Advertisement

Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 17, Issue 5, pp 1149–1169 | Cite as

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

  • Inge van HalderEmail author
  • Luc Barbaro
  • Emmanuel Corcket
  • Hervé Jactel
Original Paper

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.

Keywords

Butterflies Communities Deciduous woodlands Firebreaks Habitat Landscape Pinus pinaster Plantation forests 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank Audrey Lugot, Manon Dupuich, Karine Payet and Zoé Delépine for their help during the field work. Annie Ouin and Marc Dufrêne gave valuable comments on an earlier version of the manuscript, Carlos Lopez-Vaamonde has kindly checked the English language and two anonymous reviewers provided useful comments and corrections. This study was financed by the European Union, ERDF-Interreg Atlantic Area, FORSEE project.

References

  1. 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 103:265–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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 7:175–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aune K, Jonsson BG, Moen J (2005) Isolation and edge effects among woodland key habitats in Sweden: is forest policy promoting fragmentation? Biol Conserv 124:89–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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 108:205–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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 37:100–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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 12:110–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baz A, Garcia-Boyero A (1995) The effects of forest fragmentation on butterfly communities in central Spain. J Biogeogr 22:129–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bergman KO, Askling J, Ekberg O, Ignell H, Wahlman H, Milberg P (2004) Landscape effects on butterfly assemblages in an agricultural region. Ecography 27:619–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Borcard D, Legendre P, Drapeau P (1992) Partialling out the spatial component of ecological variation. Ecology 73:1045–1055CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carey AB (2003) Biocomplexity and restoration of biodiversity in temperate coniferous forest: inducing spatial heterogeneity with variable-density thinning. Forestry 76:127–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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 104:65–77Google Scholar
  12. 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 98:167–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cushman SA, McGarigal K (2002) Hierarchical, multi-scale decomposition of species-environment relationships. Landsc Ecol 17:637–646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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 98:179–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dennis RLH (1992) The ecology of butterflies in Britain. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
  16. Dennis RLH, Shreeve TG, Van Dyck H (2003) Towards a functional resource-based concept for habitat: a butterfly biology viewpoint. Oikos 102:417–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dennis RLH, Shreeve TG, Van Dyck H (2006) Habitats and resources: the need for a resource-based definition to conserve butterflies. Biodivers Conserv 15:1943–1966CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Duelli P (1997) Biodiversity evaluation in agricultural landscapes: an approach at two different scales. Agric Ecosyst Environ 62:81–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dufrêne M, Legendre P (1997) Species assemblages and indicator species: the need for a flexible asymmetrical approach. Ecol Monogr 67:345–366Google Scholar
  20. Dunning JB, Danielson BJ, Pulliam HR (1992) Ecological processes that affect populations in complex landscapes. Oikos 65:169–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ebert G, Rennwald E (1991) Die schmetterlinge Baden-Württembergs. Band 1 Tagfalter I. Verlag Eugen Ulmer, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  22. Fahrig L (2003) Effects of habitat fragmenation on biodiversity. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:487–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. FAO (2007) State of the Word’s Forests 2007. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, RomeGoogle Scholar
  24. Ferris R, Carter C (2000) Managing rides, roadsides and edge habitats in lowland forests. For Comm Bull 123:1–78Google Scholar
  25. Fischer J, Lindenmayer DB, Manning AD (2006) Biodiversity, ecosystem function, and resilience: ten guiding principles for commodity production landscapes. Front Ecol Environ 4:80–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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 237:290–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hanski I (1999) Metapopulation ecology. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. Hartley MJ (2002) Rationale and methods for conserving biodiversity in plantation forests. For Ecol Manage 155:81–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jeanneret P, Schupbach B, Luka H (2003a) Quantifying the impact of landscape and habitat features on biodiversity in cultivated landscapes. Agric Ecosyst Environ 98:311–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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 11:213–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jongman RGH, Ter Braak CJF, Van Tongeren OFR (1995) Data analysis in community and landscape ecology. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Karsholt O, Razowski J (1996) The Lepidoptera of Europe. A distributional checklist. Apollo Books, StenstrupGoogle Scholar
  33. Kerr G (1999) The use of silvicultural systems to enhance the biological diversity of plantation forests in Britain. Forestry 72:191–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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 12:231–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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 30:889–900CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lafranchis T (2000) Les papillons de jour en France, Belgique et Luxembourg et leurs chenilles. Biotope, Mèze (France)Google Scholar
  37. 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 9:53–67Google Scholar
  38. Li HB, Wu JG (2004) Use and misuse of landscape indices. Landsc Ecol 19:389–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lindenmayer DB, Franklin JF (2002) Conserving forest biodiversity: a comprehensive multiscaled approach. Island Press, Washington, Covelo, LondonGoogle Scholar
  40. Lindenmayer DB, Hobbs RJ (2004) Fauna conservation in Australian plantation forests—a review. Biol Conserv 119:151–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mac Arthur RH, Wilson EO (1967) The theory of island biogeography. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  42. 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, BrusselGoogle Scholar
  43. Mazerolle MJ, Villard MA (1999) Patch characteristics and landscape context as predictors of species presence and abundance: A review. Ecoscience 6:117–124Google Scholar
  44. 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.htmlGoogle Scholar
  45. Moore SE, Allen HL (1999) Plantation forestry. In: Hunter MLJ (ed) Maintaining biodiversity in forest ecosystems. Cambridge Univesity Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  46. 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 237:404–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Palmer MW (1993) Putting things in even better order—the advantages of canonical correspondence-analysis. Ecology 74:2215–2230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pollard E, Yates TJ (1993) Monitoring butterflies for ecology and conservation. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  49. Schneider C, Fry GLA (2001) The influence of landscape grain size on butterfly diversity in grasslands. J Insect Conserv 5:163–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 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 42:1129–1139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Shreeve TG (1992) Adult behaviour. In: Dennis RLH (ed) The ecology of butterflies in Britain. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
  52. Shreeve TG, Mason CF (1980) The number of butterfly species in woodlands. Oecologia 45:414–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 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 10:1839–1863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 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 31:905–915CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Steffan-Dewenter I, Tscharntke T (2000) Butterfly community structure in fragmented habitats. Ecol Lett 3:449–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Ter Braak CJF (1986) Canonical correspondence analysis: a new eigenvector technique for multivariate direct gradient analysis. Ecology 67:1167–1179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 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, LondonGoogle Scholar
  58. Thomas CD, Harrison S (1992) Spatial dynamics of a patchily distributed butterfly species. J Anim Ecol 61:437–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 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 268:1791–1796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Timbal T, Maizeret C (1998) Biodiversité végétale et gestion durable de la forêt landaise de pin maritime: bilan et évolution. Rev For Fr 5:403–424Google Scholar
  61. 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 31:1841–1856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 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 6:197–214Google Scholar
  63. Van Swaay CAM, Warren MS (1999) Red data book of European butterflies (Rhopalocera). Council of Europe Publishing, StrasbourgGoogle Scholar
  64. Wahlberg N, Klemetti T, Hanski I (2002) Dynamic populations in a dynamic landscape: the metapopulation structure of the marsh fritillary butterfly. Ecography 25:224–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Waltz AEM, Covington WW (2004) Ecological restoration treatments increase butterfly richness and abundance: mechanisms of response. Restor Ecol 12:85–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Weibull AC, Bengtsson J, Nohlgren E (2000) Diversity of butterflies in the agricultural landscape: the role of farming system and landscape heterogeneity. Ecography 23:743–750CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wiens JA (1989) Spatial scaling in ecology. Funct Ecol 3:385–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wiens JA (1995) Habitat fragmentation: island v landscape perspectives on bird conservation. Ibis 137:97–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Inge van Halder
    • 1
    Email author
  • Luc Barbaro
    • 1
  • Emmanuel Corcket
    • 2
  • Hervé Jactel
    • 1
  1. 1.INRA, UMR1202 Biodiversité, Gènes et CommunautésCestasFrance
  2. 2.UMR1202 Biodiversité, Gènes et Communautés, Ecologie des Communautés Université Bordeaux 1TalenceFrance

Personalised recommendations