Journal of Insect Conservation

, Volume 17, Issue 4, pp 663–669 | Cite as

Monitoring and conservation of Saga pedo (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae) in an isolated nothwestern population

  • Jaroslav Holuša
  • Petr Kočárek
  • Robert Vlk


The bush cricket Saga pedo is a critically endangered species in the EU and is included in Annex IV of Council Directive 92/43/EEC. This species is therefore subject to mandatory regular monitoring within all member countries where it occurs. Because its abundance is low and little information is available concerning its ecology, however, an effective monitoring method that would yield standardized results has yet to be devised. We found S. pedo passing through 6 instars during its development in Central European conditions. Our findings indicate that, after hatching, S. pedo moves constantly through terrain with optimal vegetation and thereby reduces its population density. Based on recaptures of marked individuals, adults moved usually between 0.5 and 2 m in 24 h, the largest distance moved during a day was recorded as 37.5 m. Combined with a high mortality rate, this continual movement leads to very low density late in the season. Based on extensive surveys conducted during 2006–2011 at 10 sites in the Pálava Protected Landscape Area (Czech Republic), we show that the optimal time for monitoring in order to achieve comparable results from different investigators in different locations is the period just after nymphs hatch (1–10 May in Central Europe). Because S. pedo populations in Europe are threatened by habitat destruction resulting from successional overgrowth of habitat by vegetation and afforestation, ensuring the survival of this species will require that successional changes in vegetation and afforestation be stopped by mowing and removal of woody plants and seedlings or by farming (extensive grazing). Management need not be performed every year but should occur when the S. pedo population is already adult and dispersed. The most suitable period for partial machine mowing (1/3–1/2 of a specific area) is September. Mowing with scythes and extensive rotational grazing are the best methods for managing sites where S. pedo is found.


Saga pedo Ecology Instars Movement Monitoring Conservation 



The research was partly supported by the Agency for Nature Conservation and Landscape Protection of the Czech Republic. The authors would like to thank to Dr. Bruce Jaffee (USA) for linguistic and editorial improvements and many colleagues that help us with field surveys (Jiří Dvořák, David Hauck, Tomáš Kavka, Igor Malenovský, Pavel Marhoul, Jiří Matuška, Petr Muckstein, Lenka Rožánková, Jolana Szusková, Martin Škorpík, Blanka Škrabalová).


  1. Bailey RI, Lineham ME, Thomas CD, Butlin RK (2003) Measuring dispersal and detecting departures from a random walk model in a grasshopper hybrid zone. Ecol Entomol 28:129–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baur B, Baur H, Roesti C, Roesti D (2006) Die Heuschrecken der Schweiz. Haupt, BernGoogle Scholar
  3. Berg H-M, Zuna-Kratky T (1997) Heuschrecken und Fangschrecken. Eine Rote Liste der in der Niederösterreich gefährdeten Arten. NÖ Landesregierung, WienGoogle Scholar
  4. Cantrall IJ (1972) Saga pedo (Pallas) (Tettigoniidae: Saginae) an old world katydid new to Michigan. Gt Lakes Entomol 5:103–106Google Scholar
  5. Dutrillaux AM, Lemonnier-Darcemont M, Darcemont Ch, Krpa V, Fouchet P, Dutrillaux B (2009) Origin of the complex karyotype of the polyploid parthenogenetic grasshopper Saga pedo (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae). Eur J Entomol 106:477–483Google Scholar
  6. Fontana P, Cussigh F (1996) Saga pedo (Pallas) ed Empusa fasciata Brulle in Italia, specie rare da proteggere. Atti Acc Rov Agiati 246(6):47–64Google Scholar
  7. Gardiner T, Hill J, Chesmore D (2005) Review of the methods frequently used to estimate the abundance of Orthoptera in grassland ecosystems. J Insect Conserv 9:151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gulička J (1954) Beitrag zur Kenntnis der Verbreitung einiger Orthopteren und Dermapteren in der Slowakei. Biológia (Bratislava) 9:617–630Google Scholar
  9. Heller KG, von Helversen O (1990) Survival of a phaneropterid bush-cricket studied by a new marking technique (Orthoptera. Phaneropteridae). Entomol Gen 15:203–208Google Scholar
  10. Holuša J, Kočárek P (2005) Orthoptera (rovnokřídlí). In: Farkač J, Král D, Škorpík M (eds) Červený seznam ohrožených druhů České republiky, Bezobratlí. Red list of threatened species in the Czech Republic, Invertebrates. Agentura ochrany přírody a krajiny ČR, Praha, pp 133–134Google Scholar
  11. Holuša J, Kočárek P, Drozd P, Vlk R (2009) Analysis of population trend in Saga pedo (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae) on the edge of its range: more abundant or more intensively studied? Metaleptea, special conference issue 29:120–121Google Scholar
  12. Holuša J, Kočárek P, Vlk R (2010) Occurrence of Saga pedo (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae) in the Czech Republic: review of faunistic data. North West J Zool 6:218–224Google Scholar
  13. Holuša J, Kočárek P, Marhoul J, Skokanova H (2012) Platycleis vittata (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae) in the northwestern part of its range is close to extinction: is this the result of landscape changes? J Insect Conserv 16:295–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ingrisch S, Köhler G (1998) Die Heuschrecken Mitteleuropas. Die Neue Brehm Bücherei 629. Westarp Wissenschaften, MagdeburgGoogle Scholar
  15. Kaltenbach A (1967) Unterlagen für eine Monographie der Saginae 1. Superrevision der Gattung Saga Charpentier (Saltatoria: Tettigoniidae). Beitr Entomol (Berlin) 17:3–107Google Scholar
  16. Kaltenbach A (1970) Unterlagen für eine Monographie der Saginae II. Beiträge zur Autökologie der Gattung Saga Charpentier (Saltatoria: Tettigoniidae). Zool Beitr 16:155–245Google Scholar
  17. Kaltenbach AP (1990) The predatory Saginae. In: Bailey WJ, Rentz DCF (eds) The Tettigoniidae. Biology. Systematics and evolution. Springer, Berlin, pp 280–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kenyeres Z, Bauer N, Rácz I (2002) Saga pedo Pallas dans le bassin des Carpates, synthese et nouvelles données (Orthoptera. Tettigoniidae). Bull Soc Entomol Fr 107:149–156Google Scholar
  19. Kindvall O (1999) Dispersal in a metapopulation of the bush cricket Metrioptera bicolor (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae). J Anim Ecol 68:172–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kindvall O, Ahlen I (1992) Geometrical factors and metapopulation dynamics of the bush cricket Metrioptera bicolor Philippi (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae). Conserv Biol 6:520–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kočárek P, Holuša J, Vidlička Ľ (2005) Blattaria. Mantodea. Orthoptera & Dermaptera of the Czech and Slovak Republics. Kabourek, ZlínGoogle Scholar
  22. Kolics B, Nagy B, Kondorosy E, Puskás G, Müller T (2008) The life cycle of Saga pedo Pallas 1771 and its distribution in Hungary. Állattani Közlemények 93(1):39–52Google Scholar
  23. Krištín A (2001) Red list of Orthoptera of Slovakia. Ochrana Prírody (Suppl.) 20:103–104Google Scholar
  24. Krištín A, Kaňuch P (2006) Grasshoppers and crickets (Orthoptera) and mantids (Mantodea) of the Zoborské vrchy Mts. area (W Slovakia). Rosalia 18:99–108Google Scholar
  25. Krištín A, Kaňuch P (2007) Population, ecology and morphology of Saga pedo (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae) at the northern limit of its distribution. Eur J Entomol 104:73–79Google Scholar
  26. Krištín A, Kaňuch P, Puchala P (2005) Orthopteroid insects (Orthoptera s. l.) of the Malé Karpaty Mts. (W Slovakia). Ochrana Prírody 24:56–66Google Scholar
  27. Lemonnier-Darcemont M, Bernier Ch, Darcemont Ch (2009) Field and breeding data on the European species of the genus Saga (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae). Articulata 24(1/2):1–14Google Scholar
  28. Nagy B, Kis B, Nagy L (1984) Saga pedo Pall. (Orthoptera. Tettigoniidae): verbreitung und ökologische Regelmässigkeiten des Vorkommens in SO-Mitteleuropa. Verh SIEEC X Budapest 1983:190–192Google Scholar
  29. New TR (1998) Invertebrate Surveys for Conservation. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  30. Oláh M (1987) A new occurrence of the Saw-legged grasshopper Saga pedo (Pall.) in the Mátra Mts. Fol Hist Nat Mus Matr 12:43–45Google Scholar
  31. Redtenbacher J (1900) Die Dermatopteren und Orthopteren (Ohrwürmer und Geradflügler) von Österreich-Ungarn und Deutschland. C. Gerolds Sohn, WienGoogle Scholar
  32. Samietz J, Berger U (1997) Evaluation of movement parameters in insects—bias and robustness with regard to numbers. Oecologia 110:40–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schall A (2002) Details on the knowledge of Saga pedo (Pallas. 1771), biological cycle in captivity (Orthoptera. Tettigoniidae. Saginae). Bull Soc Entomol Fr 107:157–164Google Scholar
  34. Vidlička L, Janský V, Fedor PJ, Krumpál M, Lukáš J (2002) Distribution of Saga pedo in Slovakia. Articulata 17:95–100Google Scholar
  35. Vrabec V, Kočárek P (2005) The observation of Saga hellenica Kaltenbach, 1967 (Orthoptera) on Corfu island. Entomofauna Carpathica 17:11–13Google Scholar
  36. Willemse L (1996) Saga pedo. In Helsdingen PJ van, Willemse L, Speight MCD (eds) Background Information on Invertebrates of the Habitats Directive and the Bern Convention. Part 2.—Mantodea. Odonata. Orthoptera and Arachnida. Nature and Environment Series 80. Council of Europe Publ., Strasbourg, pp 383–393Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Forest Protection and Entomology, Faculty of Forestry and Wood SciencesCzech University of Life SciencesPraha 6, SuchdolCzech Republic
  2. 2.Department of Biology and Ecology, Faculty of ScienceUniversity of OstravaOstrava 2Czech Republic
  3. 3.Department of Biology, Faculty of EducationMasaryk UniversityBrnoCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations