CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 80Freshwater macroinvertebrate diversity and ecologyEcology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesMarine Biology and Ecology Research

Local contributions to beta diversity in urban pond networks: Implications for biodiversity conservation and management

Open access
Hill, Matthew J., White, James C., Biggs, Jeremy, Briers, Robert A., Gledhill, David, Ledger, Mark E., Thornhill, Ian, Wood, Paul J. +1 more·2021·Diversity and Distributions
DOI 10.1111/ddi.13239
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Aim: An understanding of how biotic communities are spatially organized is necessary to identify and prioritize habitats within landscape‐scale biodiversity conservation. Local contribution to beta diversity (LCBD) identifies individual habitats that make a significant contribution to beta diversity and may have important practical implications, particularly for conservation of habitat networks. In this study, we develop and apply a conservation prioritization approach based on LCBD in aquatic invertebrate communities from 132 ponds. Location: Five urban settlements in the UK: Halton, Loughborough, Stockport, Birmingham and Huddersfield. Methods: We partition LCBD into richness difference (nestedness: RichDiff LCBD) and species replacement (turnover: Repl LCBD) and identify key environmental variables driving LCBD. We examine LCBD at two scales relevant to conservation planning: within urban settlements and nationally across the UK. Results: Significant differences in LCBD values were recorded among the five settlements. In four of the five urban settlements studied, pond sites with the greatest LCBD values typically showed high replacement values. Significant LCBD sites and sites with high taxonomic diversity together supported more of the regional species pool (70%–97%) than sites with high taxonomic diversity alone (54%–94%) or what could be protected by the random selection of sites. LCBD was significantly associated with vegetation shading, surface area, altitude and macrophyte cover. Main conclusions: Conservation prioritization that incorporates LCBD and sites with high taxonomic diversity improves the effectiveness of conservation actions within pond habitat networks, ensures sites supporting high biodiversity are protected and provides a method to define a spatial network of protected sites. Identifying new, effective conservation approaches, particularly in urban areas where resources may be scarce and conflicts regarding land use exist, is essential to ensure biodiversity is fully supported, and detrimental anthropogenic effects are reduced.

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 · 10.1111/ddi.13239

Cites

4 of 4 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?

  • Recent research by Hill et al. (2021) found 70-97% of the regional species pool was protected when ecologically unique sites (high LCBD) and high taxonomic diversity sites (>50 taxa) were considered together, compared to 54%-94% when only high taxonomic diversity sites were considered.

    “Recent research by Hill et al. (2021) found 70-97% of the regional species pool was protected when ecologically unique (sites with high LCBD values) and high taxonomic diversity sites (sites with >50 taxa) were considered together compared to 54%-94% when only sites with high taxonomic diversity were considered.”

    From Pond ecology and conservation: research priorities and knowledge gaps (2021) · cites this paper as Hill et al. 2021

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

Research works printed but not linked: 27

  1. Baselga, A. (2010). Partitioning the turnover and nestedness compo- nents of beta diversity. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 19, 134-143. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-8238.2009.00490.x · DOI
  2. Baselga, A., Gómez-Rodríguez, C., & Lobo, J. M. (2012). Historical lega- cies in world amphibian diversity revealed by the turnover and nest- edness components of beta diversity. PLoS One, 7, e32341. https:// doi.org/10.1371/journ al.pone.0032341 · DOI
  3. Cucherousset, J., Santoul, F., Figuerola, J., & Céréghino, R. (2008). How do biodiversity patterns of river animals emerge from the distri- butions of common and rare species? Biological Conservation, 141, 2984-2992. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.09.004 · DOI
  4. da Silva, P. G., Hernández, M. I. M., & Heino, J. (2018). Disentangling the correlates of species and site contributions to beta diversity in dung beetle assemblages. Diversity and Distributions, 24, 1674-1686. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12785 · DOI
  5. De Meester, L., Declerck, S., Stoks, R., Louette, G., Van De Meutter, F., De Bie, T., Michels, E., & Brendonck, L. (2005). Ponds and pools as model systems in conservation biology, ecology and evolutionary biology. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 15, 715-725. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.748 · DOI
  6. Fornaroli, R., Calabrese, S., Marazzi, F., Zaupa, S., & Mezzanotte, V. (2019). The influence of multiple controls on structural and functional characteristics of macroinvertebrate community in a regulated Alpine river. Ecohydrology, 12, e2069. https://doi. org/10.1002/eco.2069 · DOI
  7. Gledhill, D. G., James, P., & Davies, D. H. (2008). Pond density as a determinant of aquatic species richness in an urban landscape. Landscape Ecology, 23, 1219-1230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1098 0-008-9292-x · DOI
  8. Hassall, C., Hollinshead, J., & Hull, A. (2011). Environmental correlates of plant and invertebrate species richness in ponds. Biodiversity and Conservation, 20, 3189-3222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1053 1-011-0142-9 · DOI
  9. Heino, J., Bini, L. M., Andersson, J., Bergsten, J., Bjelke, U., & Johansson, F. (2017). Unravelling the correlates of species richness and ecologi- cal uniqueness in a metacommunity of urban pond insects. Ecological Indicators, 73, 422-431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoli nd.2016.10.006 · DOI
  10. Heino, J., & Grönroos, M. (2017). Exploring species and site contributions to beta-diversity in stream insect assemblages. Oecologia, 183, 151- 160. https://doi.org/10.1007/s0044 2-016-3754-7 · DOI
  11. Hill, M. J., Biggs, J., Thornhill, I., Briers, R. A., Gledhill, D. G., White, J. C., Wood, P. J., & Hassall, C. (2017). Urban ponds as an aquatic biodi- versity resource in modified landscapes. Global Change Biology, 23, 986-999. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13401 · DOI
  12. Hill, M. J., Biggs, J., Thornhill, I., Briers, R. A., Ledger, M., Gledhill, D. G., Wood, P. J., & Hassall, C. (2018). Community heterogeneity of aquatic macroinvertebrates in urban ponds at a multi-city scale. Landscape Ecology, 33, 389-405. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1098 0-018-0608-1 · DOI
  13. Hill, M. J., Hassall, C., Oertli, B., Fahrig, L., Robson, B. J., Biggs, J., Samways, M. J., Usio, N., Takamura, N., Krishnaswamy, J., & Wood, P. J. (2018). New policy directions for global pond conservation. Conservation Letters, 11, e12447. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12447 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Legendre, P., & De Cáceres, M. (2013). Beta-diversity as the variance of community data: Dissimilarity coefficients and partitioning. Ecology Letters, 16, 951-963.
  15. Margules, C. R., & Pressey, R. L. (2000). Systematic conservation plan- ning. Nature, 405, 243. https://doi.org/10.1038/35012251 · DOI
  16. McKinney, M. L. (2008). Effects of urbanization on species richness: A review of plants and animals. Urban Ecosystems, 11, 161-176. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s1125 2-007-0045-4 · DOI
  17. Önal, H., & Briers, R. A. (2002). Incorporating spatial criteria in optimum reserve network selection. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 269, 2437-2441.
  18. Picazo, F., Bilton, D. T., Moreno, J. L., Sanchez-Fernandez, D., & Millan, A. (2012). Water beetle biodiversity in Mediterranean standing waters: Assemblage composition, environmental drivers and nestedness patterns. Insect Conservation and Diversity, 5, 46-158. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1752-4598.2011.00144.x · DOI
  19. Qiao, X., Li, Q., Jiang, Q., Lu, J., Franklin, S., Tang, Z., Wang, Q., Zhang, J., Lu, Z., Bao, D., Guo, Y., Liu, H., Xu, Y., & Jiang, M. (2015). Beta diversity determinants in Badagongshan, a subtropical forest in cen- tral China. Scientific Reports, 5, 17043. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep1 7043 · DOI
  20. Roy, A. H., Rosemond, A. D., Paul, M. J., Leigh, D. S., & Wallace, J. B. (2003). Stream macroinvertebrate response to catchment urbani- sation (Georgia, USA). Freshwater Biology, 48, 329-346. https://doi. org/10.1046/j.1365-2427.2003.00979.x · DOI
  21. Sánchez-Bayo, F., & Wyckhuys, K. A. (2019). Worldwide decline of the entomofauna: A review of its drivers. Biological Conservation, 232, 8- 27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.01.020 · DOI · Paper page
  22. Socolar, J. B., Gilroy, J., Kunin, W. E., & Edwards, D. P. (2016). How should beta-diversity inform biodiversity conservation. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 31, 67-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2015.11.005 · DOI · Paper page
  23. Soininen, J., Heino, J., & Wang, J. (2018). A meta-analysis of nestedness and turnover components of beta diversity across organisms and ecosystems. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 27, 96-109. https://doi. org/10.1111/geb.12660 · DOI
  24. Szabó, B., Lengyel, E., Padisák, J., & Stenger-Kovács, C. (2019). Benthic diatom metacommunity across small freshwater lakes: Driving mech- anisms, β-diversity and ecological uniqueness. Hydrobiologia, 828, 183-198. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1075 0-018-3811-9 · DOI
  25. Teittinen, A., Wang, J., Strömgård, S., & Soininen, J. (2017). Local and geographical factors jointly drive elevational patterns in three micro- bial groups across subarctic ponds. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 26, 973-982. https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12607 · DOI
  26. Vilmi, A., Karjalainen, S. M., & Heino, J. (2017). Ecological uniqueness of stream and lake diatom communities shows different macroecolog- ical patterns. Diversity and Distributions, 23, 1042-1053. https://doi. org/10.1111/ddi.12594 · DOI
  27. Whittaker, R. H. (1960). Vegetation of the Siskiyou Mountains, Oregon and California. Ecological Monographs, 30, 280-338. https://doi. org/10.2307/1948435 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

  • Pond ecology and conservation: research priorities and knowledge gaps

    Hill, M. J., Greaves, H. M., Sayer, C. D., Hassall, C., Milin, M., Milner, V. S., Marazzi, L., Hall, R., Harper, L. R., Thornhill, I., et al. (2021) · Ecosphere · doi:10.1002/ecs2.3853 · Cited by 156 · see citing works

    “Recent research by Hill et al. (2021) found 70– 97% of the regional species pool was protected when ecologically unique (sites with high LCBD values) and high taxonomic diversity sites (sites with >50 taxa) were considered together compared to 54%–94% when only sites with high taxonomic diversity…”
    BackgroundSelf-citation

Authors
Hill, M. J., White, J. C., Biggs, J., Briers, R. A., Gledhill, D., Ledger, M. E., Thornhill, I., Wood, P. J., & Hassall, C.
Affiliations
  • University of Huddersfield (GB)
  • Swansea University (GB)
  • Freshwater Habitats Trust (GB)
  • Edinburgh Napier University (GB)
  • University of Salford (GB)
  • University of Birmingham (GB)
  • Bath Spa University (GB)
  • Loughborough University (GB)
  • University of Leeds (GB)
Corresponding author
Hill, Matthew J.
ORCID
Venue
Diversity and Distributions
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2021-03-15
Volume
27
Issue
5
Pages
887-900
ISSN
  • 0967-9952 (ISSN-L)
  • 1366-9516
  • 1472-4642
DOI
10.1111/ddi.13239
OpenAlex
W3013264317
Cited by
80
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 10
FWCI
6.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Diversity and Distributions (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Huddersfield Research Portal (University of Huddersfield) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
  • Research Space (acceptedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Edinburgh Napier Research Repository (Edinburgh Napier University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
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 › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Oceanography › Marine Biology and Ecology Research
Keywords
local contribution to beta diversity, urban ponds, aquatic invertebrates, conservation prioritization, habitat networks, species turnover, nestedness, species pool, vegetation shading, macrophyte cover, urban biodiversity conservation

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