Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 16, Issue 5, pp 1491–1509 | Cite as

Livestock Trampling Reduces the Conservation Value of Beetle Communities on High Quality Exposed Riverine Sediments

  • Adam J. Bates
  • Jon P. SadlerEmail author
  • Adrian P. Fowles
Original Paper


Exposed riverine sediments (ERS) are habitat for a large number of rare and threatened specialist species of invertebrates and are of considerable conservation importance. Livestock trampling is believed to be one of the most widespread causes of damage to ERS habitats in the UK, and as such, its effects were the focus of this investigation. Beetle density was measured at two points within 25 distinct patches of habitat along ∼ ∼47 km of the Afon Tywi special site of scientific interest in South Wales, which is known to support an extremely good quality ERS beetle fauna in a UK context. Partial canonical correspondence analyses were used to explore the relationship between beetle assemblage and a range of environmental variables. The percentage of fine (<8 mm) sediments, median sediment size, distance downstream, cattle stocking levels, and counts of sheep faeces were found to best relate to beetle abundance and assemblage structure. Species richness was positively associated with stocking levels, probably because of the addition of species associated with resultant elevated levels of silt and organic matter. The ERS quality score, which is a measure of conservation value based on the rarity of specialist ERS beetles, was negatively associated with measures of trampling damage. It was therefore concluded that livestock trampling reduces the conservation value of beetle communities on high quality ERS and management should restrict trampling in sites of high conservation importance.


Afon Tywi Carabidae Disturbance Grazing Indicator species Partial canonical correspondence analysis Species diversity Staphylinidae Rarity Riparian 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



We thank the School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Birmingham and the Countryside Council for Wales (CCW) for funding this study; Kevin Burkhill and Anne Ankorn for the preparation of Fig. 1; Richard Johnson for help with equipment preparation; Nigel Stringer and Sarah Andrews (CCW) for obtaining land access permission; and the many landowners who allowed site access.


  1. Agouridis CT, Workman SR, Warner RC, Jennings GD (2005) Livestock grazing management impacts on stream water quality: a review. J Am Water Resour Assoc 41:591–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersen J (1968) The effect of inundation and choice of hibernation sites of Coleoptera living on river banks. Norsk Entomologisk Tidsskrift 15:115–133Google Scholar
  3. Andersen J (1995) A comparison of pitfall trapping and quadrat sampling of Carabidae (Coleoptera) on river banks. Entomologica Fennica 6:65–77Google Scholar
  4. Anon (1999) Tranche 2 action plans volume 6- Terrestrial and freshwater species and habitats. English Nature, PeterboroughGoogle Scholar
  5. Bates AJ, Sadler JP (2004) Records of rare and notable species of beetle from exposed riverine sediments (ERS) on the rivers Tywi and Upper Severn. Coleopterist 13:125–132Google 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. Aquatic Conserv: Mar Freshw Ecosyst 15:159–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Benda L, Poff NL, Miller D, Dunne T, Reeves G, Pess G, Pollock M (2004) The network dynamics hypothesis: how channel networks structure riverine habitats. Bioscience 54:413–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. ter Braak CFJ (1986) Canonical correspondence analysis: a new eigenvector technique for multivariate direct gradient analysis. Ecology 67:1167–1179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. ter Braak CFJ, Šmilauer P (1998) CANOCO reference manual and user’s guide to Canoco for Windows: software for canonical community ordination (version 4). Microcomputer Power, IthacaGoogle Scholar
  10. Church M (1983) Pattern of instability in a wandering gravel bed channel. In: Collison JD, Lewin J (eds), Modern and ancient fluvial systems. International Association of Sedimentologists, vol 6. Special Publications, pp 169–180Google Scholar
  11. Clary WP (1999) Stream channel and vegetation responses to late spring cattle grazing. J Range Management 52:218–227Google Scholar
  12. Coleopterist (2005) Full checklist of UK species of beetles with up to date nomenclature and sources. 8/2005
  13. Dobkin DS, Rich AC, Pyle WH (1998) Habitat and avifaunal recovery from livestock grazing in a riparian meadow system of the northwestern Great Basin. Conserv Biol 12:209–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. EA (2004) Water quality data available from the Environment Agency ‘what’s in your backyard’ section:
  15. Fowles AP (1989) The Coleoptera of shingle banks on the River Ystwyth, Dyfed. Entomol Rec 101:209–221Google Scholar
  16. Fowles AP, Alexander KNA, Key RS (1999) The Saproxylic Quality Index: evaluating wooded habitats for the conservation of dead-wood Coleoptera. Coleopterist 8:121–141Google Scholar
  17. Fowles AP (2005) Species of beetle with high fidelity to exposed riverine sediments in the UK. (10/05)
  18. Giuliano WM, Homyack JD (2004) Short-term exclusion effects on riparian small mammal communities. J Range Management 57:346–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Godfrey A (1999) A review of Diptera from exposed riverine sediments based on literature records. Dipterists Digest 6:63–82Google Scholar
  20. Hering D, Plachter H (1997) Riparian ground beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) preying on aquatic invertebrates: A feeding strategy in alpine floodplains. Oecologia 111:261–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hyman PS, Parsons MS (1992) A review of the scarce and threatened Coleoptera of Great Britain: Part 1. UK Nat Conserv 3:1–483Google Scholar
  22. Hyman PS, Parsons MS (1994) A review of the scarce and threatened Coleoptera of Great Britain. Part 2. UK Nat Conserv 12:1–248Google Scholar
  23. Jansen A, Robertson AI (2001) Relationships between livestock management and the ecological condition of riparian habitats along an Australian floodplain river. J Appl Ecol 38:63–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. LEAP-Carmarthen area (2005) Local Environment Agency Plan for the Carmarthen area.
  25. Legendre P, Legendre L (1998) Numerical ecology (2nd English ed.). Developments in environmental modelling 20Google Scholar
  26. Lepš J, Šmilauer P (2003) Multivariate analysis of ecological data using CANOCO. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  27. Lott DA, Eyre MD (1996) Invertebrate sampling methods. In: Eyre MD (eds) Environmental monitoring, surveillance and conservation using invertebrates. EMS Publications, Newcastle Upon Tyne, pp 9–13Google Scholar
  28. Lude A, Reich M, Plachter H (1999) Life strategies of ants in unpredictable floodplain habitats of Alpine rivers (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Entomologica Generalis 24:75–91Google Scholar
  29. McCune B (1997) Influence of noisy environmental data on canonical correspondence analysis. Ecology 78:2617–2623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Moussavi-Harami R, Mahboubi A, Khanehbad M (2004) Analysis of controls on downstream fining along three gravel-bed rivers in the Band-e-Golestan drainage basin NE Iran. Geomorphology 61:143–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Paetzold A, Tockner K (2005) Effects of riparian arthropod predation on the biomass and abundance of aquatic insect emergence. J North Am Benthol Soc 24:395–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Paetzold A, Schubert CJ, Tockner K (2005) Aquatic-terrestrial linkages along a braided-river: riparian arthropods feeding on aquatic insects. Ecosystems 8:748–759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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. Aquatic Conserv: Mar Freshw Ecosyst 10:249–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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. G. Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart, pp 509–538Google Scholar
  35. RiversMoore NA, Samways MJ (1996) Game and cattle trampling, and impacts of human dwellings on arthropods at a game park boundary. Biodivers Conserv 5:1545–1556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sadler JP, Bell D (2002) Invertebrates of exposed riverine sediments: Phase 3—baseline faunas. Technical Report W1–034/TR, WRc, Environment Agency, SwindonGoogle Scholar
  37. 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
  38. Scheidegger AE (1965) The algebra of stream-order numbers. US Geological Survey Professional Paper 525B:187–189Google Scholar
  39. Scott ML, Skagen SK, Merigliano MF (2003) Relating geomorphic change and grazing to avian communities in riparian forests. Conserv Biol 17:284–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Scrimgeour GJ, Kendall S (2003) Effects of livestock grazing on benthic invertebrates from a native grassland ecosystem. Freshw Biol 48:347–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Smith SA (1989) Sedimentation in a meandering gravel-bed river: The river Tywi, South Wales. Geol J 24:193–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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
  43. Sykes JM, Lane AMJ (1996) The UK environmental change network: protocols for standard measurements at terrestrial sites. Stationery Office, LondonGoogle Scholar
  44. Trimble SW, Mendel AC (1995) The cow as a geomorphic agent—a critical review. Geomorphology 13:233–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ward JV, Tockner K, Arscott B, Claret C (2002) Riverine landscape diversity. Freshw Biol 47:517–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. du Bus de Warnaffe G, Dufrêne M (2004) To what extent can management variables explain species assemblages? A study of carabid beetles in forests. Ecography 27:701–714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wheeler MA, Trlica MJ, Frasier GW, Reeder JD (2002) Seasonal grazing affects soil physical properties of a montane riparian community. J Range Management 55:49–56Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 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 BirminghamEdgbastonUK
  2. 2.Countryside Council for WalesPlas PenrhosUK

Personalised recommendations