Oak savanna subhabitat variation and the population biology of Lycaeides melissa samuelis (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae)

Annals of the Entomological Society of America

Volumn 96, Issue 6, 2003, Pages 799-809

  Lane, Cynthia P ^a   Andow, David A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

Conservation biology; Habitat heterogeneity; Lepidoptera; Lycaeides melissa samuelis; Population dynamics

Indexed keywords

BUTTERFLY; CANOPY; CONSERVATION; ENDANGERED SPECIES; HABITAT QUALITY; POPULATION DYNAMICS;

LEPIDOPTERA; LYCAEIDES; LYCAEIDES MELISSA; LYCAENIDAE; MELISSA; MELISSA OFFICINALIS; QUERCUS;

EID: 1542377635     PISSN: 00138746     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1603/0013-8746(2003)096[0799:OSSVAT]2.0.CO;2     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Andow, D. A., R. J. Baker, and C. P. Lane. 1994. Research needs for management and recovery of Karner blue butterfly, pp. 209-216. In D. A. Andow, R. J. Baker and C. P. Lane [eds.], Karner blue butterfly: a symbol of a vanishing landscape. Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Minnesota, Saint Paul, MN.
2. Boyonoski, A. M. 1992. Factors affecting the establishment and maintenance of Lupinus perennis (wild lupine). M.S. thesis, University of Guelph, Canada.
3. Britten, H. B., and L. Riley. 1994. Nectar source diversity as an indicator of habitat suitability for the endangered Uncompaghgre fritillary, Boloria acrocnema (Nymphalidae). J. Lepid. Soc. 48: 173-179.
4. Bultman, T. L., and S. H. Faeth. 1988. Abundance and mortality of leaf miners on artificially shaded Emory oak. Ecol. Entomol. 13: 131-142.
5. Calvert, W. H., and L. P. Brower. 1986. The location of monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus L.) overwintering colonies in Mexico in relation to topography and climate. J. Lepid. Soc. 40: 164-187.
6. Casey, T. M. 1981. Behavioral mechanisms of thermoregulation. In B. Heinrich [ed.], Insect Thermoregulation. Wiley, New York
7. Celebrezze, T. M. 1996. Spatial patterning of lupine (Lupinus perennis): implications for Karner blue butterfly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis). M.S. thesis, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI.
8. Chew, F., and R. Robbins. 1984. Egg-laying in Butterflies, pp. 65-80. In R. Vane-Wright and P. Ackery [eds.], The Biology of Butterflies. Academic, New York.
9. Clarke, R. T., J. A. Thomas, G. W. Elmes, and M. E. Hochberg. 1997. The effects of spatial patterns in habitat quality on community dynamics within a site. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. 264: 347-364.
10. Clench, H. K. 1967. Temporal dissociation and population regulation in certain Hesperiine butterflies. Ecology 48: 1000-1006.
11. Collinge, S. K., and S. M. Louda. 1988. Herbivory by leaf miners in response to experimental shading of a native crucifer. Oecologia (Berl.). 75: 559-66.
12. Courtney, S. P., and T. T. Kibota, 1989. Mother doesn't know best: selection of hosts by ovipositing insects, pp. 161-187. In E. A. Bernays [ed.], Insect plant interaction. CRC, Boca Raton, FL.
13. Dempster, J. P. 1997. The role of larval food resources and adult movement in the population dynamics of the orange-tip butterfly (Anthocharis cardamines). Oecologia (Berl.). 111: 549-556.
14. Denno, R. F., S. Larsson, and K. L. Olmsted. 1990. Role of enemy-free space and plant quality in host-plant selection by willow beetles. Ecology 71: 124-137.
15. Dethier, V. G. 1959. Food-plant distribution and density and larval dispersal as factors affecting insect populations. Can. Entomol. 9: 581-596.
16. Gilbert, L. E., and M. C. Singer. 1975. Butterfly ecology. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 6: 365-397.
17. Givnish, T. J., E. S. Menges, and D. F. Schweitzer. 1988. Minimum area requirements for long-term conservation of the Albany Pine Bush and Karner blue butterfly: an assessment. Report to the City of Albany from Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., Albany, NY.
18. Greatorex-Davies, J. N., T. H. Sparks, M. L. Hall, and R. H. Marrs. 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.
19. Grundel, R., N. B. Pavlovic, and C. L. Sulzman. 1998. The effect of canopy cover and seasonal change on host plant quality for the endangered Karner blue butterfly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis). Oecologia (Berl.). 114: 243-250.
20. Haack, R. A. 1993. The endangered Karner blue butterfly (Lepidoptera:Lycaenidae): biology, management considerations and data gaps. Proceedings of the 9th Central Hardwood Forest Conference. U.S. Dep. Agric. Forest Service, North Central Experiment Station, General Technical Report, Saint Paul, MN.
21. Hanski, L. M. Kuussaari, and M. Nieminen. 1994. Metapopulation structure and migration in the butterfly Melitaea cinxia. Ecology 75: 747-762.
22. Harrison, S., D. D. Murphy, and P. R. Ehrlich. 1988. Distribution of the Bay Checkerspot butterfly, Euphydryas editha bayensis: evidence for a metapopulation model. Am. Nat. 132: 360-382.
23. Hochberg, M. E., R. T. Clarke, G. W. Elmes, and J. A. Thomas. 1994. Population dynamic consequences of direct and indirect interactions involving a large blue butterfly and its plant and red ant hosts. J. Anim. Ecol. 63: 375-391.
24. Lane, C. P. 1999. Benefits of heterogeneous habitat: oviposition preference and immature performance of Lycaeides melissa samnelis Nabokov (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae). Ph. D. dissertation, University of Minnesota, Saint Paul, MN.
25. Lane, C. P., and R. Dana. 1994. The Status of the Karner Blue Butterfly in Minnesota, pp. 113-122. In D.A. Andow, R. J. Baker and C. P. Lane [eds.], Karner blue butterfly: a symbol of a vanishing landscape. Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Minnesota, Saint Paul, MN.
26. Lane, C. P., and R. J. Welch. 1994. Rearing Karner blue butterflies for experimentation, re-establishment and supplementation. Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Greenbay Field Office, WI.
27. Lemmon, P. E. 1957. A new instrument for measuring forest overstory density. J. For. 55: 667-668.
28. Levins, R. 1970. Extinction, pp. 77-107. In Gerstenhaber [ed.], Lectures on mathematics in the life sciences, vol. 2. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI.
29. Loertscher, M., A. Erhardt, and J. Zettel. 1995. Microdistribution of butterflies in a mosaic-like habitat: the role of nectar sources. Ecography 18: 15-26.
30. Moore, N. W. 1989. Observe extinction or conserve diversity?, pp. 1-8. In N. M. Collins and J. A. Thomas [eds.], The conservation of insects and their habitats. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, London, England.
31. Murphy, D. D., K. E. Freas, and S. B. Weiss. 1990. An environment-metapopulation approach to population viability analysis for a threatened invertebrate. Conserv. Biol. 4: 41-51.
32. Murphy, D. D., A. E. Launer, and P. R. Ehrlich. 1983. The role of adult feeding in egg production and population dynamics of the Checkerspot butterfly Euphydryas editha. Oecologia (Berl.). 56: 257-63.
33. Ohsaki, N. 1979. Comparative population studies of three Pieris butterflies, P. rapae, P. melete and P. napi, living in the same area. I. Ecological requirements for habitat resources in the adults. Res. Popul. Ecol. 20: 278-96.
34. Ohsaki, N. 1982. Comparative population studies of three Pieris butterflies, P. rapae, P. melete and P. napi, living in the same area. III. Difference in the annual generation numbers in relation to habitat selection by adults. Res. Popul. Ecol. 24: 193-210.
35. Ohsaki, N., and Y. Sato. 1994. Food plant choice of Pieris butterflies as a trade-off between parasitoid avoidance and quality of plants. Ecology 75: 59-68.
36. Panzer, R., and M. W. Schwartz. 1998. Effectiveness of a vegetation-based approach to insect conservation. Conserv. Biol. 12: 693-702.
37. Pollard, E. 1979. Population ecology and change in range of the white admiral butterfly Ladoga camilla L. in England. Ecol. Entomol. 4: 61-74.
38. Price, P. W., C. E. Bouton, P. Gross, B. A. McPheron, J. N. Thompson, and A. E. Weiss. 1980. Interactions among three trophic levels: influence of plants on interactions between insect herbivores and natural enemies. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 11: 41-65.
39. Pulliam, H. R., J. B. Dunning Jr., and J. Liu. 1992. Population dynamics in a complex landscape: a case study. Ecol. Appl. 2: 165-77.
40. Rausher, M. D. 1979. Larval habitat suitability and oviposition preference in three related butterflies. Ecology 60: 503-11.
41. Rausher, M. D. 1981. Host plant selection by Battus philenor butterflies: the roles of predation, nutrition, and plant chemistry. Ecol. Monogr. 51: 1-20.
42. Samways, M. J. 1990. Landforms and winter habitat refugia in the conservation of montane grasshoppers in southern Africa. Conserv. Biol. 4: 375-382.
43. SAS Institute. 1991. SAS user's guide: statistics. SAS Institute, Cary, NC.
44. Savignano, D. A. 1990. Field investigations of a facultative mutualism between Lycaeides melissa samuelis Nabokov (Lycaenidae), the Karner blue butterfly, and attendant ants. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas, Austin, TX.
45. Schultz, C. B. 1998. Ecology and conservation of the Fender's blue butterfly. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
46. Schweitzer, D. F. 1994. Recovery goals and methods for Karner blue butterfly populations, pp. 185-194. In D. A. Andow, R. J. Baker and C. P. Lane [eds.], Karner blue butterfly: a symbol of a vanishing landscape. Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Minnesota, Saint Paul, MN.
47. Shreeve, T. G. 1984. Habitat selection, mate location, and microclimatic constraints on the activity of the speckled wood butterfly Pararge aegeria. Oikos 42: 371-377.
48. Shreeve, T. G. 1986. Egg-laying by the speckled wood butterfly (Pararge aegeria): the role of female behavior, host plant abundance and temperature. Ecol. Entomol. ll: 229-36.
49. Smallidge, P. J., D. L. Leopold, and C. M. Allen. 1996. Community characteristics and vegetation management of Karner blue butterfly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis) habitats on rights-of-way in east-central New York, USA. J. Appl. Ecol. 33: 1405-19.
50. Stelter, C., M. Reich, V. Grimm, and C. Wissel. 1997. Modeling persistence in dynamic landscapes: lesson from a metapopulation of the grasshopper Bryodema tuberculata. J. Anim. Ecol. 66: 508-518.
51. Stern, V. M., and R. F. Smith. 1960. Factors affecting egg production and oviposition in populations of Colias philodice eurytheme Boisduval. Hilgardia 29: 411-454.
52. Thomas, C. D. 1994. Extinction, colonization, and metapopulations: environmental tracking by rare species. Conserv. Biol. 8: 373-378.
53. Thomas, J. A. 1984. The behavior and habitat requirements of Maculinea nausithous (the dusky large blue butterfly) and M. teleius (the source large blue) in France. Biol. Conserv. 28: 325-47.
54. [USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; determination of endangered status for the Karner blue butterfly. Federal Register 57: 2241-2246.
55. Van Horne, B. 1983. Density as a misleading indicator of habitat quality. J. Wildl. Manag. 47: 893-901.
56. Warren, M. S. 1985. The influence of shade on butterfly numbers in woodland rides, with special reference to the wood white Leptidea sinapis. Biol. Conserv 33: 147-64.
57. Warren, M. S. 1987. The ecology and conservation of the heath fritillary butterfly, Mellicta athalia. III. Population dynamics and the effect of habitat management. J. Appl. Ecol. 24: 499-513.
58. Watt, W. B., D. Han, and B. E. Tabashinik. 1979. Population structure of Pierid butterflies. II. A "native" population of Colias philodice eriphyle in Colorado. Oecologia (Berl.). 44: 44-52.
59. Weiss, S. B., and D. D. Murphy. 1990. Thermal microenvironments and the restoration of rare butterfly habitat, pp. 50-60. In John J. Berger [ed.], Environmental restoration. Island Press, Washington, DC.
60. Weiss, S. B., D. D. Murphy, and R. R. White. 1988. Sun, slope, and butterflies; topographic determinants of habitat quality for Euphydryas editha. Ecology 69: 1486-96.
61. Wiklund, C. 1977. Oviposition, feeding and spatial separation of breeding and foraging habitats in a population of Leptidea sinapis (Lepidoptera). Oikos 28: 56-68.
62. Wiklund, C. 1984. Egg-laying patterns in butterflies in relation to their phenology and the visual apparency and abundance of their host plant. Oecologia (Berl.). 63: 23-29.