Study

Threatened herbivorous insects maintained by long-term traditional management practices in semi-natural grasslands

  • Published source details Uchida K., Takahashi S., Shinohara T. & Ushimaru A. (2016) Threatened herbivorous insects maintained by long-term traditional management practices in semi-natural grasslands. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 221, 156-162.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Use rotational mowing

Action Link
Butterfly and Moth Conservation

Cease mowing on grassland to allow early succession

Action Link
Butterfly and Moth Conservation

Use rotational burning

Action Link
Butterfly and Moth Conservation
  1. Use rotational mowing

    A replicated, site comparison study in 2012–2013 in 12 semi-natural grasslands in Nagano Prefecture, Japan (Uchida et al. 2016) found that meadows managed by traditional rotational mowing and burning had a higher species richness and diversity of butterflies than annually mown, annually burned or abandoned meadows. In rotationally managed meadows, the diversity and species richness of threatened (6–7 species/meadow) and common (10–12 species/meadow) butterflies was higher than in annually mown (threatened: 3; common: 4 species/meadow), annually burned (threatened: 2–3; common: 6 species/meadow) or abandoned meadows (threatened: 1–2; common: 1–2 species/meadow) (diversity data presented as model results). Three meadows were managed traditionally: each year half of the meadow was burned in April and mown in September, while the other half was unmanaged, and management rotated each year. An additional three meadows had been mown annually in April or August for 8–9 years, three meadows had been burned annually for 7–13 years and three meadows had been abandoned (unmanaged) for 6–13 years. From May–September 2012–2013, butterflies were surveyed monthly on three 5 × 30 m plots/meadow.

    (Summarised by: Andrew Bladon)

  2. Cease mowing on grassland to allow early succession

    A replicated, site comparison study in 2012–2013 in 12 semi-natural grasslands in Nagano Prefecture, Japan (Uchida et al. 2016) found that abandoned meadows had a lower species richness and diversity of butterflies than meadows managed by traditional rotational burning and mowing. In abandoned meadows, the diversity and species richness of threatened (1–2 species/meadow) and common (1–2 species/meadow) butterflies was lower than in rotationally managed meadows (threatened: 6–7; common: 10–12 species/meadow), but similar to annually mown (threatened: 3; common: 4 species/meadow) and annually burned meadows (threatened: 2–3; common: 6 species/meadow) (diversity data presented as model results). Three meadows had been abandoned (unmanaged) for 6–13 years. Three meadows were managed traditionally: each year half of the meadow was burned in April and mown in September, while the other half was unmanaged, and management rotated each year. An additional three meadows had been mown annually in April or August for 8–9 years and three meadows had been burned annually for 7–13 years. From May–September 2012–2013, butterflies were surveyed monthly on three 5 × 30 m plots/meadow.

    (Summarised by: Andrew Bladon)

  3. Use rotational burning

    A replicated, site comparison study in 2012–2013 in 12 semi-natural grasslands in Nagano Prefecture, Japan (Uchida et al. 2016) found that meadows managed by traditional rotational burning and mowing had a higher species richness and diversity of butterflies than annually burned, annually mown or abandoned meadows. In rotationally managed meadows, the diversity and species richness of threatened (6–7 species/meadow) and common (10–12 species/meadow) butterflies was higher than in annually burned (threatened: 2–3; common: 6 species/meadow), annually mown (threatened: 3; common: 4 species/meadow) or abandoned meadows (threatened: 1–2; common: 1–2 species/meadow) (diversity data presented as model results). Three meadows were managed traditionally: each year half of the meadow was burned in April and mown in September, while the other half was unmanaged, and management rotated each year. An additional three meadows had been burned annually for 7–13 years, three meadows had been mown annually in April or August for 8–9 years and three meadows had been abandoned (unmanaged) for 6–13 years. From May–September 2012–2013, butterflies were surveyed monthly on three 5 × 30 m plots/meadow.

    (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