Identifying recorder-induced geographic bias in an Iberian butterfly database

Ecography

Volumn 29, Issue 6, 2006, Pages 873-885

  Romo, Helena ^a   García Barros, Enrique ^a   Lobo, Jorge M ^b  

^a UNIVERSIDAD AUTÓNOMA DE MADRID   (Spain)

^b MUSEO NACIONAL DE CIENCIAS NATURALES   (Spain)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BUTTERFLY; DATABASE; ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECT; FAUNISTICS; INVENTORY; LAND USE CHANGE; SAMPLING BIAS;

BALEARIC ISLANDS; EURASIA; EUROPE; IBERIAN PENINSULA; MEDITERRANEAN SEA; SOUTHERN EUROPE; SPAIN;

HEXAPODA; PAPILIONOIDEA;

EID: 33846451439     PISSN: 09067590     EISSN: 16000587     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.2006.0906-7590.04680.x     Document Type: Article

References (63)

1. Anon, 1995. Atlas nacional de España, 16. - Inst. Geográfico Nacional, Centro Nacional de Información.
2. Anon, 2000a. Global change data archive, Vol. 3. 1 km. - Global Elevation Model, CD-Rom, Clark Univ.
3. Anon, 2000b. Natural Resources CD-Rom. CORINE Land Cover. Technical guide. European Environment Agency, 〈/http://www.eea.eu.int〉.
4. Anon, 2003. Idrisi Kilimanjaro. - GIS software package. Clark Labs.
5. Anon, 2004. STATISTICA (data analysis software system), computer program manual. - StatSoft, ver. 6, 〈/www.statsoft.com〉.
6. Austin, M. P. 1980. Searching for a model for use in vegetation analysis. - Vegetatio 42: 11-21.
7. Austin, M. P. et al. 1996. Patterns of tree species richness in relation to environment in south-eastern New South Wales, Australia. - Aust. J. Ecol. 21: 154-164.
8. Brooks, T. et al. 2004. Species, data, and conservation planning. - Conserv. Biol. 18: 1682-1688.
9. Burnham, K. P. and Overton, W. S. 1979. Robust estimation of the size of population size when capture probabilities vary among animals. - Ecology 60: 927-936.
10. Carrascal, L. M. et al. 2002. Patrones de preferencias de hábitat y de distribución y abundancia invernal de aves en el centro de España. Análisis y predicción del efecto de factores ecológicos. - Anim. Biodiv. Conserv. 25: 7-40.
11. Chao, A. 1984. Non-parametric estimation of the number of classes in a population. - Scand. J. Stat. 11: 265-270.
12. Chao, A. 1987. Estimating the population size for capture-recapture data with unequal catchability. - Biometrics 43: 783-791.
13. Colwell, R. K. 2000. EstimateS: statistical estimation of species richness and shared species from samples. - Software and user's guide, ver. 6.0b1, 〈/http://viceroy.eeb.uconn.edu/estimates〉.
14. Colwell, R. K. and Coddington, J. A. 1994. Estimating terrestrial biodiversity through extrapolation. - Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 354: 101-118.
15. Crawley, M. J. 1993. GLM for ecologists. - Blackwell.
16. Dennis, R. L. H. and Hardy, P. B. 1999. Targeting cells for survey: predicting species richness and incidence for a butterfly atlas. - Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 8: 443-454.
17. Dennis, R. L. H. and Thomas, C. D. 2000. Bias in butterfly distribution maps: the influence of hot spots and recorder's home range. - J. Insect Conserv. 4: 73-77.
18. Dennis, R. L. H. et al. 1999. Bias in butterfly distribution maps: the effects of sampling effort. - J. Insect Conserv. 3: 33-42.
19. Dennis, R. L. H. et al. 2006. The effects of visual apparency on bias butterfly recording and monitoring. - Biol. Conserv. 128: 486-492.
20. Ferrier, S. 2002. Mapping spatial pattern in biodiversity for regional conservation planning: where to from here? - Syst. Biol. 51: 331-363.
21. Freitag, S. et al. 1998. Testing for potential survey bias: the effect of roads, urban areas and nature reserves on a southern African mammal data set. - Anim. Conserv. 1: 119-127.
22. García-Barros, E. and Munguira, M. L. 1999. Faunística de mariposas diurnas en España peninsular. Áreas poco estudiadas: una evaluación en el umbral del Siglo XXI (Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea & Hesperiidae). - SHILAP Revta. Lepid. 27: 189-202.
23. García-Barros, E. et al. 2000. The geographic distribution and state of butterfly faunistic studies in Iberia (Lepidoptera Papilionoidea Hesperioidea). - Belg. J. Entomol. 2: 111-124.
24. García-Barros, E. et al. 2004. Atlas de las mariposas diurnas de la Península Ibérica e islas Baleares (Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea & Hesperioidea). - Monografías de la SEA, Vol. 11, Zaragoza.
25. Garcia-Pereira, P. N. C. 2003. Mariposas diurnas de Portugal continental: faunística, biogeografía y conservación. - Ph.D. thesis, Univ. Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid.
26. Garcia-Pereira, P. et al. 1999. Evaluación del conocimiento de la fauna de mariposas de Portugal continental (Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea, Hesperioidea). - SHILAP Revta. Lepid. 27: 225-231.
27. Gaston, K. J. and Spicer, J. I. 2004. Biodiversity. An introduction, 2nd ed. - Blackwell.
28. Gotelli, N. J. and Colwell, R. K. 2001. Quantifying biodiversity: procedures and pitfalls in the measurement and comparison of species richness. - Ecol. Lett. 4: 379-391.
29. Hawkins, B. A. and Porter, E. E. 2003. Water-energy balance and the geographic pattern of species richness of western Palearctic butterflies. - Ecol. Entomol. 28: 678-686.
30. Heltshe, J. and Forrester, N. E. 1983. Estimating species richness using the Jackknife procedure. - Biometrics 39: 1-11.
31. Hortal, J. et al. 2001. Forecasting insect species richness scores in poorly surveyed territories: the case of the Portuguese dung beetles (Col. Scarabaeinae). - Biodiv. Conserv. 10: 1343-1367.
32. Hortal, J. et al. 2004. Butterfly species richness in mainland Portugal: predictive models of geographic distribution patterns. - Ecography 27: 68-82.
33. Hortal, J. et al. 2006. Evaluating the performance of species richness estimators: sensitivity to sample grain size. - J. Anim. Ecol. 75: 274-287.
34. Koellner, T. et al. 2004. Rarefaction method for assessing plant species diversity on a regional scale. - Ecography 27: 532-544.
35. Kress, W. J. et al. 1998. Amazonian biodiversity: assessing conservation priorities with taxonomic data. - Biodiv. Conserv. 7: 1577-1587.
36. Kudrna, O. 2002. The distribution atlas of european butterflies. - Oedippus 20: 1-342.
37. Legendre, P. 1993. Spatial autocorrelation: trouble or new paradigm? - Ecology 74: 1659-1673.
38. Legendre, P. and Legendre, L. 1998. Numerical ecology, 2nd English ed. - Elsevier.
39. Lobo, J. M. and Martín-Piera, F. 2002. Searching for a predictive model for species richness of Iberian dung beetle based on spatial and environmental variables. - Conserv. Biol. 16: 158-173.
40. Lobo, J. M. et al. 1997. Les atlas faunistiques comme outils d'analyse spatiale de la biodiversité. - Ann. Soc. Entomol. France 33: 129-138.
41. Lobo, J. M. et al. 2002. Modelling the species richness distribution of French dung beetles (Coleoptera, Scarabeidae) and delimiting the predictive capacity of different groups of explanatory variables. - Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 11: 265-277.
42. Magurran, A. E. 2004. Measuring biological diversity. - Blackwell.
43. Martín, J. and Gurrea, P. 1990. The peninsular effect in Iberian butterflies (Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea and Hesperioidea). - J. Biogeogr. 17: 85-96.
44. Martín, J. and Gurrea, P. 1999. Á reas de especiación en España y Portugal. - Boletín de la AeE 23: 83-103.
45. McCullagh, P. and Nelder, J. A. 1989. Generalized linear models. - Chapman and Hall.
46. Munguira, M. L. 1995. Conservation of butterfly habitats and diversity in European Mediterranean countries. - In: Pullin, A. S. (ed.), Ecology and conservation of butterflies. Chapman and Hall, pp. 277-289.
47. Nelson, B.W. et al. 1990. Endemism centers, refugia and botanical collection density in Brazilian Amazonia. - Nature 345: 714-716.
48. New, T. R. 1991. Butterfly conservation. - Oxford Univ. Press.
49. Nicholls, A. O. 1989. How to make biological surveys go further with generalised linear models. - Biol. Conserv. 50: 51-75.
50. Parmesan, C. et al. 1999. Poleward shifts in geographic ranges of butterfly species associated with regional warming. - Nature 399: 579-583.
51. Parnell, J. A. N. et al. 2003. Plant collecting spread and densities: their potential impact on biogeographic studies in Thailand. - J. Biogeogr. 30: 193-209.
52. Petersen, F. T. and Meier, R. 2003. Testing species-richness estimation methods on single-sample collection data using the Danish Diptera. - Biodiv. Conserv. 12: 667-686.
53. Peterson, A. T. and Slade, N. A. 1998. Extrapolating inventory results into biodiversity estimates and the importance of stopping rules. - Div. Distrib. 4: 95-105.
54. Petersen, J. F. T. et al. 2003. Testing species richness estimation methods using museum label data on the Danish Asilidae. - Biodiv. Conserv. 12: 687-701.
55. Peterson, A. T. et al. 1998. The need for continued scientific collecting: a geographic analysis of Mexican bird specimens. - Ibis 140: 288-294.
56. Reddy, S. and Dávalos, L. M. 2003. Geographic sampling bias and its implications for conservation priorities in Africa. - J. Biogeogr. 30: 1719-1727.
57. Romo, H. and García-Barros, E. 2005. Distribución e intensidad de los estudios faunísticos sobre mariposas diurnas en la península Ibérica e islas Baleares (Lepidoptera, Papilionoiea y Hesperioidea). - Graellsia 61: 37-50.
58. Rosenzweig, M. L. et al. 2003. Estimating diversity in unsampled habitats of a biogeographic province. - Conserv. Biol. 17: 864-874.
59. Smith, E. P. and van Belle, G. 1984. Nonparametric estimation of species richness. - Biometrics 40: 119-129.
60. Soberón, J. and Llorente, J. 1993. The use of species accumulation functions for the prediction of species richness. - Conserv. Biol. 7: 480-488.
61. Soberón, J. M. et al. 2000. The use of specimen-label databases for conservation purposes: an example using Mexican Papilionid and Pierid butterflies. - Biodiv. Conserv. 9: 1441-1466.
62. Tolman, T. and Lewington, R. 1997. Collins field guide. Butterflies of Britain and Europe. - Harper Collins.
63. Whittaker, R. J. et al. 2005. Conservation biogeography: assessment and prospect. - Div. Distrib. 11: 3-23.