Ecological Networks for Insects of

Calcareous Grasslands
in South-Limburg

Martin Baruffol
Ecological Networks for Insects of Calcareous Grasslands
in South-Limburg

Msc. Landscape Architecture and Spatial Planning Thesis

Martin Baruffol

Supervisors: - J. Noordijk (NCP)

- J. Stuiver (GIS)
- K. Sýkora (NCP)
- P. Opdam (LUP)

June 2007

ii
 Table of content

1. Introduction 2

1.1 Calcareous grasslands are target ecosystem for the Conservation of
Diversity. 2

1.2 Situation of Calcareous grasslands in the Netherlands 3

1.3 Changes of management affect the diversity 3

1.4 How to deal with fragmentation? 6

2. Problem 8

2.1 Problem statement 8

2.2 Research questions 9

3. Materials and Methods 10

3.1 Development of methodology 10

3.2 Lists of insects stenotopic to calcareous grasslands 12

3.3 Development of Alternatives 13

3.3a Pre-processing 14

3.3b Field trip 15

3.3c Calcareous soils 17

3.3d Actual calcareous grasslands 17

3.3e Design roadside verges 18

3.3f Roadside verges and calcareous grasslands 18

3.3g Corridor strips to allow insect movement 18

4. Results 20

4.1 Insect species and dispersal ability 20

4.1a Specialist butterflies 20

4.1b Specialist grasshoppers 20

4.1c Specialist ants 21

4.1d Dispersal ability 21

4.2 Alternative maps 24

4.2a Calcareous Soils map 24

4.2b Actual Calcareous grassland map 25

4.2c Roadside verges on calcareous soils map 27

4.2d Grasslands and roadside verges on calcareous soils 29

4.2e Networks (corridors) for calcareous grasslands 32

4.3 Comparison of alternatives and groups of insects 34

4.3a Actual situation 34

4.3b Roadside verges 35

4.3c Roadside verges and calcareous grasslands 35

4.3d Physical corridors 35

5. Discussion 36

5.1 How is the actual connectivity of calcareous grasslands? 36

5.2 How to make a frame for decision making in order to increase
connectivity in calcareous grasslands? 38

5.3 Remarks and recommendations 40

References 42

iii
 Tables

Table 3.1a Land use and weight values 12

Table.4.1a. Butterflies and dispersal ability 23

Table.4.1b Grasshoppers and dispersal ability 23

Table.4.1c Ants and dispersal ability 24

Table 4.2a Area of Calcareous soils 24

Table 4.2c Distances between nearest remnants from the different clusters, with
roadside verges as stepping-stones 29

Table 4.2d Distance between clusters 31

Table 4.2e Corridor’s length, and crosses with unsuitable 32

Table 4.3a Distance between the nearest remnants in clusters 34

Figures

Figure 3.1a Methodology flow chart 10

Figure 3.2b Alternatives development flow Chart 14

Figure 3.3b Study Area 16

Figure 4.2a Calcareous soil map 25

Figure 4.2b Calcareous grasslands map 27

Figure 4.2c Roadside verges on calcareous soils map 29

Figure 4.2d Grasslands and road verges on calcareous soils 31

Figure 4.2e Networks (physical corridors) for calcareous grasslands 33

Appendixes

Appendix 3.3a Relevant codes and land use description 46

Appendix 3.3b Codes and description of selected covers for the

fieldtrip map 48

Appendix 4.2a Calcareous soils areas 50

Appendix 4.2b1 Actual calcareous grasslands areas 51

Appendix 4.2b2 Distance between patches (actual calcareous grasslands) 52

Appendix 4.2c Distances between patches (Roadside verges on calcareous
grasslands) 53

Appendix 4.2d Distances between patches (Grasslands and roadside verges on
calcareous grasslands) 54

iv
 Ecological Networks for Insects of Calcareous
Grasslands in South-Limburg

Berghofweide

Abstract
Insect species of calcareous grasslands in South Limburg have severely declined in the last
decades. There is a good reason to conserve calcareous grasslands in the area since they
are considered as a target ecosystem in Natura 2000. Fragmentation can be one of the
reasons, which can explain the decline of insect species. Using GIS maps of the study area,
and estimating penetrance ability of different land use types, I constructed cost paths in the
study area between different calcareous grasslands. Species with high dispersal ability can
perceive the area as connected; based on literature data the distances between different
natural areas are crossable. For species with medium dispersal ability there are networks
within clusters of remnants occurring on the same calcareous soil patch, but not between
clusters. For species with low dispersal ability there is no connectivity in the area. If roadside
verges on calcareous grasslands were managed to reduce the distance between calcareous
grasslands, species with medium dispersal ability would have a connected network in the
study area. To connect the area for species with low dispersal ability physical corridors would
be necessary. Since the distance between patches doesn’t explain the absence of some of
the species, habitat quality and habitat size can be more important factors to determine the
presence of some of the species in South Limburg, but the three of them interact together.

1
1. Introduction

1.1 Calcareous grasslands are target ecosystem for the Conservation of Diversity.

Calcareous grasslands are semi-natural ecosystems. The main condition for these
grasslands to occur is a lime holding soil. These areas should in addition be low in nutrients
so that no dominance of nutriophilous plants occurs. Vegetation succession in calcareous
grasslands is traditionally controlled by extensive sheep and cattle, which prevent the
establishment of shrubs and trees (Willems 2001, WallisDeVries et al. 2002, Termorshuizen
2004). Traditionally cattle and sheep where confined during night to sheds, reducing the
deposit of manure in the grassland, which took part in the keeping of the soil quality.
Nowadays, also mowing the grasslands are performed as conservation efforts.

In Western Europe calcareous grasslands are considered target ecosystems for the
conservation of diversity (Anonymous). This means they should be incorporated in the future
ecological network of nature reserves across Europe (Natura 2000). They are one of the
most diverse ecosystems in central Europe, as they are the habitat of various specialised
species of plants and insects (Willems 2001, WallisDeVries et al. 2002, van Swaay 2002,
Steffan-Deventer & Tscharntke 2002).

Calcareous grassland: Centaurea scabiosa, Thymus pulegioides

and Campanula rotundifolia.

2
1.2 Situation of Calcareous grasslands in the Netherlands

In Western Europe’s urbanized, high populated, rich countries, the land uses related with the
ecological function of landscapes are often dominated in decision making processes by
expanding economically functions (Termorshuizen, 2004). The Netherlands are not an
exception, and has a large history of anthropogenic management of the landscape. It offers a
dynamic landscape, where land cover is entirely determined by land use functions, as
defined by human needs, e.g. agricultural fields, cities, roads, etc.

Historically, agriculture has generated high pressure on nature and biodiversity. Calcareous
grasslands cover is related to farmers land use, but because of the poorness of their soils,
intensive use of that habitat was avoided until the common use of mechanization and
(synthetic) fertilizers during the middle of the 20th century. Since then, low productive areas
could more easily be cultivated (Bobbink & Willems 1993, Termorshuizen, 2004).
Additionally, traditional use by livestock changed, and the extensive pasturing was
abandoned (Barbaro et al. 2001), with the consequences that some of the grasslands where
invaded by shrubs ant trees in a process of ecological succession (Bobbink & Willems 1993).

As a result, calcareous grasslands were fertilized and lost most of their conservation value. In
addition, fragmentation affected the remaining calcareous grassland, which nowadays are
nature reserves. Since about the mid-twentieth century, calcareous grasslands are under
enormous pressure (Van Swaay 2002, Willems 2001, WallisDeVries et al. 2002,
Termorhuizen 2004). Fragmentation is one of major treats of biodiversity (Saunders et al.
1991, Steffan-Deventer & Tscharntke 2002), and can be seen as a process that divides
ecosystems, by crossing them, and which reduced total area and the exchange of energy
between the parts of the former system. The energy exchange includes animal and plant
species, which stayed semi-isolated, with low populations. This constitutes an extinction risk
(Schippers et al. 1996).

1.3 Changes of management affect the diversity

Major locations in which calcareous grasslands occurs in the Netherlands, are sandy dunes
in the west coast and patches in the hilly area of South Limburg. The situation in South
Limburg is dramatic; only about 20 to 25 patches still remain varying in size between 0.05
and 5 ha, and representing only a few percentage of the original area (WallisDeVries et al.
2002). Only some of them have been defined as nature reserves, because of their plant and
animal richness (WallisDeVries et al. 2002).
3
Habitat fragmentation is considered one of the major threats to biodiversity (Saunder et al.
1991); it reduces habitat area for the organisms, isolates subpopulation, affects interactions
between organisms, and ecological processes. Fragmentation of calcareous grasslands
affected different organisms including plants and arthropods. Reduction of their habitats and
isolation of their populations, made the interaction with other subpopulations in the same
area difficult (Butaye et al. 2005). Populations in small areas are more prone to extinctions
due to stochastic events. Isolation reduces the possibilities of colonization events and the re
colonization after the species went extinct (Butaye et al. 2005). Moreover the change of
management reduced, within the suitable habitat in the remnants. All these factors increase
the risk of extinction.

The fragmentation and reduction of suitable areas threatens the permanence of organisms of
calcareous grasslands, especially of organisms, which are dependent of specific structural
and compositional characteristics of the habitat.

Calcareous Grassland

Plants and animals declined, but while research for managing (such as restoration practices)
has been done for plants, there had not been the same type of research and management for
invertebrates (WallisDeVries et al. 2002). Even though, there is information about the
situation of some insect groups.

Butterflies (Lepidoptera) are one of the most threatened groups in the Netherlands with
various recent extinctions (Van Swaay 2002). From 65 indigenous species, just 37 have been
registered since the 1990; and if considering target butterflies 8 out of 10 occupy less than
40% of their former distribution (WallisDeVries et al. 2002). Most of specialist calcareous
4
grassland butterflies declined; Thymelicus acteon got extinct in the 1970s, Spialia sertorius
got extinct in the 1990s, Cupido minimus still colonizes occasionally some areas, by
migrating from Belgium, and Erynnis tages (dingy skipper) is now restricted to too
(WallisDeVries et al. 2002). For this species it was established the importance of combining
the metapopulation and habitat quality paradigms together for distributional ecology and
conservation assessments (Gutierrez & Thomas 1999). Agricultural improvements, isolation
and fragmentation are considered as the main threats to butterflies in calcareous grasslands
(Van Swaay 2002).

For Grasshoppers (Orthoptera), a group that is not as threatened as butterflies, it has been
established that the decline is due the disappearance of habitats and the fragmentation of
populations. In the Netherlands 4 species out of 45 haven’t been registered since 1980
(Kleukers et al. 1993). And as most of the species of grasshoppers are dependent on nutrient
poor warm habitats (Kleukers et al. 1993), it can be deduced that calcareous grasslands
should be a high quality habitat for at least some grasshoppers and the reduction of area can
affect their populations.

Ants (Hymenoptera) is also a group where species are threatened, 2 species have not been
seen since 1980 (Van Loon 2004), out of 64 species present in the Netherlands (Boer 2007).
A research carried out in Sweden didn’t found any relation between patch sizes and richness
in open grasslands (Dauber 2006). It seems that ant composition (and ant nesting sites) can
be explained better by environmental conditions (include shading degree, soil moisture, soil
depth, availability of nesting materials, temperature, availability of resources, and positions of
neighbouring nests) and in second place by plant richness (Braschler 2003, Dauber 2006).
Many of the species and specially the threatened ones are dependent on warm and sunny
places. Even when many of these factors can be affected by fragmentation (Baschler 2003,
Mabelis & Chardon 2006), habitat quality and enlargement of area might have better effects
than ecological corridors for the conservation of ant species (Mabelis 2004). Presence of
trees and grazing are mentioned as important structuring factors for the composition (Dauber
2006).

Both plants and other organisms have lost their richness and population sizes due to the
decline in calcareous grasslands. But then, the emphasis of the research and management
for the preservation of calcareous grasslands has focussed on plants, while this development
lacks in the case of invertebrates (WallisDeVries et al. 2002).

5
1.4 How to deal with fragmentation?

Extinction in patches is a feature in fragmented landscapes and patch re-colonization via

inter-patch dispersal is necessary to maintain the population as a whole (Schippers et al.
1996, Hanski 2000, Alderman et al. 2005, Hess & Fischer 2001).

The dynamic generated by this “set of local populations connected by inter-patch dispersal” is
part of the exchange ways that still occur in fragmented ecosystems. These sets of
populations are the so-called metapopulations (Shippers et al. 1996, Snep et al. 2006). The
persistence of metapopulations depends then on; population factors like population growth
and colonization, as well as landscape dynamics such as patch destruction and patch
regeneration, and all these variables interact continuously (Johst et al. 2002).

This species exchange between ecosystem patches is important to maintain the population in
the whole area. The exchange between patches depends on the connectivity level of the
landscape, and on the dispersion capacity of the species. The connectivity refers to the
landscape physical arrange, which allows the transit between patches. If the same type
ecosystems are linked, and it exists a flow of organisms, and an interaction with the matrix it
is defined as an ecological network. (Opdam et al. 2006). Landscape can be seen as
connected depending on the scale the organism interacts with it. The extent of an
inhospitable habitat affects species more or less, depending on their biological and ecological
specific attributes. So that for different species the same landscape can be perceived isolated
or connected (With & King 1999, Steffan-Deventer & Tscharntke 2002).

The exchange of organisms between patches depends also from the dispersal ability, which
is the capability to migrate between patches (Stiling, 1999). The distance that a species can
disperse depends on their ecological characteristics, as well as the environment it is traveling
trough. Each species has particular dispersal ability and it depends on specific attributes of
the species, like the mobilization or reproduction strategies. “Poor dispersers tend to be
relatively rare habitat specialists, while good dispersers are often common and more
abundant habitat generalists” (Snep et al. 2006)

There is an important relation between the dispersion and the connectivity, as the
connectivity is only effective if the organisms’ is able to disperse trough the landscape, and
the dispersion of an organism depends on the connectivity of the landscape (Schippers et al.
1996). The fragmentation effect on the survival of metapopulations is reduced by corridors,
which improve the connectivity in the landscape.

6
Regarding island biogeography and metapopulation theory, and from a functional perspective
corridors enhance the ability of organisms to move across habitat patches (Hess & Fischer
2001). From this functional perspective, structures like continued corridors and stepping-
stones act as corridors.

From a structural point of view, corridors are stripes of different widths, which go from one
patch to the other; and stepping-stones are small patches between the isolated areas (Hess
& Fischer 2001, Jepsen et al. 2005) that allow organisms to travel by, crossing the matrix
providing them shelter (and resources) from the inhospitable matrix. Corridors and stepping-
stones should present an equivalent land cover type as the patches in consideration.

It has been found that in wider corridors the dispersal is faster than in narrow ones. These
can be due more contact with the matrix and consequently more chances to penetrate the
matrix and die in it (Vermeulen & Opdam 1995). Besides, depending on scales, organisms’
dispersal ability vs. distance between patches, corridors should allow reproduction. A network
will be more effective the larger the population is, and the more favorable it is for reproduction
(Vermeulen & Opdam 1995).

Corridors based in stepping-stones were found to be better than continuous corridors, testing
them by different models, but it also depends on the organisms with the one the model is
tested. Species with “high mobility”, but “strict requirements for breeding or feeding” could
benefit more from a short inter patch distance, than from a narrow corridor (Jepsen et al.
2005). Meanwhile corridors could be more effective for “habitat specialists with limited
mobility trough inhospitable habitat” (Jepsen et al. 2005).

Roadside and railway verges have been studied as potential corridors for insects with low
dispersal capacity by different models (Vermeulen & Opdam 1995, Snep et al. 2006).
However, these verges should contain suitable habitat, and for species with poor dispersal
capacity, verges may function only if the species can reproduce well in the corridor
(Vermeulen & Opdam 1995).

7
2. Problem

2.1 Problem statement

There is an interest in the conservation of chalk grasslands, because it is a very species rich
ecosystem in Europe, including a high number of plant and invertebrate species. This
ecosystem is also mentioned in the habitat target list of the future European network of
nature reserves: Natura 2000 (Anonymous).

The south of Limburg is also declared as the “National Landschap Heuvelland”, which
establishes goals of management that include the conservation of the cultural landscape,
natural conservation and recreation. That implies that those different land uses are
considered important.

Calcareous grasslands in south Limburg have been fragmented. Total area has been
reduced and remnants are isolated, and the decline of some of the characteristic insect
species of them suggests that the connectivity is not enough to support their populations.

As fragmentation is one of the major threats for the conservation of calcareous grasslands in
Limburg, it seems that improving of the connectivity between the calcareous grassland
remnants is required.

The aim of my project is to design different network alternatives, according to ecological

characteristics of the landscape, which could potentially be used for the movements of
insects within the calcareous grassland remnants. Methodology and results can be used in
processes of decision-making, as the design of the methodology and the results present a
gradual increase in the ambition level for the conservation of calcareous grasslands. This
makes it a useful tool for discussion between different stakeholders.

The alternative networks developed are:

 Potential Calcareous grasslands
 Actual situation
 Actual situation with roadside verges
 Actual situation with roadside verges and grasslands in calcareous soils
 Actual situation connected by corridors over roadside verges and grasslands in
calcareous soils
 Grasslands in the Ecological Main structure (Ecologische Hoofd Structuur)

8
2.2 Research questions

To make different designs for networks for specialist insect species (with different dispersal
capacities) in the South Limburg region, I formulated the next questions:

 How is the actual connectivity of calcareous grasslands?

 How to make a frame for decision making in order to increase connectivity in
calcareous grasslands?

Study area (Vrakelberg)

9
3. Materials and Methods

The structure of the methodology has been dynamic, making adjusting and transforming
steps, according to intermediate results and new information. Those changes in the
methodology were done with the aim to develop the main object of the project (Figure 3.1a).
In this chapter a detailed explanation of the development and the intermediate decisions
affecting the methodology are given

Figure 3.1a Methodology flow chart

3.1 Development of methodology

The methodology was based on the fragmentation and metapopulation theories (Saunders et
al.1991, Begon et al. 2006). From these theories is deduced that larger habitats, connectivity
and dispersal ability are important aspects for the conservation of species in fragmented
landscapes (Saunders et al. 1991).

(1) As the fragmentation negatively affects specialist species (Steffan-Dewenter &

Tscharntke 2002), lists of stenotopic calcareous grassland species of Dutch butterflies,
grasshoppers and ants were made. Because the ability to disperse is fundamental for the
conservation of viable isolated subpopulations (Saunders et al. 1991), dispersal ability of

10
each of the selected species was estimated. The lists and dispersal ability were done by a
literature review and comments from specialists.

(2) The other aim of the methodology was to generate different landscape configurations,
which constitute options for the conservation of the groups of insect stenotopic to calcareous
grasslands. These alternatives include different grades of connectivity, which is a key factor
to guarantee the conservation of populations in fragmented habitats (Saunders et al. 1991).

These landscape configurations were represented with alternative maps, which were created
by a suitability analysis. Suitability analyses are useful to predict the potential and constrains
of an area for a specific use (Steiner et al. 2000), by integrating three types of factors;
location, development activities and biophysical processes (Miller et al. 1998). In the
methodology mainly ecological and topological, but also social criteria were considered.

The proposed methodology included the addition of areas from the most suitable to the less
suitable, for the conservation of calcareous grasslands. The plan included actual calcareous
grasslands, calcareous soils, southern slopes, existing roadside verges and management.
While working on the different models, some changes and adjustments were made to the
criteria. Because of the evidence in the field, collected information and lack of data southern
slopes and management were discarded. Grasslands were included, and as there were
almost no data on roadside verge width, five meters wide road side verges were calculated
for all of the roads.

The alternative options include the most potential area for calcareous grasslands, actual
state and three intermediate alternatives.

1. The first option was defined as the best option that could theoretically be developed.
In this alternative the calcareous soils were defined as the boundary for the presence
of calcareous grasslands. This theoretical option provides the most available and the
less fragmented area.

2. The second option is the actual situation. This is a selection of calcareous grasslands
identified by the province (anonymous), and some other fields evidenced in the
fieldtrip as species rich calcareous grasslands. The actual situation is considered the
initial state, from where conservation measurements can be taken, and the one that
should be improved.

3. The third option is defined as actual situation with roadside verges. Roadside verges
could be considered as corridors (Getz et al. 1978, Tikka et al. 2001, Vermeulen &
11
 Opdam 1995) and habitat for arthropod species (et al. 2001, Noordijk, J. 2005,
Saarinen et al. 2005). It is logic that improving the roadside verges could be a good
and relatively cheap way to connect the already existing calcareous grasslands.

4. As the previous option didn’t provide “physical” corridors, necessary to species, which
can’t cross other habitats, another option was developed. In this option (species poor)
grasslands on calcareous soils were included. These grasslands seem a logical
option to use in this step. They can be developed into species rich calcareous
grasslands.

5. Possibly the fourth option is not a very realistic one, because it would mean a large
change in the character of the actual landscape, affecting a lot of economical
activities (e.g. farming). Therefore, a fifth option is defined, constituting of only strips
of surfaces (‘corridors’) between the existing calcareous grasslands. These corridors
were constructed giving each biotope a different unsuitability value for hypothetical
insects. Roadside verges on calcareous soils have the lowest value, followed by
grasslands on calcareous soils, other land uses on calcareous soils, other road
verges, and finally other grasslands (see table 3.1a)

Table 3.1a Land use and weight values

Land use Weight value
Roadside verge on calcareous soil 2
Grassland on calcareous soil 3
Other land uses on calcareous soil 50
Other roadside verge 250
Other grasslands 500
Other land uses 1000

Finally, the different alternatives were compared with the lists of butterflies, ants and
grasshoppers stenotopic to calcareous grasslands, to establish if they could be conserved
with them, and which would be the conservation ambition by the implementation of one, or
part of the alternatives, or a mixture of them.

3.2 Lists of insects stenotopic to calcareous grasslands

The list of the specialist species of calcareous grasslands of butterflies, grasshoppers and
ants, was established with the help of basic literature for each group in the Netherlands.

12
Other data that were established are; Dispersal ability, which is defined for each group;
Status, defined by the historical records as stable (s), increasing (i) or decreasing (d); and red
list status (Stable, sensitive, vulnerable, threatened, seriously threatened, extinct, unknown).

The literature used for the development of the groups was:

• Butterflies: Schoemakers 1989, Van Swaay 2002, EIS-Nederland et al. 2006, Bos et
al. 2006.

• Grasshoppers: Bellmann 1993, Kleukers & Krekels 2004, Kleukers et al. 1997 EIS-
Nederland 2005

• Ants: Mabelis 2004, Van Loon 2004, http://www.antweb.org/netherlands.jsp, pers.

obs. P. Boer 2007.

3.3 Development of Alternatives

The Development of the different alternatives for the conservation of calcareous grasslands
was done with the help of Arc GIS, more precisely with Arc Map (version 9.1), and also by
the verification and recognition of the region.

By this phase of the project the following maps were created:

 “Calcareous soils” map
 “Actual species rich calcareous grassland” map (~nature reserves)
 “Roadside verges on calcareous soils” map
 “Grasslands and roadside verges on calcareous soils” map
 “Networks (corridors) for calcareous grasslands”

To construct the different maps, the Arc GIS phase was divided by seven components. The
different components will be described as follows, and can be seen in the figure 3.2b.

13
 Pre-
Pre-processing External data to study area Field visits

Define calcareous soils
Recognition of area
Verification of map
Define land uses Map field visits selection
Other potential and
problematic areas

Alternative 2: Actual calcareous grasslands

Alternative
Alternative 1:Calcareous soils
Redefine map accoring to fiel visits
Select calcareous soils Define unsuitable

Alternative 3: Roadside verges

Calcareous soils without unsuitable Select roads

Define Road verges

Define unsuitable

Roadverges in suitable calcareous soils

Alternative 4: Road verges & grasslands

Select grasslands

Intersect calcareous soils

Union with roadside verges

Alternative 5: Corridor
Corridor strips

Create weight-grid

Calculate cost paths and corridors

Select shortest and cheapest corridors

Intersect with unsuitable

Figure 3.2b Alternatives development flow Chart

3.3a Pre-processing

1. The first step in the pre-processing component was to “clip” the different databases to
the study area. The input information consisted of a digital soil map (soil 50 K)
(provided by the GIS department), different digital land uses maps of year 2004 (Top
10polygons, Top 10polylines, Top 10houses) (provided by the GIS department), and
a map with a selection of strategic vegetation areas of the year 2003 developed by
the Province of Limburg.

