Advertisement

Journal of Insect Conservation

, Volume 19, Issue 5, pp 975–985 | Cite as

Conservation value of post-mining headwaters: drainage channels at a lignite spoil heap harbour threatened stream dragonflies

  • Filip Tichanek
  • Robert Tropek
ORIGINAL PAPER

Abstract

Headwaters and small streams are crucial components of riverine systems, harbouring many highly specialized and unique invertebrate species. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of the Central European lowland headwaters are channelized, eutrophicated and/or polluted, and many related species have become critically endangered. Artificial streams established to drain some post-mining sites supplement a network of headwaters and generally do not suffer from agricultural pollution. Nevertheless, the biodiversity and conservation potential of the streams at post-mining sites has never been evaluated. We studied the biodiversity of dragonflies and damselflies (Odonata) at 53 sections (30 m) of an extraordinarily dense system of drainage ditches at a large lignite spoil heap in the Czech Republic. We recorded 22 dragonfly species, of which eight are threatened according to the national Red List. Moreover, four of them are closely associated with the endangered environment of small streams. Overall diversity was generally low at very tiny and/or narrowed streams and was also strongly reduced by high water velocity, high bankside inclination and dominance of expansive common reeds. Sufficient cover of rather shallow sediment layers strongly supports the studied diversity indicators. We thus conclude that post-mining streams in drainage ditches could have a strong potential to offer secondary habitats for threatened headwater biodiversity. However, intermittent reed suppression and the establishment of gently sloping banks and a structured stream bottom are necessary measures for maximizing post-mining stream conservation.

Keywords

Biodiversity conservation Drainage ditches Freshwater habitats Odonata Post-industrial sites Restoration management 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Petr Šmilauer for revision of our statistics and helpful comments on earlier drafts, to David Boukal for help with the research planning, to Simona Poláková for advice on statistics and to Matthew Sweney for proofreading of our English. The study was financed by the Czech Science Foundation (P504/12/2525), the University of South Bohemia (GAJU 168/2013/P), and the institutional support Grant RVO:60077344.

References

  1. Ailstock M, Norman C, Bushmann P (2001) Common reed Phragmites australis: control and effects upon biodiversity in freshwater nontidal wetlands. Restor Ecol 21:49–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allan JD, Flecker AS (1993) Biodiversity conservation in running waters. Bioscience 43:32–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allen KA, Le Duc MG, Thompson DJ (2010) Habitat and conservation of the enigmatic damselfly Ischnura pumilio. J Insect Conserv 14:689–700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beneš J, Kepka P, Konvička M (2003) Limestone quarries as refuges for European xerophilous butterflies. Conserv Biol 17:1058–1069CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buffington JM, Montgomery DR (1999) Effects of hydraulic roughness on surface textures of gravel-bed rivers. Water Resour Res 35:3507–3521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burdon FJ, McIntosh AR, Harding JS (2013) Habitat loss drives threshold response of benthic invertebrate communities to deposited sediment in agricultural streams. Ecol Appl 23:1036–1047CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Chester ET, Robson BJ (2013) Anthropogenic refuges for freshwater biodiversity: their ecological characteristics and management. Biol Conserv 166:64–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clarke A, Nally RM, Bond N, Lake PS (2008) Macroinvertebrate diversity in headwater streams: a review. Freshw Biol 53:1707–1721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Core Team R (2015) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  10. Descloux S, Datry T, Marmonier P (2013) Benthic and hyporheic invertebrate assemblages along a gradient of increasing streambed colmation by fine sediment. Aquat Sci 75:493–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dolný A, Harabiš F (2012) Underground mining can contribute to freshwater biodiversity conservation: allogenic succession forms suitable habitats for dragonflies. Biol Conserv 145:109–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dolný A, Bárta D, Waldhauser M, Holuša O, Hanel L (2007) The dragonflies of the Czech Republic: ecology, conservation and distribution. Český svaz ochránců přírody Vlašim, VlašimGoogle Scholar
  13. Dorotovičová C (2013) Man-made canals as a hotspot of aquatic macrophyte biodiversity in Slovakia. Limnol Ecol Manag Inland Waters 43:277–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fox J (2003) Effect displays in R for generalised linear models. J Stat Softw 8:1–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gomi T, Sidle RC, Richardson JS (2002) Understanding processes and downstream linkages of headwater system. Bioscience 52:905–916CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hanel L, Dolný A, Zelený J (2005) Odonata. In: Farkač J, Král D, Škorpík M (eds) Red list of threatened species in the Czech Republic. Invertebrates, AOPK ČR, Praha, pp 45–48Google Scholar
  17. Harabiš F, Dolný A (2012) Human altered ecosystems: suitable habitats as well as ecological traps for dragonflies (Odonata): the matter of scale. J Insect Conserv 16:121–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Harabiš F, Dolný A (2015) Necessity for the conservation of drainage systems as last refugia for threatened damselfly species, Coenagrion ornatum. Insect Conserv Divers 8:143–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Harabiš F, Tichanek F, Tropek R (2013) Dragonflies of freshwater pools in lignite spoil heaps: restoration management, habitat structure and conservation value. Ecol Eng 55:51–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Harding JS, Benfield EF, Bolstad PV, Helfman GS, Jones EB (1998) Stream biodiversity: the ghost of land use past. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 95:14843–14847PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Hassall C, Hollinshead J, Hull A (2011) Environmental correlates of plant and invertebrate species richness in ponds. Biodivers Conserv 20:3189–3222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hendrychová M, Šálek M, Tajovský K, Řehoř M (2012) soil properties and species richness of invertebrates on afforested sites after brown coal mining. Restor Ecol 20:561–567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Herzon I, Helenius J (2008) Agricultural drainage ditches, their biological importance and functioning. Biol Conserv 141:1171–1183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hesoun P, Dolný A (2011) Vážky. In: Tropek R, Řehounek J (eds) Bezobratlí postindustriálních stanovišť: Význam, ochrana a management. ENTÚ BC AVČR & Calla, České Budějovice, pp 85–97Google Scholar
  25. Hodačová D, Prach K (2003) Spoil heaps from brown coal mining: technical reclamation vs. spontaneous re-vegetation. Restor Ecol 11:385–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hopkins RL, Altier BM, Haselman D, Merry AD, White JJ (2013) Exploring the legacy effects of surface coal mining on stream chemistry. Hydrobiologia 713:87–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Janse JH, Van Puijenbroek PJTM (1998) Effects of eutrophication in drainage ditches. Environ Pollut 102:547–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kalkman VJ, Clausnitzer V, Dijkstra K-DB, Orr AG, Paulson DR, van Tol J (2008) Global diversity of dragonflies (Odonata) in freshwater. Hydrobiologia 363:351–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kalkman VJ, Boudot JP, Bernard R, Conze KJ, de Knijf G, Dyatlova E, Ferreira S, Jović M, Ott J, Riservato E, Sahlén G (2010) European red list of dragonflies. Publications Office of the European Union, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  30. Lundholm JT, Richardson PJ (2010) Habitat analogues for reconciliation ecology in urban and industrial environments. J Appl Ecol 47:966–975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Malmqvist B, Rundle S (2002) Threats to the running water ecosystems of the world. Environ Conserv 29:134–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Marks M, Lapin B, Randall J (1994) Phragmites australis (P. communis): threats, management, and monitoring. Nat Areas J 14:285–294Google Scholar
  33. Meyer JL, Wallace JB (2001) Lost linkages and lotic ecology: rediscovering small streams. In: Press MC, Huntly NJ, Levin S (eds) Ecology: achievement and challenge. Blackwell Science, Oxford, pp 295–317Google Scholar
  34. Meyer JL, Strayer DL, Wallace JB, Eggert SL, Helfman GS, Leonard NE (2007) The contribution of headwater streams to biodiversity in river networks. J Am Water Resour Assoc 43:86–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Michailova P, Warchałowska-Śliwa E, Szarek-Gwiazda E, Kownacki A (2012) Does biodiversity of macroinvertebrates and genome response of Chironomidae larvae (Diptera) reflect heavy metal pollution in a small pond? Environ Monit Assess 184:1–14CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Middleton BA (1999) Wetland restoration, flood pulsing, and disturbance dynamics. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  37. Mudrák O, Frouz J, Velichová V (2010) Understory vegetation in reclaimed and unreclaimed post-mining forest stands. Ecol Eng 36:783–790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Muotka T, Laasonen P (2002) Ecosystem recovery in restored headwater streams: the role of enhanced leaf retention. J Appl Ecol 39:145–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Muotka T, Paavola R, Haapala A, Novikmec M, Laasonen P (2002) Long-term recovery of stream habitat structure and benthic invertebrate communities from in-stream restoration. Biol Conserv 105:243–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mutz M (1998) Stream system restoration in a strip mining region, eastern Germany: dimension, problems and first steps. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshw Ecosyst 8:155–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Naiman RJ, Décamps H, McClain M (2005) Riparia. Ecology, conservation, and management of streamside communities. Academic, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  42. Painter D (1998) Effects of ditch management patterns on Odonata at Wicken Fen, Cambridgeshire, UK. Biol Conserv 84:189–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Paradis E, Claude J, Strimmer K (2004) APE: analyses of phylogenetics and evolution in R language. Bioinformatics 20:289–290CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Pedersen TCM, Baattrup-Pedersen A, Madsen TV (2006) Effects of stream restoration and management on plant communities in lowland streams. Freshw Biol 51:161–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pedersen ML, Friberg N, Skriver J, Baattrup-Pedersen A, Larsen SE (2007) Restoration of Skjern River and its valley—short-term effects on river habitats, macrophytes and macroinvertebrates. Ecol Eng 30:145–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Petersen RC, Madsen BL, Wilzbach MA, Magadza CHD, Paarlberg A, Kullberg A, Cummins KW (1987) Stream management: emerging global similarities. Ambio 16:166–179Google Scholar
  47. Petty JT, Gingerich G, Anderson JT, Ziemkiewicz PF (2013) Ecological function of constructed perennial stream channels on reclaimed surface coal mines. Hydrobiologia 720:39–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rademacher M (ed) (2011) Dragonflies in quarries and gravel pits. Biodiversity in mineral extraction sites. HeidelbergCement & INULA, FreiburgGoogle Scholar
  49. Raebel EM, Merckx T, Feber RE, Riordan P, Macdonald DW, Thompson DJ (2012) Identifying high-quality pond habitats for Odonata in lowland England: implications for agri-environment schemes. Insect Conserv Divers 5:422–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Remsburg AJ, Olson AC, Samways MJ (2008) Shade alone reduces adult dragonfly (Odonata: Libellulidae) abundance. J Insect Behav 21:460–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Richardson JS, Danehy RJ (2007) A synthesis of the ecology of headwater streams and their riparian zones in temperate forests. For Sci 52:131–147Google Scholar
  52. Riis T, Sand-Jensen K (2001) Historical changes in species composition and richness accompanying perturbation and eutrophication of Danish lowland streams over 100 years. Freshw Biol 46:269–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rouquette JR, Thompson DJ (2005) Habitat associations of the endangered damselfly, Coenagrion mercuriale, in a water meadow ditch system in southern England. Biol Conserv 123:225–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Šálek M (2012) Spontaneous succession on opencast mining sites: implications for bird biodiversity. J Appl Ecol 49:1417–1425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Schouten MA, Verweij PA, Barendregt A, Kleukers R, Kalkman VJ, de Ruiter PC (2008) Determinants of species richness patterns in the Netherlands across multiple taxonomic groups. Biodivers Conserv 18:203–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Šebelíková L, Řehounková K, Prach K (2015) Spontaneous revegetation vs. forestry reclamation in post-mining sand pits. Environ Sci Pollut Res. doi: 10.1007/s11356-015-5330-9 Google Scholar
  57. Simaika JP, Samways MJ (2011) Comparative assessment of indices of freshwater habitat conditions using different invertebrate taxon sets. Ecol Indic 11:370–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Šmilauer P, Lepš J (2014) Multivariate analysis of ecological data using Canoco 5. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Štýs S (1981) Rekultivace území narušených těžbou. STN, PragueGoogle Scholar
  60. ter Braak CJF, Šmilauer P (2012) Canoco reference manual and user’s guide: software for ordination, version 5.0. Microcomputer Power, IthacaGoogle Scholar
  61. Tropek R, Kadlec T, Karesova P, Spitzer L, Kocarek P, Malenovsky I, Banar P, Tuf IH, Hejda M, Konvicka M (2010) Spontaneous succession in limestone quarries as an effective restoration tool for endangered arthropods and plants. J Appl Ecol 47:139–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Tropek R, Kadlec T, Hejda M, Kocarek P, Skuhrovec J, Malenovsky I, Vodka S, Spitzer L, Banar P, Konvicka M (2012) Technical reclamations are wasting the conservation potential of post-mining sites. A case study of black coal spoil dumps. Ecol Eng 43:13–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Tropek R, Cerna I, Straka J, Cizek O, Konvicka M (2013) Is coal combustion the last chance for vanishing insects of inland drift sand dunes in Europe? Biol Conserv 162:60–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Tropek R, Cerna I, Straka J, Kadlec T, Pech P, Tichanek F, Sebek P (2014) Restoration management of fly ash deposits crucially influence their conservation potential for terrestrial arthropods. Ecol Eng 73:45–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Venables WN, Ripley BD (2002) Modern applied statistics with S. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Vermonden K, Leuven RSEW, van der Velde G, van Katwijk MM, Roelofs JGM, Hendriks AJ (2009) Urban drainage systems: an undervalued habitat for aquatic macroinvertebrates. Biol Conserv 142:1105–1115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Vojar J, Doležalová J, Solský M (2012) Brown coal spoil banks—a new opportunity (not only) for amphibians. Ochrana Prirody 2012:8–11Google Scholar
  68. Waldhauser M, Mikát M (2010) New records of Coenagrion ornatum in the Czech Republic (Odonata : coenagrionidae). Libellula 29:29–46Google Scholar
  69. Watson AM, Ormerod SJ (2004) The distribution of three uncommon freshwater gastropods in the drainage ditches of British grazing marshes. Biol Conserv 118:455–466 Google Scholar
  70. Wildermuth H (2008) Habitat requirements of Orthetrum coerulescens and management of a secondary habitat in a highly man-modified landscape (Odonata: Libellulidae). Int J Odonatol 11:261–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Wipfli MS, Richardson JS, Naiman RJ (2007) Ecological linkages between headwaters and downstream ecosystems: transport of organic matter, invertebrates, and wood down headwater channels. J Am Water Resour Assoc 43:72–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Yarnell SM, Mount JF, Larsen EW (2006) The influence of relative sediment supply on riverine habitat heterogeneity. Geomorphology 80:310–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of ScienceUniversity of South BohemiaCeske BudejoviceCzech Republic
  2. 2.Institute of Entomology, Biology CentreCzech Academy of SciencesCeske BudejoviceCzech Republic
  3. 3.Faculty of ScienceCharles University in PraguePraha 2Czech Republic

Personalised recommendations