LARGE FRESHWATER BRANCHIOPODS IN AUSTRIA: DIVERSITY, THREATS AND CONSERVATIONAL STATUS
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Freshwater branchiopods in Austria
LARGE FRESHWATER BRANCHIOPODS
IN AUSTRIA: DIVERSITY, THREATS
AND CONSERVATIONAL STATUS
Erich Eder and Walter Hödl
Institute of Zoology, University of Vienna, Althanstr. 14, A-1090 Vienna, Austria
Erich.Eder@univie.ac.at
ABSTRACT sity of large branchiopods within a small area. Ranges
of species with holarctic, Eurasian, European,
For the first time, Anostraca, Notostraca and Pannonian, and southern European distribution over-
Conchostraca (Laevicaudata, Spinicaudata) will be lap in Austria due to its specific geographic position
listed in the Austrian Red Data Book of Endangered (Eder et al. 1997). Sixteen large branchiopod species
Species. According to the 1999 IUCN draft criteria, belonging to 14 genera have been reported from Aus-
eight out of 15 large branchiopod species recorded be- tria (Vornatscher 1968, Löffler 1993). Large branchio-
tween 1994 and 1999 are considered as critically en- pods are considered to be endangered throughout Eu-
dangered, three of which (Chirocephalus shadini, rope (Alonso 1985, Brendonck 1989, Mura 1993,
Eoleptestheria ticinensis, Streptocephalus torvicornis) Petrov and Petrov 1997, Defaye et al. 1998, Maier
occur at only one site each. Five species are considered 1998). The primary threats are comparable to those
as endangered, two of them (Branchinecta orientalis, threatening aquatic insects (Polhemus 1993). Physical
Triops cancriformis) showing a statistically significant destruction due to agricultural development, changes
decrease of sites. Eubranchipus grubii and Lepidurus of hydrologic conditions and urbanisation play a major
apus, both found abundantly mainly in the flood plains role (Rieder 1989, Löffler 1993, Hödl and Eder 1996a).
along the rivers Thaya and Morava, are near threat- “Invertebrates traditionally attract very little conserva-
ened. Lynceus brachyurus is extinct in Austria. Large tion funding in relation to vertebrates, although they
branchiopods are mainly threatened by agricultural may play more subtle and significant ecological roles
activities and hydrological/hydrochemical changes. and monitor environmental change better” (New 1993).
Presently, three Austrian locations are protected exclu- Large branchiopods have proven to attract public in-
sively on the basis of large branchiopod occurrence; terest as “primeval shrimps” (Hödl and Eder 1996a)
three additional habitats are in the process of obtaining as well as due to their extreme ecology, and thus may
official protection. Several large populations are situ- help to propagate the relevance of invertebrates for con-
ated in the WWF nature reserve “March-Auen”, and in servation biology (Eder and Hödl 1996a). Recent public
the National Parks “Donau-Auen” and “Neusiedler See discussion on the biodiversity crisis and public aware-
- Seewinkel”, respectively. ness for the protection of endangered species favour
effective conservational measures. Conservation au-
I. INTRODUCTION thorities, however, increasingly demand quantitative
data for valid assessments of extinction risks as basis of
The Austrian share of the Pannonian region, Red Data Books and legal actions (Müller-Motzfeld
of the Danube as well as of the Morava, the westernmost 1990, Gruttke et al. 1999). The aim of this study is to
steppe river of Europe, results in a remarkable diver- provide a quantitative evaluation of the status, threats
E. Escobar-Briones & F. Alvarez Eds.
Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers MODERN APPROACHES TO THE STUDY OF CRUSTACEA
Published online with kind permission. P.P. 281-289E. Eder & W. Hödl
and conservation of Anostraca, Notostraca and hibitions. Our field sampling focused on the Lower Aus-
Conchostraca, as a prerequisite for the planned Red tria and Burgenland provinces, where 288 (90,8%) large
Data Book of Endangered Species in Austria (Zulka et branchiopod occurrences were reported up to 1990. For
al. 2000). Main threatening factors are discussed, each species, the number of entirely destroyed localities,
multispecies large branchiopod sites are ranked accord- intact sites, and locations under legal protection (National
ing to their relevance for conservational purposes, and Park and nature reserves) was determined. The number of
the status of large branchiopod habitats and recent con- sites reported up to 1990 was compared for each species
servation activities by the authors are presented. with the number of recent sites by means of Pearson c²-
test. The observed 95% significance level in all 16 tests
II. METHODS was adjusted using Bonferroni correction (Sokal and
Rohlf 1995, Milasowszky and Zulka 1998), i.e.
Single pools, a group of water bodies within a P=0.05/16=0.003125.
radius of 100 m or connected at least once during a sam-
pling visit are treated as one geographical unity (=”site”). III. RESULTS
To quantify the status, threats, and causes of potential lo-
cal extinction, all undoubtedly identifiable locations his- To the best of our knowledge, a total of 318
torically reported in Austria until 1990 (117) were revis- reports of large branchiopod occurrences from 128
ited by us at least once in the ten year observation period Austrian sites, according to the above definition, were
(1991 - 2000), primarily between 1994 and 1996 (cf. Hödl known up to 1990. Seventy nine localities were reported
and Eder 1996a). Eleven sites were insufficiently described in accessible publications (Brehm 1910, Puschnig 1918,
and could not be inspected. In order to assess the current Machura 1935, Pesta 1937, 1939, 1942, Kupka
status for each species, a thorough search for potential 1940, Heikertinger 1951, Nemec 1952, Vornatscher 1955,
other large branchiopod sites was undertaken, including 1968, Löffler, 1957, 1959, 1993, Sampl 1969, Metz
appeals to the public through printed media and local ex- and Forró 1987, Paar et al. 1993). Information about
Table 1. Austrian large branchiopod sites, listed by species. Number of sites and protectional status. Sites protected by general
conventions (such as Ramsar) are not included. * Statistically significant (PFreshwater branchiopods in Austria
Table 2. Multispecies large branchiopod habitats(>2 species) in Austria
Habitat province Location protectional status species documented
“Blumengang” Lower Austria Morava/Danube nature reserve C. tetracerus, E. ticinensis, I. yeyetta,
near Engelhartstetten 48°10”42" N, 16°58”00" E L. dahalacensis, L. lenticularis, T. cancriformis
“Triops-Senke” Lower Austria Lower Morava protection aimed C. tetracerus, I. yeyetta, L. apus,
(Lange Lüsse) 48°14’24" N, 16°56’25" E L. dahalacensis, T. cancriformis
Pond Burgenland “Wiener Becken” — B. schaefferi, S. torvicornis, L. dahalacensis, T.
near “Steinbrunner See” 47°50’04“ N, 16°23’20“ E cancriformis
“Kohler-Lacke” Burgenland Seewinkel national park B. schaefferi, I. yeyetta, L. dahalacensis,
near Apetlon 47°45’23“ N, 16°50’50“ E T. cancriformis
“August-Lacke” Lower Austria Lower Morava — I. yeyetta, L. dahalacensis, L. lenticularis,
(Lange Lüsse) 48°14‘23" N, 16°56‘12" E T. cancriformis
“T/L-Lacke” Lower Austria Lower Morava — I. yeyetta, L. apus, L. lenticularis,
(Lange Lüsse) 48°13‘11" N, 16°57‘05" E T. cancriformis
“Alte Schanzen” Burgenland Parndorfer Platte protection aimed B. schaefferi, T. stagnalis, T. cancriformis
near Parndorf 47°58’40“ N, 16°51’20“ E
“Pulverturm” Lower Austria Lower Morava nature reserve C. shadini, I. yeyetta, L. apus
ponds near Marchegg 48°16’30” N, 16°55’00” E
Meadow Burgenland Seewinkel national park B. schaefferi, I. yeyetta, L. dahalacensis
near Wörten-Lacke 47°46’32“ N, 16°51’18“ E
Gramatneusiedl Lower Austria „Wiener Becken“ nature reserve B. schaefferi, C. tetracerus, T. cancriformis
48°01‘15" N, 16°29‘35" E
“Tanymastix-Lacke” Burgenland Seewinkel — I. yeyetta, T. stagnalis, T. cancriformis
near Wörten-Lacke 47°46’40“ N, 16°51’13“ E
Field south of Markthof Lower Austria Lower Morava — B. schaefferi, I. yeyetta, T. cancriformis
48°11‘16" N, 16°57‘29" E
“Kreuzlacke” Lower Austria Lower Morava — B. schaefferi, I. yeyetta, T. cancriformis
south of Markthof 48°11’21" N, 16°57’07" E
“Dammwiese” Lower Austria Lower Morava none (protected by a I. yeyetta, L. apus, T. cancriformis
near Marchegg 48°16’45” N, 16°54’20” E local agreement)
“Loimersdorfer Wiesen” Lower Austria Lower Morava — I. yeyetta, L. dahalacensis, T. cancriformis
near Markthof 48°10’47" N, 16°57’10" E
Field south of Lower Austria Lower Morava — I. yeyetta, L. dahalacensis, T. cancriformis
Engelhartstetten 48°10’26" N, 16°53’27" E
“Schlosslacke” Lower Austria Lower Morava — I. yeyetta, L. lenticularis, T. cancriformis
(Lange Lüsse) 48°13’05" N, 16°57’20" E
“Brachesenke” Lower Austria Lower Morava — I. yeyetta, L. lenticularis, T. cancriformis
(Lange Lüsse) 48°13’10" N, 16°57’05" E
“Hoffnungslacke” Lower Austria Lower Morava — I. yeyetta, L. lenticularis, T. cancriformis
(Lange Lüsse) 48°13”05" N, 16°57”30" E
the remaining 49 sites was obtained from unpublished tria within the last ten years (Table 1, cf. Eder et al.
reports (Marschitz and Käfel 1993), unpublished the- 1997). Thus, almost one quarter of the 68 European
ses (Jungwirth 1973, Jahn 1981, Linder 1983, large branchiopod species and two thirds of the 22
Lechthaler 1993), personal communications (E. Chris- European genera (Brtek and Thiéry 1995) are present
tian, Gartner, J. Gruber, R. Ille, B. Kohler, I.Korner, on less than 1% of the European land mass.
G. Lutschinger, M. Maslo, H. Palme, K. Schütz, U. The highest numbers of recent sites were re-
Tessenow), and historical field notes from J. Vornatscher corded for L. apus (78) and Eubranchipus grubii
stored at the Natural History Museum of Vienna (Dybowski, 1869) (60), two species abundantly oc-
(NHMW). The species with most records were Triops curring in the Morava river flood plains. More than 20
cancriformis (Bosc, 1801), Branchipus schaefferi recent sites were documented for B. schaefferi, T.
Fischer, 1834, Branchinecta sp. and Lepidurus apus cancriformis, and Imnadia yeyetta Hertzog, 1935,
(L., 1758) (Table 1). mainly in the lower Morava and Danube river flood
Except Lynceus brachyurus Müller, 1776, all plains, the Seewinkel region and the Wiener Becken
historically reported species were documented in Aus- depression. All other species occur at less than 15 sites,
283E. Eder & W. Hödl
three of which are known from only a single site each in 1998, was followed up by a revised and updated
(Table 1). Besides the extinct L. brachyurus, decrease CD-ROM edition (Eder 1999a). Additionally, an ex-
of recent sites was statistically significant for two spe- hibition (“primeval shrimps in Austria – living fossils
cies, Branchinecta orientalis (G. O. Sars, 1901) and T. in short-lived waters”) was set up and shown in the
cancriformis (Table 1). museums of Marchegg (1996-1997) and Illmitz
Almost one third of the Austrian large bran- (1999), located in the main large branchiopod distri-
chiopod sites is inhabited by more than one species, 18 bution areas of the Morava flood plains and Neusiedler
sites by more than two (see Table 2). The most fre- See-Seewinkel, respectively. Media reactions followed
quent co-occurrences are: T. cancriformis with either with interviews for TV (7), radio programs (8), and
I. yeyetta, Leptestheria dahalacensis (Rüppell, 1837) newspapers (>30). A natural history film on large bran-
or Limnadia lenticularis (L., 1761); L. apus with E. chiopods worldwide, including scenes from Austrian
grubii; and I. yeyetta with either L. dahalacensis or L. populations, supported our conservational intentions
lenticularis (Gottwald and Eder 1999). (Bludszuweit et al. 1996). Public awareness caused the
Reasons for local extinction, as far as it is accelerated legal procedure regarding the protection of
known, were physical destruction due to agricultural the most diverse Austrian large branchiopod site: on
development, changes of hydrologic conditions (dikes, June 19, 1996, the 7.5 ha “Blumengang” site, habitat
hydroelectric power plants), and urbanisation (includ- of six large branchiopod species, among them all
ing litter disposal, road constructions and recreational spinicaudatan species known from Austria, was de-
measures) (cf. Table 1). Until 1970, none of the Aus- clared a nature reserve due to the initiative of the au-
trian large branchiopod occurrences was under legal thors (Hödl and Eder 1996c). Conservation proposals
protection. When the WWF bird sanctuaries for three additional large branchiopod sites (seven spe-
“Marchauen-Marchegg” and “Breitensee” in the cies) are presently treated by the responsible local au-
Morava inundation area were declared nature reserves thorities. If successful, with the exception of
in 1970, populations of the two most common Aus- Streptocephalus torvicornis (Waga, 1842) and L.
trian large branchiopod species E. grubii and L. apus brachyurus, at least one locality of each Austrian large
fell under local protection. In 1982, the “Pulverturm” branchiopod species will face the strictest legal nature
ponds near the city of Marchegg, westernmost and protection available (Table 1).
single Austrian site of Chirocephalus shadini (Smirnov, None of the large branchiopod species is listed in the
1928), became the world’s first area declared as a na- presently valid Austrian Red Data Book of Endangered
ture reserve based solely on large branchiopod occur- Species (Gepp 1994). Recently, large branchiopods
rence due to the initiative of one of the authors (Hödl were listed in local Red Data Books for the provinces
1994). In 1994, the first Austrian National Park meet- Carinthia (Eder 1999b) and Lower Austria (Hödl and
ing the IUCN criteria, “Neusiedler See - Seewinkel”, Eder 2000), and were recommended for the upcom-
was inaugurated. By this measure, both known Aus- ing new version of the Austrian Red Data Book (Zulka
trian sites of Chirocephalus carnuntanus (Brauer, et al. 2000).
1877), occurrences of Branchinecta ferox (Milne-
Edwards, 1840), B. schaefferi, I. yeyetta, L. dahalacensis IV. DISCUSSION
and T. cancriformis, and most sites of Branchinecta
orientalis G. O. Sars, 1901, came under protectional According to the statistical data, four differ-
status (Eder et al. 1996). In 1996, the declaration of ent species groups are discussed:
the National Park “Donau-Auen” (Manzano 2000) (1) Two species, E. grubii and L. apus, show a
gave protection to two habitats with co-occurrences of remarkable increase of site records, which is due to the
L. apus with L. lenticularis, and T. cancriformis with I. extensive quantitative sampling along the Morava river in
yeyetta, respectively (Eder and Hödl 1996a). the course of recent projects (Marschitz and Käfel 1993,
In the course of our efforts for large branchio- Hödl and Rieder 1993). The abundant occurrence of these
pod conservation, a broad public audience was ad- species along the Morava river was obvious to earlier in-
dressed by a brochure (Hödl and Rieder 1993), more vestigators (J. Vornatscher †, pers. comm.) who did not
than 20 articles in local journals, and a popular science go into detail documenting each encountered site (e.g.,
book (Hödl and Eder 1996b). The book, out of print “Morava River”, given in Vornatscher 1968).
284Freshwater branchiopods in Austria
(2) Species with no statistically significant in- expected for the evaluation of large branchiopod status
crease or decrease of site numbers are B. schaefferi, I. in eastern Austria. However, the necessity of additional
yeyetta, L. dahalacensis, and L. lenticularis. These spe- faunistic research throughout the whole country is dem-
cies are widespread in Europe (B. schaefferi), Eurasia onstrated by new reports from Upper Austria (W.
(L. dahalacensis) or the Pannonian region (I. yeyetta), Weißmair and R. Gottwald, unpubl.), Carinthia (Sampl
or show a holarctic distribution (L. lenticularis) and Fressner, unpubl.), and from Lower Austrian re-
(Dumont et al. 1995). gions so far unknown for large branchiopod occurrence
(3) Branchinecta orientalis and T. cancriformis, (T. Hochebner unpubl., R. Gottwald unpubl.).
abundant along the Seewinkel region and the lower The prospective evaluation mode of the Aus-
Morava river, respectively, show a statistically signifi- trian Red Data Book (Zulka et al. 2000) follows the
cant decrease of sites, while L. brachyurus is extinct. criteria by Schnittler et al. (1994), modified according
The decrease of B. orientalis, a species limited to steppic to Gärdenfors et al. (1999) to provide IUCN-compat-
pools in central Spain, the Pannonian lowlands and ible results. Eight of the 16 large branchiopod species
Eastern Europe, is a result of the degradation of the known from Austria are considered as critically endan-
alkaline pans in the Seewinkel region (Löffler 1993) gered (CR), five species are endangered (EN), the two
which has stopped with the declaration of the National most common species near threatened (NT). One spe-
Park “Neusiedler See-Seewinkel” in 1994. For T. cies is considered to be extinct in Austria (RE; EX ac-
cancriformis, a well known species widely distributed cording to IUCN 1994) (Table 3).
all over Europe, the data reflect the general European Austrian meadows result from long-term use
trend of large branchiopod decrease. More than 80% as grassland for cattle. Traditional cultivation of these
of the historically reported sites for this species were semi-natural habitats is needed to preserve fauna and
destroyed, mainly by agriculture and urbanisation. flora diversity (cf. Rieder 1989). Due to changes in
(4) Seven species occur at less than six sites agricultural policy during the last decades, large
(Table 1). With the exception of Tanymastix stagnalis meadow areas along the lower Morava river have be-
(L., 1758), Austria lies within either their westernmost come farm land. As a consequence, development led to
or northernmost distribution boundaries (Dumont et the physical destruction of large branchiopod habitats
al. 1995). Due to the low numbers, the negative trend through filling up or drainage of wetlands. Aiming the
of B. ferox (cf. B. orientalis), S. torvicornis and T. protection of private property as natural reserves leads
stagnalis is not statistically significant. to conflicts with land owners. Without adequate infor-
In species producing long-lived permanent mation strategies, farmers may refuse conservational
stages, cyst banks may remain in the soil for years or measures (W. Suske, unpubl.). Since 1987, the “Verein
even decades, which complicates the evaluation for Red zur Erhaltung und Förderung ländlicher Lebensräume
Data Books. Re-appearance of rare species such as (Distelverein)” tries to ensure “wise use” or renatur-
Cyzicus tetracerus (Krynicki, 1830) at habitats where ation of valuable anthropogenic habitats along the
conditions have recently changed, could be either re- Morava river, including large branchiopod habitats, by
immigration (e.g., by birds), or hatching of cysts that direct payments to the local farmers (Schlederer 1999).
have been present in the soil for years without develop- Extirpation due to pollution has not been reported for
ing due to suboptimal conditions. The irregular but large branchiopods in Austria. According to Owens et al.
widespread occurrence of B. schaefferi outside the main (2000), the effect of pesticides is lower for Anostraca
large branchiopod areas indicates the possibility of in- (Branchinecta sp.) than for other aquatic organisms
active cyst banks present at sites still unknown for large (Cladocera), but still needs a closer examination. In the
branchiopod occurrence in Austria. Morava river flood plains, Bacillus thuringensis israelensis
The known ranges of smaller, less charismatic (BTI) is used against mosquitoes (B. Seidel, unpubl.).
invertebrates often more accurately reflect the distri- Neither experimental nor field data are available about
bution of their experts than that of the animals them- possible effects of BTI on large branchiopods.
selves (Dumont et al. 1995), an aspect to be consid- The storage lakes ”Nove Mlyny” of the Thaya-
ered when comparing historic and recent distribution River in Southern Moravia, built in 1989, reduce the
data. As the geographic range of historical and recent dynamics of the Morava river’s highwaters. Crossing
investigations are approximately the same, no bias is the Morava river, the planned Danube-Oder-Elbe-Ca-
285E. Eder & W. Hödl Table 3. Evaluation of Austrian large freshwater branchiopod species according to the IUCN Red List draft Categories (Gärdenfors et al., 1999, and adaptation by Zulka et al., 2000), considering data until October 2000. VIE Vienna, LOA Lower Austria, BUR Burgenland, UPA Upper Austria, SAL Salzburg, STY Styria, CAR Carinthia. No large branchiopod records are known from the westernmost provinces Tyrol and Vorarlberg. Taxon VIE LOA BUR UPA SAL STY CAR Austria Anostraca Branchinecta ferox — — CR — — — — CR (Milne-Edwards, 1840) Branchinecta orientalis — — EN — — — — EN G.O.Sars, 1901 Branchipus schaefferi CR CR EN RE RE RE — EN Fischer, 1834 Chirocephalus carnuntanus — — CR — — — — CR (Brauer, 1877) Chirocephalus shadini — CR — — — — — CR (Smirnov, 1928) Eubranchipus grubii — NT CR CR — — CR NT (Dybowski, 1860) Streptocephalus torvicornis RE — CR — — — — CR (Waga, 1842) Tanymastix stagnalis — RE CR — RE — — CR (Linnaeus, 1758) Notostraca Lepidurus apus — NT CR — — — CR NT (Linnaeus, 1758) Triops cancriformis CR EN EN RE RE — RE EN (Bosc, 1801) Conchostraca Cyzicus tetracerus RE CR RE — — — — CR (Krynicki, 1830) Eoleptestheria ticinensis RE CR — — — — — CR (Balsamo-Crivelli, 1859) Imnadia yeyetta — EN EN CR — — — EN Hertzog, 1935 Leptestheria dahalacensis RE EN EN RE — — — EN (Rüppell, 1837) Limnadia lenticularis RE CR RE — — — — CR (Linnaeus, 1761) Lynceus brachyurus — RE RE — — — — RE Müller, 1776 286
Freshwater branchiopods in Austria
nal, 40 km on its Austrian course (Müller 2000), is Notostraca, Spinicaudata, Laevicaudata).
considered a major threat to wetland habitats. Effects Hydrobiologia 298:263-280
on water level and hydrologic dynamics of both Morava Defaye D, Rabet N and Thiéry A (1998) Atlas et
and Danube rivers are unknown. bibliographie des crustacés branchiopodes
To determine conservational priorities, large (Anostraca, Notostraca, Spinicaudata) de France
branchiopod occurrences were ranked using the main métropolitaine. MNHN, Paris
criteria listed by Usher and Erz (1994). Local diversity Dumont H, Mertens J and Maeda-Martinez AM (1995)
was the decisive factor, prior to species rareness. Coin- Historical biogeography and morphological differen-
cidently, rarest Austrian species always occur at tiation of Streptocephalus torvicornis (Waga) since the
multispecies habitats, e.g., Eoleptestheria ticinensis Würm III-glaciation. Hydrobiologia 298:281-286
(Balsamo-Crivelli 1859) at the “Blumengang” depres- Eder E (ed) (1999a) Urzeitkrebse - Lebende Fossilien.
sion (cf. Table 2). Five sites out of the 10 highest CD-ROM. Eigenverlag Eder-Steiner, Wien
ranked habitats are protected (Table 2). The final Eder E (1999b) Rote Liste der Rückenschaler Kärntens
decision about the aimed nature reserve “Triops- (Crustacea: Branchiopoda: Notostraca). In:
Senke” is expected within the next year, further con- Rottenburg T, Wieser C, Mildner P and Holzinger
servational activities are planned. WE (eds) Rote Listen gefährdeter Tiere Kärntens.
Naturschutz in Kärnten 15:535-538
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Eder E and Hödl W (1996a) Wozu “Urzeitkrebse”?
Praktische Bedeutung der Groß-Branchiopoden für
We are grateful to all persons who supported Wirtschaft, Naturschutz und Wissenschaft. Stapfia
our conservational activities, first of all to E. Kraus (Pro- 42:149-158
vincial Government of Lower Austria, dep. RU-5) for Eder E and Hödl W (1996b). Die Groß-Branchiopoden
his engagement. D. Belk (IUCN), W. Haas, W. der österreichischen Donau-Auen. Stapfia 42:85-92
Kaffarek, E. Neumeister, M. Pöckl and A. M. Sturm Eder E, Hödl W and Milasowszky N (1996) Die Groß-
provided friendly and professional advice. G. Bieringer, Branchiopoden des Seewinkels. Stapfia 42:93-101
R. Gottwald, H. Groß, E. Hable, T. Hochebner, E. Eder E, Hödl W and Gottwald R (1997) Distribution
Klotz, E. Kusel-Fetzmann, N. Milasowzky, G. Navara, and phenology of large branchiopods in Austria.
I. Oberleitner-Fischer, L. Paulssen, R. Plöchl, E. Rieder, Hydrobiologia 359:13-22
H. Sampl, T. Schlögl, N. Weißenböck, W. Weißmair, Gärdenfors U, Rodriguez JP, Hilton-Taylor C, Hyslop
A. Welzl and T. Zuna-Kratky reported new large bran- C, Mace G, Molur S and Poss S (1999) Draft guide-
chiopod occurrences in Austria. Finally, we appre- lines for the application of IUCN Red List criteria at
ciate the support in statistical analysis by N. national and regional levels. Species 31/32:58-70
Milasowzky and P. Zulka. Gepp J (ed) (1994) Rote Listen gefährdeter Tiere
Österreichs. Grüne Reihe des Bundesministeriums für
REFERENCES Umwelt, Jugend und Familie, Band 2, Styria, Graz
Gottwald R and Eder E (1999) “Co-occurrence” - ein
Alonso M (1985) A survey of the Spanish Beitrag zur Synökologie der Groß-Branchiopoden.
Euphyllopoda. Misc Zool (Barcelona) 9:179-208 Ann Naturhist Mus Wien 101B:465-473
Bludszuweit G, Haft J and Riehl I (1996) “Heimische Gruttke H, Ludwig G, Binot-Hafke M and Riecken U
Urzeitkrebse“. Zur Konzeption eines (1999) Perspektiven bundesweiter Roter Listen.
Dokumentarfilmes. Stapfia 42:159-165 Ergebnisse eines Symposiums des Bundesamtes für
Brehm V (1910) Seltene Phyllopoden von Pöchlarn in Naturschutz. Natur u Landschaft 74:281-284
Niederösterreich. Arch Hydrob 6: 206-208 Heikertinger F (1951) Erinnerungen an den Laaerberg
Brendonck L (1989) A review of the phyllopods (Crus- von einst. Natur u Land 37:68
tacea: Anostraca, Notostraca, Conchostraca) of the Hödl W (1994) A short review of the Anostraca,
Belgian fauna. Verh Symp “Invertebraten van Notostraca, Laevicaudata and Spinicaudata of Aus-
Belgie”:129-135 tria. IUCN Anostraca News 2/1:2-3
Brtek J and Thiéry A (1995) The geographical distri- Hödl W and Eder E (1996a) Rediscovery of
bution of the European Branchiopods (Anostraca, Leptestheria dahalacensis and Eoleptestheria
287E. Eder & W. Hödl ticinensis (Crustacea: Branchiopoda: Spinicaudata): Machura L (1935) Ökologische Studien im an overview on presence and conservation of clam Salzlackengebiet des Neusiedlersees, mit besonderer shrimps in Austria. Hydrobiologia 318: 203-206 Berücksichtigung der halophilen Koleopteren- und Hödl W and Eder E (eds) (1996b) Urzeitkrebse Rynchotenarten. Z wiss Zool 146:555-590 Österreichs. Stapfia 42, zugleich Kataloge des OÖ. Maier G (1998) The status of large branchiopods Landesmuseums N. F. 100, Linz (Anostraca, Notostraca, Conchostraca) in Ger- Hödl W and Eder E (1996c) Die “Blumengang”-Senke: many. Limnologica 28:223-228 Chronologie eines Schutzgebietes für Manzano C (2000) Großräumiger Schutz von “Urzeitkrebse”. Stapfia 42:71-84 Feuchtgebieten im Nationalpark Donau-Auen. Hödl W and Eder E (2000) “Urzeitkrebse” Stapfia 69:229-248 (Branchiopoda: Anostraca, Notostraca, Marschitz G and Käfel G (1993) Über das Vorkommen Conchostraca). 1.Fassung 1999. (pp 4-33) In: Rote anostraker und notostraker Krebse an den Flüssen Listen ausgewählter Tiergruppen Niederösterreichs Thaya und Obere March. Ergebnisse 1993. Unpub- Amt d. NÖ. Landesregierung, St.Pölten lished report, Verein zur Erhaltung und Förderung Hödl W and Rieder E (1993) Urzeitkrebse an der March. ländlicher Lebensräume, Orth/Donau Verein zur Erhaltung und Förderung ländlicher Metz H and Forró L (1989) Contributions to the knowl- Lebensräume (Distelverein), Orth/Donau edge of the chemistry and crustacean zooplankton IUCN (1994) IUCN Red List categories. Gland, Swit- of sodic waters: the Seewinkel pans revisited. BFB- zerland Bericht 70, Illmitz Jahn W (1981) Untersuchungen zur Entwicklungs- und Milasowzky N and Zulka P (1998) Habitat require- Fortpflanzungsbiologie von Chirocephalus grubei ments and conservation of the “flagship species” Dyb.(1860) und Chirocephalus shadini Smirnov Lycosa singoriensis (Laxmann 1770) (Araneae: (1928). Unpublished Masters thesis, Univ Vienna Lycosidae) in the National Park Neusiedler See— Jungwirth M (1973) Populationsdynamik und Seewinkel (Austria). Z Ökologie u Naturschutz Populationsrate von Branchinecta orientalis 7:111-119 (G.O.Sars) in der Birnbaumlacke (Seewinkel, Müller J (2000) Danube-Oder-Elbe-Canal: many open Burgenland) unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der questions. Aqua Press International 4/2000:9-11 limnologischen Bedingungen des Gewässers. Un- Müller-Motzfeld G (1990) Quantitative Ökofaunistik published PhD thesis, Univ Vienna im Dienste des Insektenschutzes. Entomologische Kupka E (1940) Untersuchungen über die Nachrichten und Berichte 34:109-117 Schalenbildung bei den Eiern von Branchipus Mura G (1993) Italian Anostraca: distribution & sta- schaefferi Fischer. Zool Anz 132:130-139 tus. IUCN Anostracan News 1:3 Lechthaler W (1993) Gesellschaften epiphytischer Nemec H (1952) Lebende Urzeittiere. N ill Makroevertebraten in überschwemmten Wiesen an Wochenschau, Wien: 14.12.1952 der March (Niederösterreich). Unpublished PhD New TR (1993) Angels on a pin: dimensions of the thesis, Univ Vienna crisis in invertebrate protection. Amer Zool 33:623- Linder W (1983) Entwicklung und Biologie von 630 Lepidurus apus. Unpublished Masters thesis, Univ Owens C, Ripley B and Simovich M (2000) Toxicity of Vienna malathion to the endangered vernal pool branchio- Löffler H (1957) Vergleichende limnologische pod Branchinecta sandiegonensis. TCS 2000 Sum- Untersuchungen an den Gewässern des Seewinkels mer Meeting Abstracts: 37 (Burgenland). Verh Zool Bot Ges Wien 97:27-52 Paar M, Schramayr G, Tiefenbach M and Winkler I Löffler H (1959) Zur Limnologie, Entomostraken- und (1993) Burgenland, Niederösterreich, Wien. In: Rotatorienfauna des Seewinkelgebietes Tiefenbach M (ed.) Naturschutzgebiete Österreichs. (Burgenland, Österreich). Sber Österr Akad d Wiss, Umweltbundesamt Monographien 38A, Wien math nat Kl Abt I 168:315-362 Pesta O (1937) Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Tierwelt Löffler H (1993) Anostraca, Notostraca, Laevicaudata (Entomostrakenfauna) des Zicklackengebietes am and Spinicaudata of the Pannonian region and in Ostufer des Neusiedlersees im Burgenland, its Austrian area. Hydrobiologia 264:169-174 Österreich. Zool Anz 118:177-192 288
Freshwater branchiopods in Austria
Pesta O (1939) Triops (Apus) cancriformis aus dem Schnittler M, Ludwig G, Pretscher P and Boye P
Stadtgebiet von Wien. Ann Mus Wien 60:387-394 (1994) Konzeption der Roten Listen der in
Pesta O (1942) Ein neuer Nachweis von Triops (Apus) Deutschland gefährdeten Tier- und Pflanzenarten
cancriformis Bosc in Wien. Zool Anz 139:113-114 – unter Berücksichtigung der neuen
Petrov B and Petrov I (1997) The status of Anostraca, internationalen K ategorien. Natur und
Notostraca and Conchostraca (Crustacea: Landschaft 69:451-459
Branchiopoda) in Yugoslavia. Hydrobiologia Sokal RR and Rohlf FJ (1995) Biometry. The prin-
359:29-35 ciples and practice of statistics in biological research.
Polhemus DA (1993) Conservation of Aquatic Insects: Freeman, New York
Worldwide Crisis or Localized Threats? Amer Zool Usher MB and Erz W (1994) Erfassen und Bewerten
33:588-598 im Naturschutz. Probleme, Methoden, Beispiele.
Puschnig R (1918) Vom Ausflußgebiete des Uni-TB, Stuttgart
Wörthersees. Carinthia II 108/28:136-141 Vornatscher J (1955) Alte und neue Vorkommen von
Rieder N (1989) Veränderungen und neuere Triops cancriformis Bosc. (Apus) in Wien und
Entwicklungen im Gefährdungsstatus der Niederösterreich. Ann Naturhist Mus Wien
Phyllopoden. Schr f Landschaftspflege u 60:287-290
Naturschutz, Bonn-Bad Godesberg 29: 294-295 Vornatscher J (1968) Anostraca, Notostraca,
Sampl H (1969) Der Kiemenfuß Lepidurus apus (L.) Conchostraca. Catalogus Faunae Austriae VIIIaa.
(Phyllopoda, Crust.) erstmals in Kärnten Österr Akad Wiss 5 p
nachgewiesen. Carinthia II 159:130-131 Zulka P, Eder E, Höttinger H and Weigand E (2000)
Schlederer R (1999) Das Ramsar-Konzept – Modell einer Fachliche Grundlagen zur Fortschreibung der
Konsensfindung. In: Kelemen J and Oberleitner I (eds.) Roten Listen gefährdeter Tiere Österreichs.
Fließende Grenzen. Lebensraum March-Thaya-Auen Unpubl. Report, Federal Environmental Agency
(pp. 320—325) Umweltbundesamt, Wien (UBA), Vienna
289You can also read
