Study

Preliminary assessment of active protection measures of the marsh fritillary Euphydryas aurinia (Rottemburg, 1775) habitats in the Świętokrzyski National Park

  • Published source details Błoński W. (2016) Wstępna ocena skuteczności czynnej ochrony siedlisk przeplatki aurinii Euphydryas aurinia (Rottemburg, 1775) w Świętokrzyskim Parku Narodowym. Naturalia, 5, 132-138.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Mark the location of webs or caterpillars before mowing

Action Link
Butterfly and Moth Conservation

Maintain or restore traditional water meadows and bogs

Action Link
Butterfly and Moth Conservation
  1. Mark the location of webs or caterpillars before mowing

    A replicated, before-and-after study in 2015–2016 in four wet meadows in Świętokrzyskie Voivodeship, Poland (Błoński 2016) reported that after marsh fritillary Euphydryas aurinia caterpillar webs were marked prior to mowing, the number of webs increased the following year. Results were not tested for statistical significance. One year after marsh fritillary caterpillar webs were marked prior to mowing there were 17–46 webs/site, compared to 10–20 webs/site the previous year. In 2015, marsh fritillary caterpillar webs in four meadows were marked with flags so that they could be avoided during mowing (at one site trees and shrubs were also removed to restore habitat). In August 2015–2016, marsh fritillary caterpillar webs were surveyed at each site.

    (Summarised by: Andrew Bladon)

  2. Maintain or restore traditional water meadows and bogs

    A replicated, before-and-after study in 2014–2016 in six wet meadows in Świętokrzyskie Voivodeship, Poland (Błoński 2016) reported that after trees and shrubs were removed from the wet meadows the number of marsh fritillary Euphydryas aurinia caterpillar webs increased the following year. Results were not tested for statistical significance. One year after trees and shrubs were removed there were 14–57 webs/site, compared to 8–35 webs/site the previous year. From 2014–2015, six meadows were managed by manual cutting and mowing of trees and bushes (at one site marsh fritillary caterpillar webs were also marked with flags so that they could be avoided during mowing). In August–September 2014–2016, marsh fritillary caterpillar webs were surveyed at each site (four sites in 2014 and 2015, two sites in 2015 and 2016).

    (Summarised by: Andrew Bladon)

Output references
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 19

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 Programme Red List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Bern wood Supporting Conservation Leaders National Biodiversity Network Sustainability Dashboard Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx British trust for ornithology Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Butterfly Conservation People trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust