Butterfly Monitoring Methods: The ideal and the Real World

References

• Amstrup, S. C., McDonald, T. R., Manly, B. F. J., eds. 2005. Handbook of capture-recapture analysis. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
   Google Scholar
• Arnason, A. N., Schwarz, C. J. 1999. Using POPAN-5 to analyse banding data. Bird Study 46 (Suppl.): 157-168.
   Google Scholar
• Baguette, M. 2004. The classical metapopulation theory and the real, natural world: a critical appraisal. Basic and Applied Ecology 5: 213-224.
   Google Scholar
• Balmford, A., Bennun, L., Ten Brink, B., Cooper, D., Côté, I. M., Crane, P., Dobson, A. P., Dudley, N., Dutton, I., Green, R. E., Gregory, R. D., Harrison, J., Kennedy, E. T., Kremen, C., Leader Williams, N., Lovejoy, T. E., Mace, G., May, R. M., Mayaux, P., Morling, P., Phillips, J., Redford, K., Ricketts, T. H., Rodriguez, J. P., Sanjayan, M. A., Schei, P. J., Van Jaarsveld, A. S., Walther, B. A. 2005a. The convention on biological diversity's 2010 target. Science 307: 212-213.
   Google Scholar
• Balmford, A., Crane, P., Dobson, A. P., Green, R. E., Mace, G. 2005b. The 2010 challenge: data availability, information needs and extraterrestrial insights. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B-Biological Sciences 360: 221-228.
   Google Scholar
• Blair, R. B. 1999. Birds and butterflies along an urban gradient: surrogate taxa for assessing biodiversity? Ecological Applications 9: 164-170.
   Google Scholar
• Blair, R. B., Launer, A. E. 1997. Butterfly diversity and human land use: species assemblages along an urban gradient. Biological Conservation 80: 113-125.
   Google Scholar
• Bookhout, T., ed. 1994. Research and managements techniques for wildlife and habitats. The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
   Google Scholar
• Brakefield, P. M. 1982. Ecological studies on the butterfly Maniola jurtina in Britain. II. Population dynamics: the present position. Journal of Animal Ecology 51: 727-738.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, J. A., Boyce, M. S. 1998. Line transect sampling of Karner blue butterflies (Lycaeides melissa samuelis). Environmental and Ecological Statistics 5: 81-91.
   Google Scholar
• Brussard, P. F. 1970. Field techniques for investigations of population structure in a "ubiquitous" butterfly. Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society 25: 22-29.
   Google Scholar
• Burnham, K. P., Anderson, D. R., Laake, J. L. 1980. Estimation of density from line transect sampling of biological populations. Wildlife Monographs 72: 1-202.
   Google Scholar
• Casula, P., Nichols, J. D. 2003. Temporal variability of local abundance, sex ratio and activity in the Sardinian chalk hill blue butterfly. Oecologia 136: 374-382.
   Google Scholar
• Caughley, G., Grice, D. 1982. A correction factor for counting emus from the air and its application to counts in Western Australia. Australian Wildlife Research 9: 253-259.
   Google Scholar
• Cochran, G. A. 1977. Sampling techniques. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
   Google Scholar
• Collier, N., Mackay, D. A., Benkendorff, K., Austin, A. D., Carthew, S. M. 2006. Butterfly communities in South Australian urban reserves: estimating abundance and diversity using the Pollard walk. Austral Ecology 31: 282-290.
   Google Scholar
• Courtney, S. P., Duggan, A. E. 1983. The population biology of the orange-tip butterfly Anthocharis cardamines in Britain. Ecological Entomology 8: 271-281.
   Google Scholar
• Crone, E. E., Schultz, C. B. 2003. Minimum patch size for population persistence in an endangered Oregon butterfly. In: Boggs, C., Watt, W., Ehrlich, P., eds. Ecology and evolution taking flight: butterflies as model study systems. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 561-576.
   Google Scholar
• de Heer, M., Kapos, V., ten Brink, B. J. E. 2005. Biodiversity trends in Europe: development and testing of a species trend indicator for evaluating progress towards the 2010 target. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences 360: 297-308.
   Google Scholar
• Dobson, A. 2005. Monitoring global rates of biodiversity change: challenges that arise in meeting the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) 2010 goals. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences 360: 229-241.
   Google Scholar
• Dorazio, R. M., Royle, J. A., Soderstrom, B., Glimskar, A. 2006. Estimating species richness and accumulation by modeling species occurrence and detectability. Ecology 87: 842-854.
   Google Scholar
• Duffey, E. 1968. Ecological studies on the large copper Lycaena dispar (Haw.) batavus (Obth.) at Woodwalton Fen National Nature Reserve, Huntingdonshire. Journal of Applied Ecology 5: 69-96.
   Google Scholar
• Ehrlich, P. R., Davidson, S. E. 1960. Techniques for capture-recapture studies of Lepidoptera populations. Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society 14: 227-229.
   Google Scholar
• Ellis, R., Waterton, C. 2004. Volunteers and citizenship: environmental citizenship in the making: the participation of volunteer naturalists in UK biological recording and biodiversity policy. Science and Public Policy 3: 95-105.
   Google Scholar
• Elmes, G. W., Clarke, R. T., Thomas, J. A., Hochberg, M. E. 1996. Empirical tests of specific predictions made from a spatial model of the population dynamics of Maculinea rebeli, a parasitic butterfly of red ant colonies. Acta Oecologica 17: 61-80.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. 2001. A sustainable Europe for a better world: a European Union strategy for sustainable development. COM(2001)264 final, Brussels. See http://www.europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/com/cnc/2001/com2001_0264en01.pdf
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. 2005. Assessment, monitoring and reporting of conservation status—Preparing the 2001-2007 report under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive. DG Env. B2/AR D rev3, Brussels. See http://forum.europa.eu.int/Public/irc/env/monnat/library?l=/reporting_framework
   Google Scholar
• Gall, L. F. 1984. The effect of capturing and marking on subsequent activity in Boloria acrocnema (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae), with a comparison of different numerical models that estimate population size. Biological Conservation 28: 139-154.
   Google Scholar
• Gall, L. F. 1985. Measuring the size of Lepidopteran populations. Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera 24: 97-116.
   Google Scholar
• Greenwood, J. J. D. 1996. Basic techniques. In: Sutherland, W. J., ed. Ecological census techniques: a handbook. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 11-110.
   Google Scholar
• Gross, K., Kalendra, E. J., Hudgens, B. R., Haddad, N. M. 2007. Robustness and uncertainty in estimates of butterfly abundance from transect counts. Population Ecology 49: 191-200.
   Google Scholar
• Hellmann, J. J., Weiss, S. B., McLaughlin, J. F., Boggs, C. L., Ehrlich, P. R., Launer, A. E., Murphy, D. D. 2003. Do hypotheses from short-term studies hold in the long-term? An empirical test. Ecological Entomology 28: 74-84.
   Google Scholar
• Hovestadt, T., Nowicki, P. 2008. Investigating movement within irregularly shaped patches: analysis of mark-release-recapture data using novel randomization procedures. Israel Journal of Ecology and Evolution 54: 137-154, this issue.
   Google Scholar
• Hughes, J. B., Daily, G. C., Ehrlich, P. R. 1998. Use of fruit bait traps for monitoring of butterflies (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Revista de Biologia Tropical 46: 697-704.
   Google Scholar
• Jolly, G. M. 1965. Explicit estimates from capture-recapture data with both death and immigration-stochastic model. Biometrika 52: 225-247.
   Google Scholar
• Kemp, D. J., Zalucki, M. P. 1999. Method of handling affects postcapture encounter probabilities in Hypolimnas bolina (L.) (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society 53: 138-141.
   Google Scholar
• Kendall, W. L. 1999. Robustness of closed capture-recapture methods to violations of the closure assumption. Ecology 80: 2517-2525.
   Google Scholar
• Kendall, W. L., Pollock, K. H. 1992. The robust design in capture-recapture studies: a review and evaluation by Monte Carlo simulation. In: McCullough, D. R., Barret, R. H., eds. Wildlife 2001: populations. Elsevier, New York, pp. 31-43.
   Google Scholar
• Kery, M., Plattner, M. 2007. Species richness estimation and determinants of species detectability in butterfly monitoring programs. Ecological Entomology 32: 53-61.
   Google Scholar
• Kery, M., Schmid, H. 2004. Monitoring programs need to take into account imperfect species detectability. Basic and Applied Ecology 5: 65-73.
   Google Scholar
• Kocher, S. D., Williams, E. H. 2000. The diversity and abundance of North American butterflies vary with habitat disturbance and geography. Journal of Biogeography 27: 785-794.
   Google Scholar
• Konvicka, M., Cizek, O., Filipova, L., Fric, Z., Benes, J., Krupka, M., Zamecnik, J., Dockalova, Z. 2005. For whom the bells toll: demography of the last population of the butterfly Euphydryas maturna in the Czech Republic. Biologia 60: 551-557.
   Google Scholar
• Longcore, T., Mattoni, R., Zonneveld, C., Bruggeman, J. 2003. INsect Count Analyzer: a tool to assess responses of butterflies to habitat restoration. Ecological Restoration 21: 60-61.
   Google Scholar
• MacKenzie, D. I., Nichols, J. D., Lachman, G. B., Droege, S., Royle, J. A., Langtimm, C. A. 2002. Estimating site occupancy rates when detection probabilities are less than one. Ecology 83: 2248-2255.
   Google Scholar
• Maes, D., Vanreusel, W., Talloen, W., Van Dyck, H. 2004. Functional conservation units for the endangered Alcon Blue butterfly Maculinea alcon in Belgium (Lepidoptera:Lycaenidae). Biological Conservation 120: 229-241.
   Google Scholar
• Mallet, J. L. B., Longino, J. T., Murawski, D., Murawski, A., DeGamboa, A. S. 1987. Handling effects in Heliconius: where do all the butterflies go? Journal of Animal Ecology 56: 377-386.
   Google Scholar
• Mattoni, R., Longcore, T., Zonneveld, C., Novotny, V. 2001. Analysis of transect counts to monitor population size in endangered insects. The case of the El Segundo Blue Butterfly, Euphilotes Bernardino Allyni.Journal of Insect Conservation 5: 197-206.
   Google Scholar
• Moilanen, A. 2002. Implications of empirical data quality to metapopulation model parameter estimation and application. Oikos 96: 516-530.
   Google Scholar
• New, T. R. 1991. Butterfly conservation. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
   Google Scholar
• Newman, C., Buesching, C. D., Macdonald, D. W. 2003. Validating mammal monitoring methods and assessing the performance of volunteers in wildlife conservation—"Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodies?" Biological Conservation 113: 189-197.
   Google Scholar
• Nichols, J. D., Williams, B. K. 2006. Monitoring for conservation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 21: 668-673.
   Google Scholar
• Nowicki, P., Bonelli, S., Barbero, F., Balletto, E. 2005a. Population dynamics in the genus Maculinea revisited: comparative study of sympatric M. alcon and M. teleius. In: Settele, J., Kühn, E., Thomas, J. A., eds. Studies on the ecology and conservation of butterflies in Europe. Vol. 2: Species ecology along a European gradient: Maculinea butterflies as a model. Pensoft Publishers, Sofia/Moscow, pp. 136-139.
   Google Scholar
• Nowicki, P., Richter, A., Glinka, U., Holzschuh, A., Toelke, U., Henle, K., Woyciechowski, M., Settele, J. 2005b. Less input same output—simplified approach for population size assessment in Lepidoptera. Population Ecology 47: 203-212.
   Google Scholar
• Nowicki, P., Witek, M., Skórka, P., Settele, J., Woyciechowski, M. 2005c. Population ecology of the endangered butterflies Maculinea teleius and M. nausithous, and its implications for conservation. Population Ecology 47: 193-202.
   Google Scholar
• Otis, D. L., Burnham, K. P., White, D. C., Anderson, D. R. 1978. Statistical inference from capture data on closed animal populations. Wildlife Monographs 62: 1-135.
   Google Scholar
• Thomas, L. 1996. Monitoring long-term population change: why are there so many analysis methods? Ecology 77: 49-58.
   Google Scholar
• Van Strien, A. J., van de Pevert, R., Moss, D., Yates, T. J., van Swaay, C., Vos, P. 1997. The statistical power of two butterfly monitoring schemes to detect trends. Journal of Applied Ecology 34: 817-828.
   Google Scholar
• van Swaay, C., van Strien, A. 2005. Using butterfly monitoring data to develop a European grassland butterfly indicator. In: Kühn, E., Feldmann, R., Thomas, J. A., Settele, J., eds. Studies on the ecology and conservation of butterflies in Europe. Vol. 1. General concepts and case studies. Pensoft Publishers, Sofia/Moscow, pp. 106-108.
   Google Scholar
• van Swaay, C., Warren, M. 1999. Red Data Book of European butterflies (Rhopalocera). Nature and Environment 99. Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg.
   Google Scholar
• van Swaay, C., Warren, M., Lois, G. 2006. Biotope use and trends of European butterflies. Journal of Insect Conservation 10: 189-209.
   Google Scholar
• Warren, M. S. 1987. The ecology and conservation of the heath fritillary butterfly, Mellicta athalia. II. Adult population structure and mobility. Journal of Applied Ecology 24: 483-498.
   Google Scholar
• Warren, M. S. 1992. Butterfly populations. In: Dennis, R. L. H., ed. The ecology of butterflies in Britain. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 73-92.
   Google Scholar
• Webb, M. R., Pullin, A. S. 2000. Egg distribution in the large copper butterfly Lycaena dispar batavus (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae): Host plant versus habitat mediated effects. European Journal of Entomology 97: 363-367.
   Google Scholar
• White, G. C., Burnham, K. P. 1999. Program MARK: Survival estimation from populations of marked animals. Bird Study 46: 120-138.
   Google Scholar
• Williams, B. K., Nichols, J. D., Conroy, M. J. 2002. Analysis and management of animal populations. Academic Press, San Diego, California, USA.
   Google Scholar
• Yoccoz, N. G., Nichols, J. D., Boulinier, T. 2001. Monitoring of biological diversity in space and time. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 16: 446-453.
   Google Scholar
• Zonneveld, C. 1991. Estimating death rates from transect counts. Ecological Entomology 16: 115-121.
   Google Scholar
• Zonneveld, C., Longcore, T., Mulder, C. 2003. Optimal schemes to detect the presence of insect species. Conservation Biology 17: 476-487.
   Google Scholar
• Ovaskainen, O., Hanski, I. 2004. Metapopulation dynamics in highly fragmented landscapes. In: Hanski, I., Gaggiotti, O. E., eds. Ecology, genetics and evolution of metapopulations. Elsevier Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 73-103.
   Google Scholar
• Owen, D. F. 1975. Estimating the abundance and diversity of butterflies. Biological Conservation 8: 173-183.
   Google Scholar
• Pellet, J. 2008. Seasonal variation in detectability of butterflies surveyed with Pollard walks. Journal of Insect Conservation 12: 155-162. DOI 10.1007/s10841-007-9075-8
   Google Scholar
• Pollard, E. 1977. A method for assessing changes in the abundance of butterflies. Biological Conservation 12: 115-134.
   Google Scholar
• Pollard, E. 1988. Temperature, rainfall and butterfly numbers. Journal of Applied Ecology 25: 819-828.
   Google Scholar
• Pollard, E., Yates, T. J. 1993. Monitoring butterflies for ecology and conservation. Chapman and Hall, London.
   Google Scholar
• Pollard, E., Elias, D. O., Skelton, M. J., Thomas, J. A. 1975. A method of assessing the abundance of butterflies in Monks Wood National Nature reserve in 1973. Entomologist's Gazette 26: 79-88.
   Google Scholar
• Pollard, E., Hall, M. L., Bibby, T. J. 1986. Monitoring the abundance of butterflies 1976-1985. Research and Survey in Nature Conservation Series No. 2. Nature Conservancy Council, Peterborough, UK.
   Google Scholar
• Pollock, K. H. 1982. A capture-recapture design robust to unequal probabilities of capture. Journal of Wildlife Management 46: 757-760.
   Google Scholar
• Pollock, K. H., Kendall, W. L. 1987. Visibility bias in aerial surveys. Journal of Wildlife Management 51: 502-510.
   Google Scholar
• Pollock, K. H., Nichols, J. D., Simons, T. R., Farnsworth, G. L., Bailey, L. L., Sauer, J. R. 2002. Large scale wildlife monitoring studies: statistical methods for design and analysis. Environmetrics 13: 105-119.
   Google Scholar
• Roy, D. B., Rothery, P., Moss, D., Pollard, E., Thomas, J. A. 2001. Butterfly numbers and weather: predicting historical trends in abundance and the future effects of climate change. Journal of Animal Ecology 70: 201-217.
   Google Scholar
• Royle, J. A., Nichols, J. D. 2003. Estimating abundance from repeated presence-absence data or point counts. Ecology 84: 777-790.
   Google Scholar
• Schtickzelle, N., Le Boulenge, E., Baguette, M. 2002. Metapopulation dynamics of the bog fritillary butterfly: demographic processes in a patchy population. Oikos 97: 349-360.
   Google Scholar
• Schtickzelle, N., Choutt, J., Goffart, P., Fichefet, V., Baguette, M. 2005. Metapopulation dynamics and conservation of the marsh fritillary butterfly: population viability analysis and management options for a critically endangered species in Western Europe. Biological Conservation 126: 569-581.
   Google Scholar
• Schwarz, C. J., Arnason, A. N. 1996. A general methodology for the analysis of capture-recapture experiments in open populations. Biometrics 52: 860-873.
   Google Scholar
• Schwarz, C. J., Seber, G. A. F. 1999. Estimating animal abundance: Review III. Statistical Science 14: 427-456.
   Google Scholar
• Schwarz, C. J., Stobo, W. T. 1997. Estimating temporary migration using the robust design. Biometrics 53: 178-194.
   Google Scholar
• Schultz, C. B., Crone, E. E. 2001. Edge-mediated dispersal behavior in a prairie butterfly. Ecology 82: 1879-1892.
   Google Scholar
• Schultz, C. B., Dlugosch, K. M. 1999. Nectar and hostplant scarcity limit populations of an endangered Oregon butterfly. Oecologia 119: 231-238.
   Google Scholar
• Seber, G. A. F. 1965. A note on the multiple census. Biometrika 52: 249-259.
   Google Scholar
• Settele, J., Feldmann, R., Henle, K., Kockelke, K., Poethke, H-J. 2000. Methoden der quantitativen Erfassung von Tagfaltern. In: Settele, J., Feldmann, R., Reinhardt, R., eds. Die Tagfalter Deutschlands. Ulmer, Stuttgart, pp. 144-185.
   Google Scholar
• Singer, M. C., Wedlake, P. 1981. Capture does affect probability of recapture in a butterfly species. Ecological Entomology 6: 215-216.
   Google Scholar
• Swengel, A. B. 1998. Comparisons of butterfly richness and abundance measures in prairie and barrens. Biodiversity and Conservation 7: 1639-1659.
   Google Scholar
• Thomas, C. D., Hanski, I. 1997. Butterfly metapopulations. In: Hanski, I., Gilpin, M. E., eds. Metapopulation biology: ecology, genetics, and evolution. Elsevier Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 359-386.
   Google Scholar
• Thomas, C. D., Hanski, I., 2004. Metapopulation dynamics in changing environments: butterfly responses to habitat climate change. In: Hanski, I., Gaggiotti, O. E., eds. Ecology, genetics and evolution of metapopulations. Elsevier Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 489-514.
   Google Scholar
• Thomas, J. A. 1983. A quick method for estimating butterfly numbers during surveys. Biological Conservation 27: 195-211.
   Google Scholar
• Thomas, J. A. 1994. Why small cold-blooded insects pose different conservation problems to birds in modern landscapes. Ibis 137: 112-119.
   Google Scholar
• Thomas, J. A. 2005. Monitoring change in the abundance and distribution of insects using butterflies and other indicator groups. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences 360: 339-357.
   Google Scholar
• Thomas, J. A., Clarke, R. T. 2004. Extinction rates and butterflies—response. Science 305: 1563-1564.
   Google Scholar
• Thomas, J. A., Lewington, R. 1991. The butterflies of Britain and Ireland. Dorling Kindersley, London.
   Google Scholar
• Thomas, J. A., Simcox, D. J. 1982. A quick method for estimating larval populations of Melitaea cinxia L. during surveys. Biological Conservation 22: 315-322.
   Google Scholar
• Thomas, J. A., Telfer, M. G., Roy, D. B., Preston, C. D., Greenwood, J. J. D., Asher, J., Fox, R., Clarke, R. T., Lawton, J. H. 2004. Comparative losses of British butterflies, birds, and plants and the global extinction crisis. Science 303: 1879-1881.
   Google Scholar