Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Seasonal variation in detectability of butterflies surveyed with Pollard walks

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Insect Conservation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Monitoring protocols should be designed to maximize the probability of detecting target species with limited resources. Most species are imperfectly detected, hence, they will often be overlooked at sites where they actually occur, resulting in false-negative errors (i.e. false absences). Uncertain detection of target species has profound implications for conservation, but can be dealt with by using adequate survey designs and statistical models. Butterflies often are monitored with repeated, fixed-route transect counts (Pollard walks). Even though this survey method is widely used in temperate regions, its efficiency in terms of detection probability has never been rigorously assessed in part owing to a lack of suitable analysis methods. Here, I use site-occupancy models to explore the seasonal patterns in detection probability of four California butterflies using Pollard walks. In an effort to inventory the butterfly fauna in two natural areas in the eastern foothills of the Santa Cruz mountains (California), I surveyed twelve 250 m long transects weekly for 22 weeks. I estimated the detection probability (the probability of recording a species during a single transect walk, given it is present) of four species. The probability of detecting each species depended mostly on the monitoring week. Average detection probability across the season was 64% for Cercyonis pegala, 56% for Limenitis lorquini, 76% for Euphydryas chalcedona, and 50% for Lycaena arota. Based on the mean detection probability, I then inferred the number of visits necessary to be statistically confident that a given species was indeed absent from a transect where it was not observed (i.e. obtaining a false absence rate <5%). Knowledge of detection probabilities is fundamental to the optimal design of monitoring programs and the interpretation of their results. The methods applied in this study provide an efficient and evidence-based method to optimally allocate butterfly monitoring resources across space (number of transects) and time (number and timing of visits).

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
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Azuma DL, Baldwin JA, Noon BR (1990) Estimating the occupancy of Spotted Owl habitat areas by sampling and adjusting for bias. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-124

  • Barrows CW, Swartz MB, Hodges WL, Allen MF, Rotenberry JT, Li BL, Scott TA, Chen XW (2005) A framework for monitoring multiple-species conservation plans. J Wildlife Manage 69:1333–1345

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bart J, Schoultz JD (1984) Reliability of singing bird surveys: changes in observer efficiency with avian density. AUK 101:307–318

    Google Scholar 

  • Boulinier T, Nichols J, Sauer J, Hines J, Pollock K (1998) Estimating species richness: the importance of heterogeneity in species detectability. Ecology 79:1018–1028

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Springer Verlag, Berlin, Germany

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassie B, Glassberg J, Swengel A, Tudor G (2001) Checklist & English names of North American butterflies. North American Butterfly Association, Morristown, NJ

    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. Austral Ecol 31:282–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooch E, White G (2001) Program MARK: analysis of data from marked individuals. http://www.cnr.colostate.edu/~gwhite/mark/mark.html

  • Field SA, Tyre AJ, Possingham HP (2005) Optimizing allocation of monitoring effort under economic and observational constraints. J Wildlife Manage 69:473–482

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fleishman E, Austin GT, Murphy DD (1997) Natural history and biogeography of the butterflies of the Toiyabe Range, Nevada (Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea). Holarctic Lepidopt 4:1–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardenfors U, Hilton-Taylor C, Mace GM, Rodriguez JP (2001) The application of IUCN Red List criteria at regional levels. Conserv Biol 15:1206–1212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glassberg J (2001) Butterflies through binoculars. A field guide to the butterflies of Western North America. Oxford University Press, New-York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Gu W, Swihart RK (2004) Absent or undetected? Effects of nondetection of species occurrences on wildlife-habitat models. Biol Conserv 116:195–203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jeffcoate G (1995) Butterfly populations along the North Downs escarpment: monitoring changes and identifying threats. Biol J Linnean Soc 56:99–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson JB, Omland KS (2004) Model selection in ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol Evol 19:101–108

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kéry M (2002) Inferring the absence of a species: a case study of snakes. J Wildlife Manage 66:330–338

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kéry M, Schmid H (2004) Monitoring programs need to take into account imperfect species detectability. Basic Appl Ecol 5:65–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koleff P, Gaston KJ, Lennon JJ (2003) Measuring beta diversity for presence–absence data. J Anim Ecol 72:367–382

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Link WA, Barker RJ, Sauer JR, Droege S (1994) Within-site variability in surveys of wildlife populations. Ecology 75:1097–1108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lütolf M, Kienast F, Guisan A (2006) The ghost of past species occurrence: improving species distribution models for presence-only data. J Appl Ecol 43:802–815

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie DI (2005) What are the issues with presence-absence data for wildlife managers? J Wildlife Manage 69:849–860

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie DI (2006) Modeling the probability of resource use: the effect of, and dealing with, detecting a species imperfectly. J Wildlife Manage 70:367–374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie DI, Kendall WL (2002) How should detection probability be incorporated into estimates of relative abundance? Ecology 83:2387–2393

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie DI, Royle JA (2005) Designing occupancy studies: general advice and allocating survey effort. J Appl Ecol 42:1105–1114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 83:2248–2255

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie DI, Nichols JD, Royle JA, Pollock KH, Bailey LL, Hines JE (2006) Occupancy estimation and modeling: inferring patterns and dynamics of species occurrence. Elsevier Academic Press, Burlingame, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie DI, Nichols JD, Sutton N, Kawanishi K, Bailey LL (2005) Improving inferences in population studies of rare species that are detected imperfectly. Ecology 86:1101–1113

    Article  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. J Insect Conserv 5:197–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merriam CH (1898) Life-zones and crop-zones of the United States. Biol Survey Bull 10:1–79

    Google Scholar 

  • Moilanen A (2002) Implications of empirical data quality to metapopulation model parameter estimation and application. Oikos 96:516–530

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nichols JD, Williams BK (2006) Monitoring for conservation. Trends Ecol Evol 21:668–673

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Niemela J (2000) Biodiversity monitoring for decision-making. Ann Zool Fenn 37:307–317

    Google Scholar 

  • Nowicki P, Richter A, Glinka U, Holzschuh A, Toelke U, Henle K, Woyciechowski M, Settele J (2005) Less input same output – simplified approach for population size assessment in Lepidoptera. Popul Ecol 47:203–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pellet J, Schmidt BR (2005) Monitoring distributions using call surveys: estimating site occupancy, detection probabilities and inferring absence. Biol Conserv 123:27–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pellet J, Fleishman E, Dobkin D, Gander A, Murphy DD (2007) An empirical evaluation of the area and isolation paradigm of metapopulation dynamics. Biol Cons (in press)

  • Pledger S (2000) Unified maximum likelihood estimates for closed capture–recapture models using mixtures. Biometrics 56:434–442

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollard E, Yates T (1993) Monitoring butterflies for ecology and conservation. Chapman & Hall, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodrigues ASL, Pilgrim JD, Lamoreux JF, Hoffmann M, Brooks TM (2006) The value of the IUCN Red List for conservation. Trends Ecol Evol 21:71–76

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Royer R, Austin J, Newton W (1998) Checklist and “Pollard Walk” butterfly survey methods on public lands. Am Midland Nat 140:358–371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott JA (1986) The butterflies of North America. A natural history and field guide. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Sparks TH, Yates TJ (1997) The effect of spring temperature on the appearance dates of British butterflies 1883–1993. Ecography 20:368–374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stauffer HB, Ralph CJ, Miller SL (2002) Incorporating uncertainty of detection into presence–absence survey design and analysis, with application to the Marbled Murrelet: a component of accuracy assessment. In: Scott JM, Heglund PJ, Morrison M, Raphael M, Haufler J, Wall B (eds) Predicting species occurrences: issues of scale and accuracy. Island Press, Covello, CA, pp 357–366

    Google Scholar 

  • Stork NE, Samways MJ (1995) Inventorying and monitoring. In: Heywood VH, Watson RT (eds) Global biodiversity assessment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp 453–543

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas JA (1983) A quick method for estimating butterfly numbers during surveys. Biol Conserv 27:195–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Thorne JH, O’Brien J, Forister ML, Shapiro AM (2006). Building phenological models from presence/absence data for a butterfly fauna. Ecol Appl 16:1842–1853

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tyre AJ, Tenhumberg B, Field SA, Niejalke D, Parris K, Possingham HP (2003) Improving precision and reducing bias in biological surveys: estimating false-negative error rates. Ecol Appl 13:1790–1801

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiss SB, Murphy DD, Ehrlich PR, Metzler CF (1993) Adult emergence phenology in Checkerspot butterflies – the effects of macroclimate, topoclimate, and population history. Oecologia 96:261–270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams BK, Nichols JD, Conroy MJ (2002) Analysis and management of animal populations. Academic Press, San Diego, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Wintle BA, McCarthy MA, Parris KM, Burgman MA (2004) Precision and bias of methods for estimating point survey detection probabilities. Ecol Appl 14:703–712

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yoccoz NG, Nichols JD, Boulinier T (2001) Monitoring of biological diversity in space and time. Trends Ecol Evol 16:446–453

    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

This work was funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation postdoctoral grant PBLAA-109803. T. Bonebrake, E. Fleishman, M. Kéry, U. Steiner, J. Thorne, and J. Settele commented on earlier drafts. This study was made possible with special permits granted by Stanford’s Jasper Ridge Biological Preserve and the City of Palo Alto Open Space Division.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Conservation Biology, Department of Biological Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA

    Jérôme Pellet

  2. A. Maibach Sàrl, Ch. de la Poya 10, CP 99, 1610, Oron-la-Ville, Switzerland

    Jérôme Pellet

Authors
  1. Jérôme Pellet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jérôme Pellet.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pellet, J. Seasonal variation in detectability of butterflies surveyed with Pollard walks. J Insect Conserv 12, 155–162 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-007-9075-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-007-9075-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation