Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 24, Issue 12, pp 3049–3070 | Cite as

Are woodland creation schemes providing suitable resources for biodiversity? Woodland moths as a case study

  • Elisa Fuentes-MontemayorEmail author
  • Victor M. Peredo-Alvarez
  • Kevin Watts
  • Kirsty J. Park
Original Paper


Woodland, like many habitats throughout the world, has been severely affected by habitat loss and fragmentation. Woodland restoration programmes aimed at reversing habitat loss have been in place in many countries over the last 100 years. In particular, agri-environment schemes (AES) to increase the amount and quality of woodland on agricultural land have operated in Europe and Australia for decades (nearly 30 years in the United Kingdom). However, to date there has been very little assessment of their value to biodiversity. We assessed the potential benefits to biodiversity of woodlands planted during 1988–1991 under a woodland grant scheme (WGS in Scotland), according to local and landscape-level habitat characteristics. Specifically, we (1) performed a linear discriminant analysis to compare the characteristics of 24 WGS sites to those of more mature semi-natural woodlands (34 sites >60 years old), and (2) used existing information on the influence of woodland characteristics on a biologically diverse group (i.e. moths) to quantify the benefits of WGS sites to biodiversity. The creation of new WGS patches increased woodland extent and connectivity in the landscape; however, planting that took place adjacent to previously existing woodland did not usually increase connectivity. WGS sites were mainly composed by broadleaved native tree species, but non-native species were also present. In general, WGS sites had lower tree species richness, proportion of native trees, tree basal area and amount of understory, and higher tree densities and canopy cover than more mature semi-natural woodlands. Overall, WGS sites were predicted to have lower moth abundance and species richness than older semi-natural woodlands. However, the magnitude of these differences depended on the habitat specificity and dispersal abilities of different moth groups, suggesting that WGS sites are better at providing suitable resources for generalist species and for species less limited by dispersal. Our findings have important implications for the way in which current woodland creation and management schemes operate in many countries and suggest that: (1) the creation of new woodlands should focus on planting native species, (2) woodland creation schemes are likely to be more beneficial for biodiversity if certain management practices (e.g. thinning to enhance structural diversity and accelerate the transition to later successional stages) accompany the provision of these grants, and (3) spatially-targeted woodland creation would further increase the contribution of AES woodlands to enhance biodiversity.


Agri-environment schemes Lepidoptera Spatial targeting Woodland management 



We wish to thank the landowners and estate managers who granted us permission to conduct this study on their land, and the People’s Trust for Endangered Species for their financial support.

Supplementary material

10531_2015_997_MOESM1_ESM.doc (66 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 66 kb)


  1. Anonymous (2014) Woodland creation. Scotland rural development programme 2014–2020, rural priorities. Accessed Oct 2014
  2. Barbour A et al (2012) Report for the Woodland Expansion Advisory Group to the cabinet secretary for rural affairs and environment.$FILE/WEAGFinalReport.pdf. Accessed Oct 2014
  3. Broome A, Clarke S, Peace A, Parsons MS (2011) The effect of coppice management on moth assemblages in an English woodland. Biodivers Conserv 80:729–749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burns F et al (2013) State of nature report. The state of nature partnership. Accessed Oct 2014
  5. Butterfly Conservation (2007) The UK biodiversity action plan—moths. Accessed Oct 2014
  6. Conrad KF, Woiwod IP, Parsons MS, Fox R (2004) Long-term population trends in widespread British moths. J Insect Conserv 8:119–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Conrad KF, Warren MS, Fox R, Parsons MS, Woiwod IP (2006) Rapid declines of common, widespread British moths provide evidence of an insect biodiversity crisis. Biol Conserv 132:279–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crabtree JR (1996) Evaluation of the farm woodland premium scheme, Rep. No. 1. Scottish Office Agriculture, Environment and Fisheries Department, Macaulay Land Use Research Institute, AberdeenGoogle Scholar
  9. Crawley MJ (2007) The R book. Wiley, West SussexCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Das A, Battles J, Stephenson NL, van Mantgem PJ (2011) The contribution of competition to tree mortality in old-growth coniferous forests. For Ecol Manag 261:1203–1213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Defra (2008) Agriculture in the United Kingdom. Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (Northern Ireland), Welsh Assembly Government—The Department for Rural Affairs and Heritage, The Scottish Government—Rural and Environment Research and Analysis DirectorateGoogle Scholar
  12. Doerr VAJ, Barrett T, Doerr ED (2011) Connectivity, dispersal behaviour and conservation under climate change: a response to Hodgson et al. J Appl Ecol 48:143–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. EDINA Ancient Roam Service. Accessed May 2010
  14. Emmet AM, Heath J (1991) The moths and butterflies of Great Britain and Ireland, Part 2, vol 7. Harley Books, EssexGoogle Scholar
  15. ESRI, Inc. (2011) ArcGIS 10. Accessed Sept 2011
  16. Forestry Commission (2002) National inventory of woodland and trees(1). Crown copyright and database right 2002. Accessed Sep 2011
  17. Forestry Commission (2004) Woodland grant scheme 1. Crown copyright and database right 2004. Accessed Sep 2011
  18. Forestry Commission (2011) National forest inventory—Great Britain. Crown copyright and database right 2011. Accessed Sep 2011
  19. Forestry Commission (2013) EWGS 7: woodland creation grant. Forestry Commission England.$FILE/ewgs7-guide.pdf. Accessed Dec 2014
  20. Forestry Commission (2014) Forestry facts and figures 2014. Accessed Oct 2014
  21. Fox R, Conrad KF, Parsons MS, Warren MS, Woiwod IP (2006) The state of Britain’s larger moths. Butterfly Conservation and Rothamsted Research, DorsetGoogle Scholar
  22. Fox R, Oliver TH, Harrower C, Parsons MS, Thomas CD, Roy DB (2014) Long-term changes to the frequency of occurrence of British moths are consistent with opposing and synergistic effects of climate and land-use changes. J Appl Ecol 51:949–957PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Fuentes-Montemayor E, Cavin L, Wallace JM, Goulson D, Park KJ (2012) Factors influencing moth assemblages in woodland fragments on farmland: implications for woodland management and creation schemes. Biol Conserv 153:265–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fuller RJ, Green GH (1998) Effects of woodland structure on breeding bird populations in stands of coppiced lime (Tilia cordata) in western England over a 10-year period. Forestry 71:199–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Groom MJ, Meffe GK, Carroll CR (2006) Principles of conservation biology, 3rd edn. Sinauer Associates, Inc., SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  26. Hodgson JA, Moilanen A, Wintle BA, Thomas CD (2011) Habitat area, quality and connectivity: striking the balance for efficient conservation. J Appl Ecol 48:148–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Humphrey JW, Watts K, Fuentes-Montemayor E, Macgregor NA, Peace AJ, Park KJ (2015) What can studies of woodland fragmentation and creation tell us about ecological networks? A literature review and synthesis. Landsc Ecol 30:21–50Google Scholar
  28. Huxel GR, Hastings A (1999) Habitat loss, fragmentation, and restoration. Restor Ecol 7:309–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jennings SB, Brown ND, Sheil D (1998) Assessing forest canopies and understorey illumination: canopy closure, canopy cover and other measures. Forestry 72:59–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kent M, Coker P (1992) Vegetation description and analysis: a practical approach. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  31. Kerr G, Haufe J (2011) Thinning practice: a silvicultural guide. Forestry Commission.$FILE/Silviculture_Thinning_Guide_v1_Jan2011.pdf. Accessed Oct 2014
  32. Kitching RL, Orr AG, Thalib L, Mitchell H, Hopkins MS, Graham AW (2000) Moth assemblages as indicators of environmental quality in remnants of upland Australian rain forest. J Appl Ecol 37:284–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Leps J, Smilauer P (2003) Multivariate analysis of ecological data using CANOCO. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McGarigal K, Cushman SA, Neel MC, Ene E (2002) FRAGSTATS: spatial pattern analysis program for categorical maps. University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Accessed Sept 2011
  35. Merckx T, Feber R, Dulieu RL, Townsend MC, Parsons MS, Bourn NAD, Riordan P, Macdonald DW (2009) Effect of field margins on moths depends on species mobility: field based evidence for landscape-scale conservation. Agric Ecosyst Environ 129:302–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Merckx T, Feber RE, McLaughlan C, Bourn NAD, Parsons MS, Townsend MC, Riordan P, Macdonald DW (2010) Shelter benefits less mobile moth species: the field-scale effect of hedgerow trees. Agric Ecosyst Environ 138:147–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: biodiversity synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  38. Moore NP, Askew N, Bishop JD (2003) Small mammals in new farm woodlands. Mamm Rev 33:101–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nieminen M, Rita H, Uuvana P (1999) Body size and migration rate in moths. Ecography 22:697–707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Proctor M, Yeo P, Lack A (1996) The natural history of pollination. Harper Collins, LondonGoogle Scholar
  41. Quine CP, Watts K (2009) Successful de-fragmentation of woodland by planting in an agricultural landscape? An assessment based on landscape indicators. J Environ Manag 90:251–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Quine CP, Bailey SA, Watts K (2013) PRACTITIONER’S PERSPECTIVE: sustainable forest management in a time of ecosystem services frameworks: common ground and consequences. J Appl Ecol 50:863–867PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. R Development Core Team (2012) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  44. Southwood TRE, Henderson PA (2000) Ecological methods. Blackwell Science, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  45. Summerville KS, Crist TO (2002) Effects of timber harvest on forest Lepidoptera: community, guild, and species responses. Ecol Appl 12:820–835CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Summerville KS, Crist TO (2003) Determinants of lepidopteran community composition and species diversity in eastern deciduous forests: roles of season, eco-region and patch size. Oikos 100:134–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Summerville KS, Crist TO (2004) Contrasting effects of habitat quantity and quality on moth communities in fragmented landscapes. Ecography 27:3–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Summerville KS, Crist TO (2008) Structure and conservation of lepidopteran communities in managed forests of northeastern North America: a review. Can Entomol 140:475–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tscharntke T, Steffan-Dewenter I, Kruess A, Thies C (2002) Characteristics of insect populations on habitat fragments: a mini review. Ecol Res 17:229–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Usher MB, Keiller SWJ (1998) The macrolepidoptera of farm woodlands: determinants of diversity and community structure. Biodivers Conserv 7:725–748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. van der Horst D (2007) Assessing the efficiency gains of improved spatial targeting of policy interventions; the example of an agri-environmental scheme. J Environ Manag 85:1076–1087CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Vanhinsbergh D, Gough S, Fuller RJ, Brierley EDR (2002) Summer and winter bird communities in recently established farm woodlands in lowland England. Agric Ecosyst Environ 92:123–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Vaughan N (1997) The diets of British bats (Chiroptera). Mamm Rev 27:77–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wade TG, Riitters KH, Wickham JD, Jones KB (2003) Distribution and causes of global forest fragmentation. Conserv Ecol 7:7Google Scholar
  55. Waring P (1989) Moth conservation project news bulletin 2. Nature Conservancy Council, PeterboroughGoogle Scholar
  56. Waring P, Townsend M (2003) Field guide to the moths of Great Britain and Ireland. British Wildlife Publishing, DorsetGoogle Scholar
  57. Watts K (2006) British forest landscapes: the legacy of fragmentation. Q J For 100:273–279Google Scholar
  58. Wilson JD, Morris AJ, Arroyo BE, Clark SC, Bradbury RB (1999) A review of the abundance and diversity of invertebrate and plant foods of granivorous birds in northern Europe in relation to agricultural change. Agric Ecosyst Environ 75:13–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Yates MD, Muzika RM (2006) Effect of forest structure and fragmentation on site occupancy of bat species in Missouri Ozark forests. J Wildl Manag 70:1238–1248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Young M (1997) The natural history of moths. Poyser Natural History, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elisa Fuentes-Montemayor
    • 1
    Email author
  • Victor M. Peredo-Alvarez
    • 1
  • Kevin Watts
    • 2
  • Kirsty J. Park
    • 1
  1. 1.Biological and Environmental Sciences, School of Natural SciencesUniversity of StirlingStirlingUK
  2. 2.Forest ResearchSurreyUK

Personalised recommendations