Distribution and Diversity of Butterflies (Lepidoptera, Rhopalocera) in Urbanization Zones of the Central European City (Lodz, Poland)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
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 butterflies (Lepidoptera, 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 butterfly 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 Aglais 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- Nymphalis 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 Argynnis 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 Lotus), pupa- 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- Colias croceus P 3.7 1.9 ers; H.P. herbaceous plants Colias hyale R 6.3 1.9 (mostly Brassicaceae), Pieris napi P, L, R 77.8 48.1 68.8 59.6 overwintering as pupae; Pieris brassicae 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 Pontia 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 Boloria 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 Viola); 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 caterpillars, 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) Gonepteryx rhamni 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.