Restore or create new habitats after mining and quarrying

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

Study locations

Key messages

  • Four studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of restoring or creating new habitats after mining and quarrying. Two studies were in the Czech Republic, and one was in each of the UK and New Zealand.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES)

  • Community composition (1 study): One replicated, paired, site comparison study in the Czech Republic found that 15% of 380 invertebrate species (including 208 moth species) were only found on flattened spoil heaps, compared to 30% which were only found on unflattened heaps.
  • Richness/diversity (2 studies): One replicated, paired, site comparison study in the Czech Republic found that technically restored quarries had a lower species richness of butterflies and day-flying moths than quarries left to restore naturally. One replicated, paired, site comparison study in the Czech Republic found that flattened spoil heaps had a lower species richness of moths than unflattened spoil heaps.

POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES)

  • Abundance (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the UK found that on slate waste tips trees where fertilizer was applied had a similar abundance of caterpillars to trees that were unfertilized. One site comparison study in New Zealand found that a peat bog restored after mining supported a similar density of Fred the thread moth caterpillars to undisturbed bogs.
  • Condition (1 study): One site comparison study in New Zealand found that a peat bog restored after mining supported Fred the thread moth caterpillars of a similar size to caterpillars on undisturbed bogs.

BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

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 replicated, randomized, controlled study in 2000–2001 in a former slate quarry in North Wales, UK (Rowe et al. 2006) found that applying fertilizer to trees on slate waste tips did not increase the abundance of caterpillars. On fertilized birch and willow trees in a former quarry, the number of caterpillars (1.3 individuals/m2 leaf) was not significantly different from the number on unfertilized trees in the quarry (1.0 individuals/m2 leaf) or on trees in undisturbed woodland (2.0 individuals/m2 leaf). Twenty birch Betula spp. and 20 willow Salix spp. trees were selected in an area of nutrient-poor slate waste which had been partly colonized by trees over 40–100 years since quarrying. The site was grazed by sheep at low density (0.1 ewes/ha). On 23 May 2000 and 2001, fertilizer (175 kg nitrogen/ha, 53 kg phosphorus/ha, 188 kg potassium/ha) was applied to a 2.25 m2 plot around 10 trees of each species. In May, June and July 2000 and 2001, a small branch (4–5 mm diameter) from the top of each birch tree was enclosed in a bag and cut, and the caterpillars collected in the bag were counted. In 2001 only, caterpillars were sampled from willow trees using the same method. Each year, caterpillars were also sampled from 10 trees of the same species from an adjacent, undisturbed woodland.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A replicated, paired, site comparison study in 2007 in five former limestone quarries in the Bohemian Karst, Czech Republic (Tropek et al. 2010) found that technically restored quarries had a lower species richness of butterflies and day-flying moths than quarries left to restore naturally. In technically restored quarries, the species richness of all butterflies and day-flying moths (17 species/plot) was lower than in naturally restored quarries (24 species/plot). In addition, the species richness of xeric habitat specialists, and species of conservation concern, was also lower in technically restored quarries (xeric: 5–6; conservation: 0–2 species/plot) than in naturally restored quarries (xeric: 8–15; conservation: 3–7 species/plot). Five pairs of plots (0.2–0.3 ha, 0–150 m apart) were monitored in five quarries which had been abandoned for 10–60 years. In each pair, one plot had been “technically restored” (site covered with topsoil, fast-growing herbs sown, trees planted) and the other had been left to develop naturally (“spontaneous succession”). From May–August 2007, butterflies and day-flying moths were surveyed five times along two perpendicular transects through each plot (50 m/5 min).

    Study and other actions tested
  3. A site comparison study in 2013 in a restored peat mine and three native peat bogs in Waikato region, New Zealand (Watts et al. 2013) found that a peat bog restored after mining supported a similar density of Fred the thread moth caterpillars Houdinia flexilissima to three undisturbed bogs, and caterpillars were a similar size at each site. Eleven to 15 years after restoration from mining, a restored peat bog had a similar density of Fred the thread caterpillars (1–2 caterpillars/m of stem) to three undisturbed sites (1–2 caterpillars/m of stem). The caterpillars were a similar size in the restored (9–11 mm) and undisturbed bogs (5–10 mm). Within a 150-ha peat mine, mined strips (45 m wide, 950 m long) had been restored 11–15 years earlier by creating raised islands of processed peat (5 m diameter, 30 cm high, 30 m apart) which were seeded with mānuka Leptospermum scoparium, which was eventually outcompeted by bamboo rush Sporadanthus ferrugineus. The islands reached 100% vegetation cover in two years. The restored areas were adjacent to 40 ha of unmined peat. From March–April 2013, twenty 60-cm-long sections of bamboo rush stems were collected from a 33-cm-diameter plot on each of two islands (20 m apart, 600 m from unmined peat) in each of three restored strips, and from 6–14 plots in each of three undisturbed bogs (114–10,201 ha). Stems were dissected in the lab to count caterpillars.

    Study and other actions tested
  4. A replicated, paired, site comparison study in 2014 in an open-cast mine spoil heap in Sokolov district, Czech Republic (Moradi et al. 2018) found that areas left to regenerate without flattening had more species of moth than flattened areas. The species richness of moths in unflattened areas (16 species/plot) was higher than in flattened areas (10 species/plot). However, the only endangered species recorded, purple tiger Rhyparia purpurata, did not show a preference for unflattened or flattened areas (data not presented). Of 380 species of invertebrate recorded (including 208 species of moth), 30% were only found in unflattened areas, and 15% were only found in flattened areas. From 1996–2009, most of a spoil heap was flattened by bulldozing, but patches were left with 1-m-high piles in rows, ~6 m apart. No topsoil was added to the site. Four pairs of unflattened and flattened 1-ha plots (~250 m apart) of a similar age were selected. Pairs were ~1 km apart. From May–September 2014, moths were sampled once/fortnight using two UV light traps/plot, set 50 m apart.

    Study and other actions tested
Please cite as:

Bladon A.J., Bladon, E. K., Smith R.K. & Sutherland W.J. (2023) 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 2023

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 21

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 ProgrammeRed List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Mauritian Wildlife Supporting Conservation Leaders
Sustainability Dashboard National Biodiversity Network Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Bat Conservation InternationalPeople trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust