Leave headlands in fields unsprayed

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    60%
  • Certainty
    50%
  • Harms
    0%

Source countries

Key messages

  • Two studies evaluated the effects on mammals of leaving headlands in fields unsprayed. One study was in the UK and one was in the Netherlands.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES)

  • Use (2 studies): Two replicated studies (one also controlled) in the UK and the Netherlands, found that crop edge headlands that were not sprayed with pesticides were used more by mice than were sprayed crop edges.

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 in 1986–1987 in an arable field, in Oxfordshire, UK (Tew et al. 1992) found that not spraying herbicide on headlands of crop at the field edge was associated with higher use of those areas by wood mice Apodemus sylvaticus. The proportion of location fixes obtained for mice in unsprayed or sprayed plots indicated greater selection of unsprayed plots relative to their availability within home ranges (data presented as preference indices). Plots extended 10 m into a winter wheat field and were 20 m long. Plots were either sprayed or not sprayed with a range of agricultural herbicides. Application of other chemicals (insecticides, fungicides, growth regulators and fertilizers) were the same across all plots. Wood mouse movements were monitored by radio-tracking 15 mice, between June and August in each of 1986 and 1987.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A replicated, controlled study in 1990–1993 of six arable farms in the Netherlands (de Snoo 1999) found that unsprayed crop edge headlands were used more by field mice Apodemus spp. than were crop edges sprayed with herbicides and insecticides. Results were not tested for statistical significance. More field mice were caught in unsprayed crop edges (38 mice caught) than in sprayed edges (27 mice caught). Strips 3–6 m wide, 100–450 m long, along the edges of crops, were left unsprayed by herbicides and insecticides and were compared to sprayed crop edges in the same field. Small mammals were surveyed using pitfall traps during 13 weeks in 1990 and 12 weeks in 1991 (all in May–July). The number of strips on which small mammals were surveyed is unclear.

    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