Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Harvest groups of trees or use thinning instead of clearcutting Three studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of harvesting groups of trees or using thinning 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 harvested by thinning, than after harvest by patch-cutting or clearcutting, and the richness in the thinned forest was similar to an unharvested forest. One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that forests managed by group selection harvesting had a similar species richness of moths to forests managed by single tree 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 at a similar rate after management by group selection harvesting or clearcutting, but recovery in both was slower than after shelterwood harvesting. POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3868https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3868Mon, 18 Jul 2022 14:45:39 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use patch retention harvesting instead of clearcutting We found no studies that evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of using patch retention harvesting instead of clearcutting. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3869https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3869Mon, 18 Jul 2022 15:45:31 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use leave-tree harvesting instead of clearcutting We found no studies that evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of using leave-tree harvesting instead of clearcutting. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3870https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3870Mon, 18 Jul 2022 15:46:58 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use shelterwood harvesting instead of clearcutting 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)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3871https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3871Mon, 18 Jul 2022 15:48:15 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain riparian buffer strips during timber harvest We found no studies that evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of retaining riparian buffer strips during timber harvest. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3872https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3872Mon, 18 Jul 2022 15:53:34 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create or retain deadwood in forest management One study evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of creating or retaining deadwood in forest management. This study was in Sweden. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Sweden found that sites where deadwood had been left for many years had a higher abundance of Scardia boletella moths than conventionally managed sites in one of two regions, but the occurrence of Archinemapogon yildizae moths was similar across all sites. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3873https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3873Mon, 18 Jul 2022 16:00:36 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Re-plant native trees in logged areas One study evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of replanting native trees in logged areas. The study was in Ghana. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One site comparison study in Ghana found that nine years after an area was replanted with native trees after logging it had similar species richness but lower diversity for two of three metrics compared to naturally regenerating secondary forest. POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3874https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3874Mon, 18 Jul 2022 16:03:37 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce planting density to create warmer woodlands We found no studies that evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of reducing planting density to create warmer woodlands. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3875https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3875Mon, 18 Jul 2022 16:04:49 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Encourage natural regeneration in former plantations or logged forest Four studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of encouraging natural regeneration in former plantations or logged forest. One study was in each of Côte d’Ivoire, Japan, Ghana and Uganda. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Community composition (3 studies): One site comparison study in Côte d’Ivoire found that rarer species of fruit-feeding butterfly were more frequently caught in a naturally regenerating forest than in a forest still managed by thinning. One replicated, site comparison study in Japan found that the moth community was different between naturally regenerating forests of different ages. One site comparison study in Ghana found that a naturally regenerating forest had a butterfly community more similar to forest replanted nine years ago than a primary forest or a clear-cut area. Richness/diversity (4 studies): One site comparison study in Côte d’Ivoire found that a naturally regenerating forest had a similar species richness and diversity of fruit-feeding butterflies to a forest still managed by thinning. One replicated, site comparison study in Japan found that naturally regenerating forests had a greater species richness of moths than plantations. One site comparison study in Ghana found that a naturally regenerating forest had lower butterfly species richness than a primary forest, but similar richness to a clear-cut area and a nine-year old replanted forest, and lower community diversity than a primary forest and a clear-cut area. One replicated, site comparison study in Uganda found that naturally regenerating forests had a similar species richness of butterflies to pristine forests, but richness was highest 12–25 years after felling. POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): One site comparison study in Côte d’Ivoire found that a naturally regenerating forest had a similar abundance of fruit-feeding butterflies to a forest still managed by thinning. One replicated, site comparison study in Japan found that naturally regenerating forests had a greater abundance of moths than plantations. One replicated, site comparison study in Uganda found that naturally regenerating forests had a similar abundance of butterflies to pristine forests, but abundance was highest 12–25 years after felling. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3876https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3876Mon, 18 Jul 2022 16:06:44 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use prescribed fire to maintain or restore disturbance in forests Five studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of using prescribed fire to maintain or restore disturbance in forests. Four studies were in the USA and one was in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (4 studies): Three of four studies (including one replicated study, one paired study, two controlled studies, two before-and-after studies, and one site comparison study) in the USA found that coniferous forest restored 1–2 years ago by burning (in combination with thinning) or burned once within the last 20 years, had a higher species richness of butterflies than unburned forest. The fourth study found that mixed forest and shrubland sites which had been burned the year before had similar butterfly species richness to unburned sites. POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): Two studies (including one controlled, before-and-after study and one site comparison study) in the USA found that pine forest restored 1–2 years ago by burning (in combination with thinning) had a higher abundance of butterflies than unburned forest. One replicated, before-and-after study in Australia reported that in the spring after selective burning of eucalyptus forest there were fewer Eltham copper caterpillars than before. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3877https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3877Wed, 20 Jul 2022 18:19:12 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Change season/timing of prescribed burning Two studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of changing the season or timing of prescribed burning. One study was in each of Australia and the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in Australia found that management of a tropical savanna and floodplain with early season burning or no burning for 2–5 years increased the abundance of caterpillars, but management with late season burning did not. One replicated, paired, controlled study in the USA found that Karner blue butterfly abundance was similar on grasslands managed by burning in summer or autumn, and on unmanaged grasslands. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3878https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3878Thu, 21 Jul 2022 16:32:42 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Leave some areas unburned during prescribed burning Two studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of leaving some areas unburned during prescribed burning. Both studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): One replicated study in the USA reported that the abundance of Karner blue butterflies increased over 2–3 years in oak savannas and prairies where unburned patches were left during prescribed burning. One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that six out of nine specialist butterfly species were more abundant, one was less abundant, and two had similar abundance in pine barrens and prairies where unburned areas were left during prescribed burning compared to at sites without unburned areas. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One replicated study in the USA reported that Karner blue butterflies were recorded using all 11 unburned patches which were surveyed within oak savannas and prairies managed by burning. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3879https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3879Thu, 21 Jul 2022 16:45:55 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use fire suppression/control We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using fire suppression or control on butterflies and moths. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3880https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3880Thu, 21 Jul 2022 16:55:51 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Mechanically remove mid-storey or ground vegetation to create fire breaks Two studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of mechanically removing mid-storey or ground vegetation to create fire breaks. One study was in Portugal and the other was in France. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (2 studies): One replicated, site comparison study in Portugal found that cork oak woodlands with more recent or more regular mechanical clearance of woody understorey vegetation had a greater species richness of butterflies than woodlands cleared less frequently or longer ago. One replicated, paired, controlled study in France reported that shrublands where trees and/or bushes were mechanically cleared to create firebreaks had a similar species richness of butterflies to a shrubland where grazing was used to suppress vegetation. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Portugal found that cork oak woodlands with more recent or more regular mechanical clearance of woody understorey vegetation had a higher abundance of butterflies than woodlands cleared less frequently or longer ago. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3881https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3881Thu, 21 Jul 2022 17:04:10 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use prescribed fire to maintain or restore disturbance in grasslands or other open habitats Thirteen studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of using prescribed fire to maintain or restore disturbance in grasslands or other open habitats. Eight studies were in the USA, three were in the UK, one was in South Africa and one was a review across Europe. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Community composition (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that pastures managed by patch-burning had a similar butterfly community to rotationally or continuously grazed pastures. Richness/diversity (3 studies): Two replicated, before-and-after studies (including one randomized, controlled study and one paired sites, site comparison study) in the USA found that shrubland plots and grass field margins managed by burning had a similar species richness of butterflies to those which were unburned. One replicated, site comparison study in the USA reported that pastures managed by patch-burning had a lower species richness of butterflies than rotationally grazed pastures, a similar richness to rotationally grazed and mown pastures, and a higher species richness than continuously grazed pastures. POPULATION RESPONSE (12 STUDIES) Abundance (12 studies): Four of nine studies (including six replicated studies, two randomized studies, two paired sites studies, three controlled studies, two before-and-after studies, and five site comparison studies) in the UK, South Africa and the USA found that the abundance of heath fritillary adults, marsh fritillary caterpillar webs and Fender’s blue caterpillars and eggs was higher (sometimes after initial reductions in abundance) on heathland, fen meadows and prairies one or more years after management by burning than before burning, or compared to unburned or grazed land, although the total population of Fender’s blue declined in adjacent burned and unburned areas. Three studies found that the abundance of Brenton blue butterfly eggs and adults, rosy marsh moth caterpillars and regal fritillary adults was lower on a bog and prairies managed by burning than on unburned land, at least one and five years after burning. One study found that grass field margins managed by burning had a similar abundance of butterflies to unburned field margins. The seventh study found that abundance of Powershiek skipperling to burning, along with haying and idling, depended on the site’s vegetation characteristics. Two replicated, site comparison studies in the USA found that two prairie specialists (regal fritillary and arogos skipper) and three out of nine butterfly species were less abundant in prairies or pastures managed by burning than in prairies managed by haying or grazed pastures. These studies also found that the abundance of generalist and migrant species, and of purplish copper, was higher in burned prairies or pastures than hayed prairies or grazed pastures. One review across Europe reported that occasional burning on grassland benefitted 10 out of 67 butterfly species of conservation concern. Survival (1 study): One replicated, paired sites, controlled study in the USA found that in prairie plots burned one year before, Fender’s blue butterfly caterpillars had lower survival than in unburned plots. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the UK found that a similar proportion of fen meadows were occupied by marsh fritillary caterpillars whether they were managed by burning, grazing or were unmanaged. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3882https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3882Mon, 25 Jul 2022 12:37:11 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use rotational burning Seventeen studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of using rotational burning. Twelve studies were in the USA, one was in South Africa and one was in Japan. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (5 STUDIES) Community composition (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that prairies managed by rotational burning (every 1–6 years) and grazing had a different community composition of butterflies to prairies managed by rotational burning or grazing alone. Richness/diversity (5 studies): Two replicated, site comparison studies in the USA and Japan found that pine-oak barrens and semi-natural grasslands managed by rotational burning every 2 years or 2–5 years (sometimes combined with rotational mowing) had a higher species richness of butterflies than unmanaged sites or sites managed by annual burning or mowing. However, one of these studies also found that the species richness of grassland butterflies was lower in prairies managed by rotational burning than in unmanaged prairies in one of two regions. Two replicated, site comparison studies in the USA found that the species richness of butterflies was higher on prairies burned more than one or four years ago than on prairies burned in the last one or two years under rotational burning management. One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that prairies managed by rotational burning (every 1–6 years) and grazing had a similar species richness of butterflies to prairies managed by rotational burning or grazing alone, but a lower diversity of butterflies than sites managed by rotational burning only. One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the USA found that species richness of butterflies did not differ between prairies managed with annual rotational burning or complete burning. POPULATION RESPONSE (15 STUDIES) Abundance (15 studies): Four replicated studies (including one paired, controlled study and three site comparison studies) in the USA found that under rotational burning management the total abundance of prairie specialist, grassland and all butterflies, and of most insects including butterflies and moths, was higher on prairies burned more than one, two or four years ago, or longer ago, than on prairies burned in the last one or two years, or recently. One of these studies also found that the abundance of grassland and generalist butterflies was highest in the third year after burning, and migrant butterflies in the first year after burning. Two of these studies6,8, and an additional replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that the total abundance of butterflies, and of most insects including butterflies and moths, was higher in pine-oak barrens and prairies managed by rotational burning every 2–5 years, 2–3 years or 1–6 years than at unmanaged sites or sites managed by rotational burning or grazing alone. One of these studies also found that the abundance of butterflies was lower in prairies managed by rotational burning than in unmanaged prairies in one of two regions. Four of six replicated studies in the USA (including five site comparison studies and one randomized, controlled study) found that rotational burning in prairies, pine barrens and grasslands had mixed effects on butterflies, compared to unmanaged, hayed, grazed, mowed or completely burned sites. The fifth study found that prairies managed by rotational burning had more strongly declining populations of grass-skipper butterflies than unmanaged pine barrens or lightly managed fields. The sixth study found that for three fritillary species rotational burning in prairies did not affect abundance, but for three others, in at least one region surveyed, abundance was lower in prairies managed by rotational burning, sometimes in combination with haying, grazing and/or mowing, than in prairies managed with only haying or grazing, or in unmanaged prairies. One replicated, site comparison study in the USA reported that Karner blue butterfly abundance was similar in rotationally burned and unmanaged oak savannas and prairies. One site comparison study in the USA reported that regal fritillary abundance was higher in grasslands and oak barrens managed by rotational burning every three years (following restoration by seeding) than on unmanaged sites or remnant prairies. One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that the abundance of regal fritillary was higher in rotationally burned prairies four years after the last burn than one or eight years after the last burn. One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in the USA found that, in June, the abundance of regal fritillaries in prairies burned on rotation that spring was lower than in prairies burned 1–2 years ago, but in July the abundance was higher in recently burned prairies. Survival (1 study): One replicated study in South Africa found that populations of Karkloof blue persisted for at least a year following rotational burning. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3883https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3883Mon, 25 Jul 2022 15:05:14 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove or control non-native predators We found no studies that evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of removing or controlling non-native predators. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3884https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3884Tue, 26 Jul 2022 18:22:27 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove, control or exclude invertebrate herbivores One study evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of removing, controlling or excluding invertebrate herbivores. The study was in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the UK found that at sites fenced to exclude grazing animals there was a higher density of pearl-bordered fritillary butterflies than at unfenced sites. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3885https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3885Tue, 26 Jul 2022 18:24:30 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Replant alternative host plants or disease resistant individuals to combat losses to disease We found no studies that evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of replanting alternative host plants or disease resistant individuals to combat losses to disease. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3886https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3886Tue, 26 Jul 2022 18:25:24 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Increase biosecurity checks We found no studies that evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of increasing biosecurity checks. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3887https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3887Tue, 26 Jul 2022 18:26:23 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restrict the sale of problem species in garden centres and pet shops We found no studies that evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of restricting the sale of problem species in garden centres and pet shops. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3888https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3888Tue, 26 Jul 2022 18:27:25 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove, control or exclude native predators Five studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of removing, controlling or excluding native predators. Two studies were in each of the UK and the USA and one was in Kenya. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (5 STUDIES) Survival (5 studies): Three of five replicated studies (including one randomized, paired, controlled study and three paired, controlled studies) in the UK, Kenya and the USA found that using mesh cages, net sleeves and sticky resin to exclude predators (including birds and mammals and spiders and ants) increased the survival of large copper caterpillars, Boisduval silkworm eggs and caterpillars and Appalachian brown eggs and juveniles. The other two studies found that using cages or water and chemicals to exclude vertebrate or terrestrial predators (mainly ants) did not increase the survival of monarch caterpillars. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3889https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3889Tue, 26 Jul 2022 18:30:11 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove or control non-native or problematic plants Nine studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of removing or controlling non-native or problematic plants. Five studies were in the USA and one was in each of Poland, South Africa, Australia and Mauritius. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (2 studies): Two studies (including one replicated, paired, site comparison study and one controlled study) in Mauritius and the USA found that sites where invasive plants were removed by weeding or cutting and applying herbicide (in one case along with fencing to exclude non-native pigs and deer) had a greater species richness of butterflies than untreated sites. One of these studies also found that sites where Chinese privet was removed had a similar species richness of butterflies to sites which had not been invaded. POPULATION RESPONSE (8 STUDIES) Abundance (7 studies): Four of six studies (including three controlled studies, one before-and-after study and two site comparison studies) in Poland, South Africa, the USA and Mauritius found that sites where trees and shrubs were removed or invasive plants were cut to a similar height to native plants, or removed by weeding or cutting and applying herbicide (in one case along with fencing to exclude non-native pigs and deer), had a greater abundance of Apollo butterflies, a higher density of Fender’s blue eggs, or higher total abundance of butterflies, compared to before removal or untreated sites. One of these studies also found that sites where Chinese privet was removed had a similar abundance of butterflies to sites which had not been invaded. The fifth study found that in plots where herbicide was applied to control invasive grasses, the abundance of Columbia silvery blue eggs and caterpillars was similar to unsprayed plots. The sixth study found that, after prescribed burning, an area where bracken fern was also removed had fewer Brenton blue butterfly eggs than an area without removal. One study in Australia reported that a population of purple copper butterfly caterpillars translocated to an area where invasive plants had been removed, along with host plant translocation and other habitat management, increased in number compared to at the time of translocation. Survival (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in the USA found that in plots where herbicide was applied to control invasive grasses, the survival of Columbia silvery blue eggs and caterpillars was similar to unsprayed plots. One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the USA found that one herbicide commonly used to control invasive grasses reduced the survival of snowberry checkerspot caterpillars, but two other herbicides did not affect the survival of snowberry checkerspot, Edith’s checkerspot or Baltimore checkerspot caterpillars. BEHAVIOUR (4 STUDIES) Use (3 studies): Two of three randomized, controlled studies (including two replicated, paired studies and one before-and-after study) in the USA found that sites where invasive oat-grass was cut to a similar height to native plants, or where Eastern white pine was removed, were used more by Fender’s blue and frosted elfin butterflies than untreated sites. The third study found that habitat use by Columbia silvery blue butterflies was similar in plots where herbicide was applied to control invasive grasses and in unsprayed plots. Behaviour change (1 study): One before-and-after study in Poland found that removal of trees and shrubs, in addition to the release of captive bred adults and pupae, allowed adults from two previously separated populations of Apollo butterflies to mix. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3890https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3890Thu, 28 Jul 2022 15:02:05 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove, control or exclude vertebrate herbivores Ten studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of removing, controlling or excluding vertebrate herbivores. Three studies were in the USA, two were in the UK, one was in each of Mauritius, the Netherlands, Canada and Japan, and one was a global systematic review. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (6 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (6 studies): Two of four replicated studies (including three controlled studies and one site comparison study) in the USA, Mauritius and Canada found that forest plots fenced to exclude, or reduce the density of, non-native pigs and deer (in one case along with weeding of invasive plants) had a greater species richness of butterflies and macro-moths than unfenced plots. The other two studies found that forest plots fenced to exclude elk had mixed effects on the species richness of butterflies and arthropods including moths depending on fire intensity and year. One of these studies also found that grassland plots fenced to exclude elk had a similar species richness of butterflies to unfenced plots in all years. One global systematic review found that reducing or removing grazing or browsing by wild or domestic herbivores in temperate and boreal forests did not affect the species richness of butterflies and moths. POPULATION RESPONSE (10 STUDIES) Abundance (9 studies): Five of eight studies (including five controlled studies, one before-and-after study, and two site comparison studies) in the UK, the USA, Mauritius, Canada and Japan found that forest and grassland plots fenced to exclude, or reduce the density of, deer, sheep, pigs and large herbivores (in one case along with weeding of invasive plants) had a higher abundance of butterflies, moths, caterpillars, rare macro-moths and New Forest burnet moths than unfenced plots. One of these studies also found that the total abundance of macro-moths was similar in fenced and unfenced plots. Two studies found that forest plots fenced to exclude elk had mixed effects on the abundance of butterflies and arthropods including moths depending on fire intensity and year. One of these studies also found that grassland plots fenced to exclude elk had a similar abundance of butterflies to unfenced plots in all years. The eighth study found that a forest fenced to exclude sika deer had a similar abundance of all moths, but a lower abundance of tree-feeding moths, than unfenced forest. One global systematic review found that reducing or removing grazing or browsing by wild or domestic herbivores in temperate and boreal forests increased the abundance of butterflies and moths. Survival (1 study): One paired, controlled study in the Netherlands reported that all Glanville fritillary caterpillar nests survived in grassland fenced to exclude sheep, compared to 88% in a grazed area. Condition (1 study): One paired, controlled study in the Netherlands found that fewer Glanville fritillary caterpillar nests were damaged in grassland fenced to exclude sheep than in a grazed area. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3891https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3891Tue, 09 Aug 2022 11:49:20 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Introduce legislation to control the use of hazardous substances We found no studies that evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of introducing legislation to control the use of hazardous substances. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3892https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3892Tue, 09 Aug 2022 13:02:21 +0100
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
For a full list of, and information about, our champions:
All Evidence Champions
About our champions, why and how to become one:
Become an Evidence Champion

This website uses Cookies

We use limited Cookies to run the site and to analyse our traffic (none for site vendors). By using this site, you will be providing your consent to our use of Cookies.

Accept & continue