Coleoptera) Living on Exposed Riverine Sediments
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
THE ECOLOGY AND CONSERVATION OF BEETLES (COLEOPTERA) LIVING ON EXPOSED RIVERINE SEDIMENTS by ADAM JAMES BATES A thesis submitted to The University of Birmingham for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY School of Geography and Environmental Science The University of Birmingham September 2005 University of Birmingham Research Archive e-theses repository This unpublished thesis/dissertation is copyright of the author and/or third parties. The intellectual property rights of the author or third parties in respect of this work are as defined by The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or as modified by any successor legislation. Any use made of information contained in this thesis/dissertation must be in accordance with that legislation and must be properly acknowledged. Further distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the permission of the copyright holder. ABSTRACT Situated at the very juncture of the aquatic and terrestrial, exposed riverine sediments (ERS) are poorly vegetated alluvial deposits of silts, sands and gravels, which are habitat for a wide range of rare and highly specialised beetles. The thesis aimed to assess: (1) the conservation value of ERS beetles; (2) their changing habitat requirements and spatial population structure over a range of spatio-temporal scales; and (3) their vulnerability to anthropogenic threats, in particular, trampling by livestock. A database of British occurrence records was used to assess the conservation value of ERS specialist beetles. Beetle sampling implemented quadrat hand searches and modified dry pitfall traps, and spatial distribution and population structure in relation to a suite of environmental variables was analysed using correlation, SADIE analysis, and mark recapture methods. ERS beetles were found to have considerable conservation importance and their spatial distribution was related to habitat characteristics at the within-patch, patch, reach, and stream segment scales. These distributions varied temporally in response to flow level and trampling intensity, and trampling intensity was shown to reduce the conservation value of beetle assemblages. The likely responses to a variety of threats, such as regulation and channelization, mediated by varying inter-patch spatial population structure were evaluated. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I thank the Countryside Council for Wales, and the School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Birmingham for funding this research. I thank Cat Butcher, Dave Bell, Robert Francis, Richard Johnson, Mel Bickerton, Montse Auladell Mestre and Amanda Hewertson for help in the field, with equipment preparation and the final putting together of this thesis. I thank Alan Jones, Mike Jenkins, Nigel Stringer, Sarah Andrews, Clive Faulkner, and many enthusiastic landowners for obtaining landowner contact details and allowing site access respectively. I thank Kevin Burkhill and Anne Ankorn for the preparation of several diagrams. I am grateful to the British Atmospheric Data Centre, which provided me with access to the Met Office Land Surface Observation Stations Data and to the Environment Agency for stage data. I also thank Joe Perry, Jim Hynes, Randolf Manderbach, Peter Hammond, Max Barclay, Howard Mendel, Steve Hewitt, Jonty Denton, Darren Mann, Derek Lott and Garth Foster for their help, advice and kind provision of data. Thanks also to all those in 425 for a pleasant working environment and numerous bits of help with Excel, spelling etc. Many thanks also to my all my friends and family for their support throughout. Especial thanks are due to Adrian Fowles (CCW) for his advice, help and critical comments at all stages of this investigation and report preparation. And, and he will like me starting a sentence with and, thanks Jon (Jon Sadler, UB) for all your guidance and support throughout, you are a great supervisor and friend. P.S. Thanks to any who deserve thanks, but I have forgotten to thank. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Preamble 1 1.2 Exposed riverine sediments (ERS): definition and characteristics 1 1.3 Conservation importance of ERS beetles 3 1.4 Justification for choices of research area 5 1.5 Thesis structure 9 1.6 Broad aims 11 CHAPTER 2: SITE DESCRIPTIONS AND GENERIC METHODS 12 2.1 Introduction 12 2.2 River and site selection and descriptions 12 2.2.1 The Upper Severn 13 2.2.1.1 Severn study sites 14 2.2.2 The Afon Tywi 15 2.2.2.1 Tywi study sites 16 2.3 Generic methods 18 2.3.1 Sampling methods and justification 18 2.3.1.1 Rejected sampling methods 19 2.3.1.1.1 Fatal pitfall traps 19 2.3.1.1.2 Semi-quantitative hand searches 20 2.3.1.2 Description and justification of chosen sampling methods 22 2.3.1.2.1 Quadrat hand searches 22 2.3.1.2.2 Dry pitfall traps 22 2.3.1.3 Method selection for the estimation of local population size 24 2.3.2 Mark-recapture methods 25 2.3.2.1 Handling live beetles for identification and marking 26 2.3.3.2 Method of marking live beetles 27 2.3.3.2.1 Test of mark toxicity 28 2.3.3.2.1 Mark longevity 29 2.3.3 Environmental variables 31 CHAPTER 3: SPECIALIST ERS BEETLES AS A BRITISH CONSERVATION RESOURCE: IMPORTANCE, RARITY STATUS REVISIONS, AND RIVER HIERARCHY 37 3.1 Introduction 37 3.2 Background 37 3.2.1 ERS habitat fidelity 37 3.2.2 Rarity status 40 3.2.3 Targets of ERS beetle Biodiversity Action Plans 40 3.2.4 Objectives 41 3.3 Methods 41 3.3.1 Selection of specialist ERS beetles 41 3.3.2 The British specialist ERS beetle database 42 3.3.3 Information sources for occurrence data 42 3.3.4 Criteria for the classification of rarity status 47 3.3.5 Indices of conservation quality 48 3.3.6 Hierarchy of ERS quality for British rivers 49 3.4 Results 50 3.4.1 Changes to ERS fidelity, status and ERSQI 50 3.4.2 Examples of the decision making process when assigning rarity statuses 50 3.4.3 BAP species 50 3.4.4 Hierarchical classification of the conservation quality of ERS on British rivers using specialist ERS beetles 61 3.4.5 Constancy of the overall conservation value of ERS specialists 64 3.4 Discussion 65 3.4.1 Considerations in the review of rarity status: illustrated examples 65 3.4.2 Analysis of the status of ERS species with BAPs 68 3.4.3 Hierarchical classification of the conservation quality of ERS on British rivers 71 3.4.4 The ERS beetles as a conservation resource 73 CHAPTER 4: THE EFFECT OF LIVESTOCK TRAMPLING 75 4.1 Introduction 75 4.2 Background 75 4.3 Methods 77 4.3.1 Description of sites 77 4.3.2 Beetle sampling 77 4.3.3 Environmental variables 78 4.3.4 Assessment of conservation value 80 4.3.5 Data analysis 81 4.4 Results 83 4.4.1 Effect on abundance: analysis of assemblage count data 83 4.4.1.1 Environment species relationship 83 4.4.1.2 Environment conservation value relationship 85 4.4.2 Effect on assemblage composition: analysis of assemblage percentage data 86 4.4.2.1 Environment species relationship 86 4.4.2.2 Environment conservation value relationship 89 4.4.3 Co-variation in selected variables 89 4.5 Discussion 89 4.5.1 Trampling effects on the abundance of ERS specialist beetles 89 4.5.2 Trampling effects on the composition of ERS beetle assemblages 91 4.5.3 Trampling effects on the conservation value of ERS beetle communities 92 CHAPTER 5: MICROSPATIAL DISTRIBUTION AND DYNAMICS 94 5.1 Introduction 94 5.1.1 Background 94 5.1.2 Aim and objectives 97 5.2 Methods 97 5.2.1 Site description 97 5.2.2 Environmental variables 100 5.2.3 Trapping method and choice of study species 100 5.2.4 Temporal distribution of sampling 102 5.2.5 SADIE analyses 102 5.3 Results 104 5.3.1 Environmental variables 104 5.3.2 Weather conditions and water level 106 5.3.3 Information from the 2003 mark-recapture study (Chapter 7) 107 5.3.4 Beetle distribution on Bar 3 110 5.3.4.1 Spatial distribution of species 110 5.3.4.2 Spatial association with environmental variables 116 5.3.4.3 Spatial association between species 118 5.3.5 Beetle distribution on Bar 2 119 5.3.5.1 Spatial distribution of species 119 5.3.5.2 Spatial association with environmental variables 122 5.3.5.3 Spatial association between species 124 5.3.6 Beetle distribution on Bar 3d 125 5.3.6.1 Spatial distribution of species 125 5.3.6.2 Spatial association with environmental variables 127 5.3.6.3 Spatial association between species 133 5.4 Discussion 134 5.4.1 Performance of SADIE 134 5.4.2 General patterns of species distribution 134 5.4.3 Effect of weather and flow pulses 136 5.4.4 Did microhabitat characteristics or interspecific competition cause the patchy distribution of species? 138 CHAPTER 6: INTER-PATCH SPATIAL DYNAMICS: INTER-SPECIES COMPARISON AND METHOD DEVELOPMENT 140 6.1 Introduction 140 6.2 Background 140 6.3 Methods 142 6.3.1 Site description and environmental variability 142 6.3.2 Scale of study 143 6.3.3 Study species 144 6.3.4 Sampling design 144 6.3.5 Estimation of population size 145 6.4 Results 146 6.4.1 Environmental variables 146 6.4.2 Mark longevity 146 6.4.3 Inter-patch movements 149 6.4.4 Population size estimates and effect of environmental variables 150 6.5 Discussion 153 6.5.1 Comparison of spatial population structures and effects of patch quality 153 6.5.2 Methodological modifications for the 2003 mark-recapture study 155 CHAPTER 7: INTER-PATCH SPATIAL DYNAMICS: RESPONSE OF BEMBIDION ATROCAERULEUM TO INUNDATION AND TRAMPLING 156 7.1 Introduction 156 7.2 Background 156 7.3 Materials and methods 158 7.3.1 Study area and environmental characteristics 158 7.3.2 Sampling procedure 158 7.3.3 Estimation of local population size and density 159 7.4 Results 160 7.4.1