Species richness estimation and determinants of species detectability in butterfly monitoring programmes
Article first published online: 5 FEB 2007
2007 The Royal Entomological Society
Volume 32, Issue 1, pages 53–61, February 2007
How to Cite
KÉRY, M. and PLATTNER, M. (2007), Species richness estimation and determinants of species detectability in butterfly monitoring programmes. Ecological Entomology, 32: 53–61. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2311.2006.00841.x
- Issue published online: 5 FEB 2007
- Article first published online: 5 FEB 2007
- Accepted 27 July 2006
- closed population models;
- species richness
Abstract 1. Species richness is the most widely used biodiversity index, but can be hard to measure. Many species remain undetected, hence raw species counts will often underestimate true species richness. In contrast, capture–recapture methods estimate true species richness and correct for imperfect and varying detectability.
2. Detectability is a crucial quantity that provides the link between a species count and true species richness. For insects, it has hardly ever been estimated, although this is required for the interpretation of species counts.
3. In the Swiss butterfly monitoring programme about 100 transect routes are surveyed seven times a year using a highly standardised protocol. In July 2003, control observers made two additional surveys on 38 transects. Data from these 38 quadrats were analysed to see whether currently available capture–recapture models can provide quadrat-specific estimates of species richness, and to estimate species detectability in relation to transect, observer, survey, region, and abundance.
4. Species richness over the entire season cannot be estimated using current capture–recapture methods. The species pool was open, preventing use of closed population models, and detectability varied by species, preventing use of current open population models. Assuming a closed species pool during two mid-season (July) surveys, a Jackknife capture–recapture method was used that accounts for heterogeneity to estimate mean detectability and species richness.
5. In every case, more species were present than were counted. Mean species detectability was 0.61 (SE 0.01) with significant differences between observers (range 0.37–0.83). Species-specific detection at time t+ 1 was then modelled for those species seen at t for three mid-season surveys. Detectability averaged 0.50 (range 0.17–0.81) for individual species and 0.65, 0.44, and 0.42 for surveys. Abundant species were detected more easily, although this relationship explained only 5% of variation in species detectability.
6. These are important, although not entirely unexpected, results for species richness estimation of short-lived animals. Raw counts of species may be misleading species richness indicators unless many surveys are conducted. Monitoring programmes should be calibrated, i.e. the assumption of constant detectability over dimensions of interest needs to be tested. The development of capture–recapture or similar models that can cope with both open populations and heterogeneous species detectability to estimate species richness should be a research priority.