Advertisement

Journal of Insect Conservation

, Volume 19, Issue 1, pp 15–24 | Cite as

A forest–grassland boundary enhances patch quality for a grassland-dwelling butterfly as revealed by dispersal processes

  • A. Akeboshi
  • S. Takagi
  • M. Murakami
  • M. Hasegawa
  • T. MiyashitaEmail author
ORIGINAL PAPER

Abstract

Although patch isolation and patch size have long been considered the two primary parameters affecting metapopulation processes, patch quality is now recognized as a third factor. The extent to which patch quality influences between-patch migration processes and local population sizes, however, is poorly understood. Using a mark–recapture survey for the butterfly Minois dryas, which inhabits grasslands in a fragmented landscape, we investigated factors affecting immigration and emigration of female individuals between patches. For patch quality, we assessed the proportion of forest-edge length along the patch periphery, as well as nectar resource availability, as the former is known to provide shelter from heat stress for grassland butterflies in midsummer. Results revealed that immigration into patches was largely determined by patch quality represented by forest–grassland adjacency, in addition to patch isolation. Emigration was lower from patches with high-quality measured by nectar resource availability as well as the amount of surrounding forest. These results suggest that a forest–grassland boundary is important, even for grassland-dwelling butterflies, in fragmented landscapes, and that conservation priorities should be given to habitats having this structural feature, as well as large patch size and high connectivity.

Keywords

Metapopulation Fragmentation Connectivity Mark–recapture Population parameter 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Korehisa Kaneko and members of the Laboratory of Biodiversity Science (The University of Tokyo) and the Laboratory of Community Ecology (Chiba University) for help with the field work. This study was in part financially supported by the GCOE program (Asian Conservation Ecology) from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan, and by the Ministry of the Environment, Japan (S-9).

Supplementary material

10841_2014_9732_MOESM1_ESM.pptx (58 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PPTX 58 kb)

References

  1. Baguette M, Clobert J, Schtickzelle N (2011) Metapopulation dynamics of the bog fritillary butterfly: experimental changes in habitat quality induced negative density-dependent dispersal. Ecography 34:170–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bartoń K (2014) MuMIn: multi-model inference. R package version 1.10.5Google Scholar
  3. Brückmann SV, Krauss J, Steffan-Dewenter I (2010) Butterfly and plant specialists suffer from reduced connectivity in fragmented landscapes. J Appl Ecol 47:799–809CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burgess SC, Treml EA, Marshall DJ (2012) How do dispersal costs and habitat selection influence realized population connectivity? Ecology 93:1378–1387CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Cant ET, Smith AD, Reynolds DR, Osborne JL (2005) Tracking butterfly flight paths across the landscape with harmonic rader. Proc R Soc B 272:785–790CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Choquet R, Reboulet A-M, Pradel R, Gimenez O, Lebreton J-D (2005) M-SURGE 1.8 user’s manual, pp 1–50Google Scholar
  8. Clinchy M, Haydon DT, Smith AT (2002) Pattern does not equal process: what does patch occupancy really tell us about metapopulation dynamics? Am Nat 159:351–362CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Cooch E, White G (2010) Program MARK, pp 1–837Google Scholar
  10. Cozzi G, Müller CB, Krauss J (2008) How do local habitat management and landscape structure at different spatial scales affect fritillary butterfly distribution on fragmented wetlands? Landsc Ecol 23:269–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dennis RLH, Shreeve TG, Van Dyck H (2003) Towards a functional resource-based concept for habitat: a butterfly biology viewpoint. Oikos 102:417–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fleishman E, Ray C, Sjogren-Gulve P, Boggs CL, Murphy DD (2002) Assessing the roles of patch quality, area, and isolation in predicting metapopulation dynamics. Conserv Biol 16:706–716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hanski I (1994) A practical model of metapopulation dynamics. J Anim Ecol 63:151–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hodgson JA, Moilanen A, Thomas CD (2009) Metapopulation responses to patch connectivity and quality are masked by successional habitat dynamics. Ecology 90:1608–1619CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Imura O (2008) Evaluating potential risk of Japanese grassland butterflies for conservation by analyses of Red lists. Jpn J Grass Sci 54:45–56 (in Japanese)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Japan Butterfly Conservation Society (2012) Field guide to the butterflies of Japan. Seibun-do, Tokyo (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  17. Jaquiery J, Guelat J, Broquet T, Berset-Brandli L, Pellegrini E, Moresi R, Hirzel AH, Perrin N (2008) Habitat-quality effects on metapopulation dynamics in greater white-toothed shrew, Crocidura russula. Ecology 89:2777–2785CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Kalarus K, Skórka P, Nowicki P (2013a) Resource use in two contrasting habitat types raises different challenges for the conservation of the dryad butterfly Minois dryas. J Insect Conserv 17:777–786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kalarus K, Skórka P, Halecki W, Jirak A, Kajzer-Bonk J, Nowicki P (2013b) Within-patch mobility and flight morphology reflect resource use anddispersal potential in the dryad butterfly Minois dryas. J Insect Conserv 17:1221–1228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kuroe M, Yamaguchi N, Kadoya T, Miyashita T (2011) Matrix heterogeneity affects population size of the harvest mice: Bayesian estimation of matrix resistance and model validation. Oikos 120:271–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lebreton J, Pradel R (2002) Multistate recapture models: modelling incomplete individual histories. J Appl Stat 29:353–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Matter SF, Roland J, Moilanen A (2004) Migration and survival of Parnassius smintheus: detecting effects of habitat for individual butterflies. Ecol Appl 14:1526–1534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Matter SF, Ezzeddine M, Duermit E, Mashburn J, Hamilton R, Lucas T, Roland J (2009) Interactions between habitat quality and connectivity affect immigration but not abundance or population growth of the butterfly, Parnassius smintheus. Oikos 118:1461–1470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mennechez G, Petit S, Schtickzelle N, Baguette M (2004) Modelling mortality and dispersal: consequences of parameter generalisation on metapopulation dynamics. Oikos 106:243–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Moilanen A, Hanski I (1998) Metapopulation dynamics: effects of habitat quality and landscape structure. Ecology 79:2503–2515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Moilanen A, Nieminen M (2002) Simple connectivity measures in spatial ecology. Ecology 83:1131–1145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mortelliti A, Amori G, Boitani L (2010) The role of habitat quality in fragmented landscapes: a conceptual overview and prospectus for future research. Oecologia 163:535–547CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Nichols J, Kendall W (1995) The use of multi-state capture–recapture models to address questions in evolutionary ecology. J Appl Stat 22:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nowicki P, Vrabec V (2011) Evidence for positive density-dependent emigtation in butterfly metapopulations. Oecologia 167:657–665CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Okubo K (2002) The present state in the study of biological diversity on semi-natural grassland in Japan. Jpn J Grass Sci 48:268–276 (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  31. Pykälä J (2003) Effects of restoration with cattle grazing on plant species composition and richness of semi-natural grasslands. Biodivers Conserv 12:2211–2226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. R Core Team (2014) R: a language and environment for statistical computingGoogle Scholar
  33. Rabasa SG, Gutierrez D, Escudero A (2007) Metapopulation structure and habitat quality in modelling dispersal in the butterfly Iolana iolas. Oikos 116:793–806CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schirozu T (2006) The butterflies of Japan in color. Gakken, Tokyo (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  35. Schooley RL, Branch LC (2009) Enhancing the area-isolation paradigm: habitat heterogeneity and metapopulation dynamics of a rare wetland mammal. Ecol Appl 19:1708–1722CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 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 R Soc B 268:1791–1796CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Thornton DH, Branch LC, Sunquist ME (2011) The influence of landscape, patch, and within-patch factors on species presence and abundance: a review of focal patch studies. Lands Ecol 26:7–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Turgeon K, Kramer DL (2012) Compensatory immigration depends on adjacent population size and habitat quality but not on landscape connectivity. J Anim Ecol 81:1161–1170CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Valimaki P, Itamies J (2003) Migration of the clouded Apollo butterfly Parnassius mnemosyne in a network of suitable habitats—effects of patch characteristics. Ecography 26:679–691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. van Halder I, Barbaro L, Jactel H (2011) Conserving butterflies in fragmented plantation forests: are edge and interior habitats equally important? J Insect Conserv 15:591–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. van Swaay C, Warren M, Loïs G (2006) Biotope use and trends of European butterflies. J Insect Conserv 10:189–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Vanreusel W, Maes D, Van Dyck H (2007) Transferability of species distribution models: a functional habitat approach for two regionally threatened butterflies. Conserv Biol 21:201–212CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Wagner HH, Fortin MJ (2005) Spatial analysis of landscapes: concepts and statistics. Ecology 86:1975–1987CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Winfree R, Dushoff J, Crone EE, Schultz CB, Budny RV, Williams NM, Kremen C (2005) Testing simple indices of habitat proximity. Am Nat 165:707–717CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Akeboshi
    • 1
  • S. Takagi
    • 2
  • M. Murakami
    • 3
  • M. Hasegawa
    • 4
  • T. Miyashita
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Laboratory of Biodiversity Science, School of Agriculture and Life SciencesUniversity of TokyoTokyoJapan
  2. 2.Department of Environmental Science, Faculty of ScienceToho UniversityFunabashiJapan
  3. 3.Laboratory of Community Ecology, Faculty of ScienceChiba UniversityChibaJapan
  4. 4.Department of Biology, Faculty of ScienceToho UniversityFunabashiJapan

Personalised recommendations