Next Article in Journal
Prediction of Climate Change Impacts on the Distribution of an Umbrella Species in Western Sichuan Province, China: Insights from the MaxEnt Model and Circuit Theory
Next Article in Special Issue
Halomonas kashgarensis sp. nov., a Novel Species Isolated from the Rhizosphere Soil of Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin. ex Steud in Kashgar County, Xinjiang, China
Previous Article in Journal
Evaluation of Diversity of Newly Bred Czech Sweet Cherry Cultivars in Extensive Plantations
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Richness, Similarity, and Conservation Status of the Herpetofauna of the Balsas Basin Biogeographic Province of Mexico
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Diversity
Volume 17
Issue 1
10.3390/d17010066
diversity-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Data Descriptor

Biology of Blattodea and Dermaptera in the Continental Biogeographical Region and Adjacent Areas of European Russia

by
Victor V. Aleksanov
1,
Alexander B. Ruchin
2,*,
Nikolai V. Shulaev
3,
Inessa O. Karmazina
3,
Sergey V. Lukiyanov
2,
Evgeniy A. Lobachev
2,
Anna M. Nikolaeva
4 and
Mikhail N. Esin
2
1
Parks Directorate of Kaluga Region, Kaluga 248023, Russia
2
Joint Directorate of the Mordovia State Nature Reserve and National Park “Smolny”, Saransk 430005, Russia
3
Kazan Branch of the Russian Entomological Society, Kazan 420008, Russia
4
Oka State Nature Biosphere Reserve, Ryazan Region, Brykin Bor 391072, Russia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Diversity 2025, 17(1), 66; https://doi.org/10.3390/d17010066
Submission received: 23 December 2024 / Revised: 14 January 2025 / Accepted: 17 January 2025 / Published: 18 January 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue 15th Anniversary of Diversity—Biodiversity, Conservation and Ecology of Animals, Plants and Microorganisms)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
(1) Background: Blattodea and Dermaptera in the temperate forest zone include a limited number of species, some of which are widely distributed and common. However, digital data on their biology remains insufficient. (2) Methods: The surveyed area extends from Kaluga Oblast to Tatarstan and from Vladimir Oblast to Voronezh Oblast. Insects were sampled from 736 plots using various methods, including pitfall traps, beer traps, window traps, pan traps, and sweep nets. (3) Results: The dataset contains 2149 occurrences comprising 18,362 specimens belonging to 5 species of Blattodea and 4 species of Dermaptera. For most occurrences, we recorded the developmental stage (nymph or adult) and the sex (male or female for adults) of the specimens. (4) Conclusions: Three non-synanthropic species are widely distributed and common: Ectobius lapponicus, E. sylvestris, and Forficula auricularia. Ectobius sylvestris is characterized as a true forest species, while E. lapponicus inhabits both forest and grassland habitats. In contrast, F. auricularia is associated with gardens, urban habitats, and some meadows. Ectobius sylvestris exhibits a more pronounced sexual dimorphism concerning the effectiveness of different sampling methods compared to E. lapponicus. Seasonal dynamics of cockroaches and earwigs are described and discussed.

1. Introduction

Currently, with the rapid digitization of biodiversity data, the largest database, GBIF, remains far from providing a reliable representation of the global distribution of insects. A striking bias is evident in geographical terms, with Eastern Europe, in particular, being one of the underrepresented regions [1]. An equally significant taxonomic bias is observed, such as the predominance of records for Lepidoptera, which, being some of the most visually striking insects, are more frequently recorded by amateurs within citizen science projects [2].
In datasets published by academic institutions, the focus is often on species-rich taxa, such as Coleoptera and Lepidoptera. As of 7 December 2024, we identified 6798 datasets on the GBIF portal that include the term “Coleoptera” in their titles, compared to 2827 for “Lepidoptera”. At the species level, researchers typically prefer to work with data on rare species. This has led to a scarcity of data on groups with relatively few species, even though these species are often common and widely distributed. Datasets focusing on such species are rare (e.g., [3,4]).
Nevertheless, these data hold scientific value. They are essential for describing ecological niches, which are unique to every species, even those considered ubiquitous. Widely distributed species can provide extensive material for studying geographical variations in habitat preferences, including testing various theoretical frameworks (e.g., [5,6]). There are cases where common species become rare over time [7,8], and in such instances, information about their biology gains practical conservation significance. Conversely, data on common species can be critical for assessing their potential as pests. Finally, insights into the seasonal dynamics of these species, collected over multiple years, are crucial for evaluating the impacts of climate change [9].
Among the insect orders with the fewest species in the temperate forest zone of Eurasia are cockroaches (Blattodea) and earwigs (Dermaptera). In addition to belonging to one of the most ancient groups of insects, the Polyneoptera, these orders share a generalist diet (omnivory) and predominantly inhabit the soil surface and litter layers, with occasional penetration into various vegetation strata [10,11]. Among cockroaches, synanthropic species are widely known as pests and disease vectors [12]. In contrast, field-dwelling species have received far less attention. Certain earwigs are considered both pests of cultivated plants and regulators of pest populations [13,14].
Despite the substantial global literature on these orders, the species composition and biology of cockroaches and earwigs in Eastern Europe remain poorly studied. The most comprehensive data on cockroaches and earwigs in European Russia can be found in the monographs of Bey-Bienko [15,16,17,18], which broadly characterize species composition and geographical distribution, often without detailed regional information or specific analyses of habitat distribution and seasonal dynamics.
Subsequent publications have provided species lists for certain regions (e.g., [19]), though without detailed data. The habitat distribution of species was discussed only for small areas (e.g., [20]). Seasonal dynamics data for individual species are also limited to localized studies [21].
Digital data on cockroaches and earwigs in European Russia remain very limited. As of 5 December 2024, the GBIF portal lists 1836 occurrences of Blattodea and 1405 occurrences of Dermaptera for Russia. The majority of cockroach observations pertain to synanthropic species, while observations of non-synanthropic cockroaches from the genus Ectobius account for 889 records. Most records were imported from the iNaturalist platform (1278 and 1244, respectively). While citizen scientist observations hosted on iNaturalist are undoubtedly valuable for studying species distribution, they have limitations and require supplementation with academic science data [22].
The only academic–science dataset containing systematic observations of these groups (239 occurrences of Blattodea and 115 occurrences of Dermaptera) pertains to the Republic of Mordovia [23]. Across Europe, there is a substantially larger volume of data: GBIF lists 65,508 occurrences for Blattodea. However, these records are also predominantly sourced from citizen scientists. Specialized European datasets on cockroaches [24] and earwigs [25,26] do not include data for Eastern Europe.
This data deficit results in significant gaps. For instance, on the Cockroach Species File website, Ectobius lapponicus, one of the most widespread non-synantropic species, is not listed for much of European Russia and several neighboring Eastern European countries [27]. The scarcity of data on these groups is also evident on a global scale: the ratio between the number of valid records and the number of observed species for cockroaches—and especially for earwigs—is significantly lower compared to many more species-rich insect orders [1].
The mentioned issues highlight the importance of collecting, systematizing, and analyzing data on cockroaches and earwigs in European Russia.

2. Data Description

2.1. Dataset Description

Dataset name: Blattodea and Dermaptera in the Continental biogeographical region and adjacent areas of European Russia. URL: https://www.gbif.org/dataset/676dcb55-c47a-41b2-8552-97fb023f7e04 (accessed on 19 December 2024).
The dataset [28] is freely available (GBIF, License: CC BY-NC 4.0) at the following link: https://www.gbif.org/dataset/676dcb55-c47a-41b2-8552-97fb023f7e04. Alternative identifiers: http://gbif.ru:8080/ipt/resource?r=blattodeaanddermapterarussia.
This occurrence dataset includes 2149 occurrences [28]. The table consists of 22 fields (Table 1).

2.2. Figures, Tables, and Schemes

2.2.1. Species Composition

The dataset includes five species of cockroaches and four species of earwigs (Table 2). A small number of specimens (90 individuals) were identified at the genus level only; these were early-instar nymphs collected from areas where two species of the same genus co-occur. The collected data on synanthropic cockroaches are unsystematic. It is evident that these species are much more widely distributed within the study area. At the same time, the data confirm a notably higher frequency of Blattella germanica compared to Blatta orientalis [29]. Synanthropic species are excluded from further analyses.
Among the two most abundant field-dwelling cockroach species, Ectobius lapponicus was 2.2 times more frequent in the number of occupied plots and 3.3 times more numerous in the number of specimens compared to E. sylvestris (Table 2). This dominance was also noted in more western parts of the Continental region [30,31].
Among earwigs, only Forficula auricularia was found to be both frequent and abundant. It was recorded in 27% of the surveyed plots, indicating the feasibility of analyzing its habitat preferences. The dataset also allows for an analysis of the distribution patterns of Forficula tomis. The other two species in the dataset are rare.

2.2.2. Geographic Distribution

The geographical distribution of insects based on the collected materials is shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2. Among the cockroaches, two species—Ectobius lapponicus and Ectobius sylvestris—are distributed across the entire surveyed area, but the former species is more frequently encountered in the southern (forest–steppe) zone. The widespread occurrence of these species in the forest and forest–steppe zones of European Russia was documented as early as the first half of the 20th century [16], so we may suggest that the ranges of these species are unchanged.
The third species, Ectobius duskei, is considered a typical inhabitant of the steppe zone, particularly characteristic of undisturbed feather grass steppes [16]. In our dataset, findings of this species in the forest–steppe zone in the Ulyanovsk region are of some interest. However, this observation is not entirely surprising, as steppes on chalk hills are prevalent in this area along the Volga River (within the Sengileevskie Gory National Park). This region supports a complex of steppe insect species [32].
Among earwigs, F. auricularia is distributed throughout the surveyed area. F. tomis was found only in the eastern and southern parts of the study region. Previously, it was reported to extend significantly farther north in the western part of its range, for example, up to Moscow [15]. It is known that this insect, likely originating from the mountainous regions of Central Asia, is predominantly or exclusively synanthropic in many areas [33]. It is possible that climatic changes or the transformation of traditional anthropogenic landscapes have made the western part of the study area less favorable for this species; however, further research is required to confirm this hypothesis.
Labidura riparia was recorded in the eastern part of the surveyed region. One possible reason for this is the greater prevalence of sandy riverbanks (particularly along the Volga and Kama rivers), which serve as its primary habitat [15]. At the same time, according to the cited study, this species extends much farther to the northwest than observed in our study (along the Kaluga–Serpukhov–Vladimir–Kirov line). Since riverbanks were not intensively surveyed in our work to establish the absence of the species in certain areas, its distribution and frequency in the region require further investigation.

2.2.3. Results of Some Sampling Protocols to Collect Blattodea and Dermaptera

In different regions, various methods are used to survey cockroaches and earwigs, including sweep nets, pitfall traps, pheromone-baited traps for bark beetles [34], and mobile aerial lift platforms [35]. However, their effectiveness is rarely compared.
The methods that covered the largest number of sampling plots were beer traps and pitfall traps (Table 3). The majority of specimens were collected using pitfall traps (16,250 individuals, accounting for 89% of all specimens). Pitfall traps successfully detected all outdoor-living species except for L. minor, which was only observed visually or attracted to UV light. Sweep netting was the second most effective method in terms of species detected, but it failed to capture L. riparia, a ground-dwelling species inhabiting sandy banks. Beer traps also did not capture E. duskei, likely due to the absence of such traps in the species’ known locations and its preference for the lower layers of the plant community.
Ectobius lapponicus was recorded using beer traps and window traps in the majority of plots (75%) where cockroaches and earwigs were collected, and less frequently using sweep nets (61% of plots) and pitfall traps (57% of plots). In contrast, E. sylvestris was most often captured in pitfall traps (44%), less frequently in beer traps (32%) and window traps (28%), and was almost never detected using sweep nets (2%).
When calculating the average number of individuals per sample plot, E. sylvestris was more numerous than E. lapponicus in beer traps (3.5 and 2.9 specimens per sample plot, respectively, Kruskal–Wallis χ2 = 26.634; df = 12; p = 0.0087). Both species were caught in window traps at the same abundance (five specimens per sample plot) and in pan traps nearly equally (2.5 and 2.1, respectively). In pitfall traps, the average number of individuals per plot was fewer for E. sylvestris than for E. lapponicus (10.4 and 29.0 specimens, respectively), but this difference is not statistically significant (Kruskal–Wallis χ2 = 31.128; df = 28; p = 0.3114).
A similar pattern is observed in the total number of specimens collected by each method: using beer traps, E. lapponicus was collected 1.9 times more frequently than E. sylvestris, with a similar ratio in pan traps (2 times). In pitfall traps, E. lapponicus outnumbered E. sylvestris by a factor of 3.6 (differences were significant according to the chi-square test, χ2 = 63.42; p < 0.0001).
These findings indicate comparatively higher activity of E. sylvestris in tree canopies and reduced activity on the ground surface and in the herbaceous layer, or selective attraction of this species to specific trap types.
For a more comprehensive understanding of the distribution of these species, we analyzed it separately by sex and developmental stage (Table 4). For the most abundant species, Ectobius lapponicus, a noticeable predominance of males was recorded using sweep nets (compared to the equal sex ration, the chi-square test is χ2 = 5.5; p = 0.019), while females strongly predominated in pitfall traps (χ2 = 696, p < 0.0001). Beer traps, Malaise traps, and pan traps showed intermediate results, with a moderate predominance of females, and in window traps we found insignificantly more males.
This result is consistent with expectations. Bey-Bienko [16] previously noted that males of this cockroach species are primarily observed on shrubs and grasses, while females are found under leaf litter and moss. Subsequent authors [36] have confirmed this pattern, further associating females with decaying wood.
This distribution can be explained by morphological sexual dimorphism: males, being more slender and long-winged, can climb plants more easily and glide between them. Additionally, differences in activity periods may play a role: males are most active during the afternoon (from noon to dusk), while nymphs and females are primarily active at night [37]. Since sweep netting was conducted mainly during the day, this likely influenced the results.
Surprisingly, a significant number of females (brachypterous) and nymphs (apterous) were collected using window traps. This may indicate that cockroaches climb tree branches where the window traps were placed, although accidental falls from the trunk cannot be ruled out. The collection of non-flying insects in window traps is well documented for other groups, such as beetles [38].
Particularly interesting is the use of the arboreal layer by nymphs. Nymphs were previously recorded in the shrub layer [30]. Part of this result may be explained by the presence of nymphs in bird nests [39], which share many characteristics with forest litter. In litter samples, only nymphs were found.
In the collections of Ectobius sylvestris, the number of males is generally lower than that of E. lapponicus (11.6 times fewer than females, compared to 7.3 times fewer in the latter species). A particularly strong female dominance is observed in pitfall traps and beer traps. In contrast, in window traps, the proportion of females is lower than in E. lapponicus. These results correspond to the more pronounced morphological sexual dimorphism of E. sylvestris: females are larger and brachypterous.
The earwig Forficula auricularia is represented in all trap types, but it is relatively less abundant in window traps (this may be due to the placement of most window traps in habitats that are less favorable for this species). In collections from each method, it is represented by both adults of both sexes and nymphs. The collections of this species show a predominance of females (1.6 times more than males in total). This species is widely known as a ground-dweller, although it also uses trees for feeding and shelter [40,41,42,43]. Of particular interest is the relatively large number of individuals recorded using the sweep net method.
Forficula tomis is primarily collected using pitfall traps. However, the possibility of its arboreal activity cannot be entirely excluded, as window traps were not set in the areas where this species was found.

2.2.4. Habitat Distribution

Both widespread species of the genus Ectobius were found together in 115 sample plots. In 441 plots, only 1 species of cockroach was recorded (341 plots contained only E. lapponicus), and 180 plots contained no cockroaches. A weak negative correlation was observed between the occurrence of the two cockroach species on the sample plots (Pearson’s r = −0.11; p = 0.002).
To know the habitat preferences of the studied species, we analyzed the frequency of occurrence and the number of specimens recorded across 22 habitat types (Table 5). Ectobius lapponicus is found approximately equally in forests, meadows, and intermediate habitat types (woodlands, forest clearings, and forest edges), occupying more than half of the surveyed plots. Among wetlands, it is more commonly found in wooded eutrophic habitats (swamps) and mesotrophic edges of peat bogs with birch trees, although it can also be locally abundant in oligotrophic bogs with pine trees. At the same time, this species is not typical of anthropogenic habitats: it is rarely encountered in agricultural landscapes (fields, orchards, and greenery in villages) and is absent from urban habitats, including urban forests, gardens, and yards. Among the surveyed quarries, it is most numerous in the oldest former limestone quarry, which has vegetation similar to woodlands and young forests.
Ectobius sylvestris, unlike the previous species, is almost never found in meadows and is scarce in woodlands, riparian forests (flooded areas dominated by Alnus or Salix), swamps, and mesotrophic edges of peat bogs. In contrast, it is more numerous in the central parts of bogs without a dense tree layer, forest clearings, and spruce (Picea abies) forests. E. duskei was predominantly collected in mixed forests, but only in steppe landscapes.
The near absence of cockroaches in habitats with cultivated vegetation can be easily explained by regular soil tillage, which prevents the formation of forest litter or grassy debris necessary for the habitation of these insects [11]. Their penetration into urban habitats is also hindered by the limited dispersal ability of the short-winged females of both cockroach species.
Noteworthy were the numerous findings of E. lapponicus in meadows, as this species was traditionally considered a forest and peatland inhabitant [16]. Some of the findings of E. lapponicus in meadows can be explained by the migration of males from forests and forest edges, since all these habitats in the studied area form a mosaic. However, numerous findings of females (439 specimens in mesic meadows and 198 in dry meadows) and nymphs (329 and 47, respectively) in meadows suggest that the grassy debris of meadows is favorable for the development of this cockroach, similar to how E. duskei develops in steppe phytocoenoses [16,44]. Previous authors likely did not record E. lapponicus as a meadow inhabitant because at that time, grassy debris did not accumulate due to intensive haymaking and grazing.
The distribution of the two widespread cockroach species between forests and meadows generally confirms the hypothesis of greater hygrophilicity of E. sylvestris, based on studies conducted in one of the western regions of the Continental biogeographical region [30]. At the same time, the weaker presence of E. sylvestris in riparian forests, swamps, and parts of bogs with stagnant water indicates its greater sensitivity to water-induced disturbances and its weaker dispersal ability. This corresponds to the morphological differences in females, which are more short-winged and stocky in the latter species [16]. The low abundance of E. sylvestris in woodlands may be due to both its weaker ability to colonize habitats (since woodlands are often formed as a result of disturbances such as fires and logging) and their greater dryness compared to forests.
Among earwigs, F. auricularia is most commonly found in urban habitats of various types and in gardens, somewhat less frequently in meadows, some of which it inhabits in large numbers, and in lines of trees. It is most often found in forests clearings. It is absent in spruce forests and swamps. The results obtained are consistent with the literature on the distribution of this species in other regions of the temperate zone. In particular, it is known that this species avoids forest massifs [45,46] and tends to gravitate toward human settlements [47,48,49], which is linked to both more favorable thermal conditions and trophic resources. For example, fruit trees in gardens provide food for the earwig, both in the form of plant parts and phytophagous insects with thin coverings [40,50,51]. Unlike cockroaches, the earwig is less dependent on litter since it overwinters in nests within the soil [52] and, during warm weather, finds shelter on plants. F. tomis behaves as a resident of agricultural landscapes, which aligns with the literature reports on the synanthropy of this species [15,33,53].

2.2.5. Seasonal Dynamics

Ectobius lapponicus. Overall, according to the dataset, nymphs are found throughout the entire research season, from April to October (Figure 3 and Figure 4). However, in mid-summer (July), nymphs were absent or found in minimal numbers in most habitats. Adults are mostly recorded from June to August, with males usually disappearing after July, and females being observed until the end of the field season (until September–October). The dates for the appearance of the first adults vary depending on the year and landscape. For example, in the studied area, the first adults were found at the end of May in 2023 in the Oka River valley in the eastern part of Kaluga region (males on 26 May by sweeping, both sexes between 12 and 30 May using soil traps), though the main activity of adults began in June (Figure 3). The last males were found in the second half of June (21 June by sweeping, 14–31 July by soil traps). In 2024, both southern and northern parts of Kaluga region saw adults appearing in the first half of June: in the south, the first male was found between 1 and 14 June, and the first female between 10 and 20 June; in the north, the first male was recorded between 26 May and 14 June, and the first female between 29 May and 19 June (in various habitats). The last male was noted on 4 August by sweeping. In 2022, during the study of bog landscapes in the western part of Kaluga region (Figure 4), a female was found in the first half of June, and the first male was found only in the second half of June (28 June by sweeping and 16–30 June by soil traps). The last male was recorded on 15 August by sweeping. Similar activity periods were observed in other parts of the region.
The obtained results are consistent with information about the overwintering stage of nymphs in Ectobius lapponicus [54]. The phenology of adults aligns approximately with studies conducted in more western areas of the Continental biogeoregion [34]. Previously, in European Russia, the appearance of adults of this species was dated to the second to the third decade of June [16]. The differences might be due to climate warming or the collection of more extensive data. Overall, the seasonal abundance pattern corresponds to what is known for other countries in Europe and North America [55].
Ectobius sylvestris. The first adults (both males and females) in the Russian part of the Continental biogeoregion were found between 11 and 17 May 2023, in the southeastern part of the study area (Samara region) using beer traps. A similar finding (16–31 May) was recorded in the western part of the study area (Kaluga city) in the same year using pitfall traps. However, in most habitats, adults began to appear much later, in the second half of June or even July (Figure 5 and Figure 6). The obtained data align with Bey-Bienko’s [16] observations about the phenological variation in E. sylvestris in European Russia: in the forest–steppe zone, adults of this species were noted from early to mid-June, and in the northern part of the forest zone from late June to mid-July. The collected data do not reveal latitudinal differences in the phenology of this species, but they suggest that such differences may exist within a small region, depending on habitat and specific annual conditions.
Forficula auricularia. The seasonal dynamics of this species in the western part of the study area were discussed in detail earlier [22]. The life cycle of this earwig is characterized by the appearance of nymphs in May (rarely at the end of April), their transformation into adults in mid- to late July, and the presence of overwintering females from April to June. The new data confirm this view. The new information includes spring and early summer finds of males, which are more numerous in the southern parts of the region. This indicates that some males overwinter and may reflect the known plasticity of the earwig’s life cycle. Overwintering of males is typical for earwigs in regions with milder climates [56].
Forficula tomis in the adult stage was found from June to August, with nymphs from June to the first half of July. The collected data do not contradict the information about the overwintering of F. tomis as older nymphs [15,53], but they are insufficient for a detailed analysis.

2.2.6. Year-to-Year Changes

The data collection was not aimed at long-term monitoring; however, collections from some plots may provide insight into multiyear changes. In the vicinity of Kaluga, in the Oka River valley, two plots were studied using pitfall traps in 2002 and 2023: a tall-grass meadow with steppe herbs on a slope and a dry meadow on the sands of the fluvial terrace. In 2002, F. auricularia was a common species in both habitats (4692 and 1144 specimens, respectively), but in 2023, it was rare (2 and 6 specimens). In contrast, E. lapponicus became significantly more abundant in the first habitat (40 and 108 specimens, with a fourfold increase in abundance considering the number of traps), and appeared in the second habitat, where it reached even higher abundance (233 specimens). During this period, livestock grazing ceased in the studied landscape, and recreational pressure significantly decreased. As a result, the proportion of large grasses in the vegetation increased, and undecomposed plant material (litter) accumulated on the soil surface. In contrast, the population of F. auricularia in the garden in the city center exhibited stability from 2003 to 2018.
In the context of longer-term changes, the rarity of Labia minor in our dataset, compared to older literature reports where this species was noted to occur in large numbers, is of interest [15]. This may partly be explained by the inadequacy of traps for detecting this species, but this explanation is insufficient. The species has also become less common in other regions [57]. The decline in its numbers is likely linked to the reduction in traditional agriculture, which creates pastures, manure piles, and compost heaps—habitats favored by this earwig [15,31].

3. Methods

3.1. Study Area

The described dataset contains data on findings of Blattodea and Dermaptera species in the territories of Russia belonging to the Continental biogeographical region, as classified by the European Environment Agency [58]. The Continental region is the transition zone on the N–S axis between the woodland-dominated coniferous Boreal region (taiga) and the open Steppic region. It extends in a central east–west band over most of Europe. Russia contains 32% of its area [59]. In Russian natural zoning schemes, the Continental region roughly corresponds to the nemoral broad-leaf forest and forest–steppe biomes [60]. The material was collected primarily from the northwestern to central parts of the Russian Continental biogeographical region (Figure 7). Administratively, studies were conducted mainly in the Kaluga, Ryazan, Republic of Mordovia, Penza, Tambov, and Ul’yanovsk regions. To a lesser extent, studies were also conducted in the Tula, Moscow, Vladimir, Lipetsk, Voronezh, Samara, Saratov, Nizhny Novgorod regions, and Tatarstan and Chuvash Republics.

3.2. Methods of Collection and Data Processing

The dataset material includes both the results of targeted surveys of Blattodea and Dermaptera and the collections obtained during the counting of various animal groups. The sampling effort is specified for each occurrence within the dataset. Below, we briefly characterize the sample protocols used.
Pitfall traps: Soil pitfall traps were 0.5 L transparent plastic cups with a mouth of 85 mm in diameter filled with 4% formalin solution, with covers made of transparent polyethylene film. The number of traps per sample plot ranged from 5 to 30, as is indicated in the samplingEffort field. The period between the samples from the traps typically ranged from two weeks to a month, which can be determined by the EventDate or startDayOfYear and endDayOfYear fields.
Beer traps: Each beer trap consisted of a plastic 5- L container with a window cut out on one side. These traps were placed on tree branches or special tripods at heights ranging from 1.5 to 12 m above the ground. Fermenting beer with added sugar was used as bait [61,62]. The average exposure period of the traps between samples was 10 days.
Sweep net: Sweep netting was performed according to standard methods [63]. The typical sampling effort was 100 strokes, where 2 consecutive sweeping strokes—to the right and left sides—were considered as 1 sweep.
Pan traps: These are yellow plastic plates with a diameter of 21 cm and a volume of 1.25 L filled with water and a detergent. Six to ten traps were installed in a line on the ground surface, spaced 3 m apart. The average period between samples was 5 days.
Malaise traps: Homemade Malaise traps in the style of Townes [64,65] were used. The front screen frame was made of wooden uprights, and the main material of the trap was polyester. The collection tanks were filled with 70% ethanol.
Window traps: Window traps consisted of criss-crossed blades made of transparent polyethylene film on a wire frame, with a 0.5 L transparent plastic cup as a trap container filled with 2% formalin. Typically, 10 traps were installed per sample plot at a height of 1.5 m above the ground, primarily in wooded habitats. The period between samples was generally two weeks.
UV light: This method was indicated in the dataset for all insects collected during light trapping, regardless of whether they flew to the light source, walked to it, or accidentally ended up at the site of the nocturnal insect trapping.
Litter: This method is primarily used for accounting terrestrial mollusks but also allows for the collection of cockroach nymphs. Litter samples, about 20 L in volume, were taken, placed in a bag, and manually sorted in the laboratory.
Grooves: In some plots, insects were incidentally collected with grooves used for vertebrate trapping. The grooves were 20 m long with two 10 L buckets filled with a 4% formalin solution buried at the bottom. For collecting large and medium insects, this method is near to pitfall traps.
Hand collection and visual observation: This method was primarily used for synanthropic species. For other species, it was mainly applied to random observations.
Collections were made on 736 sample plots. The locations of the plots were selected to collect the maximum number of many species groups of insects for different habitats of the studied regions. So, there is no geometrically regular net of plots, but they are representative of geographic differences and diversity of habitats. Each sample plot was a site with more or less uniform environmental conditions (corresponding to habitat patch) and unique geographical coordinates. The sizes of the sample plots vary due to habitat structure. In particular, in mosaic landscapes, every yard or garden surrounded by buildings or the line of trees amongst fields was regarded as separate sample plots, and the areas of such plots were 0.1–1.3 ha. In large arrays of forests or grasslands, the sample plot was a line of traps, the length of such lines was usually 50–150 m, and the distance between the lines was at least twice greater. Sample plots are differentiated by vegetation, so they may be divided by satellite images. For sweep net, the sample plots were longer (usually 100–200 m) if there were no notable differences in the vegetation. The dataset provides detailed habitat characteristics where possible. For the analysis in this article, the habitats were classified into 22 types. The terminology used is based on the EUNIS habitat classification [66], with modifications for the specifics of the region and research objectives.
1. Forests (non-urban): Non-cultivated habitats with a dense tree layer. In the dataset, small forests are shown as groves.
1.1. Broadleaved forests: Dominated by oak (Quercus robur), linden (Tilia cordata), sometimes by ash (Fraxinus excelsior), and occasionally by Norway maple (Acer platanoides), which often occupies the second layer. The ground cover is usually dense and formed by mesic nemoral herbs. In some forests on south-facing slopes, meadow–steppe herbs are present, while in certain habitats, it is poorly developed.
1.2. Secondary forests: Non-flooded deciduous forests dominated by small-leaved trees, primarily aspen (Populus tremula), with the participation of the aforementioned broadleaved trees (especially linden). These forests are typically young and often form as a result of human activity, such as the use of broadleaved or mixed forests (e.g., clear-cuts). In the dataset, they are labeled as “deciduous forest” or “aspen forest”.
1.3. Birch forests: Dominated by Betula pendula. Formally classified as secondary forests but counted separately because they occupy many sample plots and predominantly form on relatively poor soils, such as when fallow land and meadows revert to forest, or after wildfires.
1.4. Riparian forests: Forests in the floodplains of rivers, dominated by willows (Salix) or alder (Alnus).
1.5. Mixed forests: Mixed coniferous–broadleaved forests, usually dominated by linden and spruce (Picea abies), sometimes with oak or pine, and small-leaved trees. These forests are primarily found in the northern part of the studied region but occur throughout as a result of forestry activities.
1.6. Spruce forests: Dominated by Picea abies. Includes pine–spruce forests.
1.7. Pine forests: Dominated by Pinus sylvestris. In the dataset, the characteristics of the ground cover (green-moss, lichen, nemoral herb layer) or the impacts on the forest (fire, windfall) are provided where possible.
2. Woodlands: Tree-dominated habitats with rare tree stand, e.g., lichen health on dry soils, post-fire woodlands.
3. Clearings in forest: Clearings in forest, openings in forest, forest glades.
4. Edges of forest.
5. Lines of trees in fields.
6. Meadows (mesic). This type also includes “pasture” mentioned in the dataset.
7. Meadows (dry): Mainly on nutrient-poor sandy soils on fluvial terraces or after anthropogenic disturbance.
8. Fields: Arable lands, including recently abandoned with annual weeds.
9. Gardens: Habitats with a mosaic of cultivated trees and shrubs (mainly fruit) and herbs (vegetable or ornamental), with regularly tilled soils, without large buildings, roads, and pavements.
10. Yards: Building areas with lines of trees, ornamental gardens, and small parks beside houses or in city squares. These habitats consist of small groups of trees, grassy patches, flowerbeds surrounded by buildings, and pavement with artificial surfaces. Includes “lawns”, “public gardens”, and “stands of trees between buildings”.
11. Urban forests: Vegetation may be classified as secondary deciduous or broadleaved forests, but these forests differ in that they are small in size, isolated by buildings and highways, and are subject to disturbances that hinder the formation of a forest floor.
12. Quarries: Abandoned limestone or clay quarries (bottoms or dams) grown over with pioneer vegetation.
13. Swamps: Wetlands with a high level of nutrients, dominated by sedges (Carex) or club-rushes (Scirpus), with trees of willow (Salix) or alder (Alnus glutinosa).
14. Bogs: Includes drained or burnt peatlands that have preserved their oligotrophic character and some plant species:
14.1. Bogs without dense tree layer: Central part of peatland, dominated by Sphagnum mosses, cotton grass (Eriophorum), and subshrubs. Occasionally, rare and stressed pine trees are found.
14.2. Bogs with birch forest: Edges or laggs of bogs, with a mesic level of nutrients and small patches of open water, dominated by Betula pubescens.
14.3. Bogs with pine forest: The pine forest is dense, but the environment is shaped mainly by Sphagnum mosses.
Using sampling protocols amongst different types of habitats is illustrated in Table 6.
Steppe, meadow steppe, cretaceous grassland (cretaceous slope), and sandy litoral were excluded from the analysis due to the small number of sample plots. For synanthropic cockroaches, characteristics of “indoor” habitats and “near buildings” were also used.
Species identification was based on morphological characteristics using Beĭ-Bienko’s keys [15,16]. According to modern concepts, F. auricularia in Europe represents a complex of cryptic species, which can be reliably identified using molecular–genetic methods. Therefore, we can only assume that the studied species belongs to F. auricularia Linnaeus, 1758 s.str., which inhabits Northern and Central Europe [67]. The nomenclature was checked against current databases [68,69]. Collected (observed) specimens were divided into adults or nymphs, and adults—into males or females—for cockroaches mainly, since 2022. In previous samples, we usually counted cockroaches without dividing.
Data processing was conducted using the R environment [70]. During processing, errors in coordinates, dates, and species names were manually corrected using MS Excel. Spatial calculations were performed in QGIS 3. Statistical tests were obtained also using the R environment. To search for the correlation between present species amongst plots, we utilized Pearson’s test. To compare frequencies of species or sexes per habitat or sample protocol, we used the chi-square test. To compare abundances of species, we used the Kruskal–Wallis test.

4. Conclusions

The obtained data expand our knowledge on the distribution and biology of cockroaches and earwigs in the temperate forest zone and provide a basis for outlining future research directions. Within the studied part of the Continental biogeoregion, the widespread distribution of Ectobius lapponicus, E. sylvestris, and Forficula auricularia was confirmed. In contrast, F. tomis, Labidura riparia, and Labia minor have a more limited distribution or are rare. The distribution of these species could be a subject for further research, involving a broader range of data.
Regarding habitat preference, E. sylvestris is characterized as a true forest species, and E. lapponicus occupies both forests and grasslands, while F. auricularia inhabits gardens, urban habitats, and partly meadows. Differences in captures of E. lapponicus and E. sylvestris by different trapping methods were identified, as well as a more pronounced sexual dimorphism in E. sylvestris based on the collection methods. The collected data demonstrate the uniformity of life cycles of the studied species within the surveyed area, with variations within small areas depending on habitat and annual conditions. Cockroaches and earwigs may serve as promising model groups for the long-term monitoring of ecosystem health.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, V.V.A. and A.B.R.; methodology, V.V.A. and A.B.R.; software, V.V.A. and A.B.R.; validation, A.B.R.; formal analysis, V.V.A. and A.B.R.; investigation, V.V.A. and A.B.R.; resources, V.V.A., M.N.E., S.V.L., E.A.L., A.B.R., N.V.S., I.O.K. and A.M.N.; data curation, V.V.A., M.N.E., S.V.L., E.A.L., A.B.R., N.V.S., I.O.K. and A.M.N.; writing—original draft preparation, V.V.A. and A.B.R.; writing—review and editing, V.V.A. and A.B.R.; visualization, V.V.A.; 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. The research on the territory of the Mordovia State Nature Reserve and National Park «Smolny» was carried out with the financing of the state assignment of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Ecology of the Russian Federation on the topic of research work N° 1-25-31-4.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY-NC) 4.0 License. https://doi.org/10.15468/7g3j55.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to all entomologists and citizen scientists who provided their materials or helped in collecting the materials: S. Alekseev, S. Carpukhin, A. Gamayunov, M. Garkunov, D. Khvaletsky, V. Perov (Kaluga, Parks Directorate of Kaluga Region), M. Bakanov (Moscow), V. Korzikov, S. Vezenichev, Y. Kuskov, V. Beshir (Kaluga), G. Semishin, M. Maresev, M. Ryzhov, D. Sokolova, D. Pasynkova (Saransk), A. Krasovkaya, A. Safronova, D. Bashmakov (Saransk) and S. Dedyukhin (Izhevsk). We thank Leonid Anisyutkin (Sent-Petersburg, Zoological Institute) for identifying some specimens.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Garcia-Rosello, E.; Gonzalez-Dacosta, J.; Guisande, C.; Lobo, J.M. GBIF falls short of providing a representative picture of the global distribution of insects. Syst. Entomol. 2023, 48, 489–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Svenningsen, C.S.; Schigel, D. Sharing insect data through GBIF: Novel monitoring methods, opportunities and standards. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 2024, 379, 20230104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Shashkov, M.; Ivanova, N. Aporrectodea caliginosa (Lumbricidae) Georeferenced Occurrences from Russian-Language Scientific Literature. Version 1.2. Institute of Mathematical Problems of Biology RAS—The Branch of Keldysh Institute of Applied Mathematics of Russian Academy of Sciences. Occurrence Dataset. Available online: https://www.gbif.org/dataset/e52aacbf-c701-462b-b68f-346502fbc270 (accessed on 6 December 2024). [CrossRef]
  4. Dvořák, L.; Ruchin, A.; Aleksanov, V.; Egorov, L.; Esin, M.; Lukiyanov, S.; Lobachev, E.; Garkunov, M.; Artaev, O.; Shulaev, N. Distribution of Panorpa (Mecoptera) in the Territory of European Russia. Joint Directorate of the Mordovia State Nature Reserve and National Park “Smolny”. Occurrence Dataset. Available online: https://www.gbif.org/dataset/c72e82bc-3453-4dda-9ce3-b51ea3c0d8bd (accessed on 6 December 2024). [CrossRef]
  5. Bey-Bienko, G.Y. Changes of Habitats by Terrestrial Organisms as a Biological Principle. Zh. Obshch. Biol. 1966, 20, 5–21. [Google Scholar]
  6. Stebaev, I.V. Biological principle of habitat change and general characters of the landscape distribution of grasshoppers (Orthoptera, Acrididae) in the mountain-arid regions of south Siberia. Rev. D’entomologie L’urss 1974, 53, 2–23. [Google Scholar]
  7. Conrad, K.F.; Warren, M.S.; Fox, R.; Parsons, M.S.; Woiwod, I.P. Rapid declines of common, widespread British moths provide evidence of an insect biodiversity crisis. Biol. Conserv. 2006, 132, 279–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Sánchez-Bayo, F.; Wyckhuys, K.A. Worldwide decline of the entomofauna: A review of its drivers. Biol. Conserv. 2019, 232, 8–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Forrest, J.R. Complex responses of insect phenology to climate change. Curr. Opin. Insect Sci. 2016, 17, 49–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Albouy, V.; Caussanel, C. Dermaptères ou Perce-Oreilles. Faune France 75; Fédération Française des Sociétés de Sciences Naturelles: Paris, France, 1990. [Google Scholar]
  11. Bell, W.J.; Roth, L.M.; Nalepa, C.A. Cockroaches: Ecology, Behavior, and Natural History; JHU Press: Baltimore, MD, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  12. Baumholtz, M.A.; Parish, L.C.; Witkowski, J.A.; Nutting, W.B. The medical importance of cockroaches. Int. J. Dermatol. 1997, 36, 90–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Orpet, R.J.; Crowder, D.W.; Jones, V.P. Biology and management of European earwig in orchards and vineyards. J. Integr. Pest Manag. 2019, 10, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Meunier, J. The biology and social life of earwigs (Dermaptera). Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2024, 69, 259–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Bey-Bienko, G.J. Nasekomye Kochistokrylye (Dermaptera); USSR Academy of Sciences Pub. House: Moscow, Russia, 1936. [Google Scholar]
  16. Bey-Bienko, G.J. Blattodea (Nasekomye Tarakanovye); USSR Academy of Sciences Pub. House: Moscow, Russia, 1950; 344p. [Google Scholar]
  17. Bey-Bienko, G.J. Orthoptera and Dermaptera. In Animal Life of the USSR. 3. Steppe Life Zone; Pavlovsky, E.N., Vinogradov, B.S., Eds.; USSR Academy of Sciences Pub. House: Moscow, Russia, 1950; pp. 379–424. [Google Scholar]
  18. Bey-Bienko, G.J. Orthoptera and Dermaptera. In Animal Life of the USSR. 4. Forest Life Zone; Pavlovsky, E.N., Vinogradov, B.S., Eds.; USSR Academy of Sciences Publ.: Moscow, Russia, 1953; pp. 527–552. [Google Scholar]
  19. Chernyakhovsky, M.E. Fauna of orthopteroid insects of the Moscow region. In Nauchnye Osnovy Okhrany Zhivoy Prirody Podmoscowia; Nauka: Moscow, Russia, 1988; pp. 72–78. [Google Scholar]
  20. Díaz-Calafat, J.; Jaume-Ramis, S.; Soacha, K.; Álvarez, A.; Piera, J. Revealing biases in insect observations: A comparative analysis between academic and citizen science data. PLoS ONE 2024, 19, e0305757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Aleksanov, V.; Karmazina, I.; Ruchin, A.; Lukiyanov, S.; Lobachev, E.; Semishin, G. Fauna of Orthopteroidea (Orthoptera, Dermaptera, Mantodea and Blattodea) of the National Park “Smolny”. BIO Web Conf. 2023, 71, 02025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Aleksanov, V.V. Life cycle and habitats of the European earwig Forficula auricularia L. (Dermaptera, Forficulidae) in Kaluga, Russia. Euroasian Entomol. J. 2015, 14, 285–292. [Google Scholar]
  23. Ruchin, A.; Aleksanov, V.; Karmazina, I.; Esin, M.; Lukiyanov, S.; Lobachev, E.; Artaev, O.; Ryzhov, M. Biodiversity of Orthopteroidea (Insecta) in the Republic of Mordovia (Russia). Joint Directorate of the Mordovia State Nature Reserve and National Park “Smolny”. Occurrence Dataset. Available online: https://www.gbif.org/dataset/3162cfb6-813c-47e4-932b-8b1c001cb2f8 (accessed on 29 May 2024). [CrossRef]
  24. Leibniz Institute for the Analysis of Biodiversity Change (LIB). ZFMK Blattodea Collection. Occurrence Dataset. Available online: https://www.gbif.org/dataset/395c1ff6-b054-42a3-a81e-4f69c0b6bb86 (accessed on 6 December 2024). [CrossRef]
  25. Leibniz Institute for the Analysis of Biodiversity Change (LIB). ZFMK Dermaptera Collection. Occurrence Dataset. Available online: https://www.gbif.org/dataset/2113d2b2-f174-46b1-9994-3e897bb68199 (accessed on 6 December 2024). [CrossRef]
  26. Karlsson, D.; Ronquist, F.; Holston, K. Swedish Malaise Trap Project (SMTP)—Dermaptera. Station Linné. Sampling Event Dataset. Available online: https://www.gbif.org/dataset/efb3a6c0-e35b-4b82-9835-8456f38b712b (accessed on 6 December 2024). [CrossRef]
  27. Cockroach Working Group. Ectobius (Ectobius) Lapponicus (Linnaeus, 1758). Cockroach Species File. Available online: https://cockroach.speciesfile.org/otus/858959/overview (accessed on 5 December 2024).
  28. Aleksanov, V.; Ruchin, A.; Shulaev, N.; Karmazina, I.; Lukiyanov, S.; Lobachev, E.; Nikolaeva, A.; Garkunov, M.; Khvaletsky, D.; Esin, M.; et al. Blattodea and Dermaptera in the Continental Biogeographical Region and Adjacent Areas of European Russia. Version 1.8. Joint Directorate of the Mordovia State Nature Reserve and National Park “Smolny”. Occurrence Dataset. Available online: https://www.gbif.org/dataset/676dcb55-c47a-41b2-8552-97fb023f7e04 (accessed on 19 December 2024). [CrossRef]
  29. Alesho, N.A. Synanthropic cockroaches of Russia. Proc. Int. Colloq. Soc. Insects 1997, 3–4, 45–50. [Google Scholar]
  30. Oschmann, M. Faunistisch-ökologische Untersuchungen an Orthopteren im Raum von Gotha. Hercynia-Okol. Umw. Mitteleur. 1969, 6, 115–168. [Google Scholar]
  31. Holuša, J.; Kočárek, P.; Konvička, O. Grasshoppers and crickets (Orthoptera), earwigs (Dermaptera), cockroaches (Blattaria), and mantises (Mantodea) of the Bílé Karpaty Protected Landscape Area and Biosphere Reserve (Czech Republic). Acta Musei Morav. Sci. Biol. (Brno) 2012, 96, 71–104. [Google Scholar]
  32. Volkova, J.S. Inventory results of arthropods in the Sengiley mountains national park. In Nature of Simbirsk Volga Region. Is. 23; Ul’yanovsk, Russia, 2022; pp. 169–175. [Google Scholar]
  33. Dorzhieva, O.D. Some ecological aspects of Forficula tomis in Zabaikalye. Buryat State Univ. Bull. Ser. Biol. Geogr. 2011, 4, 203–204. [Google Scholar]
  34. Holuša, J.; Kočárek, P. Seasonal dynamics of the dusky cockroach Ectobius lapponicus (Blattodea, Blattellidae) in the eastern part of the Czech Republic. Biol. Bratisl. 2000, 55, 483–486. [Google Scholar]
  35. Kirstová, M.; Pyszko, P.; Šipoš, J.; Drozd, P.; Kočárek, P. Vertical distribution of earwigs (Dermaptera: Forficulidae) in a temperate lowland forest, based on sampling with a mobile aerial lift platform. Entomol. Sci. 2017, 20, 57–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Roth, L.M.; Willis, E.R. The Biotic Associations of Cockroaches; Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections vol. 141; The Lord Baltimore Press Inc.: Baltimore, MA, USA, 1960; 518p. [Google Scholar]
  37. Dreisig, H. Diurnal activity in the dusky cockroach, Ectobius lapponicus L. (Blattodea). Insect Syst. Evol. 1971, 2, 132–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Horák, J.; Vodka, Š.; Pavlíček, J.; Boža, P. Unexpected visitors: Flightless beetles in window traps. J. Insect Conserv. 2013, 17, 441–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Vidlička, Ľ. Cockroaches (Blattaria) in bird nests. Folia Faun. Slovaca 1999, 4, 41–43. [Google Scholar]
  40. Suckling, D.M.; Burnip, G.M.; Hackett, J.; Daly, J.C. Frass sampling and baiting indicate European earwig (Forficula auricularia) foraging in orchards. J. Appl. Entomol. 2006, 130, 263–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Lordan, J.; Alegre, S.; Moerkens, R.; Sarasúa, M.J.; Alins, G. Phenology and interspecific association of Forficula auricularia and Forficula pubescens in apple orchards. Span. J. Agric. Res. 2015, 13, e1003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Tourneur, J.C. Epigeal phase of the biological cycle of Forficula auricularia Linnaeus (Dermaptera: Forficulidae) in eastern Canada. Can. Entomol. 2017, 149, 600–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Kirstová, M.; Pyszko, P.; Kočárek, P. Factors influencing microhabitat selection and food preference of tree-dwelling earwigs (Dermaptera) in a temperate floodplain forest. Bull. Entomol. Res. 2019, 109, 54–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Lyubechanskiĭ, I.I.; Smelyanskiĭ, I.E. Structure of saprophagous invertebrate community on a catena in the steppe of Trans-Volga region. Entomol. Rev. 1999, 79, 821–829. [Google Scholar]
  45. Lamb, R.J.; Wellington, W.G. Life history and population characteristics of the European earwig, Forficula auricularia (Dermaptera: Forficulidae), at Vancouver, British Columbia. Can. Entomol. 1975, 107, 819–824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Koĉarek, P. Life cycles and habitat associations of three earwig (Dermaptera) species in lowland forest and its surroundings. Biologia 1998, 53, 205–211. [Google Scholar]
  47. Good, J.A. Notes on the Biogeography and Ecology of the Common Earwig, Forficula auricularia (Dermaptera) in Ireland. Part 1: Distribution. Ir. Nat. J. 1982, 20, 496–497. [Google Scholar]
  48. Tezcan, S.; Kocarek, P. Dermaptera fauna of the ecologically managed cherry orchards in western Turkey. Munis Entomol. Zool. 2009, 4, 572–576. [Google Scholar]
  49. Haas, F. Biodiversity of dermaptera. Insect Biodivers. Sci. Soc. 2018, 2, 315–334. [Google Scholar]
  50. Helsen, H.; Vaal, F.; Blommers, L. Phenology of the common earwig Forficula auricularia L. (Dermaptera: Forficulidae) in an apple orchard. Int. J. Pest Manag. 1998, 44, 75–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Gobin, B.; Marien, A.; Davis, S.; Leirs, H. Enhancing earwig populations in Belgian orchards. Comm. Appl. Biol. Sci. Ghent Univ. 2006, 71/2b, 269–273. [Google Scholar]
  52. Crumb, S.E.; Eide, P.M.; Bonn, A.E. The European earwig. In Technical Bulletin; United States Department of Agriculture: Washington, DC, USA, 1941; 766p. [Google Scholar]
  53. Khaldei, E.L. Biology, phenology and photoperiodic reaction of the earwig Forficula tomis Kol. (Dermaptera, Forficulidae). Entomol. Obozr. 1977, 56, 721–730. [Google Scholar]
  54. Brown, V.K. The overwintering stages of Ectobius lapponicus (L.) (Dictyoptera: Blattidae). J. Entomol. Ser. A Gen. Entomol. 1973, 48, 11–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Clements, J.C.; McCorquodale, D.B.; Doucet, D.A.; Ogden, J.B. The Dusky Cockroach in the Canadian Maritimes: Establishment, persistence, and ecology. J. Acad. Entomol. Soc. 2017, 13, 21–27. [Google Scholar]
  56. Good, J.A. Notes on the Biogeography and Ecology of the Common Earwig, Forficula auricularia (Dermaptera), in Ireland. Part 2: Life Cycle. Ir. Nat. J. 1982, 20, 543–546. [Google Scholar]
  57. Kočárek, P.; Ševčík, J. Škvoři (Dermaptera) severní Moravy a Slezska–přehled faunistických údajů. Čas. Slez. Muz. Opava Ser. A 1997, 46, 97–103. [Google Scholar]
  58. European Environment Agency. Biogeographical Regions Europe 2016; p. 3. Available online: https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/biogeographical-regions-europe-3 (accessed on 8 January 2016).
  59. European Environment Agency. EEA Report No 1/2002. Europe’s Biodiversity—Biogeographical Regions and Seas Biogeographical Regions in Europe. Available online: https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/report_2002_0524_154909 (accessed on 31 May 2002).
  60. Ogureeva, G.; Leonova, N.; Miklyaeva, I.M.; Bocharnikov, M.V.; Fedoso, V.E.; Muchnik, E.; Urbanavichus, G.; Khliap, L.A.; Rumyantsev, I.V.; Lipka, O.N.; et al. The Biodiversity of Russian Biomes. The Biomes of Plains; Institute of Global Climate and Ecology: Moscow, Russia, 2020; 623p. [Google Scholar]
  61. 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]
  62. Dvořák, L.; Ruchin, A.B.; Egorov, L.V.; Aleksanov, V.V.; Alekseev, S.K.; Shulaev, N.V.; Zakharova, E.Y. Distribution of species from the genus Panorpa (Mecoptera, Panorpidae) in European Russia except the Caucasus. Nat. Conserv. Res. 2023, 8, 24–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. 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]
  64. Townes, H. A light-weight Malaise trap. Entomol. News 1972, 83, 239–247. [Google Scholar]
  65. Esin, M.N.; Ruchin, A.B.; Gavryushin, D.I.; Xi, Y.Q.; Dvořák, L.; Dvořáková, K. Diptera species, new for the Republic of Mordovia, Russia. Nat. Conserv. Res. 2023, 8, 98–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Davies, C.E.; Moss, D.; Hill, M.O. EUNIS Habitat Classification Revised 2004. Report to: European Environment Agency-European Topic Centre on Nature Protection and Biodiversity. October 2004. Available online: https://inpn.mnhn.fr/docs/ref_habitats/Davies_&_Moss_2004_EUNIS_habitat_classification.pdf (accessed on 1 December 2024).
  67. González-Miguéns, R.; Muñoz-Nozal, E.; Jiménez-Ruiz, Y.; Mas-Peinado, P.; Ghanavi, H.R.; García-París, M. Speciation patterns in the species complex: Cryptic and not so cryptic taxa across the western Palaearctic region. Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 2020, 190, 788–823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Cockroach Working Group Cockroach Species File. Available online: https://cockroach.speciesfile.org/ (accessed on 17 December 2024).
  69. Hopkins, H.; Haas, F.; Deem, L.S. Dermaptera Species File. Available online: https://dermaptera.speciesfile.org/ (accessed on 17 December 2024).
  70. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2022; Available online: https://www.R-project.org/ (accessed on 17 December 2024).
Diversity 17 00066 g001
Figure 1. Distribution of non-synanthropic Blattodea across studied area.
Figure 1. Distribution of non-synanthropic Blattodea across studied area.
Diversity 17 00066 g001
Diversity 17 00066 g002
Figure 2. Distribution of Dermaptera across studied area.
Figure 2. Distribution of Dermaptera across studied area.
Diversity 17 00066 g002
Diversity 17 00066 g003
Figure 3. Catches of E. lapponicus (number of specimens) in east part of Kaluga region (Oka River valley) with pitfall traps during 2023.
Figure 3. Catches of E. lapponicus (number of specimens) in east part of Kaluga region (Oka River valley) with pitfall traps during 2023.
Diversity 17 00066 g003
Diversity 17 00066 g004
Figure 4. Catches of E. lapponicus (number of specimens) in west part of Kaluga region (mainly peatlands) with pitfall traps during 2022.
Figure 4. Catches of E. lapponicus (number of specimens) in west part of Kaluga region (mainly peatlands) with pitfall traps during 2022.
Diversity 17 00066 g004
Diversity 17 00066 g005
Figure 5. Catches of E. sylvestris (number of specimens) in west part of Kaluga region (mainly peatlands) with pitfall traps during 2022.
Figure 5. Catches of E. sylvestris (number of specimens) in west part of Kaluga region (mainly peatlands) with pitfall traps during 2022.
Diversity 17 00066 g005
Diversity 17 00066 g006
Figure 6. Catches of E. sylvestris (number of specimens) in south part of Kaluga region (pine and broadleaved forests) during 2024.
Figure 6. Catches of E. sylvestris (number of specimens) in south part of Kaluga region (pine and broadleaved forests) during 2024.
Diversity 17 00066 g006
Diversity 17 00066 g007
Figure 7. Map of surveyed area.
Figure 7. Map of surveyed area.
Diversity 17 00066 g007
Table 1. Description of the data in the dataset.
Table 1. Description of the data in the dataset.
Column LabelColumn Description
occurrenceIDAn identifier for the occurrence. https://dwc.tdwg.org/terms/#dwc:occurrenceID. Numerical, integer counter with values between 1 and 2149.
basisOfRecordThe specific nature of the data record. https://dwc.tdwg.org/terms/#dwc:basisOfRecord. Categorical according to vocabulary, constant: “HumanObservation”.
scientificNameScientific name according to GBIF Backbone. https://dwc.tdwg.org/terms/#dwc:scientificNameCathegorical based on checklist, example: “Forficula auricularia Linnaeus, 1758”.
kingdomThe full scientific name of the kingdom in which the taxon is classified. https://dwc.tdwg.org/terms/#dwc:kingdomCategorical according to GBIF Backbone checklist, constant: “Animalia”.
decimalLatitudeThe geographic latitude of location in decimal degrees. https://dwc.tdwg.org/terms/#dwc:decimalLatitude Numerical variable of decimal type with a precision of 6 and scale of 4 ranged between 51.1123 and 56.2933.
decimalLongitudeThe geographic longitude of location in decimal degrees. https://dwc.tdwg.org/terms/#dwc:decimalLongitude Numerical variable of decimal type with a precision of 6 and scale of 4 ranged between 33.7351 and 56.6701.
geodeticDatumSpatial reference system (SRS) upon which the geographic coordinates, given in decimalLatitude and decimalLongitude, are based. https://dwc.tdwg.org/terms/#dwc:geodeticDatum. Categorical, constant: “WGS84”.
coordinateUncertaintyInMetersThe maximum uncertainty distance in meters. https://dwc.tdwg.org/terms/#dwc:coordinateUncertaintyInMeters Numerical, 50 or 1000.
georeferenceSourcesA list of maps, gazetteers, or other resources used to georeference the location. https://dwc.tdwg.org/terms/#dwc:georeferenceSources. Categorical, “Geolocate” or “Google Earth”.
countryThe name of the country in which the location occurs. https://dwc.tdwg.org/terms/#dwc:countryCode. Categorical, constant: “Russian Federation”.
countryCodeThe standard code for the Russian Federation according to ISO 3166-1-alpha-2. https://dwc.tdwg.org/terms/#dwc:countryCode. Categorical, constant: “RU”.
individualCountThe number of represented individuals present at the time of the occurrence. https://dwc.tdwg.org/terms/#dwc:individualCount. Numerical, ranged between 1 and 2009.
lifeStageThe life stage of the organism at the time. https://dwc.tdwg.org/terms/#dwciri:lifeStage. Categorical, “adult”, “nymph”, or “undefined”.
SexThe sex of the biological individual(s) represented in the occurrence. https://dwc.tdwg.org/terms/#dwc:sex. Categorical, “male”, “female”, or “undefined”.
HabitatA category or description of the habitat in which the dwc:Event occurred. https://dwc.tdwg.org/terms/#dwc:habitat. Textual description, example: “broadleaved forest”.
eventDateTrap period (YYYY-MM-DD/YYYY-MM-DD). https://dwc.tdwg.org/terms/#dwc:eventDate, 1237 unique values, example: ‘2022-06-03/2022-06-15’.
startDayOfYear The earliest integer day of the year on which the event occurred. http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/startDayOfYear. Numerical, ranged between 26 and 340.
endDayOfYear The latest integer day of the year on which the event occurred. http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/endDayOfYear. Numerical, ranged between 26 and 340.
samplingProtocolThe names of the methods or protocols used during an event. http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/samplingProtocol. Categorical, 12 unique values, examples: ‘pitfall traps’, ‘sweepnet’.
samplingEffort The amount of effort expended during a dwc:Event. https://dwc.tdwg.org/terms/#dwc:samplingEffort. Textual description, example: “15 traps “, “100 strokes”.
recordedByA person, group, or organization responsible for recording the original occurrence. https://dwc.tdwg.org/terms/#dwciri:recordedBy. Categorical, 29 unique values, example: “Mikhail Esin”.
identifiedByA list of names of people who assigned the taxon to the subject. https://dwc.tdwg.org/terms/#dwciri:identifiedBy. Five unique values, example: “Leonid Anisyutkin”.
Table 2. Frequencies of Blattodea and Dermaptera species in dataset.
Table 2. Frequencies of Blattodea and Dermaptera species in dataset.
SpeciesPlotsOccurrencesSpecimens
Blatta orientalis Linnaeus, 17583363
Blattella germanica (Linnaeus, 1767)2729176
Ectobius duskei Adelung, 1906610111
Ectobius lapponicus (Linnaeus, 1758)4609774918
Ectobius sylvestris (Poda, 1761)2163901473
Ectobius sp. (nymphs)101175
Forficula auricularia Linnaeus, 175819869311,419
Forficula tomis (Kolenati, 1846)1929102
Forficula sp. (nymphs)1115
Labia minor (Linnaeus, 1758)222
Labidura riparia (Pallas, 1773)448
Total736214918,362
Table 3. Contribution of different methods to collection of most abundant cockroach and earwig species in Continental region of European Russia: numbers of plots and specimens (spec.).
Table 3. Contribution of different methods to collection of most abundant cockroach and earwig species in Continental region of European Russia: numbers of plots and specimens (spec.).
Sampling ProtocolTotal Plots *E. duskeiE. lapponicusE. sylvestrisF. auriculariaF. tomis
PlotsSpec.PlotsSpec.PlotsSpec.PlotsSpec.PlotsSpec.
beer trap2720020358587303469711
pitfall traps2394105135391410510917610,967982
sweep net9911601352233148818
pan traps420018461123178100
window traps29002211184264100
hand collection261581844101300
visual observation **260023001500
Malaise traps9004291173600
litter500529000000
UV light40039171100
grooves100140011200
undefined ***220012350051811
* Where at least one specimen of cockroach or earwig was collected. ** Mainly for synanthropic cockroaches. *** Some samples which labels are without information about sampling protocol, probably hand collection or sweep net.
Table 4. Distribution of male, female, and nymph specimens of most abundant cockroach and earwig species by collection methods (numbers of specimens).
Table 4. Distribution of male, female, and nymph specimens of most abundant cockroach and earwig species by collection methods (numbers of specimens).
SpeciesMethodAdultNymphUndefined
FemaleMaleUndefined
E. lapponicusbeer trap754323815214
Malaise traps1311032
pan traps2050021
pitfall traps1293663531584618
sweep net827251560
UV light26100
window traps314162211
E. sylvestrisbeer trap5365738149
Malaise traps10000
pan traps110021
pitfall traps37010114459138
sweep net00110
UV light16000
window traps5140230
F. auriculariabeer trap1795795
Malaise traps186480
pan traps12794211
pitfall traps23981550546583382
sweep net4626471019
window traps2190110
F. tomisbeer trap10000
pitfall traps34291720
sweep net201600
Table 5. Distribution of most abundant species of cockroaches and earwigs by habitat types in Continental biogeographical region: numbers of plots and specimens (spec.).
Table 5. Distribution of most abundant species of cockroaches and earwigs by habitat types in Continental biogeographical region: numbers of plots and specimens (spec.).
TypeTotal PlotsE. duskeiE. lapponicusE. sylvestrisF. auriculariaF. tomis
PlotsSpec.PlotsSpec.PlotsSpec.PlotsSpec.PlotsSpec.
Forests (non-urban):
 Broadleaved10400611239112602615523
 Secondary 1841186263582883510436
 Birch23001445631317500
 Riparian31002123453552500
 Mixed 150210262272573142213017
 Spruce11007343540000
 Pine6100311861813593800
Woodlands1800111666230000
Clearings in forests35001634866112200
Edges of forests53002898132095300
Lines of trees in fields520026646161688322
Meadows (mesic)80004810312327484722
Meadows (dry)140010259004116000
Fields130035003135660
Gardens240044222011341711
Yards4001100323200
Urban forests5000000537700
Quarries600310500343900
Swamps90061741150000
Bogs:
Without dense tree layer7002302410000
With birch forest11007199120000
With pine forest1000340921070000
Other6538728154362211
Total97061114574918216147319811,41919102
Table 6. Sampling protocols used in different types of habitats (numbers of sample plots).
Table 6. Sampling protocols used in different types of habitats (numbers of sample plots).
Type of HabitatSampling Protocols
Beer TrapsMalaise TrapsPan TrapsPitfall TrapsWindow TrapsSweep NetOther
Forests (non-urban):
 Broadleaved4627334111
 Secondary99515480413
 Birch13016021
 Riparian10117354
 Mixed631762746
 Spruce3004301
 Pine forest190028536
Woodlands13011111
Clearings in forests132150410
Edges of forests102718097
Lines of trees in fields41046001
Meadows (mesic)1302220412
Meadows (dry)0006080
Fields00013000
Gardens00014415
Yards0002020
Urban forests0004010
Quarries0006000
Swamps0007020
Bogs:
 Without dense tree layer0005200
 With birch forest0008300
 With pine forest0006400
Other400220633
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Aleksanov, V.V.; Ruchin, A.B.; Shulaev, N.V.; Karmazina, I.O.; Lukiyanov, S.V.; Lobachev, E.A.; Nikolaeva, A.M.; Esin, M.N. Biology of Blattodea and Dermaptera in the Continental Biogeographical Region and Adjacent Areas of European Russia. Diversity 2025, 17, 66. https://doi.org/10.3390/d17010066

AMA Style

Aleksanov VV, Ruchin AB, Shulaev NV, Karmazina IO, Lukiyanov SV, Lobachev EA, Nikolaeva AM, Esin MN. Biology of Blattodea and Dermaptera in the Continental Biogeographical Region and Adjacent Areas of European Russia. Diversity. 2025; 17(1):66. https://doi.org/10.3390/d17010066

Chicago/Turabian Style

Aleksanov, Victor V., Alexander B. Ruchin, Nikolai V. Shulaev, Inessa O. Karmazina, Sergey V. Lukiyanov, Evgeniy A. Lobachev, Anna M. Nikolaeva, and Mikhail N. Esin. 2025. "Biology of Blattodea and Dermaptera in the Continental Biogeographical Region and Adjacent Areas of European Russia" Diversity 17, no. 1: 66. https://doi.org/10.3390/d17010066

APA Style

Aleksanov, V. V., Ruchin, A. B., Shulaev, N. V., Karmazina, I. O., Lukiyanov, S. V., Lobachev, E. A., Nikolaeva, A. M., & Esin, M. N. (2025). Biology of Blattodea and Dermaptera in the Continental Biogeographical Region and Adjacent Areas of European Russia. Diversity, 17(1), 66. https://doi.org/10.3390/d17010066

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop