Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A Framework to Integrate Habitat Monitoring and Restoration with Endangered Insect Recovery

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Monitoring is essential to track the long-term recovery of endangered species. Greater emphasis on habitat monitoring is especially important for taxa whose populations may be difficult to quantify (e.g., insects) or when true recovery (delisting) requires continuous species-specific habitat management. In this paper, we outline and implement a standardized framework to facilitate the integration of habitat monitoring with species recovery efforts. The framework has five parts: (1) identify appropriate sample units, (2) select measurable indicators of habitat requirements, (3) determine rating categories for these indicators, (4) design and implement appropriate data collection protocols, and (5) synthesize the ratings into an overall measure of habitat potential. Following these steps, we developed a set of recovery criteria to estimate habitat potential and initially assess restoration activities in the context of recovering an endangered insect, the Karner blue butterfly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis). We recommend basing the habitat potential grading scheme on recovery plan criteria, the latest information on species biology, and working hypotheses as needed. The habitat-based assessment framework helps to identify which recovery areas and habitat patches are worth investing in and what type of site-specific restoration work is needed. We propose that the transparency and decision-making process in endangered insect recovery efforts could be improved through adaptive management that explicitly identifies and tracks progress toward habitat objectives and ultimate population recovery.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Andow DA, Baker RJ, Lane CP (eds) (1994) Karner blue butterfly: a symbol of a vanishing landscape. Miscellaneous Publication 84-1994. Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN

  • Benjamins ME (2003) Effects of shade on the oviposition preferences of the endangered Karner blue butterfly, Lycaeides melissa samuelis Nabakov. Thesis, State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry

  • Bernazzani P, Bradley BA, Opperman JJ (2012) Integrating climate change into habitat conservation plans under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Environ Manage 49:1103–1114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernhardt ES, Palmer MA, Allan JD et al (2005) Synthesizing US river restoration efforts. Science 308:636–637

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bried JT (2009) Information costs of reduced-effort habitat monitoring in a butterfly recovery program. J Insect Conserv 13:615–626

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bried JT (2013) Adaptive cluster sampling in the context of restoration. Restor Ecol 21:585–591

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bried JT, Mazzacano CA (2010) National review of state wildlife action plans for Odonata species of greatest conservation need. Insect Conserv Diver 3:61–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell SP, Clark JA, Crampton LH, Guerry AD, Hatch LT, Hosseini PR, Lawler JJ, O’Connor RJ (2002) An assessment of monitoring efforts in endangered species recovery plans. Ecol Appl 12:674–681

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darst CR, Murphy PJ, Strout NW, Campbell SP, Field KJ, Allison L, Averill-Murray RC (2013) A strategy for prioritizing threats and recovery actions for at-risk species. Environ Manage 51:786–800

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dennis P, Young MR, Gordon IJ (1998) Distribution and abundance of small insects and arachnids in relation to structural heterogeneity of grazed, indigenous grasslands. Ecol Entomol 23:253–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elzinga CL, Salzer DW, Willoughby JW (1998) Measuring and monitoring plant populations. BLM Technical Reference 1730-1. Bureau of Land Management, Denver, CO

  • Forrester JA, Leopold DJ, Hafner SJ (2005) Maintaining critical habitat in a heavily managed landscape: effects of power line corridor management on Karner blue butterfly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis) habitat. Restor Ecol 13:488–498

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuller SG (2008) Population dynamics of the endangered Karner blue butterfly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis Nabokov). Dissertation, College of Environmental Science and Forestry, State University of New York

  • Game ET, Kareiva P, Possingham HP (2013) Six common mistakes in conservation priority setting. Conserv Biol 27:480–485

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerber LH, Hatch LT (2002) Are we recovering? An evaluation of recovery criteria under the US Endangered Species Act. Ecol Appl 12:668–673

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon DR, Parrish JD, Salzer DW, Tear TH, Pace-Aldana B (2006) The Nature Conservancy’s approach to measuring biodiversity status and the effectiveness of conservation strategies. In: Groom MJ, Meffe GK, Carroll CR (eds) Principles of conservation biology, 3rd edn. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA, pp 688–694

    Google Scholar 

  • Grantham HS, Wilson KA, Moilanen A, Rebelo T, Possingham HP (2009) Delaying conservation action for improved knowledge: how long should we wait? Ecol Lett 12:293–301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grundel R, Pavlovic NB (2007) Resource availability, matrix quality, microclimate, and spatial pattern as predictors of patch use by the Karner blue butterfly. Biol Conserv 135:135–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grundel R, Pavlovic NB, Sulzman CL (1998a) Habitat use by the endangered Karner blue butterfly in oak woodlands: the influence of canopy cover. Biol Conserv 85:47–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grundel R, Pavlovic NB, Sulzman CL (1998b) The effect of canopy cover and seasonal change on host plant quality for the endangered Karner blue butterfly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis). Oecologia 114:243–250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hallett CS (2014) Quantile-based grading improves the effectiveness of a multimetric index as a tool for communicating estuarine condition. Ecol Indic 39:84–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King RS (2003) Habitat management for the Karner Blue Butterfly (Lycaeides mellisa samuelis)—evaluating the short-term consequences. Ecol Restor 21:101–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knutson RL, Kwilosz JR, Grundel R (1999) Movement patterns and population characteristics of the Karner blue butterfly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis) at Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore. Nat Areas J 19:109–120

    Google Scholar 

  • Kwilosz JR, Knutson RL (1999) Prescribed fire management of Karner blue butterfly habitat at Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore. Nat Areas J 19:98–108

    Google Scholar 

  • Landres PB, Morgan P, Swanson FJ (1999) Overview of the use of natural variability concepts in managing ecological systems. Ecol Appl 9:1179–1188

    Google Scholar 

  • Lane CP, Andow DA (2003) Oak savanna subhabitat variation and the population biology of Lycaeides melissa samuelis (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae). Ann Entomol Soc Am 96:799–809

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindenmayer DB (1999) Future directions for biodiversity conservation in managed forests: indicator species, impact studies and monitoring programs. For Ecol Manage 115:277–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindenmayer DB, Likens GE, Haywood A, Miezis L (2011) Adaptive monitoring in the real world: proof of concept. Trends Ecol Evol 26:641–646

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Litvaitis JA, Norment JL, Boland K, O’Brien K, Stevens R, Keirstead D, Lee T, Oehler JD, Taylor JM, Bickford S, Tarr MD (2013) Toward consensus-based actions that balance invasive plant management and conservation of at-risk fauna. Environ Manage 52:1313–1319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lovett GM, Burns DA, Driscoll CT, Jenkins JC, Mitchell MJ, Rustad L, Shanley JB, Likens GE, Haeuber R (2007) Who needs environmental monitoring? Front Ecol Environ 5:253–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lundquist CJ, Diehl JM, Harvey E, Botsford L (2002) Factors affecting implementation of recovery plans. Ecol Appl 12:713–718

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McIntyre EJB, Schultz CB, Crone EE (2007) Designing a network for butterfly habitat restoration: where individuals, populations and landscapes interact. J Appl Ecol 44:725–736

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy DD, Weiland PS (2011) The route to best science in implementation of the Endangered Species Act’s consultation mandate: the benefits of structured effects analysis. Environ Manage 47:161–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neel MC, Leidner AK, Haines A, Goble DD, Scott JM (2012) By the numbers: how is recovery defined by the US Endangered Species Act? Bioscience 62:646–657

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NYSDEC (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation) (1998) Karner Blue Butterfly New York State Recovery Plan (DRAFT). NYSDEC, Albany, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Panzer R, Schwartz M (1998) Effectiveness of a vegetation-based approach to insect conservation. Conserv Biol 12:693–702

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parkes D, Newell G, Cheal D (2003) Assessing the quality of native vegetation: the ‘habitat hectares’ approach. Ecol Manage Restor 4:S29–S38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parrish JD, Braun DP, Unnasch RS (2003) Are we conserving what we say we are? Measuring ecological integrity within protected areas. Bioscience 53:851–860

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pavlovic NB, Grundel R (2009) Reintroduction of wild lupine (Lupinus perennis L.) depends on variation in canopy, vegetation, and litter cover. Restor Ecol 17:807–817

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pickens BA, Root KV (2008) Factors affecting host-plant quality and nectar use for the Karner Blue Butterfly: implications for oak savannah restoration. Nat Areas J 28:210–217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pickens BA, Root KV (2009) Behavior as a tool for assessing a managed landscape: a case study of the Karner blue butterfly. Landscape Ecol 24:243–251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rohr JR, Mahan CG, Kim KC (2007) Developing a monitoring program for invertebrates: guidelines and a case study. Conserv Biol 21:422–433

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruiz-Jaen MC, Aide TM (2005) Restoration success: how is it being measured? Restor Ecol 13:569–577

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoolmaster DR Jr, Grace JB, Schweiger EW (2012) A general theory of multimetric indices and their properties. Methods Ecol Evol 3:773–781

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schultz CB, Russell C, Wynn L (2008) Restoration, reintroduction, and captive propagation for at-risk butterflies: a review of British and American conservation efforts. Isr J Ecol Evol 54:41–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz MW, Deiner K, Forrester T, Grof-Tisza P, Muir MJ, Santos MJ, Souza LE, Wilkerson ML, Zylberberg M (2012) Perspectives on the open standards for the practice of conservation. Biol Conserv 155:169–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott JM, Goble DD, Wiens JA, Wilcove DS, Bean M, Male T (2005) Recovery of imperiled species under the Endangered Species Act: the need for a new approach. Front Ecol Environ 3:383–389

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smallidge PJ, Leopold DJ (1997) Vegetation management for the maintenance and conservation of butterfly habitats in temperate human-dominated landscapes. Landscape Urban Plan 38:259–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smallidge PJ, Leopold DJ, Allen CM (1996) Community characteristics and vegetation management of Karner blue butterfly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis) habitats on rights-of-way in east-central New York. J Appl Ecol 33:1405–1419

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Staples DF, Taper ML, Shepard BB (2005) Risk-based viable population monitoring. Conserv Biol 19:1908–1916

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stem C, Margoluis R, Salafsky N, Brown M (2005) Monitoring and evaluation in conservation: a review of trends and approaches. Conserv Biol 19:295–309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suhonen J, Hilli-Lukkarinen M, Korkeamäki E, Kuitunen M, Kullas J, Penttinen J, Salmela J (2010) Local extinction of dragonfly and damselfly populations in low- and high-quality habitat patches. Conserv Biol 24:1148–1153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Summerville KS, Steichen RM, Lewis MN (2005) Restoring Lepidoptera communities to oak savannas: contrasting influences of habitat quantity and quality. Restor Ecol 13:120–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tear TH, Scott JM, Hayward PH, Griffith B (1993) Status and prospects for success of the Endangered Species Act: a look at recovery plans. Science 262:976–977

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tear TH, Scott JM, Hayward PH, Griffith B (1995) Recovery plans and the Endangered Species Act: are criticisms supported by data? Conserv Biol 9:182–195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tear TH, Kareiva P, Angermeier PL, Comer P, Czech B, Kautz R, Landon L, Mehlman D, Murphy K, Ruckleshaus M, Scott JM, Wilhere G (2005) How much is enough? The recurrent problem of setting measurable objectives in conservation. Bioscience 55:835–849

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) (2003) Final recovery plan for the Karner Blue Butterfly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis). USFWS, Fort Snelling, MN

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Sickle J (2010) Correlated metrics yield multimetric indices with inferior performance. Trans Am Fish Soc 139:1802–1817

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vora RS (1997) Developing programs to monitor ecosystem health and effectiveness of management practices on lakes states national forests, USA. Biol Conserv 80:289–302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner DL, Nelson MW, Schweitzer DF (2003) Shrubland Lepidoptera of southern New England and southeastern New York: ecology, conservation, and management. Forest Ecol Manage 185:95–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wortley L, Hero J-M, Howes M (2013) Evaluating ecological restoration success: a review of the literature. Restor Ecol 21:537–543

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zedler JB (2007) Success: an unclear, subjective descriptor of restoration outcomes. Ecol Restor 25:162–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was made possible by a grant from the New York State Biodiversity Research Institute. We thank Kevin Bright, Jamie Deppen, Alina Leder, Peter Marozas, Jessica Nix, Philip Picotte, Amanda Schaller, and Micah Tavares for their dedication to the field work and data entry. Michael Morrison and several anonymous reviewers provided constructive feedback that led to substantial improvement of the manuscript, and David Braun and J. Michael Scott kindly reviewed an earlier draft. We also thank Brad Stratton for his help with GIS and for making the map figure. Sarah Clarkin and Stephanie Gifford contributed significantly to establishing the recovery criteria and maintaining the years of annual KBB surveys, and Robyn Niver provided support from the US Fish and Wildlife Service.

Ethical standards

All data collection and reporting comply with current US laws, including the Endangered Species Act.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Zoology, Oklahoma State University, 501 Life Sciences West, Stillwater, OK, 74078, USA

    Jason Bried

  2. Grumeti Fund, P.O. Box 0, Mawalla Park, Olasiti Road, Arusha, Tanzania

    Tim Tear

  3. The Nature Conservancy, Eastern New York Chapter, 195 New Karner Road, Suite 201, Albany, NY, 12205, USA

    Rebecca Shirer & Chris Zimmerman

  4. Albany Pine Bush Preserve Commission, 195 New Karner Road, Suite 1, Albany, NY, 12205, USA

    Neil Gifford & Steve Campbell

  5. Endangered Species Unit, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 625 Broadway, Albany, NY, 12205, USA

    Kathy O’Brien

Authors
  1. Jason Bried
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tim Tear
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rebecca Shirer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Chris Zimmerman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Neil Gifford
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Steve Campbell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Kathy O’Brien
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jason Bried.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bried, J., Tear, T., Shirer, R. et al. A Framework to Integrate Habitat Monitoring and Restoration with Endangered Insect Recovery. Environmental Management 54, 1385–1398 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-014-0351-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-014-0351-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation