Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Matrix configuration and patch isolation influences override the species–area relationship for urban butterfly communities

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Landscape Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to examine the role of urban public parks in maintaining connectivity and butterfly assemblages. Using a regression framework, we first test the relative importance of park size and isolation in predicting abundance and species richness of butterfly assemblages across a set of 24 public parks within a large metropolitan area, Marseille (South-East France). Then, we focus on landscape features that affect diversity patterns of the recorded butterfly communities. In this second part, the urban landscape surrounding each park is described (within a 1 × 1 km window) according to two major components: vegetated areas (habitat patches) and impervious or built areas (matrix patches). Specifically, we aim to test whether the incorporation of this built component (matrix) in the landscape analysis provides new insights into the understanding of ecological connectivity in the urban environment. We found a significant effect of both matrix configuration (shape complexity of the built patches) and distance from regional species pool (park isolation) on diversity of butterflies that overrides park size in their contribution to variation in species richness. This result suggests that many previous studies of interactions between biodiversity and urban landscape have overlooked the influence of the built elements.

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

  • Anderson WB, Wait DA (2001) Subsidized island biogeography: another new twist on an old theory. Ecol Lett 4:289–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andrén H (1994) Effects of habitat fragmentation on birds and mammals in landscapes with different proportions of suitable habitat: a review. Oikos 71:355–366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Angold PG, Sadler JP, Hill MO, Pullin A, Rushton S, Austi K, Small E, Wood B, Wadsworth R, Sanderson R, Thompson K (2006) Biodiversity in urban habitat patches. Sci Total Environ 360:196–204

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Arrhenius O (1921) Species and area. J Ecol 9:95–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baguette M, Mennechez G (2004) Resource and habitat patches, landscape ecology and metapopulation biology: a consensual viewpoint. Oikos 106:399–403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baldi A (2008) Habitat heterogeneity overrides the species–area relationship. J Biogeogr 35:675–681

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrett K, Wait DA, Anderson WB (2003) Small island biogeography in the Gulf of California: lizards, the subsidized island biogeography hypothesis, and the small island effect. J Biogeogr 30:1575–1581

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baz A, Garcia-Boyero A (1995) The effects of forest fragmentation on butterfly communities in central Spain. J Biogeogr 22:129–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blair RB, Launer AE (1997) Butterfly diversity and human land use: species assemblages along an urban gradient. Biol Conserv 80:113–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brückmann SV, Krauss J, Steffan-Dewenter I (2010) Butterfly and plant specialists suffer from reduced connectivity in fragmented landscapes. J Appl Ecol 47:799–809

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burns KC, McHardy RP, Pledger S (2009) The small-island effect: fact or artefact? Ecography 32:269–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cadenasso ML, Pickett STA, Grove JM (2006) Dimensions of ecosystem complexity: heterogeneity, connectivity, and history. Ecol Complex 3:1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chardon JP, Adriaensen F, Matthysen E (2003) Incorporating landscape elements into a connectivity measure: a case study for the Speckled wood butterfly (Pararge aegeria L.). Landscape Ecol 18:561–573

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chevan A, Sutherland M (1991) Hierarchical partitioning. Am Stat 45:90–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colwell RK (2009) EstimateS: statistical estimation of species richness and shared species from samples, version 8.2. http://purl.oclc.org/estimates. Accessed Mar 2011

  • Coops NC, Gillanders SN, Wulder MA, Gergel SE, Nelson T, Goodwin NR (2010) Assessing changes in forest fragmentation following infestation using time series Landsat imagery. For Ecol Manag 259:2355–2365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CRIGE-PACA (2001) http://www.crige-paca.org/frontblocks/donnees/

  • Croci S, Butet A, Georges A, Aguejdad R, Clergeau P (2008) Small urban woodlands as biodiversity conservation hot-spot: a multi-taxon approach. Landscape Ecol 23:1171–1186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cushman SA, McGarigal K, Neel MC (2008) Parsimony in landscape metrics: strength, universality, and consistency. Ecol Indic 8:691–703

    Article  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drinnan I (2005) The search for fragmentation thresholds in a Southern Sydney Suburb. Biol Conserv 124:339–349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fleishman E, Ray C, Sjögren-Gulve P, Boggs CL, Murphy DD (2002) Assessing the roles of patch quality, area, and isolation in predicting metapopulation dynamics. Conserv Biol 16:1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franklin JF, Lindenmayer DB (2009) Importance of matrix habitats in maintaining biological diversity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106:350–359

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaston KJ, Warren PH, Thompson K, Smith RM (2005) Urban domestic gardens (IV): the extent of resource and its associated features. Biodivers Conserv 14:3327–3349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gustafson EJ (1998) Quantifying landscape spatial pattern: what is the state of the art? Ecosystems 1:143–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanski I (1999) Metapopulation ecology. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Heikkinen RK, Miska L, Kuussaari M, Pöyry J (2005) New insights into butterfly–environment relationships using partitioning methods. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 272:2203–2210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herold M, Liu XH, Clarke KC (2003) Spatial metrics and image texture for mapping urban land use. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 69:991–1001

    Google Scholar 

  • IGN (2001) Base de données ALTI – Région Provence-Alpes-Côte-D’azur. Institut Géographique National

  • IGN (2006) Base de données 1000 – Marseille. Institut Géographique National

  • Joffre R, Rambal S, Damesin C (2007) Functional attributes in Mediterranean-type ecosystems. In: Pugnaire FI, Valladares F (eds) Functional plant ecology, 2nd edn. CRC Press, New York, pp 285–312

    Google Scholar 

  • Kinzig AP, Warren P, Martin C, Hope D, Katti M (2005) The effects of human socioeconomic status and cultural characteristics on urban patterns of biodiversity. Ecol Soc 10:23. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss1/art23/. Accessed Mar 2011

    Google Scholar 

  • Kitahara M, Fujii K (1994) Biodiversity and community structure of temperate butterfly species within a gradient of human disturbance: an analysis based on the concept of generalist vs. specialist strategies. Res Popul Ecol 36:187–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kotliar NB, Wiens JA (1990) Multiple scales of patchiness and patch structure: a hierarchical framework for the study of heterogeneity. Oikos 59:253–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lomolino MV (2000) Ecology’s most general, yet protean pattern: the species–area relationship. J Biogeogr 27:17–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lomolino MV (2002) “There are areas too small, and areas too large, to show clear diversity patterns” R.H. MacArthur (1972: 191). J Biogeogr 29:555–557

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lomolino MV, Weiser MD (2001) Towards a more general species–area relationship: diversity on all islands, great and small. J Biogeogr 28:431–445

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lovett-Doust J, Biernacki M, Page R, Chan M, Natgunarajah R, Timis G (2003) Effects of land ownership and landscape-level factors on rare species richness in natural areas of southern Ontario, Canada. Landscape Ecol 18:621–633

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lundholm JT (2006) Green roofs and facades: a habitat template approach. Urban Habitats 4:87–101

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathieu R, Freeman C, Aryal J (2007) Mapping private gardens in urban areas using object-oriented techniques and very high-resolution satellite imagery. Landsc Urban Plan 81:179–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McArthur RH, Wilson EO (1967) The theory of island biogeography. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    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. http://www.umass.edu/landeco/research/fragstats/fragstats.html. Accessed Mar 2011

  • McIntyre NE (2000) The ecology of urban arthropods: a review and a call to action. Ann Entomol Soc Am 93:825–835

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNally R (2000) Regression and model-building in conservation biology, biogeography and ecology: the distinction between—and reconciliation of—‘predictive’ and ‘explanatory’ models. Biodivers Conserv 9:655–671

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNally R (2002) Multiple regression and inference in ecology and conservation biology: further comments on retention of independent variables. Biodivers Conserv 11:1397–1401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melles S, Glenn S, Martin K (2003) Urban bird diversity and landscape complexity: species–environment associations along a multiscale habitat gradient. Conserv Ecol 7:5. http://www.consecol.org/vol7/iss1/art5/. Accessed Mar 2011

  • Natuhara Y, Hashimoto H (2009) Spatial pattern and process in urban animal communities. In: McDonnell MJ, Hahs AK, Breuste JH (eds) Ecology of cities and towns—a comparative approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 197–214

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Niell RS, Brussard PF, Murphy DD (2007) Butterfly community composition and oak woodland vegetation response to rural residential development. Landsc Urban Plan 81:235–245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ockinger E, Dannestam Å, Smith HG (2009) The importance of fragmentation and habitat quality of urban grasslands for butterfly diversity. Landsc Urban Plan 93:31–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Opdam P, Steingrover E, Van Rooij S (2006) Ecological networks: a spatial concept for multi-actor planning of sustainable landscapes. Landsc Urban Plan 75:322–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ovaskainen O (2004) Habitat-specific movement parameters estimated using mark–recapture data and a diffusion model. Ecology 85:242–257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pardini R, Bueno ADA, Gardner TA, Prado PI, Metzger JP (2010) Beyond the fragmentation threshold hypothesis: regime shifts in biodiversity across fragmented landscapes. PLoS ONE 5(10):e13666

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • R Development Core Team (2008) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. http://www.r-project.org. Accessed Mar 2011

  • Ricketts TH (2001) The matrix matters: effective isolation in fragmented landscapes. Am Nat 158:87–99

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Snep RPH, Opdam PFM, Baveco JM, WallisDeVries MF, Timmermans W, Kwak RGM, Kuypers V (2006) How peri-urban areas can strengthen animal populations within cities: a modeling approach. Biol Conserv 127:345–355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sutcliffe OL, Bakkestuen V, Fry G, Stabbetorp OE (2003) Modelling the benefits of farmland restoration: methodology and application to butterfly movement. Landsc Urban Plan 63:15–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor P, Fahrig L, With K (2006) Landscape connectivity: a return to basics. In: Crooks KR, Sanjayan M (eds) Connectivity conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 29–43

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Tews J, Brose U, Grimm V, Tielborger K, Wichmann MC, Schwager M, Jeltsch F (2004) Animal species diversity driven by habitat heterogeneity/diversity: the importance of keystone structures. J Biogeogr 31:79–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas JA, Bourn NAD, Clarke RT, Stewart KE, Simcox DJ, Pearman GS, Curtis R, Goodger B (2001) The quality and isolation of habitat patches both determine where butterflies persist in fragmented landscapes. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 268:1791–1796

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tischendorf L (2001) Can landscape indices predict ecological processes consistently? Landscape Ecol 16:235–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Triantis KA, Vardinoyannis K, Tsolaki EP, Botsaris I, Lika K, Mylonas M (2006) Re-approaching the small island effect. J Biogeogr 33:914–923

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tscharntke T, Steffan-Dewenter I, Kruess A, Thies C (2002) Contribution of small habitat fragments to conservation of insect communities of grassland–cropland landscapes. Ecol Appl 12:354–363

    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 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank the Parks and Gardens authority of the City of Marseille and in particular Patrick Bayle for facilitating our access to the city’s parks. We would like to thank Alain Sandoz, Estelle Dumas and Andreia Quintas for their contribution to remote sensing work. We are grateful to Jean-Noel Consales and Marie Goiffon for their assistance and their knowledge of the studied territory. S. Manel was supported by the ‘Institut Universitaire de France’ (University Institute of France). This study was carried out as part of the ‘PIRVE’ Program (city and environment interdisciplinary research program) and the ANR ‘Villes Durables’ (sustainable cities) Program (#VD08 321105). We are grateful to Michael Paul for improving the English and Nicolas Pech for improving the statistical background.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Population Environment Development Laboratory, UMR 151, University of Provence, 3, Place Victor Hugo, 13331, Marseille Cedex 03, France

    Marie-Hélène Lizée, Stéphanie Manel, Jean-François Mauffrey & Magali Deschamps-Cottin

  2. Mediterranean Institute of Ecology and Paleoecology, UMR 6116, St Jerome Science Faculty, 13397, Marseille Cedex 20, France

    Marie-Hélène Lizée & Thierry Tatoni

Authors
  1. Marie-Hélène Lizée
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stéphanie Manel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jean-François Mauffrey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Thierry Tatoni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Magali Deschamps-Cottin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marie-Hélène Lizée.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

10980_2011_9651_MOESM1_ESM.tif

Appendix 1: Descriptive statistics of the two park characteristics (size and isolation) and the eight landscape metrics for 24 studied urban parks (TIFF 86 kb)

10980_2011_9651_MOESM2_ESM.tif

Appendix 2: Pearson correlation coefficients (r) between the explanatory variables and associated probability (*** P ≤ 0.001; ** P ≤ 0.01; * P ≤ 0.05; n.s. = not significant) (TIFF 125 kb)

10980_2011_9651_MOESM3_ESM.tif

Supplementary material—Table S1: List of species recorded in the 24 studied parks (see Fig. 1 for parks’ numbering) (TIFF 377 kb)

10980_2011_9651_MOESM4_ESM.tif

Supplementary material—S2 (Figure a): Two types of neighbourhoods differing in FRAC_AM_built (aerial photograph, on the left and corresponding raster map, on the right). The two landscapes surround peripheral parks that are open on the same massif located in the south-east of the city. (a) Park of St Marcel (Park#13), an example of individual dwellings, FRAC_AM_built = 1.40 (Isolation = 10 m; PLAND_green = 60%; PLAND_built = 34%; Density of inhabitants = 18 ha−1) (TIFF 1384 kb)

10980_2011_9651_MOESM5_ESM.tif

Supplementary material—S2 (Figure b): Two types of neighbourhoods differing in FRAC_AM_built (aerial photograph, on the left and corresponding raster map, on the right). The two landscapes surround peripheral parks that are open on the same massif located in the south-east of the city. (b) Park of St Joseph (Park#11), an example of collective dwellings, FRAC_AM_built = 1.31 (Isolation = 250 m; PLAND_green = 55%; PLAND_built = 38%; Density of inhabitants = 68 ha−1) (TIFF 1471 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lizée, MH., Manel, S., Mauffrey, JF. et al. Matrix configuration and patch isolation influences override the species–area relationship for urban butterfly communities. Landscape Ecol 27, 159–169 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-011-9651-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-011-9651-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation