WITHIN PEATLAND SPATIAL STRUCTURING AND THE INFLUENCE OF THE MATRIX ON BETWEEN PEATLAND MOVEMENT OF THE DRAGONFLY, Leucorrhinia hudsonica IN WESTERN NEWFOUNDLAND by KRISTA S. CHIN B.Sc. McGill University, 1999 Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Masters of Science (Biology) Acadia University Spring Convocation 2006 © by KRISTA S. CHIN, 2006 ii This thesis by KRISTA S. CHIN was defended successfully in an oral examination on December 16, 2005. The examining committee for the thesis was: Dr. John Roff, Chair Dr. Marina Silva, External Reader Dr. Sara Good-Avila, Internal Reader Dr. Philip Taylor, Supervisor Dr. Dave Shutler, Acting Head This thesis is accepted in its present form by the Division of Research and Graduate Studies as satisfying the thesis requirements for the degree of Master of Science (Biology). iii Table of Contents List of Figures.................................................................................................................... iv List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... vi Abstract..............................................................................................................................vii Acknowledgements........................................................................................................... vii General Introduction........................................................................................................ 1 Chapter 1. Spatial structuring and net movement distances of Leucorrhinia hudsonica within peatlands in western Newfoundland. ......................... 10 Abstract......................................................................................................................... 10 Introduction................................................................................................................... 11 Methods......................................................................................................................... 14 Results........................................................................................................................... 19 Discussion..................................................................................................................... 23 Chapter 2. Effects of three matrix types on the connectivity between peatlands for the peatland dragonfly, Leucorrhinia hudsonica, in western Newfoundland. ........................................................................................... 41 Abstract......................................................................................................................... 41 Introduction................................................................................................................... 42 Methods......................................................................................................................... 46 Results........................................................................................................................... 50 Discussion..................................................................................................................... 52 General Discussion.......................................................................................................... 67 References......................................................................................................................... 69 Appendix 1 ........................................................................................................................ 81 Appendix 2 ........................................................................................................................ 82 Appendix 3 ........................................................................................................................ 83 iv List of Figures General Introduction Figure I.1. Map of Newfoundland indicating general study region. …………………..... 9 Chapter 1. Figure 1.1. Aerial photograph of the 3 peatlands in the study area. ………………….. 30 Figure 1.2. Schematic diagram of peatland B divided into 32×32 m grids. ………….. 31 Figure 1.3. Semivariograms for peatlands B and M. …………………………………. 32 Figure 1.4. Deviations from the expected distribution of occupied pools in peatlands B and M. ………….………………………………………………………………. 33 Figure 1.5. Comparison of the deviations from the expected distribution of small and large pools to the observed distribution of all occupied pools in peatlands B and M. ………………………………………………………………………….. 34 Figure 1.6. Influence of pool area on the mean number of individuals found on pools in peatlands B and M. …………………………………………………..... 35 Figure 1.7. A. Comparison of θ across 7 spatial scales in the null models, B. Comparing two different methods of calculating θ, and C. Comparing θ between null models and models of best fit for peatlands B and M. …………... 36 Figure 1.8. Quantile-quantile plots comparing the net movement distances to the expected distribution of movement with 95% confidence envelope in peatlands B and M. …………………………………………………………….. 37 Chapter 2 Figure 2.1. Aerial photograph of the study area. ……………………………………... 59 Figure 2.2. The influence of distance on the proportion of animals moved. …………. 60 Figure 2.3. Interaction plot of the proportion of male L. hudsonica that moved between peatlands in 3 distance classes, according to the amount of FOREST MATRIX. …………………………………………………………………………. 61 Appendix Appendix 1. Frequency of pool sizes in peatlands B, K, and M. ……………………... 81 v Appendix 2. The relationship between the proportion of large pools in each grid to the total percent cover of water large pools accounted for at the 64×64 m2 scale for peatlands B, K, and M. ……………………………………………….. 82 vi List of Tables Chapter 1 Table 1.1. Physical characteristics and mark-release-recapture results for peatlands B, K, and M. ……………………………………………………………………. 38 Table 1.2. Summary of pool characteristics for peatlands B, K, and M. .……………. 38 Table 1.3. Parameter estimates (± SE) for the glm.nb and glm models of best fit. …... 39 Table 1.4. Residual deviances of the glm.nb and the glm models of best fit. ………… 40 Chapter 2 Table 2.1. Summary of the physical characteristics (± SE) and mark-release- recapture results for the north, south, and central peatlands. …………………... 62 Table 2.2. Daily survival, recapture, and movement rates (± SE) for the functional groups of peatlands. ……………………………………………………………. 63 Table 2.3. Top 4 MARK models ranked using QAICc. ………………………………. 64 Table 2.4. Parameter estimates (± SE) for the co-variates of the top 4 models of best fit. ………………………………………………………………………….. 65 Table 2.5. Parameter estimates (± SE) for the glm exploring the influence of DISTANCE and FOREST MATRIX on the number of male L. hudsonica moving between peatlands. ……………………………………………………………... 66 Table 2.6. Residual deviances for the glm exploring the influence of DISTANCE and FOREST MATRIX on the number of male L. hudsonica moving between peatlands. ………………………………………………………………………. 66 Appendix Appendix 3. Counts of pools and of male L. hudsonica found on small and large pools within and beyond the mean pool to peatland boundary distance. …….. 83 vii Abstract It is important to quantify how species respond to landscape change. I examined the influence of fine and broad scale structures on the distribution and movements of the peatland dragonfly, Leucorrhinia hudsonica in Newfoundland using mark-recapture techniques. Within peatlands there was a positive, non-linear relationship between pool size and number of male L. hudsonica. Results suggested that net movement distances were random at small scales, but less than expected at larger scales. Large pools are preferred oviposition sites, and were the focus of male territorial activity, though most territories encompassed a number of adjacent pools. At the landscape scale, there was more emigration out of peatlands having less water. Though ambiguous, model selection indicated that forest impeded movement more than clearcut or scrub matrix, and that scrub facilitated movement. There was an interaction between matrix type and distance between peatlands; indicating that movement of males through the matrix may not be a simple function of habitat permeability. Rather, it may be influenced by the different behaviours affecting decisions at different spatial scales. viii Acknowledgements First, I would sincerely like to thank Leo and Eliza Hynes for their generous nature as well as letting us set up camp in (and all around) their cabin on Island Pond. Thanks to Stephen Flemming and Irene Howell (Gros Morne National Park), Adele Mullie (Acadia), Faron Knott (Corner Brook Pulp and Paper), Greg Robertson (CWS), and Ian Warkentin (Sir Wilfred Grenfell College), who provided logistical support, advice, and/or assistance to the project. Many many thanks to the Powells for letting us stay at their home during our “days off”, feeding us, and especially for helping us bring in and bring out camp and trusting me to dog-sit their hearing impaired and behaviourally challenged dog, Casey. The field season was a success because of my ever positive and sometimes funny field assistants. Marla MacAulay and Donald Humphrey kept me on my toes all season. (“I’m watching you guys.”) Much help was provided by Ray Reid, Scott Howell, Chris Shears, Shelley Garland, Dr. Becky Achtman, Nicole Davis, Ryan Sharpe, Meagan Rivers, James Loughlin, Ed MacAulay, Sarah MacAulay, and Sheldon Pittman.