PL EN


Preferences help
enabled [disable] Abstract
Number of results
Journal
2016 | 65 | 3 | 445-453
Article title

Wybrane problemy ochrony przyrody na przykładzie motyli (Lepidoptera) jako grupy modelowej

Authors
Content
Title variants
EN
The challenges to modern nature conservation - butterflies as a model group
Languages of publication
PL EN
Abstracts
PL
Motyle są modelową grupą zwierząt w badaniach z zakresu ochrony przyrody i ekologii krajobrazu. Wiele gatunków motyli zostało rozpoznanych jako gatunki wskaźnikowe lub parasolowe. Zainteresowanie motylami dało początek ochronie owadów i ochronie krajobrazu. W artykule przedstawiam współczesne zagrożenia dla bioróżnorodności na przykładzie motyli jako grupy modelowej. Wyjaśniam koncepcję fragmentacji siedlisk i pojęcie siedliska, których rozumienie jest niezbędne aby podejmować skuteczne akcje ochrony zagrożonych gatunków. Opisuję jak kształtuje się odpowiedź motyli na zmiany w środowisku wywołane przez człowieka i podaję zarys praktycznych działań dotyczących ochrony bioróżnorodności. Najtrudniejszym zadaniem dla biologów zajmujących się ochroną przyrody jest określenie komponentów wchodzących w skład siedlisk kluczowych gatunków. Istnieją dwa główne podejścia. Pierwsze wynika z klasycznej teorii metapopulacji i zakłada, że siedlisko jest niejednolicie rozmieszczone w krajobrazie jako płaty siedliska otoczone nieprzyjaznym środowiskiem zwanym matriks. Drugie podejście wywodzi się z koncepcji siedliska opartego na zasobach, która uwzględnia wszystkie możliwe zasoby potrzebne w czasie całego cyklu życiowego gatunku. Głównym i globalnym problemem w ochronie motyli jest fragmentacja siedlisk, która prowadzi do zmian w konfiguracji krajobrazu. Innymi zagrożeniami są zmiany w intensywności użytkowania gruntów, inwazje obcych gatunków roślin i zmiany klimatu. Zrozumienie tych zjawisk jest niezbędne dla efektywnej ochrony gatunków, zarówno w skali płatu siedliska jak i skali krajobrazu.
EN
Butterflies are a model group of animals in studies of conservation biology and landscape ecology. Many butterfly species are recognized as biodiversity indicators and umbrella species. The interest in butterflies was a foundation stone in insect conservation and landscape management. In this paper, I present the contemporary threats to biodiversity with butterflies as an exemplary model group. I explain the concepts of the habitat and habitat fragmentation, which understanding is necessary for successful conservation actions. I review the response of butterflies to the human-induced changes in the environment and propose practical conservation recommendations. The most difficult task for conservation biologists is to determine what is a habitat of the target species. There are two main approaches. The first arises from the classic metapopulation theory and it assumes that habitat is patchily distributed in landscape and habitat patches are surrounded by the inhospitable environment called matrix. The second approach is a resource-based habitat concept that considers all possible species requirements into account. The main global problem in conservation of butterflies is habitat fragmentation which leads to changes in configuration of landscape and habitat patches. Other major conservation issues are changes in the land use intensity, invasion of alien plants and climate change. An understanding of these phenomena is essential to efficient conservation of species both at the habitat patch and landscape scales.
Journal
Year
Volume
65
Issue
3
Pages
445-453
Physical description
Dates
published
2016
Contributors
  • Instytut Nauk o Środowisku, Uniwersytet Jagielloński, Gronostajowa 7, 30-387 Kraków, Polska
  • Institute of Environmental Sciences, Jagiellonian University, Gronostajowa 7, 30-387 Kraków, Poland
References
  • Aviron A., Kindlmann P., Burel F., 2007. Conservation of butterfly populations in dynamic landscapes: The role of farming practices and landscape mosaic. Ecol. Model. 205, 135-145.
  • Concepcion E. D., Diaz M., Baquero R. A., 2008. Effects of landscape complexity on the ecological effectiveness of agri-environment schemes. Landsc. Ecol. 23, 135-148.
  • Cremene C., Groza G., Rakosy L., Schileyko A. A., Baur A., Erhardt A., Baur B., 2005. Alterations of steppe-like grasslands in Eastern Europe: a threat to regional biodiversity hotspots. Conserv. Biol. 19, 1606-1618.
  • Debinski D. M., Holt R. D., 2000. A survey and overview of habitat fragmentation experiments. Conserv. Biol. 14, 342-255.
  • Dennis R. L. H., 2010. A Resource-Based Habitat View for Conservation: Butterflies in the British Landscape. Wiley-Blackwell, UK.
  • Dennis R. L. H., 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.
  • Dennis R. L. H., Shreeve T. G., Van Dyck H., 2003. Towards a functional resource-based concept for habitat: a butterfly biology viewpoint. Oikos 102, 417-426.
  • Dennis R. L. H., Shreeve T. G., Van Dyck H., 2006. Habitats and resources: the need for a resource-based definition to conserve butterflies. Biodivers. Conserv. 15, 1943-1966.
  • Dover J., Settele J., 2009. The influences of landscape structure on butterfly distribution and movement: a review. J. Insect Conserv. 13, 3-27.
  • Driscoll D. A., Banks S. C., Barton P. S., Lindenmayer D. B., Smith A. L., 2013. Conceptual domain of the matrix in fragmented landscapes. Trends Ecol. Evol. 28, 605-613.
  • Fahrig L., 2003. Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 34, 487-515.
  • Fahrig L., Merriam G., 1994. Conservation of fragmented populations. Conserv. Biol. 8, 50-59.
  • Foley J. A., De Fries R., Asner G. P., Barford C., Bonan G., Carpenter S. R., Chapin F. S., Coe M. T., Daily G. C., Gibbs H. K., Helkowski J. H., Holloway T., Howard E. A., Kucharik, C. J., Monfreda C., Patz J. A., Prentice I. C., Ramankutty N., Snyder P. K., 2005. Global consequences of land use. Science 309, 570-574.
  • Gibbs M., Van Dyck H., 2010. Butterfly flight activity affects reproductive performance and longevity relative to landscape structure. Oecologia 163, 341-350.
  • Gilpin M., Hanski I., 1991. Metapopulation dynamics: empirical and theoretical investigations. Academic Press, London.
  • Habel J. C., Rödder D., Schmitt T., Nève G., 2011. Global warming will affect the genetic diversity and uniqueness of Lycaena helle populations. Global Change Biol. 17, 194-205.
  • Hall L. S., Krausman P.R., Morrison M. L., 1997. The habitat concept and a plea for standard terminology. Wildlife Soc. Bull. 25, 173-182.
  • Hanski I., Ovaskainen O., 2000. The metapopulation capacity of a fragmented landscape. Nature 404, 755-758.
  • Hanski I., Gaggiotti O. E., 2004. Ecology, genetics and evolution of metapopulations. Academic Press, USA.
  • Hill J. K., Thomas C. D., Lewis O. T., 1996. Effects of habitat patch size and isolation on dispersal by Hesperia comma butterflies: implications for metapopulation structure. J. Anim. Ecol. 65, 725-735.
  • Johst K., Drechsler M., Thomas J., Settele J., 2006. Influence of mowing on the persistence of two endangered large blue butterfly species. J. Appl. Ecol. 43, 333-342.
  • Joyal L. A., McCollough M., Hunter Jr. M. L., 2001. Landscape ecology approaches to wetland species conservation: a case study of two turtle species in Southern Maine. Conserv. Biol. 15, 1755-1762.
  • Kalarus K., Skórka P., Nowicki P., 2013. Resource use in two contrasting habitat types raises different challenges for the conservation of the dryad butterfly Minois dryas. J. Insect Conserv. 17, 777-786.
  • Lang A., Theißen B., Dolek M., 2013. Standardised methods for the GMO monitoring of butterflies and moths: the whys and hows. BioRisk, 8, 15-38.
  • Lindman L., Remm J., Saksing K., Sõber V., Õunap E., Tammaru T., 2015. Lycaena dispar on its northern distribution limit: an expansive generalist. Insect Conserv. Divers. 8, 3-16.
  • Martin L. A., Pullin A. S., 2004. Host-plant specialisation and habitat restriction in an endangered insect, Lycaena dispar batavus (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) II. Larval survival on alternative host plants in the field. Europ. J. Entomol. 101, 57-62.
  • Moroń D., Grześ I. M., Skórka P., Szentgyörgyi H., Laskowski R., Potts S. G., Woyciechowski M., 2012. Abundance and diversity of wild bees along gradients of heavy metal pollution. J. Appl. Ecol. 49, 118-125.
  • Munguira, M. L., Thomas J. A., 1992. Use of road verges by butterfly and burnet populations, and the effect of roads on adult dispersal and mortality. J. Appl. Ecol. 29, 316-329.
  • Nowicki P., Pępkowska A., Kudłek J., Skórka P., Witek M., Settele J., Woyciechowski M., 2007. From metapopulation theory to conservation recommendations: lessons from spatial occurrence and abundance patterns of Maculinea butterflies. Biol. Conserv. 140, 119-129.
  • Nowicki P., Halecki W., Kalarus K., 2013. All natural habitat edges matter equally for endangered Maculinea butterflies. J. Insect Conserv. 17, 139-146.
  • Primack R. B., 2002. Essentials of conservation biology. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland.
  • Rao R. S. P., Girish M. K. S., 2007. Road kills: assessing insect causalities using flagship taxon. Curr. Sci. 92, 830-837.
  • Renetzeder C., Schindler S., Peterseil J., Prinz M. A., Mucher S., Wrbka T., 2010. Can we measure ecological sustainability? Landscape pattern as an indicator for naturalness and land use intensity at regional, national and European level. Ecol. Indicat. 10, 39-48.
  • Schtickzelle N., Baguette M., 2003. Behavioural responses to habitat patch boundaries restrict dispersal and generate emigration-patch area relationships in fragmented landscapes. J. Anim. Ecol. 72, 533-545.
  • Schtickzelle N., Mennechez G., Baguette M., 2006. Dispersal depression with habitat fragmentation in the bog frittilary butterfly. Ecology 87, 1057-1065.
  • Settele J., Henle K., Bender C., 1996. Metapopulation und Biotopverbund: Theorie und Praxis am Beispiel von Tagfalter und Reptilien. Zeitschrift Ökologie und Naturschutz 5, 187-206.
  • Shreeve T. G., Dennis R. L. H., Roy D. B., Moss D., 2001. An ecological classification of British butterflies: ecological attributes and biotope occupancy. J. Insect Conserv. 5, 145-161.
  • Sielezniew M., Dziekańska I., 2010. Motyle dzienne. MULTICO Oficyna Wydawnicza, Warszawa.
  • Sielezniew M., Dziekańska I., Stankiewicz-Fiedurek A. M., 2010. Multiple host-ant use by the predatory social parasite Phengaris (=Maculinea) arion (Lepidoptera, Lycaenidae). J. Insect Conserv. 14, 141-149.
  • Skalski T., Stone D., Kramarz P., Laskowski R., 2010. Ground beetle community responses to heavy metal contamination. Baltic J. Coleopterol. 10, 1-12.
  • Skórka P., 2007. Strategie przemieszczania się osobników w lokalnych populacjach myrmekofilnych motyli Maculinea teleius i M. nausithous (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae). Uniwersytet Jagielloński, rozprawa doktorska, Kraków.
  • Skórka P., Settele J., Woyciechowski M., 2007. Effects of management cessation on grassland butterflies in southern Poland. Agricult. Ecosys. Environ. 121, 319-324.
  • Stamps J. A., Krishnan V. V., Reid M. L., 2005. Search costs and habitat selection by dispersers. Ecology 86, 510-518.
  • Thomas J. A., 1995 a. The conservation of declining butterfly populations in Britain and Europe: priorities, problems and successes. Biol. J. Linnean Soc. 56, 55-72.
  • Thomas J. A., 1995 b. The ecology and conservation of Maculinea arion and other European species of Large blue butterfly. [W:] Ecology and conservation of butterflies. Pullin A. S. (red.). Chapman and Hall, London 180-197.
  • Turlure C. Van Dyck H., Schtickzelle N., Baguette M., 2009. Resource-based habitat definition, niche overlap and conservation of two sympatric glacial relict butterflies. Oikos 118, 950-960.
  • Van Swaay C. A. M., 2002. The importance of calcareous grasslands for butterflies in Europe. Biol. Conserv. 104, 315-318.
  • Vanreusel W., Van Dyck H., 2007. When functional habitat does not match vegetation types: A resource-based approach to map butterfly habitat. Biol. Conserv. 135, 202-211.
  • Witek M., Śliwińska E. B., Skórka P., Nowicki P., Wantuch M., Vrabec V.,. Settele J., Woyciechowski M., 2008. Host ant specificity of large blue butterflies Phengaris (Maculinea) (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) inhabiting humid grasslands in East-central Europe. Europ. J. Entomol. 105, 871-887.
Document Type
Publication order reference
Identifiers
YADDA identifier
bwmeta1.element.bwnjournal-article-ksv65p445kz
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.