, Volume 597, Issue 1, pp 43–51 | Cite as

Biodiversity and distribution patterns of freshwater invertebrates in farm ponds of a south-western French agricultural landscape

  • R. CéréghinoEmail author
  • A. Ruggiero
  • P. Marty
  • S. Angélibert


We assessed the importance for biodiversity of man-made farm ponds in an agricultural landscape in SW France lacking natural wetlands. The ponds were originally created to provide a variety of societal services (irrigation, visual amenity, water for cattle, etc.). We also assessed the environmental factors influencing invertebrate assemblages in these ponds. Only 18 invertebrate taxa out of 114 taxa occurring in the study area were common to ponds and rivers indicating that the contribution of farm ponds to freshwater biodiversity was potentially high. A Self-Organizing Map (SOM, neural network) was used to classify 36 farm ponds in terms of the 52 invertebrate families and genera they supported, and to specify the influence of environmental variables related to land-use and to pond characteristics on the assemblage patterns. The SOM trained with taxa occurrences showed five clusters of ponds, most taxa occurring only in 1–2 clusters of ponds. Abandoned ponds tended to support higher numbers of taxa, probably because they were allowed to undergo a natural succession. Nevertheless, abandoned ponds were also amongst the largest, so that it remained difficult to separate the effects of pond size and abandonment, although both factors were likely to interact to favour higher taxon richness. The invertebrate communities in the ponds appeared to be influenced mainly by widely acting environmental factors (e.g. area, regionalization of assemblages) with little evidence that pond use (e.g. cattle watering, amenity) generally influenced assemblage composition. Our results support the idea that agricultural landscapes containing man-made ponds make a significant contribution to freshwater biodiversity indicating that protection of farm ponds from threats such as in-filling and pollution can make a positive contribution to the maintenance of aquatic biodiversity. This added value for biodiversity should be considered when calculating the economic costs and benefits of constructing water bodies for human activities.


Agriculture Artificial ponds Wetlands Macroinvertebrates Land-use Self-organizing maps 



M. Dessaivre and D. Hanquet (Nature Midi-Pyrénées) contributed to the study design, field work and invertebrate sorting. This study was funded by the French Water Agency (Agence de l’Eau Adour-Garonne), DIREN, Région Midi-Pyrénées, and by Nature Midi-Pyrénées. We wish to thank J. Biggs and two anonymous referees for their constructive comments on an earlier version of this article.

Supplementary material

10750_2007_9219_MOESM1_ESM.doc (94 kb)
(DOC 58 kb)


  1. Angélibert, S., P. Marty, R. Céréghino & N. Giani, 2004. Seasonal variations in physico-chemical characteristics of ponds: implications for biodiversity conservation. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 14: 439–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Biggs, J., A. Corfield, D. Walker, M. Whitfield & P. Williams, 1994. New approaches to the management of ponds. British Wildlife 5: 273–287.Google Scholar
  3. Briers, R. A. & J. Biggs, 2003. Indicator taxa for the conservation of pond invertebrate diversity. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 13: 323–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Briers, R. A. & J. Biggs, 2005. Spatial patterns in pond invertebrate communities: separating environmental and distance effects. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 15: 549–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Céréghino, R., J. L. Giraudel & A. Compin, 2001. Spatial analysis of stream invertebrates distribution in the Adour-Garonne drainage basin (France), using Kohonen self organising maps. Ecological Modelling 146: 167–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Céréghino, R., Y. S. Park, A. Compin & S. Lek, 2003. Predicting the species richness of aquatic insects in streams using a limited number of environmental variables. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 22: 442–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chapman, L. J., J. Balirwa, F. W. B. Bugenyi, C. Chapman & T. L. Crisman, 2001. Wetlands of East-Africa : biodiversity, exploitation and policy perspectives. In Gopal, B., W. J. Junk & J. A. Davis (eds), Biodiversity in Wetlands: Assessment Function and Conservation, Vol. 2. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, The Netherlands, 101–131.Google Scholar
  8. Chase, J. M. & W. A. Ryberg, 2004. Connectivity, scale-dependence, and the productivity-diversity relationship. Ecology Letters 7: 676–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Davies, B. R., J. Biggs, J. T. Lee & S. Thompson, 2004. Identifying optimum locations for new ponds. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 14: 5–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Drakare, S., J. J. Lennon & H. Hillebrand, 2006. The imprint of the geographical, evolutionary and ecological context on species-area relationships. Ecology Letters 9: 215–227.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gaston, K. J., R. M. Smith, K. Thompson & P. H. Warren, 2005. Urban domestic gardens (II): experimental tests of methods for increasing biodiversity. Biodiversity and Conservation 14: 395–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hansson, L. A., C. Bronmark, P. A. Nilsson & K. Abjornsson, 2005. Conflicting demands on wetland ecosystem services: nutrient retention, biodiversity or both? Freshwater Biology 50: 705–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hazell, D., J. M. Hero, D. Lindenmayer & R. Cunningham, 2004. A comparison of constructed and natural habitat for frog conservation in an Australian agricultural landscape. Biological Conservation 119: 61–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Karaus, U., L. Adler & K. Tockner, 2005. Concave islands: habitat heterogeneity of parafluvial ponds in a gravel-bed river. Wetlands 25: 26–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kiviluoto, K., 1996. Topology preservation in self-organizing maps. In IEEE Service Center (ed.), Proceedings of ICNN’96, IEEE International Conference On Neural Networks, Piscataway, 294–299.Google Scholar
  16. Kohonen, T., 1982. Self-organized formation of topologically correct feature maps. Biological Cybernetics 43: 59–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kohonen, T., 1995. Self-Organizing Maps, volume 30 of Springer Series in Information Sciences. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.Google Scholar
  18. Meffe, G. K. & C. R. Carroll, 1997. Principles of Conservation Biology, 2nd edn. Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland, MA.Google Scholar
  19. Nature Midi-Pyrénées, 2005. Inventaire et préservation du patrimoine des mares de l’Astarac. 114 pp. Download at
  20. Odling-Smee, L., 2005. Dollars and sense. Nature 437: 614–616.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Oertli, B., D. Auderset-Joye, E. Castella, R. Juge, D. Cambin & J. B. Lachavanne, 2002. Does size matter? The relationship between pond area and biodiversity. Biological Conservation 104: 59–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Oertli, B., J. Biggs, R. Céréghino, P. Grillas, P. Joly & J. B. Lachavanne, 2005a. Conservation and monitoring of pond biodiversity: introduction. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 15: 535–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Oertli, B., D. Auderset-Joye, E. Castella, R. Juge, A. Lehmann & J. B. Lachavanne, 2005b. PLOCH: a standardized method for sampling and assessing the biodiversity in ponds. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 15: 665–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Park, Y. S., R. Céréghino, A. Compin & S. Lek, 2003. Applications of artificial neural networks for patterning and predicting aquatic insect species richness in running waters. Ecological Modelling 160: 265–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pyke, C. R., 2005. Assessing suitability for conservation action: Prioritizing interpond linkages for the California tiger salamander. Conservation Biology 19: 492–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Robson, B. J. & C. J. Clay, 2005. Local and regional macroinvertebrate diversity in the wetlands of a cleared agricultural landscape in south-western Victoria, Australia. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 15: 403–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rosenberg, D. M. & V. H. Resh, 1993. Freshwater Biomonitoring and Benthic Macroinvertebrates. Chapman and Hall, London, UK.Google Scholar
  28. Scheffer, M., G. J. van Geest, K. Zimmer, E. Jeppesen, M. Sondergaard, M. G. Butler, M. A. Hanson, S. Declerck & L. De Meester, 2006. Small habitat size and isolation can promote species richness: second-order effects on biodiversity in shallow lakes and ponds. Oikos 112: 227–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ultsch, A., 1993. Self-organizing neural networks for visualization and classification. In Opitz, O., B. Lausen & R. Klar (eds), Information and Classification. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 307–313.Google Scholar
  30. Vesanto, J., J. Himberg, E. Alhoniemi & J. Parhankangas, 1999. Self-organizing map in matlab: the som toolbox. In Proceedings of the Matlab DSP Conference 1999, Comsol Oy, Espoo, Finland, 35–40.Google Scholar
  31. Williams, P., M. Whitfield, J. Biggs, S. Bray, G. Fox, P. Nicolet & D. Sear, 2004. Comparative biodiversity of rivers, streams, ditches and ponds in an agricultural landscape in Southern England. Biological Conservation 115: 329–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. Céréghino
    • 1
    Email author
  • A. Ruggiero
    • 1
  • P. Marty
    • 1
  • S. Angélibert
    • 2
  1. 1.EcoLab, UMR 5245Université Paul SabatierToulouse cedex 9France
  2. 2.Department of Nature ManagementUniversity of Applied Sciences of Western Switzerland – EILJussy-GenevaSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations