Search Field Guide
Advanced Search
Montana Animal Field Guide

Montana Field Guides

Lake Darner - Aeshna eremita

Google for more images Google for web pages
Potential Species of Concern

Global Rank: G5
State Rank: S3S4

Agency Status
USFWS:
USFS:
BLM:
FWP Conservation Tier:


 

External Links





 
General Description
The Lake Darner is a member of the family Aeshnidae. Darners are among the largest and fastest-flying North American dragonflies, 2 1/4-4 3/4" long. These brilliant blue, green, or brown insects have large, clear wings spanning up to 5 7/8". Their compound eyes meet on top of the head. The female hovers above water usually attached or guarded by the male and, using a well-developed ovipositor for slicing into emergent plants, thrusts eggs one at a time in the stems. Preferred habitatprefer sparsely vegetated or woody lakes and ponds, as well as marshes, fens, bogs and slow-flowing streams. Wetland systems: Western Emergent Marsh, Northern Rocky Mountain Wooded Vernal Pool and the Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Fen.

General Distribution
Montana Range


 


Distribution Comments
Western Montana (Miller and Gustafson 1996), but some new records are extending the distribution further east (Kohler, pers comm.)

Summary of Observations Submitted for Montana
Number of Observations: 79

(Click on the following maps and charts to see full sized version) Map Help and Descriptions
Relative Density

Recency

 

(Records associated with a range of dates are excluded from time charts)



Habitat
Lake Darners prefer sparsely vegetated or woody lakes and ponds, as well as marshes, fens, bogs and slow-flowing streams. They feed at forest openings and will perch on trees, branches and sometimes on the ground (Dunkle 2000, Paulson 2009).

Ecological Systems Associated with this Species
  • Details on Creation and Suggested Uses and Limitations
    How Associations Were Made
    We associated the use and habitat quality (high, medium, or low) of each of the 82 ecological systems mapped in Montana for vertebrate animal species that regularly breed, overwinter, or migrate through the state by:
    1. Using personal observations and reviewing literature that summarize the breeding, overwintering, or migratory habitat requirements of each species (Dobkin 1992, Hart et al. 1998, Hutto and Young 1999, Maxell 2000, Foresman 2001, Adams 2003, and Werner et al. 2004);
    2. Evaluating structural characteristics and distribution of each ecological system relative to the species’ range and habitat requirements;
    3. Examining the observation records for each species in the state-wide point database associated with each ecological system;
    4. Calculating the percentage of observations associated with each ecological system relative to the percent of Montana covered by each ecological system to get a measure of “observations versus availability of habitat”.
    Species that breed in Montana were only evaluated for breeding habitat use, species that only overwinter in Montana were only evaluated for overwintering habitat use, and species that only migrate through Montana were only evaluated for migratory habitat use.  In general, species were associated as using an ecological system if structural characteristics of used habitat documented in the literature were present in the ecological system or large numbers of point observations were associated with the ecological system.  However, species were not associated with an ecological system if there was no support in the literature for use of structural characteristics in an ecological system, even if point observations were associated with that system.  High, medium, and low habitat quality was assigned based on the degree to which the structural characteristics of an ecological system matched the preferred structural habitat characteristics for each species in the literature.  The percentage of observations associated with each ecological system relative to the percent of Montana covered by each ecological system was also used to guide assignments of habitat quality.  If you have any questions or comments on species associations with ecological systems, please contact Bryce Maxell at bmaxell@mt.gov or (406) 444-3655.

    Suggested Uses and Limitations
    Species associations with ecological systems should be used to generate potential lists of species that may occupy broader landscapes for the purposes of landscape-level planning.  These potential lists of species should not be used in place of documented occurrences of species (this information can be requested at: http://mtnhp.org/requests/default.asp) or systematic surveys for species and evaluations of habitat at a local site level by trained biologists.  Users of this information should be aware that the land cover data used to generate species associations is based on imagery from the late 1990s and early 2000s and was only intended to be used at broader landscape scales.  Land cover mapping accuracy is particularly problematic when the systems occur as small patches or where the land cover types have been altered over the past decade.  Thus, particular caution should be used when using the associations in assessments of smaller areas (e.g., evaluations of public land survey sections).  Finally, although a species may be associated with a particular ecological system within its known geographic range, portions of that ecological system may occur outside of the species’ known geographic range.

    Literature Cited
    • Adams, R.A.  2003.  Bats of the Rocky Mountain West; natural history, ecology, and conservation.  Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado.  289 p.
    • Dobkin, D. S.  1992.  Neotropical migrant land birds in the Northern Rockies and Great Plains. USDA Forest Service, Northern Region. Publication No. R1-93-34.  Missoula, MT.
    • Foresman, K.R.  2001.  The wild mammals of Montana.  Special Publication No. 12.  Lawrence, KS: The American Society of Mammalogists.  278 p.
    • Hart, M.M., W.A. Williams, P.C. Thornton, K.P. McLaughlin, C.M. Tobalske, B.A. Maxell, D.P. Hendricks, C.R. Peterson, and R.L. Redmond. 1998.  Montana atlas of terrestrial vertebrates.  Montana Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, University of Montana, Missoula, MT.  1302 p.
    • Hutto, R.L. and J.S. Young.  1999.  Habitat relationships of landbirds in the Northern Region, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station RMRS-GTR-32.  72 p.
    • Maxell, B.A.  2000.  Management of Montana’s amphibians: a review of factors that may present a risk to population viability and accounts on the identification, distribution, taxonomy, habitat use, natural history, and the status and conservation of individual species.  Report to U.S. Forest Service Region 1.  Missoula, MT: Wildlife Biology Program, University of Montana.  161 p.
    • Werner, J.K., B.A. Maxell, P. Hendricks, and D. Flath.  2004.  Amphibians and reptiles of Montana.  Missoula, MT: Mountain Press Publishing Company. 262 p.

Food Habits
Larvae feed on a wide variety of aquatic insects, such as mosquito larvae, other aquatic fly larvae, mayfly larvae, and freshwater shrimp. They will also eat very small fish and tadpoles.
Adult- The dragonfly will eat almost any soft-bodied flying insect including mosquitoes, flies, small moths, mayflies, and flying ants or termites.

Reproductive Characteristics
Male Lake Darners are not territorial and fly over open water or along shorelines, usually staying out of vegetation except when to search for females. They do not hover like most other Darners and will fly continually all day long investigating anything near the water. Females oviposit on floating logs, in stems of emergent herbacous vegetation, and in root tangles at or just below the waterline (Dunkle 2000, Paulson 2009).

References
Login Logout
Citation for data on this website:
Lake Darner — Aeshna eremita.  Montana Field Guide.  Montana Natural Heritage Program.  Retrieved on September 1, 2014, from http://FieldGuide.mt.gov/detail_IIODO14060.aspx
 
There are currently 6 active users in the Montana Field Guide.