, Volume 150, Issue 1, pp 50–60 | Cite as

Condition-dependent dispersal of a patchily distributed riparian ground beetle in response to disturbance

  • Adam J. Bates
  • Jon P. SadlerEmail author
  • Adrian P. Fowles
Population Ecology


In common with many habitat elements of riverine landscapes, exposed riverine sediments (ERS) are highly disturbed, naturally patchy and regularly distributed, whose specialists are strongly adapted to flood disturbance and loss of habitat due to succession. Investigations of dispersal in ERS habitats therefore provide an important contrast to the unnaturally fragmented, stable systems usually studied. The present investigation analysed the three interdependent stages of dispersal: (1) emigration, (2) inter-patch movement and (3) immigration of a common ERS specialised beetle, Bembidion atrocaeruleum (Stephens 1828) (Coleoptera, Carabidae), in a relatively unmodified section of river, using mark–resight methods. Dispersal was correlated with estimates of local population size and density, water level and patch quality in order to test for condition-dependent dispersal cues. Flood inundation of habitat was found to increase strongly the overall rate of dispersal, and the rate of emigration was significantly higher from patches that were heavily trampled by cattle. Strongly declining numbers of dispersers with distance suggested low dispersal rates during periods of low water level. Dispersal in response to habitat degradation by cattle trampling would likely lead to a higher overall population fitness than a random dispersal strategy. Dispersal distances were probably adapted to the underlying habitat landscape distribution, high-flow dispersal cues and ready means of long-distance dispersal through hydrochory. Species whose dispersal is adapted to the natural habitat distribution of riverine landscapes are likely to be strongly negatively affected by reduced flood frequency and intensity and habitat fragmentation through flow regulation or channelisation.


Bembidionatrocaeruleum Exposed riverine sediments (ERS) Fragmentation sensitivity Hydrochory Riverine landscapes 



We thank the School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Birmingham and the Countryside Council for Wales for funding the study; Alan Jones (Environment Agency) for obtaining landowner contact details; Tom Kinsey, Gordon Trow and David Davies for allowing site access; Cat Butcher and Richard Johnson for help with fieldwork and equipment preparation, and Kevin Burkhill and Anne Ankorn for help with Fig. 1. We are grateful to the British Atmospheric Data Centre for access to the Meteorological Office Land Surface Observation Stations Data, to the Patuxent Wildlife Centre for provision of the JOLLY model, and to Klement Tockner and Gavin Stewart for useful comments on the manuscript.

Supplementary material

442_2006_508_MOESM1_ESM.doc (34 kb)
Supplementary material


  1. Addicott JF, Aho JM, Antolin MF, Padilla DK, Richardson JS, Soluk DA (1987) Ecological neighbourhoods: scaling environmental patterns. Oikos 49:340–346Google Scholar
  2. Amarasekare P (2004) The role of density-dependent dispersal in source—sink dynamics. J Theor Biol 226:159–168PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andersen J (1968) The effect of inundation and choice of hibernation sites of Coleoptera living on river banks. Norsk Tidsskr 15:115–133Google Scholar
  4. Bates AJ, Sadler JP (2004) A long-lasting method for marking beetles (Coleoptera), which does not enhance mortality. Entomol News 115:49–51Google Scholar
  5. Bates AJ, Sadler JP (2005) The ecology and conservation of beetles associated with exposed riverine sediments. CCW Contract Science Report no. 688Google Scholar
  6. Bates AJ, Sadler JP, Fowles AP, Butcher CR (2005) Spatial dynamics of beetles living on exposed riverine sediments in the Upper River Severn: method development and preliminary results. Aquat Conserv 15:159–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bates AJ, Sadler JP, Fowles AP (2006) Livestock trampling reduces the conservation value of beetle communities on high quality exposed riverine sediments. Biodivers Conserv (in press). DOI 10.1007/s10531-006-9028-7Google Scholar
  8. den Boer PJ (1968) Spreading of risk and stabilisation of animal numbers. Acta Biotheor 18:165–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bonn A (2000) Flight activity of carabid beetles on a river margin in relation to fluctuating water levels. In: Brandmayr P, Lövei G, Brandmayr TZ, Casale A, Vigna Taglianti A (eds) Natural history and applied ecology of Carabid beetles. Pensoft, Sofia, Moscow, pp 147–160Google Scholar
  10. Bonte D, Lens L, Maelfait J-P (2004) Lack of homeward orientation and increased mobility result in high emigration rates from low-quality fragments in a dune wolf spider. J Anim Ecol 73:643–650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bowler DE, Benton TG (2005) Causes and consequences of animal dispersal strategies: relating individual behaviour to spatial dynamics. Biol Rev 80:205–225PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brewer PA, Maas GS, Macklin MG (2000) A fifty-year history of exposed riverine sediment dynamics on Welsh rivers. BHS Occas Pap 11:245–252Google Scholar
  13. Church M (1983) Pattern of instability in a wandering gravel bed channel. Int Assoc Sedimentol Spec Publ 6:169–180Google Scholar
  14. Cormack RM (1964) Loglinear models for capture–recapture. Biometrics 45:395–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dennis RLH, Shreeve TG, van Dyck H (2003) Towards a functional resource-based concept for habitat: a butterfly biology viewpoint. Oikos 102:417–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Denno RF, Olmstead KL, McCloud ES (1989) Reproductive cost of flight capability: a comparison of life history traits in wing dimorphic planthoppers. Ecol Entomol 14:31–44Google Scholar
  17. Desender K (1989) Ecomorphological adaptations of riparian carabid beetles. In: Wouters K, Baert L (eds) Comptes Rendus du Symposium ‘Invertèbres de Belgique’. Royal Institute of Natural Sciences, Brussels, pp 309–314Google Scholar
  18. Dreitz VJ, Nichols JD, Hines JE, Bennetts RE, Kitchens WM, Deangelis DL (2002) The use of resighting data to estimate the rate of population growth of the snail kite in Florida. J Appl Stat 29:609–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Goodson JM, Gurnell AM, Angold PG, Morrissey IP (2003) Evidence for hydrochory and the deposition of viable seeds within winter flow-deposited sediments: the River Dove, Derbyshire, UK. River Res Appl 19:317–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hammond PM (1998) Riparian and floodplain arthropod assemblages: their characteristics and rapid assessment. In: Bailey RG, José PV, Sherwood BR (eds) United Kingdom floodplains. Westbury Press, Otley, pp 237–282Google Scholar
  21. Hanski I, Gilpin ME (1997) Metapopulation biology: ecology, genetics and evolution. Academic, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  22. Harrison S (1991) Local extinction in a metapopulation context: an empirical evaluation. Biol J Linn Soc 42:73–88Google Scholar
  23. Henle K, Davies KF, Kleyer M, Margules C, Settele J (2004) Predictors of species sensitivity to fragmentation. Biodivers Conserv 13:207–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hering D, Gerhard M, Manderbach R, Reich M (2004) Impact of a 100-year flood on vegetation, benthic invertebrates, riparian fauna and large woody debris standing stock in an Alpine floodplain. River Res Appl 20:445–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jansen A, Robertson AI (2001) Relationship between livestock management and the ecological condition of riparian habitats along an Australian floodplain river. J Appl Ecol 38:63–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jolly GM (1965) Explicit estimates from capture–recapture data with both death and immigration-stochastic model. Biometrika 52:225–247PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Junk WJ, Bayley PB, Sparks RE (1989) The flood pulse concept in river-floodplain systems. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 106:110–127Google Scholar
  28. Kondolf GM (1997) Hungry water: effects of dams and gravel mining on river channels. Environ Manag 21:533–551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kuussaari M, Nieminen M, Hanski I (1996) An experimental study of migration in the Glanville fritillary butterfly Melitaea cinxia. J Anim Ecol 65:791–801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Levins RA (1969) Some demographic and genetic consequences of environmental heterogeneity for biological control. Bull Entomol Soc Am 15:237–240Google Scholar
  31. Lude A, Reich M, Plachter H (1999) Life strategies of ants in unpredictable floodplain habitats of Alpine rivers (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Entomol Gen 24:75–91Google Scholar
  32. Lytle DA (1999) Use of rainfall cues by Abedus herberti (Hemiptera: Belostomatidae): a mechanism for avoiding flash floods. J Insect Behav 12:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. MacArthur RH, Wilson EO (1967) The theory of island biogeography. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  34. Matter SF (1996) Interpatch movement of the red milkweed beetle, Tetraopes tetraophthalmus: individual responses to patch size and isolation. Oecologia 105:447–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Naiman RJ, Decamps H, Pollock M (1993) The role of riparian corridors in maintaining regional biodiversity. Ecol Appl 3:209–212Google Scholar
  36. Nève G, Barascud B, Hughes R, Aubert J, Descimon H, Lebrun P, Baguette M (1996) Dispersal, colonisation power and metapopulation structure in the vulnerable butterfly Proclossiana eunomia (Lepidoptera, Nymphalidae). J Appl Ecol 33:14–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Petts GE, Gurnell AM, Gerrard AJ, Hannah DM, Hansford B, Morrissey I, Edwards PJ, Kollmann J, Ward JV, Tockner K, Smith BPG (2000) Longitudinal variations in exposed riverine sediments: a context for the ecology of the Fiume Tagliamento, Italy. Aquat Conserv 10:249–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Plachter H (1986) Composition of the carabid beetle fauna of natural riverbanks and man-made secondary habitats. In: den Boer PJ, Luff ML, Mossakowski D, Weber F (eds) Carabid beetles: their adaptations and dynamics. Fischer, Stuttgart, pp 509–538Google Scholar
  39. Plachter H, Reich M (1998) The significance of disturbance for populations and ecosystems in natural floodplains. In: Proceedings of the international symposium on river restoration, 26–27 May, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  40. Pollock KH, Nichols JD, Brownie C, Hines JE (1990a) JOLLY—computes estimates of survival and capture probability for 1-age class open population capture–recapture models. US Geological Survey, Patuxent Wildlife Research Centre.
  41. Pollock KH, Nichols JD, Brownie C, Hines JE (1990b) Statistical inference for capture–recapture experiments. Wildlife Monogr 107:1–97Google Scholar
  42. Purse BV, Hopkins GW, Day KJ, Thompson DJ (2003) Dispersal characteristics and management of a rare damselfly. J Appl Ecol 40:716–728CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Reed JM, Dobson AP (1993) Behavioural constraints and conservation biology: conspecific attraction and recruitment. Trends Ecol Evol 8:253–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Richards K (1982) Rivers: form and process in alluvial channels. Methuen, London New YorkGoogle Scholar
  45. Roland J, Keyghobadi N, Fownes S (2000) Alpine Parnassius butterfly dispersal: effects of landscape and population size. Ecology 81:1642–1653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sadler JP, Bell D, Fowles AP (2004) The hydroecological controls and conservation value of beetles on exposed riverine sediments in England and Wales. Biol Conserv 118:41–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sæther B-E, Engen S, Lande R (1999) Finite metapopulation models with density-dependent migration and stochastic local dynamics. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 266:113–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schneider C (2003) The influence of spatial scale on quantifying insect dispersal: an analysis of butterfly data. Ecol Entomol 28:252–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Seber GAF (1965) A note on the multiple-recapture census. Biometrika 52:249–259PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Shaffer ML (1981) Minimum viable population sizes for species conservation. Bioscience 31:131–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Singer MC, Wedlake P (1981) Capture does affect probability of recapture in a butterfly species. Ecol Entomol 6:215–216Google Scholar
  52. Southwood TRE (1962) Migration of terrestrial arthropods in relation to habitat. Biol Rev 37:171–214Google Scholar
  53. Stelter C, Reich M, Grimm V, Wissel C (1997) Modelling persistence in dynamic landscapes: lessons from a metapopulation of the grasshopper Bryodema tuberculata. J Anim Ecol 66:508–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sutcliffe OL, Thomas CD, Peggie D (1997) Area-dependent migration by ringlet butterflies generates a mixture of patchy population and metapopulation attributes. Oecologia 109:229–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Thomas JA, Rose RJ, Clarke RT, Thomas CD, Webb NR (1999) Intraspecific variation in habitat availability among ectothermic animals near their climatic limits and their centres of range. Funct Ecol 13 [Suppl 1]:55–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Tockner K, Stanford JA (2002) Riverine flood plains: present state and future trends. Environ Conserv 29:308–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Tockner K, Malard F, Ward JV (2000) An extension of the flood pulse concept. Hydrol Process 14:2861–2883CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Travis JMJ, French DR (2000) Dispersal functions and spatial models: expanding our dispersal toolbox. Ecol Lett 3:163–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Ward JV, Tockner K, Arscott B, Claret C (2002) Riverine landscape diversity. Freshw Biol 47:517–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Waser PM, Creel SR, Lucas JR (1994) Death and disappearance—estimating mortality risks associated with philopatry and dispersal. Behav Ecol 5:135–141Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Adam J. Bates
    • 1
  • Jon P. Sadler
    • 1
    Email author
  • Adrian P. Fowles
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Geography, Earth and Environmental SciencesThe University of BirminghamBirminghamUK
  2. 2.Countryside Council for WalesBangorUK

Personalised recommendations