Oecologia

, Volume 134, Issue 3, pp 439–444 | Cite as

Seasonal variation in the niche, habitat availability and population fluctuations of a bivoltine thermophilous insect near its range margin

Conservation Ecology

Abstract

We investigated the niche requirements of the summer and autumn/spring generations of the bivoltine butterfly, Polyommatus bellargus Rott., and their implications for population dynamics at sites occurring near its northern range margin. The larvae of this species are sedentary, and the turf height and shelter of Hippocrepis comosa foodplants selected for egg-laying accurately predict larval distributions within United Kingdom (UK) sites. We found a significant shift between the plants used for egg-laying in each generation, with the niche occupied by summer-feeding larvae being broader and different to the autumn one. Measurements of soil temperature confirmed that the short, sheltered foodplants selected by ovipositing females in autumn placed the autumn/spring-feeding generation of larvae in the warmest available microclimates within sites. In late spring, egg-laying females avoided the hottest spots but extended egg-laying into taller, less sheltered (relatively cool) turf where the microclimate was similar to that experienced by autumn/spring-feeding larvae. Using each generations' definition of niche requirement, we analysed surveys of foodplant populations available on 24 UK sites for P. bellargus, and estimated that nearly twice as many plants were available to the summer-feeding larvae compared to those feeding in the autumn. Annual adult population counts match these seasonal differences in site carrying capacity; first generation counts (from autumn-laid eggs) were generally half as abundant as in the second generation, and more variable. These results suggest that the seasonal cycle of niche switches represents an annual (autumn-spring) bottleneck for populations of this butterfly at its northern range margin. Under climate warming we predict that the inter-generational difference in niche availability, carrying capacity and population size will be reduced. We recommend revised management requirements for this threatened species under current and predicted climates in northern Europe.

Keywords

Climate change Conservation management Drought Niche shift Polyommatus bellargus 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank the Lulworth Estate for access to Five Mary's Tumuli, D.J. Simcox and M. Pfaff for help with field experiments, K. Stewart, N.A.D. Bourn for the use of vegetation data on nine UK sites, and D. Goulson and P. Rothery for comments on an earlier draft. CEH Integrating Fund (round 7) provided science funding.

References

  1. Asher J, Warren M, Fox R, Harding P, Jeffcoate G, Jeffcoate S (2001) The millennium atlas of butterflies in Britain and Ireland. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  2. Bourn NAD, Thomas JA (1993) The ecology and conservation of the brown argus butterfly Aricia agestis in Britain. Biol Conserv 63:67–74Google Scholar
  3. Bourn NAD, Thomas JA (2002) The challenge of conserving butterflies at range margins in Europe. Biol Conserv 104:285–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bourn NAD, Pearman GS, Goodger B, Warren MS, Thomas JA (2000) Changes in the status of two endangered butterflies over two decades and the influence of grazing management. In: Rook AJ, Penning PD (eds) Grazing management. British Grassland Association, Okehampton, UK, pp 141–146Google Scholar
  5. Cherrill AJ, Brown VK (1992) Ontogenic changes in the microhabitat preferences of Decticus verrucivorus (Orthoptera, Tettigoniidae) at the edge of its range. Ecography 15:37–44Google Scholar
  6. Dennis RLH (1984) Egg-laying sites in the common blue butterfly, Polyommatus icarus Rott. (Lep. Lycaenidae): the edge effect and beyond the edge. Entomol Gaz 35:85–93Google Scholar
  7. Dennis RLH (1993) Butterflies and climate change. Manchester University Press, ManchesterGoogle Scholar
  8. Hill JK, Thomas CD, Huntley B (1999) Climate and habitat availability determine 20th century changes in a butterfly's range margin. Proc R Soc Lond B 266:1197–1206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hulme M, Barrow E (1997) Climate of the British Isles: present, past and future. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. Hulme M, Jenkins G (1998) Climate change scenarios for the United Kingdom: summary report. Climate Research Unit, NorwichGoogle Scholar
  11. Morris MG, Thomas JA, Ward LK, Snazell RG, Pywell RF, Stevenson MJ, Webb NR (1994) Re-creation of early-successional stages for threatened butterflies—an ecological engineering approach. J Environ Manage 42:119–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Parmesan C, Ryrholm N, Stefanescu C, Hill JK, Thomas CD, Descimon H, Huntley B, Kaila L, Kullberg J, Tammaru T, Tennent WJ, Thomas JA, Warren M (1999) Poleward shifts in geographical ranges of butterfly species associated with regional warming. Nature 399:579–583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Pigott CD, Pigott S (1993) Water as a determinant of the distribution of trees at the boundary of the Mediterranean zone. J Ecol 81:557–566Google Scholar
  14. Pollard E, Yates TJ (1993) Monitoring butterflies for ecology and conservation. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. Pollard E, Greatorex-Davies JN, Thomas JA (1997) Drought reduces breeding success of the butterfly Aglais urticae. Ecol Entomol 22:315–318Google Scholar
  16. Pullin AS (1987) Changes in leaf quality following clipping and regrowth in Urtica dioicia, and consequences for a specialist insect herbivore Aglais urticae. Oikos 49:39–45Google Scholar
  17. Roy DB, Sparks TH (2000) Phenology of British butterflies and climate change. Global Change Biol 6:407–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Roy DB, Rothery P, Moss D, Pollard E, Thomas JA (2001) Butterfly numbers and weather: predicting historical trends in abundance and the future effects of climate change. J Anim Ecol 70:201–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Singer MC (1972) Complex components of habitat suitability within a butterfly colony. Science 176:75–77Google Scholar
  20. Smith CJ (1980) Ecology of the English chalk. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  21. Stewart KEJ, Bourn NAD, Thomas JA (2001) An evaluation of three quick methods commonly used to assess sward height in ecology. J Appl Ecol 38:1148–1154Google Scholar
  22. Sutcliffe OL, Thomas CD, Yates TJ, Greatorex-Davies JN (1997) Correlated extinctions, colonizations and population fluctuations in a highly connected ringlet butterfly metapopulation. Oecologia 109:235–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Thomas CD, Bodsworth EJ, Wilson RJ, Simmons AD, Davies ZG, Musche M, Conradt L (2001a) Ecological and evolutionary processes at expanding range margins. Nature 411:577–581CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Thomas CD, Singer MC, Boughton DA (1996) Catastrophic extinction of population sources in a butterfly metapopulation. Am Nat 148:957–975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Thomas JA (1983) The ecology and conservation of Lysandra bellargus (Lepidoptera, Lycaenidae) in Britain. J Appl Ecol 20:59–83Google Scholar
  26. Thomas JA (1991) Rare species conservation: case studies of European butterflies. In: Spellerberg IF, Goldsmith FB, Morris MG (eds) The scientific management of temperate communities for conservation. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 149–197Google Scholar
  27. Thomas JA (1993) Holocene climate changes and warm man-made refugia may explain why a 6th of British butterflies possess unnatural early-successional habitats. Ecography 16:278–284Google Scholar
  28. Thomas JA (1996) Ecological principles and constraints on conserving butterflies across their European ranges. In: Settele J, Margules C, Poschlod P, Henle K (eds) Species survival in fragmented landscapes. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 1–6Google Scholar
  29. Thomas JA, Lewington R (1991) The butterflies of Britain and Ireland. Dorling Kindersley, LondonGoogle Scholar
  30. Thomas JA, Merrett P (1980) Observation of butterflies in the Purbeck Hills in 1976 and 1977. Proc Dorset Nat Hist Archaeol Soc 99:112–119Google Scholar
  31. Thomas JA, Surry R, Shreeves W, Steele C (1998) New atlas of Dorset butterflies. Dorset Natural History & Archaeological Society, DorchesterGoogle Scholar
  32. Thomas JA, Rose RJ, Clarke RT, Thomas CD, Webb NR (1999) Intraspecific variation in habitat availability among ectothermic animals near their climatic limits and their centres of range. Funct Ecol 13:55–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Thomas JA, Bourn NAD, Clarke RT, Stewart KE, Simcox DJ, Pearman GS, Curtis R, Goodger B (2001b) The quality and isolation of habitat patches both determine where butterflies persist in fragmented landscapes. Proc R Soc Lond B 268:1791–1796CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Tolman T, Lewington R (1997) Butterflies of Britain and Europe. Harper Collins, LondonGoogle Scholar
  35. Van Swaay CAM, Warren MS (1999) Red data book of European butterflies (Rhopalocera). Nature and Environment, No. 99. Council of Europe, StrasbourgGoogle Scholar
  36. Warren MS, Hill JK, Thomas JA, Asher J, Fox R, Huntley B, Roy DB, Telfer MG, Jeffcoate S, Harding P, Jeffcoate G, Willis SG, Greatorex-Davies JN, Moss D, Thomas CD (2001) Rapid responses of British butterflies to opposing forces of climate and habitat change. Nature 414:65–69CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Weiss SB, Murphy DD, White RR (1988) Sun, slope and butterflies: topographic determinants of habitat quality for Euphydryas editha. Ecology 69:1486–1496Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Ecology and HydrologyCEH Monks WoodAbbots Ripton, HuntingdonUK
  2. 2.Centre for Ecology and HydrologyCEH Dorset, Winfrith Technology CentreWinfrithUK
  3. 3.University of SouthamptonSouthamptonUK

Personalised recommendations