Study

What limits the spread of two congeneric butterfly species after their reintroduction: quality or spatial arrangement of habitat?

  • Published source details van Langevelde F. & Wynhoff I. (2009) What limits the spread of two congeneric butterfly species after their reintroduction: quality or spatial arrangement of habitat?. Animal Conservation, 12, 540-548.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Translocate to re-establish populations in known or believed former range

Action Link
Butterfly and Moth Conservation
  1. Translocate to re-establish populations in known or believed former range

    A study in 1990–2000 in a wet grassland reserve in Noord-Brabant, the Netherlands (van Langevelde & Wynhoff 2009) reported that translocated scarce large blue Maculinea teleius and dusky large blue Maculinea nausithous populations increased in size and survived for 10 years. Results were not tested for statistical significance. Five to seven years after the release of 86 scarce large blue, the population consisted of ≥126–296 individuals/year. Five to six years after the release of 70 dusky large blue, the population consisted of ≥592–751 individuals/year. Ten years after reintroduction, the scarce large blue was only found at the release site, despite having occupied another site shortly after reintroduction. The dusky large blue had colonized two other sites (a railway embankment and a road verge), but was no longer present at the release site. In July 1990, seventy dusky large blue (22 males, 48 females) and 86 scarce large blue (33 males, 53 females) were caught in the Wisla Valley, Poland. Butterflies were placed in groups of three in paper boxes in a car-refrigerator, driven to Moerputten in two days, and released into a 116-ha reserve on a warm evening. Details of the translocation taken from Wynhoff (1998). In most years from 1990–1997, butterflies were captured and marked to estimate population size. From 1991–2000, occupied sites were visited at least once/week during each species’ flight period, and after the peak period all road verges and ditch sides were searched for butterflies.

    Wynhoff I. (1998) Lessons from the reintroduction of Maculinea teleius and M. nausithous in the Netherlands. Journal of Insect Conservation, 2, 47–57.

    (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