Asymmetric dispersal and survival indicate population sources for grassland butterflies in agricultural landscapes

Ecography

Volumn 30, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 288-298

  Öckinger, Erik ^a   Smith, Henrik G ^a  

^a LUND UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ABUNDANCE; AGRICULTURAL LAND; BUTTERFLY; DISPERSAL; GRASSLAND; POPULATION DENSITY; SURVIVAL;

APHANTOPUS HYPERANTUS; COENONYMPHA PAMPHILUS; MANIOLA JURTINA; PAPILIONOIDEA;

EID: 34247188664     PISSN: 09067590     EISSN: 16000587     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.0906-7590.2007.05048.x     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Arnason, A. N. and Schwarz, C. J. 1999. Using POPAN-5 to analyse banding data. - Bird Study 46 (suppl.): S157-S168.
2. Asher, J. et al. 2001. The millennium atlas of butterflies in Britain and Ireland. - Oxford Univ. Press.
3. Baguette, M. 2003. Long distance dispersal and landscape occupancy in a metapopulation of the cranberry fritillary butterfly. - Ecography 26: 153-160.
4. Bink, F. A. 1992. Ecologische atlas van de dagvlinders van Noordwest-Europa. - Schuyt, Uitgevers en Importeurs.
5. Bodin, Ö. et al. 2006. The value of small size: loss of forest patches and ecological thresholds in southern Madagascar. - Ecol. Appl. 16: 440-451.
6. Boughton, D. A. 2000. The dispersal system of a butterfly: a test of source-sink theory suggests the intermediate-scale hypothesis. - Am. Nat. 156: 131-144.
7. Brownie, C. et al. 1993. Capture-recapture studies for multiple strata including non-markovian transitions. - Biometrics 49: 1173-1187.
8. Burnham, K. P. and Anderson, D. R. 2002. Model selection and multimodel interference. A practical informationtheoretic approach. - Springer.
9. Carvell, C. et al. 2004. The response of foraging bumblebees to successional change in newly created arable field margins. - Biol. Conserv. 118: 327-339.
10. Dennis, R. H. L. 2004. Just how important are structural elements as habitat components? Indications from a declining lycaenid butterfly with priority conservation status. - J. Insect Conserv. 8: 37-45.
11. Dennis, R. H. L. et al. 2003. Towards a functional resource-based concept for habitat: a butterfly biology viewpoint. - Oikos 102: 417-426.
12. Dias, P. C. 1996. Sources and sinks in population biology. - Trends Ecol. Evol. 11: 326-330.
13. Diffendorfer, J. E. 1998. Testing models of source-sink dynamics and balanced dispersal. - Oikos 81: 417-433.
14. Dover, J. et al. 1997. The importance of shelter for butterflies in open landscapes. - J. Insect Conserv. 1: 89-97.
15. Duelli, P. and Obrist, M. K. 2003. Regional biodiversity in an agricultural landscape: the contribution of seminatural habitat islands. - Basic Appl. Ecol. 4: 129-138.
16. Ekstam, U. and Forshed, N. 1996. Äldre fodermarker. - Swedish Environmental Protection Agency.
17. Eliasson, C. U. et al. 2005. Nationalnycklen till Sveriges flora och fauna. Fjärilar: dagfjärilar. Hesperiidae-Nymphalidae. - ArtDatabanken, Swedish Univ. of Agricultural Sciences.
18. Enfjäll, K. and Leimar, O. 2005. Density-dependent dispersal in the Glanville fritillary, Melitaea cinxia. - Oikos 108: 465-472.
19. Gutiërrez, D. et al. 1999. Dispersal, distribution, patch network and metapopulation dynamics of the dingy skipper butterfly (Erynnis tages). - Oecologia 121: 506-517.
20. Hill, J. K. et al. 1996. Effects of habitat patch size and isolation on dispersal by Hesperia comma butterflies: implications for metapopulation structure. - J. Anim. Ecol. 65: 725-735.
21. Huldén, L. (ed.) 2000. Finlands storfjärilsatlas. - Lepidoperologiska Sällskapet i Finland and Naturhistoriska central-museet.
22. Lebreton, J.-D. et al. 1992. Modelling survival and testing biological hypotheses using marked animals: a unified approach with case studies. - Ecol. Monogr. 62: 67-118.
23. Littell, R. C. et al. 1996. SAS system for mixed models. - SAS Inst.
24. Matthysen, E. 2005. Density-dependent dispersal in birds and mammals. - Ecography 28: 403-416.
25. Munguira, M. L. and Thomas, J. A. 1992. Use of road verges by butterfly and burnet populations, and the effect of roads on adult dispersal and mortality. - J. Appl. Ecol. 29: 316-329.
26. Nilsson, S. G. and Franzén, M. 2006. Biodiversity at Linnaeus' birthplace in the parish of Stenbrohult, southern Sweden. 5. Butterflies and burnet moths. - Entomol. Tidskr. 127: 39-55.
27. Öckinger, E. and Smith, H. G. 2006. Landscape composition and habitat area affect butterfly species richness. - Oecologia 149: 526-534.
28. Öckinger, E. and Smith, H. G. 2007. Semi-natural grasslands as population sources for pollinating insects in agricultural landscapes. - J. Appl. Ecol. 44: 50-59.
29. Öckinger, E. et al. 2006. The relationship between local extinctions of grassland butterflies and increased soil nitrogen levels. - Biol. Conserv. 128: 564-573.
30. Petit, S. et al. 2001. Metapopulation dynamics of the bog fritillary butterfly: movements between habitat patches. - Oikos 92: 491-500.
31. Pulliam, H. R. 1988. Sources, sinks, and population regulation. - Am. Nat. 132: 652-661.
32. Pywell, R. F. et al. 2005. Providing foraging resources for bumblebees in intensively farmed landscapes. - Biol. Conserv. 121: 479-494.
33. Ricketts, T. H. 2001. The matrix matters: effective isolation in fragmented landscapes. - Am. Nat. 158: 87-99.
34. Ricketts, T. H. et al. 2001. Countryside biogeography of moths in a fragmented landscape: biodiversity in native and agricultural habitats. - Conserv. Biol. 15: 378-388.
35. Ries, L. and Debinski, D. M. 2001. Butterfly responses to habitat edges in the highly fragmented prairies of central Iowa. - J. Anim. Ecol. 70: 840-852.
36. Ries, L. et al. 2001. Conservation value of roadside prairie restoration to butterfly communities. - Conserv. Biol. 15: 401-411.
37. Rundlöf, M. and Smith, H. G. 2006. The effect of organic farming on butterfly diversity depends on landscape context. - J. Appl. Ecol. 43: 1121-1127.
38. Schneider, C. and Fry, G. L. A. 2001. The influence of landscape grain size on butterfly diversity in grasslands. - J. Insect Conserv. 5: 163-171.
39. Schtickzelle, N. and Baguette, M. 2003. Behavioural responses to habitat patch boundries restrict dispersal and generate emigration-patch area relationships in fragmented landscapes. - J. Anim. Ecol. 72: 533-545.
40. Stoltze, M. 1996. Danske dagsommerfugle. - Gyldendal.
41. Sutherland, W. J. 1996. From individual behaviour to population ecology. - Oxford Univ. Press.
42. Tscharntke, T. et al. 2005. Landscape perspectives on agricultural intensification and biodiversity ecosystem service management. - Ecol. Lett. 8: 857-874.
43. Van Dyck, H. and Baguette, M. 2005. Dispersal behaviour in fragmented landscapes: routine or special movements? - Basic Appl. Ecol. 6: 535-545.
44. Vickery, J. et al. 2002. The potential value of managed cereal field margins as foraging habitats for farmland birds in the UK. - Agricult. Ecosyst. Environ. 89: 41-52.
45. Wahlberg, N. et al. 2002. Metapopulation structure and movements in five species of checkerspot butterflies. - Oecologia 130: 33-43.
46. Watkinson, A. R. and Sutherland, W. J. 1995. Sources, sinks and pseudo-sinks. - J. Anim. Ecol. 64: 126-130.
47. Weibull, A.-C. et al. 2003. Species richness in agroecosystems: the effect of landscape, habitat and farm management. - Biodiv. Conserv. 12: 1335-1355.
48. White, G. C. and Burnham, K. P. 1999. Program MARK: survival estimation from populations of marked animals. - Bird Study 46 (suppl.): S120-S139.
49. Wickman, P.-O. 1985a. Territorial defence and mating succes in males of the small heath butterfly Coenonymph pamphilus (Lepidoptera: Satyrinae). - Anim. Behav. 33: 1162-1168.
50. Wickman, P.-O. 1985b. The influence of temperature on the territorial and mate locating behaviour of the small heath butterfly, Coenonympha pamphilus (L.) (Lepidoptera: Satyridae). - Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 16: 233-238.