Patterns of assemblage structure indicate a broader conservation potential of focal amphibians for pond management

12Citations
Citations of this article
50Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Small freshwater ponds host diverse and vulnerable biotic assemblages but relatively few conspicuous, specially protected taxa. In Europe, the amphibians Triturus cristatus and Pelobates fuscus are among a few species whose populations have been successfully restored using pond restoration and management activities at the landscape scale. In this study, we explored whether the ponds constructed for those two target species have wider conservation significance, particularly for other species of conservation concern. We recorded the occurrence of amphibians and selected aquatic macro-invertebrates (dragonflies; damselflies; diving beetles; water scavenger beetles) in 66 ponds specially constructed for amphibians (up to 8 years post construction) and, for comparison, in 100 manmade ponds (created by local people for cattle or garden watering, peat excavation, etc.) and 65 natural ponds in Estonia. We analysed nestedness of the species assemblages and its dependence on the environment, and described the co-occurrence patterns between the target amphibians and other aquatic species. The assemblages in all ponds were significantly nested, but the environmental determinants of nestedness and co-occurrence of particular species differed among pond types. Constructed ponds were most species-rich irrespective of the presence of the target species; however, T. cristatus was frequent in those ponds and rare elsewhere, and it showed nested patterns in every type of pond. We thus conclude that pond construction for the protected amphibians can serve broader habitat conservation aims in the short term. However, the heterogeneity and inconsistent presence of species of conservation concern observed in other types of ponds implies that longterm perspectives on pond management require more explicit consideration of different habitat and biodiversity values. We also highlight nestedness analysis as a tool that can be used for the practical task of selecting focal species for habitat conservation.

Figures

  • Fig 1. The location of study sites (black areas) in Estonia: 1 –Neeruti reserve; 2 –Porkuni reserve; 3 –Mõdriku-Roela reserve; 4 –EmajõeSuursoo NPA; 5 –Karula NP; 6 –Haanja LPA. The grey area and the dotted area show the distribution area of T. cristatus and P. fuscus, respectively; as revealed by country-wide systematic surveys of small water-bodies in 2007–2015.
  • Table 1. Pond type-specific frequencies of occurrence of amphibians and aquatic insects, and the NODF-based significance of fit with a nested assemblage pattern in protected species (listed in the Annexes II and IV of the EU Habitats Directive).
  • Fig 2. The number of studied species in ponds with and without focal species. Filled bars are ponds of focal species presence (T. cristatus or P. fuscus) and empty bars are ponds of focal species absence; whiskers are 95% confidence intervals; number above the bars represent the N–value of each type of pond with and without focal species.
  • Table 2. The effects of pond type (3 types) and the presence of target species (T. cristatus or P. fuscus) to the number of other considered amphibian and insect species. The effects refer to likelihoodratio tests for Generalized Linear Models based on Poisson error distribution and log link function.
  • Table 3. Nestedness of the aquatic assemblages by pond type, according to the NODF statistic. NODFmetric (Nestedness based on Overlap and Decreasing Fill) ranges between 0% (maximal scatter) and 100% (perfectly nested).
  • Table 4. Influence of shade, pond size, pond age on the assemblage nestedness by pond type. Percent perfect nestedness and its significance have been calculated according to Lomolino [56]. Sample sizes vary slightly depending on the availability of the environmental data.
  • Table 5. Species-pair level co-occurrence (paired overlap, POij) of the target species and other species of amphibians andmacro-invertebrates by pond type. POij has been calculated only for the cases with at least three records of both the target and the other species; an asterisk (*) indicates non-random co-occurrence at p < 0.05.

References Powered by Scopus

Freshwater biodiversity: Importance, threats, status and conservation challenges

5559Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

A consistent metric for nestedness analysis in ecological systems: Reconciling concept and measurement

1332Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Focal species: A multi-species umbrella for nature conservation

822Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

“Accidental” urban wetlands: ecosystem functions in unexpected places

61Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Pond construction for threatened amphibians is an important conservation tool, even in landscapes with extant natural water bodies

28Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Predicted distributions of avian specialists: A framework for conservation of endangered forests under future climates

19Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Soomets, E., Rannap, R., & Lõhmus, A. (2016). Patterns of assemblage structure indicate a broader conservation potential of focal amphibians for pond management. PLoS ONE, 11(7). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0160012

Readers over time

‘16‘17‘18‘19‘20‘21‘22‘23‘24‘25036912

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 22

65%

Researcher 10

29%

Professor / Associate Prof. 1

3%

Lecturer / Post doc 1

3%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18

50%

Environmental Science 16

44%

Computer Science 1

3%

Neuroscience 1

3%

Article Metrics

Tooltip
Mentions
References: 2
Social Media
Shares, Likes & Comments: 23

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0