Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Is the matrix important to butterflies in fragmented landscapes?

  • REVIEW PAPER
  • Published:
Journal of Insect Conservation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The quality and extent of the ‘matrix’ in terrestrial fragmented landscapes may influence the persistence and behaviour of patch-associated fauna. Butterflies are a popular target group for fragmentation studies and represent an ideal assemblage to explore the impact and role of the matrix in patchy landscapes. To date, there has been no attempt to synthesise available research and assess the extent to which the matrix is included in studies of fragmented butterfly populations. Addressing this issue is important for improved understanding of habitat use in fragmented landscapes, and for the successful management and conservation of butterfly biodiversity. Our systematic review of 100 empirical research papers spans 50 years, and identifies how (and indeed if) the matrix is recognised in studies of butterfly populations in fragmented landscapes. We found that it was significantly more likely for studies not to include the matrix in their experimental design. This is of particular concern given 60 % of papers that excluded the matrix in their research did so in systems where the matrix was expected to contain resources of value for patch-associated species (as it was either a heterogeneous landscape or had similar structure to patches). Of the papers that did consider the matrix, 80 % (n = 24) reported a negative effect of the matrix on butterfly species and/or communities. Matrix effects may influence the survival and persistence of faunal groups in a world increasingly dominated by fragmented habitats. Our review suggests that future research should clearly define the matrix, and incorporate it in appropriate experimental designs.

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

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Baguette M (2004) The classical metapopulation theory and the real, natural world: a critical appraisal. Basic Appl Ecol 5(3):213–224. doi:10.1016/j.baae.2004.03.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baguette M, Mennechez G, Petit S, Schtickzelle N (2003) Effect of habitat fragmentation on dispersal in the butterfly Proclossiana eunomia. C R Biol 326(Supplement 1):200–209. doi:10.1016/s1631-0691(03)00058-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Batary P, Koroesi A, Oervoessy N, Koever S, Peregovits L (2009) Species-specific distribution of two sympatric Maculinea butterflies across different meadow edges. J Insect Conserv 13:223–230

  • Barbaro L, van Halder I (2009) Linking bird, carabid beetle and butterfly life-history traits to habitat fragmentation in mosaic landscapes. Ecology 32:321–333

  • Baum KA, Haynes KJ, Dillemuth FP, Cronin JT (2004) The matrix enhances the effectiveness of corridors and stepping stones. Ecology 85(10):2671–2676. doi:10.1890/04-0500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bender DJ, Fahrig L (2005) Matrix structure obscures the relationship between interpatch movement and patch size and isolation. Ecology 86(4):1023–1033

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergerot B, Julliard R, Baguette M (2010) Metacommunity dynamics: decline of functional relationship along a habitat fragmentation gradient. PLoS One 5(6):e11294. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0011294

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bergman KO, Askling J, Ekberg O, Ignell H, Wahlman H, Milberg P (2004) Landscape effects on butterfly assemblages in an agricultural region. Ecography 27(5):619–628. doi:10.1111/j.0906-7590.2004.03906.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boggs CL (1992) Resource allocation: exploring connections between foraging and life history. Funct Ecol 6(5):508–518. doi:10.2307/2390047

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brady M, McAlpine C, Possingham H, Miller C, Baxter G (2011) Matrix is important for mammals in landscapes with small amounts of native forest habitat. Landsc Ecol 26(5):617–628. doi:10.1007/s10980-011-9602-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brueckmann SV, Krauss J, van Achterberg C, Steffan-Dewenter I (2010) The impact of habitat fragmentation on trophic interactions of the monophagous butterfly Polyommatus coridon. J Insect Conserv 15(5):707–714. doi:10.1007/s10841-010-9370-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bukovinszky T, Potting RPJ, Clough Y, van Lenteren JC, Vet LEM (2005) The role of pre- and post-alighting detection mechanisms in the responses to patch size by specialist herbivores. Oikos 109(3):435–446. doi:10.1111/j.0030-1299.2005.13707.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bunnell FL (1999) What habitat is an Island? In: Rochelle JA, Lehmann LA, Wisniewski J (eds) Forest wildlife and fragmentation management implications. Koninklijike Brill NV, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • Chardon JP, Adriaensen F, Matthysen E (2003) Incorporating landscape elements into a connectivity measure: a case study for the Speckled wood butterfly (Pararge aegeria L.). Landsc Ecol 18(6):561–573. doi:10.1023/a:1026062530600

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collinge SK (2009) Ecology of fragmented landscapes. John Hopkins University Press, Maryland

    Google Scholar 

  • Collinge SK, Prudic KL, Oliver JC (2003) Effects of local habitat characteristics and landscape context on grassland butterfly diversity. Conserv Biol 17(1):178–187. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.2003.01315.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cozzi G, Mueller CB, Krauss J (2008) How do local habitat management and landscape structure at different spatial scales affect fritillary butterfly distribution on fragmented wetlands? Landsc Ecol 23(3):269–283. doi:10.1007/s10980-007-9178-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crow TR, Gustafson EG (1997) Ecosystem management: managing natural resources in space and time. In: Kohm KA, Franklin JF (eds) Creating a forestry for the 21st century. Island Press, Covelo, pp 215–228

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis JD, Debinski DM, Danielson BJ (2007) Local and landscape effects on the butterfly community in fragmented Midwest USA prairie habitats. Landsc Ecol 22:1341–1354

  • Debinski DM, Holt RD (2000) A survey and overview of habitat fragmentation experiments (Sondeo y Revisión de Experimentos de Fragmentación de Hábitat). Conserv Biol 14(2):342–355. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.98081.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dennis RLH (2004) Butterfly habitats, broad-scale biotope affiliations, and structural exploitation of vegetation at finer scales: the matrix revisited. Ecol Entomol 29(6):744–752. doi:10.1111/j.0307-6946.2004.00646.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dennis RL (2012) A resource-based habitat view for conservation: butterflies in the British landscape. Wiley, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennis RLH, Shreeve TG, Dyck HV (2003) Towards a functional resource-based concept for habitat: a butterfly biology viewpoint. Oikos 102(2):417–426. doi:10.2307/3548046

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dennis RLH, Hodgson JG, Grenyer R, Shreeve TG, Roy DB (2004) Host plants and butterfly biology. Do host-plant strategies drive butterfly status? Ecol Entomol 29(1):12–26. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2311.2004.00572.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dennis RH, Shreeve T, Dyck H (2006) Habitats and resources: the need for a resource-based definition to conserve butterflies. Biodivers Conserv 15(6):1943–1966. doi:10.1007/s10531-005-4314-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dennis RH, Dapporto L, Dover J, Shreeve T (2013) Corridors and barriers in biodiversity conservation: a novel resource-based habitat perspective for butterflies. Biodivers Conserv 22(12):2709–2734. doi:10.1007/s10531-013-0540-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Didham RK, Ewers RM (2012) Predicting the impacts of edge effects in fragmented habitats: Laurance and Yensen’s core area model revisited. Biol Conserv 155:104–110. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2012.06.019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dover JW (1996) Factors affecting the distribution of satyrid butterflies on arable farmland. J Appl Ecol 33(4):723–734

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dover J, Settele J (2009) The influences of landscape structure on butterfly distribution and movement: a review. J Insect Conserv 13(1):3–27. doi:10.1007/s10841-008-9135-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Driscoll MJL, Donovan TM (2004) Landscape context moderates edge effects: nesting success of wood thrushes in central New York. Conserv Biol 18:1330–1338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Driscoll DA, Lindenmayer DB (2012) Framework to improve the application of theory in ecology and conservation. Ecol Monogr 82(1):129–147. doi:10.1890/11-0916.1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Driscoll DA, Banks SC, Barton PS, Lindenmayer DB, Smith AL (2013) Conceptual domain of the matrix in fragmented landscapes. Trends Ecol Evol 28(10):605–613

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fahrig L (2003) Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Ann Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:487–515

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falagas ME, Pitsouni EI, Malietzis GA, Pappas G (2008) Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, web of science, and Google scholar: strengths and weaknesses. FASEB J 22(2):338–342

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fiedler K, Maschwitz U (1989) The symbiosis between the weaver ant, Oecophylla smaragdina, and Anthene emolus, an obligate myrmecophilous lycaenid butterfly. J Nat Hist 23(4):833–846. doi:10.1080/00222938900770441

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer J, Lindenmayer DB, Fazey I (2004) Appreciating ecological complexity: habitat contours as a conceptual landscape model. Conserv Biol 18(5):1245–1253. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00263.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foley JA, DeFries R, Asner GP, Barford C, Bonan G, Carpenter SR, Chapin FS, Coe MT, Daily GC, Gibbs HK, Helkowski JH, Holloway T, Howard EA, Kucharik CJ, Monfreda C, Patz JA, Prentice IC, Ramankutty N, Snyder PK (2005) Global consequences of land use. Science 309(5734):570–574. doi:10.1126/science.1111772

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Forister ML, Gompert Z, Nice CC, Forister GW, Fordyce JA (2011) Ant association facilitates the evolution of diet breadth in a lycaenid butterfly. Proc R Soc B: Biol Sci 278(1711):1539–1547. doi:10.1098/rspb.2010.1959

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fowles AP, Smith RG (2006) Mapping the habitat quality of patch networks for the marsh fritillary Euphydryas aurinia (Rottemburg, 1775) (Lepidoptera, Nymphalidae) in Wales. J Insect Conserv 10:161–177

  • Franklin JF, Lindenmayer DB (2009) Importance of matrix habitats in maintaining biological diversity. Proc Nat Acad Sci 106(2):349–350. doi:10.1073/pnas.0812016105

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Franklin AB, Noon BR, George LT (2002) What is habitat fragmentation? Stud Avian Biol 25:20–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Franzén M, Ranius T (2004) Occurrence patterns of butterflies (Rhopalocera) in semi-natural pastures in southeastern Sweden. J Nat Conserv 12(2):121–135. doi:10.1016/j.jnc.2004.06.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gascon C, Lovejoy TE, Bierregaard RO Jr, Malcolm JR, Stouffer PC, Vasconcelos HL, Laurance WF, Zimmerman B, Tocher M, Borges S (1999) Matrix habitat and species richness in tropical forest remnants. Biol Conserv 91(2–3):223–229. doi:10.1016/s0006-3207(99)00080-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin BJ, Fahrig L (2002) How does landscape structure influence landscape connectivity? Oikos 99(3):552–570. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0706.2002.11824.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray JS (1997) Marine biodiversity: patterns, threats and conservation needs. Biodivers Conserv 6(1):153–175. doi:10.1023/a:1018335901847

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gutierrez D, Thomas CD, Leon-Cortes JL (1999) Dispersal, distribution, patch network and metapopulation dynamics of the dingy skipper butterfly (Erynnis tages). Oecologia 121(4):506–517. doi:10.1007/s004420050957

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall LS, Krausman PR, Morrison ML (1997) The habitat concept and a plea for standard terminology. Wildl Soc Bull 25(1):173–182. doi:10.2307/3783301

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrisson K, Pavlova A, Amos J, Takeuchi N, Lill A, Radford J, Sunnucks P (2012) Fine-scale effects of habitat loss and fragmentation despite large-scale gene flow for some regionally declining woodland bird species. Landsc Ecol 27(6):813–827. doi:10.1007/s10980-012-9743-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hudgens BR, Haddad NM (2003) Predicting which species will benefit from corridors in fragmented landscapes from population growth models. Am Nat 161(5):808–820. doi:10.1086/374343

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jauker F, Diekötter T, Schwarzbach F, Wolters V (2009) Pollinator dispersal in an agricultural matrix: opposing responses of wild bees and hoverflies to landscape structure and distance from main habitat. Landsc Ecol 24(4):547–555. doi:10.1007/s10980-009-9331-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jorge SM (1992) Island biogeography and conservation practice. Conserv Biol 6(2):161. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.1992.620161.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jules ES, Shahani P (2003) A broader ecological context to habitat fragmentation: why matrix habitat is more important than we thought. J Veg Sci 14(3):459–464. doi:10.1111/j.1654-1103.2003.tb02172.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy CM, Marra PP, Fagan WF, Neel MC (2010) Landscape matrix and species traits mediate responses of Neotropical resident birds to forest fragmentation in Jamaica. Ecol Monogr 80(4):651–669

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kingsolver JG, Woods HA, Buckley LB, Potter KA, MacLean HJ, Higgins JK (2011) Complex life cycles and the responses of insects to climate change. Integr Comp Biol 51(5):719–732. doi:10.1093/icb/icr015

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Krauss J, Steffan-Dewenter I, Tscharntke T (2003) How does landscape context contribute to effects of habitat fragmentation on diversity and population density of butterflies? J Biogeogr 30(6):889–900. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2699.2003.00878.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krauss J, Schmitt T, Seitz A, Steffan-Dewenter I, Tscharntke T (2004) Effects of habitat fragmentation on the genetic structure of the monophagous butterfly Polyommatus coridon along its northern range margin. Mol Ecol 13(2):311–320. doi:10.1046/j.1365-294X.2003.02072.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Krauss J, Steffan-Dewenter I, Muller CB, 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 

  • Kremen C (1994) Biological inventory using target taxa: a case study of the butterflies of Madagascar. Ecol Appl 4(3):407–422

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuefler D, Hudgens B, Haddad NM, Morris WF, Thurgate N (2010) The conflicting role of matrix habitats as conduits and barriers for dispersal. Ecology 91(4):944–950. doi:10.1890/09-0614.1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar S, Simonson SE, Stohlgren TJ (2009) Effects of spatial heterogeneity on butterfly species richness in Rocky Mountain National Park, CO, USA. Biodivers Conserv 18:739–763

  • Kupfer JA, Malanson GP, Franklin SB (2006) Not seeing the ocean for the islands: the mediating influence of matrix-based processes on forest fragmentation effects. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 15(1):8–20. doi:10.1111/j.1466-822X.2006.00204.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leidner AK, Haddad NM (2010) Natural, not urban, barriers define population structure for a coastal endemic butterfly. Conserv Genet 11(6):2311–2320. doi:10.1007/s10592-010-0117-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindenmayer DB, Fischer J (2006) Habitat fragmentation and landscape change: an ecological and conservation synthesis. CSIRO Publishing, Canberra

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindenmayer DB, Franklin JF (2002) Conserving forest biodiversity: a comprehensive multiscaled approach. Island Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindenmayer DB, Wood JT, Cunningham RB, Crane M, Macgregor C, Michael D, Montague-Drake R (2009) Experimental evidence of the effects of a changed matrix on conserving biodiversity within patches of native forest in an industrial plantation landscape. Landsc Ecol 24(8):1091–1103. doi:10.1007/s10980-008-9244-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lomov B, Keith DA, Britton DR, Hochuli DF (2006) Are butterflies and moths useful indicators for restoration monitoring? A pilot study in Sydney’s Cumberland Plain Woodland. Ecol Manag Restor 7(3):204–210. doi:10.1111/j.1442-8903.2006.00310.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marin L, Leon-Cortes JL, Stefanescu C (2009) The effect of an agro-pasture landscape on diversity and migration patterns of frugivorous butterflies in Chiapas, Mexico. Biodivers Conserv 18:919–934

  • Moran NA (1994) Adaptation and constraint in the complex life cycles of animals. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 25 (ArticleType: research-article/Full publication date: 1994/Copyright© 1994 Annual Reviews):573–600. doi:10.2307/2097325

  • Muriel SB, Kattan GH (2009) Effects of patch size and type of coffee matrix on ithomiine butterfly diversity and dispersal in cloud-forest fragments. Conserv Biol 23(4):948–956. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01213.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nowicki P, Pepkowska A, Kudlek J, Skorka 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

  • Ockinger E, Smith HG (2006) Landscape composition and habitat area affects butterfly species richness in semi-natural grasslands. Oecologia 149(3):526–534. doi:10.1007/s00442-006-0464-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Öckinger E, Van Dyck H (2012) Landscape structure shapes habitat finding ability in a butterfly. PLoS One 7(8):e41517. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0041517

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Öckinger E, Schweiger O, Crist TO, Debinski DM, Krauss J, Kuussaari M, Petersen JD, Pöyry J, Settele J, Summerville KS, Bommarco R (2010) Life-history traits predict species responses to habitat area and isolation: a cross-continental synthesis. Ecol Lett 13(8):969–979. doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2010.01487.x

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Payne RW, Harding SA, Murray DA, Soutar DM, Baird DB, Glaser AI, Welham SJ, Gilmour AR, Thompson R, Webster R (2011) GenStat Release 14. VSN International, Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire HP1 1ES, UK

  • Pearson SM, Turner MG, Gardner RH, O’Neill RV (1996) An organism-based perspective of habitat fragmentation. In: Szaro RC, Johnston DW (eds) Principles of biodiversity. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 77–95

    Google Scholar 

  • Prevedello J, Vieira M (2010) Does the type of matrix matter? A quantitative review of the evidence. Biodivers Conserv 19(5):1205–1223. doi:10.1007/s10531-009-9750-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prudic KL, Khera S, Solyom A, Timmermann BN (2007) Isolation, identification, and quantification of potential defensive compounds in the viceroy butterfly and its larval host-plant, Carolina willow. J Chem Ecol 33(6):1149–1159. doi:10.1007/s10886-007-9282-5

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Revilla E, Wiegand T, Palomares F, Ferreras P, Delibes M (2004) Effects of matrix heterogeneity on animal dispersal: from individual behavior to metapopulation-level parameters. Am Nat 164(5):E130–E153. doi:10.1086/424767

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ribeiro DB, Prado PI, Brown KS Jr, Freitas AVL (2008) Additive partitioning of butterfly diversity in a fragmented landscape: importance of scale and implications for conservation. Divers Distrib 14(6):961–968. doi:10.1111/j.1472-4642.2008.00505.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ricketts TH (2001) The matrix matters: effective isolation in fragmented landscapes. Am Nat 158(1):87–99

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rickman JK, Connor EF (2003) The effect of urbanization on the quality of remnant habitats for leaf-mining lepidoptera on Quercus agrifolia. Ecography 26(6):777–787

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ries L, Debinski DM (2001) Butterfly responses to habitat edges in the highly fragmented prairies of Central Iowa. J Anim Ecol 70(5):840–852. doi:10.1046/j.0021-8790.2001.00546.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ries L, Sisk TD (2008) Butterfly edge effects are predicted by a simple model in a complex landscape. Oecologia 156:75–86

  • Ries L, Sisk TD (2010) What is an edge species? The implications of sensitivity to habitat edges. Oikos 119(10):1636–1642. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0706.2010.18414.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodrigues D, Kaminski L, Freitas AL, Oliveira P (2010) Trade-offs underlying polyphagy in a facultative ant-tended florivorous butterfly: the role of host plant quality and enemy-free space. Oecologia 163(3):719–728. doi:10.1007/s00442-010-1626-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Roland J, Keyghobadi N, Fownes S (2000) Alpine Parnassius butterfly dispersal: effects of landscape and population size. Ecology 81(6):1642–1653

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosin ZM, Skorka P, Lenda M, Moron D, Sparks TH, 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 108:99–106

  • Ross JA, Matter SF, Roland J (2005a) Edge avoidance and movement of the butterfly Parnassius smintheus in matrix and non-matrix habitat. Landsc Ecol 20(2):127–135. doi:10.1007/s10980-004-1010-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross JA, Matter SF, Roland J (2005b) Edge avoidance and movement of the butterfly Parnassius smintheus in matrix and non-matrix habitat. Landsc Ecol 20(2):127–135. doi:10.1007/s10980-004-1010-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saunders DA, Hobbs RJ, Margules CR (1991) Biological consequences of ecosystem fragmentation: a review. Conserv Biol 5(1):18–32. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.1991.tb00384.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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(4):533–545. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2656.2003.00723.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schtickzelle N, Mennechez G, Baguette M (2006) Dispersal depression with habitat fragmentation in the bog fritillary butterfly. Ecology 87(4):1057–1065

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schwab AC, Zandbergen PA (2011) Vehicle-related mortality and road crossing behavior of the Florida panther. Appl Geogr 31(2):859–870. doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2010.10.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simberloff DS, Abele LG (1976) Island biogeography theory and conservation practice. Science 191(4224):285–286

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stasek DJ, Bean C, Crist TO (2008) Butterfly abundance and movements among prairie patches: the roles of habitat quality, edge, and forest matrix permeability. Environ Entomol 37(4):897–906. doi:10.1603/0046-225x(2008)37[897:baamap]2.0.co;2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Steffan-Dewenter I, Tscharntke T (2002) Insect communities and biotic interactions on fragmented calcareous grasslands: a mini review. Biol Conserv 104(3):275–284. doi:10.1016/s0006-3207(01)00192-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Summerville KS, Crist TO (2001) Effects of experimental habitat fragmentation on patch use by butterflies and skippers (Lepidoptera). Ecology 82(5):1360–1370. doi:10.1890/0012-9658(2001)082[1360:EOEHFO]2.0.CO;2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tscharntke T, Steffan-Dewenter I, Kruess A, Thies C (2002) Contribution of small habitat fragments to conservation of insect communities of grassland-cropland landscapes. Ecol Appl 12:354–363

  • Turner MG (2005) Landscape ecology: what is the state of the science? Annual review of ecology, evolution, and systematics 36 (ArticleType: research-article/Full publication date: 2005/Copyright© 2005 Annual Reviews):319–344. doi:10.2307/30033807

  • van Halder I, Barbaro L, Corcket E, Jactel H (2008) Importance of semi-natural habitats for the conservation of butterfly communities in landscapes dominated by pine plantations. Biodivers Conserv 17(5):1149–1169. doi:10.1007/s10531-007-9264-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Halder I, Barbaro L, Jactel H (2011) Conserving butterflies in fragmented plantation forests: are edge and interior habitats equally important? J Insect Conserv 15:591–601

  • Vandermeer J, Carvajal R (2001) Metapopulation dynamics and the quality of the matrix. Am Nat 158(3):211–220

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Warren M, Bourn N (2011) Ten challenges for 2010 and beyond to conserve Lepidoptera in Europe. J Insect Conserv 15(1):321–326. doi:10.1007/s10841-010-9356-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiss SB, Murphy DD, White RR (1988) Sun, slope, and butterflies: topographic determinants of habitat quality for Euphydryas editha. Ecology 69(5):1486–1496. doi:10.2307/1941646

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wettstein W, Schmid B (1999) Conservation of arthropod diversity in montane wetlands: effect of altitude, habitat quality and habitat fragmentation on butterflies and grasshoppers. J Appl Ecol 36(3):363–373. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2664.1999.00404.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood PA, Samways MJ (1991) Landscape element pattern and continuity of butterfly flight paths in an ecologically landscaped botanical garden, Natat, South-Africa. Biol Conserv 58:149–166

  • Yamaura Y, Kawahara T, Iida S, Ozaki K (2008) Relative importance of the area and shape of patches to the diversity of multiple taxa. Conserv Biol 22(6):1513–1522. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.01024.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zschokke S, Dolt C, Rusterholz HP, Oggier P, Braschler B, Thommen GH, Ludin E, Erhardt A, Baur B (2000) Short-term responses of plants and invertebrates to experimental small-scale grassland fragmentation. Oecologia 125:559–572

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. ARC Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions, The NERP Environmental Decisions Hub, Fenner School of Environment and Society, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, 0200, Australia

    Nici Sweaney, David B. Lindenmayer & Don A. Driscoll

Authors
  1. Nici Sweaney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David B. Lindenmayer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Don A. Driscoll
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nici Sweaney.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 90 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sweaney, N., Lindenmayer, D.B. & Driscoll, D.A. Is the matrix important to butterflies in fragmented landscapes?. J Insect Conserv 18, 283–294 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-014-9641-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-014-9641-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation