Limits...
The dual role of rivers in facilitating or hindering movements of the false heath fritillary butterfly.

Fabritius H, Rönkä K, Ovaskainen O - Mov Ecol (2015)

Bottom Line: The riparian population of the false heath fritillary did not show major differences to reference populations in terms of movement parameters within breeding habitat, high-quality matrix and low-quality matrix.An artificial riparian landscape mimicking those of the coastal distribution resulted into more directional, longitudinal movements both parallel and perpendicular to the river than a more mosaic-like landscape, but the existence of the river in the landscape reduced movements across the river.As such, they can be used to compare movement parameters across populations, to study the effects of management interventions to endangered species and to identify areas that have high sensitivity to individual movement.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Biosciences, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 65 (Viikinkaari 1), FI-00014 Helsinki, Finland.

ABSTRACT

Background: Species movement responses to landscape structures have been studied using a variety of methods, but movement research is still in need of simple methods that help predicting and comparing movements across structurally different landscapes. We demonstrate how habitat-specific movement models can be used to disentangle causes of differentiated movement patterns in structurally different landscapes and to predict movement patterns in altered and artificial landscapes. In our case study, we studied the role of riparian landscapes to the persistence of the endangered false heath fritillary butterfly (Melitaea diamina) in its newly discovered coastal distribution region in Finland. We compared the movement parameters of the riparian population to two reference populations by using capture-recapture data and habitat-specific diffusion modelling, and analysed the role of the river and riverbank buffer zones in facilitating or hindering false heath fritillary movement with movement simulations.

Results: The riparian population of the false heath fritillary did not show major differences to reference populations in terms of movement parameters within breeding habitat, high-quality matrix and low-quality matrix. However, movement simulations showed that the habitat-specific movement parameters estimated for the false heath fritillary can lead into markedly different movement patterns in structurally different landscapes. An artificial riparian landscape mimicking those of the coastal distribution resulted into more directional, longitudinal movements both parallel and perpendicular to the river than a more mosaic-like landscape, but the existence of the river in the landscape reduced movements across the river.

Conclusions: Our study demonstrates how habitat-specific movement models enable comparisons of movement patterns across structurally different real, altered and artificial landscapes. As such, they can be used to compare movement parameters across populations, to study the effects of management interventions to endangered species and to identify areas that have high sensitivity to individual movement. In our case study, the river is shown to perform a dual role for the movements of the riparian false heath fritillary population. Whereas the river acts as a moderate movement barrier for the false heath fritillary, the longitudinal configuration of riverbank habitats provides a means especially for the male false heath fritillaries to move across the landscape.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

False heath fritillary distribution in Finland and the landscape maps of the study areas. The currently known distribution of the false heath fritillary in Finland is shown by the black dots in the main map. The landscape maps show the reference study areas REF1 (located in Siitama; A) and REF2 (Sorila; B) and the RIPARIAN study area (Merikarvia; C) on the same scale. We classified the landscapes into low-quality matrix (dark grey), high-quality matrix (light grey), breeding habitat (white) and the Merikarvia River (black). Lines in the low-and high-quality matrices depict boundaries of search areas.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4940950&req=5

Fig1: False heath fritillary distribution in Finland and the landscape maps of the study areas. The currently known distribution of the false heath fritillary in Finland is shown by the black dots in the main map. The landscape maps show the reference study areas REF1 (located in Siitama; A) and REF2 (Sorila; B) and the RIPARIAN study area (Merikarvia; C) on the same scale. We classified the landscapes into low-quality matrix (dark grey), high-quality matrix (light grey), breeding habitat (white) and the Merikarvia River (black). Lines in the low-and high-quality matrices depict boundaries of search areas.

Mentions: The aim of our case study was to find out whether the structural configuration of riparian landscapes could be a key factor that explains the persistence of the endangered false heath fritillary butterfly Melitaea diamina (Lang, 1789) in its newly discovered coastal distribution region in Finland. The false heath fritillary is a moist meadow specialist that has, like many butterfly species, suffered from agricultural modernization and drainage of moist soils within the recent decades [53]. In Finland, sightings of the false heath fritillary have been made lately only in two distinctive regions of a narrow geographical range (Figure 1). The inland population has been subjected to various conservation measures, whereas the distribution along the West Coast of Finland was only properly revealed by a monitoring project in 2009–2012. It has remained unclear what has provided the means of persistence for the species at its newly discovered distribution.Figure 1


The dual role of rivers in facilitating or hindering movements of the false heath fritillary butterfly.

Fabritius H, Rönkä K, Ovaskainen O - Mov Ecol (2015)

False heath fritillary distribution in Finland and the landscape maps of the study areas. The currently known distribution of the false heath fritillary in Finland is shown by the black dots in the main map. The landscape maps show the reference study areas REF1 (located in Siitama; A) and REF2 (Sorila; B) and the RIPARIAN study area (Merikarvia; C) on the same scale. We classified the landscapes into low-quality matrix (dark grey), high-quality matrix (light grey), breeding habitat (white) and the Merikarvia River (black). Lines in the low-and high-quality matrices depict boundaries of search areas.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4940950&req=5

Fig1: False heath fritillary distribution in Finland and the landscape maps of the study areas. The currently known distribution of the false heath fritillary in Finland is shown by the black dots in the main map. The landscape maps show the reference study areas REF1 (located in Siitama; A) and REF2 (Sorila; B) and the RIPARIAN study area (Merikarvia; C) on the same scale. We classified the landscapes into low-quality matrix (dark grey), high-quality matrix (light grey), breeding habitat (white) and the Merikarvia River (black). Lines in the low-and high-quality matrices depict boundaries of search areas.
Mentions: The aim of our case study was to find out whether the structural configuration of riparian landscapes could be a key factor that explains the persistence of the endangered false heath fritillary butterfly Melitaea diamina (Lang, 1789) in its newly discovered coastal distribution region in Finland. The false heath fritillary is a moist meadow specialist that has, like many butterfly species, suffered from agricultural modernization and drainage of moist soils within the recent decades [53]. In Finland, sightings of the false heath fritillary have been made lately only in two distinctive regions of a narrow geographical range (Figure 1). The inland population has been subjected to various conservation measures, whereas the distribution along the West Coast of Finland was only properly revealed by a monitoring project in 2009–2012. It has remained unclear what has provided the means of persistence for the species at its newly discovered distribution.Figure 1

Bottom Line: The riparian population of the false heath fritillary did not show major differences to reference populations in terms of movement parameters within breeding habitat, high-quality matrix and low-quality matrix.An artificial riparian landscape mimicking those of the coastal distribution resulted into more directional, longitudinal movements both parallel and perpendicular to the river than a more mosaic-like landscape, but the existence of the river in the landscape reduced movements across the river.As such, they can be used to compare movement parameters across populations, to study the effects of management interventions to endangered species and to identify areas that have high sensitivity to individual movement.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Biosciences, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 65 (Viikinkaari 1), FI-00014 Helsinki, Finland.

ABSTRACT

Background: Species movement responses to landscape structures have been studied using a variety of methods, but movement research is still in need of simple methods that help predicting and comparing movements across structurally different landscapes. We demonstrate how habitat-specific movement models can be used to disentangle causes of differentiated movement patterns in structurally different landscapes and to predict movement patterns in altered and artificial landscapes. In our case study, we studied the role of riparian landscapes to the persistence of the endangered false heath fritillary butterfly (Melitaea diamina) in its newly discovered coastal distribution region in Finland. We compared the movement parameters of the riparian population to two reference populations by using capture-recapture data and habitat-specific diffusion modelling, and analysed the role of the river and riverbank buffer zones in facilitating or hindering false heath fritillary movement with movement simulations.

Results: The riparian population of the false heath fritillary did not show major differences to reference populations in terms of movement parameters within breeding habitat, high-quality matrix and low-quality matrix. However, movement simulations showed that the habitat-specific movement parameters estimated for the false heath fritillary can lead into markedly different movement patterns in structurally different landscapes. An artificial riparian landscape mimicking those of the coastal distribution resulted into more directional, longitudinal movements both parallel and perpendicular to the river than a more mosaic-like landscape, but the existence of the river in the landscape reduced movements across the river.

Conclusions: Our study demonstrates how habitat-specific movement models enable comparisons of movement patterns across structurally different real, altered and artificial landscapes. As such, they can be used to compare movement parameters across populations, to study the effects of management interventions to endangered species and to identify areas that have high sensitivity to individual movement. In our case study, the river is shown to perform a dual role for the movements of the riparian false heath fritillary population. Whereas the river acts as a moderate movement barrier for the false heath fritillary, the longitudinal configuration of riverbank habitats provides a means especially for the male false heath fritillaries to move across the landscape.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus