A Swift Guide to Butterflies of North America

Glassberg, Jeffrey

doi:10.1515/9781400887774

Cited by 19 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…All parts of the process are discussed in detail here. Starting with the 875 taxa on the North American Butterfly Association’s 2nd edition checklist of butterflies occurring north of Mexico (NABA 2018), we retained 396 species with resident (non-vagrant) status in the eleven western states (Washington, Oregon, California, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, and Arizona) based on range maps in Glassberg (2017), and collapsed 18 subspecies into full species. For clarity and in order to facilitate wide use of our results, we also reference a second checklist by Pelham (2022) in places where names differ.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing risk for butterflies in the context of climate change, demographic uncertainty, and heterogenous data sources

Forister

Grames

Halsch

et al. 2022

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ongoing declines in insect populations have led to substantial concern and calls for conservation action. However, even for relatively well-studied groups, like butterflies, information relevant to species-specific status and risk is scattered across field guides, the scientific literature, and agency reports. Consequently, attention and resources have been spent on a miniscule fraction of insect diversity, including a few well-studied butterflies. Here we bring together heterogenous sources of information for 396 butterfly species and 1,004 subspecies to provide the first regional assessment of butterflies for the 11 western US states. For 184 species, we use monitoring and other observational data to characterize historical and projected trends in population abundance; for another 212 species (for which sufficient observational data are not available), we use exposure to climate change, development, geographic range, host breadth and other factors to rank species for conservation concern. We also organize information relevant to subspecific risk and prioritize a top 50 subspecies for further attention. A phylogenetic signal is apparent, with concentrations of declining and at-risk species in the families Lycaenidae and Hesperiidae. A geographic bias exists in that many species that lack monitoring data occur in more southern states where we expect that impacts of warming and drying trends will be most severe. Legal protection is relatively uncommon among the taxa with the highest risk values: of the top 100 species, one is listed as threatened under the US Endangered Species Act and one is a candidate for listing; of the top 50 subspecies, 15 have federal legal protection and one is under review for protected status. Among the many taxa not currently protected, we highlight a short list of species in decline, including Vanessa annabella, Thorybes mexicanus, Euchloe ausonides, and Pholisora catullus. Notably, many of these species have broad geographic ranges, which perhaps highlights a new era of insect conservation in which small or fragmented ranges will not be the only red flags that attract conservation attention.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing risk for butterflies in the context of climate change, demographic uncertainty, and heterogenous data sources

Forister

Grames

Halsch

et al. 2022

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As recommended by a local entomologist, as many transects as possible were surveyed both in the morning (08:00–12:00) and in the afternoon (14:00–18:00) to observe and account for species patterns throughout the day [ 60 ]. Laboratory analyses of photographs, voucher specimens, and field notes were performed using reputable field guides [ 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 ] to identify Lepidoptera not identified in the field.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To increase our ability to detect meaningful ecological patterns, we adopted a more conservative approach by broadening our focal taxa from butterflies to include all taxa in the order Lepidoptera. Upscaling to Lepidoptera is feasible in the LRGV because butterflies, skippers, and moths of the Tamaulipan biotic province (a larger area that includes the LRGV of Texas and northeastern Mexico) is thoroughly described [ 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 ]. However, although the regional assemblage of Lepidoptera species in the LRGV and the basic ecology of these species are well studied [ 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 ], there is a large knowledge gap in regard to the landscape and community ecology of Lepidoptera in the LRGV and the interactions between Lepidoptera and other taxa.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Patch Size, Fragmentation, and Invasive Species on Plant and Lepidoptera Communities in Southern Texas

Stilley

Gabler

2021

Insects

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Habitat loss, fragmentation, and invasive species are major threats to biodiversity. In the Lower Rio Grande Valley (LRGV) of southern Texas, a conservation hotspot, few studies have examined how land use change and biotic disturbance influence biodiversity, particularly among Lepidoptera. We surveyed 24 habitat fragments on private lands in the LRGV and examined how patch size, edge to interior ratio (EIR), prevalence of invasive, exotic, and pest (IEP) plant species, and other environmental factors influenced plant and Lepidoptera communities within four habitat classes. Biotic disturbance was widespread and intense. IEP plants represented three of the four most common species in all but one habitat class; yet, classes largely had distinctive plant and Lepidoptera communities. Larger habitat patches had lower IEP prevalence but also lower plant richness and lower Lepidoptera richness and abundance. Conversely, patches with higher EIRs had greater IEP prevalence, plant richness, and Lepidoptera richness and abundance. IEP prevalence was negatively related to plant diversity and positively related to woody dominance, blooming plant abundance, and, surprisingly, both plant cover and richness. However, plant richness, abundance, and diversity were higher where a greater proportion of the plants were native. Lepidoptera diversity increased with plant cover, and Lepidoptera richness and abundance increased with plant richness. More individual Lepidoptera species were influenced by habitat attributes than by availability of resources such as host plants or nectar sources. Our results illustrate extensive landscape alteration and biotic disturbance and suggest that most regional habitats are at early successional stages and populated by a novel species pool heavy in IEP species; these factors must be considered together to develop effective and realistic management plans for the LRGV.

show abstract

“…It has also been placed in the following genera: For many years the zebra swallowtail was known by the genus name Eurytides, until Möhn (2002) moved it from Eurytides to the genus Neographium and most recently, Lamas (2004) moved it to the genus Protographium. The name Protographium is now being used in recent taxonomic journal papers (e.g., Allio et al 2020;Condamine et al 2018), but Eurytides is still used by some field guides and butterfly books (e.g., Evans 2008;Glassberg 2017).…”

Section: Synonymymentioning

confidence: 99%

Zebra Swallowtail Protographium marcellus (Cramer) (Insecta: Lepidoptera: Papilionidae)

Hall

Butler

2021

EDIS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

A Swift Guide to Butterflies of North America

Cited by 19 publications

References 0 publications

Assessing risk for butterflies in the context of climate change, demographic uncertainty, and heterogenous data sources

Assessing risk for butterflies in the context of climate change, demographic uncertainty, and heterogenous data sources

Effects of Patch Size, Fragmentation, and Invasive Species on Plant and Lepidoptera Communities in Southern Texas

Zebra Swallowtail Protographium marcellus (Cramer) (Insecta: Lepidoptera: Papilionidae)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About