, Volume 172, Issue 1, pp 293–305 | Cite as

Biased correlated random walk and foray loop: which movement hypothesis drives a butterfly metapopulation?

  • Eliot J. B. McIntireEmail author
  • Ghislain Rompré
  • Paul M. Severns
Conservation ecology - Original research


Animals in fragmented landscapes have a major challenge to move between high-quality habitat patches through lower-quality matrix. Two current mechanistic hypotheses that describe the movement used by animals outside of their preferred patches (e.g., high-quality habitat or home range) are the biased, correlated random walk (BCRW) and the foray loop (FL). There is also a variant of FL with directed movement (FLdm). While these have been most extensively tested on butterflies, they have never been tested simultaneously with data across a whole metapopulation and over multiple generations, two key scales for population dynamics. Using the pattern-oriented approach, we compare support for these competing hypotheses with a spatially explicit individual-based simulation model on an 11-year dataset that follows 12 patches of the federally endangered Fender’s blue butterfly (Plebejus icarioides fenderi) in Oregon’s Willamette Valley. BCRW and medium-scale FL and FLdm scenarios predicted the annual total metapopulation size for ≥9 of 12 patches as well as patch extinctions. The key difference, however, was that the FL scenarios predicted patch colonizations and persistence poorly, failing to adequately capture movement dynamics; BCRW and one FLdm scenario predicted the observed patch colonization and persistence with reasonable probabilities. This one FLdm scenario, however, had larger prediction intervals. BCRW, the biologically simplest and thus most parsimonious movement hypothesis, performed consistently well across all nine different tests, resulting in the highest quality metapopulation predictions for butterfly conservation.


Dispersal Colonization Pattern-oriented modeling Fender’s blue butterfly Individual-based model 



Funds for this project were provided by the US Fish and Wildlife Service to Eliot McIntire. G. Rompré would like to thank Jeffrey Stratford, Mike Steele, and Ken Klemow for providing the necessary resources at Wilkes University to allow the completion of this manuscript. Paul M. Severns was supported by the US Army Corps of Engineers while gathering information on butterfly population sizes. We are grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments, which helped improve this manuscript.

Supplementary material

442_2012_2475_MOESM1_ESM.doc (195 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 194 kb)


  1. Barton KA, Phillips BL, Morales JM, Travis JMJ (2009) The evolution of an “intelligent” dispersal strategy: biased, correlated random walks in patchy landscapes. Oikos 118:309–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bowler DE, Benton TG (2005) Causes and consequences of animal dispersal strategies: relating individual behaviour to spatial dynamics. Biol Rev 80:205–225PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Conradt L, Roper TJ (2006) Nonrandom movement behavior at habitat boundaries in two butterfly species: implications for dispersal. Ecology 87:125–132PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Conradt L, Bodsworth EJ, Roper TJ, Thomas CD (2000) Non-random dispersal in the butterfly Maniola jurtina: implications for metapopulation models. Proc Roy Soc B 267:1505Google Scholar
  5. Conradt L, Roper TJ, Thomas CD (2001) Dispersal behaviour of individuals in metapopulations of two British butterflies. Oikos 95:416–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Conradt L, Zollner PA, Roper TJ, Frank K, Thomas CD (2003) Foray search: an effective systematic dispersal strategy in fragmented landscapes. Am Nat 161:905–915PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cressman R, Křivan V (2006) Migration dynamics for the ideal free distribution. Am Nat 168:384–397. doi: 10.1086/506970 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crone EE, Schultz CB (2003) Movement behavior and minimum patch size for butterfly population persistence. In: Boggs C, Watt W, Ehrlich P (eds) Butterflies: ecology and evolution taking flight. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 561–576Google Scholar
  9. Crone EE, Schultz CB (2008) Old models explain new observations of butterfly movement at patch edges. Ecology 89:2061–2067PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. del Mar Delgado M, Penteriani V (2008) Behavioral states help translate dispersal movements into spatial distribution patterns of floaters. Am Nat 172:475–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Delattre T, Burel F, Humeau A, Stevens VM, Vernon P, Baguette M (2010) Dispersal mood revealed by shifts from routine to direct flights in the meadow brown butterfly Maniola jurtina. Oikos 119:1900–1908. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0706.2010.18615.x Google Scholar
  12. Durier V, Rivault C (1999) Path integration in Blattella germanica (L.) (Dictyoptera: Blattellidae): orientation and distance. Ann Soc Entomol Fr 35:142–147Google Scholar
  13. Fahrig L (2001) How much habitat is enough? Biol Conserv 100:65–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fahrig L (2003) Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:487–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fall A, Fall JG (2001) A domain-specific language for models of landscape dynamics. Ecol Mod 141:1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Grimm V, Revilla E, Berger U, Jeltsch F, Mooij WM, Railsback SF, Thulke HH, Weiner J, Wiegand T, DeAngelis DL (2005) Pattern-oriented modeling of agent-based complex systems: lessons from ecology. Science 310:987–991PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Grünbaum D (1998) Using spatially explicit models to characterize foraging performance in heterogeneous landscapes. Am Nat 151:97–113PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Haddad NM (1999) Corridor use predicted from behaviors at habitat boundaries. Am Nat 153:215–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hoffmann G (1983) The random elements in the systematic search behavior of the desert isopod Hemilepistus reaumuri. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 13:81–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kareiva P, Odell G (1987) Swarms of predators exhibit “prey taxis” if individual predators use restricted area search. Am Nat 130:233–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kendall BE, Bjørnstad ON, Bascompte J, Keitt TH, Fagan WF (2000) Dispersal, environmental correlation, and spatial synchrony in population dynamics. Am Nat 155:628–636PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lima SL, Zollner PA (1996) Towards a behavioral ecology of ecological landscapes. Trends Ecol Evol 11:131–135PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01831.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McIntire EJB, Fajardo A (2009) Beyond description: the active and effective way to infer processes from spatial patterns. Ecology 90:46–56PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McIntire EJB, Schultz CB, Crone EE (2007) Designing a network for butterfly habitat restoration: where individuals, populations and landscapes interact. J Appl Ecol 44:725–736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Messier F (1985) Solitary living and extraterritorial movements of wolves in relation to social status and prey abundance. Can J Zoo 63:239–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Moilanen A, Hanski I (1998) Metapopulation dynamics: effects of habitat quality and landscape structure. Ecology 79:2503–2515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Müller M, Wehner R (1994) The hidden spiral: systematic search and path integration in desert ants, Cataglyphis fortis. J Comp Physiol A 175:525–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nathan R (2008) An emerging movement ecology paradigm. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:19050Google Scholar
  30. 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 Natl Acad Sci USA 105:19052Google Scholar
  31. Paradis E, Baillie SR, Sutherland WJ, Gregory RD (1999) Dispersal and spatial scale affect synchrony in spatial population dynamics. Ecol Lett 2:114–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Revilla E, Wiegand T (2008) Individual movement behavior, matrix heterogeneity, and the dynamics of spatially structured populations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:19120Google Scholar
  33. 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:E130PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schick RS, Loarie SR, Colchero F, Best BD, Boustany A, Conde DA, Halpin PN, Joppa LN, McClellan CM, Clark JS (2008) Understanding movement data and movement processes: current and emerging directions. Ecol Lett 11:1338–1350PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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 7:4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schultz CB (1998) Dispersal behavior and its implications for reserve design in a rare Oregon butterfly. Conserv Biol 12:284–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schultz CB, Crone EE (2001) Edge-mediated dispersal behavior in a prairie butterfly. Ecology 82:1879–1892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schultz CB, Crone EE (2005) Patch size and connectivity thresholds for butterfly habitat restoration. Conserv Biol 19:896CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schultz CB, Hammond PC (2003) Using population viability analysis to develop recovery criteria for endangered insects: case study of the Fender’s blue butterfly. Conserv Biol 17:1385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schultz CB, Hammond PC, Wilson MV (2003) Biology of the Fender’s blue butterfly (Icaricia icarioides fenderi Macy), an endangered species of western Oregon native prairies. Nat Area J 23:71Google Scholar
  41. Seymour AS, Gutiérrez D, Jordano D (2003) Dispersal of the lycaenid Plebejus argus in response to patches of its mutualist ant Lasius niger. Oikos 103:162–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Stuart-Smith AK, Boutin S (1995) Behavioural differences between surviving and depredated juvenile red squirrels. Ecography 2:34–40Google Scholar
  43. Turchin P (1998) Quantitative analysis of movement: measuring and modeling population redistribution in animals and plants. Sinauer Associates, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  44. US Fish and Wildlife Service (2006) Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; designation of critical habitat for the Fender’s blue butterfly (Icaricia icarioides fenderi), Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii (Kincaid’s lupine), and Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens (Willamette daisy); final rule. Fed Reg 71:63861–63977Google Scholar
  45. Viswanathan G, Raposo E, Da Luz M (2008) Lévy flights and superdiffusion in the context of biological encounters and random searches. Phys Life Rev 5:133–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wehner R, Srinivasan MV (1981) Searching behaviour of desert ants, genus Cataglyphis (Formicidae, Hymenoptera). J Comp Physiol A 142:315–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wiens JA, Chr N, Van Horne B, Ims RA (1993) Ecological mechanisms and landscape ecology. Oikos 66:369–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wilson MV, Hammond PC, Schultz CB (1997) The interdependence of native plants and Fender’s blue butterfly. Native Plant Society of Oregon, CorvallisGoogle Scholar
  49. Wilson MV, Erhart T, Hammond PC, Kaye TN, Kuykendall K, Liston A, Robinson AF, Schultz CB, Severns PM (2003) The biology of Kincaid’s lupine (Lupinus sulphureus spp. kincaidii), a threatened species of western Oregon native prairies. Nat Area J 23:72–83Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Her Majesty the Queen in Rights of Canada 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eliot J. B. McIntire
    • 1
    • 4
    Email author
  • Ghislain Rompré
    • 1
    • 2
  • Paul M. Severns
    • 3
  1. 1.Canada Research Chair, Centre d’étude de la forêtUniversité LavalQuebecCanada
  2. 2.Department of Biology and Health SciencesWilkes UniversityBarreUSA
  3. 3.School of Biological SciencesWashington State University—VancouverVancouverUSA
  4. 4.Pacific Forestry CentreCanadian Forest Service, Natural Resources CanadaVictoriaCanada

Personalised recommendations