Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
M. Warren (1993)
A review of butterfly conservation in central southern Britain: I. Protection, evaluation and extinction on prime sitesBiological Conservation, 64
P. Hardy (1998)
Butterflies of Greater Manchester.
R. Baker (1969)
The Evolution of the Migratory Habit in ButterfliesJournal of Animal Ecology, 38
S Harrison, AD Taylor (1997)
Metapopulation Biology
(1997)
Butterfly range - extension into Greater Manchester : the role of climate change and habitat patches
(1996)
Uniformity of wing spotting of Maniola jurtina ( L . ) ( Lepidoptera : Satyrinae ) in relation to environmental heterogeneity
J. Francis (1995)
Statistica for WindowsBlood Coagulation & Fibrinolysis, 6
R. Dennis, T. Sparks, P. Hardy (1999)
Bias in Butterfly Distribution Maps: The Effects of Sampling EffortJournal of Insect Conservation, 3
(1987)
The Butterflies of the London Area
MS Warren (1992)
The Ecology of Butterflies in Britain
A. Sheldon (1957)
The butterfly net
J. Heath, E. Pollard, J. Thomas (1984)
Atlas of Butterflies in Britain and Ireland
RLH Dennis, P Bardell (1996)
The impact of extreme weather on Great Orme populations of Hipparchia semele (Linnaeus 1758) and Plebejus argus (Linnaeus 1758) (Papilionoidea: Satyrinae and Lycaenidae): hindsight, inference and lost opportunitiesEntomologist's Gazette, 47
(1993)
Range extension and distribution - infilling among selected butterfly species in north - west England . Evidence for inter - habitat movements
(1951)
Bombed site Lepidoptera
JW Dover (1991)
The Conservation of Insects and their Habitats
MS Warren (1993)
A review of butterfly conservation in central south BritainBiological Conservation, 64
R. Dennis, P. Hardy (1999)
Targeting squares for survey: predicting species richness and incidence of species for a butterfly atlasGlobal Ecology and Biogeography, 8
RR Sokal, FJ Rohlf (1995)
Biometry
R. Dennis (1993)
Butterflies and climate change
S. Harrison, Andrew Taylor (1997)
Empirical Evidence for Metapopulation Dynamics
TR New (1997)
Butterfly conservation
(1986)
Butterfly ‘diversity’. Regressing and a little latitude
RTT Forman (1995)
Land Mosaics
(1949)
The Macrolepidoptera of the Moorgate , London , bombed sites
J. Dover (1991)
12 – The Conservation of Insects on Arable Farmland
SP Garland (1981)
Butterflies of the Sheffield area
R. Dennis, T. Shreeve (1996)
Butterflies on British and Irish Offshore Islands: Ecology and Biogeography
The effect of urban development on butterfly species' richness and species' incidence is tested for the Greater Manchester conurbation and two sample areas, mapped at finer scales, within the southern part of the conurbation. The tests include measures of bias for recording effort (number of visits). Species' richness is found to increase with percentage urban cover for Greater Manchester (tetrad scale) and decrease with urban cover for the two sample areas in South West Manchester (1 km scale) and the Mersey Valley (100 m scale). For Greater Manchester, the increase in species' richness with increased urban cover is largely explained by lower species' richness at higher altitude in the Pennines bounding the conurbation. For the two sample areas, decreasing species' richness associated with increasing urban cover corresponds with reductions in the areas of a number of semi-natural habitats, hostplants and nectar sources. Despite these statistically significant correlations, the impact of urban cover on species' richness is weak. The maximum loss rate identified anywhere within the region is 0.81 species per 10% change in urban cover for South West Manchester. This finding may reflect on the generally low species diversity of the region. However, these results could be influenced by recording and sampling artefacts, particularly the failure of mapping programmes to distinguish vagrant individuals from breeding populations and a bias of records to vagrants. This is supported by the higher correlations between species' incidence and nectar sources than between species' incidence and their hostplants. Adult butterflies are opportunistic nectar users and nectar sources are more widely spread and thus less influenced by urban development than are specific butterfly hostplants. The finding may also reflect on the capacity of most of the butterfly species to breed successfully on tiny areas of hostplant existing within extensively built-up areas. Moreover, the capacity of butterfly species to persist by using small fragments of hostplants would be enhanced by vagrancy. If this is indeed the case, it is a finding that would support the value of small patches in butterfly metapopulations, albeit ones comprising incomplete complements of resources required during the life cycle. The incidence of most species decreases with increase in urban cover. Multivariate analyses indicate that this is owing to corresponding declines in hostplant-habitats and nectar sources. Five species increase with urban cover, but none attain formal significance. Associations among hostplants and habitat variables in a principal components analysis suggest that, in three cases (Pieris brassicae, P. rapae, Celastrina argiolus), this is owing to increasing areas of their hostplants within urban environments.
Biodiversity and Conservation – Springer Journals
Published: Sep 29, 2004
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.