Papilio joanae - Heritage/TNC/ABI vs. USGS data

[John Shuey]

First, I wish everyone would just call me John, not Dr. Shuey (I try and keep
that guy in the closet unless I actually need him).  Second,  Indiana is
actually not part of Illinois, despite the dominance of Chicago over our NW
counties.
 
And finally to actually address something meaningful - I (John) didn't mean to
imply that that the USGS web site wasn't good at providing county level
distributional data - it's great at that.  It and other general resources can
and are used to inform conservation decisions, but at a level that is removed
from actual conservation action.  In other words, information like this helps
identify potential conservation targets on a regional basis.  Using Papilio
joanae as a continuing example - you could look at the USGS map  (if of course
they map it - which I'm still a little unclear about) or a field guide and
decide that as a narrow endemic - you want to target it for conservation.
 
But what you can't do with this data is actually make any conservation decisions
- because conservation is site based, and counties per say are not sites (nor is
a county record an Element Occurrence for heritage databases).  Hence if you
want to conserve Papilio joanae, can the USGS site actually provide anything
more than a rough clue about where to do it?  Would you just go out and say,
spend $5M or so on any old piece of land in one of those counties in the name of
P. joanae conservation?  I don't think so. You would need to know specific sites
which support populations of your conservation target.  What you need is a
database that has specific sites for the species, so that you can coherently
plan for your conservation target.  You need either first hand knowledge, or in
database form, a real heritage element occurrence record for the target. (can I
get redundant or what?)
 
To jump back to the Euphyes dukesi element occurrence (EO) data I dumped
yesterday, that is one EO of three for that species at a fairly complex site (a
macro-site in heritage parlance).  In addition there are EOs for numerous other
state imperiled species and plant communities at that site.  Together, these
have been used to design a viable conservation area that conserves an array of
conservation targets in a viable setting.  Targets that include a couple of
butterflies, Catocola marmarata, bald cypress swamps, overcup oak swamps, slough
ponds, rare plants, oak flatwoods, rare herptiles, sedge meadows and so on.
Over 2,500 acres have been purchased to date to protect these communities and
rare species at this particular site.  You can't do this with just a bunch of
county-level dots for a bunch of species.
 
So, when I said that data like the USGS maps play almost no role in conservation
decisions - I meant it at the implementation level.  You simply cannot do
applied conservation at anything but specific sites, and the USGS data is
clearly not designed to address this issue.
 
John Shuey
 
Mike.Quinn at tpwd.state.tx.us wrote:
 
> Dear Dr. Shuey,
>
> I was a bit surprised to read your somewhat dismissive comments of the value
> and veracity of the USGS data especially considering Dr. Opler is the senior
> author of half the references cited for the ABI data! Personally I regularly
> consult the USGS site. There are exceedingly few on-line options for
> county-level invertebrate distribution data (or in Heritage parlance:
> "Element of Occurrence" data). Perhaps you folks up in Illinois with access
> to Illinois Natural History Survey data have more options than most other
> states. My job description mentions something about my having primary
> responsibility of all terrestrial invertebrates in the state of Texas, the
> estimated number of insects alone exceeds 30,000 species. Yet, our in-house
> literature and specimen data are rather limited to nonexistent...
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> Mike Quinn
> Invertebrate Biologist
> Wildlife Diversity Branch
> Texas Parks & Wildlife
> 3000 IH 35 South, Suite 100, Austin, Texas 78704
> Ph/Fax: 512/912-7059, -7058
> mike.quinn at tpwd.state.tx.us
> http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/nature/
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John Shuey [mailto:jshuey at tnc.org]
> > Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 8:27 AM
> > To: leps
> > Subject: papilio joanae - Heritage data overview
> >
> >
> >
> > Ron Gatrelle noted that the USGS web page apparently ignores P joanae
> > and that this has implications relative to conservation.  Keep in mind
> > that that web site is designed for public consumption and
> > participation,
> > and while I can't claim to understand data quality or
> > decisions, it does
> > not play much of a role in the conservation community (in fact I think
> > it probably plays zero role).
> >
> > In that line, I've downloaded the P. joanae abstract from the Heritage
> > Network (http://www.natureserve.org/servlet/NatureServe) where I
> > understand the decision process.  Essentially designed to capture
> > recognizable evolutionary units (many with no names) for selected
> > groups, this is the primary source of data for state conservation
> > programs, TNC (of course) and increasingly for EPA, US-FS, US-FWS, and
> > USGS.  Unlike the public USGS web site, data are tightly
> > screened before
> > they are entered, and the data are linked to source, site, time and
> > environmental setting.  (hence the time lag in getting data into the
> > system that can frustrate many contributors).  There are two parts to
> > the data/web site, one private (which has all the raw data) and one
> > public.  I've copied the public summary for P joanae below:
> > -
> > John Shuey
> > ________________________________________________________
> >        Comprehensive Report: Record 1 of 1 selected.
>
> <snip>
>
> >
> >  References
> >
> >       Heitzman, J. R., 1974 ["1973"] Journal of Research on the
> > Lepidoptera 12:3-7.
> >       Heitzman, J. Richard and Joan E. Heitzman, 1987. Butterflies and
> > Moths of Missouri. Missouri Dept. of Conservation, Jefferson
> >       City, MO. 385pp.
> >       Opler, P.A. (chair), J.M. Burns, J.D. LaFontaine, R.K. Robbins,
> > and F. Sperling. 1998. Scientific names of North American
> >       butterflies. Fort Collins, CO. Unpublished review draft.
> >       Opler, P.A. and V. Malikul. 1992. Eastern Butterflies (Peterson
> > Field Guide). Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston,
> >       Massachusetts. 396 pp. + color plates.
> >
> >
> >  The Small Print: Trademark, Copyright, Citation Guidelines,
> > Restrictions on Use,
> >  and Information Disclaimer.
> >
> >  Note: Data presented in NatureServe at
> > http://www.natureserve.org were
> > updated to be current with the Association for Biodiversity
> >  Information's central databases as of October 31, 2000.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ------------------------------------------------------------
 
   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
 
   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl