Freshwater branchiopods in Austria


                                     Erich Eder and Walter Hödl

                 Institute of Zoology, University of Vienna, Althanstr. 14, A-1090 Vienna, Austria

                     ABSTRACT                                sity of large branchiopods within a small area. Ranges
                                                             of species with holarctic, Eurasian, European,
          For the first time, Anostraca, Notostraca and      Pannonian, and southern European distribution over-
Conchostraca (Laevicaudata, Spinicaudata) will be            lap in Austria due to its specific geographic position
listed in the Austrian Red Data Book of Endangered           (Eder et al. 1997). Sixteen large branchiopod species
Species. According to the 1999 IUCN draft criteria,          belonging to 14 genera have been reported from Aus-
eight out of 15 large branchiopod species recorded be-       tria (Vornatscher 1968, Löffler 1993). Large branchio-
tween 1994 and 1999 are considered as critically en-         pods are considered to be endangered throughout Eu-
dangered, three of which (Chirocephalus shadini,             rope (Alonso 1985, Brendonck 1989, Mura 1993,
Eoleptestheria ticinensis, Streptocephalus torvicornis)      Petrov and Petrov 1997, Defaye et al. 1998, Maier
occur at only one site each. Five species are considered     1998). The primary threats are comparable to those
as endangered, two of them (Branchinecta orientalis,         threatening aquatic insects (Polhemus 1993). Physical
Triops cancriformis) showing a statistically significant     destruction due to agricultural development, changes
decrease of sites. Eubranchipus grubii and Lepidurus         of hydrologic conditions and urbanisation play a major
apus, both found abundantly mainly in the flood plains       role (Rieder 1989, Löffler 1993, Hödl and Eder 1996a).
along the rivers Thaya and Morava, are near threat-          “Invertebrates traditionally attract very little conserva-
ened. Lynceus brachyurus is extinct in Austria. Large        tion funding in relation to vertebrates, although they
branchiopods are mainly threatened by agricultural           may play more subtle and significant ecological roles
activities and hydrological/hydrochemical changes.           and monitor environmental change better” (New 1993).
Presently, three Austrian locations are protected exclu-     Large branchiopods have proven to attract public in-
sively on the basis of large branchiopod occurrence;         terest as “primeval shrimps” (Hödl and Eder 1996a)
three additional habitats are in the process of obtaining    as well as due to their extreme ecology, and thus may
official protection. Several large populations are situ-     help to propagate the relevance of invertebrates for con-
ated in the WWF nature reserve “March-Auen”, and in          servation biology (Eder and Hödl 1996a). Recent public
the National Parks “Donau-Auen” and “Neusiedler See          discussion on the biodiversity crisis and public aware-
- Seewinkel”, respectively.                                  ness for the protection of endangered species favour
                                                             effective conservational measures. Conservation au-
                I. INTRODUCTION                              thorities, however, increasingly demand quantitative
                                                             data for valid assessments of extinction risks as basis of
         The Austrian share of the Pannonian region,         Red Data Books and legal actions (Müller-Motzfeld
of the Danube as well as of the Morava, the westernmost      1990, Gruttke et al. 1999). The aim of this study is to
steppe river of Europe, results in a remarkable diver-       provide a quantitative evaluation of the status, threats

                                                                               E. Escobar-Briones & F. Alvarez Eds.
    Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers                         MODERN APPROACHES TO THE STUDY OF CRUSTACEA
    Published online with kind permission.                                                              P.P. 281-289
E. Eder & W. Hödl

and conservation of Anostraca, Notostraca and                            hibitions. Our field sampling focused on the Lower Aus-
Conchostraca, as a prerequisite for the planned Red                      tria and Burgenland provinces, where 288 (90,8%) large
Data Book of Endangered Species in Austria (Zulka et                     branchiopod occurrences were reported up to 1990. For
al. 2000). Main threatening factors are discussed,                       each species, the number of entirely destroyed localities,
multispecies large branchiopod sites are ranked accord-                  intact sites, and locations under legal protection (National
ing to their relevance for conservational purposes, and                  Park and nature reserves) was determined. The number of
the status of large branchiopod habitats and recent con-                 sites reported up to 1990 was compared for each species
servation activities by the authors are presented.                       with the number of recent sites by means of Pearson c²-
                                                                         test. The observed 95% significance level in all 16 tests
                      II. METHODS                                        was adjusted using Bonferroni correction (Sokal and
                                                                         Rohlf 1995, Milasowszky and Zulka 1998), i.e.
           Single pools, a group of water bodies within a                P=0.05/16=0.003125.
radius of 100 m or connected at least once during a sam-
pling visit are treated as one geographical unity (=”site”).                                     III. RESULTS
To quantify the status, threats, and causes of potential lo-
cal extinction, all undoubtedly identifiable locations his-                        To the best of our knowledge, a total of 318
torically reported in Austria until 1990 (117) were revis-               reports of large branchiopod occurrences from 128
ited by us at least once in the ten year observation period              Austrian sites, according to the above definition, were
(1991 - 2000), primarily between 1994 and 1996 (cf. Hödl                 known up to 1990. Seventy nine localities were reported
and Eder 1996a). Eleven sites were insufficiently described              in accessible publications (Brehm 1910, Puschnig 1918,
and could not be inspected. In order to assess the current               Machura 1935, Pesta 1937, 1939, 1942, Kupka
status for each species, a thorough search for potential                 1940, Heikertinger 1951, Nemec 1952, Vornatscher 1955,
other large branchiopod sites was undertaken, including                  1968, Löffler, 1957, 1959, 1993, Sampl 1969, Metz
appeals to the public through printed media and local ex-                and Forró 1987, Paar et al. 1993). Information about

Table 1. Austrian large branchiopod sites, listed by species. Number of sites and protectional status. Sites protected by general
conventions (such as Ramsar) are not included. * Statistically significant (P
Freshwater branchiopods in Austria

Table 2. Multispecies large branchiopod habitats(>2 species) in Austria
Habitat                   province        Location                  protectional status   species documented

“Blumengang”              Lower Austria   Morava/Danube                nature reserve     C. tetracerus, E. ticinensis, I. yeyetta,
near Engelhartstetten                     48°10”42" N, 16°58”00" E                        L. dahalacensis, L. lenticularis, T. cancriformis
“Triops-Senke”            Lower Austria   Lower Morava              protection aimed      C. tetracerus, I. yeyetta, L. apus,
(Lange Lüsse)                             48°14’24" N, 16°56’25" E                        L. dahalacensis, T. cancriformis
Pond                      Burgenland      “Wiener Becken”                    —            B. schaefferi, S. torvicornis, L. dahalacensis, T.
near “Steinbrunner See”                   47°50’04“ N, 16°23’20“ E                        cancriformis
“Kohler-Lacke”            Burgenland      Seewinkel                    national park      B. schaefferi, I. yeyetta, L. dahalacensis,
near Apetlon                              47°45’23“ N, 16°50’50“ E                        T. cancriformis
“August-Lacke”            Lower Austria   Lower Morava                       —            I. yeyetta, L. dahalacensis, L. lenticularis,
(Lange Lüsse)                             48°14‘23" N, 16°56‘12" E                        T. cancriformis
“T/L-Lacke”               Lower Austria   Lower Morava                       —            I. yeyetta, L. apus, L. lenticularis,
(Lange Lüsse)                             48°13‘11" N, 16°57‘05" E                        T. cancriformis
“Alte Schanzen”           Burgenland      Parndorfer Platte           protection aimed    B. schaefferi, T. stagnalis, T. cancriformis
near Parndorf                             47°58’40“ N, 16°51’20“ E
“Pulverturm”              Lower Austria   Lower Morava                 nature reserve     C. shadini, I. yeyetta, L. apus
ponds near Marchegg                       48°16’30” N, 16°55’00” E
Meadow                    Burgenland      Seewinkel                    national park      B. schaefferi, I. yeyetta, L. dahalacensis
near Wörten-Lacke                         47°46’32“ N, 16°51’18“ E
Gramatneusiedl            Lower Austria   „Wiener Becken“              nature reserve     B. schaefferi, C. tetracerus, T. cancriformis
                                          48°01‘15" N, 16°29‘35" E
“Tanymastix-Lacke”      Burgenland        Seewinkel                          —            I. yeyetta, T. stagnalis, T. cancriformis
near Wörten-Lacke                         47°46’40“ N, 16°51’13“ E
Field south of Markthof Lower Austria     Lower Morava                       —            B. schaefferi, I. yeyetta, T. cancriformis
                                          48°11‘16" N, 16°57‘29" E
“Kreuzlacke”              Lower Austria   Lower Morava                       —            B. schaefferi, I. yeyetta, T. cancriformis
south of Markthof                         48°11’21" N, 16°57’07" E
“Dammwiese”               Lower Austria   Lower Morava             none (protected by a   I. yeyetta, L. apus, T. cancriformis
near Marchegg                             48°16’45” N, 16°54’20” E   local agreement)
“Loimersdorfer Wiesen”    Lower Austria   Lower Morava                       —            I. yeyetta, L. dahalacensis, T. cancriformis
near Markthof                             48°10’47" N, 16°57’10" E
Field south of            Lower Austria   Lower Morava                       —            I. yeyetta, L. dahalacensis, T. cancriformis
Engelhartstetten                          48°10’26" N, 16°53’27" E
“Schlosslacke”            Lower Austria   Lower Morava                       —            I. yeyetta, L. lenticularis, T. cancriformis
(Lange Lüsse)                             48°13’05" N, 16°57’20" E
“Brachesenke”             Lower Austria   Lower Morava                       —            I. yeyetta, L. lenticularis, T. cancriformis
(Lange Lüsse)                             48°13’10" N, 16°57’05" E
“Hoffnungslacke”          Lower Austria   Lower Morava                       —            I. yeyetta, L. lenticularis, T. cancriformis
(Lange Lüsse)                             48°13”05" N, 16°57”30" E

the remaining 49 sites was obtained from unpublished                 tria within the last ten years (Table 1, cf. Eder et al.
reports (Marschitz and Käfel 1993), unpublished the-                 1997). Thus, almost one quarter of the 68 European
ses (Jungwirth 1973, Jahn 1981, Linder 1983,                         large branchiopod species and two thirds of the 22
Lechthaler 1993), personal communications (E. Chris-                 European genera (Brtek and Thiéry 1995) are present
tian, Gartner, J. Gruber, R. Ille, B. Kohler, I.Korner,              on less than 1% of the European land mass.
G. Lutschinger, M. Maslo, H. Palme, K. Schütz, U.                              The highest numbers of recent sites were re-
Tessenow), and historical field notes from J. Vornatscher            corded for L. apus (78) and Eubranchipus grubii
stored at the Natural History Museum of Vienna                       (Dybowski, 1869) (60), two species abundantly oc-
(NHMW). The species with most records were Triops                    curring in the Morava river flood plains. More than 20
cancriformis (Bosc, 1801), Branchipus schaefferi                     recent sites were documented for B. schaefferi, T.
Fischer, 1834, Branchinecta sp. and Lepidurus apus                   cancriformis, and Imnadia yeyetta Hertzog, 1935,
(L., 1758) (Table 1).                                                mainly in the lower Morava and Danube river flood
         Except Lynceus brachyurus Müller, 1776, all                 plains, the Seewinkel region and the Wiener Becken
historically reported species were documented in Aus-                depression. All other species occur at less than 15 sites,

E. Eder & W. Hödl

three of which are known from only a single site each          in 1998, was followed up by a revised and updated
(Table 1). Besides the extinct L. brachyurus, decrease         CD-ROM edition (Eder 1999a). Additionally, an ex-
of recent sites was statistically significant for two spe-     hibition (“primeval shrimps in Austria – living fossils
cies, Branchinecta orientalis (G. O. Sars, 1901) and T.        in short-lived waters”) was set up and shown in the
cancriformis (Table 1).                                        museums of Marchegg (1996-1997) and Illmitz
           Almost one third of the Austrian large bran-        (1999), located in the main large branchiopod distri-
chiopod sites is inhabited by more than one species, 18        bution areas of the Morava flood plains and Neusiedler
sites by more than two (see Table 2). The most fre-            See-Seewinkel, respectively. Media reactions followed
quent co-occurrences are: T. cancriformis with either          with interviews for TV (7), radio programs (8), and
I. yeyetta, Leptestheria dahalacensis (Rüppell, 1837)          newspapers (>30). A natural history film on large bran-
or Limnadia lenticularis (L., 1761); L. apus with E.           chiopods worldwide, including scenes from Austrian
grubii; and I. yeyetta with either L. dahalacensis or L.       populations, supported our conservational intentions
lenticularis (Gottwald and Eder 1999).                         (Bludszuweit et al. 1996). Public awareness caused the
           Reasons for local extinction, as far as it is       accelerated legal procedure regarding the protection of
known, were physical destruction due to agricultural           the most diverse Austrian large branchiopod site: on
development, changes of hydrologic conditions (dikes,          June 19, 1996, the 7.5 ha “Blumengang” site, habitat
hydroelectric power plants), and urbanisation (includ-         of six large branchiopod species, among them all
ing litter disposal, road constructions and recreational       spinicaudatan species known from Austria, was de-
measures) (cf. Table 1). Until 1970, none of the Aus-          clared a nature reserve due to the initiative of the au-
trian large branchiopod occurrences was under legal            thors (Hödl and Eder 1996c). Conservation proposals
protection. When the WWF bird sanctuaries                      for three additional large branchiopod sites (seven spe-
“Marchauen-Marchegg” and “Breitensee” in the                   cies) are presently treated by the responsible local au-
Morava inundation area were declared nature reserves           thorities. If successful, with the exception of
in 1970, populations of the two most common Aus-               Streptocephalus torvicornis (Waga, 1842) and L.
trian large branchiopod species E. grubii and L. apus          brachyurus, at least one locality of each Austrian large
fell under local protection. In 1982, the “Pulverturm”         branchiopod species will face the strictest legal nature
ponds near the city of Marchegg, westernmost and               protection available (Table 1).
single Austrian site of Chirocephalus shadini (Smirnov,        None of the large branchiopod species is listed in the
1928), became the world’s first area declared as a na-         presently valid Austrian Red Data Book of Endangered
ture reserve based solely on large branchiopod occur-          Species (Gepp 1994). Recently, large branchiopods
rence due to the initiative of one of the authors (Hödl        were listed in local Red Data Books for the provinces
1994). In 1994, the first Austrian National Park meet-         Carinthia (Eder 1999b) and Lower Austria (Hödl and
ing the IUCN criteria, “Neusiedler See - Seewinkel”,           Eder 2000), and were recommended for the upcom-
was inaugurated. By this measure, both known Aus-              ing new version of the Austrian Red Data Book (Zulka
trian sites of Chirocephalus carnuntanus (Brauer,              et al. 2000).
1877), occurrences of Branchinecta ferox (Milne-
Edwards, 1840), B. schaefferi, I. yeyetta, L. dahalacensis                       IV. DISCUSSION
and T. cancriformis, and most sites of Branchinecta
orientalis G. O. Sars, 1901, came under protectional                     According to the statistical data, four differ-
status (Eder et al. 1996). In 1996, the declaration of         ent species groups are discussed:
the National Park “Donau-Auen” (Manzano 2000)                            (1) Two species, E. grubii and L. apus, show a
gave protection to two habitats with co-occurrences of         remarkable increase of site records, which is due to the
L. apus with L. lenticularis, and T. cancriformis with I.      extensive quantitative sampling along the Morava river in
yeyetta, respectively (Eder and Hödl 1996a).                   the course of recent projects (Marschitz and Käfel 1993,
           In the course of our efforts for large branchio-    Hödl and Rieder 1993). The abundant occurrence of these
pod conservation, a broad public audience was ad-              species along the Morava river was obvious to earlier in-
dressed by a brochure (Hödl and Rieder 1993), more             vestigators (J. Vornatscher †, pers. comm.) who did not
than 20 articles in local journals, and a popular science      go into detail documenting each encountered site (e.g.,
book (Hödl and Eder 1996b). The book, out of print             “Morava River”, given in Vornatscher 1968).

Freshwater branchiopods in Austria

          (2) Species with no statistically significant in-    expected for the evaluation of large branchiopod status
crease or decrease of site numbers are B. schaefferi, I.       in eastern Austria. However, the necessity of additional
yeyetta, L. dahalacensis, and L. lenticularis. These spe-      faunistic research throughout the whole country is dem-
cies are widespread in Europe (B. schaefferi), Eurasia         onstrated by new reports from Upper Austria (W.
(L. dahalacensis) or the Pannonian region (I. yeyetta),        Weißmair and R. Gottwald, unpubl.), Carinthia (Sampl
or show a holarctic distribution (L. lenticularis)             and Fressner, unpubl.), and from Lower Austrian re-
(Dumont et al. 1995).                                          gions so far unknown for large branchiopod occurrence
          (3) Branchinecta orientalis and T. cancriformis,     (T. Hochebner unpubl., R. Gottwald unpubl.).
abundant along the Seewinkel region and the lower                        The prospective evaluation mode of the Aus-
Morava river, respectively, show a statistically signifi-      trian Red Data Book (Zulka et al. 2000) follows the
cant decrease of sites, while L. brachyurus is extinct.        criteria by Schnittler et al. (1994), modified according
The decrease of B. orientalis, a species limited to steppic    to Gärdenfors et al. (1999) to provide IUCN-compat-
pools in central Spain, the Pannonian lowlands and             ible results. Eight of the 16 large branchiopod species
Eastern Europe, is a result of the degradation of the          known from Austria are considered as critically endan-
alkaline pans in the Seewinkel region (Löffler 1993)           gered (CR), five species are endangered (EN), the two
which has stopped with the declaration of the National         most common species near threatened (NT). One spe-
Park “Neusiedler See-Seewinkel” in 1994. For T.                cies is considered to be extinct in Austria (RE; EX ac-
cancriformis, a well known species widely distributed          cording to IUCN 1994) (Table 3).
all over Europe, the data reflect the general European                   Austrian meadows result from long-term use
trend of large branchiopod decrease. More than 80%             as grassland for cattle. Traditional cultivation of these
of the historically reported sites for this species were       semi-natural habitats is needed to preserve fauna and
destroyed, mainly by agriculture and urbanisation.             flora diversity (cf. Rieder 1989). Due to changes in
          (4) Seven species occur at less than six sites       agricultural policy during the last decades, large
(Table 1). With the exception of Tanymastix stagnalis          meadow areas along the lower Morava river have be-
(L., 1758), Austria lies within either their westernmost       come farm land. As a consequence, development led to
or northernmost distribution boundaries (Dumont et             the physical destruction of large branchiopod habitats
al. 1995). Due to the low numbers, the negative trend          through filling up or drainage of wetlands. Aiming the
of B. ferox (cf. B. orientalis), S. torvicornis and T.         protection of private property as natural reserves leads
stagnalis is not statistically significant.                    to conflicts with land owners. Without adequate infor-
          In species producing long-lived permanent            mation strategies, farmers may refuse conservational
stages, cyst banks may remain in the soil for years or         measures (W. Suske, unpubl.). Since 1987, the “Verein
even decades, which complicates the evaluation for Red         zur Erhaltung und Förderung ländlicher Lebensräume
Data Books. Re-appearance of rare species such as              (Distelverein)” tries to ensure “wise use” or renatur-
Cyzicus tetracerus (Krynicki, 1830) at habitats where          ation of valuable anthropogenic habitats along the
conditions have recently changed, could be either re-          Morava river, including large branchiopod habitats, by
immigration (e.g., by birds), or hatching of cysts that        direct payments to the local farmers (Schlederer 1999).
have been present in the soil for years without develop-       Extirpation due to pollution has not been reported for
ing due to suboptimal conditions. The irregular but            large branchiopods in Austria. According to Owens et al.
widespread occurrence of B. schaefferi outside the main        (2000), the effect of pesticides is lower for Anostraca
large branchiopod areas indicates the possibility of in-       (Branchinecta sp.) than for other aquatic organisms
active cyst banks present at sites still unknown for large     (Cladocera), but still needs a closer examination. In the
branchiopod occurrence in Austria.                             Morava river flood plains, Bacillus thuringensis israelensis
          The known ranges of smaller, less charismatic        (BTI) is used against mosquitoes (B. Seidel, unpubl.).
invertebrates often more accurately reflect the distri-        Neither experimental nor field data are available about
bution of their experts than that of the animals them-         possible effects of BTI on large branchiopods.
selves (Dumont et al. 1995), an aspect to be consid-                     The storage lakes ”Nove Mlyny” of the Thaya-
ered when comparing historic and recent distribution           River in Southern Moravia, built in 1989, reduce the
data. As the geographic range of historical and recent         dynamics of the Morava river’s highwaters. Crossing
investigations are approximately the same, no bias is          the Morava river, the planned Danube-Oder-Elbe-Ca-

E. Eder & W. Hödl

Table 3. Evaluation of Austrian large freshwater branchiopod species according to the IUCN Red List draft Categories (Gärdenfors
et al., 1999, and adaptation by Zulka et al., 2000), considering data until October 2000. VIE Vienna, LOA Lower Austria, BUR
Burgenland, UPA Upper Austria, SAL Salzburg, STY Styria, CAR Carinthia. No large branchiopod records are known from the
westernmost provinces Tyrol and Vorarlberg.

Taxon                           VIE           LOA          BUR         UPA          SAL         STY          CAR        Austria


Branchinecta ferox               —             —            CR          —            —           —            —           CR
(Milne-Edwards, 1840)

Branchinecta orientalis          —             —           EN           —            —           —            —           EN
G.O.Sars, 1901

Branchipus schaefferi            CR            CR          EN           RE           RE          RE           —           EN
Fischer, 1834

Chirocephalus carnuntanus        —             —            CR          —            —           —            —           CR
(Brauer, 1877)

Chirocephalus shadini            —             CR           —           —            —           —            —           CR
(Smirnov, 1928)

Eubranchipus grubii              —             NT           CR          CR           —           —            CR          NT
(Dybowski, 1860)

Streptocephalus torvicornis      RE            —            CR          —            —           —            —           CR
(Waga, 1842)

Tanymastix stagnalis             —             RE           CR          —            RE          —            —           CR
(Linnaeus, 1758)


Lepidurus apus                   —             NT           CR          —            —           —            CR          NT
(Linnaeus, 1758)

Triops cancriformis              CR            EN          EN           RE           RE          —            RE          EN
(Bosc, 1801)


Cyzicus tetracerus               RE            CR           RE          —            —           —            —           CR
(Krynicki, 1830)

Eoleptestheria ticinensis        RE            CR           —           —            —           —            —           CR
(Balsamo-Crivelli, 1859)

Imnadia yeyetta                  —             EN          EN           CR           —           —            —           EN
Hertzog, 1935

Leptestheria dahalacensis        RE            EN          EN           RE           —           —            —           EN
(Rüppell, 1837)

Limnadia lenticularis            RE            CR           RE          —            —           —            —           CR
(Linnaeus, 1761)

Lynceus brachyurus               —             RE           RE          —            —           —            —           RE
Müller, 1776

Freshwater branchiopods in Austria

nal, 40 km on its Austrian course (Müller 2000), is                 Notostraca, Spinicaudata, Laevicaudata).
considered a major threat to wetland habitats. Effects              Hydrobiologia 298:263-280
on water level and hydrologic dynamics of both Morava            Defaye D, Rabet N and Thiéry A (1998) Atlas et
and Danube rivers are unknown.                                      bibliographie des crustacés branchiopodes
           To determine conservational priorities, large            (Anostraca, Notostraca, Spinicaudata) de France
branchiopod occurrences were ranked using the main                  métropolitaine. MNHN, Paris
criteria listed by Usher and Erz (1994). Local diversity         Dumont H, Mertens J and Maeda-Martinez AM (1995)
was the decisive factor, prior to species rareness. Coin-           Historical biogeography and morphological differen-
cidently, rarest Austrian species always occur at                   tiation of Streptocephalus torvicornis (Waga) since the
multispecies habitats, e.g., Eoleptestheria ticinensis              Würm III-glaciation. Hydrobiologia 298:281-286
(Balsamo-Crivelli 1859) at the “Blumengang” depres-              Eder E (ed) (1999a) Urzeitkrebse - Lebende Fossilien.
sion (cf. Table 2). Five sites out of the 10 highest                CD-ROM. Eigenverlag Eder-Steiner, Wien
ranked habitats are protected (Table 2). The final               Eder E (1999b) Rote Liste der Rückenschaler Kärntens
decision about the aimed nature reserve “Triops-                    (Crustacea: Branchiopoda: Notostraca). In:
Senke” is expected within the next year, further con-               Rottenburg T, Wieser C, Mildner P and Holzinger
servational activities are planned.                                 WE (eds) Rote Listen gefährdeter Tiere Kärntens.
                                                                    Naturschutz in Kärnten 15:535-538
               ACKNOWLEDGMENTS                                   Eder E and Hödl W (1996a) Wozu “Urzeitkrebse”?
                                                                    Praktische Bedeutung der Groß-Branchiopoden für
         We are grateful to all persons who supported               Wirtschaft, Naturschutz und Wissenschaft. Stapfia
our conservational activities, first of all to E. Kraus (Pro-       42:149-158
vincial Government of Lower Austria, dep. RU-5) for              Eder E and Hödl W (1996b). Die Groß-Branchiopoden
his engagement. D. Belk (IUCN), W. Haas, W.                         der österreichischen Donau-Auen. Stapfia 42:85-92
Kaffarek, E. Neumeister, M. Pöckl and A. M. Sturm                Eder E, Hödl W and Milasowszky N (1996) Die Groß-
provided friendly and professional advice. G. Bieringer,            Branchiopoden des Seewinkels. Stapfia 42:93-101
R. Gottwald, H. Groß, E. Hable, T. Hochebner, E.                 Eder E, Hödl W and Gottwald R (1997) Distribution
Klotz, E. Kusel-Fetzmann, N. Milasowzky, G. Navara,                 and phenology of large branchiopods in Austria.
I. Oberleitner-Fischer, L. Paulssen, R. Plöchl, E. Rieder,          Hydrobiologia 359:13-22
H. Sampl, T. Schlögl, N. Weißenböck, W. Weißmair,                Gärdenfors U, Rodriguez JP, Hilton-Taylor C, Hyslop
A. Welzl and T. Zuna-Kratky reported new large bran-                C, Mace G, Molur S and Poss S (1999) Draft guide-
chiopod occurrences in Austria. Finally, we appre-                  lines for the application of IUCN Red List criteria at
ciate the support in statistical analysis by N.                     national and regional levels. Species 31/32:58-70
Milasowzky and P. Zulka.                                         Gepp J (ed) (1994) Rote Listen gefährdeter Tiere
                                                                    Österreichs. Grüne Reihe des Bundesministeriums für
                     REFERENCES                                     Umwelt, Jugend und Familie, Band 2, Styria, Graz
                                                                 Gottwald R and Eder E (1999) “Co-occurrence” - ein
Alonso M (1985) A survey of the Spanish                             Beitrag zur Synökologie der Groß-Branchiopoden.
   Euphyllopoda. Misc Zool (Barcelona) 9:179-208                    Ann Naturhist Mus Wien 101B:465-473
Bludszuweit G, Haft J and Riehl I (1996) “Heimische              Gruttke H, Ludwig G, Binot-Hafke M and Riecken U
   Urzeitkrebse“. Zur Konzeption eines                              (1999) Perspektiven bundesweiter Roter Listen.
   Dokumentarfilmes. Stapfia 42:159-165                             Ergebnisse eines Symposiums des Bundesamtes für
Brehm V (1910) Seltene Phyllopoden von Pöchlarn in                  Naturschutz. Natur u Landschaft 74:281-284
   Niederösterreich. Arch Hydrob 6: 206-208                      Heikertinger F (1951) Erinnerungen an den Laaerberg
Brendonck L (1989) A review of the phyllopods (Crus-                von einst. Natur u Land 37:68
   tacea: Anostraca, Notostraca, Conchostraca) of the            Hödl W (1994) A short review of the Anostraca,
   Belgian fauna. Verh Symp “Invertebraten van                      Notostraca, Laevicaudata and Spinicaudata of Aus-
   Belgie”:129-135                                                  tria. IUCN Anostraca News 2/1:2-3
Brtek J and Thiéry A (1995) The geographical distri-             Hödl W and Eder E (1996a) Rediscovery of
   bution of the European Branchiopods (Anostraca,                  Leptestheria dahalacensis and Eoleptestheria

E. Eder & W. Hödl

   ticinensis (Crustacea: Branchiopoda: Spinicaudata):     Machura L (1935) Ökologische Studien im
   an overview on presence and conservation of clam           Salzlackengebiet des Neusiedlersees, mit besonderer
   shrimps in Austria. Hydrobiologia 318: 203-206             Berücksichtigung der halophilen Koleopteren- und
Hödl W and Eder E (eds) (1996b) Urzeitkrebse                  Rynchotenarten. Z wiss Zool 146:555-590
   Österreichs. Stapfia 42, zugleich Kataloge des OÖ.      Maier G (1998) The status of large branchiopods
   Landesmuseums N. F. 100, Linz                              (Anostraca, Notostraca, Conchostraca) in Ger-
Hödl W and Eder E (1996c) Die “Blumengang”-Senke:             many. Limnologica 28:223-228
   Chronologie eines Schutzgebietes für                    Manzano C (2000) Großräumiger Schutz von
   “Urzeitkrebse”. Stapfia 42:71-84                           Feuchtgebieten im Nationalpark Donau-Auen.
Hödl W and Eder E (2000) “Urzeitkrebse”                       Stapfia 69:229-248
   (Branchiopoda: Anostraca, Notostraca,                   Marschitz G and Käfel G (1993) Über das Vorkommen
   Conchostraca). 1.Fassung 1999. (pp 4-33) In: Rote          anostraker und notostraker Krebse an den Flüssen
   Listen ausgewählter Tiergruppen Niederösterreichs          Thaya und Obere March. Ergebnisse 1993. Unpub-
   Amt d. NÖ. Landesregierung, St.Pölten                      lished report, Verein zur Erhaltung und Förderung
Hödl W and Rieder E (1993) Urzeitkrebse an der March.         ländlicher Lebensräume, Orth/Donau
   Verein zur Erhaltung und Förderung ländlicher           Metz H and Forró L (1989) Contributions to the knowl-
   Lebensräume (Distelverein), Orth/Donau                     edge of the chemistry and crustacean zooplankton
IUCN (1994) IUCN Red List categories. Gland, Swit-            of sodic waters: the Seewinkel pans revisited. BFB-
   zerland                                                    Bericht 70, Illmitz
Jahn W (1981) Untersuchungen zur Entwicklungs- und         Milasowzky N and Zulka P (1998) Habitat require-
   Fortpflanzungsbiologie von Chirocephalus grubei            ments and conservation of the “flagship species”
   Dyb.(1860) und Chirocephalus shadini Smirnov               Lycosa singoriensis (Laxmann 1770) (Araneae:
   (1928). Unpublished Masters thesis, Univ Vienna            Lycosidae) in the National Park Neusiedler See—
Jungwirth M (1973) Populationsdynamik und                     Seewinkel (Austria). Z Ökologie u Naturschutz
   Populationsrate von Branchinecta orientalis                7:111-119
   (G.O.Sars) in der Birnbaumlacke (Seewinkel,             Müller J (2000) Danube-Oder-Elbe-Canal: many open
   Burgenland) unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der          questions. Aqua Press International 4/2000:9-11
   limnologischen Bedingungen des Gewässers. Un-           Müller-Motzfeld G (1990) Quantitative Ökofaunistik
   published PhD thesis, Univ Vienna                          im Dienste des Insektenschutzes. Entomologische
Kupka E (1940) Untersuchungen über die                        Nachrichten und Berichte 34:109-117
   Schalenbildung bei den Eiern von Branchipus             Mura G (1993) Italian Anostraca: distribution & sta-
   schaefferi Fischer. Zool Anz 132:130-139                   tus. IUCN Anostracan News 1:3
Lechthaler W (1993) Gesellschaften epiphytischer           Nemec H (1952) Lebende Urzeittiere. N ill
   Makroevertebraten in überschwemmten Wiesen an              Wochenschau, Wien: 14.12.1952
   der March (Niederösterreich). Unpublished PhD           New TR (1993) Angels on a pin: dimensions of the
   thesis, Univ Vienna                                        crisis in invertebrate protection. Amer Zool 33:623-
Linder W (1983) Entwicklung und Biologie von                  630
   Lepidurus apus. Unpublished Masters thesis, Univ        Owens C, Ripley B and Simovich M (2000) Toxicity of
   Vienna                                                     malathion to the endangered vernal pool branchio-
Löffler H (1957) Vergleichende limnologische                  pod Branchinecta sandiegonensis. TCS 2000 Sum-
   Untersuchungen an den Gewässern des Seewinkels             mer Meeting Abstracts: 37
   (Burgenland). Verh Zool Bot Ges Wien 97:27-52           Paar M, Schramayr G, Tiefenbach M and Winkler I
Löffler H (1959) Zur Limnologie, Entomostraken- und           (1993) Burgenland, Niederösterreich, Wien. In:
   Rotatorienfauna des Seewinkelgebietes                      Tiefenbach M (ed.) Naturschutzgebiete Österreichs.
   (Burgenland, Österreich). Sber Österr Akad d Wiss,         Umweltbundesamt Monographien 38A, Wien
   math nat Kl Abt I 168:315-362                           Pesta O (1937) Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Tierwelt
Löffler H (1993) Anostraca, Notostraca, Laevicaudata          (Entomostrakenfauna) des Zicklackengebietes am
   and Spinicaudata of the Pannonian region and in            Ostufer des Neusiedlersees im Burgenland,
   its Austrian area. Hydrobiologia 264:169-174               Österreich. Zool Anz 118:177-192

Freshwater branchiopods in Austria

Pesta O (1939) Triops (Apus) cancriformis aus dem             Schnittler M, Ludwig G, Pretscher P and Boye P
   Stadtgebiet von Wien. Ann Mus Wien 60:387-394                 (1994) Konzeption der Roten Listen der in
Pesta O (1942) Ein neuer Nachweis von Triops (Apus)              Deutschland gefährdeten Tier- und Pflanzenarten
   cancriformis Bosc in Wien. Zool Anz 139:113-114               – unter Berücksichtigung der neuen
Petrov B and Petrov I (1997) The status of Anostraca,            internationalen K ategorien. Natur und
   Notostraca and Conchostraca (Crustacea:                       Landschaft 69:451-459
   Branchiopoda) in Yugoslavia. Hydrobiologia                 Sokal RR and Rohlf FJ (1995) Biometry. The prin-
   359:29-35                                                     ciples and practice of statistics in biological research.
Polhemus DA (1993) Conservation of Aquatic Insects:              Freeman, New York
   Worldwide Crisis or Localized Threats? Amer Zool           Usher MB and Erz W (1994) Erfassen und Bewerten
   33:588-598                                                    im Naturschutz. Probleme, Methoden, Beispiele.
Puschnig R (1918) Vom Ausflußgebiete des                         Uni-TB, Stuttgart
   Wörthersees. Carinthia II 108/28:136-141                   Vornatscher J (1955) Alte und neue Vorkommen von
Rieder N (1989) Veränderungen und neuere                         Triops cancriformis Bosc. (Apus) in Wien und
   Entwicklungen im Gefährdungsstatus der                        Niederösterreich. Ann Naturhist Mus Wien
   Phyllopoden. Schr f Landschaftspflege u                       60:287-290
   Naturschutz, Bonn-Bad Godesberg 29: 294-295                Vornatscher J (1968) Anostraca, Notostraca,
Sampl H (1969) Der Kiemenfuß Lepidurus apus (L.)                 Conchostraca. Catalogus Faunae Austriae VIIIaa.
   (Phyllopoda, Crust.) erstmals in Kärnten                      Österr Akad Wiss 5 p
   nachgewiesen. Carinthia II 159:130-131                     Zulka P, Eder E, Höttinger H and Weigand E (2000)
Schlederer R (1999) Das Ramsar-Konzept – Modell einer            Fachliche Grundlagen zur Fortschreibung der
   Konsensfindung. In: Kelemen J and Oberleitner I (eds.)        Roten Listen gefährdeter Tiere Österreichs.
   Fließende Grenzen. Lebensraum March-Thaya-Auen                Unpubl. Report, Federal Environmental Agency
   (pp. 320—325) Umweltbundesamt, Wien                           (UBA), Vienna

You can also read