Patch size and connectivity thresholds for butterfly habitat restoration

Conservation Biology

Volumn 19, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 887-896

  Schultz, Cheryl B ^a   Crone, Elizabeth E ^b  

^a WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA   (United States)

Author keywords

Dispersal behavior; Fender's blue butterfly; Icaricia icarioides fenderi; Incidence function models; Metapopulation dynamics; Reserve design

Indexed keywords

BUTTERFLY; CONNECTIVITY; DISPERSAL; HABITAT RESTORATION; PATCH SIZE; RESTORATION ECOLOGY;

NORTH AMERICA; OREGON; UNITED STATES; WESTERN HEMISPHERE; WILLAMETTE VALLEY; WORLD;

ICARICIA ICARIOIDES;

EID: 20044391298     PISSN: 08888892     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00462.x     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Beier, P. 1995. Determining minimum habitat areas and habitat corridors for cougars. Conservation Biology 7:94-108.
2. Burnham, K. P., and D. R. Anderson. 2002. Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Springer-Verlag, New York.
3. Crone, E. E., and C. B. Schultz. 2003. Movement behavior and minimum patch size for butterfly population persistence. Pages 561-576 in C. Boggs, P. Ehrlich, and W. Watt, editors. Butterflies as model systems: ecology and evolution taking flight. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
4. Crone, E. E., D. Doak, and J. Pokki. 2001. Ecological influences on the dynamics of a field vole metapopulation. Ecology 82:831-843.
5. Diamond, J. M. 1975. Assembly of species communities. Pages 342-353 in M. L. Cody and J. M. Diamond, editors. Ecology and evolution of communities. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
6. Dieckmann, U., B. O'Hara, and W. Weisser. 1999. The evolutionary ecology of dispersal. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 14:88-90.
7. Fitzpatrick, G. S., and C. B. Schultz. 2002. 2001 status of the Fender's blue butterfly (Icaricia icarioides fenderi) in Lane County, Oregon: population estimates and site evaluations. Oregon Natural Heritage Program and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Eugene.
8. Flather, C. H., and M. Bevers. 2002. Patchy reaction-diffusion and population abundance: the relative importance of habitat amount and arrangement. The American Naturalist 159:40-56.
9. Hanski, I. 1994. A practical model of metapopulation dynamics. Journal of Animal Ecology 63:151-162.
10. Hanski, I. 1998. Metapopulation dynamics. Nature 396:41-49.
11. Hanski, I., and O. Ovaskainen. 2000. The metapopulation capacity of a fragmented landscape. Nature 404:756-758.
12. Holl, K. D., E. E. Crone, and C. B. Schultz. 2003. Landscape restoration: moving from generalities to methodologies. BioScience 53:491-502.
13. Ingvarsson, P. K. 2001. Restoration of genetic variation lost - the genetic rescue hypothesis. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 16:62-63.
14. Kingsland, S. E. 2002. Creating a science of nature reserve design: perspectives from history. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 7:61-69.
15. Kleintjes, P. K., J. M. Sporrong, C. A. Raebel, and S. F. Thon. 2003. Habitat type conservation and restoration for the Karner blue butterfly. Ecological Restoration 21:107-115.
16. Longcore, T. 2003. Terrestrial arthropods as indicators of Ecological Restoration success in coastal sage scrub (California, U.S.A.). Restoration Ecology 11:397-409.
17. Majer, J. 1983. Recolonization by ants in rehabilitated open-cut mines in northern Australia. Reclamation and Revegetation Research 2:279-288.
18. Marshall, K., and G. Edwards-Jones. 1998. Reintroducing capercaillie (Tetrao urogallus) into southern Scotland: identification of minimum viable populations at potential release sites. Biodiversity and Conservation 7:275-296.
19. Moilanen, A., and I. Hanski. 2001. On the use of connectivity measures in spatial ecology. Oikos 95:147-151.
20. Moilanen, A., and M. Nieminen. 2002. Simple connectivity measures in spatial ecology. Ecology 83:1131-1145.
21. Noss, R. F., E. T. L. LaRoe III, and J. M. Scott. 1995. Endangered ecosystems of the United States: a preliminary assessment of loss and degradation. Biological report 28. National Biological Service, Washington, D.C.
22. Okubo, A. 1984. Critical patch size for plankton patchiness. Pages 456-477 in S. A. Levin and T. G. Hallam, editors. Mathematical ecology. International Centre for Theoretical Physics, Miramare-Trieste, Italy.
23. Ovaskainen, O., and I. Hanski. 2001. Spatially structured metapopulation models: global and local assessment of metapopulation capacity. Theoretical Population Biology 60:281-302.
24. Ovaskainen, O., and I. Hanski. 2003. How much does an individual habitat fragment contribute to metapopulation dynamics and persistence? Theoretical Population Biology 64:481-495.
25. Perrow, M. R., and A. J. Davy, editors. 2002. Handbook of Ecological Restoration. Volume 1. Principles of restoration. Cambridge University Press, New York.
26. Saccheri, I., M. Kuussaari, M. Kankare, P. Vikman, W. Fortelius, and I. Hanski. 1998. Inbreeding and extinction in a butterfly metapopulation. Nature (London) 392:491-494.
27. Schultz, C. B. 1998. Dispersal and its implications for reserve design in a rare Oregon butterfly. Conservation Biology 12:284-292.
28. Schultz, C. B. 2001. Restoring resources for an endangered butterfly. Journal of Applied Ecology 38:1007-1019.
29. Schultz, C. B., and E. E. Crone. 2001. Edge-mediated dispersal behavior in a prairie butterfly. Ecology 82:1879-1892.
30. Schultz, C. B., and K. Dlugosch. 1999. Nectar and hostplant scarcity limit populations of an endangered Oregon butterfly. Oecologia 119:231-238.
31. Schultz, C. B., and G. S. Fitzpatrick. 2000. 1999 Status of the Fender's blue butterfly (Icaricia icarioides fenderi) in Lane County, Oregon: population estimates and site evaluations. Oregon Natural Heritage Program and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland.
32. Schultz, C. B., and P. W. Hammond. 2003. Using population viability analysis to develop recovery criteria for endangered insects: case study of a prairie butterfly. Conservation Biology 17:1372-1385.
33. Schultz, C. B., P. C. Hammond, and M. V. Wilson. 2003. The biology of the Fender's blue butterfly (Icaricia icarioides fenderi), an endangered species of western Oregon native prairies. Natural Areas Journal 23:61-71.
34. Thomas, C. D. 2000. Dispersal and extinction in fragmented landscapes. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B 267:139-145.
35. Thomas, C. D., and I. Hanski. 1997. Butterfly metapopulations. Pages 359-386 in I. Hanski and M. E. Gilpin, editors. Metapopulation biology: ecology, genetics and evolution. Academic Press, London.
36. Thomas, C. D., and T. M. Jones. 1993. Partial recovery of a skipper butterfly (Hesperia comma) from population refuges: lessons for conservation in a fragmented landscape. Journal of Animal Ecology 62:472-481.
37. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; endangered status for Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens (Willamette daisy) and Fender's blue butterfly (Icaricia icarioides fenderi) and threatened status for Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii (Kincaid's lupine). Federal Register 65:3875-3890.
38. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Final recovery plan for the Karner blue butterfly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Snelling, Minnesota.
39. Wahlberg, N., T. Klemetti, V. Selonen, and I. Hanski. 2002. Metapopulation structure and movements in five species of checkerspot butterflies. Oecologia 130:33-43.
40. Wilson, M. V., T. Erhart, P. C. Hammond, T. N. Kaye, K. Kuykendall, A. Liston, A. F. Robinson, C. B. Schultz, and P. M. Severns. 2003. The biology of Kincaid's lupine (Lupinus sulphureus spp. kincaidii), a threatened species of western Oregon native prairies. Natural Areas Journal 23:62-72.