6 ± 11.1) and the cartwheel approach (ß = 8.8 ± 5.9), followed by birds (ß = 9.1 ± 6.9). Butterflies showed the lowest turnover (ß = 7.1 ± 8.4). Table 1 Mean species richness per site (and standard deviation) in
the three land cover types surveyed Plants Birds Butterflies Arable 47.4 ± 12.2 Festuca pratensis Taraxacum CH5183284 supplier officinale Stellaria media Poa angustifolia Elymus repens Medicago sativa Rhinanthus rumelicus Carex hirta Capsella bursa-pastoris Symphytum officinale 6.6 ± 3.2 Alauda arvensis Acrocephalus palustris Sylvia communis Saxicola rubetra Lanius collurio Erithacus rubecula Parus major Fringilla coelebs Phylloscopus collybita Turdus merula 18.0 ± 6.2 Maniola jurtina Melanargia galathea Plebeius argus Coenonympha pamphilus selleck Polyommatus icarus Thymelicus sylvestris Leptidea sinapis/juvernica Thymelicus lineolus Everes argiades Aphantopus hyperantus Grassland 61.4 ± 13.1 Trifolium
repens Festuca rupicola Achillea millefolium Poa angustifolia Taraxacum officinale Festuca pratense Anthoxanthum odoratum Crataegus monogyna Plantago lanceolata Trifolium pratense 7.4 ± 4.1 Acrocephalus palustris Alauda arvensis Sylvia communis Saxicola rubetra Saxicola torquata Passer montanus Lanius collurio Motacilla flava Emberiza ITF2357 supplier citrinella Parus palustris 20.0 ± 6.1 Maniola jurtina Melanargia galathea Colias hyale/alfacariensis Everes argiades Plebeius argus Leptidea sinapis/juvernica Pieris rapae Polyommatus icarus Coenonympha
pamphilus Aphantopus hyperantus Forest 20.2 ± 7.6 Carpinus betulus Anemone nemorosa Galium odoratum Fagus sylvatica Viola reichenbachiana Quercus petrea Dentaria bulbifera Astrantia major Stellaria holostea Helleborus purpurascens 15.0 ± 2.6 Erithacus rubecula Fringilla coelebs Parus major Turdus merula much Ficedula albicollis Sturnus vulgaris Sylvia atricapilla Phylloscopus collybita Certhia familiaris Parus palustris 2.5 ± 0.71 Maniola jurtina Argynnis paphia Inachis io Pararge aegeria The most common species for each land cover type are also shown Plant species richness from the two different sampling methods was strongly positively correlated (Pearson correlation coefficient r = 0.77, df = 17, P < 0.05). Species richness differed between the two approaches most strongly within agricultural fields (Pearson correlation r = 0.04, df = 5, P = 0.9; non-arable sites: r = 0.92, df = 12, P < 0.05). Here, survey plots were selected to be within actual fields for the classical approach, while the random selection of plots in the cartwheel approach more frequently included weed and field edge vegetation. Consequently, estimates of richness were higher using the cartwheel method. There were positive correlations between the site-level richness of plants and butterflies (Pearson correlation r = 0.42, df = 24, P < 0.05; cartwheel approach r = 0.71, df = 14, P < 0.05), but no significant correlations between butterflies and birds (r = −0.