Advertisement

Landscape Ecology

, Volume 27, Issue 1, pp 121–131 | Cite as

The landscape matrix modifies the effect of habitat fragmentation in grassland butterflies

  • Erik Öckinger
  • Karl-Olof Bergman
  • Markus Franzén
  • Tomáš Kadlec
  • Jochen Krauss
  • Mikko Kuussaari
  • Juha Pöyry
  • Henrik G. Smith
  • Ingolf Steffan-Dewenter
  • Riccardo Bommarco
Research Article

Abstract

The landscape matrix is suggested to influence the effect of habitat fragmentation on species richness, but the generality of this prediction has not been tested. Here, we used data from 10 independent studies on butterfly species richness, where the matrix surrounding grassland patches was dominated by either forest or arable land to test if matrix land use influenced the response of species richness to patch area and connectivity. To account for the possibility that some of the observed species use the matrix as their main or complementary habitat, we analysed the effects on total species richness and on the richness of grassland specialist and non-specialist (generalists and specialists on other habitat types) butterflies separately. Specialists and non-specialists were defined separately for each dataset. Total species richness and the richness of grassland specialist butterflies were positively related to patch area and forest cover in the matrix, and negatively to patch isolation. The strength of the species-area relationship was modified by matrix land use and had a slope that decreased with increasing forest cover in the matrix. Potential mechanisms for the weaker effect of grassland fragmentation in forest-dominated landscapes are (1) that the forest matrix is more heterogeneous and contains more resources, (2) that small grassland patches in a matrix dominated by arable land suffer more from negative edge effects or (3) that the arable matrix constitutes a stronger barrier to dispersal between populations. Regardless of the mechanisms, our results show that there are general effects of matrix land use across landscapes and regions, and that landscape management that increases matrix quality can be a complement to habitat restoration and re-creation in fragmented landscapes.

Keywords

Biodiversity Butterflies Connectivity Habitat loss Island biogeography Landscape matrix Metapopulation Species–area relationship 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Bernhard Schmid for giving us access to unpublished data and we thank three anonymous reviewers for constructive comments. This study was funded by the 6th framework EU-project “COCONUT—Understanding effects of land use changes on ecosystems to halt loss of biodiversity” (SSPI-CT-2006-044346). Additional support was given by FORMAS (The Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning) for EÖ and HGS and by the EU FP7 project 226852 “SCALES—Securing the Conservation of biodiversity across Administrative Levels and spatial, temporal and Ecological Scales” for JK, MK, JP, ISD and RB. TK was supported from IGA FZP 4290013123114 and from the Czech Department of the Environment (VaV/620/1/03) and Education (6007665801, LC06073).

Supplementary material

10980_2011_9686_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (297 kb)
1) Description of unpublished studies included in the analysis. 2) Table S1: Classification of species as habitat specialists or non-specialists. 3) Table S2: Model fit based on AICc for all models of the effects of area, connectivity and matrix on species richness. 4) Figure S1: Correlation between connectivity measures. Supplementary material 1 (PDF 296 kb)

References

  1. Anderson WB, Wait DA (2001) Subsidized Island biogeography hypothesis: another new twist on an old theory. Ecol Lett 4:289–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ås S (1999) Invasion of matrix species in small habitat patches. Conserv Ecol 3:1–10Google Scholar
  3. Baum KA, Haynes KJ, Dillemuth FP, Cronin JT (2004) The matrix enhances the effectiveness of corridors and stepping stones. Ecology 85:2671–2676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Benton TG, Vickery JA, Wilson JD (2003) Farmland biodiversity: is habitat heterogeneity the key? Trends Ecol Evol 18:182–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berg, Å, Ahrné K, Öckinger E, Svensson R, Söderström B (2011) Butterfly distribution and abundance is affected by variation in the Swedish forest-farmland landscape. Biol Conserv. doi:  10.1016/j.biocon.2011.07.035
  6. Bergman K-O, Askling J, Ekberg O, Ignell H, Wahlman H, Milberg P (2004) Landscape effects on butterfly assemblages in an agricultural region. Ecography 27:619–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bergman K-O, Ask L, Askling J, Ignell H, Wahlman H, Milberg P (2008) Importance of boreal grasslands in Sweden for butterfly diversity and effects of local and landscape habitat factors. Biodivers Conserv 17:139–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bolker BM, Brooks ME, Clark CJ, Geange SW, Poulsen JR, Stevens MHH, White JSS (2009) Generalized linear mixed models: a practical guide for ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol Evol 24:127–135PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brotons L, Mönkkönen M, Martin JL (2003) Are fragments islands? Landscape context and density–area relationships in boreal forest birds. Am Nat 162:343–357PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brown JH, Kodric-Brown A (1977) Turnover rates in insular biogeography: effect of immigration on extinction. Ecology 58:445–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Springer Verlag, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Cook WM, Lane KT, Foster BL, Holt RD (2002) Island theory, matrix effects and species richness patterns in habitat fragments. Ecol Lett 5:619–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cozzi G, Müller CB, Krauss J (2008) How do local habitat management and landscape structure at different spatial scales affect fritillary butterfly distribution on fragmented wetlands? Landscape Ecol 23:269–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cronin JT, Haynes KJ (2004) An invasive plant promotes unstable host-parasitoid patch dynamics. Ecology 85:2772–2782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dias PC (1996) Sources and sinks in population biology. Trends Ecol Evol 11:326–330PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dover J, Sparks TH, Greatorex-Davies JN (1997) The importance of shelter for butterflies in open landscapes. J Insect Conserv 1:89–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Drakare S, Lennon JL, Hillebrand H (2006) The imprint of the geographical, evolutionary and ecological context on species–area relationships. Ecol Lett 9:215–227PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dunning JB, Danielson BJ, Pulliam HR (1992) Ecological processes that affect populations in complex landscapes. Oikos 65:169–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ewers RM, Didham RK (2006) Confounding factors in the detection of species responses to habitat fragmentation. Biol Rev 81:117–142PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Franzén M, Ranius T (2004) Occurrence patterns of butterflies (Rhopalocera) in semi-natural pastures in southeastern Sweden. J Nature Conserv 12:121–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hanski I (1999) Metapopulation ecology. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  22. Hanski I, Pöyry J (2007) Insect populations in fragmented habitats. In: Stewart AJA, New TR, Lewis OT (eds) Insect conservation biology. CABI, Wallingford, pp 175–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kadlec T, Vrba P, Kepka P, Schmitt T, Konvicka M (2010) Tracking the decline of the once-common butterfly: delayed oviposition, demography and population genetics in the hermit Chazara briseis. Anim Conserv 13:172–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Krauss J, Steffan-Dewenter I, Tscharntke T (2003) How does landscape context contribute to effects of habitat fragmentation on diversity and population density of butterflies? J Biogeogr 30:889–900CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Krauss J, Bommarco R, Guardiola M, Heikkinen RK, Helm A, Kuussaari M, Lindborg R, Öckinger E, Pärtel M, Pino J, Pöyry J, Raatikainen KR, Sang A, Stefanescu C, Teder T, Zobel M, Steffan-Dewenter I (2010) Habitat fragmentation causes immediate and time-delayed biodiversity loss at different trophic levels. Ecol Lett 13:597–605Google Scholar
  26. Kuussaari M, Bommarco R, Heikkinen RK, Helm A, Krauss J, Lindborg R, Öckinger E, Pärtel M, Pino J, Roda F, Stefanescu C, Teder T, Zobel M, Steffan-Dewenter I (2009) Extinction debt: a challenge for biodiversity conservation. Trends Ecol Evol 10:564–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Littell RC, Milliken GA, Stroup WW et al (2006) SAS for mixed models, 2nd edn. SAS Institute Inc., CaryGoogle Scholar
  28. MacArthur RH, Wilson EO (1967) The theory of island biogeography. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  29. Margules CR, Pressey RL (2000) Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405:243–253PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Moilanen A, Nieminen M (2002) Simple connectivity measures in spatial ecology. Ecology 83:1131–1145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Öckinger E, Smith HG (2006) Landscape composition and habitat area affect butterfly species richness in semi-natural grasslands. Oecologia 149:526–534PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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
  33. Öckinger E, Schweiger O, Crist TO, Debinski DM, Krauss J, Kuussaari M, Petersen JD, Pöyry J, Settele J, Summerville KS, Bommarco R (2010) Life-history traits predict species responses to habitat area and isolation–a cross-continental synthesis. Ecol Lett 13:969–979PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Öckinger E, Lindborg R, Sjödin NE, Bommarco R (2012) Landscape matrix modifies richness of plants and insects in grassland fragments. Ecography. doi:  10.1111/j.1600-0587.2011.06870.x
  35. Pollard E (1977) A method for assessing changes in the abundance of butterflies. Biol Conserv 12:115–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pöyry J, Paukkunen J, Heliölä J, Kuussari M (2009) Relative contributions of local and regional factors to species richness and total density of butterflies and moths in semi-natural grasslands. Oecologia 160:577–587PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Prugh LR, Hodges KE, Sinclair ARE, Brashares JS (2008) Effect of habitat area and isolation on fragmented animal populations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:20770–20775PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rand TA, Tylianakis JM, Tscharntke T (2006) Spillover edge effects: the dispersal of agriculturally subsidized insect natural enemies into adjacent natural habitats. Ecol Lett 9:603–614PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Revilla E, Wiegand T, Palomares F, Ferreras P, Delibes M (2004) Effects of matrix heterogeneity on animal dispersal: from individual behaviour to metapopulation-level parameters. Am Nat 164:E130–E153PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ricketts TH (2001) The matrix matters: effective isolation in fragmented landscapes. Am Nat 158:87–99PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ries L, Debinski DM (2001) Butterfly responses to habitat edges in the highly fragmented prairies of Central Iowa. J Anim Ecol 70:840–852CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ries L, Fletcher RJ, Battin J, Sisk TD (2004) Ecological responses to habitat edges: mechanisms, models and variability explained. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 35:491–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Roland J, Keyghobadi N, Fownes S (2000) Alpine Parnassius butterfly dispersal: effects of landscape and population size. Ecology 81:1642–1653Google Scholar
  44. Schielzeth H, Forstmeier W (2009) Conclusions beyond support: overconfident estimates in mixed models. Behav Ecol 20:416–420PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schultz CB, Crone EE (2001) Edge-mediated dispersal behavior in a prarie butterfly. Ecology 82:1879–1892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Thies C, Tscharntke T (1999) Landscape structure and biological control in arable fields. Science 285:893–895PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Thomas JA, Telfer MG, Roy DB, Preston CD, Greewood JJD, Asher J, Fox R, Clarke RT, Lawton JH (2004) Comparative losses of British butterflies, birds, and plants and the global extinction crisis. Science 303:1879–1881Google Scholar
  48. Vandermeer J, Carvajal R (2001) Metapopulation dynamics and the quality of the matrix. Am Nat 158:211–220PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Watling JI, Donnelly MA (2006) Fragments as islands: a synthesis of faunal responses to habitat patchiness. Conserv Biol 20:1016–1025PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Watson JEM, Whittaker RJ, Freudenberger D (2005) Bird community responses to habitat fragmentation: how consistent are they across landscapes? J Biogeogr 32:1353–1370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Weibull A-C, Bengtsson J, Nohlgren E (2000) Diversity of butterflies in the agricultural landscape: the role of farming system and landscape heterogeneity. Ecography 23:43–750CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wethered R, Lawes MJ (2005) Nestedness of bird assemblages in fragmented Afromontane forest: the effect of plantation forestry in the matrix. Biol Conserv 123:125–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wettstein W, Schmid B (1999) Conservation of arthropod diversity in montane wetlands: effect of altitude, habitat quality and habitat fragmentation on butterflies and grasshoppers. J Appl Ecol 36:363–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Winfree R, Dushoff J, Crone EE, Schultz CB, Budny RV, Williams NM, Kremen C (2005) Testing simple indices of habitat proximity. Am Nat 165:707–717PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Young AG, Clarke GM (2000) Genetics, demography and viability of fragmented populations. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Erik Öckinger
    • 1
  • Karl-Olof Bergman
    • 2
  • Markus Franzén
    • 3
  • Tomáš Kadlec
    • 4
    • 5
  • Jochen Krauss
    • 6
  • Mikko Kuussaari
    • 7
  • Juha Pöyry
    • 7
  • Henrik G. Smith
    • 8
  • Ingolf Steffan-Dewenter
    • 6
  • Riccardo Bommarco
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of EcologySwedish University of Agricultural SciencesUppsalaSweden
  2. 2.IFM Biology, Division of EcologyLinköping UniversityLinköpingSweden
  3. 3.Department of Community EcologyUFZ, Helmholtz-Centre for Environmental ResearchHalleGermany
  4. 4.Department of Ecology, Faculty of Environmental SciencesCzech University of Life SciencesPragueCzech Republic
  5. 5.Czech Academy of SciencesInstitute of EntomologyCeske BudejoviceCzech Republic
  6. 6.Department of Animal Ecology & Tropical Biology, BiocentreUniversity of WürzburgWürzburgGermany
  7. 7.Finnish Environment Institute, Ecosystem Change UnitHelsinkiFinland
  8. 8.Department of Biology and Centre for Environmental and Climate ResearchLund UniversityLundSweden

Personalised recommendations