Elsevier

Journal of Arid Environments

Volume 113, February 2015, Pages 69-76
Journal of Arid Environments

The impacts of an invasive herbivore (Camelus dromedaries) on arid zone freshwater pools: An experimental investigation of the effects of dung on macroinvertebrate colonisation

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2014.09.011Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Macroinvertebrate abundance was higher in the control mesocosms.

  • Pollution tolerant taxa such as mosquito larvae were common in treatment mesocosms.

  • Sensitive fauna, such as larval dragonflies were more common in the controls.

Abstract

Aquatic ecosystems in arid environments provide important refugia and ‘stepping-stones’ of connectivity for aquatic fauna. Aquatic ecosystems in central Australia are vulnerable to degradation due to the impacts of invasive herbivores such as camels, which degrade small desert waterbodies through drinking, trampling, and fouling with dung. In this study we assessed the impacts of camel dung on the water quality and macroinvertebrate colonization and community composition of small arid zone freshwater pools using experimental mesocosms.

Camel dung (2 kg) was added to half the mesocosms (the treatment), the remaining mesocosms (without camel dung) acted as the controls. All mesocosms were sampled weekly for water quality, nutrients, chlorophyll a and macroinvertebrate richness and abundance, over an eight week period during summer.

Macroinvertebrate abundance was higher in the control mesocosms in comparison to the treatment mesocosms. Pollution tolerant taxa such as mosquito larvae were common in treatment mesocosms, while sensitive fauna, such as larval mayflies and dragonflies were more common in the controls. The latter are predators and appeared to have a major influence on community composition.

Our results reinforce the need for active management of invasive herbivores to protect aquatic biodiversity and to manage potential disease-vector species in central Australia waterbodies.

Introduction

Arid environments cover 47% of the earth (Kingsford and Thompson, 2006) and include a number of threatened ecosystems and associated flora and fauna (Byrne et al., 2008, Murphy et al., 2009, Anthelme et al., 2011). Arid waterbodies are considered “islands of water in a sea of dry land” (Faulks et al., 2010) but have been the focus of relatively few ecological studies (Sada et al., 2005, De Los Rios et al., 2010, Kirkman et al., 2012). Given their isolation within an inhospitable arid landscape, waterbodies are analogous to islands (Ward and Blaustein, 1994, March and Bass, 1995, Angeler and Alverez-Cobelas, 2005, Murphy et al., 2009) and in this sense are instructive for studying fundamental ecological processes such as assembly dynamics and the role of refugia (Davis et al., 2013). Waterbodies are particularly useful in assessing the interplay between local conditions, dispersal and colonisation (Jenkins and Buikema, 1998, Thompson and Townsend, 2006, Zickovich and Bohonak, 2007; Jeffries, 2011) and various aspects of Island Biogeography Theory (Ward and Blaustein, 1994, Bohonak and Jenkins, 2003). Invertebrate colonisation of waterbodies has been the focus of many studies because the site scale is relatively discrete, small and easy to comprehend, and the turnover rate of colonists is rapid enough to provide a feasible timeframe for research (Layton and Voshell, 1991, Clifford et al., 1992, Bohonak and Jenkins, 2003, Williams et al., 2008).

Degradation of aquatic ecosystems in arid regions is a major issue because of their biological, social and economic importance (Williams, 2000, Box et al., 2008, Kirkman et al., 2012). For example, springs in arid areas may provide the only reliable source of water (Sada et al., 2005), are geographically isolated (Box et al., 2008) and in many cases support an endemic aquatic fauna (Wilmer and Wilcox, 2007, Murphy et al., 2009). Many aquatic ecosystems in arid Australia are culturally significant to Aboriginal people, who have relied on permanent and temporary water to survive for thousands of years (Bayly, 1999). In central Australia, aquatic habitats provide a scarce and critical resource for flora and fauna (Davis et al., 1993; Box et al., 2008) and like other areas of the world are regarded as “precious jewels of the desert”, a status that reflects their importance to both aquatic and terrestrial biodiversity (Box et al., 2008). It is evident that the conservation of arid zone aquatic ecosystems is critical, particularly in the face of globally developing threats to water resources in arid regions (Vorosmarty et al., 2010).

Water resources in arid regions are under pressure from increasing human populations and the associated requirements of major industries such as mining and agriculture (Murphy et al., 2009). These factors in turn influence multiple and interacting stressors that include salinisation, weed invasion, pollution, aquifer drawdown and unmanaged feral herbivores (Sada et al., 2005, Box et al., 2008, Lindenmayer et al., 2010).

Australia has the largest feral population of dromedary camels (Camelus dromidarius) in the world. Their numbers increased since first being imported from their regions of origin (Afghanistan, Pakistan and northern India) between 1840 and 1907, with numbers reaching an estimated peak population of 1 million in 2008 (Dorges and Heucke, 1996, Edwards et al., 2010, Saalfeld and Edwards, 2010). Invasive herbivores such as the camel are a major problem in central Australia (Edwards et al., 2010). At high densities they have a large negative impact on environmental, cultural and economic resources by damaging infrastructure, vegetation and aquatic habitats (Edwards et al., 2010, Saalfeld and Edwards, 2010). While it is well established that various invasive herbivores pose a threat to aquatic ecosystems, there is a need to focus specifically on the impacts of camels due to their wide distribution and commonly unrestricted access to waterbodies throughout arid Australia. Camels can cause significant damage to waterbodies by trampling vegetation and eroding banks, by depletion of permanent springs, and by fouling through defecation (Brim-Box et al., 2010, Edwards et al., 2010), which can lead to eutrophication, and serious consequences for aquatic fauna (Smith et al., 1999).

Eutrophication, the excessive input of nitrogen and phosphorus into aquatic ecosystems, is one of the major threats to freshwater ecosystems globally (Smith and Schindler, 2009, Kneitel and Lessin, 2010, Teissier et al., 2012). The negative effects of eutrophication include major compositional and functional shifts in ecosystem components, changes in trophic levels, increases in invasive species, and an increased risk of emerging diseases (Smith and Schindler, 2009, Kneitel and Lessin, 2010). Consideration of eutrophication is important because it provides a basis to better understand ecological processes and interactions in seasonal ecosystems, information which is fundamental for effective management (Kneitel and Lessin, 2010).

The objective of this study was to investigate the impacts of camels on the water quality and invertebrate ecology of simulated arid zone waterbodies. We assessed the effects of camel dung on aquatic habitats by measuring changes in: i) physico-chemical variables and phytoplankton; ii) macroinvertebrate richness and abundance; and iii) macroinvertebrate community composition, over time in experimental mesocosms located in the central Australian arid zone.

Section snippets

Experimental mesocosms

Eighteen mesocosms (artificial pools), arranged in three groups of six, approximately 80 m apart, were placed in the Arid Zone Research Institute compound (133° 52′E, 23° 46′S) in Alice Springs, in the Northern Territory, Australia. The plastic 100 L, 1 m × 0.5 m pools were typical (in dimensions and volume) of small arid zone waterbodies. Within each group, three treatment mesocosms (with camel dung added) and three control mesocosms (without dung) were located 5 m apart in an alternating

Physico–chemical parameters

The average air temperature varied greatly over the eight-week experimental period, reaching a maximum of 38.7 °C and average water temperatures (recorded at the time of sampling each week) were high (∼32 °C) (Table 1). Little precipitation (7 mm) was recorded during the same period. Significant differences in conductivity and pH were recorded over time and between the treatment and control mesocosms (Table 2), however, the differences were not large (Table 1). The presence of dung resulted in

Discussion

Aquatic ecosystems are biologically important yet often overlooked features of arid landscapes that are useful for assessing anthropogenic disturbances (Williams, 2000, Box et al., 2008, Patten et al., 2008, Becerra Jurado et al., 2009, Davis et al., 2013). We sought to investigate how the impacts of camel dung affected the invertebrate colonisation of arid zone freshwater pools using experimental mesocosms. We assessed the effect of the addition of camel dung by measuring water quality,

Implications for natural waterbodies

This study provides experimental evidence of the negative impacts of camel dung on arid zone waterbodies. The effects, and interactions, of dung and water quality are likely to be exacerbated in natural pools, particularly in dry summers. As the landscape dries, aquatic sites evaporate and shrink in volume, which reduces habitat and concentrates solutes, especially nutrients (Williams, 2006). The deposition of dung is non-random at the landscape scale as feral camels move in from dry areas and

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by a National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility (NCCARF) and National Water Commission (NWC) co-funded grant (FW1106) and an Australian Research Council (ARC) Discovery Project grant (DP120103010).

References (62)

  • L.E. Barnes

    The colonisation of ball-clay ponds by macroinvertebrates and macrophytes

    Freshw. Biol.

    (1983)
  • I.A.E. Bayly

    Review of how indigenous people managed for water in desert regions of Australia

    J. R. Soc. West. Aust.

    (1999)
  • G. Becerra Jurado et al.

    Comparison of macroinvertebrate community structure and driving environmental factors in natural and wastewater treatment ponds

    Hydrobiologica

    (2009)
  • D.T. Bilton et al.

    Disperal in freshwater invertebrates

    Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst.

    (2001)
  • L. Blaustein et al.

    Chemical detection of the predator Notonecta irrorata by ovipositing Culex mosquitoes

    J. Vector Ecol.

    (2005)
  • A.J. Bohonak et al.

    Ecological and evolutionary significance of dispersal by freshwater invertebrates

    Ecol. Lett.

    (2003)
  • M.T. Bogan et al.

    Aerial dispersal of aquatic invertebrates along and away from arid-land streams

    Freshw. Sci.

    (2012)
  • J. Brim-Box et al.

    Camel usage and impacts at a permanent spring in central Australia: a case study

    Rangel. J.

    (2010)
  • J. Burkholder et al.

    Impacts of waste from concentrated animal feeding operations on water quality

    Environ. Health Perspect.

    (2007)
  • M. Byrne et al.

    Birth of a biome: insights into the assembly and maintenance of the Australian arid zone biota

    Mol. Ecol.

    (2008)
  • C.E. Caceres et al.

    Blowing in the wind: a field test of overland dispersal and colonization by aquatic invertebrates

    Oecologia

    (2002)
  • J.M. Chase et al.

    Drought-induced mosquito outbreaks in wetlands

    Ecol. Lett.

    (2003)
  • K.R. Clarke et al.

    PRIMER V6: User Manual/Tutorial

    (2006)
  • H.F. Clifford et al.

    Short-term colonisation of rough and smooth tiles by benthic macroinvertebrates and algae

    North Am. Benthol. Soc.

    (1992)
  • T.J. Dawson et al.

    Water usage and diet preferences of free ranging kangaroos, sheep and feral goats in the Australian arid zone during summer

    J. Zool.

    (1975)
  • J.A. Davis et al.

    Evolutionary refugia and ecological refuges: key concepts for conserving Australian arid zone freshwater biodiversity under climate change

    Glob. Change Biol.

    (2013)
  • J.A. Davis et al.

    Invertebrate communities of relict streams in the arid zone- the Gorge Gill Range, Central Australia

    Aust. J. Mar. Freshwater Res.

    (1993)
  • P. De Los Rios et al.

    Aquatic fauna in the driest desert on earth: first report on the crustacean fauna of the Loa River (Atacama Desert, Antofagasta region, Chile)

    Crustaceana

    (2010)
  • L. De Meester et al.

    Ponds and pools as model systems in conservation biology, ecology and evolution biology

    Aquat. Conser. Mar. Freshwater Ecosyst.

    (2005)
  • F.A. De Szalay et al.

    Factors influencing macroinvertebrate colonisation of seasonal wetlands: responses to emergent plant cover

    Freshw. Biol.

    (2000)
  • B. Dorges et al.

    Ecology, Social Organization & Behavior of the Feral Dromedary Camelus Dromedarius (L. 1758) in Central Australia

    (1996)
  • Cited by (19)

    • Prospects for rewilding with camelids

      2016, Journal of Arid Environments
      Citation Excerpt :

      While Spencer et al. (2012) notes that dromedaries have no history of being invasive species outside Australia, camelids are clearly able to migrate into suitable habitat and establish new populations). Australian dromedaries are blamed for soil degradation and reduction in water quality at watering holes (Crowley, 2014; McBurnie et al., 2015). Others argue that dromedaries are an acceptable part of modern Australian fauna, carrying out proxy functions (Crowley, 2014; Gibbs et al., 2015).

    • Restoring cultural plant communities at sacred water sites

      2021, Australian Journal of Water Resources
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text