Advertisement

Journal of Insect Conservation

, Volume 15, Issue 1–2, pp 361–365 | Cite as

Status and conservation of Asclepiadaceae and Danaus in southern Spain

  • Juan Fernández Haeger
  • Diego Jordano
  • Mateo León Meléndez
Short Communication

Abstract

A 900 km2 coastal area in southern Spain was searched for both Danaus plexippus and D. chrysippus and their foodplants. A set of 63 single or mixed patches of Asclepias curassavica and Gomphocarpus fruticosus was detected and visited regularly from June 2008 to December 2009. Danaus plexippus was on the wing throughout our study period, but it was never detected in 21 patches while in 4 patches it was observed on more than 80% of our visits. Danaus chrysippus was on the wing only during summer and autumn of 2009 and it was never detected in 49 patches. The proportion of plant patches occupied by butterflies varies seasonally, increasing during summer and autumn. These results are discussed in relation to the origin, persistence and conservation of both species in Europe.

Keywords

Danaus plexippus Danaus chrysippus Gomphocarpus fruticosus Asclepias curassavica Spain Patchy distribution Conservation 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank to the “Fundación Migres” for providing financial support for this research. Charo Rivas and Carlos Camacho helped in searching for patches and counting plants and butterflies and their immature stages in the field. We wish to thank M. Zalucki for commenting on an earlier draft of the manuscript.

References

  1. Agrawal AA, Konno K (2009) Latex: a model for understanding mechanisms, ecology and evolution of plant defense against herbivory. Annu Rev Ecol Evol S 40:311–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agrawal AA, Lajeunesse MJ, Fishbein M (2008) Evolution of latex and its constituent defensive chemistry in milkweeds (Asclepias): a phylogenetic test of plant defense escalation. Entomol Exp Appl 128:126–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Asher J, Warren M, Fox R, Harding P, Jeffcoate G, Jeffcoate S (2001) The millennium atlas of butterflies in Britain and Ireland. Oxford Univ Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  4. Dana ED, Sanz M, Vivas S, Sobrino E (2005) Especies vegetales invasoras de Andalucía. Dirección General de la RENPA. C.M.A. Junta de AndalucíaGoogle Scholar
  5. Debinsky DM, Holt RD (2000) A survey and overview of habitat fragmentation experiments. Conserv Biol 14(2):255–342Google Scholar
  6. Dennis RLH, Shreeve TG, Van Dick H (2003) Towards a functional resource-based concept for habitat: a butterfly biology point of view. Oikos 102:417–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dover J, Settele J (2009) The influence of landscape structure on butterfly distribution and movement: a review. J Insect Conserv 13:3–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dover JW, Sparks TH, Greatorex-Davis JN (1997) The importance of shelter for butterflies in open landscapes. J Insect Conserv 1:89–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fernández-Haeger J (1758) La mariposa monarca Danaus plexippus (L. 1758) en el estrecho de Gibraltar (Lepidoptera: Danaidae). Shilap Rev Lepidopt 37(148):421–438Google Scholar
  10. Fernández-Haeger J (1999) Danaus chrysippus (Linnaeus, 1758) en la Península Ibérica: ¿migraciones o dinámica de metapoblaciones? (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae, Danainae). Shilap Rev Lepidopt 27(107):423–430Google Scholar
  11. Fernández-Vidal EH (2002) La Danaus plexippus (Linnaeus, 1758) en Galicia (España). Nuevos datos y noticias sobre la “Operación Monarca” (Lepidoptera: Danaidae). Bol S.E.A. 31:243–246Google Scholar
  12. Gil-T F (2006) A new hostplant for Danaus plexippus (Linnaeus, 1758) in Europe. A study of cryptic preimaginal polymorphism within Danaus chrysippus (Linnaeus, 1758) in southern Spain (Andalusia). Atalanta 37(1/2):143–149Google Scholar
  13. Granados Corona M, García Novo F (1983) Ensayo de control de la mata de la seda Gomphocarpus fruticosus (L.) en el Parque Nacional de Doñana. Bol Est Ecol 15(29):73–80Google Scholar
  14. Hanski I (1989) Metapopulation dynamics: does it help to have more on the same? Trends Ecol Evol 4:113–114CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Hanski I, Thomas CD (1994) Metapopulation dynamics and conservation: a spatially explicit model applied to butterflies. Biol Conserv 68:167–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Maravalhas E (2003) As borboletas de Portugal. Multipunto S.A, OportoGoogle Scholar
  17. Quer J (1762) Flora española, vol 3. Imprenta Joachim Ibarra, Madrid, pp 74–77Google Scholar
  18. Shreeve TG, Dennis RLH, Roy DB, Moss D (2001) An ecological classification of British butterflies: ecological attributes and biotope occupancy. J Insect Conserv 5:145–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Thomas CD (2000) Dispersal and extinction in fragmented landscapes. Proc R Soc Lond B 267:139–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Van der Heyden T (2009) Bemerkungen zur Biologie, zur Ökologie und Verbreitung von Danaus chrysippus Linnaeus, 1758 im Mittelmeerraum, insbesondere in der Türkey (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae, Danainae). Nachr Entomol Ver Apollo N.F. 30(3):173–176Google Scholar
  21. Vane-Wright RI (1993) The Columbus hypothesis: an explanation for the dramatic 19th century range expansion of the monarch butterfly. In: Malcolm SB, Zalucki MP (eds) Biology and conservation of the monarch butterfly. Natural History Museum, Los Angeles, pp 179–187Google Scholar
  22. Walker JJ (1886) Anosia plexippus L. (Danaus plexippus, F.) at Gibraltar. Entomologists Monthly Magazine, 23:162Google Scholar
  23. Walter GH, Zalucki MP (1999) Rare butterflies and theories of evolution and ecology. In: Kitching et al (eds) Biology of Australian butterflies. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, pp 349–368Google Scholar
  24. Wilcox BA, Murphy DD (1985) Conservation strategy: the effects of fragmentation on extinction. Am Nat 125(6):879–887CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wyatt R, Broyles SB (1994) Ecology and evolution of reproduction in milkweeds. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 25:423–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Zalucki MP, Rochester WA (1999) Estimating the effect of climate on the distribution and abundance of the monarch butterfly, Danaus plexippus (L.): a tale of two continents. In: Hoth J, Merino L, Oberhauser K, Pisanty I, Price S, Wilkinson T (eds) The 1997 North American conference on the Monarch butterfly. Commission for Environmental Cooperation, Montreal, pp 151–163Google Scholar
  27. Zalucki MP, Clarke AR (2004) Monarchs across the Pacific: the Columbus hypothesis revisited. Biol J Linn Soc 82:111–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Zalucki MP, Lammers JH (2010) Dispersal and egg shortfall in Monarch butterflies: what happens when the matrix is cleaned up? Ecol Entomol 35:84–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Juan Fernández Haeger
    • 1
  • Diego Jordano
    • 1
  • Mateo León Meléndez
    • 1
  1. 1.Área de EcologíaUniversidad de CórdobaCórdobaSpain

Personalised recommendations