Diurnal Behavior and Habitat Preferences of Erebia aethiops, an Aberrant Lowland Species of a Mountain Butterfly Clade

More complex than expected: Cold hardiness and the concentration of cryoprotectants in overwintering larvae of five Erebia butterflies (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae)

“…Two beetle species, Dendroides canadensis Latreille, 1810 (Pyrochroidae) (Horwath & Duman, 1984) and Cucujus clavipes Fabricius, 1781 (Cucujidae) (Kukal & Duman, 1989) may adapt their cold hardiness strategies along a latitudinal gradient, or according to acclimation conditions (Sformo et al, 2010). In the case of E. aethiops, this species' range includes warm nonalpine habitats, such as piedmont forest steppes and lowland wooded savannas (Franco et al, 2006;Slamova et al, 2011), as well as mountain forests openings and grasslands (Sonderegger, 2005). In diverse areas such as the Alps, such contrasting habitats may well occur within an individual female's dispersal range (cf.…”

Resource use in two contrasting habitat types raises different challenges for the conservation of the dryad butterfly Minois dryas

“…For these insects, habitats are determined not only by the presence of foodplants and nectar plants, but also by the microclimate and vegetation structure, which provides crucial components such as resting, roosting, mate-location and oviposition places, as well as shelter from wind and refuge or escape from predators (Sparks and Parish 1995;Shreeve et al 2001;Konvicka et al 2002;Hardy and Dennis 2007;Slamova et al 2011). Thus, for the successful conservation of an endangered species, knowledge of the crucial habitat components as well as the species biology is essential Turlure et al 2009).…”

Resource use by the dryad butterfly is scale‐dependent

“…Studies on resource use or habitat use by animals can be carried out on the habitat patch scale (e.g., Cobbold and Supp 2012;Strausz et al 2012;Wajnberg et al 2013;Ginane et al 2015), landscape scale (Cozzi et al 2008;Bergerot et al 2011) or the much larger scale of the distribution range of a species (Hughes et al 2003;Lindman et al 2015). These different scales require the use of various methods, such as observation of individual behavior (Slamova et al 2011), transect counts (Kalarus and Nowicki 2015), mark-recapture (Schneider et al 2003;Akeboshi et al 2015), GPS positioning (Calenge et al 2009) or mathematical modelling (Wajnberg et al 2013). In the landscape approach, many matrices reflecting landscape heterogeneity, landscape fragmentation and landscape connectivity can be employed (Símová and Gdulová 2012).…”

“…We stress the value of large-scale studies on species' habitat preferences when planning conservation strategies, while pointing out Gronostajowa 7,Poland preferences to the population and metapopulation levels, and further to the drivers of a species distribution range. The factors behind resource use vary with the habitat type or studied fraction of it, and they are influenced by random parameters such as weather or the time of day (Dennis and Sparks 2006;Slamova et al 2011;Wajnberg et al 2013;Botham et al 2015). The probability of detecting these drivers also depend on the statistical methods and approaches applied (Schippers et al 2015;Boyce et al 2016).…”

“…On the other hand, patch-scale research reveals these specific individual preferences and can help in the planning of local conservation measures for endangered species in focal habitat patches, while leaving one in the dark about the drivers of metapopulation dynamics (cf. Dennis and Sparks 2006;Slamova et al 2011). In extreme cases, even good conservation work on the patch scale may not prevent the extinction of local populations due to obstruction of dispersal processes or declining genetic variation (Driscoll et al 2013).…”