Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Landscape Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson WB, Wait DA (2001) Subsidized Island biogeography hypothesis: another new twist on an old theory. Ecol Lett 4:289–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ås S (1999) Invasion of matrix species in small habitat patches. Conserv Ecol 3:1–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Baum KA, Haynes KJ, Dillemuth FP, Cronin JT (2004) The matrix enhances the effectiveness of corridors and stepping stones. Ecology 85:2671–2676

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benton TG, Vickery JA, Wilson JD (2003) Farmland biodiversity: is habitat heterogeneity the key? Trends Ecol Evol 18:182–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Bergman K-O, Askling J, Ekberg O, Ignell H, Wahlman H, Milberg P (2004) Landscape effects on butterfly assemblages in an agricultural region. Ecography 27:619–628

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 17:139–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 24:127–135

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brotons L, Mönkkönen M, Martin JL (2003) Are fragments islands? Landscape context and density–area relationships in boreal forest birds. Am Nat 162:343–357

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brown JH, Kodric-Brown A (1977) Turnover rates in insular biogeography: effect of immigration on extinction. Ecology 58:445–449

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Springer Verlag, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook WM, Lane KT, Foster BL, Holt RD (2002) Island theory, matrix effects and species richness patterns in habitat fragments. Ecol Lett 5:619–623

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 23:269–283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronin JT, Haynes KJ (2004) An invasive plant promotes unstable host-parasitoid patch dynamics. Ecology 85:2772–2782

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dias PC (1996) Sources and sinks in population biology. Trends Ecol Evol 11:326–330

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dover J, Sparks TH, Greatorex-Davies JN (1997) The importance of shelter for butterflies in open landscapes. J Insect Conserv 1:89–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drakare S, Lennon JL, Hillebrand H (2006) The imprint of the geographical, evolutionary and ecological context on species–area relationships. Ecol Lett 9:215–227

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dunning JB, Danielson BJ, Pulliam HR (1992) Ecological processes that affect populations in complex landscapes. Oikos 65:169–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ewers RM, Didham RK (2006) Confounding factors in the detection of species responses to habitat fragmentation. Biol Rev 81:117–142

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Franzén M, Ranius T (2004) Occurrence patterns of butterflies (Rhopalocera) in semi-natural pastures in southeastern Sweden. J Nature Conserv 12:121–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanski I (1999) Metapopulation ecology. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanski I, Pöyry J (2007) Insect populations in fragmented habitats. In: Stewart AJA, New TR, Lewis OT (eds) Insect conservation biology. CABI, Wallingford, pp 175–202

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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 13:172–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 30:889–900

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 13:597–605

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 10:564–571

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Littell RC, Milliken GA, Stroup WW et al (2006) SAS for mixed models, 2nd edn. SAS Institute Inc., Cary

    Google Scholar 

  • MacArthur RH, Wilson EO (1967) The theory of island biogeography. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Margules CR, Pressey RL (2000) Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405:243–253

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Moilanen A, Nieminen M (2002) Simple connectivity measures in spatial ecology. Ecology 83:1131–1145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Öckinger E, Smith HG (2006) Landscape composition and habitat area affect butterfly species richness in semi-natural grasslands. Oecologia 149:526–534

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Öckinger E, Hammarstedt O, Nilsson SG, Smith HG (2006) The relationship between local extinctions of grassland butterflies and increased soil nitrogen levels. Biol Conserv 128:564–573

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 13:969–979

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Pollard E (1977) A method for assessing changes in the abundance of butterflies. Biol Conserv 12:115–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 160:577–587

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Prugh LR, Hodges KE, Sinclair ARE, Brashares JS (2008) Effect of habitat area and isolation on fragmented animal populations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:20770–20775

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rand TA, Tylianakis JM, Tscharntke T (2006) Spillover edge effects: the dispersal of agriculturally subsidized insect natural enemies into adjacent natural habitats. Ecol Lett 9:603–614

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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–E153

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ricketts TH (2001) The matrix matters: effective isolation in fragmented landscapes. Am Nat 158:87–99

