Study

Insect communities associated with beneficial insect habitat plants in North Carolina

  • Published source details Forehand L.M., Orr D.B. & Linker H.M. (2006) Insect communities associated with beneficial insect habitat plants in North Carolina. Environmental Entomology, 35, 1541-1549.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Plant nectar flower mixture/wildflower strips

Action Link
Butterfly and Moth Conservation
  1. Plant nectar flower mixture/wildflower strips

    A replicated, paired, controlled study in 2003 on an arable farm in North Carolina, USA (Forehand et al. 2006) found that plots sown with one of three commercial seed mixes had a higher abundance of adult moths than the other two mixes or single species plots, and all three mixes had a higher species richness of caterpillars than single species plots. Plots sown with “Border Patrol” seed mix were visited by more adult hawk moths (Sphingidae: 1.8 individuals/minute) and noctuid moths (Noctuidae: 2.1 individuals/minute) than plots sown with “Beneficial Insect Mix” or “Good Bug Blend” (hawk moths: 0.1; noctuid moths: 0.8–1.1 individuals/minute) or single species of cut flowers or herbs (hawk moths: 0.0; noctuid moths: 1.0–1.6 individuals/minute). The species richness of non-pest herbivores (including geometrid moth (Geometridae), brush-footed butterfly (Nymphalidae) and skipper (Hesperiidae) caterpillars), was similar in all three seed mixes (8 species/plot) and higher than in the single species plots (5–6 species/plot). In March 2003, seeds from three commercial mixes were separated and sown in a greenhouse, along with seeds of three cut flowers/herbs (fennel Foeniculum vulgare, common zinnia Zinnia elegans, cockscomb Celosia cristata). In May 2003, plants were transplanted to field plots (6.0 × 1.2–2.1 m), arranged in three blocks, in their original mixes and relative abundance. Dead plants were replaced for two weeks, and hand-weeded. Plots were separated by 1.5-m millet strips. All areas had been pesticide-free for ≥3 years. On eight days in June–August 2003, insects were collected with a D-Vac vacuum sampler, and two aerial nets, for 1 min/plot. On four nights in July–August 2003, moths were observed visiting each plot for one minute, three times/night, in the hour after dusk.

    (Summarised by: Andrew Bladon)

Output references
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