Urban Ecosystems

, Volume 13, Issue 4, pp 517–533

Emerging dragonfly diversity at small Rhode Island (U.S.A.) wetlands along an urbanization gradient

  • Maria A. Aliberti Lubertazzi
  • Howard S. Ginsberg
Article

Abstract

Natal habitat use by dragonflies was assessed on an urban to rural land-use gradient at a set of 21 wetlands, during two emergence seasons (2004, 2005). The wetlands were characterized for urbanization level by using the first factor from a principal components analysis combining chloride concentration in the wetland and percent forest in the surrounding buffer zone. Measurements of species diversity and its components (species richness and evenness) were analyzed and compared along the urbanization gradient, as were distributions of individual species. Dragonfly diversity, species richness, and evenness did not change along the urbanization gradient, so urban wetlands served as natal habitat for numerous dragonfly species. However, several individual species displayed strong relationships to the degree of urbanization, and most were more commonly found at urban sites and at sites with fish. In contrast, relatively rare species were generally found at the rural end of the gradient. These results suggest that urban wetlands can play important roles as dragonfly habitat and in dragonfly conservation efforts, but that conservation of rural wetlands is also important for some dragonfly species.

Keywords

Odonata Exuviae Lentic Wetland 

References

  1. Aliberti Lubertazzi MA (2009) Natal habitat use by dragonflies along landscape gradients in Rhode Island. Dissertation, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RIGoogle Scholar
  2. Aliberti Lubertazzi MA, Ginsberg HS (2009) Persistence of dragonfly exuviae on vegetation and rock substrates. Northeast Nat 16:141–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson JR, Hardy EE, Roach JT, Witmer RE (1976) A land use and land cover classification system for use with remote sensor data. Geological Survey Professional Paper 964. A revision of the land use classification system as presented in U.S. Geological Survey Circular 671. U. S. Dept. of the Interior, United States Government Printing Office, Washington, D.CGoogle Scholar
  4. Bell HL (1971) Effect of low pH on the survival and emergence of aquatic insects. Water Res 5:313–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bendell BE, McNicol DK (1987) Fish predation, lake acidity and the composition of aquatic insect assemblages. Hydrobiologia 150:193–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Biber E (2002) Habitat analysis of a rare dragonfly (Williamsonia lintneri) in Rhode Island. Northeast Nat 9(341):352Google Scholar
  7. Blair RB (1999) Birds and butterflies along an urban gradient: surrogate taxa for assessing biodiversity? Ecol Appl 9:164–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blair RB (2004) The effects of urban sprawl on birds at multiple levels of biological organization. Ecol Soc 9:2Google Scholar
  9. Blair RB, Launer AE (1997) Butterfly diversity and human land use: species assemblages along an urban gradient. Biol Conserv 80:113–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Blois-Heulin C, Crowley PH, Arrington M, Johnson DM (1990) Direct and indirect effects of predators on the dominant invertebrates of two freshwater littoral communities. Oecologia 84:295–306Google Scholar
  11. Bock CE, Jones ZF, Bock JH (2008) The oasis effect: response of birds to exurban development in a southwestern savanna. Ecol Appl 18:1093–1106CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Booth DB, Hartley D, Jackson R (2002) Forest cover, impervious-surface area, and the mitigation of stormwater impacts. J Am Water Resour Assoc 38:835–845CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Booth DB, Karr JR, Schauman S, Konrad CP, Morley SA, Larson MG, Burges SJ (2004) Reviving urban streams: land use, hydrology, biology, and human behavior. J Am Water Resour Assoc 40:1351–1364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bright E, O’Brien MF (1999) Odonata larvae of Michigan: keys for, and notes on, the dragon- and damselfly larvae found in the State of Michigan. UMMZ-Insect Division. URL: http://insects.ummz.lsa.umich.edu/MICHODO/test/home.htm
  15. Buskirk RE, Sherman KJ (1984) The influence of larval ecology on oviposition and mating strategies in dragonflies. Fla Entomol 68:39–51Google Scholar
  16. Clark TE, Samways MJ (1997) Sampling arthropod diversity for urban ecological landscaping in a species-rich southern hemisphere botanic garden. J Insect Conserv 1:221–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Clark PJ, Reed JM, Chew FS (2007) Effects of urbanization on butterfly species richness, guild structure, and rarity. Urban Ecosyst 10:321–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Clesceri LS, Greenberg AE, Eaton AD (eds) (1998) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 20th edn. American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association and Water Environment Federation, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  19. Connell JH (1978) Diversity in tropical rain forests and coral reefs. Science 199:1302–1310CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 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
  21. Corbet PS (1993) Are Odonata useful as bioindicators? Libellula 12:91–102Google Scholar
  22. Creveling E (2003) An investigation of lentic Odonata assemblages and habitat associations in New York City. M.Sc. Thesis in Environmental Conservation, University of Greenwich, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  23. 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
  24. Denys C, Holger S (1998) Insect communities on experimental mugwort (Artemisia vulgaris L.) plots along an urban gradient. Oecologia 113:269–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ehrenfeld JG (2000) Evaluating wetlands within an urban context. Ecol Eng 15(253):265Google Scholar
  26. Environmental Canada (2001) Canada Environmental Protection Act, 1999—Priority substances list assessment report: road salts. Health Canada, OttawaGoogle Scholar
  27. Eriksson MOG, Henrikson L, Nilsson B-I, Nyman G, Oscarson HG, Stenson AE (1980) Predator-prey relations important for the biotic changes in acidified lakes. Ambio 9:248–249Google Scholar
  28. Faeth SH, Warren PS, Shochat E, Marussich WA (2005) Trophic dynamics in urban communities. Bioscience 55:399–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fischer S, Marinone MC, Fontanarrosa MS, Nieves M, Schweigmann N (2000) Urban rain pools: seasonal dynamics and entomofauna in a park of Buenos Aires. Hydrobiologia 441:45–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Foote AL, Rice Hornung CL (2005) Odonates as biological indicators of grazing effects on Canadian prairie wetlands. Ecol Entomol 30:273–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Fortin M, Legendre P (1989) Spatial autocorrelation and sampling design in plant ecology. Plant Ecol 83:209–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gibbs JP, Stanton EJ (2001) Habitat fragmentation and arthropod community change: carrion beetles, phoretic mites, and flies. Ecol Appl 11:79–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hawking JH, New TR (2003) Interpreting dragonfly diversity to aid in conservation assessment: lessons from the Odonata assemblage at Middle Creek, north-eastern Victoria, Australia. J Insect Conserv 6:171–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hudson J, Berrill M (1986) Tolerance of low pH exposure by the eggs of Odonata (dragonflies and damselflies). Hydrobiologia 140:21–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Johansson F, Brodin T (2003) Effects of fish predators and abiotic factors on dragonfly community structure. J Freshw Ecol 18:415–423Google Scholar
  36. Johansson F, Englund G, Brodin T, Gardfjell H (2006) Species abundance models and patterns in dragonfly communities: effects of fish predators. Oikos 114:27–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Johnson DM, Crowley PH (1980) Odonate “hide and seek”: habitat-specific rules? In: Kerfoot WC (ed) ASLO special symposium: evolution and ecology of Zooplankton communities. University Press of New England, Hanover, pp 569–579Google Scholar
  38. Johnson DM, Soluk DA, Debinski D (2001) The endangered Hine’s emerald dragonfly. In: Wings: essays on invertebrate conservation. Xerces Society, Portland, OR, pp. 17–21Google Scholar
  39. Kaushal SS, Groffman PM, Likens GE, Belt KT, Stack WP, Kelly VR, Band LE, Fisher GT (2005) Increased salinization of fresh water in the northeastern United States. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102:13517–13520CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Koh LP, Sodhi NS (2004) Importance of reserves, fragments, and parks for butterfly conservation in a tropical urban landscape. Ecol Appl 14:1695–1708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Magura T, Tothmeresz B, Molnar T (2004) Changes in carabid beetle assemblages along an urbanisation gradient in the city of Debrecen, Hungary. Landscape Ecol 19:747–759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Marchand MN, Litvaitis JA (2004) Effects of habitat features and landscape composition on the population structure of a common aquatic turtle in a region undergoing rapid development. Conserv Biol 18:758–767CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Matteson KC, Ascher JS, Langellotto GA (2008) Bee richness and abundance in New York City urban gardens. Ann Entomol Soc Am 101:140–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. McFrederick QS, LeBuhn G (2006) Are urban parks refuges for bumble bees Bombus spp. (Hymenoptera: Apidae)? Biol Conserv 129:372–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. McIntyre NE (2000) Ecology of urban arthropods: a review and a call to action. Ann Entomol Soc Am 93:825–835CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. McIntyre NE, Hostetler ME (2001) Effects of urban land use on pollinator (Hymenoptera: Apoidea) communities in a desert metropolis. Basic Appl Ecol 2:209–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. McIntyre NE, Rango J, Fagan WF, Faeth SH (2001) Ground arthropod community structure in a heterogeneous urban environment. Landsc Urban Plan 52:257–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. McKinney ML (2006) Urbanization as a major cause of biotic homogenization. Biol Conserv 127:247–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. McPeek MA (1990a) Determination of species composition in the Enallagma damselfly assemblages of permanent lakes. Ecology 71:83–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. McPeek MA (1990b) Behavioral differences between Enallagma species (Odonata) influencing differential vulnerability to predators. Ecology 71:1714–1726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Miller JN, Brooks RP, Croonquist MJ (1997) Effects of landscape patterns on biotic communities. Landscape Ecol 12:137–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Moore NW (1991) The development of dragonfly communities and the consequences of territorial behaviour: a 27 year study on small ponds at Woodwalton Fen, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom. Odonatologica 20:203–231Google Scholar
