Use motor bar mowers rather than rotary mowers

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    not assessed
  • Certainty
    not assessed
  • Harms
    not assessed

Study locations

Key messages

  • Two studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of using motor bar mowers rather than rotary mowers. Both studies were in Switzerland.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

  • Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Switzerland found that farms managed with more in-field agri-environment scheme options, including using bar mowers instead of rotary mowers, had a similar species richness of butterflies to farms with fewer agri-environment scheme options.

POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES)

  • Abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Switzerland found that farms managed with more in-field agri-environment scheme options, including using bar mowers instead of rotary mowers, had a similar abundance of butterflies to farms with fewer agri-environment scheme options.
  • Survival (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in Switzerland1 found that fewer large white caterpillars were killed when meadows were harvested using a hand-pushed bar mower than with a tractor-pulled rotary mower.
  • Condition (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in Switzerland found that fewer wax model caterpillars were damaged when meadows were harvested using a hand-pushed bar mower than with a tractor-pulled rotary mower.

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, randomized, paired, controlled study in 2007–2008 in Switzerland (Humbert et al. 2010) found that harvesting meadows using a hand-pushed bar mower killed or injured fewer large white Pieris brassicae caterpillars than using a tractor-pulled rotary mower. Fewer caterpillars were killed by a bar mower (20%) than by a rotary mower used without (35–37% killed) or with (41–69% killed) a rear flail conditioner attached. Similarly, fewer wax models were damaged by the bar mower (11%) than the rotary mower used without (17% damaged) or with (28% damaged) a conditioner. In 2007–2008, in each of nine meadows, three 2.5-m-long plots were randomly assigned to three mowing treatments: 1.7-m-wide hand-pushed bar mower, or 2.5-m-wide tractor-pulled rotary drum mower without or with a rear flail conditioner, all cut to 6 cm. Before mowing, half of 200 wax caterpillar models (100 large and 100 small) were placed on the ground and half were tied to vegetation 20–30 cm high in each plot. In 2008, on five meadows, large white caterpillars were placed on the ground (50 caterpillars) and in the vegetation (50 caterpillars) in each plot. After mowing, wax models and caterpillars that survived were checked for damage or injuries.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A replicated, site comparison study in 2009–2011 in 133 mixed farms in the Central Plateau, Switzerland (Stoeckli et al. 2017) found that farms with more in-field agri-environment scheme (AES) options, including using bar mowers instead of rotary mowers, had a similar abundance and species richness of butterflies to farms with fewer AES options. Both the abundance and species richness of butterflies on farms with a larger area of in-field AES options was similar to farms with smaller areas of in-field AES options (data presented as model results). A total of 133 farms (17–34 ha, 13–91% arable crops) were managed with in-field AES options, including use of bar mowers, staggered mowing, no silage, undersown cereals, undrilled patches in crops, wide-spaced rows, cover crops and no chemical inputs. Fields without chemical inputs contributed about half of the area of AES options, on average. From May–September 2009–2011, butterflies were surveyed six times on 10–38 transects/farm, totalling 2,500 m/farm. Each transect ran diagonally through a single crop or habitat type, with all available crops and habitats represented. All visits to a farm were completed in a single year, and the species richness was summed across all visits. Total abundance of butterflies was calculated from the number recorded in each habitat, and the availability of each habitat across the farm.

    Study and other actions tested
Please cite as:

Bladon A.J., Bladon, E. K., Smith R.K. & Sutherland W.J. (2023) Butterfly and Moth Conservation: Global Evidence for the Effects of Interventions for butterflies and moths. Conservation Evidence Series Synopsis. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

Butterfly and Moth Conservation

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Butterfly and Moth Conservation
Butterfly and Moth Conservation

Butterfly and Moth Conservation - Published 2023

Butterfly and Moth Synopsis

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 21

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 ProgrammeRed List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Mauritian Wildlife Supporting Conservation Leaders
Sustainability Dashboard National Biodiversity Network Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Bat Conservation InternationalPeople trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust