Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Translocate to re-establish populations in known or believed former range Sixteen studies evaluated the effects of translocating butterflies and moths to re-establish populations within their former range. Seven studies were in the UK, two were reviews across the UK and Ireland, two studies were in Finland and one study was in each of the USA, Australia, the Netherlands, Belgium and the Netherlands and the UK and Sweden. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (16 STUDIES) Abundance (13 studies): Eight studies in the UK, Finland, the USA, Australia, the Netherlands and Belgium and the Netherlands reported that translocated populations of adult butterflies and Fisher’s estuarine moth eggs persisted for 2–12 years and increased in abundance (sometimes in areas where coppicing, selective felling, planting, fencing, host plant translocation, invasive plant removal, sheep grazing, scrub clearance or unspecified habitat restoration were conducted before or after release). Three studies (including two replicated studies) in the UK and Finland reported that some translocated populations of silver-studded blue and clouded Apollo adults, and belted beauty moth eggs and caterpillars, persisted for 1–49 years (in one case where vegetation had been removed before release), increased in abundance and colonized new sites, but other populations died out within 0–7 years. One of two reviews across the UK and Ireland found that 25% of translocated and released captive-bred butterfly populations survived for at least three years, but 38% died out in that time, and only 8% were known to have survived for more than 10 years. The other review reported that translocated populations of large copper adults and/or caterpillars (sometimes to areas planted with great water dock or where bushes had been cleared, or alongside the release of captive-bred individuals) survived for up to 38 years, but ultimately died out or had to be supplemented by further releases. Survival (2 studies): Two site comparison studies (including one replicated, paired study) in the UK found that the survival of large blue caterpillars was higher when translocated into Myrmica sabuleti nests without queen ants present than with queens present, and the survival of translocated large copper caterpillars was higher than the survival of released, captive-bred caterpillars. Condition (1 study): One site comparison in the UK and Sweden found that 19 years after translocation, large blue butterflies in the UK had similar genetic diversity to their Swedish source population. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected, 10 Aug 2022 12:30:26 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Translocate to establish populations outside of known range Four studies evaluated the effects of translocating butterflies and moths to establish populations outside of their known range. Two studies were in the USA and one was in each of the Czech Republic and the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): Two of three studies in the USA and the UK reported that populations of Gillette’s checkerspot, small skipper and marbled white translocated outside of their native range as eggs or adults (in one case including captive-bred individuals) persisted and increased in abundance over eight and 28 years. The third study reported that a population of Gillette’s checkerspot adults, eggs and caterpillars translocated outside their native range died out within one year. Condition (1 study): One study in the Czech Republic found that 69 years after translocation, an introduced population of the small mountain ringlet butterfly had similar genetic diversity to its source population, and higher genetic diversity than a small native population. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected, 10 Aug 2022 14:38:15 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Introduce mated females to increase genetic diversity We found no studies that evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of introducing mated females to increase genetic diversity. ‘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, 10 Aug 2022 14:57:39 +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