Landscape variables impact the structure and composition of butterfly assemblages along an urbanization gradient

How urbanization affects the distribution patterns of butterflies is still poorly known. Here we investigated the structure and composition of butterfly assemblages along an urbanization gradient within the most urbanized and densely populated region in France (Île-de-France). Using a method issued from artificial neural networks, i.e. self-organizing maps (SOMs), we showed the existence of four typical assemblages ranging from urban-tolerant species to urban-avoider species. We identified indicator species of these assemblages: the peacock butterfly (Inachis io) in urbanized areas, the swallowtail (Papilio machaon) in sites with intermediate human pressure, or the meadow brown (Maniola jurtina), the small heath (Coenonympha pamphilus) and the gatekeeper (Pyronia tithonus) in meadows around Paris. A discriminant analysis showed that the four assemblages were mainly segregated by landscape elements, both by structural variables (habitat type, proportion of rural areas and artificial urban areas, patch surface) and functional variables (distance to the nearest wood, artificial area and park). Artificial neural networks and SOMs coupled stepwise discriminant analysis proved to be promising tools that should be added to the toolbox of community and spatial ecologists.

[1]  Peter Rothery,et al.  Reduced‐effort schemes for monitoring butterfly populations , 2007 .

[2]  Sovan Lek,et al.  A comparison of self-organizing map algorithm and some conventional statistical methods for ecological community ordination , 2001 .

[3]  S. Lek,et al.  Nested patterns of spatial diversity revealed for fish assemblages in a west European river , 2005 .

[4]  O. J. Dunn.  Multiple Comparisons Using Rank Sums , 1964 .

[5]  T. Tscharntke,et al.  Butterfly community structure in fragmented habitats , 2000 .

[6]  P. Dennis,et al.  Comparing the effects of farming practices on ground beetle (Coleoptera: Carabidae) and spider (Araneae) assemblages of Scottish farmland , 2005, Biodiversity & Conservation.

[7]  Young-Seuk Park,et al.  Stream fish assemblages and basin land cover in a river network. , 2006, Science of the Total Environment.

[8]  J. H. Ward.  Hierarchical Grouping to Optimize an Objective Function , 1963 .

[9]  Sovan Lek,et al.  Fish zonation and indicator species for the evaluation of the ecological status of rivers: example of the Loire basin (France) , 2007 .

[10]  Matthew J. R. Cowley,et al.  The distribution and decline of a widespread butterfly Lycaena phlaeas in a pastoral landscape , 2000 .

[11]  Michel Baguette,et al.  A meta‐analysis of dispersal in butterflies , 2010, Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society.

[12]  M. Morris,et al.  Monitoring butterflies for ecology and conservation , 1993 .

[13]  Martin C. Thoms,et al.  Global partnerships and the new international society for river science (ISRS) , 2007 .

[14]  W. Giuliano,et al.  Lepidoptera-habitat relationships in urban parks , 2004, Urban Ecosystems.

[15]  A. Magurran.  Ecological Diversity and Its Measurement , 1988, Springer Netherlands.

[16]  Esa Alhoniemi,et al.  Clustering of the self-organizing map , 2000, IEEE Trans. Neural Networks Learn. Syst..

[17]  Teuvo Kohonen,et al.  Self-Organizing Maps, Third Edition , 2001, Springer Series in Information Sciences.

[18]  B. Fontaine,et al.  Preferences for exotic flowers do not promote urban life in butterflies , 2010 .

[19]  Stan Openshaw,et al.  Using computational intelligence techniques to model subglacial water systems , 1999, J. Geogr. Syst..

[20]  Panu Somervuo,et al.  Self-Organizing Maps and Learning Vector Quantization for Feature Sequences , 1999, Neural Processing Letters.

[21]  K. Brown,et al.  Butterfly Communities of Urban Forest Fragments in Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil: Structure, Instability, Environmental Correlates, and Conservation , 2002, Journal of Insect Conservation.

[22]  T. New.  Are Lepidoptera an effective ‘umbrella group‘ for biodiversity conservation? , 1997, Journal of Insect Conservation.

[23]  Andrew S. Pullin,et al.  Persistence of species in a fragmented urban landscape: the importance of dispersal ability and habitat availability for grassland butterflies , 2002, Biodiversity & Conservation.

[24]  L. Cook,et al.  Butterfly-hostplant fidelity, vagrancy and measuring mobility from distribution maps , 2001 .

[25]  R. Dennis,et al.  Loss rates of butterfly species with urban development. A test of atlas data and sampling artefacts at a fine scale , 2001, Biodiversity and Conservation.

[26]  J. Feltwell.  Large white butterfly. The biology, biochemistry and physiology of Pieris brassicae (Linnaeus). , 1982 .

[27]  H. Dyck,et al.  When functional habitat does not match vegetation types: A resource-based approach to map butterfly habitat , 2007 .

[28]  Hans Van Dyck,et al.  Landscape connectivity and animal behavior: functional grain as a key determinant for dispersal , 2007, Landscape Ecology.

[29]  Simone Fattorini,et al.  A new method to identify important conservation areas applied to the butterflies of the Aegean Islands (Greece) , 2006 .

[30]  Nigel E. Stork,et al.  Insects in a changing environment , 1995 .

[31]  F. S. Chew.  Butterflies: Ecology and Evolution Taking Flight , 2004 .

[32]  Sue McIntyre,et al.  Habitat Variegation, An Alternative to Fragmentation , 1992 .

[33]  Ilkka Hanski,et al.  Chapter 8 – Butterfly Metapopulation Dynamics , 1995 .

[34]  S. Manel,et al.  Comparing discriminant analysis, neural networks and logistic regression for predicting species distributions: a case study with a Himalayan river bird , 1999 .

[35]  S. Pickett,et al.  Ecosystem Structure and Function along Urban‐Rural Gradients: An Unexploited Opportunity for Ecology , 1990 .

[36]  Duncan Black,et al.  Urban evolution in the USA , 2003 .

[37]  Alex J. Dumbrell,et al.  Impacts of selective logging on canopy and ground assemblages of tropical forest butterflies: Implications for sampling , 2005 .

[38]  S. Saarnio,et al.  Butterflies and diurnal moths along road verges: Does road type affect diversity and abundance? , 2005 .

[39]  S. Nelson,et al.  Bird and butterfly communities associated with two types of urban riparian areas , 2001, Urban Ecosystems.

[40]  K. Hamer,et al.  Ecology of butterflies in natural and selectively logged forests of northern Borneo: the importance of habitat heterogeneity , 2003 .

[41]  Linda Marín,et al.  Complex habitat requirements and conservation needs of the only extant Baroniinae swallowtail butterfly , 2004 .

[42]  Nicolas Schtickzelle,et al.  Metapopulation dynamics of the bog fritillary butterfly: comparison of demographic parameters and dispersal between a continuous and a highly fragmented landscape , 2003, Landscape Ecology.

[43]  T. Kohonen.  Analysis of a simple self-organizing process , 1982, Biological Cybernetics.

[44]  Philippe Clergeau,et al.  Biodiversity concepts and urban ecosystems , 2000 .

[45]  Sovan Lek,et al.  Artificial neural networks as a tool in ecological modelling, an introduction , 1999 .

[46]  E. Pollard,et al.  Monitoring Butterflies for Ecology and Conservation: The British Butterfly Monitoring Scheme , 1994 .

[47]  H. Turin,et al.  Loss of habitats and changes in the composition of the ground and tiger beetle fauna in four West European countries since 1950 (Coleoptera: Carabidae, cicindelidae) , 1989 .

[48]  László Orlóci,et al.  Applying Metric and Nonmetric Multidimensional Scaling to Ecological Studies: Some New Results , 1986 .

[49]  L. Ehler,et al.  ECOLOGY OF INSECTS IN URBAN ENVIRONMENTS , 1978 .

[50]  J. Feltwell.  Large White Butterfly , 1982, Series Entomologica.

[51]  Zvi Eckstein,et al.  Cities and Growth: Theory and Evidence from France and Japan , 1994 .

[52]  C. Piscart,et al.  Are amphipod invaders a threat to regional biodiversity? , 2010, Biological Invasions.

[53]  D. Goulson.  Allozyme variation in the butterfly, Maniola jurtina (Lepidoptera: Satyrinae) (L.): evidence for selection , 1993, Heredity.

[54]  Yannis M. Ioannides,et al.  Zipf’s law for cities : an empirical examination , 2000 .

[55]  A. Erhardt.  Diurnal Lepidoptera: sensitive indicators of cultivated and abandoned Grassland , 1985 .

[56]  D. Rubinoff,et al.  Conservation of fragmented small populations: endemic species persistence on California's smallest channel island , 2004, Biodiversity & Conservation.

[57]  W. Kruskal,et al.  Use of Ranks in One-Criterion Variance Analysis , 1952 .

[58]  Yannis M. Ioannides,et al.  Spatial interactions among U.S. cities: 1900–1990 , 2001 .

[59]  R. Dennis,et al.  The impact of urban development on butterflies within a city region , 1999, Biodiversity & Conservation.

[60]  Young-Seuk Park,et al.  Self-Organizing Map , 2008 .

[61]  Robert B. Blair,et al.  Butterfly diversity and human land use: Species assemblages along an urban gradient , 1997 .

[62]  T. Schmitt,et al.  Changes of traditional agrarian landscapes and their conservation implications: a case study of butterflies in Romania , 2007 .

[63]  Peter W. Price,et al.  Population dynamics : new approaches and synthesis , 1996 .

[64]  Hans Van Dyck,et al.  Habitat fragmentation affects habitat-finding ability of the speckled wood butterfly, Pararge aegeria L. , 2007, Animal Behaviour.

[65]  I. Hanski.  Metapopulation dynamics , 1998, Nature.

[66]  R. Didham,et al.  Insects in fragmented forests: a functional approach. , 1996, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[67]  P. Brussard,et al.  Butterfly community composition and oak woodland vegetation response to rural residential development , 2007 .

[68]  P. Legendre,et al.  SPECIES ASSEMBLAGES AND INDICATOR SPECIES:THE NEED FOR A FLEXIBLE ASYMMETRICAL APPROACH , 1997 .

[69]  Julian D Olden,et al.  Rediscovering the species in community-wide predictive modeling. , 2006, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.