New insights into butterfly-environment relationships using partitioning methods

Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

Volumn 272, Issue 1577, 2005, Pages 2203-2210

  Heikkinen, Risto K ^a   Luoto, Miska ^a   Kuussaari, Mikko ^a   Pöyry, Juha ^a  

^a FINNISH ENVIRONMENT INSTITUTE   (Finland)

Author keywords

Autocovariate; Collinearity; Connectivity; Habitat quality; Parnassius mnemosyne; Semi natural grasslands

Indexed keywords

BIODIVERSITY; BUTTERFLY; GRASSLAND; HABITAT QUALITY; HABITAT USE;

ARTICLE; BIODIVERSITY; BUTTERFLY; BUTTERFLY ENVIRONMENT RELATION; ENVIRONMENT; FOOD; FOOD RESOURCE; HABITAT QUALITY; HABITAT QUANTITY; HABITAT STRUCTURE; HIERARCHICAL PARTITIONING; MICROCLIMATE; NONHUMAN; PARNASSIUS MNEMOSYNE; PARTITIONING METHOD; POPULATION ABUNDANCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; VARIATION PARTITIONING;

PARNASSIINAE; PARNASSIUS MNEMOSYNE;

EID: 26944464926     PISSN: 09628452     EISSN: 14712970     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2005.3212     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Anderson, M. J. & Gribble, N. A. 1998 Partitioning the variation among spatial, temporal and environmental components in a multivariate data set. Aust. J. Ecol. 23, 158-167.
2. Anthes, N., Fartmann, T., Hermann, G. & Kaule, G. 2003 Combining larval habitat quality and metapopulation structure-the key for successful management of pre-alpine Euphydryas aurinia colonies. J. Insect Conserv. 7, 175-185. (doi:10.1023/A:1027330422958.)
3. Auckland, J. N., Debinski, D. M. & Clarke, W. R. 2004 Survival, movement, and resource use of the butterfly Parnassius clodius. Ecol. Entomol. 29, 139-149. (doi:10. 1111/j.0307-6946.2004.00581.x.)
4. Augustin, N., Mugglestone, M. A. & Buckland, S. T. 1996 An autologistic model for spatial distribution of wildlife. J. Appl. Ecol. 33, 339-347.
5. Bergman, K.-O., Askling, J., Ekberg, O., Ignell, H., Wahlman, H. & Milberg, P. 2004 Landscape effects on butterfly assemblages in an agricultural region. Ecography 27, 619-628. (doi:10.1111/j.0906-7590.2004.03906.x.)
6. Borcard, D., Legendre, P. & Drapeau, P. 1992 Partialling out the spatial component of ecological variation. Ecology 73, 1045-1055.
7. Chevan, A. & Sutherland, M. 1991 Hierarchical partitioning. Am. Stat. 45, 90-96.
8. Clausen, H. D., Holbeck, H. B. & Reddersen, J. 2001 Factors influencing abundance of butterflies and burnet moths in the uncultivated habitats of an organic farm in Denmark. Biol. Conserv. 98, 167-178. (doi:10.1016/S0006-3207 (00)00151-8.)
9. Cleary, D. F. R. & Gennert, M. J. 2004 Changes in rain forest butterfly diversity following major ENSO-induced fires in Borneo. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 13, 129-140. (doi:10.1111/ j.1466-882X.2004.00074.x.)
10. Cowley, M. J. R., Wilson, R. J., León-Cortes, J. L., Gutiérrez, D., Bulman, C. R. & Thomas, C. D. 2000 Habitat-based statistical models for predicting the spatial distribution of butterflies and day-flying moths in fragmented landscape. J. Appl. Ecol. 37, 60-72. (doi:10.1046/j.1365-2664.2000. 00526.x.)
11. Cushman, S. A. & McGarigal, K. 2004 Hierarchical analysis of forest bird species-environment relationships in the Oregon coast range. Ecol. Appl. 14, 1090-1105.
12. Dennis, R. L. H. (ed.) 1992 The ecology of butterflies in Britain. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
13. Dennis, R. L. H. & Eales, H. T. 1997 Patch occupancy in Coenonympha tullia (Müller, 1764) (Lepidoptera: Satyrinae): habitat quality matters as much as patch size and isolation. J. Insect Conserv. 1, 167-176. (doi:10.1023/ A:1018455714879.)
14. Dennis, R. L. H. & Eales, H. T. 1999 Probability of site occupancy in the large heath butterfly Coenonympha tullia determined from geographical and ecological data. Biol. Conserv. 87, 295-301. (doi:10.1016/S0006-3207(98)00080-9. )
15. Ferrier, S., Watson, G., Pearce, J. & Drielsma, M. 2002 Extended statistical approaches to modeling spatial pattern in biodiversity: the north-east New South Wales experience. I. Species-level modeling. Biodivers. Conserv. 11, 2275-2307. (doi:10.1023/A:1021302930424.)
16. Fleishman, E., Ray, C., Sjögren-Gulve, P., Boggs, C. L. & Murphy, D. D. 2002 Assessing the roles of patch quality, area, and isolation in predicting metapopulation dynamics. Conserv. Biol. 16, 706-716. (doi:10.1046/j. 1523-1739.2002.00539.x.)
17. Gibson, L. A., Wilson, B. A., Cahill, D. M. & Hill, J. 2004 Spatial prediction of rufous bristlebird habitat in a coastal heathland: a GIS-based approach. J. Appl. Ecol. 41, 213-223. (doi:10.1111/j.0021-8901.2004.00896.x.)
18. Graham, M. 2003 Confronting multicollinearity in ecological multiple regression. Ecology 84, 2809-2815.
19. Griffiths, J. F. 1985 Climatology. In Handbook of applied meteorology (ed. D. D. Houghton), pp. 62-132. New York: Wiley.
20. Hanski, I. 1994 A practical model of metapopulation dynamics. J. Anim. Ecol. 63, 151-162.
21. Hanski, I. & Thomas, C. D. 1994 Metapopulation dynamics and conservation: a spatially explicit model applied to butterflies. Biol. Conserv. 68, 167-180. (doi:10.1016/ 0006-3207(94)90348-4.)
22. Hanski, I., Moilanen, A., Pakkala, T & Kuussaari, M. 1996 The quantitative incidence function model and persistence of an endangered butterfly metapopulation. Conserv. Biol. 10, 578-590. (doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.1996. 10020578.x.)
23. Heikkinen, R. K., Luoto, M., Virkkala, R. & Rainio, K. 2004 Effects of habitat cover, landscape structure and spatial variables on the abundance of birds in an agricultural-forest mosaic. J. Appl. Ecol. 41, 824-835. (doi:10.1111/j. 0021-8901.2004.00938.x.)
24. Hill, J. K., Thomas, C. D. & Lewis, O. T. 1996 Effects of habitat patch size and isolation on dispersal by Hesperia comma butterflies: implications for metapopulation structure. J. Anim. Ecol. 65, 725-735.
25. Konvicka, M. & Kuras, T. 1999 Population structure, behaviour and selection of oviposition sites of an endangered butterfly, Parnassius mnemosyne, in Litovelske Pomoravi, Czech Republic. J. Insect Conserv. 3, 211-223. (doi:10.1023/A:1009641618795.)
26. Krauss, J., Steffan-Dewenter, I. & Tscharntke, T. 2003 How does landscape context contribute to effects of habitat fragmentation on diversity and population density of butterflies? J. Biogeogr. 30, 889-900. (doi:10.1046/j. 1365-2699.2003.00878.x.)
27. Lichstein, J. W., Simons, T. R., Shriner, S. A. & Franzreb, K. E. 2002 Spatial autocorrelation and autoregressive models in ecology. Ecol. Monogr. 72, 445-463.
28. Liu, Q. 1997 Variation partitioning by partial redundancy analysis (RDA). Environmetrics 8, 75-85. (doi:10.1002/ (SICI)1099-095X(199703)8:2<75::AID- ENV250>3.0. CO;2-N.)
29. Loertscher, M., Erhardt, A. & Zettel, J. 1995 Microdistribution of butterflies in a mosaic-like habitat: the role of nectar sources. Ecography 18, 15-26.
30. Luoto, M., Kuussaari, M., Rita, H., Salminen, J. & von Bonsdorff, T. 2001 Determinants of distribution and abundance in the clouded apollo butterfly: a landscape ecological approach. Ecography 24, 601-617. (doi:10. 1034/j.1600-0587.2001.d01-215.x.)
31. Luoto, M., Kuussaari, M. & Toivonen, T. 2002 Modelling butterfly distribution based on remote sensing data. J. Biogeogr. 29, 1027-1037. (doi:10.1046/j.1365-2699. 2002.00728.x.)
32. Mac Nally, 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. (doi:10.1023/A:1008985925162.)
33. Mac Nally, R. 2002 Multiple regression and inference in ecology and conservation biology: further comments on identifying important predictor variables. Biodivers. Conserv. 11, 1397-1401. (doi:10.1023/A:1016250716679.)
34. Mac Nally, R. & Walsh, C. J. 2004 Hierarchical partitioning public-domain software. Biodivers. Conserv. 13, 659-660. (doi:10.1023/B:BIOC. 0000009515.11717.0b.)
35. Mac Nally, R., Fleishman, E., Fay, J. P. & Murphy, D. D. 2003 Modelling butterfly species richness using mesoscale environmental variables: model construction and validation for mountain ranges in the Great Basin of western North America. Biol. Conserv. 110, 21-31. (doi:10.1016/ 80006-3207(02)00172-6.)
36. Maes, D., Gilbert, M., Titeux, N., Goffart, P. & Dennis, R. L. H. 2003 Prediction of butterfly diversity hotspots in Belgium: a comparison of statistically focused and land use-focused models. J. Biogeogr. 30, 1907-1920. (doi:10. 1046/j.0305-0270.2003.00976.x.)
37. Moilanen, A. & Hanski, I. 1998 Metapopulation dynamics: effects of habitat quality and landscape structure. Ecology 79, 2503-2515.
38. Moilanen, A. & Nieminen, M. 2002 Simple connectivity measures in spatial ecology. Ecology 83, 1131-1145.
39. Quinn, G. P. & Keough, M. J. 2002 Experimental design and data analysis for biologists. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
40. R Development Core Team 2004 R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. See http://www. R-project.org.
41. Rassi, P., Alanen, A., Kanerva, T. & Mannerkoski, I. (ed.s) 2001 The 2000 Red List of Finnish species. The II Committee for the monitoring of threatened species in Finland (In Finnish with English Summary). Helsinki, Finland: Ministry of the Environment & Finnish Environment Institute.
42. Sawchik, J., Dufrêne, M. & Lebrun, P. 2003 Estimation of habitat quality based on plant community, and effects of isolation in a network of butterfly habitat patches. Acta Oecol. 24, 25-33. (doi:10.1016/S1146-609X(02) 00005-X.)
43. ter Braak, C. J. F. & Smilauer, P. 2002 CANOCO reference manual and canodraw for windows user's guide: software for canonical community ordination (version 4.5). Ithaca, NY, USA: Microcomputer Power.
44. Thomas, J. A., Rose, R. J., Clarke, R. T., Thomas, C. D. & Webb, N. R. 1999 Intraspecific variation in habitat availability among ectothermic animals near their climatic limits and their centres of range. Funct. Ecol. 13(Suppl. 1), 55-64. (doi:10.1046/j.1365-2435.1999.00008.x.)
45. Thomas, J. A., Bourn, N. A. D., Clarke, R. T., Stewart, K. E., Simcox, D. J., Pearman, G. S., Curtis, R. & Goodger, B. 2001 The quality and isolation of habitat patches both determine where butterflies persist in fragmented landscapes. Proc. R. Soc. B 268, 1791-1796. (doi:10.1098/ rspb.2001.1693.)
46. van Swaay, C. A. M. & Warren, M. S. 1999 Red Data Book of European Butterflies (Rhopalocera). Nature and environment 99. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.
47. Välimäki, P. & Itämies, J. 2003 Migration of the clouded Apollo butterfly Parnassius mnemosyne in a network of suitable habitats-effects of patch characteristics. Ecography 26, 679-691. (doi:10.1034/j.1600-0587.2003.03551.x.)
48. Venables, W. N. & Ripley, B. D. 2002 Modern applied statistics with S. Berlin: Springer.
49. WallisDeVries, M. F. 2004 A quantitative conservation approach for the endangered butterfly Maculinea alcon. Conserv. Biol. 18, 489-499.
50. Watson, D. M. & Peterson, A. T. 1999 Determinants of diversity in a naturally fragmented landscape: humid montane forest avifaunas of Mesoamerica. Ecography 22, 582-589.