Next Article in Journal
Collection and Processing of Behavioural Data of the Olive Fruit Fly, Bactrocera oleae, When Exposed to Olive Twigs Treated with Different Commercial Products
Previous Article in Journal
Instagram-Based Benchmark Dataset for Cyberbullying Detection in Arabic Text
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Data Descriptor

Dataset: Fauna of Adult Ground Beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) of the National Park “Smolny” (Russia)

by
Alexander B. Ruchin
1,
Sergei K. Alekseev
2,
Oleg N. Artaev
3,
Anatoliy A. Khapugin
1,4,*,
Evgeniy A. Lobachev
5,
Sergei V. Lukiyanov
5 and
Gennadiy B. Semishin
1
1
Joint Directorate of the Mordovia State Nature Reserve and National Park «Smolny», Saransk 430007, Russia
2
Ecological Club “Stenus”, Kaluga 248600, Russia
3
Papanin Institute for Biology of Inland Waters, Russian Academy of Sciences, Borok 152742, Russia
4
Institute of Environmental and Agricultural Biology (X-BIO), Tyumen State University, Tyumen 625003, Russia
5
Faculty of Biotechnology and Biology, National Research Mordovia State University, Saransk 430007, Russia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Submission received: 13 May 2022 / Revised: 6 June 2022 / Accepted: 21 June 2022 / Published: 23 June 2022

Abstract

:
(1) Background: Protected areas are “hotspots” of biodiversity in many countries. In such areas, ecological systems are preserved in their natural state, which allows them to protect animal populations. In several protected areas, the Coleoptera biodiversity is studied as an integral part of the ecological monitoring of the ecosystem state. This study was aimed to describe the Carabidae fauna in one of the largest protected areas of European Russia, namely National Park “Smolny”. (2) Methods: The study was conducted in April–September 2008, 2009, 2017–2021. A variety of ways was used to collect beetles (by hand, caught in light traps, pitfall traps, and others). Seasonal dynamics of the beetle abundance were studied in various biotopes. Coordinates were fixed for each observation. (3) Results: The dataset contains 1994 occurrences. In total, 32,464 specimens of Carabidae have been studied. The dataset contains information about 131 species of Carabidae beetles. In this study, we have not found two species (Carabus estreicheri and Calathus ambiguus), previously reported in the fauna of National Park “Smolny”. (4) Conclusions: The Carabidae diversity in the National Park “Smolny” is represented by 133 species from 10 subfamilies. Ten species (Carabus cancellatus, Harpalus laevipes, Carabus hortensis, Pterostichus niger, Poecilus versicolor, Pterostichus melanarius, Carabus glabratus, Carabus granulatus, Carabus arvensis baschkiricus, Pterostichus oblongopunctatus) constitute the majority of the Carabidae fauna. Seasonal dynamics are maximal in spring; the number of ground beetles decreases in biotopes by autumn.
Dataset License: Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 License.

1. Summary

Protected areas are currently considered the main tool for counteracting the biodiversity loss and habitat destruction around the world. Their establishment and maintenance of their functioning contribute to the preservation of species diversity [1,2], the improvement of the environmental status of previously disturbed habitats [3,4], and the counteracting of illegal poaching [5]. On the regional scale, protected areas are recognized as local biodiversity hotspots of plants [6], and animals [7]. To date, the global network of protected areas covers about 15% of the global land surface [8]. Nevertheless, to justify the protected area establishment, the insect diversity is rarely applied, with rare exceptions. This is caused mainly by difficulties in obtaining the taxonomic and distribution knowledge about various taxonomic insect groups [9]. Therefore, in many regions of the world, the insect diversity is still largely unexplored in protected areas, with rare exceptions [10,11]. This condition highlights a need for the study of the effectiveness of protected areas in preserving the insect diversity in various regions of the world.
The Carabidae family is the most studied group of Coleoptera in forest habitats. Due to their high plasticity, Carabidae beetles are found in a variety of biotopes. Carabidae play a considerable role in ecosystems as entomophages regulating the number of terrestrial vertebrates, and are considered economically useful [12,13]. This group is a bioindicator of the ecosystem state [14,15,16,17,18,19]. The Carabidae family includes eurytopic beetles (found in various biotopes), and species inhabiting forest (found in woodland ecosystems), open (found in fields and meadows), and coastal (associated with wetlands and water banks) biotopes, and peatlands [20,21,22,23]. As inhabitants of the ground layer of ecosystems, Carabidae species are found in a sufficient number in a wide variety of habitats, including areas suffering from anthropogenic impacts [24,25,26]. There are many reasons leading to recent changes in ecosystems. Urbanization, pollution with various toxic chemicals, regular fires, deforestation, climate changes, and biological invasions have recently had a considerable impact on biodiversity [11,27,28,29,30,31,32,33].
The aim of this study was to describe a set of recent data on the occurrence of Carabidae (Coleoptera) in the National Park “Smolny”. This dataset was recently published in GBIF as the Darwin Core Archive [34]. This is the first complete description of the Carabidae fauna of a large, protected area located in the center of European Russia.

2. Data Description

2.1. Dataset Name

Each observation includes basic information such as location (latitude/longitude), date of observation, observer name, and identifier name (Table 1). The coordinates were determined on the studied site using a GPS device, or after special investigation using Google Maps. A total of 32,464 specimens were studied.

2.2. Figures, Tables, and Schemes

The dataset contains information about 131 species of Carabidae beetles from ten subfamilies found during our field studies (Table 2). In addition, Table 2 includes two Carabidae species (Carabus estreicheri and Calathus ambiguus) that were not found by us but reported previously in the National Park “Smolny” in the literature. Thus, in total, the Carabidae fauna of the National Park “Smolny” includes 133 species.
Figure 1 shows the abundance (in an absolute number) of the most numerous Carabidae species. These ten species represent 95.9% of all studied individuals.
In nature, several factors influence the activity of Carabidae species, including temperature, humidity, microclimatic conditions, age groups, and others [35]. Temperature has long been considered the most important abiotic factor affecting the activity of Carabidae [36,37]. The seasonal and life-history fluctuations strongly influence both the abundance and distribution of Carabidae species in natural biotopes [38]. Figure 2 shows the seasonal dynamics of Carabidae beetles in three habitats in 2018. In all biotopes, in April–May, the maximum abundance of Carabidae beetles was observed. By autumn, there was a decrease in the beetle abundance in traps. Noteworthy, in spring, the dynamic density of Carabidae beetles in the mixed forest was considerably higher than in other habitats. However, by autumn, there was a sharp decrease in the number of individuals. This is probably caused by migration processes that are constantly observed in populations of beetles. Similar patterns of abundance dynamics were observed in 2019 in other mixed forests in the National Park “Smolny”.
Before our studies, 89 species were known in the Carabidae fauna of the National Park “Smolny” [39,40,41]. These were mainly common and eurybiont species. Such a low level of the revealed beetle diversity was primarily caused by the small number of special studies of the wide habitat diversity, and the variability of the time of the conducted studies. The higher diversity of Carabidae fauna was found because in 2017–2021, research tasks were clearly established, and insect collections were abundant and seasonality-based. To date, the Carabidae fauna of the National Park “Smolny” includes 133 species, which belong to ten subfamilies.
For comparison, the Carabidae diversity of the Mordovia State Nature Reserve, the most closely located to the National Park “Smolny”, accounts for 241 species [42,43]. At the same time, the largest number of species was identified as a result of continuous long-term research programs in 2008–2020. However, it is worth it to note that the mentioned Mordovia State Nature Reserve is a unique forest area with a considerable variety of ecosystems, where fauna and flora have been preserved for more than 85 years. The National Park “Smolny” is a younger forest system formed after the cutting of pine forests, deciduous forests, and mixed forests in the early 1990s. Therefore, the biodiversity level is expectedly lower in this protected area.

3. Methods

3.1. Study Area

National Park “Smolny” is situated in the northeastern part of the Republic of Mordovia (center of European Russia), 54.72–54.88° N, 45.07–45.62° E. Its area is 363.86 km2 (Figure 3). The pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) is the main forest-forming tree species in the south of the area of the National Park “Smolny”. Broadleaf forests predominate in the northern part of the protected area, where the main forest-forming species are oak (Quercus robur L.), linden (Tilia cordata Mill.), maple (Acer platanoides L.), rarer ash (Fraxinus excelsior L.), and elm (Ulmus spp.). Secondary (appeared after cut or burnt pine forests) forest communities are formed by the birch (Betula pendula Roth). They are situated mainly in the southern part of the National Park “Smolny”. Secondary (appeared after cut oak and lime forests) forests formed by the aspen (Populus tremula L.) are distributed in the northern part of the protected area. The spruce (Picea abies L.) does not form self-sustainable forests by occurring rarely in pine or mixed forests. In the floodplain areas of the Alatyr River and its main tributaries, the black alder (Alnus glutinosa (L.) Gaertn.) forms small forest areas nearby of eutrophic mires, and water bodies [44,45].

3.2. Research Design, Identification, and Taxonomic Position of Insects

We used traditional methods of collecting Carabidae beetles, including manual collection, light traps, pitfall traps, and partial beer traps [46,47]. Pitfall traps were installed during April–September 2008, 2009, 2017–2021. The traps were 0.5 L plastic cups containing 200 mL of a 4% formalin solution. We installed ten traps in each study site. The distance between the traps was 2 m. The selected material was identified by S.K. Alekseev. The identification was carried out according to Müller-Motzfeld [48] and Isaev [49]. We followed the nomenclature proposed by Kryzhanovskii et al. [50], and Lobl and Lobl [51]. To approximately estimate the species abundance, we used the following definitions. Single individual means that the solitary specimens of a species were found in 1–2 locations. Rare species refers to Carabidae beetles with an abundance of ten or less specimens found in 3–5 localities. Common species are Carabidae beetles with an abundance of 300 or a lower number of specimens found in 6–10 localities. Numerous species are beetles with an abundance of higher than 300 specimens found in at least 50% of the studied localities.
The assessment of the seasonal abundance of Carabidae species was carried out in several biotopes. The description of the studied biotopes is present below. In the linden forest, the first layer of the forest community was formed by Tilia cordata (70%), Betula pendula (10%), Populus tremula (10%), and Quercus robur (10%). The second layer was weakly expressed and formed by several undergrowth species. The shrub layer was sparse. The herb layer was represented by various species of Poaceae, Asteraceae, Apiaceae, and ferns. In the mixed forest, the first layer was formed by Pinus sylvestris (40%), Tilia cordata (20%), Betula pendula (20%), Populus tremula (5%), and Quercus robur (15%). The second layer was well expressed, represented by trees from the first forest layer. The shrub layer consisted of Acer platanoides L., Euonymus verrucosus Scop., Sorbus aucuparia L. The herb layer was represented by Asteraceae, and Apiaceae plants. In the broad-leaved forest, the first layer was formed by Quercus robur (60%), Tilia cordata (20%), Betula pendula (5%), Populus tremula (10%), and Ulmus glabra Huds. (5%). The second layer was less expressed. The shrub layer was sparse. The herb layer was not well-developed; it is represented by various Poaceae, Asteraceae, and Apiaceae plants. Insects have been collected from May to September. Dynamic density was expressed as the number of specimens per 100 trap days (ex./100 trap days).

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.B.R.; methodology, A.B.R., S.K.A., S.V.L., E.A.L. and G.B.S.; software, O.N.A.; validation, A.B.R.; formal analysis, A.B.R. and S.K.A.; investigation, A.B.R. and A.A.K.; resources, A.B.R., S.V.L., E.A.L. and G.B.S.; data curation, O.N.A.; writing—original draft preparation, A.B.R. and A.A.K.; writing—review and editing, A.B.R.; visualization, A.B.R.; supervision, A.B.R.; project administration, A.B.R.; funding acquisition, A.B.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Russian Science Foundation, grant number 22-14-00026.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are openly available in https://www.gbif.org/dataset/0d66d2e0-9d2a-46c6-a136-1ddb669396e6 (accessed on 12 May 2022).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Mohd-Azlan, J.; Lok, L.; Maiwald, M.J.; Fazlin, S.; Shen, T.D.; Kaicheen, S.S.; Dagang, P. The distribution of medium to large mammals in Samunsam Wildlife Sanctuary, Sarawak in relation to the newly constructed Pan-Borneo Highway. Nat. Conserv. Res. 2020, 5, 43–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Simonov, S.A.; Matantseva, M.V. Analysis of the current status of avifauna in Kostomuksha State Nature Reserve and Kalevala National Park (North-West Russia), taking into account influence from adjacent areas. Nat. Conserv. Res. 2020, 5, 51–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Beresford, A.E.; Buchanan, G.M.; Phalan, B.; Eshiamwata, G.W.; Balmford, A.; Brink, A.B.; Fishpool, L.D.C.; Donald, P.F. Correlates of long-term land-cover change and protected area performance at priority conservation sites in Africa. Environ. Conserv. 2018, 45, 49–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Sasanifar, S.; Alijanpour, A.; Shafiei, A.B.; Rad, J.E.; Molaei, M.; Azadi, H. Forest protection policy: Lesson learned from Arasbaran biosphere reserve in Northwest Iran. Land Use Policy 2019, 87, 104057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. De Lima, N.S.; Napiwoski, S.J.; Oliveira, M.A. Human-wildlife conflict in the Southwestern Amazon: Poaching and its motivations. Nat. Conserv. Res. 2020, 5, 109–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Khapugin, A.A.; Silaeva, T.B. The arrangement of threatened plants in Mordovia: The role of biodiversity research centers. Écoscience 2020, 27, 157–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Agarwala, B.K.; Majumder, J. Butterfly diversity assessment in protected areas in Tripura, North Eastern India. Proc. Zool. Soc. 2020, 73, 68–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Belle, E.; Kingston, N.; Burgess, N.; Sandwith, T.; Ali, N.; MacKinnon, K. (Eds.) Protected Planet Report 2018; UNEP-WCMC: Cambridge, UK; IUCN: Gland, Switzerland; NGS: Washington, DC, USA, 2018; 56p. [Google Scholar]
  9. Martin-López, B.; Montes, C.; Benayas, J. The non-economic motives behind the willingness to pay for biodiversity conservation. Biol. Conserv. 2007, 139, 67–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Polevoi, A.V. Fungus gnats (Diptera: Bolitophilidae, Diadocidiidae, Keroplatidae, Mycetophilidae) in the Kostomuksha State Nature Reserve, Russia. Nat. Conserv. Res. 2021, 6 (Suppl. S1), 5–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Sundukov, Y.N.; Makarov, K.V. The ground beetles of the tribus Trechini (Carabidae) on the Southern Kuril Islands. Nat. Conserv. Res. 2021, 6, 15–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Venn, S.J.; Kotze, D.J.; Lassila, T.; Niemelä, J.K. Urban dry meadows provide valuable habitat for granivorous and xerophylic carabid beetles. J. Insect Conserv. 2013, 17, 747–764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Piotrowska, N.S.; Czachorowski, S.Z.; Stolarski, M.J. Ground beetles (Carabidae) in the short-rotation coppice willow and poplar plants-synergistic benefits system. Agriculture 2020, 10, 648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Noordijk, J.; Schaffers, A.P.; Sýkora, K.V. Diversity of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) and spiders (Araneae) in roadside verges with grey hair-grass vegetation. Eur. J. Entomol. 2008, 105, 257–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Brooks, D.R.; Bater, J.E.; Clark, S.J.; Monteith, D.T.; Andrews, C.; Corbett, S.J.; Beaumont, D.A.; Chapman, J.W. Large carabid beetle declines in a United Kingdom monitoring network increases evidence for a widespread loss in insect biodiversity. J. Appl. Ecol. 2012, 49, 1009–1019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Baranová, B.; Manko, P.; Jászay, T. Waste dumps as local biodiversity hotspots for soil macrofauna and ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in the agricultural landscape. Ecol. Eng. 2015, 81, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Koivula, M.J. Useful model organisms, indicators, or both? Ground beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) reflecting environmental conditions. ZooKeys 2011, 100, 287–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Zamotajlov, A.S.; Serdyuk, V.Y.; Khomitskiy, E.E.; Belyi, A.I. New data on distribution and biology of some rare ground beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) in South Russia. Nat. Conserv. Res. 2019, 4, 81–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Khalimov, F. The ground beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) of the Karatepa and Chakilkalyan mountains (west part of Zarafshan Mountains Range, Uzbekistan). Biosyst. Divers. 2020, 28, 265–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ruchin, A.B.; Alekseev, S.K.; Khapugin, A.A. Post-fire fauna of carabid beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) in forests of the Mordovia State Nature Reserve (Russia). Nat. Conserv. Res. 2019, 4 (Suppl. S1), 11–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Bondarenko, A.S.; Zamotajlov, A.S.; Belyi, A.I.; Khomitskiy, E.E. Fauna and ecological characteristics of ground beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) of the Nature Sanctuaries «Prichernomorskiy» and «Tuapsinskiy» (Russia). Nat. Conserv. Res. 2020, 5, 66–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Pozsgai, G.; Quinzo-Ortega, L.; Littlewood, N.A. Grazing impacts on ground beetle (Coleoptera: Carabidae) abundance and diversity on semi-natural grassland. Insect Conserv. Divers. 2021, 15, 36–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Avtaeva, T.A.; Sukhodolskaya, R.A.; Brygadyrenko, V.V. Modeling the bioclimatic range of Pterostichus melanarius (Coleoptera, Carabidae) in conditions of global climate change. Biosyst. Divers. 2021, 29, 140–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Work, T.T.; Onge, B.S.; Jacobs, J.M. Response of female beetles to LIDAR derived topographic variables in Eastern boreal mixedwood forests (Coleoptera, Carabidae). Zookeys 2011, 147, 623–639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  25. Gordienko, T.A.; Vavilov, D.N.; Lukyanova, Y.A. Structural organization of the community of land and soil invertebrates in natural and disturbed areas of Tanayev meadows of the Nizhnaya Kama National Park. Proc. Mordovia State Nat. Reserve 2021, 29, 38–50. [Google Scholar]
  26. Ruchin, A.; Alekseev, S.; Khapugin, A.; Esin, M. Fauna and species diversity of ground beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) in meadows. Entomol. Appl. Sci. Lett. 2021, 8, 28–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Varet, M.; Burel, F.; Pétillon, J. Can urban consolidation limit local biodiversity erosion? Responses from carabid beetle and spider assemblages in Western France. Urban Ecosyst. 2014, 17, 123–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Kestemont, B. The bottom-up assessment of threatened species. Nat. Conserv. Res. 2019, 4, 93–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Cicort-Lucaciu, A.Ș. Road-killed ground beetles prove the presence of Carabus hungaricus (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in North-Western Romania. Nat. Conserv. Res. 2020, 5, 134–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Yavorskaya, N.M. Zoobenthos in watercourses and water bodies in the Bolonsky State Nature Reserve (Russia). Nat. Conserv. Res. 2019, 5, 64–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Liu, X.; Wang, X.; Bai, M.; Shaw, J.J. Decrease in carabid beetles in grasslands of Northwestern China: Further evidence of insect biodiversity loss. Insects 2022, 13, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Juiling, S.; Leon, S.K.; Jumian, J.; Tsen, S.; Lee, Y.L.; Khoo, E.; Sugau, J.B.; Nilus, R.; Pereira, J.T.; Damit, A.; et al. Conservation assessment and spatial distribution of endemic orchids in Sabah, Borneo. Nat. Conserv. Res. 2020, 5 (Suppl. 1), 136–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Sushchuk, A.A.; Matveeva, E.M. Soil nematodes of coniferous forests in the Finnish-Russian Friendship Nature Reserve. Nat. Conserv. Res. 2021, 6 (Suppl. 1), 76–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Alekseev, S.; Ruchin, A.; Artaev, O.; Semishin, G. Carabidae of National Park Smolny (Russia). Version 1.3. Joint Directorate of the Mordovia State Nature Reserve and National Park “Smolny”. Sampling Event Dataset. 2022. Available online: GBIF.org (accessed on 27 April 2022).
  35. Brigić, A.; Vujčić-Karlo, S.; Slivar, S.; Alegro, A.; Matoničkin, K.R.; Peroš, R.; Kerovec, M. Distribution and life-history traits of Calathus cinctus Motschulsky, 1850 (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in Croatia, with distribution of closely related species. Ital. J. Zool. 2016, 83, 549–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Růžičková, J.; Veselý, M. Movement activity and habitat use of Carabus ullrichii (Coleoptera: Carabidae): The forest edge as a mating site? Entomol. Sci. 2018, 21, 76–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Alekseev, S.; Ruchin, A.; Semishin, G. Seasonal dynamics of Carabus coriaceus Linnaeus, 1758 «Coleoptera, Carabidae» activity in the areal’s eastern part. Entomol. Appl. Sci. Lett. 2021, 8, 26–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Rainio, J.; Niemelä, J. Ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) as bioindicators. Biodivers. Conserv. 2003, 12, 487–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Ruchin, A.B. Additional list of insect species of National Park «Smolny». Proc. Natl. Park Smolny 2015, 2, 102–121. [Google Scholar]
  40. Ruchin, A.B. List of insect species of National Park «Smolny». Proc. Natl. Park Smolny 2008, 1, 151–180. [Google Scholar]
  41. Alekseev, S.K.; Ruchin, A.B.; Semishin, G.B. Ground beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) of forest edges of National Park «Smolny». Proc. Mordovia State Nat. Reserve 2018, 21, 260–263. [Google Scholar]
  42. Egorov, L.V.; Ruchin, A.B.; Semenov, V.B.; Semionenkov, O.I.; Semishin, G.B. Checklist of the Coleoptera of Mordovia State Nature Reserve, Russia. ZooKeys 2020, 962, 13–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Ruchin, A.; Alekseev, S.; Egorov, L.; Artaev, O.; Semishin, G.; Esin, M. Ground beetle fauna (Coleoptera, Carabidae) of Mordovia State Nature Reserve (Russia). Biodivers. Data J. 2021, 9, e69807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Chugunov, G.G.; Khapugin, A.A. Population status of Bupleurum aureum (Apiaceae), a Critically Endangered plant species in a region of European Russia. Ecol. Quest. 2020, 31, 45–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Kirillov, A.A.; Kirillova, N.Y. Helminth fauna of reptiles in the National Park «Smolny», Russia. Nat. Conserv. Res. 2021, 6, 9–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Golub, V.B.; Tsurikov, M.N.; Prokin, A.A. Insect Collections: Collection, Processing and Storage of Material; KMK Scientific Press Ltd.: Moscow, Russia, 2012; 339p. [Google Scholar]
  47. Ruchin, A.B.; Egorov, L.V.; Khapugin, A.A.; Vikhrev, N.E.; Esin, M.N. The use of simple crown traps for the insects collection. Nat. Conserv. Res. 2020, 5, 87–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Müller-Motzfeld, G. Bd. 2, Adephaga 1: Carabidae (Laufkäfer). In Die Käfer Mitteleuropas; Freude, H., Harde, K.W., Lohse, G.A., Klausnitzer, B., Eds.; Spektrum-Verlag: Heidelberg, Germany, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  49. Isaev, A.Y. Part 1. Adephaga and Myxophaga. In Keys to Coleoptera of the Middle Volga Region; Series Nature of the Ulyanovsk Region; Ulyanovsk State University: Ulyanovsk, Russia, 2002; pp. 1–120. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  50. Kryzhanovskij, O.L.; Belousov, I.A.; Kabak, I.I.; Kataev, B.M.; Makarov, K.V.; Shilenkov, V.G. A Checklist of the Ground-Beetles of Russia and Adjacent Lands (Insecta, Coleoptera, Carabidae); PENSOFT Publishers: Sofia, Bulgaria; Moscow, Russia, 1995; 271p. [Google Scholar]
  51. Lobl, I.; Lobl, D. Catalogue of Palaearctic Coleoptera—Volume 1; Revised and Updated Edition; Brill Online: Leiden, The Netherlands, 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. The total abundance of ten Carabidae species collected during the conducted study in the National Park “Smolny”.
Figure 1. The total abundance of ten Carabidae species collected during the conducted study in the National Park “Smolny”.
Data 07 00084 g001
Figure 2. Seasonal dynamics of the abundance of Carabidae beetles in various biotopes of the National Park “Smolny”: (a) 2018; (b) 2019.
Figure 2. Seasonal dynamics of the abundance of Carabidae beetles in various biotopes of the National Park “Smolny”: (a) 2018; (b) 2019.
Data 07 00084 g002
Figure 3. The location of the Republic of Mordovia and the area of obtaining information for the dataset (National Park “Smolny”).
Figure 3. The location of the Republic of Mordovia and the area of obtaining information for the dataset (National Park “Smolny”).
Data 07 00084 g003
Table 1. Description of the data in the dataset.
Table 1. Description of the data in the dataset.
Column LabelColumn Description
eventIDAn identifier for the set of information associated with an event (occurs in one place in one time).
occurrenceIDAn identifier for the occurrence (as opposed to a particular digital record of the occurrence).
basisOfRecordThe specific nature of the data record: HumanObservation.
scientificNameThe full scientific name including the genus name and the lowest level oftaxonomic rank with the authority.
kingdomThe full scientific name of the kingdom in which the taxon is classified.
taxonRankThe taxonomic rank of the most specific name in the scientificName.
decimalLatitudeThe geographic latitude of location in decimal degree.
decimalLongitudeThe geographic longitude of location in decimal degrees.
geodeticDatumThe ellipsoid, geodetic datum, or spatial reference system (SRS) upon which the geographic coordinates given in decimalLatitude and decimalLongitude as based.
countryThe name of the country in which the location occurs.
countryCodeThe standard code for the country in which the location occurs.
individualCountThe number of individuals represented present at the time of the occurrence.
eventDateThe date when material from the trap was collected or the range of dates during which the trap collected material.
yearThe integer day of the month on which the event occurred.
monthThe ordinal month in which the event occurred.
dayThe integer day of the month on which the event occurred.
samplingProtocolThe names of, references to, or descriptions of the methods or protocols used during an event.
recordedByA person, group, or organization responsible for recording the original occurrence.
identifiedByA list of names of people who assigned the taxon to the subject.
Table 2. Diversity of Carabidae species in the National Park “Smolny”.
Table 2. Diversity of Carabidae species in the National Park “Smolny”.
Subfamily, SpeciesApproximate Estimate of the Species Abundance
Carabinae
Calosoma inquisitor (Linnaeus, 1758)common species
Calosoma sycophanta (Linnaeus, 1758)single individual
Carabus arvensis baschkiricus (Breuning, 1932)numerous species
Carabus cancellatus (Illiger, 1798)numerous species
Carabus coriaceus (Linnaeus, 1758)numerous species
Carabus estreicheri (Fischer von Waldheim, 1820)
Carabus glabratus (Paykull, 1790)numerous species
Carabus granulatus (Linnaeus, 1758)numerous species
Carabus hortensis (Linnaeus, 1758)numerous species
Carabus convexus (Fabricius, 1775)common species
Carabus schoenherri (Fischer von Waldheim, 1820)single individual
Carabus stscheglowi (Mannerheim, 1827)common species
Cychrus caraboides (Linnaeus, 1758)common species
Cicindelinae
Cicindela campestris (Linnaeus, 1758)common species
Cicindela hybrida (Linnaeus, 1758)common species
Cylindera germanica (Linnaeus, 1758)single individual
Broscinae
Broscus cephalotes (Linnaeus, 1758)single individual
Elaphrinae
Elaphrus cupreus (Duftschmid, 1812)common species
Harpalinae
Agonum duftschmidi (J. Schmidt, 1994)rare species
Agonum fuliginosum (Panzer, 1809)common species
Agonum gracilipes (Duftschmid, 1812)common species
Agonum micans (Nicolai, 1822)single individual
Agonum piceum (Linnaeus, 1758)single individual
Agonum sexpunctatum (Linnaeus, 1758)single individual
Agonum viduum (Panzer, 1796)rare species
Amara aenea (De Geer, 1774)common species
Amara aulica (Panzer, 1796)single individual
Amara bifrons (Gyllenhal, 1810)common species
Amara communis (Panzer, 1797)numerous species
Amara consularis (Duftschmid, 1812)single individual
Amara convexior (Stephens, 1828)single individual
Amara eurynota (Panzer, 1796)single individual
Amara famelica (C.C.A. Zimmermann, 1832)rare species
Amara familiaris (Duftschmid, 1812)rare species
Amara fulva (O.F. Müller, 1776)numerous species
Amara gebleri (Dejean, 1831)single individual
Amara ingenua (Duftschmid, 1812)single individual
Amara lunicollis (Schiødte, 1837)common species
Amara majuscula (Chaudoir, 1850)single individual
Amara nitida (Sturm, 1825)common species
Amara ovata (Fabricius, 1792)common species
Amara plebeja (Gyllenhal, 1810)single individual
Amara praetermissa (C.R. Sahlberg, 1827)single individual
Amara similata (Gyllenhal, 1810)rare species
Amara spreta (Dejean, 1831)single individual
Amara tibialis (Paykull, 1798)single individual
Anisodactylus binotatus (Fabricius, 1787)rare species
Anisodactylus nemorivagus (Duftschmid, 1812)single individual
Anisodactylus signatus (Panzer, 1796)rare species
Badister bullatus (Schrank, 1798)single individual
Badister dilatatus (Chaudoir, 1837)single individual
Badister lacertosus (Sturm, 1815)common species
Badister sodalis (Duftschmid, 1812)single individual
Calathus ambiguus (Paykull, 1790)single individual
Calathus erratus (C.R. Sahlberg, 1827)common species
Calathus fuscipes (Goeze, 1777)single individual
Calathus melanocephalus (Linnaeus, 1758)common species
Calathus micropterus (Duftschmid, 1812)numerous species
Chlaenius tristis (Schaller, 1783)single individual
Cymindis vaporariorum (Linnaeus, 1758)single individual
Dolichus halensis (Schaller, 1783)single individual
Harpalus affinis (Schrank, 1781)rare species
Harpalus autumnalis (Duftschmid, 1812)single individual
Harpalus distinguendus (Duftschmid, 1812)rare species
Harpalus griseus (Panzer, 1796)rare species
Harpalus hirtipes (Panzer, 1796)single individual
Harpalus laevipes (Zetterstedt, 1828)numerous species
Harpalus latus (Linnaeus, 1758)numerous species
Harpalus luteicornis (Duftschmid, 1812)single individual
Harpalus picipennis (Duftschmid, 1812)single individual
Harpalus progrediens (Schauberger, 1922)common species
Harpalus pygmaeus (Dejean, 1829)single individual
Harpalus rubripes (Duftschmid, 1812)common species
Harpalus rufipes (De Geer, 1774)numerous species
Harpalus signaticornis (Duftschmid, 1812)single individual
Harpalus smaragdinus (Duftschmid, 1812)rare species
Harpalus tardus (Panzer, 1796)numerous species
Harpalus xanthopus winkleri (Schauberger, 1923)common species
Lebia chlorocephala (J.J. Hoffmann, 1803)single individual
Lebia cruxminor (Linnaeus, 1758)single individual
Lebia cyanocephala (Linnaeus, 1758)single individual
Licinus depressus (Paykull, 1790)single individual
Limodromus assimilis (Paykull, 1790)numerous species
Limodromus krynickii (Sperk, 1835)common species
Microlestes minutulus (Goeze, 1777)single individual
Oodes helopioides (Fabricius, 1792)rare species
Ophonus azureus (Fabricius, 1775)single individual
Ophonus puncticeps (Stephens, 1828)single individual
Ophonus rufibarbis (Fabricius, 1792)single individual
Oxypselaphus obscurus (Herbst, 1784)common species
Panagaeus bipustulatus (Fabricius, 1775)rare species
Panagaeus cruxmajor (Linnaeus, 1758)single individual
Poecilus cupreus (Linnaeus, 1758)numerous species
Poecilus lepidus (Leske, 1785)common species
Poecilus versicolor (Sturm, 1824)numerous species
Polystichus connexus (Fourcroy, 1785)single individual
Pterostichus aethiops (Panzer, 1796)single individual
Pterostichus anthracinus (Illiger, 1798)common species
Pterostichus diligens (Sturm, 1824)rare species
Pterostichus mannerheimii (Dejean, 1831)common species
Pterostichus melanarius (Illiger, 1798)numerous species
Pterostichus minor (Gyllenhal, 1827)common species
Pterostichus niger (Schaller, 1783)numerous species
Pterostichus nigrita (Paykull, 1790)numerous species
Pterostichus oblongopunctatus (Fabricius, 1787)numerous species
Pterostichus ovoideus (Sturm, 1824)single individual
Pterostichus quadrifoveolatus (Letzner, 1852)common species
Pterostichus rhaeticus (Heer, 1837)common species
Pterostichus strenuus (Panzer, 1796)common species
Pterostichus uralensis (Motschulsky, 1850)common species
Pterostichus vernalis (Panzer, 1796)rare species
Stomis pumicatus (Panzer, 1796)rare species
Syntomus truncatellus (Linnaeus, 1760)single individual
Synuchus vivalis (Illiger, 1798)common species
Loricerinae
Loricera pilicornis (Fabricius, 1775)rare species
Nebriinae
Leistus ferrugineus (Linnaeus, 1758)rare species
Leistus terminatus (Panzer, 1793)common species
Notiophilus aquaticus (Linnaeus, 1758)single individual
Notiophilus germinyi (Fauvel, 1863)single individual
Notiophilus palustris (Duftschmid, 1812)common species
Patrobinae
Patrobus atrorufus (Strøm, 1768)numerous species
Patrobus septentrionis (Dejean, 1828)single individual
Scaritinae
Clivina fossor (Linnaeus, 1758)single individual
Dyschirius globosus (Herbst, 1784)single individual
Trechinae
Bembidion biguttatum (Fabricius, 1779)single individual
Bembidion guttula (Fabricius, 1792)single individual
Bembidion lampros (Herbst, 1784)single individual
Bembidion mannerheimii (C.R. Sahlberg, 1827)single individual
Bembidion properans (Stephens, 1828)single individual
Bembidion quadrimaculatum (Linnaeus, 1760)common species
Bembidion varium (G.-A. Olivier, 1795)single individual
Trechus rivularis (Gyllenhal, 1810)single individual
Trechus secalis (Paykull, 1790)common species
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ruchin, A.B.; Alekseev, S.K.; Artaev, O.N.; Khapugin, A.A.; Lobachev, E.A.; Lukiyanov, S.V.; Semishin, G.B. Dataset: Fauna of Adult Ground Beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) of the National Park “Smolny” (Russia). Data 2022, 7, 84. https://doi.org/10.3390/data7070084

AMA Style

Ruchin AB, Alekseev SK, Artaev ON, Khapugin AA, Lobachev EA, Lukiyanov SV, Semishin GB. Dataset: Fauna of Adult Ground Beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) of the National Park “Smolny” (Russia). Data. 2022; 7(7):84. https://doi.org/10.3390/data7070084

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ruchin, Alexander B., Sergei K. Alekseev, Oleg N. Artaev, Anatoliy A. Khapugin, Evgeniy A. Lobachev, Sergei V. Lukiyanov, and Gennadiy B. Semishin. 2022. "Dataset: Fauna of Adult Ground Beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) of the National Park “Smolny” (Russia)" Data 7, no. 7: 84. https://doi.org/10.3390/data7070084

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop