Remove, control or exclude invertebrate herbivores

Overall effectiveness category Evidence not assessed
Number of studies: 1
Share Tweet Email

View assessment score

How is the evidence assessed?

Effectiveness

not assessed
Certainty

not assessed
Harms

not assessed

Calculating overall effectiveness category

Background information and definitions

Outbreaks of invertebrate herbivores can cause problems for other species, including butterflies and moths, through the competition for food, induced food plant resistance, increased food plant mortality, or increases in predator, parasitoid or pathogen abundance (Scriber 2004). This intervention includes studies investigating the impact of attempting to exclude, remove, or control the density of invertebrate herbivores to allow vegetation to recover, for the benefit of butterfly or moth populations.

For studies on the control of vertebrate herbivores, see “Remove, control or exclude vertebrate herbivores”.

^{Scriber J.M. (2004) Non-target impacts of forest defoliator management options: Decision for no spraying may have worse impacts on non-target Lepidoptera than Bacillus thuringiensis insecticides. Journal of Insect Conservation, 8, 241–261.}

Study locations

Key messages

One study evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of removing, controlling or excluding invertebrate herbivores. The study was in the UK.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

Abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the UK found that at sites fenced to exclude grazing animals there was a higher density of pearl-bordered fritillary butterflies than at unfenced sites.

BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

A replicated, site comparison study in 1995–1998 in 28 woodland sites in Argyll, UK (Feber et al 2011) found that at sites fenced to exclude grazing animals there was a higher density of pearl-bordered fritillary butterflies Boloria Euphrosyne than at unfenced sites. In sites within woodland that were fenced to exclude deer there was a higher density of pearl-bordered fritillaries (6.8 butterflies/hectare) than at sites where deer were not excluded (3.7 butterflies/ha). In woodland edge sites where fencing excluded deer, there was a higher density of pearl-bordered fritillaries (10.7 butterflies/ha) than where deer were not excluded and sheep were grazing (0.1 butterflies/ha). In May and June 1998 mark-release-recapture surveys of pearl-bordered fritillaries were conducted at the 28 sites of woodland and woodland edge in Lochawe. Within this area were two woods designated in 1995–1996 under the Woodland Grant Scheme and fenced to exclude deer (6 sampling sites in woodland, 12 at woodland edge). These were compared to other woodland sites without deer fencing (3 sites) and woodland edge sites without fencing which were also sheep grazed (7 sites).
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Feber R.E., Brereton T.M., Warren M.S. & Oates M. (2011) The impacts of deer on woodland butterflies: the good, the bad and the complex. Forestry, 74, 271-276.

Please cite as:

Bladon A.J., Bladon, E. K., Smith R.K. & Sutherland W.J. (2023) Butterfly and Moth Conservation: Global Evidence for the Effects of Interventions for butterflies and moths. Conservation Evidence Series Synopsis. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Butterfly and Moth Conservation

Related Actions

Actions	Effectiveness	Studies	Category
Remove, control or exclude vertebrate herbivores Action Link	Awaiting assessment	10	Synopsis Link
Increase biosecurity checks Action Link	No evidence found (no assessment)	0	Synopsis Link
Remove or control non-native or problematic plants Action Link	Evidence not assessed	9	Synopsis Link