Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-31T19:38:18.701Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

15 - Effects of experimental population removal for the spatial population ecology of the alpine butterfly, Parnassius smintheus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 July 2011

By
Stephen F. Matter  and
Jens Roland
Edited by
Jianguo Liu ,
Vanessa Hull ,
Anita T. Morzillo  and
John A. Wiens
Stephen F. Matter
Affiliation:
University of Cincinnati
Jens Roland
Affiliation:
University of Alberta
Jianguo Liu
Affiliation:
Michigan State University
Vanessa Hull
Affiliation:
Michigan State University
Anita T. Morzillo
Affiliation:
Oregon State University
John A. Wiens
Affiliation:
PRBO Conservation Science
Get access

Summary

For spatially segregated populations, the dispersal of organisms among local populations is a fundamental process affecting population dynamics and persistence. We present preliminary results from a long-term, large-scale experiment examining the effects of population removal for surrounding populations. During 2001–2006 we removed adult butterflies from two large populations within a system of 17 subpopulations of the Rocky Mountain Apollo butterfly, Parnassius smintheus. Surrounding populations were monitored using individual mark–recapture methods. We found that population removal reduced immigration into surrounding populations. Correspondingly, within-generation abundance of these populations was reduced. There was little effect of the loss of immigration for local population persistence. Only one confirmed local extinction occurred during the removals, but it was in a population expected to be highly impacted by the removals. Populations experiencing apparent local extinctions (observation of no adults within a flight season), and thus evidence of extremely low abundance, were much less connected than populations that did not experience such low abundances. Taken together, these results point to a system where immigration is too infrequent to impact the persistence of most populations, but may be frequent enough to recolonize or rescue the smallest populations from extinction. Given the fragmentation of these meadows, due to forest encroachment, the results imply that the persistence of this system will be more greatly impacted by the loss of habitat than by the isolation of populations, provided that some large populations remain.

Type
Chapter
Information
Sources, Sinks and Sustainability , pp. 317 - 334
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baguette, M., Petit, S. and Queva, F. (2000). Population spatial structure and migration of three butterfly species within the same habitat network: consequences for conservation. Journal of Applied Ecology 37: 100–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boughton, D. A. (1999). Empirical evidence for complex source–sink dynamics with alternative states in a butterfly metapopulation. Ecology 80: 2727–2739.Google Scholar
Brommer, J. E. and Fred, M. S. (1999). Movement of the Apollo butterfly Parnassius apollo related to host plant and nectar plant patches. Ecological Entomology 24: 125–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, J. H. and Kodric-Brown, A. (1977). Turnover rates in insular biogeography: effect of immigration on extinction. Ecology 58: 445–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craig, C. C. (1953). On the utilization of marked specimens in estimating populations of flying insects. Biometrika 40: 170–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crone, E. E., Doak, D. and Pokki, J. (2001). Ecological influences on the dynamics of a field vole metapopulation. Ecology 82: 831–843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Debinski, D. M. and Holt, R. D. (2000). A survey and overview of habitat fragmentation experiments. Conservation Biology 14: 342–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dyer, J. M. and Moffett, K. E. (1999). Meadow invasion from high-elevation spruce–fir forest in south-central New Mexico. Southwestern Naturalist 44: 444–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ezzeddine, M. and Matter, S. F. (2008). Nectar flower use and electivity by butterflies in sub-alpine meadows. Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society 62: 138–142.Google Scholar
Fownes, S. and Roland, J. (2002). Effects of meadow suitability on female movement and oviposition behaviour in the alpine butterfly, Parnassius smintheus Doubleday. Ecological Entomology 27: 457–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonzalez, A., Lawton, J. H., Gilbert, F. S., Blackburn, T. M. and Evans-Freke, I. (1998). Metapopulation dynamics, abundance, and distribution in a microecosystem. Science 281: 2045–2047.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gotelli, N. (1991). Metapopulation models: the rescue effect, propagule rain, and the core-satellite hypothesis. American Naturalist 138: 768–776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanski, I. (1994). A practical model of metapopulation dynamics. Journal of Animal Ecology 63: 151–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanski, I. (1999). Metapopulation Ecology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
Hanski, I., Alho, J. and Moilanen, A. (2000). Estimating the parameters of survival and migration in metapopulations. Ecology 81: 239–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanski, I., Pakkala, T., Kuussaari, M. and Lei, G. (1995). Metapopulation persistence of an endangered butterfly in a fragmented landscape. Oikos 72: 21–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, S. (1994). Metapopulations and conservation. In Large Scale Ecology and Conservation Biology (Edwards, P. J., May, R. M. and Webb, N., eds.). Blackwell, Oxford, UK: 111–128.Google Scholar
Hastings, A. (2001). Transient dynamics and persistence of ecological systems. EcologyLetters 4: 215–220.Google Scholar
Holt, R. D. and Debinski, D. M. (2003). Reflections on landscape experiments and ecological theory: tools for the study of habitat fragmentation. In How Landscapes Change (Bradshaw, G. A. and Marquet, P. A., eds.). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: 201–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaitala, V., Ranta, E. and Lundberg, P. (2001). Self-organized dynamics in spatially structured populations. Proceedings of the Royal Society – Biological Sciences Series B 268: 1655–1660.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kareiva, P. (1994). Space: the final frontier for ecological theory. Ecology 75: 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kean, J. M. and Barlow, N. D. (2000). Effects of dispersal on local population increase. Ecology Letters 3: 479–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keyghobadi, N., Roland, J. and Strobeck, C. (1999). Influence of landscape on the population genetic structure of the alpine butterfly Parnassius smintheus (Papilionidae). Molecular Ecology 8: 1481–1495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keyghobadi, N., Roland, J. and Strobeck, C. (2005). Genetic differentiation and gene flow among populations of the alpine butterfly, Parnassius smintheus, vary with landscape connectivity. Molecular Ecology 14: 1897–1909.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuussaari, M., Nieminen, M. and Hanski, I. (1996). An experimental study of migration in the Glanville fritillary butterfly, Melitaea cinxia. Journal of Animal Ecology 65: 791–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuussaari, M., Saccheri, I., Camara, M. and Hanski, I. (1998). Allee effect and population dynamics in the Glanville fritillary butterfly. Oikos 82: 384–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lele, S., Taper, M. L. and Gage, S. (1998). Statistical analysis of population dynamics in space and time using estimating functions. Ecology 79: 1489–1502.Google Scholar
Levins, R. (1970). Extinction. In Some Mathematical Problems in Biology (Gesternhaber, M., ed.). American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI: 75–107.Google Scholar
Lewis, O. T., Thomas, C. D., Hill, J. K., Brookes, M. I., Crane, T. P. R., Graneau, Y. A., Mallet, J. L. B. and Rose, O. (1997). Three ways of assessing metapopulation structure in the butterfly Plebejus argus. Ecological Entomology 22: 283–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsh, D. M., Fegraus, E. H. and Harrison, S. (1999). Effects of breeding pond isolation on the spatial and temporal dynamics of pond use by the tungara frog, Physalaemus pustulosus. Journal of Animal Ecology 68: 804–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matter, S. F. (1996). Interpatch movement of the red milkweed beetle, Tetraopes tetraophthalmus: individual responses to patch size and isolation. Oecologia 105: 447–453.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Matter, S. F. (2001). Synchrony, extinction and dynamics of spatially segregated heterogeneous populations. Ecological Modelling 141: 217–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matter, S. F. and Roland, J. (2004). Relationships among population estimation techniques: an examination for Parnassius smintheus. Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society 58: 189–195.Google Scholar
Matter, S. F., Roland, J., Keyghobadi, N. and Sabourin, K. (2003). The effects of isolation, habitat area and resources on the abundance, density and movement of the butterfly, Parnassius smintheus. American Midland Naturalist 150: 26–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matter, S. F., Roland, J., Moilanen, A. and Hanski, I. (2004). Migration and survival of Parnassius smintheus: detecting effects of habitat for individual butterflies. Ecological Applications 14: 1526–1534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCullagh, P. and Nelder, J. A. (1989). Generalized Linear Models, 2nd edition. Chapman and Hall, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millar, C. I., Westfall, R. D., Delany, D. L., King, J. C. and Graumlich, L. J. (2004). Response of subalpine conifers in the Sierra Nevada, California, USA to 20th-century warming and decadal climate variability. Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research 36: 181–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moilanen, A., Smith, A. T. and Hanski, I. (1998). Long-term dynamics in a metapopulation of the American pika. American Naturalist 152: 530–542.Google Scholar
Pollard, E. (1977). A method for assessing changes in the abundance of butterflies. Biological Conservation 12: 115–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pulliam, H. R. (1988). Sources, sinks, and population regulation. American Naturalist 132: 652–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richter-Dyn, N. and Goel, N. S. (1972). On the extinction of a colonizing species. Theoretical Population Biology 3: 406–433.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roland, J. and Matter, S. F. (2007). Encroaching forests decouple alpine butterfly population dynamics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104: 13702–13704.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roland, J., Keyghobadi, N. and Fownes, S. (2000). Alpine Parnassius butterfly dispersal: effects of landscape and population size. Ecology 81: 1642–1653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roslin, T., Syrjälä, H., Roland, J., Harrison, P., Fownes, S. and Matter, S. F. (2008). Caterpillars on the run: induced defences create spatial patterns in host plant damage. Ecography 31: 335–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, J. A., Matter, S. F. and Roland, J. (2005). Edge avoidance and movement of the butterfly Parnassius smintheus in matrix and non-matrix habitat. Landscape Ecology 20: 127–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Southwood, T. R. E. (1994). Ecological Methods, 2nd edition. Chapman and Hall, London.Google Scholar
Sutcliffe, O. L., Thomas, C. D. and Peggie, D. (1997). Area-dependent migration by ringlet butterflies generates a mixture of patchy population and metapopulation attributes. Oecologia 109:229–234.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thomas, C. D., Singer, M. C. and Boughton, D. A. (1996). Catastrophic extinction of population sources in a butterfly metapopulation. American Naturalist 148: 957–975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Väisänen, R. and Somerma, P. (1985). The status of Parnassius mnemosyne (Lepidoptera, Papilionidae) in Finland. Notulae Entomologicae 65: 109–118.Google Scholar
Wahlberg, N., Klemetti, T., Selonen, V. and Hanski, I. (2002). Metapopulation structure and movements in five species of checkerspot butterflies. Oecologia 130: 33–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wahlberg, N., Moilanen, A. and Hanski, I. (1996). Predicting the occurrence of endangered species in fragmented landscapes. Science 273: 1536–1538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walther, G., Post, E., Convey, P., Menzel, A., Parmesan, C., Beebee, T. J. C., Fromentin, J., Hoegh-Guldberg, O. and Bairlaein, F. (2002). Ecological responses to recent climate change. Nature416: 389–395.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilson, W. G., Harrison, S. P., Hastings, A. and McCann, K. (1999). Exploring stable pattern formation in models of tussock moth populations. Journal of Animal Ecology 68: 94–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×