4.2 Article

Land-use, environment, and their impact on butterfly populations in a mountainous pastoral landscape: individual species distribution and abundance

期刊

JOURNAL OF INSECT CONSERVATION
卷 15, 期 1-2, 页码 207-220

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10841-010-9338-7

关键词

Hay; Grazing; Management; Abandoned; Grassland; Prime butterfly area; High nature value farmland; Land-use

资金

  1. Earthwatch Institute
  2. Natural Environment Research Council [CEH010021] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Butterflies were studied, at the species level, in 47 mountain meadows in a 1.5 x 1.6 km study area in the Picos de Europa National Park, Spain. Butterfly transects were carried out on nine occasions in June and July 2004 and the summed data used in binary logistic and stepwise multiple regression analyses using 28 biotic and abiotic parameters. Models were created for 37 species in total: 24 using logistic regression and 24 with multiple regression; models from both approaches were obtained for 11 species. Abiotic factors dominated many analyses with factors such as proximity to water, aspect and altitude being prominent. Abiotic factors may reflect acceptable minimum conditions for presence of a species and interact with biotic factors to determine habitat quality. Classification of the meadows as either under hay or summer grazing management, or 'winter grazing or abandoned' was not particularly revealing probably due to inherent variability in management intensity within meadows and degree of abandonment. Features that reflected management influences, lack of management, disturbance, and sward condition featured in many analyses. Whilst many meadows are still actively managed, features that can be related to abandonment are evident for many species. The early stages of relaxation of management intensity can be positive for butterflies, but if management is not restored losses are likely as succession proceeds. The implications of this are briefly discussed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据