Butterfly habitats, broad‐scale biotope affiliations, and structural exploitation of vegetation at finer scales: the matrix revisited

91 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

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

Distance sampling and the challenge of monitoring butterfly populations (2011, unknown): “The lack of significant relationship between vegetation height and detectability suggests that sites differ in ways that are not captured by our simple index, especially because butterfly behaviour varies among biotopes (Dennis 2004) in ways that have unpredictable consequences for detectability.”
The influences of landscape structure on butterfly distribution and movement: a review (2009, background): “…had tended to assume that the ‘matrix’ between the habitat ‘patches’ (Forman and Godron 1981) was uniform (Johst et al. 2002; Frank 2005); however, Dennis (2004) and Dennis and Hardy (2007) demonstrated that the matrix can contain resources for some butterflies and one species’ matrix can be…”
Importance of boreal grasslands in Sweden for butterfly diversity and effects of local and landscape habitat factors (2007, background): “Detailed behavioural studies of two butterXy species showed that more of the “empty” matrix than expected may be used (Dennis 2004).”
Habitats and Resources: The Need for a Resource-based Definition to Conserve Butterflies (2006, background): “Such ground may comprise as little as the line of grass, uncultivated and ungrazed, along a fence between a heavily manured and grazed field and equally heavily poached and churned ground of a footpath subject to public access ( Dennis 2004a ).”