Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

How life history affects threat status: Requirements of two Onobrychis-feeding lycaenid butterflies, Polyommatus damon and Polyommatus thersites, in the Czech Republic

  • Section Zoology
  • Published:
Biologia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Comparisons of related species differing in conservation status may offer insights into causes of species declines. We studied egg-laying patterns and landscape occupancy of two sympatric lycaenidae butterflies inhabiting xeric grasslands, vulnerable Polyommatus thersites and critically endangered Polyommatus [Agrodiaetus] damon, both developing on sainfoin, Onobrychis spp. Females of bivoltine P. thersites oviposit on host plant leaves at a relatively low height (≈20 cm), in both spring (May–June) and summer (July–August) generations. Females of univoltine P. damon (July–September) oviposit to senescing inflorescences, in significantly higher heights (>30 cm), and the species is hence vulnerable to summer mowing or grazing. On a landscape scale, both species tended to occur at sites with diverse sward management, including temporarily unmanaged patches. In addition, P. damon occurred only in the proximity of other occupied sites. The study documents that grassland management must respect the needs of the most vulnerable species, and because these needs are seldom known, it must maintain a high diversity of conditions within individual sites.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Akaike H. 1974. A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE T. Automat. Contr. 19(6): 716–723.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beneš J., Konvička M., Dvořák J., Fric Z., Havelka Z., Pavlíčko A., Vrabec V. & Weidenhoffer Z. 2002. Motýli České republiky: Rozšíření a ochrana I. Společnost pro ochranu motýlů, Praha, 478 pp. ISBN: 8090321208

    Google Scholar 

  • Binzenhofer B., Biedermann R., Settele J. & Schroder B. 2008. Connectivity compensates for low habitat quality and small patch size in the butterfly Cupido minimus. Ecol. Res. 23(2): 259–269. DOI: 10.1007/s11284-007-0376-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourn N.A.D. & Thomas J.A. 2002. The challenge of conserving grassland insects at the margins of their range in Europe. Biol. Conserv. 104: 285–292. DOI: 10.1016/S0006-3207(01)00193-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brereton T.M., Warren M.S., Roy D.B. & Stewart K. 2008. The changing status of the Chalkhill Blue butterfly Polyommatus coridon in the UK: the impacts of conservation policies and environmental factors. J. Insect Conserv. 12(6): 629–638. DOI: 10.1007/s10841-007-9099-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buszko J. & Masłowski J. 2008. Motyle dzienne Polski. Koliber, Oprawa, 276 pp. ISBN: 8392515048

    Google Scholar 

  • Čížek L., Fric Z. & Konvička M. 2006. Host plant defences and voltinism in European butterflies. Ecol. Entomol. 31(4): 337–344. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2311.2006.00783.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Čížek L., Hauck D. & Pokluda P. 2012. Contrasting needs of grassland dwellers: habitat preferences of endangered steppe beetles (Coleoptera). J. Insect Conserv. 16(2): 281–293. DOI: 10.1007/s10841-011-9415-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Čížek O., Zámečník J., Tropek R., Kočárek P. & Konvička M. 2012. Diversification of mowing regime increases arthropods diversity in species-poor cultural hay meadows. J. Insect Conserv. 16(2): 215–226. DOI: 10.1007/s10841-011-9407-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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(2): 417–426. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0579.2003.12492.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dierks A. & Fischer K. 2009. Habitat requirements and niche selection of Maculinea nausithous and M. teleius (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) within a large sympatric metapopulation. Biodivers. Conserv. 18(13): 3663–3676. DOI: 10.1007/s10531-009-9670-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dolek M. 1994. Der Einfluss der Schafbeweidung von Kalkmagerrasen in der Südlichen Frankenalb auf die Insektenfauna (Tagfalter, Heuschrecken). pp. 113–122. In: Nentwig W. & Poehling H.-M. (eds), Schriftenreihe Agrarökologie, Band 10, Haupt Verlag, Bern, 126 pp. ISBN: 3258049556

    Google Scholar 

  • Dolek M. & Geyer A. 2002. Conserving biodiversity on calcareous grasslands in the Franconian Jura by grazing: a comprehensive approach. Biol. Conserv. 104(3): 351–360. DOI: 10.1016/S0006-3207(01)00200-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donald P.F., Green R.E. & Heath M.F. 2001. Agricultural intensification and the collapse of Europe’s farmland bird populations. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B-Biol. Sci. 268(1462): 25–29. DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2000.1325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dover J.W., Rescia A., Fungarino S., Fairburn J., Carey P., Lunt P., Dennis R.L.H. & Dover C.J. 2010. Can hay harvesting detrimentally affect adult butterfly abundance? J. Insect Conserv. 14(4): 413–418. DOI: 10.1007/s10841-010-9267-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ebert G. & Rennwald E. 1991. Die Schmetterflinge Baden-Württembergs, Band 2: Tagfalter II. Ulmer, Stuttgart, 535 pp. ISBN: 3800134594

  • Farkač J., Král D. & Škorpík M. 2005. Červený seznam ohrožených druhů České republiky. Bezobratlí [List of threatened species in the Czech Republic. Invertebrates]. Agentura ochrany přírody a krajiny ČR, Praha, 760 pp. ISBN: 80-86064-96-4

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiedler K. 2006. Ant-associates of Palaearctic lycaenid butterfly larvae (Hymenoptera: Formicidae; Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) — a review. Myrmecologische Nachrichten 9: 77–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forister M.L. 2005. Influence of host plant phenology on Mitoura nelsoni (Lepidoptera: Lyeaenidae). Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 98(3): 295–301. DOI: 10.1603/0013-8746(2005)098[0295: IOHPPO]2.0.CO;2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fric Z., Klímová M. & Konvička M. 2006. Mechanical design indicates differences in mobility among butterfly generations. Evol. Ecol. Res. 8(8): 1511–1522.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gorbunov Y.P. 2001. The butterflies of Russia: classification, genitalia, keys for identification (Lepidoptera: Hesperioidea a Papilionoidea). Russian Academy of Sciences, Ekaterinburg, 320 pp. ISBN: 5941310048

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanski I. 1999. Metapopulation Ecology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 332 pp. ISBN: 0198540655

    Google Scholar 

  • Hluchý M. 2007. Motýli a pesticidy: ošetřování vinic a CHKO Pálava. Živa 5: 217–220.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chytrý M., Kučera T. & Kočí M. 2001. Katalog biotopů České republiky. Agentura ochrany přírody a krajiny ČR, Praha, 304 pp. ISBN: 80-86064-55-7

    Google Scholar 

  • Kadlec T., Beneš J., Jarošík V. & Konvička M. 2008. Revisiting urban refuges: Changes of butterfly and burnet fauna in Prague reserves over three decades. Landsc. Urban Plan. 85(1): 1–11. DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.07.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kadlec T., Vrba P., Kepka P., Schmitt T. & Konvička M. 2010. Tracking the decline of the once-common butterfly: delayed oviposition, demography and population genetics in the hermit Chazara briseis. Anim. Conserv. 13(2): 172–183. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-1795.2009.00318.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kadlec T., Vrba P. & Konvička M. 2009. Microhabitat requirements of caterpillars of the critically endangered butterfly Chazara briseis (Nymphalidae: Satyrinae) in the Czech Republic. Nota Lepid. 32(1): 39–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleijn D., Kohler F., Baldi A., Batary P., Concepcion E.D., Clough Y., Diaz M., Gabriel D., Holzschuh A., Knop E., Kovacs A., Marshall E.J.P., Tscharntke T. & Verhulst J. 2009. On the relationship between farmland biodiversity and landuse intensity in Europe. Proc. Roy. Soc. B — Biol. Sci. 276: 903–909. DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2008.1509

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Konvička M., Beneš J. & Čížek L. 2005. Ohrožený hmyz nelesních stanovišť: Ochrana a management. Sagittaria, Olomouc, 127 pp. ISBN: 80-239-6590-5

    Google Scholar 

  • Konvička M., Beneš J., Čížek O., Kopeček F., Konvička O. & Vítaz L. 2008. How too much care kills species: Grassland reserves, agri-environmental schemes and extinction of Colias myrmidone (Lepidoptera: Pieridae) from its former stronghold. J. Insect Conserv. 12(5): 519–525. DOI: 10.1007/s10841-007-9092-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Konvička M., Fric Z. & Beneš J. 2006. Butterfly extinctions in European states: do socioeconomic conditions matter more than physical geography? Global. Ecol. Biogeogr. 15: 82–92. DOI: 10.1111/j.1466-822x.2006.00188.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krauss J., Steffan-Dewenter I., Muller C.B. & Tscharntke T. 2005. Relative importance of resource quantity, isolation and habitat quality for landscape distribution of a monophagous butterfly. Ecography 28(4): 465–474. DOI: 10.1111/j.0906-7590.2005.04201.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krauss J., Steffan-Dewenter I. & Tscharntke T. 2004. Landscape occupancy and local population size depends on host plant distribution in the butterfly Cupido minimus. Biol. Conserv. 120(3): 355–361. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2004.03.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kudrna O. 1998. Die Tagfalterfauna der Rhön. Oedippus 15: 1–158. ISBN: 1436-5804

    Google Scholar 

  • Kudrna O. 2002. The Distribution Atlas of European Butterflies. Oedippus, Schweinfurt, 344 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mihoci I. & Šašić M. 2006. New data on the distribution of the Chapman’s blue Polyommatus thersites (Cantener, 1835) (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) in Croatia. Entomologia Croatica 10(1–2): 7–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mihoci I., Vajdić M. & Šašić M. 2006. The status of the damon blue Polyommatus (Agrodiaetus) damon (Denis & Shiffermüller, 1775) (Papilionoidea: Lycaenidae, Polyommatini) in the Croatian butterfly fauna. Nat. Croat. 15(1–2): 15–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris M.G. 1967. Differences Between the Invertebrate Faunas of Grazed and Ungrazed Chalk Grassland, I. Responses of Some Phytophagous insects to Cessation of Grazing. J. Appl. Ecol. 4(2): 459–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris M.G. 2000. The effects of structure and its dynamics on the ecology and conservation of arthropods in British grasslands. Biol. Conserv. 95(2): 129–142. DOI: 10.1016/S0006-3207(00)00028-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy D.D., Menninger M.S., Ehrlich P.R. & Wilcox B.A. 1986. Local-population dynamics of adult butterflies and the conservation status of 2 closely related species. Biol. Conserv. 37(3): 201–223. DOI: 10.1016/0006-3207(86)90082-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nässig W.A., Dorow W.H.O. & Flechtner G. 2004. Polyommatus (Agrodiaetus) damon ([Denis & Schiffermüller], 1775) in der hessischen Rhön wieder nachgewiesen (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae). Nachrichten des Entomologischen Vereins Apollo, N.F. 25(1/2): 15–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver T., Roy D.B., Hill J.K., Brereton T. & Thomas C.D. 2010. Heterogeneous landscapes promote population stability. Ecol. Lett. 13(4): 473–484. DOI: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2010.01441.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pokluda P., Hauck D. & Čížek L. 2012. Importance of marginal habitats for grassland diversity: Fallows and overgrown tall-grass steppe as key habitats of endangered ground-beetle Carabus hungaricus. Insect Conserv. Diver. 5(1): 27–36. DOI: 10.1111/j.1752-4598.2011.00146.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poschlod P., Bakker J.P. & Kahmen S. 2005. Changing land use and its impact on biodiversity. Basic Appl. Ecol. 6(2): 93–98. DOI: 10.1016/j.baae.2004.12.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosin Z.M., Skorka P., Lenda M., Moron D., Sparks T.H. & Tryjanowski P. 2011. Increasing patch area, proximity of human settlement and larval food plants positively affect the occurrence and local population size of the habitat specialist butterfly Polyommatus coridon (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) in fragmented calcareous grasslands. Eur. J. Entomol. 108(1):99–106

    Google Scholar 

  • Roy D.B. & Thomas J.A. 2003. Seasonal variation in the niche, habitat availability and population fluctuations of a bivoltine thermophilous insect near its range margin. Oecologia 134(3): 439–444. DOI: 10.1007/s00442-002-1121-3

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Samways M.J. & Lu S.S. 2007. Key traits in a threatened butterfly and its common sibling: implications for conservation. Biodivers. Conserv. 16(14): 4095–4107. DOI: 0.1007/s10531-007-9209-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sang A., Teder T., Helm A. & Partel M. 2010. Indirect evidence for an extinction debt of grassland butterflies half century after habitat loss. Biol. Conserv. 143(6): 1405–1413. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2010.03.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schtickzelle N., Turlure C. & Baguette M. 2007. Grazing management impacts on the viability of the threatened bog fritillary butterfly Proclossiana eunomia. Biol. Conserv. 136(4): 651–660. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2007.01.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz R. 1948. Motýli denní II. Vesmír, Praha, 49 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Settele J., Shreeve T., Konvička M. & Van Dyck H. 2009. Part 5. Global Change and Conservation, pp. 315–370. In: Settele J., Shreeve T., Konvička M. & Van Dyck H. (eds), Ecology of Butterflies in Europe, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 526 pp. ISBN: 9780521766975, 9780521747592

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoate C., Boatman N.D., Borralho R.J., Carvalho C.R., de Snoo G.R. & Eden P. 2001. Ecological impacts of arable intensification in Europe. J. Environ. Manage. 63(4): 337–365. DOI: 10.1006/jema.2001.0473

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas C.D., Wilson R.J. & Lewis O.T. 2002. Short-term studies underestimate 30-generation changes in a butterfly metapopulation. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. Ser. B-Biol. Sci. 269(1491): 563–569. DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2001.1939

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas J.A. 1993. Holocene climate changes and warm manmade refugia may explain why a 6th of British butterflies posess unnatural early-successional habitats. Ecography 16(3): 278–284. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0587.1993.tb00217.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas J.A., Bourn N.A.D., Clarke R.T., Stewart K.E., Simcox D.J., Pearman G.S., Curtis R. & Goodger B. 2001. The quality and isolation of habitat patches both determine where butterflies persist in fragmented landscapes. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B -Biol. Sci. 268(1478): 1791–1796. DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2001.1693

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tolman T. & Lewington R. 2009. Collins Butterfly Guide: The Most Complete Guide to the Butterflies of Britain and Europe. Harper Collins Publishers, London, 384 pp. ISBN: 9780007279777

    Google Scholar 

  • Turlure C., Choutt J., Van Dyck H., Baguette M. & Schtickzelle N. 2010. Functional habitat area as a reliable proxy for population size: case study using two butterfly species of conservation concern. J. Insect Conserv. 14(4): 379–388. DOI: 10.1007/s10841-010-9269-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Swaay C., Cuttelod A., Collins S., Maes D., Lopez Munguira M., Sasic M., Settele J., Verovnik R., Verstrael R., Warren M., Wiemers M. & Wynhof I. 2010. European Red List of Butterflies. IUCN, Butterfly Conservation Europe, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 44 pp. ISBN: 978-92-79-14151-5, DOI: 10.2779/83897

    Google Scholar 

  • Warren M.S., Hill J.K., Thomas J.A., Asher J., Fox R., Huntley B., Roy D.B., Telfer M.G., Jeffcoate S., Harding P., Jeffcoate G., Willis S.G., Greatorex-Davies J.N., Moss D. & Thomas C.D. 2001. Rapid responses of British butterflies to opposing forces of climate and habitat change. Nature 414(6859): 65–69. DOI: 10.1038/35102054

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Weidemann H.J. 1995. Tagfalter: beobachten, bestimmen, 2. Auflage [in diesem Band], Augsburg, 659 pp. ISBN: 3-89440-115-X

  • Wenzel M., Schmitt T., Weitzel M. & Seitz A. 2006. The severe decline of butterflies on western German calcareous grasslands during the last 30 years: A conservation problem. Biol. Conserv. 128(4): 542–552. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2005.10.022

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zsolt B. 2004. Fajmegörzési tervek. Csíkos boglárka (Polyommatus damon). Környezetvédelmi és Vízügyi Minisztérium, Természetvédelmi Hivatal, 13 pp.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Zoology, University of South Bohemia, CZ-37005, České Budějovice, Czech Republic

    Jana Šlancarová & Martin Konvička

  2. Biology Centre, ASCR, v. v. i., Institute of Entomology, CZ-37005, České Budějovice, Czech Republic

    Jana Šlancarová, Jiří Beneš & Martin Konvička

  3. Department of Biology and Ecology, University of Ostrava, CZ-71000, Ostrava, Czech Republic

    Barbora Bednářová

Authors
  1. Jana Šlancarová
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Barbora Bednářová
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jiří Beneš
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Martin Konvička
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jana Šlancarová.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Šlancarová, J., Bednářová, B., Beneš, J. et al. How life history affects threat status: Requirements of two Onobrychis-feeding lycaenid butterflies, Polyommatus damon and Polyommatus thersites, in the Czech Republic. Biologia 67, 1175–1185 (2012). https://doi.org/10.2478/s11756-012-0109-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/s11756-012-0109-7

Key words

Search

Navigation