Population Ecology

, Volume 50, Issue 1, pp 17–23 | Cite as

Is relative abundance a good indicator of population size? Evidence from fragmented populations of a specialist butterfly (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae)

  • Neil Collier
  • Duncan A. Mackay
  • Kirsten Benkendorff
Original Article


A common task for conservation biologists and ecologists is to establish how many individuals there are in a population, usually within a defined area of habitat. Estimates of both absolute and relative population sizes are widely used in many aspects of population conservation and management. Mark–recapture studies are appropriate for estimating the absolute population sizes of a wide range of animals, in both open and closed populations, while relative abundances can be estimated from a variety of survey methods. Relative abundances are often used in a comparative way to compare both population size and fluctuations in abundance. Here, we used transect counts and capture–recapture studies to estimate the relative abundances and population sizes of a specialist butterfly, Theclinesthes albocincta (Lycaenidae) in three habitat fragments, over two consecutive years. The sizes of the three populations differed significantly between sites and were highly variable between years. One population was extremely small and is likely to become locally extinct. We found that estimates of relative abundance were highly correlated with estimates of population size (r 2 = 0.88, P = 0.017) derived from the open population models. The combination of transect counts and capture–recapture studies used in this study appears to be a very informative tool for the conservation and management of this butterfly species and could be extended to other insects.


Mark–recapture Transect Population models Monitoring Landscape 



We would like to thank the Australian Research Council and the Nature Foundation (South Australia) for providing generous financial support for the study. We would also like to thank TRU Energy Australia for their cooperation and help in accessing the Torrens Island study site. Two anonymous referees provided constructive criticism that improved the quality of the paper.


  1. Asher J, Warren MS, Fox R, Harding P, Jeffcoate G, Jeffcoate S (2001) The millenium atlas of butterflies in Britain and Ireland. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
  2. Baker JD (2004) Evaluation of closed capture–recapture methods to estimate abundance of Hawaiian monk seals. Ecol Appl 14:987–998CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bergman K-O (2001) Population dynamics and the importance of habitat management for conservation of the butterfly Lopinga achine. J Appl Ecol 38:1303–1313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Braby MF (1995) Seasonal changes in relative abundance and the spatial distribution of Australian lowland tropical satyrine butterflies. Aust J Zool 43:209–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Braby MF (2000) Butterflies of Australia: their identification, biology and distribution. CSIRO, Canberra, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown JA, Boyce MS (1998) Line transect sampling of karner blue butterflies (Lycaeides melissa samuelis). Environ Ecol Stat 5:81–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burnham KP, White GC, Anderson DR (1995) Model selection strategy in the analysis of capture–recapture data. Biometrics 51:888–898CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Caldas A, Robbins RK (2003) Modified pollard transects for assessing tropical butterfly abundance and diversity. Biol Conserv 110:211–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chao A, Huggins RM (2005) Classical closed-population capture–recapture models. In: Amstrup SC, McDonald TL, Manly BF (eds) Handbook of capture–recapture analysis. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, pp 22–35Google Scholar
  10. Collier N, Mackay DA, Benkendorff K, Austin AD, Carthew SM (2006) Butterfly communities in South Australian urban reserves: estimating abundance and diversity using the Pollard walk. Aust Ecol 31:282–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Crawley MJ (2002) Statistical computing: an introduction to data analysis using S-Plus. Wiley, Chichester, UKGoogle Scholar
  12. Freilich JE, Burnham KP, Collins CM, Gary CA (2000) Factors affecting population assessments of desert tortoises. Conserv Biol 14:1479–1489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gall LF (1984) The effects of capturing and marking on subsequent activity in Boloria acrocnema (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae), with a comparison of different numerical models that estimate population size. Biol Conserv 28:139–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Garnett S, Crowley G, Balmford A (2003) The costs and effectiveness of funding the conservation of Australian threatened birds. Bioscience 53:658–665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gross C, Whalen MA (1996) A revision of Adriana (Euphorbiaceae). Aust Syst Bot 9:749–771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Grund R, Sibatani A (1975) The life history of a hitherto unrecognised lycaenid species: Theclinesthes albocincta (Waterhouse) from South Australia. Aust Entomol Mag 2:99–103Google Scholar
  17. Ide J-Y (2002) Mating behaviour and light conditions cause seasonal changes in the dispersal pattern of the satyrine butterfly Lethe diana. Ecol Entomol 27:33–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Johnson JB, Omland KS (2004) Model selection in ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol Evol 19:101–108PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Krauss J, Steffan-Dewenter I, Tscharntke T (2004) Landscape occupancy and local population size depends on host plant distribution in the butterfly Cupido minimus. Biol Conserv 120:355–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. León-Cortés JL, Cowley MJR, Thomas CD (2000) The distribution and decline of a widespread butterfly Lycaena phlaeas in a pastoral landscape. Ecol Entomol 24:285–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Link WA, Sauer JR (1998) Estimating population change from count data: application to the North American breeding bird survey. Ecology 8:258–268Google Scholar
  22. Maes D, Ghesquiere A, Logie M, Bonte D (2006) Habitat use and mobility of two threatened coastal dune insects: implications for conservation. J Ins Conserv 10:105–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mallet J, Longino JT, Murawski D, Murawski A, De Gamboa AS (1987) Handling effects in Heliconius: where do all the butterflies go? J Anim Ecol 56:377–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Marques FFC, Buckland ST, Goffin D, Dixon CE, Borchers DL, Mayle BA, Peace AJ (2001) Estimating deer abundance from line transect surveys of dung: sika deer in southern Scotland. J Appl Ecol 38:349–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mattoni R, Longcore T, Zonneveld C, Novotny V (2001) Analysis of transect counts to monitor population size in endangered insects: the case of the El Segundo blue butterfly, Euphilotes bernardino allyni. J Ins Conserv 5:197–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Moss D, Pollard E (1993) Calculation of collated indices of abundance of butterflies based on monitored sites. Ecol Entomol 18:77–83Google Scholar
  27. Newman C, Buesching CD, Macdonald DW (2003) Validating mammal monitoring methods and assessing the performance of volunteers in wildlife conservation- "Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodies?" Biol Conserv 113:189–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nowicki P, Witek M, Skórka P, Settele J, Woyciechowski M (2005) Population ecology of the endangered butterflies Maculinea teleius and M. nausithous and the implications for conservation. Popul Ecol 47:193–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pollack KH, Alpizar-Jara R (2005) Classical open-population capture–recapture models. In: Amstrup SC, McDonald TL, Manly BF (eds) Handbook of capture–recapture analysis. Princeton University Press. Princeton, New Jersey, pp 36–57Google Scholar
  30. Pollack KH, Nichols JD, Brownie C, Hines JE (1990) Statistical inference for capture–recapture experiments. Wildlife Monogr 107:1–97Google Scholar
  31. Pollard E (1977) A method of assessing changes in the abundance of butterflies. Biol Conserv 12:115–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pollard E, Yates TJ (1993) Monitoring butterflies for ecology and conservation. Chapman & Hall, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  33. Pollard E, Greatorex-Davies JN (1998) Increased abundance of the red admiral butterfly Vanessa atalanta in Britain: the roles of immigration, overwintering and breeding within the country. Ecol Lett 1:77–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Primack RB (1998) Essentials of conservation biology, 2nd edn. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  35. R Development Core Team (2005) R: a language and environment for statistical computing, version 2.1.0Google Scholar
  36. Rogo L, Odulaja A (2001) Butterfly populations in two forest fragments at the Kenya coast. Afr J Ecol 39:266–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Royer RA, Austin JA, Newton WE (1998) Checklist and “Pollard Walk” butterfly survey methods on public lands. Am Mid Nat 140:358–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sands DPA, New TR (2002) The action plan for Australian butterflies. Environment Australia, Canberra, Australia.
  39. Simonson SE, Opler PA, Stohlgren TJ, Chong GW (2001) Rapid assessment of butterfly diversity in a montane landscape. Biodivers Conserv 10:1369–1386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. SPSS Inc (2003) SPSS for Windows, version 12.0.1. SPSS, Chicago, IllinoisGoogle Scholar
  41. Steffan-Dewenter I, Tscharntke T (2000) Butterfly community structure in fragmented habitats. Ecol Lett 3:449–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Swengel AB, Swengel SR (1997) Co-occurrence of prairie and barrens butterflies: applications to ecosystem conservation. J Ins Conserv 1:131–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Thomas JA (1983) A quick method for estimating butterfly numbers during surveys. Biol Conserv 27:195–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Warren RD, Witter MS (2002) Monitoring trends in bat populations through roost surveys: methods and data from Rhinolophus hipposideros. Biol Conserv 105:255–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Zonneveld C, Longcore T, Mulder C (2003) Optimal schemes to detect the presence of insect species. Conserv Biol 17:476–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society of Population Ecology and Springer 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Neil Collier
    • 1
    • 2
  • Duncan A. Mackay
    • 1
  • Kirsten Benkendorff
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Biological SciencesFlinders University of South AustraliaAdelaideAustralia
  2. 2.School for Environmental Research, Institute of Advanced StudiesCharles Darwin UniversityDarwinAustralia

Personalised recommendations