Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Corridors and barriers in biodiversity conservation: a novel resource-based habitat perspective for butterflies

  • Review Paper
  • Published:
Biodiversity and Conservation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Habitat loss and fragmentation, exacerbated by projected climate change, present the greatest threats to preservation of global biodiversity. As increasing habitat fragmentation and isolation of residual fragments exceeds the dispersal capacity of species, there is the growing need to address connectivity to maintain diversity. Traditionally, habitat corridors have been proposed as a solution. But, the concept of corridors (barriers) is poorly understood; typically they are defined as linear habitats linking up habitat patchwork, and are advocated without a detailed understanding of the elements making up species’ habitats and the cost-effectiveness of alternative solutions. Yet, landscapes comprise an enormous range of ‘linear’ structures that can function in different ways to promote species’ persistence and diversity. In this review, a functional definition of corridor (barrier) is developed to give prominence to connectivity as opposed to ad hoc structures purported to advance connectivity. In developing the concept, urgency to accommodate environmental changes compels a growing emphasis on organism diversity rather than a preoccupation with single species conservation. The review, in focusing on butterflies to address the issue of corridors for patchwork connectivity, draws attention to fundamental divisions among organisms in any taxon: generalists and specialists. Both groups benefit from large patches as these necessarily house species with specialist resources as well as generalists with very different resource types. But, generalists and specialists require very different solutions for connectivity, from short-range habitat corridors and gateways for specialists to habitat and resource stepping stones (nodes, surfaces) for generalists. Connectivity over extensive areas is most critical for moderate generalists and their conservation requires emphasis being placed on space–time resource heterogeneity; landscape features, of whatever dimensionality and structure, provide a vital framework for developing the variety of suitable conditions and resources for enhancing their diversity.

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
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alagador D, Trivino M, Cerdeira JO, Bras R, Cabeza M, Araujo MB (2012) Linking like with like: optimising connectivity between environmentally-similar habitats. Landsc Ecol 27:291–301

    Google Scholar 

  • Baguette M, Van Dyck H (2007) Landscape connectivity and animal behavior: functional grain as a key determinant for dispersal. Landsc Ecol 22:1117–1129

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker RR (1984) The dilemma: when and how to go or stay. In: Vane-Wright RI, Ackery PR (eds) The biology of butterflies. Academic Press, London, pp 279–296

    Google Scholar 

  • Baum KA, Haynes KJ, Dillemuth FP, Cronin JT (2004) The matrix enhances the effectiveness of corridors and stepping stones. Ecology 85:2671–2676

    Google Scholar 

  • Beier P, Noss RF (1998) Do habitat corridors provide connectivity? Conserv Biol 12:1241–1252

    Google Scholar 

  • Bélisle M (2005) Measuring landscape connectivity: the challenge of behavioral landscape ecology. Ecology 86:1988–1995

    Google Scholar 

  • Bender DJ, Fahrig L (2005) Matrix structure obscures the relationship between interpatch movement and patch size and isolation. Ecology 86:1023–1033

    Google Scholar 

  • Benton TG, Vickery JA, Wilson JD (2003) Farmland biodiversity: is habitat heterogeneity the key? Trends Ecol Evol 18:182–188

    Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Zion Y, Shnerb NM (2012) Coherence, conservation and patch-occupancy analysis. Oikos 121:985–997

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergerot B, Merckx T, Van Dyck H, Baguette M (2012) Habitat fragmentation impacts mobility in a common and widespread woodland butterfly: do sexes respond differently? BMC Ecol 12:5. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6785/12/5

  • Berwaerts K, Van Dyck H, Aerts P (2002) Does flight morphology relate to flight performance? An experimental test with the butterfly Pararge aegeria. Funct Ecol 16:484–491

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonte D, Van Dyck H, Bullock JM, Coulon A, Delgado M, Gibbs M, Lehouck V, Matthysen E, Mustin K, Saastamoinen M, Schtickzelle N, Stevens VM, Vandewoestijne S, Baguette M, Barton K, Benton TG, Chaput-Bardy A, Clobert J, Dytham C, Hovestadt T, Meier CM, Palmer SCF, Turlure C, Travis JMJ (2012) Costs of dispersal. Biol Rev 87:290–312

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Calabrese JM, Fagan WF (2004) A comparison-shopper’s guide to connectivity metrics. Front Ecol Environ 2:529–536

    Google Scholar 

  • Chetkiewicz CLB, Clair CC, Boyce MS (2006) Corridors for conservation: integrating pattern and process. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 37:317–342

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook LM, Dennis RLH, Hardy PB (2001) Butterfly–hostplant fidelity, vagrancy and a measurement of mobility from distribution maps. Ecography 24:497–504

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronin JT (2007) From population sources to sieves: the matrix alters host–parasitoid source–sink structure. Ecology 88:2966–2976

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Crooks KR, Sanjayan M (2006) Connectivity conservation. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Dapporto L, Dennis RLH (2013) The generalist-specialist continuum: testing predictions for distribution and trends in British butterflies. Biol Conserv 157:229–236

    Google Scholar 

  • Dapporto L, Bruschini C, Dincă V, Vila R, Dennis RLH (2012) Identifying zones of phenetic compression in West Mediterranean butterflies (Satyrinae): refugia, invasion and hybridization. Divers Distrib 18:1066–1076

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies ZG, Pullin AS (2007) Are hedgerows effective corridors between fragments of woodland habitat? An evidence-based approach. Landsc Ecol 22:333–351

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies ZG, Wilson RJ, Brereton TM, Thomas CD (2005) The re-expansion and improving status of the silver-spotted skipper butterfly (Hesperia comma) in Britain: a metapopulation success story. Biol Conserv 124:189–198

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawson D (1994) Are habitat corridors conduits for animals and plants in a fragmented landscape? Engl Nat Res Rep 94:1–89

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennis RLH (1986) Motorways and cross-movements. An insect’s ‘mental map’ of the M56 in Cheshire. Bull Amateur Entomol Soc 45:228–243

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennis RLH (ed) (1992) The ecology of butterflies in Britain. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennis RLH (2004) Butterfly habitats, broad-scale biotope affiliations, and structural exploitation of vegetation at finer scales: the matrix revisited. Ecol Entomol 29:744–752

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennis RLH (2010) A Resource-based habitat view for conservation: butterflies in the British landscape. Wiley, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennis RLH, Bardell P (1996) The impact of extreme weather on Great Orme populations of Hipparchia semele (Linnaeus, 1758) and Plebejus argus (Linnaeus, 1758) (Papilionoidea: Satyrinae and Lycaenidae): hindsight, inference and lost opportunities. Entom Gaz 47:211–225

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennis RLH, Eales HT (1997) Patch occupancy in Coenonympha tullia (Lepidoptera: Satyridae): habitat quality matters as much as patch size and isolation. J Insect Conserv 1:167–176

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennis RLH, Eales HT (1999) Probability of patch site occupancy in Coenonympha tullia (Müller) (Lepidoptera: Satryinae) determined from geographical and ecological data. Biol Conserv 87:295–301

    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

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennis RLH, Shreeve TG (1996) Butterflies on British and Irish offshore islands. Gem Publishing Company, Wallingford

    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

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennis RLH, Donato B, Sparks TH, Pollard E (2000) Ecological correlates of island incidence and geographical range among British butterflies. Biodivers Conserv 9:343–359

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennis RLH, Shreeve TG, Van Dyck H (2003) Towards a functional resource-based concept for habitat: a butterfly biology viewpoint. Oikos 102:417–426

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennis RLH, Hodgson JG, Grenyer R, Shreeve TG, Roy DB (2004) Host plants and butterfly biology. Do host plant strategies drive butterfly status? Ecol Entomol 29:12–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennis RLH, Shreeve TG, Arnold HR, Roy DB (2005) Does diet breadth control herbivorous insect range size? Predictions and tests using butterflies. J Insect Conserv 9:187–200

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennis RLH, Shreeve TG, Van Dyck H (2006) Habitats and resources: the need for a resource-based definition to conserve butterflies. Biodivers Conserv 15:1943–1966

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennis RLH, Shreeve TG, Sheppard DA (2007) Species conservation and landscape management: a habitat perspective. In: Stewart AJA, New TR, Lewis OT (eds) Insect conservation biology. CABI, Wallingford, pp 92–126

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennis RLH, Dapporto L, Sparks TH, Williams SR, Greatorex-Davies JN, Asher J, Roy DB (2010) Turnover and trends in butterfly communities on two British tidal islands: stochastic influences and deterministic factors. J Biogeogr 37:2291–2304

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennis RLH, Dapporto L, Fattorini S, Cook LM (2011) The generalism-specialism debate: the part played by generalists in the life and death of species. Biol J Linn Soc 104:725–737

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennis RLH, Dapporto L, Hardy PB (2012) Colonisation ability and migration capacity of butterflies on islands offshore Britain and Ireland: relationships to species richness and island geography. J Biogeogr 39:1412–1426

    Google Scholar 

  • Devictor V, van Swaay C, Brereton T, Brotons L, Chamberlain D, Heliölä J, Herrando S, Julliard R, Kuussaari M, Lindström Å, Reif J, Roy DB, Schweiger O, Settele J, Stefanescu C, Van Strien A, Van Turnhout C, Vermouzek Z, WallisDeVries M, Wynhoff I, Jiguet F (2012) Differences in the climatic debts of birds and butterflies at a continental scale. Nat Clim Change 2:121–124. doi:10.1038/NCLIMATE1347

    Google Scholar 

  • DeVries PJ, Penz CM, Hill RI (2010) Vertical distribution, flight behaviour and evolution of wing morphology in Morpho butterflies. J Anim Ecol 79:1077–1085

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Didham RK, Kapos V, Ewers RM (2012) Rethinking the conceptual foundations of habitat fragmentation research. Oikos 121:161–170

    Google Scholar 

  • Donald PF, Evans AD (2006) Habitat connectivity and matrix restoration: the wider implications of agri-environment schemes. J Appl Ecol 43:209–218

    Google Scholar 

  • Dover JW (1989) A method for recording and transcribing observations of butterfly behaviour. Entom Gaz 40:95–100

    Google Scholar 

  • Dover JW (1990) Butterflies and wildlife corridors. In: Nodder C (ed) The game conservancy review of 1989. The Game Conservancy, Fordingbridge, pp 62–64

    Google Scholar 

  • Dover JW (1996) Factors affecting the distribution of butterflies on arable farmland. J Appl Ecol 33:723–734

    Google Scholar 

  • Dover JW (1997) Conservation headlands: effects on butterfly distribution and behaviour. Agric Ecosyst Environ 63:31–49

    Google Scholar 

  • Dover JW, Fry GLA (2001) Experimental simulation of some visual and physical components of a hedge and the effects on butterfly behaviour in an agricultural landscape. Entomol Exp Appl 100:221–233

    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

    Google Scholar 

  • Dover J, Sparks T (2000) A review of the ecology of butterflies in British hedgerows. J Environ Manage 60:51–63

    Google Scholar 

  • Dover JW, Clarke SA, Rew L (1992) Habitats and movement patterns of satyrid butterflies (Lepidoptera: Satyridae) on arable farmland. Entom Gaz 43:29–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Dover JW, Sparks TH, Greatorex-Davies JN (1997) The importance of shelter for butterflies in open landscapes. J Insect Conserv 1:89–97

    Google Scholar 

  • Dray S, Legendre P (2008) Testing the species traits–environment relationships: the fourth-corner problem revisited. Ecology 89:3400–3412

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Eggers B, Matern A, Drees C, Eggers J, Härdtle W, Assmann T (2010) Value of semi-open corridors for simultaneously connecting open and wooded habitats: a case study with ground beetles. Conserv Biol 24:256–266

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ewers RM, Didham RK (2006) Confounding factors in the detection of species responses to habitat fragmentation. Biol Rev 81:117–142

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Eycott AE, Stewart GB, Buyung-Ali LM, Bowler DE, Watts K, Pullin AS (2012) A meta-analysis on the impact of different matrix structures on species movement rates. Landsc Ecol 27:1263–1278

    Google Scholar 

  • Fahrig L (2003) Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Ann Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:487–515

    Google Scholar 

  • Farina A, Belgrano A (2006) The eco-field hypothesis: toward a cognitive landscape. Landsc Ecol 21:5–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer J, Lindenmayer DB (2007) Landscape modification and habitat fragmentation: a synthesis. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 16:265–280

    Google Scholar 

  • Foden WB, Butchart SHM, Stuart SN, Vié J-C, Akçakaya HR, Angulo A, DeVantier LM, Gutsche A, Turak E, Cao L, Donner SD, Katariya V, Bernard R, Holland RA, Hughes AF, O’Hanlon SE, Garnett ST, Şekercioğlu CH, Mace GM (2013) Identifying the world’s most climate change vulnerable species: a systematic trait-based assessment of all birds, amphibians and corals. PLoS ONE 8:e65427. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0065427

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Forman RTT (1983) Corridors in a landscape—their ecological structure and function. Ekologia CSFR 2:375–387

    Google Scholar 

  • Forman RTT, Godron M (1981) Patches and structural components for a landscape ecology. Bioscience 31:733–740

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox R, Brereton TM, Asher J, Botham MS, Middlebrook I, Roy DB, Warren MS (2011) The state of the UK’s butterflies 2011. Butterfly Conservation and the Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Wareham

    Google Scholar 

  • Fry G (1995) Landscape ecology of insect movement in arable ecosystems. In: Glen DM, Greaves MP, Anderson HM (eds) Ecology and integrated farming systems. Wiley, Chichester, pp 177–202

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert-Norton L, Wilson R, Stevens JR, Beard KH (2010) A meta-analytic review of corridor effectiveness. Conserv Biol 24:660–668

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin BJ, Fahrig L (2002) How does landscape structure influence landscape connectivity? Oikos 99:552–570

    Google Scholar 

  • Habel JC, Schmitt T (2012) The burden of genetic diversity. Biol Conserv 147:270–274

    Google Scholar 

  • Habel JC, Husemann M, Schmitt T, Dapporto L, Rödder D, Vandewoestijne S (2012) A forest butterfly in Sahara desert oases: isolation does not matter. J Hered 104:234–247

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Haddad NM (1999) Corridor and distance effects on interpatch movements: a landscape experiment with butterflies. Ecol Appl 9:612–622

    Google Scholar 

  • Haddad NM, Browne DR, Cunningham A, Danielson BJ, Levey DJ, Sargent S, Spira T (2003) Corridor use by diverse taxa. Ecology 84:609–615

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanski IA, Gilpin ME (1997) Metapopulation biology. Ecology, genetics, and evolution. Academic Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardy PB, Sparks TH, Isaac NJB, Dennis RLH (2007) Specialism for larval and adult consumer resources among British butterflies: implications for conservation. Biol Conserv 138:440−452

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill JK, Thomas CD, Blakeley DS (1999) Evolution of flight morphology in a butterfly that has recently expanded its geographic range. Oecologia 121:165–170

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodgson JA, Thomas CD, Cinderby S, Cambridge H, Evans P, Hill JK (2011) Habitat re-creation strategies for promoting adaptation of species to climate change. Conserv Lett 4:289–297

    Google Scholar 

  • Holt RD (2010) Towards a trophic island biogeography. In: Losos JB, Ricklefs RE (eds) The theory of island biogeography revised. Princeton University Press, Oxford, pp 143–185

    Google Scholar 

  • Ibarra-Macias A, Robinson WD, Gaines MS (2011) Forest corridors facilitate movement of tropical forest birds after experimental translocations in a fragmented Neotropical landscape in Mexico. J Trop Ecol 27:547–556

    Google Scholar 

  • Klar N, Herrmann M, Kramer-Schadt S (2009) Effects and mitigation of road impacts on individual movement behavior of wildcats. J Wildlife Manage 73:631–638

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotze DJ, Brandmayr P, Casale A, Dauffy-Richard E, Dekoninck W, Koivula MJ, Lövei GL, Mossakowski D, Noordijk J, Paarmann W, Pizzolotto R, Saska P, Schwerk A, Serrano J, Szyszko J, Taboada A, Turin H, Venn S, Vermeulen R, Zetto T (2011) Forty years of carabid beetle research in Europe—from taxonomy, biology, ecology and population studies to bioindication, habitat assessment and conservation. ZooKeys 100:55–148

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Krewenka KM, Holzschuh A, Tscharntke T, Dormann CF (2011) Landscape elements as potential barriers and corridors for bees, wasps and parasitoids. Biol Conserv 144:1816–1825

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuefler D, Hudgens B, Haddad NM, Morris WF, Thurgate N (2010) The conflicting role of matrix habitats as conduits and barriers for dispersal. Ecology 91:944–950

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lambeets K, Breyne P, Bonte D (2010) Spatial genetic variation of a riparian wolf spider Pardosa agricola (Thorell, 1856) on lowland river banks: the importance of functional connectivity in linear spatial systems. Biol Conserv 143:660–668

    Google Scholar 

  • Landguth EL, Hand BK, Glassy J, Cushman SA, Sawaya MA (2012) UNICOR: a species connectivity and corridor network simulator. Ecography 35:9–14

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawton JH, Brotherton PNM, Brown VK, Elphick C, Fitter AH, Forshaw J, Haddow RW, Hilborne S, Leafe RN, Mace GM, Southgate MP, Sutherland WJ, Tew TE, Varley J, Wynne GR (2010) Making space for nature: a review of England’s wildlife sites and ecological network. Report to Defra. http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/biodiversity/documents/201009space-for-nature.pdf

  • Lewis OT, Thomas CD, Hill JK, Brookes MI, Crane TPR, Graneau YA, Mallet JLB, Rose OC (1997) Three ways of assessing metapopulation structure in the butterfly Plebejus argus. Ecol Entomol 22:283–293

    Google Scholar 

  • Lookingbill TR, Gardner RH, Ferrari JR, Keller CE (2010) Combining a dispersal model with network theory to assess habitat connectivity. Ecol Appl 20:427–441

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • MacArthur RH, Wilson EO (1963) An equilibrium theory of insular zoogeography. Evolution 17:373–387

    Google Scholar 

  • Mantyka-Pringle CS, Martin TG, Rhodes JR (2012) Interactions between climate and habitat loss effects on biodiversity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Glob Change Biol 18:1239–1252

    Google Scholar 

  • McIntire EJB, Schultz CB, Crone EE (2007) Designing a network for butterfly habitat restoration: where individuals, populations and landscapes interact. J Appl Ecol 44:725–736

    Google Scholar 

  • McLaughlin JF, Hellmann JJ, Boggs CL, Ehrlich PR (2002) Climate change hastens population extinctions. PNAS 99:6070–6074

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Merckx T, Van Dyck H (2006) Landscape structure and phenotypic plasticity in flight morphology in the butterfly Pararge aegeria. Oikos 113:226–232

    Google Scholar 

  • Merckx T, Van Dyck H, Karlsson B, Leimar O (2003) The evolution of movements and behaviour at habitat boundaries in different landscapes: a common arena experiment with butterflies. Proc R Soc Lond B 270:1815–1821

    Google Scholar 

  • Olson GS, Van Horne B (1998) Dispersal patterns of juvenile Townsend's ground squirrels in southwestern Idaho. Can J Zool 76:2084−2089

    Google Scholar 

  • Opdam P, Wascher D (2004) Climate change meets habitat fragmentation: linking landscape and biogeographical scale levels in research and conservation. Biol Conserv 117:285–297

    Google Scholar 

  • Orrock JL, Danielson BJ (2005) Patch shape, connectivity, and foraging by oldfield mice (Peromyscus polionotus). J Mamm 86:569–575

    Google Scholar 

  • Ovaskainen O, Hanski I (2004) From individual behavior to metapopulation dynamics: unifying the patchy population and classic metapopulation models. Am Nat 164:364–377

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pe’er G, Kramer-Schadt S (2008) Incorporating the perceptual range of animals into connectivity models. Ecol Model 213:73–85

    Google Scholar 

  • Pe’er G, Saltz D, Frank K (2005) Virtual Corridors for conservation management. Conserv Biol 19:1997–2003

    Google Scholar 

  • Pereboom V, Mergey M, Villerette N, Helder R, Gerard J-F, Lodé Th (2008) Movement patterns, habitat selection, and corridor use of a typical woodland-dweller species, the European pine marten (Martes martes) in fragmented landscape. Can J Zool 86:983–991

    Google Scholar 

  • Pimm SL (2008) Biodiversity: climate change or habitat loss—which will kill more species? Curr Biol 18:R117–R119

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pinto N, Keitt TH, Wainright M (2012) LORACS: JAVA software for modeling landscape connectivity and matrix permeability. Ecography 35:388–392

    Google Scholar 

  • Prevedello JA, Vieira MV (2010) Does the type of matrix matter? A quantitative review of the evidence. Biodivers Conserv 19:1205–1223

    Google Scholar 

  • Prömel HJ, Steger A (2002) The steiner tree problem: a tour through graphs, algorithms, and complexity. Vieweg + Teubner Verlag, Wiesbaden

    Google Scholar 

  • Pullinger MG, Johnson CJ (2010) Maintaining or restoring connectivity of modified landscapes: evaluating the least-cost path model with multiple sources of ecological information. Landsc Ecol 25:1547–1560

    Google Scholar 

  • 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–E153

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenzweig ML (1995) Species Diversity in Space and Time. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Rybicki J, Hanski I (2013) Species-area relationships and extinctions caused by habitat loss and fragmentation. Ecol Lett 16(Suppl 1):27–38

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Scheffer M, Carpenter S, Foley JA, Folke C, Walker B (2001) Catastrophic shifts in ecosystems. Nature 413:591–596

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Schoonhoven LM (1977) On the individuality of insect feeding behaviour. Proc Koninklijke Nederlandse Academie van Wetenschappen Ser C Biol Med Sci 80:341–350

    Google Scholar 

  • Schreiber RK, Graves JH (1977) Powerline corridors as possible barriers to movements of small mammals. Am Midl Nat 97:504–508

    Google Scholar 

  • Schultz CB, Crone EE (2005) Patch size and connectivity thresholds for butterfly habitat restoration. Conserv Biol 19:887–896

    Google Scholar 

  • Shreeve TG (1992) Monitoring butterfly movements. In: Dennis RLH (ed) The ecology of butterflies in Britain. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 120–138

    Google Scholar 

  • Shreeve TG (1995) Butterfly mobility. In: Pullin AS (ed) Ecology and conservation of butterflies. Chapman and Hall, London, pp 37–45

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Shreeve TG, Dennis RLH, Pullin AS (1996a) How marginal is the British butterfly fauna and what are the implications for research opportunities and conservation? Biodivers Conserv 5:1131–1141

    Google Scholar 

  • Shreeve TG, Dennis RLH, Williams WR (1996b) Uniformity of wing spotting of Maniola jurtina (L.) (Lep. Satyrinae) in relation to environmental heterogeneity. Nota Lepid 18:77–92

    Google Scholar 

  • Shreeve TG, Dennis RLH, Roy DB, Moss D (2001) An ecological classification of British butterflies: ecological attributes and biotope occupancy. J Insect Conserv 5:145–161

    Google Scholar 

  • Spellerberg IF, Gaywood MJ (1993) Linear features: linear habitats and wildlife corridors. No. 60—English Nature Research Reports. Centre for Environmental Sciences. University of Southampton, Southampton

  • Stanojević M, Vujošević M (2006) An exact algorithm for Steiner tree problem on graphs. Int J Comput Commun I:41–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Stefanescu C, Páramo F, Åkesson S, Alarcón M, Ávila A, Brereton T, Carnicer J, Cassar LF, Fox R, Heliölä J, Hill JK, Hirneisen N, Kjellén N, Kühn E, Kuussaari M, Leskinen M, Liechti F, Musche M, Regan EC, Reynolds DR, Roy DB, Ryrholm N, Schmaljohann H, Settele J, Thomas CD, van Swaay C, Chapman JW (2012) Multi-generational long-distance migration of insects: studying the painted lady butterfly in the Western Palaearctic. Ecography 35. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0587.2012.07738.x

  • Stevens VM, Turlure CT, Baguette M (2010) A meta-analysis of dispersal in butterflies. Biol Rev 85:625–642

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas CD (2000) Dispersal and extinction in fragmented landscapes. Proc R Soc Lond B 267:139–145

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas JA (2005) Monitoring change in the abundance and distribution of insects using butterflies and other indicator groups. Phil Trans R Soc B 360:339–357

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas CD (2011) Translocation of species, climate change, and the end of trying to recreate past ecological communities. Trends Ecol Evol 26:216–221

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas CD, Cameron A, Green RE, Bakkenes M, Beaumont LJ, Collingham YC, Erasmus BFN, de Siqueira MF, Grainger A, Hannah L, Hughes L, Huntley B, van Jaarsveld AS, Midgley GF, Miles L, Ortega-Huerta MA, Peterson AT, Phillips OL, Williams SE (2004a) Extinction risk from climate change. Nature 427:145–148

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas JA, Telfer MG, Roy DB, Preston CD, Greenwood JJD, Asher J, Fox R, Clarke RT, Lawton JH (2004b) Comparative losses of British butterflies, birds, and plants and the global extinction crisis. Science 303:1879–1881

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Travis JMJ (2003) Climate change and habitat destruction: a deadly anthropogenic cocktail. Proc R Soc Lond B 270:467–473

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Travis JMJ, Mustin K, Barton KA, Benton TG, Clobert J, Delgado MM, Dytham C, Hovestadt T, Palmer SCF, Van Dyck H, Bonte D (2012) Modelling dispersal: an eco-evolutionary framework incorporating emigration, movement, settlement behaviour and the multiple costs involved. Methods Ecol Evol. doi:10.1111/j.2041-210X.2012.00193.x

    Google Scholar 

  • Turlure C, Van Dyck H, Schtickzelle N, Baguette M (2009) Resource-based habitat definition, niche overlap and conservation of two sympatric glacial relict butterflies. Oikos 118:950–960

    Google Scholar 

  • Turlure C, Baguette M, Stevens VM, Maes D (2011) Species-and sex-specific adjustments of movement behavior to landscape heterogeneity in butterflies. Behav Ecol 22:967–975

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich W, Almeida-Neto M, Gotelli NJ (2009) A consumer’s guide to nestedness analysis. Oikos 118:3–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Dyck H, Baguette M (2005) Dispersal behaviour in fragmented landscapes: routine or special movements? Basic Appl Ecol 6:535–545

    Google Scholar 

  • Vandevelde JC, Penone C, Julliard R (2012) High-speed railways are not barriers to Pyronia tithonus butterfly movements. J Insect Conserv 16:801–803

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogt P, Ferrari JR, Lookingbill TR, Gardner RH, Riitters KH, Ostapowicz K (2009) Mapping functional connectivity. Ecol Indic 9:64–71

    Google Scholar 

  • Walters S (2007) Modeling scale-dependent landscape pattern, dispersal, and connectivity from the perspective of the organism. Landsc Ecol 22:867–881

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang YH, Yang KC, Bridgman CL, Lin LK (2008) Habitat suitability modelling to correlate gene flow with landscape connectivity. Landsc Ecol 23:989–1000

    Google Scholar 

  • Willis SG, Hill JK, Thomas CD, Roy DB, Fox R, Blakeley DS, Huntley B (2009) Assisted colonization in a changing climate: a test-study using two UK butterflies. Conserv Lett 2:45–51. doi:10.1111/j.1755-263X.2008.00043.x

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson RJ, Thomas CD (2002) Dispersal and the spatial dynamics of butterfly populations. In: Bullock JM, Kenward RE, Hails RS (eds) Dispersal ecology. 42nd Symposium of the British Ecological Society, pp 257–278

  • Yu DY, Xun B, Shi PJ, Shao HB, Liu YP (2012) Ecological restoration planning based on connectivity in an urban area. Ecol Eng 46:24–33

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeller KA, McGarigal K, Whiteley AR (2012) Estimating landscape resistance to movement: a review. Landsc Ecol 27:777–797

    Google Scholar 

  • Zetterberg A, Mortberg UM, Balfors B (2010) Making graph theory operational for landscape ecological assessments, planning, and design. Landsc Urban Plan 95:181–191

    Google Scholar 

  • Zollner PA, Lima SL (1999) Search strategies for landscape-level interpatch movements. Ecology 80:1019−1030

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Our thanks to Johan Kotze for his thoughts on Carabidae which closely match our own for butterflies, and to the referees for their helpful suggestions on this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Ecology, Environment and Conservation, Department of Biological and Medical Sciences, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, OX3 0BP, UK

    Roger L. H. Dennis, Leonardo Dapporto & Tim G. Shreeve

  2. Institute for Environment, Sustainability and Regeneration, Staffordshire University, College Road, Stoke-on-Trent, ST4 2DE, UK

    Roger L. H. Dennis & John W. Dover

  3. 4 Fairfax Drive, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 6EY, UK

    Roger L. H. Dennis

Authors
  1. Roger L. H. Dennis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Leonardo Dapporto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. John W. Dover
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Tim G. Shreeve
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Roger L. H. Dennis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dennis, R.L.H., Dapporto, L., Dover, J.W. et al. Corridors and barriers in biodiversity conservation: a novel resource-based habitat perspective for butterflies. Biodivers Conserv 22, 2709–2734 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-013-0540-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-013-0540-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation