Corresponding author: Ivan H. Tuf (
Academic editor: K. Szlavecz
This paper summarizes data regarding the terrestrial isopods of the White Carpathians range in the Western Outer Carpathians based on field research undertaken during the past several decades in natural meadow pasture and forest localities. Using a combination of four collection methods 19 species belonging to nine families were recorded. The most common representatives were
Tajovský K, Štrichelová J, Tuf IH (2018) Terrestrial isopods (Oniscidea) of the White Carpathians (Czech Republic and Slovakia) In: Hornung E, Taiti S, Szlavecz K (Eds) Isopods in a Changing World. ZooKeys 801: 305–321.
The Carpathian range measures approximately 1,500 km and covers ca. 203,000 km2. The entire Carpathian chain is usually divided into three major parts: the Western Carpathians (Austria, the Czech Republic, southwestern Poland, Slovakia and Hungary), the Eastern Carpathians (southeastern Poland, eastern Slovakia, Ukraine and Romania), and the Southern Carpathians (Romania and Serbia). The Western Carpathians comprise ca. 70,000 km2 and are divided into the four geological zones: 1) an outer flysch zone; 2) a zone with isolated limestone outcrops; 3) a central zone with transformed and underground igneous rocks; 4) a zone with limestone sediments as well as an inner zone with overground igneous rocks. In the Czech Republic, only a part of the Outer Western Carpathians (Figure
The zonation of Carpathians, with enlarged inset part of position of studied localities in CZ/SK White Carpathians. Source of the map of the Carpathian zones:
Research regarding isopod fauna in the Czech part of the Carpathians was initiated by
The White Carpathians are geographically located along the border between the Czech Republic and Slovakia, and constitute one of the westernmost parts of the entire mountain range, with a relatively high altitude that reaches above 900 m a.s.l. in the peaks. A large part of the territory of the White Carpathians on both the Czech and Slovak sides is designated a Protected Landscape Area (
In Slovakia, the isopod fauna of the White Carpathians has yet to be studied. Only in the 1990s, selected localities of importance to conservation in the Slovak part of the White Carpathians, were sampled for terrestrial isopods by †Pavel Deván. These were submitted to the first author of this contribution for study, but have not been elaborated. The Little Carpathians, which lie along the southern part of the White Carpathians but are orographically linked to the Inner Carpathians, were surveyed by
The Czech part of the White Carpathians
In this paper, we summarize data from a wide spectrum of biotopes in both the Czech and Slovak parts of the White Carpathians, based on the published records and elaboration of all available material regarding terrestrial isopods. Our results provide basic information about the isopod fauna of this part of the Western Carpathian, facilitating comparison with other areas of the Carpathian mountain range as a whole.
The target area, which is protected as the bilateral White Carpathians
In the present contribution, we surveyed terrestrial isopod fauna in 26 localities representing different natural habitats of the White Carpathians in the Czech Republic between 2002 and 2009, as well as 17 localities with meadow and forest habitats in the Slovak part of the range (Figure
Localities in the Czech part of the White Carpathians:
1 Bílé potoky
2 Brumov –
3 Čertoryje
4 Chladný vrch
5 Drahy
6 Hrozenkovský lom –
7 Hutě
8 Lopenické sedlo –
9 Javořina
10 Jazevčí
11 Okrouhlá
12 Ploščiny
13 Pod Hribovňou
14 Pod Vrchy
15 Pod Žitkovským vrchem
16 Porážky
17 Sidonie
18 Skaličí –
19 Strání –
20 Trnovský mlýn –
21 Uvezené
22 U Zvonice
23 Vápenky
24 Ve Vlčí
25 Výzkum –
26 Záhumenice
Localities in the Slovak part of the White Carpathians:
27 Babiná
28 Blažejová
29 Brezovská dolina
30 Bučkova Jama
31 Chvojnica
32 Fráterka –
33 Grúň
34 Kožíkov vrch
35 Krivoklátska Tiesňava
36 Kurinov vrch
37 Malejov
38 Mravcové
39 Nebrová
40 Šmatlavé Uhlisko
41 Štefanová
42 Veľká Javorina
43 Zábava –
Given that the data were attained in different years using different methods, it was not possible to compare all parameters of isopod assemblages in detail. Therefore, this paper presents a general overview of the fauna of terrestrial isopods in the study area. For analysis of isopod assemblages according to their presence or absence, the programme CANOCO 5, unconstrained analysis, DCA (
In total, 19 species of terrestrial isopods belonging to nine families (see Appendix
Terrestrial isopods recorded in individual localities of the White Carpathians, in the Czech Republic, their presence (+), absence (–) and frequency of occurrence (F%). For numbers and description of localities, see Materials and methods.
Localities | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | Total | F(%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
– | – | – | + | – | – | + | – | + | – | + | – | + | + | + | + | + | + | – | – | – | – | – | + | – | – | 11 | 42.3 |
|
– | – | + | + | – | + | + | – | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | – | – | + | + | + | + | + | – | 19 | 73.1 |
|
– | – | + | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | + | – | – | – | 2 | 7.7 |
|
– | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | + | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | 3.8 |
|
– | – | + | – | + | – | + | – | + | – | – | – | + | + | + | – | – | + | – | – | + | – | + | + | + | – | 12 | 46.2 |
|
+ | – | + | – | – | – | – | – | + | – | – | – | + | + | + | – | + | – | – | – | + | – | + | + | + | – | 11 | 42.3 |
|
– | – | + | – | + | – | – | – | – | + | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | + | – | 4 | 15.4 |
|
– | – | – | + | – | + | – | – | – | – | + | – | + | + | – | + | + | + | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 8 | 30.8 |
|
– | – | – | – | – | + | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | 3.8 |
|
– | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 0 | – |
|
+ | – | + | + | + | + | + | – | + | – | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | – | + | + | + | + | + | + | 22 | 84.6 |
|
– | + | + | – | + | + | + | + | – | + | – | – | + | – | + | – | – | – | – | + | + | + | – | + | – | – | 13 | 50.0 |
|
– | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | + | – | – | – | + | – | + | + | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 4 | 15.4 |
|
– | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 0 | – |
|
+ | + | + | + | + | – | + | – | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | – | – | + | + | + | + | + | 22 | 84.6 |
|
+ | – | – | + | – | – | + | – | + | – | + | + | + | + | + | – | + | + | – | – | + | – | – | + | – | + | 14 | 53.8 |
|
– | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 0 | – |
|
– | – | – | – | + | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | + | – | 2 | 7.7 |
|
– | + | + | – | + | – | – | – | – | + | – | – | – | – | – | + | – | – | + | + | – | – | + | – | + | + | 10 | 38.5 |
Total number of species | 4 | 3 | 9 | 6 | 7 | 5 | 7 | 1 | 9 | 5 | 6 | 4 | 10 | 8 | 9 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 3 | 2 | 6 | 4 | 7 | 8 | 8 | 4 |
Terrestrial isopods recorded in individual localities of the White Carpathians, in Slovakia, with their presence (+), absence (–), and frequency of occurrence (F%). Numbers of localities, see Materials and methods.
Localities | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | Total | F(%) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
– | – | + | – | – | – | + | – | – | – | – | + | – | – | – | – | – | 3 | 17.6 |
|
|
– | + | + | + | + | – | + | + | – | – | + | + | + | – | + | + | + | 12 | 70.6 |
|
|
– | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 0 | – |
|
|
– | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 0 | – |
|
|
– | – | – | + | + | – | + | + | – | – | + | – | – | – | – | – | – | 5 | 29.4 |
|
|
– | – | – | – | + | – | + | + | – | – | – | – | – | + | + | – | + | 6 | 35.3 |
|
|
– | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 0 | – |
|
|
– | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 0 | – |
|
|
+ | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | 5.9 |
|
|
– | + | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | 5.9 |
|
|
– | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | – | – | + | – | + | + | + | – | 12 | 70.6 |
|
|
– | + | + | + | + | – | + | + | + | – | + | + | – | – | + | – | – | 10 | 58.8 |
|
|
– | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 0 | – |
|
|
+ | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | + | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 2 | 11.8 |
|
|
– | + | – | + | + | – | + | + | – | – | + | + | – | – | + | – | – | 8 | 47.1 |
|
|
– | – | – | – | + | – | – | + | – | – | + | – | – | – | – | – | – | 3 | 17.6 |
|
|
– | – | – | – | – | – | – | + | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | 5.9 |
|
|
– | + | – | – | – | – | + | + | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 3 | 17.6 |
|
|
– | – | – | + | + | – | – | + | – | – | + | + | – | – | + | – | + | 7 | 41.2 |
Number of species | 2 | 6 | 4 | 6 | 8 | 1 | 8 | 10 | 2 | 1 | 6 | 6 | 1 | 2 | 6 | 2 | 3 |
Given that the analyzed data came from different studies, we compared the assemblages of terrestrial isopods at individual localities according to the presence or absence of the species only. Frequently occurring species were clustered in the first and second quadrat, primarily along the y-axis (Figure
The ordination analysis of isopod species recorded at individual study localities in the White Carpathians (CANOCO 5, unconstrained analysis, DCA). For abbreviation of species’ names, see Table
The dense clustering of localities (Figure
The ordination analysis (CANOCO 5, unconstrained analysis, DCA) of individual localities (1–43) in the White Carpathians according to present terrestrial isopod assemblages. For numbers of individual localities, see Materials and methods. Key: brown spots, forest localities; light green spots, meadows and pastures; yellow spots, localities of mixed meadows and woods.
A total of 43 species of terrestrial isopods are currently known in the Czech Republic, hence our material pertaining to the Czech part of the White Carpathians represents 37 % of Czech fauna. Similarly, in the Slovak part of the White Carpathians, the 14 recorded species represent approximately 31 % of total known Slovak fauna (45 species). Given that in half of the localities, isopod communities were composed of six to 10 species, we can consider the White Carpathians rich in woodlice fauna. The data from localities with only three or fewer species should be considered an underestimation due to the sampling method and effort. Additional surveys would certainly increase total numbers through other frequently occurring species.
It must be mentioned that our study summarizes data only from natural and not synanthropic habitats. In comparison with other areas heretofore explored in the Western Carpathians, this represents another rich area after the Little Carpathians (30 species,
In the present study, we surveyed a relatively wide spectrum of biotopes in the White Carpathians. In total, we sampled a range of forest, meadow and pasture sites as well as sites with a mixture of habitats. Differences in isopod species composition were observed, including between forest biotopes, cultivated sites and pastures (e.g.,
From a zoogeographical point of view, European and Central European species predominated (
The meadows and pastures of the White Carpathians have in fact been formed and influenced by humans for numerous centuries (cf. Mackovčin et al. 2002). Nevertheless, a lack of introduced and synanthropic species reveals a weak influence on present-day isopod fauna. Only one species,
The record of the Carpathian endemic
When evaluating the (dis)similarity of communities of the White Carpathians, a northeast-southwest geographical as well as ecological gradient (meadow – pasture – forest) was observed. The analysis divided the localities into herbaceous-rich meadow sites and other meadows and forests with relatively rich isopod fauna, and distinguished several specific (and mostly xerothermic) sites (Figs
In conclusion, the recorded number of species, their distribution within meadows, pastures and forests, the occurrence of species-rich communities (especially in forest habitats), and the presence of the relic species,
We are grateful to †Pavel Deván, who collected material in Slovakia during the 1990s, and †Marie Flasarová, who identified some of Deván’s Slovak samples. We also thank Ondřej Horňák for assisting the data analysis, Miroslav Schejbal for map editing and Kristýna Pavelková, Marek Soviš and Jana Tufová (all from Palacký University, Olomouc), and Ondřej Konvička, Václav Pižl and Josef Jerhot (Biology Centre, České Budějovice) for their assistance in field sampling. The field work was partly supported by the Czech Science Foundation, project No. 526/02/0036. Completion of the manuscript was supported by internal grant of Palacky University No. PrF_2018_020. The authors thank Sándor Farkas, Andrej Mock, and Katalin Szlávecz for valuable advice and comments on the manuscript.
Family
Family
Family
Family
Family
Family
Family
Family
Family