Odonate species occupancy frequency distribution and abundance–occupancy relationship patterns in temporal and permanent water bodies in a subtropical area

Abstract

This paper investigates species richness and species occupancy frequency distributions (SOFD) as well as patterns of abundance–occupancy relationship (SAOR) in Odonata (dragonflies and damselflies) in a subtropical area. A total of 82 species and 1983 individuals were noted from 73 permanent and temporal water bodies (lakes and ponds) in the Pampa biome in southern Brazil. Odonate species occupancy ranged from 1 to 54. There were few widely distributed generalist species and several specialist species with a restricted distribution. About 70% of the species occurred in <10% of the water bodies, yielding a surprisingly high number of rare species, often making up the majority of the communities. No difference in species richness was found between temporal and permanent water bodies. Both temporal and permanent water bodies had odonate assemblages that fitted best with the unimodal satellite SOFD pattern. It seems that unimodal satellite SOFD pattern frequently occurred in the aquatic habitats. The SAOR pattern was positive and did not differ between permanent and temporal water bodies. Our results are consistent with a niche‐based model rather than a metapopulation dynamic model.

Spatial and temporal changes in occupancy frequency distribution patterns of freshwater macrophytes in Finland

“…The relative representation of core and satellite species in assemblage composition and occupancy frequencies varied among waterbodies, probably due to differences in the species pool size. The general pattern detected here for macrophyte assemblages—numerous rare species and only a few common ones—is similar to what several previous studies have reported for macroinvertebrates in aquatic environments (Heino, 2008, 2015; Jenkins, 2011; Korkeamäki et al., 2018; Renner et al., 2020; Tokeshi, 1992; Verberk et al., 2010). These findings provide slightly more support for the niche‐based model of community assembly (Brown, 1984) than the dynamic metapopulation model (Hanski, 1982b), because the majority of macrophyte assemblages had unimodal distributions with a large number of satellite species.…”

“…At the local scale, the results varied across both space and time probably due to other change in water quality, eutrophication, and changes in the landscape surrounding waterbodies (Hilli et al, 2007;Lindholm et al, 2021;Rintanen, 1996). The highest degree of support was ies have reported for macroinvertebrates in aquatic environments (Heino, 2008(Heino, , 2015Jenkins, 2011;Korkeamäki et al, 2018;Renner et al, 2020;Tokeshi, 1992;Verberk et al, 2010). These findings provide slightly more support for the niche-based model of community assembly (Brown, 1984) than the dynamic metapopulation model (Hanski, 1982b), because the majority of macrophyte assemblages had unimodal distributions with a large number of satellite species.…”

Macroinvertebrate species occupancy frequency distribution patterns in eutrophic lakes

“…Third, is unimodal-satellite SOFD pattern fitted the best with combined macroinvertebrate data? We expected that a unimodal-satellite SOFD pattern would occur in eutrophic lakes as this is frequently observed in other aquatic macroinvertebrates orders (Tokeshi 1992;Heino 2008Heino , 2015Verberk et al 2010;Jenkins 2011;Korkeama ¨ki et al 2018;Renner et al 2020). Fourth, how dispersal ability affects SOFD pattern (organismal scaling hypothesis) (e.g.…”

“…Previous studies have found that SOFDs generally have a bimodal core-satellite pattern in terrestrial communities (Hanski 1982(Hanski , 1998(Hanski , 1999McGeoch and Gaston 2002;Jenkins 2011;Autio et al 2013). However, in aquatic communities, the support for bimodal core-satellite pattern is relatively weak and the unimodal-satellite-dominant pattern seems to be more common (Tokeshi 1992;Heino 2008Heino , 2015Verberk et al 2010;Korkeama ¨ki et al 2018;Renner et al 2020). For example, Jenkins (2011) re-analysed two freshwater macroinvertebrate datasets (Wiberg-Larsen et al 2000;Oertli et al 2008) and he found unimodal-satellite SOFD pattern in both cases.…”

“…Most previous SOFD studies have, however, focused on single taxonomic group in aquatic macroinvertebrate assemblages, such as chironomids (Diptera: Chironomidae) (Tokeshi 1992), caddisflies (Trichoptera) (Wiberg-Larsen et al 2000) and damselflies and dragonflies (Odonata) (Korkeama ¨ki et al 2018;Renner et al 2020), or combined data several macroinvertebrate taxonomic groups together (Heino 2008(Heino , 2015Verberk et al 2010; see also Jenkins 2011). Therefore, it was not clear whether several species groups in aquatic invertebrate communities would produce unimodal-satellite SOFD pattern or whether there is variation between taxonomic groups in the SOFD patterns in a regional scale.…”