Hermes copper (Lycaena [Hermelycaena] hermes: Lycaenidae): Life history and population estimation of a rare butterfly

Journal of Insect Conservation

Volumn 12, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 97-105

  Marschalek, Daniel A ^a,b   Deutschman, Douglas H ^a  

^a SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

Author keywords

Hermes copper (Lycaena Hermelycaena hermes); Life history; Monitoring; Pollard Walks; Population size

Indexed keywords

BUTTERFLY; ENDEMIC SPECIES; HABITAT LOSS; LIFE HISTORY; MONITORING; POPULATION ESTIMATION; POPULATION SIZE; RARE SPECIES; SCRUB; URBANIZATION; WILDFIRE;

CALIFORNIA; NORTH AMERICA; SAN DIEGO; UNITED STATES;

ERIOGONUM; ERIOGONUM FASCICULATUM; HEXAPODA; LYCAENA; LYCAENIDAE; PAPILIONOIDEA;

EID: 40149099152     PISSN: 1366638X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10841-006-9064-3     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Arnold RA (1987) Decline of the endangered Palos Verdes blue butterfly in California. Biol Conserv 40:203-217
2. Atwood JL (1993) California gnatcatchers and coastal sage scrub: The biological basis for endangered species listing. In: Interface between ecology and land development in California. Southern California Academy of Sciences, Los Angeles, pp 149-169
3. Brown JW (1991) Sensitive and declining butterfly species (Insecta: Lepidoptera) in San Diego County, California. Draft report prepared for Dudek and Associates
4. Calflora (2006) Information on California plants for education, research and conservation [web application]. Berkeley, California: The Calflora Database [a non-profit organization]. Available: http://www.calflora.org/. (Accessed: Nov 28, 2006)
5. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (2003) CDF Historical Statistics. In: Fire and Emergency Response. http://www.fire.ca.gov. (Accessed: Dec 7, 2004)
6. Comstock JA, Dammers CM (1935) Notes on the early stages of three butterflies and six moths from California. Bull South Calif Acad Sci 34:124-126
7. Ehrlich PR, Davidson SE (1960) Techniques for capture-recapture studies of Lepidoptera populations. J Lepid Soc 14:227-229
8. Emmel TC, Emmel JF (1973) The butterflies of southern California. Nat Hist Museum Los Angeles County Sci Ser 26:1-148
9. Faulkner D, Klein M (2004) San Diego's sensitive butterflies: A workshop focusing on 10 local species. San Diego, California, December 2004
10. Field SA, Tyre AJ, Possingham HP (2005) Optimizing allocation of monitoring effort under economic and observational constraints. J Wildlife Manage 69:473-482
11. Hickman JC (1993) The Jepson manual: Higher plants of California. University of California Press, Berkeley Los Angeles, California
12. Hogan D (2004) Petition to list the Hermes copper (Hermelycaena [Lycaena] hermes) as endangered under the Endangered Species Act. Center for Biological Diversity
13. Insect Count Analyzer: INCA (2002) A user-friendly program to analyze transect count data. The Urban Wildlands Group, http://www.urbanwildlands.org/INCA/
14. Jolly GM (1965) Explicit estimates from mark-recapture data with both death and immigration-stochastic model. Biometrika 52:225-247
15. Krebs CL (1998) Ecological methodology, 2nd edn. Addison Welsey Longman, Inc., Menlo Park, California
16. Legg CJ, Nagy L (2006) Why most conservation monitoring is, but need not be, a waste of time. J Environ Manage 78:194-199
17. Marschalek DA (2004) Factors influencing population viability of Hermes copper (Lycaena hermes). Thesis, San Diego State University
18. 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
19. McKelvey KS, Pearson DE (2001) Population estimation with sparse data: the role of estimators versus indices revisited. Can J Zool 79:1754-1765
20. Murphy DD (1990) A report on the California butterflies listed as candidates for endangered status by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Draft report for California Department of Fish & Game, Contract No. C-1755
21. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (2004) US temperatures and precipitation. In: National climatic data center. http://www.noaa.gov. (Accessed: Nov 30, 2004)
22. Noss RF (1990) Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: A hierarchical approach. Conserv Biol 4:355-364
23. Opler PA, Peterson RT (1999) A field guide to western butterflies, 2nd edn. Houghton Mifflin, Boston New York
24. Pollard E (1977) A method for assessing changes in the abundance of butterflies. Biol Conserv 12:115-134
25. Pollard E (1988) Temperature, rainfall and butterfly numbers. J Appl Ecol 25:819-828
26. Pollard E, Yates TJ (1993) Monitoring butterflies for ecology and conservation. Chapman and Hall, London
27. Pyle RM (1981) National audubon society field guide to North American butterflies. Chanticleer Press, Inc., New York
28. Roy DB, Rothery P, Moss D, Pollard E, Thomas JA (2001) Butterfly numbers and weather: Predicting historical trends in abundance and the future effects of climate change. J Anim Ecol 70:201-217
29. San Diego Association of Governments (2004) Demographics. In: Long Range Forecasts; Population, Housing, and Employment by Jurisdiction http://www.sandag.org. (Accessed: Oct 29, 2004)
30. Scott JA (1986) The butterflies of North America: A natural history and field guide. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California
31. Seber GAF (1965) A note on the multiple recapture census. Biometrika 52:249-259
32. Sparrow HR, Sisk TD, Ehrlich PR, Murphy DD (1994) Techniques and guidelines for monitoring neotropical butterflies. Conserv Biol 8:800-809
33. Thorne F (1963) The distribution of an endemic butterfly Lycaena hermes. J Res Lepid 2:143-150
34. US Fish and Wildlife Service (1993) Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 90-day finding for a petition to list four California butterflies as endangered and continuation of status reviews. Federal Register 50 CFR 17:38549-38552
35. US Fish and Wildlife Service (1994) Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; Proposed rule to list the Laguna Mountains Skipper and Quino Checkerspot butterflies as endangered. Federal Register 50 CFR 17:39868-39873
36. US Fish and Wildlife Service (2003) Recovery plan for the Quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino). Portland, Oregon
37. Westman WE (1981) Diversity relationships and succession in Californian coastal sage scrub. Ecology 62:170-184
38. White GC, Burnham KP (1999) Program MARK: Survival estimation from populations of marked animals. Bird Study 46(Supplement):120-138
39. Wright WS (1930) An annotated list of the butterflies of San Diego County, California. Trans San Diego Soc Nat Hist 6:1-40
40. Zar JH (1999) Biostatistical analysis, 4th edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey
41. Zonneveld C (1991) Estimating death rates from transect counts. Ecol Entomol 16:115-121