Restore or create heathland/shrubland

Overall effectiveness category Evidence not assessed
Number of studies: 3
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

The loss of heathland or shrubland may occur due to a range of factors, including too many grazing animals inhibiting regeneration of shrubs, too few grazing animals or fire suppression leading to reversion to woodland, or invasion by non-native species. Shrubland restoration or creation may benefit butterflies and moths associated with the habitat.

Habitats within this action include dry heathland, shrubland and moorland. For studies on restoring wet heathland and raised bogs, see “Restore or create peatland”. For studies on restoring dry grassland, see “Restore or create grassland/savannas”.

This action includes studies where either multiple actions have been used to restore or create heathland or shrubland, or where the specific action used is not clear. For studies of specific actions for creating, restoring, or managing heathland and shrubland, see “Replant native vegetation”, “Employ areas of semi-natural habitat for rough grazing (includes salt marsh, lowland heath, bog, fen)”, “Manage heathland by cutting” and “Natural system modifications – Use prescribed fire to maintain or restore disturbance in grasslands or other open habitats”.

Study locations

Key messages

Three studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of restoring or creating heathland or shrubland. Two studies were in the UK and one was in the Netherlands.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES)

Community composition (1 study): One replicated, paired, site comparison study in the UK found that the moth community on restored moorland was more similar to that on established heather moorland than on degraded moorland.
Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the Netherlands found that in heathlands restored by topsoil removal butterfly species richness was lower than in the surrounding landscape.

POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES)

Abundance (2 studies): One replicated, site comparison study in the Netherlands found that in heathlands restored by topsoil removal butterfly species richness was lower than in the surrounding landscape but at restored sites abundance was higher in areas where heather litter had also been spread than where it had not. One study in the UK reported that a population of silver-studded blue butterflies released into a site which was managed for heathland restoration increased in abundance over 11 years.

BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY)

Use (1 study): One study in the UK reported that a population of silver-studded blue butterflies released into a site where heathland was being restored expanded its range beyond its initial release area.

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, paired, site comparison study in 2003 on eight moorlands in northern England and Scotland, UK (Littlewood et al. 2006) found that the moth community on restored moorland was more similar to that on established heather moorland than on degraded moorland. Compared to degraded moorland (0%) and established heather moorland (100%), restored moorland sites had moth communities that were 54–95% similar to established sites 6–13 years after restoration commenced. Sites restored by grazing exclusion were 63–95% similar to established sites 6–13 years after restoration, while sites restored by herbicide application and re-seeding were 54–75% similar to established sites 8–11 years after restoration (statistical significance not assessed). Restoration of eight moors commenced from 1990–1997. On four moors, restoration was conducted by grazing exclusion. At the other four moors, herbicide application and reseeding was used, sometimes with burning of dead vegetation and scarification of the ground. On each moor, 18 sample locations were established over 1–4 km: six each in restored sites (recreated dominance of heather Calluna vulgaris), degraded sites (acid grassland dominated by purple moor-grass Molinia caerulea or matgrass Nardus stricta), and established heather moorland. On 44 nights from June–September 2003, moths were caught in 2–3 Skinner light traps/night in different habitats, and identified to species at dawn.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Littlewood N.A., Dennis P., Pakeman R.J. & Woodin S.J. (2006) Moorland restoration aids the reassembly of associated phytophagous insects. Biological Conservation, 132, 395-404.
A replicated, site comparison in 2002–2003 in eight restored heathlands in Groningen, Friesland and Drenthe, the Netherlands (Wallis De Vries and Enns, 2010) found that butterfly abundance and species richness was lower in heathlands restored by topsoil removal than in the surrounding landscape, but abundance was higher in an area where heather litter had also been spread than where it had not. There was lower abundance and species richness of both heathland specialist and generalist butterflies in the areas restored through topsoil removal (abundance: specialist = 4, generalist = 14; species richness: specialist = 3, generalist = 5) than in the surrounding 1 km² (abundance: specialist = 5, generalist = 16; species richness: specialist = 13, generalist = 12). At a site with some heather litter spreading as well, there was higher abundance of specialist and generalist species where the heather had been spread (specialist = 39, generalist = 46). than where it had not (specialist = 5, generalist = 32). See paper for details of individual species. In 1990–1994, up to 50 cm of topsoil was removed from eight former agricultural sites to restore them to heathland. Heather cuttings were spread on the ground at part of one site. Five restoration sites had 12–40 ha of heathland in the surrounding 1 km², and three were surrounded only by agricultural land. In April–September 2002–2003, butterflies were surveyed at each site along walking transects of >500 m, with one transect in each restored site and one in the corresponding surrounding 1 km²habitat (heathland for five and agricultural land for three), resulting in 16 transects which were surveyed at least four times annually. At the site with heather spreading half the transect was within the spreading area and half outside it.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
WallisDeVries M.F. & Ens S.H. (2010) Effects of habitat quality and isolation on the colonization of restored heathlands by butterflies. Restoration Ecology, 18, 390-398.
A study in 2007–2018 in a heathland in Suffolk, UK (Parker, 2018) reported that a population of silver-studded blue Plebejus argus translocated into a site with ongoing habitat management, survived for at least 11 years, increased in number and expanded its range. The highest single day count increased from 60 butterflies released in 2007 to 160 in 2013. Along a fixed transect, the annual butterfly ‘population index’ was 41 a year after release and 662 ten years later. Authors report that the area the butterflies were recorded in increased over time. In 2007, sixty butterflies were translocated to Blaxhall Common from two existing colonies in Suffolk. From 2007–2018, areas of bell heather Erica cinerea were forage harvested to create young patches, silver birch was controlled and areas of gorse Ulex spp. and other scrub were cleared. For 2007–2013 a daily peak count figure was provided from fixed point counts and for 2008–2018 a population index figure was calculated from recording butterflies along a fixed transect (number of counts and transects/year not given).
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Parker R. (2018) Still working at re-establishment of the silver-studded blue Plebejus argus – real progress from 2007 to 2018. British Journal of Entomology and Natural History, 31, 217-223.

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
Maintain or create bare ground Action Link	Evidence not assessed	4	Synopsis Link
Cease mowing on grassland to allow early succession Action Link	Evidence not assessed	16	Synopsis Link
Restore or create heathland/shrubland Action Link	Evidence not assessed	3	Synopsis Link