Skip to content
naulon

No retraction, correction or concern found when last checked on Oct 27, 2026.

Forty years of carabid beetle research in Europe – from taxonomy, biology, ecology and population studies to bioindication, habitat assessment and conservation

D. Johan Kotze, Pietro Brandmayr, Achille Casale and 17 more

ZooKeys · 2011

doi:10.3897/zookeys.100.1523

Abstract

'Carabidologists do it all' (Niemelä 1996a) is a phrase with which most European carabidologists are familiar. Indeed, during the last half a century, professional and amateur entomologists have contributed enormously to our understanding of the basic biology of carabid beetles. The success of the field is in no small part due to regular European Carabidologists' Meetings, which started in 1969 in Wijster, the Netherlands, with the 14th meeting again held in the Netherlands in 2009, celebrating the 40th anniversary of the first meeting and 50 years of long-term research in the Dwingelderveld. This paper offers a subjective summary of some of the major developments in carabidology since the 1960s. Taxonomy of the family Carabidae is now reasonably established, and the application of modern taxonomic tools has brought up several surprises like elsewhere in the animal kingdom. Progress has been made on the ultimate and proximate factors of seasonality and timing of reproduction, which only exceptionally show non-seasonality. Triggers can be linked to evolutionary events and plausibly explained by the "taxon cycle" theory. Fairly little is still known about certain feeding preferences, including granivory and ants, as well as unique life history strategies, such as ectoparasitism and predation on higher taxa. The study of carabids has been instrumental in developing metapopulation theory (even if it was termed differently). Dispersal is one of the areas intensively studied, and results show an intricate interaction between walking and flying as the major mechanisms. The ecological study of carabids is still hampered by some unresolved questions about sampling and data evaluation. It is recognised that knowledge is uneven, especially concerning larvae and species in tropical areas. By their abundance and wide distribution, carabid beetles can be useful in population studies, bioindication, conservation biology and landscape ecology. Indeed, 40 years of carabidological research have provided so much data and insights, that among insects - and arguably most other terrestrial organisms - carabid beetles are one of the most worthwhile model groups for biological studies.

Shown for reading. Its publisher allows quoting it, not republishing it.

Full text

From PubMed Central, U.S. National Library of Medicine, as current on Oct 27, 2026. Paragraph numbers are ours, so an answer can point at one.

1.1. General

Carabid beetles are one of the best-known taxa in entomology. These beetles have been studied intensively by generations of coleopterists, who have clarified the taxonomy and phylogeny, geographic distribution, habitat associations and ecological requirements, life history strategies and adaptations, especially in Europe (e.g.;;;;;,;; ).

This wealth of basic information has fostered a plethora of quantitative ecological studies. Indeed, the first European Carabidologists’ Meeting in Wijster, the Netherlands in 1969, touched upon one of the fascinating characteristics of carabid beetles – dispersal and dispersal power. As a life history trait, dispersal has profound consequences for the dynamics and persistence of populations, the distribution and abundance of species and for community structure. Not surprisingly, a summary based on the 3rd International Carabidologists’ Meeting emphasised the role of dispersal in increasingly fragmented landscapes, and argued that much more knowledge on the effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on carabid beetle population dynamics is needed if sensible decisions are to be made regarding conservation and land-use.

But why study carabid beetles? The reasons are diverse: relatively stable taxonomy, high species richness, occurrence in most terrestrial environments and geographical areas, the availability of easy collection methods, known sensitivity to environmental changes, and perceived role as beneficial in agriculture (see;; ). Armed with such a diverse wealth of knowledge, many ecologists and taxonomists have turned to carabid beetles to test ecological research questions. In this paper we emphasise progress in some of the major fields in carabidology since the first European Carabidologists’ Meeting, 40 years ago.

1.2. Basic knowledge

Modern disciplines in carabid beetle ecology, such as bioindication, conservation and habitat management, landscape ecology and urban ecology rely heavily on the work done by professional and amateur carabidologists from the more traditional fields of natural history, systematics and taxonomy. This species-rich family occurs in most terrestrial habitats and is found in the vegetation as well as high up in the trees and the canopy, not only in the tropics. This is probably the main reason why carabids are relatively well represented in collections around the world. In many regions, information on labels from these collections has been gathered in large databases. Combined with data from systematic sampling, such datasets enable profound faunistic work. These databases are increasingly elaborated and published as annotated checklists, red lists, catalogues and/or atlases. In combination with a clear taxonomy, mainly identification literature, these provide a sound basis for biogeographical, biological, ecological and experimental studies. Table 1 shows an overview of the major publications for the European continent, which is covered well, although there is clearly need for updating in a few regions, mainly in the east (Romania, Hungary, Russia, Caucasus). In some cases, older works are mentioned in Table 1, which belong to antiquity and do not adequately cover the fauna of that region anymore (e.g.;; Porta 1923–1959). These older works are hardly in use for identification anymore. However, they still provide historical bases for modern identification works, which often have to be elaborated from numerous smaller keys or large revisions (e.g. Jeannel 1926–28; ), such as the keys to the Carabinae and to the supra-specific taxa of Italy.

A sound basic list of the Carabidae of the world is the recent checklist published by and a catalogue with distributional data is available for the Palaearctic region as a whole. Furthermore, many recent checklists and catalogues are available (concerning Europe, see some examples in Table 1). In particular, provided detailed information on the carabid fauna of Russia and adjacent countries (including central-Asiatic). In the Western Hemisphere (the Americas), detailed information is available, especially for the regions north of Mexico, or will soon be (Erwin in preparation), but in many tropical areas of Central and South America, many genera and species remain undescribed. Other geographical areas are less well known. Asia, as a huge continent is relatively well-known in some parts, such as Siberia, Near and Middle East and especially Japan (e.g., 1973, 1978), whereas immense areas are a “work in progress” (China, The Himalayas and South-East Asia). Africa is well-known in some northern countries, in particular Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia, thanks to the contributions of specialists like, and. Nevertheless, in spite of the numerous papers published by Alluaud, Basilewsky, Jeannel and others, the sub-Saharan (tropical) part of the continent needs more investigation. Australia, thanks to the C.S.I.R.O. has one of the best-organised services of insect collections, and is covered by catalogues and revisions, of which we highlight the catalogue by. But also, recent investigations allowed the discovery of many new genera and species, including impressive, large sized Pamborus species.

Finally, remote islands and archipelagos such as like Madagascar, Papua-New Guinea and Galápagos, for instance, have been carefully investigated by specialists like Jeannel, Darlington and Desender, respectively, but produce many new discoveries every year.

In the world catalogues of (, 2005) more than 35 000 ground beetle species have been listed. An estimated number of 40 000 species, which is more than 10 times the number of described mammals, has often been mentioned. Currently, approximately 38 600 valid names occur worldwide (based on and an estimate of approximately 100 additional new species every year). For the Western Hemisphere only, the species count currently stands at 9 374 (Terry Erwin in litt.).

More in line with the meetings are a number of thematic treatments, but again the listed works are only examples. For a more complete and thematically arranged overview of significant work in carabidology, we refer to the excellent introduction to the proceedings of the Symposium on Phylogeny and Classification of Caraboidea by. Worth mentioning for European carabidology are the publications of the German “Gesellschaft für Angewandte Carabidologie” (GAC) with special reference to habitat studies, such as carabid beetles in river meadow habitats (GAC), in forests (GAC) and in xerothermic habitats (GAC). The GAC provides many carabidological papers in open access (see http://www.laufkaefer.de/gac). Other published thematic studies, often including compilations of numerous papers from various authors, concern, amongst others: biotopes, larvae, biology and periodicity, agroecology (Holland 2002), biogeography, dispersal ecology, morphology and phylogeny. This listing is not exhaustive, especially in the fields of genetics and molecular biology, which are growing rapidly. We conclude with the classical works Die Fennoskandischen Carabidae (, re-published in English as ) and Carabid beetles in their environments. These inspired many carabidologists and have been, for many students, the starting point of their enthusiasm.

1.3. European Carabidologists’ Meetings (ECMs)

In 1959, Piet den Boer, a zoologist at the Biological Station in Wijster, started pitfall trapping at several locations in the Dwingelderveld, a large area of heathland. His purpose was to test the model proposed by, in which animal populations could be thought of as sets of smaller local populations which periodically become extinct, their sites being subsequently reoccupied. This became known (and fashionable) under the term “metapopulation”. By using carabid beetles as test organisms, Den Boer was able to show that in a large area many local populations or interacting groups fluctuate in numbers of individuals in space and time, developing his theory of ‘spreading of risk’. According to this theory, species occupying large areas survive more easily because the reproductive success of each separate (but interacting) group differs at different places. Dispersal between these interacting groups stabilises the number of individuals in the whole population through time. Local extinctions may occur but the chances of extinction of the entire population are minimised. Den Boer eagerly wanted to discuss this topic with other carabid beetle specialists, in particular with Carl Lindroth from Sweden, who studied the significance of dispersal and Hans-Ulrich Thiele from Germany, who studied the reproduction of these animals. Consequently in 1969, a number of eminent European carabidologists were invited to Wijster. This select group of researchers focused on the topic of dispersal and the dispersal power of carabid beetles (Fig. 1a). In 1973, Thiele invited a number of carabidologists to Rees-Grietherbush, a field station of the University of Cologne. This second ECM appeared to be an informal one and no proceedings volume was published. However, it resulted in the organisation of a now official third ECM, also at Rees-Grietherbush, by Thiele and his colleague Friedrich Weber in 1978. Most participants were German or Dutch, though Pietro Brandmayr from Italy was also present. The proceedings entitled ‘On the evolution and behaviour of carabid beetles’ was dedicated to Lindroth, who passed away in early 1979. In 1981, Weber took the initiative and organised the fourth ECM at Haus Rothenberge (Münster), on the theme ‘The synthesis of field study and laboratory experiments’. Thiele presented a lecture but his contribution for the proceedings was never received. The proceedings, dedicated to Thiele, was published after his death in 1983.

The first four meetings were followed by meetings organised across Europe (Table 2). As a result of political changes in Eastern Europe since the 1990s, the ECMs attained a more ‘complete’ European character. Not only did it become easier for scientists from Eastern Europe to attend these meetings, they also started to organise them. Even more noticeably during recent decades, carabidologists from beyond Europe regularly started to participate in the ECMs. Besides the official ECMs, there have been a few separate carabid beetle meetings in Europe (Table 2). Two of these (Hamburg in 1984 and Kauniainen in 1995) were not official ECM meetings, though they were mainly attended by the same carabidologists who regularly attend ECMs. The fourteen proceedings from the major ground beetle meetings that have been published before the present volume (see Fig. 1b-c, Table 2), comprise together more than 400 articles covering a wide range of topics. A rough classification of the articles leads to the following summary: Habitat preference, community ecology was the topic of 84 papers, Biology (development, preferences, etc.) of 55, Population biology - 46, Nature conservation - 35, Agro-ecology - 34, Dispersal ecology - 33, Evolutionary biology, phylogeny - 22, Morphology - 15, Ecology, general - 13, Genetics - 13, Biogeography - 11, Taxonomy - 11, Method-development - 10, Rest – 10, Faunistics - 9, and Palaeontology - 2. A similar series of meetings and proceedings started in America with the publication of the First International Symposium of Carabidology. In, a volume consisting mainly of taxonomic papers was published, dedicated to the memory of Oleg L. Kryzhanovskij (Zamotailov and Sciaky).

In 2009, the 14th ECM returned to the starting grounds in the Netherlands and was attended by five participants of the first ECM: Piet den Boer, Jaap Haeck, Rob Hengeveld, Jan Meijer and Theo van Dijk. The participants visited the permanent sampling plots in the Dwingelderveld and Mantingerveld, started 50 years earlier.

2.1. Overview

Regular carabidologists’ meetings have contributed significantly to our understanding of carabid phylogeny, evolution and systematics, as evidenced by the presentation of more than 60 papers on these topics. Progress has been made at different taxonomic ranks and in different fields of carabid systematics. At present, the integrative approach of combining morphology, molecular systematics, ethology, ecology, geographic distribution, etc., as well as the use of bioinformatics, is recognised as the best framework for solving the challenges still faced by carabidologists, and by animal taxonomists in general.

What follows is a short overview of recent advances in carabid beetle systematics, concentrating on literature presented at ECMs and the international congresses mentioned above. As the main aim of this section is to present a general overview, only some of the main papers with a wide scope are cited.

2.2. General outline on systematics and phylogeny of the Carabidae

showed that the classification of Carabidae is mostly based on morphological characters and that it includes both clade-based and grade-based criteria; classifications differ depending on the importance given to one or the other criterion. After this seminal revision, few advances have been made to unify the criteria to elect Caraboidea (splitters) or Carabidae (lumpers), and the same holds true for other high-ranked taxa. A practical synthesis of these ideas was presented by, while and revised the issue in depth. These two last-mentioned papers highlighted the need for an integrative approach to morphology, morphometrics and molecular systematics as the appropriate way of finding rapid solutions for challenging problems.

2.3. Within-species diversity

An electrophoretic study on 14 Pyrenean populations of Carabus punctatoauratus revealed that the Pyrenees probably hosts an isolated relict population for this species, and that bottlenecks have affected western, central and eastern populations differentially. Subtle differences at a micro-geographic scale have also been shaped by small bottleneck phenomena in this species with low dispersal power.

Range expansion of Carabus auronitens during the 19th century has allowed gene flow between populations in the surroundings of Münster, Germany, as evidenced by an electrophoretic study of 19 populations that showed a steep gradient of slow and fast alleles. The high dispersal power of this species accounts for the observed allelic gradient (esterase-encoding gene) from source areas to recently colonised areas. showed that present-day populations of this species originated from three major refuges in southern France and that these putative core populations have contributed differentially to postglacial range expansion of the species.

showed that Quaternary climatic oscillations did not lead to enhanced rates of extinction and speciation in carabids, as inferred from 14C-dated fossil assemblages. The future responses of Carabidae to climate change will probably be similar to that of the past, with the exception that extinction rates are expected to be higher because of human-caused habitat fragmentation.

Rasplus et al. (2000) found that populations of the threatened species Carabus solieri consist of two distinct clusters corresponding to subspecies bonnetianus and solieri. These populations were probably isolated during the last glaciation and are worthy of protection as gene flow is restricted between these two groups. Moreover, molecular markers suggest that the subspecies curtii is a hybrid between bonnetianus and solieri.

investigated the genetic diversity and wing polymorphism of the salt-marsh beetle Pogonus chalceus in 30 populations from the Atlantic coast and nine populations from the Mediterranean Basin. These Mediterranean populations showed little differentiation associated with high dispersal power, a finding possibly related to habitat instability. A higher structuring was found in Atlantic populations, which showed varying degrees of wing polymorphism and dispersal power, possibly related to adaptation to particular conditions.

investigated variation in the 12S RNA sequence in populations at different geographic scales, namely the Baltic coast, inland populations across Central Europe, and Central plus Western Europe. Population structure varied as a result of complex factors that include past history and present dispersal power, amongst others. Cryptic taxa or a lack of molecular differences among siblings were also found, showing the usefulness of landscape genetic analyses.

2.4. Species borders and hybridisation

showed that Pterostichus nigrita and its sibling Pterostichus rhaeticus are distinct species according to habitat preferences, subtle details in male and female genitalia and karyotypic numbers. Both species are reproductively isolated, as shown by crossbreeding laboratory experiments. More recently, described a new cryptic species in the Iberian Peninsula, Pterostichus carri, and a new subspecies of Pterostichus nigrita from Anatolia. All taxa shared a basic 2n = 36 + X male karyotype, whereas marked variation in the number of accessory chromosomes was found within and between these taxa.

analysed the relationships of 17 populations of Cicindela dorsalis along a littoral transect from New England to Veracruz. These populations are currently ascribed to four subspecies which is difficult to ascertain. Mitochondrial DNA haplotypes showed that populations could readily be grouped into two major entities that represent well defined phylogenetic species without gene flow between them, one occupying the Atlantic coast, the other inhabiting the Gulf of Mexico. Within each of these entities, moderate diversification was found but without much geographic structure, probably because of moderate gene flow between populations.

studied the karyotypes and the RFLPs resulting from digestion of total DNA with endonuclease EcoRI in four populations ascribed to Ceroglossus chilensis. Differences between these populations in terms of chromosome number and molecular data led to the conclusion that there are three cryptic species living in sympatry.

A clear distinction between Abax parallelepipedus and Abax angustatus (reported as a subspecies of the former) resulted from a morphological analysis of sympatric populations of both species, and a molecular study based on allozymes and mitochondrial DNA. No molecular evidence of hybridisation between these two species was found.

carried out a field study on the frequency of hybrids between species of the subgenus Chrysocarabus, Chrysocarabus lineatus and Chrysocarabus splendens in the Pyrenees. Reliable morphological characters allowed for determining the occurrence of hybrids. Both species may hybridise (up to 40% of individuals) when particular ecological conditions are met, which indicates that complete reproductive isolation has not yet been attained. However, a number of characters are fixed in each species allowing their classification as valid species. Furthermore,, ) studied the mitochondrial haplotype in many Chrysocarabus splendens populations and found convincing evidence of introgressive hybridisation in Chrysocarabus (incongruence between mitochondrial and nuclear gene trees). In contrast, nuclear ITS-2 sequences showed that populations of Chrysocarabus splendens made up a monophyletic clade, which is sister to that made up by Chrysocarabus lineatus and Chrysocarabus lateralis. Shared haplotypes between Chrysocarabus splendens and Chrysocarabus punctatoauratus are probably the result of introgression of the latter into the former species. On the other hand, mitochondrial DNA of Chrysocarabus rutilans was probably acquired from Chrysocarabus splendens through introgression.

2.5. Speciation, radiation and biogeography

analysed the evolutionary pathways of the genus Aphaenops (Trechinae) from putative epigean ancestors to specialised troglobionts, and noted that food must have been a major factor in promoting their morpho-functional characters. He also concluded that Aphaenops and other hypogean Trechinae are not living fossils but show highly derived characters, either regressive (loss of eyes and pigmentation) or positive (slender appendages, new chemoreceptors) with regard to ancestral epigean forms, with which they still share particular plesiomorphies.

postulated that habitat preference is an evolutionary process that can be reconstructed when matching it against a phylogenetic tree of particular taxa. He tested this hypothesis by considering the subgenus Chrysocarabus and concluded that there was an adaptive shift from Mediterranean to deciduous forests and a recent colonisation of alpine environments.

constructed a phylogeny of the Agonum extensicolle group based on morphological quantitative characters and the allelic frequencies derived from the electrophoresis of soluble enzymes. The resulting tree was used to test the hypothesis of the vicariance effects of the Cochise filter/barrier separating the Sonoran and Chihuahuan deserts in SW North America. He argued that the zone between the deserts has probably caused vicariant events between particular pairs of species and species groups, and also between subspecies of Agonum decorum 6.5 to 2.8 million years ago. This barrier has probably led to the same phenomena in other carabid taxa.

studied speciation of the genus Pterostichus in the Galápagos using multivariate morphometric analysis and ecological data. They concluded that a combination of allopatric (stepping stone model) and parapatric events (segregation in altitude of two species inhabiting the same island) may explain radiation of the genus from ancestors related to Pterostichus peruviana, a species presently found in South America.

presented a conclusive model of sympatric speciation of the genus Bembidion (and in particular in the subgenus Chysobracteon), in which habitat selection and the effects of parasites may give rise to disruptive selection that promotes reproductive isolation and in turn speciation. Habitat shifts in riparian carabids may have evolved in sympatry, whereas allopatry would have produced new taxa showing mere variations of the same ecological theme.

constructed a cladistic analysis of the Pseudomorphinae based on morphological characters that solved relationships of the main lineages within the subfamily. He postulated that the subfamily has an Australian-South American origin, and that it has recently spread to North America and SE Asia.

presented an elaborated hypothesis on the evolutionary history of the genus Abax, based on characters of male genitalia (inflated median lobe), larval morphology, type of parental care and larval behaviour, habitat preferences and geographic distribution. Ancestors of this genus possibly inhabited lowland forests during the late Miocene, whereas most recent taxa are found in alpine grasslands and mountain forests. This suggests that there has been a major colonisation trend towards mountains during the last geological periods. A predominantly allopatric pattern was inferred for the radiation of Abax.

The supertribe Carabitae poses major evolutionary problems because many character states are difficult to interpret due to homoplasy, and the biogeographic patterns of tribes are not congruent at first glance with relationships derived from molecular and morphological data. A synthesis of different studies based on the analysis of morphological characters (adults and larvae) plus molecular data, indicates that Cychrini is sister to all other tribes, and that Carabini is sister to a clade made up of tribes Ceroglossini and Pamborini. This hypothesis also postulates a Laurasian origin of Carabitae and a single migration event across the tropics. A corollary of this hypothesis is that the Cychrus-like mandible of Pamborus is a homoplasy that would result from an adaptation to feed on snails (‘cychrisation’).

Of the four Calosoma species inhabiting the Galápagos, only Calosoma granatense is widespread among islands and altitudinal habitats. In spite of its high dispersal power and morphological stability, this species shows substantial genetic differentiation between populations on different islands and volcanoes. There was probably a single colonisation event from the mainland and a stepping-stone model of island colonisation. However, gene flow must have been enough to prevent speciation events. The other three Calosoma species of the Galápagos are endemic to localities at high altitudes on a single island, which suggests that they have originated by convergent habitat shifts.

The phylogenetic relationship of three Carabus species inhabiting the Tenerife and Gran Canaria (subgenus Nesaeocarabus) was investigated by a phylogenetic analysis based of the mitochondrial nd5 gene. The hypothesis of a close relationship between Nesaeocarabus and the subgenus Eucarabus was rejected. Instead, Canarian taxa were closely related to the subgenus Eurycarabus from northern Africa, southern Italy, Sardinia and Sicily. Diversification of Nesaeocarabus in the Canaries was congruent with the geological history of the archipelago, with a diversification of ancestors beginning 14–7 million years ago.

The subgenus Platycarabus includes five species living in the Alps and adjacent areas. tested the hypothesis of a close relationship of these species with the subgenus Hygrocarabus, both included in the genus Chaetocarabus sensu. Separate and combined analyses of 26 adult and larval characters, and of sequences of the nd1 gene, rejected this hypothesis, as Platycarabus is a robust monophyletic lineage distantly related to Chaetocarabus, and is even farther from Hygrocarabus.

revised the proposal of of grouping the genus Carabus s. l. into 29 sections and 137 genera, based on molecular data (see also ). Analysis of the inflated median lobe of the male endophallus and the reassessment of DNA sets with stringent criteria of bootstrap values showed that (i) relationships of the subgenera of Carabus were poorly solved, (ii) the results do not support the hypothesis of an explosive radiation of the ancestors of this genus, and (iii) these uncertainties do not favour the ranking of subgenera to genera proposed by.

2.6. Phylogeny based on different types of characters

Ethology

found that the genus Abax shows different stages between a pure pre-social condition of merely laying eggs with a well-developed ovipositor, and the advanced construction of a chamber, laying the eggs in capsules and taking care of brood until hatching and pigmentation of the larvae. It was concluded that behavioural characters are difficult to interpret in a phylogenetic context due to convergence. However, in some instances they provide valuable clues to reconstruct the evolution of a group and give a good phylogenetic signal.

Morphology

Wing folding mechanisms have been suggested to be a character with phylogenetic value at higher taxonomic ranks. Differences in the structure (presence of patches of microtrichia) and mechanism (abdominal movements helping with folding) of wing folding among lineages of Carabidae are not congruent with phylogenetic inferences derived from other characters. The Trachypachidae is a lineage distinct from carabids, a conclusion congruent with recent molecular and karyotypic data, whereas Gehringia was close to other carabids, as currently accepted. The basis for investigating the phylogenetic value of wing venation within Adephaga and Carabidae was outlined by. This topic has received little attention, perhaps because there is a generalised model in Carabidae that shows a relatively low degree of variation within particular lineages at the tribal or generic level.

Higher-ranked taxa were considered by when analysing the relationships of Trachypachidae, based on morphological and functional characters of adults and larvae. He concluded that the family Gyrinidae is sister to all other Adephagan groups. Of these clades, Haliplidae was sister to the remaining families; these were in turn split into two main clades, one made up of Carabidae (including Rhysodini and Cicindelitae), the other made up of (Trachypachidae) + (Noteridae(Amphizoidae+Dytiscidae)). These results contradict, who found Trachypachinae to be sister to Carabidae; Beutel and Haas’ hypothesis has recently received support from molecular analyses. Ancestors of Adephagan beetles were probably associated with riparian habitats and it has been postulated that independent colonisations of aquatic habitats gave rise to the families Gyrinidae, Haliplidae and Dytiscidae.

studied the phylogenetic value of characters of the female reproductive tract at an inclusive scale that covered the whole family Carabidae. Surprisingly no character defined the Carabidae as a monophyletic taxon; instead the Isochaeta appeared as the adelphotaxon of Anisochaeta (that included Gehringiini and Rhysodini). In turn, the Anisochaeta was divided into two clades separated by the evolution of a secondary spermatheca. Less inclusive clades within these two major groups of Anisochaeta showed relationships that agreed with previous hypotheses in some cases.

analysed the phylogenetic relationships derived from larval morphology in 44 tribes of Carabidae. He found support for a monophyletic Carabidae+Tachypachidae+Dytiscidae clade. The family Carabidae was also a monophyletic clade if Rhysodidae were excluded. The Cicindelitae was also monophyletic and showed several autapomorphies. Metriitae and Paussitae made up a monophyletic clade. The subfamily Harpalinae (“higher” carabids) appeared to be a monophyletic clade but relationships of Brachinitae were ambiguous and remain a major challenge for future studies; a close relationship with Harpalinae is unlikely.

The phylogenetic relationships among basal grade Carabidae was revisited by who showed that Trachypachidae is sister to all carabid taxa examined (which confirms similar conclusions reported in former works), that the supertribe Nebriitae is a grade rather than a clade (Nebriini is separated from related tribes), and that cicindines are related to Carabini, Cychrini, Cicindelini and Omophronini.

Cladistic analyses based on different data sets (morphology, ethology, geographic distribution), were carried out to investigate the phylogeny of Paussinae, Ozaenini plus Metriini and Paussini, the Agra cayennensis group, the supertribe Nebriitae, the subtribe Calleidina (Lebiini; ), the Western Hemisphere Pseudomorphini, the tribe Rhysodini (; which is likely a highly specialised predator of slime moulds rather than a primitive Adephagan stock), the subfamily Broscinae, and the subfamily Psydrinae (Baehr, 1998). These studies either corroborated previous ideas about relationships of taxa or shed light on new and unsuspected hypotheses about the phylogeny and classification of taxa, including the erection of new high-ranked taxa.

Defence substances

Characterisation of chemical compounds used for defence and the phylogenetic interest of this trait was summarised by. The review showed that (i) compounds can be grouped into at least nine categories according to their chemical nature, (ii) there probably occurred a convergent development of the same substances in distantly related lineages, (iii) diversification of chemical types occurred within some subfamilies (e.g. Pterostichinae) whereas others (Harpalinae, Lebiinae) are much more uniform; (iv) the phylogenetic signal of this trait is valuable at tribal level or higher ranks; some compounds seem to vary in particular lineages (Australian Panagaeninae) and could be useful for assessing relationships at lower ranks; and (v) further insight into this trait would result from the study of biochemical synthetic pathways, fine structure of defensive glands and the detection of more subtle compounds.

Karyotypic evolution

A number of contributions have addressed the question on the ancestral karyotype of Adephaga and the Carabidae, and its main patterns of evolutionary change, or referred to the karyotypic evolution of particular taxa (Harpalini: ). The family Carabidae (915 taxa analysed) is characterised by a notable variation of the diploid number (2n = 4 - 69), the occurrence of high chromosome numbers in comparison to Polyphagan beetles, and a repeated karyotypic formula in well-studied lineages (e.g. 2n = 26 + XY in Carabini; 2n = 22 + XY in Bembidiini; 2n = 36 + X in Harpalini).

The ancestral karyotype of Coleoptera, still present in many Polyphagan lineages, 2n = 18 + Xyp, had probably undergone significant changes in the ancestors of carabids, since neither this number of autosomes nor the particular Xyp sex chromosomes are found in any carabid. The ancestral condition of a 2n = 36 + X0 male karyotype is widespread in many lineages and may be notably diversified in particular carabid lineages. The occurrence of this formula in some dytiscids and in trachypachids provided further support to this hypothesis. However, it has not been found in lineages showing plesiomorphic morphological characters, which suggests that it has evolved rapidly in earlier offshoots of the Carabidae.

Karyotypic data have been shown to be valuable for understanding carabid systematics though it seems that karyotypic changes are not a main driving force for speciation in carabids. This is not to deny the role of karyotypic changes in reinforcing isolation mechanisms in recently originated taxa, regardless of the occurrence of speciation processes under conditions of geographic isolation or in lowland areas.

summarised the karyotypic data of members of the tribe Harpalini, and found that ancestors likely had a 2n = 36 + X male karyotype. Constraints to numerical variations within this tribe are similar to those found among other carabid tribes. The Ditomina are peculiar because they show high chromosome numbers, which corroborates its ranking as a separate subtribe.

Molecular data

The number of molecular studies have increased since the 1990s, either based only on molecular data or (more recently) combined with other data sets. Inferred relationships have corroborated relationships derived from traditional taxonomy but also often contradicted these, thus emphasising the need of more holistic approaches aimed at obtaining robust and congruent phylogenies.

published the first comprehensive DNA-based phylogeny of Carabidae. They studied the nuclear small subunit (18S) ribosomal DNA, sequenced in 35 carabid genera representing 26 tribes. All higher-level clades were monophyletic except for the Scrobifera (scaritines plus clivinines); the Trechitae was sister to Patrobines; Morion and Pseudomorpha were members of Harpalinae; Psydrus and elaphrines were sisters and both were sister to trechites plus patrobines; there was a grade including scaritines immediately below Harpalinae.

A combined analysis of larval morphological characters and molecular data of Cicindelitae showed a number of inferences that contradict current systematics: Omina had a basal position, Megacephalini was a polyphyletic taxon, and Cicindelinae was not monophyletic. Use of the resulting inferences showed that there are differential diversification rates among major lineages (e.g. a high rate of diversification was found at the base of megacephalines and collyrines, and another at the base of cicindelines).

investigated the phylogeny and history of lineages of Molopina using molecular analysis based on the sequence of two mitochondrial DNA fragments. Representatives of the genera Percus, Molops and Abax were included, as well as Pterostichus and Carabus as outgroups. These three genera made up a monophyletic clade, and Molops and Abax were sister taxa. In a further step, investigated the phylogeny of the genus Percus by integrating previous molecular, morphological and biogeographic characters with those of nuclear 28S rRNA. This genus is likely a monophyletic taxon divided into three main clades. Relationships among the Tyrrhenian taxa remained unresolved probably as a result of recent diversification and low mutation rates of the molecular marker.

A molecular study of the tribe Harpalini based on the mitochondrial cox1 gene showed that (i) Pelmatellina should be included within Stenolophina, (ii) subtribe Harpalina is polyphyletic, (iii) Ditomina is a valid subtribe, and (iv) Selenophori should be ranked as a valid subtribe closely related to the Anisodactylina.

An analysis based on sequences of 28S and wingless genes of Ildobates neboti (a rare hypogean species inhabiting a few caves in eastern Spain) and related taxa showed that tribes currently included in Dryptitae (Dryptini, Galeritini and Zuphiini) made up a monophyletic clade, and that Ildobates neboti is a member of the Zuphiini.

studied the relationships of African Anthia and Termophilum, and the related Cypholoba chaudoiri, based on the sequence of the mitochondrial nd5 gene. Taxa of Anthia made up a monophyletic clade in which Cypholoba chaudoiri was unexpectedly included. Taxa of Termophilum made up two distinct clusters, which suggests paraphyly of this genus.

Current division of the genus Calathus (Sphodrini) was investigated on molecular grounds by sampling a cox1-cox2 fragment in 44 taxa. The monophyly of the subgenus Calathus was corroborated, as well as the distinctness of the monotypic subgenera Bedelinus and Iberocalathus. The subgenus Neocalathus is polyphyletic and needs taxonomic revision and the same holds true for the Canarian Lauricalathus. The latter subgenus should be divided into two subgenera, and one of these should include Trichocalathus.

3.1. Life history strategies and rhythms

Land animals evolve strategies to optimise and synchronise their life cycle with seasonal changes of the environment. For example, reproduction usually takes place under optimal conditions, while metabolism may be reduced if conditions are suboptimal (e.g. dormancy, which in carabids has thus far only been observed for larval and adult stages).

Ultimate (limiting) factors regulating ground beetle life histories

Ultimate factors determining beetle life cycles include variation in temperature and rainfall. Optimal development of the immature stages requires an estimated temperature range of 4–35°C. Rainfall, in combination with temperature, affects soil humidity, which is critical because eggs absorb water from their surroundings to complete embryonic development and larvae are sensitive to desiccation.

Food can also be critical. Reproduction of, for example, seed-feeding carabid species may be governed by ripe seeds that usually appear at the end of the wet or warm season. Only very few habitats offer suitable conditions for polyvoltine development throughout the year, for example, lake shores, swamps and some lowland rainforests with very short dry spells.

The only ultimate factor determining carabid beetle life cycles in the Arctic, Subarctic and Antarctic, as well as in montane habitats of the temperate zone is temperature (e.g. ). In the summer, only a short time window exists for reproduction and development. All species in these habitats are summer developers. Species with rapid larval development, such as Pterostichus adstrictus, are true summer breeders with adult hibernation only. Species with slow larval development hibernate as larvae as well as adults and require more than one season to complete their life cycle. In the mountains of temperate Europe (altitude of 2200–2600 m) the favourable season is reduced to 3–4 months. In forest Pterostichines, especially in the large genus Pterostichus and in the Molopines Abax and Percus, cycles are often biennial. In the genus Molops, where embryonic development can last for more than one month and the eggs are guarded in a subterranean hole, the females disappear from the soil surface during summer, and reappear in the autumn. The subterranean larvae are active during winter, and the new generation requires a further year to reach maturity.

recognised different reproductive strategies in carabid beetles of the temperate zone by studying museum material. He divided them into Frühlingstiere (spring breeders) and Herbsttiere (autumn breeders). Spring breeders reproduce during the spring and hibernate as adults only. Autumn breeders reproduce during the autumn and hibernate mainly as larvae. In a number of species, adults may hibernate after reproduction to enter a second reproductive period. (, 1966) showed that in some Harpalus species spring and autumn breeding populations co-occure in the same habitat. Other examples include Abax parallelepipedus, Poecilus lepidus, Pseudophonus rufipes and Harpalus affinis. A third breeding category – spring-autumn breeder – is found in the genus Stenolophus. In 1990 Den Boer and Den Boer-Daanje, summarising the life history strategies of 68 common carabid beetles in Drenthe (the Netherlands), found a continuum of reproduction from early spring to late autumn, and seven of them reproduced during winter. Den Boer and Den Boer-Daanje distinguished species with summer larvae (summer developers, 40 species) and species with winter larvae (winter developers, 28 species). Drenthe is located in an area with Atlantic climate: warm winters and wet summers, thus offering a broad reproductive window. In areas with a continental climate, however, this window is much narrower.

Cave environments are buffered against climatic variation and can have (i) a constant temperature throughout the year, or (ii) distinct seasonality. Trechines living in caves are mostly autumnal reproducers with winter larvae. The rhythms of Aphaenops and related genera may show distinct seasonality at least in the activity of adults, influenced by the cave’s air humidity, and sometimes with two distinct annual peaks (, 1966). Reproduction may coincide with a peak in food, as found between Neaphenops tellkampfi and the eggs of the orthopteran Hadenoecus subterraneus.

The seven winter breeding species found in the Netherlands (see above) connect the carabid fauna of the temperate zone with the life history strategy typical for the subtropics with winter rain. In Palestine, only caught beetles from October to June. Winter breeding (rainy season breeding) is a typical reproductive strategy in habitats that are dry in the summer, such as North Africa (, 1975). In specific habitats with moist soil during the dry summer period, propagation and reproduction occur throughout the year (, 1976d). Thermophilum sexmaculatum and Graphipterus serrator, with specialised larvae that feed on ants and their brood, reproduce in the summer, but only in sandy soil that acts as a moisture trap.

In Mediterranean Europe, which is also dry in the summer, some seed-feeding carabids - the ditomines Carterus calydonius, Ditomus clypeatus, and harpaline carabid beetles that provide Daucus or Plantago seeds to their larvae - show summer reproduction. Other seed-feeders (Ophonus, Pseudoophonus) are adapted to more humid soils and normally reproduce in the autumn (winter larvae;, b).

No information is available on the reproductive strategies of Carabinae from the subtropics with summer rain. However, it seems reasonable to suggest that they show rainy season propagation (summer breeding) in habitats which are dry during winter. A number of studies on carabid beetle life histories are available from the tropics. In Central Africa (Kivu district), which is characterised by low variation in median air temperature (0.9 °C) and low rainfall from June-August, the majority of species avoid reproduction during and around the dry season. Dry season propagation was only found in two species, one living in a swamp and one in a cultivated area. North Sulawesi (Indonesia) is without a dry period, yet the appearance of gonad dormancies was widespread among 155 carabid beetle species: 65% had at least one dormant female. Females of the canopy dweller Colpodes buchanani also synchronise reproduction with annual temperature changes typical of the subtropical climate.

Along the Amazon River in Brazil, forests are often inundated for up to seven months of the year. This flooding is independent of the rainy season in central Amazonia. During flooding, carabid beetles occur on tree trunks or in the canopy in the inundated site, reproducing when the water level is low. In lowland rainforests, carabids aggregate in areas with an accumulated amount of organic matter, such as fruit falls. These fruit falls are unpredictable in space and time, lasting only for a few weeks. Fig fruit falls play an important role in these rainforests, as they occur virtually throughout the year. Distinct carabid assemblages have been found at fig fruit falls in lowland rainforests of the Amazon basin, Brunei, Australia and Africa. Female gonad maturation starts immediately after locating a fruit fall, with some females carrying ripe eggs combined with the undeveloped ovaries. These ‘transport eggs’ can be deposited directly after arrival at the fruit fall, providing larvae more time for development. While moving between patches of fruit fall, females experience short gonad dormancy induced by food shortages.

Proximate factors and endogenous rhythms

During unstable temperatures, soil humidity and resources, proximate factors and endogenous rhythms play a major role in controlling carabid beetle life cycles. At temperate latitudes, many species, especially species with summer larvae, use photoperiodic changes to synchronise gonad maturation. Autumn breeding species display thermic parapause: an obligatory dormancy at a genetically fixed developmental stage, where the phase of induction cannot be recognised. Larval development can only be completed after passing a certain period of time at low temperatures. Larvae of other species with winter larvae, such as Abax ovalis and Abax parallelepipedus, only pass a thermic quiescence: a facultative delay or suspension of development. This may also be the case for species with winter larvae at higher latitudes (and montane regions): Subarctic populations of Pterostichus nigrita were still under photoperiodic control in terms of gonad maturation, yet displayed a shift of the response curve to longer day lengths.

Annual day length amplitudes decrease from higher latitudes to the equator, as does the importance of photoperiodic changes as a proximate factor. However, day length changes of 1 h can control imaginal diapause (, 1965). Two carabid species from North Africa synchronise their life cycle with annual rainfall, triggered by a decrease in temperature and a decline in the photoperiod (, 1976c). This control mechanism in a rainy season breeder (or winter breeder) of the subtropics with winter rain shows marked similarities with temperate autumn breeders and aestivation.

In the Kivu region, Central Africa (see ), the maximum change in daylight is 16 min only, and the maximum annual temperature change is 0.9°C. Under such climatic conditions, temperature plays a role as a proximate factor. The temperature of the upper soil layers and the soil surface is influenced by the water content of the soil. With water loss in the upper soil layers, daily temperature fluctuations increase. Some hours of higher temperatures per day induce gonad dormancy. With the onset of rainfall, temperature fluctuations decline and dormancy is terminated. Synchronised maturation is stimulated by the increase in average temperatures.

Endogenous control of gonad dormancies

The synchronisation of gonad maturation with seasonal change in ultimate factors is possible only if proximate factors influence the endocrine system controlling this maturation. and were the first to study the hormonal control of gonad maturation in spring breeders. They found a connection between proximate factors, neurosecretions and the activity of the corpora allata, which produces juvenile hormones (JH). JHs are necessary to complete gonad maturation in males. In females, only previtellogenesis is controlled by JHs. To complete ovarian maturation, the production of a second hormone is postulated. Applications of JHs to dormant beetles of the winter breeder Orthomus barbarus have confirmed a similar control mechanism for this breeding type. The same application to dormant beetles of the summer breeder Pogonus chalceus resulted in complete maturation of both sexes, even complete gonad maturation in females, meaning that either complete maturation is controlled by JHs only, or high temperatures suppress only the production of JHs but not of vitellogenic hormones.

Endogenous rhythms are involved in gonad maturation. Under constant environmental conditions gonad maturation is controlled by an endogenous rhythm, synchronised by an external cue such as soil temperature. In the desert-dwelling carabid beetle Thermophilum sexmaculatum thermoregulational behaviour is controlled by a circannual rhythm, resulting in lower body temperatures at the end of the optimal reproductive period, which causes an inactive stage of the gonads.

As part of the taxon pulse theory, ground beetles from tropical areas undergo latitudinal and altitudinal expansion, leading to climatic specialisation, including the development of dormancy to survive unfavourable climatic conditions. If all carabid beetle dormancies are based on a uniform hormonal system, manifold convergent evolution is possible. The use of gonad dormancies to synchronise life cycles with changing environmental conditions is widespread among tropical carabid beetles. Only one Abacetus species, living under stable humidity and temperature conditions (the shore of Lake Kivu, Central Africa), seems to develop without dormancy. With the exception of short gonad dormancies, triggered by food shortages in the seed-feeding guild, all studied gonad dormancies are under the control of temperature as a proximate factor.

Specialisation along riparian habitats (pathway i) leads to a synchronisation of the life cycle with seasons with stable moisture conditions, especially along riverbanks. Specialisation in seasonally dry habitats (pathway ii) leads to a synchronisation of the life cycle with the period of optimal soil humidity, e.g. rainy season propagation. While larvae of winter breeders in the subtropics with winter rainfall are adapted to comparable temperatures, a small group requires high temperatures for successful development. These specialists, whose larvae feed on ants and ant brood, have evolved along pathway (ii) in the subtropics with summer rainfall and spending the winter in gonad dormancy. Such species have yet to be reported in the temperate zone.

found no autumn breeders among 21 studied species of the old genus Agonum. These species are possibly all descendants of one common ancestor that reached the temperate zone along pathway (i) after which some descendant species adapted to non-riparian habitats. One member of this group, namely Platynus (Agonum, Limodromus) assimilis is a spring breeder, but its gonad dormancy is controlled in a fundamentally different way than in other spring breeders, by a photoperiodic quiescence.

Gaps in our current understanding of carabid beetle life history strategies include (i) a lack of knowledge on life history strategies in the subtropics with summer rainfall, in the tropics with long dry seasons and in areas with unpredictable rainfall, (ii) whether canopy dwelling carabid beetles in tropical rainforests display seasonal patterns, and (iii) a detailed study on the hormonal control of dormancies in carabid beetles, as no such studies have been performed since.

3.2. Carabid beetle food

Carabid beetles are generally considered polyphagous predators. However, in line with their enormous species richness and diversity in body shapes and biotopes they inhabit, a whole range of trophic specialisations occurs in the Carabidae. Although carabid feeding ecology and biology has been studied frequently (also during ECM meetings), it is surprising how many basic questions on carabid food remain unanswered. Except for, who mentioned food preferences of 1054, mainly North-American, European and Japanese species, basic information on food preferences or requirements is often lacking, even for many common species. This chapter does not attempt to review all trophic specialisations of Carabidae; it has been done before. Instead, it focuses on recent advances in the domains of seed and ant feeding, as well as unique life history strategies, such as ectoparasitism and the predation of amphibians.

Seed feeding

Carabid beetles accept a variety of plant foods such as leaves, fruits, pollen, seeds and fungi ( and references therein). Seed feeding, or granivory, occurs in many species including polyphagous ones that prefer animal prey. True granivory, i.e. where seeds are central to the species’ food budget, has evolved in two tribes of Carabidae, Zabrini and Harpalini. The ecology of granivorous carabids is of great interest since granivory required the evolution of morphological, physiological and behavioural adaptations associated with crushing, digesting and foraging for seeds. To crush hard seeds, adults and larvae of granivorous species have evolved broad mandibles with massive adductors. Sclerotised structures in the adult proventriculus are then used for fine grinding of the ingested seed fragments. Behavioural adaptations have involved, for example, climbing plants and storing seeds in burrows. Physiological adaptations to seed feeding are understudied but recent evidence shows that digestion of seeds is facilitated by endosymbionts.

The amount of seeds eaten by carabids in the field may be substantial. Based on seed losses of artificially exposed seeds, estimated that up to 4000 seeds m-2 d-1 may be removed by carabid beetles in arable fields in the Czech Republic. reported that carabids, mainly Amara montivaga, destroyed about 83–88% of the annual seed production of Taraxacum officinale spp. agg., and showed that approximately 65% of the annual seed production of Carex pilulifera L. was consumed by a single species, Harpalus solitaris. However, individual capacity for eating seeds varies with season as a result of natural phenological changes (transition from dormancy to reproduction, dispersal, breeding and searching for overwintering sites). Consumption is also affected by temperature. Clearly, carabid beetles may have an important impact on the reproductive success and dispersal of plant species, but more research is needed on how these affect the population dynamics of plants in the longer term. Larvae should also be considered in these studies, as their consumption of seeds can be comparable to that of adults.

The consumption of particular seed species is ultimately determined by the preferences of the carabids in question. During the last 30 years, a number of authors have investigated carabid preferences for seeds in the laboratory using choice (cafeteria) experiments. Most studies, however, have established preferences based on a limited number of seed species (usually 2–5). Only,, 2007) tested seed preferences in carabids using 64 or 28 species of herbaceous seed., 2007, 2011) demonstrated that the preference for seeds correlates with carabid body size: on average, smaller species prefer smaller seeds, and vice versa. Larger carabids also consume a greater variety of seed species and Harpalini are less specialised than Zabrini. However, there are other characters such as seed shape, thickness of the testa and nutrient content of the seed that affect preference. Similarly to other seed-cracking organisms (e.g. ), mandible size and shape determine the seed preferences of Notiobia species occupying fruit fall sites in tropical forests, and these preferences are consistent throughout the season.

Taxonomic affiliation constrains the preferences for food in many insect groups. Earlier research as well as direct field observations have indicated that species of certain genera had specific affinities with respect to their seed preferences. For example, and suggested that most Ditomina and Ophonus (both Harpalini) are associated with Apiaceae, while Harpalus (Harpalini) is unspecialised in this sense. reported that species of the subgenus Zezea (Zabrini: Amara) may be associated with Poaceae. The existence of a taxonomic constraint has been experimentally confirmed by, who carried out a cafeteria experiment that included 28 seed species and 30 carabid species. They demonstrated that species of Zabrini mostly prefer seeds of Taraxacum, while species of Harpalini prefer seeds of Cirsium and Viola. Carabids not only distinguished seeds from different families, but they were also able to discriminate between seeds at a finer taxonomic scale, i.e. seeds of different sections of the Taraxacum officinale species complex. The origin of seeds plays a role in some carabid species. For example, fed Czech carabids with Italian and Czech seeds of the same plant species and found that the beetles preferred the latter. It is likely that the existence of specialisation on particular seeds reduces the competition for food and allows the coexistence of species in the same habitat.

Seeds are nutritious, but their value as food for carabids has not been appropriately recognised until recently. The value of food is best defined by its contribution to the fitness of the consumer. Fitness parameters that are commonly used as criteria for the evaluation of food quality are female fecundity, survival and duration of larval development, and the attainable body size. showed better survival in larvae of several species of the genus Ophonus when provided with seeds of Apiaceae compared to other seeds or insects. Although Jørgensen and Toft (1997a, b) stimulated further research on this topic (mainly in Europe and Japan), information on how seed diet affects fitness is only available for a small number of species. Adaptations to granivory have evolved to varying degrees in different taxa, and even closely related species may show different strategies (for Amara, subgenus Amara, compare e.g.; Saska and Jarošík;;;; for Amara, subgenus Curtonotus, compare e.g.;; 2009); for Notiobia, see;; ). More interestingly, particular seed diets may have contrasting effects on different fitness traits. The effects of maternal diet (Saskawa 2009) or diet of the previous generations on larval performance are poorly studied. Also, worthy of mention here is the scoring system of used to evaluate larval performance under different dietary regimes. In general, larvae are more specific in their food preferences than adults because of increased selection pressures on larvae and due to morphological constraints on the suitability of the available food during the early stages of development. argued that this selection pressure is highest in the first instar larva and decreases in older instars, with increasing the head width/seed size ratio in larvae and widening the range of edible food items.

Ant feeding

Ants are the most abundant group of organisms on Earth in terms of biomass. Not surprisingly they represent an important food source for many other taxa, including carabid beetles. Polyphagous carabid species frequently prey on ants, and several clades have adapted to ant feeding with some having evolved the highest degree of specialisation, i.e. myrmecophily. In general, biological information is very limited and needs systematic study.

Species that have adapted to feeding on ants have evolved interesting behavioural and morphological adaptations, including chemical mimicry that reduces the risk of being attacked by their hosts. Larvae of Sphallomorpha (Pseudomorphini) form burrows close to ant nests and attack ants that pass by. Associations with ants and termites seem to be a joint character for the entire tribe of Pseudomorphini, though evidence is limited. Species of the Siagonini also prey on ants ( 1998a, ). Species of the genus Siagona inhabit crevices in the soil near ant nests and attack ants both as adults and larvae, but do not seem to enter ant nests frequently. The larvae of some Ozaeini use so-called terminal disks (modified last abdominal segments) for attracting and capturing ants.

Adults of the North African Anthiini and Graphipterini are free-living but larvae enter ant nests where they prey upon ants to complete their development. The larva of Thermophilum (Anthiini) moves freely in the nest after it gains chemical mimicry from ants it has previously attacked, and consumes both ants and ant brood (Paarmann and Erbeling 1986). In contrast, the larva of Graphipterus serrator forms a chamber inside the ant nest where it stores ant brood before consumption, and hides against ant attacks. Species of Thermophilum, as well as Graphipterus serrator, show preferences for particular ant species, Graphipterus being the least selective.

True myrmecophily (and perhaps termitophily) evolved in the tribe Paussini, in which morphological and behavioural adaptations are prominent in both adults and larvae. Although this association is well known, data on food requirements or trophic associations are known for a limited number of taxa only, and this requires further investigation.

Unique life history strategies – ectoparasitism and the predation of amphibians

The variety of life history strategies in carabid beetles includes ectoparasitoidism, a strategy otherwise rare in beetles. Parasitoids are insects whose larvae develop at the expense of a single prey individual (a host), which ultimately dies as a result of parasitoid feeding. Ectoparasitoid larvae attach to the host body and feed externally on it, while their adults are free-living.

Ectoparasitoidism has been described from four carabid genera: Brachinus (Brachinini), Pelecium (Peleciini), Lebia and Lebistina (both Lebiini), but several related genera show tendencies towards parasitoidism. The life cycle of a typical carabid ectoparasitoid includes (i) a female depositing eggs in the host habitat when hosts are present; (ii) mobile early instar larva searching for and attaching to a suitable host; (iii) after attachment, a short physogastric feeding phase, typically with rapid ingestion; and (iv) a distinct pre-pupal “resting” phase during which the host is consumed.

Despite the early discovery of ectoparasitoidism in Carabidae (e.g.; ), known host associations are few. With one known exception, beetle pupae are the hosts. Larvae of Lebia (five species known to be parasitoids) and Lebistina (one species) parasitise leaf beetle (Chrysomelidae) pupae. Larvae of a single undetermined species of Pelecium have been observed developing on chrysomelid pupae and millipedes. Nearctic wetland species of Brachinus (seven species) parasitise the pupae of water beetles (Dytiscidae, Gyrinidae, Hydrophilidae) (Saska and Honek). Despite suggestions proposed by Jeannel (1942), the discovery of the hosts for dryland species of Brachinus from Europe was only made 60 years later. Saska and Honek(, 2005) successfully reared two species (Brachinus explodens and Brachinus crepitans) on the pupae of another carabid genus, Amara, a finding that has recently been confirmed for Brachinus elegans by.

Besides direct observations, host-parasite associations have frequently been suggested simply on the basis of co-occurrence of the carabid parasitoid and potential host species. In some cases, however, these observations have led to erroneous predictions (Jeannel 1942; ), subsequently refuted because the life cycles of the two suggested partners are not synchronous. Such synchrony has so far been demonstrated only for Brachinus explodens and Brachinus crepitans. Thus, when looking for hosts of Mastax or Aptinus (both Brachinini) or wetland Palaearctic Brachinus species, both co-occurrence and synchrony should be taken into account. More discoveries are probably to be made in the tropics, as that climatic zone contains a vast diversity of lebiine carabids. Research is also needed on the ecology of ectoparasitic carabids to determine the adaptive significance of life history traits of this peculiar strategy. In most cases, available information relates to a brief description of development; only a few species have been studied in detail (;; Saska and Honek, 2005, 2008; ). Host selection, food utilisation or the adaptive significance of variation in the number of instars (2–5 instead of the typical 3) could produce interesting results. Mimetic complexes have been described between adults of Lebia and chrysomelids, including species for which parasitoidism is unknown, suggesting further trophic associations between the two groups. Focusing on taxa representing transitional evolutionary steps to parasitoidism may shed light on the evolution of parasitoidism in Carabidae and in Coleoptera in general.

Carabid beetle larval and adult predation on amphibians has recently been described in Israel. have shown that larvae of the carabid Epomis dejeani preyed upon two amphibian species (Bufo viridis and Hyla savignyi), confirming an earlier brief note by from Australia. Subsequently, performed laboratory experiments, and showed that adults of the two sympatric Epomis species in Israel, Epomis dejeani and Epomis circumscriptus, prey upon five and four amphibian species, respectively. argue that little is known about the feeding habits of sympatric congeneric insects, and that the partial food overlap of these Epomis species warrants further investigation.

3.3. Dispersal

Carabid beetles found a rich niche in ecological research through the peculiarities of their dispersal power. recognised that carabid species exhibit a variety of wing attributes, including wing dimorphism, and that this has implications for their powers of dispersal. Darwin was probably the first to consider the evolutionary and ecological implications of wing polymorphism in Coleoptera after recording high proportions of flightless beetles on the island of Madeira. He hypothesized that flight ability might be evolutionarily disadvantageous for species from insular populations, as they would be more likely to get carried away from the island. A few decades later, Darlington turned his attention to the low proportions of macropterous carabids in isolated locations such as islands and mountain tops, and concluded that wing reduction must confer enhanced viability (, 1943). studied the wing morphology of carabid assemblages from islands in the Baltic Sea in comparison to control assemblages from nearby mainland sites. He found that the proportions of brachypterous and macropterous species were both lower in insular than in mainland assemblages, even whilst macropterous species were predominant in all of the studied assemblages (see also, ). Dimorphic species, on the other hand, were more numerous in insular than in mainland faunas. These observations were of fundamental importance to Lindroth’s epic zoogeographical studies, published posthumously in 1992. After determining the frequencies of the different wing morphologies in populations of wing-dimorphic carabid species across the Fennoscandian region, Lindroth was able to estimate the relative ages of these populations. On that basis, he theorised about the routes of post-glacial colonisation of Fennoscandia by different species. He was subsequently able to divide the fauna into three elements: Wűrm hibernators, immigrants from a southern route to the west of the Baltic Sea and immigrants from the east. Both and came to the conclusion that macropterous specimens dominate in recently established populations of dimorphic species, which gradually shift to an increasing proportion of brachypterous individuals as these populations grow older. Observations of pioneering populations of the invasive species Pterostichus melanarius in Canada support this model.

Largely thanks to the work of Piet den Boer and colleagues, subsequent to the Dutch land reclamation projects of the late 1950s, research interest in the dispersal of carabid beetles flourished, and this provided the theme for the first meeting of European carabidologists in Wijster in 1969, which Piet den Boer hosted (see above). Dispersal power was also the theme of the subsequently published proceedings volume, edited by Den Boer (1971, see also Table 2).

Lindroth was keen to determine the genetic mechanism behind wing dimorphism and conducted breeding experiments with the wing-dimorphic species Pterostichus anthracinus. The results he obtained, supported by similar results from studies of other coleopteran taxa, led him to conclude that wing dimorphism is inherited in a simple Mendelian pattern, in which brachyptery is dominant. The late Konjev Desender, in whose honour the 14th ECM was held, performed similar breeding experiments using the wing polymorphic species Pogonus chalceus. In this species, crosses between macropterous and brachypterous adults produced offspring with intermediate wing length, suggesting that the genetic control of wing length in this species is polygenic. Desender also conducted an exhaustive biometric study of wing development in 300 carabid species indigenous to Belgium and demonstrated that, in addition to brachypterous individuals, also a large proportion of macropterous individuals do not possess functioning flight muscles and are therefore incapable of flight. In the wing-polymorphic Pterostichus vernalis, for instance, some populations are entirely macropterous, with functional flight (but see below) muscles even in relatively short-winged individuals, whereas in some other populations even macropterous individuals lack functional flight muscles (, see also ). Desender also studied wing morphology in the genus Calosoma after research trips to Easter Island and the Galapagos archipelago. Three endemic species appeared to be brachypterous, whereas the supposedly introduced species, Calosoma granatense, appeared to be wing polymorphic.

Berend Aukema conducted breeding experiments with the Calathus melanocephalus group to shed further light on the inheritance of dispersal characteristics. demonstrated that these species show a simple Mendelian pattern of inheritance of wing morphology, as described by Lindroth, i.e. simple inheritance with brachyptery dominant over macroptery for the two wing dimorphic species Calathus cinctus and Calathus melanocephalus. However, he also demonstrated that certain environmental factors, such as temperature and food supply, influence expression, with higher temperatures and better food availability resulting in both greater proportion of macropterous individuals, and the development of flight muscles. Moreover, long-winged females of these two species had greater fecundity than short-winged females, both in terms of quantity of egg production and duration of egg production. This result was somewhat counterintuitive, as a number of other studies of wing dimorphic insects, e.g. found that brachypterous females are generally more fecund, suggesting that the advantage conferred by brachyptery is enhanced fecundity for females. Furthermore, macropterous females of Pogonus chalceus have greater fecundity, suggesting that long wings and functional flight muscles are associated with large body size.

Work from other invertebrate taxa has suggested that there is a cost in terms of reproductive capacity for flight, with some macropterous females lysing their flight muscles and shedding their wings prior to reproduction, resulting in enhanced reproductive capacity. Among carabids, Amara plebeja autolyses its wings and can subsequently regenerate them to facilitate migration between breeding and over-wintering habitats (, 1979). This is supported by Matalin’s (1994) observation that reproductive females from window traps invariably have fewer ova than those from pitfall traps. also concluded that the choice between flying and walking varies considerably between species and with different stages in the life cycle, with flight activity being favoured by dispersive young adults, shortly after emergence and, in Harpalus rufipes and Harpalus calceatus, by mature males. Mature adults exhibit the highest walking activity during the breeding season, apparently being the favoured form of locomotion when seeking a mate.

Wing morphology alone is not sufficient to describe dispersal ability in carabids. and studied the phenology of carabids in relation to flight muscle development. investigated the trade-off between dispersal and reproduction in female carabids from the Belgian fauna, and most of the species he studied supported the oogenesis-flight syndrome, i.e. females with ripe ovaries tend not to possess functional flight musculature. This phenomenon was most pronounced for species that reproduce in late summer or autumn and emerge in late spring. concluded that in females of large species, wing muscles decline during a period of increasing body mass, after development of the gonads.

In addition to the wealth of material on dispersal by flight, carabidologists have also investigated running activity, demonstrating that larger Carabus species run slower than smaller carabids, though in Pterostichinae and Harpalinae, larger species are faster. Temperature has a significant effect on running activity in Carabus auronitens. Clearly the expression of dispersal ability in carabid beetles is highly complex, being governed by environmental and life cycle factors, in addition to genetic control. It is equally clear that there are still many unresolved issues regarding the dispersal of carabids and we are likely to see studies on this topic at future ECMs. In particular, ongoing land-use change and habitat fragmentation, exacerbated by the influence of climate change, mean stronger selective advantages for species with better powers of dispersal. A major challenge for the scientific community will be to discern evolutionary changes in response to this selective pressure. In conservation, the main challenge will be to develop strategies for the conservation of species with poor powers of dispersal.

4.1. Methodological approaches

Methods influence the way we approach, perceive, and understand the world. All methods have strengths and weaknesses, which make certain things to be easily noticed while others remain hidden or un-emphasised – and such effects of the methods on knowledge often go unnoticed or are unappreciated by researchers. Carabid research has long been dominated by observation and description, but there still remains much to be observed and described about carabids. However, the prevalence of certain methods in carabid research (e.g. pitfall trapping as a collection method, see below) has put a strong stamp on the amount and structure of our knowledge about carabids. Some of the resulting biases are mentioned below; this list is illustrative, not exhaustive.

Prevalence of knowledge about adults: Due to the epigaeic activity of the adults, and the fact that they are more easily collected, manipulated and kept in the laboratory, there is an overwhelming disparity about our knowledge on the ecology of the different life stages of carabid beetles. Our knowledge on carabids was and remains primarily determined by knowledge about adults. A search on Web of Science with the term “carabid* OR ground beetl*” between 2000–2009 yielded 3186 papers, only 460 remaining when this was combined with the term “larv*” (search made by G Lövei, on 4 February 2011).

Geographical unevenness in the origin of our knowledge: This is a general phenomenon: we know that the tropics is more species rich, in general, than the temperate region (already mentioned by ), yet most of our research effort is still directed towards temperate ground beetles. Of the above computer search on ground beetles, only 80 of the original 3186 papers remained when the additional term “tropic*” was introduced. We can safely predict important new understanding emerging from more detailed studies performed in more southerly regions; many of the techniques formerly restricted to developed countries can now be usefully employed in more tropical areas.

Biased perception of carabids as predators: Predators and predation keep us fascinated, possibly because early humans have been both hunters and hunted. However, this colours our perception of the world (see Carabid beetle food above). In the case of carabids, the fact that many species will attack prey offered to them, especially in the laboratory, and that many beetles are indeed fast-moving predators, has led to a widely-held belief that carabids are predators. Carabidologists (mostly) know better, but we have been a bit lax to actively dispel this notion among ecologists, natural historians, and the general public. In relatively recent literature, one still comes across this perception, and in some cases, elaborate theories are built on such shaky grounds.

The rarity of testable hypotheses: Due to a history of descriptive studies, there seems to be a general rarity of precisely formulated, testable hypotheses. Many studies have the only justification that “we do not yet know, so let’s find out”. With increasingly fierce competition for funding and publication, such arguments do not carry much weight. An additional advantage of formulating hypotheses is that it forces us to think ahead: what is to be expected? Why? However, hypotheses should be well formulated (see; ). In the literature (not only in carabidology) one often encounters the “null hypothesis” formulated as “we expect no differences will be found”. Do researchers really expect that “nothing will happen”? If so, why is the experiment worth performing? Indeed, in the real world the null hypothesis is rarely if ever true as there will always be differences between effects. What is of importance is the magnitude, i.e. effect size, and precision, i.e. confidence interval of the effect. The careful separation of hypothesis formulation vs. the Popperian way of arriving at scientific evidence should not be confused – but often is.

The overall task is unchanged: to understand what made carabids such an evolutionarily successful group. In order to answer this question, one has to quantitatively continue to document the patterns of occurrence of members of this group – this is a logistical, not a methodological challenge. Among the promising “methodological approaches”, modern population genetical toolkits are well used, with several interesting results – it would be good to take these and use them in extra-European habitats as well. Gene expression study methods have recently developed and simplified considerably, and facilitate the study of some interesting ecological questions, such as reaction to such factors as stress and food selection. Modern methods, such as those of ecological immunity, also allow a more refined characterisation of ground beetle reactions to habitat quality.

4.2. Analysing pitfall-trapped carabid data

Pitfall trapping is the best-known collection method used by carabidologists, especially in ecological studies. The method, originally described nearly 80 years ago and later often referred to as Barber traps, is cheap, easy to use and once set up, operates by itself. It allows for adequate replication in field-based studies, and collects large samples (see Fig. 2 for examples of a few commonly used pitfall traps).

One of the most convenient features of pitfall trapping is also its main disadvantage, because the resulting catch, although beguilingly countable, is not a measure of density, but of activity density. Carabidologists have recognised this and other drawbacks of pitfall trapping, which have often been discussed in the literature from, and to Holland (2002) and regularly at ECMs. However, the method has not been subject to rigorous, thorough testing, nor to a systematic review, and consequently, most carabidologists tip their hat at the problem, then proceed to ignore it, and often use sophisticated evaluation methods to answer important research questions. Needless to say that if these drawbacks in pitfall-trapped samples remain unresolved, this brings into question any analysis using assemblage data, such as ordination techniques, diversity indices, the determination of dominance structure and any ecological analysis or testing of theory.

While the sharpening of research questions before starting trapping is a salutary piece of advice, which will also influence the type and arrangement of traps, some problems associated with pitfall traps for general carabid beetle studies have reached a general consensus. Several of the aspects below are, however, still ignored but could be easily fixed. These include that (i) an odourless preservative is preferred, because formalin, for example, seems to attract some species and repel others; (ii) the traps should have a cover to prevent flooding, desiccation, scavenging and bycatch – a funnel to prevent escape and reduce bycatch also helps; (iii) traps should preferably not be used solitarily, but placed in series of at least three to five traps at distances of less than 10 m apart in order to optimise the catch and to overcome occasional trap losses; (iv) distances between sampling plots (single traps or trap groups) should be large enough to allow for sample independence (this distance will, of course, depend on the dispersal power of the focal species, see e.g. ); and (v) the question of missing samples that inevitably occur when large numbers of traps are used over long time periods (see below). Important challenges that await study and resolution are: (i) that trap numbers and length of the trapping period do not contribute equally to the catch; (ii) how to reliably minimise the impact of trapping on assemblages and protected species (the methods of partial seasonal samples and pulsating samples, for example, have been suggested: Sapia et al. 2005); and (iii) the challenge of non-destructive carabid sampling, such as radiotelemetry (see ).

The arrangement of pitfall traps in the field depends on the research question asked. The most popular research questions include: (i) Faunistic investigations intended to obtain an accurate species list of a given area. Here many pitfall traps should be used, also along gradients and at biotope edges; it seems that the spatial aspect is more important than the temporal one, i.e. it is better to have many traps for shorter periods of time than fewer traps for longer time periods. (ii) Community or gradient studies intended to investigate the (typical) fauna of different biotopes or at different positions along a gradient. In this case series of traps per biotope or gradient position can be used (Fig. 3a) with independent replicates (with sufficient distances between the series, see above). An example of this is the Globenet project. In some cases a row design with repeats will generate more precise information (Fig. 3b), especially when short-term movements of species along gradients are expected. The same holds for different treatments in an experimental design, such as (iii) Biological studies investigating e.g. the periodicity of one or more species within a year, to be eventually compared with different biotopes or years in phenological and/or climate studies (e.g. do species reproduce earlier or later during warmer periods or in different biotopes?). In the case of (iv) Biological studies investigating diurnal rhythms or movements of adults and larvae, a grid or matrix design (Fig. 3c) is recommended; and (v) Population studies intended to investigate the response of populations to biotic and abiotic environmental factors. Here, estimates of population densities are required and, as such, pitfall-trapped data need to be interpreted with caution.

The fact that pitfall catches are a function of the species’ true population size and its activity (activity-density:; ), creates specific statistical problems. Continuous sampling over the whole activity period can cause a potentially serious problem when the catch is analysed. Trap losses can occur at any time during the activity period and have traditionally been dealt with by standardising the catch to 100 trapping days without taking into account variability in activity across the season. For example, some species are more active in the spring or autumn (see Life history strategies and rhythms above), while others are active throughout the summer months. As such, a trap lost at the beginning of the continuous sampling period will have a different effect on the estimated activity-density of a spring-active species, for example, than if the trap is lost at a later stage when activity is low. When the research question involves study of the response of separate species to an environmental gradient, statistical models in which seasonality (or visit) is added as a free factor and sampling effort (number of trapping days per visit) as an offset term, and in which the response variable is specified as following a negative binomial distribution, seem to correct for seasonality and trap losses appropriately.

The reason for specifying activity-density (or abundance) data as following a negative binomial distribution (and not a Gaussian distribution, as is often done) is that ecological field data (here counts of individuals or species) seldom follow the assumptions of classical parametric statistics. Carabid beetles (both in terms of abundance and species) are often aggregated in space and sampling them is likely to produce an expected variance that is greater than the expected mean. Such ‘clumped’ counts data appear to be most appropriately analysed by models that incorporate extra variation, such as the negative binomial distribution (see; ), or quasi-Poisson methods (; e.g. ). Another important advantage of using methods designed for dealing with count data (negative binomial, Poisson) is that the response variable (number of individuals or species) does not need to be transformed to comply with the assumptions of parametric test statistics, such as analysis of variance, t-test or linear regression. Surprisingly, abundance and species richness data are often log-transformed for subsequent use in parametric test procedures, even though textbooks on statistical methods in ecology recommend the use of the square-root transformation to normalise count data. Nevertheless, neither square root nor log-transformed count data (for use in parametric tests) performed as well as non-transformed data (for use in a negative binomial model). A possible reason for this is that count data often contain many zero values, which have to be fudged (when a log transformation is performed) by adding 0.1 or 1 to every observation – which may have unforeseen effects on estimates.

Another problem occurs when the activity density results for different species are compared. Since each species reacts differently to pitfall traps, their “catchability” will also differ, subsequently with more or less incomparable results between species. A possible solution, suggested by Den Boer, is to standardise the catches per species over the sampling sites. After standardisation, with the obtained “relative abundances”, multivariate methods (calculating (dis)similarities, clustering and ordination) can be used to analyse the data. Similar classifications have been carried out for Britain. Although the approach of correcting and standardising the data was quite different from the Dutch method, the results for classification of the carabid habitats in the Netherlands and Britain were very similar. A study of the carabid fauna of Trento, Italy in a deviating trans-alpine fauna, revealed highly corresponding results for the classification of the 48 (out of 57) species common to Italy and northern Europe. A relatively simple and flexible method developed by to classify a Belgian dataset (the IndVal procedure), has the advantage that it is insensitive to the relative abundances of species. We contend that the problems associated with the comparison of assemblages sampled by pitfall trapping are still not fully resolved, but the above confirm that this method has merit in many types of investigations.

5 Population dynamics and long-term research

Since the 1960s the population dynamics of carabid beetles has been subject to the study of population persistence. During this time, discussion has revolved around how the size of populations and their fluctuations have been established, resulting in two popular theories. The first theory postulates that population sizes are balanced within narrow limits by density dependent processes, a feedback mechanism in which predators, parasites, competitors for food and other biotic aspects of the environment are involved, resulting in the regulation of population size (see ). The second theory argues that the founding and re-founding of local populations take place, driven by dispersal, small population size and extinction, heterogeneity of the environment, the distinction between local (sub) and natural (entire) populations, and the genetic plasticity of species in relation to different components of the environment and to fluctuations of population size. Den Boer tested the latter theory by using carabid beetles as a model group. In 1959 he started pitfall trapping at several locations in the Dwingelderveld, a large area of heathland in the Netherlands, which he regarded as home to large natural populations of several carabid species. This founding/re-founding theory, the concept of metapopulation, states that natural populations consist of many local populations or colonies. Indeed, Den Boer was able to show that in a large area many local populations or interacting groups of carabids fluctuated in numbers of individuals in space and time. From these results the “spreading of risk” theory was derived (, see European Carabidologists’ Meetings (ECMs) above).

The significance of dispersal in founding, re-founding and establishment of populations was confirmed during the first ECM (see Introduction). However, the role of density dependent processes was not resolved. In 1970 in Oosterbeek, the Netherlands, an entire symposium on the Dynamics of Populations was devoted to whether or not populations were regulated. Some contributors showed examples in which density-dependent processes seemed to govern the abundance of a species, whereas others showed the opposite, so the discussion continued. Later on, again using carabid beetles, several studies were conducted to test the density dependence hypothesis. For instance were able to show that the number of eggs in the ovaries of females was negatively correlated with the mean density around pitfall traps. However, later on demonstrated that egg and larval mortality were too high to compensate for egg production. It was concluded that the density dependent relationship could hardly play an important role in the dynamics of the populations of Calathus melanocephalus, as shown by. In Pterostichus oblongopunctatus the amount of food available affects the number of eggs laid. suggested that this would regulate population dynamics of this species. However, and observed that population explosions of certain prey species lead to a strong decline in some carabids. were able to show that in order to maintain a high level of egg production, Pterostichus oblongopunctatus has to switch prey. Presumably the right mixture of amino acids and the quality of nitrogen are essential for a high level of egg production. Another study on regulation in carabid populations was carried out by. They showed that cannibalism occurs between larvae of Pterostichus oblongopunctatus and suggested that this phenomenon would regulate population size. However, could not find differences in raising Pterostichus oblongopunctatus under circumstances in which cannibalism was included and excluded, suggesting that larvae may not be actively searching for other larvae of the same species to feed upon. Cannibalism might take place only under extremely high, unnatural densities. Also, the role of competition in the population dynamics of carabid beetles has not been convincingly demonstrated so far. For example, found only weak evidence for competitive regulation in Abax ater populations. He suggested that competition might only be significant in dominant species. On the other hand, and showed that competition hardly plays any role in determining population size. The discussion on whether or not regulation plays an important role in population dynamics led to a second symposium on population dynamics, this time held in Poland in 1992. However, again only a discussion for and against regulation resulted. After this meeting the subject quickly went out of fashion and was not discussed in this way again. In 1996, Den Boer and Reddingius wrote a book in which they reviewed all the population dynamic theories so far.

At present, it is generally accepted that the persistence of carabid populations depends on the availability of sufficient suitable habitat over long periods of time, as well as on habitat quality. The latter was nicely illustrated in the Dwingelderveld, the Netherlands. These heathlands have nitrified from the 1970s onwards, associated with an almost complete disappearance of Carabus nitens there. A few years after the removal of the nutrient-rich topsoil layer by sod cutting, however, this species was again recorded in high numbers. A similar recovery is now seen in the Mantingerveld, the Netherlands, for the same species since 2007 (Rikjan Vermeulen, pers. obs.). Because of the turnover in local populations, dispersal is necessary for a given species to (re)colonise areas where habitat patches are small. The classical technique for investigating these processes has been mark and recapture. Using modern techniques, e.g. simulation programmes and genetic techniques (e.g. ), the relationships between populations can be demonstrated more easily.

Permanently set-up pitfall traps give an impression of the activity of different species during different seasons and between years, and produce relative estimates of population fluctuations for a particular species. In 1959, several series of permanent pitfall traps were initiated in the Dwingelderveld and later, in 1963, in the Mantingerveld. Carabid beetles from these series were collected on a weekly basis. Results from the first 6–7 years showed considerable fluctuations in the total number of individuals of a particular species collected per series between successive years. This fluctuating pattern was also different between each separate catching series within an area in the same year. These observations of asynchronous fluctuations in catches of a particular species were instrumental in the development of the “spreading of risk” theory by Piet den Boer (see above). Environmental conditions since the establishment of these series also changed. At the end of the 1960s the ground-water table gradually receded and during the 1970s the effects of air pollution became apparent: increasing acidification and eutrophication of the upper soil layers and the subsequent replacement of both Calluna and Erica by grasses. At the end of the 1980s, the local nature management authority started to artificially raise the water table, which subsequently reached its pre-1960s level during 2010–2011. At the same time the grassy vegetation, together with the polluted top soil layer, was removed by sod cutting, and grazing by cows and sheep has subsequently been introduced. Moreover, the average temperature of the area had increased by 1 oC in the last few decades. Both the increase in temperature and the hours of sunshine appear to be significant from 1988 onwards.

Since the establishment of these series of pitfall traps, the composition of the carabid beetle fauna has changed continuously. In the beginning of the 1970s species such as Agonum krynickii, Carabus cancellatus, Cicindela sylvatica and Cicindela germanica disappeared completely from the catches, followed by Amara quenseli and Amara praetermissa. During the same period, species such as Carabus nitens, Harpalus solitaris and Amara infima decreased significantly in numbers. The climate did not change significantly during this period, and it can be speculated that changes in the environment, as mentioned above, and habitat fragmentation (in the case of Hullenzand, Mantingerveld) may be responsible for these local extinctions and changes in population numbers. From the end of the 1990s, species such as Agonum ericeti, Cymindis vaporariorum and Cymindis macularis disappeared from the catches. This may be a consequence of climate change, since during this period environmental conditions in the heathlands improved. This is well illustrated for Carabus nitens, which became rather abundant during this period, as well as for Carabus arvensis, Nebria salina and Harpalus solitaris. From 1990 to, ten species not previously recorded from these areas have been collected. Recently, two records of Agonum viridicupreum can be added to this list (Rikjan Vermeulen pers. obs.). Apart from one, all of these newly recorded species have their center of distribution south of the Netherlands, suggesting that their appearance is related to climate warming. Similarly, the virtual disappearance of the northern species, Agonum ericeti, may be related to this phenomenon. Adequate management may, to a limited extent, compensate for the effects of climate change. The northerly distributed Carabus nitens that almost disappeared from both the Mantinger- and Dwingelderveld, made a rapid comeback after top-soil removal and sod-cutting.

However, the dramatic decline and extinction of the highly hygrophylic Carabus clatratus in Italy may not be entirely related to climate change. Carabus clatratus is one of the most localised and endangered carabid species in Europe, and its disappearance from Italy, and possibly also France, is possibly a consequence of the colonisation of its wet biotopes by the alien red swamp crayfish, Procambarus clarkii, which preys on adults of Carabus clatratus.

Long-term data on weekly catches can also be used to monitor phenological changes in species. For example, compared to the period prior to 1988, the activity of Amara equestris, Carabus arvensis, Poecilus lepidus and Poecilus versicolor started earlier in the season.

As far as the consequences of climate change, management and other environmental changes are concerned, it is of great importance to continue long-term observational studies of carabid beetles, such as that in Drenthe, so that future changes can be monitored and possibly explained. Such long-term sampling programmes for carabid beetles are also known from Poland, Germany and Italy.

6 Bioindicators

Carabids are excellent model organisms for research on ecological and conservation theory. These beetles readily respond to abiotic and biotic variation, and to disturbances and management (e.g.; ). This evidence has led many to suggest carabids to function as ‘indicators’. An indicator is a taxon or a structure “whose characteristics (...) are used as an index of attributes too difficult, inconvenient, or expensive to measure for other species or environmental conditions of interest”. However, using this definition many, if not most, of carabid ‘indicator’ studies appear to only demonstrate individualistic responses to environmental variation. But instead of investing resources for finding new indicator taxa, environmental managers should test and select taxa that are already well known and easily sampled, and that cover multiple dimensions of biodiversity (Taylor and Doran), and critically evaluate their indicator functioning. Carabids fulfil the former but the latter aspect requires further attention.

European carabids have certain qualities that make them good candidates for indicators. They are taxonomically well known, with relatively stable systematics, and their ecology has been widely studied. Variation in carabid morphology, life history strategies and small-scale abiotic and biotic requirements are extensively documented (e.g., 1985, 1986). Carabids also respond predictably to not only small-scale but also to landscape- and even continent-level phenomena (e.g.;; ). Moreover, they are relatively easy to collect in high numbers using standard methods. But can carabids reflect environmental variation in ways useful for conservation assessment purposes? Knowledge of carabid indicator functioning, using the categories listed in, is briefly summarised below (see for a complete evaluation).

i. Taxon indicators. The presence of a taxon indicator reflects the presence of a set of other species, and its absence indicates the lack of the entire set of species. Perfect multi-taxon richness overlaps may be rare (e.g. Jonsson and Jonsell;; ), which highlights the importance of using multiple taxa in environmental assessments (Taylor and Doran; ). Carabid functioning as taxon indicators mostly relies on weak correlations among taxa.

ii. Keystone indicators. These species affect their environment disproportionately strongly relative to their abundance. In field and laboratory conditions, carabids forage on slugs and pest insects (e.g. Kromp). showed that, using enclosures with different carabid densities, carabids have the potential to significantly prey on pest insects foraging on crop plants with economic benefits.

iii. Pollution indicators. These taxa reflect human-altered abiotic conditions. Heavy metals in the soil negatively affect carabids (e.g.; ), and in agro-ecosystems, pesticides and fertilizers affect carabids, at least in the short term (e.g.; Kromp).

iv. Dominant indicators. These taxa make up much of the total biomass or the number of individuals in an area of interest and predict particular ecosystems or assemblages. Many common carabid species are succession and habitat-type generalists (Lindroth 1985, 1986; ), so their numbers may not indicate aspects useful for conservation or management. Mean Individual Biomass (MIB), on the other hand, links carabid biomass to succession without considering species entities. However, the ‘behaviour’ of MIB along succession should be examined in detail before applying it in conservation and management.

v. Environmental indicators. These should reliably reflect particular environmental conditions. Although carabids have the potential to reflect soils, wetness and habitat-type variation (e.g.; Lindroth 1985, 1986), they cannot currently compete with plants as indicators of these factors.

vi. Early-warning signallers (true bio-indicators). These taxa are extremely sensitive to changing environmental conditions. Carabid evidence is scarce, but some carabids have apparently undergone shifts of tens of metres in altitude over 10–20 years (;, David Kavanaugh, pers. comm.), coinciding with climate warming (, see Population dynamics and long-term research above). These observations suggest good potential in, for example, climate-change and urban-spread research.

vii. Disturbance indicators. These taxa reflect natural and human-caused disturbances. Carabids readily respond to agriculture and forestry (for reviews, see; Kromp; ). Their indicator functioning may hold at a general level: they respond similarly to environmental change as many other taxa do (e.g. ). But indicators should not be used for self-evident patterns: the ecological impact of clear-cutting, for example, does not require an indicator.

Clearly, carabids have good potential for becoming useful indicators for conservationists and environmental managers. Certain obstacles still need to be overcome. First, the functioning and accuracy of carabids to predict habitats or species requiring conservation action should be critically evaluated. According to the indicator definition of, none of the above examples indicate that carabids function as particularly useful indicators. Thus, for a conservationist, carabid responses should be considered as individualistic as long as there is no evidence for their responses to reliably predict responses of threatened taxa or particular, difficult-to-observe conditions. This is important because there is very little room for error if threatened species or habitats are at stake. Strict tests must thus be applied to evaluate indicator functioning. Second, the relationship between carabid responses and other taxa should be considerably clarified before using these beetles in environmental assessments. Third, it is unclear whether carabids reflect aspects not attainable using other indicators (apart from their individualistic response) and whether conditions exist under which carabids really are the most cost-efficient indicator taxon. Currently widely used, easy-to-use, relatively cheap and economic tools for assessing the state of the environment include vegetation, habitat structural elements, satellite and aerial photos, as well as weather and land-use inventory data.

The focus of carabidologists should perhaps be changed from total species richness to the indicator potential of single species, groups of specialists or functional groups. We lack an explicitly defined ‘niche’ of these beetles in environmental assessment protocols. Cases for carabids fulfilling the conservationists’ definition for a useful indicator will possibly be documented in the near future, but their indicator functioning may always remain context specific.

7 Carabid conservation, protection and habitat management

Conservation may mean protecting particular species or patches of habitat against alteration, generally human-caused, but the term may also include operations characterised by an active human role (e.g.;; Sutherland 1998; Gaston and Spicer). Examples include the maintenance of areas of high natural value, the restoration of patches to a state they are presumed to once have represented (often referred to as ‘natural’ state), and the artificial conversion of one habitat type to another. The latter may be required in landscapes where habitat for a threatened species has become rare (see ) and new habitat patches are unlikely to appear through natural processes. Such cases might be found, for example, within urban areas. These active operations of patch maintenance, restoration and creation are collectively called ‘conservation management’.

Insect conservation management is a relatively new research discipline, both generally and in the context of carabid beetles (e.g.;; ). The restoration and artificial creation of habitats − two elements of conservation management − have been important components of carabid conservation since the 1980s (e.g.;; ). Conservation became an important topic for the ECMs since the Hungarian meeting in 1986. Before that meeting, conservation issues were only occasionally discussed, but from then on, both conservation in general (e.g. identifying diversity hotspots and gathering data on endemic and rare species) and practical conservation management in particular have been among key topics and have altogether consistently made up over 20% of papers in the proceedings. Generally, almost any piece of knowledge on carabid ecology can be applied in conservation-management policy and action to support these beetles and associated epigaeic fauna. In Europe and North America, information necessary for efficient conservation − on carabid ecology and threats − is readily available (;; see also national lists of threatened species). However, the functioning of active management for the benefit of threatened carabid species urgently demands critical evaluation and detailed information. For instance, according to, the decline of carabid beetles in Belgium between the period <1950 and 1950–1985, had halted for a considerable number of species. During the period 1986–2008, however, 60% of these species still had not reached the same distribution area as in the first half of the 20th century, notwithstanding many initiatives and large scale active management. Most of these species now only occur in large and high-quality nature reserves with the last remnants of semi-natural biotopes and have, at present, little or no possibilities to further increase their distribution range.

Here the advances in conservation management, mostly as derived from the proceedings of the previous ECMs are discussed under four topics: (i) Which species characteristics are particularly associated with threatened species? (ii) In which habitat types can conservation of carabids best be realised? (iii) What do we know about habitat connectivity as a way to conserve carabids? (iv) How does conservation management of habitats affect carabids?

i. Ecological and habitat characteristics of threatened species. To study which ecological and habitat characteristics of carabids are associated with species being threatened, national species lists and their IUCN categories for five countries are used as examples: Belgium, Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Finland (respectively,;;;; ). This dataset is complemented with four regional lists of threatened species from Niedersachsen and Bremen, Germany; Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany; Wadden Sea area; and a preliminary red list for Drenthe, the Netherlands (respectively;;; ). For analytical purposes, species characteristics were collected from Lindroth (1985, 1986),,,,, and. Several characteristics were evaluated, such as the roles of body size, wing morphology, and associations with shadiness and moisture. This evaluation was done by calculating percentages per size, wing morphology, shadiness and moisture classes for all species (for the five countries), for species classified as threatened by IUCN categories NT (Near Threatened), VU (VUlnerable), EN (ENdangered), CR (CRitically endangered) and EW (Extinct in the Wild; also RE, i.e. Regionally Extinct, in some national lists), and also the proportion of threatened species over all species within a given class. Occasionally, certain information for some species was lacking and these were (partly) removed from the analysis. For example, if for a certain species information was unavailable on wing morphology, it was omitted from the wing morphology analysis but retained in other analyses.

Carabids mostly fell into mid-size classes (43–46% of all species were 4.1–8.0 mm and 28–31% were 8.1–16.0 mm), were macropterous (64–71%) and were associated with open areas (63–64%), but were quite evenly distributed among moisture-association classes (see columns “All” in Table 3). Carabids classified as being threatened roughly complied with these figures (columns “IUCN” in Table 3): also these species were mostly mid-sized (26–50% were 4.1–8.0 mm and 24–39% were 8.1–16.0 mm), macropterous (64–81%) and open-area associated (63–79%; very shady habitats had only 2–12%). However, threatened species were more often associated with either very wet (34–53%) or very dry habitats (32–47%) than with “average” or moist/dryish conditions (12–30%). This dichotomous association with both very dry and very wet habitats was much more pronounced in the four Nordic countries and in the two areas in Germany than in Belgium or in Drenthe (Table 3).

The proportion of threatened species over all species in the five countries revealed some important issues (columns “% IUCN” in Table 3). First of all, relative to the total number of species per category, larger species tended to be more often threatened than smaller species (see ). For size classes 8.1–16.0 mm and >16 mm, the proportions of threatened species were 21–39% and 12–50%, respectively, whereas for the size classes 0.1–4.0 mm and 4.1–8.0 mm, they were 10–18% and 7–25%, respectively. After pooling species into larger (>8.1 mm) and smaller (0.1–8.0 mm) size classes, proportions of these were between 19–40% (mean 28%) and 8–23% (mean 16%), respectively. Regarding wing morphology, the proportions of threatened species were rather even among the categories. In this respect, wing morphology was not clearly related to species being threatened, except for the slight tendency of wing-polymorphic species being proportionally more frequently threatened in Denmark and brachypterous species in Norway. Regarding shadiness associations, open-area species included proportionally slightly more threatened species than did species of very shady habitats or shadiness generalists. Regarding moisture associations, species associated with very dry habitats included proportionally more threatened species (17–43%) than wet-habitat species (14–29%) or moist/dryish-habitat species (5–26%).

To the extent one can generalise from these figures, in northern and western Europe (see also for southern Europe) particular attention should be paid to large carabids, species associated with very dry, open habitats (e.g. sand dunes, heathlands and calcareous meadows; see national Red Lists) and water-associated species (e.g. freshwater stream specialists and salt-marsh species; see national Red Lists). However, as is evident from the variation in percentages presented in Table 3, particular targets of conservation and management (habitat types and species) should vary from one area to another. Below, research-based evidence on how to protect these carabids by the application of conservation management is reviewed.

ii. Habitat selection for conservation efforts. Undisturbed mature ecosystems, particularly nature reserves, are vital for the conservation of many carabid species (e.g.; ). Also edge habitats and habitat mosaics may be important for carabid conservation (e.g.;;; ). The scarcity of certain habitat types has increased the need for active maintenance of remaining patches. For example, used field and museum data, original research and communication among entomologists, and showed that Carabus hungaricus can best be protected by active management of open meadows. Due to the on-going loss of natural and semi-natural areas and the intensification of agricultural practices in many countries, also particular anthropogenic habitats have become important for carabid conservation. Examples include roadside verges, former agricultural fields, urban waste-grounds, and sand and gravel pits.

iii. Habitat connectivity. Habitat-patch isolation and fragmentation may be of major concern for carabids. A number of means of reducing the impact of fragmentation have been suggested. For forested environments, discovered for Carabus auronitens two different gene flows from two old forest remnants into a recent, regenerated forest-field mosaic. Later on, underlined the importance of hedgerow networks for forest carabid assemblages. However, more recent hedges may be sub-optimal for this purpose. For open areas, on the other hand, showed that roadside verges might be used either as habitat or as movement corridors connecting heathland patches. Both purposes may be served by roadsides, as shown by (, 2005) for Finnish forest roads and for highway verges in the Netherlands. Moreover, stressed the importance of source habitats for nature restoration sites. Hence, the remaining patches of natural habitat, corridors of similar, often man-made environments, and artificially created, larger patches may together form an efficient patch network for carabid conservation.

iv. Habitat management. Because many important natural processes (wildfire, flooding, wind, grazing and insect outbreaks) are effectively prevented in many areas, particularly in urban environments, active maintenance is considered necessary to preserve certain vegetation types. Carabids respond varyingly to these efforts. The effects of grassland management were discussed in depth by who found that some species avoid intensively managed sites, some are favoured by these, while others showed intermediate or no detectable responses. Similarly, showed that vegetation management in wildflower meadows resulted in a decrease in large species and an increase in xerophilous species, while species characteristic of areas with ‘natural’ conditions were absent. Like mowing, grazing also profoundly affects carabids: its intensity determines assemblage composition. showed that intensive grazing decreases the abundance of large Carabus species more than less intensive grazing. These studies indicate that variation in management leads to variation in carabid beetle assemblages. In riparian environments, showed that raising the water-table level increases the number of hygrophilic species. studied regenerating peat bogs and found that although carabid diversity increased, the peat-bog specialist Agonum ericeti remained absent. argued that this might be related to habitat quality, in this case the lack of peat-producing vegetation.

To summarise, (i) Carabid conservation should give special attention to very large species, and species associated with both very wet and very dry, exposed conditions, (ii) Old and undisturbed natural areas are important for many specialists, but conservation of pioneer or open-habitat species can be realised in many anthropogenic areas as well (Fig. 4), (iii) Fragmentation potentially isolates local populations, but its effects can be decreased by maintaining large, inter-connected areas, corridor networks, and designing restoration areas near potential source areas, and (iv) Guidelines for active management of carabid habitats are difficult to draft, as some species respond negatively to any disturbance, including conservation management. However, many species urgently need small-scale management that keeps habitats constantly at some preferred successional phase; most of these species are subject to severe stress in modern, fragmented landscapes.

The conservation of carabids and their habitats is far from perfect. This issue is complicated by the fact that, due to these beetles’ mobility, occupation of varyingly sized habitat patches, varying degrees of specialisation, and development through numerous developmental phases, their ecological requirements vary in time and place. As habitat patches of carabid assemblages usually include several vegetation types and/or physical structures, a conservation approach targeted for maintaining only particular vegetation types or high plant diversity may not always be appropriate for the conservation of arthropod assemblages. Moreover, the high number of carabid species, each with specific demands, makes it difficult to define a single conservation strategy. Protection of whole landscapes with mosaics of distinct habitat types may prove efficient for carabid conservation. Simultaneously, the natural variety of successional stages should be conserved, as particular stages can be crucial for certain species (cf. ). Moreover, some species – such as Amara plebeja – possibly require more than just one habitat type and/or successional stage to persist in a landscape (‘landscape species’; Szyszko;; Axel Schwerk, pers. comm.). Habitat patches within these mosaics should include particular structures, such as micro-relief, patches of bare sand, stony patches, small water bodies, heaps of decaying plant material, and dead wood, features that are often of no special importance for plants and vertebrates and therefore often ignored if conservation management is based on vegetation data alone. Thus, a broad landscape approach, supplemented by these small-scale structures, may produce good results for the conservation of carabid beetles (;, 2010;, 2007; ).

8 Landscape ecology

How carabid beetles perceive space may influence habitat selection, home ranges, the dispersal of individuals and the dynamics and distributions of populations. Furthermore, the amount, extent and spatial arrangement of suitable habitats within a landscape (i.e. landscape composition and configuration) may affect long-term population persistence. Thus, although the spatial distribution of carabid beetles may be primarily determined by microhabitat conditions and biotic interactions at the local scale, identifying general patterns of carabid responses to landscape features may help us to understand how species, functional groups and assemblages effectively distribute, and to predict how they will cope with current and future land-use and climatic changes. As such, the spatial context related to a species’ distribution patterns is an essential component when studying how global changes affect carabid species conservation.

Over the last 40 years, investigations of ground beetle landscape ecology have demonstrated that landscape features influence not only the spatial distribution of these beetles, but also their population dynamics and genetic structure. From the late 1950s until the mid 1970s, contributions to carabid beetle ecology aimed at characterising the structure and composition of communities occurring in specific types of landscapes, which were, at that stage, considered as homogeneous entities (e.g. forested vs. open landscapes; see ). Research developed in the 1980s and 1990s confirmed the significance of heterogeneity within landscapes and thus addressed the role of singular landscape elements or habitat types for the carabid fauna in a variety of either natural or highly-modified and simplified landscapes. In tests of the application of the theory of island biogeography to carabid communities, it has been shown that local communities are not simply a passive random sample of the regional species pool, but that species are filtered according to the association of their life history traits to habitat quality, configuration and biotic interactions (e.g.;; ). Studies that have looked for an island effect in carabid assemblages of patches of terrestrial habitats have generally concluded that such patches are not sufficiently isolated to represent islands, due to the strong dispersal capacity of many carabid species. Studies have also been conducted on carabid assemblages of real islands, and these too have concluded that a simple species-area relationship explains the differences in carabid species richness between islands of different size better than distance from mainland populations (; Zalewski).

In recent literature, studies on the importance of the landscape context in determining the occurrence of carabid species based on different aspects of landscape composition, configuration, connectivity, history, land-use type and intensity have proliferated (e.g.;;;; ). Many studies analysed the influence of the landscape context on overall carabid beetle activity density and species richness, often finding no statistically significant effect. Mostly, changes in landscape features have been related to shifts in carabid species composition, and variations in the activity density of individual species and ecologically meaningful groups (e.g. Niemelä;;; ).

Agricultural landscapes in particular, driven by daily, seasonal and annual fluctuations, soon became the subject of many carabid beetle surveys, followed by an extensive number of publications to date (e.g.; ). In general, the basic composition of the carabid fauna of agricultural mosaic landscapes appears to be surprisingly similar across countries, dominated by eurytopic species, which are highly tolerant to disturbance. However, the size, amount, isolation and spatial arrangement of agricultural patches, the composition of the arable mosaic, as well as the occurrence of permanent landscape elements (e.g. hedgerows, field margins, natural woodlands and grasslands), affect carabid beetle assemblages.

In forest ecosystems, natural and anthropogenic disturbances create a dynamic mosaic of successional habitat patches for carabids (e.g. for windstorm disturbance). Each forest successional stage is characterised by a specific carabid assemblage, in terms of species composition as well as ecological group composition, with the greatest differences between early and advanced stages (e.g.;;;;;;; ). Changes in population dynamics and morphological traits also take place through succession (e.g. Szysko et al. 1996 for Pterostichus oblongopunctatus, Table 4). Changes in the carabid fauna are possibly correlated with the amount of carbon accumulation in the forest system, i.e. in the wood, litter and mineral soil. The increase of carbon in the mineral soil is related to the decomposition of litter by the macrofauna. For pine stands in Poland, demonstrated that biomass of the macrofauna is correlated with parameters of the carabid fauna, such as species number and Mean Individual Biomass (MIB). MIB increases as succession progresses (;; Szyszko), suggesting that this measure functions as a good indicator of the state of succession (see Bioindicators above). The rate at which species composition changes during succession and the successional trajectory followed by the carabid assemblages depends on environmental conditions, such as soil properties (, 1990; ), dominant tree species, and the type of disturbance that initiated the succession. Indeed, the larger the newly-created gap is and the fewer trees retained, the more severe the perturbation for carabid assemblages ( following timber harvest; and following windthrow gap). As a consequence, the maintenance of a variety of successional phases of the forest cycle results in increased heterogeneity at the landscape level and, therefore greater regional carabid diversity (e.g.; ). Thus, the effects of forest landscape features on the carabid fauna have also been extensively addressed as regards to landscape heterogeneity, the occurrence, composition and spatial configuration of either natural or human-modified habitats (e.g. proportion of deciduous vs. coniferous forests, age and extent of exotic plantations, forest edge density and permeability), the role of particular landscape elements (e.g. retention tree groups), and the landscape context resulting from historical and/or recent management practices.

Much effort has been devoted to investigating how carabid beetles are distributed in fragmented landscapes and insular environments (for reviews, see Niemelä and, respectively). Carabid responses to fragmentation depend on the geographical context, are species specific and, to a great extent, relate to species’ life history traits and habitat associations (e.g.; ). In a fragmented landscape context, mobility is crucial for persistence, especially for specialist and scarce species. In general, good dispersers and abundant species are expected to maintain populations in small and isolated patches through recolonisation of empty patches, whereas poor colonisers and scarce species may not be able to do so (; Niemelä). Hostile types of matrix or linear elements in the landscape can act as dispersal barriers for specialist species. For instance, some forest species are reluctant to cross highways or open habitats, while other stenotopic species effectively move along hedgerows and roadside verges (, 1994; ), which function as movement corridors for such species. Dirt roads in forested landscapes may serve as dispersal corridors for open habitat species, and roadsides overgrown with poplars have been suggested to serve as corridors for forest species with low dispersal power. Attempts to improve the connectivity of landscape elements by means of corridors may have contrasting effects on different carabid species according to their habitat requirements and, hence, new approaches regarding this matter are now under evaluation, such as semi-open corridors and innovative, small scale forest harvesting techniques (, see also Carabid conservation, protection and habitat management above).

Further studies have investigated the responses of ground beetles to anthropogenic or human-modified landscapes and urban environments (e.g.;;, 1992; ). These investigations have identified distinct sets of species associated with the urban cores or city centres (but see ). However, for a considerable number of these species, urban populations may be dependent on recruitment from populations in the urban periphery. The possible effects of urbanisation on carabid population genetics (i.e. genetic diversity and differentiation) remain unclear. In general, the overall abundance and species richness of carabids decrease with increasing urbanisation (; but see ). Also, large species tend to be relatively scarce in urban habitats, resulting in a decline in average body size in urban areas compared to less disturbed ones, both for forest assemblages and those of open habitats. Flightless species also tend to be relatively scarce in urban assemblages. Other responses detected in carabid assemblages (either in the proportion of species or the number of individuals) to urbanisation include (i) a decrease in species with restricted geographical ranges, along with the enhancement of those distributed over broad ranges; (ii) a decline in oligotopic, stenotopic and specialist species, whilst eurytopic, polytopic and generalist ones increase; (iii) a decrease in forest species and associated increase in open habitat species; (iv) an increase in xerophilic and mesohygrophilous species at the expense of more hygrophilous species; and (v) an increase in omnivorous species and a corresponding decrease in zoophagous species. Whilst stenotopic and specialist species generally decline with increasing urbanisation, some extremely harsh urban habitats accommodate these species, such as populations of Amara equestris in central reservations of a busy ring road in Helsinki, Finland. In fact, reported that more than 35% of Britain’s rare and scarce carabids are to be found from manmade sites, Omophron limbatum and Dyschirius obscurus exclusively so. Subsequent to numerous urbanisation studies from single cities, the GLOBENET project (; http://www.helsinki.fi/science/globenet) was established to apply a standard urbanisation gradient approach in cities across the globe (nine cities located in Europe, Japan and Canada). The main findings indicated that the carabid fauna of urban forested habitats display uniform patterns of response to the degree of urbanisation of the ‘concrete’ matrix.

In the BIOASSESS project (http://www.nbu.ac.uk/bioassess), global patterns in carabid responses to a land-use intensity gradient from old-growth or unmanaged forests to arable crop-dominated landscape across ten countries, have so far reported effects on overall species richness, number of individuals, ecological groups and species composition. Similarly, changes in landscape structure over time (i.e. landscape history) have been addressed when investigating carabid population declines or range-size modifications in human-altered landscapes. Additionally, these investigations have related contemporary distribution patterns of carabid endemism, rarity and habitat specialisation across landscapes to landscape history.

Even now, the spatial scale at which carabid beetles relate to resources across landscapes is not completely understood. Future studies should accomplish multiscale approaches that consider a wide range of fine and coarse grains at which each carabid species may perceive the landscape, depending on its mobility and body size (e.g.;; ). The spatial distribution of carabid species in a given landscape is nearly always aggregated at some scale (see e.g.; ), which suggests that spatial autocorrelation should always be taken into account. Additionally, the use of multiple habitats by carabid species in mosaic heterogeneous landscapes (e.g. for feeding, reproducing and overwintering; ), and the importance of particular habitat combinations for a species’ survival at the landscape level remain unclear. Moreover, since many of the reported carabid responses to landscape features are species specific, more attention should be devoted to the individual species level, and not only for species of present conservation concern but also for common and widely distributed species, as well as to the ecological group level. Nonetheless, sampling strategies that avoid confounding effects are needed to clearly assess the respective weights of local and landscape factors and, at the landscape scale, the respective importance of composition and configuration on a species’ survival. Indeed, experimental landscapes or mensurative experiments would be useful to disentangle these gradients that tend to be naturally correlated (Niemelä; ). Attention should also be paid to discrepancies between carabid species’ responses to landscape features across countries, possibly denoting that the impact of landscape structure on a particular species is likely to differ over its distribution range. Finally, in the current context of continuous landscape transformation, more emphasis should be given to the role of newly created habitats and abandoned areas across countries regarding carabid distribution, as well as to singular expanding elements and surrogate habitats, such as golf courses or private gardens in urban environments, roads, power lines and biomass crops (coppice with short and very-short rotation) in either open or forested landscapes. Eventually, potential mechanisms could be investigated by confronting the empirical data with models of dispersal and survival in heterogeneous landscapes (see e.g.; ).

9 Concluding remarks

Carabids are among the most species-rich families of beetles, which has made them a natural focus of entomological research. Carabidologists are busy studying this evolutionarily successful group at several levels, from sub-cellular to supra-individual. Indeed, from the discovery of a pH receptor on the antennae of carabid beetles to cross-continental, landscape related research “carabidologists do it all”. They are helped by a reasonably solid taxonomy, even if evolutionary relationships are still undetermined.

Carabidology has contributed to several prominent ecological theories, including metapopulation theory (pioneering work by Piet den Boer and colleagues), and provides one of the best examples of a consistent, systematic study of the effects of urbanisation on biodiversity (, and subsequent studies). These somewhat ad hoc examples are still powerful in the argumentation to encourage the use of carabids in ecological, evolutionary and behavioural studies.

Even from a subjective summary as this article admittedly is, it is obvious that carabids have contributed in a major way to our understanding of invertebrate adaptations, phylogeny and ecology. Accepting Hutchinson’s analogy that on the world stage an ecological play is being played out in the evolutionary theatre, watching and describing the peculiarities of one of the star players, ground beetles, will certainly advance our understanding of nature. In an age in which the earth is dominated by humans, this will provide important knowledge on how to maintain the richness of life on Earth, and with it, extend the lifespan of our own species.

References 611

  1. 1.

    Adis J Paarmann W Erwin TL (1986 ) On the natural history and ecology of small terrestrial ground beetles (Col.: Tachyina: Polyderis) from an Amazonian blackwater inundation forest. In: Den Boer PJ, Luff ML, Mossakowski D, Weber F (Eds) Carabid beetles - Their Adaptations and Dynamics. Gustav Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart-New York, 413–427.

    Not in our library

  2. 2.

    Adis J Paarmann W Höfer H (1990 ) On phenology and life cycle of Scarites (Scaritini, Carabidae, Coleoptera) from Central Amazonian floodplains. In: Stork NE (Ed) The Role of Ground Beetles in Ecological and Environmental Studies. Intercept, Andover, Hampshire, 269–275.

    Not in our library

  3. 3.

    Alexandrovitch OR Lopatin IK Pisanenko AD Tsinkevitch VA Snitko SM (1996 ) A Catalogue of Coleoptera (Insecta) of Belarus. Minsk, FFR RB, 103 pp.

    Not in our library

  4. 4.

    Althoff G-H Hockmann P Klenner M Nieheus F-J Weber F (1994 ) Dependence of running activity and net reproduction in Carabus auronitens on temperature. In: Desender K, Dufrêne M, Loreau M, Luff ML, Maelfait J-P (Eds) Carabid beetles: Ecology and EvolutionKluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 95–100.

    Not in our library

  5. 5.

    Andersen J Skorping A (1990 ) Sympatric speciation by habitat specialization and parasitism in carabid beetles. In: Stork NE (Ed) The role of ground beetles in ecological and environmental studies. Intercept, Andover, 21–29.

    Not in our library

  6. 6.

    Anderson R McFerran D Cameron A (2000 ) The ground beetles of Ireland (Coleoptera – Carabidae. Ulster Museum, 246 pp.

    Not in our library

  7. 7.

    Andorkó R Kádár F (2006 ) Carabid beetle (Coleoptera: Carabidae) communities in a woodland habitat in Hungary. Entomologica Fennica 17:221-228.

    Not in our library

  8. 8.

    Andrewartha HG Birch LC (1954 ) The distribution and abundance of animals. Chicago University Press, Chicago, 782 pp.

    Not in our library

  9. 9.

    Andújar A Serrano J (2001 ) Revisión y filogenia de los Zabrus Clairville, 1806 de la Península Ibérica (Colleoptera, Carabidae). Zaragoza, 90 pp.

    Not in our library

  10. 10.

    Angus RB Galián J Wrase DW Chaladze G (2008 ) The western Palaearctic species of the Pterostichus nigrita (Paykull) complex, with the description of a new species from Spain and a new subspecies of P. nigrita from Anatolia (Coleoptera, Carabidae). Nouvelle Revue d’Entomologie (N.S.) 25: 297–316. (published in 2009)

    Not in our library

  11. 11.

    (2006 ) Ground beetles of Ireland. National Museums Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland Environment Agency and the Heritage Council of Ireland. http://www.habitas.org.uk/groundbeetles/

    Not in our library

  12. 12.

    Antoine M (1955–1962 ) Coléoptères Carabiques du Maroc. I-V. Mémoires de la Société de Sciences Naturelles et Physiques du Maroc, Zoologie (n.s.), Rabat, 694 pp.

    Not in our library

  13. 13.

    Apfelbeck V (1904 ) Die Käferfauna der Balkanhabinsel 1 – Caraboidea. Friedländer, Berlin, 422 pp.

    Not in our library

  14. 14.

    Arndt E (1991 ) Carabidae. In: Klausnitzer B: Die Larven der Käfer Mitteleuropas 1. Goecke & Evers, Krefeld, 45–141.

    Not in our library

  15. 15.

    Arndt E (1998 ) Phylogenetic investigation of Carabidae (Coleoptera) using larval chaetotaxy. In: Ball GE, Casale A, Vigna Taglianti A (Eds) Phylogeny and classification of Caraboidea (Coleoptera: Adephaga). Museo Regionale di Scienze Naturali, Torino, 171–190.

    Not in our library

  16. 16.

    Arndt E (2005 ) GROUND beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) as CROWN beetles in a Central European flood plain forest. In: Lövei GL, Toft S (Eds), European Carabidology 2003. Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences 114:17-23.

    Not in our library

  17. 17.

    Arndt E Kirmse S (2002 ) Adaptation to seed-feeding in ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae: Harpalini) of South Venezuela. Studies on Neotropical Fauna and Environment 37:151-157

    Not in our library10.1076/snfe.37.2.151.8581

  18. 18.

    Arndt E Paarmann W Adis J (1996 ) Description of larvae and larval specializations to a specific food in the genus Notiobia Perty (Coleoptera: Carabidae) from Amazonian lowlands. Studies on Neotropical Fauna and Environment 31:205-216

    Not in our library10.1076/snfe.31.3.205.13340

  19. 19.

    Arndt E Schnitter P Sfenthourakis S Wrase D (in press ) Groundbeetles (Carabidae) of Greece. Pensoft, Sofia, Moscow.

    Not in our library

  20. 20.

    Ås S (1984 ) To fly or not to fly? Colonization of Baltic islands by winged and wingless carabid beetles. Journal of Biogeography 11:413-426

    Not in our library10.2307/2844805

  21. 21.

    Ashworth AC (1996 ) The response of arctic Carabidae (Coleoptera) to climate change based on the fossil record of the Quaternary Period. Annales Zoologici Fennici 33:125-131.

    Not in our library

  22. 22.

    Assmann T (1990 ) Multiallelic genes in the carabid beetle Carabus punctatoauratus Germar from the Pyrenees. In: Stork NE (Ed) The role of ground beetles in ecological and environmental studies. Intercept, Andover, 319–324.

    Not in our library

  23. 23.

    Assmann T (2009 ) Ground beetles and global change: first results from ongoing studies on case study species. In: Hengeveld R, Noordijk J, Opsteeg T, Turin H, Vermeulen HJW (Eds) Abstracts of the XIV European Carabidologists Meeting, Westerbork, the Netherlands, 25.

    Not in our library

  24. 24.

    Assmann T Buse J Drees C Habel J Härdtle W Matern A Von Oheimb G Schuldt A Wrase DW (2008 ) From Latreille to DNA systematics – towards a modern synthesis for carabidology. In: Penev L, Erwin TL, Assmann T (Eds) Back to the roots and back to the future. Pensoft, Sofia, 41–76.

    Not in our library

  25. 25.

    Assmann T Dormann W Främbs H Gürlich S Handke K Huk T Terlutter H (2002 ) Rote liste der Niedersachsen und Bremen gefährdeten Sandlaufkäfer und Laufkäfer (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae et Carabidae) mit Gesamtartenverzeichnis. 1. Fassung vom 1.6.2002. Niedersächsiches Landesamt für Ökologie.

    Not in our library

  26. 26.

    Assmann T Nolte O Reuter H (1994 ) Postglacial colonization of middle Europe by Carabus auronitens, as revealed by population genetics (Coleoptera, Carabidae). In: Desender K, Dufrêne M, Loreau M, Luff ML, Maelfait J-P (Eds) Carabid beetles: Ecology and evolution. Kluwer Academic Press, Dordrecht, 3–9.

    Not in our library

  27. 27.

    Aukema B (1990 ) Wing length determination in two wing-dimorphic Calathus species (Coleoptera, Carabidae). Hereditas113: 189–202

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1601-5223.1990.tb00084.x

  28. 28.

    Aukema B (1991 ) Fecundity in relation to wing-morph of three closely related species of the melanocephalus group of the genus Calathus (Coleoptera, Carabidae). Oecologia 87:118-126

    Not in our library10.1007/bf00323789

  29. 29.

    Aukema B (1995 ) Flying for life: Wing dimorphism in closely related species of the genus Calathus (Coleoptera: Carabidae) Ph.D. thesis, Wageningen University, Ponsen & Loojien, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 168 pp.

    Not in our library

  30. 30.

    Aviron S Burel F Baudry J Schermann N (2005 ) Carabid assemblages in agricultural landscapes: impacts of habitat features, landscape context at different spatial scales and farming intensity. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 108:205-217

    Not in our library10.1016/j.agee.2005.02.004

  31. 31.

    Baars MA (1982 ) Running for life. Thesis, University of Amsterdam, 161 pp.

    Not in our library

  32. 32.

    Baars MA Van Dijk ThS (1984 ) Population dynamics of two carabid beetles at a Dutch heathland. II. Egg production and survival in relation to density. Journal of Animal Ecology 53:389-400

    Not in our library10.2307/4523

  33. 33.

    Baehr M (1994 ) Phylogenetic relations and biogeography of the genera of Pseudomorphinae (Coleoptera, Carabidae). In: Desender K, Dufrêne M, Loreau M, Luff ML, Maelfait J-P (Eds) Carabid beetles: Ecology and evolution. Kluwer Academic Press, Dordrecht, 11–17.

    Not in our library

  34. 34.

    Baehr M (1998 ) A preliminary survey of the classification of the Psydrinae (Coleoptera: Carabidae). In: Ball GE, Casale A, Vigna Taglianti A (Eds) Phylogeny and classification of Caraboidea (Coleoptera: Adephaga). Museo Regionale di Scienze Naturali, Torino, 359–367.

    Not in our library

  35. 35.

    Ball GE (1979 ) Conspectus of carabid classification: history, holomorphology, and higher taxa. In: Erwin TL, Ball GE, Whitehead DR, Halpern AL (Eds) Carabid Beetles: Their Evolution, Natural History, and Classification. Dr. W. Junk Publishers, Dordrecht, Boston, Lancaster, 63–111.

    Not in our library

  36. 36.

    Ball GE (Ed) (1985 ) Taxonomy, phylogeny and zoogeography of beetles and ants: a volume dedicated to the memory of Philip Jackson Darlington, Jr (1904–1983). Dr. W. Junk Publishers, Dordrecht, Boston, Lancaster: 513 pp.

    Not in our library

  37. 37.

    Ball GE Bousquet Y (2001 ) Carabidae. In: Arnett RH, Thomas RC (Eds) American Beetles, Volume I: Archostemata, Myxophaga, Adephaga, Polyphaga: Staphyliniformia. CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton, FL, 32–132.

    Not in our library

  38. 38.

    Ball GE Casale A Vigna Taglianti A Eds (1998 ) Phylogeny and classification of Caraboidea (Coleoptera: Adephaga). Museo Regionale di Scienze Naturali, Torino, 543 pp.

    Not in our library

  39. 39.

    Bangsholt F (1983 ) The distribution and occurrence of tiger beetles and ground beetles in Denmark from about 1830 to 1981 (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae and Carabidae). Scandinavian Science Press, Copenhagen, pp. 271.

    Not in our library

  40. 40.

    Barbaro L Pontcharraud L Vetillard F Guyon D Jactel H (2005 ) Comparative responses of bird, carabid, and spider assemblages to stand and landscape diversity in maritime pine plantation forests. Ecoscience 12:110-121

    Not in our library10.2980/i1195-6860-12-1-110.1

  41. 41.

    Barbaro L Rossi J-P Vetillard F Nezan J Jactel H (2007 ) The spatial distribution of birds and carabid beetles in pine plantation forests: the role of landscape composition and structure. Journal of Biogeography 34:652-664

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1365-2699.2006.01656.x

  42. 42.

    Barbaro L van Halder I (2009 ) Linking bird, carabid beetle and butterfly life-history traits to habitat fragmentation in mosaic landscapes. Ecography 32:321-333

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1600-0587.2008.05546.x

  43. 43.

    Barber H (1931 ) Traps for cave-inhabiting insects. Journal of the Elisha Mitchell Scientific Society 46:259-266.

    Not in our library

  44. 44.

    Barsevskis A (2003 ) Latvijas Skrejvaboles (Coleoptera: Carabidae, Trachypachidae & Rhysodidae). Baltic Institute of Coleopterology, Daugavpils, 262 pp.

    Not in our library

  45. 45.

    Barton PS Manning AD Gibb H Lindenmayer DB Cunnigham SA (2009 ) Conserving ground-dwelling beetles in an endangered woodland community: Multi-scale habitat effects on assemblage diversity. Biological Conservation 142:1701-1709

    Not in our library10.1016/j.biocon.2009.03.005

  46. 46.

    Bauer T Talarico F Mazzei A Giglio A Zetto Brandmayr T Brandmayr P Betz O (2005 ) Hunting ants in Mediterranean clay soils: life history of Siagona europaea (Coleoptera, Carabidae). Italian Journal of Zoology 72:33-42

    Not in our library10.1080/11250000509356650

  47. 47.

    Bedel L (1899–1900 ) Carabidae. In: Catalogue raisonné des Coléoptères du Nord de l’Afrique. Publication de la Société entomologique de France, Paris, I-II: 1–320.

    Not in our library

  48. 48.

    Bell RT (1998 ) Where do the Rhysodini (Coleoptera) belong? In: Ball GE, Casale A, Vigna Taglianti A (Eds) Phylogeny and classification of Caraboidea (Coleoptera: Adephaga). Museo Regionale di Scienze Naturali, Torino, 261–271.

    Not in our library

  49. 49.

    Bérces S Szél G Ködöböcz V Kutasi C (2008 ) The distribution, habitat, and the nature conservation value of a Natura 2000 beetle, Carabus hungaricus Fabricius, 1972 in Hungary. In: Penev L, Erwin T, Assmann T (Eds) Back to the roots and back to the future. Towards a new synthesis amongst taxonomic, ecological and biogeographical approaches in carabidology. Proceedings of the XIII European Carabidologists Meeting, Blagoevgrad, August 20–24, 2007, 363–372.

    Not in our library

  50. 50.

    Beutel R (1998 ) Trachypachidae and the phylogeny of Adephaga (Coleoptera). In: Ball GE, Casale A, Vigna Taglianti A (Eds) Phylogeny and classification of Caraboidea (Coleoptera: Adephaga). Museo Regionale di Scienze Naturali, Torino, 81–105.

    Not in our library

  51. 51.

    Beutel RG Haas A (1996 ) Phylogenetic analysis of larval and adult characters of Adephaga (Coleoptera) using cladistic computer programs. Entomologica Scandinavica 27:197-205.

    Not in our library

  52. 52.

    Blake S Foster GN Fisher EJ Ligertwood GL (1996 ) Effects of management practices on the carabid faunas of newly established wildflower meadows in southern Scotland. Annales Zoologici Fennici 33:139-147.

    Not in our library

  53. 53.

    Bodenheimer FS (1934 ) Studies on the ecology of Palestinian Coleoptera. II. Seasonal and diurnal appearance and activity. Bulletin de la Société Royale Entomologique d’Egypt 18:211-241.

    Not in our library

  54. 54.

    Boeken M Desender K Drost B Van Gijzen T Koese B Muilwijk J Turin H Vermeulen R (2002 ) De loopkevers van Nederland en Vlaanderen (Coleoptera, Carabidae). Jeugdbondsuitgeverij, Nederland, 212 pp.

    Not in our library

  55. 55.

    Bommarco R (1998 ) Reproduction and energy reserves of a predatory carabid beetle relative to agroecosystem complexity. Ecological Applications 8:846-853

    Not in our library10.1890/1051-0761(1998)008[0846:raeroa]2.0.co;2

  56. 56.

    Bonavita P Chemini C (1996 ) Structures and indicator role of carabid assemblages from wet areas in the province of Trento, Italian Alps (Coleoptera, Carabidae). Quaderni della Stazioni diEcologia del civico Museo di Storia naturale di Ferrera 10:107-123.

    Not in our library

  57. 57.

    Borcherding R Paarmann W Bin Nyawa S Bolte H (2000 ) How to be a fig beetle? Observations of ground beetles (Col., Carabidae) associated with fruitfalls in a rain forest of Borneo. Ecotropica 6:169-180.

    Not in our library

  58. 58.

    Bouget C (2004 ) Chablis et diversité des coléoptères en forêt feuillue de plaine: impact à court terme de la trouée, de sa surface et de son contexte paysager. PhD thesis in Ecology, Paris, France, Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, 452 pp.

    Not in our library

  59. 59.

    Bouget C (2005 ) Short-term effect of windthrow disturbance on ground beetle communities: gap and gap size effects. In: Lövei G, Toft S (Eds), European Carabidology 2003, 11th European Carabidologists' Meeting. Aarhus (Denmark), July 2003, Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences, DIAS Report 114, 25–40.

    Not in our library

  60. 60.

    Bouget C Duelli P (2004 ) The effects of windthrow on forest insect communities: a literature review. Biological Conservation 118:281-299

    Not in our library10.1016/j.biocon.2003.09.009

  61. 61.

    Bowie MH Frampton CM (2004 ) A practical technique for non-destructive monitoring of soil surface invertebrates for ecological restoration programmes. Ecological Management & Restoration 5:34-42

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1442-8903.2004.00171.x

  62. 62.

    Brakman PJ (1966 ) Lijst van Coleoptera uit Nederland en het omliggend gebied. Monografieën van de Nederlandse Entomologische Vereniging 2, Amsterdam, 219 pp.

    Not in our library

  63. 63.

    Brandmayr P (1977 ) Ricerche etologiche e morfofunzionali sulle cure parentali in Carabidi Pterostichini (Coleoptera, Carabidae, Pterostichinae). Redia 60:275-316.

    Not in our library

  64. 64.

    Brandmayr P Den Boer PJ Weber F Eds (1983 ) The synthesis of field study and laboratory experiment. Proceedings of the 4th European Carabidologists’ Meeting. Centre for Agricultural Publishing and Documentation Wageningen, the Netherlands, 196 pp.

    Not in our library

  65. 65.

    Brandmayr P Lövei GL Zetto Brandmayr T Casale A Vigna Taglianti A Eds (2000 ) Natural history and applied ecology of carabid beetles. Proceedings of the 9th European Carabidologists’ Meeting. Pensoft, Sofia-Moscow, 304 pp.

    Not in our library

  66. 66.

    Brandmayr P Zetto Brandmayr T (1974 ) Sulle cure parentali e su altri aspetti della biologia di Carterus (Sabienus) calydonius Rossi, con alcune considerazioni sui fenomeni di cura della prole sino ad oggi riscontrati in Carabidi (Coleoptera, Carabidae): Redia 55: 143–175.

    Not in our library

  67. 67.

    Brandmayr P Zetto Brandmayr T (1979 ) The evolution of parental care phenomena in Pterostichini, with particular reference to the genera Abax and Molops. In: Den Boer PJ, Thiele HU, Weber F (Eds) On the evolution of behaviour in carabid beetles. Miscellaneous Papers, 18, Landbouwhogeschool Wageningen, 35–49.

    Not in our library

  68. 68.

    Brandmayr P Zetto Brandmayr T (1982 ) Identificazione di larve del genere Ophonus Dejean, 1821 (sensu novo) e note bionomiche. Memorie di Società entomologica Italiana 60 (1981):67-103.

    Not in our library

  69. 69.

    Brandmayr P Zetto Brandmayr T (1987 ) The problem of presocial behaviour in ditomine ground beetles. Pubblicazioni dell'Istituto di Entomologia dell'Universita di Pavia 36:15-18.

    Not in our library

  70. 70.

    Brandmayr P Zetto Brandmayr T (1991 ) A paleoclimatic model for the evolution of brood watching in the ground beetle genus Molops (Coleoptera, Carabidae). Ethology Ecology & Evolution, Special issue 1:139-142.

    Not in our library

  71. 71.

    Brandmayr P Zetto Brandmayr T (1994 ) The evolutionary history of the genus Abax (Coleoptera, Carabidae). In: Desender K, Dufrêne M, Loreau M, Luff ML, Maelfait J-P (Eds) Carabid beetles: ecology and evolution. Kluwer Academic Press, Dordrecht, 19–24.

    Not in our library

  72. 72.

    Braun SD Jones TH Perner J (2004 ) Shifting average body size during regeneration after pollution - a case study using ground beetle assemblages. Ecological Entomology 29:543-554

    Not in our library10.1111/j.0307-6946.2004.00643.x

  73. 73.

    Bräuniger C Knapp S Kuhn I Klotz S (2010 ) Testing taxonomic and landscape surrogates for biodiversity in an urban setting. Landscape and Urban Planning 97:283-295

    Not in our library10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.07.001

  74. 74.

    Breuning S (1932–1937 ) Monographie der Gattung Carabus, I-VII. Bestimmungstabellen der Europäischen Käfer 104, 105 (1932) 106, 107 (1933) 108 (1934) 109 (1935) 110 (1937). Troppau 1–1610 (+ 41 distribution maps).

    Not in our library

  75. 75.

    Brose U (2003 ) Island biogeography of temporary wetland carabid beetle communities. Journal of Biogeography 30:879-888

    Not in our library10.1046/j.1365-2699.2003.00893.x

  76. 76.

    Brouat C Sennedot F Audiot P Leblois R Rasplus J-Y (2003 ) Fine-scale genetic structure of two carabid species with contrasted levels of habitat specialization. Molecular Ecology 12:1731-1745

    Not in our library10.1046/j.1365-294x.2003.01861.x

  77. 77.

    Brückner M Mossakowski D (2006 ) Phylogeny of the genus Percus (Coleoptera: Carabidae) - nuclear genes and the basal splits. Entomologica Fennica 17:195-199.

    Not in our library

  78. 78.

    Brunsting AMH Siepel H Van Schaik Zillesen PG (1986 ) The role of larvae in the population ecology of Carabidae. In Den Boer PJ, Luff ML, Mossakowski D, Weber F (Eds) Carabids Beetles, Their Adaptations and Dynamics. Gustav Fischer, Stuttgart New York, 399–411.

    Not in our library

  79. 79.

    Brust GE House GJ (1988 ) Weed seed destruction by arthropods and rodents in low-input soybean agroecosystems. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 3:19-25

    Not in our library10.1017/s0889189300002083

  80. 80.

    Burakowski B Mroczkowski M Stevanska J (1973–1974 ) Carabidae 1–2. Katalog Fauny Polski, 23: 1–232, 1430.

    Not in our library

  81. 81.

    Burel F (1989 ) Landscape structure effects on carabid beetles spatial patterns in Western France. Landscape Ecology 2:215-226

    Not in our library10.1007/bf00125092

  82. 82.

    Burel F Baudry J Butet A Clergeau P Delettre Y Le Coeur D Dubs F Morvan N Paillat G Petit S Thenail C Brunel E Lefeuvre JC (1998 ) Comparative biodiversity along a gradient of agricultural landscapes. Acta Oecologica 19:47-60

    Not in our library10.1016/s1146-609x(98)80007-6

  83. 83.

    Burel F Butet A Delettre YR Millàn de la Peña N (2004 ) Differential response of selected taxa to landscape context and agricultural intensification. Landscape and Urban Planning 67:195-204

    Not in our library10.1016/s0169-2046(03)00039-2

  84. 84.

    Butterfield J (1997 ) Carabid community succession during the forestry cycle in conifer plantations. Ecography 20:614-625

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1600-0587.1997.tb00430.x

  85. 85.

    Cabidoche M (1963 ) Note sur la périodicité saissonière d’activité d’une poupulation de Coléoptères troglobies (Aphaenops et Hydraphaenops) Comptes Rendus de Académie des Sciences Paris, 256: 4491–4493.

    Not in our library

  86. 86.

    Cabidoche M (1966 ) Contribution à la connaissance de l’écologie des Trechinae cavernicoles pyrénèens. PhD thesis, University Paris, 228 pp.

    Not in our library

  87. 87.

    Callot HJ Schott C (1993 ) Catalogue et atlas des coleopteres d’Alsace. Societé Alsacienne d’Entomologie, 122 pp.

    Not in our library

  88. 88.

    Casale A (1988 ) Revisione degli Sphodrina (Coleoptera, Carabidae, Sphodrini). Museo Regionale di Scienze naturali, Torino, 1024 pp.

    Not in our library

  89. 89.

    Casale A (1998 ) Phylogeny and biogeography of Calleidina (Coleoptera: Carabidae: Lebiini): a preliminary survey. In: Ball GE, Casale A, Vigna Taglianti A (Eds) Phylogeny and classification of Caraboidea (Coleoptera: Adephaga). Museo Regionale di Scienze Naturali, Torino, 381–427.

    Not in our library

  90. 90.

    Casale A (2005 ) Tabelle per l’identificazione delle tribu e dei Generi di Caraboidea presenti in Italia. In: Brandmayr P, Zetto T, Pizzolotto, R (Eds) I Colleotteri Carabidi per la valutazione ambientale e la conservazione della biodiversità. APAT, Roma, 148–185.

    Not in our library

  91. 91.

    Casale A Busato E (2008 ) A real time extinction: the case of Carabus clatratus in Italy (Coleoptera, Carabidae). In: Penev L, Erwin TL, Assmann T (Eds) Back to the roots and back to the future. Pensoft, Sofia, 353–362.

    Not in our library

  92. 92.

    Casale A Mossakowski D (2003 ) General remarks on the classification of Imura Y (2002). In: Turin H, Penev L, Casale A (Eds) The genus Carabus - A Synthesis. Sofia-Moscow: 455–461.

    Not in our library

  93. 93.

    Casale A Prüser E Arndt E Mossakowski D (1998 ) Phylogenetic relationships in the subgenus Platycarabus Morawitz, 1886 (Coleoptera: Carabidae: Carabini). In: Ball GE, Casale A, Vigna Taglianti A (Eds) Phylogeny and classification of Caraboidea (Coleoptera: Adephaga). Museo Regionale di Scienze Naturali, Torino, 429–447.

    Not in our library

  94. 94.

    Casale A Sturani M Vigna Taglianti A (1982 ) Fauna d’Italia – Carabidae I – Introduzione, Paussinae, Carabinae. Edizione Calderini, Bologna, 499 pp.

    Not in our library

  95. 95.

    Casale A Vigna Taglianti A Brandmayr P Colombetta G (2007 ) Insecta Coleoptera Carabidae (Carabini, Cychrini, Trechini, Abacetini, Stomini, Pterostichini). In: Ruffo S, Stoch F (Eds) Checklist and distribution of the Italian Fauna. Memorie del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Verona 2 serie, Sezione Scienze della Vita 17 (2006): 159–163 with data on CD-ROM.

    Not in our library

  96. 96.

    Cavazzuti P (1989 ) Monografia del Genere Procerus (Coleoptera, Carabidae, Carabini). Associazione Naturalistica Piemontese, Memorie Vol. I. Edizione L’Artistica Savigliano, 200 pp.

    Not in our library

  97. 97.

    Charrier S Petit S Burel F (1997 ) Movements of Abax parallelepipedus (Coleoptera, Carabidae) in woody habitats of a hedgerow network landscape: a radio-tracing study. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 61:133-144

    Not in our library10.1016/s0167-8809(96)01101-2

  98. 98.

    Cole LJ Pollock ML Robertson D Holland JP McCracken DI (2006 ) Carabid (Coleoptera) assemblages in the Scottish uplands: the influence of sheep grazing on ecological structure. Entomologica Fennica 17:229-240.

    Not in our library

  99. 99.

    Coulon J Marchal P Pupier R Richoux P Allemand R Genest L-C Clary J (2000 ) Coléoptères de Rhône-Alpes. Société linnéenne de Lyon, 193 pp.

    Not in our library

  100. 100.

    Crawley MJ (2003 ) Statistical Computing. An Introduction to Data Analysis using S-Plus. John Wiley & Sons Ltd., England, 761 pp.

    Not in our library

  101. 101.

    Csiki E (1946 ) Die Käferfauna des Karpaten-Beckens 1. Algemeiner Teil und Caraboidea. Naturwissenschaftliche Monographien IV. András Tasnádi Kubacska, Budapest, 798 pp.

    Not in our library

  102. 102.

    Cuesta D Taboada A Calvo L Salgado JM (2006 ) A preliminary investigation of ground beetle (Coleoptera: Carabidae) assemblages and vegetation community structure in Calluna vulgaris heathlands in NW Spain. Entomologica Fennica 17:241-252.

    Not in our library

  103. 103.

    Czechowski W (1982 ) Occurrence of carabids Coleoptera, Carabidaein the urban greenery of Warsaw according to the land utilization and cultivation. Memorabilia Zoologica39: 3–108.

    Not in our library

  104. 104.

    Dalthorp D (2004 ) The generalized linear model for spatial data: assessing the effects of environmental covariates on population density in the field. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 111:117-131

    Not in our library10.1111/j.0013-8703.2004.00158.x

  105. 105.

    Darlington PJ (1936 ) Variation and atrophy of flying wings of some carabid beetles Annals of the Entomological Society of America49: 136–179.

    Not in our library

  106. 106.

    Darlington PJ (1943 ) Carabidae of mountains and islands: data on the evolution of isolated faunas, and on atrophy of wings. Ecological Monographs13: 37–61

    Not in our library10.2307/1943589

  107. 107.

    Davies K Margules C (1998 ) Effects of habitat fragmentation on carabid beetles: Experimental evidence. Journal of Animal Ecology 67:460-471

    Not in our library10.1046/j.1365-2656.1998.00210.x

  108. 108.

    Davies L (1972 ) Two Amblystogenium species (Col., Carabidae) coexisting on the Subarctic Possesion Island; Crozet Islands. Entomologica Scandinavica 3:275-286.

    Not in our library

  109. 109.

    Darwin C (1859 ) On the origin of species by means of natural selection or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. Hazel, Watson & Viney, London, 389 pp.

    Not in our library

  110. 110.

    Den Boer PJ (1968 ) Spreading of risk and stabilization of animal numbers. Acta Biotheoretica 18:165-194

    Not in our library10.1007/bf01556726

  111. 111.

    Den Boer PJ (1970 ) On the significance of dispersal power for populations of carabid-beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae). Oecologia 4:1-28

    Not in our library10.1007/bf00390612

  112. 112.

    Den Boer PJ (Ed)(1971 ) Dispersal and dispersal power of carabid beetles Proceedings of the 1st European Carabidologists’ Meeting. Miscellaneous papers, Agricultural University Wageningen 8: 151 pp.

    Not in our library

  113. 113.

    Den Boer PJ (1977 ) Dispersal power and survival. Carabids in a cultivated countryside. Miscellaneous papers, Agricultural University, Wageningen 14:1-190.

    Not in our library

  114. 114.

    Den Boer PJ (1980 ) Exclusion or coexistence and the taxonomic or ecological relationship between species. Netherlands Journal of Zoology 30:278-306

    Not in our library10.1163/002829679x00421

  115. 115.

    Den Boer PJ (1985 ) Exclusion, competition or co-existence? A question for testing the right hypothesis. Zeischrift für zoologische Systematik und Evolution 23:259-274.

    Not in our library

  116. 116.

    Den Boer PJ (1986 ) Facts, hypotheses and models on the part played by food in the dynamics of carabid populations. In Den Boer PJ, Grüm L, Szyszko J (Eds) Feeding behaviour and accessibility of food for carabid beetles. Proceedings of the 5th Meeting of European Carabidologists’ Meeting. Warsaw Agricultural University Press, Warsaw, 81–96.

    Not in our library

  117. 117.

    Den Boer PJ Den Boer-Daanje W (1990 ) On life history tactics in carabid beetles: are there only spring and autumn breeders. In: Stork NE (Ed) The Role of Ground Beetles in Ecological and Environmental Studies, 247–258.

    Not in our library

  118. 118.

    Den Boer PJ Gradwell GR Eds (1971 ) Dynamics of populations, proceedings of the advanced study institute on Dynamics of Numbers in Populations, Oosterbeek, the Netherlands 7–18 September 1970, Centre for agricultural publishing and documentation, Wageningen, 611 pp.

    Not in our library

  119. 119.

    Den Boer PJ Grüm L Szyszko J Eds (1986a ) Feeding behaviour and accessibility of food for carabid beetles. Proceedings of the 5th European Carabidologists’ Meeting. Warsaw Agricultural University Press, Warsaw, 167 pp.

    Not in our library

  120. 120.

    Den Boer PJ Luff ML Mossakowski D Weber F Eds (1986b ) Carabid Beetles, their adaptations and dynamics. Proceedings of the 17th International Entomological Congress. Fischer, Stuttgart-New York, 551 pp.

    Not in our library

  121. 121.

    Den Boer PJ Lövei GL Stork NE Sunderland KD Eds (1987 ) Proceedings of the 6th European Carabidologist’s Meeting. Hungary. Phytopthologica et Entomologica Hungarica 22:1-458.

    Not in our library

  122. 122.

    Den Boer PJ Mols PJM Szyszko J Eds (1993 ) Dynamics of populations, proceedings of the meeting on population problems, Smolarnia, Poland 9–15 September 1992. Warsaw Agricultural University Press, Warsaw, 111 pp.

    Not in our library

  123. 123.

    Den Boer PJ Reddingius J (1996 ) Regulation and stabilization paradigms in population ecology, population and community biology series 16: 1–397, Chapman & Hall, London.

    Not in our library

  124. 124.

    Den Boer PJ Thiele H-U Weber F Eds (1979 ) On the evolution of behaviour in Carabid beetles. Proceedings of the 3rd European Carabidologists’ Meeting. Miscellaneous papers, Agricultural University Wageningen 18: 222 pp.

    Not in our library

  125. 125.

    Den Boer PJ Van Dijk ThS (1994 ) Carabid beetles in a changing environment. Wageningen Agricultural University Papers, Wageningen, the Netherlands, 94:1-30.

    Not in our library

  126. 126.

    Dennis RLH Shreeve TG Sheppard DA (2007 ) Species conservation and landscape management: a habitat perspective. In: Stewart AJA, New TR, Lewis OT (Eds) Insect conservation biology, CABI, Wallingford, 92–126

    Not in our library10.1079/9781845932541.0092

  127. 127.

    Desender K (1986 ) Distribution and ecology of carabid beetles in Belgium (Coleoptera, Carabidae), Parts 1–4. Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique. Documents de Travail 26: 1–30, 27: 1–24, 30: 1–23, 34:1-48.

    Not in our library

  128. 128.

    Desender K (1989a ) Heritability of wing development and body size in a carabid beetle, Pogonus chalceus Marsham, and its evolutionary significance. Oecologia 78:513-520

    Not in our library10.1007/bf00378743

  129. 129.

    Desender K (1989b ) Dispersievermogen en ecologie van loopkevers (Coleoptera, Carabidae) in Belgie: een evolutionaire benadering. Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences and Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, Brussels, Belgium, 136 pp.

    Not in our library

  130. 130.

    Desender K (2000 ) Flight muscle development and dispersal in the life cycle of carabid beetles: patterns and processes Bulletin de l’Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique, Entomologie 70: 13–31.

    Not in our library

  131. 131.

    Desender K (2005 ) Theory versus reality: a review on the ecological and population genetic effects of forest fragmentation on wild organisms, with an emphasis on ground beetles. DIAS report 114:49-72.

    Not in our library

  132. 132.

    Desender K Baert L Maelfait J-P (1990 ) Evolutionary ecology of carabids in the Galapagos Archipelago. In: Stork NE (Ed) The role of ground beetles in ecological and environmental studies. Intercept, Andover, 13–20.

    Not in our library

  133. 133.

    Desender K Dekoninck W Dufrêne M Maes D (2010 ) Changes in the distribution of carabid beetles in Belgium revisited: have we halted the diversity loss? Biological Conservation 143: 1549–1557

    Not in our library10.1016/j.biocon.2010.03.039

  134. 134.

    Desender K Dekoninck W Maes D Crevecoeur L Dufrêne M Jacobs M Lambrechts J Pollet M Stassen E Thys N (2008a ) Een nieuwe verspreidingsatlas van de loopkevers en zandloopkevers (Carabidae) in Belgie. Rapporten van het Instituut voor Natuur- en Bosonderzoek 2008 (INBO.R.2008.13), Instituut voor Natuur- en Bosonderzoek, Brussels, 184 pp.

    Not in our library

  135. 135.

    Desender K Dekoninck W Maes D (2008b ) An updated Red List of the ground and tiger beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) in Flanders. Bulletin De L'Institut Royal Des Sciences Naturelles De Belgique, Entomologie 78:113-131.

    Not in our library

  136. 136.

    Desender K Dufrêne M Loreau M Luff ML Maelfait JP Eds (1994a ) Carabid Beetles: Ecology and Evolution, Proceedings of the 8th European Carabidologists’ Meeting. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, the Netherlands, 474 pp.

    Not in our library

  137. 137.

    Desender K Dufrêne M Maelfait JP (1994b ) Long-term dynamics of carabid beetles in Belgium: a preliminary analysis on the influence of changing climate and land use by means of a database covering more than a century. In: Desender K, Dufrêne M, Loreau M, Luff ML, Maelfait JP (Eds) Carabid Beetles: Ecology and Evolution, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, the Netherlands, 247–252.

    Not in our library

  138. 138.

    Desender K Maes D Maelfait J-P Van Kerckvoorde M (1995 ) Een gedocumenteerde Rode Lijst van de zandloopkever en loopkevers van Vlaanderen. Instituut voor Natuurbeboud, Hasselt, 208 pp.

    Not in our library

  139. 139.

    Desender KRC Serrano J Verdyck P (2000 ) Genetic diversity and wing polymorphism in the saltmarsh beetle Pogonus chalceus: an Atlantic-Mediterranean comparison. In: Brandmayr P, Lövei GL, Zetto Brandmayr T, Casale A, Vigna Taglianti A (Eds) Natural history and applied ecology of carabid beetles. Pensoft, Sofia, 35–43.

    Not in our library

  140. 140.

    Desender K Small E Gaublomme E Verdyck P (2005 ) Rural-urban gradients and the population genetic structure of woodland ground beetles. Conservation Genetics 6:51-62

    Not in our library10.1007/s10592-004-7748-3

  141. 141.

    Desender K Turin H (1989 ) Loss of habitat and changes in the composition of the ground and tiger beetle fauna in four West European countries since 1950 (Coleoptera: Carabidae, Cicindelidae). Biological Conservation 48:277-294

    Not in our library10.1016/0006-3207(89)90103-1

  142. 142.

    Desender K Verdyck P (2000 ) Genetic differentiation in the Galápagos caterpillar hunter Calosoma granatense (Coleoptera, Carabidae). In: Brandmayr P, Lövei G, Zetto Brandmayr T, Casale A, Vigna Taglianti A (Eds) Natural History and Applied Ecology of Carabid Beetles, Pensoft Publishers, Sofia, Bulgaria, 25–34.

    Not in our library

  143. 143.

    Deuve T (1993 ) L’abdomen et les genitalia des femelles de Coléoptères Adephaga. Mémoires du Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle 155: 184.

    Not in our library

  144. 144.

    Deuve T (2004 ) Illustrated catalogue of the Genus Carabus of the world (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Pensoft, Sofia-Moscow, 461 pp.

    Not in our library

  145. 145.

    De Vries HH (1994 ) Size of habitat and presence of ground beetle species In: Desender K, Dufrêne M, Loreau M, Luff ML, Maelfait J-P (Eds) Carabid beetles: ecology and evolution. Series Entomologica 51:253-259.

    Not in our library

  146. 146.

    De Vries HH Den Boer PJ and Van Dijk TS (1996 ) Ground beetle species in heathland fragments in relation to survival, dispersal, and habitat preference. Oecologia 107:332-342

    Not in our library10.1007/bf00328449

  147. 147.

    Diaz M (1994 ) Variability in seed size selection by granivorous passerines - effects of bird size, bird size variability, and ecological plasticity. Oecologia 99:1-6

    Not in our library10.1007/bf00317076

  148. 148.

    Dieckmann U O’Hara B Weisser W (1999 ) The evolutionary ecology of dispersal. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 14:88-90

    Not in our library10.1016/s0169-5347(98)01571-7

  149. 149.

    Di Giulio A Moore W (2004 ) The first-instar larva of the genus Arthropterus (Coleoptera: Carabidae: Paussinae): implications for evolution of myrmecophily and phylogenetic relationships within the subfamily. Invertebrate Systematics 18:101-115

    Not in our library10.1071/is03028

  150. 150.

    Di Giulio A Vigna Taglianti A (2001 ) Biological observations on Pachyteles larvae (Coleoptera Carabidae Paussinae). Tropical Zoology 14:157-173.

    Not in our library

  151. 151.

    Digweed SC Currie CR Carcamo HA Spence JR (1995 ) Digging out the “digging-in effect” of pitfall traps: Influences depletion and disturbance on catches of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Pedobiologia 39:561-576.

    Not in our library

  152. 152.

    Dinter K Paarmann W Peschke K Arndt E (2002 ) Ecological, behavioural and chemical adaptations to ant predation in species of Thermophilum and Graphipterus (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in the Sahara desert. Journal of Arid Environment 50:267-286

    Not in our library10.1006/jare.2001.0850

  153. 153.

    Drees C Hüfner S Matern A Nève G Assmann T (2011 )Repeated sampling detects gene flow in a flightless ground beetle in a fragmented landscape. Oikos accepted.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1601-5223.2010.02212.x

  154. 154.

    Drees C Matern A Vermeulen R Assmann T (2007 ) The influence of habitat quality on populations: a plea for an amended approach in the conservation of Agonum ericeti. Baltic Journal of Coleopterology 7:1-8.

    Not in our library

  155. 155.

    Drovenik B (1999 ) Catalogus Faunae – Carabiden der Balkanländer, Coleoptera, Carabidae. Schwanfelder coleopterologische Mitteilungen 15:1-123.

    Not in our library

  156. 156.

    Du Bus de Warnaffe G Lebrun P (2004 ) Effects of forest management on carabid beetles in Belgium: implications for biodiversity conservation. Biological Conservation 118:219-234

    Not in our library10.1016/j.biocon.2003.08.015

  157. 157.

    Du Chatenet G (1986 ) Guide des Coléoptères d’Europe – Carabidae. Delachaux & Niestlé, Neuchâtel – Paris: 60–189, 28 plates, 190 maps.

    Not in our library

  158. 158.

    Duelli P Obrist MK (2003 ) Biodiversity indicators: the choice of values and measures. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 98:87-98

    Not in our library10.1016/s0167-8809(03)00072-0

  159. 159.

    Dufrêne M Legendre P (1997 ) Species assemblages and indicator species: the need for a flexible assymetrical approach. Ecological Monographs 67:345-366.

    Not in our library

  160. 160.

    Düring A (2002 ) Differentiation between Abax parallelepipedus and Abax angustatus in morphological and genetic character complex. In: Szyszko J, Den Boer PJ, Bauer T (Eds) How to protect or what we know about carabid beetles. Warsaw Agricultural University Press, Warsaw, 37–44.

    Not in our library

  161. 161.

    Düring A (2004 ) Molekularsystematische Untersuchungen am Carabidentaxob Abax Bonelli 1810 (Coleoptera, Carabidae), Eine phylogenetische und phylogeographische Studie. Verlagsgruppe Mainz GmbH, Aachen, 363 pp.

    Not in our library

  162. 162.

    Düring A Brückner M (2000 ) The evolutionary history of the tribe Molopini: a.first molecular approach. In: Brandmayr P, Lövei GL, Zetto Brandmayr T, Casale A, Vigna Taglianti A (Eds) Natural history and applied ecology of carabid beetles. Pensoft, Sofia, 1–4.

    Not in our library

  163. 163.

    Düring A Brückner M Mossakowski D (2006 ) Different behaviour of mitochondrial and nuclear markers: introgression and the evolutionary history of Chrysocarabus (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Entomologica Fennica 17:200-206.

    Not in our library

  164. 164.

    Düring A Bruckner M Zimmermann M Bobenhausen I Eicke N Mossakowski D (2000 ) Geographic distribution of two highly different mtDNA haplotypes in Carabus (Chrysocarabus) splendens Olivier. In: Brandmayr P, Lövei GL, Zetto Brandmayr T, Casale A, Vigna Taglianti A (Eds) Natural history and applied ecology of carabid beetles. Pensoft, Sofia, 5–9.

    Not in our library

  165. 165.

    Dymitryszyn I Szyszko J Gryuntal S (2003 ) Carabids (Carabidae, Col.) in the area of the planned A-2 highway section Poznan-Wrzesnia. Annals of Warsaw Agricultural University - SGGW, Horticulture and Landscape Architecture 24:149-154.

    Not in our library

  166. 166.

    Eggers B Matern A Drees C Eggers J Härdtle W Assmann T (2010 ) Value of semi-open corridors for simultaneously connecting open and wooded habitats: a case study with ground beetles. Conservation Biology 24:256-266

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01295.x

  167. 167.

    Elek Z Dauffy-Richard E Gosselin F (2010 ) Carabid species responses to hybrid poplar plantations in floodplains in France. Forest Ecology and Management 260:1446-1455

    Not in our library10.1016/j.foreco.2010.07.034

  168. 168.

    Elek Z Lövei GL (2007 ) Patterns in ground beetle (Coleoptera: Carabidae) assemblages along an urbanisation gradient in Denmark. Acta Oecologica 32:104-111

    Not in our library10.1016/j.actao.2007.03.008

  169. 169.

    Elron E Shlagman A Gasith A (2007 ) First detailed report of predation on anuran metamorphs by terrestrial beetle larvae. Herpetological Reviews 38:30-33.

    Not in our library

  170. 170.

    Emmerich H Thiele H-U (1969 ) Wirkung von Farnesylmethyläther auf die Ovarienreifung von Pterostichus nigrita F. Naturwissenschaften 56: 641

    Not in our library10.1007/bf01185755

  171. 171.

    Erbeling L Paarmann W (1986 ) The role of a circannual rhythm of thermoregulation on the control of the reproductive cycle of the desert carabid beetle Thermophilumsexmaculatum F. In: Den Boer PJ, Luff ML, Mossakowski D, Weber F (Eds) Carabid beetles - Their Adaptations and Dynamics. Gustav Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart-New York, 125–146.

    Not in our library

  172. 172.

    Ermakov AI (2004 ) Structural changes in the carabid fauna of forest ecosystems under a toxic impact. Russian Journal of Ecology 35:403-408

    Not in our library10.1023/b:ruse.0000046977.30889.a1

  173. 173.

    Erwin TL (1967 ) Bombardier beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) of North America: part II. Biology and behavior of Brachinus pallidus Erwin in California. Coleopterists Bulletin 21:41-55.

    Not in our library

  174. 174.

    Erwin TL (1979a ) A review of the Natural history and Evolution of Ectoparasitoid Relationships in Carabid Beetles. In: Erwin TL, Ball GE, Whitehead DR, Halpern AL (Eds) Carabid Beetles: Their Evolution, Natural history, and Classification. Dr. W. Junk Publishers, The Hague, 479–484.

    Not in our library

  175. 175.

    Erwin TL (1979b ) Thoughts on the evolutionary history of ground beetles: Hypothesis generated from comparative faunal analyses of lowland forest sites in temperate and tropical regions. In: Erwin TL, Ball GE, Whitehead DR (Eds) Carabid beetles, their evolution, natural history, and classification. W. Jung, The Hague, 539–592.

    Not in our library

  176. 176.

    Erwin TL (1996 ) Arboreal beetles of neotropical forests: Agra Fabricius, the cayennensis complex (Coleoptera: Carabidae: Lebiini: Calleida). Annales Zoologici Fennici 33:17-21.

    Not in our library

  177. 177.

    Erwin TL (2007 ) A treatise on the Western Hemisphere Caraboidea (Coleoptera). Their classification, distributions and ways of life. Vol. I (Trachypachidae, Carabidae – Nebriiformes 1). Pensoft Sofia-Moscow, 323 pp, 22 plates.

    Not in our library

  178. 178.

    Erwin TL Ball GE Whitehead DR Halpern AL Eds (1979 ) Carabid Beetles: Their Evolution, Natural history, and Classification. Dr. W. Junk Publishers, The Hague, 635 pp.

    Not in our library

  179. 179.

    Erwin TL Geraci CJ (2008 ) New genera of Western Hemisphere Pseudomorphini (Insecta, Coleoptera, Carabidae) with notes on their distributions, ways of life, and hypothesized relationships. In: Penev L, Erwin TL, Assmann T (Eds) Back to the roots and back to the future. Pensoft, Sofia, 77–100.

    Not in our library

  180. 180.

    Erwin TL Pearson DL (2008 ) A treatise on the Western Hemisphere Caraboidea (Coleoptera). Their classification, distributions and ways of life. Vol. II (Nebriiformes 2 - Cicindelidae). Pensoft, Sofia-Moscow, 365 pp, 33 plates.

    Not in our library

  181. 181.

    Evans MEG Forsythe TG (1985 ) Feeding mechanisms, and their variation in form, of some adult ground-betles (Coleoptera: Caraboidea). Acta Entomologica Sinica 206:113-143.

    Not in our library

  182. 182.

    Eversham BC Roy DB Telfer MG (1996 ) Urban, industrial and other manmade sites as analogues of natural habitats for carabidae. Annales Zoologici Fennici 33:149-156.

    Not in our library

  183. 183.

    Eyre MD Luff ML (1990 ) A preliminary classification of European grassland habitats using carabid beetles. In: Stork NE (Ed) The role of groundbeetles in ecological and environmental studies. Intercept, Andover, Hampshire, 227–236.

    Not in our library

  184. 184.

    Fahrig L (2003 ) Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 34:487-515

    Not in our library10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.34.011802.132419

  185. 185.

    Falke B Oevermann S Assmann T (2000 ) Ground beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) in a medieval wood-pasture reserve in north-west Germany. In: Brandmayr P, Lövei G, Zetto Brandmayr T, Casale A, Taglianti V (Eds) Natural history and applied ecology of carabid beetles, Pensoft, 265–275.

    Not in our library

  186. 186.

    Fawki S Toft S (2005 ) Food preferences and the value of animal food for the carabid beetle Amara similata (Gyll.) (Col., Carabidae). Journal of Applied Entomology 129:551-556

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1439-0418.2005.00992.x

  187. 187.

    Fedorenko DN (1996 ) Reclassification of world Dyschirini, with a revision of the palearctic fauna (Coleoptera, Carabidae). Pensoft, Sofia-Moscow-St.Petersburg, 224 pp.

    Not in our library

  188. 188.

    Ferenz HJ (1975 ) Anpassungen von Pterostichus nigrita F. (Coleoptera, Carabidae) an subartische Bedingungen. Oecologia 19:49-57

    Not in our library10.1007/bf00377589

  189. 189.

    Ferenz HJ (1977 ) Two-step photoperiodic and hormonal control of reproduction in the female beetle, Pterostichus nigrita. Journal of Insect Physiology 23:671-676

    Not in our library10.1016/0022-1910(77)90082-8

  190. 190.

    Ferenz HJ Hölters W (1975 ) Corpus allatum hormone induced maturation in males of three carabid species of the genus Pterostichus (Col., Carab.). Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 18:238-243

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1570-7458.1975.tb02375.x

  191. 191.

    Ford ED (2009 ) The importance of a research data statement and how to develop one. Annales Zoologici Fennici 46:82-92.

    Not in our library

  192. 192.

    Forel J Leplat J (1995 ) Les Carabes de France 1–2. Sciences Nat, Venette, 316 pp, maps, 57 plates.

    Not in our library

  193. 193.

    Forel J Leplat J (1998 ) Faune des Carabus de la peninsula ibérique. Magellanes 2:1-168.

    Not in our library

  194. 194.

    Forel J Leplat J (2001 ) Faune des carabiques de France -1. Magellanes 5:1-95.

    Not in our library

  195. 195.

    Forel J Leplat J (2003 ) Faune des carabiques de France -11 Magellanes 7: 1–159.

    Not in our library

  196. 196.

    Forel J Leplat J (2005 ) Faune des carabiques de France -10. Magellanes 12:1-129.

    Not in our library

  197. 197.

    Fournier E Loreau M (2001 ) Respective roles of recent hedges and forest patch remnants in the maintenance of ground-beetle (Coleoptera: Carabidae) diversity in an agricultural landscape. Landscape Ecology 16:17-32

    Not in our library10.1023/a:1008115516551

  198. 198.

    Främbs H (1990 ) Changes in carabid beetle populations on a regenerating, excavated peat bog in northwestern Germany. In: Stork NE (Ed) The role of ground beetles in ecological and environmental studies, Intercept, Andover, Hampshire, 157–169.

    Not in our library

  199. 199.

    Frank JH Erwin TL Hemenway RC (2009 ) Economically Beneficial Ground Beetles. The specialized predators Pheropsophus aequinoctialis (L.) and Stenaptinus jessoensis (Morawitz): Their laboratory behavior and descriptions of immature stages (Coleoptera, Carabidae, Brachininae). Zookeys 14:1-36

    Not in our library10.3897/zookeys.14.188

  200. 200.

    Freitag R Kavanaugh DH (1993 ) A new species of Cicindela (Cicindela) (Coleoptera: Carabidae: Cicindelini) from remnant native grassland in Santa Cruz County, California. Coleopterists Bulletin 47:113-120.

    Not in our library

  201. 201.

    Fuellhaas U (2000 ) Restoration of degraded fen grassland - effects of long-term inundation and water logging on ground beetle populations (Coleoptera: Carabidae). In: Brandmayr P, Lövei G, Zetto Brandmayr T, Casale A, Taglianti V (Eds) Natural history and applied ecology of carabid beetles, Pensoft, 251–263.

    Not in our library

  202. 202.

    Fuller RJ Oliver TH Leather SR (2008 ) Forest management effects on carabid beetle communities in coniferous and broadleaved forests: implications for conservation. Insect Conservation and Diversity 1:242-252

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1752-4598.2008.00032.x

  203. 203.

    GAC (1999 ) Laufkäfer in Auen. Angewandte Carabidologie – Supplement 1:1-144.

    Not in our library

  204. 204.

    GAC (2001 ) Laufkäfer im Wald. Angewandte Carabidologie – Supplement 2:1-122.

    Not in our library

  205. 205.

    GAC (2004 ) Laufkäfer in Xerothermbiotopen. Angewandte Carabidologie – Supplement 3:1-114.

    Not in our library

  206. 206.

    Ganglbauer L (1892 ) Die Käfer von Mitteleuropa 1 - Familienreihe Caraboidea. Verlag Carl Gerold’s Sohn, Wien, 557 pp.

    Not in our library

  207. 207.

    Galián J Prüser F De la Rúa P Serrano J Mossakowski D (1996 ) Cytological and molecular differences in the Ceroglossus chilensis species complex (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Annales Zoologici Fennici 33:23-30.

    Not in our library

  208. 208.

    Gärdenfors U (Ed) (2005 ) Rödlistade arter i Sverige 2005. The 2005 Red List of Swedish species. ArtDatabanken, Uppsala, 496 pp.

    Not in our library

  209. 209.

    Gardiner MM Landis DA Gratton C Schmidt N O'Neal M Mueller E Chacon J Heimpel GE (2010 ) Landscape composition influences the activity density of Carabidae and Arachnida in soybean fields. Biological Control 55:11-19

    Not in our library10.1016/j.biocontrol.2010.06.008

  210. 210.

    Gaston KJ Spicer JI (2004 ) Biodiversity. An introduction. 2nd edition. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, UK, 208 pp.

    Not in our library

  211. 211.

    Gaublomme E Hendrickx F Dhuyvetter H Desender K (2008 ) The effects of forest patch size and matrix type on changes in carabid beetle assemblages in an urbanized landscape. Biological Conservation 141:2585-2596

    Not in our library10.1016/j.biocon.2008.07.022

  212. 212.

    Gebert J (2006 ) Die Sandlaufkäfer und Laufkäfer von Sachsen. Beiträge zur Insektenfauna Sachsens, Band 4, Teil 1 (Carabidae: Cicindelini-Lorocerini): 1–180.

    Not in our library

  213. 213.

    Gilbert O (1956 ) The natural history of four species of Calathus (Coleoptera, Carabidae) living on sand dunes in Anglesey, North Wales. Oikos 7:22-47

    Not in our library10.2307/3564982

  214. 214.

    Grandchamp A-C Bergamini A Stofer S Niemelä J Duelli P Scheidegger C (2005 ) The influence of grassland management on ground beetles (Carabidae, Coleoptera) in Swiss montane meadows. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 110:307-317

    Not in our library10.1016/j.agee.2005.04.018

  215. 215.

    Greenslade PJM (1964 ) Pitfall trapping as a method for studying populations of Carabidae (Coleoptera). Journal of Animal Ecology 33:301-310

    Not in our library10.2307/2632

  216. 216.

    Griffiths GJK Winder L Holland JM Thomas CFG Williams E (2007 ) The representation and functional composition of carabid and staphylinid beetles in different field boundary types at a farm-scale. Biological Conservation 135:145-152

    Not in our library10.1016/j.biocon.2006.09.016

  217. 217.

    Gruttke H (1994 ) Dispersal of carabid species along a linear sequence of young hedge plantations. In: Desender K, Dufrêne M, Loreau M, Luff ML, Maelfait J-P (Eds) Carabid beetles: ecology and evolution. Series Entomologica 51:229-303.

    Not in our library

  218. 218.

    Gueorguiev BV (2007 ) Annotated catalogue of the carabid beetles of Albania (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Pensoft, Sofia-Moscow, 243 pp.

    Not in our library

  219. 219.

    Gueorguiev VB Gueorguiev BV (1995 ) Catalogue of the ground-beetles of Bulgaria (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Pensoft, Sofia-Moscow, 279 pp.

    Not in our library

  220. 220.

    Gueorguiev VB Sakalian VP Gueorguiev BV (1997 ) Biogeography of the endemic ground-beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in Bulgaria. Pensoft, Sofia-Moscow, 73 pp.

    Not in our library

  221. 221.

    Haberman H (1968 ) Eesti jooksiklased. Zooloogia ja Botaanika Instituut, Tallinn, 598 pp.

    Not in our library

  222. 222.

    Habu A (1967 ) Fauna Japonica. Carabidae. Truncatipennes Group. (Insecta: Coleoptera). Biogeographical Society of Japan. Tokyo Electrical Engineering College Press, pub. 338 pp, 27 plates.

    Not in our library

  223. 223.

    Habu A (1973 ) Fauna Japonica. Carabidae: Harpalini (Insecta: Coleoptera). Keigaku Publishing Co Ltd. Tokyo, 430 pp, 21 plates.

    Not in our library

  224. 224.

    Habu A (1978 ) Fauna Japonica. Carabidae: Platynini (Insecta: Coleoptera). Keigaku Publishing Co Ltd. Tokyo, 477 pp, 36 plates.

    Not in our library

  225. 225.

    Hammond PM (1979 ) Wing-folding mechanisms of beetles, with special reference to investigations of adephagan phylogeny. In: Erwin TL, Ball GE, Whitehead DR, Halpern AL (Eds) Carabid Beetles: Their Evolution, Natural History, and Classification. Dr. W. Junk Publishers, The Hague, 113–180.

    Not in our library

  226. 226.

    Hance T (1987 ) Predation impact of carabids at different population densities on Aphis fabae development in sugar beet. Pedobiologia 30:251-262.

    Not in our library

  227. 227.

    Hansen V (1968 ) Biller XXIV – Sandspringere og lobebiller – Larverne ved Sb.G. Larsson. G-E-C Gads Vorlag, Kobenhavn, 449 pp.

    Not in our library

  228. 228.

    Haslett JR (2007 ) European strategy for the conservation of invertebrates. Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention). Nature and environment, no. 145. Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg, 91 pp.

    Not in our library

  229. 229.

    Hatteland BA Hauge E Kirkendall LR Solhøy T (2005 ) Diversity and habitat preferences of ground beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) in a coastal area of North Trøndelag, Central Norway. DIAS Report 114:125-135.

    Not in our library

  230. 230.

    Heessen HJL (1981 ) On the reproduction and survival in two ecologically related beetle-species of the forest floor. PhD-thesis Wageningen Agricultural University. Krips Repro Meppel, the Netherlands, 84 pp.

    Not in our library

  231. 231.

    Hemenway R Whitcomb WH (1967 ) Ground beetle of the Genus Lebia Latreille in Arkansas (Coleoptera: Carabidae): ecology and geographical distribution. Proceedings of Arkansas Academy of Science 21:15-20.

    Not in our library

  232. 232.

    Hendrickx F Maelfait J-P Desender K Aviron S Bailey D Diekotter T Lens L Liira J Schweiger O Speelmans M Vandomme V Butger R (2009 ). Pervasive effects of dispersal imitation on within- and among-community species richness in agricultural landscapes. Global Ecology and Biogeography 18:607-616

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1466-8238.2009.00473.x

  233. 233.

    Hendrickx F Maelfait JP Van Wingerden W Schweiger O Speelmans M Aviron S Augenstein I Billeter R Bailey D Bukacek R Burel F Diekotter T Dirksen J Herzog F Liira J Roubalova M Vandomme V Bugter R (2007 ) How landscape structure, land-use intensity and habitat diversity affect components of total arthropod diversity in agricultural landscapes. Journal of Applied Ecology 44:340-351

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1365-2664.2006.01270.x

  234. 234.

    Hengeveld R (1980a ) Food specialization in ground beetles: an ecological or a phylogenetical process? (Coleoptera, Carabidae). Netherlands Journal of Zoology 30:585-594

    Not in our library10.1163/002829679x00205

  235. 235.

    Hengeveld R (1980b ) Qualitative and quantitative aspects of the food of ground beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae). Netherlands Journal of Zoology 30:557-563.

    Not in our library

  236. 236.

    Hengeveld R (1987 ) Scales of variation: their distinction and ecological importance. Annales Zoologici Fennici 24:195-202.

    Not in our library

  237. 237.

    Herrera L Arricibita FC (1990 ) Los carabidos de Navarra España (Coleoptera, Carabidae). Brill, Leiden, Entomonograph 12:1-241.

    Not in our library

  238. 238.

    Heydemann B (1962 ) Die biozönotische Entwicklung vom Vorland zum Koog. II. Teil: Käfer (Coleoptera). Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, Mainz - Abhandlungen der Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftlichen Klasse 11:765-964.

    Not in our library

  239. 239.

    Hieke F Wrase DW (1988 ) Faunistik der Laufkäfer Bulgariens (Coleoptera, Carabidae): Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift 35: 1–171

    Not in our library10.1002/mmnd.19880350102

  240. 240.

    Hoffmann HJ (1969 ) Neuro-endocrine control of diapause oocyte maturation in the beetle Pterostichus nigrita. Journal of Insect Physiology 16:629-642

    Not in our library10.1016/0022-1910(70)90096-x

  241. 241.

    Holdhaus K Lindroth CH (1939 ) Die europäischen Carabiden mit boreoalpiner Verbreitung. Annalen des Nasturhistorischen Museums, Wien 50:123-293.

    Not in our library

  242. 242.

    Holland JM (Ed) (2002 ) The Agroecology of Carabid Beetles. Intercept Ltd, Hampshire, UK, 356 pp.

    Not in our library

  243. 243.

    Hölldobler B Wilson EO (1990 ) The Ants. Springer Verlag, Berlin.

    Not in our library

  244. 244.

    Hollmen A Välimäki P Itämies J Oksanen J (2008 ) The value of open power line habitat in conservation of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) associated with mires. Journal of Insect Conservation 12:163-177

    Not in our library10.1007/s10841-007-9076-7

  245. 245.

    Honek A Martinkova Z Jarosik V (2003 ) Ground beetles (Carabidae) as seed predators. European Journal of Entomology 100:531-544.

    Not in our library

  246. 246.

    Honek A Martinkova Z Saska P (2005 ) Post-dispersal predation of Taraxacum officinale (dandelion) seed. Journal of Ecology 93:345-352

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1365-2745.2005.00987.x

  247. 247.

    Honek A Martinkova Z Saska P (2011 ) Effect of size, taxonomic affiliation and geographic origin of dandelion (Taraxacum agg.) seeds on predation by ground beetles (Carabidae, Coleoptera). Basic and Applied Ecology 12:89-96

    Not in our library10.1016/j.baae.2010.11.003

  248. 248.

    Honek A Martinkova Z Saska P Pekar S (2007 ) Size and taxonomic constraints determine the seed preferences of Carabidae (Coleoptera). Basic and Applied Ecology 8:343-353

    Not in our library10.1016/j.baae.2006.07.002

  249. 249.

    Honek A Saska P Martinkova Z (2006 ) Seasonal variation in seed predation by adult carabid beetles. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 118:157-162

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1570-7458.2006.00376.x

  250. 250.

    Hutchinson EG (1965 ) The ecologial theatre and the evolutionary play. Yale University Press, New Haven, USA.

    Not in our library

  251. 251.

    Huusela-Veistola E (1996 ) Effects of pesticide use and cultivation techniques on ground beetles (Col., Carabidae) in cereal fields. Annales Zoologici Fennici 33:197-205.

    Not in our library

  252. 252.

    Hurka K (1996 ) Carabidae of the Czech and Slovak Republics – Illustrated key: Kabourek, Zlín, 1–565.

    Not in our library

  253. 253.

    Hurka K Jarošík V (2003 ) Larval omnivory in Amara aenea (Coleoptera: Carabidae). European Journal of Entomology 100:329-335.

    Not in our library

  254. 254.

    Hurlbert SH (1984 ) Pseudoreplication and the design of ecological field experiments. Ecological Monographs 54:187-211

    Not in our library10.2307/1942661

  255. 255.

    Hyman PS Parsons MS (1992 ) A review of the scarce and threatened Coleoptera in Great Britain, Part 1 - Carabidae. The UK Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough: 99–155.

    Not in our library

  256. 256.

    Iablokov-Khnzorian SM (1976 ) Fauna of the Armenian SSR. Coleopterous insects, the Ground-beetles (Carabidae). Izd-vo Akademia Nauk Armenia, Yerevan, 297 pp.

    Not in our library

  257. 257.

    Imura Y (2002 ) Classification of the subtribe Carabina (Coleoptera, Carabidae) based on molecular phylogeny. Elytra (Tokyo) 30:1-28.

    Not in our library

  258. 258.

    Ishikawa R (1984 ) Phylogeny and subgeneric classification of the genus Chaetocarabus (Coleoptera, Carabidae). Kontyu (Tokio) 53:94-109.

    Not in our library

  259. 259.

    Ishitani M Kotze DJ Niemelä J (2003 ) Changes in carabid beetle assemblages across and urban-rural gradient in Japan. Ecography 26:481-489

    Not in our library10.1034/j.1600-0587.2003.03436.x

  260. 260.

    Janssen P Fortin D and Hebert C (2009 ) Beetle diversity in a matrix of old-growth boreal forest: influence of habitat heterogeneity at multiple scales. Ecography 32:423-432

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1600-0587.2008.05671.x

  261. 261.

    Jeannel R (1926–1928 ) Monographie des Trechinae 1–3. Abeille, Paris, 32, 33, 35: 221–550, 1–592, 1–808.

    Not in our library

  262. 262.

    Jeannel R (1941–1942, 1949 ) Faune de France 39–40, 51: Coleoptere Carabiques 1, 2 supplement 1. Lechevalier et Fils, Paris, 1173 pp.

    Not in our library

  263. 263.

    Jonsson BG Jonsell M (1999 ) Exploring potential biodiversity indicators in boreal forests. Biodiversity and Conservation 8:1417-1433

    Not in our library10.1023/a:1008900309571

  264. 264.

    Jørgensen HB Toft S (1997a ) Food preference, diet dependent fecundity and larval development in Harpalus rufipes (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Pedobiologia 41:307-315.

    Not in our library

  265. 265.

    Jørgensen HB Toft S (1997b ) Role of granivory and insectivory in the life cycle of the carabid beetle Amara similata. Ecological Entomology 22:7-15

    Not in our library10.1046/j.1365-2311.1997.00045.x

  266. 266.

    Juberthie C (1969 ) Relations entre le climat, le microclimat et les Aphenops cerberus dans la Grotte de Sainte-Catherine. Annales de Spéléologie 24:75-104.

    Not in our library

  267. 267.

    Juberthie C (1979 ) L’evolution des coléoptères Trechinae souterrains (Coleoptera, Carabidae. In: Den Boer PJ, Thiele HU, Weber F (Eds) On the Evolution of Behaviour in Carabid Beetles. Miscellaneous Papers, 18, Landbouwhogeschool Wageningen, 83–99.

    Not in our library

  268. 268.

    Juliano SA (1985 ) Habitat associations, resources, and predators of Brachinus (Coleoptera: Carabidae) from southeastern Arizona. Canadian Journal of Zoology 63:1683-1691

    Not in our library10.1139/z85-250

  269. 269.

    Kålås JA Viken Å Bakken T Eds (2006 ) Norsk Rødliste 2006. The Norwegian Red List 2006. Artsdatabanken, Trondheim, Norway, 416 pp.

    Not in our library

  270. 270.

    Kamer N Brückner M Düring A Mossakowski D (2002 ) ND5 gene tree and the phylogenetic history of supertribe Carabitae. In: Szyszko J, Den Boer PJ, Bauer T (Eds) How to protect or what we know about carabid beetles. Warsaw Agricultural University Press, Warsaw, 331–335.

    Not in our library

  271. 271.

    Kamer N Dormann W Mossakowski D (2008 ) Patterns of molecular variability in carabid beetles mostly from the Baltric Sea coast. In: Penev L, Erwin TL, Assmann T (Eds) Back to the roots and back to the future. Pensoft, Sofia, 195–206.

    Not in our library

  272. 272.

    Kane TC Norton RM Poulson TL (1975 ) The ecology of a predaceous troglobitic beetle, Neoaphaenops tellkampfi (Coleoptera, Trechinidae). II Adult seasonality, feeding and recruitment. International Journal of Speleology 7:55-64.

    Not in our library

  273. 273.

    Kaufmann T (1971 ) Hibernation in the Arctic Arctic beetle Pterostichus brevicornis, in Alaska. Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 44:81-92.

    Not in our library

  274. 274.

    Kavanaugh DH (1996 ) Phylogenetic relationships of the genus Pelophila Dejean to other basal grade Carabidae (Coleoptera). Annales Zoologici Fennici 33:31-37.

    Not in our library

  275. 275.

    Kavanaugh DH (1998 ) Investigations of phylogenetic relationships among some basal grade Carabidae (Coleoptera): a report on work in progress. In: Ball GE, Casale A, Vigna Taglianti A (Eds) Phylogeny and classification of Caraboidea (Coleoptera: Adephaga). Museo Regionale di Scienze Naturali, Torino, 329–341.

    Not in our library

  276. 276.

    Keller I Nentwig W Largiadèr R (2004 ) Recent habitat fragmentation due to roads can lead to significant genetic differentiation in an abundant flightless ground beetle. Molecular Ecology 13:2983-2994

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1365-294x.2004.02310.x

  277. 277.

    Kinnunen H Järveläinen K Pakkala T Tiainen J (1996 ) The effect of isolation on the occurrence of farmland carabids in a fragmented landscape. Annales Zoologici Fennici 33:165-171.

    Not in our library

  278. 278.

    Kinnunen H Tiainen J Tukia H (2001 ) Farmland carabid beetle communities at multiple levels of spatial scale. Ecography 24:189-197

    Not in our library10.1034/j.1600-0587.2001.240209.x

  279. 279.

    Kirby P (1992 ) Habitat management for invertebrates: a practical handbook. Sandy, Bedfordshire.

    Not in our library

  280. 280.

    Kjellsson G (1985 ) Seed fate in a population of Carex pilulifera L. 2. Seed predation and its consequences for dispersal and seed bank. Oecologia 67:424-429

    Not in our library10.1007/bf00384950

  281. 281.

    Klausnitzer B Richter K (1983 ) Presence of an urban gradient demonstrated for carabid associations. Oecologia 59:79-82

    Not in our library10.1007/bf00388077

  282. 282.

    Klimeš P Saska P (2010 ) Larval and adult seed consumption affected by the degree of food specialization in Amara (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Journal of Applied Entomology 134:659-666.

    Not in our library

  283. 283.

    Koch D (1986 ) Morphological-physiological studies on Pterostichus “nigrita” (Col., Carabidae), a complex of sibling species. In: Den Boer P, Luff ML, Mossakowski D, Weber F (Eds) Carabid Beetles, their adaptations and dynamics. Gustav Fischer, Stuttgart, 267–279.

    Not in our library

  284. 284.

    Kocher L (1963 ) Catalogue commenté des Coléoptères du Maroc. I. Carabiques. Travaux de l’’Institut Scientifique Chérifien, Zoologie 27, Rabat, 170 pp.

    Not in our library

  285. 285.

    Koivula M (2002a ) The forest road network - a landscape element affecting the distribution of boreal carabid beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae). In: Szyszko J, Den Boer PJ, Bauer T (Eds) How to protect or what we know about carabid beetles, Warsaw Agricultural University Press, Warsaw, 287–299.

    Not in our library

  286. 286.

    Koivula M (2002b ) Alternative harvesting methods and boreal carabid beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae). Forest Ecology and Management 167:103-121

    Not in our library10.1016/s0378-1127(01)00717-4

  287. 287.

    Koivula MJ (2005 ) Effects of forest roads on spatial distribution of boreal carabid beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae). The Coleopterists Bulletin 59:465-487

    Not in our library10.1649/815.1

  288. 288.

    Koivula MJ (2011 ) Useful model organisms, indicators, or both? Ground beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) reflecting environmental conditions. In: Kotze DJ, Assmann T, Noordijk J, Turin H, Vermeulen R (Eds) Carabid Beetles as Bioindicators: Biogeographical, Ecological and Environmental Studies. ZooKeys 100:287-317.

    Not in our library10.3897/zookeys.100.1533

  289. 289.

    Koivula MJ Kotze DJ (2005 ) Carabid beetles in median strips of three highways around the city of Helsinki, Finland. DIAS Report 114:151-161.

    Not in our library

  290. 290.

    Koivula MJ Kotze DJ Salokannel J (2005 ) Beetles (Coleoptera) in central reservations of three highway roads around the city of Helsinki, Finland. Annales Zoologici Fennici 42:615-626.

    Not in our library

  291. 291.

    Koivula M Kukkonen J Niemelä J (2002 ) Boreal carabid-beetle (Coleoptera, Carabidae) assemblages along the clear-cut originated succession gradient. Biodiversity and Conservation 11:1269-1288

    Not in our library10.1023/a:1016018702894

  292. 292.

    Koivula M Spence JR (2006 ) Effects of post-fire salvage logging on boreal mixed-wood ground beetle assemblages (Coleoptera, Carabidae). Forest Ecology and Management 236:102-112

    Not in our library10.1016/j.foreco.2006.09.004

  293. 293.

    Koivula MJ Vermeulen HJW (2005 ) Highways and forest fragmentation – effects on carabid beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae). Landscape Ecology 20:911-926

    Not in our library10.1007/s10980-005-7301-x

  294. 294.

    Kotze DJ (2000 ) Ground beetle diversity patterns across Afro-montane forest/grassland ecotones in KwaZulu-Natal, South-. Africa. In: Brandmayr P, Lövei G, Zetto Brandmayr T, Casale A, Taglianti V (Eds) Natural history and applied ecology of carabid beetles, Pensoft, 231–240.

    Not in our library

  295. 295.

    Kotze DJ (2008 ) The occurrence and distribution of carabid beetles (Carabidae) on islands in the Baltic Sea: a review. Journal of Insect Conservation 12:265-276

    Not in our library10.1007/s10841-008-9147-4

  296. 296.

    Kotze DJ Niemelä J (2002 ) Year-to-year variation in carabid beetle (Coleoptera, Carabidae) assemblages on the Åland Islands, south-west Finland. Journal of Biogeography 29:375-386

    Not in our library10.1046/j.1365-2699.2002.00681.x

  297. 297.

    Kotze DJ Niemelä J Nieminen M (2000 ) Colonization success of carabid beetles on Baltic islands. Journal of Biogeography 27:807-819

    Not in our library10.1046/j.1365-2699.2000.00456.x

  298. 298.

    Kotze DJ O’Hara RB (2003 ) Species decline - but why? Explanations of carabid beetle (Coleoptera, Carabidae) declines in Europe. Oecologia 135:138-148.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00442-002-1174-3

  299. 299.

    Krehan I (1970 ) Die Steuerung der von Jahresrhythmik und Diapause bei Larval- und Imagoüberwinterern der Gattung Pterostichus (Coleoptera, Carabidae). Oecologia 6:58-105

    Not in our library10.1007/bf00345223

  300. 300.

    Kromp B (1999 ) Carabid beetles in sustainable agriculture: a review on pest control efficacy, cultivation impacts and enhancement. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 74:187-228

    Not in our library10.1016/s0167-8809(99)00037-7

  301. 301.

    Kryzhanovskij OL (1983 ) Zhuki podotryada Adephaga: semeistva Rhysodidae, Trachypachidae), semeistvo Carabidae (vvodna chast’I obzor fauny SSSR). (The ground-beetles of the sunorder Adephaga: Families Rhysodidae, Trachypachidae, family Carabidae) – Introduction and review of the Russian fauna. Fauna SSSR, Leningrad, Nauka 1: 1–3443 (In Russian).

    Not in our library

  302. 302.

    Kryzhanovskij OL Belousov IA Kabak II Kataev BM Makarov KV Shilenkov VG (1995 ) A checklist of the groundbeetles of Russia and adjacent lands (Insecta, Coleoptera, Carabidae). Pensoft, Sofia-Moscow, 271 pp.

    Not in our library

  303. 303.

    Kult K (1947 ) Key to the beetle family Carabidae of the Czechoslovak Repuplic. Entomologicke prirucky – Czechoslovak Entomological Society, Prague, 199 pp.

    Not in our library

  304. 304.

    Läärä E (2009 ) Statistics: reasoning on uncertainty, and the insignificance of testing null. Annales Zoologici Fennici 46:138-157.

    Not in our library

  305. 305.

    Landres PB Verner J Thomas JW (1988 ) Ecological uses of vertebrate indicator species: a critique. Conservation Biology 2:316-328

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1523-1739.1988.tb00195.x

  306. 306.

    Lange M Gossner, MM Weisser WW. (2011 ) Effect of pitfall trap type and diameter on vertebrate by-catches and ground beetle (Coleoptera: Carabidae) and spider (Araneae) sampling. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, in press

    Not in our library10.1111/j.2041-210x.2010.00062.x

  307. 307.

    Langor DW Spence JR (2006 ) Arthropods as ecological indicators of sustainability in Canadian forests. Forestry Chronicle 82:344-350.

    Not in our library

  308. 308.

    Larochelle A (1990 ) The food of carabid beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae, including Cicindelinae). Fabreries Supplément 5:1-132.

    Not in our library

  309. 309.

    Larochelle A Larivière M-C (2003 ) A natural history of the ground-beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) of America north of Mexico. Pensoft, Sofia-Moscow, 583 pp.

    Not in our library

  310. 310.

    Larsson SG (1939 ) Entwicklungstypen und Entwicklungszeiten der dänischen Carabiden. Kobenhavn: 1–360, tab.

    Not in our library

  311. 311.

    Larsson SG Gigja G (1959 ) Coleoptera 1 - Synopsis of the species. Zoology of Iceland, 3 (46a): 1–218.

    Not in our library

  312. 312.

    Lawrence JF Moore BP Pyke JE Weir TA (1987 ). Zoological Catalogue of Australia - Coleoptera: Archostemata, Myxophaga, Adephaga. Australian Governement Publishing Service: viii + 44 4 pp.

    Not in our library

  313. 313.

    Leather SR Basset Y Hawkins BA (2008 ) Insect conservation: finding the way forward. Insect Conservation and Diversity 1:67-69

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1752-4598.2007.00005.x

  314. 314.

    Ledoux G Roux Ph (2005 ) Nebria (Coleoptera, Nebriidae) Faune mondiale. Société Linéenne de Lyon, Lyon, 976 pp.

    Not in our library

  315. 315.

    Levins R (1970 ) Extinction. Lectures Notes in Mathematics 2:75-107.

    Not in our library

  316. 316.

    Lewis OT New TR Stewart AJA (2007 ) Insect conservation: progress and prospects. In: Stewart AJA, New TR, Lewis OT (Eds) Insect conservation biology. The Royal Entomological Society / CABI, Wallingford, 431–436

    Not in our library10.1079/9781845932541.0431

  317. 317.

    Liebherr JK (1986 ) The Cochise filter barrier: the major vicariant mechanism in the Agonum extensicolle species group (Carabidae: Platynini). In: Den Boer P, Luff ML, Mossakowski D, Weber F (Eds) Carabid Beetles, their adaptations and dynamics. Gustav Fischer, Stuttgart, 255–266.

    Not in our library

  318. 318.

    Liebherr JK Will KW (1998 ) Inferring phylogenetic relationships within the Carabidae (Insecta, Coleoptera) from characters of the female reproductive tract. In: Ball GE, Casale A, Vigna Taglianti A (Eds) Phylogeny and classification of Caraboidea (Coleoptera: Adephaga). Museo Regionale di Scienze Naturali, Torino, 107–170.

    Not in our library

  319. 319.

    Lindenmayer DB Margules CR Botkin DB (2000 ) Indicators of biodiversity for ecologically sustainable forest management. Conservation Biology 14:941-950

    Not in our library10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.98533.x

  320. 320.

    Lindroth CH (1931 ) Die Insektenfauna Islands und ihre Probleme. Zoologiske Bidrag, Uppsala 13:105-218.

    Not in our library

  321. 321.

    Lindroth CH (1945a, b, 1949 ) Die Fennoscandischen Carabidae: I Spezieller Teil, II Die Karten, III Algemeiner Teil. Göteborg: 1–709, 1–277, 1–911.

    Not in our library

  322. 322.

    Lindroth CH (1956 ) A revision of the genus Synuchus. Transactions of the Royal Entomological Society, London 108:485-576

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1365-2311.1956.tb01274.x

  323. 323.

    Lindroth CH (1960 ) Catalogus Coleopterorum Fennoscandiae et Daniae. Auctoribus V. Hanssen, E. Klefbeck, O Sjöberg, G. Stenius & A. Strand, redigenda curavit Carl H. Lindroth. Entomologiska Sällskaper, Lund, 44 pp.

    Not in our library

  324. 324.

    Lindroth CH (1961–1969 ) The ground-beetles of Canada and Alaska. Opuscula Entomologica Suppl. 20, 24, 29, 33–35. Entomologiska Sällskapet, Lund.

    Not in our library

  325. 325.

    Lindroth CH (1985–1986 ) The Carabidae (Coleoptera) of Fennoscandia and Denmark. Fauna Entomologica Scandinavica. Volume 15, Part I, II. Scandinavian Science Press, Ltd. Leiden.

    Not in our library

  326. 326.

    Lindroth CH (1988, 1992a, b ) Ground Beetles (Carabidae) of Fennoscandia – A Zoogeographical Study. Translation by J. Adis, Erwin TL of Lindroth CH (1945, 1949). Die Fennoskandischen Carabidae. Smithsonian Institution: I: 1–630 (1992), II: 1–271 (1988), III: 1–814 (1992).

    Not in our library

  327. 327.

    Löbl I Smetana A Eds (2003 ) Catalogue of Palaearctic Coleoptera, Vol. 1. Archostemata – Myxophaga – Adephaga: Apollo Books, Stenstrup, 819 pp.

    Not in our library

  328. 328.

    Loreau M (1990 ) The significance of Intra- and Interspecific Competition in Carabid beetles. In Stork N (Ed), The Role of Ground Beetles in Ecological and Environmental studies. Intercept, Adover, Hampshire, 31–37.

    Not in our library

  329. 329.

    Lorenz W (1998 ) Systematic list of the extant ground beetles of the world (Insecta. Coleoptera “Geadephaga: Trachypachidae and Carabidae incl. Paussinae, Cicindelinae, Rhysodinae). Lorenz, Tutzing, 502 pp.

    Not in our library

  330. 330.

    Lorenz W (2005 ) Nomina Carabidarum. A directory of the scientific names of ground beetles (Insecta. Coleoptera “Geadephaga: Trachypachidae and Carabidae incl. Paussinae, Cicindelinae, Rhysodinae). Lorenz, Tutzing, 993 pp.

    Not in our library

  331. 331.

    Löser S (1970 ) Brutfürsorge und Brutpflege bei Laufkäfern der Gattung Abax. Verhandlungen Der Deutschen Zoologischen Gesellschaft, Würzburg 1969:322-326.

    Not in our library

  332. 332.

    Lövei GL Magura T (2006 ) Body size changes in ground beetle assemblages - a re-analysis of Braun et al. (2004)’s data. Ecological Entomology 31:411-414.

    Not in our library

  333. 333.

    Lövei GL Magura T (2011 ) Can carabidologists spot a pitfall? The non-equivalence of two components of sampling effort in pitfall-trapped ground beetles (Carabidae). Community Ecology, in press.

    Not in our library

  334. 334.

    Lövei GL Sunderland KD (1996 ) Ecology and behavior of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Annual Review of Entomology 41:231-256

    Not in our library10.1146/annurev.en.41.010196.001311

  335. 335.

    Lövei GL Toft S Eds (2005 ) European Carabidology – Proceedings of the 11th European Carabidologists’ Meeting. Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences 114: 40 1 pp.

    Not in our library

  336. 336.

    Luff ML (1993 ) The Carabidae (Coleoptera) larvae of Fennoscandia and Denmark. Fauna Entomologica Scandinavica 28:1-186.

    Not in our library

  337. 337.

    Luff ML (1998 ) Provisional atlas of the ground beetles (Coleoptera Carabidae) of Britain. Institute for Terrestrial Ecology, Monks Wood, 194 pp.

    Not in our library

  338. 338.

    Luff ML (2002 ) Carabid assemblage organization and species composition. In: Holland JM (Ed) The Agroecology of Carabid Beetles, Intercept Limited, Hampshire, UK, 41–79.

    Not in our library

  339. 339.

    Luff ML (2007 ) The Carabidae (ground beetles) of Britain and Ireland. RES Handbook Volume 4, Part 2. (2nd edition), Field Studies Council, Shrewsbury, 247 pp.

    Not in our library

  340. 340.

    Luff ML Eyre MD Rushton SP (1989 ) Classification and ordination of habitats of ground beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) in north-east England. Journal of Biogeography 16:121-130

    Not in our library10.2307/2845086

  341. 341.

    Luigioni P (1929 ) I Coleotteri d’Italia. Memorie Accad. pont Nuovi Lincei, Roma, 1160 pp.

    Not in our library

  342. 342.

    Luka H Marggi W Huber C Gonseth Y Nagel P (2009 ) Fauna Helvetica 24 – Carabidae. Centre Suisse de Cartographie de la Faune, 677 pp.

    Not in our library

  343. 343.

    Lund RD Turpin FT (1977 ) Carabid damage to weed seeds found in Indiana cornfields. Environmental Entomology 6:695-698.

    Not in our library

  344. 344.

    Lundgren JG Lehman RM (2010 ) Bacterial Gut Symbionts Contribute to Seed Digestion in an Omnivorous Beetle. PLoS ONE 5: e10831

    Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0010831

  345. 345.

    Lundgren JG Rosentrater KA (2007 ) The strength of seeds and their destruction by granivorous insects. Arthropod-Plant Interactions 1:93-99

    Not in our library10.1007/s11829-007-9008-1

  346. 346.

    MacArthur RH Wilson EO (1967 ) The theory of island biogeography. Monographs in Population Biology, Princeton University Press, New York, Princeton, NJ, 203 pp.

    Not in our library

  347. 347.

    Machado A (1992 ) Monografia de los carabidos de las islas Canarias. Instituto de Estudios Canarios, La Laguna, 734 pp.

    Not in our library

  348. 348.

    Maddison DR Baker MD Ober KA (1998 ) A preliminary phylogenetic analysis of 18S ribosomal DNA of carabid beetles (Coleoptera). In: Ball GE, Casale A, Vigna Taglianti A (Eds) Phylogeny and classification of Caraboidea (Coleoptera: Adephaga). Museo Regionale di Scienze Naturali, Torino, 229–250.

    Not in our library

  349. 349.

    Maddison DR Moore W Baker MD Ellis TM Ober KA Cannone JJ Gutell RR (2009 ) Monophyly of terrestrial adephagan beetles as indicated by three nuclear genes (Coleoptera: Carabidae and Trachypachidae). Zoologica Scripta 38:43-62

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1463-6409.2008.00359.x

  350. 350.

    Mader H-J (1984 ) Animal habitat isolation by roads and agricultural fields. Biological Conservation 29:81-96

    Not in our library10.1016/0006-3207(84)90015-6

  351. 351.

    Maelfait J-P Desender K Dufrêne M (1994 ) Carabid beetles and nature conservation research in Belgium: a review. In: Desender K, Dufrêne M, Loreau M, Luff ML, Maelfait J-P (Eds) Carabid beetles: ecology and evolution. Series Entomologica 51:319-323.

    Not in our library

  352. 352.

    Magistretti M (1965 ) Fauna d’Italia, Cicindelidae, Carabidae – Catalogo topografico. Edizione Calderini, Bologna, 512 pp.

    Not in our library

  353. 353.

    Magura T Koedoeboecz V Tóthmérész B (2001 ) Effects of habitat fragmentation on carabids in forest patches. Journal of Biogeography 28: 129–138

    Not in our library10.1046/j.1365-2699.2001.00534.x

  354. 354.

    Magura T Lövei GL Tóthmérész B (2010 ) Does urbanization decrease diversity in ground beetle (Carabidae) assemblages? Global Ecology and Biogeography 19: 16–26

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1466-8238.2009.00499.x

  355. 355.

    Magura T Tóthmérész B Elek Z (2006 ) Changes in carabid beetle assemblages as Norway spruce plantation age. Community Ecology 7:1-12

    Not in our library10.1556/comec.7.2006.1.1

  356. 356.

    Mahler V Suikat R Assmann T (1996 ) VII. Red List of beetles of the Wadden Sea area. Helgoländer Meeresuntersuchungen 50:83-96

    Not in our library10.1007/bf02366176

  357. 357.

    Makarov KV Bokhovko EE (2005 ) Continuity of chaetom pattern in Brachinus-larvae developing with hypermetamorphosis (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Russian Entomological Journal 14:263-274.

    Not in our library

  358. 358.

    Mandl K (1972 ) Coleoptera: Cicindelidae und Carabidae-Carabinae. Catalogus Faunae Austriae 15a, Wien, 1–16.

    Not in our library

  359. 359.

    Mandl K (1978 ) Coleoptera: Carabinae II. Catalogus Faunae Austriae 15b, Wien, 1–58.

    Not in our library

  360. 360.

    Marggi WA (1992 ) Faunistik der Sandleufkäfer und Laukäfer der Schweiz (Cicindelidae & Carabidae - Teil 1 / Text, Teil 2 / Verbreitungskarten. CSCF: 1–477, 1–243.

    Not in our library

  361. 361.

    Martínez-Navarro EM Galián J Serrano J (2005 ) Phylogenetic relationships among subtribes of Harpalini Bonelli (Coleoptera, Carabidae) inferred from mitochondrial DNA sequences. In: Lövei G, Toft S (Eds) European Carabidology 2003 (Proceedings of the 11th European Carabidologists' Meeting). DIAS Report Plant Production, No. 114, Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences, 219–230.

    Not in our library

  362. 362.

    Martínez-Navarro EM Serrano J Galián J (2011 ) Chromosomes of Trachypachus Motschulsky and the evolution of the ancestral adephagan karyotype (Coleoptera). Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary Research, doi: 10.1111/j.1439–0469.2010.00613.x, in press.

    Not in our library

  363. 363.

    Martins da Silva P Aguiar CAS Niemelä J Sousa JP Serrano ARM (2008 ) Diversity patterns of ground-beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) along a gradient of land-use disturbance. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 124:270-274

    Not in our library10.1016/j.agee.2007.10.007

  364. 364.

    Maryański M Kramarz P Laskowski R Niklińska M (2002 ) Decreased energetic reserves, morphological changes and accumulation of metals in carabid beetles (Poecilus cupreus L.) exposed to Zinc- and Cadmium-contaminated food. Ecotoxicology 11:127-139

    Not in our library10.1023/a:1014425113481

  365. 365.

    Matalin A (1994 ) The strategy of dispersal behaviour in some Carabidae species of Southeastern Europe. In: Desender K, Dufrêne M, Loreau M, Luff ML, Maelfait J-P (Eds) Carabid beetles: Ecology and Evolution.Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 183–188.

    Not in our library

  366. 366.

    Matalin AV (1997a ) Specific features of life cycle of Pseudoophonus (s. str.) rufipes Deg. (Coleoptera, Carabidae) in Southwest Moldova. The Biological Bulletin 24:371-381.

    Not in our library

  367. 367.

    Matalin AV (1997b ) Life cycles of carabids of the genus Stenolophus (Coleoptera, Carabidae) in the steppe zone of Europe. Entomological Review 77:1181-1190.

    Not in our library

  368. 368.

    Matalin AV (1997c ) Peculiarities of spatial and temporal differentiation of carabids (Coleoptera, Carabidae) in the steppe zone. Entomological Review 77:1155-1166.

    Not in our library

  369. 369.

    Matalin AV (1998 ) Polyvariance of Harpalus (s. str.) affinis Schrank (Coleoptera, Müller, H.J. (1970). Formen der Dormanz bei Insekten. Nova Acta Leopoldina 35:7-25.

    Not in our library

  370. 370.

    Matalin A (2003 ) Variations in flight ability with sex and age in ground beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) of south-western Moldova. Pedobiologia47: 311–319

    Not in our library10.1078/0031-4056-00195

  371. 371.

    Matalin AV (2008 ) Evolution of biennal life cycles in ground beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) of the Western Palaeartic. In: Penev L, Erwin T, Assmann T (Eds) Back to the roots and back to the future. Proceedings of XIII European Carabidologist Meeting, Blagoevgrad, 259–284.

    Not in our library

  372. 372.

    Matveinen-Huju K Niemelä J Rita H O’Hara RB (2006 ) Retention-tree groups in clear-cuts: Do they constitute ”life-boats” for spiders and carabids? Forest Ecology and Management 230: 119–135

    Not in our library10.1016/j.foreco.2006.04.025

  373. 373.

    Mccracken DI (1994 ) A fuzzy classification of moorland ground beetles and (Coleoptera, Carabidae) and plant communities. Pedobiologia 18:12-27.

    Not in our library

  374. 374.

    McFerran DM Meharg MJ Montgomery WI McAdam JH (1994 ) The impact of grazing on communities of ground-dwelling beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) in upland vegetation in north-east Ireland. In: Desender K, Dufrêne M, Loreau M, Luff ML, Maelfait J-P (Eds) Carabid beetles: ecology and evolution. Series Entomologica 51:325-330.

    Not in our library

  375. 375.

    Melis C Olsen CB Hyllvang M Gobbi M Stokke BG Røskaft E (2010 ) The effect of traffic intensity on ground beetle (Coleoptera: Carabidae) assemblages in central Sweden. Journal of Insect Conservation 14:159-168

    Not in our library10.1007/s10841-009-9240-3

  376. 376.

    Merivee E Ploomi A Milius M Luik A Heidemaa M (2005 ) Electrophysiological identification of antennal pH receptors in the ground beetle Pterostichus oblongopunctatus. Physiological Entomology 30:122-133

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1365-3032.2005.00435.x

  377. 377.

    Milius M Merivee E Williams I Luik A Mänd M Must A (2006 ) A new method for electrophysiological identification of antennal pH receptor cells in ground beetles: The example of Pterostichus aethiops (Panzer, 1796) (Copeoptera, Carabidae. Journal of Insect Physiology 52:960-967

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jinsphys.2006.06.003

  378. 378.

    Millán de la Peña N Butet A Delettre Y Morant P Burel F (2003 ) Landscape context and carabid beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) communities of hedgerows in western France. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 94:59-72

    Not in our library10.1016/s0167-8809(02)00012-9

  379. 379.

    Mlynar Z (1977 ) Revision der Arten und Unterarten der Gattung Molops Bonelli (Coleoptera, Carabidae. Folia entomologica Hungarica 30:3-150.

    Not in our library

  380. 380.

    Moore BP (1971 ) Notes on an extraordinary blood-feeding carabid larva (Coleoptera) from Port Elizabeth. Annales of Natal Museum 20:479-782.

    Not in our library

  381. 381.

    Moore BP (1974 ) The larval habits of two species of Sphallomorpha Westwood (Coleoptera: Carabidae, Pseudomorphinae). Journal of the Australian Entomological Society 13:179-183

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1440-6055.1974.tb02171.x

  382. 382.

    Moore BP (1979 ) Chemical defense in carabids and its bearing on phylogeny. In: Erwin TL, Ball GE, Whitehead DR, Halpern AL (Eds) Carabid Beetles: Their Evolution, Natural History, and Classification. Dr. W. Junk Publishers, The Hague, 193–204.

    Not in our library

  383. 383.

    Moore W Di Giulio A (2006 ) Description and behavoiur of Goniotropis kuntzeni larvae (Coleoptera: Carabidae: Paussinae: Ozaenini) and a key to genera of Paussini larvae. Zootaxa 1111:1-19.

    Not in our library

  384. 384.

    Mossakowski D (1979 ) Evolution of habitat preference illustrated by the phylogeny of Chrysocarabus species (Coleoptera, Carabidae). In: Den Boer PJ, Thiele HU, Weber F (Eds) On the Evolution of Behaviour in Carabid Beetles. Miscellaneous Papers, 18, Landbouwhogeschool Wageningen, 103–112.

    Not in our library

  385. 385.

    Mossakowski D (2002 ) The mandible of Maoripamborus: an indication of convergent evolution in Cychrini and Pamborini. In: Szyszko J, Den Boer PJ, Bauer T (Eds) How to protect or what we know about carabid beetles. Warsaw Agricultural University Press, Warsaw, 95–100.

    Not in our library

  386. 386.

    Mossakowski D (2005 ) Morphological or molecular systematics? A case study of Carabus. In: Lövei G, Toft S (Eds) European Carabidology 2003 (Proceedings of the 11th European Carabidologists' Meeting). DIAS Report Plant Production, No. 114, Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences, 231–241.

    Not in our library

  387. 387.

    Mossakowski D Roschen A Vaje S (1986 ) Hybridization in Chrysocarabus. In: Den Boer P, Luff ML, Mossakowski D, Weber F (Eds) Carabid Beetles, their adaptations and dynamics. Gustav Fischer, Stuttgart, 281–295.

    Not in our library

  388. 388.

    Mossakowski D Stier J (1983 ) Vergleichende Untersuchungen zur Laufgeschwindigkeit der Carabiden. In: Brandmayr P, Den Boer PJ, Weber F (Eds) Report of the fourth meeting of European Carabidologists: the synthesis of field study and laboratory experiment. Centre for Agricultural Publishing and Documentation, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 19–33.

    Not in our library

  389. 389.

    Muilwijk J Felix R (2010 ) Carabidae - loopkevers. In: Vorst O (Ed) Catalogus van de Nederlandse kevers. Monografieen van de Nederlandse Entomologische Vereniging 11:40-52.

    Not in our library

  390. 390.

    Mullen K O’Halloran J Breen J Giller P Pithon J Kelly T (2008 ) Distribution and composition of carabid beetle (Coleoptera, Carabidae) communities across the plantation forest cycle- Implications for management. Forest Ecology and Management 256:624-632

    Not in our library10.1016/j.foreco.2008.05.005

  391. 391.

    Müller HJ (1970 ) Formen der Dormanz bei Insekten. Nova Acta Leopoldina 35:7-25.

    Not in our library

  392. 392.

    Müller-Motzfeld G G (Ed) (2004 ) Adephaga 1: Carabidae (Laufkäfer). In: Freude H, Harde KW, Lohse GA, Klausnitzer B (Eds), Die Käfer Mitteleuropas. Vol. 2. Second edition. Elsevier-Spektrum, Akademischer Verlag, München, 521 pp.

    Not in our library

  393. 393.
  394. 394.

    Nagel P (1979a ) The classification of Carabidae. In: Den Boer P, Luff ML, Mossakowski D, Weber F (Eds) On the Evolution of Behaviour in Carabid Beetles. Miscellaneous Papers, 18, Landbouwhogeschool Wageningen, 7–14.

    Not in our library

  395. 395.

    Nagel P (1979b ) Aspects of the evolution of myrmecophilous adaptations in Paussinae (Coleoptera, Carabidae). In: Den Boer P, Luff ML, Mossakowski D, Weber F (Eds) On the Evolution of Behaviour in Carabid Beetles. Miscellaneous Papers, 18, Landbouwhogeschool Wageningen, 15–34.

    Not in our library

  396. 396.

    Nakagawa S Cuthill IC (2007 ) Effect size, confidence interval and statistical significance: a practical guide for biologists. Biological Reviews 82:591-605

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1469-185x.2007.00027.x

  397. 397.

    Neculiseanu ZZ Matalin AV (2000 ) A Catalogue of the ground-beetles of the replublic Moldova (Insecta, Coleoptera: Carabidae. Pensoft, Sofia-Moscow, 164 pp.

    Not in our library

  398. 398.

    Negro M Casale A Migliore L Palestrini C Rolando A (2008 ) Habitat use and movement patterns in the endangered ground beetle species, Carabus olympiae (Coleoptera: Carabidae). European Journal of Entomology 105:105-112.

    Not in our library

  399. 399.

    Nelemans MNE (1987 ) Possibilities for flight in the carabid beetle Nebria brevicollis (F.). The importance of food during larval growth. Oecologia 72:502-509

    Not in our library10.1007/bf00378974

  400. 400.

    Nettmann H-K (1986 ) Carabid systematics and chromosome numbers. In: Den Boer P, Luff ML, Mossakowski D, Weber F (Eds) Carabid Beetles, their adaptations and dynamic. Gustav Fischer, Stuttgart, 235–254.

    Not in our library

  401. 401.

    Neudecker C Thiele HU (1974 ) Die jahreszeitliche Synchronisation der Gonadenreifung bei Agonum assimile Paxk. (Coleoptera, Carabidae) durch Temperatur und Photoperiode. Oecologia 17:141-157

    Not in our library10.1007/bf00346277

  402. 402.

    New TR (1995 ) An introduction to invertebrate conservation biology. Oxford University Press, Oxford UK, 208 pp.

    Not in our library

  403. 403.

    New TR (2010 ) Beetles in conservation. Wiley-Blackwell, Chistester, 237 pp

    Not in our library10.1002/9781444318623

  404. 404.

    Nicholson AJ (1958 ) Dynamics of insect populations. Annual Review of Entomology 3 107–136

    Not in our library10.1146/annurev.en.03.010158.000543

  405. 405.

    Niehues F-J Hockmann P Weber F (1996 ) Genetics and dynamics of a Carabus auronitens metapopulation in the Westphalian Lowlands (Coleoptera, Carabidae). Annales Zoologici Fennici 33:85-96.

    Not in our library

  406. 406.

    Niemelä J (1993 ) Interspecific competition in ground-beetle assemblages (Carabidae): What have we learned? Oikos 66: 325–335

    Not in our library10.2307/3544821

  407. 407.

    Niemelä J (1996a ) From systematics to conservation – carabidologists do it all. Annales Zoologici Fennici 33:1-4.

    Not in our library

  408. 408.

    Niemelä J (Ed) (1996b ) Population biology and conservation of carabid beetles. Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium of Carabidology, Kauniainen, Finland. Annales Zoologici Fennici 33:1-241.

    Not in our library

  409. 409.

    Niemelä J (2001 ) Carabid beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) and habitat fragmentation: a review. European Journal of Entomology 98:127-132.

    Not in our library

  410. 410.

    Niemelä J Haila Y Halme E Pajunen T Punttila P (1992 ) Small-scale heterogeneity in the spatial distribution of carabid beetles in the southern Finnish taiga. Journal of Biogeography 19:173-181

    Not in our library10.2307/2845503

  411. 411.

    Niemelä J Haila Y Punttila P (1996 ) The importance of small-scale heterogeneity in boreal forests: variation in diversity in forest-floor invertebrates across the succession gradient. Ecography 19:352-368.

    Not in our library

  412. 412.

    Niemelä J Haila Y Ranta E (1986 ) Spatial heterogeneity of carabid beetle dispersion in uniform forests on the Åland Islands, SW Finland. Annales Zoologici Fennici 23:289-296.

    Not in our library

  413. 413.

    Niemelä J Koivula M Kotze DJ (2007 ) The effects of forestry on carabid beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in boreal forests. Journal of Insect Conservation 11:5-18

    Not in our library10.1007/s10841-006-9014-0

  414. 414.

    Niemelä J Kotze DJ (2009 ) Carabid beetle assemblages along urban to rural gradients: A review. Landscape and Urban Planning 92:65-71

    Not in our library10.1016/j.landurbplan.2009.05.016

  415. 415.

    Niemelä J Kotze J Ashworth A Brandmayr P Desender K New T Penev L Samways M Spence J (2000 ) The search for common anthropogenic impacts on biodiversity: a global network. Journal of Insect Conservation 4:3-9

    Not in our library10.1023/a:1009655127440

  416. 416.

    Niemelä J Kotze DJ Venn S Penev L Stoyanov I Spence J Hartley D Montes de Oca E (2002 ) Carabid beetle assemblages (Coleoptera, Carabidae) across urban-rural gradients: an international comparison. Landscape Ecology 17:387-401

    Not in our library10.1023/a:1021270121630

  417. 417.

    Niemelä J Ranta E Haila Y (1985 ) Carabid beetles in lush forests patches on the Åland Islands, south-west Finland: an island-mainland comparison. Journal of Biogeography 12:109-120

    Not in our library10.2307/2844835

  418. 418.

    Niemelä J Spence J (1991 ) Distribution and abundance of an exotic ground-beetle (Carabidae): a test of community impact. Oikos 62:351-359

    Not in our library10.2307/3545500

  419. 419.

    Noonan GR (1985 ) The influence of dispersal, vicariance and refugia on patterns of biogeographical distributions of the beetle family Carabidae. In: Ball GE (Ed) Taxonomy, phylogeny and zoogeography of beetles and ants: a volume dedicated to the memory of Philip Jackson Darlington, Jr (1904–1983). Dr. W. Junk, Dordrecht, Boston, Lancaster: 322–349.

    Not in our library

  420. 420.

    Noonan GR Ball GE Stork NE (1992 ) The biogeography of ground beetles of maintains and islands. Intercept, Andover, Hampshire, 256 pp.

    Not in our library

  421. 421.

    Noordijk J (2009 ) Arthropods in linear elements, occurrence, behaviour and conservation management. PhD thesis, University of Wageningen, Wageningen, the Netherlands, 188 pp.

    Not in our library

  422. 422.

    Noordijk J Prins D de Jonge M Vermeulen R (2006 ) Impact of a road on the movements of two ground beetle species (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Entomologica Fennica 17:276-283.

    Not in our library

  423. 423.

    Noordijk J Vermeulen R (2009 ) Loopkevers in Drenthe. Stichting Willem Beyerinck Biologisch Station, Loon, 34 pp.

    Not in our library

  424. 424.

    Norris MJ (1959 ) The influence of day-length on imaginal diapause in the red locust, Nomadacris septemfasciata (Serv.). Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 2:154-168

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1570-7458.1959.tb02105.x

  425. 425.

    Norris MJ (1965 ) The influence of constant and changing photoperiods on imaginal diapause in the red locust (Nomadacris septemfasciata Serv.). Journal of Insect Physiology 11:1105-1119

    Not in our library10.1016/0022-1910(65)90181-2

  426. 426.

    Ober KA Maddison DR (2008 ) Phylogenetic relationships of tribes within Harpalinae (Coleoptera: Carabidae) as inferred from 28S ribosomal DNA and the wingless gene. Journal of Insect Science 8:63, 32 pp. http://www.insectscience.org/8.63/

    Not in our library10.1673/031.008.6301

  427. 427.

    Obydov D (2002 ) Révision du genre Callisthenes. Magellanes, Andrésy, 125 pp.

    Not in our library

  428. 428.

    O’Hara RB Kotze DJ (2010 ) Do not log-transform count data. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 1:118-122

    Not in our library10.1111/j.2041-210x.2010.00021.x

  429. 429.

    Ortuño VM Toribio M (2005 ) Carabidae de la Península Ibérica y Baleares – Vol. 1. Trechinae, Bembidiini. Argania edition, Barcelona, 455 pp.

    Not in our library

  430. 430.

    Ouborg NJ Vriezen WH (2007 ) An ecologist's guide to ecogenomics. Journal of Ecology 95:8-16

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1365-2745.2006.01197.x

  431. 431.

    Paarmann W (1970 ) Untersuchungen über die Jahresrhythmik von Laufkäfern (Coleoptera, Carabidae) in der Cyrenaika (Libyen, Nordafrika). Oecologia 5:325-333

    Not in our library10.1007/bf00815498

  432. 432.

    Paarmann W (1973 ) Bedeutung der Larvenstadien für die Fortpflanzungsrhythmik der Laufkäfer Broscus laevigatus Dej. und Orthomus atlanticus Fairm. (Col., Carab.) aus Nordafrika. Oecologia 13:81-92

    Not in our library10.1007/bf00379621

  433. 433.

    Paarmann W (1974 ) Der Einfluß von Temperatur und Lichtwechsel auf die Gonadenreifung des Laufkäfers Broscus laevigatus Dej. (Col., Carab.) aus Nordafrika. Oecologia 15:87-92

    Not in our library10.1007/bf00345230

  434. 434.

    Paarmann W (1975 ) Freilanduntersuchungen in Marokko (Nordafrika) zur Jahresrhythmik von Carabiden (Col., Carab.) und zum Mikroklima im Lebensraum der Käfer. Zoologische Jahrbücher. Abteilung Systematik 102:72-88.

    Not in our library

  435. 435.

    Paarmann W (1976a ) Die Jahresrhythmik und ihre Steuerung bei nord- und zentralafrikanischen Laufkäfern (Col., Carab.). Habiltitationsschrift, Universität Würzburg, 139 pp.

    Not in our library

  436. 436.

    Paarmann W (1976b ) Jahreszeitliche Aktivität und Fortpflanzungsrhythmik von Laufkäfern (Col., Carab.) im Kivugebiet (Ost-Zaire, Zentralafrika). Zoologische Jahrbücher Abteilung Systematik 103:311-354.

    Not in our library

  437. 437.

    Paarmann W (1976c ) Die Bedeutung exogener Faktoren für die Gonadenreifung von Orthomus barbarus atlanticus Fairm. (Col., Carab.) aus Nordafrika. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 19:23-36

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1570-7458.1976.tb02578.x

  438. 438.

    Paarmann W (1976d ) The annual periodicity of the polyvoltine ground beetle Pogonus chalceus Marsh. (Col., Carabidae) and its control by environmental factors. Zoologischer Anzeiger 196:150-160.

    Not in our library

  439. 439.

    Paarmann W (1979 ) Ideas about the evolution of the various annual reproduction rhythms in carabid beetles of the different climatic zones. Miscellaneous Papers: 18, Landbouw Hogeschool Wageningen, 119–132.

    Not in our library

  440. 440.

    Paarmann W (1985 ) Larvae preying on ant broods: an adaptation of the desert carabid beetle Graphipterus serrator Forskal (Col., Carabidae) to arid environments. Journal of Arid Environments 9:210-214.

    Not in our library

  441. 441.

    Paarmann W (1986 ) Seasonality and its control by environmental factors in tropical ground beetles (Col., Carabidae). In: Den Boer PJ, Luff ML, Mossakowski D, Weber F (Eds) Carabid Beetles Their Adaptations and Dynamics. Gustav Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart-New York, 157–171.

    Not in our library

  442. 442.

    Paarmann W (1990 )Poecilus lepidus Leske (Carabidae, Coleoptera), a species with the ability to be a spring and autumn breeder. In: Stork NE (Ed) The Role of Ground Beetles in Ecological and Environmental Studies. Intercept, Andover, Hampshire, 259–267.

    Not in our library

  443. 443.

    Paarmann W (1994 ) Temperature and photoperiodic influence on developmental stages and adults of the subarctic carabid beetle Pterostichus adstrictus Eschscholtz. In: Desender K, Dufrêne M, Loreau M, Luff ML, Maelfait J-P (Eds) Carabid Beetles: Ecology and Evolution, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht 201–205.

    Not in our library

  444. 444.

    Paarmann W (2002 ) Determination of food quality for the successful development of seed-feeding ground beetles (Col., Carabidae) from tropical lowland rain forests. In: Szyszko J, den Boer PJ, Bauer T (Eds) How to Protect or What We Know About Carabid Beetles. Warszaw Agricultural University Press, Warszaw, 45–57.

    Not in our library

  445. 445.

    Paarmann W Adis J Stork N Gutzmann B Stumpe P Staritz B Bolte H Kuppers S Holzkamp K Niers C da Fonseca CRV (2001 ) The structure of ground beetle assemblages (Coleoptera: Carabidae) at fig fruit falls (Moraceae) in a terra firme rain forest near Manaus (Brazil). Journal of Tropical Ecology 17:549-561

    Not in our library10.1017/s0266467401001419

  446. 446.

    Paarmann W Erbeling L Spinnler K (1986 ) Ant and ant brood preying larvae: An adaptation of carabid beetles to arid environments. In: Den Boer PJ, Luff ML, Mossakowski D, Weber F (Eds) Carabid Beetles Their Adaptations and Dynamics. Gustav Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart-New York, 79–90.

    Not in our library

  447. 447.

    Paarmann W Faust N Arndt E Luchtrath I Rohe W (2006 ) Constant seed size and mandible growth - a fundamental problem for granivorous ground beetle larvae (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Entomologica Fennica 17:334-339.

    Not in our library

  448. 448.

    Paarmann W Paarmann D (1997 ) Studies on the biology of a canopy-dwelling carabid beetle collected by canopy fogging in the rainforest of Sulawesi (Indonesia). In: Stork NE, Adis J, Didham RK (Eds) Canopy Arthropods. Chapman & Hall, London, England, 433–441.

    Not in our library

  449. 449.

    Paarmann W Stork N (1987 ) Seasonality of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in the rain forest of N. Sulawesi (Indonesia). Insect Science and its Application 8:483-487.

    Not in our library

  450. 450.

    Palmén E (1944 ) Die anemohydrochore Ausbreitung der Insekten als zoogeographischer Faktor. Annales Zoologici Societatis Zoologicae Botanicae Fennicae Vanamo, Helsiki, 262 pp.

    Not in our library

  451. 451.

    Panzer R Schwartz MW (1998 ) Effectiveness of a vegetation-based approach to insect conservation. Conservation Biology 12:693-702

    Not in our library10.1046/j.1523-1739.1998.97051.x

  452. 452.

    Parry ML Canziani OF Palutikof JP van der Linden PJ Hanson CE Eds (2007 ) Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 93 pp.

    Not in our library

  453. 453.

    Pawson SM Brockerhoff EG Meenken ED Didham RK (2008 ) Non-native plantation forests as alternative habitat for native forest beetles in a heavily modified landscape. Biodiversity and Conservation 17:1127-1148

    Not in our library10.1007/s10531-008-9363-y

  454. 454.

    Pearson DL Vogler AP (2001 ) Tiger beetles – The evolution, ecology and diversity of the cicindelids. Comstock Publishing Associates. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, London, 333 pp.

    Not in our library

  455. 455.

    Pedersen JC Wind P (2009 ) Den danske Rødliste. Danmarks miljoundersogelser, National Environmental Research Institute. URL: http://www2.dmu.dk/1_Om_DMU/2_Tvaer-funk/3_fdc_bio/projekter/redlist/artsgrupper.asp [Access date 15 June 2009]

    Not in our library

  456. 456.

    Penev L Erwin T Assmann T Eds (2008 ) Back to the roots and back to the future - Towards a new synthesis between taxonomic, ecological and biogeographical approaches in carabidology. Proceedings of the 13th European Carabidologists Meeting. Pensoft, Sofia-Moscow, 509 pp.

    Not in our library

  457. 457.

    Perez-Zaballos JM (1985 ) Paralelismo fenologico en Brachinus variventris Schaufuss, 1862 y Anchomenus dorsalis (Pontoppidan, 1863). (Coleoptera, Carabidae). Actas do Congresso Iberico de Entomologia 2:85-92.

    Not in our library

  458. 458.

    Persigehl M Lehmann S Vermeulen HJW Rosenkranz B Falke B Assmann T (2004 ) Kolonisation restituierter Sandrasen im Darmstädter Flugsandgebiet und im mittleren Emsland durch Laufkäfer. NNA-Berichte 1/2004 161–177.

    Not in our library

  459. 459.

    Petit S (1994 ) Diffusion of forest carabid beetles in hedgerow network landscapes. In: Desender K, Dufrêne M, Loreau M, Luff ML, Maelfait J-P (Eds) Carabid beetles: ecology and evolution. Series Entomologica 51:337-341.

    Not in our library

  460. 460.

    Petit S Burel F (1998 ) Effects of landscape dynamics on the metapopulation of a ground beetle (Coleoptera, Carabidae) in a hedgerow network. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 69:243-252

    Not in our library10.1016/s0167-8809(98)00111-x

  461. 461.

    Petit S Usher MB (1998 ) Biodiversity in agricultural landscapes: the ground beetle communities of woody uncultivated habitats. Biodiversity and Conservation 7:1549-1561

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2005.07.027

  462. 462.

    Pichancourt JB Burel F Auger P (2006 ) Assessing the effect of habitat fragmentation on population dynamics: An implicit modelling approach. Ecological Modelling 192:543-556.

    Not in our library

  463. 463.

    Pizzolotto R (2009 ) 30 years of carabid sampling in Italy: a data bank for studying local climate change. In: Hengeveld R, Noordijk J, Opsteeg T, Turin H, Vermeulen HJW (Eds) Abstracts of the XIV European Carabidologists Meeting, Westerbork, the Netherlands, 24.

    Not in our library

  464. 464.

    Plachter H (1986 ) Composition of the carabid beetle fauna of natural riverbanks and of man-made secondary habitats. In: Den Boer PJ, Thiele, H-U, Weber F (Eds) Carabid beetles, their adaptations and dynamics. Gustav Fischer, Stuttgart, New York, 509–535.

    Not in our library

  465. 465.

    Plat S Kuivenhoven P and Van Dijk T (1995 ) Hedgerows: suitable corridors for ground-dwelling forest carabid beetles? Proceedings of the section Experimental and Applied Entomology of the Netherlands Entomological Society (N.E.V. ) 6:73-75.

    Not in our library

  466. 466.

    Porta A (1923–1959) Fauna Coleopterorum Italica Vol. I. Adephaga. Piacenza (1923 ): 1–285, Supplementum I-III. San Remo (1934, 1949, 1959): 1–208, 1–386, 1–344.

    Not in our library

  467. 467.

    Prins D Van Vliet A Vermeulen R (2007 ) Invloed van klimaatverandering op de fenologie en populatiegrootte van loopkevers, een onderzoek op basis van de langstlopende continue meetreeks aan loopkevers ter wereld. Rapport Stichting WBBS, Loon, 82 pp.

    Not in our library

  468. 468.

    Prüser F Brückner M Mossakowski D (2000 ) Colonisation of Canary Islands by Carabus species: evidence from different character complexes. In: Brandmayr P, Lövei GL, Zetto Brandmayr T, Casale A, Vigna Taglianti A (Eds) Natural history and applied ecology of carabid beetles. Pensoft, Sofia, 45–52.

    Not in our library

  469. 469.

    Prüser F Mossakowski D (1998 ) Conflicts in phylogenetic relationships and dispersal history of the supertribe Carabitae (Coleoptera: Carabidae). In: Ball GE, Casale A, Vigna Taglianti A (Eds) Phylogeny and classification of Caraboidea (Coleoptera: Adephaga). Museo Regionale di Scienze Naturali, Torino, 297–328.

    Not in our library

  470. 470.

    Purtauf T Dauber J Wolters V (2004 ) Carabid communities in the spatio-temporal mosaic of a rural landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning 67:185-193

    Not in our library10.1016/s0169-2046(03)00038-0

  471. 471.

    Purtauf T Dauber J Wolters V (2005 ) The response of carabids to landscape simplification differs between trophic groups. Oecologia 142:458-464

    Not in our library10.1007/s00442-004-1740-y

  472. 472.
  473. 473.

    Rainio J Niemelä J (2003 ) Ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) as bioindicators. Biodiversity and Conservation 12:487-506

    Not in our library10.1023/a:1022412617568

  474. 474.

    Ranta E Ås S (1982 ) Non random colonization of habitat islands by carabid beetles. Annales Zoologici Fennici 19:175-181.

    Not in our library

  475. 475.

    Rasplus, J-Y Meusnier S Mondor G Piry S Cornuet J-M (2000 ) Microsatellite analysis of genetic population structure in the endangered beetle: Carabus solieri (Carabidae). In: Brandmayr P. Lövei GL, Zetto Brandmayr T, Casale A, Vigna Taglianti A (Eds) Natural history and applied ecology of carabid beetles. Pensoft, Sofia, 11–24.

    Not in our library

  476. 476.

    Rassi P Alanen A Kanerva T Mannerkoski I Eds (2001 ) Suomen lajien uhanalaisuus 2000. Finnish Ministry of Environment and Finnish Environment Centre, Helsinki, 432 pp.

    Not in our library

  477. 477.

    Reitter E (1908 ) Fauna Germanica. Die Käfer des Deutschen Reiches I Band. K.G. Lutz Verlag, Stuttgart: 248 pp, 40 plates.

    Not in our library

  478. 478.

    Ribera I Montagud S Teruel S Bellés X (2006 ) Molecular data support the inclusion of Ildobates neboti Español in Zuphiini (Coleoptera: Carabidae: Harpalinae). Entomologica Fennica 17:207-213.

    Not in our library

  479. 479.

    Richard E Gosselin F Lhonoré J (2004 ). Short-term and mid-term response of ground beetle communities (Coleoptera: Carabidae) to disturbance by regeneration felling. In: Honnay O, Bossuyt B, Verheyen K, Hermy M (Eds) Forest Biodiversity: Lessons from history for conservation. Oxon, UK, IUFRO Res. Ser. CAB International, 179–192

    Not in our library10.1079/9780851998022.0179

  480. 480.

    Riecken U Raths U (1996 ) Use of radio telemetry for studying dispersal and habitat use of Carabus coriaceus L. Annales Zoologici Fennici 33:109-116.

    Not in our library

  481. 481.

    Roff D (1986 ) The evolution of wing dimorphism in insects. Evolution40: 1009–1020

    Not in our library10.2307/2408759

  482. 482.

    Roig-Juñent S (1998 ) Cladistic relationships of the tribe Broscini (Coleoptera: Carabidae). In: Ball GE, Casale A, Vigna Taglianti A (Eds) Phylogeny and classification of Caraboidea (Coleoptera: Adephaga). Museo Regionale di Scienze Naturali, Torino, 343–358.

    Not in our library

  483. 483.

    Ruiz C Serrano J (2006 ) Molecular phylogeny and systematics of Calathus Bonelli (Coleoptera: Carabidae: Sphodrini) based on mitochondrial cox1-cox2 sequences. Entomologica Fennica 17:214-220.

    Not in our library

  484. 484.

    Rushton SP Eyre MD Luff ML (1990 ) The effects of scrub management on the ground beetles of oolitic limestone grassland at Castor Hanglands national nature reserve, Cambridgeshire, UK. Biological Conservation 51:97-111

    Not in our library10.1016/0006-3207(90)90105-x

  485. 485.

    Saarikivi J Idström L Venn S Niemelä J Kotze DJ (2010 ) Carabid beetle assemblages associated with urban golf courses in the greater Helsinki area. EuropeanJournal of Entomology 107:553-561.

    Not in our library

  486. 486.

    Sadler JP Small EC Fiszpan H Telfer MG Niemelä J (2006 ) Investigating environmental variation and landscape characteristics of an urban-rural gradient using woodland carabid assemblages. Journal of Biogeography 33:1126-1138

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1365-2699.2006.01476.x

  487. 487.

    Sætersdal M Gjerde I Blom HH (2005 ) Indicator species and the problem of spatial inconsistency in nestedness patterns. Biological Conservation 122:305-316

    Not in our library10.1016/j.biocon.2004.07.020

  488. 488.

    Sahlberg J (1868 ) Bidrag till kännedomen om Finlands Dimorpha insekt-arter (Engl. Contributions to the knowledge of Finland’s Dimorpha species) Notiser ur Sällskapets pro Fauna et Flora Fennica förhandlingar9 (1867) Helsinki.

    Not in our library

  489. 489.

    Salt G (1928 ). Notes on the life history of Pelecium sulcatum Guerin. Psyche 35:131-134.

    Not in our library

  490. 490.

    Samways MJ (2005 ) Insect diversity conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 250 pp

    Not in our library10.1017/cbo9780511614163

  491. 491.

    Samways MJ (2007 ) Insect conservation: a synthetic management approach. Annual Review of Entomology 52:465-487

    Not in our library10.1146/annurev.ento.52.110405.091317

  492. 492.

    Sander A Purtauf T Wolters V and Dauber J (2006 ) Landscape genetics of the widespread ground-beetle Carabus auratus in an agricultural region. Basic and Applied Ecology 7:555-564

    Not in our library10.1016/j.baae.2006.01.001

  493. 493.

    Sapia M Lövei GL Elek Z (2006 ) Effects of varying sampling effort on the observed diversity of carabid (Coleoptera: Carabidae) assemblages in the Danglobe Project, Denmark. Entomologica Fennica 17:345-350.

    Not in our library

  494. 494.

    Sasakawa K (2007 ) Laboratory studies on larval feeding habits of Amara macronota (Coleoptera: Carabidae: Zabrini). Applied Entomology and Zoology 42:669-674

    Not in our library10.1303/aez.2007.669

  495. 495.

    Sasakawa K (2009 ) Effects of maternal diet on fecundity and larval development in the 'primitive' granivorous carabid Amara (Curtonotus) macronota. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 130:106-112

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1570-7458.2008.00799.x

  496. 496.

    Saska P (2005 ) Contrary food requirements of the larvae of two Curtonotus (Coleoptera: Carabidae: Amara) species. Annals of Applied Biology 147:139-144

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1744-7348.2005.00016.x

  497. 497.

    Saska P (2008 ) Effect of diet on the fecundity of three carabid beetles. Physiological Entomology 33:188-192

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1365-3032.2008.00618.x

  498. 498.

    Saska P Honek A (2004 ) Development of the beetle parasitoids, Brachinus explodens and B. crepitans (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Journal of Zoology, London 262:29-36

    Not in our library10.1017/s0952836903004412

  499. 499.

    Saska P Honek A (2005 ) Development of the ground-beetle parasitoids, Brachinus explodens and B. crepitans (Coleoptera: Carabidae): effect of temperature. In: Lövei GL Toft S (Eds) European Carabidology 2003 Proceedings of the 11th European Carabidologists’ Meeting. DIAS Report 114:267-274..

    Not in our library

  500. 500.

    Saska P Honek A (2008 ) Synchronization of a coleopteran parasitoid, Brachinus spp. (Coleoptera: Carabidae), and its host. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 101:533-538. doi:;2

    Not in our library10.1603/0013-8746(2008)101[533:soacpb]2.0.co

  501. 501.

    Saska P Jarošík V (2001 ) Laboratory study of larval food requirements in nine species of Amara (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Plant Protection Science 37:103-110.

    Not in our library

  502. 502.

    Saska P Martinkova Z Honek A (2010 ) Temperature and rate of seed consumption by ground beetles (Carabidae). Biological Control 52:91-95

    Not in our library10.1016/j.biocontrol.2009.07.016

  503. 503.

    Saska P Vodde M Heijerman T Westerman P van der Werf W (2007 ) The significance of a grassy field boundary for the spatial distribution of carabids within two cereal fields. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 122:427-434

    Not in our library10.1016/j.agee.2007.02.013

  504. 504.

    Schjøtz-Christensen B (1965 ) Biology and population studies of Carabidae of the Corynephoretum. Natura Jutlandica 11: 1–173, tables 1–89.

    Not in our library

  505. 505.

    Schjøtz-Christensen B (1966 ) Biology of some ground beetles (Harpalus Latr.) of the Corynephoretum. Natura Jutlandica 12:225-229.

    Not in our library

  506. 506.

    Schjøtz-Christensen B (1968 ) Some notes on the biology of Carabus hortensis L. (Coleoptera, Carabidae). Natura Jutlandica 14:127-154.

    Not in our library

  507. 507.

    Schremmer F (1960 ) Beitrag zur Biologie von Ditomus clypeatus Rossi, eines körnersammelnden Carabiden. Zeitschrift der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Östereichischer Entomologen 3:140-146.

    Not in our library

  508. 508.

    Schüle P Terlutter H (1998 ) Rote Liste der gefährdeten Sandlaufkäfer und Laufkäfer (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae, Carabidae) in Nordrhein-Westfalen. Ergänzter Nachdruck aus Angewandte Carabidologie 1:51-62.

    Not in our library

  509. 509.

    Schweiger O Maelfait JP Van Wingerden W Hendrickx F Billeter R Speelman, M Augenstein I Aukema B Aviron S Bailey D Bukacek R Burel F Diekotter T Dirksen J Frenzel M Herzog F Liira J Roubalova M (2005 ) Quantifying the impact of environmental factors on arthropod communities in agricultural landscapes across organizational levels and spatial scales. Journal of Applied Ecology 42:1129-1139

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1365-2664.2005.01085.x

  510. 510.

    Schwerk A (2000 ) Ecological aspects of carabid beetles coenoses (Coleoptera: Carabidae) on industrial fallow grounds in the Ruhr Valley area. In: Brandmayr P, Lövei G, Zetto Brandmayr T, Casale A, Taglianti V (Eds) Natural history and applied ecology of carabid beetles, Pensoft, 277–287.

    Not in our library

  511. 511.

    Schwerk A (2008 ) Model of the rate of succession of epigeic carabid beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) on degraded areas. Instytut Badawczy Leśnictwa, Sękocin Stary, 71 pp.

    Not in our library

  512. 512.

    Sciaky R (1987 ) Revisione delle specie paleartiche occidental del genere Ophonus Dejean. Memorie della Società Entomologia Italiana 65:29-120.

    Not in our library

  513. 513.

    Serrano J (1986 ) A karyotypical approach to carabid evolution (Coleoptera). In: Den Boer P, Luff ML, Mossakowski D, Weber F (Eds) Carabid Beetles, their Adaptations and Dynamics. Gustav Fischer, Stuttgart, 221–234.

    Not in our library

  514. 514.

    Serrano J (1992 ) Geographic isolation and karyotypic evolution of carabid beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae). In: Noonan GR, Ball GE, Stork NE (Eds) The biogeography of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) from mountains and islands. Intercept Publ., Andover, 235–243.

    Not in our library

  515. 515.

    Serrano J (2003 ) Catálogo de los Carabidae (Coleoptera) de la Península Ibérica. Monografías de la Sociedad Entomológica Aragonesa, Zaragoza, 130 pp.

    Not in our library

  516. 516.

    Serrano J Galián J (1998 ) A review of karyotypic evolution and phylogeny of carabid beetles (Coleoptera). In: Ball GE, Casale A, Vigna Taglianti A (Eds) Phylogeny and classification of Caraboidea (Coleoptera: Adephaga). Museo Regionale di Scienze Naturali, Torino, 191–228.

    Not in our library

  517. 517.

    Serrano J Galián J Ortiz AS (1994 ) Karyotypic data and current taxonomic ideas of the tribe Harpalini (Coleoptera, Carabidae). In: Desender K, Dufrêne M, Loreau M, Luff ML, Maelfait J-P (Eds) Carabid beetles: Ecology and evolution. Kluwer Academic Press, Dordrecht, 55–61.

    Not in our library

  518. 518.

    Serrano J Koivula M Lövei G Eds (2006 ) Proceedings of the 12th European Carabidologists’ Meeting. Entomologica Fennica 17: 35 0 pp.

    Not in our library

  519. 519.

    Sharova ICH (1981 ) Life forms of carabids (Coleoptera, Carabidae), Ghilarov MS (Ed) Nauka Publishers, Moscow, 360 pp.

    Not in our library

  520. 520.

    Silvestri F (1904 ) Contribuzione alla conoscenza della metamorphosi e dei costumi della Lebia scapularis Fourcr. con descrizione dell' aparato sericiparo della larva. Redia 2:68-84.

    Not in our library

  521. 521.

    Similä M Kouki J Mönkkönen M Sippola A-L Huhta E (2006 ) Co-variation and indicators of species diversity: can richness of forest-dwelling species be predicted in northern boreal forests? Ecological Indicators 6: 686–700

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ecolind.2005.08.028

  522. 522.

    Skłodowski JJW (2006 ) Anthropogenic transformation of ground beetle assemblages (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in Bialowieza forest, Poland: from primeval forest to managed woodlands of various ages. Entomologica Fennica 17:296-309.

    Not in our library

  523. 523.

    Skłodowski J Garbalińska P (2010 ) Zmiany zgrupowań biegaczowatych w drzewostanach zaburzonych. In: Skłodowski J (Ed) Monitoring zoo indykacyjny regeneracji ekosystemów leśnych Puszczy Piskiej zaburzonych przez huragan. Warsaw Agricultural University Press, Warsaw, 145–189.

    Not in our library

  524. 524.

    Skoupý V (2004 ) Ground-beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) of the Czech and Slovak Republics of Jan Pulpán’s collection. Skoupý, Praha, 213 pp.

    Not in our library

  525. 525.

    Sokal RR Rohlf FJ (1995 )Biometry. 3rd edition. Freeman and Company, New York, 887 pp.

    Not in our library

  526. 526.

    Stork NE (Ed) (1990 ) The role of ground beetles in ecological and environmental studies. Proceedings of the 7th European Carabidologists’ Meeting. Intercept, Andover, Hampshire, 424 pp.

    Not in our library

  527. 527.

    Stork N Paarmann W (1992 ) Reproductive seasonality of the ground and tiger beetle (Coleoptera: Carabidae, Cicindelidae) fauna in N. Sulawesi, Indonesia. Studies on Neotropical Fauna and Environment 27:101-115

    Not in our library10.1080/01650529209360871

  528. 528.

    Strand A (1970 ) Additions and corrections to the Norwegian part of the Catalogus Coleopterorum Fennoscandiae et Daniae (Lindroth, 1960). Norsk entomologisk Tidsskrift 17:125-126.

    Not in our library

  529. 529.

    Šustek Z (1987 ) Changes in body size structure of carabid communities (Coleoptera, Carabidae) along an urbanisation gradient. Biologia (Bratislava)42: 145–156.

    Not in our library

  530. 530.

    Šustek Z (1992 ) Changes in the representation of carabid life forms along an urbanisation gradient (Coleoptera, Carabidae). Biologia (Bratislava) 47:417-430.

    Not in our library

  531. 531.

    Sutherland WJ (Ed) (1998 ) Conservation science and action. Blackwell Science, Oxford, UK, 376 pp.

    Not in our library

  532. 532.

    Szyszko J (1981 ) The organization of a field station in Niedzwiady for experimental research on carabid beetles. In Brandmayr P, Den Boer PJ, Weber F (Eds) Ecology of carabids: The synthesis of field study and laboratory experiments - Report of the Fourth meeting of European Carabidologists, University of Münster, Westphalia, 183–189.

    Not in our library

  533. 533.

    Szyszko J (1986a ) The occurrence of Carabidae (Coleoptera) in pine stands in fresh coniferous forest habitats in the district Niedżiady. In: den Boer PJ, Grüm L, Szyszko J (Eds) Feeding behaviour and accessibility of food for carabid beetles. Warsaw Agricultural University Press, Warsaw, 133–147.

    Not in our library

  534. 534.

    Szyszko J (1986b ) What is the habitat for carabid beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae)? In: Den Boer PJ, Grüm L, Szyszko J (Eds) Feeding behaviour and accessibility of food for carabid beetles. Warsaw Agricultural University Press, Warsaw, 149–156.

    Not in our library

  535. 535.

    Szyszko J (1990 ) Planning of prophylaxis in threatened pine forest biocoenoses based on an analysis of the fauna of epigeic Carabidae. Warsaw Agricultural University Press, Warsaw, 96 pp.

    Not in our library

  536. 536.

    Szyszko J (2004 ) Foundations of Poland's cultural landscape protection – conservation policy. Dieterich M, van der Straaten J (Eds) Cultural landscapes and land use. Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands, 95–110.

    Not in our library

  537. 537.

    Szyszko J (2010 ): Formowanie się zgrupowań epigeicznych biegaczowatych w zależności od wieku drzewostanu i historii użytkowania gleb. In: Szyszko J, Tobolski K (Eds) Podstawy Kompensacji Przyrodniczej. Wyższa Szkola Kultury Społecznej i Medialnej w Toruniu Press, Toruń, 126–138.

    Not in our library

  538. 538.

    Szyszko J Den Boer PJ Bauer T Eds (2002 ) How to protect or what we know about carabid beetles. Proceedings of the 10th European Carabidologists’ Meeting. Warsaw Agricultural University Press, Warsaw, 1–378.

    Not in our library

  539. 539.

    Szyszko J Den Boer PJ Vermeulen HJR (1996 ) Survival and reproduction in relation to habitat quality and food availability for Pterostichus oblongopunctatus F. (Carabidae, Col.). Acta Jutlandica 71:25-40.

    Not in our library

  540. 540.

    Szyszko J Schwerk A Malczyk J (2011 ) Animals as an indicator of carbon sequestration and valuable landscapes. In: Kotze DJ, Assmann T, Noordijk J, Turin H, Vermeulen R (Eds) Carabid Beetles as Bioindicators: Biogeographical, Ecological and Environmental Studies. ZooKeys 100:564-573.

    Not in our library10.3897/zookeys.100.1547

  541. 541.

    Szyszko J Vermeulen HJW Klimaszewski K Abs M Schwerk A (2000 ) Mean Individual Biomass (MIB) of ground beetles (Carabidae) as an indicator of the state of the environment. In: Brandmayr P, Lövei G, Zetto Brandmayr T, Casale A, Taglianti AV (Eds) Natural history and applied ecology of carabid beetles. Proceedings of the IX European Carabidologists' Meeting (26–31 July 1998, Camigliatello, Cosenza, Italy). Pensoft, Sofia-Moscow, 289–294.

    Not in our library

  542. 542.

    Taboada A Kotze DJ Salgado JM Tárrega R (2006a ) The influence of habitat type on the distribution of carabid beetles in traditionally managed "dehesa" ecosystems in NW Spain. Entomologica Fennica 17:284-293.

    Not in our library

  543. 543.

    Taboada A Kotze DJ Tárrega R Salgado JM (2006b ) Traditional forest management: Do carabid beetles respond to human-created vegetation structures in an oak mosaic landscape? Forest Ecology and Management 237: 436–449

    Not in our library10.1016/j.foreco.2006.09.077

  544. 544.

    Taboada A Kotze DJ Tárrega R Salgado JM (2008 ) Carabids of differently aged reforested pinewoods and a natural pine forest in a historically modified landscape. Basic and Applied Ecology 9:161-171

    Not in our library10.1016/j.baae.2007.01.004

  545. 545.

    Tanner RA Gange AC (2005 ) Effects of golf courses on local biodiversity. Landscape and Urban Planning 71:137-146

    Not in our library10.1016/s0169-2046(04)00034-9

  546. 546.

    Taylor RJ Doran N (2001 ) Use of terrestrial invertebrates as indicators of the ecological sustainability of forest management under the Montreal Process. Journal of Insect Conservation 5:221-231

    Not in our library10.1023/a:1013397410297

  547. 547.

    Telfer MG Eversham BC (1996 ) Ecology and conservation of heathland Carabidae in eastern England. Annales Zoologici Fennici 33:133-138.

    Not in our library

  548. 548.

    Terlutter H (1990 ) An allele gradient of an esterase gene locus as result of recent gene flow: electrophoretic investigations of Carabus auronitens F. (Col. Carabidae). In: Stork NE (Ed) The role of ground beetles in ecological and environmental studies, Intercept, 359–364.

    Not in our library

  549. 549.

    Thacker JRM (1996 ) Carabidologists and fragmented habitats. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 11:103-104

    Not in our library10.1016/0169-5347(96)81083-4

  550. 550.

    Thiele H-U (1971 ) Wie isoliert sind Populationen von Waldcarabiden in Feldhecken. In: Den Boer PJ (Ed) Dispersal and Dispersal Power of Carabid Beetles. Miscellaneous Papers Landbouwhogeschool Wageningen 8:105-110.

    Not in our library

  551. 551.

    Thiele H-U (1977 ) Carabid beetles in their Environment: a Study on Habitat Selection by Adaptations in Physiology and Behaviour. Springer, Berlin, 369 pp.

    Not in our library

  552. 552.

    Thomas CFG Holland JM Brown NJ (2002 ) The spatial distribution of carabid beetles in agricultural landscapes. In: Holland JM (Ed) The Agroecology of Carabid Beetles. Intercept Limited, Hampshire, UK, 305–344.

    Not in our library

  553. 553.

    Thomas CFG Parkinson L Marshall EJP (1998 ) Isolating the components of activity-density for the carabid beetle Pterostichus melanarius in farmland. Oecologia 116:103-112

    Not in our library10.1007/s004420050568

  554. 554.

    Thomas MB (1990 ) The role of man-made grassy habitats in enhancing carabid populations in arable land. In: Stork NE (Ed) The role of ground beetles in ecological and environmental studies. Intercept, Andover, Hampshire, 77–85.

    Not in our library

  555. 555.

    Toft S Bilde T (2002 ) Carabid diets and food value. In: Holland JM (Ed) The Agroecology of Ground Beetles. Intercept, Andover, 81–110.

    Not in our library

  556. 556.

    Trautner J Geigenmüller K (1987 ) Tiger beetles, ground beetles – Illustrated key to the Cicindelidae and Carabidae of Europe. J. Margraf Verlag, Aichtal, Germany, 488 pp.

    Not in our library

  557. 557.

    Turin H (1981 ) Provisional checklist of the European ground-beetles (Coleoptera, Cicindelidae & Carabidae). Monograph of the Netherlands Entomological Society 9: 24 9 pp.

    Not in our library

  558. 558.

    Turin H (2000 ) De Nederlandse Loopkevers, Verspreiding en Oecologie (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Nederlandse Fauna 3. Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum Naturalis, KNNV Uitgeverij & EIS-Nederland, Leiden, 666 pp.

    Not in our library

  559. 559.

    Turin H Alders K Den Boer PJ Van Essen S Heijerman, Th Laane W Penterman E (1991 ) Ecological characterisation of carabid species (Coleoptera, Carabidae) in the Netherlands from thirty years of pitfall sampling. Tijdschrift voor Entomologie 134:279-304.

    Not in our library

  560. 560.

    Turin H Den Boer PJ (1988 ) Changes in the distribution of carabid beetles in the Netherlands since 1880. II. Isolation of habitats and long-term time trends in the occurrence of carabid species with different powers of dispersal (Coleoptera, Carabidae). Biological Conservation 44:179-200

    Not in our library10.1016/0006-3207(88)90101-2

  561. 561.

    Turin H Penev L Casale A Eds (2003 ) The genus Carabus – A Synthesis. Pensoft, Sofia-Moscow, 511 pp.

    Not in our library

  562. 562.

    Underwood AJ (2009 ) Components of design in ecological field experiments. Annales Zoologici Fennici 46:93-111.

    Not in our library

  563. 563.

    Vanbergen AJ Woodcock BA Watt AD Niemelä J (2005 ) Effect of land-use heterogeneity on carabid communities at the landscape scale. Ecography 28:3-16

    Not in our library10.1111/j.0906-7590.2005.03991.x

  564. 564.

    Vanbergen AJ Woodcock BA Koivula M Niemelä J Kotze DJ Bolger T Golden V Dubs F Boulanger G Serrano J Lencina JL Serrano A Aguiar C Grandchamp A-C Stofer S Szél G Ivits E Adler P Markus J Watt AD (2010 ) Trophic level modulates carabid beetle responses to habitat and landscape structure: a pan-European study. Ecological Entomology 35:226-235

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1365-2311.2010.01175.x

  565. 565.

    Van Dijk ThS Den Boer PJ (1992 ) The life histories and population dynamics of two carabid species on a Dutch heathland. 1. Fecundity and the mortality of immature stages. Oecologia 90:340-352

    Not in our library10.1007/bf00317690

  566. 566.

    Van Essen Sj (1993 ) Loopkeverinventarisatie Dwingelderveld 1991, SBB, Biologisch Station Wijster, Natuurmonumenten. Grafisch Service Centrum Wageningen. 1–97.

    Not in our library

  567. 567.

    Van Huizen TH (1977 ) The significance of flight activity in the life cycle of Amara plebeja Gyllh. (Coleoptera, Carabidae). Oecologia 29:27-41

    Not in our library10.1007/bf00345360

  568. 568.

    Van Huizen TH (1979 ) Individual and environmental factors determining flight in carabid beetles. In: Den Boer PJ, Thiele H-U, Weber F (Eds) On the evolution of behaviour in Carabid beetles. Miscellaneous papers, Agricultural University Wageningen 18:199-211.

    Not in our library

  569. 569.

    Venn SJ (2007 ) Morphological responses to disturbance in wing-polymorphic carabid species (Coleoptera Carabidae) of managed urban grasslands. Baltic Journal of Coleopterology 7:51-60.

    Not in our library

  570. 570.

    Venn SJ Kotze DJ Niemelä J (2003 ) Urbanization effects on carabid diversity in boreal forests. European Journal of Entomology 100:73-80.

    Not in our library

  571. 571.

    Ver Hoef JM Boveng PL (2007 ) Quasi-Poisson vs. negative binomial regression: how should we model overdispersed count data? Ecology 88:2766-2772

    Not in our library10.1890/07-0043.1

  572. 572.

    Vermeulen HJW (1986 ) De invloed van voedselhoeveelheid en voedselkwaliteit op de reproductie, groei en overleving van Pterostichus oblongopunctatus en Calathus erratus. Doctoral thesis, Biological Station, Wijster.

    Not in our library

  573. 573.

    Vermeulen HJW (1993 ) The composition of the carabid fauna on poor sandy road-side verges in relation to comparable open areas. Biodiversity and Conservation 2:331-350

    Not in our library10.1007/bf00114038

  574. 574.

    Vermeulen HJW (1994 ) Corridor function of a road verge for dispersal of stenotopic heathland ground beetles Carabidae. Biological Conservation 69:339-349

    Not in our library10.1016/0006-3207(94)90433-2

  575. 575.

    Vermeulen R Opsteeg T (1994 ) Movements of some carabid beetles in road-side verges. Dispersal in a simulation programme. In: Desender K, Dufrêne M, Loreau M, Luff ML, Maelfait J-P (Eds) Carabid beetles: ecology and evolution. Series Entomologica 51:393-398.

    Not in our library

  576. 576.

    Vermeulen HJW Opdam PFM (1995 ) Effectiveness of roadside verges as dispersal corridors for small ground-dwelling animals: A simulation study. Landscape and Urban Planning 31:233-248

    Not in our library10.1016/0169-2046(94)01050-i

  577. 577.

    Vermeulen HJW Opsteeg TJ Kooij A (2002 ) Planning ecological corridors for carabid beetles. The proposed ecological connection in Miud-Drenthe (Netherlands), Terhorsterzand-Scharreveld-Orveltezand. In: Szyszko J, Den Boer PJ, Bauer T (Eds) How to protect or what we know about carabid beetles. Warsaw Agricultural University Press, Warsaw, 133–142.

    Not in our library

  578. 578.

    Vermeulen R Spee A (2005 ) The Mantingerveld: effects of fragmentation and defragmentation followed by carabid beetles. In: Lövei G, Toft S (Eds) European Carabidology 2003 (Proceedings of the 11th European Carabidologists’ Meeting). DIAS Report Plant Production, No. 114, Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences, 379–389.

    Not in our library

  579. 579.

    Vermeulen R Spee A Popken R (2004 ) Versnippering en ontsnippering in het Mantingerveld; de gevolgen voor Loopkevers. De Levende Natuur 105:67-72.

    Not in our library

  580. 580.

    Vermeulen HJW Szyszko J (1992 ) Cooperation within Europe in a study of Pterostichus oblongopunctatus F. (Coleoptera, Carabidae). The influence of food and habitat quality on the egg production. In: Zombori L, Peregovits L (Eds) Proceedings of the 4th European Congress of Entomology, Hungarian Natural History Museum, Budapest, 592–601.

    Not in our library

  581. 581.

    Versteirt V Dekoninck W Desender K Grootaert P (2002 ) Ground beetle communities as evaluation of reconverted arable land into heathland and dry oligotrophic grasslands (Flanders, Belgium). In: Szyszko J, Den Boer PJ, Bauer T (Eds) How to protect or what we know about carabid beetles, Warsaw Agricultural University Press, 143–154.

    Not in our library

  582. 582.

    Vigna Taglianti A (1993 ) Checklist delle specie della fauna d’Italia, 44 Coleoptera Archostemata, Adephaga 1 (Carabidae). Ministerio dell’Ambiente Comitato Scientifico per la Fauna d’Italia. Edizione Calderini, Bologna, 51 pp.

    Not in our library

  583. 583.

    Vigna Taglianti A (2005 ) Checklist e Corotipi delle specie di Carabidi della fauna Italiana. In: Brandmayr P, Zetto T, Pizzolotto R (Eds) I Coleotteri Carabidi per la valutazione ambientale e la conservazione della biodiversità. APAT, Roma, 186–225.

    Not in our library

  584. 584.

    Vigna Taglianti A Santarelli E Di Giulio A Oliverio M (1998 ) Phylogenetic implications of larval morphology in the tribe Ozaenini (Coleoptera: Carabidae). In: Ball GE, Casale A, Vigna Taglianti A (Eds) Phylogeny and classification of Caraboidea (Coleoptera: Adephaga). Museo Regionale di Scienze Naturali, Torino, 273–295.

    Not in our library

  585. 585.

    Vinson SB (1976 ) Host selection by insect parasitoids. Annual Review of Entomology 21:109-133

    Not in our library10.1146/annurev.en.21.010176.000545

  586. 586.

    Vlijm L van Dijk TS Wijmans SY (1968 ) Ecological studies on carabid beetles. III. Winter mortality in adult Calathus melanocephalus (Linn.). Egg production and locomotory activity of the population which has hibernated. Oecologia 1:304-314

    Not in our library10.1007/bf00386687

  587. 587.

    Vogler AP Barraclough TG (1998 ) Reconstructing shifts in diversification rate during the radiation of tiger beetles (Coleoptera). In: Ball GE, Casale A, Vigna Taglianti A (Eds) Phylogeny and classification of Caraboidea (Coleoptera: Adephaga). Museo Regionale di Scienze Naturali, Torino, 251–260.

    Not in our library

  588. 588.

    Vogler AP DeSalle R (1994 ) Mitochondrial DNA evolution and the application of the phylogenetic species concept in the Cicindela dorsalis complex (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae). In: Desender K, Dufrêne M, Loreau M, Luff ML, Maelfait J-P (Eds) Carabid beetles: Ecology and evolution. Kluwer Acad. Press, Dordrecht, 79–85.

    Not in our library

  589. 589.

    Vogt S Kamer N Mossakowski D (2005 ) The phylogeny of African Anthiini beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) inferred from mitochondrial NADH dehydrogenase subunit 5 (ND5) DNA sequences. In: Lövei G, Toft S (Eds) European Carabidology 2003 (Proceedings of the 11th European Carabidologists' Meeting). DIAS Report Plant Production, No. 114, Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences, 391–397.

    Not in our library

  590. 590.

    Wachmann E Platen R Barndt D (1995 ) Laufkäfer – Beobachtung, Lebensweise. Naturbuchverlag Augsburg, 293 pp.

    Not in our library

  591. 591.

    Walter H Lieth H (1960 ) Klimadiagramm Weltatlas, G. Fischer Verlag, Jena, Germany, 253 pp.

    Not in our library

  592. 592.

    Ward RD (1979 ) Metathoracic wing structures as phylogenetic indicators in the Adephaga (Coleoptera). In Erwin TL, Ball GE, Whitehead DR, Halpern AL (Eds) Carabid Beetles: Their Evolution, Natural History, and Classification. Dr. W. Junk Publishers, The Hague, 181–192.

    Not in our library

  593. 593.

    Weber D Saska P Chaboo C (2008 ) Carabid beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) as parasitoids. In: Capinera JL (Ed) Encyclopedia of Entomology, Springer, New York, Berlin, Heidelberg, Tokyo, 719–721.

    Not in our library

  594. 594.

    Weber DC Rowley DL Greenstone MH Athanas MM (2006 ) Prey preference and host suitability of the predatory and parasitoid carabid beetle, Lebia grandis, for several species of Leptinotarsa beetles. Journal of Insect Science 6 (09), 14 pp. www.insectscience.org/6.09.

    Not in our library10.1673/1536-2442(2006)6[1:ppahso]2.0.co;2

  595. 595.

    White GC Bennetts RE (1996 ) Analysis of frequency count data using the negative binomial distribution. Ecology 77:2549-2557

    Not in our library10.2307/2265753

  596. 596.

    White TCR (1993 ) The inadequate environment, Nitrogen and the abundance of animals. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 425 pp.

    Not in our library

  597. 597.

    Wickham HF (1893 ) Description of the early stages of several North American Coleoptera. Bulletin from the Laboratories of natural history of the State university of Iowa 2:330-332.

    Not in our library

  598. 598.

    Wizen G Gasith A (2011 ) Predation of amphibians by carabid beetles of the genus Epomis found in the central coastal plain of Israel. In: Kotze DJ, Assmann T, Noordijk J, Turin H, Vermeulen R (Eds) Carabid Beetles as Bioindicators: Biogeographical, Ecological and Environmental Studies. ZooKeys 100:181-191.

    Not in our library10.3897/zookeys.100.1526

  599. 599.

    Woodcock BA Redhead J Vanbergen AJ Hulmes L Hulmes S Peyton J Nowakowski M Pywell RF Heard MS (2010 ) Impact of habitat type and landscape structure on biomass, species richness and functional diversity of ground beetle. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 139:181-186

    Not in our library10.1016/j.agee.2010.07.018

  600. 600.

    Yamada Y Sasaki H Harauchi Y (2010 ) Effects of narrow roads on the movement of carabid beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) in Nopporo Forest Park, Hokkaido. Journal of Insect Conservation 14:151-157

    Not in our library10.1007/s10841-009-9236-z

  601. 601.

    Zaballos JP Jeanne C (1994 ) Nuevo catalogo de los carábidos (Coleoptera) de la peninsula Iberica. Monografias de la Sociedad Entomológica Aragonesa 1:1-159.

    Not in our library

  602. 602.

    Zalewski M (2004 ) Do smaller islands host younger populations? A case study on metapopulations of three carabid species. Journal of Biogeography 31:1139-1148

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1365-2699.2004.01097.x

  603. 603.

    Zamotajlov A Sciaky R (1999 ) Advances in Carabidology – Papers dedicated to the memory of Prof. Oleg L. Kryzhanovskij. MUISO Publishers, Krasnodar, 472 pp.

    Not in our library

  604. 604.

    Zetto Brandmayr T (1976 ) Nutrizione e allevamento di Carabidi esclucivamente fitofagi: spermofagia larvale di Ophonus ardosiacus Lutsh. Redia 59:197-206.

    Not in our library

  605. 605.

    Zetto Brandmayr T (1983a ) Regolazione esogena dello sviluppo preimmaginale di Ophonus rotundicollis Fairm. e Lab. (ardosiacus Lutsh) (Coleoptera, Carabidae) in dipendenza da temperatura e fotoperiodo. Proceedings XII Congresso Nazionale Italiano Entomologia, Roma, 1980, 105–112.

    Not in our library

  606. 606.

    Zetto Brandmayr T (1983b ) Life cycle, control and propagation rhythm and fecundity of Ophonus rotundicollis Fairm. et Lab. (Coleoptera, Carabidae, Harpalini) as an adaptation to the main feeding plant Daucus carota L. (Umbelliferae). In: Brandmayr P, Den Boer PJ, Weber F (Eds) Ecology of Carabids: the synthesis of field study and laboratory experiment. ”Haus Rothenberge” Westfalia, 93–103.

    Not in our library

  607. 607.

    Zetto Brandmayr T (1990 ) Spermophagous (seed-eating) ground beetles: first comparison of the diet and ecology of the harpaline genera Harpalus and Ophonus (Col., Carabidae). In: Stork N (Ed) The Role of Ground Beetles in Ecological and Environmental Studies. Intercept, Andover, 307–316.

    Not in our library

  608. 608.

    Zetto Brandmayr T Dalpozzo R De Nino A De Rose E Giglio A Procopio A Sindona G Talarico F (2000a ) Siagona europaea Dejean (Coleoptera, Carabidae), an ant predator living with ants: hypothesis about chemical mimicry. Insect Social Life 3:201-208.

    Not in our library

  609. 609.

    Zetto Brandmayr T De Rose E Giglio A Pizzolotto R (2000b ) Morphological and behavioural aspects favouring ant predation in Siagona europaea (Coleoptera, Carabidae). In: Brandmayr P, Lövei GL, Zetto Brandmayr T, Casale A, Vigna-Taglianti A (Eds) Natural History and Applied Ecology of Carabid Beetles. Pensoft, Sofia, 103–109.

    Not in our library

  610. 610.

    Zetto Brandmayr T Giglio A De Rose E (1998a ) Feeding behaviour and food preferences of Siagona europaea Dejean, a myrmecophagous carabid beetle (Coleoptera, Carabidae). Insect Social Life 2:203-207.

    Not in our library

  611. 611.

    Zetto Brandmayr T Giglio A Marano I Brandmayr P (1998b ) Morphofunctional and ecological features in carabid (Coleoptera) larvae. In: Ball GE, Casale A, Vigna Taglianti A (Eds) Phylogeny and Classification of Caraboidea. Museo Regionale di Scienze Naturali, Torino, 449–489.

    Not in our library

Cited by papers we hold 4

Reads

Read by people on this page

None yet.

Checked or read by AI through naulon

None yet.

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.

Are you an author?

Is this your paper?

Claim it to add your note and be paid when agents cite it. Free.