NORTH-WESTERN JOURNAL OF ZOOLOGY 13 (2): 337-340 ©NwjZ, Oradea, Romania, 2017 Article No.: e162202 http://biozoojournals.ro/nwjz/index.html

Distribution and diversity of (, Rhopalocera) in urbanization zones of the central European city (Lodz, Poland)

Robert SOBCZYK1,*, Krzysztof PABIS2, Grzegorz WIECZOREK3 and Antoni SALAMACHA4

1. Department of Invertebrate Zoology and Hydrobiology, University of Lodz, Banacha 12/16, 90-237 Lodz, Poland, E-mail: [email protected] 2. Department of Invertebrate Zoology and Hydrobiology, University of Lodz, Banacha 12/16, 90-237 Lodz, Poland, E-mail: [email protected] 3. ul. Tomaszewicza 6 m.47, 94-048, Lodz, E-mail: [email protected] 4. ul. Lanowa 24, 91-110, Lodz. * Corresponding author, R. Sobczyk, E-mail: [email protected]

Received: 12. August 2016 / Accepted: 21. October 2016 / Available online: 24. November 2017 / Printed: December 2017

Abstract. Fifty-two species were recorded in Lodz at 52 sites Material was collected from 2011 to 2015. Species richness declined along the urbanization gradient. Species that were most common in the whole city were io, Pieris napi and Pieris rapae. The highest number of species was recorded in ruderal sites and in parks, while species richness was low on cultivated lawns. We classify also butterflies recorded in Lodz using ecological attributes, describing all stages of their life cycle and host plants. On the basis of this analysis, we distinguished seven ecological groups of species within Lodz.

Key words: Rhopalocera, urbanization gradient, ecological classification, urban ecosystems, conservation.

Increasing urbanization is one of the major threats giewniki Forest (1200 ha). to biodiversity. It results in habitat fragmentation Three urbanization zones can be distinguished in and degradation, as well as alterations of natural Lodz. The inner urban zone (I) is the most urbanized. The outer urban zone (II) is still densely covered by buildings ecological processes (McKinney 2008). Many stud- but the area of green spaces is larger. The peripheral zone ies demonstrated gradual decrease of species rich- (III) is transitional between urbanized areas and green ness along the urbanization gradient, although spaces located outside the city. Material was collected in this pattern varied often depending on the taxo- 2011-2015 at 52 locations, distributed in all three zones: 9, nomic group studied and general characteristics of 25 and 18 sites respectively, and on three types of sites: the specific city. For example, at the intermediate parks (19 sites), cultivated lawns (21) and ruderal vegeta- level of disturbance in some cities, urbanization tion (12). Frequency of occurrence (F) of each species was calculated as percentage of sites where a given species can promote biodiversity mostly by increased het- was recorded. Order of Table 1 was based on Bray-Curtis erogeneity of habitats at very small spatial scale similarity (clustering, group average) classification of 236 (Concepcion et al. 2016). Maintaining biodiversity binary state ecological attributes of butterflies (e.g. host of urban areas is very important for the function- plants, biotope) according to method proposed by ing of the urban ecosystems but also for educa- Shreeve et al. (2001). Attributes were based on data on tional reasons. Therefore, it can have substantial Polish fauna (Buszko & Maslowski 2015). influence on preservation of biodiversity also in Fifty two species were found in Lodz (Table 1). natural ecosystems (Taylor & Hochuli 2015). But- Ten species from two families were found in zone terflies are good and frequently used indicators of I. The most frequent was Pieris napi (F=77.8%). the urbanization processes all over the world (e.g. Thirty-eight species were recorded in zone II. Blair & Launer 1997, Fontaine et al. 2015, Lee et al. Aglais io (F=80.0%) was the most frequent. Fifty 2015, Sing et al. 2016 and references therein). They species were recorded in zone III, and 14 only in are also considered good surrogates in biodiver- this part of the city. A. io (F=77.8%), Pieris napi sity assessments along urbanization gradients (F=59.6%) and Pieris rapae (F=48.1%) were most (Dollar et al. 2014). Our study aimed to analyze common in the whole city, while 30 species were butterfly species richness along the urbanization found only at 2-10% of all investigated sites. gradient of Lodz and design basic guidelines for Moreover, 14 species were found at only one of 52 protection of butterflies recorded there. investigated sites, while only 2 were found at Lodz is the third largest city in Poland, located in central more than 50% of the sites. The highest number of part of the country. Most of the green areas in Lodz are species was recorded in ruderal vegetation (50 parks. The largest forest located within the city is the La- species, 11 only in those areas, mean number of

338 R. Sobczyk et al.

Table 1. Distribution of species on studied sites (P - parks, L - lawns, R- ruderal sites) and in urbanization zones to- gether with frequency of occurrence [%] (common species in bold). Species are grouped on the basis of dendrogram derived from Bray-Curtis similarity analysis of species ecological attributes (group attributes given in first column). H.P. - host plants.

Zone I [%] Zone II [%] Zone III [%] All sites [%] 35% similarity Vanessa cardui P, L, R 11.1 6.3 7.7 Good dispersers; H.P.: trees Aglais io P, L, R 55.6 74.1 87.5 75.0 (Salix, Populus) or Urtica Aglais urticae P, L, R 25.9 18.8 19.2 dioica. Mostly overwinter- polychloros P, R 6.3 1.9 ing as adults Nymphalis antiopa P, R 3.7 18.8 7.7 Nymphalis xanthomelas P, R 3.7 6.3 3.8 Apatura ilia P, L, R 22.2 22.2 25.0 23.1 Apatura iris R 6.3 1.9 Polygonia c-album P, R 7.4 18.8 9.6 Vanessa atalanta P, R 11.1 18.5 18.8 17.3 41% similarity Flavonius quercus R 6.3 1.9 Mostly myrmecophilous Thecla betulae R 6.3 1.9 Polyommatus coridon P, R 3.7 12.5 5.8 paphia P 3.70 1.9 55% similarity Cupido argiades P, L, R 11.1 18.8 11.5 Relatively poor dispersers; Polyommatus icarus P, L, R 29.6 31.3 25.0 Overwintering as caterpil- Carcharodus alcae P, R 3.7 18.8 7.7 lars H.P.: herbaceous Thymelicus lineola P, L, R 25.9 50.0 28.8 plants (often ), - Erynnis tages P, L, R 7.4 12.5 7.7 tion close to the host plant Thymelicus sylvestris P, R 11.1 25.0 13.5 43% similarity Leptidea reali P, R 3.7 6.3 3.8 Good or very good dispers- croceus P 3.7 1.9 ers; H.P. herbaceous plants R 6.3 1.9 (mostly Brassicaceae), Pieris napi P, L, R 77.8 48.1 68.8 59.6 overwintering as pupae; P, L, R 11.1 37.0 43.8 34.6 two (plus partial third) Pieris rapae P, L, R 22.2 48.1 62.5 48.1 generation each year Araschnia levana P, L, R 11.1 22.2 18.8 19.2 edusa L, R 14.8 6.3 9.6 Papilio machaon P, L, R 7.4 18.8 9.6 Aricia agestis P, L, R 18.5 18.8 15.4 48% similarity dia P, R 3.70 6.3 3.8 Medium or poor dispersers Issoria lathonia P, L, R 11.1 14.8 18.8 15.4 H.P. herbaceous plants Lycaena dispar R 3.7 12.5 5.8 (mostly Rumex or ); Lycaena alciphron R 6.3 1.9 overwintering as caterpil- Lycaena phlaeas P, L, R 14.8 18.8 13.5 lars Lycaena tityrus P, L, R 18.5 6.3 11.5 Argynnis laodice R 6.3 1.9 Brenthis ino R 6.3 1.9 45% similarity Lasiomata megera R 6.3 1.9 Medium or poor dispersers, Ochlodes sylvanus P, R 3.7 6.3 3.8 polyphagous , Pararge aegeria P, L, R 11.1 18.5 25.0 19.2 H.P.: grasses (Festuca, Aphantopus hyperantus P, L, R 11.1 25.9 43.8 28.8 Brachypodium pinnatum). Maniola jurtina P, L, R 25.9 50.0 28.8 Melanargia galathea P, L, R 11.1 31.3 15.4 Coenonympha pamphilus P, L, R 11.1 25.0 13.5 Hyponephele lycaon R 6.3 1.9 Hesperia comma R 6.3 1.9 Coenonympha glicerion R 6.3 1.9 Anthocharis cardamines P, R 7.4 18.8 9.6 39% similarity Celastrina argiolus P, R 3.7 18.8 7.7 H.P. shrubs (Frangula alnus Callophrys rubi R 6.3 1.9 and Genista tinctoria) P, L, R 22.2 25.9 56.3 34.6

Butterflies in urbanization zones 339 species per area 13.0 (1SD: 15.4), Max=48). Thirty- alist butterflies that dominated in Lodz (Table 1) nine species were recorded in parks, 2 only in are considered more resistant to environmental those sites (mean species number 8.0 (1SD: 8.4), changes than specialized species (Stefanescu et al. Max=38). Only 24 species were found on lawns, 2011). Urbanization in Lodz increases as a result of and none of them only here (mean species number EU investments. Butterflies are biodiversity surro- 3.7 (1SD: 4.2), Max=18). Seven groups of species gates for other pollinators or even birds and plants were distinguished in cluster analysis based on (Dollar et al. 2014), and our analysis can be useful their ecological attributes (Table 1). in general preservation of biodiversity in Lodz. Species richness of butterflies in Lodz is high; Zone III is a repository area for the city, and con- 32% of the Polish fauna was recorded there servation actions should be focused there. Accord- (Buszko & Maslowski 2015). Studies from central ing to our results, ruderal sites (not only parks) are European cities are scarce (Poland - Gdynia: 64 promoting biodiversity, and thus it is important to spp., Warsaw: 75 spp.; Czech Republic - Prague: include them into a protection system. Simple, 74 spp.), and those cities have different environ- low-cost changes in the cultivation processes mental characteristics than Lodz (Kadlec et al. (mowing reduction, non-mowing areas, reduced 2008, Senn 2015). Decline of species richness along use of postemergence herbicides, reduced removal the urbanization gradient of Lodz is congruent of fallen leafs) (please see also Fontaine et al. 2015) with earlier results (e.g. Blair & Launer 1997 and will help to maintain host plants and will reduce references therein). Taking into account the char- mortality at preimaginal stages, since most of but- acter of zone I (densely distributed buildings), we terflies in Lodz feed on herbaceous plants and/or can assume that most butterflies are accidental overwinter as caterpillars and pupae. Even small visitors there. The highest diversity recorded in patches of plants could influence urban popula- zone III is associated with lower level of urbaniza- tion of butterflies (Hardy & Dennis 1999). Key tion, higher habitat heterogeneity and immigra- green spaces (e.g. small wetlands for Bern Con- tion of species. Lagiewniki Forest can function as a vention protected Lycaena dispar) can be included species repository for the city. Forty-eight species into a web of protected areas (system of green cor- were recorded in this area (Marciniak et al. 2010); ridors). Finally, it is important to convince the citi- almost all were found also in the city. It supports zens that maintaining biodiversity in the city is observations that urban areas are a sink of biodi- valuable. Recent studies showed that biodiversity versity, dependant on immigration from itself is important for wellbeing of the citizens, es- neighbouring green areas (Snep et al. 2006). Num- pecially if they are aware of biodiversity of their ber of species with stable populations in Lodz is city (Taylor & Hochuli 2015). Thus, it is important probably low (many species found at one site to create an educational base for conservation. only). The highest number of species was found in Colorful butterflies can be an important element of ruderal sites. Butterfly species richness of rural such strategy, facilitating public involvement in sites was higher than in parks also in Malmo as a conservation activities (Cosquer et al. 2012). Thus, result of high diversity of plants and warm micro- as a side effect of this research, a field guide to climate (Ӧckinger et al. 2009). Only a small group butterflies of Lodz will be prepared. of species was common in the whole city (Table 1). Their success in urban habitats can be associated with ecological attributes, e.g. fast flyers, good dispersers, high fecundity, common host plants, References adults feed on various plants (Porter 1992, Buszko Bergerot, B., Merckx, T., Van Dyck, H., Baquette, M. (2012): Habitat & Maslowski 2015). On the other hand, it was fragmentation impacts mobility in a common and widespread shown for Pieris napi, Maniola jurtina and Pararge woodland butterfly: do sexes respond differently? Biomed Central Ecology 12: 5. aegeria that habitat availability and physical Blair, R.B., Launer, A.E. (1997): Butterfly diversity and human land boundaries might be more important for their dis- use: species assemblages along an urban gradient. Biological tribution in the city than dispersal abilities (Wood Conservation 80: 113-125. Buszko, J., Maslowski, J. (2015): Motyle dzienne Polski. & Pullin 2002, Bergerot et al. 2012). Many species Wydawnictwo Koliber, Nowy Sącz. were found only in zone III and were uncommon Concepción, E.D., Obrist, M.K., Moretti, M., Altermatt, F., Baur, B., even there. Most of them are specialists e.g. ant- Nobis, M.P. (2016): Impacts of urban sprawl on species richness of plants, butterflies, gastropods and birds: not only built-up associated Polyommatus coridon or wetland species area matters. Urban Ecosystems 19: 225-242. Lycaena dispar (Buszko & Maslowski 2015). Gener- 340 R. Sobczyk et al.

Cosquer, A., Raymond, R., Prevot-Julliard, A.C. (2012): Porter, K. (1992): Eggs and egg-laying. pp. 46-72. In: Dennis, R. H. Observations of everyday biodiversity: a new perspective for (eds.), The Ecology of Butterflies in Britain. Oxford University conservation? Ecology and Society 17: 2. Press, New York. Dollar, J.G., Riffel, S., Adams, H.L., Wes Burger Jr., L. (2014): Senn, P. (2015): Butterflies of Gdynia a distribution atlas. Studio Evaluating butterflies as surrogates for birds and plants in semi- FM. Gdynia. natural grassland buffers. Journal of Conservation 18: Shreeve, T.G., Dennis, R.L.H., Roy, D.B., Moss., D. (2001): An 171-178. ecological classification of British butterflies: ecological Fontaine, B., Bergerot, B., Le Viol, I., Julliard, R. (2016): Impact of attributes and biotope occupancy. Journal of Insect urbanization and gardening practices on common butterfly Conservation 5: 145-161. communities in France. Ecology and Evolution 6: 8174-8180. Sing, K.W., Dong, H., Wang W.Z., Wilson J.J. (2016): Can butterflies Hardy, P.B., Dennis, R. (1999): The impact of urban development cope with city life? Butterfly diversity in a young megacity in on butterflies within a city region. Biodiversity and southern China. Genome 59: 751-761. Conservation 8: 1261-1279. Snep, R.P.H., Opdam, P.F.M., Baveco, J.M, Wallis De Vries, M.F, Kadlec, T., Benes, J., Jarosik, V., Konvicka, M. (2008): Revisiting Timmermans, W., Kwak, R.G.M., Kuypers, V. (2006): How peri – urban refuges: Changes of butterfly and burnet fauna in Prague urban areas can strengthen populations within cities: a reserves over three decades. Landscape and Urban Planning 85: modeling approach. Biological Conservation 127: 345-355. 1-11. Stefanescu, C., Carnicer, J., Peñuelas, J. (2011): Determinants of Lee, C.M., Park, J.W., Kwon, T.S., Kim, S.O., Ryu, J.W., Jung, S.J., species richness in generalist and specialist Mediterranean Lee, S.K. (2015): Diversity and density of butterfly communities butterflies: the negative synergistic forces of climate and habitat in urban green areas: an analytical approach using GIS. change. Ecography 34: 353-363. Zoological Studies 54: 4. Taylor, L., Hochuli, D.F. (2015): Creating better cities: how Marciniak, B., Pabis, K., Michalski, M. (2010): Motyle (Lepidoptera). biodiversity and ecosystem functioning enhance urban residents pp. 73-101. In: Tonczyk, G., Jaskula. R. (eds.), Owady Insecta wellbeing. Urban Ecosystems 18: 747-762. Parku Krajobrazowego Wzniesien Lodzkich. Wydawnictwo Wood, B.C., Pullin, A.S. (2002): Persistence of species in a Uniwersytetu Lodzkiego. Lodz. fragmented urban landscape: the importance of dispersal ability McKinney, M.L. (2008): Effects of urbanization on species richness: and habitat availability for grassland butterflies. Biodiversity A review of plants and . Urban Ecosystems 11: 161-176. and Conservation 11: 1451-1468. Ӧckinger, E., Dannestam, Å., Smith. H.G. (2009): The importance of fragmentation and habitat quality of urban grasslands for butterfly diversity. Landscape and Urban Planning 93: 31-37.