Odonata - Entomological Society of Latvia - Latvijas Daba

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Figure 7. Correlation between vegetation structures and the DCA ordination of plots and dragonfly in sampling plots in Sudas-Zviedru Bog (15 sampling plots) and Lielais Ķemeru Bog (15 sampling plots) in 2007. Vectors indicate association with vegetation types. The first level of division of TWINSPAN separated sampling plots by the occurrence of Lestes sponsa. Sampling plots with pronounced proportion of water area in one group and habitats of open bog with a little proportion of water area in the other group. In the second level of division the divided habitats based on occurrence of Anax imperator and Aeshna grandis. Sampling plots with open territory of the bog, hummocks and depressions without the presence of water bodies and outside the forest and wooded territory of the bog, hummocks and depressions within pine stands in one group and habitats of shallow pools in the other group (Figure 8). Figure 8. Two-way indicator species analyses results of the TWINSPAN classification of dragonfly species and habitats of the Sudas-Zviedru Bog and Lielais Ķemeru Bog in 2007. 59
3.3. THE OCCURENCE AND POPULATION DENSITY OF GOMPHIDAE LARVAE IN RIVER GAUJA Distribution. Three species of gomphid larvae were found in the River Gauja – Gomphus vulgatissimus, Onychogomphus forcipatus and Ophiogomphus cecilia. Gomphidae were present in 21 squares. G. vulgatissimus was recorded in 20 squares, O. forcipatus – in eight squares and O. cecilia larvaes in 5 squares. Gomphus flavipes was not found in this study. Occurrence. Overall, gomphid larvae were found in 37 quantitative samples from 18 sites of river Gauja. Larvaes of G. vulgatissimus mostly were found in samples, less – O. forcipatus (Table 5). Table 5. Number and occurrence of gomphid larvae in quantitative samples of macrozoobenthos collected in the River Gauja from Taurene upstream to Carnikava downstream in 1998. Species Total number of samples with Gomphidae Total number of specimens % from all (n=280) samples % from samples with Gomphidae (n=37) Gomphus vulgatissimus 28 34 10.0 75.6 Onychogomphus forcipatus 14 19 5.0 37.8 Ophiogomphus cecilia 2 2 0.7 5.4 Seven substrate components from samples were selected: sand, gravel, pebbles, cobbles, mud, detritus and macrophytes. In 11 % of the samples the substrate was uniform, in 49 % there were two components, in 32 % – three components, and in 8 % – four components. Sand, gravel and mud occurred most frequently and was found in all samples. In Gomphidae samples the best represented component was cobbles also (Figure 9). In the analysis of the distribution of the sample substrate components for G. vulgatissimus and O. forcipatus it was found that for G. vulgatissimus the larvae mainly inhabit sandy and muddy micro habitats, while O. forcipatus prefers micro habitats with gravel and pebbles (Figure 10). Pe 4% Gr 24% Co 10% Ma 5% all samples (n=280) Mu 19% Sa 36% De 2% Pe 7% Co 17% Gr 20% Ma 4% Mu 20% De 1% Sa 31% samples with Gomphidae (n=37) Figure 9. Division of substratum by components represented in the samples (Sa – sand; Gr – gravel; Pe – pebbles; Co – cobbles; Mu – mud; De – detritus; Ma – macrophytes) in the River Gauja from Taurene upstream to Carnikava downstream in 1998. 60
Page 1 and 2:
LATVIJAS UNIVERSITĀTE Bioloģijas
Page 3 and 4:
SATURS / CONTENT 1. IEVADS.........
Page 5 and 6:
1.2. PĒTĪJUMA MĒRĶIS, DARBA UZD
Page 7 and 8:
Citas publikācijas Kalniņš M., J
Page 9 and 10: 2. MATERIĀLI UN METODES Pamatdati.
Page 11 and 12: izmantota standartizēta paraugu ie
Page 13 and 14: 3. REZULTĀTI 3.1. SPĀRU FAUNISTIS
Page 15 and 16: Dati par spārēm aptver 839 kvadr
Page 17 and 18: 3. tabulas turpinājums Taksons Aes
Page 19 and 20: Pēc procentuālā seguma transekt
Page 21 and 22: 3.3. GOMPHIDAE DZIMTAS SPĀRU KĀPU
Page 23 and 24: 11. attēls. Nehalennia speciosa iz
Page 25 and 26: Ophiogomphus cecilia. Suga konstat
Page 27 and 28: 16. attēls. Leucorrhinia pectorali
Page 29 and 30: sugas ar ļoti plašiem vai plašie
Page 31 and 32: faktors ir tas, cik kokaugu veģet
Page 33 and 34: sastopama oļu un akmeņu mikrobiot
Page 35 and 36: Salīdzinot sugas apdzīvotos bioto
Page 37 and 38: meklējumiem īpaši aizsargājamo
Page 39: 6. PATEICĪBAS Paldies darba vadīt
Page 42 and 43: The Doctoral thesis was developed i
Page 44 and 45: 1.2. THE AIM, TASKS AND THESES The
Page 46 and 47: Kalniņš M. 2006. The distribution
Page 48 and 49: 2. MATERIAL AND METHODS Basic data.
Page 50 and 51: 2.3. RESEARCH OF THE OCCURRENCE AND
Page 52 and 53: Figure 1. The location of dragonfly
Page 54 and 55: Table 2. Potential southern species
Page 56 and 57: unneum (Table 3). 59 distribution m
Page 58 and 59: 3.2. THE SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF DR
Page 62 and 63: Pe 5% Gr 15% Co 12% Ma 3% Mu 26% De
Page 64 and 65: Figure 12. A distribution of Aeshna
Page 66 and 67: Figure 14. A distribution of Leucor
Page 68 and 69: 4. DISCUSSION 4.1. THE CHANGES IN D
Page 70 and 71: many other issues are not specific
Page 72 and 73: habitats of open or wooded bogs. Ac
Page 74 and 75: of its localities. This general cor
Page 76 and 77: Figure 19. A distribution of Aeshna
Page 78 and 79: suitability of a habitat is charact
Page 80 and 81: 6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS My thanks to my
Page 82 and 83: De Marmels J., Schiess H. 1977. Zum
Page 84 and 85: Niemelä J., Kotze J., Ashworth A.,
show all

Odonata - Entomological Society of Latvia - Latvijas Daba

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?