1
Supplementary material S 1
2
Locations of the 48 study sites of semi-natural grasslands in SW Finland. The recent
3
management history is indicated by the dot colour (black = currently grazed, grey =
4
abandoned 1-9 years ago, open circle = abandoned ≥10 years ago). The main study regions,
5
Uusimaa (U) and Pirkanmaa (P), are denoted with grey shading.
6
7
1
1
Supplementary material S 2
2
A list of the study sites with their species richness and total density of the declining and non-
3
declining butterflies and moths observed within the 0.25 ha sampling squares in the year
4
2000. Management history has been classified as the following: (1) currently grazed pastures,
5
(2) former pastures abandoned 1-9 years before the study and (3) former pastures abandoned
6
≥10 years before the study
7
ID
Site
Management
history
Species richness
Declining
Non-
Total density
Declining
declining
Nondeclining
1
Abramsby
1
4
18
14
167
2
Backaviken
3
6
18
44
380
3
Brännbollstad
1
2
11
2
42
4
Dåvits
3
3
21
7
165
5
Hannula (U)
1
3
14
31
85
6
Jokivarsi
1
1
14
5
102
7
Karstu
2
8
22
17
184
8
Kivelä
3
9
21
41
299
9
Kolmperänoja
1
7
21
10
145
10
Lassila
1
3
14
11
63
11
Linjala
1
3
17
17
86
12
Malmgård
1
4
17
12
79
13
Mörby
1
3
12
5
102
14
Nuutinmäki
3
3
17
39
154
15
Nybacka
1
5
21
16
270
16
Pohjola
3
4
23
69
221
2
17
Påvals
1
4
8
5
32
18
Ryönä
1
6
20
21
273
19
Sandberginpelto
2
8
26
107
581
20
Satulinmäki
2
7
23
14
306
21
Uusikylä
1
3
11
5
155
22
Välli
3
4
15
9
121
23
Westerkulla
3
5
20
18
298
24
Östergård
3
5
15
28
197
25
Annila
1
1
7
2
63
26
Hannula (P)
3
5
16
12
433
27
Hietikko
3
5
21
12
777
28
Hoivala
2
7
23
37
490
29
Järvensivu
1
2
7
4
32
30
Koivula
2
2
23
5
558
31
Korpijärvi
2
5
21
9
305
32
Kurki-Heikkilä
2
3
23
28
429
33
Kuusjärvi
1
2
21
17
472
34
Kylä-Paavola
3
5
25
42
498
35
Lanteri
2
4
23
10
382
36
Marjasuonmaa
2
3
19
10
487
37
Muntee
2
6
23
71
327
38
Mäki-Laurila
1
5
17
14
461
39
Niinimäki
1
7
17
39
256
40
Penkkilä
3
6
16
17
360
41
Pirkkalankylä
3
4
23
21
384
42
Rautajärvi
1
5
20
41
308
3
43
Saukonperä
1
1
9
1
70
44
Setälä
3
2
19
14
379
45
Särkikoski
1
3
16
29
307
46
Varppee
3
3
21
5
871
47
Viitala
1
2
23
7
278
48
Ylä-Herttuala
1
0
7
0
111
1
2
4
1
Supplementary material S 3
2
A list of the grassland-preferring butterfly and moth species observed in this study with the
3
number of observed individuals within the 0.25 ha study plots and the number of sites with
4
positive records. Lists are sorted in order of decreasing abundance, and separate lists are
5
shown for the declining and the non-declining butterflies and moths. 2 denotes species for
6
which open grasslands constitute a secondary breeding habitat. For butterflies the division
7
between declining and non-declining species is based on the trend analysis by Kuussaari et al.
8
(2007). For moths the division is based on the results presented in the Atlas of Finnish
9
Macrolepidoptera (Huldén et al. 2000), so that species with at least 15% decrease in the
10
relative number of observations during 1988-1997 compared to earlier records (-1987) were
11
considered as declining. As different taxonomic groups differed in recording activity, relative
12
changes in the number of observations were calculated separately for each moth family
13
(Pöyry et al. 2005). The nomenclature is based on Kullberg et al. (2002).
14
15
Declining species
Species name
No. of observed
No. of sites
individuals
Coenonympha glycerion
334
29
Coenonympha pamphilus
160
14
Idaea serpentata
142
24
Epirrhoe tristata
101
22
Lycaena hippothoe
56
18
Camptogramma bilineatum
48
17
Callistege mi
48
28
Lythria cruentaria
34
6
Pyrgus malvae
23
12
5
Epirrhoe hastulata
15
9
Zygaena viciae
9
5
Eupithecia pygmaeata
8
3
Parasemia plantaginis2
6
5
Scolitantides orion
5
1
Adscita statices
2
2
Pyrgus alveus
2
2
Argynnis niobe
1
1
No. of observed
No. of sites
1
2
3
Non-declining species
Species name
individuals
Aphantopus hyperantus
2999
47
Scotopteryx chenopodiata
2517
46
Chiasmia clathrata
2291
44
Lycaena virgaureae
1179
45
Pieris napi2
699
47
Scopula immorata
600
42
Euclidia glyphica
410
41
Polypogon tentacularius
377
36
Boloria selene
324
24
Thymelicus lineola
275
33
Odezia atrata
200
24
Siona lineata
183
37
Polyommatus amandus
176
35
6
Polyommatus semiargus
174
31
Ochlodes sylvanus2
162
38
Argynnis adippe
121
29
Epirrhoe alternata
112
22
Polyommatus icarus
111
21
Brenthis ino
92
23
Scopula immutata
84
24
Argynnis aglaja
79
24
Timandra griseata
73
18
Cryptocala chardinyi
64
19
Aricia artaxerxes
53
18
Diacrisia sannio2
50
19
Idaea pallidata
38
13
Lycaena phlaeas
27
17
Anthocharis cardamines2
26
14
Aricia eumedon
19
5
Eilema lutarellum
13
9
Hypena proboscidalis
7
6
Papilio machaon2
4
3
Perizoma albulatum
4
3
Eulithis pyraliata
2
2
1
2
References
3
Huldén L, Albrecht A, Itämies J, Malinen P, Wettenhovi J (2000) Suomen suurperhosatlas -
4
Finlands storfjärilsatlas. Lepidopterological Society of Finland, Finnish Museum of
5
Natural History, Helsinki
7
1
2
3
Kullberg J, Albrecht A, Kaila L, Varis V (2002) Checklist of Finnish Lepidoptera - Suomen
perhosten luettelo. Sahlbergia 6:45-190
Kuussaari M, Heliölä J, Pöyry J, Saarinen K (2007) Contrasting trends of butterfly species
4
preferring semi-natural grasslands, field margins and forest edges in northern Europe.
5
Journal of Insect Conservation 11:351-366
6
Pöyry J, Lindgren S, Salminen J, Kuussaari M (2005) Responses of butterfly and moth
7
species to restored cattle grazing in semi-natural grasslands. Biological Conservation
8
122:465-478
9
8
1
Supplementary material S 4
2
Relationships of species richness of the grassland-preferring butterflies and moths observed
3
within the 0.25 ha study plot with species richness observed within the entire grassland patch.
4
The recent management history is indicated by the dot colour (black = currently grazed, grey
5
= abandoned 1-9 years ago, open circle = abandoned ≥10 years ago).
6
Species richness (entire grassland)
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
10
15
20
25
30
Species richness (0.25 ha plot)
7
8
9
35
40
1
Supplementary material S 5
2
3
Variation partitioning analysis
4
Variation partitioning was used here to decompose the observed variation in species richness
5
and total density of butterflies and moths among three groups of predictors: habitat patch area
6
(A), local habitat quality (Q) and regional habitat connectivity (C). Variation partitioning was
7
performed using a series of partial generalized linear models (GLM) including different
8
combinations of the above three variable groups included at a time. The different variation
9
fractions were solved using the equations presented by Anderson and Gribble (1998) and
10
Heikkinen et al. (2004). Poisson error structure with logarithmic link function was applied in
11
the models. As a first step, each explanatory variable was related to the response variables.
12
Quadratic terms were tested in addition to linear terms in order to detect possible curvilinear
13
relationships. Next, within each of the three variable groups a forward selection of variables
14
contributing significantly to the explained deviance was performed (Borcard et al. 1992;
15
Heikkinen et al. 2004). An F-ratio test was applied to test the significance (p < 0.05) of each
16
added variable.
17
18
Literature cited
19
Anderson MJ, Gribble NA (1998) Partitioning the variation among spatial, temporal and
20
environmental components in a multivariate data set. Australian Journal of Ecology
21
23:158-167
22
23
24
Borcard D, Legendre P, Drapeau P (1992) Partialling out the spatial component of ecological
variation. Ecology 73:1045-1055
Heikkinen RK, Luoto M, Virkkala R, Rainio K (2004) Effects of habitat cover, landscape
25
structure and spatial variables on the abundance of birds in an agricultural-forest
26
mosaic. Journal of Applied Ecology 41:824-835
27
10
1
Tables
2
Table 1. Results of variation partitioning (VP) for species richness of the declining and non-
3
declining butterflies and moths. Variables selected in each group of variables are shown. For
4
description of variables see Material and methods.
5
Variable
Estimate±SE
Fnum, den
p-value
Mean vegetation height
0.027±0.027
22.181,46
<0.001
Mean vegetation height2
-0.0001±0.0004
5.221,45
0.024
Nectar plant abundance, sum
0.267±0.131
3.011,44
0.090
Nectar plant abundance, sum2
-0.009±0.005
4.451,43
0.041
Vegetation diversity, SHDI
0.394±0.242
4.151,42
0.048
Nectar plant abundance, estimate
0.119±0.023
56.631,46
<0.001
Mean vegetation height
0.010±0.003
22.031,45
<0.001
0.075±0.048
4.061,44
0.050
Declining species
Habitat quality (Q)
Non-declining species
Habitat quality (Q)
Habitat patch area (A)
Patch area (logarithmic)
6
2
denotes a quadratic term
7
11
1
Table 2. Results of variation partitioning (VP) for total density of the declining and non-
2
declining species butterflies and moths. Variables selected in each group of variables are
3
shown. For description of variables see Material and methods.
4
Variable
Estimate±SE
Fnum, den
p-value
0.073±0.007
7.001,45
0.011
0.026±0.003
8.751,44
0.005
Study region
0.424±0.010
33.061,46
<0.001
Temperature, average
-0.091±0.010
8.741,45
0.005
Mean vegetation height
0.116±0.003
21.431,44
<0.001
Mean vegetation height2
-0.002±0.000
22.031,43
<0.001
0.233±0.015
5.391,42
0.025
Declining species
Habitat connectivity (C)
Semi-natural grasslands, radius
1.5 km, α = 1
Habitat quality (Q)
Nectar plant abundance, estimate
Non-declining species
Adjusting variables
Habitat quality (Q)
Habitat patch area (A)
Patch area (logarithmic)
5
Note: Site no. 19 (see S 2) formed an outlier in a residual examination of the declining species
6
model, and this site was thus excluded from the analysis.
7
2
denotes a quadratic term
8
12
A
Unexplained variation (U)
51.0%
Patch area (A)
0%
(AC)
0%
B
Connectivity (C)
0%
Unexplained variation (U)
35.4%
Patch area (A)
3.2%
(AC)
0%
Connectivity (C)
0%
(ACQ)
0% (CQ)
(AQ)
0%
0%
(ACQ)
0% (CQ)
(AQ)
-1.9%
0%
Habitat quality (Q)
49.0%
Habitat quality (Q)
63.3%
1
2
Figure 1. Results of variation partitioning for species richness of the declining (a) and the
3
non-declining (b) species of butterflies and moths. Percentages of explained deviance are
4
shown for each variable group.
5
6
7
13
A
Unexplained variation (U)
73.0%
Patch area (A)
0%
(AC)
0%
B
Unexplained variation (U)
49.3%
Patch area (A)
6.2%
Connectivity (C)
15.8%
(AC)
0%
Connectivity (C)
0%
(ACQ)
0% (CQ)
(AQ)
0%
-3.8%
(ACQ)
0% (CQ)
(AQ)
-5.9%
0%
Habitat quality (Q)
15.0%
Habitat quality (Q)
50.4%
1
2
Figure 2. Results of variation partitioning for total density of the declining (a) and the non-
3
declining (b) species of butterflies and moths. Percentages of explained deviance are shown
4
for each variable group. Calculations of the non-declining species (b) are based on deviance
5
that remained unexplained after including two adjusting variables (study region and mean
6
temperature) in the GLM.
7
8
14