Butterfly and moth conservation: results from a global synopsis of evidence
Published version
Peer-reviewed
Repository URI
Repository DOI
Type
Change log
Abstract
Butterflies and moths face a range of anthropogenic threats with many of the best-studied populations in decline. In response, butterfly and moth conservation programmes are implementing a diverse set of actions, but to date no study has synthesised evidence for their effectiveness. We present an overview of the recently published Conservation Evidence synopsis of butterfly and moth conservation, describe patterns and biases in the available evidence, and compare these to similar synopses on other taxa. We find that most evidence covers butterfly conservation, focuses on community-level responses, originates from the UK and the USA, comes from studies using the least robust designs, and assesses actions addressing the threat posed by agriculture. Far less evidence is available for moth conservation, for individual species’ responses, originates from Africa, Asia, Oceania and South America, comes from studies using the most robust designs, or tests actions designed to mitigate the impacts of pollution or climate change. While the geographic and study design biases reflect those found in evidence for the conservation of other taxa, the focus on community-level responses is higher than in any of the other synopses we examined. We suggest this may leave Lepidoptera conservation vulnerable to missing important, species-specific responses. We call for testing of conservation actions to be built into conservation projects for butterflies and moths, to build a robust evidence base for conserving Lepidoptera in a changing world.
Description
Acknowledgements: We thank all the authors who published studies included in the Conservation Evidence Butterfly and Moth Synopsis, upon whose work this analysis is built. We are grateful to the rest of the team at Conservation Evidence for useful discussions which helped shape the analysis for this paper. The project was funded by Arcadia, the MAVA Foundation and the A.G. Leventis Foundation, with additional funding to APC through a Henslow Research Fellowship from the Cambridge Philosophical Society and Downing College, Cambridge.
Journal Title
Conference Name
Journal ISSN
1572-9753

