Skip to main content
Log in

Loss rates of butterfly species with urban development. A test of atlas data and sampling artefacts at a fine scale

  • Published:
Biodiversity & Conservation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Data for the United Kingdom (UK) Manchester Butterfly Atlas produced conflicting species loss rates for increased urban development. In particular, a very low rate of loss was recorded (0.19 species for every 10% increase in urban cover) for the Mersey Valley mapped at a high resolution of 1 ha units. It was suggested that sampling artefacts (uneven recording) or failure to distinguish vagrant individuals from breeding populations cause this. Herein, results are reported for 30 sample squares, within the Mersey Valley, surveyed uniformly throughout 1999. It is shown that loss rates are as high as areas mapped at lower resolution over wider areas (0.67–0.68 species for every 10% increase in urban cover) and that increasingly stringent definitions of urban cover result in higher loss rates. Comparison with the data from the Atlas, but for the same 30 sample squares, indicate that the low rates at a fine scale for the complete Atlas data are more likely to be caused by uneven recording than from failure to record species status. However, progressive sampling of squares, despite uniform recording, will inevitably cause a reduction in loss rates of total species for increases in urban development.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Dennis RLH (ed) (1992) The ecology of butterflies in Britain. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennis RLH (2001) Progressive bias in species status is symptomatic of fine-grained mapping units subject to repeated sampling. Biodiversity and Conservation 10: 483-494

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennis RLH andBardell P (1996) The impact of extreme weather on Great Orme populations of Hipparchia semele (Linnaeus 1758) and Plebejus argus (Linnaeus 1758) (Papilionoidea: Satyrinae and Lycaenidae): hindsight, inference and lost opportunities. Entomologist's Gazette 47: 211-225

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennis RLH andHardy PB (1999) Targeting squares for survey: predicting species richness and incidence for a butterfly atlas. Global Ecology and Biogeography Letters 8: 443-454

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennis RLH andShreeve TG (1996) Butterflies on British and Irish Offshore Islands: Ecology and Biogeography. Gem Publishing Company, Wallingford, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennis RLH,Sparks TH andHardy PB (1999) Bias in butterfly distribution maps: the effects of sampling effort. Journal of Insect Conservation 3: 33-42

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennis RLH andThomas CD (2000) Bias in butterfly distribution maps: the influence of hot spots and recorder's home range. Journal of Insect Conservation 4: 73-77

    Google Scholar 

  • Emmet AM andHeath J (1990) The Butterflies of Great Britain and Ireland. Harley Books, Colchester, Essex, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardy PB (1998) Butterflies of Greater Manchester. PGL Enterprises, Sale, Cheshire, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardy PB andDennis RLH (1999) The impact of urban development on butterflies within a city region. Biodiversity and Conservation 8: 1261-1279

    Google Scholar 

  • Shreeve TG (1995) Butterfly mobility. In: Pullin AS (ed) Ecology and Conservation of Butterflies, pp 37-45. Chapman & Hall, London

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dennis, R.L., Hardy, P.B. Loss rates of butterfly species with urban development. A test of atlas data and sampling artefacts at a fine scale. Biodiversity and Conservation 10, 1831–1837 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013161522916

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013161522916

Navigation