Fungus gnat diversity in a semi-urban habitat in Slovakia: insights from an unconventional trapping method

Received: 25 August 2025; accepted: 7 October 2025 · Editor: Mario Langourov 361 Historia naturalis bulgarica 47 (11): 361–371 ISSN 2603-3186 (online) | ISSN 0205-3640 (print) · nmnhs.com/historia-naturalis-bulgarica https://doi.org/10.48027/hnb.47.113 Publication date [online]: 3 November 2025 Research article Fungus gnat diversity in a semi-urban habitat in Slovakia: insights from an unconventional trapping method Olavi Kurina1, Katarína Loziaková Peňazziová2, Tomáš Csank3, Patrik Pastorek4, Jozef Oboňa5 (1) Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Kreutzwaldi st 5-D, 51006 Tartu, Estonia, [email protected] ✉; https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4858-4629 � (2) Department of Microbiology and Immunology, University of Veterinary Medicine and Pharmacy, Komenského 73, 04181 Košice, Slovakia, [email protected] ✉; https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3434-5977 � (3) Department of Microbiology and Immunology, University of Veterinary Medicine and Pharmacy, Komenského 73, 04181 Košice, Slovakia, [email protected] ✉; https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2055-9293 � (4) ZOO Košice, Ulica k Zoologickej Záhrade 1, 04001 Košice, Slovakia, [email protected] ✉ (5) [Corresponding author] Department of Ecology, Faculty of Humanities and Natural Sciences, University of Prešov, 17. novembra 1, 08116 Prešov, Slovakia, [email protected] ✉; https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1185-658X � Abstract: This study presents the first comprehensive dataset of fungus gnats (Diptera: Bibionomorpha) collected with BGSentinel traps baited with CO2. Sampling was conducted from July to October 2023 in Zoo Košice, a semi-urban area in eastern Slovakia. In total, 121 species were recorded, including eight newly documented for the Slovak fauna, viz., Mycomya (Mycomyopsis) permixta Väisänen, 1984, Brevicornu intermedium Santos Abreu, 1920, Exechia repandoides Caspers, 1984, Exechiopsis (Xenexechia) seducta Plassmann, 1976, Mycetophila abiecta (Laštovka, 1963), Phronia coritanica Chandler, 1992, Trichonta icenica Edwards, 1925, and Trichonta comica Gagné, 1981. These results considerably broaden current knowledge of fungus gnat diversity in Slovakia and highlight the effectiveness of non-standard trapping methods in revealing hidden biodiversity within semi-urban habitats. Keywords: Diadocidiidae, Ditomyiidae, faunistic, Keroplatidae, mosquito BG Sentinel 2 trap, Mycetophilidae, new records, Slovakia Introduction Bibionomorpha, a megadiverse infraorder within the suborder Nematocera, comprises at least 15 families and several enigmatic genera in its broader sense (Ševčík et al., 2016). These insects are highly diverse and abundant in terrestrial ecosystems, particularly forested habitats. Among them, fungus gnats – including the families Ditomyiidae, Bolitophilidae, Diadocidiidae, Keroplatidae, and Mycetophilidae – represent a significant group, with over 1250 species known from Europe (Chandler, 2022). However, a substantial number of species remain undiscovered. For example, in the relatively well-studied Nordic countries, at least 118 undescribed species of Mycetophilidae have been documented (Kjærandsen & Søli, 2020). In Slovakia, this group has received considerable attention, with more than 585 species recorded to date (Jedlička et al., 2009; Ševčík & Kurina, 2011a, b; Ševčík et al., 2013; Mantič et al., 2015; Sikora et al., 2023; Kurina et al., 2023, 2024). Despite these efforts, most surveys of fungus gnats have traditionally focused on forest habitats and natural or protected areas, relying on standard entomological methods such as Malaise traps, sweep netting, and emergence traps (e.g. Roháček et al., 1995; Ševčík & Kurina, 2011a, b; Roháček & Ševčík, 2009). Areas considered less valuable from a conservation perspective – such as semi-urban or rural environments – are rarely the focus of entomological research. These habitats, often representing fragmented Olavi Kurina, Katarína Loziaková Peňazziová, Tomáš Csank, Patrik Pastorek, Jozef Oboňa 362 Historia naturalis bulgarica 47 (2025) or degraded remnants of native ecosystems, tend to be neglected, leading to significant gaps in our understanding of insect biodiversity in anthropogenically influenced landscapes (Hartop et al., 2015). An increasingly widespread method in entomological monitoring involves the use of BG-Sentinel traps (Biogents, Germany), originally designed to attract diurnally active mosquitoes (Farajollahi et al., 2009; Cotteaux-Lautard et al., 2013; Arimoto et al., 2015; Diouf et al., 2021; Cilek et al., 2024). Although optimised for Culicidae, these traps frequently capture other blood-feeding flies including Ceratopogonidae, Hippoboscidae, Simuliidae, and Phlebotominae (Obenauer et al., 2012; Carvalho et al., 2021; González et al., 2024; Ruiz-Arrondo et al., 2023; Steele & McDermott, 2024; Rodríguez-Rojas et al., 2024). In addition, a wide range of non-target flying insects, particularly agile Diptera, are regularly drawn into these traps (Grundmann et al., 2025; Oboňa et al., 2025). While such incidental by-catch is often discarded as “waste”, recent perspectives emphasise its potential value for faunistic and biodiversity research (Grundmann et al., 2025). In this study, we focus on a neglected component of BG-Sentinel trap catches – fungus gnats (Bibionomorpha) – collected in the Zoo Košice, a semi-urban habitat in eastern Slovakia. By analysing these non-target specimens, we aim to demonstrate the potential of unconventional sampling methods to yield meaningful insights into local biodiversity, even in anthropogenically influenced environments. This approach underscores the idea that one researcher’s “by-catch” can be another’s valuable dataset. Material and methods Sampling A fatal case of West Nile virus infection was diagnosed in a great grey owl (Strix nebulosa Forster, 1772) kept at Zoo Košice (Peňazziová et al., 2021). West Nile virus is primarily transmitted by mosquitoes, especially species of the genus Culex (Diptera: Culicidae). Based on this finding, mosquito monitoring was initiated using BG Sentinel 2 traps (Biogents, Germany), each equipped with CO2 cylinders as an attractant (Figure 1 B). The traps were placed near small lakes in the locality (see locality data and Figure 1 A) and operated continuously from July 2023 (with the first collection on 17 July) until the end of October 2023 (with last collection on 28 October). The capture nets were replaced twice a week and stored at -20°C until transport to the laboratory, where they were Fig. 1. A. Map of Košice Zoo with collecting points HR (Horný rybník – Upper pond) and DR (Dolný rybník – Lower pond) indicated (adopted from Oboňa et al., 2025). B. Photograph of BG Sentinel 2 traps (Biogents, Germany), documentary photo by Tomáš Csank. Fungus gnat diversity in a semi-urban habitat in Slovakia: insights from an unconventional trapping method 363Historia naturalis bulgarica 47 (2025) stored at -80°C. After sorting the mosquitoes, the remaining material was preserved in 75% ethanol. Locality data Slovakia, Košice district, Zoo Košice, Horný rybník – Upper pond (HR): 48°47′11.4″N 21°12′11.9″E, 412 m a.s.l.; Dolný rybník – Lower pond (DR): 48°47′20.6″N 21°12′22.0″E, 411 m a.s.l. The collected material, preserved in 75% ethanol, was initially sorted to the family level. Specimens representing four families of fungus gnats were identified to species level using a Leica S8APO stereomicroscope. In case of the family Mycetophilidae, most female specimens could only be morphologically identified to the genus level and are therefore excluded from the species list provided below. In several cases, accurate species identification required detailed examination of male genitalia. For this purpose, the genitalia were detached, macerated in 10% KOH, neutralised with acetic acid, rinsed in distilled water, examined in glycerine, and preserved as glycerine preparations in small plastic microvials (see also Kurina, 2003). Habitus photos of the specimens were taken with a Leica K5C camera attached to a Leica 205C stereomicroscope and combined using LAS X software. Final image sharpening was performed with Topaz Sharpen AI, and the figure plate was edited using Adobe Photoshop CS5 (see also Kjærandsen et al., 2022). The studied material is deposited in the insect collection of the Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Science, Estonian University of Life Sciences (IZBE). Results A total of 1,091 fungus gnats were collected in the BG Sentinel 2 traps in 2023, with monthly counts as follows: July – 56 individuals, August – 276, September – 313, and October – 446. These specimens represent 121 species across four families: Diadocidiidae, Ditomyiidae, Keroplatidae, and Mycetophilidae. In the following species list, taxa newly recorded from Slovakia are marked with an asterisk (*) and accompanied by brief comments on their distribution. A selection of habitus photographs is provided for species representing new country records. In addition, published sources are cited for species that were recorded from the region after the publication of the Checklist of Diptera of the Czech Republic and Slovakia (Jedlička et al., 2009). Unless stated otherwise, distribution data follow Chandler (2005, 2022). Annotated list of recorded species Diptera Family Diadocidiidae Diadocidia (Diadocidia) ferruginosa (Meigen, 1830) – Material examined: HR 4–6.ix.2023 (valid for all dates here), ♂; 7–11.ix, ♂; 11–14.ix, ♀; DR 3–10.x, ♂. Family Ditomyiidae Ditomyia fasciata (Meigen, 1818) – Material examined: HR 14–18.ix, 13 ♂♂, 5 ♀♀. Family Keroplatidae Cerotelion racovitzai Matile et Burghele-Balacesco, 1969 – Material examined: HR 18–22.viii, 4 ♂♂; 22– 25.viii, ♂; 18–22.ix, ♂, ♀; DR 9–11.viii, ♂. Keroplatus testaceus (Dalman, 1818) – Material examined: DR 9–11.viii, ♀. Monocentrota matilei Bechev, 1989 – Material examined: HR 12–17.vii, ♂. Comments. A widespread European species, recorded also from Georgia (Kurina, 2021) and Algeria (Bechev, 1989). The first record from Slovakia was published by Mantič et al. (2015). Family Mycetophilidae Mycomya (Mycomya) cinerascens (Macquart, 1826) – Material examined: HR 18–22.viii, ♂; 4–6.ix, 3 ♂♂; 6–7.ix, ♂; 22–26.ix, 3 ♂♂; 26.ix–3.x, 24 ♂♂; 10–13.x, ♂; 13–23.x, 2 ♂♂; DR 7–16.ix, 4 ♂♂; 3– 23.x, ♂. Mycomya (Mycomya) flavicollis (Zetterstedt, 1852) – Material examined: HR 26.ix–3.x, ♂; 23– 28.x, ♂. Mycomya (Mycomya) danielae Matile, 1972 – Material examined: HR 18–22.viii, ♂; 26.ix–3.x, 4 ♂♂; DR 23–28.x, ♂. Olavi Kurina, Katarína Loziaková Peňazziová, Tomáš Csank, Patrik Pastorek, Jozef Oboňa 364 Historia naturalis bulgarica 47 (2025) Mycomya (Mycomya) marginata (Meigen, 1818) – Material examined: HR 21–26.vii, ♂; 6–7.ix, ♂; 22–26.ix, ♂; 26.ix–3.x, ♂; 13–23.x, ♂; DR 12–17.vii, ♂; 25.viii–4.ix, ♂; 13–23.x, 2 ♂♂; 23–28.x, 12 ♂♂. Mycomya (Mycomya) neohyalinata Väisänen, 1984 – Material examined: HR 18–22.viii, ♂; 13– 23.x, 2 ♂♂. Mycomya (Mycomya) occultans (Winnertz, 1864) – Material examined: HR 2–7.viii, ♂; 25–28.viii, ♂; 26.ix–3.x, ♂. Mycomya (Mycomya) sigma Johannsen, 1910 – Material examined: DR 23–28.x, ♂. Mycomya (Mycomya) tenuis (Walker, 1856) – Material examined: HR 18–22.viii, 3 ♂♂; 25–28.viii, 3 ♂♂; 26.ix–3.x, 3 ♂♂; 23–28.x, ♂; DR 13–23.x, 3 ♂♂; 23–28.x, 2 ♂♂. Mycomya (Mycomya) tumida (Winnertz, 1864) – Material examined: HR 18–22.viii, ♂; 22–25.viii, ♂; 25–28.viii, 8 ♂♂; 4–6.ix, 4 ♂♂; 26.ix–3.x, 2 ♂♂; 13– 23.x, 2 ♂♂; DR 7–16.ix, 2 ♂♂. Mycomya (Mycomya) wankowiczii (Dziedzicki, 1885) – Material examined: DR 23–28.x, ♂. Mycomya (Mycomya) winnertzi (Dziedzicki, 1885) – Material examined: HR 12–17.vii, ♂; 18– 22.viii, 2 ♂♂; 25–28.viii, 4 ♂♂; 26.ix–3.x, 2 ♂♂; DR 13–23.x, 2 ♂♂; 23–28.x, 2 ♂♂. Mycomya (Cymomya) circumdata (Staeger, 1840) – Material examined: HR 21–26.vii, 2 ♂♂; 13–18.viii, ♀; 3–10.x, 5 ♂♂; DR 23–28.x, 2 ♂♂. *Mycomya (Mycomyopsis) permixta Väisänen, 1984 – Fig. 2 B – Material examined: HR 22–26.ix, ♂. Comments. A Holarctic species, widely distributed in Europe. Neoempheria bimaculata (Roser, 1840) – Material examined: HR 2–7.viii, ♂. Monoclona rufilatera (Walker, 1836) – Material examined: HR 25–28.viii, ♂; 22–26.ix, ♂. Phthinia mira (Ostroverkhova, 1977) – Material examined: HR 26–28.vii, ♂; 2–7.viii, ♂; 22–26.ix, ♂. Phthinia winnertzi Mik, 1869 – Material examined: HR 2–7.viii, ♂; 22.viii, ♂; 22–25.viii, ♂; 26.ix– 3.x, ♂; 10.x, 2 ♂♂; 10–13.x, ♂; DR 10–13.x, ♂. Sciophila fenestella Curtis, 1837 – Material examined: HR 22–25.viii, ♂; 18–22.ix, 3 ♂♂; 26.ix– 3.x, ♂. Sciophila interrupta (Winnertz, 1864) – Material examined: HR 25–28.viii, ♂; 11–14.ix, ♂. Comments. A widely distributed European species. The first record from Slovakia was published by Sikora et al. (2023). Apolephthisa sp. – Material examined: DR 11– 14.viii, ♂. Comments. The studied specimen shows some morphological differences from A. subincana (Curtis, 1837), a Western Palaearctic species widely distributed in Europe. However, additional material is needed to determine whether these differences represent intraspecific variation or indicate a new species. Boletina gripha Dziedzicki, 1885 – Material examined: HR 18–22.ix, ♂; DR 13–23.x, 9 ♂♂; 23– 28.x, 17 ♂♂. Boletina sciarina Staeger, 1840 – Material examined: HR 17–21.vii, ♂; 25–28.viii, 2 ♂♂; DR 13–23.x, ♂. Synapha vitripennis (Meigen, 1818) – Material examined: DR 23–28.x, ♂. Coelophthinia thoracica (Winnertz, 1864) – Material examined: HR 18–22.ix, ♂. Docosia flavicoxa Strobl, 1900 – Material examined: HR 10.x, ♂. Docosia gilvipes (Walker, 1856) – Material examined: DR 23–28.x, ♀. Leia winthemi Lehmann, 1822 – Material examined: HR 26–28.vii, ♀. Allodia lugens (Wiedemann, 1817) – Material examined: HR 10.x, ♂; 28.x–8.xi, ♂; DR 29.ix–3.x, ♂; 23–28.x, 2 ♂♂. Allodia ornaticollis (Meigen, 1818) – Material examined: HR 2–7.viii, 7 ♂♂; 25–28.viii, ♂; 4–6.ix, 3 ♂♂; 6–7.ix, 5 ♂♂; 14–18.ix, 3 ♂♂; 18–22.ix, 4 ♂♂; 22–26.ix, 5 ♂♂; 26.ix–3.x, 2 ♂♂; 3–10.x, ♂; 10–13.x, 2 ♂♂; 13–23.x, 4 ♂♂; 23–28.x, 11 ♂♂; DR 3–9.viii, ♂; 25.viii–4.ix, 7 ♂♂; 4–7.ix, ♂; 18–19.ix, 2 ♂♂; 29.ix–3.x, 8 ♂♂; 10–13.x, 3 ♂♂; 13–23.x, 2 ♂♂; 23–28.x, 6 ♂♂. Allodiopsis domestica (Meigen, 1830) – Material examined: HR 22.viii, ♂; DR 23–28.x, ♂. Anatella simpatica Dziedzicki, 1923 – Material examined: HR 12–17.vii, ♂; 21–26.vii, ♂; 2–7.viii, ♂. Anatella turi Dziedzicki, 1923 – Material examined: HR 2–7.viii, ♂; 25–28.viii, ♂; DR 23– 28.x, ♂. Brachycampta alternans (Zetterstedt, 1838) – Material examined: HR 14–18.ix, ♂. Brachycampta foliifera (Strobl, 1910) – Material examined: HR 26–28.vii, ♂; 2–7.viii, ♂; DR 4–7.ix, ♂; 16–18.ix, ♂. Brachycampta grata (Meigen, 1830) – Material examined: HR 6–7.ix, ♂. Fungus gnat diversity in a semi-urban habitat in Slovakia: insights from an unconventional trapping method 365Historia naturalis bulgarica 47 (2025) Brachycampta pistillata (Lundström, 1911) – Material examined: HR 6–7.ix, ♂; 14–18.ix, ♂; 18– 22.ix, 3 ♂♂; 26.ix–3.x, ♂; DR 3–9.viii, ♂; 10–13.x, 2 ♂♂. Brachycampta westerholti Caspers, 1980 – Material examined: HR 26.ix–3.x, ♂. Brevicornu auriculatum (Edwards, 1925) – Material examined: HR 2–7.viii, ♂. Comments. A Palaearctic species, widespread in Europe. The first record from Slovakia was published by Ševčík & Kurina (2011b). *Brevicornu intermedium Santos Abreu, 1920 – Fig. 2 E – Material examined: DR 23–28.x, ♂. Comments. A Western Palaearctic species, widespread in Europe. Brevicornu sericoma (Meigen, 1830) – Material examined: HR 22–25.viii, ♂; 4–6.ix, 3 ♂♂; 18–22.ix, ♂; 22–26.ix, 2 ♂♂; 13–23.x, ♂; DR 3–9.viii, ♂. Cordyla brevicornis (Staeger, 1840) – Material examined: HR 22–25.viii, ♂; 25–28.viii, 4 ♂♂; 4– 6.ix, ♂; 13–23.x, ♂; DR 17–21.vii, ♂; 3–9.viii, 2 ♂♂; 11–14.viii, ♂. Cordyla crassicornis Meigen, 1818 – Material examined: HR 26–28.vii, 2 ♂♂; 2–7.viii, 3 ♂♂; 18– 22.ix, 3 ♂♂; 22–26.ix, ♂; 10.x, ♂; 13–23.x, 11 ♂♂; 23–28.x, ♂; DR 31.vii–3.viii, ♂; 3–9.viii, 2 ♂♂; 9– 11.viii, ♂, 11–14.viii, 3 ♂♂; 25.viii–4.ix, ♂; 4–7.ix, 2 ♂♂; 29.ix–3.x, 2 ♂♂; 10–13.x, 7 ♂♂; 13–23.x, 8 ♂♂; 23–28.x, 6 ♂♂. Cordyla fissa Edwards, 1925 – Material examined: HR 13–23.x, 4 ♂♂; 23–28.x, 5 ♂♂; 28.x– 8.xi, 2 ♂♂; DR 10–13.x, ♂; 13–23.x, ♂. Cordyla sp. – Material examined: DR 10–13.x, ♂. Comments. The studied specimen shows some morphological differences from C. insons Laštovka & Matile, 1974, a Palaearctic species widely distributed in Europe. However, additional material is needed to determine whether these differences represent intraspecific variation or indicate a new species. Cordyla murina Winnertz, 1864 – Material examined: HR 26–28.vii, ♂; 2–7.viii, ♂; 4–6.ix, ♂; 10.x, ♂; 13–23.x, ♂; DR 3–9.viii, ♂. Cordyla pusilla Edwards, 1925 – Material examined: HR 13–23.x, 2 ♂♂; DR 13–23.x, ♂. Comments. A Palaearctic species widely distributed in Europe. The first record from Slovakia was published by Kurina et al. (2024). Exechia bicincta (Staeger, 1840) – Material examined: HR 2–7.viii, 2 ♂♂; 14–18.ix, 2 ♂♂; 18– 22.ix, 2 ♂♂; 18–22.ix, 2 ♂♂; 26.ix–3.x, ♂; 3–10.x, 2 ♂♂; 10.x, ♂; 10–13.x, ♂; 13–23.x, ♂; DR 11–14.viii, ♂; 10–13.x, ♂. Exechia confinis Winnertz, 1864 – Material examined: DR 18–19.ix, ♂; 10–13.x, ♂; 23–28.x, ♂. Comments. A Palaearctic species widely distributed in Europe. The first record from Slovakia was published by Ševčík & Kurina (2011b). Exechia dentata Lundström, 1916 – Material examined: HR 26–28.vii, 2 ♂♂; 26–28.vii, ♂♂. Exechia fusca (Meigen, 1804) – Material examined: HR 2–7.viii, 4 ♂♂; 22–25.viii, ♂; 25– 28.viii, ♂; 4–6.ix, ♂; 14–18.ix, 2 ♂♂; 22–26.ix, ♂; 10.x, 2023, ♂; DR 3–9.viii, 7 ♂♂; 11–14.viii, 2 ♂♂; 25.viii–4.ix, 8 ♂♂; 4–7.ix, ♂; 29.ix–3.x, ♂; 10–13.x, 2 ♂♂; 23–28.x, 4 ♂♂. *Exechia repandoides Caspers, 1984 – Fig. 2 G – Material examined: HR 2–7.viii, ♂. Comments. A Western Palaearctic species, recorded from nemoral regions. According to Lindemann et al. (2021), earlier records of E. repandoides from the Nordic countries actually refer to E. brevilobata Lindemann, 2021. Exechiopsis (Exechiopsis) intersecta (Meigen, 1818) – Material examined: HR 22.viii, ♂; 22–26.ix, ♂; 3–10.x, ♂; 10.x, 6 ♂♂; 10–13.x, ♂; 13–23.x, ♂. Exechiopsis (Exechiopsis) magnicauda (Lundström, 1911) – Material examined: HR 13– 23.x, ♂; 23–28.x, ♂. Exechiopsis (Exechiopsis) pseudindecisa (Laštovka & Matile, 1974) – Material examined: HR 26.ix–3.x, ♂; 13–23.x, ♂. Exechiopsis (Xenexechia) crucigera (Lundström, 1909) – Material examined: HR 2–7.viii, ♂; 22– 25.viii, ♂; 18–22.ix, ♂; DR 14–18.viii, ♂; 18–22.viii, ♂. Exechiopsis (Xenexechia) davatchii (Matile, 1969) – Material examined: HR 2–7.viii, 2 ♂♂; 25– 28.viii, ♂; 7–11.ix, ♂; 18–22.ix, 2 ♂♂; 22–26.ix, ♂; 26.ix–3.x, ♂; 3–10.x, ♂; 13–23.x, 2 ♂♂; DR 21– 26.vii, ♂. Comments. A Palaearctic species, widespread but rare in Europe. The first record from Slovakia was published by Sikora et al. (2023). Exechiopsis (Xenexechia) leptura (Meigen, 1830) – Material examined: HR 7–11.ix, ♂; 22–26.ix, ♂; 26.ix–3.x, ♂; 3–10.x, ♂; 28.x–8.xi, ♂; DR 7–16.ix, 2 ♂♂. Exechiopsis (Xenexechia) membranacea Lundström, 1912 – Material examined: HR 28–31.vii, ♂. *Exechiopsis (Xenexechia) seducta Plassmann, 1976 – Fig. 2 D – Material examined: HR 7–11.ix, ♂; Olavi Kurina, Katarína Loziaková Peňazziová, Tomáš Csank, Patrik Pastorek, Jozef Oboňa 366 Historia naturalis bulgarica 47 (2025) 14–18.ix, ♂. Comments. A European species with a broad distribution across Central and Northern Europe. Notolopha cristata (Staeger, 1840) – Material examined: DR 23–28.x, ♂. Pseudexechia trivittata (Staeger, 1840) – Material examined: HR 10.x, ♂. Pseudexechia tuomikoskii Kjaerandsen, 2009 – Material examined: HR 13–23.x, ♂. Comments. A widespread Western Palaearctic species. The first record from Slovakia was published by Ševčík & Kurina (2011b). Rymosia fasciata (Meigen, 1804) – Material examined: HR 26–28.vii, ♂; 13–18.viii, ♂; 22– 25.viii, ♂; 7–11.ix, 2 ♂♂; 11–14.ix, 3 ♂♂; 14–18.ix, 3 ♂♂; 10–13.x, ♂; 13–23.x, 11 ♂♂; 23–28.x, 5 ♂♂; 28.x–8.xi, 4 ♂♂; DR 21–26.vii, ♂; 26–28.vii, ♂; 28– 31.vii, ♂; 9–11.viii, ♂; 14–18.viii, ♂; 7–16.ix, 5 ♂♂; 18–19.ix, ♂; 29.ix–3.x, 2 ♂♂; 10–13.x, 2 ♂♂. Rymosia signatipes (Wulp, 1859) – Material examined: DR 3–10.x, ♂. Synplasta gracilis (Winnertz, 1864) – Material examined: HR 2–7.viii, ♂. Tarnania fenestralis (Meigen, 1818) – Material examined: HR 26.ix–3.x, ♂; 23–28.x, ♂; DR 23–28.x, ♂. Macrobrachius kowarzii Dziedzicki, 1889 – Material examined: HR 10–13.x, ♂. *Mycetophila abiecta (Laštovka, 1963) – Fig. 2 C – Material examined: HR 4–6.ix, 2 ♂♂; 22–26.ix, ♂. Comments. A Palaearctic species, widespread in Europe. Mycetophila alea Laffoon, 1965 – Material examined: HR 25–28.viii, ♂; 13–23.x, ♂. Mycetophila blanda Winnertz, 1864 – Material examined: HR 4–6.ix, ♂; 13–23.x, ♂. Mycetophila curviseta Lundström, 1911 – Material examined: DR 13–23.x, 2 ♂♂. Mycetophila czizeki Landrock, 1911 – Material examined: HR 22–26.ix, ♂; DR 13–23.x, ♂. Comments. A widespread European species. The first record from Slovakia was published by Ševčík & Kurina (2011b). Mycetophila dentata Lundström, 1913 – Material examined: HR 4–6.ix, ♂. Mycetophila distigma Meigen, 1830 – Material examined: HR 13–18.viii, ♂; 6–7.ix, ♂. Mycetophila edwardsi Lundström, 1913 – Material examined: HR 2–7.viii, ♂. Mycetophila fraterna Winnertz, 1864 – Material examined: HR 25–28.viii, ♂; 28.viii–4.ix, ♂. Mycetophila fungorum (De Geer, 1776) – Material examined: HR 12–17.vii, ♂; 26–28.vii, ♀; 18–22.viii, ♂; 25–28.viii, ♂, 2 ♀♀; 28.viii–4.ix, ♂; 4–6.ix, 2 ♂♂; 14–18.ix, 4 ♂♂; 18–22.ix, 4 ♂♂; 22– 26.ix, 8 ♂♂, ♀; 26.ix–3.x, 5 ♂♂, 3 ♀♀; 10.x, ♂; 23– 28.x, ♂; DR 21–26.vii, ♂; 25.viii–4.ix, ♂; 10–13.x, ♂; 13–23.x, ♂. Mycetophila hetschkoi Landrock, 1918 – Material examined: HR 18–22.viii, ♂. Mycetophila idonea Laštovka, 1972 – Material examined: HR 25–28.viii, ♂; 4–6.ix, ♂; 18–22.ix, ♂; DR 25.viii–4.ix, 3 ♂♂; 29.ix–3.x, ♂; 23–28.x, ♂. Mycetophila marginata Winnertz, 1864 – Material examined: HR 25–28.viii, ♂; 22–26.ix, ♂; 23–28.x, ♂; DR 13–23.x, 2 ♂♂. Mycetophila ocellus Walker, 1848 – Material examined: HR 2–7.viii, ♂, 18–22.viii, ♂, 28.viii–4.ix, 3 ♂♂; 18–22.ix, ♂; 22–26.ix, ♂; DR 13–23.x, ♂. Mycetophila pumila Winnertz, 1864 – Material examined: HR 22–26.ix, ♂; 26.ix–3.x, ♂. Mycetophila ruficollis Meigen, 1818 – Material examined: HR 25–28.viii, 3 ♂♂. Mycetophila signatoides Dziedzicki, 1884 – Material examined: HR 28.viii–4.ix, ♂. Mycetophila stylatiformis Landrock, 1925 – Material examined: HR 25–28.viii, ♂; 7–11.ix, ♂. Mycetophila unicolor Stannius, 1831 – Material examined: HR 25–28.viii, ♂; 28.viii–4.ix, ♂; 14– 18.ix, ♂; 18–22.ix, ♂; DR 9–11.viii, ♂. Phronia basalis Winnertz, 1864 – Material examined: HR 22–26.ix, ♂. Phronia biarcuata (Becker, 1908) – Material examined: HR 18–22.viii, ♂; 25–28.viii, ♂; 22–26.ix, 2 ♂♂, 13–23.x, 2 ♂♂; DR 23–28.x, 2 ♂♂. Phronia bicolor Dziedzicki, 1889 – Material examined: HR 25–28.viii, ♂. Phronia conformis (Walker, 1856) – Material examined: HR 2–7.viii, ♂; 22–25.viii, ♂; 25–28.viii, ♂; 14–18.ix, 2 ♂♂; 22–26.ix, ♂; DR 3–9.viii, ♂; 23– 28.x, ♂. *Phronia coritanica Chandler, 1992 – Fig. 2 F – Material examined: HR 4–6.ix, ♂; 18–22.ix, ♂. Comments. A widespread European species. Phronia egregia Dziedzicki, 1889 – Material examined: DR 23–28.x, 3 ♂♂. Phronia exigua (Zetterstedt, 1852) – Material examined: HR 22–26.ix, ♂; DR 13–23.x, 2 ♂♂; 23– 28.x, 5 ♂♂. Phronia forcipula Winnertz, 1864 – Material examined: HR 25–28.viii, 3 ♂♂; 4–6.ix, ♂; 22–26.ix, Fungus gnat diversity in a semi-urban habitat in Slovakia: insights from an unconventional trapping method 367Historia naturalis bulgarica 47 (2025) Phronia nigricornis (Zetterstedt, 1852) – Material examined: HR 2–7.viii, 3 ♂♂; 25–28.viii, ♂; 14–18.ix, ♂; 22–26.ix, 3 ♂♂; 26.ix–3.x, ♂; 13– 23.x, ♂; DR 23–28.x, 2 ♂♂. ♂; 10–13.x, ♂; 13–23.x, ♂; DR 3–9.viii, ♂; 13–23.x, 5 ♂♂; 23–28.x, 3 ♂♂. Phronia longelamellata Strobl, 1898 – Material examined: HR 18–22.viii, ♂. Fig. 2. Fungus gnat species new to the Slovakian fauna. A – Trichonta icenica Edwards, 1925; B – Mycomya (Mycomyopsis) permixta Väisänen, 1984; C – Mycetophila abiecta (Laštovka, 1963); D – Exechiopsis (Xenexechia) seducta Plassmann, 1976; E – Brevicornu intermedium Santos Abreu, 1920 (terminalia detached); F – Phronia coritanica Chandler, 1992; G – Exechia repandoides Caspers, 1984. Olavi Kurina, Katarína Loziaková Peňazziová, Tomáš Csank, Patrik Pastorek, Jozef Oboňa 368 Historia naturalis bulgarica 47 (2025) 22–26.ix, ♂; 13–23.x, ♂; DR 3–9.viii, ♂; 13–23.x, ♂. Zygomyia pictipennis (Staeger, 1840) – Material examined: HR 26–28.vii, ♂, 2 ♀♀; 2–7.viii, 2 ♂♂, 2 ♀♀; 18–22.viii, ♂; 25–28.viii, ♂; 4–6.ix, 2 ♂♂, 2 ♀♀; 7–11.ix, ♂; 18–22.ix, ♂. Zygomyia pseudohumeralis Caspers, 1980 – Material examined: DR 23–28.x, ♂. Comments. A widespread European species. The first record from Slovakia was published by Ševčík & Kurina (2011b). Zygomyia valeriae Chandler, 1991 – Material examined: HR 13–23.x, ♂. Zygomyia valida Winnertz, 1864 – Material examined: HR 26–28.vii, 3 ♂♂; 2–7.viii, 5 ♂♂; 28.viii–4.ix, 2 ♂♂; 4–6.ix, 2 ♂♂; 7–11.ix, 2 ♂♂; 18– 22.ix, ♂; 22–26.ix, 3 ♂♂; 10–13.x, 2 ♂♂; DR 3– 9.viii, 4 ♂♂; 12–25.viii, ♂; 4–7.ix, 2 ♂♂. Discussion In total, 1,091 fungus gnat individuals representing 121 species were recorded, including 209 unidentified females. Of these, 753 individuals (107 species) were collected in HR and 338 individuals (64 species) in DR, with 50 species occurring in both sites. The most abundant species were Allodia ornaticollis with 78 individuals and Cordyla crassicornis with 55 individuals. Other notably abundant species included Rymosia fasciata (47 individuals), Mycomya (M.) cinerascens (41), Mycetophila fungorum (41), and Exechia fusca (39). Interestingly, 40 species were represented by a single individual, which traditionally indicates incomplete sampling and an undersaturated species accumulation curve. From a faunistic perspective, eight species (Mycetophila (M.) permixta, Brevicornu intermedium, Exechia repandoides, Exechia (X.) seducta, Mycetophila abiecta, Phronia coritanica, Trichonta icenica, and Trichonta comaca) represent the first confirmed records for the fauna of Slovakia. All these species are widespread in Europe; however, both Trichonta species are comparatively rare and occur in a fragmented distribution. Twelve species are known in Slovakia from only a few previous records: Monocentrota matilei, Sciophila interrupta, Brevicornu auriculatum, Cordyla pusilla, Exechia confinis, Exechia (X.) davatchii, Pseudexechia tuomikoskii, Mycetophila czizeki, Phronia signata, Trichonta Phronia nitidiventris (Wulp, 1858) – Material examined: HR 2–7.viii, 2 ♂♂; 18–22.viii, ♂, 22– 25.viii, 3 ♂♂; 25–28.viii, 4 ♂♂; 4–6.ix, ♂; 14– 18.ix, ♂; 22–26.ix, 3 ♂♂; 26.ix–3.x, ♂; 13–23.x, 2 ♂♂. Phronia notata Dziedzickii, 1889 – Material examined: HR 17–21.vii, ♂; DR 13–23.x, 2 ♂♂. Phronia signata Winnertz, 1864 – Material examined: HR 18–22.viii, ♂; 4–6.ix, ♂, 14–18.ix, ♂; 26.ix–3.x, ♂; 3–10.x, ♂; 13–23.x, ♂. Comments. A Palaearctic species, widespread in Europe. The first record from Slovakia was published by Ševčík & Kurina (2011b). Phronia sylvatica Dziedzicki, 1889 – Material examined: HR 21–26.vii, ♂, 25–28.viii, ♂, 13–23.x, ♂, DR 13–23.x, ♂, 23–28.x, ♂. Phronia tenuis Winnertz, 1864 – Material examined: HR 26–28.vii, ♂; 26.ix–3.x, ♂; 10–13.x, ♂; DR 3–9.viii, ♂; 4–7.ix, ♂; 10–13.x, 3 ♂♂; 13– 23.x, 2 ♂♂; 23–28.x, ♂. Platurocypta punctum (Stannius, 1831) – Material examined: HR 2–7.viii, ♂; 18–22.ix, ♂. Platurocypta testata (Edwards, 1925) – Material examined: HR 22–26.ix, ♂. Sceptonia membranacea Edwards, 1925 – Material examined: HR 6–7.ix, ♂. Trichonta brevicauda Lundström, 1906 – Material examined: HR 25–28.viii, ♂. *Trichonta icenica Edwards, 1925 – Fig. 2 A – Material examined: HR 22–25.viii, ♂; 25–28.viii, ♂; 22–26.ix, ♂; 26.ix–3.x, ♂; DR 10–13.x, 3 ♂♂; 23– 28.x, ♂. Comments. A Palaearctic species, widespread but rather rare in Europe. Trichonta melanura (Staeger, 1840) – Material examined: HR 2–7.viii, ♂; 22–26.ix, ♂; 26.ix–3.x, ♂. Comments. A Holarctic species widely distributed in Europe. The first record from Slovakia was published by Ševčík & Kurina (2011b). Trichonta subterminalis Zaitzev & Menzel, 1996 – Material examined: HR 21–26.vii, ♂; 18–22.viii, 3 ♂♂; 25–28.viii, 2 ♂♂; 4–6.ix, ♂; 26.ix–3.x, 4 ♂♂; DR 23–28.x, ♂. Comments. A Palaearctic species widespread throughout Europe. Some earlier records of T. terminalis (Walker, 1856) may actually refer to this species. The first record from Slovakia was published by Ševčík & Kurina (2011b). Trichonta vitta (Meigen, 1830) – Material examined: HR 25–28.viii, ♂. Zygomyia humeralis (Wiedemann, 1817) – Material examined: HR 26–28.vii, ♂; 18–22.ix, ♂; Fungus gnat diversity in a semi-urban habitat in Slovakia: insights from an unconventional trapping method 369Historia naturalis bulgarica 47 (2025) melanura, Trichonta subterminalis, and Zygomyia pseudohumeralis. In this study, we present the first records on the diversity of fungus gnats (Diptera: Bibionomorpha) collected with BG-Sentinel traps baited with CO2. Although these traps were originally designed for monitoring diurnal mosquitoes, they proved effective in capturing numerous fungus gnat species, including several new records for Slovakia. Comparable results for other non-target Diptera were recently reported by Grundmann et al. (2025) and Oboňa et al. (2025). Grundmann et al. (2025) documented 73 species of Phoridae, 24 of them new for Slovakia, highlighting the potential of these traps to uncover hidden diversity. Oboňa et al. (2025) surveyed selected Diptera families at the same locality and recorded 32 species from eight families. Their results suggest that many non-target dipterans are attracted to CO2, likely because it signals organic matter decomposition, supporting the broader application of BG-Sentinel traps beyond hematophagous flies. However, some species that are not inherently attracted may also be captured only sporadically, as probably reflected by the high proportion of singletons in our samples. Nevertheless, our findings suggest that non-standard trapping methods can provide valuable faunistic data. The diverse assemblage of fungus gnats collected demonstrates that mosquito-trap by-catch – often treated as waste – represents an important source of biodiversity information. These results emphasise the value of incorporating unconventional sampling techniques into entomological research, particularly in underexplored semi-urban habitats. Acknowledgements We would especially like to thank the editor and reviewers for providing constructive comments and for improving the manuscript. This work was co-funded by the European Union under the project 101132974 – OH SURVector. Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or European Health and Digital Executive Agency (granting authority). Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them. Olavi Kurina was supported by institutional research funding from the Ministry of Education and Research of Estonia and funding from the Estonian Research Council (TT14). Jozef Oboňa was supported by the Slovak Research and Development Agency under contract No. APVV-20-0140, and by the Ministry of Education, Research, Development and Youth of the Slovak Republic from the KEGA project No. 014PU4/2025 Innovative methods in teaching subjects with an ecological focus in university studies. Conflicts of interest No potential conflict of interest has been reported by the authors, reviewers, or subject editor. As a member of the editorial board Jozef Oboňa recused himself from discussions and decisions on the manuscript. References Arimoto H., Harwood J.F., Nunn P.J., Richardson A.G., Gordon S., Obenauer P.J. 2015 Comparison of trapping performance between the original BGsentinel® trap and BG-sentinel 2® Trap1. Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association 31 (4): 384–387. https://doi.org/ 10.2987/moco-31-04-384-387.1 � Bechev D. 1989 Monocentrota matilei n. sp. from Bulgaria and Algeria (Insecta, Diptera: Keroplatidae). Reichenbachia 26 (30): 173–174. Carvalho L.P.C., Pereira Júnior A.M., Pessoa F.A.C., Medeiros J.F. 2021 Biting Midges in Jamari National Forest, in the Brazilian Amazon, With 12 New Records of Culicoides Species (Diptera: Ceratopogonidae) for the State of Rondônia. Journal of Medical Entomology 58 (1): 465–470. https://doi.org/10.1093/jme/tjaa138 � Chandler P.J. 2005 Fauna Europaea: Mycetophilidae. In: Beuk P., Pape T. Fauna Europaea: Diptera, Nematocera. Fauna Europaea, version 2017.06. http://www.faunaeur.org � (accessed 10 July 2023). Chandler P. 2022 Fungus Gnats (Diptera: Mycetophilidae: Mycetophilinae). RES Handbooks for the Identification of British Insects 9 (8): 1–398. Cilek J.E., Jiang Y.X., Dejesus C.E. 2024 Field Comparison of Carbon Dioxide Source with Biogents Sentinel-2 and Pro Traps for Adult