Railway tracks can have great value for butterflies as a new alternative habitat

References

• Anderson MJ. 2006. Distance-based tests for homogeneity of multivariate dispersions. Biometrics 62:245–253. DOI: 10.1111/j.1541-0420.2005.00440.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson MJ, Crist TO, Chase JM, Vellend JM, Inouye BD, Freestone AL, Sanders NJ, Cornell HV, Comita LS, Davies KF, Harrison SP, Kraft NJB, Stegen JC, Swenson NG. 2011. Navigating the multiple meanings of β diversity: A roadmap for the practicing ecologist. Ecology Letters 14:19–28. DOI: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2010.01552.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson MJ, Ellingsen KE, McArdle BH. 2006. Multivariate dispersion as a measure of beta diversity. Ecology Letters 9:683–693. DOI: 10.1111/ele.2006.9.issue-6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andrén H. 1994. Effects of habitat fragmentation on birds and mammals in landscapes with different proportions of suitable habitat: A review. Oikos 71:355–366. DOI: 10.2307/3545823.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Atmar W, Patterson BD 1993. The measure of order and disorder in the distribution of species in fragmented habitat. Oecologia 96:373–382. DOI: 10.1007/BF00317508.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Atmar W, Patterson BD 1995. The nestedness temperature calculator: A visual basic program, including 294 presence–absence matrices. University Park: AICS Research.
   Google Scholar
• Bąkowski M, Filipiak A, Fric Z. 2010. The foraging behaviour of Lycaena dispar [Haworth, 1802] (Lepidoptera, Lycaenidae). Entomologica Fennica 21:49–57.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berg A, Karin Ahrne K, Öckinger E, Svensson R, Wissman J. 2013. Butterflies in semi-natural pastures and power-line corridors – effects of flower richness, management, and structural vegetation characteristics. Insect Conservation and Diversity 6:639–657. DOI: 10.1111/icad.12019.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dennis RLH. 2010. A resource-based habitat view for conservation: butterflies in the British landscape. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Driscoll DA. 2008. The frequency of metapopulations, metacommunities and nestedness in a fragmented landscape. Oikos 117:297–309. DOI: 10.1111/oik.2008.117.issue-2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fahrig L. 2003. The effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annual Review of Ecology Evolution, and Systematics 34:487–515. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.34.011802.132419.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fahrig L, Merriam G. 1994. Conservation of fragmented populations. Conservation Biology 8:50–59. DOI: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.1994.08010050.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fischer J, Lindenmayer DB. 2005. Nestedness in fragmented landscapes: A case study on birds, arboreal marsupials and lizards. Journal of Biogeography 32:1737–1750. DOI: 10.1111/jbi.2005.32.issue-10.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foley JA, De Fries R, Asner GP, Barford C, Bonan G, Carpenter SR, Chapin FS, Coe MT, Daily GC, Gibbs HK, Helkowski JH, Holloway T, Howard EA, Kucharik CJ, Monfreda C, Patz JA, Prentice IC, Ramankutty N, Snyder PK. 2005. Global consequences of land use. Science 309:570–574. DOI: 10.1126/science.1111772.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jadwiszczak P. 2009. Random Pro 314 Software for classical and computer-intensive statistics. Available: http://pjadwtripodcom. Accessed Apr 2014 5.
   Google Scholar
• Kalarus K, Skórka P, Nowicki P. 2013. Resource use in two contrasting habitat types raises different challenges for the conservation of the dryad butterfly Minois dryas. Journal of Insect Conservation 17:777–786. DOI: 10.1007/s10841-013-9560-1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kindt R, Coe R. 2005. Tree diversity analysis A manual and software for common statistical methods for ecological and biodiversity studies. Nairobi: World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF).
   Google Scholar
• Konvička M, Fric Z, Beneš J. 2006. Butterfly extinctions in European states: Do socioeconomic conditions matter more than physical geography?. Global Ecology & Biogeography 15:82–92. DOI: 10.1111/j.1466-822X.2006.00188.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Konvička M, Kadlec T. 2011. How to increase the value of urban areas for butterfly conservation? A lesson from Prague nature reserves and parks. European Journal of Entomology 108:219–229. DOI: 10.14411/eje.2011.030.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leibold MA, Mikkelson GM. 2002. Coherence, species turnover, and boundary clumping: Elements of meta-community structure. Oikos 97:237–250. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0706.2002.970210.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lensu T, Komonen A, Hiltula O, Päivinen J, Saari V, Kotiaho JS. 2011. The role of power line rights-of-way as an alternative habitat for declined mire butterflies. Journal of Environmental Management 92:2539–2546. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.05.019.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Melis C, Bjerk Olsen C, Hyllvang M, Gobbi M, Stokke BG, Røskaft E. 2010. The effect of traffic intensity on ground beetle (Coleoptera: Carabidae) assemblages in central Sweden. Journal of Insect Conservation 14:159–168. DOI: 10.1007/s10841-009-9240-3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oksanen J, Blanchet FG, Kindt R, Legendre P, O’Hara RB, Simpson GL, Solymos P, Stevens MHH, Wagner H. 2013. Vegan: Community ecology package R package v 20-10. Available: http://CRANR-projectorg/package=vegan/. Accessed Apr 2014 5.
   Google Scholar
• Oliver T, Roy DB, Hill JK, Brereton T, Thomas CD 2010. Heterogeneous landscapes promote population stability. Ecology Letters 13:473–484. DOI: 10.1111/ele.2010.13.issue-4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pollard E, Yates TJ. 1993. Monitoring butterflies for ecology and conservation. London: Chapman & Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Potts SG, Vulliamy B, Roberts S, O’Toole C, Dafni A, Ne’eman G, Willmer P. 2005. Role of nesting resources in organising diverse bee communities in a Mediterranean landscape. Ecological Entomology 30:78–85. DOI: 10.1111/j.0307-6946.2005.00662.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R Core Team. 2013. R: A language and environment for statistical computing R foundation for statistical computing, Vienna, Austria. Available: http://wwwR-projectorg/. Accessed Apr 2014 5.
   Google Scholar
• Rangel TFLVB, Diniz-Filho AF, Bini LM. 2010. SAM: A comprehensive application for spatial analysis in macroecology. Ecography 33:46–50. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0587.2009.06299.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Russel KN, Ikerd H, Droege S. 2005. The potential conservation value of unmowed powerline strips for native bees. Biological Conservation 124:133–148. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2005.01.022.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saarinen K, Valtonen A, Jantunen J, Saarnio S. 2005. Butterflies and diurnal moths along road verges: Does road type affect diversity and abundance? Biological Conservation 123:403–412. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2004.12.012.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schtickzelle N, Mennechez G, Baguette M. 2006. Dispersal depression with habitat fragmentation in the bog fritillary butterfly. Ecology 87:1057–1065. DOI: 10.1890/0012-9658(2006)87[1057:DDWHFI]2.0.CO;2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Settele J, Dover J, Dolek M, Konvicka M. 2009. Butterflies of European ecosystems: Impact of land use and options for conservation management. In: Settele J, Shreeve T, Konvicka A, Van Dyck H, editors. Ecology of butterflies in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 353–370.
   Google Scholar
• Skórka P, Lenda M, Moroń D, Kalarus K, Tryjanowski P. 2013. Factors affecting road mortality and the suitability of road verges for butterflies. Biological Conservation 159:148–157. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2012.12.028.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomas JA, Telfer MG, Roy DB, Preston CD, Greenwood JJD, Asher J, Fox R, Clarke RT, Lawton JH. 2004. Comparative losses of British butterflies, birds, and plants and the global extinction crisis. Science 303:1879–1881. DOI: 10.1126/science.1095046.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tryjanowski P, Sparks TH, Jerzak L, Rosin ZM, Skórka P 2014. A paradox for conservation: Electricity pylons may benefit avian diversity in intensive farmland. Conservation Letters 7:34–40. DOI: 10.1111/conl.2014.7.issue-1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Dyck H, Van Strien AJ, Maes D, Van Swaay CAM. 2009. Declines in common, widespread butterflies in a landscape under intense human use. Conservation Biology 23:957–965. DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01175.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Swaay C, Collins S, Dušej G, Maes D, Munguira ML, Rakosy R, Ryrholm N, Šašić M, Settele J, Thomas J, Verovnik R, Verstrael T, Warren M, Wiemers M, Wynhoff I. 2012. Dos and don’ts for butterflies of the habitats directive of the European Union. Nature Conservation 1:73–153.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vandevelde J-C, Penone C, Julliard R. 2012. High-speed railways are not barriers to Pyronia tithonus butterfly movements. Journal of Insect Conservation 16:801–803. DOI: 10.1007/s10841-012-9513-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vellend M, Verheyen K, Flinn KM, Jacquemyn H, Kolb A, Van Calster H, Peterken G, Graae BJ, Bellemare J, Honnay O, Brunet J, Wulf M, Gerhadt F, Hermy M. 2007. Homogenization of forest plant communities and weakening of species-environment relationships via agricultural land use. Journal of Ecology 95:565–573. DOI: 10.1111/jec.2007.95.issue-3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• WallisDeVries MF, Poschlod P, Willems JH. 2002. Challenges for the conservation of calcareous grasslands in northwestern Europe: Integrating the requirements of flora and fauna. Biological Conservation 104:265–273. DOI: 10.1016/S0006-3207(01)00191-4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wynhoff I, Gestel R, Swaay C, Langevelde F. 2011. Not only the butterflies: Managing ants on road verges to benefit Phengaris (Maculinea) butterflies. Journal of Insect Conservation 15:189–206. DOI: 10.1007/s10841-010-9337-8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yan Chong K, Teo S, Kurukulasuriya B, Fei Chung Y, Rajathurai S, Tan HTW. 2014. Not all green is as good: Different effects of the natural and cultivated components of urban vegetation on bird and butterfly diversity. Biological Conservation 171:299–309. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2014.01.037.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar