Recently finished my research in Aveiro University in anthropologic water bodies and their role in populations of Portuguese amphibians.
Got some pretty interesting results, since even some small, artificial water tanks, reservoirs and troughs displayed diversity and abundance in wildlife that natural bodies of water couldn’t match. Also found a lot of reproductive activity in these areas.
People tend to assume that every artificial structure is always bad or is at least taking up space of the better, natural habitat, but this seemed to somewhat challenge that idea.
Having that said, I decided to kick this project off:
Please let me know if this is something that already exists, and/or what needs to be done in order for this project to have any sort of relevancy in the inaturalist and scientific scene.
I think this is a great idea for a project— I’ve joined! I’ve made a similar project over a small system of stormwater drainage ponds I’m monitoring. I’ll add a few of those observations to your project when I have the time
(By the way, I think we should structure this conversation over freshwater organisms in artificial environments, as topics solely promoting projects on the forum are generally not accepted.)
I mostly work with freshwater organisms and I agree that artificial habitats and reservoirs and the organisms they may contain are very under-studied and under-appreciated. I’ve found at least 27 different freshwater mollusk species in the small, suburban, and polluted drainage I’ve linked above. Many of them, in fact, are range-expansions, or species previously not thought to occur in the county or perhaps even the state of Illinois.
There is of course the opposite point of view, which can certainly be true as well: artificial structures that replace natural ones can often hinder the biodiversity of freshwater organisms. This is definitely the case for species in Unionidae and freshwater gastropods. Many of them have been threatened with extinction as urbanization continues.
Still, artificial freshwater habitats can provide sanctuaries for many animals. They also provide niches for organisms that might’ve been displaced. One thing I’m aware of is that natural wetlands can often collect with pollutants, which harms native wildlife. Artificial drainage systems and reservoirs may collect the polluted water before it reaches the natural wetlands.
I joined and added a bunch of observations.
I also have a similar project myself, but it’s only for Italian observations taken in artificial ponds. https://www.inaturalist.org/projects/biodiversita-dei-laghetti-artificiali
Feel free to draw observations from it.
Also I would recommend modifying the title, “artificial freshwater inhabitants” suggests that the inhabitants are artificial.
Something like “Inhabitants of artificial freshwater bodies” would be clearer I think.
Thank you very much for your input, and thank you for joining! Took a look at your project, love to see this topic getting studied, as I share your opinion that it is very under-explored.
When you say structure this conversation over freshwater organisms, do you mean changing the topic of project to instead freshwater organisms? I am new to the forum :)
I think there is a lot of pros and cons to be discussed regarding artificial water bodies, and I can see them being both advantageous and detrimental towards wildlife, depending on a multitude of factors. Still, a very interesting discussion to have indeed.
I understand, I did open this project in order to discuss this topic and learn more, as I have nothing to gain from it besides just that, knowledge :).
So please, if you have anything else to had regarding artificial water bodies and their role in the ecosystem, please feel free to use this conversation in order to further discuss it.
I live in a suburban county north of Indianapolis. The best reference I’ve found reports that only 6 ponds were present in the county in the early 20th century and most of these were created to provide water for livestock or to quarry rock. Today, storm water retention ponds are a common part of the suburban landscape where I live.
I haven’t lost my enthusiasm for the plight of living things that live further away, in less disrupted landscapes. However, Dr. Mary Ann Perron’s thesis was valuable for me and perhaps of interest to others curious about the biodiversity close at hand in artificial bodies of water.
“Urban “greenspaces” (e.g. gardens, parks) have been extensively researched and appear to provide many benefits to urban communities (e.g. physical and psychological health, Fuller et al. 2007). Greenspaces can also be important habitats for species in cities (Goulson et al. 2002). In comparison to greenspaces, the benefits provided to urban areas by aquatic environments, or “bluespaces”, has received less attention (Higgins et al. 2019). Incorporating bluespaces into urbanized areas may be a significant way to connect city inhabitants with nature as well as providing potential opportunities for biodiversity conservation.”
…page 3.
In my day job, I am an attorney who has spent a lot of time developing residential projects (neighborhoods and apartments).
In the United States, stormwater retention ponds came into existence mostly as a way for local governments to comply with the Clean Water Act. Therefore, it should be fairly easy to date and chart the increase in these kinds of artificial bodies. In many areas, the developer chooses the plant species that are placed in the pond initially, but I don’t know of any cases in which developers have deliberately seeded animal species.
The entire network of retention ponds is basically a huge natural experiment.
How artificial is artificial? If a natural stream undergoes streambank engineering for erosion control or fish habitat, is it still a natural stream?
In my county, we have what I tend to call “rock pollution.” Where a bridge or culvert was installed or anti-erosion measures were implemented, there will be jagged boulders brought in and deposited; these gradually migrate downstream over time. Streams in the mountains and Piedmont have naturally rocky stretches like this, but not those in the Coastal Plain. Coastal Plain streams are muddy, sandy, or pebbly, so these boulders represent significant alteration – “rock pollution.” I am inclined to think of those stretches as artificial freshwater bodies.
I know they’re much larger and more thoroughly studied than the invertebrates and herps you’re mostly focusing on, but birds provide another illustration of this overall thesis. I grew up in an area with lots of “nice” natural ponds and rivers (the Adirondack mountains), so it’s been jarring for me to see how many birds (abundance and diversity) flock to super “sketchy” artificial freshwater bodies (usually sewage treatment facilities) in the Arizona desert! The Salton Sea provides another famous illustration of this effect.
Our sewage treatment works are often established where there was a broad wetland. Re-engineered to serve humans. The birds continue to use the water which was there for hundreds of years?
It is even called Wildevoelvlei = wild bird seasonal pond https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/161213266
I agree, i would call any stretch of body of water that’s had its characteristics significantly changed by human structures artificial. At least for this purpose.
In my research we had a way of comparing and discussing this. For instance, there were old farm troughs and reservoirs that didn’t have any natural bodies of water around them for a radius of a couple miles, with a fair amount of individuals in them. In terms of amphibian displacement, we would say that is significant. As for structures bordering natural bodies of water, we would still study them but being mindful of that proximity and what it entailed.
What im trying to say, is that these structures can of course happen to be where there were always natural bodies of water, but they can also serve as a new opportunity, or create a new niche, where there weren’t those features before.