Host plant availability potentially limits butterfly distributions under cold environmental conditions

Ecography

Volumn 37, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 301-308

  Hanspach, Jan ^a,b   Schweiger, Oliver ^a   Kühn, Ingolf ^a,c   Plattner, Matthias ^d   Pearman, Peter B ^e   Zimmermann, Niklaus E ^e   Settele, Josef ^a,c  

^a HELMHOLTZ CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH UFZ   (Germany)

^b LEUPHANA UNIVERSITY OF LÜNEBURG   (Germany)

^c GERMAN CENTRE FOR INTEGRATIVE BIODIVERSITY RESEARCH IDIV HALLE JENA LEIPZIG   (Germany)

^d Hintermann and Weber SA   (Switzerland)

^e SWISS FEDERAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE WSL   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIODIVERSITY; BUTTERFLY; DEPENDENCY; ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS; ENVIRONMENTAL GRADIENT; HOST PLANT; LAND USE; LIMITING FACTOR; SPATIAL RESOLUTION;

PAPILIONOIDEA;

EID: 84896709989     PISSN: 09067590     EISSN: 16000587     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0587.2013.00195.x     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Allouche O. et al. 2006. Assessing the accuracy of species distribution models: prevalence, kappa and the true skill statistic (TSS). J. Appl. Ecol. 43: 1223-1232.
2. Araújo M. B. and Pearson R. G. 2005. Equilibrium of species' distributions with climate. Ecography 28: 693-695.
3. Araújo M. B. and Rahbek C. 2006. How does climate change affect biodiversity? Science 313: 1396-1397.
4. Araújo M. B. and Luoto M. 2007. The importance of biotic interactions for modelling species distributions under climate change. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 16: 743-753.
5. Bertness M. D. and Callaway R. 1994. Positive interactions in communities. Trends Ecol. Evol. 9: 191-193.
6. Boggs C. L. and Inouye D. W. 2012. A single climate driver has direct and indirect effects on insect population dynamics. Ecol. Lett. 15: 502-508.
7. Brown J. H. et al. 1996. The geographic range: size, shape, boundaries, and internal structure. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 27: 597-623.
8. Callaway R. M. 1992. Effect of shrubs on recruitment of Quercus douglasii and Quercus lobata in California. Ecology 73: 2118-2128.
9. Callaway R. M. and Walker L. R. 1997. Competition and facilitation: a synthetic approach to interactions in plant communities. Ecology 78: 1958-1965.
10. Cormont A. et al. 2013. Host plant-mediated effects of climate change on the occurrence of the Alcon blue butterfly (Phengaris alcon). Ecol. Model. 250: 329-337.
11. Daleo P. and Iribarne O. 2009. Beyond competition: the stress-gradient hypothesis tested in plant-herbivore interactions. Ecology 90: 2368-2374.
12. Ebert G. (ed.) 1994. Die Schmetterlinge Baden-Württembergs. Band 3 Nachtfalter 3. - Eugen Ulmer.
13. Ebert G. and Rennwald E. (eds) 1991a. Die Schmetterlinge Baden-Württembergs. Band 1 Tagfalter 1. - Eugen Ulmer.
14. Ebert G. and Rennwald E. (eds) 1991b. Die Schmetterlinge Baden-Württembergs. Band 2 Tagfalter 2. - Eugen Ulmer.
15. Gross S. J. and Price T. D. 2000. Determinants of the northern and southern range limits of a warbler. J. Biogeogr. 27: 869-878.
16. Gutierrez D. and Thomas C. D. 2000. Marginal range expansion in a host-limited butterfly species Gonepteryx rhamni. Ecol. Entomol. 25: 165-170.
17. Hardie D. C. and Hutchings J. A. 2010. Evolutionary ecology at the extremes of species ranges. Environ. Rev. 18: 1-20.
18. Heikkinen R. K. et al. 2007. Biotic interactions improve prediction of boreal bird distributions at macro-scales. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 16: 754-763.
19. Henle K. et al. 2010. Securing the conservation of biodiversity across administrative levels and spatial, temporal, and ecological scales - research needs and approaches of the SCALES project. Gaia 19: 187-193.
20. Huntley B. et al. 1995. Modelling present and potential future ranges of some European higher plants using climate response surfaces J. Biogeogr. 22: 967-1001.
21. Hutchinson G. E. 1957. Concluding remarks. Cold Spring Harbor Symp. Quant. Biol. 22: 415-427.
22. Kirchhofer W. 19822000. Klimaatlas der Schweiz. - Schweizerische Meteorologische Anstalt, Bundesamt für Landestopographie.
23. Kissling W. D. et al. 2012. Towards novel approaches to modelling biotic interactions in multispecies assemblages at large spatial extents. J. Biogeogr. 39: 2163-2178.
24. Maestre F. T. et al. 2006. The stress-gradient hypothesis does not fit all relationships between plant-plant interactions and abiotic stress: further insights from arid environments. J. Ecol. 94: 17-22.
25. McArthur R. H. 1972. Geographical ecology. - Harper and Row.
26. Meier E. S. et al. 2010. Biotic and abiotic variables show little redundancy in explaining tree species distributions. Ecography 33: 1038-1048.
27. Meier E. S. et al. 2011. Co-occurrence patterns of trees along macro-climatic gradients and their potential influence on the present and future distribution of Fagus sylvatica L. J. Biogeogr. 38: 371-382.
28. Merrill R. M. et al. 2008. Combined effects of climate and biotic interactions on the elevational range of a phytophagous insect. J. Anim. Ecol. 77: 145-155.
29. Normand S. et al. 2009. Importance of abiotic stress as a range-limit determinant for European plants: insights from species responses to climatic gradients. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 18: 437-449.
30. Pateman R. M. et al. 2012. Temperature-dependent alterations in host use drive rapid range expansion in a butterfly. Science 336: 1028-1030.
31. Pearman P. et al. 2011. Impacts of climate change on Swiss biodiversity: an indicator taxa approach. Biol. Conserv. 144: 866-875.
32. Pearson R. G. et al. 2004. Modelling species distributions in Britain: a hierarchical integration of climate and land-cover data. Ecography 27: 285-298.
33. Pelini S. L. et al. 2009. Translocation experiments with butterflies reveal limits to enhancement of poleward populations under climate change. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106: 11160-11165.
34. Pompe S. et al. 2008. Climate and land use change impacts on plant distributions in Germany. Biol. Lett. 4: 564-567.
35. Potts S. G. et al. 2011. Developing European conservation and mitigation tools for pollination services: approaches of the STEP (Status and Trends of European Pollinators) project. J. Apic. Res. 50: 152-164.
36. Quinn R. M. et al. 1998. Coincidence in the distributions of butterflies and their foodplants. Ecography 21: 279-288.
37. Schweiger O. et al. 2008. Climate change can cause spatial mismatch of trophically interacting species. Ecology 89: 3472-3479.
38. Schweiger O. et al. 2010. Multiple stressors on biotic interactions: how climate change and alien species interact to affect pollination. Biol. Rev. 85: 777-795.
39. Schweiger O. et al. 2012. Increasing range mismatching of interacting species under global change is related to species traits. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 21: 88-99.
40. Schweizer Bund für Naturschutz (ed.) 1994. Tagfalter und ihre Lebensräume. Arten - Gefährdung - Schutz. Band 1. - Fotorotar AG (Egg.).
41. Seppelt R. et al. 2009. Land use options - strategies and adaptation to global change terrestrial environmental research. Gaia 18: 77-80.
42. Settele J. et al. 2012. Scenarios as a tool for large-scale ecological research: experiences and legacy of the ALARM project. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 21: 1-4.
43. Sonderegger P. 2005. Die Erebien der Schweiz. - Peter Sonderegger.
44. Stettmer C. et al. 2007. Die Tagfalter Bayerns und Österreichs. - Bayerische Akademie für Naturschutz u. Landschaftspflege.
45. Svenning J. C. et al. 2008. Postglacial dispersal limitation of widespread forest plant species in nemoral Europe. Ecography 31: 316-326.
46. Thuiller W. et al. 2009. BIOMOD - a platform for ensemble forecasting of species distributions. Ecography 32: 369-373.
47. Walther G. R. et al. 2002. Ecological responses to recent climate change. Nature 416: 389-395.
48. Warren M. S. et al. 2001. Rapid responses of British butterflies to opposing forces of climate and habitat change. Nature 414: 65-69.
49. Wisz M. S. et al. 2013. The role of biotic interactions in shaping distributions and realised assemblages of species: implications for species distribution modelling. Biol. Rev. 88: 15-30.
50. Zimmermann N. E. and Kienast F. 1999. Predictive mapping of alpine grasslands in Switzerland: species versus community approach. J. Veg. Sci. 10: 469-482.