Journal of Insect Conservation

, Volume 14, Issue 5, pp 523–533

The dragonfly delusion: why it is essential to sample exuviae to avoid biased surveys

  • Eva M. Raebel
  • Thomas Merckx
  • Philip Riordan
  • David W. Macdonald
  • David J. Thompson
Original Paper

Abstract

Odonate populations and species numbers are declining globally. Successful conservation requires sound assessments of both odonate distributions and habitat requirements. Odonates have aquatic (larval) and terrestrial (adult) stages, but most surveys that are used to inform conservation managers are undertaken of the adult stage. This study investigates whether this bias towards adult records in odonate recording is misinterpreting the environmental quality of sites. The habitat focus is farmland ponds, a key feature of agricultural landscapes. We tested whether or not, adult, larval and exuvial surveys lead to similar conclusions on species richness and hence on pond quality. Results showed that pond surveys based upon larvae and exuviae are equally suitable for the reliable assessment of presence/absence of odonates, but that adult surveys are not interchangeable with surveys of larvae/exuviae. Larvae were also found at ponds with no emerging individuals due to changes in habitat quality, therefore presence of exuviae remains the only proof of life-cycle completion at a site. Ovipositing females were recorded at all ponds where exuviae were totally absent hence adult surveys over-estimate pond quality and low-quality ponds are functioning as ecological traps. Highly mobile and generalist species were recorded at more locations than other species. Adult surveys also bias recording towards genera, species and populations with non-territorial mate-location strategies. Odonate biodiversity monitoring would benefit from applying the best survey method (exuviae) to avoid wasting valuable financial resources while providing unbiased data, necessary to achieve conservation objectives.

Keywords

Odonata Survey methods Exuviae Ecological traps Conservation 

References

  1. Benke AC, Benke SS (1975) Comparative dynamics and life histories of coexisting dragonfly populations. Ecology 56:302–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bernáth B, Szedenics G, Wildermuth H, Horváth G (2002) How can dragonflies discern bright and dark waters from a distance? The degree of polarisation of reflected light as a possible cue for dragonfly habitat selection. Freshw Biol 47:1707–1719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Braune P, Rolff J (2001) Parasitism and survival in a damselfly: does host sex matter? P Roy Soc Lond B Biol 268:1133–1137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Briers RA, Biggs J (2003) Indicator taxa for the conservation of pond invertebrate diversity. Aquat Conserv 13:323–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brooks SJ (1993) Review of a method to monitor adult dragonfly populations. J British Dragonfly Soc 9:1–4Google Scholar
  6. Brooks S, Lewington R (1997) Field guide to the dragonflies and damselflies of Great Britain and Ireland. British Wildlife Publishing, HampshireGoogle Scholar
  7. Carey PD, Wallis S, Chamberlain PM, Cooper A, Emmett BA, Maskell LC, McCann T, Murphy J, Norton LR, Reynolds B, Scott WA, Simpson IC, Smart SM, Ullyett JM (2008) Countryside survey: UK results from 2007. NERC/Centre for ecology and Hydrology. (CEH Project Number: C03259)Google Scholar
  8. Catlin PA (2009) A potential for the use of dragonfly (Odonata) diversity as a bioindicator of the efficiency of sewage lagoons. Can Field Nat 119:233–236Google Scholar
  9. Chang X, Zhai B, Wang M, Wang B (2007) Relationship between exposure to an insecticide and fluctuating asymmetry in a damselfly (Odonata, Coenagriidae). Hydrobiologia 586:213–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chovanec A, Raab R (1997) Dragonflies (Insecta, Odonata) and the ecological status of newly created wetlands: examples of long-term bioindication programmes. Limmologica 27:381–392Google Scholar
  11. Clark TE, Samways MJ (1996) Dragonflies (Odonata) as indicators of biotope quality in the Kruger National Park, South Africa. J Appl Ecol 33:1001–1012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clausnitzer V, Kalkman VJ, Ram R, Collen B, Baillie JEM, Bedjanic M, Darwall WRT, Dijkstr KB, Dow R, Hawking J, Karube H, Malikova E, Paulson D, Schüte K, Suhling F, Villanueva RJ, von Ellenrieder N, Wilson K (2009) Odonata enter the biodiversity crisis debate: the first global assessment of an insect group. Biol Conserv 142:1864–1869CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Conrad KF, Willson KH, Harvey IF, Thomas CJ, Sherratt TN (1999) Dispersal characteristics of seven odonate species in an agricultural landscape. Ecography 22:524–531Google Scholar
  14. Corbet PS (1999) Dragonflies: behaviour and ecology of odonata. Harley Books, ColchesterGoogle Scholar
  15. Corbet PS, Brooks SJ (2008) Dragonflies. The New Naturalist Library. HarperCollins Publishers, LondonGoogle Scholar
  16. Corbet PS, May ML (2008) Fliers and perchers among Odonata: dichotomy or multidimensional continuum? A provisional reappraisal. Int J Odonatol 11:155–171Google Scholar
  17. Córdoba-Aguilar A (ed) (2008) Dragonflies and damselflies. Model organisms for ecological and evolutionary research. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  18. Countryside Survey (2008) Countryside survey: UK results for 2007, Chap. 8: rivers, streams and standing waters. http://www.countrysidesurvey.org.uk/reports2007.html
  19. 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
  20. Dennis RLH, Shreeve TG (2003) Gains and losses of French butterflies: tests of predictions, under-recording and regional extinction from data in a new atlas. Biol Conserv 110:131–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dennis RLH, Shreeve TG, Isaac NJB, Roy DB, Hardy PB, Fox R, Asher J (2006) The effects of visual apparency on bias in butterfly recording and monitoring. Biol Conserv 128:486–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dorn NJ (2008) Colonization and reproduction of large macroinvertebrates are enhanced by drought related fish reductions. Hydrobiologia 605:209–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. European Environment Agency (EEA) (2007) Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010: proposal for a first set of indicators to monitor progress in Europe. European Environment Agency, Denmark 180 ppGoogle Scholar
  24. FAOSTAT (2009) Food and agriculture organization of the United Nations—FAO Statistics Division 2009. http://faostat.fao.org
  25. Foote AL, Rice Hornung CL (2005) Odonates as biological indicators of grazing effects on Canadian prairie wetlands. Ecol Entomol 30:273–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Foster SE, Soluk DA (2004) Evaluating exuviae collection as a management tool for the federally endangered Hine’s emerald dragonfly, Somatochlora hineana Williamson (Odonata: Cordulidae). Biol Conserv 118:15–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Franco AM, Palmeirim JM, Sutherland WJ (2007) Comparing effectiveness of research techniques in conservation and applied ecology. Biol Conserv 134:96–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gaines KH (2006) Does the equilibrium theory of island biogeography apply to dragonfly breeding ecology in a desert skinhole complex? In: Davies B, Thompson S (eds) Water and the landscape: the landscape ecology of freshwater ecosystems. Proceedings of the fourteenth annual IALE (UK) conference. Oxford Brookes University, Colin Cross Printers, Ltd, Garstang, pp 64–71Google Scholar
  29. Hardersen S (2008) Dragonfly (Odonata) communities at three lotic sites with different hydrological characteristics. Ital J Zool 75:271–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hardersen S, Wratten SD, Frampton CM (1999) Does carbaryl increase fluctuating asymmetry in damselflies under field conditions? A mesocosm experiment with Xanthocnemis zealandica (Odonata: Zygoptera). J Appl Ecol 36:534–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Horváth G, Bernáth B, Molnár G (1998) Dragonflies find crude oil visually more attractive than water: multiple-choice experiments on dragonfly polarotaxis. Naturwissenschaften 85:292–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Horváth G, Malik P, Kriska G, Wildermuth H (2007) Ecological traps for dragonflies in a cemetery: the attraction of Sympetrum species (Odonata: Libellulidae) by horizontally polarizing black gravestones. Freshw Biol 52:1700–1709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. IUCN (2009) IUCN red list of threatened species. Version 2009.1. www.iucnredlist.org. Downloaded on 2 June 2009
  34. Kokko H, Sutherland WJ (2001) Ecological traps in changing environments: ecological and evolutionary consequences of a behaviourally mediated Allee effect. Evol Ecol Res 3:537–551Google Scholar
  35. Kriska G, Csabai Z, Boda P, Malik P, Horvath G (2006) Why do red and dark-coloured cars lure aquatic insects? The attraction of water insects to car paintwork explained by reflection-polarization signals. P Roy Soc Lond B Biol 273:1667–1671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kriska G, Malik P, Szivak I, Horvath G (2008) Glass buildings on river banks as “polarized light traps” for mass-swarming polarotactic caddis flies. Naturwissenschaften 95:461–467CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Lubertazzi MA, Ginsberg HS (2009) Persistence of dragonfly exuviae on vegetation and rock substrates. Northeast Nat 16:141–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Macdonald DW, Smith HE (1991) New perspectives on agro-ecology: between theory and practice in the agricultural ecosystem. In: Firbank LG, Carter N, Darbyshire JF, Potts GR (eds) The ecology of temperate cereal fields (32nd symposium of the british ecological society). Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, pp 413–448Google Scholar
  39. Maes D, Gilbert M, Titeux N, Goffart P, Dennis RLH (2003) Prediction of butterfly diversity hotspots in Belgium: a comparison of statistically focused and land use-focused models. J Biogeogr 30:1907–1920CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. McCauley SJ (2006) The effects of dispersal and recruitment limitation on community structure of odonates in artificial ponds. Ecography 29:585–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Neal C, Jarvie HP, Neal M, Hill L, Wickham H (2006) Nitrate concentrations in river waters of the upper Thames and its tributaries. Sci Total Environ 365:15–32CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Ott J, Schorr M, Trockur B, Lingenfelder U (2007) Artenschutzprogramm Fur Die Gekielte Smaragdlibelle (Oxygastra Curtisii) in Deutschland an Der Our/Species Protection Programme for the Orange-spotted Emerald (Oxygastra Curtisii) in Germany. The Example of the Our River Population. Invertebrate Ecology and Conservation Monographs, vol 3. Pensoft PublishersGoogle Scholar
  43. Ottolenghi C (1987) Reproductive behaviour of Sympetrum striolatum (Charp.) at an artificial pond in northern Italy. Odonatologica 16:297–306Google Scholar
  44. Pollard E, Yates TJ (1993) Monitoring butterflies for ecology and conservation. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  45. Robertson BA, Hutto RL (2006) A framework for understanding ecological traps and an evaluation of existing evidence. Ecology 87:1075–1085CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Rouquette JR, Thompson DJ (2007) Patterns of movement and dispersal in an endangered damselfly and the consequences for its management. J Appl Ecol 44:692–701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sahlén G, Bernard R, Cordero-Rivera A, Ketelaar R, Suhling F (2004) Critical species of Odonata in Europe. Int J Odonatol 7:385–398Google Scholar
  48. Samways MJ, McGeoch MA, New TR (2010) Insect conservation: handbook of approaches and methods. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  49. Scherr SJ, McNeely JA (2008) Biodiversity conservation and agricultural sustainability: towards a new paradigm of ‘ecoagriculture’ landscapes. Philos T Roy Soc B 363:477–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Schlaepfer MA, Runge MC, Sherman PW (2002) Ecological and evolutionary traps. Trends Ecol Evol 17:474–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Van Dyck H (2009) Are animals fooled in modern landscapes? The ecological trap as a new concept for conservation. Natuur focus 8:28–31Google Scholar
  52. Wildermuth H (1992) Visual and tactile stimuli in choice of oviposition substrates by the dragonfly Perithemis mooma Kirby (Anisoptera, Libellulidae). Odonatologica 21:309–321Google Scholar
  53. Williams P, Whitfield M, Biggs J, Bray S, Fox G, Nicolet P, Sear D (2003) Comparative biodiversity of rivers, streams, ditches and ponds in an agricultural landscape in Southern England. Biol Conserv 115:329–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eva M. Raebel
    • 1
    • 2
  • Thomas Merckx
    • 1
  • Philip Riordan
    • 1
  • David W. Macdonald
    • 1
  • David J. Thompson
    • 2
  1. 1.Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, The Recanati-Kaplan Centre, Department of ZoologyUniversity of OxfordTubney, AbingdonUK
  2. 2.School of Biological SciencesUniversity of LiverpoolLiverpoolEngland, UK

Personalised recommendations