Study

Invertebrate distributions between permanent field boundary habitats and temporary stubble set-aside

  • Published source details Moreby S.J. (2007) Invertebrate distributions between permanent field boundary habitats and temporary stubble set-aside. Aspects of Applied Biology, 81, 207-212.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Provide or retain set‐aside areas in farmland

Action Link
Butterfly and Moth Conservation

Provide or retain set-aside areas in farmland

Action Link
Farmland Conservation
  1. Provide or retain set‐aside areas in farmland

    A replicated, site comparison study of 31 rotational set-aside fields in England, UK (Moreby, 2007) found that caterpillar abundance was similar in set-aside fields and uncultivated field boundaries. The number of butterfly and moth caterpillars was similar in set-aside fields and uncultivated field boundaries (data not presented). Caterpillars were sampled in the uncultivated field boundary (0 m) and at 3 m and 50 m in to each of 31 rotational set-aside fields in mid-May (year not given).

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

  2. Provide or retain set-aside areas in farmland

    A replicated site comparison study of 31 rotational set-aside fields in England (Moreby, 2007) found that invertebrate numbers tended to be higher in uncultivated field boundaries than within set-aside fields. There were significantly lower numbers of the following groups within set-aside compared to at field edges: harvestmen (Opiliones; 0 vs 3/m²), leafhoppers (Auchenorryncha; 10 vs 60), true bugs (Heteroptera; 2-10 vs 25), parasitic wasps (14 vs 20), beetles (Coleoptera; 7 vs 22), flies (Dipteral; 38-42 vs 63), ‘chick food items’ (20-30 vs 85) and ‘highly ranked predators’ (1 vs 5).  Aphids were more numerous in set-aside than at the field boundary (100-112 vs 10/m²).  There was no significant difference in numbers of spiders (Araneae), lacewing (Neuroptera) larvae, butterfly and moth (Lepidoptera) larvae, sawfly (Tenthreadinidae) larvae and aphid  predators between the margin and the field.  Invertebrates were sampled in the uncultivated field boundary (0 m) and at 3 m and 50 m in to each field in mid-May. Total invertebrates (excluding springtails (Collembola) and thrips (Thysanoptera)) and those in 12 groups known to be food for farmland birds were recorded.

     

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