Eur. J. Entomol. 108 (2): 219-229, 2011 | DOI: 10.14411/eje.2011.030

How to increase the value of urban areas for butterfly conservation? A lesson from Prague nature reserves and parks

Martin KONVICKA1,2, Tomas KADLEC2,3,4
1 Faculty of Science, University of South Bohemia, Branisovska 31, 370 05 Ceske Budejovice, Czech Republic; e-mail: konva333@gmail.com
2 Institute of Entomology, Czech Academy of Sciences, Branisovska 31, 370 05 Ceske Budejovice, Czech Republic
3 Faculty of Sciences, Charles University, Vinicna 7, 128 44 Prague, Czech Republic
4 Faculty of Environmental Sciences, Czech University of Life Sciences, Kamycka 129, 165 21 Prague, Czech Republic

Cities contain only a low representation of natural and semi-natural habitats, existing in fragments surrounded by built-up areas. In 2003-2004, we surveyed butterflies and Zygaenidae moths in 21 reserves and 4 parks within the city of Prague, Czech Republic, situated from the periphery to city centre. A total of 85 species (47% of the Czech fauna of the study groups) was detected, 22 of them being of conservation concern. Ordination analyses of the local assemblages revealed that the richest sites were large, situated far from the city centre, on alkaline bedrocks, south- to southwest oriented, and hosting high numbers of vegetation types and vascular plant species. We then used generalised linear models to fit responses of individual species to the main ordination gradient, corresponding to increasing urbanisation. Out of 60 species that met criteria for the modelling, none responded positively to urbanisation. Twenty displayed negative linear response; these urban avoiders contained a surplus of mesophilous species presumably preferring rural landscapes. Further 29 species (suburban adaptable) responded in domed manners, peaking at the city periphery. Prevailing among them were xerophilous specialists inhabiting large grassland reserves at the Prague outskirts. Finally, eleven urban tolerant species did not respond to urbanisation at all, containing three highly mobile species, three xerothermophilous specialists, and five species utilising shrubs or trees and finding suitable conditions even in urban parks. Suburban adaptable butterflies apparently benefit from such suburban environments as gardens, road or railway verges, collectively increasing the connectivity of remnants of seminatural habitats. The fact that arboreal species persist even in urban parks, whereas common grassland species are absent there, implies that the quality of urban habitats might be increased by a more sensitive management of urban green spaces, such as leaving aside small temporary fallows or adapting lawns mowing schemes.

Keywords: Insect conservation, habitat fragments, Lepidoptera, reserves, urbanisation, Zygaenidae

Received: March 25, 2010; Revised: November 29, 2010; Accepted: November 29, 2010; Published: April 5, 2011  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
KONVICKA, M., & KADLEC, T. (2011). How to increase the value of urban areas for butterfly conservation? A lesson from Prague nature reserves and parks. EJE, 108(2), 219-229. doi: 10.14411/eje.2011.030
Share...
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    1. ANGOLD P.G., SADLER J.P., HILL M.O., PULLIN A., RUSHTON S., AUSTIN K., SMALL E., WOOD B., WADSWORTH R., SANDERSON R. & THOMPSON K. 2006: Biodiversity in urban habitat patches. Sci. Total Environ. 360: 196-204 Go to original source...
    2. BENES J., KONVICKA M., DVORAK J., FRIC Z., HAVELDA Z., PAVLICKO A., VRABEC V. & WEIDENHOFFER Z. (eds) 2002: Butterflies of the Czech Republic: Distribution and Conservation I, II. SOM, Praha, 857 pp
    3. BENES J., KEPKA P. & KONVICKA M. 2003: Limestone quarries as refuges for European xerophilous butterflies. Conserv. Biol. 17: 1058-1069 Go to original source...
    4. BENYAMINI D. 2005: Euphorbiaceae - a new host-plant family for Carcharodus alceae Esper, 1780 (Lepidoptera: Hesperiidae) and a discussion on the use of Euphorbiaceae by butterfly larvae (Papilionoidea, Hesperioidea) in the world. Nota Lepidop. 28: 75-92
    5. BINZENHOFER B., SCHRODER B., STRAUSS B., BIEDERMANN R. & SETTELE J. 2005: Habitat models and habitat connectivity analysis for butterflies and burnet moths - The example of Zygaena carniolica and Coenonympha arcania. Biol. Conserv. 126: 247- 259 Go to original source...
    6. BLAIR R.B. 1999: Birds and butterflies along an urban gradient, surrogate taxa for assessing biodiversity? Ecol. Appl. 9: 164-170 Go to original source...
    7. BLAIR R.B. & LAUNER A.E. 1997: Butterfly diversity and human land use, species assemblages along an urban gradient. Biol. Conserv. 80: 113-125 Go to original source...
    8. COLLIER N., MACKAY D.A., BENKENDORFF K., AUSTIN A.D. & CARTHEW S.M. 2006: Butterfly communities in South Australian urban reserves: Estimating abundance and diversity using the Pollard walk. Austral Ecol. 31: 282-290 Go to original source...
    9. COLLINGE S.K., PRUDIC K.L. & OLIVER J.C. 2003: Effects of local habitat characteristics and landscape context on grassland butterfly diversity . Conserv. Biol. 17: 178-187 Go to original source...
    10. CORKE D. 1999: Are honeydew/sap-feeding butterflies (Lepidoptera: Rhopalocera) affected by particulate air-pollution? J. Insect Conserv. 3: 5-14 Go to original source...
    11. DENNIS R.L.H. & HARDY P.B. 2001: Loss rates of butterfly species with urban development. A test of atlas data and sampling artefacts at a fine scale. Biodivers. Conserv. 10: 1831-1837 Go to original source...
    12. 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 Go to original source...
    13. DI MAURO D., DIETZ T. & ROCKWOOD L. 2007: Determining the effect of urbanization on generalist butterfly species diversity in butterfly gardens. Urban Ecosyst. 10: 427-439 Go to original source...
    14. 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: 413-418 Go to original source...
    15. EITSCHBERGER U. & STAMER P. 1990: Cacyreus marshalli Butler, 1898, eine neue Tagfalterart fuer die europaeische Fauna? (Lepidoptera, Lycaenidae). Atalanta 21: 101-108
    16. EYRE M.D., LUFF M.L. & WOODWARD J.C. 2004: Beetles (Coleoptera) on brownfield sites in England: An important conservation resource? J. Insect Conserv. 7: 223-231 Go to original source...
    17. FUCHS R., SKOPEK J., FORMANEK J. & EXNEROVA A. 2002: Atlas hnizdniho rozsireni ptaku Prahy [Atlas of Breeding Birds in Prague]. Ceska spolecnost ornitologicka, Praha, 317 pp. [in Czech]
    18. GASTON K.J., SMITH R.M., THOMPSON K. & WARREN P.H. 2005: Urban domestic gardens (II): experimental tests of methods for increasing biodiversity. Biodiv. Conserv. 14: 395-413 Go to original source...
    19. GUTIERREZ D. 2005: Effectiveness of existing reserves in the long-term protection of a regionally rare butterfly. Conserv. Biol. 19: 1586-1597 Go to original source...
    20. HARDY P.B. & DENNIS R.L.H. 1999: The impact of urban development within a city region. Biodiv. Conserv. 8: 1261-1279 Go to original source...
    21. HARRISON C. & DAVIES G. 2002: Conserving biodiversity that matters: practitioners' perspectives on brownfield development and urban nature conservation in London. J. Environ. Manag. 65: 95-108 Go to original source...
    22. HAWKINS B.A. & PORTER E.E. 2003: Does herbivore diversity depend on plant diversity? The case of California butterflies. Am. Nat. 161: 40-49 Go to original source...
    23. HOGSDEN K.L. & HUTCHINSON T.C. 2004: Butterfly assemblages along a human disturbance gradient in Ontario, Canada. Can. J. Zool. 82: 739-748 Go to original source...
    24. HOTTINGER H. 2002: Checklist und Rote Liste der Tagschmetterlinge der Stadt Wien (Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea und Hesperioidea). Beitr. Entomofaunistik 3: 103-123
    25. JAROSIK V., KONVICKA M., PYSEK P., KADLEC T. & BENES J. 2011: Conservation in a city: plant and butterfly richness of urban reserves in Prague. Biol. Conserv. 144: 490-499 Go to original source...
    26. KADLEC T., BENES J., JAROSIK V. & KONVICKA M. 2008: Revisiting urban refuges: changes of butterfly and burnet fauna in Prague reserves over three decades. Landscape Urban Plan. 85: 1-11 Go to original source...
    27. KADLEC T., VRBA P., KEPKA P., SCHNITT 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 Go to original source...
    28. KITAHARA M. & FUJII K. 1994: Biodiversity and community structure of temperate butterfly species within a gradient of human disturbance - and analysis based on the concept of generalist vs. specialist strategies. Res. Popul. Ecol. 36: 187-199 Go to original source...
    29. KNAPP S., KUHN I., MOSBRUGGER V. & KLOTZ S. 2008: Do protected areas in urban and rural landscapes differ in species diversity? Biodiv. Conserv. 17: 1595-1612 Go to original source...
    30. KOH L.P. & SODHI N.S. 2004: Importance of reserves, fragments, and parks for butterfly conservation in a tropical urban landscape. Ecol. Appl. 14: 1695-1708 Go to original source...
    31. KONVICKA M., BENES J., CIZEK O., KOPECEK F., KONVICKA O. & VITAZ L. 2008: How too much care kills species: grassland reserves, agrienvironmental schemes and extinction of Colias myrmidone (Lepidoptera: Pieridae) from its former stronghold. J. Insect Conserv. 12: 519-525 Go to original source...
    32. KUHN I., BRANDL R. & KLOTZ S. 2004: The flora of German cities is naturally species rich. Evol. Ecol. Res. 6: 749-764
    33. LASTUVKA Z. (ed.) 1998: Checklist of Lepidoptera of Czech and Slovac Republics. Konvoj, Brno, 118 pp. [in Czech]
    34. LEGENDRE P. 1993: Spatial autocorrelation - trouble or new paradigm? Ecology 74: 1659-1673 Go to original source...
    35. LUNDHOLM J.T. & RICHARDSON P.J. 2010: Habitat analogues for reconciliation ecology in urban and industrial environments. J. Appl. Ecol. 47: 966-975 Go to original source...
    36. MATTONI R., LONGCORE T., ZONNEVELD C. & NOVOTNY V. 2001: Analysis of transect counts to monitor population size in endangered insects: the case of the El Segundo blue butterfly, Euphilotes bernardino allyni. J. Insect Conserv. 5: 197-206 Go to original source...
    37. MCINTYRE N.E. 2000: Ecology of urban arthropods: A review and a call to action. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 93: 825-835 Go to original source...
    38. MILLER J.R. & HOBBS R.J. 2002: Conservation where people live and work. Conserv. Biol. 16: 330-337 Go to original source...
    39. NEMEC L. & LOZEK V. (eds) 1997: Protected Areas in the Czech Republic 2 Prague. Consult, Praha, 156 pp. [in Czech]
    40. OCKINGER E., DANNESTAM A. & SMITH H.G. 2009: The importance of fragmentation and habitat quality of urban grasslands for butterfly diversity. Landsc. Urban Plan. 93: 31-37 Go to original source...
    41. PADR Z. 1990: Studie vyskytu zahadlovych blanokridlych (Hymenoptera aculeata) na uzemi Prahy. [A Study about Occurrence of Aculeate Hymenoptera (Hymenoptera aculeate) at Boundary of Prague.] Natura Pragensis 7, Prague 179 pp
    42. PRETEL J. 1996: Climatic Study for Needs of Prague City Plan. Utvar rozvoje mesta hl. m. Prahy, Prague [in Czech]
    43. ROOT R.B. & CAPPUCINO N. 1992: Patterns in population change and the organization of the insect community associated with goldenrod. Ecol. Monogr. 62: 393-420 Go to original source...
    44. RUSZCZYK A. & DE ARAUJO A.M. 1992: Gradients in butterfly species diversity in an urban area in Brazil. J. Lepid. Soc. 46: 255-264
    45. SAARINEN K., VALTONEN A., JANTUNEN J. & SAARNIO S. 2005: Butterflies and diurnal moths along road verges: Does road type affect diversity and abundance? Biol. Conserv. 123: 403-412. Go to original source...
    46. SCHMIDT M.H., ROCKER S., HANAFI J. & GIGON A. 2009: Rotational fallows as overwintering habitat for grassland arthropods: the case of spiders in fen meadows. Biodiv. Conserv. 17: 3003-3012 Go to original source...
    47. SCHMITT T., VARGA Z. & SEITZ A. 2000: Forests as dispersal barriers for Erebia medusa (Nymphalidae, Lepidoptera). Basic Appl. Ecol. 1: 53-59 Go to original source...
    48. SHAPIRO A.M. 2002: The Californian urban butterfly fauna is dependent on alien plants. Divers. Distrib. 8: 31-40 Go to original source...
    49. SHAPIRO A.M. & SHAPIRO A.R. 1973: The ecological associations of the butterflies of Staten Island. J. Res. Lepid. 12: 65-128 Go to original source...
    50. SHOCHAT E., WARREN P.S., FAETH S.H., MCINTYRE N.E. & HOPE D. 2006: From patterns to emerging processes in mechanistic urban ecology. Trends Ecol. Evol. 21: 186-191 Go to original source...
    51. SNEP R.P.H., OPDAM P.F.M., BAVECO J.M., WALLISDE VRIES M.F., TIMMERMANS W., KWAK R.G.M. & KUYPERS V. 2006: How peri-urban areas can strengthen animal population within cities: A modelling approach. Biol. Conserv. 127: 345-355 Go to original source...
    52. SPARMBERG H. & BOESSNECK U. 2003: Die Schutzgebiete der Landeshauptstadt Erfurt (Thueringen) Teil IX: Flora und Fauna des GLB "Feuchtwiese Schwansee". VerGff. NaturkdMus. Erfurt 22: 91-113
    53. SPRYNAR M. & MAREK M. 2001: Flora of the Prague Protected Areas. Proceedings of the Conference "Praga 2000 Natura Megalopolis". EnviTypo, Prague, CD ROM. [in Czech]
    54. STRAKA U. 2004: Stadgaerten als Lebensraum fuer Tagfalter: Beobachtungen in einem Garten in Stockerau (Niederoesterreich) in der Jahren 1999-2003. Beitr. Entomofaunistik 5: 67-78
    55. STREJCEK J. 2001: Katalog brouku (Coleoptera) Prahy. [Catalogue of Beetles (Coleoptera) of Prague.] Vol. 2. Hlavni mesto Praha, Praha, 142 pp
    56. TAKAMI Y., KOSHIO C., ISHII M., FUJII H., HIDAKA T. & SHIMIZU I. 2004: Genetic diversity and structure of urban populations of Pieris butterflies assessed using amplified fragment length polymorphism. Mol. Ecol. 13: 245-258 Go to original source...
    57. TER BRAAK C.J.F. & SMILAUER P. 1998: CANOCO Reference Manual and User's Guide to Canoco for Windows. Software for Canonical Community Ordination (version 4). Centre for Biometry Wageningen (Wageningen, NL) and Microcomputer Power (Ithaca NY, USA), 352 pp
    58. 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 landscape. Proc. R. Soc. (B) 268: 1791-1796 Go to original source...
    59. TITEUX N., DUFRENE M., JACOB J.P., PAQUAY M. & DEFOURNY P. 2004: Multivariate analysis of a fine-scale breeding bird atlas using a geographical information system and partial canonical correspondence analysis, environmental and spatial effects. J. Biogeography 31: 1841-1856 Go to original source...
    60. TRAENKNER A. & NUSS M. 2005: Risk spreading in the voltinism of Scolitantides orion orion (Pallas, 1771) (Lycaenidae). Nota Lepidop. 28: 55-64
    61. TROPEK R., KADLEC T., KARESOVA P., SPITZER L., KOCAREK P., MALENOVSKY I., BANAR P., TUF I.H., HEJDA M. & KONVICKA M. 2010: Spontaneous succession in limestone quarries as an effective restoration tool for endangered arthropods and plants. J. Appl. Ecol. 47: 139-147 Go to original source...
    62. VALTONEN A., SAARINEN K. & JANTUNEN J. 2007: Intersection reservations as habitats for meadow butterflies and diurnal moths: Guidelines for planning and management. Landscape Urban Plan. 79: 201-209 Go to original source...
    63. VRABEC V., LASTUVKA Z., BENES J., SUMPICH J., KONVICKA M., FRIC Z., HRNCIR J., MATOUS J., MAREK S., KURAS T., HULA V. & HERMAN P. 2005: Lepidoptera. In Farkac J., Kral D. & SKORPIK M. (eds): List of Threatened Species in the Czech Republic. Invertebrates. AOPK, Prague, pp. 172-237 [in Czech]
    64. WALLISDEVRIES M.F. & VAN SWAAY C.A.M. 2006: Global warming and excess nitrogen may induce butterfly decline by microclimatic cooling. Glob. Change Biol. 12: 1620-1626 Go to original source...
    65. 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: 542-552 Go to original source...
    66. YAHNER R.H. 2001: Butterfly communities in residential landscapes of central Pennsylvania. Northeast. Nat. 8: 113-118 Go to original source...

    This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.


    Return to the content