Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Introduce legislation to control the use of hazardous substances We found no studies that evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of introducing legislation to control the use of hazardous substances. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3892https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3892Tue, 09 Aug 2022 13:02:21 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use fencing to reduce pesticide and nutrient run-off into margins, waterways and ponds We found no studies that evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of using fencing to reduce pesticide and nutrient run-off into margins, waterways and ponds. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3893https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3893Tue, 09 Aug 2022 13:04:52 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide buffer strips to reduce pesticide and nutrient run-off into margins, waterways and ponds One study evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of providing buffer strips to reduce pesticide and nutrient run-off into margins, waterways and ponds. This study was in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, paired, site comparison study in the UK found that margins next to water bodies managed with restrictions on fertilizer and pesticide use (as well as restrictions on mowing and grazing) had a similar species richness of moths to conventionally managed margins. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired, site comparison study in the UK found that margins next to water bodies managed with restrictions on fertilizer and pesticide use (as well as restrictions on mowing and grazing) had a greater abundance of moths than conventionally managed margins. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3894https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3894Tue, 09 Aug 2022 13:15:49 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use genetically modified crops which produce pesticide to replace conventional pesticide application          One study evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of using genetically modified crops which produce pesticide to replace conventional pesticide application. This study was in a laboratory. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): One controlled study in a laboratory found that pollen from genetically modified maize expressing the Bacillus thuringiensis kurstaki (Btk) toxin against European corn borer did not reduce the survival of eastern tiger swallowtail or spicebush swallowtail caterpillars more than pollen from non-genetically modified maize. Condition (1 study): One controlled study in a laboratory found that pollen from genetically modified maize expressing the Bacillus thuringiensis kurstaki (Btk) toxin against European corn borer did not reduce the growth of eastern tiger swallowtail or spicebush swallowtail caterpillars more than pollen from non-genetically modified maize. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3895https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3895Tue, 09 Aug 2022 13:21:11 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restrict certain pesticides or other agricultural chemicals Five studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of restricting the use of certain pesticides or other agricultural chemicals. Three studies were in the UK, and one was in each of Germany and Italy. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (3 studies): Two replicated, site comparison studies in the UK and Italy found that arable field margins and rice field banks which were not sprayed with the herbicide glyphosate had a greater species richness of butterflies than margins and banks sprayed once/year for 1–3 years. One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the UK found that grass strips which were not sprayed with the herbicide fluazifop-P-butyl had a similar species richness of butterflies to strips sprayed once. POPULATION RESPONSE (5 STUDIES) Abundance (5 studies): Three replicated, site comparison studies (including two randomized studies) in the UK and Italy found that arable field margins and rice field banks which were not sprayed with the herbicide glyphosate had a higher total abundance of butterflies, and of meadow brown and large copper specifically, than margins and banks sprayed once/year for 1–3 years. One controlled study in Germany found that white campion plants sprayed with water had a higher abundance of lychnis moth eggs and caterpillars after one night than plants sprayed with the insecticide Karate Zeon. One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the UK found that grass strips which were not sprayed with the herbicide fluazifop-P-butyl had a similar abundance of butterflies to strips sprayed once. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3896https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3896Tue, 09 Aug 2022 13:23:40 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce fertilizer, pesticide or herbicide use generally Eleven studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of reducing fertilizer, pesticide or herbicide use generally. Three studies were in the UK, two were in each of the USA and Germany, one was in each of Spain, Mexico and Switzerland, and one was a systematic review across Europe. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (10 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (10 studies): Eight studies (including one replicated study, two controlled studies, one randomized study, five site comparison studies, and one systematic review) in the USA, Europe, the UK, Spain, Mexico and Switzerland found that orchards, crop edges, farms, vineyards, replanted Douglas fir stands, coffee plantations and agricultural landscapes managed with less frequent, reduced or no pesticide, herbicide, fertilizer or unspecified chemical input (sometimes along with other agri-environment scheme options or less intensive management) had a greater species richness of adult butterflies and moths, or caterpillars (in one case along with other leaf-eating arthropods), than areas with more frequent or conventional chemical applications. However, one of these studies found that species richness was not affected by the number of pesticide applications in the year of study, only in the previous three years, and another of the studies also found that vineyards managed with reduced insecticide and herbicide application had a similar species richness of moths to conventionally managed vineyards. Two replicated studies (including one randomized, controlled study and one site comparison study) in the UK and Germany found that unfertilized grassland had a similar species richness of butterflies and moths, but greater species richness of specialist moths, to fertilized grassland. POPULATION RESPONSE (9 STUDIES) Abundance (9 studies): Six studies (including one replicated study, one controlled study, one randomized study, four site comparison studies, and one systematic review) in Europe, the UK, Germany, Mexico and Switzerland found that crop edges, farms, a hay meadow, coffee plantations and agricultural landscapes managed with less frequent, reduced or no pesticide, insecticide, fungicide, herbicide, fertilizer or unspecified chemical input (sometimes along with other agri-environment scheme options or less intensive management) had a higher abundance of adult butterflies and moths, or caterpillars, than areas with more frequent or conventional chemical applications. However, one of these studies found that abundance was not affected by the number of pesticide applications in the year of study, only in the previous three years, and another of these studies also found that a hay meadow with no herbicide applications had a similar abundance of caterpillars to a meadow where herbicide was used, and a meadow with no fertilizer applications had a lower abundance of caterpillars than a meadow where fertilizer was applied in one of two sampling sessions. Three replicated studies (including two randomized, controlled studies and one site comparison study) in the UK, Germany and the USA found that unfertilized grassland and replanted Douglas fir stands with limited or no herbicide applications had a similar abundance of adult butterflies and caterpillars, and adult moths, to fertilized grassland and stands with more herbicide applications. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Germany found that unfertilized or lightly fertilized grasslands were preferred to heavily fertilized grasslands by 7 out of 58 species of moth, but 12 of 58 species preferred more heavily fertilized grasslands. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3897https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3897Tue, 09 Aug 2022 13:43:37 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Leave headlands in fields unsprayed (conservation headlands) Six studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of leaving headlands in fields unsprayed. Four studies were in the UK, and two were in the Netherlands. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (2 studies): Two replicated, paired, controlled studies in the UK and the Netherlands found that unsprayed headlands in arable fields had a greater species richness of butterflies than headlands sprayed with herbicide and insecticide. POPULATION RESPONSE (5 STUDIES) Abundance (5 studies): Four of five replicated, controlled studies (including one randomized study) in the UK and the Netherlands found that unsprayed headlands in arable and pasture fields had a greater abundance of butterflies and caterpillars than headlands sprayed with herbicide and insecticide. The other study found that unsprayed headlands in arable fields had a similar abundance of caterpillars to headlands sprayed with herbicide. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in the UK found that large white, small white and green-veined white butterflies spent more time in unsprayed arable headlands than adjacent hedgerows, but more time in the hedgerows when adjacent headlands were sprayed with herbicide. The same study found that gatekeepers spent more time in hedgerows than headlands regardless of whether the headlands were unsprayed or sprayed. Behaviour change (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in the UK found that large white, small white and green-veined white butterflies spent more time feeding and interacting, or had slower flight speeds, in unsprayed arable headlands than in headlands sprayed with herbicide. However, the same study found that male gatekeepers spend less time feeding and interacting, and had faster flight speeds, in unsprayed headlands than in sprayed headlands. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3898https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3898Tue, 09 Aug 2022 14:23:30 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Convert to organic farming Thirteen studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of converting to organic farming. Six studies were in Sweden, three were in the UK and one was in each of Canada, Switzerland, Germany and Taiwan. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (13 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (13 studies): Seven of 11 replicated, site comparison studies (including five paired studies) in Sweden, the UK, Canada, Switzerland, Germany and Taiwan found that organic arable farms had a greater species richness of butterflies, burnet moths and all moths than conventionally managed farms. However, three of these studies only found this in intensively managed not in more diverse landscapes,only in the first of three study years, and in farms managed organically for <6 years but not 15–23 years. Four of the studies found that organic arable and mixed farms had a similar species richness of macro-moths and butterflies to conventionally managed farms. Two of these studies also found that on organic and conventionally managed farms within a landscape with a high proportion of organic farms there was higher species richness of butterflies and burnet moths than either type of farm in a landscape with a high proportion of conventional farms. One before-and-after study in the UK found that within 4 years after a mixed farm converted to organic management (along with increasing the proportion of grassland and reducing grazing intensity) the species richness of large moths increased. One replicated, site comparison study in Sweden found that organic mixed farms had a more consistent species richness of butterflies across the farm, but a similar consistency through the summer and between years, compared to conventional farms. POPULATION RESPONSE (12 STUDIES) Abundance (12 studies): Seven of 11 replicated, site comparison studies (including five paired studies) in Sweden, the UK, Canada, Switzerland, Germany and Taiwan found that organic arable farms had a greater abundance of butterflies, burnet moths, and all moths, than conventionally managed farms, and that butterfly abundance increased with time since farms had been converted to organic management. However, three of these studies only found this in intensively managed not in more diverse landscapes, and in farms managed organically for <6 years but not 15–23 years. One of these studies also found that on organic and conventionally managed farms within a landscape with a high proportion of organic farms there was higher abundance of butterflies than either type of farm in a landscape with a high proportion of conventional farms. The other four found that organic arable and mixed farms had a similar abundance of macro-moths and butterflies to conventionally managed farms. One before-and-after study in the UK found that within 4 years after a mixed farm converted to organic management (along with increasing the proportion of grassland and reducing grazing intensity) the total abundance of large moths, and the abundance of lunar underwing moths and 5 out of 23 butterfly species, increased, but the abundance of two butterfly species decreased. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3907https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3907Tue, 09 Aug 2022 18:07:43 +0100
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
For a full list of, and information about, our champions:
All Evidence Champions
About our champions, why and how to become one:
Become an Evidence Champion

This website uses Cookies

We use limited Cookies to run the site and to analyse our traffic (none for site vendors). By using this site, you will be providing your consent to our use of Cookies.

Accept & continue