Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Add sulphur to soil before seeding/planting Two studies examined the effects of adding sulphur to soil before seeding/planting on grassland vegetation. One study was in the UK and one was in the USA. VEGETATION COMMUNITY (2 STUDIES) Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One of two replicated, controlled studies (one of which was randomized and paired) in the UK and USA found that adding sulphur to soil before sowing seeds reduced plant species richness. The other study found no change in overall plant species richness. Native/non-target species richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the USA found that adding sulphur to soil before sowing seeds did not alter the number of native plant species. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE (2 STUDIES) Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in the UK found that adding sulphur to soil before sowing seeds reduced overall vegetation cover. Sown/planted species abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in the UK found that adding low amounts of sulphur to soil before sowing seeds increased the cover of three of six sown species. Native/non-target species abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the USA found that adding sulphur to soil before sowing seeds did not alter the cover of native plant species. VEGETATION STRUCTURE (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3428https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3428Mon, 28 Jun 2021 10:48:32 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Irrigate before or after seeding/planting Two studies examined the effects of irrigating before or after seeding/planting on grasslands. One study was in Spain and one in the USA. VEGETATION COMMUNITY (2 STUDIES) Overall richness/diversity (2 studies): One of two replicated, controlled studies (one of which was randomized and paired) in Spain and the USA found that irrigating after sowing non-native seeds increased plant diversity in four of 10 cases. The other study found that irrigating after sowing native seeds did not alter plant species richness. Native/non-target species richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the USA found that irrigating after sowing seeds did not alter the species richness of native plants. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE (2 STUDIES) Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in Spain found that irrigating after sowing non-native seeds increased vegetation cover in six of 10 cases. Native/non-target species abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the USA found that irrigating after sowing seeds did not alter the cover of native plant species. VEGETATION STRUCTURE (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3430https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3430Mon, 28 Jun 2021 13:31:34 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Add carbon to soil before or after seeding/planting Two studies examined the effects of adding carbon to soil before or after seeding/planting on grassland vegetation. Both studies were in the USA. VEGETATION COMMUNITY (0 STUDIES) VEGETATION ABUNDANCE (2 STUDIES) Sown/planted species abundance (2 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies in the USA found that adding carbon to soil after sowing seeds either reduced or did not alter the density of sown forb species. VEGETATION STRUCTURE (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3433https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3433Thu, 08 Jul 2021 17:12:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create natural rocky reef topography on intertidal artificial structures Two studies examined the effects of creating natural rocky reef topography on intertidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. One study was on an open coastline and in estuaries in the UK, and one was on an open coastline in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the UK found that creating natural rocky reef topography on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the combined macroalgae and invertebrate species richness on structure surfaces. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Invertebrate abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the UK found that creating natural rocky reef topography on intertidal artificial structures had mixed effects on barnacle and mobile invertebrate abundances on structure surfaces, depending on the site. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One study in the UK reported that natural topography created on intertidal artificial structures was colonized by macroalgae and limpets, and that limpets used shaded grooves and water-retaining depressions created by the topography. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3435https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3435Fri, 13 Aug 2021 12:05:11 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cease or alter maintenance activities on subtidal artificial structures Two studies examined the effects of ceasing or altering maintenance activities on subtidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. One study was in an estuary in southeast Australia and one was in an inland bay in eastern USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall community composition (1 study): One replicated, paired sites, controlled study in the USA found that reducing the frequency of cleaning on subtidal artificial structures did not alter the combined invertebrate and fish community composition on and around structure surfaces. Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, paired sites, controlled study in the USA found that reducing the frequency of cleaning on subtidal artificial structures did not increase the combined invertebrate and fish species richness or diversity on and around structure surfaces. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired sites, controlled study in the USA found that reducing the frequency of cleaning on subtidal artificial structures did not increase the combined invertebrate and fish abundance on and around structure surfaces. Algal abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired sites, controlled study in the USA found that reducing the frequency of cleaning on subtidal artificial structures increased the macroalgal abundance on structure surfaces. Fish abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Australia found that reducing the area cleaned on a subtidal artificial structure increased the seahorse abundance on structure surfaces. Survival (1 study): One replicated, paired sites, controlled study in the USA found that reducing the frequency of cleaning on subtidal artificial structures did not increase the survival of transplanted oysters. Condition (1 study): One replicated, paired sites, controlled study in the USA found that reducing the frequency of cleaning on subtidal artificial structures did not increase the growth of transplanted oysters. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3447https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3447Fri, 20 Aug 2021 14:57:27 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create groove habitats (1–50 mm) on subtidal artificial structures Two studies examined the effects of creating groove habitats on subtidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. Both studies were on open coastlines in Japan and northern Israel. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall community composition (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Israel found that groove habitats created on a subtidal artificial structure, along with holes, pits and environmentally-sensitive material, altered the combined macroalgae and invertebrate community composition on structure surfaces. They also supported macroalgae, non-mobile invertebrate and fish species that were absent from a similar structure without added habitat features. Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Israel found that creating groove habitats on a subtidal artificial structure, along with holes, pits and environmentally-sensitive material, increased the combined macroalgae and invertebrate species diversity on structure surfaces. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Algal abundance (2 studies): Two controlled studies (including one replicated study) in Japan and Israel reported that creating groove habitats on subtidal artificial structures, along with holes, pits and environmentally-sensitive material in one, had mixed effects on macroalgal abundances on structure surfaces, depending on the species group. Invertebrate abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Israel reported that creating groove habitats on a subtidal artificial structure, along with holes, pits and environmentally-sensitive material, had mixed effects on invertebrate abundances on structure surfaces, depending on the species group. Fish abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Israel reported that creating groove habitats on a subtidal artificial structure, along with holes, pits and environmentally-sensitive material, had mixed effects on fish abundances on and around structure surfaces, depending on the species group. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3448https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3448Fri, 20 Aug 2021 15:38:06 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create large adjoining cavities or ‘swimthrough’ habitats (>100 mm) on subtidal artificial structures Two studies examined the effects of creating large adjoining cavities or ‘swimthrough’ habitats on subtidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. One study was in a lagoon in Mayotte and one was in a marina in southeast USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Fish community composition (1 study): One replicated, paired sites, controlled study in the USA reported that large swimthrough habitats created in front of a subtidal artificial structure supported fish species that were absent from structure surfaces without swimthroughs. Fish richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, paired sites, controlled study in the USA found that creating large swimthrough habitats in front of a subtidal artificial structure increased the overall fish species richness on and around structure surfaces, but that effects varied depending on the fish size class. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Fish abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired sites, controlled study in the USA found that creating large swimthrough habitats in front of a subtidal artificial structure increased the overall fish abundance on and around structure surfaces, but that individual species abundances varied depending on the species, size class and survey month. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One study in Mayotte reported that large swimthrough habitats created on a subtidal artificial structure, along with small swimthroughs and environmentally-sensitive material, were used by juvenile spiny lobsters and groupers, sea firs, and adult fishes from five families. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3456https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3456Mon, 13 Sep 2021 10:12:41 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage or restrict harvesting of species on intertidal artificial structures Two studies examined the effects of managing or restricting harvesting of species on intertidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures or on human behaviour likely to influence the biodiversity of those structures. One study was on open coastlines in Italy, and one was in ports and on open coastlines in Gibraltar and southeast Spain. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Invertebrate abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Gibraltar and Spain reported that restricting human access on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the limpet abundance on structure surfaces. Invertebrate condition (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Gibraltar and Spain found that restricting human access on intertidal artificial structures resulted in larger limpets with more balanced sex ratios than unrestricted structures. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Human behaviour change (1 study): One replicated, randomized study in Italy reported that legally restricting human access on intertidal artificial structures did not prevent people from harvesting invertebrates and fishes on and around structures. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3458https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3458Mon, 13 Sep 2021 15:57:49 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce the slope of intertidal artificial structures Two studies examined the effects of reducing the slope of intertidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. The studies were in an estuary in southeast Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One before-and-after study in Australia reported that reducing the slope of an intertidal artificial structure, along with creating rock pools, increased the combined macroalgae, invertebrate and fish species richness on the structure. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Algal abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Australia found that reducing the slope of an intertidal artificial structure did not increase the macroalgal abundance on structure surfaces. Invertebrate abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Australia found that reducing the slope of an intertidal artificial structure did not increase the oyster or mobile invertebrate abundance on structure surfaces. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3461https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3461Tue, 14 Sep 2021 12:39:58 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create small protrusions (1–50 mm) on intertidal artificial structures Two studies examined the effects of creating small protrusions on intertidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. Both studies were on island coastlines in the Singapore Strait. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Overall community composition (2 studies): One of two replicated, randomized, controlled studies in Singapore found that creating small protrusions on intertidal artificial structures did not alter the combined macroalgae and invertebrate community composition on structure surfaces. One study found that creating small protrusions, along with grooves, small ridges and pits, had mixed effects on the community composition, depending on the site and the size and arrangement of protrusions and other habitats. Overall richness/diversity (2 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies in Singapore found that creating small protrusions on intertidal artificial structures, along with grooves, small ridges and pits in one study, increased the combined macroalgae and invertebrate species richness on structure surfaces. One of the studies found that varying the size and arrangement of protrusions and other habitats had mixed effects on species richness, depending on the shore level. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Overall abundance (2 studies): One of two replicated, randomized, controlled studies in Singapore found that creating small protrusions on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the combined macroalgae and invertebrate abundance on structure surfaces. One study found that creating small protrusions, along with grooves, small ridges and pits, had mixed effects on abundance, depending on the shore level, site, and the size and arrangement of protrusions and other habitats. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3462https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3462Tue, 14 Sep 2021 14:36:13 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create large protrusions (>50 mm) on intertidal artificial structures Two studies examined the effects of creating large protrusions on intertidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. One study was on an open coastline in the UK and one was in a marina in northeast Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Overall community composition (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Australia reported that large protrusions created on an intertidal artificial structure supported mobile and non-mobile invertebrate species that were absent from structure surfaces without protrusions. The study also found that protrosions tilted at an angle supported different combined macroalgae and invertebrate community composition to horizontal ones. Overall richness/diversity (2 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies (including one randomized study) in the UK and Australia found that creating large protrusions on an intertidal artificial structure, along with large ridges in one study, did not increase the combined macroalgae and invertebrate species richness on structure surfaces. One of the studies also reported that tilting protrusions at an angle did not increase the species richness compared to those that were horizontal. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Invertebrate abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the UK found that creating large protrusions on an intertidal artificial structure, along with large ridges, increased limpet but not barnacle abundance on structure surfaces. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3463https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3463Tue, 14 Sep 2021 15:22:23 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create small adjoining cavities or ‘swimthrough’ habitats (≤100 mm) on intertidal artificial structures Two studies examined the effects of creating small adjoining cavities or ‘swimthrough’ habitats on intertidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. One study was on an open coastline in the UK and in an estuary in the Netherlands and one was on an open coastline in South Africa. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Invertebrate community composition (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in South Africa found that creating small swimthrough habitats on intertidal artificial structures did not alter the mobile invertebrate community composition on structure surfaces. Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated study in the UK and the Netherlands found that varying the size and arrangement of small swimthrough habitats created on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the combined macroalgae and invertebrate species richness in and on the structures. Invertebrate richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in South Africa found that creating small swimthrough habitats on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the mobile invertebrate species richness or diversity on structure surfaces. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Invertebrate abundance (2 studies): One replicated, controlled study in South Africa found that creating small swimthrough habitats on intertidal artificial structures increased the mobile invertebrate abundance on structure surfaces. One replicated study in the UK and the Netherlands found that varying the size and arrangement of small swimthrough habitats altered the invertebrate abundance in and on structures. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3468https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3468Thu, 16 Sep 2021 14:03:21 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Protect greenfield sites or undeveloped land in urban areas Two studies evaluated the effects of protecting greenfield sites or undeveloped land in urban areas on butterflies and moths. One study was in Singapore and the other was in Mexico. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (2 studies): Two site comparison studies (including one replicated study) in Singapore and Mexico found that protected native forest and grassland in urban areas had a higher species richness of butterflies than urban parks or non-native Eucalyptus plantations. POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3836https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3836Mon, 04 Jul 2022 15:25:46 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Apply ecological compensation for developments Two studies evaluated the effects of on butterflies and moths of applying ecological compensation for developments. One was in the USA and the other was in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One study in Australia reported that a population of purple copper butterfly caterpillars translocated from a development site to an area of compensatory and retained habitat increased in number over three years. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One site comparison study in the USA reported that an area of lupines transplanted from a development site was used by a similar number of Karner blue butterflies to an area with no transplanted lupines. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3839https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3839Mon, 04 Jul 2022 15:40:59 +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: 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: Stop using herbicides on pavements and road verges 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)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3899https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3899Tue, 09 Aug 2022 15:00:37 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Maintain traditional orchards to benefit butterflies and moths Two studies evaluated the effects of maintaining traditional orchards on butterflies and moths. One study was in each of the USA and Germany. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Community composition (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Germany found that managed orchards had a similar community composition of butterflies and burnet moths to abandoned orchards. Richness/diversity (2 studies): One replicated, site comparison study in Germany found that managed orchards had a similar species richness of butterflies and burnet moths to abandoned orchards. One controlled study in the USA found that an unmanaged and a partially managed orchard had a greater species richness and diversity of leaf-eating arthropods (including caterpillars) than a commercially managed orchard. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Germany found that managed orchards had a lower abundance of butterflies and burnet moths than abandoned orchards. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3917https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3917Thu, 11 Aug 2022 11:04:20 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage vineyards to benefit butterflies and moths 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)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3919https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3919Thu, 11 Aug 2022 11:19:09 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Increase crop diversity across a farm or farmed landscape Two studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of increasing crop diversity across a farm or farmed landscape. Both studies were in Switzerland. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (2 studies): Two replicated, site comparison studies in Switzerland found that farms and landscapes with a greater number of habitats or crop types had a similar species richness of butterflies to farms and landscapes with fewer different habitats or crop types. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Switzerland found that farms with a greater number of habitats had a similar abundance of butterflies to farms with fewer different habitats. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3921https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3921Thu, 11 Aug 2022 16:45:18 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Undersow spring cereals, with clover for example Two studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of undersowing spring cereals. One study was in the UK and one was in Switzerland. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the UK found that spring barley undersown with a mix of grasses and legumes had a higher species richness of butterflies than extensively or conventionally managed grassland. One replicated, site comparison study in Switzerland found that farms with a larger area of in-field agri-environment scheme options, including undersown cereals, had a similar species richness of butterflies to farms with a smaller area of in-field agri-environment scheme POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the UK found that spring barley undersown with a mix of grasses and legumes had a higher abundance of butterflies, but a lower abundance of caterpillars, than extensively or conventionally managed grassland. One replicated, site comparison study in Switzerland found that farms with a larger area of in-field agri-environment scheme options, including undersown cereals, had a similar abundance of butterflies to farms with a smaller area of in-field agri-environment scheme BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3926https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3926Thu, 11 Aug 2022 17:09:12 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage woodland edges for maximum habitat heterogeneity Two studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of managing woodland edges for maximum habitat heterogeneity. One study was in Belgium and the other was in Finland. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled, before-and-after study in Finland found that two years after felling 5-m-wide woodland edges, and thinning 20-m-wide adjacent forest, the combined species richness of butterflies, diurnal moths and bumblebees was higher than before management or in unmanaged woodland edges. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): One replicated, site comparison study in Belgium found that scalloped woodland edges had a higher abundance of brown hairstreak eggs than straight woodland edges. One replicated, paired, controlled, before-and-after study in Finland found that two years after felling 5-m-wide woodland edges and thinning 20-m-wide adjacent forest, the abundance of specialist butterflies was higher than before management or on unmanaged woodland edges. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3942https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3942Sat, 13 Aug 2022 14:57:49 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Raise cutting height on grasslands Two studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of raising cutting height on grasslands. One study was in each of the UK and Switzerland. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the UK found that intensively managed grassland plots cut to 10 cm in May and July had a similar species richness of butterflies to plots cut to 5 cm. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the UK found that intensively managed grassland plots cut to 10 cm in May and July had a similar abundance of butterflies and caterpillars to plots cut to 5 cm. Survival (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in Switzerland found that the survival of large white caterpillars in grassland plots cut to 9 cm was similar to in plots cut to 6 cm2. Condition (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in Switzerland found that a similar proportion of wax model caterpillars were damaged when meadows were cut to 9 cm or 6 cm. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3968https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3968Sun, 14 Aug 2022 10:38:54 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use motor bar mowers rather than rotary mowers Two studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of using motor bar mowers rather than rotary mowers. Both studies were in Switzerland. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Switzerland found that farms managed with more in-field agri-environment scheme options, including using bar mowers instead of rotary mowers, had a similar species richness of butterflies to farms with fewer agri-environment scheme options. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Switzerland found that farms managed with more in-field agri-environment scheme options, including using bar mowers instead of rotary mowers, had a similar abundance of butterflies to farms with fewer agri-environment scheme options. Survival (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in Switzerland1 found that fewer large white caterpillars were killed when meadows were harvested using a hand-pushed bar mower than with a tractor-pulled rotary mower. Condition (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in Switzerland found that fewer wax model caterpillars were damaged when meadows were harvested using a hand-pushed bar mower than with a tractor-pulled rotary mower. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3969https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3969Sun, 14 Aug 2022 10:39:04 +0100