Urban Ecosystems

, Volume 22, Issue 6, pp 1201–1206 | Cite as

Win–win urban ecology: near-home fishing promotes diversity of Odonata

  • Emily A. Hjalmarson
  • Michael A. PattenEmail author


It is generally thought that increased human activity or infrastructure automatically translates to decreased wildlife activity or abundance. We surveyed dragonflies and damselflies (Odonata) at fourteen urban parks with water features to determine factors that promote or hinder species richness or overall abundance. We constructed basic decision trees with either richness or abundance as a response variable and a suite of park characteristics (e.g., size, footprint of the water feature(s), habitat heterogeneity, presence and extent of infrastructure) as predictors. We found that the key predictor of both higher odonate richness and higher odonate abundance was the presence and extent of fishing activities. Despite higher human use at parks that promoted angling, as well as more infrastructure and increased management at these parks—factors that typically are thought to be correlated negatively with biodiversity—odonates and humans benefit from maintaining them and, we suggest, ensuring proper water quality persists. If it is good for fish, it is good for aquatic insects.


Community composition Fishing Human use Odonata Urban parks 



We thank Brett Roberts for his assistance with field surveys and Eli S. Bridge and Jeff F. Kelly for comments on a draft of the manuscript.

Supplementary material

11252_2019_896_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (727 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 726 kb)


  1. Blair RB, Launer AE (1997) Butterfly diversity and human land use: species assemblages along an urban grandient. Biol Conserv 80:113–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cam E, Nichols JD, Sauer JR, Hines JE, Flather CH (2000) Relative species richness and community completeness: birds and urbanization in the mid-Atlantic states. Ecol Appl 10:1196–1210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cuevas-Yáñez K, Benítez M, Rocha M, Córdoba-Aguilar A (2017) Large-scale human environmental intervention is related to a richness reduction in Mexican odonates. Rev Mex Biodivers 88:664–673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. De’ath G, Fabricius KE (2000) Classification and regression trees: a powerful yet simple technique for ecological data analysis. Ecology 81:3178–3192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Eppink FV, van den Bergh JCJM, Rietveld P (2004) Modelling biodiversity and land use: urban growth, agriculture and nature in a wetland area. Ecol Econ 51:201–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gledhill DG, James P, Davies DH (2008) Pond density as a determinant of aquatic species richness in an urban landscape. Landsc Ecol 23:1219–1230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Goertzen D, Suhling F (2013) Promoting dragonfly diversity in cities: major determinants and implications for urban pond design. J Insect Conserv 17:399–409Google Scholar
  8. Hale R, Coleman R, Pettigrove V, Swearer SE (2015) Review: identifying, preventing and mitigating ecological traps to improve the management of urban aquatic ecosystems. J Appl Ecol 52:928–939CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hassall C, Anderson S (2015) Stormwater ponds can contain comparable biodiversity to unmanaged wetlands in urban areas. Hydrobiologia 745:137–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hill MJ, Wood PJ (2014) The macroinvertebrate biodiversity and conservation value of garden and field ponds along a rural–urban gradient. Fundam Appl Limnol 185:107–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Holtmann L, Juchem M, Brüggeshemke J, Möhlmeyer A, Fartmann T (2018) Stormwater ponds promote dragonfly (Odonata) species richness and density in urban areas. Ecol Eng 118:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hothorn T, Hornik K, Zeileis A (2006) Unbiased recursive partitioning: a conditional inference framework. J Comput Graph Stat 15:651–674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hunt LM (2005) Recreational fishing site choice models: insights and future opportunities. Hum Dimens Wildl 10:153–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Le Viol I, Mocq J, Julliard R, Kerbiriou C (2009) The contribution of motorway stormwater retention ponds to the biodiversity of aquatic macroinvertebrates. Biol Conserv 142:3163–3171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Luck GW (2007) A review of the relationships between human population density and biodiversity. Biol Rev 82:607–645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. May ML (2019) Odonata: who they are and what they have done for us lately: classification and ecosystem services of dragonflies. Insects 10:62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. McDonald RI, Marcotullio PJ, Güneralp B (2013) Urbanization and global trends in biodiversity and ecosystem services. In: Elmqvist T et al (eds) Urbanization, biodiversity and ecosystem services: challenges and opportunities. Springer, pp 31–52Google Scholar
  18. Monteiro-Júnior CDS, Juen L, Hamada N (2015) Analysis of urban impacts on aquatic habitats in the Central Amazon basin: adult odonates as bioindicators of environmental quality. Ecol Indic 48:303–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Müller Z, Jakab T, Tóth A, Dévai G, Szállassy N, Kiss B, Horváth R (2003) Effect of sports fisherman activities on dragonfly assemblages on a Hungarian river floodplain. Biodivers Conserv 12:167–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nassauer JI (2004) Monitoring the success of metropolitan wetland restorations: cultural sustainability and ecological function. Wetlands 24:756–765CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nielsen AB, van den Bosch M, Maruthaveeran S, van den Bosch CK (2014) Species richness in urban parks and its drivers: a review of empirical evidence. Urban Ecosyst 17:305–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Oertli B, Parris KM (2019) Review: toward management of urban ponds for freshwater biodiversity. Ecosphere 10(7):e02810CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Oertli B, Joye DA, Castella E, Juge R, Cambin D, Lachavanne JB (2002) Does size matter? The relationship between pond area and biodiversity. Biol Conserv 104:59–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pautasso M, Fontaneto D (2008) A test of the species–people correlation for stream macro-invertebrates in European countries. Ecol Appl 18:1842–1849CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Prescott VA, Eason PK (2018) Lentic and lotic odonate communities and the factors that influence them in urban versus rural landscapes. Urban Ecosyst 21:737–750CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Remsburg AJ, Turner MG (2009) Aquatic and terrestrial drivers of dragonfly (Odonata) assemblages within and among north-temperate lakes. J N Am Benthol Soc 28:44–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Theischinger G, Endersby I (2014) Australian dragonfly (Odonata) larvae: descriptive history and identification. Mem Mus Victoria 72:73–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Villalobos-Jiménez G, Dunn AM, Hassall C (2016) Dragonflies and damselflies (Odonata) in urban ecosystems: a review. Eur J Entomol 113:217–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Vörösmarty CJ, McIntyre PB, Gessner MO, Dudgeon D, Prusevich A, Green P, Glidden S, Bunn SE, Sullivan CA, Liermann CR, Davies PM (2010) Global threats to human water security and river biodiversity. Nature 467:555–561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Willigalla C, Fartmann T (2012) Patterns in the diversity of dragonflies (Odonata) in cities across Central Europe. Eur J Entomol 109:235–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Winstanley WJ (1983) Terrestrial larvae of Odonata from New Caledonia (Zygoptera: Megapodagrionidae; Anisoptera: Synthemistidae). Odonatologica 12:389–395Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Oklahoma Biological Survey and Department of BiologyUniversity of OklahomaNormanUSA
  2. 2.Wisconsin Department of Natural ResourcesMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations