Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Estimating sampling efficiency of diurnal Lepidoptera in farmland

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

Abstract

Setting up effective survey strategies for biodiversity monitoring in agro-ecosystems is a major task in order to detect adverse effects on biodiversity before negative changes will manifest. Here, we studied the relative costs required for the monitoring of butterflies and selected diurnal moths (Papilionoidea et Hesperioidea; Zygaenoidea: Zygaenidae) in farmland. Analysing data from a well-established Lepidoptera monitoring system in Switzerland, we assessed the influence of inspection periods, inspection frequency and transect length on counts of diurnal Lepidoptera. Furthermore, we estimated the number of transects in relation to sampling effort necessary to detect changes of a given effect size for recorded species number (and abundance). Reducing the counting frequency from seven to four inspections per season still yielded 80–90 % of the species, as long as peak abundances in summer months were included. The variation in observed species number was mostly independent of inspection frequency, but strongly increased when transect length was reduced to less than 1 km. Sedentary Lepidoptera species are especially valuable indicators as their occurrences are directly linked to local effects on biodiversity, and the proportion of recorded sedentary species was not substantially affected by reduced inspection frequency. Transects of 1–1.5 km length were generally the most cost-efficient to detect an effect on total species number of diurnal Lepidoptera in arable landscapes, given that travelling distances between transects were short. Studying effects on rare species or selected species groups would involve higher sampling intensity and costs. Surveying schemes with reduced inspection frequency and transect lengths can detect changes in species richness and total abundance of diurnal Lepidoptera cost-effectively. Facing expected changes in agricultural policy and management, the results and recommendations presented here will help to implement and improve cost-efficient Lepidoptera schemes to monitor changes in arable landscapes.

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

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • ACRE (Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment) (2013) Post market environmental monitoring of genetically modified crops. Report of an expert working group of the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment. Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, London, UK. http://www.defra.gov.uk/acre/files/pmem-final-report.pdf. Accessed 15 Jan 2015

  • Aviron S, Jeanneret P, Schüpbach B, Herzog F (2007) Effects of agri-environmental measures, site and landscape conditions on butterfly diversity of Swiss grassland. Agric Ecosyst Environ 122:295–304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aviron S, Sanvido O, Romeis J, Herzog F, Bigler F (2009) Case-specific monitoring of butterflies to determine potential effects of transgenic Bt-maize in Switzerland. Agric Ecosyst Environ 131:137–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brereton TM, Roy DB, Middelbrook I, Botham M, Warren M (2011a) The development of butterfly indicators in the United Kingdom and assessments in 2010. J Insect Conserv 15:139–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brereton TM, Cruickshanks KL, Risely K, Noble DG, Roy DB (2011b) Developing and launching a wider countryside butterfly survey across the United Kingdom. J Insect Conserv 15:279–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bried JT, Pellet J (2012) Optimal design of butterfly occupancy surveys and testing if occupancy converts to abundance for sparse populations. J Insect Conserv 16:489–499

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BMELV (Bundesministerium für Ernährung, Landwirtschaft und Forsten) (2010) Statistisches Jahrbuch über Ernährung. Landwirtschaftsverlag, Münster, Landwirtschaft und Forsten

    Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter SR, Mooney HA, Agard J, Capistrano D, DeFriese RS, Díaz S, Dietz T, Duraiappah AK, Oteng-Yeboah A, Pereira HM, Perrings C, Reid WV, Sarukhan J, Scholes RJ, Whyte A (2009) Science for managing ecosystem services: Beyond the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. PNAS 106:1305–1312

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Clark SJ, Rothery P, Perry JN (2006) Farm Scale Evaluations of spring-sown genetically modified herbicide-tolerant crops: a statistical assessment. Proc R Soc B 273:237–243

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Clark SJ, Rothery P, Perry JN, Heard MS (2007) Farm Scale Evaluations of herbicide-tolerant crops: assessment of within-field variation and sampling methodology for arable weeds. Weed Res 47:157–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Couvet D, Devictor V, Jiguet F, Julliard R (2011) Scientific contributions of extensive biodiversity monitoring. C R Biol 334:370–377

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Di Stefano J (2003) How much power is enough? Against the development of an arbitrary convention for statistical power calculations. Funct Ecol 17:707–709

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EEA (European Environmental Agency) (2010) Assessing biodiversity in Europe—the 2010 report. EEA Report, 5/2010:1–58

  • EEA (European Environmental Agency) (2013) The European grassland butterfly indicator: 1990–2011. EEA Technical report, 11/2013:1–36

  • Elston DA, Nevison IM, Scott WA, Sier ARJ, Morecroft MD (2011) Power calculations for monitoring studies: a case study with alternative models for random variation. Environmetrics 22:618–625

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A (2007) G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods 39:175–191

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Feber RE, Firbank LG, Johnson PJ, Macdonald DW (1997) The effects of organic farming on pest and non-pest butterfly abundance. Agric Ecosyst Environ 64:133–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Filippi-Codaccioni O, Devictor V, Bas Y, Julliard R (2010) Toward more concern for specialisation and less for species diversity in conserving farmland biodiversity. Biol Conserv 143:1493–1500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fleishman E, Murphy DD (2009) A realistic assessment of the indicator potential of butterflies and other charismatic taxonomic groups. Conserv Biol 23:1109–1116

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Foley JA, DeFries R, Asner GP, Barford C, Bonan G, Carpenter SR, Chapin FS, Coe MT, Daily GC, Gibbs HK, Helkowski JH, Holloway T, Howard EA, Kucharik CJ, Monfreda C, Patz JA, Colin Prentice I, Ramankutty N, Snyder PK (2005) Global consequences of land use. Science 309:570–574

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hardersen S, Corezzola S (2014) Plot-based butterfly surveys: statistical and methodological aspects. J Insect Conserv 18:1171–1183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonason D, Milberg P, Bergman K-O (2010) Monitoring of butterflies within a landscape context in south-eastern Sweden. J Nat Conserv 18:22–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones JPG (2011) Monitoring species abundance and distribution at the landscape scale. J Appl Ecol 48:9–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kéry M, Plattner M (2007) Species richness estimation and determinants of species detectability in butterfly monitoring programmes. Ecol Entomol 32:53–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kéry M, Royle JA, Plattner M, Dorazio RM (2009) Species richness and occupancy estimation in communities subject to temporary emigration. Ecology 90:1279–1290

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lang A (2004) Monitoring the impact of Bt maize on butterflies in the field: estimation of required sample sizes. Environ Biosaf Res 3:55–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lang A, Bühler C (2012) Estimation of required sampling effort for monitoring the possible effects of transgenic crops on butterflies: lessons from long-term monitoring schemes in Switzerland. Ecol Ind 13:29–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lang A, Theißen B, Dolek M (2013) Standardised methods for the GMO monitoring of butterflies and moths: the whys and hows. BioRisk 8:15–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Losey JE, Vaughan M (2006) The economic value of ecological services provided by insects. Bioscience 56:311–323

    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 

  • MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment) (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: biodiversity synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Öckinger E, Franzén M, Rundlöf M, Smith HG (2009) Mobility-dependent effects on species richness in fragmented landscapes. Basic Appl Ecol 10:573–578

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oostermeijer JGB, VanSwaay CAM (1998) The relationship between butterflies and environmental indicator value: a tool for conservation in a changing landscape. Biol Conserv 86:271–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearman PB, Weber D (2007) Common species determine richness patterns in biodiversity indicator taxa. Biol Conserv 138:109–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pellet J, Bried JT, Parietti D, Gander A, Heer PO, Cherix D, Arlettaz RI (2012) Monitoring butterfly abundance: beyond Pollard walks. PLoS One 7:e41396

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Perry JN, Rothery P, Clark SJ, Heard MS, Hawes C (2003) Design, analysis and power of the Farm-Scale Evaluations of genetically-modified herbicide-tolerant crops. J Appl Ecol 40:17–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollard E, Moss D, Yates TJ (1995) Population trends of common British butterflies at monitored sites. J Appl Ecol 32:9–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qui A, Perry JN, Pidgeon JD, Haylock LA, Brooks DR (2008) Cost-efficacy in measuring farmland biodiversity—lessons from the Farm Scale Evaluations of genetically modified herbicide-tolerant crops. Ann Appl Biol 152:93–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rhodes JR, Jonzén N (2011) Monitoring temporal trends in spatially structured populations: How should sampling effort be allocated between space and time? Ecography 34:1040–1048

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosin ZM, Myczko L, Skorka P, Lenda M, Moron D, Sparks TH, Tryjanowski P (2012) Butterfly responses to environmental factors in fragmented calcareous grasslands. J Insect Conserv 16:321–329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roth T, Amrhein V, Peter B, Weber D (2008) A Swiss agri-environment scheme effectively enhances species richness for some taxa over time. Agric Ecosyst Environ 125:167–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roy DB, Rotherty P, Brereton T (2007) Reduced-effort schemes for monitoring butterfly populations. J Appl Ecol 44:993–1000

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Settele J, Feldmann R, Reinhardt R (1999) Die Tagfalter Deutschlands. Ein Handbuch für Freilandökologen, Umweltplaner und Naturschützer. Ulmer, Stuttgart

    Google Scholar 

  • Settele J, Shreeve T, Konvicka M, VanDyck H (2009) Ecology of butterflies in Europe. University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas JA, Telfer MG, Roy DB, Preston CD, Greenwood JJD, Asher J, Fox R, Clarke RT, Lawton JH (2004) Comparative losses of British butterflies, birds, and plants and the global extinction crisis. Science 303:1879–1881

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas JA (2005) Monitoring change in the abundance and distribution of insects using butterflies and other indicator groups. Philos Trans R Soc B 360:339–357

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Van Swaay CAM, Plate CL, van Strien AJ (2002) Monitoring butterflies in the Netherlands: how to get unbiased indices. In: Proceedings of Experimental and Applied Entomology, vol 13. NEV (Nederlandse Entomologische Vereniging), Amsterdam, pp 21–27. ISBN 90 71912 23 X

  • Van Swaay CAM, Nowicki P, Settele J, VanStrien AJ (2008) Butterfly monitoring in Europe—methods, applications and perspectives. Biodivers Conserv 17:3455–3469

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Swaay CM, Brereton T, Kirkland P, Warren M (2012) Manual for butterfly monitoring. Report VS2012.010, De Vlinderstichting/Dutch Butterfly Conservation, Butterfly Conservation UK and Butterfly Conservation Europe, Wageningen

  • Warren MS, Bourn NA (2011) Ten challenges for 2010 and beyond to conserve Lepidoptera in Europe. J Insect Conserv 15:321–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams MR (2008) Assessing diversity of diurnal Lepidoptera in habitat fragments: testing the efficiency of strip transects. Environ Entomol 37:1313–1322

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zaks DPM, Kucharik CJ (2011) Data and monitoring needs for a more ecological agriculture. Environ Res Lett. doi:10.1021/es104227

    Google Scholar 

  • Zonneveld C, Longcore T, Mulder C (2003) Optimal schemes to detect the presence of insect species. Conserv Biol 17:476–487

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zulka KP, Abensperg-Traun M, Milasowszky N, Bieringer G, Gereben-Krenn B-A, Holzinger W, Hölzler G, Rabitsch W, Reischütz A, Querner P, Sauberer N, Schmitzberger I, Willner W, Wrbka T, Zechmeister H (2014) Species richness in dry grassland patches of eastern Austria: a multi-taxon study on the role of local, landscape and habitat quality variables. Agric Ecosyst Environ 182:25–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN), Bonn, for the financial support of this study, the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN) for providing data from the Swiss biodiversity monitoring scheme (BDM), and the numerous field workers of the BDM for monitoring the butterflies and diurnal moths. We are grateful for the valuable comments of two anonymous reviewers.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andreas Lang.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 94 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lang, A., Bühler, C., Dolek, M. et al. Estimating sampling efficiency of diurnal Lepidoptera in farmland. J Insect Conserv 20, 35–48 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-015-9837-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-015-9837-7

Keywords

Navigation