Abstract
A major goal in ecology remains the understanding of patterns in diversity and distributions of species in natural communities. The species-area relationship is an important tool for investigating differences among communities, and may be also influenced by habitat isolation and dominant predator presence. In this two-year study, we evaluated the influences of habitat area, isolation and predation on community composition of dytiscids in two geographical regions dominated by different top predators (large predaceous dragonfly larvae or fish). Contrary to expectations, surface area, isolation and predator presence /absence alone did not significantly influence dytiscid species richness and total abundance, but in association with other environmental variables, such as submerged macrophyte growth forms. Components of habitat heterogeneity likely outweighed effects of area and predation regime on prey species diversity. However, differences in the set of abundant species were best explained by habitat surface area. Thus, in contrast to species diversity, gradients in community composition were not out-weighed by components of heterogeneity. In this study, predator presence was not correlated with habitat isolation. Instead, our results revealed that the effect of predator presence/absence on prey community composition and the resulting set of coexisting species may depend on habitat isolation. Within regions, the effect of large predaceous dragonfly larvae on species composition may depend on pond surface area, whereas the presence of fish influenced species composition alone and in association with area. We advocate that regional differences in environmental gradients be considered when community composition is evaluated.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Abbreviations
- CCA:
-
Canonical Correspondence Analysis
- DCA:
-
Detrended Correspondence Analysis
- GIS:
-
Geographical Information System
References
Askew, R.R. 2004. The dragonflies of Europe. Harley Books, Colchester, Essex.
Amarasekare, P. 2003. Competitive coexistence in spatially structured environments: a synthesis. Ecology Letters 6: 1109–1122.
Báldi, A. 2008. Habitat heterogeneity overrides the species-area relationship. J. Biogeogr. 35: 675–681.
Batzer, D.P. and S.A. Wissinger. 1996. Ecology of insect communities in nontidal wetlands. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 41: 75–100.
Bean, C.W. and I.J. Winfield. 1995. Habitat use and activity patterns of roach (Rutilus rutilus (L.)), rudd (Scardinius erythrophthalmus (L.)), perch (Perca fluviatilis L.) and pike (Esox lucius L.) in the laboratory: the role of predation threat and structural complexity. Ecology of Freshwater Fish 4: 37–46.
Bosi, G. 2001. Abundance, diversity and seasonal succession of dytiscid and noterid beetles (Coleoptera, Adephaga) in two marshes of the Eastern Po Plain (Italy). Hydrobiologia 459: 1–7.
Brodin, T., F. Johansson and J. Bergsten. 2006. Predator related oviposition site selection of aquatic beetles (Hydroporus spp.) and effects on offspring life-history. Freshwater Biol. 51: 1277–1285.
Cadotte, M.W. 2006 Dispersal and species diversity: a meta-analysis. Am. Nat. 167:913–924.
Convey, P. 1988. Competition for perches between larval damselflies: the influence of perch use on feeding efficiency, growth rate and predator avoidance. Freshwater Biol. 19: 15–28.
Dionne, M. and C.L. Folt. 1991. An experimental analysis of macrophyte growth forms as fish foraging habitat. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 48: 123–131.
Endler, J.A. 1984. Progressive background matching in moths, and a quantitative measure of crypsis. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 22: 187–231.
Fairchild, G.W., A.M. Faulds and J.F. Matta 2000. Beetle assemblages in ponds: effects of habitat and site age. Freshwater Biol. 44: 523–534.
Henrikson, B.-I. 1993. Sphagnum moss as a microhabitat for invertebrates in acidified lakes and the colour adaptation and substrate preference in Leucorrhinia dubia (Odonata, Anisoptera). Ecography 16: 143–153.
Hornung, J.P. and A.L. Foote. 2006. Aquatic invertebrate response to fish presence and vegetation complexity in western boreal wetlands, with implications for waterbird productivity. Wetlands 26: 1–12.
Huston, M.A. 1979. A general hypothesis of species diversity. Am. Nat. 113:81–101.
Hutchinson, G.E. 1957. Concluding remarks. Cold Spring Harb. Symp. 22: 415–427.
Jackson, L.J. 2003. Macrophyte-dominated and turbid states of shallow lakes: evidence from Alberta Lakes. Ecosystems 6: 213–223.
Jolliffe, I.T. 2002. Principal Component Analysis. Springer Series of Statistics, Berlin, Germany.
Jonsson, M., G. Englund and D.A. Wardle. 2011. Direct and indirect effects of area, energy and habitat heterogeneity on breeding bird communities. J. Biogeogr. doi: 10.1111/j. 1365–2699. 2010.02470.x.
Jonsson, M., G.W. Yeates and D.A. Wardle. 2009. Patterns of invertebrate density and taxonomic richness across gradients of area, isolation, and vegetation diversity in a lake-island system. Ecography 32: 963–927.
Kallimanis, A.S., A.D. Mazaris, J. Tzanopoulos, J.M. Halley, J.D. Panits and S.P. Sgardelis. 2008. How does habitat diversity affect the species-area relationship? Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 17(4): 532–538.
Kruk, C, L. Rodríguez-Gallego, M. Meerhoff, F. Quintans, G. Lacerot, M. Mazzeo, F. Scasso, J.C. Paggi, E.T.H.M. Peeters and S. Marten. 2009. Determinants of biodiversity in subtropical shallow lakes (Atlantic coast, Uruguay). Freshwater Biol. 54: 2628–2641.
Lahring, H. 2003. Water and Wetland Plants of the Prairie Provinces. A Field Guide for Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and the Northern United States. Canadian Plains Research Center, University of Regina, Regina.
Larson, D.J. 1985. Structure in temperate predaceous diving beetle communities (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae). Holarctic Ecol. 8: 18–32.
Larson, D.J. 1990. Odonate predation as a factor influencing dytiscid beetle distribution and community structure. Quaest. Entomol. 26: 151–162.
Larson, D. J., Y. Alarie and R.E. Roughley. 2000. Predaceous Diving Beetles (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae) of the Nearctic Region, with Emphasis on the Fauna of Canada and Alaska. NRC Research Press, Ottawa.
Lepš, J. and P. Šmilauer. 2003. Multivariate Analysis of Ecological Data Using CANOCO. The Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge, The Pitt Building, Trumpington Street, Cambridge.
Lomolino, M.V. 2000. Ecology’s most general, yet protean pattern: species-area relationship. J. Biogeogr. 27: 17–26.
Macan, T.T. 1977. The fauna in the vegetation of a moorland fishpond as revealed by different methods of collecting. Hydrobiologia 55: 3–15.
McPeek, M.A. 1990. Behavioral differences between Enallagma species (Odonata) influencing differential vulnerability to predators. Ecology 71(5): 1714–1726.
Moodie, G.E.E. 1986. The population biology of Culaea inconstans, the brook stickleback, in a small prairie lake. Can. J. Zool. 64(8): 1709–1717.
Nilsson, A.N. 1984. Species richness and succession of aquatic beetles in some kettle-hole ponds in northern Sweden. Holarct. Ecol. 7: 149–156.
Nilsson, A.N., J. Elmberg and K. Sjöberg. 1994. Abundance and species richness patterns of predaceous diving beetles in Swedish Lakes. J. Biogeogr. 21(2): 197–206.
Nilsson, A.N. and H. Söderberg. 1996. Abundance and species richness patterns of diving beetles (Coleoptera, Dytiscidae) from exposed and protected sites in 98 northern Swedish lakes. Hydrobiologia 321: 83–88.
Nilsson, A.N. and B.W. Svensson. 1994. Dytiscid predators and culicid prey in two borealsnowmelt pools differing in temperature and duration. Ann. Zool. Fenn. 31: 365–376.
Östman, Ö.N., W. Griffin, J.L. Strasburg, J.A. Brisson, A.R. Templeton, T.M. Knight and J.M. Chase. 2007. Habitat area affects arthropod communities directly and indirectly through top predators. Ecography 30: 359–366.
Poethke, H.J. and T. Hovestadt. 2002. Evolution of density-and patch-size-dependent dispersal rates. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. 269: 637–646.
Preston, F.W. 1960. Time and space and the variation of species. Ecology 41: 611–627.
Preston, F.W. 1962. The canonical distribution of commonness and rarity. Ecology 43: 185–215.
R Development Core Team 2008. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, https://doi.org/www.R-project.org
Rennie, M.D. and L.J. Jackson. 2005. The influence of habitat complexity on littoral invertebrate distributions: patterns differ in shallow prairie lakes with and without fish. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 62: 2088–2099.
Ryberg, W.A. and J.M. Chase. 2007. Predator-dependent species-area relationships. Am. Nat. 170(4): 636–642.
Sih, A. 1987. Predators and prey lifestyles: an evolutionary and ecological overview. In: W.C. Kerfoot and A. Sih (eds.), Predation: Direct and Indirect Impacts on Aquatic Communities. New England University Press, Hanover, pp 203–224.
Sih, A., P. Crowley, M. McPeek, J. Petranka and K. Strohmeier. 1985. Predation, competition, and prey communities: a review of field experiments. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 16: 269–311.
Suhlman, R.S. and J.M. Chase. 2007. Increasing isolation reduces predator: prey species richness ratios in aquatic food webs. Oikos 116: 1581–1587.
Taylor, A.D. 1990. Metapopulations, dispersal, and predator-prey dynamics: an overview. Ecology 71(2): 429–433.
ter Braak, C.J.F. and P. Šmilauer. 2002. CANOCO Reference Manual and CanoDraw for Windows User’s Guide: Software for Canonical Community Ordination (version 4.5). Microcomputer Power (Ithaca, NY, USA), 500 pp.
Vamosi, S.M. 2005. On the role of enemies in divergence and diversification of prey: A review and synthesis. Can. J. Zool. 82: 894–910.
Vamosi, S.M., C.J. Naydani and J.C. Vamosi. 2007. Body size and species richness along geographical gradients in Albertan diving beetle (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae) communities. Can. J. Zool. 85: 443–449.
Vamosi, J.C. and S.M. Vamosi. 2007. Body size, rarity, and phylogenetic community structure: insights from diving beetle assemblages of Alberta. Diversity Dist. 13: 1–10.
Walker, E.M. and P.S. Corbet. 1975. The Odonata of Canada and Alaska. Vol. three. University of Toronto Press, Toronto and Buffalo.
Wellborn, G.A., D.K. Skelly and E.E. Werner. 1996. Mechanisms creating community structure across a freshwater habitat gradient. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 27: 337–363.
Wohlfahrt, B. 2010. The effects of predaceous dragonfly larvae (Odonata, Anisoptera) on community composition in dytiscid diving beetles (Coleoptera, Dytiscidae). Unpublished PhD Dissertation, University of Calgary, Alberta.
Wohlfahrt, B., D.J. Mikolajewski, G. Joop and S.M. Vamosi. 2007. Ontogenetic changes in the association between antipredator responses and growth variables. Ecol. Entomol. 32(5): 567–574.
Wohlfahrt, B. and S.M. Vamosi. 2009. Antagonistic selection or trait compensation? Diverse patterns of predation-induced prey mortality due to the interacting effects of prey phenotype and the environment. Evol. Biol. 36(4): 386–396.
Yee, D.A., S. Taylor and S.M. Vamosi. 2009. Beetle and plant density as cues initiating dispersal in two species of adult predaceous diving beetles. Oecologia 160: 25–36.
Yu, D.W. and H.B. Wilson. 2001. The competition-colonization trade-off is dead; long live the competition-colonization tradeoff. Am. Nat. 158:49–63.
Zimmer, K.D., M.A. Hanson, M.G. Butler and W.G. Duffy. 2001. Size distributions of aquatic invertebrates in two prairie wetlands, with and without fish, with implications for community production. Freshwater Biol. 46: 1373–1386.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
About this article
Cite this article
Wohlfahrt, B., Vamosi, S.M. Predation and habitat isolation influence the community composition-area relationship in dytiscid beetles (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae). COMMUNITY ECOLOGY 13, 1–10 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1556/ComEc.13.2012.1.1
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1556/ComEc.13.2012.1.1