How frequent is metapopulation structure among butterflies in grasslands? Occurrence patterns in a forest-dominated landscape in southern Sweden
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We determined the proportion of butterfly species that occur as metapopulations with grasslands as the only habitat. We counted all butterflies in 19 semi-natural grassland patches in a forest-dominated landscape in southern Sweden over a 5-y period. Seven of the 44 butterfly species observed exhibited a metapopulation structure. The other species either use grassland mainly for adult feeding but not for breeding (8 species), breed both in grassland and in surrounding habitat types (19 species), or are grassland specialists but their colonization—extinction dynamics are probably not significant, since they were present in nearly all (> 80%) patches (10 species). Occupancy was generally higher in larger patches, and tended to increase with patch connectivity. Among grassland specialists and habitat generalists, the connectivity measure tended to explain more of the variation in occupancy if the shortest dispersal paths avoiding routes over water were considered rather than a measure based on the Euclidian distance between patches. This indicates that lakes, even when they are just a few hundred metres wide, can act as barriers to dispersal for butterflies. We conclude that for many butterflies that occur in semi- natural grasslands in forest-dominated landscapes, intervening habitats are important as breeding sites or as dispersal barriers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".