Manage vineyards to benefit butterflies and moths

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 managing vineyards to benefit butterflies and moths. One study was in each of the USA and Spain.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES)

  • Richness/diversity (2 studies): One of two replicated, site comparison studies (including one paired study) in the USA and Spain found that grass strips between vine rows had a greater species richness of butterflies than the vine rows themselves, and vineyards managed with fewer chemicals had a greater species richness of butterflies than conventionally managed vineyards. The other study found that vineyards managed to encourage native plants, and where insecticide was rarely used, had a similar species richness of butterflies to conventionally managed vineyards.

POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

  • Abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired, site comparison study in the USA found that vineyards managed to encourage native plants, and where insecticide was rarely used, had a greater abundance of butterflies than conventionally managed vineyards.

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 2012–2013 in eight vineyards in Washington State, USA (James et al. 2015) found that vineyards which were managed to encourage native plants had a higher abundance, but not species richness, of butterflies than conventionally managed vineyards. Butterfly abundance was higher in habitat-enhanced vineyards (20 individuals/visit) than in conventionally managed vineyards (6 individuals/visit). Butterfly species richness was not significantly higher in enhanced vineyards (5.6 species/visit) than conventional vineyards (2.8 species/visit), although a total of 29 species were recorded in enhanced vineyards compared to nine in conventional vineyards over the two years. Four pairs of vineyards (0.5–32 km apart) were selected. In each pair, one “habitat-enhanced” vineyard had native plants restored at the site for five years (2 sites) or 15–20 years (2 sites), and insecticides were never, or rarely, used. The four “conventional” vineyards did not encourage native plants, frequently applied herbicides and occasionally sprayed pesticides. From May–September 2012–2013, butterflies were surveyed for 30–40 minutes every two weeks in each vineyard.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A replicated, site comparison study in 2013–2014 in 20 vineyards in Catalonia, Spain (Puig-Montserrat et al. 2017) found that grass strips between the crop lines had more butterfly species than the crop lines themselves. There were more species of butterfly along grass strips in vineyards (32–33 species) than along the crop lines (22–30 species). In addition, vineyards managed with fewer chemicals had more butterfly species (30–33 species) than conventionally managed vineyards (22–32 species). Twenty vineyards managed with uncultivated grass strips between the crop lines were surveyed. Ten vineyards were managed with fewer insecticide and herbicide (Glyphosate) applications/year than 10 conventionally managed vineyards. From April–August 2013–2014, butterflies were surveyed four times/year on two 100-m transects/vineyard in nine vineyards/year. One transect was along crop lines, and the other was along grass strips between crop lines.

    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