Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Timed surveys and transect walks as comparable methods for monitoring butterflies in small plots

  • ORIGINAL PAPER
  • Published:
Journal of Insect Conservation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Butterflies are widely used in biodiversity surveys, and several methods of relative abundance counts have been developed. The most frequently used linear transects are praised for a good replicability, but recently have been criticised for poor species detecting ability, especially for poorly visible or extremely sedentary species. As an alternative, timed surveys, based on zigzagging study sites and flexibly checking transient butterfly resources, have been proposed by some authors. We tested the utility of the two methods while studying the effect of restoration practices on butterfly assemblages in limestone quarries in the Czech Republic. Numbers of species and individuals detected per 10 min transect walk were compared with numbers of species and individuals detected during 10 min timed survey. Mobile and imperceptible species were compared in separate analyses as a measure of detection efficiency. More species and individuals per visit were recorded by timed surveys. No difference in detectability of mobile and imperceptible species between both methods used was observed. Whereas linear transects will probably remain the method of choice for long-term monitoring programs employing armies of recorders, timed surveys appear more appropriate for studies in which it is important to obtain the most comprehensive check-list of species occurring at study sites, which is often the case in conservation inventories in species rich regions with limited number of experienced researchers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bates D, Maechler M (2010). lme4: linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package version 0.999375-35

  • Benes J, Kepka P, Konvicka M (2003) Limestone quarries as refuges for European xerophilous butterflies. Conserv Biol 17:1058–1069

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benes J, Cizek O, Dovala J, Konvicka M (2006) Intensive game keeping, coppicing and butterflies: the story of Milovicky wood, Czech Republic. For Ecol Manag 237:353–365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergman M, Wiklund C (2009) Visual mate detection and mate flight pursuit in relation to sunspot size in a woodland territorial butterfly. Anim Behav 78:17–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bink FA (1992) Ecologische atlas van de Dagvlinders van Noordwest-Europa. Schuzt, Haarlem

    Google Scholar 

  • Bock CE, Bailowitz RA, Danforth DW, Jones ZF, Bock JH (2007) Butterflies and exurban development in southeastern Arizona. Landsc Urban Plann 80:34–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collier N, Mackay DA, Benkendorff K, Austin AD, Carthew SM (2006) Butterfly communities in South Australian urban reserves: estimating abundance and diversity using the Pollard walk. Aust Ecol 31:282–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cowley MJR, Thomas CD, Roy DB, Wilson RJ, Leon-Cortes JL, Gutierrez D, Bulman CR, Quinn RM, Moss D, Gaston KJ (2001) Density-distribution relationships in British butterflies. I. The effect of mobility and spatial scale. J Anim Ecol 70:410–425

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dennis RLH, Sparks TH, Hardy PB (1999) Bias in butterfly distribution maps: the effects of sampling effort. J Insect Conserv 3:33–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dennis RLH, Shreeve TG, Van Dyck H (2003) Towards a functional resource-based concept for habitat: a butterfly biology viewpoint. Oikos 102:417–426

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 128:486–492

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dennis RLH, Hardy PB, Shreeve TG (2008) The importance of resource databanks for conserving insects: a butterfly biology perspective. J Insect Conserv 12:711–719

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 12:125–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huntzinger M (2003) Effects of fire management practices on butterfly diversity in the forested western United States. Biol Conserv 113:1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 85:1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kéry M, Plattner M (2007) Species richness estimation and determinants of species detectability in butterfly monitoring programmes. Ecol Entomol 32:53–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Konvicka M, Kadlec T (2011) How to increase the value of urban areas for butterfly conservation? Eur J Entomol 108:219–229

    Google Scholar 

  • Lastuvka Z (1998) Checklist of Lepidoptera of Czech and Slovak Republics. Konvoj, Brno

  • Marttila O, Saarinen K, Jantunen J (1999) The national butterfly recording scheme in Finland: first seven-year period 1991–1997. Nota Lepidopterol 22:17–34

    Google Scholar 

  • Pellet J (2008) Seasonal variation in detectability of butterflies surveyed with Pollard walks. J Insect Conserv 12:155–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollard E (1977) A method for assessing changes in the abundance of butterflies. Biol Conserv 12:115–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollard E (1982) Monitoring butterfly abundance in relation to the management of a nature reserve. Biol Conserv 24:317–328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollard E, Yates TJ (1993) Monitoring butterflies for ecology and conservation. The British butterfly monitoring scheme. Institute of Terrestrial ecology and joint nature conservation committee. Chapman and Hall, London

  • R Development Core Team (2009) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria

  • Roy DB, Sparks TH (2000) Phenology of British butterflies and climate change. Glob Change Biol 6:407–416

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Royer AR, Austin JE, Newton WE (1998) Checklist and “Pollard walk” butterfly survey methods on public lands. Am Midl Nat 140:358–371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samways MJ (1994) Insect conservation biology. Chapman and Hall, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt T (2003) Influence of forest and grassland management on the diversity and conservation of butterflies and burnet moths (Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea, Hesperiidae, Zygaenidae). Anim Biodivers Conserv 26:51–67

    Google Scholar 

  • Skorka P, Settele J, Woyciechowski M (2007) Effects of management cessation on grassland butterflies in southern Poland. Agric Ecosyst Environ 121:319–324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spitzer L, Benes J, Dandova J, Jaskova V, Konvicka M (2009) The large blue butterfly, Phengaris [Maculinea] arion, as a conservation umbrella on a landscape scale: the case of the Czech Carpathians. Ecol Indic 9:1053–1056

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stefanescu C, Penuelas J, Filella I (2009) Rapid changes in butterfly communities following the abandonment of grasslands: a case study. Insect Conserv Diver 2:261–269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steffan-Dewenter I, Tscharntke T (2000) Butterfly community structure in fragmented habitats. Ecol Lett 3:449–456

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ter Braak CJF, Smilauer P (2002) CANOCO reference manual and CanoDraw for Windows user’s guide: Software for canonical community ordination (version 4.5). Microcomputer Power, Ithaca

  • Thomas JA (2005) Monitoring change in the abundance and distribution of insects using butterflies and other indicator groups. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 360:339–357

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas JA, Telfer MG, Roy DB, Preston CD, Greenwood JJD, Asher J, Fox R, Clarke RT, Lawton JH (2004) Comparative losses of British butterflies, birds, and plants and the global extinction crisis. Science 303:1879–1881

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tropek R, Konvicka M (2010) Forest Eternal? Endemic butterflies of the Bamenda Highlands, Cameroon, avoid close-canopy forest. Afr J Ecol 48:428–437

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tropek R, Kadlec T, Karesova P, Spitzer L, Kocarek P, Malenovsky I, Banar P, Tuf IH, Hejda M, Konvicka M (2010) Spontaneous succession in limestone quarries as an effective restoration tool for endangered arthropods and plants. J Appl Ecol 47:139–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Swaay CAM, Nowicki P, Settele J, Van Strien AJ (2008) Butterfly monitoring in Europe: methods, applications and perspectives. Biodivers Conserv 17:3455–3469

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wahlberg N, Klemetti T, Selonen V, Hanski I (2002) Metapopulation structure and movements in five species of checkerspot butterflies. Oecologia 130:33–43

    Google Scholar 

  • Wenzel M, Schmitt T, Weitzel M, Seitz A (2006) The severe decline of butterflies on western German calcareous grasslands during the last 30 years: a conservation problem. Biol Conserv 128:542–552

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams MR (2008) Assessing diversity of diurnal Lepidoptera in habitat fragments: testing the efficiency of strip transects. Environ Entom 37:1313–1322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zonneveld C, Longcore T, Mulder C (2003) Optimal schemes to detect the presence of insect species. Conserv Biol 17:476–487

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

J. Benes contributed by many constructive suggestions and fruitful discussions, Fric and M. Trnik helped us in the field, and S. Polakova and P. Smilauer consulted the statistics. We acknowledge funding from the University of South Bohemia (SGA2008/005), the Czech Science Foundation (206/08/H044, 206/08/H049, P505/10/2167), and the Czech Department of Education (MSM 6007665801, LC06073).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Science, Charles University, Vinicna 7, 128 43, Prague, Czech Republic

    Tomas Kadlec

  2. Institute of Entomology, Biology Centre, Czech Academy of Sciences, Branisovska 31, 370 05, Ceske Budejovice, Czech Republic

    Tomas Kadlec, Robert Tropek & Martin Konvicka

  3. Faculty of Science, University of South Bohemia, Branisovska 31, 370 05, Ceske Budejovice, Czech Republic

    Robert Tropek & Martin Konvicka

  4. Faculty of Environmental Sciences, Czech University of Life Sciences, Kamycka 129, 165 21, Prague, Czech Republic

    Tomas Kadlec

Authors
  1. Tomas Kadlec
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Robert Tropek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Martin Konvicka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert Tropek.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

10841_2011_9414_MOESM1_ESM.pdf

List of all detected species, their abbreviations as used in Fig. 1, and affiliation to imperceptible and mobile species guilds. (PDF 8 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kadlec, T., Tropek, R. & Konvicka, M. Timed surveys and transect walks as comparable methods for monitoring butterflies in small plots. J Insect Conserv 16, 275–280 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-011-9414-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-011-9414-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation