Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Landscape variables impact the structure and composition of butterfly assemblages along an urbanization gradient

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

Abstract

How urbanization affects the distribution patterns of butterflies is still poorly known. Here we investigated the structure and composition of butterfly assemblages along an urbanization gradient within the most urbanized and densely populated region in France (Île-de-France). Using a method issued from artificial neural networks, i.e. self-organizing maps (SOMs), we showed the existence of four typical assemblages ranging from urban-tolerant species to urban-avoider species. We identified indicator species of these assemblages: the peacock butterfly (Inachis io) in urbanized areas, the swallowtail (Papilio machaon) in sites with intermediate human pressure, or the meadow brown (Maniola jurtina), the small heath (Coenonympha pamphilus) and the gatekeeper (Pyronia tithonus) in meadows around Paris. A discriminant analysis showed that the four assemblages were mainly segregated by landscape elements, both by structural variables (habitat type, proportion of rural areas and artificial urban areas, patch surface) and functional variables (distance to the nearest wood, artificial area and park). Artificial neural networks and SOMs coupled stepwise discriminant analysis proved to be promising tools that should be added to the toolbox of community and spatial ecologists.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alhoniemi E, Himberg J, Parhankangas J, Vesanto J (2000) SOM toolbox. Laboratory of Computer and Information Science, Helsinki University of Technology, Helsinki. http://www.cis.hut.fi/projects/somtoolbox. Accessed September 2009

  • 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 

  • Bergerot B, Fontaine B, Renard M, Cadi A, Julliard R (2010) Preferences for exotic flowers do not promote urban life in butterflies. Landsc Urban Plan (in press)

  • Bink BA (1992) Ecologische atlas van de Dagvlinders van Noordwest-Europa (Ecological atlas of the butterflies of NW Europe). Schuyt & Co, Haarlem

    Google Scholar 

  • Black D, Henderson JV (2003) Urban evolution in the USA. J Econ Geogr 3:343–373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blair RB, Launer AE (1997) Butterfly diversity and human land use: species assemblages along an urban gradient. Biol Conserv 80:113–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boggs CL, Watt WB, Ehrlich PR (2003) Butterflies: ecology and evolution taking flight. University of Chicago, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown JKS, Freitas AVL (2002) Butterfly communities of urban forest fragments in Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil: structure, instability, environmental correlates, and conservation. J Insect Conserv 6:217–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cole LJ, McCracken DI, Downie IS, Dennis P, Foster GN, Waterhouse T, Murphy KJ, Griffin AL, Kennedy MP (2005) Comparing the effects of farming practices on ground beetle (Coleoptera: Carabidae) and spider (Araneae) assemblages of Scottish farmland. Biodivers Conserv 14:441–460

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook LM, Dennis RLH, Hardy PB (2001) Butterfly-hostplant fidelity, vagrancy and measuring mobility from distribution maps. Ecography 24:497–504

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corne S, Murray T, Openshaw S, See L, Turton I (1999) Using computational intelligence techniques to model subglacial water systems. J Geogr Sci 1:37–60

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennis RLH, Hardy PB (2001) Loss rates of butterfly species with urban development. A test of atlas data and sampling artefacts at a fine scale. Biodivers Conserv 10:1831–1837

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Desender K, Turin H (1989) Loss of habitats and changes in the composition of the ground and tiger beetle fauna in four West European Countries since 1950 (Coleoptera: Carabidae, Cicindelidae). Biol Conserv 48:277–294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Didham RK, Ghazoul J, Stork NE, Davis AJ (1996) Insects in fragmented forests: a functional approach. Trends Ecol Evol 11:255–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dobkins LH, Ioannides YM (2001) Spatial interactions among U.S. cities: 1900–1990. Reg Sci Urban Econ 31:701–732

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dufrêne M, Legendre P (1997) Species assemblages and indicator species: the need for a flexible asymmetrical approach. Ecol Monogr 67:345–366

    Google Scholar 

  • Dumbrell AJ, Hill JK (2005) Impacts of selective logging on canopy and ground assemblages of tropical forest butterflies: implications for sampling. Biol Conserv 125:123–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunn OJ (1964) Multiple contrasts using rank sums. Technometrics 5:241–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eaton J, Eckstein Z (1997) Cities and growth: evidence from France and Japan. Reg Sci Urban Econ 27:443–474

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ECOMOS (2003) Ecological soil occupation mode. http://www.iau-idf.fr/lile-de-france/un-portrait-par-les-chiffres/occupation-du-sol.html. Accessed February 2010

  • Erhardt A (1985) Diurnal Lepidoptera: sensitive indicators of cultivated and abandoned grassland. J Appl Ecol 22:849–861

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fattorini S (2006) A new method to identify important conservation areas applied to the butterflies of the Aegean Islands (Greece). Anim Conserv 9:75–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feltwell J (1981) Large white butterfly: the biology, biochemistry, and physiology of Pieris Brassicae. D.R.W. Junk Publishers, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Frankie GW, Ehler LE (1978) Ecology of insects in urban environments. Annu Rev Entomol 23:367–387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giraudel JL, Lek S (2001) A comparison of self-organizing map algorithm and some conventional statistical methods for ecological community ordination. Ecol Model 146:329–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giuliano WM, Accamando AK, McAdams EJ (2004) Lepidoptera-habitat relationships in urban parks. Urban Ecosyst 7:361–370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goulson D (1993) Allozyme variation in the butterfly, Maniola jurtina (Lepidoptera, Satyrinae) (L): evidence for selection. Heredity 71:386–393

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hamer KC, Hill JK, Benedick S, Mustaffa N, Sherratt TN, Maryati M, Chey VK (2003) Ecology of butterflies in natural and selectively logged forests of northern Borneo: the importance of habitat heterogeneity. J Appl Ecol 40:150–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanski I (1999) Metapopulation dynamics. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanski I, Kuussaari M (1995) Butterfly metapopulation dynamics. In: Cappuccino N, Price PW (eds) Population dynamics: new approaches and synthesis. Academic Press, London, pp 149–171

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardy PB, Dennis RLH (1999) The impact of urban development on butterflies within a city region. Biodivers Conserv 8:1261–1279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrington R, Stork NE (1995) Insects in a changing environment. Academic Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Ibarra AA, Park YS, Brosse S, Reyjol Y, Lim P, Lek S (2005) Nested patterns of spatial diversity revealed for fish assemblages in a west European river. Ecol Freshw Fish 14:233–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ioannides YM, Overman HG (2003) Zipf’s law for cities: an empirical examination. Reg Sci Urban Econ 33:127–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IUCN (2001) International Union for Conservation of Nature. http://www.iucn.org. Accessed March 2010

  • Kenkel NC, Orloci L (1986) Applying metric and nonmetric multidimensional scaling to ecological studies: some new results. Ecology 64(4):919–928

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohonen T (1982) Analysis of a simple self-organizing process. Biol Cybern 44:135–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohonen T (2001) Self-organizing map. Springer, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Kruskal WH, Wallis WA (1952) Use of ranks in one-criterion variance analysis. J Am Stat Assoc 47:583–621

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lasne E, Bergerot B, Lek S, Laffaille P (2007) Fish zonation and indicator species for the evaluation of the ecological status of rivers: example of the Loire basin (France). River Res Appl 23:1–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lek S, Guegan JF (1999) Artificial neural networks as a tool in ecological modelling, an introduction. Ecol Model 120:65–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lek S, Scardi M, Verdonschot PFM, Park YS, Descy JP (2005) Modelling community structure in freshwater ecosystems. Springer, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Leon-Cortés JL, Cowley MJR, Thomas CD (2000) The distribution and decline of a widespread butterfly Lycaena phlaeas in a pastoral landscape. Ecol Entomol 25:285–296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leon-Cortés JL, Pérez-Espinoza F, Marin L, Molina-Martinez A (2004) Complex habitat requirements and conservation needs of the only extant Baroniinae swallowtail butterfly. Anim Conserv 7:241–250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magurran AE (1988) Ecological diversity and its measurement. Croom Helm, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Manel S, Dias JM, Ormerod SJ (1999) Comparing discriminant analysis, neural networks and logistic regressions for predicting species’ distribution: a case study with an Himalayan river bird. Ecol Model 120:337–347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonnell MJ, Pickett STA (1990) Ecosystem structure and function along urban–rural gradients: an unexploited opportunity for ecology. Ecology 71:1232–1237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McIntyre S, Barrett GW (1992) Habitat variegation, an alternative to fragmentation. Conserv Biol 6:146–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mennechez G, Schtickzelle N, Baguette M (2003) Metapopulation dynamics of the bog fritillary butterfly: comparison of demographic parameters and dispersal between a continuous and a highly fragmented landscape. Landscape Ecol 18:279–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merckx T, Van Dyck H (2007) Habitat fragmentation affects habitat-finding ability of the speckled wood butterfly, Pararge aegeria L. Anim Behav 74:1029–1037

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson GS, Nelson SM (2001) Bird and butterfly communities associated with two types of urban riparian areas. Urban Ecosyst 5:95–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • New TR (1997) Are Lepidoptera an effective ‘umbrella group’ for biodiversity conservation? J Insect Conserv 1:5–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niell RS, Brussard PF, Murphy DD (2007) Butterfly community composition and oak woodland vegetation response to rural residential development. Landsc Urban Plan 81:235–245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olden JD, Joy MK, Death RG (2006) Rediscovering the species in community-wide predictive modeling. Ecol Appl 16:1449–1460

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Park YS, Grenouillet G, Esperance B, Lek S (2006) Stream fish assemblages and basin land cover in a river network. Sci Total Environ 365:140–153

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Piscart C, Bergerot B, Laffaille P, Marmonier P (2010) Are amphipod invaders a threat to regional biodiversity? Biol Invasions 12:853–863

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollard E, Yates TJ (1993) Monitoring butterflies for ecology and conservation. The British Butterfly Monitoring Scheme. Conservation Biology Series 1

  • Roy DB, Rothery P, Brereton T (2007) Reduced-effort schemes for monitoring butterfly populations. J Appl Ecol 44:993–1000

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubinoff D, Powell JA (2004) Conservation of fragmented small populations: endemic species persistence on California’s smallest channel island. Biodivers Conserv 13:2537–2550

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saarinen K, Valtonen A, Jantunen J, Saarnio S (2005) Butterflies and diurnal moths along road verges: does road type affect diversity and abundance? Biol Conserv 123:403–412

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savard JPL, Clergeau P, Mennechez G (2000) Biodiversity concepts and urban ecosystems. Landsc Urban Plan 48(3–4):131–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt T, Rakosy L (2007) Changes of traditional agrarian landscapes and their conservation implications: a case study of butterflies in Romania. Divers Distrib 13:855–862

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Somervuo P, Kohonen T (1999) Self organizing map and learning vector quantization for feature sequences. Neural Process Lett 10:151–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steffan-Dewenter I, Tscharntke T (2000) Butterfly community structure in fragmented habitats. Ecol Lett 3:449–456

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens VM, Turlure C, Baguette M (2010) A meta-analysis of dispersal in butterflies. Biol Rev (in press)

  • Tolman T, Lewington R (1997) Butterflies of Britain and Europe. HarperCollins Ltd., London, 320 pp

  • Vanreusel W, van Dyck H (2007) When functional habitat does not match vegetation types: a resource-based approach to map butterfly habitat. Biol Conserv 135:202–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vesanto J, Alhoniemi E (2000) Clustering of the self-organizing map. IEEE Trans Neural Netw 11:586–600

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ward JH (1963) Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. J Am Stat Assoc 58:238–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood BC, Pullin AS (2002) Persistence of species in a fragmented urban landscape: the importance of dispersal ability and habitat availability for grassland butterflies. Biodivers Conserv 11(8):1451–1468

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Jean-Pierre Moussus for helpful corrections on the manuscript. We thank also all volunteers of the Mairie de Paris and the Conseil Général de Seine Saint Denis for their help in this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CNRS-MNHN-PARIS VI ‘Conservation des Espèces, Restauration et Suivi des Populations’, CRBPO, 55 Rue Buffon, CP 51, 75005, Paris, France

    Benjamin Bergerot, Benoit Fontaine & Romain Julliard

  2. CNRS—MNHN, UMR-7179 ‘Mécanismes adaptatifs: des organismes aux communautés’, 1 avenue du petit château, 91800, Brunoy, France

    Michel Baguette

  3. CNRS USR 2936 ‘Station d’écologie expérimentale du CNRS à Moulis’, 09200, Moulis, France

    Michel Baguette

Authors
  1. Benjamin Bergerot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Benoit Fontaine
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Romain Julliard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Michel Baguette
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Benjamin Bergerot.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bergerot, B., Fontaine, B., Julliard, R. et al. Landscape variables impact the structure and composition of butterfly assemblages along an urbanization gradient. Landscape Ecol 26, 83–94 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-010-9537-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-010-9537-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation