Make selective use of spring herbicides

Overall effectiveness category Evidence not assessed
Number of studies: 1
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

This intervention aims to reduce herbicide inputs in fields which do not contain undesirable weed species. It involves not applying an autumn herbicide and reducing spring herbicide applications to a single treatment of a selective herbicide. Reducing spring herbicide treatment to a single application may allow a diverse weed community to develop.

Study locations

Key messages

A replicated, controlled, randomized study in the UK found that spring herbicides had some benefits for beneficial weeds and arthropods.

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, randomized study from 2003 to 2005 of arable fields at three sites in the UK (Jones & Smith 2007) found that spring herbicides had some benefits for beneficial weeds and arthropods. Species richness and cover of beneficial weeds tended to be higher with single spring or post-emergence herbicide applications than pre-emergence or combinations of applications; figures were lowest in plots with three annual applications. Cover of undesirable weeds was higher in single spring or pre-emergence applications than combined treatments. Single applications tended to reduce arthropod abundance less than sequences of herbicides, although post-emergence and pre-emergence applications were detrimental to some taxa. There were three or five replicate plots (3 or 4 x 24 m) of each treatment per site: untreated, pre-emergence, post-emergence or spring applications or combinations of each two/all herbicide applications. Vegetation was sampled in five quadrats (0.25 m²) in each plot (June 2003-2005). Arthropods were sampled using a D-Vac suction sampler (five sub-samples of 10s/plot) in a sub-set of treatments (June).
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Jones N.E. & Smith B. (2007) Effects of selective herbicide treatment, row width and spring cultivation on weed and arthropod communities in winter wheat. Aspects of Applied Biology, 81, 39-46.

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
Reduce chemical inputs in grassland management Action Link	Likely to be beneficial	18	Synopsis Link
Restrict certain pesticides Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	2	Synopsis Link
Provide buffer strips alongside water courses (rivers and streams) Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	7	Synopsis Link