Use shelterwood harvesting instead of clearcutting

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

Study locations

Key messages

  • Three studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of using shelterwood harvesting instead of clearcutting. All three studies were in the USA.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (3 STUDIES)

  • Richness/diversity (3 studies): One controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that the species richness of macro-moths was higher after a forest was managed by shelterwood harvesting, than after harvest by patch-cutting or clearcutting, and the richness in the shelterwood harvested forest was similar to a thinned forest and an unharvested forest. One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that forests managed by shelterwood harvesting had a similar species richness of moths to forests managed by single tree harvesting, group selection harvesting or clearcutting, but a lower species richness than unharvested forest. One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that moth species richness recovered faster after shelterwood harvesting than after group selection harvesting or clearcutting.

POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

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, controlled, before-and-after study in 2007–2009 in three hardwood forests in Indiana, USA (Summerville 2011, same study as Summerville 2013) found that timber harvesting method, including shelterwood harvesting, did not affect the number of moth species, but all harvested forest stands had fewer moths than unharvested stands. One year after harvesting, there was no significant difference in the number of moth species between stands subjected to shelterwood harvesting and clearcutting (46 species, data not separated), single-tree harvesting (39 species) or group-selection harvesting (40 species), but all harvested stands had fewer species than unharvested stands (56 species). One year before harvesting, all stands had a similar number of moth species (shelterwood/clearcutting: 96; single-tree: 85; group-selection: 100; unharvested: 90 species). After harvesting, the community composition of shelterwood and unharvested stands in one forest were more similar to an unharvested forest than to two nearby clearcut stands (data presented as model results). In 2008, forest stands (3–5 ha, 150–350 m apart) in three watersheds (500 ha, 10 km apart) were logged. In one watershed, three stands were shelterwood harvested (15% of trees removed), two stands were clearcut (100% of trees removed), and three stands were unharvested (no trees removed). In a second watershed, four stands had random single trees removed, and four stands were harvested by group-selection (80% of trees removed). In the third watershed, all four stands were unharvested. All stands had been clearcut around 60 years earlier. From June–August 2007 and 2009, moths were surveyed every 14 nights (five times/year) from 8pm–7am using a black-light trap placed 2 m above the ground in the centre of each forest stand.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in 2007–2011 in two hardwood forests in Indiana, USA (Summerville 2013, same study as Summerville 2011) found that after shelterwood harvesting, the number of moth species recovered faster than after group-selection harvesting or clearcutting. Three years after shelterwood harvesting, the total number of moth species (73 species/stand) and the number of specialist species (23 species/stand) was similar to before harvesting (total: 96; specialist: 23 species/stand). Numbers of species had not recovered following group-selection harvesting (total: after: 52; before: 100; specialist: after: 8; before: 19 species/stand) or clearcutting (total: after: 48; before: 98 species/stand; data for specialists not presented). However, the number of herbaceous-feeding species was higher after group-selection harvesting (10 species/stand) and clearcutting (16 species/stand) than before harvesting (group-selection: 3; clearcutting: 4 species/stand), but remained similar after shelterwood harvesting (after: 6; before: 4 species/stand). In 2008, forest stands (3–5 ha, 350–750 m apart) in two watersheds (500 ha, 10 km apart) were logged. In one watershed, three stands were shelterwood harvested (15% of trees removed), two stands were clearcut (100% of trees removed), and three stands were unharvested. In a second watershed, four stands were harvested by group-selection (80% of trees removed) and four stands were unharvested. All stands had been clearcut around 60 years earlier. From June–August 2007 and 2009–2011, moths were surveyed every 14 nights (five times/year) from 8pm–7am using a black-light trap placed 2 m above the ground in the centre of each forest stand.

    Study and other actions tested
  3. A controlled, before-and-after study in 2007–2014 in two hardwood forest blocks in Indiana, USA (Murray et al. 2017) found that shelterwood harvested areas had more macro-moth species than clearcut areas, and a similar number to unharvested forest. One–six years after management, the species richness of macro-moths in shelterwood harvested areas (53–75 species/site) was higher than in clearcut (34–54 species/site) or patch-cut (30–52 species/site) areas, and was similar to thinned (40–68 species/site) or unharvested areas (56–84 species/site). Before harvesting, all areas had similar species richness (shelterwood: 95; clearcut: 96; patch-cut: 99; thinned: 84; unharvested: 90 species/site). After management, the total species richness in the shelterwood and clearcut block was 144–190 species, compared to 122–162 species in the thinned and patch-cut block, whereas before management richness was similar (shelterwood/clearcut: 198; thinned/patch-cut: 203 species; statistical significance not assessed). Two ~100 ha regenerated forest blocks were managed in autumn 2008. In one “even-aged” block, two 4.1-ha areas were shelterwood harvested (non-oak midstory and understory cleared), two 4.1-ha areas were clearcut, and the remaining area was not harvested. In one “uneven-aged” block, two 2.0-ha, two 1.2-ha and four 0.4-ha areas were patch-cut, and the remaining area was thinned by single-tree selection. One block was left unharvested. From May–August 2007 and 2009–2014, macro-moths were sampled on five nights/year (once/fortnight) using 12 W black-light traps. Traps were placed in the centre of 16 patches: three shelterwood, two clearcut and three unharvested sites within the even-age block; four patch-cut and four thinned sites within the uneven-age block. Species represented by fewer than three individuals were excluded.

    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