Study

Impacts of selective logging management on butterflies in the Amazon

  • Published source details Montejo-Kovacevich G., Hethcoat M.G., Lim F.K.S., Marsh C.J., Bonfantti D., Peres C.A. & Edwards D.P. (2018) Impacts of selective logging management on butterflies in the Amazon. Biological Conservation, 225, 1-9.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Use selective or reduced impact logging instead of conventional logging

Action Link
Butterfly and Moth Conservation
  1. Use selective or reduced impact logging instead of conventional logging

    A replicated, site comparison study in 2015–2016 in 40 tropical forest sites in Rondônia, Brazil (Montejo-Kovacevich et al. 2018) found that intermediate intensity reduced impact logging (RIL) produced higher fruit-feeding butterfly (Nymphalidae) abundance, but not species richness, compared to low or high intensity RIL. Three to five years after logging, RIL sites logged at intermediate intensity had a higher abundance of butterflies (7.7 individuals/site/48 hours) than RIL sites logged at low (2.9 individuals/site/48 hours) or high (3.0 individuals/site/48 hours) intensity. Species richness was similar at intermediate (1.9 species/site/48 hours), low (1.7 species/site/48 hours) and high (1.7 species/site/48 hours) intensity RIL sites. However, community composition at logged sites was different to pristine forest (data presented as model results). From 2011–2012, reduced impact logging was conducted at 40 sites (>100 m apart, >250 m from roads or rivers). All timber trees >40 cm diameter were mapped prior to logging, and pre-felling vine cutting and directional felling were used to minimize disturbance. Logging intensity ranged from 0 (low) to 36.9 (high) m3 timber/ha (0–6 trees/ha), with intermediate logging at 18.6 m3 timber/ha. In the 2015 and 2016 dry seasons, fruit-feeding butterflies were sampled in 50-m radius plots at 40 logged sites and 20 pristine forest sites. Three baited cylindrical traps/plot were suspended 15–25 m apart, 1 m above the ground, and the surrounding undergrowth was cleared. Traps were open for 12 consecutive days, and visited every 48 hours to replace bait and record butterflies.

    (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 19

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 Programme Red List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Bern wood Supporting Conservation Leaders National Biodiversity Network Sustainability Dashboard Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx British trust for ornithology Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Butterfly Conservation People trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust