Advertisement

Journal of Insect Conservation

, Volume 11, Issue 4, pp 351–366 | Cite as

Contrasting trends of butterfly species preferring semi-natural grasslands, field margins and forest edges in northern Europe

  • Mikko Kuussaari
  • Janne Heliölä
  • Juha Pöyry
  • Kimmo Saarinen
Original Paper

Abstract

Indicator classifications help us to focus on the most relevant groups of species in monitoring the effects of land use changes on biodiversity. We studied changes in distribution area of 74 butterfly species preferring one of the three common habitats of boreal agricultural landscapes: semi-natural grasslands (35 species), arable field margins (7) and forest edges (32). Using extensive atlas data from four time periods during the last 50 years in Finland, we quantified trends in the occupancy of the species in 10 km grid squares, and classified them into four classes: declining (23), stable (17), increasing (27) and fluctuating (7) species. Trends among the species favouring three habitats were different: 60% of the species of semi-natural grasslands had declined, whereas 86% of the species typical of open field margins had increased. An increase also predominated in species associated with forest edges. Declining and increasing species differed in three ecological characteristics: increasing species were more mobile, utilized a wider range of habitats and, based on their larval host plants, lived in more eutrophic habitats than declining species. Species overwintering as adults showed more positive trends in occupancy than species overwintering as eggs, larvae or pupae. Observed trends in occupancy are in good agreement with long-term changes in land use and habitat availability in Finland: a long-continued decrease in the area of semi-natural grasslands and an increased amount of open forest edges and clearings due to modern forestry during the past 50 years.

Keywords

Agricultural landscape Atlas data Indicator classification Change in distribution area Species trait 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are very grateful to Larry Huldén for allowing us to use the butterfly atlas database of the Finnish Museum of Natural History. Andreas Erhardt, Sonja Kivinen, Miska Luoto and an anonymous referee provided helpful comments on the manuscript, and Michael Bailey improved the language. This study was financed by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry.

References

  1. Anonymous (2005) Finnish Statistical Yearbook of Forestry 2005. The Finnish Forest Research InstituteGoogle Scholar
  2. Aro JE (1900). Suomen perhoset. Otava, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  3. Balmer O, Erhardt A (2000). Consequences of succession on extensively grazed grasslands for central European butterfly communities: Rethinking conservation practices. Conserv Biol 14:746–757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Balmford A, Bennun L, ten Brink B, Cooper D, Côté IM, Crane P, Dobson A, Dudley N, Dutton I, Green RE, Gregory R, Harrison J, Kennedy ET, Kremen C, Leader-Williams N, Lovejoy T, Mace G, May R, Mayaux P, Phillips J, Redford K, Ricketts TH, Rodriguez JP, Sanjayan M, Schei P, van Jaarsveld A, Walther BA (2005a). Science and the convention on biological diversity’s 2010 target. Science 307:212–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Balmford A, Crane P, Dobson AP, Green RE, Mace GM (2005b). The 2010 challenge: data availability, information needs, and extraterrestrial insights. Philos Trans R Soc B 360:221–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cowley MJR, Thomas CD, Thomas JA, Warren MS (1999) Flight areas of British butterflies: assessing species status and decline. Proc R Soc Lond B 266:1587–1592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cowley MJR, Thomas CD, Roy DB, Wilson RJ, León-Cortés JL, Gutiérrez D, Bulman CR, Quinn RM, Moss D, Gaston KJ (2001) Density-distribution relationships in British butterflies. I. The effect of mobility and spatial scale. J Anim Ecol 70:410–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Davies ZG, Wilson RJ, Brereton TM, Thomas CD (2005) The re-expansion and improving status of the silver-spotted skipper butterfly (Hesperia comma) in Britain: a metapopulation success story. Biol Conserv 124:189–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dennis RLH, Thomas CD (2000). Bias in butterfly distribution maps: the influence of hot spots and recorder’s home range. J Insect Conserv 4:73–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dennis RLH, Sparks TH, Hardy PB (1999). Bias in butterfly distribution maps: the effects of sampling effort. J Insect Conserv 3:33–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dufréne M, Legendre P (1997). Species assemblages and indicator species: the need for a flexible approach. Ecol Monogr 67:345–266Google Scholar
  12. Ellenberg H, Weber HE, Duell R, Wirth V, Werner W (2001) Indicator values of plants in Central Europe. Scr Geobot 18:1–262, 3rd ednGoogle Scholar
  13. Erhardt A, Thomas JA (1991). Lepidoptera as indicators of change in semi-natural grasslands of lowland and upland Europe. In: Collins NM, Thomas JA (eds) The conservation of insects and their habitats. Academic Press, London, pp 213–236Google Scholar
  14. Gregory RD, van Strien AJ, Vorisek P, Gmelig Meyling AW, Noble DG, Foppen RPB, Gibbons DW (2005). Developing indicators for European birds. Philos Trans R. Soc B 360:269–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Heath J, Pollard E, Thomas JA (1984). Atlas of butterflies in Britain and Ireland. Viking, HarmondsworthGoogle Scholar
  16. Hietala-Koivu R (2003) Lost field margins. A study of landscape change in four case areas in Finland between 1954 and 1998. PhD Thesis, University of Turku, Turku, FinlandGoogle Scholar
  17. 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
  18. Hill JK, Thomas CD, Fox R, Telfer MG, Willis SG, Asher J, Huntley B (2002). Responses of butterflies to twentieth century climate warming: implications for future ranges. Proc R Soc Lond B 269:2163–2171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Huldén L (ed), Albrecht A, Itämies J, Malinen P, Wettenhovi J (2000) Atlas of Finnish Macrolepidoptera. Finnish Lepidopterologist Society and Finnish Natural History Museum, Helsinki (In Finnish and Swedish with English summary)Google Scholar
  20. Hyönteiskartoitus/Insektkartering 81 (1996) Results of the mapping in 1996 of the distribution of 21 insect species in Finland. Sahlbergia 3:63–75Google Scholar
  21. Kaisila J (1962). Immigration und Expansion der Lepidopteren in Finnland in den Jahren 1869–1960. Acta Entomol Fen 18:1–452Google Scholar
  22. Kleijn D, Baquero RA, Clough Y, Díaz M, De Esteban J, Fernández F, Gabriel D, Herzog F, Holzschuh A, Jöhl R, Knop E, Kruess A, Marshall EJP, Steffan-Dewenter I, Tscharntke T, Verhulst J, West TM, Yela JL (2006). Mixed biodiversity benefits of agri-environment schemes in five European countries. Ecol Lett 9:243–254CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Komonen A, Grapputo A, Kaitala V, Kotiaho JS, Päivinen J (2004). The role of niche breadth, resource availability and range position on the life history of butterflies. Oikos 105:41–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kotiaho JS, Kaitala V, Komonen A, Päivinen J (2005). Predicting the risk of extinction from shared ecological characteristics. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102: 1963–1967CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Kullberg J, Albrecht A, Kaila L, Varis V (2002). Checklist of Finnish Lepidoptera—Suomen perhosten luettelo. Sahlbergia 6:45–190Google Scholar
  26. Kuussaari M, Pöyry J, Lundsten K-E (2000). Butterfly monitoring in agricultural landscapes: the monitoring method and first year’s results [in Finnish with an English summary]. Baptria 25:44–56Google Scholar
  27. León-Cortés JL, Cowley MJR, Thomas CD (1999). Detecting decline in a formerly widespread species: how common is the common blue butterfly Polyommatus icarus? Ecography 22:643–650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. León-Cortés JL, Cowley MJR, Thomas CD (2000). The distribution and decline of a widespread butterfly Lycaena phlaeas in a pastoral landscape. Ecol Entomol 25:285–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Luoto M, Rekolainen S, Aakkula J, Pykälä J (2003). Loss of plant species richness and habitat connectivity of grasslands associated with agricultural change in Finland. Ambio 32:447–452CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Maes D, van Dyck H (2001). Butterfly diversity loss in Flanders (north Belgium): Europe’s worst case scenario? Biol Conserv 99:236–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Marttila O, Haahtela T, Aarnio H, Ojalainen P (1992). Päiväperhosopas. Kirjayhtymä Oy, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  32. Marttila O, Saarinen K, Haahtela T, Aarnio H, Ojalainen P (2000). Päiväperhosopas. Suomi ja lähialueet. Tammi, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  33. McCarthy MA (1998). Identifying declining and threatened species with museum data. Biol Conserv 83:9–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McCune B, Grace JB (2002). Analysis of ecological communities. MjM Software Design, Gleneden Beach, OregonGoogle Scholar
