Create uncultivated margins around intensive arable or pasture fields

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

Study locations

Key messages

  • Nine studies evaluated the effect of creating uncultivated margins around intensive arable, cropped grass or pasture fields on mammals. Six studies were in the UK, two were in Switzerland and one was in the USA.


  • Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the UK found more small mammal species in uncultivated field margins than in blocks of set-aside.


  • Abundance (9 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the USA found more small mammals in uncultivated and unmown field margins than in frequently mown margins. Three of seven replicated, site comparison studies (one randomized), in the UK and Switzerland, found that uncultivated field margins had higher numbers of small mammals, bank voles and brown hares relative to crops (including grassland) and set-aside. The other four studies reported mixed or no effects on bank voles, wood mice and common shrews, small mammals and brown hares. One site comparison study in the UK found that brown hares used grassy field margins more than expected based on their availability.


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, site comparison study in 1992–1998 on farms across southern UK (Brown 1999) found that on uncultivated field margins, more small mammals were caught than in open crop fields. Results were not analysed for statistical significance. More small mammals were trapped in field margins (139 individuals) than in open fields (78 individuals) on conventional farms. The same pattern held on organic farms (margin: 142 individuals; field: 86). A higher proportion of individuals was trapped in margins at two primary study sites for wood mouse Apodemus sylvaticus (margin: 40–80%; field: 20–60%), bank vole Myodes glareolus (margin: 75–95%; field: 5–25%) and common shrew Sorex araneus (margin: 40–90%; field: 10–60%). Small mammals were sampled on two farms over 10 nights, four times/year, in 1992–1998. Live traps were set at 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 20, 40 m into each field from the boundary. Sample areas included four each of conventional margins, organic margins, conventional crops and organic crops. An unspecified number (≥12) of additional farms was also sampled, each in a single (unspecified) year. The study reports 54 sites were sampled. It is unclear if each of these was a different field. Further elements of the sampling design (such as margin dimensions and the proportion of traps that were in or outside of margins) are unclear.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A replicated, controlled study in 1996–1997 at two farms in Gloucestershire, UK (Tattersall 1999) found that uncultivated field margins next to hedgerows hosted more small mammal individuals and species than did blocks of set-aside. Uncultivated margins had more small mammals (21 individuals, eight species/trap session) than did set-aside blocks (11 individuals, five species/trap session). Wood mice Apodemus sylvaticus comprised 76% of animals caught in margins and 50% of those caught in set-aside blocks. Species richness was higher in margins (2.6 species/trap session) than in blocks (2.1 species/trap session). Diversity did not differ significantly between margins and blocks (result presented as indices). Margins (one/farm) comprised 20-m wide sections, covering 5 ha, adjacent to hedgerows. Blocks of set-aside (one/farm) also covered 5 ha. Set-aside was established by sowing a grass/clover mix in 1995. This was cut annually, in July or August. Grids of 49 live traps were set in the centre of set-aside blocks and spanning the margin and adjacent hedgerow and crop. Traps operated over five nights in March, June, September and December of 19961997.

    Study and other actions tested
  3. A replicated, controlled study in 1999–2000 on an arable farm in North Yorkshire, UK (Shore et al. 2005) found that in uncultivated grassy field margins, more bank voles Clethrionomys glareolus were caught than in cultivated field edges in autumn, but not in spring, while numbers of wood mice Apodemus sylvaticus or common shrews Sorex araneus caught did not differ between uncultivated or cultivated margins. Total bank vole captures each autumn were higher in 3-m-wide grassy margins (13–14 individuals) and 6-m-wide grassy margins (26–38 individuals) than in cultivated field edges (1 individual) but differences between these treatments were not tested for statistical significance. There were no differences in spring (3-m margin: 9–10; 6-m margin: 2–7; cultivated: 0–18 individuals). Wood mouse catches did not differ significantly between field margin types (3-m margin: 1–29; 6-m margin: 0–18; cultivated: 7–22 individuals), nor did those of common shrew (3-m margin: 2–15; 6-m margin: 0–13; cultivated: 1–4 individuals). Grassy field margins were sown in autumn 1997. Small mammals were live-trapped in four 3-m grassy margins, four 6-m grassy margins and four cultivated field edges, over four weeks in spring (April–May) and four weeks in autumn (September–October) in each of 1999 and 2000.

    Study and other actions tested
  4. A replicated, site comparison study in 2003 on a farmed plain in Switzerland (Aschwanden et al. 2007) found that uncultivated herbaceous field margins contained more small mammals than did conventionally farmed grasslands and autumn-sown wheat fields, though fewer than did sown wildflower strips. These comparisons were not tested for statistical significance. Small mammal densities varied greatly between sampling periods but, at their peak, were estimated at 836/ha in herbaceous margins, 86/ha in farmed grasslands, 568/ha in wheat crops and 1047/ha in wildflower strips. Six small mammal species were caught in herbaceous margins compared to two in each of the other treatments. Herbaceous field margins (5 × 320 m) mainly comprised thistles Cirsium spp., common teasel Dipsacus sylvestris, St John’s wort Hypericum perforatum, common mallow Malva sylvestris and mulleins Verbascum spp. Grasslands (average 0.88 ha) were cut ≥5 times each April–October and were fertilized. Autumn-sown wheat fields (average 1.3 ha) were harvested at the end of July. Wildflower strips (15 × 185 m) were sown with native species. Small mammals were live-trapped on three fields of each treatment during 60-hour trapping sessions in March, May and July 2003. Densities were estimated using a capture-recapture method.

    Study and other actions tested
  5. A replicated, site comparison study in 2003–2004 in Yorkshire, UK (Askew et al. 2007) found that uncultivated field margins hosted similar numbers of small mammals compared to set-aside and farm woodland. There was no significant difference in the annual average numbers of small mammals caught in 2-m margins (2.9–4.4 individuals), 6-m margins (2.5–3.6), set-aside (1.6–2.0) and farm woodland (2.4–2.8). In the first year, more common shrews Sorex arenaeus were caught in 2-m margins (1.4 individuals) than in set-aside (0.6) or farm woodland (0.6) and more wood mice Apodemus sylvaticus were in 6-m margins (1.1) and farm woodland (1.4) than in set-aside (0.5). No other species differences between treatments were found. Field margins, sown with grass, were 2 m wide (cut every 2–3 years) or 6 m wide (cut every 1–3 years). Set-aside areas were fallow for ≥5 years, with ≥90% of the area cut annually. Farm woodland comprised young trees (age not stated), fenced and with grass generally uncut. Twelve small mammal traps were set in each of 20 plots/treatment (1 m from the habitat boundary) for four days in November–December in each of 2003 and 2004.

    Study and other actions tested
  6. A replicated, site comparison study in 1992–2008 on 58 lowland arable and grassland sites in Switzerland (Zellweger-Fischer et al. 2011) found that establishing uncultivated field margins, in the form of herbaceous strips alongside hedgerows, was associated with higher brown hares Lepus europaeus density in arable sites but not in grassland sites. Relative effects of herbaceous strips and hedgerows could not be separated. Hares density along herbaceous strips and adjacent hedgerows was higher than in the landscape as a whole in predominantly arable sites but there was no difference in densities in predominantly grassland sites (data presented as statistical models). Fifty-eight sites (40 mostly arable, 18 mostly grassland), of 71–1,950 ha extent (total area approximately 400 km2) were studied. Forty-three sites included areas managed under agri-environment funding. This entailed establishing 6-m-wide unfertilised herbaceous strips, cut once/year, alongside hedgerows, establishing set-aside areas and low-intensity management of meadows. Herbaceous strips and hedgerows covered 0.17% of arable sites and 0.13% of grassland sites. Vehicle-based spotlight surveys for hares were conducted twice in February–March. Ten sites were surveyed annually from 1992 to 2008 and 48 were, on average, surveyed biennially over that period.

    Study and other actions tested
  7. A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 2009 of arable field margins at a site in North Carolina, USA (Moorman et al. 2013) found that uncultivated and unmown field margins supported more small mammals than did frequently mown margins. There were more hispid cotton rats Sigmodon hispidus in margins planted with native grasses and flowers (average 8.8 animals/margin) or flowers only (7.5) and unmanaged fallow margins (3.3) than in unplanted mown margins (0). There were also more house mice Mus musculus in grass and flower margins (average 9.5 animals/margin), flower only margins (10.1) and unplanted fallow margins (8.8) than in unplanted mown margins (1.8). Three organic crop fields were each planted with soybeans, corn or hay crop and orchard grass. Four sections of margin (0.08 ha) within each of the three fields were assigned to the four treatments, of: planting native warm-season grasses and native prairie flowers, planting native prairie flowers only, leaving fallow without mowing and mowing 2–3 times/month. Small mammals were live-trapped for three consecutive weeks in October and November 2009.

    Study and other actions tested
  8. A site comparison study in 2009–2010 in a mixed farming area in North Yorkshire, UK (Petrovan et al. 2013) found that agri-environment grassy field margins had disproportionately high usage by brown hares Lepus europaeus during both feeding and resting periods, relative to available habitat areas. Hares spent 6.9% of time in grassy field margins during their main activity period and 13.0% during their inactive period, compared to margins covering of 3.5% of the study site. A total length of 10.8 km of grassy margins was established at field edges and along waterways within a 311-ha study area, through agri-environment funding. Margins comprised 2-m-wide strips and 6-m-wide ‘conservation headlands’. They were seeded with a commercial field margin grass mixture, were not sprayed and were cut every two to three years. Fourteen adult hares were radio-tracked, for an average of 186 days each, between July 2009 and August 2010.

    Study and other actions tested
  9. A replicated, controlled study in 2005–2011 on an arable farm in Buckinghamshire, UK (Broughton et al. 2014) found that in wide grassy or grass and flower margins on arable fields, small mammal abundance in spring increased over the study period, but it remained stable in narrow, conventionally managed field margins. Small mammal abundance in spring rose by 140% on wide grassy margins and grass and flower margins over the first five years following establishment. There was no significant abundance change on conventional margins, nor any differences between margins in autumn population changes. Absolute counts are not presented in the paper. There were five replicates of three treatments, each on 43–70 ha of farmland. Treatments were conventional management (uncultivated, 2 m-wide field margins or 1 m margins alongside ditches), 6 m-wide grassy margins and 6 m-wide grass and wildflower margins. Margins were established in 2005. Small mammals were live-trapped, over three nights and two days, in November–December 2005, 2006, 2008 and 2010 and each following May.

    Study and other actions tested
Please cite as:

Littlewood, N.A., Rocha, R., Smith, R.K., Martin, P.A., Lockhart, S.L., Schoonover, R.F., Wilman, E., Bladon, A.J., Sainsbury, K.A., Pimm S. and Sutherland, W.J. (2020) Terrestrial Mammal Conservation: Global Evidence for the Effects of Interventions for terrestrial mammals excluding bats and primates. Synopses of Conservation Evidence Series. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation
Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation - Published 2020

Terrestrial Mammal 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