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ries L, Debinski DM (2001) Butterfly responses to habitat edges in the highly fragmented prairies of Central Iowa. J Anim Ecol 70:840–852

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ries L, Fletcher RJ, Battin J, Sisk TD (2004) Ecological responses to habitat edges: mechanisms, models and variability explained. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 35:491–522

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roland J, Keyghobadi N, Fownes S (2000) Alpine Parnassius butterfly dispersal: effects of landscape and population size. Ecology 81:1642–1653

    Google Scholar 

  • Schielzeth H, Forstmeier W (2009) Conclusions beyond support: overconfident estimates in mixed models. Behav Ecol 20:416–420

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schultz CB, Crone EE (2001) Edge-mediated dispersal behavior in a prarie butterfly. Ecology 82:1879–1892

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thies C, Tscharntke T (1999) Landscape structure and biological control in arable fields. Science 285:893–895

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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 303:1879–1881

    Google Scholar 

  • Vandermeer J, Carvajal R (2001) Metapopulation dynamics and the quality of the matrix. Am Nat 158:211–220

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Watling JI, Donnelly MA (2006) Fragments as islands: a synthesis of faunal responses to habitat patchiness. Conserv Biol 20:1016–1025

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Watson JEM, Whittaker RJ, Freudenberger D (2005) Bird community responses to habitat fragmentation: how consistent are they across landscapes? J Biogeogr 32:1353–1370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weibull A-C, Bengtsson J, Nohlgren E (2000) Diversity of butterflies in the agricultural landscape: the role of farming system and landscape heterogeneity. Ecography 23:43–750

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wethered R, Lawes MJ (2005) Nestedness of bird assemblages in fragmented Afromontane forest: the effect of plantation forestry in the matrix. Biol Conserv 123:125–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 36:363–373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winfree R, Dushoff J, Crone EE, Schultz CB, Budny RV, Williams NM, Kremen C (2005) Testing simple indices of habitat proximity. Am Nat 165:707–717

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Young AG, Clarke GM (2000) Genetics, demography and viability of fragmented populations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

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).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ecology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, P.O. Box 7044, SE-750 07, Uppsala, Sweden

    Erik Öckinger & Riccardo Bommarco

  2. IFM Biology, Division of Ecology, Linköping University, SE-581 83, Linköping, Sweden

    Karl-Olof Bergman

  3. Department of Community Ecology, UFZ, Helmholtz-Centre for Environmental Research, Theodor-Lieser-Strasse 4, 06120, Halle, Germany

    Markus Franzén

  4. Department of Ecology, Faculty of Environmental Sciences, Czech University of Life Sciences, Kamycka 129, 16521, Prague, Czech Republic

    Tomáš Kadlec

  5. Czech Academy of Sciences, Institute of Entomology, Branisovska 31, 370 05, Ceske Budejovice, Czech Republic

    Tomáš Kadlec

  6. Department of Animal Ecology & Tropical Biology, Biocentre, University of Würzburg, Am Hubland, 97074, Würzburg, Germany

    Jochen Krauss & Ingolf Steffan-Dewenter

  7. Finnish Environment Institute, Ecosystem Change Unit, P.O. Box 140, 00251, Helsinki, Finland

    Mikko Kuussaari & Juha Pöyry

  8. Department of Biology and Centre for Environmental and Climate Research, Lund University, Ecology Building, SE-223 62, Lund, Sweden

    Henrik G. Smith

Authors
  1. Erik Öckinger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Karl-Olof Bergman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Markus Franzén
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Tomáš Kadlec
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jochen Krauss
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Mikko Kuussaari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Juha Pöyry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Henrik G. Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Ingolf Steffan-Dewenter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Riccardo Bommarco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Erik Öckinger.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

10980_2011_9686_MOESM1_ESM.pdf

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)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Öckinger, E., Bergman, KO., Franzén, M. et al. The landscape matrix modifies the effect of habitat fragmentation in grassland butterflies. Landscape Ecol 27, 121–131 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-011-9686-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-011-9686-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation