Study

Evaluating the relative importance of site and landscape characteristics for invertebrate communities in grasslands restored through agri-environment schemes

  • Published source details Woodcock B., Ball S., Amy S., Edwards M., Redhead J., Mountford O., Gregory S., Duffield S., Macgregor N. & Pywell R. (2016) Evaluating the relative importance of site and landscape characteristics for invertebrate communities in grasslands restored through agri-environment schemes. Natural England report, DEFRA Report RP01878.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Restore arable land to permanent grassland

Action Link
Butterfly and Moth Conservation
  1. Restore arable land to permanent grassland

    A replicated, site comparison study in 2014 on 52 fields in arable reversion in southern England, UK (Woodcock et al. 2016) found that neither the method of restoring arable land to permanent grassland, nor current management of the field, affected adult butterfly and day-flying moth species richness or caterpillar abundance, but species richness of adult butterflies was lower in fields restored longer ago. One to 30 years after arable reversion began, butterfly species richness and caterpillar abundance were similar on fields established by sowing complex or simple seed mixes, or by allowing natural regeneration, and on fields managed by sheep or cattle grazing, and with or without mowing (data not presented). The species richness of adult butterflies was lower on arable reversion fields >20 years old (0–6 species/site) than fields <10 years old (1–8 species/site), but caterpillar abundance was similar (data not presented). Between 1984–2013, restoration of 52 former arable fields (1.0–22.8 ha) to calcareous grasslands began. Fields were restored by natural regeneration, re-seeding with simple grass or complex grass and non-woody broadleaved plant (forb) mixes, or by spreading green hay. Fields were cut every 1–4 years (normally after 15 July) and lightly grazed (typically 1 livestock unit/ha) by sheep or cattle, with some fields ungrazed. From July–August 2014, adult butterflies and day-flying moths were surveyed twice/day on three days, and caterpillars were sampled by 20 sweeps/day of a net, along a 100-m transect at each site.

    (Summarised by: Andrew Bladon)

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