Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 23, Issue 8, pp 2107–2126 | Cite as

Changes in occurrence, richness, and biological traits of dragonflies and damselflies (Odonata) in California and Nevada over the past century

  • Joan E. Ball-DamerowEmail author
  • Leithen K. M’Gonigle
  • Vincent H. Resh
Original Paper


Increases in water demand, urbanization, and severity of drought threaten freshwater ecosystems of the arid western United States. Historical assessments of change in assemblages over time can help determine the effects of these stressors but, to date, are rare. In the present study, we resurveyed 45 sites originally sampled in 1914–1915 for Odonata (dragonflies and damselflies) adults throughout central California and northwestern Nevada, USA. We examined changes in species occurrence rates, taxonomic richness, and biological trait composition in relation to climate changes and human population increases. While species richness at individual sites did not change significantly, we found that odonate assemblages have become more similar across sites. Homogenization is a result of the expansion of highly mobile habitat generalists, and the decline of both habitat specialists and species with an overwintering diapause stage. Using a multi-species mixed-effects model, we found that overall occurrences of Odonata increased with higher minimum temperatures. Habitat specialists and species with a diapause stage, however, occurred less often in warmer regions and more often in areas with higher precipitation. Habitat specialists occurred less often in highly populated sites. Life history traits of Odonata, such as dispersal ability, habitat specialization, and diapause, are useful predictors of species-specific responses to urbanization and climate change in this region.


Climate change Urbanization Long-term change Life-history traits Resurvey Overwintering diapause Migrant species Habitat specialization 



This research was supported in part by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. DBI 0956389, and the Margaret C. Walker Fund for teaching and research in systematic entomology. LKM was supported by a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada Postdoctoral Fellowship. We thank Dennis Paulson, Rosser Garrison, Timothy Manolis, and Giovanni Rapacciuolo for their advice on aspects of the work. We also thank Norm Penny and Mark O’Brien for their assistance with C. H. Kennedy’s original Odonata specimens at the California Academy of Sciences and the University of Michigan Museum of Zoology, respectively.


  1. Alcock J (1990) Oviposition resources, territoriality and male reproductive tactics in the dragonfly Paltothemis lineatipes (Odonata, Libellulidae). Behaviour 113:251–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barbour MT, Gerritsen J, Snyder BD, Stribling JB (1999) Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and wadeable rivers: perifphyton, benthic macroinvertebrates and Fish, Second Edition. EPA 841-B-99-002. US EPA, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  3. Bartomeus I, Park MG, Gibbs J, Danforth BN, Lakso AN, Winfree R (2013) Biodiversity ensures plant–pollinator phenological synchrony against climate change. Ecol Lett 16:1331–1338PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2013) lme4: linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R package version 3.0.1.
  5. Bêche LA, Mcelravy EP, Resh VH (2006) Long-term seasonal variation in the biological traits of benthic-macroinvertebrates in two Mediterranean-climate streams in California, USA. Freshw Biol 51:56–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beketov MA, Kefford BJ, Schäfer RB, Liess M (2013) Pesticides reduce regional biodiversity of stream invertebrates. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110:11039–11043PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bojkova J, Komprdova K, Soldan T, Zahradkova S (2012) Species loss of stoneflies (Plecoptera) in the Czech Republic during the 20th century. Freshw Biol 57:2550–2567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burkle LA, Marlin JC, Knight TM (2013) Plant–pollinator interactions over 120 years: loss of species, co-occurrence, and function. Science 339:1611–1615PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Butchart SHM, Walpole M, Collen B et al (2010) Global biodiversity: indicators of recent declines. Science 328:1164–1168PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. California Department of Finance (2010) Historical census populations of counties and incorporated cities in California, 1850–2010. Retrieved 10 Jan 2013, from
  11. Cameron SA, Lozier JD, Strange JP, Koch JB, Cordes N, Solter LF, Griswold TL (2011) Patterns of widespread decline in North American bumble bees. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108:662–667PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chang FH, Lawrence JE, Rios-Touma B, Resh VH (2014) Tolerance values of benthic macroinvertebrates for stream biomonitoring: assessment of assumptions underlying scoring systems worldwide. Environ Monit Assess 186:2135–2149PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clausnitzer V (2003) Dragonfly communities in coastal habitats of Kenya: indication of biotope quality and the need of conservation measures. Biodivers Conserv 12:333–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Corbet PS (2004) Dragonflies: behavior and ecology of Odonata. Harley Books, ColchesterGoogle Scholar
  15. Corbet PS, Suhling F, Soendgerath D (2006) Voltinism of Odonata: a review. Int J Odonatol 9:1–44Google Scholar
  16. Dewalt RE, Favret C, Webb DW (2005) Just how imperiled are aquatic insects? A case study of stoneflies (Plecoptera) in Illinois. Ann Entomol Soc Am 98:941–950CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dewalt RE, Cao Y, Hinz L, Tweddale T (2009) Modelling of historical stonefly distributions using museum specimens. Aquat Insect 31:253–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dingemanse NJ, Kalkman VJ (2008) Changing temperature regimes have advanced the phenology of Odonata in the Netherlands. Ecol Entomol 33:394–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dudgeon D, Arthington AH, Gessner MO et al (2006) Freshwater biodiversity: importance, threats, status and conservation challenges. Biol Rev 81:163–182PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dupont YL, Damgaard C, Simonsen V (2011) Quantitative historical change in bumblebee (Bombus spp.) Assemblages of red clover fields. PLoS One 6:1–7Google Scholar
  21. Favret C, Dewalt RE (2002) Comparing the Ephemeroptera and Plecoptera specimen databases at the Illinois Natural History Survey and using them to document changes in the Illinois fauna. Ann Entomol Soc Am 95:35–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fochetti R, De Figueroa JMT (2006) Notes on diversity and conservation of the European fauna of Plecoptera (Insecta). J Nat Hist 40:2361–2369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gaston KJ (2011) Common ecology. Bioscience 61:354–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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
  25. Harrington R, Fleming RA, Woiwod IP (2001) Climate change impacts on insect management and conservation in temperate regions: can they be predicted? Agric For Entomol 3:233–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hassall C, Thompson DJ (2008) The effects of environmental warming on Odonata: a review. Int J Odonatol 11:131–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hassall C, Thompson DJ (2010) Accounting for recorder effort in the detection of range shifts from historical data. Methods Ecol Evol 1:343–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hickling R, Roy DB, Hill JK, Fox R, Thomas CD (2006) The distributions of a wide range of taxonomic groups are expanding polewards. Glob Change Biol 12:450–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hijmans RJ (2013) raster: Geographic data analysis and modeling. R package version 2.1-49.
  30. Hill JK, Thomas CD, Fox R, Telfer MG, Willis SG, Asher J, Huntley B (2002) Responses of butterflies to twentieth century climate warming: implications for future ranges. P R Soc B 269:2163–2171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Houghton DC, Holzenthal RW (2010) Historical and contemporary biological diversity of Minnesota caddisflies: a case study of landscape-level species loss and trophic composition shift. J N Am Benthol Soc 29:480–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Julliard R, Jiguet F, Couvet D (2004) Common birds facing global changes: what makes a species at risk? Glob Change Biol 10:148–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kennedy CH (1917) Notes on the life history and ecology of the dragonflies (Odonata) of Central California and Nevada. Proc US Natl Mus 52:483–635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Korkeamaki E, Suhonen J (2002) Distribution and habitat specialization of species affect local extinction in dragonfly Odonata populations. Ecography 25:459–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lavergne S, Molina J, Debussche M (2006) Fingerprints of environmental change on the rare Mediterranean flora: a 115-year study. Glob Change Biol 12:1466–1478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lunde KB, Resh VH (2012) Development and validation of a macroinvertebrate index of biotic integrity (IBI) for assessing urban impacts to Northern California freshwater wetlands. Environ Monit Assess 184:3653–3674PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Manolis T (2003) Dragonflies and damselflies of California. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  38. Marchetti MP, Light T, Feliciano J, Armstrong T, Hogan Z, Viers J, Moyle PB (2001) Homogenization of California’s fish fauna through abiotic change. In: Lockwood JL, McKinney ML (eds) Biotic homogenization. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, pp 259–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. May M (2013) A critical overview of progress in studies of migration of dragonflies (Odonata: Anisoptera), with emphasis on North America. J Insect Conserv 17:1–15Google Scholar
  40. McKinney ML (2002) Urbanization, biodiversity, and conservation. Bioscience 52:883–890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. McKinney ML (2006) Urbanization as a major cause of biotic homogenization. Biol Conserv 127:247–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. McKinney ML (2008) Effects of urbanization on species richness: a review of plants and animals. Urban Ecosyst 11:161–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. McPeek MA (1998) The consequences of changing the top predator in a food web: a comparative experimental approach. Ecol Monogr 68:1–23Google Scholar
  44. Menendez R, Megias AG, Hill JK et al (2006) Species richness changes lag behind climate change. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 273:1465–1470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Moritz C, Patton JL, Conroy CJ, Parra JL, White GC, Beissinger SR (2008) Impact of a century of climate change on small-mammal communities in Yosemite National Park, USA. Science 322:261–264PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mount JE (1995) California rivers and streams: the conflict between fluvial process and land use. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  47. Olson DM, Dinerstein E, Wikramanayake ED et al (2001) Terrestrial ecoregions of the worlds: a new map of life on Earth. Bioscience 51:933–938CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Patton TM, Rahel FJ, Hubert WA (1998) Using historical data to assess changes in Wyoming’s fish fauna. Conserv Biol 12:1120–1128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pimm SL, Russell GJ, Gittleman JL, Brooks TM (1995) The future of biodiversity. Science 269:347–350PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Poyry J, Luoto M, Heikkinen RK, Kuussaari M, Saarinen K (2009) Species traits explain recent range shifts of Finnish butterflies. Glob Change Biol 15:732–743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Prism Climate Group (2013) Prism climate data. Oregon State University, Retrieved 1 Oct 2013, from
  52. Rahel FJ (2002) Homogenization of freshwater faunas. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 33:291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Resh VH (2008) Which group is best? Attributes of different biological assemblages used in freshwater biomonitoring programs. Environ Monit Assess 138:131–138PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Resh VH, Unzicker JD (1975) Water-quality monitoring and aquatic organisms—importance of species identification. J Water Pollut Control Fed 47:9–19PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Ricciardi A, Rasmussen JB (1999) Extinction rates of North American freshwater fauna. Conserv Biol 13:1220–1222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rosset V, Oertli B (2011) Freshwater biodiversity under climate warming pressure: identifying the winners and losers in temperate standing waterbodies. Biol Conserv 144:2311–2319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rowe RJ, Finarelli JA, Rickart EA (2010) Range dynamics of small mammals along an elevational gradient over an 80-year interval. Glob Change Biol 16:2930–2943Google Scholar
  58. Rubidge EM, Monahan WB, Parra JL, Cameron SE, Brashares JS (2011) The role of climate, habitat, and species co-occurrence as drivers of change in small mammal distributions over the past century. Glob Change Biol 17:696–708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Ruesink JL (2005) Global analysis of factors affecting the outcome of freshwater fish introductions. Conserv Biol 19:1883–1893CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Sala OE, Chapin FS, Armesto JJ et al (2000) Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. Science 287:1770–1774PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 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
  62. Sawchyn WW, Gillott C (1974) Life-history of Lestes congener (Odonata: Zygoptera) on Canadian prairies. Can Entomol 106:367–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Silva DD, De Marco P, Resende DC (2010) Adult odonate abundance and community assemblage measures as indicators of stream ecological integrity: a case study. Ecol Indic 10:744–752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Smith J, Samways MJ, Taylor S (2007) Assessing riparian quality using two complementary sets of bioindicators. Biodivers Conserv 16:2695–2713CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Suhling F, Sahlen G, Martens A, Marais E, Schutte C (2006) Dragonfly assemblages in arid tropical environments: a case study from Western Namibia. Biodivers Conserv 15:311–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. R Development Core Team (2013) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. Available at:
  67. US Census Bureau (1913) Thirteenth census of the United States taken in the year 1910: Nebraska–Wyoming, Alaska, Hawaii, and Porto Rico. US Census Bureau, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  68. US Census Bureau (1922) Fourteenth census of the United States taken in the year 1920. US Census Bureau, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  69. US Census Bureau (2002) 2000 census of population and housing: summary population and housing characteristics, PHC-1-30. Retrieved 10 Jan 2012, from
  70. US Census Bureau (2013) State and county Quickfacts: Nevada. Retrieved 10 Jan 2012, from
  71. Vall-llosera M, Sol D (2009) A global risk assessment for the success of bird introductions. J Appl Ecol 46:787–795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Warren MS, Hill JK, Thomas JA et al (2001) Rapid responses of British butterflies to opposing forces of climate and habitat change. Nature 414:65–69PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. White PJT, Kerr JT (2007) Human impacts on environment–diversity relationships: evidence for biotic homogenization from butterfly species richness patterns. Global Ecol Biogeogr 16:290–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joan E. Ball-Damerow
    • 1
    Email author
  • Leithen K. M’Gonigle
    • 1
  • Vincent H. Resh
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Environmental Science, Policy & ManagementUniversity of California, BerkeleyBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations