Journal of Insect Behavior

, Volume 20, Issue 2, pp 181–199 | Cite as

Seasonal and Daily Shifts in Substrate Use by Settling Butterflies: Conserving Resources for Invertebrates has a Behavioral Dimension

  • P. B. Hardy
  • R. L. H. Dennis

Arthropod habitats comprise utilities, such as places to rest, roost, locate mates, avoid enemies and thermoregulate, as well as consumables such as food supplies. We investigate the value of incorporating behavioral observations on substrate use within the standard mapping programme of the UK Millennium Atlas for expanding knowledge on resource use in butterflies. We find large differences among species and butterfly families in substrate use, including non-vegetation surfaces and human artefacts, when settled. Substantial differences in substrate use when settled and in settling height also occur seasonally and diurnally; settling height is at a minimum during the mid part of the day, whereas throughout the season there is an increase from spring to summer followed by a levelling off in autumn. Significant seasonal and or diurnal patterns occur for eight of the 13 species for which N≥30. Distinctions in settling height are affected by thermal environment and are related to two aspects of thermoregulation behavior, basking and wing appression, the latter both having seasonal components. These findings demonstrate the wide variety of surfaces required by butterfly species as habitat components over time. They also establish the importance of determining the behavior of individuals in relation to substrate use, biotope and vegetation units during standard recording surveys in order to determine the status of individuals located in recording units such as grid squares.


habitat mapping programmes matrix resources survey utilities 



Our grateful thanks to Philippe Goffart for kindly allowing us to report his personal observations and to two referees for their valuable comments.


  1. Asher, J., Warren, M., Fox, R., Harding, P., Jeffcoate, G., and Jeffcoate, S. (2001). The Millennium Atlas of Butterflies in Britain and Ireland. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
  2. Brakefield, P. M., Shreeve, T. G., and Thomas, J. A. (1992). Avoidance, concealment and defence. In Dennis, R. L. H. (ed.), The Ecology of Butterflies in Britain. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, pp. 93–119.Google Scholar
  3. Clench, H. K. (1966). Behavioral thermoregulation in butterflies. Ecology 47: 1021–1034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dennis, R. L. H. (1986). Selection of roost sites by Lasiommata megera (L.) (Lep., Satyridae) on fencing at Brereton Heath country park, Cheshire. Nota lepid 9: 39–46.Google Scholar
  5. Dennis, R. L. H. (ed.) (1992). The Ecology of Butterflies in Britain. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
  6. Dennis, R. L. H. (1993). Butterflies and Climate Change. Manchester University Press, Manchester, UK.Google Scholar
  7. Dennis, R. L. H., and Bramley, M. J. (1985). The influence of man and climate on dispersion patterns within a population of adult Lasiommata megera (L.) (Satyridae) at Brereton Heath, Cheshire. Nota lepid 8: 309–324.Google Scholar
  8. Dennis, R. L. H., Shreeve, T. G., and Van Dyck, H. (2003a). Towards a functional resource-based concept for habitat: A butterfly biology viewpoint. Oikos 102: 417–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dennis, R. L. H. (2004a). Just how important are structural elements as habitat components? Indications from a declining lycaenid butterfly with conservation status. J. Insect Conserv. 8: 37–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dennis, R. L. H. (2004b). Butterfly habitats, broad-scale biotope affiliations, and structural exploitation of vegetation at finer scales: The matrix revisited. Ecol. Ent. 29: 744–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dennis, R. L. H. (2004c) Landform resources for territorial nettle-feeding Nymphalid butterflies: Biases at different spatial scales. Anim. Biodiv. Conserv. 27: 37–45.Google Scholar
  12. Dennis, R. L. H., and Sparks, T. H. (2005). Landscape resources for the territorial nymphalid butterfly Inachis io: Micro-site landform selection and behavioral responses to environmental conditions. J. Insect Behav. 18: 725–742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dennis, R. L. H., and Sparks, T. H. (2006). When is a habitat not a habitat? Dramatic resource use changes under differing weather conditions for the butterfly Plebejus argus. Biol. Conserv. 129: 291–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dennis, R. L. H., and Williams, W. R. (1987). Mate-location behaviour in the butterfly Ochlodes venata (Br. and Grey) (Hesperiidae). Flexible strategies and spatial components. Journal of the Lepidopterist's Society 41: 45–64.Google Scholar
  15. Dennis, R. L. H., Shreeve, T. G., and Sheppard, D. A. (2006a). Species conservation and landscape management: A habitat perspective. In New, T., Stewart, A., and Lewis, O. (eds.), Insect Conservation Biology. Royal Entomological Society Symposium, London, UK, in press.Google Scholar
  16. Dennis, R. L. H., Shreeve, T. G., and Van Dyck, H. (2003b). Towards a functional resource-based concept for habitat: A butterfly biology viewpoint. Oikos 102: 417–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dennis, R. L. H., Shreeve, T. G., and Van Dyck, H. (2006b). Habitats and resources: The need for a resource-based definition to conserve butterflies. Biodiv. Conserv. 15: 1943–1966.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dover, J. W., Sparks, T., Clarke, S., Gobbett, K., and Glossop, S. (2000). Linear features and butterflies: The importance of green lanes. Agri. Ecosyst. Environ. 80: 227–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dover, J. W., Sparks, T. H., and Greatorex-Davies, J. N. (1997). The importance of shelter for butterflies in open landscapes. J. Insect Conserv. 1: 89–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fox, R., Asher, J., Brereton, T., Roy, D., and Warren, M. (2006). The State of Butterflies in Britain and Ireland. Pisces Publications, Newbury, UK.Google Scholar
  21. Hardy, P. B. (1998). Butterflies of Greater Manchester. PGL Enterprises, Sale, UK.Google Scholar
  22. Hardy, P. B., and Dennis, R. L. H. (2004). Seasonal and daily bias in butterfly perch height and substrate choice. Entomologist's Gazette 55: 239–248.Google Scholar
  23. Joy, J., and Pullin, A. S. (1997). The effects of flooding on the survival and behaviour of overwintering large heath butterfly Coenonympha tullia larvae. Biol. Conserv. 82: 61–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Karsholt, O., and Razowski, J. (1996). The Lepidoptera of Europe. Apollo Books, Stenstrup, Denmark.Google Scholar
  25. Moran, M. D. (2003). Arguments for rejecting the sequential Bonferroni in ecological studies. Oikos 100: 403–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pollard, E., and Yates, T. J. (1993). Monitoring Butterflies for Ecology and Conservation. Chapman and Hall, London, UK.Google Scholar
  27. Statsoft (1999). STATISTICA for Windows 95/98/NT. Tulsa, OK, USA.Google Scholar
  28. Shreeve, T. G. (1984). Habitat selection, mate location and microclimatic constraints on the activity of the speckled wood butterfly Pararge aegeria. Oikos 42: 371–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Shreeve, T. G. (1992). Adult behaviour. In Dennis, R. L. H. (ed.), The Ecology of Butterflies in Britain. Oxford, UK, pp. 22–45.Google Scholar
  30. Thomas, J. A., Telfer, M. G., Roy, D. B., Preston, C. D., Greenwood, J. J. D., Asher, J., Fox, R., Clarke, R. T., and Lawton, J. H. (2004). Comparative losses of British butterflies, birds, and plants and the global extinction crisis. Science 303: 1879–1881.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tudor, O., Dennis, R. L. H., Greatorex-Davies, J. N., and Sparks, T. H. (2004). Flower preferences of woodland butterflies in the UK: Nectaring specialists are species of conservation concern. Biol. Conserv. 119: 397–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Van Swaay, C., Warren, M., and Loïs, G. (2006). Biotope use and trends of European butterflies. J. Insect Conserv. 10: 189–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.SaleUK
  2. 2.NERC Centre for Ecology and HydrologyMonks Wood, Abbots RiptonHuntingdonUK
  3. 3.Institute for Environment, Sustainability and Regeneration, Mellor BuildingStaffordshire UniversityStoke-on-TrentUK
  4. 4.WilmslowUK

Personalised recommendations