The value of targeted reforestations for local insect diversity: A case study from the Ecuadorian Andes

  • Published source details Adams M.O. & Fiedler K. (2015) The value of targeted reforestations for local insect diversity: A case study from the Ecuadorian Andes. Biodiversity and Conservation, 24, 2709-2734.


This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Replant native vegetation

Action Link
Butterfly and Moth Conservation
  1. Replant native vegetation

    A replicated, site comparison study in 2003–2012 in southern Ecuador (Adams & Fiedler, 2015) found that native trees planted within pine plantations had a higher moth and butterfly species richness than native trees planted in pasture, but not than native trees planted in shrubland. Seven to eight years after planting, the species richness of moths and butterflies in native tree saplings planted in pine plantations (52 species) was higher than in saplings planted in abandoned pasture (24 species). The species richness in saplings planted in secondary shrubland (35) was not statistically different from pine plantations or pasture. However, all three restoration sites contained fewer species than naturally regenerating saplings in pristine rainforest (81 species). The community composition was similar between saplings in pasture and shrubland, but these communities were a subset of those in pine and natural forest. In 2003–2004, saplings were planted in randomly distributed plots in three habitats: recently abandoned pasture, secondary shrubland, and a 25–30-year-old pine plantation. Plots were 4.0 × 4.0 m (pine) or 10.8 × 10.8 m (pasture and shrub), and contained nine or 25 saplings planted 1.8 m apart. Saplings of Andean cedar Cedrela montana, golden trumpet-tree Tabebuia chrysantha and majaguillo Heliocarpus americanus were raised from locally collected seeds. From October 2010–May 2011 and October 2011–April 2012, between 26 and 47 healthy saplings with at least 15 leaves were sampled in each habitat. Insects were sampled on each sapling five times/year, by visual searching and beating onto a 1 × 1 m2 sheet. The search time and number of hits were determined based on the leaf area of the sapling (see paper for details).

    (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 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