Journal of Insect Conservation

, Volume 4, Issue 2, pp 73–77 | Cite as

Bias in Butterfly Distribution Maps: The Influence of Hot Spots and Recorder's Home Range

  • R.L.H. Dennis
  • C.D. Thomas
Article

Abstract

We use data from the Mersey Valley zone (3×2 km area; N = 600 I ha squares) of the Greater Manchester butterfly atlas to investigate whether recorder visits are biased by access (viz. distance from recorder's home base) and by the locations of potential hot spots. In a multiple regression analysis, visits were found to correlate significantly both with distance from home base of the recorder and with the mean and maximum number of species found in squares. Sites close to the home base of the recorder were visited more frequently than those further afield and squares with more species were visited more frequently than those squares with fewer species. Visits were also made significantly more frequently to squares with greater numbers of butterfly resources (e.g. hostplants, nectar). Furthermore, recording is biased to and away from distinct land uses, which vary significantly in species richness. Reasons are given why these biases are to be expected at all scales. The message is that future distribution mapping should be based on rigorous sampling approaches.

mapping database bias recording Lepidoptera 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bashford, R. (1999) The breeding bird survey: the first five years. BTO News 224, 10-12.Google Scholar
  2. Brown, A.F, Stillman, R.A. and Gibbons, D.W. (1995) Use of breeding bird atlas data to identify important bird areas: a northern England case study. Bird Study 42, 132-43.Google Scholar
  3. Dennis, R.L.H. and Bardell, P. (1996) The impact of extreme weather on Great Orme populations of Hipparchia semele (Linnaeus, 1758) and Plebejus argus (Linnaeus, 1758) (Papilionoidea: Satyrinae andLycaenidae): hindsight, inference and lost opportunities. Entomologist's Gazette 47, 211-25.Google Scholar
  4. Dennis, R.L.H. and Hardy, P.B. 1999 Targeting squares for survey: predicting species richness and incidence for a butterfly atlas. Global Ecol. Biogeog. Letts. 8, 443-454.Google Scholar
  5. Dennis, R.L.H., Sparks, T.H. and Hardy, P.B. (1999) Bias in butterfly distribution maps: the effects of sampling effort. J. Insect Conserv. 3, 33-42.Google Scholar
  6. Dennis, R.L.H. and Williams, W.R. (1986) Butterfly 'diversity'-regressing and a little latitude. Antenna 10, 108-12.Google Scholar
  7. Donald, P.F. and Fuller, R.J. (1998) Ornithological atlas data: a review of uses and limitations. Bird Study 45, 129-45.Google Scholar
  8. Hardy, P.B. 1998. Butterflies or Greater Manchester. Sale, Cheshire, UK: PGL Enterprises.Google Scholar
  9. Hardy, P.B. and Dennis, R.L.H. (1999) The impact of urban development on butterflies within a city region. Biodiversity Conserv. 8, 1261-79.Google Scholar
  10. Marchant, J., Gillings, S., Henderson, I., Bashford, R. and Wilson, A. (1999) Why does the BTO organise surveys that way?... Your questions answered. BTO News 220, 5-7.Google Scholar
  11. Marchant, J.H. and Gregory, R.D. (1999) Number of nesting rooks Corvus frugilegus in the United Kingdom in 1996. Bird Study 46, 258-73.Google Scholar
  12. Pollard, E. and Yates, T.J. (1993) Monitoring butterflies for ecology and conservation. London: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
  13. Rich, T (1998) Squaring the circles-bias in distribution maps. British Wildlife 9, 213-19.Google Scholar
  14. Thomas, C.D. and Abery, J.C.G. (1995) Estimating rates of butterfly decline from distribution maps: the effect of scale. Biol. Canserv. 73, 59-65.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • R.L.H. Dennis
    • 1
  • C.D. Thomas
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Biological and Molecular SciencesOxford Brookes University, HeadingtonOxfordUK
  2. 2.Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation, School of BiologyUniversity of LeedsLeedsUK

Personalised recommendations