landscape scale conservation of butterflies in subalpine hay meadows by romanian smallholders sally...

Landscape scale conservation of butterflies in subalpine hay meadows by Romanian smallholders

Sally Huband and Davy McCracken s.huband@macaulay.ac.uk

‘Mountain hay meadows – hotspots of biodiversity and traditional culture’7-9 June, Lunca de Jos

‘

Background

• Clear that smallholding based production in the village is of high nature value but why exactly?

• Interdisciplinary approach taken to relate ecological findings to smallholders’ management practices…

• …and to contextualise these findings within a broader understanding of the functioning of the production system

Research location: Moeciu de Sus

Research approach

• Butterfly transects– Establish species occurring in the meadow landscape– Correlate number of species with meadow management intensity– Explore spatial and temporal occurrence of species in relation to meadow

management (multivariate statistical analysis)

• Interviews and participant observation– Derive meadow management intensity scores for transect meadows– Understand the organisation and characteristics of smallholding

production…– …and wider functioning of the production system including the ‘communal’

grazing element

Findings (1/3): Butterfly species

• 46 species (4237 individuals) recorded on 8 transects over two summers

• 37 of which breeding in the meadows

• 10 species assoc. with calcareous grasslands – (Lycaena phlaeas, Cupido minimus, Maculinea rebeli, Maculinea arion,

Plebicula dorylas, Polyommatus icarus, Melanargia galathea, Coenonympha pamphilus, Erynnis tages, Hesperia comma)

• 3 Romanian red listed species – (Erynnis tages, Lycaena alciphron and Maculinea rebeli)

Findings (2/3): management intensity

• Management intensity scores indicate low-intensity dunging, grazing and cropping and variation between meadows

• Spearman’s rank correlation: management intensity scores with autochthonous species– 2005 data: rs = -0.714, p<0.001– 2006 data: rs = -0.667, p<0.001– significant but less so for highly mobile species

Findings (3/3): spatial and temporal patterns

• June - prior to cutting (July and August) edaphic factors influence spatial pattern of butterflies e.g. Cupido minimus

• July – cutting begins to determine spatial distribution (only Maniola jurtina recorded in mown meadows)

• August - late cut and uncut meadows with more natural patches of grasslands important for later flyers e.g. Melanargia galathea

• Importance of spatial and temporal variation in the management of a large number of small meadows

Variations in management between between meadows leads to vegetation mosaics

Globeflower

(Trollius europaeus)

Mountain arnica

(Arnica montana)

Household with low labour capacity, little or no dunging, lower fertility

Household with high labour capacity, high dunging, higher fertility

Variations in management withinwithin meadows adds to these vegetation mosaics

Furthest area from barn, less dung, mown once, dense cover of kidney vetch, small blue present

Close to barn, more dung, mown twice, no kidney vetch, small blue absent (but other species tolerant of higher fertility and earlier mowing present)

• Hundreds of small parcels managed in subtly different ways but all at a low-intensity

• Variations in management combine with variations in the natural environment = vegetation mosaics supporting differing ecological requirements of a range of species

• Importance of professional shepherds and commons

• Importance of older generation

• Necessity and cultural norms

Landscape scale conservation of meadows by smallholders in Moeciu de Sus: key factorskey factors

Acknowledgements

• Smallholders and shepherds of Moeciu de Sus

• Natalie and Mihai Orleanu, Centre for Mountain Ecology

• Supervisors: Davy McCracken, Lorna Cole, Bob Rees and Neil Thin

• Scottish Agricultural College and the University of Edinburgh

• ESRC/NERC Interdisciplinary Studentship

• EFNCP and the Macaulay Land Use Research Institute