Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38192903›Full record

ArticleEcology and evolution2024

A checklist of European butterfly larval foodplants.

Harry E Clarke

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ecology and evolution, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. The genome sequence of the Lapland Ringlet,Wellcome open research · 2026
    Article
  3. The genome sequence of the Osiris Blue,Wellcome open research · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. The genome sequence of Cynthia's Fritillary,Wellcome open research · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. The genome sequence of the Piedmont Ringlet,Wellcome open research · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Butterflies are charismatic insects and have been well studied, particularly in Europe. They are disproportionately used in generating and testing hypotheses; on everything from general evolutionary processes, such as speciation or host association dynamics; to conservation-related studies, such as climate change or habitat loss. Accurate lists of the larval foodplants for European butterflies are not readily available. Mistakes are propagated and information cannot be checked for accuracy. The level of evidence is unknown, and how usage varies between countries is poorly understood. The study consulted 1119 references to produce 19,488 records of larval foodplants for European butterflies. This resulted in 5589 larval host plant records for 464 European butterfly species, with multiple references, enabling information to be checked. Information was unavailable for 59 species. The level of evidence for each relationship shows the current state of knowledge. Significant issues were identified for 3.9% of records extracted from references due to mistakes, ambiguous or unknown plant names, distribution issues, resulting in information being lost. Plants with questionable distributions suggest either mis-identification or species that have been split. Little is known about plant usage in Eastern Europe. The larval foodplants of many monophagous and Satyrinae butterflies are poorly studied. Only 63% of threatened 2010 Red Listed butterflies have reliable host plant records. The study has provided ecologists with a valuable resource, of a more accurate checklist of the larval foodplants for each European country. Why plant usage varies over a butterfly's distribution opens up some interesting research questions.

Indexed as

Europehabitathost plantsLepidopteraPapilionoidea

Identifiers

PMID38192903
PMCPMC10771928

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.