The resource concentration hypothesis predicts that herbivorous insect density scales positively with plant density because insects are better able to identify, and remain longer in, patches with denser plant resources. While some studies support this hypothesis, others do not. Different explanations have been proposed for this discrepancy, including variation in insect dispersal ability and diet breadth. We test the resource concentration hypothesis using the Karner blue butterfly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis), a specialist that relies on wild blue lupine (Lupinus perennis) as its sole host plant. We extended this hypothesis to test whether Karner blue density also scales positively with nectar plant resources. Our findings did not support the resource concentration hypothesis and demonstrate that the spatial segregation of nectar and host plant resources relative to each other can influence the location and abundance of Karner blues on the landscape. This is because the location of resources relative to each other influences the energy and time butterflies expend for flight activity, and thereby influences resource acquisition. During early summer when first brood Karner blues emerge, nectar and host plants were spatially segregated, and Karner blue density peaked at intermediate densities of nectar and host plants occurring at ratios approximately equal to 1:1. During late summer, we found no significant relationships between second brood Karner blues and nectar plants or host plants when there was no correlation between nectar and host plants. Conservation practitioners of specialist insects with low vagility can strategically manage the distribution of plant resources to minimize insect time and energy expenditure and promote resource acquisition for all of an insect’s life stages.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Andow DA (1991) Vegetational diversity and arthropod population response. Annu Rev Entomol 36:561–586
Bach CE (1988) Effect of host plant patch size on herbivore density: underlying mechanisms. Ecology 69:1103–1117
Bidwell A (1994) Mark-release-recapture of Karner blue butterflies (Lycaeides melissa samuelis) at Fort McCoy Military Reservation. Unpublished Report Submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, St. Paul
Bleser CA (1992) Karner blue butterfly survey, management and monitoring activities in Wisconsin 1990-spring 1992. Report to the Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources. Bureau of Endangered Resources, Madison, WI 88 pp. plus appendices
Boggs CL (2009) Understanding insect life histories and senescence through a resource allocation lens. Funct Ecol 23:27–37
Boggs CL, Freeman KD (2005) Larval food limitation in butterflies: effects on adult resource allocation and fitness. Oecologia 144:353–361
Boggs CL, Ross CL (1993) The effect of adult food limitation on life history traits in Speyeria mormonia (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Ecology 74:433–441
Brommer JE, Fred MS (2001) Movement of the Apollo butterfly Parnassius apollo related to host plant and nectar plant patches. Ecol Entomol 24:125–131
Dirig R (1973) The endangered Karner blue. The Conservationist 28:6–47
Dirig R (1994) Historical notes on wild lupine and the Karner blue butterfly at Albany Pine Bush, New York. In: Andow D, Lane C (eds) Karner blue butterfly: a symbol of a vanishing landscape. University of Minnesota, St Paul, pp 22–36
Doak P, Kareiva P, Kingsolver J (2006) Fitness consequences of choosy oviposition for a time-limited butterfly. Ecology 87:395–408
Dunn JP (2008) Investigations of adult dispersal, habitat quality analysis, and the development of monitoring techniques for the Karner blue butterfly within the Muskegon Recovery Unit. Thesis, Grand Valley State University
Finch S, Collier RH (2000) Host-plant selection by insects: a theory based on “appropriate/inappropriate landings” by pest insects of cruciferous plants. Entomol Exp Appl 96:91–102
Fischer K, Fiedler K (2001) Effects of adult feeding and temperature regime on fecundity and longevity in the butterfly Lycaena hippothoe (Lycaenidae). J Lepid Soc 53:91–95
Forrester JA, Leopold DJ, Hafner SD (2005) Maintaining critical habitat in a heavily managed landscape: effects of power line corridor management on Karner blue butterfly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis) Habitat. Restor Ecol 13:488–498
Fried CS (1987) Dispersal of the Karner blue buttefly (Lycaeides Melissa samuelis Nabokov) in the Albany Pine Bush. Report to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Endangered Species Unit. 18 pp
Gibbs M, Van Dyck H (2010) Butterfly flight activity affects reproductive performance and longevity relative to landscape structure. Oecologia 163:341–350
Grez AA, Gonzalez RH (1995) Resource concentration hypothesis: effect of host plant patch size on density of herbivorous insects. Oecologia 103:471–474
Grossmueller DW, Lederhouse RC (1987) The role of nectar source distribution in habitat use and oviposition by the tiger swallowtail butterfly. J Lepid Soc 41:159–165
Grundel R, Pavlovic NB (2007) Resource availability, matrix quality, microclimate, and spatial pattern as predictors of patch use by the Karner blue butterfly. Biol Conserv 135:135–144
Grundel R, Pavlovic NB, Sulzman CL (1998) Habitat use by the endangered Karner blue butterfly in oak woodlands: the influence of canopy cover. Biol Conserv 85:47–53
Grundel R, Pavlovic NB, Sulzman CL (2000) Nectar plant selection by the Karner blue butterfly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis) at the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore. Am Midl Nat 144:1–10
Hall, W Jr. (2014) Wildlife biologist, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Personal communication
Hamback PA, Englund G (2005) Patch area, population density and the scaling of migration rate: the resource concentration hypothesis revisited. Ecol Lett 8:1057–1065
Herms CP (1996) The endangered Karner blue butterfly (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) in Michigan: Habitat suitability, potential impacts of gypsy moth (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae) suppression, and laboratory rearing. Thesis, Michigan State University
Hess AN, Hess RJ, Hess JLM, Paulan B, Hess JAM (2014) American bison influences on lepidopteran and wild blue lupine distribution in an oak savanna landscape. J Insect Conserv 18:327–338
Hess RJ, Hess AN (2015) Conserving Karner blue butterflies in Wisconsin: a development of management techniques. Am Entomol 61:96–113
House HD (1918) Wild flowers of New York, Part I. Whitefish, Kessinger
James M, Gilbert F, Zalat S (2003) Thyme and isolation for the Sinai baton blue butterfly (Pseudophilotes sinaicus). Oecologia 134:445–453
Janz N (2005) The relationship between habitat selection and preference for adult and larval food resources in the polyphagous butterfly Vanessa cardui (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). J Insect Behav 18:767–780
Kareiva P (1985) Finding and losing host plants by Phyllotetra: patch size and surrounding habitat. Ecology 66:1809–1816
Kearns CA, Inouye DW (1993) Techniques for pollination biologists. University Press of Colorado, p 583
Kingsolver JG (1983) Thermoregulation and flight in colias butterflies: elevational patterns and mechanistic limitations. Ecology 64:534–545
Knutson RL, Kwilosz JR, Grundel R (1999) Movement patterns and population characteristics of the Karner blue butterfly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis) at Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore. Nat Area J 19:109–120
Lawrence WS, Cook AC (1989) The status and management of Karner blue (Lycaeides melissa samuelis) populations in the Allegan State Game Area, Michigan. Unpublished Report to The Nature Conservancy, Michigan Field Office
Lovell JH (1926) Honey plants of North America: (North of Mexico) a guide to the best locations for beekeeping in the United States. A.I. Root Company, Medina, p 45
MDNR (2009) Michigan Karner blue butterfly habitat conservation plan. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Lansing
Murphy DD (1983) Nectar sources as constraints on the distribution of egg masses by the checkerspot butterfly, Euphydryas chalcedona (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Envi Entomol 12:463–466
Neff PK, Mader E (2013) CRP-SAFE for Karner blue butterflies. The Xerces Society
Opler P, Krizek G (1984) Butterflies east of the great plains. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore
O'Rourke ME, Petersen MJ (2017) Extending the 'resource concentration hypothesis' to the landscale scale by considering dispersal mortality and fitness costs. Agric Ecosyst Environ 249:1–3
Packer L (1987) Status report on the Karner blue butterfly, Lycaeides melissa samuelis Nabokov, in Canada. Unpublished report for the World Wildlife Fund and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Wildlife Branch, Nongame Program.
