Landscape occupancy and local population size depends on host plant distribution in the butterfly Cupido minimus

By Jochen Krauss, I. Steffan‐Dewenter, T. Tscharntke. 2004

100 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Abstract We tested whether the landscape occupancy and local population size of the monophagous butterfly Cupido minimus can be predicted by patch size and isolation of its host plant or by other habitat characteristics. C. minimus and its larval food plant Anthyllis vulneraria are classified as rare and endangered in northern Germany. Adults of C. minimus are ranked as the most sedentary butterfly species in northern Europe. Around the city of Gottingen (Germany), we checked all known locations of A. vulneraria ( n =70) in June 2002 for butterfly eggs (in blooming flowerheads) and adult butterflies (within 20-min transects). We found eggs of C. minimus or a high number of adults (>7) in all habitats with A. vulneraria (which are calcareous grasslands) even when isolated up to 2–4 km. In multiple regression analyses, local population size of adult butterflies was positively related to the cover of its larval food plant A. vulneraria explaining 65% of variance. Cover of A. vulneraria increased with increasing habitat area and increasing cover of plant species in flower and decreased with increasing cover of shrub layer. Habitat isolation and further factors describing habitat quality were not related to C. minimus population size or cover of its larval food plant. The results suggest that dispersal ability of C. minimus is greater than expected and that management should focus to increase A. vulneraria patches. For conservation, low impact grazing once a year and removing of excessive shrubs in winter seems to be the most appropriate strategies.

Subfields: Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics, Nature and Landscape Conservation, Plant Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/1bb92a1dd9769bd4751644e7aa4303400e7d4372

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

In Plant Science

Citations in the corpus

The influences of landscape structure on butterfly distribution and movement: a review (2009, background): “…levels of leaf litter and human-mediated disturbance (e.g. stock grazing) were more important than area or isolation in determining patch occupancy for the butterfly Speyeria nokomis apacheana in the Great Basin of western North America (see also LeónCortés et al. 2003; Krauss et al. 2004, 2005).”
Relative importance of resource quantity, isolation and habitat quality for landscape distribution of a monophagous butterfly (2005, methodology): “This is obviously contingent on the study region (Krauss et al. 2004a).”
How do local habitat management and landscape structure at different spatial scales affect fritillary butterfly distribution on fragmented wetlands? (2008, background): “Habitat patch size is usually a good predictor for the occurrence of butterfly species showing an increased probability of occurrence with increasing habitat patch size ( Krauss et al. 2004, 2005 ), like it was found in our study for B. selene and B. ino.”
Habitat models and habitat connectivity analysis for butterflies and burnet moths - The example of Zygaena carniolica and Coenonympha arcania (2005, background): “This is confirmed by Krauss et al. (2004) for Cupido minimus: while isolation did not play an important role for patch occupancy in landscapes with general high habitat quality, distribution was clearly more scattered in sub-optimal landscapes (see also Baguette et al., 2000; Binzenhöfer, 2005).”
Effects of landscape and habitat quality on butterfly communities in pre-alpine calcareous grasslands (2012, background): “…and isolation are considered important drivers of species richness and population density in fragmented landscapes (Dover and Settele, 2009; Hanski, 1999) but the role of habitat quality has only recently received more attention (Krauss et al., 2004; Mortelliti et al., 2010; Thomas et al., 2001).”
Ecology of butterflies in Europe (2009, background): “ii) Quantitative understanding of abiotic, biotic and disturbance-related factors driving habitat selection, species persistence and species richness in dynamic landscapes (Briers & Warren, 2000; Thomas & Elmes, 2001; Krauss et al., 2004; Rudner et al., 2007) and in large-scale regions (Hawkins & Po”