Landscape Ecology

, Volume 28, Issue 3, pp 559–569 | Cite as

Evaluating functional connectivity with matrix behavior uncertainty for an endangered butterfly

  • Paul M. Severns
  • Eliot J. B. McIntire
  • Cheryl B. SchultzEmail author
Research article


Understanding animal responses to landscape elements helps forecast population reactions to changing landscape conditions. The challenge is that some behaviors are poorly known and difficult to estimate. We assessed how uncertainty in behavioral responses to dense woods, an avoided landscape structure, impacts functional connectivity among reproductive habitat patches for Fender’s blue butterfly, an endangered prairie species of western Oregon, USA. We designed a factorial simulation experiment using a spatially explicit individual-based model to project functional connectivity for female butterflies across current and alternative landscapes. We varied the probability of dense woods entry and turning angle standard deviation for movements within the dense woods over a range of biologically reasonable and observed values. Butterflies in the current landscape (46 % dense woods) and one with prairie encroached by forest (60 % dense woods) showed reductions in functional connectivity estimates consistent with the expectations of habitat fragmentation. Although dense woods entrance uncertainty impacted functional connectivity projections, uncertainty in the dense woods turning angle standard deviation had comparatively little impact on connectivity estimates. Reduction and reconfiguration of the current dense woods to 27 % cover (restored landscape) appeared to facilitate a corridor behavior in dispersing individuals, likely providing a functional connectivity estimate comparable to the historic landscape (<5 % dense woods). Our simulations suggest that additional study of butterfly movement within the dense woods is unnecessary and that a partial reduction in dense woods would be sufficient to achieve historic levels of functional connectivity for Fender’s blue across the study landscape.


Habitat fragmentation Functional connectivity SEIBM Biased correlated random walk Matrix configuration Habitat restoration 



We thank the Cardwell Hills private landowners (Charlie and Rich Clark, PK and Dai Crisp, Karen Fleck-Harding, Lorin and Josh Lidell, William Pearcy, and Amy Schoener) for enabling the study of Fender’s blue butterflies on their properties. Without their help, cooperation and commitment to conservation this research would not have been possible. We thank Elizabeth Crone for helpful conversations and feedback throughout the project, two anonymous reviewers and C. Vos provided thoughtful comments that improved this manuscript. This project was financially supported by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP), Washington State University Vancouver, the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada Discovery Grant and the Canada Research Chair program.


  1. Andersson E, Bodin O (2009) Practical tool for landscape planning? An empirical investigation of network based models of habitat fragmentation. Ecography 32:123–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnold RA (1983) Ecological studies of six endangered butterflies (Lepidoptera, Lycaenidae). U Cal Pub Entomol 99:1–153Google Scholar
  3. Baguette M, Van Dyck H (2007) Landscape connectivity and animal behavior: functional grain as a key determinant for dispersal. Landscape Ecol 22:1117–1129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baum KA, Haynes KJ, Dillemuth FP, Cronin JT (2004) The matrix enhances the effectiveness of corridors and stepping stones. Ecology 85:2671–2676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bélisle M (2005) Measuring landscape connectivity: the challenge of behavioral landscape ecology. Ecology 86:1988–1995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Breed GA, Jonsen ID, Myers RA, Bowen WD, Leonard ML (2009) Sex-specific, seasonal foraging tactics of adult grey seals (Halichoerus grypus) revealed by state-space analysis. Ecology 90:3209–3221PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bridge ES, Thorup K, Bowlin MS, Chilson PB, Diehl RH, Fleron RW, Hartl P, Kays R, Kelly JF, Robinson WD, Wikelski M (2011) Technology on the move: recent and forthcoming innovations for tracking migratory birds. BioSci 61:689–698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cant ET, Smith AD, Reynolds DR, Osborne JL (2005) Tracking butterfly flight paths across the landscape with harmonic radar. Proc R Soc B: Biol Sci 272:785–790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carleton A, Schultz CB (2012) Restoration action and species response: oviposition habits of Plebejus icarioides fenderi (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) across a restoration chronosequence. J Insect Conserv. doi: 10.1007/s10841-012-9535-7 Google Scholar
  10. Castellόn TD, Sieving KE (2006) An experimental test of matrix permeability and corridor use by an endemic understory bird. Conserv Biol 20:135–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Christy JA, Alverson ER (2011) Historical vegetation of the Willamette Valley, Oregon, circa 1850. Northwest Sci 85:93–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dennis RLH, Shreeve TG, Van Dyck H (2006) Habitats and resources: the need for a resource-based definition to conserve butterflies. Biodivers Conserv 15:1943–1966CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Douglas-Hamilton I, Krink T, Vollrath F (2005) Movements and corridors of African elephants in relation to protected areas. Naturwissenschaften 92:158–163PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dover JW, Fry GLA (2001) Experimental simulation of some visual and physical components of a hedge and the effects of butterfly behavior in an agricultural landscape. Entomol Exp Appl 100:221–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dover J, Settele J (2009) The influences of landscape structure on butterfly distribution and movement: a review. J Insect Conserv 13:3–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eigenbrod F, Hecnar SJ, Fahrig L (2011) Sub-optimal study design has major impacts on landscape-scale inference. Biol Conserv 144:298–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fahrig L (2007) Non-optimal animal movement in human-altered landscapes. Funct Ecol 21:1003–1015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fall A, Fall JG (2001) A domain-specific language for models of landscape dynamics. Ecol Model 141:1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fischer J, Lindenmayer DB (2007) Landscape modification and habitat fragmentation: a synthesis. Global Ecol Biogeogr 16:265–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fudickar AM, Wikelski M, Partecke J (2011) Tracking migratory songbirds: accuracy of light-level loggers (geolocators) in forest habitats. Methods Ecol Evol 3:47–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Goodwin BJ, Fahrig L (2002) How does landscape structure influence landscape connectivity? Oikos 99:552–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Graf RF, Kramer-Schadt S, Fernández N, Grimm V (2007) What you see is where you go? Modeling dispersal in mountain landscapes. Landscape Ecol 22:853–866CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Haddad NM (1999) Corridor use predicted from behaviors at habitat boundaries. Am Nat 153:215–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hagan M, Wikelski M, Kissling WD (2011) Space use of bumblebees (Bombus spp.) revealed by radio tracking. PLoS ONE 6:e19997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hanski I (1998) Metapopulation dynamics. Nature 396:41–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hawkes C (2009) Linking movement behaviour, dispersal and population processes: is individual variation the key? J Anim Ecol 78:894–906PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Johannessen CL, Davenport WA, Millet A, McWilliams S (1970) The vegetation of the Willamette Valley. Ann Assoc Am Geograph 61:286–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kindlmann P, Burel F (2008) Connectivity measures: a review. Landscape Ecol 23:879–890Google Scholar
  29. Knowlton JL, Graham CH (2010) Using behavioral landscape ecology to predict species’ responses to land-use and climate change. Biol Conserv 143:1342–1354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lima SL, Zollner PA (1996) Towards a behavioral ecology of ecological landscapes. Trends Ecol Evol 11:131–135PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Marucco F, McIntire EJB (2010) Predicting spatio-temporal recolonization of large carnivore populations and livestock depredation risk: wolves in the Italian Alps. J Appl Ecol 47:789–798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McIntire EJB, Schultz CB, Crone EE (2007) Designing a network for butterfly habitat restoration: where individuals, populations and landscapes interact. J Appl Ecol 44:725–736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. McIntire EJB, Rompré G, Severns PM (2013) Biased correlated random walk and foray loop: which movement hypothesis drives a butterfly metapopulation? Oecologia. doi: 10.1007/s00442-012-2475-9 Google Scholar
  34. Moilanen A, Hanski I (2001) On the use of connectivity measures in spatial ecology. Oikos 95:147–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mooij WM, DeAngelis DL (2003) Uncertainty in spatially explicit animal dispersal models. Ecol Appl 13:794–805CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nathan R, Getz WM, Revilla E, Holyoak M, Kadmon R, Saltz D, Smouse PE (2008) A movement ecology paradigm for unifying organismal movement research. Proc Nat Acad Sci 105:19052–19059PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ovaskainen O, Luoto M, Ikonen I, Rekola H, Meyke E, Kuussaari M (2008) An empirical test of a diffusion model: predicting clouded apollo movements in a novel environment. Am Nat 171:610–619PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pe’er G, Kramer-Schadt S (2008) Incorporating the perceptual range of animals into connectivity models. Ecol Model 213:73–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pe’er G, Saltz D, Frank K (2005) Virtual corridors for conservation management. Conserv Biol 19:1997–2003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Prevedello JA, Vieira MV (2010) Does the type of matrix matter? A quantitative review of the evidence. Biodivers Conserv 19:1205–1233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Prevedello JA, Forero-Medina G, Vieira MV (2010) Movement behavior within and beyond perceptual ranges in three small mammals: effects of matrix type and body mass. J Anim Ecol 79:1315–1323PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Reuter H, Breckling B, Jopp F (2011) Individual-based models. In: Jopp F, Reuter H, Breckling B (eds) Modelling complex ecological dynamics. Springer, Berlin, pp 163–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Revilla E, Wiegand T (2008) Individual movement behavior, matrix heterogeneity, and the dynamics of spatially structured populations. Proc Nat Acad Sci 105:19120–19125PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Revilla E, Wiegand T, Palomares F, Ferreras P, Delibes M (2004) Effects of matrix heterogeneity on animal dispersal: from individual behavior to metapopulation-level parameters. Am Nat 164:E130–E153PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ricketts TH (2001) The matrix matters: effective isolation in fragmented landscapes. Am Nat 158:87–99PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ries L, Fletcher RJ Jr, Battin J, Sisk TD (2004) Ecological responses to habitat edges: mechanisms, models, and variation explained. Ann Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:491–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schofield G, Hobson VJ, Fossette S, Lilley MKS, Katselidis KA, Hays GC (2010) Fidelity to foraging sites, consistency of migration routes and habitat modulation of home range by sea turtles. Divers Distr 16:840–853CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schooley RL, Wiens JA (2003) Finding habitat patches and functional connectivity. Oikos 102:559–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Schultz CB (1998) Dispersal behavior and its implications for reserve design in a rare Oregon butterfly. Conserv Biol 12:284–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Schultz CB (2001) Restoring resources for an endangered butterfly. J Appl Ecol 38:1007–1019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Schultz CB, Crone EE (2001) Edge-mediated dispersal behavior in a prairie butterfly. Ecology 7:1879–1892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Schultz CB, Crone EE (2005) Patch size and connectivity thresholds for butterfly habitat restoration. Conserv Biol 19:887–896CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Schultz CB, Hammond PC, Wilson MV (2003) The biology of Fender’s blue butterfly (Icaricia icarioides fenderi), an endangered species of western Oregon native prairies. Nat Areas J 23:61–71Google Scholar
  54. Schultz CB, Franco AMA, Crone EE (2012) Response of butterflies to structural and resource boundaries. J Anim Ecol 81:724–734PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Severns PM (2003) Propagation of a long-lived and threatened prairie plant Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii. Restor Ecol 11:334–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Severns PM (2008a) Exotic grass invasion impacts fitness of an endangered prairie butterfly, Icaricia icarioides fenderi. J Insect Conserv 12:651–661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Severns PM (2008b) Road crossing behavior of an endangered grassland butterfly, Icaricia icarioides fenderi Macy (Lycaenidae), between a subdivided population. J Lepid Soc 62:55–58Google Scholar
  58. Severns PM, Warren AD (2008) Saving an imperiled butterfly, Euphydryas editha taylori (Taylor’s checkerspot), by selectively conserving and eliminating exotic plants. Anim Conserv 11:476–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Shapiro AM (2002) The Californian urban butterfly fauna is dependent on alien plants. Divers Distrib 8:31–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Shochat E, Patten MA, Morris DW, Reinking DL, Wolfe DH, Sherrod SK (2005) Ecological traps in isodars: effects of tallgrass prairie management on bird nest success. Oikos 111:159–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Summerville KS, Veech JA, Crist TO (2002) Does variation in patch use among butterfly species contribute to nestedness at fine spatial scales? Oikos 97:195–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Tepedino VJ, Bradley BA, Griswald TL (2008) Might flowers of invasive plants increase native bee diversity? Intimations from Capitol Reef National Park, Utah. Nat Areas J 28:44–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Tischendorf L, Fahrig L (2000) On the usage and measurement of landscape connectivity. Oikos 90:7–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Tscharntke T, Steffan-Dewenter I, Kruess A, Thies C (2002) Characteristics of insect populations on habitat fragments: a mini review. Ecol Res 17:229–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Turchin P (1998) Quantitative analysis of movement: measuring and modeling population redistribution in animals and plants. Sinauer AssociatesGoogle Scholar
  66. Turlure C, Baguette M, Stevens VM, Maes D (2011) Species- and sex-specific adjustments of movement behavior to landscape heterogeneity in butterflies. Behav Ecol 22:967–975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Uezu A, Metzger JP, Vielliard JME (2005) Effects of structural and functional connectivity and patch size on the abundance of seven Atlantic forest bird species. Biol Conserv 123:507–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (2010) Recovery plan for the prairie species of western Oregon and southwestern Washington U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OregonGoogle Scholar
  69. Valentine-Darby PL, Darby PC, Percival HF (2011) Gender-based differences in Florida apple snail (Pomacea paludosa) movements. Malacologia 54:109–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Van Dyck H, Baguette M (2005) Dispersal behaviour in fragmented landscapes: routine or special movements? Basic Appl Ecol 6:535–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Vos CC, Berry P, Opdam P, Baveco H, Nijhof B, O’Hanley J, Bell C, Kuipers H (2008) Adapting landscapes to climate change: examples of climate-proof ecosystem networks and priority adaptation zones. J Appl Ecol 45:1722–1731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wikelski M, Moskowitz D, Adelman JS, Cochran J, Wilcove DS, May ML (2006) Simple rules guide dragonfly migration. Biol Lett 2:325–329PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Wikelski M, Kays RW, Kasdin NJ, Thorup K, Smith JA, Swenson GW (2007) Going wild: what a global small-animal tracking system could do for experimental biologists. J Exp Biol 210:181–186PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Wilson MV, Erhart T, Hammond PC, Kaye TN, Kuykendall K, Liston A, Robinson AF Jr, Schultz CB, Severns PM (2003) The biology of Kincaid’s lupine (Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii), a threatened species of western Oregon native prairies. Nat Areas J 23:72–83Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul M. Severns
    • 1
  • Eliot J. B. McIntire
    • 2
    • 3
  • Cheryl B. Schultz
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.School of Biological SciencesWashington State University VancouverVancouverUSA
  2. 2.Canada Research Chair, Centre d’étude de la forêtPavillon Abitibi-Price, Université LavalQuebecCanada
  3. 3.Pacific Forestry Centre, Canadian Forest ServiceNatural Resources CanadaVictoriaCanada

Personalised recommendations