Plant new or maintain existing hedgerows on farmland

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    60%
  • Certainty
    45%
  • Harms
    0%

Study locations

Key messages

  • Three studies evaluated the effects on mammals of planting new or maintaining existing hedgerows on farmland. Two studies were in the UK and one was in Switzerland.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES)

  • Abundance (3 studies): One of two replicated, site comparison studies, in the UK and Switzerland, found that retaining and enhancing hedgerows along with other field boundary features was associated with higher brown hare density in arable sites but not in grassland sites while the other study found that Irish hare numbers did not increase. A replicated, site comparison study in the UK found that establishing hedgerows alongside arable land increased small mammal abundance.

BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

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 1999 on three primarily arable farms in Yorkshire, UK (Moore et al. 2003) found that establishing hedgerows alongside arable land increased small mammal abundance. Average small mammal abundance in hedgerows and adjacent rough margins (0.83 individuals/trap) was higher than on arable land (0.35 individuals/trap). Five species were caught in hedgerows and two in arable plots. Four hedgerows and ten 10 arable plots were surveyed. Hedgerow age and composition were not specified in the paper. Arable plots were sown with winter cereals and contained little cover. Small mammals were surveyed using Longworth live traps over four continuous days and nights, between 22 November and 4 December 1999.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A replicated, site comparison study in 2005 on 200 plots covering a range of agricultural habitats in Northern Ireland, UK (Reid et al. 2007) found that retaining and enhancing field boundaries, such as hedgerows and banks, as part of a wider suite of agri-environment measures, did not increase numbers of Irish hares Lepus timidus hibernicus. The effects of retaining and enhancing field boundaries cannot be separated from those of other agri-environment measures, which included reducing grazing intensity and managing nutrient systems. Hare abundance in agri-environment plots (0.45 hares/km transect) did not significantly differ from that in non-agri-environment plots (0.41 hares/km transect). One hundred and fifty 1-km2 plots, on land enrolled into an agri-environment scheme 10–17 years previously, were selected along with 50 non-enrolled 1-km2 plots, chosen to match enrolled plots for landscape characteristics. Hares were surveyed at night, in mid-winter, by spotlighting from a vehicle.

    Study and other actions tested
  3. A replicated, site comparison study, in 1992–2008, on 58 lowland arable and grassland sites in Switzerland (Zellweger-Fischer et al. 2011) found that maintenance of hedgerows (with adjacent herbaceous strips) on farmland was associated with higher brown hare Lepus europaeus density in arable sites but not in grassland sites. Relative effects of hedgerows and herbaceous strips could not be separated. Hare density along hedgerows and adjacent herbaceous strips 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 maintaining hedgerows (unfertilized and unsprayed, with 6-m wide herbaceous strips), establishing set-aside areas and low-intensity management of meadows. Hedgerows and herbaceous strips 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
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 18

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 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