Action

Maintain traditional orchards

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    10%
  • Certainty
    15%
  • Harms
    not assessed

Study locations

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 replicated, controlled site comparison study in 1998 and 1999 of 45 orchard meadows in Lower Saxony, Germany (Steffan-Dewenter & Leschke 2003) found that plant species richness was higher on mown meadows than grazed or abandoned meadows, but that numbers of species and brood cells of bees and wasps (Hymenoptera) did not differ. A significantly higher number of plant species was found on mown (24) than abandoned meadows (18), grazed meadows had intermediate numbers (22). A similar trend was found for grasses (8 species vs 5), but not herbs (16 vs 12). Plant height was higher on abandoned meadows (100 cm), than mown meadows (85 cm) and grazed meadows (55 cm). Vegetation cover did not differ significantly between management regimes. The number of species or brood cells for all species, or separately for bees (Apidae), potter wasps (Eumenidae) or sphecid wasps (Sphecidae) did not differ between treatments. However, the abundance of sphecid wasps was significantly higher on abandoned meadows (180 brood cells) than grazed (55) or mown (60) meadows. There was no significant difference in species richness of natural enemies or the rate of parasitism of bees and wasps between management types. Orchards were either mown once or twice a year, grazed (usually by sheep) or had no management for at least five years. Vegetation was sampled on a central plot of 25 m within each site from June-July 1998. Nesting traps (4/location) were set up at regular distances at each site from April-September, 1998 and 1999.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A replicated site comparison between 1998 and 2001 (Herzog et al. 2005) found that, on average, only 12% of traditional orchards in Ecological Compensation Areas on the Swiss plateau were of ‘good ecological quality’ (based on national guidelines for Ecological Compensation Area target vegetation). Orchard Ecological Compensation Areas appeared to offer little benefit to orchard birds, with territories of only one species (green woodpecker Picus viridis) found more frequently in or near Ecological Compensation Area orchards (11 territories) than expected. Plant species and orchard characteristics were recorded for 187 Ecological Compensation Area orchards (total area 108 ha) between 1998 and 2001. Territories of breeding birds were mapped in 23 study areas, based on three visits between mid-April and mid-June.

    Study and other actions tested
  3. A replicated paired site comparison in Bavaria, Germany (Mayer et al. 2008) found that traditional orchards managed under the Bavarian agri-environment scheme ‘Agricultural Landscape Programme’ (KULAP) did not have more plant species than paired control sites. There were 26 site pairs, and around 18-20 plant species/site. Pairs of 25 m2 grassland plots were selected from 4,400 plots in the Bavarian grassland survey. All plant species within the plot were recorded between April and October (year not given). Plot pairs were in the same natural landscape, 90% within 10 km of each other. In each pair, one plot was under an agri-environment scheme agreement, the other was not - in this case traditional orchard management.

    Study and other actions tested
Please cite as:

Dicks, L.V., Ashpole, J.E., Dänhardt, J., James, K., Jönsson, A., Randall, N., Showler, D.A., Smith, R.K., Turpie, S., Williams, D.R. & Sutherland, W.J. (2020) Farmland Conservation. Pages 283-321 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

Farmland Conservation

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Farmland Conservation
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 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