Page 1
1
The Feasibility of the Re-introduction of the Karner Blue Butterfly to Ontario
Jennifer Bernard
Siobhan Dunets
Brittany Hammill
Elizabeth Hunter
Kelli McKay
Christopher Wagner
April 2, 2012
University of Guelph, 50 Stone Road East, Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1, Canada
Page 2
2
Executive Summary
The Karner Blue butterfly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis), named for its characteristic blue
colouration, is an extirpated species in Ontario and an endangered species in parts of the U.S.
(COSEWIC, 2000). In southern Ontario the butterfly occupied oak savanna habitat characterized
by wild lupine and mixed canopy cover as a result of fire disturbance (COSEWIC, 2000). Land
conversion and fire suppression, among other threats, have led to the loss of oak savannas which
has caused the extirpation of the Karner Blue butterfly and made re-introductions difficult to
accomplish (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2003). Previous Karner Blue butterfly re-
introduction efforts in Ohio, Indiana, and New Hampshire, as well as the re-introduction of the
Large Blue butterfly and Frosted Elfin demonstrate how re-introductions may be carried out,
often with successful results.
This literature review addressed the question: what is required to re-introduce the Karner Blue
butterfly and stabilize its population? Using information on the biology of the Karner Blue
butterfly and the findings of previous re-introduction projects, the list of requirements for re-
introduction were determined to be as follows:
● Dry sandy prairie or oak savanna habitat characteristics (Chan and Packer, 2006)
● Sands or well-drained soils that are frequently disturbed (Halpern, 2005; Pavlovic
and Grundel, 2009; Shi et al., 2005)
● Early successional sites (Chan and Packer, 2006)
● Wild lupine (1.50 stems/m2) (Chan and Packer, 2006)
● Nectar species (first brood 47.25 stems/m2 and second brood 47.85 stems/m2) (Chan
and Packer, 2006)
● Five tending ant species (showed to increase larvae survival) (Chan and Packer,
2006)
● Open/patchy canopy which is connected to facilitate movement (Huntzinger, 2003;
Halpern, 2005; Pavlovic and Grundel, 2009)
● Reduced cover/density of woody species (Halpern, 2005; Pavlovic and Grundel,
2009)
Page 3
3
● Increased light intensity (standard deviation of integrated light intensity of 16.82%)
(Chan and Packer, 2006)
● Minimum area of 800 ha (Smallidge and Leopold, 1997)
● Minimum population of second generation adults of 1000 individuals (Smallidge and
Leopold, 1997)
All information collected has been from peer-reviewed articles and reputable sources, such as
government websites. This literature review can be used by those involved in the re-introduction
of this species as an up to date collection of significant information, as well as providing
information for further research that may need to take place.
Key words: Karner Blue butterfly, re-introduction, extirpated, endangered, wild lupine biology,
description, mating, wild lupine, predators, disease, parasites, ants, threats, habitat requirements
Page 4
4
Table of Contents Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 2
Table of Contents......................................................................................................................................... 4
1. Introduction.............................................................................................................................................. 5
2. Biology .................................................................................................................................................... 6
General Description ................................................................................................................................. 6
Life Cycle ................................................................................................................................................ 7
Mating...................................................................................................................................................... 9
Food Source ............................................................................................................................................. 9
Predators and Parasites .......................................................................................................................... 11
Disease ................................................................................................................................................... 12
3. Habitat ................................................................................................................................................... 13
4. Relationships With Other Species.......................................................................................................... 16
5. Wild Lupine ........................................................................................................................................... 19
Habitat and the Importance of Fire ........................................................................................................ 21
Reasons for the Decline of Wild Lupine................................................................................................ 21
Re-introduction of Wild Lupine and Maintenance of Populations ........................................................ 21
6. Re-introduction Projects for the Karner Blue Butterfly in the US ......................................................... 23
Captive Rearing ..................................................................................................................................... 24
Re-introduction Projects of Other Species ............................................................................................. 25
7. Requirements for the Re-introduction of the Karner Blue Butterfly...................................................... 26
Habitat Requirements ............................................................................................................................ 27
Habitat Assessment Prior to Re-introduction......................................................................................... 28
Restoration and Maintenance of Re-introduction Sites.......................................................................... 28
Central Threats....................................................................................................................................... 30
8. Methods and Materials........................................................................................................................... 31
9. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 31
References ................................................................................................................................................. 34
Page 5
5
1. Introduction
With the world’s growing and expanding human population, many species have become
endangered or extirpated because of poaching and loss of habitat, among other reasons. The
specific species of concern in this literature review is the Karner Blue butterfly (Lycaeides
melissa samuelis). Historically, several colonies of this species were present throughout southern
Ontario, including the most recently documented colonies at Port Franks and St. Williams (Fig.
1; COSEWIC, 2000). However, the Karner Blue butterfly has since been listed as extirpated in
Canada and has been declared endangered throughout the U.S. (Grundel et al., 1998). The
Karner Blue butterfly is in this situation because it has very specific requirements for continued
survival that are not currently being met (Forrester et al., 2005).
Figure 1. Map of historical locations of Karner Blue butterfly populations in southern Ontario. Provided
by COSEWIC (2000).
Page 6
6
This butterfly is important because it could be considered an “umbrella species”, that is, a
species whose own conservation and that of its habitat protects other species in a given area
(Chan and Laurence, 2006). The problem that is addressed in this review is the lack of
consolidation of all pertinent information to the Karner Blue butterfly and its re-introduction.
This literature review contains a comprehensive overview of relevant research concerning the
life cycle and habitat needs of this species. Using this information in combination with the
findings of previous butterfly re-introduction projects, general recommendations are made
regarding requirements for re-introduction.
2. Biology
General Description
The Karner Blue butterfly is a small (wingspan of 2.2-3.2cm) North American species of
butterfly named for its characteristic blue colouration (Fig. 2; COSEWIC, 2000). The adult male
and female differ in wing colouration, with the male exhibiting iridescent blue wings surrounded
with a black outline and white outer fringe (COSEWIC, 2000). The wings of the female display a
gradient from dull-blue in the center to purple-brown near the edges, and have a border of black
spots with orange crescents (COSEWIC, 2000). The underside of the male and female wings is
grey with black spots, but the females again exhibit orange crescents surrounding silver spots
that are outlined in black (COSEWIC, 2000).
Figure 2. Markings of the adult female (left), adult male (middle), and underside of the wings of both
sexes (right) of the Karner Blue butterfly. Provided by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2003).
Page 7
7
Life Cycle
The life cycle of the Karner Blue butterfly has been extensively documented. The Karner Blue
butterfly undergoes four life stages, consisting of egg, larvae, pupae, and adult (COSEWIC,
2000). Each summer, two generations of eggs are hatched, one around mid-April and the other in
June, although exact timing varies depending on weather conditions (Fig. 3; Haack, 1993). The
first generation hatches from overwintered eggs laid by the second generation from the previous
summer (Cryan and Dirig, 1978). The first generation is 3-4 times smaller than the second,
possibly due to less food availability at that time of year (COSEWIC, 2000). The ratio between
sexes in each generation is near 1:1 (Packer, 1987).
Figure 3. Approximate timing of life stages of the first and second generations of Karner Blue butterflies.
Timing may vary based on climate and weather (ie. warm conditions will cause hatching and thus other
stages to occur earlier). Provided by Haack (1993).
The eggs of the Karner Blue butterfly are pale green, flattened and round in shape (Fig. 4) and
are deposited on the lower leaves and leaf petioles of the wild lupine plant (around the first leaf
Page 8
8
petiole) (COSEWIC, 2000; Packer, 1990). Eggs from the first generation hatch after
approximately 7 days, whereas eggs from the second generation fall to the ground with the wild
lupine leaves in winter and are preserved there before hatching next spring (COSEWIC, 2000).
Figure 4. Drawings (left and middle) and photograph (right) depicting the size, shape, and overall
appearance of the Karner Blue butterfly egg. Provided by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2003).
Karner Blue butterfly larvae are dorsally flattened and pubescent, with green bodies that
effectively camouflage them on the wild lupine plant (Cryan and Dirig, 1978; Packer, 1987).
Savignano (1990) proposed there are four larval instar stages while Opler and Krizek (1984)
proposed five. The larval stage lasts from 18 to 21 days (Cryan and Dirig, 1978). Lane (1999)
found larvae have improved growth and survivorship on wild lupine growing in the shade.
Following the larval stage, the pupa stage lasts for 8 days (Cryan and Dirig, 1978). Starting out
pea green, pupae turn blackish-purple before adult immergence (Haack, 1993). Pupae can be
found attached to lupine plants or in underlying litter (Hess, 1993).
Adult Karner Blue butterflies have an average life span of 5 days in the wild (Cuthrell, 1990). In
Ontario, the flight season for the first generation takes place, on average, from May 25 to June 24
and the second generation from July 20 to August 18 with variation based on the weather during
the particular year (COSEWIC, 2000). Unlike larvae, adults prefer sunlit locations, which Lane
(1999) proposes is likely for the purpose of thermoregulation. Adults have weak flying
capabilities and as such tend to be sedentary, not travelling farther than one kilometer (Lawrence
and Cook, 1989). In warm temperatures butterflies are active all day (Lawrence and Cook,
Page 9
9
1989). However, overly hot or cold days and rain reduce and stop activity respectively (Haack,
1993; Lawrence and Cook, 1989). Temperatures below 24.6°C for females or 26.4°C for males
lead to greatly reduced flight activity, whereas heat stress tends to occur at temperatures above
35.6°C in females and 36.8°C in males (Lane, 1999). Temperature sensitivity in the Karner Blue
butterfly means that daily temperature affects which habitat areas are used by the butterflies
(Lane, 1999). Butterflies will tend to occupy areas with open canopies at lower temperatures and
seek shaded or partially shaded areas at high temperatures (Lane, 1999). Temperature influences
where oviposition occurs in the same way, with oviposition occurring in shaded areas when
ambient temperature is high (Lane, 1999).
Mating
Adult butterflies mate and lay eggs within their five day lifespan (COSEWIC, 2000). Grundel et
al. (1998) proposed that mating occurs mainly in large openings of canopy cover, as opposed to
more shaded areas. Males are only weakly territorial, and as a result disperse slightly more than
females (COSEWIC, 2000). Breeding sites historically varied in Ontario and coincided spatially
with historical colony locations (COSEWIC, 2000).
Food Source
The larval stage of the Karner Blue butterfly relies solely on wild lupine as a food source (Fig 5;
Haack, 1993). Younger larvae feed only on the leaves of the plant, but later stages may feed on
buds and flowers, although to a lesser extent (Haack, 1993). Packer (1987) and Cryan and Dirig
(1978) propose that the first instars feed within the leaf, and that subsequent stages consume the
underside and inner flesh. However, Schweitzer (1989) has suggested that the larvae instead feed
on the upper surface of the leaf.
Quality of the wild lupine plant can vary due to site conditions and this can affect the larva's
fitness (Grundel et al., 1998). Grundel et al. (1998) found that larvae which fed on shade-grown
wild lupine grew faster than those that fed upon lupine grown in the sun. This likely occurs as a
result of sun vs. shade exposure influencing plant nutrients, flowering state, plant health, and
levels of secondary plant compounds such as alkaloids (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2003).
Page 10
10
Non-flowering wild lupine appears to provide a better food source (increases larvae survival)
than flowering wild lupine (Maxwell, 1998).
Figure 5. (A) Line drawing depicting shape of wild lupine flower, leaf and seed pod. (B) Photograph of
wild lupine plant with blue flowers. Flower colour can range from pink to blue to white. Provided by
Natural Resources Conservation Service (2012).
Adult butterflies will consume nectar from almost any available plant (Table 1; Savignano and
Zaremba, 1993). Food source species vary between the two generations and are also based on the
site (COSEWIC, 2000). For example, Packer (1990) listed seven plant species used by the first
generation of butterflies of the Port Franks population in Ontario, and an additional five available
only to the second generation. More nectaring flowers are available to the second generation,
including Butterfly Weed (Asclepias tuberose) and New Jersey Tea (Ceanothus americana) at
the Port Franks site (Schweitzer, 1984). Lack of nectaring plants in an area can limit dispersal
despite the presence of wild lupine (Packer, 1987).
Page 11
11
Table 1. Scientific and common names of the most common food (nectar providing) plants of the first
and second generations of Karner Blue butterflies. Provided by COSEWIC (2000).
Common Nectaring Plants of the Karner Blue Butterfly in Ontario.
First Generation
Wild Lupine, Lupinus perennis
Blackberry, Rubus allegheniensis
Strawberry, Fragaria virginiana
Yellow hawkweed, Hieracium pilosella
Dewberry, Rubus flagellaris
Thyme-Leaved Sandwort, Arenaria serpyllifolia
Lyre-Leaved Rock Cress, Arabis lyrata
Juneberry, Amelanchier sp.
Wild Geranium, Geranium maculatum
Puccoon, Lithospermum caroliniense
Second Generation
Knapweed, Centaurea maculosa
New Jersey Tea, Ceanothus americanus
Butterfly Weed, Asclepias tuberosa
Flowering Spurge, Euphorbia corollata
Dwarf Blazing-star, Liatris cylindracea
Wild Bergamot, Monarda fistulosa
Black-Eyed Susan, Rudbeckia hirta
Predators and Parasites
Generalist predators including Polistes wasps (Polistes fuscatus, and P. metricus), pentatomid
stink bugs (Podisus maculiventris), Formica ants (F. schaufussi and F. incerta) and spiders have
all been noted to prey on Karner Blue butterfly larvae (Savignano, 1990; Packer, 1987).
Shellhorn et al. (2005) found that the seven spotted ladybug (Coccinella septempunctata), a
biocontrol species introduced for aphid control, tends to co-occur with the Karner Blue butterfly
and will feed on the butterfly larvae. Shellhorn et al. (2005) found that predation of the larvae by
C. septempunctata significantly increased with predator density. Therefore, these results would
Page 12
12
suggest that the proposed habitat for the re-introduction of the butterfly should be located a
minimum distance away from agricultural fields applying C. septempunctata (Shellhorn et al.,
2005). However, a recommended minimum distance has not yet been quantified, and as such
further research on C. septempunctata dispersal is needed (Shellhorn et al., 2005).
Predators of the adult butterfly include crab spiders, robber flies, ambush bugs, assassin bugs,
and dragonflies (Haack, 1993). Grazing by deer can also contribute directly to larvae mortality
(Schweitzer, 1994). It is currently unknown whether birds feed on Karner Blue butterflies,
although beak marks have occasionally been found on wings of the adult butterfly (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 2003).
Four parasites of Karner Blue butterfly larvae were reported by Savignano (1990): the tachinid
fly (Aplomya theclarum), the braconid wasp (Apanteles sp., possibly epinotiae), and two
ichneumonid wasps (Neotypus nobilitator nobilitator and Parania geniculate). However, key
predators and parasites, as well as the extent of predation and parasitism, have yet to be
investigated (Schellhorn et al., 2005). It is currently unknown how significant an impact
predation has, relative to resource availability, on the survival of various life stages of the Karner
Blue butterfly.
Disease
The impacts of disease on Karner Blue butterfly populations is still widely unknown and requires
further investigation (Haack, 1993). However, some significant research and documentation has
been conducted on a bacterial infection affecting the Karner Blue butterfly. Nice et al. (2009)
found widespread Wolbachia in Karner Blue butterfly populations west of Lake Michigan.
Wolbachia is a heritable endosymbiotic bacteria that is maternally inherited and alters its host’s
reproductive biology (Nice et al., 2009). While these infections can manifest in varying
detrimental phenotypes, this particular infection appears to have induced cytoplasmic
incompatibility in the western Karner Blue butterfly population (Nice et al., 2009). This means
sperm of infected males cannot fertilize eggs of uninfected females or females infected with a
different strain (Nice et al., 2009). The result is fewer viable embryos being produced, leading to
a decrease in population until the infection is fixed or disappears (Nice et al., 2009). Though
Page 13
13
temporary, this decrease in population size can put individual populations at risk (Nice et al.,
2009).
3. Habitat
The Karner Blue butterfly is typically found in frequently disturbed, early successional habitats
which in Ontario consisted of oak savannas, beach dunes, or woodlands prior to extirpation
(COSEWIC, 2000). These habitats are characterized by well-drained sandy soils and open
canopy sustained by fire disturbance, with canopy cover ranging from zero to between fifty and
eighty percent (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2003). Forbs and grasses are the main understory
vegetation and tend to colonize in canopy openings (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2003).
Habitat structure is maintained by conditions wet enough (determined by precipitation, soil
drainage, and topography) to permit tree growth while maintaining conditions dry enough to
allow for cyclic fire disturbance (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2003). Habitat temperature is
typical of that found in southern Ontario (COSEWIC, 2000). The Karner Blue butterfly thrives in
this highly specific habitat for a number of reasons, including the nectar plants and symbiotic ant
species the habitat supports (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, 2003). However, the main features
of oak savanna habitat conducive to Karner Blue butterfly survival is wild lupine presence and
mixed canopy cover (Grundel et al., 1998).
While the necessity of wild lupine for larvae survival has already been commented on, canopy
structure is also key to reproduction and adult and larval survival. Grundel et al. (1998) reported
the percentage of male and female Karner Blue butterfly habitat use as well as the percentage of
lupine cover is directed as a function of canopy cover.
Page 14
14
Figure 6. Male and female habitat use and percent lupine cover as a function of canopy cover. Provided
by Grundel et al. (1998).
It is evident that male and female Karner Blue butterflies show behavioural separation of habitat
use in relation to canopy cover (Fig. 6; Grundel et al., 1998). This is largely due to the fact that
male Karner Blue butterflies prefer larger canopy openings for mating and feeding on various
nectar sources, which generally decrease with increased canopy cover (Grundel et al., 1998).
Conversely, female Karner Blue butterflies prefer a canopy cover percentage of around 30-60%
for oviposition (Fig. 7; Grundel et al., 1998). It is apparent that the expected use and the actual
distribution of oviposition sites differs significantly (Grundel et al., 1998). As mentioned earlier,
Grundel et al. (1998) also showed that larvae preferentially fed on larger lupine plants that
tended to grow in shaded areas. Overall, these findings point at the importance of habitat with a
mixture of open canopy and shaded areas to ensure Karner Blue butterfly survival.
Page 15
15
Figure 7. Distribution of oviposition sites and mean lupine abundance score as a function of overhead
canopy cover. Striped bars represent the distribution of oviposition sites, empty bars the expected use, and
the line the mean lupine abundance score. Provided by Grundel et al. (1998).
Abundance of suitable Karner Blue butterfly habitat such as oak savannas has been rapidly
declining (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2003). Loss or degradation of habitat may occur as a
result of actual habitat destruction, fragmentation, or increase in canopy cover of native habitat.
Destruction or fragmentation occurs as a result of conversion of land to urban or agricultural uses
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2003). Increase in canopy cover has occurred as a result of fire
suppression, in an effort to prevent property damage and also preserve other forest species, and
also likely as a result of extensive planting of pine trees in native habitat (Konecny, 1986; U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, 2003).
In areas where the Karner Blue butterfly is not yet extinct, habitat loss has often forced the
species into remnant early successional habitats such as power-line corridors, trails and road
systems of forests, airports, and military training areas (Forrester et al., 2005; Smith et al., 2002,
Warren et al., 2007). These new habitat areas all share structurally similar attributes such as: the
Page 16
16
amount of canopy cover, understory vegetation, soil types, and disturbance regimes (Forrester et
al., 2005).
4. Relationships With Other Species
Like many members of the Lycaenidae family, the Karner Blue butterfly larvae form a
mutualistic relationship with certain ant species (Shapiro, 1973). The ants benefit from the
Karner Blue butterfly through harvesting the larvae that provide a nectar-like solution from
special glands (Savignano, 1990; Savignano, 1994). Tending by ants has been shown to increase
survival of larvae in the field (Savignano, 1990; Savignano, 1994). Savignano (1990) showed
lower predation of larvae with ant tending, suggesting larval benefit is a result of protection from
predation and parasitism. A list of all the tending ant species found to be associated with the
Karner Blue butterfly was provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2003) (Table 2).
Table 2. Ant species tending Karner blue butterfly larvae and pupae. Ont. (Ontario), WI (Wisconsin), MN
(Minnesota), NY (New York), MI (Michigan).
Ant Species Tending Larvae Locality References
Aphaenogaster rudis Ont. Packer (1991)
Brachymyrmex debilis Emery MN, WI Lane (1999)
Camponotus americanus Mayr NY Savignano (1994)
Camponotus ferrugineus WI Bleser (1992)
Camponotus novaeboracensis Fitch NY Savignano (1994)
Camponotus pennsylvanicus Ont. Packer (1991)
Crematogaster ashmeadi WI Bleser (1992)
Crematogaster cerasi Fitch NY Savignano (1994)
Crematogaster lineolata (Say) MI Herms (1996)
Dolichonderus (Hypoclinea)plagiatus Mayr NY, WI Savignano (1994), Lane (1999)
Page 17
17
Dolichonderus mariae Forel MI, WI Herms (1996), Lane (1999)
Dolichonderus pustulatus Mayr MI Herms (1996)
Formica difficilis Emery NY Savignano (1994)
Formica exsectoides Ont. Packer (1991)
Formica fusca WI Bleser (1992)
Formica lasioides Emery NY Savignano (1994)
Formica Montana WI Bleser (1992)
Formica (Neoformica) incerta Emery NY, MN, WI Savignano (1994), Lane (1999)
Formica (Neoformica) nitidventris Emery NY Savignano (1994)
Formica (Neoformica) schaufussi Mayr NY, MI Savignano (1994), Herms (1996)
Formica neogatates Emery MI Herms (1996)
Formica obscuripes Forel WI, MI Herms (1996), Lane (1999)
Formica obscuriventris Mayr MI Herms (1996)
Formica querquetulana Wheeler NY Savignano (1994)
Formica schaufussi WI Bleser (1992)
Formica subnuda Emery WI Lane (1999)
Formica subsericea Say NY, MI, WI Savignano (1994), Herms (1996),
Lane (1999)
Lasius alienus Foerster NY, MN, WI Savignano (1994), Lane (1999)
Lasius neoniger Emery NY, MI Savignano (1994), Herms (1996)
Monomorium emarginatum DuBuois NY Savignano (1994)
Monomorium pharaonis (L.) MI Herms (1996)
Myrmica americana Weber NY, MI, MN,
WI Savignano (1994), Herms (1996),
Lane (1999)
Page 18
18
Myrmica emeryana Forel MN, WI Lane (1999)
Myrmica fracticornis Emery NY, MI Savignano (1994), Herms (1996)
Myrmica lobifrons MN, WI Lane (1999)
Myrmica punctiventris Ont. Packer (1991)
Myrmica sculptilis NY Savignano (1990)
Paratrechina parvula Mayr NY Savignano (1994)
Prenolepsis imparis (Mayr) MN Lane (1999)
Tapinoma sessile Say NY,WI,MN Bleser (1992), Savignano (1994),
Lane (1999)
Tetramorium caespitum WI Bleser (1992)
Ant Tending Pupae
Crematogaster lineolata (Say) WI Lane (1999)
Dolichonderus tashenbergi (Mayr) WI Lane (1999)
Formica obscuripes Forel WI Lane (1999)
Lasius alienus Foerster WI Lane (1999)
Lasius neoniger Emery WI Lane (1999)
Leptothorax sp. WI Lane (1999)
Myrmica emeryana Forel WI Lane (1999)
Tapinoma sessile Say WI Lane (1999)
In addition to this direct mutualism with ants, the Karner Blue butterfly could be considered to
share an important indirect relationship with numerous other species. A number of species co-
occur with the Karner Blue butterfly including plants such as the Prairie thistle (Cirsium hillii
Page 19
19
Fernald) and insects such as the Frosted Elfin (Callophrys irus Godart), among others (Chan and
Packer, 2006).
5. Wild Lupine
Wild lupine is essential to the survival of Karner Blue butterfly larvae and therefore a working
knowledge of its properties and habitat requirements is crucial to the butterfly’s re-introduction.
Wild lupine is a nitrogen fixing, herbaceous perennial plant that is found on sandy, nutrient poor,
slightly acidic soils (Pavlovic and Grundel, 2009; Bernhardt et al., 2008; Halpern, 2005). The
plant can grow to 20-60cm in height and appears to grow best in small forest clearings where it
experiences partial shade, as it suffers in habitat with too little or too much direct sunlight
(Pavlovic and Grundel, 2009). The habitat requirements of wild lupine overlap with those of the
Karner Blue butterfly in that it is typically found in oak savannas and clearings of disturbed areas
(USDA Forest Service, n.d.).
The life cycle of wild lupine generally extends from April to July with flowering taking place in
May or June in northern regions (USDA Forest Service, n.d.). The plant can begin flowering in
its second year at the earliest, depending on environmental conditions, and may not sprout every
year (USDA Forest Service, n.d.). Wild lupine can produce sexually or asexually, although
asexual reproduction results in less fruit and seed production (Shi et al., 2005; Bernhardt et al.,
2008). Pollination occurs via bumblebees (Bombus spp.), orchard bees (Osmia spp.), honeybees,
eastern carpenter bees, and butterflies (including the Karner Blue butterfly) (Bernhardt et al.,
2008; Halpern, 2005; USDA Forest Service, n.d.). Following pollination 3-5cm seed pods
containing on average four to nine seeds are formed (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2003).
Seeds are dispersed with the opening of the seed pod and can be transported a few feet from the
plant, meaning wild lupine dispersal or colonization is likely slow (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 2003). These seeds may then germinate the same summer or remain dormant for three
years (USDA Forest Service, n.d.). The number of seeds that germinate depends on water
availability, temperature, predation, and scarification (USDA Forest Service, n.d.).
Page 20
20
Historically, this plant had a range throughout eastern North America extending from central and
southern Ontario to Minnesota and south to Florida and Louisiana (Gleason and Cronquist,
1963). However, it is now becoming rare throughout its Ontario and U.S. range (COSEWIC,
2000). In Ontario, wild lupine is found primarily in discreet, localized colonies on the Norfolk
sand plain and on the dunes of the Pinery Provincial Park or Grand Bend area (Fig. 8;
COSEWIC, 2000). Although several other populations have been confirmed, no investigation
has been performed since the 1980’s (COSEWIC, 2000).
Figure 8. Distribution of purported wild lupine populations in southern Ontario. Provided by COSEWIC
(2000).
Page 21
21
Habitat and the Importance of Fire
The shade-intolerant wild lupine tends to grow in habitat maintained at early successional stages
by fire disturbance regimes (Bernhardt et al., 2008; Pavlovic and Grundel, 2009; Smallidge and
Leopold, 1997; Smallidge et al., 1996).
Wild lupine flourishes in fire-disturbed habitat as its nitrogen fixing capability provides it with
an advantage over potential competitors (due to the loss of nitrogen during fire events)
(Maxwell, 1998; Pfitsch and Williams, 2009). Regular fire disturbance regimes also serve to
prevent vegetation cover from becoming too dense, which would be detrimental to the shade
intolerant wild lupine (Pavlovic and Grundel, 2009). In a study by Grigore and Tramer (1996)
they compared burned and unburned populations of wild lupine based on germination, growth,
flowering, and seed set. They found that burning plots affected individuals by increasing plant
nitrogen content, increasing leaf cover, increasing plant biomass, and increasing seed set
(Grigore and Tramer, 1996). They also found that burning plots increased seed and seedling
mortality, but this effect could be reduced by staggering burns by a minimum of two years and
only performing burning before seedling emergence in the fall (Grigore and Tramer, 1996;
Smallidge and Leopold, 1997).
Reasons for the Decline of Wild Lupine
Wild lupine populations have declined or been extirpated due to decreasing habitat disturbances
in the form of fires (Smallidge and Leopold, 1997). Without disturbance former wild lupine
habitat can reach later stages of succession resulting in lowered light intensity and therefore
lowered reproductive ability of wild lupine (Smallidge and Leopold, 1997). The introduction of
coniferous plantations, in its original habitat, is also harmful to the shade intolerant plant
(COSEWIC, 2000; Pavlovic and Grundel, 2009). Urbanization is another major factor in the
decline of wild lupine since many savannas have been transformed into urban areas (U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, 2003).
Re-introduction of Wild Lupine and Maintenance of Populations
There are many factors that can affect the establishment of wild lupine in re-introduction areas.
In order to ensure the health and survival of wild lupine when growing it for re-introduction
Page 22
22
purposes a few factors must be considered. Larger seed sizes of wild lupine increase the growth
of seedlings, survival rates, plant size, and reproductive ability (Halpern, 2005). Wild lupine
seeds have a seed coat that can reduce the germination of seeds (Mackay et al., 1996). In order to
remove the seed coat scarification needs to occur by placing the seeds in concentrated sulfuric
acid (36N) for 30 minutes which will increase germination significantly (Mackay et al., 1996).
Seeds of wild lupine germinate the fastest at temperatures between 24-29°C (Mackay et al.,
1996). Wild lupine does best when planted in the fall (Pavlovic and Grundel, 2009). This allows
the seeds to cold stratify during the winter (Pavlovic and Grundel, 2009). Wild lupine also
performs well in disturbed sandy substrate (Smallidge and Leopold, 1997).
Optimal site selection and maintenance must also be considered when re-introducing wild lupine
populations or maintaining current populations. As stated previously, wild lupine performs best
in partial shade and open areas, but does not perform well in dense shade (Halpern, 2005;
Pavlovic and Grundel, 2009). Wild lupine thrives in areas of light intensity over 69% that have
been recently disturbed either through natural fire regimes or management practices (Smallidge
et al., 1996). Low litter cover, moderate vegetative cover, and intermediate canopy cover is ideal
for wild lupine habitat (Halpern, 2005; Pavlovic and Grundel, 2009). Prescribed burnings can be
used to regulate litter cover, vegetative cover, and canopy cover, but must not reduce vegetative
cover too greatly (Pavlovic and Grundel, 2009). Mechanical treatments or herbicide treatments
can also effectively reduce woody species cover and increase the light intensity and therefore
increase and maintain the wild lupine population (Smallidge and Leopold, 1997).
Wild lupine experiences significant inbreeding depression and therefore pollination and
outcrossing are vital to long term population viability (Shi et al., 2005). Densely packed
populations of wild lupine that are greater than a few hundred individuals are more appealing to
pollinators because of increased foraging efficiency (Shi et al., 2005). Increased pollinator
presence within wild lupine populations will increase pollination rates and outcrossing and will
therefore allow the population to remain sustainable in the long term (Shi et al., 2005).
Page 23
23
6. Re-introduction projects for the Karner Blue butterfly in the U.S.
In the United States, re-introductions of the Karner Blue butterfly have been attempted in Ohio,
Indiana, and New Hampshire (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2003; Suckling, 2006). The goal
of these re-introduction projects is to establish several viable metapopulations of adult butterflies
within the Karner Blue butterfly’s range, in order to ensure that populations become established
and begin reproducing successfully on their own (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2003). More
specifically, the goal is establishment of populations of approximately 3000 butterflies in
nineteen metapopulations and 6000 butterflies in eight large metapopulations (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 2003).
In 1988 the Karner Blue butterfly was considered extirpated from Ohio and in 1998 a re-
introduction program for this butterfly began (Ohio Karner blue butterfly Recovery Team:
OKBBRT, 2010). The goal of this re-introduction program was to have several viable
metapopulations of the Karner Blue butterfly present to ensure the establishment of successfully
reproducing populations (OKBBRT, 2010; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2003). This program
is currently considered to be partially successful, as minimum viable population sizes for the
butterfly have not yet been reached (Soorae, 2008; OKBBRT, 2010). Even though the population
goal has not been reached this re-introduction program has provided valuable information with
regards to key Karner Blue butterfly re-introduction requirements and learning experiences,
which will help ensure the success of future re-introduction programs (OKBBRT, 2010). The
main lesson that has been taken away from this project is that the following factors are important
to successful re-introduction: an abundant supply of wild lupine populations, appropriate canopy
cover to protect the butterflies from the elements (freeze events, severe storms), the appropriate
abundance of nectar plants, appropriate abundance of mutualistic ant species, considering the
impact of land use changes, and ensuring public awareness of the re-introduction program
(OKBBRT, 2010). Soorae (2008) summarizes the Ohio re-introduction program by highlighting
some of the difficulties associated with the program. The Ohio re-introduction program involved
Karner Blue butterflies bred in captivity and then released into the wild (Soorae, 2008). One of
the main challenges faced was the maintenance of wild lupine populations large enough in size
to ensure successful reproduction of the butterflies in the wild (Soorae, 2008). Wild lupine plants
Page 24
24
experienced a lot of stress due to larvae feeding and usually were unable to recover (Soorae,
2008). Therefore new plants had to be grown and introduced every year to ensure a sufficient
supply for the Karner Blue butterflies (Soorae, 2008). Soorae (2008) also mentions that a widely
spaced oak canopy cover would help protect the butterflies from freeze events.
Re-introduction projects were also started in New Hampshire and Indiana in 2000 (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 2003; Suckling, 2006). The Nature Conservancy and several reports have
stated that re-introduction of the Karner Blue butterfly into the Indiana site have been successful
thus far but monitoring programs are still required (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2003;
Suckling, 2006). The New Hampshire re-introduction project has been successful and the
populations of the Karner Blue butterfly have started mating and reproducing in the wild on their
own since 2003 (Suckling, 2006). This re-introduction site is approximately 300 ha, located in
the Pine Barrens in Concord (New Hampshire Fish and Game Dept, 2012a). The wildlife action
plan for the Karner Blue butterfly profile taken from the New Hampshire Fish and Game website
highlights some of their re-introduction project details (New Hampshire Fish and Game Dept,
2012b). They find that suitable habitat sites must be at least 0.25ha. Habitat areas of 0.25-5ha
should have at least 500-800 lupine stems per 0.4ha, and habitat areas greater than 5ha should
have at least 0.1 lupine stem per m2 or 405 lupine stems per 0.4ha (New Hampshire Fish and
Game Dept., 2012b). Monitoring programs are still ongoing for this project as well, and both the
Indiana and New Hampshire projects will require habitat expansion and an increase in the wild
lupine and nectar source plants population numbers in order to further improve the establishment
of the Karner Blue butterfly (Suckling, 2006).
Captive Rearing
Captive rearing programs have been performed in the past for the Karner Blue butterfly and
could help to bolster populations with low numbers or be used to re-establish populations which
have disappeared (Herms et al., 1996).
Herms et al. (1996) provide a detailed account of how captive rearing may be successfully
carried out. First the Karner Blue butterflies were collected during their spring generation from
two areas in Michigan (Herms et al., 1996). Individuals were caught and placed in glassine
Page 25
25
envelopes and were then placed in a bag kept in a cooler at 20°C (Herms et al., 1996). Healthy
wild lupine was collected from fields near the areas where the Karner Blue butterflies were
collected (Herms et al., 1996). The stems of the wild lupine were cut and then placed in a
container filled with water where they were re-cut underwater (Herms et al., 1996). Once the
wild lupine arrived at the laboratory they were placed in plastic bags and stored at 5°C until
needed (Herms et al., 1996). Wild lupine was harvested every five days in order to ensure an
ample amount of fresh plants were available (Herms et al., 1996).
The butterflies were kept in aluminium frame cages (61x61x61cm) in an environmental chamber
at 24-26°C with an 18:6 hour light:dark photoperiod and relative humidity of 57-68% for five
days (Herms et al., 1996). In each cage butterflies were provided with a water source (wet
sponge), partial shading (paper towels covering one part of the cage), a nectar source (petri dish
with 5% honey and 95% water), and a wild lupine stem (20-30cm tall) in a water filled flask
(Herms et al., 1996).
Eggs were removed from leaves and placed into individual small plastic cups (Herms et al.,
1996). Cups were then placed in a lidded plastic box with moist paper towel to provide a relative
humidity of 80-85% (Herms et al., 1996). When eggs were close to hatching wild lupine foliage
was added (Herms et al., 1996). Once eggs hatched fresh wild lupine was provided every two
days (Herms et al., 1996). Once larvae reached their third or fourth level instar they were reared
on petri dishes with an entire wild lupine leaf which was replaced every two days (Herms et al.,
1996). Eggs, larvae and pupae were kept in environmental chambers at 24°C with a 18:6 hour
light:dark photoperiod (Herms et al., 1996). After adults emerged they were placed in a
refrigerator for a day at 5°C prior to field release (Herms et al., 1996). This method, or
derivations of it, may be crucial to future re-introduction projects.
Re-introduction Projects of Other Species
The Large Blue butterfly (Maculinea arion) was considered extinct from Britain in 1979
(Cookson, 2009; Barnett and Warren, 1995). Through a re-introduction project, which started
over 25 years ago, the species has now been successfully re-introduced into the wild (Cookson,
2009; Barnett and Warren, 1995). A major reason for the decrease in population of the Large
Page 26
26
Blue butterfly was the lack of knowledge about the driving factors of the decline (Cookson,
2009; Barnett and Warren, 1995). In the 1970’s it was determined that the driving factors for this
decline in population were the decline in Myrmica sabuleti populations (an ant species critical
for the growth and development of the Large Blue butterfly larvae) and loss of habitat (Thomas,
Simcox, and Bourn, 2011). Habitat for the Large Blue butterfly has been restored to over 50
areas and within those areas 33 are currently occupied by the Large Blue butterfly (Cookson,
2009). Due to the success of the approaches and models used in this re-introduction project they
are now being used for the re-introduction of other rare species of butterflies across Europe
(Cookson, 2009; Spitzer et al., 2009). The success of this study shows that with the right
implementation and information the re-introduction of species can be successful (Cookson, 2009;
Spitzer et al., 2009). This study also demonstrates that presence of mutualistic ant species can be
a critical factor in the survival of a specific butterfly population.
The Frosted Elfin butterfly (Callophrys irus (Godart), another re-introduction success story, also
demonstrates how crucial presence of a supporting organism can be to butterfly population
survival (Pfitsch and Williams, 2009). Frosted Elfin butterflies rely on wild lupine to survive and
reside in small isolated colonies in close proximity to their host plant throughout their life span
(Pfitsch and Williams, 2009). An experiment conducted in the Rome Sand Plains in central New
York has shown that by decreasing canopy cover more light reaches the ground providing
favourable habitat for wild lupine (Pfitsch and Williams, 2009). With an increase in flowering
stems of wild lupine there was an increase in Frosted Elfin butterfly reproduction (Pfitsch and
Williams, 2009). The Frosted Elfin butterflies responded to this increase in habitat within a year
of the removal of some trees (Pfitsch and Williams, 2009). This success in increasing Frosted
Elfin butterfly populations through the expansion of wild lupine habitat is important for wild
lupine specialist butterflies and could be implemented in other areas where these species are
declining (Pfitsch and Williams, 2009).
7. Requirements for the Re-introduction of the Karner Blue Butterfly
The preceding accounts of Karner Blue butterfly biology and past re-introduction projects point
towards potential requirements for future re-introduction projects. This final analysis will draw
Page 27
27
from this information in combination with directly applicable new information to clearly outline
the major requirements Karner Blue butterfly re-introduction projects must fulfill to improve
probability of success.
Habitat requirements
The predominant reason for this species being extirpated can be attributed to the fact that it has
very specific habitat requirements, therefore putting it at a high risk of extinction (Forrester et
al., 2005). A potential re-introduction site must meet the following habitat requirements in order
for the introduced Karner Blue butterfly population to have potential to survive: possess sands or
well-drained soils that are frequently disturbed, be an early successional site with open/patchy
canopy cover, contain wild lupine and various nectar species, have sufficiently high light
intensity at the forest floor, and have sufficiently large area (Huntzinger, 2003; Smallidge et al.,
1996; Kleintjes et al., 2003).
In a study done by Chan and Packer (2006) minimum standards for the requirements needed to
re-introduce the Karner Blue butterfly were highlighted. They calculated these minimum
standards through assessing the minimum values of four variables in U.S. sites where the Karner
Blue butterfly is present (Chan and Packer, 2006). The minimum standards for re-introduction
are density of wild lupine of 1.50 stems/m2, standard deviation of integrated light intensity of
16.82%, five ant species which tend Karner Blue butterfly larvae, first brood nectar source plant
density of 47.25 stems/m2, and second brood nectar source plant density of 47.85 stems/m2
(Chan and Packer, 2006).
Although a host of habitat features necessary for re-introduction have been clearly identified,
throughout the literature several habitat features have been found to be more important to the
success of the Karner Blue butterfly than others, especially at different stages during its life
cycle. At the larval stage the most limiting factor for the butterfly’s success is wild lupine
(Forrester et al., 2005; Pfitsch and Williams, 2009). The first and second brood of Karner Blue
butterfly adults also require wild lupine but as a nectar source instead of a food source, and are
less dependent due to the fact that they nectar on various other plant species both native and
exotic (Haack, 1993).
Page 28
28
Despite the heavy reliance of the Karner Blue butterfly larvae on wild lupine there is one habitat
feature that is even more crucial to the survival of Karner Blue butterfly and that is optimal
canopy cover (Grundel et al., 1998). As demonstrated previously, shade heterogeneity in a
potential re-introduction habitat is important to ensure that the population has optimal conditions
for mating, oviposition, and larval growth (Grundel et al., 1998). Heterogeneous canopy cover
will also allow for proliferation of wild lupine (Grundel et al., 1998). While studies such as
Smallidge et al. (1996) have generally shown that lupine thrives in open areas, Grundel et al.
(1998) showed that while lupine density was highest in open canopy, larger plants (preferred by
larvae) were found in partially shaded areas. Thus, a mixture of shade and open canopy is also
important for ensuring wild lupine growth optimal for Karner Blue Butterfly larva survival.
Although it is clear that wild lupine plays an important role at the larval stage of the Karner Blue
butterfly’s life cycle, ensuring optimal canopy cover is necessary for both Karner Blue butterfly
and wild lupine success (Smallidge et al., 1996).
Habitat Assessment Prior to Re-introduction
Packer and Chan (2006) outlined methods for assessing habitat suitability prior to re-introduction
of the Karner Blue butterfly. Sites were visited during first and second flights of brood adults
(Packer and Chan, 2006). The sites were surveyed using the transect quadrat method used to
count herbaceous cover (transects were placed where wild lupine numbers were highest) (Packer
and Chan, 2006). Number of individuals, stems, and percent cover for each plant species were
recorded and the data from two visits were pooled (Packer and Chan, 2006). Mean number of
lupine stems and nectar plants per m2 were calculated for each site (Packer and Chan, 2006). Ant
species were collected and preserved in ethanol for identification (Packer and Chan, 2006). Light
intensity was measured using portable data loggers (Packer and Chan, 2006). Detailed habitat
assessment using similar methods to these, and other analyses as needed, is crucial to ensuring an
optimal re-introduction site is selected.
Restoration and Maintenance of Re-introduction Sites
As a large proportion of oak savanna habitat has already been degraded, it is likely that potential
sites selected for re-introduction will be found to be sub-optimal. Measures can be taken to
restore these sites to more suitable conditions. In a study by Kleintjes et al. (2003) they restored
Page 29
29
an area for use as suitable habitat for the Karner Blue butterfly. The area was a sand prairie and
pine barren (similar to oak savanna) that had become forested due to fire suppression (Kleintjes
et al., 2003). They found an effective mixture of seeding and transplanting of wild lupine helped
in the restoration (Kleintjes et al., 2003). Transplanting was done in early April or after wild
lupine senescence (Kleintjes et al., 2003). The seed mixture was 40% grasses, 50% forbs
(including nectar plants), and 10% wild lupine and was applied by hand to the site in the fall at a
rate of 22.6lbs seed/hectare with a ratio of 1 part seed mix: 8 parts damp saw dust (Kleintjes et
al., 2003). The seed mix was composed of seeds harvested from plants within 120km of the
restoration site (Kleintjes et al., 2003). They found that tree thinning instead of establishment of
fire regimes was effective at maintaining the essential habitat characteristics of this re-
introduction area (Kleintjes et al., 2003). The thinning (25% tree cover) provided a mix of
openings and shaded areas for the Karner Blue butterfly (Kleintjes et al., 2003).
As demonstrated by the later steps taken by Kleintjes et al. (2003), areas where the Karner Blue
butterfly is re-introduced will need to be intensively managed in order to maintain the butterfly’s
specific habitat requirements and in order to ensure that environmental stochasticity does not
extirpate the population (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2003). Weather variability can affect
the timing of wild lupine senescence which in turn can affect the larval stage of the Karner Blue
butterfly (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2003). If annual weather negatively affects wild lupine
populations then they may senesce later, which could result in starvation of Karner Blue butterfly
larvae (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2003). Management strategies (ie. weather monitoring)
will need to be created in order to prevent this scenario from resulting in an extirpated or lowered
population.
In addition to weather monitoring, areas that Karner Blue butterflies are re-introduced to will
also require maintenance in order to prevent them from succeeding the early successional stages,
which Karner Blue butterflies prefer, and to maintain the proper wild lupine populations. There
are a few options for maintaining litter, vegetation, and canopy cover of these areas (King,
2003). Prescribed burns in November and July are cooler and do not disrupt key life stages of the
Karner Blue butterfly (King, 2003). Mowing is another option and can be done in the fall (late
August) and will not disrupt any key life stages of the Karner Blue butterfly as long as the
Page 30
30
mowing height is above approximately 20 cm, which will prevent the majority of Karner Blue
butterfly eggs from being damaged (King, 2003).
If canopy cover becomes too high then trees on re-introduction sites can be cut down (Pfitsch
and Williams, 2009). As well, the removal of some trees can impact amounts of litter cover and
help to lower it to levels preferred by wild lupine (Pfitsch and Williams, 2009). In a study by
Pfitsch and Williams (2009) they found that removal of trees on pine barrens helped to increase
wild lupine cover through reducing pH and increasing sunlight. They later go on to suggest that a
mix of herbicides, mechanical cutting, and prescribed fires are the best management options
(Pfitsch and Williams, 2009).
Central Threats
The narrow habitat requirements of the Karner Blue butterfly, along with its large dependency on
the abundance of wild lupine and percentage of canopy cover, leave this already endangered
species vulnerable to a number of major threats. In order for successful long-term re-
introductions, threats to the Karner Blue butterfly must be considered. These threats include
habitat loss, urbanization, fire suppression, unmanaged agricultural and forestry practices,
increases in woody vegetation, and reductions in wild lupine abundance (Kleintjes et al, 2003).
As mentioned previously, Nice et al. (2009) noted a possible emerging threat to the Karner Blue
butterfly, which is an infection by endosymbiotic bacteria called Wolbachia. Action has been
taken on a small scale as described by Forrester et al. (2005) by carefully managing power-line
corridors, trails, and road systems of forests, airports, and military training areas which are
critical habitat for the Karner Blue butterfly (Smith et al., 2002, Warren et al., 2007). As
previously mentioned, prescribed fires can also be considered to combat habitat loss on a small
scale (Hunzinger, 2003). However, larger conservation efforts need to be made in order to
increase the populations of the Karner Blue butterfly to a satisfactory level. These efforts will
need to coincide with increased funding and research to provide a concrete basis on which to
enact large-scale conservation efforts.
Page 31
31
8. Methods and Materials
The main method used to complete this report was conducting a thorough literature review of the
requirements needed for the Karner Blue butterfly to be successfully re-introduced to Ontario.
This literature review was completed using many peer reviewed journal articles, found through
Google Scholar, Scholars Portal, JSTOR, Wiley and ProQuest, the University of Guelph’s
library search engine.
While compiling this research a number of key words were used repeatedly in database searches.
Key words: Karner Blue butterfly, re-introduction, review, extirpated, endangered, wild
lupine, biology, description, mating, predators, disease, propagation, parasites, ants, larvae,
life cycle, threats, habitat requirements, and distribution.
Along with the peer reviewed articles other reports and articles written by reputable sources such
as the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources were reviewed for this report. The various peer-
reviewed articles accessed covered a range of topics including information on the Karner Blue
butterfly, wild lupine, and related re-introduction strategies from other sources in North America.
9. Conclusion
This literature review is a compilation of research and information on the Karner Blue butterfly’s
biology, habitat, threats, and essential re-introduction considerations. The literature on Karner
Blue butterfly biology and habitat requirements cements the importance of wild lupine and oak
savanna habitat characteristics to successful re-introductions. In addition, this background
research provides sufficient information to develop new conclusions regarding additional re-
introduction requirements. Successful past re-introduction and rehabilitation of some Karner
Blue butterfly populations as well as other species gives some ideas as to where to start and what
methods can be successful.
Drawing from this comprehensive collection of information, the habitat characteristics necessary
for the successful re-introduction of the Karner Blue butterfly can be summarized as follows:
Page 32
32
● Sands or well-drained soils that are frequently disturbed (Halpern, 2005; Pavlovic
and Grundel, 2009; Shi et al., 2005)
● Early successional sites (Chan and Packer, 2006)
● Wild lupine (1.50 stems/m2) (Chan and Packer, 2006)
● Nectar species (first brood 47.25 stems/m2 and second brood 47.85 stems/m2) (Chan
and Packer, 2006)
● Five tending ant species (showed to increase larvae survival) (Chan and Packer,
2006)
● Open/patchy canopy which is connected to facilitate movement (Huntzinger, 2003;
Halpern, 2005; Pavlovic and Grundel, 2009)
● Reduced cover/density of woody species (Halpern, 2005; Pavlovic and Grundel,
2009)
● Increased light intensity (standard deviation of integrated light intensity of 16.82%)
(Chan and Packer, 2006)
Potential limitations and weaknesses to this review may include missed research and relevant
information, and these concerns have been addressed as best as possible by making sure
thorough searches have been completed and all possible gaps have been filled. Where gaps in
available information have been encountered, recommendations have been made as to where
further research should take place. Recommendations for filling current gaps in knowledge can
be summarized as follows:
● Further investigation of the key predators and parasites of the Karner Blue butterfly, as
well as the extent of their predation and parasitism (Schellhorn et al., 2005)
● Understanding how significant an impact, relative to resource availability, predation is on
the survival of various life stages of this species
● Further investigation of the impact of disease organisms on Karner Blue butterfly
populations, especially Wolbachia (Nice et al., 2009; Haack, 1993)
Page 33
33
This comprehensive literature review has been completed on the subject of the Karner Blue
butterfly and its re-introduction to ensure that all pertinent information on this species is in one
document. The review was created in an effort to facilitate re-introduction programs by
eliminating the added time of searching and consolidating multiple sources of information. It can
continue to be updated as new studies and papers are completed.
Page 34
34
References Barnett L.K., Warren M.S. 1995. Species Action Plan LARGE BLUE
Maculinea arion. Retrieved from http://www.butterfly-conservation.org/uploads/ lb_action_plan.pdf
Bernhardt, C.E., Mitchell, R.J., Michael, H.J. 2008. Effects of Population Size and Density on Pollinator Visitation, Pollinator Behavior, and Pollen Tube Abundance in Lupinus perrennis. International Journal of Plant Science. 169(7): 944-953.
Bleser, C.A. 1992. Status survey, management and monitoring activities for the Karner blue
butterfly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis) in Wisconsin 1990-1992.Wisconsin: Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Endangered Resources.
Chan, P.K., Packer, L. 2006. Assessment of potential Karner blue butterfly (Lycaeides melissa
samuelis) (Family: Lycanidae) reintroduction sites in Ontario, Canada. Restoration Ecology. 14: 645-652.
COSEWIC. 2000. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the Karner Blue Lycaeides
Melissa samuelis in Canada. Ottawa (ON): Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 20 pp.
Cryan, J.F., Dirig, R. 1978. A report on the status of the Karner Blue butterfly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis Nabokov) in New York State. Report for the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Unpublished. 15 pp.
Cuthrell, D.L. 1990. Status of the Karner Blue Butterfly, Lycaeides melissa samuelis Nabokov, in
Minnesota 1990. St. Paul (MN): Minnesota Nongame Wildlife Program. Forrester, A.J., Leopold, J.D., and Hafner, D.S. 2005. Maintaining Critical Habitat in a Heavily
Managed Landscape: Effects of Power Line Corridor Management on Karner Blue Butterfly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis) Habitat. Restoration Ecology. 13(3): 488-498.
Gleason, H.A., Cronquist, A. 1963. Manual of vascular plants of northeastern United States and
adjacent Canada. New York (NY): Van Nostrand Reinhold Co. 810 pp. Grigore, M.T., Tramer E.J. 1996. The short-term effect of fire on Lupinus perennis (L.). Natural
Areas Journal. 16(1): 41-48. Grundel, R., Pavlovic, N.B., Sulzman, C.L. 1998. Habitat use by the endangered Karner Blue
butterfly in oak woodlands: the influence of canopy cover. Biological Conservation. 85(1-2): 47 53.
Page 35
35
Haack, R.A. 1993. The endangered Karner Blue butterfly (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae): biology,
management considerations, and data gaps. In: Gillespie, A.R., Parker. G.R., Pope. P.E., Rink, G. (eds.) 1993. Proceedings of the 9th Central Hardwood Forest Conference; Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-161. St. Paul (MN): U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station. 83-100.
Halpern, S.L. 2005. Sources and Consequences of Seed Size Variation in Lupinus perennis
(Fabaceae): Adaptive and Non-Adaptive Hypotheses. American Journal of Botany. 92(2): 205-213.
Herms, P.C., McCullough, G.D., Miller, D.L., Bauer, L.S., Hacck, R.A. 1996. Laboratory
Rearing of Lycaeides meliss samuelis (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae), an endangered butterfly in Michigan. The Great Lakes Entomologist. 29(2): 63-75.
Hess, Q. 1981. Butterflies of Ontario & Summaries of Lepidoptera Encountered in
Ontario in 1980. Toronto Entomologists Association, Occasional Publication. 12-81: 80.
Huntzinger, M. 2003. Effects of management practices on butterfly diversity in the forested
western United States. Biological Conservation. 113: 1-12. King, R.S. 2003. Habitat Management for the Karner Blue Butterfly (Lycaeides Melissa
smauelis) Evaluating the Short-Term Consequences. Ecological Restoration. 21(2): 101-106.
Kleintjes, P.K., Sporrong, J.M., Raebel, C.A., & Thon, S.F. 2003. Habitat Type Conservation and
Restoration for the Karner Blue Butterfly: A Case Study from Wisconsin. Ecological Restoration. 21(2): 107-115.
Konecny, A., 1986. A status report on the Karner Blue butterfly (Lycaeides melissa
samuelis Nabokov) in Canada. A report prepared for the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 48 pp.
Lane, C. 1999. Benefits of heterogeneous habitat: oviposition preference and immature
performance of Lycaeides melissa samuelis Nabokov (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae). Ph.D. dissertation. University of Minnesota, St. Paul.
Lawrence, W.S., Cook, A.C. 1989. The Status and Management of Karner Blue (Lycaeides
melissa samuelis) populations in the Allegan State game area, Michigan. A report submitted to the Nature Conservancy, Michigan Field Office.
Mackay, W.A., Davis, T.D., Sankhla, D., Riemenschneider, D.E. 1996. Factors influencing seed
germination of Lupinus perennis. Journal of Environmental Horticulture. 14(4): 167-169.
Page 36
36
Maxwell, J.A. 1998. The conservation of the Karner blue butterfly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis Nabokov): ecological studies on habitat creation and management. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin. 193 pp. Dissertation.
Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2012. Lupinus perennis L.: Sundial lupine. United
States Department of Agriculture. Retrieved Feb 15 2012 from: http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=LUPE3&photoID=lupe3_001_avd.tif
New Hampshire Fish and Game Dept. 2012a. Karner Blue Butterfly and Concord (NH) Pine
Barrens Project. Concord: Fish and Game Dept. New Hampshire Fish and Game Dept. 2012b. Wildlife Action Plan Karner blue butterfly profile.
Concord: Fish and Game Dept. Nice, C.C., Gompert, Z., Forister, M.L., Fordyce, J.A. 2009. An unseen foe in arthropod
conservation efforts: the case of Wolbachia infections in the Karner Blue butterfly. Biological Conservation. 14: 3137–3146.
OKBBRT (Ohio Karner blue butterfly Recovery Team). 1998. Ohio Karner blue butterfly
conservation plan. Report to the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife, Columbus, Ohio.
Opler, P.A., Krizek, G.O. 1984. Butterflies east of the Great Plains. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
Univ. Press. 294 pp. Packer, L. 1987. Status report on the Karner Blue butterfly, Lycaeides melissa samuelis
Nabokov, in Canada. A report prepared for the World Wildlife Fund and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Wildlife Branch, Nongame Program. Unpublished. 66 pp.
Packer, L. 1990. The status of two butterflies, Karner Blue (Lycaeides Melissa samuelis) and
Frosted Elfin (Incisalia irus), restricted to oak savanna in Ontario. In: Allen, G.M., Eagles, P.F.J., Price, S.D., (eds.) 1990. Conserving Carolinian Canada. Waterloo (ON): University of Waterloo Press. 253-271.
Packer, L. 1991. Status of two butterflies, Karner blue (Lycaeides melissa samuelis) and frosted
elfin (Incisalia irus), restricted to oak savanna in Ontario. University of Waterloo Press. 253-271.
Pavlovic, N.B., Grundel, R. 2009. Reintroduction of Wild Lupine (Lupinus perennis L.)
Depends on Variation in Canopy, Vegetation, and Litter Cover. Restoration Ecology. 17(6): 807-817.
Page 37
37
Pfitsch, W.A., and Williams, E.H. 2009. Habitat Restoration for lupine and Specialist Butterflies. Restoration Ecology. 17(2): 226-233.
Savignano, D.A. 1990. Field investigation of a facultative mutualism between Lycaeides melissa
samuelis Nabokov (Lycaenidae), the Karner blue butterfly, and attendant ants. Ph.D. dissertation. Austin (TX): The University of Texas.
Savignano, D.A., Zaremba, R. 1993. Element stewardship abstract: the Karner blue butterfly.
Albany (NY): The Nature Conservancy. Savignano, D.A. 1994. Benefits to Karner blue butterfly larvae from association with ants. In:
Andow D.A., Baker R.J., Lane C.P., (eds.) 1994. Karner blue butterfly: a symbol of vanishing landscape. St. Paul (MN): University of Minnesota. 73-80.
Schellhorn, N.A., Lane, C.P., Olson, D.M. 2005. The co-occurrence of an introduced biological
control agent (Coleoptera: Coccinella septempunctata) and an endangered butterfly (Lepidoptera: Lycaeides melissa samuelis). Journal of Insect Conservation. 9: 41-47.
Schweitzer, D.F. 1984. A Report on the status of the Karner Blue Butterfly, Lycaeides
melissa samuelis, in the province of Ontario. Grand Bend (ON): Prepared for the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, c/o Terry Crabe, The Pinery Provincial Park.
Schweitzer, D.F. 1989. Fact sheet for the Karner Blue butterfly with special reference to
New York. Report for the Nature Conservancy. In: Bess J.A. (eds.) 1989. Status of the Karner Blue butterfly, Lycaeides melissa samuelis Nabokov, in the Manistee National Forest. Lansing (MI): Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Natural Heritage Program, Wildlife Division.
Schweitzer, D.F. 1994. Recovery goals and methods for Karner blue butterfly populations. In:
Andow D.A., Baker R., Lane C. (eds.) 1994 Karner blue butterfly: a symbol of a vanishing landscape. Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Minnesota-St. Paul. Miscellaneous Publication 84-1994. 185-193.
Shapiro, A.M. 1973. Partitioning of resources among lupine feeding Lepidoptera. The American
Midland Naturalist. 91: 243-248. Shi, X.J., Michaels, H.J., Mitchell, R.J. 2005. Effects of Self-pollination and Maternal Resources
on Reproduction and Offspring Performance in the Wild lupine, Lupinus perrennis (Fabaceae). Sexual Plant Reproduction. 18:55-64.
Smallidge, J.P., Leopold, J. D., & Allen, M. C. 1996. Communitiy Characteristics and Vegetation
Management of Karner Blue Butterfly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis) Habitats on Rights-of-Way in East-Central New York, USA. Journal of Applied Ecology. 33(6): 1405-1419.
Page 38
38
Smallidge, P.J. & Leopold, D.J. 1997. Vegetation management for the maintenance and conservation of butterfly habitats in temperate human-dominated landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning. 38: 259-280.
Smith, A.M., Turner, G.M., and Rusch, H.D. 2002. The Effect of Military Training Activity on
Eastern Lupine and the Karner Blue Butterfly at Fort McCoy, Wisconsin, USA. Environmental Management. 29(1): 102-115.
Soorae, P.S. 2008. Global re-introduction perspectives: reintroduction case-studies from around
the globe. Abu Dhabi: IUCN/SSC Re-introduction Specialist Group. Spitzer, L., Benes, J., Dandova, J., Jaskova, V., Konvicka, M. 2009. The large blue butterfly,
phengaris [maculinea] arion, as a conservation umbrella on a landscape scale: The case of the czech carpathians. Ecological Indicators. 9(6): 1056-1063.
Thomas, J.A., Simcox, D.J., & Bourn, N.A.D. 2011. The Restoration of the Large Blue butterfly
to the UK. In: Soorae, P.S. (eds.) 2011. Global Reintroduction Perspectives:2011, more case studies from around the globe. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN/SSC Re-introduction Specialist Group and Abu Dhabi, UAE: Environment Agency-Abu Dhabi. 10-14.
USDA Forest Service. n.d. Lupinus Perennis. Fire Effects Information System. Retrieved Feb 15
2012 from: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/forb/lupper/all.html#66 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Final recovery plan for Karner blue butterfly (Lycaeides
melissa samuelis) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Snelling, Minn. 273 pp. Warren, D.S., Holbrook, W.S., Dale, A.D., Whelan, L.N., Elyn, M., Grimm, W., and Jentsch, A.
2007. Biodiversity and the Heterogeneous Disturbance Regime on Military Training Lands. Resoration Ecology. 15(4): 606-612.