Negative density-distribution relationship in butterflies

BMC Biology

Volumn 3, Issue , 2005, Pages

  Päivinen, Jussi ^a   Grapputo, Alessandro ^b   Kaitala, Veijo ^b,c   Komonen, Atte ^d   Kotiaho, Janne S ^b   Saarinen, Kimmo ^e   Wahlberg, Niklas ^f  

^a Natural Heritage Services   (Finland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ   (Finland)

^c UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

^d UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND   (Finland)

^e Etela karjalan Allergia ja Ymparistoinstituutti   (Finland)

^f STOCKHOLM UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BUTTERFLY; COMMUNITY ECOLOGY; CONTROLLED STUDY; FAUNA; FINLAND; GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION; INSECT SOCIETY; NONHUMAN; PHYLOGENY; POPULATION DENSITY; SPECIES DISTRIBUTION; SPECIES HABITAT; TAXONOMY; ANIMAL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; ENVIRONMENT; GENETICS; SPECIES DIFFERENCE;

INSECTA; PAPILIONOIDEA;

ANIMALS; BUTTERFLIES; ENVIRONMENT; PHYLOGENY; POPULATION DENSITY; SPECIES SPECIFICITY;

EID: 27544507718     PISSN: 17417007     EISSN: 17417007     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1741-7007-3-5     Document Type: Article

References (67)

1. Hanski I: Dynamics of distribution: the core and satellite species hypothesis. Oikos 1982, 38:210-221.
2. Brown JH: On the relationship between abundance and distribution of species. Am Nat 1984, 124:255-279.
3. Hanski I, Kouki J, Halkka A: Three explanations of the positive relationship between density and distribution of species. In Species Diversity in Ecological Communities: Historical and Geographical Perspectives Edited by: Ricklefs RE, Schluter D. Chicago: Chicago University Press: 1993.
4. Lawton JH: Range, population abundance and conservation. TREE 1993, 8:409-413.
5. Gaston KJ, Blackburn TM, Lawton JH: Interspecific abundance-range size relationships: an appraisal of mechanisms. J Anim Ecol 1997, 66:579-601.
6. Gaston KJ, Blackburn TM: Pattern and Process in Macroecology, Oxford: Blackwell Science; 2000.
7. Adams DE, Anderson RC: An inverse relationship between dominance and habitat breadth in Illinois forests. Am Midl Nat 1982, 107:192-195.
8. Schoener TW: The geographical distribution of rarity. Oecologia 1987, 74:161-173.
9. Arita HT, Robinson JG, Redford KH: Rarity in Neotropical forest mammals and its ecological correlates. Conservation Biology 1990, 4:181-192.
10. Gaston KJ, Lawton JH: Effects of scale and habitat on the relationship between distribution and density. Oikos 1990, 58:329-335.
11. Ford HA: Relationships between distribution, abundance and foraging niche breadth in Australian land birds. Ornis Scandinavica 1990, 21:133-138.
12. Novotny V: Effect of habitat persistence on the relationship between geographic distribution and density. Oikos 1991, 61:431-433.
13. Johnson CN: Species extinction and the relationship between density and distribution. Nature 1998, 394:272-274.
14. Cowley MJR, Thomas CD, Roy DB, Wilson RJ, León-Cortés JL, Gutiérrez D, Bulman CR, Quinn RM, Moss D, Gaston KJ: Density - distribution relationships in British butterflies. I. The effect of dispersal ability and spatial scale. J Anim Ecol 2001, 70:410-425.
15. Schoener TW: The geographical distribution of rarity: misinterpretation of atlas methods affects some empirical conclusions. Oecologia 1990, 82:567-568.
16. Bock CE, Ricklefs RE: Range size and density of some North American songbirds: a positive correlation. Am Nat 1983, 122:295-299.
17. O'Connor RJ: Organization of avian assemblages - the influence of intraspecific habitat dynamics. In The organization of communities: past and present Edited by: Gee JHR, Giller PS. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications; 1987:163-183.
18. Hanski I: Single-species metapopulation dynamics: concepts, models and observations. Biol J Linn Soc 1991, 42:17-38.
19. Harvey PH, Pagel MD: The Comparative Method in Evolutionary Biology. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1991.
20. Wright DH: Correlations between incidence and abundance are expected by chance. Journal of Biogeography 1991, 18:463-466.
21. Gyllenberg M, Hanski I: Single-species metapopulation dynamics: structured model. Theor Popul Biol 1992, 42:35-61.
22. Caston KJ: Rarity. London: Chapman & Hall; 1994.
23. Holt RD, Lawton JH, Gaston KJ, Blackburn TM: On the relationship between range size and density: back to basics. Oikos 1997, 78:183-190.
24. Hartley S: A positive relationship between density and regional occupancy is almost inevitable (but not all positive relationships are the same). J Anim Ecol 1998, 67:992-994.
25. Cowley MJR, Thomas CD, Wilson RJ, León-Cortés JL, Gutiérrez D, Bulman CR: Density - distribution relationships in British butterflies. II. Air assessment of mechanisms. J Anim Ecol 2001, 70:426-441.
26. Harvey PH: Phylogenies for ecologists. J Anim Ecol 1996, 65:255-263
27. Freckleton RP, Harvey PH, Pagel MP: Phylogenetic analysis and comparative data: a test and review of evidence. Am Nat 2002, 160:712-726.
28. Gaston KJ, Blackburn TM, Gregory RD: Interspecific abundance-distribution relationships: range position and phylogeny. Ecography 1997, 20:390-399.
29. Gaston KJ, Blackburn TM, Lawton JH: Aggregation and interspecific abundance-range size relationships. J Anim Ecol 1998, 67:995-999.
30. Hengeveld R, Haeck J: The distribution of abundance. I. Measurements. Journal of Biogeography 1982, 9:303-316.
31. Thomas CD, Jordano D, Lewis OT, Hill JK, Sutcliffe OL, Thomas JA: Butterfly distributional patterns, processes and conservation. In Symposium of the Zoological Society of London, Conservation in a Changing World: Integrating Processes into Priorities for Action Edited by: Mace GM, Balmford A, Ginsberg JR. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1998.
32. Thomas JA, Rose RJ, Clarke RT, Thomas CD, Webb NR: Intraspecific variation in habitat availability among ectothermic animals near their climatic limits and their centres of range. Functional Ecology 1999, 13(Suppl 1):55-64.
33. Hanski I: Metapopulation Ecology. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1999.
34. Thomas CD, Mallorie HC: Rarity, richness and conservation: butterflies of the Atlas mountains in Morocco. Biological Conservation 1985, 33:95-117.
35. Hodgson JG: Commonness and rarity in British butterflies. Journal of Applied Ecology 1993, 30:407-427.
36. Dennis RLH, Shreeve TG: Butterflies on British and Irish Offshore Islands. Wallingford, Oxon: Gem Publishing Company, 1996.
37. Dennis RLH, Shreeve TG: Diversity of butterflies on British islands: ecological influences underlying the roles of area, isolation and the size of the faunal source. Biol J Linn Soc 1997, 60:257-275.
38. Quinn RM, Gaston KJ, Roy DB: Coinsidence in the distributions of butterflies and their foodplants. Ecography 1998, 21:279-288.
39. Dennis RLH, Donato R, Sparks TH, Pollard E: Ecological correlates of island incidence and geographical range among British butterflies. Biodiversity and Conservation 2000, 9:343-359.
40. Brändl M, Öhlschläger S, Brändl R: Range sizes in butterflies: correlation across scales. Evolutionary Ecology Research 2002, 4:993-1004.
41. Rees M: Community structure in sand dune annuals: is seed weight a key quantity? Journal of Ecology 1995, 83:857-863.
42. Gilbert LE, Singer MC: Dispersal and gene flow in a butterfly species. Am Nat 1973, 107:58-72.
43. Brown IL, Ehrlich PR: Population biology of the checkerspot butterfly, Euphydryas chalcedona. Structure of the Jasper Ridge colony. Oecologia 1980, 47:239-251.
44. Kuussaari M, Nieminen M, Hanski I: An experimental study of migration in the Glanville fritillary butterfly Melitaea cinxia. J Anim Ecol 1996, 65:791-801.
45. Gutiérrez D, Menendez R: Density and distribution of butterflies in a mountain area in the northern Iberian peninsula. Ecography 1595, 18:209-216.
46. Quinn RM, Gaston KJ, Blackburn TM, Eversham BE: Abundance - range size relationships of macrolepidoptera in Britain: the effects of taxonomy and life history variables. Ecol Ent 1997, 22:453-461.
47. Quinn RM, Gaston KJ, Roy DB: Coinsidence between consumer and host occurrence: macrolepidoptera, in Britain. Ecol Ent 1997, 22:197-208.
48. Gaston KJ, Chown SL: Geographic range size and speciation. In Evolution of biological diversity Edited by: Maggurran AE, May RM. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1999.
49. Marttila O, Haahtela T, Aarnio H, Ojalainen P: Suomen päiväperhoset. Helsinki: Kirjayhtymä; 1990,
50. Huldén L, Albrecht A, Itämies J, Malinen P, Wettenhovi J: Atlas of Finnish Macrolepidoptera. Helsinki: Lepidopterological Society of Finland, Finnish Museum of Natural History; 2000.
51. Marttila O, Saarinen K, Lahti T: The national butterfly recording scheme in Finland (NAFI) - Results of the first ten years (1991-2000). Baptria 2001, 26:29-61.
52. Saarinen K, Lahti T, Marttila O: Population trends of Finnish butterflies (Lepidoptera: Hesperioidea, Papillonoidea) in 1991-2000. Biodiversity and Conservation 2003, 12:2147-2159.
53. Dennis RLH, Sparks TH, Hardy PB: Bias in butterfly distribution maps: the effects of sampling effort. Journal of Insect Conservation 1999, 3:33-42.
54. Wahlberg N: Comparative descriptions of the immature stages and ecology of five Finnish melitaeine butterfly species (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Entomol Fenn 2000, 11:167-174.
55. Bink FA: Ecologische atlas van de dagvlinders van Nordwest-Europa. Haarlem, Schuyt, Netherlands; 1992.
56. Pollard E, Yates TJ: Monitoring butterflies for ecology and conservation. London: Chapman & Hall; 1993.
57. Cook LM, Dennis RLH, Hardy PB: Butterfly-hostplant fidelity, vagrancy and measuring dispersal ability from distribution maps. Ecography 2001, 24:497-504,
58. Komonen A, Kaitala V, Kotiaho JS, Päivinen J: The role of niche breadth, resource availability and range position on the life history of butterflies. Oikos 2004, 105:41-54
59. Purvis A, Rambaut A: Comparative analysis by independent contrasts (CAIC): an Apple Macintosh application for analysing comparative data. Comput Appl Biosci 1995, 11:247-251.
60. de Jong R, Vane-Wright RI, Ackery PR: The higher classification of butterflies (Lepidoptera): problems and prospects. Entomol Scand 1996, 27:65-101.
61. Caterino MS, Reed RD, Kuo MM, Sperling FAH: A partitioned likelihood analysis of swallowtail butterfly phylogeny (Lepidoptera: Papilionidae). Syst Biol 2001, 50:106-127.
62. Martin J-F, Giles A, Descimon H: Molecular phylogeny and evolutionary patterns of the European satyrids (Lepidoptera: Satyridae) as revealed by mitochondrial gene sequences. Mol Phylogenet Evol 2000, 15:70-82.
63. Wahlberg N, Nylin S: Morphology versus molecules: resolution of the positions of Nymphalis, Polygonia and related genera (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Cladistics 2003, 19:213-223.
64. Wahlberg N, Zimmermann M: Pattern of phylogenetic relationships among members of the tribe Melitaeini (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) inferred from mtDNA sequences, Cladistics 2000, 16:347-363.
65. Wahlberg N. Weingartner N, Nylin S: Towards a better understanding of the higher systematics of Nymphalidae (Lepidoptera: Papilioniidae). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 2003, 28:473-484
66. Garland TJ, Harvey PH, Ives AR: Procedures for the analysis of comparative data using independent conrasts. Syst Biol 1992, 41:18-32.
67. Pagel MD: A method for the analysis of comparative data. J theor Biol 1992, 156: 431-442.