Inter‐ and intra‐specific differences in butterfly behaviour at boundaries

Abstract

To plan effective conservation measures and to predict which species will be able to change distribution in response to climate change, there is an increasing need for understanding species dispersal abilities and how species move in complex landscapes. Responses to habitat boundaries affect emigration rates from habitat and are therefore important determinants of species dispersal. There are, however, few studies linking dispersal parameters to likelihood of crossing barriers across several species. In this study, dispersal and likelihood of crossing boundaries, which are presented here as tall and dense tree plantation, were investigated for seven butterfly species. Effects of adult age and sex on the dispersal and behaviour at boundaries were also analysed. Our results demonstrate differences in movements and response to habitat boundaries between species belonging to different butterfly families. Pieridae species were the most likely to cross boundaries and most mobile, whilst with the Lycaenidae species only a small fraction of individuals crossed the tall dense boundary. Individuals and species that moved with longer move bouts (i.e. steps) were more likely to cross boundaries. Therefore, we propose using step length, which is relatively easy to measure, as a proxy for butterfly dispersal at the landscape level. Female butterflies moved less than males within habitat but crossed boundaries more often than males, indicating that dispersal data needs to be collected for the two sexes separately to provide more accurate estimates of species ability to colonise new areas

Mosaic of grasslands and woodlands is more effective than habitat connectivity to conserve butterflies in French farmland

“…A similar result had already been reported for moths, species with a high proportion feeding on trees or shrubs (Boutin et al, 2011;Merckx et al, 2010), but few studies have investigated the landscape effect of woody habitats on Rhopalocera diversity (but see Krämer et al, 2012;Marini et al, 2009;Öckinger et al, 2012b). Moreover, it has been shown that open habitat specialists perceive forest as a dispersal barrier (Kallioniemi et al, 2014), even if forest edges can be used as corridors (Dover and Fry, 2001).…”

Barriers to dispersal of rain forest butterflies in tropical agricultural landscapes

“…), the response of species to habitat boundaries (Kallioniemi et al . ), and the permeability of the matrix (Perfecto & Vandermeer ). For tropical forest species to disperse successfully through fragmented habitats, they need to cross forest–non‐forest edges, which are frequently avoided by forest specialists ( e.g ., Laurance , Watson et al .…”

Changes in butterfly movements along a gradient of land use in farmlands of Transylvania (Romania)

“…Because different movement variables are typically interlinked (Ries and Debinski 2001;Kallioniemi et al 2014), we used a multivariate technique, and approaches similar to ours could also prove useful in future studies.…”

“…Hence, movement is a response that differs between species (Komonen et al 2004;Stevens et al 2010;Sekar 2012), resulting from the interaction of speciesspecific movement capacity with landscape characteristics, such as habitat composition and configuration (Mennechez et al 2003;Dover and Settele 2009). The movements of butterflies have been characterized by measures such as flight duration, the length of separate flights or step lengths (Kallioniemi et al 2014), and the frequency of crossing boundaries between patch types (Ries and Debinski 2001;Conradt and Roper 2006;Schultz et al 2012). However, empirical studies to date typically have considered very few species at the same time (Kallioniemi et al 2014;Kuussaari et al 2014), thus limiting their capacity to reach general conclusions.…”

“…The movements of butterflies have been characterized by measures such as flight duration, the length of separate flights or step lengths (Kallioniemi et al 2014), and the frequency of crossing boundaries between patch types (Ries and Debinski 2001;Conradt and Roper 2006;Schultz et al 2012). However, empirical studies to date typically have considered very few species at the same time (Kallioniemi et al 2014;Kuussaari et al 2014), thus limiting their capacity to reach general conclusions.…”