Biodiversity Data JournalBiodiversity Data JournalBiodiversity Data JournalBDJ1314-28361314-2828Pensoft PublishersBiodiversity Data Journal10.3897/BDJ.1.e9722233ColeopteraCarabidaeEcologyAgricultureEuropeItalyGround beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) of rice field banks and restored habitats in an agricultural area of the Po Plain (Lombardy, Italy)PilonNicolaDrnicola@elitron.mi.it1CardarelliElisaMrselisa.cardarelli@unipv.it2BoglianiGiuseppeProfbogliani@unipv.it2Elitron, via Capri 11/3, 20153 Milano, ItalyDept. of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Pavia, Via Ferrata 9, 27100 Pavia, Italy
2013111120131e97231720134102013Nicola Pilon, Elisa Cardarelli, Giuseppe BoglianiThis is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 3.0 (CC-BY), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
An entomological investigation was carried out in an agricultural area, mainly rice fields, of the Po river plain, located in the municipalities of Lacchiarella (MI) and Giussago (PV) (Lombardy, Italy). In 2009 and 2010, ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) were sampled along rice field banks and in restored habitats, by means of pitfall traps. The area appeared as species-rich, compared to other anthropogenic habitats in the Po river pain. Most of the collected Carabids were species with a wide distribution in the Paleartic region, eurytopic and common in European agroecosystems. The assemblages were dominated by small-medium, macropterous species, with summer larvae. No endemic species were found. Species with southern distribution, rarely found north of the Po river, were also sampled. Amaralittorea is recorded for the first time in Italy.
In the last decades, intensification and mechanization of agricultural practices, introduced in order to maximise productivity, led to a decrease in habitat quality and landscape heterogeneity throughout European agroecosystems. Diffusion of monoculture, increased use of chemicals (i.e. pesticides and fertilizers) and removal of non-cropped areas, like small woodlots and hedges, caused a wide-scale loss of biodiversity (Stoate et al. 2001).
Recently, environmentally-friendly agronomic practices and creation of non-cropped habitats have been recognized as a potential solution to this dramatic decline of biodiversity and have become key aims of European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and, as a consequence, of national and regional ones (Stoate et al. 2009). In Lombardy lowland, environmentally-friendly measures includes reforestations, creation of hedges and buffer strips, maintenance of meadows and renaturalization of wetlands (Lombardy Region 2012, http://www.agricoltura.regione.lombardia.it).
Even if agri-environment schemes (AESs) benefit some farmland species (e.g., Peach et al. 2001), gaps in the provision of habitat quality and landscape connectivity for many others still exist (Kleijn et al. 2001, Vickery et al. 2004, Reid et al. 2007). Better understanding on effects of AESs on farmland biodiversity and exhaustive surveys on animal and plant communities in enhanced habitats are required (Kleijn and Sutherland 2003, Stoate et al. 2009).
The aim of this research was to investigate the Carabid assemblages of an intensive agricultural area (mainly rice fields) subjected to environmental improvements since 1996, in particular the creation of buffer strips along paddy fields and the restoration of an area of 150 ha.
Materials and methodsStudy area
The study was carried out in an 4.5 km2 agricultural area, mainly cultivated with rice, located in north-western Italy, in the middle of the Po plain, approximately 13 km north from the city of Pavia, in the municipalities of Lacchiarella (MI) and Giussago (PV); barycentre 45°17'38.63"N, 09°08'52.08"E (Fig. 1).
The study area included three adjacent rice farms, “La Darsena”, “La Cadenazza” and “Necchi”, and a restored area, “La Cassinazza”. The Carabid fauna was sampled in:
rice field banks (Fig. 2): characterized by herbaceous cover (mainly Setariaglauca, Carexelata, Avenasativa, Convolvolusarvensis, Trifoliumpratense and Loliumperenne), sporadically with a row of poplar trees (Populuscanadensis);
buffer strips (Fig. 3): perimeter land of paddy fields taken out of production and converted into small wetlands and strips of permanent vegetation, planted with autochthonous shrubs and trees (mainly Quercusrobur, Carpinusbetulus, Fraxinusangustifolia, Crataegusmonogyna, Prunusspinosa and Salixcinerea). The first stands were planted in 2003 and, during the study period, strips were fully-developed into arboreal habitats (arboreal buffer strips). The last stands were planted in 2009 and, during the study period, strips were mostly covered by herbaceous vegetation (herbaceous buffer strips, mainly Echinochloacrus-galli, Polygonumminus, Setariaglauca, Loliumperenne, Chenopodiumalbum and Humuluslupulus);
restored area (~150 ha; Fig. 4): formerly a farmland area undergoing restoration since 1996. The area is composed by a mosaic of different habitats, including wetlands, reforested areas and meadows, connected by a system of hedges. For the descriptive purposes of this paper, Carabid coenosis of meadows, both wet and dry (herbaceous restored habitats, mainly Convolvolusarvensis, Loliumperenne, Lotuscorniculatus, Trifoliumpratense, Solidagogigantea, Bidenstripartita and Taraxacumofficinale), was divided from that of the forested areas and hedges (arboreal restored habitats, mainly Quercusrobur, Salixalba, Carpinusbetulus, Alnusglutinosa, Ulmuscampestris, Populustremula, Fraxinusangustifolia, Crataegusmonogyna, Prunusspinosa, Viburnusopulus and Salixcinerea).
Sampling method and data analysis
Ground beetles were sampled using plastic pitfall traps (62 mm in diameter and 70 mm deep) buried in the soil and filled with 50 ml of wine vinegar and a drop of detergent (Brandmayr et al. 2005). Pitfalls were covered with a 10 × 10 cm wooden roof to prevent flooding and emptied fortnightly.
Along rice field banks, we placed a total of 60 traps from April to November 2009 and 68 traps from May to November 2010; along buffer strips, we positioned 56 traps from May to November 2009 and 2010; in the restored area, we placed 66 traps from July to November 2009 and from April to November 2010.
Carabids were identified to the species level following the nomenclature of Fauna Europaea (http://www.faunaeur.org, Vigna-Taglianti 2010). Information on chorotype, body size, larval and wing development were reported for each species. Chorotype were obtained from Vigna-Taglianti 2005; larval development were derived from Casale et al. 1982, Drioli 1987 and Brandmayr et al. 2005; data on body size and wing development were mainly obtained from Hůrka 1996, and secondly from Jeannel 1941, Jeannel 1942. As for body size, according to Cole et al. 2002, species were divided as (a) very small (< 5 mm), (b) small (5 - 9 mm), (c) medium (9 - 15 mm) and (d) large (> 15 mm). Data on adult diet were not available for all species and we reported only the existing information, according to Cole et al. 2002, Brandmayr et al. 2005, Purtauf et al. 2005, Melis et al. 2010 and Bettacchioli et al. 2012.
A synthetic description of habitat preference, derived from Hůrka 1996 and personal observations with special reference to the Po plain, were also reported for each species. According to Fournier and Loreau (1999), we classified the species as "rare" when the total capture over the whole area was lower than 0.1% (i.e. < 35 individuals); the other species were classified as "common" and the two most abundant species as "dominant". The total number of captured individuals (n) was reported in brackets.
As for rice field banks and enhanced habitats, ground beetle abundances were expressed both as absolute frequency (i.e. number of collected individuals) and as annual Activity Density (aAD; Brandmayr et al. 2005), that is the number of collected individuals during the entire sampling period (ntot) divided by sampling effort (US) for each sampling station:
DAa = ntot / US
with US = Σ us and us = trap * (gg/10), where trap is number of traps and gg is the number of days during which the traps were active in each sampling session (Suppl. material 1).
Specimens, dried or preserved in alcohol, are stored in the author’s collections (Nicola Pilon, Milano) and in the collection of the University of Pavia.
Asiatic-European. Open habitats, xerophilous. Macropterous, with summer larvae. Small size. Zoospermatophagous.
Recorded with certainty for the first time in Italy (Cardarelli and Pilon 2012). Rare in the study area (n = 1); recorded in herbaceous buffer strips only.
Turanic-European-Mediterranean. Eurytopic. Pteridimorphic, with winter larvae. Very small size. Predator.
Rare in the study area (n = 7).
Analysis
Overall, we collected 34,108 individuals belonging to 98 carabid species. We recorded 65 species in rice field banks, 73 species in buffer strips and 78 in restored habitats. Eight species were found only in rice field banks (Agonumsexpunctatum, Amaranitida, Cicindelacampestris, Clivinacollaris, Harpalusalbanicus, Harpaluspumilus, Ophonuscribricollis, Pterostichusmacer), 6 species only in herbaceous buffer strips (Amaralittorea, Bembidionquadripustulatum, Bradycellusverbasci, Dolichushalensis, Ophonusazureus, Panagaeuscruxmajor), 2 species only in arboreal buffer strips (Badistersodalis, Dryptadentata), 2 species only in herbaceous restored habitats (Acupalpuselegans, Ophonusdiffinis) and 11 species only in arboreal restored habitats (Acinopuspicipes, Acupalpusflavicollis, Acupalpusnotatus, Agonumversutum, Agonumviduum, Limodromusassimilis, Limodromuskrynickii, Nebriabrevicollis, Ophonusparallelus, Paranchusalbipes, Synuchusvivalis). Poeciluscupreus and Pseudoophonusrufipes consituted about 55% of the capture with 18 753 individuals.
The collected species belonged to 17 chorotypes (Fig. 5), grouped into 4 complexes (Subcosmopolitan, Holoartic, European and Mediterranean). About 80% of the species captured in the area were Holoartic, 13.3% European, 4.1% Mediterranean and 2% Subcosmopolitan (Table 1). Most of the species were small (very small species: 18.4%, small species: 46.9%) and medium (28.6%); only 6.1% of the captured carabids had size larger than 15 mm (Calosomaauropunctatum, Carabusgranulatus, Chlaeniusspoliatus, Dolichushalensis, Pterostichusmelanarius and Pterostichusniger). About 80% of the collected species had larvae that develop during summer, without dormancy (i.e. were spring breeders) and 18.4% were species with winter larvae, that grow slowly with compulsory dormancy (i.e. were autumn breeders). Cicindelacampestris (one individual recorded along rice field banks) was the only species with poliennal larvae. Macropterous and pteridimorphic species were 82.7% and 17.3% respectively; we didn’t find any strictly brachypterous species.
Also rice field banks, buffer strips and restored habitats, analyzed separately, were dominated by Holoartic, medium-small, winged species, with summer larvae (Table 1); species number and percentages for chorotype, body size, larval and wing development were similar in the different habitat categories (Figs 6, 7, 8, 9).
Discussion
On the whole, 98 carabid species were collected in rice field banks, buffer strips adjacent to paddy fields, and restored habitats (herbaceous and arboreal). Species number could be slightly underestimated because of the sampling method which is not very well suited for some taxa as Lebiinae and Bembidinae. Nevertheless, the area resulted species-rich, especially when you consider that it is not placed inside a riverine corridor and when you compare the species number with that recorded in other anthropogenic habitats of the Po plain: 60-70 species in rye, oat and fallow fields (Pescarolo 1990, Pescarolo 1993); 48 species in a complex of habitats composed by one poplar grove, one artificial wetland, banks of irrigation canals and cropped areas (Casale et al. 1993); 55 species in poplar groves of different ages (Casale et al. 1993); 60 species in meadows of different ages (Gobbi et al. 2005); 60 species in meadows, crops and reforested areas of two urban parks in Milan (Pilon et al. 2010).
Most of the collected carabids, both in the whole area and in each habitat categories, were species with a wide distribution in the Paleartic region, eurytopic and common in European agroecosystems. The assemblages were dominated by small-medium, macropterous species, with summer larvae; we didn’t find any endemism.
No brachypterous and strictly forest-dwelling species were sampled, despite the presence of some recent woodlots (i.e about 10 years old). In fact, species unable to disperse by flight were prevented to colonize these stands (including Abaxcontinuus Ganglbauer 1891, very common in woods of the Lombardy plain), because of the absence of ecological corridors connecting woodlots with forest remnants (Macarthur and Wilson 1967). As a consequence, the Carabid fauna was mainly composed by species of open habitats. Most of the species were also hygrophilous, due to a dense network of artificial irrigation canals and a superficial water-table.
The most interesting aspect of this Carabid coenosis is the presence of several species with southern distribution, quite common in clay soil on the right bank of the Po river, and known only in few stations north of the Po river. Among these species, we list Acinopuspicipes, Amblystomusniger, Dinodesdecipiens, Harpaluscupreus, Harpalusoblitus, Parophonusmendax, Parophonusplanicollis, Pterostichusmacer. Although a comparison with the past coenosis is not possible for the lack of similar surveys in the area, it could be hypothesized that these species are recent colonizers (7-10 years). They are not reported in the historical catalogue of Magistretti (1965), and are also not listed in several recent faunistic investigations carried out in the Lombardy lowland, particularly along the Ticino river (Pasquetto 1992, Bogliani et al. 2003), Adda river (Conti 1991), Po river (Pilon et al. 1991, Rancati and Sciaky 1994) and in Milan (Pilon et al. 2010), where potentially suitable habitats were sampled. Even in an intensive survey along the Po river included in Piedmont region, only some of these species have been collected (Allegro and Sciaky 2001). If so, we could assume a tendency to a northward shift in the distribution of these species, according to what has been observed for other zoological groups well studied and that have great mobility, such as birds (Chen et al. 2011) and dragonflies (Ott 2010).
We underline also the presence of Brachinusplagiatus, an uncommon halophilous species. Moreover Amaralittorea, an Asiatic-European distribution species, has been recorded with certainty for the first time in Italy (Cardarelli and Pilon 2012).
Acknowledgements
We wish to thank Maurizio Pavesi, Sergio Facchini, Riccardo Sciaky and Fritz Hieke for their valuable help in ground beetles identification; Giuseppe Natta, Francesco Natta and Francesco Necchi, the owners of the farms where the study took place; Francesco Necchi, Irene Negri and Francesca Roversi for their help in field work. This study was part of the CORINAT project (“COltivazione delle RIsaie di elevato valore biologico e NATuralistico” – “Cultivation of rice fields of high biological and naturalistic value”), supported by Lombardy Region (Italy).
ReferencesAllegroGianniSciakyRiccardo2001I Coleotteri Carabidi del Po piemontese (tratto orientale)Bollettino del Museo Regionale di Scienze Naturali, Torino,181173201ItalianBettacchioliGiovanniTaorminaMauroBerniniFabioMiglioriniMassimo2012Disturbance regimes in a wetland remnant: implications for trait-displacements and shifts in the assemblage structure of carabid beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae)Journal of Insect Conservation162249261Englishhttp://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10841-011-9412-910.1007/s10841-011-9412-9BoglianiGiuseppeBontardelliLauraGiordanoValentinaLazzariniMonicaRuboliniDiego2003Biodiversità animale degli ambienti terrestri nei parchi del TicinoConsorzio Parco Lombardo della Valle del Ticino, Il GuadoCorbetta (MI)176ItalianBrandmayrPietroZettoTulliaPizzolottoRoberto2005I Coleotteri Carabidi per la valutazione ambientale e la conservazione della biodiversitàAPAT, Manuali e linee guida, 34. I.G.E.R. srlRoma240ItalianCardarelliElisaPilonNicola2012Segnalazioni faunistiche italiane. Amara littoreaBollettino della Società Entomologica Italiana144145ItalianCasaleA.SturaniM.Vigna-TagliantiA.1982Fauna d'Italia 18. ColeopteraCarabidae 1. Introduzione, Paussinae, CarabinaeCalderiniBologna499ItalianCasaleA.GiachinoP. M.AllegroG.BeffaG. DellaPiccoF.1993Comunita` di Coleotteri Carabidi (Coleoptera) in pioppeti del Piemonte meridionaleRivista Piemontese di Storia Naturale14149170ItalianChenI. -C.HillJ. K.OhlemullerR.RoyD. B.ThomasC. D.2011Rapid Range Shifts of Species Associated with High Levels of Climate WarmingScience333604510241026Englishhttp://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/doi/10.1126/science.120643210.1126/science.1206432ColeL. J.McCrackenD. I.DennisP.DownieI. S.GriffinA. L.FosterG. N.MurphyK. J.WaterhouseT.2002Relationships between agricultural management and ecological groups of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) on Scottish farmlandAgriculture, Ecosystems and Environment93323336EnglishContiElisabetta1991Cenosi carabidologiche del Parco Adda Sud, Zelo Buon Persico, MilanoUniversità degli Studi di MilanoMilano165ItalianDrioliG.1987Tipi e tempi di sviluppo dei coleotteri geoadefagi presenti sul basso carso triestinoTipografia AdriaticaTrieste125ItalianFournierElisabethLoreauMichel1999Effects of newly planted hedges on ground-beetle diversity (Coleoptera, Carabidae) in an agricultural landscapeEcography228797EnglishGobbiM.FontanetoD.GuidaliF.2005Carabid beetles (InsectaColeoptera) in meadows in Lombardia (Italy) lowlandAnnali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Ferrara6311EnglishHůrkaKarel1996Carabidae of the Czech and Slovak RepublicsKabourekZlín565Czech, EnglishJeannelR.1941Faune de France 39. Coleoptere Carabiques 1Lechevalier et FilsParis571JeannelR.1942Faune de France 40. Coleoptere Carabiques 2Lechevalier et FilsParis602KleijnDavidSutherlandWilliam J.2003How effective are European agri-environment schemes in conserving and promoting biodiversity?Journal of Applied Ecology406947969Englishhttp://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2003.00868.x10.1111/j.1365-2664.2003.00868.xKleijnDavidBerendseFrankSmitRubenGilissenNiels2001Agri-environment schemes do not effectively protect biodiversity in Dutch agricultural landscapesNature4136857723725EnglishRegionLombardy2012Piano di Sviluppo Rurale (Rural Development Plan) 2007-2013. Asse 2. Miglioramento dell'ambiente e dello spazio ruralehttp://www.agricoltura.regione.lombardia.itMacarthurRobert H.WilsonEdward O.1967The Theory of Island BiogeographyPrinceton University PressPrinceton203EnglishMagistrettiMario1965Cicindelidae, Carabidae. Catalogo topografico. Fauna d'Italia, Volume 8CalderiniBologna512ItalianMelisClaudiaOlsenCamilla BjerkHyllvangMariaGobbiMauroStokkeBård G.RøskaftEivin2010The effect of traffic intensity on ground beetle (Coleoptera: Carabidae) assemblages in central SwedenJournal of Insect Conservation142159168Englishhttp://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10841-009-9240-310.1007/s10841-009-9240-3OttJürgen2010Monitoring Climatic Change With DragonfliesBioRisk 5. PensoftSofia-Moscow286EnglishPasquettoRenata1992Indagine eco-faunistica su popolazioni di Coleotteri Carabidi in alcuni biotopi del medio corso del TicinoUniversità degli Studi di MilanoMilano468ItalianPeachWill JLovettLucy JWottonSimon RJeffsCath2001Countryside stewardship delivers cirl buntings (Emberiza cirlus) in Devon, UKBiological Conservation1013361373Englishhttp://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S000632070100083010.1016/S0006-3207(01)00083-0PescaroloR.1990Ricerche sui coleotteri della valle del TicinoRivista Piemontese di Storia Naturale1181104ItalianPescaroloR.1993I coleotteri carabidi della baraggia di Piano Rosa (Piemonte, Novara)Rivista Piemontese di Storia Naturale14171183ItalianPilonNicolaSciakyRiccardoViolaniCarlo1991La carabidofauna di un biotopo ripario del corso lombardo del Po (ColeopteraCarabidae)Memorie della Società entomologica italiana, Genova,7015977ItalianPilonNicolaZoiaStefanoTrottaAlessio2010Artropodofauna dei parchi milanesi Boscoincittà e Parco delle Cave (Araneae; ColeopteraCarabidae, Staphylinidae, Leiodidae)Atti della Società italiana di Scienze naturali e del Museo civico di Storia naturale di Milano,1512217228ItalianPurtaufTobiasDauberJensWoltersVolkmar2005The response of carabids to landscape simplification differs between trophic groupsOecologia1423458464Englishhttp://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00442-004-1740-y10.1007/s00442-004-1740-yRancatiStefanoSciakyRiccardo1994Analisi delle carabidocenosi presenti in alcuni biotopi golenali del Po (Cremona)Pianura, Supplemento di “Provincia Nuova”, Cremona,64586ItalianReidNeilMcDonaldRobbie A.MontgomeryW. Ian2007Mammals and agri-environment schemes: hare haven or pest paradise?Journal of Applied Ecology44612001208Englishhttp://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2007.01336.x10.1111/j.1365-2664.2007.01336.xStoateCBoatmanN. DBorralhoR. JCarvalhoC. RioSnooG. R.deEdenP2001Ecological impacts of arable intensification in EuropeJournal of Environmental Management634337365Englishhttp://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S030147970190473610.1006/jema.2001.0473StoateC.BáldiA.BejaP.BoatmanN. D.HerzonI.DoornA. vanSnooG. R. deRakosyL.RamwellC.2009Ecological impacts of early 21st century agricultural change in Europe – A review.Journal of Environmental Management9112246Englishhttp://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S030147970900244810.1016/j.jenvman.2009.07.005VickeryJuliet ABradburyRichard BHendersonIan GEatonMark AGricePhilip V2004The role of agri-environment schemes and farm management practices in reversing the decline of farmland birds in EnglandBiological Conservation11911939Englishhttp://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S000632070300338010.1016/j.biocon.2003.06.004Vigna-TagliantiAugusto2005Checklist e corotipi delle specie di Carabidae della fauna italianaBrandmayrPZettoTPizzolottoREdsI Coleotteri Carabidi per la valutazione ambientale e la conservazione della biodiversitàAPAT, Manuali e linee guida, 34. I.G.E.R. srlRoma186-225ItalianVigna-TagliantiA2010Fauna Europea: Carabidaehttp://www.faunaeur.orgFauna Europaea version 2.2Supplementary filesFrequency (N) and annual Activity Density (AD) of collected species in rice field banks, buffer strips and restored habitats during 2009 and 2010
Authors: Nicola Pilon, Elisa Cardarelli, Giuseppe Bogliani
Data type: occurrences
In 2009 and 2010, ground beetles (ColeopteraCarabidae) were sampled in an agricultural area of the Po plain (Lombardy, Italy), by means of pitfall traps. The dataset reported frequency (N) and annual Activity Density (AD) of collected species in: (a) rice field banks; (b) herbaceous buffer strips; (c) arboreal buffer strips; (d) herbaceous restored habitats, i.e. wet and dry meadows; (e) arboreal restored habitats, i.e. forested areas and hedges.
File: Pilon_Carabidae_SupplementaryFile.xls
Schematic representation of the study area (anthropic areas include villages, farmsteads, main roads and railways).
Rice field with herbaceous banks.
Herbaceous buffer strip along a small wetland connected to paddy field.
Wet meadow with reforested area on the background.
Chorotypes of ground beetles collected in the study area during 2009 and 2010 (AFM = Afrotropical-Mediterranean, AFP = Afrotropical and Paleartic, ASE = Asiatic-European, CAE = Central Asiatic-European, CEM = Central Asiatic-European-Mediterranean, EME = E-Mediterranean, EUM = European-Mediterranean, EUR = European, MED = Mediterranean, HOL = Holoartic, PAL = Paleartic, SCO = Subcosmopolitan, SEU = S-European, SIE = Siberic-European, TEM = Turanic-European-Mediterranean, TUE = Turanic-European, TUM = Turanic-Mediterranean, WPA = W-Paleartic) (plotted after data in Table 1).
Percentage of carabid species for each chorological complexes (Subcosmopolitan, Holoartic, European, Mediterranean) in rice field banks, buffer strips and restored habitats (plotted after data in Table 1).
Percentage of carabid species for each body size (very small: < 5 mm, small: 5 – 9 mm, medium: 9 – 15 mm, large: > 15 mm) in rice field banks, buffer strips and restored habitats (plotted after data in Table 1).
Percentage of carabid species for each larval development (summer, winter, poliennal) in rice field banks, buffer strips and restored habitats (plotted after data in Table 1).
Percentage of carabid species for each wing development (macropterous and pteridimorphic) in rice field banks, buffer strips and restored habitats (plotted after data in Table 1).
Number and percentage of carabid species for each ecological categories (chorological complexes, body size, larval and wing development) in rice field banks, buffer strips and restored habitats.