HUI, Z. QIPING 2015.

The checklist of protozoan andacanthocephalan from frogs in China.Journal of Shanghai NormalUniversity (Natural Sciences), 44(2):158-168 doi: 10.3969/J.ISSN.1000-5137.2015.02.008 (In Chinese, EnglishSummary).

YILDIRIMHAN H. S., S. ÍNGEDOĞAN 2013.Checklist of metazoon parasitesrecorded in Anura and Urodela fromTurkey. Turkish Journal of Zoology,37(5): 562-575. doi: 10.3906/zoo-1209-16.

Преглед на видовете от тип Acanthocephala, . съобщени от района на гр Пловдив

. , . ЗлаткаМ Димитрова МаргаритаХр Маринова

: Резюме Представен е преглед навидовете акантоцефали, съобщени отрайона на гр. Пловдив. Съобщени са 11вида акантоцефали: 3 от риби, 1 отземноводни, 6 от птици и 1 от бозайници.Четиринадесет вида гръбначни животни сасъобщени като гостоприемници наустановените видове акантоцефалите: 2 видасладководни риби, 6 вида земноводни, 5вида птици и 1 вид бозайници. Представениса също и данни за общоторазпространение на установените видове.Включен е списък на гостоприемниците наакантоцефалите, установени от района нагр. Пловдив.

6



Zooplankton in Plovdiv Area,Now and a Quarter Century Ago

Doychin I. Terziyski*, Dzhordzh K. Grozev

Institute of Fisheries and Aquaculture, 248 V. Levski str., BG-4003 Plovdiv, BULGARIA*Corresponding author: [email protected]

Abstract. The subject of the present study was the zooplankton complex in the fishery ponds ofInstitute of Fisheries and Aquaculture, Plovdiv for the period 1993 - 1995 and 2012, 2015, 2016.The composition of the communities was mainly of the crustacean type. Over the years, a trendhas been found towards reduction in the number of taxa. There are signs of increasedeutrophication of these pools, which we believe are due to their prolonged operation, and thereare no significant differences between the two analyzed periods based on the Shannon and Pielouindices and the Sladecek Sample Index.

Key words: zooplankton, Saprobe Index, Shannon, Pielou, Sladecek, fish ponds, Bulgaria.

IntroductionA characteristic feature of the standing

continental ponds is the zooplankton complex,which is the main structural unit of theecosystems formed under the influence ofecological conditions. In this meaning, theinformation on the zooplankton appearance ofa given water basin and eventually changes inthe structure of the community would help toclarify the causes in the ecosystems that led tothis result. Besides of being the main link introphic chains, based on their water qualityrequirements, few species are good saprobicindicators (SLADECEK, 1973; 1981) in aquaticecosystems. The classic saprobiotic scheme andmethod for its determination was developed byPANTLE & BUCK (1955). SLADECEK (1973)greatly improved it by taking into account theindicating ability of each species and its share inthe planktonic cenosis for its methodology.

In the surveys of dams in our country(NAYDENOV, 1981; NAYDENOV & SAYS, 1987)the Rothschtein index (SR) (ROTHSCHTEIN,

1962) is also applied. Zooplankton organismsare the basis of most developed systems forsaprobic analysis of waters (KARABIN, 1985;SZLAUER, 1999). Unlike chemical methods forassessing the organic and oxygen content ofwater, biosaprobic ones provide more reliableand long-term information, eliminating short-term fluctuations and changes in the hydro-chemical regime. For this reason, the revelationof the quantitative and qualitative dynamics ofzooplankton communities provides valuableinformation about the saprophyticcharacteristic of a given water basin.

The main objective of the present study isto compare the characteristics of zooplanktoncommunities in number of typical standingwater bodies at the Institute of Fisheries andAquaculture in the past and to this day, usingthe diversity indices of Shannon, Pielou as wellas biosaprobic analysis of water. Making adistinctive picture of communities developmentwould help to monitor both the zooplanktonand the ecosystem as a whole.



Zooplankton in Plovdiv Area, Now and a Quarter Century Ago

Material and MethodsThe Institute of Fisheries and Aquaculture,

Plovdiv is situated in the climatic region of theUpper Thracian Plain, the most extensive inBulgaria and more precisely in its western part(Pazardzhik-Plovdiv Valley). The region ischaracterized by a transient continental climate,the winter season is relatively mild and warm.

The study was conducted in Plovdiv duringtwo comparative periods (1993 - 1995 – firstperiod and 2012, 2015, 2016 – second period).The most important topographic values of thestudy area are the following: altitude &longitude – 42°09'N, 24°45'E; elevation – 185m a.s.l.; total area: 20 ha; maximum depth ofthe pools – 0.7-0.9 m.

During the first period under review, a totalof 43 ponds were analyzed, and in the second -18 fish-production, growth and hatchery-breeding fish ponds ranging from 0.16 to 16 ha.The water supply of the fish ponds is carriedout from the irrigation channel "Enny Ark",having a river (from the Maritsa Рiver) origin.The undersized dimensions of the basins used,their small depth, horizontal and verticalhomogeneity are part of their prerequisites forselecting as a model object.

One sampling station was used in each fishpond (in the case of basins over 5 ha there were2 or 3 stations, the average of which was taken),not far from the outflow facility. The samplingwas performed with a 14-day or monthlyinterval in the period April – Septemberbetween 8.30 and 11.00 before noon.

The number of organisms was determinedby the method of DIMOV (1959) and thebiomass by volume method of PRIKRYL (1980),(g.m-3). Samples were preserved immediatelyafter sample collection in formaldehyde up to afinal concentration of 4% or with ethyl alcoholup to 70%. Horizontal trawling was carried outusing a zooplankton net with a diameter of meshwholes 60 µm and inlet diameter of 0.16 m forfive meters towards the shore. Data analysis andprocessing was performed in laboratoryconditions on a Carl Zeiss light microscope.

Fishery ponds are manured just beforeflooding them with 200 - 300 kg.ha-1 of manure,in some cases with mineral fertilizers to reach aconcentration of nitrogen forms up to 2 - 3mg.l-1 and of phosphorus to about 0.5 mg.l-1.

Different feeds (grain, granular, groats,waste and by-products from the food industry)are used to grow the fish in a quantity of 3 - 5

times the planned mass gain during the growingseason. Control is also provided on fish healthstatus. The overgrowth rate of pools with softand hard aquatic vegetation was reported 1 - 2times a month as a percentage of the occupiedarea of the water mirror.

Fish species populated investigated pondsmainly in the form of polyculture. Thecommon carp predominated by number andbiomass, and other species covered are bigheador silver carp (mainly hybrid), tench, grass carpand pike-perch (in the form of larvae, one, twoand three year old fish). The biologicalsufficiency of water in fish ponds is determinedby the SHANNON & WEAVER (1963) diversityindex and the species evenness index ofPIELOU (1966).

The saprobic water index was calculated by the individual sampled indices of the individual species in the sample, taking into account the strength of each indicator species by SLADECEK

(1973) and SLADECEK et al. (1981).

ResultsChanges in species composition The zooplankton community is

characterized by a volatile composition overtime in the studied fish ponds. For the periodbefore and around the eighties, the totalnumber of species encountered was about 19 -25 on an annual basis, and in the nineties it was41 (GROZEV, 1999). According to the sameauthor, this is somewhat due to the largernumber of pools surveyed for the relevantperiod. In 2012 - 2016 there are about 19 - 26species of zooplankton in the same base ofInstitute of Fisheries and Aquaculture, Plovdiv.

Among the major groups of zooplankton,Copepoda were most common since thenineties, with dominant species Acanthocyclopsrobustus. A. vernalis is almost absent, althoughin the past it was met almost at the samefrequency as A. robustus and even dominated.C. vicinus is the main occupant during thespring period for the entire study period, andthe group of diaptomides was very rare in thefish ponds. Although relatively rare in the1990s Diacyclops languidus, Microcyclopsbicolor, Macrocyclops albidus have not beenfound at the present study (2012 - 2016). Onthe other hand, Metacyclops gracilis andEyritemola velox were first registered in thesurveyed fish ponds after 2012.

8

Doychin I. Terziyski, Dzhordzh K. GrozevIn the Cladocera 10 out of 11 described before

1996 species were now also observed in the fish pondsof the Institute of Fisheries and Aquaculture, Plovdiv.In the 1990s, Pleuroxus aduncus, not recentlyregistered, was very common. Moina macropoda andM. micrura were among the dominant in the past.While the first species is no longer observed, the secondcontinued to occur for most of the growing season inrecent years. Scapholeberis aurita, Ilyocriptus agilis, I.sordidus, Simocephalus expinosus and Daphnia obtusawere missing from the zooplankton composition after2012.

Changes in the composition of Rotatoria areas follows. Dominant species are basically thesame as in the 1990s, most often Brachionuscalyciflorus and Asplanschna sieboldi. Newspecies such as Brachionus budapestiensis,Euchlanis dilatata, Epiphanes senta, Polyarthraeuryptera, Platiyas patulus, P. quadricornisappeared in the 1990s. Keratella tropica,commonly found in 1996, has not been reportedas before this period, and now. As new speciesfrom the Rotatoria of fishery ponds Brachionusforficula, Kellicottia longispina and Rinoglenafrontalis are now recorded.

The calculated Shannon diversity index(SHANNON & WEAVER, 1963), and speciesevenness index of Pielou (PIELOU, 1966) areshown in the Table 1.

The species evenness index of Pieloufluctuates from 0.027 to 0.967 in the firstsurvey period and from 0.048 to 0.968 in thesecond. In both analyzed periods there is atendency for higher values at the beginning andend of each annual cycle of the analyzed timerange. In general, the significance of the indexranges from 0.4 to 0.7, which is 64% of all. Inthe course of summer, because of theincreasing fish feeding, reducing the watermirror as a result of aquatic vegetation growthand increased water temperature, biodiversity inzooplankton is declining.

Shannon's diversity index varied from a rangeof 0.022 to 2.27 in 1993 - 1995 and from 0.082 to2.246 in 2012 - 2016. During the first analyzedperiod, GROZEV (1999) reported a trend ofincreasing biodiversity during the growth season.

In the second analyzed period, thedependence found in the Shannon diversityindex is confirmed - with few exceptions, thereare higher values or bigger biodiversity at thebeginning or the end of the studied seasonalcycles.

Biosaprobic analysis of the ponds' waterBased on the established zooplankton

species in the investigated ponds, watersaprobity characteristic was also performedduring the two analyzed periods. From thezooplankton registered for the period 1993 -1995, four species are excellent indicators (5thpower), seventeen are good (4), fourteenmedium (3) and seven are weak (2) and onlyfour are bad indicators according to theclassification of SLADECEK (1973), SLADECEK

et al. (1981).For the period 2012 - 2015-16, four species

have been registered as excellent indicators,four are also good, eleven are of mediumquality, eight are weak and three are bad in thesame classification.

The individual saprobic index for the 1993 -1995 period ranged from 1.0 (D. galeata) to 3.4(D. magna), but most of them were to some extentbeta-mesosaprobe. In the second analyzed period,the same index ranged from 0.9 (Bosminacoregoni) to 3.4 (D. magna), as it again can bedescribed to be closer to β-mesosaprobity.

The results illustrate the average saprobicindex for the ponds in Plovdiv base (1993 - 1995and 2012, 2015 - 2016) are presented in Table 2.

Most of the meanings fluctuate around 2,which is the average b-mesosaprobic score forboth analyzed periods. Only in April and Maythe indicator is higher (2.50 - 3.00), whichcharacterizes water as α-mesosaprobic in boththe 1990s and the present. Despite differencesin species dynamics and applied technologiesover the years, the values of the saprobic indexover the entire analyzed period are very close.This particularly corresponds in the June ‒September period, when the meanings stayalmost within range from 1.90 to 2.10.

The increase in the saprobic index both in thepast and today to the α-mesosaprobic levels in thespring months - April and May can be explained bythe low water temperature, which leads to lowerself-purification capacity (RUSEV et al., 1981) andrelatively low fish press in this period, allowingdominance of large Cladocera like Daphnia magna(Si=3.4), D. pulex (Si=2.8), (Si=2.5),, Moinamacrocopa (Si = 2.8), and the Moina brachiata (Si

= 2.5), Brachionus calyciflorus (Si = 2.5).In June, most of the larger Cladocera drop

from the zooplankton composition under theinfluence of the fish press, but they have probablyutilized much of the increased organic load in the

9


spring. Species that replace them during thesummer months are, as a rule, β-mesosaprobes, or

those inhabiting both α- and β-mesosaprobicwaters (with an index of about 2.5).

Table 1. The seasonal and annual dynamics of the Shannon and Pielou indices.

Term Shannon index Species evenness index of PielouYear Month min max Average min max Average1993 V 0.706 1.557 1.195 0.509 0.894 0.704

VII 0.420 1.483 0.944 0.303 0.828 0.635IX 0.022 1.694 0.966 0.320 0.953 0.737

1994 V 0.487 1.426 0.951 0.222 0.649 0.494VII 0.049 2.076 1.342 0.031 0.835 0.635IX 0.757 2.032 1.469 0.393 0.852 0.632

1995 V 0.030 2.077 1.558 0.027 0.905 0.610VII 0.549 1.847 1.300 0.307 0.967 0.567IX 0.607 2.269 1.533 0.224 0.888 0.609

2012 V 0.616 1.228 1.002 0.316 0.788 0.642VII 0.328 1.132 0.854 0.282 0.738 0.546IX 0.082 1.452 0.844 0.350 0.683 0.662

2015 V 0.432 1.336 0.836 0.304 0.528 0.368VII 0.082 1.652 1.212 0.048 0.732 0.522IX 0.884 2.148 1.554 0.412 0.922 0.744

2016 V 0.424 2.246 1.642 0.174 0.968 0.742VII 0.432 1.622 1.124 0.246 0.865 0.443IX 0.531 2.112 1.311 0.124 0.654 0.506

Table 2. Average mean of the Sapropic Water Index determined by the indicator zooplanktonspecies.

Index values1993 22.04 03.05 26.05 10.06 25.06 09.07 26.07 09.08 24.08 09.09 24.09

2.62 2.73 2.52 1.90 1.90 2.14 2.00 2.12 2.08 2.06 2.001994 18.04 05.05 18.05 03.06 17.06 04.07 19.07 02.08 18.08 07.09 22.09

2.99 2.94 2.85 2.34 1.82 2.03 2.05 2.09 2.02 2.07 2.011995 27.04 12.05 30.05 14.06 28.06 14.07 - 01.08 21.08 11.09 03.10

2.83 2.82 2.44 1.93 1.93 1.94 - 1.95 2.04 1.95 1.982012 24.04 09.05 22.05 04.06 18.06 03.07 17.07 01.08 27.08 10.09 25.09

2.73 2.83 2.46 1.85 1.92 1.85 1.94 1.96 1.88 2.17 2.102015 05.05 20.05 03.06 18.06 29.06 13.07 27.07 10.08 24.08 08.09 25.09

2.85 2.72 2.98 2.22 1.86 1.92 1.98 1.87 1.84 1.96 2.042016 - 26.05 07.06 20.06 02.07 18.07 02.08 15.08 29.08 12.09 26.09

- 2.98 2.26 1.90 1.98 1.88 1.96 1.84 1.98 1.82 1.84

DiscussionOverall, the comparative analysis of the

zooplankton species in the Institute of Fisheriesand Aquaculture, Plovdiv from the 1990s to thepresent day shows minor changes. Thedropping of some species and the appearanceof others is probably due to the progressiveeutrophication during pond usage, combinedwith almost complete lack of extraction of theexcessive layer of bottom mud. Another reason

is the quality of the water used and the appliedexperimental schemes in the ponds.

When comparing the two analyzed periods(1993 - 1995 and 2012, 2015, 2016) using theSaprobic Index, as well as the Shannon andPielou indices, there was a tendency to reducespecies diversity and decrease the saprobity toβ-mesosaprobity in the second analyzed period.Only in September 2015 and May 2016 theShannon and Pielou indices were better in the

10

Doychin I. Terziyski, Dzhordzh K. Grozevsecond survey period compared to 1993 - 1995,which suggests that with the increase inexploitation of fish ponds, species diversity andecological potential decline. The probable causeis related to the influence of plankton-eatingfish, suppressing the most effective dominants.A similar change in diversity indicators in pondzooplankton was also noted by other authorsunder the influence of fish feeding pressure(FRY & OSBORN, 1980).

When applying a Student t-test, it wasfound that in relation to the Shannon index,although in the second analysis period theaverage value of the indicator was lower (1.178)compared to the first one (1.251), (there wassome difference between empirical averages),the difference between them is insignificant (p= 0.56873). Similar is the condition of thePielou index. Nowadays, the average value ofthe relevant index is lower (0.575) than in thepast (0.625), the difference is again insignificant(p = 0.389). Regarding the Saprobic Index, thesituation is again similar - there is a slighttendency to decrease the saprobity (2.22) morethan a quarter century ago (2.14). Again, thedifference in the mean values is insignificant (p= 0.326).

The relatively stable scores of the SaprobicIndex, regardless of the change in zooplanktonspecies composition in the ponds during thegrowing period, indicate the relative persistenceof the saprobic status of these water bodies inseasonal and even annual terms. This is mostlikely due to the similar type of water supplyand operational status during the period of oursurvey.

With regard to species diversity today, thesituation is comparable to that of the 1990s.The relatively larger number of species (41)registered in 1993 - 1995 is most likely due tothe larger number of ponds surveyed in thistime interval. Generally, over a quarter of acentury, it is normal for several species of thethree main systematic groups to drop out ornew ones to appear. This process has beenobserved both in the 1990s (GROZEV, 1999),and even today.

In general, similarity in the dynamics of theSaprobic Index was found not only betweenthe two analyzed periods but also between theyears both in the 1990s and today. The IFAponds in Plovdiv play a role of purificationfacility and the saprobity of outflow waters is inmany cases lower than that of the water source

- the water supply channel “Eni Arc” (IFA,1995). A similar phenomenon has beenobserved for some dams in Bulgaria(BESHKOVA, 1995).

ConclusionsThe analysis carried out on the structure

and dynamics of the zooplanktonic communityduring two reviewed periods (1993 - 1995 - firstperiod and 2012, 2015 - 2016 - second) shows atrend of increasing eutrophication of the ponds.This results in the reduction of the biosaprobiccharacteristic of the water and zooplanktonspecies' diversity but statistically the differencebetween the empirical averages of the Shennan,Pielu and Saprobic indexes is insignificant. Asfor the established number of zooplankton-forming species, it is currently comparable tothe years before the 1990s, and nowadays thesmaller number of species observed in theponds than in the 1990s may be associated withan increase in eutrophication in those ponds.Probably this process is due to theaccumulation of organic and inorganic mass atthe bottom of the pools during their operation,which reduces depth, increases the tendency toexcessive overgrowth and generally aggravatesthe zooplankton conditions in them.

ReferencesBESHKOVA M. B. 1995. Structure and

dynamics of phytoplankton in theStruma River system - Pchelina damlake under the influence ofanthropogenic impact. PhD Thesis.Sofia, Institute of Zoology, 192 p. (InBulgarian).

DIMOV I. 1959. Generalized quantitativemethod of plankton processing. BAN,12(5): 427-430. (In Russian).

FRY D. L., I. A. OSBORN. 1980. Zooplanktonabundance and diversity in CentralFlorida grass carp ponds.Hydrobiologia, 68: 145-155.

GROZEV G. 1999. Qualitative and quantitativedevelopment of zooplankton in fish pondsdepending on the main factors of theenvironment. PhD Thesis, Sofia, Instituteof Zoology, 153 p. (In Bulgarian).

IFA. 1995. Development of methods forecological surface water control andinvestigation of some problems related towater quality of fishing water reservoirs" -

11


Annual report of Institute of Fisheries andAquaculture, Plovdiv to the SAA for1995.

KARABIN A. 1985. Pelagic zooplankton(Rotifera + Crustacea) variation in theprocess of lake eutrophication. I.Structual and quantitative features –Ekologia Polska, 33: 567-616.

NAYDENOV V. T. 1981. Changes inzooplankton structure in the JrebchevoDam under the influence of pollutionand hydrotechnical construction.Hydrobiologia, 15: 22-42. (in Bulgarian).

NAYDENOV V. T. 1984. Composition andecology of the Danube riverzooplankton and continental waterbodies in Bulgaria. Dsc Thesis. Sofia,503 p. (In Bulgarian).

NAYDENOV V. T., D. SAYS. 1987. Ecologicalbasis for the use of plankton as a monitorfor background pollution. - In: Problemsof background environmentalmonitoring. Second School of BiologicalMonitoring, 15-17.02.1984. Sofia, BAN,151-156. (In Russian).

PANTLE R., H. BUCK. 1955. Die evolutionaryecology of an antipredator reaction norm:Daphnia pulex and Chaoborusamericanus. Evolution, 45(7): 1665-1674.

PIELOU E. C. 1966. The measurement ofdiversity in different types of biologicalcollections. Journal of TheoreticalBiology, 13: 131-144.

PRIKRYL I. 1980. Determination of zooplanktonbiomass on the basis of length-weightrelations. VURH Vodnany, 1: 13-18.

ROTHSCHTEIN J. 1962. Die graphischeDarstellung von Ergebnissen derbiologischen Bewertung der Reinheitvon Gewässern. Bratislava, VUV, 63 p.

ROUSSEV B., Y. UZUNOV, S. KOVACHEV, I.YANEVA, L. IVANOVA. 1981. Trends inthe changes of saprobiological conditionof the Maritsa river. Hydrobiologia, 14:51-64. (In Bulgarian).

SHANNON S., W. WEAVER. 1963. The mathematicaltheory of communication. Urbana: Univ. ofIlinois Pres, Chicago, 117 p.

SLADECEK V. 1973. System of water quality forthe biological point of view. Arch.Hydrobiol. Bieh. (Ergebn. Limnol.) 1-218.

SLADECEK V., M. ZELINKA, J. ROTSCHEIN, V.MORAVKOVA. 1981. Biologocky RozborPovrchove vody. Komentar k CSN830532 – casti 6. Stanoveni saprobnihoindexu. Vyd. Uradu pro norm. amereni. 186 p.

SZLAUER B. 1999. Zooplankton-based assessmentof the lake Miedwie (North-WesternPoland) trophic status. Electronic Journalof the Polish Agricultural University,Fisheries, 2(1): 21.

. , Зоопланктона около гр Пловдив днес и четвърт век назад

. , . ДойчинИ Терзийски ДжорджК Грозев

: Резюме Осъщественият анализ върхуструктурата и динамиката назооплнактонното съобщество през дваразглеждани периода (1993 - 1995 г. - първипериод и 2012, 2015, 2016 г. - втори)обуславя тенденция към увеличаване наеутрофикацията изразяваща се в намаляванена биосапробната характеристика на водатаи видовото разнообразие, но статистическиразликата между емпиричните среднистойности на индексите на Шанън, Пиелу исапробния индекс са недостоверни. Що сеотнася до установеният брой видовеформиращ зоопланктона, то понастоящемкартината е съпоставима с годините преди90-те и едва ли днес по-малкият брой видовенаблюдавани в басейните в сравнение с 90-те години може да се свърже с нарастване наеутрофикацията в тях. Вероятно тозипроцес се дължи на натрупването наорганична и неорганична маса на дъната набасейните в хода на тяхната експлоатация,което намалява дълбочината, увеличавасклонността към прекомерно обрастване икато цяло влошава условията зазоопланктона в тях.

12



Myriapoda (Chilopoda and Diplopoda) of the City of Plovdiv

Boyan L. Vagalinski1*, Pavel E. Stoev2, Plamen G. Mitov3

1 - Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Research, 2 Gagarin St., 1113, Sofia, BULGARIA

2 - Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, National Museum of Natural History, 1 Tsar Osvoboditel Blvd., 1000Sofia, BULGARIA, and Pensoft Publishers, 12 Prof. Georgi Zlatarski St., 1700 Sofia, BULGARIA

3 - Sofia University, Faculty of Biology, 8 Dragan Tsankov Blvd., 1164 Sofia, BULGARIA *Corresponding author: [email protected]

Abstract. The paper presents the first contribution to the study of the centipedes and millipedesof the city of Plovdiv. A total of 20 species (8 chilopods and 12 diplopods) belonging to 16genera, 11 families, and 8 orders are recorded from the city. All but one species, Megaphyllumunilineatum (C.L. Koch, 1838), are new to the city, most of them being common and widelydistributed in Bulgaria. Of particular interest is the finding of a geophilid centipede with anunclear generic appurtenance, which shows similarities to both Clinopodes C. L. Koch andPleurogeophilus Verhoeff, and of a recently described millipede species - Metonomastus petroviAntić et al. 2018.

Key words: centipedes, millipedes, first records, new species, Plovdiv City.

IntroductionThe surveys on the Bulgarian myriapod fauna

have a long history dating back to CHRISTOVICH

(1892). An annotated checklist of the myriapodfauna of Bulgaria was recently published byBACHVAROVA et al. (2017). However, studies onthe myriapods living in the Bulgarian cities arerather scattered and concern only Sofia City(STOEV, 2004) and Shumen City (BACHVAROVA& STOEV, 2008; BACHVAROVA, 2011; andBACHVAROVA et al., 2015). Considerable amountof data on the centipedes (Chilopoda) of YambolCity can be found in the PhD thesis of GeorgiRibarov (RIBAROV, 1985). Likewise, informationabout the millipedes of Panagyurishte City can befound in the PhD thesis of Yasen Christov(CHRISTOV, 1986).

The second largest Bulgarian city - Plovdiv,is of special interest in that respect due to its

ancient history with intensive trading, possiblyresulting in a number of introduced species, andthe many green areas, especially those alongsideMaritsa River that remain moist throughout theyear, presenting suitable habitats for centipedesand millipedes. Moreover, the city is almostcompletely unstudied as regards its myriapods,with only a single species, Megaphyllumunilineatum (C.L. Koch, 1838), being hithertoknown from its territory.

Here we present the results of a study onthe myriapods of Plovdiv City, based onmaterial collected from 2002 until 2018.

Material and MethodsAll specimens are preserved in the National

Museum of Natural History, Sofia (Chilopoda)and the Institute of Biodiversity and EcosystemResearch (Diplopoda). The samples were mostly




hand-collected, with a few coming from pitfalltraps. The collecting sites (marked with crosses onFig. 1) are as follows: Bunardzhika Hill,42°08’43.45”N 24°44’16.82”E; at the foot ofBunardzhika Hill, next to Highschool of Trade,42°08’34.71”N 24°44’26.09”E; “Parashutna kula”Park, 42°08’05.41”N 24°45’20.08”E; DzhendemaHill, 42°08’17.59”N 24°43’56.53”E; at the foot ofDzhendema Hill, next to the tennis court,42°08’05.08”N 24°43’40.42”E; “Tsar Simeonovagradina” Park, 42°08’31.36”N 24°44’49.85”E;

“Lauta” Park, 42°08’18.20”N 24°46’40.05”E;“Danov halm” Hill, 42°08’44.64”N 24°44’47.59”E;between Maritsa River and the Rowing channel,42°08’36.97”N 24°42’15.09”E; Branipole Village,42°05’55.19”N 24°45’52.64”E; “Otdih i kultura”Park, 42°08’35.71”N 24°42’47.74”E; thesurroundings of the Institute of Pomology,42°06’21.00”N 24°43’40.21”E. In addition to thestudied material, the relevant literature concerningBulgarian Myriapoda was checked for recordsreferring to Plovdiv City.

Fig. 1. Satellite image of Plovdiv City with the sampling sites indicated with white crosses (modified from Google Maps).

Results and Discussion

Class ChilopodaOrder ScutigeromorphaFamily Scutigeridae

1. Scutigera coleoptrata (Linnaeus, 1758) Material: 1 ad. male, at the foot of

Bunardzhika Hill, 5.VI.2002, P. Mitov leg.; 1juv., Dzhendema Hill, 29.IV.2003, P. Mitovleg.; 1 juv., “Danov halm” Hill, 14.VIII.2016, P.Mitov leg.; many males, females & juvs.,Bunardzhika Hill, pitfall traps, 18.IX.2017,Mollov & Dincheva leg.; many males, females& juvs.., Dzhendema Hill, pitfall traps,18.IX.2017, Mollov & Dincheva leg.; many

males, females & juvs., “Danov halm” Hill,pitfall traps, 18.IX.2017, Mollov & Dinchevaleg.; 1 ad. female, Bunardhika Hill, 10.IV.2018,P. Mitov leg.

Note: This is a widespread Mediterraneanspecies.

Order LithobiomorphaFamily Lithobiidae

2. Eupolybothrus transsylvanicus (Latzel,1882)

Material: 1 ad. female, at the foot ofBunardzhika Hill, 15.IX.2002; 1 ad. male, 1 ad.female, next to the Rowing channel,28.IV.2003; 1 ad. male, at the foot of

14

Boyan L. Vagalinski, Pavel E. Stoev, Plamen G. MitovDzhendema Hill, near the tennis court,6.IX.2003; 1 subad.. female, “Tsar Simeonovagradina” Park, 3.IX.2003; all collected by P.Mitov.

3. Lithobius (Lithobius) forficatus Linnaeus,1758

Material: 1 male, “Lauta” Park, 18.IV.2017,P. Mitov leg.

4. Lithobius (Monotarsobius) crassipes L.Koch, 1862

Material: 1 ad. male, 1 ad. female,Dzhendema Hill, 29.IV.2003, P. Mitov leg.

Order GeophilomorphaFamily Dignathodontidae

5. Henia illyrica (Meinert, 1870)Material: 1 male, 1 female, Plovdiv,

“Parashutna kula” Park, under stones,18.IV.2017; 1 male, 1 female, Plovdiv,Dzhendema Hill, 29.IV.2003; 1 female,Plovdiv, “Lauta” Park, 18.IV.2017; 1 male,Plovdiv, “Danov halm” Hill, dry soil, understones, 6.IX.2003; all collected by P. Mitov.

Family Geophilidae

6. Geophilidae gen. sp.Material: 1 female, the garden behind

Bunardzhika Hill, near the city square, understones, 18.IV.2017; 2 ad. ex., Dzhendema Hill,29.IV.2003; 1 ex., “Lauta” Park, under concreteand stones, 4.IX.2003; 1 ex., next to theInstitute of Pomology, dry soil, under stones,08.IX.2003; all collected by P. Mitov.

Note. Despite the abundant material onhand, we were unable to identify the specimensdown to species. The most characteristic traitof the species is the leg number – 75–79(females), last leg without claw, composed ofcoxa and 6 very elongated articles, coxal poresin clusters covered by the metasternite; isolatedpores missing; Chitin lines of forciples reachingthe condyles. Forcipules with veryinconspicuous basal denticles on tarsungula,sternites with transverse pore fields. Thesecharacters are found in both Clinopodes C. L.Koch, 1847 and Pleurogeophilus Verhoeff,1901. However, the specimens differ fromClinopodes by the lack of triangular sternalpore fields, and from Pleurogeophilus by thepresence of coxosternal tubercles.

Order ScolopendromorphaFamily Scolopendridae

7. Scolopendra cingulata Latreille, 1829Material: 1 juv., Dzhendema Hill,

29.IV.2003, P. Mitov leg.; 1 ad., BunardzhikaHill, 10.IV.2018, P. Mitov leg.

8. Cryptops anomalans Newport, 1844Material: 1 ad. without last leg-pair, Plovdiv,

Dzhendema Hill, 29.IV.2003; 1 ad. without lastleg-pair, “Otdih i kultura” Park, in closeproximity to the Zoo, under stones and wood,13.X.2002; 1 juv., “Danov halm” Hill,14.VIII.2016; all collected by P. Mitov.

Class DiplopodaOrder PolyxenidaFamily Polyxenidae

9. Polyxenus sp.Material: 3 specimens, at the foot of

Bunardzhika Hill, in close proximity to theHigh school of Trade, 19.IV.2017, P. Mitov leg.

Note: Species-level identification ofpolyxenids is very difficult, and although theexamined individuals most likely belong toPolyxenus lagurus, we prefer to remain on thesafe side until there is securely identifiedmaterial for comparison.

Order PolydesmidaFamily Polydesmidae

10. Polydesmus complanatus (Linnaeus, 1761)Material: 2 males, 2 females, 1 juv., near the

Rowing channel, by the bank of Maritsa River,19.IV.2017, P. Mitov leg.

Note: This is the most common polydesmidspecies in Central and Eastern Europe,introduced to the Near East and the Nearcticregion; often occurring near human settlements(KIME & ENGHOFF, 2011); also recorded fromthe cities of Sofia (STOEV 2004) and Shumen(BACHVAROVA, 2011).

11. Polydesmus mediterraneus Daday, 1889Material: 1 male, north of Branipole Village,

next to Chiirite hotel, by the ring road, under astone, 07.I.2014; 1 male, at the foot ofDzhendema Hill, 10.IX.2016; 2 males, 2females, many juv., at the foot of Bunardzhika

15


Hill, in close proximity to the High school oftrade, 19.IV.2017; many males, females andjuv., “Lauta” Park, Ulmus, Acer, Fraxinus etc.,in decaying wood, under stones and bark,19.IV.2017; all collected by P. Mitov.

Note: There are five described subspeciesof P. mediterraneus. Two of them–thenominotypical one and P. mediterraneusvalachicus Tabacaru & Negrea, 1961–arerecorded also from Bulgaria. Most of thematerial from Plovdiv City agrees with theoriginal description of P. mediterraneusmediterraneus. The male from Branipoleshows an unusual gonopod shape, particularly aslender, bifurcated endomerite, and it cannot beascribed to any of the known subspecies.However, their distribution ranges andintrapopulational variations are largelyunknown, which makes their validity doubtful.

12. Polydesmus sp.Material: 2 females, north of Branipole

Village, next to Chiirite Hotel, under stones,07.I.2014, P. Mitov leg.

Note: These two specimens certainly belongto a Polydesmus species different from theprevious two. Its body size is in between that ofP. complanatus and P. mediterraneus, and itshows a characteristic colour pattern of darkbrown spots dorsomedially on metazonites,divided by a blurred grey axial band. However,the lack of adult males prevents us fromestablishing its identity.

Family Paradoxosomatidae

13. Metonomastus petrovi Antić et al. 2018Record from Plovdiv City: ANTIĆ et al.

(2018): p. 46.Note: The genus Metonomastus Attems,

1937 comprises 12 species distributed in Italy,the Balkans and western Anatolia (Golovatch &Stoev, 2004). This is the second species knownto occur in Bulgaria, after the description of M.pomak Golovatch & Stoev, 2004 from theregion of Ivailovgrad Town. M. petrovi is alsoknown with two records from caves in WesternRhodopi Mts. The present record reveals thatwe are dealing with a troglophilous, rather thanwith a troglobitic species.

Order Chordeumatida

Family Anthroleucosomotidae

14. Anamastigona bilselii (Verhoeff, 1940)Material: 1 male, 4 females, “Lauta” Park,

under wood remains, 29.IV.2017, P. Mitov leg.Note: In Bulgaria A. bilselii was hitherto

known only from Shumen and ShumenskoPlateau (STRASSER, 1973; BACHVAROVA, 2011).The new record and the fact that the speciesalso occurs in European Turkey (ENGHOFF,2006) and northeastern Greece (STRASSER,1976) suggest a much broader distribution inthe southern and eastern parts of the country.

Order JulidaFamily Blaniulidae

15. Cibiniulus phlepsii (Verhoeff, 1897)Material: 1 male, near the Rowing channel,

by the bank of Maritsa River, in decaying wood,19.IV.2017, P. Mitov leg.

Note: The species is known from severalplaces in eastern Bulgaria, and was recentlyreported from the surroundings of Sofia(BACHVAROVA et al., 2017).

Family Julidae16. Cylindroiulus boleti (C.L. Koch, 1847)Material examined: 2 males, 1 female, 5 juv.,

near the Rowing channel, by the bank of MaritsaRiver, in decaying wood, 19.IV.2017, P. Mitov leg.

Note: This is one of the most commonjulidans in Bulgaria. It is known from varioushabitats and altitudes (VAGALINSKI & STOEV,2007; KIME & ENGHOFF, 2017). It was alreadyrecorded from Sofia (STOEV, 2004) andShumen (BACHVAROVA, 2011), so its finding inurban habitats in the city of Plovdiv is notsurprising.

17. Brachyiulus bagnalli Brolemann, 1924Material: 9 males, 39 females, “Lauta” Park,

in leaf litter and under decaying wood remains,19.IV.2017, P. Mitov leg.

Note: This Central and Eastern Europeanspecies is common in both urban and ruralareas, where it inhabits planted forests, cityparks, house yards, agricultural land, etc. (KIME

& ENGHOFF, 2017).

18. Brachyiulus lusitanus Verhoeff, 1898Material: 2 males, 3 females, at the foot of

Bunardzhika Hill, in close proximity to the

16

Boyan L. Vagalinski, Pavel E. Stoev, Plamen G. MitovHigh school of Trade, 19.IV.2017, P. Mitovleg.; 2 males, 3 females, same locality, underfallen bark, 20.V.2018, P. Mitov leg.

Note: B. lusitanus is a pan-Mediterraneanspecies, introduced into Australia and NorthAmerica (VAGALINSKI et al., 2014; KIME &ENGHOFF, 2017). It is known from varioushabitats including cropland (KIME &ENGHOFF, 2017). In Bulgaria it was recordedfrom the western parts of the country,including a park in Sofia (VAGALINSKI &STOEV, 2007).

19. Megaphyllum unilineatum (C.L. Koch,1838)

Record from Plovdiv City: Strasser (1969):p. 159.

New material: 1 male, 3 females, at the footof Dzhendema Hill, 15.IX.2002, P. Mitov leg.;2 males, 2 females, 1 juv., Bunardzhika Hill,pitfall traps, 18.IX.2017, Mollov & Dinchevaleg.; Bunardzhika Hill, under stones and deadwood, 10.IV.2018, P. Mitov leg.; 1 female, atthe foot of Bunardzhika Hill, in close proximityto the High school of trade, 20.V.2018, P.Mitov leg.

20. Ommatoiulus sabulosus (Linnaeus,1758)

Material: 1 female, 7 juveniles, “Otdih ikultura” Park, in close proximity to the Zoo,under stones, 19.IV.2017, P. Mitov leg.

ConclusionsThe 20 species recorded present a good

start to the study of myriapods of Plovdiv Cityconsidering the low number of samplesexamined. For comparison, 21 myriapods areknown from Sofia City, and 51 from ShumenCity (STOEV, 2004; BACHVAROVA, 2011,respectively), but these data are obtainedthrough prolonged and extensive samplingusing different collecting methods. Most ofPlovdiv’s myriapod fauna, as currentlyreviewed, comprises common, eurytopicspecies, which were previously recorded fromurban/suburban environments. Metonomastuspetrovi, Anamastigona bilselii and Cibiniulusphlepsii present more interesting findings in thelight of the rather scarce data on thedistribution of these species. By all means,further sampling in more areas of the city, andwith additional collecting methods, including

pitfall and MSS trapping, would inevitablyincrease the number of species recorded. Thisis to be expected mainly for the Chilopoda,which seem to have more representatives thatare able to adapt to the specific ecologicalconditions in urban environments compared tothe Diplopoda. Both STOEV (2004) andBACHVAROVA (2011) recorded in urbanenvironments considerably higher numbers ofcentipedes than millipedes.

AcknowledgementsWe are grateful to Assoc. Prof. Ivelin

Mollov, PhD (University of Plovdiv “PaisiiHilendarski”, Faculty of Biology, Departmentof Ecology and Environmental Conservation)and student Mina Dincheva (University ofPlovdiv “Paisii Hilendarski”) for providingmaterial for the present study.

ReferencesANTIĆ D., B. VAGALINSKI, P. STOEV, S.

GOLOVATCH. 2018. Two new species ofthe millipede genus Metonomastus Attems,1937 from the Balkan Peninsula(Diplopoda, Polydesmida, Paradoxoso-matidae). ZooKeys. 786: 43–57.

BACHVAROVA D. 2011. Myriapoda (Chilopoda,Diplopoda) of Shumen City andShumen Plateau (NE Bulgaria):Taxonomic Structure andZoogeographical Analysis. Actazoologica bulgarica, 63(3): 245-262.

BACHVAROVA D., P. STOEV. 2008. Acontribution to the study of myriapods(Diplopoda, Chilopoda) of the town ofShumen and the Shumen plateau(Northeastern Bulgaria). Annual ofShumen University EpiskopKonstantin Preslavski, Faculty ofNature Sciences, 18B, 6: 55-70. (InBulgarian).

BACHVAROVA D., A. DOYCHINOV, Ch.DELTCHEV, P. STOEV. 2015. Habitatdistribution of myriapods (Chilopoda,Diplopoda) in the town of Shumen andthe Shumen Plateau (NE Bulgaria).Arthropoda Selecta, 24(2): 169-184.

BACHVAROVA D., B. VAGALINSKI, A.DOICHINOV, P. STOEV. 2017. Newrecords of millipedes and centipedesfrom Bulgaria, with an annotated

17


checklist of the Bulgarian myriapods.Zootaxa, 4263(3): 507-526.

CHRISTOV J. 1986. Species composition anddistribution of the millipedes of classDiplopoda (Myriapoda) in the SrednaGora Mountains with coenologicalinvestigations in the Sashtinska SrednaGora Mountains. PhD Thesis. PaisiiHilendarski University of Plovdiv,Plovdiv, 222 p. (In Bulgarian).

CHRISTOVICH G. 1892. Materials for theexploration of the Bulgarian fauna.Sbornik za narodni umotvoreniya,nauka i knizhnina, 8: 337-346 (InBulgarian).

ENGHOFF H. 2006. The millipedes of Turkey(Diplopoda). Steenstrupia, 29(2): 175-198.

GOLOVATCH S.I., P. STOEV. 2008. A newspecies of the millipede genusMetonomastus Attems, 1937 from acave in the Eastern Rhodopes (Bulgaria)with some remarks on its congeners(Diplopoda: Paradoxosomatidae). In:Beron P., Popov, A. (eds), Biodiversityof Bulgaria. 2. Biodiversity of EasternRhodopes (Bulgaria and Greece).Pensoft and Nat. Mus. Natur. Hist.,Sofia, pp. 199–205.

KIME R.D., H. ENGHOFF. 2011. Atlas ofEuropean millipedes (Class Diplopoda),Vol 1. PENSOFT Publichers, Sofia-Moskow, 282 p.

KIME R.D., H. ENGHOFF. 2017. Atlas ofEuropean millipedes 2: Order Julida(Class Diplopoda). European Journal ofTaxonomy 346: 1-299.

RIBAROV G. 1985. Species composition,ecology, distribution and significance ofthe centipedes (Chilopoda) insoutheastern Bulgaria. Ph.D. Thesis,Plovdiv, “Paissii Hilendarski”University. 148 p. (In Bulgarian).

VAGALINSKI B., P. STOEV. 2007. An annotatedcatalogue of the millipede order Julida(Diplopoda) in Bulgaria. HistoriaNaturalis Bulgarica, 18: 35-63.

VAGALINSKI B., S. GOLOVATCH, S.M.SIMAIAKIS, H. ENGHOFF, P. STOEV.2014. Millipedes of Cyprus (Myriapoda:Diplopoda). Zootaxa, 3835(4): 528-548.

STOEV P. 2004. Myriapoda (Chilopoda,Diplopoda) in urban environments inthe City of Sofia. In: Penev L., NiemeläD.j., Kotze D., Chipev N. (eds), Ecologyof the City of Sofia. Species andCommunities in Urban Environment.PENSOFT Publishers, Sofia-Moscow,pp. 299-306.

STRASSER K. 1973. Über DiplopodenBulgariens, III. Ann. Zool. (Warszawa),30(15): 411-469.

STRASSER K. 1976. Über Diplopoda-Chilognatha Griechenlands II. RevueSuisse de Zoologie, 83(3): 579-645.

Myriapoda (Chilopoda Diplopoda) и . от гр Пловдив

. , . , Боян Л Вагалински Павел Е Стоев . ПламенГ Митов

: Резюме В статията е представенпървият принос към изследването намногоножките в гр. Пловдив. От града сарегистрирани общо 20 вида (8 Chilopoda и 12Diplopoda) от 16 рода, 11 семейства и 8разреда. Всички видове, с изключение наедин, Megaphyllum unilineatum (C.L. Koch,1838), са нови за града. Повечето от тях саобикновени и широко разпространени вБългария. Особен интерес представляваоткриването на геофилидна стоножка снеясна родова принадлежност, коятопоказва прилики както с Clinopodes C. L.Koch, така и с Pleurogeophilus Verhoeff,както и наскоро описаната многоножкаMetonomastus petrovi Antić et al. 2018.

18



Terrestrial Gastropods (Mollusca: Gastropoda) in the City of Plovdiv

Atanas A. Irikov*

University of Plovdiv “Paisii Hilendarski”, Faculty of Biology, Department of Ecology and EnvironmentalConservation, 24 Tsar Assen Str., Plovdiv, BULGARIA


Abstract. A complete review of the terrestrial malacofauna in Plovdiv City was conducted basedon the literary and new data. The outcome of the research is the identification of 49 species andsubspecies of terrestrial snails, belonging to 19 families, from which the presence of 37 species inthe city is reported for the first time. It has been determined that 7 of the species reported priorto the research are no longer located in the city of Plovdiv. A zoogeographic analysis of themalacofauna was performed. Interesting cases of registered coastal, endemic of the RhodopesMountains and of Plovdiv species have been reported.

Key words: terrestrial snails, city of Plovdiv, Bulgaria.

IntroductionUntil recently there was not much data on the

terrestrial snails in the city of Plovdiv. KOBELT

(1906) gave an account on the following species inthe Rhodopes Mountains and the region of PlovdivCity (on accordance with WOHLBEREDT, 1911) –Campylea trizona var. rhodopensis and var.thracica (Kobelt, 1906) (= Cattania rumelicaRossmässler, 1839), Helix (Helicogena) thracica(Kobelt, 1906) [= Helix (Helix) lucorum Linnaeus,1758], Helix (Helicogena) albescens var. bulgarica(Kobelt, 1906) [= Helix (Helix) albescensRossmässler, 1839], Helix (Helicogena) figulinavar. eumolpia (Kobelt, 1906) [= Helix (Helix)figulina Rossmässler, 1839]. The next developmentof the malacological literature on the EasternBalkans was provided in the article ofWOHLBEREDT (1911) and mainly in a series ofreports of HESSE (1911; 1912; 1913; 1914a; b;1916a; b), which seriously enhanced theinformation of the Eastern Balkan malacofauna.

Both authors researched a significant amount ofmaterial, most likely collected by local non-professional collectors and due to that the precisegeographical locations of the habitats of the speciesare not available (WAGNER, 1927). HESSE (1911-1916) published a number of species “from thesurroundings of Philippopel” (= Plovdiv City) inhis series on the Mollusca in Eastern Rumelia, withno precise locations but for one single exception.The material he studied had been sent to him by acollector unidentified to this day, named in thepublication “Mr Prof. Boris”. Twenty eight speciesof terrestrial snails and varieties were reported inthe publication, some of them of unclear systematicstatute, others unavailable in the region andobviously void, whereas another group are endemicfor the middle sections of the Rhodopes Mts.Obviously the material sent to Hesse covers amuch wider area than the surroundings of Plovdiv,encompassing also a part of the Rhodopes Mts.This was confirmed by WOHLBEREDT (1911), whoin his publication on the Mollusca in Bulgaria




registered the species published by Hesse andindicated specifically the location of the studiedmaterial, namely, the Rhodopes Mts. sides nearPlovdiv City, “Stanimaka” (= Assenovgrad City)and other surroundings of Plovdiv City. HESSE(1912) described three new species, again from “thesurroundings of Plovdiv”. The data on the firstidentified species, Helicigona (Arianta) peliaHesse, 1912 [= Chilostoma pelia (Hesse, 1912)] inthe region of Plovdiv City, is obviously incorrect,since this is an alpine species, widely distributed atan altitude of more than 1000 m a.s.l. and is notidentified anywhere in the Thracian Plain. Theother two species, Clausilia thracica Hesse, 1912[= Euxina persica (Boettger, 1879)], according tothe rule of priority) and Clausilia (Wagneria)borisi Hesse, 1912 [= Euxina promta (Schmidt,1868)], according to the rule of priority), have alsobeen reported for the region of Plovdiv City (seeIRIKOV & MOLLOV, 2006). HESSE (1913)presumed that Clausilia (Idyla) fraudigera(Rossmässler, 1839) [= Bulgarica (Bulgarica)fraudigera (Rossmässler, 1839)] occurredsomewhere in the close proximity of Plovdiv City.According to HESSE (1914a) the species Thebacarascaloides (Bourguignat, 1855) [= Monachacarascaloides (Bourguignat, 1855)] occurred inPlovdiv City and earlier it was also presumed byhim and by WOHLBEREDT (1911) for Helixfrequens (Mousson, 1859) [= Monacha frequens(Mousson, 1859)]. The same author (HESSE 1914b)reports the occurrence of Pseudotrichia rubiginosa(Schmidt, 1853) in the region of Plovdiv City aswell as the species Helix philibinensis(Rossmässler, 1839) also in Plovdiv City on thebasis of the material from shells purchased at themarket in Sofia City by the Serbian professorPavlović. During 1913-1914 HESSE received bymail a parcel sent by an unidentified individual withdetritus of alluvial deposits in the Maritsa River inthe region of Plovdiv City. He published theidentified molluscs (HESSE 1916a) in a sequel to theannual register of Mollusca in Eastern Rumelia,drifted previously: Helix vulgarissima (Mousson,1859) [= Xeromunda vulgarissima (Mousson,1859)] in Plovdiv City factually belongs to Helicellaobvia dobrudschae (Kobelt, 1878) [= Xerolentaobvia nomen nudum dobrudschae) (Menke,1828)]. Specifically for Plovdiv City, HESSE (1911-1916) reported the identified species in a series ofarticles and rather fortuitously reported fourspecies. WAGNER (1927) published a monograph

on the Mollusca on the Balkan Peninsula, morespecifically in Bulgaria and in Thrace, based on thematerial researched at The Royal Museum ofNatural Science in Sofia, as well as on literaturesources. In this monograph he described a newsubspecies Acicula similis bulgarica (Wagner A.J.,1927) [= Platyla similis (Reinhardt, 1880)] andreported another six from “the Maritsa River banksin Plovdiv City”. In the same monograph Serbicamarginata major (Rossmässler, 1839) [=Macedonica marginata major (Rossmässler, 1839)]is referred to as from “the surroundings ofPlovdiv” yet the species is typically mountainous,never found in the plains and with certainty itsnearest possible habitat are the Rhodopes Mts.sides. PETRBOK (1941) reports three speciesspecifically found in the city – Helix(Cryptomphalus) aspersa [= Cornu aspersa(Müller, 1774)], Helicigona trizona balcanica(Kobelt, 1876) [= Cattania balcanica (Kobelt,1876)] and Eobania vermiculata (Müller, 1774) inaddition to the species found in the surroundingsof Plovdiv City and in the alluvial deposits on theMaritsa River banks; the first two of these threespecies were void and they are not found in thecity. Although the reported terrestrial snails mostoften are specified to be from “the surroundings ofPlovdiv” or on “the Maritsa River banks inPlovdiv” (in the alluvial deposits in particular)(KOBELT, 1906; HESSE, 1911-1916; WOHLBEREDT,1911; WAGNER, 1927), it is obvious that with a fewexceptions these data are not related to the city areaor its outskirts. URBAŃSKI (1960a; b), reportedeight species, this time specifically identified in thesyenite hills of Plovdiv City, and except for thespecies Monacha cartusiana they are definitelyspecific for the city (see IRIKOV & MOLLOV, 2006commenting on the latter). The same author(URBAŃSKI, 1960а; 1969) commented that thespecies reported by HESSE (1916a) in sand depositsmost likely drifted by the tributaries of MaritsaRiver as it flowed down from the Rhodopes Mts.RIEDEL (1964; 1969; 1975) reported Oxychilustranslucidus (Mortillet, 1854) in the parks of thecity. NORDSIECK (1973) reported Bulgaricathessalonica (Rossmässler, 1839) [(= Bulgaricadenticulata thessalonica (Rossmässler, 1839)] inPlovdiv City. DAMJANOV & LIKHAREV (1975)report six species in literatures sources, two ofthem, Faustina (Cattania) trizona rumelica(Rossmässler, 1838) [= Cattania rumelica(Rossmässler, 1838)] and Helix (Cryptomphalus)

20

Atanas A. Irikovaspersa Müller, 1774 [= Cornu aspersa (Müller,1774)] as void in the city. KÖRNIG (1983) foundBulgarica fritillaria (FRIVALDSZKY, 1835) nearMaritsa River in Plovdiv City. In our opinion this isa case of empty shells drifted in the Maritsa Riverand its tributaries because we could not find livingspecimens in the city. IRIKOV (2006) has providedan account of the new endemic for Plovdiv Citysubspecies Bulgarica varnensis trimontsianaIrikov, 2006, identified only on the syenite rocks inthe area of Trihalmie Hill. GEORGIEV &STOYCHEVA (2013) have produced a photographof Cecilioides jani (De Betta & Martinati, 1855)from Plovdiv City and GEORGIEV (2014) reportsan Oxychillus camelinus (Bourguignat, 1852) onRahat Tepe Hill (= Nebet Tepe, a part of TrihalmieHill) in Plovdiv City.

Material and MethodsIn order to summarize the actual availability

and occurrence of the species of terrestrial snails inthe city of Plovdiv all literary sources have beenprovided as well as a multitude of new results ofthe long term research (1999 – 2015). The materialhas been collected in all parts of the city – openspaces between the blocks of flats, parks, alleys,gardens, hills, the banks and islands of Maritsa

River, industrial areas, farming areas in the outskirtsetc., or a total of 700 samples. One part of thematerial (of good quality) is preserved in the privatecollection of the author. Because in the past manyof the taxa were reported to be from the city ofPlovdiv on the basis of the shells found in thealluvial deposits of Maritsa River, we conducted analternative research by collecting shells washed outof the river within the boundaries of the city withthe goal of comparing them to the present urbanmalacofauna. In order to differentiate the shells, theriver alluvial deposits were sifted through a systemif sieves. The classification of IRIKOV (2008),IRIKOV & MOLLOV (2006; 2015), IRIKOV &GERDZHIKOV (2016) was applied for theidentification of the zoogeographic characteristics.

ResultsTables 1 and 2 present all species and habitats

of terrestrial snails in the city of Plovdiv, in thealluvial deposits of Maritsa River and in thesurroundings of the city, identified in literaturesources and new data. The Arabic numbers inTable 2 correspond to the numbers of the habitatsin Table 1. The Arabic numbers used for thezoogeographic characteristics in the Discussioncorrespond to the consecutive number of thespecies in Table 1.

Table 1. Locations of the collected terrestrial snails in the city of Plovdiv.

No. Locality Notes1. Park near Bratska Mogila (Memorial park) Zapad District2. Alluvial deposits in Maritsa River near park “Loven Park”

(former “Ostrova” Park) Zapad District

3. Alluvial deposits in Maritsa River near Maritsa Stadium Zapad District4. Alluvial deposits in Maritsa River near the Sugar Refinery Karshiaka Neighborhood5. Mladezhki Halm Hill (Dzhendem Tepe Hill) Central part of Plovdiv City

6. Halm Bunardzhik Hill (Bunardzhik Tepe Hill) Central part of Plovdiv City7. Danov Halm Hill (Sahat Tepe Hill) Central part of Plovdiv City8. Lauta Park Iztochen District 9. Trimontium Hotel Central part of Plovdiv City10. Foreign Languages School Karshiaka Neighborhood11. Kamenitsa 1 near Iztochen Boulevard Central part of Plovdiv City12. Stochna Gara Station (Cargo Station) Central part of Plovdiv City13. “Otdih i Kultura” Park by the Rowing Canal Zapad District14. Trihalmie Hill (includes Nebet Tepe Hill, Dzhambaz Tepe Hill,

Taksim Tepe Hill)Central part of Plovdiv City

15. Rhodopes Coach Station Yuzhen District16. Botanical Gardens Iztochen District17. Stroitel Sports Hall Karshiaka Neighborhood18. Plovdiv Stadium Zapad District19. Adata Island in Maritsa River Central Plovdiv – Iztochen District20. Elin Pelin Primary School Zapad District21. Akademik Sports Complex Central Plovdiv – Iztochen District

21


22. Maritsa Stadium Karshiaka Neighborhood23. University of Plovdiv “Paisii Hilendarski” - main building Central Plovdiv24. Rogosh Cemetery Park Karshiaka Neighborhood25. Sever Coach Station Karshiaka Neighborhood26. Maritsa River banks in the city of Plovdiv Under stones, stumps and refuse27. Irrigation Canal near Trakia Neighborhood Trakia Neighborhood28. Trakia Neighborhood Open space between blocks of flats29. Technical University Near Sankt Peterburg Boulevard30. Lokomotiv Stadium Trakia Neighborhood31. Parks, gardens, alleys, hills, open space between blocks of flats

and other sites around the cityCity of Plovdiv

32. Gardens and parks in Plovdiv City of Plovdiv33. Nebet Tepe Hill (as part of the Trihalmie Hill) Central part of Plovdiv City34. Mikhail Takev Street Central part of Plovdiv City35. Foreign Languages School near Maritsa Stadium Karshiaka Neighborhood36. Trakia Industrial Area Trakia Neighborhood37. Maritsa River banks between Gerdzhika Bridge and Adata Island Central part of Plovdiv City

Table 2. Registered species of terrestrial snails in the region of the city of Plovdiv. All speciesof terrestrial snails reported to this moment in the region of Plovdiv in various literature sources, aswell as those registered for the first time in the city are listed in the first column. The symbol #marks the species which are void, and the symbol * marks the species that are new for the fauna ofPlovdiv City. In the second column Arabic numbers mark the locations in Table 1 and thecollectors, with the year of the collection of the material in the city, whereas in the third and fourthcolumn the authors reporting the species in the alluvial deposits of Maritsa River and in the citysurroundings are listed, as well as the habitats and the collectors who have collected material duringthe original research. The Arabic numbers in the columns correspond to the specific locations,indicated in Table 1.

Species Registered Data on Plovdiv Alluvial Deposits in MaritsaRiver around and in Plovdiv

Plovdiv Citysurroundings

1. #Platyla similis (Reinhardt, 1880) – WAGNER (1927); URBAŃSKI (1960а) –

2. *Carychium minimum (Müller, 1774) 1 – Mollov, 2003 URBAŃSKI (1960а)2, 3 – Mollov, Kirov, 2003

–

3. #Vertigo substriata (Jeffreys, 1833) – – DAMJANOV & LIKHAREV (1975)4. #Vertigo antivertigo (Draparnaud, 1801) – 4 – Kirov, 2003 –

5. #Vertigo moulinsiana (Dupuy, 1849) – HESSE (1916a); URBAŃSKI (1960а)2 – Mollov, 2003

DAMJANOV & LIKHAREV (1975)

6. #Vertigo pygmaea (Draparnaud, 1801) – HESSE (1913)3 – Kirov, 2003

–

7. #Vertigo angustior (Jeffreys, 1830) – – DAMJANOV & LIKHAREV (1975)8. #Truncatellina claustralis (Gredler, 1856)

– HESSE (1916a); URBAŃSKI (1960а)3 – Kirov, 2003

–

9. *Truncatellina cylindrica (Ferussac, 1807)

5, 6, 7, 8, 9 – Georgiev, Irikov, Mollov, Kirov, 2001, 2009

3 – Kirov, 2003 –

10. *Pupilla muscorum (Linnaeus, 1758) 11, 12 – Georgiev, 2002 2, 3 – Mollov, Kirov, 2003, 2005 – 11. #Agardhiella macrodonta (Hesse, 1916) – HESSE (1916a); WAGNER (1927) DAMJANOV & LIKHAREV (1975)12. *Sphyradium doliolum (Bruguiere, 1792) 6, 13 – Irikov, 2001 HESSE (1916a) – 13. #Chondrina avenacea (Bruguiere, 1792) – HESSE (1916a) –

14. *Vallonia costata (Müller, 1774)

5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 –Irikov, Georgiev, Mollov, Kirov, 2001 – 2011

2, 3 – Mollov, 2003, 2005 –

15. *Vallonia pulchella (Müller, 1774)

5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 – Irikov, Georgiev, Mollov, Kirov, 2001 – 2011

2, 3, 26 – Georgiev, Mollov, Kirov, 2003 – 2009 –

22

Atanas A. Irikov

16. *Vallonia enniensis (Gredler, 1856)11 – Georgiev, 2002

WAGNER (1927)2, 3, 4 – Mollov, Kirov, 2003

–

17. #Vallonia excentrica Sterki, 1892 – 2, 3 – Mollov, 2003, 2005 – 18. #Acanthinula aculeata(Müller, 1774)

– HESSE (1916a)2 – Mollov, 2005

–

19. #Cochlicopa lubrica (Müller, 1774) – 2, 3, 26 – Georgiev, Mollov, Kirov, 2003 – 2005

–

20. *Cochlicopa lubricella (Porro, 1838)

5, 6, 7, 8, 14, 15, 19,24 – Irikov, Georgiev, Mollov, Kirov, 2002 – 2013

PETRBOK (1941); URBAŃSKI (1960а)3, 26 – Georgiev, Kirov, 2003

–

21. #Merdigera obscura (Müller, 1774) – 2 – Mollov, Kirov, 2005 HESSE (1911)

22. *Chondrula tridens (Müller, 1774)5, 7, 14 – Irikov, Georgiev, Mollov, Kirov, 2002 – 2013

WAGNER (1927) –

23. Chondrula microtragus(Rossmässler, 1839)

URBAŃSKI (1960а)1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 14, 15, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 – Irikov, Georgiev, Mollov, Kirov, 2000 – 2013

WAGNER (1927)3 – Kirov, 2003

HESSE (1911)WAGNER (1927)

24. #Chondrus zebra tantalus (L. Pfeiffer, 1868) – HESSE (1916a) HESSE (1911)

25. Zebrina detrita (Müller, 1774)

URBAŃSKI (1960а)5, 6, 7, 14, 16, 24, 27, 28 – Irikov, Georgiev, Mollov, Kirov, 2000 – 2013

HESSE (1916a) HESSE (1911)

26. #Cochlodina laminata (Montagu, 1803) – HESSE (1916a) – 27. #Macedonica marginata (Rossmässler, 1835)

– 10 – Kirov, Mollov, 2003HESSE (1911)WAGNER (1927)

28. #Euxina persica (Boettger, 1879) – – HESSE (1912)29. #Euxina promta (Schmidt, 1868) – – HESSE (1912)

30. *Laciniaria plicata(Draparnaud, 1801)

6, 14 – Irikov, Georgiev, Mollov, Kirov, 2003 – 2005

HESSE (1916a)2, 3 – Kirov, 2003

–

31. *Laciniaria macilenta(Rossmässler, 1842)

6 – Kirov, Mollov,2003 – 2004

– HESSE (1911; 1912)

32. *Alinda biplicata (Montagu, 1803)6, 7 – Kirov, Mollov, 2003

HESSE (1916a)2, 3 – Kirov, Mollov, 2003

HESSE (1911)

33. *Balea kaeufeli (Brandt, 1961) 14 – Georgiev, 2002 – – 34. #Bulgarica varnensis(L. Pfeiffer, 1848)

– HESSE (1916a)2 – Kirov, Mollov, 2003

HESSE (1911)

35. Bulgarica varnensis trimontsiana Irikov, 2006

IRIKOV (2006)14 – Georgiev, Irikov, 2003

– –

36. *Bulgarica fraudigera(Rossmässler, 1839)

6 – Kirov, Mollov,2003, 2005.

– HESSE (1911; 1913)URBAŃSKI (1969)

37. #Bulgarica fritillaria(Frivaldsky, 1835)

KÖRNIG (1983)HESSE (1916a)2, 3 – Kirov, Mollov, 2003

–

38. Bulgarica denticulata thessalonica(Rossmässler, 1839)

NORDSIECK (1973)7 – Kirov, 2003

26 – Irikov 2005, 2007 HESSE (1911)

39. *Succinea oblonga Draparnaud, 1801 25 – Georgiev, 20032, 3 – Kirov, 2003, 200526 – Georgiev, 2003

HESSE (1911)

40. *Oxyloma elegans (Rissso,1826)6 – Kirov, Mollov,2003, 2004

HESSE (1916a)26 – Georgiev, 20032, 3 – Kirov, Mollov, 2003

–

41. #Cecilioides acicula (Müller, 1774) – WAGNER (1927)2, 3 – Kirov, Mollov, 2003, 2005

–

42. *Cecilioides jani(De Beta & Martinati, 1855)

14 – Georgiev, Irikov, 2002

WAGNER (1927); PETRBOK (1941)26 – Georgiev, 2002

–

43. #Cecilioides spelaeus(A.Wagner, 1924)

– WAGNER (1927)2 – Kirov, 2003

–

44. #Euconulus fulvus (Müller, 1774) – 3 – Kirov, 2000 – 45. Zonitoides nitidus (Müller, 1774) HESSE (1914b) HESSE (1916a)

26 – Georgiev, 20022, 3 – Mollov, Kirov, 2003–2005

HESSE (1911)

23


46. #Daudebardia rufa cycladum Martens, 1889 – HESSE (1916a) – 47. #Carpatica stussineri (Wagner, 1895) – 3 – Kirov, 2003 – 48. *Aegopinella minor (Stabile, 1864) 13 – Kirov, Mollov, 2003 2 – Mollov, 2005 – 49. #Vitrea contracta (Westerlud, 1871) – HESSE (1916a) – 50. #Vitrea sturanyi (A.Wagner, 1907) – HESSE (1916a) – 51. *Vitrea pygmaea (O. Boettger, 1880) 6 – Kirov, Mollov, 2003 – –

52. Oxychilus translucidus (Mortillet, 1854)

32 – RIEDEL (1964, 1969, 1975); 32 – DAMJANOV & LIKHAREV (1975) 5, 6, 7, 14 – Georgiev,Irikov, Mollov, Kirov, 2003 – 2005

26 – Georgiev, 20033 – Kirov, 2003

–

53. #Oxychilus deilus (Bourguignat, 1857) – HESSE (1916a) – 54. Oxychilus camelinus (Bourguignat, 1852) GEORGIEV (2014) HESSE (1913) –

55. *Morlina glaber (Westerlund, 1881)13, 28 – Georgiev, Irikov, Mollov, Kirov, 2002 – 2005

3 – Kirov, 2003 HESSE (1911)

56. *Mediterranea hydatinus (Rossmässler, 1838)

12 – Georgiev, 2003

– –

57. *Mediterranea inopinatus(Ulicny, 1887)

5, 7 – Georgiev, Kirov, 2003

– HESSE (1911)DAMJANOV & LIKHAREV (1975)

58. *Tandonia kusceri(H. Wagner, 1931)

5, 7, 8, 13, 28, 29, 34 – Georgiev, Irikov, Mollov, Kirov, 2003

– –

59. *Tandonia budapestensis (Hazay, 1881)

8 – Georgiev, Irikov, 2002, 2003

– –

60. *Tandonia cristatа(Kaleniczenko, 1851)

8 – Georgiev, Irikov, 2002, 2003

– –

61. *Limax conemenosi Boettger, 1882 5, 8, 29 – Georgiev,Mollov, 2002, 2003

– –

62. *Limacus flavus Linnaeus, 175814, 34 – Georgiev,Kirov, 2003

– –

63. #Vitrina pellucida (Müller, 1774) – HESSE (1916a)2 – Mollov, 2005

–

64. *Deroceras sturanyi (Simroth, 1894) 27 – Georgiev, 2003 3, 26 – Georgiev, Kirov, 2003 –

65. *Deroceras turcicum (Simroth, 1894)5, 8, 11, 28, 29, 34 – Georgiev, Kirov, 2003

3, 26 – Georgiev, Kirov, 2003 –

66. *Deroceras reticulatum (Müller, 1774) 8 – Georgiev, 2003 26 – Georgiev, 2003 – 67. *Deroceras agreste (Linnaeus, 1758) 5, 8 – Georgiev, 2003 – – 68. *Lindholmiola girva(Fivaldsky, 1835)

5 – Georgiev, Mollov, Kirov, 2003

PETRBOK (1941) HESSE (1911)

69. #Trichia erjaveci (Brusina, 1870) – HESSE (1916a);DAMJANOV & LIKHAREV (1975)

–

70. #Helicopsis striata (Müller, 1774) – PETRBOK (1941);DAMJANOV & LIKHAREV (1975)

HESSE (1911)

71. #Pseudotrichia rubiginosa (Schmidt, 1853) HESSE (1914b) – HESSE (1911)72. *Monachoides incarnatus(Müller, 1774)

1, 2, 3, 13, 19 – Mollov, Kirov, 2003

– –

73. Xerolenta obvia Menke, 1828

HESSE (1916b);URBAŃSKI (1960а)31 – Irikov, Georgiev, Mollov, Kirov, 1999 – 2005

2, 3, 26 – Georgiev, Mollov, Kirov, 2003 – 2005

HESSE (1911)

74. Cernuella virgata (Da Costa, 1778)

URBAŃSKI (1960b)5, 12,14, 15, 28, 29, 36 – Irikov, Georgiev, Mollov, Kirov, 2003 – 2009

– HESSE (1911)

75. #Monacha cartusiana (Müller, 1774) URBAŃSKI (1960а) – HESSE (1911)76. *Monacha claustralis (Menke,1828) 1, 6, 7, 13, 15, 24,

28, 35 – Irikov, Georgiev, Mollov, Kirov, 2002 – 2011

3 – Kirov, 20032 – Mollov, 2005

–

77. #Monacha carascaloides (Boourgnat, 1855) HESSE (1914а) – HESSE (1911)

24

Atanas A. Irikov

78. *Monacha solidior (Mousson, 1873)

5, 7, 8, 9, 27, 28, 35 – Irikov, Georgiev, Mollov, Kirov, 2002 – 2012

26 – Georgiev, 2003 –

79. #Euomphallia strigella (Draparnaud, 1801) – – HESSE (1911)

80. Fruticicola fruticum (Müller, 1774)

URBAŃSKI (1960а)1, 5, 13 – Irikov, Georgiev, Mollov, Kirov, 2003 – 2005

HESSE (1916а)2 – Kirov, Mollov, 2003

HESSE (1911)

81. #Chilostoma pelia (P. Hesse, 1912) – – HESSE (1912);PETRBOK (1948);URBAŃSKI (1960а)

82. #Cattania rumelica(Rossmässler, 1835)

DAMJANOV & LIKHAREV (1975)

HESSE (1916a)HESSE (1911)PETRBOK (1941)JAECKEL et al. (1957)

83. #Cattania balcanica (Kobelt, 1876) PETRBOK (1941) – –

84. *Helix lucorum Linnaeus, 1758

1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, 15, 19, 24, 27, 28, 29, 34, 37, 38 – Irikov, Georgiev, Mollov, Kirov, 1999 – 2015

2, 3, 26 – Georgiev, Mollov, Kirov, 2003 – 2005

HESSE (1911);DAMJANOV & LIKHAREV (1975)

85. Helix philibinensisRossmässler, 1839

HESSE (1914b);URBAŃSKI (1960а);DAMJANOV & LIKHAREV (1975) –5, 6, 7, 13, 14, 19, 24– Irikov, Georgiev, Mollov, Kirov, 2002– 2009

HESSE (1916a)3 – Kirov, 2003

–

86. #Helix figulina Rossmässler, 1839 – – DAMJANOV & LIKHAREV (1975)

87. *Cepaea vindobonensis(Ferussac, 1821)

1, 5, 6, 8, 12,13, 14, 19, 27, 28 – Irikov, Georgiev, Mollov, Kirov, 2002 – 2005

HESSE (1916a)3 – Kirov, 2003 2 – Mollov, 2005

HESSE (1911)

88. Eobania vermiculata (Müller, 1774)

PETRBOK (1941)URBAŃSKI (1960а)DAMJANOV & LIKHAREV (1975) – 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, 19, 24, 28, 29, 34, 38 – Irikov, Georgiev, Mollov, Kirov, 2002 – 2005

26 – Georgiev, 2003 –

89. #Cornu aspersa ( Müller, 1774)PETRBOK (1941);DAMJANOV & LIKHAREV (1975)

– HESSE (1911)

DiscussionThe present paper on the region of Plovdiv

discusses 89 species of terrestrial snails. So far19 species have been reported, 7 out of themvoid and 37 reported for the first time as aresult of an original research conducted.Altogether the correctly identified terrestrialmalacofauna in the city comprises 49 species.There are data in the literature on 38 species onthe alluvial deposits of Maritsa River in or nearthe city and we too have identified most ofthem, complemented by 24 new, not registeredtill now – or there are 62 species in the alluvialdeposits. These 24 however we cannot confirm

uncritically as part of the urban fauna since theyare of unknown origin and their initiallocalization and the majority of the shells mostlikely have been drifted from closer or remotedistances by the river and its feeders. This issupported by the fact that 26 species of the 49(53%) are not found in the city. There are 35species reported in the “surroundings ofPlovdiv” and 19 of them (39%) are not foundin the city (Table 2). These species cannot beadded to the malacofauna of Plovdiv City sinceall of them have no precise localization and forsome of them the nearest habitats are in theWestern Rhodopes Mts.

25


From a systematic point of view the largestnumber of species are identified in the familiesClausiliidae and Zonitidae (7 species in each),followed by the families: Hygromiidae (5species), Agriolimacidae, Helicidae (4 species),Vallonidae, Enidae, Milacidae (3 species),Succenidae, Limacidae (2 species) andCarychinidae, Vertiginidae, Pupillidae, Orculidae,Cochlicopidae, Frussaciidae, Gastrodontidae,Helicodontidae and Bradybaenidae (1 species).We can register that the malacofauna isconstituted commonly found and wide-spreadspecies. The relatively large representation of thespecies from the family Clausiliidae is surprising,because in their origin and occurrence they aremostly mountainous, calciphilous species.Regardless of the absence of limestone they arefound mostly on the hills of the city as thesepartially resemble the woodland-mountainoushabitats.

In terms of the ecological type, it seems thatthe maesophilic and the maesothermal specieswith greater drought-resistance mostly prevailand this is tied down to the specific climaticcharacteristics of Plovdiv City with its dry andhot summer and humid and soft winter.

The zoogeographic analysis suggests adistinct prevalence of species of the Europeanfaunistic complex (28 taxa, 57%), followed bythe Siberian (7 taxa, 14%)q the Southwest Asian(5 taxa, 10%), Mediterranean (1 taxon) andSteppe Eurasian (1 taxon) complexes, Bulgarianendemics (5 taxa,10%) and Balkan endemic (2taxa). Among the species of European originthree groups are differentiated – Sub-Mediterranean (14 taxa), typical of the warmerand more humid flat country and woodlandregions of Europe, the MidEuropean (13 taxa –2, 9, 12, 16, 22, 30, 32, 48, 64, 66, 67, 72, 80)with wide-spread distribution in Trans-Palearcticand Holarctic and Atlanto-Mediterranean (1taxon – 74), in the coastal areas of the Atlanticand the Mediterranean. The Sub-Mediterraneanspecies in their turn could be divided into Holo-Sub-Mediterranean (2 taxa – 25, 56), East Sub-Mediterranean (10 taxa – 52, 55, 57, 58, 59, 61,65, 68, 73, 76) and Euxenian (2 taxa – 60, 62).The domination of the East Sub-Mediterraneanfaunistic element results from the geographicallocation and the Mediterranean Transient climateof Plovdiv City, as well as the presence of ofspecific rocky and woodland-frutescent habitatson the hills in the centre of the city. Among thewide-spread species in the temperate latitudes of

the Siberian faunistic complex the Holarctic (5taxa – 10, 14, 15, 20, 45) prevail over the Trans-Palearctic (2 taxa – 39, 40). The geographicsituation, the abundance of xerothermicbiotopes, the flat country character of the cityand the arid climate have favored the settlementof the Asia Minor (3 taxa – 29, 54, 78) and theIran-Turanian (2 taxa – 51, 84) xerophilic speciesof the South-East Asian faunistic complex. Thepresence of the Mediterranean (1 taxon – 88)and the Steppe-Eurasian species (1 taxon – 87) issymbolic and that supports the assertion that themalacofauna of the city of Plovdiv is relativelyremoved from these subregions of the Europeanfaunistic complex. The specific regionalcharacter of the malacofauna of the city ofPlovdiv is manifested in the surprisingly highpercentage of presence of endemics – Bulgarian(5 taxa – 31, 33, 35, 36, 85) and Balkan (2 taxa –38, 42). One of the possible reasons for the highendemism is the presence of habitats unique foran urban environment among the hills in thecentral district of the city.

Interesting case in the fauna of the city is theoccurrence of two coastal species Cernuellavirgatа, Eobania vermiculata, and two othersendemic of the Western Rhodopes Laciniariamacilenta and Bulgarica fraudigera, as well asan endemic subspecies Bulgarica varnensistrimontsiana only in Trihalmie Hill. C. virgatаи E. vermiculata are found most frequently inthe coastal habitats of the Black Sea Coast, veryoften among the psamophytic vegetation on thedunes and on the beaches and are seldomdispersed far from the sea. Their presence inPlovdiv City is in an isolated insular habitat,significantly removed from the typical habitats.The numerous and stable population of the twospecies is a clear evidence for their long-termpresence in the city although historically theirorigin remains obscure for now. Even moresurprising is the identification of the WesternRhodopes Mts. endemics L. macilenta and B.fraudigera only on one of the hills of the city(Halm Bunardzhik Hill). Both species aretypically mountainous, calciphilous, closely tieddown to specific limestone habitats. It seemsthat the occurrence on the hill is only local, mostoften in the proximity of a stone fountain builtwith a specific porous and soft variety oflimestone, known under the name of “bigor”(travertine). Bigor is not a commonly foundstone in our mountains, yet in the Western

26

Atanas A. IrikovRhodopes Mts., for instance on the DobrostanElevation, it is wide-spread. The occurrence ofthe two endemic species in that region to a largedegree coincides with the availability of thestone. We presume that during the constructionof the fountain the snails were transported (bothova and grown-ups in the pores of the stone)unintentionally by using construction materialsof bigor stones from the Western RhodopesMts. The numerous populations, even thoughlocally dispersed demonstrate a successfuladaptation following a possible anthropochoria.The reported subspecies B. v. trimontsianaIrikov, 2006, endemic for the Trihalmie Hill,through additional research most likely shallacquire a new systematic statute of a speciesclosest to B. varnensis and B. fritillaria. Itspresence on silicate rock terrains is a rarephenomenon among the calciphilous species inthe family Clausiliidae. Its insular occurrence inTrihalmie Hill and its absence from theremaining hills probably is due to its adaptationto the syenite rock habitats.

ConclusionThe current paper on the region of Plovdiv

City discusses 89 terrestrial snails, 37 out ofwhich are reported for the first time in the city asa result of an original research. The rich varietyof of correctly identified terrestrial malacofaunahas average values of 49 species. In comparison41 species have been registered in Sofia City(DEDOV & PENEV, 2000), and 35 in the city ofStara Zagora City (IRIKOV & GEORGIEV, 2002).Many of the species reported in the literaturefrom the alluvial deposits in the Maritsa Riverand in the surroundings of Plovdiv City are voidin the fauna of the city. The snails arepredominantly maesophilc and maesothermalwith greater drought-resistance, often found andwide-spread in the SubMediterranean andMiddle European subregions of the Palearctic.The relatively high percentage proportion ofendemics is the result of the presence of hillsunique in the urban environment with availablespecific habitats. Five species require additionalresearch of their origin, occurrence, ecologicalcharacteristics and taxonomy.

AcknowledgmentsI would like to express my gratitude to

Associate Professor Dilian Georgiev, DSc,Associate Professor Ivelin Mollov, PhD, and the

curator of the Eco-museum with Aquarium, partof the Regional Museum of History in the city ofRousse, Krassimir Kirov who during theirstudents years participated perseveringly in thecollection of material from various parts ofPlovdiv City, for without their efforts the presentpaper would hardly be such a valuablecontribution.

ReferencesDAMYANOV S., I. LIKHAREV. 1975. The Fauna of

Bulgaria, IV. Gastropoda terrestria. Sofia,Bulgarian Academy of Science, 425 p.

DEDOV I., L. PENEV. 2000. Species composition andorigins of the terrestrial gastropod fauna ofSofia City, Bulgaria. Ruthenica, 10(2): 121-131.

FRIVALDSZKY I. 1835. Köslések à' Balkány'vidékén tett természettudományiutazásról. A' Magyar Tudós Társaság'Évkönyvei, Budan, 2(1-7): 235-276.

GEORGIEV D. 2014. On the occurrence ofOxychilus camelinus (Bourguignat, 1852)in Bulgaria (Gastropoda: Zonitidae).Malacologica Bohemoslovaca, 13: 106-109.

GEORGIEV D., S. STOYCHEVA. 2013. First recordsof Cecilioides tumulorum (Gastropoda:Ferussaciidae) in Bulgaria. ZooNotes, 46: 1-6.

HESSE P. 1911. Zur Kentnis der Molluskenfauna vonOstrumelien, I. Nachrichtsblatt der DeutschenMalakozoologischen Gesellschaft, 43: 142-155.

HESSE P. 1912. Beschreibungen neuer Arten. –Nachrichtsblatt der DeutschenMalakozoologischen Gesellschaft, 44: 56-62.

HESSE P. 1913. Zur Kenntnis der Molluskenfaunavon Ostrumelien. II. Nachrichtsblatt derDeutschen Malakozoologischen Gesellschaft,45(1-16): 69-74.

HESSE P. 1914a. Helix frequens Mousson(Helicidae, Mollusca). Mitteilungen desKaukasischen Museums. – IzvěstijaKavkazskago Muzeja, 6:253-269.

HESSE P. 1914b. Zur Kenntnis der Molluskenfauna vonOstrumelien. III. Nachrichtsblatt der DeutschenMalakozoologischen Gesellschaft, 45: 49-58.

HESSE P. 1916a. Zur Kentnnis der Molluskenfaunavon Ostrumelien, IV. Nachrichtsblatt derDeutschen Malakozoologischen Gesellschaft,43: 113-122.

HESSE P. 1916b. Mollusken von Varna undUmgebung. Nachrichtsblatt der DeutschenMalakozoologischen Gesellschaft, 48: 145–157.

27


IRIKOV A. 2006. New taxa of Clausiliidae fromBulgaria (Gastropoda: Pulmonata). Archivfür Molluskenkunde der SenckenbergischenNaturforschenden Gesellschaft, Frankfurta. M., 135(1): 81-89.

IRIKOV A. 2008. Genus Monacha Fitzinger, 1833 inBulgaria (Gastopoda, Pulmonata, Hygromiidae).Linzer Biologische Beitrage, 40(1): 785-811.

IRIKOV A., D. GEORGIEV. 2002. Species composition,habitat occurrence, zoogeographic structureand origin of the malacofauna in the city ofStara Zagora. Travaux Scientifiques del’Universite de Plovdiv, Biologie, Animalia,38(6): 5-16. (In Bulgarian, English Summary).

IRIKOV A., G. GERDZHIKOV. 2016. Molluscs(Mollusca) (Terrestrial Gastropods andFreshwater Gastropods et Bivalvia) inSakar Mountain (Bulgaria). HistoriaNaturalis Bulgarica, 23: 195-206.

IRIKOV A., I. MOLLOV. 2006. Terrestrial gastropods(Mollusca: Gastropoda) of the WesternRhodopes (Bulgaria). In: Beron P. (Ed.).Biodiversity of Bulgaria. 3. Biodiversity ofWestern Rhodopes (Bulgaria and Greece) I.Pensoft and National Museum of NaturalHistory, Sofia, pp. 753-832.

IRIKOV A., I. MOLLOV 2015. Terrestrial gastropods(Mollusca, Gastropoda) of Strandzha Mountainand the Black Sea Coast (Bulgaria and Turkey).Historia Naturalis Bulgarica, 21: 13-48.

JAECKEL S.G., W. KLEMM, W. MEISE. 1957. DieLand- und Süsswasser-Mollusken dernördlichen Balkanhalbinsel. Abhandlungenund Berichten aus dem Staatlichen Museumfuer Tierkunde in Dresden, 23(2): 141-205.

KOBELT W. 1906. Die Familie der Heliceen,sechste Abtheilung. - SystematischesConchylien-Cabinet, 6: 308.

KÖRNIG G. 1983. Beitrag zur Ökologie undZoogeographiebulgarischer Landgastropoden.Malakologische Abhandlungen StaatlichesMuseum fur Tierkunde in Dresden, 9(5): 31-52.

NORDSIECK H. 1973. Neue Balkanformen derMentissoideinae und Baleinae (mittaxonomischer Revision der zugehörigenGruppen). Zur Anatomie und Systematikder Clausilien. XIII. Archiv fürMolluskenkunde, 103: 179-208.

PETRBOK J. 1941. Posttertiaria nonmarinamollusca bulgarica. Věstnik KrálovskeCeske Spolecnosti Nauk. Praha, TridaMatemat.-prirodověd. Ro nik:c 1-39.

PETRBOK J. 1948. A Contribution to the knowledge ofthe Post-Tertiary Molluscs of Bulgaria. SbornikNárodniho Musea, Praha, 4B(3): 1-28.

URBAŃSKI J. 1960а. Beiträge zur MolluskenfaunaBulgarien (excl. Clausiliidae). (Systematische,zoogeographische und ökologische Studienüber dieMollusken der Balkan-Halbinsel. V).Bulletin de la Societe des Amis des Scienceset des Lettres de Poznań, (D)I: 69-110.

URBAŃSKI J. 1960b. Bemerkenswerte Clausiliiden(Mollusca, Pulmonata) aus Bulgarien.(Systematische, zoogeographische undökologische Studien über die Molluskender Balkan-Halbinsel. VI). Bulletin de laSociete des Amis des Sciences et des Lettresde Poznań, (D)I: 113-147.

URBAŃSKI J. 1969. Bemerkenswerte balkanischeStylommatophoren (Systematische,zoogeographische und ökologische Studienüber dieMollusken der Balkan-Halbinsel. IX).Bulletin de la Societe des Amis des Sciences etdes Lettres de Poznań, (D)9: 225-261.

WAGNER A. 1927. Studien zur Molluskenfaunader Balkan-Halbinsel mit besondererBerucksichtigung Bulgariens und Traziens,nebst monographischer Bearbeitungeinzelner Gruppen. – Annales zoologiciMuseum Polish, 6(4): 263-399.

WOHLBEREDT O. 1911. Zur Molluskenfauna vonBulgarien. Abhandlungen der NaturforschendenGesellschaft zu Görlitz, 27: 167-234.

(Mollusca: Gastropoda) Сухоземни охлюви в. гр Пловдив

. АтанасА Ириков

:Резюме За първи път в настоящата статия енаправен пълен преглед на сухоземнатамалакофауна на град Пловдив, на базата на всичкидосега публикувани данни и нови изследвания. Зарегиона на гр. Пловдив се разглеждат 89 видасухоземни охлюви и е установено, че 7 от тях,съобщени преди това, не се срещат в града. Врезултат на изследването са установени 49 вида иподвида сухоземни охлюви, принадлежащи на 19семейства, а 37 вида се съобщават за първи път заграда. Извършен е паралел между таксонитенамерени в наноси на река Марица в рамките награда и актуалната градска малакофауна. Направен езоогеографски анализ и се съобщава за интереснислучаи на регистрирани два крайморски, дваендемични за Родопите и един за Пловдив видове.

28



The Freshwater Molluscs (Mollusca: Gastropoda et Bivalvia) of the City of Plovdiv

Dilian G. Georgiev*



Abstract. During the period of a more than one hundred years (1911-2016) a total of 16 speciesof freshwater molluscs were recorded in Plovdiv city: 11 snail species and 5 mussel species.Richest in species are the floods of Maritsa River holding 13 species, 81% from all registeredmolluscs.

Key words: aquatic molluscs, snails, mussels, Plovdiv, Bulgaria.

IntroductionThe freshwater malacofauna (Mollusca:

Gastropoda et Bivalvia) of Plovdiv City wasstudied during one hundred years period,starting with the work of HESSE (1911). Theauthor reported many species mainly collectedfrom the floods of Maritsa River or among itsdeposits as empty shells. Some of these specieswere later with changed or corrected names(ANGELOV, 2000; SCHNIEBS et al., 2011). Inthis short note the species list of all known andvalid names of aquatic molluscs in the city ofPlovdiv is presented.

Material and MethodsAll published literature considering original data

on the freshwater molluscs of Plovdiv City wassurveyed (HESSE, 1911, 1913; ANGELOV, 2000;SCHNIEBS et al., 2011; VASILEVA et al., 2009;VASILEVA, 2011, 2012; YANCHEVA et al., 2016). Asynopsis and a critical overview on the speciescomposition and habitat distribution of this animalgroup in the city of Plovdiv were made.

Results and DiscussionDuring the period of a more than one

hundred years (1911-2016) a total of 16 speciesof freshwater molluscs were recorded inPlovdiv City: 11 snail species and 5 musselspecies (Table 1). Richest in species are thefloods of Maritsa River - 13 species, 81.0%from all recorded species. Interestingly, theriver itself has the lowest number of speciesfound – 37.5%.

Acknowledgements. This survey was apart of the project of Plovdiv University “PaisiiHilendarski” “Evaluation of the anthropogenicstress on the wetlands of South Bulgaria”, No.FP17-BF-001.

References

ANGELOV A. 2000. Mollusca (Gastropoda etBivalvia) aquae dulcis, catalogusFaunae Bulgaicae. Pensoft & BackhuysPubl., Sofia, Leiden, 54 pp.



The Freshwater Molluscs (Mollusca: Gastropoda et Bivalvia) of the City of Plovdiv

Table 1. Species diversity and habitat distribution of the freshwater molluscs in Plovdiv City.

SpeciesMaritzaRiver

Maritzafloods

Ricefields

Fishponds

Irrigationcanals

Rowingcanal

GastropodaViviparus acerosus (Bourguignat, 1862) - - - - + +

Potamopyrgus antipodarum (J. E. Gray 1843) + - - - - -

Valvata piscinalis (O. F. Müller, 1774) + + - - - -

Galba truncatula (O. F. Müller, 1774) + + - - - -

Stagnicola montenegrinus Glöer & Pešić, 2009 - + - - + -

Radix auricularia (Linnaeus, 1758) + + + + + +

Lymnaea stagnalis (Linnaeus, 1758) - + + + + +

Physella acuta (Draparnaud, 1805) - + + + + +

Planorbarius corneus (Linnaeus, 1758) - + + + + +

Planorbis planorbis (Linnaeus, 1758) - + + + + +

Anisus vortex (Linnaeus, 1758) - + - - - -

BivalviaUnio pictorum (Linnaeus, 1758) + + - - - +

Anodonta cygnaea (Linnaeus, 1758) + + - - - +

Sphaerium corneum (Linnaeus, 1758) +

Sinanodonta woodiana (Lea, 1834) +

Pisidium amnicum (Müller, 1774) +

HESSE P. 1911. Zur Kenntnis der Molluskenfaunavon Ostrumelien. Nachrung DerDeutschen Malakozoologischen Gesellschaft,43: 142-155.

HESSE P. 1913. Zur Kenntnis der Molluskenfaunavon Ostrumelien. II. Nachrung DerDeutschen Malakozoologischen Gesellschaft,45: 1-75.

SCHNIEBS K., P. GLÖER, D. GEORGIEV, A.HUNDSDOERFER. 2011. First record ofStagnicola montenegrinus Glöer &Pešić, 2009 (Mollusca: Gastropoda:Lymnaeidae) in Bulgaria and itstaxonomic relationship to otherEuropean lymnaeids based on molecularanalysis. North-Western Journal ofZoology, 8(1): 164-171.

VASILEVA S. 2011. Shell Size of the FreshwaterSnail Physella acuta (Draparnaud, 1805)collected from water vegetation: A CaseStudy from South-East Bulgaria.Ecologia Balkanica, 3(1): 61-64.

VASILEVA S. 2012. Shell Size of the FreshwaterSnail Radix auricularia (Linnaeus,1758) collected from water vegetation:A Case Study from South-East Bulgaria.Ecologia Balkanica, 4(1): 111-115.

VASILEVA S., D. GEORGIEV, G. GECHEVA.2009. Aquatic Macrophytes asMicrohabitats of Radix auricularia(Gastropoda: Pulmonata): A Case Studyfrom Southeast Bulgaria. EcologiaBalkanica, 1: 91-94.

YANCHEVA V., I. MOLLOV, I. VELCHEVA, E.GEORGIEVA, S. SOYANOVA. 2016.Heavy metal effects on the lysosomalmembrane stability and respiratory ratein Chinese Pond Mussel (Sinanodontawoodiana) under ex situ exposure:preliminary data. Biharean Biologist,10(1):55-57.

(Mollusca:Сладководните мекотелиGastropoda et Bivalvia) . в гр Пловдив

. ДилянГ Георгиев

:Резюме В продължение на повече от стогодини (1911-2016) в града са регистрирани общо 16вида сладководни мекотели: 11 вида охлюви и 5 видамиди. Най-богати на видове са разливите на р.Марица с 13 вида, 81% от всички регистрирани вграда мекотели.

30



Urban ardigrades from Plovdiv CityТand Some Ecological Remarks

Maria L. Yankova, Dilian G. Georgiev*



Abstract. There is insufficient data on urban tardigrade distribution, diversity and density. Thepresent paper is based on preliminary data of an ongoing research of tardigrade diversity andecology in Plovdiv region. Specimens from family Macrobiotidae Thulin, 1928, from genusMilnesium Doyère, 1840, from Ramazzotius Binda and Pilato, 1986 and from genus EchiniscusSchultze, 1840 were discovered.

Key words: Tardigrada, urban tardigrades, Plovdiv, Bulgaria.

IntroductionThe phyllum Tardigrada consists of

meiofaunal organisms, up to 500 μm long,found on every continent, in marine, freshwaterand terrestrial habitats such as sand, algae,aquatic vegetation, moss, lichen, soil, and leaflitter. They are known to occur from highaltitude to abyssal depths. Tardigrades areherbivorous on bacteria, algae, mosses, andlichens or carnivorous on protozoans, rotifers,nematodes, mites, and other tardigrades(JOHANSSON, 2009).

The non-urban communities of tardigradeshave been well and broadly studied, while littleis known about urban tardigrades. Severalstudies have been conducted by SÉMÉRIA

(1981; 1982) in France, MEININGER et al.(1985) and JOHANSSON et al. (2011) in USA,UTSUGI (1986) in Japan, STEINER (1994a; b; c)in Switzerland, PELUFFO et al. (2007) andMOLY DE PELUFO et al. (2006) in Argentina.Recent tardigrade studies are mainly focused ontaxonomy and zoogeography, with fewresearches on their ecology.

According to MOLY DE PELUFFO et al.(2006) urban tardigrades provoke a number ofquestions on rapid urbanization and theconsequences of this process, such as: “a) whatis the diversity of tardigrades in a city? b) is itdifferent from that in the surrounding ruralareas? c) can an internal gradient or inter-sitedifferences be detected within a city? d) dodifferent cities host different faunas? e) if so,how different are these faunas? f) dopopulations of the same species living indifferent cities show morphometric variations?and g) are such differences due to phenotypicplasticity or genetic differences?”.

JOHANSSON et al. (2011) compared urbanand rural tardigrade community richness andwhether it is determined by pH. The findings ofthe study confirmed the negative relationshipbetween urban sites and tardigrade richness.However, it was not explained by the lower pHusually associated with urban environment.

Up to date one of the unanswered questionsin tardigrade studies is the uneven pattern ofdistribution. Despite the fact that they are



Urban ardigrades from Plovdiv City and Some Ecological RemarksТ

found everywhere in the world, they are notfound in every moss or lichen sampled andwhen found, abundances vary widely.Moreover, even within close areas a greatvariation in abundance can be observed (e.g.NELSON & ADKINS, 2001; MEYER, 2006). Thebiotic and abiotic factors that play a role indefining the tardigrade habitat are poorlyknown and rarely studied (GUIL et al., 2009).

Data on tardigrade fauna in Bulgaria,including Plovdiv Region, is scarce. Twospecies were reported by IHAROS (1982) –Macrobiotus richtersi J. Murray, 1911 andHypsibius microps Thulin, 1928 from PlovdivCity, but the exact locality is unknown.

The information presented in this paper isbased on preliminary data of an ongoing researchof tardigrade diversity and ecology in Plovdivregion.

Material and MethodsLiterature survey was conducted

considering tardigrades found in PlovdivRegion. Moss and lichens samples werecollected from 41 different localities. At thelaboratory the samples were soaked in tap waterfor 6 to 24 hours. After this period, watercontaining tardigrades, their eggs and sampleparticles was decanted and further examinedunder stereomicroscope and light microscope.Specimens were mounted on microscope slidesin glycerol. All species were identified usingoriginal descriptions and modern keys mainlyby RAMAZZOTTI & MAUCCI (1983). GUIDETTI

& BERTOLANI (2005); MICHALCZYK et al.(2012a; b); KACZMAREK et al. (2011); MOREK

et al. (2016). Systematic follows DEGMA et al.(2017).

The material was collected from thefollowing localities:

1. Central Post Office, 42 08 44.59N, 2445 38.16E, 1 cm³ moss from pavement,leg. M. Yankova;

2. Concrete area in front of apartmentbuilding, 42 07 33.53N, 24 44 43.85E,moss from pavement, leg. D. Georgiev;

3. Djumaya Mosque, 42 08 52.26N, 24 4453.63E, 0,5 cm³ moss from wall, leg. M.Yankova;

4. Eastern District, Kamenitza, 42 0844.35N, 24 45 35.51E, 1 cm³ mossfrom edge stone, leg. M. Yankova;

5. Eastern District, Kamenitza, PlovdivCity, 42 08 42.32N, 24 45 41.38E, 1cm³ moss from shaft, leg. M. Yankova;

6. “Geo Milev” Str. and “Han Tervel” Str.Corner, 42 08 44.59N, 24 45 38.16E, 2cm³ moss from brick wall, leg. M.Yankova;

7. “Geo Milev” Str., 42 08 44.81N, 24 4539.29E, 1 cm³ moss from pavement infront of auto service, leg. M. Yankova;

8. Commodity Station, 0,5 cm³ moss fromA. altissima, leg. D. Georgiev;

9. Institute of Fishery and Aquaculture, 211 18.88N, 24 45 03.03E, 0,6 cm³ mossfrom pavement, leg. M. Yankova;

10. Institute of Fishery and Aquaculture, 211 18.88N, 24 45 03.03E, lichens fromPrunus domestica, leg. M. Yankova;

11. Institute of Fisheries and Aquaculture,42 11 18.88N, 24 45 03.03E, 0,5cm³moss from Morus nigra, leg. M.Yankova;

12. Institute of Fisheries and Aquaculture,42 11 18.88N, 24 45 03.03E, 0,5 cm³moss from pavement, leg. M. Yankova;

13. Institute of Fisheries and Aquaculture,42 11 18.88N, 24 45 03.03E, 0,5 cm³from window wooden frame, leg. M.Yankova;

14. Institute of Fisheries and Aquaculture,42 11 18.88N, 24 45 03.03E, 1 cm³moss from concrete wall, leg. M.Yankova;

15. Institute of Fisheries and Aquaculture,42 11 18.88N, 24 45 03.03E, 5 cm³moss from base of a trunk of Acaciasp., leg. M. Yankova;

16. Institute of Fisheries and Aquaculture,42 11 18.88N, 24 45 03.03E, 5 cm³moss and lichens from Populus sp., leg.M. Yankova;

17. Institute of Fisheries and Aquaculture,42 11 18.88N, 24 45 03.03E, 0,5 cm³moss from Juglans sp., leg. M.Yankova;

18. “Maria Luiza” Blvd., 42 08 44 85N, 2445 34 43E, 3 cm³ moss from Platanussp., leg. M. Yankova;

19. “Maria Luiza” Blvd., 42 08 49.26N, 2445 54.98E, 3 cm³ moss from pavement,leg. M. Yankova;

32

Maria L. Yankova, Dilian G. Georgiev20. Nature monument (NM) “Mladezhki

halm” Hill, 0,5 cm³ moss, leg. D.Georgiev;

21. NM “Hulm Bunardzhik” Hill, 42 0842.05N, 24 44 26.42E, 1 cm³ mossfrom rock, leg. M. Yankova;

22. NM “Hulm Bunardzhik” Hill, 42 0842.09N, 24 44 26.39E, 1 cm³ mossfrom rock, leg. M. Yankova;

23. Old Town Plovdiv, 42 08 50.85N, 2445 07.36E, 1 cm³ moss from shaft, leg.M. Yankova;

24. Old Town Plovdiv, 42 08 51.41N, 2445 01.96E, 0,5 cm³ moss from wall, leg.M. Yankova;

25. Old Town Plovdiv, 42 08 51.09N, 2445 01.91E, 0,5 cm³ moss from wall, leg.D. Georgiev;

26. Old Town Plovdiv, 42 08 52.47N, 2444 59.68E, 0,5 cm³ moss from wall, leg.M. Yankova;

27. Old Town Plovdiv, Biological Facultyof University of Plovdiv, 42 08 51.42N,24 45 02.01E, 0,9 cm³ moss frompavement, leg. M. Yankova;

28. Old Town Plovdiv, Church of SaintNicolas, 42 08 51.46N, 24 45 00.23E,1,5 cm³ moss from pavement, leg. M.Yankova;

29. Old Town Plovdiv, Church of SaintParaskeva, 42 08 47.32N, 24 45 11.82E,0,5 cm³ moss from granite wall, leg. M.Yankova;

30. Old Town Plovdiv, Church of SaintParaskeva, 42 08 47.32N, 24 45 11.82E,0,2 cm³ moss from pavement, leg. M.Yankova;

31. Old Town Plovdiv, Church of SaintParaskeva, 42 08 47.32N, 24 45 11.82E,1 cm³ moss from brick wall, leg. M.Yankova;

32. Old Town Plovdiv, Church of the HolyMother of God, 42 08 51.71N, 24 4501.73E, 2 cm³ moss between pavement,leg. M. Yankova;

33. Old Town Plovdiv, Church of the HolyMother of God, 42 08 52.70N, 24 4500.05E, 1,25 cm³ moss from pavement,leg. M. Yankova;

34. Old Town Plovdiv, City Art Gallery, 4208 53.24N, 24 45 09.65E, 0,6 cm³ mossfrom pavement, leg. M. Yankova;

35. “Ponedelnik Pazar” Marketplace, 42 0843.00N, 24 45 11.47E, 1 cm³ mossfrom pavement, leg. M. Yankova;

36. “Ponedelnik Pazar” Marketplace, DKC1, 2 cm³ moss from wall, leg. M.Yankova;

37. “Trihalmie” Hills, 42 08 47.8N, 24 4512.8 182E, moss (Grimmia sp.) frombrick wall, leg. D. Georgiev;

38. “Trihalmie” Hills, 42 08 47.8N, 24 4512.8 182E, moss from rock (granite)crevice, leg. D. Georgiev;

39. “Tsar Simeonova gradina” Park, 42 0826.94N, 24 44 51.98E, 1 cm³ mossfrom shaft, leg. M. Yankova;

40. Unspecified locality, 1cm³ moss, leg. D.Georgiev;

41. Unspecified locality, moss (Grimmiasp.) 0,5 cm³ from wall, leg. D.Georgiev.

Results and DiscussionTardigrades were found in 20 (48.8%) of

the 41 localities sampled. Moss and lichensamples were taken from urban paved areas,walls and trees, exposed to heavy, medium orno vehicle traffic. More than 49 specimensfrom family Macrobiotidae Thulin, 1928, 49from genus Milnesium Doyère, 1840, 31 fromRamazzotius Binda and Pilato, 1986 and 2from genus Echiniscus Schultze, 1840 werediscovered. Due to bad preservation or fixationof the specimens 47 eutardigrades wereunidentified. Free laid eggs and exuvia with orwithout eggs were found in 19.5% of thesamples.

All mentioned taxa has been reported fromprevious studies of urban tardigrades. MOLY

DE PELUFFO et al. (2006) state that similaritiesamong tardigrade taxocenoses in cities suggestthat these animals are also undergoing a processof biotic homogenization linked tourbanization, in a different measure accordingto the level of organization and spatial scaleconsidered, and it appears that homogenizationreaches a taxonomic level at a regional scale.

Registered Tardigrades in the city ofPlovdiv:

Phyllum: Tardigrada Doyère, 1840Class: Heterotardigrada Marcus, 1927Order: Echiniscoidea Richters, 1926Family: Echiniscidae Thulin, 1928

33


Genus: Echiniscus Schultze, 1840Echiniscus testudo (Doyère, 1840) - Locality

29 and 30.Class: Eutardigrada Marcus, 1927Order: Parachela Schuster, Nelson,

Grigarick and Christenberry, 1980Family: Macrobiotidae Thulin, 1928 –

Locality 7, 33, 39Genus: Macrobiotus Schultze, 1834 Macrobiotus hufelandi group – Locality 27.Genus: Paramacrobiotus Guidetti, Schill,

Bertolani, Dandekar & Wolf, 2009Paramacrobiotus richtersi (Murray, 1911) –

Macrobiotus richtersi J. Murray, 1911: PlovdivCity (IHAROS, 1982).

Family: Hypsibiinae Pilato, 1969Family: Hypsibiinae Pilato, 1969Genus: Hypsibius Ehrenberg, 1848 Hypsibius microps Thulin, 1928 – Plovdiv

City (IHAROS, 1982).Family: Microhypsibiidae Pilato, 1998Genus: Ramazzottius Binda and Pilato,

1986Ramazzottius cf. oberhaeuseri (Doyère,

1840) – Locality 11, 17, 18, 21, 31 and 38.Order: Apochela Schuster, Nelson,

Grigarick and Christenberry, 1980Family: Milnesiidae Ramazzotti, 1962Genus: Milnesium Doyère, 1840 – Locality

14, 16, 17, 21, 28, 29, 30.Milnesium cf. beasleyi Kaczmarek,

Jakubowska & Michalczyk, 2012 – Locality 31.

Milnesium cf. tardigradum tardigradumDoyère, 1840 [2-3]-[3-2] ♀ - Locality 38.

Milnesium sp. [3-3]-[3-3] – Locality 2.In the present study individuals from

Macrobiotidae were predominantly found inmoss collected from pavement, whereasMilnesium sp. were mostly discovered in mossfrom walls and Ramazzottius cf. oberhauseridominated in moss and lichen samples fromtrees (Fig. 1). This might be due to differentfactors or their combination (e.g., pH,moisture, substrate, exposure to sun). MOLY

DE PELUFFO et al. (2006) found Macrobiotusareolatus Murray, 1907 in paved areas withmedium to heavy traffic. They also establishedthat Ramazzottius oberhauseri was absent fromsamples collected from area with heavy traffic,unlike Milnesium cf. tardigradum which wasthe only species found in heavy traffic areas. Inanother research by PELUFFO et al. (2007), R.oberhaeuseri and M. cf. tardigradum were themost frequent species. They recorded that R.oberhaeuseri dominates in peri-urban areas withhigh suspension dust and exposure to sun andM. cf. tardigradum dominates on paved streetswith intense vehicle traffic. These findingscorrelate with the results from the currentstudy.

Milnesium sp. and Ramazzottius cf.oberhauseri were registered in NM “HulmBunardzhik” Hill, and several unidentifiedeutardigrades in NM “Mladezhki halm” Hill.

Fig. 1. Number of individuals per 1 cm3 moss and lichensfrom different habitats in the city of Plovdiv.

34

Maria L. Yankova, Dilian G. GeorgievIn 10% of the samples Milnesium sp. were

found together with Ramazzottius cf.oberhauseri. Such association might be a resultof selective predation or similar preferencestowards specific environmental conditions ofthe microhabitat (e.g. WRIGHT, 1991).

ConclusionsBoth micro and macro habitat features

should be considered as factors potentiallyinfluencing the distribution and abundance oftardigrades (e.g. MOLY DE PELUFFO et al.,2006; GUIL et al., 2009; JOHANSSON et al.,2011).

PELUFFO et al. (2007) support thehypothesis of the relationship between airquality and tardigrade diversity in urbanenvironment.

There is insufficient data on urbantardigrade distribution, diversity and density.Further research and systematic sampling isneeded in order to establish these parametersand the mechanisms that produce them.Another interesting and neglected aspect oftardigrade research is their possible role asbioindicators (e.g. VARGHA et al., 2002).

Acknowledgements. The authors wouldlike to express their gratitude to thetardigradologists at Adam MickiewiczUniversity, Department of Animal Taxonomyand Ecology, Poznań and JagiellonianUniversity, Institute of Zoology and BiomedicalResearch, Kraków, Poland for their constanthelp and support.

ReferencesDEGMA P., R. BERTOLANI, R. GUIDETTI. 2017.

Actual checklist of Tardigrada species. 45 p.,Available at: [tardigrada.modena.unimo.it].

GUIDETTI R., R. BERTOLANI. 2005. Tardigradetaxonomy: an updated checklist of thetaxa and a list of characters for theiridentification. Zootaxa, 845:1-46.

GUIL N., J. HORTAL, S. SÁNCHEZ-MORENO,A. MACHORDOM. 2009. Effects ofmacro and micro-environmental factorson the species richness of terrestrialtardigrade assemblages in an Iberianmountain environment. LandscapeEcology, 24:375-390.

IHAROS G. 1982. Tardigradologische Notizen. I.Miscellanea Zoologica Hungarica, 1: 85-90.

JOHANSSON C. 2009. Santa Monica MountainsNational Recreation Area InvertebrateInventory, Fresno City College, 20 p.

JOHANSSON C., S. CALLOWAY, W. MILLER, E.LINDER. 2011. Are urban and ruraltardigrade (Tardigrada) communitiesdistinct and determined by pH: a case studyfrom Fresno County, California. The Pan-Pacific Entomologist, 87(2), 86-97.

KACZMAREK Ł., B. GOŁDYN, Z. PROKOP, Ł.MICHALCZYK. 2011. New records ofTardigrada from Bulgaria with thedescription of Macrobiotus binieki sp.nov. (Eutardigrada: Macrobiotidae) anda key to the species of the harmsworthigroup. Zootaxa, 2781: 29-39.

MEININGER C., G. VETZ, J. SNIDER. 1985.Variation in epiphytic micro-communities(tardigrade-lichen-bryophyte assemblages)of the Cincinnati, Ohio area. UrbanEcology, 9: 45-61.

MEYER A. 2006. Small-scale spatial distributionvariability in terrestrial tardigradepopulations, Hydrobiologia, 558:133-139.

MICHALCZYK Ł., W. WEŁNICZ, M. FROHME,Ł. KACZMAREK. 2012a. Redescriptionsof three Milnesium Doyère, 1840 taxa(Tardigrada: Eutardigrada: Milnesiidae),including the nominal species for thegenus. Zootaxa, 3154: 1-20.

MICHALCZYK Ł., W. WEŁNICZ, M. FROHME,Ł. KACZMAREK. 2012b. Corrigenda ofZootaxa, 3154, 1-20: Redescriptions ofthree Milnesium Doyère, 1840 taxa(Tardigrada: Eutardigrada: Milnesiidae),including the nominal species for thegenus. Zootaxa, 3393: 66-68.

MOLY DE PELUFFO M., J. PELUFFO, A.ROCHA, I. DOMA. 2006. Tardigradedistribution in a medium–sized city ofcentral Argentina. Hydrobiologia,558(1): 141-150.

MOREK, W., P. GĄSIOREK, D. STEC, B.BLAGDEN, Ł. MICHALCZYK. 2016.Experimental taxonomy exposesontogenetic variability and elucidates thetaxonomic value of claw configurationin Milnesium Doyère, 1840 (Tardigrada:Eutardigrada: Apochela). Contributionsto Zoology, 85(2), 173–200.

NELSON D., R. ADKINS. 2001. Distribution oftardigrades within a moss cushion: Dotardigrades migrate in response to

35


changing moisture conditions?Zoologischer Anzeiger - A Journal ofComparative Zoology, 240(3-4): 493-500.

PELUFFO J., A. ROCHA, M. MOLY DE

PELUFFO. 2007. Species diversity andmorphometrics of tardigrades in amedium - sized city in the NeotropicalRegion : Santa Rosa (La Pampa,Argentina). Animal Biodiversity andConservation, 1: 43-51.

RAMAZZOTTI G., W. MAUCCI. 1983. Il PhylumTardigrada. III edizione riveduta eaggiornata. Memorie dell'IstitutoItaliano di Idrobiologia, 41:1-1012.

SÉMÉRIA Y. 1981. Recherches sur la fauneurbaine et sub-urbaine des tardigradesmuscicoles et lichenicoles. 1. Nice-Ville.Bulletin Mensuel de la SociétéLinnéenne de Lyon, 50: 231-237.

SÉMÉRIA Y. 1982. Recherches sur la fauneurbaine et sub-urbaine des tardigradesmuscicoles et lichenicoles. 2. L’espacesub-urbain: les hauteurs orientales deNice-Ville. Bulletin de la SociétéLinnéenne de Lyon, 51: 315-328.

STEINER W. 1994a. The influence of air pollutionon moss–dwelling animals: 1. Methodologyand composition of flora and fauna. Revuede Zoologie, 101: 533-556.

STEINER W. 1994b. The influence of airpollution on moss-dwelling animals: 2.Aquatic fauna with emphasis onNematoda and Tardigrada. Revue deZoologie, 101: 699-724.

STEINER W. 1994c. The influence of airpollution on moss-dwelling animals: 4.Seasonal and long-term fluctuations ofrotifer, nematode and tardigradepopulations. Revue de Zoologie, 101:1017-1031.

UTSUGI K. 1986. Urban tardigrades in Kyushu.Zoological Science, 3: 1110.

VARGHA B., E. OTVOS, Z. TUBA. 2002.Investigations on ecological effects ofheavy metal pollution in Hungary bymoss-dwelling water bears (Tardigrada), asbioindicators. Annals of Agricultural andEnvironmental Medicine, 9(2):141-146.

WRIGHT J. 1991. The significance of four xericparameters in the ecology of terrestrialTardigrada. Zoological Society ofLondon, 224: 59-77.

. Градски тардигради от гр Пловдив с някои екологични бележки

. , .МарияЛ Янкова ДилянГГеоргиев

:Резюме Понастоящем няма достатъчно данниза разпространението, разнообразието и плътносттана тардиградите в градовете. Настоящата статия сеосновава на предварителни данни от текущоизследване на разнообразието и екологията натардиградите в гр. Пловдив. Открити са екземпляриот семейство Macrobiotidae Thulin, 1928, от родMilnesium Doyère, 1840, от Ramazzotius Binda &Pilato, 1986 и от род Echiniscus Schultze, 1840.Посочено е хабитатното разпределение и са даденинякои екологични бележки за установените таксони.

36



Species Composition, Distribution and Seasonal Dynamics ofIxodidae Ticks Invaded Pasture Animals in the

Region of Plovdiv City

Atanas Arnaudov1*, Dimo Arnaudov2

1 - University of Plovdiv „Paisii Hilendarski“, Faculty of Biology, Department of Human Anatomyand Physiology, 24 Tzar Assen Str., BG-4000 Plovdiv, BULGARIA

2 - Regional Research Veterinary Institute, BG-4006 Plovdiv, BULGARIA* Corresponding author: [email protected]

Abstract. Based on literary data and our own research, it was found out that there are 11 speciesof ixodid ticks that parasitise in pasture animals in the region of Plovdiv City. Their distribution,biological features and ecological and epidemiological significance are described in the currentsynopsis.

Key words: biotopes, Ixodid ticks, Plovdiv Region, tick sampling.

IntroductionIxodid ticks are temporary obligate blood-

sucking ectoparasites in vertebrates. Most of themparasitise on mammals, including on marsupialsand monotremes. Less frequently, the hosts couldbe reptiles and birds, and there are few cases foundon amphibians (Bufo marinus Gran.) and even oninvertebrates - coleoptera (Platymeris horrida) andmolluscs (Limicolaria adansoni Pfr.)(POMERANTZEV, 1950). Ixodid ticks arecommonly found worldwide and the largest speciesdiversity is characteristic for the subtropical andtropical areas (BALASHOV, 1967).

The duration of the development cycle of thedifferent tick species varies depending on theirbiological characteristics and the environmentalconditions they live in, ranging from 1 to 3-4 years.

Based on their development and feedingpatterns, the ixodid ticks can have one, two orthree hosts. One-host (or monoxenic) ticks spendall stages of their biological development on theskin of the same host. Two- and three-host (or

bixenic and trixenic) ticks consecutively parasitiseon two or three different host species (VASILEV &VISHNYAKOV, 1977).

Ixodid ticks have great epidemiologicalimportance. They can transmit the causativeagents of infectious or protozoal diseasestransovarially and through three-phasetransmission, and also keep the pathogensthroughout their biological existence, whichmakes them an important reservoir.

The populations of these arthropods containthe genes that determine their effectiveness asvectors of infectious diseases in theirheterozygous recessive alleles. Among species andpopulations, there are significant variations in thevector's ability to carry pathogenicmicroorganisms. Their effectiveness as vectors oftransmissible infections is also influenced by age,nutrition and physiological state (MONOV, 2010).

In this publication, we present data from ourown research, as well as from other authors onthe distribution of ticks in the region of Plovdiv



Species Composition, Distribution and Seasonal Dynamics of Ixodidae Ticks Invaded...

City, their biological characteristics and theirecological and epidemiological significance.

Material and MethodsThe ixodid tick hosts, which were investigated

in our research, lived in farms that had differentnumber of animals and were located in themunicipalities of Asenovgrad, Parvomay, Sadovo,Saedinenie, Stamboliyski and Rodopi. Sampleswere collected from sheep, goats, cattle and dogsand the investigations were conducted during theperiod 1999-2016, with some interruptions.

The animals were examined monthly, duringthe grazing period from their leave to the pastureto their return to the barn (March - October). Theexamination of the animals for invasion wasperformed in the following order: head (betweenthe horns and ears), neck, back, under the tail,groin, udder. After the collection, the tick sampleswere stored in a 70% ethyl alcohol solution.

Determining the species of the collected tickswas carried out in the Laboratory of Parasitologyat the Regional Research Institute of VeterinaryMedicine, Plovdiv and in the laboratory at theDepartment of Anatomy and Physiology at theUniversity of Plovdiv “Paisii Hilendarski”. Thecollected ixodid tick specimens were observedusing a CARL ZEISS JENA binocular magnifier.The species determination was performedaccording to the descriptions of POMERANTSEV

(1950) and ESTRADA-PENA et al. (2004).


Studies on the distribution, speciescomposition and seasonal dynamics of ticksconducted in Bulgaria and in other countries

The dynamics of the global climate changecreate a risk of drastic changes in the speciescomposition of the ticks in a given geographicarea (ESTRADA-PEÑA & VENZAL, 2007). Thisnecessitates further studies on the speciescomposition and the distribution of ixodid ticks.The high epidemiological significance of ticksfrom the Ixodidae family determines the numberof existing studies on their spread, speciescomposition, seasonal dynamics andepidemiological features in different geographicregions – DANTAS-TORRES et al. (2011),DUMITRACHE et al. (2012), ESTRADA-PENA &SANTOS-SILVA (2005), ESTRADA-PENA &VENZAL (2007), GILLOT (1985), HOOGSTRAAL

& VALDEZ (1980), JONGEJAN & UILENBERG

(2004), MANGOLD et al. (1994), OMERAGIC

(2011), PAPADOPOULOS et al. (1996), PAVLOVIĆ

et al. (2013; 2014; 2016), RUBEL et al. (2016) andothers.

In Bulgaria, there are representatives of all sixixodid tick genera that are characteristic for thecontinental temperate climate zone –Rhipicephalus (Koch, 1844), Ixodes (Latreille,1795), Dermacentor (Koch, 1844), Hyalomma(C. Z. Koch, 1844), Boophilus (Curtice, 1891), andHaemaphysalis (Koch, 1844) (MINCHEVA et al.,1965). According to DRENSKI (1955),approximately 32 species can be found inBulgaria. They are described in detail by BERON(1973-1974). Most of the studies on the tick faunain Bulgaria, however, took place more than 4decades ago.

MINCHEVA et al. (1965) collected andidentified more than 350,000 ticks from all overthe country, describing their biotopes in everyregion of the country, their epizootic significanceand the seasonal variations of the parasites, as wellas cases of piroplasmosis caused by them inregions with diverse climate. According to theauthors, in the Plovdiv region can be found 10ixodid tick species within the six generamentioned above.

The studies on the species composition andthe distribution of the ticks in the Plovdiv Regionwere triggered by the outbreak of the firstepidemic of tick-borne encephalitis in Bulgaria inthe village of Iskra in the region of ParvomayTown in 1953.

Similar studies were reported by SARBOVA

(1956) and PAVLOV et al. (1962) for the region ofthe village of Iskra in the municipality ofParvomay; GEORGIEV et al. (1971) and PAVLOV

et al. (1972) within a mass study of a viralencephalitis epidemic on sheep and goats in thevillage of Dobrostan, Asenovgrad Municipality;ARNAUDOV et al. (2014) for the region ofParvomay; ARNAUDOV & ARNAUDOV (2017) forthe regions of Saedinenie, Stamboliiski, Sadovoand the village of Gradina and Parvomay Townand ARNAUDOV (2005) for the villages of Izbegliand Parvenets.

As a result of these studies, the following 11tick species were found: Rhipicephalus bursa(Canestrini et Fanzago, 1877), Rhipicephalussanguineus (Latreille, 1806), Rhipicephalusturanicus (Pomerancev, 1940), Ixodes ricinus(Linneaus, 1758), Dermacentor marginatus

38

Atanas Arnaudov, Dimo Arnaudov(Sulzer, 1776) Hyalomma plumbeum (Panzer,1795), Hyalomma scupense (Schulze, 1918),Boophilus calcaratus (Birula, 1895),Haemophysalis sulcata (Canestrini & Fanzago,1878), Haemophysalis punctata (Canestrini &Fanzago,1878) and Haemophysalis intermis(Birula, 1895).

Distribution and biological characteristics ofticks found in the Plovdiv Region

The Genus RhipicephalusIn the region of Plovdiv City three species

from this genus were identified - Rh. bursa, Rh.turanicus and Rh. sanguineus.

Rh. bursa (Fig. 1) is the most widespreadspecies in the area. On the territory of PlovdivRegion it was discovered in the village of Iskra bySARBOVA (1956) and by PAVLOV et al., (1962); inthe municipalities of Parvomai, Saedinenie,Stamboliyski and Sadovo by ARNAUDOV et al.(2014), ARNAUDOV & ARNAUDOV (2017) and inthe villages of Izbegli and Parvenets byARNAUDOV (2005). According to MINCHEVA etal. (1965), it can be found across the entireterritory of the area except for the high-mountainareas. We think that explains why this tick was notdetected in the village of Dobrostan in theresearch conducted by GEORGIEV et al. (1971)and PAVLOV et al. (1972), although it waspreviously found at the foot of Mount Botev inthe area of the resort near Kalofer Town(MINCHEVA et al., 1965). Its biotopes includepastures with lush vegetation, covered in bushesand weeds, natural meadows, pastures in short-stem forests and others, mostly located up to 500m above sea level. In the plain areas, it is prevalentin regions which have well-developed agriculture(MINCHEVA et al., 1965).

Rh. bursa is a two-host type of tick. The larvaeand the pupae predominantly parasitise on largeand small ruminants and the imago - on alldomestic animals, as well as on humans (VASILEV& VISHNYAKOV, 1977; HOOGSTRAAL, 1979). Asa two-host parasite, Rh. bursa plays an importantrole in the epidemiology of the Crimean Congohemorrhagic fever (CCHF) in the countries onthe Balkan Peninsula (PAPA et al., 2014; 2017;SHERIFI et al., 2014).

This tick is the predominant speciesparasitizing on sheep and goats, in which the

density of invasion is the highest (ARNAUDOV &ARNAUDOV, 2017).

Rh. bursa has been established throughout thewhole period during which the animals are on thepasture, with the maximum of infestation being inJune (ARNAUDOV & ARNAUDOV, 2017). Becauseit is a thermophilic tick species, a connection canbe found between the wide spread of this speciesand the climate conditions in the region ofPlovdiv - wet and hot (HOOGSTRAAL & VALDES,1980). For this reason it is also widespread in theMediterranean region (PAPADOPULUS et al., 1996;ESTRADA-PENA & SANTOS-SILVA, 2005).

Rh. turanicus is also commonly found in theregion of Plovdiv. It is usually observed togetherwith Rh. bursa, but it can be found earlier – inMarch, and the majority of he infestation is inMay (MINCHEVA et al., 1965). A typical speciesfor dry subtropical areas (VASILEV &VISHNYAKOV, 1977), it prefers flat terrains andpastures located not more than 500 m above sealevel. It is a three-host tick where the larvae andpupae parasitise mainly on domestic and wildrodents and insectivores, and the imago formsinvade even-toed ungulates and also domestic andwild carnivores. The larvae and pupae parasitisetheir hosts between May and September and theimagos - between February and late September.Typically, only the mature individuals hibernate(VASILEV & VISHNYAKOV, 1977).

Rh. turanicus is a carrier of diseases mainly indomestic animals - piroplasmosis andanaplasmosis on ruminants, pigs and horses(MINCHEVA et al., 1965, VASILEV &VISHNYAKOV, 1977).

Rh. sanguineus (fig. 2) was found on sheepand goats in the municipality of Parvomay(ARNAUDOV et al., 2014), around the towns ofSaedinenie and Sadovo and the village of Tsarimirand in sheep near the town of Stamboliyski(ARNAUDOV & ARNAUDOV, 2017). We have alsoobserved a tick invasion on dogs in the towns ofSaedinenie and Sadovo (unpublished data). Nearly42% of the dogs were infected, which is thehighest level of invasion. According toMINCHEVA et al. (1965), Rh. sanguineus is spreadamong dogs in a number of towns and villages inthe area. Globally, it is the most common tickspecies (DANTAS-TORESS, 2010).

The maximum levels of infestation with thisacarid are reached in May and June. This can berelated to its biological features – intense feeding

39


and molting of the larvae and pupae in thesummer (DANTAS-TORESS et al., 2011).

Rh. sanguineus is a three-host parasite, and itsmain hosts are domestic and wild carnivores, iteven parasitises on humans, although it isrelatively less anthropophilic (VASILEV &VISHNYAKOV, 1977, DANTAS-TORRES, 2008).That is why its epidemiological significance shouldnot be underestimated.

The Genus IxodesWithin this genus, there are three species that

are found in Bulgaria - I. ricinus, I. redikorz andI. trianguliceps. In the area of Plovdiv City, onlythe first species has been found.

I. ricinus (Fig. 3) was established in the villageof Iskra by SARBOVA (1956) and by PAVLOV etal. (1962) where it is the predominant parasiticspecies in cattle and goats. GEORGIEV et al.(1971) and PAVLOV et al. (1972) found it in thevillage of Dobrostan and ARNAUDOV et al.(2014) and ARNAUDOV & ARNAUDOV (2017)observed it in the municipalities of Parvomay,Saedinenie, Stamboliyski and Sadovo. Accordingto MINCHEVA et al. (1965), in the region ofPlovdiv, the tick inhabits the long-stem beechforests on of the northern slopes of the RhodopesMountains, Sredna Gora Mountains and parts ofthe Stara Planina Mountains. Its biotopes includepastures in broadleaf forests, as well as bareterrains with bushes. Although it is a moisture-loving species, it avoids very wet and shady places(MINCHEVA et al., 1965). In this respect, thePlovdiv Region is not particularly different to theother regions in the country as the tick isdistributed almost evenly in Bulgaria (DRENSKI,1955).

Unlike its wide territorial distribution, theinvasion intensity of the species is relatively low.However, according to LINDGREN et al. (2000), itwill grow under the influence of environmental,climate and anthropogenic factors. Thisdetermines its high epidemiological significance asits populations in many European countries arehighly infected with Borelia burgdorferi and otherdangerous pathogens (DUMITRACHE et al., 2012).ANGELOV et al. (1995) proved its leading role inthe epidemiology of Lyme borreliosis in Bulgaria.

I. ricinus is a three-host parasite. Its larvaeand pupae parasitise mainly on rodents, butduring the summer months they mainly invadereptiles, wild ducks and small mammals. The

imago forms parasitise on a variety of domesticand wild animals – cattle, buffaloes, horses, sheep,goats, dogs, deer, foxes, rabbits, badgers andhedgehogs. It often invades (VASILEV &VISHNYAKOV, 1977). High humidity conditionsbenefit the distribution of I. ricinus (ESTRADA-PENA & SANTOS-SILVA, 2005), which explainsthe fact that two waves of infestation have beenobserved - one in spring and one in autumn,during the wet months (March-April andSeptember) and its absence through the drymonths. Ix. ricinus is a widespread species indifferent parts of Europe (DANIEL et al., 2003;LINDGREN et al., 2000; GRAY, 1991).

In some areas of the former Yugoslavia and innorthern Greece, it is the predominant invasivespecies on small and large domestic ruminants(OMERAGIC, 2011; PAVLIDOU et al., 2008;PAVLOVIC et al., 2013; 2014; 2016). In Bulgaria, itis the predominant species in the region of VelikoTarnovo (GEORGIEVA, 1991).

The Genus DermacentorD. marginatus is the only representative of

this genus in Bulgaria. It is known to be spread inmountain-steppe and valley-steppe terrains butcan also be found in forest areas. Its biotopes aremainly mountain pastures covered in vegetation,but can also be found on open pastures, dryvalleys and on small, bushy hills. In the region ofPlovdiv, it has been found mostly in mountainterrains – the valleys of Chepelarska River (Chaya)and Vacha River (MINCHEVA et al., 1965), in thevillage of Dobrostan, where it is one of the twospecies carrying viral Encephalomyelitis on sheepand goats, as well as in the mountain parts of themunicipality of Parvomay (SАRBOVA, 1956,PAVLOV et al., 1962, ARNAUDOV et al., 2014). Ina more recent study, we found this tick species inthe region of Saedinenie and Stamboliyski, whereits biotopes are the damp grassy terrains near theMaritsa River (ARNAUDOV & ARNAUDOV, 2017).

This tick is a three-host parasite. The larvaeand the pupae invade smaller animals - rodents,insectivores and others. The imago parasitises onlarge and small ruminants (domestic and wild),odd-toed ungulates, dogs, rabbits, hedgehogs andothers. It reproduces just once per year.

Throughout the year, D. marginatus is one ofthe earliest ticks to be found - it starts invadingsheep and goats as soon as they start grazing(mainly in March and in mild winters, inFebruary). Thus, two waves of infestation are

40

Atanas Arnaudov, Dimo Arnaudovlikely to be observed - a spring (March-April) anda autumn (September-October) one, the formerhaving higher levels of invasion. During the hotmonths of the year, this tick species has not beendetected (MINCHEVA et al., 1965; ARNAUDOV etal., 2014; ARNAUDOV & ARNAUDOV, 2017).

Besides in Bulgaria, this tick species is foundin many Mediterranean countries. There itinhabits biotopes located in forests (especially theQuercus sp.) at an altitude of 800-1000 m(ESTRADA-PENA & SANTOS-SILVA, 2005).

The Genus HyalommaH. plumbeum (Fig. 4) is widely spread in the

region of Plovdiv. It is found in all parts of thearea, except for in the higher mountain areas. Aswell as in this region of Bulgaria, it is commonlyfound throughout the whole country. It preferslow mountain areas, where it is the the mostcommon tick species (SARBOVA & GEORGIEVA,1973). It is also found in plains. It is thepredominant species in the region of Bourgas(GEORGIEVA, 1991).

Its biotopes are natural meadows, drypastures, field boundaries, old alfalfa fields, andothers (MINCHEVA et al., 1965). It sometimesgets transported into the barns together with theforage and this allows it to invade its hosts there.

This tick species is a two-host parasite. Thelarvae and the pupae mainly invade domestic andwild birds, as well as the European hare (Lepuseuropeus), which is their main host. The imagoform prarasitizes on large and small ruminants,odd-toed ungulates and pigs. It often attackshumans as well (VASILEV & VISHNYAKOV, 1977).It is a predominant parasitic species for cattle(ARNAUDOV & ARNAUDOV, 2017).

H. plumbeum has a one-year life cycle. Itsactivity depends on the temperature and thehumidity, as well as on other environmentalcharacteristics of their biotope. The larvae invadethe European hare and some other hosts in Juneand the pupae parasitise from July until the end ofOctober (and sometimes early November). Theadult forms attack their hosts almost all yearround (from February to December), with theintensity of invasion being the highest betweenMarch and August.

Its important epidemiological significance isdetermined by the fact that it is the main carrier ofthe tick-borne encephalitis (SARBOVA, 1964) andis one of the main carriers of CCHF (SHERIFI etal., 2014). In animals, the tick is a carrier of

piroplasmosis in horses in Southeastern Europe,the Middle East and the South of Russia (SCOLES

& UETI, 2015).Within the same genus, H. scupense (syn. H.

detrium) is also found in the region. It has beenlocated in the villages located in the Sredna GoraMts., near the Stryama River Gorge (MINCHEVA

et al., 1965). Its biotopes are hilly pastures inshort-stem forests. In Bulgaria, this tick iswidespread in the region of Bourgas, where itmainly invades cattle during the autumn-winterperiod and in early spring (MINCHEVA et al.,1965). Worldwide, H. scupense is one of the mostwidespread tick species out of the 30 validHyalomma species. It is present in the Palaearcticzoogeographic region, in the humid to aridregions of 42 countries on three continents(GHARBI & DARGHOUTH, 2014).

It is a single-host parasite. It parasitises mainlyon large ruminants and more rarely on sheep andhorses. It has been observed in spring months,February, March and April, as well as in May whenonly single specimens have been found. Itsepidemiological significance is limited; it takes partin the spread of piroplasmosis in domestic animals.It can be a reservoir of the cause of brucellosis andplague (VASILEV & VISHNYAKOV, 1977).

The Genus BoophilusWithin this genus, only one species, B.

calcaratus, is found across Europe, including inBulgaria. In the region of Plovdiv, it is widelydistributed in places with altitudes of up to 750 m.Its biotopes are situated on South-facing slopesand hills with a high concentration of ravines,streams and gullies and along river valleys (in theareas of Saedinenie, Sadovo, Manole, Gradina). Inmost of these biotopes there is a lush springvegetation, which lasts during the summer in thepresence of precipitation. In the plains, whereintensive agriculture is developed, the tick is notspread.

According to MINCHEVA et al. (1965) thisspecies is commonly found countrywide, exceptfor in the regions of Sofia, Blagoevgrad, Smolyan,Vidin, Vratsa, Montana and most of the Plevenand Lovech regions. Globally, it spreads incountries with tropical and subtropical climates(TAYLOR et al., 2013). The northern boundariesof its range reach a latitude of 490 North(VASILEV & VISHNYAKOV, 1977).

B. calcaratus is a single-host parasite. All of itsforms parasite mainly on cattle and sheep, and

41


more rarely on pigs, horses and goats. In ourstudy, we only found it in cattle (ARNAUDOV &ARNAUDOV, 2017). Its invasion pattern is relatedto the periods when the animals graze - the larvaeare found mostly in April, and the imago forms -in May. This tick can be found on specific areas ofthe animals’ skin - the head, neck and around thetail and more rarely on the ears and legs of thehost. Its epidemiological significance is related toits ability of transmitting infectious agentstransovarially and the possibility of the pathogento be stored in it for three generations. This tick isa carrier of piroplasmosis in cattle, but it is notdangerous for humans.

The Genus HaemaphysalisThe different species within this genus are

widespread in all parts of the earth. The mostspecies have been observed in Southeast Asia(VASILEV & VISHNYAKOV, 1977). In the regionof Plovdiv, the following species are found: Ha.sulcata, Ha. punctata and Ha. intermis. Besidesthem, H. otophila is also present in Bulgaria(MINCHEVA et al., 1965). Their epidemiologicalsignificance is limited to spreading piroplasmosisand some other bacterial and viral diseases in largeand small ruminants. Together with D.marginatus, Ha. punctata is one of the twocarriers of viral encephalitis in sheep and goats ina natural outbreak in the village of Dobrostan inthe municipality of Asenovgrad (GEORGIEV etal., 1971).

Ha. sulcata is the most widely spread in theregion. It is known as the desert-steppe type. Itsbiotopes are located on hilly areas that havepastures covered in bushes. It is found in thefoothills of the Rhodopes Mts., Stara Planina andSredna Gora Mountains. In our study, it waslocated in the hilly areas within the ParvomayMunicipality, in the villages of Pravoslaven,Dragoynovo and Bukovo (ARNAUDOV et al.,2014). Across Bulgaria, the species is also spreadin Southeast Bulgaria and at isolated places in theregion of Kyustendil. It is not found in NorthernBulgaria (MINCHEVA et al., 1965).

Ha. sulcata is a two-host parasite. The larvaeare found in sheep (on the ears) in winter andspring. The pupae parasitise the same spots, butduring a different period - from April toDecember. In November–December they alsoinvade horses, cattle and young turkeys. Thelarvae and pupae also parasitise reptiles in spring

and summer (April and July). The imagoparasitises on even-toed ungulates, mainly onsheep and goats. It attacks the hosts in winter intwo waves of invasion – In December and March.

Ha. punctata has a more limited distributionin the region of Plovdiv. It is found in SrednaGora Mts., as well as in the hilly part of theParvomay Municipality (the villages ofPravoslaven, Dragoynovo and Bukovo) and inthe village of Dobrostan within the AsenovgradMunicipality (MINCHEVA et al., 1965,ARNAUDOV et al., 2014; PAVLOV et al., 1972). Itis known as well adaptive species. Its biotopes areboth low, medium-high and high-mountainpastures. It prefers areas with abundantvegetation. In humid areas it is drawn to placeswith moderate humidity and dry biotopes – towetter areas.

Ha. punctata is a three-host parasite. Thelarvae parasitise mainly on birds, and the pupae –on rodents and insectivores. The adults invadelarge and small wild and domestic ruminants, odd-toed ungulates, pigs and other animals. Theparasitism of this tick is outlined in two waves –spring and autumn.

Ha. intermis is found in the region of theRhodope mountains – in the village of Dobrostan(PAVLOV et al., 1972) and in Sredna Gora Mts.,mainly in the valleys of the rivers flowing downthese mountains (Vacha River and others). Itsprevalence is mainly focal. The habitats of the tickare broadleaf forests at altitudes of up to 500 m.Apart from the region of Plovdiv, in Bulgaria, it isalso found in the Burgas Region, and singleindividuals have been discovered in the northernand middle slopes of the Stara Planina Mts.(MINCHEVA et al., 1965).

This tick is a two-host parasite. The immatureforms parasitise on small mammals, rodents andinsectivores. The imago parasitises mainly onsheep, goats and deer, and it can also invadehumans. It is also found in other countries on theBalkan Peninsula, in the Mediterranean, in France,Poland and others. It parasitises during the wintermonths, which is why it is called "winter tick"(SALMAN, 2012).

Acknowledgements. The authors thankSvetla Gospodinova, Nelly Mukareva, LiliyaGavrailova and Victoriya Andreeva (Universityof Plovdiv “Paisii Hilendarski”) for theirassistance in the collection and handling ofsamples.

42

Atanas Arnaudov, Dimo Arnaudov

Fig.1. Rh. bursa female, dorsal side. X 0.6(original).

Fig.2. Rh. sanguineus female, dorsal side. X 0.6(original).

Fig. 3. I. ricinus female, dorsal side. X 0.6(original).

Fig. 4. H. plumbeum female dorsal side. X 0.6(original).

ReferencesANGELOV L., D. ARNAUDOV, T. RAKADJIEVA,

D. LICHEV, E. KOSTOVA. 1995. Lymeborreliosis in Bulgaria (epidemiologicand epizootologic review). In: Report ofWHO Workshop on Lyme BorreliosisDiagnosis and Surveillance. Warsaw,Poland: 41-52.

ARNAUDOV A. 2005. Biochemical andhemocoagulant investigations on thesalivary glands of Ixodes ricinus andRhipicephalus bursa (Ixodidae) from thePlovdiv region, Scientific studies of theUniversity of Plovdiv “P. Hilendarski”- Biology, Animalia, 41: 13-22. (InBulgarian, English summaries).

ARNAUDOV A., D. ARNAUDOV. 2017. Ixodidticks on domestic ruminants: anInvestigation in the Valley of MaritsaRiver in Plovdiv Region, Bulgaria. ActaZoologica Bulgarica, Supplement 8:221-226.

ARNAUDOV D., A. ARNAUDOV, D. KIRIN, S.GOSPODINOVA. 2014. Ixodidae ticks ofsmall ruminants in the region ofParvomai, southern Bulgaria. BulgarianJournal of Agricultural Science, 20(3):590-594.

BALASHOV Y. 1967. Blood-sucking ticks(Ixodidea) - vector of diseases of manand animals, Nauka, Leningrad, 320 p.(In Russian).

43


BERON P. 1973-1974. Catalogue des Acariensparasites et commensaux desMammifères en Bulgarie. Bulletin d’Institute de Zoology et Museum, Sofia,Partie I, 37: 167-199; Partie II, 38: 105-136; Partie III, 39: 163-194.

DANIEL M., V. DANIELOVÁ, B. KŘÍŽ, A. JIRSA,J. NOŽIČKA. 2003. Shift of the tickIxodes ricinus and tickborneencephalitis to higher altitudesin centralEurope. European Journal of ClinicalMicrobiology and Infectious Diseases,22(5): 327-328.

DANTAS-TORRES F. 2010. Biology and ecologyof the brown dog tick, Rhipicephalussanguineus. Parasites & Vectors, 3: 26,doi: 10.1186/1756-3305-3-26.

DANTAS-TORRES F., L. FIGUEREDO, D.OTRANTO. 2011. Seasonal variation inthe effect of climate on the biology ofRhipicephalus sanguineus in southernEurope. Parasitology, 38 (4): 527-536.

DRENSKI P. 1955. Composition anddistribution of ticks (Ixodidae) inBulgaria. Bulletin of the ZoologicalInstitute, 4-5: 109-168 (In Bulgarian).

DUMITRACHE M., C. GHERMAN, V. COZMA, V.MIRCEAN, A. GYORKE, A. SANDOR, A.MIHALCA. 2012. Hard ticks (Ixodidae)in Romania: surveillance, hostassociations, and possible risks for tick -borne diseases. ParasitologicalResources, 110: 2067-2070.

ESTRADA-PENA A., A. BOUATTOUR, J. CAMICA,A. WALZER. 2004. Ticks of domesticanimals in the Mediterranean region: aguide to identification of species.University of Zaragoza, Spain, pp. 1-131.

ESTRADA-PENA A., J. VENZAL. 2007. Climateniches of tick species in theMediterranean region: modelling ofoccurrence data, distributionalconstraints, and impact of climatechange. Journal of MedicinalEntomology, 446: 1130-1138.

ESTRADA-PENA A., M. SANTOS-SILVA. 2005.The distribution of ticks (Acari:Ixodidae) of domestic livestock inPortugal. Experimental and AppliedAcarology, 36(3): 233-246.

GEORGIEV B., B. ROSICKÝ, P. PAVLOV, M.DANIEL, D. ARNAUDOV. 1971. The

ticks of the natural focus of tick-borneencephalitis of sheep and man in theRhodope Mountains (Bulgaria). FoliaParasitologica, 18(3): 267-273.

GEORGIEVA G. 1991. Species composition andseasonal number of ixodidae ticks,isolated from two different geographicregions and their relation to Crimeanhaemorrhagic fever diseases.Epidemiological, Microbiological. andInfectious Diseases, 27(4): 65-69. (InBulgarian).

GHARBI M., M. DARGHOUTH. 2014. A reviewof Hyalomma scupense (Acari,Ixodidae) in the Maghreb region: frombiology to control. Parasite, 21(2): 1-12.

GILLOT B. 1985. Bases biologiques, e’cologiqueset cartographiques pour l’etude desmaladies transmises par tiques (Ixodidaeet Argasidae) dans les Alpes Francaises etleur avant pays. PhD Thesis, Universitede Grenoble, 535 p.

GRAY J. 1991. The development and seasonalactivity of the tick Ixodes ricinus: avector of Lyme borreliosis. Revew ofMedical and Veterinary Entomology, 6:323-333.

HOOGSTRAAL H. 1979. The Epidemiology ofTick-Borne Crimean-Congo HemorrhagicFever in Asia, Europe and Africa. Journalof Medicinal Entomology, 15(4): 307-417.

HOOGSTRAAL H., R. VALDEZ. 1980. Ticks(Ixodoidea) from wild sheep and goats inIran and medical and veterinary implications.Fieldiana Zoology, 6: 203-221.

JONGEJAN F., G. UILENBERG. 2004. The globalimportance of ticks. Parasitology,129(S1): S3-S14.

LINDGREN E., L. TÄLLEKLINT, T. POLFELDT.2000. Impact of climatic change on thenorthern latitude limit and populationdensity of the disease-transmitting Europeantick Ixodes ricinus. Environmental HealthPerspectives, 108(2): 119-123.

MANGOLD A., D. AGUIRRE, A. GAIDO, A.GUGLIELMONE. 1994. Seasonalvariation of ticks (Ixodidae) in Bostaurus×Bos indicus cattle underrotational grazing in forested anddeforested habitats in northwesternArgentina. Veterinary Parasitology,54(4): 389-395.

44

Atanas Arnaudov, Dimo ArnaudovMINCHEVA N., B. GEORGIEV, I. DJANKOV, Y.

DENEV, S. SHERKOV. 1965.Hemosporidioses of farm animals inBulgaria and their carrier ticks.Zemizdat, Sofia, 145 p. (In Bulgarian).

MONOV V. 2010. Ecological Approach toZoonoses. Bulgarian MedicinalJournal, 4(3): 7-11 (In Bulgarian).

OMERAGIC J. 2011. Ixodid ticks in Bosnia andHerzegovina. Experimental andApplied Acarology, 53(3): 301-309.

PAPA A., P. SIDIRA, V. LARICHEV, L.GAVRILOVA, K. KUZMINA, M.MOUSAVI-JAZI, U. STRÖHER, S. NICHOL.2014. Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fevervirus, Greece. Emerging InfectiousDiseases, 20(2): 288-290.

PAPA A., E. VELO, P. KADIAJ, K. TSIOKA, A.KONTANA, M. KOTA, S. BINO. 2017.Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever virusin ticks collected from livestock inAlbania. Infection, Genetics andEvolution, 54: 496-500.

PAPADOPOULOS B., P. MOREL, A. AESCHLIMANN.1996. Tickcs of domestic animals in theMacedonia region of Greece. VeterinaryParasitology, 63(1): 25-40.

PAVLIDOU V., S. GEROU, M. KAHRIMANIDOU, A.PAPA. 2008. Ticks infesting domesticanimals in northern Greece. Experimentaland Applied Acarology, 45(3-4): 195-198.

PAVLOV P., S. SURBOVA, O. MACHICHKA.1962. On the species composition ofixodid ticks in the surroundings vill.Iskra, Plovdiv District. Bulletin of theMicrobiological Institute, 11: 35-38 (InRussian).

PAVLOV P., H. RASHEV, B. GEORGIEV, D.ARNAUDOV. 1972. Natural outbreak ofviral encephalitis in sheep and goats inthe vicinity of the village of Dobrostan.Veterinarnomedicinski nauki, 9(6): 13-19 (In Bulgarian).

PAVLOVIĆ I., S. IVANOVIĆ, A. DIMITRIĆ, M.VEGARA, A. VASIĆ, S. ŽIVKOVIĆ, B.MIJATOVIĆ. 2016. Tick population ingoats and sheep in Šabac. MacedonianVeterinary Review, 39(1): 103-109.

PAVLOVIC I., S. IVANOVIC, M. ZUJOVIC. 2013.Tick fauna of goat and sheep inBelgrade area. Scientific Works SeriesC, Veterinary Medicine, 59(1): 51-53.

PAVLOVIĆ I., S. JOVČEVSKI, V. KUKOVSKA, A.DIMITRIĆ. 2014. Tick fauna of sheepand cattle at Kumanovo area(Macedonia). Lucrari Stiintifice-Universitatea de Stiinte Agricole aBanatului Timisoara, MedicinaVeterinara, 47(3): 88-95.

POMERANCEV B. 1950. Fauna SSSR -Paukoobraznye. Iksodovye kleshti(Ixodidae). Akademii Nauk SSSR,Moskow, 4, 2, 223 p. (In Russian).

RUBEL F., K. BRUGGER, M. PFEFFER, L.CHITIMIA-DOBLER, Y. DIDYK, S.LEVERENZ, H. DAUTEL, O. KAHL. 2016.Geographical distribution ofDermacentor marginatus andDermacentor reticulatus in Europe. Ticksand Tick-borne Diseases, 7(1): 224-233.

SALMAN M. 2012. Ticks and tick-bornediseases: geographical distribution andcontrol strategies in the Euro-Asiaregion. CABI, 291 p.

SARBOVA S. 1956. Species composition andseasonal dynamics of ticks of the familyIxodidae, village of Iskra, the region ofParvomay. Works of the ResearchInstitute of Epidemiology andMicrobiology, 3: 209-216 (In Bulgarian).

SARBOVA S. 1964. Distribution andepidemiological significance of ticks ofthe Ixodidae family in Bulgaria. –Bulletin of the Zoological Institute withMuseum, Sofia, 15: 135-150.

SARBOVA S., G. GEORGIEVA. 1973. Particularities ofthe spread and parasitism of ticks of theIxodidae family in Bulgaria in view of theirepidemiological significance. Epidemiology,Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, 3: 293-297 (In Bulgarian).

SCOLES G., M. UETI. 2015. Vector ecology ofequine piroplasmosis. Annual Reviewof Entomology, 60: 561-580.

SHERIFI K., D. CADAR, S. MUJI, A. ROBAJ, S.AHMETI, X. JAKUPI, P. EMMERICH, A.KRÜGER. 2014. Crimean-Congohemorrhagic fever virus clades V and VI(Europe 1 and 2) in ticks in Kosovo.PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases, 8(9):e3168.

TAYLOR A., R. COOP, R. WALL. 2013.Veterinary Parasitology, 3rd edition,Hoboken (John Wiley& Sons), 600 p.

45


VASILEV I., Y. VISHNJAKOV. 1977. VeterinaryParasitology and Invasive Diseases,Zemizdat, Sofia, 413 p. (In Bulgarian).

, Състав на видовете разпространение и сезонна динамика на иксодови кърлежи

(Ixodidae), паразитиращи по пасищни животни вПловдивска област

, АтанасАрнаудов ДимоАрнаудов

:Резюме На базата на литературни данни и насобствени изследвания е установено, че попасищните животни в Пловдивска областпаразитират 11 вида иксодови кърлежи,принадлежащи към 6 рода.

В настоящия обзор са описани тяхноторазпространение, биологичните и екологичните имособености и епидемиологично значение..

46



Psocoptera Records from the City of Plovdiv

Dilian G. Georgiev1,2*

1 - University of Plovdiv “Paisii Hilendarski”, Faculty of Biology, Department of Ecology andEnvironmental Conservation, 24 Tzar Assen Str., BG-4000 Plovdiv, BULGARIA

2 - Regional Natural History Museum - Plovdiv, 34 Hristo G. Danov Str.,BG-4000 Plovdiv, BULGARIA


Abstract. After this study a total of six species from four families of Psocoptera were knownfrom the city of Plovdiv. Original data was provided on five species – four new records and onerecollected from a new locality. The species Dorypteryx domestica (Smithers, 1958) was a newrecord for Bulgaria.

Key words: Barkflies, anthropogenic, species diversity.

IntroductionThe information on the species diversity of

Barkflies (Insecta: Psocoptera) in anthropogenichabitats of Bulgaria is scarce. The very first datawas provided by POPOV (1948) reportingLiposcelis divinatoria (Müller, 1776) (= nomendubium, Lienhard, 1998) for the region of villageof Zlataritsa among stored products (onionsAllium cepa). Later DRENSKY (1953) publishedsome records from Sofia city: Lachesillapedicularia (Linnaeus, 1758) (in parks and fromwindows of buildings), Liposcelis divinatoria(Müller, 1776) (among a scientific collection ofseeds), and Trogium pulsatorium (Linnaeus,1758) (in wet home rooms). Recently GEORGIEV(2017) added two species found among insectboxes at the Regional Natural History Museum ofPlovdiv: Liposcelis decolor (Pearman, 1925) andLiposcelis corrodens (Heymons, 1909). This wasand the only information on any Psocopterarecords in the city of Plovdiv.

Material and MethodsThe study was carried out in 2017 All

materials were collected and identified by the

author. The barklice were searched by followingmethods: 1. actively searched and collected byhand; 2. sieving with 1 mm mesh width sieve ofdetritus or crushed tree bark particles abovewhite cloth; 3. beating the vegetation above asieve; 4. checking for dead individuals in variousplaces. Specimens were then over narcotized bydiethyl ether, stored in ethanol or glycerin, andafter processing deposited in the collection ofthe author. Taxonomy and speciesdeterminations followed LIENHARD (1998).

Results and DiscussionTrogiidae Roesler, 1944Lepinotus reticulatus Enderlein, 1904Material examined: Plovdiv City, Trihalmie

Hill, near the Faculty of Biology, PlovdivUniversity, detritus beneath Robinia pseudoacaciaand Celtis australis, N42 08 51.84, E24 45 1.2,150 m a.s.l., 06.04.2017, 7 ♀, 3 nymphs.

Liposcelididae Broadhead, 1950Liposcelis decolor (Pearman, 1925)Material examined: Plovdiv City, Kyuchuk

Parizh district, apartment in a block of flats, on



Psocoptera Records from the City of Plovdiv

wall behind a dresser, N42 07 30.27, E24 4417.15, 120 m a.s.l., 29.08.2017, 1 ♀.

Liposcelis bostrychophila Badonnel, 1931Material examined: Plovdiv City, bank of

Maritsa River near Grebna Baza, flood forest,under bark of Sambucus sp., N42 09 08.7, E2443 08.1, 166 m a.s.l., 18.05.2017, 1 ♀; PlovdivCity, Bunardzhik Tepe Hill, broad leaf parkforest, under bark of Fraxinus sp., N42 08 42.9E24 44 18.1, 199 m a.s.l., 29.08.2017, 1 ♂.

Psyllipsocidae Lienhard & Smithers, 2002Dorypteryx domestica (Smithers, 1958)Material examined: Plovdiv City, Kyuchuk

Parizh Quarter, apartment in a block of flats,on wall behind a dresser, N42 07 30.27, E24 4417.15, 120 m a.s.l., 29.08.2017, 1 nymph;Plovdiv City, the library of the Regional NaturalHistory Museum of Plovdiv, on a wall, N42 0730.27, E24 44 17.15, 120 m a.s.l., 29.08.2017, 1♀. Remark: This is the first record of thespecies from Bulgaria (LIENHARD & SMITHERS,2002).

Psyllipsocus ramburii Selys-Longchamps,1872

Material examined: Plovdiv City, the libraryof the Regional Natural History Museum ofPlovdiv, on a wall, N42 07 30.27, E24 44 17.15,120 m a.s.l., 29.08.2017, 1 ♀.

Psocidae Hagen, 1865Blaste sp.Material examined: Plovdiv, bank of

Maritsa River near Gerdzhika Bridge, underbark of dry Clematis vitalba, N42 09 10.4,E24 44 03.2, 167 m a.s.l., 18.05.2017, 2nymphs.

ReferencesDRENSKY P. 1953. On the distribution of the

Order Copeognatha (Insecta) inBulgaria. Izvestia na ZoologicheskiaInstitut s Muzei, BAS 2: 377-381 (InBulgarian).

GIESE B. 1964. Ergebnisse der Albanien-Expedition 1961 des DeutschenEntomologischen Institutes. Beiträgezur Entomologie, 14(3/4): 245-249.

LIENHARD C. 1998. Psocoptères euro-méditerranées. Faune de France 83,Fédération Francaise des Sociétés deSciences Naturelles, Paris, 517 p.

LIENHARD C., SMITHERS C. 2002. Psocoptera(Insecta): world catalogue andbibliography. Instrument BiodiversitatisV. Muséum d'histoire naturelle, Genève,Switzerland, 745 p.

POPOV V. 1948. Stored product and materialpests in Bulgaria and the fight againstthem. Nauchno populyarna poreditsa,BAS, Sofia, 5. (In Bulgarian).

Psocoptera . Находища на от гр Пловдив


:Резюме След настоящото проучване в градПловдив са известни общо шест вида от четирисемейства Psocoptera. Оригинални данни сапредоставени за пет вида - четири нови находища иедин събран наново от ново място. ВидътDorypteryx domestica (Smithers, 1958) е нов за фаунатана България.

48



Проучване на видовия състав на комарите от Culicidae семейство в град Пловдив

Танчо Агушев*

СУ „П. Яворов”, бул. „България” № 136, 4000, Пловдив, БЪЛГАРИЯ*Кореспондиращ автор: [email protected]

Abstract. Mosquitoes are found in almost all geographic areas. They are one of the mostimportant epidemiological insects. They are vectors of more than 50 viral and bacterial infectionsand infestations. With the addition of Culex (Culex) bilineatus (Theobald, 1903) to the officialclassification, the number of recognized species of mosquitoes of the family Culicidae (Insecta:Diptera) to date is 3537. In Bulgaria are so far described 46 species from nine genera. The aim ofthis study was to investigate the species composition of mosquitoes in the family Culicidae inurban biocenoses in Plovdiv City. The study was conducted in 2011, 2012 and 2013 from May toNovember. For the territory of Plovdiv City were identified 8 biotopes. As a result of the researchthere were 19 species of 6 genera recorded. The article provides information on the speciescomposition of mosquitoes in Plovdiv City. For the first time since 1989 the species compositionof mosquitoes in the Plovdiv City is examined and for the first time, a complete list of species ispresented.

Key words: Culicidae, mosquitoes, species composition, Plovdiv.

ВъведениеКомарите от сем. Culicidae (Insecta:

Diptera) наброяват повече от 3600 вида в светаи се срещат почти във всички географскиобласти. Те са едни от най-важните вепидемиологично отношение насекоми.Преносители са на повече от 50 вирусни ибактериални инфекции и паразитози.

Град Пловдив се намира в западната частна българската част от Тракия, на двата брягана река Марица. Отстои на 15 км северно отРодопите и на 50 км южно от Стара планина.Климатът е преходно-континентален,типичен за доста централни южни части наЕвропа.

Река Марица е развъдник на комари, атоплото и влажно време благоприятстваразвитието им. Гребният канал и огромният

брой градски и крайградски биотопи същодопринасят за масовото развъждане накомари.

Наличието на маларийни (Anopheles) инемаларийни комари (Culex, Aedes) еентомологичен рисков фактор, който епотенциална заплаха за здравето на хората иживотните в градската жизнена среда.

Материал и Методи Работни площадки за събиране на ларви

.на комариПрез април-ноември 2011-2013 г., за

сбор на ларви на комари на територията гр.Пловдив са изследвани 4 пункта, кактоследва:

• Пункт 1 - разливи на р. Марица доУХТ (естествен и постоянен);



mailto:[email protected]





Проучване на видовия състав на комарите от семейство Culicidae в град Пловдив

• Пункт 2 - аквадукт, Бунарджик(изкуствен и временен);

• Пункт 3 - фонтан в Цар Симеоноватаградина (изкуствен и постоянен);

• Пункт 4 - автомобилни гуми, ЖК„Тракия” (естествен и временен).

Методи за събиране на преимагиниралиформи

1. Метод на потапяне на „бялата тава”(20х15х3 см) за определяне на плътността приларвната фаза на развитие и метод напотапяне на хидробиологична мрежамонтирана на кръгла рамка (15 см диаметър) иприкрепен към дървена или алуминиевадръжка (1,50 м). (SERVICE, 1993).

2. Метод на събиране на лаври чрез„черпак” - вместимост 250 мл., диаметър 15 сми височина 13 см (Dippers) (SERVICE, 1993).

3. Събиране на ларви и какавиди чрезкапан от автомобилни гуми и съдове (SCOTT &CRANS, 2003).

.Методи за събиране на имаго на комари1. Ръчен сбор на възрастни комари по

метод събиране с епруветка. (WHO, 1992).2. Събиране на насекоми чрез

Малейзиеви ловилки (MALAISE, 1937).3. Капан за комари BG-Сентинел с

използване на СО2 и с добавяна на UVсветлина (NASCI, 1981; WILTON & KLOTER,1985).

Методи за обработка и съхраняване наматериала.

Събраният материал от 3867 екземпляра,от които 2771♀♀/1094♂♂ и 759 ларви, еетикетиран и се съхранява в 75% етиловалкохол.

Част от събрания материал е изпратен заидентификация на д-р Франсис Шафнер(експерт по медицинска и ветеринарнаентомология) при Институтът попаразитология към Университета Цюрих,Швейцария, за молекулярни изследвания.

Определянето на видовете е извършено поморфологични белези на имагото и ларвите, влабораторни условия.

Систематично положение на родовете ивидовете е определено по HARBACH &KNIGHT (1980); SNOW & RAMSDALE (2003) иREINERT et al. (2009).

За видовата идентификация основно саизползвани трудовете на БОЖКОВ (1991) иелектронни определители „The Mosquitoes ofEurope” на SHAFFNER et al. (2001) и Electronic

keys & Reference collections, EUTAXA(LECHTHALER, 2005).

Определянето на предимагиналнитестадии е извършвано по определители наМОНЧАДСКИЙ (1951) и ГУЦЕВИЧ .и др (1970).

Резултати и ОбсъжданеОбщо за трите години от всички работни

площадки и с всички използвани методи сасъбрани 3847 комара, от които2755♀♀/1092♂♂.

За всяка година броят е съответно:• 2011 г. - общо 1155, от които

859♀♀/296♂♂.• 2012 г. - общо 1326, от които

905♀♀/421♂♂.• 2013 г. - общо 1366, от които

991♀♀/375♂♂.Разпределението на брой комари чрез

различни методи на улавяне, е както следва:Малейзиеви ловилки:• Пловдив - общо 1617, от които

1126♀♀/491♂♂.• Контрола - общо 1258, от които

889♀♀/369♂♂.• Капан с СО2 - общо 220, от които

167♀♀/53♂♂.• Капан с UV светлина - общо 252, от

които 201♀♀/51♂♂.• Ръчен сбор - общо 500, от които

372♀♀/128♂♂.Общо за трите години от пунктове и

всички използвани методи са събрани 759ларви. За всяка година броят е съответно:

• 2011 г. – общо 237; 2012 г. – общо 249;2013 г. – общо 273.

• Разпределението на брой ларви накомари чрез различни методи на улавяне, екакто следва:

- Потапяне на „бялата тава”- общо 193.- Потапяне на хидробиологична мрежамонтирана на кръгла рамка - общо 239.- Капан от автомобилни гуми и съдове- общо 327.

Установения видов състав на комаритеот семейство Culicidae в град Пловдив епредставен в списъка по-долу.

CulicidaeСемейство Anophelinae Grassi, 1900Подсемейство

Род Anopheles Meigen, 1818Подрод Anopheles Meigen, 1818

50

Танчо Агушев

1. Anopheles (Anopheles) claviger (Meigen,1804)

= Anopheles bifurcatus Meigen, 1818. = Anopheles villosus Robineau-Desvoidy,1827. = Anopheles grisescens Stephens, 1828.= Anopheles antennatus Becker, 1903.= Anopheles bifurcatus portucaliensisFigueiredo, 1904. = Anopheles algeriensis turkestani Shingarev,1926. = Anopheles amaurus Martini, 1929. = Anopheles claviger missiroli del Vecchio,1939. = Anopheles petragnani Del Vecchio, 1939.= Anopheles claviger pollutus TorresCanamares, 1945.

2. Anopheles (Anopheles) hyrcanus (Pallas, 1771)= Anopheles pictus Loew, 1845. = Anopheles pseudopictus Grassi, 1899. = Anopheles flerowi Portschinsky, 1910. = Anopheles hyrcanus mesopotamiaeChristophers et Chand, 1915.= Anopheles marzinovskii Shingarev, 1926. = Anopheles hyrcanus popovi Shingarev,1928. = Anopheles chodukini Martini, 1929. = Anopheles hyrcanus mahmuti Martini,1930.

3. Anopheles (Anopheles) maculipennis (Meigen,1818)

= Anopheles lewisi Ludlow, 1920. = Anopheles selengensis Ludlow, 1920. = Anopheles alexandrae-schingareviShingarev, 1928.= Anopheles basilei Falleroni, 1932.

4. Anopheles (Anopheles) messeae (Falleroni,1926)

Подрод Cellia Theobald, 1902

5. Anopheles (Cellia) superpictus (Grassi, 1899)= Anopheles nursei Theobald, 1907. = Pyretophorus palestiniensis Theobald,1903. = Aldrichia error Theobald, 1903. = Pyretophorus cardamatisi Newstead etCarter, 1910.

= Anopheles superpictus vassilieviiPortschinsky, 1911. = Pyreretophorus superpictus macedoniensisCot et Hovasse, 1917. = Anopheles superpictus berestneviShingarev, 1926. = Anopheles atheniensis Cardamatis, 1931. = Anopheles hellenicus Peus, 1954.

Culicinae Подсемейство Meigen, 1818Род Aedes Meigen, 1818

Подрод Aedes Meigen, 1818

6. A des (A des) cinereus е е (Meigen, 1818)= Aedes rufus Gimmerthal, 1845.= Culex nigritulus Zetterstedt, 1850. = Aedes fuscus Osten Sacken,1877.= Aedes leucopygos Eysell, 1903. = Aedes pallidohirta Grossbeck, 1905. = Aedes hemiteleus Dyar, 1924.

Подрод Aedimorphus Theobald, 1903

7. Aedes (Aedimorphus) vexans (Meigen, 1830)= . euochrus А Howard, Dyar & Knab, 1917. = . montcalmi А Blanchard, 1905.= . sudanensis А Theobald, 1911.= . sylvestris А Theobald, 1901. = Culicada minuta Theobald, 1907. = Culicada eruthrosops Theobald, 1910.= Culex parvus Macquart, 1834. = Culex articulatus Rondani, 1872. = Culex malariae Grassi, 1898.

Подрод Ochlerotatus Arribalzaga, 1891

8. Aedes (Ochlerotatus) caspius (Pallas, 1771)= Culex siculus Robineau-Desvoidy, 1827.= Culex penicillaris Rondani, 1872. = Mansonia arabica Giles, 1906. = Aedes duplex Martini, 1926. = Culex punctatus Meigen, 1804.= Culex maculiventris Macquart, 1804.= Grabhatnia longisquamosa Theobald,1905.= Grabhatnia subtilis Sergent et Sergent,1905. = Taeniorhynchus africanus Neveu-Lemaire,1906.= Grabhatnia willcocksii Theobald, 1907.

51


= Culex arabicus Uccker, 1910. = Aedes albineus Seguy, 1923. = Aedes epsilonn Seguy, 1924. = Aedes africanus Neveu-Lemaire, 1906. = Aedes arabica Giles, 1906. = Aedes broquetii Theobald, 1913. = Aedes curriei Coquillett, 1901. = Aedes grahami Ludlow, 1919.= Aedes lativittatus Coquillett, 1906.= Aedes longisquamosa Theobald, 1905.= Aedes maculiventris Macquart,1844(1846).= Aedes onondagensis Felt, 1904.= Aedes penicillaris Rondani, 1872.= Aedes punctatus Meigen, 1804. =Aedes quaylei Dyar and Knab, 1906.=Aedes siculus Robineau-Desvoidy, 1827.= Aedes subtilis Sergent and Sergent, 1905. = Aedes willcocksii Theobald, 1907.

Подрод Rusticoidus Shevchenko et Prudkina, 1973

9. A desе (Rusticoidus) rustics (Rossi, 1790)= Culex maculatus Meigen, 1804. = Culex musicus Leach, 1825. = Culex pungens Robinaeu-Desvoidy, 1827. = Culex quadrimaculatus Macquart, 1834.= Culex diversus Theobald, 1901. = Culex nemorosus luteovittatus Theobald,1901. = Aedes rusticus subtrichurus Martini, 1927. = Aedes luteovittata Theobald, 1901. = Aedes diversus Theobald, 1901.

Подвидове: ssp. subtrichurus Martini, 1927; ssp.trichurus Dyar, 1904.

Подрод Stegomyia Theobald, 1901

10. Aedes (Stegomyia) albopictus (Skuse, 1894)= A. nigritia Ludlow, 1910.= A. quasinigritia Ludlow, 1911.= A. samarensis Ludlow, 1903.

Род Culex Linnaeus, 1758Подрод Culex Linnaeus, 1758

11. Culex (Culex) pipiens (Linnaeus, 1758)= C. agilis Bigot, 1885.= C. autogenicus Roubaud, 1935.

= C. azoriensis Theobald, 1903. = C. berbericus Roubaud, 1935.= C. bicolor Meigen, 1818.= C. bifurcatus Linnaeus, 1785. = C. calcitrans Robineau-Desvoidy, 1827.= C. calloti Rioux & Pech,1959.= C. comitatus Dyar & Knab, 1909.= C. consobrinus Robineau-Desvoidy, 1827.= C. dipseticus Dyar & Knab, 1909.= C. disjunctus Roubaud, 1957.= C. doliorum Edwards, 1912.= C. domesticus Germar, 1817.= C. erectus Iglisch, 1977.= C. fasciatus Mueller, 1764.= C. haematophagus Ficalbi, 1893.= C. longefurcatus Becker, 1903.= C. luteus Meigen, 1804.= C. marginalis Stephens, 1825.= C. melanorhinus Giles, 1900.= C. meridionalis Leach, 1825.= C. molestus Forskal, 1775.= C. osakaensis Theobald, 1907.= C. pallipes Macquart, 1838.= C. pallipes Waltl, 1835.= C. phytophagus Ficalbi, 1889(1890).= C. quasimodestus Theobald, 1905.= C. rufinus Bigot, 1888.= C. rufus Meigen, 1818.= C. sternopallidus Roubaud, 1945.= C. sternopunctatus Roubaud, 1945.= C. thoracicus Robineau-Desvoidy, 1827.= C. torridus Iglisch, 1977.= C. trifurcatus Fabricius, 1794.= C. unistriatus Curtis, 1837.= C. varioannulatus Theobald, 1903.

11.1. Culex pipiens pipiens (Linnaeus, 1775)= C. bifurcatus Linnaeus, 1758. = C. fasciatus Muller, 1764. = C. trifurcatus Fabricius, 1794. = C. luteus Meigen, 1804. = C. rufus Meigen, 1818. = C. bicolor Meigen, 1818. = C. marginalis Stephens, 1825. = C. meridionalis Leach, 1825.= C. calcitrans Robineau-Desvoidy, 1827. = C. thoracicus Robineau-Desvoidy, 1827. = C. pallipes Waltl, 1835. = C. unistriatus Curtis, 1837. = C. pallipes Macquart, 1838.

52


= C. rufinus Bigot, 1888. = C. agilis Bigot, 1888.= C. phytophagus Ficalbi, 1890. = C. melanorhinus Giles, 1900. = C. varioannulatus Theobald, 1903. = C. azoriensis Theobald, 1903. = C. longefurcatus Becker, 1903. = C. pipiens doliorum Edwards, 1912.= C. pipiens disjunctus Roubaud, 1957.

11.2. Culex pipiens f. molestus (Forskal, 1775).= C. domesticus Germar, 1817. = C. haematophagus Ficalbi, 1893. = C. bicolor quasimodestus Theobald, 1905.= C. pipiens autogenicus Roubaud, 1935. = C. pipiens berbericus Roubaud, 1935. = C. autogenicus sternopallidus Roubaud,

1945. = C. autogenicus sternopunctatus Roubaud,

1945.

12. Culex (Culex) torrentium (Martini, 1925)= C. pavlovsky Shingarev, 1928.

Подрод Neoculex Dyar, 1905

13. Culex (Neoculex) territans (Walker, 1856).= C. frickii Ludlow, 1906.= C. nematoides Dyar & Shannon, 1925.= C. pyrenaicus Brolemann, 1919.= C. saxatilisGrossbeck, 1905.

Род Culiseta Felt, 1904 Подрод Allotheobaldia Broelemann, 1919

14. Culiseta (Allotheobaldia) longiareolata(Macquart, 1938)

= Cu. spathipalpis Rondani, 1872. = Cu. leucogrammus Loew, 1874.= Cu. serratipes Becker, 1908.= Cu. marocanus d'Anfreville, 1916.

Подрод Culiseta Felt, 1904

15. Culiseta (Culiseta) annulata (Schrank, 1776)= C. annulatus Fourcroy, 1785.= C. annulatus Fabricius, 1787.= C. affinis Stephens,1825.= C. nicaensis Leach, 1825.= C. ferruginata Martini, 1924.

= Theobaldia annulata ferruginata Martini,1924.

16. Culiseta (Culiseta) glaphyroptera (Schiner,1864)

= Cu. zottae Ungureanu, 1956

Род OchlerotatusПодрод Ochlerotatus Lynch Arribalzaga, 1891

17. Ochlerotatus (Ochlerotatus) cataphylla(Dyar, 1916)

= O. pacificensis Hearle, 1927.= O. prodotes Dyar, 1917.= O. rostochiensis Martini, 1920

Род Uranotaenia Arribalzaga, 1891Подрод Pseudoficalbia Theobald, 1910

18. Uranotaenia (Pseudoficalbia) unguiculata(Edwards, 1913)

Подвидове: ssp. pefflyi Stone, 1960.

През периода на проведеното изследване2011-2013 г. в град Пловдив през сезона наактивност на кръвосмучещите комари, отларвен сбор, от общо 759 ларви, саустановени родове в относителен дял, кактоследва: род Culex - 478 бр. (62,97%), родAedes - 122 бр. (16,07%), род Anopheles - 136бр. (17,92%), род Culiseta – 23 бр. (3,04%).

По биотопи относителният дял наустановените родове комари е в следнотопроцентно съотношение:

1. Разливите на река Марица до УХТ –235 бр. - род Culex - 132 бр. (56,17%), родAedes - 44 бр. (18,72%), род Anopheles - 49 бр.(20,85%); 10 бр. (4,26%) - род Culiseta.

2. Аквадукт – Бунарджика - род Culex -197 бр. - 131 бр. (66,5%), род Aedes - 26 бр.(13,2%), род Anopheles - 40 бр. (20,3%).

3. Фонтан в Цар Симеоновата градина - презцелия сезон не са установени ларвни форми.

4. Автомобилни гуми, ЖК „Тракия” - 327бр. - род Culex - 215 бр. (65,72%), род Aedes –52 бр. (15,9%), род Anopheles – 47 бр. (14,4%);род Culiseta - 13 бр. (3,98%).

Изводи1. Комарната фауна на град Пловдив е

богата на видове. След настоящото

53


проучване, може да обобщим, че за Пловдивса известни 19 вида от 6 рода.

2. Общо от 47 вида от 9 родаустановени за България, настоящотопроучване представя за град Пловдивналичие на 39,13% от комарната фауна застраната.

3. С най-висока степен надоминантност е представен род Culex,следван от род Anopheles, род Aedes и родCuliseta.

4. За първи път за комарната фауна нагр. Пловдив са установени видовете:Anopheles (Anopheles) messeae (Falleroni,1926), Anopheles (Cellia) superpictus (Grassi,1899), A des (A des) cinereus е е (Meigen, 1818),Aedes (Aedimorphus) vexans (Meigen, 1830),Aedes (Ochlerotatus) caspius (Pallas, 1771),A des (е Rusticoidus) rusticus (Rossi, 1790),Culex (Neoculex) territans (Walker, 1856),Ochlerotatus cataphylla (Dyar, 1916),Uranotaenia unguiculata (Edwards, 1913).

5. За комарната фауна на България, принашето проучване, е установен един нов видCulex torrentium (Martini, 1925).

6. Настоящото изследване потвърждаваналичието на друг нов вид за страната ни,Aedes albopictus (Skuse, 1895) и за първи пътго установява в района на устието на рекаРопотамо, по късно и в град Пловдив.

7. Резултати от изследването посочват иналичие на вертикална миграция сустановяването видове в град Пловдив,срещащи се в места с по-висока надморскависочина, Culiseta glaphyroptera иOchlerotatus cataphylla.

ЛитератураБОЖКОВ Д. 1991. Кръвосмучещите комари в

България. - ,Природа 21(6): 55-57.ГУЦЕВИЧ А.В., А.С. МОНЧАДСКИЙ, А.А.

ШТАКЕЛЬБЕРГ. 1970. Комары. СемействоCulicidae. В: . Фауна СССР Насекомые

.двукрылые Ленинград, 3(4): 1-384.МИКОВ О. 2011. EMCA WORKSHOP,

Budapest, Hungary, 12-15 September.МОНЧАДСКИЙ А.С. 1951. Личинки

кровососущих комаров СССР и ( . сопредельных стран подсем Culicinae),

Академии наук СССР, 290 стр.HARBACH R.E., K.L. KNIGHT. 1980.

Taxonomists’ glossary of mosquito

anatomy. Plexus Publishing, Inc.,Marlton, New Jersey. 415 p.

LECHTHALER W. 2005. Culicidae - Key toLarvae, Pupae and Males from Centraland Western Europe. Electronic keys &Reference collections, EUTAXA,Available at: [eutaxa.com]

MALAISE R. 1937. A new insect-trap.Entomologisk Tidskrift, Stockholm, 58:148-60.

NASCI R.S. 1981. A lightweight battery-powered aspirator for collecting restingmosquitoes in the field. Mosquito News,41: 808-811.

SAMANIDOU A., R-E. HARBACH. 2001. Keys tothe adult female mosquitoes (Culicidae)of Greece. European Mosquito Bulletin,10: 13-20.

REINERT J.F., R.E. HARBACH, I.J. KITCHING.2009. Phylogeny and classification oftribe Aedini (Diptera:Culicidae).Zoological Journal of the LinneanSociety, 157: 700-794.

SCHAFFNER F., G .ANGEL, B. GEOFFROY, J.-P.HERVY, A. RHAIEM, J. BRUNHES. 2001.The Mosquitoes of Europe. AnIdentification and Training Programme,IRD Éditions.

SCOTT J.J., W.J. CRANS. 2003. Expandedpolystyrene (EPS) floats forOchlerotatus japonicus surveillance.Journal of American Mosquito ControlAssociation, 19(4): 376-381.

SERVICE M.W. 1993. Mosquito Ecology: FieldSampling Methods. Elsevier SciencePubl., Essex, 988 p.

SNOW E.R, C.D. RAMSDALE. 2003. A revisedchecklist of European mosquitoes.European Mosquito Bulletin, 15: 1-5.

THEOBALD F.V. 1903. A monograph of theCulicidae or mosquitoes. Vol. 3, BritishMuseum of Natural History. London, 359 p.

WILTON D.P., K.O. KLOTER. 1985.Preliminary evaluation of a blackcylinder suction trap for Aedes aegyptiand Culex quinquefasciatus (Diptera:Culicidae). Journal of MedicalEntomology, 22: 113-114.

WHO. 1992. Entomological Field Techniques forMalaria Control. Part I. Learner’s Guide.World Health Organization, Geneva,Switzerland.

54


Проучване на видовия състав на комарите Culicidae от семейство в градПловдив

ТанчоАгушев

: Резюме Комарите се срещат почти въввсички географски области. Те са едни отнай-важните в епидемиологично отношениенасекоми. Преносители са на повече от 50вирусни и бактериални инфекции ипаразитози. С добавянето на Culex (Culex)bilineatus (Theobald, 1903) към официалнатакласификация, броят на признатите видовекомари от сем. Culicidae (Insecta: Diptera) домомента е 3537. В България до момента са

описани 46 вида от 9 рода. Целта напроучването е да се изследва видовиятсъстав, морфология и биология на комаритеот семейство Culicidae в урбанизиранибиоценози в град Пловдив. Проучването епроведено 2011, 2012 и 2013 г. през периодаот май до ноември. През периода май –декември 2011, 2012 и 2013, за всеки отмесеците, са събирани и проби по метода„Ръчен сбор”. За територията на градПловдив бяха определени 8 биотопа. Врезултат на проведеното проучванесаопределени 19 вида от 6 рода. В статията седава подробна информация, за видовиясъстав на комарите в град Пловдив.

55



The Chalcid Wasp Fauna (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea:Eurytomidae, Eupelmidae, Ormyridae and Torymidae)

of the City of Plovdiv

Anelia M. Stojanova*, Miroslav I. Antov

University of Plovdiv “Paisii Hilendarski”, Faculty of Biology, Department of Zoology,24 Tsar Assen Str., 4000 Plovdiv, BULGARIA


Abstract. The published data on Eurytomidae, Eupelmidae, Torymidae and Ormyridaefamilies collected from territory of the city of Plovdiv, Bulgaria was summarized. Newrecords are herein presented as well. A total of 29 Eurytomids (of them 21 are new records to theregion and 1 species – Eurytoma herbaria Zerova, 1994 is new to the Bulgarian fauna), 9Eupelmids (4 are new records to the region), 16 Torymids (7 are new records to the region) and 5Ormyrids (3 are new records to the region) are reported. New associations with plants and hostsfor six chalcid wasps were established. Chorotype classification of the species is proposed.

Key words: Hymenoptera, Chalcidoidea, new associations, chorotype, Plovdiv, Bulgaria.

IntroductionChalcid wasps belong to the superfamily

Chalcidoidea of the insect order Hymenoptera.Currently about 23 000 species have been describedand catalogued, and an estimated total diversity ofmore than 500 000 species have yet to be studied(MUNRO et al., 2011; HERATY et al., 2013;NOYES, 2017). Chalcidoidea superfamily ispresently divided into 22 families and phylogeneticanalysis in the group based on both morphologicaland molecular data (HERATY et al., 2013).

Eurytomidae Walker, 1832 is a cosmopolitanfamily with over than 1400 species and 88 genera atpresent (NOYES, 2017). Most species are primaryparasitoids or hyperparasitoids on wide range ofinsect hosts, but the larvae of other species arephytophagous (gall-inducers, inquilines or seed-feeders).

Eupelmidae Walker, 1833 is a cosmopolitanfamily comprising more than 1000 recognizedspecies (NOYES, 2017) classified in 44 extant

genera and three subfamilies (GIBSON, 1989; 2017).Species develop mostly as idiobiont parasitoids onthe immature stages (larvae or pupae) of manyinsects concealed within protected habitats such asplant tissue or cocoons or are endoparasitoids orpredators of insect or spider eggs (GIBSON, 1997).

Chalcid wasps of the family Torymidae Walker,1833 are over 980 species belonging to 68 generawith worldwide distribution (NOYES, 2017).Torymids have diverse life history: they arepredominantly parasitoids or hyperparasitoids ofvarious insects from 8 orders, but approximately1/6 of the species are phytophagous (inquilines ingalls or seed-feeders associated with coniferoustrees and rosaceous plants) (GRISSELL, 1995).

Ormyridae Förster, 1856 is a relatively minorchalcid family with about 125 species arranged intothree genera (NOYES, 2017). Ormyrids areectoparasitoids in galls induced mainly by Hymenoptera(Cynipidae) and Diptera (Cecidomyiidae, Tephritidae,Agromizidae) gall-makers (ASKEW, 1994).



The Chalcid Wasp Fauna (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea) of the City of Plovdiv

The Chalcid wasp fauna of the fourthmentioned families on the territory of the city ofPlovdiv has not been a subject of a specialinvestigation. Only 7 species of Eurytomidae(IVANOV, 1957; OVCHAROV & PELOV, 1993;STOJANOVA, 1999, 2000, 2001), 6 species ofEupelmidae (NIEVES-ALDREY & MELIKA, 2005;STOJANOVA, 2005b; ANTOV & STOJANOVA, 2015;GIBSON & FUSU, 2016; ANTOV et al., 2017; FUSU,2017), 9 species of Torymidae (ANGELOV, 1970;ZEROVA et al., 2004; STOJANOVA, 2005b, 2007)and 2 species of Ormyridae (STOJANOVA, 2005a)have been published in chalcidological papers tillnow.

The aim of this article is to summarize thepublished data on Eurytomidae, Eupelmidae,Torymidae and Ormyridae families from territoryof the city of Plovdiv, Bulgaria, and to presentnew original faunistic material.

Material and MethodsThe published data on Eurytomidae,

Eupelmidae, Torymidae and Ormyridae familiescollected from territory of the city of Plovdiv,Bulgaria was summarized. The original material wascollected between 1965 and 2015 from territory ofthe city parks of Plovdiv, mainly by sweeping. Somespecimens were reared at laboratory conditions fromgalls, flower heads and seeds of different plants.

The list of the species presents the followingdata: the valid taxa name, published data for cityof Plovdiv (if any), locality name, mean altitudeabove the sea level in meters, date of collecting,number and sex of specimens, host (in case ofrearing), name of the collector (when the materialwas not collected by the authors), generaldistribution and chorotype group. The material ispreserved in the authors’ collections at theUniversity of Plovdiv.

The species recorded as new to the fauna ofPlovdiv are marked with an asterisk (*) in thefaunistic list; new to the fauna of Bulgaria speciesare marked with double asterisk (**). The speciesare arranged in alphabetic order.

Identification of the species was done mainlyafter ZEROVA (1976, 1995), KALINA (1981),ASKEW (1994), GRISSELL (1995), GRAHAM &GIJSWIJT (1998), ZEROVA & SERYOGINA (1998,1999), ASKEW & NIEVES-ALDREY (2004),GIBSON & FUSU (2016), FUSU (2017).

The chorotype classification is based on thedata of general distribution of the species(GIBSON & FUSU, 2016; FUSU, 2017; NOYES,

2017) and follows the concept of VIGNA

TAGLIANTI et al.(1999), with adaptations.

Results and DiscussionA total of 29 Eurytomids, 9 Eupelmids, 16

Torymids and 5 Ormyrids were established onthe territory of city of Plovdiv.

Family Eurytomidae Walker, 1832

*Bruchophagus robiniae Zerova, 1970Material: Plovdiv, 165 m, 6.VI.1997, 11

females, 2 males; 23.IV.1997, 2 males;13.X.1998, 6 females (ex. seeds of Robiniapseudoacacia L.).

General distribution: Armenia, Bulgaria,Iran, Russia, Turkey, Ukraine, Uzbekistan,Tadzhikistan.

Chorotype: Turano-European.

*Bruchophagus roddi Gussakovsky, 1933Material: Plovdiv, 165 m, 19.VII.1999, 64

females, 36 males (ex. seeds of Medicago sp.).General distribution: Palearctic, Oriental,

Nearctic, Neotropic, Australian kingdoms.Chorotype: Subcosmopolitan.

Bruchophagus sophorae Crosby et Crosby,1929

Bruchophagus sophorae: OVCHAROV &PELOV (1993)

Material: Plovdiv, 165 m, 10.I.1999, 200females, 170 males (ex. seeds of Sophorajaponica L.).

General distribution: Bulgaria, Hungary,People Republic of China, Georgia, Romania,Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, Ukraine.

Chorotype: Asiatic-European.

Eurytoma acericola Zerova, 1975Eurytoma acericola: STOJANOVA (2001)General distribution: Bulgaria, Croatia,

Georgia, Russia, Ukraine.Chorotype: Southeast European.

*Eurytoma aemula Szelenyi, 1974Material: Plovdiv, Dzhendem tepe loc., 250

m, 2.VI.2002, 6 females; 9.VI.2002, 14 females, 2males; 22.VI.2002, 1 male; 29.VI.2002, 2 females(ex. galls of Aylax hypecoi Trotter on Hypecoumimberbe Sibth. et Sm.).

58

Anelia M. Stojanova, Miroslav I. AntovGeneral distribution: Armenia, Bulgaria,

Mongolia, Turkey. Chorotype: Centralasiatic-European.

Eurytoma amygdali Enderlein, 1907Eurytoma amygdali: IVANOV (1957)General distribution: Armenia, Azerbaijan,

Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Cyprus,France, Georgia, Greece, Hungary, Iran, Israel,Jordan, Lebanon, Macedonia, Russia, Syria,Turkey, Ukraine.


*Eurytoma brunniventris Ratzeburg, 1852Material: Plovdiv, Dzhendem tepe loc., 250

m, 9.IX.1998, 9 females, 1 male (ex. seedsAmorpha fruticosa L.). The association of thespecies with Amorpha fruticosa (Fabaceae) isnewly recorded.

General distribution: Andorra, Austria,Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Belarus,Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark,Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece,Hungary, Iran, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan,Lebanon, Korea, Moldova, Morocco,Netherland, Peoples’ Republic of China,Portugal, Romania, Russia (to the Far East),Serbia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Turkey,Ukraine, United Kingdom.

Chorotype: Palearctic.

*Eurytoma castor Claridge, 1959Material: Plovdiv, Ostrova loc., 165 m, 24.

IV. 1983, 1 female (S. Petrov).General distribution: Bulgaria, Germany,

Sweden, United Kingdom. Chorotype: European.

Eurytoma compressa (Fabricius, 1794)Eurytoma tibialis: STOJANOVA (2000)General distribution: Armenia, Azerbaijan,

Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, France,Georgia, Germany, Hungary, Iran, Italy,Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Netherland, Romania,Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Turkey,Turkmenistan, Ukraine, United Kingdom.


*Eurytoma dentata Mayr, 1878Material: Plovdiv, Adata isle, 165 m,

5.I.1997, 3 females (ex. galls Asphondyliaverbasci (Vallot) on Verbascum sp.); Plovdiv,

165 m, 15.XII.1998, 1 female, 1 male (ex. gallsAsphondylia verbasci on Verbascum sp.).

General distribution: Austria, Azerbaijan,Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria,Croatia, Cyprus, Egypt, France, Germany,Greece, Hungary, India, Italy, Philippines,Romania, Russia, Sweden, Turkey,Turkmenistan, Ukraine, United Kingdom.

Chorotype: Palearctic-Oriental.

Eurytoma flaveola (Zerova, 1976)Eurytoma flaveola: STOJANOVA (2000)General distribution: Bulgaria, Georgia,

Kazakhstan, Ukraine.Chorotype: Turano-European.

**Eurytoma herbaria Zerova, 1994Material: Plovdiv, 165 m, 24.VI.1967, 1

female (A. Germanov); Plovdiv, Dzhendem tepeloc., 250 m, 8.IX.1996, 1 female.

General distribution: Bulgaria, Russia (FarEast), Turkey, Ukraine.


*Eurytoma jaceae Mayr, 1878Material: Plovdiv, Dzhendem tepe loc., 250

m, 17.V.2002, 1 female; 19.V.2002, 3 females, 2males; 2.VI.2002, 7 females (ex. galls of Aylaxhypecoi on Hypecoum imberbe).

General distribution: Austria, Azerbaijan,Bulgaria, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Hungary,Israel, Romania, Russia (European part), Spain,Ukraine.

Chorotype: European.

*Eurytoma nikolskayae Zerova, 1989Material: Plovdiv, 165 m, 14.X.1999, 2 females,

1 male (ex. galls of Diplolepis rosae L. on Rosa sp.).General distribution: Bulgaria, Ukraine.Chorotype: Southeast European.

*Eurytoma pistaciae Rondani, 1877Material: Plovdiv, Dzhendem tepe loc., 250

m, 9.IX.1998, 2 females (ex. seeds Amorphafruticosa). The association of the species withAmorpha fruticosa (Fabaceae) is newly recorded.

General distribution: Austria, Azerbaijan,Bulgaria, Croatia, France, Georgia, Germany,Hungary, Iran, Italy, Japan, Romania, Russia,Spain, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, Uzbekistan,United Kingdom.

59



*Eurytoma robusta Mayr, 1878Material: Plovdiv, Dzhendem tepe loc., 250

m, 24.X.1999, 7 females (ex. Centaurea sp.).General distribution: Austria, Azerbaijan,

Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, France,Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iran, Italy,Kazakhstan, Moldova, Mongolia, Netherland,Romania, Russia (till Far East), Serbia, Slovakia,Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey,Turkmenistan, Ukraine, United Kingdom,Uzbekistan.


*Eurytoma rosae Nees, 1834Material: Plovdiv, 165 m, 14.X.1999, 5

females (ex. galls of Diplolepis rosae on Rosasp.)

General distribution: Palearctic, Oriental,Neotropic kingdoms.

Chorotype: Subcosmopolitan.

*Eurytoma strigifrons Thomson, 1876Material: Plovdiv, Dzhendem tepe loc., 250

m, 10.XI.1997, 3 females, 1 male (ex. seedsCuscuta monogyna Vahl.); 2.IX.1998, 2 females,1 male (ex. seeds Cuscuta monogyna);15.XI.1998, 1 female, 2 males (ex. seeds Cuscutamonogyna); 24.X.1999, 16 females, 13 males (ex.Centaurea sp.); 24.X.1999, 2 females, 3 males(ex. seeds Cuscuta monogyna).

General distribution: Andorra, Armenia,Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Finland, France,Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Israel,Italy, Moldova, Romania, Russia, Spain, Sweden,Turkey, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, UnitedKingdom.


*Sycophila biguttata (Swederus, 1795)Material: Plovdiv, 165 m, 2.IX.1968, 2

females (A. Germanov).General distribution: Andorra, Austria,

Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina,Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, France,Georgia, Germany, Hungary, Iran, Italy, Jordan,Moldova, Netherland, Poland, Romania, Russia(till Far East), Serbia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden,Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom.


*Sycophila mellea (Curtis, 1831)Material: Plovdiv, 165 m, 14.VII.1967, 2

females (A. Germanov).General distribution: Bulgaria, Canada,

Croatia, Germany, Hungary, Kazakhstan,Moldova, Netherland, Romania, Russia, Sweden,Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, USA.

Chorotype: Holarctic.

Sycophila submutica (Thomson, 1876)Eudecatoma submutica: STOJANOVA (1999)Material: Plovdiv, Dzhendem tepe loc., 250

m, 24.X.1999, 24 females, 14 males (ex.Centaurea sp.).

General distribution: Andorra, Austria,Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria,Croatia, Czech Republic, Finland, France,Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iran, Iraq,Kazakhstan, Macedonia, Moldova, Montenegro,Netherland, Romania, Russia (till Far East),Serbia, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, Turkmenistan,Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uzbekistan.


*Sycophila variegata (Curtis, 1831)Material: Plovdiv, Dzhendem tepe loc., 250

m, 9.IX.1998, 2 females, 1 male (ex. seedsAmorpha fruticosa). The association of thespecies with Amorpha fruticosa (Fabaceae) isnewly recorded.

General distribution: Andorra, Austria,Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, France,Greece, Hungary, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Italy, Japan,Jordan, Korea, Netherland, Peoples’ Republic ofChina, Romania, Russia (Far East), Slovakia,Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey,Turkmenistan, Ukraine, United Kingdom.


*Systole conspicua Erdös, 1951Material: Plovdiv, 165 m, 10.XI.1998, 9

females, 10 males (ex. seeds of Coniummaculatum L.). The association of the specieswith Conium maculatum (Apiaceae) is newlyrecorded.

General distribution: Bulgaria, Hungary,Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine.

Chorotype: Europeo-Mediterranean.

*Tetramesa aciculata (Schlechtendal, 1891)Material: Plovdiv, Dzhendem tepe loc., 250

m, 1. III. 2003, 4 females, 3 males (ex. Stipa sp.).

60

Anelia M. Stojanova, Miroslav I. AntovGeneral distribution: Bulgaria, Czech Republic,

Germany, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Moldova,Mongolia, Romania, Russia (European part), Serbia,Slovakia, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, United Kingdom.

Chorotype: Centralasiatic-European.

*Tetramesa cylindrica (Schlechtendal, 1891)Material: Plovdiv, Dzhendem tepe loc., 250

m, 1.III.2003, 7 females, 1 male (ex. Stipa sp.).General distribution: Azerbaijan, Bulgaria,

Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Kazakhstan,Mongolia, Romania, Russia (European part),Serbia, Slovakia, Turkmenistan, Ukraine.


*Tetramesa dispar Zerova, 1965Material: Plovdiv, Dzhendem tepe loc., 250

m, 1. III. 2003, 2 females, 1 male (ex. Stipa sp.).General distribution: Bulgaria, Hungary,

Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Romania, Russia(European part), Ukraine.


*Tetramesa fulvicollis (Walker, 1832)Material: Plovdiv, Ostrova loc., 165 m, 21.

III. 1976, 2 females (S. Petrov).General distribution: Bulgaria, Croatia,

Czech Republic, France, Greece, Hungary,Montenegro, Netherlands, Romania, Russia(European part), Slovakia, Sweden, Turkey,Ukraine, United Kingdom.


*Tetramesa gracilipennis Szelenyi, 1968Material: Plovdiv, 165 m, 8.V.1985, 2

females (S. Petrov).General distribution: Bulgaria, Hungary,

Romania, Russia (European part), Ukraine.Chorotype: Southeast European.

Tetramesa phleicola (Hedicke, 1921)Tetramesa phleicola: STOJANOVA (2001)General distribution: Bulgaria, Czech

Republic, Germany, Russia (European part),Sweden, Ukraine, United Kingdom.


Family Eupelmidae Walker, 1833

*Anastatus bifasciatus (Geoffroy, 1785)Material: Plovdiv, Dzhendem tepe loc., 250

m, 24.X.1999, 1 female (ex. Centaurea stoebe

L.); Plovdiv, Bunardzhika, 170 m, 14.X.2008, 1female (ex. Andricus sp. galls).

General distribution: Palearctic, Oriental,Afrotropical, Nearctic kingdoms.

Chorotype: Subcosmopolitan.

*Calymmochilus dispar Bouček &Andriescu, 1967

Material: Plovdiv, 165 m, 07.VI.1966, 1female (А. Germanov) (Det. G. A. P. Gibson,2013).

General distribution: Armenia, Bulgaria,Croatia, France, Germany, Italy, Portugal,Romania, Serbia, Spain.


* Eupelmus (Eupelmus) azureus Ratzeburg,1844

Material: Plovdiv, 180 m, 19.III.1997, 3females, 1 male (ex. Cynipidae galls on Quercussp.).

General distribution: Austria, Bulgaria,Cyprus, Czech Republic, France, Germany,Greece, Hungary, Iran, Israel, Italy, Lebanon,Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Turkey.

Chorotype: West Palearctic.

Eupelmus (Eupelmus) confusus Al khatib,2015

Eupelmus (Eupelmus) confusus: GIBSON &FUSU (2016).

Material: Plovdiv, 180 m, XI.1997, 3 females(ex. Althaea sp.); Plovdiv, Dzhendem tepe, 250 m,16.XI.1997, 1 female; 02.III.1998, 2 females, 1 male(ex. Cuscuta monogyna); 14.X.1999, 11 females, 6males (ex. Amorpha sp.); 24.X.1999, 1 female (ex.Centaurea sp.); 16.XI.1999, 3 females, 1 male (ex.Acer campestre L.); 22.V.2005, 1 female (ex. Aylaxhypecoi galls on Hypecoum imberbe.);01.XII.2006, 1 female, 1 male (ex. Robiniapseudoacacia) (det. G. A. P. Gibson, 2015);21.XI.2007, 1 female (ex. R. pseudoacacia) (det. G.A. P. Gibson, 2015); 07.II.2008, 1 female (ex.Asteraceae inflorescences) (det. G. A. P. Gibson,2015); 14.X.2008, 5 females, 1 male (ex. seeds ofAmorpha fruticosa) (det. G. A. P. Gibson, 2015);14.X.2008, 2 females (ex. pods of R. pseudoacacia)(det. G. A. P. Gibson, 2015); 16.V.2015, 1 female(ex. A. hypecoi galls on H. imberbe). Theassociation of the species with A. campestre(Aceraceae), Althaea sp. (Malvaceae), A. hypecoi

61


(Cynipidae), Centaurea sp. (Asteraceae) and H.imberbe (Papaveraceae) is newly recorded.

General distribution: Armenia, Bulgaria,Canary Islands, Crimea, Croatia, Cyprus, CzechRepublic, Egypt, England, France (Corsica),Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iran, Israel, Italy,Jordan, Lebanon, Macedonia, Montenegro,Netherlands, Romania, Spain, Sweden,Switzerland, Turkey, United Arab Emirates.


Eupelmus (Eupelmus) microzonus Förster, 1860Eupelmus microzonus: STOJANOVA (2005b);

NIEVES-ALDREY & MELIKA (2005); ANTOV &STOJANOVA (2015); Eupelmus (Eupelmus)microzonus: ANTOV et al. (2017).

Material: Plovdiv, Dzhendem tepe loc., 250m, 24.X.1999, 17 females, 5 males (ex.Centaurea sp.); 1 female (ex. Centaurea stoebeL.); 19.V.2001, 5 females (ex. A. hypecoi galls onHypecoum imberbe); 19.V.2002, 5 females, 3males (ex. Aylax hypecoi galls on H. imberbe);29.V.2002, 41 females, 7 males (ex. A. hypecoigalls on H. imberbe); 02.VI.2002, 39 females, 4males (ex. A. hypecoi galls on H. imberbe);09.VI.2002, 10 females (ex. A. hypecoi galls onH. imberbe); 17.V.2003, 2 females (ex. A.hypecoi galls on H. imberbe); 02.VI.2003, 1female (ex. A. hypecoi galls on H. imberbe);22.V.2004, 2 females (ex. A. hypecoi galls on H.imberbe); 29.V.2004, 14 females (ex. A. hypecoigalls on H. imberbe); 22.V.2005, 119 females (ex.A. hypecoi galls on H. imberbe); 02.VI.2007, 2females, 1 male (ex. A. hypecoi galls on H.imberbe). The association of the species withCentaurea stoebe (Asteraceae) is newly recorded.

General distribution: Afghanistan, Bulgaria,Canada, Canary Islands, Croatia, Cyprus, CzechRepublic, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary,Israel, Iran, Italy, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan,Macedonia, Malta, Moldova, Montenegro,Morocco, Netherlands, Portugal, Romania,Russia (till Far East), Serbia, Slovakia, Spain,Tajikistan, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Ukraine,United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan.


*Eupelmus (Eupelmus) urozonus Dalman, 1820Material: Plovdiv, Dzhendem tepe loc., 250

m, 28.IV.2000, 1 female (ex. Cynipidae galls onQuercus sp.).

General distribution: Austria, Belgium,Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland,France including Corsica, Germany, Greece,Hungary, Iran, Italy, Lebanon, Montenegro,Morocco, Netherlands, Portugal, Romania,Russia, Saudi Arabia, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden,Switzerland, Syria, Turkey, United Kingdom.


Eupelmus (Macroneura) aseculatus (Kalina, 1981)Eupelmus aseculatus: ANTOV & STOJANOVA

(2015); Eupelmus (Macroneura) aseculatus:ANTOV et al. (2017); FUSU (2017).

Material: Plovdiv, Dzhendem tepe loc., 250m, 23.V.2004, 1 female (ex. Aylax hypecoi gallson Hypecoum imberbe; 01.XI.2006, 3 females(ex. A. hypecoi galls on H. imberbe); 02.VI.2011,18 females (ex. A. hypecoi galls on H. imberbe).

General distribution: Azerbaijan, Bulgaria,Croatia, Cyprus, France, Greece, Israel, Italy,Romania, Spain, Turkey.


Eupelmus (Macroneura) messene Walker,1839

Eupelmus vesicularis: STOJANOVA (2005b);Eupelmus (Macroneura) messene: FUSU (2017).

Material: Plovdiv, 180 m, 19.III.1997, 2females (ex. Cynipidae galls on Quercus sp.);Plovdiv, Dzhendem tepe loc., 250 m,19.V.2001, 13 females (ex. Aylax hypecoi gallson Hypecoum imberbe); 19.V.2002, 4 females(ex. A. hypecoi galls on H. imberbe); 17.V.2003,17 females (ex. A. hypecoi galls on H. imberbe);02.VI.2003, 1 female (ex. A. hypecoi galls on H.imberbe).

General distribution: Argentina, Armenia,Australia, Austria, Azores, Bulgaria, Canada,Colombia, Czech Republic, France, Greece,Hungary, Iran, Italy, Japan, Korea, Kyrgyzstan,Madeira, Moldova, New Zealand, Peoples’Republic of China, Portugal, Romania, Russia,Serbia, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine,United Kingdom, USA.

Chorotype: Cosmopolitan.

Eupelmus (Macroneura) vladimiri Fusu,2017

Eupelmus (Macroneura) vladimiri: FUSU

(2017)Material: Plovdiv, Dzhendem tepe loc., 250

m, 22-29.V.2004, 5 females (ex. Aylax hypecoi

62

Anelia M. Stojanova, Miroslav I. Antovgalls on Hypecoum imberbe); 16.VI.2004, 1female (ex. A. hypecoi galls on H. imberbe);18.V.2015, 1 female (ex. A. hypecoi galls on H.imberbe).

General distribution: Albania, Bulgaria,Croatia, Cyprus, Greece, Iran, Montenegro,Turkey.


Family Torymidae Walker, 1833

Exopristoides hypecoi Zerova et Stojanova, 2004Exopristoides hypecoi: ZEROVA et al. (2004)Material: Plovdiv, Dzhendem tepe loc., 250

m, 18.V.2015, 12 females, 8 males (ex. galls ofAylax hypecoi (Cynipidae) on Hypecoumimberbe); 5.VI.2015, 17 females, 12 males (ex.galls of A. hypecoi on H. imberbe).

General distribution: Bulgaria, Iran.Chorotype: Turano-European.

*Exopristus trigonomerus (Masi, 1916)Material: Plovdiv, Dzhendem tepe loc., 250

m, 24.X.1999, 2 females (ex. Centaurea sp.).General distribution: Bosnia and

Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic,France, Greece, Hungary, Iran, Italy,Kazakhstan, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia,North Africa, Romania, Russia (European part),Slovakia, Spain, Tadzhikistan, Turkey,Turkmenistan, Ukraine.

Chorotype: Centralasiatic-Mediterranean.

Glyphomerus aylax Stojanova, 2005Glyphomerus aylax: STOJANOVA (2005b)Material: Plovdiv, Dzhendem tepe loc., 250

m, 18.V.2015, 28 females, 12 males (ex. galls ofAylax hypecoi (Cynipidae) on Hypecoumimberbe); 5.VI.2015, 11 females, 18 males (ex.galls of A. hypecoi on H. imberbe).

General distribution: Bulgaria, Iran, Ukraine.Chorotype: Turano-European.

Idiomacromerus budensis (Erdös 1955)Idiomacromerus budensis: STOJANOVA (2007)General distribution: Bulgaria, Hungary, Moldova.Chorotype: Southeast European.

Idiomacromerus mayri (Wachtl, 1883)Idiomacromerus mayri: ANGELOV (1970)

General distribution: Austria, Bulgaria,Czech Republic, France, Hungary, Romania.


Idiomacromerus papaveris (Förster 1856) Idiomacromerus papaveris: STOJANOVA (2007)General distribution: Andorra, Austria,

Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, France,Germany, Hungary, Iran, Israel, Italy,Macedonia, Moldova, Spain, Turkey, Ukraine,United Kingdom.


*Idiomacromerus terebrator (Masi, 1916)Material: Plovdiv, 165 m, 2.IX.1968, 1

female (A. Germanov).General distribution: Armenia, Bulgaria,

Croatia, Czech Republic, France, Germany,Hungary, Iran, Italy, Macedonia, Moldova,Romania, Russia, Ukraine, United States ofAmerica, Uzbekistan.


Megastigmus aculeatus (Swederus, 1795)Megastigmus aculeatus: ANGELOV (1970)Material: Plovdiv, 165 m, 20.V.1966, 1

female (A. Germanov); Plovdiv, Dzendem tepeloc., 250 m, 10.I.1997, 13 females. 3 males (ex.Rosa sp. fruits).

General distribution: Palearctic, Oriental,Afrotropical, Nearctic, Neotropic, Australian,Antarctic kingdoms.

Chorotype: Cosmopolitan.

Microdontomerus annulatus (Spinola, 1808)Microdontomerus annulatus: STOJANOVA

(2007)General distribution: Austria, Bulgaria,

Croatia, Czech Republic, Egypt, France, Germany,Hungary, Iran, Italy, Libya, Moldova, Montenegro,Pakistan, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden,Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom.


Monodontomerus obscurus Westwood, 1833Monodontomerus obscurus: ANGELOV (1970)Material: Plovdiv, 165 m, 20.VII.1965, 2

females (A. Germanov); 7.VI.1966, 2 females (A.Germanov); 20.V.2004, 1 female.

General distribution: Azores, Bulgaria,Canada, Chile, Croatia, Czech Republic,

63


Denmark, Egypt, France, Germany, Hungary,Iran, Israel, Italy, Kazakhstan, Lebanon,Macedonia, Moldova, Netherland, Pakistan,Romania, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, Spain,Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Turkmenistan,Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States ofAmerica.


*Pseudotorymus papaveris (Thomson, 1876)Material: Plovdiv, Dzhendem tepe loc., 250

m, 2. VI. 1999, 4 females, 4 males (ex. Papaversp. boxes).

General distribution: Austria, Bulgaria,Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary,Moldova, Mongolia, Netherland, Romania,Serbia, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, Ukraine.


*Torymoides dispar (Masi, 1916)Material: Plovdiv, 165 m, 14.VII.1967, 2

females (A. Germanov).General distribution: Albania, Azerbaijan,

Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Hungary,Italy, Macedonia, Moldova, Montenegro, Russia,Slovakia, Syria, Turkey, Ukraine.


*Torymoides kiesenwetteri (Mayr, 1874)Material: Plovdiv, 165 m, 7.IX.1967, 2

females (A. Germanov); 9.VIII.1968, 1 female(A. Germanov).

General distribution: Andorra, Bulgaria,Canary Islands, Croatia, Czech Republic, Egypt,France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iran, Italy,Macedonia, Moldova, Nepal, Peoples’ Republicof China, Poland, Romania, Russia, Serbia,Slovakia, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine,United Kingdom, Yemen.


*Torymus auratus (Müller, 1764)Material: Plovdiv, Dzhendem tepe loc., 250 m,

19. III. 1997, 3 females (ex. galls on Quercus sp.).General distribution: Andorra, Austria,

Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic,France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary,Iran, Italy, Moldova, Morocco, Netherland,Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden,Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Statesof America.


*Torymus flavipes (Walker, 1833)Material: Plovdiv, Dzhendem tepe loc., 250

m, 28.IV.2000, 5 females, 1 male (ex. gallsBiorhiza pallida (Oliver) on Quercus sp.);2.IV.2001, 10 females, 9 males (ex. galls onQuercus sp.); 11.IV.2007, 12 females, 4 males(ex. galls Biorhiza pallida on Quercus sp.).

General distribution: Andorra, Austria,Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, CzechRepublic, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary,Israel, Italy, Netherland, Peoples’ Republic ofChina, Poland, Romania, Russia, Slovakia,Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey,Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States ofAmerica.


Torymus ventralis (Fonscolombe, 1832)Torymus ventralis: ANGELOV (1970)General distribution: Austria, Bulgaria,

Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland,France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Moldova,Montenegro, Netherlands, Romania, Russia(European part), Serbia, Slovakia, Sweden,Ukraine, United Kingdom.


Family Ormyridae Förster, 1856

Ormyrus gratiosus (Förster, 1860)Ormyrus gratiosus: STOJANOVA (2005a)General distribution: Armenia, Austria,

Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Finland, France,Georgia, Germany, Hungary, Iran, Kazakhstan,Macedonia, Netherlands, Poland, Romania,Russia (European part), Serbia, Slovakia, Spain,Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Turkmenistan,Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uzbekistan.


Ormyrus nitidulus (Fabricius, 1804)Ormyrus nitidulus: STOJANOVA (2005a)Material: Plovdiv, Bunardzhika, 230 m,

14.X.2008, 2 females (ex. Andricus sp. galls onQuercus) (V. Vasilska).

General distribution: Algeria, Andorra,Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bosnia andHerzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic,Denmark, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece,Hungary, Iran, Italy, Jordan, Macedonia,Netherlands, North Africa, Romania, Russia(European part), Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia,

64

Anelia M. Stojanova, Miroslav I. AntovSpain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine,United Kingdom, United States of America.


*Ormyrus orientalis Walker, 1871Material: Plovdiv, Dzhendem tepe loc., 250

m, 21.XI.2007, 1 female (ex. Centaurea sp.) (V.Vasilska); Plovdiv, Bunardzhika, 230 m,18.XII.2006, 1 female (ex. Centaurea sp.) (V.Vasilska)

General distribution: Afghanistan,Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bulgaria, Canary Islands,Croatia, Czech Republic, France, Georgia,Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iran, Iraq, Italy,Macedonia, Moldova, Montenegro, Pakistan,Russia (till Far East), Serbia, Slovakia, Spain,Tadzhikistan, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Ukraine,Uzbekistan.


*Ormyrus pomaceus (Geoffroy, 1785)Material: Plovdiv, Dzhendem tepe loc., 250

m, 09.IX.1996, 1 female (ex. seeds of Amorphafruticosa); 14.VIII.2004, 2 females (ex. Andricusquercustozae (Bosc) galls on Quercus sp.);14.X.2008, 2 females (ex. Neuroterus sp. galls onQuercus sp.)

General distribution: Andorra, Austria,Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark,Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary,Iran, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Korea, Moldova,Montenegro, Netherlands, Peoples’ Republic ofChina, Poland, Romania, Russia (till Far East),Serbia, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Turkey,Ukraine, United Kingdom.


*Ormyrus wachtli Mayr, 1904Material: Plovdiv, Sahat tepe loc., 200 m,

14.X.2008, 1 female (ex. Centaurea sp.) (V.Vasilska).

General distribution: Austria, Bulgaria,Croatia, Czech Republic, France, Hungary, Iran,Italy, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Romania, Russia,Serbia, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, Ukraine.


A total of 29 Eurytomids were established onthe territory of Plovdiv City that belong to 5genera: Bruchophagus – 3 species; Eurytoma –15 species; Sycophyla – 4 species; Systole – 1

species and Tetramesa – 6 species. Of them, 21are new records to the region and 1 species –Eurytoma herbaria is new to the Bulgarianfauna. Nine Eupelmids from three genera:Anastatus with 1 species, Calymmochilus with 1species and Eupelmus with 7 species arereported for the fauna of the city of Plovdiv.Four of them are new records to the region. Atotal of 16 Torymids from 10 genera:Exopristoides – 1 species, Exopristus – 1 species,Glyphomerus – 1 species, Idiomacromerus - 4species, Megastigmus – 1 species,Microdontomerus – 1 species, Monodontomerus– 1 species, Pseudotorymus – 1 species,Torymoides – 2 species and Torymus - 3 wereestablished; 7 species of them are new records tothe region. Five Ormyrids from the genusOrmyrus are herein reported; 3 of them are newrecords to the city of Plovdiv.

As a result of our study, we established newassociations with plants and hosts for six chalcidwasps. We collected from Dzhendem tepe localityseeds of Amorpha fruticosa (Fabaceae), which isnative to United States, Canada and Mexico. Theplant is introduced in Europe and Asia, but atpresent is categorized as an invasive species inBulgaria. In laboratory we reared 3 eurytomidsfrom Amorpha seeds - Eurytoma brunniventris,Eurytoma pistaciae and Sycophila variegatatogether with a large number Acanthoscelidespallidipennis Motschulsky, 1874 (Coleoptera:Bruchidae). The primary hosts of the reared speciesare mostly cynipid gall makers (Hymenoptera:Cynipidae) (NOYES, 2017), but in our study, a seedbeetle is the possible host of the parasitoids.

The association of the Systole conspicua withConium maculatum (Apiaceae) is herein newlyrecorded. According to BOUČEK (1952) andNOYES (2017), the larvae develop in the seeds ofAnthriscus scandicina Mansf. (Apiaceae).Anthriscus longirostris Bertol. (Apiaceae) isreported as a host as well (ZEROVA, 1995).

The polyphagous species Eupelmus confususand Eupelmus microzonus have very wide rangeof hosts from Diptera, Hymenoptera,Lepidoptera and Coleoptera orders (NOYES,2017). In our study we established newassociations with Acer campestre (Aceraceae),Althaea sp. (Malvaceae), Hypecoum imberbe(Papaveraceae), Centaurea sp. (Asteraceae) andAylax hypecoi (Hymenoptera: Cynipidae) for the

65


first species, and with Centaurea stoebe(Asteraceae) for the second one.

The current distribution of the chalcid waspsof Eurytomidae, Eupelmidae, Torymidae andOrmyridae families is related not only to thetime and place of origin, the speed of evolutionand dispersion, the current and past ecologicalsituation, but also the spread of their hosts.

The information about the distributionpatterns of the species is not full. Huge

territories of Palearctic have not been studiedwith regard to the fourth families (Siberia,China, Central and East Asia, theMediterranean), so it is not possible at presentto make complete zoogeographic analysis.

The chorotype classification of thereported species of Eurytomidae,Eupelmidae, Torymidae and Ormyridaefamilies to the territory of Plovdiv ispresented on Fig. 1.

Fig. 1. Chorotypes of the species of families from the territory of Plovdiv. Abbreviations: COS –Cosmopolitan, SCO – Subcosmopolitan, HOL – Holarctic, PAL – Palearctic, WPA – WestPalearctic, ASE – Asiatic-European, CAE – Centralasiatic-European, CAM – Centralasiatic-

Mediterranean, TUE – Turano-European, EUR – European, SEE – Southeast-European, PAO –Palearctic-Oriental, EUM – Europeo-Mediterranean.

The species are arranged in 13 chorotypegroups and the most numerous groups are Asiatic-European (13 species), Turano-European (9species), Holarctic (7 species) and European (with7 species). With an equal number of species, 4respectively, are presented Southeast-European,Centralasiatic-European and Palearctic groups andWest Palearctic group includes 3 species. With thelowest and equal number of species, 1 respectively,are presented Palearctic-Oriental, Europeo- andCentralasiatic-Mediterranean groups.

We recorded 2 species with Cosmopolitanand 3 species with Subcosmopolitan spreadfrom Eurytomidae, Eupelmidae and Torymidaefamilies. Expanding the range of all thesespecies is a result of human activity.

References

ANGELOV P. 1970. Neue Chalcidoidea für dieFauna Bulgariens. TravauxScientifiques de l’Universite de Plovdiv,Biologie, Animalia, 8 (1): 137-140. (InBulgarian, Russian and Germansummaries).

ANTOV M., A. STOJANOVA. 2015. Publisheddata and new records to the fauna ofEupelmidae (Insecta: Hymenoptera) inBulgaria. ZooNotes, 83: 1-11.

ANTOV M., I. STOYANOV, A. STOJANOVA, T.STAYKOVA. 2017. Allozyme variabilityin three Eupelmus species(Hymenoptera: Eupelmidae) from

66

Anelia M. Stojanova, Miroslav I. AntovBulgaria. North-Western Journal ofZoology, 13(2): 220-226.

ASKEW R. 1994. Two new European species ofOrmyrus (Hym., Ormyridae). –Entomologist’s Monthly Magazine, 130: 87-93.

ASKEW R.R., J.L. NIEVES-ALDREY. 2004. Furtherobservations on Eupelminae (Hymenoptera,Chalcidoidea, Eupelmidae) in the IberianPeninsula and Canary Islands, includingdescriptions of new species. Graellsia, 60(1): 27-39.

BOUČEK Z. 1952. A new pest of the Cummin,Systole albipennis Walk. Folia zoologica etentomologica, 1: 4-9.

FUSU L. 2017. An integrative taxonomic study ofEuropean Eupelmus (Macroneura)(Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea: Eupelmidae),with a molecular and cytogenetic analysis ofEupelmus (Macroneura) vesicularis:several species hiding under one name for240 years. Zoological Journal of theLinnean Society, 181: 519-603.

GIBSON G.A.P. 1989. Phylogeny and classification ofEupelmidae, with a revision of the worldgenera of Calosotinae and Metapelmatinae(Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea). Memoirs of theEntomological Society of Canada, 148: 3-121.

GIBSON G.A.P. 1997. Chapter 11. Eupelmidae. In:Gibson, G.A.P., J.T. Huber, J.B. Woolley.(Eds), Annotated Keys to the Genera ofNearctic Chalcidoidea (Hymenoptera).NRC Research Press, Ottawa, pp. 430-476.

GIBSON G.A.P. 2017. Synonymy of ReikosiellaYoshimoto under Merostenus Walker(Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea: Eupelmidae),with a checklist of world species and arevision of those species with brachypterousfemales. Zootaxa, 4255 (1): 1-65.

GIBSON G. A. P., L. FUSU. 2016. Revision of thePalaearctic species of Eupelmus (Eupelmus)Dalman (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea:Eupelmidae). Zootaxa, 4081(1): 1-331.

GRAHAM M.W.R., M.J. GIJSWIJT. 1998. Revisionof the European species of TorymusDalman (Hymenoptera: Torymidae).Zoologische Verhandelingen, 317: 202 p.

GRISSELL E.E. 1995. Toryminae (Hymenoptera:Chalcidoidea: Torymidae): a redefinition,generic classification and annotatedworld catalogue of species. Memoirs onEntomology, International 57, 470 p.

HERATY J, R. BURKS, A. CRUAUD, G. GIBSON, J.LILJEBLAD, J. MUNRO, J-Y. RASPLUS, G.DELVARE, P. JANŠTA, A. GUMOVSKY, J.HUBER, J. WOOLLEY, L. KROGMANN, S.HEYDON, A. POLASZEK, S. SCHMIDT, D.DARLING, M. GATES, J. MOTTERN, E.MURRAY, A. DAL MOLIN, S. TRIAPITSYN,H. BAUR, J. PINTO, S. VAN NOORT, J.GEORGE, M. YODER. 2013. A phylogeneticanalysis of the megadiverse Chalcidoidea(Hymenoptera). Cladistics, 29(5): 466-542.

IVANOV S. 1957. Almond seedeater (Eurytomaamygdali) and possibilities for its control.Byuletin po rastitelna zashtita, 1: 64-67.(In Bulgarian).

KALINA V. 1981. The Palearctic species of thegenus Anastatus Motschulsky, 1860(Hymenoptera, Chalcidoidea, Eupelmidae),with descriptions of new species.Silvaecultura tropica et subtropica, 8: 3-24.

MUNRO J.B., J.M. HERATY, R.A. BURKS, D. HAWKS,J. MOTTERN, A. CRUAUD, J.-Y. RASPLUS, P.JANSTA. 2011. A molecular phylogeny of theChalcidoidea (Hymenoptera). PLoS One,6(11): e27023, 1-27.

NIEVES-ALDREY J.L., G. MELIKA. 2005. Aylaxhypecoi Trotter (Hymenoptera, Cynipidae)in Europe: Redescription, with taxonomicand biological notes. Journal of NaturalHistory, 39(27): 2525-2535.

NOYES J. 2017. Universal Chalcidoidea Database.World Wide Web electronic publication.Available at: [www.nhm.ac.uk/chalcidoids].(Accessed: IX.2017).

OVCHAROV D., V. PELOV. 1993. A new pest ofthe seeds of Sophora japonica L. inBulgaria. – In: TSANKOV G. (Ed.), Secondnational Scientific Conference ofEntomology, Sofia 25-27.10.1993, 209-212.

STOJANOVA A. 1999. Species of familyEurytomidae newly established in Bulgaria(Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea). TravauxScientifiques de l’Universite de Plovdiv,Biologie, Animalia, 35(6): 59-61.

STOJANOVA A. 2000. Species of genus EurytomaIlliger, 1807, newly established in Bulgaria(Hymenoptera: Eurytomidae). ActaZoologica Bulgarica, 52 (2): 31-35.

STOJANOVA A. 2001. Contribution to the study ofEurytomidae family from Bulgaria(Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea). ActaEntomologica Bulgarica, 7 (1,2): 7-10.

67


STOJANOVA A. 2005a. Ormyridae family(Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea) in Bulgaria.In: GRUEV A, M. NIKOLOVA, A. DONEV

(Eds.), Proceedings of the Balkan Scientific conference of Biology in Plovdiv(Bulgaria), May 19-21, 2005. Part II.,Plovdiv University Press, Plovdiv, 392-396.

STOJANOVA A. 2005b. Glyphomerus aylax sp. n.(Hymenoptera: Torymidae) from Bulgaria.Revue suisse de Zoologie, 112(1): 173-182.

STOJANOVA A. 2007. The Torymid fauna(Hymenoptera, Torymidae) of Bulgaria:published data and new records. Linzerbiologische Beitrage, 39(1): 657-665.

VIGNA TAGLIANTI A., P. AUDISIO, M. BIONDI,M. BOLOGNA, G. CARPANETO, A. DE

BIASE, S. FATTORINI, E. PIATTELLA, R.SINDACO, A. VENCHI, M. ZAPPAROLI.1999. A proposal for a chorotypeclassification of the Near East fauna, inthe framework of the Western Palearcticregion. Biogeographia, 20: 31-59.

ZEROVA M. 1976. Fauna USSR. Hymenoptera,VII (6). Family Eurytomidae, subfamiliesRileyinae and Harmolitinae. Leningrad,Nauka, 230 p. (In Russian).

ZEROVA M. 1995. Parasitic Hymenoptera –Eurytominae and Eudecatominae ofPalaearctics. Kiev, Naukova dumka, 457p. (In Russian).

ZEROVA M. D., L. Y. SERYOGINA. 1998.Chalcidoid wasps (Hymenoptera,Chalcidoidea) – Ormyridae and Torymidae(Megastigminae) of the Ukrainian fauna.Vestnik Zoologii, Supplement 7: 65 pp. (InRussian, English summary).

ZEROVA M. D., L. Y. SERYOGINA. 1999. Torymidchalcidoid wasps (Hymenoptera, Chalcidoidea,Torymidae) of tribes Podagrionini andMonodontomerini of the Ukrainian fauna.Vestnik Zoologii, Supplement 13: 130 p. (InRussian, English summary).

ZEROVA M., A. STOJANOVA, L. SEREGINA. 2004.Taxonomic status of the genusExopristoides (Hymenoptera, Torymidae)with description of a Exopristoides newspecies from Bulgaria. EntomologicalReview, 84(7): 840-845.

(Hymenoptera:ХалциднатафаунаChalcidoidea: Eurytomidae, Eupelmidae,

Ormyridae Torymidae) и на градПловдив

. , . АнелияМ Стоянова МирославИ Антов

:Резюме Публикуваните данни засемейства Eurytomidae, Eupelmidae,Torymidae и Ormyridae за територията наград Пловдив, България са обобщени. Врезултат на проведеното проучване саустановени: 29 вида Eurytomidae, от които21 са нови за региона, а 1 – Eurytomaherbaria Zerova, 1994 е нов за фауната наБългария; 9 вида Eupelmidae, 4 от които санови за региона; 16 вида Torymidae, 7 откоито са нови за региона и 5 видаOrmyridae, 3 от които са нови за региона. За6 халцидни вида са установени новиасоциации с растения и гостоприемници.Предложена е хоротипна класификация навидовете.

68



Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera (Insecta) fromWater Bodies in the Region of Plovdiv City

Yanka N. Vidinova*, Vesela V. Evtimova, Violeta G. Tyufekchieva

Institute of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Research, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 1 “Tsar Osvoboditel” Blvd., Sofia - 1000, BULGARIA


Abstract. This work summarises both literature and unpublished historical and new data on themayflies, stoneflies and caddisflies fauna from the Maritsa River Valley in the region of PlovdivCity. The data originates from a period with broad time limits (1930-2017). In total, 40 taxa atspecies level were recorded. They belong to 16 families and represent, correspondingly, 23.28,3.67 and 3.49 % of the species of Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera currently knownfrom Bulgaria. Among the established taxa, only one (Palingenia longicauda) is Extinct inBulgaria (EX); one is Regionally Extinct (RE), one is Critically Endangered (CR), one - Potentiallythreatened and eight - rare or very rare on the territory of Bulgaria. Endemic species within thestudy area have not been reported.

Key words: mayflies, stoneflies, caddisflies, species richness, conservation status, Maritsa River,Plovdiv, Bulgaria.

IntroductionFirst sporadic data on semi-aquatic insects

within the region of Plovdiv are given by RUSSEV

(1957; 1960), who reported the findings of singlemayfly species. Later RUSSEV (1966; 1967),summarising the results of hydrobiological studieson the Maritsa River, carried out during the period1955-1963, reported the first data on Plecopteraand Trichoptera from the region of Plovdiv City.Based on purposeful seasonal studies in 1976 and1977, UZUNOV et al. (1981) reported 15 mayflyand one caddisfly taxa at two locations in theMaritsa River within the district of Plovdiv City.In his contributions to the Fauna of Bulgariaseries KUMANSKI (1985; 1988; 2007). presentsdata on the distribution of adult specimen of theorder Trichoptera from Bulgaria. Among thelocalities of many of the species he mentions theMaritsa River. However, the specific data on thestonefly and caddisfly fauna from the area of thePlovdiv City are scarce.

The aim of this work is to present data onthe faunistic diversity of the mayflies, stonefliesand caddisflies in the region of Plovdiv City,Bulgaria, with information on their distribution,habitat preferences and conservation status at aregional level.

Material and MethodsThe study comprises the already published data

on the findings of Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera andTrichoptera (EPT) representatives in the waterbodies within Plovdiv City and its surroundings.Additionally, unpublished data were included asfollows: faunistic records by B. Russev from 1955,data from “NATURA 2000” studies of “MaritsaRiver” Protected zone BG0000578 in 2011 (July,30th), as well as materials from newly sampledlocalities in 2017 (May, 18th), the latter two collectedby Y. Vidinova. These localities are new for someof the species and are marked with * in the text(Table 1).



Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera (Insecta) from Water Bodies in the Region of Plovdiv City

Table 1. Location data of the newly observed sites.

River Locality Geographic coordinates Altitude UTM GridParvenetska upstream the mouth N 42.131869° E 24.683758° 169 m LG06 (87)Pyasachnik upstream the mouth N 42.164443° E 24.773945° 158 m LG16 (39)Maritsa near the Fair town N 42.154369° E 24.750878° 163 m LG16 (29)

Maritsadownstream Plovdiv,under the railwaybridge and ring road

N 42.152852° E 24.807722° 155 m LG16 (89)

The unpublished materials were collectedusing the multihabitat method (CHESHMEDJIEV

et al., 2011), fixed with alcohol and later sortedby systematic groups. Baetidae (Ephemeroptera)were determined according to MÜLLER-LIEBENAU (1969) and the rest of the mayflies -using the keys of BAUERNFEIND & HUMPESCH

(2001). The systematic order followedBAUERNFEIND & SOLDAN (2012).

The current review of four stonefliesspecies was based on the available literature(two species) and new data (one species). Oneof the records originated from an unpublishedprotocol by Prof. B. Russev. The usedsystematic order was after MURANYI (2008).

We present here literature and original dataon the occurrence of, respectively, five taxa andfive species of Trichoptera. The newly collectedcaddisfly larvae were identified using the key ofWARINGER & GRAF (2011).


Check-list

Order EphemeropteraSuperfamily BaetoideaFamily Siphlonuridae Ulmer, 1920Genus Siphlonurus Eaton, 1868Subgenus Siphlonurus Eaton, 1868Siphlonurus (S.) aestivalis (Eaton, 1903)Localities: LG16 - swamp in Plovdiv (leg.

prof. А. Valkanov), 04.04.1948 - mass flight(RUSSEV, 1960).

Distribution: macrophytic vegetation orlayers of rotten leaves in lentic sections ofrivers, in ponds and the shore zone of lakes,usually below 600 m a.s.l. (BAUERNFEIND &SOLDAN, 2012). In Bulgaria the species hasbeen found at several locations, some of themat higher altitude (to about 1000 m a.s.l.); inriparian vegetation in river spills and swamps

(RUSSEV & VIDINOVA, 1994). Found inEurope, excluding the British Isles, Iceland andthe Iberian Peninsula (PUTHZ, 1978).

Family Baetidae Leach, 1815Genus Baetis Leach, 1815Subgenus Baetis Leach, 1815Baetis (B.) buceratus Eaton, 1870Localities: LG06 (87) - Parvenetska River*,

18.05.2017 - 4 la; LG06 (99) - Maritsa River,upstream Plovdiv, 1976-1977 (UZUNOV et al.,1981); LG16 (29) - Maritsa River, Plovdiv, nearthe Fair Town*, 18.05.2017 - 34 la; LG16 (39) -Pyasachnik River*, 18.05.2017 - 78 la; LG16(89) - Maritsa River, downstream Plovdiv,1976-1977 (UZUNOV et al., 1981).

Distribution: large lowland rivers,sometimes dominant in β-mesosaprobicconditions of organic pollution (BAUERNFEIND

& SOLDAN, 2012). Frequent in Bulgaria, veryoften with rich populations; widely distributedin the West Palaearctic (BAUERNFEIND &SOLDAN, 2012).

Baetis (B.) nexus Navás, 1918Localities: LG16 (39) - Pyasachnik River*,

18.05.2017 - 2 la.Distribution: lowland waters of different

size, mostly in rivers, backwaters and artificialwater channels with rather low current velocity,evidently preferring places with submergedaquatic vegetation (BAUERNFEIND & SOLDAN,2012). Not so common in Bulgaria; probablywidely distributed in the West Palaearcticwithout clear area limits (BAUERNFEIND &SOLDAN, 2012).

Baetis (B.) fuscatus (Linnaeus, 1761)Localities: LG16 (89) - Maritsa River,

downstream Plovdiv, 1976-1977 (UZUNOV etal., 1981).

70

Yanka N. Vidinova, Vesela V. Evtimova, Violeta G. TyufekchievaDistribution: from the rhithral to the

potamal of streams and rivers with stonybottom, preferably inhabiting lotic sectionswith submerged aquatic plants (BAUERNFEIND& SOLDAN, 2012). No actual data on thespecies distribution in Bulgarian freshwaters.Found in the Palaearctic, widely distributed inalmost all of Europe, including someMediterranean Islands (BAUERNFEIND &SOLDAN, 2012).

Baetis (B.) scambus Eaton, 1870Localities: LG16 (29) - Maritsa River,

Plovdiv, near the Fair Town*, 18.05.2017 - 20la.

Distribution: exclusively in lotic habitats,only as an exception in artificial water courses.Substratum preferences similar to B. fuscatus(BAUERNFEIND & SOLDAN, 2012). No actualdata on the species distribution in Bulgarianfreshwaters. West Palaearctic species(HAYBACH, 1998; JACOB, 2003), reported fromalmost all European countries (BELFIORE &THOMAS, 2017).

Baetis (B.) macani Kimmins, 1957Localities: LG06 (99) - Maritsa River,

upstream Plovdiv, 1976-1977 (UZUNOV et al.,1981).

Distribution: typical lowland species, whichlarvae occur in all types of aquatic habitats,frequently in still water, usually on aquaticvegetation (BAUERNFEIND & SOLDAN, 2012).No actual data on the species distribution inBulgarian freshwaters. Holarctic species;recorded in Northern Europe, includingFennoscandia (BAUERNFEIND & SOLDAN,2012).

Baetis (B.) tracheatus Keffermüller &Machel, 1967

Localities: LG16 (89) - Maritsa River,downstream Plovdiv, 1976-1977 (UZUNOV etal., 1981).

Distribution: slow-flowing lowland rivers,predominantly among submerged vascularvegetation. Typical lowland species, relativelypollution resistant, inhabits rivers andeutrophied still waters (BAUERNFEIND &SOLDAN, 2012). No actual data on the speciesdistribution in Bulgarian freshwaters. Typicalfor the Western Palaearctic lowlands(BAUERNFEIND & SOLDAN, 2012).

Baetis (B.) vernus Curtis, 1834Localities: LG06 (99) - Maritsa River,

upstream Plovdiv; LG16 (89) - Maritsa River,downstream Plovdiv, 1976-1977 (UZUNOV etal., 1981).

Distribution: eudominant in manylocalities, due to its very broad ecological range.Larvae usually prefer the rhithral of smallerstreams but high densities may be observed inlarger lowland rivers (BAUERNFEIND &SOLDAN, 2012). Widespread in Bulgaria.Рeported from almost the whole of Europe,including the British Isles but not recordedfrom the Mediterranean Islands(BAUERNFEIND & SOLDAN, 2012).

Subgenus Labiobaetis Novikova & Kluge,1987

Baetis (L.) atrebatinus Eaton, 1870Localities: LG06 (99) - Maritsa River,

upstream Plovdiv; LG16 (89) - Maritsa River,downstream Plovdiv, 1976-1977 (UZUNOV etal., 1981).

Distribution: exclusively in large rivers,preferably inhabits submerged macrophytes andless frequently stony habitats (BAUERNFEIND &SOLDAN, 2012). No actual data on the speciesdistribution in Bulgarian freshwaters. Incontinental Europe and the East Palaearctic(BAUERNFEIND & SOLDAN, 2012);predominantly in Western Europe, includingthe British Isles and Ireland (BELFIORE &THOMAS, 2017).

Baetis (L.) tricolor Tshernova, 1928Localities: LG06 (99) - Maritsa River, upstream

Plovdiv, 1976-1977 (UZUNOV et al., 1981); LG16 -Maritsa River, Plovdiv, 07.1942 - 4 la (leg. A.Valkanov); 07.10.1955 - several la (RUSSEV, 1966);LG16 (89) - Maritsa River, downstream Plovdiv,1976-1977 (UZUNOV et al., 1981).

Distribution: potamal of large lowlandrivers, preferring low current velocity and richsubmerged vegetation and roots(BAUERNFEIND & SOLDAN, 2012). No actualdata on the species distribution in Bulgarianfreshwaters. Found in the central and easternparts of Europe (BELFIORE & THOMAS, 2017).

Subgenus Rhodobaetis Jacob, 2003Baetis (Rh.) rhodani (Pictet, 1843)Localities: LG06 (87) - Parvenetska River*,

18.05.2017 - 13 la; LG06 (99) - Maritsa River,

71


upstream Plovdiv, 1976-1977 (UZUNOV et al.,1981); LG16 - Maritsa River, Plovdiv,23.04.1955 - mass (RUSSEV, 1966); LG16 (29) -Maritsa River, near the Fair Town, 18.05.2017 -3 la; LG16 (39) - Pyasachnik River*, 18.05.2017- 2 la; LG16 (89) - Maritsa River, downstreamPlovdiv, 1976-1977 (UZUNOV et al., 1981).

Distribution: lotic erosional habitats fromthe crenal to the potamal of rivers, also poolsand oligotrophic lakes, including artificialwatercourses (BAUERNFEIND & SOLDAN,2012). Baetis rhodani represents the mosteurythermic and eurytopic species within thegenus (SARTORI & LANDOLT, 1999). One ofthe most common and ubiquitous species inBulgaria. Recorded from all over Europe(BAUERNFEIND & SOLDAN, 2012).

Subgenus Nigrobaetis Novikova & Kluge,1987

Baetis (N.) muticus (Linnaeus, 1758)Localities: LG16 (89) - Maritsa River,

downstream Plovdiv, 1976-1977 (UZUNOV etal., 1981).

Distribution: similar to B. rhodani butdistinctly less abundant and very rarelydominant. Larvae prefer the rhithral of smallerstreams but have been found in the crenal andpotamal (BAUERNFEIND & SOLDAN, 2012).Frequent species, however no actual data on itsdistribution in Bulgarian freshwaters. Reportedfrom all over Europe except the central part ofEuropean Russia (BELFIORE & THOMAS,2017).

Genus Cloeon Leach, 1815Subgenus Cloeon Leach, 1815Cloeon (Cl.) dipterum (Linnaeus, 1761)Localities: LG06 (99) - Maritsa River,

upstream Plovdiv, 1976-1977 (UZUNOV et al.,1981); LG16 - Maritsa River, Plovdiv,07.10.1955 - 2 la (RUSSEV, 1966).

Distribution: almost all types of aquatichabitats, eudominant in still water but alsofound in running waters, especially in largeslow-flowing rivers and backwaters(BAUERNFEIND & SOLDAN, 2012). Verycommon in Bulgarian standing waters,especially with the presence of macrophytes.Records from all over Europe excluding Italyand the surrounding islands (BELFIORE &THOMAS, 2017).

Subgenus Similicloeon Kluge & Novikova,1992

Cloeon (S.) simile Eaton, 1870Localities: LG06(99) - Maritsa River,

upstream Plovdiv, 1976-1977 (UZUNOV et al.,1981).

Distribution: larvae inhabit predominantlystill waters with aquatic vegetation, preferringrelatively cold oligotrophic lakes and fishpondsat higher altitudes (BAUERNFEIND & SOLDAN,2012). No actual data on the speciesdistribution in Bulgarian freshwaters, rarelyfound species. Transpalaearctic; in Europe -records from almost the whole territory, exceptfor European Russia and the Western Balkans(BELFIORE & THOMAS, 2017).

Genus Procloeon Bengtsson, 1915Subgenus Procloeon Bengtsson, 1915Procloeon (Pr.) bifidum (Bengtsson, 1912)Localities: LG17 - channel near Plovdiv,

State Fisheries Farm (SFF) - 14 la (leg. M.Dimitrov) (RUSSEV, 1960).

Distribution: fairly numerous in themetarhithral to potamal of middle-sizedstreams and (preferably) larger rivers. Rare inartificial water bodies. Larvae inhabitsubmerged vegetation as well as gravel, stoneand coarse sediments (BAUERNFEIND &SOLDAN, 2012). Relatively rare in Bulgariadespite the lack of data on the actualdistribution in the country. Transpalaearctic; inEurope widely distributed (BAUERNFEIND &SOLDAN, 2012).

Subgenus Pseudocentroptilum Bogoescu,1947

Procloeon (Ps.) pennulatum (Eaton, 1870)Localities: LG06 (99) - Maritsa River,

upstream Plovdiv, 1976-1977 (UZUNOV et al.,1981, reported as Centroptilum pennulatum);LG16 - Maritsa River, Plovdiv, 07.10.1955 - 6 la(RUSSEV, 1966); LG16 (89) - Maritsa River,downstream Plovdiv, 1976-1977 (UZUNOV etal., 1981).

Distribution: in the rhithral of smallerbrooks, preferring stony habitats in pools orplaces with very slow current and partly coarsesand. Frequently found also in the potamal oflarger rivers (BAUERNFEIND & SOLDAN, 2012).No actual data on the species distribution inBulgarian freshwaters. Holarctic species; in the

72

Yanka N. Vidinova, Vesela V. Evtimova, Violeta G. TyufekchievaPalaearctic recorded from the Iberian Peninsulaand the British Isles through Europe to WestSiberia (BAUERNFEIND & SOLDAN, 2012).

Superfamily HeptagenioideaFamily Isonychiidae Burks, 1953Genus Isonychia Eaton, 1871Subgenus Isonychia Eaton, 1871Isonychia (I.) ignota (Walker, 1853)Localities: LG16 - Maritsa River, Plovdiv,

08.1942 - 2 la, the aquatic vegetation along theriver banks (RUSSEV, 1957); LG16 (89) -Maritsa River, downstream Plovdiv, 15.06.1947(RUSSEV, 1966).

Distribution: larger rivers in the plains,preferably in places with submerged plantsand strong current (BAUERNFEIND &SOLDAN, 2012). In Bulgaria the species wasreported from several large rivers in sectionswith lower water velocity and/or rich inmacrophytes (RUSSEV & VIDINOVA, 1994).Transpalearctic species, almost in the whole ofContinental Europe (BAUERNFEIND &SOLDAN, 2012).

Family Heptageniidae Needham, 1901Genus Ecdyonurus Eaton, 1868Subgenus Ecdyonurus Eaton, 1868Ecdyonurus (E.) insignis (Eaton, 1870)Localities: LG06 (87)- Parvenetska River*,

18.05.2017 - 20 la.Distribution: hyporhithral to metapotamal

of rivers with stony bottom, occasionally also inthe shore zone of oligotrophic lakes. Highestdensities in lowlands up to 300-400 m a.s.l.(BAUERNFEIND & SOLDAN, 2012). Moderatelyspread in Bulgaria, predominantly in lowlandsections of larger and deeper rivers(PRESOLSKA, 2014). Found in Europe,including the British Isles; not in Scandinavia(BAUERNFEIND & SOLDAN, 2012).

Genus Electrogena Zurwerra & Tomka,1985

Electrogena lateralis (Curtis, 1834)Localities: LG16 - Maritsa River, Plovdiv,

14.07.1955 - 3 la (RUSSEV, 1966, reported asHeptagenia lateralis).

Distribution: larvae prefer rivulets andsmaller rivers with stony bottom. In CentralEurope usually more common above 400 ma.s.l. (BAUERNFEIND & SOLDAN, 2012). InBulgaria the species is known from many

localities, mainly in the hyporhithral of rivers(VIDINOVA & RUSSEV, 1997). West Palaearcticspecies, reported from most of the Europeancountries (BELFIORE & THOMAS, 2017).

Genus Heptagenia Walsh, 1863Subgenus Heptagenia Walsh, 1863Heptagenia (H.) flava Rostock, 1878Localities: LG06 (99) - Maritsa River,

upstream Plovdiv, 1976-1977 (UZUNOV et al.,1981); LG16 - Maritsa River, Plovdiv,15.06.1947 - 1 la; 23.04.1955 - several la on thevegetation along the river bank (RUSSEV, 1966);LG16 (89) - Maritsa River, downstreamPlovdiv, 1976-1977 (UZUNOV et al., 1981).

Distribution: eurybiontic species withcomparatively high ecological plasticity; widelyspread in potamal of lowland rivers, usually onsubmerged logs, including larger Bulgarianrivers (VIDINOVA & RUSSEV, 1997). Palearcticspecies, in Continental Europe, not inFennoscandia, the British Isles and the IberianPeninsula (BAUERNFEIND & SOLDAN, 2012).

Subgenus Kageronia Matsumura, 1931Heptagenia (K.) fuscogrisea (Retzius, 1783)Localities: LG16 - Maritsa River, Plovdiv,

15.06.1947 - 1 la (RUSSEV, 1966).Distribution: mostly in lowland lakes and

ponds, occasionally also in slow-flowing riversup to approximately 600 m a.s.l., exclusively onmacrophytic vegetation, preferably sedges(BAUERNFEIND & SOLDAN, 2012). Very rare inBulgaria, known from few localities (VIDINOVA& RUSSEV, 1997; PRESOLSKA, 2014). Palearcticspecies, reported from Northern, Eastern andCentral Europe (BELFIORE & THOMAS, 2017).

Family Palingeniidae Albarda,1888Genus Palingenia Burmeister, 1839Palingenia longicauda (Olivier, 1791)Localities: LG17 - channel near Plovdiv

(SFF), Maritsa River, Plovdiv, 13.06.1956,03.06.1958 - mass flight (leg. V. Naidenov)(RUSSEV, 1966).

Distribution: metapotamal of large lowlandrivers with well-oxygenated and fast-flowingwater. Larvae require a specially defined type ofsubstratum (argyllal) with a high amount of clayand fine silt, they are highly sensitive againstchanges of abiotic factors and disappear rapidlyfrom rivers with regulated banks or sectionswith organic pollution (BAUERNFEIND &

73


SOLDAN, 2012). In Bulgaria P. longicauda hasbeen found until the 70s of the last century atseveral locations in the Danube River (RUSSEV,1987). In Europe - historic records from manyof the larger rivers in Central and South-Eastern Europe; at present probably only in theDanube and Tisza Rivers refuge in Hungary,Slovakia and Ukraine (by BAUERNFEIND &SOLDAN, 2012).

Superfamily EphemerelloideaFamily Ephemerellidae Klapálek, 1909Genus Ephemerella Walsh, 1863Ephemerella ignita (Poda, 1761)Localities: LG06 (87) - Parvenetska River*,

18.05.2017 - 17 la; LG06 (99) - Maritsa River,upstream Plovdiv, 1976-1977 (UZUNOV et al.,1981); LG16 (29) - Maritsa River*, Plovdiv,near the Fair Town, 18.05.2017 - 1 la; LG16(89) - Maritsa River, downstream Plovdiv,1976-1977 (UZUNOV et al., 1981).

Distribution: predominantly in rhithral ofmedium-sized to large rivers, especially in themeta- and hyporhithral. With wide ecologicalrange, larvae inhabit almost all types of runningwaters (BAUERNFEIND & SOLDAN, 2012).Ephemerella ignita is the most common mayflyspecies in Bulgaria (PRESOLSKA, 2014).Transpalearctic, in Europe there are recordsfrom all over the continent (BELFIORE &THOMAS, 2017).

Ephemerella notata Eaton, 1887Localities: LG06 - 23.04.1955 - 8 la,

nymphs (RUSSEV, 1966).Distribution: rare species; larvae seem to

prefer potamal (epipotamal) conditions but themeta- and hyporhithral of rivers are inhabited,too. Larvae usually prefer gravel bottom andplaces with relatively high current velocity.

Registered mainly in the large rivers inSouth Bulgaria, less rare in the tributaries of theDanube River. Since 1990, E. notata is foundonly in the Veleka River (SE Bulgaria; seePRESOLSKA, 2014). Reported from the western,central and eastern parts of ContinentalEurope, including the British Isles (BELFIORE& THOMAS, 2017).

Superfamily CaenoideaFamily Caenidae Newman, 1853Genus Caenis Stephens, 1836Caenis macrura Stephens, 1836

Localities: LG06 - 14.07.1955 - 7 la (RUSSEV,1966); LG06 (87) - Parvenetska River*, 18.05.2017- 17 la; LG06 (99) - Maritsa River, upstreamPlovdiv; LG16 (89) - Maritsa River, downstreamPlovdiv, 1976-1977 (UZUNOV et al., 1981).

Distribution: rheophilic species, inhabitsthe hyporhithral and epipotamal of rivers,especially with gravel and stony bottom, as wellas the shore zone of lakes (BAUERNFEIND &SOLDAN, 2012). The most common mayfly inBulgaria (PRESOLSKA, 2014). Palaearctic; widelydistributed all over Europe (BELFIORE &THOMAS, 2017).

Caenis pseudorivulorum Keffermüller, 1960Localities: LG16 (29) - Maritsa River,

Plovdiv, near the Fair Town*, 18.05.2017 - 3 la;LG16 (89) - Maritsa River, downstream Plovdiv,near the railway bridge*, 30.07.2011 - 38 la.

Distribution: larvae inhabit the potamal oflarge lowland rivers below 300 m a.s.l.;sometimes syntopic with C. macrura(BAUERNFEIND & SOLDAN, 2012). In Bulgariarecorded from larger rivers in the AegeanBasin, less common in the tributaries (Ogostaand Iskar River) of the Danube River(PRESOLSKA, 2014). Palaearctic species; widelydistributed all over Europe (BELFIORE &THOMAS, 2017).

Caenis rivulorum Eaton, 1884Localities: LG16 - Maritsa River, Plovdiv,

23.04.1955 - several la (RUSSEV, 1966).Distribution: larvae typically inhabit the

rhithral and epipotamal of brooks and rivers, aswell as stillwater and lakes between 200-500 ma.s.l.; lentic sections with stony bottom and alayer of detritus are usually preferred(BAUERNFEIND & SOLDAN, 2012). Rare inBulgaria; all records until 1990 (PRESOLSKA,2014). Palaearctic species; widely distributed allover Europe, not recorded from Italy, theMediterranean Islands and Greece(BAUERNFEIND & SOLDAN, 2012).

Order Plecoptera Suborder ArctoperlariaFamily Perlodidae Klapálek, 1909Genus Isoperla Banks, 1906Isoperla grammatica (Poda, 1761)Localities: LG16 (29) - Maritsa River,

Plovdiv City, 23.04.1955 (unpublished data byProf. B. Russev).

74

Yanka N. Vidinova, Vesela V. Evtimova, Violeta G. TyufekchievaDistribution: widespread species with high

ecological plasticity. Inhabits predominantly therocky bottom (mesolithal) with sands (psamal)and fine to medium-sized gravel (akal), withinthe ranges of 50-2000 m a.s.l.. The mostcommon stonefly in Bulgaria; European species(MURANYI, 2008).

Isoperla obscura (Zetterstedt, 1840)Localities: LG16 (29) - Maritsa River,

Plovdiv City, 23.04.1955 (RUSSEV, 1966). Distribution: mostly in lowland rivers;

known in the past from the Maritsa River nearthe towns of Pazardzhik, Plovdiv,Dimitrovgrad and Svilengrad. Prefers coarsegravel substratum (mesolithal), macrophytesand fine particulate organic matter. Very rareand Regionally Extinct (RE) in Bulgaria. It hasbeen found until the 70s of the last century; inEurope also rarely distributed. Palearcticspecies (MURANYI, 2008).

Family Leuctridae Klapalek, 1905Genus Leuctra Stephens, 1835Leuctra sp.Localities: LG16 (89) - Maritsa River,

downstream Plovdiv, under the railway bridgeand ring road*, 30.07.2011 - 1 la.

Family Perlidae Latreille, 1802Genus Perla Geoffroy, 1762Perla marginata (Panzer, 1799)Localities: LG16 (29) - Maritsa River,

Plovdiv City, 1966, 1967 (RUSSEV, 1967). Distribution: one of the most common

rheophil stonefly species in Bulgaria; mainlyinhabits xylal and micro-, meso- and macrolithalsubstrata. It can be found in the whole rhithraland potamal sections of Bulgarian rivers andstreams (up to 2500 m a.s.l.) with xeno-oligosaprobic conditions. European species(MURANYI, 2008).

Order TrichopteraSuborder IntegripalpiaFamily BrachycentridaeGenus Brachycentrus Curtis, 1834Brachycentrus maculatus (Fourcroy, 1785)Localities: LG16 (29) - inundated grass

along the Maritsa River, Plovdiv, 23.04.1955 - 1la (RUSSEV, 1966, recorded as Oligoplectrummaculatum). This locality has been destroyed(KUMANSKI, 1988).

Distribution: lowland rhithro- andpotamobiont, as an exception in low mountains upto 1000 m a.s.l.; very rare for Bulgaria but whenrecorded - in great abundance (KUMANSKI, 1988).In all of Europe excluding the British Isles and theScandinavian Peninsula (KUMANSKI, 1988).

Family LimnephilidaeGenus Limnephilus Leach, 1815Limnephilus stigma Curtis, 1834Localities: swampy water bodies near

Plovdiv City (KUMANSKI, 1988).Distribution: eurybiont, found mostly in

standing or slow-flowing water bodies from 0 up to1600 m a.s.l.; very rare for Bulgaria (KUMANSKI,1988). Holarctic species (KUMANSKI, 1988).

Limnephilus lunatus Curtis, 1834Localities: Plovdiv City, 24.05.1930 - 2♀

(KUMANSKI, 1968).Distribution: eurybiont; very common for

Bulgaria (KUMANSKI, 1981); mostly in slow-flowing water bodies in mountains and plains,various standing waters (including brackish)from 0 up to 2000 m a.s.l., found throughoutthe country and one of the most commonspecies of the genus and the order in Bulgaria(KUMANSKI, 1988). West Palearctic species(KUMANSKI, 1988).

Family LeptoceridaeGenus Oecetis McLachlan, 1877Oecetis ochracea (Curtis, 1825)Localities: from Plovdiv without specific

location (KUMANSKI, 1971).Distribution: common for Bulgaria

(KUMANSKI, 1981); the most common andabundant species of the family in the countrywith broad ecological spectrum, inhabitingvarious standing and slow-flowing water bodies(coastal or lowland inner water bodies, includingswamps, lakes, reservoirs, oxbow lakes, richlyvegetated sections) at 0-600 m a.s.l. (KUMANSKI,1988). Holarctic species (KUMANSKI, 1988).

Family GoeridaeGenus Goera Leach, 1815Goera pilosa (Fabricius, 1775)Localities: LG06 (87) - Parvenetska River*,

18.05.2017 - 1 la. Distribution: with very wide ecological

spectrum, its larvae prefer calm sections of therhithral, potamal in bigger rivers and limnal; in

75


Bulgaria very common especially in slowermountain streams at lower altitudes, in the potamalof almost all bigger rivers up to β-mesosaprobicconditions, at 0-1000 m a.s.l. (KUMANSKI, 1988).West Palearctic species (KUMANSKI, 1988).

Suborder AnnulipalpiaFamily PsychomyiidaeGenus Psychomyia Latreille in Cuvier, 1829Psychomyia pusilla (Fabricius, 1781)Localities: LG06 (87) - Parvenetska River*,

18.05.2017 - 1 la. Distribution: typical of stony sections of

the potamal of all Bulgarian rivers except forthe Danube River, common also in the(hypo)rhithral of lowland rivers, sometimes inthe crenal; typical in the plains and sometimesreaching 1000-1100 m a.s.l., with broadecological spectrum, inhabiting also morepolluted waters, very common in Europe(KUMANSKI, 1985). West Palearctic species(KUMANSKI, 1985).

Family HydropsychidaeGenus Hydropsyche Pictet, 1834Hydropsyche modesta Navàs, 1925Localities: LG16 (29) - Maritsa River,

Plovdiv, near the Fair town*, 18.05.2017 - 2 la;LG16 (89) - Maritsa River, downstreamPlovdiv, under the railway bridge and ringroad*, 30.07.2011 - 16 la (5 were earlier instars).

Distribution: one of the most commoncaddisflies with preferences for bigger riverswith slower flow but also found in smallerlowland streams. With broad ecologicalspectrum and typically found in lowlands up to500-600 (rarely 700) m a.s.l.; known from theMaritsa River near the towns of Harmanli andSvilengrad (KUMANSKI, 1985). No specificmentioning of Maritsa River near Plovdiv wasfound among its localities in the availableliterature. Known from Southern Europe andAsia Minor (KUMANSKI, 1985).

Hydropsyche bulbifera McLachlan, 1878Localities: LG06 (87) - Parvenetska River*,

18.05.2017 - 2 la; LG16 (29) - Maritsa River,Plovdiv, near the Fair town*, 18.05.2017 - 14 la;LG16 (39) - Pyasachnik River*, 18.05.2017 - 9la; LG16 (89) - Maritsa River, downstreamPlovdiv, under the railway bridge and ringroad*, 30.07.2011 - 2 la. No specificmentioning of the Maritsa River near Plovdiv

City was found among its localities in theavailable literature.

Distribution: one of the most common andevenly distributed caddisflies, with preferencesfor smaller rivers (potamal) but also found inbigger rivers and hyporhithral of premountainrivers; with broad ecological spectrum andcould be found from the sea level up to 900 ma.s.l. (KUMANSKI, 1985). West Palearcticspecies (KUMANSKI, 1985).

Hydropsyche cf. angustipennis (Curtis, 1834)Localities: LG16 (29) - Maritsa River,

Plovdiv, near the Fair town*, 18.05.2017 - 11 la(9 of which earlier instars); LG16 (39) -Pyasachnik River*, 18.05.2017 - 4 la (earlierinstars). No specific mentioning of the MaritsaRiver near Plovdiv was found among itslocalities in the available literature.

Distribution: broadly and evenlydistributed, typical for smaller or lowland rivers,often with great abundance; rarely reaching upto 1100 m a.s.l. (KUMANSKI, 1985). Europeanspecies (KUMANSKI, 1985).

Hydropsyche sp.Localities: LG06 (99) - Maritsa River,

upstream Plovdiv, 1976-1977 (UZUNOV et al.,1981); LG16 (89) - Maritsa River, downstreamPlovdiv, 1976-1977 (UZUNOV et al., 1981 - seeRUSSEV 1967);

Early instars and/or pupae of Hydropsychesp. indet. were recorded from LG06 (87) -Parvenetska River*, 18.05.2017; LG16 (29) -Maritsa River, Plovdiv, near the Fair town*,18.05.2017; LG16 (89) - Maritsa River,downstream Plovdiv, under the railway bridgeand ring road*, 30.07.2011.

Faunistic and zoogeographical notesThe listed here 27 mayflies belong to seven

of the 15 Ephemeroptera families established inBulgaria. They represent 23.27% of thecurrently known 116 species (PRESOLSKA,2014). Three of them are newly reported forthe area of Plovdiv City - B. nexus, E. insignisand C. pseudorivulorum. The recent fieldstudies, which included two of the MaritsaRiver tributaries, enriched with new localitiesthe knowledge on the distribution of somemayflies, namely the mouth sections ofParvenetska and Pyasachnik Rivers.

76

Yanka N. Vidinova, Vesela V. Evtimova, Violeta G. TyufekchievaThe zoogeographical analysis showed as most

numerous the group of Palearctic species (10),followed by West Palearctic (8), Transpalearctic(6) and Holarctic (3). Additionally, threezoogeographical complexes are covered: Siberian(15), Pontic (7) and Mediterranean (5).

A total of four stonefly species from onlyone locality are known from the Maritsa Riverin the region of Plovdiv City, Bulgaria. Theyrepresent 3.67% of the total number (109) ofthe known taxa of the order Plecoptera inBulgaria (TYUFEKCHIEVA et al., 2019). From azoogeographical point of view, the Bulgarianstonefly fauna is determined by Palaearctic andEuropean species. Among them one Palearctic(I. obscura) and two European species (I.grammatica, P. marginata) were recordedfrom the Maritsa River in the region of PlovdivCity, Bulgaria.

Here we present a total of nine caddisflies(larvae and adults) from the region of PlovdivCity based on literature and original data.Overall, they represent 3.49% of the totalnumber (258: KUMANSKI, 2007), while thenewly (2011 and 2017) recorded speciesrepresent only 1.94% of the currently knowntaxa of the order Trichoptera in Bulgaria. Interms of zoogeography, two of the recordedspecies were European, five - West Palearcticand two - Holarctic.

Conservation status and threatsAmong the above listed mayflies, only two

species were assigned to one of the categoriesaccording to the IUCN criteria, namely P.longicauda as “Extinct” in Bulgaria (EX) and H.(K.) fuscogrisea as “Critically endangered” (CR)(VIDINOVA, 2011, 2011a). Further, the laterspecies was stated as “rare” for Bulgaria(PRESOLSKA, 2014). Apart, I. ignota is listed inthe category “Potentially threatened” by RUSSEV(1992). As the information on the distribution ofBaetidae species in the Bulgarian rivers is not up-to date, it is difficult to give a reliable assessmentof the conservation status of some of the speciesknown from the area of Plovdiv City.

Only one rare stonefly (I. obscura) withhigh conservation value has been establishedwithin the study region. It can be considered as“Extinct” in the Bulgarian stretch of theMaritsa River and “Regionally Extinct” (RE)for the country according to TYUFEKCHIEVA etal. (2019). During the past 40 years there are no

any data of the species occurrence in Bulgaria.It is classified as “Regionally Extinct” also inItaly (FOCHETTI et al., 1998) and very rare in allof Europe (ZWICK, 1992). The orderPlecoptera is one of the most endangeredgroups of insects (FOCHETTI & TIERNO DEFIGUEROA, 2006). Due to the high ecologicalrequirements of the stoneflies and theincreasing pollution of rivers, all potamalspecies in Europe are either extinct orextremely vulnerable (RAVIZZA & NICOLAI,1983; ZWICK, 1992; SANCHEZ-ORTEGA &TIERNO DE FIGUEROA, 1996; TYUFEKCHIEVA

et al., 2013). At present, the order of Trichoptera is not

included in the Red List of ThreatenedInvertebrates of Bulgaria (GOLEMANSKY ed.,2011), while only four extinct species areincluded in the IUCN Red List of caddisflies(IUCN, 2014). These prevents us fromproviding information on the conservationstatus of the recorded species. Two of thepreviously found species (Br. maculatus and L.stigma) have been qualified as very rare byKUMANSKI (1988) and were not recorded fromthe samples from 2011 and 2017.

Endemic species of mayflies, stoneflies orcaddisflies have not been reported within thestudy area.

Pollution with industrial and domesticwaste waters, extraction of inert materials,destruction and dike building on the banks oflarger rivers, as well as the hydrotechnicalconstructions are the main negative factorswhich influence not only the species ofimportance for the conservation, but the wholediversity of aquatic insects in rivers. The watercourses in this urban area have been affected byorganic pollution for a long time as it ismentioned in RUSSEV (1967) and RUSSEV et al.(1981). Therefore, applying the measures forconservation and protection of water bodiesfrom pollution would increase the self-purification capacity of the Maritsa River in itsmiddle course.

Acknowledgements A part of the unpublished material was

collected within the project Mapping andIdentification of the Conservation Status ofNatural Habitats and Species - Phase I, Lot 2:“Mapping and Determining Conservation Statusof Fishes” - C-30-43/21.03.2011; Consortium

77


"Natura-Bulgaria". The authors are grateful toReconArt Bulgaria Ltd. for the logistic supportduring the field sampling in 2017.

ReferencesBAUERNFEIND E., U. HUMPESCH. 2001. Die

Eintagsfliegen Zentraleuropas (Insecta:Ephemeroptera): Bestimmung undÖkologie. Verlag des NaturhistorischenMuseums Wien, 239 p.

BAUERNFEIND E., T. SOLDAN. 2012. TheMayflies in Europe (Ephemeroptera).Apollo Books, Ollerup, Denmark, 781 p.

BELFIORE C., A. THOMAS. 2017. Ephemeroptera,Mayflies. Fauna Europaea version 2017.06,Available at: [fauna-eu.org]. (Accessed on13 November 2017).

CHESHMEDJIEV S., R. SOUFI, Y. VIDINOVA, V.TYUFEKCHIEVA, I. YANEVA, Y.UZUNOV, E. VARADINOVA. 2011. Multi-habitat sampling method for benthicmacroinvertebrate communities indifferent river types in Bulgaria. WaterResearch and Management, 1(3): 55-58.

FOCHETTI R., J. M. TIERNO DE FIGUEROA.2006. Notes on diversity andconservation of the European fauna ofPlecoptera (Insecta). Journal of NaturalHistory, 40(41-43): 2361-2369.

FOCHETTI R., A. De BIASE, C. BELFIORE, P.AUDISIO. 1998. Faunistica ebiogeografia regionale dei plecotteriItaliani (Plecoptera). Memorie Societa`Entomologica Italiana, 76: 3-19.

GOLEMANSKY V. (Ed.) 2011. Red Data Book ofthe Republic of Bulgaria. Vol. 2.Animals. Bulgarian Academy of Sciences& Ministry of Environment and Water.Available at: [e-ecodb.bas.bg/rdb/bg/]

HAYBACH A. 1998. Die Eintagsfliegen (Insecta:Ephemeroptera) von Rheinland Pfalz.Zoogeographie, Faunistik, Ökologie,Taxonomie und Nomenklatur. Unterbesonderer Berücksichtigung der FamilieHeptageniidae und unter Einbeziehungder übrigen aus Deutschland bekanntenArten. Dissertation Johannes-Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, 417 p.

IUCN. 2014. The IUCN Red List ofThreatened Species. Version 2014.3.Available at: [iucnredlist.org]. (Accessedon 17 November 2014).

JACOB U. 2003. Baetis Leach 1815, sensu strictooder sensu lato. Ein Beitrag zumGattungskonzept auf der Grundlage vonArtengruppen mit Bestimmungsschlüsseln.Lauterbornia, 47: 59-129.

KUMANSKI K. 1968. Beitrag zur Erforschung derTrichopteren Bulgariens (I). FaunistischeAbhandlungen, Dresden, 2 (16): 109-115.

KUMANSKI K. 1971. Beitrag zur Untersuchung derKöcherfliegen (Trichoptera) Bulgariens. III.- Bull. Inst. zool. & Museum, Acad. Sei.Bulg, 33: 99-109. (In Bulgarian, Summariesin Russian and German).

KUMANSKI K. 1981. Faunistic investigations onBulgarian Trichoptera to June, 1980 -with a revised check-list. In: Moretti,G.P., (Ed.) Proc. 3rd Int. Symp. onTrichoptera, Ser. Entomol., 20. Junk,The Hague, pp. 139-147.

KUMANSKI K. 1985. Trichoptera, Annulipalpia:Fauna Bulgarica. Volume 15, 244 p. (InBulgarian).

KUMANSKI K. 1988. Trichoptera, Integripalpia:Fauna Bulgarica. Volume 19, 356 p. (InBulgarian).

KUMANSKI K. 2007. Second addition tovolume 15 (Trichoptera: Annulipalpia)and volume 19 (Trichoptera:Integripalpia) of Fauna Bulgarica.Historia naturalis bulgarica, 18: 81-94.

MÜLLER-LIEBENAU I. 1969. Revision dereuropäischen Arten der Gattung BaetisLeach, 1815 (Insecta, Ephemeroptera).Gewässer und Abwässer, 48/49: 1-214.

MURÁNYI D. 2008. Taxonomical problems andzoogeographical investigation of thestonefly (Plecoptera) fauna of theCarpathian Basin and the Balkans. PhDThesis, Eötvös Loránd Tudományegyetem,Állatrendszertani és Ökológiai Tanszék,Biológia Doktori Iskola, 2008, 149 p.

PRESOLSKA Y. 2014. Composition, distributionand ecology of Ephemeroptera (Insecta)in Bulgaria. PhD thesis, Institute ofBiodiversity and Ecosystem Research,Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 367 p.(In Bulgarian, English Summary).

PUTHZ V. 1978. Ephemeroptera. In: Illies, J.(ed.), Limnofauna Europaea. 2nd ed.Gustav Fischer, Stuttgart; pp. 256-263.

RAVIZZA C., P. NICOLAI. 1983. I Plecotteriminacciati di estinzione nella regione

78

Yanka N. Vidinova, Vesela V. Evtimova, Violeta G. Tyufekchievaitalica. Bollettino Societa EntomologicaItaliana, 115: 70-78.

RUSSEV B. 1957. Beitrag zur Kenntnis derEintagsfliegen (Ephemeroptera) Bulgariens.Mitteilungen aus dem Zoologischen Institut,6: 558-563. (In Bulgarian).

RUSSEV B. 1960. Neue Eintagsfliegen für die FaunaBulgariens. Beiträge zur Entomologie,10(7/8): 697-705.

RUSSEV B. 1966. Hydrobiologische Untersuchungender Marica. I. Die Fauna Thrakiens, III:231-291. (In Bulgarian).

RUSSEV B. 1967. Hydrobiologische Untersuchungender Marica. II. Saprobiologische Bewertungfür die Jahre 1965 und 1966. Mitteilungenaus dem Zoologischen Institut und Museum,V: 87-99. (In Bulgarian).

RUSSEV B. 1987. Ecology, life history anddistribution of Palingenia longicauda(Olivier)(Ephemeroptera). Tijdschriftvoor Entomologie, 130:109-127.

RUSSEV B. 1992. Threatened Species ofEphemeroptera (Insecta) from Bulgaria.Lauterbornia, 9: 13-17.

RUSSEV B., Y. VIDINOVA. 1994. Verbreitung undÖkologie der Vertreter einiger Familiender Ordnung Ephemeroptera (Insecta) inBulgarien. Lauterbornia, 19: 107-113.

RUSSEV B., J. UZUNOV, S. KOVACHEV, I.YANEVA, L. IVANOVA. 1981. Tendenciesof the changes in the saprobic conditionof the Maritsa river. Hydrobiology, 14:51-64. (In Bulgarian).

SANCHEZ-ORTEGA A., J. M. TIERNO DEFIGUEROA. 1996. Current situation ofstonefly fauna (Insecta: Plecoptera) in theIberian Peninsula and the BalearicIslands. Mitteilungen SchweizerischenEntomologischen Gesellschaft, 69: 69-94.

SARTORI M., P. LANDOLT. 1999. Atlas dedistribution des Ephemeres de Suisse (Insecta,Ephemeroptera). Fauna Helvelica 3: 214 p.

TYUFEKCHIEVA V., V. EVTIMOVA, D.MURÁNYI. 2019. First Checklist ofStoneflies (Insecta: Plecoptera) ofBulgaria, with Application of the IUCNRed List Criteria at National Level. Actazoologica bulgarica, 71 (in press).

UZUNOV J., B. RUSSEV, S. KOVACHEV, I. YANEVA.1981. Species composition and distributionof the macrozoobenthos of the Maritsariver. Hydrobiology, 14: 3-15 (In Bulgarian).

VIDINOVA Y. 2011. Long-tailed palingeniid mayfly,Palingenia longicauda, EX. In:GOLEMANSKY, V. (Ed.), Red Data Bookof the Republic of Bulgaria. Vol. 2.Animals. Bulgarian Academy of Sciences &Ministry of Environment and Water.Available at: [e-ecodb.bas.bg/rdb/bg/].

VIDINOVA Y. 2011a. Brown Mayfly, Kageroniafuscogrisea, CR. In: GOLEMANSKY, V.(Ed.), Red Data Book of the Republic ofBulgaria. Vol. 2. Animals. BulgarianAcademy of Sciences & Ministry ofEnvironment and Water. Available at:[e-ecodb.bas.bg/rdb/bg/].

VIDINOVA Y., B. RUSSEV. 1997. Distribution andecology of the representatives of someEphemeropteran families in Bulgaria. In:Landolt, P., M. Sartori (Eds.), Ephemeroptera& Plecoptera: Biology-Ecology-Systematics,MTL, Fribourg, pp. 139-146.

WARINGER J., W. GRAF. 2011. Atlas dermitteleuropäischen Köcherfliegenlarven /Atlas of Central European TrichopteraLarvae. Erik Mauch Verlag, Germany, 468 p.

ZWICK P. 1992. Stream habitat fragmentation -a threat to biodiversity. Biodiversityand Conservation, 1: 80-97.

Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera Trichoptera (Insecta)и . отводоемиврайонанагр Пловдив

, ,ЯнкаВидинова ВеселаЕвтимова ВиолетаТюфекчиева

:Резюме Настоящата работа обобщава кактолитературата, така и непубликувани и нови данни зафауната на Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera и Trichoptera(Insecta) от долината на река Марица в района на гр.Пловдив. Данните произхождат от периода 1930-2017. Регистрирани са общо 40 вида, принадлежащикъм 16 семейства.

79



Checklists of Insects of the City of Plovdiv. Part 1: “Otdih i kultura” Park

Desislava N. Arnaudova*, Dimitar N. Bechev

University of Plovdiv “Paisii Hilendarski”, Department of Zoology,24 Tzar Assen Str., BG-4000 Plovdiv, BULGARIA*Corresponding author: [email protected]

Abstract. Checklist of Insects of “Otdih i kultura” Park, city of Plovdiv (Bulgaria) contains 442species from 87 families of Odonata (10 spp.), Mantodea (1 sp.), Orthoptera (12 spp.),Dermaptera (2 spp.), Hemiptera (36 spp.), Coleoptera (299 spp.), Rhaphidioptera (1 sp.),Neuroptera (3 sp.), Hymenoptera (4 sp.), Lepidoptera (71 spp.), Mecoptera (1 sp.) and Diptera (2spp.).

Key words: fauna, Insecta, urban park, Plovdiv City, Bulgaria.

IntroductionThe insect fauna of city of Plovdiv has not

been studied thoroughly. A lot of data aboutLepidoptera are given in ADJAROFF (1924) andseparate data for other insect groups in somepapers in PASPALEV et al. (1964; 1965). Themost complete is the study of the insects ofANGELOV (1960) on the “Otdih i kultura”Park. In the presented publication we try tocomplete all information about this park.

Material and MethodsThe “Otdih i kultura” Park is situated to the

west of the city center (Fig. 1) and includes bothurbanized, low urbanized and almost non-urbanized areas. The presented data for the insectsin the park are entirely from literary sources:ADJAROFF (1924), ANGELOV (1960; 1964a;1964b), ATANASSOV (1964) and TULEŠKOV(1965). The valid species names are according to“Fauna Europaea” ver. 2017.06 (DEJONG et al.,2014).

Protected Species included in Appendix 3of the Bulgarian Biological Diversity Act

The protected species from the checklist areas follows:

Order ODONATA

Ophiogomphus cecilia (Fourcroy, 1785)Order COLEOPTERA

Lucanus cervus (Linnaeus, 1758)Osmoderma eremita (Scopoli, 1763)Cerambyx cerdo (Linnaeus, 1758)Morimus asper funereus (Mulsant, 1862)Rosalia alpina (Linnaeus, 1758)Order LEPIDOPTERA

Parnassius mnemosyne (Linnaeus, 1758)

Checklist

Class Insecta

Order ODONATASuborder ZygopteraFamily LestidaeLestes dryas (Kirby, 1890): ANGELOV

(1960).Lestes barbarus (Fabricius, 1798). Lestes

barbara F.: ANGELOV (1960).




Fig. 1. Location of “Otdih i kultura” Park in the city of Plovdiv.

Sympecma fusca (Vander Linden, 1820):ANGELOV (1960).

Family CalopterygidaeCalopteryx splendens (Harris, 1782).

Agrion splendens Harris.: ANGELOV (1960).

Suborder AnisopteraFamily GomphidaeGomphus flavipes (Charpentier, 1825):

ANGELOV (1960).Ophiogomphus cecilia (Fourcroy, 1785).

Ophiogomphus serpentinus Charp.: ANGELOV

(1960).

Family AeshnidaeAeshna affinis (Vander Linden, 1820):

ANGELOV (1960).

Family LibellulidaeOrthetrum albistylum (Selys, 1848):

ANGELOV (1960).Sympetrum fonscolombii (Selys, 1840).

Sympetrum fonscolombei Selys.: ANGELOV (1960).Sympetrum meridionale (Selys, 1841).

Sympetrum meridionalis Selys.: ANGELOV

(1960).

Order MANTODEA

Mantis religiosa (Linnaeus, 1758):ANGELOV (1960).

Order ORTHOPTERAFamily TettigoniidaeTettigonia viridissima (Linnaeus, 1758):

ANGELOV (1960).

Family BradyporidaeBradyporus (Bradyporus) dasypus (Illiger,

1800): ANGELOV (1960).

Family GryllidaeGryllus campestris (Linnaeus, 1758):

ANGELOV (1960).

Family GryllotalpidaeGryllotalpa gryllotalpa (Linnaeus, 1758):

ANGELOV (1960).

Family TridactylidaeXya variegata (Latreille, 1809). Tridactylus

variegatus Latr.: ANGELOV (1960).

Family TetrigidaeTetrix sp.: ANGELOV (1960).

82

Desislava N. Arnaudova, Dimitar N. BechevFamily AcrididaeAcrida ungarica mediterranea (Dirsh,

1949). Acrida mediterranea Dirsch.: ANGELOV

(1960).Calliptamus italicus (Linnaeus, 1758):

ANGELOV (1960).Dociostaurus maroccanus (Thunberg,

1815): ANGELOV (1960).Locusta migratoria (Linnaeus, 1758):

ANGELOV (1960).Oedipoda caerulescens (Linnaeus, 1758).

Oedepoda coerulescens L.: ANGELOV (1960).Oedipoda miniata (Pallas, 1771). Oedepoda

miniata Pall.: ANGELOV (1960).

Order DERMAPTERAFamily LabiduridaeLabidura riparia (Pallas, 1773): ANGELOV

(1960).

Family ForficulidaeForficula auricularia (Linnaeus, 1758):

ANGELOV (1960).

Order HEMIPTERA

Suborder AuchenorrhynchaFamily CercopidaeCercopis sanguinolenta (Scopoli, 1763).

Cercopis sanguineus Geoffr.: ANGELOV (1960).Philaenus spumarius (Linnaeus, 1758).

Aphrophora spumaria L.: ANGELOV (1960).

Family CicadidaeTibicina haematodes (Scopoli, 1763):

ANGELOV (1960).

Subfamily CicadellidaeCicadella viridis (Linnaeus, 1758):

ANGELOV (1960).

Family MembracidaeCentrotus cornutus (Linnaeus, 1758):

ANGELOV (1960).

Family DictyopharidaeDictyophara (Dictyophara) europaea

(Linnaeus, 1767): ANGELOV (1960).

Suborder HeteropteraFamily CorixidaeCorixa sp.: ANGELOV (1960).

Family NepidaeNepa cinerea (Linnaeus, 1758): ANGELOV

(1960).Ranatra (Ranatra) linearis (Linnaeus,

1758): ANGELOV (1960).

Family NaucoridaeIlyochoris cimicoides (Linnaeus, 1758):

ANGELOV (1960).

Family NotonectidaeNotonecta sp.: ANGELOV (1960).

Family GerridaeGerris sp.: ANGELOV (1960).

Family MiridaeAdelphocoris lineolatus (Goeze, 1778):

ANGELOV (1960).

Family ReduviidaeRhynocoris (Rhynocoris) iracundus (Poda,

1761): ANGELOV (1960).

Family ReduviidaePhymata (Phymata) crassipes (Fabricius,

1775): ANGELOV (1960).

Family TingidaeStephanitis (Stephanitis) pyri (Fabricius,

1775). Stephanites pyri F.: ANGELOV (1960).

Family PyrrhocoridaePyrrhocoris apterus (Linnaeus, 1758):

ANGELOV (1960).

Family LygaeidaeLygaeus equestris (Linnaeus, 1758):

ANGELOV (1960).Spilostethus saxatilis (Scopoli, 1763).

Lygaeus saxatilis Scop.: ANGELOV (1960).

Family CoreidaeCamptopus lateralis (Germar, 1817):

ANGELOV (1960).Coreus marginatus (Linnaeus, 1758).

Mesocerus marginatus L.: ANGELOV (1960).Phyllomorpha laciniata (Villers, 1789):

ANGELOV (1960).Syromastus rhombeus (Linnaeus, 1767):

ANGELOV (1960).

83


Family PentatomidaeAelia acuminata acuminata (Linnaeus,

1758): ANGELOV (1960).Apodiphus amygdali (Germar, 1817):

ANGELOV (1960).Dolycoris baccarum (Linnaeus, 1758):

ANGELOV (1960).Eurydema (Eurydema) oleracea (Linnaeus,

1758): ANGELOV (1960).Eurydema (Eurydema) ornata (Linnaeus,

1758): ANGELOV (1960).? Eurydema festiva L.: ANGELOV (1960).Eurygaster austriaca (Schrank, 1776):

ANGELOV (1960).Eurygaster maura (Linnaeus, 1758):

ANGELOV (1960).Graphosoma lineatum (Linnaeus, 1758).

Graphosoma italicum Mull.: ANGELOV (1960).Mustha spinosula (Lefèbvre, 1831): ANGELOV

(1960).Palomena prasina (Linnaeus, 1761):

ANGELOV (1960).Rhaphigaster nebulosa (Poda, 1761):

ANGELOV (1960).Zicrona caerulea (Linnaeus, 1758):

ANGELOV (1960).

Order COLEOPTERA

Family CarabidaeBrachinus (Brachynidius) explodens

Duftschmid, 1812: ANGELOV (1960).Calosoma (Calosoma) inquisitor (Linne,

1758): ANGELOV (1960).Calosoma (Calosoma) sycophanta (Linne,

1758): ANGELOV (1960).Carabus (Procrustes) coriaceus( Linne,

1758): ANGELOV (1960).Cicindela (Cicindela) campestris (Linne,

1758): ANGELOV (1960).Cicindela (Cicindela) hybrida (Linne,

1758): ANGELOV (1960).Diachromus germanus (Linne, 1758):

ANGELOV (1960).Elaphrus (Elaphrus) riparius (Linne, 1758):

ANGELOV (1960).Zabrus (Zabrus) tenebrioides (Goeze,

1777): ANGELOV (1960).Zabrus spinipes Fabricius, 1798. Zabrus

blapoides Creutz.: ANGELOV (1960).? Ophonus pubescens Mull.: ANGELOV

(1960).

Family GyrinidaeGyrinus sp.: ANGELOV (1960).

Family HisteridaeHister quadrimaculatus (Linnaeus, 1758):

ANGELOV (1960).Hister quadrinotatus (Scriba, 1790):

ANGELOV (1960).Hololepta (Hololepta) plana (Sulzer, 1776):

ANGELOV (1960).

Family LucanidaeLucanus cervus (Linnaeus, 1758):

ANGELOV (1960, 1964b).Dorcus parallelipipedus (Linnaeus, 1785):

ANGELOV (1960, 1964b).Platycerus caraboides (Linnaeus, 1758):

ANGELOV (1964b)

Family TrogidaeTrox (Trox) sabulosus (Linnaeus, 1758):

ANGELOV (1960).

Family ScarabaeidaeAcrossus depressus (Kugelann, 1792):

ANGELOV (1960).Acrossus luridus (Fabricius, 1775):

ANGELOV (1960).Ahodius merdarius (Fabricius, 1775):

ANGELOV (1960).Aphodius fimetarius (Linnaeus, 1758):

ANGELOV (1960).Aphodius prodromus (Brahm, 1790):

ANGELOV (1960).? Aphodius circumcinctus A. Schmidt.:

ANGELOV (1960).Copris lunaris (Linnaeus, 1758): ANGELOV

(1960).Geotrupes (Geotrupes) stercorarius

(Linnaeus, 1758): ANGELOV (1960).Lethrus (Lethrus) apterus (Laxmann, 1770):

ANGELOV (1960).Nimbus affinis (Panzer, 1823). Aphodius

affinis Panz.: ANGELOV (1960).Onthophagus (Palaeonthophagus)

coenobita (Herbst, 1783): ANGELOV (1960).Onthophagus (Palaeonthophagus) vacca

(Linnaeus, 1767): ANGELOV (1960).Oryctes (Oryctes) nasicornis (Linnaeus,

1758): ANGELOV (1960).Pentodon idiota idiota (Herbst, 1789):

ANGELOV (1960).

84

Desislava N. Arnaudova, Dimitar N. BechevPhyllognathus excavatus (Forster, 1771).

Phyllognatus silenus F.: ANGELOV (1960).Scarabaeus (Scarabaeus) pius (Illiger, 1803):

ANGELOV (1960).Scarabaeus (Scarabaeus) sacer (Linnaeus,

1758): ANGELOV (1960).

Family MelolonthidaeOmaloplia mutilata (Fairmaire, 1892).

Homaloplia mutilata Fairm: ANGELOV (1960).Amphimallon solstitiale (Linnaeus, 1758):

ANGELOV (1960).Holochelus (Miltotrogus) aequinoctialis

(Herbst, 1790). Rhizotrogus aequinoctialisHbst.: ANGELOV (1960).

Rhizotrogus aestivus (Olivier, 1789):ANGELOV (1960).

Melolontha melolontha (Linnaeus, 1758):ANGELOV (1960).

Polyphylla (Polyphylla) fullo (Linnaeus,1758): ANGELOV (1960).

Anoxia (Protanoxia) orientalis (Krynicky,1832): ANGELOV (1960).

Anoxia (Anoxia) villosa (Fabricius, 1781):ANGELOV (1960).

Family RutelidaeAnomala vitis (Fabricius, 1775): ANGELOV

(1960).Anisoplia (Autanisoplia) austriaca (Herbst,

1783): ANGELOV (1960).Chaetopteroplia segetum (Herbst, 1783).

Anisoplia segetum Hbst.: ANGELOV (1960).Hoplia brunnipes (Bonelli, 1812):

ANGELOV (1960).

Family GlaphyridaePygopleurus (Pygopleurus) vulpes (Fabricius,

1781). Amphicoma vulpes F.: ANGELOV (1960).

Family CetoniidaeCetonia aurata (Linnaeus, 1761):

ANGELOV (1960).Osmoderma eremita (Scopoli, 1763):

ANGELOV (1960).Oxythyrea funesta (Poda, 1761): ANGELOV

(1960).Protaetia (Netocia) ungarica (Herbst, 1790).

Potosia hungarica Hbst.: ANGELOV (1960).Trichius fasciatus (Linnaeus, 1758):

ANGELOV (1960).

Tropinota (Epicometis) hirta (Poda, 1761).Epicometis hirta Poda.: ANGELOV (1960).

Valgus hemipterus (Linnaeus, 1758):ANGELOV (1960).

Family SilphidaeAclypea undata (O. F. Muller, 1776). Aclypeaundata Mull.: ANGELOV (1960).

Dendroxena quadrimaculata (Scopoli,1772). Xylodrepa quadripunctata L.:ANGELOV (1960; 1964b).

Nicrophorus vestigator (Herschel, 1807):ANGELOV (1960; 1964b).

Phosphuga atrata (Linnaeus, 1758):ANGELOV (1964b)

Silpha obscura (Linnaeus, 1758): ANGELOV

(1960).

Family ElateridaeDanosoma fasciatum (Linnaeus, 1758).

Adelocera fasciata L.: ANGELOV (1960).Agrypnus murinus (Linnaeus, 1758). Lacon

murinus L.: ANGELOV (1960).Ctenicera cuprea (Fabricius, 1775).

Corymbites cupreus F.: ANGELOV (1960).Ctenicera pectinicornis (Linnaeus, 1758).

Corymbites pectinicornis L.: ANGELOV (1960).? Corymbites purpurea Poda.: ANGELOV (1960).Selatosomus latus (Fabricius, 1801):

ANGELOV (1960).Agriotes (Agriotes) gurgistanus

(Faldermann, 1835): ANGELOV (1960).Agriotes (Agriotes) lineatus (Linnaeus,

1767): ANGELOV (1960).Drasterius bimaculatus (Rossi, 1790):

ANGELOV (1960).Melanotus villosus (Geoffroy et Fourcroy,

1785). Melanotus rufipes Host.: ANGELOV (1960).Melanotus (Melanotus) fusciceps (Gyllenhal,

1817). Melanotus fuscipes Hbst.: ANGELOV

(1960).Hemicrepidius hirtus (Herbst, 1784).

Athous hirtus Hbst.: ANGELOV (1960).? Cardiophorus erihsoni Bugss.: ANGELOV

(1960).

Family BuprestidaeAcmaeodera (Acmaeotethya) degener

(Scopoli, 1763). Acmoeodera degener Scop.:ANGELOV (1964b).

85


Acmaeoderella (Carininota) flavofasciataflavofasciata (Piller & Mitterpacher, 1783).Acmoeodera taeniata F.: ANGELOV (1960).

Anthaxia (Anthaxia) daeurata daeurata(Gmelin, 1788). Anthaxia aurolenta F.:ANGELOV (1960).

Anthaxia (Cratomerus) hungarica (Scopoli,1772): ANGELOV (1960).

Capnodis tenebrionis (Linnaeus, 1758):ANGELOV (1960).

Coraebus rubi (Linnaeus,1767). Coroebusrubi L.: ANGELOV (1960).

Cylindromorphus filum (Gyllenhal, 1817):ANGELOV (1964b).

Dicerca (Dicerca) aenea (Linnaeus, 1766):ANGELOV (1960; 1964b).

Meliboeus (Meliboeus) graminis (Panzer,1799): ANGELOV (1960).

Perotis lugubris (Fabricius, 1777):ANGELOV (1960).

Trachys minutus (Linnaeus, 1758):ANGELOV (1960; 1964b).

Trachys pumilus (Illiger, 1803): ANGELOV

(1964b).

Family BostrychidaeBostrichus capucinus (Linnaeus, 1758):

ANGELOV (1960).

Family CantharidaeCantharis (Cantharis) fusca (Linnaeus,

1758): ANGELOV (1960).Cantharis (Cantharis) livida (Linnaeus,

1758): ANGELOV (1960).Cantharis (Cantharis) obscura (Linnaeus,

1758): ANGELOV (1960).Cantharis (Cantharis) rufa (Linnaeus,

1758): ANGELOV (1960).Cantharis (Cantharis) rustica (Fallen,

1807): ANGELOV (1960).Pyropterus nigroruber (Degeer, 1774).

Dictyoptera affinis Payk.: ANGELOV (1964b).Luciola (Luciola) lusitanica (Charpentier,

1825): ANGELOV (1960).Malachius aeneus (Linnaeus, 1758):

ANGELOV (1960).Malachius bipustulatus (Linnaeus, 1758):

ANGELOV (1960).

Family DermestidaeAnthrenus sp. ANGELOV (1960).

Dermestes (Dermestinus) frischi (Kugelann,1792): ANGELOV (1960).

Dermestes (Dermestes) lardarius (Linnaeus,1758): ANGELOV (1960).

Family CleridaeClerus mutillarius Fabricius, 1775:

ANGELOV (1964b).Thanasimus formicarius (Linnaeus, 1758).

Clerus formicarius L.: ANGELOV (1960).Trichodes apiarius (Linnaeus, 1758):

ANGELOV (1960).

Family MalachidaeMalachius parilis (Erichson, 1840):

ANGELOV (1964b).

Family MelyridaeEnicopus (Enicopus) pilosus (Scopoli, 1763).

Henicopus pilosus Scop.: ANGELOV (1960).

Family CoccinellidaeAdalia (Adalia) bipunctata (Linnaeus,

1758): ANGELOV (1960).Coccinella (Coccinella) septempunctata

(Linnaeus, 1758). Coccinella 7-punctata L.:ANGELOV (1960).

Subcoccinella vigintiquatuorpunctata(Linnaeus, 1758). Coccinella 24-punctata L.:ANGELOV (1960).

Family MeloidaeCerocoma (Metacerocoma) schreberi

Fabricius, 1781: ANGELOV (1964b).Meloe (Meloe) proscarabaeus (Linnaeus,

1758): ANGELOV (1960).Meloe (Meloe) violaceus (Marsham, 1802):

ANGELOV (1960).Meloe (Lampromeloe) variegatus

(Donovan, 1793): ANGELOV (1960).Mylabris (Mylabris) variabilis (Pallas,

1781): ANGELOV (1960).Mylabris (Mylabris) quadripunctata

(Linnaeus, 1767): ANGELOV (1960).Lytta (Lytta) vesicatoria (Linnaeus, 1758):

ANGELOV (1960).

Family TenebrionidaeBlaps sp.: ANGELOV (1960).Diaperis boleti (Linnaeus, 1758): ANGELOV

(1960; 1964b).

86

Desislava N. Arnaudova, Dimitar N. BechevGnaptor spinimanus (Pallas, 1781):

ANGELOV (1960).Opatrum sabulosum (Linnaeus, 1761):

ANGELOV (1960).Pedinus femoralis (Linnaeus, 1767):

ANGELOV (1960).Stenoimax aenieus (Scopoli, 1763).

Cilindronotus (=Helops) lanipes Linn.ANGELOV (1964b).

? Cilindronotus (=Helops) exaratus Germ.:ANGELOV (1964b).

Family MordelidaeMordellistena (Mordellistena) tarsata

Mulsant, 1856: ANGELOV (1964b).

Family ScraptiidaeAnaspis (Anaspis) frontalis (Linnaeus,

1758): ANGELOV (1964b).

Family CerambycidaeAegosoma scabricorne (Scopoli, 1763):

ANGELOV (1960; 1964b).Agapanthia violacea (Fabricius, 1775):

ANGELOV (1964b).Aromia moschata (Linnaeus, 1758):

ANGELOV (1960; 1964b).Carinatodorcadion fulvum fulvum

(Scopoli, 1763). Dorcadion fulvum Scop.:ANGELOV (1960).

Cerambyx cerdo (Linnaeus, 1758):ANGELOV (1960).

Cerambyx scopolii (Fuessly, 1775):ANGELOV (1960).

Chlorophorus varius (Muller, 1766):ANGELOV (1960).

Clytus arietis (Linnaeus, 1758): ANGELOV

(1960).Clytus rhamni (Germar, 1817): ANGELOV

(1960; 1964b).Hylotrupes bajulus (Linnaeus, 1758):

ANGELOV (1960).Lamia textor (Linnaeus, 1758): ANGELOV

(1960; 1964b).Stictoleptura scutellata (Fabricius, 1781):

ANGELOV (1964b).Mesosa curculionoides (Linnaeus, 1761):

ANGELOV (1960; 1964b).Mesosa nebulosa (Fabricius, 1781):

ANGELOV (1960).Morimus asper funereus (Mulsant, 1862).

Morimus funereus: ANGELOV (1960).

Necydalis ulmi Chevrolat, 1838. Necidalisulmi Chevr.: ANGELOV (1964b).

Neodorcadion bilineatum (Germar, 1824).Dorcadion bilineatum: ANGELOV (1960).

Oberea (Amaurostoma) erythrocephala(Schrank, 1776): ANGELOV (1964b).

Pachyta sp.: ANGELOV (1960).Pedestredorcadion pedestre (Poda, 1761).

Dorcadion pedestre Poda.: ANGELOV (1960).Pedestredorcadion sturmi (Frivaldsky, 1837).

Dorcadion sturmi Friv.: ANGELOV (1960). Plagionotus arcuatus (Linnaeus, 1758):

ANGELOV (1960).Plagionotus detritus (Linnaeus, 1758):

ANGELOV (1960).Plagionotus floralis (Pallas, 1776):

ANGELOV (1960).Prionus (Prionus) coriarius (Linnaeus,

1758): ANGELOV (1960).Purpuricenus budensis (Goeze, 1783):

ANGELOV (1960).Pyrrhidium sanguineum (Linnaeus, 1758):

ANGELOV (1960).Ropalopus clavipes (Fabricius, 1775).

Rhopalopus clavipes F.: ANGELOV (1960). Rosalia alpina (Linnaeus, 1758): ANGELOV

(1960; 1964b).Saperda perforata (Pallas, 1773): ANGELOV (1960).Saperda populnea (Linnaeus, 1758):

ANGELOV (1960; 1964b).Saperda punctata (Linnaeus, 1767):

ANGELOV (1964b).Saperda scalaris (Linnaeus, 1758):

ANGELOV (1960; 1964b).Stromatium unicolor (Olivier, 1795).

Stromatium fulvum Vill.: ANGELOV (1960).Xylotrechus arvicola (Olivier, 1795):

ANGELOV (1964b).Xylotrechus rusticus (Linnaeus, 1758):

ANGELOV (1960).

Family ChrysomelidaeSubfamily BruchinaeBruchus pisorum (Linnaeus, 1758): ANGELOV

(1960).

Subfamily DonaciinaeDonacia sp.: ANGELOV (1960).

Subfamily CriopcerinaeLilioceris merdigera (Linnaeus, 1758):

ANGELOV (1960; 1964b).

87


Oulema gallaeciana (Heyden, 1879). Lemalichenis Voest.: ANGELOV (1960).

Oulema melanopus (Linnaeus, 1758).Lema melanopus L.: ANGELOV (1960).

Subfamily CruptocephalinaeClytra (Clytra) laeviuscula (Ratzeburg,

1837): ANGELOV (1960).Clytra (Clytraria) atraphaxidis (Pallas,

1773): ANGELOV (1960).Coptocephala (Coptocephala) unifasciata

(Scopoli, 1763): ANGELOV (1960).Cryptocephalus (Cryptocephalus) moraei

(Linnaeus, 1758): ANGELOV (1960).Cryptocephalus (Cryptocephalus) sericeus

(Linnaeus, 1758): ANGELOV (1960).Cryptocephalus (Heterichnus) coryli

(Linnaeus, 1758): ANGELOV (1960; 1964b).Labidostomis (Labidostomis) beckeri

(Weise, 1881): ANGELOV (1960).Labidostomis (Labidostomis) lucida

(Germar, 1824): ANGELOV (1964b).Lachnaia (Lachnaia) sexpunctata (Scopoli,

1763): ANGELOV (1960).Pachybrachis (Pachybrachis) scriptidorsum

(Marseul, 1875): ANGELOV (1960).? Smaragdina salicina (Scopoli, 1763).

Gynandrophthalma cyanea L.: ANGELOV (1960).

Subfamily EumolpinaePachnephorus (Pachnephorus) villosus

(Duftschmid, 1825): ANGELOV (1960).

Subfamily ChrysomelinaeChrysolina (Colaphosoma) sturmi

(Westhoff, 1882). Chrysomela violacea Mull.:ANGELOV (1960).

? Chrysolina (Craspeda) limbata (Fabricius,1775). Chrysomela limbata L: ANGELOV (1964b).

Chrysomela (Chrysomela) populi (Linnaeus,1758). Melasoma populi L.: ANGELOV (1960).

Chrysomela (Chrysomela) saliceti (Suffrian,1851). Melasoma saliceti Ws.: ANGELOV (1960).

Chrysomela (Strickerus) vigintipunctata(Scopoli, 1763). Melasoma 20-punctatumScop.: ANGELOV (1960).

Entomoscelis adonidis (Pallas, 1771):ANGELOV (1960).

Gonioctena (Spartomena) fornicata(Bruggemann, 1873). Phytodecta fornicateBrugg.: ANGELOV (1960).

Plagiosterna aenea (Linnaeus, 1758).Melasoma aeneum L.: ANGELOV (1960).

Timarcha (Timarcha) tenebricosatenebricosa (Fabricius, 1775): ANGELOV (1960).

Subfamily GalerucinaeAgelastica alni (Linnaeus, 1758): ANGELOV

(1960).Galeruca (Emarhopa) rufa (Germar, 1824):

ANGELOV (1960).Galeruca (Galeruca) pomonae (Scopoli,

1763): ANGELOV (1960).Xanthogaleruca luteola (Muller, 1766).

Galerucella luteola Mull.: ANGELOV (1960).

Subfamily HispinaeHispa atra (Linnaeus, 1767): ANGELOV

(1960).

Subfamily CassidinaeCassida (Pseudocassida) murraea (Linnaeus,

1767): ANGELOV (1960).

Family AttelabidaeApoderus (Apoderus) coryli (Linnaeus,

1758): ANGELOV (1964b).Byctiscus betulae (Linnaeus, 1758):

ANGELOV (1960; 1964b).Byctiscus populi (Linnaeus, 1758):

ANGELOV (1960; 1964b).Family RhynchitidaeNeocoenorrhinus germanicus (Herbst,

1797). Coenorrhinus germanicus Hbst.:ANGELOV (1964b).

Pselaphorhynchites tomentosus (Gyllenhal,1839): ANGELOV (1964b).

Rhynchites (Epirhynchites) auratus(Scopoli, 1763): ANGELOV (1964b).

Tatianaerhynchites aequatus (Linnaeus,1767). Coenorrhinus aequatus L.: ANGELOV

(1964b).

Family BrachyceridaeBrachycerus cribrarius Olivier, 1807:

ANGELOV (1960, 1964a).Brachycerus sinuatus (Olivier, 1807):

ANGELOV (1960, 1964a).

Family CurculionidaeSubfamily EntiminaeCharagmus griseus (Fabricius, 1775):

ANGELOV (1960).

88

Desislava N. Arnaudova, Dimitar N. BechevElytrodon bidentatus (Steven, 1829):

ANGELOV (1964a).Eusomus (Eusomus) ovulum (Germar,

1824): ANGELOV (1960).Graptus agrestis (Boheman, 1842). Alophus

agrestis Boh.: ANGELOV (1960).Otiorhynchus (Choilisanus) raucus

(Fabricius, 1777): ANGELOV (1960).Otiorhynchus (Cryphiphorus) ligustici

(Linnaeus, 1758): ANGELOV (1960).Otiorhynchus (Paracryphiphorus)

orbicularis (Herbst, 1795): ANGELOV (1960).Otiorhynchus (Pendragon) ovatus

(Linnaeus, 1758): ANGELOV (1960).Otiorhynchus (Podoropelmus) albidus

Stierlin, 1861. Otiorrhynchus (Tournieria)albidus Strl.: ANGELOV (1964a).

Otiorhynchus (Podoropelmus) juglandisApfelbeck, 1896. Otiorrhynchus (Tournieria)juglandiformis Reitt.: ANGELOV (1964a).

Otiorhynchus (Zustalestus) rugosostriatus(Goeze, 1777): ANGELOV (1960).

Phyllobius (Dieletus) argentatus (Linnaeus,1758): ANGELOV (1960).

Phyllobius (Metaphyllobius) glaucus(Scopoli, 1763): ANGELOV (1960).

Phyllobius (Metaphyllobius) pomaceus(Gyllenhal, 1834): ANGELOV (1960).

Phyllobius (Nemoicus) oblongus (Linnaeus,1758): ANGELOV (1960).

Polydrusus (Eustolus) corruscus (Germar,1824): ANGELOV (1960).

Polydrusus (Polydrusus) picus (Fabricius,1792): ANGELOV (1960).

Sitona crinita (Herbst 1795): ANGELOV (1960).Sitona hispidulus (Fabricius, 1776):

ANGELOV (1960).Sitona humeralis (Stephens, 1831):

ANGELOV (1960).Sitona lineatus (Linnaeus, 1758): ANGELOV

(1960).Sitona longulus (Gyllenhal, 1834):

ANGELOV (1960).Tanymecus (Tanymecus) palliatus

(Fabricius, 1787): ANGELOV (1960).

Subfamily LixinaeBangasternus orientalis (Capiomont, 1873):

ANGELOV (1960).Cleonis pigra (Scopoli, 1763): ANGELOV

(1960).

Coniocleonus nigrosuturatus (Goeze,1777): ANGELOV (1960).

Lachnaeus crinitus Schoenherr, 1826:ANGELOV (1964a).

Larinus (Phyllonomeus) sturnus Schaller,1873: ANGELOV (1964a).

Larinus (Phyllonomeus) turbinatusGyllenhal, 1835: ANGELOV (1964a).

Leucophyes pedestris (Poda, 1761):ANGELOV (1960).

Lixus (Epimeces) cardui Olivier, 1807:ANGELOV (1964a).

Magdalis (Edo) nitidipennis (Boheman,1843): ANGELOV (1964a).

Magdalis (Odontomagdalis) armigera(Geoffroy, 1785): ANGELOV (1964a).

Magdalis (Porrothus) cerasi (Linnaeus,1758): ANGELOV (1964a).

Mecaspis alternans (Herbst, 1795):ANGELOV (1964a).

Pseudocleonus (Pseudocleonus) cinereus(Schrank, 1781): ANGELOV (1960).

Subfamily MolytinaeLepyrus capucinus (Schaller, 1783):

ANGELOV (1960).Lepyrus palustris (Scopoli, 1763):

ANGELOV (1960).Pissodes (Pissodes) pini (Linnaeus, 1758):

ANGELOV (1960).

Subfamily Hyperinae? Brachypera dauci (Olivier, 1807).

Phytonomus fasciculatus Hbst.: ANGELOV (1960).Hypera (Dapalinus) meles (Fabricius, 1792):

ANGELOV (1960).Hypera (Hypera) nigrirostris (Fabricius,

1775): ANGELOV (1960).Hypera (Hypera) postica (Gyllenhal, 1813).

Phytonomus variabilis Hbst.: ANGELOV (1960).

Subfamily CeutorhynchinaeNeophytobius granatus (Gyllenhal, 1835):

ANGELOV (1960).Poophagus sisymbrii (Fabricius, 1776):

ANGELOV (1960).Rhinoncus bruchoides (Herbst, 1784):

ANGELOV (1960).

Subfamily BagoinaeBagous tempestivus (Herbst, 1795):

ANGELOV (1964a).

89


? Bagous (Lyprus) cylindrus Payk.:ANGELOV (1964a).

Subfamily Baridinae? Baris tumida Rossi.: ANGELOV (1964a).Aulacobaris lepidii (Germar, 1819). Baris

lepidii Germ.: ANGELOV (1964a).Cosmobaris scolopacea (Germar, 1819).

Baris scolopacea Germ.: ANGELOV (1964a).Labiaticola atricolor (Boheman, 1844).

Baris atricolor Boh.: ANGELOV (1964a).

Subfamily Curculioninae? Cionus hysibatus Apf.: ANGELOV (1964a).Anthonomus (Anthonomus) pedicularius

(Linnaeus, 1758): ANGELOV (1964a).Anthonomus (Anthonomus) piri (Kollar,

1837): ANGELOV (1960; 1964a).Anthonomus (Anthonomus) pomorum

(Linnaeus, 1758): ANGELOV (1964a).Archarius (Archarius) crux (Fabricius, 1776).

Balanobius crux Fabr.: ANGELOV (1964a).Archarius (Archarius) crux (Fabricius,

1776): ANGELOV (1960).Archarius (Archarius) salicivorus (Paykull, 1792).

Balanobius salicivorus Payk.: ANGELOV (1964a).Archarius (Archarius) salicivorus (Paykull,

1792): ANGELOV (1960).Cionus hortulanus (Geoffroy, 1785):

ANGELOV (1960).Cionus olivieri Rosenschold, 1838:

ANGELOV (1964a).Cionus scrophulariae (Linnaeus, 1758):

ANGELOV (1960; 1964a).Dorytomus (Olamus) rufatus (Bedel, 1888):

ANGELOV (1960).Ellescus infirmis (Herbst, 1795). Elleschus

infirmis Hbst.: ANGELOV (1964a).Gymnetron villosulum Gyllenhal, 1838:

ANGELOV (1964a).Mecinus collaris (Germar, 1821): ANGELOV

(1960).Mecinus janthinus Germar, 1821:

ANGELOV (1964a).Mecinus pyraster (Herbst, 1795): ANGELOV

(1960; 1964а).Orchestes (Orchestes) quercus (Linnaeus,

1758). Rhynchaenus (Rhynchaenus) quercus L.:ANGELOV (1964a).

Oxystoma craccae (Linnaeus, 1767):ANGELOV (1960).

Oxystoma craccae (Linnaeus, 1767):ANGELOV (1964a).

Oxystoma ochropus (Germar, 1818):ANGELOV (1964a).

Oxystoma pomonae (Fabricius, 1798):ANGELOV (1960).

Pseudorchestes cinereus (Fahaeus, 1843).Rhynchaenus cinereus Fahr.: ANGELOV (1960).

Pseudostyphlus pillumus (Gyllenhal, 1835):ANGELOV (1964a).

Rhamphus (Rhamphus) oxyacanthae(Marsham, 1802): ANGELOV (1964a).

Rhamphus (Rhamphus) pulicarius (Herbst,1795): ANGELOV (1960).

Rhamphus (Rhamphus) pulicarius (Herbst,1795): ANGELOV (1964a).

Rhinusa bipustulata (Rossi, 1792).Gymnetron (Rhinusa) bipustulatum Rossi.:ANGELOV (1964a).

Tachyerges salicis (Linnaeus, 1758). Rhynchaenus(Tachyerges) salicis L.: ANGELOV (1964a).

Tachyerges salicis (Linnaeus, 1758).Rhynchaenus salicis L.: ANGELOV (1960).

Family ApionidaeApion frumentarium (Linnaeus, 1758).

Apion miniatum Germ.: ANGELOV (1960).Aspidapion (Aspidapion) radiolus

(Marsham, 1802). Apion radiolus Kby.:ANGELOV (1960).

Eutrichapion (Cnemapion) vorax (Herbst,1797). Apion vorax Hbst.: ANGELOV (1960).

Eutrichapion (Eutrichapion) viciae(Paykull, 1800). Apion viciaePayk.: ANGELOV

(1960).Ischnopterapion (Chlorapion) virens (Herbst,

1797). Apion virens Hbst.: ANGELOV (1960).Malvapion malvae (Fabricius, 1775).

Apion malvae F.: ANGELOV (1960).Melanapion minimum (Herbst, 1797).

Apion (Eutrichapion) minimum Hbst.:ANGELOV (1964a).

Omphalapion laevigatum (Paykull, 1792).Apion laevigatum Payk.: ANGELOV (1960).

Protapion fulvipes (Geoffroy, 1785). Apionflavipes Payk.: ANGELOV (1960).

Protapion nigritarse (Kirby, 1808). Apionnigritarse Kby.: ANGELOV (1960).

Protapion trifolii (Linnaeus, 1768). Apionaestivum Germ.: ANGELOV (1960).

90

Desislava N. Arnaudova, Dimitar N. BechevProtapion truquii (Reiche et Saulcy, 1858).

Apion (Protapion) truquii Reiche: ANGELOV

(1964a).Protapion varipes (Germar, 1817). Apion

varipes Germ.: ANGELOV (1960).Pseudoprotapion elegantulum (Germar,

1818). Apion (Apion)elegantulum Germ.:ANGELOV (1964a).

Squamapion flavimanum (Gyllenhal,1833). Apion (Thymapion) flavimanum Gyii.:ANGELOV (1964a).

Taeniapion urticarium (Herbst, 1784).Apion urticarium Hbst.: ANGELOV (1960).

Order RAPHIDIOPTERA

Rhaphidia sp.: ANGELOV (1960).

Order NEUROPTERAFamily ChrysopidaeChrysoperla carnea (Stephens, 1836).

Chrysopa vulgaris Schn.: ANGELOV (1960).

Family MyrmeleontidaeMyrmeleon formicarius (Linnaeus, 1767):

ANGELOV (1960).Myrmeleon europaeus Mc. Lach.:

ANGELOV (1960).

Order HYMENOPTERAFamily ApidaeXylocopa violacea (Linnaeus, 1758):

ANGELOV (1960).

Family VespidaeVespula germanica (Fabricius, 1793).

Dolichivespula (Paravespula) germanica (F.):ATANASSOV (1964a).

Vespa crabro (Linnaeus, 1758): ANGELOV

(1960).

Family ScoliidaeMegascolia maculata (Drury, 1773). Scolia

flavifrons F.: ANGELOV (1960).

Order LEPIDOPTERA

Note: ADJAROFF (1924) and TULEŠKOV(1965) reported the locality as “Mechkyur Island”.

Family HesperiidaeOchlodes sylvanus (Esper, 1777). Augiades

sylvanus Esp.: ANGELOV (1960).

Pyrgus malvae (Linnaeus, 1758). Hesperiamalvae L.: ANGELOV (1960).

Family PapilionidaeIphiclides podalirius (Linnaeus, 1758).

Papilio podalirius L.: ANGELOV (1960).Papilio machaon (Linnaeus, 1758):

ANGELOV (1960).Parnassius mnemosyne (Linnaeus, 1758):

ANGELOV (1960).

Family PieridaeAporia crataegi (Linnaeus, 1758):

ANGELOV (1960).Pieris brassicae (Linnaeus, 1758): ANGELOV

(1960).Pieris rapae (Linnaeus, 1758): ANGELOV

(1960).Leptidea sinapis (Linnaeus, 1758):

ANGELOV (1960).Pontia edusa (Fabricius, 1777). Colias

medusa F.: ANGELOV (1960).Gonepteryx rhamni (Linnaeus, 1758):

ADJAROFF (1924), ANGELOV (1960),TULEŠKOV (1965).

Family LycaenidaeLycaena phlaeas (Linnaeus, 1761).

Chrysophanus phloeas L.: ANGELOV (1960).Cupido argiades (Pallas, 1771). Lycaena

argiades Pall.: ANGELOV (1960).Plebejus argus (Linnaeus, 1758). Lycaena

argus L.: ANGELOV (1960).Polyommatus icarus (Rottemburg, 1775).

Lycaena icarus Rott.: ANGELOV (1960).Polyommatus daphnis (Denis &

Schiffermüller, 1775). Lycaena meleager Esp.:ANGELOV (1960).

Polyommatus bellargus (Rottemburg, 1775).Lycaena bellargus Rott.: ANGELOV (1960).

Leptotes pirithous Linnaeus 1767. Lampidestelicanus Land.: ADJAROFF (1924), TULEŠKOV

(1965).Everes argiades (Pallas, 1771): ADJAROFF

(1924), TULEŠKOV (1965).

Family NymphalidaeBrintesia circe (Fabricius, 1775): ADJAROFF

(1924), TULEŠKOV (1965)Apatura ilia (Denis & Schiffermüller,

1775): ANGELOV (1960).

91


Vanessa atalanta (Linnaeus, 1758):ANGELOV (1960).

Vanessa cardui (Linnaeus, 1758). Pyrameiscardui L.: ANGELOV (1960).

Aglais io (Linnaeus, 1758). Vanessa jo L.:ANGELOV (1960).

Aglais urticae (Linnaeus, 1758). Vanessaurticae L.: ANGELOV (1960).

Nymphalis xanthomelas (Esper, 1781).Vanessa xanthomelas Esp.: ANGELOV (1960).

Nymphalis polychloros (Linnaeus, 1758).Vanessa polychloros L.: ANGELOV (1960).

Nymphalis antiopa (Linnaeus, 1758).Vanessa antiopa L.: ANGELOV (1960).

Polygonia c-album (Linnaeus, 1758):ANGELOV (1960).

Melitaea phoebe (Denis & Schiffermüller,1775): ADJAROFF (1924), ANGELOV (1960),TULEŠKOV (1965).

Lasiommata megera (Linnaeus, 1767).Pararge megera L.: ANGELOV (1960).Pararge aegeria (Linnaeus, 1758): ANGELOV

(1960).Argynnis pandora (Denis & Schiffermüller,

1775): ANGELOV (1960).Coenonympha pamphilus (Linnaeus, 1758):

ANGELOV (1960).

Family LasiocampidaeMalacosoma neustria (Linnaeus, 1758):

ANGELOV (1960).

Family SphingidaeLaothoe populi (Linnaeus, 1758).

Smerinthus populi L.: ANGELOV (1960).Mimas tiliae (Linnaeus, 1758). Smerinthus

tiliae L.: ANGELOV (1960).Hyles euphorbiae (Linnaeus, 1758).

Deilephila euphorbiae L.: ANGELOV (1960).Macroglossum stellatarum (Linnaeus, 1758):

ANGELOV (1960).

Family SaturniidaeSaturnia pyri (Denis & Schiffermüller,

1775): ANGELOV (1960).Saturnia pavonia (Linnaeus, 1758):

ANGELOV (1960).

Family DrepanidaeDrepana falcataria (Linnaeus, 1758):

ANGELOV (1960).

Family GeometridaeXanthorhoe fluctuata (Linnaeus, 1758):

Larentia fluctuata L.: ANGELOV (1960).Timandra griseata (Petersen, 1902).

Timandra amata L.: ANGELOV (1960).Lomaspilis marginata (Linnaeus, 1758).

Abraxas marginata L.: ANGELOV (1960).Ematurga atomaria (Linnaeus, 1758):

TULEŠKOV (1965).? Acidalia fiaccidaria L.: ANGELOV (1960).

Family NotodontidaeCerura vinula (Linnaeus, 1758). Dicranura

vinula L.: ANGELOV (1960).

Family LymantriidaePenthophera morio (Linnaeus, 1767).

Hypogimna morio L.: ANGELOV (1960).Orgyia antiqua (Linnaeus, 1758):

ANGELOV (1960), TULEŠKOV (1965).Euproctis chrysorrhoea (Linnaeus, 1758):

ANGELOV (1960).Leucoma salicis (Linnaeus, 1758).

Stilpnotia salicis L.: ANGELOV (1960).Lymantria dispar (Linnaeus, 1758):

ANGELOV (1960).

Family ErebidaeSpilosoma mendica Clerck 1759: ANGELOV

(1960).Phragmatobia fuliginosa (Linnaeus, 1758):

ANGELOV (1960).Euplagia quadripunctaria (Poda, 1761).

Callimorpha quadripunctaria Poda.:ANGELOV (1960).

? Phytometra (=Plusia) pulchtia Hb.:TULEŠKOV (1965).

Family NoctuidaeAcronicta rumicis (Linnaeus, 1758):

ANGELOV (1960).Noctua pronuba (Linnaeus, 1758). Agrotis

pronuba L.: ANGELOV (1960).Xestia c-nigrum (Linnaeus, 1758). Agrotis

c-nigrum L.: ANGELOV (1960).Agrotis exclamationis (Linnaeus, 1758):

ANGELOV (1960).Agrotis ipsilon (Hufnagel, 1766). Agrotis

ypsilon Rott.: ANGELOV (1960).Nyctobrya muralis (Forster, 1771).

Bryophila muralis Forst.: ANGELOV (1960).

92

Desislava N. Arnaudova, Dimitar N. BechevXylena exsoleta (Linnaeus, 1758).

Calocampa exoleta L.: ANGELOV (1960).Calymma communimacula (Denis &

Schiffermüller, 1775). Talpochares communimaculaHb.: ANGELOV (1960).

Macdunnoughia confusa (Stephens, 1850).Plusia gutta Gn.: ANGELOV (1960).

Prodotus stolid (Fabricius, 1775).Leucanitis stolida F.: ANGELOV (1960).

Catocala fraxini (Linnaeus, 1758):ANGELOV (1960).

Catocala puerpera (Giorna, 1791):ANGELOV (1960).

Catocala nupta (Linnaeus, 1767):ANGELOV (1960).

Family PsychidaeCanephora hirsuta (Poda, 1761). Canephora

(=Pachytelia) unicolor Hufn.: TULEŠKOV (1965).

ORDER MECOPTERA

Family PanorpidaePanorpa communis (Linnaeus, 1758):

ANGELOV (1960).

ORDER DIPTERAFamily MuscidaeMusca domestica (Linnaeus, 1758):

ANGELOV (1960).Stomoxys calcitrans (Linnaeus, 1758):

ANGELOV (1960).

ReferencesADJAROFF M. 1924. Contribution à l’étude de la

faune des papilions dans la region de la villede Philipopoli. Trudove na BulgarskotoPrirodoizpitatelno Druzhestvo, XI: 122-130. (In Bulgarian).

ANGELOV P. 1960. Etudes sur l’entomofaunede parc „Delassement et Culture” (L’ileau milieu de Maritza) pres de Plovdiv,avec quelques notes faunologiques.Godishnik na muzeite v Plovdiv.Prirodonauchen Muzey, 3: 7-40. (InBulgarian, French summary).

ANGELOV P. 1964a. Rüsselkäfer (Curculionidae,Coleoptera) aus der Trakischen Tiefebeneund einigen angrenzenden Gebieten.). In:Paspalev, G., G. Markov, G. Peshev (Eds.)Die Fauna Trakiensis. Band I. Verlag derBulgarishen Akademie der Wissenshaften,Sofia, pp. 247-296 (In Bulgarian, Germansummary).

ANGELOV P. 1964b. Coleoptera aus der TrakischenTiefebene und einigen angrenzendenGebieten.). In: Paspalev, G., G. Markov, G.Peshev (Eds.) Die Fauna Trakiensis. BandI. Verlag der Bulgarishen Akademie derWissenshaften, Sofia, pp. 306-324. (InBulgarian, German summary).

ATANASSOV N. 1964. Hymenopteren aus derTrakischen Tiefebene (Südbulgarien).In: Paspalev, G., G. Markov, G. Peshev(Eds.) Die Fauna Trakiensis. Band I.Verlag der Bulgarishen Akademie derWissenshaften, Sofia, pp. 145-206. (InBulgarian, German summary).

DE JONG Y., M. VERBEEK, V. MICHELSEN, P.BJØRN, W. LOS, F. STEEMAN, N. BAILLY,C.BASIRE, P. CHYLARECKI, E. STLOUKAL,G.HAGEDORN, F.T. WETZEL, F.GLÖCKLER,A. KROUPA, G. KORB, A.HOFFMANN, C.HÄUSER, A. KOHLBECKER, A. MÜLLER, A.GÜNTSCH, P. STOEV, L.PENEV. 2014. FaunaEuropaea - allEuropean animal species on theweb.Biodiversity Data Journal, 2: e4034. doi:10.3897/BDJ.2.e4034.

PASPALEV G., G. MARKOV, G. PESHEV (Eds.)1964. Die Fauna Trakiensis. Band I. Verlagder Bulgarishen Akademie derWissenshaften, Sofia, 406 p. (In Bulgarian).

PASPALEV G., G. MARKOV, G. PESHEV (Eds.)1965. Die Fauna Trakiensis. Band II.Verlag der Bulgarishen Akademie derWissenshaften, Sofia, 340 p. (In Bulgarian).

TULEŠKOV K. 1965. Schmetterlinge aus Thrakien.In: Paspalev, G., G. Markov, G. Peshev(Eds.) Die Fauna Trakiensis. Band II.Verlag der Bulgarishen Akademie derWissenshaften, Sofia, pp. 183-128. (InBulgarian, German summary).

- . .Чеклистнанасекомитевгр Пловдив 1. “ ”Част Парк Отдихикултура

, ДесиславаАрнаудоваДимитърБечев

:Резюме Настоящата статия представясписък на известните до момента насекоми впарка „Отдих и култура” в гр. Пловдив. Списъкасъдържа 442 вида от 87 семейства, разпределенипо следния начин - Odonata (10 вида), Mantodea (1вид), Orthoptera (12 вида), Dermaptera (2 вида),Hemiptera (36 вида), Coleoptera (299 вида),Rhaphidioptera (1 вида), Neuroptera (3 вида),Hymenoptera (4 вида), Lepidoptera (71 вида),Mecoptera (1 вида) и Diptera (2 вида).

93



The Freshwater Crab Potamon ibericum (Crustacea:Decapoda: Potamidae) in the Maritsa River in Plovdiv City

Dimitar N. Bechev*

University of Plovdiv “Paisii Hilendarski”, Department of Zoology,24 Tzar Assen Str., BG-4000 Plovdiv, BULGARIA


Abstract. The current short note presents literature data about the presence of Potamonibericum in the Maritsa River in Plovdiv City, as well as some new data are presented.

Key words: Potamon ibericum, Plovdiv City, Maritsa River, Bulgaria.

IntroductionThe freshwater Decapoda in the rivers of

Provdiv Region have not been the subject of aspecial study. Data for the presence ofPotamon ibericum (Bieberstein, 1808) in theMaritsa River, near city of Plovdiv, are givenin BULGURKOV (1961) and thereafter inBECHEV (2000), GEORGIEV & STOYCHEVA

(2006).

Material and MethodsAll data from the above cited sources are

presented and some new data are added.


Potamon (Pontipotamon) ibericum(Bieberstein, 1808)

Literature data:P. potamios (Oliv.): BULGURKOV (1961),

Halvadziyka River near Plovdiv.P. fluviatilis (Herbst, 1785): BECHEV

(2000), Maritsa River, 2 km W of Plovdiv,mear “Rowing base”, 14.06.1997.

P. ibericum: GEORGIEV & STOYCHEVA

(2006), “eight kilometre long stretch of the

River Maritza, UTM-grid: LG06 and LG16”,between 28.04.2005 and 12.07.2006.

New data: Maritsa River, Plovdiv City, 42.1503 N,

24.6812 E, 23.08.2002, 1 male, D. Bechevobservation.

Maritsa River, Plovdiv City, 42.1548 N, 24.7605E, 11.07.2012, 1 female, D. Bechev observation(Fig. 1).

The above presented data indicate a permanentpresence of P. ibericum in Maritsa River in the cityof Plovdiv.

AcknowledgementsThanks for the financial support of project

“Evaluation of the anthropogenic stress on thewetlands of South Bulgaria”, No. FP17-BF-001, University of Plovdiv.

ReferencesBECHEV D. 2000. New localities of Potamon

fluviatilis (Herbst, 1785) (Crustacea:Decapoda) in Bulgaria. TravauxScientifiques de l’Universite dePlovdiv, Biologie, Animalia, 36(6): 95-96. (In Bulgarian, English summary).



The Freshwater Crab Potamon ibericum (Crustacea: Decapoda: Potamidae) in the Maritsa River in Plovdiv City

Fig. 1. Potamon ibericum (female), Maritsa River, Plovdiv, D. Bechev observation.

BULGURKOV K. 1961. Systematik, Biologieund zoogeographishe Verbreitung derSüsswasserkrebse der FamilienAstacidae und Potamonidae inBulgarien. Bulletin de l’Institut deZoologie et Musée, 10: 165-192. (InBulgarian, German summary).

GEORGIEV D., S. STOYCHEVA. 2006. Freshwatercrabs preyed on by the Eurasian otterLutra lutra in a river habitat of SouthernBulgaria. Hystrix, the Italian Journal ofMammalogy (n.s.), 17(2): 129-135.

(Сладководниятрак Potamon ibericum)(Crustacea: Decapoda: Potamidae) ,врекаМарица

градПловдив

ДимитърБечев

:Резюме Настоящoтo краткo съобщениепредставя литературни данни за наличието наPotamon ibericum в р. Марица в град Пловдив,както и някои нови данни.

96



Selected Aquatic Invertebrate Animal Groups in the City ofPlovdiv, Reported in “Fauna of Thrakia”

Dilian G. Georgiev1,2*

1 - University of Plovdiv “Paisii Hilendarski”, Faculty of Biology, Department of Ecology andEnvironmental Conservation, 24 Tzar Assen Str., BG-4000 Plovdiv, BULGARIA

2 - Regional Natural History Museum – Plovdiv, 34 Hristo G. Danov Str., BG-4000 Plovdiv, BULGARIA


Abstract. Published data on a total of 76 species was presented, according to their localities andthe first author who reported them for the area of the city: Protozoa (4), Porifera (1 species),Hydrozoa (2 species), Turbellaria (at least 1 species), Hirudinea (5 species), Bryozoa (1 species),Cladocera (17 species), Cyclopoida (12 species), Harpacticoida (1 species), Isopoda (1 species),Amphipoda (1 species), Acari (5 species), Coleoptera (25 species). All species are presented in atable with the names with which they were reported by authors only in the volumes of “Fauna ofThrakia” volumes I (1964) and III (1966).

Key words: literature, synopsis, aquatic invertebrates.

IntroductionThis survey does not pretend for a full

literature synopsis. My aim was only to provideadditional data for some freshwater specieswhich are not currently studied in Plovdiv citybut there is some information alreadypublished, and to contribute to thecompleteness of this issue.

Material and MethodsAll species are presented in a table with the

names with which they were reported byauthors only in the volumes of Fauna ofThrakia volumes I and III. Three papers wereused: GEORGIEV (1964), NAIDENOW (1964),and the synopsis of RUSSEV (1966).

ResultsData on a total of 76 species was presented,

according to their localities and the first author

who reported them for the area of the city:Protozoa (4), Porifera (1 species), Hydrozoa (2species), Turbellaria (at least 1 species),Hirudinea (5 species), Bryozoa (1 species),Cladocera (17 species), Cyclopoida (12 species),Harpacticoida (1 species), Isopoda (1 species),Amphipoda (1 species), Acari (5 species),Coleoptera (25 species) (Table 1).

Acknowledgements. This literaturesurvey was a part of the project of PlovdivUniversity “Evaluation of the anthropogenicstress on the wetlands of South Bulgaria”, No.FP17-BF-001.

ReferencesARNDT W. 1943. Beiträge zur Kenntnis der

Süsswasserfauna Bulgariens. Izvestya naTzarskite Prirodonauchni Instituti, 16:189-206.



Selected Aquatic Invertebrate Animal Groups in the City of Plovdiv, Reported in “Fauna of Thrakia”

Table 1. Species of chosen invertebrate animal groups, reported in “Fauna of Thrakia”.

Species Locality AuthorPhylum ProtozoaClass Flagellata

Songomonas cavetus IvanovMaritsa River near Plovdiv

IVANOV (1912),synopsis by RUSSEV (1966)

Euglena granulata Schnitzwaters near Maritsa River

IVANOV (1912),synopsis by RUSSEV (1966)

Class Rhizopoda

Difflugia pyriformis Perty Maritsa River at Plovdiv VAVRA (1893),synopsis by RUSSEV (1966)

Difflugia acuminata Ehnbg. Maritsa River at Plovdiv VAVRA (1893),synopsis by RUSSEV (1966)

Phylum Porifera

Spongilla lacustris Autt. Maritsa River at Plovdiv PATEV (1923),synopsis by RUSSEV (1966)

Phylum CoelenterataClass Hydrozoa

Hydra attenuata (Pallas) Maritsa River at Plovdiv DRYANOVSKA-VASILEVA (1949),synopsis by RUSSEV (1966)

Chlorohydra viridissima (Pallas) Floods of Maritsa River DRYANOVSKA-VASILEVA (1949),synopsis by RUSSEV (1966)

Phylum PlathelmithesClass TurbellariaTurbellaria indet. Maritsa River RUSSEV (1966)Phylum AnnelidaClass Hirudinea

Glossiphonia complanata L. Maritsa River at Plovdiv AUGENER (1925),synopsis by RUSSEV (1966)

Glossiphonia heteroclita L. Maritsa River at Plovdiv ARNDT (1943),synopsis by RUSSEV (1966)

Helobdella stagnalis L. Maritsa River at Plovdiv ARNDT (1943),synopsis by RUSSEV (1966)

Haementaria costata (Fr. Müller) Maritsa River at Plovdiv ARNDT (1943),synopsis by RUSSEV (1966)

Erpobdella octoculata L. Maritsa River at Plovdiv VAVRA (1893),synopsis by RUSSEV (1966)

Phylum Bryozoa

Plumatella repens (L.) Maritsa River at Plovdiv ARNDT (1943),synopsis by RUSSEV (1966)

Phylum ArthropodaClass CrustaceaOrdo BranchiopodaOrdo CladoceraDaphnia magna Straus Plovdiv State Fishery NAIDENOW (1964)Daphnia pulex (De Geer) Plovdiv State Fishery NAIDENOW (1964)Daphnia curvirostris Eylmann Plovdiv State Fishery NAIDENOW (1964)Daphnia hyalina Leydig Plovdiv State Fishery NAIDENOW (1964)Ceriodaphnia reticulata (Jurine) Whole Thrakia NAIDENOW (1964)Moina rectirostris Leydig Whole Thrakia NAIDENOW (1964)Scapholeberis mucronata (O. F. Müller) Whole Thrakia NAIDENOW (1964)

98

Dilian G. Georgiev

Simocephalus vetulus (O. F. Müller) Maritsa River at Plovdiv VAVRA (1893),synopsis by RUSSEV (1966)

Bosmina longirostris (O. F. Müller) Plovdiv State Fishery NAIDENOW (1964)Bosmina coregoni Baird 1857 Plovdiv State Fishery NAIDENOW (1964)Ilyocryptus acutifrons Sas Plovdiv State Fishery NAIDENOW (1964)Macrotrix laticornis (Jurine) Plovdiv State Fishery NAIDENOW (1964)Rhynchotalona rostrata (Koch) Plovdiv State Fishery NAIDENOW (1964)Leydigia leydigii (Schödler) Plovdiv State Fishery NAIDENOW (1964)Alona rectangula Sars Plovdiv State Fishery NAIDENOW (1964)Alonella excisa (Fischer) Plovdiv State Fishery NAIDENOW (1964)Chydorus sphaericus (O. F. Müller) Whole Thrakia NAIDENOW (1964)Ordo Copepoda Subordo Cyclopoida (12 species)Macrocyclops fuscus (Jurine) Whole Thrakia NAIDENOW (1964)

Macrocyclops albidus (Jurine) Maritsa River at Plovdiv SHISHKOV (1909),synopsis by RUSSEV (1966)

Eucyclops serrulatus (Fischer) Whole Thrakia NAIDENOW (1964)Ectocyclops phaleratus (Koch) Plovdiv State Fishery NAIDENOW (1964)Cyclops strenuus Fischer Whole Thrakia NAIDENOW (1964)Acanthocyclops viridis (Jurine) Whole Thrakia NAIDENOW (1964)Acanthocyclops robustus (G. O. Sars) Plovdiv State Fishery NAIDENOW (1964)Acanthocyclops americanus (Marsh, 1893)

Whole Thrakia NAIDENOW (1964)

Mesocyclops crassus (Fischer) Plovdiv State Fishery NAIDENOW (1964)Eudiaptomus vulgaris Schmeil Plovdiv State Fishery NAIDENOW (1964)Arctodiaptomus pectinicornis (Wierzejskii)

Marsh near Plovdiv NAIDENOW (1964)

Mixodiaptomus kupelwieseri (Behm) Plovdiv State Fishery NAIDENOW (1964)Subordo Harpacticoida

Canthocampus staphylinus (Jurine) Maritsa River at Plovdiv SHISHKOV (1909),synopsis by RUSSEV (1966)

Ordo Isopoda

Asellus aquaticus L. Maritsa River at Plovdiv VAVRA (1893),synopsis by RUSSEV (1966)

Ordo AmphipodaRivulogammarus pulex komareki Schäferna

Maritsa River at Plovdiv RUSSEV (1966)

Subphyllum ChelicerataClass ArachnidaSubclass Acari

Eylais triarcuata (O. F. Müller) Maritsa River at Plovdiv ARNDT (1943),synopsis by RUSSEV (1966)

Eylais extendens (O. F. Müller) Maritsa River at Plovdiv VIETS (1926),synopsis by RUSSEV (1966)

Eylais mrazeki bulgarensis Viets. Maritsa River at Plovdiv VIETS (1926),synopsis by RUSSEV (1966)

Piona nodata (O. F. Müller) Maritsa River at Plovdiv VIETS (1926),synopsis by RUSSEV (1966)

Piona coccinea C. L. Koch Maritsa River at Plovdiv VIETS (1926),synopsis by RUSSEV (1966)

Phyllum HexapodaSubphyllum Insecta

99

Selected Aquatic Invertebrate Animal Groups in the City of Plovdiv, Reported in “Fauna of Thrakia”

Aquatic ColeopteraPeltodytes caesus Duft. Plovdiv GEORGIEV (1964)Haliplus lineaticollis Marsh. Plovdiv GEORGIEV (1964)Haliplus ruficollis De Geer Plovdiv GEORGIEV (1964)Haliplus fluviatilis Aubé Plovdiv GEORGIEV (1964)Haliplus laminatus Schall. Plovdiv GEORGIEV (1964)

Haliplus flavicollis SturmSmall swamp near Maritsa River

GEORGIEV (1964)

Haliplus flavus F. Plovdiv GEORGIEV (1964)Hyphydrus ovatus L. Plovdiv GEORGIEV (1964)Bidessus unistriatus Schr. Plovdiv GEORGIEV (1964)Guignotus pussilus Schr. Whole Thrakia GEORGIEV (1964)Hydroporus ionicus Mill. Plovdiv GEORGIEV (1964)Graptodytes pictus F. Plovdiv GEORGIEV (1964)Graptodytes concinnus Steph. Plovdiv GEORGIEV (1964)Porhyarus lineatus F. Plovdiv GEORGIEV (1964)Noterus clavicornis De Geer Whole Thrakia GEORGIEV (1964)Noterus crassicornis Müll. Plovdiv GEORGIEV (1964)Laccophilus variegatus Germ. Whole Thrakia GEORGIEV (1964)Laccophilus hyalinus De Geer Plovdiv GEORGIEV (1964)Laccophilus minutus L. Whole Thrakia GEORGIEV (1964)Agabus bipustulatus L. Plovdiv GEORGIEV (1964)Rhantus pulverosus Steph. Rice fields near Plovdiv GEORGIEV (1964)Hydaticus transversalis Pontop. Plovdiv GEORGIEV (1964)Dytiscus marginalis L. Fishponds in Plovdiv GEORGIEV (1964)Aulonogyrus consinnus Klug. Plovdiv GEORGIEV (1964)Gyrinus distinctus Aubé Plovdiv GEORGIEV (1964)

AUGENER H. 1925. Blutegel von derBalkanhalbinsel. Zoologischer Anzeiger,62:161-173.

DRYANOVSKA-VASILEVA O. 1949. [Thefreshwater Hydrozoa of Bulgaria].Godishnik na Sofiyskia Universitet,45(3): 49-55. (In Bulgarian)

GEORGIEV V. 1964. Coleoptera aus derThrakischen Tiefebene und EinigenAngrenzenden Cebieten. In: Paspalev G.,Markov G., Peshev G. (Eds.) DieFaunaThrakens (Sammel Werk), Band I.Bulgarischen Akademie Wissenschaften,Sofia, pp. 306-325. (In Bulgarian,German Summary).

IVANOV H. 1912. [An attempt for studying theflagellates of Bulgaria]. Trudove naBalgarskoto Prirodoizpitatelno Druzhestvo,5: 114-141. (In Bulgarian).

NAIDENOW W. 1964. Untersuchungen über dieCopepoden- und CladocerenfaunaThrakens. In: Paspalev G., Markov G.,Peshev G. (Eds.) Die Fauna Thrakens

(Sammel Werk), Band I. BulgarischenAkademie Wissenschaften, Sofia, pp.377-404. (In Bulgarian, GermanSummary).

PATEV P. 1923. [Contribution to the study of thefreshwater spongy (Spongillidae) inBulgaria]. Trudove na BalgarskotoPrirodoizpitatelno Druzhestvo, 10: 62-64(In Bulgarian).

RUSSEV B. 1966. HydrobiologischeUntersuchungen der Marica. I. In:Paspalev G., Markov G., Peshev G.(Eds.) Die Fauna Thrakens (SammelWerk), Band III. Bulgarischen AkademieWissenschaften, Sofia, pp. 231-291. (InBulgarian, German Summary).

SHISHKOV G. 1909. [Materials on the study ofthe Bulgarian freshwater fauna. I. Freeliving Copepoda]. Godishnik naSofiyskia Universitet, 3/4: 1-51. (InBulgarian).

VAVRA V. 1893. Ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis derSusswasserfauna von Bulgarien.

100

Dilian G. GeorgievSitzungsberichte der konilgl BohmischenGessell der Wissensch, 1-4.

VIETS K. 1926. Hydracarien aus Bulgarien.Zoologischer Anzeiger, 67(1/2): 7-27.

Избрани групи водни безгръбначни . , животни в гр Пловдив съобщени “ ”във Фауна на Тракия


:Резюме Представени са публикувани данниза общо 76 вида, според местонахождението им ипървия автор, който ги е докладвал за района на градПловдив: Protozoa (4), Porifera (1 вид), Hydrozoa (2вида), Turbellaria (поне 1 вид), Hirudinea (5 вида),Bryozoa (1 вид), Cladocera (17 вида), Cyclopoida (12вида), Harpacticoida (1 вид), Isopoda (1 вид),Amphipoda (1 вид), Acari (5 вида), Coleoptera (25 вида).Всички видове са представени в таблица с имената, скоито са докладвани от авторите в томовете на„Фауна на Тракия” - том I (1964) и том. III (1966).

101



Ecological Properties of Epigeal Invertebrate Communitiesin Green Areas in the City of Plovdiv.

Part 1 - Urban City Parks

Ivelin A. Mollov1*, Peter S. Boyadzhiev2, Bozhana N. Bozhinova3

1 - University of Plovdiv “Paisii Hilendarski”, Faculty of Biology, Department of Ecology andEnvironmental Conservation, 24 Tzar Assen Str., Plovdiv, BG-4000 BULGARIA

2 - University of Plovdiv “Paisii Hilendarski”, Faculty of Biology, Department of Zoology, 24 Tzar Assen Str., Plovdiv, BG-4000 BULGARIA

3 – MSc Student, Masters program “Ecology and Ecosystems Conservation”, University of Plovdiv“Paisii Hilendarski”, Faculty of Biology, Department of Ecology and Environmental Conservation,

24 Tzar Assen Str., Plovdiv, BG-4000 BULGARIA* Corresponding author: [email protected]

Abstract. Urban green areas are of great importance for preserving biodiversity in cities. There isa wide variety of invertebrates in cities including a specific group that crawls on the surface of theearth called „epigeal“ invertebrates. The current study aims to characterize and compare theepigeal invertebrates communities in three urban parks on the territory of the city of Plovdiv(„Parashutna Kula“ Park, „Lauta” Park and „Loven park” Park), based on the urban-to-ruralgradient paradygm. „Lauta“ Park differs the most from the other two parks in terms of themeasured abiotic factors (air and soil temperature, soil moisture and soil pH). The predominanttree and shrub vegetation in the three studied parks is mainly decorative and ruderal, and „Lovenpark“ Park is the only place, where most of the natural, autochthonous vegetation is still found.With the greatest number of individuals and with the highest species richness is the epigealinvertebrates community in „Loven park“ Park, followed by „Parashutna kula“ Park, and thelowest numbers and species richness, was recorded in „Lauta“ Park. In the three studied urbanparks, Collembola and Hymenoptera, Formicidae predominate, while Aranea occupy significantshare in „Loven park“ Park. In „Lauta“ Park the epigeal invertebrates community is characterizedby the greatest diversityty, calculated using two diveristy indices, with the lowest share of randomtaxa in both the ecotone and the interior of the park compared to the other two parks. Thesurveyed epigeal invertebrates communities in the three urban parks do not follow the generallyestablished dependence of declining the diversity from the periphery to the city center.

Key words: epigeal invertebrates, communities, urban parks, pit-fall traps, Plovdiv, Bulgaria.

IntroductionIn the process of urbanization over time, the

habitat types within the cities have changed, whichin turn influences wild flora and fauna. Somehabitats have completely disappeared while others

have been altered and new ones have emerged.Some of the emerging habitats are urban greenareas. From this point of view, BREUSTE et al.(2008) consider urban habitats as a mosaic of greenareas scattered by the urban “matrix” (including



Ecological Properties of Epigeal Invertebrate Communities in Green Areas in the City of Plovdiv. Part 1...

residential, commercial, industrial buildings,infrastructure, etc., see NIEMELÄ, 1999).

Urban green areas are of great importance forpreserving biodiversity in cities as they play the roleof refuges for wild flora and fauna as well ascorridors for the movement of certain species(ZAPPAROLI, 1997). Many wild animal species findfavorable conditions for their survival in urbansettings, and other species adapt.

There is a wide variety of invertebrates in citiesincluding even rare and endangered species(MCINTYRE & HOSTETLER, 2001; JONES, 2003;HELDEN & LEATHER, 2004). Considerable part ofthem belong to a specific group that crawls on thesurface of the earth called „epigeal“ invertebrates or„epigeobionts“ (LAVELLE & SPAIN, 2001).

Most authors assume that urbanization has adetrimental effect on the species richness andpopulations of invertebrates in cities (PYLE et al.,1981; MCINTYRE et al., 2001). A convenient wayto track variations in the diversity and abundance ofdifferent invertebrate groups to trace the effects ofurbanization are „urban-to-rural gradients“, oftenused by a number of authors (MCINTYRE et al.,2001). Most of the ecological parameters mostoften change from the periphery to the city center(KLAUSNITZER, 1987). These environmentalvariables affect the structure and function ofpopulations, communities or entire ecosystems(MCDONNELL & PICKETT, 1990).

In urban areas, there are more variations inspecies composition, while outlying areas arecharacterized by a more permanent speciescomposition during the year or season(KLAUSNITZER & RICHTER, 1983). However, thereis not always a reduction in the number ofinvertebrate species in central urban areas,compared to rural areas. Invertebrates in urbansettings are influenced by various factors: habitatage, fragmentation and isolation, pollution and roadtraffic, lawn mowing, etc. But so far, manytaxonomic groups have been poorly studied inurban environment (JONES & LEATHER, 2012).

Until now in Bulgaria, in urban environment,systemic studies have been conducted only on themalacofauna (DEDOV & PENEV, 2000; 2004;PENEV et al., 2008), the carabid fauna (NIEMELÄ

et al., 2002; STOYANOV & PENEV, 2004; PENEV

et al., 2008), myromecofauna (PENEV et al., 2008),the harvestmen fauna (MITOV & STOYANOV,2004) and nematode fauna (MLADENOV et al.,2004), based on the concept of the urban gradient,

but generally complex studies on invertebratecommunities of different taxa are very scarce.

The aim of the present work is to characterizeand compare the epigeal invertebratescommunities in three urban parks on the territoryof the city of Plovdiv, based on the urban-to-ruralgradient paradigm.

Material and MethodsStudy areaThe fieldwork was conducted on the territory

of Plovdiv City in May 2015. For the purposes ofthe study, three urban parks where chosen -„Parashutna kula“ Park, located in the center of thecity, in the western part of the Nature Monument„Hulm Bunardzhik“ Hill, but not within theprotected area (Fig. 1-A); „Lauta“ Park, located inthe suburbs of the city in its eastern part (Fig.1-B)and Park Loven Park, located on the outskirts ofthe town, to Rowing base - Plovdiv, in the westernpart of the town (Fig. 1-C). The parks were chosen,in view of their distance from the city center, totrace the changes in the epigeal invertebratescommunities on a hypothetical urban-to-ruralgradient from the city center to the periphery(MCDONNELL et al., 1997; STOYANOV & PENEV,2004). This way one park from each zone is studied– urban center, suburbs and rural zone.

In addition, these three parks differ in the ratiobetween natural and artificial vegetation, by degreeof maintenance by the Municipality of Plovdiv, andby degree of anthropogenic use (EnvironmentalProtection Program in Plovdiv, 2011).

Field methodsTo capture epigeal invertebrates, pitfall traps

were used (SAMWAYS et al., 2010), placing a totalof 10 traps in each park - 5 in the ecotone at theperiphery of the park (bordering a road) and 5 trapsin the interior of the park (Table 1) to trace thedifferences in ecological characteristics of epigealinvertebrates communities, not only between theparks themselves but also between those in theperiphery and the inner part of the parks. Each trapwas a two-liter plastic cylinder filled with one literof 4% formalin solution. Drainage holes weredrilled at 2/3 of the cylinder height to avoidoverflow and loss of catch in case of rainfall. Trapswere placed in a straight line at a distance of 10-15m from each other without a barrier being placedbetween them. The traps were left for 10 days,which is the minimal recommended duration withsimilar studies (BORGELT & NEW, 2006).

104

Ivelin A. Mollov, Peter S. Boyadzhiev, Bozhana N. BozhinovaWhen placing each trap, its exact GPS

coordinates were captured using the Garmin eTrexVista Hcx GPS receiver (see Table 1); thepredominant bush and tree vegetation in theimmediate vicinity of trapping locations wasidentified. For the determination of the vegetationwe used the field guide by DELIPAVLOV &CHESHMEDZHIEV (2003) and VALEV et al. (1960).Also, some basic abiotic factors have beenmeasured - air temperature, soil temperature, soilmoisture and soil pH. The air and soil temperaturewas measured using the electronic thermometer„TP-3001”, the soil moisture was measured with

electronic moisture meter „tr-46908”, and for soilpH measurements, soil samples sealed in plasticzippered envelopes were collected and later, soilsolutions were made under laboratory conditions,and pH was measured using electronic pH-meterWHW (Germany).

The collected invertebrates from each trap weretransferred to 70% ethanol in laboratory conditions,sorted, counted and identified to the lowest taxonomiclevel possible, using available guides (ANGELOV et al.,1963; ANGELOV, 1982; GOLEMANSKI et al., 1990).The zoological nomenclature follows Fauna Europaea(DE JONG et al., 2014).

Fig. 1. Indicative map of the city of Plovdiv and the locations of the three studied urban parks.A - „Parashutna kula“ Park; B - „Lauta“ Park; C - „Loven park“ Park.

Table 1. Geographical coordinates of the used pitfall traps in the three studied urban parks.

Trap 1 Trap 2 Trap 3 Trap 4 Trap 5

„Parashutna kula“ Park

Ecotone N 42°08.603'E 024°43.973'

N 42°08.611'E 024°43.969'

N 42°08.614'E 024°43.965'

N 42°08.619'E 024°43.957'

N 42°08.632'E 024°43.959'

Interior N 42°08.643'E 024°43.986'

N 42°08.633'E 024°43.985'

N 42°08.622'E 024°43.996'

N 42°08.617'E 024°43.998'

N 42°08.605'E 024°44.004'

„Lauta“ Park

EcotoneN 42°08.308'E 024°46.376'

N 42°08.311'E 024°46.384'

N 42°08.315'E 024°46.389'

N 42°08.324'E 024°46.402'

N 42°08.324'E 024°46.414'

InteriorN 42°08.213'E 024°46.427'

N 42°08.215'E 024°46.439'

N 42°08.219'E 024°46.443'

N 42°08.224'E 024°46.457'

N 42°08.225'E 024°46.473'

„Loven park“ Park

Ecotone N 42°08.191'E 024°41.908'

N 42°08.192'E 024°41.919'

N 42°08.198'E 024°41.929'

N 42°08.209'E 024°41.947'

N 42°08.215'E 024°41.962'

Interior N 42°08.227'E 024°41.946'

N 42°08.223'E 024°41.936'

N 42°08.217'E 024°41.928'

N 42°08.215'E 024°41.920'

N 42°08.205'E 024°41.903'

105


Ecological properties of the epigealcommunities

The following characteristics were used toassess the composition and properties ofepigeal invertebrates communities (afterMAGURRAN, 2004):

- Proportion (P)The ratio between the number of species

(taxa) and the number of all species (taxa) inthe community. Calculated by the followingformula:

where: Pi – proportion of the taxon i;ni – number of individuals from taxon i;N – number of individuals from all taxa.

- Frequency of occurrence (F)It is calculated by the ratio between the

number of individuals of one species (taxon)and the total number of individuals from alltaxa expressed as a percentage. In practice, thefrequency represents the proportion (Pi)multiplied by 100.

- Consistency (C)Represents the ratio of the number of

samples containing a given species (taxon) tothe total number of samples, expressed as apercentage:

where: C – consistency of the taxon i;a – number of samples, containing the

taxon;A – total number of samples.

In this article, a single cylinder (trap) istaken for one sample. On the basis of thecalculated consistency, the recorded taxa wereclassified as permanent (C>50%), additional(C=25-50%) and random (where C<25%).

- Diversity indicesTo determine the diversity of the epigeal

invertebrates communities, we used one indexof dominance (Simpson’s diversity index) and

one information index (Shannon’s diversityindex).

- Simpson’s diversity index (1/S)In the present work, the reciprocal value of

the Simpson’s diversity index was used,calculated using the formula:

where: S – Simpson’s diversity index;Pi – proportion of taxon i.

- Simpson’s evenness index (E)The Simpson’s evenness index wascalculated using the following formula:

where: E – Simpson’s evenness index;Pi – proportion of taxon i;K – number of all taxa in the

community.

- Shannon’s diversity index – H'Calculated, using the following formula:

where: H' – Shannon’s diversity index,Pi – proportion of taxon i.

- Shannon’s equitability index – JCalculated, using the following formula:

where: J – Shannon’s equitability index;Pi – proportion of taxon i;K – number of all taxa in the

community.

106

Ivelin A. Mollov, Peter S. Boyadzhiev, Bozhana N. BozhinovaStatistical analysisAll data obtained during the study were

statistically processed as follows: the abioticfactor measurement data was processed usingdescriptive statistics (minimum, maximum,average, standard deviation and standarderror) and compared with each other using t-test (at p≤0.05), looking for differencesbetween the ecotone and the interior of eachpark (FOWLER et al., 1998). For these analyzesthe statistical package „STATISTICA” v.7.0was used. (StatSoft Inc., 2010). To calculateSimpson and Shannon's diversity andequitability indices, and a cluster analysis tocompare park faunistic similarity (unweightedper group average, Bray-Curtis), theBiodiversity Pro software package was used(MCALEECE et al., 1997).


Analysis of abiotic factors and theprevailing vegetation in the studied urbanparks

The values of air and soil temperature, soilmoisture and reaction (pH) in the ecotone areaand the interior of the three studied urbanparks studied are presented in Table 2.

From the three urban parks, „Parashutnakula“ Park is most visited by people and thereare activities carried out for the maintenance ofthe park (watering, lawn mowing, removingdead vegetation and waste) most often. Thismay have influenced the great variability werecorded in soil moisture in the ecotone area ofthe park.

When comparing the measured abioticfactors between the interior of the park and theecotone area we registered statisticallysignificant differences only by three parameters– air temperature (t-test; t=4.26; p=0.003), soilmoisture (t-test; t=3.10; p=0.014) and soilpH(t-test; t=-2.91; p=0.02).

The predominating tree and shrubvegetation, recorded by us in the ecotone areaof the park includes: Acer pseudoplatanus,Hedera helix, Morus alba, Morus nigra, Tiliatomentosa, Syringa vulgaris, Fraxinus ornus,Euonymus japonicus, Lonicera nitida,Ligustrum ovalifolium, Catalpa bignonioidesand Ilex aquifolium, and in the interior of thepark: Tilia tomentosa, Fraxinus ornus, Morus

alba, Ilex aquifolium, Acer negundo andFrangula alnus. The park vegetation ispresented mainly by decorative and ruderaltrees and shrubs, wildely used in the urbanparks in Plovdiv city. Individual tree and shrubspecies are located at a distance from eachother, and the crowns of the trees do not formthick cover, allowing more light to penetrate tothe ground.

„Lauta“ Park is also heavily visited bypeople, although it is to a lesser extent than„Parashutna kula“ Park, probably due to itsremoteness from the city center and also thepark maintenance activities are to a muchlesser extent, in parallel with „Parashutna kula“Park.

No statistically significant differences werefound between the ecotone area and the park'sinterior by any of the studied abiotic factors -soil temperature (t-test, t=-1.62, p=0.14), airtemperature (t=-0.72, p=0.49), soil moisture(t=-0.87, p=0.4) and soil pH (t=-1.91, p=0.09).

The predominating tree and shrubvegetation, recorded by us in the ecotone areaof the park includes: Robinia pseudoacacia,Tilia tomentosa, Quercus rubur, Acerpseudoplatanus, Carpinus orientalis, Prunusdomestica, Fraxinus oxycarpa and Ulmusminor, and in the interior of the park:Gleditschia triacanthos, Carpinus orientalis,Acer negundo. Dominating tree species –decorative and some invasive ones, such asRobinia pseudoacacia and Gleditschiatriacanthos. Also, the vegetation ischaracterized by species that can be defined asthe remains of the natural vegetation - oak,maple, etc. The crowns of the trees form athick cover, so the penetration of light islimited and the habitats are shady.

From the three studied parks in PlovdivCity, „Loven Park“ Park is the least visited bypeople and almost no maintenance activities arecarried out in the park (no watering orgrassing).

When comparing the measured abioticfactors between the interior of the park and theecotone area, we found statistically significantdifferences in three parameters - airtemperature (t-test, t=2.41, p=0.04), soiltemperature (t=3.56, p = 0.007) and soil pH(t=3.76, p=0.005). No statistically significantdifference was found for soil moisture (t=-0.87,p=0.41).

107


Table 2. Descriptive statistics of the measured abiotic factors in the three studied parks in thecity of Plovdiv.

Airtempera-ture, C˚

(Ecotone)

Airtempera-ture, C˚(Interior)

Soiltempera-ture, C˚

(Ecotone)

Soiltempera-ture, C˚(Interior)

Soilmoisture,

%(Ecotone)

Soilmoisture,

%(Interior)

Soil pH(Ecotone)

Soil pH(Interior)

„Parashutna kula“ Park (Urban zone)Min 22.90 21.00 16.70 17.40 5.40 3.90 5.30 5.60Max 26.40 22.70 18.50 19.10 30.90 8.50 5.70 5.92Mean 24.72 22.00 17.70 18.06 19.12 6.14 5.50 5.79Stand. dev. 1.27 0.64 0.72 0.63 9.17 1.90 0.16 0.15Std. error 0.57 0.29 0.32 0.28 4.10 0.85 0.07 0.07

„Lauta“ Park (Suburban zone) Min 15.90 17.00 14.90 15.00 22.60 39.80 5.01 5.75Max 17.80 22.40 15.40 15.40 75.50 64.70 5.83 5.83Mean 16.94 18.62 15.20 15.28 42.10 51.70 5.50 5.80Stand. dev. 0.72 2.20 0.19 0.16 21.50 11.13 0.35 0.03Std. error 0.32 0.99 0.08 0.07 9.62 4.98 0.16 0.01

„Loven park“ Park (Rural zone)Min 27.80 24.80 17.70 16.70 7.61 7.50 7.20 6.50Max 35.70 26.40 18.40 18.20 69.70 30.20 7.61 7.20Mean 30.50 25.42 18.06 17.34 24.90 14.28 7.39 6.80Stand. dev. 3.12 0.65 0.30 0.59 25.60 9.19 0.20 0.29Std. error 1.40 0.29 0.14 0.27 11.45 4.11 0.09 0.13

Table 3. Taxonomic composition, number of individuals, proportion, and frequency ofoccurrence of the registered epigeal invertebrates in the three studied parks in Plovdiv City.Legend: Ni – number of individuals from taxon i; Pi – proportion of taxon i; Fi – frequency ofoccurance of taxon i, %.

Taxa„Parashutna kula“Park (Urban zone)

„Lauta“ Park(SubUrban zone)

„Loven park“ Park(Rural zone)

Ni Pi Fi Ni Pi Fi Ni Pi Fi

Oligochaeta, Lumbricidae 1 0.00069 0.06859 5 0.00378 0.37793 14 0.00446 0.44643Pseudoscorpiones 4 0.00274 0.27435 7 0.00529 0.5291 19 0.00606 0.60587Acarı 13 0.00892 0.89163 105 0.07937 7.93651 14 0.00446 0.44643Araneae 85 0.0583 5.8299 37 0.02797 2.79667 540 0.17219 17.2194Opiliones 0 0 0 3 0.00227 0.22676 12 0.00383 0.38265Crustacea 2 0.00137 0.13717 1 0.00076 0.07559 0 0 0Crustacea, Armadillidium sp. 1 0.00069 0.06859 0 0 0 0 0 0Crustacea, Oniscus sp. 3 0.00206 0.20576 20 0.01512 1.51172 5 0.00159 0.15944Crustacea, Porcelio sp. 15 0.01029 1.02881 40 0.03023 3.02343 58 0.01849 1.84949Gastropoda 1 0.00069 0.06859 3 0.00227 0.22676 0 0 0Myriapoda 1 0.00069 0.06859 1 0.00076 0.07559 2 0.00064 0.06378Myriapoda, Geophilidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.00032 0.03189Myriapoda, Chilopoda 4 0.00274 0.27435 0 0 0 41 0.01307 1.3074Collembola 331 0.22702 22.7023 236 0.17838 17.8382 1144 0.3648 36.4796Insecta - undet. 0 0 0 8 0.00605 0.60469 0 0 0Insecta (larvae) - undet. 10 0.00686 0.68587 1 0.00076 0.07559 16 0.0051 0.5102Coleoptera - undet. 9 0.00617 0.61728 16 0.01209 1.20937 14 0.00446 0.44643Coleoptera, Cantharididae 5 0.00343 0.34294 1 0.00076 0.07559 2 0.00064 0.06378Coleoptera, Carabidae 81 0.05556 5.55556 129 0.09751 9.75057 37 0.0118 1.17985Coleoptera, Cerambicidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0.00096 0.09566

108

Ivelin A. Mollov, Peter S. Boyadzhiev, Bozhana N. BozhinovaColeoptera, Chrysomelidae 1 0.00069 0.06859 0 0 0 5 0.00159 0.15944Coleoptera, Coccinelidae 1 0.00069 0.06859 0 0 0 2 0.00064 0.06378Coleoptera, Curculionidae 3 0.00206 0.20576 30 0.02268 2.26757 8 0.00255 0.2551Coleoptera, Geotrupidae 23 0.01578 1.5775 0 0 0 0 0 0Coleoptera, Elateridae 1 0.00069 0.06859 4 0.00302 0.30234 4 0.00128 0.12755Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae 0 0 0 2 0.00151 0.15117 1 0.00032 0.03189Coleoptera, Silphidae 0 0 0 5 0.00378 0.37793 9 0.00287 0.28699Coleoptera, Staphylinidae 73 0.05007 5.00686 26 0.01965 1.96523 155 0.04943 4.9426Coleoptera, Tenebrionidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0.00128 0.12755Coleoptera (larvae) 12 0.00823 0.82305 4 0.00302 0.30234 19 0.00606 0.60587Dermaptera 10 0.00686 0.68587 4 0.00302 0.30234 0 0 0Dermaptera (larvae) 79 0.05418 5.41838 61 0.04611 4.61073 6 0.00191 0.19133Diptera 0 0 0 1 0.00076 0.07559 0 0 0Diptera, Brachicera 62 0.04252 4.2524 10 0.00756 0.75586 42 0.01339 1.33929Diptera, Nematocera 106 0.0727 7.27023 68 0.0514 5.13983 89 0.02838 2.83801Diptera, Nematocera, Culicidae 0 0 0 1 0.00076 0.07559 0 0 0Diptera, Nematocera, Tipulidae 0 0 0 1 0.00076 0.07559 0 0 0Diptera, Tachinidae 21 0.0144 1.44033 14 0.01058 1.0582 10 0.00319 0.31888Diptera (larvae) 1 0.00069 0.06859 232 0.17536 17.5359 31 0.00989 0.98852Hemiptera 2 0.00137 0.13717 0 0 0 0 0 0Hemiptera, Heteroptera 1 0.00069 0.06859 1 0.00076 0.07559 5 0.00159 0.15944Hemiptera, Aphidoidea 28 0.0192 1.92044 0 0 0 0 0 0Hemiptera, Cicadellidae 3 0.00206 0.20576 8 0.00605 0.60469 42 0.01339 1.33929Hemiptera, Sternorrhyncha 109 0.07476 7.47599 0 0 0 86 0.02742 2.74235Hemiptera (larvae) 2 0.00137 0.13717 1 0.00076 0.07559 2 0.00064 0.06378Hymenoptera, Aculeata 1 0.00069 0.06859 3 0.00227 0.22676 6 0.00191 0.19133Hymenoptera, Apocrita 33 0.02263 2.26337 19 0.01436 1.43613 12 0.00383 0.38265Hymenoptera, Chalcidoidea 1 0.00069 0.06859 0 0 0 0 0 0Hymenoptera, Ichnemonidae 0 0 0 1 0.00076 0.07559 0 0 0Hymenoptera, Formicidae 316 0.21674 21.6735 212 0.16024 16.0242 654 0.20855 20.8546Lepidoptera 1 0.00069 0.06859 0 0 0 0 0 0Lepidoptera (larvae) 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0.00478 0.47832Ortopthera 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.00032 0.03189Orthoptera, Acrididae, Acrida sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0.00096 0.09566Orthoptera, Gryllidae, Gryllus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.00032 0.03189Ortopthera, Tettigonidae 1 0.00069 0.06859 2 0.00151 0.15117 2 0.00064 0.06378Orthoptera (larvae) 1 0.00069 0.06859 0 0 0 0 0 0Total 1458 - 100 1323 - 100 3136 - 100

Table 4. Taxonomic composition, number of individuals, proportion, frequency of occurrenceand consistency of the registered epigeal invertebrates in „Parashutna kula“ Park. Legend: Ni –number of individuals from taxon i; Pi – proportion of taxon i; Fi – frequency of occurence oftaxon i, %; Ci – consistency of taxon i.

TaxaTrap

1Ni

Trap2Ni

Trap3Ni

Trap4Ni

Trap5Ni

Total

Ni Pi Fi Ci

EcotoneAcarı 1 1 0.001 0.146 20Araneae 4 6 3 9 6 28 0.041 4.076 100Crustacea 2 2 0.003 0.291 20Crustacea, Armadillidium sp. 1 1 0.001 0.146 20

109


Crustacea, Porcelio sp. 1 2 3 0.004 0.437 40Myriapoda 1 1 0.001 0.146 20Myriapoda, Chilopoda 1 1 1 3 0.004 0.437 60Collembola 13 44 128 85 4 274 0.399 39.884 100Insecta (larvae) - undet. 4 1 5 0.007 0.728 40Coleoptera 2 1 3 0.004 0.437 40Coleoptera, Cantharididae 1 1 2 0.003 0.291 40Coleoptera, Carabidae 10 4 7 26 47 0.068 6.841 80Coleoptera, Curculionidae 2 2 0.003 0.291 20Coleoptera, Staphylinidae 2 5 2 9 0.013 1.310 60Coleoptera (larvae) 1 1 1 2 5 0.007 0.728 80Dermaptera 7 1 8 0.012 1.164 40Dermaptera (larvae) 3 1 15 19 0.028 2.766 60Diptera, Brachicera 4 1 2 1 8 0.012 1.164 100Diptera, Nematocera 1 16 11 12 5 45 0.066 6.550 80Diptera, Tachinidae 3 7 2 1 13 0.019 1.892 80Diptera (larvae) 1 1 0.001 0.146 20Hemiptera, Aphidoidea 28 28 0.041 4.076 20Hemiptera, Sternorrhyncha 2 12 71 2 87 0.127 12.664 80Hemiptera (larvae) 1 1 0.001 0.146 20Hymenoptera, Aculeata 1 1 0.001 0.146 20Hymenoptera, Apocrita 4 7 3 14 0.020 2.038 60Hymenoptera, Chalcidoidea 1 1 0.001 0.146 20Hymenoptera, Formicidae 3 11 22 18 21 75 0.109 10.917 100Total (ecotone) 42 108 198 247 92 687 - 100 -

InteriorOligochaeta, Lumbricidae 1 1 0.001 0.130 20Pseudoscorpiones 2 2 4 0.005 0.519 40Acarı 11 1 12 0.016 1.556 40Araneae 7 4 24 18 3 56 0.073 7.263 100Crustacea, Oniscus sp. 3 3 0.004 0.389 20Crustacea, Porcelio sp. 1 1 10 12 0.016 1.556 60Gastropoda 1 1 0.001 0.130 20Myriapoda, Chilopoda 1 1 0.001 0.130 20Collembola 28 18 1 8 1 56 0.073 7.263 100Insecta (larvae) - undet. 1 2 2 5 0.006 0.649 60Coleoptera - undet. 1 2 2 1 6 0.008 0.778 80Coleoptera, Cantharididae 1 1 1 3 0.004 0.389 60Coleoptera, Carabidae 2 1 24 2 8 37 0.048 4.799 100Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae 1 1 0.001 0.130 20Coleoptera, Coccinelidae 1 1 0.001 0.130 20Coleoptera, Curculionidae 1 1 0.001 0.130 20Coleoptera, Geotrupidae 20 1 2 23 0.030 2.983 60Coleoptera, Elateridae 1 1 0.001 0.130 20Coleoptera, Staphylinidae 3 34 10 14 3 64 0.083 8.301 100Coleoptera (larvae) 2 5 7 0.009 0.908 40Dermaptera 2 2 0.003 0.259 20Dermaptera (larvae) 8 7 13 16 16 60 0.078 7.782 100Diptera, Brachicera 14 22 5 10 3 54 0.070 7.004 100Diptera, Nematocera 16 12 2 13 18 61 0.079 7.912 100Diptera, Tachinidae 5 3 8 0.010 1.038 40Hemiptera 2 2 0.003 0.259 20Hemiptera, Cicadellidae 2 1 3 0.004 0.389 40

110

Ivelin A. Mollov, Peter S. Boyadzhiev, Bozhana N. BozhinovaHemiptera, Heteroptera 1 1 0.001 0.130 20Hemiptera, Sternorrhyncha 10 7 4 1 22 0.029 2.853 80Hemiptera (larvae) 1 1 0.001 0.130 20Hymenoptera, Apocrita 2 8 3 2 4 19 0.025 2.464 100Hymenoptera, Formicidae 22 61 13 54 90 240 0.311 31.128 100Lepidoptera 1 1 0.001 0.130 20Ortopthera, Tettigonidae 1 1 0.001 0.130 20Orthoptera (larvae) 1 1 0.001 0.130 20Total (interior) 125 220 126 145 155 771 - 100 -

Table 5. Taxonomic composition, number of individuals, proportion, frequency of occurrenceand consistency of the registered epigeal invertebrates in „Lauta“ Park. Legend: Ni – number ofindividuals from taxon i; Pi – proportion of taxon i; Fi – frequency of occurence of taxon i, %; Ci –consistency of taxon i.

TaxaTrap

1Ni

Trap2Ni

Trap3Ni

Trap4Ni

Trap5Ni

Total

Ni Pi Fi Ci

EcotonePseudoscorpiones 1 1 2 0.003 0.293 60Acarı 4 10 14 0.021 2.053 60Araneae 7 1 16 12 1 37 0.054 5.425 100Opiliones 3 3 0.004 0.440 40Crustacea 1 1 0.001 0.147 40Crustacea, Oniscus sp. 7 9 2 18 0.026 2.639 60Crustacea, Porcelio sp. 15 23 38 0.056 5.572 40Gastropoda 2 1 3 0.004 0.440 40Myriapoda 1 1 0.001 0.147 20Collembola 32 39 50 11 21 153 0.224 22.434 100Insecta - undet. 1 2 3 0.004 0.440 60Insecta (larvae) - undet. 1 1 0.001 0.147 20Coleoptera - undet. 1 7 1 9 0.013 1.320 60Coleoptera, Carabidae 9 17 11 12 5 54 0.079 7.918 100Coleoptera, Curculionidae 1 1 27 1 30 0.044 4.399 80Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae 1 1 2 0.003 0.293 60Coleoptera, Silphidae 1 1 0.001 0.147 20Coleoptera, Staphylinidae 1 2 5 2 10 0.015 1.466 80Dermaptera 1 1 2 4 0.006 0.587 60Dermaptera (larvae) 1 2 1 4 0.006 0.587 60Diptera, Brachicera 2 2 1 1 6 0.009 0.880 80Diptera, Nematocera 5 8 7 4 3 27 0.040 3.959 100Diptera, Nematocera, Culucidae 1 1 0.001 0.147 20

Diptera, Nematocera, Tipulidae 1 1 0.001 0.147 20Diptera, Tachinidae 2 3 1 6 0.009 0.880 60Diptera (larvae) 36 1 23 1 61 0.089 8.944 80Hemiptera, Cicadellidae 3 2 5 0.007 0.733 40Hemiptera, Heteroptera 1 1 0.001 0.147 20Hemiptera (larvae) 1 1 0.001 0.147 20Hymenoptera, Apocrita 5 3 9 17 0.025 2.493 60Hymenoptera, Ichnemonidae 1 1 0.001 0.147 20Hymenoptera, Formicidae 25 45 72 7 16 165 0.242 24.194 100

111


Ortopthera, Tettigonidae 1 1 2 0.003 0.293 40Total (ecotone) 134 161 282 50 55 682 - 100 -

InteriorOligochaeta, Lumbricidae 1 2 2 5 0.008 0.780 60Pseudoscorpiones 2 2 1 5 0.008 0.780 60Araneae 23 17 3 26 22 91 0.142 14.197 100Crustacea, Oniscus sp. 1 1 2 0.003 0.312 40Crustacea, Porcelio sp. 1 1 2 0.003 0.312 40Collembola 2 75 6 83 0.129 12.949 60Insecta (larvae) - undet. 5 5 0.008 0.780 20Coleoptera - undet. 2 5 7 0.011 1.092 40Coleoptera, Cantharididae 1 1 0.002 0.156 20Coleoptera, Carabidae 14 22 10 6 21 73 0.114 11.388 100Coleoptera, Elateridae 1 2 1 4 0.006 0.624 60Coleoptera, Silphidae 3 1 4 0.006 0.624 40Coleoptera, Staphylinidae 3 2 6 5 16 0.025 2.496 80Coleoptera (larvae) 2 2 4 0.006 0.624 40Dermaptera (larvae) 13 12 1 5 25 56 0.087 8.736 100Diptera 1 1 0.002 0.156 20Diptera, Brachicera 2 2 4 0.006 0.624 40Diptera, Nematocera 5 1 22 13 41 0.064 6.396 80Diptera, Tachinidae 5 3 8 0.012 1.248 40Diptera (larvae) 97 7 4 61 5 174 0.271 27.145 100Hemiptera, Cicadellidae 2 1 3 0.005 0.468 40Hymenoptera, Aculeata 3 3 0.005 0.468 20Hymenoptera, Apocrita 1 1 2 0.003 0.312 40Hymenoptera, Formicidae 15 13 2 12 5 47 0.073 7.332 100Total (interior) 177 95 29 229 111 641 - 100 -

Table 6. Taxonomic composition, number of individuals, proportion, frequency of occurrenceand consistency of the registered epigeal invertebrates in „Loven park“ Park. Legend: Ni – numberof individuals from taxon i; Pi – proportion of taxon i; Fi – frequency of occurence of taxon i, %;Ci – consistency of taxon i.

TaxaTrap

1Ni

Trap2Ni

Trap3Ni

Trap4Ni

Trap5Ni

Total

Ni Pi Fi Ci

EcotoneOligochaeta, Lumbricidae 2 3 7 1 13 0.010 0.968 80Pseudoscorpiones 1 1 5 2 8 17 0.013 1.266 100Acarı 2 2 4 0.003 0.298 40Araneae 51 52 48 62 20 233 0.173 17.349 100Opiliones 1 1 1 3 0.002 0.223 60Crustacea, Oniscus sp. 1 1 2 0.001 0.149 40Crustacea, Porcelio sp. 2 5 4 1 12 24 0.018 1.787 100Myriapoda 1 1 0.001 0.074 20Myriapoda, Chilopoda 1 2 4 6 13 0.010 0.968 80Collembola 23 10 44 35 31 143 0.106 10.648 100Insecta (larvae) - undet. 1 3 5 2 4 15 0.011 1.117 100Coleoptera 4 3 7 0.005 0.521 40Coleoptera, Cantharididae 1 1 0.001 0.074 20

112

Ivelin A. Mollov, Peter S. Boyadzhiev, Bozhana N. BozhinovaColeoptera, Carabidae 2 6 1 3 12 0.009 0.894 80Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae 1 1 1 3 0.002 0.223 60Coleoptera, Coccinelidae 2 2 0.001 0.149 20Coleoptera, Curculionidae 2 2 1 1 6 0.004 0.447 80Coleoptera, Elateridae 1 1 0.001 0.074 20Coleoptera, Elateridae (larvae) 1 1 0.001 0.074 20Coleoptera, Silphidae 8 8 0.006 0.596 20Coleoptera, Silphidae, (larvae) 1 1 2 0.001 0.149 40Coleoptera, Staphylinidae 8 4 11 7 108 138 0.103 10.276 100Coleoptera (larvae) 3 2 5 0.004 0.372 40Dermaptera (larvae) 1 2 3 0.002 0.223 40Diptera, Brachicera 7 11 4 4 1 27 0.020 2.010 100Diptera, Nematocera 4 6 12 3 9 34 0.025 2.532 100Diptera, Tachinidae 2 3 2 1 8 0.006 0.596 80Diptera (larvae) 1 9 1 2 13 0.010 0.968 100Hemiptera, Cicadellidae 14 9 6 6 35 0.026 2.606 80Hemiptera, Heteroptera 2 1 3 0.002 0.223 40Hemiptera, Sternorrhyncha 1 2 75 4 82 0.061 6.106 80Hemiptera (larvae) 1 1 2 0.001 0.149 40Hymenoptera, Aculeata 1 1 2 0.001 0.149 40Hymenoptera, Apocrita 2 5 1 8 0.006 0.596 60Hymenoptera, Formicidae 58 70 260 33 35 456 0.340 33.954 100Lepidoptera (larvae) 6 6 1 13 0.010 0.968 60Orthoptera, Acrididae, Acrida sp. 1 1 0.001 0.074 40

Total (ecotone) 184 192 534 177 256 1343 - 100 -

InteriorOligochaeta, Lumbricidae 1 1 0.001 0.056 20Pseudoscorpiones 2 2 0.001 0.112 20Acarı 1 4 3 1 1 10 0.006 0.558 100Araneae 72 61 125 48 306 0.171 17.066 80Opiliones 2 1 3 3 9 0.005 0.502 80Crustacea, Oniscus sp. 1 2 3 0.002 0.167 40Crustacea, Porcelio sp. 1 6 24 3 34 0.019 1.896 80Myriapoda 1 1 0.001 0.056 20Myriapoda,Geophilidae 1 1 0.001 0.056 20Myriapoda, Chilopoda 8 5 13 2 28 0.016 1.562 80Collembola 141 169 282 300 109 1001 0.558 55.828 100Insecta (larvae) - undet. 1 1 0.001 0.056 20Coleoptera 1 1 2 3 7 0.004 0.390 80Coleoptera, Cantharididae 1 1 0.001 0.056 20Coleoptera, Carabidae 5 4 3 3 10 25 0.014 1.394 100Coleoptera, Cerambycidae 3 3 0.002 0.167 20Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae 1 1 2 0.001 0.112 40Coleoptera, Coccinelidae, 1 1 0.001 0.056 20Coleoptera, Curculionidae 1 1 2 0.001 0.112 40Coleoptera, Elateridae 1 2 3 0.002 0.167 40Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae 1 1 0.001 0.056 20Coleoptera, Silphidae 1 1 0.001 0.056 20Coleoptera, Silphidae (larvae) 2 1 3 0.002 0.167 40Coleoptera, Staphylinidae 5 4 2 3 3 17 0.009 0.948 100Coleoptera, Tenebrionidae 1 3 4 0.002 0.223 40Coleoptera (larvae) 1 4 5 0.003 0.279 40Dermaptera (larvae) 3 3 0.002 0.167 20

113


Diptera, Brachicera 2 6 6 1 15 0.008 0.837 80Diptera, Nematocera 1 6 10 35 3 55 0.031 3.067 100Diptera, Tachinidae 2 2 0.001 0.112 40Diptera (larvae) 2 4 12 18 0.010 1.004 60Hemiptera, Cicadellidae 1 1 5 7 0.004 0.390 60Hemiptera, Heteroptera 2 2 0.001 0.112 60Hemiptera, Sternorrhyncha 1 1 2 4 0.002 0.223 60Hymenoptera, Aculeata 1 2 1 4 0.002 0.223 60Hymenoptera, Apocrita 2 1 1 4 0.002 0.223 60Hymenoptera, Formicidae 41 24 56 57 21 199 0.111 11.099 100Lepidoptera (larvae) 1 1 2 0.001 0.112 20Orthoptera 1 1 0.001 0.056 20Orthoptera, Acrididae, Acrida sp. 2 2 0.001 0.112 20Orthoptera, Gryllidae, Gryllus sp. 1 1 0.001 0.056 20Ortopthera, Tettigonidae 2 2 0.001 0.112 20Total (interior) 284 233 476 576 224 1793 - -

Table 7. Diversity indices of the epigeal invertebrate communities in the three studied urbanparks in the city of Plovdiv.

Index„Parashutna kula“ Park

(Urban zone)„Lauta“ Park

(SubUrban zone)„Loven park“ Park

(Rural zone)Ecotone Interior Total Ecotone Interior Total Ecotone Interior Total

Simpson Diversity (1/S) 4.992 7.356 8.08 7.467 7.11 8.954 5.767 2.818Simpson Equitability (E) 0.312 0.347 0.2959 0.353 0.409 0.332 0.263 0.122Shannon Diversity (H') 2.168 2.496 2.543 2.455 2.284 2.560 2.300 1.634Shannon Evenness (J) 0.650 0.702 0.6762 0.702 0.719 0.699 0.632 0.437

Fig. 2. Cluster analysis (Group Average Link, Bray-Curtis similarity index)in the three studied urban parks in the city of Plovdiv, based on the faunal similarity.

114

Ivelin A. Mollov, Peter S. Boyadzhiev, Bozhana N. BozhinovaThe predominating tree and shrub

vegetation, recorded by us in the ecotone areaof the park includes: Quercus robur, Rubuscaesius, Fraxinus oxycarpa, Clematis vitalba,Galium aparine, Fagus sylvatica, Juglans regia,Robinia pseuodoacacia and Ilex aquifolium,and in the interior of the park: Clematisvitalba, Quercus robur, Fraxinus oxycarpa,Ulmus minor, Robinia pseuodoacacia andBetula pendula. The vegetation consists ofboth natural vegetation and decorative species.The park is characterized by a higher grasslandheight. Both better sun-lit parts and shadyhabitats are recorded.

When comparing the average values of themeasured abiotic factors in the three studiedparks, it is noticeable that with regard to the airand soil temperature the lowest values of bothfactors are recorded in „Lauta“ Park (Table 2).In principle, in the big cities, the airtemperature increases by 1-2 degrees from theperiphery to the center of the city, aphenomenon known as „urban heat islandeffect” (OKE, 1982; CAMILLONI & BARROS,1997).

Our study does not confirm the samepattern. The lower temperature in „Lauta“ Parkis due to the densely located tree vegetation inthis park, which determines a specificmicroclimate in the park, which somewhatexplains the high moisture of the soil. Inaddition, our research was conducted once in asingle season. For a fuller explanation of thisquestion, additional studies with multiplemeasurements in different seasons are needed.

In terms of soil pH, it is highest in „Lovenpark“ Park, but within the neutral pH range(about 7), while the soil pH values in the othertwo parks are almost the same and close to 5.The observed differences are likely to beexplained by the more specific type of alluvialsoils near the Maritsa River compared to theother two parks.

As a result of multiple cluster analyses ofthe three parks with respect to the fourmeasured abiotic factors we found the samedependencies. In terms of air temperature, soiltemperature and soil moisture „Lauta“ Park inall three cases is grouped into a single clusterwhile the other two parks form a secondcluster. The greatest is the similarity betweenthe three parks in terms of soil temperature andat least - in terms of soil moisture. With regard

to soil pH, „Loven park“ Park forms a singlecluster, with about 85% similarity, and theother two parks form a second cluster, withabout 95% similarity.

Ecological analysis of the epigealinvertebrates communities

In the present study on the epigealinvertebrate communities in the three studiedparks in the city of Plovdiv, we identified a totalof 5917 individuals belonging to 57 taxa, theparks distribution being as follows: „Parashutnakula“ Park - 1458 ind. of 42 taxa; „Lauta“ Park- 1323 ind. of 39 taxa and „Loven park“ Park -3136 ind. of 42 taxa. It is noteworthy that thespecies richness and number of individuals isthe lowest in „Lauta“ Park, while the speciesrichness in „Parashutna kula“ Park and „Lovenpark“ Park is the same, but in the latter thenumber of individuals recorded is twice as high.

The taxonomic composition, number ofindividuals, proportion, and frequency ofoccurrence of the registered epigealinvertebrates in the three studied parks arepresented in Table 3.

From the results presented in Table 3 it isvisible, that in all three parks the threepredominant taxa are Collembola;Hymenoptera, Formicidae and Coleoptera,which is presented differently with the variousfamilies in the three parks. The high number ofDiptera larvae, that we recorded in „Lauta“Park can be explained by the higher humidity inthis park. At the time of placing the traps, therewas also rainfalls, and in some places water hadbeen retained in tree trunks, under thick foliageetc. (places, where Diptera larvae can develop).In general, this taxon is not a typicalrepresentative of epigeal soil invertebrates. Thehigh share of spiders (Aranea) in „Loven park“Park can be explained by the higher air and soiltemperature during the study period and thelower humidity.

Taxonomic composition, number ofindividuals, proportion, frequency ofoccurrence and consistency of the registeredepigeal invertebrates in the ecotone zone andthe interior of the three studied urban parks arepresented in Table 4-6.

Table 4 shows that the predominant taxa inthe ecotone area of „Parashutna kula“ Park areCollembola, followed by representatives of theHemiptera order and Hymenoptera,Formicidae, while in the interior ants

115


predominate, followed by Coleoptera (mostlythe representatives of the Staphylinidae andCarabidae families) and after them are theterrestrial snails and the spiders. This differencein the composition of the fauna between theecotone and the interior of the park may beexplained by the fact that this is the mostmaintained park of all three, and the shrubvegetation located in the park is periodicallywatered. Around some of the traps placed, nearbushes, the moisture is higher, while aroundother traps, placed near trees (which are notwatered), the moisture is lower and there theants and spiders prevail. Because of the highmoisture in some places in the ecotone area wealso recorded a share of Diptera larvae, whichare not typical soil invertebrates.

In „Lauta“ Park, the differences in thefaunistic composition of the epigealinvertebrates in the ecotone area and theinterior of the park are very visible (Table 5).Except for Diptera larvae, which as mentionedbefore are not typical soil invertebrates, thepredominating taxa in the ecotone areCollembola, Hymenoptera, Formicidae, with alower presence of Coleoptera (mainlyCarabidae and Curculionidae), while in theinterior Aranea, Collembola and Coleoptera,Carabidae, predominate, while the ants arecomparatively poorly presented. Strongpresence in the park's interior and almostabsent in the ecotone area are the Dermapteralarvae.

In the ecotone area of „Loven park“ Park,ants and spiders are predominant, followed byColeoptera, Staphylinidae, while in the interiorthe most numerous are the terrestrial snailsfollowed by the spiders and the ants occupy amuch smaller share. Spiders are generally morenumerous in this park, compared to the othertwo.

Analyzing to the consistency of the taxa inthe three studied parks, the following trendemerged: in „Parashutna kula“ Park there were12 permanent, 5 additional and 10 randomtaxa recorded in the ecotone area and 15permanent, 5 additional and 15 random taxa -in the interior of the park. In „Lauta“ Park - 20permanent, 6 additional and 6 random taxa inthe ecotone area and 11 permanent, 9additional and 4 random taxa in the interior ofthe park. In „Loven park“ Park - 21permanent, 10 additional and 7 random taxa inthe ecotone area and 18 permanent, 7

additional and 16 random taxa in the interiorof the park. It is noteworthy that thecommunity in „Lauta“ Park is perhaps themost stable and distinct, since it has the lowestnumber of random taxa in both the ecotoneand the interior.

From the point of view of the diversity ofthe communities, we registered the greatestdiversity, measured with both indices the„Lauta“ Park (Table 7). A slightly lowerdiversity was recorded in the „Parashutnakula“ Park, but the difference is not great. Inaddition, in all three studied parks, with theexception of „Parashutna kula“ Park, thediversity is higher in the ecotone area, as canbe expected, as a result of the so-called „edgeeffect“ (ODUM, 1974). In „Parashutna kula“Park, this is not the case, which may be due tothe fact that the park is not large in size andhas a heavily elongated rectangular shape. Theecotone area in this park is not clearlyexpressed. On the other hand, high emittinglevels of gasses, high turbulence, noise, dust,bright lights from passing cars are present inthe ecotone region bordering a heavily loadedroad (BRAUN & FLÜCKIGER, 1984; MADER,1984), which in this particular case may be anadditional cause for the low diversity.According to MCINTYRE (2000), the diversityof invertebrates should decrease as the level ofcontamination increases.

According to both evenness indices (Table7) the communities in the three studied urbanparks are bi- or poly-dominant, aspredominating taxa are Collembola andHymenoptera, Formicidae.

Contrary to most studies (MCKINNEY,2008; JONES & LEATHER, 2012), wherediversity is declining from the periphery to thecity center, in our case this trend is notconfirmed. The highest diversity we recordedfor the community in „Lauta“ Park, located inthe suburbs of the city, which can be explainedwith the „Intermediate disturbance hypothesis”(CONNELL, 1978; BLAIR & LAUNER, 1997).According to this hypothesis, at high levels ofdisturbance (strong anthropogenic pressure),species richness and diversity decrease, andwhen the level of disturbance is reduced, theyrise again, but to a certain level. When thedegree of anthropogenic pressure falls belowcertain limits, species richness and diversityagain are low, in other words, the highestdiversity is observed at an intermediate level of

116

Ivelin A. Mollov, Peter S. Boyadzhiev, Bozhana N. Bozhinovaanthropogenic pressure. Assuming that in thecenter of the city, the anthropogenic pressure inall its forms and manifestations is the mostintense, and on the outskirts of the city (ruralzone) - the weakest, the „Intermediatedisturbance hypothesis” could explain thehighest diversity we registered in „Lauta“ Park.

As a result of the performed clusteranalysis, the three parks are grouped into twoclusters, based on faunistic similarity of theepigeal invertebrates communities (Fig. 2). Atapproximately 20% similarity „Loven park“Park, is separated in a single clster. The park islocated on the outskirts of the city (rural zone),where we registered the lowest diversity (Table7). Approximately at 25% similarity „Lauta“Park and „Parashutna kula“ Park are separatedin second cluster. The diversity, calculatedusing both indices in both parks was similar.

Conclusions

1. „Lauta“ Park differs the most from theother two parks in terms of the measuredabiotic factors, except that there was nostatistically significant difference between thevalues of the factors in the ecotone area and theinterior of the park.

2. The predominant tree and shrubvegetation in the three studied parks is mainlydecorative and ruderal, and „Loven park“ Parkis the only place, where most of the natural,autochthonous vegetation is still found.

3. With the greatest number of individualsand with the highest species richness is theepigeal invertebrates community in „Lovenpark“ Park, followed by „Parashutna kula“Park, and the lowest numbers and speciesrichness, was recorded in „Lauta“ Park.

4. In the three studied urban parks,Collembola and Hymenoptera, Formicidaepredominate, while Aranea occupy significantshare in „Loven park“ Park.

5. In „Lauta“ Park the epigeal invertebratescommunity is characterized by the greatestdiversity, calculated using both indices, with thelowest share of random taxa in both theecotone and the interior of the park comparedto the other two parks. The surveyed epigealinvertebrates communities in the three urbanparks do not follow the generally establisheddependence of declining the diversity from theperiphery to the city center.

6. The community in „Parashutna kula“Park is bi-dominant, while the ones in „Lauta“Park and „Loven park“ Park are polydominant.

ReferencesANGELOV A., D. BOZHKOV, N.

VIHODCEVSKI, M. JOSIFOV. 1963.[Fauna of Bulgaria. Invertebrates. ShortField guide.] Publ. “Narodna prosveta”,Sofia, 406 p. (In Bulgarian).

ANGELOV P., 1982. [Zoology atlas.Invertebrates], Publ. “Narodnaprosveta”, Sofia, 319 p. (In Bulgarian).

BLAIR R.B., A.E. LAUNER. 1997. Butterflydiversity and human land use: speciesassemblages along an urban gradient.Biological Conservation, 80: 113-125.

BORGELT A., T. NEW. 2006. Pitfall trapping forants (Hymenoptera, Formicidae) inmesic Australia: what is the besttrapping period? Journal of InsectConservation, 10: 75-77.

BRAUN S., W. FLÜCKIGER. 1984. Increasedpopulation of the aphid Aphis pomi at amotorway: Part 1 – field evaluation.Environmental Pollution (A), 33: 107-120.

BREUSTE J., J. NIEMELÄ, R.P.H. SNEP. 2008.Applying landscape ecological principlesin urban environments. LandscapeEcology, 23: 1139-1142.

CAMILLONI I., V. BARROS. 1997. On the UrbanHeat Island Effect Dependence onTemperature Trends. Climatic Change,37: 665-681.

CONNELL J.H. 1978. Diversity in Tropical RainForests and Coral Reefs. Science,199(4335): 1302-1310.

DE JONG Y., M. VERBEEK, V. MICHELSEN, P.DE PLACE BJØRN, W. LOS, F. STEEMAN,N. BAILLY, C. BASIRE, P. CHYLARECKI,E. STLOUKAL, G. HAGEDORN, F.T.WETZEL, F. GLÖCKLER, A. KROUPA, G.KORB, A. HOFFMANN, C. HÄUSER, A.KOHLBECKER, A. MÜLLER, A.GÜNTSCH, P. STOEV, L. PENEV. 2014.Fauna Europaea - all European animalspecies on the web. Biodiversity DataJournal, 2: e4034. doi:10.3897/BDJ.2.e4034. Web Service[http//www.faunaeur.org].

DEDOV I., L. PENEV. 2000. Speciescomposition and origins of the

117


terrestrial gastropod fauna of Sofia City,Bulgaria. Ruthenica, 10(2): 121-131.

DEDOV I., L. PENEV. 2004. Spatial variation interrestrial gastropod communities(Gastropoda, Pulmonata) along urban-rural gradients in Sofia City, Bulgaria. -In: L. Penev, J. Niemelä, J. Kotze & N.Chipev (Eds.), Ecology of the City ofSofia. Species and Communities in anUrban Environment, PensoftPublishers, Sofia-Moscow, pp. 307-318.

DELIPAVLOV D., I. CHESHMEDZHIEV (Eds).2003. [Key to the plant in Bulgaria.]Academic Press Agricultural University,Plovdiv. (In Bulgarian).

Environmental Protection Program in Plovdiv.2011. Available at: http://plovdiv.bg/wp-content/uploads/okolna-sreda/normativni-dokumenti/Aktualizaciq_plan_POOS.pdf

FOWLER J., L. COHEN, P. JARVIS. 1998.Practical statistics for field biology.Chichester John Wiley & Sons, 259 p.

GOLEMANSKI V., H. HRISTOV, M. TODOROV.1990. [Field guide for practicle exerciseson invertebrate zoology], Shumen, 256p. (In Bulgarian).

HELDEN A.J., S.R. LEATHER. 2004.Biodiversity on urban roundabouts –Hemiptera, management and thespecies-area relationship. Basic andApplied Ecology, 5: 367-377.

JONES E.L., S.R. LEATHER. 2012. Invertebratesin urban parks - A review. Division ofEcology & Evolution, Imperial CollegeLondon, Silwood Park Campus, Ascot,SL5 7PY, UK, 2012, 109: 463-478.

JONES R.A. 2003. The 2001 presidential address –part 2. A celebration of urban entomology.British Journal of Entomology andNatural History, 16: 109-121.

KLAUSNITZER B. 1987. Ökologie derGro stadtfauna.β Jena, 225 p.

KLAUSNITZER B., K. RICHTER. 1983. Presence ofan urban gradient demonstrated forcarabid associations. Oecologia, 59: 79-82.

LAVELLE P., A. SPAIN. 2001. Soil Ecology.Springer, 503 p.

MADER H.J. 1984. Animal habitat isolation byroads and agricultural fields. BiologicalConservation, 29: 81-96.

MAGURRAN A.E. 2004. Measuring biologicaldiversity. Blackwell Publishing, Malden,MA, USA, 2004, 256 p.

MCALEECE N., P. LAMBSHEAD, G. PATERSON, J.GAGE. 1997. Biodiversity Professional.Computer Software. The Natural HistoryMuseum, The Scottish Association forMarine Sciences, London (UK), Oban(Scotland), Free Statistics Software forEcology, Available at:[http://www.sams.ac.uk/research/software].

MCDONNELL M.J., S.T.A. PICKETT. 1990.Ecosystem structure and function alongurban-rural gradients: an unexploitedopportunity for ecology. Ecology, 71(4):1232-1237.

MCDONNELL M.J., S.T.A. PICKETT, P.GROFFMAN, P. BOHLEN, R.V. POUYAT,W.C. ZIPPERER, R.W. PARMELLE, M.M.CARREIRO, K. MEDLEY. 1997. Ecosystemprocesses along an urban-to-rural gradient.Urban Ecosystems, 1: 21-36.

MCINTYRE N.E. 2000. Ecology of urbanarthropods: a review and a call to action.Annals of the Entomological Society ofAmerica, 93: 825-835.

MCINTYRE N.E., J. RANGO, W. F. FAGAN,S.H. FAETH. Ground arthropodcommunity structure in a heterogeneousurban environment. Landscape UrbanPlanning, 52: 257-274.

MCINTYRE N.E., M.E. HOSTETLER. 2001.Effects of urban land use on pollinator(Hymenoptera: Apoidea) communitiesin a desert metropolis. Basic andApplied Ecology, 2: 209-218.

MCKINNEY M. 2008. Effects of urbanizationon species richness: A review of plantsand animals. Urban Ecosystems, 11:161-176.

MITOV P.G., I. STOYANOV. 2004. Theharvestmen fauna (Opiliones,Arachnida) of the city of Sofia (Bulgaria)and its adjacent regions. - In: Penev, L.,Niemela, J., Kotze, J. & Chipev, N.(Eds.): Ecology of the City of Sofia.Species and Communities in UrbanEnvironment. – PENSOFT Publishers,Sofia-Moscow, pp. 319-354.

MLADENOV A., S. LAZAROVA, V. PENEVA. 2004.

118

Ivelin A. Mollov, Peter S. Boyadzhiev, Bozhana N. BozhinovaDistribution patterns of nematodecommunities in an urban forest in Sofia,Bulgaria. - In: Penev, L., Niemela, J.,Kotze, J. & Chipev, N. (Eds.). Ecologyof the City of Sofia. Species andCommunities in Urban Environment.PENSOFT Publishers, Sofia-Moscow,pp. 281-297.

NIEMELÄ J, D.J. KOTZE, S. VENN, L. PENEV,I. STOYANOV, J. SPENCE, D. HARTLEY,E.M. DE OCA. 2002. Carabid beetleassemblages (Coleoptera, Carabidae)across urban-rural gradients: aninternational comparison. LandscapeEcology, 17: 387–401.

NIEMELÄ J. 1999. Ecology and urban planning.Biodiversity and Conservation, 8: 119-131.

ODUM E. 1974. Fundamentals of ecology, 3rdedition. Saunders Piladelphia, USA.

OKE T. 1982. The Energetic Basis of the UrbanHeat Island. Quarterly Journal of theRoyal Meteorological Society, 108: 1-24.

PENEV L., I. STOYANOV, I. DEDOV, V.ANTONOVA. 2008. Patterns ofurbanization in the city of Sofia asshown by carabid beetles (Coleoptera,Carabidae), ants (Hymenoptera,Formicidae), and terrestrial gastropods(Mollusca, Gastropoda Terestria) – In:Back to the roots and back to the future.Towards a new synthesis amongsttaxonomic, ecological andbiogeographical approaches incarabidology, Pensoft, Sofia- Moscow,pp. 483-509.

PYLE R., M. BENTZIEN, P. OPLER. 1981. Insectconservation. Annual Review onEntomology, 26: 233-258.

SAMWAYS M.J., M.A. MCGEOCH, T.R. NEW.2010. Insect Conservation - AHandbook of Approaches and Methods.Oxforn University Press, 458 p.

StatSoft Inc. 2010. STATISTICA (data analysissoftware system), version 7.www.statsoft.com.

STOYANOV I., L. PENEV. 2004. SpatialStructure of Carabid BeetleAssemblages along an Urban-RuralGradient. - In: Penev L., J. Niemelä, D.Kotze, N. Chipev (Eds.), Ecology of theCity of Sofia. Species and Communities

in an Urban Environment, PENSOFTPublishers, Sofia-Moscow, pp. 371-400.

VALEV S., I. GANCHEV, V. VELCHEV. 1960.[Field guide of the flora of Bulgaria.]Publ. “Narodna prosveta”, Sofia, 735 p.(In Bulgarian).

ZAPPAROLI M. 1997. Urban development andinsect biodiversity of the Rome area,Italy. Landscape Urban Planning, 38:77-86.

Екологични свойства на съобществата от безгръбначни епигеобионти в зелени площи в

.град Пловдив 1 – Част Градските паркове

. ,ИвелинА Моллов . , . ПетърС Бояджиев БожанаН Божинова

(Резюме)

Градските зелени площи са от голямозначение за опазването на биоразнообразието вградовете. В градовете има голямо разнообразиеот безгръбначни животни, включителноспецифична група, която пълзи по повърхносттана земята, наречена „епигеобионти“. Целта нанастоящото изследване е да характеризира исравни съобществата от епигеобионти в триградски парка на територията на град Пловдив(парк „Парашутна кула“, парк „Лаута“ и парк„Ловен парк“). С най-голям брой индивиди и снай-високо видово богатство е съобществото впарк „Ловен парк”, следвана от парк „Парашутнакула”, а най-ниска численост и видово богатствобяха регистрирани в парк „Лаута”. В тритепроучени градски парка преобладават Collembolaи Hyemnoptera, Formicidae, като Aranea заематзначителен дял в парк „Ловен парк“. В парка„Лаута” обществото се характеризира с най-голямо разнообразие, с най-нисък дял наслучайни таксони както в екотона, така и винтериора на парка в сравнение с другите двапарка. Изследваните съобщества от епигеобионтибезгръбначни в трите градски парка не следватобщо установената зависимост от намаляванетона разнообразието от периферията до центъра награда.

Accepted: 11.05.2018Published: 14.12.2018

119



Ecological Properties of Epigeal Invertebrate Communitiesin Green Areas in the City of Plovdiv.

Part 2 - The Hills of Plovdiv

Ivelin A. Mollov1*, Peter S. Boyadzhiev2, Mina D. Dincheva3

1 - University of Plovdiv “Paisii Hilendarski”, Faculty of Biology, Department of Ecology andEnvironmental Conservation, 24 Tzar Assen Str., Plovdiv, BG-4000 BULGARIA

2 - University of Plovdiv “Paisii Hilendarski”, Faculty of Biology, Department of Zoology, 24 Tzar Assen Str., Plovdiv, BG-4000 BULGARIA

3 – MSc Student, Masters program “Ecology and Ecosystems Conservation”, University of Plovdiv“Paisii Hilendarski”, Faculty of Biology, Department of Ecology and Environmental Conservation,

24 Tzar Assen Str., Plovdiv, BG-4000 BULGARIA* Corresponding author: [email protected]

Abstract. The aim of the present work is to characterize and compare the epigeal invertebratescommunities in three of the Plovdiv hills - „Mladezhki hulm“ Hill, „Hulm Bunardzhik“ Hill and„Danov hulm“ Hill. The most numerous is the community of epigeal invertebrates from the„Mladezhki hulm” Hill (922 individuals from 37 taxa), followed by „Hulm Bunardzhik” Hill (876individuals from 40 taxa), where the community has the highest taxonomic richness, and the mostpoor on individuals and taxa was the community at „Danov hulm” Hill (493 individuals of 34taxa). In the three studied hills, Hymеnoptera, Formicidae predominate, followed by Coleopteraand Diptera, while Aranea occupy significant share in „Danov hulm“ Hill. The epigealinvertebrates community in „Hulm Bunardzhik” Hill is the most distinct, since it contains thehighest number of permanent and additional taxa compared to the other two hills and the lowestnumber of random taxa. The community at „Danov hulm” Hill, is probably the most unstable,which is probably due to the high anthropogenic pressure of this hill. The most diverse by bothindices used is the community at „Hulm Bunardzhik” Hill. The communities of epigealinvertebrates from all three studied hills are monodominant.

Key words: epigeal invertebrates, communities, Plovdiv hills, pit-fall traps, Plovdiv, Bulgaria.

IntroductionMany studies track the impact of

urbanization on biodiversity in cities. Theresults of these studies indicate thaturbanization can either increase or reducebiodiversity depending on several factors, suchas: taxonomic group studied, spatial scale ofstudies and urbanization intensity. Over time,habitat types within cities are changing, which

in turn affects wild flora and fauna. Somehabitats have completely disappeared whileothers have been altered and new ones haveemerged. Some of the emerging habitats areurban green areas. From this point of view,BREUSTE et al. (2008) consider urban habitatsas a mosaic of green areas scattered by theurban „matrix” (including residential,commercial, industrial buildings, infrastructure,




etc., see NIEMELÄ, 1999). Urban green areas areof great importance for preserving biodiversityin cities as they play the role of refuges for wildflora and fauna as well as corridors for themovement of certain species (ZAPPAROLI,1997). Many wild animal species find favorableconditions for their survival in urban settings,and other species adapt.

According to MCKINNEY (2002),urbanization nowadays represents a majorthreat to global biodiversity, leading to thedestruction of „a large proportion ofindigenous species“. Urban sprawl is usuallyassociated with habitat loss, fragmentation,habitat isolation and species changes (ALBERTI

et al., 2003; MCKINNEY, 2008).In cities (such as Baltimore or Berlin) even

new invertebrate species can be found (CSUZDI& SZLAVECZ, 2002) and there is highbiodiversity in the urban matrix (GROFFMAN etal., 2006). Data on invertebrate communities inurban ecosystems, such as spatiallyheterogeneous, dynamic, integrated socio-ecological units, remain relatively limited(PICKETT et al., 2008). Only individualtaxonomic groups have been well studied butthere are no comprehensive studies on theecological properties of communities ofdifferent invertebrate taxa.

Until now in Bulgaria, in urbanenvironment, systemic studies have beenconducted only on the nematode fauna(MLADENOV et al., 2004), the malacofauna(DEDOV & PENEV, 2000; 2004; PENEV et al.,2008), the carabid fauna (NIEMELÄ et al., 2002;STOYANOV, 2004; STOYANOV & PENEV, 2004;PENEV et al., 2008), myrmecofauna (PENEV etal., 2008), the harvestmen fauna (MITOV &STOYANOV, 2004) and others. In general,studies on invertebrates in urban environmentsin Bulgaria are few and there are nocomprehensive studies on invertebrate animalpopulations of different taxa, which determinesthe aim of the current paper. The aim of thepresent work is to characterize and comparethe epigeal invertebrates communities in threeof the Plovdiv hills.

Material and MethodsStudy areaThe fieldwork in the present study was

conducted in the territory of „Mladezhki hulm”Hill, „Hulm Bunardzhik” Hill and „Danov

hulm” Hill in Plovdiv City in September 2017(Fig. 1).

The three hills differ in the ratio betweennatural and artificial vegetation, by degree ofmaintenance by the Municipality of Plovdiv,and by degree of anthropogenic use(Environmental Protection Program in Plovdiv,2011).

Field methodsTo capture epigeal invertebrates, pitfall

traps were used (SAMWAYS et al., 2010), placinga total of 10 traps in each park - 5 in the lower(park portion) of each hill and 5 traps near thepeak of the hill (Table 1) to trace thedifferences in ecological characteristics ofepigeal invertebrates communities, not onlybetween the hills themselves but also betweenthose in the lower part and the peak. Each trapwas a two-liter plastic cylinder filled with oneliter of 4% formalin solution. Drainage holeswere drilled at 2/3 of the cylinder height toavoid overflow and loss of catch in case ofrainfall. Traps were placed in a straight line at adistance of 10-15 m from each other without abarrier being placed between them. The trapswere left for 14 days, while the minimalrecommended duration for similar studies is 10days (BORGELT & NEW, 2006).

When placing each trap, its exact GPScoordinates were captured using the GarmineTrex Vista Hcx GPS receiver (see Table 1); thepredominant bush and tree vegetation in theimmediate vicinity of trapping locations wasidentified. For the determination of the vegetationwe used the field guide by DELIPAVLOV &CHESHMEDZHIEV (2003) and VALEV et al.(1960). Also, some basic abiotic factors have beenmeasured - air temperature, soil temperature, soilmoisture and soil pH. The air and soiltemperature was measured using the electronicthermometer „TP-3001”, the soil moisture wasmeasured with electronic moisture meter „tr-46908”, and for soil pH measurements, we usedsoil pH-meter „PCE-PH20S“.

The collected invertebrates from each trap weretransferred to 70% ethanol in laboratoryconditions, sorted, counted and identified to thelowest taxonomic level possible, using availableguides (ANGELOV et al., 1963; ANGELOV, 1982;GOLEMANSKI et al., 1990). The zoologicalnomenclature follows Fauna Europaea (DE JONG

et al., 2014).

122

Ivelin A. Mollov, Peter S. Boyadzhiev, Mina D. Dincheva

Fig. 1. Indicative map of the city of Plovdiv and the locations of the three studied hills.A - „Mladezhki hulm“ Hill; B - „Hulm Bunardzhik“ Hill; C - „Danov hulm“ Hill.

Table 1. Geographical coordinates of the used pitfall traps in the three studied hills in the city of Plovdiv.

Trap 1 Trap 2 Trap 3 Trap 4 Trap 5

„Mladezhki hulm“ Hill

Lower partN 42°08.116'E 24°43.641'

N 42°08.112'E 24°43.635'

N 42°08.119'E 24°43.628'

N 42°08.125'E 24°43.618'

N 42°08.132'E 24°43.614'

PeakN 42°08.232'E 24°43.963'

N 42°08.237'E 24°43.960'

N 42°08.242'E 24°43.958'

N 42°08.246'E 24°43.954'

N 42°08.252'E 24°43.949'

„Hulm Bunardzhik“ Hill

Lower part N 42°08.308'E 24°46.376'

N 42°08.592'E 24°44.381'

N 42°08.597'E 24°44.384'

N 42°08.604'E 24°44.383'

N 42°08.611'E 24°44.382'

Peak N 42°08.685'E 24°44.245'

N 42°08.682'E 24°44.237'

N 42°08.685'E 24°44.229'

N 42°08.683'E 24°44.220'

N 42°08.683'E 24°44.215'

„Danov hulm“ Hill

Lower partN 42°08.728'E 24°44.742'

N 42°08.736'E 24°44.750'

N 42°08.733'E 24°44.752'

N 42°08.735'E 24°44.763'

N 42°08.733'E 24°44.769'

PeakN 42°08.789'E 24°44.793'

N 42°08.788'E 24°44.799'

N 42°08.784'E 24°44.805'

N 42°08.778'E 24°44.813'

N 42°08.773'E 24°44.815'

123


Ecological properties of the epigealcommunities

The following characteristics were used toassess the composition and properties ofepigeal invertebrates communities (afterMAGURRAN, 2004):

- Proportion (P)The ratio between the number of species

(taxa) and the number of all species (taxa) inthe community. Calculated by the followingformula:

where: Pi – proportion of the taxon i;ni– number of individuals from taxon i;N – number of individuals from all taxa.

- Frequency of occurrence (F)It is calculated by the ratio between the

number of individuals of one species (taxon)and the total number of individuals from alltaxa expressed as a percentage. In practice, thefrequency represents the proportion (Pi)multiplied by 100.

- Consistency (C)Represents the ratio of the number of

samples containing a given species (taxon) tothe total number of samples, expressed as apercentage:

where: C – consistency of the taxon i;a – number of samples, containing the

taxon;A – total number of samples.

In this article, a single cylinder (trap) istaken for one sample. On the basis of thecalculated consistency, the recorded taxa wereclassified as permanent (C>50%), additional(C=25-50%) and random (where C<25%).

- Diversity indicesTo determine the diversity of the epigeal

invertebrates communities, we used one indexof dominance (Simpson’s diversity index) and

one information index (Shannon’s diversityindex).

- Simpson’s diversity index (1/S)In the present work, the reciprocal value of

the Simpson’s diversity index was used,calculated using the formula:

where: S – Simpson’s diversity index;Pi– proportion of taxon i.

- Simpson’s evenness index (E)The Simpson’s evenness index wascalculated using the following formula:

where: E – Simpson’s evenness index;Pi– proportion of taxon i;K – number of all taxa in the

community.

- Shannon’s diversity index – H'Calculated, using the following formula:

where: H' – Shannon’s diversity index,Pi– proportion of taxon i.

- Shannon’s equitability index – JCalculated, using the following formula:

where: J– Shannon’s equitability index;Pi– proportion of taxon i;K – number of all taxa in the

community.

124

Ivelin A. Mollov, Peter S. Boyadzhiev, Mina D. DinchevaStatistical analysisAll data obtained during the study were

statistically processed as follows: the abioticfactor measurement data was processed usingdescriptive statistics (minimum, maximum,average, standard deviation and standarderror) and compared with each other usingMann-Whitney U-test (at p≤0.05), where thedata was not normally distributed, looking fordifferences between the lower park zone andthe peak of each hill (FOWLER et al., 1998).Differences in abiotic factor values betweenthe three hills were compared by the Kruskall-Wallis test for three independent samples. Thesimilarity between the epigeal invertebratescommunities between the three hills wascalculated using cluster analysis (UnweightedPer-Group Average, Jaccard similarity index).For these analyzes the statistical package"STATISTICA" v.7.0 (StatSoft Inc., 2010) and„PAST“ v.3.0. (HAMMER et al., 2001). The lastprogram was also use to calculate Simpsonand Shannon's diversity and equitabilityindices, and the cluster analysis.


Analysis of abiotic factors and theprevailing vegetation in the studied urbanparks

The values of air and soil temperature, soilmoisture and reaction (pH) in the lower parkzone and the peak of the three studied hills arepresented in Table 2.

From the studied hills in Plovdiv City,„Mladezhki hulm” Hill is the largest andcomparatively less visited by people than theother two studied hills, but there are oftencarried out activities for the maintenance of thepark zone by the municipality officials(watering, lawn mowing, removing of fallenvegetation and wastes).

When comparing the measured abioticfactors between the lower park zone of thepeak of the hill we registered statisticallysignificant differences on three parameters - airtemperature (Mann-Whitney U-test, U=2.00,z=-2.09, p=0.04) soil temperature (U=1.00, z=-2.30, p=0.02) and soil moisture (U=0.00, z=-2.51, p=0.01). No statistically significantdifferences were detected for the soil pH(U=4.00, z=-1.67, p=0.09).

The predominating vegetation, recorded by usin the park area of the hill includes: Rosa sp.,Ulmus minor, Marrubium vulgare, Euonymusverrucosus, Sophora japonica, Crataegusmonogyna, Geum urbanum, Fraxinus ornus,Galium aparine and others, and at the peak of thehill: Koelreuteria paniculata, Asparagus officinalis,Muscari butre, Jasminum fruticans, Juglans regia,Quercus robur, Robinia pseudoacacia, Papaverrhoeas, Sedum album, Rosa canina, Dactylisglomerata, Allium sphaerocephalon, Marrubiumvulgare, Ulmus minor, Agropyrum repens,Rumex acetosella, Euphorbia dendroides, Echinopsritro, Ailanthus altissim, Syringa vulgaris,Quercus pubescens, Centaurea sp., Prosperoautumnale, Pistacia terebinthus, Achillea depressa,Echinops ritro, Portulaca oleracea, Asparagusofficinalis, Vulpia myurus and others. Thevegetation is presented mainly by decorative andruderal trees and shrubs, wildly used in the urbanparks in Plovdiv city. Partially there are speciesbelonging to the autochtoneous vegetation.Individual tree and shrub species are located closeto each other, and the crowns of the trees form athick cover at some places, allowing less sunlight topenetrate to the ground. At other places there aremore open habitats.

„Hulm Bunardzhik“ Hill is the middle bysize and height of the three studied hills,heavily visited by people, and also intense parkmaintenance activities are present here.

When comparing the measured abioticfactors between the lower park zone of the hilland the peak, we found statistically significantdifferences between two parameters - soiltemperature (Mann-Whitney U-test, U=0.00,z=-2.52, p=0.01) soil pH (U=2.00, z=-2.08,p=0.04). For the air temperature (U=5.00, z=-1.46, p=0.14) and soil moisture (U=11.5, z=-0.10, p=0.91) there were no statisticallysignificant differences.

The predominating vegetation, recorded byus in the park area of the hill includes: Acercampestre, Spiraea vanhouttei, Seltis australis,Hedera helix, Tilia tomentosa, Sambucusnigra, Sophora japonica, Ulmus minor,Mahonia sp., Robinia pseudoacacia, Fraxinusornus, Crataegus monogyna, Phytolaccadecandra, Catalpa bignonioides and others,and at the peak of the hill: Ulmus minor,Rhamnus frangula, Syringa vulgaris,

125


Amorpha fruticasa, Rosa canina, Seltisaustralis, Hedera helix, Robinia pseudoacaciaand others. The vegetation at this hill is alsocharacterized by species that can be defined asdecorative and ruderal, while in some paces theremains of the natural vegetation still exist. Inthe park zone the crowns of the trees form athick cover, so the penetration of light islimited and the habitats are shady, while at thepeak the habitats are more open.

„Danov hulm” Hill is the smallest and thelowest of the three studied hills in the city ofPlovdiv. It is heavily visited by people, since itis located in the very center of the city andthere also activities for the maintenance of thepark are carried out.

When comparing the measured abioticfactors between the lower park zone of the hilland the peak we found statistically significantdifferences only for two parameters – soilmoisture (Mann-Whitney U-test, U=0.00, z=-2.51, p=0.01) and soil pH (U=0.00, z=-2.51,p=0.01). For the air temperature (U=6.50, z=-1.15, p=0.25) and the soil temperature(U=6.00, z=-1.25, p=0.21) there were nostatistically significant differences.

The predominating vegetation, recorded byus in the lower park area of the hill includes:Morus alba, Seltis australis, Hedera helix,Ulmus minor, Marrubium vulgare, Muscaributre, Quercus robur and others, and at thepeak of the hill: Fraxinus ornus, Geraniummacrorrhizum, Sophora japonica, Hederahelix, Quercus frainetto, Ulmus minor,Chenopodium album, Spiraea vanhouttei,Seltis australis, Rosa canina and others. Thevegetation on „Danov hulm” Hill, similarly tothe other two hills (although with somedifferences), is represented mainly by ruderaland decorative tree and shrub species as well asremnants of natural autochthonous vegetation.The trees are separated from each other and amuch larger amount of sunlight reaches theground, with the vegetation at the peak beingsignificantly thinner.

In the comparative analysis of the averagevalues of the measured abiotic factors in thethree studied hills, it is noticeable that in terms ofair and soil temperature the lowest values ofboth factors were recorded on „HulmBunardzhik” Hill and the highest - on „Danovhulm” Hill (Kruskal-Wallis test, air temperature -H=20.93, p=0.000028, soil temperature -

H=20.00, p=0.000045). The lower temperatureon „Hulm Bunardzhik” Hill is probably due tothe densely dispersed tree vegetation on this hill,which determines a specific microclimate in thepark area. In addition, our research has beenconducted once in one season, and furtherresearch with multiple measurements in differentseasons is needed to further clarify this issue.

Highest soil moisture was recorded on„Mladezhki hulm” Hill but the values of theother two hills were similar and we did notrecorded a statistically significant differencebetween the three hills on this factor (Kruskal-Wallis test, H=5.78, p=0.055). Probably thehigher soil moisture of „Mladezhki hulm” Hill isdue to the dense tree vegetation, especially in thepark zone. With regard to soil pH, it has thehighest value on „Danov hulm” Hill, but withinthe neutral pH (6.71), as well as the values of soilpH in the other two hills, which are close to 6.5.We also did not registered statistically significantdifferences on this factor between the three hills(Kruskal-Wallis test, H=0.29, p=0.86).

Ecological analysis of the epigealinvertebrates communities

The taxonomic composition, number ofindividuals, proportion, frequency ofoccurrence and the consistency of theregistered epigeal invertebrates in „Mladezhkihulm” Hill are presented in Table 3. The resultsshow, that the three predominant taxa areHymenoptera, Formicidae; Coleoptera, fromwhich the Carabidae and Tenebrionidaefamilies predominate on the lower park zoneand the Curculionidae and Chrysomelidaefamilies at the peak. The third taxon with thehighest number is arachnids, with the Opilionespredominating in the park area, and the spiders(Araneae) at the peak. The differences in faunaof epigeal invertebrates in the lower park areaof the hill and the peak can be explained by thetype of habitats existing in the both places. Inthe park area there are densely planted ruderaltrees and shrubs, and the peak is more openwith open rocks and predominant grass andshrub vegetation in certain places.

In the park area of the hill we recorded 10permanent taxa, 3 additional and 10 random,and at the peak - 11 permanent, 5 additionaland 15 random taxa.

In „Hulm Bunardzhik” Hill (Table 4) againthe highest number of individuals andfrequency of occurrence take the ants

126

Ivelin A. Mollov, Peter S. Boyadzhiev, Mina D. Dincheva(Hymenoptera, Formicidae), followed by theColeoptera, of which the Staphylinidae andTenebrionidae families predominate both at thelower park zone and at the peak, and the thirdtaxon with the highest numbers was Araneae,followed by Diptera. It is also noteworthy therelatively high share of Collembola andCrustacea, especially those of the Porceliogenus on „Hulm Bunardzhik” Hill, which arealmost absent from the other two hills or arevery poorly represented. This can probably beexplained by the presence of dense treevegetation in the park zone of the hill andsomewhere with the relatively high soilmoisture and the presence of rainfall during thestudy period. Rainfall and the fact that water iscollected in some places, like tree trunks, closeto the ground and on the thick foliage, etc., alsoexplains the high proportion of the Dipteralarvae recorded on this hill. In general, thistaxon is not a typical representative of epigealinvertebrates.

Based on the calculated consistency, fromthe 32 taxa recorded in the park area, 12 taxaare permanent, 8 are additional and 11 arerandom, and from 29 taxa recorded at the peak- 10 are permanent, 6 are additional and 13 arerandom.

At „Danov hulm” Hill (Table 5), like theother two hills, the taxon with the highestnumber of individuals and frequency ofoccurrence is Hymenoptera, Formicidae, butthe second place is taken by Diptera, followedby the Araneae, which predominate in the parkzone. The high share of spiders (Aranea) in„Danov hulm” Hill can probably be explainedby the higher air and soil temperature duringthe study period and the lower soil moisture.Coleoptera at this hill are comparatively lessrepresented than the other two hills.

In the park zone of the hill we recorded 5permanent taxa, 5 additional and 14 randomtaxa, and on the peak - 7 permanent taxa, 6additional and 12 random.

According to the comparative analysis ofthe epigeal invertebrates communities betweenthe three studied hills is evident that the mostcommon taxa are Hymenoptera (Formicidae),Aranea and Diptera. According to PENEV et al.(2008), most species of ants in the city of Sofiahave permanent nests, so they are usually inhigh numbers in urban habitats. From the othertaxa it is noticeable that the carabid beetles(Coleoptera, Carabidae) occur in larger

numbers only in „Mladezhki hulm” Hill andtheir numbers in the other two hills decreasesignificantly, which may be due to the fact thatthe representatives of this taxon adhere toforest habitats and are sensitive toanthropogenic pressure (STOYANOV, 2004;STOYANOV & PENEV, 2004; PENEV et al.,2008). Similar dependence is also observed forChrysomelidae, Curculionidae andTenebrionidae. The Opiliones were recordedwith high numbers of individuals at “Mladezhkihulm” Hill and „Hulm Bunardzhik” Hill andare presented only with single specimens on„Danov hulm” Hill. Myriapoda are alsorepresented with the highest numbers on the„Hulm Bunardzhik” Hill and are considerablylower on the other two hills (Table 6).

According to the consistency of the taxa inthe three studied hills, the following trend wasformed: for „Mladezhki hulm” Hill weregistered 21 permanent taxa, 8 additional and25 random, for „Hulm Bunardzhik” Hill - 22are permanent, 14 are additional and 24 arerandom; for „Danov hulm” Hill - 12permanent taxa, 11 additional and 26 randomtaxa. It is noteworthy that the community ofepigeal invertebrates in „Hulm Bunardzhik”Hill is probably the most stable and distinctbecause it has the highest number ofpermanent and additional taxa compared to theother two hills and the lowest number ofrandom taxa. The biggest portion of randomtaxa was recorded on „Danov hulm” Hill,which significantly exceeds the number ofpermanent and additional taxa, probably due tothe high anthropogenic pressure of this hillbecause of its easy access and location in thevery center of the city.

From the point of view of the diversity ofthe communities, we recorded the highestdiversity, calculated with both used indices inthe „Hulm Bunardzhik” Hill (Table 7). Thesecond place is taken by the community at„Danov hulm” Hill, but the difference with thediversity indices for the community at„Mladezhki hulm” Hill is not great. In addition,in all of the studied hills, with exception of„Hulm Bunardzhik” Hill, the diversity is higherin the park zone, as can be expected, as a resultof the so-called „edge effect” (ODUM, 1974).The highest diversity of epigeal invertebrates on„Hulm Bunardzhik” Hill can be explained by„The Intermediate Disturbance Hypotesis”(CONNELL, 1978; BLAIR & LAUNER, 1997).

127


Table 2. Descriptive statistics of the measured abiotic factors in the three studied hills in thecity of Plovdiv.

Airtempera-ture, C˚

(Park zone)

Airtempera-ture, C˚(Peak)

Soiltempera-ture, C˚

(Park zone)

Soiltempera-ture, C˚(Peak)

Soilmoisture, %(Park zone)

Soilmoisture, %

(Peak)

Soil pH(Park zone)

Soil pH(Peak)

„Mladezhki hulm“ HillMin 20.08 19.50 19.00 18.10 0.10 0.10 5.53 6.40Max 24.60 21.70 19.70 18.80 2.80 0.10 6.62 7.09Mean 21.64 20.29 19.40 18.52 0.64 0.10 6.23 6.85Stand. dev. 1.73 0.83 0.25 0.29 1.20 0.00 0.44 0.26Std. error 0.77 0.37 0.11 0.13 0.54 0.00 0.20 0.12

„Hulm Bunardzhik“ Hill Min 21.64 20.29 19.40 18.52 9.60 9.58 6.23 6.85Max 20.08 19.50 19.00 18.10 6.70 7.80 5.53 6.40Mean 24.60 21.70 19.70 18.80 11.90 12.40 6.62 7.09Stand. dev. 1.73 0.83 0.25 0.29 2.28 1.81 0.45 0.27Std. error 0.77 0.37 0.11 0.13 1.02 0.81 0.20 0.12

„Danov hulm“ HillMin 28.76 30.42 22.28 24.14 10.52 5.72 6.27 7.15Max 26.80 28.00 21.30 20.50 8.50 4.30 6.21 6.68Mean 30.60 32.00 23.40 26.80 14.10 7.30 6.31 7.60Stand. dev. 1.47 2.03 0.87 2.59 2.14 1.13 0.04 0.33Std. error 0.66 0.91 0.39 1.16 0.96 0.51 0.02 0.15

Table 3. Taxonomic composition, number of individuals, proportion, frequency of occurrenceand consistency of the registered epigeal invertebrates in „Mladezhki hulm“ Hill. Legend: Ni –number of individuals from taxon i; Pi – proportion of taxon i; Fi – frequency of occurrence oftaxon i, %; Ci – consistency of taxon i.

TaxaTrap

1Ni

Trap2Ni

Trap3Ni

Trap4Ni

Trap5Ni

Total

Ni Pi Fi Ci

Park areaAcari 0 5 1 0 1 7 0.023 2.258 60Araneae 7 7 4 6 5 29 0.094 9.355 100Opiliones 8 20 8 0 2 38 0.123 12.258 80Crustacea, Oniscus sp. 0 1 0 1 1 3 0.010 0.968 60Crustacea, Porcelio sp. 1 1 0 2 4 8 0.026 2.581 80Myriapoda 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.003 0.323 20Myriapoda, Scutigera coleoptrata 1 0 0 0 0 1 0.003 0.323 20Coleoptera, Alleculidae 0 0 1 0 9 10 0.032 3.226 40Coleoptera, Carabidae 9 3 18 12 4 46 0.148 14.839 100

128

Ivelin A. Mollov, Peter S. Boyadzhiev, Mina D. DinchevaColeoptera, Chrysomelidae 0 2 0 0 0 2 0.006 0.645 20Coleoptera, Curculionidae 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.003 0.323 20Coleoptera, Staphylinidae 0 1 0 0 0 1 0.003 0.323 20Coleoptera, Tenebrionidae 0 1 0 4 12 17 0.055 5.484 40Dermaptera 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.003 0.323 20Dermaptera, Forficula auricularia 1 0 0 0 0 1 0.003 0.323 20Diptera, Brachicera 2 5 7 9 2 25 0.081 8.065 100Diptera, Nematocera 0 1 4 0 0 5 0.016 1.613 40Diptera, Tachinidae 2 0 2 0 6 10 0.032 3.226 60Hemiptera 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.003 0.323 20Hemiptera, Cicadellidae 1 1 0 0 1 3 0.010 0.968 60Hemiptera (larvae) 2 0 0 0 0 2 0.006 0.645 20Hymenoptera, Formicidae 64 15 6 9 3 97 0.313 31.290 100Lepidoptera 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.003 0.323 20Total (park area) 98 63 51 45 53 310 - 100 -

PeakPseudoscorpiones 0 0 0 0 2 2 0.003 0.327 20Acari 0 0 13 13 0 26 0.042 4.248 40Araneae 13 8 4 36 23 84 0.137 13.725 100Opiliones 0 1 0 0 2 3 0.005 0.490 40Crustacea, Oniscus sp. 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.002 0.163 20Crustacea, Porcelio sp. 2 3 2 2 0 9 0.015 1.471 80Collembola 0 0 3 0 0 3 0.005 0.490 20Gastropoda 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.002 0.163 20Myriapoda 1 0 0 0 0 1 0.002 0.163 20Myriapoda, Scutigera coleoptrata 4 2 2 1 1 10 0.016 1.634 100Coleoptera 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.002 0.163 20Coleoptera, Alleculidae 1 2 0 1 0 4 0.007 0.654 60Coleoptera, Carabidae 1 2 0 0 0 3 0.005 0.490 40Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae 0 1 3 12 1 17 0.028 2.778 80Coleoptera, Curculionidae 16 1 0 0 1 18 0.029 2.941 60Coleoptera, Staphylinidae 1 0 0 0 0 1 0.002 0.163 20Coleoptera, Tenebrionidae 1 1 0 0 10 12 0.020 1.961 60Diptera, Brachicera 2 3 32 0 20 57 0.093 9.314 80Diptera (larvae) 0 5 0 0 3 8 0.013 1.307 40Ortopthera, Gryllidae 3 1 0 1 0 5 0.008 0.817 60Ortopthera, Gryllidae (larvae) 0 0 0 0 2 2 0.003 0.327 20Ortopthera, Tettigonidae 0 3 2 0 1 6 0.010 0.980 60Hemiptera, Aphidoidea 0 0 2 0 0 2 0.003 0.327 20Hemiptera, Cicadellidae (larvae) 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.002 0.163 20Hemiptera, Cicadellidae 0 0 5 0 3 8 0.013 1.307 40Hemiptera, Heteroptera 3 0 0 0 1 4 0.007 0.654 20Hymenoptera 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.002 0.163 20Hymenoptera, Formicidae 44 38 87 110 40 319 0.521 52.124 100Homoptera 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.002 0.163 20Lepidoptera 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.002 0.163 20Neuroptera, Mantispidae 0 0 1 0 0 1 0.002 0.163 20Total (peak) 125 220 126 145 155 771 - 100 -

129


Table 4. Taxonomic composition, number of individuals, proportion, frequency of occurrenceand consistency of the registered epigeal invertebrates in „Hulm Bunardzhik“ Hill. Legend: Ni –number of individuals from taxon i; Pi – proportion of taxon i; Fi – frequency of occurrence oftaxon i, %; Ci – consistency of taxon i.

TaxaTrap

1Ni

Trap2Ni

Trap3Ni

Trap4Ni

Trap5Ni

Total

Ni Pi Fi Ci

Park areaOligohaeta, Lumbricidae 0 0 1 0 1 2 0.004 0.365 40Pseudoscorpiones 9 0 1 0 0 10 0.018 1.825 40Acarı 1 0 0 0 0 1 0.002 0.182 20Araneae 10 4 3 0 24 41 0.075 7.482 80Opiliones 2 1 0 0 4 7 0.013 1.277 60Crustacea, Oniscus sp. 0 0 3 0 0 3 0.005 0.547 20Crustacea, Porcelio sp. 8 7 5 5 25 50 0.091 9.124 100Gastropoda 0 0 1 0 4 5 0.009 0.912 40Gastropoda, Chondrula sp. 0 0 2 0 1 3 0.005 0.547 40Myriapoda 6 7 3 6 0 22 0.040 4.015 80Myriapoda, Geophilidae 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.002 0.182 20Myriapoda, Scutigera coleoptrata 4 3 0 0 1 8 0.015 1.460 60Collembola 13 8 5 1 7 34 0.062 6.204 100Insecta (larvae) - undet. 0 0 1 0 0 1 0.002 0.182 20Coleoptera 9 0 0 0 0 9 0.016 1.642 20Coleoptera, Alleculidae 4 0 0 0 0 4 0.007 0.730 20Coleoptera, Carabidae 1 2 4 0 1 8 0.015 1.460 80Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.002 0.182 20Coleoptera, Cicindelinae 0 0 1 0 0 1 0.002 0.182 20Coleoptera, Curculionidae 0 2 0 0 0 2 0.004 0.365 20Coleoptera, Geotrupidae 0 1 0 0 0 1 0.002 0.182 20Coleoptera, Silphidae (larvae) 0 0 2 1 0 3 0.005 0.547 40Coleoptera, Staphylinidae 14 6 11 4 5 40 0.073 7.299 100Coleoptera, Tenebrionidae 0 1 0 0 36 37 0.068 6.752 40Diptera, Brachicera 5 4 5 0 14 28 0.051 5.109 80Diptera, Nematocera 5 1 0 0 0 6 0.011 1.095 40Diptera (larvae) 44 1 2 0 1 48 0.088 8.759 80Hemiptera, Pentatomidae 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.002 0.182 20Hemiptera, Cicadelidae 0 0 1 0 1 2 0.004 0.365 40Hemiptera, Pyrrhocoris apterus 1 1 0 1 0 3 0.005 0.547 60Heteroptera 0 2 0 0 0 2 0.004 0.365 20Hymenoptera, Formicidae 48 4 69 19 24 164 0.299 29.927 100

Total (park area) 184 55 119 38 150 548 - 100 -

PeakPseudoscorpiones 1 1 0 0 0 2 0.006 0.610 40Opiliones 21 10 1 0 0 32 0.098 9.756 60Acari 2 0 0 0 0 2 0.006 0.610 20Araneae 9 6 9 9 16 49 0.149 14.939 100Collembola 2 3 1 0 1 7 0.021 2.134 80Crustacea, Oniscus sp. 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.003 0.305 20Crustacea, Porcelio sp. 2 2 1 5 6 16 0.049 4.878 100

130

Ivelin A. Mollov, Peter S. Boyadzhiev, Mina D. DinchevaGastropoda 2 0 0 0 3 5 0.015 1.524 40Myriapoda, Scolopendridae 1 0 0 0 0 1 0.003 0.305 20Myriapoda, Scutigera coleoptrata

6 1 2 3 4 16 0.049 4.878 100

Coleoptera (larvae) 0 2 0 0 0 2 0.006 0.610 20Coleoptera, Alleculidae 0 2 0 0 1 3 0.009 0.915 40Coleoptera, Carabidae 3 0 0 0 0 3 0.009 0.915 20Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae 1 0 0 4 0 5 0.015 1.524 40Coleoptera, Curculionidae 0 1 0 1 3 5 0.015 1.524 60Coleoptera, Elateridae 16 0 0 0 0 16 0.049 4.878 20Coleoptera, Staphylinidae 3 8 0 0 0 11 0.034 3.354 40Coleoptera, Tenebrionidae 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.003 0.305 20Orthoptera, Tettigoniidae 1 0 0 0 0 1 0.003 0.305 20Diptera, Brachicera 3 0 3 20 5 31 0.095 9.451 80Diptera, Nematocera 4 0 14 2 1 21 0.064 6.402 80Diptera, Tachinidae 0 0 1 0 0 1 0.003 0.305 20Diptera (larvae) 8 1 0 0 4 13 0.040 3.963 60Heteroptera 0 0 2 0 0 2 0.006 0.610 20Hemiptera - неопр. 0 0 0 3 0 3 0.009 0.915 20Hemiptera, Cicadellidae 0 1 0 1 0 2 0.006 0.610 40Orthoptera, Gryllidae 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.003 0.305 20Lepidoptera (larvae) 1 0 0 0 0 1 0.003 0.305 20Hymenoptera, Formicidae 22 9 9 9 26 75 0.229 22.866 100Total (peak) 108 47 43 60 70 328 - 100 -

Table 5. Taxonomic composition, number of individuals, proportion, frequency of occurrenceand consistency of the registered epigeal invertebrates in „Danov hulm“ Hill. Legend: Ni – numberof individuals from taxon i; Pi – proportion of taxon i; Fi – frequency of occurrence of taxon i, %;Ci – consistency of taxon i.

TaxaTrap

1Ni

Trap2Ni

Trap3Ni

Trap4Ni

Trap5Ni

Total

Ni Pi Fi Ci

Park areaAcari 4 0 5 10 4 23 0.086 8.647 80Araneae 4 0 12 13 23 52 0.195 19.549 80Crustacea, Oniscus sp. 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.004 0.376 20Crustacea, Porcelio sp. 1 0 0 0 0 1 0.004 0.376 20Gastropoda 1 2 0 0 0 3 0.011 1.128 40Myriapoda, Scutigera coleoptrata 2 0 0 3 8 13 0.049 4.887 60Collembola 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.004 0.376 20Coleoptera 1 0 0 0 0 1 0.004 0.376 20Coleoptera, Alleculidae 1 0 2 0 0 3 0.011 1.128 40Coleoptera, Cantharidae 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.004 0.376 20Coleoptera, Carabidae 0 0 0 3 0 3 0.011 1.128 20Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae 1 0 0 0 2 3 0.011 1.128 40Coleoptera, Tenebrionidae 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.004 0.376 20Diptera, Brachicera 9 2 4 2 23 40 0.150 15.038 100Diptera, Nematocera 0 0 0 1 4 5 0.019 1.880 40Diptera (larvae) 0 0 0 1 1 2 0.008 0.752 40Hemiptera, Cicadellidae 0 0 0 0 3 3 0.011 1.128 20Hymenoptera, Formicidae 9 2 21 19 51 102 0.383 38.346 100

131


Hymenoptera, Mymaridae 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.004 0.376 20Hymenoptera, Vespidae 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.004 0.376 20Ortopthera, Gryllidae 0 0 3 0 0 3 0.011 1.128 20Ortopthera, Tettigonidae 0 0 1 0 0 1 0.004 0.376 20Lepidoptera (larvae) 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.004 0.376 20Lepidoptera 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.004 0.376 20

Total (park area) 33 6 48 55 122 266 - 100 -

PeakAcari 1 0 0 0 0 1 0.004 0.441 20Araneae 1 3 2 1 3 10 0.044 4.405 100Crustacea, Porcelio sp. 1 0 0 0 0 1 0.004 0.441 20Opiliones 1 0 0 0 1 2 0.009 0.881 40Collembola 4 0 0 0 1 5 0.022 2.203 40Gastropoda 0 2 0 0 0 2 0.009 0.881 20Myriapoda, Scutigera coleoptrata 2 0 2 2 1 7 0.031 3.084 80Coleoptera, Alleculidae 0 4 0 0 0 4 0.018 1.762 20Coleoptera, Cantharididae 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.004 0.441 20Coleoptera, Carabidae 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.004 0.441 20Coleoptera, Curculionidae 1 0 0 0 1 2 0.009 0.881 40Coleoptera, Tenebrionidae 0 0 1 0 1 2 0.009 0.881 40Dermaptera, Forficula auricularia 1 0 0 0 0 1 0.004 0.441 20Diptera, Brachicera 5 4 26 9 7 51 0.225 22.467 100Diptera, Nematocera 2 0 1 3 0 6 0.026 2.643 60Diptera, Tachinidae 2 0 0 0 0 2 0.009 0.881 20Diptera (larvae) 0 0 2 0 0 2 0.009 0.881 20Hemiptera, Heteroptera 2 1 2 0 2 7 0.031 3.084 20Hemiptera, Cicadellidae 1 0 2 0 0 3 0.013 1.322 40Hemiptera, Pyrrhocoris apterus 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.004 0.441 20Hymenoptera 0 6 0 0 1 7 0.031 3.084 40Hymenoptera, Formicidae 7 6 32 19 28 92 0.405 40.529 100Hymenoptera, Scolia hirta 0 1 0 0 0 1 0.004 0.441 20Hymenoptera, Vespidae 0 0 1 1 1 3 0.013 1.322 60Psocoptera 0 0 0 0 2 2 0.009 0.881 20Ortopthera, Gryllidae 2 4 5 0 0 11 0.048 4.846 60Total (peak) 31 27 71 36 49 227 - 100 -

Table 6. Taxonomic composition, number of individuals, proportion, frequency of occurrenceof the registered epigeal invertebrates in the three studied hills in the city of Plovdiv. Legend: Ni –number of individuals from taxon i; Pi – proportion of taxon i; Fi – frequency of occurrence oftaxon i, %.

Taxa„Mladezhki hulm“

Hill„Hulm

Bunardzhik“ Hill„Danov hulm“

Hill

Ni Pi Fi Ni Pi Fi Ni Pi FiAcarı 33 0.036 3.579 3 0.003 0.342 24 0.049 4.868Araneae 113 0.123 12.256 90 0.103 10.274 62 0.126 12.576Coleoptera 1 0.001 0.108 9 0.010 1.027 1 0.002 0.203Coleoptera (larvae) 0 0.000 0.000 2 0.002 0.228 0 0.000 0.000Coleoptera, Alleculidae 14 0.015 1.518 7 0.008 0.799 7 0.014 1.420Coleoptera, Cantharididae 0 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 2 0.004 0.406Coleoptera, Carabidae 49 0.053 5.315 11 0.013 1.256 4 0.008 0.811Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae 19 0.021 2.061 6 0.007 0.685 3 0.006 0.609

132

Ivelin A. Mollov, Peter S. Boyadzhiev, Mina D. DinchevaColeoptera, Cicindelinae 0 0.000 0.000 1 0.001 0.114 0 0.000 0.000Coleoptera, Curculionidae 19 0.021 2.061 7 0.008 0.799 2 0.004 0.406Coleoptera, Elateridae 0 0.000 0.000 16 0.018 1.826 0 0.000 0.000Coleoptera, Geotrupidae 0 0.000 0.000 1 0.001 0.114 0 0.000 0.000Coleoptera, Silphidae (larvae) 0 0.000 0.000 3 0.003 0.342 0 0.000 0.000Coleoptera, Staphylinidae 2 0.002 0.217 51 0.058 5.822 0 0.000 0.000Coleoptera, Tenebrionidae 29 0.031 3.145 38 0.043 4.338 3 0.006 0.609Collembola 3 0.003 0.325 41 0.047 4.680 6 0.012 1.217Crustacea, Oniscus sp. 4 0.004 0.434 4 0.005 0.457 1 0.002 0.203Crustacea, Porcelio sp. 17 0.018 1.844 66 0.075 7.534 2 0.004 0.406Dermaptera 1 0.001 0.108 0 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000Dermaptera, Forficula auricularia 1 0.001 0.108 0 0.000 0.000 1 0.002 0.203Diptera (larvae) 8 0.009 0.868 61 0.070 6.963 4 0.008 0.811Diptera, Brachicera 82 0.089 8.894 59 0.067 6.735 91 0.185 18.458Diptera, Nematocera 5 0.005 0.542 27 0.031 3.082 11 0.022 2.231Diptera, Tachinidae 10 0.011 1.085 1 0.001 0.114 2 0.004 0.406Gastropoda 1 0.001 0.108 10 0.011 1.142 3 0.006 0.609Gastropoda, Chondrula sp. 0 0.000 0.000 3 0.003 0.342 0 0.000 0.000Gastropoda, Stylommatophora 0 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 2 0.004 0.406Hemiptera 0 0.000 0.000 3 0.003 0.342 0 0.000 0.000Hemiptera, Heteroptera 4 0.004 0.434 0 0.000 0.000 7 0.014 1.420Hemiptera (larvae) 2 0.002 0.217 0 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000Hemiptera, Aphidoidea 2 0.002 0.217 0 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000Hemiptera, Cicadellidae 11 0.012 1.193 4 0.005 0.457 6 0.012 1.217Hemiptera, Cicadellidae (larvae) 1 0.001 0.108 0 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000Hemiptera, Pentatomidae 0 0.000 0.000 1 0.001 0.114 0 0.000 0.000Hemiptera, Pyrrhocoris apterus 0 0.000 0.000 3 0.003 0.342 1 0.002 0.203Heteroptera 0 0.000 0.000 4 0.005 0.457 0 0.000 0.000Homoptera 1 0.001 0.108 0 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000Hymenoptera 0 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 7 0.014 1.420Hymenoptera 1 0.001 0.108 0 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000Hymenoptera, Formicidae 416 0.451 45.119 239 0.273 27.283 194 0.394 39.351Hymenoptera, Mymaridae 0 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 1 0.002 0.203Hymenoptera, Scolia hirta 0 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 1 0.002 0.203Hymenoptera, Vespidae 0 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 4 0.008 0.811Insecta (larvae) 0 0.000 0.000 1 0.001 0.114 0 0.000 0.000Lepidoptera 2 0.002 0.217 0 0.000 0.000 1 0.002 0.203Lepidoptera (larvae) 0 0.000 0.000 1 0.001 0.114 1 0.002 0.203Myriapoda 2 0.002 0.217 22 0.025 2.511 0 0.000 0.000Myriapoda, Geophilidae 0 0.000 0.000 1 0.001 0.114 0 0.000 0.000Myriapoda, Scolopendridae 0 0.000 0.000 1 0.001 0.114 0 0.000 0.000Myriapoda, Scutigera coleoptrata 11 0.012 1.193 24 0.027 2.740 20 0.041 4.057Neuroptera, Mantispidae 1 0.001 0.108 0 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000Oligochaeta, Lumbricidae 0 0.000 0.000 2 0.002 0.228 0 0.000 0.000Opiliones 41 0.044 4.447 39 0.045 4.452 2 0.004 0.406Orthoptera, Gryllidae 5 0.005 0.542 1 0.001 0.114 14 0.028 2.840Orthoptera, Gryllidae (larvae) 2 0.002 0.217 0 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000Orthoptera, Tettigonidae 6 0.007 0.651 1 0.001 0.114 1 0.002 0.203Pseudoscorpiones 2 0.002 0.217 12 0.014 1.370 0 0.000 0.000Psocoptera 0 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 2 0.004 0.406Total 922 - 100% 876 - 100% 493 - 100%

133


Table 7. Diversity indices of the epigeal invertebrate communities in the three studied urbanparks in the city of Plovdiv.

Index„Mladezhki hulm“ Hill „Hulm Bunardzhik“ Hill „Danov hulm“ Hill

Ecotone Interior Total Ecotone Interior Total Ecotone Interior TotalSimpson Diversity (1/S) 6.48 3.30 4.26 7.74 9.44 8.93 4.63 4.53 4.77Simpson Equitability (E) 0.41 0.21 0.23 0.39 0.47 0.37 0.30 0.32 0.26Shannon Diversity (H') 2.26 1.88 2.16 2.54 2.61 2.70 1.98 2.13 2.17Shannon Evenness (J) 0.72 0.55 0.60 0.73 0.78 0.73 0.62 0.65 0.62

Fig. 2. Cluster analysis (Unweighted Per-Group Average Link, Jaccard similarity index)of the three studied hills in the city of Plovdiv, based on the faunal similarity.

According to this hypothesis, at high levelsof disturbance (strong anthropogenic pressure),species richness and diversity decrease, andwhen the level of disturbance is reduced, theyrise again, but to a certain level. When thedegree of anthropogenic pressure falls belowcertain limits, species richness and diversityagain are low, in other words, the highestdiversity is observed at an intermediate level ofanthropogenic pressure. As „HulmBunardzhik” Hill is with the average size andheight compared to the other two hills and ismoderately visited by people (less than „Danovhulm” Hill but more intensely than „Mladezhkihulm” Hill), it can be assumed that from thethree hills, the anthropogenic stress on this hillis somewhere in the middle.

According to the evenness indices (Table 7),the communities in all three studied hills are

monodominant, with the dominant taxon beingHymenoptera, Formicidae.

As a result of the cluster analysis, the threehills are grouped into two clusters, based onfaunistic similarity of the epigeal invertebratescommunities (Fig. 2). With about 47%similarity „Hulm Bunardzhik” Hill is separatedinto a single cluster, where we have alsorecorded the highest diversity (Table 7).Approximately with 55% similarity „Mladezhkihulm” Hill and „Danov hulm” Hill form thesecond cluster. The diversity calculated withboth indices in these two hills was similar.

Conclusions

1. „Hulm Bunardzhik” Hill stands out withthe lowest air and soil temperatures. Highestsoil moisture was recorded on „Mladezhki

134

Ivelin A. Mollov, Peter S. Boyadzhiev, Mina D. Dinchevahulm” Hill, but the values for the other twohills are similar, and the highest soil pH wasrecorded at „Danov hulm” Hill, but within theneutral pH range (6.71).

2. The predominant tree and shrubvegetation in the three studied hills is presentedwith mainly decorative and ruderal species, withmost of the natural, indigenous vegetationappears to be preserved at „Hulm Bunardzhik”Hill.

3. The most numerous is the community ofepigeal invertebrates from the „Mladezhkihulm” Hill (922 individuals from 37 taxa),followed by „Hulm Bunardzhik” Hill (876individuals from 40 taxa), where thecommunity has the highest taxonomic richness,and the most poor on individuals and taxa wasthe community at „Danov hulm” Hill (493individuals of 34 taxa).

4. In the three studied hills, Hymenoptera,Formicidae predominate, followed byColeoptera and Diptera, while Aranea occupysignificant share in „Danov hulm“ Hill.

5. The epigeal invertebrates community in„Hulm Bunardzhik” Hill is the most distinct,since it contains the highest number ofpermanent and additional taxa compared to theother two hills and the lowest number ofrandom taxa. The community at „Danov hulm”Hill, is probably the most unstable, which isprobably due to the high anthropogenicpressure of this hill.

6. The most diverse by both indices used isthe community at „Hulm Bunardzhik” Hill,which is probably explained by the„Intermediate Disturbance Hypothesis”. Thecommunities of epigeal invertebrates from allthree studied hills are monodominant.

AcknowledgementsThe authors are grateful to Mr. Atanas

Gramadnikov for his help, during the field studies.

ReferencesALBERTI M., J.M. MARZLUFF, E.

SHULENBERGER, G. BRADLEY, C.RYAN, C. ZUMBRUNNEN. 2003.Integrating humans into ecology:opportunities and challenges forstudying urban ecosystems. - Bioscience,53(12): 1169-1179.

ANGELOV A., D. BOZHKOV, N.VIHODCEVSKI, M. JOSIFOV. 1963.

[Fauna of Bulgaria. Invertebrates. ShortField guide.] Publ. “Narodna prosveta”,Sofia, 406 p. (In Bulgarian).

ANGELOV P., 1982. [Zoology atlas.Invertebrates], Publ. “Narodnaprosveta”, Sofia, 319 p. (In Bulgarian).

BLAIR R.B., A.E. LAUNER. 1997. Butterflydiversity and human land use: speciesassemblages along an urban gradient.Biological Conservation, 80: 113-125.

BORGELT A., T. NEW. 2006. Pitfall trapping forants (Hymenoptera, Formicidae) inmesic Australia: what is the besttrapping period? Journal of InsectConservation, 10: 75-77.

BREUSTE J., J. NIEMELÄ, R.P.H. SNEP. 2008.Applying landscape ecological principlesin urban environments. LandscapeEcology, 23: 1139-1142.

CONNELL J.H. 1978. Diversity in Tropical RainForests and Coral Reefs. Science,199(4335): 1302-1310.

CSUZDI CS., K. SZLAVECZ. 2002. Diplocardiapatuxentis, a new earthworm speciesfrom Maryland, North America(Oligochaeta: Acanthodrilidae). AnnalesHistorico-Naturales Musei Hungarici,94: 45-51.

DE JONG Y., M. VERBEEK, V. MICHELSEN, P.DE PLACE BJØRN, W. LOS, F.STEEMAN, N. BAILLY, C. BASIRE, P.CHYLARECKI, E. STLOUKAL, G.HAGEDORN, F.T. WETZEL, F.GLÖCKLER, A. KROUPA, G. KORB, A.HOFFMANN, C. HÄUSER, A.KOHLBECKER, A. MÜLLER, A.GÜNTSCH, P. STOEV, L. PENEV. 2014.Fauna Europaea - all European animalspecies on the web. Biodiversity DataJournal, 2: e4034. doi:10.3897/BDJ.2.e4034. Web Service[http//www.faunaeur.org].

DEDOV I., L. PENEV. 2000. Speciescomposition and origins of theterrestrial gastropod fauna of Sofia City,Bulgaria. Ruthenica, 10(2): 121-131.

DEDOV I., L. PENEV. 2004. Spatial variation interrestrial gastropod communities(Gastropoda, Pulmonata) along urban-rural gradients in Sofia City, Bulgaria. -In: L. Penev, J. Niemelä, J. Kotze & N.Chipev (Eds.), Ecology of the City of

135


Sofia. Species and Communities in anUrban Environment, PensoftPublishers, Sofia-Moscow, pp. 307-318.

DELIPAVLOV D., I. CHESHMEDZHIEV (Eds).2003. [Key to the plant in Bulgaria.]Academic Press Agricultural University,Plovdiv. (In Bulgarian).

Environmental Protection Program in Plovdiv.2011. Available at:http://plovdiv.bg/wp-content/uploads/okolna-sreda/normativni-dokumenti/Aktualizaciq_plan_POOS.pdf

FOWLER J., L. COHEN, P. JARVIS. 1998.Practical statistics for field biology.Chichester John Wiley & Sons, 259 p.

GOLEMANSKI V., H. HRISTOV, M. TODOROV.1990. [Field guide for practicle exerciseson invertebrate zoology], Shumen, 256p. (In Bulgarian).

GROFFMAN P.M., J.S. BARON, T. BLETT, A.J.GOLD, I. GOODMAN, L.H.GUNDERSON, B.M. LEVINSON, M.A.PALMER, H.W. PAERL, G.D. PETERSON,N. LE ROY POFF, D.W. REJESKI, J.F.REYNOLDS, M.G. TURNER, K.C.WEATHERS, J. WIENS. 2006. Ecologicalthresholds: The key to successfulenvironmental management or animportant concept with no practicalapplication? Ecosystems, 9(1): 1-13.

HAMMER O., D. HARPER, P. RYAN. 2001. PASTPAleontological STatistical softwarepackage for education and data analysis.Paleontologia Electronica, 4(1): 9.

MAGURRAN A.E. 2004. Measuring biologicaldiversity. Blackwell Publishing, Malden,MA, USA, 2004, 256 p.

MCKINNEY M. 2002. Urbanization,biodiversity, and conservation. -Bioscience, 52: 883-890.

MCKINNEY M. 2008. Effects of urbanizationon species richness: A review of plantsand animals. Urban Ecosystems, 11:161-176.

MITOV P.G., I. STOYANOV. 2004. Theharvestmen fauna (Opiliones,Arachnida) of the city of Sofia (Bulgaria)and its adjacent regions. - In: Penev, L.,Niemela, J., Kotze, J. & Chipev, N.(Eds.): Ecology of the City of Sofia.Species and Communities in UrbanEnvironment. – PENSOFT Publishers,Sofia-Moscow, pp. 319-354.

MLADENOV A., S. LAZAROVA, V. PENEVA.2004. Distribution patterns of nematodecommunities in an urban forest in Sofia,Bulgaria. - In: Penev, L., Niemela, J.,Kotze, J. & Chipev, N. (Eds.). Ecologyof the City of Sofia. Species andCommunities in Urban Environment.PENSOFT Publishers, Sofia-Moscow,pp. 281-297.

NIEMELÄ J, D.J. KOTZE, S. VENN, L. PENEV,I. STOYANOV, J. SPENCE, D. HARTLEY,E.M. DE OCA. 2002. Carabid beetleassemblages (Coleoptera, Carabidae)across urban-rural gradients: aninternational comparison. LandscapeEcology, 17: 387–401.

NIEMELÄ J. 1999. Ecology and urban planning.Biodiversity and Conservation, 8: 119-131.

ODUM E. 1974. Fundamentals of ecology, 3rdedition. Saunders Piladelphia, USA.

PENEV L., I. STOYANOV, I. DEDOV, V.ANTONOVA. 2008. Patterns ofurbanization in the city of Sofia as shownby carabid beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae),ants (Hymenoptera, Formicidae), andterrestrial gastropods (Mollusca,Gastropoda Terestria) – In: Back to theroots and back to the future. Towards anew synthesis amongst taxonomic,ecological and biogeographical approachesin carabidology, Pensoft, Sofia- Moscow,pp. 483-509.

PICKETT S.T.A., M.L. CADENSSO, J.M. GROVE,P.M. GROFFMAN, L.E. BAND, C.G.BOONE, W.R. BURCH, C. SUSAN, B.GRIMMOND, J. HOM, J.C. JENKINS,N.L. LAW, C.H. NILON, R.V. POUYAT,K. SZLAVECZ, P.S. WARREN, M.A.WILSON. 2008. Beyond Urban Legends:An Emerging Framework of UrbanEcology, as Illustrated by the BaltimoreEcosystem Study. BioScience, 58(2):139-150.

SAMWAYS M.J., M.A. MCGEOCH, T.R. NEW.2010. Insect Conservation - AHandbook of Approaches and Methods.Oxforn University Press, 458 p.

StatSoft Inc. 2010. STATISTICA (data analysissoftware system), version 7.www.statsoft.com.

STOYANOV I. 2004. The ground-beetle(Coleoptera: Carabidae) fauna of Sofia

136

Ivelin A. Mollov, Peter S. Boyadzhiev, Mina D. Dinchevacity (Bulgaria): a checklist. - In: Penev,L., Niemela, J., Kotze, J. & Chipev, N.(Eds.): Ecology of the City of Sofia.Species and Communities in UrbanEnvironment. PENSOFT Publishers,Sofia-Moscow, pp. 401-415.

STOYANOV I., L. PENEV. 2004. SpatialStructure of Carabid BeetleAssemblages along an Urban-RuralGradient. - In: Penev L., J. Niemelä, D.Kotze, N. Chipev (Eds.), Ecology of theCity of Sofia. Species and Communitiesin an Urban Environment, PENSOFTPublishers, Sofia-Moscow, pp. 371-400.

VALEV S., I. GANCHEV, V. VELCHEV. 1960.[Field guide of the flora of Bulgaria.]Publ. “Narodna prosveta”, Sofia, 735 p.(In Bulgarian).

ZAPPAROLI M. 1997. Urban development andinsect biodiversity of the Rome area,Italy. Landscape Urban Planning, 38:77-86.

Екологични свойства на съобществата от безгръбначни епигеобионти в зелени площи в

.град Пловдив 2 – Част Пловдивските хълмове

. ,ИвелинА Моллов . , . ПетърС Бояджиев МинаД Динчева

(Резюме)

Целта на настоящата работа е да сехарактеризират и сравнят съобществата отепигобионтни безгръбначни животни в три отПловдивските хълмове - „Младежки хълм“,„Хълм Бунарджик“ и „Далов хълм“. Най-многобройно е съобществото от епигеобионтиот „Младежки хълм” (922 индивида от 37таксона), следвано от „Хълм Бунарджик” (876индивида от 40 таксона), където съобществотоима най-високо таксономично богатство, и най-бедни на индивиди и таксони е съобщесвтото от„Данов хълм” (493 индивида от 34 таксона). И втрите изследвани хълма преобладаватHymеnoptera, Formicidae, следвани от Coleoptera иDiptera, докато Aranea заема значителен дял в„Данов хълм“. Съобществото от епигеобионти от„Хълм Бунарджик” е най-добре обсособено, тъйкато съдържа най-много постоянни идопълнителни таксони в сравнение с другите двахълма и най-малко случайни таксони.Съобщестовто от „Данов хълм” най-вероятно енай-нестабилното от трите, което вероятно седължи на високия антропогенен натиск на тозихълм. Най-голямо разнообразие бе установенопри съобществото „Хълм Бунарджик”, катосъобществата и от трите проучени хълма самонодоминантни.

Accepted: 11.05.2018Published: 14.12.2018

137

bulletin of the natural history museum -...

Documents