Next Article in Journal
Establishment and Experimental Validation of a Temperature–Unfrozen Water Content Model for Frozen Soil
Next Article in Special Issue
Picoplankton Groups and Their Responses to Environmental Factors in Small Cascade Hydropower Stations
Previous Article in Journal
A Comparison of the AHP and BWM Models for the Flash Flood Susceptibility Assessment: A Case Study of the Ibar River Basin in Montenegro
Previous Article in Special Issue
Analysis of the Water Quality of a Typical Industrial Park on the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau Using a Self-Organizing Map and Interval Fuzzy Number-Based Set-Pair Analysis
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Water
Volume 17
Issue 6
10.3390/w17060845
water-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
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Rice Fields and Aquatic Insect Biodiversity in Italy: State of Knowledge and Perspectives in the Context of Global Change

by
Tiziano Bo
1,2,
Anna Marino
1,2,*,
Simone Guareschi
1,2,
Alex Laini
1,2 and
Stefano Fenoglio
1,2
1
Department of Life Sciences and Systems Biology, University of Turin, 10123 Turin, Italy
2
ALPSTREAM—Alpine Stream Research Center, Parco del Monviso, 12030 Ostana, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Water 2025, 17(6), 845; https://doi.org/10.3390/w17060845
Submission received: 11 February 2025 / Revised: 7 March 2025 / Accepted: 13 March 2025 / Published: 15 March 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Impacts of Environmental Change and Human Activities on Aquatic Ecosystems)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Rice fields are one of the most important and extensive agro-ecosystems in the world. Italy is a major non-Asian rice producer, with a significant proportion of its yield originating from a vast area within the Po Valley, a region nourished by the waters of the Alps. While the biodiversity of these rice fields has been extensively documented for certain faunal groups, such as birds, there remains a paucity of research on the biodiversity of aquatic insects. A further challenge is the limited dissemination of findings, which have been primarily published in “gray” literature (local journals, newsletters and similar). Moreover, rice fields are of particular significance in the field of invasion biology, given their role in the arrival and spread of alien species. While the efficacy of rice fields as a substitute for the now-disappeared lowland natural environments is well documented, it is equally evident that traditional rice-growing techniques can require an unsustainable use of water resources, which threatens the biodiversity of the surrounding lotic systems. Here, we summarize and review multiple sources of entomological information from Italian rice fields, analyzing both publications in ISI journals and papers published in local journals (gray literature). In the near future, strategies that reduce the demand for irrigation, promote the cultivation of drought-tolerant crops, and utilize precision farming techniques will be implemented. The challenge will be balancing the need to reduce water withdrawal from rivers with the maintenance of wetlands where possible to support this pivotal component of regional biodiversity.

1. Rice Fields as Ecosystem and Their Biodiversity

Rice is the second most widely grown cereal crop and it is the staple food for over half the world’s human population. Consequently, rice paddies are one of the most important and extensive agro-ecosystems in several regions of the world [1,2]. Traditionally, the largest rice production areas are located in Asia, where ten countries are responsible for 85% of global rice production [3]. In particular, China and India are the top rice producers, followed by Bangladesh, Indonesia, Vietnam, Thailand, Burma, Philippines, Japan, and Pakistan. This means that, since ancient times, huge portions of these territories have been turned into rice fields, with enormous social, environmental, and ecological consequences. Outside Asia, rice production is prevalently concentrated in some parts of South America and Africa. In Europe, Italy is the main producer of rice, and 93% of Italian production comes from what is called the ‘golden triangle of rice,’ in the northwestern part of the country, an area of around 250,000 hectares between the provinces of Vercelli, Novara and Pavia (Figure 1).
In Italy, rice cultivation has expanded since the second half of the 19th century, due to the availability of water from the Alps and the construction of a vast network of artificial canals. These canals distribute water in the lowland areas and are primarily fed by the Cavour Canal, a significant hydraulic work realized in 1866 and fed by the Po and other Alpine lotic systems. Such a concentration of agricultural activity has led to a profound transformation of the landscape and territory of northwestern Italy, with effects on local biodiversity that are not yet well known, because these often depend on the type and evolution of cultivation techniques. Additionally, though rice fields are a man-made environment, their biodiversity represents an interesting subject of study. In fact, rice fields are generally recognized as important substitute habitats for many aquatic species in many agro-ecosystems throughout the world [4]. Rice fields, along with their connected aquatic (e.g., canals, rivers) and terrestrial (e.g., adjacent crop and grass cultivations) habitats, constitute a mosaic of rapidly changing environmental situations, extremely rich in ecotones, that can potentially harbor a rich and unique biological diversity.
Moreover, these agro-ecosystems represent an intriguing area of study in the context of entomological biodiversity, given their potential for the inadvertent introduction of alien species. In fact, despite the dominance of aquatic insects in most inland waters, their unparalleled taxonomic diversity, and their occupation of nearly all trophic niches, there is a notable absence of invasive insects in freshwater, with the exception of a few examples, some of which are specifically observed in rice fields [5]. The importance of rice fields in insect biodiversity studies is evidenced by the number of related publications, with a specific bibliographic review using the terms rice fields + insects + biodiversity in Scopus (II/04/2025) yielding a total of 121 scientific papers (Figure 2). In particular, studies on the biodiversity of paddy fields have been carried out in different parts of the world, such as Sri Lanka [6], California [7], Sumatra [8], Egypt [9], Kenya [10], Brazil [11], and France [12]; however, a similar contribution is very scarce for the Italian rice fields, that constitute, as mentioned before, the largest rice cultivation area in Europe.
The objective of this review is to collate the published information on the entomological biodiversity of Italian rice fields, which is available in both grey and scientific literature. This paper represents the inaugural attempt to collate and disseminate this information to an international scientific audience. Furthermore, we aim to examine potential evolutionary scenarios in light of climate change, which is rapidly altering the environmental conditions of this area and will consequently have profound repercussions on both agricultural practices and biodiversity.

2. Insect Biodiversity of Italian Rice Fields

The biodiversity of Italian rice paddies has been widely explored with regard to certain systematic groups, such as birds, e.g., [13,14], while information regarding aquatic insects is scarcer and, above all, very scattered. These artificial environments host a peculiar aquatic invertebrate fauna that is potentially rich and diverse. In Table 1 we report a list of the most common freshwater insects that inhabit rice fields.
Among the earliest studies that analyzed the entomofauna of Italian rice fields, we can report the publications of [15,16] which focused on aquatic Diptera and Trichoptera. A significant portion of these early works focused on species and groups of agricultural interest, setting a course that continued in the following decades [17,18,19]. Evidently, the stimulus for these studies derived from a clear interest in pest control, with the larval stages of certain Trichoptera species (primarily those of the family Phryganeidae) and Diptera (mainly Chironomidae and Tipulidae) being the focus of particular investigation. Apart from these groups, Stratyiomidae [20] and Ephydridae [21] were also reported because they are harmful to rice cultivation.
However, it is only in recent times that the interest of entomologists has shifted towards groups of no agricultural interest. This shift is largely due to the rapid changes in the agricultural landscape of the Po Valley since the Second World War, including habitat simplification, the mechanization of cultivation practices, and, most notably, the progressive disappearance of natural wetlands. In this scenario, rice fields have assumed an increasingly important role as surrogate environments, essentially the only habitat in which lowland aquatic insect populations can survive. For instance, the Odonata, a very ancient order of Palaeoptera, are mostly associated with lentic or semi-lentic environments and thus are among the most studied and best-known groups in rice fields, partly due to their aesthetic appeal, apical trophic role, and ease of observation. Noteworthy studies in this field include [22,23,24].
The other Paleopteran group, Ephemeroptera, is known from only very few species in Italian rice fields. These species have a high environmental tolerance, eurythermic and euryoxybiont habits, and rapid life cycles, such as Baetis rhodani, Caenis horaria, and Serratella ignita [25,26]. The other representatives of this ancient insect’s order prefer lotic habitats characterized by running water and high oxygen levels. Among Hemimetabolous orders, in Italian rice fields, both Orthoptera and Hemiptera are reported. The first order is not strictly aquatic, inhabits rice field banks and is riparian [27], thus it is of minor importance in this paper. Aquatic and semiaquatic bugs (Heteroptera) are well represented in these anthropogenic habitats, mainly with the families Corixidae, Notonectidae, Gerridae, Pleidae, Nepidae [28]. Many of these families are predators, while others have a phytophagous diet consisting of plant remains and straw resulting from rice cutting. Homoptera are also reported for Italian rice fields, such as Sipha gliceriae and Rhopalosiphum padi [29].
Among holometabolous groups, Diptera is one of the most studied, partially because an important line of entomological research in rice fields has focused on the role that these environments play as a habitat for numerous species of hematophagous flies and their possible predators, as reported by [30], especially those belonging to the Culicidae family. The importance of these studies is heightened by the fact that rising temperatures and the globalization of transport have increased the risk of spreading new diseases such as Chikungunya, Dengue and other infections [31,32,33,34,35,36,37]. Among the most common Diptera found in rice fields, we report the following families: Chironomidae, Ceratopogonidae, Culicidae, Psychodidae, Stratiomyidae, Limoniidae, Tipulidae, Ephydridae, Syrphidae, Sciomyzidae, Empididae, and Muscidae.
Water beetles (order: Coleoptera) are a characteristic group inhabiting lentic and semi-lentic environments (ponds, oxbow lakes, marshes, abandoned meanders) and have found in rice fields a perfect surrogate for what had been their natural habitats in the Po floodplains. Among these, the Dytiscidae family stands out for its richness and diversity. These beetles colonize rice fields in both their larval and adult stages and serve as apex predators in these often-fishless environments, e.g., [30,38,39,40]. Among Dytiscidae, Hydrogliphagus geminus has been documented as an early colonizer of rice fields, and has been shown to be an effective controller of mosquito larvae [30]. Interestingly, a faunistic note on the distribution of Noteridae in southern Piedmont reports that rice fields are among the few habitats where these organisms are common and abundant [41]. Species from the family Hydrophilidae are also listed in these habitats, with the recurrent presence of Hydrous piceus, the largest beetle in Europe [17,42]. Apart from these predaceous groups, other strictly aquatic families can be found in paddy fields: Elmidae, Dryopidae, Helophoridae, Limnebiidae. Furthermore, Chrysomelidae Donacinae are occasionally found in northern Italian rice fields [43,44,45]. From another perspective, Curculionidae and Erirhinidae are groups of growing importance in Italian rice fields, because of the arrival of the invasive Sitophilus oryzae and Lissorhoptrus oryzophilus [46,47], which represents a serious agricultural problem and requires dedicated and continuous management.
A few Lepidoptera are reported as potential pests in rice cultivation. In particular Ostrinia nubilalis, Paraponyx spp. (Crambidae) and Mythimna unipuncta (Noctuidae) represent a threat because of their stem boring habits [48,49].
Apart from more faunistic oriented studies (Figure 3), there are also several studies with a broader focus, ranging from older research (e.g., [50]) to those that are more recently published (e.g., [51,52,53]).
However, despite the large territorial extension, studies on the rice field’s freshwater invertebrates in Italy are few, are often dated and are mostly spread out, with an important diffusion in grey literature.
In Table 2 we show the results of a Scopus query on selected keywords related to aspects of applied entomology, targeting scientific publications produced globally or focused on the Italian situation. In this context, the scarcity of studies on the Italian context is presumably attributable to two factors. Firstly, there appears to be an effective absence of research in this area. Secondly, and perhaps more pertinently, these studies are predominantly disseminated through non-international journals and grey literature (as evident in our References section). About 80% of the studies related to paddy-rice entomofauna in Italy are published in non-ISI journals.

3. Rice Fields and Insect Biodiversity in the Current Global Change Scenario: Issues, Problems and New Agricultural Approaches

As previously mentioned, Italian rice fields represent an important biodiversity hotspot for some groups of insects, e.g., [26,40]. In particular, they represent the only and last lentic or semi-lentic systems of the lowland areas of the Po Valley, once characterized by abandoned meanders, wetlands and oxbows, and gradually transformed over the centuries into one of the most important and productive agricultural landscapes in the world [54]. However, the management of rice fields is a contentious issue, particularly with regard to water supply. While the presence of water in the rice fields ensures the maintenance of the aforementioned biodiversity, in the context of the current climate change, there is an increasing need to decrease water consumption in agriculture, especially because the rivers in this area can be under multiple stressors (both natural and anthropogenic) for long periods of the year. For example, the decline in snowfall in the Alps and the marked increase in both air and water temperatures have indeed precipitated a disruption in the hydrological regime of most northern Italian rivers, which now exhibit diminished flow rates and frequently experience a lack of surface water for several months each year. This phenomenon, characterized by the adoption of an intermittent flow pattern, signifies a true “Mediterraneanisation” that has prompted numerous rivers to transition from a perennial to an abnormal intermittent regime, e.g., [55]. This phenomenon carries profound implications for the biodiversity of lotic environments [56] and the chemical, microbiological, and ecological quality of the affected water bodies [57]. Considering these challenges, there is an urgent need to explore novel sustainable agricultural techniques in rice cultivation.
For instance, it should be noticed that, in the rice-growing area of the Po valley, it has recently become a “good practice” to carry out winter flooding of the paddy fields after rice cutting (Figure 4).
In this way, the water demand in spring is greatly reduced and greenhouse gas emissions fall significantly [52,58,59]. The reduced need for water withdrawal from surrounding lotic systems like rivers and streams is another positive aspect of crucial importance for regional freshwater biodiversity. Considering data from recent decades on temperatures and patterns of snow and rain, this agricultural practice seems to be a promising way to follow in the coming years. Consequently, even during the winter months, rice paddies have the capacity to provide habitats for a variety of invertebrates, thereby enhancing the “metabolic power” of these human-made lentic ecosystems. Moreover, at these latitudes, e.g., [60], the flooding in the cold months rather than in the summer months mimics a more natural condition that can be beneficial to the indigenous fauna and detrimental to alien species (see details below).

4. Rice Fields and Their Role in the Biological Invasion Context

Rice fields also represent an important context of study regarding invasion biology. In fact, artificial and highly modified water bodies frequently experience the arrival of multiple introduced species, via intentional and unintentional releases, due to their landscape position (e.g., in an anthropogenic matrix) and level of connectivity [61].
In any geographical context, rice fields act as intermittent, human-regulated systems characterized by alternating dry and wet phases. This highly dynamic condition can be particularly stressful for exclusively aquatic invaders, yet in specific contexts, it may allow for multiple colonizations through different phases of the hydroperiod [62].
Aquatic insects represent a dominant component of the invertebrate fauna; however, they are rarely invasive in freshwater ecosystems [5], with few notable exceptions, such as the Asian tiger mosquito (Aedes albopicutus). Flooded rice fields are not an exception to this, with fish, crustaceans and mollusks identified as the main aquatic invasive taxa so far (see references below).
Rice fields in Mediterranean areas undergo summer inundation, a phenomenon rarely observed in natural temporary water bodies in the region, which may specifically facilitate invasion by warm and (sub-) tropical species. For instance, several non-native crustaceans (e.g., ostracods) have been passively dispersed through rice cultivation from Asia to European regions such as Spain and Italy, e.g., [63,64]. Similarly, seasonally flooded rice fields in the Ebro Delta (N Spain) have been invaded by the South American apple snail Pomacea maculate, which is quite resistant to high temperatures and dry conditions [65], as well as by numerous invasive fish and the red swamp crayfish Procambarus clarkii [66]. The latter example being particularly challenging due to the crayfish’s digging behavior and the structural damage they can cause to draining structures [67], as well as their consumption of rice seed and plants [68].
In temperate northern Italy, spring inundations were the most common practice, creating temporal lowland ecosystems in an intensive agricultural landscape, often rich in plant and animal invaders. Semi-aquatic species, like those of the family Erirhinidae (Coleoptera), have been particularly highlighted in rice fields. The abovementioned Rice Water Weevil, Lissorhoptrus oryzophilus (Kuschel), native of North America, has been detected in most of the Italian paddy fields area due to both the active dispersal of adults and accidental movements caused by human transportation [69,70]. In this context, the use of chemical products like pyrethroid insecticides (e.g., alfacipermetrine) seems to control the species’ population in the short term, despite affecting other aquatic life forms (e.g., insects and other invertebrates [12]). The occurrences of the aquatic fern Azolla filiculoides in Italy, which is native to the warm, temperate and subtropical Americas, suggest the necessity of further research specifically on the potentially co-occurring introduction of the species Stenopelmus rufinasus (Curculionidae), a semi-aquatic specialist herbivore known to feed on its leaves and which is already recorded in other Mediterranean countries [71]. This is of special concern considering the use of Azolla as a biofertilizer in rice fields outside its native range (e.g., Italy [72]). Recently, the presence of adults of Halyomorpha halys (Stål) (Hemiptera, Pentatomidae), native to East Asia, feeding on panicles has been highlighted in northern Italy and this marks the first evidence of an association between this species and rice, a crop not previously recorded as a host plant [73]. Overall, these ecosystems, both in Italy and other geographic contexts, can easily serve as gateway for the arrival and spread of species, facilitating the secondary dispersions of non-native species in other ecosystems (e.g., nearby wetlands [74]), highlighting the need for more interdisciplinary research on this topic.

5. Future Perspectives in Rice Field Entomological Research

Monitoring insects in rice fields with traditional methods is challenging because of sampling- and identification-related issues. Collecting insects from large areas requires a huge sampling effort, especially considering that sampling must be repeated over time to cope with species-specific life cycles [75]. This problem can lead to rare species, taxa with a localized distribution or pests at the initial stages of outbreak not being effectively detected. Moreover, most aquatic insects are present in water at the larval/nymphal stage (e.g., dipterans, mayflies, dragonflies) for which the identification at species level is limited by the lack of diagnostic characters and suitable identification keys. In recent years, DNA barcoding has emerged as a valuable and promising tool to overcome the above-mentioned obstacles, e.g., [76]. DNA metabarcoding is a technique for the genetic identification of organisms from a composite sample of organisms (bulk metabarcoding) or an environmental matrix (environmental DNA [77]). Metabarcoding usually archives a higher taxonomic resolution than morphological identification and differentiates cryptic species lacking morphological diagnostic characters [78,79]. Moreover, it can be used for studying intraspecific diversity for inferring biogeographical patterns [80,81] or fine-scale community assembly processes [76].
Although genetic identification of insects through DNA metabarcoding is appealing, only a limited number of studies have used this technique in rice fields. In rice fields, environmental DNA has been successfully used for targeting vertebrates, including snakes [82], anura [83] and birds [84]. It has also been used for the detection of insects such as the charismatic giant water bug Kirkaldyia deyrolli (Heteroptera: Belostomatidae [85]) and parasitoid wasps [86], though few works have targeted the entire insect community or groups of orders [87]. Interestingly, occurrences of insects in rice fields can also be obtained by targeting the stomach contents of fish (in case of presence) when performing diet analysis, e.g., [88]. DNA metabarcoding is a cost-effective technique that can be used in monitoring the biodiversity of rice fields. However, it suffers from some limitations that must be addressed when designing an eDNA monitoring campaign. Small or rare taxa can still be missed, especially when using bulk metabarcoding, where the biomass of abundant taxa can exceed those of small and rare taxa by orders of magnitude. Problems with reference datasets used for the taxonomic assignment of sequences can potentially affect the number of species found with DNA metabarcoding [89,90]. For example, sequences assigned to the wrong species and the lack of sequences for some species are major problems that will probably be mitigated in the near future due to the ongoing barcoding and metabarcoding initiatives [91]. Currently, DNA metabarcoding can be used as a complement to the traditional monitoring of rice fields, with the aim to create more comprehensive species inventories or as an early detection method of both agriculture pests and non-native species in general.

6. Conclusions

There is a great amount of evidence that climate change is profoundly altering the characteristics and dynamics of natural systems on a global scale [92]. Freshwater environments have been identified as being particularly vulnerable to climate change, due to the increase in water temperatures and the disruption of hydrologic cycles, with implications for their biodiversity [93,94,95]. This phenomenon can be potentially evident also in man-made aquatic agro-ecosystems, such as rice fields, where fluctuations in precipitation, temperature, and evaporation have been shown to exert a pivotal role, both directly (e.g., by altering environmental conditions) and indirectly (e.g., by leading to variations in agricultural practices). The aforementioned problem is of particular significance within the study area of this research. Indeed, Italy’s rice-growing area, which is one of the largest in the world outside of Asia, coincides with one of the most anthropized regions on the planet and is fed by water from the Alps, one of the areas in which climate change is occurring at a significantly faster rate [96].
In the near future, strategies that reduce the demand for irrigation, promote the cultivation of drought-tolerant crops and utilize precision farming techniques will probably be implemented. Consequently, it is likely that the Italian rice-growing areas will experience a significant reduction in wetland areas and aquatic habitats. The main challenge, for multiple stakeholders with diverse interests, will inevitably be to, where possible, balance the need to reduce water diversion from rivers with the maintenance of permanent wetlands, in order to support this essential role of aquatic insects in regional biodiversity and in freshwater metabolic processes.
This review, in addition to underlining the importance of rice paddies from a strictly biological and conservation point of view, seeks to represent a small starting point to provide management guidance and tools for cultivating more sustainably agricultural environments essential for human livelihood. The implementation of monitoring, verification and control plans in sample rice growing areas can be a first step towards understanding, protecting and combining the conservation of species with more environmentally friendly agricultural practices, without affecting the final yield of the crop. Finally, greater knowledge and presence in the field can promptly signal the arrival of alien insect species that are potentially harmful and invasive.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, investigation, writing, review and editing, all authors; funding acquisition, T.B. and S.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by the Agritech National Research Centre related to Spoke 4 “Multifunctional and resilient agriculture and forestry systems for the mitigation of climate change risks” funded by the European Union Next-generation EU (PNRR)—Mission 4 Component 2, investment 1.4—D.D. 1032 17/06/2022, CN00000022.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank E. Guafa and A. Millán (University of Murcia) for their useful suggestions, M. Marcucci for his kind support, and A. Morisi for the photos of invertebrates and the valuable and continuous teachings.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. FAO—Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. OECD-FAO Agricul Outlook 2011–2030; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  2. Kumar, N.; Chhokar, R.S.; Meena, R.P.; Kharub, A.S.; Gill, S.C.; Tripathi, S.C.; Gupta, O.P.; Mangrauthia, S.K.; Sundaram, R.M.; Sawant, C.P.; et al. Challenges and opportunities in productivity and sustainability of rice cultivation system: A critical review in Indian perspective. Cereal Res. Commun. 2021, 50, 573–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Muthayya, S.; Sugimoto, J.D.; Montgomery, S.; Maberly, G.F. An overview of global rice production, supply, trade, and consumption. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2014, 1324, 7–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Chester, E.T.; Robson, B.J. Anthropogenic refuges for freshwater biodiversity: Their ecological characteristics and management. Biol. Conserv. 2013, 166, 64–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Fenoglio, S.; Bonada, N.; Guareschi, S.; López-Rodríguez, M.J.; Millán, A.; de Figueroa, J.M.T. Freshwater ecosystems and aquatic insects: A paradox in biological invasions. Biol. Lett. 2016, 12, 20151075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Edirisinghe, J.P.; Bambaradeniya, C.N. Rice fields: An ecosystem rich in biodiversity. J. Natl. Sci. Found. Sri Lanka 2006, 34, 57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Hesler, L.S.; Grigarick, A.A.; Oraze, M.J.; Palrang, A.T. Arthropod fauna of conventional and organic rice fields in California. J. Econ. Entomol. 1993, 86, 149–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Herlinda, S.; Karenina, T.; Irsan, C.; Pujiastuti, Y. Arthropods inhabiting flowering non-crop plants and adaptive vegetables planted around paddy fields of freshwater swamps of South Sumatra, Indonesia. Biodiversitas 2019, 20, 3328–3339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Hendawi, A.; Sherif, M.; Abada, A.; El-Abashi, M. Aquatic and semiaquatic insects occurring in Egyptian rice fields and hazardous effects of insecticides. Egypt. J. Agric. Res. 2005, 83, 493–501. [Google Scholar]
  10. Service, M.W. Mortalities  of  the  immature  stages  of  species  B  of  the  Anopheles gambiae  complex  in  Kenya: Comparison  between   rice  fields  and temporary pools, identification of predators, and effects of insecticidal spraying.  J. Med. Entomol. 1997, 13, 535–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Panizzon, J.P.; Macedo, V.R.M.; Machado, V.; Fiuza, L.M. Microbiological and physical–chemical water quality of the rice fields in Sinos River’s basin, Southern Brazil. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2013, 185, 2767–2775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Suhling, F.; Befeld, S.; Häusler, M.; Katzur, K.; Lepkojus, S.; Mesleard, F. Effects of insecticide applications on macroinvertebrate density and biomass in rice-fields in the Rhône-delta, France. Hydrobiologia 2000, 431, 69–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Fasola, M.; Ruiz, X. The Value of Rice Fields as Substitutes for Natural Wetlands for Waterbirds in the Mediterranean Region. Col. Waterbirds 1996, 19, 122–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Longoni, V. Rice fields and waterbirds in the Mediterranean region and the Middle East. Waterbirds 2010, 33 (Suppl. S1), 83–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Del Guercio, G. I Friganeidi nuocciono al riso. I tafani del riso. Le larve delle tipule nocive al riso (In Italian). Redia 1911, 7, 466–467. [Google Scholar]
  16. Cavazza, F. Ricerche intorno alle specie dannose alla coltivazione del riso (Oryza sativa) e specialmente al Chironomus cavazzai Kieff. Boll. Lab. Zool. Gen. Agric. 1914, 6, 320–331. [Google Scholar]
  17. Moretti, G.P. Note sulla fauna entomologica delle risaie. Atti Soc. Ital. Sci. Nat. 1932, 71, 61–85. [Google Scholar]
  18. Moretti, G.P. I tricotteri delle risaie. Atti Soc. Ital. Sci. Nat. 1934, 73, 104–116. [Google Scholar]
  19. Cocchi, G. Ricerche sui Ditteri Chironomidi dannosi al riso nella bassa Bolognese. Boll. Oss. Mal. Piante Bologna 1966, 1, 39–64. [Google Scholar]
  20. Goidanich, A. Contributi alla conoscenza dell’entomofauna di risaia. 1. Gli Straziomidi: Mancati nemici del riso. Risicoltura 1939, 29, 221–230. [Google Scholar]
  21. Zangheri, S. Un dittero minatore del riso nel basso ferrarese (Hydrellia griseola Fallen, Dipt. Ephydridae). Boll. Soc. Entomol. Ital. 1956, 86, 12–16. [Google Scholar]
  22. Giugliano, L.; Hardersen, S.; Santini, G. Odonata communities in retrodunal ponds: A comparison of sampling methods. Int. J. Odonatol. 2012, 15, 13–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Golfieri, B.; Hardersen, S.; Maiolini, B.; Surian, N. Odonates as indicators of the ecological integrity of the river corridor: Development and application of the Odonate River Index (ORI) in northern Italy. Ecol. Indic. 2016, 61, 234–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Giuliano, D.; Bogliani, G. Odonata in rice agroecosystems: Testing good practices for their conservation. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2019, 275, 65–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Lupi, D.; Savoldelli, S.; Rocco, A.; Rossaro, B. Italian rice agroecosystems: A threat to insect biodiversity? Landsc. Manag. Funct. Biodivers. IOBC Bull. 2012, 75, 127–131. [Google Scholar]
  26. Lupi, D.; Rocco, A.; Rossaro, B. Benthic macroinvertebrates in Italian rice fields. J. Limnol. 2013, 72, 184–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Giuliano, D.; Cardarelli, E.; Bogliani, G. Grass management intensity affects butterfly and orthopteran diversity on rice field banks. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2018, 267, 147–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Cianferoni, F.; Graziani, F.; Dioli, P.; Ceccolini, F. Review of the occurrence of Halyomorpha halys (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Pentatomidae) in Italy, with an update of its European and World distribution. Biologia 2018, 73, 599–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. AA.VV. “Il riso”, coordinamento scientifico di A. Ferrero. In Collana Coltura & Cultura; Bologna Script, Ed.; ideata e coordinata da R. Angelini; Bayer CropScience: Bologna, Italy, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  30. Bellini, R.; Pederzani, F.; Pilani, R.; Veronesi, R.; Maini, S. Hydroglyphus pusillus (Fabricius) (Coleoptera Dytiscidae): Its role as a mosquito larvae predator in rice fields. Boll. Dell’istituto Di Entomol. ‘G. Grandi’ Dell’ Univ. Di Bologna 2000, 54, 155–163. [Google Scholar]
  31. Toma, L.; Cipriani, M.; Goffredo, M.; Romi, R.; Lelli, R. First report on entomological field activities for the surveillance of West Nile disease in Italy. Vet. Ital 2008, 44, 499–512. [Google Scholar]
  32. Di Luca, M.; Boccolini, D.; Severini, F.; Toma, L.; Barbieri, F.M.; Massa, A.; Romi, R. A 2-year entomological study of potential malaria vectors in Central Italy. Vector-Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2009, 9, 703–711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Boccolini, D.; Toma, L.; Luca, M.D.; Severini, F.; Cocchi, M.; Bella, A.; Romi, R. Impact of environmental changes and human-related factors on the potential malaria vector, Anopheles labranchiae (Diptera: Culicidae), in Maremma, Central Italy. J. Med. Entomol. 2012, 49, 833–842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Rumpf, S.B.; Gravey, M.; Brönnimann, O.; Luoto, M.; Cianfrani, C.; Mariethoz, G.; Guisan, A. From white to green: Snow cover loss and increased vegetation productivity in the European Alps. Science 2022, 376, 1119–1122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Rosà, R.; Marini, G.; Bolzoni, L.; Neteler, M.; Metz, M.; Delucchi, L.; Rizzoli, A. Early warning of West Nile virus mosquito vector: Climate and land use models successfully explain phenology and abundance of Culex pipiens mosquitoes in north-western Italy. Parasites Vectors 2014, 7, 269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Calzolari, M.; Mosca, A.; Montarsi, F.; Grisendi, A.; Scremin, M.; Roberto, P.; Albieri, A. Distribution and abundance of Aedes caspius (Pallas, 1771) and Aedes vexans (Meigen, 1830) in the Po Plain (northern Italy). Parasites Vectors 2024, 17, 452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. González, M.A.; Chaskopoulou, A.; Georgiou, L.; Frontera, E.; Cáceres, F.; Masia, M.; Figuerola, J. Mosquito management strategies in European rice fields: Environmental and public health perspectives. J. Environ. Manag. 2024, 370, 122534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Lupi, D.; Jucker, C.; Rocco, A. Rice fields as a hot spot of water beetles (Coleoptera Adephaga and Polyphaga). Redia 2014, 97, 95–112. [Google Scholar]
  39. Zanella, F. Biocenosi delle risaie con particolare riferimento ai Culicidi. Disinfest. Ig. Ambient. 2000, 17, 12–20. [Google Scholar]
  40. Bo, T.; Fenoglio, S. Biodiversità e gestione delle risaie: Un caso di studio inerente alle comunità di invertebrati acquatici della Lomellina (PV). Pianura 2024, 44, 112–121. [Google Scholar]
  41. Bosi, G.; Bo, T.; Fenoglio, S. Alcune considerazioni sulla distribuzione di Noteridae e Dityscidae (Coleoptera) nella provincia di Alessandria. Riv. Piemont. Stor. Nat. 2009, 30, 79–93. [Google Scholar]
  42. Campadelli, G. Due abitatori dell’acqua: Hydrous piceus L. e Dytiscus marginalis L. Nat. Mont. 1982, 29, 59–63. [Google Scholar]
  43. Campaioli, S.; Ghetti, P.F.; Minelli, A.; Ruffo, S. Manuale per il Riconoscimento dei Macroinvertebrati Delle Acque Dolci Italiane (Vol. I); Provincia Autonoma di Trento: Trento, Italy, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  44. Campaioli, S.; Ghetti, P.F.; Minelli, A.; Ruffo, S. Manuale per il Riconoscimento dei Macroinvertebrati Delle Acque Dolci Italiane (Vol. II); Provincia Autonoma di Trento: Trento, Italy, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  45. Giudici, M.L.; Villa, B. The rice leaf bug, Trigonotylus caelestialium Kirkaldy, on rice in Italy. In Proceedings of the International Temperate Rice Conference, Novara, Italy, 25–28 June 2007; pp. 146–147. [Google Scholar]
  46. Gelosi, A. Punteruolo del riso (Sitophilus oryzae Linneus) [Biologia e lotta]. Inf. Fitopatol. 1982, 32, 31–34. [Google Scholar]
  47. Lupi, D.; Cenghialta, C.; Giudici, M.L.; Villa, B.; Tabacchi, M. Prime acquisizioni sulla biologia e sul contenimento di Lissorhoptrus oryzophilus (punteruolo acquatico del riso) in Lombardia. In Atti Giornate Fitopatologiche; CLUEB: Bologna, Italy, 2008; pp. 245–246. [Google Scholar]
  48. Giudici, M.L.; Villa, B. The armyworm Mythimna unipuncta (Haworth) found on rice in Italy. In Proceedings of the Conference “Challenges and Opportunities for Sustainable Rice-Based Production Systems”, Turin, Italy, 13–15 September 2004; pp. 13–15. [Google Scholar]
  49. Magagnoli, S.; Lanzoni, A.; Masetti, A.; Depalo, L.; Albertini, M.; Ferrari, R.; Burgio, G. Sustainability of strategies for Ostrinia nubilalis management in Northern Italy: Potential impact on beneficial arthropods and aflatoxin contamination in years with different meteorological conditions. Crop Prot. 2021, 142, 105529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Supino, F. Note sulla fauna delle risaie. R. Ist. Lomb. Sci. Lett. 1932, 54, 1–12. [Google Scholar]
  51. Savini, D.; Occhipinti-Ambrogi, A. Bad Moon Rising: Il gambero rosso della Louisiana, una minaccia per gli ecosistemi acquatici della Lombardia. Mem. Della Soc. Ital. Sci. Nat. Mus. Civ. Stor. Nat. Milano 2008, 36, 19–20. [Google Scholar]
  52. Kraehmer, H.; Thomas, C.; Vidotto, F. Rice production in Europe. In Rice Production Worldwide; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 93–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Rossaro, B.; Marziali, L.; Cortesi, P. The effects of tricyclazole treatment on aquatic invertebrates in a rice paddy field. CLEAN–Soil Air Water 2014, 42, 29–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Guareschi, S.; Laini, A.; Viaroli, P.; Bolpagni, R. Integrating habitat-and species-based perspectives for wetland conservation in lowland agricultural landscapes. Biodivers. Conserv. 2020, 29, 153–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Piano, E.; Doretto, A.; Falasco, E.; Fenoglio, S.; Gruppuso, L.; Nizzoli, D.; Viaroli, P.; Bona, F. If Alpine streams run dry: The drought memory of benthic communities. Aquat. Sci. 2019, 81, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Gruppuso, L.; Falasco, E.; Fenoglio, S.; Marino, A.; Nizzoli, D.; Piano, E.; Bona, F. Dataset of a flow intermittency study: Benthic communities of 13 alpine intermittent rivers. Data Brief 2024, 54, 110449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Marino, A.; Bertolotti, S.; Macrì, M.; Bona, F.; Bonetta, S.; Falasco, E.; Fenoglio, S. Impact of wastewater treatment and drought in an Alpine region: A multidisciplinary case study. Heliyon 2024, 10, e35290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Vitali, A.; Moretti, B.; Lerda, C.; Said-Pullicino, D.; Celi, L.; Romani, M.; Fogliatto, S.; Vidotto, F. Conservation tillage in temperate rice cropping systems: Crop production and soil fertility. Field Crops Res. 2024, 308, 109–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Vitali, A.; Russo, F.; Moretti, B.; Romani, M.; Vidotto, F.; Fogliatto, S.; Celi, L.; Said-Pullicino, D. Interaction between water, crop residue and fertilization management on the source-differentiated nitrogen uptake by rice. Biol. Fertil. Soils 2024, 60, 757–772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Monteleone, B.; Borzí, I. Drought in the Po Valley: Identification, Impacts and Strategies to Manage the Events. Water 2024, 16, 1187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Francis, R.A.; Chadwick, M.A. Invasive alien species in freshwater ecosystems: A brief overview. In A Handbook of Global Freshwater Invasive Species; Francis, R.A., Ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2012; pp. 3–24. [Google Scholar]
  62. Guareschi, S.; South, J. Biological invasions in intermittent rivers and streams: Current knowledge, and future frontiers. Ecosistemas 2024, 33, 2600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Rossi, V.; Benassi, G.; Veneri, M.; Bellavere, C.; Menozzi, P.; Moroni, A.; Mckenzie, K.G. Ostracoda of the Italian ricefields thirty years on: New synthesis and hypothesis. J. Limnol. 2003, 62, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Valls, L.; Rueda, J.; Mesquita-Joanes, F. Rice fields as facilitators of freshwater invasions in protected wetlands: The case of Ostracoda (Crustacea) in the Albufera Natural Park (E Spain). Zool. Stud. 2014, 53, 68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Oosterom, M.V.L.-V.; Casas-Ruiz, J.P.; Gampe, D.; López-Robles, M.A.; Ludwig, R.; Núñez-Marcé, A.; Muñoz, I. Responses of a native and a recent invader snail to warming and dry conditions: The case of the lower Ebro River. Aquat. Ecol. 2019, 53, 497–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Clavero, M.; López, V.; Franch, N.; Pou-Rovira, Q.; Queral, J.M. Use of seasonally flooded rice fields by fish and crayfish in a Mediterranean wetland. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2015, 213, 39–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Arce, J.A.; Diéguez-Uribeondo, J. Structural damage caused by the invasive crayfish Procambarus clarkii (Girard, 1852) in rice fields of the Iberian Peninsula: A study case. Fundam. Appl. Limnol. 2015, 186, 259–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Souty-Grosset, C.; Anastácio, P.M.; Aquiloni, L.; Banha, F.; Choquer, J.; Chucholl, C.; Tricarico, E. The red swamp crayfish Procambarus clarkii in Europe: Impacts on aquatic ecosystems and human well-being. Limnologica 2016, 58, 78–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Lupi, D.; Colombo, M.; Giudici, M.L.; Villa, B.; Cenghialta, C.; Passoni, D. On the spatial spread of the rice water weevil, Lissorhoptrus oryzophilus Kuschel (Coleoptera: Erirhinidae), in Italy. J. Ent. Acar. Res. 2010, 42, 81–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Lupi, D.; Jucker, C.; Rocco, A.; Giudici, M.L.; Boattin, S.; Colombo, M. Current status of the rice water weevil Lissorhoptrus oryzophilus in Italy: Eleven-year invasion. EPPO Bull. 2015, 45, 123–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Dana, D.; Viva, S. Stenopelmus rufinasus Gyllenhal 1836 (Coleoptera: Erirhinidae) naturalized in Spain. Coleopt. Bull. 2006, 60, 41–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Bocchi, S.; Malgioglio, A. Azolla-Anabaena as a biofertilizer for rice paddy fields in the Po Valley, a temperate rice area in Northern Italy. Int. J. Agron. 2010, 2010, 152158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Lupi, D.; Dioli, P.; Limonta, L. First evidence of Halyomorpha halys (Stål)(Hemiptera Heteroptera, Pentatomidae) feeding on rice (Oryza sativa L.). J. Entomol. Res. 2017, 49, 67–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Van Leeuwen, C.H.; Huig, N.; Van der Velde, G.; Van Alen, T.A.; Wagemaker, C.A.; Sherman, C.D.; Figuerola, J. How did this snail get here? Several dispersal vectors inferred for an aquatic invasive species. Freshw. Biol. 2013, 58, 88–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Preti, M.; Verheggen, F.; Angeli, S. Insect pest monitoring with camera-equipped traps: Strengths and limitations. J. Pest. Sci. 2021, 94, 203–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Laini, A.; Stubbington, R.; Beermann, A.J.; Burgazzi, G.; Datry, T.; Viaroli, P.; Wilkes, M.; Zizka VM, A.; Saccò, M.; Leese, F. Dissecting biodiversity: Assessing the taxonomic, functional and phylogenetic structure of an insect metacommunity in a river network using morphological and metabarcoding data. Eur. J. Biol. 2023, 90, 320–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Taberlet, P.; Coissac, E.; Pompanon, F.; Brochmann, C.; Willerslev, E. Towards next-generation biodiversity assessment using DNA metabarcoding. Mol. Ecol. 2012, 21, 2045–2050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Gauthier, M.; Konecny-Dupré, L.; Nguyen, A.; Elbrecht, V.; Datry, T.; Douady, C.; Lefébure, T. Enhancing DNA metabarcoding performance and applicability with bait capture enrichment and DNA from conservative ethanol. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 2020, 20, 79–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Jones, F.C. Taxonomic sufficiency: The influence of taxonomic resolution on freshwater bioassessments using benthic macroinvertebrates. Environ. Rev. 2008, 16, 45–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Elbrecht, V.; Vamos, E.E.; Steinke, D.; Leese, F. Estimating intraspecific genetic diversity from community DNA metabarcoding data. PeerJ 2018, 6, e4644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Turon, X.; Antich, A.; Palacín, C.; Præbel, K.; Wangensteen, O.S. From metabarcoding to metaphylogeography: Separating the wheat from the chaff. Ecol. Appl. 2020, 30, e02036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Nishizawa, R.; Nakao, R.; Ushimaru, A.; Minamoto, T. Development of environmental DNA detection assays for snakes in paddy fields in Japan. Landsc. Ecol. Eng. 2023, 19, 3–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Kim, K.; Kwon, S.; Jang, Y. Can eDNA Present in Aquatic Environments of Rural Areas Help Identify Species Diversity in the Order Anura? Water 2024, 16, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Katayama, N.; Yamamoto, S.; Baba, Y.G.; Ito, K.; Yamasako, J. Complementary role of environmental DNA for line-transect bird surveys: A field test in a Japanese rice landscape. Ecol. Indic. 2024, 166, 112442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Ogata, S.; Nishiwaki, A.; Yamazoe, K.; Sugai, K.; Takahara, T. Discovery of unknown new ponds occupied by the endangered giant water bug (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Belostomatidae) by combining environmental DNA and capture surveys. Entomol. Sci. 2023, 26, e12540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Wang, L.; Wu, H.; He, W.; Lai, G.; Li, J.; Liu, S.; Zhou, Q. Diversity of Parasitoid Wasps and Comparison of Sampling Strategies in Rice Fields Using Metabarcoding. Insects 2024, 15, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Kim, K.; Kwon, S.; Noh, A. Detection of frog and aquatic insects by environmental DNA in paddy water ecology. Korean J. Agric. Sci. 2023, 50, 299–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Wu, M.; Lu, R.; Huang, W.; Liu, H.; Zou, Y.; Tao, L.; Sun, Y.; Wang, Q.; Tang, K. Major diet of common carp (Cyprinus carpio L.) over different developmental stages in rice-field: Agroecological interactions between fishes and rice in Sichuan, China, based on DNA metabarcoding approach. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2024, 56, e03298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Elbrecht, V.; Peinert, B.; Leese, F. Sorting things out: Assessing effects of unequal specimen biomass on DNA metabarcoding. Ecol. Evol. 2017, 7, 6918–6926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Keck, F.; Couton, M.; Altermatt, F. Navigating the seven challenges of taxonomic reference databases in metabarcoding analyses. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 2023, 23, 742–755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  91. Weigand, H.; Beermann, A.J.; Čiampor, F.; Costa, F.O.; Csabai, Z.; Duarte, S.; Geigerg, M.F.; Grabowski, M.; Rimet, F.; Rulik, B.; et al. DNA barcode reference libraries for the monitoring of aquatic biota in Europe: Gap-analysis and recommendations for future work. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 678, 499–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. IPCC. Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Heino, J.; Virkkala, R.; Toivonen, H. Climate change and freshwater biodiversity: Detected patterns, future trends and adaptations in northern regions. Biol. Rev. 2009, 84, 39–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Fenoglio, S.; Bo, T.; Cucco, M.; Mercalli, L.; Malacarne, G. Effects of global climate change on freshwater biota: A review with special emphasis on the Italian situation. Ital. J. Zool. 2010, 77, 374–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Dudgeon, D.; Strayer, D.L. Bending the curve of global freshwater biodiversity loss: What are the prospects? Biol. Rev. 2025, 100, 205–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Gobiet, A.; Kotlarski, S.; Beniston, M.; Heinrich, G.; Rajczak, J.; Stoffel, M. 21st century climate change in the European Alps—A review. Sci. Total Environ. 2014, 493, 1138–1151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Water 17 00845 g001
Figure 1. Distribution (blue color) of the main rice-producing areas in Italy.
Figure 1. Distribution (blue color) of the main rice-producing areas in Italy.
Water 17 00845 g001
Water 17 00845 g002
Figure 2. World distribution of papers related to rice fields + insects + biodiversity.
Figure 2. World distribution of papers related to rice fields + insects + biodiversity.
Water 17 00845 g002
Water 17 00845 g003
Figure 3. Some common aquatic insects in Italian rice fields. Examples, from left to right: Hydroporus sp. (Dytiscidae), Nepa cinerea (Nepidae), Laccobius sp. (Hydrophilidae).
Figure 3. Some common aquatic insects in Italian rice fields. Examples, from left to right: Hydroporus sp. (Dytiscidae), Nepa cinerea (Nepidae), Laccobius sp. (Hydrophilidae).
Water 17 00845 g003
Water 17 00845 g004
Figure 4. Different phases of the agricultural cycle in rice fields, depicting (a) winter flooding, (b) spring low-level maintenance and (c) late summer pre-cutting drought.
Figure 4. Different phases of the agricultural cycle in rice fields, depicting (a) winter flooding, (b) spring low-level maintenance and (c) late summer pre-cutting drought.
Water 17 00845 g004
Table 1. Most common freshwater family insects that inhabit rice fields.
Table 1. Most common freshwater family insects that inhabit rice fields.
OrderFamilies
EphemeropteraBaetidae, Caenidae, Ephemerellidae
Odonata-ZygopteraCalopterygidae, Lestidae, Platycnemididae, Coenagrionidae
Odonata-AnisopteraGomphidae, Aeshnidae, Cordulegasteridae, Libellulidae, Corduliidae
HeteropteraGerridae, Nepidae, Corixidae, Notonectidae, Naucoridae, Pleidae, Veliidae, Hydrometridae, Ochteridae
TrichopteraLeptoceridae, Hydropsychidae, Phryganeidae, Lepidostomatidae, Limnephilidae
LepidopteraCrambidae, Noctuidae
DipteraChironomidae, Ceratopogonidae, Culicidae, Chaoboridae, Psychodidae, Stratiomyidae, Limoniidae, Tipulidae, Tabanidae, Ephydridae, Syrphidae, Sciomyzidae, Empididae, Muscidae, Cordyluridae
ColeopteraGyrinidae, Dytiscidae, Haliplidae, Elmidae, Dryopidae, Helophoridae, Hydrophilidae, Limnebiidae
Table 2. Number of scientific papers (Scopus) related to the main applied entomology keywords in rice fields (February 2025).
Table 2. Number of scientific papers (Scopus) related to the main applied entomology keywords in rice fields (February 2025).
KeywordsN° Publications WorldwideN° Publications Related to Italy
Rice + aquatic Insects1972
Rice fields + aquatic Insects1523
Rice fields + freshwater invertebrates171
Rice fields + Diptera Culicidae2023
Rice fields + Coleoptera Curculionidae942
Rice fields + Bacillus thuringensis2584
Rice fields + insecticides126012
Rice fields + Diflubenzoron111
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Bo, T.; Marino, A.; Guareschi, S.; Laini, A.; Fenoglio, S. Rice Fields and Aquatic Insect Biodiversity in Italy: State of Knowledge and Perspectives in the Context of Global Change. Water 2025, 17, 845. https://doi.org/10.3390/w17060845

AMA Style

Bo T, Marino A, Guareschi S, Laini A, Fenoglio S. Rice Fields and Aquatic Insect Biodiversity in Italy: State of Knowledge and Perspectives in the Context of Global Change. Water. 2025; 17(6):845. https://doi.org/10.3390/w17060845

Chicago/Turabian Style

Bo, Tiziano, Anna Marino, Simone Guareschi, Alex Laini, and Stefano Fenoglio. 2025. "Rice Fields and Aquatic Insect Biodiversity in Italy: State of Knowledge and Perspectives in the Context of Global Change" Water 17, no. 6: 845. https://doi.org/10.3390/w17060845

APA Style

Bo, T., Marino, A., Guareschi, S., Laini, A., & Fenoglio, S. (2025). Rice Fields and Aquatic Insect Biodiversity in Italy: State of Knowledge and Perspectives in the Context of Global Change. Water, 17(6), 845. https://doi.org/10.3390/w17060845

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