Rare Z-VAD-FMK price species in sand pits Only two red-listed species were found in the study. This may seem surprising as several studies have found higher frequencies of red-listed species in sand pits (Bergsten 2007; Eversham et al. 1996; Frycklund 2003; Ljungberg 2002; Schiel and Rademacher 2008; Sörensson 2006). One explanation for the low number of detected red-listed species is that they might simply have been missed in the sampling because they are too rare (Martikainen and Kouki 2003). In addition, most of the Swedish red-listed species that are associated with early successional habitats have a southern

distribution in the country. Some of the species we found would probably deserve red-listing at a regional scale (e.g., Cymindis angularis and Melanimon tibiale), but they are too frequent in the southern part of the https://www.selleckchem.com/products/apr-246-prima-1met.html country to be nationally red-listed. At Marma shooting range, a site dominated by disturbed sand habitats and situated close to the northernmost of our study sites, three red-listed sand species were previously found (Eriksson et al. 2005), none of which were detected in this study. It is difficult to tell if this difference is due to some specific habitat requirements being fulfilled at the Marma site, or if it is a coincidence because of their rarity. However, almost half of the species

encountered in our study were only represented by one individual, indicating that more species are find more present at our study sites, in addition to those we detected. Practical implications When conserving sand pit habitats for sand-dwelling beetles it is important not to choose sites with too small area. According to this study the cut-off area lies somewhere around 0.3 ha. The reason for this recommendation is because smaller sand pits harbour fewer species and because they are too strongly affected by species from the surrounding habitats, which displace the target species. Besides this recommendation we cannot give an optimum area for conserving

a high number of sand species. However, as the largest sand pits (>5 ha) do not host more sand species than the medium-sized ones (0.36–0.7 ha), RAS p21 protein activator 1 we would recommend to prioritized sand pit of intermediate size simply because of the economical advantage of preserving a smaller area. To specify a number, this would limit the recommended area range to 0.3–5 ha with preference towards the low end of this range. Another reason not to prioritize large sand pits for conservation is that we believe there is a general pattern of homogeneity of larger sand pits due to difference in management compared to smaller sand pits. Large sand pit are often run with more modern and heavier machinery which thus make them more uniform.