Pickens BA, Root KV (2008) Factors affecting host-plant quality and nectar use for the Karner blue butterfly: implications for oak savanna restoration. Nat Areas J 28:210–217
Pollard E, Yates T (1993) Monitoring butterflies for ecology and conservation. Chapman and Hall, London
R Core Team (2018) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna
Rhainds M, English-Loeb G (2003) Testing the resource concentration hypothesis with tarnished plant bug on strawberry: density of hosts and patch size influence the interaction between abundance of nymphs and incidence of damage. Ecol Entomol 28:348–358
Root RB (1973) Organization of a plant-arthropod association in simple and diverse habitats: the fauna of collards (Brassica olerácea). Ecol Monogr 43:95–124
Rutowski RL (1991) The evolution of male mate-locating behavior in butterflies. Am Nat 138:1121–1139
Saastamoinen M, Hanski I (2008) Genotypic and environmental effects on flight activity and oviposition in the glanville fritillary butterfly. Am Nat 171:701–712
Savanick MA (2005) Population dynamics and nectar preference of the Karner blue butterfly Lycaeides melissa samuelis (Nabokov). Thesis, University of Minnesota
Scharf I, Peter F, Martin OY (2013) Reproductive trade-offs and direct costs for males in arthropods. Evol Biol 40:169–184
Scheirs J, De Bruyn L (2002) Integrating optimal foraging and optimal oviposition theory in plant-insect research. Oikos 96:187–191
Schellhorn NA, Sork VL (1997) The impact of weed diversity on insect population dynamics and crop yield in collard, Brassica oleraceae (Brassicaceae). Oecologia 111:233–240
Schweitzer DF (1989) Fact sheet for the Karner blue butterfly with special reference to New York. Unpublished report, The Nature Conservancy.
Schweitzer DF (1994) Prioritizing Karner blue butterlfy habitats for protection activities. In: Andow DA, Baker RJ, Lane CP (eds) Karner blue butterfly: a symbol of a vanishing landscape. University of Minnesota, St Paul
Shreeve TG (1992) Adult behavior. In: Dennis RLH (ed) The ecology of butterflies in Britain. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Smallidge PJ, Leopold DJ, Allen CM, Leopoldt DJ (1996) Community characteristics and vegetation management of Karner blue butterfly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis) habitats on rights-of-way in east-central New York, USA. J Appl Ecol 33:1405–1419
Southwood TRE (1960) The evolution of insect host tree relationship—a new approach. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Congress on Entomology. Vienna
Tuller J, César A, De Queiroz M, Rodrigues G, Luz D, De J, Silva O (2013) Gall-forming insect attack patterns: a test of the Plant Vigor and the Resource Concentration Hypotheses. Biotemas 26:45–51
USFWS (2003) Karner blue butterfly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis) recovery plan. US Fish and Wildlife Service Fort Snelling, Minnesota
USFWS (2012) Karner blue butterfly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis) 5-year review: summary and evaluation. US Fish and Widlife Service, New Franken
WDNR (2000) Wisconsin Statewide Karner Blue Butterfly habitat Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement. PUBL-SS-947-00. Madison, WI.
We would like to thank three anonymous reviewers for their constructive critique on the manuscript. We are grateful to Jason Dzurisin, Wayne Hall, Jr., Anna Hess, Bob Hess, Tamatha Patterson, and Noel Pavlovic for providing invaluable guidance and knowledge, Stuart Jones for helpful discussions on study design, and Sarah Klepinger for assisting with field data collection. Thoughtful comments from Anna Hess, Christopher Hoving, Kelly Kapsar, Connor Rosenblatt, and Zhenci Xu greatly improved earlier drafts. This research was funded by the University of Notre Dame’s College of Science. Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Chau, S.N., Bristow, L.V., Grundel, R. et al. Resource segregation at fine spatial scales explains Karner blue butterfly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis) distribution. J Insect Conserv 24, 739–749 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-020-00244-0
- Conservation management
- Karner blue butterfly
- Resource tradeoff
- Resource concentration hypothesis
- Resource segregation