Mjr. Cowley et al., Density-distribution relationships in British butterflies. I. The effect of mobility and spatial scale, J ANIM ECOL, 70(3), 2001, pp. 410-425
1. Positive relationships between the density and distribution of species i
n taxonomic assemblages are well documented, but the underlying mechanisms
remain poorly understood. Two factors that are expected to be important in
explaining variation in these relationships are the spatial scale of analys
is and the relative mobility of the study species.
2. We examined density-distribution relationships in British butterflies at
a variety of spatial scales. Distributions were proportions of grid square
s occupied: 50 m grid within 0.25 km(2) areas (local), 500 m grid in 35 km(
2) (regional), 10 km grid across England, Wales and Scotland (national), 15
3 000 km(2) grid squares across Europe (European), and also seven categorie
s of international distribution (Global; 1 = European endemic to 7 = in 5 continents). Densities were measured using transect counts at local, regio
nal and national scales.
3. Different relationships between density and distribution occurred at dif
ferent scales of analysis. When we controlled for the effects of mobility a
nd /or phylogenetic association, a positive relationship between density an
d distribution was apparent at local, regional and national scales. Species
' national densities in Britain were positively correlated with their Europ
ean distribution sizes, but significantly negatively correlated with their
global range sizes.
4. Butterfly mobility had a positive effect on distribution and a negative
effect on density at all spatial scales. For a given total abundance, more
mobile species had lower densities but wider distributions, i.e. they were
less aggregated than more sedentary species.
5. The decreasing strength of the density-distribution correlation, and the
eventual reversal of the pattern, with the increasing magnitude of differe
nce between the scale at which density was measured relative to distributio
n, suggests that some element of niche may be important in determining dens
ities and distributions. However, the measure of niche breadth analysed did
not explain significant variation in density distribution, or in the densi
ty-distribution relationship.