Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain buffer zones around core habitat We found no studies that evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of retaining buffer zones around core habitat. ‘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%2F3833https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3833Mon, 04 Jul 2022 15:06:43 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Protect or restore brownfield or ex-industrial sites We found no studies that evaluated the effects of protecting or restoring brownfield or ex-industrial sites 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%2F3835https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3835Mon, 04 Jul 2022 15:24:10 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant trees to reduce temperatures in cities We found no studies that evaluated the effects of planting trees to reduce temperatures in cities 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%2F3838https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3838Mon, 04 Jul 2022 15:35:33 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Require developers to complete Environmental Impact Assessments when submitting planning applications We found no studies that evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of requiring developers to complete Environmental Impact Assessment when submitting planning applications. ‘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%2F3840https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3840Mon, 04 Jul 2022 15:41:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove or change turbine lighting to reduce insect attraction We found no studies that evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of removing or changing turbine lighting to reduce insect attraction. ‘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%2F3843https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3843Tue, 05 Jul 2022 11:06:37 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Change turbine colour to reduce insect attraction We found no studies that evaluated the effects of changing turbine colour to reduce attraction to 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%2F3844https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3844Tue, 05 Jul 2022 11:07:53 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Raise awareness amongst the general public to promote conservation actions We found no studies that evaluated the effects of raising awareness amongst the general public to promote conservation actions for 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%2F3847https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3847Tue, 05 Jul 2022 11:26:07 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Increase consideration of butterflies and moths in international, national and local conservation plans We found no studies that evaluated the effects of increasing the consideration of butterflies and moths in international, national and local conservation plans. ‘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%2F3848https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3848Tue, 05 Jul 2022 11:27:13 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use signs and access restrictions to reduce disturbance We found no studies that evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of using signs and access restrictions to reduce disturbance. ‘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%2F3849https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3849Tue, 05 Jul 2022 11:30:15 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restrict recreational activities to particular areas We found no studies that evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of restricting recreational activities to particular areas. ‘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%2F3850https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3850Tue, 05 Jul 2022 11:31:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Design the route of roads to maximize habitat block size We found no studies that evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of designing the route of roads to maximize habitat block size. ‘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%2F3851https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3851Tue, 05 Jul 2022 11:33:46 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Minimize road lighting to reduce insect attraction We found no studies that evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of minimizing road lighting to reduce insect attraction. ‘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%2F3852https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3852Tue, 05 Jul 2022 11:34:54 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Protect and connect habitat along elevational gradients We found no studies that evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of protecting and connecting habitat along elevational gradients. ‘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%2F3856https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3856Tue, 05 Jul 2022 15:27:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Enhance natural habitat to improve landscape connectivity to allow for range shifts We found no studies that evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of enhancing natural habitat to improve landscape connectivity and allow for range shifts. ‘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%2F3857https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3857Tue, 05 Jul 2022 15:29:10 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage natural waterbodies in arid areas to prevent desiccation We found no studies that evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of managing natural waterbodies in arid areas to prevent desiccation. ‘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%2F3858https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3858Tue, 05 Jul 2022 15:30:22 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Leave unharvested crop headlands within arable fields One study evaluated the effects of leaving unharvested crop headlands within arable fields. This study was in France. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, paired, site comparison study in France found that unharvested alfalfa headlands had a greater species richness of butterflies than harvested alfalfa or wheat fields. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired, site comparison study in France found that unharvested alfalfa headlands had a higher abundance of butterflies than harvested alfalfa or wheat fields. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3924https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3924Thu, 11 Aug 2022 17:02:01 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage rice field banks to benefit butterflies and moths One study evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of managing rice field banks to benefit butterflies and moths. This study was in Italy. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Italy found that unmown, herbicide-free rice field banks had a greater species richness of butterflies than banks which were mown or sprayed with herbicide. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Italy found that unmown, herbicide-free rice field banks had a higher abundance of butterflies, including large copper, than banks which were mown or sprayed with herbicide. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3928https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3928Thu, 11 Aug 2022 17:33:27 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Replace non-native species of tree/shrub with native species One study evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of replacing non-native species of tree/shrub with native species. This study was in Panama. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Panama found that established plantations of native trees had a similar species richness of butterflies to plantations of exotic trees, but a greater species richness than old growth forest. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Panama found that established plantations of native trees had a similar abundance of butterflies to plantations of exotic trees, but a higher abundance than old growth forest. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3937https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3937Sat, 13 Aug 2022 14:55:09 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create young plantations within mature woodland One study evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of creating young plantations within mature woodland. This 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 pearl-bordered fritillary and small pearl-bordered fritillary populations were more likely to persist for up to 20 years in woodlands with larger areas of young plantations (or coppicing) than in mature coniferous (both species) or deciduous (pearl-bordered fritillary only) woodland. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3941https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3941Sat, 13 Aug 2022 14:57:33 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove tree canopy to reduce pond or waterway shading One study evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of removing tree canopy to reduce pond or waterway shading. This study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)   POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in the USA1 found that removing trees to reduce stream shading reduced the survival of Appalachian brown caterpillars and pupae, but did not affect egg survival. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3952https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3952Sat, 13 Aug 2022 15:22:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reintroduce mammals as ecosystem engineers One study evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of reintroducing mammals as ecosystem engineers. This study was in Italy. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Italy found that olive groves with wild boar present had a lower species richness of butterflies than groves without wild boar. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Italy found that olive groves with wild boar present had a lower total abundance of butterflies, and a lower abundance of six individual species, but a higher abundance of two species, than groves without wild boar. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3953https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3953Sat, 13 Aug 2022 15:22:41 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install artificial dams in streams to raise water levels One study evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of installing artificial dams in streams to raise water levels. This study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)   POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in the USA found that installing artificial dams in streams did not increase the survival of Appalachian brown butterfly eggs, caterpillars or pupae. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3954https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3954Sat, 13 Aug 2022 15:22:51 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Mark the location of webs or caterpillars before mowing One study evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of marking the location of webs or caterpillars before mowing. This study was in Poland. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)   POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, before-and-after study in Poland reported that after marsh fritillary caterpillar webs were marked before mowing, the number of webs increased the following year. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3970https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3970Sun, 14 Aug 2022 10:39:27 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Protect in-field trees One study evaluated the effects of protecting in-field trees on butterflies and moths. The study was in Sweden. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Sweden found that where more trees and trees of more species had been retained in pastures, butterfly species richness was higher, but richness was lower when a high proportion of those trees were large. POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3978https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3978Thu, 18 Aug 2022 10:40:32 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant more than one crop per field (intercropping) One study evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of planting more than one crop per field. The study was in Malaysia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Community composition (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Malaysia found that smallholdings planted with oil palm and other crops did not differ in butterfly community composition from those planted with oil palm alone. Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Malaysia found that smallholdings planted with oil palm and other crops did not have greater butterfly species richness than those planted with oil palm alone. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Malaysia found that smallholdings planted with oil palm and other crops did not have higher overall butterfly abundance than those planted with oil palm alone. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3983https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3983Sat, 20 Aug 2022 19:18:11 +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