Hine’s Emerald Evaluation
This document describes the Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario’s evaluation of the Hine’s emerald. This evaluation determines whether the species will receive protection under the Endangered Species Act.
COSSARO Candidate Species at Risk Evaluation for Hine’s Emerald (Somatochlora hineana)
Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO) Assessed by COSSARO as Endangered
June 2011
Final
1.1 Current status and distribution
Current designations:
GRANK – G2G3 (Assessed 04/11/2004) (NatureServe 2011, accessed 27/05/2011) NRANK Canada – N1 (Assessed 20/07/2007) (NatureServe 2011, accessed 05/2011) COSEWIC – Endangered (May 2011)
SARA – Not listed (Environment Canada 2011)
ESA 2007 – Not listed (Ministry of Natural Resources 2011)
SRANK – S1 (NatureServe, accessed 05/2011)
Distribution in Ontario:
Known from the Minesing Wetlands in Simcoe County, west of Lake Simcoe.
Distribution and status outside Ontario:
The global range of Hine’s Emerald includes Ontario, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois and Missouri. Historically, it was also known from Ohio, Indiana and Alabama where it is now thought to be extirpated.
Part 2 - Eligibility for Ontario status assessment
2.1 Application of eligibility criteria
Taxonomic distinctness
Yes. Described in 1931 and recognized as a valid taxon in all major treatments. No subspecies have been described.
Designatable Units
Single Ontario occurrence and single Designatable Unit.
Native status
Yes. Recently discovered in Ontario (2007), but almost certainly native.
Presence/absence
Present. Discovered in Ontario in 2007 and confirmed in 2008 and 2009.
2.2 Eligibility results
- The putative taxon or DU is valid. Yes
- The taxon or DU is native to Ontario. Yes
- The taxon or DU is present in Ontario, extirpated from Ontario or extinct? Present
Part 3 - Ontario status based on COSSARO evaluation criteria
3.1 Application of primary criteria (rarity and declines)
1. Global rank
Threatened. G2G3
2. Global decline
Threatened. Long-term global decline of 25-90% and short-term global decline of 10-30% (NatureServe 2011). Extirpated in Indiana and Ohio and SH in Alabama.
3. Northeastern North America ranks
Endangered. Ranked as S1, S2, SH (Historic), or SX (Extirpated) in 100% of the northeastern North American jurisdictions in which it occurs or has occurred.
4. Northeastern North America decline
Threatened. Long-term global decline of 25-90% and short-term global decline of 10-30% (NatureServe 2011). Extirpated in Indiana and Ohio.
5. Ontario occurrences
Endangered. One Ontario occurrence.
6. Ontario decline
Insufficient information. The single Ontario population was recently discovered (2007) and no population monitoring data are available. The fen habitat at Minesing is in a relatively natural state although water levels may have declined over the last 35 years (COSEWIC 2011).
7. Ontario’s conservation responsibility
Not in any category. Ontario has less than 10% of the global range.
3.2 Application of secondary criteria (threats and vulnerability)
8. Population sustainability
Insufficient information. Population trends are unknown. No Population Viability Analyses have been conducted for the species in Ontario.
9. Lack of regulatory protection for exploited wild populations
Not in any category. No regulatory protection, but collecting is not a significant threat (COSEWIC 2011).
10. Direct threats
Endangered. Changes to groundwater quantity and quality are likely to harm larval habitat. The aquifer feeding the fen habitat at Minesing is threatened by changes in groundwater discharge associated with proposed housing development.
Contamination of groundwater with pesticides, fertilizer, and septic runoff and invasion of European Common Reed (Phragmites australis) are other potential threats (COSEWIC 2011).
11. Specialized life history or habitat-use characteristics
Threatened. Requires specific conditions of spring fed wetlands and presence of burrowing crayfish. Inhabits calcareous wetlands fed primarily by groundwater from intermittent seeps. Most sites also have an underlying layer of shallow dolomitic bedrock (COSEWIC 2011). Larvae use crayfish burrows (in Ontario Fallicambarus fodiens is the host species) during dry period in the summer and to hibernate in the winter. These wetland habitats conditions are rare in Ontario. Larvae require 3-5 years to mature.
3.3 COSSARO evaluation results
1. Criteria satisfied in each status category
Number of primary and secondary criteria met in each status category:
Endangered – [2/1]
Threatened – [3/1]
Special concern – [0/0]
Number of Ontario-specific criteria met in each status category:
Endangered – [1]
Threatened – [0]
Special concern – [0]
2. Data deficiency
No. Sufficient information is available to satisfy all but two of COSSARO's criteria.
3. Recommended status
The application of COSSARO evaluation criteria suggests that Hine’s Emerald is Endangered in Ontario.
Part 4 - Ontario status based on COSEWIC evaluation criteria
4.1 Application of cosewic criteria
Regional (Ontario) cosewic criteria assessment
Criterion A – decline in total number of mature individuals
Insufficient information. No monitoring data to assess population trends.
Criterion B – Small distribution range and decline or fluctuation
Endangered [B1ab(iii)+2ab(iii)]. Extent of Occurrence and Area of Occupancy are estimated to be 28 km2. Occurs at a single Ontario location. Habitat quality (groundwater volume and quality) predicted to decline with future housing development adjacent to Minesing wetland.
Criterion C – Small and declining number of mature individuals
Insufficient information. Population size and trends are unknown.
Criterion D – Very small or restricted total population
Threatened. (D2) Single location makes the Ontario population prone to human activities or stochastic events.
Criterion E – Quantitative analysis
Insufficient information. Population Viability Analyses have not been completed in Ontario.
Rescue Effect
No. Unlikely due to limited dispersal capability, long distance to nearest US population, and scarcity of intervening habitat.
Consideration of Special Concern Status
No.
4.2 COSEWIC Evaluation results
1. Criteria satisfied in each status category
Endangered – [yes]
Threatened – [yes]
Special concern – [no]
2. Data deficiency
No.
3. Status based on COSEWIC evaluation criteria
The application of COSEWIC evaluation criteria suggests that Hine’s Emerald is Endangered in Ontario.
Part 5 - Ontario status determination
5.1 Application of COSSARO and COSEWIC criteria
COSSARO and COSEWIC criteria give the same result. Yes.
5.2 Summary of status evaluation
Hine’s Emerald is classified as Endangered in Ontario.
Hine’s Emerald is a medium-sized dragonfly with bright green eyes, a metallic green thorax with two lateral yellow stripes, and a blackish-brown abdomen. It inhabits calcareous, groundwater-fed wetlands, usually over dolomite bedrock. Larvae live for 3 to 5 years and use crayfish burrows during periods of low water and during the winter. Hine’s Emerald is a globally rare species confined to Ontario, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Illinois. It formerly occurred in Ohio, Indiana, and Alabama. In Ontario, it is found in an area covering about 28 km2 in the Minesing Wetlands, west of Lake Simcoe. The species was recently discovered in Ontario in 2007 and population size and trends are unknown. Habitat quality is predicted to decline with proposed housing development that could alter the groundwater volume and quality in the wetland. Invasive Common Reed is another potential threat. The species is designated as Endangered in Ontario given its global rarity, single occurrence, and potential threats to habitat.
Information Sources
Literature cited
COSEWIC. 2011. COSEWIC status report on Hine’s Emerald (Somatochlora hineana) in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, 2-month Interim Status Report. Ottawa.
Environment Canada 2011. Species at Risk Public Registry, 2011. [http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/default_e.cfm]. Accessed May, 2011.
Ministry of Natural Resources 2011. Species at Risk Website. [http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/Species/2ColumnSubPage/276722.html]. Accessed May, 2011.
NatureServe 2011. NatureServe Explorer: an Online Encyclopedia of Life. [http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/]. Accessed May 27 2011.
2. Community and Aboriginal traditional knowledge sources
No sources used for this report.
3. Acknowledgements
None.
Appendix 1
Northeastern North America rank, status and decline
(NatureServe 2011)
State/Province | North America rank, status and decline |
---|---|
CT | Not Present |
DE | Not Present |
IL | S1 |
IN | SX |
IA | Not Present |
LB | Not Present |
KY | Not Present |
MA | Not Present |
MB | Not Present |
MD | Not Present |
ME | Not Present |
MI | S1 (expected to be down-ranked to S2 in the future; COSEWIC 2011) |
MN | Not Present |
NB | Not Present |
NF | Not Present |
NH | Not Present |
NJ | Not Present |
NS | Not Present |
NY | Not Present |
OH | SX |
ON | S1 |
PA | Not Present |
PE | Not Present |
QC | Not Present |
RI | Not Present |
VA | Not Present |
VT | Not Present |
WI | S1 (expected to be down-ranked to S2 in the future; COSEWIC 2011) |
WV | Not Present |
Occurs as a native species in 6 of 29 northeastern jurisdictions
Srank or equivalent information available for 6 of 6 jurisdictions = (100%)
S1, S2, SH, or SX in 6 of 6 = (100%)