Plant crops in spring rather than autumn

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

Study locations

Key messages

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 replicated study in 1992 and 1993 within the South Downs Environmentally Sensitive Area, Sussex, UK (Wakeham-Dawson 1995) found that winter and spring-sown crops were used for different broods by Eurasian skylark Alauda arvensis. Winter-sown crops tended to be used more for first brood nesting skylarks (first brood period: 8-15 males/km², second: 4-9), whereas spring-sown crops were used more for the second brood (first brood period: 3-4 males/km², second: 7-14). Four arable, 10 mixed and three pastoral farms were studied. Skylarks were sampled by mapping breeding males during two counts along transects on 12-17 farms from April to June.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A replicated, controlled study of arable fields at three sites within the TALISMAN MAFF-funded experiment in England (Jones et al. 1997) found that weed density tended to be higher in plots with increased spring cropping compared to those with winter dominated cropping. Seed bank density depended on site. At Boxworth, seed bank density was higher on increased spring cropping rotations (8,780-25,824/m²) compared to winter dominated cropping (2,172-2,209/m²). In contrast, at High Mowthorpe, seed densities were higher with winter cropping (11,300-16,231/m² vs 1,764-3,181/m²). Total plant density tended to be higher in plots with increased spring cropping than with winter dominated cropping (4-18 vs 3-9/m²). There were differences between species, and at High Mowthorpe, some had significantly higher populations on plots with winter cropping. At Boxworth there were two replicates in two blocks, at the other two sites, there was one replicate in three blocks. Seed banks were sampled at Boxworth and High Mowthorpe after harvest from three sub-samples (60 combined soil cores) in each plot. Weed density was sampled in 15 quadrats/plot at the three sites after harvest (August-September) and in October-November.

    Study and other actions tested
  3. A 1998 literature review (Sotherton 1998) looked at the effect of agricultural intensification and the role of set-aside on the conservation of farmland wildlife, particularly endangered annual arable wildflowers and gamebirds. It found one UK study comparing arable weeds in spring and autumn-sown cereals showing that rough poppy Papaver hybridum, shepherd\'s-needle Scandix pecten-veneris, corn buttercup Ranunculus arvensis and common corncockle Agrostemma githago produced significantly more fruits/plot in autumn-sown than spring-sown cereals. In contrast broad-fruited cornsalad Valerianella rimosa produced significantly more fruits in spring-sown crops (Wilson 1994).

    Additional reference:

    Wilson P. J. (1994) Botanical diversity in arable field margins. Pages 53-58 in: N. D. Boatman (ed) Field Margins-Integrating Agriculture and Conservation, BCPC Monographs, 58.

    Study and other actions tested
  4. A replicated site comparison study in 1988-1992 in 19 arable fields in Denmark (Hald 1999) found that weed diversity in unsprayed crop margins was over 25% lower in winter cereals than in spring cereals. Of the 114 weed species found, 97 were present in spring cereals compared to 87 in winter cereals. Of the species with known germination seasons, 94% were able to germinate in spring cereals whilst 64% were able to germinate in winter cereals. In addition, important food plants for arthropod herbivores occurred at greater densities and higher relative abundance in spring cereals. Experimental plots were 6 x 20 m, with crop rotation determined by the farmer. Each plot was sampled in spring each year, using 10 permanent 0.1 m circles/plot. Only data from permanently unsprayed plots in fields that supported at least one winter and one spring cereal sample were used in the analysis (72 plots).

    Study and other actions tested
  5. A replicated, site comparison study between 1984 and 1994 in Västmanland, Sweden (Berg et al. 2002), found that northern lapwing Vanellus vanellus nested on spring-sown crops more than expected based on their availability, and on autumn sown crops less than expected. However, hatching success on spring crops was lower than on autumn crops (29-50% for 1,236 nests on spring crops vs approximately 85% for 27 nests on autumn crops).


    Study and other actions tested
  6. A 2003 literature review in Europe (Bat Conservation Trust 2003) found one study that reported that winter wheat supported higher numbers of invertebrates than spring wheat (Green 1984).

    Additional reference:

    Green R.E. (1984) The feeding ecology and survival of partridge chicks (Alectoris rufa and Perdix perdix) on arable farmland in East Anglia. Journal of Applied Ecology, 21, 817-830.

    Study and other actions tested
  7. A before-and-after site-comparison study in 2000-2005 in Bedfordshire, England (Henderson et al. 2009), found that fields sown with wheat in spring held significantly more Eurasian skylark Alauda arvensis, seed-eating songbirds and insect-eating birds than winter-sown wheat. In addition, 20 bird species showed significant population increases on a 61 ha site where the area of spring-sown wheat and naturally regenerated set-aside was increased over the study period. Increases were lower or absent on an 80 ha area of farmland adjacent to the experimental area and without the land use change. Five species were recorded breeding for the first time after management started. Ten species showed no significant increase on the study site, whilst none decreased significantly. The biggest increases occurred in the first three years of management and were higher for farmland birds than for woodland birds.

    Study and other actions tested
  8. A replicated site comparison study in 2004 of autumn-sown and spring-sown barley on four farms in Scotland (Douglas et al. 2010) found that arthropod abundance was higher in autumn barley in early summer and in spring barley in late summer. Arthropod abundance was significantly higher in autumn barley from April to June (autumn barley: 8-21/sample; spring: 3-14), consistent with earlier crop development. The reverse was true in July and August (autumn barley: 15-23; spring: 20-26/sample). Abundances of individual arthropod orders varied slightly between the two sowing regimes. A total of five spring and five autumn barley fields were selected from four farms (two of each crop type). No insecticides were applied, but fields received one or two herbicide applications. Arthropods were sampled on five occasions in each field (April-August 2004) using a leaf vacuum (15 cm diameter). Sampling was undertaken at intervals (5 or 30 m) along 2-5 parallel transects (100 m apart) across the width of each field.

    Study and other actions tested
  9. A replicated paired site comparison study in 2004 of autumn-sown wheat and spring-sown barley in Sweden (Eggers et al. 2011) found that there were significantly greater numbers of ground-foraging breeding birds in spring-sown cereals. There were 0.8 species/ha in spring-sown compared to 0.5 species/ha in autumn-sown cereal plots. Territory densities of northern lapwing Vanellus vanellus and northern wheatear Oenanthe oenanthe were also higher in spring-sown (lapwing: 0.08 territories/ha, wheatear: 0.12) compared to autumn-sown cereal plots (lapwing: 0.02; wheatear: 0.05). There was no effect of sowing time on Eurasian skylark Alauda arvensis or yellowhammer Emberiza citrinella breeding density. In spring-sown plots, numbers of species decreased significantly as the proportion of autumn-sown cereals in the surrounding landscape increased. Forty-one independent pairs of autumn-sown wheat and spring-sown barley plots were selected, each centred on an infield non-crop island. Non-crop islands were surveyed for cover of trees, shrubs and weeds and cereal height was measured on five occasions in each field. All birds were recorded within a radius of 100 m from the centre of each plot during five point counts of seven minutes (mid-May to end of June).

    Study and other actions tested
Please cite as:

Dicks, L.V., Ashpole, J.E., Dänhardt, J., James, K., Jönsson, A., Randall, N., Showler, D.A., Smith, R.K., Turpie, S., Williams, D.R. & Sutherland, W.J. (2020) Farmland Conservation. Pages 283-321 in: W.J. Sutherland, L.V. Dicks, S.O. Petrovan & R.K. Smith (eds) What Works in Conservation 2020. Open Book Publishers, Cambridge, UK.


Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

Farmland Conservation

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Farmland Conservation
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