Action Synopsis: Bird Conservation About Actions

Manage hedges to benefit birds

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
  • Certainty
  • Harms

Study locations

Key messages

  • The one study of six that investigated species richness found no difference in species richness between a UK site with wildlife-friendly hedge management and three control sites.
  • Seven studies from the UK and Switzerland, five replicated, found that some species studied increased in relation to managed hedges or were more likely to be found in managed hedges, compared to other habitats. Two investigated several interventions at once.
  • One replicated study found that species that showed positive responses to hedge management in some regions showed weak or negative responses in other parts of the UK. Four studies from the UK found that some species declined or showed no response to wildlife-friendly management of hedges.

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 2000 literature review (Aebischer et al. 2000) found that the UK population of cirl buntings  Emberiza cirlus increased from between 118 and 132 pairs in 1989 to 453 pairs in 1998 following a series of schemes designed to provide overwinter stubbles, grass margins, and beneficially managed hedges and set-aside. Numbers on fields under the specific agri-environmental scheme increased by 70%, compared with a 2% increase elsewhere.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A small replicated controlled study from May-June in 1992-8 in Leicestershire, England (Stoate 2002), found that the abundance of nationally declining songbirds and species of conservation concern significantly increased on a 3 km2 site where hedges were managed to benefit wildlife (alongside several other interventions), although there was no overall difference in bird abundance, species richness or diversity between the experimental and three control sites. Numbers of nationally declining species rose by 102% (except for Eurasian skylark Alauda arvensis and yellowhammer Emberiza citronella). Nationally stable species rose (insignificantly) by 47% (eight species increased, four decreased). The other interventions employed were: ‘Create beetle banks’, ‘Plant nectar flower mixture/wildflower strips’, ‘Plant wild bird seed cover strips’, ‘Provide supplementary food’, ‘Control predators’ and ‘Reduce pesticide or herbicide use generally’.

    Study and other actions tested
  3. A replicated site comparison study across eleven areas in the Swiss plateau between 1998 and 2001 (Herzog et al. 2005) found that the centres of territories of hedgerow birds were significantly more frequent in or near Ecological Compensation Areas than expected by an even distribution across the landscape (293 territories found in ECA hedgerows), suggesting that hedgerow birds were attracted to or favoured by these areas. Territories of breeding birds were mapped in 23 study areas, based on three visits between mid-April and mid-June.

    Study and other actions tested
  4. A replicated study in February 2008 across 97, 1 km2 plots in East Anglia, England (Davey et al. 2010), found that four farmland birds showed strong positive responses to field boundaries (hedges and ditches) managed under agri-environment schemes. These were blue tits Parus caeruleus (also called Cyanistes caeruleus), dunnock Prunella modularis, common whitethroat Sylvia communis and yellowhammer. A further five (Eurasian blackbird Turdus merula, song thrush T. philomelos, Eurasian bullfinch Pyrrhula pyrrhula, long-tailed tit Aegithalos caudatus and winter wren Troglodytes troglodytes) showed weak positive responses and Eurasian reed bunting Acrocephalus scirpaceus showed a weak negative response. The boundaries were classed as either hedges, ditches or hedges and ditches and most were managed under the Entry Level Stewardship scheme.

    Study and other actions tested
  5. A replicated 2010 site comparison study of 2,046 1 km² plots of lowland farmland in England (Davey et al. 2010) found that three years after the 2005 introduction of the Countryside Stewardship Scheme and Entry Level Stewardship schemes, there was no association between the length of hedgerow managed according to the agri-environment scheme and farmland bird numbers. Hedgerow specialist species, including the yellowhammer Emberiza citrinella and common whitethroat, showed no significant population response, whereas there were greater numbers of common starling Sturnus vulgaris on arable, pastoral and mixed farmland with hedgerow management. For example, in mixed farmland plots starling populations increased by 0.2 individuals for each 1 km of hedgerow. On the other hand, the grey partridge Perdix perdix appeared to be detrimentally affected, with an apparent decline of 0.3 individuals for every 1.1 km of hedgerow managed according to the agri-environment schemes. The 2,046 1 km² lowland plots were surveyed in both 2005 and 2008 and classified as arable, pastoral or mixed farmland. Eighty-four percent of plots included some area managed according to the schemes. In both survey years, two surveys were conducted along a 2 km pre-selected transect route through each 1 km² square.

    Study and other actions tested
  6. A replicated site comparison study on farms in two English regions (Field et al. 2010) found that summer yellowhammer numbers were significantly higher in hedges under environmental stewardship management than in conventionally managed hedges. On East Anglian farms, this was true for both Entry Level Stewardship and Higher Level Stewardship hedge management options (estimated >1.5 yellowhammers/m in Higher Level Stewardship hedges compared to <0.5 yellowhammers/m in conventional hedges). On farms in the Cotswolds, UK, it was only true for hedges managed as ‘high environmental value hedges’ under Higher Level Stewardship (estimated 0.5 yellowhammers/m), while hedges managed under Entry Level Stewardship did not have more yellowhammers than conventional hedges (estimated <0.2 yellowhammers/m). Hedgerows managed under Entry Level Stewardship are cut every two or three years in winter only. Surveys were carried out in the summers of 2008 and 2009, on up to 30 Higher Level Stewardship farms and 15 non-stewardship farms in East Anglia, and up to 19 Higher Level Stewardship and 8 non-stewardship farms in the Cotswolds. This study also discusses several other interventions.

    Study and other actions tested
Please cite as:

Williams, D.R., Child, M.F., Dicks, L.V., Ockendon, N., Pople, R.G., Showler, D.A., Walsh, J.C., zu Ermgassen, E.K.H.J. & Sutherland, W.J. (2020) Bird Conservation. Pages 137-281 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

Bird Conservation

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Bird 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