Restore or create heathland/shrubland

Overall effectiveness category Awaiting assessment
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

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

One study evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of restoring or creating heathland or shrubland. This study was in the UK.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

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.

POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

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, 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.

Please cite as:

Bladon A.J., Smith R.K. & Sutherland W.J. (2022) Butterfly and Moth Conservation: Global Evidence for the Effects of Interventions for butterflies and moths. Conservation Evidence Series Synopsis. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.