Raise mowing height on grasslands to benefit farmland wildlife

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 from January to May 2002 of 15 Northern lapwing Vanellus vanellus chicks on one grassland site in the Isle of Islay and 20 common starlings Sturnus vulgaris on one grassland site in Oxfordshire, UK (Devereux et al. 2004) found that both species experienced significantly greater foraging success in shorter grass. For lapwing chicks, foraging rate declined as grass height increased. Starlings spent 30% more time actively foraging and captured 33% more prey in short grass, although intake rate (captures per second of active foraging) did not differ between grass heights. Invertebrate abundance did not differ between long and short grass. Fertilizer application and water level was manipulated to provide a range of grass heights on the lapwing site. Starlings were observed in enclosures placed within intensively managed permanent pasture that was mown to either 3 cm (short grass) or 13 cm (tall grass).

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A randomized, replicated, controlled trial from 2003 to 2006 on four farms in southwest England (Defra 2007) (same study as (Woodcock et al. 2007, Potts et al. 2009)) found that 50 x 10 m plots of permanent pasture cut to 10 cm in May and July did not attract more invertebrates or foraging birds than control plots cut to 5 cm. Plots were cut twice in May and July, and grazed in autumn/winter. There were twelve replicates of each management type, monitored over four years.

    Study and other actions tested
  3. A randomised, replicated, controlled trial from 2003 to 2005 on four farms in southwest England (Woodcock et al. 2007) (same study as (Defra 2007, Potts et al. 2009)) found that 50 x 10 m plots of permanent pasture cut to 10 cm in May and July had similar numbers of beetles (Coleoptera) and beetle species to control plots cut to 5 cm. There were twelve replicates of each management type, monitored over three years.


    Study and other actions tested
  4. A 2009 literature review (Humbert et al. 2009) found that cutting height has a large influence on mowing impact, with a raised cutting height being less damaging to field-dwelling animals. Three studies reported higher cutting heights were less damaging to invertebrates and amphibians (Löbbert et al. 1994, Classen et al. 1996, Oppermann et al. 2000).

    Additional references:

    Löbbert M., Kromer K.-H., Wieland C.C. (1994) Einfluss von Mäh- und Mulchgeräten auf die bodennahe Fauna [Influence of mowing and mulching equipment on ground fauna]. Pages 7–26 in: Forschungsberichte ‘‘Integrative Extensivierungs-und Naturschutzstrategien’’ H. 15. Universität Bonn, Institut für Landtechnik, Bonn.

    Classen A., Hirler A., Oppermann R. (1996) Auswirkungen unterschiedlicher Mähgeräte auf die Wiesenfauna in Nordost-Polen [Effects of different mowing equipment on meadow fauna in northeast Poland]. Naturschutz und Landschaftsplanung, 28, 139–144.

    Oppermann R., Handwerk J., Holsten M., & Krismann A. (2000) Naturverträgliche Mähtechnik für das Feuchtgrünland, Voruntersuchung für das E & E – Vorhaben [Nature-friendly mowing for wet grassland, preliminary study for E & E projects]. ILN Singen, Bonn.

    Study and other actions tested
  5. A randomised, replicated, controlled trial from 2003 to 2006 in southwest England (Potts et al. 2009) (same study as (Defra 2007, Woodcock et al. 2007)) found plots of permanent pasture cut to 10 cm in May and July did not attract more butterflies (Lepidoptera), butterfly larvae or common bumblebees Bombus spp. than control plots cut to 5 cm. Experimental plots 50 x 10 m were established on permanent pastures (more than five-years-old) on four farms. There were nine different management types, with three replicates/farm, monitored over four years. Bumblebees and butterflies were surveyed along a 50 m transect line in the centre of each experimental plot, once a month from June to September annually. Butterfly larvae were sampled on two 10 m transects using a sweep net in April and June-September annually.


    Study and other actions tested
  6. A 2010 review of four experiments on the effects of agri-environment measures on livestock farms in the UK (Buckingham et al. 2010) found one trial from 2006 to 2008 that tested the effect of mowing height on skylarks Alauda arvensis nesting in silage fields. Preliminary results showed that chick survival was not affected by raised cutting height. However, the number of new birds produced each year (productivity) was more sensitive to re-nesting rates than chick survival. Raised cutting height slightly increased productivity because skylarks re-nested sooner after cutting, but this was not enough to maintain a local population given survival rates. This study formed part of a Defra-funded project (BD1454) for which no reference is given in the review.

    Study and other actions tested
  7. A replicated controlled study from 2006 to 2008 on silage fields in Dorset, UK (Defra 2010) found that raising the cutting height on grasslands benefited Eurasian skylark Alauda arvensis. Daily failure rates of skylark nests were lower and the likelihood of chicks fledging higher on fields with raised cutting heights (probability of chicks fledging in May: 0.6 vs 0.4 on high and low cut plots respectively). Annual skylark productivity on two-cut silage plots was higher when the first or both the first and second cuts were raised compared to normal low cuts (21 independent fledglings/100 pairs on plots where the first cut was raised, 24 where both cuts were raised vs four on plots where both cuts were low). Skylarks preferentially nested on raised cutting height plots in the two week period after mowing in both 2006 and 2007, and only nested in vegetation which was at least 10 cm tall. Invertebrate abundance was not significantly different between cutting heights. A split-plot set-up was used to test the effects of different mowing heights: average raised cutting height 12 cm,  low cutting height approximately 6-7 cm (2006: 12 trial fields, 11 controls; 2007: eight trial, four controls). Entire fields were subject to raised or control mowing heights in 2008 (10 trial fields, 15 controls). All plots were cut using disc mowers. Skylark nests were monitored to assess daily productivity, and survival rates and chicks were radio-tagged to assess their survival after fledging. Stochastic simulation modelling was used to investigate the effects on skylark productivity.

    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