The role of small secondary biotopes in a highly fragmented landscape as habitat and connectivity providers for dragonflies (Insecta: Odonata)

Maynou, Xavier; Martín, Ricard Marlasca; Aranda, Daniel Arias

doi:10.1007/s10841-017-9992-0

Cited by 23 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As discussed by [51] in this VSI, SWEs are essential to maintain diverse and varied biological communities across a heterogeneous series of ecosystems, including heavily human-impacted areas in agricultural and urban settings (e.g., for hydrophytes ( Figure 2U), Odonata species) [298,[409][410][411][412]. Oertli and Parris (2019) [413] have recently reviewed this topic, reporting that indicator species richness is generally lower in urban ponds compared to rural ones; however, urban ponds have the potential to support greater biodiversity, if correctly managed [414].…”

Section: Small Standing-water Ecosystemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Characteristics, Main Impacts, and Stewardship of Natural and Artificial Freshwater Environments: Consequences for Biodiversity Conservation

Cantonati

Poikāne

Pringle

et al. 2020

Water

181

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this overview (introductory article to a special issue including 14 papers), we consider all main types of natural and artificial inland freshwater habitas (fwh). For each type, we identify the main biodiversity patterns and ecological features, human impacts on the system and environmental issues, and discuss ways to use this information to improve stewardship. Examples of selected key biodiversity/ecological features (habitat type): narrow endemics, sensitive (groundwater and GDEs); crenobionts, LIHRes (springs); unidirectional flow, nutrient spiraling (streams); naturally turbid, floodplains, large-bodied species (large rivers); depth-variation in benthic communities (lakes); endemism and diversity (ancient lakes); threatened, sensitive species (oxbow lakes, SWE); diverse, reduced littoral (reservoirs); cold-adapted species (Boreal and Arctic fwh); endemism, depauperate (Antarctic fwh); flood pulse, intermittent wetlands, biggest river basins (tropical fwh); variable hydrologic regime—periods of drying, flash floods (arid-climate fwh). Selected impacts: eutrophication and other pollution, hydrologic modifications, overexploitation, habitat destruction, invasive species, salinization. Climate change is a threat multiplier, and it is important to quantify resistance, resilience, and recovery to assess the strategic role of the different types of freshwater ecosystems and their value for biodiversity conservation. Effective conservation solutions are dependent on an understanding of connectivity between different freshwater ecosystems (including related terrestrial, coastal and marine systems).

show abstract

Section: Small Standing-water Ecosystemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Characteristics, Main Impacts, and Stewardship of Natural and Artificial Freshwater Environments: Consequences for Biodiversity Conservation

Cantonati

Poikāne

Pringle

et al. 2020

Water

181

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They depend on intrinsic factors such as flight capability (Lancaster & Downes, 2017) and may differ according to age or sex at the intraspecific scale (Lancaster et al., 2020). These movements also depend on extrinsic factors such as land use, connectivity in the surrounding matrix (Maynou et al, 2017) and meteorological factors (e.g. temperature; May, 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Habitat use and movements of a large dragonfly (Odonata: Anax imperator) in a pond network

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Local movements of aquatic insects within the surroundings of waterbodies aim essentially to find food, mates, resting sites, or avoid predation. Distances moved are very variable among species and may also differ depending on sex or age at the intraspecific scale. Despite a large panel of studies on odonate activities near waterbodies, little is known about their movements and behaviour in the surrounding landscape matrix. This knowledge is, however, crucial to support management schemes of pond networks and allow improvement of connectivity between them. In this study, 87 individuals of the large dragonfly Anax imperator were identified with a unique code on the wings and monitored visually on five ponds during summers 2017 and 2018. Simultaneously, 54 individuals were equipped with radio transmitters and tracked for up to 15 days. We built Cormack Jolly Seber models to test which factors are important for movement and survival of individuals, and calculated home ranges. Additionally, we performed a step selection analysis on the telemetry data to identify the terrestrial habitats selected by A. imperator at the interface between a rural area and a suburban area in north‐western France. A reduction of the survival rate was observed on the day immediately following capture regardless of the marking method. Individuals equipped with radio transmitters had a lower estimated daily survival (0.78; 95% confidence interval = 0.70–0.85) compared to wing‐marked individuals (0.89; 95% confidence interval = 0.85–0.92). Wing loading and age were the main variables influencing dragonfly survival for both methods. The probability of movement between ponds was similar for both sexes, but radio‐tracking data showed that females moved significantly further away in the landscape matrix than males, with one female detected up to 1,902 m away from the release pond. Females also had a larger home range (mean 95% kernel: 50 ha) than males (mean 95% kernel: 5 ha). Reproductive behaviour of males and flying behaviour of females were positively related to air temperature. Individuals of both sexes were present on ponds more often than in all other habitats whatever their activity. High trees were the preferred place to rest when air temperatures were low, especially for females. Overall, this study highlights the importance of integrating neighbouring trees in management schemes of ponds. It also confirms that preservation of pond networks must include on several hectares of land around ponds to meet the aquatic and terrestrial needs of amphibious organisms such as odonates. Our radio‐tracking data provide a basis for further studies on the persistence of odonate meta‐populations in fragmented landscapes.

show abstract

“…This translates into high structural heterogeneity that is expected to be mirrored by high rates of functional and compositional biodiversity. Hence, strong evidence indicates that-especially in heavily impacted regions-small habitat patches are essential in sustaining varied and complex communities, such as small man-made (secondary) water bodies for plants and animals (e.g., hydrophytes, Odonata species) [6][7][8][9]. In this sense, Hill et al [10] have verified the high taxonomic richness associated to urban ponds, found to be similar to that for nonurban ponds, opening new perspectives in conserving freshwater biodiversity in highly impacted and altered landscapes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ecological and Conservation Value of Small Standing-Water Ecosystems: A Systematic Review of Current Knowledge and Future Challenges

Bolpagni

Poikāne

Laini

et al. 2019

Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A small standing-water ecosystem (SWE) is a shallow (<20 m) lentic water body with a surface of a few hectares (≤10 ha). Compared to larger counterparts, they exhibit wider ecotones, sometimes even equaling their whole surface, which maximizes structural heterogeneity, supporting exceptionally high biodiversity, metabolic rates, and functionality. Surprisingly, no binding regulations support global strategies for SWE conservation. This work consists of a literature review performed for the period 2004–2018 to assess the ecological and conservation value of SWEs and the contribution of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) in promoting their conservation. Outcomes from this work open new perspectives on SWEs, which emerge as valuable ecosystems, and confirm their pivotal contribution to watershed biodiversity, resilience, and functionality. Results also suggest clear narrative trends and large knowledge gaps across geographical areas, biological components, and target issues. Additionally, we note that SWEs are under-represented in the frame of WFD implementation, stressing their marginality into assessing procedures. All of this calls for further studies, especially outside Europe and with a global, multi-taxon perspective. These should be devoted to quantitatively assess the roles of SWEs in maintaining global water ecosystem quality, biodiversity, and services, and to prioritize management actions for their conservation.

show abstract

The role of small secondary biotopes in a highly fragmented landscape as habitat and connectivity providers for dragonflies (Insecta: Odonata)

Cited by 23 publications

References 25 publications

Characteristics, Main Impacts, and Stewardship of Natural and Artificial Freshwater Environments: Consequences for Biodiversity Conservation

Characteristics, Main Impacts, and Stewardship of Natural and Artificial Freshwater Environments: Consequences for Biodiversity Conservation

Habitat use and movements of a large dragonfly (Odonata: Anax imperator) in a pond network

Ecological and Conservation Value of Small Standing-Water Ecosystems: A Systematic Review of Current Knowledge and Future Challenges

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About