Maintain upland heath/moorland

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

Study locations

Key messages

  • Three studies evaluated the effects of maintaining upland heath/moorland on butterflies and moths. All three studies were in the UK.


  • Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the UK found that lightly grazed or ungrazed upland acid grassland had a higher species richness of moths than commercially grazed grassland.


  • Abundance (3 studies): Three controlled studies (including two replicated, randomized studies) in the UK found that ungrazed, lightly grazed or summer grazed upland grassland had a higher abundance of adult moths, moth caterpillars and all caterpillars than grassland grazed at commercial stocking densities or all year round.



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 2003–2005 on an upland grassland in Perthshire, UK (Dennis et al. 2008, same experimental set-up as 2) found that the abundance of moth caterpillars was higher in ungrazed plots compared to lightly or commercially grazed plots after 30 months. After 18 months of grazing, there was no significant difference in the number of caterpillars on ungrazed (2.8 individuals/plot), lightly grazed (1.9–2.4 individuals/plot) and commercially grazed plots (2.3 individuals/plot). However, after 30 months, there were more caterpillars in the ungrazed plots (4.9 individuals/plot) than in the lightly grazed (1.9–2.4 individuals/plot) or commercially grazed plots (0.5 individuals/plot). From January 2003, three grazing regimes (light grazing: sheep at 0.9 ewes/ha; mixed grazing: sheep and cattle equivalent to 0.9 ewes/ha; commercial grazing: sheep at 2.7 ewes/ha) and an ungrazed treatment were replicated six times each in twenty-four 3.3-ha plots (in three pairs of adjacent blocks). Caterpillars were sampled by sweep net in 2003–2005.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 2003–2007 on an upland estate in Scotland, UK (Littlewood 2008, same experimental set-up as 1) found that ungrazed and lightly grazed plots had a higher abundance and species richness of moths than plots grazed at a commercial stocking densities. Plots grazed by sheep at low density had a higher abundance (52 individuals/night) and species richness (12.3 species/night) of moths than plots grazed by sheep at commercial densities (abundance: 34 individuals/night; richness: 10.6 species/night), or plots grazed by sheep and cattle at low density (abundance: 42 individuals/night; richness: 11.3 species/night), and were similar to ungrazed plots (abundance: 48 individuals/night; richness: 13.2 species/night). In January 2003, one of four grazing treatments was established on each of 24 plots (3.3 ha each) on a grazed acid grassland upland estate. The treatments were: low density sheep grazing (3 sheep/plot); commercial high density sheep grazing (9 sheep/plot); low density mixed grazing (2 sheep/plot plus two cows and calves for 4 weeks in autumn); ungrazed control. Moths were sampled between June and October 2007 using four 15 W light traps placed randomly within plots of each treatment, for six or seven sample nights/plot.

    Study and other actions tested
  3. A controlled study in 2002–2004 at an upland semi-natural grassland site in the Scottish Borders, UK (Cole et al. 2010) found that a site managed with low intensity grazing had a higher abundance of caterpillars than an intensively grazed site. A site which was only grazed in the summer had a higher abundance of caterpillars than a site which was grazed all year (data presented as statistical results). Two large (>40 ha) plots were grazed by 3–4 sheep/ha from autumn 2002: one during June–September only (low intensity grazing, 49.7 ha), the other year round (high intensity grazing, 74.9 ha). Invertebrates were sampled using pitfall transects (9 traps, 2 m apart) at 15 locations/plot for four weeks during May–June 2004.

    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