Meta-analysis of survey data to assess trends of prairie butterflies in Minnesota, USA during 1979–2005
Meta-analysis of survey data to assess trends of prairie butterflies in Minnesota, USA during 1979–2005
复制标题
对调查数据进行荟萃分析，以评估 1979-2005 年美国明尼苏达州草原蝴蝶的趋势
DOI：
10.1007/s10841-008-9192-z
复制
发表时间：
2009
影响因子：
1.9
通讯作者：
S. Swengel
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
D. Schlicht;A. Swengel;S. Swengel
在1993-1996年期间，两个小组（施利希特，斯旺格尔斯）调查了相同的明尼苏达州大草原，但没有任何协调的网站，路线，方法，日期和结果之间的团队。有27次，两个调查队在同一年6月30日至7月18日期间对同一地点进行了调查。对于18个最常记录的物种，丰富的指数（个人/每小时每个网站）显着covariate团队之间的11个（61%）的物种，包括2/3的草原专家测试。没有种间显著负相关，17/18种间存在正相关，且正相关优势显著。每小时的Swengel指数（两名调查员;无限宽度样带）平均为施利希特指数（一名调查员;固定宽度样带）的2.42倍。这些结果表明，样带调查由不同的团队在相同的网站，但不相同的路线产生类似的排名物种丰富的网站之间。这种种群监测方法（在季节中进行样带调查，一次性涵盖最特殊的物种，不一定有固定的路线，但记录所有看到的物种）也可能适用于生境丧失严重和人口密度低的其他地区。计算了1979年至2005年7个小组调查的绝对指数，以评估人口趋势。对于五个可分析的专业物种，25/30的种群趋势测试的一个物种在一个网站有一个负方向，一个非常显着的偏斜（P < 0.0001）。相比之下，五个“常见”（最经常记录的非专业）物种的消极和积极趋势分布均匀。虽然邻近的网站有类似的时间下降阈值（去年当一个较高的速度或任何个人记录与第一年时，所有后续指数较低或为零）内的物种，这些阈值不同步的网站在不同的县。本研究中分析的所有地点都是主要用火管理的保护区。虽然生态系统（或植被）的保护区选择方法已在其他研究中验证，有效地捕捉相关的专业蝴蝶种群，保护区指定后，蝴蝶下降可能会继续，除非保护区管理的生态系统方法包括具体考虑个别蝴蝶物种所需的资源和管理公差。
During 1993–1996, two teams (Schlicht, Swengels) surveyed the same Minnesota prairies, but without any coordination of sites, routes, methods, dates, and results between teams. In 27 instances, both teams surveyed the same site in the same year between 30 June and 18 July. For the 18 most frequently recorded species, abundance indices (individuals/h per site) significantly covaried between teams for 11 (61%) species, including 2/3 prairie specialists tested. No species significantly correlated negatively, 17/18 species had positive correlations, and the preponderance of positive correlations was significant. Swengel indices per hour (two surveyors; unlimited-width transect) averaged 2.42 times Schlicht indices (one surveyor; fixed-width transect). These results demonstrate that transect surveys by different teams at the same sites but not the same routes produce similar rankings of species abundance among sites. This approach to population monitoring (transect surveys during the season that covers the most specialist species at once, not necessarily with fixed routes but recording all species seen) might also be appropriate in other regions with high habitat loss and low human population density. Abundance indices from surveys by seven teams spanning 1979–2005 were calculated for evaluating population trends. For the five analyzable specialist species, 25/30 population trend tests of a species at a site had a negative direction, a highly significant skewing (P < 0.0001). By contrast, five “common” (most frequently recorded non-specialist) species had an even distribution of negative and positive trends. While adjacent sites had similarly timed decline thresholds (last year when a higher rate or any individual was recorded vs. first year when all subsequent indices were lower or zero) within species, these thresholds were not synchronized among sites in different counties. All sites analyzed in this study were preserves managed primarily with fire. While the ecosystem (or vegetative) approach to reserve selection has been validated in other studies to be effective at capturing populations of associated specialist butterflies, butterfly declines after reserve designation will likely continue unless the ecosystem approach to reserve management includes specific consideration of individual butterfly species’ required resources and management tolerances.