Advertisement

Oecologia

, Volume 156, Issue 2, pp 455–464 | Cite as

Restricted within-habitat movement and time-constrained egg laying of female Maculinea rebeli butterflies

  • Ádám KőrösiEmail author
  • Noémi Örvössy
  • Péter Batáry
  • Szilvia Kövér
  • László Peregovits
Behavioral Ecology - Original Paper

Abstract

The movement of butterflies within habitat patches is usually assumed to be random, although few studies have shown this unambiguously. In the case of the highly specialized genus Maculinea, two contradictory hypotheses exist to explain the movement and distribution of imagos within patches: (1) due to the high spatial variance of survival rates among caterpillars, the “risk-spreading” hypothesis predicts that females will tend to make linear flight paths in order to maximize their net displacement and scatter the eggs as widely as possible; and (2) recent mark–release–recapture (MRR) data suggest that within-habitat displacement of some Maculinea species is constrained and that adults may establish home ranges. We tested both hypothesis by analysing the movement pattern of individuals. We also investigated whether egg laying is time constrained, which would enhance the trade-off between flying and egg laying. Thirty females of Maculinea rebeli (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) were tracked within a single population in Central Hungary. Their egg-laying behaviour and individual patterns of movement were recorded, and the latter were compared with random walk model predictions. The population was also sampled by MRR to estimate survival rates, and four non-mated, freshly eclosed females were dissected to assess their potential egg load. Net squared displacement of females was significantly lower than predicted by the random walk model and declined continuously after the 15th move. The ratio of net displacement and cumulative move length decreased with the number of moves, supporting the hypothesis that Maculinea butterflies establish home ranges. We found that low survival and a low rate of egg laying prevented females from laying their potential number of eggs within their lifespan. Time limitation increased the cost of movement, providing another possible explanation for the restricted movement of females.

Keywords

Home range Myrmecophily Oviposition Random walk model Risk spreading 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Márta Kocsis, Szabolcs Sáfián, Zoltán Soltész, Annamária Szabó, Róbert Szűcs and Ágnes Vozár for their help in the field work and Andrea Harnos for her assistance in statistical analyses. The authors are especially grateful to Michel Baguette, Thomas Hovestadt, Nicolas Schtickzelle, Jeremy Thomas and Zoltán Varga for their useful comments, which considerably improved the manuscript. This work was supported by the EU MacMan project (EVK2-CT-2001-00126) and by the nationally funded the origin and genezis of the fauna of the Carpathian Basin project (NKFP 3B023-04). All experiments comply with the current laws of Hungary, where the experiments were performed.

Supplementary material

References

  1. Als TD, Vila R, Kandul NP, Nash DR, Yen SH, Hsu YF, Mignault AA, Boomsma JJ, Pierce NE (2004) The evolution of alternative parasitic life histories in large blue butterflies. Nature 432:386–390PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Árnyas E, Bereczki J, Tóth A, Varga Z (2005) Results of the mark–release–recapture studies of a Maculinea rebeli population in the Aggtelek karst (N Hungary) between 2002–2004. In: Settele J, Kühn E, Thomas JA (eds) Species ecology along a European gradient: Maculinea butterflies as a model. Studies on the ecology and conservation of butterflies in Europe, vol 2. PENSOFT, Sofia, pp 111–114Google Scholar
  3. Bereczki J, Pecsenye K, Peregovits L, Varga Z (2005) Pattern of genetic differentiation in the Maculinea alcon species group (Lepidoptera, Lycaenidae) in Central Europe. J Zool Syst Evol Res 43:157–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Caro T (1999) The behaviour–conservation interface. Trends Ecol Evol 14:366–369PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clarke RT, Thomas JA, Elmes GW, Hochberg ME (1997) The effects of spatial patterns in habitat quality on community dynamics within a site. Proc R Soc Lond B 264:347–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clarke RT, Thomas JA, Elmes GW, Wardlaw JC, Munguira ML, Hochberg ME (1998) Population modelling of the spatial interactions between Maculinea, their initial foodplant and Myrmica ants within a site. J Insect Conserv 2:29–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Conradt L, Roper TJ (2006) Nonrandom movement behavior at habitat boundaries in two butterfly species: implications for dispersal. Ecology 87:125–132PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Conradt L, Bodsworth EJ, Roper TJ, Thomas CD (2000) Non-random dispersal in the butterfly Maniola jurtina: implications for metapopulation models. Proc R Soc Lond B 267:1505–1510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Conradt L, Roper TJ, Thomas CD (2001) Dispersal behaviour of individuals in metapopulations of two British butterflies. Oikos 95:416–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Doak P, Kareiva P, Kingsolver J (2006) Fitness consequences of choosy oviposition for a time-limited butterfly. Ecology 87:395–408PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dolek M, Geyer A, Bolz R (1998) Distribution of Maculinea rebeli and hostplant use on sites along the river Danube. J Insect Conserv 2:85–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Elmes GW, Thomas JA, Wardlaw JC (1991a) Larvae of Maculinea rebeli, a large-blue butterfly, and their Myrmica host ants: wild adoption and behaviour in ant nests. J Zool 223:447–460Google Scholar
  13. Elmes GW, Thomas JA, Wardlaw JC (1991b) Larvae of Maculinea rebeli, a large-blue butterfly, and their Myrmica host ants: patterns of caterpillar growth and survival. J Zool 224:79–92Google Scholar
  14. Elmes GW, Clarke RT, Thomas JA, Hochberg ME (1996) Empirical tests of specific predictions made from a spatial model of the population dynamics of Maculinea rebeli, a parasitic butterfly of red ant colonies. Acta Oecol 17:61–80Google Scholar
  15. Fiedler K (1998) Lycaenid–ant interactions of the Maculinea type: tracing their historical roots in a comparative framework. J Insect Conserv 2:3–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fisher NI (1993) Statistical analysis of circular data. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  17. Fownes S, Roland J (2002) Effects of meadow suitability on female behaviour in the alpine butterfly Parnassius smintheus. Ecol Entomol 27:457–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Grosjean P, Lecoutre E (2005) SciViews GUI API. R package version 0.8–8. http://www.sciviews.org/SciViews-R
  19. Hanski I (1999) Metapopulation ecology. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  20. Hochberg ME, Thomas JA, Elmes GW (1992) A modelling study of the population dynamics of a large blue butterfly, Maculinea rebeli, a parasite of red ant nests. J Anim Ecol 61:397–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hochberg ME, Clarke RT, Elmes GW, Thomas JA (1994) Population dynamic consequences of direct and indirect interactions involving a large blue butterfly and its plant and red ant hosts. J Anim Ecol 63:375–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hovestadt T (2005) A review of the role of dispersal for population persistence in Maculinea. In: Settele J, Kühn E, Thomas JA (eds) Species ecology along a European gradient: Maculinea butterflies as a model. Studies on the ecology and conservation of butterflies in Europe, vol 2. PENSOFT, Sofia, p 120Google Scholar
  23. Hovestadt T, Nowicki P (2005) Within-patch movement limitation in two species of Maculinea butterflies? Analysis of MRR data using randomisation procedures. In: Settele J, Kühn E, Thomas JA (eds) Species ecology along a European gradient: Maculinea butterflies as a model. Studies on the ecology and conservation of butterflies in Europe, vol 2. PENSOFT, Sofia, p 122Google Scholar
  24. Kareiva PM, Shigesada N (1983) Analyzing insect movement as a correlated random walk. Oecologia 56:234–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kingsolver JG (1983) Ecological significance of flight activity in Colias butterflies: implications for reproductive strategy and population structure. Ecology 64:546–551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lindenmayer DB, Possingham HP, Lacy RC, McCarthy MA, Pope ML (2003) How accurate are population models? Lessons from landscape-scale tests in a fragmented system. Ecol Lett 6:41–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mallet J (1986) Dispersal and gene flow in a butterfly with home range behaviour (Heliconius erato). Oecologia 68:210–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Morales JM, Ellner SP (2002) Scaling up animal movements in heterogeneous landscapes: the importance of behavior. Ecology 83:2240–2247Google Scholar
  29. Musche M, Anton C, Worgan A, Settele J (2006) No experimental evidence for host ant related oviposition in a parasitic butterfly. J Ins Behav 19:631–643. doi: 10.1007/s10905-006-9053-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nowicki P, Bonelli S, Barbero F, Balletto E (2005a) Population dynamics in the genus Maculinea revisited: comparative study of sympatric M. alcon and M. teleius. In: Settele J, Kühn E, Thomas JA (eds) Species ecology along a European gradient: Maculinea butterflies as a model. Studies on the ecology and conservation of butterflies in Europe, vol 2. PENSOFT, Sofia, pp 136–139Google Scholar
  31. Nowicki P, Witek M, Skórka P, Settele J, Woyciechowski M (2005b) Population ecology of the endangered butterflies Maculinea teleius and M. nausithous and the implications for conservation. Popul Ecol 47:193–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Odendaal FJ, Turchin P, Stermitz FR (1989) Influence of host-plant density and male harassment on the distribution of female Euphydryas anicia (Nymphalidae). Oecologia 78:283–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ovaskainen O (2004) Habitat-specific movement parameters estimated using mark-recapture data and a diffusion model. Ecology 85:242–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ovaskainen O, Hanski I (2004) From individual behavior to metapopulation dynamics: unifying the patchy population and classic metapopulation models. Am Nat 164:364–377PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pech P, Fric Z, Konvicka M, Zrzavy J (2004) Phylogeny of Maculinea blues (Lepidoptera:Lycaenidae) based on morphological and ecological characters: evolution of parasitic myrmecophily. Cladistics 20:362–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pfeifer MA, Andrick UR, Frey W, Settele J (2000) On the ethology and ecology of a small and isolated population of the dusky large blue butterfly Glaucopsyche (Maculinea) nausithous (Lycaenidae). Nota Lepid 23:147–172Google Scholar
  37. Pinheiro JC, Bates DM (2000) Mixed-effects models in S and S-PLUS. Springer, New York, pp 206–226Google Scholar
  38. R Development Core Team (2005) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. ISBN 3-900051-07-0. http://www.R-project.org
  39. Ries L, Debinski DM (2001) Butterfly responses to habitat edges in the highly fragmented prairies of Central Iowa. J Anim Ecol 70:840–852CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Root RB, Kareiva PM (1984) The search for resources by cabbage butterflies (Pieris rapae): ecological consequences and adaptive significance of Markovian movements in a patchy environment. Ecology 65:147–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schtickzelle N, Baguette M (2003) Behavioural responses to habitat patch boundaries restrict dispersal and generate emigration–patch area relationships in fragmented landscapes. J Anim Ecol 72:533–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schtickzelle N, Joiris A, Van Dyck H, Baguette M (2007) Quantitative analysis of changes in movement behaviour within and outside habitat in a specialist butterfly. BMC Evol Biol 7. doi: 10.1186/1471-2148-7-4
  43. Schultz CB (1998) Dispersal behavior and its implications for reserve design in a rare Oregon butterfly. Conserv Biol 12:284–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schultz CB, Crone EE (2001) Edge-mediated dispersal behavior in a prairie butterfly. Ecology 82:1879–1892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Settele J, Kühn E, Thomas JA (2005) Species ecology along a European gradient: Maculinea butterflies as a model. Studies on the ecology and conservation of butterflies in Europe, vol 2. PENSOFT, SofiaGoogle Scholar
  46. Sutherland WJ (1998) The importance of behavioural studies in conservation biology. Anim Behav 56:801–809PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Thomas JA (1995) The ecology and conservation of Maculinea arion and other European species of large blue butterfly. In: Pullin A (ed) Ecology and conservation of butterflies. Chapman and Hall, London, pp 180–197Google Scholar
  48. Thomas JA (2002) Larval niche selection and evening exposure enhance adoption of a predacious social parasite, Maculinea arion (large blue butterfly), by Myrmica ants. Oecologia 132:531–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Thomas JA, Elmes GW (1998) Higher productivity at the cost of increased host-specificity when Maculinea butterfly larvae exploit ant colonies through trophallaxis rather than by predation. Ecol Entomol 23:457–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Thomas JA, Elmes GW (2001) Food-plant niche selection rather than the presence of ant nests explains oviposition patterns in the myrmecophilous butterfly genus Maculinea. Proc R Soc Lond B 268:471–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Thomas JA, Settele J (2004) Butterfly mimics of ants. Nature 432:283–284PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Thomas JA, Elmes GW, Wardlaw JC, Woyciechowski M (1989) Host specificity among Maculinea butterflies in Myrmica ant nests. Oecologia 79:452–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Thomas JA, Munguira M, Martinez L, Elmes GW (1991) Basal hatching by Maculinea eggs: a consequence of advanced myrmecophily. Biol J Linn Soc 44:175–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Thomas JA, Elmes GW, Wardlaw JC (1993) Contest competition among Maculinea rebeli butterfly larvae in ant nests. Ecol Entomol 18:73–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Thomas JA, Elmes GW, Clarke RT, Kim KG, Munguira ML, Hochberg ME (1997) Field evidence and model predictions of butterfly-mediated apparent competition between gentian plants and red ants. Acta Oecol 18:671–684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Thomas JA, Clarke RT, Elmes GW, Hochberg ME (1998a) Population dynamics in the genus Maculinea (Lepidoptera:Lycaenidae). In: Dempster JP, McLean IFG (eds) Insect population dynamics: in theory and practice. Symposia of the Royal Entomological Society 19. Chapman and Hall, London, pp 261–290Google Scholar
  57. Thomas JA, Elmes GW, Wardlaw JC (1998b) Polymorphic growth in larvae of the butterfly Maculinea rebeli, a social parasite of Myrmica ant colonies. Proc R Soc Lond B 265:1895–1901CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Turchin P (1991) Translating foraging movements in heterogeneous environments into the spatial distribution of foragers. Ecology 72:1253–1266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Turchin P (1998) Quantitative analysis of movement. Sinauer, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  60. Turchin P, Odendaal FJ, Rausher MD (1991) Quantifying insect movement in the field. Environ Entomol 20:955–963Google Scholar
  61. Van Dyck H, Baguette M (2005) Dispersal behaviour in fragmented landscapes: routine or special movements? Basic Appl Ecol 6:535–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Van Dyck H, Oostermeijer JGB, Talloen W, Feenstra V, Van der Hidde A, Wynhoff I (2000) Does the presence of ant nests matter for oviposition to a specialized myrmecophilous Maculinea butterfly? Proc R Soc Lond B 267:861–866CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. White GC, Burnham KP (1999) Program MARK: survival estimation from populations of marked animals. Bird Study 46(Suppl):120–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Zar JH (1999) Biostatistical analysis, 4th edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ádám Kőrösi
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Noémi Örvössy
    • 1
  • Péter Batáry
    • 1
  • Szilvia Kövér
    • 1
  • László Peregovits
    • 1
  1. 1.Hungarian Natural History MuseumBudapestHungary
  2. 2.Animal Ecology Research GroupHungarian Academy of Sciences & Hungarian Natural History MuseumBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations