Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Mechanically remove mid-storey or ground vegetation to create fire breaks Two studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of mechanically removing mid-storey or ground vegetation to create fire breaks. One study was in Portugal and the other was in France. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (2 studies): One replicated, site comparison study in Portugal found that cork oak woodlands with more recent or more regular mechanical clearance of woody understorey vegetation had a greater species richness of butterflies than woodlands cleared less frequently or longer ago. One replicated, paired, controlled study in France reported that shrublands where trees and/or bushes were mechanically cleared to create firebreaks had a similar species richness of butterflies to a shrubland where grazing was used to suppress vegetation. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Portugal found that cork oak woodlands with more recent or more regular mechanical clearance of woody understorey vegetation had a higher abundance of butterflies than woodlands cleared less frequently or longer ago. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3881https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3881Thu, 21 Jul 2022 17:04:10 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use prescribed fire to maintain or restore disturbance in grasslands or other open habitats Thirteen studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of using prescribed fire to maintain or restore disturbance in grasslands or other open habitats. Eight studies were in the USA, three were in the UK, one was in South Africa and one was a review across Europe. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Community composition (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that pastures managed by patch-burning had a similar butterfly community to rotationally or continuously grazed pastures. Richness/diversity (3 studies): Two replicated, before-and-after studies (including one randomized, controlled study and one paired sites, site comparison study) in the USA found that shrubland plots and grass field margins managed by burning had a similar species richness of butterflies to those which were unburned. One replicated, site comparison study in the USA reported that pastures managed by patch-burning had a lower species richness of butterflies than rotationally grazed pastures, a similar richness to rotationally grazed and mown pastures, and a higher species richness than continuously grazed pastures. POPULATION RESPONSE (12 STUDIES) Abundance (12 studies): Four of nine studies (including six replicated studies, two randomized studies, two paired sites studies, three controlled studies, two before-and-after studies, and five site comparison studies) in the UK, South Africa and the USA found that the abundance of heath fritillary adults, marsh fritillary caterpillar webs and Fender’s blue caterpillars and eggs was higher (sometimes after initial reductions in abundance) on heathland, fen meadows and prairies one or more years after management by burning than before burning, or compared to unburned or grazed land, although the total population of Fender’s blue declined in adjacent burned and unburned areas. Three studies found that the abundance of Brenton blue butterfly eggs and adults, rosy marsh moth caterpillars and regal fritillary adults was lower on a bog and prairies managed by burning than on unburned land, at least one and five years after burning. One study found that grass field margins managed by burning had a similar abundance of butterflies to unburned field margins. The seventh study found that abundance of Powershiek skipperling to burning, along with haying and idling, depended on the site’s vegetation characteristics. Two replicated, site comparison studies in the USA found that two prairie specialists (regal fritillary and arogos skipper) and three out of nine butterfly species were less abundant in prairies or pastures managed by burning than in prairies managed by haying or grazed pastures. These studies also found that the abundance of generalist and migrant species, and of purplish copper, was higher in burned prairies or pastures than hayed prairies or grazed pastures. One review across Europe reported that occasional burning on grassland benefitted 10 out of 67 butterfly species of conservation concern. Survival (1 study): One replicated, paired sites, controlled study in the USA found that in prairie plots burned one year before, Fender’s blue butterfly caterpillars had lower survival than in unburned plots. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the UK found that a similar proportion of fen meadows were occupied by marsh fritillary caterpillars whether they were managed by burning, grazing or were unmanaged. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3882https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3882Mon, 25 Jul 2022 12:37:11 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use rotational burning Seventeen studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of using rotational burning. Twelve studies were in the USA, one was in South Africa and one was in Japan. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (5 STUDIES) Community composition (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that prairies managed by rotational burning (every 1–6 years) and grazing had a different community composition of butterflies to prairies managed by rotational burning or grazing alone. Richness/diversity (5 studies): Two replicated, site comparison studies in the USA and Japan found that pine-oak barrens and semi-natural grasslands managed by rotational burning every 2 years or 2–5 years (sometimes combined with rotational mowing) had a higher species richness of butterflies than unmanaged sites or sites managed by annual burning or mowing. However, one of these studies also found that the species richness of grassland butterflies was lower in prairies managed by rotational burning than in unmanaged prairies in one of two regions. Two replicated, site comparison studies in the USA found that the species richness of butterflies was higher on prairies burned more than one or four years ago than on prairies burned in the last one or two years under rotational burning management. One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that prairies managed by rotational burning (every 1–6 years) and grazing had a similar species richness of butterflies to prairies managed by rotational burning or grazing alone, but a lower diversity of butterflies than sites managed by rotational burning only. One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the USA found that species richness of butterflies did not differ between prairies managed with annual rotational burning or complete burning. POPULATION RESPONSE (15 STUDIES) Abundance (15 studies): Four replicated studies (including one paired, controlled study and three site comparison studies) in the USA found that under rotational burning management the total abundance of prairie specialist, grassland and all butterflies, and of most insects including butterflies and moths, was higher on prairies burned more than one, two or four years ago, or longer ago, than on prairies burned in the last one or two years, or recently. One of these studies also found that the abundance of grassland and generalist butterflies was highest in the third year after burning, and migrant butterflies in the first year after burning. Two of these studies6,8, and an additional replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that the total abundance of butterflies, and of most insects including butterflies and moths, was higher in pine-oak barrens and prairies managed by rotational burning every 2–5 years, 2–3 years or 1–6 years than at unmanaged sites or sites managed by rotational burning or grazing alone. One of these studies also found that the abundance of butterflies was lower in prairies managed by rotational burning than in unmanaged prairies in one of two regions. Four of six replicated studies in the USA (including five site comparison studies and one randomized, controlled study) found that rotational burning in prairies, pine barrens and grasslands had mixed effects on butterflies, compared to unmanaged, hayed, grazed, mowed or completely burned sites. The fifth study found that prairies managed by rotational burning had more strongly declining populations of grass-skipper butterflies than unmanaged pine barrens or lightly managed fields. The sixth study found that for three fritillary species rotational burning in prairies did not affect abundance, but for three others, in at least one region surveyed, abundance was lower in prairies managed by rotational burning, sometimes in combination with haying, grazing and/or mowing, than in prairies managed with only haying or grazing, or in unmanaged prairies. One replicated, site comparison study in the USA reported that Karner blue butterfly abundance was similar in rotationally burned and unmanaged oak savannas and prairies. One site comparison study in the USA reported that regal fritillary abundance was higher in grasslands and oak barrens managed by rotational burning every three years (following restoration by seeding) than on unmanaged sites or remnant prairies. One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that the abundance of regal fritillary was higher in rotationally burned prairies four years after the last burn than one or eight years after the last burn. One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in the USA found that, in June, the abundance of regal fritillaries in prairies burned on rotation that spring was lower than in prairies burned 1–2 years ago, but in July the abundance was higher in recently burned prairies. Survival (1 study): One replicated study in South Africa found that populations of Karkloof blue persisted for at least a year following rotational burning. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3883https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3883Mon, 25 Jul 2022 15:05:14 +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: Remove, control or exclude native predators Five studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of removing, controlling or excluding native predators. Two studies were in each of the UK and the USA and one was in Kenya. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (5 STUDIES) Survival (5 studies): Three of five replicated studies (including one randomized, paired, controlled study and three paired, controlled studies) in the UK, Kenya and the USA found that using mesh cages, net sleeves and sticky resin to exclude predators (including birds and mammals and spiders and ants) increased the survival of large copper caterpillars, Boisduval silkworm eggs and caterpillars and Appalachian brown eggs and juveniles. The other two studies found that using cages or water and chemicals to exclude vertebrate or terrestrial predators (mainly ants) did not increase the survival of monarch caterpillars. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3889https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3889Tue, 26 Jul 2022 18:30:11 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove or control non-native or problematic plants Nine studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of removing or controlling non-native or problematic plants. Five studies were in the USA and one was in each of Poland, South Africa, Australia and Mauritius. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (2 studies): Two studies (including one replicated, paired, site comparison study and one controlled study) in Mauritius and the USA found that sites where invasive plants were removed by weeding or cutting and applying herbicide (in one case along with fencing to exclude non-native pigs and deer) had a greater species richness of butterflies than untreated sites. One of these studies also found that sites where Chinese privet was removed had a similar species richness of butterflies to sites which had not been invaded. POPULATION RESPONSE (8 STUDIES) Abundance (7 studies): Four of six studies (including three controlled studies, one before-and-after study and two site comparison studies) in Poland, South Africa, the USA and Mauritius found that sites where trees and shrubs were removed or invasive plants were cut to a similar height to native plants, or removed by weeding or cutting and applying herbicide (in one case along with fencing to exclude non-native pigs and deer), had a greater abundance of Apollo butterflies, a higher density of Fender’s blue eggs, or higher total abundance of butterflies, compared to before removal or untreated sites. One of these studies also found that sites where Chinese privet was removed had a similar abundance of butterflies to sites which had not been invaded. The fifth study found that in plots where herbicide was applied to control invasive grasses, the abundance of Columbia silvery blue eggs and caterpillars was similar to unsprayed plots. The sixth study found that, after prescribed burning, an area where bracken fern was also removed had fewer Brenton blue butterfly eggs than an area without removal. One study in Australia reported that a population of purple copper butterfly caterpillars translocated to an area where invasive plants had been removed, along with host plant translocation and other habitat management, increased in number compared to at the time of translocation. Survival (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in the USA found that in plots where herbicide was applied to control invasive grasses, the survival of Columbia silvery blue eggs and caterpillars was similar to unsprayed plots. One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the USA found that one herbicide commonly used to control invasive grasses reduced the survival of snowberry checkerspot caterpillars, but two other herbicides did not affect the survival of snowberry checkerspot, Edith’s checkerspot or Baltimore checkerspot caterpillars. BEHAVIOUR (4 STUDIES) Use (3 studies): Two of three randomized, controlled studies (including two replicated, paired studies and one before-and-after study) in the USA found that sites where invasive oat-grass was cut to a similar height to native plants, or where Eastern white pine was removed, were used more by Fender’s blue and frosted elfin butterflies than untreated sites. The third study found that habitat use by Columbia silvery blue butterflies was similar in plots where herbicide was applied to control invasive grasses and in unsprayed plots. Behaviour change (1 study): One before-and-after study in Poland found that removal of trees and shrubs, in addition to the release of captive bred adults and pupae, allowed adults from two previously separated populations of Apollo butterflies to mix. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3890https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3890Thu, 28 Jul 2022 15:02:05 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove, control or exclude vertebrate herbivores Ten studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of removing, controlling or excluding vertebrate herbivores. Three studies were in the USA, two were in the UK, one was in each of Mauritius, the Netherlands, Canada and Japan, and one was a global systematic review. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (6 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (6 studies): Two of four replicated studies (including three controlled studies and one site comparison study) in the USA, Mauritius and Canada found that forest plots fenced to exclude, or reduce the density of, non-native pigs and deer (in one case along with weeding of invasive plants) had a greater species richness of butterflies and macro-moths than unfenced plots. The other two studies found that forest plots fenced to exclude elk had mixed effects on the species richness of butterflies and arthropods including moths depending on fire intensity and year. One of these studies also found that grassland plots fenced to exclude elk had a similar species richness of butterflies to unfenced plots in all years. One global systematic review found that reducing or removing grazing or browsing by wild or domestic herbivores in temperate and boreal forests did not affect the species richness of butterflies and moths. POPULATION RESPONSE (10 STUDIES) Abundance (9 studies): Five of eight studies (including five controlled studies, one before-and-after study, and two site comparison studies) in the UK, the USA, Mauritius, Canada and Japan found that forest and grassland plots fenced to exclude, or reduce the density of, deer, sheep, pigs and large herbivores (in one case along with weeding of invasive plants) had a higher abundance of butterflies, moths, caterpillars, rare macro-moths and New Forest burnet moths than unfenced plots. One of these studies also found that the total abundance of macro-moths was similar in fenced and unfenced plots. Two studies found that forest plots fenced to exclude elk had mixed effects on the abundance of butterflies and arthropods including moths depending on fire intensity and year. One of these studies also found that grassland plots fenced to exclude elk had a similar abundance of butterflies to unfenced plots in all years. The eighth study found that a forest fenced to exclude sika deer had a similar abundance of all moths, but a lower abundance of tree-feeding moths, than unfenced forest. One global systematic review found that reducing or removing grazing or browsing by wild or domestic herbivores in temperate and boreal forests increased the abundance of butterflies and moths. Survival (1 study): One paired, controlled study in the Netherlands reported that all Glanville fritillary caterpillar nests survived in grassland fenced to exclude sheep, compared to 88% in a grazed area. Condition (1 study): One paired, controlled study in the Netherlands found that fewer Glanville fritillary caterpillar nests were damaged in grassland fenced to exclude sheep than in a grazed area. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3891https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3891Tue, 09 Aug 2022 11:49:20 +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: 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: Stop using herbicides on pavements and road verges Two studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of stopping the use of herbicides on pavements and road verges. One study was in the USA and the other was in Canada. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (2 studies): One replicated, paired, site comparison study in the USA found that restored roadside prairies where herbicide application was restricted had a greater species richness of butterflies than verges dominated by non-native weeds and grasses with no restrictions on herbicide application. One replicated, site comparison study in Canada found that transmission lines (road verges and power lines) which were neither sprayed with herbicide nor mown had a similar species richness of butterflies to sprayed and mown transmission lines. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): One replicated, paired, site comparison study in the USA found that restored roadside prairies where herbicide application was restricted had a greater abundance of butterflies than verges dominated by non-native weeds and grasses with no restrictions on herbicide application. One replicated, site comparison study in Canada found that transmission lines (road verges and power lines) which were neither sprayed with herbicide nor mown had a greater abundance of northern pearl crescent and pearl crescent butterflies, but similar total butterfly abundance, compared to sprayed and mown transmission lines. Survival (1 study): One replicated, paired, site comparison study in the USA found that butterflies had a lower mortality risk on restored roadside prairies where herbicide application was restricted than on verges dominated by non-native grasses with no restrictions on herbicide application. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3899https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3899Tue, 09 Aug 2022 15:00:37 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Stop using pesticides as seed dressings and sprays in flower beds and greenspace One study evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of stopping the use of pesticides as seed dressings and sprays in flower beds and greenspaces. The study was in France. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in France found that gardens where insecticides and herbicides were not used had a higher abundance of butterflies, but gardens where fungicides and snail pellets were not used had a lower abundance of butterflies BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3900https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3900Tue, 09 Aug 2022 15:03:07 +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: Use low intensity lighting One study evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of using low intensity lighting. This study was in Germany. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour change (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in Germany found that fewer moths were attracted to low intensity lights (which also emitted a narrower range of yellow light with little UV) than to higher intensity lights (which also emitted broader spectra and included UV). Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3902https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3902Tue, 09 Aug 2022 15:09:27 +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 shielded “full cut-off” lights to remove outwards lighting One study evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of using shielded “full cut-off” lights to remove outwards lighting. This study was in Slovenia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour change (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in Slovenia found that fewer individual moths and moth species were attracted to lights fitted with blinds to prevent light scattering (along with filters to remove shorter wavelengths) than to conventional lights without blinds or filters. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3904https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3904Tue, 09 Aug 2022 15:14:48 +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 +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