From metapopulation theory to conservation recommendations: Lessons from spatial occurrence and abundance patterns of Maculinea butterflies

Classic metapopulation theory assumes relatively frequent population extinctions and colonisations on local habitat patches and consequently its interest is focused on spatial presence–absence patterns rather than on local population densities and their dynamics. However, the latter may also be important for metapopulation functioning, especially in the case of low turnover of local populations. We investigated spatial occurrence and abundance patterns of three species of endangered Maculinea butterflies in the Krakow region, southern Poland, in relation to various habitat parameters. For all three species investigated we found almost complete occupancy of their foodplant patches. The few patches lacking Maculinea populations were significantly smaller and more isolated. Foodplant availability proved to be the main factor limiting population densities for M. alcon, but not for M. teleius and M. nausithous, for which patch size and shape mattered the most. Small and highly internally fragmented patches supported higher densities of these two species. We hypothesise that the negative density–area relationship as well as positive impact of patch fragmentation on butterfly densities derive from differences in relative abundance of Myrmica ant hosts, which are a vital resource for myrmecophilous Maculinea butterflies. Since ants are under strong parasite pressure from Maculinea within their foodplant patches, and spread mainly through nest budding from surrounding refuge areas, their densities can be expected to be higher on small and fragmented patches. This underlines the importance of not only foodplant patches, but also their surroundings for the conservation of Maculinea butterflies.

[1]  A. Pullin.  Ecology and Conservation of Butterflies , 1995, Springer Netherlands.

[2]  Michel Baguette,et al.  The classical metapopulation theory and the real, natural world: a critical appraisal , 2004 .

[3]  Oscar E. Gaggiotti,et al.  Ecology, genetics, and evolution of metapopulations , 2004 .

[4]  N. Mantel.  The detection of disease clustering and a generalized regression approach. , 1967, Cancer research.

[5]  Otso Ovaskainen,et al.  From Individual Behavior to Metapopulation Dynamics: Unifying the Patchy Population and Classic Metapopulation Models , 2004, The American Naturalist.

[6]  Angela Lee,et al.  Perspectives on … Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc , 1997 .

[7]  R. O’Hara,et al.  Consequences of the spatial configuration of resources for the distribution and dynamics of the endangered Parnassius apollo butterfly , 2006 .

[8]  Hans Van Dyck,et al.  Towards a functional resource-based concept for habitat: a butterfly biology viewpoint , 2003 .

[9]  M. Hochberg,et al.  CONSERVING COMMUNITY MODULES: A CASE STUDY OF THE ENDANGERED LYCAENID BUTTERFLY MACULINEA ALCON , 2005 .

[10]  K. Fiedler.  New information on the biology of Maculinea nausithous and M. teleius (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) , 1990 .

[11]  R. May.  Islands biogeography and the design of wildlife preserves , 1975, Nature.

[12]  R. Dennis,et al.  When is a habitat not a habitat? Dramatic resource use changes under differing weather conditions for the butterfly Plebejus argus , 2006 .

[13]  Matthew James Keeling,et al.  Using individual‐based simulations to test the Levins metapopulation paradigm , 2002 .

[14]  J. Settele,et al.  Less input same output: simplified approach for population size assessment in Lepidoptera , 2005, Population Ecology.

[15]  M. Gilpin,et al.  Metapopulation Biology: Ecology, Genetics, and Evolution , 1997 .

[16]  P. Nowicki,et al.  Oviposition patterns in the myrmecophilous butterfly Maculinea alcon Denis and Schiffermuller [Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae] in relation to characteristics of foodplants and presence of ant hosts , 2005 .

[17]  M. Hochberg,et al.  Empirical tests of specific predictions made from a spatial model of the population dynamics of Maculinea rebeli, a parasitic butterfly of red ant colonies , 1996 .

[18]  Andrew D. Taylor,et al.  Empirical Evidence for Metapopulation Dynamics , 1997 .

[19]  E. Fleishman,et al.  An empirical evaluation of the area and isolation paradigm of metapopulation dynamics , 2007 .

[20]  M. B. Usher,et al.  Should nature reserves be large or small? , 1980, Nature.

[21]  M. Munguira,et al.  Action Plan for Maculinea Butterflies in Europe , 1999 .

[22]  J. Diamond,et al.  Subdivision of nature reserves and the maintenance of species diversity , 1980, Nature.

[23]  W. Talloen,et al.  Functional conservation units for the endangered Alcon Blue butterfly Maculinea alcon in Belgium (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) , 2004 .

[24]  J. Settele,et al.  Polymorphic growth in larvae of Maculinea butterflies, as an example of biennialism in myrmecophilous insects , 2006, Oecologia.

[25]  R. Dennis,et al.  Habitats and Resources: The Need for a Resource-based Definition to Conserve Butterflies , 2006, Biodiversity & Conservation.

[26]  Josef Settele,et al.  Evolutionary biology: Butterfly mimics of ants , 2004, Nature.

[27]  E. Underwood,et al.  The role of ants in conservation monitoring: If, when, and how , 2006 .

[28]  M. Smith,et al.  Dispersal and the metapopulation paradigm in amphibian ecology and conservation : are all amphibian populations metapopulations? , 2005 .

[29]  Ilkka Hanski,et al.  Metapopulation Dynamics in Changing Environments: Butterfly Responses to Habitat and Climate Change , 2004 .

[30]  I. Hanski.  A Practical Model of Metapopulation Dynamics , 1994 .

[31]  J. Thomas,et al.  Complexity of species conservation in managed habitats: interaction betweenMaculinea butterflies and their ant hosts , 1992, Biodiversity & Conservation.

[32]  M. WallisDeVries.  A Quantitative Conservation Approach for the Endangered Butterfly Maculinea alcon , 2004 .

[33]  J. Thomas,et al.  Higher productivity at the cost of increased host‐specificity when Maculinea butterfly larvae exploit ant colonies through trophallaxis rather than by predation , 1998 .

[34]  M. Hochberg,et al.  Population dynamics in the genus Maculinea (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) , 1998 .

[35]  J. Thomas,et al.  The ecology and conservation of Maculinea arion and other European species of large blue butterfly , 1995 .

[36]  R. T. Clarke,et al.  The ecology of Myrmica ants in relation to the conservation of Maculinea butterflies , 1998, Journal of Insect Conservation.

[37]  J. Settele,et al.  Population ecology of the endangered butterflies Maculinea teleius and M. nausithous and the implications for conservation , 2005, Population Ecology.

[38]  J. Settele,et al.  Species ecology along a European gradient : Maculinea butterflies as a model , 2005 .

[39]  Yves Van de Peer,et al.  zt: A Sofware Tool for Simple and Partial Mantel Tests , 2002 .

[40]  Roger Vila,et al.  The evolution of alternative parasitic life histories in large blue butterflies , 2004, Nature.

[41]  M. Hochberg,et al.  A modelling study of the population dynamics of a large blue butterfly, Maculinea rebeli, a parasite of red ant nests , 1992 .

[42]  G. Englund,et al.  Patch area, population density and the scaling of migration rates: the resource concentration hypothesis revisited , 2005 .

[43]  J. Thomas.  The behaviour and habitat requirements of Maculinea nausithous (the dusky large blue butterfly) and M. teleius (the scarce large blue) in France , 1984 .

[44]  M. Hochberg,et al.  Population dynamic consequences of direct and indirect interactions involving a large blue butterfly and its plant and red ant hosts , 1994 .

[45]  J. Szacki.  Spatially structured populations: how much do they match the classic metapopulation concept? , 1999, Landscape Ecology.

[46]  Ilkka Hanski,et al.  Metapopulation structure and migration in the butterfly Melitaea cinxia , 1994 .

[47]  M. Munguira,et al.  Basal hatching by Maculinea butterfly eggs: a consequence of advanced myrmecophily? , 1991 .