A quantitative conservation approach for the endangered butterfly Maculinea alcon

Conservation Biology

Volumn 18, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 489-499

  WallisDeVries, Michiel F ^a  

^a De Vlinderstichting   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ENDANGERED SPECIES; HABITAT AVAILABILITY; SITE SELECTION; SPECIES CONSERVATION;

BENELUX; EURASIA; EUROPE; NETHERLANDS; WESTERN EUROPE;

FORMICIDAE; MACULINEA ALCON;

EID: 1842714375     PISSN: 08888892     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Butterflies under Threat Team (BUTT). 1980. The management of chalk grassland for butterflies. Focus on Nature Conservation no. 17. Nature Conservation Council, Petersborough, United Kingdom.
2. Cowley, M. J. R., R. J. Wilson, J. L. Léon-Cortès, D. Gutierrez, C. R. Bulman, and C. D. Thomas. 2000. Habitat-based statistical models for predicting the spatial distribution of butterflies and day-flying moths in a fragmented landscape. Journal of Applied Ecology 37(supplement 1):60-72.
3. Crooks, K. R. 2002. Relative sensitivities of mammalian carnivores to habitat fragmentation. Conservation Biology 16:488-502.
4. Crooks, K. R., A. V. Suarez, D. T. Bolger, and M. E. Soulé. 2001. Extinction and recolonization of birds on habitat islands. Conservation Biology 15:159-172.
5. Dennis, R. L. H., and H. T. Eales. 1997. Patch occupancy in Coenonympha tullia (Müller, 1764, Lep. Satyr.): habitat quality matters as much as patch size and isolation. Journal of Insect Conservation 1:167-176.
6. Elmes, G. W., J. A. Thomas, O. Hammarstedt, M. L. Munguira, J. Martin, and J. G. Van der Made. 1994. Differences in host-ant specificity between Spanish, Dutch and Swedish populations of the endangered butterfly, Maculinea alcon (DENIS et SCHIFE) (Lepidoptera). Memorabilia Zoologica 48:55-68.
7. Elmes, G. W., J. A. Thomas, J. C. Wardlaw, M. E. Hocbberg, R. T. Clarke, and D. J. Simcox. 1998. The ecology of Myrmica ants in relation to the conservation of Maculinea butterflies. Journal of Insect Conservation 2:67-78.
8. Fleishman, E., C. Ray, P. Sjögren-Gulve, C. L. Boggs, and D. D. Murphy. 2002. Assessing the roles of patch quality, area, and isolation in predicting metapopulation dynamics. Conservation Biology 16:706-716.
9. Guerry, A. D., and M. L. Hunter. 2002. Amphibian distributions in a landscape of forests and agriculture: an examination of landscape composition and configuration. Conservation Biology 16:745-754.
10. Hanski, I. 1999. Metapopulation ecology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom.
11. Hanski, I., M. Kuussaari, and M. Nieminen. 1994. Metapopulation structure and migration in the butterfly Melilaea cinxia. Ecology 75:747-762.
12. Harding, E. K., E. E. Crone, B. D. Elderd, J. M. Hoekstra, A. J. McKerrow, J. D. Perrine, J. Regetz, L. J. Rissler, A. G. Stanley, E. L. Walters, and NCEAS Habitat Conservation Plan Working Group. 2001. The scientific foundations of habitat conservation plans: a quantitative assessment. Conservation Biology 15:488-500.
13. Jansen, A. J. M., M. C. C. De Graaf, and J. G. M. Roelofs. 1996. The restoration of species-rich heathland communities in the Netherlands. Vegetatio 126:73-88.
14. Jongman, R.H.G., C. J. F. Ter Braak, and O. F. R Van Tongeren. 1995. Data analysis in community and landscape ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
15. Lawies, M. J., P. E. Mealin, and S. E. Piper. 2000. Patch occupancy and potential metapopulation dynamics of three forest mammals in fragmented afromontane forest in South Africa. Conservation Biology 14:1088-1098.
16. Maes, D., H. Van Dyck, W. Vanreusel, and J. Cortens. 2003. Ant communities (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) of Flemish (north Belgium) wet heathlands, a declining habitat in Europe. European Journal of Entomology 100:545-555.
17. Meyer, C. B., and S. L. Miller. 2002. Use of fragmented landscapes by Marbled Murrelets for nesting in southern Oregon. Conservation Biology 16:755-766.
18. Morrison, M. L., B. G. Marcot, and R. W. Mannan. 1992. Wildlife-habitat relationships: concepts and applications. University of Wisconsin, Madison.
19. Mueller-Dombois, D., and H. Ellenberg. 1974. Aims and methods of vegetation ecology. Wiley, New York.
20. Oostermeijer, J. G. B., R. Van 't Veer, and J. C. M. Den Nijs. 1994. Population structure of the rare, long-lived perennial Gentiana pneumonanthe in relation to vegetation and management in the Netherlands. Journal of Applied Ecology 31:428-438.
21. Oostermeijer, J. G. B., M. L. Brugman, E. R. De Boer, and H. C. M. Den Nijs. 1996. Temporal and spatial variation in the demography of Gentiana pneumonanthe, a rare perennial herb. Journal of Ecology 84:153-166.
22. SAS Institute. 1995. JMP Version 3.1. SAS Institute. Cary, North Carolina.
23. Schönrogge, K., J. C. Wardlaw, J. A. Thomas, and G. W. Elmes. 2000. Polymorphic growth rates in myrmecophilous insects. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B 267:771-777.
24. Schultz, C. B. 2001. Restoring resources for an endangered butterfly. Journal of Applied Ecology 38:1007-1019.
25. Settele, J., K. Henle, and C. Bender. 1996. Metapopulationen und Biotopverbund: Theorie und Praxis am Beispiel von Tagfaltern und Reptilien. Zeitschrift für Ökologie und Naturschutz 5:187-206.
26. Sjögren-Gulve, P., and C. Ray. 1996. Using logistic regression to model population dynamics: large-scale forestry extirpates the pool frog. Pages 111-137 in D. R. McCullough, editor. Metapopulations and wildlife conservation. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
27. Söderström, B., and T. Pärt. 2000. Influence of landscape scale on farmland birds breeding in semi-natural pastures. Conservation Biology 14:522-533.
28. Thomas, C. D., J. A. Thomas, and M. S. Warren. 1992. Distributions of occupied and vacant butterfly habitats in fragmented landscapes. Oecologia 92:563-567.
29. Thomas, J. A. 1991. Rare species conservation: case studies of European butterflies. Pages 149-198 in I. F. Spellerberg, F. B. Goldsmith, and M. G. Morris, editors. The scientific management of temperate communities for conservation. Blackwell Scientific, Oxford, United Kingdom.
30. Thomas, J. A. 1995. The conservation of declining butterfly populations in Britain and Europe: priorities, problems and successes. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 56(supplement A):55-72.
31. Thomas, J. A., and G. W. Elmes. 2001. Food-plant niche selection rather than the presence of ant nests explains oviposition patterns in the myrmecophilous butterfly genus Maculinea. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B 268:471-477.
32. Thomas, J. A., M. G. Morris, and C. Hambler. 1994. Patterns, mechanisms and rates of extinction among invertebrates in the United Kingdom. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B 344:47-54.
33. Thomas, J. A., G. W. Elmes, and J. C. Wardlaw. 1998a. Polymorphic growth in larvae of the butterfly Maculinea rebeli, a social parasite of Myrmica ant colonies. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B 265:1895-1901.
34. Thomas, J. A., D. J. Simcox, J. C. Wardlaw, G. W. Elmes, M. E. Hochberg, and R. T. Clarke. 1998b. Effects of latitude, altitude and climate on the habitat and conservation of the endangered butterfly Maculinea arion and its Myrmica ant hosts. Journal of Insect Conservation 2:39-46.
35. Thomas, J. A., N. A. D. Bourn, R. T. Clarke, K. E. Stewart, D. J. Simcox, G. S. Pearman, R. Curtis, and B. Goodger. 2001. The quality and isolation of habitat patches both determine where butterflies persist in fragmented landscapes. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B 268:1791-1796.
36. Van der Meijden, R. 1996. Heukels' flora van Nederland. 22nd edition. Wolters-Noordhoff, Groningen, The Netherlands.
37. Van Dyck, H., J. G. B. Oostermeijer, W. Talloen, V. Feenstra, A. Van der Hidde, and I. Wynhoff. 2000. Does the presence of ant nests matter for oviposition to a specialized myrmecophilous Maculinea butterfly? Proceedings Royal Society London Series B 267:861-866.
38. Vanreusel, W., D. Maes, and H. Van Dyck. 2000. Soortbeschermingsplan Gentiaanblaauwtje. Universiteit van Antwerpen (UIA-UA), Wilrijk.
39. Van Swaay, C. A. M., and M. S. Warren. 1999. Red data book of European butterflies (Rhopalocera). Nature and environment, no. 99. Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg.
40. Vos, C. C., and A. H. P. Stumpel. 1996. Comparison of habitat-isolation parameters in relation to fragmented distribution patterns in the tree frog (Hyla arboraea). Landscape Ecology 11:203-214.
41. WallisDeVries, M. F. 2001. Habitat quality assessment and its role in the conservation of the butterfly Melitaea cinxia. Proceedings Experimental and Applied Entomology NEV Amsterdam 12:141-146.
42. WallisDeVries, M. F. 2002. Options for the conservation of wet grasslands in relation to spatial scale and habitat quality. Pages 883-892 in J.-L. Durand, J.-C. Emile, C. Huyghe, and G. Lemaire, editors. Multi-function grasslands: quality forages, animal products and landscapes. Proceedings of the 19th General Meeting of the European Grassland Federation. Association Française pour la Production Fourragère, Versailles, France.
43. WallisDeVries, M. F. 2003. Beschermingsplan gentiaanblauwtje 2003-2007. Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij, Gravenhage, The Netherlands.
44. WallisDeVries, M. F., P. Poschlod, and J. H. Willems. 2002. Challenges for the conservation of calcareous grasslands In northwestern Europe: integrating the requirements of flora and fauna. Biological Conservation 104:265-273.
45. Wynhoff, I. 1998. The recent distribution of the European Maculinea species. Journal of Insect Conservation 2:15-27.
46. Wynhoff, I., J. G. B. Oostermeijer, M. Scheper, and J. G. Van der Made. 1996. Effects of habitat fragmentation on the butterfly Maculinea alcon in the Netherlands Pages 15-23 in J. Settele, C. Margules, P. Poschlod, and K. Henle, editors. Species survival in fragmented landscapes. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.