Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Point-count methods to monitor butterfly populations when traditional methods fail: a case study with Miami blue butterfly

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

Abstract

Established butterfly monitoring methods are designed for open habitats such as grasslands. Not all rare species occupy habitats that are easy to see across and navigate, in which cases a new approach to monitoring is necessary. We present a novel use of point transect distance sampling to monitor the Miami blue, a highly endangered butterfly that occupies dense shrub habitat. To monitor Miami blue density, we developed surveys consisting of butterfly counts in semi-circular plots. We examined the rate at which an observer detects new butterflies to determine the survey duration that meets the key assumption that butterflies are detected at their initial location. As a related secondary goal, we identified the determinants of adult flight phenology to target monitoring efforts during periods of high adult abundance. We observed peak Miami blue densities in April and July/August 2012, and July/August 2013. We estimated density using detections from a 10-sec survey, our most defensible and conservative estimate. Peak daily density estimates ranged from 592 to 680 butterflies per hectare. Adult density was related to precipitation patterns, with high densities occurring 4–6 weeks after particularly wet 4-week intervals. For butterfly species that exist in high enough densities, we recommend using point transect distance sampling in habitats where traditional methods are impossible to implement.

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
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Boughton DA (2000) The dispersal system of a butterfly: a test of source-sink theory suggests the intermediate-scale hypothesis. Am Nat 156:131–144

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bried JT, Pellet J (2012) Optimal design of butterfly occupancy surveys and testing if occupancy converts to abundance for sparse populations. J Insect Conserv 16:489–499

  • Brown JA, Boyce MS (1998) Line transect sampling of Karner blue butterflies (Lycaeides melissa samuelis). Environ Ecol Stat 5:81–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buckland ST (2006) Point-transect surveys for songbirds: robust methodologies. Auk 123:345–357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buckland ST, Anderson DR, Burnham KP et al (2001) Introduction to distance sampling: estimating abundance of biological populations. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Calhoun JV, Slotten JR, Salvato MH (2002) The rise and fall of tropical blues in Florida: Cyclargus ammon and Cyclargus thomasi bethunebakeri. Holarct Lepid 7:13–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Cannon P, Wilmers T, Lyons K (2010) Discovery of the imperiled Miami blue butterfly (Cyclargus Thomasi Bethunebakeri) on islands in the Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges, Monroe County. Southeast Nat 9:847–853

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cimprich DA (2009) Effect of count duration on abundance estimates of black-capped Vireos. J Field Ornithol 80:94–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins M, Knutti R, Arblaster J, Dufresne JL, Fichefet T, Friedlingstein P, Gao X, Gutowski WJ, Johns T, Krinner G, Shongwe M, Tebaldi C, Weaver AJ, Wehner M (2013) Long-term climate change: projections, commitments and irreversibility. In: Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner G-K, Tignor M, Allen SK, Boschung J, Nauels A, Xia Y, Bex V, Midgley PM (eds) Climate change 2013: the physical science basis contribution of working group i to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Cordero-Rivera A, Perez FE, Andres JA (2002) The effect of handling damage, mobility, body size, and fluctuating asymmetry on lifetime mating success of Ischnura graellsii (rambur) (Zygoptera: Coenagrionidae). Odonatologica 31:117–128

    Google Scholar 

  • Daniels JC (2010) Conservation and field surveys of the endangered Miami blue butterfly (Cyclargus thomasi bethunebakeri) (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) report #3. Submitted to United States Fish and Wildlife Service: Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges

  • Daubenmire R (1959) A canopy-coverage method of vegetational analysis. Northwest Sci 33:43–64

    Google Scholar 

  • Dover JW, Sparks TH, Greatorex-Davies JN (1997) The importance of shelter for butterflies in open landscapes. J Insect Conserv 1:89–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emmel TC, Daniels JC (2008) Miami blue butterfly conservation interim annual report. Period covered: January 2007-August 31, 2008. Submitted to United States Fish and Wildlife Service: South Florida Ecological Services Office

  • FNAI (2010) Guide to the natural communities of Florida, 2010th edn. Florida Natural Areas Inventory, Tallahassee

    Google Scholar 

  • Haddad NM (1999) Corridor use predicted from behaviors at habitat boundaries. Am Nat 153:215–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haddad NM, Baum KA (1999) An experimental test of corridor effects on butterfly densities. Ecol Appl 9:623–633

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haddad NM, Hudgens B, Damiani C et al (2008) Determining optimal population monitoring for rare butterflies. Conserv Biol 22:929–940

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hahn DA, Denlinger DL (2007) Meeting the energetic demands of insect diapause: nutrient storage and utilization. J Insect Physiol 53:760–773

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hamm CA (2013) Estimating abundance of the federally endangered Mitchell’s satyr butterfly using hierarchical distance sampling. Insect Conserv Divers 6:619–626

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henry EH, Haddad NM, Wilson JW (2012) Miami blue butterfly monitoring interim report covering September 2010–May 2012. 14. Submitted to United States Fish and Wildlife Service: Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges

  • Isaac NJB, Cruickshanks KL, Weddle AM et al (2011) Distance sampling and the challenge of monitoring butterfly populations. Methods Ecol Evol 2:585–594

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuefler D, Haddad NM, Hall S et al (2008) Distribution, population structure and habitat use of the endangered Saint Francis Satyr butterfly, Neonympha mitchellii francisci. Am Midl Nat 159:298–320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee DC, Marsden SJ (2008) Adjusting count period strategies to improve the accuracy of forest bird abundance estimates from point transect distance sampling surveys. Ibis 150:315–325

    Article  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. Academic Press, London

    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 

  • Moranz RA, Fuhlendorf SD, Engle DM (2014) Making sense of a prairie butterfly paradox: the effects of grazing, time since fire, and sampling period on regal fritillary abundance. Biol Conserv

  • Murphy DD (1987) Are we studying our endangered butterflies to death? J Res Lepid 26:236–239

    Google Scholar 

  • Nichols JD, Hines JE, Sauer JR et al (2000) A double-observer approach for estimating detection probability and abundance from point counts. Auk 117:393–408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peak RG (2011) A field test of the distance sampling method using Golden-cheeked Warblers. J Field Ornithol 82:311–319

    Google Scholar 

  • Pocewicz A, Morgan P, Eigenbrode SD (2009) Local and landscape effects on butterfly density in northern Idaho grasslands and forests. J Insect Conserv 13:593–601

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powell AFLA, Busby WH, Kindscher K (2006) Status of the regal fritillary (Speyeria idalia) and effects of fire management on its abundance in northeastern Kansas, USA. J Insect Conserv 11:299–308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ries L, Debinski DM (2001) Butterfly responses to habitat edges in the highly fragmented prairies of Central Iowa. J Anim Ecol 70:840–852

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ries L, Fletcher RJ Jr, Battin J, Sisk TD (2004) Ecological responses to habitat edges: mechanisms, models, and variability explained. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 35:491–522

  • Rosenstock SS, Anderson DR, Giesen KM et al (2002) Landbird counting techniques: current practices and an alternative. Auk 119:46–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross JA, Matter SF, Roland J (2005) Edge avoidance and movement of the butterfly Parnassius smintheus in matrix and non-matrix habitat. Landsc Ecol 20:127–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saarinen EV, Daniels JC (2006) Miami blue butterfly larvae (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) and ants (Hymeoptera: Formicidae): new information on the symbionts of an endangered taxon. Fla Entomol 89:69–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saarinen EV, Daniels JC (2012) Using museum specimens to assess historical distribution and genetic diversity in an endangered butterfly. Anim Biol 62:337–350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saarinen EV, Daniels JC, Maruniak JE (2009) Development and characterization of polymorphic microsatellite loci in the endangered Miami blue butterfly (Cyclargus thomasi bethunebakeri). Mol Ecol Resour 9:242–244

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schultz C, Crone E (2001) Edge-mediated dispersal behavior in a prairie butterfly. Ecology 82:1879–1892

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schultz CB, Franco AMA, Crone EE (2012) Response of butterflies to structural and resource boundaries. J Anim Ecol 81:724–734

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Simons TR, Alldredge MW, Pollock KH et al (2007) Experimental analysis of the auditory detection process on avian point counts. Auk 124:986–999

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sparrow HR, Sisk TD, Ehrlich PR, Murphy DD (1994) Techniques and guidelines for monitoring neotropical butterflies. Conserv Biol 8:800–809

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas L, Buckland ST, Rexstad EA et al (2010) Distance software: design and analysis of distance sampling surveys for estimating population size. J Appl Ecol 47:5–14

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Trager MD, Daniels JC (2011) Size effects on mating and egg production in the Miami blue butterfly. J Insect Behav 24:34–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • USFWS (2012) Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; listing of the Miami blue butterfly as endangered throughout its range; listing of the cassius blue, ceranus blue, and nickerbean blue butterflies as threatened due to similarity of appearance to the Miami blue butterfly in coastal south and central Florida. 77:20948–20986

  • van Strien AJ, van Swaay CAM, Termaat T (2013) Opportunistic citizen science data of animal species produce reliable estimates of distribution trends if analysed with occupancy models. J Appl Ecol 50:1450–1458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wikström L, Milberg P, Bergman K-O (2008) Monitoring of butterflies in semi-natural grasslands: diurnal variation and weather effects. J Insect Conserv 13:203–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams B, Nichols JD, Conroy MJ (2002) Analysis and management of animal populations. Academic, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolda H (1988) Insect seasonality: Why? Annu Rev Ecol Syst 19:1–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank numerous volunteers for assistance in the field including C. Anderson, K. Cardenas, M. Cove, A. Maurer, C. Knight, J. Padilla, M. McCarter, C. Lustic, K. Maxwell, and K. Killiam. Additionally, we thank T. Simons for his input on survey methodology as it developed. C. Schultz provided valuable feedback on earlier versions of this manuscript. We also thank the Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges for funding the project as well as for housing E. Henry and providing the boat and fuel necessary to access the islands. Use of trade, product, or firm names does not imply endorsement by the United States Government. The findings and conclusions in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biological Sciences, North Carolina State University, Box 7616, Raleigh, NC, 27695, USA

    Erica H. Henry, Nick M. Haddad & John Wilson

  2. Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 28950 Watson Blvd., Big Pine Key, FL, 33043, USA

    Phillip Hughes

  3. Department of Forestry and Environmental Resources – Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology Program, North Carolina State University, Box 8008, Raleigh, NC, 27695, USA

    Beth Gardner

Authors
  1. Erica H. Henry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nick M. Haddad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. John Wilson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Phillip Hughes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Beth Gardner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Erica H. Henry.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Henry, E.H., Haddad, N.M., Wilson, J. et al. Point-count methods to monitor butterfly populations when traditional methods fail: a case study with Miami blue butterfly. J Insect Conserv 19, 519–529 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-015-9773-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-015-9773-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation