Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 650

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Monitoring change in the abundance and distribution of insects using butterflies and other indicator groups

Open access
Thomas, J.A·2005·Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

Abstract

Conservative estimates suggest that 50–90% of the existing insect species on Earth have still to be discovered, yet the named insects alone comprise more than half of all known species of organism. With such poor baseline knowledge, monitoring change in insect diversity poses a formidable challenge to scientists and most attempts to generalize involve large extrapolations from a few well-studied taxa. Butterflies are often the only group for which accurate measures of change can be obtained. Four schemes, used successfully to assess change in British butterflies, that are increasingly being applied across the world are described: Red Data Books (RDB) list the best judgements of experts of the conservation status of species in their field of expertise; mapping schemes plot the changing distributions of species at scales of 1–100 km2; transect monitoring schemes generate time series of changes in abundance in sample populations of species on fixed sites across the UK; and occasional surveys measure the number, boundaries and size of all populations of a (usually RDB) species at intervals of 10–30 years. All schemes describe consistent patterns of change, but if they are to be more generally useful, it is important to understand how well butterflies are representative of other taxa. Comparisons with similarly measured changes in native bird and plant species suggest that butterflies have declined more rapidly that these other groups in Britain; it should soon be possible to test whether this pattern exists elsewhere. It is also demonstrated that extinction rates in British butterflies are similar to those in a range of other insect groups over 100 years once recording bias is accounted for, although probably lower than in aquatic or parasitic taxa. It is concluded that butterflies represent adequate indicators of change for many terrestrial insect groups, but recommended that similar schemes be extended to other popular groups, especially dragonflies, bumblebees, hoverflies and ants. Given institutional backing, similar projects could be employed internationally and standardized. Finally, a range of schemes designed to monitor change in communities of aquatic macro-invertebrates is described. Although designed to use invertebrates as a bio-indicator of water quality for human use, these programmes could be extended to monitor the 2010 biodiversity targets of the World Summit on Sustainable Development.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1098/rstb.2004.1585

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 650

Metadata

Authors
Thomas, J. A.
Venue
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
Published
2005-02-28
Volume
360
Issue
1454
Pages
339-357
ISSN
  • 0962-8436 (ISSN-L)
  • 1471-2970
OpenAlex
W2102925718
Cited by
650
References
3
FWCI
7.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Monitoring change in the abundance and distribution of insects using butterflies and other indicator groups. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1098/rstb.2004.1585
The paper
Thomas, J. A. (2005). Monitoring change in the abundance and distribution of insects using butterflies and other indicator groups. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2004.1585

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.