- Page 1 and 2: The ecology and conservation of thr
- Page 3 and 4: Science at the Environment Agency S
- Page 5 and 6: their survival rates. Ischnura pumi
- Page 7 and 8: Contents 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Conse
- Page 9 and 10: 1 Introduction This report presents
- Page 11 and 12: eputed to be capable of long range
- Page 13 and 14: (Fraser 1941; Fox 1987). It rapidly
- Page 15 and 16: Cordero Rivera and Andrés 1999), a
- Page 17 and 18: 1.6 Dispersal One of the reasons fo
- Page 19 and 20: In Chapter 4, the results of popula
- Page 21 and 22: if a conservation effort is to be m
- Page 23 and 24: 2.2 Methods 2.2.1 Study sites The p
- Page 25 and 26: Figure 2.3. Above: an illustration
- Page 27 and 28: Table 2.1 Movement parameters calcu
- Page 29 and 30: (a) (b) Figure 2.4. (a) Capture loc
- Page 31 and 32: % Recaptured 80 60 40 20 0 2005 200
- Page 33 and 34: Table 2.4 Total numbers of adult I.
- Page 35 and 36: Nine individuals were captured in t
- Page 37: N (Log 10 ) 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0
- Page 41 and 42: Figure 2.12. Rose diagrams showing
- Page 43 and 44: habitat and stepping-stone habitat
- Page 45 and 46: fence” hypothesis (Hestbeck 1982;
- Page 47 and 48: 2.4.5 Conservation implications The
- Page 49 and 50: may have niches that are narrower t
- Page 51 and 52: Table 3.1 Table of site names and c
- Page 53 and 54: Plant species were grouped to reduc
- Page 55 and 56: NMDS2 DCA2 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0
- Page 57 and 58: distributed variables were subjecte
- Page 59 and 60: Table 3.4 Plant species occurring i
- Page 61 and 62: CCA2 -2 -1 0 1 2 shade water Ac L.q
- Page 63 and 64: GLM analysis supported the results
- Page 65 and 66: Proportion male 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70
- Page 67 and 68: 3.4 Discussion 3.4.1 Odonate habita
- Page 69 and 70: that shade alone reduced dragonfly
- Page 71 and 72: Figure 3.5. From top left to bottom
- Page 73 and 74: water and females between 130 and 1
- Page 75 and 76: 4 Estimating survival rates and pop
- Page 77 and 78: epeat sightings of individuals on s
- Page 79 and 80: environmental conditions and to var
- Page 81 and 82: 4.2.5 Model specification In all an
- Page 83 and 84: atio test of JMV vs. CAS was perfor
- Page 85 and 86: Recapture probability 1.0 0.8 0.6 0
- Page 87 and 88: Values of deviance, AIC, difference
- Page 89 and 90:
Table 4.3 Probability of transition
- Page 91 and 92:
Estimates and error bars representi
- Page 93 and 94:
Population size (HT estimate) 1200
- Page 95 and 96:
The 2006 population did not exhibit
- Page 97 and 98:
survival would be expected as the e
- Page 99 and 100:
log 10 time (days) 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2
- Page 101 and 102:
and engorge on the internal tissues
- Page 103 and 104:
15 directly followed days of relati
- Page 105 and 106:
captures by the minimum handling ti
- Page 107 and 108:
smaller effort-per-site requirement
- Page 109 and 110:
Thompson 2005). The species is also
- Page 111 and 112:
5.3 Results 5.3.1 Itchen Initial GO
- Page 113 and 114:
Survival 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 Ma
- Page 115 and 116:
Figure 5.3. Maximum likelihood esti
- Page 117 and 118:
Numbers Numbers 14000 12000 10000 8
- Page 119 and 120:
5.4.2 Itchen Estimated survival rat
- Page 121 and 122:
also more variable during this time
- Page 123 and 124:
The calculated daily survival value
- Page 125 and 126:
Table 5.6. Sex ratio of C. mercuria
- Page 127 and 128:
5.4.5 Summary Coenagrion mercuriale
- Page 129 and 130:
considerably. It includes the first
- Page 131 and 132:
The lack of observations of the upw
- Page 133 and 134:
The indicated high mortality of imm
- Page 135 and 136:
These are the first estimates of su
- Page 137 and 138:
References Åbro, A., 1990. The imp
- Page 139 and 140:
Cham, S. A., 1990. A study of Ischn
- Page 141 and 142:
Daly, D., Waltham, K., Mulley, J.,
- Page 143 and 144:
Hambler, C. & Speight, M. R., 1996.
- Page 145 and 146:
Léonard, N. J., Forbes, M. R. & Ba
- Page 147 and 148:
Remsburg, A. J., Olson, A. C. & Sam
- Page 149 and 150:
Strange, A. M., 1999. Distribution