A first step towards successful conservation: understanding local oviposition site selection of an imperiled butterfly, mardon skipper

Abstract

Lack of basic biological information is a key limiting factor in conservation of at-risk butterflies. In the Puget prairies of Washington State little is known about the habitat requirements of mardon skipper (Polites mardon, federal candidate, WA endangered). We investigated oviposition site selection and used our results to assess oviposition habitat quality at a restored site with reintroduction potential. During the 2009 flight season we marked eighty-eight eggs and sampled vegetation at oviposition and random locations, measuring habitat variables with respect to the oviposition plant, vegetation structure, and vegetation cover. Eighty-six of the eighty-eight eggs were laid on Festuca roemeri, a native, perennial bunchgrass. Discriminant function analysis revealed selection of oviposition sites based on habitat structure; females laid eggs in small F. roemeri tufts in sparsely vegetated areas of the prairie. These results are contrary to results from a previous study in the Cascade Mountains of WA where females are generalists and selected densely vegetated areas, suggesting that the species has geographically specific habitat requirements. To assess oviposition habitat at a potential reintroduction site we measured the six variables most important for oviposition at the occupied site and a proposed reintroduction site. Results revealed differences in habitat quality between locations and suggest a need for further habitat management at the reintroduction site. Our results highlight the importance of understanding the local habitat use of a rare species where restoration activities occur and increase our ability to target habitat management where it is most needed for the persistence of the species.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

References

  1. Anthes N, Fartmann T, Hermann G (2008) The Duke of Burgundy butterfly and its dukedom: larval niche variation in Hamearis lucina across Central Europe. J Insect Conserv 12:3–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Barinaga M (1990) Where have all the froggies gone? Science 247:1033–1034

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Bartel RA, Haddad NM, Wright JP (2010) Ecosystem engineers maintain a rare species of butterfly and increase plant diversity. Oikos 119:883–890

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Beyer L, Black SH (2006) Site utilization by adults and larvae of mardon skipper butterfly (Polites mardon) at four sites in Washington and Oregon. Report to the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management from the Xerces Society, 73 pp

  5. Beyer LJ, Schultz CB (2010) Oviposition selection by a rare grass skipper Polites mardon in montane habitats: advancing ecological understanding to develop conservation strategies. Biol Conserv 143:862–872

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Boggs CL, Ross CL (1993) The effect of adult food limitation on life history traits in Speyeria mormonia (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Ecology 74:433–441

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bonebrake TC, Boggs CL, McNally JM, Ranganathan J, Ehrlich PR (2010) Oviposition behavior and offspring performance in herbivorous insects: consequences of climatic and habitat heterogeneity. Oikos 119:927–934

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Chappell CB, Crawford RC (1997) Native vegetation of the south Puget Sound prairie landscape. In: Dunn PV, Ewing K (eds) Ecology and conservation of the South Puget Sound prairie landscape. The Nature Conservancy, Seattle, pp 107–122

    Google Scholar 

  9. Chappell CB, Kagan J (2001) Westside grasslands. In: Johnson DH, O’Neil TA (eds) Wildlife-Habitat relationships in Oregon and Washington. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, pp 41–43

    Google Scholar 

  10. Clench HK (1966) Behavioral thermoregulation in butterflies. Ecology 47:1021–1034

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Conrad CE, Poulton CE (1966) Effect of a wildfire on Idaho fescue and bluebunch wheatgrass. J Range Manage 19:138–141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Crawford RC, Hall H (1997) Changes in the south Puget prairie landscape. In: Dunn PV, Ewing K (eds) Ecology and conservation of the South Puget Sound prairie landscape. The Nature Conservancy, Seattle, pp 11–16

    Google Scholar 

  13. Crone EE, Schultz CB (2003) Movement behavior and minimum patch size for butterfly population persistence. In: Boggs CL, Watt WB, Ehrlich PR (eds) Butterflies: ecology and evolution taking flight. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 560–576

    Google Scholar 

  14. Crozier L (2003) Winter warming facilitates range expansion: cold tolerance of the butterfly Atalopedes campestris. Oecologia 135:648–656

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Crozier L (2004) Warmer winters drive butterfly range expansion by increasing survivorship. Ecology 85:231–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Dana RP (1991) Conservation management of the prairie skippers Hesperia dacotae and Hesperia ottoe: basic biology and threat of mortality during prescribed burning in spring. Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 594, 63 pp

  17. Dennehy C, Alverson ER, Anderson HE, Clements DR, Gilbert R, Kaye TN (2011) Management strategies for invasive plants in Pacific Northwest Prairies, savannas, and oak woodlands. Northwest Sci 85:329–351

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Dennis RLH (2004) Butterfly habitats, broad-scale biotope affiliations, and structural exploitation of vegetation at finer scales: the matrix revisited. Ecol Entomol 29:744–752

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Dennis RLH (2010) A resource-based habitat view for conservation. Butterflies in the British landscape. Wiley-Blackwell, West Sussex

    Google Scholar 

  20. Dennis RLH, Shreeve TG, Van Dyck H (2003) Towards a functional resource-based concept for habitat: a butterfly biology viewpoint. Oikos 102:417–426

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Dennis RLH, Shreeve TG, Van Dyck H (2006) Habitats and resources: the need for a resource-based definition to conserve butterflies. Biodivers Conserv 15:1943–1966

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Dennis RLH, Hardy PB, Shreeve TG (2008) The importance of resource databanks for conserving insects: a butterfly biology perspective. J Insect Conserv 12:711–719

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Eichel S, Fartmann T (2008) Management of calcareous grasslands for Nickerl’s fritillary (Melitaea aurelia) has to consider habitat requirements of the immature stages, isolation, and patch area. J Insect Conserv 12:677–688

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Fartmann T (2006) Oviposition preferences, adjacency of old woodland and isolation explain the distribution of the Duke of Burgandy butterfly (Hamearis lucina) in calcareous grasslands in central Germany. Ann Zool Fenn 43:335–347

    Google Scholar 

  25. Forsberg J (1987) Size discrimination among conspecific hostplants in two Pierid butterflies: Pieris napi L. and Pontia daplidice L. Oecologia 72:52–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Garcia-Barros E, Fartmann T (2009) Butterfly oviposition: sites, behaviour and modes. In: Settele J, Shreeve TG, Konvicka M, Van Dyck H (eds) Ecology of butterflies in Europe. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 29–42

    Google Scholar 

  27. Goodall DW (1952) Some considerations in the use of point quadrates for the analysis of vegetation. Aust J Sci Res Ser B 5:1–41

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Griffith B, Scott JM, Carpenter JW, Reed C (1989) Translocation as a species conservation tool: status and strategy. Science 245:477–480

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Gutierrez D, Thomas CD, Leon-Cortes JL (1999) Dispersal, distribution, patch network and metapopulation dynamics of the dingy skipper butterfly (Erynnis tages). Oecologia 121:506–517

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Hanski I (1991) Single-species metapopulation dynamics. In: Gilpin M, Hanski I (eds) Metapopulation dynamics: empirical and theoretical investigations. Academic Press, London, pp 17–38

    Google Scholar 

  31. Hanski I (2003) Biology of extinctions in butterfly metapopulations. In: Boggs CL, Watt WB, Ehrlich PR (eds) Butterflies: ecology and evolution taking flight. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 577–602

    Google Scholar 

  32. Hays D, Potter A, Thompson C, Dunn P (2000) Critical habitat components for four rare south Puget Sound grassland butterflies. Final Report to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, 39 pp

  33. Henry EH (2010) A first step towards successful habitat restoration and reintroduction: understanding oviposition site selection of an imperiled butterfly, mardon skipper. Master’s thesis. Washington State University, Vancouver

  34. IUCN (1998) IUCN guidelines for re-introductions. Prepared by the IUCN/SSC re-introduction specialist group. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, 10 pp

  35. Jepsen S, Lauvray L, Black SH (2008) Xerces society surveys for Polites mardon mardon in the Naches Ranger District (Wenatchee National Forest) of Washington. Report to the U. S. Forest Service, 15 pp

  36. Karlsson B, Wiklund C (2005) Butterfly life history and temperature adaptations: dry open habitats select for increased fecundity and longevity. J Anim Ecol 74:99–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Konvicka M, Benes J, Cizek O, Kopecek F, Konvicka O, Vitaz L (2008) How too much care kills species: Grassland reserves, agri-environmental schemes and extinction of Colias myrmidone (Lepidoptera: Pieridae) from its former stronghold. J Insect Conserv 12:519–525

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Lill JT, Marquis RJ, Ricklefs RE (2002) Host plants influence parasitism of forest caterpillars. Nature 417:170–173

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Lipman A, Longcore T, Mattoni R, Zhang Y (1999) Habitat evaluation and reintroduction planning for the endangered Palos Verdes blue butterfly. Final Technical Report to California Department of Fish and Game, San Diego, 47 pp

  40. Longcore T, Lam CS, Kobernus P, Polk E, Wilson JP (2010) Extracting useful data from imperfect monitoring schemes: Endangered butterflies at San Bruno Mountain, San Mateo County, California (1982–2000) and implications for habitat management. J Insect Conserv 14:335–346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Mattoon SO, Emmel JF, Emmel TC (1998) The distribution of Polites mardon (Lepidoptera: Hesperiidae) in North America, and description of a new subspecies from southern Oregon. In: Emmel TC (ed) Systematics of Western North American butterflies. Mariposa Press, Gainsville, pp 767–774

    Google Scholar 

  42. McGarigal K, Cushman S, Stafford S (2000) Multivariate statistics for wildlife ecology and research. Springer Science + Business Media, Inc., New York

  43. Miller JR, Hobbs RJ (2007) Habitat restoration—do we know what we’re doing? Restor Ecol 15:382–390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Möllenbeck V, Hermann G, Fartmann T (2009) Does prescribed burning mean a threat to the rare satyrine butterfly Hipparchia fagi? Larval-habitat preferences give the answer. J Insect Conserv 13:77–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Morgan JW (2006) Bryophyte mats inhibit germination of non-native species in burnt temperate native grassland remnants. Biol Invasions 8:159–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Morrison ML (2009) Wildlife restoration: synthesis. In: Morrison ML (ed) Restoring wildlife ecological concepts and practical applications. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp 287–300

    Google Scholar 

  47. New TR, Pyle RM, Thomas JA, Thomas CD, Hammond PC (1995) Butterfly conservation management. Annu Rev Entomol 40:57–83

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Newmark WD (1996) Insularization of Tanzanian parks and the local extinction of large mammals. Conserv Biol 10:1549–1556

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Noss RF, LaRoe ET III, Scott JM (1995) Endangered ecosystems of the United States: a preliminary assessment of loss and degradation. United States Geological Survey: Biological Resources

  50. Nylin S, Gotthard K (1998) Plasticity in life-history traits. Annu Rev Entomol 43:63–83

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Olson G (2010) ACUB Prairie assessment progress report. For ACUB/Prairie Legacy Partners. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia

  52. Panzer R, Schwartz MW (1998) Effectiveness of a vegetation-based approach to insect conservation. Conserv Biol 12:693–702

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Poniatowski D, Fartmann T (2010) What determines the distribution of a flightless bush-cricket (Merioptera brachyptera) in a fragmented landscape? J Insect Conserv 14:637–645

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Potter AE, Olson G (2009) Monitoring mardon skipper at scatter creek wildlife area. Army compatible use buffer (ACUB) project proposal. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia

  55. Potter AE, Fleckenstein J, Richardson S, Hays D (1999) Washington State status report for the mardon skipper. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia

    Google Scholar 

  56. Quinn GP, Keough MJ (2002) Experimental design and data analysis for biologists. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  57. Reid AM, Hochuli DF (2007) Grassland invertebrate assemblages in managed landscapes: effect of host plant and microhabitat architecture. Aust Ecol 32:708–718

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Relf MC, New TR (2009) Conservation needs of the Altona skipper butterfly, Hesperilla flavescens flavescens Waterhouse (Lepidoptera: Herperiidae), near Melbourne, Victoria. J Insect Conserv 13:143–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Reudler Talsma JH, Biere A, Harvey JA, van Nouhuys S (2008) Oviposition cues for a specialist butterfly-plant chemistry and size. J Chem Ecol 34:1202–1212

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Roslin T, Avomaa T, Leonard ML, Ovaskainen O (2009) Some like it hot: microclimatic variation affects the abundance and movements of a critically endangered dung beetle. Insect Conserv Diver 2:232–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Russo D, Cistrone L, Garonna AP (2010) Habitat selection by the highly endangered long-horned beetle Rosalia alpina in Southern Europe: a multiple spatial scale assessment. J Insect Conserv 15:685–693

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Scheffe H (1959) The analysis of variance. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  63. Schultz CB, Crone EE (1998) Burning prairie to restore butterfly habitat: a modeling approach to management tradeoffs for the Fender’s blue. Restor Ecol 6:244–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Schultz CB, Crone EE (2005) Patch size and connectivity thresholds for butterfly habitat restoration. Conserv Biol 19:887–896

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Schultz CB, Crone EE (2008) Using ecological theory to advance butterfly conservation. Isr J Ecol Evol 54:63–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Schultz CB, Henry E, Carleton A, Hicks T, Thomas R, Potter A, Collins M, Linders M, Fimbel C, Black SH, Anderson H, Diehl G, Hamman S, Gilbert R, Foster J, Hays D, Page N, Heron J, Kroeker N, Webb C, Reader B (2011) Conservation of prairie-oak butterflies in Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia. Northwest Sci 85:361–388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Settele J, Kuhn E (2009) Insect conservation. Science 325:41–42

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Severns PM (2008) Exotic grass invasion impacts fitness of an endangered prairie butterfly, Icaricia icarioides fenderi. J Insect Conserv 12:651–661

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Shreeve TG, Dennis RLH, Van Dyck H (2004) Resources, habitats and metapopulations—whither reality? Oikos 106:404–408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Singer M (2004) Measurement, correlates, and importance of oviposition preference in the life of checkerspots. In: Ehrlich PR, Hanski I (eds) On the wings of checkerspots: a model system for population biology. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 112–137

    Google Scholar 

  71. Stanley AG, Kaye TN, Dunwiddie PW (2011) Multiple treatment combinations and seed addition increase abundance and diversity of native plants in Pacific Northwest prairies. Ecol Restor 29:35–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Storm L, Shebitz D (2006) Evaluating the purpose, extent, and ecological restoration applications of indigenous burning practices in southwestern Washington. Ecol Restor 24:256–258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Stoutjesdijk P, Barkman JJ (1992) Microclimate, vegetation and fauna. Opulus Press AB, Knivsta

    Google Scholar 

  74. Swengel AB (2001) A literature review of insect responses to fire, compared to other conservation managements of open habitat. Biodivers Conserv 10:1141–1169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Sykes JM, Horrill AD, Mountford MD (1983) Use of visual cover assessments as quantitative estimators of some British woodland taxa. J Ecol 71:437–450

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Thomas JA (1984) The conservation of butterflies in temperate countries: past efforts and lessons for the future. In: Vane-Wright RI, Ackery PR (eds) The biology of butterflies. Academic Press, London, pp 333–353

    Google Scholar 

  78. Thomas J, Thomas C, Simcox D, Clarke R (1986) Ecology and declining status of the silver-spotted skipper butterfly (Hesperia comma) in Britain. J Appl Ecol 23:365–380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Thomas CD, Bodsworth EJ, Wilson RJ, Simmons MT, Davies ZG, Musche M, Conradt L (2001) Ecological and evolutionary processes at expanding range margins. Nature 411:577–581

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  80. Thomas JA, Simcox DJ, Clarke RT (2009) Successful conservation of a threatened Maculinea butterfly. Science 325:80–83

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  81. Thomas JA, Simcox DJ, Hovestadt T (2011) Evidence based conservation of butterflies. J Insect Conserv 15:241–258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Tveten RK, Fonda RW (1999) Fire effects on prairies and oak woodlands on Fort Lewis, Washington. Northwest Sci 73:145–158

    Google Scholar 

  83. USFWS (2011) Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; review of native species that are candidates for listing as endangered or threatened; annual notice of findings on resubmitted petitions; annual description of progress on listing actions. Fed Reg 76:66370–66439

    Google Scholar 

  84. WallisDeVries MF, Raemakers I (2001) Does extensive grazing benefit butterflies in coastal dunes? Restor Ecol 9:179–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Warren MS (1991) The successful conservation of an endangered species, the heath fritillary butterfly Mellicta athalia, in Britain. Biol Conserv 55:37–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Wenzel M, Schmitt T, Weitzel M, Seitz A (2006) The severe decline of butterflies on western German calcareous grasslands during the last 30 years: a conservation problem. Biol Conserv 128:542–552

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Western Regional Climate Center (2010) Western U.S. climate historical summaries, Washington, Olympia Airport Station, 1948–2009. URL http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?wa6114. Accessed on 10 Oct 2010

  88. Wickman P (2009) Thermoregulation and habitat use in butterflies. In: Settele J, Shreeve TG, Konvicka M, VanDyck H (eds) Ecology of butterflies in Europe. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 55–61

    Google Scholar 

  89. Wiklund C, Friberg M (2008) Enemy-free space and habitat-specific host specialization in a butterfly. Oecologia 157:287–294

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Williams B (1983) Some observations of the use of discriminant analysis in ecology. Ecology 64:1283–1291

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Scott Pearson and John Bishop for their feedback on experimental design and previous drafts. Justin Kirsch and Brad Gill worked numerous long, hot days throughout the field season with little time off and collected fabulous data. Special thanks to Ann Potter, Dave Hays, Gail Olson, and Mary Linders of WDFW and David Wilderman of WA Departement of Natural Resources for sharing their Puget prairie and mardon skipper wisdom and for being eager collaborators. Additionally we thank two anonymous reviewers for their comments. This work was funded by the U. S. Army Compatible Use Buffer Program at Joint Base Lewis McChord, Washington State University Vancouver, and the following grants and fellowships awarded to Erica H. Henry: National Science Foundation GK-12 fellowship (NSF Award number 07-42561 to G. Rollwagen-Bollens), The Xerces Society’s DeWind Award for Lepidoptera Conservation, a Prairie Biotic Research grant for prairie and savannah research, and a WSU Robert Lane Fellowship in Environmental Studies.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cheryl B. Schultz.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Henry, E.H., Schultz, C.B. A first step towards successful conservation: understanding local oviposition site selection of an imperiled butterfly, mardon skipper. J Insect Conserv 17, 183–194 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-012-9496-x

Download citation

Keywords

  • Butterfly
  • Endangered species
  • Habitat requirements
  • Hesperiinae
  • Prairie management
  • Restoration