この sampling event リソース内のデータは、1 つまたは複数のデータ テーブルとして生物多様性データを共有するための標準化された形式であるダーウィン コア アーカイブ (DwC-A) として公開されています。 コア データ テーブルには、9,654 レコードが含まれています。
拡張データ テーブルは1 件存在しています。拡張レコードは、コアのレコードについての追加情報を提供するものです。 各拡張データ テーブル内のレコード数を以下に示します。
DwC-A形式のリソース データまたは EML / RTF 形式のリソース メタデータの最新バージョンをダウンロード：
McFarland K, Pfeiffer B (2022): Vermont Butterfly Atlas 1.0 (2002-2007). v1.1. Vermont Center for Ecostudies. Dataset/Samplingevent. https://ipt.vtatlasoflife.org/resource?r=vtbutterflyatlas1&v=1.1
パブリッシャーとライセンス保持者権利者は Vermont Center for Ecostudies。 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 License.
State of Vermont, United States
|座標（緯度経度）||南 西 [42.634, -73.542], 北 東 [45.105, -71.367]|
|開始日 / 終了日||2002-03-01 / 2007-11-30|
|タイトル||Vermont Atlas of Life|
|Study Area Description||State of Vermont|
The Vermont Butterfly Atlas (VBA) was a six-year (2002-2007) census to document the relative abundance and distribution of butterflies across Vermont. VBA was closely modeled after the Massachusetts Butterfly Atlas (1986-1990), Connecticut Butterfly Atlas Project (1995-1999) and Breeding Bird Atlas of Vermont (Laughlin and Kibbe 1985). Data collection protocols generally followed those of other biological atlases. Because this was the first insect atlas ever conducted in Vermont, we planned for one trial year (2002), followed by five additional field seasons (2003-2007). Field biologists were hired in some years to augment survey coverage in areas lacking adequate volunteer coverage, including blocks in the Northeastern Highlands, Franklin County, and Windham County, as well as special habitats such as wetlands. VBA accepted butterfly records from anywhere in Vermont, but to ensure thorough coverage, we surveyed butterflies evenly and systematically across the state. We adopted a grid-based sampling scheme from the Atlas of Breeding Birds of Vermont (Laughlin and Kibbe 1985). This system relied on the 184 U.S. Geological Survey 1:24,000, 7½-minute quadrangle topographic maps (7.5 minutes = 1/8 of 1 degree of latitude or longitude) that cover Vermont. Quadrangles were divided into 6 blocks with each block covering about 25 km2. Because it would have been impossible to adequately survey all 1,177 blocks in Vermont, we randomly selected one priority survey block from each quadrangle for a total of 184 priority survey blocks scattered across the state. All data from both priority and non-priority blocks were accepted by VBA. Priority blocks constituted the minimum set of blocks requiring full surveys in order to obtain a valid sample of butterflies for the entire state. Butterflies were recorded as either voucher specimens (collection or photograph) or sight records (net-release, binoculars, visual-no aid). In the field each collected specimen was assigned a uniquely numbered voucher card and placed in a glassine envelope. Printed photographs were also handled in this manner after development. Digital photograph files were assigned a voucher card number and electronically transferred to VBA. An attempt was made to secure one voucher of each species in each priority block. Data collection fell under two categories: site surveys (timed counts) and casual observations (incidental records). Site survey forms were completed when a field worker visited a location specifically to conduct a timed survey and count of all butterflies observed, as well as to record habitat types in which they were found. Casual sightings did not require measures of time or counts of individuals seen, but simply noted that a given species was present at a particular location on a certain date. Field workers were asked to visit potential butterfly habitats in their adopted priority blocks at least once per month during the growing season (May-Sept). Many breeding bird atlases adopt minimum time and total species requirements; these define when a block was adequately surveyed (Smith 1982). Because we had no prior data to examine for VBS, we collected data for two field seasons before setting our standards. We ranked the detectability of each species on the checklist and calculated the minimum total number of species likely to be found in each block with a reasonable amount of fieldwork. The minimum standard was set at 30 species per block, with a preferred target of 40 species or more.
|Study Extent||State of Vermont|
|Quality Control||A data processing and retention protocol was outlined prior to the first field season. All data sheets were initially examined for completeness, matching codes and records, and other simple quality assurance and control (QA/QC) procedures. Site survey forms, casual observation forms and voucher card data were entered into the database and filed. Project staff and experienced volunteers completed most voucher determinations. For difficult species and specimens (e.g., Celastrina, Papilio glaucus and P. canadensis, Phyciodes, and Erynnis), experts were consulted for final identification. Because visual records yielded no physical material for determination, they were simply examined for potential errors in field identification by searching for any possible out of season dates, or odd locations and habitats. Any obvious mistakes resulted in deletions of records from the database or assignment to the genus level only. Vouchers with photographs that were not acceptable for determination were changed to visual records if the observer indicated a field identification.|
Method step description:
- Final QA/QC was conducted after all data were entered. Although detailed priority block maps provided guidance to observers, most errors detected resulted from georeferencing mistakes made by observers, such as incorrect latitude and longitude or incorrect block names. Because we wanted records to be spatially referenced to a point and not just the block if possible, these corrections were very time consuming. Ambiguous records were only spatially referenced at the block level or higher (town, county or even state in rare cases). Exact reference points for each record will allow for more detailed analysis and modeling of species in the future.
- McFarland, K.P. and S. Zahendra. 2010. The Vermont Butterfly Survey, 2002 – 2007: A Final Report to the Natural Heritage Information Project of the Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife. 298 pp. dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.827269.v1 dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.827269.v1