Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Key traits in a threatened butterfly and its common sibling: implications for conservation

Biodiversity and Conservation volume 16, pages 4095–4107 (2007)Cite this article

Abstract

We ask here which traits predispose one species to extreme rarity and possible extinction while a sympatric sibling is geographically widespread. With background knowledge on the level of habitat specialization of the two species, the population structure and movement of the localized and threatened Orachrysops ariadne were compared to those of the common and highly sympatric O. subravus, using mark-release-recapture. Of a total of 290 marked O. ariadne individuals 42.8% were recaptured, while of 631 O. subravus individuals 49.3% were recaptured. The Jolly-Seber model was used to estimate daily population numbers (N i ), survival rates (ϕ i ), recruitment rates (B i ), proportion of marked animals in the total population (∝i), and the number of marked animals at risk (M i ). O. ariadne is a remarkably rare animal, averaging only 10 individuals ha−1 within its small, remaining colonies. Average residence times of male adults were generally similar in both species, being just over 5 days. O. ariadne is a strong and rapid back and forth flier, covering mean recapture distances of 157 m, almost twice that of O. subravus, principally in search of scarce nectar sources. In short, the rarity of O. ariadne is not so much to do with behaviour, survivorship or longevity, but rather with limited availability of the specialized habitat patches for both larvae and adults, and, in particular, the extreme scarcity of the host plant. Evidence suggests that there has been very high selection pressure on the key trait of strong flight as a compensation for going down the apparently highly risky path of extreme microhabitat specialization. Of concern for conservation of this rare species is that these rare habitat patches have become increasingly isolated through transformation of the surrounding landscape. Reduction of the barrier effects of agroforestry through creation of linkages between colonies is recommended, especially as O. ariadne is such a strong flier. Such corridors are indeed now being implemented.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

39,95 €

Price includes VAT (Netherlands)

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

References

  • Arnold RA (1983) Ecological studies of six endangered butterflies (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae): island biogeography, patch dynamics, and the design of habitat preserves. University of California Publication in Entomology No. 99

  • Baguette M, Schtickzelle N (2003) Local population dynamics are important to the conservation of metapopulations in highly fragmented landscapes. J Appl Ecol 40:404–412

    Google Scholar 

  • Brommer JE, Fred MS (1999) Movement of the Apollo butterfly Parnassius apollo related to host plant and nectar plants patches. Ecol Ent 24:125–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dennis RLH, Hodgson JG, Grenyer R, Shreeve TG, Roy DB (2004) Host plants and butterfly biology. Do host-plant strategies drive butterfly status?. Ecol Ent 29:12–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edge DA (2006) Ecological factors influencing the survival of the Brenton blue butterfly Orachrysops niobe (Trimen) (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae). Unpublished PhD thesis, North-West University, South Africa

  • 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 3:43–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gall LF (1984) Population structure and recommendations for conservation of narrowly endemic alpine butterfly, Boloria acrocnema (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Biol Conserv 28:111–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaston KJ (2003) The structure and dynamics of geographic ranges. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • IUCN (2006) IUCN red list of threatened species. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK

  • Koh LP, Sodhi NS, Brook BW (2004) Ecological correlates of extinction proneness in tropical butterflies. Cons Biol 18:1571–1578

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lu SS, Samways MJ (2001) Life history of the threatened Karkloof blue butterfly, Orachrysops ariadne (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae). Afr Ent 9:137–151

    Google Scholar 

  • Lu SS, Samways MJ (2002) Behavioural ecology of the Karkloof blue butterfly Orachrysops ariadne (Butler) (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) relevant to its conservation. Afr Ent 10:137–147

    Google Scholar 

  • Maes D, Vanreusel W, Talloen W, Van Dyck H (2004) Functional conservation units for the endangered Alcon Blue butterfly Maculinea alcon in Belgium. Biol Conserv 120:229–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morton AC (1982) The effects of marking and capture on recaptures frequencies of butterflies. Oecologia 53:105–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mousson L, Neve G, Baguette M (1999) Metapopulation structure and conservation of the cranberry fritillary Boloria aquilonaris (Lepidoptera, Nymphalidae) in Belgium. Biol Conserv 87:285–293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy DD (1988) Are we studying our endangered butterflies to death?. J Res Lepidop 26:236–239

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy DD, Menninger MS, Ehrlich PR (1984) Nectar source distribution as a determinant of oviposition host species in Euphydryas chalcedona. Oecologia 62:269–271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy DD, Menninger M, Ehrlich P, Wilcox BA (1986) Local population dynamics of adult butterflies and the conservation status of two closely related species. Biol Conserv 37:201–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pringle ELL, Henning GA, Ball JB (eds) (1994) Pennington’s butterflies of southern Africa, 2nd edn. Struik Winchester, Cape Town, South Africa

    Google Scholar 

  • Pryke SR, Samways MJ (2001) Width of grassland linkages for the conservation of butterflies in South African afforested areas. Biol Conserv 101:85–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pryke SR, Samways MJ (2003) Quality of remnant indigenous grassland linkages for adult butterflies (Lepidoptera) in an afforested African landscape. Biodiv Conserv 12:1895–2004

    Google Scholar 

  • Samways MJ (2006) Insect extinctions, and insect survival. Cons Biol 20:245–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samways MJ (2007) Implementing ecological networks for conserving irreplaceable biodiversity. In: Stewart A, Lewis O, New TR (eds) Insect conservation biology. CABI (in press)

  • Schmitt T, Habel JC, Besold J, Becker T, Johnen L, Knolle M, Rzepecki A, Schultze J, Zapp A (2006) The Chalk-hill Blue Polyommatus coridon (Lycaenidae, Lepidoptera) in a highly fragmented landscape: how sedentary is a sedentary butterfly?. J Insect Conserv 10:311–316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schtickzelle N, Le Boulengé E, Baguette M (2002) Metapopulation dynamics of the bog fritillary butterfly: demographic processes in a patchy population. Oikos 97:349–360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schultz CB, Dlugosch KM (1999) Nectar and host plant scarcity limit populations of an endangered Oregon butterfly. Oecologia 119:231–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schultz CB, Hammond PC (2003) Using population viability analysis to develop recovery criteria for endangered insects: case study of the Fender’s blue butterfly. Cons Biol 17:1372–1385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schweitzer DF (1994) Prioritizing Karner blue butterfly habitats for protection activities. In: Andow DA, Baker RJ, Lane CP (eds) Karner blue butterfly: a symbol of a vanishing landscape. Miscellaneous publication 84. Minnesota Agriculture Experiment Station, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA, pp 173–183

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott JA (1975) Flight patterns among eleven species of diurnal Lepidoptera. Ecology 56:1367–1377

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shreeve TG (1995) Butterfly mobility. In: Pullin AS (ed) Ecology and conservation of butterflies. Chapman and Hall, London, pp 37–45

    Google Scholar 

  • Southwood TRE, Henderson PA (2000) Ecological methods, 3rd edn. Blackwell, Oxford, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas CD (1995) Ecology and conservation of butterfly metapopulations in the fragmented British landscape. In: Pullin AS (ed) cology and conservation of butterflies. Chapman and Hall, London, UK, pp 46–63

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas CD, Hanski I (1997) Butterfly metapopulation. In: Hanski I, Gilpin ME (eds) Metapopulation biology: ecology, genetics, and evolution. Academic Press, San Diego, California, USA, pp 359–386

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas JA (1983) The ecology and conservation of Lysandra bellargus in Britain. J Appl Ecol 20:59–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wahlberg N, Klemetti T, Selonen V, Hanski I (2002) Metapopulation structure and movements in five species of checkerspot butterflies. Oecologia 130:33–43

    Google Scholar 

  • Warren MS (1987) The ecology and conservation of the heath fritillary butterfly, Mellicta athalia II. Adult population structure and mobility. J Appl Ecol 24:483–498

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warren MS (1993) A review of butterfly conservation in central southern Britain. I. Protection, evaluation and extinction on prime sites. Biol Conserv 64:25–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watt WB, Chew FS, Snyder LRG, Watt AG, Rothschild DE (1977) Population structure of pierid butterflies I. Numbers and movements of some montane Colias species. Oecology 27:1–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood PA, Samways MJ (1991) Landscape element pattern and continuity of butterfly flight paths in an ecologically landscaped botanic garden, Natal, South Africa. Biol Conserv 58:149–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank J. Schotcher and C. Boake for making this project possible, and to SAPPI Forests, and the WWF (South Africa) for financial support. We thank M. Kunhardt for access to his land, M. Horswell for GIS mapping, and Richard Harrington for an excellent critique. This is a contribution to the RUBICODE Coordination Action Project (Rationalizing Biodiversity Conservation in Dynamic Ecosystems) funded under the Sixth Framework Programme of the European Commission (Contract No. 036890).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Invasion Biology, Department of Conservation Ecology and Entomology, University of Stellenbosch, P/B X1, Matieland, 7602, South Africa

    Michael J. Samways

  2. Division of Forest Protection, Taiwan Forestry Research Institute, 53 Nan-Hai Road, Taipei, 100, Taiwan

    Shen-Shan Lu

Authors
  1. Michael J. Samways
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shen-Shan Lu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael J. Samways.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Samways, M.J., Lu, SS. Key traits in a threatened butterfly and its common sibling: implications for conservation. Biodivers Conserv 16, 4095–4107 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-007-9209-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-007-9209-z

Keywords

  • Key traits
  • Threatened versus common butterfly
  • Conservation implications

Search

Navigation