  35. Mikkola K (1979). Vanishing and declining species of Finnish Lepidoptera. Notulae Entomol 59:1–9Google Scholar
  36. Mikkola K (1997). Population trends of Finnish Lepidoptera during 1961–1996. Entomol Fenn 8: 121–143Google Scholar
  37. Öckinger E, Hammarstedt O, Nilsson SG, Smith HG (2006). The relationship between local extinctions of grassland butterflies and increased soil nitrogen levels. Biol Conserv 128:564–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Oostermeijer JGB, van Swaay CAM 1998. The relationship between butterflies and environmental indicator values: a tool for conservation in a changing landscape. Biol Conserv 86:271–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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
  40. Pitkänen M, Kuussaari M, Pöyry J (2001). Butterflies. In: Pitkänen M, Tiainen J (eds) Biodiversity of agricultural landscapes in Finland. BirdLife Finland Conservation Series No. 3. Yliopistopaino, Helsinki, pp 51–68Google Scholar
  41. Pöyry J, Lindgren S, Salminen J, Kuussaari M (2005). Responses of butterfly and moth species to restored cattle grazing in semi-natural grasslands. Biol Conserv 122:465–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pöyry J, Luoto M, Paukkunen J, Pykälä J, Raatikainen K, Kuussaari M (2006) Different responses of plants and herbivore insects to a gradient of vegetation height: an indicator of the vertebrate grazing intensity and successional age. Oikos 115:401–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Punttila P, Virkkala R, Auvinen A-P, Toivonen H, Kaipiainen H, Söderman G, Mannerkoski I (2005). Metsät [Forests]. In: Hildén M, Auvinen A-P, Primmer E (eds) Suomen biodiversiteettiohjelman arviointi [English summary: Evaluation of the Finnish national action plan for biodiversity]. Suomen ympäristö 770. Suomen ympäristökeskus, Helsinki, pp 37–51Google Scholar
  44. Prendergast JR, Eversham BC 1995. Butterfly diversity in southern Britain: hotspot losses since 1930. Biol Conserv 72:109–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. R Development Core Team (2004) R. A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. (ISBN 3-900051-00-3, URL http://www.R-project.org.)Google Scholar
  46. Saarinen K, Lahti T, Marttila O (2003). Population trends of Finnish butterflies (Lepidoptera: Hesperioidea, Papilionoidea) in 1991–2000. Biodivers Conserv 12:2147–2159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sparks TH, Roy DB, Dennis RLH (2005). The influence on temperature on migration of Lepidoptera into Britain. Glob Change Biol 11:507–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Thomas CD, Abery JCG (1995). Estimating rates of butterfly decline from distribution maps: the effect of scale. Biol Conserv 73:59–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Thomas CD, Bodsworth EJ, Wilson RJ, Simmons AD, Davies ZG, Musche M, Conradt L (2001). Ecological and evolutionary processes at expanding range margins. Nature 411:577–581CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Thomas JA (2005). Monitoring change in the abundance and distribution of insects using butterflies and other indicator groups. Philos Trans R Soc B 360:339–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Thomas JA, Telfer MG, Roy DB, Preston CD, Greenwood JJD, Asher J, Fox R, Clarke RT, Lawton JH (2004). Comparative losses of British butterflies, birds, and plants and the global extinction crisis. Nature 303:1879–1881Google Scholar
  52. Tuomenvirta H (2004). Reliable estimation of climatic variations in Finland. Finn Meteorol Inst Contrib 43:1–79Google Scholar
  53. UNEP (2006) United Nations Environment Programme. Convention on Biological Diversity. 2010 Biodiversity Target. http://www.biodiv.org/2010-target/default.asp (accessed 17 March 2006)Google Scholar
  54. Valle KJ (1935). Suomen eläimet 2. Suurperhoset I. Päiväperhoset. Werner Söderström Oy, PorvooGoogle Scholar
  55. van Swaay CAM (1990). An assessment of the changes in butterfly abundance in the Netherlands during the 20th century. Biol Conserv 52:287–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. van Swaay CAM (1995). Measuring changes in butterfly abundance in the Netherlands. In: Pullin AS (eds) Ecology and conservation of butterflies. Chapman & Hall, London, pp 230–247Google Scholar
  57. van Swaay C, van Strien A (2005). Using butterfly monitoring data to develop a European grassland butterfly indicator. In: Kuehn E, Feldmann R, Thomas JA, Settele J (eds) Ecology and conservation of butterflies in Europe, vol 1: general concepts and case studies. Pensoft Publishers, Sofia, pp 106–108Google Scholar
  58. van Swaay CAM, Warren MS (1999). Red data book of European butterflies (Rhopalocera). Nature and Environment 99. Council of Europe Publishing, StrasbourgGoogle Scholar
  59. van Swaay C, Warren M, Lois G (2006). Biotope use and trends of European butterflies. J. Insect Conserv 10:189–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Venables WN, Ripley BD (2002). Modern applied statistics with S. Springer-Verlag, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  61. Virkkala R, Luoto M, Rainio K 2004. Effects of landscape composition on farmland and red-listed birds in boreal agriculture-forest mosaics. Ecography 27:273–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Warren MS, Barnett LK, Gibbons DW, Avery MI (1997). Assessing national conservation priorities: an improved Red List of British butterflies. Biol Conserv. 82:317–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 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
  64. Wenzel M, Schmitt T, Weitzel M, Seitz A (2006). The severe decline of butterflies on western German calcareous grasslands during the last 30 years: a conservation problem. Biol Conserv 128: 542–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mikko Kuussaari
    • 1
  • Janne Heliölä
    • 1
  • Juha Pöyry
    • 1
  • Kimmo Saarinen
    • 2
  1. 1.Finnish Environment Institute, Research Programme for BiodiversityHelsinkiFinland
  2. 2.South Karelia Allergy and Environment InstituteTiuruniemiFinland

Personalised recommendations