Reduce pesticide or fertilizer use

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    38%
  • Certainty
    23%
  • Harms
    0%

Source countries

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)

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 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
  2. 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
  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
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 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, terrestrial 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 17

Go to the CE Journal

Subscribe to our newsletter

Please add your details if you are interested in receiving updates from the Conservation Evidence team about new papers, synopses and opportunities.

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