Next Article in Journal
Environmental DNA-Based Methods in Biodiversity Monitoring of Protected Areas: Application Range, Limitations, and Needs
Next Article in Special Issue
The Gerromorpha (Heteroptera: Gerridae, Mesoveliidae, Veliidae) of Mangroves of Central and Eastern Regions, Thailand
Previous Article in Journal
The Spatial Distribution of Soil Nitrogen Storage and the Factors That Influence It in Central Asia’s Typical Arid and Semiarid Grasslands
Previous Article in Special Issue
Taxonomy and Distribution of the Gomphid Dragonfly Orientogomphus minor (Laidlaw, 1931) (Odonata: Gomphidae) in Thailand
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Diversity
Volume 14
Issue 6
10.3390/d14060462
diversity-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Species Composition of Aquatic (Nepomorpha) and Semiaquatic (Gerromorpha) Heteroptera (Insecta: Hemiptera) in Kaeng Krachan National Park, Phetchaburi Province, Thailand

by
Sajeemat Attawanno
and
Akekawat Vitheepradit
*
Department of Entomology, Kasetsart University, Bangkok 10900, Thailand
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Diversity 2022, 14(6), 462; https://doi.org/10.3390/d14060462
Submission received: 30 April 2022 / Revised: 3 June 2022 / Accepted: 6 June 2022 / Published: 9 June 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Aquatic Insects: Biodiversity, Ecology and Conservation Challenges)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The species composition of aquatic (Nepomorpha) and semiaquatic (Gerromorpha) Heteroptera were examined from protected and unprotected study sites in three streams associated with Kaeng Krachan National Park. At each stream, both quantitative and qualitative sampling methods were used during seven collecting events (November 2018 to June 2020). A total of 11 families, representing 33 genera and 60 species, were collected in this study, with more Nepomorpha families but higher species richness in Gerromorpha. The species richness of both protected and unprotected sampling sites were lowest during the fifth sampling event. Nevertheless, there was no significant difference in richness between protected and unprotected sampling sites for any sampling event based on a paired t-test analysis. Based on an nMDS analysis, the patterns of species composition of aquatic and semiaquatic heteropterans were unclear among protected and unprotected sampling sites. The use of aquatic and semiaquatic Heteroptera as bioindicators for habitat quality is still uncertain. Additional physiochemical characters of the water and physical characters of the stream may lead to a clearer picture of the relationship between aquatic and semiaquatic Heteroptera and stream habitat quality.

1. Introduction

Kaeng Krachan National Park is the largest national park in Thailand, located in Phetchaburi and Prachuap Khiri Khan provinces, covering an area of approximately 2900 km2 [1]. The area was announced as a national park in 1981 and as a World Heritage Site in 2021 [2]. The national park is apart of the Tenasserim Mountain Range where the Himalayan, Indochinese, and Sumatran faunae meet [3]. The national park is one of the best in Southeast Asia in terms of the preservation of wildlife habitats, with outstanding wildlife management and protection [4]. The national park fauna is highly diverse with many endemic species [5]. Therefore, numerous research projects have been conducted within the national park [5]. Nevertheless, the diversity on aquatic insects in this biologically rich national park remains unexplored. With a high biodiversity and distinguished conservation management, Kaeng Krachan National Park is a perfect study area to examine the differences in composition patterns of aquatic and semiaquatic Heteroptera between protected and unprotected sampling sites. Furthermore, studies within the park offer an opportunity to discover undescribed species of aquatic and semiaquatic Heteroptera within the faunistically complex area.
Semiaquatic Heteroptera species are in infraorder Gerromorpha [6,7]. Gerromorpha consists of eight families, 161 genera, and nearly 2120 species worldwide [8,9]. Aquatic Heteroptera are classified under infraorder Nepomorpha, with 11 families, 137 genera, and approximately 2006 species distributed worldwide [9,10]. Most Gerromorpha species live on the water surface, floating plants, and vegetation on the margins of freshwater habitats, whereas Nepomorpha live under water, including in both lentic and lotic habitats [7]. In the last several decades, the aquatic and semiaquatic Heteroptera in Thailand have received great attention [11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24]. Numerous new species have been discovered from this rich country [25,26,27,28]. Nevertheless, the diversity of aquatic and semiaquatic Heteroptera at Kaeng Krachan National Park remains unexplored.
Owing to their high diversity and habitat specialization, aquatic and semiaquatic Heteroptera are excellent organisms for studies in evolutionary biology, ecology, and conservation biology [29]. Most ecological studies on aquatic and semiaquatic Heteroptera investigate the relationship of these two infraorders with biotic factors (e.g., aquatic vegetation, and riparian vegetation) [30]. For example, riparian vegetation in lotic habitats is positively correlated with the nepomorphan and gerromorphan species richness [31]. Additionally, the communities of Nepomorpha and Gerromorpha in streams are influenced by abiotic factors, including stream velocity, electric conductivity, pH, organic matter, and water temperature [32,33]. Recently, ecological studies have shown effects of negative environmental changes on aquatic and semiaquatic Heteroptera communities [34,35,36,37]. Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera, and Odonata were considered to be more sensitive to water quality and habitat degradation than aquatic and semiaquatic Heteroptera [38]. Nonetheless, aquatic and semiaquatic Heteroptera have been used as bioindicators in various aquatic systems [39,40]. For example, the species compositions of Nepomorpha communities may reflect ecological integrity, habitat diversity, and water quality, as well as stress by pollutants [41,42]. Furthermore, changes in the habitat structure can alter the physicochemical characters of water, which subsequently negatively effects the taxonomic diversity of Gerromorpha [35,36,43]. Therefore, gerromorphans are potential candidates as bioindicators to monitor environmental changes, especially those of anthropogenic source [30,44]. In this research, the compositions of aquatic and semiaquatic Heteroptera were compared between protected and unprotected sampling sites within three streams, each of which originates within Kaeng Krachan National Park. Aquatic and semiaquatic Heteroptera are suitable taxa for this study because (1) they are well-known taxonomically, and (2) the group has potential as indicators for habitat quality.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

Kaeng Krachan National Park covers the rain forests of the Tenasserim Mountain Range in the west of Thailand. The national park is located in the Mae Klong Watershed. The Phetchaburi and Pranburi rivers are two major rivers that originate from the uplands inside the national park and run through Phetchaburi and Prachuap Khiri Khan provinces, respectively.
The criteria for the paired study sites were: (1) the protected section was located in the national park, (2) the unprotected section was located at least 1 km outside the national park, and was noticeably impacted by human activities (e.g., agriculture, urbanization), and (3) sites must have been similar in size and stream morphology (e.g., the presence of riffles, stream width) for both sections (Figure 1 and Figure 2). Three protected and unprotected sampling sites (six sites total) were chosen on three streams. The paired stream sites are (protected and unprotected sampling sites): (1) Mae Kra Dung La Waterfall (MWF) and Mae Kra Dung La Stream (MS); Ban Krang (BK) and Huai Sat Yai (HSY); and Pa La-U Waterfall (PWF) and Huai Palaw (HPL) (Figure 1 and Figure 2).

2.2. Measurement of Physical Characters of Sampling Sites

Global Positioning System (GPS) technology was used to record latitude, longitude, and elevation (WGS84 datum). At each sampling site, basic physical characters were measured: stream width, stream depth, and riparian width (Table 1). Physical characters were measured at three randomly chosen spots and then averaged. The types of substrate and presence of marginal vegetation were also recorded at each sampling site (Table 1).

2.3. Sampling and Identification of Aquatic and Semiaquatic Heteroptera

To determine the composition patterns of aquatic and semiaquatic Heteroptera, six sampling sites were sampled at each site (two in each stream) using both quantitative and qualitative sampling methods. Each site was sampled seven times between November 2018 and June 2020. Three mesohabitats (i.e., gravel, margin, water surface) were identified and sampled. At each sampling site, three samples of each mesohabitat (3 × 3) were collected using a quantitative method and one sample of each mesohabitat (1 × 3) was collected using a qualitative method. Therefore, 12 samples were taken at each sampling site during the sampling events. Samples were collected using an aquatic D-net, although the specific sampling techniques differed among mesohabitats. For quantitative sampling, gravel sampling was conducted over a 2 m swath by kicking the substrate while holding the net downstream. Marginal stream vegetation and roots were swept with the D-net back and forth three times. The net was swept over the water surface three times to collect surface-dwelling insects (e.g., Gerridae, Veliidae).
For qualitative sampling, one sample of each mesohabitat was collected using a similar technique as during quantitative sampling. However, sampling continued until no recognizably new morphospecies were collected in three consecutive samples. All samples were sorted in the field using soft forceps to remove specimens, which were placed into container with 80% ethyl alcohol and labeled. Specimens were identified to species level and counted under a stereo microscope using various taxonomic keys [24,45,46].

2.4. Data Analysis

Taxonomic richness was tested for a normal distribution using the Shapiro–Wilk test. A pairwise t-test was performed to compare protected and unprotected sampling sites, significance was set at alpha = 0.05. The normality test and paired t-test were performed by Jamovi 2.3.9 [47]. A non-metric multidimensional scaling algorithm (nMDS) was used to reveal community patterns of aquatic and semiaquatic Heteroptera between protected and unprotected sampling sites of the seven collecting events based on abundance data. nMDS was performed using PC–ORD 5.0 [48].

3. Results

Protected and unprotected sampling sites overlapped in physical characteristics (Table 1). Protected sampling sites are located 232 to 386 m above sea level with an average stream width from 3.12 to 7.36 m and an average stream depth from 0.16 to 0.20 m. Likewise, the unprotected sampling sites are located 176 to 350 m above sea level with an average stream width from 3.16 to 9.37 m and an average stream depth from 0.21 to 0.33 m. Conversely, the riparian width, substrate types, and the presence of marginal vegetation between protected and unprotected sampling sites were dissimilar. The protected sampling sites have a wider riparian width (>30 m) and marginal vegetation with larger substrates (boulder and cobble), whereas the unprotected sampling sites have a narrower riparian width (1–5 m) and lack of marginal vegetation with smaller substrates (cobble, gravel, and sand).
Approximately 2000 specimens were collected in this study. Specimens were identified to the species level when taxonomic knowledge was available, or were assigned to morphospecies otherwise. Nevertheless, at least three possible undescribed species of Heteroptera have been discovered. Two possible undescribed species of Metrocoris were collected from Ban Krang (BK) and Pa La-U Waterfall (PWF), and a single possible undescribed specimen of Ranatra was collected from root mats at Pa La-U Waterfall (PWF) (Table 2).
Species richness was not significantly different between protected and unprotected sampling sites (Table 3). Species richness varied from season to season, appearing the highest at the beginning of the year (January 2019 and March 2020) and falling after that (November 2019 and June 2020). Species richness was nearly always lower at unprotected sampling sites (Figure 3). However, based on the results of the paired t-test, there was no significant difference between protected and unprotected sampling sites during each sampling event (Table 3, Figure 3).
The results of ordination using an nMDS analysis based on abundance data showed no clear community patterns between protected and unprotected sampling sites (Figure 4). In the protected group, the community at Mae Kra Dung La Waterfall (MWF) from June 2020 was clearly separated from other sampling sites from any other sampling event because of the positive correlation with Enithares ciliata. Additionally, communities at Ban Krang (BK) from every sampling event were aligned together with a positive correlation with C. asiaticus, H. kelantan, R. inexpectata, Ranatra sp. A, and R. thai. In the unprotected group, communities at Mae Kra Dung La Stream (MS) from April 2019 to March 2020 were separated from other communities.

4. Discussion

In general, conservation management is a vital tool to promote aquatic insect diversity, especially in preserved areas [49,50,51]. In protected areas, the presence of a riparian zone and marginal vegetation within aquatic ecosystems provides a wide variety of suitable microhabitats for aquatic insects [52,53]. Anthropogenic activities (e.g., agriculture, deforestation, urbanization) clearly impact the diversities of aquatic insects throughout the world [54,55,56,57,58]. Given the inferred large number of undescribed species and higher richness of insects, the paucity of aquatic surveys, and continuing habitat destruction in tropical areas, the aquatic insect fauna of these regions are more threatened than those of temperate regions [59]. This study focused on comparisons of species composition of aquatic and semiaquatic Heteroptera between protected and unprotected sampling sites that are located inside and outside of a national park, which reflect conservation management and the influence of human disturbance, respectively.
Season affects the insect communities of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems [60]. The richness and composition of aquatic insects in temperate regions fluctuates throughout the year, partially due to temperature changes among the seasons [61]. Similarly, the aquatic insect diversity in the tropical zones is strongly controlled by the seasons [61,62,63]. Richness and abundance of tropical aquatic insects are generally positively correlated with amount of rainfall [64,65]; however, an excessive amount of rainfall can significantly cause the decline of aquatic insects in streams [66].
The lowest richness was observed during November 2019 (Figure 3), which occurred during a drought during 2019 [67,68]. Most of the streams dried up and consisted of only stagnant pools at the sampling sites. The change in water level and flow clearly effected benthic nepomorphans, especially Aphelocheiridae and Naucoridae, since most of them are adapted to living in running waters [69,70]. Pools became the only available refuges for aquatic insects during these unfavorable periods [71,72,73]. These aquatic true Heteroptera have been reported to colonize new suitable habitat by short flights, and some are known to estivate during unfavorable conditions [74,75]. In this study, numerous species of semiaquatic Heteroptera were found at high densities in pools during the drought period. Gerromorpha is known to temporarily colonize these mesohabitats until lotic habitats revert to their normal stage [76,77,78].
Although the richness of aquatic and semiaquatic Heteroptera was not significantly different, this study was similar to previous studies that found aquatic true Heteroptera were more commonly found in altered areas [79]. Two species within each family, Aphelocheiridae and Naucoridae, were associated with gravel and sandy substrates in unprotected sampling sites (Table 2) [69,70,79], and they were not abundantly present in protected sampling sites within the national park (Table 1). Although most species of Gerridae and Veliidae are not strongly associated with specific mesohabitats [11,80], some members are found only in specific mesohabitats within aquatic systems [76]. For example, species of Metrocoris and Perritopus occur abundantly at margins and rock pools of forested streams in the highlands [25,76,81,82], whereas species of Ventidius are commonly found in open streams in lowlands [83]. These habitat preferences were observed in this study: species of Metrocoris and Perritopus were present only from protected sampling sites, and species of Ventidius were found only in unprotected sampling sites.
Based on the species abundance of aquatic and semiaquatic Heteroptera, the results of nMDS showed an unclear pattern. Nevertheless, there are several interesting arrangements of sampling sites in both the protected and unprotected group. In the protected group, the Mae Kra Dung La Waterfall in March 2020 (MWF6) was separated from other protected sampling sites because of Enithares ciliata. In Thailand, E.ciliata has only been reported from forested streams [84], which describes MWF6. E.ciliata was not collected at any other sampling sites. Various sampling events at Ban Krang (BK) were grouped together because of the presence of C. asiaticus, H. kelantan, Ranatra sp. A, and R. thai. Ban Krang (BK) is located deep in the national park and had a higher species richness than other sampling sites (Table 2). The cluster of Ban Krang (BK) in the nMDS is probably due to location because the diversity of aquatic insects is generally higher in remote streams in forests which are less affected by humans [85,86]. Furthermore, vegetation and root mats were abundant observed at the stream margins of Ban Krang, which provide suitable habitat for C. asiaticus, H. kelantan, Ranatra sp. A, and Ranatra thai [87,88,89]. In the unprotected sampling sites, several sampling events at Mae Kra Dung La Stream (MS) were separated from other sampling sites in the group. Although Mae Kra Dung La Stream (MS) is an unprotected sampling site located outside the conservation management, the physical characters of this sampling site are similar to those protected sampling sites because it is well-shaded with numerous large trees in the riparian zone and contains large emergent rocks in the stream (Table 1).
Previously, research on aquatic insect diversity and structure adjacent to different land uses (i.e., agriculture, forest, urban) indicated that both richness and abundance of streams located in forested areas are higher than those of streams associated with other land uses [90,91,92,93,94]. Based on this study, the use of aquatic and semiaquatic Heteroptera as bioindicators of stream habitat quality is still unclear. Additional physiochemical characteristics of water and additional physical characteristics of streams with different species richness and composition may allow for a better understanding of the relationship between aquatic and semiaquatic heteropterans and land use adjacent to stream systems [95,96]. Including additional aquatic insect orders (e.g., Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera, Odonata) in assessments may assist the study as bioindicators for the quality of stream physical structure [97].
Although the aquatic and semiaquatic Heteroptera are not directly influenced by forest types or vegetative zones (they are predacious), numerous species are restricted to forests, especially gerromorphans [36,76]. The specific reason for their restricted habitat is unknown. Nonetheless, preserved forests protect habitat integrity of streams, which provide preferred or suitable habitats for aquatic and semiaquatic Heteroptera [6,30]. Therefore, conservation management is vital to protect the diversity of aquatic insects from human disturbance [98,99].

5. Summary

In total, 60 species, representing 33 genera, and 11 families of aquatic and semiaquatic Heteroptera were collected during this study. Species richness and composition did not differ significantly between protected and unprotected sampling sites. However, unprotected sampling sites tended to have lower absolute species richness than protected sampling sites. Conservation management and quality of riparian zones play a major role in shaping the composition of not only herbivorous, but also predaceous, aquatic insects. The ability to use aquatic and semiaquatic Heteroptera as indicators for habitat quality remains unclear, but this may be useful after further study.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.V. and S.A.; methodology, S.A. and A.V.; software, A.V.; validation, S.A. and A.V.; investigation, S.A.; resources, A.V. and S.A.; specimen curation, A.V. and S.A.; data curation, S.A. and A.V.; writing—original draft preparation, S.A.; writing—review and editing, A.V.; funding acquisition, A.V. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by financial support for research provided by the Kasetsart University Research and Development Institute, KURDI (Grant No. P-2.2(D) 198.61, and FF(KU) 14.64) and the Graduate School, Kasetsart University.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This research was approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, Faculty of Agriculture, Kasetsart University, Thailand under Project number ACKU59-AGR-008.

Data Availability Statement

Data is available from the corresponding author upon request.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to La-au Nakthong (Kasetsart University) and Prabseuk Sritipsak (Kasetsart University) for their assistance in the field. We are grateful to Boonsatien Boonsoong (Kasetsart University) and Ratchadawan Ngoen-klan for their analysis assistance. We express our gratitude to Kaeng Krachan National Park and the Department of National Park, Wildlife and Plant Conservation for permission and logistic support to conduct the fieldwork. We thank the Department of Entomology, the Faculty of Agriculture, Kasetsart University for facility support. Lastly, we thank Michael L. Ferro (Clemson University) and reviewers for their critical comments.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Department of National Park and Wildlife, DNP. Kaeng Krachan National Park. National Park, Wildlife and Plant Conservation Department. 2007. Available online: http://www.dnp.go.th/index_eng.asp (accessed on 23 December 2012).
  2. UNESCO World Heritage Convention. Asia and Pacific. 2021. Available online: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1461/documents (accessed on 26 July 2021).
  3. Dobias, R.T. The Shell Guide to the National Parks of Thailand; Shell Company of Thailand: Bangkok, Thailand, 1982. [Google Scholar]
  4. Wildlife Conservation Society, WCS. “Kaeng Krachan”. The Wildlife Conservation Society. 2012. Available online: http://www.wcsthailand.org/english/landscapekkfc-main (accessed on 23 December 2012).
  5. ICEM. Thailand National Report on Protected Areas and Development. Review of Protected Areas and Development in the Lower Mekong River Region, Thailand. 2003. Available online: https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/2003-106-3.pdf (accessed on 21 May 2012).
  6. Nieser, N.; Chen, P.P. The water bugs (Hemiptera: Nepomorpha and Gerromorpha) of Vanuatu. Tijdschr. Entomol. 2005, 148, 307–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Chen, P.P.; Nieser, N.; Zettel, H. The Aquatic and Semiaquatic Bugs (Heteroptera: Nepomorpha and Gerromorpha) of Malaysia; Brill: Leiden, The Netherland; Boston, MA, USA, 2021; Volume 5, p. 546. [Google Scholar]
  8. Polhemus, J.T.; Polhemus, D.A. Global diversity of true bugs (Heteroptera; Insecta) in freshwater. Hydrobiologia 2008, 595, 379–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Henry, T.J. Biodiversity of Heteroptera. Insect biodiversity. Sci. Soc. 2017, 1, 279–335. [Google Scholar]
  10. Stys, P.; Jansson, A. Checklist of recent family–group names of Nepomorpha (Heteroptera) of the world. Acta Entomol. Fenn. 1988, 50, 44. [Google Scholar]
  11. Miyamoto, S. Gerridae of Thailand and North Borneo taken by the joint Thai–Japanese Biological Expedition 1961–62. Environ. Nat. Resour. J. 1967, 5, 217–257. [Google Scholar]
  12. Nieser, N. An illustrated key to the families of Nepomorpha in Thailand. Amemboa 1996, 1, 4–9. [Google Scholar]
  13. Nieser, N. A new species of Ranatra from Thailand. Insecta: Heteroptera: Nepidae. Ann. Naturhist. Mus. Wien. 1997, 99, 79–82. [Google Scholar]
  14. Nieser, N. Introduction to the Notonectidae (Nepomorpha) of Thailand. Amemboa 1998, 2, 10–14. [Google Scholar]
  15. Papáček, M.; Zettel, H. Revision of the Oriental genus Idiotrephes (Heteroptera: Nepomorpha: Helotrephidae). Eur. J. Entomol. 2000, 97, 201–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Sites, R.W.; Polhemus, J.T. A new species of Telmatotrephes (Heteroptera: Nepidae) from Thailand, with distributional notes on congeners. Aquat. Insects 2000, 23, 333–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Sites, R.W.; Polhemus, J.T. Distribution of Helotrephidae (Heteroptera) in Thailand. J. N. Y. Entomol. Soc. 2001, 109, 372–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Sites, R.W.; Polhemus, J.T. Two new species of Hydrometra latreille (Heteroptera: Hydrometridae) from Thailand. Proc. Entomol. Soc. Wash. 2003, 105, 138–143. [Google Scholar]
  19. Zettel, H. Nieserius gen. n., a new genus of the subfamily Hyrcaninae (Heteroptera: Hebridae) from Thailand, Laos, and Nepal, with the first known subaquatic species of Gerromorpha. Aquat. Insects 1999, 21, 39–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Vitheepradit, A.; Sites, R.W.; Zettel, H.; Man, Y.C. Review of the Hydrometridae (Heteroptera) of Thailand, with distribution records. Nat. Hist. Bull. Siam Soc. 2003, 51, 197–223. [Google Scholar]
  21. Vitheepradit, A.; Sites, S.W. A review of Ptilomera (Heteroptera: Gerridae) in Thailand, with descriptions of three new species. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 2007, 100, 139–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Vitheepradit, A. The Semiaquatic Heteroptera (Gerromorpha) of Thailand: Faunistics, Biogeography and Phylogeography. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  23. Vitheepradit, A.; Sites, R.W. A review of Eotrechus Kirkaldy (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Gerridae) of Thailand with descriptions of three new species. Zootaxa 2007, 1478, 19. [Google Scholar]
  24. Sites, R.W.; Vitheepradit, A. Heleocoris (Heteroptera: Naucoridae: Laccocorinae) of Thailand, with description of a new species. Zootaxa 2011, 2736, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Ye, Z.; Chen, P.; Bu, W. Contribution to the knowledge on the Oriental genus Perittopus Fieber, 1861 (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Veliidae) with descriptions of four new species from China and Thailand. Zootaxa 2013, 3616, 31–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Vitheepradit, A. A new species of Namtokocoris Sites (Hemiptera: Naucoridae) from Thailand. Zootaxa 2017, 4320, 592–596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Cook, J.L.; Sites, R.W.; Vitheepradit, A. The Pleidae (Hemiptera, Heteroptera) of Thailand, with the descriptions of two new species and a discussion of species from Southeast Asia. ZooKeys 2020, 973, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Zettel, H.; Laciny, A. A second species of Pleciogonus (Hemiptera, Heteroptera, Gerridae) from Thailand. Linz. Boil. Beitr. 2021, 53, 445–449. [Google Scholar]
  29. Andersen, N.M.; Weir, T.A. Australian Water Bugs: Their Biology and Identification (Hemiptera–Heteroptera, Gerromorpha and Nepomorpha); Apollo Books: Melbourne, Australia, 2004; p. 341. [Google Scholar]
  30. Dias-Silva, K.; Cabette, H.S.R.; Juen, L.; De Marco, P., Jr. The influence of habitat integrity and physical–chemical water variables on the structure of aquatic and semiaquatic Heteroptera. Zool 2010, 27, 918–930. [Google Scholar]
  31. Odum, E.P.; Finn, J.T.; Franz, E.H. Perturbation theory and the subsidy-stress gradient. Biosci 1979, 29, 349–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Buss, D.F.; Baptista, D.F.; Nessimian, J.L.; Egler, M. Substrate specificity, environmental degradation and disturbance structuring macroinvertebrate assemblages in neotropical streams. Hydrobiologia 2004, 518, 179–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Merritt, R.W.; Cummins, K.W.; Berg, M.B. Trophic relationships of macroinvertebrates. In Methods in Stream Ecology, Volume 1; Academic Press: London, UK, 2017; pp. 413–433. [Google Scholar]
  34. Vieira, T.B.; Dias-Silva, K.; Pacífico, E.D.S. Effects of riparian vegetation integrity on fish and Heteroptera communities. Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res. 2015, 13, 53–65. [Google Scholar]
  35. Cunha, E.J.; de Assis Montag, L.F.; Juen, L. Oil palm crops effects on environmental integrity of Amazonian streams and Heteropteran (Hemiptera) species diversity. Ecol. Indic. 2015, 52, 422–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Dias–Silva, K.; Brasil, L.S.; Juen, L.; Cabette, H.S.R.; Costa, C.C.; Freitas, P.V.; De Marco, P. Influence of local variables and landscape metrics on Gerromorpha (Insecta: Heteroptera) assemblages in Savanna streams, Brazil. Neotrop. Entomol. 2020, 49, 191–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Guterres, A.P.M.; Cunha, E.J.; Juen, L. Tolerant semiaquatic bugs species (Heteroptera: Gerromorpha) are associated to pasture and conventional logging in the Eastern Amazon. J. Insect Conserv. 2021, 25, 555–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Brasil, L.S.; Luiza-Andrade, A.; Calvão, L.B.; Dias-Silva, K.; Faria, A.P.J.; Shimano, Y.; Oliveira-Junior, J.M.B. Aquatic insects and their environmental predictors: A scientometric study focused on environmental monitoring in lotic environmental. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2020, 192, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Bonada, N.; Prat, N.; Resh, V.H.; Statzner, B. Developments in aquatic insect biomonitoring: A comparative analysis of recent approaches. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2006, 51, 495–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Skern, M.; Zweimuller, I.; Schiemer, K. Aquatic Heteroptera as indicators for terrestrialisation of floodplain habitats. Limnologica 2010, 40, 241–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Jansson, A. Micronectinae (Heteroptera, Corixidae) as indicator of water quality in Lake Vesijarvi, Southern Finland, during the period of 1976–1986. Biol. Res. Univ. Jyvask. 1987, 10, 119–128. [Google Scholar]
  42. Savage, A.A. The distribution of Corixidae in relation to the water quality of British lakes: A monitoring model. Freshw. Forum. 1994, 4, 32–661. [Google Scholar]
  43. Dias-Silva, K.; Vieira, T.B.; de Matos, T.P.; Juen, L.; Simiao-Ferreira, J.; Hughes, R.M.; Junior, P.D.M. Measuring stream habitat conditions: Can remote sensing substitute for field data? Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 788, 147617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Spence, J.R.; Andersen, N.M. Semiaquatic bugs (Gerromorpha). In Heteroptera of Economic Importance; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2000; pp. 601–606. [Google Scholar]
  45. Nakthong, L.; Vitheepradit, A.; Sites, R.W. Key to the species of Eotrechinae (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Gerridae) of Thailand and review of the fauna of the Phetchabun Mountain Range. Zootaxa 2014, 3860, 47–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Raruanysong, S.; Vitheepradit, A.; Sites, R.W. Key to the species of Ptilomerinae (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Gerridae) of Thailand and review of the fauna of the Tennaserim Mountain Range. Zootaxa 2014, 3852, 101–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. The Jamovi Project. Jamovi (Version 1.6) (Computer Software). 2021. Available online: http://www.jamovi.org (accessed on 17 May 2022).
  48. McCune, B.; Mefford, M.J. PC–ORD. Multivariate Analysis of Ecological Data, Version 6; MjM Software: Gleneden Beach, OR, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  49. Niemi, G.J.; McDonald, M.E. Application of ecological indicators. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2004, 35, 9–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Rosenberg, D.M.; Resh, V.H. Introduction to Freshwater Biomonitoring and Benthic Macroinvertebrates; Freshwater Biomonitoring and Benthic Macroinvertebrates; Chapman and Hall: New York, NY, USA, 1993; p. 488. [Google Scholar]
  51. Yoshimura, M. Effects of forest disturbances on aquatic insect assemblages. Entomol. Sci. 2012, 15, 145–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Andersen, N.H.; Wallace, J.B. Habitat, life history, and behavioral adaptations of aquatic insects. In An Introduction to the Aquatic Insects of North America, 2nd ed.; Kendall/Hunt Publishing: Dubuque, IA, USA, 1984; pp. 38–58. [Google Scholar]
  53. Erman, N.A. The use of riparian systems by aquatic insects. In California Riparian Systems: Ecology, Conservation, and Productive Management; University of California Press: Berkeley, CA, USA, 1984; pp. 177–1982. [Google Scholar]
  54. Hellawell, J.M. Biological Indicators of Freshwater Pollution and Environmental Management. In Pollution Monitoring Series; Melanby, K., Ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1986; p. 546. [Google Scholar]
  55. Metcalfe, J.L. Biological water quality assessment of running waters based on macroinvertebrate communities. History and present status in Europe. Environ. Pollut. 1989, 60, 101–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Wright, J.F.; Furse, M.T.; Armitage, P.D.; Moss, D. New procedures for identifying running-water sites subject to environmental stress and for evaluating sites for conservation, based on the macroinvertebrate fauna. Arch. Hydrobiol. 1993, 127, 319–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Pinel–Alloul, B.; Méthot, G.; Lapierre, L.; Willsie, A. Macrobenthic community as a biological indicator of ecological and toxicological factors in Lake Saint-Francois (Quebec). Environ. Pollut. 1996, 91, 65–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Nedeau, E.J.; Merritt, R.W.; Kaufman, M.G. The effect of an industrial effluent on an urban stream benthic community: Water quality vs. habitat quality. Environ. Pollut. 2003, 123, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Polhemus, D.A. Conservation of aquatic insects: Worldwide crisis or localized threats? Am. Zool. 1993, 33, 588–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Wesner, J.S. Seasonal variation in the trophic structure of a spatial prey subsidy linking aquatic and terrestrial food webs: Adult aquatic insects. Oikos 2010, 119, 170–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Hoang, D.H.; Bae, Y.J. Aquatic insect diversity in a tropical Vietnamese stream in comparison with that in a temperate Korean stream. Limnology 2006, 7, 45–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Maneechan, W.; Prommi, T.O. Diversity and distribution of aquatic insects in streams of the Mae Klong Watershed, Western Thailand. J. Entomol. 2015, 2015, 912451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Sundar, S.; Silva, D.P.; de Oliveira Roque, F.; Simião-Ferreira, J.; Heino, J. Predicting climate effects on aquatic true bugs in a tropical biodiversity hotspot. J. Insect Conserv. 2021, 25, 229–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Pramual, P.; Wongpakam, K. Seasonal variation of black fly (Diptera: Simuliidae) species diversity and community structure in tropical streams of Thailand. Entomol. Sci. 2010, 13, 17–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Thamsenanupap, P.; Seetapan, K.; Prommi, T. Caddisflies (Trichoptera, Insecta) as bioindicator of water quality assessment in a small stream in northern Thailand. Sains Malays. 2021, 50, 655–665. [Google Scholar]
  66. Kim, D.G.; Yoon, T.J.; Baek, M.J.; Bae, Y.J. Impact of rainfall intensity on benthic macroinvertebrate communities in a mountain stream under the East Asian monsoon climate. J. Freshw. Ecol. 2018, 33, 489–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Mekong River Commission. Understanding the Mekong River’s Hydrological Conditions: A Brief Commentary Note on the “Monitoring the Quantity of Water Flowing Through the Upper Mekong Basin Under Natural (Unimpeded) Conditions” study by Alan Basist and Claude Williams. Vientiane, MRC Secretariat. 2020. Available online: https://www.mrcmekong.org/resource/ajg4w9 (accessed on 29 April 2022).
  68. Mekong River Commission. Situation Report on Dry Season Hydrological Conditions in the Lower Mekong River Basin: November 2020–May 2021. Vientiane: MRC Secretariat. 2021. Available online: https://www.mrcmekong.org/assets/Publications/Dry-season-situation-report-Nov-2020-to-May-2021.pdf (accessed on 29 April 2022).
  69. Polhemus, D.A.; Polhemus, J.T. The Aphelocheirinae of tropical Asia (Heteroptera: Naucoridae). Department of Zoology, National University of Singapore. Raffles. Bull. Zool. 1988, 36, 167–300. [Google Scholar]
  70. Sites, R.W.; Willig, M.R. Microhabitat associations of three sympatric species of Naucoridae (Insecta: Hemiptera). Environ. Entomol. 1991, 20, 127–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Chester, E.T.; Robson, B.J. Drought refuges, spatial scale and recolonisation by invertebrates in non–perennial streams. Freshw. Biol. 2011, 56, 2094–2104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Boersma, K.S.; Bogan, M.T.; Henrichs, B.A.; Lytle, D.A. Invertebrate assemblages of pools in arid–land streams have high functional redundancy and are resistant to severe drying. Freshw. Biol. 2013, 59, 491–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Herbst, D.B.; Cooper, S.D.; Medhurst, R.B.; Wiseman, S.W.; Hunsaker, C.T. Drought ecohydrology alters the structure and function of benthic invertebrate communities in mountain streams. Freshw. Biol. 2019, 39, 10401–10417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Lake, P.S. Ecological effects of perturbation by drought in flowing waters. Freshw. Biol. 2003, 48, 1161–1172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Saffarinia, P.; Anderson, K.E.; Herbst, D.B. Effects of experimental multi-season drought on abundance, richness, and beta diversity patterns in perennially flowing stream insect communities. Hydrobiologia 2022, 849, 879–897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Andersen, N.M. The semiaquatic bugs (Hemiptera, Gerromorpha). In Phylogeny, Adaptations, Biogeography and Classification; Brill: Leiden, The Netherland, 1982; p. 455. [Google Scholar]
  77. Andersen, N.M. Classification, phylogeny, and zoogeography of the pond skater genus Gerris Fabricius (Hemiptera: Gerridae). Can. J. Zool. 1993, 71, 2473–2508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Taylor, S.J.; Mcpherson, J.E. Gerromorpha (Hemiptera: Heteroptera) in Southern Illinois: Species assemblages and habitats. Gt. Lakes Entomol. 2006, 39, 26. [Google Scholar]
  79. Yang, C.M.; Lua, H.K.; Yeo, K.L. Semiaquatic bug (Heteroptera: Gerromorpha) fauna in the nature reserves of Singapore. Gard Bull. 1997, 49, 313–319. [Google Scholar]
  80. Yule, C.M.; Sen, Y.H. Freshwater Invertebrates of the Malaysian Region; Academy of Sciences Malaysia: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 2004; pp. 457–490. [Google Scholar]
  81. Zettel, H. Five new species of Perittopus Fieber, 1861 (Hemiptera: Veliidae) fron Southeast Asia. Raffles Bull. Zol. 2001, 49, 109–120. [Google Scholar]
  82. Chen, P.P.; Nieser, N.A. Taxonomic Revision of the Oriental Water Strider Genus Metrocoris Mayr (Hemiptera, Gerridae). Part I, II Zoological Museum. Steenstrupia 1993, 19, 1–43, 45–82. [Google Scholar]
  83. Chen, P.P.; Zettel, H. A taxonomic revision of the Oriental water strider genus Ventidius Distant (Hemiptera, Gerromorpha, Gerridae). Tijdschr. Entomol. 1998, 141, 137–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Vitheepradit, A. The Aquatic and Semiaquatic Heteroptera of the Phu Pan and Mountain Ranges of Thailand. Master’s Thesis, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  85. Dolný, A.; Ožana, S.; Burda, M.; Harabiš, F. Effects of landscape patterns and their changes to species richness, species composition, and the conservation value of Odonates (insecta). Insects 2021, 12, 478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Danehy, R.J.; Bilby, R.E.; Justice, T.E.; Lester, G.T.; Jones, J.E.; Haddadi, S.S.; Merritt, G.D. Biological Diversity Responses to Flood Disturbance and Forest Management in Small, Forested Watersheds. Water 2021, 13, 2793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Polhemus, J.T.; Polhemus, D.A. Revision of the genus Hydrometra Latereille in Indochina and the western Malay Archipelago (Heteroptera: Hydrometridae). Bishop Museum Occasional Papers 1995, 43, 9–72. [Google Scholar]
  88. Lansbery, I. A review of Oriental species of Ranatra Fabricius (Hemiptera–Heteroptera: Nepidae). Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond. 1972, 124, 287–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Lansbery, I. A review of genus Cercotmetus Amyot & Serville, 1843 (Hemiptera–Heteroptera: Nepidae). Tijdschr. Entomol. 1973, 116, 83–106. [Google Scholar]
  90. Ometo, J.P.H.; Martinelli, L.A.; Ballester, M.V.; Gessner, A.; Krusche, A.V.; Victoria, R.L.; Williams, M. Effects of land use on water chemistry and macroinvertebrates in two streams of the Piracicaba river basin, southeast Brazil. Freshw. Biol. 2000, 44, 327–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Hepp, L.U.; Santos, S. Benthic communities of streams related to different land uses in a hydrographic basin in southern Brazil. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2009, 157, 305–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Hepp, L.U.; Milesi, S.V.; Biasi, C.; Restello, R.M. Effects of agricultural and urban impacts on macroinvertebrates assemblages in streams (Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil). Zoologia 2010, 27, 106–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Nessimian, J.L.; Venticinque, E.M.; Zuanon, J.; De Marco, P., Jr.; Gordo, M.; Fidelis, L. Land use, habitat integrity, and aquatic insect assemblages in Central Amazonian streams. Hydrobiologia 2008, 614, 117–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Batalla Salvarrey, A.V.; Kotzian, C.B.; Spies, M.R.; Braun, B. The influence of natural and anthropic environmental variables on the structure and spatial distribution along longitudinal gradient of macroinvertebrate communities in southern Brazilian streams. J. Insect Sci. 2014, 14, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Lock, K.; Adriaens, T.; Van De Meutter, F.; Goethals, P. Effect of water quality on waterbugs (Hemiptera: Gerromorpha & Nepomorpha) in Flanders (Belgium): Results from a large-scale field survey. Ann. Limnol. 2013, 49, 121–128. [Google Scholar]
  96. Ishadi, N.A.M.; Rawi, C.S.M.; Ahmad, A.H.; Abdul, N.H. The influence of heavy metals and water parameters on the composition and abundance of water bugs (Insecta: Hemiptera) in the Kerian River Basin, Perak, Malaysia. Trop. Life Sci. Res. 2014, 25, 61. [Google Scholar]
  97. Brasil, L.S.; Giehl, N.F.D.S.; Batista, J.D.; De Resende, B.O.; Cabette, H.S.R. Aquatic insects in organic and inorganic habitats in the streams on the Central Brazilian savanna. Rev. Colomb. Entomol. 2014, 43, 286–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  98. Dudgeon, D.; Arthington, A.H.; Gessner, M.O.; Kawabata, Z.I.; Knowler, D.J.; Leveque, C.; Sullivan, C.A. Freshwater biodiversity: Importance, threats, status and conservation challenges. Biol. Rev. 2006, 81, 163–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Sundar, S.; Heino, J.; Roque, F.D.O.; Simaika, J.P.; Melo, A.S.; Tonkin, J.D.; Nogueira, D.G.; Silva, D.P. Conservation of freshwater macroinvertebrate biodiversity in tropical regions. Aquat. Conserv. 2020, 30, 1238–1250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Diversity 14 00462 g001 550
Figure 1. Map of Kaeng Krachan National Park showing three protected sampling sites located inside the national parks, including Mae Kra Dung La Waterfall (MWF); Ban Krang (BK); Pa La-U Waterfall (PWF), and three unprotected sampling sites located outside the national parks, including Mae Kra Dung La Stream (MS); Huai Sat Yai (HSY); Huai Palaw (HPL).
Figure 1. Map of Kaeng Krachan National Park showing three protected sampling sites located inside the national parks, including Mae Kra Dung La Waterfall (MWF); Ban Krang (BK); Pa La-U Waterfall (PWF), and three unprotected sampling sites located outside the national parks, including Mae Kra Dung La Stream (MS); Huai Sat Yai (HSY); Huai Palaw (HPL).
Diversity 14 00462 g001
Diversity 14 00462 g002 550
Figure 2. Protected sampling sites located inside the national park: (a) Mae Kra Dung La Waterfall (MWF); (b) Ban Krang (BK); (c) Pa La-U Waterfall (PWF), and unprotected sampling sites located outside the national park: (d) Mae Kra Dung La Stream (MS); (e) Huai Sat Yai (HSY); (f) Huai Palaw (HPL).
Figure 2. Protected sampling sites located inside the national park: (a) Mae Kra Dung La Waterfall (MWF); (b) Ban Krang (BK); (c) Pa La-U Waterfall (PWF), and unprotected sampling sites located outside the national park: (d) Mae Kra Dung La Stream (MS); (e) Huai Sat Yai (HSY); (f) Huai Palaw (HPL).
Diversity 14 00462 g002
Diversity 14 00462 g003 550
Figure 3. Species richness of protected and unprotected sampling sites during seven collecting events.
Figure 3. Species richness of protected and unprotected sampling sites during seven collecting events.
Diversity 14 00462 g003
Diversity 14 00462 g004 550
Figure 4. nMDS ordination plot samples by taxa dissimilarity (abundance data) between protected and unprotected sampling sites in the seven collecting events (stress = 14.80). Green refers to protected sampling sites, red refers to unprotected sampling sites, and blue refers to species.
Figure 4. nMDS ordination plot samples by taxa dissimilarity (abundance data) between protected and unprotected sampling sites in the seven collecting events (stress = 14.80). Green refers to protected sampling sites, red refers to unprotected sampling sites, and blue refers to species.
Diversity 14 00462 g004
Table
Table 1. Physical characters of sampling sites in the study. * = protected sampling sites and √ = found.
Table 1. Physical characters of sampling sites in the study. * = protected sampling sites and √ = found.
Sampling SitesGPS
Coordinates		Stream Width (m) Average (Min-Max)Depth (m) Average (Min-Max)Riparian Width (m)Marginal VegetationSubstrate Types in Stream
BoulderCobbleGravelSand
MWF *13°11.175′ N
099°32.472′ E
(335 m)		5.78
(2.90–11.50)		0.16
(0.09–0.31)		>30√√√
BK *12°48.144′ N
099°25.640′ E
(386 m)		3.12
(2.00–4.80)		0.19
(0.05–0.37)		>30√ √
PWF *12°45.250′ N
099°78.848′ E
(232 m)		7.36
(1.40–4.23)		0.20
(0.04–0.45)		>30√√√
MS13°12.182′ N
099°32.500′ E
(350 m)		3.16
(1.56–4.45)		0.26
(0.07–0.44)		5–30 √
HSY12°30.832′ N
099°34.151′ E
(176 m)		7.80
(3.25–12.00)		0.33
(0.10–0.70)		1–5 √√
HPL12°32.017′ N
099°29.940′ E
(199 m)		9.37
(1.72–12.26)		0.21
(0.10–0.46)		1–5 √
Table
Table 2. Taxa collected from protected sampling sites located inside the national park and uprotected sampling sites located outside the national park. * = protected sampling sites.
Table 2. Taxa collected from protected sampling sites located inside the national park and uprotected sampling sites located outside the national park. * = protected sampling sites.
SpeciesSites
MWF *BK *PWF *MSHSYHPL
Nepomorpha
Aphelocheiridae
Aphelocheirus (M.) asiaticus (Hoberlandt & Stys) xx
Aphelocheirus (A.) grik Polhemus & Polhemus xx
Helotrephidae
Helotrephes otoeis Nieser & Chen x x
Hydrotrephes jani Zettelx x
Tiphotrephes indicus (Distant)x xx
Micronectidae
Micronecta quadristrigata Breddin x x
Naucoridae
Gestroiella limnocoroides Montandon xx
Gestroiella siamensis Polhemus, Polhemus & Sites xx
Heleolaccocoris ovatus (Montandon) x xx
Heleolaccocoris strabus (Montandon) x
Naucoris scutellaris (Stål)x
Nepidae
Cercotmetus asiaticus Amyot & Serville xx x
Ranatra thai Lansbury xx
Ranatra sp. A x
Notonectidae
Anisops nigrolineatus (Lundblad)x x
Aphelonecta gavini (Lunsbury)x x
Enithares ciliata (Fabricius)x
Nychia sappho Kirkaldyx x
Gerromorpha
Gerridae
Amemboa armata Polhemus & Andersenx xx x
Amemboa cristata Polhemus & Andersenxxx x
Limnogonus nitidus (Mayr)x xx x
Limnometra matsudai (Miyamoto) xx
Metrocoris acutus Chen & Nieser x
Metrocoris borneensis Polhemus x
Metrocoris malayensis Chen & Nieser x
Metrocoris nigrofasciatus Distant x
Metrocoris nigrofascioides (Chen & Nieser) xx
Metrocoris sp. A xx
Metrocoris sp. B x
Onychotrechus esakii Andersen x
Pleciogonus wongsirii Chen, Nieser &
Wattanachaiyingchareon		 xx
Ptilomera jariyae Vitheepradit & Sitesxxx
Ptilomera tigrina Uhlerxxxxxx
Rhagadotarsus kraepelini Breddin x
Rheumatogonus intermedius Hungerford xx
Rheumatagonus vietnamensis Zettel & Chen xx
Ventidius modulatus Lundblad xx
Ventidius pulai Cheng xx
Hebridae
Hebrus longisetosus Zettelx x
Hyrcanus saxatilis Andersenx
Hydrometridae
Hydrometra annamana Hungerford & Evansxx x
Hydrometra greeni Kirkaldy xx
Hydrometra kelantan Polhemus & Polhemus x
Hydrometra longicapitis Torre-Bueno xxx
Hydrometra orientalis Lundblad x
Mesoveliidae
Mesovelia horvathi Lundbladx xxxx
Mesovelia vittigera (Horváth) xxxx
Veliidae
Microvelia douglasi Scottxxxxxx
Microvelia genitalis Lundblad xxxx
Microvelia leveillei (Lethierry)x x
Microvelia sp. A xxx
Microvelia sp. B xx
Neoalardus typicus (Distant)x
Perittopus asiaticus Zettelx
Rhagovelia femorata Doverxxx xx
Rhagovelia inexpectata Zettelx
Rhagovelia sondaica Polhemus & Polhemusxx
Rhagovelia sumatrensis Lundblad x
Strongylovelia setosa (Zettel & Tran) xxx
Strongylovelia sp. Ax x
Species of Nepomorpha7165610
Species of Gerromorpha171327151215
Total species241433201825
Table
Table 3. Paired t-test of species richness between three protected and three unprotected sites (n = 3 for each). Mean = average species richness of the three study sites.
Table 3. Paired t-test of species richness between three protected and three unprotected sites (n = 3 for each). Mean = average species richness of the three study sites.
MonthsNMean ± SDStudent t-Test
Protected Sampling SitesUnprotected Sampling Sites(p) *
November 2018338.70 ± 4.0428.00 ± 3.610.239
January 2019343.30 ± 9.2938.30 ± 4.510.402
April 2019328.70 ± 4.1626.70 ± 7.090.197
July 2019324.30 ± 3.7917.00 ± 6.560.19
November 2019314.00 ± 6.2414.30 ± 4.510.944
March 2020352.30 ± 4.9345.70 ± 8.960.109
June 2020337.30 ± 5.6929.39 ± 4.730.134
* p > 0.05.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Attawanno, S.; Vitheepradit, A. Species Composition of Aquatic (Nepomorpha) and Semiaquatic (Gerromorpha) Heteroptera (Insecta: Hemiptera) in Kaeng Krachan National Park, Phetchaburi Province, Thailand. Diversity 2022, 14, 462. https://doi.org/10.3390/d14060462

AMA Style

Attawanno S, Vitheepradit A. Species Composition of Aquatic (Nepomorpha) and Semiaquatic (Gerromorpha) Heteroptera (Insecta: Hemiptera) in Kaeng Krachan National Park, Phetchaburi Province, Thailand. Diversity. 2022; 14(6):462. https://doi.org/10.3390/d14060462

Chicago/Turabian Style

Attawanno, Sajeemat, and Akekawat Vitheepradit. 2022. "Species Composition of Aquatic (Nepomorpha) and Semiaquatic (Gerromorpha) Heteroptera (Insecta: Hemiptera) in Kaeng Krachan National Park, Phetchaburi Province, Thailand" Diversity 14, no. 6: 462. https://doi.org/10.3390/d14060462

APA Style

Attawanno, S., & Vitheepradit, A. (2022). Species Composition of Aquatic (Nepomorpha) and Semiaquatic (Gerromorpha) Heteroptera (Insecta: Hemiptera) in Kaeng Krachan National Park, Phetchaburi Province, Thailand. Diversity, 14(6), 462. https://doi.org/10.3390/d14060462

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop