Aquatic macroinvertebrate biodiversity of lowland rural

316 Pages·2017·8.97 MB·English

Loughborough University
Institutional Repository
Aquatic macroinvertebrate
biodiversity of lowland rural
and urban ponds in
Leicestershire
ThisitemwassubmittedtoLoughboroughUniversity’sInstitutionalRepository
by the/an author.
Additional Information:
• A Doctoral Thesis. Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements
for the award of Doctor of Philosophy of Loughborough University.
Metadata Record: https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/2134/17866
Publisher: (cid:13)c Matthew Hill
Rights: This work is made available according to the conditions of the Cre-
ative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
(CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) licence. Full details of this licence are available at:
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Please cite the published version.
Aquatic macroinvertebrate biodiversity of
lowland rural and urban ponds in
Leicestershire

by

Matthew Hill

A Doctoral thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the
award of Doctor of Philosophy of Loughborough University

February 2015

© by Matthew Hill (2015)
CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY

This is to certify that I am responsible for the work submitted in this thesis, that the
original work is my own except as specified in acknowledgements or in footnotes, and
that neither the thesis nor the original work contained therein has been submitted to
this or any other institution for a degree.

MATTHEW HILL

ii
Abstract

Ponds are common and abundant features in nearly all landscapes typical of European
lowland landscapes yet research on freshwater biodiversity has traditionally focussed
on larger waterbodies such as lakes and rivers. This has led to an increased need to
understand and quantify the biodiversity associated with pond habitats to better inform
the active conservation and management of these small waterbodies. This thesis
examines the aquatic macroinvertebrate biodiversity (alpha, beta and gamma) and
conservation value of 95 ponds in Leicestershire, UK, across a variety of urban and rural
landscape types and at a range of spatial scales. In addition, the relative importance of
local (physicochemical and biological) and spatial (connectivity) variables in structuring
macroinvertebrate communities within ponds is investigated. At a regional scale, the
greatest macroinvertebrate biodiversity and conservation value was recorded within
meadow ponds compared to urban, agricultural and forest ponds. Spatially, ponds were
highly physically and biologically heterogeneous. Temporally (seasonally), invertebrate
communities were most dissimilar in meadow and agricultural ponds but assemblages
were similar in urban and forest ponds. In urban landscapes, park ponds supported a
greater diversity of invertebrates than ‘other’ urban or garden ponds and typically had a
greater conservation value. Garden ponds were the most taxon poor of those
investigated. Perennial floodplain meadow ponds supported a greater biodiversity of
invertebrates compared to ephemeral meadow ponds although conservation value was
similar. Despite regular inundation from the River Soar, ephemeral ponds supported
distinct communities compared to perennial meadow ponds. Aquatic macrophytes
supported a higher diversity of taxa than other pond mesohabitats across all landscapes
studied. Physicochemical factors were identified to be the dominant influence on
macroinvertebrate assemblages although, a combination of local and spatial factors best
explained the variation in community composition at a regional scale and for meadow
ponds. Spatial factors were not identified to significantly influence urban pond
communities. This study highlights the ecological importance and conservation value of
ponds in rural and anthropogenically disturbed landscapes. Recognition of the
significant contribution of ponds to freshwater biodiversity at regional and landscape
scales is important for future conservation of pond habitats and will help focus and
direct conservation strategies to where they are needed most.
iii
Acknowledgements

This thesis is the culmination of three years of research which would not have been
possible without the guidance and support from a number of individuals. Firstly, I
would like to thank my two supervisors, Professor Paul Wood and Dr David Ryves for
their perennial support, encouragement and guidance throughout the duration of my
PhD. To Professor Paul Wood who verified a considerable number of macroinvertebrate
samples, taught me to write in academic prose and whose friendship, passion and
enthusiasm for aquatic macroinvertebrate taxa has been invaluable. To my second
supervisor and friend, Dr David Ryves, whose ideas, advice and expertise of complex
ecological statistics helped me over the final hurdle.
Secondly, I would like to acknowledge those who endured my extensive fieldwork
programme - often in freezing and wet conditions namely, Danielle Ashdown, Kate
Mathers, Alexis Alamel and David Rigby. Without their help I would have struggled to
complete my fieldwork. I would also like to thank those who I have shared an office with,
whose humour and support continued to keep spirits high, in addition to those named
above, Stacey Balsdon, Eleanor Darlington and Catherine Waite.
Thirdly, thanks must also go to Chris Hill from the Leicestershire and Wildlife Trust for
granting access to Cossington Meadow and Loughborough Big Meadow and for helping
to identify a number of sample sites. I would also like to extend my thanks to
Charnwood Borough Council, Charnwood Forest Golf Club, Burton on the Wold Primary
School, Fairfield Primary School, Ashby School, Loughborough High School and to the
farm and home owners that provided access to their land.
Fourthly, I would like to greatly acknowledge the financial and academic support of the
Department of Geography at Loughborough University, in particular the provision of a
studentship to fund this research.
Special thanks are extended to my family and girlfriend Danielle Ashdown, for their love
and support throughout this research. Thank you for helping me stay optimistic and
ensuring I continued to have a social life throughout the duration of my PhD. I would
not have been able to complete this thesis if it was not for your encouragement and
belief in the last few years.
iv
Table of Contents

Abstract iii

Acknowledgements iv

Table of Contents v

List of Tables xi

List of Figures xv

List of Equations xix

Chapter 1. Introduction 20
1.1 Pond habitats 20
1.2 Biodiversity 22
1.2.1 Biodiversity loss 24
1.3 Context for thesis 25
1.4 Aims and research objectives 25
1.5 Thesis structure 26

Chapter 2. Pond macroinvertebrate biodiversity 29
2.1 Introduction 29
2.2 Pond or lake: what’s the difference? 29
2.3 Macroinvertebrate biodiversity within pond habitats 34
2.3.1 Agricultural ponds 35
2.3.2 Forest ponds 36
2.3.3 Urban ponds 36
2.3.4 New ponds 38
2.3.5 Ephemeral ponds 39
2.3.6 Temporal biodiversity and succession 43
2.4 Regional context: pond biodiversity in the East Midlands, UK 44
2.5 Ecological importance of ponds 44
2.6 Local (physicochemical/biological) and spatial (connectivity/dispersal)
parameters influencing macroinvertebrate communities within ponds 47
2.6.1 Metacommunity dynamics 58
2.7 Threats to pond numbers and macroinvertebrate biodiversity 59
v
2.7.1 Pond loss 61
2.8 Pond conservation and management 63
2.8.1 Legislation 66
2.9 Summary 68

Chapter 3. Methodology 69
3.1 Introduction 69
3.2 Site selection 69
3.3 Field work techniques 74
3.3.1 Environmental parameters 74
3.3.2 Macroinvertebrate sampling 75
3.4 Macroinvertebrate preservation, sorting and identification 77
3.5 Data analysis techniques 77
3.5.1 Alpha diversity 79
3.5.1.1 Alpha diversity indices 79
3.5.2 Beta-diversity 80
3.5.2.1 Analysis of Similarity (ANOSIM) 81
3.5.2.2 Similarity Percentage Analysis (SIMPER) 81
3.5.2.3 Jaccard’s Coefficient of Similarity and Sørensen Similarity index 81
3.5.2.4 Spatial (distance) dissimilarity in macroinvertebrate assemblages 82
3.5.3 Ordination 82
3.5.3.1 Non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) 83
3.5.3.2 Detrended Correspondence Analysis (DCA) 84
3.5.3.3 Canonical Correspondence Analysis (CCA) 84
3.5.3.4 Variance partitioning 85
3.5.4 Conservation value 85
3.5.4.1 Community Conservation Index (CCI) 85
3.5.4.2 UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework (England) Pond Priority Habitat
(PPH) 87
3.6 Summary 88

Chapter 4. Regional macroinvertebrate biodiversity 89
4.1 Introduction 89
vi
4.1.1 Research/knowledge gaps 90
4.1.2 Chapter aims and hypotheses 90
4.2 Results 91
4.2.1 Alpha and gamma diversity 92
4.2.2 Seasonal variation in macroinvertebrate diversity 97
4.2.3 Mesohabitat macroinvertebrate diversity 102
4.2.4 Pond physicochemistry 105
4.2.5 Community heterogeneity 107
4.2.5.1 Seasonal community heterogeneity 109
4.2.6 Conservation value 112
4.2.6.1 UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework (England) Pond Priority Habitat
(PPH) 113
4.2.6.2 Community Conservation Index (CCI) 113
4.3 Discussion 116
4.3.1 Aquatic macroinvertebrate biodiversity 116
4.3.2 Community heterogeneity 119
4.3.3 Conservation value 121
4.4 Summary 123

Chapter 5. The macroinvertebrate biodiversity and conservation

value of different types of urban pond 125
5.1 Introduction 125
5.1.1 Research/knowledge gaps 126
5.1.2 Chapter aims and hypothesis 126
5.2 Results 127
5.2.1 Alpha and gamma diversity 127
5.2.2 Mesohabitat macroinvertebrate diversity 132
5.2.3 Pond physicochemistry 135
5.2.4 Community heterogeneity 138
5.2.5 Macroinvertebrate dispersal 140
5.2.6 Conservation value 143
vii
5.2.6.1 UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework (England) Pond Priority Habitat
(PPH) 143
5.2.6.2 Community Conservation Index (CCI) 144
5.3 Discussion 146
5.3.1 Macroinvertebrate diversity 146
5.3.2 Macroinvertebrate community heterogeneity 148
5.3.3 Conservation value 149
5.4 Summary 151

Chapter 6. The macroinvertebrate assemblage and conservation value of

ephemeral ponds in two floodplain meadow landscapes 152
6.1 Introduction 152
6.1.1 Research/knowledge gaps 153
6.1.2 Chapter aims and hypotheses 155
6.2 Results 155
6.2.1 Alpha and gamma diversity 155
6.2.2 Meadow pond mesohabitat macroinvertebrate diversity 163
6.2.3 Pond physicochemistry 166
6.2.4 Community heterogeneity 168
6.2.5 Macroinvertebrate predation/dispersal 171
6.2.6 Conservation value 173
6.2.6.1 UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework (England) Pond Priority Habitat
(PPH) 173
6.2.6.2 Community Conservation Index (CCI) 174
6.3 Discussion 176
6.3.1 Macroinvertebrate diversity 176
6.3.2 Community heterogeneity 179
6.3.3 Conservation value 180
6.4 Summary 181

Chapter 7. Local (physicochemical) and landscape (connectivity)

influences on pond macroinvertebrate community composition 183
7.1 Introduction 183
viii
7.1.1 Research/knowledge gaps 184
7.1.2 Chapter aims and hypotheses 185
7.2 Results 186
7.2.1 Influence of environmental variables on pond macroinvertebrate assemblages
at a regional scale 186
7.2.2 Influence of local and spatial parameters on macroinvertebrate assemblages
among urban ponds 193
7.2.3 Influence of local and spatial parameters on macroinvertebrate assemblages
among meadow ponds 199
7.2.4 Influence of local and spatial parameters on macroinvertebrate assemblages
among ephemeral ponds 205
7.2.5 Spatial patterns in macroinvertebrate assemblage dissimilarity 211
7.3 Discussion 212
7.3.1 Environmental drivers of macroinvertebrate community assemblage 212
7.3.1.1 Pond surface area 214
7.3.1.2 Connectivity (pond proximity) 214
7.3.1.3 Hydroperiodicity 216
7.3.1.4 Biological variables 217
7.3.2 Relative influence of physicochemical, biological and spatial variables 217
7.4 Summary 220

Chapter 8. Summary, key themes, future research and conclusions 222
8.1 Introduction 222
8.2 Summary 223
8.3 Key themes 227
8.3.1 Scale 228
8.3.2 Conservation of small lentic freshwater habitats 229
8.3.3 Management of small lentic freshwater habitats 232
8.4 Future research 235
8.5 Conclusion 238

Reference List 239

Appendices 279

Appendix 1 280
ix