Journal of Insect Conservation

, Volume 3, Issue 1, pp 33–42 | Cite as

Bias in Butterfly Distribution Maps: The Effects of Sampling Effort

  • Roger L.H. Dennis
  • Tim H. Sparks
  • Peter B. Hardy


Data from the Greater Manchester Butterfly Atlas (UK) reveal a highly significant and substantial impact of visits on both species' richness and species' incidence in squares. This effect has been demonstrated for three different zones mapped at different scales. The significant impact of number of visits persists when data are amalgamated for coarser scales. The findings demonstrate that it is essential for distribution mapping projects to record data on recording effort as well as on the target organisms. Suggestions are made as to how distribution mapping may be improved, including a geographically and environmentally representative structure of permanently monitored squares and closer links between distribution mapping and the Butterfly Monitoring Scheme (BMS), which primarily monitors changes in butterfly populations. The benefit to conservation will be data that can be better used to analyse the reasons for changes in ranges and distributions, fundamental for determining priorities and policy decisions.

mapping database bias recording monitoring Lepidoptera 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Asher, J. (1995) Butterfly Net. Butterfly Conservation News 60, 15.Google Scholar
  2. Asher, J. (1997) Butterflies for the New Millennium - project and programme. In Butterflies for the New Millennium (R. Fox, ed). pp. 20–21. Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Meeting at Doncaster, May 1997. Huntingdon: ITE Monks Wood.Google Scholar
  3. Dennis, R.L.H. (1993) Butterflies and climate change. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Dennis, R.L.H. and Williams, W.R. (1986) Butterfly ‘diversity’. Regressing and a little latitude. Antenna, 10, 108–112.Google Scholar
  5. Emmet, M. and Heath, J. (1990) The butterflies of Great Britain and Ireland. Colchester: Harley Books.Google Scholar
  6. Fox, R. (ed) (1997) Butterflies for the New Millennium. Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Meeting at Doncaster, May 1997. Monks Wood, Huntingdon: ITE.Google Scholar
  7. Harding, P.T. (1997) Why ITE is supporting the Butterflies for the New Millennium Project. In Butterflies for the New Millennium (R. Fox, ed). pp. 4–6. Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Meeting at Doncaster, May 1997. Huntingdon: Monks Wood ITE.Google Scholar
  8. Hardy, P.B. (1998) Butterflies of Greater Manchester. Sale: PGL Enterprises.Google Scholar
  9. Heath, J., Pollard, E. and Thomas, J.A. (1984) Atlas of Butterflies in Britain and Ireland. London: Viking.Google Scholar
  10. Pollard, E. and Yates, T.J. (1993) Monitoring butterflies for ecology and conservation. London: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
  11. Prendergast, J.R. and Eversham, B.C. (1995) Butterfly diversity in southern Britain: hotspot losses since 1930. Biological Conservation 72, 109–114.Google Scholar
  12. Quinn, R.M., Gaston, K.J. and Roy, D.B. (1997) Coincidence between consumer and host occurrence: macrolepidoptera in Britain. Ecol. Entomol. 22, 197–208.Google Scholar
  13. Rich, T. (1998) Squaring the circles - bias in distribution maps. British Wildlife 9, 213–219.Google Scholar
  14. Shreeve, T.G. (1992) Monitoring butterfly movements. In R.L.H. Dennis (ed.) The Ecology of Butterflies in Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Sokal, R.R and Rohlf, F.J. (1995) Biometry. New York: W.H. Freeman and company.Google Scholar
  16. Sparks, T.H., Dover, J.W., Warren, M.S. and Cox, R. (1995) How well can we model the distribution of butterflies at the landscape scale? In Landscape ecology: theory and application (G.H. Griffiths, ed.). pp. 24–31. Aberdeen: IALE (UK).Google Scholar
  17. Statistica (1994) STATISTICA for Windows I-III. Tulsa, OK: Statsoft, Inc.Google Scholar
  18. Thomas, C.D. and Abery, J.C.G. (1995) Estimating rates of butterfly decline from distribution maps: the effects of scale. Biol. Conserv. 73, 59–65.Google Scholar
  19. Thomas, C.D., Thomas, J.A. and Warren M.S. (1992) Distributions of occupied and vacant habitats in fragmented landscapes. Oecologia 92, 563–567.Google Scholar
  20. Vickery, M.L. (1995) Gardens: the neglected habitat. In Ecology and conservation of butterflies (A.S. Pullin, ed.). pp. 123–134. London: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
  21. Warren, M.S., Barnett, L.K., Gibbons, D.W. and Avery, M.I. (1997) Assessing national conservation priorities: an improved red list of British butterflies. Biol. Conservation 82, 317–328.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roger L.H. Dennis
    • 1
  • Tim H. Sparks
    • 2
  • Peter B. Hardy
    • 3
  1. 1.Manchester MuseumManchester UniversityManchesterUK
  2. 2.ITE at Monks WoodAbbots RiptonUK
  3. 3.ManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations