Journal of Insect Conservation

, Volume 11, Issue 2, pp 141–149

Reintroduction of the rare damselfly Ischnura gemina (Odonata: Coenagrionidae) into an urban California park

Original Paper

Abstract

Habitat degradation led to local extinction of the San Francisco forktail damselfly (Ischnura gemina) in Glen Canyon Park, San Francisco, California. In this study, we reintroduced I. gemina into Glen Canyon after the damselfly’s habitat was restored. Upon release, we carried out a mark- release-recapture study to monitor the damselfly’s population dynamics. Our data were compared to two “baseline” studies on I. gemina, conducted in the park prior to the damselfly’s demise. Our recapture rates were significantly lower than the prior studies due to a large initial decline in marked individuals upon release. Despite a lower recapture rate, the reintroduction was initially successful since the damselflies reproduced throughout the summer and the following year. However, the population failed to persist during the second year when the habitat became degraded with excess vegetation. Future success is contingent on the continual management and upkeep of the habitat.

Keywords

Reintroduction Ischnura gemina Damselfly Urban restoration 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Brewer LM (2001) A genetic analysis of a damselfly hybrid zone. Master’s Thesis, San Francisco State University, San Francisco, 72 ppGoogle Scholar
  2. British Dragonfly Society (1993) Managing habitats for dragonflies.  <http://www.dragonflysoc.org.uk/>  Accessed 8 Nove mber 2005
  3. Chovanec A (1994) Man-made wetlands in urban recreational areas – a habitat for endangered species? Landsc Urban Plan 29:43–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chovanec A, Waringer J, Raab R, Laister G (2004) Lateral connectivity of fragmented large river system: assessment on a macroscale by dragonfly surveys (Insecta: Odonata). Aquatic Conserv: Mar Freshw Ecosyst 14:163–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Connor EF, Hafernik J, Levy J, Moore VL, Rickman JK (2002) Insect conservation in an urban biodiversity hotspot: The San Francisco Bay Area. J Insect Conserv 6:247–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Corbet PS (1993) Are Odonata useful as bioindicators? Libellula 12:91–102Google Scholar
  7. D’Amico F, Darblade S, Avignon S, Blanc-Manel S, Ormerod SJ (2004) Odonates as indicators of shallow lake restoration by liming: comparing adult and larval responses. Restor Ecol 12:439–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dobson AP, Rodriguez JP, Roberts WM, Wilcove DS (1997) Geographic distribution of endangered species in the United States. Science 275:550–553PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Foote AL, Rice Hornung CL (2005) Odonates as biological indicators of grazing effects of Canadian prairie wetlands. Ecol Entomol 30:273–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Garrison RW (1981) Description of the larva of Ischnura gemina with a key and new characters for separation of sympatric Ischnura larvae. Ann Entomol Soc Am 74:525–530Google Scholar
  11. Garrison RW, Hafernik JE (1981) Population structure of the rare damselfly, Ischnura gemina (Kennedy) (Odonata: Coenagrionidae). Oecologia 48:377–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Grayson JE, Chapman MG, Underwood AJ (1998) The assessment of restoration of habitat in urban wetlands. Landsc Urban Plan 43:227–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Grevstad F (1999) Factors influencing the chance of population establishment: implications for release strategies in biocontrol. Ecol Appl 9:1439–1447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Griffith B, Scott JM, Carpenter JW, Reed C (1989) Translocation as a species conservation tool: status and strategy. Science 245:477–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hannon ER (2001) Reintroduction of Ischnura gemina (Odonata: Coenagrionidae) into Glen Canyon Park, San Francisco. Masters Thesis, San Francisco State University, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  16. Hafernik JE (1989) Surveys of potentially threatened bay area water beetles and the San Francisco forktail damselfly: final report. Sacramento Office of Endangered Species, 27 ppGoogle Scholar
  17. Hafernik JE (1992) Threats to invertebrate biodiversity: implications for conservation strategies. In: Fieldler PL, Jain SK (eds) Conservation biology: the theory and practice of nature conservation, preservation and management. Chapman and Hall, New York, pp 172–95Google Scholar
  18. Hafernik JE, Garrison RW (1986) Mating success and survival rate in a population of damselflies: results at variance with theory? Am Nat 128:353–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hafernik JE, Reinhard H (1995) Butterflies by the Bay: winners and losers in San Francisco’s urban jungle. Am Butterflies 3:4–11Google Scholar
  20. IUCN (2000) The 2000 IUCN red list of threatened species. http://www.redlist.org.
  21. Jolly GM (1965) Explicit estimates from capture-recapture data with both death and immigration-stochastic model. Biometrika 52:225–247PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Kadoya T, Suda S, Washitani I (2004) Dragonfly species richness on man-made ponds: effects of pond size and pond age on newly established assemblages. Ecol Res 19:461–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kent DM (1994) Managing wetlands for wildlife. In: Kent DM (ed) Applied wetlands science and technology. Lewis Pub., Boca Raton, FL, pp 307–329Google Scholar
  24. Knisley CB, Hill JM, Scherer AM (2005) Translocation of threatened tiger beetle Cicindela dorsalis dorsalis (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae) to Sandy Hook, New Jersey. Ann Entomol Soc Am 98(4):552–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Leong JM, Hafernik JE (1992) Hybridization between two damselfly species (Odonata: Coenagrionidae): morphometric and genitalic differentiation. Ann Entomol Soc Am 85:662–670Google Scholar
  26. Mazzotti FJ, Morgenstern CS (1997) A scientific framework for managing urban areas. Landsc and Urban Plan 38:171–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Myers N, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG, Da Fonseca GAB, Kent J (2000) Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403:853–858PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. New TR (1993) Hemiphlebia mirabilis Selys: recovery from habitat destruction at Wilson’s Promontory, Victoria, Australia, and implications for conservation management (Zygoptera: Hemiphlebiidae). Odonatologica 22:495–502Google Scholar
  29. New TR (1995) Introduction to invertebrate conservation biology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 194 ppGoogle Scholar
  30. Pickett STA, Parker VT (1994) Avoiding the old pitfalls: opportunities in a new discipline. Restor Ecol 2:75–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Preston DJ, Englund RA, McShane MKK (in press) Translocation and monitoring efforts to establish a second population of one of the rarest damselflies on Oahu, Hawaii Megalagrion xanthomelas (Selys-Longchamps), (Zygoptera: Coenagrionidae). Bishop Museum Occ PapersGoogle Scholar
  32. Primack R, Kobori H, Mori S (2000) Dragonfly pond restoration promotes conservation awareness in Japan. Conserv Biol 14:1553–1554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Raab R, Chovanec A, Wiener AK (1996) Aspects of habitat selection by adult dragonflies at a newly created pond in Vienna, Austria. Odonatologica 25:387–390Google Scholar
  34. Samways MJ, Steytler NS (1996) Dragonfly (Odonata) distribution patterns in urban and forest landscapes, and recommendations for riparian management. Biol Conserv 78:279–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Samways MJ, Taylor S (2004) Impacts of invasive alien plants on red-listed South African dragonflies (Odonata). S A J Science 100:78–80Google Scholar
  36. Samways MJ, Taylor S, Tarboton W (2005) Extinction reprieve following alien removal. Conserv Biol 19:1329–1330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sarrazin F, Barbault R (1996) Reintroduction: challenges and lessons for basic ecology. TREE 11:474–478Google Scholar
  38. SAS Institute (1999) User’s Manual. Version 8.1. SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USAGoogle Scholar
  39. Savard J-PL, Clergeau P, Menneschez G (2000) Biodiversity concepts and urban ecosystems. Landsc Urban Plan 48:131–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schauman S, Salisbury S (1998) Restoring nature in the city: Puget sound experiences. Landsc Urban Plan 42:287–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Steytler NS, Samways MJ (1995) Biotope selection by adult male dragonflies (Odonata) at an artificial lake created for insect conservation in South Africa. Biol Conserv 72:381–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Suh AN, Samways MJ (2005) Significance of temporal changes when designing a reservoir for conservation of dragonfly diversity. Biodivers Conserv 14:165–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tierney MM (1994) Experimental hybridization of the damselflies Ischnura gemina and Ischnura denticollis (Odonata: Coenagrionidae). Master’s Thesis, San Francisco State University, San Francisco, 66 ppGoogle Scholar
  44. Underwood AJ (1995) Ecological research and (and research into) environmental management. Ecol Appl 5:232–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. van Tol J, Verdonk MJ (1988) Council of Europe: the protection of dragonflies (Odonata) and their biotopes. European Committee for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Strasbourg, 181 ppGoogle Scholar
  46. Vandruff LW, Leedy DL, Stearns RW (1995) Urban wildlife and human wellbeing. In: Sukopp H, Numata M, Huber A (eds) Urban ecology as the basis of urban planning. SPB Academic Pub, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, pp 203–211Google Scholar
  47. WESCO (1992) Natural resource inventory of Glen Canyon Park, San Francisco. Prepared for the San Francisco Recreation and Park DepartmentGoogle Scholar
  48. Westfall MJ, May ML (1999) Damselflies of North America. FL Scientific Publishers, GainesvilleGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiologySan Francisco State UniversitySan FranciscoUSA
  2. 2.Department of EntomologyWashington State UniversityPullmanUSA

Personalised recommendations