Reduce pesticide or fertilizer use

Overall effectiveness category Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)
Number of studies: 3
Share Tweet Email

View assessment score

How is the evidence assessed?

Effectiveness

38%
Certainty

23%
Harms

0%

Calculating overall effectiveness category

Background information and definitions

Pesticides (including insecticides, herbicides and fungicides) and fertilizers, used especially in agriculture, but also in horticulture, amenity grassland, gardens and other situations, may have a negative effect on wildlife. Through reducing plant and insect diversity, or through direct toxicity, they may also natively impact mammals. Organic farming, an agricultural system that excludes the use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides and relies on techniques such as crop rotation, compost and biological pest control, is included within this intervention.

Study locations

Key messages

Three studies evaluated the effects on mammals of reducing pesticide, herbicide or fertilizer use. Two studies were in the UK, one was in Italy and one was in Argentina.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

Richness/diversity (1 study): A replicated, site comparison study in Argentina found that farming without pesticides or fertilizers did not increase small mammal species richness in field margins.

POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES)

Abundance (2 studies): One of two site comparison studies, in the UK and Italy, found that reducing pesticide or fertilizer use, by farming organically, increased wood mouse abundance. The other study found that it did not increase European hare abundance.

BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY)

Use (1 study): A replicated, site comparison study in Argentina found that farming without pesticides or fertilizers did not increase small mammal use of field margins.

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

A site comparison study in 1994–1996 on arable land in Gloucestershire, UK (Macdonald et al. 2007) found that reducing pesticide, herbicide or fertilizer use by farming organically was associated with higher numbers of wood mice Apodemus sylvaticus. More wood mice were caught on an organic farm (monthly averages of 19–24 individuals) than on a conventional farm (8–17 individuals). This result was not tested for statistical significance, though there were significantly more juvenile mice on the organic farm compared to the conventional farm and female mice on the organic farm were significantly heavier in two out of three years (data not presented). On one organic farm and one conventional farm, wood mice were surveyed using 56 Longworth live traps in each of two fields, at each farm, each year, in 1994–1996.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Macdonald D.W., Tattersall F.H., Service K.M., Firbank L.G. & Feber R.E. (2007) Mammals, agri-environment schemes and set-aside - what are the putative benefits? Mammal Review, 37, 259-277.
A replicated, site comparison study in 2011 on 26 mainly arable farms in Tuscany, Italy (Santilli & Galardi 2016) found that reducing pesticide, herbicide or fertilizer use, by farming organically, did not increase abundances of European hares Lepus europaeus. The density of hares on organic farms (14 hares/km²) was lower than on conventional farms (24 hares/km²). Higher hare density appeared, instead, to be more strongly positively related to increased habitat diversity, including crop diversity. Half of the 26 study farms, average size 6.1 km², were organic and half were non-organic farms. Organic farms complied with European Union organic farming requirements. Hare density was estimated using spotlight counts from a car, two or three times at each farm, in early March 2011.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Santilli F. & Galardi L. (2016) Effect of habitat structure and type of farming on European hare (Lepus europaeus) abundance. Hystrix, the Italian Journal of Mammalogy (English, 1994-), 27, 1-3.
A replicated, site comparison study in 2011–2013 of three arable farms in Córdoba, Argentina (Coda et al. 2015) found that farming without herbicides, fertilizers, or fungicides did not increase small mammal use of field margins or small mammal species richness in margins. Average annual small mammal capture rates on margins not treated with pesticides or fertilizers (2.5–2.9 individuals/20 traps) did not significantly differ from those on conventionally farmed margins (2.4–3.2 individuals/20 traps). Average annual small mammal species richness without pesticides and fertilizers (1.1–1.2 species/20 traps) did not differ from that with conventional farming (1.1–1.2 species/20 traps). Organic fields were managed without herbicides, fertilizers or fungicides for 10–19 years. A range of these chemicals was used on conventionally farmed fields. Small mammals were live-trapped, using lines of 20 traps in 1.5–2.5-m-wide vegetated field margin strips on three farms. Trapping was carried out over four consecutive nights, once each in spring, summer and autumn, from November 2011 to June 2013. There were 106–116 trap lines/sampling period (proportion in each margin management type not stated).
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Coda J., Gomez D., Steinmann A.R. & Priotto J. (2015) Small mammals in farmlands of Argentina: responses to organic and conventional farming. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 211, 17-23.

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

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

Related Actions

Actions	Effectiveness	Studies	Category
Leave headlands in fields unsprayed Action Link	Likely to be beneficial	2	Synopsis Link
Establish riparian buffers Action Link	No evidence found (no assessment)	0	Synopsis Link
Translocate mammals away from site contaminated by oil spill Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	1	Synopsis Link