Appendix A

Appendix A. List of all search strings used during planning of our systematic review, showing the number of papers returned from Web of Science. The search string eventually used to conduct our systematic review is shaded in grey.

Search String / Number of Results Returned Web of Science
Butterfly* OR Lepidoptera AND fragmentation / 460
Butterfly* OR Lepidoptera AND fragmentation AND conservation / 255
Butterfl* AND matrix / 253
Lepidoptera AND matrix / 194
Butterfly* OR Lepidoptera AND matrix AND conservation / 57
Butterfl* AND habitat mosaic / 39
Butterfly* OR Lepidoptera AND fragmentation AND matrix / 34
Butterfl* AND matrix quality / 34
Butterfly* biodiversity AND matrix / 29
Butterfl* AND matrix type / 24
Lepidoptera AND matrix type / 20
Butterfl* AND habitat surround* remnant* / 17
Butterfl* AND surrounding matrix / 16
Butterfl* AND agricult* matrix / 16
Butterfly* OR Lepidoptera AND fragmentation AND matrix AND conservation / 14
Lepidoptera AND matrix quality / 14
Lepidoptera biodiversity AND matrix / 13
Lepidoptera AND surrounding matrix / 12
Butterfl* biodiversity and matrix quality / 10
Butterfl* AND matrix surround* remnant* / 9
Butterfly* AND agricult* mosaic / 9
Butterfl* biodiversity AND surrounding matrix / 7
Butterfl* AND matrix condition / 5
Lepidoptera AND matrix quality / 5
Lepidoptera AND surrounding matrix / 5
Lepidoptera AND matrix condition / 2
Butterfl* AND pine matrix / 2
Butterfl* biodiversity AND matrix type / 2
Lepidoptera biodiversity AND matrix type / 2
Butterfl* AND pine mosaic / 1
Butterfl* biodiversity AND matrix condition / 0
Lepidoptera AND matrix condition / 0
Butterfl*OR Lepidoptera AND habitat surround* remnant* / 0

Appendix B

Appendix B.Analysis of our summary statistics and fragment-related questions.

Overview

Study Location, Fragments and Topic

We found significantly more papers conducted their research in the Northern Hemisphere (n=98) as compared to the Southern Hemisphere (n=2) (t1,99=115.66, P<0.001). Europe had the most studies (n = 63), followed by the Americas (n=30, Fig 2). Only five papers reported findings of research conducted in Asia, Africa or Australasia, while the remaining two papers detailed experiments that were conducted in more than one region (for example, countries of Europe and Asia; Fig 2).

Fig2 Graph showing the number of papers reporting research from each geographical region. Americas includes North, South and Central America. Mixed represents those studies that compiled work from more than one broad geographical region (i.e. Asia and the Americas)

Our review revealed grasslands and meadows were the most commonly studied fragment type (n=46, Fig 3). Grasslands included all meadows, calcareous grasslands, prairies, savannah grasslands as well as non-descript grassland areas. We found that other common fragment types studied included; areas of forest and rainforest (n=14), peat bogs/wet meadows (n=13), patches of a specific plant species (n=10) and woodlands (n=7). The remaining 10 papers were classed as ‘other’ and included fragments of sand dunes and desert, and often referred to situations where a mixture of fragment types was included in one study (i.e. meadows as well as woodlands and open areas), and so could not easily be classified (Fig 2).

Fig3 Graph showing the most common habitat types for remnant fragments in studies we reviewed

We found that papers included in our review were most likely to address issues of biodiversity (n=36), followed by dispersal (n=21) and genetics (n=16). Less common themes included studying aspects of edge effects, extinction debt, flight patterns, mate locating, and resource requirements (total n=27).

We also found that papers were almost evenly divided between those that dealt solely with one species of butterfly (n=49) and those that studied fragmentation in reference to two or more species (n=51).

Methods

We found the most commonly used sampling method in reviewed studies was the use of transects (n=37), followed by various methods of trapping or baiting butterflies (n=21) and mark/recapture methods (n=18). Much less common methods (with 6 papers or less using each of these methods) included; live tissue sampling, physically tracking individual butterflies, surveying entire sites and monitoring host plants for signs of butterfly use.

Results

We found 86% of all papers (t1,99=24.66, P<0.001) reported a significant effect of fragmentation, with the remaining 14% reporting either no change in species/community responses or insignificant changes. Of the papers that did report an effect of fragmentation, we found almost 77% (n=66) reported it as having a negative impact on butterfly populations (whether at the species or community level) (t1,99=14.18, P<0.001). We also found just under 60% (n=51) of papers that reported a negative impact of fragmentation went on to make management recommendations of some kind (either explicit or general advice as to how to avoid or lessen the negative impacts of fragmentation).