Action

Action Synopsis: Bird Conservation About Actions

Plough habitats

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    25%
  • Certainty
    36%
  • Harms
    10%

Source countries

Key messages

 

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 the Shetland Islands, Scotland (Grant 1992) found that areas of heath seeded with grass to improve them for livestock grazing were mostly avoided by nesting whimbrels Numenius phaeopus in favour of unimproved heathland. In 1986 and 1987, this study monitored whimbrels in five areas of heathland that had been partly seeded, four on the island of Fetlar, one on Unst. Of 111 nests, 89% were found in unseeded heathland. Most nests were on hummocks and amongst heather Calluna vulgaris. Seeding with grass after ploughing or harrowing resulted in the loss of hummocks and most heather, and created a predominantly grassy habitat.  Surface-seeding, without ploughing or harrowing, created less marked changes, with hummocks and heather retained, although hummock height was lowered, and in some areas only dead or dying heather was present.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. In a study using the same Shetland Island heaths as Grant (1992), Grant et al. (1992) found no significant difference in chick survival between chicks that used areas of heathland re-seeded with grass and those that did not. Individually marked chicks were monitored after hatching in 20, 23, and 26 broods in 1986, 1987 and 1988 respectively. In each year 35-65% of all chicks remained on heathland, while others (usually broods over 12 days old, from nests within 200 m of the alternative habitat) moved into other habitats.

    Study and other actions tested
  3. At the same study sites as Grant (1992), Grant et al. (1992) found that areas of heath seeded with grass after ploughing or harrowing, and older pastures, were the main early spring feeding areas for at least 90% of whimbrel pairs in the study. Habitat use by individually marked whimbrels was monitored during the pre-laying period in spring 1987 and 1988, on five Shetland Island heathlands. The birds made little use of unimproved heathland (where most nest) or heathland areas seeded without ploughing/harrowing. The greatest quantities of prey species (earthworms, oligochaetes, and crane-fly larvae, tipulids) were found in the soil of ploughed or harrowed seeded areas of heath and older pastures, with more recently seeded areas holding the highest masses of crane-fly larvae.

    Study and other actions tested
  4. A controlled study in 2003-2004 on mudflats and areas of Spartina alterniflora meadows in Willapa National Wildlife Refuge, Washington, USA (Patten & O\'Casey 2007), found that average densities of waders and wildfowl were significantly higher on areas of Spartina meadow that were ploughed, compared to untreated areas or areas completely sprayed with herbicide (see ‘Treat wetlands with herbicide’). Densities of some groups were 100 times those on the control areas, whilst some species found on the tilled meadows were never found on untreated Spartina. In addition, densities of unidentified Calidris spp. sandpipers, dowitchers Limnodromus spp. and waterfowl were significantly higher on tilled areas than on bare mud. The area was ploughed in winter-spring 2001, disked in winter 2002, and spot-treated with glyphosate during the summers of 2003 and 2004.

    Study and other actions tested
Please cite as:

Williams, D.R., Child, M.F., Dicks, L.V., Ockendon, N., Pople, R.G., Showler, D.A., Walsh, J.C., zu Ermgassen, E.K.H.J. & Sutherland, W.J. (2020) Bird Conservation. Pages 137-281 in: W.J. Sutherland, L.V. Dicks, S.O. Petrovan & R.K. Smith (eds) What Works in Conservation 2020. Open Book Publishers, Cambridge, UK.

 

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

Bird Conservation

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Bird 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, 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