Journal of Insect Conservation

, Volume 1, Issue 2, pp 113–124 | Cite as

A new methodology for compiling national Red Lists applied to butterflies (Lepidoptera, Rhopalocera) in Flanders (N-Belgium) and the Netherlands

  • Dirk Maes
  • Chris A.M. van Swaay


The compilation of the Red Lists of butterflies in Flanders and the Netherlands was based on two criteria: a trend criterion (degree of decline) and a rarity criterion (actual distribution area). However, due to the large difference in mapping intensity in the two compared periods, a straightforward comparison of the number of grid cells in which each species was recorded, appeared inappropriate. To correct for mapping intensity we used reference species that are homogeneously distributed over the country, that have always been fairly common and that did not fluctuate in abundance too much during this century. For all resident species a relative presence in two compared periods was calculated, using the average number of grid cells in which these reference species were recorded as a correction factor. The use of a standardized method and well-defined quantitative criteria makes national Red Lists more objective and easier to re-evaluate in the future and facilitates the comparison of Red Lists among countries and among different organisms. The technique applied to correct for mapping intensity could be useful to other organisms when there is a large difference in mapping intensity between two periods.

Red List methodology butterflies Flanders the Netherlands. 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Avery, M., Wingfield Gibbons, D., Porter, R., Tew, T., Tucker, G. and Williams, G. (1995) Revising the British Red Data List for birds: the biological basis of UK conservation priorities. Ibis 137, 232–9.Google Scholar
  2. Bauwens, D. and Claus, K. (1996) Verspreiding van amfibieën en reptielen in Vlaanderen. Turnhout: De Wielewaal.Google Scholar
  3. Bean, M.J. (1987) Legal experience and implications. In The road to extinction(R. Fitter and M. Fitter, eds) pp. 39–43. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN.Google Scholar
  4. Bratton, J. H. (1991) British Red Data Books. Part 3: Invertebrates other than insects. Peterborough: Joint Nature Conservation Committee.Google Scholar
  5. Collar, N.J. (1996) The reasons for Red Data Books. Oryx 30, 121–30.Google Scholar
  6. De Knijf, G. and Anselin, A. (1996) A documented Red List of the dragonflies in Flanders [in Dutch with English summary]. Communications of the Institute of Nature Conservation 4, 1–90.Google Scholar
  7. Desender, K. (1986) Distribution and ecology of Carabid beetles in Belgium (Coleoptera, Carabidae). Part 1, 2, 3 and 4. Studiedocumenten van het Koninklijk Belgisch Instituut voor Natuurwetenschappen, Brussel, 26, 27, 30 and 34.Google Scholar
  8. Desender, K., Maes, D., Maelfait, J.-P. and Van Kerckvoorde, M. (1995) A documented Red List of the carabid beetles in Flanders [in Dutch with English summary]. Communications of the Institute of Nature Conservation 1, 1–208.Google Scholar
  9. Ebert, G. (1991) Rote Liste der in Baden-Württemberg gefährdeten Schmetterlingsarten (Makrolepidoptera). In Die Schmetterlinge Baden-Württembergs, Band 1(G. Ebert, ed.) pp. 116–27. Stuttgart: Verlag Eugen Ulmer.Google Scholar
  10. Emmet, A. M. and Heath, J. (1989) The moths and butterflies of Great-Britain and Ireland Vol. 7 (1): Hesperiidae– Nymphalidae. Colchester: Harley Books.Google Scholar
  11. Geijskens, D.C. and van Tol, J. (1983) De libellen van Nederland (Odonata). Hoogwoud (N.H.): Koninklijke Nederlandse Natuurhistorische Vereniging.Google Scholar
  12. Goffart, P., Baguette, M. and De Bast, B. (1992) La situation des Lépidoptères en Wallonie ou Que sont nos papillons devenus? Bull. Annls Soc. r. belge Ent. 128, 355–92.Google Scholar
  13. Hallingbäck, T., Hodgetts, N. and Urmi, E. (1995) How to apply the new IUCN Red List categories to Bryophytes. Species 24, 37–41.Google Scholar
  14. Hollander, H. and van der Reest, P. (1994) Red Data Book of threatened mammals in the Netherlands[in Dutch with English summary]. Utrecht: Vereniging voor Zoogdierkunde en Zoogdierbescherming.Google Scholar
  15. IUCN (1994) IUCN Red List Categories. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.Google Scholar
  16. Latour, J. and van Swaay, C.A.M. (1992) Dagvlinders als indicatoren voor de regionale milieukwaliteit. De Levende Natuur 93, 19–22.Google Scholar
  17. Mace, G.M. (1994) Classifying threatened species: means and ends. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 344, 91–7.Google Scholar
  18. Mace, G.M. and Stuart, S.N. (1994) Draft IUCN Red List Categories, version 2.2. Species 21–22, 13–24.Google Scholar
  19. Maes, D., Maelfait, J-P. and Kuijken, E. (1995) Rode lijsten: een onmisbaar instrument in het moderne Vlaamse natuurbeleid. Wielewaal 61, 149–56.Google Scholar
  20. Maes, D. and Van Dyck, H. (1996)* A documented Red List of the butterflies in Flanders [in Dutch with English summary]. Communications of the Institute of Nature Conservation 3, 1–154.Google Scholar
  21. Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij (1990) Beschermingsplan Dagvlinders. Amsterdam: Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij.Google Scholar
  22. Odé, B. (in press) Bedreigde en kwetsbare sprinkhanen en krekels in Nederland. Voorstel voor een Rode Lijst (basisrapport). Nederlandse Faunistische Mededelingen.Google Scholar
  23. Ommering, G. van (1994) Notitie kategorieën, kriteria an normen voor Rode lijsten, opgesteld conform besluiten van de klankbordgroep Rode lijsten, ingesteld door NBLF-FF.Google Scholar
  24. Osieck, E.R. and Hustings, F. (1994) Rode Lijst van bedreigde en kwetsbare vogelsoorten in Nederland. Zeist: Vogelbescherming Nederland.Google Scholar
  25. Pollard, E. and Yates, T. (1993) Monitoring butterflies for ecology and conservation. London: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
  26. Pretscher, P. et al. (1984) Rote Liste der Großschmetterlinge (Macrolepidoptera). In Rote Liste der gefährdeten Tiere und Pflanzen in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland(J. Blab, E. Nowak, W. Trautman and H. Sukopp, eds) pp. 53–7. Greven: Kilda.Google Scholar
  27. Schnittler, M., Ludwig, G., Pretscher, P. and Boye, P. (1994) Konzeption der Roten Listen der in Deutschland gef¨ahrdeten Tier-und Pflanzenarten unter Berücksichtigung der neuen internationalen Kategorien. Natur und Landschaft 69, 451–9.Google Scholar
  28. Shirt, D.B. (ed.) (1987) British Red Data Books; Part 2: insects. Peterborough: Nature Conservancy Council.Google Scholar
  29. Stroot, P. and Depiereux, E. (1989) Proposition d’une méthodologie pour établir des ‘Listes Rouges’ d’invertébrés menacés. Biol. Conserv. 48, 163–79.Google Scholar
  30. Swaay, C.A.M. van (1990) An assessment of the changes in butterfly abundance in the Netherlands during the 20th century. Biol. Conserv. 52, 287–302.Google Scholar
  31. Swaay, C.A.M. van (1995) Measuring changes in butterfly abundances in the Netherlands. In Ecology and conservation of butterflies(A. S. Pullin, ed.) pp. 230–47. London: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
  32. Swaay, C.A.M. van, Maes, D. and Plate, C. (1997) Monitoring butterflies in the Netherlands and Flanders: the first results. J. Insect Conserv. 1, 81–87.Google Scholar
  33. Thomas, C.D. and Abery, J.C.G. (1995) Estimating rates of butterfly decline from distribution maps: the effect of scale. Biol. Conserv. 73, 59–65.Google Scholar
  34. Thomas, C.D. and Jones, T. (1993) Partial recovery of a skipper butterfly (Hesperia comma) from population refuges: lessons for conservation in fragmented landscape. J. Anim. Ecol. 62, 472–82.Google Scholar
  35. Wynhoff, I. and van Swaay, C.A.M. (1995)* Threatened and vulnerable butterflies in the Netherlands: Basic report and proposal for the Red List. Wageningen: De Vlinderstichting. Rapportnr. VS 95.11.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Chapman and Hall 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dirk Maes
    • 1
  • Chris A.M. van Swaay
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of Nature ConservationBrusselsBelgium
  2. 2.Dutch Butterfly ConservationWageningenthe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations