Restore or create wetlands and floodplains

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    not assessed
  • Certainty
    not assessed
  • Harms
    not assessed

Study locations

Key messages

  • Three studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of restoring or creating wetlands and floodplains. Two studies were in the USA and one was in Sweden.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

  • Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Sweden found that wetland creation increased macroinvertebrate diversity (including butterflies and moths), and that species richness increased with wetland age and was similar to mature ponds.

POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES)

  • Abundance (1 study): One site comparison study in the USA found that wetland prairie restored by seeding willow dock and seasonal flooding had a higher abundance of great copper eggs than degraded, unflooded prairie.
  • Survival (1 study): One site comparison study in the USA found that the survival of great copper eggs and caterpillars was lower in wetland prairie restored by planting native seed mixes and flooding annually than in degraded, unflooded prairie.

BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY)

  • Use (1 study): One site comparison study in the USA found that wetland prairie restored by planting native seed mixes and flooding annually was used more by adult great copper than degraded, unflooded prairie.

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

  1. A site comparison study in 2004–2005 in three wetland prairies in Oregon, USA (Severns et al. 2006, same experimental set up as 3) found that restored wetland prairies were used by adult great copper Lycaena xanthoides more than degraded prairies, but egg survival was lower in restored areas. In two restored wetlands, the proportion of marked butterflies which were recaptured in the area (26 out of 32 butterflies) was higher than at an unrestored site (3 out of 16 butterflies). However, the survival of eggs to large caterpillars in restored, flooded sites (2 out of 84 eggs) was lower than in unrestored, unflooded sites (7 out of 46 eggs). In the late 1990s, two wetland prairies (16–26 ha) were partially restored by planting a wetland prairie vernal pool native seed mix, and flooded annually. Unrestored parts of both sites, and a third, 76-ha, unrestored site, remained dominated by non-native grasses and did not flood. From late summer 2004–June 2005, eggs on 24 willow dock Rumex salicifolius plants in either restored, flooded areas or unrestored, unflooded areas, were revisited monthly to record survival to large caterpillars. From July–August 2005, every 3–4 days, butterflies were caught, marked, released and recaptured in a 1–2.9 ha area with a high density of willow dock at each site.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A replicated, site comparison study in 2004 in a lowland agricultural region in southwest Sweden (Thiere et al. 2009) found that wetland creation increased macroinvertebrate diversity, including butterflies and moths. From 0–8 years after creation, wetlands contained 6–51 aquatic macroinvertebrate species, and the estimated addition to regional species richness ranged from 1–33 species/created wetland. Species richness increased with wetland age (data presented as model results). Species richness in created wetlands (32 species/pond; 176 species total) was similar to existing mature ponds (37 species/pond; 178 species total). From 1996–2004, about 300 ha of wetlands (each <2 ha) were created in natural depressions of former pasture, crop or fallow land by soil excavations and damming existing waterways or drainage systems. In three sub-regions with low, moderate and high densities of created wetlands, 15% (i.e. 13, 8, and 15 wetlands) were surveyed in May 2004, by sweeping a D-shaped hand-net twice at 15 points along each wetland margin. Sampled wetlands were all permanent, flow-through water bodies. Ten mature ponds (>50-years-old) in the region had been sampled at intervals in April 1996–2003.

    Study and other actions tested
  3. A site comparison study in 2007 in two wetland prairies in Oregon, USA (Severns 2011, same experimental set up as 1) found that great copper Lycaena xanthoides laid more eggs on willow dock Rumex salicifolius plants in restored, seasonally flooded wetlands than in degraded, unflooded areas, but egg survival was lower in restored wetlands than in unflooded habitats. In restored, seasonally flooded wetlands, great copper eggs were present on more of the available willow dock plants (10 out of 14 plants) than in degraded, unflooded areas where plants were surrounded by tall, non-native grasses (6 out of 37 plants), and the number of eggs/plant was higher (restored: 0–9 eggs/plant; degraded: 0–3 eggs/plant). However, the authors noted that egg survival was lower in flooded areas than in unflooded habitat (see 1 - Severns et al. 2006). In the late 1990s, several thousand willow dock were seeded in two 0.8-ha, seasonally flooded, restored wetlands. Each restored area was surrounded by degraded, unrestored, unflooded habitat. In August 2007, every willow dock plant at each site was searched for great copper eggs. Plants were categorized as growing in either flooded or unflooded habitat.

    Study and other actions tested
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

Butterfly and Moth Conservation

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Butterfly and Moth Conservation
Butterfly and Moth Conservation

Butterfly and Moth Conservation - Published 2023

Butterfly and Moth Synopsis

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