Journal of Insect Conservation

, Volume 15, Issue 1–2, pp 37–54 | Cite as

Habitat resources, remnant vegetation condition and area determine distribution patterns and abundance of butterflies and day-flying moths in a fragmented urban landscape, south-west Western Australia

  • Matthew R. Williams
Original Paper


The creation of cities, towns and farms following European settlement of Australia has fragmented the original vegetation. Many native species that were previously widespread are now found only within isolated remnants of their original habitat. These relictual populations are at increased risk of decline and local extinction, so identifying the factors that determine their persistence is important for ongoing management and conservation. I compared the effects of site area, connectivity, vegetation condition and habitat resources on the presence, abundance and total number of species of butterflies and day-flying moths within 46 urban fragments of remnant vegetation in south-west Western Australia. Site area and vegetation condition were the dominant determinants of species presence: large sites with more undisturbed vegetation favoured 16 of 20 native species and only one (Geitoneura minyas) benefited from disturbance. Another nine species that were not sufficiently widespread or abundant to enable individual analysis were collectively more prevalent in larger sites. Resource quality and quantity dominated the patterns of site occupancy, consistent with habitat resources, not metapopulation effects, determining current distribution patterns. The total number of species at each site reflected the collective responses of the individual species: increasing with area and declining with vegetation disturbance. The effects of area and vegetation condition were not simply additive: disturbance had a far greater impact on small remnants. Restoration or maintenance of high vegetation condition will be essential to maintain regional species diversity and to prevent local extinctions of butterflies and day-flying moths, especially in small remnants.


Connectivity Disturbance Metapopulation Site occupancy Vegetation condition 



Byron Lamont, Ian Abbott, Colin Yates and two anonymous reviewers provided helpful comments on the manuscript.


  1. Akite P (2008) Effects of anthropogenic disturbances on the diversity and composition of the butterfly fauna of sites in the Sango Bay and Iriiri areas, Uganda: implications for conservation. Afr J Ecol 26:3–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Atmar W, Patterson BD (1993) The measure of order and disorder in the distribution of species in fragmented habitat. Oecologia 96:373–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barry S, Elith J (2006) Error and uncertainty in habitat models. J Appl Ecol 43:413–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baz A, Garcia-Boyero A (1995) The effects of forest fragmentation on butterfly communities in central Spain. J Biogeogr 22:129–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beard JS (1990) Plant life of Western Australia. Kangaroo Press, KenthurstGoogle Scholar
  6. Beaumont L, Hughes L (2002) Potential changes in the distribution of latitudinally restricted Australian butterflies in response to climate change. Glob Change Biol 8:954–971CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blair RB (1999) Birds and butterflies along an urban gradient: surrogate taxa for assessing biodiversity? Ecol Appl 9:164–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Braby MF (2000) The butterflies of Australia: their identification, biology and distribution. CSIRO publishing, CollingwoodGoogle Scholar
  9. Braby MF, Edwards ED (2006) The butterfly fauna of the Griffith district, a fragmented semi-arid landscape in inland southern New South Wales. Pac Conserv Biol 12:130–154Google Scholar
  10. Brown KS, Freitas AVL (2004) Butterfly communities of urban forest fragments in Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil: structure, instability, environmental correlates, and conservation. J Insect Conserv 6:217–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Burbidge AA (2004) Threatened animals of Western Australia. Department of Conservation and Land Management, KensingtonGoogle Scholar
  12. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (1998) Model selection and inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach, 2nd edn. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Common IFB (1990) Moths of Australia. Melbourne University Press, CarltonGoogle Scholar
  15. Connor EF, Hafernik J, Levy J, Moore VL, Rickman JK (2002) Insect conservation in an urban biodiversity hotspot: the San Francisco Bay area. J Insect Conserv 6:247–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dapporto L, Dennis RLH (2008) Species richness, rarity and endemicity on Italian offshore islands: complementary signals from island-focused and species-focused analyses. J Biogeogr 35:664–674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dennis RLH (2004a) Butterfly habitats, broad-scale biotype affiliations, and structural exploitation of vegetation at finer scales: the matrix revisited. Ecol Entomol 29:744–752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dennis RLH (2004b) Just how important are structural elements as habitat components? Indications from a declining lycaenid butterfly with priority conservation status. J Insect Conserv 8:37–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dennis RLH (2010) A resource-based habitat view for conservation. Butterflies in the British Landscape. Wiley-Blackwell, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  20. Dennis RLH, Eales HT (1997) Patch occupancy in Coenonympha tullia (Muller, 1764) (Lepidoptera: Satyrinae): habitat quality matters as much as patch size and isolation. J Insect Conserv 1:167–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dennis RLH, Eales HT (1999) Probability of patch site occupancy in Coenonympha tullia (Müller) (Lepidoptera: Satryinae) determined from geographical and ecological data. Biol Conserv 87:295–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dennis RLH, Hardy PB (2004) Loss rates of butterfly species with urban development. A test of atlas data and sampling artefacts at a fine scale. Biodivers Conserv 10:1831–1837CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dennis RLH, Hardy PB (2007) Support for mending the matrix: resource seeking by butterflies in apparent non-resource zones. J Insect Conserv 11:157–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dennis RLH, Shreeve TG, Olivier A, Coutsis JG (2000) Contemporary geography dominates butterfly diversity gradients within the Aegean archipelago (Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea, Hesperioidea). J Biogeogr 27:1365–1383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dennis RLH, Shreeve TG, Van Dyck H (2003) Towards a functional resource-based concept for habitat: a butterfly biology viewpoint. Oikos 102:417–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Dennis RLH, Hodgson JG, Grenyer R, Shreeve TG, Roy DB (2004) Host plants and butterfly biology. Do host-plant strategies drive butterfly status? Ecol Entomol 29:12–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dennis RLH, Shreeve TG, Isaac NJB, Roy DB, Hardy PB, Fox R, Asher J (2006a) The effects of visual apparency on bias in butterfly recording and monitoring. Biol Conserv 128:486–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Dennis RLH, Shreeve TG, Van Dyck H (2006b) Habitats and resources: the need for a resource-based definition to conserve butterflies. Biodivers Conserv 15:1943–1946CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Dennis RLH, Dapporto L, Shreeve TG, John E, Coutsis JG, Kudrna O, Saarinen K, Ryrholm N, Williams WR (2008) Butterflies of European islands: the implications of the geography and ecology of rarity and endemicity for conservation. J Insect Conserv 12:205–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Dover JW, Rowlingson B (2005) The western jewel butterfly (Hypochrysops halyaetus): factors affecting adult butterfly distribution within native Banksia bushland in an urban setting. Biol Conserv 122:599–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Dover JW, Sparks TH, Greatorex-Davies JN (1997) The importance of shelter for butterflies in open landscapes. J Insect Conserv 1:89–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Dover JW, Dennis RLH, Atkins L (2008) The western jewel butterfly (Hypochrysops halyaetus) II: factors affecting oviposition and egg distribution within native Banksia bushland in an urban setting. J Insect Conserv 13:487–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Edwards ED (1997a) Castniidae and the republic. ANIC News 11:October 1997Google Scholar
  34. Edwards ED (1997b) Moths in the sun. ANIC News 10:April 1997Google Scholar
  35. Ewers RM, Didham RK (2006) Confounding factors in the detection of species responses to habitat fragmentation. Biol Rev 81:117–142CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Fartmann T (2006) Oviposition preferences, adjacency of old woodland and isolation explain the distribution of the Duke of Bugundy butterfly (Hamearis lucina) in calcareous grasslands in central Germany. Institute of Landscape Ecology, MuensterGoogle Scholar
  37. Fattorini S (2006) To fit or not to fit? A poorly fitting procedure produces inconsistent results when the species-area relationship is used to locate hotspots. Biodivers Conserv 16:2531–2538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Fawcett T (2006) An introduction to ROC analysis. Pattern Recog Lett 27:861–874CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Fletcher D, Mackenzie D, Villouta E (2005) Modelling skewed data with many zeros: a simple approach combining ordinary and logistic regression. Environ Ecol Stat 12:45–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Fred MS, Brommer JE (2003) Influence of habitat quality and patch size on occupancy and persistence in two populations of the Apollo Butterfly (Parnassius apollo). J Insect Conserv 7:85–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Fry JC (ed) (1993) Biological data analysis: a practical approach. The Practical Approach Series. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  42. Garden J, McAlpine C, Peterson A, Jones D, Possingham H (2006) Review of the ecology of Australian urban fauna: a focus on spatially explicit processes. Austral Ecology 31:126–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Gibb H, Hochuli DF (2002) Habitat fragmentation in an urban environment: large and small fragments support different anthropod assemblages. Biol Conserv 106:91–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Government of Western Australia (2000) Bush forever. Western Australian Planning Commission, PerthGoogle Scholar
  45. Gripenberg S, Roslin T (2005) Host plants as islands: resource quality and spatial setting as determinants of insect distribution. Ann Zool Fenn 42:335–345Google Scholar
  46. Grundel R, Pavlovic NB (2007) Resource availability, matrix quality, microclimate, and spatial pattern as predictors of patch use by the Karner blue butterfly. Biol Conserv 135:135–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Hardy PB, Dennis RLH (1999) The impact of urban development on butterflies within a city region. Biodivers Conserv 8:1261–1279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Hill CJ (1987) Butterflies. In: Catterall CP, Wallace CJ (eds) An island in suburbia: the natural and social history of Toohey forest. Institute of Applied Environmental Research, Griffith University, Brisbane, Queensland, pp 122–125Google Scholar
  49. Hogsden KL, Hutchinson TC (2004) Butterfly assemblages along a human disturbance gradient in Ontario, Canada. Can J Zool 82:739–748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S (2000) Applied logistic regression. Wiley series in probability and regression, 2nd edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  51. Kadlec T, Benes J, Jarosik V, Konvicka M (2008) Revisiting urban refuges: changes of butterfly and burnet fauna in Prague reserves over three decades. Landsc Urban Plan 85:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Keighery BJ (1994) Bushland plant survey. A guide to Plant Community Survey for the Community. Wildflower Society of WA, NedlandsGoogle Scholar
  53. Kennewell C, Shaw BJ (2008) Perth, Western Australia. Cities 25:243–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Kitching RL, Scheermeyer E, Jones RE, Pierce NE (eds) (1999) Biology of Australian butterflies, vol 6. Monographs on Australian Lepidoptera. CSIRO Publishing, CollingwoodGoogle Scholar
  55. Koh LP, Sodhi NS (2004) Importance of reserves, fragments and parks for butterfly conservation in a tropical urban landscape. Ecol Appl 14:1695–1708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Krauss J, Steffan-Dewenter I, Tscharntke T (2003) Local species immigration, extinction, and turnover of butterflies in relation to habitat area and habitat isolation. Oecologia 137:591–602CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Krauss J, Steffan-Dewenter I, Tscharntke T (2004) Landscape occupancy and local population size depends on host plant distribution in the butterfly Cupido minimus. Biol Conserv 120:355–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Krauss J, Steffan-Dewenter I, Muller CB, Tscharntke T (2005) Relative importance of resource quantity, isolation and habitat quality for landscape distribution of a monophagous butterfly. Ecography 28:465–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Lamont BB, Klinkhamer PG, Witkowski ETF (1993) Population fragmentation may reduce fertility to zero in Banksia goodii—a demonstration of the Allee effect. Oecologia 94:446–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. MacKenzie DI, Nichols JD, Hines JE, Knutson MG, Franklin AD (2003) Estimating site occupancy, colonization and local extinction probabilities when a species is detected imperfectly. Ecology 84:2200–2207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Maes D, Van Dyck H (2001) Butterfly diversity loss in Flanders (north Belgium): Europe’s worst case scenario? Biol Conserv 99:263–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. McCaw L, Hanstrum B (2003) Fire environment of Mediterranean south-west Western Australia. In: Abbott I, Burrows N (eds) Fire in ecosystems of south-west Western Australia: impacts and management. Backhuys, Leiden, pp 87–106Google Scholar
  63. McKinney ML (2008) Effects of urbanization on species richness: a review of plants and animals. Urban Ecosyst 11:161–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Nelson GS, Nelson SM (2001) Bird and butterfly communities associated with two types of urban riparian areas. Urban Ecosyst 5:95–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. New TR (1984) Insect conservation: an Australian perspective. Dr W. Junk, NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  66. New TR (1991) Butterfly conservation. Oxford University Press, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  67. New TR (ed) (1993) Conservation biology of Lycaenidae (Butterflies). Occasional Paper of the IUCN Species Survival Commission No. 8. IUCN, GlandGoogle Scholar
  68. New TR, Sands DPA (2002a) Conservation concerns for butterflies in urban areas of Australia. J Insect Conserv 6:207–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. New TR, Sands DPA (2002b) Narrow-range endemicity and conservation status: interpretations for Australian butterflies. Invertebr Syst 16:665–670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Newland G (2003) Literature review—urban areas and butterfly conservation. Vic Entomol 33(4):60–64Google Scholar
  71. Pollard E, Yates TJ (1993) Monitoring butterflies for ecology and conservation. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  72. Rosenzweig ML (1995) Species diversity in space and time. Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Ruszczyk A, De Araujo AM (1992) Gradients in butterfly species diversity in an urban area in Brazil. J Lepid Soc 46:255–264Google Scholar
  74. Samways MJ (2007) Insect conservation: a synthetic management approach. Annu Rev Entomol 52:465–487CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. Sands DPA, New TR (2002) The action plan for Australian butterflies. Environment Australia, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  76. Shapiro AM (2002) The Californian urban butterfly fauna is dependent on alien plants. Divers Distrib 8:31–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Stevens J (1992) Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences, 2nd edn. Lawrence Erlbaum, HillsdaleGoogle Scholar
  78. Swets K (1988) Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems. Science 240:1285–1293CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. Thomas JA, Bourn NA, Clarke RT, Stewart KE, Simcox DJ, Pearman GS, Curtis R, Goodger B (2001) The quality and isolation of habitat patches both determine where butterflies persist in fragmented landscapes. Proc R Soc B 268:1791–1796CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. Tscharntke T, Steffan-Dewenter I, Kruess A, Thies C (2002) Contribution of small habitat fragments to conservation of insect communities of grassland-cropland landscapes. Ecol Appl 12(2):354–363Google Scholar
  81. Ulrich W (2003) Species-area relationships of butterflies in Europe and species richness forecasting. Ecography 26:365–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Ulrich W, Buszko J (2005) Detecting biodiversity hotspots using species-area and endemics-area relationships: the case of butterflies. Biodivers Conserv 14:1977–1988CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Veech JA (2000) Choice of species-area function affects identification of hotspots. Conserv Biol 14(1):140–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Vittinghoff E, Glidden DV, Shiboski SC, McCulloch CE (2005) Regression methods in biostatistics: linear, logistic, survival and repeated measures models. Springer, San FransiscoGoogle Scholar
  85. Wahlberg N, Klemetti T, Hanski I (2002) Dynamic populations in a dynamic landscape: the metapopulation structure of the marsh fritillary butterfly. Ecography 25:224–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 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
  87. Whittingham MJ, Stephens PA, Bradbury RB, Freckleton RP (2006) Why do we still use stepwise modelling in ecology and behaviour? J Anim Ecol 75:1182–1189CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. Williams MR (1995) An extreme-value function model of the species incidence and species-area relations. Ecology 76:2607–2616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Williams MR (2008) Assessing biodiversity of diurnal Lepidoptera in habitat fragments: testing the efficiency of strip transects. Environ Entomol 37:1313–1322CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. Williams MR (2009) Butterflies and day-flying moths in a fragmented urban landscape, south-west Western Australia: patterns of species richness. Pac Conserv Biol 15:32–46Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Ecosystem Diversity and Dynamics, Department of Environmental BiologyCurtin UniversityPerthAustralia
  2. 2.Department of Environment and ConservationBentleyAustralia

Personalised recommendations