Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Corridor width and orientation are complementary design variables for butterflies in conservation corridors

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Landscape Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Context

Habitat edges are integral features of conservation corridors and can influence corridor function and effectiveness. Edge orientation is linked to corridor design and can shape edge responses by changing habitat conditions along edges as well as contrast between conserved habitats and transformed areas.

Objectives

We assess whether corridor orientation affects butterfly assemblages in conservation corridors. To do this, we investigate how edge orientation influences butterfly diversity and abundance along forestry plantation edges, and compare this to another important design variable, corridor width.

Methods

Butterflies were recorded along the sunny austral north- and shady austral south-orientated edges in grassland conservation corridors that dissect forestry plantations, as well as corridor interior sites. Species richness, abundance and similarity to interior sites were modelled using local habitat variables (ambient temperature, floral resources, and time of day), as well as corridor design variables (corridor width, orientation and an estimate of edge contrast influenced by orientation).

Results

Both edge orientation and corridor width were important for butterfly diversity along corridor edges. Wider corridors enhanced overall species richness and promoted similarity between edge and interior habitats. Concurrently, grassland specialist species preferred the sunnier edges (i.e., north facing in the southern hemisphere) while forest- specialists showed a preference for the shadier edges (south facing edges). Edge orientation influenced resident butterflies more strongly than transient butterflies and influenced specialists more strongly than generalists.

Conclusions

Corridor orientation and width are complementary design variables for butterfly conservation. Wide corridors at a variety of orientations benefit different subsets of the butterfly assemblage, and the whole corridor (including both edges) is important to consider in conservation planning to capture all biodiversity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aragón G, Abuja L, Belinchón R, Martínez I (2015) Edge type determines the intensity of forest edge effect on epiphytic communities. Eur J For Res 134:443–451

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arroyo-Rodríguez V, Saldaña-Vázquez RA, Fahrig L, Santos BA (2017) Does forest fragmentation cause an increase in forest temperature? Ecol Res 32:81–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrios JA, De Aquino M, Di Liberto JF, Melnick D (2018) Cutting-edge meadows: The effect of meadow edges and orientation on plant community dynamics. CEC Res. https://doi.org/10.21973/N3FQ0K

  • Barton K (2020) MuMIn: Multi-Model Inference. R package version 1.43.17

  • Baselga A (2010) Partitioning the turnover and nestedness components of beta diversity. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 19:134–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baselga A, Orme D, Sebastien V et al (2021) betapart: Partitioning beta diversity into turnover and nestedness components. R package version 1.5.4

  • Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models Using lme4. J Stat Softw 67:1–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beier P, Majka DR, Spencer WD (2008) Forks in the road: choices in procedures for designing wildland linkages. Conserv Biol 22:836–851

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bernaschini ML, Trumper E, Valladares G, Salvo A (2019) Are all edges equal? Microclimatic conditions, geographical orientation and biological implications in a fragmented forest. Agric Ecosyst Environ 280:142–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bjornstad ON (2020) ncf: Spatial covariance functions. R package version 1.2-9

  • Bremer LL, Farley KA (2010) Does plantation forestry restore biodiversity or create green deserts? A synthesis of the effects of land-use transitions on plant species richness. Biodivers Conserv 19:3893–3915

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Cardoso P, Mammola S, Rigal F, Carvalho J (2021) BAT: Biodiversity Assessment Tools. R package version 2.7.1

  • Chen J, Franklin JF, Spies TA (1995) Growing-season microclimatic gradients from clearcut edges into old-growth Douglas-fir forests. Ecol Appl 5:74–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • da Silva JLG, de Holanda Silva IL, Ribeiro-Neto JD, et al (2018) Forest edge orientation influences leaf-cutting ant abundance and plant drought stress in the Brazilian Atlantic forest. Agric For Entomol 20:358–365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Smedt P, Baeten L, Proesmans W, et al (2019) Strength of forest edge effects on litter-dwelling macro‐arthropods across Europe is influenced by forest age and edge properties. Divers Distrib 25:963–974

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demaynadier PG, Hunter MLJ (1998) Effects of silvicultural edges on the distribution and abundance of amphibians in Maine. Conserv Biol 12:340–352

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dennis RH (2004) Landform resources for territorial nettle–feeding Nymphalid butterflies: biases at different spatial scales. Anim Biodivers Conserv 27:37–45

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennis RLH, Hardy PB (2007) Support for mending the matrix: resource seeking by butterflies in apparent non-resource zones. J Insect Conserv 11:157–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dennis RLH, Sparks TH (2006) When is a habitat not a habitat? Dramatic resource use changes under differing weather conditions for the butterfly Plebejus argus. Biol Conserv 129:291–301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dennis RLH, Shreeve TG, Van Dyck H (2013) Towards a functional resource-based concept for habitat: a butterfly biology viewpoint. Oikos 102:417–426

    Google Scholar 

  • Dover J, Settele J (2009) The influences of landscape structure on butterfly distribution and movement: a review. J Insect Conserv 13:3–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dover JW, Sparks TH, Greatorex-Davies JN (1997) The importance of shelter for butterflies in open landscapes. J Insect Conserv. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018487127174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans LC, Sibly RM, Thorbek P, et al (2019) Integrating the influence of weather into mechanistic models of butterfly movement. Mov Ecol 7:24

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Evans LC, Sibly RM, Thorbek P, et al (2020) The importance of including habitat-specific behaviour in models of butterfly movement. Oecologia 193:249–259

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Fahrig L (2018) Forty years of bias in habitat fragmentation research. In: Kareiva P, Marvier M, Silliman B (eds) Effective conservation science: data not dogma. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 32–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer K, Fiedler K (2001) Resource-based territoriality in the butterfly Lycaena hippothoe and environmentally induced behavioural shifts. Anim Behav 61:723–732

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher RJJ, Ries L, Battin J, Chalfoun AD (2007) The role of habitat area and edge in fragmented landscapes: definitively distinct or inevitably intertwined? Can J Zool 85:1017–1030

    Google Scholar 

  • Flick T, Feagan S, Fahrig L (2012) Effects of landscape structure on butterfly species richness and abundance in agricultural landscapes in eastern Ontario, Canada. Ecosyst Environ 156:123–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franklin CMA, Harper KA, Clarke MJ (2021) Trends in studies of edge influence on vegetation at human created and natural forest edges across time and space. Can J For Res 51:274–282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harper KA, Macdonald SE, Burton PJ, et al (2005) Edge influence on forest structure and composition in fragmented landscapes. Conserv Biol 19:768–782

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris LD (1988) Edge effects and conservation of biotic diversity. Conserv Biol 2:330–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hess GR, Fischer RA (2001) Communicating clearly about conservation corridors. Landsc Urban Plan 55:195–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ivanov K, Keiper J (2010) Ant (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) diversity and community composition along sharp urban forest edges. Biodivers Conserv 19:3917–3933

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kautz M, Schopf R, Ohser J (2013) The “sun-effect”: microclimatic alterations predispose forest edges to bark beetle infestations. Eur J For Res 132:453–465

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keeley ATH, Beier P, Creech T, et al (2019) Thirty years of connectivity conservation planning: an assessment of factors influencing plan implementation. Environ Res Lett 14:103001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kleckova I, Klecka J (2016) Facing the heat: thermoregulation and behaviour of lowland species of a cold-dwelling butterfly genus, Erebia. PLoS ONE 11:e0150393

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Laurance WF, Nascimento HEM, Laurance SG et al (2007) Habitat fragmentation, variable edge effects, and the landscape-divergence hypothesis. PLoS ONE 2:e1017

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Leibold MA, Holyoak M, Mouquet N, et al (2004) The metacommunity concept: a framework for multi-scale community ecology. Ecol Lett 7:601–613

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lukacs PM, Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2009) Model selection bias and Freedman’s paradox. Ann Inst Stat Math 62:117–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mecenero S, Ball JB, Edge DA, et al (2013) Conservation assessment of butterflies of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland: Red List and Atlas. Saftronics (Pty) Ltd., Johannesburg

    Google Scholar 

  • Mucina L, Rutherford MC (eds) (2006) The vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Strelitzia 19. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria

    Google Scholar 

  • Nowicki P, Halecki W, Kalarus K (2013) All natural habitat edges matter equally for endangered Maculinea butterflies. J Insect Conserv 17:139–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Öckinger E, Smith HG (2006) Landscape composition and habitat area affects butterfly species richness in semi-natural grasslands. Oecologia 149:526–534

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ohwaki A, Maeda S, Kitahara M, Nakano T (2017) Association between canopy cover openness, butterfly resources, butterfly richness and abundance along forest trails in planted and natural forests. Eur J Entomol 114:533–545

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ohwaki A, Koyanagi TF, Maeda S (2018) Evaluating forest clear-cuts as alternative grassland habitats for plants and butterflies. For Ecol Manag 430:337–345

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oksanen J, Blanchet FG, Friendly M et al (2020) vegan: Community Ecology Package. R package version 2.5-7

  • Pandit SN, Kolasa J, Cottenie K, et al (2009) Contrasts between habitat generalists and specialists: an empirical extension to the basic metacommunity framework. Ecology 90:2253–2262

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Perović D, Gámez-Virués S, Börschig C, et al (2015) Configurational landscape heterogeneity shapes functional community composition of grassland butterflies. J Appl Ecol 52:505–513

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peyras M, Vespa NI, Bellocq MI, Zurita GA (2013) Quantifying edge effects: the role of habitat contrast and species specialization. J Insect Conserv 17:807–820

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pryke SR, Samways MJ (2001) Width of grassland linkages for the conservation of butterflies in South African afforested areas. Biol Conserv 101:85–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pryke JS, Samways MJ (2012) Conservation management of complex natural forest and plantation edge effects. Landsc Ecol 27:73–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • R Core Team (2020) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  • Reino L, Beja P, Osborne PE et al (2009) Distance to edges, edge contrast and landscape fragmentation: interactions affecting farmland birds around forest plantations. Biol Conserv 142:824–838

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ries L, Debinski DM (2001) Butterfly responses to habitat edges in the highly fragmented prairies of Central Iowa. J Anim Ecol 70:840–852

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ries L, Sisk TD (2010) What is an edge species? The implications of sensitivity to habitat edges. Oikos 119:1636–1642

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ries L, Fletcher RJJ, Battin J, Sisk TD (2004) Ecological responses to habitat edges: mechanisms, models, and variability explained. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 35:491–522

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ries L, Murphy SM, Wimp GM, Fletcher RJ (2017) Closing persistent gaps in knowledge about edge ecology. Curr Landsc Ecol Rep 2:30–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Root RB, Kareiva PM (1984) The search for resources by cabbage butterflies (Pieris rapae): ecological consequences and adaptive significance of markovian movements in a patchy environment. Ecology 65:147–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruffell J, Didham RK (2016) Towards a better mechanistic understanding of edge effects. Landsc Ecol 31:2205–2213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samways MJ (2007) Implementing ecological networks for conserving insect and other biodiversity. In: Stewart AJA, New TR, Lewis OT (eds) Insect Conservation Biology. Springer, Netherlands, pp 127–143

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Samways MJ, Bazelet CS, Pryke JS (2010) Provision of ecosystem services by large scale corridors and ecological networks. Biodivers Conserv 19:2949–2962

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schtickzelle N, Joiris A, Van Dyck H, Baguette M (2007) Quantitative analysis of changes in movement behaviour within and outside habitat in a specialist butterfly. BMC Evol Biol 7:1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schultz CB, Crone EE (2001) Edge-mediated dispersal behavior in a prairie butterfly. Ecology 82:1879–1892

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schultz CB, Franco AMA, Crone EE (2012) Response of butterflies to structural and resource boundaries. J Anim Ecol 81:724–734

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shreeve TG, Dennis RLH (2011) Landscape scale conservation: resources, behaviour, the matrix and opportunities. J Insect Conserv 15:179–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siu JC, Koscinski D, Keyghobadi N (2016) Swallowtail butterflies show positive edge responses predicted by resource use. Landsc Ecol 31:2115–2131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tscharntke T, Tylianakis JM, Rand TA et al (2012) Landscape moderation of biodiversity patterns and processes—eight hypotheses. Biol Rev 87:661–685

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Turner JRG, Gatehouse CM, Corey CA (1987) Does solar energy control organic diversity? Butterflies, moths and the British climate. Oikos 48:195–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Halder I, Barbaro L, Jactel H (2011) Conserving butterflies in fragmented plantation forests: are edge and interior habitats equally important? J Insect Conserv 15:591–601

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Schalkwyk J, Pryke JS, Samways MJ (2017) Wide corridors with much environmental heterogeneity best conserve high dung beetle and ant diversity. Biodivers Conserv 26:1243–1256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Schalkwyk J, Pryke JS, Samways MJ (2019) Contribution of common vs. rare species to species diversity patterns in conservation corridors. Ecol Indic 104:279–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Schalkwyk J, Pryke JS, Samways MJ, Gaigher R (2020a) Environmental filtering and spillover explain multi – species edge responses across agricultural boundaries in a biosphere reserve. Sci Rep 10:1–10

    Google Scholar 

  • van Schalkwyk J, Pryke JS, Samways MJ, Gaigher R (2020b) Spillover of terrestrial arthropod species and beta diversity in perennial crops relative to spatial scale of land-use intensity. J Appl Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13638

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Schalkwyk J, Pryke JS, Samways MJ, Gaigher R (2020c) Corridor width determines strength of edge influence on arthropods in conservation corridors. Landsc Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-020-01008-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Schalkwyk J, Gaigher R, Pryke JS, Samways MJ (2021a) Within-corridor heterogeneity is more important than corridor design for maintaining butterfly functional and taxonomic diversity. J Appl Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.14006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Schalkwyk J, Pryke JS, Samways MJ, Gaigher R (2021b) Maintaining high vegetation structural diversity in the landscape promotes arthropod diversity in dynamic production areas. Landsc Ecol 36:1773–1785

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vlašánek P, Fric ZF, Zimmermann K, et al (2018) Do butterfly activity data from mark-recapture surveys reflect temporal patterns? J Insect Behav 31:385–401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watling JI, Orrock JL (2010) Measuring edge contrast using biotic criteria helps define edge effects on the density of an invasive plant. Landsc Ecol 25:69–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wikstroem L, Milberg P, Bergman K-O (2009) Monitoring of butterflies in semi-natural grasslands: diurnal variation and weather effects. J Insect Conserv 13:203–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wittman J, Stivers E, Larsen K (2017) Butterfly surveys are impacted by time of day. J Lepid Soc 71:125–129

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood PA, Samways MJ (1991) Landscape element pattern and continuity of butterfly flight paths in an ecologically landscaped botanic garden, Natal, South Africa. Biol Conserv 58:149–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodhall S (2005) Field guide to butterflies of South Africa. Struik Nature, Cape Town

    Google Scholar 

  • Yekwayo I, Pryke JS, Roets F, Samways MJ (2016) Surrounding vegetation matters for arthropods of small, natural patches of indigenous forest. Insect Conserv Divers 9:224–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by Mondi Group. The authors thank L. Davids for field assistance. Butterfly collecting was approved by Ezemvelo KwaZulu-Natal Wildlife under Permit Number OP480/2021.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Conservation Ecology and Entomology, Stellenbosch University, Private Bag X1, Matieland, 7602, South Africa

    J. van Schalkwyk, J. S. Pryke, M. J. Samways & R. Gaigher

Authors
  1. J. van Schalkwyk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. S. Pryke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. M. J. Samways
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. R. Gaigher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

JS, JSP, MJS, and RG conceived and designed the study. JS collected the data, conducted the analysis, and was the primary author of the manuscript. All authors contributed critically to draft manuscripts and approved the final manuscript for publication.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. van Schalkwyk.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

van Schalkwyk, J., Pryke, J.S., Samways, M.J. et al. Corridor width and orientation are complementary design variables for butterflies in conservation corridors. Landsc Ecol 37, 2535–2549 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-022-01484-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-022-01484-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation