Action

Provide refuges during harvest or mowing

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    20%
  • Certainty
    11%
  • Harms
    not assessed

Source countries

Key messages

  • Three studies examined the effect of providing refuges for birds during harvest or mowing in France and the UK. One replicated study in France found evidence that providing refuges during mowing reduced contact between mowing machinery and unfledged quail and corncrakes. However one replicated controlled study and a review from the UK found that Eurasian skylark did not use nesting refuges more than other areas.

 

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 replicated study in 1996-1997 in 62 hay fields in Bourgogne, France (Broyer 2003) found that contact between mowing machinery and unfledged quail Cortunix cortunix and corncrakes Crex crex was reduced by approximately 50% and 33% respectively, by leaving 10 m-wide, uncut strips in the centre of fields. In addition, unmowed strips had the highest concentrations of corncrakes, quails and passerines (7.7 birds/ha, 3.8 birds/ha and 10.8 birds/ha respectively in 1996). All refuge areas were mown within the first 10 days of August using the ‘outside-in’ method. During mowing, observers with binoculars recorded birds in the refuge areas.

     

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A 2010 review of four experiments on the effects of agri-environment measures on livestock farms in the UK (Buckingham et al. 2010) found one trial from 2006 to 2008 demonstrating that uncut nesting refuges for Eurasian skylark Alauda arvensis in silage fields were not used more than other areas. Refuge plots of 1 ha were cut with a raised mowing height in the first silage cut, then left uncut for the rest of the season. The plots were preferred for re-nesting for two weeks following the first cut, but subsequently did not have higher nest densities than other areas. Skylarks continually re-nest rather than re-nesting in a batch after each cut. After the second cut, safe areas were completely avoided by skylarks. This study formed part of a Defra-funded project (BD1454) as in (Defra 2010) for which no reference is given in the review.

    Study and other actions tested
  3. A replicated controlled study in 2007 on seven fields in Dorset, UK (Defra 2010) found that after the first cut, Eurasian skylark Alauda arvensis did not nest in half hectare ‘safe nesting plots’ which were cut 10 cm higher than the rest of the field. Following the second cut of the main field, grass on safe nesting plots was avoided with new nesting attempts taking place on the surrounding cut grass. In 2007, 13 safe nesting plots were established on seven fields with skylark territories. Safe nesting plots were mown 10 cm higher during the first field cut (approximately 27 cm grass height on safe nesting plots vs 9 cm on normal cut areas), and were not mown at all during the second cut. They were left unmown/ungrazed until the end of August when skylark breeding had ceased.

    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. (2019) Farmland Conservation Pages 291-330 in: W.J. Sutherland, L.V. Dicks, N. Ockendon, S.O. Petrovan & R.K. Smith (eds) What Works in Conservation 2019. 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 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, terrestrial 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 latest volume: Volume 17

Go to the CE Journal

Subscribe to our newsletter

Please add your details if you are interested in receiving updates from the Conservation Evidence team about new papers, synopses and opportunities.

Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape Programme Red List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Bern wood Supporting Conservation Leaders National Biodiversity Network Sustainability Dashboard Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx British trust for ornithology Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Butterfly Conservation People trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust