EJBR2018v8i4art252 ISSN 2449-8955 European Journal of Biological Research Research Article European Journal of Biological Research 2018; 8 (4): 252-262 Community structure of mesofauna in the light of qualitative and quantitative research on soil mites Jerzy Błoszyk 1,2 , Agnieszka Napierała 1 * 1 Department of General Zoology, Faculty of Biology AMU in Poznań, ul. Umultowska 89, 61-614 Poznań, Poland 2 The Natural History Collections, Faculty of Biology AMU in Poznań, ul. Umultowska 89, 61-614 Poznań, Poland *Corresponding author: Agnieszka Napierała; Phone: +48618295847; E-mail: agan@amu.edu.pl ABSTRACT Research into structure and abundance of soil fauna communities should be based on material consisting of both qualitative and quantitative samples to provide reliable results. However, in practice it turns out that sometimes it is simply impossible to have both qualitative and quantitative samples. The study presents a comparative analysis of results obtained with qualitative and quantitative methods used in research into soil mites from the suborder Uropodina (Acari: Mesostigmata). The research was carried out in different regions of Poland. Both qualitative (sieving of soil and litter) and quantitative samples were collected in each of the examined ground plots. The results presented in the study show that zoocenological analysis based on both qualitative and quantitative samples gives similar results in the case of common and abundant species, and collecting 2 or 3 sievings in a given ground plot can be equivalent to large series of quantitative samples in faunistic research and monitoring of the environment. This stems from the fact that sieving of litter allow to obtain far more dense material than from quantitative samples. Due to the high density of sieving they contain more species and specimens, including specimens at different developmental stages found in the examined area. This type of sampling can be more efficient when the researcher needs a simple and fast method of collecting material for analysis, especially in the case of extensive research conducted in large areas, monitoring of changes in soil, as well as in taxonomic, biometric, biogeographical, and molecular research. Keywords: Community structure; Abundance; Soil; Mesofauna; Quantitative; Qualitative; Uropodina. 1. INTRODUCTION That little is known about the biology of many groups of soil invertebrates stems from the fact that there is no possibility to observe directly these organisms in their natural environment due to their small body size and their secret lifestyle. It is very hard to plan and conduct research into the ecology of soil mesofauna due to the fact that the available research methods are still deficient, and for this reason it is also hard to obtain results repeatable results or to confront the results with the results obtained in earlier studies [1-4]. The studies which take into consideration structure and abundance of communities of small soil invertebrates (mites, springtails, larvae and adult insects, other small arachnoids) are usually based on either qualitative or quantitative data [1, 5-9]. Qualitative samples (usually sieving of litter and soil) allow to determine Received: 12 October 2018; Revised submission: 09 November 2018; Accepted: 04 December 2018 Copyright: © The Author(s) 2018. European Journal of Biological Research © T.M.Karpiński 2018. This is an open access article licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial 4.0 International License, which permits unrestricted, non-commercial use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the work is properly cited. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2248744 253 | Błoszyk & Napierała Community structure of mesofauna European Journal of Biological Research 2018; 8 (4): 252-262 species composition of mesofauna communities and dominance structure, sex ratio, age, and occurrence frequency of taxa. When the samples are collected in regular intervals, the material also allows to analyze the phenology of soil invertebrates. However, if the analysis is aimed to estimate abundance of populations, density, and geographical distribution of populations, it can be carried out only on the basis of data obtained from quantitative samples, which allow to conduct the relevant statistical analyses. The gradual deterioration of biodiversity caused mainly by the anthropopressure of the environment requires constant and regular moni- toring. The most common problem in such cases is the lack of data about faunistic resources from earlier studies, which could be verified with the most recent data to determine the pace and trajectory of the changes occurring in soil. For this reason researchers often use old faunistic data from the available literature on the topic to evaluate changes in soil in longer periods of time. However, it is noteworthy to mention that most of these publi- cations discussing different taxonomic groups of soil fauna, especially those about mites (Acari), were written on the basis of qualitative data [1, 5-7, 10- 14]. There are very few studies based on quantitative data [1, 15-17]. In such cases it is very important to be aware of the reliability and usability of such studies, especially in comparative analyses of materials collected with qualitative and quantitative methods. One of the most significant factors in such comparative analyses is the sufficient and similar number of samples collected in the examined areas in different research periods or in different seasons. Interestingly, there are very few studies about soil fauna based on long-term research, and many of these studies are based on experiments conducted during a short period of time, i.e. usually 1-2 seasons, very rarely longer (maximum eight years) [18]. What is worse, the authors of these studies try to predict the effects of the possible changes in the analyzed communities of soil fauna [8, 9, 19-22]. Only the results presented in the studies by Athias- Binche [23-25], Błoszyk [1, 26, 27], Napierała [4, 28, 29], were obtained from analyses based on long- term research carried out in one area. However, there is no study that would be a comparative analysis evaluating results obtained by means of both the quantitative and qualitative method. The current study, which is based on long-term research conducted in the same conditions with both the quantitative and qualitative method of sample collection, is a comparative analysis of the obtained results. The research was conducted in a few distant areas. One of them consisted of two forest reserves in western Wielkopolska (Greater Poland), where- as the other two were the areas of The Gorce Mountains and Nature Reserve ‘Cisy Staropolskie im. Leona Wyczółkowskiego in Wierzchlas’ (Bory Tucholskie). The samples for the analysis (qualita- tive samples from sieving of litter and soil as well as quantitative samples) were collected simulta- neously in all the examined areas and at the same time. This allowed to compare the results obtained from the samples collected with the two different methods. The major aim of this study was to ascertain whether there are any differences in the community structure of soil mesofauna when the results of analyses based on material collected with the quantitative and qualitative method. The next aim is to evaluate the differences in the ecological indices such as dominance and constancy, which are commonly used in acarological research, calculated on the materials gathered with both types of methods. In our opinion this comparative analysis will allow to dispel the doubts about the differences evident in descriptions of structure of soil fauna based on quantitative and qualitative data. 2. MATERIALS AND METHODS 2.1. Study areas The research was conducted in four areas located in different regions of Poland. 2.1.1. The Gorce Mountains The Gorce Mountains (southern Poland, 49°33’N; 20°06’E) are a distinctly separated mountain range in the Western Beskidy (part of the Western Carpathians). The primeval forest is the most important environment in the park. The lower elevations are covered with lower mountain mixed forest called the Carpathian beech forest. It was only slightly affected by human activity in the past. The higher elevations are occupied by upper mountain 254 | Błoszyk & Napierała Community structure of mesofauna European Journal of Biological Research 2018; 8 (4): 252-262 spruce forest. The highest peak is Turbacz Mt. (1,311 m a.s.l.). In 1992 the system of permanent monitoring plots (PMPs) was established in ‘The Gorce Natio- nal Park’ to record changes occurring in various ecosystems and at different trophic levels. The basis of this system was the so-called ATPOL grid (squares 10 km x 10 km). In the park the plot size was reduced to 400 m x 400 m. The junction points of the grid are the centers of the monitoring plots. They were marked permanently in the field. Due to the large number of the plots (433), they constitute a statistically adequate representation of the park. The basic information concerning all plots of the system (e.g. their localization and distribution of the natural elements) are presented in a special guide [30]. 2.1.2. Jakubowo Nature Reserve ‘Jakubowo Nature Reserve’ covers an area of 4.22 ha (western Poland, 52°29’N 16°16’E) It preserves one of the most beautiful fragments ofan old oak-hornbeam forest (ca. 200 years old) in the Western part of Poland, with its beech-variant part (Galio sylvatici-Carpinetum var. with European beech, Fagus sylvatica) (UTM: WU 81). In this reserve the research was conducted in three phytosociologically different ground plots. A more detailed description of the plots can be found in Błoszyk [1] and Napierała [29]. 2.1.3. Las Grądowy nad Mogilnicą Nature Reserve ‘Las Grądowy nad Mogilnicą Nature Reserve’ (8.9 ha) (western Poland, 52°28’N 16°14’E). It preserves a fragment of an oak-hornbeam forest (Galio sylvatici-Carpinetum), which is about 150 years old (UTM: WU 81). Also in this reserve the research was conducted in three ground plots, which were different as to their vegetation. A more detailed description of the examined ground plots is also available in earlier studies by Błoszyk [1] and Napierała [29]. 2.1.4. Cisy Staropolskie im. Leona Wyczółkow- skiego Nature Reserve ‘Cisy Staropolskie im. Leona Wyczółkow- skiego Nature Reserve’ in Wierzchlas (89 ha) is located roughly 20 km E from Tuchola (Northern- west Poland, 53°30’N 18°07’E). The reserve protects the largest in Europe concentration of yew- trees, Taxus baccata. The vegetation in this reserve is diverse [31-33]. Much of the reserve, beside the yew-trees, is covered by oak-hornbeam tree stands and beech forests of degraded Melico-Fagetum. In damp basins of the land alder stands, and in places located higher there are also riparian forests [34]. 2.2. Materials The following paragraphs are a brief descrip- tion of the methods used during sample collection sessions in the examined ground plots. 2.2.1. The Gorce Mountains The material for the analysis was collected in such forests as coniferous fir-spruce forests, fecund Carpathian beech forests, pine forests in the upper montane zone and in stands between the zones in two research periods. In the first period (1968-1983), during which the qualitative samples were collected in the part of The Gorce Mountains, which are now part of ‘The Gorce National Park’. In the second period (1992-1998) the soil samples were collected from 429 perma- nent monitoring plots located in ‘The Gorce National Park’ [13, 30]. The quantitative samples of soil (60-100 cm2 each) were collected with a metal cylinder (10 cm deep). The qualitative samples were mainly sieved samples of forest leaf litter and soil, or less often unsieved samples from meadows or rotting dead- wood. 2.2.2. Jakubowo and Las Grądowy nad Mogilnicą Nature Reserves The mites were extracted between 1979 and 2006 from samples of litter and soil collected with a steel frame 4 x 4 cm to the depth of 10 cm, or with a cylinder with a diameter of 5 cm to the depth of 10 cm. In both reserves in each of the examined ground plots a series of 10 samples were taken. In the period between IV and VII, and in the period between IX and XI the samples were collected in two weeks intervals. In August and during winter 255 | Błoszyk & Napierała Community structure of mesofauna European Journal of Biological Research 2018; 8 (4): 252-262 (i.e. between December and March) the samples were collected once a month. At the same time the qualitative samples were also collected (sieving of litter). 2.2.3. Cisy Staropolskie im. Leona Wyczółkow- skiego Nature Reserve In the reserve ‘Cisy Staropolskie im. Leona Wyczółkowskiego’ the material was collected by means of both methods in the period 1992-2010. The quantitative samples were collected with a metal cylinder with 5 cm diameter to the depth of 10 cm. At the same time the qualitative samples were also collected in the examined ground plots (sieving of litter). The mites were extracted with the use of Tullgren funnels for 40-60 h and preserved in 75% ethyl alcohol. The whole material was then deposited in the Invertebrate Data Bank (The Natural History Collections, Faculty of Biology, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań). 2.3. Data analysis methods The following classes of ecological indices for Dominance (D%) and Constancy (C%) were used in this study (see also Błoszyk [1]): - Dominance: D5, eudominants (>30%); D4, dominants (15.1-30.0%); D3, subdominants (7.1- 15.0%); D2, residents (3.0-7.0%); and D1, subre- sidents (<3%). - Constancy: C5, euconstants (>50%); C4, constants (30.1-50%); C3, subconstants (15.1-30.0%); C2, accessory species (5.0-15.0%); and C1, accidents (<5%). 3. RESULTS 3.1. Species composition of Uropodina commu- nities in the light of qualitative and quantitative data The material collected in the area of Gorce contained 18 species of Uropodina, and 13 were found in the quantitative samples and 17 in the qualitative samples (Table 1). 12 (67%) species occurred in both types of samples, two species were only in the quantitative samples and the other four only in the sieving. The number of Uropodina specimens found in the sieving was almost five times higher (4.7) than in the quantitative samples. Although the highest number of specimens found in one sample was usually much higher in the qualitative samples, the number of specimens was the same in the case of such species as O. misella, U. tecta, and P. calcarata. In the material from the oak-hornbeam reserves ‘Jakubowo’ and ‘Las Grądowy nad Mogil- nicą’ we found 15 and 11 Uropodina species respectively (Table 2 and 3). In ‘Jakubowo’, like in the case of Gorce, none of the two methods allowed to collect all the species occurring in this area. In the latter the quantitative samples contained all the species recorded so far in this area. The samples from the reserve ‘Cisy Staro- polskie’ contained 31 species of Uropodina (Table 4). In contrast to the examples adduced above, the quantitative samples did not contain as many as 14 species, which constitutes 46.7% of the whole community. Interestingly, the quantitative samples did not contain any specimens of Trematurella elegans and Dinychus arcuatus, which were nume- rous in the qualitative samples. 3.2. Dominance structure and frequency of occurrence of Uropodina species On the basis of the material collected in area of Gorce (Table 5) and in ‘Jakubowo’ (Table 6), ‘Las Grądowy’ (Table 7), and ‘Cisy Staropolskie im. Leona Wyczółkowskiego’ (Table 8), we also carried out a zoocenological analysis of the Uro- podina communities focusing on the structure of dominance and frequency of occurrence of the found species. The tabulations presented above show that in the case of common and abundant species zoocenological analysis based on both quantitative and qualitative samples gives similar results (Tables 5-8). That means that in samples obtained by each type of method, almost the same species (marked in bold in Tables 5-8) form ‘the core’ of the community. The differences can be observed mainly in the case of rare and sporadic species, which are not found in quantitative samples. 256 | Błoszyk & Napierała Community structure of mesofauna European Journal of Biological Research 2018; 8 (4): 252-262 Table 1. Number of Uropodina species found in the area of ‘Gorce’ depending on the type of collected material: N - number of specimens; min/max - minimum and maximum number of specimens found in one sample. Qualitative samples 416, quantitative samples 408. Species Quantitative Qualitative N min/max N min/max Trachytes irenae Pecina, 1970 1,071 1-46 6,387 1-126 Trachytes aegrota (C. L. Koch, 1841) 883 1-55 4,026 1-122 Olodiscus misella (Berlese, 1916) 223 1-16 234 1-16 Trachytes pauperior (Berlese, 1914) 203 1-12 495 1-27 Ciliba cassideasimilis Błoszyk, Stachowiak, Halliday 2006 50 1-11 244 1-30 Dinychus perforatus Kramer, 1882 33 1-4 129 1-11 Neodiscopoma splendida (Kramer, 1882) 30 1-6 225 1-36 Urodia spistecta Berlese, 1916 9 1-5 23 1-5 Trachytes minima (Trägardh, 1910) 5 1-4 20 1-9 Polyaspinus cylindricus Berlese, 1916 5 1-2 44 1-15 Pseudouropoda calcarata (Hirschmann et Zirngiebl-Nicol, 1961) 5 1-2 4 1-2 Olodiscus minima (Kramer, 1882) 5 1 35 1-7 Janetiella pulchella Berlese, 1904 2 1-2 - - Nenteria breviunguiculata (Willmann, 1949) - - 1 1 Dinychus arcuatus (Trägardh, 1922) - - 8 1-2 Dinychus carinatus Berlese, 1903 - - 3 1 Oodinychus ovalis (C. L. Koch, 1839) - - 2 1 Oodinychus obscurasimilis (Hirschmann et Zirngiebl-Nicol, 1961) - - 1 1 Total 2,524 11,881 Table 2. Number of Uropodina species found in the area of ‘Jakubowo’ depending on the collected material: N - number of specimens; min/max - minimum and maximum number of specimens found in one sample. Qualitative samples 1505, quantitative samples 56. Species Quantitative Qualitative N min/max N min/max Olodiscus minima (Kramer, 1882) 1,146 1-29 272 1-43 Trachytes pauperior (Berlese, 1914) 498 1-15 25 1-4 Trachytes aegrota (C. L. Koch, 1841) 460 1-12 383 1-65 Urodiaspis pannonica Willmann, 1952 234 1-22 70 1-16 Ciliba cassideasimilis (Błoszyk, Stachowiak et Halliday, 2008) 96 1-3 25 1-6 Urodiaspis tecta (Kramer, 1876) 78 1-4 118 1-14 Polyaspinus cylindricus Berlese, 1916 23 1-2 Oodinychus ovalis (C. L. Koch, 1839) 16 1-4 21 1-3 Dinychus inermis (C. L. Koch, 1841) 3 1-2 Trachytes lamda Berlese, 1903 1 1 Pseudouropoda calcarata (Hirschmann, Zirngiebl-Nicol, 1961) 1 1 Olodiscus kargi (Hirschmann, Zirngiebl-Nicol, 1969) 1 1 Phaulodiaspis rackei (Oudemans, 1912) 1 1 Nenteria stylifera (Berlese, 1904) 1 1 Janetiella pyriformis (Berlese, 1920) 1 1 Total 2,559 915 257 | Błoszyk & Napierała Community structure of mesofauna European Journal of Biological Research 2018; 8 (4): 252-262 Table 3. Number of Uropodina species found in the area of ‘Las Grądowy nad Mogilnicą’ depending on the type of the collected material: N - number of specimens; min/max - minimum and maximum number of specimens found in one sample. Qualitative samples 351, quantitative samples 48. Species Quantitative Qualitative N min/max N min/max Trachytes aegrota (C. L. Koch, 1841) 567 1-15 178 1-26 Trachytes pauperior (Berlese, 1914) 401 1-21 15 1-5 Olodiscus minima (Kramer, 1882) 321 1-16 237 1-19 Trachytes lamda Berlese, 1903 93 1-3 - - Polyaspinus cylindricus Berlese, 1916 77 1-8 - - Urodiaspis tecta (Kramer, 1876) 39 1-4 85 1-17 Cilliba cassideasimilis (Błoszyk Stachowiak et Halliday, 2008) 22 1-5 - - Urodiaspis pannonica Willmann, 1952 14 1-2 8 1-3 Dinychus perforatus Kramer, 1882 2 1 30 1-9 Oodinychus ovalis (C. L. Koch, 1839) 1 1 8 1-2 Phaulodiaspis rackei (Oudemans, 1912) 1 1 2 1 Total 1,538 563 Table 4. Number of Uropodina species found in the area of ‘Cisy Staropolskie im. Leona Wyczółkowskiego’ depending on the type of the collected material: N - number of specimens; min/max - minimum and maximum number of specimens found in one sample. Qualitative samples 253, quantitative samples 199. Species Quantitative Qualitative N min/max N min/max Trachytes aegrota (C. L. Koch, 1841) 194 1-21 435 1-76 Oodinychus ovalis (C. L. Koch, 1839) 137 1-13 995 1-81 Olodiscus minima (Kramer, 1882) 120 1-18 188 1-20 Urodiaspis tecta (Kramer, 1876) 87 1-7 657 1-44 Trachytes pauperior (Berlese, 1914) 40 1-14 20 1-4 Dinychus perforatus Kramer, 1882 35 1-8 344 1-43 Urodiaspis pannonica Willmann, 1952 20 1-4 109 1-11 Neodiscopoma splendida (Kramer, 1882) 20 1-10 184 1-41 Oodinychus karawaiewi (Berlese, 1903 19 1-9 110 1-17 Trachytes lamda Berlese, 1903 16 1-9 76 1-28 Oodinychus obscurasimilis (Hirschmann et Z.-Nicol, 1961) 15 1-2 96 1-11 Discourella modesta (Leonardi, 1889) 2 1 3 1 Janetiella pulchella (Berlese, 1904) 2 1 13 1-10 Dinychus inermis (C. L. Koch, 1841) 2 1 69 1-31 Olodiscus misella (Berlese, 1916) 1 1 1 1 Cilliba cassideasimilis (Błoszyk Stachowiak et Halliday, 2008) 1 1 13 1-4 Dinychura cordieri (Berlese, 1916) 1 1 2 2 Trematurella elegans (Kramer, 1882) 112 1-25 Dinychus arcuatus (Trägårdh, 1922) 75 1-25 Leiodinychus orbicularis (C. L. Koch, 1839) 8 1-7 Dinychus woelkiei Hirschmann et Zirngiebl-Nicol, 1969 8 1-7 Iphiduropoda penicillata (Hirschmann et Z.-Nicol, 1961) 5 1-4 Olodiscus kargi (Hirschamann et Z.-Nicol, 1969) 3 3 Dinychus carinatus Berlese, 1903 3 1-2 Phaulodiaspis rackei (Oudemans, 1912) 2 1 Oplitis sp. 2 2 Polyaspis patavinus Berlese, 1881 1 1 Pseudouropoda sp. 1 1 Uroobovella obovata (Canestrini et Berlese, 1884) 1 1 Cilliba rafalskii (Błoszyk Stachowiak et Halliday, 2008) 1 1 Uropoda orbicularis (Muller, 1776) 1 1 Total 712 3,538 258 | Błoszyk & Napierała Community structure of mesofauna European Journal of Biological Research 2018; 8 (4): 252-262 Table 5. Dominance (D%) and constancy of occurrence (C%) of Uropodina in the area of ‘Gorce’ expressed with relative values and classes. Bold - ‘the core’ of the community. Species Quantitative Qualitative D% C% D C D% C% D C T. irenae 42.42 49.38 D5 C4 53.76 88.70 D5 C5 T. aegrota 34.97 44.17 D5 C4 33.89 85.10 D5 C5 O. misella 8.83 21.09 D3 C3 1.97 20.19 D1 C3 T. pauperior 8.04 21.09 D3 C3 4.17 35.10 D2 C4 C. cassideasimilis 1.98 4.96 D1 C1 2.05 14.66 D1 C2 D. perforatus 1.31 4.96 D1 C1 1.09 13.46 D1 C2 N. splendida 1.19 4.47 D1 C1 1.89 12.50 D1 C1 U. tecta 0.36 0.74 D1 C1 0.19 3.13 D1 C1 T. minima 0.20 0.50 D1 C1 0.17 1.92 D1 C1 P. cylindricus 0.20 0.99 D1 C1 0.37 3.13 D1 C1 P. calcarata 0.20 0.99 D1 C1 0.03 0.72 D1 C1 O. minima 0.20 1.24 D1 C1 0.29 3.37 D1 C1 J. pulchella 0.08 0.25 D1 C1 N. breviunguiculata 0.04 0.25 D1 C1 0.01 0.24 D1 C1 D. arcuatus - 0.07 1.92 D1 C1 D. carinatus - 0.03 0.72 D1 C1 O. ovalis - 0.02 0.48 D1 C1 O. obscurasimilis - 0.01 0.24 D1 C1 Total 100 100 Table 6. Dominance (D%) and constancy of occurrence frequency (C%) of Uropodina in ‘Jakubowo’ expressed with relative values and classes. Bold - “the core” of the community. Species Quantitative Qualitative D% C% D C D% C% D C O. minima 44.78 29.97 D5 C3 29.73 60.71 D4 C5 T. pauperior 19.46 15.08 D4 C3 2.65 23.21 D1 C3 T. aegrota 17.98 17.81 D4 C3 41.86 75.00 D5 C5 U. pannonica 9.14 8.37 D3 C2 7.41 35.71 D3 C4 C. cassideasimilis 3.75 4.78 D2 C1 2.65 16.07 D1 C3 U.tecta 3.05 4.25 D2 C1 12.90 60.71 D C5 P. cylindricus 0.90 1.26 D1 C1 O. ovalis 0.63 0.66 D1 C1 2.22 21.43 D1 C3 D. inermis 0.12 0.13 D1 C1 T. lamda 0.04 0.07 D1 C1 P. calcarata 0.04 0.07 D1 C1 O. kargi 0.04 0.07 D1 C1 Ph. rackei 0.04 0.07 D1 C1 N. stylifera 0.04 0.07 D1 C1 J. pyriformis 0.11 1.79 D1 C1 Total 100 100 259 | Błoszyk & Napierała Community structure of mesofauna European Journal of Biological Research 2018; 8 (4): 252-262 Table 7. Dominance (D%) and constancy of occurrence frequency (C%) of Uropodina in ‘Las Grądowy’ expressed with relative values and classes. Bold - ‘the core’ of the community. Species Quantitative Qualitative D% C% D C D% C% D C T. aegrota 36.82 50.14 D5 C5 31.62 70.83 D5 C5 T. pauperior 26.04 41.03 D4 C4 2.66 18.75 D1 C3 T. minima 20.84 37.61 D4 C4 42.10 70.83 D5 C5 T. lamda 6.04 18.80 D2 C4 P. cylindricus 5.00 11.11 D2 C2 U. tecta 2.53 7.41 D1 C2 15.10 56.25 D4 C5 C. cassideasimilis 1.43 2.56 D1 C1 U. pannonica 0.91 2.85 D1 C1 1.42 8.33 D1 C2 D. perforatus 0.13 0.57 D1 C1 5.33 25.00 D2 C3 O. ovalis 0.06 0.28 D1 C1 1.42 12.50 D1 C2 Ph. rackei 0.06 0.28 D1 C1 0.36 4.17 D2 C1 Total 100 100 Table 8. Dominance (D%) and constancy of occurrence frequency (C%) of Uropodina in ‘Cisy Staropolskie im. Leona Wyczółkowskiego’ expressed with relative values and classes. Bold - “the core” of the community. Species Quantitative Qualitative D% C% D C D% C% D C T. aegrota 27.25 31.16 D4 C4 12.30 32.81 D3 C4 O. ovalis 19.24 24.62 D4 C3 28.12 40.06 D1 C3 O. minima 16.85 25.63 D4 C3 5.31 26.88 D2 C3 U. tecta 12.22 26.13 D3 C3 18.57 38.74 D4 C4 T. pauperior 5.62 5.03 D2 C2 0.57 5.53 D1 C2 D. perforatus 4.92 8.54 D2 C2 9.72 21.74 D3 C3 U. pannonica 2.81 5.53 D1 C2 3.08 13.4 D2 C2 N. splendida 2.81 3.52 D1 C1 5.20 15.02 D2 C3 O. karawaiewi 2.67 3.02 D1 C1 3.11 8.70 D2 C2 T. lamda 2.25 2.51 D1 C1 2.15 4.74 D1 C1 O. obscurasimilis 2.11 6.03 D1 C2 2.71 13.44 D1 C2 D. modesta 0.28 1.01 D1 C1 0.08 1.19 D1 C1 J. pulchella 0.28 1.01 D1 C1 0.37 0.79 D1 C1 D. inermis 0.28 1.01 D1 C1 1.95 3.16 D1 C1 O. misella 0.14 0.50 D1 C1 0.03 0.40 D1 C1 C. cassideasimilis 0.14 0.50 D1 C1 0.37 2.77 D1 C1 D. cordieri 0.14 0.50 D1 C1 0.06 0.40 D1 C1 T. elegans 3.17 9.09 D2 C2 D. arcuatus 2.12 4.35 D1 C1 L. orbicularis 0.23 0.79 D1 C1 D. woelkiei 0.23 0.79 D1 C1 I. penicillata 0.14 0.79 D1 C1 O. kargi 0.08 0.40 D1 C1 D. carinatus 0.08 0.79 D1 C1 Ph. rackei 0.06 0.79 D1 C1 Oplitis sp. 0.06 0.40 D1 C1 P. patavinus 0.03 0.4 D1 C1 Pseudouropoda sp. 0.03 0.40 D1 C1 U. obovata 0.03 0.40 D1 C1 C. rafalskii 0.03 0.40 D1 C1 U. orbicularis 0.23 0.79 D1 C1 Total 100 100 260 | Błoszyk & Napierała Community structure of mesofauna European Journal of Biological Research 2018; 8 (4): 252-262 4. DISCUSSION Holding faunistic inventories and regular monitoring of the soil environment by means of long-term research is becoming a more and more common method of investigating changes occurring in communities of invertebrates inhabiting soil [27, 29, 35]. Also in taxonomic and zoocenological research into distribution of taxa there is still a need for effective yet not laborious methods of collecting material for analysis. In all these types of research sieving of litter and soil seem to be the best method. For example, in the case of the material collected in Gorce the average number of specimens in a quantitative sample was 6.2, whereas in the sieving it was 28.6. In ‘Jakubowo’ the former it was 1.7 and for the latter 16.3 specimens/sample, in ‘Las Grądowy’ 4.4 and 11.7 specimens/sample, and in ‘Cisy Staropolskie’ 3.6 and 14.0 specimens/samples (Tables 1-4). Moreover, the use of sieving allows to detect rare and sparse species, which are usually found in quantitative samples (Tables 1-8). This stems from the fact that these are species of low abundance in soil, and therefore, it is much harder to catch them by means of small corer to collect quantitative samples (up to 30 cm2). Mites which occur with the frequency of fewer than 10 speci- mens per m2 are caught accidentally or at all in quantitative samples collected in sessions with 10 and 30 series. The analyses presented above show that 2 or 3 sieving collected in a given area can be a good substitute for a series of quantitative samples, both in faunistic research and monitoring of the soil environment. It is possible mainly due to the fact that the material obtained from sieving is far more dense than that in quantitative samples, and for this reason it contains more species occurring in the examined area. However, it should be borne in mind that sieving have one major drawback. These samples are collected from litter and the upper strata of soil, usually to the depth of 2 cm, whereas quanti- tative soil samples are usually taken to the depth of about 10 cm [15, 23-26, 36]. Thus, it is possible that species which live in the lower layers of soil, or their developmental forms, are not caught using the qualitative method. This is probably the reason why the qualitative material collected in ‘Las Grądowy’ did not contain some of the common species such as T. lamda and P. cylindricus. It is also worth to mention that there is another serious disadvantage in using the sieving method to obtain soil mesofauna. This problem may be not very important for Uropodina, which are strongly sclerotized, but for other groups of invertebrate soil fauna. Many representatives of soil mesofauna are small and fragile invertebrates, which are often entirely destroyed during longer sieving and extracting processes. This concerns mainly such groups as subtle mites from the order Prostigmata, but also Collembola, Protura and Pauropoda, gentle non-arthropods, and soft immature stages*. Nevertheless, the data show that in most cases the information about abundance and distribution of a taxon in a given area obtained from qualitative and quantitative samples is reliable in each case. Thus, in extensive research conducted in a large area collecting qualitative samples (in this case sieving of litter and soil) is a far better method than collecting quantitative samples, and the indices (expressed with relative values) calculated on the basis of the data obtained from them (e.g. D%, C%) accurately reflect the actual abundance and struc- ture of communities of soil invertebrates. Collecting quantitative samples is also always recommended when the researcher needs a simple and reliable method of collecting material for analysis. This method is very useful especially in the case of collecting exotic material, which will be used to describe new taxa. As has been already said, qualitative samples contain far more dense material, which contains more specimens of a given species and different developmental forms, especially in places where collecting a large number of quanti- tative samples is impossible both now and in the future. On the other hand, large series of specimens allow to determine the range of morphological characteristics, which in turn considerably reduces the possibility of committing taxonomic errors and prevents coining taxonomic synonyms. Finally, quantitative samples are also more appropriate when there is a need for extracting material for biometric analysis, which usually requires a large number of specimens, and in research based on molecular techniques, which are becoming more and more popular in the research into soil fauna. 261 | Błoszyk & Napierała Community structure of mesofauna European Journal of Biological Research 2018; 8 (4): 252-262 *To extract fragile forms and larvae from sieving samples one should use different methods of using Tullgrene's funnels. For example, the external part of the funnel should be cooled during the extraction process by wrapping it with a rag damped in cold water (this method was applied by Prof. Rafalski). AUTHORS’ CONTRIBUTIONS JB: Conception of the paper and design of the first version of the manuscript; Analysis and interpretation of data; Technical support; Study supervision. JB and AN: Acquisition of data (collection of samples and identification of the species). AN: Interpretation of data; Preparation of final version of the manuscript; Preparation of the revised version of the manuscript; Administrative and technical support. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST The authors have no conflict of interest to declare. REFERENCES 1. Błoszyk J. Geograficzne i ekologiczne zróżni- cowanie zgrupowań roztoczy z kohorty Uropodina (Acari: Mesostigmata) w Polsce [in Polish]. Wydawnictwo KONTEKST, Poznań, 1999. 2. Niedbała W. 2000. Dlaczego przestałem zajmować się ekologią roztoczy glebowych? [in Polish] In: Ignatowicz S, eds. Materiały z XXVI Sympozjum akarologicznego „Akarologia polska u progu Nowego Tysiąclecia” Kazimierz Dolny, 24-26 października 1999, Warszawa, Wyd. SGGW, 2000: 193-201. 3. André HM, Ducarme P, Lebrum P. Soil biodiversity: myth, reality or conning? Oikos. 2002; 96: 3-24. 4. Napierała A. Struktura zgrupowań i rozkład przestrzenny Uropodina (Acari: Mesostigmata) w wybranych kompleksach leśnych Wielkopolski [in Polish]. PhD Thesis. Poznań, UAM. 2008. 5. Błaszak C. Zerconidae (Acari, Mesostigmata) Polski [in Polish]. Monogr Fauny Pol. Tom 3. Warszawa- Kraków, PWN, 1974. 6. Niedbała W. Brachychthoniidae Polski (Acari, Oribatei). Studium ekologiczno-faunistyczne [in Polish]. Monogr Fauny Pol. Tom 6. Warszawa- Kraków, PWN, 1976. 7. Błoszyk J. Rodzaj Trachytes Michael, 1894 (Acari: Mesostigmata) w Polsce [in Polish]. Pr Kom Biol PTPN. 1980; 54: 5-52. 8. Briones MJI, Ineson P, Piearce TG. Effects of climate change on soil fauna; responses of enchytraeids Diptera larvae and tardigrades in a transplant experiment. Appl Soil Ecol. 1997; 6: 117- 134. 9. Konestabo HS, Michelsen A, Holmstrup M. Responses of springtail and mite populations to prolonged periods of soil freeze-thaw cycles in a sub-arctic ecosystem. Appl Soil Ecol. 2007; 36: 136-146. 10. Błoszyk J. Uropodina Polski (Acari: Mesostigmata) [in Polish]. PhD Thesis. Poznań, UAM. 1983. 11. Błoszyk J. Materiały do znajomości roztoczy gniazd kreta (Talpa europaea L.) I. Uropodina (Acari, Mesostigmata) [in Polish]. Przegl Zool. 1985; 29(2): 171-177. 12. Błoszyk J. Materiały do znajomości akarofauny Roztocza. III. Uropodina (Acari: Mesostigmata) [in Polish]. Fragm Faun. 1992; 35(20): 323-344. 13. Błoszyk J. Kilka uwag o faunie Uropodina (Acari: Mesostigmata) Gorczańskiego Parku Narodowego na tle innych regionów geograficznych Polski [in Polish]. Parki Nar Rez Przyr. 1995; 14(3): 103-110. 14. Błoszyk J, Olszanowski Z. Contribution to the knowledge of mites of ant hills in Poland. Acari: Uropodina. Przegl Zool. 1986; 30(2): 191-196. 15. Niedbała W. Badania ilościowe nad występowaniem mechowców (Acari, Oribatei) w Parku Sołackim w Poznaniu w zależności od niektórych zabiegów gospodarczych [in Polish]. Bad Fizjogr Pol Zach. 1967; 20: 29-44. 16. Błoszyk J, Chojnacki I, Kaliszewski M. Study one the mites of the genus Trachytes Michael 1984. II. Sesonal population changes of Trachytesaegrota (Koch, 1841) in decidous reserves "Jakubowo" and "Las Grądowy" near Pniewy, Poland. Acarology VI, 1984; 2: 893-900. 17. Błoszyk J, Olszanowski Z. Rodzaj Trachytes Michael, 1894 (Acari, Mesostigmata) w Polsce. III. Sporadyczne występowanie samców w populacjach niektórych partenogenetycznych gatunków [in Polish]. Przegl Zool. 1985; 29(3): 313-316. 18. Aerts R. The freezer defrosting: global warming and litter decomposition rates in cold biomes. J Ecol. 2006; 94: 713-724. 19. Coulson SJ, Hodkinson ID, Webb NR, Block W, Bale JS, Strathdee AT, et al. Effects of experimental temperature elevation on high-arctic soil micro- 262 | Błoszyk & Napierała Community structure of mesofauna European Journal of Biological Research 2018; 8 (4): 252-262 arthropod populations. Polar Biol. 1996; 16: 147- 153. 20. Doran PT, Priscu JC, Berry Lyons W, Walsh JE, Fountain AG, McKnight DM, et al. Antarctic climate cooling and terrestrial ecosystem response. Nature. 2002; 415: 517-520. 21. McGeoch MA, Le Roux PC, Hugo E, Chown SL. Species and community responses to short-term climate manipulation: Microarthropods in the sub- Antarctic. Austral Ecol. 2006; 31: 719-731. 22. Bokhorst S, Huiskes A, Convey P, Bodegom PM, Aerts R. Climate change effects on soil arthropod communities from the Falkland Islands and the maritime Antarctic. Soil Biol Bioch. 2008; 40: 1547-1556. 23. Athias-Binche F. Différent types de structures des peuplements d’Uropodides édaphiques de trois- ecosystems forestiers (Arachnides: Anactinotriches) [in French]. Acta Oecol Oecol Gen. 1981; 2: 153- 169. 24. Athias-Binche F. Ecologie des Uropodides edapfiques (Arachnides: Parasitiformes) de troisecosystems forestiers. 1. Introduction, material, biology [in French]. Vie Milieu. 1981; 31(2): 137- 147. 25. Athias-Binche F. Ecologie des Uropodides edapfiques (Arachnides: Parasitiformes) de troisecosystems forestiers. 2. Stations d'etudes, Methodes et Techniques, Facteurs du Milieu [in French]. Vie Milieu. 1981; 31(3-4): 221-241. 26. Błoszyk J. Pionowe zróżnicowanie fauny Uropodina (Acari) w Polsce [in Polish]. Przegl Zool. 1984; 28(1): 69-71. 27. Błoszyk J, Napierała A, Jankowiak A, Leszczyńska- Deja K, Rybska E, Kasprowicz M. Stability of Uropodina mites communities (Acari: Meso- stigmata) in natural reserve „Cisy Staropolskie im. Leona Wyczółkowskiego” in Wierzchlas based on long-time observation. Bad Fizjogr Pol Zach Seria C Zoologia R. II. 2010; C52: 63-69. 28. Napierała A, Błoszyk J, Bruin J. Communities of uropodine mites (Acari: Mesostigmata) in selected oak-hornbeam forests of the Wielkopolska region (Poland). Exp Appl Acarol. 2009; 49: 291-303. 29. Napierała A, Labijak B, Skwierczyński F, Konwerski S, Błoszyk J. Influence of habitat type and natural disturbances on uropodine mite communities (Acari: Mesostigmata: Uropodina) in oak hornbeam forests in Central Europe. Int J Acarol. 2014; 41: 41-52. 30. Loch J, Czarnota P, Chwistek K, Błoszyk J, eds. Przewodnik po stałych powierzchniach monitorin- gowych Gorczańskiego Parku Narodowego [A guide to permanent monitoring plots of the Gorce National Park]. Poznań, Wydawnictwo Acarus, 1994. 31. Myczkowski S. Zespoły leśne rezerwatu cisowego Wierzchlas [in Polish]. Ochr Przyr. 1961; 27: 36-60. 32. Walas J, eds. Cisy Staropolskie im. L. Wyczółkowskiego [in Polish]. Bydgoszcz, Wyd. Bydgoszcz, 1962. 33. Boiński M. Szata roślinna Borów Tucholskich [in Polish]. Pr Popularnonauk Tow Nauk w Toruniu. Warszawa-Poznań-Toruń, PWN, 1985; 42: 1-110. 34. Błoszyk J, Krysiak D. Uropodina (Acari: Mesostigmata) rezerwatu „Cisy Staropolskie im. Leona Wyczółkowskiego” w Wierzchlesie [in Polish]. Parki Nar Rez Przyr. 2000; 19(2): 115-121. 35. Błoszyk J, Szymkowiak P. 1999. Próba zwalo- ryzowania wartości przyrodniczych środowiska glebowego rezerwatów cisowych w Borach Tucholskich, w oparciu o analizę zgrupowań roztoczy z kohorty Uropodina (Acari: Mesostigmata) [in Polish]. In: Materiały z VI konferencji krajowej z cyklu Kompleksowe Badania i Ochrona Środowiska Naturalnego, Tleń, 14-15 grudzień 1998. Bydgoszcz, 1999: 7-22. 36. Błoszyk J, Athias-Binche F. 1987. Urban ecosystems and biological studies: example of soil Uropodid community in a Poznań park. In: Soil fauna and soil fertility. Proceedings of the 9th International Colloquium on Soil Zoology. Moscow, 1985: 278-282.