Study

Management of semi-natural grasslands benefiting both plant and insect diversity: The importance of heterogeneity and tradition

  • Published source details Bonari G., Fajmon K., Malenovský I., Zelený D., Holuša J., Jongepierova I., Ko?árek P., Konvi?ka O., U?i?á? J. & Chytrý M. (2017) Management of semi-natural grasslands benefiting both plant and insect diversity: The importance of heterogeneity and tradition. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 246, 243-252.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Use rotational mowing

Action Link
Butterfly and Moth Conservation

Cease mowing on grassland to allow early succession

Action Link
Butterfly and Moth Conservation

Maintain species-rich, semi-natural grassland

Action Link
Butterfly and Moth Conservation

Cease grazing on grassland to allow early succession

Action Link
Butterfly and Moth Conservation
  1. Use rotational mowing

    A replicated, site comparison study in 2007–2010 in 28 grassland sites in Bílé Karpaty Protected Landscape Area, Czech Republic (Bonari et al. 2017) found that mixed grassland management, which included leaving some areas uncut each year, supported the highest species richness of butterflies, but an intermediate species richness of moths. The species richness of butterflies was higher in grasslands under mixed management than in mown, grazed or abandoned grasslands, but species composition was not affected by management. However, the species richness of moths was highest in mown grasslands, lowest in grazed grasslands, and intermediate in mixed management, and these sites had different species composition (all data presented as model results). One of four different management practices (mown once/year; grazed by sheep, cattle or deer; abandoned (no grazing or mowing); or ‘mixed’ management) was applied to each of 28 sites (1.5–70.7 ha) for at least five consecutive years. ‘Mixed’ management included mowing different parts of the site at different times, often with patches left uncut for a year, or mowing followed by grazing. From 2007–2010, butterflies and moths were surveyed on >6 visits between April and October in each of two consecutive years to each site.

    (Summarised by: Andrew Bladon)

  2. Cease mowing on grassland to allow early succession

    A replicated, site comparison study in 2006–2010 in 28 grassland sites in Bílé Karpaty Protected Landscape Area, Czech Republic (Bonari et al. 2017) found that abandoning semi-natural grassland did not affect the species richness or species composition of butterfly and moth communities. Both the species richness and species composition of butterflies and moths were similar in abandoned, unmanaged grasslands and in grasslands which were managed by mowing, grazing or a mix of management types (all data presented as model results). One of four different management practices (abandoned (no mowing or grazing); mown once/year; grazed by sheep, cattle or deer; or ‘mixed’ management) was applied to each of 34 sites (1.5–70.7 ha) for at least five consecutive years. ‘Mixed’ management included mowing different parts of the site at different times, often with patches left uncut for a year, or mowing followed by grazing. From 2007–2010, butterflies and moths were surveyed on >6 visits between April and October in each of two consecutive years to each of 28 sites.

    (Summarised by: Andrew Bladon)

  3. Maintain species-rich, semi-natural grassland

    A replicated, site comparison study in 2007–2010 in 28 grassland sites in Bílé Karpaty Protected Landscape Area, Czech Republic (Bonari et al 2017) found that the management of semi-natural grassland affected the species richness and composition of butterfly and moth communities differently. The species richness of moths was highest in mown grasslands and lowest in grazed grasslands, and these sites had different species composition. However, the species richness of butterflies was highest under mixed management, though species composition was not affected (all data presented as model results). One of four different management practices (mown once/year; grazed by sheep, cattle or deer; abandoned (no grazing or mowing); or ‘mixed’ management) was applied to each of 28 sites (1.5–70.7 ha) for at least five consecutive years. ‘Mixed’ management included mowing different parts of the site at different times, often with patches left uncut for a year, or mowing followed by grazing. From 2007–2010, butterflies and moths were surveyed on >6 visits between April and October in each of two consecutive years to each site.

    (Summarised by: Andrew Bladon)

  4. Cease grazing on grassland to allow early succession

    A replicated, site comparison study in 2006–2010 in 28 grassland sites in Bílé Karpaty Protected Landscape Area, Czech Republic (Bonari et al. 2017) found that abandoning semi-natural grassland did not affect the species richness or species composition of butterfly and moth communities. Both the species richness and species composition of butterflies and moths were similar in abandoned, unmanaged grasslands and in grasslands which were managed by grazing, mowing or a mix of management types (all data presented as model results). One of four different management practices (abandoned (no grazing or mowing); grazed by sheep, cattle or deer; mown once/year; or ‘mixed’ management) was applied to each of 34 sites (1.5–70.7 ha) for at least five consecutive years. ‘Mixed’ management included mowing different parts of the site at different times, often with patches left uncut for a year, or mowing followed by grazing. From 2007–2010, butterflies and moths were surveyed on >6 visits between April and October in each of two consecutive years to each of 28 sites.

    (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