Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Smaller fields support more butterflies: comparing two neighbouring European countries with different socioeconomic heritage

  • SHORT COMMUNICATION
  • Published:
Journal of Insect Conservation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Changing landscape configuration, a component of landscape heterogeneity, due to varying arable field size represents an attribute of farmland intensification with potentially grave consequences for biodiversity. We recorded butterflies in an intensively farmed region along the border of two European countries with contrasting socioeconomic heritage, one with small farms (Poland), the other with huge farmed units (Czech Republic). Although only the most common generalist species occurred in our records, we observed 2.3× more individuals and 1.9× more species in Poland, and the differences withstood robust statistical controls. Different socioeconomic heritage—in this case, different policies of two communist regimes, one tolerating small family farms and the other expropriating them—influence biodiversity long after the policies that shaped the respective landscapes had been abandoned.

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

References

  • Aviron S, Nitsch H, Jeanneret P, Buholzer S, Luka H, Pfiffner L, Pozzi S, Schupbach B, Walter T, Herzog F (2009) Ecological cross compliance promotes farmland biodiversity in Switzerland. Front Ecol Environ 7:247–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartonova A, Benes J, Faltynek-Fric Z, Chobot K, Konvicka M (2016) How universal are reserve design rules? A test using butterflies and their life history traits. Ecography 39:456–464

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Concepcion ED, Diaz M, Baquero RA (2008) Effects of landscape complexity on the ecological effectiveness of agri-environment schemes. Landsc Ecol 23:135–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Decourtye A, Mader E, Desneux N (2010) Landscape enhancement of floral resources for honey bees in agro-ecosystems. Apidologie 41:264–277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dennis RLH (2010) A resource-based habitat view for conservation: butterflies in the british landscape. Wiley-Blackwell, New Jersey, p 420

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dirzo R, Young HS, Galetti M, Ceballos G, Isaac NJN, Collen B (2014) Defaunation in the Anthropocene. Science 345:401–406

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fahrig L, Baudry J, Brotons L, Burel FG, Crist TO, Fuller RJ, Sirami C, Siriwardena GM, Martin JL (2011) Functional landscape heterogeneity and animal biodiversity in agricultural landscapes. Ecol Lett 14:101–112

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hahn M, Schotthofer A, Schmitz J, Franke LA, Bruhl CA (2015) The effects of agrochemicals on Lepidoptera, with a focus on moths, and their pollination service in field margin habitats. Agric Ecosyst Environ 207:153–162

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Halamska M (2016) The evolution of family farms in Poland: present time and the weight of the past. East Eur Countryside 22:27–51

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleijn D, Baquero RA, Clough Y, Diaz M, De Esteban J, Fernandez F, Gabriel D, Herzog F, Holzschuh A, Johl R, Knop E, Kruess A, Marshall EJP, Steffan-Dewenter I, Tscharntke T, Verhulst J, West TM, Yela JL (2006) Mixed biodiversity benefits of agri-environment schemes in five European countries. Ecol Lett 9:243–254

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Konvicka M, Fric Z, Benes J (2006) Butterfly extinctions in European states: do socioeconomic conditions matter more than physical geography? Global Ecol Biogeogr 15:82–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Konvicka M, Benes J, Cizek O, Kopecek F, Konvicka O, Vitaz L (2008) How too much care kills species: grassland reserves, agri-environmental schemes and extinction of Colias myrmidone (Lepidoptera: Pieridae) from its former stronghold. J Insect Conserv 12:519–525

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuitunen K, Saarinen K, Jantunen J, Saarnio S (2003) A comparison of farmland avifauna between Finnish and Russian Karelia. Ornis Fenn 80:172–181

    Google Scholar 

  • Perovic D, Gamez-Virues S, Borschig C, Klein AM, Krauss J, Steckel J, Rothenwohrer C, Erasmi S, Tscharntke T, Westphal C (2015) Configurational landscape heterogeneity shapes functional community composition of grassland butterflies. J Appl Ecol 52:505–513

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • R Development Core Team (2008) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  • Rader R, Bartomeus I, Tylianakis JM, Laliberte E (2014) The winners and losers of land use intensification: pollinator community disassembly is non-random and alters functional diversity. Divers Distrib 20:908–917

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rundlof M, Smith HG (2006) The effect of organic farming on butterfly diversity depends on landscape context. J Appl Ecol 43:1121–1127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rundlof M, Edlund M, Smith HG (2010) Organic farming at local and landscape scales benefits plant diversity. Ecography 33:514–522

    Google Scholar 

  • Saarinen K, Jantunen J (2002) A comparison of the butterfly fauna of agricultural habitats under different management history in Finnish and Russian Karelia. Ann Zool Fenn 39:173–181

    Google Scholar 

  • Salek M, Kucera T, Zimmermann K, Bartuskova I, Platek M, Grill S, Konvicka M (2015) Edges within farmland: management implications of taxon specific species richness correlates. Basic Appl Ecol 16:714–725

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt G (1991) Failure of collective farming in socialist countries—a transaction-cost analysis. Berichte uber Landwirtschaft 69:38–68

    Google Scholar 

  • Slancarova J, Benes J, Kristynek M, Kepka P, Konvicka M (2014) Does the surrounding landscape heterogeneity affect the butterflies of insular grassland reserves? A contrast between composition and configuration. J Insect Conserv 18:1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stoate C, Baldi A, Beja P, Boatman ND, Herzon I, van Doorn A, de Snoo GR, Rakosy L, Ramwell C (2009) Ecological impacts of early 21st century agricultural change in Europe - A review. J Environ Manage 9:22–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ter Braak CJF, Šmilauer P (2012) Canoco reference manual and user’s guide: software for ordination, version 5.0. Microcomputer Power, Ithaca, p 496

    Google Scholar 

  • Tryjanowski P, Hartel T, Baldi A, Szymanski P, Tobolka M, Herzon I, Golawski A, Konvicka M, Hromada M, Jerzak L, Kujawa K, Lenda M, Orlowski G, Panek M, Skorka P, Sparks TH, Tworek S, Wuczynski A, Zmihorski M (2011) Conservation of farmland birds faces different challenges in Western and Central-Eastern Europe. Acta Ornithol 46:1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tscharntke T, Clough Y, Wanger TC, Jackson L, Motzke I, Perfecto I, Vandermeer J, Whitbread A (2012) Global food security, biodiversity conservation and the future of agricultural intensification. Biol Conserv 151:53–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turvey ST, Fernandez-Secades C, Nunez-Mino JM, Hart T, Martinez P, Brocca JL, Young RP (2014) Is local ecological knowledge a useful conservation tool for small mammals in a Caribbean multicultural landscape? Biol Conserv 169:189–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood TJ, Holland JM, Goulson D (2015) Pollinator-friendly management does not increase the diversity of farmland bees and wasps. Biol Conserv 187:120–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Sciences, University South Bohemia, Branisovska 31, 370 05, Ceske Budejovice, Czech Republic

    Martin Konvicka

  2. Institute of Entomology, BC CAS, Branisovska 31, 370 05, Ceske Budejovice, Czech Republic

    Martin Konvicka, Jiri Benes & Simona Polakova

Authors
  1. Martin Konvicka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jiri Benes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Simona Polakova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martin Konvicka.

Appendix

Appendix

Butterfly records and environmental variables used in the regression and ordination analyses.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Konvicka, M., Benes, J. & Polakova, S. Smaller fields support more butterflies: comparing two neighbouring European countries with different socioeconomic heritage. J Insect Conserv 20, 1113–1118 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-016-9940-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-016-9940-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation