The Distribution and Habitat Association of Native And
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The distribution and habitat association of native and introduced crayfish in urban wetlands. by Holly Emery-Butcher Bachelor of Science Honours in Environmental Science Murdoch University School of Veterinary and Life Sciences October, 2016 I declare this thesis is my own account of my research and contains as its main content work which has not been previously submitted for a degree at any tertiary education institution. (Holly Emery-Butcher) Abstract As urbanisation puts increasing pressure on biodiversity, there is growing need to conserve biodiversity outside of protected areas. Anthropogenic wetlands (i.e. human created) may offer a way to do this by providing habitat for species such as crayfish. As the distribution and habitat association of freshwater crayfish in Swan Coastal Plain wetlands is largely unknown, the aims of this study were: to identify the habitat characteristics associated with the presence and absence of introduced (Cherax destructor) and native (Cherax quinquecarinatus) freshwater crayfish in the Beeliar and Jandakot wetlands on the Swan Coastal Plain; to compare the distribution and habitat use of introduced C. destructor and native C. quinquecarinatus between natural and anthropogenic urban wetlands. Fifty-three wetlands were sampled for crayfish using baited box traps and sweep nets between May and September 2016. Habitat characteristics were documented using rapid assessment and water quality variables recorded. Log-linear modelling and ANOSIM were then used to examine the association between crayfish and habitat characteristics. Crayfish distribution was much more limited than expected, and they were absent from 29 (55%) wetlands. Unfortunately, C. quinquecarinatus were not found in large enough numbers to model alone, so the data from this species was pooled with that of other native crayfish. Crayfish presence was most strongly associated with water regime and wetland type. Native species were associated mainly with ease of wetland accessibility to humans and wetland type whereas invasive C. destructor was associated primarily with anthropogenic wetlands and ease of accessibility. This study increases our understanding of the distribution and habitat association of crayfishes on the SCP and has important implications in terms of community education and habitat restoration in both natural and anthropogenic wetlands. iii Table of Contents Abstract ....................................................................................................................................... iii Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................... v Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1 Aims and Hypothesis ................................................................................................................... 9 Methods ....................................................................................................................................... 10 Data Analysis .............................................................................................................................. 23 Results ......................................................................................................................................... 29 Discussion ................................................................................................................................... 47 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 63 References ................................................................................................................................... 64 Appendices ................................................................................................................................. 77 Appendix 1 ................................................................................................................................... 77 Appendix 2 ................................................................................................................................... 84 iv Acknowledgements Thank you to my supervisors, Dr Belinda Robson and Dr Stephen Beatty for providing support, advice and feedback. Thank you also, to Dr Joe Fontaine, who helped me overcome my difficulties with RStudio. I am grateful to David Emery, who assisted with my sampling effort and worked hard to keep me safe. Thank you to Murdoch University, including the Aquatic Research Laboratory and the Freshwater Fish Group & Fish Health Unit for the lease of equipment and the funding used within this study. v Introduction The role of anthropogenic ecosystems in freshwater conservation Protected areas are the primary method used to conserve biodiversity (Kingsford 2011) but these areas are not necessarily extensive enough to preserve the full range of biodiversity (Heino et al. 2009; Cimon-Morin et al. 2013). As human populations expand, more pressure is being put on natural ecosystems (Chapin et al. 2000; Cimon- Morin et al. 2013), making it increasingly necessary to promote biodiversity conservation outside of protected areas (Chester et al. 2013). To protect both ecosystem services and biodiversity, there is growing interest in utilising anthropogenic habitats (i.e., ecosystems that have been heavily modified or created by humans (Lundholm and Richardson 2010; Chester and Robson 2013)) to support native species and biodiversity generally, especially in urban areas (Chester et al. 2013; Cimon-Morin et al. 2013). Anthropogenic habitat includes areas formerly created or modified for human purposes and then abandoned, but does not include degraded natural habitat that is being restored (Chester and Robson 2013). Anthropogenic wetlands are one of the most commonly occurring types of perennial habitat on the Swan Coastal Plain (Chester et al. 2013), being created for drainage, aesthetics, water storage or a combination of these purposes (Vermonden et al. 2009). Anthropogenic wetlands can also act as refuges for rare species, proving additional habitat that these species may occupy (Reznicek 1980; Lundholm and Richardson 2010). For instance, rare orchid species have been known to colonise flooded lignite mines in Germany, as the lime-rich but nutrient poor habitats resembled the ancestral habitat of the orchid (Esfeld et al. 2008). Other features, like walls within anthropogenic habitat can provide habitat for rare macrophyte species (Lundholm and Richardson 2010) while 1 drainage ditches can provide habitat for both rare and uncommon species (Watson and Ormerod 2004; Chester and Robson 2013). Despite their potential to conserve biodiversity in a changing landscape, both anthropogenic and natural wetlands face a number of threats (Horwitz et al. 2009). Urban wetlands, both anthropogenic and natural, commonly experience pollution, over exploitation and habitat degradation, largely due to their proximity to ever-expanding urbanisation (Chapin et al. 2000). Alterations such as dredging, modifying flow regimes, sedimentation and the introduction of invasive species (Vermonden et al. 2009) can result in poor water quality with low levels of dissolved oxygen and high levels of pollutants, turbidity and nutrients (Holdich 2002; Boulton et al. 2014). These changes can limit the capacity of urban wetlands to sustain biodiversity (Chester and Robson 2013). It is common for urban wetlands to have little or no remaining native fringing vegetation or to contain predominantly exotic species of flora and fauna (Chessman et al. 2002; Crooks et al. 2011). While both types of urban wetlands face threats from climate change, it is natural wetlands that are tending to become more ephemeral; making the protection of perennial wetlands as a refuge for biodiversity ever more important (Kingsford 2011; Chester et al. 2013). Natural and anthropogenic wetlands in urban environments often differ in their substrate, flow regime, water chemistry and morphology (Ehrenfeld 2000; Vermonden et al. 2009). Unlike natural wetlands, anthropogenic wetlands may contain artificial substrate, such as concrete or even metal (Lundholm and Richardson 2010). Another difference between the two is flow regime, with natural wetlands often having intermittent and varying water flows (Vermonden et al. 2009). In comparison, anthropogenic wetlands 2 may have an artificially maintained water level, have more frequent peak discharges and are often perennial, while natural wetlands are more likely to be seasonal (Kingsford 2011). It is quite common for anthropogenic wetlands to experience different water chemistry and to have higher turbidity and nutrient loading compared to natural wetlands (Ehrenfeld 2000). Conversely, natural waterbodies may have more benthic structure and may be associated with larger or connecting patches of remnant vegetation (Vermonden et al. 2009). Urban wetlands and invasive species One of the greatest influences on biotic and environmental conditions is disturbance (Bando 2006; Perkins et al. 2011). Subsequently, the ‘poor quality’ habitats that may be provided by urban wetlands often favour invasive species (Crooks et al. 2011; Perkins et al. 2011; Havel et al. 2015), which often have broad physiochemical tolerances, good dispersal capacity and rapid life cycles (Beatty et al. 2005a; Boulton et al. 2014). Anthropogenic impacts often promote