Literature DB >> 22272654

Response of butterflies to structural and resource boundaries.

Cheryl B Schultz1, Aldina M A Franco, Elizabeth E Crone.   

Abstract

1. Two aspects of landscape composition shape the behavioural response of animals to habitat heterogeneity: physical habitat structure and abundance of key resources. In general, within-habitat movement behaviour has been investigated in relation to resources, and preference at boundaries has been quantified in response to physical structure. 2. Habitat preference studies suggest that responses to resources vs. structure should differ, e.g. between male and female animals, and effects of responses to structure and resources may also interact. However, most studies of animal movement combine various aspects of behavioural responses to 'habitat', implicitly assuming that resources and structure are broadly equivalent. 3. We conducted a large-scale experiment of the movement of Fender's blue (Icaricia icarioides fenderi), an endangered butterfly, to investigate butterfly response to physical structure of the landscape (prairie, open woods and dense woods) and to resources [presence or absence of Kincaid's lupine, Lupinus oreganus (larval hostplant patches)]. The experiment included 606 butterfly flight paths across four habitat types and nine ecotones. 4. Responses to physical structure and resource patches were not congruent. Butterflies were attracted to resource patches within both prairies and open woods and moved more slowly when in resource patches. Butterflies tended to prefer prairie at prairie-forest edges but tended to move faster in prairies than in open woods. Physical structure and resources also interacted; butterflies did not respond to physical habitat structure when resource patches spanned prairie - open woods ecotones. 5. Even dense woods were not perfect barriers, in contrast to a large body of literature that assumes insects from open habitats will not enter dense forests. 6. Movement of both males and females responded to resources and structure. However, female butterflies had stronger responses to both resources and structure in most cases. Females had strongest response to resource (hostplant) patches at patch edges, whereas the strongest preference of males was to return to prairie from open forest. 7. If other species behave like Fender's blue, then combining different definitions of 'habitat' (physical structure vs. resources), different aspects of movement (edge preference vs. within-habitat movement) and/or males and females within species could all lead to misleading conclusions. Our results highlight the importance of investigating these responses, and our study provides a framework for separating them in other systems.
© 2012 The Authors. Journal of Animal Ecology © 2012 British Ecological Society.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22272654     DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2656.2011.01947.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Anim Ecol        ISSN: 0021-8790            Impact factor:   5.091


  9 in total

1.  Avoidance and aggregation create consistent egg distribution patterns of congeneric caddisflies across spatially variable oviposition landscapes.

Authors:  Jill Lancaster; Barbara J Downes; Rebecca E Lester; Stephen P Rice
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2020-01-14       Impact factor: 3.225

2.  Nectar resource limitation affects butterfly flight performance and metabolism differently in intensive and extensive agricultural landscapes.

Authors:  Julie Lebeau; Renate A Wesselingh; Hans Van Dyck
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2016-05-11       Impact factor: 5.349

3.  Higher mobility of butterflies than moths connected to habitat suitability and body size in a release experiment.

Authors:  Mikko Kuussaari; Matias Saarinen; Eeva-Liisa Korpela; Juha Pöyry; Terho Hyvönen
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2014-09-12       Impact factor: 2.912

4.  The importance of including habitat-specific behaviour in models of butterfly movement.

Authors:  Luke C Evans; Richard M Sibly; Pernille Thorbek; Ian Sims; Tom H Oliver; Richard J Walters
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2020-04-06       Impact factor: 3.225

5.  Experimental Manipulation of Dispersal Ability in A Neotropical Butterfly Anartia fatima (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae).

Authors:  Robert B Srygley
Journal:  Insects       Date:  2018-08-22       Impact factor: 2.769

6.  Sex-biased topography effects on butterfly dispersal.

Authors:  Elisa Plazio; Terezie Bubová; Vladimír Vrabec; Piotr Nowicki
Journal:  Mov Ecol       Date:  2020-12-14       Impact factor: 3.600

7.  Impact of host plant connectivity, crop border and patch size on adult Colorado potato beetle retention.

Authors:  Gilles Boiteau; Charles Vincent; Tracy C Leskey; Bruce G Colpitts; Pamela MacKinley; Doo-Hyung Lee
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-05-09       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 8.  Edge effects in fire-prone landscapes: Ecological importance and implications for fauna.

Authors:  Kate Parkins; Alan York; Julian Di Stefano
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2018-05-08       Impact factor: 2.912

9.  Integrating the influence of weather into mechanistic models of butterfly movement.

Authors:  Luke C Evans; Richard M Sibly; Pernille Thorbek; Ian Sims; Tom H Oliver; Richard J Walters
Journal:  Mov Ecol       Date:  2019-09-02       Impact factor: 3.600

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.