Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pay farmers to cover the costs of conservation measures (as in agri-environment schemes or conservation incentives) Thirty-two studies evaluated the effects of paying farmers to cover the costs of conservation measures on butterflies and moths. Eighteen studies were in the UK, eight were in Switzerland two were in Finland, and one was in each of Sweden, the Czech Republic, the USA and Germany. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (18 STUDIES) Community composition (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Switzerland found that the community composition of butterflies on grasslands that farmers were paid to manage for wildlife was similar to intensively managed grasslands. Richness/diversity (19 studies): Twelve of 15 studies (including eight controlled, one before-and-after and five site comparison studies) in Switzerland, the United Kingdom and Sweden found that the species richness or diversity of butterflies and moths on grassland, field margins, wildflower strips or whole farms managed under agri-environment schemes was higher than on conventional fields or farms. The other three studies found that the species richness of butterflies and micro-moths on grassland, field margins, wildflower strips or whole farms managed under agri-environment schemes was similar to conventional fields or farms. One of two replicated, site comparison studies in Switzerland found that the species richness of butterflies was higher in landscapes with a greater proportion of land managed under agri-environment schemes than in landscapes with a smaller proportion of agri-environment schemes, but the other study found that species richness of butterflies was similar on individual farms with more land managed under agri-environment schemes than on farms with smaller areas of agri-environment schemes. One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that the species richness of butterflies on grassland sown under a conservation incentive program was similar to that on native prairie. One replicated, site comparison study in Finland found that the species richness of butterflies and day-flying moths on grassland managed under an agri-environment scheme was lower than on abandoned, unmanaged grassland. POPULATION RESPONSE (27 STUDIES) Abundance (27 studies): Seventeen of 19 studies (including seven controlled studies, one replicated, site comparison study, two before-and-after studies, and eight site comparison studies) in the UK, Sweden, Switzerland and Germany found that the abundance of butterflies and moths overall, and of specific species of butterflies or moths, in woodland, grassland, field margins, wildflower strips or whole farms managed under agri-environment schemes was higher than in unmanaged woodland or conventional fields or farms. The other two studies found that the abundance of butterflies and macro-moths on field margins managed under agri-environment schemes was similar to conventional margins. Three of four replicated studies (including one controlled and three site comparison studies) in the UK and Switzerland found that the abundance of butterflies was higher on farms or in landscapes with a higher proportion of land managed under agri-environment schemes than in areas with less land in agri-environment schemes. The other study found that the abundance of some species was higher, but others were lower, on farms with enhanced agri-environment management compared to simple management. Three studies (including one before-and-after and two replicated, site comparison studies) in Finland and the Czech Republic found that grassland grazed or restored under agri-environment scheme prescriptions had a lower abundance of all but three butterfly and day-flying moth species compared to unmanaged grassland, and that Danube clouded yellow abundance declined after agri-environment scheme mowing was initiated on abandoned grasslands. One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that the abundance of butterflies on grassland sown under a conservation incentive program was lower than on native prairie. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3915https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3915Wed, 10 Aug 2022 15:41:00 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant grass buffer strips/margins around arable or pasture fields Twenty-six studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of planting grass margins around arable or pasture fields. Seventeen were in the UK, two were in each of Sweden, the Netherlands and the USA, and one was in each of China, France and Italy. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (15 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (15 studies): One of two replicated, controlled studies in the UK found that 2-m grass margins had a greater species richness of butterflies than cropped field edges, but 6-m grass margins did not. The other study found that the species richness of butterflies was similar in grass margins and cropped field edges. Five replicated, site comparison studies (including one paired study) in the USA, the UK and Italy found that wider grass margins (up to 6 m wide) had a greater species richness or diversity of butterflies, macro-moths and micro-moths than narrower or conventional width margins, although one of these studies found that the species richness of macro-moths was similar in wide and conventional grass margins. Three of five replicated studies (including three randomized, controlled studies, one controlled study, and one site comparison study) in the UK and Sweden found that floristically enhanced grass buffers or wildflower strips had a greater species richness of butterflies than standard grass margins. The other two studies found that farms with floristically enhanced margins (along with other enhanced agri-environment scheme (AES) options) had a similar species richness of butterflies and moths to farms with standard grass margins (along with basic AES options) and farms with no grass margins or other AES options. One site comparison study in Sweden found that grass margins sown with legumes or a clover and grass ley had a higher species richness of butterflies and moths than uncultivated margins, but less than a species-rich pasture. One replicated study in the Netherlands found that the species richness of butterflies increased over time after the establishment of grass margins. One replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that disking or burning grass margins did not affect the species richness of butterflies. POPULATION RESPONSE (22 STUDIES) Abundance (21 studies): Three of four replicated, controlled studies in the UK found that grass margins had a higher abundance of butterflies than cropped field edges. The other study found that the abundance of gatekeepers on grass margins increased over four years after they were sown, but was only higher than cropped field edges at one of three farms after 2–4 years. Three of seven replicated, site comparison studies (including two paired studies) in the USA and the UK found that wider grass margins (up to 6 m wide) had a higher abundance of habitat-sensitive butterflies, macro-moths and micro-moths than narrower or conventional width margins. Two of these studies, and the other four studies, found that the abundance of disturbance-tolerant butterflies, macro-moths generally, and pale shining brown moths specifically, was similar in wide and conventional grass margins. Four replicated studies (including two randomized, controlled studies, one controlled study, and one site comparison study) in the UK and Sweden found that floristically enhanced grass buffers or wildflower strips had a higher abundance of butterflies than standard grass margins, uncultivated margins or margins sown with cereal crop. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies in the UK found that farms with floristically enhanced margins (along with other enhanced agri-environment scheme (AES) options) had a higher abundance of some butterflies and micro-moths, a similar abundance of macro-moths, but a lower abundance of other butterflies, than farms with standard grass margins (along with basic AES options) and farms with no grass margins or other AES options. One site comparison study in Sweden found that grass margins sown with legumes or a clover and grass ley had a higher abundance of butterflies and moths than uncultivated margins or a species-rich pasture. Two replicated, before-and-after studies (including one randomized, controlled study) in the Netherlands and the USA found that mowing, disking or burning grass margins did not affect the abundance of butterflies and moths generally, or diamondback moths specifically, but that disking increased the abundance of disturbance-tolerant butterflies. One replicated, paired, site comparison study in the UK found that field margins had a similar abundance of butterfly and moth caterpillars to beetle banks established in the middle of fields. Survival (1 study): One site comparison study in China found that the survival of marsh fritillary caterpillars in grass margins around lightly cultivated fields was lower, but survival of egg clusters similar, to in uncultivated, grazed meadows. BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Use (2 studies): One replicated, site comparison study in China found that grass margins around lightly cultivated fields were more likely to be occupied by marsh fritillary eggs and caterpillars than uncultivated, grazed meadows. One replicated, paired, site comparison study in France found that meadow brown butterflies used grass margins in a similar way to meadows. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3982https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3982Thu, 18 Aug 2022 11:38:08 +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