Journal of Insect Conservation

, Volume 12, Issue 6, pp 603–615 | Cite as

Microhabitat use by larvae and females of a rare barrens butterfly, frosted elfin (Callophrys irus)

  • Gene Albanese
  • Peter D. Vickery
  • Paul R. Sievert
Original Paper

Abstract

The frosted elfin (Callophrys irus) is a localized and declining butterfly found in xeric open habitats maintained by disturbance. We described the effects of woody plant canopy cover, topography and host plant size and density on the quality of microhabitat of wild indigo (Baptisia tinctoria) host plants containing late instar frosted elfin larvae at four study sites in southeastern Massachusetts, United States. We also assessed whether females preferentially depositing eggs on host plants within specific microhabitats, therefore conferring greater survivorship to the larvae through the late-instar stage. We found that moderate amounts of canopy cover and large plant size characterized larvae-occupied host plants. In the absence of tree canopy cover, late instar larvae density remained low even when host plant density was high. However, females oviposited on wild indigo plants without regard to any of the vegetative or environmental variables we measured. These results indicate that canopy cover was an important characteristic of microhabitats containing late instar larvae, and late instar larvae occupancy was determined by suitable microhabitat conditions, and not female oviposition selection. Managing for canopy cover and microhabitat heterogeneity within relatively open habitats is recommended for the maintenance of frosted elfin populations.

Keywords

Frosted elfin Callophrys irus Baptisia tinctoria Oviposition preferences Canopy cover 

References

  1. Albanese G, Nelson MW, Vickery PD, Sievert PR (2007a) Larval feeding behavior and ant association in frosted elfin, Callophrys irus (Lycaenidae). J Lep Soc 61:61–66Google Scholar
  2. Albanese G, Vickery PD, Sievert PR (2007b) Habitat characteristics of adult frosted elfins (Callophrys irus) in sandplain communities of southeastern Massachusetts, USA. Biol Conserv 136:53–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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 aurnia colonies. J Insect Conserv 7:175–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baylis M, Pierce NE (1991) The effect of host-plant quality on the survival of larvae and oviposition by adults of an ant-tended lycaenid butterfly, Jalmenus evagoras. Ecol Entomol 16:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bergman KO (1999) Habitat utilization by Lopinga achine (Nymphalidae: Satyrinae) larvae and ovipositioning females: implications for conservation. Biol Conserv 88:69–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bourn NAD, Thomas JA (1993) The ecology and conservation of the brown argus butterfly Aricia agestis in Britain. Biol Conserv 63:67–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Braun-Blanquet J (1964) Pflanzensoziologie. Springer-Verlag Inc., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Breiman L, Friedman JH, Olsen RA, Stone CG (1984) Classification and regression trees. Wadsworth International Group, Belmont, CAGoogle Scholar
  9. Britten HB, Riley L (1994) Nectar source diversity as an indicator of habitat suitability for the endangered Uncompahgre fritillary, Boloria acrocnema (Nymphalidae). J Lep Soc 48:173–179Google Scholar
  10. Cates RG, Henderson CB, Redak RA (1987) Responses of the western spruce budworm to varying levels of nitrogen and terpenes. Oecologia 73:312–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Collinge SK, Prudic KL, Oliver JC (2003) Effects of local habitat characteristics and landscape context on grassland butterfly diversity. Conserv Biol 17:178–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cushman JH, Rashbrook VK, Beattie AJ (1994) Assessing benefits to participants in a lycaenid-ant association. Ecology 75:1031–1041CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Damman H, Feeny P (1988) Mechanisms and consequences of selective oviposition by the zebra swallowtail butterfly. Anim Behav 36:563–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. De’ath G, Fabricius KE (2000) Classification and regression trees: a powerful yet simple technique for ecological data analysis. Ecology 81:3178–3192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. Dobkin DS, Olivieri I, Ehrlich PR (1987) Rainfall and the interaction of microclimate with larval resources in the population dynamics of checkerspot butterflies (Euphydryas editha) inhabiting serpentine grassland. Oecologia 71:161–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ehrlich PR, Murphy DD, Singer MC, Sherwood CB, White RR, Brown IL (1980) Extinction, reduction, stability and increase: the response of the checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas) populations to the California drought. Oecologia 46:101–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI). (1999–2004). ArcGIS (9.0). ESRI, Redlands, CAGoogle Scholar
  20. Gilbert LE, Singer MC (1975) Butterfly ecology. Annu Rev Ecolog Syst 6:365–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Goldstein PZ (1999) Functional ecosystems and biodiversity buzzwords. Conserv Biol 13:247–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Grundel R, Pavlovic NB, Sulzman CL (1998a) The effect of canopy cover and seasonal change on host plant quality for the endangered Karner blue butterfly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis). Oecologia 114:243–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Grundel R, Pavlovic NB, Sulzman CL (1998b) Habitat use by the endangered Karner blue butterfly in oak woodlands: the influence of canopy cover. Biol Conserv 85:47–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Grundel R, Pavlovic NB, Sulzman CL (2000) Nectar plant selection by the Karner blue butterfly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis) at the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore. Am Midl Nat 144:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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
  26. Konvicka M, Hula V, Fric Z (2003) Habitat of the prehibernating larvae of the endangered butterfly Euphydryas aurina (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae): what can be learned from vegetation composition and architecture. Eur J Entomol 100:313–322Google Scholar
  27. Lane C (1999) Benefits of a heterogeneous habitat: oviposition preference and immature performance of Lycaeides melissa samuelis Nobakov (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae). Dissertation, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MNGoogle Scholar
  28. Lane CP, Andow DA (2003) Oak savanna subhabitat variation in the population biology of Lycaeides Melissa samuelis (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae). Ann Entom Soc Am 96:799–809CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Layberry RA, Hall PW, Lafontaine JD (1998) The butterflies of Canada. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, ONGoogle Scholar
  30. Lemmon PE (1956) A spherical densiometer for estimating forest overstory density. For Sci 2:314–320Google Scholar
  31. Mattson WJ (1980) Herbivory in relation to plant nitrogen content. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 11:119–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mohr CO (1947) Table of equivalent populations of North American mammals. Am Midl Nat 37:223–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Murphy DD, Freas KE, Weis SB (1990) An environment-metapopulation approach to population viability analysis for a threatened invertebrate. Conserv Biol 4:41–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. NatureServe (2006) NatureServe Explorer: an online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 4.6. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Cited 15 March 2006
  35. New TR (2007) Understanding the requirements of the insects we seek to conserve. J Insect Conserv 11:95–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ohsaki N, Sato Y (1994) Food plant choice of Pieris butterflies as a trade-off between parasitoid avoidance and quality of plants. Ecology 75:59–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Opler PA, Pavulaan H, Stanford RE (1995) Butterflies of North America. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center home page, Jamestown, ND. http://www.npwrc. usgs.gov/ resource/distr/lepid/bflyusa/bflyusa.htm. Cited 15 April 2006
  38. Opler PA (1998) A field guide to eastern butterflies. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MAGoogle Scholar
  39. Packer L (1998) Status report on the frosted elfin butterfly (Incisalia irus, Godart) in Canada. Department of Biology, York University, Toronto, ONGoogle Scholar
  40. Pierce NE, Braby MF, Heath A, Lohman DJ, Mathew J, Rand DB, Travassos MA (2002) The ecology and evolution of ant association in the Lycaenidae (Lepidoptera). Annu Rev Entomol 47:733–771PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pollard E (1988) Temperature, rainfall and butterfly numbers. J Appl Ecol 25:819–828CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Quinn RM, Gaston KJ, Roy DB (1988) Coincidence in the distributions of butterflies and their foodplants. Ecography 21:279–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rausher MD (1979) Larval habitat suitability and oviposition preference in three related butterflies. Ecology 60:503–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rausher MD (1981) Host plant selection by Battus philenor butterflies: the roles of predation, nutrition and plant chemistry. Ecol Monogr 51:1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rausher MD, Papaj DR (1983) Demographic consequences of discrimination among conspecific host plants by Battus philenor butterflies. Ecology 64:1402–1410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ravenscroft NOM (1994a) The ecology of the chequered skipper butterfly Carterocephalus palaemon in Scotland. I. Microhabitat. J Appl Ecol 31:613–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ravenscroft NOM (1994b) The ecology of the chequered skipper butterfly Carterocephalus palaemon in Scotland II. Foodplant quality and population range. J Appl Ecol 31:623–630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. R Development Core Team (2004) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  49. Sato Y, Ohsaki N (1987) Host-habitat location by Apanteles glomeratus and the effect of food-plant exposure on host-parasitism. Ecol Entomol 12:291–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Scott JA (1986) The butterflies of North America, a natural history and field guide. Stanford University Press. Stanford, CAGoogle Scholar
  51. Scriber JM, Slansky F Jr (1981) The nutritional ecology of immature insects. Annu Rev Entomol 26:183–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Shreeve TG (1986) Habitat selection, mate location, and microclimatic constraints on the activity of the speckled wood butterfly Pararge aegeria. Oikos 42:371–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Simpson SL, Simpson CL (1990) The mechanisms of nutritional compensation by phytophagous insects. In: EA Bernays (ed), Insect-plant interactions. CRC Press, Cleveland, OH, pp 111–160Google Scholar
  54. Singer MC (1972) Complex components of habitat suitability within a butterfly colony. Science 176:75–77PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Slansky F Jr, Scriber JM (1985) Food consumption and utilization. In: Kerkut GA, Gilbert LJ (eds) Comprehensive insect physiology, biochemistry and pharmacology IV. Pergamon Press, Oxford, UK, pp 87–163Google Scholar
  56. Slansky F Jr (1993) Nutritional ecology: the fundamental quest for nutrients. In: Stamp NE, Casey TM (eds) Caterpillars: ecological and evolutionary constraints on foraging. Chapman & Hall, New York, NY, pp 29–91Google Scholar
  57. Smallidge PJ, Leopold DJ, Allen CM (1996) Community characteristics and vegetation management of Karner Blue Butterfly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis) on rights-of-way in east-central New York, USA. J Appl Ecol 33:1405–1419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Statistical Analysis System (SAS) (2003) Release 9.1 edn. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NCGoogle Scholar
  59. Swain PC, Kearsley JB (2001) Classification of the natural communities of Massachusetts. Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program, Massachusetts, Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, Westborough, MAGoogle Scholar
  60. Swengel AB (1995) Observations of spring larvae of Lycaeides melissa samuelis (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) in central Wisconsin. Gt. Lakes Entomol 28:155–170Google Scholar
  61. Taylor MFJ (1988) Field measurements of the dependence of life history on plant nitrogen and temperature for a herbivorous moth. J Anim Ecol 57:873–891CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Thomas JA (1984) The behavior 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
  63. Thompson JN (1988) Evolutionary ecology of the relationship between oviposition preference and performance of offspring of phytophagous insects. Entomol Exp Appl 47:3–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wagner D, Kurina L (1997) The influence of ants and water availability on oviposition behavior and survivorship of a facultatively ant-tended herbivore. Ecol Entomol 22:352–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wagner DL, Nelson NW, Schweitzer DF (2003) Shrubland Lepidoptera of southern New England and southeastern New York: ecology, conservation, and management. For Ecol Manag 185:95–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Warren MS (1987) The ecology and conservation of the heath fritillary, Mellicta athalia III. Population dynamics and the effect of habitat management. J Appl Ecol 24:499–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Weiss SB, Murphy DD, White RR (1988) Sun, slope, and butterflies; topographic determinants of habitat quality for Euphydryas editha. Ecology 69:1486–1496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wiklund C (1977) Oviposition, feeding and spatial separation of breeding and foraging habitats in a population of Leptidea sinapis (Lepidoptera). Oikos 28:56–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Wiklund C (1984) Egg-laying patterns in butterflies in relation to their phenology and the visual apparency and abundance of their host plant. Oecologia 63:23–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Zangerl AR, Berenbaum MR (1992) Oviposition patterns and host plant suitability: parsnip webworms and wild parsnip. Am Midl Nat 128:292–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gene Albanese
    • 1
  • Peter D. Vickery
    • 2
  • Paul R. Sievert
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Natural Resource Ecology and Management, 404 LSW, Fish & Wildlife UnitOklahoma State UniversityStillwaterUSA
  2. 2.Center for Ecological ResearchRichmondUSA
  3. 3.U.S. Geological Survey, Massachusetts Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Department of Natural Resources ConservationUniversity of Massachusetts at AmherstAmherstUSA

Personalised recommendations