Study

Impact of different meadow mowing techniques on field invertebrates

  • Published source details Humbert J.Y., Ghazoul J., Sauter G.J. & Walter T. (2010) Impact of different meadow mowing techniques on field invertebrates. Journal of Applied Entomology (formerly Zeitschrift für angewandte Entomologie), 134, 592-599.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Use motor bar mowers rather than rotary mowers

Action Link
Butterfly and Moth Conservation

Raise cutting height on grasslands

Action Link
Butterfly and Moth Conservation

Use mowing techniques to reduce mortality

Action Link
Farmland Conservation
  1. Use motor bar mowers rather than rotary mowers

    A replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in 2007–2008 in Switzerland (Humbert et al. 2010) found that harvesting meadows using a hand-pushed bar mower killed or injured fewer large white Pieris brassicae caterpillars than using a tractor-pulled rotary mower. Fewer caterpillars were killed by a bar mower (20%) than by a rotary mower used without (35–37% killed) or with (41–69% killed) a rear flail conditioner attached. Similarly, fewer wax models were damaged by the bar mower (11%) than the rotary mower used without (17% damaged) or with (28% damaged) a conditioner. In 2007–2008, in each of nine meadows, three 2.5-m-long plots were randomly assigned to three mowing treatments: 1.7-m-wide hand-pushed bar mower, or 2.5-m-wide tractor-pulled rotary drum mower without or with a rear flail conditioner, all cut to 6 cm. Before mowing, half of 200 wax caterpillar models (100 large and 100 small) were placed on the ground and half were tied to vegetation 20–30 cm high in each plot. In 2008, on five meadows, large white caterpillars were placed on the ground (50 caterpillars) and in the vegetation (50 caterpillars) in each plot. After mowing, wax models and caterpillars that survived were checked for damage or injuries.

    (Summarised by: Andrew Bladon, edited from Farmland Synopsis)

  2. Raise cutting height on grasslands

    A replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in 2007–2008 in Switzerland (Humbert et al. 2010) found that raising the cutting height when mowing meadows did not increase the survival of large white Pieris brassicae caterpillars. The proportion of large white caterpillars killed by mowing at 9 cm (30–43%) was not significantly different from the proportion killed by mowing at 6 cm (35–37%). Similarly, the proportion of wax models damaged by mowing at 9 cm (16.9%) was not significantly different from the proportion damaged by mowing at 6 cm (17.4%). In 2007–2008, in each of nine meadows, two 2.5-m-long plots were randomly assigned to either 9 cm or 6 cm cutting height, and mown with a 2.5-m-wide tractor-pulled rotary mower. Before mowing, half of 200 wax caterpillar models (100 large and 100 small) were placed on the ground and half were tied to vegetation 20–30 cm high in each plot. In 2008, on five meadows, large white caterpillars were placed on the ground (50 caterpillars) and in the vegetation (50 caterpillars) in each plot. After mowing, wax models and caterpillars that survived were checked for damage or injuries.

    (Summarised by: Andew Bladon, edited from Farmland Synopsis)

  3. Use mowing techniques to reduce mortality

    A randomized replicated trial in 2007 and 2008 in Switzerland (Humbert et al. 2010) found that harvesting meadow plots using a hand-pushed bar mower killed or injured on average 20% of caterpillars (Lepidoptera) added to plots before mowing, compared to 37% when using a tractor-pulled rotary drum mower, and 69% if a conditioner was attached to the rotary mower. Using a conditioner also increased the proportion of damaged wax invertebrate models from on average 11% (bar mower, no conditioner) to 30% (rotary mower with conditioner). Large (4 cm) invertebrate models were damaged more often than small (2 cm) models. Caterpillars and models placed on the ground or in vegetation (30 cm high) before mowing were affected differently by mowing treatments. Organisms on the ground were strongly impacted by tractor wheels, whilst those in vegetation were damaged by the mower/conditioner. Cutting height did not affect mortality in this study, but the authors note it is likely to be important for larger animals. Nine meadows were studied, with four 2.5 m-long plots each. There were four mowing treatments: hand-pushed bar mower (cutting height 6 cm, 1.7 m-wide), tractor-pulled rotary drum mower (2.5 m-wide) with two cutting heights 9 cm and 6 cm (one with, one without conditioner). Before mowing, 50 small and 50 larger wax invertebrate models were placed either on the ground or tied to vegetation 30 cm high. In 2008 on five meadows, large white butterfly caterpillars, Pieris brassicae, were placed on the ground (50 caterpillars) and in the vegetation (50 caterpillars). After mowing, both wax models and caterpillars that survived mowing were checked for injuries.

Output references
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