Advertisement

Journal of Insect Conservation

, Volume 10, Issue 4, pp 351–360 | Cite as

Habitat utilization by ovipositing females and larvae of the Marsh fritillary (Euphydryas aurinia) in a mosaic of meadows and croplands

  • Wenhua Liu
  • Yifei Wang
  • Rumei Xu
Original Paper

Abstract

The butterfly Euphydryas aurinia occurs as a classical metapopulation in Yanjiaping village, Heibei province, China. In the patch network under study there were 38 habitat patches. Most patches were uncultivated, consisting of meadows and fallows, while others had been cultivated, i.e., used as small croplands. In the cultivated patches, the habitat for the butterfly can be classified into two types: meadow type (MTH) and cropland type (CTH). In contrast, the uncultivated habitat patches consists only of MTH. We examined the habitat utilization of ovipositing females and larvae of E. aurinia to assess the effect of mixed land use on the butterfly’s occurrence. More egg clusters and pre-hibernating larval groups were distributed throughout CTH than MTH. This dependence on CTH may be due to the preference of egg-laying females for large-sized host plants, which were mainly concentrated in CTH. Compared to the MTH, the mortality rate in CTH was lower. Therefore, for both eggs and pre-hibernating larvae, the quality of CTH was higher than that of MTH. The conditions in MTH, on the other hand, were important for the development of post-hibernation larvae. A combination of extensive farming and animal husbandry has created a mosaic of meadows and croplands in the habitats studied here, which is typical of rural areas in some developing countries. This study implies that patchy land use typical of traditional agriculture facilitates the long-term persistence of E. aurinia.

Keywords

Conservation Cultivated patches Euphydryas aurinia Habitat types Habitat utilization 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful for helpful corrections and comments on the manuscript from I. Hanski and M. R. Shaw. We also thank Guofa Zhou, Weiping Zeng and P. Gongal for helpful comments and language corrections. This research is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 30270241).

References

  1. Anthes N, Fartmann T, Hermann G, Kaule G (2003) Combining larval habitat quality and metapopulation structure – the key for successful management of pre-alpine Euphydryas aurinia colonies. J Insect Conserv 7:175–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Benton TG, Vickery JA, Wilson JD (2003) Farmland biodiversity: is habitat heterogeneity the key? Trends Ecol Evol 18:182–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bourn NAD, Thomas JA (1993) The ecology and conservation of the brown argus butterfly Aricia agestis in Britain. Biol Conserv 63:67–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Daily GC (1997) Countryside biogeography and the pro-vision of ecosystem services. In: Raven P (eds) Nature and human society: the quest for a sustainable world. National Research Council National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., pp. 104–113Google Scholar
  5. Daily GC (2001) Ecological forecasts. Nature 411:245PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dover JW (1991) The conservation of insects on arable farmland. In: Collins NM, Thomas JA (eds) The conservation of insects and their habitat 980. Academic Press, London, pp 293–318Google Scholar
  7. Ehrilch PR, Hanski I (2004) On the wings of checkerspots, a model system for population biology. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Grundel R, Pavlovic NB, Sulzman CL (1998) The effect of canopy cover and seasonal change on host plant quality for the endangered Karner Blue butterfly (Lycaeides Melissa samuelis). Oecologia 114:243–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hanski I, Gaggiotti OE (2004) Ecology, genetics, and evolution of metapopulations. Elsevier, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  10. Horner-Devine CM, Daily GC, Ehrlich PR, Boggs CL (2003) Countryside biogeography of tropical butterflies. Conserv Biol 17:168–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S (1989) Applied logistic regression. John Wiley and Sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Konvicka M, Hula V, Fric Z (2003) Habitat of pre-hibernating larvae of the endangered butterfly Euphydryas aurinia (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae): what can be learned from vegetation composition and architecture? Eur J Entomol 100:313–322Google Scholar
  13. Lane CP, Andow DA (2003) Oak Savanna subhabitat variation and population biology of Lycaedes melissa sammuelis (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae). Ann Entomol Soc Am 96:799–809CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lewis OT, Hurford C (1997) Assessing the status of marsh fritillary (Eurodryas aurinia): an example from Glamorgan, UK. J Insect Conserv 1:159–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Moore SD (1989) Patterns of juvenile mortality within an oligophagous insect population. Ecology 70:1726–1737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Munguira ML, Martin J, Barros EG, Jose LV (1997) Use of space and resources in a Mediterranean population of the butterfly Euphydryas aurinia. Acta Oecol 18:597–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Murphy DD, Weiss SB (1988) Ecological studies and the conservation of the bay checkerspot butterfly, Euphydras editha bayenis. Biol Conserv 46:183–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Murphy DD, Freas KE, Weiss SB (1990) An environment metapopulation approach to population viability analysis for a threatened invertebrate. Conserv Biol 4:41–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Porter K (1982) Basking behavior in larvae of the butterfly Euphydryas aurinia. Oikos 38:308–312Google Scholar
  20. Robinson RA, Sutherland WJ (2002) Post-war changes in arable farming and biodiversity in Great Britain. J Appl Ecol 39:157–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Smallidge PJ, Leopold DJ (1997) Vegetation management for the maintenance and conservation of butterfly habitats in temperate human-dominated landscapes. Landscape Urban Plan 38:259–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sparks TH, Porter K, Greatorex-Davies JN, Hall ML, Marrs RH (1994) The choice of oviposition sites in woodland by the Duke of Burgundy butterfly Hamaeris lucina in England. Biol Conserv 70:257–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Tews J, Brose U, Grimm V, Tielborger K, Wichmann MC, Schwager M, Jeltsch F (2004) Animal species diversity driven by habitat heterogeneity/diversity: the importance of keystone structures. J Biogeogr 31:79–92Google Scholar
  24. Thomas CD (1994) The ecology and conservation of butterfly metapopulations in the fragmented British landscape. In: Pullin AS (eds) Ecology and conservation of butterflies. Chapman and Hall, London, pp 46–63Google Scholar
  25. Thomas CD, Hanski I (1997) Butterfly metapopulations. In: Hanski I, Gilpin ME (eds) Metapopulation biology: ecology genetics, and evolution. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 359–386Google Scholar
  26. Thomas CD, Hanski I (2004) Metapopulation dynamics in changing environments: butterfly responses to habitat and climate change. In: Hanski I, Gaggiotti O (eds) Ecology, genetics, and evolution of metapopulations. Academic Press, London, pp 489–514Google Scholar
  27. 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. Proc Roy Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 268:1792–1796Google Scholar
  28. van Swaay C, Warren M (1999) Red Data Book of European Butterflies (Rhopalocera). Nature and Environment, No. 99, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, FranceGoogle Scholar
  29. Wahlberg N, Kullberg J, Hanski I (2001) Nature history of some Siberian melitaeine butterfly species (Nymphalidae: Melitaeini) and their parasitoids. Entomol Finn 12:72–77Google Scholar
  30. Wahlberg N, Klemetti T, Hanski I (2002) Dynamic populations in a dynamic landscape: the metapopulation structure of the marsh fritillary butterfly. Ecography 25:224–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wang RJ, Wang YF, Lei GC, Xu RM, Painter J (2003) Genetic differentiation within metapopulations of Euphydryas aurinia and Melitaea phoebe in China. Biochem Genet 41:107–118PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wang YF (2004) Difference in metapopulation structure and dynamics of two species of coexistent melitaeine butterflies. PhD thesis, Beijing Normal University, ChinaGoogle Scholar
  33. Wang YF, Chen JJ, Wang RJ, Lei GC, Xu RM (2003) Difference in metapopulation structure and dynamics of two species of coexistent melitaeine butterflies. Chin Sci Bull 48:1239–1246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Warren MS (1994) The UK status and suspected metapopulation structure of a threatened European butterfly, the marsh fritillary Euroydryas aurinia. Biol Conserv 67:239–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ministry of Education Key Laboratory for Biodiversity Science and Ecological EngineeringBeijing Normal UniversityBeijingChina
  2. 2.Research Institute of Forestry, Wetland Research CenterChinese Academy of ForestryBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations