Influence of mowing on the persistence of two endangered large blue butterfly species

Mowing influences two endangered butterfly species, Maculinea nausithous and Maculinea teleius, directly through egg destruction and larval mortality on the mown plants and indirectly through altering the abundance of their sequential resources in meadows (Sanguisorba plants for oviposition and early larval development and Myrmica ant nests for later larval development and pupation). Although conservation biologists have argued that mowing during the adult stage is detrimental to population persistence, it is not obvious how the timing and frequency of mowing impact on population dynamics. A simulation model was used to investigate how current 'traditional' mowing regimes could be altered to reconcile butterfly conservation with agriculture. The key mechanism affecting the impact of mowing on population persistence was the interaction between density-independent and density-dependent mortalities in different larval stages of each life cycle. Because of this interaction, optimal mowing regimes for butterfly conservation were sensitive to the type of density regulation displayed by each species, and to landscape attributes such as the influence of climate on resource availability and the level of parasitism. Despite this sensitivity, we were able to identify robust mowing regimes appropriate for a wide range of landscape attributes and to derive general management recommendations. Synthesis and applications. Our results showed that the 'traditional' mowing regime (twice per year with the second cut during the flight period) was always detrimental to the two butterfly species at both local (single population) and regional (metapopulation) scales. However, mowing once a year, or every second or third year, before or after the flight period, was appropriate for both species in the considered landscapes. Maculinea teleius could persist only at a regional scale, assuming dispersal among the meadows, whereas M. nausithous could persist at both local and regional scales. Thus it is essential that the recommended mowing regimes are applied across several connected meadows within reach of dispersing butterflies if both butterflies are to be conserved in a region

[1]  Martin Drechsler,et al.  Trade-offs between local and regional scale management of metapopulations , 1998 .

[2]  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 .

[3]  M. Hochberg,et al.  Effects of latitude, altitude and climate on the habitat and conservation of the endangered butterfly Maculinea arion and its Myrmica ant hosts , 1998, Journal of Insect Conservation.

[4]  Taylor,et al.  A Global Species Assessment , 2004 .

[5]  K. Schönrogge,et al.  Polymorphic growth rates in myrmecophilous insects , 2000, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[6]  C. Wissel,et al.  Extinction risk in a temporally correlated fluctuating environment. , 1997, Theoretical population biology.

[7]  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 .

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

[9]  William J. Sutherland,et al.  How effective are European agri‐environment schemes in conserving and promoting biodiversity? , 2003 .

[10]  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 .

[11]  Martin Drechsler,et al.  A model-based approach for designing cost-effective compensation payments for conservation of endangered species in real landscapes , 2007 .

[12]  W. Gabriel,et al.  Survival of small populations under demographic stochasticity. , 1992, Theoretical population biology.

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

[14]  J. Thomas,et al.  Polymorphic growth in larvae of the butterfly Maculinea rebeli, a social parasite of Myrmica ant colonies , 1998, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[15]  B. Goodger,et al.  The quality and isolation of habitat patches both determine where butterflies persist in fragmented landscapes , 2001, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[16]  J. Settele,et al.  On the ethology and ecology of a small and isolated population of the Dusky Large Blue Butterfly Glaucopsyche (Maculinea) nausithous (Lycaenidae) , 2000 .

[17]  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 .

[18]  J. Thomas,et al.  Food–plant niche selection rather than the presence of ant nests explains oviposition patterns in the myrmecophilous butterfly genus Maculinea , 2001, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[19]  Karin Johst,et al.  Evolution of complex dynamics in spatially structured populations , 1999, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[20]  M. Woyciechowski,et al.  Flowerhead selection for oviposition by females of the sympatric butterfly species Maculinea teleius and M nausithous (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) , 1998 .

[21]  Karin Johst,et al.  Metapopulation persistence in dynamic landscapes: the role of dispersal distance , 2002 .

[22]  R. Clarke,et al.  Intraspecific variation in habitat availability among ectothermic animals near their climatic limits and their centres of range , 1999 .

[23]  Jim M Cushing,et al.  ESTIMATING CHAOS AND COMPLEX DYNAMICS IN AN INSECT POPULATION , 2001 .

[24]  Chris van Swaay,et al.  Red data book of European butterflies [Rhopalocera] , 1999 .

[25]  Christian Wissel,et al.  The intrinsic mean time to extinction: a unifying approach to analysing persistence and viability of populations , 2004 .

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

[27]  J. Thomas,et al.  Why Did the Large Blue Become Extinct in Britain? , 1980, Oryx.

[28]  I. Wynhoff Lessons from the reintroduction of Maculinea teleius and M. nausithous in the Netherlands , 1998, Journal of Insect Conservation.

[29]  N. Schtickzelle,et al.  Local population dynamics are important to the conservation of metapopulations in highly fragmented landscapes , 2003 .

[30]  R. Lande Risks of Population Extinction from Demographic and Environmental Stochasticity and Random Catastrophes , 1993, The American Naturalist.

[31]  T. Bellows The Descriptive Properties of Some Models for Density Dependence , 1981 .