Stop using herbicides on pavements and road verges

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

Study locations

Key messages

  • Two studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of stopping the use of herbicides on pavements and road verges. One study was in the USA and the other was in Canada.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES)

  • Richness/diversity (2 studies): One replicated, paired, site comparison study in the USA found that restored roadside prairies where herbicide application was restricted had a greater species richness of butterflies than verges dominated by non-native weeds and grasses with no restrictions on herbicide application. One replicated, site comparison study in Canada found that transmission lines (road verges and power lines) which were neither sprayed with herbicide nor mown had a similar species richness of butterflies to sprayed and mown transmission lines.

POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES)

  • Abundance (2 studies): One replicated, paired, site comparison study in the USA found that restored roadside prairies where herbicide application was restricted had a greater abundance of butterflies than verges dominated by non-native weeds and grasses with no restrictions on herbicide application. One replicated, site comparison study in Canada found that transmission lines (road verges and power lines) which were neither sprayed with herbicide nor mown had a greater abundance of northern pearl crescent and pearl crescent butterflies, but similar total butterfly abundance, compared to sprayed and mown transmission lines.
  • Survival (1 study): One replicated, paired, site comparison study in the USA found that butterflies had a lower mortality risk on restored roadside prairies where herbicide application was restricted than on verges dominated by non-native grasses with no restrictions on herbicide application.

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, paired, site comparison study in 1998 in 12 road verges in Iowa, USA (Ries et al. 2001) found that restored roadside prairies where herbicide application was restricted had a higher abundance and species richness of habitat-sensitive butterflies than verges dominated by non-native weeds or grasses with no herbicide restrictions. On restored roadside prairies with herbicide restrictions, both the abundance (2.3 individuals/plot) and species richness (1.6 species/plot) of habitat-sensitive butterflies was higher than on roadsides with no herbicide restrictions and dominated by weeds (abundance: 1.4 individuals/plot; richness: 0.9 species/plot) or grasses (0.5 individuals/plot; 0.7 species/plot), and not significantly different from remnant prairies (1.6 individuals/plot; 1.7 species/plot). In addition, mortality risk was lower on prairie or weedy road verges than on non-native grass verges (data presented as model results). On eight well-established, restored prairie road verges (>0.5 km long) and four native (never ploughed) prairie verges dominated by native prairie vegetation, the use of herbicides was restricted. Roadside vegetation (>6 m wide) within 1.6 km of the 12 prairies, but with no restrictions on herbicide use, was classified as “weedy” (>20% non-native legumes) or “grassy” (dominated by non-native grasses). From June–August 1998, butterflies were surveyed nine times in 1–3 plots/habitat (restored prairie, native prairie, weedy, grassy) at each of 12 sites. Plots were 50 × 5 m, >50 m apart and >500 m from a different verge habitat. In addition, three plots in each of four native prairie remnants (2–16 ha) were surveyed. Roadkill butterflies were surveyed six times along both road edges next to each plot.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A replicated, site comparison study in 2007–2008 along 52 road verges and power lines (collectively “transmission lines”) in Manitoba, Canada (Leston & Koper 2016) found that transmission lines which were not sprayed with herbicide and left unmown had more northern pearl crescent Phyciodes morpheus and pearl crescent Phyciodes tharos butterflies than frequently sprayed lines mown twice/year, but herbicide use did not affect the abundance or species richness of other butterflies. There were more crescent butterflies on unsprayed, unmown transmission lines (2.7 individuals/visit) than on frequently sprayed lines mown twice/year (0.1 individuals/visit). However, the abundance and species richness of other native butterflies was not significantly different between transmission lines which were not sprayed or mown (abundance: 11 individuals/visit; richness: 32 species), unsprayed and mown (14 individuals/visit; 21 species), infrequently sprayed and mown (11 individuals/visit; 27 species), or frequently sprayed and mown (10 individuals/visit; 21 species). See paper for species results. Fifty-two road verges and power lines (>30 m wide, >400 m long) were managed in one of four ways: 21 were neither sprayed with herbicide nor mown, but some trees were removed; 14 were sprayed frequently with herbicide and mown twice/year with cuttings left on site; 10 were sprayed infrequently with herbicide and mown once/year with cuttings left on site; seven were not sprayed and were mown once/year with cuttings baled and removed. From 15 June–15 August 2007–2008, butterflies were surveyed on one 400- or 500-m transect at each site 2–4 times/year.

    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