Journal of Insect Conservation

, Volume 13, Issue 3, pp 309–315 | Cite as

Captive rearing of Puget blue butterflies (Icaricia icarioides blackmorei) and implications for conservation

  • Cheryl B. Schultz
  • Jason D. Dzurisin
  • Cheryl Russell
Original Paper


The use of captive rearing to promote recovery of endangered butterflies has substantially increased over the last decade. These programs have the potential to play a significant role in butterfly population recovery, but the effects of captive conditions are poorly understood and rarely are traits of captive individuals assessed relative to traits in their founding populations. To develop rearing protocols and investigate possible effects of captive conditions, we reared Puget blue butterflies (Icaricia icarioides blackmorei), a subspecies closely related to the endangered Fender’s blue (I. i. fenderi) which is limited to Oregon, USA. We reared individuals from two wild populations in Washington, USA to investigate two approaches for egg collection (collect eggs in the wild vs. collect eggs from adult females which were brought to a greenhouse for oviposition) and three diapause environments (in indoor facilities at two independent locations vs. outdoors in enclosures). Survival from egg to adult was similar across all captive groups which survived past diapause and was less than 10%. Captive reared individuals were lighter and had smaller wings and shorter body lengths than their founding populations for both sites. Based on our findings, we recommend that rearing programs compare characteristics of reared individuals to individuals from the founding population to quantify possible effects of captive conditions, diapause individuals in natural environments, and for programs with survival rates similar to rates in the wild, consider alternatives to augment declining populations and reintroduce historic ones.


Butterflies Conservation Captive husbandry Morphology Reintroduction 



Funds for this project were provided by the American Zoo and Aquarium Association through the Conservation Endowment Fund, Oregon Zoo’s Future for Wildlife Fund, US Fish and Wildlife Service and Washington State University. Other agencies that provided support to the project include Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and the U.S. Army at Fort Lewis. We thank C. Hazen and K. Casteel for assistance with greenhouse propagation and data preparation. We thank D. Shepherdson, E. Crone, B. Tissot, T. New and two anonymous reviewers for reviewing earlier versions of this manuscript.


  1. Berwaerts KH, Van Dyck H, Aerts B (2002) Does flight morphology relate to flight performance? An experimental test with the butterfly Pararge aegeria. Funct Ecol 16:484–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Calvo D, Molina JM (2005) Fecundity-body size relationship and other reproductive aspects of Streblote panda (Lepidoptera: Lasiocampidae). Ann Entomol Soc Am 98:191–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Crone EE, Pickering D, Schultz CB (2007) Can captive rearing promote recovery of endangered butterflies? An assessment in the face of uncertainty. Biol Conserv 139:103–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dudley R (1990) Biomechanics of flight in neotropical butterflies: morphometrics and kinematics. J Exp Biol 150:37–53Google Scholar
  5. Dzurisin J, Schultz CB (2004) Captive rearing to promote endangered butterfly recovery: case study of the Puget blue butterfly. Report to the American Zoo and Aquarium Association.Google Scholar
  6. Ellsworth CL, Tolson PJ, Magdich ML (2002) Captive breeding and reintroduction of the Karner Blue Butterfly, Lycaeides melissa samuelis, to the Oak Openings of Lucas County, Ohio. Toledo Zoological Gardens, Toledo, OHGoogle Scholar
  7. Frankham R (2005) Stress and adaptation in conservation genetics. J Evol Biol 18:750–755PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gibbs M, Lace LA, Jones MJ, Moore AJ (2004) Intraspecific competition in the speckled wood butterfly Pararge aegeria: effect of rearing density and gender on larval life history. J Insect Sci 4:16Google Scholar
  9. Gotthard K, Nylin S, Wiklund C (1994) Adaptive variation in the growth-rate-life-history costs and consequences in the speckled wood butterfly, Pararge aegeria. Oecologia 99:281–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Herms CP, McCulloug DG, Miller DL, Bauer LS, Haack RA (1996) Laboratory rearing of Lycaides melissa samuelis (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae), an endangered butterfly in Michigan. Great Lakes Entomol 29:63–75Google Scholar
  11. Hill JK, Thomas CD, Blakeley DS (1999) Evolution of flight morphology in a butterfly that has recently expanded its geographic range. Oecologia 121:165–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Honek A (1993) Intraspecific variation in body size and fecundity in insects—a general relationship. Oikos 66:483–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lewis OT, Thomas CD (2001) Adaptations to captivity in the butterfly Pieris brassicae (L.) and the implications for ex situ conservation. J Insect Conserv 5:55–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lynch M, O’Hely M (2001) Captive breeding and the genetic fitness of natural populations. Conserv Genet 2:363–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Accessed April 2008
  16. Nicholls CN, Pullin AS (2000) A comparison of larval survivorship in wild and introduced populations of the large copper butterfly (Lycaena dispar batavus). Biol Conserv 93:349–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Norberg UO, Leimer O (2002) Spatial and temporal variation in flight morphology in the butterfly Melitae cinxia (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Biol J Linn Soc 77:445–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Nylin S, Gotthard K (1998) Plasticity in life-history traits. Annu Rev Entomol 43:63–83PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pullin AS (1996) Restoration of butterfly populations in Britain. Restor Ecol 4:71–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pyle RM (2002) The butterflies of Cascadia. Seattle Audobon Society, SeattleGoogle Scholar
  21. Schultz CB, Hammond PC, Wilson MV (2003) The biology of the Fender’s blue butterfly (Icaricia icarioides fenderi), an endangered species of western Oregon native prairies. Nat Areas J 23:61–71Google Scholar
  22. Schultz CB, Russell C, Wynn L (2008) Restoration, reintroduction and captive propagation efforts for at-risk butterflies: a review of British and American conservation efforts. Isr J Ecol Evol Special Issue Butterfly Conserv 54:41–61Google Scholar
  23. Seddon PJ, Armstrong DP, Maloney RF (2007) Developing the science of reintroduction biology. Conserv Biol 21:303–312PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Senior K (2007) Captive breeding leads to mixed success. Front Ecol Environ 5:116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Shepherdson D, Csuti B, Andersen M, Steele J (2001) Oregon silverspot butterfly (Speyeria zerene hippolyta) Cascade Head population supplementation. In: Cadigan L, Girton K (eds) American zoo and aquarium association annual conference proceedings. AZA, St. Louis, pp 217–221Google Scholar
  26. Snyder NFR, Derrickson SR, Beissinger SR, Wiley JW, Smith TB, Toone WD, Miller B (1996) Limitations of captive breeding in endangered species recovery. Conserv Biol 10:338–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tammaru T, Experk T, Castellenos I (2002) No evidence for costs of being large in females of Orgyia spp. (Lepidoptera, Lymantidae): larger is always better. Oecologia 133:430–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Teixeira CP, De Azevedo CS, Mendl M, Cipreste CF, Young RJ (2007) Revisiting translocation and reintroduction programmes: the importance of considering stress. Anim Behav 73:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Woodworth LM, Montgomery ME, Briscoe DA, Frankham R (2002) Rapid genetic deterioration in captive populations: causes and conservation implications. Conserv Genet 3:277–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cheryl B. Schultz
    • 1
  • Jason D. Dzurisin
    • 2
  • Cheryl Russell
    • 1
  1. 1.Washington State University VancouverVancouverUSA
  2. 2.Department of Biological Sciences107 Galvin Life SciencesNotre DameUSA

Personalised recommendations