Advertisement

Urban Ecosystems

, Volume 22, Issue 6, pp 1083–1096 | Cite as

Characterizing urban butterfly populations: the case for purposive point-count surveys

  • Bret J. Lang
  • Philip M. Dixon
  • Robert W. Klaver
  • Jan R. ThompsonEmail author
  • Mark P. Widrlechner
Article

Abstract

Developing effective butterfly monitoring strategies is key to understanding how butterflies interact with urban environments, and, in turn, to developing local conservation practices. We investigated two urban habitat types (public gardens and restored/reconstructed prairies) and compared three survey methods (Pollard transects, purposive point counts, and random point counts) to determine which was most productive for detecting butterflies and assessing family diversity. We conducted 66 butterfly surveys by using each method (198 total) from May through September in 2015 and 2016 at six sites (three public gardens and three prairies) in Ames, Ankeny and Des Moines, Iowa. All survey methods were used on 11 sampling dates at each site. Overall, we observed 2,227 butterflies representing 38 species: 1,076 in public gardens and 1,151 in prairie areas. We used a smaller data set standardized for survey effort, including 1,361 of these sightings, to compare survey methods and habitat types. Although there were no significant differences in number of butterfly sightings between the two habitats, more sightings (798) were documented by using purposive point counts when compared to Pollard transects (297) or random point counts (266) (for both comparisons, p < 0.0001). Occupancy modeling also indicated that purposive point counts were most effective in detecting certain species of butterflies, most notably those within the Pieridae (whites, sulphurs) and Papilionidae (swallowtails). We conclude that public gardens and restored/reconstructed prairies in urban settings can provide important butterfly habitat, and that purposive point-count surveys are most effective for detecting butterflies in these relatively small-scale landscape features.

Keywords

Urban butterfly habitat Public gardens Restored urban prairies Butterfly survey methods Pollard transects Occupancy modeling for butterflies 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Support for this study was provided by Reiman Gardens, the Department of Natural Resource Ecology and Management at Iowa State University, the Iowa Department of Natural Resources, and McIntire-Stennis funds. We thank personnel in the Park and Recreation Departments of the Cities of Ames and Des Moines, and at the Greater Des Moines Botanical Gardens, the Iowa Association of Municipal Utilities, the Nature Conservancy, and Reiman Gardens for allowing access to sites to conduct butterfly surveys. We also thank Julia Schwager, Sarah Rueger, Camille Karnatz, and Stephen Potter for field and laboratory assistance. We appreciate statistical advice from Tyler Harms and additional advice and information provided by Nathan Brockman, Aaron Steil, Kelly Norris, Jim Durbin and Dave Hraha. Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the United States Government.

Supplementary material

11252_2019_880_MOESM1_ESM.docx (25 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 25 kb)

References

  1. Akaike H (1974) A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Trans Auto Control 19:716–723Google Scholar
  2. Alcock J (1994) Alternative mate-locating tactics in Chlosyne californica (Lepidoptera, Nymphalidae). Ethology 97:103–118Google Scholar
  3. Battin J (2004) When good animals love bad habitats: ecological traps and the conservation of animal populations. Conserv Biol 18:1482–1491Google Scholar
  4. Bitzer RJ, Shaw KC (1979) Territorial behavior of the red admiral, Vanessa atalanta (L.) (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). J Res Lepid 18:36–49Google Scholar
  5. Blair RB (1999) Birds and butterflies along an urban gradient: surrogate taxa for assessing biodiversity? Ecol Appl 9:164–170Google Scholar
  6. Bolund P, Hunhammar S (1999) Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecol Econ 29:293–301Google Scholar
  7. Botham MS, Fernandez-Ploquin EC, Brereton T, Harrower CA, Roy DB, Heard MS (2015) Lepidoptera communities across an agricultural gradient: how important are habitat area and habitat diversity in supporting high diversity? J Insect Conserv 19:403–420Google Scholar
  8. Brown JA, Boyce MS (1998) Line transect sampling of Karner blue butterflies (Lycaeides melissa samuelis). Environ Ecol Stat 5:81–91Google Scholar
  9. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach, 2nd edn. Springer-Verlag, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Cameron SA, Lozier JD, Strange JP, Koch JB, Cordes N, Solter LF, Griswold TL (2011) Patterns of widespread decline in north American bumblebees. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108:662–667PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Carneiro E, Mielke OHH, Casagrande MM, Fiedler K (2014) Skipper richness (Hesperiidae) along elevational gradients in Brazilian Atlantic forest. Neotrop Ent 43:27–38Google Scholar
  12. Clark PJ, Reed JM, Chew FS (2007) Effects of urbanization on butterfly species richness, guild structure, and rarity. Urban Ecosyst 10:321–337Google Scholar
  13. Collier N, Mackay DA, Benkendorff K, Austin AD, Carhew SM (2006) Butterfly communities in south Australian urban reserves: estimating abundance and diversity using the Pollard walk. Austral Ecol 31:282–290Google Scholar
  14. Collinge SK, Prudic KL, Oltver AC (2003) Effects of local habitat characteristics and landscape context on grassland butterfly diversity. Conserv Biol 17:178–187Google Scholar
  15. Concepción ED, Moretti M, Altermatt F, Nobis MP, Obrist MK (2015) Impacts of urbanisation on biodiversity: the role of species mobility, degree of specialisation and spatial scale. Oikos 124:1571–1582Google Scholar
  16. Concepción ED, Obrist MK, Moretti M, Altermatt F, Baur B, Nobis MP (2016) Impacts of urban sprawl on species richness of plants, butterflies, gastropods and birds: not only built-up area matters. Urban Ecosyst 19:225–242Google Scholar
  17. Debinski DM, Kelly L (1998) Decline of Iowa populations of the regal fritillary (Speyeria idalia). J Iowa Acad Sci 105:16–22Google Scholar
  18. Delaney JT, Jokela K, Debinski DM (2015) Seasonal succession of pollinator floral resources in four grassland types in the tallgrass prairie ecoregion. Ecosphere 6(11):1–14Google Scholar
  19. Dennis EB, Morgan BJT, Roy DB, Brereton TM (2017) Urban indicators for UK butterflies. Ecol Indic 76:184–193Google Scholar
  20. Di Mauro D, Dietz T, Rockwood L (2007) Determining the effect of urbanization on generalist butterfly species diversity in butterfly gardens. Urban Ecosyst 10:427–439Google Scholar
  21. Dirzo R, Young HS, Galetti M, Ceballos G, Isaac NJ, Collen B (2014) Defaunation in the anthropocene. Science 345:401–406Google Scholar
  22. ESRI (2015) ArcGIS desktop: release 10.1 Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands, CAGoogle Scholar
  23. ESRI (2016) ArcGIS desktop: release 10.2 Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands, CAGoogle Scholar
  24. Gallant AG, Sadinski W, Roth MF, Rewa CA (2011) Changes in historical Iowa land cover as context for assessing the environmental benefits of current and future conservation efforts on agricultural land. J Soil Water Cons 66(3):67–77Google Scholar
  25. Giuliano W, Accamando A, McAdams E (2004) Lepidoptera-habitat relationships in urban parks. Urban Ecosyst 7:361–370Google Scholar
  26. Hardy PB, Dennis RL (1999) The impact of urban development on butterflies within a city region. Biodivers Conserv 8:1261–1279Google Scholar
  27. Hartzler RG (2010) Reduction in common milkweed (Asclepias syriaca) occurrence in Iowa cropland from 1999 to 2009. Crop Prot 29:1542–1544Google Scholar
  28. Hartzler RG, Buhler DD (2000) Occurrence of common milkweed (Asclepias syriaca) in cropland and adjacent areas. Crop Prot 19:363–366Google Scholar
  29. Henry EH, Haddad NM, Wilson J, Hughes P, Gardner B (2015) Point-count methods to monitor butterfly populations when traditional methods fail: a case study with Miami blue butterfly. J Insect Conserv 19:519–529Google Scholar
  30. Houseal G, Smith D (2000) Source-identified seed: the Iowa roadside experience. Ecol Rest 18:173–183Google Scholar
  31. Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) (2006) Butterfly monitoring protocol. In: Iowa multiple species inventory and monitoring program technical manual, pp 65–70Google Scholar
  32. Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) (2007) Securing a future for fish and wildlife: The Iowa wildlife action plan. Available at IDNR, www.iowadnr.gov/Environment/WildlifeStewardship/IowaWildlifeActionPlan (Accessed 28 October 2014)
  33. Iowa State University (ISU) Extension (2016) Crops and land use: statewide data. Available at ISU Extension, https://www.extension.iastate.edu/soils/crop-and-land-use-statewide-data (Accessed 11 July 2017)
  34. Isaac NJB, Cruickshanks KL, Weddle AM, Marcus Rowcliffe J, Brereton TM, Dennis RLH, Shuker DM, Thomas CD (2011) Distance sampling and the challenge of monitoring butterfly populations. Methods Ecol Evol 2:585–594Google Scholar
  35. Kadlec T, Benes J, Jarosik V, Konvicka M (2008) Revisiting urban refuges: changes of butterfly and burnet fauna in Prague reserves over three decades. Landsc Urban Plann 85:1–11Google Scholar
  36. Kéry M, Plattner M (2007) Species richness estimation and determinants of species detectability in butterfly monitoring programmes. Ecol Entomol 32:53–61Google Scholar
  37. Kral K, Harmon J, Limb R, Hovick T (2018) Improving our science: the evolution of butterfly sampling and surveying methods over time. J Insect Conserv 22:1–14Google Scholar
  38. Laake, JL (2013) RMark: An R interface for analysis of capture-recapture data with MARK. AFSC Proc Rep 2013–01, 25 p. Alaska Fish. Sci. Cent., NOAA, Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv., Seattle, WAGoogle Scholar
  39. MacKenzie DI, Nichols JD, Lachman GB, Droege S, Royle JA, Langtimm CA (2002) Estimating site occupancy rates when detection probabilities are less than one. Ecology 83:2248–2255Google Scholar
  40. Maes D, Van Dyck H (2001) Butterfly diversity loss in Flanders (North Belgium): Europe’s worst case scenario? Biol Conserv 99:263–276Google Scholar
  41. Matteson KC, Langellotto G (2010) Determinants of inner city butterfly and bee species richness. Urban Ecosyst 13:333–347Google Scholar
  42. Matteson KC, Grace JB, Minor ES (2013) Direct and indirect effects of land use on floral resources and flower-visiting insects across an urban landscape. Oikos 122:682–694Google Scholar
  43. McKinney M (2008) Effects of urbanization on species richness: a review of plants and animals. Urban Ecosyst 11:1573–1642Google Scholar
  44. Menninger HL, Palmer MA (2006) Restoring ecological communities: from theory to practice. In: Falk DA, Palmer MA, Zedler JB (eds) Foundations of restoration ecology. Island Press, Washington, D.C., pp 88–112Google Scholar
  45. Moranz RA, Debinski DM, McGranahan DA, Engle DM, Miller JR (2012) Untangling the effects of fire, grazing, and land-use legacies on grassland butterfly communities. Biodivers Conserv 21:2719–2746Google Scholar
  46. Myers MC, Hoksch BJ, Mason JT (2012) Butterfly response to floral resources during early establishment at a heterogeneous prairie biomass production site in Iowa, USA. J Insect Conserv 16:457–472Google Scholar
  47. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (2017) National Centers for Environmental Information – U.S. Agricultural Belts. Accessed at: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/maps/us-ag-belts.php, 11/20/2017
  48. Öckinger E, Dannestam Å, Smith HG (2009) The importance of fragmentation and habitat quality of urban grasslands for butterfly diversity. Landsc Urban Plann 93:31–37Google Scholar
  49. Panzer R, Gnaedinger K, Derkovitz G (2010) The prevalence and status of conservative prairie and sand savanna insects in the Chicago wilderness region. Nat Areas J 1:73–81Google Scholar
  50. Pellet J (2008) Seasonal variation in detectability of butterflies surveyed with Pollard walks. J Insect Conserv 12:155–162Google Scholar
  51. Pleasants JM, Zalucki MP, Oberhauser KS, Brower LP, Taylor OR, Thogmartin WE (2017) Interpreting surveys to estimate the size of the monarch butterfly population: pitfalls and prospects. PLoS ONE 12(7): e0181245Pollard E (1977) a method for assessing changes in the abundance of butterflies. Biol Conserv 12:115–134Google Scholar
  52. Pollard E, Yates T (1994) Monitoring butterflies for ecology and conservation: the British monitoring scheme. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  53. Posa MRC, Sodhi NS (2006) Effects of anthropogenic land use on forest birds and butterflies in Subic Bay, Philippines. Biol Conserv 129:256–270Google Scholar
  54. R Core Team (2013) R (Version 3.0.2): A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  55. Reeder KF, Debinski DM, Danielson BJ (2005) Factors affecting butterfly use of filter strips in Midwestern USA. Agric Ecosyst Environ 109:40–47Google Scholar
  56. Ries LD, Debinski DM, Wieland M (2001) Conservation value of roadside prairie restoration to butterfly communities. Conserv Biol 15:401–411Google Scholar
  57. Robertson BA, Hutto RL (2006) A framework for understanding ecological traps and an evaluation of existing evidence. Ecology 87:1075–1085PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Royer RA, Austin JE, Newton WE (1998) Checklist and “Pollard walk” butterfly survey methods on public lands. Am Midl Nat 140:358–371Google Scholar
  59. SAS (2017) JMP 12.0.1. SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NCGoogle Scholar
  60. Schlicht DW, Downey JC, Nekola JC (2007) The butterflies of Iowa. University of Iowa Press, Iowa CityGoogle Scholar
  61. Scott JA (1973) Convergence of population biology and adult behaviour in two sympatric butterflies, Neominois ridingsii (Papilionoidea: Nymphalidae) and Amblyscirtes simius (Hesperioidea: Hesperiidae). J Anim Ecol 42:663–672Google Scholar
  62. Shepherd S, Debinski DM (2005) Evaluation of isolated and integrated prairie reconstructions as habitat for prairie butterflies. Biol Conserv 126:51–61Google Scholar
  63. Shuey J, Szymanski J (2012) Modified Pollard transects do not predict estimated daily population size for the secretive butterfly, Neonympha mitchellii mitchellii French. J Lepid Soc 66:221–224Google Scholar
  64. Stefanescu C, Herrando S, Páramo F (2004) Butterfly species richness in the north-West Mediterranean Basin: the role of natural and human-induced factors. J Biogeogr 31:905–915Google Scholar
  65. Stigler SM (1982) Poisson on the Poisson distribution. Stat Prob Letters 1:33–35Google Scholar
  66. Swengel SR, Schlicht D, Olsen F, Swengel AB (2011) Declines of prairie butterflies in the midwestern USA. J Insect Conserv 15:327–339Google Scholar
  67. Van Dyck H, Van Strien AJ, Maes D, Van Swaay CAM (2009) Declines in common, widespread butterflies in a landscape under intense human use. Conserv Biol 23:957–965PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Van Swaay CAM, Brereton T, Kirkland P, Warren MS (2012) Manual for butterfly monitoring. Report VS2012.010. De Vlinderstichting/Dutch butterfly conservation, butterfly conservation UK and butterfly conservation Europe, Wageningen, the NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  69. Vogel JA, Koford RR, Debinski DM (2010) Direct and indirect responses of tallgrass prairie butterflies to prescribed burning. J Insect Conserv 14:663–677Google Scholar
  70. Wagenmakers EJ, Farrell S (2004) AIC model selection using Akaike weights. Psychon Bull Rev 11:192–196PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Warren MS, Hill JK, Thomas JA, Asher J, Fox R, Huntley B, Thomas CD (2001) Rapid responses of British butterflies to opposing forces of climate and habitat change. Nature 414:65–69PubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. Yahner RH (2001) Butterfly communities in residential landscapes of Central Pennsylvania. Northeast Nat 8:113–118Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Natural Resource Ecology and ManagementIowa State UniversityIowaUSA
  2. 2.Department of StatisticsIowa State UniversityIowaUSA
  3. 3.U.S. Geological SurveyIowa Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research UnitIowaUSA
  4. 4.Department of Horticulture and Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Organismal BiologyIowa State UniversityIowaUSA

Personalised recommendations