A N N A L E S U N I V E R S I T A T I S M A R I A E C U R I E - S K Ł O D O W S K A L U B L I N P O L O N I A

A N N A L E S U N I V E R S I T A T I S M A R I A E C U R I E - S K Ł O D O W S K A L U B L I N P O L O N I A VOL. LXIV,1 SECTIO C 2009 PAWEŁ BUCZYŃSKI 1, MAREK PRZEWOŹNY 2, PRZEMYSŁAW ZIĘBA 3 1 Department of Zoology, Maria Curie-Skłodowska University, Akademicka 19, 20-033 Lublin, Poland; pawbucz@gmail.com 2 Department of Systematic Zoology, Faculty of Biology, Adam Mickiewicz University, Collegium Biologicum, Umultowska 89, 61-614 Poznań, Poland; marekprzewozny@poczta.onet.pl 3 Koncertowa 7/275, 20-843 Lublin, Poland; przemekzieba@gmail.com Aquatic beetles (Coleoptera: Adephaga, Hydrophiloidea, Staphylinoidea, Byrrhoidea) of the Polish part of the Roztocze Upland Chrząszcze wodne (Coleoptera: Adephaga, Hydrophiloidea, Staphylinoidea, Byrrhoidea) polskiej części Roztocza SUMMARY The occurrence of aquatic beetles in the Roztocze Upland was researched, which is one of the most environmentally valuable areas of the south-east Poland. During 6 years (1999 and 2002 2005), at 126 sites 138 species were recorded, from which the most interesting were: Gyrinus paykulli, Haliplus laminatus, H. sibiricus, Hydrovatus cuspidatus, Hydroporus fuscipennis, H. memnonius, Hydroporus scalesianus, Deronectes latus, Rhantus incognitus, Graphoderus bilineatus, Dytiscus circumflexus, Berosus signaticollis, Laccobius striatulus, Enochrus bicolor, E. fuscipennis, Cercyon bifenestratus, C. granarius, Hydraena excisa and Dryops viennensis. The ecological analysis of the material was conducted and evaluated with regard to significance of Roztocze for protection of aquatic beetles and defining natural values of the region. It turned out that Roztocze is characterized by rich fauna, very well preserved in most habitats and this region has a great significance of keeping qualitative wealth, assemblages and particular species of beetles in the range of the whole country and Eastern Europe. STRESZCZENIE Badano występowanie chrząszczy wodnych na Roztoczu, jednym z najcenniejszych przyrodniczo obszarów Polski południowo-wschodniej. W ciągu 6 lat (1999 i 2002 2005) na 126 stanowiskach wykazano 138 gatunków, z których najbardziej interesujące były: Gyrinus paykulli, Haliplus laminatus, H. sibiricus, Hydrovatus cuspidatus, Hydroporus fuscipennis, H. memnonius, Hydropo-

88 PAWEŁ BUCZYŃSKI, MAREK PRZEWOŹNY, PRZEMYSŁAW ZIĘBA rus scalesianus, Deronectes latus, Rhantus incognitus, Graphoderus bilineatus, Dytiscus circumflexus, Berosus signaticollis, Laccobius striatulus, Enochrus bicolor, E. fuscipennis, Cercyon bifenestratus, C. granarius, Hydraena excisa i Dryops viennensis. Przeprowadzono analizę ekologiczną materiału oraz oceniono go pod kątem znaczenia Roztocza dla ochrony chrząszczy wodnych i określenia walorów przyrodniczych regionu. Okazało się, że Roztocze cechuje fauna bogata, bardzo dobrze zachowana w większości środowisk, i że ten region ma duże znaczenie dla zachowania bogactwa jakościowego, zgrupowań i poszczególnych gatunków chrząszczy w skali całego kraju i Europy Środkowo-Wschodniej. K e y w o r d s: Coleoptera, aquatic beetles, Poland, Roztocze Upland, faunistics, ecology, assemblage, evaluation, protection INTRODUCTION The literature on aquatic beetles of Poland is relatively rich, especially for most examined: Dytiscidae and Hydrophilidae. But one can sense shortage of complex studies showing in a wide aspect composition and functioning of local and regional faunas. Such analyses are particularly important to learn relations between beetles and their habitats; also they significantly increase knowledge of zoogeographic location of many species. In the last decades there occurred some number of such studies concerning the Polish lowland (3, 6, 15, 18, 26, 38, 44, 51); there is also a bit older study on the Karkonosze Mts. (4). It gives some, though still incomplete, picture of the situation in these areas. But still there is lack of such studies on highlands and uplands stretching through southern Poland, except for data from the Lublin Upland (16). The goal that authors had while starting the research, and whose results are presented in this work, was to carry out a detailed analysis of the coleopterofauna of Roztocze. This upland was regarded as a particularly rewarding subject of such studies and one of the most environmentally interesting regions of Poland because of a good preservation state of environment and geographical location (zone borderland of upland valleys and highlands, on the way of migration fauna from the south-eastern Europe). The data about aquatic beetles of Roztocze is rich enough. However, most of them come from the beginning of the 20 th century: until today the main source of information has been Tenenbaum s works (59, 60). Next, a bigger number of data have come with monographic studies of beetles of Poland (21, 22, 23, 28, 29) and further contributions (8, 10, 14, 40, 52). But these are faunistic and fragmentary works. There is still lack of full analysis: with taking into consideration all water habitats, assemblages of beetles settling them, their significance for keeping specific richness and for preservation of endangered species. The goal of the authors is exactly this kind of analysis. Defining borders of Roztocze has been based on the most generally used, geographical regionalisation by Kondracki (37) not on division into faunistic regions used in The Catalogue of Polish Fauna (21), which originally emerged as temporary and is very inaccurate and greatly differs from results of geographical research (Fig. 1). STUDY AREA Roztocze is an upland situated in south-eastern Poland and north-western Ukraine. It is a narrow hump of creataceous rocks, partly with Miocene sandstones, with absolute heights to over 380 m above sea level and relative to 60 80 m. The Polish part of Roztocze covers the area of about 2200 km 2 and is divided into Roztocze: Western, Central and Eastern. Western Roztocze is situated within loess cover, in the rest of mesoregions the area is covered by limestone and sand formations. The lay of the land is dominated by top parts of the uplands with monochromatic and flat

AQUATIC BEETLES (COLEOPTERA: ADEPHAGA, HYDROPHILOIDEA, STAPHYLINOIDEA... 89 Figure 1. The boundaries of the Roztocze Upland: A after the Catalogus faunae Poloniae, B in the geographical division by Kondracki (2000) surfaces, made of cretaceous rocks; river valleys are filled with Tertiary sands. Roztocze is characterized by high woodiness. Forest complexes are thick and of a big degree of natural state. A system of surface waters in Roztocze belongs to very rare in Poland, which results from a considerable depth on which ground waters are situated: on top parts of uplands even to over 80 m. Therefore most surface waters are located in river valleys. There are numerous springs, whose waters are carried by streams and rivers forming basins: the Tanew, Wieprz and the Sołokija. Next to them there occur small water bodies, mostly being formed because of river overflows or infiltration of ground waters. In forests there are numerous peat bogs and local marshes. As for anthropogenic waters, the biggest area is occupied by fish ponds (20, 27, 37, 42). Locally small dam reservoirs and water bodies in sandpits are present. Roztocze is characterized by one of the smallest average year states of the sky (64 66%). Average year temperature is 6.9 7.6 C, average temperature in July: 17.0 17.7 C. A vegetative period lasts approximately 205 207 days. Average yearly rainfall reaches values from low to medium in the country scale, in various parts of the region is from 583 to 746 mm (20). The following rivers are being monitored by the Provincial Inspectorate of Environment Protection in Lublin: the Wieprz, Biała Łada, Tanew, Sołokija and the Por. During conducting the research, apart from spring segments, they were classified in a general categorization to the 3rd category of cleanliness or unclassified waters (in an old scale covering categories I III and unclassified waters). Declassing factors were mainly physiochemical (suspension, oxidization, phosphorus compounds) and bacteriological parameters. However, hydrobiological indicators were better generally since, except the Sołokija, they were included within II III category (1, 19).

90 PAWEŁ BUCZYŃSKI, MAREK PRZEWOŹNY, PRZEMYSŁAW ZIĘBA RESEARCH SITES The material was collected from 126 sites, whose list is given below. There were distinguished sites located in national (N.P.) and landscape parks (L.P.): * The Roztoczański N.P., # Szczebrzeszyński L.P., & L.P. of Solska Forest, X Krasnobrodzki L.P., ^ Southern-Roztocze L.P. 1. Wólka Batorska (UTM: FB03), meadow ditch; 2. Zagrody (FB11), river Biała Łada; 3. Zagrody (FB11), side spring of Biała Łada (limnocrene); 4. Zagrody (FB11) a small temporary water body on the edge of afforestation and meadows; 5. Goraj (FB11), fish ponds; 6. Goraj (FB11), r. Biała Łada; 7. Goraj (FB11), spring stream; 8. Stara Wieś (FB21), side spring of Biała Łada (limnocrene); 9. Stara Wieś (FB21), r. Biała Łada; 10. Żurawie (FB22), r. Por; 11. Podlesie Małe (FB22) #, spring (helocrene); 12. Podlesie Małe (FB22) #, fish pond; 13. Zaporze (FB22) #, r. Por; 14. Radecznica (FB22) #, r. Gorajec; 15. Stara Wieś (FB22) #, r. Gorajec; 16. Stara Wieś (FB22) #, meadow canal; 17. Czarnystok (FB31) #, r. Gorajec; 18. Czarnystok (FB31) #, ditch in the valley of Gorajec; 19. Ruś (FB20) #, r. Gorajec; 20. Ruś (FB20) #, stream with no name (tributary of Gorajec); 21. Ruś (FB20) #, a small temporary water body in alder swamp in the valley of Gorajec; 22. Ignatówka (FB20), water bodies in sandpit, 23. Panasówka (FB30) #, dystrophic water body W from the village; 24. Tereszpol Kukiełki (FB30) #, village pond; 25. Szczebrzeszyn (FB31) #, side spring of Wieprz (limnocrene); 26. Szczebrzeszyn (FB31) #, r. Wieprz; 27. Brody Małe (FB41) #, regulated meadow stream in the valley of Wieprz; 28. Brody Małe (FB41) #, r. Wieprz; 29. Brody Małe (FB41) #, oxbows of Wieprz; 30. Brody Małe (FB41) #, temporary water bodies in the valley of Wieprz; 31. Żurawnica (FB31) #, r. Wieprz; 32. Kosobudy (FB40)*, dystrophic water body; 33. Wywłoczka (FB30) #, side spring of Wieprz (limnocrene); 34. Zwierzyniec (FB30), r. Wieprz in the city park; 35. Zwierzyniec (FB30), a pond with church on water; 36. Zwierzyniec (FB30)*, spring near the Echo ponds; 37. Zwierzyniec (FB30)*, inforest canal supplying the Echo ponds; 38. Zwierzyniec (FB30)*, the Echo ponds; 39. Zwierzyniec (FB40), dystrophic water body in the range Płowe Lake; 40. Zwierzyniec Rudka (FB30), reservoir on Wieprz; 41. Zwierzyniec Rudka (FB30), r. Wieprz lower down the reservoir; 42. Obrocz (FB40)*, side spring of Wieprz (rheolimnocrene); 43. Obrocz (FB40)*, r. Wieprz; 44. Obrocz (FB40)*, temporary swamp in the valley of Wieprz; 45. Obrocz (FB40)*, alder swamp in the valley of Wieprz; 46. Roztoczański N.P. (FB40)*, r. Wieprz near Stokowa Góra; 47. Roztoczański N.P. (FB40)*, oxbow of Wieprz near Stokowa Góra; 48. Roztoczański N.P. (FB40)*, a filled with water fallen willow tree in marshy meadow near Stokowa Góra; 49. Bondyrz (FB40), r. Wieprz; 50. Bondyrz (FB40), oxbow of Wieprz; 51. Guciów (FB40), r. Wieprz; 52. Guciów (FB40), temporary meadow water body in the valley of Wieprz; 53. Roztoczański N.P. (FB40)*, canal flowing out of Czarny Staw (Black Pond); 54. Roztoczański

AQUATIC BEETLES (COLEOPTERA: ADEPHAGA, HYDROPHILOIDEA, STAPHYLINOIDEA... 91 N.P. (FB40)*, Czarny Staw (Black Pond); 55. Roztoczański N.P. (FB40)*, peaty holes in the woods near Czarny Staw; 56. Roztoczański N.P. (FB40)*, r. Świerszcz above Czarny Staw; 57. Roztoczański N.P. (FB40)*, Florianecki Lake; 58. Roztoczański N.P. (FB40)*, protection ground Florianka, dept. 316, dystrophic reservoir; 59. Roztoczański N.P. (FB40)*, protection ground Kruglik, swamps near old beaver lodges by the Wygoda road; 60. Majdan Kasztelański (FA49), r. Krupiec by the road to Górecko Kościelne; 61. Majdan Kasztelański (FA49), r. Szum by the road to Górecko Kościelne; 62. Majdan Kasztelański (FA49), pond near a mill; 63. Majdan Kasztelański (FA49), ditch in swamp forest; 64. Majdan Kasztelański (FA49), inforest peat bog S from the village; 65. Górniki Stare (FA49), stream in sandpit; 66. Górniki Stare (FA49), reservoirs in sandpit; 67. Józefów Roztoczański (FA49), r. Świerz by the Zwierzyniec-Józefów road; 68. Józefów Roztoczański (FA49), reservoir on Świerz near Senderka forester s lodge, 69. Józefów Roztoczański (FA49), spring pond of Krupiec; 70. Józefów Roztoczański (FA49), Krupiec at spring; 71. Józefów Roztoczański (FA49), trickles by the Krupiec spring; 72. Górecko Stare (FA59), r. Szum; 73. Górecko Stare (FA59), a small pond by Szum; 74. Górecko Stare (FA59), a small water body in alder swamp in the valley of Szum; 75. Górecko Stare (FA59), dam reservoir on Szum below nature reserve Szum ; 76. Tarnowola (FA49), dystrophic water body; 77. Tarnowola (FA49), alder swamp; 78. Tarnowola (FA49), ditch on the edge of peat bog; 79. Tarnowola (FA49), peat bog; 80. Morgi (FA49), range Jęzior, peaty dystrophic water body; 81. Morgi (FA49), Jęzior, fen; 82. Józefów (FA49), reservoir by springs of Niepryszka; 83. Józefów (FA49), water body in sandpit; 84. Długi Kąt (FA59), water bodies in sandpit; 85. Hamernia (FA59), peat bog SE from the village; 86. Nowiny (FA59), side spring of Sopot (limnocrene); 87. res. Czartowe Pole (FA59) &, r. Sopot above chutes; 88. res. Czartowe Pole (FA59) &, r. Sopot, zone with chutes; 89. Majdan Sopocki (FA59), r. Sopot above the reservoir; 90. Majdan Sopocki (FA59), reservoir on Sopot; 91. Ciotusza Nowa (FA59), stream with no name (tributary of Sopot); 92. Husiny (FA59) x, spring of Sopot (rheolimnocrene); 93. Husiny (FA59) x, Sopot 500 m from springs; 94. Namule (FB50) x, spring pond; 95. Hutki (FB50) x, fish pond; 96. Hutki (FB50) x, alder swamp by the Hutki-Krasnobród road; 97. Majdan Wielki (FB60), r. Wieprz; 98. Tarnawatka (FA69), inflow canal in the complex of fish ponds; 99. Tarnawatka (FA69), alder swamp near fish ponds; 100. Tarnawatka (FA69), the Pasternik pond; 101. Tarnawatka (FA69), swamp behind Pasternik; 102. Tarnawatka Tartak (FA79), r. Wieprz; 103. Dąbrowa Tarnawacka (FA79), Uroczysko Dąbrowa, dystrophic water body; 104. Dąbrowa Tarnawacka (FA79), Uroczysko Dąbrowa, outlet from dystrophic water body; 105. Dąbrowa Tarnawacka (FA79), Uroczysko Dąbrowa, ruts on a forest path; 106. Dąbrowa Tomaszowska (FA79), alder swamp; 107. Wieprzów Ordynacki (FA79), for many years not restocked ponds and bordering small temporary water bodies (spring reservoirs of Wieprz); 108. Susiec (FA58) &,

92 PAWEŁ BUCZYŃSKI, MAREK PRZEWOŹNY, PRZEMYSŁAW ZIĘBA Morskie Oko (spring pond of Łosiniecki stream); 109. Susiec (FA58) &, stream Jeleń; 110. Wólka Łosiniecka (FA68), r. Olszanka; 111. Kunki (FA59) x, peat bog; 112. Kunki (FA59) x, water body on fen; 113. Zawadki (FA69), spring of stream with no name (tributary of Olszanka); 114. Zawadki (FA69), stream with no name (tributary of Olszanka); 115. Wioska (FA59), village pond; 116. Rebizanty (FA58) &, r. Tanew in res. Nad Tanwią ( Szumy ); 117. Huta Szumy (FA58) &, r. Tanew; 118. Huta Szumy (FA58) &, a small reservoir with Sphagnum in the valley of Tanew; 119. Żyłka, ponds in ecological farmland Leliszka ; 120. Lipsko (FA68), stream (tributary of Tanew); 121. Lipsko (FA68), r. Tanew; 122. Lipsko (FA68), dam of stream in alder swamp (tributary of Tanew); 123. Dębiny (FA67)^, spring of Tanew (rheolimnocrene); 124. Dębiny (FA67)^, temporary forest swamp; 125. Dębiny (FA67)^, peat bog; 126. Huta Złomy (FA67)^, peat bog (range Kobyle Jezioro). According to The Catalogue of Polish Fauna (Burakowski et al. 1976), research sites are situated in the area of: The Lublin Upland (1 5), Roztocze (6 119), the Sandomierz Lowland (120 126). MATERIAL AND METHODS The material was collected in the years: 1999 (part of peat bogs) and 2002 2005 (systematic research of all environments). The main method was catching imagines with a hydrobiological scoop; about 500 samples were collected. From scoop samples were gained the easiest to determine larvae Dytiscus spp. and Cybister lateralimarginalis. Sporadically there were also used: bottle traps with bait (lyophilized commercial feed for cats) (20 samples), light traps (10 samples) and collecting beetles from singled out ones situated on stones and wood in water. 6,284 imagines were collected (6,133 with hydrobiological scoop, 4 with hand picking method, 147 with light traps, 172 with bottle traps) and 20 larvae (all with scoop). Evidence collection and research documentation are located in authors collections. Division of beetles into ecological elements was accepted in accordance with Przewoźny et al. (51), and of unclassified species in this study on the basis of monographic analyses of coleopterofauna of Poland (28, 29, 65) and results of own studies. In the faunistic-ecological analysis of the material there were used factors of: dominance, frequency, qualitative similarity of Jaccard, Biesiadka s formula of quantitative similarity (5). Division of species with regard to values of dominance indicator has been accepted according to Trojan (63). In sozological analyses there were used: protected species (55), Red list of beetles of Poland (47), Red list of beetles of Lublin province (58), list of umbrella species (25). On the basis of these sources, in the collected material there were distinguished species: a) endangered in the country scale, of high importance ( VU), giving it 5 points; b) endangered in the country scale, of low importance (categories LC and NT) 4 points; c) endangered in the region scale only, of high importance 3 points; d) endangered in the region scale only, of low importance 2 points; e) having only indication significance 1 point. Each species was taken into account only once, considering only the highest from the groups, which it belonged to. Summing up resulting from here scoring for particular sites and habitats, the data of high importance for specific protection of beetles were obtained.

AQUATIC BEETLES (COLEOPTERA: ADEPHAGA, HYDROPHILOIDEA, STAPHYLINOIDEA... 93 RESULTS In the collected material 138 species were distinguished. Information about their occurrence at particular sites and habitats are given in Table 1. Below there are given more detailed data about stating species particularly interesting due to reasons: zoogeographic, faunistic and sozological. If not given differently, the material was collected with scoop. Gyrinus paykulli 84 (16 X 03 and 14 X 2003, by 1 ex.); 97 (14 X 03, 1 ex.). Caught in coastal zones of water bodies, along with Gyrinus marinus and G. natator. Haliplus laminatus 7 (18 IX 02, 1 ex.); 40 (16 IX 02, 3 exx., 15 IX 03, 1 ex., 13 X 03, 2 exx.); 90 (12 VIII 03, 1 ex). Species caught in a small number of specimens, associated with streams and dam reservoirs. Haliplus sibiricus (=H. wehnckei Gerh.) 2 (13 VIII 03, 1 ex.); 5 (16 VIII 03, 1 ex); 6 (18 X 02, 1 ex., 16 X 02, 1 ex.); 7 (18 X 02, 3 exx.); 8 (13 VIII 03, 1 ex.); 28 (12 V 03, 1 ex., 14 VII 03, 1 ex., 11 VIII 03, 10 exx., 15 IX 03, 1 ex., 13 X 03, 1 ex.); 29 (16 IX 02, 1 ex.); 31 (16 VI 03, 1 ex., 14 VII 03, 2 exx.); 38 (15 IX 03, 1 ex.); 39 (15 IX 03, 1 ex.); 40 (16 IX 02, 14 exx., 14 X 02, 1 ex., 14 VII 03, 6 exx., 15 IX 03, 6 exx.); 43 (14 VII 03, 1 ex.); 59 (15 IV 03, 2 exx.); 68 (16 X 02, 1 ex.; 16 VI 03, 3 exx.); 69 (19 VI 02, 2 exx., 17 IX 03, 2 exx.); 78 (8 VI 04, 1 ex.); 82 (17 IX 02, 2 exx., 17 VI 03, 6 exx., 13 VIII 03, 7 exx., 14 X 03, 6 exx.); 90 (15 VII 03, 19 exx.); 93 (17 IX 92, 1 ex., 12 VIII 03, 15 exx., 16 IX 03, 11 exx.); 94 (16 IV 03, 1 ex., 13 V 03, 5 exx., 15 VII 03, 9 exx., 16 IX 03, 2 exx., 14 X 03, 8 exx.); 97 (13 V 03, 1 ex., 16 IX 03, 1 ex.); 105 (14 X 03, 1 ex.); 108 (17 IX 02, 6 exx.). Wide- -spread species inhabiting: springs, streams, rivers and water bodies connected with them (ponds, reservoirs). In part of sites the most numerous representative Haliplidae. Hydrovatus cuspidatus 38 (14 VIII 03, 2 exx., 15 IX 03, 1 ex.). Caught only in the Echo ponds in Zwierzyniec, occurring in silted up rushes dominated by Phragmites australis and Typha latifolia. Hydroporus fuscipennis 23 (3 VI 05, 1 ex.); 79 (14 IX 03, 1 ex.). Caught in a dystrophic water body in Panasówka and in damp Sphagnum in peat bog in Tarnowola. Hydroporus memnonius 48 (16 IX 02, 3 exx.); 125 (17 VI 03, 2 exx.). Caught in the depths of Sphagnum puddle in temporary peat bog and among decaying leaves in a small water body in the valley of the Wieprz. Hydroporus scalesianus 118 (8 VI 04, 1 ex.). Caught in damp Sphagnum in a peaty edge of the Tanew oxbow in Huta Szumy. Deronectes latus 34 (14 IX 02, 1 ex., 16 VI 03, 1 ex., 11 VIII 03, 8 exx., 15 IX 03, 1 ex., 13 X 03, 1 ex.); 72 (17 IX 03, 20 exx., 15 X 03, 10 exx.);

94 PAWEŁ BUCZYŃSKI, MAREK PRZEWOŹNY, PRZEMYSŁAW ZIĘBA Table 1. Aquatic beetles (Coleoptera) collected in the Roztocze Upland in the years 1999 2005. Biotopes: A springs, B streams, C rivers, D ditches and canals, E dam reservoirs, F oxbows, G ponds, H meadow small water bodies, I forest small water bodies, J sand pits, K fens, L Sphagnum peat bogs. N number of specimens collected, D dominance (%), F frequency (%) Species Study sites Biotopes N D F A B C D E F G H I J K L Gyrinidae 1. Gyrinus marinus Gyll. 22,24,43,84,95,98 1 6 42 23 72 1.14 1.8 2. G. minutus Fabr. 22 2 2 0.03 0.2 3. G. natator (L.) 15,19,28,34,37,38,43,49,54,67,84,88,97, 103,117 85 5 10 2 1 103 1.63 4.4 4. G. paykulli Ochs 84,97 1 2 3 0.05 0.6 5. G. substriatus Steph. 2, 9,13-15,19,28,34,37,38,43,49,53,54,56, 59,67,69,70,87,89,97,109,110,116,117,121 6 3 210 23 10 1 253 4.01 8.6 6. Orectochilus villosus (O.F. Müll.) 6,14,15,19,26,38,31,34,88,97,116,117,121 224 224 3.55 6.4 Haliplidae 7. Brychius elevatus (Panz.) 3,28,31,34,41,43,116 19 88 107 1.70 4.6 8. Haliplus confinis Steph. 38,39 1 7 8 0.13 0.6 9. H. flavicollis Sturm 5,24,28,35,38-40,57,66,69,73,75,84,90,93, 95,112 4 8 126 251 7 1 397 6.30 9.0 10. H. fluviatilis Aubé 5,19,22,28,41,43,93,97 22 9 1 32 0.51 3.0 11. H. heydeni Wehncke 7,38,39,48,57,59,66,68,69,76,80,82,93,96,97, 102, 106,121 1 1 22 4 4 21 1 54 0.86 5.2 12. H. immaculatus Gerh. 7,90,94 2 1 2 5 0.08 0.8 13. H. laminatus (Schall.) 7,40,90 1 7 8 0.13 1.0 14. H. lineatocollis (Marsh.) 2,7-9,68-70,72,92,93 62 1 6 1 70 1.11 3.6 15. H. obliquus (Fabr) 35,38,39,69 2 5 4 11 0.17 0.8 16. H. ruficollis (DeG.) 17. H. sibiricus Motsh. 6,21,24,31,38,39,49,57,62,69,76-78,80,82, 84,96,97,103,104 2,5-8,28,29,31,38-40,43,59,68,69, 78,82,90,93, 94,97,105,108 8 1 4 1 11 27 2 2 56 0.89 5.0 36 3 50 71 1 3 5 1 170 2.70 8.8 18. H. varius Nic. 39 1 1 0.02 0.2

AQUATIC BEETLES (COLEOPTERA: ADEPHAGA, HYDROPHILOIDEA, STAPHYLINOIDEA... 95 19. Peltodytes caesus (Duft.) 39 1 1 0.02 0.2 Noteridae 20. Noterus clavicornis (DeG.) 5,12,22-24,38,57,84,95,96,100,112 31 7 8 3 44 0.70 5.6 21. N. crassicornis (O.F. Müll.) 5,7,12,22-24,29,35,38-40,44,50,57-59,66, 76,79-81,84,85,90,94,96, 98,100,102,106, 107,111,112,118, 119,125,126 Dytiscidae 1 9 20 1 5 3 117 9 46 17 20 24 272 4.31 16.0 22. Agabus affinis (Payk.) 79,85 3 3 0.05 0.6 23. A. bipustulatus (L.) 4,6,13,24,48,55,69,102,105 2 3 1 3 7 16 0.25 2.0 24. A. congener (Thunb.) 64,79,103,109,117,118,125 1 1 1 1 3 7 0.11 1.4 25. A. guttatus (Payk.) 71,86 2 2 0.03 0.4 26. A. paludosus (Fabr.) 6,68,70,91,93,120 2 5 1 8 0.13 1.4 27. A. sturmii (Gyll.) 6,8,24,28,31,37,39,42,51,57,59,69,73,74, 79,82,84, 91,93,94,114,120, 125,126 50 5 13 1 4 3 6 2 6 90 1.43 7.2 28. A. undulatus (Schrank) 23,58,77,80,96,120 1 8 9 0.14 1.2 29. Ilybius aenescens Thoms. 63,80,81,111 1 1 4 6 0.10 0.8 30. I. ater (DeG.) 19,28,38,50,84,107 2 2 3 1 8 0.13 1.2 31. I. fenestratus (Fabr.) 5,22,24,39,40,84,90,98,100,107,112 1 11 53 1 4 1 71 1.13 4.0 32. I. fuliginosus (Fabr.) 5,6,14,15,19,20,28,31,34,37,38,40,43,66, 68,78,82, 84,93,97,108,117,120-122 3 8 50 3 5 3 2 1 75 1.19 8.8 33. I. guttiger (Gyll.) 20,38,81,118,121 1 1 1 1 1 5 0.08 1.0 34. I. neglectus (Er.) 35,105 1 1 2 0.03 0.4 35. I. quadriguttatus (Lacord.) 17,39,50,52,79,103,117,121 3 1 1 4 1 10 0.16 1.8 36. I. similis Thoms. 38 2 2 0.03 0.2 37. I. subaeneus Er. 38,43,84,90,93,107,112 2 1 10 1 1 15 0.24 1.8 38. Platambus maculatus (L.) 1,2,6,9,14,15,19,28,31,34,37,40,49,61,72, 86-89,97, 105,116,117,121 1 268 6 1 1 277 4.39 15.0 39. Colymbetes fuscus (L.) 4,22,76,80,107,108 1 1 1 2 1 6 0.10 1.2 40. C. paykulli Er. 82,97 1 1 2 0.03 0.4 41. C. striatus (L.) 126 1 1 0.02 0.2 42. Rhantus exsoletus (Forst) 22,23,38,57,84,112 5 1 2 7 15 0.24 1.6 43. R. frontalis (Marsh.) 5,23,38 4 1 5 0.08 0.6

96 PAWEŁ BUCZYŃSKI, MAREK PRZEWOŹNY, PRZEMYSŁAW ZIĘBA Species Study sites Biotopes N D F A B C D E F G H I J K L 44. R. grapii (Gyll.) 5,29,38,43,68,79,81,82 1 2 1 8 1 4 17 0.27 1.8 45. R. incognitus R. Scholz 17,121 2 2 0.03 0.4 46. R. latitans (Sharp) 5,103 1 1 2 0.03 0.4 47. R. notaticollis (Aubé) 82,116 1 1 2 0.03 0.2 48. R. suturalis (MacL.) 4,6,7,12,13,22,24,38,39,49,57,68, 76,80,81,90,93, 97,100,102,105,108 4 9 33 2 15 1 5 5 1 75 1.19 6.6 49. R. suturellus (Harr.) 85,111 4 4 0.06 0.6 50. Liopterus haemorrhoidalis (Fabr.) 5,23,38,85,96 5 3 1 9 0.14 1.4 51. Acilius canaliculatus (Nic.) 19,22-24,28,31,34,38,39,49,57,67,68,73, 76,80,84,93,94,97,99,100,103,107,108, 111,116,121,126 3 29 8 36 10 9 2 97 1.54 10.4 52. A. sulcatus (L.) 24,38,69,84,107,108 3 8 2 15 0.24 1.6 53. Graphoderus bilineatus (DeG.) 38 1 1 0.02 0.2 54. G. cinereus (L.) 23,28,80,85,107 1 17 2 1 21 0.33 1.0 55. G. zonatus (Hoppe) 80,81,111 3 1 1 5 0.08 0.8 56. Cybister laterimarginalis (DeG.) 35,38,107 11 11 0.17 1.0 57. D. circumcinctus (Ahr.) 4,28,107,115 1 3 1 5 0.08 0.8 58. Dytiscus circumflexus Fabr. 107 2 2 0.03 0.4 59. D. dimidiatus Bergstr. 19,28,34,85,93,107 7 26 1 34 0.54 1.8 60. D. marginalis L. 61. Hydaticus seminiger (DeG.) 2,4,19,23,28,66,76,87,93,104,107,108,112, 116, 121,122 13,19,23,28,50,52,68,80,81,84,85,93,94, 96,100,107 1 1 7 1 51 3 2 2 1 69 1.09 3.6 1 4 2 1 5 1 3 5 1 3 26 0.41 3.6 62. H. transversalis (Pont.) 5,38,93,107 1 6 7 0.11 1.0 63. Bidessus unistriatus (Schrank) 80 1 1 0.02 0.2 64. Hydroglyphus geminus (Fabr.) 5,7,15,22,24,31,38-40,43,49,57,62,66,79, 83-85,91,93,94,101,126 1 14 77 1 23 7 5 128 2.03 6.4 65. Deronectes latus (Steph.) 34,72,121 43 43 0.68 1.6 66. Graptodytes granularis (L.) 43,80,81,124 1 2 5 8 0.13 0.8

AQUATIC BEETLES (COLEOPTERA: ADEPHAGA, HYDROPHILOIDEA, STAPHYLINOIDEA... 97 67. G. pictus (Fabr.) 68. Hydroporus angustatus Sturm 2,5,14,16,19,30,39,43,48,57,68,73,93,97, 102,112 7,19,52,68,78,80,84,93,94,96,98,102,121, 125 16 1 13 5 3 1 40 0.63 5.2 2 1 7 1 1 1 4 1 2 20 0.32 3.2 69. H. erythrocephalus (L.) 39,58,66,78,85,86,96,97 1 6 2 5 14 0.22 1.6 70. H. fuscipennis Schaum 23,79 1 1 2 0.03 0.4 71. H. incognitus Sharp 4,29,30,45,48,55,60,69,79,86,94,96,102, 103,105,125 5 2 1 12 25 9 54 0.86 4.0 72. H. memnonius Nic. 48,125 3 2 5 0.08 0.4 73. H. obscurus Sturm 64,79,81,85,111,118,125,126 1 2 45 48 0.76 3.4 74. H. palustris (L.) 4,6,7,14,17,19-21,30,38,39,43,47,48,50, 69,78, 89,93,96,97,102,103,105,120,125 13 4 20 29 1 23 121 5 216 3.43 7.6 75. H. planus (Fabr.) 63,79,81,93,125 2 1 3 6 0.10 1.0 76. H. scalesianus Steph. 118 1 1 0.02 0.2 77. H. striola (Gyll.) 31,38,47,78,80,85,93,102,111,126 3 3 1 1 8 16 0.25 2.8 78. H. tristis (Payk.) 5,21,22,29,38,58,63,68,79,84,85,93,111, 118,124-126 11 4 1 51 2 11 2 78 160 2.54 5.6 79. H. umbrosus (Gyll.) 52,79,81,90,93,96,105,107,118,125 1 1 1 10 2 1 4 20 0.32 2.2 80. Porhydrus lineatus (Fabr.) 28,38,57,73,80,84,93,97,103 5 9 4 1 19 0.30 2.6 81. Suphrodytes dorsalis (Fabr.) 5,78,80,81,124 1 2 3 1 7 0.11 1.2 82. Hydrovatus cuspidatus (Kunze) 38 3 3 0.05 0.4 83. Hygrotus decoratus (Gyll.) 7,52,58,78,89,96,106 1 1 6 9 2 19 0.30 1.6 84. H. impressopunctatus (Schall.) 5-7,52,80,81,84,85,100,126 1 1 4 1 7 2 4 3 23 0.36 2.8 85. H. inaequalis (Fabr.) 86. Hyphydrus ovatus (L.) 7,24,30,38,39,43,58,73,77,80,84,85,93,96,97,1 00,102,111,122 5,19,22,35,38-40,48,49,51,57,58,66,69,73, 80,82, 83,93,97,98,102,112 10 1 12 1 13 2 45 0.71 5.6 1 9 2 2 35 17 4 1 71 1.13 7.2 87. Laccophilus hyalinus (De G.) 5,35,40,62,84,90,93,95,97,98 20 2 22 76 3 113 1.79 4.0 88. L. minutus (L.) 13,14,19,22,24,31,38-40,51,57,66, 73, 82-85,93,95,97,100,108,112 6 17 2 17 8 2 1 53 0.84 6.8 89. L. poecilus Klug 38 1 1 0.02 0.2 Helophoridae 90. Helophorus aequalis Thoms. 117 1 1 0.02 0.2

98 PAWEŁ BUCZYŃSKI, MAREK PRZEWOŹNY, PRZEMYSŁAW ZIĘBA Species Study sites Biotopes N D F A B C D E F G H I J K L 91. H. dorsalis (Marsh.) 8 1 1 0.02 0.2 92. H. flavipes Fabr. 8,34,38,42,49,50,52,79,81,84,93,102,103, 105,116, 118 3 7 1 1 5 36 1 4 4 64 1.02 3.8 93. H. grandis Ill. 38,50,69 1 1 2 4 0.06 0.6 94. H. granularis (L.) 5,7,8,14,15,22,28,30-32,36,38-40,52,59,66,68, 69,78,79,81-85,90,91,93,96,97,103,105,108 15 39 47 13 56 7 47 30 1 4 259 4.11 12.0 95. H. griseus Herbst 85 1 1 0.02 0.2 96. H. laticollis Thoms. 121,124 1 1 2 0.03 0.4 97. H. minutus Fabr. 5-7,15,22,24,38,57,84,102 4 3 8 6 21 0.33 2.4 98. H. strigifrons (Thoms.) 48,50,118 1 1 3 5 0.08 0.6 Hydrochidae 99. Hydrochus brevis (Herbst) 118 1 1 0.02 0.2 100. H. crenatus (Fabr.) 112 1 1 0.02 0.2 Hydrophilidae 101. Anacaena limbata (Fabr.) 5,9,10,14,18,28,30,40,44,48-50,97,102,118 22 1 1 1 10 8 1 44 0.70 4.4 102. A. lutescens (Steph.) 5,7-9,14,15,17,19,21-24,27,28,30,31,33, 34,37-39, 44,48-50,57-59,62, 64-68,72,74, 76,78,79,82,84-90,93,96,97,102,103,105, 110-113,116-118,124-126 13 3 286 3 23 4 33 84 172 13 7 60 701 11.12 28.2 103. Berosus luridus (L.) 39,57,68,84,103,104,111,112 1 1 1 6 1 11 1 22 0.35 2.4 104. B. signaticollis (Charp.) 85 1 1 0.02 0.2 105. Cymbiodyta marginella (Fabr.) 31 1 1 0.02 0.2 106. Enochrus affinis (Thunb.) 5,13,17,22-24,31,38,43,58,63,64,68,76, 78-80, 82,84,85,91,93,94,108,112,125,126 6 1 5 3 16 14 8 1 45 99 1.57 8.4 107. E. bicolor (Fabr.) 100 1 1 0.02 0.2 108. E. coarctatus (Gredl.) 5,28,38,63,80,82,98,100,118,126 1 2 1 4 2 2 2 14 0.22 2.0 109. E. fuscipennis (Thoms.) 5 3 3 0.05 0.2 110. E. melanocephalus (Oliv.) 5,38,90 6 2 8 0.13 0.8 111. E. ochropterus (Marsh.) 52,59,81,85,111 1 2 2 5 10 0.16 1.2 112. E. quadripunctatus (Herbst) 5,24,34,35,38,40,48,57,68,79,80,93,97, 117,118,126 4 3 7 1 2 2 19 0.30 3.4 113. E. testaceus (Fabr.) 12,22,38,84,94,100 1 4 19 24 0.38 2.0

AQUATIC BEETLES (COLEOPTERA: ADEPHAGA, HYDROPHILOIDEA, STAPHYLINOIDEA... 99 114. Helochares obscurus (O. F. Müll.) 115. Hydrobius fuscipes (L.) 5,15,22-24,28,31,38,39,49,58,68,80,81,84, 85,93,107,108,112,117,126 5,7,11,13,14,21,48,68,79,85,86,91,93,94, 97,103, 111,118,120 1 8 5 19 19 9 6 5 72 1.14 7.6 5 4 12 1 23 1 6 5 57 0.90 4.8 116. Hydrochara caraboides (L.) 3,5,23,38,39,52,69,80,84,93,96,102,107,108 5 4 33 3 4 3 52 0.82 4.0 117. Hydrophilus aterrimus (Eschch.) 19,38,80 1 1 1 3 0.05 0.6 118. Laccobius bipunctatus (Fabr.) 5,8,15,28,30,42,43,59,75,86,90,120 3 1 8 5 6 1 1 25 0.40 2.6 119. L. minutus (L.) 5,9,13,15,22,24,38,40,43,44,73,82,84,90, 91,93,95,112,115 1 8 75 16 1 5 1 107 1.70 5.8 120. L. striatulus (Fabr.) 68,82,93 1 2 3 0.05 0.6 121. Coelostoma orbiculare (Fabr.) 23,24,57,81,118 4 3 1 1 9 0.14 1.0 122. Cercyon bifenestratus Küst. 5,117 2 13 15 0.24 0.4 123. C. convexiusculus Steph. 48,49,117,118 2 11 2 15 0.24 1.2 124. C. granarius Er. 15 1 1 0.02 0.2 125. C. marinus Thoms. 5,13,97,117 4 20 24 0.38 0.8 126. C. tristis (Ill.) 52 1 1 0.02 0.2 127. C. ustulatus (Preyssl.) 15,28 2 2 0.03 0.4 Hydraenidae 128. Hydraena excisa Kiesenw. 87,88,116 4 4 0.06 0.8 129. H. riparia Kug. 5,9,14,15,28,31,40,46,48,49,57,84,93,94, 97,117,118 1 61 4 2 1 20 1 90 1.43 6.6 130. Limnebius atomus (Duft.) 2,5,7,28,43,57,93,97,100 4 7 21 32 0.51 2.0 131. L. crinifer (Rey) 7,8,13-15,28,31,43,48,49,57,89,94,102, 117 4 3 46 5 58 0.92 5.2 2,5,6,9,14-16,22,28,31,33,38,39,50,52,57, 132. L. parvulus (Herbst) 66,68,69, 75,79,80-82,84,90-94,96,97,103, 5 1 31 12 1 11 2 14 16 1 1 96 1.52 10.6 105,108,117,118, 124 133. L. truncatellus (Thunb.) 85 1 1 0.02 0.2 134. Ochthebius minimus (Fabr.) 2,5,28,33,48,57,68,93,97,105 1 8 2 3 4 18 0.29 2.2 Elmidae 135. Elmis aenea (Müll.) 9,14,15,19,28,31,34,49,72,87-89,97,116, 117,123 5 216 221 3.51 0.2 136. Limnius volcmari (Panz.) 14,87,88,116 18 18 0.29 2.4 137. Oulimnius tuberculatus (Ph. Müll.) 14,28,48,97 3 1 4 0.06 0.8 Dryopidae 138. Dryops viennensis (Cast.) 52 1 1 0.02 0.2

100 PAWEŁ BUCZYŃSKI, MAREK PRZEWOŹNY, PRZEMYSŁAW ZIĘBA 121 (17 IX 02, 1 ex.). The beetle caught in rivers (Wieprz, Tanew, Szum), always only among tree roots revealed due to washing away of coastal banks. Rhantus incognitus 17 (9 VI 04, 1 ex.). One specimen was caught in the river Gorajec, between sand bottom and the zone of coastal flora. Graphoderus bilineatus 38 (16 VI 03, 1 ex.). Caught in silted up rush Phragmites australis in the eutrophic Echo pond. Dytiscus circumflexus 107 (VIII 03, 1 ex., 05, 1 ex.). Caught in bottle traps in Wieprzów Ordynacki in unstocked, seasonally filled with water fish ponds and small temporary water bodies. Berosus signaticollis 85 (17 VI 05, 1 ex.). Caught in Sphagnum puddle in temporary drying out peat bog near Hamernia. Figure 2. The percentage share of non-eurytopic species in the collected material. Upper diagram qualitative data, lower diagram quantitative data. A L habitats (like in Table 1). Ecological elements: ar argilophiles, ps psammophiles, kf krenophiles, rf rheophiles, tf tyrphophiles, tb tyrphobiontes, hy hylophiles, ha halophiles

AQUATIC BEETLES (COLEOPTERA: ADEPHAGA, HYDROPHILOIDEA, STAPHYLINOIDEA... 101 Laccobius striatulus 68 (17 IX 03, 1 ex.); 82 (13 VIII 03, 1 ex.); 93 (16 IX 03, 1 ex.). Caught in the coastal zone of dam reservoirs and in lenitic habitat in the upstream of the river Sopot. Enochrus bicolor 100 (14 X 2003, 1 ex.). Caught among rush flora in polytrophic pond Pasternik in Tarnawatka. Enochrus fuscipennis 5 (28 VII 05, 3 exx.). Caught in light trap over the complex of eutrophic fish ponds in Goraj. Cercyon bifenestratus 5 (28 VII 07, 13 exx.); 117 (8 VI 04, 2 exx.). Caught in the zone of coastal flora (sunk land grasses, Glyceria spp.) in eutrophic ponds in Goraj and in the river Tanew in Huta Szumy. Cercyon granarius 15 (14 VII 03, 1 ex.). Caught in the river Gorajec in Gorajec-Stara Wieś, amidst drifting decaying leaves and hay on the edge of the zones: lotic and lenitic. Hydraena excisa 87 (11 VII 03, 1 ex., 12 VII 03, 1 ex.); 88 (11 VII 03, 1 ex.); 116 (12 VII 03, 1 ex.). Caught in sand or stone bottoms, in the lotic zone (usually with strong current), at sites 88 and 116 in Fontinalis antipiretica. Dryops viennensis 52 (1 VI 05, 1 ex.). Caught among sedges in a small water body on a meadow in the valley of the river Wieprz in Guciów. In the faunistic regionalization used in The Catalogue of Polish Fauna (21), there were listed: from Roztocze 136 species, the Lublin Upland 17 species, the Sandomierz Valley 41 species (Table 1). The structure of dominance of the collected material is very even. There were distinguished only one eudominant and dominant (Anacaena lutescens 11.12%, Haliplus flavicollis 6.30%). There were also noticed: 10 subdominants (Hydroglyphus pusillus, Hydroporus tristis, Haliplus sibiricus, Hydroporus palustris, Elmis aenea, Orectochilus villosus, Gyrinus substriatus, Helophorus granularis, Noterus crassicornis, Platambus maculatus), 16 recedents and 110 accessory species (Table 1). The highest value of frequency indicator 28.2% had Anacaena lutescens. Values of this indicator exceeding 10% achieved also: Noterus crassicornis, Platambus maculatus, Helophorus granularis, Limnebius parvulus and Acilius canaliculatus. Moreover, 21 species were within the range 5.1 10.0%, 26 in the range 2.1 5.0%, 30 in the range 1.1 2.0%, and 55 did not exceed 1.0% (Table 1). Anacaena lutescens was the most widespread species, it was noticed at 50.8% of sites. For more than 10% sites there were noticed in total 38 species, from which, along with A. lutescens were distinguished: Limnebius parvulus (30.2%), Noterus crassicornis (28.6%), Helophorus granularis (27.0%) and Acilius canaliculatus (23.0%). In the range 5.1 10.0% were 23 species, in the range 2.1 5.0% 39 species, in the range 1.1 2.0% 15 species, below 1.0% 23 species.

102 PAWEŁ BUCZYŃSKI, MAREK PRZEWOŹNY, PRZEMYSŁAW ZIĘBA Table 2. Special care species and indicatory species of aquatic beetles collected in the Roztocze Upland in the years 1999 2005. Sp species protection, Rl Pl the Red list of animals of Poland, Rl-LD the Red list of animals of the Lublin District, Um umbrella species (a for running waters, b for lakes, c for small water bodies, d for fens and peat bogs). NL number of localities. Habitats like in Table 1. Species Sp Rl-Pl Rl- LD Um NL Habitats Gyrinus paykulli LC 2 c, j Brychius elevatus LC LC 7 a, c Haliplus confinis LC 2 g, i H. laminatus LC 3 b, g H. varius VU 1 k Hydrovatus cuspidatus NT 1 g Hydroporus fuscipennis LC 2 i H. memnonius LC 2 i, l H. scalesianus EN 1 h Deronectes latus NT EN 3 c Agabus affinis NT 2 l A. guttatus LC 2 a Ilybius fenestratus b 11 d, e, g, i, j, k I. fuliginosus c 25 a, b, c, d, e, g, j, l I. similis LC 1 g Platambus maculatus a 24 a, c, d, e, i Rhantus incognitus EN VU 2 c Colymbetes paykulli LC 2 c, e Laccophilus poecilus VU 1 g Graphoderus bilineatus x LC d 1 g Dytiscus circumflexus LC 1 g Helophorus aequalis DD 1 c Helophorus grandis NT 3 a, f, g H. strigifrons NT 3 f, h, i Berosus signaticollis LC 1 l Enochrus bicolor EN LC 1 g Hydrophilus aterrimus x VU NT 3 c, g, i Cercyon tristis LC 1 h Hydraena excisa LC 3 c Oulimnius tuberculatus NT 4 c, i Dryops viennensis LC 1 h Total: 2 6 27 4 - % of all: 40% 13% 27% 50%

AQUATIC BEETLES (COLEOPTERA: ADEPHAGA, HYDROPHILOIDEA, STAPHYLINOIDEA... 103 Table 3. Research sites of importance for the protection of aquatic beetles. P points, N the number of research sites P Research sites N 17 38 1 11 121 1 10 34 1 8 28,97 2 7 19,116,118 3 6 31,39,48,52,100 5 5 17,40,43,72,80 5 4 3,14,41,50,79,84,117 7 3 82,87,88,90,107 5 2 2,5,6,7,15,23,37,69,71,85,86,125 13 1 1,9,20,24,49,61,68,78,89,93,98,105,108,112,120,122 16 Total: 59 Figure 3. Faunistic similarities between aquatic beetles assemblages in the studied habitats (in %). Upper diagram qualitative data, lower diagram quantitative data

104 PAWEŁ BUCZYŃSKI, MAREK PRZEWOŹNY, PRZEMYSŁAW ZIĘBA Narrow scope of inhabited environments was specific for most of the species. It was the biggest for Anacaena lutescens and Noterus crassicornis, which were caught in all 12 examined habitats. In 11 habitats there was noted Limnebius parvulus, in 10 Hydaticus seminiger and Helophorus granularis. In 7 9 habitats 26 species were noted, in 6 or less 107 species (including even 73 species in 1 3 habitats). In the collected material there are species representing 9 ecological elements: argilophiles (2 species), psammophiles (1), crenophiles (1), rheophiles (17), tyrphobionts (3), tyrphophiles (29), hylophiles (4), halophiles (1) and eurytopes (80). As for quantity, eurytopes dominated: 46.83% specimens. Not very numerous were tyrphophiles (21.91%) and rheophiles (18.89%). The share of other ecological elements was the following: psammophiles 6.30%; hylophiles 3.05%; argilophiles 2.13%; tyrphobionts 0.86%; crenophiles 0.03%; halophiles 0.02%. In all habitats, a big quality and quantity share was obtained by eurytopes. From other ecological elements, the widest range of settled habitats was charac- Figure 4. Sozological importance of particular habitats in the Roztocze Upland for aquatic beetles: I the total sums of points, II average values for one research site, P points, A L habitats (like in Table 1)

AQUATIC BEETLES (COLEOPTERA: ADEPHAGA, HYDROPHILOIDEA, STAPHYLINOIDEA... 105 teristic of tyrphophiles noted in all habitats, usually in a big number of specimens (Fig. 2). It resulted mainly (but not only) from very wide spreading of Anacaena lutescens in the research area. In a big amount of habitats were also caught: rheophiles (10), argilophiles (9), hylophiles (8 habitats) and psammophiles (7). A very narrow habitat range was characteristic of the rest of ecological elements. Tyrphobionts were found only in small meadow water bodies, sandpits and Sphagnum peat bogs and only in the peat bogs they were present in a bigger number of specimens. Occurrence of crenophiles was limited to springs and streams. Halophiled Enochrus bicolor was caught in a polytrophic pond. Share of eurytopes and stenotopes was formed differently in various habitats (Fig. 2). The least numbers of eurytopes were recorded in Sphagnum peat bogs, oxbows and rivers, the largest ones in sandpits and fens. The most important for species occurrence of beetles in the research area turned out to be rivers, where 86 species were caught. The richest in quantity material was collected there (35.4% of caught specimens). The second, as regards quantity and quality of coleopterofauna, were ponds (81 species and 21.3% specimens), and the third small forest water bodies (72 species and 12.4%). On the other hand, the poorest were faunas of oxbows and ditches and canals: 16 species and 0.8-0.9% of collected material. In natural habitats 127 species were recorded (92% of all), in anthropogenic waters 94 species (68%). Alone in natural habitats 44 species were noted, and in anthropogenic 11 species (Table 1). In diagram of quality similarities between faunas of particular habitats (Fig. 3), at the highest level of similarity (>50%) are located habitats situated in the valleys of rivers and streams, usually being in permanent or temporary hydrological contact such as: rivers with ponds and streams with oxbows. The pair of habitats: rivers ponds is grouped at relatively high level (>40%) with various kinds of waters, usually located in the river valleys like: dam reservoirs, springs, sandpits, small forest reservoirs. The biggest distinction is specific for Sphagnum peat bogs, ditches and canals. The biggest value of quantity similarity indicator is found in springs and dam reservoirs (20.8%) (Fig. 3). Besides, even 10 from 12 sites make a block standing out at high level >15%, while in most cases similarity values are close to or exceed 19%. The biggest faunistic distinction can be found in ditches and canals and oxbows (values of Biesiadka s indicator of approx. 10%). In the analyzed material there were found: 2 species protected in Poland, 6 species from the national Red list of beetles (3 from the categories of high risk), 27 from the Red list of beetles from Lublin province (8 from the categories of high risk), 4 umbrella species Table 2). In sozological assessment most points were obtained by rivers (101), and then: fish ponds (29), small forest water bodies (20), dam reservoirs and small

106 PAWEŁ BUCZYŃSKI, MAREK PRZEWOŹNY, PRZEMYSŁAW ZIĘBA meadow water bodies (13 each) and springs (10). The other habitats got below 10 points, the lowest place had fens (1 point) (Fig. 4). This situation results from the number of particular habitats in their research area. After taking into account the number of sites (average per site ), particular habitats obtained from 0.5 to 3.0 points. In this classification, the biggest score had: rivers (3.0), small meadow reservoirs (2.6), dam reservoirs (2.2) and ponds (2.1). Over 1 point got also oxbows, Sphagnum peat bogs and forest reservoirs (Fig. 4). 59 sites got scores in the sozological value classification. Definitely the most valuable ones were the Echo ponds in the Roztocze National Park (17 points). Among sites with the highest score (>5), dominated sites on the rivers: Wieprz (4 places), Tanew (3), Gorajec (1). Apart from them, some small forest and meadow water bodies can be included as well as ponds. With approximate number of sites in protected areas and beyond them, almost equal number of points was noted in the sozological classification, namely: 108 and 106. Among the protected areas most scores obtained: the Szczebrzeszyński Landscape Park (36) and the Roztoczański National Park (30), then the Solska Forest Landscape Park (12), the reserve Nad Tanwią (7), ecological ground Ponds in Tarnawatka (7), the nature reserve Czartowe Pole (6), the Krasnobrodzki Landscape Park (2) and the South-Roztocze Landscape Park (1). DISCUSSION 138 species have been recorded: 41% of species from analyzed families occurring in Poland and connected with water habitat, 57% of species known from the central-eastern Poland and 80% of species from Roztocze given during the whole history of the region research (7, 17, 53). It is a lot, but a few times there have been observed even bigger species richness of aquatic beetles in area-comparable territories. For instance, in the valley of the central Bug 151 were distinguished, in the Białowieża Forest 153. However in case of the valley of Bug, we deal with the area of extremely big dynamics of surface waters and the fauna supplied by species from neighbouring the Łęczyńsko-Włodawska Plain, also rich in waters. Whereas the Białowieża Forest is one of the longest and most intensively examined areas of Poland (17, 43, 51). Collected data is a significant supplement to the knowledge of faunas species composition of particular faunistic regions (according to The Catalogue of Polish Fauna (21)). Despite research intensification in the last years and good examination in this respect of Roztocze itself there have been shown for the first time: from Roztocze 14 species (Gyrinus paykulli, Agabus guttatus, Ilybius guttiger, Colymbetes paykulli, Rhantus latitans, Hydroporus fuscipennis, H. memnonius, H. obscurus, H. scalesianus, Hydrovatus cuspidatus, Helophorus minu-

AQUATIC BEETLES (COLEOPTERA: ADEPHAGA, HYDROPHILOIDEA, STAPHYLINOIDEA... 107 tus, H. strigifrons, Hydrochus brevis, Laccobius crinifer); from the Lublin Upland one (Enochrus fuscipennis); from the Sandomierz Lowland 13 (Haliplus heydeni, Agabus congener, A. paludosus, A. sturmii, Colymbetes striatus, Rhantus incognitus, Hydroporus angustatus, H. memnonius, H. striola, Helophorus laticollis, Enochrus affinis, Laccobius bipunctatus, Elmis aenea) (17, 18). It indicates still incomplete knowledge of geographical location of many species in Poland and thus an urgent need of further faunistic exploration of these regions. The species distinguished in chapter Results are noteworthy due to various reasons. Some of them occur in Poland at sparse sites situated in not many faunistic regions, at least nowadays. These are: Dytiscus circumflexus, Hydroporus fuscipennis, Hydrovatus cuspidatus and Cercyon granarius. Whereas these species: Gyrinus paykulli, Haliplus laminatus, H. sibiricus, Graphoderus bilineatus, Hydroporus memnonius, Berosus signaticollis, Enochrus bicolor, Laccobius striatulus, Cercyon biferenstratus and Hydraena excisa are widely settled but in large dispersion, and they are described as rarely caught species. It is worth paying special attention to: surprisingly often met in Roztocze H. sibiricus and halophile E. bicolor found in freshwater habitat. Some of these species are certainly more spread than it results from literature but they are difficult to catch with the use of hydrobiological methods (ripicoles) or they are mistaken with similar species of the same genus. The last group of the distinguished species are beetles with little home range or present in not many geographical provinces in Poland. These are: Deronectes latus and Dryops viennensis, occurring mainly in the southern Poland, and Rhantus incognitus, with little acreage covering only a small part of Central and Eastern Europe (2, 6, 8, 9, 11 14, 16, 17, 21, 30-33, 36, 39, 41, 45, 46, 48-54, 56, 57, 62, 64, 66, 67). We observe species richness of Roztocze aquatic fauna, it is ecologically diverse and occurrence of many stenotopes proves that coleopterofauna is well preserved. The same refers to most of the examined sites, except for spring area of the river Wieprz. Number and share of found ecological elements are equal to share of particular sites in the research area: among stenotopes dominate species associated with running waters and peat bogs and water bodies with acidic water. Only a small number of caught specimens and crenophile species can prove a bad state of some springs. Rheophiles recorded in rivers in Roztocze are typical of small watercourses, fast-flowing, with stony bottoms and often submontane (29, 35 and own data). However, there was not noted a relatively common in the nearby Bug Macronychus quadrituberculatus Ph. Müll., a classic indicator of potamal (34, 35). There was not Elmis maugetti Latr. either, typical of lowland rivers; Oulimnius tuberculatus was very rare and sparse. But fauna of the rivers was generally typical of clean waters, of a good quality, which correlates with biological data collected by

108 PAWEŁ BUCZYŃSKI, MAREK PRZEWOŹNY, PRZEMYSŁAW ZIĘBA national services of environment inspection (1, 19). The exception was only an initial fragment of the Wieprz, clearly polluted and eutrophized. A special characteristic of Roztocze is small significance of oxbows for species richness of beetles, in comparison with many dominated by rivers areas of Poland and Central Europe and the valleys of: the Bug (51), Narew (6), Kłodnica (32), Danube (24, 61). Small and usually rapidly flowing rivers of Roztocze form few oxbows and they are small and shallow, very shaded and full of rotting leaves and are prone to fast succession. Therefore, like in e.g. the Kozłowieckie Forests (18), beside small water bodies, the most important habitat for beetles were not oxbows but fish ponds. So important that in the region poor in water, apart from the river valleys, they are situated near habitat complexes connected with rivers so they form a convenient refuge during states of low waters. It confirms suggestions that with proper management ponds are very valuable for protection of aquatic invertebrates (9). Close neighbourhood of most habitats has had influence on big faunistic similarities between them both in little precise quality indicator (sensitive to random migrations of individual specimen) and in quantity indicator reflecting quantity structure of groups. They can be compared to results obtained in the area much denser territorially in the valley of one river e.g. the Bug (51) and the Narew (6). The data presented in this project allow to conclude that Roztocze is still the area of high natural values. For Poland and Central-Eastern Europe it is very significant since it helps to preserve: species richness of aquatic beetles, their groups, populations of many rare and endangered species. It concerns both beetles connected with natural habitats and those inhabiting anthropogenic waters especially fish ponds need special attention. Many of most valuable sites and habitats are located in protected areas (mainly in landscape parks), but some rivers would need taking protection actions both passive (creating nature reserves and ecological farmlands) or active (interference in succession or keeping present method of usage). It concerns particularly the Wieprz, which in Roztocze is the most valuable river but also the most endangered as far as degradation is concerned. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to thank Edyta Buczyńska, Krzysztof Pałka, Robert Stryjecki and Witold Wawrzkiewicz for the fruitful co-operation in field studies, and Stefan Mielewczyk for the determination of some materials collected in the year 1999. REFERENCES 1. Bańkowska-Królikowska J., Piebiak E., Pomorska E. (eds) 2003. Raport o stanie środowiska województwa lubelskiego w 2002 roku. Biblioteka Monitoringu Środowiska, Lublin.