Effect of vegetation and management on occurrence of larvae and adults of generalist Maniola jurtina L. (Lepidoptera) in meadow habitats

• Autorzy: Kulfan J. , Strbova E. , Zach P.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Larvae and adults of some generalist insect species co-occur in identical habitats whereas adults and larvae of other generalist species do not co-occur and occupy different habitats. The Meadow brown, Maniola jurtina (L.) (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae), is common and widely distributed in Europe where it is considered a habitat generalist. As knowledge about the occurrence of the larvae of the Meadow brown is scarce (different and more difficult methods are needed to collect larvae compared to adults) a complex assessment of the life strategy of this generalist is limited. We addressed here the question as to whether the adults and larvae of the Meadow brown co-occurred in the same habitats and how they depended on the type of grassland vegetation and habitat management. We expected co-occurrence of adults and larvae and similar effects of habitat management on them. We selected four habitat types belonging to the alliance Arrhenatherion elatioris W. Koch 1926, which form mosaic patterns in the rural landscape of central Slovakia: (1) extensive meadows mown once a year, (2) extensive meadows mown twice a year, (3) abandoned meadows, and (4) ecotones between deciduous forests and meadows mown once a year. Adults were counted in each habitat on seven transects 50 m long (in seven replicates) during the summer of 2003, 2004 and 2005. Larvae were collected in each habitat on 10 transects 50 m long (ten replicates) by sweeping vegetation (60 sweepings per transect) at night in May 2005 and 2006. Both adults and larvae occurred in all the mentioned types of habitats. A high abundance of adults and larvae was recorded in extensive meadows mown once a year and in ecotones. The lowest abundance of adults and larvae was found in abandoned meadows. The differences between abandoned meadows and ecotones (in the case of adults) and between abandoned meadows and extensive meadows mown once a year (in the case of larvae) were significant in all study years (P <0.05; multiple comparisons, K-W ANOVA). In the abandoned meadows the number of adults and larvae (median) was approximately 2 to 5 and 5 to 25 times lower than in the preferred habitats, respectively. Maximum numbers of both adults and larvae per single recording/sampling date were obtained in extensive meadows mown once a year; that is 185 adults in a transect 350 m long and 4 m wide and 267 larvae in the transect 500 m long (600 sweepings). Hence, similar to adults, larvae tend to be habitat generalists. Our results have confirmed the "advantageous" life strategy of M. jurtina which enables the species to adapt to a wide range of habitats, including those under strong pressure from humans. Comparing management practices in the study habitats, meadows which are mowed once a year were the most appropriate alternative for this species.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

butterfly; grassland management; habitat generalist; habitat preferences; larvae; life strategy; Maniola jurtina

PL

gospodarowanie na użytkach zielonych; larwa; motyl; preferencje siedliskowe; Przestrojnik jurtina; siedlisko

• Wydawca: Museum and Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences
• Czasopismo: Polish Journal of Ecology
• Rocznik: 2012
• Tom: Vol. 60, nr 3
• Strony: 601--609
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 59 poz.,

Twórcy

autor

Kulfan J.

autor

Strbova E.

autor

Zach P.

• Institute of Forest Ecology, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Sturova 2, 960 53 Zvolen, Slovak Republic,

Bibliografia

• 1. Andersson S. 2003 – Foraging responses in the butterflies Inachis io, Aglais urticae (Nymphalidae), and Gonepteryx rhamni (Pieridae) to floral scents – Chemoecology, 13: 1–11.
• 2. Angold P.G., Sadler J.P., Hill M.O., Pullin A., Rushton S., Austin K., Small E., Wood B.,Wadsworth R., Sanderson R., Thompson K. 2006 – Biodiversity in urban habitat patches – Sci. Total Environ. 360: 196–204.
• 3. Aviron S., Kindlmann P., Burel F. 2007 – Conservation of butterfly populations in dynamic landscapes: The role of farming practices and landscape mosaic – Ecol. Modell. 205: 135–145.
• 4. Benton T.G., Vicker y J.A., Wilson J.D. 2003 – Farmland biodiversity: is habitat heterogeneity the key? – Trends Ecol. Evol. 18: 182–188.
• 5. Bernays E.A., Minkenberg O.P.J.M. 1997 – Insect herbivores: different reasons for being a generalist – Ecology, 78: 1157–1169.
• 6. Bink F.A. 1992 – Ecologische atlas van de dagvlinders van Noordwest-Europa – Schuyt & Co Uitgevers en Importeurs bv, Haarlem, 510 pp.
• 7. Brakefield P.M. 1982a – Ecological studies on the butterfly Maniola jurtina in Britain. I. Adult behaviour, microdistribution and dispersal – J. Anim. Ecol., 51: 713–726.
• 8. Brakefield P.M. 1982b – Ecological studies on the butterfly Maniola jurtina in Britain. II. Population dynamics: the present position – J. Anim. Ecol. 51: 727–738.
• 9. Brakefield P. M. 1984 – 16. The ecological genetics of quantitative characters in Maniola jurtina and other butterflies. (In: The biology of butterflies, Symposium of the Royal Entomological Society of London, Number 11, Eds: R.I. Vane-Wright, P.R.Ackery) –Academis Press, London, pp. 167–190.
• 10. Conradt L., Bodsworth E.J., Roper T.J., Thomas C.D. 2000 – Non-random dispersal in the butterfly Maniola jurtina: implications for metapopulation models – Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. B, 267: 1505–1510.
• 11. Conradt L., Roper T.J. 2006 – Nonrandom movement behavior at habitat boundaries in two butterfly species: implications for dispersal – Ecology, 87: 125–132.
• 12. Conradt L., Roper T.J., Thomas C.D. 2001 – Dispersal behaviour of individuals in metapopulations of two British butterflies – Oikos, 95: 416–424.
• 13. Corbet S.A. 2000 – Butterfly nectaring flowers: butterfly morphology and flower form – Ent. Exp. Appl. 96: 289–298.
• 14. Cormont A., Malinowska A.H., Kostenko O., Radchuk V., Hemerik L., Wallis-DeVries M.F., Verboom J. 2011 – Effect of local weather on butterfly flight behaviour, movement, and colonization: significance for dispersal under climate change – Biodivers. Conserv. 20: 483–503.
• 15. Dennis R.L.H. 1984 – The edge effect in butterfly oviposition: batch siting in Aglais urticae (L.) (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) – Ent. Gaz. 35: 157–173.
• 16. Dennis R.L.H., Hardy P.B., Shreeve T.G. 2008 – The importance of resource databanks for conserving insects: a butterfly biology perspective – J. Insect Conserv. 12: 711–719.
• 17. Dolek M., Geyer A. 1997 – Influence of management on butterflies of rare grassland ecosystems in Germany – J. Insect Conserv. 1: 125–130.
• 18. Dostál J. 1989 – Nová květena ČSSR, 1,2. [Flora of Czechoslovakia – new elaboration, 1, 2] – Academia, Praha, 1548 pp. (in Czech).
• 19. Dover J.W., Clarke S.A., Rew L. 1992 – Habitats and movement patterns of satyrid butterflies (Lepidoptera: Satyridae) on arable farmland – Ent. Gaz. 43: 29–44.
• 20. Ebert G., Rennwald E. 1993a – Die Schmetterlinge Baden-Württembergs Band 1: Tagfalter I – Verlag Eugen Ulmer, Stuttgart, 551 pp.
• 21. Ebert G., Rennwald E. 1993b – Die Schmetterlinge Baden-Württembergs Band 2: Tagfalter II – Verlag Eugen Ulmer, Stuttgart, 535 pp.
• 22. Fattorini S. 2011 – Insect extinction by urbanization: A long term study in Rome – Biol. Conserv. 144: 370–375.
• 23. Field R.G., Gardiner T., Mason C.F., Hill J. 2007 – Agri-environment schemes and butterflies: the utilisation of two metre arable field margins – Biodiver. Conserv. 16: 465–474.
• 24. Fric Z., Konvička M. 2002 – Otakárek fenyklový, Papilio machaon [Swallowtail, Papilio machaon] (In: Motýli České republiky: Rozšíření a ochrana I, II [Butterflies of the Czech Republic: Distribution and conservation I, II] Eds: J. Beneš, M. Konvička, J. Dvořák, Z. Fric, Z. Havelda, A. Pavlíčko, V. Vrabec, Z. Weidenhoffer) – Společnost pro ochranu motýlů, Praha, pp. 172–174 (in Czech, English summary).
• 25. Green B.H. 1990 – Agricultural intensification and the loss of habitat, species and amenity in British grasslands: a review of historical change and assessment of future prospects – Grass Forage Sci. 45: 365–372.
• 26. Gutiérrez D., León-Cortés J.L., Menéndez R., Wilson R.J., Cowley M.J.R., Thomas C.D. 2001 – Metapopulations of four lepidopteran herbivores on a single host plant, Lotus corniculatus – Ecology, 82: 1371–1386.
• 27. Henriksen H.J., Kreutzer I. 1982 – The butterflies of Scandinavia in nature – Skandinavisk Bogforlag, Odense, 215 pp.
• 28. Hoskins A., Butterflies of Britain & Europe – Small Tortoiseshell, Aglais urticae LINNAEUS, 1758 [online] [citated 21.1.2011] – URL: http://www.learnaboutbutterflies.com/Britain%20-%20Aglais%20urticae.htm
• 29. Janz N., Bergström A., Sjögren A. 2005 – The role of nectar sources for oviposition decisions of the common blue butterfly Polyommatus icarus – Oikos, 109: 535–538.
• 30. Karlsson B., Wickman P.O., Wiklund C. 1990 – Comparative phenology of four satyrine butterflies inhabiting dry grasslands in Sweden – Holarc. Ecol. 13: 238–346.
• 31. Konvička M. 2002 – Okáč luční, Maniola jurtina [Meadow brown, Maniola jurtina] (In: Motýli České republiky: Rozšíření a ochrana I, II [Butterflies of the Czech Republic: Distribution and conservation I, II] Eds: J. Beneš, M. Konvička, J. Dvořák, Z. Fric, Z. Havelda, A. Pavlíčko, V. Vrabec, Z. Weidenhoffer) – Společnost pro ochranu motýlů, Praha, pp. 540–542 (in Czech, English summary).
• 32. Konvička M., Fric Z. 2002 – Modrásek jehlicový, Polyommatus icarus [Common blue] (In: Motýli České republiky: Rozšíření a ochrana I, II [Butterflies of the Czech Republic: Distribution and conservation I, II] Eds: J. Beneš, M. Konvička, J. Dvořák, Z. Fric, Z. Havelda, A. Pavlíčko, V. Vrabec, Z. Weidenhoffer) – Společnost pro ochranu motýlů, Praha, pp. 343–345 (in Czech, English summary).
• 33. Kudrna O., Harpke A., Lux K., Pennerstorfer J., Schweiger O., Settele J., Wiemers M., 2011 – Distribution atlas of butterflies in Europe – Gesellschaft für Schmetterlingsschutz, Halle, 576 pp.
• 34. Lörtscher M., Erhatdt A., Zettel J. 1997 – Local movement patterns of three common grassland butterflies in a traditionally managed landscape – Mitt. Schweiz. Ent. Gesell. 70: 43–55.
• 35. Marini L., Klimek S., Battisti A. 2010 – Mitigating the impacts of the decline of traditional farming on mountain landscapes and biodiversity: a case study in the European Alps – Environ. Sci. Policy, doi:10.1016/j.envsci. 2010.12.003.
• 36. Munguira M.L., Thomas J.A. 1992 – Use of road verges by butterfly and burnet populations, and the effect of roads on adult dispersal and mortality – J. Appl. Ecol. 29: 316–329.
• 37. Navez S., Ishii M. 2007 – Comparison of behavioral patterns of hilltopping butterflies on the summit, subsummit and slope of two mountains on the boundary between Osaka and Nara Prefectures, Central Japan – Trans. Lepid. Soc. Japan. 58: 120–144.
• 38. Öckinger E., Eriksson A.K., Smith H.G. 2006 – Effects of grassland abandonment, restoration and management on butterflies and vascular plants – Biol. Conserv. 133: 291–300.
• 39. Ouin A., Aviron S., Doverc J., Burel F. 2004 – Complementation/supplementation of resources for butterflies in agricultural landscapes – Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 103: 473–479.
• 40. Patočka J., Kulfan J. 2009 – Lepidoptera of Slovakia: bionomics and ecology – VEDA, Bratislava, 312 pp.
• 41. Pljush I.G., Morgun D.V., Dovgajlo K.E., Rubin N.I., Solodovnikov I.A. 2005 – Dnevnye babochki (Hesperioidea i Papilionoidea, Lepidoptera) vostochnoj Evropy [Diurnal Lepidoptera (Hesperioidea and Papilionoidea, Lepidoptera) of eastern Europe] – Minsk, Kiev, Moskva. CD (in Russian).
• 42. Pollard E., Greatorex-Davies J.N., Thomas J.A. 1997 – Drought reduces breeding success of the butterfly Aglais urticae – Ecol. Ent. 22: 315–318.
• 43. Pollard E., Yates T.J. 1995 – Monitoring butterflies for ecology and conservation – Chapman and Hall, London, 274 pp.
• 44. SBN (Schweizerischer Bund für Naturschutz – Lepidopterologen-Arbeitsgruppe) (ed.) 1991 – Tagfalter und ihre Lebensräume – K. Holliger, Fotorotar AG, Egg, 516 pp.
• 45. Schneider C., Dover J., Fry G.L. 2003 – Movement of two grassland butterflies in the same habitat network: the role of adult resources and size of the study aera – Ecol. Ent. 28: 219–227.
• 46. Sobczyk D. 2004 – Butterflies (Lepidoptera) of young midfield shelterbelts – Pol. J. Ecol. 52: 449–453.
• 47. Sokal R.R., Rohlf F.J. 2000 – Biometry: the principles and practice of statistics in biological research – W.H. Freeman & Company, New York, 887 pp.
• 48. Stanová M., Valachovič M. (eds) 2002 – Katalóg biotopov Slovenska [Catalog of biotpes of Slovakia] – Daphne – Inštitút aplikovanej ekológie, Bratislava, 225 pp. (in Slovak).
• 49. Šerá B. 2010 – Road-side herbaceous vegetation: life history groups and habitat preferences – Pol. J. Ecol. 58: 69–79.
• 50. Taylor K. 2009 – Biological Flora of the British Isles: Urtica dioica L. – J. Ecol. 97: 1436–1458.
• 51. Tolman T., Lewington R. 1997 – Butterflies of Britain and Europe – HarperCollins, London, 320 pp.
• 52. Van Dyck H., Van Strien A.J., Maes D., Van Swaay C.A.M. 2009 – Declines in common, widespread butterflies in a landscape under intense human use – Conserv. Biol. 23: 957–965.
• 53. Van Swaay C.A.M. 2003 – Butterfly densities on line transects in The Netherlands from 1990–2001 – Ent. Ber. (Amsterdam), 63: 82–87.
• 54. Van Swaay C.A.M., Warren M.S. 1999 – Red data book of European butterflies (Rhopalocera) – Nature and Environment No. 99., Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg, 206 pp.
• 55. Van Swaay C., Warren M., Lois G. 2006 – Biotope use and trends of Europaen butterflies – J. Insect Conserv. 10: 189–209.
• 56. Vandewoestijne S., Nève G., Baguette M. 1999 – Spatial and temporal population genetic structure of the butterfly Aglais urticae L. (Lepidoptera, Nymphalidae) – Mol. Ecol. 8: 1539–1543.
• 57. Wiklund C. 1981 – Generalist vs. specialist oviposition behaviour in Papilio machaon (Lepidoptera) and functional aspects on the hierarchy of oviposition preferences – Oikos, 36: 163–170.
• 58. Wiklund C. 1984 – Egg-laying patterns in butterflies in relation to their phenology and the visual apparency and abundance of their host plants – Oecologia (Berlin), 63: 23–29.
• 59. Wood B.C., Pullin A.S. 2002 – Persistence of species in a fragmented urban landscape: the importance of dispersal ability and habitat availability for grassland butterflies – Biodiver. Conserv. 11: 1451–1468.