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
[21]  
Higgins L., 1983, Field Guide to the Butterflies of Britain nad Europe
[22]  
New TR., 1997, BUTTERFLY CONSERVATI
[23]   Monitoring distributions using call surveys: estimating site occupancy, detection probabilities and inferring absence [J].
Pellet, J ;
Schmidt, BR .
BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION, 2005, 123 (01) :27-35
[24]  
Pollard E., 1994, Monitoring Butterflies for Ecology and Conservation: the British Butterfly Monitoring Scheme
[25]  
Porter K., 1992, P139
[26]   TRUTH OR CONSEQUENCES - EFFECTS OF PHYLOGENETIC ACCURACY ON 2 COMPARATIVE METHODS [J].
PURVIS, A ;
GITTLEMAN, JL ;
LUH, HK .
JOURNAL OF THEORETICAL BIOLOGY, 1994, 167 (03) :293-300
[27]  
PURVIS A, 1995, COMPUT APPL BIOSCI, V11, P247
[28]   Assessing habitat quality for butterflies on intensively managed arable farmland [J].
Pywell, RF ;
Warman, EA ;
Sparks, TH ;
Greatorex-Davies, JN ;
Walker, KJ ;
Meek, WR ;
Carvell, C ;
Petit, S ;
Firbank, LG .
BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION, 2004, 118 (03) :313-325
[29]   Application of generalized additive models to butterfly transect count data [J].
Rothery, P ;
Roy, DB .
JOURNAL OF APPLIED STATISTICS, 2001, 28 (07) :897-909
[30]   Phenology of British butterflies and climate change [J].
Roy, DB ;
Sparks, TH .
GLOBAL CHANGE BIOLOGY, 2000, 6 (04) :407-416