Landscape Ecology

, Volume 18, Issue 3, pp 279–291 | Cite as

Metapopulation dynamics of the bog fritillary butterfly: comparison of demographic parameters and dispersal between a continuous and a highly fragmented landscape

  • Gwénaëlle Mennechez
  • Nicolas Schtickzelle
  • Michel BaguetteEmail author


We investigated the effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on population functioning. We compared demography (daily and total population sizes) and dispersal (dispersal rate and dispersal kernels) of the bog fritillary butterfly in two 6-km2 landscapes differing in their degree of fragmentation. In 2000, we conducted a Capture-Mark-Recapture experiment in a highly fragmented system in the marginal part of the species distribution (Belgium) and in a more continuous system in the central part of its distribution (Finland). A total of 293 and 947 butterflies were marked with 286 and 190 recapture events recorded in the fragmented and the continuous system respectively. Our results suggest that habitat loss and fragmentation affect dispersal more than demography. Although density was lower in the continuous system, it remains in the yearly range of variation observed on 10 generations in the fragmented system. However, in the fragmented system, the dispersal rate dropped drastically (39 vs. 64%) and females moved longer distances. Patch area had a significant effect on migration in the fragmented system only. From our results, we propose the definition of a new parameter, the minimal patch area (MPA) needed to establish a local population in highly fragmented landscapes.

conservation Capture-Mark-Recapture habitat fragmentation patch size specialist butterfly 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Andreassen, H.P. and Ims, R.A. 1998. The effect of experimental habitat destruction and patch isolation on space use and fitness parameters in female root vole Microtus oeconomus. Journal of Animal Ecology 67: 941–952.Google Scholar
  2. Baguette, M. and Nève, G. 1994. Adult movements between populations in the specialist butterfly Proclossiana eunomia (Lepidoptera, Nymphilidae). Ecological Entomology 19: 1–5.Google Scholar
  3. Baguette, M., Convié, I. and Nève, G. 1996. Male density affects female spatial behaviour in the butterfly Proclossiana eunomia. Acta Oecologica - International Journal of Ecology 17: 225–232.Google Scholar
  4. Baguette, M., Petit, S., and Quéva, F. 2000. Population spatial structure and migration of three butterfly species within the same habitat network: consequences for conservation. Journal of Applied Ecology 37: 100–108.Google Scholar
  5. Baguette, M., Mennechez, G., Petit, S. and Schtickzelle, N. in press. Effect of habitat fragmentation on dispersal in the butterfly Proclossiana eunomia. Comptes Rendus Biologies.Google Scholar
  6. Baguette, M., Vansteenwegen, C., Convié, I. and Nève, G. 1998. Sex-biased density-dependent migration in a metapopulation of the butterfly Proclossiana eunomia. Acta Oecologica 17: 225–232.Google Scholar
  7. Bergman, K-O. and Landin, J. 2001. Distribution of occupied and vacant sites and migration of Loginpa achine (Nymphalidae: Satyrinae) in a fragmented landscape. Biological Conservation 102: 183–190.Google Scholar
  8. Bouma, J., Varallyay, G. and Batjes, N.H. 1998. Principal land use changes anticipated in Europe. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 67: 103–119.Google Scholar
  9. Burnham, K.P. and Anderson, D.R. 1998. Model Selection and Inference. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York, USA.Google Scholar
  10. Debinski, D.M. and Holt, R.D. 2000. A survey and overview of habitat fragmentation experiments. Conservation Biology 14: 342–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dias, P.C. 1996. Sources and sink in population biology. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 11: 326–329Google Scholar
  12. Diffendorfer, J.E., Gaines, M.S. and Holt, R.D. 1995a. Habitat fragmentation and movements of three small mammals (Sigmodon, Microtus,and Peromyscus). Ecology 76: 827–839.Google Scholar
  13. Diffendorfer, J.E., Slade, N.A., Gaines, M.S. and Holt, R.D. 1995b. Population dynamics of small mammals in fragmented and continuous old-field habitat. In: Landscape Approaches in Mammalian Ecology and Conservation, pp. 175–199. Edited by W.Z. Lidicker. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.Google Scholar
  14. Dooley, J.L. and Bowers, M.A. 1998. Demographic responses to habitat fragmentation: experimental tests at the landscape and patch scale. Ecology 79: 969–980.Google Scholar
  15. Fahrig, L. 2001. How much habitat is enough? Biological Conservation 100: 65–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Goodwillie R. 1980. Les tourbières en Europe. Collection Sauvegarde de la Nature. Council of Europe, Strasbourg, France.Google Scholar
  17. Hanski, I. 1991. Single-species metapopulation dynamics: concepts models and observations. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 42: 17–38.Google Scholar
  18. Hanski, I. 1999. Metapopulation Ecology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
  19. Hanski, I. 2001. Spatially realistic theory of metapopulation ecology. Naturwissenschaften 88: 372–381.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Hanski, I. and Gilpin, M. 1991. Metapopulation Dynamics: Empirical and Theoretical Investigations. Academic Press, London, UK.Google Scholar
  21. Hanski, I. and Gilpin, M. 1997. Metapopulation Biology. Ecology, Genetics and Evolution. Academic Press, London, UK.Google Scholar
  22. Hanski, I. and Kuussaari, M. 1995. Butterfly metapopulation dynamics. In: Population Dynamics, New Approaches and Synthesis, pp. 149–171. Edited by N. Cappucino and P.W. Price. Academic Press, London, UK.Google Scholar
  23. Hanski, I., Moilanen, A. and Gyllenberg, M. 1996. Minimum viable metapopulation size. American Naturalist 147: 527–541.Google Scholar
  24. Hanski, I., Pakkala, T., Kuussaari, M. and Lei, G. 1995. Metapopulation persistence of an endangered butterfly in a fragmented landscape. Oikos 72: 21–28.Google Scholar
  25. Heino, M. and Hanski, I. 2001. Evolution of migration rates in a spatially realistic model. American Naturalist 157: 495–511.Google Scholar
  26. Hill, J.K., Thomas, C.D. and Lewis, O.T. 1996. Effects of habitat patch size and isolation on dispersal by Hesperia comma butterflies: implications for metapopulation structure. Journal of Animal Ecology 65: 725–735.Google Scholar
  27. Levins, R. 1969. Some demographic and genetic consequences of environmental heterogeneity for biological control. Bulletin of the Entomological Society of America 15: 237–240.Google Scholar
  28. Maes, D. and Van Dyck, H. 2001. Butterfly diversity loss in Flanders (north Belgium): Europe’s worst case scenario? Biological Conservation 99: 263–276.Google Scholar
  29. McGarigal, K. and Marks, B. 1994. Fragstats: Spatial pattern analysis program for quantifying landscape structure, Reference manual. For. Sci. Dep. Oregon State University. Corvallis Oregon, USA.Google Scholar
  30. Mikkola, K. and Spitzer K. 1983. Lepidoptera associated with peatlands in central and northern Europe: a synthesis. Nota Lepidopterologica 6: 216–229.Google Scholar
  31. Mousson, L., Nève, G. and Baguette, M. 1999. Metapopulation structure and conservation of the cranberry fritillary Boloria aquilonaris (Lepidoptera, nymphalidae) in Belgium. Biological Conservation 87: 285–293.Google Scholar
  32. Nève, G., Barascud, B., Hughes, R.M., Aubert, J., Descimon, H., Lebrun, Ph. and Baguette, M. 1996. Dispersal, colonisation and metapopulation structure in the vulnerable butterfly Proclossiana eunomia. Journal of Applied Ecology 33: 14–22.Google Scholar
  33. Olivieri, I. and Gouyon, P.H. 1997. Evolution of migration rate and other traits: the metapopulation effect. In: Metapopulation Biology. Ecology, Genetics and Evolution. pp. 293–321. Edited by I. Hanski and M. Gilpin. Academic Press, London, UK.Google Scholar
  34. Petit, S., Moilanen, A., Hanski, I. and Baguette, M. 2001. Metapopulation dynamics of the bog fritillary butterfly: movements between habitat patches. Oikos 92: 491–500.Google Scholar
  35. Pulliam, H.R. 1988. Sources, sinks and population regulation. American Naturalist 132: 652–661.Google Scholar
  36. Saccheri, I., Kuussaari, M., Kankare, M., Vikman, P., Fortelius, W. and Hanski, I. 1998. Inbreeding and extinction in a butterfly metapopulation. Nature 392: 491–494.Google Scholar
  37. Saunders, D., Hobbs, R.J. and Margules, C.R. 1991. Biological consequences of ecosystem fragmentation: a review. Conservation Biology 5: 18–32.Google Scholar
  38. Schtickzelle, N., Le Boulengé, E. and Baguette, M. 2002. Metapopulation dynamics of the bog fritillary butterfly: demographic processes in a patchy population. Oikos 97: 349–360.Google Scholar
  39. Soulé, M.E. 1986. Conservation Biology: the Science of Scarcity and Diversity. Sinauer Associates Inc., Sunderland, Massachusetts, USA.Google Scholar
  40. Thomas, C.D. and Hanski, I. 1997. Butterfly Metapopulations. In: Metapopulation Biology. Ecology, Genetics and Evolution, pp. 359–386. Edited by I. Hanski and M. Gilpin. Academic Press, London, UK.Google Scholar
  41. Thomas, C.D. and Kunin, W.E. 1999. The spatial structure of population. Journal of Animal Ecology 68: 647–657.Google Scholar
  42. Thomas, C.D., Thomas, J.A. and Warren, M.S. 1992. Distributions of occupied and vacant butterfly habitats in fragmented landscapes. Oecologia 1992: 563–567.Google Scholar
  43. Väisänen, R. 1992. Distribution and abundance of diurnal Lepidoptera on a raised bog in southern Finland. Annales Zoologici Fennici 29: 75–92.Google Scholar
  44. Van Dongen, S., Backeljau, T., Matthysen, E. and Dhondt, A.A. 1994. Effects of habitat fragmentation on population structure of the winter moth. Acta Oecologica - International Journal of Ecology 15: 193–206.Google Scholar
  45. Wilcox, B.A. and Murphy, D.D. 1985. Conservation strategy: the effects of fragmentation on extinction. American Naturalist 125: 879–887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wolff, J.O., Schauber, E.M. and Edge, W.D. 1997. Effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on the behavior and demography of Gray-Tailed Voles. Conservation Biology 11: 945–956.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gwénaëlle Mennechez
    • 1
  • Nicolas Schtickzelle
    • 1
  • Michel Baguette
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Biodiversity Research CentreCatholic University of LouvainLouvain-la-NeuveBelgium

Personalised recommendations