Advertisement

Biodiversity & Conservation

, Volume 11, Issue 8, pp 1451–1468 | Cite as

Persistence of species in a fragmented urban landscape: the importance of dispersal ability and habitat availability for grassland butterflies

  • Byron C. Wood
  • Andrew S. Pullin
Article

Abstract

Some species cope with, and survive in, urban areas better than others.From a conservation viewpoint it is important to understand why some species arerare or are excluded in the urban landscape, in order that we might take actionto conserve and restore species. Two ecological factors that might explain thedistribution and abundance of butterfly species in the urban landscape aredispersal ability and the availability of suitable habitat. The influence ofthese factors was assessed by examining the distribution and genetic structureof four grassland butterfly species in the West Midlands conurbation, UK. Thefour species differ in their distribution and abundance, mobility and habitatspecificity. No significant fit to the isolation-by-distance model was found forany of the study species at this spatial scale. MeanFST values revealed a non-significant level ofpopulation structuring for two species, Pieris napi (L.)and Maniola jurtina (L.), but moderate and significantpopulation differentiation for Pyronia tithonus (L.) andCoenonympha pamphilus (L.). Results suggest that thesespecies are limited more by the availability of suitable habitat than by theirability to move among habitat patches. Conservation strategies for thesegrassland species should initially focus on the creation and appropriatemanagement of suitable habitat. More sedentary species that have already beenexcluded from the conurbation may require a more complex strategy for theirsuccessful restoration.

Allozymes Conservation Genetic structure Habitat availability Species mobility 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Birmingham City Council 1997. A Nature Conservation Strategy for Birmingham. Birmingham City Council, Birmingham, UK.Google Scholar
  2. Bossart J.L. and Scriber J.M. 1995. Maintenance of ecologically significant genetic variation in the tiger swallowtail butterfly through differential selection and gene flow. Evolution 49: 1163–1171.Google Scholar
  3. Brown K.S. 1991. Conservation of neotropical environments: insects as indicators. In: Collins N.M. and Thomas J.A. (eds), The Conservation of Insects and their Habitats. Academic Press, London, pp. 350–404.Google Scholar
  4. Butterfly Conservation 2001. Millennium Atlas of Butterflies in Britain and Ireland. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
  5. Debinski M. 1994. Genetic diversity assessment in a metapopulation of the butterfly Euphydryas gillettii. Biological Conservation 70: 25–31.Google Scholar
  6. Dennis R.L.H. and Eales H.T. 1997. Patch occupancy in Coenonympha tullia (Muller 1764) (Lepidoptera: Satyrinae): habitat quality matters as much as patch size and isolation. Journal of Insect Conservation 1: 167–176.Google Scholar
  7. Dennis R.L.H. and Shreeve T.G. 1997. Diversity of butterflies on British islands: ecological influences underlying the roles of area, isolation and the size of the faunal source. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 60: 257–275.Google Scholar
  8. Dennis R.L.H. and Thomas C.D. 2000. Bias in butterfly distribution maps: the influence of hot spots and recorder's home range. Journal of Insect Conservation 4: 73–77.Google Scholar
  9. Ehrlich P.R. 1984. The structure and dynamics of butterfly populations. In: Vane-Wright R.I. and Ackery P.R. (eds), The Biology of Butterflies. Academic Press, London, pp. 25–40.Google Scholar
  10. Erhardt A. and Thomas J.A. 1991. Lepidoptera as indicators of change in the semi-natural grasslands of lowland and upland Europe. In: Collins N.M. and Thomas J.A. (eds), The Conservation of Insects and their Habitats. Academic Press, London, pp. 213–236.Google Scholar
  11. Excoffier L. 1993. http: / / anthropologie.unigie.ch /LGB/ software /win/ min-span-net /. (unpublished).Google Scholar
  12. Felsenstein J. 1993. PHYLIP (Phylogeny Inference Package) V. 3.5c. Department of Genetics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.Google Scholar
  13. Figurny-Puchalska E., Gadeberg R.M.E. and Boomsma J.J. 2000. Comparison of genetic population structure of the large blue butterflies Maculinea nausithous and M. teleius. Biodiversity and Conservation 9: 419–432.Google Scholar
  14. Gilbert L.E. 1984. The biology of butterfly communities. In: Vane-Wright R.I. and Ackery P.R. (eds), The Biology of Butterflies. Academic Press, London, pp. 41–54.Google Scholar
  15. Goulson D. 1993. Allozyme variation in the butterfly Maniola jurtina (Lepidoptera: Satyrinae) (L.): evidence for selection. Heredity 71: 386–393.Google Scholar
  16. Hanski I. 1994. Patch-occupancy dynamics in fragmented landscapes. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 9: 131–135.Google Scholar
  17. Hanski I. and Gilpin M. 1991. Metapopulation dynamics: brief history and conceptual domain. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 42: 3–16.Google Scholar
  18. Hanski I. and Thomas C.D. 1994. Metapopulation dynamics and conservation: a spatially explicit model applied to butterflies. Biological Conservation 68: 167–180.Google Scholar
  19. Johannesen M., Veith M. and Seitz A. 1996. Population genetic structure of the butterfly Melitaea didyma (Nymphalidae) along a northern distribution range border. Molecular Ecology 5: 259–267.Google Scholar
  20. Levene H. 1949. On a matching problem in genetics. Annals of Mathematical Statistics 20: 91–94.Google Scholar
  21. Meglecz E., Pecsenye K., Peregovits L. and Varga Z. 1997. Allozyme variation in Parnassius mnemosyne (L.) (Lepidoptera) populations in northeast Hungary: variation within a subspecies group. Genetica 101: 59–66.Google Scholar
  22. Napolitano M. and Descimon H. 1994. Genetic structure of French populations of the mountain butterfly Parnassius mnemosyne L. (Lepidoptera: Papilionidae). Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 53: 325–341.Google Scholar
  23. Ordnance Survey 1998. Landranger 139: Birmingham and Wolverhampton. Ordnance Survey, Southampton, UK.Google Scholar
  24. Porter A.H. and Geiger H. 1995. Limitations to the inference of gene flow at regional geographic scales — an example from the Pieris napi group (Lepidoptera: Pieridae) in Europe. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 54: 329–348.Google Scholar
  25. Raymond M. and Rousset F. 1995. An exact test for population differentiation. Evolution 49: 1280–1283.Google Scholar
  26. Richardson B.J., Baverstock P.R. and Adams M. 1986. Allozyme Electrophoresis: A Handbook for Animal Systematics and Population Studies. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
  27. Rohlf F.J. 1997. NTSYS-pc V. 1.7. Numerical Taxonomy and Multivariate Analysis System. Exeter Software, New York.Google Scholar
  28. Sokal R.R. and Rohlf F.J. 1981. Biometry. W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, California.Google Scholar
  29. Thomas C.D. 1991. Spatial and temporal variability in a butterfly population. Oecologia 87: 577–580.Google Scholar
  30. Thomas J.A. and Lewington R. 1991. The Butterflies of Britain and Ireland. Dorling Kindersley, London.Google Scholar
  31. Thomas C.D. and Jones T.M. 1993. Partial recovery of a skipper butterfly (Hesperia comma) from population refuges: lessons for conservation in a fragmented landscape. Journal of Animal Ecology 62: 472–481.Google Scholar
  32. Urban Wildlife Trust 2000. Biodiversity Action Plan for Birmingham and the Black Country. Urban Wildlife Trust, Birmingham, UK.Google Scholar
  33. Wood B. and Gillman M.P. 1998. The effects of disturbance on forest butterflies using two methods of sampling in Trinidad. Biodiversity and Conservation 7: 597–616.Google Scholar
  34. Workman P.L. and Niswander J.L. 1970. Population studies on southwestern Indian tribes. II. Local genetic differentiation in the Papago. American Journal of Human Genetics 22: 24–29.Google Scholar
  35. Wright S. 1943. Isolation by distance. Genetics 28: 114–138.Google Scholar
  36. Wright S. 1951. The genetical structure of populations. Annals of Eugenics 15: 323–354.Google Scholar
  37. Wright S. 1978. Evolution and the Genetics of Populations,Vol. 4.Variability Within and Among Natural Populations. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Byron C. Wood
    • 1
  • Andrew S. Pullin
    • 1
  1. 1.School of BiosciencesThe University of BirminghamEdgbastonUK

Personalised recommendations