Urban Ecosystems

, Volume 18, Issue 2, pp 649–662 | Cite as

Poor ecological quality of urban ponds in northern England: causes and consequences



The value of ponds in urban areas historically has been overlooked. While some recent studies have described considerable biodiversity in urban areas, it is unclear as to how far this extends to different urban habitats. The aims of this study were to determine the condition of 21 urban ponds in Bradford (northern England) and to quantify the connectivity of wetlands in the district. The study showed that macroinvertebrate and plant biodiversity was substantially lower than would be expected based on pristine reference sites. Of the 21 ponds surveyed, 15 were found to be classified as having very poor ecological quality, with 5 being classed as poor and just 1 was classed as moderate. The number of aquatic plant species found in the ponds ranged from 0 to 6 and the number of macroinvertebrate families found ranged from 4 to 13. It was suspected that the aquatic plant diversity was low due to management techniques such as the removal of emergent vegetation. The average distance to a wetland was found to be higher in urban areas (533 m) compared to rural areas (448 m) although this difference was small, which indicates that the low diversity found in urban ponds is likely due to habitat variables.


Pond PSYM Invertebrates Plants Generalised additive model Urban 



This study was funded by the University of Leeds. We would like to thank Bradford Council and the Bradford Environmental Education Service for permission to survey their sites, and Anne Heeley and Estelle Skinner for their assistance in determining the location and ownership of a number of the urban ponds.

Supplementary material

11252_2014_422_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (20 kb)
ESM 1 (XLSX 20 kb)


  1. Akasaka M, Takamura N, Mitsuhashi H, Kadono Y (2010) Effects of land use on aquatic macrophyte diversity and water quality of ponds. Freshw Biol 55(4):909–922. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2427.2009.02334.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bazzanti M, Coccia C, Giuseppina Dowgiallo M (2010) Microdistribution of macroinvertebrates in a temporary pond of central Italy: taxonomic and functional analyses. Limnologica Ecol Manag Inland Waters 40(4):291–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Biggs J, Williams P, Whitfield M, Fox G, Nicolet P (2000) Biological techniques of still water quality assessment phase 3. Method development, R&D technical report E110. Environ Agency SwindonGoogle Scholar
  4. Biggs J, Williams P, Whitfield M, Nicolet P, Weatherby A (2005) 15 years of pond assessment in Britain: results and lessons learned from the work of pond conservation. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshwat Ecosyst 15(6):693–714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boyer T, Polasky S (2004) Valuing urban wetlands: a review of non-market valuation studies. Wetlands 24(4):744–755. doi: 10.1672/0277-5212(2004)024[0744:vuwaro]2.0.co;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cangiano A (2014) The impact of migration on population growth. Paper presented at the migration observatory briefingGoogle Scholar
  7. Céréghino R, Biggs J, Oertli B, Declerck S (2008) The ecology of European ponds: defining the characteristics of a neglected freshwater habitat. Hydrobiologia 597(1):1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Corbet PS, Suhling F, Soendgerath D (2006) Voltinism of odonata: a review. Int J Odonatology 9:1–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Davies B, Biggs J, Williams P, Whitfield M, Nicolet P, Sear D, Bray S, Maund S (2008) Comparative biodiversity of aquatic habitats in the European agricultural landscape. Agric Ecosyst Environ 125(1–4):1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. De Meester L, Declerck S, Stoks R, Louette G, Van De Meutter F, De Bie T, Michels E, Brendonck L (2005) Ponds and pools as model systems in conservation biology, ecology and evolutionary biology. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshwat Ecosyst 15(6):715–725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Development Core Team R (2013) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  12. Fontanarrosa MS, Collantes MB, Bachmann AO (2013) Aquatic insect assemblages of man-made permanent ponds, Buenos Aires City, Argentina. Neotrop Entomol 42(1):22–31CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Freshwater Biological Association (2008) Freshwater benthis macroinvertebrate standard sampling procedure. In: Practical Guidance on Sampling and Collecting. Freshwater Biological Association. http://www.fba.org.uk/recorders/publications_resources/sampling-protocols/contentParagraph/01/document/CourseInvertSamplingProtocol.pdf Accessed 18 Apr 2014
  14. Gee JHR, Smith BD, Lee KM, Griffiths SW (1997) The ecological basis of freshwater pond management for biodiversity. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshwat Ecosyst 7(2):91–104. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1099-0755(199706)7:2<91::aid-aqc221>3.0.co;2-o CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gledhill DG, James P, Davies DH (2005) Urban pond: A landscape of multiple meanings. Paper presented at the 5th International Postgraduate Research Conference in The Built and Human Environment. University of SalfordGoogle Scholar
  16. Gledhill D, James P, Davies D (2008) Pond density as a determinant of aquatic species richness in an urban landscape. Landsc Ecol 23(10):1219–1230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Goddard M, Dougill AJ, Benton TG (2013) Why garden for wildlife? social and ecological drivers, motivations and barriers for biodiversity management in residential landscapes. Ecol Econ 86(C):258–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Goertzen D, Suhling F (2013) Promoting dragonfly diversity in cities: major determinants and implications for urban pond design. J Insect Conserv 17(2):399–409. doi: 10.1007/s10841-012-9522-z Google Scholar
  19. Hassall C (2014) The ecology and biodiversity of urban ponds. WIREs Water 1:187–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hassall C, Hollinshead J, Hull A (2011) Environmental correlates of plant and invertebrate species richness in ponds. Biodivers Conserv 20(13):3189–3222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hitchings SP, Beebee TJC (1997) Genetic substructuring as a result of barriers to gene flow in urban Rana temporaria (common frog) populations: implications for biodiversity conservation. Hered 79(2):117–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Howard S (2002) A guide to monitoring the ecological quality of ponds and canals using PSYM. In: PSYM Method. Freshwater Habitats Trust. http://www.freshwaterhabitats.org.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/NPMN_PSYM_MANUAL_July09.pdf Accessed 18 Apr 2014
  23. Hsu C-B, Hsieh H-L, Yang L, Wu S-H, Chang J-S, Hsiao S-C, Su H-C, Yeh C-H, Ho Y-S, Lin H-J (2011) Biodiversity of constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment. Ecol Eng 37(10):1533–1545. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2011.06.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lomolino MV (2000) Ecology’s most general, yet protean pattern: the species-area relationship. J Biogeogr 27(1):17–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Manuel P (2003) Cultural perceptions of small urban wetlands: cases from the Halifax regional municipality, nova Scotia, Canada. Wetlands 23(4):921–940CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McKinney ML (2008) Effects of urbanization on species richness: a review of plants and animals. Urban Ecosyst 11:161–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nassauer J (2004) Monitoring the success of metropolitan wetland restorations: cultural sustainability and ecological function. Wetlands 24(4):756–765CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Oertli B, Joye DA, Castella E, Juge R, Cambin D, Lachavanne J-B (2002) Does size matter? the relationship between pond area and biodiversity. Biol Conserv 104(1):59–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Oertli B, Biggs J, Céréghino R, Grillas P, Joly P, Lachavanne J-B (2005) Conservation and monitoring of pond biodiversity: introduction. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshwat Ecosyst 15(6):535–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Office for National Statistics (2013) 2011 Census: Household composition - Households, local authorities in the United Kingdom. In: 2011 Census. Office for National Statistics. http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census/key-statistics-and-quick-statistics-for-local-authorities-in-the-united-kingdom---part-3/rft-qs113uk.xls Accessed 18 Apr 2014
  31. Schaeffer JS, Bland JK, Janssen J (2012) Use of a storm water retention system for conservation of regionally endangered fishes. Fish 37(2):66–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sinsch U (1990) Migration and orientation in anuran amphibians. Ethol Ecol Evol 2(1):65–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Staddon P, Lindo Z, Crittenden PD, Gilbert F, Gonzalez A (2010) Connectivity, non-random extinction and ecosystem function in experimental metacommunities. Ecol Lett 13(5):543–552. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2010.01450.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Triantis KA, Sfenthourakis S (2012) Island biogeography is not a single-variable discipline: the small island effect debate. Divers Distrib 18(1):92–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Vermonden K, Leuven RSEW, van der Velde G, van Katwijk MM, Roelofs JGM, Jan Hendriks A (2009) Urban drainage systems: an undervalued habitat for aquatic macroinvertebrates. Biol Conserv 142(5):1105–1115. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2009.01.026 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Williams P, Whitfield M, Biggs J, Bray S, Fox G, Nicolet P, Sear D (2004) Comparative biodiversity of rivers, streams, ditches and ponds in an agricultural landscape in Southern England. Biol Conserv 115(2):329–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Williams P, Whitfield M, Biggs J (2008) How can we make new ponds biodiverse? a case study monitored over 7 years. Hydrobiologia 597(1):137–148. doi: 10.1007/s10750-007-9224-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wood SN (2011) Fast stable restricted maximum likelihood and marginal likelihood estimation of semiparametric generalized linear models. J R Stat Soc Ser B (Stat Methodol) 73(1):3–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wood PJ, Barker S (2000) Old industrial mill ponds: a neglected ecological resource. Appl Geogr 20(1):65–81. doi: 10.1016/S0143-6228(99)00015-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wood PJ, Greenwood MT, Agnew MD (2003) Pond biodiversity and habitat loss in the UK. Area 35(2):206–216. doi: 10.1111/1475-4762.00249 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zedler J, Kercher S (2005) Wetland resources: status, trends, ecosystem services, and restorability. Annu Rev Environ Resour 30:39–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Biology, Faculty of Biological SciencesUniversity of LeedsLeedsUK
  2. 2.School of BiologyUniversity of LeedsLeedsUK

Personalised recommendations