Local extinction of dragonfly and damselfly populations in low- and high-quality habitat patches

Conservation Biology

Volumn 24, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 1148-1153

  Suhonen, Jukka ^a,b   Hilli Lukkarinen, Milla ^a,c   Korkeamäki, Esa ^a,d   Kuitunen, Markku ^a   Kullas, Johanna ^a,e   Penttinen, Jouni ^a   Salmela, Jukka ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ   (Finland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TURKU   (Finland)

^c Environmental Protection Department   (Finland)

^d Metsahallitus Finland   (Finland)

^e Finland's Environmental Administration   (Finland)

Author keywords

Damselfly; Dragonfly; Extinction; Finland; Habitat quality; Odonata; Source sink

Indexed keywords

DAMSELFLY; DEMOGRAPHY; DRAGONFLY; EXTINCTION RISK; HABITAT QUALITY; LANDSCAPE ECOLOGY; LOCAL EXTINCTION; PATCHINESS; POPULATION SIZE; SOURCE-SINK DYNAMICS; SPECIES CONSERVATION; STOCHASTICITY;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; ECOSYSTEM; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; FINLAND; GROWTH, DEVELOPMENT AND AGING; INSECT; METHODOLOGY; POPULATION DENSITY; RISK FACTOR; SPECIES EXTINCTION; STATISTICS; PROCEDURES; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA;

ANIMALS; CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES; ECOSYSTEM; EXTINCTION, BIOLOGICAL; FINLAND; INSECTS; POPULATION DENSITY; RISK FACTORS;

FINLAND;

ANISOPTERA (DRAGONFLIES); ODONATA; ZYGOPTERA;

EID: 77954691756     PISSN: 08888892     EISSN: 15231739     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01504.x     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Abell R. Conservation biology for the biodiversity crisis: a freshwater follow-up. Conservation Biology 2002, 16:1435-1437.
2. Armstrong D P. Intergrating the metapopulation and habitat paradigms for understanding broad-scale declines of species. Conservation Biology 2005, 19:1402-1410.
3. Chapin F S. Consequences of changing biodiversity. Nature 2000, 405:234-242.
4. Corbet P S. Dragonflies: behaviour and ecology of Odonata 1999, Harley Books, Essex, United Kingdom
5. Dudgeon D. Freshwater biodiversity: importance, threats, status and conservation challenges. Biological Review 2006, 81:163-182.
6. Flenner I, Sahlen G. Dragonfly community re-organisation in boreal forest lakes: rapid species turnover driven by clomate change?. Insect Conservation and Diversity 2008, 1:169-179.
7. Franzén M, Nilsson S G. Both population size and patch quality affect local extinctions and colonizations. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 2010, 277:79-85.
8. Hanski I. Dynamics of regional distribution-the core and satellite species hypothesis. Oikos 1982, 38:210-221.
9. Hanski I. Metapopulation dynamics. Nature 1998, 396:41-49.
10. Hanski I. Metapopulation ecology 1999, Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom
11. Hanski I, Pöyry J, Pakkala T, Kuussaari M. Multiple equilibria in metapopulation dynamics. Nature 1995, 377:618-621.
12. Harris G, Pimm S L. Range size and extinction risk in forest birds. Conservation Biology 2008, 22:163-171.
13. Hassell C, Thompson D J. The effects of environmental warming on Odonata: a review. International Journal of Odonatology 2008, 11:131-153.
14. Hassell C, Thompson D J, French G C, Harvey I F. Historical changes in the phenology of British Odonata are related to climate. Global change Biology 2007, 13:1-9.
15. Johnson D M. Source-sink dynamics in a temporally, heterogeneous environment. Ecology 2004, 85:2037-2045.
16. Kallimanis A S, Kunin W E, Halley J M, Sgardelis S P. Metapopulation extinction risk under spatially autocorrelated disturbance. Conservation Biology 2005, 19:534-546.
17. Korkeamäki E, Suhonen J. Distribution and habitat specialization of species affect local extinction in dragonfly odonata populations. Ecography 2002, 25:459-465.
18. Lindholm H, Heikkilä R. Destruction of mires in Finland. 2006, 179-192. Lindholm T, Heikkilä R. Pages, editors, Finland-land of mires. Finnish Environment Institute, Helsinki
19. Melbourne B A, Hastings A. Extinction risk depends strongly on factors contributing to stochasticity. Nature 2008, 454:100-103.
20. Pimm S L, Raven P. Biodiversity-extinction by numbers. Nature 2000, 403:843-845.
21. Pulliam H R. Sources, sinks, and population regulation. The American Naturalist 1988, 132:652-661.
22. Pulliam H R, Danielson B J. Sources, sinks, and habitat selection-a landscape perspective on population-dynamics. The American Naturalist 1991, 137:S50-S66.
23. Ricciardi A, Rasmussen J B. Extinction rates of North American freshwater fauna. Conservation Biology 1999, 13:1220-1222.
24. Richter B D, Braun D P, Mendelson M A, Master L L. Threats to imperiled freshwater fauna. Conservation Biology 1997, 11:1081-1093.
25. Sala O E. Biodiversity-global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. Science 2000, 287:1770-1774.
26. Thomas C D, Singer M C, Boughton D A. Catastrophic extinction of population sources in a butterfly metapopulation. The American Naturalist 1996, 148:957-975.
27. Thomas J A, Telfer M G, Roy D B, Preston C D, Greenwood J J D, Asher J, Fox R, Clarke R T, Lawton J H. Comparative losses of British butterflies, birds, and plants and the global extinction crisis. Science 2004, 303:1879-1881.
28. Valle K J. Die verbteitungsverhältnisse der ostfennoskandischen odonaten (zur kenntnis der odonatenfauna finnlands 6.). Acta Entomologica Fennica 1952, 10:1-87.
29. van Dyck H, van Strien A J, Maes D, van Swaay C A M. Decline in common, widespread butterflies in a landscape under intense human use. Conservation Biology 2009, 25:957-965.
30. Watkinson A R, Sutherland W J. Sources, sinks and pseudo-sinks. Journal of Animal Ecology 1995, 64:126-130.