Congruence among vascular plants and butterflies in the evaluation of grassland restoration success

Acta Oecologica

Volumn 35, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 311-317

  Maccherini, Simona ^a,b   Bacaro, Giovanni ^a,b   Favilli, Leonardo ^a   Piazzini, Sandro ^a   Santi, Elisa ^a   Marignani, Michela ^b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SIENA   (Italy)

^b TerraData environmetrics   (Italy)

^c SAPIENZA UNIVERSITY OF ROME   (Italy)

Author keywords

Calcareous grassland; Community composition; Cross taxon congruence; Lepidoptera; Restoration monitoring

Indexed keywords

BUTTERFLY; COMMUNITY COMPOSITION; COMMUNITY RESPONSE; ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING; ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION; GRASSLAND; MIGRATORY POPULATION; PLANT COMMUNITY; VASCULAR PLANT;

EURASIA; EUROPE; ITALY; SOUTHERN EUROPE; TUSCANY;

LEPIDOPTERA; PAPILIONOIDEA; TRACHEOPHYTA;

EID: 60149111593     PISSN: 1146609X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.actao.2008.12.002     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Adam P. A role for restoration ecologists in endangered community conservation?. Ecol. Manag. Restor. 2 (2001) 165-166
2. Anand M., Laurence S., and Rayfield B. Diversity relationship among taxonomic groups in recovering and restored forests. Conserv. Biol. 19 (2005) 955-962
3. Balletto, E., Bonelli, S., Cassulo, L., 2007. Insecta Lepidoptera Papilionoidea (Rhopalocera). In: Ruffo, S., Stoch, F. (Eds.), Checklist and Distribution of the Italian Fauna. Ministero dell'Ambiente. Memorie del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Verona, 2.series, Sezione Scienze della Vita 16: 259-263+ CD ROM.
4. Balletto E., and Kudrna O. Some aspects of the conservation of butterflies in Italy, with recommendations for a future strategy. Boll. Soc. Entomol. Ital. 117 (1985) 39-59
5. Balmer O., and Erhardt A. Consequences of succession on extensively grazed grasslands for central European butterfly communities: rethinking conservation practices. Conserv. Biol. 14 (2000) 746-757
6. Bechi N. Ricerche citogeografiche in Cerastium arvense L. s.l (Caryophyllaceae) in Italia. Webbia 53 (1998) 1-12
7. Borcard D., Legendre P., and Drapeau P. Partialling out the spatial component of ecological variation. Ecology 73 (1992) 1045-1055
8. Dennis R.L.H., Shreeve T.G., and Van Dyck H. Habitats and resources: the need for a resource-based definition to conserve butterflies. Biodiv. Conserv. 15 (2006) 1943-1966
9. Ehrlich P.R., and Raven P.H. Butterflies and plants: a study in coevolution. Evolution 18 (1964) 586-608
10. Fabiano F., Vignali G., and Dapporto L. Lepidotteri. In: Sforzi A., and Bartolozzi L. (Eds). Libro rosso degli Insetti della Toscana (2001), ARSIA Regione Toscana, Effeemme Lito, Firenze 293-343
11. Favilli L., Piazzini S., and Manganelli G. I Lepidotteri Ropaloceri (Hesperioidea e Papilionoidea) della Riserva Naturale "Monte Labbro" (Toscana meridionale). Boll. Soc. Entomol. Ital. 136 (2004) 213-226
12. Fleishman E., Noss R.F., and Noon B.R. Utility and limitations of species richness metrics for conservation planning. Ecol. Indic. 6 (2006) 543-553
13. Hájek M., Hekera P., and Hájková P. Spring fen vegetation and water chemistry in the Western Carpathian flysch zone. Fol. Geob. 37 (2002) 205-224
14. Hintze, J., 2008. NCSS. NCSS, LLC. Kaysville, Utha. http://www.ncss.com.
15. Huntzinger M. Effects of fire management practices on butterfly diversity in the forested western. United States. Biol. Conserv. 113 (2003) 1-12
16. Kati V., Devillers P., Dufrêne M., Legakis A., Vokou D., and Lebrun P. Testing the value of six taxonomic groups as biodiversity indicators at a local scale. Conserv. Biol. 18 (2004) 667-675
17. Lamoreux J.F., Morrison J.C., Ricketts T.H., Olson D.M., Dinerstein E., McKnight M.W., and Shugart H.H. Global tests of biodiversity concordance and the importance of endemism. Nature 440 (2006) 212-214
18. Lepš J., and Šmilauer P. Multivariate Analysis of Ecological Data using CANOCO. Faculty of Biological Sciences (2003), University of South Bohemia
19. Lomov B., Keith D.A., Britton D.R., and Hochuli D.F. Are butterflies and moths useful indicators for restoration monitoring? A pilot study in Sydney's Cumberland Plain Woodland. Ecol. Manag. Restor. 7 (2006) 204-210
20. Lovell S., Hamer M., Slotow R., and Herbert D. Assessment of congruency across invertebrate taxa and taxonomic levels to identify potential surrogates. Biol. Conserv. 139 (2007) 113-125
21. Maccherini S., Marignani M., Castagnini P., and van den Brink P.J. Multivariate analysis of the response of overgrown semi-natural calcareous grasslands to restorative shrub cutting. Basic Appl. Ecol. 8 (2007) 332-342
22. Moore P.D., and Chapman S.B. Methods in Plant Ecology (1986), Blackwell Scientific Publications, New York 589 pp.
23. Mortimer S.R., Hollier J.A., and Brown V.K. Interactions between plant and insect diversity in the restoration of lowland calcareous grasslands in southern. Britain. Appl. Veg. Sci. 1 (1998) 101-114
24. Muller S., Dutoit T., Alard D., and Grévillot F. Restoration and rehabilitation of species-rich grassland ecosystems in France: a review. Restor. Ecol. 6 (1998) 94-101
25. Öckinger E., Eriksson A.K., and Smith H.G. Effects of grassland abandonment, restoration and management on butterflies and vascular plants. Biol. Conserv. 133 (2006) 291-300
26. Panzer R., and Swartz M.W. Effectiveness of a vegetation-based approach to insect conservation. Conserv. Biol. 12 (1998) 693-702
27. Pearman P.B., and Weber D. Common species determine richness patterns in biodiversity indicator taxa. Biol. Conerv. 138 (2007) 109-119
28. Pharo E.J., Beattie A.J., and Binns D. Vascular plant diversity as a surrogate for bryophyte and lichen diversity. Biol. Conserv. 13 (1999) 282-292
29. Pignatti S. Flora d'Italia Vol. 1, 2 and 3 (1982), Edagricole, Bologna
30. Pollard E., and Yates T.J. Monitoring Butterflies for Ecology and Conservation (1993), Chapman and Hall, London
31. Pöyry J., Lindgren S., Salminen J., and Kuussaari M. Responses of butterfly and moth species to restored cattle grazing in semi-natural grasslands. Biol. Conserv. 122 (2005) 465-478
32. Pueyo Y., Alados C.L., and Ferrer-Benimeli C. Is the analysis of plant community structure better than common species-diversity indices for assessing the effects of livestock grazing on a Mediterranean arid ecosystem?. J. Arid Environ. 64 (2006) 698-712
33. Ruiz-Jaen M.C., and Aide T.M. Restoration success: how is it being measured?. Restor. Ecol. 13 (2005) 569-577
34. Sætersdal M., Gjerde I., Blom H.H., Ihlen P.G., Myreseth E.W., Pommeresche R., Skartveit J., Solhøy T., and Aas O. Vascular plants as a surrogate species group in complementary site selection for bryophytes, macrolichens, spiders, carabids, staphylinids, snails, and wood living polypore fungi in a northern forest. Biol. Conserv. 115 (2003) 21-31
35. Shepherd S., and Debinski D.M. Evaluation of isolated and integrated prairie reconstructions as habitat for prairie butterflies. Biol. Conserv 126 (2005) 51-61
36. Söderström B., Svensson B., Vessby K., and Glimskar A. Plants, insects and birds in semi-natural pastures in relation to local habitat and landscape factors. Biodiv. Conserv. 10 (2001) 1839-1863
37. Stefanescu C., Penuelas J., and Filella I. Butterflies highlight the conservation value of hay meadows highly threatened by land-use changes in a protected Mediterranean area. Biol. Conserv. 126 (2005) 234-246
38. Su J.C., Debinski D.M., Jakubauskas M.E., and Kindscher K. Beyond species richness: community similarity as a measure of cross-taxon congruence for coarse-filter conservation. Conserv. Biol. 18 (2004) 167-173
39. Ter Braak C.J.F., and Shaffers A.P. Co-Correspondence analysis: a new ordination method to relate two community compositions. Ecology 85 (2004) 834-846
40. Ter Braak, C.J.F., Šmilauer, P., 2002. CANOCO Reference Manual and User's Guide to CANOCO for Windows: Software for Canonical Community Ordination. [4.5]. Ithaca, New York, Microcomputer power.
41. Terborgh J., Lopez L., Nuñez P., Rao M., Shahabuddin G., Orihuela G., Riveros M., Ascanio R., Adler G.H., Lambert T.D., and Balbas L. Ecological meltdown in predator-free forest fragments. Science 294 (2001) 1923-1926
42. Uehara-Prado M., Brown K.S., and Freitas A.V.L. Species richness, composition and abundance of fruit-feeding butterflies in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest: comparison between a fragmented and a continuous landscape. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 16 (2007) 43-54
43. van Swaay C.A.M. The importance of calcareous grasslands for butterflies in Europe. Biol. Conserv. 104 (2002) 315-318
44. van Swaay C.A.M., and Warren M.S. Red Data Book of European Butterflies (Rhopalocera). Nature and Environmental Series 99 (1999), Council of Europe, Strasbourg
45. van Swaay C.A.M., and Warren M.S. Biotope use and trends of European butterflies. J. Insect Conserv. 10 (2006) 189-209
46. Vanreusel W., and Van Dyck H. When functional habitat does not match vegetation types: a resource-based approach to map butterfly habitat. Biol. Conserv. 135 (2007) 202-211
47. Vessby K., Söderström B., Glimskär A., and Svensson B. Species-richness correlations of six different taxa in Swedish seminatural grasslands. Conserv. Biol. 16 (2002) 430-439
48. Vogel J.A., Debinski D.M., Koford R.R., and Miller J.R. Butterfly responses to prairie restoration through fire and grazing. Biol. Conserv. 140 (2007) 78-90
49. WallisDeVries M.F., Poschlod P., and Willems J.H. Challenges for the conservation of calcareous grasslands in northwestern Europe: integrating the requirements of flora and fauna. Biol. Conserv. 104 (2002) 265-273
50. Waltz A.E.M., and Covington W.W. Ecological restoration treatments increase butterfly richness and abundance: mechanisms of response. Restor. Ecol. 12 (2004) 85-96
51. Wolters V., Bengtsson J., and Zaitsev A.S. Relationship among the species richness of different taxa. Ecology 87 (2006) 1886-1895
52. Woodcock B.A., Pywell R.F., Roy D.B., Rose R.J., and Bell D. Grazing management of calcareous grasslands and its implications for the conservation of beetle communities. Biol. Conserv. 125 (2005) 193-202
53. Young T.P. Restoration ecology and conservation biology. Biol. Conserv. 92 (2000) 73-83