Lentic odonates have larger and more northern ranges than lotic species

Abstract

Aim We analysed latitudinal range, centres of distribution and northern range boundaries of dragonflies and damselflies occurring in Europe and North America with respect to larval habitat (standing water = lentic and running water = lotic). As lentic water bodies are thought to be less predictable in space and time than lotic habitats, species adapted to standing waters depend on effective dispersal ability for long‐term survival. If species occurring in lentic habitats have a higher propensity for dispersal, then larger range sizes in lentic than in lotic species, as well as an increase in the proportion of lentic species with latitude, would be expected. Location Europe, North America. Methods Distributional and habitat data were collected from published sources for all odonates of Europe and North America. Species were assigned to lentic and lotic habitats according to the habitat of the larvae. From distribution maps we estimated the latitudinal range, centre of distribution and northern range boundary of each species. Differences in these distribution variables between lentic and lotic species were evaluated using anova. We related the proportion of lentic species by latitudinal interval in Europe, and by political unit (state, province) in North America, to area, altitudinal range, longitude (only for North America) and latitude by means of generalized linear models. Results Lentic damselflies and dragonflies had larger latitudinal spans, and more northern distribution centres and range boundaries, than lotic species. The proportion of lentic species increased with latitude. These findings were consistent between continents. Main conclusions Our results support previous findings that distribution patterns of freshwater species depend on habitat preference. Evolution of dispersal propensity according to habitat characteristics is the most likely explanation. However, at present, alternative explanations, such as an increase in lentic habitats with latitude, cannot be ruled out.

Habitat stability affects dispersal and the ability to track climate change

“…This is underlined by the tendency towards stronger over-prediction of lotic species ranges when comparing projected and observed ranges for 2006. Both findings support the HSDH, suggesting that lower habitat stability selects for stronger dispersal abilities [3,4] (see the electronic supplementary material, discussion for details on the effects of range size, phylogeny, threshold technique and on other deviances from the overall pattern). The observed differences in range filling could be confounded by habitat availability, e.g.…”

“…Specifically, we hypothesize that if their habitats are more likely to disappear within shorter periods of time, lentic species should have evolved a higher propensity for dispersal than lotic species [3]. Support for this hypothesis-hereafter referred to as the habitat -stability -dispersal hypothesis (HSDH)-comes from several studies, which showed that lentic species have larger range sizes [4] and a lower genetic diversity among populations [5,6] than lotic species. Furthermore, post-glacial re-colonization of northern Europe was probably faster for lentic than for lotic species [7][8][9].…”

Ecological patterns of Odonata assemblages in karst springs in central Montenegro

“…Generally, water velocity, temperature, shading, disturbance, type of substrate, trophy, aquatic vegetation (its spatial structure and abundance) and predation risk are considered to be the most important factors shaping assemblages of Odonata larvae (Buchwald, 1992;Buss et al, 2004;Johansson et al, 2006;McCauley, 2007;Strange et al, 2007;Buczyński, 2015). The regional distribution of Odonata seems to be mostly affected by dispersal at the adult stage (Hof et al, 2006) while the local distribution is probably mainly affected by interactions at the larva stage (McCauley, 2007).…”

Cross-Eurasian and altitudinal distribution of lotic mayflies – species with wider altitudinal ranges have narrower geographical distribution

“…Obviously, these species could only achieve wide distribution through active (e.g., aerial flight of merolimnic insects) and passive (e.g., by wind, animal vectors) dispersal over inhospitable habitats (Bilton et al, 2001 and references therein). Recently, species ranges of European aquatic beetles (Ribera and Vogler, 2000;Ribera et al, 2003) and European and North-American dragonflies (Hof et al, 2006) were conclusively correlated to dispersal propensity of these organisms, which in turn depends on their habitat preferences. Hof et al (2006) also showed that the current distribution of dragonflies in Europe and North America is determined by an interplay of the species' dispersal propensity and the geographical orientation of mountain ranges.…”

“…The most important among them are species' ecological requirements and dispersal abilities (Gaston, 1994;Ribera and Vogler, 2000;Hof et al, 2006), geographical barriers (Adams and Woodward, 1989;Bernatchez and Wilson, 1998), and evolutionary, geological, and climatic historical processes (Webb and Bartlein, 1992;Dynesius and Jansson, 2000). A complex interplay of these factors, but not any single factor, is currently thought to shape the geographical ranges of species (Lomolino et al, 2006;Whittaker et al, 2007;Hof et al, 2008;Bonada et al, 2009, and the references above).…”