Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 20, Issue 10, pp 2273–2295 | Cite as

A mobility index for Canadian butterfly species based on naturalists’ knowledge

  • Ryan J. Burke
  • Jay M. FitzsimmonsEmail author
  • Jeremy T. Kerr
Original Paper


Mobility is a key component of species’ biology. Research on mobility is inherently difficult, however, resulting in studies of narrow taxonomic, spatial, and temporal scope with results that are difficult to compare between studies. We had three goals for our research: (1) construct a data set of mobility estimates for the butterfly species of Canada based on naturalists’ knowledge; (2) develop methods to evaluate aspects of accuracy and precision for knowledge-based ecological research such as ours; and (3) using our data set, test mobility-related hypotheses of species-level relationships. We distributed a questionnaire to amateur and professional lepidopterists in Canada and northern USA, asking them to estimate the mobility of Canadian butterfly species based on their field experience. Based on responses from 51 lepidopterists with approximately 800 years of combined field experience, we received mobility estimates for almost all (291 out of 307) of Canada’s butterfly taxa. Mobility estimates were consistent among respondents and were not affected by respondent expertise. Mobility carries a strong phylogenetic signal and is positively related to wingspan (albeit weakly), range size, and host plant breadth, and negatively related to conservation risk. Reliance upon naturalists’ experience was essential to the feasibility of our project, and provides a promising method for many types of ecological research.


Dispersal Expert opinion Lepidoptera Life-history strategy Local ecological knowledge Movement ecology Naturalists Phylogenetic signal Questionnaire Range size 





Akaike’s Information Criterion


False discovery rate


Generalized least squares


Independent contrast


Local ecological knowledge


Ordinary least squares




Principal Components Analysis



J. M. F. was funded by an Ontario Graduate Scholarship, and J. T. K. by the Canadian Foundation for Innovation and an NSERC Discovery Grant. We thank Maxim Larrivée for helpful discussions and assisting in questionnaire distribution, Meghan Snowdon for scanning range maps, Ted Garland, Catherine Hierlihy, and Peter Midford for software advice, Matt Cowley, Atte Komonen, and Shannon McCauley for helpful suggestions on questionnaire design, Katie Gibbs for the Excel randomization macro, and Jan Beck, Lauren Fitzsimmons, Chris Hassall, Maxim Larrivée, and an anonymous reviewer for helpful comments on the manuscript. Most importantly, we thank the following generous lepidopterists who voluntarily took the time to provide us with mobility estimates: David and Ken Allison, Charley Bird, Yvette Bree, Jim and Sue Brown, Annie Brueck, Mike Burrell, Joel Dunnette, Jaimee Dupont, Nate Erwin, Erica Fleishman, Pat Fojut, Kent Fothergill, Paula Goldberg, Jessica Grealey, Donald Gudehus, Crispin Guppy, Cliff Hagen, Peter Hall, James Holdsworth, Donna Horton, James Kamstra, Candice Kerling, Norbert Kondla, André Langlois, Denis Larrivée, Jacques Larrivée, Maxim Larrivée, Diane Lepage, Christina Lewis, David MacLean, Tom Mason, Stephen Matter, Gerald McCormick, Chris Michener, James Miskelly, Charlotte Moore, Michael Olsen, Jim Phillips, Amy Pocewicz, Kirsten Prior, Jens Roland, Eleanor Ryan, Jeff Skevington, Pat Snyder, Felix Sperling, Dennis St. John, Peter Taylor, Lindsay Webb, Reginald Webster, Richard Westwood, Ann and Doug White, and Jerome Wiedmann.

Supplementary material

10531_2011_88_MOESM1_ESM.xls (133 kb)
File S1. Questionnaire file sent to lepidopterists (XLS 133 kb)
10531_2011_88_MOESM2_ESM.nex (26 kb)
File S2. DNA-based and all-species phylogenetic trees’ source code (NEX 27 kb)
10531_2011_88_MOESM3_ESM.xls (115 kb)
File S3. Canadian butterfly species mobility index. Includes mean, standard deviation, and number of respondents for mobility estimates for 291 taxa along with wingspan, range size, larval diet breadth, and conservation values for these taxa (XLS 115 kb)
10531_2011_88_MOESM4_ESM.pdf (14 kb)
Fig. S1. All-species phylogenetic tree. Colours of species’ names represent their recognized families: Hesperiidae (green), Lycaenidae (red), Nymphalidae (blue), Pieridae (orange), Papilionidae (purple), and Riodinidae (aqua) with moth outgroup taxa at the top in pink (PDF 14 kb)
10531_2011_88_MOESM5_ESM.gif (532 kb)
Fig. S2. Decision tree used to construct the all-species phylogenetic tree. The only exception we made to this tree was ignoring the presence of Speyeria mormonia and proceeding as though S. idalia was the only species of its genus in the tree when adding congeneric species, because S. mormonia resolved a an improbable position in our tree. Figure created using Diagram Designer version 1.22 (GIF 533 kb)
10531_2011_88_MOESM6_ESM.ppt (140 kb)
Fig. S3. Number of species receiving various numbers of mobility estimates (PPT 140 kb)
10531_2011_88_MOESM7_ESM.ppt (144 kb)
Fig. S4. Relationship between the standard deviation and mean mobility estimates. Greater standard deviation values for species with intermediate mobility scores indicate greater variation among respondents’ estimates for those species. Fitted curve: standard deviation = 1.5 + (0.04 × mean) − [0.04 × (mean − 5.07)2]; adjusted R2 = 0.07, df = 2/273, P < 0.0001. (PPT 144 kb)
10531_2011_88_MOESM8_ESM.doc (42 kb)
Tables S1and S2 (DOC 41 kb)


  1. Ackerly DD (2003) Community assembly, niche conservatism, and adaptive evolution in changing environments. Int J Plant Sci 164:S165–S184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Altizer S, Davis AK (2010) Populations of monarch butterflies with different migratory behaviors show divergence in wing morphology. Evolution 64:1018–1028PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anadón JD, Giménez A, Ballestar R, Pérez I (2009) Evaluation of local ecological knowledge as a method for collecting extensive data on animal abundance. Conserv Biol 23:617–625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ardila-Garcia AM, Gregory TR (2009) An exploration of genome size diversity in dragonflies and damselflies (Insecta: Odonata). J Zool 278:163–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barron DG, Brawn JD, Weatherhead PJ (2010) Meta-analysis of transmitter effects on avian behaviour and ecology. Methods Ecol Evol 1:180–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beck J, Kitching IJ (2007) Correlates of range size and dispersal ability: a comparative analysis of sphingid moths from the Indo-Australian tropics. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 16:341–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beck J, Kitching IJ, Linsenmair E (2006) Diet breadth and host plant relationships of southeast-Asian sphingid caterpillars. Ecotropica 12:1–13Google Scholar
  8. Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y (1995) Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Stat Soc B 57:289–300Google Scholar
  9. Betzholtz P-E, Franzen M (2011) Mobility is related to species traits in noctuid moths. Ecol Entomol 36:369–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Blomberg SP, Garland TJ, Ives AR (2003) Testing for phylogenetic signal in comparative data: behavioral traits are more labile. Evolution 57:717–745PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Bonney R, Cooper CB, Dickinson J, Kelling S, Phillips T, Rosenberg KV, Shirk J (2009) Citizen science: a developing tool for expanding science knowledge and scientific literacy. Bioscience 59:977–984CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bowler DE, Benton TG (2005) Causes and consequences of animal dispersal strategies: relating individual behaviour to spatial dynamics. Biol Rev 80:205–225PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brook RK, McLachlan SM (2008) Trends and prospects for local knowledge in ecological and conservation research and monitoring. Biodivers Conserv 17:3501–3512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cadotte MW, Hamilton MA, Murray BR (2009) Phylogenetic relatedness and plant invader success across two spatial scales. Divers Distrib 15:481–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cant ET, Smith AD, Reynolds DR, Osborne JL (2005) Tracking butterfly flight paths across the landscape with harmonic radar. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 272:785–790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cassel-Lundhagen A, Tammaru T, Windig JJ, Ryrholm N, Nylin S (2009) Are peripheral populations special? Congruent patterns in two butterfly species. Ecography 32:591–600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Colwell RK, Brehm G, Cardelús CL, Gilman AC, Longino JT (2008) Global warming, elevational range shifts, and lowland biotic attrition in the wet tropics. Science 322:258–261PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cook LM, Dennis RLH, Hardy PB (2001) Butterfly-hostplant fidelity, vagrancy and measuring mobility from distribution maps. Ecography 24:497–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cormont A, Malinowska AH, Kostenko O, Radchuk V, Hemerik L, WallisDe Vries MF, Verboom J (2011) Effect of local weather on butterfly flight behaviour, movement, and colonization: significance for dispersal under climate change. Biodivers Conserv 20:483–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cowley MJR, Thomas CD, Roy DB, Wilson RJ, León-Cortés JL, Gutiérrez D, Bulman CR, Quinn RM, Moss D, Gaston KJ (2001) Density-distribution relationships in British butterflies. I. The effect of mobility and spatial scale. J Anim Ecol 70:410–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Davis A, Wagner JR (2003) Who knows? On the importance of identifying “experts” when researching local ecological knowledge. Hum Ecol 31:463–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dayton PK (2003) The importance of the natural sciences to conservation. Am Nat 162:1–13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Delaney DG, Sperling CD, Adams CS, Leung B (2008) Marine invasive species: validation of citizen science and implications for national monitoring networks. Biol Invasions 10:117–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dennis RLH, Shreeve TG, Arnold HR, Roy DB (2005) Does diet breadth control herbivorous insect distribution size? Life history and resource outlets for specialist butterflies. J Insect Conserv 9:187–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dennis RLH, Hardy PB, Shreeve TG (2008) The importance of resource databanks for conserving insects: a butterfly biology perspective. J Insect Conserv 12:711–719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Deutsch CA, Tewksbury JJ, Huey RB, Sheldon KS, Ghalambor CK, Haak DC, Martin PR (2008) Impacts of climate warming on terrestrial ectotherms across latitude. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:6668–6672PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Devictor V, Whittaker RJ, Beltrame C (2010) Beyond scarcity: citizen science programmes as useful tools for conservation biogeography. Divers Distrib 16:354–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Dillon ME, Wang G, Huey RB (2010) Global metabolic impacts of recent climate warming. Nature 467:704–706PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Dockx C (2007) Directional and stabilizing selection on wing size and shape in migrant and resident monarch butterflies, Danaus plexippus (L.), in Cuba. Biol J Linn Soc 92:605–616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Donlan CJ, Wingfield DK, Crowder LB, Wilcox C (2010) Using expert opinion surveys to rank threats to endangered species: a case study with sea turtles. Conserv Biol 24:1586–1595PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Dover J, Settele J (2009) The influences of landscape structure on butterfly distribution and movement: a review. J Insect Conserv 13:3–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Downey MH, Nice CC (in press) Experimental evidence of host race formation in Mitoura butterflies (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae). Oikos. Available at.
  33. Dudley R, Srygley RB (1994) Flight physiology of neotropical butterflies: allometry of airspeeds during natural free flight. J Exp Biol 191:125–139PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Ekroos J, Heliölä J, Kuussaari M (2010) Homogenization of lepidopteran communities in intensively cultivated agricultural landscapes. J Appl Ecol 47:459–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Engler R, Guisan A (2009) MigClim: predicting plant distribution and dispersal in a changing climate. Divers Distrib 15:590–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Fitzpatrick MC, Preisser EL, Ellison AM, Elkinton JS (2009) Observer bias and the detection of low-density populations. Ecol Appl 19:1673–1679PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Fox LR, Morrow PA (1981) Specialization: species property or local phenomenon? Science 211:887–893PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Franco AMA, Hill JK, Kitschke C, Collingham YC, Roy DB, Fox R, Huntley B, Thomas CD (2006) Impacts of climate warming and habitat loss on extinctions at species’ low-latitude range boundaries. Glob Change Biol 12:1545–1553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Franzén M, Nilsson SG (2007) What is the required minimum landscape size for dispersal studies? J Anim Ecol 76:1224–1230PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Freckleton RP, Harvey PH, Pagel M (2002) Phylogenetic analysis and comparative data: a test and review of evidence. Am Nat 160:712–726PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Garamszegi LZ, Calhim S, Dochtermann N, Hegyi G, Hurd PL, Jørgensen C, Kutsukake N, Lajeunesse MJ, Pollard KA, Schielzeth H, Symonds MRE, Nakagawa S (2009) Changing philosophies and tools for statistical inferences in behavioral ecology. Behav Ecol 20:1363–1375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Garcia-Barros E, Benito HR (2010) The relationship between geographic range size and life history traits: is biogeographic history uncovered? A test using the Iberian butterflies. Ecography 33:392–401Google Scholar
  43. Garland TJ, Díaz-Uriarte R (1999) Polytomies and phylogenetically independent contrasts: examination of the bounded degrees of freedom approach. Syst Biol 48:547–558PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Garland TJ, Bennett AF, Rezende EL (2005) Phylogenetic approaches in comparative physiology. J Exp Biol 208:3015–3035PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Gibbs M, Wiklund C, Van Dyck H (2011) Temperature, rainfall and butterfly morphology: does life history theory match the observed pattern? Ecography 34:336–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Greene HW (2005) Organisms in nature as a central focus for biology. Trends Ecol Evol 20:23–27PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Greenleaf SS, Williams NM, Winfree R, Kremen C (2007) Bee foraging ranges and their relationship to body size. Oecologia 153:589–596PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Gregory TR, Hebert PDN (2003) Genome size variation in lepidopteran insects. Can J Zool 81:1399–1405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Gutiérrez D, Menéndez R (1997) Patterns in the distribution, abundance and body size of carabid beetles (Coleoptera: Caraboidea) in relation to dispersal ability. J Biogeogr 24:903–914CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Heikkinen RK, Luoto M, Leikola N, Pöyry J, Settele J, Kudrna O, Marmion M, Fronzek S, Thuiller W (2010) Assessing the vulnerability of European butterflies to climate change using multiple criteria. Biodivers Conserv 19:695–723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Hendrickx F, Maelfait J-P, Desender K, Aviron S, Bailey D, Diekotter T, Lens L, Liira J, Schweiger O, Speelmans M, Vandomme V, Bugter R (2009) Pervasive effects of dispersal limitation on within- and among-community species richness in agricultural landscapes. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 18:607–616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Hoegh-Guldberg O, Hughes L, McIntyre S, Lindenmayer DB, Parmesan C, Possingham HP, Thomas CD (2008) Assisted colonization and rapid climate change. Science 321:345–346PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Holyoak M, Casagrandi R, Nathan R, Revilla E, Spiegel O (2008) Trends and missing parts in the study of movement ecology. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:19060–19065PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Ives AR, Garland TJ (2010) Phylogenetic logistic regression for binary dependent variables. Syst Biol 59:9–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Karlsson B, Johansson A (2008) Seasonal polyphenism and developmental trade-offs between flight ability and egg laying in a pierid butterfly. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 275:2131–2136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Kellert SR (1993) Values and perceptions of invertebrates. Conserv Biol 7:845–855CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Keyghobadi N, Roland J, Fownes S, Strobeck C (2003) Ink marks and molecular markers: examining the effects of landscape on dispersal using both mark-recapture and molecular methods. In: Boggs CL, Watt WB, Ehrlich PR (eds) Butterflies: ecology and evolution taking flight. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 169–183Google Scholar
  58. Kharouba HM, Algar A, Kerr JT (2009) Historically calibrated predictions of butterfly species’ range shift using global change as a pseudo-experiment. Ecology 90:2213–2222PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Komonen A, Grapputo A, Kaitala V, Kotiaho JS, Päivinen J (2004) The role of niche breadth, resource availability and range position on the life history of butterflies. Oikos 105:41–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Kotiaho JS, Kaitala V, Komonen A, Päivinen J (2005) Predicting the risk of extinction from shared ecological characteristics. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102:1963–1967PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Kuhnert PM, Martin TG, Griffiths SP (2010) A guide to eliciting and using expert knowledge in Bayesian ecological models. Ecol Lett 13:900–914PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Kuussaari M, Heliölä J, Pöyry J, Saarinen K (2007) Contrasting trends of butterfly species preferring semi-natural grasslands, field margins and forest edges in northern Europe. J Insect Conserv 11:351–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. La Salle J, Wheeler Q, Jackway P, Winterton S, Hobern D, Lovell D (2009) Accelerating taxonomic discovery through automated character extraction. Zootaxa 2217:43–55Google Scholar
  64. Lavin SR, Karasov WH, Ives AR, Middleton KM, Garland TJ (2008) Morphometrics of the avian small intestine compared with that of nonflying mammals: a phylogenetic approach. Physiol Biochem Zool 81:526–550PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Layberry RA, Hall PW, Lafontaine JD (1998) The butterflies of Canada. University of Toronto Press, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  66. Lester SE, Ruttenberg BI, Gaines SD, Kinlan BP (2007) The relationship between dispersal ability and geographic range size. Ecol Lett 10:745–758PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Lintott CJ, Schawinski K, Slosar A, Land K, Bamford S, Thomas D, Raddick MJ, Nichol RC, Szalay A, Andreescu D, Murray P, Vandenberg J (2008) Galaxy Zoo: morphologies derived from visual inspection of galaxies from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. Mon Not R Astron Soc 389:1179–1189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Llewelyn J, Phillips BL, Alford RA, Schwarzkopf L, Shine R (2010) Locomotor performance in an invasive species: cane toads from the invasion front have greater endurance, but not speed, compared to conspecifics from a long-colonised area. Oecologia 162:343–348PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Losos JB (2008) Phylogenetic niche conservatism, phylogenetic signal and the relationship between phylogenetic relatedness and ecological similarity among species. Ecol Lett 11:995–1007PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Mabry KE, Stamps JA (2008) Dispersing brush mice prefer habitat like home. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 275:543–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Maddison WP, Maddison DR (2009) Mesquite: a modular system for evolutionary analysis, version 2.72.
  72. Marshall SA (2008) Field photography and the democratization of arthropod taxonomy. Am Entomol 54:207–210Google Scholar
  73. Martin PR, Bonier F, Moore IT, Tewksbury JJ (2009) Latitudinal variation in the asynchrony of seasons: implications for higher rates of population differentiation and speciation in the tropics. Ideas Ecol Evol 2:9–17Google Scholar
  74. Midford PE, Garland TJ, Maddison WP (2003) PDAP package, version 1.14.
  75. Mutanen M, Wahlberg N, Kaila L (2010) Comprehensive gene and taxon coverage elucidates radiation patterns in moths and butterflies. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 277:2839–2848CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. NatureServe (2009) NatureServe Explorer: an online encyclopedia of life, version 7.1. Accessed 26 March 2010
  77. Nylin S, Bergström A (2009) Threat status in butterflies and its ecological correlates: how far can we generalize? Biodivers Conserv 18:3243–3267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Öckinger E, Schweiger O, Crist TO, Debinski DM, Krauss J, Kuussaari M, Petersen JD, Pöyry J, Settele J, Summerville KS, Bommarco R (2010) Life-history traits predict species responses to habitat area and isolation: a cross-continental synthesis. Ecol Lett 13:969–979PubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. Opler PA, Lotts K, Naberhaus T (2010) Butterflies and moths of North America, version 5 Apr 2010.
  80. Parmesan C (2003) Butterflies as bioindicators for climate change effects. In: Boggs CL, Watt WB, Ehrlich PR (eds) Butterflies: ecology and evolution taking flight. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 541–560Google Scholar
  81. Parmesan C, Yohe G (2003) A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural systems. Nature 421:37–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Pelham JP (2008) A catalogue of the butterflies of the United States and Canada. J Res Lepidoptera 40:1–658Google Scholar
  83. Pike N (2011) Using false discovery rates for multiple comparisons in ecology and evolution. Methods Ecol Evol 2:278–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Pöyry J, Luoto M, Heikkinen RK, Kuussaari M, Saarinen K (2009) Species traits explain recent range shifts of Finnish butterflies. Glob Change Biol 15:732–743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Purvis A (2008) Phylogenetic approaches to the study of extinction. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 39:301–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Purvis A, Garland TJ (1993) Polytomies in comparative analyses of continuous characters. Syst Biol 42:569–575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Ranius T (2006) Measuring the dispersal of saproxylic insects: a key characteristic for their conservation. Popul Ecol 48:177–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Ricciardi A, Simberloff D (2009) Assisted colonization is not a viable conservation strategy. Trends Ecol Evol 24:248–253PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Ronce O (2007) How does it feel to be like a rolling stone? Ten questions about dispersal evolution. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 38:231–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Ronquist F, Huelsenbeck JP (2003) MrBayes 3: Bayesian phylogenetic inference under mixed models. Bioinformatics 19:1572–1574PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Saastamoinen M (2007) Mobility and lifetime fecundity in new versus old populations of the Glanville fritillary butterfly. Oecologia 153:569–578PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Saks MJ, Koehler JJ (2005) The coming paradigm shift in forensic identification science. Science 309:892–895PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Schneider C (2003) The influence of spatial scale on quantifying insect dispersal: an analysis of butterfly data. Ecol Entomol 28:252–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Scott JA (1986) The butterflies of North America. Stanford University Press, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  95. Silvertown J (2009) A new dawn for citizen science. Trends Ecol Evol 24:467–471PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Stevens VM, Pavoine S, Baguette M (2010a) Variation within and between closely related species uncovers high intra-specific variability in dispersal. PLoS ONE 5:e11123PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Stevens VM, Turlure C, Baguette M (2010b) A meta-analysis of dispersal in butterflies. Biol Rev 85:625–642PubMedGoogle Scholar
  98. Stodden V (2010) Open science: policy implications for the evolving phenomenon of user-led scientific innovation. J Sci Commun 9:A05Google Scholar
  99. Sullivan BL, Wood CL, Iliff MJ, Bonney RE, Fink D, Kelling S (2009) eBird: a citizen-based bird observation network in the biological sciences. Biol Conserv 142:2282–2292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Terraube J, Arroyo B, Madders M, Mougeot F (2011) Diet specialisation and foraging efficiency under fluctuating vole abundance: a comparison between generalist and specialist avian predators. Oikos 120:234–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Thomas CD (2000) Dispersal and extinction in fragmented landscapes. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 267:139–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Thomas JA (2005) Monitoring change in the abundance and distribution of insects using butterflies and other indicator groups. Philos Trans R Soc B 360:339–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Thomas CD (2010) Climate, climate change and range boundaries. Divers Distrib 16:488–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Thomas CD, Hill JK, Anderson BJ, Bailey S, Beale CM, Bradbury RB, Bulman CR, Crick HQP, Eigenbrod F, Griffiths HM, Kunin WE, Oliver TH, Walmsley CA, Watts K, Worsfold NT, Yardley T (2011) A framework for assessing threats and benefits to species responding to climate change. Methods Ecol Evol 2:125–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. van Swaay C, Warren M, Loïs G (2006) Biotope use and trends of European butterflies. J Insect Conserv 10:189–209 (with erratum in volume 10, pages 305–306)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Wahlberg N, Braby MF, Brower AVZ, de Jong R, Lee M-M, Nylin S, Pierce NE, Sperling FAH, Vila R, Warren AD, Zakharov E (2005) Synergistic effects of combining morphological and molecular data in resolving the phylogeny of butterflies and skippers. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 272:1577–1586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Waite TA, Campbell LG (2006) Controlling the false discovery rate and increasing statistical power in ecological studies. Écoscience 13:439–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Warren AD, Ogawa JR, Brower AVZ (2009) Revised classification of the family Hesperiidae (Lepidoptera: Hesperioidea) based on combined molecular and morphological data. Syst Entomol 34:467–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Weber TP (1999) A plea for a diversity of scientific styles in ecology. Oikos 84:526–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Wenzel M, Schmitt T, Weitzel M, Seitz A (2006) The severe decline of butterflies on western German calcareous grasslands during the last 30 years: a conservation problem. Biol Conserv 128:542–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. White PCL, Vaughan Jennings N, Renwick AR, Barker NHL (2005) Questionnaires in ecology: a review of past use and recommendations for best practice. J Appl Ecol 42:421–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Wickman P-O (1992) Sexual selection and butterfly design—a comparative study. Evolution 46:1525–1536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Wiens JA, Stralberg D, Jongsomjit D, Howell CA, Snyder MA (2009) Niches, models, and climate change: assessing the assumptions and uncertainties. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106:19236–19729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Willis SG, Hill JK, Thomas CD, Roy DB, Fox R, Blakeley DS, Huntley B (2009) Assisted colonization in a changing climate: a test-study using two U.K. butterflies. Conserv Lett 2:45–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Wilson RJ, Davies ZG, Thomas CD (2009) Modelling the effect of habitat fragmentation on range expansion in a butterfly. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 276:1421–1427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Zakharov EV, Hellmann JJ (2008) Genetic differentiation across a latitudinal gradient in two co-occurring butterfly species: revealing population differences in a context of climate change. Mol Ecol 17:189–208PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ryan J. Burke
    • 1
  • Jay M. Fitzsimmons
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jeremy T. Kerr
    • 1
  1. 1.Biology DepartmentUniversity of OttawaOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations