Riparian butterfly (Papilionoidea and Hesperioidea) assemblages associated with Tamarix -Dominated, native vegetation-dominated, and Tamarix removal sites along the Arkansas River, Colorado, U.S.A

Restoration Ecology

Volumn 16, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 168-179

  Nelson, Mark S ^a   Wydoski, Rick ^a  

^a U S BUREAU OF RECLAMATION   (United States)

Author keywords

Biocontrol; Butterflies; Diorhabda; Exotics; Floodplain; Lepidoptera; Metric; Nectar; Populus; Restoration; Riparian; Salix; Tamarix

Indexed keywords

BIOLOGICAL CONTROL; BUTTERFLY; NATIVE SPECIES; RESTORATION ECOLOGY; RIPARIAN VEGETATION; SPECIES RICHNESS;

ARKANSAS RIVER; NORTH AMERICA; UNITED STATES;

DIORHABDA; DIORHABDA ELONGATA; HESPERIOIDEA; LEPIDOPTERA; PAPILIONOIDEA; POPULUS; SALIX; TAMARIX;

EID: 40849120625     PISSN: 10612971     EISSN: 1526100X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1526-100X.2007.00358.x     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Andersen, D. C., and S. M. Nelson. 1997. Vegetation characteristics and butterfly use of unlined and PVC-lined reaches of an irrigation delivery canal, Government Highline Canal, Colorado, U.S.A. Journal of Arid Environments 35: 747-764.
2. Barbour, M. T., J. Gerritsen, G. E. Griffith, R. Frydenborg, E. McCarron, J. S. White, and M. L. Bastian. 1996. A framework for biological criteria for Florida streams using benthic macroinvertebrates. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 15: 185-211.
3. Benson, J., R. G. Van Driesche, A. Pasquale, and J. Elkinton. 2003. Introduced braconid parasitoids and range reduction of a native butterfly in New England. Biological Control 28: 197-213.
4. Blossey, B. 1999. Before, during and after: The need for long-term monitoring in invasive plant species management. Biological Invasions 1: 301-311.
5. Boose, D. L. 1997. Sources of variation in floral nectar production rate in Spilobium canum (Onagraceae): Implications for natural selection. Oecologia 110: 493-500.
6. Brown, K. S. Jr, and A. V. L. Freitas. 2000. Atlantic forest butterflies: Indicators for landscape conservation. Biotropica 32: 934-956.
7. Cairns, J. Jr, and E. P. Smith. 1994. The statistical validity of biomonitoring data. Pages 49-68 in S. L. Loeb and A. Spacie, editors. Biological monitoring of aquatic systems. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida.
8. Carignan, V., and M.-A. Villard. 2004. Biological indicators in environmental monitoring programs: Can we increase their effectiveness? Pages 567-582 in G. B. Wiersma, editor. Environmental monitoring. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.
9. Cassie, B., J. Glassberg, A. Swengel, and G. Tudor. 2001. North American Butterfly Association (NABA) Checklist & English Names of North American Butterflies. 2 nd edition. NABA Names Committee. North American Butterfly Association, Morristown, New Jersey.
10. Cleary, D. F. R. 2004. Assessing the use of butterflies as indicators of logging in Borneo at three taxonomic levels. Journal of Economic Entomology 97: 429-435.
11. Dale, V. H., and S. C. Beyeler. 2001. Challenges in the development and use of ecological indicators. Ecological Indicators 1: 3-10.
12. DeLoach, C. J., P. A. Lewis, J. C. Herr, R. I. Carruthers, J. L. Tracy, and J. Johnson. 2003. Host specificity of the leaf beetle, Diorhabda elongate deserticola (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) from Asia, a biological control agent for tamarisks (Tamarix: Tamaricaceae) in the western United States. Biological Control 27: 117-147.
13. Duncan, C. A., J. J. Jachetta, M. L. Brown, V. F. Carrithers, J. K. Clark, J. M. Ditomaso, R. G. Lym, K. C. McDaniel, M. J. Renz, and P. M. Rice. 2004. Assessing the economic, environmental, and societal losses from invasive plants on rangeland and wildlands. Weed Technology 18: 1411-1416.
14. Ewel, J. J., D. J. O'Dowd, J. Bergelson, C. C. Daehler, C. M. D'Antonio, L. D. Gomez, et al. 1999. Deliberate introductions of species: Research needs. BioScience 9: 619-630.
15. Fleishman, E., R. MacNally, and D. D. Murphy. 2005. Relationships among non-native plants, diversity of plants and butterflies, and adequacy of spatial sampling. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 85: 157-166.
16. Harms, R. S., and R. D. Hiebert. 2006. Vegetation response following invasive tamarisk (Tamarix spp.) removal and implications for riparian restoration. Restoration Ecology 14: 461-472.
17. Holl, K. D. 1995. The effect of coal surface mine reclamation on diurnal lepidopteran conservation. Journal of Applied Ecology 33: 225-236.
18. Hood, W. G., and R. J. Naiman. 2000. Vulnerability of riparian zones to invasion by exotic vascular plants. Plant Ecology 148: 105-114.
19. Hurlbert, S. H. 1984. Pseudoreplication and the design of ecological field experiments. Ecological Monographs 54: 187-211.
20. Huston, M. 1979. A general hypothesis of species diversity. The American Naturalist 113: 81-101.
21. McCune, B., and J. B. Grace. 2002. Analysis of ecological communities. MjM Software Design, Gleneden Beach, Oregon.
22. McCune, B., and M. I. Mefford. 1999. Multivariate analysis of ecological data, version 4.0. MjM Software, Gleneden Beach, Oregon.
23. Moldan, B., and S. Billharz, editors. 1997. Sustainability indicators: report of the project on indicators for sustainable development (SCOPE 58). John Wiley, Chichester, United Kingdom.
24. Murphy, D. D., and B. A. Wilcox. 1986. Butterfly diversity in natural habitat fragments: A test of the validity of vertebrate-based management. Pages 287-292 in J. Verner, M. L. Morrison, and C. J. Ralph, editors. Wildlife 2000, modeling habitat relationships of terrestrial vertebrates. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison.
25. Nelson, S. M. 2003. The western viceroy butterfly (Nymphalidae: Limenitis archippus obsoleta): An indicator for riparian restoration in the arid southwestern United States? Ecological Indicators 3: 203-211.
26. Nelson, S. M. 2007. Butterflies (Papilionoidea and Hesperioidea) as potential ecological indicators of riparian quality in the semi-arid western United States. Ecological Indicators 7: 469-480.
27. Nelson, S. M., and D. C. Andersen. 1994. An assessment of riparian environmental quality by using butterflies and disturbance susceptibility scores. The Southwestern Naturalist 39: 137-142.
28. Nelson, S. M. and D. C. Andersen. 1999. Butterfly (Papilionoidea and Hesperioidea) assemblages associated with natural, exotic, and restored riparian habitats along the lower Colorado River, USA. Regulated Rivers: Research & Management 15: 485-504.
29. Nelson, S. M., and M. E. Epstein. 1998. Butterflies (Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea and Hesperioidea) of Roxborough State Park, Colorado, USA: baseline inventory, community attributes, and monitoring plan. Environmental Management 22: 287-295.
30. Nelson, G. S., and S. M. Nelson. 2001. Bird and butterfly communities associated with two types of urban riparian areas. Urban Ecosystems 5: 95-108.
31. New, T. R., and D. P. A. Sands. 2002. Conservation concerns for butterflies in urban areas of Australia. Journal of Insect Conservation 6: 207-215.
32. Niemi, G. J., and M. E. McDonald. 2004. Application of ecological indicators. Annual Review Ecology Evolution Systematics 35: 89-111.
33. NRC (National Research Council). 2000. Ecological indicators for the nation. National Academy, Washington, D.C.
