The effects of visual apparency on bias in butterfly recording and monitoring

被引:73
作者
Dennis, RLH [1 ]
Shreeve, TG
Isaac, NJB
Roy, DB
Hardy, PB
Fox, R
Asher, J
机构
[1] Oxford Brookes Univ, Sch Biol & Mol Sci, Oxford OX3 0BP, England
[2] NERC, Ctr Ecol & Hydrol, Monks Wood PE28 2LS, Cambs, England
[3] Zool Soc London, Inst Zool, London NW1 4RY, England
[4] Butterfly Conservat, Wareham BH20 5QP, Dorset, England
基金
英国自然环境研究理事会;
关键词
biodiversity monitoring; atlas records; apparency; transect recording; indicator species;
D O I
10.1016/j.biocon.2005.10.015
中图分类号
X176 [生物多样性保护];
学科分类号
090705 ;
摘要
A basic assumption in conservation is that comparable data are available for species to facilitate risk assessment of extinction. However, the capacity for carrying out cross-species comparisons for abundances and distributions among butterflies depends on the absence of bias in recording and monitoring or the existence of appropriate techniques for removing bias. Here, we investigate potential bias in cross-species comparisons for the apparency of butterfly adults (wing colour, size and behaviour) in three pivotal UK datasets: dates of discovery, Butterfly Monitoring Scheme (BMS) transect measures of abundance and Butterflies for the New Millennium (BNM) national recording scheme. Bias is found in all three datasets. Discovery date is affected by wing colour and size, BNM recording by adult behaviour and wing colour and BMS monitoring by adult behaviour. The nature and degree of bias differs between uncorrected cross-species comparisons and those with the application of phylogenetic contrasts. The findings urge caution in using these datasets for cross-species analysis without improvements and standardisation of recording and monitoring and the development of techniques to adjust for biases, in particular the use of suitable comparative techniques. The latter requires the construction of a molecular phylogeny for butterflies. (c) 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:486 / 492
页数:7
相关论文
共 39 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], RSNC GUIDE BUTTERFLI
[2]  
Asher J., 2001, MILLENNIUM ATLAS BUT
[3]  
Bink FA., 1992, ECOLOGISCHE ATLAS DA
[4]   Density-distribution relationships in British butterflies.: I.: The effect of mobility and spatial scale [J].
Cowley, MJR ;
Thomas, CD ;
Roy, DB ;
Wilson, RJ ;
León-Cortés, JL ;
Gutiérrez, D ;
Bulman, CR ;
Quinn, RM ;
Moss, D ;
Gaston, KJ .
JOURNAL OF ANIMAL ECOLOGY, 2001, 70 (03) :410-425
[5]   Bias in butterfly distribution maps: the influence of hot spots and recorder's home range [J].
Dennis, R. L. H. ;
Thomas, C. D. .
JOURNAL OF INSECT CONSERVATION, 2000, 4 (02) :73-77
[6]  
Dennis R.L.H., 1993, BUTTERFLIES CLIMATE
[7]   Butterfly habitats, broad-scale biotope affiliations, and structural exploitation of vegetation at finer scales: the matrix revisited [J].
Dennis, RLH .
ECOLOGICAL ENTOMOLOGY, 2004, 29 (06) :744-752
[8]   Host plants and butterfly biology. Do host-plant strategies drive butterfly status? [J].
Dennis, RLH ;
Hodgson, JG ;
Grenyer, R ;
Shreeve, TG ;
Roy, DB .
ECOLOGICAL ENTOMOLOGY, 2004, 29 (01) :12-26
[9]   Ecological correlates of island incidence and geographical range among British butterflies [J].
Dennis, RLH ;
Donato, B ;
Sparks, TH ;
Pollard, E .
BIODIVERSITY AND CONSERVATION, 2000, 9 (03) :343-359
[10]   Gains and losses of French butterflies: tests of predictions, under-recording and regional extinction from data in a new atlas [J].
Dennis, RLH ;
Shreeve, TG .
BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION, 2003, 110 (01) :131-139