© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2008 DOI 10.1163/187498308X414733

Terrestrial Arthropod Reviews 1 (2008) 111–123 www.brill.nl/tarT A R

Insects as fl agship conservation species

Margaret S. Guiney 1 and Karen S. Oberhauser 2 1 Conservation Biology Program, University of Minnesota, St. Paul MN 55108

sava0080@umn.edu 2 Department of Fisheries, Wildlife and Conservation Biology, University of Minnesota

St. Paul MN 55108 oberh001@umn.edu

Received: 14 October 2008; accepted 9 November 2008

Summary Insect conservation has generally received less public attention than vertebrate conservation. Less is known about threats to invertebrates, and invertebrates generally have less public charisma than vertebrates and thus engender less concern. We argue that an additional reason is that invertebrates are rarely used as fl ag-ship conservation species, and that increased focus on invertebrate conservation in public campaigns would benefi t this important group of species and conservation eff orts in general. We describe conserva-tion eff orts focused on three groups: charismatic insects, endangered insects, and insects that provide important ecological services. In each of these cases, we provide a case study that illustrates ways in which these eff orts have wide-reaching conservation and education impacts. Our goals are to expand insect con-servation eff orts and to motivate entomologists and conservationists in general to utilize appropriate insect species to garner support for conservation eff orts.

Keywords Insect conservation; fl agship species; monarch butterfl y; Danaus plexippus; Karner blue butterfl y; Lycaeides melissa samuelis; ecological services; pollinators

Introduction

A common strategy for minimizing current and future biodiversity losses is to focus on one or a small number of species that help identify or improve conservation problems (Th omas, 1972 ; Wilcox, 1984 ; Jarvinen, 1985 ). Th ese species, often called surrogate species, can serve several diff erent purposes (Caro and O’Doherty, 1999 ). Indicator species are used to assess environmental conditions (Landres et al., 1988 ); for example, the presence of specifi c aquatic invertebrates helps indicate water quality. Umbrella species help defi ne a habitat or community of species to protect (Wilcox, 1984 ); the range of the migratory wildebeest ( Connochaetes taurinus ) helped defi ne boundaries for a conservation area in Tanzania (Grzimek and Grzimek, 1959 ). Finally, fl agship species are used to generate public support and funding for conservation goals beyond the

112 M.S. Guiney and K.S. Oberhauser / Terrestrial Arthropod Reviews 1 (2008) 111–123

needs of the specifi c species (Dietz et al., 1994 ). Some fl agship species, like the giant panda ( Ailuropoda melanoleuca ), a symbol of the World Wildlife Fund, are used to generate support for nature globally (Caro and O’Doherty, 1999 ), while others, like the Komodo dragon ( Varanus komodoensis ) that inhabits a few Indonesia islands, are used to attract tourists and generate conservation funds in a specifi c area (Walpole and Leader-Williams, 2002 ). While historically most fl agship species have been large mam-mals, some much smaller species, for example butterfl ies, have been successful fl agship species (New, 1997 ).

More focus on insect fl agship species could serve two important goals. From a broader perspective, utilizing this large and ubiquitous group in conservation eff orts can eff ectively draw attention to conservation needs in general. Additionally, it is important to draw more attention to insect conservation needs per se . Th e scarcity of insect fl agship species means that few people think about their importance and conser-vation needs. While extinctions of and threats to land vertebrates are reasonably well-documented (e.g. Pimm and Raven, 2000 ; Baillie et al., 2004 ), extinction rates of other organisms, which comprise about 99% of the world’s species, are rough guesses, at best (e.g. Dunn, 2005 ; Berenbaum, 2008 ). Th ere is some question about whether the forces that threaten vertebrates threaten insects with similar levels of intensity. Some features of insect biology, such as their requirements for smaller habitat areas to support relatively large populations (Blackburn and Gaston, 1997 ) and high rates of reproduction and dispersal, may make insects less prone to extinction. However, some characteristics may make them prone to factors that are unlikely to aff ect vertebrates, such as narrow habitat specialization and requirements for specifi c hosts that may themselves be threatened. Th e protection aff orded to insects under the United States Endangered Species Act is less generous than that aff orded to vertebrates; distinct pop-ulations of invertebrates cannot be protected, nor can any group that has the potential to be an agricultural pest during any life stage (Black, 2008 ). Because citizens can play a key role in securing protection for species through legislation and habitat protection, increasing the public’s knowledge of and concern for insects can be an important strat-egy in securing more equal protection for this group (e.g. Berenbaum, 2008 ).

Our focus is on conservation eff orts that have targeted insect fl agship species. We describe conservation eff orts focused on three groups: charismatic insects, endangered insects, and insects that provide important ecological services. In each of these cases, we provide a case study that illustrates ways in which these eff orts have wide-reaching conservation and education impacts. Our goals are to expand insect conservation eff orts and to motivate entomologists and conservationists in general to utilize appro-priate insect species to garner support for conservation eff orts.

Charismatic species

Insects are generally not perceived in a positive light, but rather as crop pests, carriers of disease, poisonous, or simply pesky (e.g. Berenbaum, 2008 ). Th ey might thus seem unlikely charisma candidates. However, butterfl ies provide an exception to the

M.S. Guiney and K.S. Oberhauser / Terrestrial Arthropod Reviews 1 (2008) 111–123 113

unfavorable view of insects (e.g. Vane-Wright, 2008 ), and are thus appropriate fl agship species. Butterfl ies are often beautifully colored, easy to observe as they fl y and nectar from fl owers, and do not bite or sting. Th ey are familiar to many people because they are fairly common across a variety of habitat types, and this familiarity can be an important conservation tool.

Th e monarch butterfl y ( Danaus plexippus L.) provides one of our best examples of the conservation impacts of a non-threatened species (see Figure 1 ). In fact, it is likely that no other non-pest insect has attracted as much attention (Oberhauser and Solensky, 2004 ). Monarch adults and larvae are both recognized by many people. Th ey are wide-spread and fairly common, and have unique and well-known attributes, such as their long distance migration, involvement in a fascinating mimicry complex, and relation-ship with milkweed. Th e monarch is the state insect, butterfl y or emblem of seven states in the United States, one Canadian province, and one Mexican state. Children study monarchs in school, conservationists are concerned about impacts of human activities on monarchs, and citizens, government agencies and conservation organiza-tions are engaged in a variety of programs designed to alleviate these impacts. Citizen scientist volunteers throughout North American track their migration and breeding ,1 and their involvement in these research eff orts not only provides data that are relevant to conservation decisions, but also helps to develop a corps of citizens that educate and advocate on behalf of the organisms they study (Oberhauser and Prysby, 2008 ). Th ese eff orts benefi t other organisms through conservation education; habitat protection, restoration or creation; and alleviation of human activities that degrade habitats, such as pesticide applications.

Th e long distance migration of monarchs, from summer breeding grounds in tem-perate regions of the United States and Canada to wintering habitat in central Mexico and coastal California (e.g. Brower, 1995 ), requires a series of habitat types that are regularly occupied over the course of a year. In the summer, these habitats range from pristine prairies in the Upper Midwestern United States and Canada to small gardens, roadside ditches, fi eld edges, and fallow agricultural fi elds. In the fall, monarchs require access to nectar sources and nighttime resting spots, and their wintering locations must provide specifi c microclimatic conditions that are found in wooded groves near the Pacifi c Ocean, and forested mountain-tops in the Transvolcanic Range of central Mexico. Protection and creation of these habitats will benefi t many organisms besides monarchs. For example, of the 423 vascular plants that are found in the Monarch Butterfl y Biosphere Reserve (MBBR) in Mexico, 32% are Mexican endemics, and Cornejo-Tenorio et al. ( 2003 ) argue that this is a center of diversifi cation for several groups. Preservation and augmentation of nectar resources along the migratory fl yways will also benefi t other pollinators.

1) Many monarch citizen science programs exist in North America, including the Monarch Larva Monitoring Project (www.mlmp.org), Monarch Watch (www.monarchwatch.org), and Project Monarch Health (www.monarchparasties,org). Others have broader foci that include monarchs, such as the North American Butterfl y Association (www.naba.org), Journey North (www.learner.org/jnorth) and several Butterfl y Monitoring Networks.

114 M.S. Guiney and K.S. Oberhauser / Terrestrial Arthropod Reviews 1 (2008) 111–123

Figure 1. Monarch butterfl y ( Danaus plexippus) © Kurt Adolfson, www.bluedotimages.com

Figure 2. Karner blue butterfl y ( Lycaeides melissa samuelis) © Kurt Adolfson, www.bluedotimages.com

M.S. Guiney and K.S. Oberhauser / Terrestrial Arthropod Reviews 1 (2008) 111–123 115

Th e attention to monarchs has resulted in conservation eff orts at global, continental, national, state and local scales, despite the fact that the species is not threatened. At a global scale, the UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientifi c and Cultural Organization) Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage named the Monarch Butterfl y Biosphere Reserve in Mexico as a World Heritage Site in 2008. Th is Reserve joins a list of 878 sites whose cultural and natural heritage is deemed to have outstanding universal value. While this recognition conveys no offi cial protection, it clearly indicates a value recognized on an interna-tional level.

On a North American scale, Th e Commission on Environmental Cooperation (CEC), a trilateral commission that complements the environmental provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), has supported the development of the North American Monarch Conservation Plan (Oberhauser et al., 2008 ), with the aim of maintaining healthy monarch populations and habitats throughout the migra-tion fl yway. Offi cials from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the United States National Park Service, the Canadian Wildlife Service, the Canadian Parks Agency and the National Commission of Natural Protected Areas in Mexico have sup-ported this plan, and have designated 13 wildlife preserves (four in Mexico, fi ve in the US, and two in Canada) as protected areas that comprise a “Trilateral Monarch Butterfl y Sister Protected Area Network” to support international preservation and restoration of breeding, migration and winter habitat for monarchs. Th e endorsement of the Monarch Conservation Plan by agencies within all three North American gov-ernments illustrates their embrace of monarch habitat protection. Additionally, state and local government bodies, as well as private and non-governmental enterprises, have access to a coherent set of recommended actions that will benefi t monarchs and the myriad of organisms with which they share habitats.

At a national scale, the monarch is listed as a species of special concern under the Canadian Species at Risk Act (SARA), and the government of Mexico has protected 56,259 hectares of land in the area in which monarchs overwinter. In addition to these specifi c protections, a variety of government and non-government agencies and organi-zations directly and indirectly support monarch conservation in all three North American countries.

Endangered species

Many successful fl agship species exhibit decreasing population numbers or endangered status (Dietz et al., 1994 ) due to habitat degradation or loss. Th ey often require a unique habitat or microhabitat, and are sensitive to ecological disturbances. Offi cial status, such as being listed as endangered or threatened, often increases funding resources for research and habitat management, but because insects are less likely to receive these offi cial designations, few insects have become fl agship species as a result of their endangered status.

116 M.S. Guiney and K.S. Oberhauser / Terrestrial Arthropod Reviews 1 (2008) 111–123

Th e Karner blue butterfl y (Lycaeides melissa samuelis N.) is one example of an endan-gered fl agship insect (see Figure 2 ). Th is butterfl y has successfully engendered public support for conservation due to its aesthetic appeal and connection to an imperiled ecosystem. Th e Karner blue is a small, attractive butterfl y that historically lived in oak-pine savanna or pine barren habitats from the northeastern United States to southeast-ern Minnesota (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2003 ). Oak savannas and pine barrens are unique ecosystems; in the Midwestern United States they are generally part of a transition zone between western prairie and eastern deciduous forest. Oak or pine trees predominate in their canopy cover of 10 to 80%, a shrub layer may or may not be present, and the understory consists of grasses and forbs. Th ese ecosystems require disturbances, such as fi res or drought, which prevent development of closed canopy woodland or shrub land (Nuzzo, 1986 ). A common understory plant in these savannas and barrens is wild lupine (Lupinus perennis L.) the host plant of the Karner blue. While wild lupine can grow under closed tree canopies, it is unable to fl ower in these conditions (Boyonoski, 1992 ) and is thus dependant on disturbances that maintain an open or semi-open tree canopy. Oak savannas are one of the most threatened United States ecosystems, with only 0.02% of their pre-settlement area remaining (Nuzzo, 1986 ). As its habitat has been destroyed and degraded over the last few decades, a cor-responding dramatic decline of Karner blue butterfl y populations has occurred, and it was listed as a federally endangered species in 1992. Conservation eff orts to save Karner blues have focused on maintaining or improving native ecosystems (Andow et al., 1994 ; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2003 ), an approach that will benefi t many other species in oak savanna and pine barren habitats.

Recovery eff orts for the Karner blue butterfl y have involved many organizations working alone and in partnership. For example, through the Wisconsin Statewide Habitat Conservation Plan, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources has led a grassroots approach to develop a large scale conservation plan, organizing traditional conservation groups, working in conjunction with non-traditional conservation groups, such as the Department of Transportation and paper and power companies. A total of 26 partners are working to apply this plan to over 250,000 acres of Karner blue habitat (Watermolen et al., 2000 ; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2003 ). In Ohio, the local Karner blue butterfl y population was extirpated in the late 1980’s or early 1990’s (Andow et al., 1994 ). In 1988, the Toledo Zoo and Th e Nature Conservancy joined resources to reintroduce Karner blues to Ohio. Th e Zoo captively rears the but-terfl ies and releases them on 250 acres of oak savanna habitat owned and restored by Th e Nature Conservancy. It has released over 2000 butterfl ies with positive population eff ects, as well as benefi ts to many other species dependant on the same habitat. Th e Ohio Nature Conservancy has noted that the oak savanna restoration has also helped increase populations of badgers, red-headed woodpeckers, lark sparrows , and the state endangered frosted elfi n and persius duskywing butterfl ies (Th e Nature Conservancy, 2008 ).

Conservationists have utilized the story of the Karner blue butterfl y to increase con-servation education eff orts. For the 25 year anniversary of the Endangered Species Act,

M.S. Guiney and K.S. Oberhauser / Terrestrial Arthropod Reviews 1 (2008) 111–123 117

the National Wildlife Federation (NWF) initiated the “Keep the Wild Alive” campaign, choosing 25 endangered species to profi le, including the Karner blue. Th e campaign emphasizes education and local conservation initiatives, including the NWF species recovery fund which provides fi nancial support for local conservation eff orts to sup-port conservation of imperiled species. Additionally, several local and state eff orts offi -cially recognize and celebrate the Karner blue butterfl y’s presence. Th e small town of Black River Falls, Wisconsin is adjacent to Karner blue habitat and hosts an annual summer festival celebrating this butterfl y with activities such as habitat tours and a butterfl y learning center. In 1992, New Hampshire named the Karner blue butterfl y as its state butterfl y, and it became the offi cial butterfl y of the town of Queensbury, New York in 2001 (Mlot, 2007 ) . Such actions draw attention to the conservation needs of the Karner blue butterfl y and other organisms, particularly insects.

Insects that provide ecological services

Th ere is a growing recognition of the value of the services derived from their ecological functions that insects provide to human well-being (Kremen and Chaplin-Kramer, 2005; Losey and Vaughan, 2006 , 2008 ). Th ese wide-ranging services include pollina-tion, protection from pests, decomposition, food for wildlife, and recreation through activities such as insect observation. Losey and Vaughan ( 2006 , 2008 ) have calculated values for many of these services, and provide an informative comparison of conserva-tion eff orts that focus on ecological services with those that focus on endangered status (Losey and Vaughan, 2008 ). Th ey argue that the commonness and positive economic impact of insects that provide ecological services make them excellent candidates for fl agship species. Commonness may make insects more familiar and less threatening, and thus better able to overcome the “charisma-challenges” (Berenbaum, 2008 ) that generally characterize insects. Additionally, if landowners are aware of the benefi ts pro-vided by insects, they may conduct land management activities that benefi t insects, provided that they are aware of strategies that will accomplish conservation.

Here, we focus on conservation eff orts directed toward pollinators (see Figures 3-5 ). Pollinators have clear economic and even survival importance to humans. Th ree-quarters of all fl owering plants, including most species of food crops, rely on pollina-tors for fertilization, and decreases in wild pollinator populations could have severe impacts on natural and managed ecosystems. Pollinators are estimated to provide over $57 billion worth of services in the United States (Losey and Vaughan, 2006 ), and $217 billion worldwide (Gallai et al., 2008 ). Many organizations are promoting pol-linator conservation in a variety of ways that could have broad conservation eff ects. Th e Xerces Society, dedicated to invertebrate conservation (Xerces Society, 2008 ), and state extension agencies (e.g. Krichik, 1998; Riedl et al., 2006 ) have published a variety of information sheets for the public that describe simple strategies for sup porting pollinators. Th ese range from strategies for avoiding mortality through pest manage-ment; supporting pollinators with appropriate plantings in rural, suburban and urban

118 M.S. Guiney and K.S. Oberhauser / Terrestrial Arthropod Reviews 1 (2008) 111–123

Figure 3. Bumblebee ( upper row, left, Bombus spp.) ; Figure 4. Sweat Bee (upper row, right, Family Halictidae, Subfamily Halictinae); Figure 5. Sweat Bee [lower row, Agapostemon virescens (Fabricius)]. All fi gures: © Kurt Adolfson, www.bluedotimages.com

M.S. Guiney and K.S. Oberhauser / Terrestrial Arthropod Reviews 1 (2008) 111–123 119

yards; and providing shelter. Th e North American Pollinator Protection Campaign (NAPPC) is an alliance of pollinator researchers, conservation and environmental groups, private industry, and state and federal agencies in Canada, Mexico and the United States (Th e Pollinator Partnership, 2008 ). NAPPC organizes local, national, and international projects involving pollinator research, education and awareness, con-servation and restoration, special partnership initiatives, and policies.

In late 2006, the United States National Research Council, at the request of NAPPC, published a report that recognized the downward long-term population trends for many North American pollinators and called for increased eff orts to monitor pollinators and improve understanding of their basic ecology (NRC, 2006 ). While much of the current data on pollinator decline focuses on the non-native honeybee ( Apis mellifera ), the report also notes declining numbers for several wild bee species, especially bumblebees, as well as some butterfl ies, bats, and hummingbirds. Th e report recommends support for research aimed at the sustainable management of these populations, as well as actions that encourage landowners to make habitats more “pol-linator friendly” by growing native plants and limiting pesticide use that could aff ect pollinators.

Th e eff orts of NAPPC and other groups focused on pollinator conservation have recently paid off at the national level. Th e US Farm Bill passed in 2008 includes meas-ures that will help shape USDA programs to protect and enhance the habitat of native and managed pollinators. Th ese include recommendations for pollinator friendly plantings in fi eld borders, hedgerows and shelterbelts; corridors to connect pollinator habitat patches; and grants for research that will address the impacts of pesticides on pollinators.

Th e eff orts of organizations addressing pollinator conservation have also included a variety of public outreach eff orts, ranging from pollinator postage stamps to school curricula. Th rough these eff orts, increasing numbers of people are aware of the impor-tance of pollinators to our survival. Th is awareness of the absolute necessity of a natural ecological process carried out, in the main part, by insects, can only benefi t natural system conservation.

Capturing the imagination of public and harnessing resources toward habitat conservation

Th ere are many ways to increase public interest in insect conservation, and thus habitat conservation in general. Insects have the distinct advantage of being familiar, common and almost everywhere that humans live. While a lack of understanding about the importance and vulnerability of insects means that they are rarely used as fl agship con-servation species, increased involvement of the public with insects could make these organisms important in many more conservation eff orts.

One way to increase public interest in insects is to expose people to their beauty through photographs. Insects are small, and thus some of their incredible beauty may be diffi cult to discern easily. Th e current availability of excellent and relatively inexpen-sive cameras with macro capabilities addresses this problem. Photographic exhibits,

120 M.S. Guiney and K.S. Oberhauser / Terrestrial Arthropod Reviews 1 (2008) 111–123

portrayal of insects in popular and educational media, and classes focused on insect photography could increase the public’s awareness of the beauty of insects.

Whenever possible, scientists should communicate the relevance of their research and ways in which individuals can promote insect conservation. Th ere are many excel-lent examples of such communication focused on K-12 teachers and students. Th ree large North American programs (Monarchs in the Classroom, Monarch Watch and Journey North) as well as many smaller ones promote monarch conservation and study in classrooms (MonarchLab, 2008 ; Monarch Watch, 2008 ; Journey North, 2008 ). Th e Monarch Waystation program run by Monarch Watch ( 2008 ) explicitly promotes monarch and pollinator-friendly habitat gardens in schools. Other excellent examples include the NAPPC pollinator curriculum (Th e Pollinator Partnership, 2008 ) and the Entomological Association of America President’s prizes for outstanding achieve-ment by elementary and secondary teachers who use insects as educational tools (Entomological Association of America, 2008). Partnerships with media groups, non-profi t organizations and government agencies can also help spread the word about the importance of insects, their vulnerability to the same factors that threaten vertebrates, and their interesting life histories.

One way to engage the public in natural phenomena is to involve them in research. A growing number of citizen science projects, many of which focus on insects, do this, and spreading the word about these projects and their fi ndings to as broad an audience as possible will be important. Th e conservation eff orts on the part of volunteers in citizen science projects focused on monarchs provide one example (Oberhauser and Prysby, 2008 ). Project Butterfl y Wings (Florida Museum of Natural History, 2008) volunteers, who include members of 4H groups in Florida, document butterfl y species observed in their gardens and other local areas; volunteers in the Lost Ladybug Project (Cornell University, 2008 ) search for native coccinelid beetles; and cooperators in national parks and other protected areas North and Central America are using malaise traps to count insects (Insect Diversity Project, 2008 ). Whenever possible, entomolo-gists should try to engage the public in their research. Th rough their engagement with citizen science and other research programs, citizens can make positive contributions to research, and in the process, are likely to become strong conservation advocates.

Conclusion

Even though most fl agship species have historically been large mammals, an increasing amount of attention has been directed to smaller species, including insects. Entomologists and conservationists need to encourage the use of insect fl agship species in order to drawn attention to the importance of this group and their conservation needs. Th e descriptions and case studies of charismatic and endangered insects, and those that provide ecological services, illustrate how the use of a fl agship species can have wide-reaching conservation and education impacts. We encourage entomologists and conservationists to interact with the public and campaigns that garner support for insect conservation eff orts.

M.S. Guiney and K.S. Oberhauser / Terrestrial Arthropod Reviews 1 (2008) 111–123 121

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to photographer, Kurt Adolfson, for sharing his images in this article. We also thank two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments on the man-uscript, and the University of Minnesota Extension for fi nancial support.

References

Andow , D. A. , R. J. Baker and C. P Lane (eds). 1994 . Karner blue butterfl y: A symbol of a vanishing landscape. Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station (Miscellaneous Publication Series) St. Paul, Minnesota, USA . 222 pp.

Baillie , J. E. , C. Hilton Taylor , and S. N. Stuart. 2004 . 2004 IUCN red list of threatened species: A global assessment . IUCN . Gland, Switzerland .

Berenbaum , M. 2008 . Insect conservation and the Entomological Society of America . American Entomologist 54 : 117 – 120 .

Black , S. H. 2008 . How the ESA (Entomological Society of America) can work with the ESA (Endangered Species Act) to conserve insects . American Entomologist 54 : 111 – 113 .

Blackburn , T. M. and K. J. Gaston . 1997 . A critical assessment of the form of the interspecifi c relationship between abundance and body size in animals . Journal of Animal Ecology 66 : 233 – 249 .

Boyonoski , A. 1992 . Factors aff ecting the establishment and maintenance of Lupinus perennis (wild lupine) . Masters thesis . University of Guelph , Guelph, Canada .

Brower , L. P. 1995 . Understanding and misunderstanding the migration of the monarch butterfl y (Nymphalidae) in North America: 1857-1995 . Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society 49 : 304 – 85 .

Caro , T. M. and G. O’Doherty . 1999 . On the use of surrogate species in conservation biology . Conservation Biology 13 (4) : 805 – 814 .

Cornejo-Tenorio , G. A. , F. B. Casas and J. L. Villaseñor. 2003 . Flora y vegetación de las zonas núcleo de la Reserva de la Biosfera de la Mariposa Monarca, México . Boletín de la Sociedad Botánica de México 73 : 43 – 62 .

Cornell University . 2008 . Th e lost ladybug project . http://hosts.cce.cornell.edu/ladybeetles/. Accessed 26 September 2008.

Dietz , J. M , A. L. Dietz , and E. Y. Nagagata. 1994 . Th e eff ective use of fl agship species for conservation of biodiversity: the example of lion tamarins in Brazil . In: P. J. S. Olney , G. M. Mace and A. T. C. Feistner (eds) Creative conservation: interactive management of wild and captive animals , pp. 32 – 49 . Chapman and Hall , London .

Dunn , R. R. 2005 . Modern insect extinctions, the neglected majority . Conservation Biology 19 (4) : 1030 – 1036 .

Entomological Society of American . 2008 . President’s prizes for outstanding achievement in primary and secondary education . http://www.entsoc.org/awards/professional/educational.htm. Accessed 18 November 2008.

Florida Museum of National History . 2008 . Project Butterfl y Wings . http://www.fl mnh.ufl .edu/ education/cise/wings.htm. Accessed 26 September 2008.

Gallai , N. , J. M. Salles , J. Settele and B. E. Vaissière. 2009 . Economic valuation of the vulnerability of world agriculture confronted with pollinator decline. Ecological Economics 68: 810–821.

Grzimek , B. and M. Grzimek . 1959 . Serengeti shall not die . Ullstein, A.G. , Berlin, Germany . 344 pp. Insect Diversity Project . 2008 . http://www.discoverlife.org/pa/or/idp/. Accessed 24 September 2008. Jarvinen , O. 1985 . Conservation indices in land use planning: Dim prospects for a panacea . Ornis Fennica

62 : 101 – 106 . Kremin , C. and R. Chaplin-Kramer . 2005 . Insects as providers of ecosystem services: Crop pollination

and pest control . In: J. A. Stewart , T. New , and O. T. Lewis (eds). Insect conservation biology , pp. 349 – 382 . CABI , Wallingford, UK .

122 M.S. Guiney and K.S. Oberhauser / Terrestrial Arthropod Reviews 1 (2008) 111–123

Krishik , V. 1998 . Butterfl y gardening . University of Minnesota Extension. St. Paul , Minnesota, USA. 21 pp.

Journey North . 2008 . Monarch butterfl y . http://www.learner.org/jnorth/monarch/index.html. Accessed 18 November 2008.

Landres , P. B. , J. Verner , and T. W. Th omas . 1988 . Ecological use of vertebrate indicator species: a critique . Conservation Biology 2 : 316 – 327 .

Losey , J. E. and M. Vaughan. 2006 . Th e economic value of ecological services provided by insects . Bioscience 6 (4) : 311 – 323 .

Losey , J. E. and M. Vaughan. 2008 . Conserving the ecological services provided by insects . American Entomologist 54 : 113 – 115 .

Mlot , C. 2007 . Rhapsody in blue . Nature Conservancy Magazine : Spring 2007. Available at http://www.nature.org/magazine/spring2007/features/art20021.html. Accessed 24 September 2008.

Monarch Watch . 2008 . http://www.monarchwatch.org/. Accessed 18 November 2008. MonarchLab . 2008 . http://www.monarchlab.org/. Accessed 18 November 2008. National Research Council . 2006 . Th e status of pollinators in North America . Th e National Academies

Press . Washington DC . 312 pp. Th e Nature Conservancy . 2008 . Th e return of the Karner blue butterfl y . Available at http://www

.nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/states/ohio/science/art20046.html. Accessed 24 September 2008.

New , T. R. 1997 . Are Lepidoptera an eff ective ‘umbrella group’ for biodiversity conservation? Journal of Insect Conservation 1 : 5 – 12 .

Nuzzo , V.A. 1986 . Extent and status of Midwest oak savanna: Presettlement and 1985 . Natural Areas Journal, 6 : 6 – 36 .

Oberhauser , K. S. , L. P. Brower , D. Cotter , D. Davis , R. Décarie , A. E. Behnumea , C. Galino-Leal , M. P. Gallina Tessaro , E. Howard , J. Lauriault , W. Maczieski , S. Malcolm , F. Martínez , J. M. González , M. McRae , D. Nernberg , I. Pisanty Baruch , I. Ramírez , J. J. Reyes and A. Wilson . 2008 . North American monarch conservation plan . Commission on Environmental Cooperation . Montreal, Canada . 51 pp.

Oberhauser , K. S. and M. D. Prysby . 2008 . Citizen science: Creating a research army for conservation . American Entomologist 54 : 97 – 99 .

Oberhauser , K. S. and M. J. Solensky . (eds). 2004 . Th e monarch butterfl y: Biology and conservation . Cornell University Press . Ithaca New York, U.S.A . 248 pp.

Pimm , S. L. and P. Raven . 2000 . Biodiversity – extinction by the numbers . Nature 403 : 843 – 845 . Th e Pollinator Partnership . 2008 . http://www.pollinator.org/. Accessed 26 September 2008. Riedl , H. E. , E. Johansen , L. Brewer and J. Barbour . 2006 . How to reduce bee poisoning from pesticides .

Publication PNW591. Oregon State University , Corvalis . http://extension.oregonstate.edu/catalog/pdf/pnw/pnw591.pdf. Accessed 26 September 2008.

Th omas , W. A. 1972 . Indicators of environmental quality . Plenus Press , New York . 275 pp. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service . 2003 . Final recovery plan for the Karner blue butterfl y ( Lycaeides melissa

samuelis ) . U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Fort Snelling , Minnesota, U.S.A . 273 pp. Vane-Wright , R. I. 2008 . Butterfl ies, worldviews, biodiversity, general systems theory, and taxonomy . In:

O. Yata , (ed.), Report on Insect Inventory Project in Tropical Asia (TAIIV) , pp. 1 – 20 . Kyushu University , Fukuoka, Japan .

Walpole , M.J. and N. Leader-Williams , 2002 . Tourism and fl agship species in conservation . Biodiversity and Conservation 11 : 543 – 547 .

Watermolen , D. J. , C. Bleser , D. Zastrow , J. Christenson , D. R. Lentz , D. Wood , G. Albright , K. Kirk , N. Merryfi eld , G. Birch , U. Petersen , M. Luedeke , T. C. Hunt , F. Souba , Jr. , D. Hartman , N. Bozek , G. Janecek , P. Rasmussen , C. Hart , N. Braker , C. Carnes , L. Mandell , J. Smith , E. Gustafson

M.S. Guiney and K.S. Oberhauser / Terrestrial Arthropod Reviews 1 (2008) 111–123 123

and G. Wood . 2000 . Wisconsin statewide Karner blue butterfl y habitat conservation plan and environmental impact statement [PUB-SS-947-00] . Wisconsin Dept. Natural Resources , Madison . 386 pp. + 8 appendices. Available at http://dnr.wi.gov/forestry/karner/hcptext/. Accessed June 5, 2008.

Wilcox , B. A. 1984 . In situ conservation of genetic resources: determinants of minimum area require-ments . In J. A. McNeely and K. R. Miller (eds) National parks: conservation and development , pp. 639 – 647 . Smithsonian Institution Press , Washington, D.C .

Th e Xerces Society . 2008 . http://xerces.org/. Accessed 26 September 2008.