See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/233912215

Developing a methodology for a European Butterfly Climate Change Indicator

Book · January 2008

CITATIONS READS

9 629

11 authors, including:

Chris van Swaay Arco J. Van Strien

Vlinderstichting Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek
245 PUBLICATIONS   6,571 CITATIONS    155 PUBLICATIONS   10,362 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Romain Julliard Oliver Schweiger

Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle Helmholtz-Zentrum für Umweltforschung
222 PUBLICATIONS   11,582 CITATIONS    190 PUBLICATIONS   13,815 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Basking sharks in the NE Atlantic View project

PROjections ofNAture for Schools - the educational software PRONAS View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Chris van Swaay on 28 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Titel
Developing a methodology for a
European Butterfly Climate
Change Indicator
Developing a methodology for a
European Butterfly Climate
Change Indicator
Developing a methodology for a European Butterfly Climate Change Indicator

Text:
Chris van Swaay, De Vlinderstichting / Dutch Butterfly Conservation / BCE
Arco van Strien, Statistics Netherlands
Romain Julliard, MNHN, Paris
Oliver Schweiger, UFZ – Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research
Tom Brereton, Butterfly Conservation UK
Janne Heliölä, Finnish Environment Institute
Mikko Kuussaari, Finnish Environment Institute
David Roy, Centre for Ecology and Hydrology
Constanti Stefanescu, Museum of Granollers Ciències Naturals
Martin Warren, Butterfly Conservation UK
Josef Settele, UFZ – Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research

Photos
Chris van Swaay, De Vlinderstichting

Report number:
VS2008.040

Production:
De Vlinderstichting In co-operation with:
Dutch Butterfly Conservation - Butterfly Conservation Europe
P.O. Box 506 - Statistics Netherlands
NL-6700 AM Wageningen - Helmholz Centre for
T: +31-317-467346 Environmental research UFZ
E: info@vlinderstichting.nl
www.vlinderstichting.nl

Commissioner:
European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark

Preferred citation:
Van Swaay, C.A.M., Van Strien, A.J., Julliard, R., Schweiger, O., Brereton,
T., Heliölä, J., Kuussaari, M., Roy, D., Stefanescu, C., Warren, M.S.
& Settele, J. (2008) Developing a methodology for a European
Butterfly Climate Change Indicator. Report VS2008.040, De
Vlinderstichting, Wageningen.

Keywords:
Butterfly Monitoring Trend Index Europe Indicator Biodiversity Climate
Change

Niets van deze uitgave mag worden verveelvoudigd en/of openbaar gemaakt, door
middel van druk, microfilm, fotokopie of op welke andere wijze ook zonder
voorafgaande schriftelijke toestemming van De Vlinderstichting en de
opdrachtgever.

November 2008

DE VLINDERSTICHTING 2008 | Developing a methodology for a European Butterfly Climate Change Indicator 1
Contents

Summary ............................................................................................3

Chapter 1 / Introduction ......................................................................4

Chapter 2 / Butterflies and Climate Change............................................6

Expected future changes ..................................................................8

Chapter 3 / Constructing a Butterfly Climate Change Indicator............... 10

Methods tested .............................................................................. 10
Method 1: Climate positive and negative species ........................... 10
Method 2: Shift of species over their European Range .................... 11
Method 3: Changes in Community Temperature Index per country .. 11
Method 4: Supra-national changes in Community Temperature Index
................................................................................................. 12

Chapter 4 / First results ..................................................................... 13

Method 1: Climate positive and negative species ............................... 13
Method 2: Shift of species over their European Range ....................... 14
Method 3: Changes in Community Temperature Index ...................... 16
Method 4: Supra-national changes in Community Temperature Index . 18

Chapter 5 / Discussion ....................................................................... 19

Criteria for selection of indicators..................................................... 19
Summary of methods ..................................................................... 20
Method 1: Climate positive and negative species ............................... 21
Method 2: Shift of species over their European Range ....................... 21
Method 3: Changes in Community Temperature Index ...................... 22
Method 4: Supra-national changes in Community Temperature Index . 23
Effects on butterfly diversity ............................................................ 23

Chapter 5 / Conclusions ..................................................................... 24

Literature ......................................................................................... 25

Annex I / Butterfly Monitoring Schemes in the indicator ........................ 28

Field methods ................................................................................ 28

Annex II / Climate positive and negative species .................................. 29

DE VLINDERSTICHTING 2008 | Developing a methodology for a European Butterfly Climate Change Indicator 2
 Summary

The SEBI 2010 expert group 2 on ―Indicators on impacts of climate

change on biodiversity‖ has been asked to suggest options for the most
relevant indicators showing the impact of climate change on selected
species communities. For birds, an indicator has been developed based on
European trends of birds. Butterflies are considered one of the few other
groups for which comparable monitoring data exist in several countries.
They fulfil most criteria for effective indicators:
Butterflies are representatives of insects, by far the most species-rich
group of animals in Europe and the rest of the world. They are thus
highly relevant to biodiversity as a whole.
Butterfly Monitoring Schemes provide a well founded methodology.
Data are available in twelve countries with new ones joining each
year and data are available for more than two countries since 1990.
Butterflies are sensitive to climate change, as shown by Parmesan et
al. (1999). The Climatic Risk Atlas of European Butterflies (Settele et
al., 2008) projects large shifts in the climate space of butterflies over
the next 75 years with all species expected to be affected.
Butterflies are the only group apart from birds with large datasets on
relative abundance across Europe.

In this report we investigate the possibility of building a European

8,8
Butterfly Climate Change Indicator, by testing four different methods
using long running data from Finland, United Kingdom, Netherlands and
8,6 Catalunya (Spain). Two of the methods proved inconclusive because of
CTI (oC)

methodological problems and time lags between cause and effect.

However, one method showed clear and dramatic results. It uses the
8,4 annual change of the Community Temperature Index (CTI), calculated
following the method of Devictor et al. (2008). An increase in CTI would
reflect butterfly communities becoming increasingly composed of species
8,2
associated with warmer temperatures. The speed of increase shows how
1990 1995 2000 2005
fast butterfly communities adapt. The results show a clear upward trend
over the 18 years from 1990 to 2007, with an annual change in the CTI of
Figure 1: Temporal trend of the CTI
(Community Temperature Index, weighted 0.0138 oC (0.0142 oC if weighted by area of the countries; figure 1). As a
by country size) in Europe (represented by comparison: in the Netherlands the temperature has risen with 0,0389 oC
Catalunya, Netherlands, United Kingdom per year from 1970-2007, so two to three times as fast as the butterfly
and Finland).
community could move north.
An increase in CTI would reflect butterfly
communities becoming increasingly Devictor et al., 2008 reported a shift of the CTI for breeding birds in
composed of species associated with France of 91 ± 11 km from 1988-2006, corresponding to 86 km over
warmer temperatures. seventeen years. Using the same method for butterflies the shift
corresponds to 206 ± 148 km in the United Kingdom and 125 ± 62 km in
the Netherlands in the seventeen years between 1990 and 2007. Thus
butterflies seem to be responding even faster than birds, likely due to
their cold-blooded nature which bounds them more to temperature
regimes than warm-blooded birds.

The annual change of CTI is a good candidate to build a European

Butterfly Climate Change Indicator, using data from all European Butterfly
Monitoring Schemes. This report provides only a first test of the indicator
and many unanswered questions remain. However we believe the results
demonstrate the great potential for a butterfly indicator of climate change
for Europe.

DE VLINDERSTICHTING 2008 | Developing a methodology for a European Butterfly Climate Change Indicator 3
 Chapter 1 / Introduction

The Expert Group 2 of SEBI 2010 (Streamlining European

Biodiversity Indicators 2010) ‘Indicators on impact of climate

change on biodiversity’ is collecting information on possible

indicators to monitor the impact of climate change on European

biodiversity.

Phase 1 of the SEBI 2010 concluded in the summer of 2007

BMS active with the publication of a technical report documenting the 26
BMS expected soon indicators in the set. Phase 2 will focus on securing the
dataflows for the SEBI 2010 set of indicators, and on the use
of these indicators for assessment reports. In addition, gaps
in the current set will be addressed. An indicator of the
impact of climate change on biodiversity was identified as an
important gap.
At the first meeting of the SEBI 2010 expert group 2:
‗Indicators on impact of climate change on biodiversity‘ in
February 2008 in Paris, ideas for developing indicators of
climatic change impact were discussed. For birds, an indicator
has been developed based on European trends of breeding
birds. This indicator is build upon monitoring data available in
almost all European countries. Bird species were selected and
weighted according to their response in climate envelope
models. Such models give a statistical description of climatic
variables that are relevant for the distribution of species.
These climate models for birds were based on data on the
European distribution of birds (Huntley et al., 2007). The bird
indicator is a composite index based on the yearly European
Figure 2 : Butterfly Monitoring indices of individual species. A paper describing the bird indicator is now
Schemes (BMS) in Europe.
under review (Gregory et al., in prep.). Up to now, there are no other
indicators of climate change effects on biodiversity available on a large
spatial scale.
Butterflies are one of the few other groups for which comparable
monitoring data exist in several countries.

Butterflies are known to be sensitive to climate change (e.g. Parmesan et

al., 1999). The Butterfly Climate Change Atlas (Settele et al., 2008) shows
the expected changes in the distribution of European butterflies under
different climate scenarios. Using the Butterfly Monitoring Schemes in
Europe (figure 2) we explored several methods to develop a European
Butterfly Climate Change Indicator.

Butterflies, together with birds and vascular plants, are the most
frequently monitored taxonomic groups in Europe (de Heer et al., 2005;
Thomas, 2005), due mostly to their high popularity among amateur
naturalists. Several ecological characteristics also make butterflies
promising biodiversity indicators: (i) they have short (typically annual) life
cycles and are thus more sensitive than other groups to changes in their

DE VLINDERSTICHTING 2008 | Developing a methodology for a European Butterfly Climate Change Indicator 4
 habitats (Thomas, 1994; van Swaay & Warren, 1999; Thomas et al.,
2004); (ii) they breed in small habitat patches and are likely to reflect
changes occurring at a fine scale (van Swaay et al., 2006); (iii) they may
be expected to be representative of a wide range of terrestrial habitats
(van Swaay et al., 2006), and more importantly to be adequate indicators
for many groups of terrestrial insects (Thomas 2005), which themselves
constitute the predominant fraction of biodiversity; (iv) they are
exothermic and can thus be expected, despite some physiological and
behavioral compensation mechanisms, to react directly to changes in
temperature regimes with changes in community composition.
Consequently, monitoring the change in abundance and assessing the
distribution of butterflies have been suggested as a potential tool for
assessing large-scale biodiversity trends (Thomas, 2005; Van Swaay &
Van Strien, 2005, van Swaay et al, 2006).

Compared to many vertebrates, butterfly populations are subject to

considerable annual fluctuations induced by both inherent population
dynamics and environmental variation, such as weather patterns (Pollard,
1988; Roy et al., 2001). As a consequence, longer time-series are typically
required to distinguish between such fluctuations and actual temporal
trends (van Strien et al., 1997; Thomas, 2005), but global changes should
be visible over a rather short time period.

Butterfly monitoring is becoming increasingly popular in Europe. The map

in figure 2 shows the current Butterfly Monitoring Schemes (BMS) and the
countries where they are expected to start soon (e.g. Sicily, Basque-region
of Spain, Romania, Denmark, Sweden, Luxemburg), Although a growing
number of Butterfly Monitoring Schemes exist, long time-series are only
available for a limited number of countries. To test the possibilities of a
Butterfly Climate Change Indicator we use the longer running Butterfly
Monitoring Schemes of Finland, the United Kingdom, The Netherlands and
Catalunya (Spain).

DE VLINDERSTICHTING 2008 | Developing a methodology for a European Butterfly Climate Change Indicator 5
Chapter 2 / Butterflies and Climate Change

The expected climate change will have many effects on biodiversity.

This chapter gives a short overview of the consequences of climate

change on butterflies.

Butterflies require body temperatures of 30–35oC for optimal growth and

development (Porter, 1982; Shreeve, 1992; Stoutjesdijk & Barkman, 1992).
Although butterflies have all kinds of methods to raise their temperature to this
level (e.g. sun basking, coloration, body movement), climate is one of the
major factors determining the distribution of these insects. Hence, it has been
suggested that climatic warming drives the range expansion of many species at
the cool margins of their range, both in latitude and in altitude (Parmesan et
al., 1999; Warren et al., 2001; Parmesan & Yohe, 2003; Wilson et al., 2007).

There are several ways in which climate change may affect butterflies:
Direct effects on the physiology: butterflies and their caterpillars have an
optimum temperature range, in which body processes function best. If the
microclimate changes, this will affect their survival and thus have an effect
on their numbers and range.
Effects on the abiotic environment. Apart from the direct effect of coastal
areas being flooded because of sea-level rise, the most direct effect of
climate change will be on soil systems in terms of organic matter and
especially water content.
Climate change has an impact on the vegetation structure leading to
greater spring/summer grass growth.
Larval foodplants change their range. Many specialist butterflies depend on
one or two species of foodplant. If their optimal range doesn‘t overlap with
the new foodplant range, this can result in a change in the possible future
range of such butterflies. This is demonstrated in the example of Boloria
titania and its larval foodplant Polygonum bistorta (Schweiger et al., in
press; EEA, 2008).
Species interactions: It is inevitable that range changes for plants and
animals will lead to new interactions between species. Changes in
temperature may result in asynchrony between food sources and breeding,
causing starvation of young that emerge too early (e.g. Visser & Holleman,
2001). This will mostly affect specialist species and butterflies with complex
interactions with other species. In this respect species of the genus
Maculinea (figure 3), having not only foodplants, but also host-ants, can be
vulnerable (Wynhoff et al., 2008). Changes and disruptions in the
interactions between butterflies and their parasitoids, pathogens and
predators are also highly likely (Both et al., 2006; Menéndez et al., 2008).

Figure 3: Highly specialised butterflies, like Maculinea

alcon (right) are often restricted to only one or a few
foodplants (in this case Gentiana pneumonanthe, left,
here with eggs of M. alcon). Furthermore the larvae of
this butterfly live part of their life in ants-nest, adding an
extra interaction to their life cycle.

DE VLINDERSTICHTING 2008 | Developing a methodology for a European Butterfly Climate Change Indicator 6
 Figure 4: Range expansion of
Polygonia c-album in the
Netherlands between 1975 and
2000 (Milieu- en
Natuurplanbureau, 2003).

The overall impact of climate change on butterflies will be a new balance of

gains and losses: species will tend to expand their range at the cold edge of
their distribution, and lose populations at the southern edge (Parmesan et al.,
1999). The process of range expansion is already clearly visible in some species
for which historical data are available, e.g. Polygonia c-album in the
Netherlands (figure 4). In the United Kingdom fifteen species have been
reported to show a substantial range increase. Six of them are shown in figure
5.
As expected by climate change scenarios, especially large and rapid shifts have
been recently observed in northern latitudes in Finland, where one third of the
studied 48 species had shifted their range >100 km northwards in eight years
(Pöyry et al., 2008).

Figure 5: Six examples of

range expansion of butterfly
species in the United Kingdom
and Ireland (Fox et al., 2006).

DE VLINDERSTICHTING 2008 | Developing a methodology for a European Butterfly Climate Change Indicator 7
 Expected future changes
Recent climate change has already affected the distributions of many species
(Warren et al., 2001; Parmesan & Yohe, 2003; Wilson et al., 2007; Franco et
al., 2006; Hickling et al., 2006), but future changes are likely to have even
more severe impacts (Thomas et al., 2004). These impacts can be assessed
with bioclimatic envelope models, which relate the current distribution of
species to climatic variables to derive projected future distributions under
climate change scenario‘s (e.g. Huntley et al., 2004; Settele et al, 2008).
Settele et al. (2008) present the results of climate envelope models for the
future distribution of European butterflies in 2050 and 2080 under three
different scenarios of climate change.
An example is presented in figures 6 and 7. Figure 6 shows the observed
distribution of Ochlodes sylvanus, a common butterfly in most of Europe. The
bioclimatic envelope model results in a modeled actual distribution, which
shows the climate niche (the potential distribution, only based on climate
variables) of this butterfly. Using this model, but now with changed climatic
conditions as a result of three future climate scenarios, the potential future
distribution of this species is presented in figure 7.
The results of these maps can be used to identify species which are expected to
react positively (i.e. expand their range) or negatively to climate change (i.e.
retract their range; see chapter 3).

Figure 6: Observed species

distribution (50 × 50 km² UTM grid;
black circles) and modelled actual
distribution of climatic niche (orange
areas)) for Ochlodes sylvanus.
Source: Settele et al. (2008).

DE VLINDERSTICHTING 2008 | Developing a methodology for a European Butterfly Climate Change Indicator 8
 Figure 7: Expected climate envelopes for three scenarios (rows) and two future
years (columns: 2050 left, 2080 right) for Ochlodes sylvanus.
SEDG scenario: Sustainable Europe Development Goal scenario.
BAMBU scenario: Business-As-Might-Be-Usual scenario.
GRAS scenario: GRowth Applied Strategy scenario.
For more details on the scenarios and climate envelope models see Settele et al.
(2008).
Grey: suitable at present, not suitable in future.
Orange: suitable at present and in future.
Brown: not suitable at present, suitable in future.
Source: Settele et al. (2008), see also
http://pensoftonline.net/biorisk/index.php/journal/issue/current/showT

DE VLINDERSTICHTING 2008 | Developing a methodology for a European Butterfly Climate Change Indicator 9
Chapter 3 / Constructing a Butterfly Climate Change Indicator

Four methods have been tested to explore the possibilities to use

butterflies as indicators for climate change. To explore a preliminary

indicator we use only data from a monitoring scheme in the north

(Finland, a boreal region with counts since 1999), south (Catalunya,

Spain, a Mediterranean region with counts since 1994) and two in the

middle (The Netherlands and the United Kingdom, in the Atlantic

region with counts since 1990 and 1976 respectively).

Methods tested
To test several methods for building a Butterfly Climate Change Indicator the
following data were available:
Total number of butterflies per species per year per site for the
Butterfly Monitoring Schemes in Finland, UK, Netherlands and
Catalunya.
Indexes as calculated by TRIM (Pannekoek & Van Strien, 2003) for all
butterfly species in the Butterfly Monitoring Schemes in Finland, UK,
Netherlands and Catalunya.
Results of Settele et al. (2008):
o The change in Europe as a whole for 2050 and 2080 of
butterfly climate envelopes under three scenarios and no or
full dispersal.
o The same for the four countries with a BMS (Finland, UK,
Netherlands and Catalunya).
Four methods, described in more detail below, have been tested for their
usefulness as Butterfly Climate Change Indicator:
1. Climate positive and negative species
2. Shift of species over their European Range
3. Changes in Community Temperature Index per country
4. Changes in Community Temperature Index in Europe

The indicator methods are discussed in more detail below

Method 1: Climate positive and negative species

This method is to some extent comparable to the breeding bird climate change
indicator (Gregory et al., in prep). The method shows the ratio or difference
between the mean trend of climate positive and climate negative species.
Climate positive species are butterflies that are expected to expand their range
in a country as a consequence of the expected climate change. Climate
negative species are the opposite. If we assume that an expansion (or
reduction) of the range will be accompanied by an increase (or decline) of the
population size, we can measure whether corresponding changes in population
abundance are detected from Butterfly Monitoring Schemes time series.
The procedure involves:
1. A selection is made of climate-positive and climate-negative species in
each of the participating countries. This selection was based on the
BAMBU scenario for 2080 in Settele et al. (2008). All species expected
to expand their range in a certain country by more than 20% were

DE VLINDERSTICHTING 2008 | Developing a methodology for a European Butterfly Climate Change Indicator 10
 considered climate positive species, all species expected to retreat by
more than 20% were considered climate negative species. This means
a species can be used as climate positive species in one country, and
as climate negative in another country. In all countries Vanessa
atalanta and V. cardui were omitted from the analysis, since these are
true migrant species in most of Europe. In the UK Thymelicus lineola
and T. sylvestris were not distinguished in the BMS, so these species
could not be used.
2. For each country, a separate composite index based on the
(geometric) mean of the yearly population indices for (1) climate-
positive and (2) climate-negative species was calculated. Note that
unlike the bird climate change indicator (Gregory et al., in prep.), the
butterfly climate indicator could not yet be based on supranational
trends.
3. The potential final country climate butterfly indicator would be the
ratio between climate-positive and climate-negative species.
This will generate four indicators for the countries participating.

Method 2: Shift of species over their European Range

If the range of a species is shifting north, butterflies are expected to expand at
the northern edge of their range and retract at the southern edge. If expanding
species also increase in numbers and vice versa, the species occurring in both
Finland and Catalunya would be expected to increase in the former and decline
in the latter.
Nineteen species occur in both countries. From these 19 species two were
omitted (Vanessa cardui, figure 8, and V. atalanta) because they are true
migrant species in Europe, and their annual influx is determined much more by
other factors. Two methods were used:
1. For Finland and Catalunya a separate composite index based on the
Figure 8: Vanessa cardui is a migrant (geometric) mean of the yearly indices of these 17 species were
species in Europe, colonising the calculated. The final country climate butterfly indicator could be the
continent every year from Africa. ratio between the Finish and Catalonian results.
2. For each species we analysed the ratio from the indexes of Finland and
Catalunya. With these data we calculated the year to year temporal
trend of the ratio using a General Linear Model (GLM).

Method 3: Changes in Community Temperature Index per country

This method is based on the work of Devictor et al. (2008) which is based on
analysis of bird species in France. In general this method aims to measure
changes in community composition in response to climate warming. The
procedure involves:
1. For each butterfly species a Species Temperature Index (STI) was
obtained from the distribution data from Kudrna (2002) and the
climate data as used by Settele et al. (2008). The STI is the long-term
average temperature experienced by individuals of that species over
its range. This species characteristic is comparable to the well-known
Ellenberg values for nutrient and temperature for plant species.
2. For each recording site and every year a Community Temperature
Index (CTI) was calculated as the average of each individual‘s STI
present in the assemblage (so the CTI is weighted by proportion of the
species in the assemblage). A high CTI would thus reflect a large
proportion of species with a high STI, i.e. more high temperature
dwelling species. In Catalunya transects on the Balearic Islands were
omitted from the analysis, since the butterfly fauna and climatic
conditions on these locations differs from mainland Catalunya.
Catalunya is also the only area in our analysis with mountains over
1000m. All transects above 1000m altitude were omitted from the
analysis, as our main interest is in the south-north gradient of the CTI

DE VLINDERSTICHTING 2008 | Developing a methodology for a European Butterfly Climate Change Indicator 11
 and that this gradient might have been locally biased by transects
located in higher altitudes. Furthermore the Catalonian BMS has shown
a steady increase in the number of sites from the beginning, but only
in recent years true mountain sites (e.g. Pyrenean sites at elevations
of 1500 mor even more) have been incorporated.
3. The year-to-year temporal trend of CTI was then analysed with
General Linear Models (GLM‘s), using data from all monitored plots per
country.
4. The rate of change in CTI from south to north was also estimated. The
south-north gradient of CTI was calculated using all BMS transects
counted in 2005 in each country. This year was chosen as all Butterfly
Monitoring Schemes were active in that year. Furthermore Devictor et
al. (2008) used this year as well to estimate the south-north gradient
for the CTI for birds in France, and using the same year made a simple
comparison between the results for birds in France with our results
possible. After that the slope of the regression between CTI and
latitude was calculated.
5. In the case that both trends are significant, the speed of change in
km.year-1 is calculated.

Method 4: Supra-national changes in Community Temperature Index

This method is the same as in method 3, except that all the data from the four
Butterfly Monitoring Schemes are entered into one analysis. This analysis was
only performed for the period in which at least two Butterfly Monitoring
Schemes were active (in this case since 1990).
An unweighted analysis was initially performed but is biased by the large
number of transects in the United Kingdom and Netherlands relatively to the
other two schemes. To correct for this problem, the data is also weighted as
follows:
The CTI scores per country are weighted by the area per country. This
assumes that the CTI results per country are representative for each
country as a whole, which might not be true as parts of Scotland in
the United Kingdom and the north of Finland are undersampled.
Yearly CTI values per country and their associated standard errors are
added. This procedures is similar to the one applied for the grassland
butterfly indicator (Van Swaay & Van Strien, 2008) in which country
results are being combined. In this procedure any missing yearly
results for some countries are imputed using a adapted version of
TRIM (TRends and Indices for Monitoring data - Pannekoek & Van
Strien, 2003).

DE VLINDERSTICHTING 2008 | Developing a methodology for a European Butterfly Climate Change Indicator 12
 Chapter 4 / First results

Method 1: Climate positive and negative species

1. Selecting climate positive and climate negative species.
For all species for which indexes and trends could be calculated in the
Butterfly Monitoring Schemes of Finland, United Kingdom, Netherlands
and Catalunya, the UFZ (Oliver Schweiger and Josef Settele) provided
data on the expected change in distribution per country under all
scenarios. Annex II and table 1 shows the results. Finland and the
United Kingdom have many climate positive species. For Catalunya
only two species are climate positive, but almost 70 are climate
negative.

Table 1: Number of climate positive and climate negative species per country.
Species are considered climate neutral if their expected change under the full
dispersal BAMBU scenario in 2080 is less than 20%.
See Annex II for a species list.
Climate Climate Neutral or
positive negative unclear
Finland 35 5 11
United Kingdom 20 4 19
Netherlands 7 9 33
Catalunya 2 68 8

2. Composite index per country

The number of species available to calculate composite indexes is very
low for some combinations (especially for climate positive species in
Catalunya and climate negative species in Finland and the United
Kingdom). Figure 9 presents the results for all combinations.

2 3000
Finland Climate negative UK Climate negative
Climate positive 2500 Climate positive
1,5
2000

1 1500

1000
0,5
500

0 0
1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
120 2,5
Netherlands Climate negative Catalunya Climate negative
100 Climate positive Climate positive
2
80
1,5
60
1
40
Figure 9: Composite indexes
of climate positive and negative 20 0,5
butterflies in four countries.
0 0
1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006

DE VLINDERSTICHTING 2008 | Developing a methodology for a European Butterfly Climate Change Indicator 13
 3. Indicator per country
Figure 10 presents the indicator as the ratio between climate positive
and climate negative species per country. The ratio shows strong
fluctuations from year to year (see for example the long UK series).
Furthermore, the ratio is also unreliable, because for almost all
countries (except Netherlands) the number of species in one group is
much larger than in the other group. This makes the indicator
vulnerable to small changes in a single species.

3,5
Finland
3 United Kingdom
Netherlands
2,5
Catalunya
2
Figure 10: Ratio of the
composite indexes of climate 1,5
positive and negative species in
four European countries. If the 1
ratio is rising, it means that
climate positive species are 0,5
doing relatively better than
climate negative species. 0
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Method 2: Shift of species over their European Range

If species shift north because of climate change, we expect them to increase in
Finland and decline in Catalunya. The seventeen species occurring in both
countries were used for this analysis (Callophrys rubi, Pieris napi, Aglais urticae,
Anthocharis cardamines, Lycaena phlaeas, Pieris brassicae, Celastrina argiolus,
Pieris rapae, Polyommatus icarus, Coenonympha pamphilus, Papilio machaon,
Polygonia c-album, Ochlodes sylvanus, Gonepteryx rhamni, Leptidea sinapis,
Inachis io, Pararge aegeria):
1. Ratio of composite indexes for Finland and Catalunya
Figure 11 shows the composite indexes for the 17 species in both
countries.

160
Catalunya
140
Finland
120
100
80
60
Figure 11: Composite index 40
for Finland and Catalunya of
the 17 species occurring in both 20
Butterfly Monitoring Schemes.
0
1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006

The ratio from these indexes if given in figure 12. There is no

significant trend.

DE VLINDERSTICHTING 2008 | Developing a methodology for a European Butterfly Climate Change Indicator 14
 1,2

0,8

0,6

0,4
Figure 12: Ratio of the
composite indexes for Finland 0,2
and Catalunya, of the 17
species occurring in both
Butterfly Monitoring Schemes. 0
1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

2. Temporal variation in ratio‘s.

For all 17 species occurring in Finland and Catalunya, we calculate the
ratio from the indexes. Figure 13. shows the mean values of the ratios
of the indexes per species for Finland / Catalunya per year plus the
standard error. There is no significant relation (p=0.15), but there is
some tendency for an increasing trend, which might become
significant after a few additional years.

2,5

1,5

1
Figure 13: Mean values and
standard errors of the ratios of
0,5
the indexes per species
(Finland divided by Catalunya).
0
1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

DE VLINDERSTICHTING 2008 | Developing a methodology for a European Butterfly Climate Change Indicator 15
 Method 3: Changes in Community Temperature Index
1. STI per species.
For each species in the Butterfly Monitoring Schemes of Finland, the
United Kingdom, Netherlands and Catalunya the STI is calculated using
the data from Settele et al. (2008). Table 2 summarises the STI values
per country. As expected, values are lower in the northern part of
Europe.

Table 2: Mean STI values of the butterflies occurring per country.

Country Mean STI (±standard error)
Finland 7.85 ± 0.20
United Kingdom 8.91 ± 0.14
Netherlands 8.97 ± 0.14
Catalunya 10.62 ± 0.23

2. For each combination of site and year in each country the CTI was
calculated.
3. Changes in CTI
Table 3 gives an overview of the changes in CTI in the four
investigated Butterfly Monitoring Schemes. In results from the Finnish
Scheme, Inachis io was removed from the selection. This species
has not been resident in Finland for much more than 15 years. After
being a TOP 5 -species for several years, its populations crashed over
70% in 2006 alone, probably because of some species-specific factor
(e.g. parasitoids) (pers. comm. Janne Heliölä).
Figure 14 shows the temporal trends of the CTI for each of the
Butterfly Monitoring Schemes.

Table 3: Overview of the changes in CTI in the four Butterfly Monitoring

Schemes.
Standard
error of the
Annual annual
change in change in
Country Period CTI (oC) CTI (oC) P
Finland 1999-2007 +0.0055 0.0036 0.18
United 1980-2007 +0.0083 0.0009 <0.001
Kingdom
1990-2007 +0.0161 0.0015 <0.001
Netherlands 1990-2007 +0.0110 0.0009 <0.001
Catalunya 1994-2007 +0.0282 0.0103 <0.01

DE VLINDERSTICHTING 2008 | Developing a methodology for a European Butterfly Climate Change Indicator 16
 8,2 9,3
Finland United Kingdom

8 9,1

CTI (oC)

CTI (oC)
7,8 8,9

7,6 8,7
1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

9,4 11,4
Netherlands Catalunya
11,2

9,2 11
CTI (oC)

CTI (oC)
10,8

9 10,6

10,4

8,8 10,2
1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006

Figure 14: Temporal trends of the average CTI ± standard error for each of the Butterfly Monitoring
Schemes. The scale of the y-axis for Catalunya is different from the other schemes.

4. CTI change from south to north in 2005

Figure 15 shows the changes in CTI over the south-north gradient in
2005 per country. The trend results are summarize in table 4.

9 10,5
Community Temperature Index ( oC)

Community Temperature Index ( oC)

Finland United Kingdom

10

9,5
8,5
9

8,5
8
8

7,5
7,5
7

6,5

7 6
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Distance from S border (km) Distance from S border (km)

10,5 13
Community Temperature Index ( oC)

Catalunya
Community Temperature Index ( oC)

Netherlands
12,5
10
12

11,5
9,5
11

9 10,5

10
8,5
9,5

8 9
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 0 50 100 150 200 250

Distance from S border (km) Distance from S border (km)

Figure 15: South-north gradient of the CTI. Each point represents the CTI of a BMS transect,
monitored in 2005.

DE VLINDERSTICHTING 2008 | Developing a methodology for a European Butterfly Climate Change Indicator 17
 Table 4: Change of the CTI per km in 2005 in the
Butterfly Monitoring Schemes.
CTI change Standard error of the
Country (oC/km change in CTI (oC/km) P
Finland -0.001071 0.000126 <0.001
United Kingdom -0.001323 0.000172 <0.001
Netherlands -0.001501 0.000247 <0.001
Catalunya -0.001957 0.003079 0.53

5. Shift per year

For the Netherlands and the United Kingdom both the change of CTI
per year and the south-north gradient of the CTI over the country in
2005 is significant. Under the assumption that the change of CTI
follows the south-north gradient as calculated in 2005, this result is a
south to north shift of the CTI in the Netherlands of 7.33 ± 3.64
km.year-1 and in the United Kingdom of 12.17 ± 8.72 km.year-1. This
corresponds to a shift since 1990 of 206 ± 148 km in the United
Kingdom and 125 ± 62 km in the Netherlands.

Method 4: Supra-national changes in Community Temperature Index

When all data of method 3 is entered in one European analysis, a strong
significant relationship can be seen: from 1990 to 2007 the CTI changes per
year is 0.0138 ± 0.0012 oC (P<0.001). Figure 16 shows the temporal trend of
the CTI in Catalunya, Netherlands, United Kingdom and Finland combined
without any form of weighting. Restricting the analysis to the period 1999-2007
(in which all four Butterfly Monitoring Schemes were active) resulted in a CTI
change of 0.0220 ± 0.0032 oC (P<0.001), but this is mainly caused by the large
number of transects in the United Kingdom and the strong increase in that
country after 1999.

Also after the weighting procedure the change over the four countries is
significant with a CTI change 0,0142 ± 0,0017 oC (P<0.001). Figure 16 shows
the temporal trend. Restricting the analysis to the period 1999-2007 resulted in
a CTI change of 0.0113 oC (P<0.001).

9,3 8,8
Community Temperature Index (oC)
Community Temperature Index (oC)

9,1 8,6

8,9 8,4

8,7 8,2
1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005

Figure 16: Temporal trend of the CTI (± standard error) in Europe (represented by Catalunya, Netherlands,
United Kingdom and Finland). Left: unweighted; right: weighted by area of the country.

DE VLINDERSTICHTING 2008 | Developing a methodology for a European Butterfly Climate Change Indicator 18
 Chapter 5 / Discussion

Butterflies as cold blooded animals are sensitive to climate change. In

this chapter we discuss the four methods that have been explored to

form a European Butterfly Climate Change Indicator.

120 The distribution of butterflies is the result of a long

Butterfly Conservation Europe / Statistics Netherlands
period of adaptation to climate, soil, vegetation,
100 availability of foodplants, etc. The last decades have
shown large changes in many of these factors. As a
80 consequence the distribution and abundance of many
butterflies has changed, often for worse. Van Swaay &
60 Van Strien (2008) discuss that intensification of
grasslands on one hand and abandonment on the other
40 hand, have led to a strong decline in grassland
butterflies (figure 17).
20
Although climate change is a relatively new phenomena,
0 Parmesan et al. (1999) showed that butterflies have
1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 already shifted their range northward as a consequence
of global warming. As a consequence of climate change
Figure 17: The European Grassland Butterfly Indicator
the climate envelopes of butterflies are projected to shift
shows a strong decline: since 1990 numbers have dropped
with almost 60%, outweighting the small annual variations, north for almost all European butterflies (Settele et al.,
mainly caused by weather effects. The traffic light is red, 2008). Warren et al. (2001) showed that although
indicating a deteriorating situation. Source: Van Swaay & Van butterflies can move north, most sedentary specialists
Strien (2008).
have not expanded because habitat patches are too
fragmented and isolated to allow colonisation.
An indicator for climate change will have to be able to show the effect of the
climate change on biodiversity. Since butterflies are sensitive to climate change
and Butterfly Monitoring Schemes are available in a growing number of
countries, they seem a good group to investigate the possibilities to build an
indicator on climate change. In this report four methods have been tested: two
methods work on the assumption that species will increase in numbers at the
northern edge of their range and will decline at the southern edge, and two
methods that work with changes in species composition.

Criteria for selection of indicators

Butterfly Monitoring projects have been launched in many European countries
and new ones are being set up each year (figure 2). Combining the results of
Butterfly Monitoring Schemes has proven to be very useful in developing a
European Grassland Butterfly Indicator (Van Swaay & Van Strien, 2008). Since
the butterfly transect methodology is well described and tested, and all
Butterfly Monitoring Schemes are counted on an annual basis, this makes them
good candidates for a butterfly climate change indicator. Butterfly Monitoring
Schemes score well on the criteria used in SEBI 2010:
1. Policy relevant and meaningful. For butterflies, climate change is expected
to lead to a northward shift of the range of many species. An increase of a
species at the northern edge of its range and a decline at the southern
edge is thus a sign of the species reacting to climate change.

DE VLINDERSTICHTING 2008 | Developing a methodology for a European Butterfly Climate Change Indicator 19
 2. Biodiversity relevant. Butterflies are easy to recognize and the most
popular and best-studied group of insects. Representing over 50% of all
terrestrial species, insects comprise the major part of biodiversity. Changes
in butterfly numbers are a clear indication of changes in the insect world,
and thus for a large proportion of Europe‘s biodiversity. Being cold-
blooded, insects react quickly to changes in the climate (induced by climate
change).
3. Well founded methodology. Butterfly monitoring has been carried out in
the United Kingdom since 1976. Many scientific papers make use of the
results, both for ecological and conservation purposes. The method has
been tested and proved to be robust and sound (Pollard & Yates, 1993;
Van Swaay et al., 2008). The simplicity of the transect method has led to
its widespread adoption for monitoring in many parts of the world.
4. Acceptance and intelligibility. The power of an indicator depends on its
broad acceptance. Involvement of policy-makers as well as major
stakeholders and experts in the development of an indicator is crucial. This
report only aims at presenting a few ways to come to an indicator.
5. Routinely collected data. Data for Butterfly Monitoring Schemes are active
in twelve countries (figure 2; Annex I). In these Schemes data are
collected annually and are rapidly available. Nevertheless longer time series
(more than ten years) are only available in a few countries.
6. Cause-effect relationship. This report, papers like Parmesan et al. (1999)
and the new Climatic Risk Atlas of European butterflies (Settele et al.,
2008) show that butterflies indeed are very sensitive to climate change. In
this report we examine whether it is possible to detect changes in butterfly
numbers or composition in Butterfly Monitoring Schemes on an annual
basis that might indicate climate change effects.
7. Spatial coverage. Butterfly Monitoring Schemes are active in an increasing
number of countries. Figure 2 shows the European distribution of Butterfly
Monitoring Schemes. For twelve countries, from Finland in the north to
Catalunya in the south, BMS data can be used for indicators. In spite of the
growing number of new countries joining in, long running Butterfly
Monitoring Schemes are mainly active in Western Europe.
8. Temporal trend. Butterfly Monitoring Schemes collect data to show the
trends of species on an annual basis. As a consequence the resulting
indicator can be annually updated. There are only a few Butterfly
Monitoring Schemes going back further than 1990 (e.g. United Kingdom),
and many schemes have started only recently (e.g. Germany and France).
9. Country comparison. Butterfly monitoring data are collected at country or
regional level. That means that it is possible to compare data for different
regions and countries.
10. Sensitivity towards change. This report shows it is possible to develop a
sensitive butterfly indicator for climate change.
Apart from these general preconditions, a climate change indicator must be
relative insensitive to other parameters affecting biodiversity, like drainage,
intensification or abandonment, nitrogen deposition, etc. Of course butterflies
are sensitive to other environmental factors (e.g. Van Swaay & Van Strien,
2008), but in analysis for an indicator it is possible to take this into account,
e.g. by working with climate envelope models. It requires further analysis to
exclude those parameters from climate change.

Summary of methods
Four methods were tested for the climate change indicator for butterflies:
1. Climate positive and negative species
a. First climate positive and climate negative species were
identified using Settele et al. (2008): Climatic Risk Atlas of
European Butterflies.

DE VLINDERSTICHTING 2008 | Developing a methodology for a European Butterfly Climate Change Indicator 20
 b. After that the national indexes per year of the Butterfly
Monitoring Schemes were used to generate composite
indexes per country of climate positive and negative species.
c. The ratio between climate positive and climate negative
composite indexes can be an indicator of climate change.
2. Shift of species over their European Range
This method uses only the trends in Finland and Catalunya for the 17
species occurring in both areas. As a result of climate change species
are expected to expand in Finland and decline in Catalunya.
3. Changes in Community Temperature Index
a. Using distribution data and climate data the average
temperature of each butterfly species over its range is
calculated (called the STI: Species Temperature Index).
b. For each recording site and every year a Community
Temperature Index (CTI) was calculated as the average of
each individual‘s STI present in the assemblage. A high CTI
would thus reflect a large proportion of species with a high
STI, i.e. more high temperature dwelling species.
c. The year-to-year temporal trend of CTI was then analysed
with General Linear Models (GLM‘s), using data from all
monitored plots per country.
4. Supra-national changes in Community Temperature Index
This method is the same as in method 3, except that all the data from
the four Butterfly Monitoring Schemes are entered into one analysis,
both unweighted and weighted by country size.

Method 1: Climate positive and negative species

This first method has some big advantages, as it is simple and fast to apply and
follows to a certain extent a method comparable with the one used for birds
(Gregory et al., in prep.). This method has proven to be an effective indicator to
show the effects of climate change on birds.
However for butterflies this method showed some serious problems:
The number of climate positive species in Catalunya and climate
negative species in Finland and the UK was very low, which made it
very difficult to get a reliable composite index showing the changes as
a result of climate change.
Furthermore, the trends for climate positive and negative species were
very similar. As a consequence, the resulting ratio showed large year
to year fluctuations, without a clear trend being visible.
This method might give different results if climate positive and
negative species would not be selected by their expected future
change in distribution, but by observed recent range shifts (e.g. as
presented by Pöyry et al., 2008).
It is unclear why this method gave good results for birds (Gregory et al., in
prep.) and not for butterflies. Of course the bird indicator is more sophisticated,
has much more countries available and much longer timeseries. Also the use of
climate envelope models for the prediction of future distribution changes is
under debate (Beale et al., 2008), which was the basis under the species
selection.

Method 2: Shift of species over their European Range

If a species shifts north, it can be expected to increase in numbers in the
northern part of its range and decrease at the southern edge. If we take
Finland as the northern edge of the distribution and Catalunya as the southern
edge, seventeen species can be selected as candidates for this analysis. The
results showed no significant change since the start of the Finnish BMS in 1999.
One reason for this negative result might be that the time series is still too
short to observe a difference. Another reason might be that for some of the

DE VLINDERSTICHTING 2008 | Developing a methodology for a European Butterfly Climate Change Indicator 21

Figure 18: Most of the species occurring
both in Finland and Catalunya are highly
mobile generalists, like this Pieris napi.
seventeen species the distribution covers the whole of Finland in the north,
which means that these species cannot shift any further northwards, at least
within the sites monitored within the Finish BMS.
Furthermore most of the seventeen species included in the analyses are
extremely generalist and highly mobile butterflies (e.g. figure 18). This means
that most of them can move and select higher sites if temperature becomes too
warm at lower sites (in line with the reasoning of Warren et al. 2001). The
overall result would be a relative stability in numbers throughout the country.
For true sedentary species restricted to lowland habitats (but also for some
montane species that may be common in north Europe but are much more local
in the Mediterranean), negative trends can be expected to be much more
important as a result of climatic warming.

Method 3: Changes in Community Temperature Index

This method, developed by Devictor et al. (2008), has shown to be effective in
showing the change in species composition of French birds. For butterflies the
results were promising for the United Kingdom, Netherlands and Catalunya,
which all showed significant positive trends. In Catalunya there was only a
significant increase of the CTI after removal of the sites on the Balearic Islands
and from an altitude over 1000m. Furthermore, the standard errors and year to
year variation of the CTI were also much larger than in the other three
countries. The CTI trend for Finland was also positive, though not significant.
The removal of Inachis io from the analysis improved the results considerably,
but the trend was still not significant. Regarding the reported large changes in
the distribution of several Finnish species (e.g. Pöyry et al., 2008), it is
surprising that the change CTI was not significant. However, one of the reasons
might be that the time frame available for the Finnish BMS is still rather short
compared to other Butterfly Monitoring Schemes.

The change from south to north over the countries is significant in all countries,
except for Catalunya. This might be caused by the highly heterogeneous
landscape and climate in Catalonia, where the main climate-gradient is not only
south-north. Moving off the coast, the climate becomes much more continental,
and butterfly communities change rapidly in their composition. This analysis
could be refined by incorporating longitudinal bands. Furthermore butterfly
communities are much more diverse than in the other three countries, not only
regarding species richness (which is much higher in the Mediterranean than in
north Europe), but also in their taxonomic turnover between sites (e.g. the beta
diversity is higher in Catalonia than in the other three countries).

Devictor et al., 2008 reported a shift of the CTI in French birds of 91 ± 11 km

from 1988-2006, corresponding to 86 km over seventeen years. Using the same
method for butterflies the shift corresponds to 206 ± 148 km in the United
Kingdom and 125 ± 62 km in the Netherlands in the seventeen years between
1990 and 2007.
In Finland Pöyry et al. (2008) report an average change of the northern range
margin of 59.9 km in eight years (figure 19). Using the (not significant!) results
for Finland of this study leads to a shift of 5.1 km per year, or 41 km in eight
years.

Figure 19: For Finland Pöyry reported
an average shift of the northern range
of butterfly ranges of almost 60km.
Celastrina argiolus (photo) was one of
the extremes, with a shift in latitude of
355km.
This comparison might imply that in Western Europe the change in species
composition of butterflies was faster than for birds. Although it could be
suspected that butterflies as cold blooded animals react quickly to changes in
climate, there is no direct comparison between the butterflies and birds in the
same country available. It would be enlightening to test the method of Devictor
et al. (2008) for both butterflies and birds in other countries where both
Butterfly and Bird Monitoring Schemes are in operation.

DE VLINDERSTICHTING 2008 | Developing a methodology for a European Butterfly Climate Change Indicator 22
 Method 4: Supra-national changes in Community Temperature Index
Using all four Butterfly Monitoring Schemes in one analysis gave a significant
result, both for the period 1990-2007 (with only two BMS from 1990-1994) and
1999-2007 (in which all four BMS were active). The same applies to the
weighted results. However a few remarks must be made:
At present the results are heavily dominated by the long series and
high number of transect in the United Kingdom and Netherlands.
Although weighting improves these results, the weighting factors for
the countries could be refined.
Except for some transects in Catalunya, transects do not cover
mountains. They were removed from the analysis for Catalunya. If this
method is extended to other countries, the effects of mountain sites
should be tested separately.

Effects on butterfly diversity

Method 3 and 4 make clear that there is an effect of climate change on
butterfly communities. As the CTI rises, this can be either by species with a low
STI declining, species with a high STI increasing, or a mixture of both. In this
report we haven‘t distinguished between those possible trends. However it is
likely that changes in distribution, as predicted by Settele et al. (2008), are
preceded by changes in the butterfly community. This indicator shows that
butterfly diversity at a European level is already declining and will do so in
future, because the trends coincide with those of Settele et al. (2008). This puts
an extra stress factor to the problems butterflies are already facing anyhow,
e.g. as a consequence of changing grassland management (Van Swaay & Van
Strien, 2008).

DE VLINDERSTICHTING 2008 | Developing a methodology for a European Butterfly Climate Change Indicator 23
Chapter 5 / Conclusions

Butterflies fulfil most criteria for effective indicators:

o As representatives of insects, by far the most species rich group
of animals in Europe and the rest of the world, they are very
biodiversity relevant.
o Butterfly Monitoring Schemes provide a well founded
methodology. Furthermore these schemes collect data at a routine
basis, are already available in twelve countries with new ones
joining in every year and have data available since 1976 (data
available for more than two countries since 1990).
o Butterflies are sensitive to climate change, as shown by Parmesan
et al. (1999). The Climatic Risk Atlas of European Butterflies
(Settele et al., 2008) predicts that large movements of the climate
envelopes (i.e. climate space) of butterflies are expected in the
near future and that all species are expected to be affected.
This report shows that it is possible to build an indicator using Butterfly
Monitoring Schemes.
The best method seems to be method 4, which follows the change in the
Community Temperature Index (CTI) over Europe, preferably weighted.
The significant results are shown in Figure 16.
For the future:
Methods 3 and 4 can be extended with other Butterfly Monitoring Schemes
to provide the first European Butterfly Climate Change Indicator.
We suggest that the method of Devictor et al. (2008) is tested in countries
with both Butterfly and Bird Monitoring Schemes in operation. A bird
indicator using method 4 would be most valuable.
Furthermore, this report only provides a provisional first indicator. More
analysis are needed to understand why method 1 doesn‘t work for
butterflies (this method is used for the bird climate change indicator), as
well as understanding why the results for Catalunya are so variable and
why trends in the CTI for Finland do not reflect the recently observed
range expansion of butterfly species in this country.

DE VLINDERSTICHTING 2008 | Developing a methodology for a European Butterfly Climate Change Indicator 24
Literature

Beale, C.M.; Lennon, J.J. & Gimona, A. (2008). Opening the climate envelope
reveals no macroscale associations with climate in European birds. PNAS
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States
of America published September 24, 2008
Both, C., Bouwhuis, S., Lessells, C.M. & Visser, M.E. (2006). Climate change
and population declines in a long-distance migratory bird. Nature 441,
81-83.
De Heer, M., Kapos, V. & Ten Brink, B.J.E. (2005). Biodiversity trends in
Europe: development and testing of a species trend indicator for
evaluating progress towards the 2010 target. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B.
360, 297-308
Devictor, V., Julliard, R., Couvet, D. & Jiguet, F. (2008). Birds are tracking
climate warming, but not fast enough. Proc. R. Soc. B.
EEA (2008). Impacts of Europe's changing climate — 2008 indicator-based
assessment. EEA Report No 4/2008, JRC Reference Report No
JRC47756.
Fox, R., Asher, J., Brereton, T., Roy, D., Warren, M. (2006). The state of
butterflies in Britain and Ireland. Pisces Publications, Newbury (UK)
Franco, A.M.A., Hill, J.K., Kitschke, C., Collingham, Y.C., Roy, D.B., Fox, R.,
Huntley, B. & Thomas, C.D. (2006). Impacts of climate warming and
habitat loss on extinctions at species' low-latitude range boundaries.
Global Change Biology 12 (8), 1545-1553
Gregory, RD, SG Willis, F Jiguet, P Vorisek, A Klvanova, A van Strien, B Huntley,
YC Collingham, D Couvet & RE Green (in prep.). An indicator of the
impact of climatic change on European bird populations.
Hickling, R.; Roy, D.B.; Hill, J.K.; Fox, R. & Thomas, C.D. (2006). The
distributions of a wide range of taxonomic groups are expanding
polewards. Global Change Biology 12 (3), 450-455
Huntley, B., Green, R.E., Collingham, Y.C., Hill, J.K., Willis, S.G., Bartlein, P.J.,
Cramer, W., Hagemeijer, W.J.M. & Thomas, C.J. (2004). The
performance of models relating species geographical distributions to
climate is independent of trophic level. Ecology Letters 7 (5), 417-426
Huntley, B., Green, R.E., Collingham, Y.C., Willis, S.G. (2007). A climatic atlas of
European breeding birds. RSPB/BirdLife International; Durham University
& Lynx Edicions, Barcelona
Kudrna, O. (2002). The Distribution Atlas of European Butterflies. Apollo Books.
Menéndez, R., González-Megías, A., Lewis, O.T., Shaw, M.R. & Thomas, C.D.
(2008). Escape from natural enemies during climate-driven range
expansion: a case study. Ecological Entomology 33 (3), 413-421
Milieu- en Natuurplanbureau (2003). Natuurbalans 2003. Kluwer, Alphen aan
den Rijn, Netherlands.
Pannekoek, J. & Van Strien, A.J. (2003). TRIM 3 manual. Trends and Indices for
Monitoring data. CBS, Statistics Netherlands, Voorburg, Netherlands.
Parmesan, C., Ryrholm, N., Stefanescu, C., Hill, J.K., Thomas, C.D., Descimon,
H., Huntley, B., Kaila, L., Kullberg, J., Tammaru, T., Tennett, W.J.,
Thomas, J.A. & Warren, M. (1999): Poleward shifts in geographical
ranges of butterfly species associated with regional warming. Nature
399, 579-583
Parmesan, C. & Yohe, G. (2003). A globally coherent fingerprint of climate
change impacts across natural systems. Nature 421, 37-42

DE VLINDERSTICHTING 2008 | Developing a methodology for a European Butterfly Climate Change Indicator 25
 Pollard, E. (1988). Temperature, rainfall and butterfly numbers. Journal of
Applied Ecology 25 (3), 819-828
Pollard, E. & Yates, T.J. (1993). Monitoring Butterflies for Ecology and
Conservation. Chapman & Hall, London.
Porter, K. (1982). Basking behaviour in larvae of the butterfly Euphydryas
aurinia. Oikos 38 (3), 308-312
Pöyry, J., Luoto, M., Heikkinen, R.K., Kuussaari, M. & Saarinen, K. (2008).
Species traits explain recent range shifts of Finnish butterflies. Global
Change Biology, (in press)
Roy, D.B., Rothery, P., Moss, D., Pollard, E. & Thomas, J.A. (2001). Butterfly
numbers and weather : predicting historical trends in abundance and the
future effects of climate change. Journal of Animal Ecology 70 (2), 201-
217
Schweiger, O., Settele, J., Kudrna, O., Klotz, S. and Kühn, I. (2008) Climate
change can cause spatial mismatch of trophically interacting species.
Ecology (in press).
Settele, J., Kudrna, O., Harpke, A., Kühn, I., Van Swaay, C.A.M., Verovnik, R.,
Warren, M.S., Wiemers, M., Hanspach, J., Hickler, T., Kühn, E., Van
Halder, I., Veling, K., Vliegenthart, A., Wynhoff, I. & Schweiger, O.
(2008) Climatic Risk Atlas of European Butterflies. 710pp, Pensoft, Sofia.
Shreeve, T.G. (1992). Adult behaviour. In: Dennis, R.L.H. (Editor) The Ecology
of butterflies in Britain. Oxford University Press, Oxford [etc], pp. 22-45
Stoutjesdijk, P.; Barkman, J.J. (1992). Microclimate, vegetation and fauna.
Opulus Press, Knivsta (Sweden)
Thomas, C.D. (1994). Extinction, colonization, and metapopulations :
environmental tracking by rare species. Conservation Biology 8 (2),
373-378
Thomas, C.D., Cameron, A., Green, R.E., Bakkenes, M., Beaumont, L.J.,
Collingham, Y.C., Erasmus, B.F.N., Ferreira de Siqueira, M., Grainger, A.,
Hannah, L., Hughes, L., Huntley, B., Jaarsveld, A.S. van, Midgley, G.F.,
Miles, L., Ortega-Huerta, M.A., Townsend Peterson, A., Phillips, O.L. &
Williams, S.E. (2004). Extinction risk from climate change. Nature 427,
145-148
Thomas, J.A. (2005). Monitoring change in the abundance and distribution of
insects using butterflies and other indicator groups. Phil. Trans. Soc. B.
360, 339-357.
Thomas, J.A., Morris, M.G. & Hambler, C. (1994). Patterns, mechanisms and
rates of extinction among invertebrates in the United Kingdom. Phil.
Trans. R. Soc. B. 344 (1307), 47-54
Van Swaay, C.A.M., Nowicki, P., Settele, J. & Strien, A.J. van (2008). Butterfly
monitoring in Europe: methods, applications and perspectives.
Biodiversity and Conservation 17, 3455–3469
Van Strien, A.J., Pavert, R. van de, Moss, D., Yates, T.J., Swaay, C.A.M. van &
Vos, P. (1997). The statistical power of two butterfly monitoring
schemes to detect trends. Journal of Applied Ecology 34, 817-828
Van Swaay, C.A.M. & Van Strien, A.J. (2005) Using butterfly monitoring data to
develop a European grassland butterfly indicator. In: Kuehn, E., Thomas,
J., Feldmann, R. & Settele, J. (eds.) 2005. Studies on the Ecology and
Conservation of Butterflies in Europe. Proceedings of the Conference
held in UFZ Leipzig, 5-9th of December, 2005.
Van Swaay, C.A.M. & Van Strien, A.J. (2008) The European Butterfly Indicator
for Grassland species 1990-2007. Report VS2008.022, De
Vlinderstichting, Wageningen
Van Swaay, C.A.M. & Warren, M.S. (1999). Red data book of European
butterflies (Rhopalocera). Nature and environment ; no. 99, Council of
Europe Publishing, Strasbourg
Van Swaay, C.A.M., Warren, M.S. & Loïs, G. (2006). Biotope use and trends of
European butterflies. Journal of Insect Conservation 10 (2), 189-209

DE VLINDERSTICHTING 2008 | Developing a methodology for a European Butterfly Climate Change Indicator 26
 Visser, M.E. & Holleman, L.J.M. (2001). Warmer springs disrupt the synchrony
of oak and winter moth phenology. Proceedings Royal Society of
London. Biological Sciences 268 (1464), 289-294
Warren, M.S., Hill, J.K., Thomas, J.A., Asher, J., Fox, R., Huntley, B., Roy, D.B.,
Telfer, M.G., Jeffcoate, S., Harding, P., Jeffcoate, G., Willis, S.G.,
Greatorex-Davies, J.N., Moss, D. & Thomas, C.D. (2001). Rapid
responses of British butterflies to opposing forces of climate and habitat
change. Nature 414, 65-69
Wilson, R.J., Gutiérrez, D., Gutiérrez, J. & Monserrat, V.J. (2007). An elevational
shift in butterfly species richness and composition accompanying recent
climate change. Global Change Biology 13 (9), 1873-1887
Wynhoff, I., Grutter, M. & Van Langevelde, F. (2008) Looking for the ants:
selection of oviposition sites by two myrmecophilous butterfly species.
Animal Biology 58, 371-388.

DE VLINDERSTICHTING 2008 | Developing a methodology for a European Butterfly Climate Change Indicator 27
Annex I / Butterfly Monitoring Schemes in the indicator

Since the start of the first Butterfly Monitoring Scheme in the UK

in 1976 more and more countries have developed schemes. This

annex summarizes the most important features of the schemes

used for the European Grassland Butterfly Indicator.

Field methods
All schemes apply the method developed for the British Butterfly
Monitoring Scheme (Pollard & Yates, 1993). The counts are conducted
along fixed transects of about 1 kilometre, consisting of smaller sections,
each with a homogeneous habitat type, but the exact transect length
varies between countries. The fieldworkers record all butterflies 2.5
metres to their right, 2.5 metres to their left, 5 metres ahead of them and
5 metres above them (Van Swaay et al., 2002). Butterfly counts are
conducted between March-April to September-October. Visits are only
conducted when weather conditions meet specified criteria. The number
of visits varies from every week in e.g. the UK and the Netherlands to 3-5
visits annually in France (table 5).

Table 5: Characteristics of the European Butterfly Monitoring Schemes.

Counts by (v=volunteers,
Number of transects per

Method to choose sites

Number of counts on a
transect per year

p=professionals)
year 2006-2008
Starting year

Belgium – Flanders 1991 10 15-20 v free

Estonia 2004 7-10 9 p by co-ordinator

Finland 1999 50-60 10-16 v free

France 2005 87 in 4-8 v random
2006
France – Doubs 2001- 10 10-15 p by co-ordinator
2004
Germany 2005 400 15-20 v free
Germany - Nordrhein 2001 50 15-20 v free
Westfalen
Germany – Pfalz 1989- 16 3 p by co-ordinator
(Maculinea nausithous 2002
only)
Jersey 2004 15 15-25 v free
Portugal 1998 1 3-5 v free
Spain – Catalunya 1994 60-70 30 v free
Switzerland – Aargau 2001 100 4-7 p grid
The Netherlands 1990 430 15-20 v free
Ukraine – Transcarpathia 1974 60 2 p free
United Kingdom 1976 750 15-20 v free

DE VLINDERSTICHTING 2008 | Developing a methodology for a European Butterfly Climate Change Indicator 28
 Annex II / Climate positive and negative species

A selection is made of climate-positive and climate-negative species in

each of the participating countries. This selection was based on the
BAMBU scenario for 2080 in Settele et al. (2008). All species expected to
expand their range in a certain country with more than 20% were
considered climate positive species, all species expected to retreat more
than 20% were considered climate negative species.
Red: climate negative species
Green: climate positive species

Finland Catalunya United Kingdom Netherlands

Aricia artaxerxes
Colias palaeno
Lasiommata petropolitana
Plebeius optilete
Polyommatus amandus
Aphantopus hyperantus
Aportia crataegi
Araschnia levana
Argynnia adippe
Argynnis aglaja
Argynnis paphia
Brenthis ino
Carterecephalus silvicolus
Celastrina argiolus
Coenonympha glycerion
Coenonympha pamphilus
Euphydryas maturna
Gonepteryx rhamni
Inachis io
Lasiommata maera
Leptidea sinapis
Limenitis populi
Lycaena hippothoe
Lycaena phlaeas
Lycaena virgaurea
Melitaea athalia
Nymphalis antiopa
Ochlodes sylvanus
Papilio machaon
Pararge aegeria
Pieris brassicae
Pieris rapae
Plebeius argus
Polygonia c-album
Polyommatus icarus
Polyommatus semiargus
Pyrgus malvae
Satyrium pruni
Thecla betulae
Thymelicus lineola
- Aglais urticae - Aricia artaxerxes - Aglais urticae -
- Anthocharis cardamines - Boloria selene - Anthocharis cardamines -
- Anthocharis euphenoides - Boloria euphrosyne - Aphantopus hyperantus -
- Aporia crataegi - Coenonympha tullia - Argynnis aglaja -
- Argynnis paphia - Polygonia c-album + Boloria selene -
+ Aricia cramera - Pyrgus malvae + Callophrys rubi -
+ Brintesia circe - Argynnis paphia + Carterocephalus palaemon -
+ Cacyreus marshalli - Lasiommata megera + Coenonympha tullia -
+ Callophrys rubi - Ochlodes venata + Hesperia comma -
+ Celastrina argiolus - Gonepteryx rhamni + Araschnia levana +
+ Charaxes jasius - Cupido minimus + Heteropterus morpheus +
+ Coenonympha arcania - Erynnis tages + Issoria lathonia +
+ Coenonympha dorus - Pyronia tithonus + Leptidea sinapis +
+ Coenonympha pamphilus - Thecla betulae + Lycaena tityrus +
+ Colias alfacariensis - Limenitis (Ladoga) camilla + Papilio machaon +
+ Colias crocea - Erebia aethiops + Satyrium ilicis +
+ Cupido minimus - Aricia agestis +
+ Cynthia cardui - Plebeius (Plebejus) argus +
+ Erynnis tages - Leptidea sinapis +
+ Euchloe crameri - Melanargia galathea +
+ Euphydryas aurinia - Polyommatus (Lysandra) bellargus +
+ Glaucopsyche melanops - Hamearis lucina +
+ Gonepteryx cleopatra - Apatura iris +
+ Gonepteryx rhamni - Polyommatus (Lysandra) coridon +
+ Hesperia comma -
+ Hipparchia fidia -
+ Hipparchia semele -
+ Hipparchia statilinus -
+ Inachis io -
+ Issoria lathonia -
+ Lampides boeticus -
+ Lasiommata megera -
+ Leptidea sinapis -
+ Leptotes pirithous -
+ Libythea celtis -
+ Limenitis reducta -
+ Lycaena alciphron -
+ Lycaena phlaeas -
+ Maculinea arion -
+ Maniola jurtina -
Melanargia lachesis -
Melanargia occitanica -
Melitaea cinxia -
Melitaea deione -
Melitaea didyma -
Melitaea phoebe -
Neozephyrus quercus -
Nymphalis polychloros -
Ochlodes venata -
Pararge aegeria -
Pieris brassicae -
Pieris napi -
Pieris rapae -
Polygonia c-album -
Polyommatus bellargus -
Polyommatus icarus -
Polyommatus semiargus -
Polyomnatus coridon -
Polyomnatus escheri -
Pseudophilotes panoptes -
Pyronia bathseba -
Pyronia cecilia -
Pyronia tithonus -
Satyrium esculi -
Thymelicus acteon -
Thymelicus sylvestris -
Vanessa atalanta -
Zerynthia rumina -
Boloria dia +
Coenonympha glycerion +

DE VLINDERSTICHTING 2008 | Developing a methodology for a European Butterfly Climate Change Indicator 29

View publication stats