Study

The effects on terrestrial invertebrates of reducing pesticide inputs in arable crop edges: a meta-analysis

  • Published source details Frampton G.K. & Dorne J.L.C.M. (2007) The effects on terrestrial invertebrates of reducing pesticide inputs in arable crop edges: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Ecology, 44, 362-373.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Reduce fertilizer, pesticide or herbicide use generally

Action Link
Butterfly and Moth Conservation

Reduce fertilizer, pesticide or herbicide use generally

Action Link
Farmland Conservation
  1. Reduce fertilizer, pesticide or herbicide use generally

    A systematic review of 23 controlled studies (Frampton & Dorne 2007) found that restricting pesticide inputs on crop edges tended to increase moth and butterfly abundance. In six out of 11 studies, moth or butterfly adult or caterpillar abundance was higher where pesticide use was restricted than under normal application (data presented as model results). When both pesticide and herbicide were restricted, both the abundance and species richness of adult moths and butterflies doubled (data presented as model results). In most (9 out of 11) studies, the effect of reducing different pesticides (fungicide, herbicide, insecticide) or the effect of reducing pesticide or fertilizer inputs could not be distinguished from one another. Only controlled studies, comparing areas with higher (or normal) and lower (reduced or no) pesticide input were included. All studies came from Europe.

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

  2. Reduce fertilizer, pesticide or herbicide use generally

    A systematic review of 23 studies (Frampton & Dorne 2007) found that restricting herbicide inputs to crop edges tended to increase arthropod abundance. Studies mainly excluded or selectively used herbicides; studies excluding fungicides or insecticides separately were not available. Studies focused on ground beetles (Carabidae), true bugs (Heteroptera), rove beetles (Staphylinidae), butterflies (Lepidoptera) and grouped bird ‘chick-food’ insects. Abundance of true bugs was up to almost 13 times higher where herbicide use was restricted or where herbicides and fungicides or insecticides were restricted. For other invertebrates, restricted use generally increased abundance or had no impact. Only two species exhibited a significant decrease in abundance. In most (20 out of 23) studies, the possibility of confounding outcomes due to pesticide and fertilizer inputs could not be discounted.

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