Advertisement

Butterfly Monitoring for Conservation

  • Doug Taron
  • Leslie Ries

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Field Trip Distance Sampling Systematic Survey Occupancy Data Butterfly Population 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

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.

References

  1. Bried JT, Pellet J (2012) Optimal design of butterfly occupancy surveys and testing if occupancy converts to abundance for sparse populations. J Insect Conserv 16:489–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brown JA, Boyce MS (1998) Line transect sampling of Karner blue butterflies (Lycaeides melissa samuelis). Environ Ecol Stat 5:81–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Calabrese JM (2012) How emergence and death assumptions affect count-based estimates of butterfly abundance and lifespan. Popul Ecol 54(3):431–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Collier N, Mackay DA, Benkendorff K (2008) Is relative abundance a good indicator of population size? Evidence from fragmented populations of a specialist butterfly (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae). Popul Ecol 50:17–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dennis RLH, Shreeve TG, Isaac NJB, Roy DB, Hardy PB, Fox R, Asher J (2006) The effects of visual apparency on bias in butterfly recording and monitoring. Biol Conserv 128(4):486–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dennis EB, Freeman SN, Brereton T, Roy DB (2013) Indexing butterfly abundance whilst accounting for missing counts and variability in seasonal pattern. Methods Ecol Evol 4(7):637–645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Forister ML, Jahner JP, Casner KL, Wilson JS, Shapiro AM (2011) The race is not to the swift: long-term data reveal pervasive declines in California’s low-elevation butterfly fauna. Ecology 92(12):2222–2235PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gross K, Kalendra EJ, Hudgens BR, Haddad NM (2007) Robustness and uncertainty in estimates of butterfly abundance from transect counts. Popul Ecol 49:191–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Haddad NM, Hudgens B, Damiani C, Gross K, Kuefler D, Pollock K (2008) Determining optimal population monitoring for rare butterflies. Conserv Biol 22(4):929–940PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hanski I, Alho J, Moilanen A (2000) Estimating the parameters of survival and migration of individuals in metapopulations. Ecology 81(1):239–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Harker RJ, Shreeve TG (2008) How accurate are single site transect data for monitoring butterfly trends? Spatial and temporal issues identified in monitoring Lasiommata megera. J Insect Conserv 12:125–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Holling CS (ed) (1978) Adaptive environmental assessment and management. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Isaac NJ, Cruickshanks KL, Weddle AM, Rowcliffe JM, Brereton TM, Dennis RLH, Shuker DM, Thomas CD (2011) Distance sampling and the challenge of monitoring butterfly populations. Methods Ecol Evol 2(6):585–594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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
  15. Kadlec T, Tropek R, Konvicka M (2012) Timed surveys and transect walks as comparable methods for monitoring butterflies in small plots. J Insect Conserv 16:275–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Koenig WD (2006) Spatial synchrony of monarch butterflies. Am Midl Nat 155(1):39–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kuefler D, Haddad NM, Hall S, Hudgens B, Bartel B, Hoffman E (2008) Distribution, population structure and habitat use of the endangered Saint Francis Satyr butterfly, Neonympha mitchellii francisci. Am Midl Nat 159(2):298–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Link WA, Sauer JR, Niven DK (2006) A hierarchical model for regional analysis of population change using Christmas Bird Count data, with application to the American Black Duck. Condor 108(1):13–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Longcore T, Mattoni R, Zonneveld C, Bruggeman J (2003) Insect Count Analyzer: a tool to assess responses of butterflies to habitat restoration. Ecol Restor 21:60–61. Available at: http://www.urbanwildlands.org/INCA/. Accessed 15 Jan 2015Google Scholar
  20. Longcore T, Lam CS, Kobernus P, Polk E, Wilson JP (2010) Extracting useful data from imperfect monitoring schemes: endangered butterflies at San Bruno Mountain, San Mateo County, California (1982–2000) and implications for habitat management. J Insect Conserv 14(4):335–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. MacKenzie DI, Nichols JD, Sutton N, Kawanishi K, Bailey LL (2005) Improving inferences in population studies of rare species that are detected imperfectly. Ecology 86(5):1101–1113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Matechou E, Dennis EB, Freeman SN, Brereton T (2014) Monitoring abundance and phenology in (multivoltine) butterfly species: a novel mixture model. J Appl Ecol 51(3):766–775CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Matteson KC, Taron DJ, Minor ES (2012) Assessing citizen contributions to butterfly monitoring in two large cities. Conserv Biol 26:557–564PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Morton AC (1982) The effects of marking and capture on recapture frequencies of butterflies. Oecologia 53(1):105–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Murphy DD (1987) Are we studying our endangered butterflies to death? J Res Lepidoptera 26(1):236–239Google Scholar
  26. New TR (1991) Butterfly conservation. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 92–100Google Scholar
  27. Nowicki P, Settele J, Henry PY, Woyciechowski M (2008) Butterfly monitoring methods: the ideal and the real world. Isr J Ecol Evol 54(1):69–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. O’Brien JM, Thorne JH, Rosenzweig ML, Shapiro AM (2011) Once-yearly sampling for the detection of trends in biodiversity: the case of Willow Slough, California. Biol Conserv 144(7):2012–2019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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
  30. Pellet J, Bried JT, Parietti D, Gander A, Heer PO, Cherix D, Arlettaz R (2012) Monitoring butterfly abundance: beyond Pollard walks. PLoS One 7:41396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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
  32. Pollard E (1977) A method for assessing changes in the abundance of butterflies. Biol Conserv 12:115–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pollard E (1982) Monitoring butterfly abundance in relation to the management of a nature reserve. Biol Conserv 24:317–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pollard E (1988) Temperature; rainfall and butterfly numbers. J Appl Ecol 25:819–828CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pollard E (1991) Synchrony of population fluctuations: the dominant influence of widespread factors on local butterfly populations. Oikos 60:7–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pollard E, Yates TJ (1993) Monitoring butterflies for ecology and conservation: the British butterfly monitoring scheme. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  37. Pradel R, Hines JE, Lebreton JD, Nichols JD (1997) Capture-recapture survival models taking account of transients. Biometrics 53:60–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ricketts TH (2001) The matrix matters: effective isolation in fragmented landscapes. Am Nat 158(1):87–99PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ries L, Mullen SP (2008) A rare model limits the distribution of its more common mimic: a twist on frequency dependent Batesian mimicry. Evolution 62(7):1798–1803PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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
  41. Rothery P, Roy D (2001) Application of generalized additive models to butterfly transect count data. J Appl Stat 28:891–909CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Royle JA, Nichols JD, Kery M (2005) Modelling occurrence and abundance of species when detection is imperfect. Oikos 110:353–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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
  44. Singer MC, Wedlake P (1981) Capture does affect probability of recapture in a butterfly species. Ecol Entomol 6(2):215–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Swengel AB (1990) Monitoring butterfly populations using the Fourth of July Butterfly Count. Am Midl Nat 124:395–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Swengel AB (1995) Population fluctuations of the monarch (Danaus plexippus) in the 4th of July Butterfly Count 1977–1994. Am Midl Nat 134:205–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Taron DJ (1996) Insects. In: Packard S, Mutel C (eds) The Tallgrass restoration handbook. Island Press, Washington, pp 305–318Google Scholar
  48. Thomas JA (1983) A quick method for estimating butterfly numbers during surveys. Biol Conserv 27:195–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Thomas L, Buckland ST, Rexstad EA, Laake JL, Strindberg S, Hedley SL, Bishop JLB, Marques TA, Burnham KP (2010) Distance software: design and analysis of distance sampling surveys for estimating population size. J Appl Ecol 47(1):5–14PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Vandenbosch R (2003) Fluctuations of Vanessa cardui butterfly abundance with El Niño and Pacific Decadal Oscillation climatic variables. Glob Chang Biol 9:785–790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. van Swaay CA, Nowicki P, Settele J, van Strien AJ (2008) Butterfly monitoring in Europe: methods, applications and perspectives. Biodivers Conserv 17(14):3455–3469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. WallisDeVries MF (2004) A quantitative conservation approach for the endangered butterfly Maculinea alcon. Conserv Biol 18(2):489–499Google Scholar
  53. Zonneveld C (1991) Estimating death rates from transect counts. Ecol Entomol 16:115–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Chicago Academy of SciencesPeggy Notebaert Nature MuseumChicagoUSA
  2. 2.Department of BiologyUniversity of Maryland, College Park, Maryland and the National Socio-Environmental Synthesis CenterAnnapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations