| Literature DB >> 34807930 |
Jamie E Becker1, Nadejda A Mirochnitchenko1, Haley Ingram1, Ashley Everett1, Kevin E McCluney1.
Abstract
Dehydration can have negative effects on animal physiological performance, growth, reproduction, and survival, and most animals seek to minimize these effects by reducing water losses or seeking water sources. Much-but not all-of the research on animal water balance comes from dryland ecosystems. However, animals inhabiting mesic regions may also experience desiccating conditions, for example within urban heat islands or during heatwaves and droughts. Here we examined how spatial variation in impervious surface and spatial and temporal variation in microclimate impact water demand behavior of terrestrial arthropods and mollusks in three areas of mesic Northwest Ohio, with analysis of taxa that exhibited the greatest water demand behavior. Water demand behavior was measured as the frequency that individuals were observed at an artificial water source (a moistened pouch), relative to the frequency at a control (a dry pouch). Overall, terrestrial arthropods and mollusks were found about twice as often at the water source than at the control (equivalent to 86 more observations on the wet pouch than on dry at each site, on average), with ants accounting for over 50% of the overall response in urban areas. Daily fluctuations in vapor pressure deficit (VPD) best predicted daily variation in water demand behavior, with increased demand at higher VPD. Mean VPD was generally highest near urbanized areas, but effects of VPD on water demand behavior were generally lower in urbanized areas (possibly related to reductions in overall abundance reducing the potential response). On certain days, VPD was high in natural areas and greenspaces, and this coincided with the highest arthropod water demand behavior observed. Our results suggest that terrestrial arthropod communities do experience periods of water demand within mesic regions, including in greenspaces outside cities, where they appear to respond strongly to short periods of dry conditions-an observation with potential relevance for understanding the effects of climate change.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34807930 PMCID: PMC8608307 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0260070
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Results comparing water demand behavior among sites.
| Region | Site | Dry pillow | Wet pillow |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oak Openings | Sand | 33.08 ± 5.00% | 43.85 ±4.45% |
| Clay | 13.99 ± 3.89% | 37.69 ± 4.21% | |
| BGSU | Street trees | 3.85 ± 1.72% | 7.69 ± 2.81% |
| Greenspace | 11.11 ± 3.24% | 25.38 ± 5.85% | |
| Toledo | Street trees | 3.85 ± 1.72% | 6.15 ± 1.54% |
| Greenspace | 7.69 ± 1.62% | 19.23 ± 4.17% |
aValues show mean and standard error of observation frequency per tree.
Fig 1Relationship between spatial variation in arthropod and mollusk occurrence on water pillows of different wetness and impervious surface.
Impervious surface is calculated within a 25m radius circle around each tree where water pillows were located. (a) Terrestrial arthropods and mollusks were observed on wet pillows about twice as often as on dry pillows (23.3% vs 12.3% of observations). The frequency of observations (b) and the total abundance (c) of arthropods on both wet and dry pillows declines with increased impervious surface.
Fig 2Associations between each measured environmental variable and the temporal variation in frequency of observations of terrestrial arthropods and mollusks on wet and dry water pillows.
Each figure depicts regression lines of best fit from a linear model relating each environmental variable to the frequency of observation of terrestrial arthropods and mollusks for the wet and dry pillow separately. They are useful in visualizing the patterns in the data. The most parsimonious model was one that included interactive effects of mean site temperature (d), daily vapor pressure deficit (e), and mean site daily vapor pressure deficit (f).
Results comparing a set of candidate models to find the best predictor for variation in water demand behavior over time.
| Model | K | AICc | ΔAICc | Weight | LL |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (a) Frequency per day | ||||||
| ~ Pillow ˟ Daily VPD | 6 | 469.82 | 0.00 | 0.79 | -228.63 | 0.07 |
| ~ Pillow ˟ MSVPD | 6 | 474.20 | 4.38 | 0.09 | -230.82 | 0.17 |
| ~ Pillow | 4 | 476.11 | 6.29 | 0.03 | -233.92 | 0.05 |
| ~ Pillow ˟ MST | 6 | 476.33 | 6.51 | 0.03 | -231.88 | 0.15 |
| ~ Pillow ˟ Daily temperature | 6 | 477.23 | 7.41 | 0.02 | -232.33 | 0.05 |
| ~ Pillow ˟ Daily soil moisture | 6 | 477.24 | 7.42 | 0.02 | -232.34 | 0.05 |
| ~ Pillow ˟ MSSM | 6 | 478.13 | 8.31 | 0.01 | -232.78 | 0.09 |
| ~ Null | 3 | 512.60 | 42.78 | 0.00 | -253.22 | 0.00 |
| (b) Frequency per day | ||||||
| ~ Pillow ˟ Daily VPD ˟ MST | 10 | 466.62 | 0.00 | 0.46 | -222.55 | 0.19 |
| ~ Pillow ˟ Daily VPD ˟ MSVPD | 10 | 466.82 | 0.21 | 0.42 | -222.65 | 0.21 |
| ~ Pillow ˟ Daily VPD | 6 | 469.82 | 3.20 | 0.09 | -228.63 | 0.07 |
| ~ Pillow + Daily VPD + MSVPD | 6 | 473.12 | 6.50 | 0.02 | -230.28 | 0.17 |
| ~ Pillow + Daily VPD + MST | 6 | 475.27 | 8.66 | 0.01 | -231.35 | 0.15 |
| ~ Pillow ˟ Daily VPD ˟ MSSM | 10 | 476.91 | 10.30 | 0.00 | -227.70 | 0.11 |
| ~ Pillow + Daily VPD | 5 | 477.27 | 10.65 | 0.00 | -233.44 | 0.05 |
| ~ Pillow + Daily VPD + MSSM | 6 | 478.60 | 11.98 | 0.00 | -233.02 | 0.09 |
| ~ Null | 3 | 512.60 | 45.99 | 0.00 | -253.22 | 0.00 |
aNumber of model parameters.
bAkaike information criterion (AIC). The lower-case ’c’ indicates that the value has been corrected for small sample sizes.
cThe relative difference between the most parsimonious model (which has a ΔAIC of zero) and each other model in the set. For each response metric, we considered models within 2 AIC units to be equivalent.
dAkaike weight, which gives the probability that the model is the best from the set.
eLog-likelihood value.
fMarginal R2 value.
gVapor pressure deficit (kPa).
hMean site vapor pressure deficit (kPa).
iMean site temperature (˚C).
jMean site soil moisture (% vol).
Fig 3Total abundance of terrestrial arthropods and mollusks on wet and dry pillows.
Responses to water pillows were dominated by Opiliones, Orthoptera, Hymenoptera, and Collembola at the undeveloped sites (Oak Openings), while developed sites (BGSU and Toledo) were primarily composed of Hymenoptera (mostly ants, especially Camponotus, Lasius, and Brachymyrmex). These genera are widespread in OH and were present at all sites. Ants in Toledo and BGSU were primarily Camponotus pennsylvanicus.