Undersow spring cereals, with clover for example

Overall effectiveness category Awaiting assessment
Number of studies: 2
Share Tweet Email

View assessment score

How is the evidence assessed?

Effectiveness

not assessed
Certainty

not assessed
Harms

not assessed

Calculating overall effectiveness category

Background information and definitions

Undersowing cereals with plants such as clover, which are able to fix nitrogen in the soil, is commonly used in agri-environment schemes to reduce the need to apply artificial fertilizer. However, these plants may also provide an important source of nectar for butterflies and moths, which could improve the value of arable land for butterfly and moth populations.

Study locations

Key messages

Two studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of undersowing spring cereals. One study was in the UK and one was in Switzerland.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES)

Richness/diversity (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the UK found that spring barley undersown with a mix of grasses and legumes had a higher species richness of butterflies than extensively or conventionally managed grassland. One replicated, site comparison study in Switzerland found that farms with a larger area of in-field agri-environment scheme options, including undersown cereals, had a similar species richness of butterflies to farms with a smaller area of in-field agri-environment scheme

POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES)

Abundance (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the UK found that spring barley undersown with a mix of grasses and legumes had a higher abundance of butterflies, but a lower abundance of caterpillars, than extensively or conventionally managed grassland. One replicated, site comparison study in Switzerland found that farms with a larger area of in-field agri-environment scheme options, including undersown cereals, had a similar abundance of butterflies to farms with a smaller area of in-field agri-environment scheme

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

A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 2002–2006 on four lowland farms in Devon and Somerset, UK (Potts et al. 2009) found that annually sown plots of spring barley Hordeum vulgare undersown with a mix of grasses and legumes had a higher abundance and species richness of butterflies, but a lower abundance of caterpillars, than grassland plots. In the first two years, undersown plots had a higher abundance (4–6 individuals/transect) and species richness (2–4 species/transect) of adult butterflies than extensively (abundance: 3–5 individuals/transect; richness: 2 species/transect) or conventionally managed (abundance: 1–2 individuals/transect; richness: 1 species/transect) grassland. However, there were fewer caterpillars in the sown plots (0–3 caterpillars/transect) than the extensively (1–8 caterpillars/transect) or conventionally managed (0–7 caterpillars/transect) grassland. In April 2002, experimental plots (50 × 10 m) were established on permanent pastures (>5-years-old) on four farms. There were eight treatments, with three replicates/farm. The sown treatment comprised barley undersown with seven grasses and five legumes. Two extensive grassland treatments had minimal disturbance during summer and five conventional grassland treatments included modifications to conventional silage management (reducing fertilizer application, cutting and grazing). From June–September 2003–2006, butterflies were surveyed once/month on a 50-m transect through the centre of each plot. In April, June, July and September 2003–2006, caterpillars were counted (but not identified) on two 10-m transects/plot using a sweep net (20 sweeps/transect).
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Potts S.G., Woodcock B.A., Roberts S.P.M., Tscheulin T., Pilgrim E.S., Brown V.K. & Tallowin J.R. (2009) Enhancing pollinator biodiversity in intensive grasslands. Journal of Applied Ecology, 46, 369-379.
A replicated, site comparison study in 2009–2011 in 133 mixed farms in the Central Plateau, Switzerland (Stoeckli et al. 2017) found that farms with more in-field agri-environment scheme (AES) options, including undersown cereals, had a similar abundance and species richness of butterflies to farms with fewer (AES) options. Both the abundance and species richness of butterflies on farms with a larger area of in-field AES options was similar to farms with smaller areas of in-field AES options (data presented as model results). A total of 133 farms (17–34 ha, 13–91% arable crops) were managed with in-field AES options, including undersown cereals, undrilled patches in crops, wide-spaced rows, cover crops, use of bar mowers, staggered mowing, no silage and no chemical inputs. Fields without chemical inputs contributed about half of the area of AES options, on average. From May–September 2009–2011, butterflies were surveyed six times on 10–38 transects/farm, totalling 2,500 m/farm. Each transect ran diagonally through a single crop or habitat type, with all available crops and habitats represented. All visits to a farm were completed in a single year, and the species richness was summed across all visits. Total abundance of butterflies was calculated from the number recorded in each habitat, and the availability of each habitat across the farm.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Stoeckli S., Birrer S., Zellweger-Fischer J., Balmer O., Jenny M. & Pfiffner L. (2017) Quantifying the extent to which farmers can influence biodiversity on their farms. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 237, 224-233.

Please cite as:

Bladon A.J., Bladon, E. K., Smith R.K. & Sutherland W.J. (2023) 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

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Butterfly and Moth Conservation

Related Actions

Actions	Effectiveness	Studies	Category
Leave uncropped, cultivated margins or plots Action Link	Evidence not assessed	4	Synopsis Link
Plant more than one crop per field (intercropping) Action Link	Evidence not assessed	1	Synopsis Link
Create beetle banks Action Link	Awaiting assessment	4	Synopsis Link