Study

Optimizing the biodiversity gain from agri-environment schemes

  • Published source details Merckx T., Feber R.E., Riordan P., Townsend M.C., Bourn N.A.D., Parsons M.S. & Macdonald D.W. (2009) Optimizing the biodiversity gain from agri-environment schemes. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 130, 177-182.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Manage hedgerows to benefit wildlife (e.g. no spray, gap-filling and laying)

Action Link
Butterfly and Moth Conservation

Plant grass buffer strips/margins around arable or pasture fields

Action Link
Butterfly and Moth Conservation

Pay farmers to cover the costs of conservation measures (as in agri-environment schemes or conservation incentives)

Action Link
Butterfly and Moth Conservation

Plant grass buffer strips/margins around arable or pasture fields

Action Link
Farmland Conservation
  1. Manage hedgerows to benefit wildlife (e.g. no spray, gap-filling and laying)

    A replicated, site comparison study in 2006 in four arable areas in Oxfordshire, UK (Merckx et al. 2009b, same experimental set-up as Merckx et al. 2009a, 2010, 2012) found that farms with mature trees in their hedgerows had a higher diversity of larger moths than farms without mature trees in their hedgerows, but that the abundance of moths was similar. Farms with mature trees in their hedgerows had a higher species diversity of moths than farms without hedgerow trees (data presented as model results). However, the abundance of moths was similar between hedgerows with (25–27 individuals) and without (22 individuals) trees. Three permanent sampling sites were established >100 m apart and >50 m from hedgerow intersections at each of 16 farms. Farms were divided between four experimental groups: sampling in a 6-m-wide perennial grass margin adjacent to a mature (>15 m high) hedgerow tree, sampling in a standard 1-m margin adjacent to a hedgerow tree, sampling in a 6-m margin not adjacent to a hedgerow tree, and sampling in a 1-m margin not adjacent to a hedgerow tree. All farms were sampled once during each of 11 discrete fortnightly periods from mid-May to mid-October 2006 using standardized moth traps.

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

  2. Plant grass buffer strips/margins around arable or pasture fields

    A replicated, site comparison study in 2006 in four arable areas in Oxfordshire, UK (Merckx et al. 2009b, same experimental set-up as Merckx et al. 2009a, 2010a, 2010b, 2012) found that farms with wide perennial grass margins had a higher diversity, but not abundance, of larger moths than farms with standard narrow margins. Farms with 6-m-wide margins had a higher species diversity of moths than farms with 1-m-wide standard margins (data presented as model results). However, the abundance of moths was similar between wide (22–27 individuals) and standard (22–25 individuals) margins. Three permanent sampling sites were established >100 m apart and >50 m from hedgerow intersections at each of 16 farms. Farms were divided between four experimental groups: sampling in a 6-m-wide perennial grass margin adjacent to a mature (>15 m high) hedgerow tree, sampling in a standard 1-m margin adjacent to a hedgerow tree, sampling in a 6-m margin not adjacent to a hedgerow tree, and sampling in a 1-m margin not adjacent to a hedgerow tree. All farms were sampled once during each of 11 discrete fortnightly periods from mid-May to mid-October 2006 using standardized moth traps.

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

  3. Pay farmers to cover the costs of conservation measures (as in agri-environment schemes or conservation incentives)

    A replicated, controlled study in 2004–2006 in four arable areas in Oxfordshire, UK (Merckx et al. 2009b, same experimental set-up as Merckx et al. 2009a, 2010a, 2010b, 2012) found that farms with mature hedgerow trees in areas where farmers were encouraged to sign-up to agri-environment schemes (AES) had a higher abundance and diversity of larger moths than farms with hedgerow trees where farmers signed-up voluntarily. Farms with mature trees in their hedgerows in areas where farmers were encouraged to sign-up to AES had a higher abundance (9.6 individuals) and species diversity of moths than farms with hedgerow trees in areas where farmers signed-up voluntarily (abundance: 8.5 individuals), and farms without hedgerow trees where farmers were encouraged to sign-up (abundance: 8.2 individuals; diversity presented as model results). After two years of encouraging AES sign-ups, the area of land with enhanced hedgerow management options in targeted areas (5,197 ha, 219 km hedgerow) was higher than in voluntary sign-up areas (1,972 ha, 83 km hedgerow). Enhanced management required maintaining hedges at a height of >2 m, and not cutting more than once every three years. From 2004–2006, farmers in two areas were systematically encouraged to sign-up to AES. In two other areas, no active encouragement was given, but some farmers entered the scheme voluntarily. Four farms in each area were divided into two experimental groups: with and without mature (>15 m high) hedgerow trees. All farms were sampled once during each of 11 discrete fortnightly periods from mid-May to mid-October 2006 using standardized moth traps.

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

  4. Plant grass buffer strips/margins around arable or pasture fields

    A replicated, controlled study in 2006 in central Oxfordshire, UK (Merckx et al. 2009b) found no difference in moth (Lepidoptera) abundance or diversity between 6 m (agri-environment scheme option) and about 1 m (standard option) wide field margins in four lowland farmland areas. In each area, one farm with standard margins and one with 6 m-wide margins were sampled. Three Heath pattern actinic light traps (6 W) were set up on each farm ?100 m apart and >50 m from hedgerow intersections. Traps were placed on 2 m2 white cotton sheets 1 m from hedgerows bordering fields with no banks or ditches. All farms were sampled once during each of 11 discrete fortnightly periods from mid-May to mid-October 2006. Sampling was carried out from dusk till dawn during nights with suitable weather conditions. At dawn, all individuals were identified to species, species-pair or genus, marked with a unique number and released where caught.

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