Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Protect and connect habitat along elevational gradients We found no studies that evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of protecting and connecting habitat along elevational gradients. ‘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%2F3856https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3856Tue, 05 Jul 2022 15:27:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Enhance natural habitat to improve landscape connectivity to allow for range shifts We found no studies that evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of enhancing natural habitat to improve landscape connectivity and allow for range shifts. ‘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%2F3857https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3857Tue, 05 Jul 2022 15:29:10 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage natural waterbodies in arid areas to prevent desiccation We found no studies that evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of managing natural waterbodies in arid areas to prevent desiccation. ‘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%2F3858https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3858Tue, 05 Jul 2022 15:30:22 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create microclimate and microhabitat refuges We found no studies that evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of creating microclimate and microhabitat refuges. ‘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%2F3859https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3859Tue, 05 Jul 2022 15:32:15 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide shelter habitat against highly adverse weather conditions We found no studies that evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of providing shelter habitat against highly adverse weather conditions. ‘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%2F3860https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3860Tue, 05 Jul 2022 15:33:35 +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: Restore or create new habitats after mining and quarrying Four studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of restoring or creating new habitats after mining and quarrying. Two studies were in the Czech Republic, and one was in each of the UK and New Zealand. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Community composition (1 study): One replicated, paired, site comparison study in the Czech Republic found that 15% of 380 invertebrate species (including 208 moth species) were only found on flattened spoil heaps, compared to 30% which were only found on unflattened heaps. Richness/diversity (2 studies): One replicated, paired, site comparison study in the Czech Republic found that technically restored quarries had a lower species richness of butterflies and day-flying moths than quarries left to restore naturally. One replicated, paired, site comparison study in the Czech Republic found that flattened spoil heaps had a lower species richness of moths than unflattened spoil heaps. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the UK found that on slate waste tips trees where fertilizer was applied had a similar abundance of caterpillars to trees that were unfertilized. One site comparison study in New Zealand found that a peat bog restored after mining supported a similar density of Fred the thread moth caterpillars to undisturbed bogs. Condition (1 study): One site comparison study in New Zealand found that a peat bog restored after mining supported Fred the thread moth caterpillars of a similar size to caterpillars on undisturbed bogs. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3862https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3862Tue, 05 Jul 2022 15:53:09 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Legally protect butterflies and moths We found no studies that evaluated the effects of legally protecting 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%2F3863https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3863Fri, 08 Jul 2022 11:54:50 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use education programmes and local engagement to reduce persecution or exploitation of species We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using education programmes and local engagement to reduce persecution or exploitation of 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%2F3864https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3864Fri, 08 Jul 2022 11:56:08 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Legally protect large native trees We found no studies that evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of legally protecting large native trees. ‘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%2F3865https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3865Fri, 08 Jul 2022 11:58:26 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Strengthen cultural traditions such as sacred groves that prevent timber harvesting We found no studies that evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of strengthening cultural traditions that prevent timber harvesting. ‘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%2F3866https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3866Fri, 08 Jul 2022 11:59:38 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use selective or reduced impact logging instead of conventional logging Four studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of using selective or reduced impact logging instead of conventional logging. Two studies were in Brazil and one was in each of Sweden and the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Community composition (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Brazil found that forests managed by reduced impact logging at different intensities had a different community composition of fruit-feeding butterflies to pristine forest. Richness/diversity (3 studies): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that forests harvested by single tree selection had a similar species richness of moths to forests managed by group selection harvesting or clearcutting, but a lower species richness than unharvested forest. One site comparison study in Brazil found that a forest managed by reduced impact logging had a similar species richness and diversity of butterflies to primary forest. One replicated, site comparison study in Brazil found that forests managed by reduced impact logging at different intensities had a similar species richness of fruit-feeding butterflies. POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in Sweden found that selectively logged forests had a higher abundance of exposed moth caterpillars, but a similar abundance of concealed moth caterpillars, to clearcut forests, and a similar abundance of all moth caterpillars to undisturbed forests. One site comparison study in Brazil found that a forest managed by reduced impact logging had a higher abundance of butterflies than primary forest. One replicated, site comparison study in Brazil found that forests managed by reduced impact logging at intermediate intensity had a higher abundance of fruit-feeding butterflies than forests managed by high or low intensity reduced impact logging. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3867https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3867Fri, 08 Jul 2022 12:00:53 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Harvest groups of trees or use thinning instead of clearcutting Three studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of harvesting groups of trees or using thinning instead of clearcutting. All three studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (3 studies): One controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that the species richness of macro-moths was higher after a forest was harvested by thinning, than after harvest by patch-cutting or clearcutting, and the richness in the thinned forest was similar to an unharvested forest. One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that forests managed by group selection harvesting had a similar species richness of moths to forests managed by single tree harvesting or clearcutting, but a lower species richness than unharvested forest. One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that moth species richness recovered at a similar rate after management by group selection harvesting or clearcutting, but recovery in both was slower than after shelterwood harvesting. POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3868https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3868Mon, 18 Jul 2022 14:45:39 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use patch retention harvesting instead of clearcutting We found no studies that evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of using patch retention harvesting instead of clearcutting. ‘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%2F3869https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3869Mon, 18 Jul 2022 15:45:31 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use leave-tree harvesting instead of clearcutting We found no studies that evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of using leave-tree harvesting instead of clearcutting. ‘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%2F3870https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3870Mon, 18 Jul 2022 15:46:58 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use shelterwood harvesting instead of clearcutting Three studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of using shelterwood harvesting instead of clearcutting. All three studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (3 studies): One controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that the species richness of macro-moths was higher after a forest was managed by shelterwood harvesting, than after harvest by patch-cutting or clearcutting, and the richness in the shelterwood harvested forest was similar to a thinned forest and an unharvested forest. One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that forests managed by shelterwood harvesting had a similar species richness of moths to forests managed by single tree harvesting, group selection harvesting or clearcutting, but a lower species richness than unharvested forest. One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that moth species richness recovered faster after shelterwood harvesting than after group selection harvesting or clearcutting. POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3871https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3871Mon, 18 Jul 2022 15:48:15 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain riparian buffer strips during timber harvest We found no studies that evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of retaining riparian buffer strips during timber harvest. ‘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%2F3872https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3872Mon, 18 Jul 2022 15:53:34 +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: Reduce planting density to create warmer woodlands We found no studies that evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of reducing planting density to create warmer woodlands. ‘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%2F3875https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3875Mon, 18 Jul 2022 16:04:49 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Encourage natural regeneration in former plantations or logged forest Four studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of encouraging natural regeneration in former plantations or logged forest. One study was in each of Côte d’Ivoire, Japan, Ghana and Uganda. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Community composition (3 studies): One site comparison study in Côte d’Ivoire found that rarer species of fruit-feeding butterfly were more frequently caught in a naturally regenerating forest than in a forest still managed by thinning. One replicated, site comparison study in Japan found that the moth community was different between naturally regenerating forests of different ages. One site comparison study in Ghana found that a naturally regenerating forest had a butterfly community more similar to forest replanted nine years ago than a primary forest or a clear-cut area. Richness/diversity (4 studies): One site comparison study in Côte d’Ivoire found that a naturally regenerating forest had a similar species richness and diversity of fruit-feeding butterflies to a forest still managed by thinning. One replicated, site comparison study in Japan found that naturally regenerating forests had a greater species richness of moths than plantations. One site comparison study in Ghana found that a naturally regenerating forest had lower butterfly species richness than a primary forest, but similar richness to a clear-cut area and a nine-year old replanted forest, and lower community diversity than a primary forest and a clear-cut area. One replicated, site comparison study in Uganda found that naturally regenerating forests had a similar species richness of butterflies to pristine forests, but richness was highest 12–25 years after felling. POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): One site comparison study in Côte d’Ivoire found that a naturally regenerating forest had a similar abundance of fruit-feeding butterflies to a forest still managed by thinning. One replicated, site comparison study in Japan found that naturally regenerating forests had a greater abundance of moths than plantations. One replicated, site comparison study in Uganda found that naturally regenerating forests had a similar abundance of butterflies to pristine forests, but abundance was highest 12–25 years after felling. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3876https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3876Mon, 18 Jul 2022 16:06:44 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use prescribed fire to maintain or restore disturbance in forests Five studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of using prescribed fire to maintain or restore disturbance in forests. Four studies were in the USA and one was in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (4 studies): Three of four studies (including one replicated study, one paired study, two controlled studies, two before-and-after studies, and one site comparison study) in the USA found that coniferous forest restored 1–2 years ago by burning (in combination with thinning) or burned once within the last 20 years, had a higher species richness of butterflies than unburned forest. The fourth study found that mixed forest and shrubland sites which had been burned the year before had similar butterfly species richness to unburned sites. POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): Two studies (including one controlled, before-and-after study and one site comparison study) in the USA found that pine forest restored 1–2 years ago by burning (in combination with thinning) had a higher abundance of butterflies than unburned forest. One replicated, before-and-after study in Australia reported that in the spring after selective burning of eucalyptus forest there were fewer Eltham copper caterpillars than before. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3877https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3877Wed, 20 Jul 2022 18:19:12 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Change season/timing of prescribed burning Two studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of changing the season or timing of prescribed burning. One study was in each of Australia and the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in Australia found that management of a tropical savanna and floodplain with early season burning or no burning for 2–5 years increased the abundance of caterpillars, but management with late season burning did not. One replicated, paired, controlled study in the USA found that Karner blue butterfly abundance was similar on grasslands managed by burning in summer or autumn, and on unmanaged grasslands. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3878https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3878Thu, 21 Jul 2022 16:32:42 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Leave some areas unburned during prescribed burning Two studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of leaving some areas unburned during prescribed burning. Both studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): One replicated study in the USA reported that the abundance of Karner blue butterflies increased over 2–3 years in oak savannas and prairies where unburned patches were left during prescribed burning. One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that six out of nine specialist butterfly species were more abundant, one was less abundant, and two had similar abundance in pine barrens and prairies where unburned areas were left during prescribed burning compared to at sites without unburned areas. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One replicated study in the USA reported that Karner blue butterflies were recorded using all 11 unburned patches which were surveyed within oak savannas and prairies managed by burning. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3879https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3879Thu, 21 Jul 2022 16:45:55 +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 +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