Launching and steering flagship Lepidoptera for
conservation benefit
Tim R.
New
Department
of Zoology, La Trobe University, Victoria 3086, Australia
Email: t.new@latrobe.edu.au
Date of publication (online): 26
June 2011
Date of publication (print): 26
June 2011
ISSN 0974-7907 (online) |
0974-7893 (print)
Editor: Robert Michael Pyle
Manuscript details:
Ms # o2621
Received 02 November 2010
Final revised received 04 April 2011
Finally accepted 09 May 2011
Citation: New, T.R. (2011). Launching and steering flagship
Lepidoptera for conservation benefit. Journal of Threatened Taxa 3(6): 1805–1817.
Copyright: © Tim R. New 2011. Creative
Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. JoTT allows unrestricted use of this
article in any medium for non-profit purposes, reproduction and distribution by
providing adequate credit to the authors and the source of publication.
Author details: Emeritus Professor Tim New has
worked on many aspects of insect conservation policy and practice, and has
published extensively on these themes.
Acknowledgments: This essay is
based on a keynote talk prepared for the Third Asian Lepidoptera Conservation
Symposium, Coimbatore, India, in October 2010. I wish to thank the primary
organisers, Dr. B.A. Daniel and Dr. C. Gunasekaran, for inviting me to this
meeting. I am very grateful to Dr. Paul Waring for delivering this talk in my
unavoidable but unexpected absence, and to two reviewers for their helpful
comments.
Abstract: Lepidoptera, particularly
butterflies and large moths, are popular targets for conservation efforts and
as flagship species can help to publicize the need for habitat and resource
protection and the ecological value of invertebrates. Here I present an overview of the relevant issues in
selecting and promoting flagship species, and discuss how local community
support for conservation may be encouraged, using examples from Australia.
Keywords: Australia, butterflies, conservation education, icon
species, moths, species conservation.
This
article is part of the peer-reviewed Proceedings of the 3rd Asian
Lepidoptera Conservation Symposium (3ALCS-2010) jointly organized by the IUCN
SSC South Asian Invertebrate Specialist Group (SAsISG); Department of
Zoology, Bharathiar University; Zoo Outreach Organisation and Wildlife
Information Liaison Development, held from 25 to 29 October 2010 at Coimbatore,
Tamil Nadu, India. http://www.zooreach.org/3alcs2010.html
Problems of communication in insect conservation
Perceptions of insects vary widely, but
one predominant attitude is that they are generally pests that should be
suppressed or eradicated rather than conserved - an image that is incompatible
with efforts to conserve insects. This ‘perception barrier’ has many components, and is confounded by the
high numbers of species involved - a factor that can easily induce feelings of
overwhelming helplessness at the magnitude of conservation need. It is sobering to reflect that
entomologists cannot yet agree within orders of magnitude how many kinds of
insect exist on earth. Indeed
counting species has become somewhat of an industry in itself, even though it
is not practical conservation, simply an indication of the magnitude of the
tasks we face as natural environments are diminished and changed progressively
by human activities. It is
pertinent to contrast conservation acceptance for insects with that accorded to
vertebrates, which are much less diverse but more tangible and appealing to
many people. Whereas in ethical
terms, a rare beetle or fly may be just as needy of attention as a tiger or
elephant, they tend to be diminished in perception. However, it is perhaps salutary that, despite the massive
conservation resources they have received and continue to receive, almost half
the world’s 634 primate species are still severely threatened from loss of
habitat and exploitation for bush meat and trade (IUCN 2010). Even strongly resourced and
globally-supported vertebrate conservation programs directed at species of
almost universal appeal do not assure their targets of any sustainable
future. They show that the
attitudes and needs of local communities and their support for conservation
efforts are of critical importance to success.
Conservation of insects is about far more
than individual species. It
involves the heart of ecological sustainability and habitat conservation, with
the roles of insects and other invertebrates, identifiable or not, as the major
governors of processes in terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems. As E.O. Wilson
famously pointed out some years ago, invertebrates are ‘the little things which
run the world’ (Wilson 1987). Our
role is to emphasize this point and explain it at every opportunity, and at the
same time promote insect conservation through any means available to us. Because many people can relate to
species as meaningful entities, and can see parallels between ‘saving the
orangutan’ or the Black-headed Coucal and ‘saving the Queen Alexandra’s
birdwing’, individual species considerations are a valuable focus.
The practical dilemma is how to select the
insect species that have greatest impacts on the ways we can make conservation
effective and in how political capital may be garnered through demonstrating
success and wider benefits. Some
focus on those taxa that are better-known and more acceptable to the public is
a logical way to select from amongst the hordes of insect species that may be
threatened, or nominated as such under protective legislation. Triage is almost inevitable in any such
context, but with the reality that selecting a species for attention may also
increase risks to others, equally or even more deserving, by precluding them
from equivalent attention. Any
such selected species is in essence a flagship for wider conservation interest.
What is an icon or flagship species?
Flagship species are ‘charismatic species
that attract public support’ (Andelman & Fagan 2000). Many have other positive values that
may render them valuable as surrogates, such as by becoming umbrella or
indicator species in some way but, as Simberloff (1998) emphasized, this is not
a prerequisite and a flagship must simply ‘arouse public interest and sympathy’ as a symbol
of conservation concern. Despite
its original religious connotation, the term ‘charisma’ as applied in
conservation incorporates ‘ability to influence or impress people’, so that a
flagship species is broadly a ‘rallying point’ (or marketing tool) for
conservation concern. How it is
perceived depends largely on the human context in which it occurs. Most
commonly, ‘flagship species’ are large vertebrates, particularly mammals or
birds - and the perceptions of large carnivores, for example, may differ
markedly with proximity and chances of being eaten! International perceptions of ‘charisma’ may not always be
emulated locally, so that the challenge of ‘universal charisma’ may be
daunting. Even for one of the most
favoured insect groups, dragonflies, perceptions may range from important
cultural icons to pests of aquaculture operations through larval depredations
on hatchling fish. In general,
butterflies and some other Lepidoptera have overcome this acceptance hurdle, at
least to the extent of their conservation not being actively opposed. However, understanding ‘biophilia’ is
complex (Simaika & Samways 2010); suffice, here, to note that some insects
are indeed sympathetically considered because ‘people like them’.
Knowledge of insects is uneven across
different major taxonomic groups. Many groups are poorly documented, with knowledge unlikely to improve
greatly. These insects include
many of the most diverse taxa, such as the vast array of small parasitoid
Hymenoptera and many families of small beetles and flies, as well as whole
orders of insects that intrude little onto public awareness or concern, and
remain of little concern other than to a small handful of specialists. Psocoptera are one such example amongst
these ‘meek inheritors’ (New 2000), and are unlikely ever to become icons as
wider conservation rallying points.
In contrast, some insect groups are
accepted as well-known and ‘popular’ - amongst these, butterflies are
paramount, but followed by Odonata, some larger moths and some larger beetles,
with this familiarity stemming largely from hobbyist interests, mainly collecting. As noted in the first of this
series of symposia ‘Big colourful butterflies invoke the ‘vertebrate’ approach
to Lepidoptera conservation because they are …. charismatic species that imply ‘heroic’
conservation measures should be taken ….’ (Kitching 2007). More generally ‘Animal beauty is a
paradigm of aesthetic value’ (Hettinger 2010). Collectively, these ‘popular’ insects constitute a high
proportion of the species on which conservation has been traditionally focused,
because perception is positive and knowledge has become sufficient to detect
declines and threats, by people likely to be concerned about these, and to
publicize those concerns. Particularly
in parts of the northern temperate region, ‘butterfly conservation’ has long
been accepted as respectable and an integral part of wider conservation need,
with that acceptance gradually inducing emulation elsewhere. One outcome is the acceptance we see
today - the desire and sincere motivation to conserve Lepidoptera in parts of
the world that are less sympathetic and less well-resourced but which harbour
high proportions of the world’s 20,000 or so butterfly species, and where it is
important that the limited support available is used to the greatest possible
effect. The premise advanced in
the Hong Kong declaration (2007), namely ‘that the Lepidoptera have a special
place in human perception, culture and nature appreciation’, underpins much of
the attitude and approaches to using them for advocacy. In addition (a) many are themselves
targets for individual species conservation and (b) many species or assemblages
may be valuable ‘tools’ in being putative surrogates for wider conservation of
the biotopes in which they occur, and of the coexisting but little-heralded
accompanying ‘biodiversity’. It is
perhaps important to emphasise that, despite many advocacies for use of
butterflies and, more rarely, of other Lepidoptera as indicators or surrogates,
rather few studies have actually demonstrated this by statistical analyses
confirming correlation with other taxa (see Fleishman & Murphy 2009). However, single species conservation
studies of insects have been almost wholly developed in well-resourced
temperate regions, with relatively low species richness and many resident
entomologists, and the logistic impediments to developing parallels elsewhere
remain formidable. Moves for habitat protection have largely taken the place of
this ‘fine focus’ insect conservation in the tropics, for example. Some of the
reasons for this have been discussed recently for tropical butterflies
(Bonebrake et al. 2010), with the need for more individual species studies
emphasised.
Lepidoptera, our major focus here, have
been referred to as ‘Ambassadors of biodiversity’, and are viewed also as
umbrella taxa purported (but, as noted above, only rarely proven) to be
surrogates for much wider conservation effort as either single species or
diverse assemblages (New 1997). However, they fall unevenly into three major functional groups (‘butterflies’,
‘macromoths’, ‘Microlepidoptera’, as terms used widely amongst hobbyists, in
particular) in conservation assessment - and the differences between these are
evident even amongst the putatively well known western European fauna. These groups differ greatly in
attributes suitable for use as flagships, and it is instructive to compare and
contrast their relevant features, in order to suggest relativity of value in
what a flagship species should and may achieve. Consider the following relative features for butterflies:
(i) low species richness within a sound taxonomic framework so that many taxa
are both recognisable and identifiable reliably; (ii) long history of collector
interests based on aesthetic appeal and diurnal activity likely to have led to
production of illustrated handbooks facilitating further interests; (iii)
reasonable general framework of biological understanding and distributional
information, often with valid comments on ‘rarity’ and susceptibility to
environmental changes; (iv) these generalities augmented by detail from an
increasing number of species conservation cases in many parts of the world and
covering diverse taxa and biotopes as examples; and (v) high appeal and
sympathy for their wellbeing, with rather little fear of actual or economic
damage. These advantages are
shared with some larger moths, mainly showy families such as Saturniidae (with
economic benefits an additional advantage) and Sphingidae, or diurnal taxa that
may be thought of as ‘honorary butterflies’ because they are visible, so
equally amenable to study, and often colourful!
In contrast, many other macromoths are
nocturnal and less accessible, and belong, with Microlepidoptera, firmly to the
largely unknown (especially in the tropics) insects still viewed with
considerable suspicion and for which knowledge is grossly inadequate to make
any detailed case for species conservation need or, even, to define major
centres of richness or endemism other than in very general terms. In noting that the number of described
Microlepidoptera in south east Asia was around 6000 species, Robinson et al.
(1994) commented also that the number still to be discovered was likely to be ‘at
least the same number again’. Two
practical problems are associated with inability to gain flagship status: (i)
that high numbers of unidentified or difficult to identify described species
render many identifications of species within those faunas tentative or
uncertain, and (ii) flagships are ideally conspicuous - most moths, being
crepuscular or nocturnal in activity, are not seen as easily unless they are
deliberately sought. Many people
are largely unaware of them. In
contrast, the conspicuousness of diurnal butterflies renders them far more
accessible, with the greater interest contributing to greater knowledge by a
greater workforce. As Kendrick
(2007) emphasised, far more people appreciate butterflies than appreciate
moths, with one outcome being that reliable information on conservation status
and needs is also markedly less for moths. Species accorded flagship status are a minute fraction of
the total number of around 160,000 described Lepidoptera and an estimated
500,000 species that may exist (Kristensen et al. 2007), and the sheer
diversity of these, and other insects, can easily induce feelings of
bewilderment in seeking how conservation may best be pursued.
Only in parts of Europe is it currently
possible to evaluate conservation status of many Microlepidoptera other than in
the most generalised terms, reflecting attention from substantial numbers of
resident enthusiasts. Kristensen
et al. (2007) noted that the ‘average amateur lepidopterist’ (‘having exhausted
the challenges [at the collector’s level!] presented by the local butterflies’:
Kristensen et al. 2007: 708) tends to make the transition from butterflies to
macromoths and subsequently often to micromoths, of the national fauna, rather
than to butterflies of neighbouring countries. Elsewhere, however, in any practical sense, Microlepidoptera
are both unknown and unknowable as candidates for species-focused conservation;
together with Psocoptera and many others, they can be conserved only by
assuring that the ecosystems in which they occur are sustained (Franklin 1993).
Perhaps the essence of a flagship species
is that it is ‘visible’, broadly seen as worthy of conservation, and accepted
as such by the wider community rather than by scientist advocacy alone. It thus becomes a ‘symbol’ of local,
regional or national interest - an ambassador for insect conservation together
with the habitats on which it and they depend, and able to help in fostering
both cooperation and participation in conservation activities. Local pride is often important, so that
narrow range endemics may be particularly suitable for promotion. Some unusual biological feature or
attribute, novelty value, may capture public interest and help considerably in
the important steps of communication and education so vital in enlisting and
sustaining community interests. Wider conservation importance for the species (for example, indicator or
umbrella values - although the terms may lead to confusion in defining its
role) may augment its functional importance considerably.
Fundamentally, a flagship (or icon) species
is one that is readily recognised, ideally has some ‘charisma’, and can be used
in its own right to publicise, encourage and sustain broader conservation
endeavour for its own benefit and for that of the environment in which it can
thrive.
How can we make a species into a flagship?
Criteria that may be useful to consider in
deciding whether a particular species might be a useful flagship are numerous,
but may have a high emphasis on local significance and importance (Table 1).
For this adoption to occur, it follows
that wide support for conservation must be canvassed, and seen as justified and
important by demonstrated (‘evidence-based’) conservation need. Formal listing of a species may be
useful, even necessary, to gain official recognition and may be a passport to
accepted worth. Lists of
threatened species can easily become very long and strongly biased towards
particular taxonomic groups; Schedule 1 of the Indian Wildlife (Protection) Act
1972, for example, includes 128 butterfly taxa and the only other insect is a
dragonfly. Such lists, with this
Act listing 450 butterflies, many of them subspecies that are difficult to
recognise, across the three relevant schedules, are invaluable in demonstrating
the vast scales of conservation need to politicians and managers, but engender
a feeling of helplessness in deciding how to proceed constructively. Fleets (species lists) need flagships
for guidance and focus, and large fleets (long species lists) may need
especially influential flagships with umbrella capacity. However, not all
listed insect species become practical flagships. Some others become flagships almost by default, simply from
the attention they receive and this is perhaps the most frequent context in
which they are launched. They may
be elevated retrospectively, to the benefit of all involved, as they become
better-known and achieve notoriety. This fortuitousness is rather different from deliberately commissioning
flagship species from amongst a fleet of possible threatened and ecologically
varied candidates, based on defining the desirable parameters and outcomes and,
possibly, complementarity with other species efforts. Thus, in a common scenario, we may be faced with a decision
to elevate ‘more butterflies’ (a strategy increasingly likely to be fruitful as
the bulk experience on this group continues to be augmented and still more
species contribute to the pool of experience and knowledge) or, by
incorporating other insects to emphasise ‘more variety’, adopt a different
strategy and convey a rather different political message. This necessitates a pragmatic decision
to either capitalise on our greatest expertise and demonstrated capability
(butterflies) or to take a greater risk for possibly wider ecological
advantages. In Victoria (Australia),
for example, the trio of flagship species comprising a butterfly (the Eltham
Copper, Paralucia pyrodiscus lucida),
a damselfly (the Ancient Greenling, Hemiphlebia mirabilis) and the Giant
Gippsland Earthworm (Megascolides australis)
convincingly demonstrated some aspects of the ecological variety and roles of
threatened invertebrates at the time the State’s conservation act was being
developed in the late 1980s (Yen et al. 1990).
Choice amongst taxa for conservation
preference or need will almost always be possible, and it behooves us to be
able to justify any selections we make.
What
species should we concentrate on?
Turning more deliberately to Lepidoptera,
we can presume that most, probably all, of the species advanced will themselves
need conservation or be useful in promoting conservation of key habitats. The collective premises are likely to
include at least some of (i) the species being scarce or localised; (ii)
threatened in some tangible way, with the most likely threat being loss or despoliation
of limited habitat, but with definition of the threat becoming the basis for
alleviative conservation management; (iii) local endemics, perhaps known only
from single sites of other very narrow range; (iv) ecological specialists,
perhaps with larval food plants also threatened; (v) suggested reliably to be
of conservation concern and so (vi) accepted as needing support and
management. Many are likely also
to be listed formally on some advisory or legal schedule of ‘threatened species’,
a step that elicits very mixed reactions from people and, however
well-intentioned, can sometime impede information gathering and study of
critical value for conservation (Sands & New 2002). We are highly likely to need further
basic research on such species (many of which are inherently difficult to study
through being scarce and specialised) to clarify the details of management
needed, and site-based management and field research demands that the site(s)
be secure. Other aspects of triage
may also be relevant – for example the taxonomic lineage of the species
and the vulnerability and ecological features of the biotope it inhabits may
influence ranking for priority. However species may be selected, ability to differentiate those species
unambiguously is needed, and not always present. Two practical counters to this are available: to employ
taxon groups above single species level as the units either because of conjoint
needs (Maculineabutterflies, Synemonsun-moths) or an easily recognisable common appearance within which only some
species are of concern (birdwing butterflies). Either approach, used with care, may enhance conservation
attention.
How can we do it?
Two practical restrictions for insect
species-level conservation efforts
are immediately obvious. First,
professional or agency support for insect conservation is, and is likely to
remain, grossly inadequate for the tasks faced. Second, without augmentation of this resource base from
community and volunteer interests, many of them supporting (‘steering’)
flagship species, many butterfly conservation programmes could not proceed
properly and many others would already have failed.
Experience has gradually led to a number
of ‘working rules’ for fostering these wider interests, and progressing along
the gradient from ‘awareness - communication - cooperation -
support/participation’ by local agencies and communities. Two time-scales are involved, and
intergrade. The initial interests
(awareness) may be a short-term reaction to media exposure, novelty or wider
environmental concerns and wane once the initial flurry of activity attendant
on crisis-management has passed. However, support may then be needed during a practical conservation
programme extending over a decade or more of monitoring, site management and
biological observations, so that interest must be sustained, often in
competition with changing priorities as new cases arise, and the local
community changes in composition and interests. Perhaps the most important unifying and integrating need is that
the community has a firm sense of ownership and cooperative participation in
the species/project, rather than being seen simply as a biddable work force
whose activities are governed by ex cathedradirection from officialdom. Coupled strongly with this, all interested constituencies and groups
should be involved. This wide
input is essential in designing the initial conservation plan, because it is
likely to lead to a harmonious continuing relationship based on trust, respect
and consultation, with consideration of all viewpoints based on mutual inputs
and understanding of both needs and constraints. A management team should represent all interested parties,
in developing a plan, perhaps using some scheme similar to that outlined by New
(2009), but modified for local circumstances, as a preliminary template for
consideration.
Several commentators have remarked
that ‘volunteer groups’
and interests for conservation are largely the province of societies that are ‘middle
class’ - those in which people can develop sympathy for conservation, extending
beyond fulfilling their own immediate needs for food and living and with
leisure time to devote to such more tangential activities. It is not realistic to expect people to
willingly forego basic needs, and so not surprising that community support is
difficult to enlist in regions with burgeoning human populations and marginal
incomes. The scenarios in New
Guinea and China in which ‘butterfly ranching’ has become an income-generating
exercise of tangible benefit to local people, are paralleled by a few butterfly
houses and similar commercial enterprises elsewhere in the region, but will
remain exceptional, and in marked contrast to community inputs in leisure-rich
societies such as Australia. In
these contexts it is possible to categorise features that either encourage or
discourage community interests, and to plan to foster those interests (Williams
1996). Encouragement features
include ensuring that the community can identify with the conservation initiative,
involving them from the earliest stages, developing programmes that consider
their benefit, listening to community concerns, and gaining trust and ensuring
that information is distributed in a timely and appropriate way. Discouraging interest results from
failures to recognise community interests and level of ecological
understanding, so that resentment may occur through apparent ‘talking down’ and
enthusiasm dampened, failing to provide appropriate support after initiating
programmes, and not facilitating any sense of ownership. In principle, but not always in
practice, these pointers are transferable. Although Williams’ (1996) parameters were derived initially
from her experiences with vertebrate and ecosystem recovery programmes, they
encapsulate well the needs for butterflies or any other flagship species.
Collectively, they emphasise the need for
education and increasing awareness, and it is perhaps in this arena that
greatest progress in many societies can be made. Promotion of Lepidoptera for ecotourism (including butterfly
reserves), photography, educational tools in schools, for example, has been
undertaken in this region. The
declaration of several birdwings as ‘National Butterflies’ of Papua New Guinea
in 1968 drew wide attention to their plight and significance. The butterfly garden at Changi
International Airport (Singapore) is a notable feature. Appearance of Lepidoptera on stamps
attracts wide attention from philatelists and tourists. Examples could be multiplied
substantially, but the collective image of butterflies and, more rarely, other
Lepidoptera, is associated strongly with conservation need by such
activities. Icon species, with
individual interest or special significance and that people wish to see
(perhaps as ecotourists) or conserve, are a fundamental component of bridging
the concepts of diversity and individual species vulnerability, but this is a
context far different from needs for enhancing practical conservation
management of those species.
Cooperation needs planning and continued
review. It can not proceed from
neglect, arrogance, presumption and lack of tact in dealings amongst
participants. Any of these may be
perceived as ‘issuing orders’. Insisting on accountability or deadlines, however routine to managers, is
often inimical to volunteer inputs. Tensions amongst varied groups of people with differing priorities can
arise from many sources, not least the individual personalities involved. ‘Chains-of-command’
across government agencies and scientific bodies (as, commonly, the drivers of
the programmes) need considerable tact. The collective views of constituents or stakeholders with different
interests can create conflict without clear discussion. Ineffective communication
- perhaps by use of technical terms when they are not strictly needed, or lack
of explanation of the measures and procedures and why they are to be used or
proposed for consideration - must also be avoided. Notwithstanding this, effective leadership and coordination
of the management team is necessary, together with responsible documentation of
the management scheme and its progress (objectives, practical steps, timing,
budget, lead participants and control, and any other component of the
programme) adopted.
Supportive “Friends’ groups” for any
species or site may arise independently of any more official body, particularly
in communities with a strong environmental ethic or in which naturalists’ clubs
or similar interests occur. Any
such important initiatives merit the strongest encouragement, not least as
relevant and knowledgeable local advocates, and the most basic and informed
support likely to be available and, in some cases, leading to effective
networks of people for conservation support. The Australian case for the Bathurst copper butterfly (Paralucia spinifera) is an excellent
example (Nally 2003). In this
example, the initiative by a local café in Lithgow designating themselves as a
sponsor helped to generate interest and support within the local community and
led to participation by local groups in measures such as growing and planting
larval food plants, education (including preparation of instruction kits), weed
control on butterfly sites, and others. ‘Local pride’, involving the vital sense of ownership, may come from
simple-sounding measures, one of which is implied above – the allocation
of a local patronymic common name. P. spinifera is
known as the Bathurst copper or Lithgow copper, after the two major towns
within its narrow range in New South Wales, as well as by ‘purple copper’ as a
more neutral epithet. Dedication
of a site as a reserve named for a local supporter or dignatory is also likely
to appeal. One of the dedicated reserves for the Eltham copper (Paralucia pyrodiscus lucida, a close relative of P. spinifera and named for an outer eastern suburb of
Melbourne, Victoria) is called the ‘Pauline Toner Reserve’ commemorating the
late local State parliamentarian whose enthusiasm and support were important
catalysts in the initial conservation campaign.
Adoption of species as local icons,
supported by publicity such as information leaflets, education initiatives,
involvement of local people and cooperation with managers of sites, perhaps
coordinated by meetings or informal on-site gatherings (where the sites can withstand this pressure), all
contribute to local pride. The
common flow-on is realisation that the taxon is of much more than local
importance, so that far wider advocacy can also be very worthwhile. Local and
national entomological societies may provide sources of information and energy –
in Australia, the Entomological Society of Queensland and the Entomological
Society of Victoria have both helped to guide butterfly conservation projects,
and the national science agency (CSIRO) was a critical driver of much of the
campaign for the Richmond birdwing butterfly (Ornithoptera richmondia) (Appendix 1, Sands et
al. 1997).
Endemism itself generates conservation
value amongst threatened species, so that a defined geographical transition
from local to national global significance (such as by inclusion on a national
Red Data Book or entry on the global IUCN Red List) may help emphasise value to
local managers. Much of the
impetus for conservation of birdwing butterflies, for example, has historically
come from people who have never seen them in the wild, nor visited the
countries in which they occur: the conservation interest has arisen from the
spectacular aesthetic appeal of birdwings, and their flagship values as
ambassadors for tropical forest ecosystems.
What might we expect to gain?
Restricted resources available for
insect conservation ensure
that, in many instances, conservation programmes simply cannot be undertaken
properly from these alone, and depend critically on additional inputs and
interest from the wider community. With willing participation of volunteer helpers, every aspect of
planning and management may become better focused and more easily achieved, not
least by incorporating expertise, experiences, interest and labour not
available from any other source, or expensive and difficult to procure. For Lepidoptera, examples of this aid
include (i) undertaking additional surveys to detect the species; (ii)
monitoring of known populations; (iii) undertaking research tasks under
guidance; (iv) other tangible physical help in site maintenance –
activities such as fencing, weed control, pruning, sanitation, preparation of
signage, and many others; (v) advocacy and support, perhaps through education
programmes or informal talks; (vi) fund-raising activities. Any such list is bounded only by
definition of needs in any individual case. In conjunction, some informal record of interest expressed
and available as special needs occur may help to respond to suggestions or queries
that arise. Few reactions are more
off-putting to people asking how they can help, than to be met with only a
vague and non-welcoming response. A simple leaflet about the insect and its needs can make substantial
positive impression.
It is, however, important that
coordination of the whole project is maintained, and that impetuous and
unplanned activities are not pursued. The management team, in reviewing and setting priorities amongst all
objectives and tasks needed, will consider all viewpoints and activities
proposed within the overall mission of the project and in the spirit of the
flexible (adaptive) management. That approach can incorporate unexpected changes as they arise, without
compromising the integrity of the programme. Concerned ‘citizen scientists’ occur in all walks of life,
and many people interested in natural history are passionate about
participating or helping in conservation activities once they become aware of
the need. More focused enterprises
have led to such interest groups being incorporated into surveys, such as for alien
ladybird beetles in North America (Losey et al. 2007, through Cornell
University), but the roles of volunteer observers have long been implicit in
surveys and documentation of Lepidoptera, such as for the Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus in North America (one
of few globally-acknowledged flagship insect species, and the focus of
continuing conservation need, linked to its spectacular seasonal migrations:
Brower 1995) and the preparation of the Atlas of British butterflies (Asher et
al. 2001). Whilst any related
activities are likely to contribute to a conservation programme, it is commonly
important to adhere to some pre-agreed sequence of priorities to gain most
planned benefits.
Habitat as a central issue
A moth or butterfly can thrive only in
places where its critical resources can be assured at times they are needed; a ‘habitat’
is much more than just ‘a place to live’, and calls for habitat protection,
augmentation and restoration are the most universal themes in species
management plans. They reflect
that habitat loss or change is the greatest, and potentially universal, threat
to the species (New et al. 1995). Most commonly, Lepidoptera management is site-focused rather than
primarily resource-focused. But,
in many cases, it is not really known which characteristics of the site render
it suitable for the particular species, and how those characteristics may be
managed. Even for the well-known
British butterflies, as Dennis has recently emphasised (Dennis 2010), many
important aspects of their resource needs and usage are still unclear.
Following the interpretation advanced by
Dennis and his colleagues in that context (Dennis et al. 2006, 2007), ‘resources’
fall into two broad categories. ‘Consumables’
are larval foodplants, adult nectar sources and (for some Lycaenidae) obligate
mutualistic ants - the more obvious needs that are the most regular focus of
conservation enhancement, both in terms of supply and distribution. ‘Utilities’ are the numerous wider
environmental factors needed, such as - perhaps - bare ground for basking,
flyways for patrolling, perches for territorial behaviour, retreats for
overwintering or for pupation, particular microclimates and topography, or any
other of the numerous factors that govern an insect’s normal behaviour and
development, and allow it access to consumables. Ultimately, understanding resource needs and supply and
assuring their availability is the core of species management. Many of the practical tasks that can
devolve on community support relate directly to this, and the examples below
illustrate this focus, with considerations of resource quantity, quality,
accessibility, distribution and security encompassing most aspects of ‘habitat’
suitability. Management may need
to be concentrated on sites currently occupied by the flagship species, or to
explore the needs for translocation of insects, sometimes accompanied by
preparation of additional sites to receive them. Without understanding resource needs, it may be difficult to
render any site management optimal.
Representative problems and attendant
tasks include:
1. Dealing with problems on small isolated
sites as remnants in a formerly hospitable landscape now changed and
unsuitable, with the presumption that the insect population is functionally
isolated.
2. Ensuring adequate continuing supply of
consumables in a dynamic environment, such as by countering successional
changes. Most commonly this may
entail enhancement of foodplants, perhaps from nursery-grown stock, to sustain
carrying capacity and distribution and to facilitate connectivity.
3. Linked strongly with this, prevention
of additional threats: removal of alien weeds or other invasives, general
sanitation, prevention of vandalism, assuring site security - perhaps by
changes in tenure and ownership.
4. Considering range-wide or
landscape-level conservation for the species and how the species’ needs may be
integrated more widely, and orchestrated with other conservation priorities in
the area or for the particular biotope involved.
Some examples from Australia: process and benefits
The above entails assuring site security,
definition and removal of further threats, defining conservation objectives and
the measures to achieve these, and planning logical ways to undertake these,
with formulation of budget and allocation of primary responsibility. This ideal is rarely possible, and even
many of the most important Lepidoptera species conservation programmes have
simply ‘grown’ and developed gradually as their complexities become
evident. Realistic retrospective
appraisal of how and why particular projects have succeeded or failed can be
instructive.
Some of the above points on roles of
flagship Lepidoptera in wider habitat conservation, and interacting with local
communities to achieve this, are demonstrated by outlines of three recent and
continuing projects in Australia. The social and environmental pressures influencing how each of these has
arisen and progressed help to emphasise that scientifically-based conservation
management proceeds in much wider governing environment in which community
interest and support is critical. The cases differ in emphasis, but are unified by the taxa being
signalled formally as threatened, and some comparative details are summarised
in Appendix 1. They help to
demonstrate the practical uses of flagships in a variety of different
ecological and conservation contexts. The first two are the longest-running such campaigns for insects in
Australia.
1. The Eltham Copper Butterfly (Paralucia pyrodiscus lucida Crosby, Lycaenidae)
exemplifies taxa on small urban remnant sites, in enforcedly isolated
populations, presumed survivors from a former much wider range, and for which
conservation is essentially site-based and necessarily intensive. It is a flagship for urban remnant
sites close to Melbourne.
2. The Richmond Birdwing Butterfly (Ornithoptera richmondia (Gray), Papilionidae)
exemplifies taxa with high aesthetic appeal and that can range widely over a
landscape whilst dependent on particular resources within complex subtropical
forest environments. It is a
flagship for subtropical forests, and for the dangers of introduced species.
3. The Golden Sun-moth (Synemon plana Walker, Castniidae) represents an endemic
genus, and is restricted to native grassland areas in the south east, where it
is listed nationally as critically endangered. It is a flagship for native
grasslands, which are regarded as the most threatened ecosystem in the region
and have been reduced to no more than 1% of their former extent by urban and
agricultural developments. S. plana is one of a trio of flagship animal
species viewed as critical advocates for threatened native grasslands - the
three are publicised as ‘a legless lizard, an earless dragon, and a mouthless
moth’ but the moth is accorded at least the same significance as the two
reptiles; in itself this scenario is unusual.
What next?
The three Australian cases noted above and
in Appendix 1 are progressing within a social environment in which sympathy for
butterflies is well-established and ‘respectable’, and in which community
support is likely to be accessible. This is not always the case, unless very tangible, material, benefits
can be demonstrated. Even then, fostering
sympathy for even the most notable of insects amongst vast human populations striving
for basic necessities and with incomes measured in, at most, a few dollars a
day, will remain difficult or impossible. Many aspects of the public relations exercises that are almost standard components
of conservation campaigns for charismatic insects in Australia or North America
are almost impossible; people simply cannot ‘buy the T-shirt’.
The most wide-ranging attempt to use a
butterfly flagship in this way has been for Queen Alexandra’s Birdwing (Ornithoptera alexandrae) in Papua New Guinea,
based on it being a powerful and popular symbol, accepted globally as
significant, for tropical rainforest as amongst the richest of all terrestrial
biotopes. Always elusive, the
butterfly has been under threat from two forms of forest loss - replacement of
primary forest by commercial oil palm plantations, and timber extraction. The broad conservation plan during
the1990s, in large part funded from Australia’s programme of foreign aid,
sought to promote O. alexandrae as
a flagship/umbrella species to reduce primary dependence on rain forest and
reduce the need to clear it, whilst facilitating income generation and
alternative livelihoods for local people. Some aspects of the programme
were discussed by New (2007), and the main point recapitulated here is the
attempt to promote a notable flagship species into all of the interacting
environmental, social and economic milieu throughout its full geographical
distributional range. Operations
on this large scale are unlikely to become numerous, not least because of their
duration and need for resources over a long period. They are also difficult to promote without direct and
readily forthcoming incentives for local communities or landholders to
participate, because the most immediate perception is often that the
conservation activities will restrict activity and lead to loss of income.
However, increasing calls for
single-species focus in insect conservation to be supplanted by wider
approaches to conserve habitats within landscapes, or assemblages - however
wise in anticipating greater returns for effort and limited resources, and
considered widely to be the only viable path to sustainability - in many cases
fail to appeal in the same way as conserving individual species. They are also more complex to monitor
or otherwise evaluate, particularly for the multitudes of small or
less-conspicuous organisms. Lepidoptera assemblages are indeed valuable tools in assessing ecosystem
integrity and influences of human disturbance, but many subtleties appear only
on analysis at the species or near-species level. A major value of flagship species is that they constitute ‘footholds’
for monitoring, advocacy, and broadening community participation and interest
in conservation. Individual treatments of carefully selected flagship species
remind us of the intricacies of insect resource need.
If those studies are wholly replaced by
broader programmes, without tracking the fates of representative individual
taxa within assemblages, we might become vulnerable to not only losing massive
proportions of locally endemic species that share our world, but also to not
knowing if and why this has occurred. Surely our heritage is worth more than
this?
I would urge that we continue to benefit
from the understanding of individual species programmes, as ambassadors for the
wider importance of insects, and to strenuously encourage any ways in which
community networks can be formed and fostered to assure a secure future for
those species and the environments on which they, and we, depend. The reality
of this interdependence is here conveyed through members of a diverse insect
group that: (i) depends fundamentally on food plants for larvae; (ii) often
manifest very specific associations and interdependence (iii) which are
sometimes complicated further by obligate involvement with other organisms
(such as mutualistic ants); (iv) contains many localised and declining species,
and combined with (v) public acceptance and sympathy for their wellbeing
together with (vi) an increasing variety of demonstrated conservation
successes. Many of these cases
have involved highly innovative management steps based on sound and increasing
biological understanding and common sense, and the outcomes indeed render many
Lepidoptera worthy ‘ambassadors for biodiversity’. Priority tasks for the
future include refining and extending this influence further, and seeking means
to increase the conservation benefit and influence of these studies. As one example, the central importance
of resource/habitat protection is still
based on very inadequate knowledge of distribution patterns and local richness
of Lepidoptera within areas already set aside for conservation. In such areas both study and necessary
management could be undertaken without the complex problems that arise from
work on private lands or those of uncertain tenure; for Australia, systematic
surveys of selected insect groups in major protected areas have been advocated
(Sands & New 2003). Their
advantages include basic inventory and information gathering, aiding
credibility of conservation advocacy and status allocation. That template helps in setting
priorities amongst the many deserving species that are potentially flagships,
and honing their use in wider conservation programmes for the critical habitats
on which they and numerous other species depend. Without fostering such species as powerful messengers, much
of the need for conservation would be much more difficult to convey
effectively.
Flagship Lepidoptera are amongst the most
potent tools for promoting awareness of insect conservation need, and in
increasing community awareness through scales extending from local to national,
or even wider. Key organisations, such as Butterfly Conservation (UK, now expanded
to Europe) and the Xerces Society (US) had their gestation in this way, with
their foundations from promotion of flagship butterflies now extended to much
wider influence and support.
REFERENCES
Andelman,
S.J. & W.F. Fagan (2000). Umbrellas and flagships: efficient
conservation surrogates or expensive mistakes? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences97: 5954–5959.
Asher,
J., M. Warren, R. Fox, P. Harding, G. Jeffcoate & J. Jeffcoate (2001). The Millennium Atlas of Butterflies in Britain and Ireland. Oxford
University Press, Oxford, xx+433pp.
Bonebrake,
T.C., L.C. Ponisio, C.L. Boggs & P.R. Ehrlich (2010).More than just indicators: a review of tropical butterfly ecology and
conservation. Biological Conservation143: 1831–1841.
Bowen-Jones,
E. & A. Entwistle (2002). Identifying appropriate flagship species:
the importance of culture and local contexts. Oryx 36: 189–195.
Brower,
L.P. (1995). Understanding and misunderstanding the
migration of the Monarch Butterfly (Nymphalidae) in North America. Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society49: 304–385.
Dennis,
R.L.H. (2010). A Resource-based Habitat View for
Conservation - Butterflies in the British landscape.
Wiley-Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, xii+406pp.
Dennis,
R.L.H., T.G. Shreeve & H. Van Dyck (2006). Habitats
and resources: the need for a resource-based definition to conserve
butterflies. Biodiversity and Conservation15: 1943–1968.
Dennis,
R.L.H., T.G. Shreeve & D.A. Sheppard (2007). Species
conservation and landscape management: a habitat perspective. pp. 92–126.
In: Stewart, A.J.A., T.R. New & O.T. Lewis. (eds). Insect Conservation Biology. CAB
International, Wallingford.
Fleishman,
E. & D.D. Murphy (2009). A realistic assessment of the indicator
potential of butterflies and other charismatic taxonomic groups. Conservation Biology 23: 1109–1116.
Franklin,
J.F. (1993). Preserving biodiversity: species,
ecosystems, or landscapes? Ecological Applications 3:
202–205.
Hettinger,
N. (2010). Animal beauty, ethics and environmental
preservation. Environmental Ethics32: 115–134.
[Hong
Kong (2007)]. Hong Kong Declaration on the Conservation
of Lepidoptera. pp. 148–149. In: Kendrick, R.C. (ed.) Proceedings of the
First South East Asian Lepidoptera Conservation Symposium, Kadoorie Farm and
Botanic Garden, Hong Kong.
IUCN
(2010). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (www.iucnredlist.org/)
Kendrick,
R.C. (2007). The conservation assessment of moths in
Hong Kong. pp. 71–82. In: Kendrick, R.C. (ed.). Proceedings of the First
South East Asian Lepidoptera Conservation Symposium, Kadoorie Farm and Botanic
Garden, Hong Kong.
Kitching,
R.L. (2007). Tigers, lobsters, hawks and pugs: moth
assemblages in conservation [abstract and presentation notes]. pp. 9–15.
In: Kendrick, R.C. (ed.) Proceedings of the First South East Asian Lepidoptera
Conservation Symposium, Kadoorie Farm and Botanic Garden, Hong Kong.
Kristensen,
N.P., M. Scoble & O. Karscholt (2007). Lepidoptera
phylogeny and systematics: the state of inventorying moth and butterfly
diversity. Zootaxa1668: 699–747.
Losey,
J.E., J.E. Perlman & R. Hoebeke (2007). Citizen
scientist rediscovers rare nine-spotted ladybird, Coccinella novempunctata, in eastern North America. Journal of Insect Conservation 11:
415–417.
Nally,
S.C. (2003). Community involvement in the conservation
of endangered purple copper butterfly Paralucia spinifera Edwards and Common (Lepidoptera:
Lycaenidae). Records of the South Australian Museum,
Monograph series 7: 217–224.
New,
T.R. (1997). Are Lepidoptera an effective ‘umbrella
group’ for biodiversity conservation? Journal of Insect Conservation 1:
5–12.
New,
T.R. (2000). How to conserve the ‘meek inheritors’. Journal of Insect Conservation 4:
151–152.
New,
T.R. (2007). Broadening benefits to insects from wider
conservation agendas. pp. 301–321. In: Stewart, A.J.A., T.R. New &
O.T. Lewis (eds). Insect Conservation Biology.
CAB International, Wallingford.
New,
T.R. (2009). Insect Species Conservation.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, xiv+256pp.
New,
T.R. (2010). Butterfly conservation in Australia: the
importance of community participation. Journal of Insect Conservation14: 305–311.
New,
T.R., R.M. Pyle, J.A. Thomas, C.D. Thomas & P.C. Hammond (1995).Butterfly conservation management. Annual Review of Entomology40: 57–83.
Robinson,
G.S., K.R. Tuck & M. Shaffer (1994). A Field Guide to the Smaller Moths of South-East Asia.
The Natural History Museum, London, 309pp.
Sands,
D.P.A. & T.R. New (2002). The Action Plan for Australian Butterflies.
Environment Australia, Canberra, vi+377pp.
Sands,
D.P.A. & T.R. New (2003). Coordinated invertebrate surveys in
Australia’s national parks: an important tool in refining invertebrate
conservation management. Records of the South Australian Museum,
Monograph series 7: 203–208.
Sands,
D.P.A., S.E. Scott & R. Moffatt (1997). The
threatened Richmond birdwing butterfly (Ornithoptera richmondia [Gray]): a community conservation
project. Memoirs of Museum Victoria56: 449–453.
Simaika,
J.P. & M.J.Samways (2010). Biophilia as a universal ethic for
conserving biodiversity. Conservation Biology24: 903–906.
Simberloff,
D. (1998). Flagships, umbrellas and keystones: is
single-species management passé in the landscape era? Biological Conservation 83: 247–257.
Williams,
S. (1996). Community involvement in the species
recovery process: insights into successful partnerships. pp. 87–96. In:
Stephens, S. & S. Maxwell (eds). Back from The Brink. Refining The Threatened Species Recovery Process.Surrey Beatty & Sons, Chipping Norton.
Wilson,
E.O. (1987). The little things that run the world (the
importance and conservation of invertebrates). Conservation Biology 1: 344–346.
Yen,
A.L., T.R. New, B. Van Praagh & P.J. Vaughan (1990). Invertebrate
conservation: three case studies in southeastern Australia. pp. 207–224.
In: Clark, T. & J.H. Seebeck (eds). Management and Conservation of Small Populations. Chicago
Zoological Society, Brookfield, Illinois.
Appendix
1. Outline summaries of three conservation programmes involving flagship taxa
of Lepidoptera in eastern Australia
1. Paralucia
pyrodiscus lucida Crosby (Lycaenidae, the Eltham Copper
Butterfly, near Melbourne populations).
Subspecies
described from outer eastern Melbourne, reduced heavily by urban expansion, but
small populations confirmed in 1987 on small (1-2 hectares) isolated sites,
some scheduled for imminent housing development. Initial interest coincided
with development of Victoria’s Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988; Minister for
Conservation approved development moratorium pending status investigation, as
the first insect used as a flagship in the State. Local community highly sympathetic and adopted the copper as
a symbol for conservation, with a continuing ‘Friends’ group’; major funding
from government (commonwealth and state) and local efforts enabled purchase and
reclassification of several sites, with three declared as dedicated butterfly
reserves bearing a strong sense of local ‘ownership’.
Ecology: Larvae are monophagous on Bursaria
spinosa (Pittosporaceae) and have mutualistic relationship
with Notoncus ants; they
are nocturnal and pass the day in ant nests at the base of foodplants, and ants
‘shepherd’ them up plants to feed at night. Small area of sites limits population size, and Eltham
populations have butterflies present throughout summer. Populations are site-dependent,
isolated by housing development and paved roads.
Conservation scenario: Small isolated
urban sites, on which butterfly populations are conservation-dependent and
management needs can be intensive and individualistic. Threats include natural succession
leading to canopy closure and loss of Bursaria, weed
invasion and other ‘edge effects’, vandalism and waste dumping, and fuel
buildup leading to perceived dangers from fires by local residents. Sites span a variety of administrative
tenures, and on each, butterflies, Bursaria and ants are
all distributed patchily.
Conservation measures: Butterfly
listed for protection, and distribution and abundance trends in main sites
evaluated annually by counts of adults and caterpillars by volunteer community
helpers. Management emphasis on sustaining site quality and resource supply,
whilst avoiding excessive human intrusion into small sites. Main sites with permanently marked 10 x
10 m grids, in which individual occupied foodplants tagged for cumulative
recording. Practical steps include weed removal (hand labour) and suppression /
successional regeneration / canopy opening- fuel reduction by hot control
burning; general high intensity continuing management with substantial
community input, including representation on statewide management group.
Selected references: Braby et
al. (1999), New et al. (2000), Webster (2008), New (2010).
2.Ornithoptera richmondia (Gray) (Papilionidae, the Richmond
Birdwing, south eastern Queensland and north eastern New South Wales).
The most
southerly Australian birdwing, found in rainforest habitats that have been
largely cleared to leave fragmented pockets and cause loss of the birdwing over
much of its former range. Species with high public appeal, so declines accepted
as realistic and undesirable; initially listed as of conservation significance
in 1974, and a focus of major community conservation programme since the late
1980s; this has emphasised habitat features on range-wide or landscape level.
Ecology: Larvae feed on two species of native
vines (Aristolochiaceae) found in rainforest, the main one being Pararistolochia
praevenosa, reduced in parallel with forest loss
and, with the butterfly, now mainly found in riparian forest remnants. The
butterfly is a strong flyer and can track vines over substantial distances, so
conservation has landscape focus.
Conservation scenario: In addition
to the major losses of primary habitat, the species’ decline is exacerbated by
spread of an alien ornamental species of vine, Dutchman’s Pipe (Aristolochia
elegans) into remaining forests and elsewhere across the
landscape. This vine is highly attractive to female O.
richmondia for oviposition, but foliage is toxic to
hatchling caterpillars, which die after feeding. The major conservation needs
are thereby twofold; enhancement of native foodplants by extensive plantings,
and removal of the alien vine throughout the butterfly’s range.
Conservation measures: Major
community involvement from outset of project, with major emphasis on production
of nursery-grown native vines for distribution to schools and individuals for
augmentation planting and observation of butterfly colonisation, removal of
Dutchman’s pipe and protection of sites occupied by the birdwing. Range-wide coordination through
conservation agencies, with early involvement of CSIRO’s Double Helix Club
encouraging interests of young people: by 1997 more than 300 schools were
involved and more than 29,000 nursery-propagated vines had been
distributed. Later development of
the Richmond Birdwing Recovery Network Inc. (now Richmond Birdwing Conservation
Network), with more than 400 members in mid-2009, with major emphasis on
growing and planting vines on public and private land, in a system of ‘corridors’
to expand the birdwing’s range by facilitating its natural movement. A lively and informative network
newsletter is augmented by meetings involving instruction sessions on vine
identification and propagation (with handbook manuals produced), visiting
lecturers and field trips to maintain coordination of activities. Captive breeding of Richmond birdwing
has been attempted in large field cages.
Selected references: Sands et al.
(1997), Sands & Scott (2002), Sands (2008).
3. Synemon
plana Walker (Castniidae, the Golden Sun-moth,
south eastern mainland Australia).
One of an
endemic radiation of about 40 Castniidae, many of them threatened (some perhaps
extinct), due to loss of native grasslands. S.
plana is listed federally as ‘critically endangered’ and
also listed individually under each of the three range Acts (for Victoria, New
South Wales, Australian Capital Territory), reflecting the extensive losses of
native lowland grasslands for agriculture, urban and industrial developments
throughout the region: many remaining fragments are close to cities and under
continued pressure for development. As a symbol for one of the most threatened regional ecosystems, S.
plana is one of few high profile moths in Australia. It occurs mostly on small isolated
grassland fragments in varying stages of degradation, and most populations
appear to be small; difficulties of detecting and enumerating moths have
involved considerable volunteer help and interest from community environmental
groups.
Ecology: S.
plana is difficult to study. Caterpillars are subterranean
and feed on roots of native grasses; it is not yet clear whether
the lifecycle takes one, two, or even three years. Adults are shortlived (about three to five days) and, with
rudimentary mouthparts, do not feed. Males fly fast, but only under warm, calm, dry conditions and for a few
hours in the middle of the day: survey opportunities are thereby limited. Females fly little, but mostly rest on
the ground, responding to overflying males by exposing their bright orange hind
wings. At any site, the flight
season extends over about six to eight weeks, but rapid turnover of individuals
renders counting moths difficult, as numerous visits are needed. Apparent distribution on a site may
change over this time, as emergence may be influenced by soil temperatures and,
thus, microtopography.
Conservation scenario: Detection
and protection of occupied sites dominates conservation concerns; many of these
are small, isolated, close to settlement, and threatened by imminent
development; many are also highly degraded by weed invasion and alien grasses
introduced for stock grazing. With
improved knowledge of moth detection, S.
plana is being found progressively at many such sites.
Conservation measures: Advocacy
for S. plana, with two
threatened grassland lizards also dependent on remnant native grasslands, has
led to a ‘portfolio’ approach with these three flagship species. Major input
from volunteers, including field days organised through community environmental
groups, in detecting presence of moths in grassland sites, and attempting to
assess distributions of populations. Primary conservation need is to prevent sites being lost to development,
and to assess whether realistic compromise, such as use of ‘habitat offsets’
may be viable in helping to maintain habitat. One of two foci (with S.
selene) of first dedicated sun-moth reserve; only one of
eight species of Synemon in Victoria
may be ‘secure’ without such measures.
Selected references: Douglas
(1993, 2004), Gibson & New (2007).
REFERENCES
Braby,
M.F., B.D. Van Praagh & T.R. New (1999). The dull
copper, Paralucia pyrodiscus(Lycaenidae). pp. 247–260. In: Kitching, R.L, E. Scheermeyer, R.E. Jones
& N.E. Pierce (eds). Biology of Australian Butterflies. CSIRO
Publishing, Collingwood.
Douglas,
F. (1993). The conservation status, distribution and
habitat requirements of diurnal Lepidoptera in central and western Victoria
(Part 1: Family Castniidae). Department of Natural Resources and
Environment, East Melbourne, 29pp.
Douglas,
F. (2004). A dedicated reserve for conservation of
two species of Synemon(Lepidoptera: Castniidae) in Australia. Journal
of Insect Conservation 8: 221–228.
Gibson,
L. & T.R. New (2007). Problems in studying populations of the
golden sun-moth, Synemon plana(Lepidoptera: Castniidae) in south eastern Australia. Journal
of Insect Conservation 11: 309–313.
New,
T.R. (2010). Butterfly Conservation in south-eastern
Australia; Progress and Prospects. Springer, Dordrecht, x+190pp.
New,
T.R., B.D. Van Praagh & A.L.Yen (2000). Fire and the
management of habitat quality in an Australian lycaenid butterfly, Paralucia
pyrodiscus lucida, the Eltham copper. Metamorphosis 11: 154–163.
Sands,
D. (2008). Conserving the Richmond Birdwing Butterfly
over two decades: where to next? Ecological Management and Restoration 9: 4–16.
Sands,
D.P.A. & S. Scott (2002). The Richmond birdwing butterfly (Ornithoptera
richmondia [Gray]): its natural history and progress
towards recovery. pp. 32–47. In: Sands, D. & S. Scott (eds). Conservation
of birdwing butterflies. SciComEd Pty & THECA, Chapel Hill,
Brisbane, 48pp.
Sands, D.P.A.,
S.E. Scott & R. Moffat (1997). The
threatened Richmond Birdwing Butterfly (Ornithoptera
richmondia [Gray]): a community conservation
project. Memoirs of Museum Victoria 56: 449–453.
Webster,
A. (2008). Eltham Copper Butterfly Paralucia
pyrodiscus lucida. Draft Flora and Fauna Guarantee Action
Statement (revision, Action Statement no 39). Department of Sustainability and
Environment, Victoria.