Advertisement

Journal of Insect Conservation

, Volume 18, Issue 1, pp 111–120 | Cite as

Coastal heathland succession influences butterfly community composition and threatens endangered butterfly species

  • Jens Schirmel
  • Thomas Fartmann
ORIGINAL PAPER

Abstract

Succession has a strong influence on species diversity and composition of semi-natural open terrestrial ecosystems. While several studies examined the effects of succession on butterflies in grassland and forest ecosystems, the response of heathland butterflies to succession had not been investigated so far. To address this issue we sampled butterfly abundance and environmental parameters on the Baltic island of Hiddensee (NE Germany) along a gradient of coastal heathland succession from grey dunes to birch forest. Our results provide evidence that succession of coastal heathland has a strong influence on butterfly diversity, abundance, and species composition. Thereby grass and tree encroachment present the main threats for heathland butterflies. Diversity and abundance of butterflies were highest in shrub-encroached heath directly followed by early stages of coastal heathland succession (dwarf-shrub heath, grey dune). Both observed threatened species (Hipparchia semele, Plebeius argus) were negatively affected by succession: abundance decreased with increasing vegetation density (both species) and grass cover (P. argus); consequently, the two later successional stages (shrub, birch forest) were not occupied. Our findings highlight the importance of the preservation of early stages of coastal heathland succession for endangered butterfly species. For coastal heathland management we therefore suggest to maintain early successional stages by sheep grazing, mowing or, in case of high nutrient contents, intensive techniques such as sod-cutting or choppering. To a lower extend shrub-encroached sites should also be present, which might be beneficial for overall species richness.

Keywords

Calluna vulgaris Grass encroachment Hipparchia semele Land-use change Plebeius argus Vegetation structure 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Jasmin Mantilla-Contreras for help with the field work and the national park ‘Vorpommersche Boddenlandschaft’ for the permission to conduct the study in the protected area. The study was partly funded by the ‘Bauer-Hollmann-Stiftung’. Moreover, we a grateful to two anonymous referees for valuable comments on an earlier version of the manuscript.

References

  1. Asher J, Warren M, Fox R, Harding P, Jeffcoate G, Jeffcoate S (2001) The millennium atlas of butterflies in Britain and Ireland. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  2. 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
  3. Baur B, Cremene C, Groza G, Rakosy L, Schileyko AA, Baur A, Stoll P, Erhardt A (2006) Effects of abandonment of subalpine hay meadows on plant and invertebrate diversity in Transylvania, Romania. Biol Conserv 132:261–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Borchard F, Schulte AM, Fartmann T (2013) Rapid response of Orthoptera to restoration of montane heathland. Biodivers Conserv 22:687–700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bräu M, Bolz R, Kolbeck H, Nummer A, Voith J, Wolf W (2013) Tagfalter in Bayern. Ulmer, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  6. Britton AJ, Pakeman RJ, Carey PD, Marrs RH (2001) Impacts of climate, management and nitrogen deposition on the dynamics of lowland heathland. J Veg Sci 12:797–806CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Buchholz S, Hannig K, Schirmel J (2013) Losing uniqueness—shifts in carabid species composition during dry grassland and heathland succession. Anim Conserv 16:661–670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dennis RLH (2010) A resource-based habitat view for conservation. Butterflies in the British landscape. Wiley, ChichesterCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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
  10. Ebert G, Rennwald E (eds) (1991a) Die Schmetterlinge Baden-Württembergs. Vol 1, Tagfalter I. Eugen Ulmer, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  11. Ebert G, Rennwald E (eds) (1991b) Die Schmetterlinge Baden-Württembergs. Vol 2, Tagfalter II. Eugen Ulmer, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  12. EC (European Commission) (2007) Interpretation manual of European Union habitats—EUR27. European Commission, DG Environment, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  13. Fartmann T, Krämer B, Stelzner F, Poniatowski D (2012) Orthoptera as ecological indicators for succession in steppe grassland. Ecol Indic 20:337–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fartmann T, Müller C, Poniatowski D (2013) Effects of coppicing on butterfly communities of woodlands. Biol Conserv 159:396–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. García-Barros E, Fartmann T (2009) Butterfly oviposition: sites, behaviour and modes. In: Settele J, Shreeve T, Konvička M, Van Dyck H (eds) Ecology of butterflies in Europe. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 29–42Google Scholar
  16. Gimingham CH (1992) The lowland heathland management handbook. English Nature Science, PeterboroughGoogle Scholar
  17. Greatorex-Davies JN, Sparks TH, Hall ML, Marrs RH (1993) The influence of shade on butterflies in rides of coniferised lowland woods in southern England and implications for conservation management. Biol Conserv 63:31–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Heil GW, Diemont WH (1983) Raised nutrient levels change heathland into grassland. Vegetatio 53:113–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Karsholt O, Razowski W (1996) The Lepidoptera of Europe: a distributional checklist. Apollo Books, StentrupGoogle Scholar
  20. Krämer B, Poniatowski D, Fartmann T (2012) Effects of landscape and habitat quality on butterfly communities in pre-alpine calcareous grasslands. Biol Conserv 152:253–261Google Scholar
  21. Kruess A, Tscharntke T (2002) Grazing intensity and the diversity of grasshoppers, butterflies, and trap-nesting bees and wasps. Conserv Biol 16:1570–1580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Leopold P (2007) Larvalökologie der Rostbinde Hipparchia semele (Linnaeus, 1758; Lepidoptera, Satyrinae) in Nordrhein-Westfalen. Die Notwendigkeit raumzeitlicher Störungsprozesse für den Arterhalt. Abh Westf Mus Naturkde 69:1–146Google Scholar
  23. Littlewood NA, Pakeman RA, Woodin SJ (2006) The response of plant and insect assemblages to the loss of Calluna vulgaris from upland vegetation. Biol Conserv 128:335–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Maes D, Bonte D (2006) Using distribution patterns of five threatened invertebrates in a highly fragmented dune landscape to develop a multispecies conservation approach. Biol Conserv 133:490–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Maes D, Ghesquiere A, Logie M, Bonte D (2006) Habitat use and mobility of two threatened coastal dune insects: implications for conservation. J Insect Conserv 10:105–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Magurran AE (2004) Measuring biological diversity. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  27. Mantilla-Contreras J, Schirmel J, Zerbe S (2012) Influence of soil and microclimate on species composition and grass encroachment in heath succession. J Plant Ecol 5:249–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Marini L, Fontana P, Battisti A, Gaston KJ (2009) Response of orthopteran diversity to abandonment of semi-natural meadows. Agric Ecosyst Environ 132:232–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McCune B, Grace JB (2002) Analysis of ecological communities. MjM Software Design, Gleneden BeachGoogle Scholar
  30. Mecklenburg-Vorpommern U (ed) (2003) Die Naturschutzgebiete in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. Demmler, SchwerinGoogle Scholar
  31. Munguira ML, García-Barros E, Martín Cano J (2009) Butterfly herbivory and larval ecology. In: Settele J, Shreeve T, Konvička M, Van Dyck H (eds) Ecology of butterflies in Europe. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 43–54Google Scholar
  32. Öckinger E, Eriksson AK, Smith HG (2006) Effects of grassland abandonment, restoration and management on butterflies and vascular plants. Biol Conserv 133:291–300Google Scholar
  33. Pollard E (1977) Method for assessing changes in abundance of butterflies. Biol Conserv 12:15–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pollard E, Yates TJ (1993) Monitoring butterflies for ecology and conservation. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  35. Provoost S, Jones MLM, Edmondson SE (2009) Changes in landscape and vegetation of coastal dunes in northwest Europe: a review. J Coast Conserv 15:207–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ravenscroft NOM (1990) The ecology and conservation of the silver-studded blue butterfly Plebejus argus L. on the sandlings of East Anglia, England. Biol Conserv 53:21–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. R Development Core Team (2011) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  38. Reinhardt R, Bolz R (2011) Rote Liste und Gesamtartenliste der Tagfalter (Rhopalocera) (Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea et Hesperioidea) Deutschlands. Natursch Biol Vielfalt 70(3):167–194Google Scholar
  39. Remke E, Brouwer E, Kooijman A, Blindow I, Esselink H, Roelofs JGM (2009a) Even low to medium nitrogen deposition impacts vegetation of dry, coastal dunes around the Baltic Sea. Environ Pollut 157:792–800PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Remke E, Brouwer E, Kooijman A, Blindow I, Roelofs JGM (2009b) Low atmospheric nitrogen loads lead to grass encroachment in coastal dunes, but only on acid soils. Ecosystems 12:1173–1188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Roem WJ, Klees H, Berendse F (2002) Effects of nutrient addition and acidification on plant species diversity and seed germination in heathland. J Appl Ecol 39:937–948CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rose RJ, Webb NR, Clarke RT, Traynor CH (2000) Changes on the heathlands in Dorset, England, between 1987 and 1996. Biol Conserv 93:117–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Salz A, Fartmann T (2009) Coastal dunes as important strongholds for the survival of the rare Niobe fritillary (Argynnis niobe). J Insect Conserv 13:643–654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schirmel J, Buchholz S (2011) Response of carabid beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) and spiders (Araneae) to coastal heathland succession. Biodivers Conserv 20:1469–1482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schirmel J, Mantilla-Contreras J, Blindow I, Fartmann T (2011) Impacts of succession and grass encroachment on heathland Orthoptera. J Insect Conserv 15:633–642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Settele J, Steiner R, Reinhardt R, Feldmann R (2005) Schmetterlinge: die Tagfalter Deutschlands. Ulmer, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  47. Skórka P, Settele J, Woyciechowski M (2007) Effects of management cessation on grassland butterflies in southern Poland. Agric Ecosyst Environ 121:319–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sparks TH, Greatorex-Davies JN, Mountford JO, Hall ML, Marrs RH (1996) The effects of shade on the plant communities of rides in plantation woodland and implications for butterfly conservation. For Ecol Manag 80:197–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sundermeier A (1998) Methoden zur Analyse der Vegetationsstruktur. In: Traxler A (ed) Handbuch des vegetationsökologischen Monitorings. Teil A: Methoden. Umweltbundesamt, Wien, pp 123–158Google Scholar
  50. Tews J, Brose U, Grimm V, Tielbörger K, Wichmann MC, Schwager M, Jeltsch F (2004) Animal species diversity driven by habitat heterogeneity/diversity: the importance of keystone structures. J Biogeogr 31:79–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Thomas CD (1985) The status and conservation of the butterfly Plebejus argus L. (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) in North West Britain. Biol Conserv 33:29–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Venables WN, Ripley BD (2002) Modern applied statistics with S, 4th edn. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. WallisDeVries MF, Raemakers I (2001) Does extensive grazing benefit butterflies in coastal dunes? Restor Ecol 9:179–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. WallisDeVries MF, Van Swaay C (2006) Global warming and excess nitrogen may induce butterfly decline by microclimatic cooling. Glob Chang Biol 12:1620–1626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. WallisDeVries MF, Van Swaay CAM, Plate CL (2012) Changes in nectar supply: a possible cause of widespread butterfly decline. Curr Zool 58:384–391Google Scholar
  56. Warren MS (1985) The influence of shade on butterfly numbers in woodland rides, with special reference to the wood white Leptidea sinapis. Biol Conserv 33:147–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Webb NR (1998) The traditional management of European heathlands. J Appl Ecol 35:987–990CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wheeler B (2010) lmPerm: permutation tests for linear models. R package version 1.1-2. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lmPerm
  59. Wünsch Y, Schirmel J, Fartmann T (2012) Conservation management of coastal dunes for Orthoptera has to consider oviposition and nymphal preferences. J Insect Conserv 16:501–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Zuur AF, Ieno IN, Walker NJ, Saveliev AA, Smith GM (2009) Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Elphick CS (2010) A protocol for data exploration to avoid common statistical problems. Methods Ecol Evol 1:3–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Biological Station of HiddenseeUniversity of GreifswaldIsle of HiddenseeGermany
  2. 2.Institute for Environmental SciencesUniversity of Koblenz-LandauLandauGermany
  3. 3.Department of Community Ecology, Institute of Landscape EcologyUniversity of MünsterMünsterGermany
  4. 4.Ecology Group, Department of Biology and ChemistryUniversity of OsnabrückOsnabrückGermany

Personalised recommendations