Butterfly Monitoring for Conservation
Monitoring butterfly populations is an essential component of their conservation. Some survey techniques measure occupancy, and simply determine the presence or absence of species, whereas other techniques measure butterfly abundance. Mark release recapture techniques involve marking the wings of a subset of a population, releasing and then recapturing them, and determining the proportion of marked individuals in the re-sampling. Distance sampling takes advantage of the decrease in probability of detection of individual butterflies as a function of increased distance from the observer. These techniques can both be used to estimate actual population size. Mark release recapture is the most rigorous, but also the most labor-intensive technique. It also carries risk of damage to individuals during the marking process. Distance sampling is statistically robust and doesn’t risk damaging butterflies by marking them. In some cases, the requirement for survey transects to be placed randomly within the population, and the assumption that the butterflies are distributed uniformly limit the application of the technique. For Pollard walks, surveyors walk a set route at a uniform pace. They count all butterflies within a prescribed distance (generally about 20 m). In addition to these systematic survey techniques, a variety of less formal monitoring protocols are also used. These include count circles, field trips, and wandering surveys. There are also a wide variety of online opportunities for interested individuals to submit butterfly observations. Researchers should consider the assumptions, advantages and disadvantages when selecting a technique.
KeywordsField Trip Distance Sampling Systematic Survey Occupancy Data Butterfly Population
We thank the program directors and volunteers for their dedication in participating in these programs and providing invaluable data to meet research and conservation needs. We particularly thank program managers who shared their meta-data with us so that we could track program activity and compile records across programs. Funding was provided to LR through NSF award DBI-1147049 and from DBI-1052875 through the Socio-environmental Synthesis Center.
- Holling CS (ed) (1978) Adaptive environmental assessment and management. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Isaac NJ, van Strien AJ, August TA, de Zeeuw MP, Roy DB (2014) Extracting robust trends in species’ distributions from unstructured opportunistic data: a comparison of methods. BioRxiv 006999Google Scholar
- Murphy DD (1987) Are we studying our endangered butterflies to death? J Res Lepidoptera 26(1):236–239Google Scholar
- New TR (1991) Butterfly conservation. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 92–100Google Scholar
- Oberhauser KS, Ries L, Altizer S, Batalden R, Kudell-Ekstrum J, Garland M, Howard E, Jepsen S, Lovett J, Monroe M, Morris G, Rendón-Salinas E, Rubino RG, Ryan A, Taylor OR, Treviño R, Villablanca F, Walton D (2015) Contributions to monarch biology and conservation through citizen science: 70 years and counting. In: Oberhauser KS, Nail K, Altizer S (eds) Monarchs in a changing world: biology and conservation of an iconic butterfly. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, pp 13–30Google Scholar
- Polic D, Fiedler K, Nell C, Grill A (2014). Mobility of ringlet butterflies in high-elevation alpine grassland: effects of habitat barriers, resources and age. J Insect Conserv 18:1153–1161Google Scholar
- Pollard E, Yates TJ (1993) Monitoring butterflies for ecology and conservation: the British butterfly monitoring scheme. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Ries L, Oberhauser K (2015) A citizen-army for science: quantifying the contributions of citizen scientists to our understanding of monarch butterfly biology. Bioscience 65:419–430Google Scholar
- Shuey J, Szymanski J (2010) Modified Pollard transects do not predict estimated daily population size for the secretive butterfly, Neonympha mitchellii mitchellii French. J Lepidopterists Soc 66:221–224Google Scholar
- Taron DJ (1996) Insects. In: Packard S, Mutel C (eds) The Tallgrass restoration handbook. Island Press, Washington, pp 305–318Google Scholar
- WallisDeVries MF (2004) A quantitative conservation approach for the endangered butterfly Maculinea alcon. Conserv Biol 18(2):489–499Google Scholar