Ross-Piper-Phd-Thesis-2002.Pdf
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Ross Piper, PhD thesis, 2002 Conservation Biology of Cryptocephalus species and Other Threatened UK Beetles by Ross William Piper A thesis admitted in accordance with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Leeds School of Biology January, 2002 The candidate confirms that the work submitted is his own and that appropriate credit has been given where reference has been made to the work of others. i Ross Piper, PhD thesis, 2002 Abstract The conservation biology of species within the genus Cryptocephalus (Chrysomelidae) and the weevil Cathormiocerus britannicus was the focus for this PhD. Four main questions were addressed in the research: a) did the BAP process select the Cryptocephalus beetles of genuinely high conservation concern? b) what are the ecological requirements of the adults and larvae? c) what is the vagility of the adults and how genetically differentiated are disjunct remaining populations and how does the population genetic structure affect re-introductions? and d) what is the species status of the putative endemic, C. britannicus .- The conservation prioritisation process may have overlooked some Cryptocephalus species that are of genuine conservation concern and it is suggested in future that species are selected objectively based on as much data as possible. Targeted autecological work showed that the Cryptocphalus adults are acutely thermophilic. The integrity of a population seems to be dependant on the presence of trees in a dynamic scrub habitat that offer a juxtaposition of conditions that are suitable for both adults and larvae. Dispersal and molecular studies showed that the rare species have very limited powers of dispersal resulting in a complex population genetic structure. A fact that should be considered when re-introductions are planned. This research also highlights the use of captive rearing and experimental releases as a means of gathering ecological data on rare insect species. The species status of Cathormiocerus britannicus was found to be questionable, highlighting the need for a much more efficient use of the resources that are available for insect conservation. ii Ross Piper, PhD thesis, 2002 Acknowledgements First and foremost I would like to thank Steve Compton, my supervisor, for the effort he has put into this thesis, especially during the last few months. His ability to delegate is admirable. Thanks also to Roger Key and English Nature who made this work possible. Special thanks to Tim Coleshaw who provided assistance in many ways and Chris Wright who showed me the way of the mammal trap. Many thanks to Dave Bromwich, John Cranham, Mark Mackworth-Praed, Phil Porter, Andrew Powers, Jim Stewart and Nick Tribe who let me on to the sites they look after to pester beetles. They were all extremely helpful and generous with their time. Eric Brown, Graham Collins, Martin Harvey, Peter Hodge, Ian Menzies, Jon Webb and Chris Wiltshire all shared their natural history knowledge and consolidated my love of the arthropod world. They also undertook a great deal of survey work for me. Bengt Engstrom, Marcos Mendez, Eduard Petitepierre, Andreas Hermann, Pierre Zagatti, provided general Cryptocephalus information. Mike Cox was always interested in my work and provided information on distributions and parasitism. Special thanks to Mrs and Mr Green who showed me the greatest hospitality whilst in Cheshire. Chris Jones, my man servant, broke the tedium of field work during the second field season. Thanks to Dimitry Telnov for specimen collection Eli Groner helped me in many ways and made the lab a more interesting place. Thanks to Stephen Hartley for his help. Thanks to Pierre Franck, Emmanuel Josselin, Jean- Yves Rasplus and especially Sylvain Piry among many other people I met during my time in Montpellier. Cathy Walton was forced to read chapters. Thanks Cathy! Thanks to John Grahame for letting me tutor undergraduates in Wales. Bob Simpson and Craig Wilding made pipetting a pleasure. Many thanks to Tim Coleshaw (again), Dawn Isaacs, Roger Key (again) and Michael Knight who provided photographs. Thanks to the Great Mellings for his beard, music and ground-strokes. Adam Simmons and the beer invoked Abou were both good lads but only one had moral fibre. Both were punished with backhand slices. Rounded thanks to Ashley Ward for his advice on life, amusing company and unorthodox batting style, Dominic Wright for being a runt and behaving like a rat confronted with a drainpipe. He let me pay for his mortgage, bills and bad habits. Too kind! All are very good pals from my time in Leeds. Thanks also to many of the other people on level ten, especially Ted Bodsworth, Dan Hoare, Tom Price and Rob Wilson. All of you will be missed. I dedicate this PhD to my loved ones: Mum, Dad, Andy, Tim and Melanie. Their support was essential. iii Ross Piper, PhD thesis, 2002 List of Abbreviations, Acronyms and Symbols AMOVA analysis of molecular variance ANOVA analysis of variance BAP Biodiversity Action Plan bp base pair COI cytochrome oxidase I COII cytochrome oxidase II CTAB hexadecyl trimethylammoniumbromide DFA discriminant function analysis dNTP’s deoxynucleotide triphosphates ESU evolutionary significant unit HAP Habitat Action Plan ITS2 internal transcribed spacer 2 IUCN International Union for the Conservation of Nature mtD NA mitochondrial deoxyribose nucleic acid NNR National Nature Reserve PCA principal component analysis PCR polymerase chain reaction RDB Red Data Book rDNA ribosomal deoxyribose nucleic acid Taq Thermophilus aquaticus iv Ross Piper, PhD thesis, 2002 Table of Contents CHAPTER 1. GENERAL INTRODUCTION .................................................................. 1 CHAPTER 2. WHICH CRYPTOCEPHALUS BEETLES MOST DESERVE CONSERVATION PRIORITY? ........................................................................................ 6 2.1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 6 2.1.1. Cryptocephalus ‘pot beetles’ .................................................................................... 8 2.2. PRIORITISATION OF CRYPTOCEPHALUS SPECIES : ARE THE BAP PRIORITY SPECIES THE MOST THREATENED ? ................................................................................................................. 10 2.2.1. Criteria for the current BAP listing ......................................................................... 10 2.2.2. Additional criteria 1: Decline within the UK ........................................................... 10 2.2.3. Additional criteria 2: Status in mainland Europe ..................................................... 14 2.3. DISCUSSION .............................................................................................................. 17 CHAPTER 3. THE RARE SPECIES OF UK CRYPTOCEPHALUS: THE CURRENT STATE OF KNOWLEDGE AND A POSSIBLE WAY FORWARD. ..... 20 3.1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 20 3.1.1. MATERIALS AND METHODS ..................................................................................... 20 3.2. CRYPTOCEPHALUS CORYLI (L INNAEUS 1758) .............................................................. 21 3.2.1. Description ........................................................................................................... 21 3.2.2. Distribution ........................................................................................................... 21 3.2.2.1. UK distribution trends ................................................................................. 21 3.2.2.2 European distribution ................................................................................... 22 3.2.3. Surveys ................................................................................................................. 23 3.2.3.1. Materials and Methods ................................................................................ 23 3.2.3.2. Results ......................................................................................................... 25 3.2.4. Life cycle .............................................................................................................. 25 3.2.5. Searches for wild larvae ......................................................................................... 25 3.2.6. Captive rearing ..................................................................................................... 26 3.2.6.1. Materials and methods ................................................................................ 26 3.2.6.2. Results ......................................................................................................... 26 3.2.6. Habitat requirements ............................................................................................. 26 3.2.7. Reasons for decline ................................................................................................ 26 3.3. CRYPTOCEPHALUS DECEMMACULATUS (L INNAEUS 1758) ............................................ 27 3.3.1. Description ........................................................................................................... 27 3.3.2. Distribution ........................................................................................................... 27 3.3.2.1. UK distribution trends ................................................................................. 27 3.3.2.2. European distribution .................................................................................