Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Establish “green infrastructure” in urban areas One study evaluated the effects of establishing “green infrastructure in urban areas on butterflies and moths. This study was in Taiwan. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Taiwan found that green roofs had a lower species richness of butterflies than urban parks. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Taiwan found that green roofs had a lower abundance of butterflies than urban parks, but the abundance was higher on older green roofs with more nectar plant species in a larger area. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3837https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3837Mon, 04 Jul 2022 15:32:09 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce the size of surface features when prospecting for or extracting underground products One study evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of reducing the size of surface features when prospecting for or extracting underground products. This study was in Canada. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Canada found that narrow corridors used for prospecting for oil had a lower species richness of butterflies than wide corridors, but were similar to undisturbed forest. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Canada found that narrow corridors used for prospecting for oil had a lower abundance of butterflies than wide corridors, but were similar to undisturbed forest. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3845https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3845Tue, 05 Jul 2022 11:09:11 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide training for land managers, farmers and farm advisers One study evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of providing training for land managers, farmers and farm advisers. The study was in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour change (1 study): One study in the UK reported that 82% of landowners that received advice about applying for the Rural Priorities agri-environment scheme submitted applications, there was a 90% application success rate, and >3,000 ha of farmland were managed for the marsh fritillary. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3846https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3846Tue, 05 Jul 2022 11:24:55 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use infrastructure to reduce vehicle collision risk along roads One study evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of using infrastructure to reduce vehicle collision risk along roads. This study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour change (1 study): One controlled study in the USA reported that “altitude guide” netting, and poles topped with bright colours or flowers (attractive features), did not alter the behaviour of Oregon silverspot around roads. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3853https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3853Tue, 05 Jul 2022 11:41:12 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain or plant trees to act as windbreaks One study evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of retaining or planting trees to act as windbreaks. This study was in Sweden. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One site comparison study in Sweden reported that sheltered grassland strips were more likely to be used by one of four butterfly species than strips providing nectar resources or no resources. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3861https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3861Tue, 05 Jul 2022 15:39:41 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create or retain deadwood in forest management One study evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of creating or retaining deadwood in forest management. This study was in Sweden. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Sweden found that sites where deadwood had been left for many years had a higher abundance of Scardia boletella moths than conventionally managed sites in one of two regions, but the occurrence of Archinemapogon yildizae moths was similar across all sites. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3873https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3873Mon, 18 Jul 2022 16:00:36 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Re-plant native trees in logged areas One study evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of replanting native trees in logged areas. The study was in Ghana. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One site comparison study in Ghana found that nine years after an area was replanted with native trees after logging it had similar species richness but lower diversity for two of three metrics compared to naturally regenerating secondary forest. POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3874https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3874Mon, 18 Jul 2022 16:03:37 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use fire suppression/control We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using fire suppression or control on butterflies and moths. ‘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%2F3880https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3880Thu, 21 Jul 2022 16:55:51 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove or control non-native predators We found no studies that evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of removing or controlling non-native predators. ‘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%2F3884https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3884Tue, 26 Jul 2022 18:22:27 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove, control or exclude invertebrate herbivores One study evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of removing, controlling or excluding invertebrate herbivores. The study was in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the UK found that at sites fenced to exclude grazing animals there was a higher density of pearl-bordered fritillary butterflies than at unfenced sites. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3885https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3885Tue, 26 Jul 2022 18:24:30 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Replant alternative host plants or disease resistant individuals to combat losses to disease We found no studies that evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of replanting alternative host plants or disease resistant individuals to combat losses to disease. ‘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%2F3886https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3886Tue, 26 Jul 2022 18:25:24 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Increase biosecurity checks We found no studies that evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of increasing biosecurity checks. ‘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%2F3887https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3887Tue, 26 Jul 2022 18:26:23 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restrict the sale of problem species in garden centres and pet shops We found no studies that evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of restricting the sale of problem species in garden centres and pet shops. ‘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%2F3888https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3888Tue, 26 Jul 2022 18:27:25 +0100Collected 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: Restrict timing of lighting to conserve areas with natural light regimes We found no studies that evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of restricting the timing of lighting to conserve areas with natural light regimes. ‘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%2F3901https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3901Tue, 09 Aug 2022 15:04:38 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restrict use of polarized light We found no studies that evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of restricting the use of polarized light. ‘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%2F3903https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3903Tue, 09 Aug 2022 15:10:48 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use glazing treatments to reduce light spill from inside lit buildings We found no studies that evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of using glazing treatments to reduce light spill from inside lit buildings. ‘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%2F3905https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3905Tue, 09 Aug 2022 15:15:56 +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 Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3912https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3912Wed, 10 Aug 2022 14:57:39 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage host species’ populations for the benefit of dependent parasite/mutualist species We found no studies that evaluated the effects of managing host species’ populations for the benefit of dependent parasite or mutualist species of butterfly or moth. ‘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%2F3913https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3913Wed, 10 Aug 2022 15:02:26 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant crops in spring rather than autumn We found no studies that evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of planting crops in spring rather than autumn. ‘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%2F3925https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3925Thu, 11 Aug 2022 17:03:02 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create scrapes and pools We found no studies that evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of creating scrapes and pools. ‘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%2F3951https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3951Sat, 13 Aug 2022 15:22:19 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Maintain or restore native wood pasture and parkland We found no studies that evaluated the effects of maintaining or restoring native wood pasture and parkland on butterflies and moths. ‘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%2F3972https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3972Sun, 14 Aug 2022 10:40:10 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage ditches to benefit butterflies and moths We found no studies that evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of managing ditches to benefit butterflies and moths. ‘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%2F3977https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3977Thu, 18 Aug 2022 10:39:00 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant in-field trees (e.g. copses) We found no studies that evaluated the effects of planting in-field trees on butterflies and moths. ‘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%2F3979https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3979Thu, 18 Aug 2022 10:41:45 +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