Study

Manipulating the abundance of Lepthyphantes tenuis (Araneae: Linyphiidae) by field margin management

  • Published source details Bell J.R., Johnson P.J., Hambler C., Haughton A.J., Smith H., Feber R.E., Tattersall F.H., Hart B.H., Manley W. & Macdonald D.W. (2002) Manipulating the abundance of Lepthyphantes tenuis (Araneae: Linyphiidae) by field margin management. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 93, 295-304.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Delay mowing or first grazing date on pasture or grassland

Action Link
Natural Pest Control

Create uncultivated margins around intensive arable or pasture fields

Action Link
Farmland Conservation

Plant nectar flower mixture/wildflower strips

Action Link
Farmland Conservation
  1. Delay mowing or first grazing date on pasture or grassland

    A replicated, randomised, controlled study from 1987 to 1996 in Oxfordshire, UK (Bell et al. 2002) found that the predatory sheet web spider Lepthyphantes tenuis was approximately 2.5 and 6.5 times less abundant in cut versus uncut (control) field margins in May and July respectively. Following an early (April) cut, spider numbers in cut field margins recovered to match numbers in uncut control margins by July (around 4 spiders/m² in each). Recovery was less successful following a later (June) cut, with around 10 spiders/m² in cut field margins compared with around 15 spiders/m² in uncut control margins by September. Field margin treatment plots measured 2 x 50 m and were replicated around six arable fields. Spiders were counted in suction trap (D-vac) samples with data pooled from 1990, 1991, 1995 and 1996.

     

  2. Create uncultivated margins around intensive arable or pasture fields

    A randomized, replicated trial from 1987 to 1996 in Oxfordshire, UK (Bell et al. 2002), found greater numbers of predatory sheet web spiders Lepthyphantes tenuis on field margins left uncut and unsprayed with herbicide. In September, when most of the spiders were caught, there were significantly fewer L. tenuis spiders in margins (sown and unsown) that were cut in June (around 10 spiders/m2, compared to >15 spiders/m2 in plots cut in spring and autumn, or not cut). In May and July, plots with a recent cut (April or June-cut treatments respectively) also had lower numbers of L. tenuis than other plots. Spraying unsown plots with herbicide reduced the numbers of L. tenuis later in the same year (average 4 and 10 spiders/m2 in sprayed plots in July and September respectively, compared to 8 and 20 spiders/m2 on unsprayed plots in July and September). Plots where the vegetation was cut but not removed did not have more spiders than plots where cut vegetation was removed. L. tenuis individuals were counted in invertebrate samples collected using a suction trap (D-Vac) in May, July and September 1990, 1991, 1995 and 1996. This study was part of the same experimental set-up as Feber et al. 1994, Feber et al. 1996, Baines et al. 1998, Bell et al. 1999, Haughton et al.1999, Smith et al. 2010).

  3. Plant nectar flower mixture/wildflower strips

    A randomized, replicated trial from 1987 to 1996 in Oxfordshire, UK (Bell et al. 2002) found no difference in numbers of the predatory sheet web spider Lepthyphantes tenuis between field margins sown with a wildflower mix and naturally regenerated margins. In September, when most of the spiders were caught, there were significantly fewer L. tenuis individuals in margins (sown and unsown) that were cut in June (around 10 individuals/m2) compared to more than 15/m2 in plots cut in spring and autumn, or not cut. In May and July, plots with a recent cut (April- or June-cut treatments respectively) also had lower numbers of L. tenuis than other plots. L. tenuis individuals were counted in invertebrate samples collected using a suction trap (D-Vac) in May, July and September 1990, 1991, 1995 and 1996. This was part of the same study design as Feber et al. 1994, Feber et al. 1996, Baines et al. 1998, Bell et al. 1999, Haughton et al. 1999, Smith et al. 1999, Smith et al. 2010.

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