Butterfly assemblages in residential gardens are driven by species’ habitat preference and mobility
- 614 Downloads
Understanding the factors contributing to maintaining biodiversity is crucial to mitigate the impact of anthropogenic disturbances. Representing large proportions of green area in highly modified landscapes, residential gardens are often seen as local habitats that can contribute to larger networks of suitable environments at the landscape scale.
We investigated the impact of the landscape context on butterfly communities observed in residential gardens, taking into account garden characteristics, land-use types and presence of linear features in the surrounding landscape. We examined how species traits affected butterflies’ response to landscape context and habitat quality.
We performed a cross-scale study, based on citizen science data documenting butterfly species composition and abundance in 920 gardens across France. We examined the effect of garden quality, the area of different land-use types and the length of linear elements measured at three scales within the surrounding landscape. Species were grouped according to their habitat preference and mobility.
Urbanization negatively affected total species richness and the abundance of butterfly in each group. This was related to declining habitat quality and reduced area of suitable habitat in the surrounding landscape. The magnitude of this effect, however, was negatively correlated with mobility, a trait related to habitat preference. The spatial scale at which landscape context best explained variation in butterfly abundance changed with species’ habitat preference.
This study highlights the importance of preserving high quality habitats in altered landscapes and considering species’ mobility and habitat preference when assessing the impact of landscapes on butterfly communities.
KeywordsLepidoptera Landscape Connectivity Dispersal Habitat quality Land-use Citizen science Species traits Urbanization
We thank all the volunteers who spend time recording insects in their gardens and uploading their observation data. We also thank Noe Conservation, which support and feedback the volunteer network and without whom this work would not have been possible. RS is acknowledging support from the FRB and EDF SA (FRB-CESAB project LOLA-BMS). Finally many thanks to Christie Le Coeur and Karine Princé for their support and help. This study was supported by the LEVANA project funded by the French Ministry of Environment (Program DIVA 3, Contract 12-MBGD-DIVA-5-CVS-030).
- Agreste (2014) La statistique, l’évaluation et la prospective agricole. http://agreste.agriculture.gouv.fr/. Accessed June 2015
- Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B (2013) lme4: linear mixed-effects models using S4 classesGoogle Scholar
- Bergerot B, Fontaine B, Renard M, Cadi A, Julliard R (2010) Preferences for exotic flowers do not promote urban life in butterflies. Landsc Urban Plan 92:98–107Google Scholar
- Bergman K-O, Askling J, Ekberg O, Ignell H, Wahlman H, Milberg P (2004) Landscape effects on butterfly assemblages in an agricultural region. Ecography 27:619–628Google Scholar
- Bonte D, Van Dyck H, Bullock JM, Coulon A, Delgado M, Gibbs M, Lehouck V, Matthysen E, Mustin K, Saastamoinen M, Schtickzelle N, Stevens VN, Vandewoestijne S, Baguette M, Barton K, Benton TG, Chaput-Bardy A, Clobert J, Dytham C, Hovestadt T, Meier CM, Palmer SCF, Turlure C, and Travis JMJ (2012) Costs of dispersal. Biol Rev 87:290–312Google Scholar
- Botham MS, Fernandez-Ploquin EC, Brereton T, Harrower CA, Roy DB, Heard MS (2015) Lepidoptera communities across an agricultural gradient: how important are habitat area and habitat diversity in supporting high diversity? J Insect Conserv 19:403–420Google Scholar
- Brückmann SV, Krauss J, Steffan-Dewenter I (2010) Butterfly and plant specialists suffer from reduced connectivity in fragmented landscapes. J Appl Ecol 47:799–809Google Scholar
- EEA (2010) Soil sealing data in aggregated spatial resolution (20 × 20 m). http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/eea-fast-track-service-precursor-on-land-monitoring-degree-of-soil-sealing. Accessed April 2013
- Ekroos J, Olsson O, Rundlöf M, Wätzold F, Smith HG (2014) Optimizing agri-environment schemes for biodiversity, ecosystem services or both? Biol Conserv 172:65–71Google Scholar
- Hijmans RJ, Cameron SE, Parra JL, Jones PG, Jarvis A (2005) Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas. Int J Climatol 25:1965–1978Google Scholar
- Julliard R, Clavel J, Devictor V, Jiguet F, Couvet D (2006) Spatial segregation of specialists and generalists in bird communities. Ecol Lett 9:1237–1244Google Scholar
- Lizée MH, Manel S, Mauffrey JF, Tatoni T, Deschamps-Cottin M (2012) Matrix configuration and patch isolation influences override the species–area relationship for urban butterfly communities. Landsc Ecol 27:159–169Google Scholar
- Menéndez R, González-Megías A, Collingham Y, Fox R, Roy DB, Ohlemüller R, Thomas CD (2007) Direct and indirect effects of climate and habitat factors on butterfly diversity. Ecol Soc Am 88:605–611Google Scholar
- Öckinger E, Schweiger O, Crist TO, Debinski DM, Krauss J, Kuussaari M, Petersen JD, Pöyry J, Settele J, Summerville KS, Bommarco R (2010) Life-history traits predict species responses to habitat area and isolation: a cross-continental synthesis. Ecol Lett 13:969–979Google Scholar
- Perović D, Gámez-Virués S, Börschig C, Klein A-M, Krauss J, Steckel J, Rothenwohrer C, Erasmi S, Tscharntke T, Westphal C (2015) Configurational landscape heterogeneity shapes functional community composition of grassland butterflies. J Appl Ecol 52:505–513Google Scholar
- Petit S, Griffiths L, Smart SS, Smith GM, Stuart RC, Wright SM (2004) Effects of area and isolation of woodland patches on herbaceous plant species richness across Great Britain. Landscape Ecol 19:463–471Google Scholar
- Pimm SL, Jenkins CN, Abell R, Brooks TM, Gittleman JL, Joppa LN, Raven PH, Roberts CM, Sexton JO (2014) The biodiversity of species and their rates of extinction, distribution, and protection. Science 344:1246752Google Scholar
- Prokop G, Jobstmann H, Schönbauer A (2011) Report on best practices for limiting soil sealing and mitigating its effects. Study contracted by the European Commission. DG Environment, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
- R Core Team (2013) A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
- Rands MRW, Adams WM, Bennun L, Butchart SHM, Clements A, Coomes D, Entwistle A, Hodge I, Kapos V, Scharlemann JPW, Sutherland WJ, Vira B (2010) Biodiversity conservation: challenges beyond 2010. Science 329:1298–1303Google Scholar
- Sala OE, Chapin III FS, Armesto JJ, Berlow E, Bloomfield J, Dirzo R, Huber-Sanwald E, Huenneke LF, Jackson RB, Kinzig A, Leemans R, Lodge DM, Mooney HA, Oesterheld M, LeRoy Poff N, Sykes MT, Walker BH, Walker M, Wall DH (2000) Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. Science 287:1770–1774Google Scholar
- Skórka P, Lenda M, Moroń D, Kalarus K, Tryjanowski P (2013) Factors affecting road mortality and the suitability of road verges for butterflies. Biol Conserv 159:148–157Google Scholar
- Stevens VM, Trochet A, Van Dyck H, Clobert J, Baguette M (2012) How is dispersal integrated in life histories: a quantitative analysis using butterflies. Ecol Lett 15:74–86Google Scholar
- Stevens VM, Trochet A, Blanchet S, Moulherat S, Clobert J, Baguette M (2013) Dispersal syndromes and the use of life-histories to predict dispersal. Evol Appl 6:630–642Google Scholar
- Theobald EJ, Ettinger AK, Burgess HK, DeBey LB, Schmidt NR, Froehlich HE, Wagner C, HilleRisLambers J, Tewksbury J, Harsch MA, Parrish JK (2015) Global change and local solutions: tapping the unrealized potential of citizen science for biodiversity research. Biol Conserv 181:236–244Google Scholar
- Thomas JA, Bourn NAD, Clarke RT, Stewart KE, Simcox DJ, Pearman GS, Curtis R, Goodger B (2001) The quality and isolation of habitat patches both determine where butterflies persist in fragmented landscapes. Proceedings 268:1791–1796Google Scholar
- Van Swaay C, Van Strien A, Harpke A, Fontaine B, Stefanescu C, Roy D, Kühn E, Õnuao E, Regan E, Švitra G, Prokofev I, Heliölä J, Settele J, Pettersson L, Botham M, Musche M, Titeux N, Cornish N, Leopold P, Juillard R, Verovnik R, Öberg S, Popov S, Collins S, Goloschchapova S, Roth T, Brereton T, Warren M (2013) The european grassland butterfly indicator 1990–2011. European Environment AgencyGoogle Scholar
- Wagner K, Krauss J, Steffan-Dewenter I (2013) Butterfly diversity and historical land cover change along an altitudinal gradient. J Insect Conserv 17:1039–1046Google Scholar