Action Synopsis: Bird Conservation About Actions

Create skylark plots for bird conservation

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

Study locations

Key messages

  • A before-and-after study found an increase in Eurasian skylark Alauda arvensis population on a farm after the creation of skylark plots; a replicated, controlled study from the UK found higher densities of skylarks on fields with plots, compared to those without. No other studies investigated population-level effects.
  • Two UK studies, one replicated and controlled, found that skylark productivity was higher in plots or in fields with plots than in controls. One replicated and controlled study from Switzerland found no differences in productivity between territories that included plots and those that did not.
  • Two replicated studies (one controlled) from Denmark and Switzerland found that skylark plots were used by skylarks more than expected. A replicated and controlled study from the UK found that seed-eating songbirds did not use skylark plots more than surrounding crops.


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 from April-May in 1990-3 in five spring-sown barley fields in eastern Jutland, Denmark (Odderskær et al. 1997) found that Eurasian skylarks Alauda arvensis used unsown plots in the fields significantly more than expected by an even distribution across the landscape. Radio-tracked birds were observed more in tramlines and unsown plots and mean faecal density was significantly higher in unsown areas than in crops (1.4 droppings/ha vs. 0.1). One 22 ha field with 100, 40 m2 plots had higher densities of skylarks than four fields with an average of seven plots/ha, each of 7 m2.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A replicated, controlled study from April-August in 2002-3 in 15 sites in northern and eastern England (Morris et al. 2004) found that Eurasian skylark breeding density, duration and success were higher in winter wheat fields with undrilled patches (4 x 4 m) than in fields with widely-spaced (25 cm apart) rows or under conventional management (0.3 nests/ha in fields with undrilled plots vs. 0.2 for the other treatments). Fields with undrilled patches also lost fewer territorial and nesting birds over the breeding season and by the end of the breeding season nests in these fields produced on average one more chick than control nests. Body condition of nestlings decreased in control nests over the breeding season but increased in experimental fields. The proportion of within-treatment foraging flights remained constant in fields with undrilled patches but decreased over time in other treatments.

    Study and other actions tested
  3. A before-and-after study in Cambridgeshire, England (Donald & Morris 2005), found that the population of Eurasian skylarks on an arable farm increased from 10 territorial males in 2000 to 34 in 2005, following the use of skylark plots from 2001 (in addition to 6 m margins around fields and set-aside). Nests were also aggregated in fields with skylark plots. The study also reports that fields on 15 experimental farms with skylark plots held 30% more skylarks than control fields. In addition, nests in fields with plots produced 0.5 more chicks/breeding attempt.

    Study and other actions tested
  4. A replicated, controlled study in 2002-3 on ten farms in England (Ogilvy et al. 2006) found that 45% of 159 Eurasian skylark nests monitored were found in fields with skylark plots.  By June, fields with plots held 30% more skylarks and 100% more nests than control fields. At the start of the breeding season there was little difference in success between treatments, but by June fields with plots in had more nests (1 nest/ha vs. 0.4) and more chicks/nest than controls (1.75 chicks/nest vs. 0.9). Over the whole season nests in experimental fields raised 0.5 more chicks per breeding attempt (and 1.5 more late in the season) than controls.

    Study and other actions tested
  5. A 2007 literature review (Stoate & Moorcroft 2007) reports that on two experimental farms in the UK Eurasian skylarks were able to raise 49% more young in fields with skylark plots, compared to fields without plots, by prolonging the length of the breeding season. This study is also discussed in ‘Leave uncropped, cultivated margins or plots, including lapwing and stone curlew plots’, ‘Plant grass buffer strips/margins around arable or pasture fields’ and ‘Create beetle banks’.

    Study and other actions tested
  6. A replicated, controlled study near Berne, Switzerland (Fischer et al. 2009) found that skylarks Alauda arvensis with territories that included undrilled patches were significantly less likely to abandon their territory than birds without patches, and more likely to use the undrilled patches as nesting and foraging sites than expected by chance. The study was from March-July in 2006 in 21 experimental sites and 16 control sites of winter wheat fields in mixed farming lands From June to July, the percentage of control fields in skylark territories decreased from 60% to 38%, whilst 55% of fields with undrilled patches remained in territories. Nest productivity was identical between control and fields with undrilled patches (1.4 chicks/territory) and there was no difference in chick body mass or tarsus length. Undrilled patches were composed of either 4 patches/ha (each 3 ? 12 m, in seven fields) or a single strip (2.5 ? 80 m, in 14 fields) sown with a mixture of six annual weed species. This study is also discussed in ‘Plant nectar flower mixture/wildflower strips’.

    Study and other actions tested
  7. A replicated site comparison study on farms in three English regions (Field et al. 2010) found that skylark plots were well used (1-3 seed-eating farmland songbirds/ha) but did not have significantly more birds in than crop fields or fallow plots. Surveys were carried out on 69 farms with Higher Level Stewardship in East Anglia, the West Midlands or the Cotswolds and 31 farms across all three regions with no environmental stewardship.

    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