  53. Morin PJ (1984a) The impact of fish exclusion on the abundance and species composition of larval odonates: results of short-term experiments in a North Carolina farm pond. Ecology 65:53–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Morin PJ (1984b) Odonate guild composition: experiments with colonization history and fish predation. Ecology 65:1866–1873CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Needham JG, Westfall JMJ, May ML (2000) Dragonflies of North America, revisedth edn. Scientific, GainesvilleGoogle Scholar
  56. Nilsson AN, Svensson BW (1995) Assemblages of dytiscid predators and culicid prey in relation to environmental factors in natural and clear-cut boreal swamp forest pools. Hydrobiologia 308:183–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Ormerod SJ, Weatherley NS, Merrett WJ (1990) The influence of conifer plantations on the distribution of the Golden Ringed Dragonfly Cordulegaster boltoni (Odonata) in Upland Wales. Biol Conserv 53:241–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Paul MJ, Meyer JL (2001) Streams in the urban landscape. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 32:333–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Pierce CL, Crowley PH, Johnson DM (1985) Behavior and ecological interactions of larval Odonata. Ecology 66:1504–1512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Price SJ, Marks DR, Howe RW, Hanowski JM, Niemi GJ (2004) The importance of spatial scale for conservation and assessment of anuran populations in coastal wetlands of the western Great Lakes, USA. Landscape Ecol 20:441–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Pulliam HR (1988) Sources, sinks, and population regulation. Am Nat 132:652–661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. RIGIS (2002) Census—Pop2000—US 2000 census population & housing. Rhode Island Geographic Information System (RIGIS) Data Distribution System (ed) Environmental Data Center, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI. URL: http://www.edc.uri.edu/rigis
  63. RIGIS (2005) 1995 Land use for Rhode Island. Rhode Island Geographic Information System (RIGIS) Data Distribution System (ed) Environmental Data Center, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI. URL: http://www.edc.uri.edu/rigis
  64. Rubbo MJ, Kiesecker JM (2005) Amphibian breeding distribution in an urbanized landscape. Conserv Biol 19:504–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 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
  66. Shannon CE, Weaver W (1949) The mathematical theory of communication. University of Illinois Press, UrbanaGoogle Scholar
  67. Shapiro AM (2002) The Californian urban butterfly fauna is dependent on alien plants. Divers Distrib 8:31–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Shochat E, Stefanov WL, Whitehouse MEA, Faeth SH (2004) Urbanization and spider diversity: influences of human modification of habitat structure and productivity. Ecol Appl 14:268–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Simberloff D (1997) The biology of invasions. In: Simberloff D, Schmitz DC, Brown TC (eds) Strangers in paradise. Island, Washington, D.C., pp 3–19Google Scholar
  70. Simpson EH (1949) Measurement of diversity. Nature 163:688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Soltesz KL (1996) Identification keys to northeastern Anisoptera larvae. Center for Conservation and Biodiversity, University of ConnecticutGoogle Scholar
  72. Southwood TRE, Henderson PA (2000) Ecological methods, 3rd edn. Blackwell, MaldenGoogle Scholar
  73. terBraak CJF, Smilauer P (1997–1999) Canoco for Windows, version 4.02. Centre for Biometry Wageningen, CPRO-DLO, Wageningen, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  74. Theobald DM (2004) Placing exurban land-use change in a human-modification framework. Front Ecol Environ 2:139–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Thompson B, McLachlan S (2007) The effects of urbanization on ant communities and myrmecochory in Manitoba, Canada. Urban Ecosyst 10:43–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. URI Watershed Watch (2006) 2006 Parameter data: chloride data; lakes, ponds and reservoirs; listed alphabetically. University of Rhode Island, KingstonGoogle Scholar
  77. Walker EM (1958) The Odonata of Canada and Alaska. Part II: the Anisoptera—four families. University of Toronto Press, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  78. Walker EM, Corbet PS (1975) The Odonata of Canada and Alaska. Part III: the Anisoptera—three families. University of Toronto Press, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  79. Winfree R, Griswold T, Kremen C (2007) Effect of human disturbance on bee communities in a forested ecosystem. Conserv Biol 21:213–223CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© US Government 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maria A. Aliberti Lubertazzi
    • 1
  • Howard S. Ginsberg
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Plant Sciences and Entomology, Woodward HallUniversity of Rhode IslandKingstonUSA
  2. 2.USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Coastal Field Station, Woodward-PLSUniversity of Rhode IslandKingstonUSA

Personalised recommendations