Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Biodiversity Data Journal logoLink to Biodiversity Data Journal
. 2021 Nov 2;9:e72741. doi: 10.3897/BDJ.9.e72741

Open datasets wanted for tracking the insect decline: let’s start from saproxylic beetles

Alessandro Campanaro 1, Francesco Parisi 2,✉
PMCID: PMC8578152  PMID: 34764733

Abstract

Background

We present six datasets of saproxylic beetles collected between 2012 and 2018 in Central and Southern Italian forests. Saproxylics represent one of the main components in forest ecosystems in terms of diversity, species richness and functional traits and, for this reason, they are an important target group for studying the modification of forests over time. The datasets consist of annotated checklists and were published on Zenodo repository.

New information

Overall, 1,171 records are published, corresponding to 918 taxa (taxonomy at species or subspecies level). The taxa are scarcely shared amongst the areas, 80.2% of them are exclusive, indicating that the beetle communities are substantially different. In consideration of the biodiversity crisis we are passing through, which is especially dramatic for the insects, we want to promotecollaboration amongst researchers for making datasets available in open repositories. This will improve the possibility for researchers and forest managers of analysing the state of species distribution that could serve for long-term studies on the variation of insect communities. We encourage repeating species assessment in the same localities in order to evaluate the trends in insect communities over time and space.

Keywords: biodiversity crisis, datasets, forest ecosystems, insect communities, Zenodo repository

Introduction

The insect decline is one of the most crucial biological crises we are facing in the Anthropocene (Wagner et al. 2021).

Insects are affected by a global decline in terms of individual abundance as demonstrated by much experimental evidence: a change in aerial insect biomass in outhern Britain have been analysed over 31 years by Shortall et al. (2009); Hallmann et al. (2017) registered a decline of 76% in flying insect biomass over 27 years in protected nature areas in Germany; Lister and Garcia (2018), comparing arthropod biomass captured in 1976 with samples of 2011, 2012 and 2013 in a rainforest in Puerto Rico, found values from 4 to 8 times lower.

The decrease in insect species number has also been the object of several studies: Forister et al. (2010) analysed 30 years of butterfly presence-absence data in western North America and found a decline of richness at the lowest-elevation sites; Biesmeijer et al. (2006) found a significant fall in diversity in Britain and The Netherlands pre-versus post-1980 in a study on the insect extinction determined by urbanisation; Fattorini (2011) calculated an impressive decline of species amongst butterflies (i.e. Cacyreusmarshalli), tenebrionid beetles (i.e. Alphitophagusbifasciatus, Gnatoceruscornutus, Latheticusoryzae, Triboliumcastaneum, Triboliumconfusum and Alphitobius diaperinus) and scarabaeoids from 1885 to 1999, even if with different patterns; over two decades, the European Butterfly Indicator shows a dramatic loss of grassland biodiversity (half of the species has declined) (Van Swaay et al. 2010).

In their comprehensive review, Sanchez-Bayo and Wyckhuys 2019 have estimated that the current proportion of insect species in decline (41%) is twice as high as that of vertebrates and the pace of local species extinction (10%) is eight times higher. Insects are facing an unprecedented decline, which has globally reached alarming proportions, especially in the last two decades: even a third of the considered beetle species are at risk of extinction and almost half of studied bees and ants is threatened (Sanchez-Bayo and Wyckhuys 2019).

mportant evidence of the insect decline comes from the number of threatened species reported by the IUCN European Red Lists (Table 1) that ranges from 9% to 26% as a proportion of the total number of species assessed at European level for taxonomic groups. These documents provide other significant data, the high number of “data deficient” records (i.e. species whose sufficient knowledge in terms of life cycles and ecological traits is too poor and there were no assessments according with the IUCN criteria) indicating that decline of the most common species is generally neglected. In some cases (i.e. bees, Andrenidae, Apidae, Colletidae, Halictidae, Megachilidae, Melittidae families), for more than half of the species, the available data are not sufficient (Table 1). Globally, of more than 1 million of the estimated number of species, only 0.9% have yet been evaluated by IUCN.

Table 1.

Number in % of threatened species reported by the IUCN European Red Lists.

Insect group Threatened species all Europe, % Threatened species EU27/28 level, % Data deficient all Europe, % Data deficient EU27/28 level, % Reference
Saproxylic beetles 17.9 21.7 24.4 20.4 Calix et al. (2018)
Grasshoppers, crickets and bush-crickets 25.7 28 10 8.5 Hochkirch et al. (2016)
Dragonflies 15 16.4 3.6 2.2 Kalkman et al. (2010)
Bees 9.2 9.1 56.7 55.6 Nieto et al. (2014)
Butterflies 9 7 0.9 0.9 Van Swaay et al. (2010)
Insect group Threatened species Data deficient Reference
Mediterranean butterflies 5 6 Numa et al. (2016)
Open in a new tab

Europe is aware of this phenomenon; the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 (Brussels, 20.5.2020 COM(2020) 380 final) highlights the alarming decline of insects, particularly pollinators and their role as key indicators of the health of agroecosystems. It states the full implementation of the EU Pollinators initiative (Brussels, 1.6.2018 COM (2018) 395 final) and the reversion of the decline in pollinators by 2030.

To make the strategy effective, an analysis of drivers for the insect decline (Sanchez-Bayo and Wyckhuys 2019) should be associated with long term monitoring plans and collection of diversity data. At the moment, very few standardised datasets are available for long-term analysis and spatial records of insects are very scarce worldwide (Rocha-Ortega et al. 2021). Our data paper proposes to answer the call of “urgent need of data”, which is particularly needed for insects with no economic value, launched by Wagner (2020) and to the appeal launched by Cardoso et al. (2020), for urgent actions towards insect extinctions which includes the necessity to fill many gaps in the knowledge of species presence and distribution. Moreover, we encourage using our datasets as point “0” for further investigations.

In this paper, we focus on the communities of beetles inhabiting the Italian forests. Amongst them, the saproxylics represent one of the main components, in terms of diversity, species richness and functional traits (Parisi et al. 2018, Seibold et al. 2021, Thorn et al. 2020). Many species of saproxylics in the adult phase also play a role as pollinators: 16% of the saproxylics of England, Wales and Scotland (Falk 2021). Even though many research groups are actively involved in analysing the saproxylic fauna and many researchers have been published in the fields of taxonomy, systematics and ecology, nature conservation and checklist of species for the Italian forests are scarcely available. It results in the impossibility of tracking the modification of insect communities over time.

To start the job in this direction, we published the datasets of saproxylic species occurrence coming from field experiments carried out between 2012 and 2018 in central and southern Italian forests.

General description

Purpose

We wish to promote collaboration amongst researchers for making datasets on saproxylic beetles available in open repositories. This will improve the possibility for researchers and forest managers of analysing the state of species distribution and presence that could serve for long term studies on the variation of insect communities.

Sampling methods

Study extent

The datasets include information of species collected in six forested sites of the Apennines, corresponding to 15 plots (Fig. 1).

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Map of the study sites located in central and southern Italy.

Forest typologies fall into five EUNIS habitat types (European Environmental Agency, EUNIS Habitat Classification 2017): Fagus forest on non-acid soils, Southern Apennine Abiesalba forests, Thermophilous deciduous woodland, southern Italian Fagus forests, Coppice and early-stage plantations. Forest areas also differ for the actual and historical management: from uneven unmanaged forests, coppice stands to traditional orchards (Fig. 2). Some of the study areas are included in Natura 2000 sites, National Parks or UNESCO sites (Table 2). A detailed description of the study areas is reported in research papers that have been published on the basis of these datasets (Parisi et al. 2016, Parisi et al. 2019, Parisi et al. 2020a, Parisi et al. 2020b, Parisi et al. 2020c,Sabatini et al. 2016 ,Zanetti and Parisi 2019).

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

A graphical representation of forest ecosystems studied (drawings by G. Parisi).

Table 2.

Annotated list of the study sites from which the data originated. 1Datum: WGS84.

Study sites Sampling site No. of plots Sampling year Natura 2000 site Protected area Lat1 Long1 EUNIS
Habitat type		 Forest management
Gran Sasso Incodara 1 2013, 2016 IT7110202 “Gran Sasso” Gran Sasso e Monti della Laga National Park 42.5123 13.4735 Fagus forest on non-acid soils Unmanaged forest
Gran Sasso Prati di Tivo 1 2013, 2016 IT7110202 “Gran Sasso” Gran Sasso e Monti della Laga National Park 42.5096 15.5679 Fagus forest on non-acid soils Unmanaged forest
Gran Sasso Venacquaro 1 2013, 2016 IT7110202 “Gran Sasso” Gran Sasso e Monti della Laga National Park 42.4988 13.5139 Fagus forest on non-acid soils Unmanaged forest
Abeti Soprani Abeti Soprani 1 2012 and 2013 41.8608 14.2936 Southern Apennine Abiesalba forests Unmanaged forest
Bosco Pennataro Bosco Pennataro 1 2014 and 2015 UNESCO "Collemeluccio-Montedimezzo-Alto Molise" 41.7489 14.1972 Thermophilous deciduous woodland Unmanaged forest
Matese Matese 4 2018 IT7222287 “La Gallinola - Monte Miletto - Monti del Matese” Matese National Park 41.4522 14.3503 Southern Italian Fagus forests Managed forest
Cilento Monti Alburni 1 2013, 2016 IT8050033 “Monti Alburni” Cilento, Vallo di Diano e Alburni National Park 40.5136 15.3292 Fagus forest on non-acid soils Unmanaged forest
Cilento Monti Alburni 1 2013, 2016 IT8050033 “Monti Alburni” Cilento, Vallo di Diano e Alburni National Park 40.4705 15.4317 Fagus forest on non-acid soils Unmanaged forest
Cilento Monte Motola 1 2013, 2016 IT8050028 “Monte Motola” Cilento, Vallo di Diano e Alburni National Park 40.3761 15.4694 Fagus forest on non-acid soils Unmanaged forest
Aspromonte Coppice stand 2 2017 38.1802 15.7843 Coppice and early-stage plantations Agroforestry system
Aspromonte Fruit orchard 1 2017 38.0602 15.7816 Coppice and early-stage plantations Agroforestry system
Open in a new tab

Geographic coverage

Description

The study covers forests sited in central and southern Italy along a latitudinal gradient (Fig. 1).

Coordinates

38.18 S and 42.5096 N Latitude; 13.5679 W and 15.784167 E Longitude.

Collection data

Collection name

The insects were collected using flight interception traps and emergence traps from 2012 to 2018. Flight interception traps are made by transparent panes of 60x40 cm and they were left active from May to September and checked with a periodicity of 30 days. Emergence traps are made by breathable plastic bags enveloping a portion of deadwood (1 m long) and were connected to a jar for the collection of emerging insects. Materials have been preserved in alcohol (70%) and then mounted (on cards and pinned) and dried for identification at species level. The taxomomy of the species (Family, Scientific Name and Authorship) were provided by the entomology specialists (see Acknowledgements). All the scientific names and authorships have been, subsequently, validated and harmonised following the Fauna Europea Database. The entomological material is preserved at the Department of Agriculture, Food, Environment and Forestry (DAGRI) - University of Florence.

Usage licence

Usage licence

Creative Commons Public Domain Waiver (CC-Zero)

Data resources

Data package title

Annotated checklists of beetles (Insecta, Coleoptera)

Number of data sets

1

Data set 1.

Data set name

Annotated checklists of beetles (Insecta, Coleoptera)

Number of columns

1

Description

The datasets consist of annotated checklists of beetles (Insecta, Coleoptera) and were published on Zenodo repository (Table 3). Overall, 1,171 records are published, corresponding to 918 taxa (taxonomy at species or subspecies level). The taxa are scarcely shared amongst the areas, 80.2% of them are exclusive, indicating that the beetle communities are substantially different. The fields used for the datasets follows the Darwin Core vocabulary (Darwin Core Maintenance), the list of used terms and their adoption for the information recorded in our datasets are described below: catalogNumber (a unique identifier number associated with the biological entity in that catalogue), order, family, scientificName (genus species or genus sp. or genus species subspecies of the biological entity), scientificNameAuthorship, individualCount (total number of the individuals sampled), measurementDeterminedDate (year(s) of sampling), Country, decimalLatitude, decimalLongitude, geodeticDatum, locality, habitat (habitat type according to EUNIS habitat classification 2017), samplingProtocol, recordedBy, identifiedBy, dynamicProperties (IUCN Red List categories), associatedReferences, scientificNameID (the unique identifier for the species, if the specific names does not match with any name in the Fauna Europea Database, the field is NA and the scientificName reported corresponds to the name indicated by the entomology specialist) and taxonID. For datasets of the study area Gran Sasso, Cilento and Aspromonte, the fields decimalLatitude, decimalLongitude, geodeticDatum are not provided; the geographic coordinates are described in the Upload Description.

Table 3.

List of the datasets published on Zenodo.

Dataset name doi Dataset compiled by Published papers
Annotated checklist of the beetles of Abeti Soprani, a silver fir forest of central Italy 10.5281/zenodo.3787025 Campanaro et al. (2020a) Parisi et al. (2016)
Parisi et al. (2020b)
Annotated checklist of the beetles of three beech forests in Gran Sasso National Park, central Italy 10.5281/zenodo.4310155 Campanaro et al. (2020b) Zanetti and Parisi (2019)
Sabatini et al. (2016)
Parisi et al. (2021)
Annotated checklist of the beetles of three beech forests in Cilento, Vallo di Diano e Alburni National Park, southern Italy 10.5281/zenodo.4302220 Campanaro et al. (2020f) Zanetti and Parisi (2019)
Sabatini et al. (2016)
Parisi et al. (2021)
Annotated checklist of the beetles of the broadleaved forest Bosco Pennataro, central Italy 10.5281/zenodo.4303930 Campanaro et al. (2020c) Parisi et al. (2019)
Parisi et al. (2020b)
Annotated checklist of the beetles of beech forests in Matese National Park, central Italy 10.5281/zenodo.4304401 Campanaro et al. (2020d) Parisi et al. (2020a)
Annotated checklist of the beetles of chestnut agroforestry systems in Aspromonte, southern Italy 10.5281/zenodo.4304025 Campanaro et al. (2020e) Parisi et al. (2020c)
Toma and Parisi (2021)
Open in a new tab

Datasets are in the form of .csv files.

In the published papers which refer to these datasets (Table 3), the trophic categories for the saproxylic species are reported, while analysing of the trophic interactions have been considered in Parisi et al. (2019) and Parisi et al. (2020c), giving the opportunity, if the survey is to be repeated, to obtain information on the change of ecological network as suggested by Petsopoulus et al. (2021).

Data set 1.
Column label Column description
Records Zenodo repository
Open in a new tab

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the specialists of the various taxonomic groups: Paolo Audisio (Nitidulidae), Alessandro Bruno Biscaccianti (Alexiidae, Biphylidae, Cerylonidae, Dascillidae, Dermestidae, Erotylidae, Eucemidae, Laemophloeidae, Lathridiidae, Lucanidae, Mycetophagidae, Salpingidae, Scirtidae, Sphindidae, Tenebrionidae, Trogossitidae), Maurizio Biondi (Chrysomelidae Alticinae), Enzo Colonnelli (Anthribidae, Attelabidae, Brentidae, Curculionidae), Massimo Faccoli (Curculionidae Scolytinae), Fabrizio Fanti (Cantharidae, Lampyridae), Leonardo Latella (Leiodidae Cholevinae), Gianfranco Liberti (Melyridae), Gianluca Nardi (Anthicidae, Dytiscidae, Ptinidae Hedobiini and Ochinini), Gianluca Magnani (Buprestidae), Eugenio Pacieri (Silphidae), Emanuele Piattella (Scarabaeidae), Giuseppe Platia (Elateridae), Roberto Poggi (Staphylinidae Pselaphinae), Pierpaolo Rapuzzi (Cerambycidae (pars)), Enrico Ruzzier (Mordellidae, Scraptiidae), Gianfranco Salvato (Biphyllidae, Mycetophagidae (pars), Zopheridae (pars)), Augusto Vigna Taglianti (Carabidae), Luciano Toma (Chrysomelidae Bruchinae) and Adriano Zanetti (Staphylinidae (pars)).

We are grateful to Marco Marchetti, Roberto Tognetti, Bruno Lasserre (Università degli Studi del Molise, Italy) and Fabio Lombardi (Università Mediterranea di Reggio Calabria, Italy) for scientific and technical support and to Cristiano Castaldi (Università degli Studi di Firenze, Italy) for the graphic elaborations.

References

  1. Biesmeijer J. C., Roberts S. P.M., Reemer M., Ohlemller R., Edwards M., Peeters T., Schaffers A. P., Potts S. G., Kleukers R., Thomas C. D., J. Settele, Kunin W. E. Parallel declines in pollinators and insect-pollinated plants in Britain and The Netherlands. Science. 2006;21(313) doi: 10.1126/science.1127863. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Calix M., Alexander K. N.A., Nieto A., Dodelin B., Soldati F., Telnov D., Vazquez-Albalate X., Aleksandrowicz O., Audisio P., Istrate P., Jansson N., Legakis A., Liberto A., Makris C., Merkl O., Mugerwa Pettersson R., Schlaghamersky J., Bologna M. A., Brustel H., Buse J., Novk V., Purchart L. European Red List of saproxylic beetles. European Red List of Saproxylic Beetles, IUCN, Brussels, Belgium.; 2018. [Google Scholar]
  3. Campanaro A., Oggioni A., Parisi F. Annotated checklist of the beetles of Abeti Soprani, a silver fir forest of Central Italy. Zenodo; 2020. [Google Scholar]
  4. Campanaro A., Oggioni A., Parisi F. Annotated checklist of the beetles of three beech forests in Gran Sasso National Park. Zenodo; 2020. [Google Scholar]
  5. Campanaro A., Oggioni A., Parisi F. Annotated checklist of the beetles of the broadleaved forest Bosco Pennataro. Zenodo; 2020. [Google Scholar]
  6. Campanaro A., Oggioni A., Parisi F. Annotated checklist of the beetles of beech forests in Matese National Park. Zenodo; 2020. [Google Scholar]
  7. Campanaro A., Oggioni A., Parisi F. Annotated checklist of the beetles of chestnut agroforestry systems in Aspromonte. Zenodo; 2020. [Google Scholar]
  8. Campanaro A., Oggioni A., Parisi F. Annotated checklist of the beetles of three beech forests in Cilento, Vallo di Diano e Alburni National Park, Southern Italy. Zenodo; 2020. [Google Scholar]
  9. Cardoso Pedro, Barton Philip S., Birkhofer Klaus, Chichorro Filipe, Deacon Charl, Fartmann Thomas, Fukushima Caroline S., Gaigher Ren, Habel Jan C., Hallmann Caspar A., Hill Matthew J., Hochkirch Axel, Kwak Mackenzie L., Mammola Stefano, Noriega Jorge Ari, Orfinger Alexander B., Pedraza Fernando, Pryke James S., Roque Fabio O., Settele Josef, Simaika John P., Stork Nigel E., Suhling Frank, Vorster Carlien, Samways Michael J. Scientists' warning to humanity on insect extinctions. Biological Conservation. 2020;242:108426. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108426. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Falk S. A review of the pollinators associated with decaying wood, old trees and tree wounds in Great Britain. UK; 2021. [Google Scholar]
  11. Fattorini S. Insect extinction by urbanization: A long term study in Rome. Biological Conservation. 2011;144(1) [Google Scholar]
  12. Forister Matthew L., McCall Andrew C., Sanders Nathan J., Fordyce James A., Thorne James H., O’Brien Joshua, Waetjen David P., Shapiro Arthur M. Compounded effects of climate change and habitat alteration shift patterns of butterfly diversity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2010;107(5):2088–2092. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0909686107. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Hallmann C. A., Sorg M., Jongejans E., Siepel H., Hofland N., Schwan H., Stenmans W., Mller A., Sumser H., Hrren T., Goulson D., Kroon De. More than 75 percent decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in 140 protected areas. PLOS One. 2017;12(10) doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0185809. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Hochkirch A., Nieto A., Garca Criado M., Clix M., Braud Y., Buzzetti F. M., Chobanov D., Od B., Presa Asensio J. J., Willemse L., Zuna-Kratky T., Barranco Vega P., Bushell M., Clemente M. E., Correas J. R., Dusoulier F., Ferreira S., Fontana P., Garca M. D., Heller K. -G., I.. Iorgu, Ivkovi S., Kati V., Kleukers R., Kritn A., Lemonnier-Darcemont M., Lemos P., Massa B., Monnerat C., Papapavlou K. P., Prunier F., Pushkar T., Roesti C., Rutschmann F., irin D., Skejo J., Szvnyi G., Tzirkalli E., Vedenina V., Barat Domenech J., Barros F., Cordero Tapia P. J., Defaut B., Fartmann T., Gomboc S., Gutirrez-Rodrguez J., Holua J., Illich I., Karjalainen S., Korek P., Korsunovskaya O., Liana A., Lpez H., Morin D., Olmo-Vidal J. M., Pusks G., Savitsky V., Stalling T., Tumbrinck J. European Red List of grasshoppers, crickets and bush-crickets. Publications Office of the European Union; 2016. [Google Scholar]
  15. Kalkman V., Boudot J. -P., Bernard R., Conze K. - J., De Knijf G., Dyatlova E., Ferreira S., Jovi M., Ott J., Riservato E., Sahln G. European Red List of dragonflies. Publications Office of the European Union; 2010. [Google Scholar]
  16. Lister B. C., Garcia A. Climate-driven declines in arthropod abundance restructure a rainforest food web. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences U.S.A. 2018;115(44) doi: 10.1073/pnas.1722477115. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Nieto A., Roberts S. P.M., Kemp J., Rasmont P., Kuhlmann M., Garca Criado M., Biesmeijer J. C., Bogusch P., Dathe H. H., Ra P., De Meulemeester T. M.D., Dewulf A., Ortiz-Snchez F. J., Lhomme P., Pauly A., Potts S. G., Praz C., Quaranta M., Radchenko V. G., Scheuchl E., Smit J., Straka J., Terzo M., Tomozii B., Window J., Michez D. European Red List of bees. European Red List of bees, Publication Office of the European Union; 2014. [Google Scholar]
  18. Numa C., Swaay C., Wynhoff I., Wiemers M., Barrios V., Allen D., Sayer C., Lpez Munguira M., Balletto E., Benyamini D., Beshkov S., Bonelli S., Caruana R., Dapporto L., Franeta F., Garcia-Pereira P., Karaetin E., Katbeh Bader A., Maes D., Micevski N., Miller R., Monteiro E., Moulai R., Nieto A., Pamperis L., Per G., Power A., M, Thompson K., Tzirkalli E., Verovnik R., Warren M., Welch H. The status and distribution of Mediterranean butterflies. IUCN, Malaga, Spain.; 2016. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Parisi F., Lombardi F., Sciarretta A., Tognetti R., Campanaro A., Marchetti M., Trematerra P. Spatial patterns of saproxylic beetles in a relic silver fir forest (Central Italy), relationships with forest structure and biodiversity indicators. Forest Ecology and Management. 2016;381 [Google Scholar]
  20. Parisi F., Pioli S., Lombardi F., Fravolini G., Marchetti M., Tognetti R. Linking deadwood traits with saproxylic invertebrates and fungi in European forests a review. iForest. 2018;11 [Google Scholar]
  21. Parisi F., Di Febbraro M., Lombardi F., Biscaccianti A. B., Campanaro A., Tognetti R., Marchetti M. Relationships between stand structural attributes and saproxylic beetle abundance in a Mediterranean broadleaved mixed forest. Forest Ecology and Management. 2019;432 [Google Scholar]
  22. Parisi F., Platia G., Mancini M., De Cristofaro A. Confirmation of Crepidophorusmutilatus (Rosenhauer, 1847) in Italy with Notes on Its Distribution and Conservation. The Coleopterists Bulletin. 2020;74(3) [Google Scholar]
  23. Parisi F., Frate L., Lombardi F., Tognetti R., Campanaro A., Biscaccianti A. B., Marchetti M. Diversity patterns of Coleoptera and saproxylic communities in unmanaged forests of Mediterranean mountains. Ecological Indicators. 2020;110 [Google Scholar]
  24. Parisi F., Lombardi F., Marziliano Pasquale A., Russo D., De Cristofaro A., Marchetti M., Tognetti R. Diversity of saproxylic beetle communities in chestnut agroforestry systems. iForest. 2020;13 [Google Scholar]
  25. Parisi F., Innangi M., Tognetti R., Lombardi F., Chirici G., Marchetti M. Forest stand structure and coarse woody debris determine the biodiversity of beetle communities in Mediterranean mountain beech forests. Global Ecology and Conservation. 2021;28 [Google Scholar]
  26. Petsopoulus D., Lunt D. H., Bell J. R., Kitson J. J.N., Collins L., Boonham N., Morales-Hojas R., Evans D. M. Using network ecology to understand and mitigate long-term insect declines. Ecological Entomology. 2021 doi: 10.1111/een.13035. [DOI]
  27. Rocha-Ortega M., Rodriguez P., Crdoba-Aguilar A. Geographical, temporal and taxonomic biases in insect GBIF data on biodiversity and extinction. Ecological Entomology. 2021;46 [Google Scholar]
  28. Sabatini F. M., Burrascano S., Azzella M. M., Barbati A., De Paulis S., Di Santo D., Facioni L., Giuliarelli D., Lombardi F., Maggi O., Mattioli W., Parisi F., Persiani A., Ravera S., Blasi C. One taxon does not fit all: Herb-layer diversity and stand structural complexity are weak predictors of biodiversity in Fagus sylvatica forests. Ecological Indicators. 2016;69 [Google Scholar]
  29. Sanchez-Bayo F., Wyckhuys K. A.G. Worldwide decline of the entomofauna: A review of its drivers. Biological Conservation. 2019;232:8–27. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2019.01.020. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Seibold Sebastian, Rammer Werner, Hothorn Torsten, Seidl Rupert, Ulyshen Michael D., Lorz Janina, Cadotte Marc W., Lindenmayer David B., Adhikari Yagya P., Aragón Roxana, Bae Soyeon, Baldrian Petr, Barimani Varandi Hassan, Barlow Jos, Bässler Claus, Beauchêne Jacques, Berenguer Erika, Bergamin Rodrigo S., Birkemoe Tone, Boros Gergely, Brandl Roland, Brustel Hervé, Burton Philip J., Cakpo-Tossou Yvonne T., Castro Jorge, Cateau Eugénie, Cobb Tyler P., Farwig Nina, Fernández Romina D., Firn Jennifer, Gan Kee Seng, González Grizelle, Gossner Martin M., Habel Jan C., Hébert Christian, Heibl Christoph, Heikkala Osmo, Hemp Andreas, Hemp Claudia, Hjältén Joakim, Hotes Stefan, Kouki Jari, Lachat Thibault, Liu Jie, Liu Yu, Luo Ya-Huang, Macandog Damasa M., Martina Pablo E., Mukul Sharif A., Nachin Baatarbileg, Nisbet Kurtis, O’Halloran John, Oxbrough Anne, Pandey Jeev Nath, Pavlíček Tomáš, Pawson Stephen M., Rakotondranary Jacques S., Ramanamanjato Jean-Baptiste, Rossi Liana, Schmidl Jürgen, Schulze Mark, Seaton Stephen, Stone Marisa J., Stork Nigel E., Suran Byambagerel, Sverdrup-Thygeson Anne, Thorn Simon, Thyagarajan Ganesh, Wardlaw Timothy J., Weisser Wolfgang W., Yoon Sungsoo, Zhang Naili, Müller Jörg. The contribution of insects to global forest deadwood decomposition. Nature. 2021;597(7874):77–81. doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03740-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Shortall C. R., Moore A., Smith E., Hall M. J., Woiwod I. P., Harrington R. Long-term changes in the abundance of flying insects. Insect Conservation and Diversity. 2009;2(4) [Google Scholar]
  32. Thorn S., Seibold S., Leverkus A. B., Mller J., Noss R. F., Stork N., Vogel S., Lindenmayer D. B. The living dead: acknowledging life after tree death to stop forest degradation. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution. 2020;18:505–512. doi: 10.1002/fee.2252. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Toma Luciano, Parisi Francesco. New records of seed beetles (Chrysomelidae Bruchinae) of the Aspromonte National Park; a study in the Calabrian Apennines, Italy. Redia. 2021;104:155–159. doi: 10.19263/redia-104.21.16. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  34. Van Swaay C., Cuttelod A., Collins S., Maes D., Munguira M. L., Šašić M., Settele J., Verovnik R., Verstrael T., Warren M., Wiemers M., Wynhoff I. European Red List of butterflies. European Red List of Butterflies. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities; 2010. [Google Scholar]
  35. Wagner D. L. Insect decline in the Anthropocene: Death by a thousand cuts. Annual Review of Entomology. 2020;65 doi: 10.1073/pnas.2023989118. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Wagner D. L., Grames E. M., Forister M. L., Berenbaum M. R., Stopak David. Insect decline in the Anthropocene: Death by a thousand cuts. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2021;118(2) doi: 10.1073/pnas.2023989118. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Zanetti A., Parisi F. Records of rove beetles (Coleoptera, Staphylinidae) from Gran Sasso and Cilento protected areas in Central and Southern Apennines (Italy) Bollettino della Societa Entomologica Italiana. 2019;151(1) [Google Scholar]

Articles from Biodiversity Data Journal are provided here courtesy of Pensoft Publishers

RESOURCES