Advertisement

Wetlands Ecology and Management

, Volume 27, Issue 5–6, pp 627–634 | Cite as

Colonization of drying temporary wetlands by Coptotomus loticus (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae): a unique strategy for an aquatic wetland insect

  • Courtney H. McDanielEmail author
  • Joseph V. McHugh
  • Darold P. Batzer
Original Paper

Abstract

Predaceous diving beetles (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae) are well-known for their ability to colonize both permanent and temporary aquatic habitats. They often move predictably between these two habitats, colonizing recently flooded habitat and returning to permanent habitat during the dry-down phase. However, Coptotomus loticus Hilsenhoff does not appear to utilize this same strategy. The objective of our study was to investigate the spatial and temporal patterns of C. loticus distribution in wetland habitats of the southeastern USA. Floodplain wetlands were sampled seasonally over 2 years (a drought year and a flood year), and Carolina bays were sampled seasonally over 3 years. During the drought year, C. loticus remained primarily in permanent water bodies on the floodplain. During the flood year, C. loticus utilized temporary habitats on the floodplain to a greater degree than in the drought year. High densities of C. loticus were more common in temporary habitat during the latter half of the year (dry-down phase) versus the early actively-flooding portion of the year. The highest density of C. loticus in Carolina bays was also found during the dry-down phase. These results suggest C. loticus may be accessing temporary wetland habitat in which fish and other vertebrates may be stranded as the habitat dries down. Dytiscids have been known to consume vertebrate carrion, and in this study system, C. loticus may be utilizing the dry-down effect to hone in on stranded vertebrates as a readily available food source, a strategy not yet described among wetland macroinvertebrates. This phenomenon warrants further study in this and other systems, however, to verify its existence across time and space.

Keywords

Drought Flooding Floodplain Carolina bay Predaceous diving beetle 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Kelly B. Miller (University of New Mexico) for kindly confirming the identification of the dytiscid species. This research was supported in part by the Hatch Program at the College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, University of Georgia.

Funding

Hatch Program—College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, University of Georgia.

References

  1. Abernethy EF, Turner KL, Beasley JC, Rhodes OE (2017) Scavenging along an ecological interface: utilization of amphibian and reptile carcasses around isolated wetlands. Ecosphere.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.1989 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Balke M (2005) Dytiscidae. In: Beutel RG, Leschen R (eds) Handbook of zoology IV, 38(1), Coleoptera. DeGruyter, Berlin, pp 90–116Google Scholar
  3. Batzer DP, Murray KM (2018) How important are aquatic predators to mosquito larval populations in natural wetlands? A case study from Carolina bays in Georgia. Wetl Ecol Manag 26:391–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Batzer DP, Ruhí A (2013) Is there a core set of organisms that structure macroinvertebrate assemblages in freshwater wetlands? Freshw Biol 58:1647–1659.  https://doi.org/10.1111/fwb.12156 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Batzer DP, Wissinger SA (1996) Ecology of insect communities in nontidal wetlands. Annu Rev Entomol 41:75–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Benke AC (2001) Importance of flood regime to invertebrate habitat in an unregulated river–floodplain ecosystem. J North Am Benthol Soc 20:225–240.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1468318 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Costanza R, de Groot R, Sutton P et al (2014) Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Glob Environ Chang 26:152–158.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crespo JG (2011) A review of chemosensation and related behavior in aquatic insects. J Insect Sci 11:62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Davy-Bowker J (2002) A mark and recapture study of water beetles (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae) in a group of semi-permanent and temporary ponds. Aquat Ecol 36:435–446.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016550127986 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Epler JH (2010) The water beetles of Florida: an identification manual for the families Chrysomelidae, Curculionidae, Dryopidae, Dytiscidae, Elmidae, Gyrinidae, Haliplidae, Helophoridae, Hydraenidae, Hydrochidae, Hydroptilidae, Noteridae, Psephenidae, Ptilodactylidae. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Environmental Assessment and Restoration, TallahaseeGoogle Scholar
  11. Fairchild GW, Cruz J, Faulds AM et al (2003) Microhabitat and landscape influences on aquatic beetle assemblages in a cluster of temporary and permanent ponds. J North Am Benthol Soc 22:224–240.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1467994 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fenoglio S, Merritt RW, Cummins KW (2014) Why do no specialized necrophagous species exist among aquatic insects? Freshw Sci 33:711–715.  https://doi.org/10.1086/677038 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Frelik A (2014) Predation of adult large diving beetles Dytiscus marginalis (Linnaeus, 1758), Dytiscus circumcinctus (Ahrens, 1811) and Cybister lateralimarginalis (De Geer, 1774) (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae) on fish fry. Oceanol Hydrobiol Stud 43:360–365.  https://doi.org/10.2478/s13545-014-0153-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hilsenhoff WL (1979) Coptotomus (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae) in eastern North America with descriptions of two new species. Trans Am Entomol Soc 105:461–471Google Scholar
  15. Hilsenhoff WL (1993) Dytiscidae and Noteridae of Wisconsin (Coleoptera): distribution, habitat, life cycle, and identification of species of Colymbetinae, except Agabini. Gt Lakes Entomol 26:2Google Scholar
  16. Jensen JC, Zacharuk RY (1991) The fine structure of uniporous and nonporous pegs on the distal antennal segment of the diving beetle Graphoderus occidentalis Horn (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae). Can J Zool 69:334–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Junk WJ, Bayley PB, Sparks RE (1989) The flood pulse concept in river-floodplain systems. Can Spec Publ Fish Aquat Sci 106:110–127Google Scholar
  18. Kennedy TL, Turner TF (2011) River channelization reduces nutrient flow and macroinvertebrate diversity at the aquatic terrestrial transition zone. Ecosphere.  https://doi.org/10.1890/ES11-00047.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. King SL, Battaglia LL, Hupp CR et al (2012) Floodplain wetlands of the Southeastern Coastal Plain. In: Batzer DP, Baldwin AH (eds) Wetland habitats of North America. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp 253–266Google Scholar
  20. Kushlan JA (1976) Wading birds predation in a seasonally fluctuating pond. Auk 93:464–476Google Scholar
  21. Larson DJ, Alarie Y, Roughley RE (2000) Predaceous diving beetles (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae) of the Nearctic region, with an emphasis on the fauna of Canada and Alaska. National Research Council of Canada, OttawaGoogle Scholar
  22. McDaniel CH, Batzer DP (2019) Effects of river flow regulation beyond the channel: multifaceted changes within a group of invertebrate floodplain specialists. Wetlands 39:87–98.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-018-1070-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McDaniel CH, McHugh JV, Batzer DP (2017) Congeneric predaceous diving beetle species fail to segregate in a floodplain system: a case of amplified sympatry. Environ Entomol 46:494–501.  https://doi.org/10.1093/ee/nvx063 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Merritt RW, Cummins KW, Berg MB (2008) An introduction to the aquatic insects of North America, 4th edn. Kendall/Hunt Pub. Co, DubuqueGoogle Scholar
  25. Nillson AN (1986) Community structure in the Dytiscidae (Coleoptera) of a northern Swedish seasonal pond. Ann Zool Fennici 23:39–47Google Scholar
  26. Nilsson AN, Holmen M (1995) The aquatic Adephaga (Coleoptera) of Fennoscandia and Denmark. II. Dytisicidae. Fauna Entomol Scand 32:1–192Google Scholar
  27. Pintar MR, Bohenek JR, Eveland LL, Resetarits WJ Jr (2018) Colonization across gradients of risk and reward: nutrients and predators generate species-specific responses among aquatic insects. Funct Ecol 32:1589–1598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Poff NL, Allan JD, Bain MB et al (1997) The natural flow regime. Bioscience 47:769–784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Saveanu L, Manara E, Martín PR (2017) Carrion consumption and its importance in a freshwater trophic generalist: the invasive apple snail Pomacea canaliculata. Mar Freshw Res 68:752–759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Smith ND, Golladay SW (2011) Coleoptera indicator species in wet versus dry climate regimes in three southwestern Georgia wetland types. In: Carroll GD (ed) Proceedings of the 2011 Georgia Water Resources Conference, AthensGoogle Scholar
  31. Taylor BE, Leeper DA, McClure MA, DeBiase AE (1999) Carolina bays: Ecology of aquatic invertebrates and perspectives on conservation. In: Batzer DP, Rader RB, Wissinger SA (eds) Invertebrates in freshwater wetlands of North America: ecology and management. Wiley, New York, pp 167–196Google Scholar
  32. Unger SD (2018) Scavenging behavior of the aquatic eastern hellbender salamander (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis) in North Carolina. J North Carolina Acad Sci 134:1–2.  https://doi.org/10.7572/JNCAS-D-17-00002.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wiggins GB, Mackay RJ, Smith IM (1980) Evolutionary and ecological strategies of animals in annual temporary pools. Arch für Hydrobiol Suppl 58:97–206Google Scholar
  34. Wissinger SA (1997) Cyclic colonization in predictably ephemeral habitats: a template for biological control in annual crop systems. Biol Control 10:4–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Environmental Science and Ecology, The College at BrockportState University of New YorkBrockportUSA
  2. 2.Department of EntomologyUniversity of GeorgiaAthensUSA

Personalised recommendations