Population Ecology

, Volume 47, Issue 3, pp 193–202 | Cite as

Population ecology of the endangered butterflies Maculinea teleius and M. nausithous and the implications for conservation

  • Piotr Nowicki
  • Madgalena Witek
  • Piotr Skórka
  • Josef Settele
  • Michal Woyciechowski
Original Article

Abstract

Butterflies of the genus Maculinea are highly endangered in Europe. The cuckoo species M. rebeli has been thoroughly investigated through both empirical and modelling studies, but less is known about the population ecology of predatory Maculinea. We present the findings of a 2-year research study on sympatric populations of two endangered butterflies: Maculinea teleius and M. nausithous in the Kraków region, southern Poland. The study comprised mark–release–recapture sampling and laboratory rearing of butterflies from larvae collected in the field. For both species the sex ratio was slightly, but consistently, female-biased and there was little year-to-year change in the seasonal population sizes. Daily numbers showed greater variation between the 2 years of the study due to the differences in daily survival rate. The average life span of laboratory-raised butterflies kept in ideal conditions was more than 6 days, compared to only 2–3 days in the field. The recruitment of both males and females consistently followed a bimodal pattern. A small proportion of individuals (maximum 25%) changed sites, in spite of relatively short distances of ca. 100 m separating them. The results indicate that populations of both species are typically stable within their sites, possibly due to larval polymorphism, but there is little inter-site mobility and thus landscape corridors seem necessary to enhance metapopulation viability. A further problem to be considered in the conservation of Maculinea butterflies is the fact that their very short life span in relation to flight-period length reduces the effective population size.

Keywords

Dispersal Mark–release–recapture Population fragmentation Population size Robust Design 

References

  1. Bergman K-O, Landin J (2002) Population structure and movements of a threatened butterfly (Lopinga achine) in a fragmented landscape in Sweden. Biol Conserv 108:361–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Binzenhöfer B, Settele J (2000) Vergleichende autökologische Untersuchungen an Maculinea nausithous (Bergstr.; 1779) und Maculinea teleius (Bergstr.; 1779) (Lep.: Lycaenidae) im nördlichen Steigerwald. UFZ-Bericht 2:1–98Google Scholar
  3. Böhm A (ed) (2000) Uaktualnienie i rozszerzenie planu koordynacyjnego dla III Kampusu UJ wraz z Parkiem Technologicznym do wystapienia o WZiZT. Instytut Architektury Krajobrazu i Instytut Planowania Komputerowego Politechniki Krakowskiej, Kraków, PolandGoogle Scholar
  4. Brakefield PM (1982) Ecological studies on the butterfly Maniola jurtina in Britain. II. Population dynamics: the present position. J Anim Ecol 51:727–738Google Scholar
  5. Burnham KP, Anderson DR, White GC, Brownie C, Pollock KH (1987) Design and analysis methods for fish survival experiments based on release-recapture. Am Fish Soc Monogr 5:1–437Google Scholar
  6. Clarke RT, Thomas JA, Elmes GW, Hochberg ME (1997) The effects of spatial patterns in habitat quality on community dynamics within a site. P R Soc Lond B Biol 264:347–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Elferrich NW (1963) Kweekervaringen met Maculinea alcon Schiff. Entomol Bericht 23:46–52Google Scholar
  8. Elferrich NW (1998) New facts on the life history of the dusky large blue Maculinea nausithous (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) obtained by breeding with Myrmica ants in plaster nests. Diensea 4:97–102Google Scholar
  9. 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
  10. Haddad NM (1999) Corridor and distance effects on interpatch movements: a landscape experiment with butterflies. Ecol Appl 9:612–622Google Scholar
  11. Hanski IA, Pöyry J, Kuussaari M, Pakkala T (1995) Multiple equilibria in metapopulation dynamics. Nature 377:618–621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Harrison S (1994) Metapopulations and conservation. In: Edwards PJ, May RM, Webb NR (eds) Large scale ecology and conservation biology. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 111–130Google Scholar
  13. Henle K, Davies KF, Kleyer M, Margules C, Settele J (2004) Predictors of species sensitivity to fragmentation. Biodivers Conserv 13:207–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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 61:397–409Google Scholar
  15. 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 63:375–391Google Scholar
  16. Kaaber S (1964) Studies on Maculinea alcon (Schiff.)-rebeli (Hir.) (Lep. Lycaenidae) with reference to the taxonomy, distribution, and phylogeny of the group. Entomol Medd 32:277–319Google Scholar
  17. Lewis OT, Thomas CD, Hill JK, Brookes MI, Crane TPR, Graneau YA, Mallet JLB, Rose OC (1997) Three ways of assessing metapopulation structure in the butterflies Plebejus argus. Ecol Entomol 22:283–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Maes D, Vanreusel W, Talloen W, Van Dyck H (2004) Functional conservation units for the endangered alcon blue butterfly Maculinea alcon in Belgium (Lepidoptera, Lycaenidae). Biol Conserv 120:229–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mousson L, Neve G, Baguette M (1999) Metapopulation structure and conservation of the cranberry fritillary Boloria aquilonaris (lepidoptera, nymphalidae) in Belgium. Biol Conserv 87:285–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Munguira ML, Martin J (eds) (1999) Action plan for Maculinea Butterflies in Europe. Nature and environment No. 97. Council of Europe Publishing, StrasbourgGoogle Scholar
  21. Murphy DD, Weiss SB (1988) Ecological studies and the conservation of the bay checkerspot butterfly, Euphydryas editha bayensis. Biol Conserv 46:183–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. New TR (1991) Butterfly conservation. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  23. Otis DL, Burnham KP, White DC, Anderson DR (1978) Statistical inference from capture data on closed animal populations. Wildl Monogr 62:1–135Google Scholar
  24. Pepkowska A (2002) Inwentaryzacja i waloryzacja krajobrazowo-przyrodnicza terenów przyleglych do Kampusu 600-lecia Odnowienia Uniwersytetu Jagiellonskiego. MSc Thesis, Jagiellonian University, Kraków, PolandGoogle Scholar
  25. 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
  26. Pollock KH (1982) A capture-recapture design robust to unequal probability of capture. J Wildl Manage 46:757–760Google Scholar
  27. Pollock KH, Nichols JD, Brownie C, Hines JE (1990) Statistical inference for capture recapture experiments. Wildl Monogr 107:1–97Google Scholar
  28. Schönrogge K, Wardlaw JC, Thomas JA, Elmes GW (2000) Polymorphic growth rates in myrmecophilous insects. P R Soc Lond B Biol 267:771–777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Settele J (1998) Metapopulationsanalyse auf Rasterdatenbasis. Teubner Verlag, LeipzigGoogle Scholar
  30. Settele J, Margules C, Poschlod P, Henle K (eds) (1996) Species survival in fragmented landscapes. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  31. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1981) Biometry, 2nd edn. Freeman, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. Stettmer C, Binzenhöfer B, Hartmann P (2001) Habitatmanagement und Schutzmassnahmen für die Ameisenbläulinge Glaucopsyche teleius und Glaucopsyche nausithous. Teil 1: Populationsdynamik, Ausbreitungsverhalten und Biotopverbund. Nat Landsch 76:278–287Google Scholar
  33. Sutcliffe OL, Thomas CD, Djunijanti P (1997) Area-dependent migration by ringlet butterflies generates a mixture of patchy population and metapopulation attributes. Oecologia 109:229–234. DOI: 10.1007/s004420050077Google Scholar
  34. Tabashnik BE (1980) Population structure of pierid butterflies. III. Pest populations of Colias philodice eriphyle. Oecologia 47:175–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Thomas JA (1980) Why did the large blue become extinct in Britain? Oryx 15:243–247Google Scholar
  36. Thomas JA (1984) The behaviour and habitat requirements of Maculinea nausithous (the dusky large blue butterfly) and M. teleius (the scarce large blue) in France. Biol Conserv 28:325–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Thomas JA (1995) The ecology and conservation of Maculinea arion and other European species of large blue butterfly. In: Pullin AS (ed) Ecology and conservation of butterflies. Chapman & Hall, London, pp 180–197Google Scholar
  38. Thomas JA, Lewington R (1991) The butterflies of Britain and Ireland. Dorling Kindersley, LondonGoogle Scholar
  39. Thomas JA, Settele J (2004) Butterfly mimics of ants. Nature 432:283–284CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Thomas JA, Munguira ML, Martin J, Elmes GW (1991) Basal hatching by Maculinea butterflies eggs: a consequence of advanced myrmecophily? Biol J Linn Soc 44:175–184Google Scholar
  41. 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, vol 19. Chapman & Hall, London, pp 261–290Google Scholar
  42. Thomas JA, Elmes GW, Wardlaw JC (1998b) Polymorphic growth in larvae of the butterfly Maculinea rebeli, a social parasite of Myrmica ant colonies. P R Soc Lond B Biol 265:1895–1901CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Warren MS (1987) The ecology and conservation of the heath fritillary butterfly, Mellicta athalia. II. Adult population structure and mobility. J Appl Ecol 24:483–498Google Scholar
  44. Warren MS (1992) Butterfly populations. In: Dennis RLH (ed) The ecology of butterflies in Britain. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 73–92Google Scholar
  45. Watt WB, Chew FS, Snyder LRG, Watt AG, Rothschild DE (1977) Population structure of pierid butterflies. I. Numbers and movements of some montane Colias species. Oecologia 27:1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Weidemann HJ (1995) Tagfalter beobachten, bestimmen. Naturbuch-Verlag Augsburg, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  47. Wells SM, Pyle RM, Collins NM (1983) The IUCN red data book: invertebrates. IUCN, Gland, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  48. White GC, Burnham KP (1999) Program MARK: survival estimation from populations of marked animals. Bird Study 46:120–138Google Scholar
  49. Wynhoff I (1998) The recent distribution of the European Maculinea species. J Insect Conserv 2:15–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wynhoff I (2001) At home on foreign meadows: the reintroduction of two Maculinea butterfly species. Ph.D. Thesis, Wageningen Agricultural University, Wageningen, the NetherlandsGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society of Population Ecology and Springer-Verlag Tokyo 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Piotr Nowicki
    • 1
  • Madgalena Witek
    • 1
  • Piotr Skórka
    • 1
  • Josef Settele
    • 2
  • Michal Woyciechowski
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Environmental SciencesJagiellonian UniversityKrakówPoland
  2. 2.Department of Community EcologyUFZ Centre for Environmental ResearchHalleGermany

Personalised recommendations