Allometric density responses in butterflies: The response to small and large patches by small and large species

Ecography

Volumn 33, Issue 6, 2010, Pages 1149-1156

  Hambäck, Peter A ^a   Bergman, Karl Olof ^b   Bommarco, Riccardo ^c   Krauss, Jochen ^d   Kuussaari, Mikko ^e   Pöyry, Juha ^e   Öckinger, Erik ^c  

^a STOCKHOLM UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^b LINKÖPING UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^c SWEDISH UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES   (Sweden)

^d UNIVERSITY OF BAYREUTH   (Germany)

^e FINNISH ENVIRONMENT INSTITUTE   (Finland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALLOMETRY; BODY SIZE; BUTTERFLY; CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT; ECOLOGICAL MODELING; ECOLOGICAL THEORY; GRASSLAND; GROWTH RATE; HABITAT CONSERVATION; HABITAT FRAGMENTATION; MATRIX; MIGRATION; MOBILITY; PATCH SIZE; PHYSIOLOGICAL RESPONSE; POPULATION DENSITY; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS;

EUROPE;

PAPILIONOIDEA;

EID: 78650399605     PISSN: 09067590     EISSN: 16000587     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0587.2009.06125.x     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Anderson, W. B. and Polis, G. A. 1998. Marine subsidies of island communities in the Gulf of California: evidence from stable carbon and nitrogen isotopes. Oikos 81: 75-80.
2. Bender, D. J. et al. 1998. Habitat loss and population decline: a meta-analysis of the patch size effect. Ecology 79: 517-533.
3. Bergman, K. O. et al. 2004. Landscape effects on butterfly assemblages in an agricultural region. Ecography 27: 619-628.
4. Bergman, K. O. et al. 2008. Importance of boreal grasslands in Sweden for butterfly diversity and effects of local and landscape habitat factors. Biodivers. Conserv. 17: 139-153.
5. Berwaerts, K. et al. 2002. Does flight morphology relate to flight performance? An experimental test with the butterfly Pararge aegeria. Funct. Ecol. 16: 484-491.
6. Bink, F. A. 1992. Ecologische atlas van de dagvlinders van Noordwest-Europa. Schuyt Uitgevers en Importeurs.
7. Bowers, M. A. and Matter, S. F. 1997. Landscape ecology of mammals: relationships between density and patch-size. J. Mammal. 78: 999-1013.
8. Cant, E. T. et al. 2005. Tracking butterfly flight paths across the landscape with harmonic radar. Proc. R. Soc. B 272: 785-790.
9. Connor, E. F. et al. 2000. Individuals-area relationships: the relationship between animal population density and area. Ecology 81: 734-748.
10. Crawley, M. J. 2002. Statistical computing. An introduction to data analysis using S-Plus. Wiley.
11. Dennis, R. L. H. and Hardy, P. B. 2007. Support for mending the matrix: resource seeking by butterflies in non-resource zones. J. Insect Conserv. 11: 157-168.
12. Englund, G. and Hambäck, P. A. 2007. Scale dependence of immigration rates: models, metrics, and data. J. Anim. Ecol. 76: 30-35.
13. Ewers, R. M. and Didham, R. K. 2006. Confounding factors in the detection of species responses to habitat fragmentation. Biol. Rev. 81: 117-142.
14. Ewers, R. M. and Didham, R. K. 2007. The effect of fragment shape and species' sensitivity to habitat edges on animal population size. Conserv. Biol. 21: 926-936.
15. Ewers, R. M. et al. 2007. Synergistic interactions between edge and area effects in a heavily fragmented landscape. Ecology 88: 96-106.
16. Fahrig, L. 2003. Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 34: 487-515.
17. Fletcher, R. J. et al. 2007. The role of habitat area and edge in fragmented landscapes: definitively distinct or inevitably intertwined?. Can. J. Zool. 85: 1017-1030.
18. Hambäck, P. A. and Englund, G. 2005. Patch area, population density and the scaling of migration rates: the resource concentration hypothesis revisited. Ecol. Lett. 8: 1057-1065.
19. Hambäck, P. A. et al. 2007. Habitat specialisation, body-size and phylogeny explains density-area relationships in Lepidoptera: a cross-continental comparison. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 104: 8368-8373.
20. Hanski, I. 2005. The shrinking world: ecological consequences of habitat loss. International Ecology Inst.
21. Harrison, S. and Taylor, A. D. 1997. Empirical evidence for metapopulation dynamics. - In: Hanski, I. A. and Gilpin, M. E. (eds), Metapopulation biology: ecology, genetics, and evolution. Academic Press, pp. 27-42.
22. Haskell, J. P. et al. 2002. Fractal geometry predicts varying body size relationships for mammal and bird home ranges. Nature 418: 527-530.
23. Hedges, L. V. and Olkin, I. 1985. Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Academic Press.
24. Heino, M. and Hanski, I. 2001. Evolution of migration rate in a spatially realistic metapopulation model. Am. Nat. 157: 495-511.
25. Hudgens, B. R. and Haddad, N. M. 2003. Predicting which species will benefit from corridors in fragmented landscapes from population growth models. Am. Nat. 161: 808-820.
26. Krauss, J. et al. 2003a. How does landscape context contribute to effects of habitat fragmentation on diversity and population density of butterflies. J. Biogeogr. 30: 889-900.
27. Krauss, J. et al. 2003b. Local species immigration, extinction, and turnover of butterflies in relation to habitat area and habitat isolation. Oecologia 137: 591-602.
28. Marquet, P. A. et al. 1990. Scaling of population density to body size in rocky intertidal communities. Science 250: 1125-1127.
29. Matlack, G. R. 1993. Microenvironment variation within and among forest edge sites in the eastern United States. Biol. Conserv. 66: 185-194.
30. Matter, S. F. et al. 2004. Migration and survival of Parnassius smintheus: detecting effects of habitat for individual butterflies. Ecol. Appl. 14: 1526-1534.
31. Merckx, T. and Van Dyck, H. 2006. Landscape structure and phenotypic plasticity in flight morphology in the butterfly Pararge aegeria. Oikos 113: 226-232.
32. Nieminen, M. 1996. Migration of moth species in a network of small islands. Oecologia 108: 643-651.
33. Öckinger, E. and Smith, H. G. 2006. Landscape composition and habitat area affects butterfly species richness in semi-natural grasslands. Oecologia 149: 526-534.
34. Öckinger, E. et al. 2006. Effects of grassland abandonment, restoration and management on butterflies and vascular plants. Biol. Conserv. 133: 291-300.
35. Östman, Ö. et al. 2009. Edge or dispersal effects: their relative importance on arthropod densities on small islands. Basic Appl. Ecol. 10: 475-484.
36. Paradis, E. et al. 2004. APE: analysis of phylogenetics and evolution in R language. Bioinformatics 20: 289-290 (package available freely under the GNU General Public License at: ).
37. Polis, G. A. and Hurd, S. D. 1996. Allochtonous input across habitats, subsidized consumers, and apparent trophic cascades: examples from the ocean-land interface. - In: Polis, G. A. and Winemiller, K. O. (eds), Food webs: integration of patterns and dynamics. Chapman and Hall, pp. 275-285.
38. Pollard, E. and Yates, T. J. 1993. Monitoring butterflies for ecology and conservation. Chapman and Hall.
39. Pöyry, J. et al. 2009a. Species traits explain recent range shifts of Finnish butterflies. Global Change Biol. 15: 732-743.
40. Pöyry, J. et al. 2009b. Relative contributions of local and regional factors to species richness and total density of butterflies and moths in semi-natural grasslands. Oecologia 160: 577-587.
41. R Development Core Team. 2007. R: a Language for statistical computing , Vienna.
42. Rabasa, S. G. et al. 2007. Metapopulation structure and habitat quality in modelling dispersal in the butterfly Iolana iolas. Oikos 116: 793-806.
43. Rabasa, S. G. et al. 2008. Relative importance of host plant patch geometry and habitat quality on the patterns of occupancy, extinction and density of the monophagous butterfly Iolana iolas. Oecologia 156: 491-503.
44. Rand, T. A. and Louda, S. M. 2006. Spillover of agriculturally subsidized predators as a potential threat to native insect herbivores in fragmented landscapes. Conserv. Biol. 20: 1720-1729.
45. Ricketts, T. H. et al. 2000. Countryside biogeography of moths in a fragmented landscape: biodiversity in native and agricultural habitats. Conserv. Biol. 15: 378-388.
46. 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.
47. Ries, L. and Sisk, T. D. 2008. Butterfly edge effects are predicted by a simple model in a complex landscape. Oecologia 156: 75-86.
48. Ries, L. et al. 2004. Ecological responses to habitat edges: mechanisms, models, and variability explained. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 35: 491-522.
49. Roine, A. 2000. Lepibase 2.0, butterflies of Europe. CD.
50. Schtickzelle, N. et al. 2006. Dispersal depression with habitat fragmentation in the bog fritillary butterfly. Ecology 87: 1057-1065.
51. Schtickzelle, N. et al. 2007. Quantitative analysis of changes in movement behaviour within and outside habitat in a specialist butterfly. BMC Evol. Biol. 7: 4.
52. Steffan-Dewenter, I. and Tscharntke, T. 2000. Butterfly community structure in fragmented habitats. Ecol. Lett. 3: 449-456.
53. Thomas, C. D. 2000. Dispersal and extinction in fragmented landscapes. Proc. R. Soc. B 267: 139-145.
54. Thomas, C. D. and Kunin, W. E. 1999. The spatial structure of populations. J. Anim. Ecol. 68: 647-657.
55. Turchin, P. 1991. Translating foraging movements in heterogeneous environments into the spatial distribution of foragers. Ecology 72: 1253-1266.