34. Osenberg, C. W., B. M. Bolker, J. S. White, C. St. Mary, and J. S. Shima. 2006. Statistical issues and study design in ecological restorations: Lessons learned from marine reserves. Pages 280-302 in D. A. Falk, M. A. Palmer, and J. B. Zedler, editors. Foundations of restoration ecology. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
35. Pollard, E. 1988. Temperature, rainfall and butterfly numbers. Journal of Applied Ecology 25: 819-828.
36. Ripple, W. J., and R. L. Beschta. 2006. Linking a cougar decline, trophic cascade, and catastrophic regime shift in Zion National Park. Biological Conservation 233: 397-408.
37. Rodriguez, L. F. 2006. Can invasive species facilitate native species? Evidence of how, when, and why these impacts occur. Biological Invasions 8: 927-939.
38. Ruokolainen, L., and K. Salo. 2006. Differences in performance of four ordination methods on a complex vegetation dataset. Annales Botanici Fennici 43: 269-275.
39. Sawchik, J., M. Dufrêne, and P. Lebrun. 2005. Distribution patterns and indicator species of butterfly assemblages of wet meadows in southern Belgium. Belgian Journal of Zoology 135: 43-52.
40. Schmidtlein, S., and J. Sassin. 2004. Mapping of continuous floristic gradients in grasslands using hyperspectral imagery. Remote Sensing of Environment 92: 126-138.
41. Schulman, R. S. 1992. Statistics in plain english. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
42. Shafroth, P. B., J. R. Cleverly, T. L. Dudley, J. P. Taylor, C. Van Riper III, E. P. Weeks, and J. N. Stuart. 2005. Control of Tamarix in the western United States: Implications for water salvage, wildlife use, and riparian restoration. Environmental Management 35: 231-246.
43. Stein, E. D., F. Tabatabai, and R. F. Ambrose. 2000. Wetland mitigation banking: A framework for crediting and debiting. Environmental Management 26: 233-250.
44. Stromberg, J., S. Lite, and C. Paradzick. 2005. Tamarisk and river restoration along the San Pedro and Gila rivers. Pages 302-307 In G. J. Gottfried, B. S. Gebow, L. G. Eskew, and C. B. Edminster, editors, compilers. Connecting mountain islands and desert seas: Biodiversity and management of the Madrean Archipelago II. Proceedings RMRS-P-36, Tucson, Arizona, 11-15 May 2004. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, Colorado.
45. Tallamy, D. W. 2004. Do alien plants reduce insect biomass? Conservation Biology 18: 1689-1692.
46. ter Braak, C. J. F., and P. F. M. Verdonschot. 1995. Canonical correspondence analysis and related multivariate methods in aquatic ecology. Aquatic Sciences 57: 255-289.
47. Thomas, J. A. 2006. Monitoring the change in the abundance and distribution of insects using butterflies and other indicator groups. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 360: 339-357.
48. Thorne, J. H., J. O'Brien, M. L. Forister, and A. M. Shapiro. 2006. Building phenological models from presence/absence data for a butterfly fauna. Ecological Applications 16: 1842-1853.
49. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. A SAB report: A frame-work for assessing and reporting on ecological condition. EPA-SAB-EPEC-02-009. EPA Science Advisory Board, Washington, D.C.
50. van Riper, C. III, K. L. Paxton, C. O'Brien, P. B. Shafroth, and L. J. McGrath. 2008. Rethinking avian response to Tamarik on the lower Colorado River: A threshold hypothesis. Restoration Ecology 16: 155-167.
51. Zavaleta, E. 2000a. The economic value of controlling an invasive shrub. Ambio 29: 462-467.
52. Zavaleta, E. 2000b. Valuing ecosystem services lost to Tamarix invasion in the United States. Pages. 261-300 in H. A. Mooney and R. J. Hobbs, editors. Invasive species in a changing world. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
53. Zavaleta, E. S., R. J. Hobbs, and H. A. Mooney. 2001. Viewing invasive species removal in a whole-ecosystem context. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 16: 454-459.