Advertisement

Journal of Insect Conservation

, Volume 14, Issue 4, pp 379–388 | Cite as

Functional habitat area as a reliable proxy for population size: case study using two butterfly species of conservation concern

  • Camille TurlureEmail author
  • Julie Choutt
  • Hans Van Dyck
  • Michel Baguette
  • Nicolas Schtickzelle
Original Paper

Abstract

Accurate estimates of population size are essential for effective conservation and restoration management of threatened species. Nevertheless, reliable methods to estimate population size, such as mark-release-recapture studies (MRR), are time and labour consuming and may generate negative impact(s) on both the habitats and organisms studied. This may complicate their use if several sites need to be studied concurrently. Consequently, there is a strong interest to develop reliable proxies of population size, e.g., to be used in Population Viability Analysis. Habitat area has often been used as an obvious proxy. For butterflies, many studies focused on the area of host plant patches, but resource-based definition of the habitat (i.e., the area containing the different ecological resources and conditions needed by the individuals) has recently gained much attention. Using two peat bog butterflies, we tested the reliability of these two measures of habitat area as proxies for population size by (1) predicting population sizes based on the product of larval habitat area by the number of emerged butterflies per spatial unit of habitat (eliminated by ground cover traps) and (2) comparing these predictions to accurate population size estimates inferred from MRR studies. Results on both species showed that: (1) adult population size was strongly related to larval habitat availability and quality when habitat was accurately defined according to functional resources, (2) resources other than the host plant have to be included in the habitat definition, (3) after careful control of its similarity, the resource-based habitat delineation can be reasonably well transferred among populations of the same species in a wider region.

Keywords

Boloria aquilonaris Ground cover traps Mark-release-recapture Population viability analysis Proclossiana eunomia Resource-based habitat 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Philippe Goffart and Michel Pirnay for their valuable help with field work. C. T. was supported by a Ph.D. grant of the FRIA-fund. J. C. is teaching assistant at the UCL. N. S. is Research Associate of the F.R.S.-FNRS. Site access and a permission to study the species in the field and in the laboratory were granted by the Ministère de la Région Wallonne. This is publication BRC162 of the Biodiversity Research Centre at UCL.

References

  1. Baguette M (2003) Long distance dispersal and landscape occupancy in a metapopulation of the cranberry fritillary butterfly. Ecography 26:153–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baguette M, Nève G (1994) Adult movements between populations in the specialist butterfly Proclossiana eunomia (Lepidoptera, Nymphalidae). Ecol Entomol 19:1–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Begon M, Townsend CR, Harper JL (2006) Ecology, from individuals to ecosystems. Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MAGoogle Scholar
  4. Belovsky GE, Mellison C, Larson C, Van Zandt PA (1999) Experimental studies of extinction dynamics. Science 286:1175–1177CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bink FA (1992) Ecologische atlas van de dagvlinders van Noordwest-Europa. Schuyt & Co, HaarlemGoogle Scholar
  6. Binzenhofer B, Schroder B, Strauss B, Biedermann R, Settele J (2005) Habitat models and habitat connectivity analysis for butterflies and burnet moths—the example of Zygaena carniolica and Coenonympha arcania. Biol Conserv 126:247–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boyce MS, MacDonald LL (1999) Relating populations to habitats using resource selection functions. Trends Ecol Evol 14:268–272CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Callaham MA Jr, Whiles MR, Meyer CK, Brock BL, Charlton RE (2000) Feeding ecology and emergence production of annual cicadas (Homoptera: Cicadidae) in tallgrass prairie. Oecologia 123:535–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cançado PHD, Piranda EM, Mourão GM, Faccini JLH (2008) Spatial distribution and impact of cattle-raising on ticks in the Pantanal region of Brazil by using the CO2 tick trap. Parasitol Res 103:371–377CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Collier N, MacCay DA, Bekendorff K, Austin AD, Carthew SM (2006) Butterfly communities in South Australian urban reserves: estimating abundance and diversity using Pollard walk. Austral Ecology 31:282–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Collier N, MacCay DA, Bekendorff K (2008) Is relative abundance a good estimator of population size? Evidence from fragmented populations of a specialist butterfly (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae). Pop Ecol 50:17–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Coulson T, Mace GM, Hudson E, Possingham H (2001) The use and abuse of population viability analysis. Trends Ecol Evol 16:219–221CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Dennis RLH (2004) Just how important are structural elements as habitat components? Indications from a declining lycaenid butterfly with priority conservation status. J Insect Conserv 8:37–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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
  15. Dennis RLH, Shreeve TG, Van Dyck H (2006a) Habitats and resources: the need for a resource-based definition to conserve butterflies. Biodivers Conserv 15:1943–1966CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dennis RLH, Shreeve TG, Isaac NJB, Roy DB, Hardy PB, Fox R, Asher J (2006b) The effects of visual apparency on bias in butterfly recording and monitoring. Biol Conserv 128:486–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fahrig L (2001) How much habitat is enough. Biol Conserv 100:65–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fichefet V, Barbier Y, Baugnée J-Y, Dufrêne M, Goffart P, Maes D, Van Dyck H (2008) Papillons de jour de Wallonie (1985–2007). Publication du Groupe de Travail Papillons de jour Lycaena et du Centre de Recherche de la Nature, des Forêts et du Bois (MRW-DGRNE), GemblouxGoogle Scholar
  19. Fischer K, Beinlich B, Plachter H (1999) Population structure, mobility and habitat preferences of the Violet Copper Lycaena helle (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) in Western Germany: implications for conservation. J Insect Conserv 3:43–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fischer DO, Blomberg SP, Owens IPF (2003) Extrinsic cersus intrinsic factors in the decline and extinction of Australian marsupials. Proc R Soc Lond (B) 270:1801–1808CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gall LF (1984) The effect of capturing and marking on subsequent activity in Boloria acrocnema (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae), with a comparison of different numerical models that estimate population size. Biol Conserv 28:139–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Garshelis DV (2000) Delusions in habitat evaluation: measuring use, selection and importance. In: Boitani L, Fuller TK (eds) Research techniques in animal ecology. Controversies and consequences. Columbia University Press, New York, pp 111–164Google Scholar
  23. Goffart P, Baguette M, Dufrêne M, Mousson L, Nève G, Sawchik J, Weiserbs A, Lebrun P (2001) Gestion des milieux semi-naturels et restauration de populations menacées de papillons de jourGoogle Scholar
  24. Goffart P, Schtickzelle N, Turlure C (2010) Conservation and management of the habitats of two relict butterflies in the Belgian Ardenne: Proclossiana eunomia & Lycaena helle. Relict species: phylogeography and conservation biology. Springer-Verlag, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  25. Gross K, Kalendra EJ, Hudgens BR, Haddad NM (2007) Robustness and uncertainty in estimates of butterfly abundance from transects counts. Pop Ecol 49:191–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Haddad NM, Hudgens BR, Damiani C, Gross K, Kuefler D (2007) Determining optimal population monitoring for rare butterflies. Conserv Biol 22:929–940CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Harker R, Shreeve T (2008) How accurate are single site transect data for monitoring butterfly trends? Spatial and temporal issues identified in monitoring Lasiommata megera. J Insect Conserv 12:125–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jones KE, Purvis A, Gittleman JL (2003) Biological correlates of extinction risk in bats. Am Nat 161:601–614CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Joseph LN, Field SA, Wilcox C, Possingham HP (2006) Presence-absence versus abundance data for monitoring threatened species. Conserv Biol 20:1679–1687CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Kery M, Schmid H (2004) Monitoring programs need to take into account imperfect species detectability. Basic Appl Ecol 5:65–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kitahara M (2004) Butterfly community composition and conservation in and around a primary woodland of Mount Fuji, central Japan. Biodivers Conserv 13:917–932CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lewington R, Levins R (1989) On the characterisation of density and resource availability. Am Nat 134:513–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Murphy DD (1988) Are we studying our endangered butterflies to death? Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera 26:236–239Google Scholar
  34. Nowicki P, Settele J, Henry P-Y, Woyciechowski M (2008) Butterfly monitoring methods: the ideal and the real world. Israel J Ecol Evol 54:69–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. O’Grady JJ, Reed DH, Brook BW, Frankham R (2004) What are the best correlates of predicted extinction risk? Biol Conserv 118:513–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pollard E (1977) A method for assessing changes in the abundance of butterflies. Biol Conserv 12:115–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pollard E (1988) Temperature, rainfall and butterfly numbers. J Appl Ecol 25:819–828CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pollard E, Yates TJ (1993) Monitoring butterflies for ecology and conservation. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  39. Randin CF, Dirnböck T, Dullinger S, Zimmerman NE, Zappa M, Guisan A (2006) Are niche-based species distribution models transferable in space? J Biogeogr 33:1689–1703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sawchik J, Dufrêne M, Lebrun P, Schtickzelle N, Baguette M (2002) Metapopulation dynamics of the bog fritillary butterfly: modelling the effect of habitat fragmentation. Acta Oecologica 23:287–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schtickzelle N, Baguette M (2004) Metapopulation viability analysis of the bog fritillary butterfly using RAMAS/GIS. Oikos 104:277–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schtickzelle N, Baguette M (2009) (Meta) population viability analysis: a crystal ball for the conservation of endangered butterflies? In: Settele J, Shreeve TG, Konvicka M, Van Dyck H (eds) Ecology of butterflies in Europe. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  43. Schtickzelle N, Le Boulengé E, Baguette M (2002) Metapopulation dynamics of the bog fritillary butterfly: demographic processes in a patchy population. Oikos 97:349–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schtickzelle N, WallisDeVries MF, Baguette M (2005) Using surrogate data in population viability analysis: the case of the critically endangered cranberry fritillary butterfly. Oikos 109:89–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schtickzelle N, Turlure C, Baguette M (2007) Grazing management impacts on the viability of the threatened bog fritillary butterfly: Proclossiana eunomia. Biol Conserv 136:651–660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schultz CB (1998) Dispersal behavior and its implications for reserve design in a rare oregon butterfly. Conserv Biol 12:284–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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 17:1372–1385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Service MW (1993) Mosquito ecology. Field sampling methods. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  49. Shaw MR, Stefanescu C, van Nouhuys S (2009) Parasitism of European butterflies (Hesperioidea and Papilionoidea). In: Settele J, Shreeve TG, Konvicka M, Van Dyck H (eds) Ecology of butterflies in Europe. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  50. Singer MC (1972) Complex components of habitat suitability within a butterfly colony. Science 176:75–77CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Singer MC, Wedlake P (1981) Capture does affect probability of recapture in a butterfly species. Ecol Entomol 6:215–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sjögren-Gulve P, Hanski I (2000) Metapopulation viability analysis using occupancy models. Ecological Bulletins 48:53–71Google Scholar
  53. Soberon MJ (1986) The relationship between use and suitability of resources and its consequences to insect population size. Am Nat 127:338–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sutherland WJ (1996) Ecological census techniques, a handbook. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  55. Thomas JA (1983) A quick method of assessing butterfly numbers during survey. Biol Conserv 27:195–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Thomas JA (2005) Monitoring change in the abundance and distribution of insects using butterflies and other indicator groups. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 360:339–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Turlure C, Van Dyck H, Schtickzelle N, Baguette M (2009) Resource-based definition of the habitat, niche overlap and conservation of two glacial relict butterflies. Oikos 118:950–960CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Turlure C, Choutt J, Baguette M, Van Dyck H (2010) Microclimate buffering and resource-based habitat of a relict butterfly species: significance for conservation under climate change. Global Change Biology (in press)Google Scholar
  59. Van Dyke F (2008) The conservation of populations: concept, theory and analysis. In: Van Dyke F (ed) Conservation biology. Foundations, concepts, applications. Springer, New York, pp 213–242Google Scholar
  60. van Swaay C, Warren M (2006) Prime butterfly areas of Europe: An initial selection of priority sites for conservation. J Insect Conserv 10:5–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Vanreusel W, Van Dyck H (2007) When functional habitat does not match vegetation types: a resource-based approach to map butterfly habitat. Biol Conserv 135:202–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Vanreusel W, Maes D, Van Dyck H (2007) Transferability of species distribution models: a functional habitat approach for two regionally threatened butterflies. Conserv Biol 21:201–212CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. White GC (2000) Population viability analysis: data requirements and essential analysis. In: Boitani L, Fuller TK (eds) Research techniques in animal ecology. Controversies and consequences. Columbia University Press, New York, pp 288–331Google Scholar
  64. White GC, Burnham KP (1999) Program MARK: survival estimation from populations of marked animals. Bird Study 46(Suppl):S120–S139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Williams BK, Nichols JD, Conroy MJ (2002) Analysis and management of animal populations: modelling, estimation and decision making. Academic press, San Diego, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  66. Zonneveld C, Longcore T, Mulder C (2003) Optimal schemes to detect the presence of insect species. Conserv Biol 17:476–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Camille Turlure
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Julie Choutt
    • 1
  • Hans Van Dyck
    • 1
  • Michel Baguette
    • 2
  • Nicolas Schtickzelle
    • 1
  1. 1.Biodiversity Research CentreUniversité catholique de LouvainLouvain-la-NeuveBelgium
  2. 2.Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle (MNHN), Département Ecologie et Gestion de la BiodiversitéCNRS UMR MNHN 7179 MAOACBrunoyFrance

Personalised recommendations