Geology Reports⌕ Search
Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · 70032999

Resource availability, matrix quality, microclimate, and spatial pattern as predictors of patch use by the Karner blue butterfly

R. Grundel·N.B. Pavlovic
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Determination of which aspects of habitat quality and habitat spatial arrangement best account for variation in a species’ distribution can guide management for organisms such as the Karner blue butterfly ( Lycaeides melissa samuelis ), a federally endangered subspecies inhabiting savannas of Midwest and Eastern United States. We examined the extent to which three sets of predictors, (1) larval host plant ( Lupinus perennis , wild lupine) availability, (2) characteristics of the matrix surrounding host plant patches, and (3) factors affecting a patch’s thermal environment, accounted for variation in lupine patch use by Karner blues at Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, Indiana and Fort McCoy, Wisconsin, USA. Each predictor set accounted for 7–13% of variation in patch occupancy by Karner blues at both sites and in larval feeding activity among patches at Indiana Dunes. Patch area, an indicator of host plant availability, was an exception, accounting for 30% of variation in patch occupancy at Indiana Dunes. Spatially structured patterns of patch use across the landscape accounted for 9–16% of variation in patch use and explained more variation in larval feeding activity than did spatial autocorrelation between neighboring patches. Because of this broader spatial trend across sites, a given management action may be more effective in promoting patch use in some portions of the landscape than in others. Spatial trend, resource availability, matrix quality, and microclimate, in general, accounted for similar amounts of variation in patch use and each should be incorporated into habitat management planning for the Karner blue butterfly.

Explore related subjects

Biological ConservationArticle

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

R. Grundel, N.B. Pavlovic. 2007. Resource availability, matrix quality, microclimate, and spatial pattern as predictors of patch use by the Karner blue butterfly. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2006.10.003

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2026

Biome-scale spatial patterns of avian abundance reveal proactive conservation opportunities in North American grasslands

North American grassland birds have experienced steeper population declines than any other avian guild, yet conservation efforts remain largely reactive and fragmented. We used nearly four decades of North American Breeding Bird Survey data to identify biome-scale spatial patterns (clustering) of grassland bird abundance for the Great Plains. Our results reveal an ecological core in the north-central Plains where community-level abundance is either increasing by >100% or remains high and stable, providing a strategic roadmap for a “Defend the Core” conservation approach. This approach flips the script from reactive triage centered on isolated population fragments to a proactive strategy of maintaining large-scale ecosystem integrity. Conversely, we found that population losses are more spatially clustered than wins, reflecting the relentless, one-way movement of woody encroachment and agricultural conversion. This asymmetry supports prioritizing intact landscapes, as current restoration rates are often outpaced by the scale of habitat loss. Notably, we found that community-level spatial clustering is a more robust indicator of biome condition than trends of individual flagship species, suggesting that managing for ecosystem integrity provides a more effective multi-species umbrella. Given our results, there is an opportunity for operationalizing a Great Plains Conservation Design that is ecosystem-centric and rooted in the sustainability of the private-land cattle production that maintains these open spaces. By leveraging avian abundance as a biological sensor, managers and producers can deploy a shared vision that matches the spatial scale of the threats, moving from reactive triage to proactive defense of core working grasslands in North America.

Great Plains biome↗
USGS2026

Long lives, short futures: Freshwater turtle and tortoise imports to the United States highlight global trade and conservation challenges

Global trade of freshwater turtles and tortoises presents substantial conservation, biosecurity, and regulatory challenges, particularly for long-lived species that are already highly imperiled. While the United States has historically played a key role in supplying the international chelonian trade, investigations into its role as an importer remain limited. We used import data from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Law Enforcement Management Information System (LEMIS) between 2000 and 2022 to evaluate the trade of freshwater turtles and tortoises. Over 2.5 million individuals were imported into the United States during this period, comprising 172 species that are likely imported for the pet trade, food, and traditional medicine markets. Reported annual imports for freshwater turtles increased until approximately 2013 and decreased thereafter, whereas reported annual imports for tortoises have remained relatively constant. Two species, Chinese softshell turtles ( Pelodiscus sinensis ) and Horsfield's tortoises ( Testudo horsfieldii ) represent 62.9% of all imports. Imported species were largely classified as Vulnerable, Endangered, or Critically Endangered by the IUCN Red List, yet the conservation status of a concerning number of species ( n = 45; 26.2%) has not been evaluated. Many imports appear to be sourced from wild populations (28.3% of freshwater turtles, 71.3% of tortoises); however, captive-sourced imports increased significantly over time across both groups. Import volumes raise concerns regarding the sustainability of freshwater turtle and tortoise trade, the potential for invasive species establishment, and disease spread. Our results highlight the need for updated IUCN assessments, verification of trade records, and strengthening of biosecurity screening at U.S. ports of entry.

Biological Conservation↗
USGS2026

Bird breeding success in restored grasslands compared to croplands and natural grasslands: A meta-analysis

Reproductive success is central to long-term population persistence, yet it is rarely assessed in ecosystem restoration. We performed a multilevel meta-analysis to assess whether bird breeding success increases from croplands to restored grasslands or from restored grasslands to natural grasslands. We quantified five comparisons of two breeding success variables between croplands and restored grasslands in three species, and 228 comparisons of nine variables between natural and restored grasslands in 22 species using 14 datasets from North America and Europe. For the few grassland birds that nest in croplands, clutch size was higher in restored fields than in croplands. Most importantly, breeding success did not differ between restored and natural grasslands in nine species and for all species combined. In 13 species, breeding success differed between restored and natural grasslands, and it was often higher in restored grasslands during early breeding stages, but higher in natural grasslands during later stages. Eight species did better in restored grasslands (Clay-colored Sparrow, Dickcissel, Eastern Meadowlark, Lesser Prairie-chicken, Mourning Dove, Red-winged Blackbird, Sprague's Pipit, Western Meadowlark), whereas four species did better in natural grasslands (Baird's Sparrow, Common Nighthawk, Lark Bunting, Savannah Sparrow). Our results suggest that bird breeding success can be as high in restored grasslands as in natural ones, and certainly higher than in croplands. While restored grasslands differ widely by geography, climate, method and management, our results offer hope for ecosystem restoration. However, the differences found also imply that species requirements should be considered in grassland ecosystem restoration and management.

Biological Conservation↗