What’s Difference Between Faunistic and Biodiversity Studies?

Yıl 2021, Cilt: 2 Sayı: 2, 110 - 118, 31.12.2021

Gökhan Aydın

Öz

While faunistic studies give information about the distribution of animals in a region, the diversity (number and variety of species) studies give information about diversity of plant and animal life within a region of which they are part. In other words; faunistic studies prove the existence of animals in that habitat or region with systematically or by random sampling. The number of individuals of the sampled species is not that important. Faunistic studies are essential scientific studies, especially for the detection of new species and their introduction to the inventory. There is no doubt as to the great desirability of faunistic studies on the geographical distribution of animals. Biological diversity is the variability among living organisms from all sources (including terrestrial, marine, and other aquatic ecosystems) and the ecological complexes. This includes diversity within species (alpha), between species (beta), and of ecosystems (gamma). The importance of this description is that it draws attention to the many dimensions of biodiversity (Genetic, species, habitat, and ecosystem). Studies of biological diversity and its measurement necessarily require a systematic and homogenous sampling methods. Especially when comparing two or more habitats in terms of species richness, diversity, evenness, similarity, etc. Such biodiversity indices are often used to measure the diversity in habitats destroyed by human.
Four pasture ecosystems, two of which are natural and two of which are grazed by sheep and goats, were chosen as the study area in Atabey district of Isparta province. Pitfall trap and sweep net sampling methods were used in selected habitats. While the pitfall trap sampling method was applied homogeneously in the habitats, the sweep net sampling method was not applied homogeneously. The data obtained from these two sampling methods, homogeneous and non-homogeneous, were used in the calculation of biodiversity parameters.
We desire to call attention in this manuscript to the differences between faunistic studies and biodiversity studies (specially its measurement) with reference to the previous studies.

Anahtar Kelimeler

insect, species richness, dominancy, similarity, evenness

Teşekkür

Part of the study was presented in International Congress on Agriculture in Alanya, Agriculture in the World (ICAAW 2021) which held on October 29-31, 2021 in Alanya, Turkey

Faunistik ve Biyoçeşitlilik Çalışmaları Arasındaki Fark Nedir?

Öz

While faunistic studies give information about the distribution of animals in a region, the diversity (number and variety of species) studies give information about diversity of plant and animal life within a region of which they are part. In other words; faunistic studies prove the existence of animals in that habitat or region with systematically or by random sampling. The number of individuals of the sampled species is not that important. Faunistic studies are essential scientific studies, especially for the detection of new species and their introduction to the inventory. There is no doubt as to the great desirability of faunistic studies on the geographical distribution of animals. Biological diversity is the variability among living organisms from all sources (including terrestrial, marine, and other aquatic ecosystems) and the ecological complexes. This includes diversity within species (alpha), between species (beta), and of ecosystems (gamma). The importance of this description is that it draws attention to the many dimensions of biodiversity (Genetic, species, habitat, and ecosystem). Studies of biological diversity and its measurement necessarily require a systematic and homogenous sampling methods. Especially when comparing two or more habitats in terms of species richness, diversity, evenness, similarity, etc. Such biodiversity indices are often used to measure the diversity in habitats destroyed by human.
Four pasture ecosystems, two of which are natural and two of which are grazed by sheep and goats, were chosen as the study area in Atabey district of Isparta province. Pitfall trap and sweep net sampling methods were used in selected habitats. While the pitfall trap sampling method was applied homogeneously in the habitats, the sweep net sampling method was not applied homogeneously. The data obtained from these two sampling methods, homogeneous and non-homogeneous, were used in the calculation of biodiversity parameters.
We desire to call attention in this manuscript to the differences between faunistic studies and biodiversity studies (specially its measurement) with reference to the previous studies

Anahtar Kelimeler

insect, species richness, dominancy, similarity, evenness

Kaynakça

• AYDIN G., ŞEN İ., 2020. Determination of arthropod biodiversity and some ecological parameters of Erdal Şekeroğlu (Isparta, Turkey) and Kadıini (Antalya, Turkey) cave ecosystems with evaluation of usability of insects in cave mapping. Turkish Journal of Entomology, 44, 539-557.
• AYDIN G., KARACA İ. (2018). The Effects of pesticide application on biological diversity of ground beetle (Ceoloptera: Carabidae).. FRESENIUS ENVIRONMENTAL BULLETIN, 27, 9112-9118.
• Chang X, Zhao W, Zhao A., 2004. Species diversity of pasture community at different altitude levels in Qilian Mountains. Ying Yong Sheng tai xue bao = The Journal of Applied Ecology. 15(9):1599-1603. PMID: 15669492.
• Heimann, D. (2004). EvenDiv 1.1. Based on a DBase Program Code Supplied by Jörg Perner and Martin Schnitter. Institute of Ecology, University of Jena
• Hohbein, R. & Courtney, C., 2018. Pitfall traps: A review of methods for estimating arthropod abundance: Pitfall Traps: Estimating Arthropod Abundance. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 42: 10.1002/wsb.928.
• Hoffman, K.M., Davis, E.L., Wickham, S.B., Schang, K., Johnson, A., Larking, T., Lauriault, P.N., Le, N.Q., Swerdfager, E. & Trant, A.J., 2021. Conservation of Earth’s biodiversity is embedded in Indigenous fire stewardship. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 118 (32) e2105073118; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2105073118.
• HongFan, C., YuYong, L., DePing, Y., Bo, L., XiangMin, L. & YingQing, Y., 2017. Analysis of the arthropod community composition in paddy fields by sweep net sampling. Journal of Anhui Agricultural University: 44 (6): 1124-1130.
• Jacobsen, J.B., Boiesen, J.H., Thorsen, B.J. & Strange N. 2008. What’s in a name? The use of quantitative measures versus ‘Iconised’ species when valuing biodiversity. Environ Resource Econ 39, 247–263.
• Krebs, C. J. (1999). Ecological Methodology. An Imprint of Addison Wesley Longman. Inc., 620 pp
• Kovach, W. L. (1999). MVSP-A MultiVariate Statistical Package for Windows, ver. 3.1 Kovach Computing Services. Pentraeth, Wales, Great Britain
• Kvålseth, T. O., 1991. Note on Biological Diversity, Evenness, and Homogeneity Measures. Oikos, 62(1), 123–127. https://doi.org/10.2307/3545460
• Lang, A., 2000. The pitfalls of pitfalls: a comparison of pitfall trap catches and absolute density estimates of epigeal invertebrate predators in Arable Land. J. Pest Science 73, 99–106. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02956438
• Magurran, A. E. (1988). Ecological diversity and its measurement. Princeton university press., 179 pp.
• Magurran, A. E. (2004). Measuring biological diversity. Blackwell Science Ltd., 256 pp.
• Mommertz, S., Schauer, C., Kösters, N., Lang, A., & Filser, J., 1996. A comparison of D-Vac suction, fenced and unfenced pitfall trap sampling of epigeal arthropods in agroecosystems. Annales Zoologici Fennici, 33(1), 117–124. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23735410
• New, T.R. (1988). Invertebrate Surveys for Conservations. Oxford University Press. 240 pp
• Southwood, T. R. (1971). E. 1978.Ecological methods with particular reference to the study of insect populations. Chapman and Hall., 391 pp
• Wang, Y.-N., Shi, G.-L., Liu Y.-B. & Li, D.-K., 2009. Structure Differences of the Natural Insect Enemy Complex between Jujube Orchards Intercropped with Pasture and No Pasture, 2009 3rd International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedical Engineering, pp. 1-6, doi: 10.1109/ICBBE.2009.5163433.
• Ward, D.F., New, T.R. & Yen, A.L., 2001. Effects of Pitfall Trap Spacing on the Abundance, Richness and Composition of Invertebrate Catches. Journal of Insect Conservation. 5, 47–53. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011317423622.