Study

Permanent and temporary linear habitats as food sources for the young of farmland birds

  • Published source details Moreby S.J. (2002) Permanent and temporary linear habitats as food sources for the young of farmland birds. Pages 327-332 in: D.E. Chamberlain (ed.) Avian Landscape Ecology: Pure and Applied Issues in the Large-Scale Ecology of Birds. International Association for Landscape Ecology (IALE(UK)), Aberdeen.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Plant wild bird seed or cover mixture

Action Link
Butterfly and Moth Conservation

Create beetle banks

Action Link
Butterfly and Moth Conservation

Plant wild bird seed or cover mixture

Action Link
Farmland Conservation

Create beetle banks

Action Link
Farmland Conservation

Provide or retain set-aside areas in farmland

Action Link
Farmland Conservation
  1. Plant wild bird seed or cover mixture

    A replicated, site comparison study in 2000 on a lowland arable farm in Leicestershire, UK (Moreby 2002, same experimental set-up as Moreby & Southway 2002) found that wild bird cover contained similar densities of caterpillars to in other field edge habitats. There was no difference in caterpillar densities between habitat types (data not presented). Ten edge habitats (first-year wild bird cover, second-year wild bird cover, non-rotational set-aside, beetle banks, brood cover, hedge bottoms, sheep-grazed pasture edges, ungrazed pasture edges, grass/wire fence lines and winter wheat headlands) were included in the study (sample size not given). Caterpillars were sampled with a vacuum suction sampler in June 2000 (no further details provided).

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

  2. Create beetle banks

    A replicated, site comparison study in 2000 on a lowland arable farm in Leicestershire, UK (Moreby 2002, same experimental set-up as Moreby & Southway 2002) found that beetle banks contained similar densities of caterpillars to other field edge habitats. There was no difference in caterpillar densities between habitat types (data not presented). Ten edge habitats (beetle banks, first-year wild bird cover, second-year wild bird cover, non-rotational set-aside, brood cover, hedge bottoms, sheep-grazed pasture edges, ungrazed pasture edges, grass/wire fence lines and winter wheat headlands) were included in the study (sample size not given). Caterpillars were sampled with a vacuum suction sampler in June 2000 (no further details provided).

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

  3. Plant wild bird seed or cover mixture

    A replicated study in June 2000 in ten edge habitats on an arable farm in Leicestershire, England (Moreby 2002) found that first-year wild bird cover had the highest density (not significant) of caterpillars (Lepidoptera). Weevil (Curculionidae) densities were similar in first- and second-year wild bird cover but lower than in edges of non-rotational set-aside. Spider (Araneae) and rove beetle (Staphylinidae) densities were lower in wild bird cover than in ungrazed pasture edges. Type of neighbouring crop did not affect invertebrate densities in the different habitats. Apart from the four habitats mentioned above, beetle banks, brood cover, hedge bottoms, sheep-grazed pasture edges, grass/wire fence lines and winter wheat headlands were included in the study. Invertebrates were sampled with a vacuum suction sampler in June 2000. This study was part of the same experimental set-up as Moreby & Southway (2002), Murray et al. (2002).

  4. Create beetle banks

    A replicated study in June 2000 in ten edge habitats on a lowland arable farm in Leicestershire, England (Moreby 2002) found that beetle banks contained the highest density of sawfly (Symphyta) larvae, significantly higher compared to hedge bottoms and winter wheat headlands, but not compared to grass/wire fence lines or edges of un-grazed pasture. Spider (Araneae) and rove beetle (Staphylinidae) densities were lower in beetle banks than in un-grazed pastures. Set-aside contained a higher density of weevils (Curculionidae) than beetle banks. There was no difference in ground beetle (Carabidae) or caterpillar (Lepidoptera) densities between habitats. Type of neighbouring crop did not affect invertebrate densities in the different habitats. Apart from the six habitats mentioned above, brood cover, one and two-year-old wild bird cover, and sheep-grazed pasture edges were included in the study. Invertebrates were sampled with a vacuum suction sampler in June 2000.

     

  5. Provide or retain set-aside areas in farmland

    A replicated site comparison study carried out in June 2000 in ten edge habitats at the arable Loddington Estate in Leicestershire, England (Moreby, 2002) found a higher density of weevils (Curculionoidea) in edges of non-rotational set-aside than all the other habitats studied. Spider (Aranae) and rove beetle (Staphylinidae) densities were lower in set-aside than in edges of un-grazed pastures. Beetle banks, brood cover, one- and two-year-old wild bird cover, hedge bottoms, sheep-grazed pasture edges, grass/wire fence lines and winter wheat headlands were also included in the study. Invertebrates were sampled with a vacuum suction-sampler in June 2000.

     

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