Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A Hollywood drama of butterfly extirpation and persistence over a century of urbanization

  • ORIGINAL PAPER
  • Published:
Journal of Insect Conservation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Few long-term examples exist of wildlife population trends in urban environments despite the recent recognition of the importance of biodiversity in cities. Founded in 1896, Griffith Park’s over 1,700 ha in Los Angeles adjacent to Hollywood represent the largest municipal park in California. Through the 1920s, biologists studied the natural area with great interest but in the decades that followed, little fieldwork was conducted here as Los Angeles developed into a megacity surrounding the park. We combined thorough examination of Griffith Park historical field notes and specimen records (1900–1960) with recent field surveys (2011–2012) to determine (1) the extent of urbanization impacts on butterfly extirpation and persistence and (2) how butterfly traits and host plant relationships might be contributing to butterfly species status. Here we document multiple local butterfly extinctions in Griffith Park; 10 species or 18 % of the historically reconstructed community. Many of these species were lost early in the twentieth century, highlighting the importance of the historical record in understanding urban biodiversity patterns and trends. An analysis of larval host plant status and relationships suggests that a primary factor determining butterfly presence or extirpation is the abundance of the larval host plant in the park, in addition to host plant specificity. Despite these extirpations, we also found that the majority (over 80 %) of native butterfly species have persisted including species of conservation interest. While urban parks certainly suffer from surrounding anthropogenic pressure and impacts, this study also demonstrates the potentially high and underappreciated conservation and ecological value of urban parks.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bartoń K (2012) MuMIn: multi-model inference. R package version, 1.9.5. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=MuMIn

  • Bergman K-O, Askling J, Ekberg O, Ignell H, Wahlman H, Milberg P (2004) Landscape effects on butterfly assemblages in an agricultural region. Ecography 27:619–628

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blair RB (1999) Birds and butterflies along an urban gradient: surrogate taxa for assessing biodiversity. Ecol Appl 9:164–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blair RB, Launer AE (1997) Butterfly diversity and human land use: species assemblages along an urban gradient. Biol Conserv 8:113–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonebrake TC, Sorto R (2009) Butterfly (Papilionoidea and Hesperioidea) rapid assessment of a coastal countryside in El Salvador. Trop Conserv Sci 2:34–51

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonebrake TC, Christensen J, Boggs CL, Ehrlich PR (2010) Population decline assessment, historical baselines, and conservation. Conserv Lett 3:371–378

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown KS, Freitas AVL (2002) Butterfly communities of urban forest fragments in Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil: structure, instability, environmental correlates, and conservation. J Insect Conserv 6:217–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multi-model inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark PJ, Reed JM, Chew FS (2007) Effects of urbanization on butterfly species richness, guild structure, and rarity. Urban Ecosyst 10:321–337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Comstock JA (1926) Studies in Pacific Coast Lepidoptera (continued). Thirteen new species or aberrations of California butterflies. Bull South Calif Acad Sci 25:29–34

    Google Scholar 

  • Comstock JA (1927) Butterflies of California: a popular guide to a knowledge of the butterflies of California. Author, Los Angeles

    Google Scholar 

  • Connor EF, Hafernik J, Levy J, Moore VL, Rickman JK (2002) Insect conservation in an urban biodiversity hotspot: the San Francisco Bay Area. J Insect Conserv 6:247–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper DS (2011) Rare plants of Griffith Park, Los Angeles. Fremontia 38:18–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper DS, Mathewson P (2009) Griffith Park wildlife management plan. Unpublished report. Prepared by Cooper Ecological Monitoring, Inc. for the Los Angeles Dept. of Recreation and Parks. 22 January 2009. http://www.griffithparkwildlife.org

  • Dearborn DC, Kark S (2010) Motivations for conserving urban biodiversity. Conserv Biol 24:432–440

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dures SG, Cumming GS (2010) The confounding influence of homogenising invasive species in a globally endangered and largely urban biome: does habitat quality dominate avian biodiversity? Biol Conserv 143:768–777

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eberts M (1996) Griffith Park: a centennial history. The Historical Society of Southern California

  • Emmel TC, Emmel JF (1973) The butterflies of southern California. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County

  • Fattorini S (2011a) Insect rarity, extinction and conservation in urban Rome (Italy): a 120-year-long study of tenebrionid beetles. Insect Conserv Diver 4:307–315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fattorini S (2011b) Insect extinction by urbanization: a long term study in Rome. Biol Conserv 144:370–375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forister ML, McCall AC, Sanders NJ, Fordyce JA, Thorne JH, O’Brien J, Waetjen DP, Shapiro AM (2010) Compounded effects of climate change and habitat shift patterns of butterfly diversity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107:2088–2092

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Forister ML, Jahner JP, Casner KL, Wilson JS, Shapiro AM (2011) The race is not to the swift: long-term data reveal pervasive declines in California’s low-elevation butterfly fauna. Ecology 92:2222–2235

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Garth JS, Tilden JW (1986) California butterflies. University of California Press, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaston KJ (2010) Urban ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Giuliano WM, Accamandon AK, McAdams EJ (2004) Lepidoptera–habitat relationships in urban parks. Urban Ecosyst 7:361–370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graves SD, Shapiro AM (2003) Exotics as host plants of the California butterfly fauna. Biol Conserv 110:413–433

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grimm NB, Faeth SH, Golubiewski NE, Redman CL, Wu J, Bai X, Briggs JM (2008) Global change and the ecology of cities. Science 319:756–760

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gunder JD (1930) Butterflies of Los Angeles County, California. Bull South Calif Acad Sci 29:1–59

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardy PB, Dennis RL (1999) The impact of urban development on butterflies within a city region. Biodivers Conserv 8:1261–1279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison S (1991) Local extinction in a metapopulation context: an empirical evaluation. Biol J Linn Soc 42:73–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes JB, Daily GC, Ehrlich PR (1997) Population diversity: its extent and extinction. Science 278:689–692

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson JJ (2008) Butterflies, rarity, and conservation practices. Dissertation UCLA

  • Jones EL, Leather SR (2012) Invertebrates in urban areas: a review. Eur J Entomol 109:463–478

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kadlec T, Benes J, Jarosik V, Konvicka M (2008) Revisiting urban refuges: changes of butterfly and burnet fauna in Prague reserves over three decades. Landsc Urban Plan 85:1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kattwinkel M, Biedermann R, Kleyer M (2011) Temporary conservation for urban biodiversity. Biol Conserv 144:2335–2343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koh LP, Sodhi NS (2004) Importance of reserves, fragments and parks for butterfly conservation in a tropical urban landscape. Ecol Appl 14:1695–1708

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koh LP, Sodhi NS, Brook BW (2004) Ecological correlates of extinction proneness in tropical butterflies. Conserv Biol 18:1571–1578

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Konvicka M, Kadlec T (2011) How to increase the value of urban areas for butterfly conservation? Eur J Entomol 108:219–229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kowarik I (2011) Novel urban ecosystems, biodiversity, and conservation. Environ Pollut 159:1974–1983

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lizée MH, Manel S, Mauffrey JF, Tatoni T, Deschamps-Cottin M (2012) Matrix configuration and patch isolation influences override the species–area relationship for urban butterfly communities. Landsc Ecol 27:159–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magle SB, Crooks KR (2009) Investigating the distribution of prairie dogs in an urban landscape. Anim Conserv 12:192–203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magle SB, Hunt VM, Vernon M, Crooks KR (2012) Urban wildlife research: past, present, and future. Biol Conserv 155:23–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marzluff JM, Bowman R, Donnelly R (2001) Avian ecology and conservation in an urbanizing world. Kluwer, Norwell

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Matteson KC, Langellotto GA (2010) Determinates of inner city butterfly and bee species richness. Urban Ecosyst 13:333–347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McIntyre NE (2000) The ecology of urban arthropods: a review and a call to action. Ann Entomol Soc Am 93:825–835

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKinney ML (2002) Urbanization, biodiversity, and conservation. Bioscience 52:883–890

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Natureserve (2011) NatureServe Explorer: an online encyclopedia of life [Online]. www.natureserve.org/explorer

  • New TR, Sands DPA (2002) Conservation concerns for butterflies in urban areas of Australia. J Insect Conserv 6:207–215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Öckinger E, Dannestam Å, Smith HG (2009) The importance of fragmentation and habitat quality of urban grasslands for butterfly diversity. Landsc Urban Plan 93:31–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver AJ, Hong-Wa C, Devonshire J, Olea KR, Rivas GF, Gahl MK (2011) Avifauna richness enhanced in large, isolated urban parks. Landsc Urban Plan 102:215–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Opler PA, Lotts K, Naberhaus T (2013) Butterflies and moths of North America. http://www.butterfliesandmoths.org/(Version September 2013)

  • Orsak LJ (1977) The butterflies of Orange County, California. Museum of Systematic Biology Research Series no. 4, University of California, Irvine

  • Palmer GC, Fitzsimons JA, Antos MJ, White JG (2008) Determinants of native avian richness in suburban remnant vegetation: implications for conservation planning. Biol Conserv 141:2329–2341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pelham JP (2008) A catalogue of the butterflies of the United States and Canada. J Res Lepid 40:1–652

    Google Scholar 

  • Pellet J (2008) Seasonal variation in detectability of butterflies surveyed with Pollard walks. J Insect Conserv 12:155–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollard E, Yates T (1993) Monitoring butterflies for ecology and conservation. Chapman & Hall, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Polus E, Vandewoestijne S, Choutt J, Baguette M (2007) Tracking the effects of one century of habitat loss and fragmentation on calcareous grassland butterfly communities. Biodivers Conserv 16:3423–3436

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • R Development Core Team (2010) A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramalho CE, Hobbs RJ (2012) Time for a change: dynamic urban ecology. Trends Ecol Evol 27:179–188

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ramírez Restrepo L, Halffter G (2013) Butterfly diversity in a regional urbanization mosaic in two Mexican cities. Landsc Urban Plan 115:39–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruszczyk A, de Araujo AM (1992) Gradients in butterfly species diversity in an urban area in Brazil. J Lepid Soc 46:255–264

    Google Scholar 

  • Schultz CB, Dlugosch KM (1999) Nectar and hostplant scarcity limit populations of an endangered Oregon butterfly. Oecologia 119:231–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sekar S (2012) A meta-analysis of the traits affecting dispersal ability in butterflies: can wingspan be used as a proxy? J Anim Ecol 81:174–184

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shaffer HB, Fisher RN, Davidson C (1998) The role of natural history collections in documenting species declines. Trends Ecol Evol 13:27–30

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shahabuddin G, Ponte CA (2005) Frugivorous butterfly species in tropical forest fragments: correlates of vulnerability to extinction. Biodivers Conserv 14:1137–1152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro AM (2002) The Californian urban butterfly fauna is dependent on alien plants. Divers Distrib 8:31–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro AM (2009) Revisiting the pre-European butterfly fauna of the Sacramento Valley, California. J Res Lepid 41:31–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Shochat E, Lerman SB, Anderies JM, Warren PS, Faeth SH, Nilon CH (2010) Invasion, competition, and biodiversity loss in urban ecosystems. Bioscience 60:199–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shultz AJ, Tingley MW, Bowie RCK (2012) A century of avian community turnover in an urban green space in Northern California. Condor 114:258–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shwartz A, Muratet A, Simon L, Julliard R (2013) Local and management variables outweigh landscape effects in enhancing the diversity of different taxa in a big metropolis. Biol Conserv 157:285–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soga M, Koike S (2013a) Patch isolation only matters for specialist butterflies but patch area affects both specialist and generalist species. J For Res 18:1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soga M, Koike S (2013b) Mapping the potential extinction debt of butterflies in a modern city: implications for conservation priorities in urban landscapes. Anim Conserv 16:1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soga M, Yamaura Y, Koike S, Gaston KJ (2014) Woodland remnants as an urban wildlife refuge: a cross-taxonomic assessment. Biodivers Conserv 23:649–659

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swetnam TW, Allen CD, Betancourt JL (1999) Applied historical ecology: using the past to manage for the future. Ecol Appl 9:1189–1206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trust for Public Land (2010) 2010 City Park Facts. TPL, San Francisco, California. http://www.tpl.org. Accessed Dec 2011)

  • Wagner DL, Van Driesche RG (2010) Threats posed to rare or endangered insects by invasions of nonnative species. Annu Rev Entomol 55:547–568

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Weiss SB (1999) Cars, cows, and checkerspot butterflies: nitrogen deposition and management of nutrient-poor grasslands for a threatened species. Conserv Biol 13:1476–1486

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wenzel M, Schmitt T, Weitzel M, Seitz A (2006) The severe decline of butterflies on western German calcareous grasslands during the last 30 years: a conservation problem. Biol Conserv 128:542–552

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams MR (2011) Habitat resources, remnant vegetation condition and area determine distribution patterns and abundance of butterflies and day-flying moths in a fragmented urban landscape, south-west Western Australia. J Insect Conserv 15:37–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Sincere thanks to the Friends of Griffith Park and #SciFund for making this study possible. Chief Ranger Albert Torres, Los Angeles Department of Recreation and Parks facilitated access within Griffith Park. We are also grateful for the generous support of Brian Brown and staff at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles. Jon Christensen provided insightful input on the manuscript while Ben Russin and other students from the L.A. Zoo Magnet high school helped in the field with the butterfly surveys.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Biological Sciences, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

    Timothy C. Bonebrake

  2. Cooper Ecological Monitoring, Inc., 255 Satinwood Ave., Oak Park, CA, 91377, USA

    Daniel S. Cooper

Authors
  1. Timothy C. Bonebrake
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Daniel S. Cooper
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Timothy C. Bonebrake.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 22 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bonebrake, T.C., Cooper, D.S. A Hollywood drama of butterfly extirpation and persistence over a century of urbanization. J Insect Conserv 18, 683–692 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-014-9675-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-014-9675-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation