Advertisement

Journal of Insect Conservation

, Volume 19, Issue 4, pp 753–763 | Cite as

Population ecology of a California endemic: Speyeria adiaste clemencei

  • Khuram Zaman
  • Chris Tenney
  • Cassidi E. Rush
  • Ryan I. HillEmail author
ORIGINAL PAPER

Abstract

Effective management and recovery of threatened insect populations requires detailed ecological information. Here we combine count and mark recapture (MR) data to shed light on an understudied declining endemic butterfly species in California’s Southern Coast Ranges, Speyeria adiaste. Little is known about the number, size, and dynamics of S. adiaste populations, leaving few data on which to base conservation decisions. Our goal in this study was therefore to provide increased understanding of the population ecology of this species by studying a long-standing S. adiaste clemencei population. Our 2-year MR estimates were highly correlated with Pollard walk counts, and we observed declining population sizes from 2011 to 2014. Adult movements were well-described by a negative exponential function, indicating low probability of dispersal >5 km (probability < 1.8 × 10−7 for both sexes). Males had shorter lifespans than females. Coupled with lack of diapause in this species, the short life span and limited dispersal observed here indicate that S. adiaste clemencei does not have a strong capacity for re-colonization. Population declines in S. adiaste may lead to local extinctions, and together with low dispersal, may diminish connectivity among the apparently small and isolated remaining populations. Further research into the role of adult and larval resources for determining adult abundance, coupled with continued long-term monitoring is necessary in order to understand population dynamics in this declining endemic species.

Keywords

Demography Viola purpurea Nymphalidae Mark-recapture 

Notes

Acknowledgments

For financial support we thank the Monterey Audubon Society, and the Pacific Fund and Eberhardt Fellowship from the University of the Pacific. Thank you to K. Kuska, E. Kristiansen, and A. Barnett for help with fieldwork, and to G. Jongeward, M. Brunell and two anonymous reviewers for comments on the manuscript. This paper is dedicated to the memory of May Gong-Tenney, whose life-long interest in and love of the natural world knew no bounds.

Supplementary material

10841_2015_9797_MOESM1_ESM.docx (225 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 413 kb)

References

  1. Baguette M, Schtickzelle N (2003) Local populations dynamics are important to the conservation of metapopulations in highly fragmented landscapes. J Appl Ecol 40:404–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boggs CL (1986) Reproductive strategies of female butterflies: variation in and constraints on fecundity. Ecol Entomol 11:7–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boggs CL (1987) Within population variation in the demography of Speyeria mormonia (Lepidoptera: Nymphadlidae). Holarct Ecol 10:175–184Google Scholar
  4. Boggs CL (1988) Rates of nectar feeding in butterflies: effects of sex, age, and nectar concentraton. Funct Ecol 2:289–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boggs CL (1997) Reproductive allocation from reserves and income in butterfly species with differing adult diets. Ecology 78:181–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bouseman JK, Sternburg JG (2001) Field guide to butterflies of Illinois. Illinois Natural History Survey, ChampaignGoogle Scholar
  7. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodal inference: a practical information-theoretic approach, 2nd edn. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Cronin JT (2003) Movement and spatial population structure of a prairie planthopper. Ecology 84:1179–1188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dasmahapatra KK, Elias M, Hill RI, Hoffman JI, Mallet J (2010) Mitochondrial DNA barcoding detects some species that are real, and some that are not. Mol Ecol Resour 10:264–273CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Fisher RA (1915) Frequency distribution of the values of the correlation coefficient in samples from an indefinitely large population. Biometrika 10:507–521Google Scholar
  11. Franzen M, Nilsson SG (2007) What is the required minimum landscape size for dispersal studies? J Anim Ecol 76:1224–1230CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Fric Z, Konvička M (2000) Adult population structure and behavior of two seasonal generations of the European Map butterfly, Araschnia levana, species with seasonal polyphenism (Nymphalidae). Nota Lepidopterol 23:2–25Google Scholar
  13. Gardmark A, Enberg K, Ripa J, Laakso J, Kaitala V (2003) The ecology of recovery. Ann Zool Fenn 40:131–144Google Scholar
  14. Glassberg J (2001) Butterflies through binoculars: the west. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  15. Gustafson EJ, Gardner RH (1996) The effect of landscape heterogeneity on the probability of patch colonization. Ecology 77:94–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Haddad NM, Hudgens B, Damiani C, Gross K, Kuefler D, Pollock KEN (2008) Determining optimal population monitoring for rare butterflies. Conserv Biol 22:929–940CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Hanski I (1985) Single-species spatial dynamics may contribute to long-term rarity and commonness. Ecology 66:335–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hanski I (1997) Metapopulation dynamics: from concepts and observations to predictive models. In: Hanski I, Gilpin ME (eds) Metapopulation biology. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 69–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hanski I, Simberloff DS (1997) The metapopulation approach, its history, conceptual domain, and application to conservation. In: Hanski I, Gilpin ME (eds) Metapopulation biology: ecology, genetics and evolution. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 5–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Harper GL, Maclean N, Goulson D (2003) Microsatellite markers to assess the influence of population size, isolation and demographic change on the genetic structure of the UK butterfly Polyommatus bellargus. Mol Ecol 12:3349–3357CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Harrison S, Taylor AD (1997) Empirical evidence for metapopulation dynamics. In: Hanski I, Gilpin ME (eds) Metapopulation biology: ecology, genetics and evolution. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 27–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hill JK, Thomas CD, Lewis OT (1996) Effects of habitat patch size and isolation on dispersal by Hesperia comma butterflies: implications for metapopulation structure. Br Ecol Soc 65:725–735Google Scholar
  23. Howe WH (1975) The butterflies of North America. Doubleday and Company, Inc., Garden CityGoogle Scholar
  24. James DG (2008) Comparative studies on the immature stages and developmental biology of five species of Argynnis spp. (Subgenus Speyeria) (Nymphalidae) from Washington. J Lepid Soc 62:61–66Google Scholar
  25. Kaufman K, Brock JP (2003) Butterflies of North America. Houghton Mifflin Company, BostonGoogle Scholar
  26. Konvička M, Cizek O, Filipova L, Fric Z, Benes J, Krupka M, Zamecnik J, Dockalova Z (2005) For whom the bells toll: demography of the last population of the butterfly Euphydryas maturna in the Czech Republic. Biol Bratisl 60:551–557Google Scholar
  27. Kopper BJ, Shu S, Charlton RE, Sonny BR (2001) Evidence for reproductive diapause in the fritillary Speyeria idalia (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Ann Am Entomol Soc 94:427–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Neve G, Singer MC (2008) Protandry and postandry in two related butterflies: conflicting evidence about sex-specific tradeoffs between adult size and emergence time. Evol Ecol 22:701–709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. New TR (1995) Introduction fo invertebrate conservation biology. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  30. Nieminen M, Singer MC, Fortelius W, Schops K, Hanski I (2001) Experimental evidence that inbreeding increases extinction risk in butterfly populations. Am Nat 157:237–244CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Opler PA, Wright AB (1999) A field guide to western butterflies, 2nd edn. Houghton Mifflin Company, BostonGoogle Scholar
  32. Pellet J, Bried JT, Parietti D, Gander A, Heer PO, Cherix D, Arlettaz R (2012) Monitoring butterfly abundance: beyond pollard walks. PLoS One 7:e41396PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Petit S, Moilanen A, Hanski I, Baguette M (2001) Metapopulations dynamics of the bog fritillary butterfly: movements between habitat patches. Oikos 92:491–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. R Development Core Team (2014) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R foundation for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  35. Saccheri I, Kuussaari M, Kankare M (1998) Inbreeding and extinction in a butterfly metapopulation. Nature 392:491–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schtickzelle N, Le Boulenge E, Baguette M (2002) Metapopulation dynamics of the bog fritillary butterfly: demographic processes in a patchy population. Oikos 97:349–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schultz CB, Chang GC (1998) Challenges in insect conservation: managing fluctuating populations in disturbed environments. In: Fiedler K, Kareiva PM (eds) Conservation biology for the coming decade. Chapman Hall, New York, pp 228–254Google Scholar
  38. 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
  39. Scott JA (1986) The butterflies of North America: a natural history and field guide. Stanford University Press, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  40. Scott JA, Mattoon SO (1981(82)) Early stages of Speyeria nokomis (Nymphalidae). J Res Lepid 20:12–15Google Scholar
  41. Shapiro AM, Manolis TD (2007) Field guide to butterflies of the San Francisco Bay and Sacramento Valley regions. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  42. Sims SR (1984) Reproductive diapause in Speyeria (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). J Res Lepid 23:211–216Google Scholar
  43. Student (1908) The probably error of a mean. Biometrika 6:1–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. USFWS (2011) Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: 90-day finding on a petition to list the Unsilvered Fritillary butterfly as threatened or endangered. Federal Register, Ventura, pp 10310–10319Google Scholar
  45. USFWS (2014) US fish and wildlife service endangered species database. USFWS, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  46. Vaughan DM, Shepherd MD (2005) Species profile: Speyeria diana. In: Shepherd MD, Vaughan DM, Black SH (eds) Red list of pollinator insects of North America. The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, PortlandGoogle Scholar
  47. Watt WB, Chew FS, Snyder LRG, Watt AG, Rothschild DE (1977) Population structure of Pierid butterflies. Oecologia 27:1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Weyer J, Schmitt T (2013) Knowing the way home: strong philopatry of a highly mobile insect species, Brenthis ino. J Insect Conserv 17:1197–1208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. White GC, Burnham KP (1999) Program MARK: survival estimation from populations of marked animals. Bird Study 46:120–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Willi Y, Van Buskirk J, Hoffmann AA (2006) Limits to the adaptive potential of small populations. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 37:433–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Zaman K, Tenney C, Brunell M, Chen M, Hill RI (2014) Life history and Ecology of Speyeria adiaste clemencei (Comstocki, 1925) (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). J Res Lepid 47:29–43Google Scholar
  52. Zimmermann K, Konvička M, Fric Z, Cihakova V (2009) Demography of a common butterfly on humid grasslands: Argynnis aglaja (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) studies by mark-recapture. Pol J Ecol 57:715–727Google Scholar
  53. Zimmermann K, Fric Z, Jiskra P, Kopeckova M, Vlasanek P, Zapletal M, Konvička M (2011) Mark-recapture on large spatial scale reveals long distance dispersal in the Marsh Fritillary, Euphydryas aurinia. Ecol Entomol 36:499–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Zwaan BJ, Zijlstra WG (2008) Potential constraints on evolution: sexual dimorphism and the problem of protandry in the butterfly Bicyclus anyana. J Genet 87:395–405CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Khuram Zaman
    • 1
    • 2
  • Chris Tenney
    • 3
  • Cassidi E. Rush
    • 1
  • Ryan I. Hill
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesUniversity of the PacificStocktonUSA
  2. 2.Department of EntomologyUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonUSA
  3. 3.CarmelUSA

Personalised recommendations