Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Do surveys of adult dragonflies and damselflies yield repeatable data? Variation in monthly counts of abundance and species richness

  • ORIGINAL PAPER
  • Published:
Journal of Insect Conservation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

There is considerable debate over the most appropriate method for surveying dragonflies and damselflies (odonates). Using data from 62 survey locations nested within 26 waterbodies at 15 sites (discrete parcels of common ownership) in West Suffolk, UK, we show that short (20 m line transects or 3 min duration point counts), monthly counts of adults are repeatable. Correlations between predictions from models accounting for variation in ambient conditions and time of day and 52 separate counts used for validation equalled r = 0.87 for total abundance and r = 0.75 for species richness. Correlation coefficients between observed and modelled abundance exceeded 0.5 for eight of fourteen species modelled individually. Ambient temperature was the most important weather variable that influenced survey results, affecting the abundance of nine species, total abundance and species’ richness. Most of the spatial variation in survey results was between waterbodies, rather than between sites or at individual survey locations, suggesting that adult counts may indicate aspects of waterbody quality, although differences in these patterns were observed between dragonflies (Anisoptera) and damselflies (Zygoptera). Encouraging relatively infrequent and rapid counts of flying adults may therefore be used to increase volunteer participation in citizen (community) science odonate monitoring schemes whilst also providing repeatable abundance and species richness data that can contribute to research and monitoring programmes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Berquier C, Orsini A, Ferrat L, Andrei-Ruiz M-C (2016) “Odonata Community Index – Corsica” (OCIC): a new biological index based on adult odonate populations for assessment of the ecological status of watercourses in Corsica. Ecol Ind 66:163–172

    Google Scholar 

  • Border J, Gillings S, Newson SE, Logie M, August T, Robinson RA, Pocock MJO (2019) The JNCC terrestrial biodiversity surveillance schemes: an assessment of coverage. JNCC Report 646.JNCC, Peterborough. ISSN 0963-8091

  • Bouwman J, Groenendijk D, Termaat T, Plate C (2009) Dutch Dragonfly Monitoring Scheme. A Manual. Report number VS2009.15, Dutch Butterfly Conservation, Wageningen & Statistics Netherlands, Den Haag, Netherlands

  • Brereton TM, Cruickshanks KL, Risely K, Noble DG, Roy DB (2011) Developing and launching a wider countryside butterfly survey across the United Kingdom. J Insect Conserv 15:290

    Google Scholar 

  • Bried JT, D’Amico F, Samways M (2012) A critique of the dragonfly delusion hypothesis: why sampling excuviae does not avoid bias. Insect Conserv Divers 5:398–402

    Google Scholar 

  • Bried JT, Dillon AM, Hagar BJ, Patten MA, Luttbeg B (2015) Criteria to infer local species residency in standardized adult dragonfly surveys. Freshw Sci 35:1105–1113

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan GM, Pearce-Higgins JW, Grant MC (2006) Observer variation in estimates of Meadow Pipit Anthus pratensis and Skylark Alauda arvensis abundance on moorland. Bird Study 53:92–95

    Google Scholar 

  • Bush A, Theischinger G, Nipperess D, Turak E, Hughes I (2013) Dragonflies: climate canaries for river management. Divers Distrib 19:86–97

    Google Scholar 

  • Cham S, Nelson B, Parr A, Prentice S, Smallshire D, Taylor P (2014) Atlas of dragonflies in Britain and Ireland. Field Studies Council, Telford

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark TE, Samways MJ (1996) Dragonflies (Odonate) as indicators of biotype quality in the Kruger National Park, South Africa. J Appl Ecol 33:1001–1012

    Google Scholar 

  • Daguet C, French G, Taylor P (eds) (2008) The Odonata Red Data List for Great Britain, Species Status Assessment No 11, ISSN 1470-0154. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough

    Google Scholar 

  • Dudgeon D, Arthington AH, Gessner MO, Kawabata Z-I, Knowler DJ, Leveque C et al (2006) Freshwater biodiversity: importance, threats, status and conservation challenges. Biol Rev 81:163–182

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman SN, Noble DG, Newson SE, Baillie SR (2007) Modelling population changes using data from different surveys: the Common Birds Census and the Breeding Bird Survey. Bird Study 54:61–72

    Google Scholar 

  • Golfieri B, Hardersen S, Maiolini B, Surian N (2017) Odonates as indicators of the ecological integrity of the river corridor: development and application of the Odonate River Index (ORI) in northern Italy. Ecol Ind 61:234–247

    Google Scholar 

  • Giugliano L, Hardersen S, Santini G (2012) Odonata communities in retrodunal ponds: a comparison of sampling methods. Int J Odonatol 15:13–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Hallmann CA, Sorg M, Jongejans E, Siepel H, Holland N, Schwan H, de Kroon H et al (2017) More than 75 percent decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas. PLoS ONE 12:e185809

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardersen S, Corezzola S, Gheza G, Dell’Otto A, La Porta G (2017) Sampling and comparing odonate assemblages by means of exuviae: statistical and methodological aspects. J Insect Conserv 21:207–218

    Google Scholar 

  • IUCN (2009) IUCN red list of threatened species. Version 2009.1. www.iucnredlist.org

  • Kietzka GJ, Pryke JS, Samways MJ (2017) Aerial adult dragonflies are highly sensitive to in-water conditions across an ancient landscape. Divers Distrib 23:14–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Krištín A, Patočka J (1997) Birds as predators of Lepidoptera: selected examples. Biologia 52:319–326

    Google Scholar 

  • Kral K, Harmon J, Limb R, Hovick T (2018) Improving our science: the evolution of butterfly sampling and surveying methods over time. J Insect Conserv 22:1–14

    Google Scholar 

  • Littell RC, Milliken GA, Stroup WW, Wolfinger RD (1996) SAS system for mixed models. SAS Institute, Cary

    Google Scholar 

  • Loos J, Hanspach J, van Wehrden H, Beldean M, Moga CI, Fischer J (2015) Developing robust field survey protocols in landscape ecology: a case study on birds, plants and butterflies. Biodivers Conserv 24:33–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Martay B, Brewer MJ, Elston DA, Bell JR, Harrington R, Brereton TM, Barlow KE, Botham MS, Pearce-Higgins JW (2017) Impacts of climate change on national biodiversity population trends. Ecography 40:1139–1151

    Google Scholar 

  • Martín R, Maynou X (2016) Dragonflies (Insecta: Odonata) as indicators of habitat quality in Mediterranean streams and rivers in the province of Barcelona (Catalonia, Iberian Peninsula). Int J Odonatol 19:107–124

    Google Scholar 

  • Modiba RV, Joseph GS, Seymour CL, Fouche P, Foord SH (2017) Restoration of riparian systems through clearing of invasive plant species improves functional diversity of Odonate assemblages. Biol Conserv 214:46–54

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver TH, Isaac NJB, August TA, Woodcock BA, Roy DB, Bullock JM (2015) Declining resilience of ecosystem functions under biodiversity loss. Nat Commun 6:10122

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Patten MA, Hjalmarson EA, Smith-Patten BD, Bried JT (2019) Breeding thresholds in opportunistic Odonata records. Ecol Ind 106:105460

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearce-Higgins JW (2010) Using diet to assess the sensitivity of northern and upland birds to climate change. Clim Res 45:119–130

    Google Scholar 

  • Outhwaite CL, Gregory RD, Chandler RE, Collen B, Isaac NJB (2020) Complex long-term biodiversity change among invertebrates, bryophytes and lichens. Nat Ecol Evol 4:384–392

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Oppel S (2006) Using distance sampling to quantify Odonata density in tropical rainforests. Int J Odonatol 9:81–88

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearce-Higgins JW, Johnston A, Ausden M, Dodd A, Newson SE, Ockendon N, Thaxter CB, Bradbury RB, Chamberlain DE, Jiguet F, Rehfisch MM, Thomas CD (2011) CHAINSPAN. Final report to the Climate Change Impacts on Avian Interests of Protected Area Networks (CHAINSPAN) Steering Group, Defra

  • Pocock MJO, Chandler M, Bonney RE, Thornhill I, Albin A, August T, Danielsen F (2018) A vision for global biodiversity monitoring with citizen science. Adv Ecol Res. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aecr.2018.06.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pocock MJO, Roy HE, Preston CD, Roy DB (2015) The biological records centre: a pioneer of citizen science. Biol J Lin Soc 115:475–493

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollard E (1977) A method for assessing changes in the abundance of butterflies. Biol Conserv 12:115–134

    Google Scholar 

  • Potts SG, Biesmeijer JC, Kremen C, Neumann P, Schweiger O, Kunin WE (2010) Global pollinator declines: trends, impacts and drivers. Trends Ecol Evol 25:345–353

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Raebel EM, Merckx T, Riordan P, Macdonald DW, Thompson DJ (2010) The dragonfly delusion: why it is essential to sample exuviae to avoid biased surveys. J Insect Conserv 14:523–533

    Google Scholar 

  • Rapacciuolo G, Ball-Damerow JE, Zeilinger AR, Resh VH (2017) Detecting long-term occupancy changes in Californian odonates from natural history and citizen science records. Biodivers Conserv 26:2933–2949

    Google Scholar 

  • Renwick AR, Massimino D, Newson SE, Chamberlain DE, Pearce-Higgins JW, Johnston A (2012) Modeling changes in species’ abundance in response to projected climate change. Divers Distrib 18:121–132

    Google Scholar 

  • Sánchez-Bayo F, Wyckhuys KA (2019) Worldwide decline of the entomofauna: a review of its drivers. Biol Conserv 232:8–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Simaika JP, Samways MJ, Frenzel PP (2016) Artificial ponds increase local dragonfly diversity in a global biodiversity hotspot. Biodivers Conserv 25:1921–1935

    Google Scholar 

  • Smallshire D, Beynon T (2010) Dragonfly monitoring scheme manual. British Dragonfly Society

  • Thomas JA (2005) Monitoring change in the abundance and distribution of insects using butterflies and other indicator groups. Philos Trans R Soc B 360:339–357

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas CD, Hefin Jones TH, Hartley SE (2019) “Insectageddon”: a call for most robust data and rigorous analysis. Glob Change Biol. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14608

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Grunsven R, Bos G, Poot M (2020) Strong changes in Dutch dragonfly fauna. Agrion 24:134–138

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Strien AJ, Termaat T, Groenendijk D, Mensing V, Kéry M (2010) Site-occupancy models may offer new opportunities for dragonfly monitoring based on daily lists. Basic Appl Ecol 11:495–503

    Google Scholar 

  • van Swaay CA, Nowicki P, Settele J, van Strien AJ (2008) Butterfly monitoring in Europe: methods, applications and perspectives. Biodivers Conserv 17:3455–3469

    Google Scholar 

  • Weisser WW, Siemann E (2004) Insects and ecosystem function. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Zedler JB, Kercher S (2005) Wetland resources: Status, trends, ecosystem services and restorability. Annu Rev Environ Resour 30:39–74

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work forms part of the wider monitoring by A Rocha UK associated with the Foxearth Meadows Nature Reserve, and the authors are grateful to Mark Prina and Andy Lester of A Rocha UK, and to Andrea Harrison, for input to this study. A range of helpful comments on an earlier draft of the manuscript were received from Adrian Parr, Dave Smallshire and Steve Cham, to whom we are also very grateful. We thank the Associate Editor and two anonymous reviewers for many helpful comments which greatly improved the manuscript following initial submission to the journal.

Funding

The fieldwork, analysis and write-up of this study was undertaken in the authors’ own time; no funding was received.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. British Trust for Ornithology, Thetford, IP24 2PU, Norfolk, UK

    James W. Pearce-Higgins

  2. Conservation Science Group, Department of Zoology, Cambridge University, The David Attenborough Building, Pembroke Street, Cambridge, CB2 3QZ, UK

    James W. Pearce-Higgins

  3. A Rocha UK, 18-19 Avenue Rd, Southall, UB1 3BL, UK

    James W. Pearce-Higgins & David Chandler

Authors
  1. James W. Pearce-Higgins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David Chandler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James W. Pearce-Higgins.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare they have no conflict of interest.

Informed consent

All authors consent to the submission of this manuscript.

Research involving human and animal participants

No insects were harmed during the course of this project and no human participants were involved in the work.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 338 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pearce-Higgins, J.W., Chandler, D. Do surveys of adult dragonflies and damselflies yield repeatable data? Variation in monthly counts of abundance and species richness. J Insect Conserv 24, 877–889 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-020-00260-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-020-00260-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation