Study

Indirect effects of grassland extensification schemes on pollinators in two contrasting European countries

  • Published source details Kohler F., Verhulst J., Knop E., Herzog F. & Kleijn D. (2007) Indirect effects of grassland extensification schemes on pollinators in two contrasting European countries. Biological Conservation, 135, 302-307.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Reduce the intensity of farmland meadow management

Action Link
Bee Conservation

Reduce management intensity on permanent grasslands (several interventions at once)

Action Link
Farmland Conservation
  1. Reduce the intensity of farmland meadow management

    In a similar replicated trial in the Netherlands (Kohler et al. 2007), an agri-environment scheme aimed at enhancing habitat for birds by reducing fertiliser and pesticide input and delaying cutting or grazing had no impact on diversity or numbers of non-Apis bees in 21 Dutch wet meadow fields when compared with paired conventionally managed fields. Bee diversity and abundance was low in both field types (average <3 species/field; <6 individuals per field). However, this agri-environment scheme allowed application of nitrogen fertilizer at 206 kg/ha, which is 75% of the standard fertilizer application rate (269 kg/ha). The meadows had been under the scheme for between three and 10 years.

  2. Reduce management intensity on permanent grasslands (several interventions at once)

    A replicated trial in the Netherlands (Kohler et al. 2007) found that an agri-environment scheme aimed at enhancing habitat for birds by reducing fertilizer and pesticide input and delaying cutting or grazing had no impact on diversity of non-Apis spp. bee or plant species in 21 Dutch wet meadow fields when compared with paired conventionally managed fields. Bee diversity and abundance was low in both field types (average <3 species/field; <6 individuals per field). This agri-environment scheme allowed application of nitrogen fertilizer at 206 kg/ha, which is 75% of the standard fertilizer application rate (269 kg/ha). The meadows had been under the scheme for between three and 10 years.

     

Output references
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