Apply ecological compensation for developments

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    not assessed
  • Certainty
    not assessed
  • Harms
    not assessed

Study locations

Key messages

  • One study evaluated the effects of on butterflies and moths of applying ecological compensation for developments. This study was in the USA.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY)

  • Use (1 study): A site comparison study in the USA reported that an area of lupines transplanted from a development site was used by a similar number of Karner blue butterflies to an area with no transplanted lupines.

About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

  1. A site comparison study in 1997–2001 in a shrubland in Wisconsin, USA (Kleintjes et al. 2003) reported that an area containing lupine Lupinus perennis transplanted from a development site was used by a similar number of Karner blue butterflies Lycaeides melissa samuelis as an area with no transplanted lupines. Results were not tested for statistical significance. One–four years after restoration, 4–8 Karner blue butterflies/year were recorded in an area with transplanted lupines, compared to 1–8 butterflies/year in an area without transplanted lupines. In June 1997, seventy-five plugs of lupine (0.76-m diameter, 1.2-m-deep) were removed from a construction area and planted in a 5 × 15 grid covering a 324-m2 area cleared of young pine trees. In November 1997, the surrounding 641 m2 was hand-seeded with a dry sand prairie seed mix (40% grasses, 50% non-woody broadleaved plants (forbs), 10% scarified lupine seed) at 22.6 lbs/ha. An adjacent 0.8-ha area, where the topsoil had been temporarily removed, was seeded with the same mix. In October 1999–2001, two 0.2-ha patches in each of the transplanted and seeded areas were cut to a height of 16 cm each year. From 1998–2001, Karner blue butterflies were surveyed 5–6 times/year (covering both flight periods) on a 103-m transect through the transplanted and seeded area, and a 570-m transect through the seeded non-transplanted area. The highest number of butterflies counted on a single date in each flight period at each site was used as the abundance for that year.

    Study and other actions tested
Please cite as:

Bladon A.J., Smith R.K. & Sutherland W.J. (2022) Butterfly and Moth Conservation: Global Evidence for the Effects of Interventions for butterflies and moths. Conservation Evidence Series Synopsis. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

Butterfly and Moth Conservation

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Butterfly and Moth Conservation
Butterfly and Moth Conservation

Butterfly and Moth Conservation - Published 2022

Butterfly and Moth Synopsis

What Works 2021 cover

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read the latest volume: Volume 19

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.


Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape Programme Red List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Bern wood Supporting Conservation Leaders National Biodiversity Network Sustainability Dashboard Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx British trust for ornithology Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Butterfly Conservation People trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust