Collecting Debate

Bob Kriegel kriegelr at pilot.msu.edu
Fri Sep 5 12:51:44 EDT 1997


Ken asked a question about the differences between attitudes towards
collecting by those studying moths versus butterflies.  I think both the
relative number of species in these two groups and the ease with which they
can be identified has a lot to do with the differences in attitude.  How
many species of butterflies do you typically observe at a given location on
a given day?  In most places in North America that number is in the range of
10-30.  Most can be easily identified in the field.  Now, set up a mercury
vapor light and a sheet, set a bait trail, and wait for the moths to appear.
On a good night you will see more moth species than that in a single family,
sometimes in a single genus.  If you include microlepidoptera the number of
species observed at one location in one night can easily exceed 100.
Several species will need to be mounted and genitalic dissections made to
determine their identity.  Mo Nielsen's current estimate of the Lepidoptera
fauna of Michigan is about 2,600 species; only 160 of these are butterflies.
Furthermore, nonlethal transect methods have been developed for estimating
the butterfly fauna at a site.  On the other hand, survey techniques for
moths typically involve staying in one place and letting them come to you.
Usually either a lit sheet or UV kill trap is used. Many biodiversity
indices rely on the total number of species observed and the number of
'rare' species (ones where only a single individual was observed).  It is
relatively easy to get a good estimate of the total number of species
observed at an illuminated sheet.  It is not easy to get a good estimate of
the number of 'rare' species observed at a sheet.  For all it's flaws a UV
trap is a much less biased sampling method.  Finally, those studying
butterflies can visit several different locations each day.  Running an
illuminated sheet effectively limits you to surveying one location per
night.  To sample multiple locations per night requires the use of UV kill
traps.  It simply isn't practical to survey for moths without collecting and
killing some.

I also strongly disagree with Neil Jones statement that encouraging
collecting encourages the wrong attitude to conservation.  Here in Michigan
an anti-collecting attitude is clearly hampering conservation efforts for
Lepidoptera.  Let me illustrate with a real world example involving
conservationists, collectors, and government.  I am personally involved in
listed species survey and conservation efforts here in Michigan.  I serve on
a technical committee that advises the DNR on threatened/endangered species;
I am  the database manager for the Michigan Lepidoptera Survey (MLS); I have
a threatened/endangered species collecting permit, and I perform field
survey work on state listed species.  In short, I am a qualified scientist
trying to work closely with our Michigan Department of Natural Resources
(MDNR) on endangered/threatened species issues regarding Lepidoptera.  Some
would classify these activities as a hobby because I am not employed as an
entomologist, but rather as a systems analyst in a university Animal Science
department.  In Michigan 5 lep species are listed as endangered and 15 are
threatened.  Two of the state endangered species, _Catocala amestris_ and
_Schinia lucens_, rely on leadplant (a special concern plant) as their
primary larval host.  Each of these two species is known from a single
location in Michigan.  Michigan Natural Features Inventory (MNFI), MDNR, and
MLS are working together to restore a small prairie remnant that is the only
known location for _C. amestris_ in the state.  This cooperative effort
emerged out of a near disaster when collectors accidently discovered that
the entire site was about to be burned by a well meaning but uninformed land
manager.  Over a year ago a wildlife biologist at MNFI encouraged me to
conduct survey work to find new locations for this underwing moth.
Interestingly enough, _C. amestris_ was listed as an endangered species less
than 5 years after it's discovery in the state and no systematic survey work
was performed on the moth prior to its being listed.  Last winter Mo Nielsen
and I submitted a grant proposal to the Michigan Natural Heritage small
grants program to conduct research on these two species.  The proposed
project involved intensive non-lethal life history studies at the known
location and extensive survey work using a combination of non-lethal and
lethal methods at other potential locations throughout the state.  We were
told that our proposal was not funded because our study involved the use of
lethal traps.  MDNR disapproved of our proposed strategy of placing a single
UV trap in a stand of leadplant for a single night in locations where NO
listed species had ever been recorded.  Upon closer inspection of my 1996
threatened/endangered species permit I realized that I was only authorized
to 'voucher' endangered species using non-lethal techniques such as
capture-release or photography.  In my permit application for 1997 I
explained in great detail why it was important for voucher specimens to be
collected (and deposited in a public institution) to document the discovery
of these species at new locations.  I requested permission to collect 1-2
voucher specimens of state listed endangered insects from new locations.
That request was denied.

Historically, most of our knowledge about non-pest Lepdioptera has come from
avocational collectors.  This fact is still true today.  In the U.S. state
and federal agencies simply do not have the staff, or in many cases the
expertise, to conduct insect surveys themselves.  Hence, they must rely on
entomologists to conduct distribution and life history work.  But funding
for this kind of research is very limited, often covering little more than
transportation and materials.  The bulk of this survey work is done by
avocational collectors.  I contend that anti-collecting policies create a
significant barrier between the collectors who produce the information and
the government that consumes this information for use in conservation and
regulatory policies.

Bob Kriegel <kriegelr at pilot.msu.edu>



More information about the Leps-l mailing list