Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

How do local habitat management and landscape structure at different spatial scales affect fritillary butterfly distribution on fragmented wetlands?

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Landscape Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Habitat fragmentation, patch quality and landscape structure are important predictors for species richness. However, conservation strategies targeting single species mainly focus on habitat patches and neglect possible effects of the surrounding landscape. This project assesses the impact of management, habitat fragmentation and landscape structure at different spatial scales on the distribution of three endangered butterfly species, Boloria selene, Boloria titania and Brenthis ino. We selected 36 study sites in the Swiss Alps differing in (1) the proportion of suitable habitat (i.e., wetlands); (2) the proportion of potential dispersal barriers (forest) in the surrounding landscape; (3) altitude; (4) habitat area and (5) management (mowing versus grazing). Three surveys per study site were conducted during the adult flight period to estimate occurrence and density of each species. For the best disperser B. selene the probability of occurrence was positively related to increasing proportion of wetland on a large spatial scale (radius: 4,000 m), for the medium disperser B. ino on an intermediate spatial scale (2,000 m) and for the poorest disperser B. titania on a small spatial scale (1,000 m). Nearby forest did not negatively affect butterfly species distribution but instead enhanced the probability of occurrence and the population density of B. titania. The fen-specialist B. selene had a higher probability of occurrence and higher population densities on grazed compared to mown fens. The altitude of the habitat patches affected the occurrence of the three species and increasing habitat area enhanced the probability of occurrence of B. selene and B. ino. We conclude that, the surrounding landscape is of relevance for species distribution, but management and habitat fragmentation are often more important. We suggest that butterfly conservation should not focus only on a patch scale, but also on a landscape scale, taking into account species-specific dispersal abilities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Atauri JA, de Lucio JV (2001) The role of landscape structure in species richness distribution of birds amphibians reptiles and lepidopterans in Mediterranean landscapes. Landsc Ecol 16:147–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bink FA (1992) Ecologische Atlas van de Dagvlinders van Noordwest-Europa. Schuyt Haarem, The Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  • Binzenhöfer B, Schröder B, Strauss B, Biedermann R, Settele J (2005) Habitat models and habitat connectivity analysis for butterflies and burnet moths – the example of Zygaena carniolica and Coenonympha arcania. Biol Conserv 126:247–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boggs CL, Murphy DD (1997) Community composition in mountain ecosystems: climatic determinants of montane butterfly distributions. Global Ecol Biogeogr Lett 6:39–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BUWAL (1990) Inventar der Flachmoore von nationaler Bedeutung. Bundesamt für Umwelt Wald und Landschaft, Bern, Switzerland

  • BUWAL (1994) Rote Listen der gefährdeten Tierarten in der Schweiz. Bundesamt für Umwelt Wald und Landschaft, Bern, Switzerland

  • BUWAL (2002) Moore und Moorschutz in der Schweiz. Bundesamt für Umwelt Wald und Landschaft, Bern, Switzerland

  • Cant ET, Smith AD, Reynolds DR, Osborne JL (2005) Tracking butterfly paths across the landscape with harmonic radar. Proc Roy Soc Lond Ser B Biol 272:785–790

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Connor EF, Courtney AC, Yoder JM (2000) Individuals–area relationship: the relationship between animal population density and area Ecology 81:734–748

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawley MJ (2002) Statistical computing an introduction to data analysis using S-Plus. John Wiley Sons Ltd., UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Debinski DM, Holt RD (2000) A survey and overview of habitat fragmentation experiments. Conserv Biol 14:342–355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dennis RLH, Shreeve TG, Van Dyck H (2003) Towards a functional resource-based concept for habitat: a butterfly biology viewpoint. Oikos 102:417–426

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ebert G (2005) Die Schmetterlinge Baden-Württembergs Band 10 Ergänzungsband. Eugen Ulmer Verlag, Stuttgart, Germany

    Google Scholar 

  • Ebert G, Rennwald E (1991) Die Schmetterlinge Baden-Württembergs Band 1 Tagfalter I. Eugen Ulmer Verlag Stuttgart, Germany

    Google Scholar 

  • Clough Y, Kruess A, Kleijn D, Tscharntke T (2005) Spider diversity in cereal fields: comparing factors at local landscape and regional scales. J Biogeogr 32:2007–2014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham MH (2003) Confronting multicollinearity in ecological multiple regression. Ecology 84:2809–2815

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haddad NM, Bowne DR, Cunningham A, Danielson BJ, Levey DJ, Sargent S, Spira T (2003) Corridor use by diverse taxa. Ecology 84:609–615

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haight RG, Cypher B, Kelly PA, Phillips S, Possingham HP, Ralls K, Starfield AM, White PJ, Williams D (2002) Optimizing habitat protection using demographic models of population viability. Conserv Biol 16:1386–1397

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hambäck PA, Englund G (2005) Patch area population density and the scaling of migration rates: the resource concentration hypothesis revisited. Ecol Lett 8:1057–1065

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hambäck PA, Summerville KS, Steffan-Dewenter I, Krauss J, Englund G, Crist TO (2007) Habitat specialisation, body size and family identity explain density–area relationships in Lepidoptera: a cross-continental comparison. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:8368–8373

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hanski I (1999) Metapopulation ecology. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Heikkinen RK, Luoto M, Virkkala R, Rainio K (2004) Effects of habitat cover landscape structure and spatial variables on the abundance of birds in an agricultural-forest mosaic. J Appl Ecol 41:824–835

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heikkinen RK, Luoto M, Kuussaari M, Pöyry J (2005) New insights into butterfly–environment relationships using partitioning methods. Proc Roy Soc Lond Ser B Biol 272:2203–2210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen K, Meyer C (2001) Effects of light competition and litter on the performance of Viola palustris and on species composition and diversity of an abandoned fen meadow. Plant Ecol 155:169–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johst K, Drechsler M, Thomas J, Settele J (2006) Influence of mowing on the persistence of two endangered large blue butterfly species J Appl Ecol 43:333–342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kareiva P, Wennergren U (1995) Connecting landscape patterns and population processes Nature 373:299–302

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Komonen A, Grapputo A, Kaitala V, Kotiaho JS, Päivinen J (2004) The role of niche breadth resource availability and range position on the life history of butterflies. Oikos 105:41–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Konvicka M, Maradova M, Benes J, Fric Z, Kepka P (2003) Uphill shifts in distribution of butterflies in the Czech Republic: effects of changing climate detected on a regional scale. Global Ecol Biogeogr 12:403–410

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krauss J, Steffan-Dewenter I, Tscharntke T (2003) How does landscape context contribute to effects of habitat fragmentation on diversity and population density of butterflies? J Biogeogr 30:889–900

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krauss J, Steffan-Dewenter I, Tscharntke T (2004) Landscape occupancy and local population size depends on host plant distribution in the butterfly Cupido minimus. Biol Conserv 120:355–361

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krauss J, Steffan-Dewenter I, Müller CB, Tscharntke T (2005) Relative importance of resource quantity isolation and habitat quality for landscape distribution of a monophagous butterfly. Ecography 28:465–474

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Legendre P, Legendre L (1998) Numerical ecology, 2nd edn. Elsevier Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  • Lepidoptera Specialist Group (1991) Tagfalter und ihre Lebensräume. Arten, Gefährdung, Schutz. Schweizer Bund für Naturschutz, Basel, Switzerland

  • MacKenzie DI, Nichols JD, Lachman GB, Droege S, Royle JA, Langtimm CA (2002) Estimating site occupancy rates when detection probabilities are less than one. Ecology 83:2248–2255

    Google Scholar 

  • Mac Nally R, Walsh CJ (2004) Hierarchical partitioning public-domain software. Biodivers Conserv 13:659–660

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matter SF (2003) Modelling the density–area relationship in a dynamic landscape: an examination for the beetle Tetraopes tetraophthalmus and a generalized model. Ecol Model 169:103–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matter SF, Roland J, Moilanen A, Hanski I (2004) Migration and survival of Parnassius smintheus: detecting effects of habitat for individual butterflies Ecol Appl 15:1526–1534

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moilanen A, Franco AMA, Early RI, Fox R, Wintle B, Thomas CD (2005) Prioritizing multiple-use landscapes for conservation: methods for large multi-species planning problems. Proc Roy Soc Lond Ser B Biol 272:1885–1891

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Öckinger E, Smith HG (2006) Landscape composition and habitat area affects butterfly species richness in semi-natural grasslands. Oecologia 149:526–534

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Paukkunen J, Pöyry J, Savolainen M, Kuussaari M (1999) The occurrence and biology of Titania’s fritillary (Clossiana titania) in Finland. Baptria 24:39–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Peintinger M, Bergamini A, Schmid B (2003) Species–area relationships and nestedness of four taxonomic groups in fragmented wetlands. Basic Appl Ecol 4:385–394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollard E (1977) A method for assessing changes in the abundance of butterflies. Biol Conserv 12:115–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pöyry J, Lindgren S, Salminen J, Kuussaari M (2005) Response of butterfly and moth species to restored cattle grazing in semi-natural grasslands. Biol Conserv 122:465–478

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quinn RM, Gaston KJ, Roy DB (1998) Coincidence in the distributions of butterflies and their foodplants. Ecography 21:279–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • R Development Core Team (2004) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Foundation for Statistical Computing Vienna; URL: http://www.r-project.org

  • Roland J, Taylor PD (1997) Insect parasitoid species respond to forest structure at different spatial scales. Nature 386:710–713

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Schmid B (1996) Biodiversity management in peri-urban environments in Switzerland. In: di Castri F, Younès T (eds) Biodiversity science and development: towards a new partnership. CAB International, Wallingford, pp 576–580

    Google Scholar 

  • Steffan-Dewenter I, Münzenberg U, Bürger C, Thies C, Tscharntke T (2002) Scale dependent effects of landscape context of three pollinator guilds. Ecology 83:1421–1432

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thies C, Roschewitz I, Tscharntke T (2005) The landscape context of cereal aphids–parasitoid interaction. Proc Roy Soc Lond Ser B Biol 272:203–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas JA (2005) Monitoring change in the abundance and distribution of insects using butterflies and other indicator groups. Phil Trans Roy Soc Lond Ser B Biol 360:339–357

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas JA, Bourn NAD, Clarke RT, Stewart KE, Simcox DJ, Pearman GS, Curtis R, Goodger B (2001) The quality and isolation of habitat patches both determine where butterflies persist in fragmented landscapes. Proc Roy Soc Lond Ser B Biol 268:1791–1796

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Van Dyck H, Baguette M (2005) Dispersal behaviour in fragmented landscapes: routine or special movements? Basic Appl Ecol 6:535–545

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vessby K, Söderström B, Glimskär A, Svensson B (2002) Species-richness correlations of six different taxa in Swedish seminatural grasslands. Conserv Biol 16:430–439

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weidemann HJ (1995) Tagfalter Beobachten Bestimmen. Naturbuch Verlag, Augsburg, Germany

    Google Scholar 

  • Wettstein W, Schmid B (1999) Conservation of arthropod diversity in montane wetlands: effects of altitude habitat quality and habitat fragmentation on butterflies and grasshoppers. J Appl Ecol 36:363–373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weibull A-C, Bengtsson J, Nohlgren E (2000) Diversity of butterflies in the agricultural landscape: the role of farming system and landscape heterogeneity. Ecography 23:743–750

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winfree R, Dushoff J, Crone EE, Schultz CB, Budny RV, Williams NM, Kremen C (2005) Testing simple indices of habitat proximity. Am Nat 165:707–717

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank, Stefan Birrer, Yann Clough, Alexander Fergus, Markus Peintinger, Matthias Plattner, Jens Roland, Ingolf Steffan-Dewenter and two anonymous reviewers for constructive comments on the manuscript and Ulrich Reyer for discussions, Bernhard Schmid and Benedikt Schmidt for statistical advice and Janine Bolliger, Jasmin Joshi and the “Biodiversitätsmonitoring Schweiz des Bundesamtes für Umwelt BAFU” for logistic help. Financial support came from the Swiss National Science Foundation (grant No. 631-065950) and the Institute of Environmental Sciences, University of Zürich. All experiments comply with the current laws of Switzerland.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Environmental Sciences, University of Zürich, Winterthurerstrasse 190, 8057, Zurich, Switzerland

    Gabriele Cozzi, Christine B. Müller & Jochen Krauss

  2. Department of Animal Ecology I, Population Ecology, University of Bayreuth, Universitätsstrasse 30, 95447, Bayreuth, Germany

    Jochen Krauss

Authors
  1. Gabriele Cozzi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christine B. Müller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jochen Krauss
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jochen Krauss.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cozzi, G., Müller, C.B. & Krauss, J. How do local habitat management and landscape structure at different spatial scales affect fritillary butterfly distribution on fragmented wetlands?. Landscape Ecol 23, 269–283 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-007-9178-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-007-9178-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation