Provide 'sacrificial' grasslands to reduce the impact of wild geese on crops

Overall effectiveness category Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)
Number of studies: 6
Share Tweet Email

View assessment score

How is the evidence assessed?

Effectiveness

20%
Certainty

5%
Harms

not assessed

Calculating overall effectiveness category

Background information and definitions

There have been dramatic increases in many species of goose in recent decades (Madsen et al. 1999) and this has led to increasing conflict with farmers, as many species graze on arable land, potentially ruining crops. One potential solution, to reduce conflict whilst maintaining the populations of geese is to provide ‘sacrificial grasslands’ – areas set aside for geese to feed on, which keeps them away from agricultural fields.

To be useful, such areas need to be more attractive than neighbouring fields. Management to attract geese to these areas can include re-seeding grasslands with grass species or legumes such as clover Trifolium spp., or fertilizing grasslands to increase productivity so that these areas can support more birds.

Madsen J., Cracknell G. & Fox A.D. (1999) Goose Populations of the Western Palearctic. A Review of Status and Distribution. Wetlands International Publication No. 48. Wetlands International, Wageningen, The Netherlands.

Study locations

Key messages

All six studies from the UK (including four replicated, controlled trials) found that managing grasslands for geese increased the number grazing there. Two replicated, controlled studies found that fertilized and cut areas were grazed by more white-fronted geese or brent geese than control areas. A replicated, controlled trial found that re-seeded and fertilized wet pasture fields were used by more barnacle geese than control fields, and that fertilized areas were used less than re-seeded ones. A replicated, controlled study found that spring fertilizer application increased the use of grassland fields by pink-footed geese. A replicated study found that plots sown with white clover were preferred by dark-bellied brent geese compared to plots sown with grasses.
However, four of the studies found that the birds were moving within a relatively small area (i.e. within the study site) and therefore the grasslands may not reduce conflict with farmers.

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, controlled trial in the winter of 1972-1973 at a 6 ha pasture (periodically flooded by saltwater) in Gloucestershire, UK (Owen 1975), found that significantly more greater white-fronted geese Anser albifrons fed on fertilized and cut areas, compared to control areas (overall average of 30-35% of geese on cut, fertilized areas vs 17-20% on control areas, maximum of 65% use of cut, fertilized areas vs 20% for controls). Preferences decreased over time as preferred areas lost vegetation and became more crowded. Vegetation from experimental areas had a higher nitrogen content than that from control areas. Fertilization consisted of 125 kg/ha of ‘nitro-chalk’ - 25% nitrogen - applied in mid October. In mid-October, the grass was also cut to approximately 8 cm.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Owen M. (1975) Cutting and Fertilizing Grassland for Winter Goose Management. Journal of Wildlife Management, 39, 163-167.
A before-and-after study in Gloucestershire, England (Owen 1977) found that up to 87% of geese on a grassland site used a 130 ha area managed for them in 1975-1976. The main management practice was to change the stocking regime of the site.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Owen M. (1977) The role of wildfowl refuges on agricultural land in lessening the conflict between farmers and geese in Britain. Biological Conservation, 11, 209-222.
A replicated, controlled trial in 1984-1987 on a reserve on the island of Islay, west Scotland (Percival 1993) found more barnacle geese Branta leucopsis used wet pasture fields if they were re-seeded or fertilized than if they were unmanaged. However, fewer geese used fertilized fields than re-seeded ones. Fertilizers were either 34.5% nitrogen in pellet form (at 125 kg/ha), or ‘nitrochalk’ – 25% nitrogen in granular form – (at 175 kg/ha) and spread in October (wet and dry fields) and March (dry fields only). However, increases in barnacle geese were due to a redistribution of local birds, rather than new birds visiting the reserve. The author therefore suggests that improving the reserve grasslands will only minimally reduce conflict with farmers elsewhere on the island.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Percival S.M. (1993) The effects of reseeding, fertilizer application and disturbance on the use of grasslands by barnacle geese, and the implications for refuge management. Journal of Applied Ecology, 30, 437-443.
A series of replicated controlled trials on grassland sites at two reserves in Essex, England, between 1990 and 1992 (Vickery et al. 1994) found that brent geese Branta bernicla grazed at significantly higher densities on fertilized and cut areas, compared to unfertilized areas, but only at high levels of fertilizer application (50 kg N/ha used: 28-30 droppings/m² for fertilized areas vs 23-28 droppings/m² for controls, 18 kg N/ha used: 30-35 droppings/m² for fertilized areas vs 25-35 droppings/m² for control areas). There were no differences between trials using organic and inorganic fertilizer.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Vickery J.A., Sutherland W.J. & Lane S.J. (1994) The management of grass pastures for brent geese. Journal of Applied Ecology, 31, 283-290.
A replicated study in the winters of 1992-1993 and 1993-1994 on an arable field on Thorney Island, West Sussex, England (McKay et al. 2001) found that dark-bellied brent geese Branta bernicla bernicla preferentially foraged on plots sown with white clover Trifolium repens, compared to three grass species (10-13 droppings/m² for 12 clover plots vs 0-5 droppings/m² for 36 grass plots). There were no differences between grass species (perennial rye grass Lolium perenne, red fescue Festuca rubra or timothy Phleum pratense). Plots were established in spring 1991 and preferences were found in both years, although more geese used grass plots in 1993-1994.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
McKay H.V., Milsom T.P., Feare C.J., Ennis D.C., O'Connell D.P & Haskell D.J. (2001) Selection of forage species and the creation of alternative feeding areas for dark-bellied brent geese Branta bernicla bernicla in southern UK coastal areas. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 84, 99-113.
A replicated, controlled study in 1990-1993 at a reserve in Aberdeenshire, Scotland (Patterson & Fuchs 2001), found that spring fertilizer application in 1990-1991 significantly increased the use of grassland fields by pink-footed geese Anser brachyrynchus, until applications of approximately 80 kg N/ha (1990: average of 13-14 goose droppings/m² with no application vs 18-22 droppings/m² with 40 kg N/ha, 28 droppings/m² with 80 kg/m² and 27-31 droppings/m² with 120-160 kg N/ha; patterns in 1991 were similar but with fewer droppings). However, two slow-release fertilizers did not affect foraging densities in winter 1990-1992 (average of 24.5-26.7 droppings/m² for fertilized vs 24 droppings/m² for control grasslands). Split fertilizer application did not increase field use, compared to a single application (average of 11 droppings/m² for fields with split applications vs 10 droppings/m² for single applications), although the authors note it may reduce nitrogen leaching.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Patterson I.J. & Fuchs R.M.E. (2001) The use of nitrogen fertilizer on alternative grassland feeding refuges for pink-footed geese in spring. Journal of Applied Ecology, 38, 637-646.

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

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Farmland Conservation

Related Actions

Actions	Effectiveness	Studies	Category
Enforce legislation to protect birds against persecution Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	2	Synopsis Link
Avoid use of lead shot Action Link	No evidence found (no assessment)	0	Synopsis Link
Provide 'sacrificial' grasslands to reduce the impact of wild geese on crops Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	6	Synopsis Link