Advertisement

Journal of Insect Conservation

, Volume 11, Issue 4, pp 367–390 | Cite as

Predicting extinction risk of butterflies and moths (Macrolepidoptera) from distribution patterns and species characteristics

  • Markus Franzén
  • Mikael Johannesson
Original Paper

Abstract

An extensive follow-up study of day- and night-active Macrolepidoptera was performed during 2004 at the Kullaberg Nature Reserve located in the south-western part of Sweden. Butterflies were surveyed in an area of 100 km2 and night-active moths were trapped in the core area of the reserve. Macrolepidopteran species resident in the area in the 1950s were compared with species resident in the area in 2004. As much as 159 of 597 species (27%) resident in the area in 1950s were not found at all in 2004 and 22 species (4%) had colonised the area. Butterflies exhibited a disastrous decline with a loss of 45% of the fauna, and day-active species had declined more than night-active species had. Species distribution pattern and species characteristics were used to predict the probability that a species had become extinct or colonised the area. Species limited to one or a few food plants, with a short flight-period or restricted to non-forest habitats were all associated with a high extinction risk. Species occurring in fewer European countries and recorded from few provinces in Sweden were all associated with a higher extinction risk compared with ubiquitous species. For expanding species (colonisers), the best predictor was their distribution area in Sweden and colonising species were more likely to be limited to a few provinces in the southernmost part of Sweden. Species extinct from Kullaberg also have decreased in Finland and species that had colonised Kullaberg also have increased in Finland, while the species with no change in Kullaberg are also relatively constant in Finland. Indeed, the macrolepidopteran fauna was severely reduced in the last 50 years and almost 70% of the habitat specialists were lost. For red-listed species the situation was found to be alarming. Almost 70% of red-listed species, resident in the area in the 1950s, was not found in 2004. This study highlights that species composition changes rapidly even in protected nature reserves and that similar changes in the macrolepidopteran fauna seem to occur over large areas.

Keywords

Climate change Flight time Food plant Monophagous Habitat specialist Species richness 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank all persons that reported their findings from the area, due to our call. We thank the provincial government in Skåne as well as the Café owners at Ransvik who both supplied electricity to the light traps. This study got financial support from Royal Physiographic Society in Lund and FORMAS. Josef Settele and one anonymous referee gave valuable comments on the manuscript. For comments on earlier versions of the manuscript, we wish to thank Sven G Nilsson, Thomas Ranius and Henrik Smith.

References

  1. Ahrland S, Brinck P (1991). Natur och kultur kring Kullen—ett symposium 31 maj 1989 med anledning av AB Kullabergs natur 75 år. Kungl. Fysiografiska sällskapet, Lund [In Swedish]Google Scholar
  2. Araujo MB, Cabeza M, Thuiller W, Hannah L, Williams PH (2004). Would climate change drive species out of reserves? An assessment of existing reserve-selection methods. Global Change Biol 10:1618–1626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Asher J, Warren MS, Fox R, Harding P, Jeffcoate G, Jeffcoate S (2001). The millennium atlas of butterflies in Britain and Ireland. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  4. Conrad KF, Woiwod IP, Perry JN (2002). Long-term decline in abundance and distribution of the garden tiger moth (Arctia caja) in Great Britain. Biol Conserv 106:329–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Conrad KF, Woiwood IP, Parson MS, Fox R, Warren MS (2004). Long-term population trends in widespread British moths. J Insect Conserv 8:119–136Google Scholar
  6. Cowley MJR, Thomas CD, Thomas JA, Warren MS (1999). Flight areas of British butterflies: assessing species status and decline. Proc R Soc Lond B 266:1587–1592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Douwes P (2004). Dagfjärilar förr och nu—en studie i Östergötland. Ent Tidskr 125:81–89 [In Swedish]Google Scholar
  8. Eltinge JL, Sribney WM (1997). Versions of mlogit, ologit, and oprobit for survey data. Stata Stat Bull 40:39–42Google Scholar
  9. Emmet AM (1991). Life history and habits of the British Lepidoptera. In: Emmet AM, Heath J (eds) The moths and butterflies of Great Britain and Ireland, vol. 7, Part 2. Harley Books Colchester, pp 61–203Google Scholar
  10. Erhardt A, Thomas JA (1991). Lepidoptera as indicators of change in the semi-natural grasslands of lowland and upland Europe. In: Collins NM, Thomas JA (eds) The conservation of insects and their habitats. Academic Press, London, pp 213–236Google Scholar
  11. Erhardt A (1985). Diurnal Lepidoptera—sensitive indicators of cultivated and abandoned grassland. J Appl Ecol 22:849–861Google Scholar
  12. Gärdenfors U (2000). The 2000 redlist of Swedish species. Swedish Species Information Centre, UppsalaGoogle Scholar
  13. Henriksen HJ, Kreutzer IB (1982). The butterflies of Scandinavia in nature. Skandinavisk Bogforlag, OdenseGoogle Scholar
  14. Hill JK, Thomas CD, Fox R, Telfer MG, Willis SG, Asher J, Huntley B (2002). Responses of butterflies to twentieth century climate warming: implications for future ranges. Proc R Soc Lond B 269:2163–2171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hoekstra JM, Boucher TM, Taylor H, Ricketts TH, Roberts C (2005). Confronting a biome crisis: global disparities of habitat loss and protection. Ecol Lett 8:23–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Huldén L, Albrecht A, Itämies J, Malinen P, Wettenhovi J (2000). Atlas of Finnish Macrolepidoptera. Lepidopterologiska sällskapet i Finland, HelsingforsGoogle Scholar
  17. Karsholt O, Razowski J (1996). The Lepidoptera of Europe—a distributional checklist. Apollo books, StenstrupGoogle Scholar
  18. Kotiaho J, Kaitala V, Komonen A, Päivinen J (2005). Predicting the risk of extinction from shared ecological characteristics. Proc Natl Acad Sci 102:1963–1967CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Leinonen R, Söderman G, Itämies J, Rytkonen S, Rutanen I (1998). Intercalibration of different light-traps and bulbs used in moth monitoring in northern Europe. Entomol Fennica 9:37–51Google Scholar
  20. Mace GM, Kershaw M (1997). Extinction risk and rarity on an ecological timescale. In: Kunin WE, Gaston KJ (eds) The Biology of rarity: the causes and consequences of rare-common differences. Chapman & Hall, London, pp 131–149Google Scholar
  21. Maes D, van Dyck H (2001). Butterfly diversity loss in Flanders (north Belgium): Europe’s worst case scenario? Biol Conserv 99:263–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mikkola K (1979). Vanishing and declining species of Finnish Lepidoptera. Not Entomol 59:1–9Google Scholar
  23. Mikkola K (1987). Changes in the Finnish Lepidopteran fauna since 1950 in relation to environmental changes. Ent Meddr 55:107–114Google Scholar
  24. Mikkola K (1991). The conservation of insects and their habitats in northern and eastern Europe. In: Collins NM, Thomas JA (eds) The Conservation of insects and their habitats. 15th Symposium of the Royal Entomological Society of London. Academic Press, London, pp 109–119Google Scholar
  25. Mikkola K (1997). Population trends of Finnish Lepidoptera during 1961–1996. Entomol Fennica 8:121–143Google Scholar
  26. New TR (2004). Concluding comment: looking to the future for moths. J Insect Conserv 8:275–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nieminen M (1996). Migration of moth species in a network of small islands. Oecologia 108:643–651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nieminen M, Rita H, Uuvana P (1999). Body size and migration rate in moths. Ecography 22:697–707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Öckinger E, Hammarstedt O, Nilsson SG, Smith HG (2006). The relationship between local extinctions of grassland butterflies and increased soil nitrogen levels. Biol Conserv 128:564–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ovaskainen O, Hanski I (2003). Extinction threshold in metapopulation models. Ann Zool Fenn 40:81–97Google Scholar
  31. Ovaskainen O, Hanski I (2004). Metapopulation dynamics in highly fragmented landscapes. In: Hanski I, Gaggiotti OE (eds) Ecology, genetics, and evolution in metapopulations. Academic Press, London, pp 73–104Google Scholar
  32. Parmesan C (2001). Coping with modern times? Insect movement and climate change. In: Woiwood IP, Reynolds DR, Thomas CD (eds) Insect movement: mechanisms and consequences. CABI, Wallingford, pp 387–413Google Scholar
  33. Parmesan C, Root TL, Willig MR (2000). Impacts of extreme weather and climate on terrestrial biota. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 81:443–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pollard E, Yates TJ (1993). Monitoring butterflies for ecology and conservation. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  35. Prendegast JR, Eversham BC (1995). Butterfly diversity in southern Britain: Hotspot losses since 1930. Biol Conserv 72:109–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Raimondo S, Liebhold AM, Strazanac JS, Butler L (2004). Population synchrony within and among Lepidoptera species in relation to weather, phylogeny, and larval phenology. Ecol Ent 29:96–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rassi P, Alanen A, Kanerva T, Mannerkoski I (2001). The 2000 red list of Finnish species. The Ministry of the environment and the Finnish environment institute, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  38. Rydén H (1961). Kullabergs storfjärilar. Berling, Lund [In Swedish]Google Scholar
  39. Skou P (1984). Nordens Målare. Danmarks dyreliv. Bind 2. Apollo Books, StenstrupGoogle Scholar
  40. Skou P (1991). Nordens ugler. Apollo Books, StenstrupGoogle Scholar
  41. Steffan-Dewenter I, Tscharntke T (2000). Butterfly community structure in fragmented habitats. Ecol Lett 3:449–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Söderman G (1994). Moth monitoring scheme—a handbook for field work and data reporting. Environmental report 8, Environment Data Centre, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  43. Svensson I (1993). Lepidoptera-calender. Hans Hellberg, Stockholm [In Swedish]Google Scholar
  44. Svensson I, Elmquist H, Gustafsson B, Hellberg H, Imby L, Palmqvist G (1994). Catalogus Lepidopterorum Sueciae. Entomologiska Föreningen, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  45. Terstad J (1995). Aktionsplan för biologisk mångfald. Rapport 4463. Naturvårdsverket, Stockholm [In Swedish]Google Scholar
  46. Thomas CD, Abery JCG (1995). Estimating rates of butterfly decline from distribution maps—the effect of scale. Biol Conserv 73:59–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Thomas CD, Bodsworth EJ, Wilson RJ, Simmons AD, Davies ZG, Musche M, Conradt L (2001a). Ecological and evolutionary processes at expanding range margins. Nature 411:577–581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Thomas JA, Bourn NAD, Clarke RT, Stewart KEJ, Simcox DJ, Pearmman GS, Curtis R, Goodger B (2001b). The quality and isolation of habitat patches both determine where butterflies persist in fragmented landscapes. Proc R Soc Lond B 268:1791–1796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Thomas JA, Telfer MG, Roy DB, Preston CD, Greenwood JJD, Asher J, Fox R, Clarke RT, Lawton JH (2004). Comparative losses of British butterflies, birds, and plants and the global extinction crisis. Science 303:1879–1881CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Tyler T, Olsson KA (1997). Förändringar i Skånes flora under perioden 1938–1996—statistisk analys av resultat från två inventeringar: rapport från Projekt Skånes flora. Sv Bot Tidskr 3:143–185 [In Swedish]Google Scholar
  51. van Swaay CAM, Warren MS (1999). Red data book of European butterflies (Rhopalocera). Nature and environment, No. 99. Council of Europe, StrasbourgGoogle Scholar
  52. Warren MS (1992). The conservation of British butterflies. In: Dennis RHL (ed) The ecology of Butterflies in Britain, Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  53. Warren MS, Hill JK, Thomas JA, Asher J, Fox R, Huntley B, Roy DB, Telfer MG, Jeffcoate S, Harding P, Jeffcoate G, Willis SG, Greatorex-Davies JN, Moss D, Thomas CD (2001). Rapid responses of British butterflies to opposing forces of climate and habitat change. Nature 414:65–69CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Whittaker JB (2001). Insects and plants in a changing atmosphere. J Ecol 89:507–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Animal EcologyLund UniversityLundSweden
  2. 2.IKIUniversity of SkövdeSkövdeSweden

Personalised recommendations