Within-patch mobility and flight morphology reflect resource use and dispersal potential in the dryad butterfly Minois dryas

Abstract

Knowledge of mobility is essential for understanding animal habitat use and dispersal potential, especially in the case of species occurring in fragmented habitats. We compared within-patch movement distances, turning angles, resting times, and flight-related morphological traits in the locally endangered butterfly, the dryad (Minois dryas), between its old populations occupying xerothermic grasslands and newly established ones in wet meadows. We expected that the latter group should be more mobile. Individuals living in both habitat types did not differ in their body mass and size, but those from xerothermic grasslands had wider thoraxes and longer wings, thus lower wing loading index (defined as body mass to wing length ratio). The majority of movements were short and did not exceed 10 m. Movement distances were significantly larger in males. However, there was no direct effect of habitat type on movement distances. Our results suggest that the dryads from xerothermic grasslands have better flight capabilities, whereas those from wet meadows are likely to invest more in reproduction. This implies that mobility is shaped by resource availability rather than by recent evolutionary history. Lower female mobility may have negative implications for the metapopulation persistence because only mated females are able to (re)colonise vacant habitat patches efficiently. Conservation efforts should thus be focused on maintaining large habitat patches that prevent stochastic local extinctions. Furthermore, the recommendation of promoting the exchange of individuals among patches through improving matrix permeability, as well as assisted reintroductions of the species into suitable vacant habitats should also improve its conservation.

Specialized or opportunistic—how does the high mountain endemic butterfly Erebia nivalis survive in its extreme habitats?

“…The few studies existing revealed that protandrous structures being highly favorable under normal environmental conditions might become problematic for the survival of populations under highly unpredictable weather conditions (Junker et al ., ). Furthermore, flight activity necessary for males for the search for females and for females for the search for vacant habitat patches (Wiklund & Åhrberg, ; Baguette & Nève, ; Auckland et al ., ; Dover & Rowlingson, ; Nowicki & Vrabec, ; Slamova et al ., ; Zimmermann et al ., ; Kalarus et al ., ; Weyer & Schmitt, ) might considerably reduce their life expectance, thus representing a strong trade‐off in high mountain ecosystems (Junker et al ., ). However, some ecophysiological traits, at the first view, may appear contradictory.…”

Mobility affects copulation and oviposition dynamics in Pieris brassicae in seminatural cages

“…Our results may also reflect the fact that mobility, which is an accurate predictor of movements in seminatural settings (Ducatez et al ., ), may help find mates more rapidly, be detected more easily or can be used as a cue for sexual selection (Husak & Fox, ; Kalarus et al ., ). In a previous study, virgin females of Pararge aegeria were flying more often and therefore were detected by males more often (Bergman et al ., ).…”

Sexual dimorphism in the alpine butterfliesBoloria palesandBoloria napaea: differences in movement and foraging behavior (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae)

“…As observed for both Boloria species as well as for other butterfly species (Zimmermann et al ., ; Zimmermann et al ., ; Slamova et al ., ; Kalarus et al ., ; Weyer & Schmitt, ), males were more flight‐active than females, which were mainly captured resting or feeding. These differences in flight activity might cause the sexual dimorphisms in nectar source selection observed in our study, driven by differential nutritional needs.…”

“…Differences between the sexes in other behavioral patterns may however exist. For example, sometimes male and female individuals of one species differ in their dispersal behavior (Zimmermann et al, 2011;Kalarus et al, 2013;Weyer & Schmitt, 2013) or in their preferences for specific nectar sources (Rusterholz & Erhardt, 2000).…”