Protect in-field trees

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

Within open farmland, protecting remnant habitat features which provide vertical structure, such as in-field trees or forest fragments, may provide pockets of resources to butterflies and moths. In some cases, this may be enough to support small, transient populations, but it may also provide important stepping stones which allow individuals to move through an otherwise hostile landscape.

For studies on planting new trees, see “Plant in-field trees (e.g. copses)”.

Study locations

Key messages

One study evaluated the effects of protecting in-field trees on butterflies and moths. The study was in Sweden.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Sweden found that where more trees and trees of more species had been retained in pastures, butterfly species richness was higher, but richness was lower when a high proportion of those trees were large.

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, site comparison study in 1997 in 20 pastures in the Uppsala region, Sweden (Söderström et al. 2001) found that where more trees and trees of more species had been retained in pastures, butterfly species richness was higher, but richness was lower when a high proportion of those trees were large. There was higher butterfly species richness in pastures with more trees and with more species of tree. However, there was lower species richness when a greater proportion of the trees were large (>30 cm diameter at breast height). All data presented as model results. Butterflies were surveyed along the borders of a 100 m² square walking transect in 20 grazed semi-natural pastures, repeated 18 times/pasture in July 1997. Tree cover was assessed using maps, aerial photos and field surveys, and tree species and diameter were assessed in the field.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Söderström B., Svensson B., Vessby K. & Glimskär A. (2001) Plants, insects and birds in semi-natural pastures in relation to local habitat and landscape factors. Biodiversity and Conservation, 10, 1839-1863.

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
Pay farmers to cover the costs of conservation measures (as in agri-environment schemes or conservation incentives) Action Link	Evidence not assessed	32	Synopsis Link
Plant new hedges Action Link	Awaiting assessment	7	Synopsis Link
Manage hedgerows to benefit wildlife (e.g. no spray, gap-filling and laying) Action Link	Evidence not assessed	17	Synopsis Link