Journal of Insect Conservation

, Volume 1, Issue 3, pp 159–166 | Cite as

Assessing the status of the marsh fritillary butterfly (Eurodryas aurinia): an example from Glamorgan, UK

  • Owen T. Lewis
  • Clive Hurford

Abstract

We surveyed populations of Eurodryas aurinia (a butterfly listed as ‘Threatened in Europe’) in Glamorgan (South Wales, UK). The survey may provide a model for similar work, which is urgently needed throughout the species' European range. For each colony, we established population size, vegetation types, and current management regimes. Populations were assessed using larval surveys, a method which has several advantages over conventional adult surveys. With approximately 35 local populations, Glamorgan is among the most important areas for E. aurinia in the UK, and is of importance in a European context. However, 15 local populations were under immediate threat from unfavourable management or industrial developments, and only seven populations were on Sites of Special Scientific Interest. Colonies showed a clustered pattern, and varied greatly in size: 50% supported 20 or fewer larval webs. Many of the small populations may be temporary offshoots of larger, more permanent populations nearby. The largest local populations occupied Molinia caerulea - Cirsium dissectum fen meadow habitats (National Vegetation Community M24), which were unmanaged, grazed by cattle, horses or ponies, or subject to periodic burning. Detailed local surveys such as this one, which assess the relative sizes of populations and the impact of current management practices, may be the best way to plan future conservation measures for E. aurinia.

butterfly Eurodryas aurinia conservation Wales metapopulation. 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Boorman, S.A. and Levitt, P.R. (1973) Group selection on the boundary of a stable population. Theoret. Popul. Biol. 4, 85–128.Google Scholar
  2. Ford, H.D. and Ford, E.B. (1930) Fluctuation in numbers, and its influence on variation, in Melitaea auriniaRott. (Lepidoptera). Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond. 78, 345–51.Google Scholar
  3. Fowles, A.P. (1994) Invertebrates of Wales: a Review of Important Sites and Species. Peterborough: JNCC.Google Scholar
  4. Gilpin, M.E. and Hanski, I. (eds) (1991) Metapopulation Dynamics: Empirical and Theoretical Investigations. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  5. Harrison, S., Murphy, D.D. and Ehrlich, P.R. (1988) Distribution of the bay checkerspot butterfly Euphydryas editha bayensis: evidence for a metapopulation model. Amer. Natur. 132, 360–82.Google Scholar
  6. Heath, J. (1981) Threatened Rhopalocera(butterflies) in Europe. Nature and Environment series no. 23. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
  7. Heath, J., Pollard, E. and Thomas, J.A. (1984) Atlas of Butterflies in Britain and Ireland. Harmondsworth: Viking.Google Scholar
  8. Hurford, C. (1993) The Status ofE. aurinia (the Marsh Fritillary Butterfly) on Selected Sites in Glamorgan and Gwent, 1992. CCW Species and Monitoring Branch, Report 92/2/5. Roath, Cardiff: Countryside Council for Wales.Google Scholar
  9. Kirby, P. (1992) Habitat Management for Insects: a Practical Handbook. Sandy: RSPB.Google Scholar
  10. Levins, R.A. (1970) Extinction. Lect. Notes Math. Life Sci. 2, 77–107.Google Scholar
  11. Lewis, O.T. (1993) Survey and Monitoring of the Breeding Status of the Marsh Fritillary in Glamorgan. CCW Contract Science No. 73. Roath, Cardiff: Countryside Council for Wales.Google Scholar
  12. Oates, M.R. and Warren, M.S. (1990) A Review of Butterfly Introductions in Britain and Ireland. Godalming, Surrey: World Wide Fund for Nature.Google Scholar
  13. Porter, K. (1981) The population dynamics of small populations of the butterflyEuphydryas aurinia. DPhil thesis, University of Oxford.Google Scholar
  14. Pulliam, R. (1988) Sources, sinks and population regulation. Amer. Natur. 132, 625–61.Google Scholar
  15. Rodwell, J.S. (1992) British Plant Communities: Volume 3; grasslands and montane communities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Thomas, C.D. (1994) Local extinctions, colonizations and distributions: habitat tracking by British butterflies. In Individuals, Populations and Patterns in Ecology(S.R. Leather, A.D. Watt, N.J. Mills, and K.F.A. Walters, eds) pp. 319–37. Andover, UK: Intercept.Google Scholar
  17. Thomas, C.D. and Hanski, I. (1997) Butterfly metapopulations. In Metapopulation dynamics: ecology, genetics and evolution(I. Hanski and M.E. Gilpin eds) pp. 359–86. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  18. Thomas, C.D. and Harrison, S. (1992) Spatial dynamics of a patchily distributed butterfly species. J. Anim. Ecol. 68, 437–46.Google Scholar
  19. Thomas, J.A. and Simcox, D.J. (1982) A quick method for estimating larval populations of Melitaea cinxiaL. during surveys. Biol. Conserv. 22, 315–22.Google Scholar
  20. Van Swaay, C.A.M. (1990) An assessment of changes in butterfly abundance in the Netherlands during the twentieth century. Biol. Conserv. 52, 287–302.Google Scholar
  21. Warren, M.S. (1991) Euphydryas auriniadata sheet. Convention on the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
  22. Warren, M.S. (1994) The UK status and suspected metapopulation structure of a threatened European species, Eurodryas aurinia(the marsh fritillary). Biol. Conserv. 67, 239–49.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Chapman and Hall 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Owen T. Lewis
    • 1
  • Clive Hurford
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of BiologyUniversity of LeedsLeedsUK
  2. 2.Countryside Council for WalesRoath CardiffUK

Personalised recommendations