Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Monitoring the mission blue butterfly using immature stages

  • ORIGINAL PAPER
  • Published:
Journal of Insect Conservation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Monitoring of the Mission blue butterfly has been restricted to periodic counts of adults sighted during the flight season during transect walks. However, adult count data is a reliable index of population size only if the probability of detection is high and stable across varying ecological conditions. Determining these probabilities requires marking and capturing of a large number of individuals, which is harmful and difficult to implement for protected species. Therefore, we explored the potential of using immature stages (eggs, late-instar larvae and the feeding damage inflicted by larvae) as potential measures of population status for monitoring purposes. For each of these measures we examined its correlation with adult counts, its detection probability, and its repeatability. We found that immature stages and feeding damage are highly correlated with adult counts, are highly repeatable, and have detection probabilities that exceed estimates of the probability of detecting Mission blue adults. We conclude that late instar larval counts and foliar feeding damage are superior to adults as measures of population status for population monitoring. Furthermore, if sighting-resighting based counts of immatures or feeding damage are made on the same set of host plants on successive days, then estimates of abundance and its standard error adjusted for detection probabilities can be obtained.

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

  • Arnold RA (1983) Ecological studies of six endangered butterflies (Lepidoptera, Lycaenidae): Island biogeography, patch dynamics, and the design of habitat preserves. University of California Berkeley Press, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  • Asher J, Warren M, Fox R, Harding P, Jeffcoate G, Jeffcoate S (2001) The millennium atlas of butterflies in Britain and Ireland. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Augustin S, Guichard S, Svatos A, Gilbert M (2004) Monitoring the regional spread of the invasive leafminer Cameraria ohridella (Lepidoptera: Gracillariidae) by damage assessment and pheromone trapping. Environ Entomol 33:1584–1592

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bacca T, Lima ER, Picanco MC, Guedes RNC, Viana JHM (2006) Optimum spacing of pheromone traps for monitoring the coffee leaf miner Leucoptera coffeella. Entomol Exp et Appl 119:39–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barton BJ, Bach CE (2005) Habitat use by the federally endangered Mitchell’s Satyr Butterfly (Neonympha mitchellii mitchelii) in a Michigan prairie fen. Amer Midl Nat 153:41–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker WA (1984) Manual of quantitative genetics, 4th edn. Academic Enterprises, WA

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergh JC TC, Leskey TC (2003) Biology, ecology, and management of dogwood borer in eastern apple orchards. Can Entomol 135:615–635

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beyo J, Nibouche S, Goze E, Deguine JP (2004) Application of probability distribution to the sampling of cotton bollworms (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in Northern Cameroon. Crop Prot 23:1111–1117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brakefield PM (1982) Ecological studies on the butterfly Maniola jurtina in Britain II: population dynamics: the present position. J Anim Ecol 51:727–738

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown JA, Boyce M (1998) Line transect sampling of Karner blue butterflies (Lycaeides melissa samuelis). Environ Ecol Stat 5:81–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown JJ, Kittelson NT, Hannon ER, Walsh DB (2006) An endemic population of western poplar clearwing moths (Lepidoptera: Sesiidae) invades a monoculture of hybrid poplar. J Econ Entomol 99:771–779

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Castle SJ, Naranjo SE (2008) Comparison of sampling methods for determining relative densities of Homalodisca vitripennis (Hemiptera: Cicadellidae) on citrus. J Econ Entomol 101:226–235

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Casula P (2006) Evaluating hypotheses about dispersal in a vulnerable butterfly. Ecol Res 21:263–270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Casula P, Nichols J (2003) Temporal variability of local abundance and activity in the Sardinian chalk hill blue butterfly. Oecologia 136:374–382

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Collier N, Mackay DA, Benkendorff K (2008) Is relative abundance a good indicator of population size? Evidence from fragmented populations of a specialist butterfly (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae). Popul Ecol 50:17–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coop LB, Croft BA, Drapek RJ (1993) Model of corn-earworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) development, damage and crop loss in sweet corn. J Econ Entomol 86:906–916

    Google Scholar 

  • Daterman GE, Wenz JM, Sheehan KA (2004) Early warning system for Douglas-fir tussock moth outbreaks in the western United States. West J Appl For 19:232–241

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawson J, Hamilton AJ, Mansfield C (2006) Dispersion statistics and a sampling plan for Helicoverpa (Lepidoptera: Noctuiidae) on fresh-market tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum). Austral J Entomol 45:91–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dennis RLH, Sparks TH (2006) When is a habitat a habitat? Dramatic resource use changes under differing weather conditions for the butterfly Plebejus argus. Biol Conserv 129:291–301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dennis RLH, Shreeve TG, Isaac NB, Roy DB, Hardy PB, Fox R, Asher J (2006) The effects of visual apparency on bias in butterfly recording and monitoring. Biol Conserv 128:486–492

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eichel S, Fartmann T (2008) Management of calcareous grassland for Nickel’s fritillary (Melitaea aurelia) has to consider habitat requirements of the immature stages, isolation and patch area. J Insect Conserv 12:677–688

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fleming TH, Serrano D, Nassar J (2005) Dynamics of a subtropical population of the zebra longwing butterfly Heliconius charithonia (Nymphalidae). Fla Entomol 88:169–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fred M, Brommer J (2003) Influence of habitat quality and patch size on occupancy in two populations of the Apollo butterfly (Parnassius apollo). J Insect Conserv 7:85–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fred M, O’Hara RB, Brommer J (2006) Consequences of the spatial configuration of resources for the distribution and dynamics of the endangered Parnassius apollo butterfly. Biol Conserv 130:183–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freese AJ, Benes R, Bolz O, Cizek M, Dolek A, Geyer P, Gros M, Knovicka A, Liegl Stettmer C (2006) Habitat use of the endangered butterfly Euphydryas maturna and forestry in Central Europe. Anim Conserv 9:388–397

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gross K, Kalendra EJ, Hudgens BR, Haddad NM (2007) Robustness and uncertainty in estimates of butterfly abundance from transect counts. Popul Ecol 49:191–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haddad NM, Hudgens B, Damiani C, Gross K, Kuefler D, Pollack K (2008) Determining optimal population monitoring for rare butterflies. Conserv Biol 22:929–940

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Harker RJ, Shreeve TG (2008) How accurate are single site transect data for monitoring butterfly trends? Spatial and temporal issues identified in monitoring Lasiommatia megera. J Insect Conserv 12:125–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas Reid Environmental Sciences, Inc., (TRA) (2004) San Bruno Mountain habitat conservation plan, year 2003 activities report. Report to San Mateo County Parks Department, Menlo Park, CA

  • Knutson R, Kwilosz J, 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 

  • Krebs CJ (1999) Ecological methodology. Addison-Wesley-Longman, California

    Google Scholar 

  • Lambert A (2002) 2002 Mission blue butterfly monitoring report—Milagra Ridge. Report to golden gate national parks association. Golden gate national recreation area, San Francisco, CA

  • Lessells CM, Boag PT (1987) Unrepeatable repeatabilities: a common mistake. Auk 104:116–120

    Google Scholar 

  • Li SY, Fitzpatrick SM (1997) Monitoring oblique-banded leafroller (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) larvae and adults on raspberries. Environ Entomol 26:170–177

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindzey S (2004) 2004 Mission blue butterfly monitoring report—Milagra Ridge. Report to golden gate national parks conservancy. Golden gate national recreation area, San Francisco, CA

  • Lindzey S (2005) 2005 Mission blue butterfly monitoring report—Milagra Ridge. Report for golden gate national parks conservancy. Golden gate national recreation area, San Francisco, CA

  • Lindzey S (2006a) 2006 Mission blue butterfly monitoring report—Milagra Ridge. Report to golden gate national parks conservancy, San Francisco, CA

  • Lindzey S (2006b) 2006 Mission blue butterfly monitoring report—Oakwood Valley. Report for golden gate national parks conservancy, San Francisco, CA

  • Longcore T (2003) Analysis of butterfly survey data and methodology from San Bruno Mountain habitat conservation plan (1982–2000). University of Southern California GIS laboratory technical report no. 2, University of Southern California, Los Angeles

  • Longcore T, Lam C, Kobernus P, Polk E, Wilson J (2010) Extracting useful data from imperfect monitoring schemes: endangered butterflies at San Bruno Mountain, San Mateo County, California (1982–2000) and implications for habitat management. J Insect Conserv. doi: 10.1007/s10841-010-9263-9

  • Maes D, Vanreusel W, Talloen W, Van Dyck H (2004) Functional conservation units for the endangered Alcon blue butterfly Maculinea alcon in Belgium (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae). Biol Conserv 120:229–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morton AC (1982) The effects of marking and capture on recapture frequencies of butterflies. Oecologia 53:105–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy DD (1987) Are we studying our endangered butterflies to death? J Res Lepidoptera 26:236–239

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy D, Weiss S (1988) A long term monitoring plan for a threatened butterfly. Conserv Biol 2:367–374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • New TR (1993) The conservation biology of Lycaenidae. IUCN species survival commission. The World Conservation Union, Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  • Novotny J, Turcani M (1997) A new strategy for the ecological control of the gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar, Lepidoptera). Biologia 52:337–341

    Google Scholar 

  • Nowicki P, Richter A, Glinka U, Holzschuh A, Toelke R, Henle K, Woyciechowski M, Settele J (2005) Less input same output: simplified approach for population size assessment in Lepidoptera. Popul Ecol 47:203–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pellet J, Fleishman E, Dobkin DS, Gander A, Murphy DD (2007) An empirical evaluation of the area and isolation paradigm of metapopulation dynamics. Biol Conserv 136:483–495

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petit S, Moilanen A, Hanski I, Baguette M (2001) Metapopulation dynamics of the bog fritillary butterfly: movement between patches. Oikos 92:491–500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pham L, Boudreaux S, Karhbet S, Price B, Ackleh A, Carter J, Pal N (2007) Population estimates of Hyla cinerea (Schneider) (Green tree frog) in an urban environment. Southeast Nat 6:203–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollard E (1977) A method for assessing change in the abundance of butterflies. Biol Conserv 12:115–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollard E, Yates TJ (1993) Monitoring butterflies for ecology and conservation. Chapman & Hall, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollock KH, Nichols JD, Simons TR, Farnsworth GL, Bailey LL, Sauer JR (2002) Large scale wildlife monitoring studies: statistical methods for design and analysis. Environmetrics 13:105–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pullin AS (1994) Ecology and conservation of butterflies. Chapman and Hall, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rabasa S, Gutierrez D, Escudero A (2007) Metapopulation structure and habitat quality in modeling dispersal in the butterfly Iolana iolas. Oikos 116:793–806

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rashbrook V (2003) Survey of the endangered mission blue butterfly on the Marin Headlands, Spring 2003. Report to the golden gate national recreation area, San Francisco, CA

  • Rothery P, Roy DB (2001) Application of generalised additive models to butterfly transect count data. J Appl Stat 28:897–909

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Royer R, Austin J, Newton L (1998) Checklist and “pollard walk” butterfly survey methods on public land. Amer Midl Nat 140:358–371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott JA (1986) The butterflies of North America. Stanford University Press, Stanford

    Google Scholar 

  • Seidl A (1999) Population demographics and the conservation status of the uncompahgre fritillary Boloria acrocnema (Nymphalidae). J Lepidopterists Soc 53:32–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Southwood TRE, Henderson PA (2000) Ecological methods. Blackwell Science, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas Reid Environmental Sciences, Inc., (2005) San Bruno Mountain habitat conservation plan, year 2004 activities report. Report to San Mateo County Parks Department, Menlo Park, CA

  • Thomas Reid Environmental Sciences, Inc., (2007) San Bruno Mountain habitat management Plan, 2007. Report to San Mateo County Parks Department, Menlo Park, CA

  • Thomas JA, Simcox DJ (1982) A quick method for estimating larval populations of Melitaea cinxia L. during surveys. Biol Conserv 22:315–322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Strien AJ, Vandevert R, Moss D, Yates TJ, Van Swaay CAM, Vos P (1997) The statistical power of two butterfly monitoring schemes to detect trends. J Appl Ecol 34:817–828

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venette RC, Moon RD, Hutchison WR (2002) Strategies and statistics of sampling rare individuals. Ann Rev Entomol 47:143–174

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Vozar A, Orvossy N, Kocsis M, Korosi A, Peregovits L (2005) First results of a study on Ceononypha oedippus in Hungary. In: Kuehn E et al (eds) Studies on the ecology and conservation of butterflies in Europe, Volume 1: general concepts and case studies. Pensoft-Sofia, Moscow, pp 22–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang T (2004) Egg and larval ecology of the mission blue butterfly (Icaricia icarioides missionensis) on San Bruno Mountain. M.S. Thesis, San Francisco State University

  • Wilkstrom L, Milberg P, Bergman K (2009) Monitoring of butterflies in semi-natural grasslands: diurnal variation and weather effects. J Insect Conserv 13:203–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams B, Nichols JD, Conroy M (2002) Analysis and management of animal populations: modeling estimation and decision making. Academic Press, San Diego

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang X, Pal N (2009) Estimation of a population through capture-mark-recapture method: a comparison of various point and interval estimators. J Stat Comput Simul 80:335–354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zheng C, Ovaskainen O, Saastamoinen M, Hanski I (2007) Age dependent survival analyzed with Bayesian models of mark-recapture data. Ecology 88:1970–1976

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Sue Gardner and Christina Crooker at the Site Stewardship Program of the Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy and the wildlife ecologists of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area who offered support and assistance in pursuing this project. Research was conducted under the auspices of the monitoring program conducted annually by the Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy and the Golden Gate National Recreation Area in compliance with Fish and Wildlife Service regulations regarding ongoing habitat management and protection of the Mission blue butterfly; no individuals were handled or harmed as part of this research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Plant, Soil and Entomological Sciences, University of Idaho, 875 Perimeter Drive, P.O. Box 442339, Moscow, ID 83844, Russia

    Summer Lindzey

  2. Department of Biology, San Francisco State University, 1600 Holloway Ave, San Francisco, CA, 94132, USA

    Edward F. Connor

Authors
  1. Summer Lindzey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Edward F. Connor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Summer Lindzey.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lindzey, S., Connor, E.F. Monitoring the mission blue butterfly using immature stages. J Insect Conserv 15, 765–773 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-010-9375-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-010-9375-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation