Thin trees within forests

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    not assessed
  • Certainty
    not assessed
  • Harms
    not assessed

Study locations

Key messages

  • Five studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of thinning trees within forests and woodland. Three studies were in the USA and one was in each of Côte d’Ivoire and Finland.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (5 STUDIES)

  • Community composition (1 study): One site comparison study in Côte d’Ivoire found that rarer species of fruit-feeding butterfly were less frequently caught in a forest managed by thinning than in an unmanaged, naturally regenerating forest.
  • Richness/diversity (5 studies): Four studies (including two replicated, paired, controlled, before-and-after studies) in the USA and Finland found that one, two or four years after management, coniferous woodland which had been thinned, along with either prescribed burning, mulching or nearby felling, had a greater species richness of butterflies, or butterflies, diurnal moths and bumblebees combined, than either unmanaged woodland or before management. One site comparison study in Côte d’Ivoire found that a forest managed by thinning had a similar species richness and diversity of fruit-feeding butterflies to an unmanaged, naturally regenerating forest.

POPULATION RESPONSE (5 STUDIES)

  • Abundance (5 studies): Four studies (including two replicated, paired, controlled, before-and-after studies) in the USA and Finland found that one, two or four years after management, coniferous woodland which had been thinned, along with either prescribed burning, mulching or nearby felling, had a higher abundance of all butterflies, or specialist butterflies, than either unmanaged woodland or before management. One site comparison study in Côte d’Ivoire found that a forest managed by thinning had a similar abundance of fruit-feeding butterflies to an unmanaged, naturally regenerating forest.

BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

 

About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

  1. A site comparison study in 1998 in two pine forests in Arizona, USA (Waltz & Covington 1999) found that a forest restored by thinning young trees and prescribed burning had a higher abundance and species richness of butterflies than an unrestored forest. Two years after thinning and burning, the restored forest had a higher abundance (6–46 individuals/visit) and species richness (3–11 species/visit) of butterflies than the unrestored forest (abundance: 0–7 individuals/visit; richness: 0–4 species/visit). One species, the checkered white Pieris protodice, was only found in the restored forest, but another, the California sister Limenitis bredowii, was only found in the unrestored forest. In 1996, a 40-acre ponderosa pine Pinus ponderosa forest was thinned (pole-sized trees removed) and burned to reopen the dense understorey. An adjacent forest was not restored. From May–July 1998, butterflies were surveyed six times (every two weeks) along a single 450-m transect in each forest.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A site comparison study in 1996 in a logged tropical rainforest in south-east Côte d’Ivoire (Fermon et al. 2000) found that the abundance, species richness and diversity of fruit-feeding butterflies (Nymphalidae) were similar in forest managed by thinning and naturally regenerating forest, but rarer species were caught less frequently in thinned forest. Forest managed by thinning had a similar abundance (54 individuals/trap), species richness (76 species) and diversity (data presented as model results) of butterflies to naturally regenerating forest (abundance: 56 individuals/trap; richness: 71 species). However, species with smaller geographic ranges were caught less frequently in thinned forest (data presented as model results). See paper for individual species results. From 1960–1990, a 216 km2 forest was selectively logged. From 1992 the forest was protected, and two management options were implemented: liberation thinning and natural regeneration (no management). Liberation thinning was designed to promote the growth of commercial timber species, and included cutting of lianas and climbers, and killing some non-commercial trees. Rare trees and important fruit trees were protected. From January–March 1996, butterflies were sampled in 30 ha of thinned forest and 30 ha of naturally regenerating forest, using 28 banana-baited traps in each habitat. Traps were set 1 m above ground, 100 m apart, for six consecutive days, and checked daily.

    Study and other actions tested
  3. A controlled study in 1997–2001 in two piñon pine and juniper woods in New Mexico, USA (Kleintjes et al. 2004) found that mechanically thinning woodland increased the abundance and species richness of butterflies. Four years after thinning, the abundance (12–20 individuals/transect) and species richness (9–12 species) of butterflies were higher in thinned woodland than in woodland which had not been thinned (abundance: 4 individuals/transect; richness: 5–7 species). The increase in butterflies correlated with an increase in understorey plants in the thinned woodland. In January–March 1997, tree cover in a 40-ha watershed was reduced from 35 to 10%, by removing individual trees <20 cm diameter. Felled trees were applied as rough mulch onto adjacent bare soil. In an adjacent 40-ha watershed, the tree cover was left at 40%. In June–July 1999 and 2001, butterflies were surveyed twice/year on 20 permanent 100-m transects/watershed. Transects were 75–150 m apart, and ran down the slopes, with 10 on each side of each valley.

    Study and other actions tested
  4. A replicated, randomized, paired, controlled, before-and-after study in 1997–2001 in a pine forest in Arizona, USA (Waltz & Covington 2004) found that forests restored by thinning and prescribed burning had a higher abundance and species richness of butterflies than unrestored forests. One and two years after thinning and burning, restored forests had a higher butterfly abundance (48–132 individuals/unit) and species richness (7–16 species/unit) than unrestored forests (abundance: 10–42 individuals/unit; richness: 4–10 species/unit). Before restoration, there was no significant difference between forest marked for restoration (abundance: 23–50 individuals/unit; richness: 8–12 species/unit) and unrestored forest (abundance: 10–41 individuals/unit; richness: 5–13 species/unit). These results were primarily due to the abundance of species of blue (Lycaenidae) and white (Pieridae) butterflies (see paper for details). In 1997, four blocks within a 5,000-ha ponderosa pine Pinus ponderosa forest were each divided into two units (≤40-ha each). In autumn/winter 1999–2000, one randomly assigned unit/block was thinned and burned. The other units were not restored. From May–August 1997, 1998, 2000 and 2001, butterflies were surveyed six times/year (two-week intervals) along two or three 300-m transects/unit.

    Study and other actions tested
  5. A replicated, paired, controlled, before-and-after study in 2009–2011 in 15 coniferous forest stands in Vihti and Jokioinen, Finland (Korpela et al. 2015) found that thinning trees near to the edge of woodland, in addition to felling the edge, increased the abundance of specialist butterflies and the total species richness of butterflies, diurnal moths and bumblebees (Bombus spp.) combined. Two years after thinning and felling, the abundance of specialist butterflies (2.3 individuals/plot), and the total species richness of butterflies, moths and bumblebees (7.3 species/plot), were higher in thinned areas than in areas which had not been thinned (butterfly abundance: 0.6 individuals/plot; total richness: 3.8 species/plot). Prior to thinning, both butterfly abundance and total species richness were similar in the plots designated for thinning (butterfly abundance: 0.6 individuals/plot; total richness: 4.9 species/plot) and no thinning plots (butterfly abundance: 0.5 individuals/plot; total richness: 5.3 species/plot). In winter 2009–2010, in each of 15 forest stands, a 50-m-long forest edge was logged. Logging comprised felling a 5-m-wide strip at the forest edge, and behind that a 20-m-wide belt was thinned to a basal area of 8 m2/ha. Trunks were removed, but other debris was left on the ground. A second 50 × 25 m area at each site, within 8–61 m of the logged area, was left unlogged. From late May–August 2009–2011, butterflies, diurnal moths and bumblebees were surveyed seven times/year in each thinned and unthinned area, at two-week intervals.

    Study and other actions tested
Please cite as:

Bladon A.J., Smith R.K. & Sutherland W.J. (2022) Butterfly and Moth Conservation: Global Evidence for the Effects of Interventions for butterflies and moths. Conservation Evidence Series Synopsis. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

Butterfly and Moth Conservation

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Butterfly and Moth Conservation
Butterfly and Moth Conservation

Butterfly and Moth Conservation - Published 2022

Butterfly and Moth Synopsis

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