Cited by 8Freshwater macroinvertebrate diversity and ecologyEcology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesFish Ecology and Management Studies

Repeatable patterns in the distribution of freshwater biodiversity indicators across contrasting landscapes

Open access
Law, Alan, Baker, Ambroise, Sayer, Carl D., Foster, Garth, Gunn, Iain D. M., Macadam, Craig R., Willby, Nigel J.·2024·Landscape Ecology

Abstract

Context: Freshwater biodiversity is declining at unparalleled rates, but fundamental questions remain over how it is distributed at the spatial scales most relevant for conservation management. Objectives: Here, we test the hypothesis that freshwater biodiversity is distributed across standing waterbody types in a pattern that is reproducible across disparate biota and contrasting landscapes, such that conservation efforts can be aligned across landscapes and taxa. Methods: We analysed the richness, composition and distribution of macrophytes, molluscs, beetles and odonates from 199 standing waterbodies (lakes, ponds, ditches and canals) nested within UK landscapes with contrasting dominant land use (agricultural, upland and suburban). Results: We found a common pattern in the distribution of our biodiversity indicators across waterbody types in all landscapes that was largely repeated across biota; lakes consistently had the highest or equal alpha diversity and supported a greater proportion of the sampled species pool in each landscape (mean = 86%) in comparison to ponds (74%). Landscape-specific waterbody types (ditches and canals) also contributed significantly to the regional species pool (69 and 33% respectively). Each waterbody type contributed uniquely to landscape biodiversity and usually species of conservation concern, rather than simply supporting a subset of ubiquitous species found in lakes. Conclusions: Landscape-wide management strategies that encompass multiple habitats and biota should prove advantageous and generalisable. However, our study landscapes suggest that long-term biodiversity conservation should also recognise lakes as a priority for nature recovery, both to minimise further losses and to maintain the largest reservoir of biodiversity.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10980-024-01992-z

Cites

56 of 56 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • At a landscape scale, the unique hydrological characteristics of ditches can provide important ecological niches for many species, thereby increasing regional biodiversity.

    “At a landscape scale, the unique hydrological characteristics of ditches can provide important ecological niches for many species, thereby increasing regional biodiversity 186,195,198,199 .”

    From Lines in the landscape (2025) · cites this paper as [186]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 57 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Foster GN (2010) A review of the scarce and threatened Coleoptera of Great Britain. Part 3: water beetles of Great Britain. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough
  2. Seddon MB, Killeen IJ, Fowles AP (2014) A review of the non-marine Mollusca of Great Britain: Species status No.
  3. 1P593 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Law, A., Baker, A., Sayer, C. D., Foster, G., Gunn, I. D. M., Macadam, C. R., & Willby, N. J.
Affiliations
  • University of Stirling (GB)
  • University College London (GB)
  • The Aquatic Coleoptera Conservation Trust (GB)
  • UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology (GB)
  • Buglife (GB)
Corresponding author
Law, Alan
Venue
Landscape Ecology
Published
2024-11-14
Volume
39
Issue
11
ISSN
  • 0921-2973 (ISSN-L)
  • 1572-9761
OpenAlex
W4404313664
Cited by
8
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5
FWCI
2.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Landscape Ecology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • NERC Open Research Archive (Natural Environment Research Council) (acceptedVersion)
  • Stirling Online Research Repository (University of Stirling) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • TeesRep (Teesside University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Teesside University Research Portal (Teesside University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Natural Environment Research Council (NE/N006437/1)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Freshwater macroinvertebrate diversity and ecology
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Fish Ecology and Management Studies
Keywords
freshwater biodiversity, lakes, ponds, ditches, canals, species richness, species composition, alpha diversity, regional species pool, aquatic plants, Mollusca, Coleoptera, Odonata, land use, conservation management, nature recovery, conservation concern species

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review