Provide other resources for birds (water, sand for bathing)

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
  • Certainty
  • Harms
    not assessed

Study locations

Key messages

  • A small study in France found that grey partridge density was higher in areas where a combination of supplementary food, water, shelter and sand for bathing were provided.


About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

  1. A small study of feeding as a management option for grey partridges Perdix perdix at an arable farm in France (Westerskov 1977) found that partridge density was higher in an area with ‘partridge cafeterias’, than the area without. In spring 1973 the population on the 424 ha farm was 71 pairs (1 pair/6 ha) and four single birds. In spring 1974, a total of 48 pairs (1 pair/4.7 ha) and four single birds were recorded in the southern section (224 ha), where 27 partridge cafeterias had been constructed. The northern section (200 ha), with no cafeterias, had 24 pairs (1 pair/8.3 ha). Cafeterias comprised a barrel with a feed mixture (grain and weed seeds), a mini-midden to provide maggots and insects and a sand-bath, sheltered by a leaning roof that collected rainwater in a drinking trough. Stoats Mustela erminea and mice Mus spp. were also controlled with traps at the ‘cafeterias’. Small shrubs were planted next to cafeterias to provide shelter. Where possible they were placed one/territory.

    Study and other actions tested
Please cite as:

Dicks, L.V., Ashpole, J.E., Dänhardt, J., James, K., Jönsson, A., Randall, N., Showler, D.A., Smith, R.K., Turpie, S., Williams, D.R. & Sutherland, W.J. (2020) Farmland Conservation. Pages 283-321 in: W.J. Sutherland, L.V. Dicks, S.O. Petrovan & R.K. Smith (eds) What Works in Conservation 2020. Open Book Publishers, Cambridge, UK.


Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

Farmland Conservation

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Farmland Conservation
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