Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Importance of semi-natural habitats for the conservation of butterfly communities in landscapes dominated by pine plantations

  • Chapter
Plantation Forests and Biodiversity: Oxymoron or Opportunity?

Part of the book series: Topics in Biodiversity and Conservation ((TOBC,volume 9))

Abstract

While the area of plantation forests continues to increase worldwide, their contribution to the conservation of biodiversity is still controversial. There is a particular concern on the central role played by natural habitat remnants embedded within the plantation matrix in conserving species-rich insect communities. We surveyed butterflies in maritime pine plantation landscapes in south-western France in 83 plots belonging to seven habitat types (five successional stages of pine stands, native deciduous woodlands and herbaceous firebreaks). The effect of plot, habitat and landscape attributes on butterfly species richness, community composition and individual species were analysed with a General Linear Model (GLM), partial Canonical Correspondence Analysis (CCA) and the IndVal method. The most important factors determining butterfly diversity and community composition were the presence of semi-natural habitats (deciduous woodlands and firebreaks) at the landscape scale and the composition of understorey vegetation at the plot scale. Pure effects of plot variables explained the largest part of community variation (12.8%), but landscape factors explained an additional, independent part (6.7%). Firebreaks were characterized by a higher species richness and both firebreaks and deciduous woodlands harboured species not or rarely found in pine stands. Despite the forest-dominated landscape, typical forest butterflies were rare and mainly found in the deciduous woodlands. Threatened species, such as Coenonympha oedippus and Euphydryas aurinia, were found in pine stands and in firebreaks, but were more abundant in the latter. In the studied plantation forest, the conservation of butterflies depends mainly on the preservation of semi-natural habitats, an adequate understorey management and the maintenance of soil moisture levels.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Aberg J, Jansson G, Swenson JE, Angelstam P (1995) The effect of matrix on the occurrence of hazel grouse (Bonasa bonasia) in isolated habitat fragments. Oecologia 103:265–269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anthes N, Fartmann T, Hermann G, Kaule G (2003) Combining larval habitat quality and metapopulation structure—the key for successful management of pre-alpine Euphydryas aurinia colonies. J Insect Conserv 7:175–185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aune K, Jonsson BG, Moen J (2005) Isolation and edge effects among woodland key habitats in Sweden: is forest policy promoting fragmentation? Biol Conserv 124:89–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aviron S, Burel F, Baudry J, Schermann N (2005) Carabid assemblages in agricultural landscapes: impacts of habitat features, landscape context at different spatial scales and farming intensity. Agric Ecosyst Environ 108:205–217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baguette M, Petit S, Queva F (2000) Population spatial structure and migration of three butterfly species within the same habitat network: consequences for conservation. J Appl Ecol 37:100–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbaro L, Pontcharraud L, Vetillard F, Guyon D, Jactel H (2005) Comparative responses of bird, carabid, and spider assemblages to stand and landscape diversity in maritime pine plantation forests. Ecoscience 12:110–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baz A, Garcia-Boyero A (1995) The effects of forest fragmentation on butterfly communities in central Spain. J Biogeogr 22:129–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergman KO, Askling J, Ekberg O, Ignell H, Wahlman H, Milberg P (2004) Landscape effects on butterfly assemblages in an agricultural region. Ecography 27:619–628

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borcard D, Legendre P, Drapeau P (1992) Partialling out the spatial component of ecological variation. Ecology 73:1045–1055

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carey AB (2003) Biocomplexity and restoration of biodiversity in temperate coniferous forest: inducing spatial heterogeneity with variable-density thinning. Forestry 76:127–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carnus JM, Parrotta J, Brockerhoff E, Arbez M, Jactel H, Kremer A, Lamb D, O’Hara K, Walters B (2006) Planted forests and biodiversity. J For 104:65–77

    Google Scholar 

  • Clausen HD, Holbeck HB, Reddersen J (2001) Factors influencing abundance of butterflies and burnet moths in the uncultivated habitats of an organic farm in Denmark. Biol Conserv 98:167–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cushman SA, McGarigal K (2002) Hierarchical, multi-scale decomposition of species-environment relationships. Landsc Ecol 17:637–646

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Debinski DM, Ray C, Saveraid EH (2001) Species diversity and the scale of the landscape mosaic: do scales of movement and patch size affect diversity? Biol Conserv 98:179–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dennis RLH (1992) The ecology of butterflies in Britain. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK

    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 

  • 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 

  • Duelli P (1997) Biodiversity evaluation in agricultural landscapes: an approach at two different scales. Agric Ecosyst Environ 62:81–91

    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 

  • Dunning JB, Danielson BJ, Pulliam HR (1992) Ecological processes that affect populations in complex landscapes. Oikos 65:169–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Fahrig L (2003) Effects of habitat fragmenation on biodiversity. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:487–515

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • FAO (2007) State of the Word’s Forests 2007. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, Rome

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferris R, Carter C (2000) Managing rides, roadsides and edge habitats in lowland forests. For Comm Bull 123:1–78

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer J, Lindenmayer DB, Manning AD (2006) Biodiversity, ecosystem function, and resilience: ten guiding principles for commodity production landscapes. Front Ecol Environ 4:80–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gittings T, O’Halloran J, Kelly T, Giller PS (2006) The contribution of open spaces to the maintenance of hoverfly (Diptera, Syrphidae) biodiversity in Irish plantation forests. For Ecol Manage 237:290–300

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartley MJ (2002) Rationale and methods for conserving biodiversity in plantation forests. For Ecol Manage 155:81–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jeanneret P, Schupbach B, Luka H (2003a) Quantifying the impact of landscape and habitat features on biodiversity in cultivated landscapes. Agric Ecosyst Environ 98:311–320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jeanneret P, Schupbach B, Pfiffner L, Herzog F, Walter T (2003b) The Swiss agri-environmental programme and its effects on selected biodiversity indicators. J Nat Conserv 11:213–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jongman RGH, Ter Braak CJF, Van Tongeren OFR (1995) Data analysis in community and landscape ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Karsholt O, Razowski J (1996) The Lepidoptera of Europe. A distributional checklist. Apollo Books, Stenstrup

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerr G (1999) The use of silvicultural systems to enhance the biological diversity of plantation forests in Britain. Forestry 72:191–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kleintjes PK, Jacobs BF, Fettig SM (2004) Initial response of butterflies to an overstory reduction and slash mulching treatment of a degraded pinon-juniper woodland. Restor Ecol 12:231–238

    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 

  • Lafranchis T (2000) Les papillons de jour en France, Belgique et Luxembourg et leurs chenilles. Biotope, Mèze (France)

    Google Scholar 

  • Lebreton JD, Chessel D, Prodon R, Yoccoz N (1988) L’analyse des relations espèce-milieu par l’analyse canonique des correspondances. I.-Variables de milieu qualitatives. Acta Oecol 9:53–67

    Google Scholar 

  • Li HB, Wu JG (2004) Use and misuse of landscape indices. Landsc Ecol 19:389–399

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindenmayer DB, Franklin JF (2002) Conserving forest biodiversity: a comprehensive multiscaled approach. Island Press, Washington, Covelo, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindenmayer DB, Hobbs RJ (2004) Fauna conservation in Australian plantation forests—a review. Biol Conserv 119:151–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mac Arthur RH, Wilson EO (1967) The theory of island biogeography. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Maes D, Van Dyck H (1999) Dagvlinders in vlaanderen—ecologie, verspreiding en behoud. Stichting Leefmilieu/Antwerpen i.s.m. Instituut voor Natuurbehoud en Vlaamse Vlinderwerkgroep, Brussel

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazerolle MJ, Villard MA (1999) Patch characteristics and landscape context as predictors of species presence and abundance: A review. Ecoscience 6:117–124

    Google Scholar 

  • McGarigal K, Cushman SA, Neel MC, Ene E (2002) FRAGSTATS: spatial pattern analysis program for categorical maps. Computer software program produced by the authors at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Available at the following web site: www.umass.edu/landeco/research/fragstats/fragstats.html

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore SE, Allen HL (1999) Plantation forestry. In: Hunter MLJ (ed) Maintaining biodiversity in forest ecosystems. Cambridge Univesity Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Oxbrough AG, Gittings T, O’Halloran J, Giller PS, Kelly TC (2006) The influence of open space on ground-dwelling spider assemblages within plantation forests. For Ecol Manage 237:404–417

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmer MW (1993) Putting things in even better order—the advantages of canonical correspondence-analysis. Ecology 74:2215–2230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollard E, Yates TJ (1993) Monitoring butterflies for ecology and conservation. Chapman & Hall, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider C, Fry GLA (2001) The influence of landscape grain size on butterfly diversity in grasslands. J Insect Conserv 5:163–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schweiger O, Maelfait JP, Van Wingerden W, Hendrickx F, Billeter R, Speelmans M, Augenstein I, Aukema B, Aviron S, Bailey D, Bukacek R, Burel F, Diekotter T, Dirksen J, Frenzel M, Herzog F, Liira J, Roubalova M, Bugter R (2005) Quantifying the impact of environmental factors on arthropod communities in agricultural landscapes across organizational levels and spatial scales. J Appl Ecol 42:1129–1139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shreeve TG (1992) Adult behaviour. In: Dennis RLH (ed) The ecology of butterflies in Britain. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Shreeve TG, Mason CF (1980) The number of butterfly species in woodlands. Oecologia 45:414–418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Söderström B, Svensson B, Vessby K, Glimskär A (2001) Plants, insects and birds in semi-natural pastures in relation to habitat and landscape factors. Biodivers Conserv 10:1839–1863

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stefanescu C, Herrando S, Paramo F (2004) Butterfly species richness in the north-west Mediterranean basin: the role of natural and human-induced factors. J Biogeogr 31:905–915

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ter Braak CJF (1986) Canonical correspondence analysis: a new eigenvector technique for multivariate direct gradient analysis. Ecology 67:1167–1179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas CD (1995) Ecology and conservation of butterfly metapopulations in the fragmented British landscape. In: Pullin AS (ed) Ecology and conservation of butterflies. Chapman & Hall, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas CD, Harrison S (1992) Spatial dynamics of a patchily distributed butterfly species. J Anim Ecol 61:437–446

    Article  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 R Soc Lond B Bio 268:1791–1796

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Timbal T, Maizeret C (1998) Biodiversité végétale et gestion durable de la forêt landaise de pin maritime: bilan et évolution. Rev For Fr 5:403–424

    Google Scholar 

  • Titeux N, Dufrene M, Jacob JP, Paquay M, Defourny P (2004) Multivariate analysis of a fine-scale breeding bird atlas using a geographical information system and partial canonical correspondence analysis: environmental and spatial effects. J Biogeogr 31:1841–1856

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trichet P, Jolivet C, Arrouays D, Loustau D, Bert D, Ranger J (1999) Le maintien de la fertilité des sols forestiers landais dans le cadre de la sylviculture intensive de pin maritime. Revue bibliographique et identification des pistes de recherche. Etude et Gestion des Sols 6:197–214

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Swaay CAM, Warren MS (1999) Red data book of European butterflies (Rhopalocera). Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg

    Google Scholar 

  • Wahlberg N, Klemetti T, Hanski I (2002) Dynamic populations in a dynamic landscape: the metapopulation structure of the marsh fritillary butterfly. Ecography 25:224–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waltz AEM, Covington WW (2004) Ecological restoration treatments increase butterfly richness and abundance: mechanisms of response. Restor Ecol 12:85–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weibull AC, 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 

  • Wiens JA (1989) Spatial scaling in ecology. Funct Ecol 3:385–397

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiens JA (1995) Habitat fragmentation: island v landscape perspectives on bird conservation. Ibis 137:97–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. INRA, UMR1202 Biodiversité, Gènes et Communautés, 69 Route d’Arcachon, F-33612, Cestas, France

    Inge van Halder, Luc Barbaro & Hervé Jactel

  2. UMR1202 Biodiversité, Gènes et Communautés, Ecologie des Communautés, Université Bordeaux 1, Avenue des Facultés, F-33405, Talence, France

    Emmanuel Corcket

Authors
  1. Inge van Halder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Luc Barbaro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Emmanuel Corcket
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hervé Jactel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Inge van Halder .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Scion (New Zealand Forest Research Institute), PO Box 29237, 8540, Christchurch, New Zealand

    Eckehard G. Brockerhoff

  2. INRA, 69 route d’Arcachon, Cestas Cedex, 33612, France

    Hervé Jactel

  3. U.S. Forest Service Research & Development, 1601 N. Kent Street, Arlington, VA, 22209, USA

    John A. Parrotta

  4. Forest Research Northern Research Station, Roslin, Midlothian, EH25 9SY, United Kingdom

    Christopher P. Quine

  5. IUCN The World Conservation Union Forest Conservation, rue Mauverney 28, 1196, Gland, Switzerland

    Jeffrey Sayer

  6. Dept. Biología Vegetal II, Universidad Complutense Fac. Farmacia, Plaza Ramon y Cajal, Ciudad Universitaria, 28040, Madrid, Spain

    David L. Hawksworth

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2007 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

van Halder, I., Barbaro, L., Corcket, E., Jactel, H. (2007). Importance of semi-natural habitats for the conservation of butterfly communities in landscapes dominated by pine plantations. In: Brockerhoff, E.G., Jactel, H., Parrotta, J.A., Quine, C.P., Sayer, J., Hawksworth, D.L. (eds) Plantation Forests and Biodiversity: Oxymoron or Opportunity? . Topics in Biodiversity and Conservation, vol 9. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2807-5_12

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation