Maintain or create bare ground

Overall effectiveness category Evidence not assessed
Number of studies: 4
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

Some butterflies and moths show preferences for exposed areas of ground (e.g. Marschalek et al. 2017, Vogel et al. 2007), which warm up quicker than the surrounding vegetation and can be used for basking/sunning, although other species avoid it (Vogel et al. 2007). Exposed ground can also allow less competitive plants to re-establish, which butterflies and moths may rely on as caterpillar food or adult nectar sources (Howe et al. 2004). Bare ground can be created in a number of ways, including disking (Dollar et al. 2013), turf stripping (Howe et al. 2004) or sod cutting (Sedláková & Chytrý 1999), or by the impact of livestock (Elligsen et al. 1997) or wild mammals (de Schaetzen et al. 2018).

_{De Schaetzen F., van Langevelde F. & WallisDeVries M.F. (2018) The influence of wild boar (Sus scrofa) on microhabitat quality for the endangered butterfly Pyrgus malvae in the Netherlands. Journal of Insect Conservation, 22, 51–59.}

_{Dollar J.G., Riffell S.K. & Burger L.W. (2013) Effects of managing semi-natural grassland buffers on butterflies. Journal of Insect Conservation, 17, 577–590.}

_{Elligsen H., Beinlich B. & Plachter H. (1997) Effects of large-scale cattle grazing on populations of Coenonympha glycerion and Lasiommata megera (Lepidoptera: Satyridae). Journal of Insect Conservation, 1, 13–23.}

_{Howe M.A., Hinde D., Bennett D. & Palmer S. (2004) The conservation of the belted beauty Lycia zonaria britannica (Lepidoptera, Geometridae) in the United Kingdom. Journal of Insect Conservation, 8, 159–166.}

_{Marschalek D.A., Faulkner D.K. & Deutschman D.H. (2017) Livestock Grazing Shapes the Vegetation Structure and Subsequent Habitat Use by the Endangered Skipper Pyrgus ruralis lagunae (Lepidoptera: Hesperiidae), Environmental Entomology, 46, 445–453.}

_{Sedláková I. & Chytrý M. (1999) Regeneration patterns in a Central European dry heathland: effects of burning, sod-cutting and cutting. Plant Ecology, 143(1), 77–87.}

_{Vogel J.A., Debinski D.M., Koford R.R. & Miller J.R. (2007) Butterfly responses to prairie restoration through fire and grazing. Biological Conservation, 140, 78–90.}

Study locations

Key messages

Four studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of maintaining or creating bare ground. Two studies were in the UK, and one was in each of the Netherlands and the USA.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that after 1–2 years, grass field margins disked to create bare ground had a similar species richness of both grassland butterflies and disturbance-tolerant butterflies to undisturbed margins.

POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES)

Abundance (3 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that after 1–2 years, grass field margins disked to create bare ground had a higher abundance of disturbance-tolerant, but not grassland, butterflies to undisturbed margins. One replicated, site comparison study in the Netherlands found that Alcon large blue occupied a similar proportion of heathlands managed with sod cutting and unmanaged heathlands. However, the same study found that Alcon large blues were less likely to occur on heathlands where sod cutting and grazing were used together. One site comparison study in the UK found that a sand dune plot which had been stripped of turf and soil supported a translocated population of belted beauty moths, but a plot which had been strimmed and raked did not.

BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY)

Use (1 study): One replicated study in the UK reported that 2-3 years after bare ground plots were created, some were used by caterpillars or adult moths of one or more of the grey carpet, lunar yellow underwing, forester and marbled clover, but none by the basil thyme case-bearer.

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 site comparison study in 2000–2003 in a coastal sand dune in Merseyside, UK (Howe et al. 2004) reported that a plot stripped of turf and soil supported a translocated population of belted beauty moth Lycia zonaria britannica one year after release, but a plot that had been strimmed and raked did not. Two years after two grassland plots were cleared, and one year after eggs and caterpillars were released, eight adult moths (7 females, 1 male) were present in a plot which had been stripped of turf and soil, but no adults were present in a plot which had been strimmed and raked. In the summer of the release, caterpillars had been observed feeding in both plots. In winter 2000–2001, vegetation was removed from two 15 × 10 m plots within a 6.5-ha dune grassland. One plot was completely stripped of turf and soil to expose the bare sand, and the other was heavily strimmed to ground level, with cuttings and leaf litter raked off. Both plots were allowed to re-vegetate naturally. In early April 2002, three egg batches and 33 caterpillars were introduced to each plot, and in late April a further 10 caterpillars were added to the stripped plot. Caterpillars were observed in summer 2002, and adults were recorded in April 2003.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Howe M.A., Hinde D., Bennett D. & Palmer S. (2004) The conservation of the belted beauty Lycia zonaria britannica (Lepidoptera, Geometridae) in the United Kingdom. Journal of Insect Conservation, 8, 159-166.
A replicated, site comparison study in 1998–1999 on 68 wet heathland sites in the Netherlands (WallisDeVries 2004) found that sod cutting to create bare ground did not increase occupancy by Alcon large blue Maculinea alcon. Alcon large blue occupancy at sites with sod cutting (47%) was similar to sites with no management (41%), but was lower when sod cutting and grazing were applied together (26%). Sixty-eight wet heathland sites in the Netherlands where Alcon large blue was known to have occurred since 1990 were selected. Management information for the last five years was obtained by sending questionnaires to land managers. Sod cutting had been used at 57% of sites, normally covering >100 m²/site (range: 10 m² to 2 ha). From mid-July–early September 1998–1999, Alcon large blue eggs were counted in each of three 10 × 10 m plots/site to determine butterfly presence in the plot.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Wallis-DeVries M. (2004) A quantitative conservation approach for the endangered butterfly, Maculinea alcon. Conservation Biology, 18, 489-499.
A replicated study in 2008–2011 in 15 grassland sites in Norfolk and Suffolk, UK (Hearle and Ellis 2012) reported that two to three years after bare ground plots were created using five methods, the adult moths or caterpillars of one or more of the grey carpet Lithostege griseata, lunar yellow underwing Noctua orbona, forester Adscita statices and marbled clover Heliothis viriplaca were found on 7–27% of plots, but the basil thyme case-bearer Coleophora tricolor was found on none. Results were not tested for statistical significance. Either the adults or larvae of one or more of the grey carpet, lunar yellow underwing, forester and marbled clover were recorded on 28% of rotovation plots, 66% of forest ploughing plots, 83% of agricultural ploughing plots, 75% of disc harrowing plots and 73% of turf stripping plots. Each of these species was found on 7–27% of plots, however the basil thyme case-bearer Coleophora tricolor was not found on any of the plots. See paper for details for individual species. In November 2008–December 2009, fifty-nine bare ground plots were created across 15 sites using one of the five following techniques: rotovating (29 plots at 13 sites), forest ploughing (9 plots at 5 sites), agricultural ploughing (6 plots at 2 sites), disc harrowing (4 plots at 3 sites) and turf stripping (11 plots at 4 sites). Most were 150 m long and 3 m wide but some were larger (dimensions not given). All plots were surveyed for moths in 2009 and 2010 using daytime walking transects (twice annually in April–June and July–September) and night-time torchlight vegetation surveys (November–March). Half of plots were surveyed again in 2011.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Hearle S. & Ellis S. (2012) Specialist moths in Breckland: creating bare ground habitat on a landscape-scale. Pages 36-41 in: S. Ellis, N.A. Bourn & C.R. Bulman (eds.) Landscape-scale conservation for butterflies and moths: lessons from the UK. Butterfly Conservation.
A replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after study in 2007–2009 on a mixed farm in Mississippi, USA (Dollar et al. 2013) found that disking grass field margins to create bare ground increased the abundance, but not species richness, of disturbance-tolerant butterflies without affecting the abundance or species richness of grassland butterflies. The abundance of 18 disturbance-tolerant butterfly species was higher both one (10–14 individuals) and two (18 individuals) years after disking than on undisturbed (4–14 individuals) margins. However, the species richness of disturbance-tolerant butterflies was similar between disked (7–9 species) and undisturbed (6–8 species) margins. Both the abundance and species richness of 14 grassland butterfly species remained similar in disked (abundance: 0.6–1.4 individuals; richness: 2 species) and undisturbed margins (abundance: 0.5–1.3; richness: 1–3 species). See paper for details of individual species. In spring 2004, grass margins were sown with a seed mix of common prairie species. Ten fields (containing 28 margins) were randomly assigned to one of two treatments: disking and no disturbance. Within each disking field, one margin was disked in autumn 2007, and a different margin was disked in autumn 2008. From June–August 2007–2009, butterflies were surveyed six times/year along three 50-m transects in the centre of each margin.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Dollar J.G., Riffell S.K. & Burger L.W. (2013) Effects of managing semi-natural grassland buffers on butterflies. Journal of Insect Conservation, 17, 577-590.

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
Coppice woodland Action Link	Evidence not assessed	10	Synopsis Link
Clear or open patches in forests Action Link	Evidence not assessed	14	Synopsis Link
Cease mowing on grassland to allow early succession Action Link	Evidence not assessed	16	Synopsis Link