Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Conserving butterflies in fragmented plantation forests: are edge and interior habitats equally important?

  • ORIGINAL PAPER
  • Published:
Journal of Insect Conservation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Edge effects are increasing in forest-dominated landscapes worldwide, due to increased fragmentation by other land uses. Understanding how species respond to edges is therefore critical to define adequate conservation measures. We compared the relative importance of interior and edge habitats for butterflies in a landscape composed of even-aged pine plantations interspersed with semi-natural habitats. Butterfly assemblages were surveyed simultaneously at the edge and the interior of 68 patches belonging to four main habitat types: herbaceous firebreaks, clearcuts and young pine stands, older pine stands, and deciduous woodlands. Butterfly species richness was higher at edges than in interior habitats, especially for pine stands. Assemblage composition differed significantly between edge and interior habitats, except for firebreaks. Of the 23 most abundant butterfly species, seven were significantly more abundant in one or all edge habitat types, five in interior habitats, and 11 species showed no edge-interior preference. Modelling the presence of individual species in edge habitats revealed the importance of habitat variables such as the abundance of nectar and host-plants, but also of the abundance of the same species in the adjacent interior habitat. Moreover, our results suggest that most species use several, different habitat types to find supplementary or complementary resources, including micro-climatic refuges to escape hot temperatures during summer. The use of adjacent edge and interior habitats by butterflies is probably a key process in such mosaic landscapes and underlines the importance of landscape heterogeneity for butterfly conservation.

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

  • Asher J, Warren M, Fox R, Harding P, Jeffcoate G, Jeffcoate S (2001) The millennium atlas of butterflies in Britain and Ireland. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbaro L, van Halder I (2009) Linking bird, carabid beetle and butterfly life-history traits to habitat fragmentation in mosaic landscapes. Ecography 32:321–333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbaro L, Pontcharraud L, Vetillard F, Guyon D, Jactel H (2005) Comparative responses of bird, carabid, and spider assemblages to stand and landscape diversity in maritime pine plantation forests. Ecoscience 12:110–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergman KO (1999) Habitat utilization by Lopinga achine (Nymphalidae : Satyrinae) larvae and ovipositing females: implications for conservation. Biol Conserv 88:69–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bink FA (1992) Ecologische atlas van de dagvlinders van Noordwest-Europa. Schuyt & Co, Haarlem

    Google Scholar 

  • Brockerhoff EG, Jactel H, Parrotta JA, Quine CP, Sayer J (2008) Plantation forests and biodiversity: oxymoron or opportunity? Biodiv Conserv 17:925–951

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke KR (1993) Nonparametric multivariate analyses of changes in community structure. Aust J Ecol 18:117–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clausen HD, Holbeck HB, Reddersen J (2001) Factors influencing abundance of butterflies and burnet moths in the uncultivated habitats of an organic farm in Denmark. Biol Conserv 98:167–178

    Article  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

    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 (2003) Towards a functional resource-based concept for habitat: a butterfly biology viewpoint. Oikos 102:417–426

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Downie IS, Coulson JC, Butterfield JEL (1996) Distribution and dynamics of surface-dwelling spiders across a pasture-plantation ecotone. Ecography 19:29–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duelli P, Studer M, Marchand I, Jakob S (1990) Population movements of arthropods between natural and cultivated areas. Biol Conserv 54:193–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duelli P, Obrist MK, Fluckiger PF (2002) Forest edges are biodiversity hotspots - also for Neuroptera. Acta Zool Hung 48:75–87

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunning JB, Danielson BJ, Pulliam HR (1992) Ecological processes that affect populations in complex landscapes. Oikos 65:169–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ebert G, Rennwald E (1991) Die Schmetterlinge Baden-Württembergs. Band 1 & 2 Tagfalter. Verlag Eugen Ulmer, Stuttgart

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Feber RE, Smith H, Macdonald DW (1996) The effects on butterfly abundance of the management of uncropped edges of arable fields. J Appl Ecol 33:1191–1205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feber RE, Brereton TM, Warren MS, Oates M (2001) The impacts of deer on woodland butterflies: the good, the bad and the complex. Forestry 74:271–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferris R, Carter C (2000) Managing rides, roadsides and edge habitats in lowland forests. Forestry Commission Bulletin 123

  • Fletcher RJ (2005) Multiple edge effects and their implications in fragmented landscapes. J Anim Ecol 74:342–352

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greatorex-Davies JN, Sparks TH, Hall ML, Marrs RH (1993) The influence of shade on butterflies in rides of coniferised lowland woods in southern England and implications for conservation management. Biol Conserv 63:31–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haddad NM (1999) Corridor use predicted from behaviors at habitat boundaries. Am Nat 153:215–227

    Article  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haynes KJ, Cronin JT (2006) Interpatch movement and edge effects: the role of behavioral responses to the landscape matrix. Oikos 113:43–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Imbeau L, Drapeau P, Mokkonen M (2003) Are forest birds categorised as “edge species” strictly associated with edges? Ecography 26:514–520

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karsholt O, Razowski J (1996) The Lepidoptera of Europe. A distributional checklist. Apollo Books, Stenstrup

    Google Scholar 

  • Krauss J, Steffan-Dewenter I, Tscharntke T (2003) How does landscape context contribute to effects of habitat fragmentation on diversity and population density of butterflies? J Biogeogr 30:889–900

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuussaari M, Heliola J, Luoto M, Poyry J (2007) Determinants of local species richness of diurnal Lepidoptera in boreal agricultural landscapes. Agr Ecosyst Environ 122:366–376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lafranchis T (2000) Les papillons de jour en France. Belgique et Luxembourg et leurs chenilles, Biotope, Mèze (France)

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehtinen RM, Ramanamanjato JB, Raveloarison JG (2003) Edge effects and extinction proneness in a herpetofauna from Madagascar. Biodivers Conserv 12:1357–1370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin YC, James R, Dolman PM (2007) Conservation of heathland ground beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae): the value of lowland coniferous plantations. Biodivers Conserv 16:1337–1358

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McArdle BH, Anderson MJ (2001) Fitting multivariate models to community data: a comment on distance-based redundancy analysis. Ecology 82:290–297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGarigal K, Cushman SA, Neel MC, Ene E (2002) FRAGSTATS: Spatial pattern analysis program for categorical maps. Computer software program produced by the authors at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Available at www.umass.edu/landeco/research/fragstats/fragstats.html

  • Niemela J, Koivula M, Kotze DJ (2007) The effects of forestry on carabid beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in boreal forests. J Insect Conserv 11:5–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ockinger E, Smith HG (2007) Semi-natural grasslands as population sources for pollinating insects in agricultural landscapes. J Appl Ecol 44:50–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ohwaki A, Nakamura K, Tanabe SI (2007) Butterfly assemblages in a traditional agricultural landscape: importance of secondary forests for conserving diversity, life history specialists and endemics. Biodiv Conserv 16:1521–1539

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ouin A, Aviron S, Dover J, Burel F (2004) Complementation/supplementation of resources for butterflies in agricultural landscapes. Agr Ecosyst Environ 103:473–479

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paquet JY, Vandevyvre X, Delahaye L, Rondeux J (2006) Bird assemblages in a mixed woodland-farmland landscape: the conservation value of silviculture-dependant open areas in plantation forest. For Ecol Manag 227:59–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollard E, Yates TJ (1993) Monitoring butterflies for ecology and conservation. Chapman & Hall, London

    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 (2004) A predictive model of edge effects. Ecology 85:2917–2926

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ries L, Sisk TD (2008) Butterfly edge effects are predicted by a simple model in a complex landscape. Oecologia 156:75–86

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robertson PA, Clarke SA, Warren MS (1995) Woodland management and butterfly diversity. In: Pullin AS (ed) Ecology and conservation of butterflies. Chapman & Hall, London, pp 113–122

    Google Scholar 

  • Schtickzelle N, Baguette M (2003) Behavioural responses to habitat patch boundaries restrict dispersal and generate emigration-patch area relationships in fragmented landscapes. J Anim Ecol 72:533–545

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shreeve TG (1984) Habitat selection, mate location, and microclimatic constraints on the activity of the speckled wood butterfly (Pararge aegeria). Oikos 42:371–377

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spector S, Ayzama S (2003) Rapid turnover and edge effects in dung beetle assemblages (Scarabaeidae) at a Bolivian Neotropical forest-savanna ecotone. Biotropica 35:394–404

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevens SM, Husband TP (1998) The influence of edge on small mammals: evidence from Brazilian Atlantic forest fragments. Biol Conserv 85:1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sutcliffe OL, Thomas CD (1996) Open corridors appear to facilitate dispersal by ringlet butterflies (Aphantopus hyperantus) between woodland clearings. Conserv Biol 10:1359–1365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tudor O, Dennis RLH, Greatorex-Davies JN, Sparks TH (2004) Flower preferences of woodland butterflies in the UK: nectaring specialists are species of conservation concern. Biol Conserv 119:397–403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Halder I, Barbaro L, Corcket E, Jactel H (2008) Importance of semi-natural habitats for the conservation of butterfly communities in landscapes dominated by pine plantations. Biodiv Conserv 17:1149–1169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Swaay CAM, Warren MS (1999) Red data book of European butterflies (Rhopalocera). Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanreusel W, Maes D, Van Dyck H (2007) Transferability of species distribution models: a functional habitat approach for two regionally threatened butterflies. Conserv Biol 21:201–212

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wahlberg N (2001) On the status of the scarce fritillary Euphydryas maturna (Lepidoptera : Nymphalidae) in Finland. Entomologica Fennica 12:244–250

    Google Scholar 

  • Weibull AC, Bengtsson J, Nohlgren E (2000) Diversity of butterflies in the agricultural landscape: the role of farming system and landscape heterogeneity. Ecography 23:743–750

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiklund C (1977) Oviposition, feeding and spatial separation of breeding and foraging habitats in a population of Leptidea sinapis (Lepidoptera). Oikos 28:56–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman GM, Goetz H, Mielke PWJ (1985) Use of an improved statistical method for group comparisons to study effects of prairie fire. Ecology 66:606–611

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank Audrey Lugot for her help during the field work and Stephen Pawson for his useful remarks and his corrections of the english text. This study was financed by the European Union, ERDF-Interreg Atlantic Area, FORSEE project.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. UMR1202 Biodiversity Genes & Communities, Laboratory of Forest Entomology and Biodiversity, INRA, 69 route d’Arcachon, 33612, Cestas, France

    Inge van Halder, Luc Barbaro & Hervé Jactel

Authors
  1. Inge van Halder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Luc Barbaro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hervé Jactel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Inge van Halder.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Online Resource 1

(PDF 19 kb)

Online Resource 2

(PDF 27 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

van Halder, I., Barbaro, L. & Jactel, H. Conserving butterflies in fragmented plantation forests: are edge and interior habitats equally important?. J Insect Conserv 15, 591–601 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-010-9360-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-010-9360-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation