1). Surveys were conducted at a pace of 10 m per minute when weather conditions were appropriate (no rain, <90 % cloud cover, >17 °C, no strong wind). All butterflies within 2.5 m on either side of a given transect were caught with a butterfly net,

identified and released. For identification, we used pan-European and eastern European guides (Tshikolovets 2003; Lafranchis 2004). Analysis Estimation of species richness and composition We calculated species richness as the sum of all recorded species GSK458 per taxonomic group over all plots or repeats in a given site. We calculated Whittaker’s β-diversity index as a measure of species turnover among the sites and repeats in our dataset (Whittaker 1960; Anderson et al. 2011). To compare plant survey methods, we correlated the species richness obtained by the two approaches using Spearman Rank correlation. In subsequent analyses, we considered data obtained by the cartwheel approach, since the randomized placement of plots within a site was more representative for the variation within a site. We applied hierarchical community models to estimate true species richness at each site. Hierarchical community models

can be used to estimate true species richness under consideration of LY411575 in vivo the species specific detectability (Dorazio and Royle 2005; Dorazio et al. 2006). We considered the detectability of each species as a function of survey date and set the number of augmented species to 2/3 of the observed richness (Kéry and Royle 2009; Zipkin et al. 2009). Species augmentation accounts for the possibility that some species remained unobserved in a survey with imperfect detection. A community model with species augmentation will estimate the occupancy of unobserved species as a function of estimated detection probability of the observed species. The occupancy of observed and unobserved species, in turn, is used to calculate true species richness. Moreover, we assumed that detectability was constant and that populations were closed, that is, population sizes were constant and were

not subject to processes such as recruitment, mortality or dispersal. Estimated true species richness at the site level was highly correlated with observed species richness (see results). However, the estimated JIB04 manufacturer values of true species richness were rather high for plants and selleck screening library butterflies (see results). This likely over-estimation probably resulted from the small number of sites and the fact that populations were not closed (for more details see: Kéry and Schaub 2012, pp. 414–461). Based on the high correlations with observed richness, but partly unrealistically high estimates for butterflies and plants, we continued further analyses using observed species richness rather than estimated true richness values as a baseline describing the outcomes of a “full survey effort”. We described species composition using several multivariate analysis tools.