Janus Pannonius Múzeum Évkönyve 32 (1987) (Pécs, 1988)

Természettudományok - Nógrádi, Sára–Uherkovich, Ákos: The caddisfly fauna of the Gyöngyös streamsystem, South Hungary (Tirchoptera)

20 S. NÓGRADI-A. UHERKOVICH Set odes punctatus Fabricius, 1793. Kisdobsza, 1985 June 30 1 Ç, July 19 55 rfrf 57 99, July 29 18 rfrf 9 99, 1986 July 23 3 çfc/ 1 9Homokszentgyörgy, 1986 July 28 1 çf 1 9It is a wide-spread and somewhere common species. Leptocems tineiformis Curtis, 1834. Kisdobsza, 1982 June 6 1 9, 1985 June 5 3 c?C?. June 30 3 99, July 8 1 9, July 19 9 cTcT 9 99, July 29 3 99, August 25 1 9, 1986 June 11 1 9, July 23 l9Homokszentgyörgy, 1986 June 27 3 rf<f 34 99Frequent. Adicella syriaca Ulmer, 1907. Kisdobsza, 1985 June 5 1 cf. This species occurs in South, Southeast Europe, Liban and Istracl (Botosàneanu-Malicky 1978). The very first Hungarian specimen is just this one from Kisdobsza (Nógrádi 1986). Notidobia ciliaris Linnaeus, 1761. Homokszentgyörgy, 1986 May 11 1 cf* (on light). It is a very rare species in South Transdanubia but very common on West Hungary. Usually it is on wing at daytime. Beraea pullata Curtis, 1834. Homokszentgyörgy, 1986 May 11 1 9It lives in small streams and brooks, and is not frequent generally. Comments on the quantitative data and ecology Quantitative data All Trichoptera specimens were captured during 1982-1986, therefore, the data of the species collected in this period are quantitative. All such data are given in the Tables 2 and 4 with the indication of males and females. These tables do no include the species collected before 1982. The dominant species of Kisdobsza (localities No. 1 and 2) - which are enumerated in Table 3 - are wide-spread and common. Five Hydropsyche species are in the first ten, and the most dominant one is the undetermined group of Hydropsyche females with 41 per cent. The summarized quantity of Hydropsyche species is very high along the streams of low hilly regions, it may reach Fig. 3. Graph of ecological dispersing of the example (see the text). Comments: 0 = indifferent, 2 = springs, 3 = streams, 4 = rivers, 5 = stagnant waters. 3. ábra. A szövegben szereplő példa ökológiai eloszlásának diagramja. Magyarázat: 0 = semleges, 2 = forrás, 3 = patak, 4 = folyó, 5 = állóvíz. 50-80 р. c. In the lower branch of the mountainous streams its quantity is between 15 and 25 per cent, on the upper branches it is very low, because here only few and other species find their living conditions (mostly Hydropsyche fidvipes Curt., rarely H. saxonica McL.). Around the ponds and lakes this numerical value varies: it depends on other water of the environs (Fig. 3). In the large rivers - e. g. in the Danube - almost all the species have become extinct, only one or two Hydropsyche species (H. contubernalis McL., and in SE Europe H. btd gar о manor и m Mal.) may persist. These one or two species may reach 95-99 per cents (Chantaramongkol 1983). Ecology Botoßäneau and Malicky (1978) give some information about the ecology of European caddisflies. According to this paper we tried to compare the ecological spectrum of each locality. First let us see an example. Five ecological groups are considered in this examination. Let us suppose that five species (A-E) were collected on the site. Their quantity and the ecological character may be the following: species A В С D E together ecological character* 3-4-5 5 quantity 4-5 3-4 0 10 20 30 5 35 100 lue of delineation 0 2 3 4 5* 10 10 10 20 30 30 5 5 35 35 - 15 45 60 * The figures mean ecological character according to Botosàneanu and Malicky (1978). In the present paper we use: 0 = indifferent, 2 = springs (crenal zone), 3 = streams (rhithral zone), 4 = rivers, big rivers (pocamal zone), 5 = standing waters: ponds, lakes. The delineation of this example can be studied on the Fig. 3. Four localities were examined by this method. The first one is from, the upper branch of a mountainous stream with springs in its vicinity (Kisújbánya, Pásztor Spring, see Nógrádi 1987). The dominant species come from the springs and streams. Some specimens from along stagnant water could be found, they might develop in the basins behind the weirs of chalcareous tufa (Fig. 4 A). The speed of the flow was more moderate at Kárász: it was along the lower branch of the same stream. The most dominant species was from the stream, but the river species reach a higher value (Fig. 4 B). The ecological dispersion of the water examined in this recent paper is shown in the Fig. 4 С The dominant species is from the rivers, but several specimens can be found from the rhithral zone. The number of specimens from