14
 2. The second step was the generation of a table with the different soil types and their
definition as calcareous or non-calcareous. The soil codes registered as calcareous
soils are:

 AHcD, AHcE, AHcEF, which are described as “Löss-, terras- en

kalksteenhellinggronden”
 AHkE, AHkF, AHkD, AHkDE, which are described as
“Kalksteenhellinggronden”
 Rd10A-VI, described as “Kalkhoudende ooivaaggronden; lichte zavel”

3. In the third step, the relevant codes of the Top10 land use, top10 houses and top
lines files were selected. Additionally, land use descriptions were assigned to the
different land use identifiers. The following list contains the defined land uses, that
were integrated in the alternatives:
 Grasslands
 Wood cover
 Building/Houses
 Asphalted road
 Dirt road
 Railway
 Other
 Water
 Arable land

4. The last step to produce a map of vegetations for the field visits. From the clipped
vegetation area the relevant codes were selected (appendix 3.3.a).

3.3b Field trip

Two trips were done to the study area. The trips had the purpose to define the study area,
and to identify in detail calcareous grasslands already present in the area. It also helped to
generate a general impression about the whole landscape and the character of the land
uses, specially the farmers, tourism and leisure activities.

The first trip was done 29 September 2006 (Karlè Sýkora, Jinze Noordijk and Louis de Nijs
accompanied this field trip). During that trip the Kundenberg, Welterberg and Vrakelberg
where visited. During the second trip, from 13 October 2006 to 15 October 2006, the rest of
the area was checked and the calcareous grasslands were registered.

15
The calcareous grasslands were located with the help of a vegetation map from the province
of South Limburg (reference); from this map different categories were visited to establish
which ones correspond actually to calcareous grasslands. The input for the map was the
vegetation map; the selected codes can be seen in appendix 3.3.b.

Pictures where taken to facilitate the definition of calcareous grasslands, but because it was
late in the season most of the herbs had already flourish and there were almost no flowers,
which made the recognition of the calcareous grasslands more difficult.

The study area was established, defining different clusters of calcareous grassland patches
which where found close to each other. The study area is located between Heerlen and
Maastricht (see figure 3.3b), and includes patches in the Kundenberg, Welterberg, De
Putberg; in Vrakelberg and their surroundings; patches in the area of Dolsberg,
Berghofweide, Keutenberg, Gerendal and St. Jansbosch; Patches in the Kruisberg; and
patches on the south of the Eyserbosschen. The boundaries of the study area north:
323000.00m, south: 312000.00m, east: 185000.00m and west: 200000.00m, according to the
RD_new projection coordinate system.

Figure 3.3b Study Area

16
Some of the calcareous grasslands, which are protected by nature conservation organisations

3.3c Calcareous soils

1. In the first step of this component, the geo dataset with the soils in south Limburg,
was joined with the table were calcareous soils and their codes were established.
Then, the calcareous soils were selected in the shape file.
2. In the second step, the asphalted road, buildings/houses, water and other land covers
were selected as unsuitable areas for the presence and development of calcareous
grasslands.
3. Finally, the calcareous soils were intersected with the unsuitable areas. And then, this
intersection was erased from the calcareous soils. To indicate calcareous soils, where
typical / species rich vegetation can actually / be developed.

3.3d Actual calcareous grasslands

1. In the first step of the actual calcareous grassland component, some fields with codes
G8 and DGA were selected from the “vegetation area” file. The areas were defined

17
 with the help of the map produced in the last step of the pre-processing component
and after the verification realized during the fieldtrips. The Object ID selected are: 1,
2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 17, 18, 22, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 48, 53, 54, 58, 59, 60, 61, 64,
65, 66, 67, 68 and 69.
2. In the second step of this component other field observation were selected. Those
were fields, which were not considered in the vegetation-area external information.

3.3e Design roadside verges

1. In the first step of the design of roadside verges, both types of roads (asphalted and
dirt roads) were selected from the relevant copies.
2. In this step different processes were done. First a buffer to the different type of roads
was created; with this buffer, a common width of 3 meters was established for the
former roads kept in line file. Then all roads were unified in a unique file, and a buffer
of 5 meters to the roads was created. To define the roadside verges, the roads are
erased from the buffer file.
3. In a third step, the roadside file is intersected first with the calcareous soils, getting
the roadside verges, which could potentially be developed as calcareous grasslands.
Afterwards the result was intersected with the unsuitable and wood cover areas.
4. The latter intersection is then erased from the roadside verges in the fourth step. So,
the result is a map with roadside verges on calcareous soils, without the unsuitable
and wood cover areas.

3.3f Roadside verges and calcareous grasslands

1. The first step of this component consisted in the selection of the grasslands from the
land use files.
2. The second step was the intersection of the selected grasslands with the calcareous
soils file (the one, in which unsuitable areas were discharged).
3. In the third step, the result of the first step was unified with the roadside verges of the
past component.

3.3g Corridor strips to allow insect movement

1. First, all the required shape files were transformed to raster files. Each raster square
was given a weight value as the suitability for an imaginary specialist insect. The
correspondent weight values were: roadside verges on calcareous soils (1);
grasslands on calcareous soils (2); other land uses in calcareous soils (20); roadside
verges in non calcareous soils (250); grasslands in non calcareous soils (500) and the
rest of land uses in non calcareous soils (1000). Then a hierarchical organized weight
18
 grid was created, making sure that the values of more interest were kept in the final
result.
2. Secondly, the different paths within the nearest (sometimes the nearest and the
second nearest) calcareous grassland fields were calculated using the weight grid
created in the last step as the matrix. The paths were calculated in both ways. In total
five clusters of calcareous grasslands could be connected, attending the borders of
calcareous soils, in a way, that no path was calculated, if it had to cross over non
calcareous soils (an exemption occurred with the Roadside verge (objects ID 20, 21)
on the (Nr) highway, which is not located over calcareous soils.
3. Thirdly, I selected the most convenient, cheapest and shortest paths between the
calcareous grasslands in order to create physical connections between them.
4. Finally, in this component the unsuitable areas, and the wood covers were selected
and intersected with the cheapest paths to identify the sites were it would problematic
to create corridors.

19
4. Results

The results are organized in three different parts. First the lists of stenotopic butterflies,
grasshoppers and ants species to calcareous grasslands are presented and their dispersal
ability is defined. Second, the alternative maps for potential networks of calcareous
grasslands. The maps have a logic order. First was defined how much can potentially be
developed to calcareous grasslands (considering that the whole area on calcareous soils
could potentially be developed to calcareous grasslands), and what are the actual remnants.
Then, by adding strategic areas the area and/or connectivity increase sequentially (first
potential road verges on calcareous soils, second grasslands, and third by proposing stripes
as corridors). Third, the different map results were compared with the dispersal ability of the
different group of insects, this step is necessary to define, which alternative would be better
according to the goals of conservation.

4.1 Insect species and dispersal ability

4.1a Specialist butterflies

Eight species of butterflies where defined as stenotopic to calcareous grasslands in the

Netherlands: Thymelicus acteon, Erynnis tages, Spialia sertorius, Cupido minimus,
Polyommatus semiargus, Polyommatus coridon, Melanargia galathea and Melitaea cinxia
(Shoenmakers 1989, Van Swaay 2002, EIS-Nederland 2006) (See Table 4.1a). All these
species are declining or have not been register anymore in the last years or decades; four
species are registered as extinct, and two as seriously threatened in Holland (Shoenmakers,
1989, EIS-Nederland 2006, anonymous without date).

Erynnis tages Melanargia galathea Spialia sertorius

4.1b Specialist grasshoppers

Eight species of grasshoppers were defined as calcareous grassland specialists: Gryllus

campestris, Tetrix bipunctata, Tetrix tenuicornis, Oedipoda caerulescens, Stenobothrus
20
lineatus, Stenobothrus stigmaticus, Omocestus rufipes and Chorthippus apricarius
(Bellmann 1993, Kleukers et al. 1997, Kleukers & Krekels 2004, EIS-Nederland 2005) (see
Table 4.1b). Only Stenobothrus lineathus seems not to decline in the Netherlands, but for the
rest of the species the number of observations has been decreasing during the last decades
(Kleukers 1997, Kleukers & Krekels 2004). Five species are reported in the red list, one of
them as extinct in the Netherlands (Kleukers & Krekels 2004).

Tetrix tenuicornis Gryllus campestris Omocestus rufipes

4.1c Specialist ants

Seven species of ants were established as stenotopic to calcareous grasslands: Myrmecina

graminicola, Myrmica schencki, Myrmica specioides, Strongylognathus testaceus,
Tetramorium impurum, Tapinoma erraticum and Lasius alienus (See Table 4.1c). But most
of the information for this group is unknown. There is no Red list concerning this group.

Tapinoma erraticum Lasius alienus Myrmecina graminicola

4.1d Dispersal ability

There is not much information on the dispersal capacities of most of the specialist calcareous
grasslands selected. Most of the studies on insects on fragmentation focus on species
richness (reference), and there is still short information about individual species. It is difficult
to establish precisely the dispersal capacity of species and probably those can vary from
region to region, influenced by specific environmental differences.

21
Different dispersal abilities were defined arbitrarily according to the flying capacity or
available information of each species or group. Dispersal ability was established as high for
good flyers, medium for clumsy flyers (or where just part of the population could fly), and low
for non-flyer species. The definition of a potential distance limit of dispersion was done by the
available literature, and by relations between the dispersal ability groups.

1. The dispersal distance over non-suitable area in “the high dispersal group” was
establish≥ 1000 m (will be able to fly over the whole study area). Although the species
in this group are still specialist species, with defined habitat requirements, all of them
are able to fly over long distances. Cupido minimus is a sedentary species,
nevertheless there are registrations of individuals flying 762 m (Baguette et al. 2000),
and it is expected that some individuals move over 1 km (Krauss et al. 2004).
Vagrants have been reported up to 17 km away from known populations, and eggs
have been found 4400 m away from the nearest inhabited patch (Krauss et al. 2004).
Melanargia galathea has registrations of 2568 m of movement (Baguette et al. 2000),
and Melitaea cinxia has an average migration distance of 1 km (Hanski et al. 2006).
There are also grasshoppers in this group, such as Stenobothrus stigmaticus and
Stenobothrus lineatus, which would not experience isolation effects with habitat
patches interspersed at distances of up to 8 km (Johansen et al. 1999).

2. I assume that species in the “low dispersal group” (as they can’t fly and are specialist
of calcareous grasslands) are not able to leave calcareous grasslands. So they would
be only be capable to migrate between remnants if they are adjacent, or if there is a
physical habitat connection. Species in this group are non-flying grasshoppers. For
example Gryllus campestris has a very low mobility and large yearly population
changes. This species needs large or connected populations to sustain, because
small populations can extinct, and re-colonization is hardly possible (Kleukers et al.
1997). Two more species from these groups are Tetrix bipunctata and T. tenuicornis,
non of them can fly, they are small and are restricted to xerotherm habitats (Kleukers
et al. 1997).

3. The definition for the group of medium ability dispersers of the distance in which at
least they would be able to cross is of ≤ 1000m, established as the half of the distance
of the group of high dispersers and the middle between the high and low groups. In
this group clumsy flying insects are included. Those are insects with low flying
capacities, or which are helped by the wind to glide for larger distances, but without
much control of directions of landing places. In this group some sedentary butterflies
are include like Thymelicus acteon (Thomas et al. 2001), or Erynis tages and Spialia
sertotius. E. tages maximum distance movement registrations are of 660 m, but
22
 maximum colonisation distance observed is of 1400m (assuming colonisation from
the nearest occupied site) (Gutierréz & León-Cortés 1999). Ants are species with
medium dispersal ability, since queens can fly (with the males the only effective
disperser of the group), but they don’t have complete control of the flight, and long
distance flyings would depend on the wind. Non dispersal information was found on
the selected species; nevertheless it was assumed that it could be related to other ant
species. Even when the maximum dispersal of large ant species can by up to 10 km
(Formica rufa), this is not expected for small ants (Mabelis & Chardon 2006). There is
also evidence for limited dispersal ability of queens (less than 1 km) in F. paralugubris
(Chapuisat et al. 1997), and in F. exsecta (Sundsrtöm et al. 2003).

Table 4.1a Butterflies and dispersal ability: Opportunistic, high (H); Sedentary, medium (M).
Status in the Netherlands: declining (d)

Dispersal
Butterflies species ability Status Red list Notes

Thymelicus action M–H d Extinct Not registered since 1981

Erynnis tages M d Seriously threatened
Spialia sertorius M d Extinct Not registered since 2001
Cupido minimus H d Extinct
Polyommatus semiargus H d Extinct Low registrations 90s, 00s
Polyommatus coridon H d Extinct Not registered since 1959
Melanargia galathea H d X Not reproducing in NL
Melitaea cinxia H d Seriously threatened

Table 4.1b Grasshoppers and dispersal ability: Dispersal ability: Good flyer, high (H); Part of
the population can fly, or clumsy flyer, medium (M); No flying possibilities, low (L). Status: s,
stable; d, decreasing

Species Dispersal ability Status Red list Notes

Gryllus campestris L D Threatened
Tetrix bipunctata L D Extinct Not registered since before 1980
Tetrix tenuicornis L D X Low registrations
Oedipoda caerulescens H D Vulnerable Decreasing since 2000
Stenobothrus lineatus H S Vulnerable Stable with low registrations
Stenobothrus stigmaticus H D X Decreasing since 2000
Omocestus rufipes M D X Decreasing since 2000
Chorthippus apricarius M D Sensitive Low registrations

23
Table 4.1c Ants and dispersal ability, Dispersal ability: medium sized queens medium (M)

Dispersal Queen size

Species ability (mm) Status Red list Notes
Myrmecina graminicola M 4 ? X
Myrmica schencki M 5,5 ? X
Myrmica specioides M 5,5 ? X
Strongylognathus testaceus M 3,6 ? X
Tetramorium impurum M 6,75 ? X
Tapinoma erraticum M 5 ? X
Lasius alienus M 7,5 ? X

4.2 Alternative maps

4.2a Calcareous Soils map

The Calcareous Soil map (Figure 4.2a, appendix 4.2.a) presents all the calcareous soils in
the study area. These soils occupy ca. 2637 hectares of the study area (16500 ha). The
calcareous grasslands are aggregated forming many different clusters. The total surface of
each cluster is presented in table 4.2a. Seven of the clusters are a part of larger ones, but the
rest is outside my study-area. The average area is 155.10 ha, the largest one is of 655.57 h
and the smallest 0.7 h.

The seventeen clusters are intersected with unsuitable land uses (water, roads,
building/houses, other), and divided into 38 number of patches with an average area of 69,39
h, maximum 376,29 h and minimum 0,70 h (See table 4.2a All the data in appendix 4.2.1).

Table 4.2a Area of Calcareous soils

Cluster Nr. Hectares Nr. of patches Partly outside the study area
1 351,1687 3
2 193,7517 1
3 655,5712 9 x
4 190,0458 4
5 376,2899 1
6 133,4261 1
7 88,32024 3
8 144,7834 1
9 66,55665 1
10 15,09886 1 x
11 251,9358 6 x
12 42,78077 1
13 107,5267 2
14 10,30279 1 x
15 0,701718 1 x
16 6,237301 1 x
17 2,25837 1 x
Total 2636,756 38 7

24
Figure 4.2a Calcareous soil map. Clusters are indicated with the number in a yellow circle
corresponding with the sizes in table 4.2a, Cluster 14 and 15 are not visible in the map.

4.2b Actual Calcareous grassland map

The actual calcareous grassland map (figure 4.2b, appendix 4.2.b1) presents the principal
calcareous grassland in the study area. They are scattered trough the study area, occurring
on five of the calcareous soils patches. Thirty-one calcareous grasslands were found (with an
average area of 1.44 h, a sum of 44.75 h, the largest patch of 9.75 h, and the smallest of
0,19 h).

Two (object 21 and 30) of the calcareous grassland remnants and parts of other fields don’t
occur on calcareous soils. The total area of the calcareous grassland, which doesn’t occur in
the calcareous soils, is 10.76 h (appendix 4.2.b1).

The calcareous grasslands were divided into five clusters; in this way the clusters all share
the same patch of calcareous soils. The location and attributes of the clusters are (In
appendix 4.2.b2 the distances are detailed):

25
- Cluster 1: Kunderberg, Welterberg, Putberg. This cluster has ten remnants (two sub-
groups of remnants are adjacent; one with 5 patches, the other one with 2); from
those, four patches are larger than 1 hectare. The total area of the remnants is of
13.88 h of calcareous grasslands, average patch area is 1.39 h, the largest patch
4.29 h and minimum area of 0.2 h. The area of calcareous grasslands, which is not in
calcareous soils, is 6.34 h. The average distance between patches is of 377.36 m
(without counting the adjacent remnants increases to 593 m), the maximum distance
is 1005 m and the shortest 0 m.

- Cluster 2: Vrakelbergerweg, Fromberg. Cluster 2 has six remnants and from them,
one patch with over 1 hectare of area. The total area is 6.45 hectares of calcareous
grasslands, with an average remnant area of 1.07 h; the largest patch is 4.67 h and
minimum area of 0.19 h. The area of calcareous grasslands, which is not in
calcareous soils, is 1.23 h. The average distance between patches is of 254.4 m; the
maximum distance is 796 m and the shortest 14 m.

- Cluster 3: Dolsberg, Berghofweide, St Jansbosch, Biebosch. Cluster 3 has ten

remnants (three subgroups of adjacent remnants, with four, two and two adjacent
remnants each one), six of them larger than 1 hectare. The total area is 12.54 h
calcareous grasslands, the average remnant area is 1.25 h, the largest remnant is
2.12 h and the minimum area 0.31 h. The area of calcareous grasslands, which is not
in calcareous soils, is 2.98 h. The average distance between patches is of 382.66 m
(without counting the adjacent remnants increases to 574 m), the maximum distance
is 1204 m and the shortest 0 m.

- Cluster 4: South of Kruisberg. Cluster 4 has three remnants. The total area of the
cluster is of 1.49 h; average remnant area is 0.49 h, the largest remnant is 0.68 h and
minimum area 0.25 h. The area of calcareous grasslands, which is not in calcareous
soils, is 0.17 h. The average distance between remnants is of 101.5 m, the maximum
distance is 188 m and the shortest 15 m.

- Cluster 5: South of Eyserbosschen. Cluster 5 has two remnants with a total area of
10,38 h, the largest one is 9,75 h, and the smaller with 0.63 h. The area of calcareous
grasslands, which is not in calcareous soils, is 0.03 h. The distance between the
remnants is of 63 m.

26
Figure 4.2b Calcareous grasslands map. The number corresponds with the Object ID as
mentioned in appendix table 4.2.b.

The distance between cluster 1 and cluster 2 is of 2269 m; between cluster 2 and cluster 3 is
of 1564 m; between cluster 2 and cluster 5 is of 1891 m; between cluster 3 and cluster 5 is of
1876 m; and the distance between cluster 4 and cluster 5 is of 1722 m.

4.2c Roadside verges on calcareous soils map

The map of roadside verges displays roadside verges (of 5 meters) on each side of every
road in calcareous soils without wood cover.

The total area of the roadside verges is of 78.42 h. If this area were added to the existing
calcareous grasslands (44.75 h) calcareous grassland would occupy 123.17h in the whole
study area. The attributes of the map for each cluster are (In appendix 4.2.c the distances are
detailed):

- Cluster 1: Has 11.88 h of roadside verges, the total area with calcareous grasslands
(13.88 h) is 25.76 h. Average distance between calcareous grassland remnants
(counting the roadside verges as stepping stones from the source to the destination

27
 and selecting always the shortest distance to next stepping-stone or destination, but
trying to get as straight as possible) 220.73 m (without counting the adjacent
remnants increases to 346.86 m), and the maximum distance is of 666 m. The
number of “steps” for the whole cluster is 26, with an average of 3.71 (without
counting adjacent remnants) between the remnants, and a maximum of 8 steps.

- Cluster 2: Has 5.86 h of roadside verges, the total area with calcareous grasslands
(6.45 h) is 12.31 h. The average distance between calcareous grassland remnants is
124.72, and the maximum distance is 300.6 m. The number of “steps” for the whole
cluster is 11, with an average of 2.2 between the remnants, and a maximum of 5
steps.

- Cluster 3: Has 19.19 h of roadside verges, and a total area with calcareous
grasslands (12.54 h) of 31.73 h. The average distance between calcareous grassland
remnants is 216.11 m (without counting the adjacent remnants increases to 324.17
m), and the maximum distance is of 668.5 m. The number of “steps” for the whole
cluster is 31, with an average of 5.17 between the remnants, and a maximum of 10
steps.

- Cluster 4: Have 5.29 h of roadside verges, and a total area with calcareous grassland
remnants (1.49 h) of 6.78 h. The average distance between calcareous grasslands is
101.5, and the maximum distance is 188 m. Two steps are necessary to connect the
cluster.

- Cluster 5: Has 11.39 h of roadside verges and a total area with calcareous grassland
remnants (9.75 h) of 21.14 h. The distance between the two remnants including the
potential roadside verge reduces to 9 m. And is the result of just 1 step, as the
roadside verges are adjacent to the remnants, and to be connected is necessary just
to cross the road.

By using the roadside verges as stepping-stones between the different clusters the average
distance to connects the nearest remnants of different clusters is 1613 m, the shortest
distance is of 1309 m, and the maximum distance 1804; the stepping stones required are 32,
with an average of 6.4 and a maximum of 10 stepping-stones. Some data for the clusters,
extracted from appendix 4.2.7 distances are present in table 4.2.c.

28
Table 4.2c Distances between nearest remnants from the different clusters, with roadside
verges as stepping-stones
Distance from stepping-stone to stepping
Object ID Object ID stone Total
source destination distance
remnant remnant stepping-stone (m) (m)
Cluster 1 2
Remnant 6 17 427 6 347 3 627 30 27 158 1625
Cluster 2 3
Remnant 1 23 37 997 7 4 6 134 95 10 9 10 1309
Cluster 2 5
Remnant 2 4 873 500 144 5 19 232 7 24 1804
Cluster 3 5
Remnant 4 22 24 7 232 1526 1789
Cluster 4 5
Remnant 11 13 943 595 1538

Figure 4.2c Roadside verges on calcareous soils map

4.2d Grasslands and roadside verges on calcareous soils

The map that integrates the calcareous grassland remnants, grassy roadside verges on
calcareous soils, and other grasslands on calcareous soils (agricultural meadows and

29
species poor grasslands), creates a situation in which physical connections between some of
the remnants are possible, and increases the total area of the calcareous grasslands.

The total area available for calcareous grasslands in this map is of 1235.56 ha, and if the
calcareous grassland remnants, which are not in calcareous soils (10.76) the total area would
be of 1246.32 h. The information related to each one of the clusters is (see also appendix
4.2d):

- Cluster 1: Has 135.41 ha of roadside verges and grasslands on calcareous soils, if

the area of calcareous grasslands, which is not in calcareous soils (6.34 h) is added
the result is 141.75 ha of suitable area. Average distance between calcareous
grasslands is (counting the roadside verges and the added grasslands as stepping
stones from the source to the destination and selecting always the shortest distance
to next stepping-stone or destination, but trying to get more or less directly) 38.64 m
(without counting the adjacent remnants increases to m), and the maximum distance
is of 70.83 m. The number of “steps” for the whole cluster is 18, with an average of 3
(without counting adjacent remnants) between the remnants, and a maximum of 6
steps.

- Cluster 2: Has 100.06 ha of roadside verges and grasslands in calcareous soils, if the
area of calcareous grasslands, which is not in calcareous soils (1.23 h) is added the
result is of 101.29 ha. Average distance between calcareous grasslands 5.5 m
(without counting the adjacent remnants increases to 11 m), and the maximum
distance is of 17 m. The number of “steps” for the whole cluster is 6, with an average
of 2 steps, between the remnants without counting adjacent stepping-stones, and a
maximum of 3 steps.

- Cluster 3: Has 368.10 ha of roadside verges and grasslands in calcareous soils, if the
area of calcareous grasslands which is not in calcareous soils (2.98 h) is added the
result is of 371.08 ha. Average distance between calcareous grasslands 31.55 m
(without counting the adjacent remnants increases to 52.58 m), and the maximum
distance is of 156 m. The number of “steps” for the whole cluster is 23 with an
average of 3.83 (without counting adjacent remnants) between the remnants, and a
maximum of 9 steps.

- Cluster 4: Have 100.21 ha of roadside verges and grasslands in calcareous soils, if

the area of calcareous grasslands remnants that is not in calcareous soils (0.17 h) is
added the result is of 100.8 h. Average distance between calcareous grasslands is
14.5 m (without counting the adjacent remnants increases to 29 m), and the
30
 maximum distance is of 29 m. The number of “steps” for the whole cluster is 2, one
step each.

- Cluster 5: Has 191.90 h of roadside verges and grasslands in calcareous soils, if the
area of calcareous grasslands, which is not in calcareous soils (0.03 h) is added the
result is of 191.93 h. Distance between the two calcareous grassland remnants is 9
m.

The distance, which any species would have to travel between the nearest remnants in
cluster 1 and 2 is of 818, making 12 steps; from the second to the third cluster the distance
would be 810; from the cluster 2 to cluster 5 the distance is 557.5; from cluster 3 to cluster 5
the distance is 1248 m; and from cluster 4 to cluster 5 the distance is 859 m. See table 4.2d

Table 4.2d Distance between clusters

Clusters Distance (m) Number of steps
1 2 818 12
2 3 810 5
2 5 557.5 8
3 5 1248 6
4 5 859 9

Figure 4.2d Grasslands and road verges on calcareous soils

31
4.2e Networks (corridors) for calcareous grasslands

In the map of corridors for calcareous grasslands, 23 potential corridors are defined,
according to the suitability factors defined by presence or absence of calcareous soils and
the land use. The corridors connect the remnants within each cluster. The general average of
the corridors is 570.14 m (see table 4.2.e).

Table 4.2e Corridor’s length, and crosses with unsuitable

Calcareous remnant
Source Destination Length Unsuitable
Cluster (object ID) (Object ID) (m) length (m) Unsuitable land uses
18 19 1079.10 37.39 Wood cover, other
19 21 469.55 7.85 Wood cover
19 8 1343.91 25.02 Wood cover
17 14 4.00
9 20 1168.74 274.63 Wood cover
1 9 8 852.77 121.35 Wood cover, asphalted road
6 7 296.30 7.73 Wood cover
5 6 388.30 13.08 Wood cover, asphalted road
3 5 1479.24 9.30 Wood cover, asphalted road
3 2 14.00
2 1 2 55.66
23 22 5.66
24 23 1.00
24 25 1.00
31 24 706.19 10.51 Wood cover, other
30 31 8.00 7.90 Wood cover
Wood cover, asphalted road,
26 31 2326.30 116.29 other
Wood cover, asphalted road,
28 26 1189.41 27.44 other
27 28 1.00
3 29 27 1372.21 441.51 Wood cover
11 10 16.83
4 12 10 254.35 40.62 Wood cover, other
5 4 13 79.80 6.05 Wood cover

- Cluster 1: In this cluster 6 corridors were calculated to create one network; the
average distance is 819.68 m, the longest is 1343.91 m and the shortest 4 m. Five of
the corridors in this cluster have to cross over unsuitable areas, including wood cover,
asphalted roads and other.

- Cluster 2: In this cluster 5 corridors were calculated to create one network; the
average distance is 446.7 m, the longest is 1479.24 m and the shortest 14 m. three of

32
 the corridors of this cluster cross over unsuitable areas like wood cover and asphalted
roads.

- Cluster 3: In this cluster 9 corridors were calculated to create one network; the
average distance is 623.42 m, the longest is 2326.3 m and the shortest 1 m. Five
corridors of this cluster have to cross over unsuitable land, including wood cover,
asphalted roads, and other.

- Cluster 4: In this cluster 2 corridors were calculated to create one network; the longest
is 254.35 m and the shortest 16.83 m. One of the corridors in this cluster crosses over
unsuitable area such as wood cover and other.

- Cluster 5: In this cluster 1 corridor was calculated to create one network; the length of
the corridor is 79.8 m. This corridor crosses over an area of wood cover.

Figure 4.2e Networks (physical corridors) for calcareous grasslands.

33
4.3 Comparison of alternatives and groups of insects

4.3a. Actual situation

In the Cluster 1 (Kunderberg, Welterberg, Putberg) the actual distances between remnants
doesn´t exceed 1000 meters, making it a coherent network if only distance is considered for
species in the high and medium dispersal ability groups. For species in the low dispersal
ability group there would be two groups of connected remnants (20 and 21) and (14,15,16,17
and 18). Actually, both groups are conformed by one coherent landscape structure, dissected
in the maps by field limits. Remnant 14 is separeted from the remnant 17 by a dirt road
(about 4 to 5 meters width), which was not considered as a barrier.

In the cluster 2 (Vrakelbergerweg, Fromberg) like in cluster 1 distance between remnants

doesn’t exceed 1000 m and for good and medium dispersers it can be considered as a
network. There is no connectivity for the group of low dispersers (the shortest distance
between 2 and 3, which is of 14m is covered by shrubs and wood cover).

Distances in Cluster 3 (Dolsberg, Beghofweide, St Jansbosch, Biebosch) would not impede

the dispersal for species of the high dispersal group. Two networks could exist for the group
of high dispersal ability (remnants 22, 23, 24, 25, 30 and 31; and remnants 26, 27, 28 and
29), those networks are separated by a distance of 1204m (between remnants 26 and 31).
The networks for the group of low dispersal ability species would be remnants 22, 23, 24 and
25, which as in cluster 1 could be considered a same unit (remnants 22 and 23 are dissected
by a dirt road which is even covered by herbaceous species and 24 and 25 are dissected by
a fence with shrubs); 30 and 31 (a same unit dissected by a line of trees); 27 and 28; and
remnants 26 and 29 are isolated.

Species of the the groups of high and medium dispersal ability could consider cluster 4
(South of Kruisberg) as a network, remnants 10, 11 and 12 by 188m and 15m, but species in
the group of low dispersal capacity would be isolated in the three remnants.

Cluster 5 (South of Eyserbosschen) with a distance between the two remnants (4 and 13) of
63 m is connected for species with high and medium dispersal capacities, but the remnants
could be separated for species with low dispersal capacity.

Respect the distance between clusters, there would be a network for high species with high
dispersal capacity, but the landscape would cluster would be isolated for species in the
medium dispersal ability group. See table 4.3a

34
Table 4.3a Distance between the nearest remnants in clusters In roadside verges and
road verges and calcareous grasslands, the distance is the maximum distance between the
stepping-stones, which can connect the closest remnants.
Actual situation Roadside verges Road verges and
Cluster distance (m) distance (m) grasslands distance (m)
1 2 2269 627 221
2 3 1564 997 762
2 5 1891 873 235
4 5 1722 943 338

4.3b Roadside verges

In the cluster level roadside verges would increase the connectivity for medium dispersal
ability species in cluster 3, which would perceive the cluster as a network; In cluster 5,
remnants 4 and 13 would be connected even for low dispersal ability species, which would
just separated by a dirt road.

In Between clusters, the connectivity will increase for medium dispersal ability species (all the
distances, to be crossed over unsuitable area, are below 1000 m).

4.3c Roadside verges and calcareous grasslands

If grasslands and roadside verges on calcareous soils would be implemented, the

connectivity would increase for low dispersal ability insects in the cluster 1, by connecting
remnants 8, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 into a network; remnant 9 would be still separated.
In cluster 2 remnants 1, 2 and 3 would be connected for low dispersal ability insects; in
cluster 4 remnants 10 and 11 would be connected.

4.3d Physical corridors

The physical corridors where calculated in order to connect the different remnants of each
clusters. If they would be developed as stripes, they could potentially each cluster in a whole
network. The only landscape elements that would be still separate the remnants are
asphalted roads, which cross cluster 1 (between remnant 8 and 9); cluster 2 (between
remnant 3 and 5, and remnants 5 and 6); and cluster 3 (between remnant 26 and 31, and
remnant 26 and 28).

35
5. Discussion

5.1 How is the actual connectivity of calcareous grasslands?

It is widely reported that calcareous grasslands are fragmented (Van Swaay 2002, Willems
2001, WallisDeVries et al. 2002). In south Limburg the total area of calcareous grasslands
has considerably been reduced (WallisDeVries et al. 2002). The fragmentation occurred due
to the change of management during the second half of the past century. The total area of
calcareous has been reduced by the change of use or abandonment of the fields (Butaye et
al. 2005). Even tough the fragmentation, South Limburg is the only place where some of the
calcareous grassland insect specialists still persist in the Netherlands (Thomas et al. 2001).

The affection of fragmentation depends not only on the landscape structure (Baguette &
Schtickzelle 2003), but on the specific dispersal ability of each species. The results of this
project show, how species with specific dispersal distance abilities are affected differently.
For instance, species with high dispersal ability (butterflies: Cupido mimimus, Polyommatus
semiargus, Polyommatus coridon, Melanargia galathea, Melitaea cinxia; grasshoppers:
Oedipoda caerulescens, Stenobothrus lineatus, Stenobothrus stigmaticus) would be able to
reach any remnant within the study area, which means that all the remnants of all the clusters
are structurally a network. Meanwhile species with medium dispersal ability (butterflies:
Tymelicus acteon, Erynnis tages, Spialia sertorius; grasshoppers: Omocestus rufipes,
Chortippus apricarius; ants: Myrmecina graminicola, Myrmica schenki, Myrmica specioides,
Strongylognathus testaceous, Tetramorium impurum, Tapinoma erraticum, Lasius alienus)
would be able to reach the remnants within each of the clusters (with the exemption of cluster
3, where to different groups (networks) of remnants would be formed), but the clusters would
be isolated from the other ones. And finally species with low dispersal ability (grasshoppers:
Gryllus campestris, Tetrix bipunctata, Tetrix tenuicornis), which are no able to cross over
unsuitable area, are confined to the remnants where they live, with the only exceptions of
adjacent remnants which occur in clusters 1 and 3, and they would be able to cross.

It is important to mention that the dispersal ability groups are artificial, because the definitions
of the ranges were established by defining rough boundaries between the dispersal ability of
each species; the movement distances were approximated by registers of other studies and
there was no information for each one of the species. For instance, there was no data found
about the dispersal ability of any of the ants. So, even when there was an effort to establish
correct boundaries between the groups, and to allocate each species in the correct group,
there is a high uncertainty about the dispersal ability of some of the species. Anyway, the
comparison is relevant, because the definition of the groups act as a model, which can be
redefined and species can be organized according to more specific information and there will
36
be anyway the possibility to compare and establish connectivity levels according to the
distance between the nearest patches.

There is information about the extinction of five butterflies (Cupido mimimus, Polyommatus
semiargus, Polyommatus coridon, Tymelicus acteon, Spialia sertorius) and one grasshopper
(Tetrix bipunctata) from the calcareous specialists of South Limburg, All the butterflies and
seven of the eight grasshoppers registrations are declining since the last five to 20 years.

Habitat specialists and sedentary species, suffer more from fragmentation. These factors
restrict species in fragmented areas, and limit expansion across patchy ecosystems (Warren
et al. 2001). Fragmentation had a particularly adverse effect on rare butterfly species;
apparently butterflies avoid unsuitable matrixes even when they are good flyers. Melanargia
galathea showed hard reaction to fragmentation on small scale fragmentation (Zschokke et
al. 2000).

But it is not possible to attribute only to isolation the extinction and decline of insect species.
From the disappeared species, some are good or medium dispersers, and only one of the
species has low dispersal ability (Tetrix bipunctata). Other factors could be determinant in the
extinction of these species.

Other Landscape factors, such as minimum habitat size (Baguette & Schtickzelle 2003),
habitat quality (Mabelis 2004) or permeability of the matrix, environmental factors (Baguette
& Schtickzelle 2003)) and ecological aspects of the species like population growth and size
(Baguette & Schtickzelle 2003) are also determinant in the occurrence or absence of any
specie in a certain place. All this elements interact and an analysis of all would be necessary
to have a real view of the probability of occurrence, survival or extinction of any of the
selected species.

Some relevant information about habitat size revels that it would not be enough at least for
some of the species. For Thymelicus acteon, at least 50 ha of connected habitat was
estimated to be required (EIS-Nederland 2005), the actual area is of 44,75 ha and probably it
won’t be even connected for the species as it has been defined in the medium dispersal
ability group. Erynnis tages and Spialia sertorius decline and extinction respectively were
also caused by loss of habitat (EIS-Nederland 2005).

On the other side, species like Polyommatus coridon lack of good habitat quality
requirements; Hippocrepis comosa its specific plant is not present in the Netherlands (EIS-
Nederland 2005). Habitat quality is also a restrictive aspect for ants; most of the threatened

37
ant species are dependent on sunny and warm habitats, and their highest threat is nitrogen
deposition and the encroachment of higher vegetation (Mabelis 2004). Also grasshoppers are
influenced by the habitat, because their composition responds directly and strongly to
changes in plant species community (Stoner & Joern 2004).

Theoretically population growth is also an important factor in the presence and dispersal of
species, since a high reproduction rate increases the opportunity of survival of the offspring.
High populations increases also the possibility of effective dispersion, because more
individuals would migrate, and there is more chance that individuals reach suitable habitat
and reproduce. But, there is no much information on the relation on fragmentation and
population size of insects. Demographic processes remain unexplored at a metapopulation
scale (Baguette & Schtickzelle 2003) even in butterflies one of the insect groups most
investigated.

For the conservation of insects in South Limburg landscape configuration should be

managed in order to provide habitat with a good quality, enough size and connections to
support the populations of the different species (Butaye et al. 2005); and different species
would have different habitat quality, size and network requirements.

5.2 How to make a frame for decision making in order to increase connectivity in
calcareous grasslands?

The conversion of strategic landscape structures to calcareous grasslands by management

and under agreements with the different stakeholders could benefit in terms of habitat
requirements some of the specialist species of calcareous grasslands.

If roadside verges on calcareous soils would be converted to calcareous grasslands species

with medium dispersal ability could benefit, as roadside verges would constitute stepping
stones. This road verges would then allow the dispersion of species trough the whole study
area, since the maximum distance between any groups of neighbour patches would be less
than 1000m (997m). The structure of the road verges should allow the reproduction of the
individuals (being wide enough to create habitats or creating plots within them wide enough
to allow reproduction), and with a management, which guarantees the presence of specific
host plants.

Roadside and railway verges have been studied as potential corridors for plants (Tikka 2001)
and insects with low dispersal capacity in different studies (Vermeulen & Opdam 1995, Snep
et al. 2006). Road verges should be considered important areas, either as corridors for
feeding or breeding habitats for typical butterflies of declining semi-natural grasslands
(Saarinem 2005). Road verges can “guide” flying insects, which move along them, as
38
registered with butterflies (Pers comm. Noordijk). However, this verges should contain
suitable habitat, and for species with poor dispersal capacity (like ground-dwelling insects),
verges may function only if the species can reproduce well in the corridor (Vermeulen &
Opdam 1995). Road verges in this case won’t be continual corridors, but will act more as
stepping-stones, and species which use them, will have to cross still over unsuitable land.
Stenotopic species are found in isolated road verges, but the diversity of them is lower than
in natural patches (Noordijk et al in prep).

The only way to connect into networks the study area for species with low dispersal ability
would be with physical corridors. I assumed that any corridors between different clusters
would be unfeasible, since they would have to cross over unsuitable area (mainly over non
calcareous soils) (between 557.5 m and 1248m, clusters 2-5, and 3-5 respectively). Even
tough the calculated paths would be on calcareous soils, in all the clusters it would be
necessary to cross over unsuitable land uses, such as wood cover, asphalted roads, or other.
This cases would have to be treated one by one; but possibly strips of wood should be
removed, and eco-ducts over (or under) roads have to be implemented, if the corridors are
implemented.

Habitat specialists with low mobility through inhospitable habitat benefit more of continuous
corridors (Jepsen et al. 2005). Continuous corridors have seen to be effective; e.g. they
facilitate the movement between patches for butterflies (Steffan-Dewenter & Tscharntke
2002); and in simulation studies for carabid species (Vermeulen & Opdam 1995).

For invertebrates with low dispersal capacity corridors would be effective over distances in
reality and under advantageous circumstances up to 1 to 2 kilometres (Vermeulen & Opdam
1995). The management and the structure of the corridor stripes would be determinant, since
ground dwelling movements are short and its efficiency would depend on the habitat quality
(Bonte et al. 2003). Moreover, since the corridor distances are sometimes even over 1km the
stripes would need breeding habitats, which allows reproduction distances (Vermeulen &
Opdam 1995).

It is important to notice that the weight values (that measured the resistance of the specific
land use to be crossed), which were assigned to every relevant polygon in the Arc Map
project are subjective. The values were defined by the way, I consider better to cross across,
giving low resistance values to roadside verges and grasslands on calcareous soils in
compare to other land uses on calcareous soils; lower values to any land use on calcareous
soils than to other soils; lower values to road verges on other soils, than to other grasslands;
and the highest value to unsuitable land uses on non calcareous soils. Although the value
itself is debatable, the order of the values for the different land use types are not. Therefore
39
the calculated route will be the best route for the insects to migrate. This in turn will give land
managers an insight in the most appropriate places where to create corridor strips or the
stepping stones for the threatened insects of South Limburg.

5.3 Remarks and recommendations

• The method used in this project is useful as a tool in decision-making for the nature
conservation of calcareous grasslands. The examination of different alternatives,
defined by the gradual addition of areas with different levels suitability allows
establishing useful statements about the management for the protection of the
ecosystem.

• More research have to be carried out to precise which other landscape factors, like
habitat size or habitat quality and until what extent, are determinant in the absence of
some of the species. These researches are necessary to define how and where the
efforts should be done for the conservation of the diversity of insects in South
Limburg’s calcareous grasslands.

• The reason why some species disappeared from the study area, even when it is a
network for species with high dispersal ability (three species of this group are extinct
in the Netherlands), could be that the whole study area is isolated from other
calcareous grassland networks. It is possible that species are not able to re-colonize
the south of Limburg if there is no opportunity for the individuals to fly from patches
from abroad. The presence of butterfly’s species like Polyommatus semiargus, P.
coridon (also lacks of its host plant) and Melitaea cinixia just over the border with
Belgium (EIS-Nederland 2005) suggest that it could be truth.

• Different criteria should be considered according to the type of species, which would
be considered as goal for conservation. It’s specific dispersal ability, population
growth and habitat requirements are important factors to define which landscape
measurements has a higher-priority, if connectivity, habitat quality, habitat size, or a
mix of them is more important.

• Some measurements for the habitat quality management include the removal of
bushes for the conservation of grasshopper species (Kleukers & van Hoof 2003) and
butterflies species like Polyommatus coridon (not probable to re-colonize Holland,
since it’s host plant is also extinct in the Netherlands); the increase of area and
connectivity for Thymelicus acteon; and Increasing connectivity could promote the
presence of Erynnis tages, Spialia sertorius, Melitaea cinxia (EIS-Nederland 2005).
40
• From the connectivity perspective species, there is viability for the existence and
persistence of some of the species of some of the disappeared species. These
species could be re-introduced actively or indirectly by for example the use of sheep
herds, or hay displacement (Butaye et al. 2005). Another possibility is just to leave the
dispersal to the study area of this species to be “naturally” or by “chance”.

• If the habitat quality is not guaranteed in the remnants, how feasible is that road
verges on public land would be under the appropriate management? Parts of these
potential road verges don’t exist now, and are intensively managed, or are under
succession processes and trees are abundant. If road verges are converted to
calcareous grasslands, they would need a high invest in the adaptation and
management.

41
References

 Alderman J., McCollin D., Hinsely S.A., Bellamy P.E., Picton P. & Crockett R.. 2005.
Modelling the effect of dispersal and landscape configuration on population distribution
in fragmented habitat. Landscape ecology. 20- 857-870.
 Baguette M., Petit S. & Queva F. 2000. Population Spatial Structure and Migration of
three Butterfly Species within the same Habitat Netwotk: Consequences for
Conservation. The Journal of Applied Ecology. 37.100-108.
 Baguette M. & Schtikzelle N. 2003. Local Population dynamics are important to the
conservation of metapopulations in highly fragmented landscapes. Journal of Applied
Ecology. 40 404-412.
 Barbaro L., Dutoit T. & Cozic P. 2001. A six year experimental restoration of biodiversity
by shrub-clearing and grazing in calcareous grasslands of the French Prealps.
Biodiversity and Conservation. V10, 1. 119-135.
 Begon, M., Townsend C.R. & Harper J.L. 2006. Ecology: From individuals to
Ecosystems. (Chapter 6. Dispersal, Dormancy and Metapopulations). 163-185.
Blackwell Publishing. 4th Edition.
 Bellmann H. 1993. Heuschrecken beobachten, bestimmen. Naturbuch Verlag.
 Bobbink R & Willems J.H. 1993. Restoration management of fragmented chalk
grasslands in the Netherlands. Biodiversity and Conservation 2, 616-626.
 Bonte D., Lens L., Maelfait J.P., Hoffmann M. & Kuijken E. 2003. Patch quality and
connectivity influence spatial dynamic in a dune wolfspider. Oecologia. 135. 227-233.
 Bos F.G., Bosveld M.A., Groenendijk D.G., van Swaay C.A.M.& Wijnhoff I. 2006. De
dagvlinders van Nederland. Nederlandse Fauna deel 7. Nationaal natuurhistorisch
Museum, KNNV Uitgeverij, European Invertebrate Survey-Nederland.
 Braschler, B. C. 2003. "Effects of experimental small-scale grassland fragmentation on
spatial distribution, density, and persistence of ant nests." Ecological entomology 28:
651-658.
 Butaye J. Adriaes D. & Honnay O. 2005. Conservation and restoration of calcareous
grasslands: a concise review of the effects of fragmentation and management on plant
species Biotechnol. Agron. Soc. Environ. 2005 9, 111–118
 Dauber, J. L. W. 2006. "Evaluating effects of habitat loss and land-use continuity on ant
species richness in seminatural grassland remnants." Conservation biology 20: 1150-
1160.
 EIS-Nederland, De Vlinderstichting en de Nederlandse Verenigin voor Libellenstudie.
2005. Waarnemingenverslag Ongewervelden

42
 EIS-Nederland, De Vlinderstichting en de Nederlandse Vereniging voor Libellenstudie.
2006. Waarnemingenverslag 2006 Dagvlinders, Nachtvlinders en Libellen. Kaarten
dagvlinders.
 Getz L.L., Cole F.R. & Gates D.L. 1978. Interstate roadsides as dispersal routes for
Microtus pennsylvanicus. Journal of Mammalogy 59: 208-212.
 Gutierréz D. & León-Cortés J.L. 1999. Dispersal, distribution, patch network and
metapopulation dynamics of the dingy skipper butterfliy (Erynnis tages). Oecologia 121,
506-517.
 Hanski I. & Ovaskainen O. 2000. The metapopulation capacity of a fragmented
landscape. Nature. Vol 404. 13
 Hanski I., Saastamoinen M. & Ovaskainen O. 2006. Dispersal-related life-history trade-
offs in a butterfly metapopulation. Journal of Animal Ecology. 75. 91-100.
 Hess G.R & Fischer R.A. 2001. Communicating clearly about conservation corridors.
Landscape and Urban Planning 55 195-208.
 Jepsen J.U., Baveco J.M., Topping J.C., Verboom C.C. & Vos C.C. 2005. Evaluating
the effect of corridors and landscape heterogeneity on dispersal probability: a
comparison of three spatially explicit modelling approaches. Ecological Modelling 181
445-459.
 Johansen J., Samietz J., Wallaschek M., Seitz F. & Veith M. 1999. Patch Connectivity
and genetic variation in two congeneric grasshopper species with different habitat
preferences. Journal of Insect Conservation. 3. 201-209.
 Johst K., Brandl R. & Eber S. 2002. Metapopulation persistence in dynamic landscapes:
the role of dispersal distance. Oikos 98: 263-270
 Kleukers, RMJC & Odé B. 1992. Het voorkomen van C. apricarius in Nederland.
Entomologische Berichten 52: 89-94
 Kleukers R. et al. 1997. De Sprinkhanen en Krekels van Nederland (Orthoptera)
Nederlandse Fauna 1. Nationaal natuurhistorisch Museum, KNNV Uitgeverij, European
Invertebrate Survey-Nederland.
 Kleukers R.M.J.C. & van Hoof P.H. 2003. Beschermingsplan Sprinkhanen en Krekels in
Limburg.EIS-Nederland, Leiden & Bureau Natuurbalans - Limese Divergens
BV.Nijmengen
 Kleukers R. & Krekels R. 2004. Springkhanen en krekels. Veldgids. KNNV
Uitgeverij,Utrecht.
 Kraus J., Steffan-Dewenter I. & Tscharntke T. 2004. Landscape occupancy and local
population size dependens on host plant distribution in the butterfly Cupido minimus.
Biological Conservation. 120. 355-361.
 Mabelis, A.A. 1994. Flying as a survival strategy for wood ants in a fragmented
landscape (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). Memorabilia Zoologica, 48, 147-170.

43
 Mabelis, A.A. 2004. Wespen, mieren en natuurbeheer. In: De wespen en mieren van
Nederland, Nederlandse Fauna 6 (Reemer, M., Van Loon, A.J., Peeters, T.M.J. eds.):
139-146. NNM Naturalis, KNNV Uitgeverij, EIS-Nederland.
 Mabelis, A.A. & Chardon P. 2006. Survival of the trunk ant (Formica truncorum
FABRICIUS, 1804; Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in a fragmented habitat.
Myrmecologische Nachrichten. Dec.2006. 1-11.
 Miller W., Collons M., Steiner F. & Cook E.1998. An approach for greenway suitability
analysis, Landscape. Landscape Urban Planning 42: 91-105.
 Noordijk, J. 2005. Spinnen van Bermen op de Veluwe. Nieuwsbrief Spined 20: 29-34.
 Opdam P., Steingrover. & van Rooij S. 2006. Ecological networks: A spatial concept for
mulit-actor planning of sustainable landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 75, 322-
332.
 Raemakers I.P., Schaffers A.P., Sýkora K.V. & Heijerman T.H. 2001: The importance of
plant communities in road verges as a habitat for insects. In Bruin J. (ed): Proceedings
of the section Experimental and Applied Entomology of the Netherlands Entomological
Society 12. Nederlandse Entomologische Vereninging, Amsterdam, pp. 101-106.
 Saarinen K., Valtonen A., Jantunen J. & Saarnio S. 2005. Butterflies and diurnal moths
along road verges: Does road type affect diversity and abundance?. Biological
Conservation 123. 403-412.
 Saunders D.A. Hobbs J.R. & Margules C.R. 1991. Biological Consequences of
Ecosystem Fragmentation: A Review Conservation Biology, Vol. 5, No. 1. (Mar., 1991),
pp. 18-32.
 Schippers P., Verboom J., Knappen J.P. & Van Apeldoorn R.C. 1996. Dispersal and
habitat connectivity in complex heterogeneous landscapes: an analysis with GIS-based
random walk model. Ecography 19, 97-16. Copenhagen.
 Schoenmakers P.L.J, 1989. Ir.M.H. Tax. Atlas van de nederlandse dagvlinders.
Vereniging tot Behoud van Natuurmonumenten in Nederland Vlinderstichting
 Snep R.P.H, Opdam P.F.M, Baveco J.M., WallisdeVries M.F., Timmermands W, Kwark
R.G.M. & Kuypers V. 2006. How peri-urban areas can strengthen animal population
within cities: a modelling approach. Biological Conservation 127, 345-355.
 Steffan-Dewenter I. & Tcharntke T. 2002. Insect communities and biotic interactions on
fragmented calcareous grasslands- a mini review. Biological Conservation 104, 275-
284.
 Steiner F., McSherry L. & Cohen J. 2000. Land suitability analysis for the upper Gila
River watershed. Landscape Urban Planning 50: 199-214.
 Stiling P. 1999. Ecology Theories and Applications. Third Edition. Prentice Hall. New
Jersey. 638 p.
 Stoner K.J.L. & Joern. A 2004. Landscape vrs. local habitat scale influences to insect
communities from tall grass praire remnants. Ecological applications 14.1306-1320
44
 Sundsrtöm L., Keller L. & Chapuisat M. 2003. Inbreeding and Sex-Biased Gene Flow in
the Ant Formica exsecta. Evolution 57. 1552-1561.
 Termorshuizen J. 2004. Ecologische Duurzaamheid van Ruimtelijke
Ontwikkelingsplannen. Wageningen UR Thesis. December 2004
 Thomas J.A., Bourn N.A.D., Clarke R.T., Stewart K.E., Simcox D.J., Pearman G.S.,
Curtis R. & Goodger B. 2001. The quality and isolation of habitat patches both
determine where butterflies persist in fragmented landscapes. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. 268.
1791-1796.
 Tikka P.M., Högmander H. & Koski P.S. 2001. Road and railway verges serve as
dispersal corridors for grassland plants. Landscape Ecology 16: 659-666.
 Van Loon, A.J. 2004. Formicidae - mieren. In: De wespen en mieren van Nederland,
Nederlandse Fauna 6 (Reemer, M., Van Loon, A.J., Peeters, T.M.J. eds.): 227-263.
NNM Naturalis, KNNV Uitgeverij, EIS-Nederland.
 Van Swaay C. 2002. The importance of calcareous grasslands for butterflies in Europe.
Biological Conservation Volume 104, 315-318
 Vermeulen H.J.W. & Opdam P.F.M. 1995. Effectiveness of roadside verges as dispersal
corridors for small ground-dwelling animals: A simulation study. Landscape and Urban
Planning 31, 233-248.
 WallisdeVries M.F., Poschlod P. & Willems J.H. 2002. Challenges for the conservation
of calcareous grasslands in northwestern Europe: integrating the requirements of flora
and fauna. Biological Conservation V 104, 3. 275-273
 Warren M.S., Hill J.K., Thomas J.A., Asher J., Fox R., Huntley B., Roy D.B., Telfer M.G.,
Jeffcoate F., Harding P., Jeffcoate G., Willis S.G., Greatorex-Davis J.N., Moss D. &
Thomas C.D. 2001. Rapid responses of British butterflies to opposite forces of climate
and habitat change. Nature. 414. 65-69.
 Willems J.H. 2001. Problems, Approaches, and Results in Restoration of Dutch
Calcareous Grassland During the Last 30 Years. Restoration Ecology 9, 147–154.
 With K.A & King A.W 1999. Dispersal succes on fractal landscapes: a consequence of
lacunarity 2007 year. Netherlands Ants. http://www.antweb.org/netherlands.jsp).
 Zschokke S., Dolt C., Rusterholz H.P., Oggier P., Braschler B., Thommen G.H., Lüdin
E., Erhardt A. & Baur B. 2000. Short-term responses of plant and invertebrate species to
experimental small-scale grassland fragmentation. Oecologia 125. 559-572.
 Anonymous.http://www.synbiosys.alterra.nl/natura2000/hoofdpagina.aspx?subj=
habtypen&groep=0
 Anonymous.http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nederlandse-Rode_Lijst_(dagvlinders)
 Anonymous.http://www.antweb.org/netherlands.jsp).
 Anonymous.http://www.limburg.nl/nl/html/algemeen/Beleidsvoering/ruimteengroen/Groe
n/Natuurgegevens/Natuurgegevens.asp

45
Appendixes

Appendix 3.3a Relevant codes and land use description

Topo Land use

code Dutch description English translation description
0 Huis House Building/Houses
100 Gebouw, huis Building / House Building/Houses
101 Bebouwd gebied (Huizenblok) Built on plot / Residential block Building/Houses
102 Huis House Building/Houses
103 Hoogbouw High-rise flats / High-rise blocks Building/Houses
104 Muur Wall Building/Houses
107 Kassen (Warenhuizen) Department stores Building/Houses
108 Opslagtank Storage tank Building/Houses
137 Zuiveringsinstallatie purification plant / sewage treatment plant Building/Houses
200 Autosnelweg ASW Highway Asphalted road
Verbindingsroute met gescheiden
220 rijbanen H8 Motorway with separated lanes Asphalted road
230 Verbindingsroute > 7 meter H>7 Motorway > 7 meter Asphalted road
Autoweg met gescheiden rijbanen als
234 verbindingsroute AW8 rood Motorway Asphalted road
240 Verbindingsroute > 4 meter H>4 Mainroad, 4-7 m wide Asphalted road
Lokale weg met gescheiden rijbanen
287 L8 Motorway Asphalted road

Overig aanbevolen route met Road, other recommendable route with

300 gescheiden rijbanen V8 separated lanes Asphalted road
Overig aanbevolen route > 7 meter Road, other recommendable route > 7
310 V>7 meter Asphalted road
314 Lokale weg > 7 meter L>7 Local road, over 7 m wide Asphalted road
Overig aanbevolen route > 4 meter Road, other recommendable route > 4
320 V>4 meter Asphalted road
324 Lokale weg > 4 meter L>4 local road, over 4 m wide Asphalted road
334 Lokale weg > 2 meter L>2 Local road, over 2 m wide Asphalted road
340 Overige weg > 2 meter O>2 Other road > 2 meter Dirt road
341 Gedeeltelijk verhard > 2 meter GV3 Partly metalled (tarmac) > 2 meter Dirt road
343 Onverharde weg > 2 meter OW3 Unmetalled road > 2 meter Dirt road
346 Passage Passage Asphalted road
347 Voetgangersgebied Pedestrian area Other
352 Dirt road
353 Straat Street Asphalted road
360 Fietspad > 2 meter Cycle-track Dirt road
362 Dirt road
390 Pad Path Dirt road
400 Enkelspoor, SP1 Single track railway Railway
404 Dubbelspoor, SP2 Double Track Railway Railway
441 Kabelbaan Cabelsit? Other
481 Hoogspanningsleiding High-tension cables (+ pylon) Other
502 Loofbos Deciduous forest Wood cover
505 Naaldbos Conifer (pine) forest Wood cover

46
506 Gemengd bos Mixed forest Wood cover
507 Griend Wet area vegetation Wood cover
508 Populierenopstand Tree plantation Wood cover
511 Heg Hedge Wood cover
512 Bomenrij Line of trees Wood cover
513 Bomenrij dubbel (Bomenrij 1 vd 2) Line of trees (double) Wood cover
520 Bouwland Arable land Arable land
521 Grasland (Weiland) Grassland Grassland
522 Boomgaard Fruit tree nursery Grassland
523 Kwekerij (Boomkwekerij) Tree nursery Wood cover
525 Zand Sand Other
526 Overig bodemgebruik Other land use Other
530 Begraafplaats Cementery Building/Houses
531 Fruitkwekerij Fruit tree nursery Wood cover
533 Contour tbv erven (DUR lijn) inherit line Other
539 Hulplijn (afsluiter)(Lijn 0) Aid line Other
540 Contour (Lijn 1) Contour line Other
541 Other
545 Damlijn Damline Other
Hulplijn (eilandverbinder of
546 vlakverkleiner) Aid line Other
600 Greppel Trench, Ditch, Drain Water
601 Sloot < 3 meter (Sloot1, Enkele sloot) Ditch < 3 meter Water
Sloot tussen 3 en 6 meter (Sloot2,
602 Gerenforceerde sloot) Ditch 3 - 6 meter Water
611 Water / Oeverlijn (Landblauw) Bank Water
652 Aanlegsteiger <2 meter Construction wharf (under 2m) Other
690 HoofdAfwateringPatroon (HAP) Watercourse design Water
710 Dijk > 2,5 meter Dike > 2.5 meter Grassland
711 Dijk 1 - 2,5 meter Dike 1 - 2.5 meter Grassland
714 Boezemkade Reservoir quay Water
715 Wal (Kade) Bank / Embankment / Quay Other
716 Geluidswering Wall to reduce noise Building/Houses
720 Ingraving (Holle weg) Holle road Dirt road
722 Hoogteverschil Height (altitude) difference Other
725 Aardrand Border of earth Other
727 Recht omlaag Straight down Other
729 Schuin omlaag Diagonally down Other
819 Hek Fence Other

47
Appendix 3.3b Codes and description of selected covers for the fieldtrip map

Code Description
G2A Droge tot matig vochtige graslanden met verspreid over het grasland
aandachtssoorten
G2B idem G2a maar de aandachtssoorten bevinden zich nu in de rand van het
grasland.
G5 Cynosurus cristatus-Bellis perennistype. Dit graslandtype wordt voornamelijk
angetroffen in Zuid-Limburg en langs de Maas. Graslandvegetaties op vochtige tot
vrij droge, matig voedselrijke bodems. De vegetaties worden begraasd waardoor
het aandeel van rozetplanten en laag bij de grond bloeiende planten groot is. De
bedekking van Cynosurus cristatus is hoger dan 20 %, vaak is Bellis perennis
naast Cynosurus cristatus aanwezig. Dan is de gezamelijke bedekking hoger dan
20 %. Behalve een aantal G6-soorten ook soorten als: Ajuga reptans, Ranunculus
bulbosus, Leontodon autumnalis, Leontodon hispidus, Prunella vulgaris, Plantago
media, Primula veris, Carex aryophyllea, Saxifraga granulata, Rhinanthus spec.,
Ononis repens, Pimpinella saxifraga, Agrostis capillaris, Briza media en Trisetum
flavescens.
G6 Arrhenatherum elatiustype. Graslandvegetaties van vochtige tot vrij droge,
voedselrijke bodems. Het betreft hooilanden waarvan de soortensamenstelling
bepaald wordt door de aard van het gebruik. In ieder geval is de bedekking van
Arrhenaterum elatius hoger dan 40 %. Soms zijn Festuca pratensis en/of
Alopecurus pratensis naast Arrhenatherum elatius aanwezig. Dan is de
gezamelijke bedekking hoger dan 40 %. Verder is minimaal één van de volgende
kenmerkende soorten aanwezig: Knautia arvensis, Crepis biennis, Lathyrus
pratensis, Pimpinella major, Anthriscus sylvestris, Senecio jacobea, Galium
mollugo, Leucanthemum vulgare, Centaurea jacea, of Allium vineale
G7 Luzula campestris- Hieracium pilosellatype Graslandvegetaties van droge, vrij
voedselarme, zwak zure Tot zwak basische bodems. Naast algemene soorten als
Agrostis Capillaris, Festuca rubra, Rumex acetosella, Trifolium dubium en
Hypochaeris radicata ook enkele van de volgende kenmerkende soorten: Luzula
campestris, Hieracium pilosella, Cerastium arvense, Galium verum, Campanula
rotundifolia, Campanula rapunculus, Pimpinella saxifraga, Thymus pulegioides,
Hypericum perforatum, Lotus corniculatus, Teesdalia nudicaulis, Vulpia bromoides,
Ornithopus perpusillus, Aira praecox, Aira caryophyllea, Arenaria serpyllifolia,
Jasione montana, Eryngium campestre en Medicago sativa subsp. falcata.

48
G8 Brachypodium pinnatumtype. Zeer soortenrijke graslandvegetaties van droge, vrij
voed-selarme, kalkhoudende bodems. Deze vegetaties komen alleen voor in Zuid-
Limburg en bevinden zich voornamelijk op de steile zuidhellingen. Bij het
achterwege blijven van beheer wordt het vegetatietype gedomineerd door
Brachypodium pinnatum. Lichte beweiding of maaien heeft een grotere
soortenrijkdom tot gevolg. Andere kenmerkende soorten zijn: Avenula pratensis,
Carex flacca, Centaurea scabiosa, Cirsium acaule, Galium pumilum, Linum
catharticum, Origanum vulgare, Polygala comosa, Scabiosa columbaria, Thymus
pulegioides en vele andere.
B1, B2 Wegbermvegetaties
DGA Op de dijk bevindt zich een vegetatie die tot het Arrhena-theretum (G6) te rekenen
is. Soorten: Arrhenatherum elatius, Saxifraga granulata, Crepis biennis, Knautia
arvensis.
IHB1, Holle wegen met bomen en/of struiken , die bepalend zijn voor het microklimaat.
IHB2 Dit aspect valt af te lezen aan de dominantie van schaduw- en vochtminnende
planten (b.v. Silene dioca, Geranium robertianum en bosplanten).
IHG1 Holle weg zonder of bijna zonder bomen of struiken. Holle weg met goed
ontwikkelde of soortenrijke vegetatie, die voor minder dan 25% uit LKI-soorten
bestaat. Tevens komen meerdere aandachtssoorten en/of enkele zeldzame
aandachtssoorten voor. Met zeldzame soorten wordt bedoeld de "Rode lijst-
soorten" met code 0, 1 of 2 voor de betreffende regio.
IHG2 Holle weg met redelijk ontwikkelde vegetatie die voor 25%-75% uit LKI-soorten
bestaat en meerdere aandachtssoorten bevat of een relatief hoge bedekking heeft
van kruiden die niet behoren tot de LKI- of aandachtssoorten.

49
Appendix 4.2a Calcareous soils areas

OBJECTID_1 CODE Area m2 Cluster Nr. Area m2 Area ha

2 AHk|DE-- 1258902,37
4 AHk|E-- 1560982,52
5 AHk|E-- 691802,53 1 3511687,42 351,17
9 AHk|E-- 1937516,54 2 1937516,54 193,75
1 Rd10A-VI 114802,45
3 AHc|EF-- 3014183,94
10 AHk|D-- 318889,34
14 AHk|F-- 475231,29
11 AHk|F-- 1644225,70
18 AHc|D-- 176311,57
19 AHk|E-- 371302,68
12 AHc|D-- 116314,35
21 AHc|E-- 324450,79 3 6555712,10 655,57
22 AHk|D-- 447606,54
24 AHk|E-- 340391,84
25 AHk|E-- 541113,66
28 AHc|F-- 571345,87 4 1900457,90 190,05
15 AHk|E-- 3762898,51 5 3762898,51 376,29
13 AHk|E-- 1334261,43 6 1334261,43 133,43
6 AHk|E-- 285186,88
7 AHk|D-- 475902,74
8 AHk|D-- 122112,77 7 883202,39 88,32
17 AHk|D-- 1447833,79 8 1447833,79 144,78
33 AHk|E-- 665566,50 9 665566,50 66,56
37 AHc|E-- 150988,59 10 150988,59 15,10
34 AHk|D-- 232822,15
26 AHk|E-- 231087,00
27 AHk|F-- 453226,03
30 AHk|E-- 192000,65
31 AHk|F-- 1352598,94
36 AHk|F-- 57622,85 11 2519357,62 251,94
35 AHc|E-- 427807,72 12 427807,72 42,78
29 AHc|D-- 340326,99
32 AHc|F-- 734940,08 13 1075267,07 107,53
16 AHc|D-- 103027,89 14 103027,89 10,30
20 AHc|D-- 7017,18 15 7017,18 0,70
23 AHc|D-- 62373,01 16 62373,01 6,24
38 AHk|E-- 22583,70 17 22583,70 2,26
Total 26367559,37 2636,76
Average 693883,14

50
Appendix 4.2b1 Actual calcareous grasslands areas

Area of the remnant not

Cluster Object ID Area (ha)
in calcareous soil (h)
8 0,21
9 1,14
14 0,66
15 0,72 0,016
16 1,34 0,422
Cluster 1
17 3,58 0,815
18 0,60 0,195
19 0,41 0,095
20 4,29 3,879
21 0,92 0,922
Total Cluster 1 13,88 6,344
1 0,27 0,026
2 0,60 0,004
3 0,19
Cluster 2
5 4,67 0,759
6 0,48 0,266
7 0,25 0,176
Total Cluster 2 6,45 1,232
22 0,31
23 1,37
24 1,70 0,030
25 1,18 0,668
26 0,70
Cluster 3
27 0,70
28 2,12
29 0,97
30 1,97 1,974
31 1,52 0,310
Total Cluster 3 12,54 2,981
10 0,55 0,025
Cluster 4 11 0,69
12 0,25 0,146
Total Cluster 4 1,49 1,171
13 9,75 0,034
Cluster 5
4 0,63
Total cluster 5 10,38 0,034
Total 31 44,75 10,76

51
Appendix 4.2b2 Distance between patches (actual calcareous grasslands)

Cluster calcareous grasslands

Source Distance
Destination patch
patch (m)
8 9 697
8 19 1005
8 20 702
9 20 969
14 17 5
Cluster
14 19 420
1
15 18 0
16 17 0
16 18 0
19 21 353
20 21 0
1 2 44
2 3 14
Cluster
2 5 796
2
5 6 328
6 7 90
22 23 5
23 24 0
24 25 0
24 30 511
Cluster
26 27 745
3
26 31 1204
27 28 0
27 29 971
30 31 8
Cluster 10 11 15
4 10 12 188
Cluster
4 13 63
5

52
Appendix 4.2c Distances between patches (Roadside verges on calcareous grasslands)

Roadside verges
Source Destination
Cluster T. Nr.
patch patch Dist. from stepping stone-stepping stone (m)
Dist.m Steps
Cluster
8 9 69 161 1,5 231,5 3
1
8 19 69 9 10 578 666 4
8 20 69 9 11 149 4 4 6 252 7
9 20 1,5 161 9 10 149 4 4 6 344,5 8
14 17 5 5 1
14 19 420 420 1
15 18 0 0 0
16 17 0 0 0
16 18 0 0 0
19 21 199 310 509 2
20 21 0 0 0
Cluster
1 2 20 20 1
2
2 3 14 14 1
14 6 3 161 15 199 5
2 5
5,5 59 11 38 5 161 15
5 6 6,6 5 289 300,6 3
6 7 90 90 1
Cluster
22 23 5 5 1
3
23 24 0 0 0
24 25 0 0 0
5 55 5 8 96 98 5 21 7 8 308 10
24 30
5 55 5 180 7 7 8
4 211 57 5 234 139
26 27
4 211 57 5 228 4 6 514,5 7
26 31 4 472 5,5 179 8 668,5 5
27 28 0 0 0
27 29 6 97 4 169 155 5 5 441 7
30 31 8 8 1
Cluster
10 11 15 15 1
4
10 12 188 188 1
Cluster
4 13 9 9 1
5

53
Appendix 4.2d Distances between patches (Grasslands and roadside verges on calcareous
grasslands)

Source Destination Grasslands, roadside verges

Cluster
patch patch Dist. from stepping stone-stepping stone (m) T.Dist.m Nr. steps
Cluster
8 9 7,5 23 30,5 2
1
8 19 5,5 5,5 4 15 3
8 20 7,5 95 7 109,5 3
9 20 23 95 7 125 3
14 17 5 5 1
14 19 0 0 0
15 18 0 0 0
16 17 0 0 0
16 18 0 0 0
19 21 4 5,5 5,5 23 95 7 140 6
20 21 0 0 0
Cluster
1 2 0 0 0
2
2 3 0 0 0
2 5 5,5 5,5 6 17 3
5 6 5 3,5 8,5 2
6 7 7,5 7,5 1
Cluster
22 23 5 5 1
3
23 24 0 0 0
24 25 0 0 0
24 30 5 4,5 8 17,5 3
26 27 5,5 6,5 6 11 3,5 32,5 5
26 31 35 5 7 20 3 8 5 5,5 8 96,5 9
27 28 0 0 0
27 29 3 94 5 5,5 26 3 40 0 0
47 44 61 4,5 156 4
30 31 8 8 1
Cluster
10 11 0 0 0
4
10 12 23 6,5 29 2
Cluster
4 13 9 9 1
5

54