Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluating functional connectivity with matrix behavior uncertainty for an endangered butterfly

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

Abstract

Understanding animal responses to landscape elements helps forecast population reactions to changing landscape conditions. The challenge is that some behaviors are poorly known and difficult to estimate. We assessed how uncertainty in behavioral responses to dense woods, an avoided landscape structure, impacts functional connectivity among reproductive habitat patches for Fender’s blue butterfly, an endangered prairie species of western Oregon, USA. We designed a factorial simulation experiment using a spatially explicit individual-based model to project functional connectivity for female butterflies across current and alternative landscapes. We varied the probability of dense woods entry and turning angle standard deviation for movements within the dense woods over a range of biologically reasonable and observed values. Butterflies in the current landscape (46 % dense woods) and one with prairie encroached by forest (60 % dense woods) showed reductions in functional connectivity estimates consistent with the expectations of habitat fragmentation. Although dense woods entrance uncertainty impacted functional connectivity projections, uncertainty in the dense woods turning angle standard deviation had comparatively little impact on connectivity estimates. Reduction and reconfiguration of the current dense woods to 27 % cover (restored landscape) appeared to facilitate a corridor behavior in dispersing individuals, likely providing a functional connectivity estimate comparable to the historic landscape (<5 % dense woods). Our simulations suggest that additional study of butterfly movement within the dense woods is unnecessary and that a partial reduction in dense woods would be sufficient to achieve historic levels of functional connectivity for Fender’s blue across the study landscape.

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.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Andersson E, Bodin O (2009) Practical tool for landscape planning? An empirical investigation of network based models of habitat fragmentation. Ecography 32:123–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnold RA (1983) Ecological studies of six endangered butterflies (Lepidoptera, Lycaenidae). U Cal Pub Entomol 99:1–153

    Google Scholar 

  • Baguette M, Van Dyck H (2007) Landscape connectivity and animal behavior: functional grain as a key determinant for dispersal. Landscape Ecol 22:1117–1129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baum KA, Haynes KJ, Dillemuth FP, Cronin JT (2004) The matrix enhances the effectiveness of corridors and stepping stones. Ecology 85:2671–2676

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bélisle M (2005) Measuring landscape connectivity: the challenge of behavioral landscape ecology. Ecology 86:1988–1995

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breed GA, Jonsen ID, Myers RA, Bowen WD, Leonard ML (2009) Sex-specific, seasonal foraging tactics of adult grey seals (Halichoerus grypus) revealed by state-space analysis. Ecology 90:3209–3221

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bridge ES, Thorup K, Bowlin MS, Chilson PB, Diehl RH, Fleron RW, Hartl P, Kays R, Kelly JF, Robinson WD, Wikelski M (2011) Technology on the move: recent and forthcoming innovations for tracking migratory birds. BioSci 61:689–698

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Carleton A, Schultz CB (2012) Restoration action and species response: oviposition habits of Plebejus icarioides fenderi (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) across a restoration chronosequence. J Insect Conserv. doi:10.1007/s10841-012-9535-7

    Google Scholar 

  • Castellόn TD, Sieving KE (2006) An experimental test of matrix permeability and corridor use by an endemic understory bird. Conserv Biol 20:135–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christy JA, Alverson ER (2011) Historical vegetation of the Willamette Valley, Oregon, circa 1850. Northwest Sci 85:93–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dennis RLH, Shreeve TG, Van Dyck H (2006) Habitats and resources: the need for a resource-based definition to conserve butterflies. Biodivers Conserv 15:1943–1966

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Douglas-Hamilton I, Krink T, Vollrath F (2005) Movements and corridors of African elephants in relation to protected areas. Naturwissenschaften 92:158–163

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dover JW, Fry GLA (2001) Experimental simulation of some visual and physical components of a hedge and the effects of butterfly behavior in an agricultural landscape. Entomol Exp Appl 100:221–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dover J, Settele J (2009) The influences of landscape structure on butterfly distribution and movement: a review. J Insect Conserv 13:3–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eigenbrod F, Hecnar SJ, Fahrig L (2011) Sub-optimal study design has major impacts on landscape-scale inference. Biol Conserv 144:298–305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fahrig L (2007) Non-optimal animal movement in human-altered landscapes. Funct Ecol 21:1003–1015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fall A, Fall JG (2001) A domain-specific language for models of landscape dynamics. Ecol Model 141:1–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer J, Lindenmayer DB (2007) Landscape modification and habitat fragmentation: a synthesis. Global Ecol Biogeogr 16:265–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fudickar AM, Wikelski M, Partecke J (2011) Tracking migratory songbirds: accuracy of light-level loggers (geolocators) in forest habitats. Methods Ecol Evol 3:47–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin BJ, Fahrig L (2002) How does landscape structure influence landscape connectivity? Oikos 99:552–570

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graf RF, Kramer-Schadt S, Fernández N, Grimm V (2007) What you see is where you go? Modeling dispersal in mountain landscapes. Landscape Ecol 22:853–866

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haddad NM (1999) Corridor use predicted from behaviors at habitat boundaries. Am Nat 153:215–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagan M, Wikelski M, Kissling WD (2011) Space use of bumblebees (Bombus spp.) revealed by radio tracking. PLoS ONE 6:e19997

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanski I (1998) Metapopulation dynamics. Nature 396:41–49

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hawkes C (2009) Linking movement behaviour, dispersal and population processes: is individual variation the key? J Anim Ecol 78:894–906

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Johannessen CL, Davenport WA, Millet A, McWilliams S (1970) The vegetation of the Willamette Valley. Ann Assoc Am Geograph 61:286–302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kindlmann P, Burel F (2008) Connectivity measures: a review. Landscape Ecol 23:879–890

    Google Scholar 

  • Knowlton JL, Graham CH (2010) Using behavioral landscape ecology to predict species’ responses to land-use and climate change. Biol Conserv 143:1342–1354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lima SL, Zollner PA (1996) Towards a behavioral ecology of ecological landscapes. Trends Ecol Evol 11:131–135

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Marucco F, McIntire EJB (2010) Predicting spatio-temporal recolonization of large carnivore populations and livestock depredation risk: wolves in the Italian Alps. J Appl Ecol 47:789–798

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McIntire EJB, Schultz CB, Crone EE (2007) Designing a network for butterfly habitat restoration: where individuals, populations and landscapes interact. J Appl Ecol 44:725–736

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McIntire EJB, Rompré G, Severns PM (2013) Biased correlated random walk and foray loop: which movement hypothesis drives a butterfly metapopulation? Oecologia. doi:10.1007/s00442-012-2475-9

    Google Scholar 

  • Moilanen A, Hanski I (2001) On the use of connectivity measures in spatial ecology. Oikos 95:147–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mooij WM, DeAngelis DL (2003) Uncertainty in spatially explicit animal dispersal models. Ecol Appl 13:794–805

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nathan R, Getz WM, Revilla E, Holyoak M, Kadmon R, Saltz D, Smouse PE (2008) A movement ecology paradigm for unifying organismal movement research. Proc Nat Acad Sci 105:19052–19059

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ovaskainen O, Luoto M, Ikonen I, Rekola H, Meyke E, Kuussaari M (2008) An empirical test of a diffusion model: predicting clouded apollo movements in a novel environment. Am Nat 171:610–619

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pe’er G, Kramer-Schadt S (2008) Incorporating the perceptual range of animals into connectivity models. Ecol Model 213:73–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pe’er G, Saltz D, Frank K (2005) Virtual corridors for conservation management. Conserv Biol 19:1997–2003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prevedello JA, Vieira MV (2010) Does the type of matrix matter? A quantitative review of the evidence. Biodivers Conserv 19:1205–1233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prevedello JA, Forero-Medina G, Vieira MV (2010) Movement behavior within and beyond perceptual ranges in three small mammals: effects of matrix type and body mass. J Anim Ecol 79:1315–1323

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Reuter H, Breckling B, Jopp F (2011) Individual-based models. In: Jopp F, Reuter H, Breckling B (eds) Modelling complex ecological dynamics. Springer, Berlin, pp 163–178

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Revilla E, Wiegand T (2008) Individual movement behavior, matrix heterogeneity, and the dynamics of spatially structured populations. Proc Nat Acad Sci 105:19120–19125

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Revilla E, Wiegand T, Palomares F, Ferreras P, Delibes M (2004) Effects of matrix heterogeneity on animal dispersal: from individual behavior to metapopulation-level parameters. Am Nat 164:E130–E153

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ricketts TH (2001) The matrix matters: effective isolation in fragmented landscapes. Am Nat 158:87–99

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ries L, Fletcher RJ Jr, Battin J, Sisk TD (2004) Ecological responses to habitat edges: mechanisms, models, and variation explained. Ann Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:491–522

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schofield G, Hobson VJ, Fossette S, Lilley MKS, Katselidis KA, Hays GC (2010) Fidelity to foraging sites, consistency of migration routes and habitat modulation of home range by sea turtles. Divers Distr 16:840–853

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schooley RL, Wiens JA (2003) Finding habitat patches and functional connectivity. Oikos 102:559–570

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schultz CB (1998) Dispersal behavior and its implications for reserve design in a rare Oregon butterfly. Conserv Biol 12:284–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schultz CB (2001) Restoring resources for an endangered butterfly. J Appl Ecol 38:1007–1019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schultz CB, Crone EE (2001) Edge-mediated dispersal behavior in a prairie butterfly. Ecology 7:1879–1892

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schultz CB, Crone EE (2005) Patch size and connectivity thresholds for butterfly habitat restoration. Conserv Biol 19:887–896

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schultz CB, Hammond PC, Wilson MV (2003) The biology of Fender’s blue butterfly (Icaricia icarioides fenderi), an endangered species of western Oregon native prairies. Nat Areas J 23:61–71

    Google Scholar 

  • Schultz CB, Franco AMA, Crone EE (2012) Response of butterflies to structural and resource boundaries. J Anim Ecol 81:724–734

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Severns PM (2003) Propagation of a long-lived and threatened prairie plant Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii. Restor Ecol 11:334–342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Severns PM (2008a) Exotic grass invasion impacts fitness of an endangered prairie butterfly, Icaricia icarioides fenderi. J Insect Conserv 12:651–661

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Severns PM (2008b) Road crossing behavior of an endangered grassland butterfly, Icaricia icarioides fenderi Macy (Lycaenidae), between a subdivided population. J Lepid Soc 62:55–58

    Google Scholar 

  • Severns PM, Warren AD (2008) Saving an imperiled butterfly, Euphydryas editha taylori (Taylor’s checkerspot), by selectively conserving and eliminating exotic plants. Anim Conserv 11:476–483

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro AM (2002) The Californian urban butterfly fauna is dependent on alien plants. Divers Distrib 8:31–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shochat E, Patten MA, Morris DW, Reinking DL, Wolfe DH, Sherrod SK (2005) Ecological traps in isodars: effects of tallgrass prairie management on bird nest success. Oikos 111:159–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Summerville KS, Veech JA, Crist TO (2002) Does variation in patch use among butterfly species contribute to nestedness at fine spatial scales? Oikos 97:195–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tepedino VJ, Bradley BA, Griswald TL (2008) Might flowers of invasive plants increase native bee diversity? Intimations from Capitol Reef National Park, Utah. Nat Areas J 28:44–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tischendorf L, Fahrig L (2000) On the usage and measurement of landscape connectivity. Oikos 90:7–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tscharntke T, Steffan-Dewenter I, Kruess A, Thies C (2002) Characteristics of insect populations on habitat fragments: a mini review. Ecol Res 17:229–239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turchin P (1998) Quantitative analysis of movement: measuring and modeling population redistribution in animals and plants. Sinauer Associates

  • Turlure C, Baguette M, Stevens VM, Maes D (2011) Species- and sex-specific adjustments of movement behavior to landscape heterogeneity in butterflies. Behav Ecol 22:967–975

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uezu A, Metzger JP, Vielliard JME (2005) Effects of structural and functional connectivity and patch size on the abundance of seven Atlantic forest bird species. Biol Conserv 123:507–519

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • United States Fish and Wildlife Service (2010) Recovery plan for the prairie species of western Oregon and southwestern Washington U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon

  • Valentine-Darby PL, Darby PC, Percival HF (2011) Gender-based differences in Florida apple snail (Pomacea paludosa) movements. Malacologia 54:109–118

    Article  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 

  • Vos CC, Berry P, Opdam P, Baveco H, Nijhof B, O’Hanley J, Bell C, Kuipers H (2008) Adapting landscapes to climate change: examples of climate-proof ecosystem networks and priority adaptation zones. J Appl Ecol 45:1722–1731

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wikelski M, Moskowitz D, Adelman JS, Cochran J, Wilcove DS, May ML (2006) Simple rules guide dragonfly migration. Biol Lett 2:325–329

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wikelski M, Kays RW, Kasdin NJ, Thorup K, Smith JA, Swenson GW (2007) Going wild: what a global small-animal tracking system could do for experimental biologists. J Exp Biol 210:181–186

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson MV, Erhart T, Hammond PC, Kaye TN, Kuykendall K, Liston A, Robinson AF Jr, Schultz CB, Severns PM (2003) The biology of Kincaid’s lupine (Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii), a threatened species of western Oregon native prairies. Nat Areas J 23:72–83

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank the Cardwell Hills private landowners (Charlie and Rich Clark, PK and Dai Crisp, Karen Fleck-Harding, Lorin and Josh Lidell, William Pearcy, and Amy Schoener) for enabling the study of Fender’s blue butterflies on their properties. Without their help, cooperation and commitment to conservation this research would not have been possible. We thank Elizabeth Crone for helpful conversations and feedback throughout the project, two anonymous reviewers and C. Vos provided thoughtful comments that improved this manuscript. This project was financially supported by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP), Washington State University Vancouver, the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada Discovery Grant and the Canada Research Chair program.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Biological Sciences, Washington State University Vancouver, 14204 NE Salmon Creek Ave, Vancouver, WA, 98686, USA

    Paul M. Severns & Cheryl B. Schultz

  2. Canada Research Chair, Centre d’étude de la forêt, Pavillon Abitibi-Price, Université Laval, 2405 Rue de la Terrasse, Quebec, QC, G1V 0A6, Canada

    Eliot J. B. McIntire

  3. Pacific Forestry Centre, Canadian Forest Service, Natural Resources Canada, Victoria, BC, V8Z 1M5, Canada

    Eliot J. B. McIntire

Authors
  1. Paul M. Severns
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eliot J. B. McIntire
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Cheryl B. Schultz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cheryl B. Schultz.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Severns, P.M., McIntire, E.J.B. & Schultz, C.B. Evaluating functional connectivity with matrix behavior uncertainty for an endangered butterfly. Landscape Ecol 28, 559–569 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-013-9860-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-013-9860-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation