Study

Managing habitats on English farmland for insect pollinator conservation

  • Published source details Holland J.M., Smith B.M., Storkey J., Lutman P.J.W. & Aebischer N.J. (2015) Managing habitats on English farmland for insect pollinator conservation. Biological Conservation, 182, 215-222.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Leave uncropped, cultivated margins or plots

Action Link
Butterfly and Moth Conservation

Increase the proportion of natural or semi‐natural habitat in the farmed landscape

Action Link
Butterfly and Moth Conservation

Plant wild bird seed or cover mixture

Action Link
Butterfly and Moth Conservation

Plant nectar flower mixture/wildflower strips

Action Link
Butterfly and Moth Conservation

Plant grass buffer strips/margins around arable or pasture fields

Action Link
Butterfly and Moth Conservation

Pay farmers to cover the costs of conservation measures (as in agri-environment schemes or conservation incentives)

Action Link
Butterfly and Moth Conservation
  1. Leave uncropped, cultivated margins or plots

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 2007–2010 on 28 arable farms in Wessex and East Anglia, UK (Holland et al. 2015) found that farms with enhanced agri-environment scheme (AES) habitats, including naturally-regenerating margins, had a higher abundance of some butterfly species than farms with simpler AES habitats. In early summer, farms with enhanced AES habitats had a higher abundance of blue (Lycaenidae: 0.05 individuals/100 m) and white (Pieridae: 0.46 individuals/100 m) butterflies along boundaries than farms with Entry-Level Scheme (ELS) habitats (blues: 0.04; whites 0.21 individuals/100 m), but a lower abundance of skippers (Hesperiidae) in the AES habitat itself (enhanced: 0.00; ELS: 0.02 individuals/100 m). In mid-summer, enhanced AES farms had a higher abundance of white butterflies (0.69 individuals/100 m), but a lower abundance of brown butterflies (Satyridae: 0.16 individuals/100 m) in the AES habitat, and a lower abundance of blue butterflies (0.05 individuals/100 m) along boundaries than ELS farms (whites: 0.38; browns: 0.49; blues: 0.11 individuals/100 m). In spring 2007, twenty-four farms (12 in East Anglia and 12 in Wessex) were randomly assigned to two treatments: 16 farms with enhanced AES habitat (1.5–6.0 ha of natural regeneration by annual cultivation, floristically-enhanced grass mixes, wildflower strips and wild bird seed mixes); and eight farms with ELS habitat (1.5–6.0 ha of grass margins and game cover (usually maize)). Two additional ELS farms/region, already managed organically with 1.5 ha of ELS habitat, were also studied. From 2008–2010, butterflies were surveyed twice/year on 11 fixed 100-m transects, in mid-May–mid-June and mid-July–early August. Eight transects/site were located in AES habitat, and three transects/site were located on field boundaries away from the AES habitat.

    (Summarised by: Andrew Bladon)

  2. Increase the proportion of natural or semi‐natural habitat in the farmed landscape

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 2007–2010 on 28 arable farms in Wessex and East Anglia, UK (Holland et al. 2015) found that farms with a higher proportion of uncropped habitat had a greater abundance and species richness of butterflies in early summer, but not in mid-summer. On farms where the proportion of uncropped habitat was >7.5%, the species richness of butterflies on field boundaries in early summer (2.9–3.0 species/100 m) was higher than on farms with <7.5% uncropped habitat (1.0–1.6 species/100 m). When the proportion of uncropped habitat was >10%, the abundance of butterflies in the wildlife habitat in early summer was higher than on farms with <10% uncropped habitat (data not presented). See paper for details of species groups. In spring 2007, twenty-four farms (12 in East Anglia and 12 in Wessex) were randomly assigned to two treatments: 16 farms with enhanced agri-environment scheme (AES) habitat (1.5–6.0 ha of floristically-enhanced grass mixes, wildflower strips, wild bird seed mixes and natural regeneration by annual cultivation); and eight farms with Entry-level Stewardship (ELS) habitat (1.5–6.0 ha of grass margins and game cover (usually maize)). Two additional ELS farms/region, already managed organically with 1.5 ha of ELS habitat, were also studied. From 2008–2010, butterflies were surveyed twice/year on 11 fixed 100-m transects, in mid-May–mid-June and mid-July–early August. Eight transects/site were located in AES habitat, and three transects/site were located on field boundaries away from the AES habitat.

    (Summarised by: Andrew Bladon)

  3. Plant wild bird seed or cover mixture

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 2007–2010 on 28 arable farms in Wessex and East Anglia, UK (Holland et al. 2015) found that farms with enhanced agri-environment scheme (AES) habitats, including areas of wild bird seed mixture, had a higher abundance of some butterfly species than farms with simpler AES habitats. In early summer, farms with enhanced AES habitats had a higher abundance of blue (Lycaenidae: 0.05 individuals/100 m) and white (Pieridae: 0.46 individuals/100 m) butterflies along boundaries than farms with Entry Level Scheme (ELS) habitats (blues: 0.04; whites 0.21 individuals/100 m), but a lower abundance of skippers (Hesperiidae) in the AES habitat itself (enhanced: 0.00; ELS: 0.02 individuals/100 m). In mid-summer, enhanced AES farms had a higher abundance of white butterflies (0.69 individuals/100 m), but a lower abundance of brown butterflies (Satyridae: 0.16 individuals/100 m) in the AES habitat, and a lower abundance of blue butterflies (0.05 individuals/100 m) along boundaries than ELS farms (whites: 0.38; browns: 0.49; blues: 0.11 individuals/100 m). In spring 2007, twenty-four farms (12 in East Anglia and 12 in Wessex) were randomly assigned to two treatments: 16 farms with enhanced AES habitat (1.5–6.0 ha of wild bird seed mixes, floristically-enhanced grass mixes, wildflower strips and natural regeneration by annual cultivation); and eight farms with ELS habitat (1.5–6.0 ha of grass margins and game cover (usually maize)). Two additional ELS farms/region, already managed organically with 1.5 ha of ELS habitat, were also studied. From 2008–2010, butterflies were surveyed twice/year on 11 fixed 100-m transects, in mid-May–mid-June and mid-July–early August. Eight transects/site were located in AES habitat, and three transects/site were located on field boundaries away from the AES habitat.

    (Summarised by: Andrew Bladon)

  4. Plant nectar flower mixture/wildflower strips

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 2007–2010 on 28 arable farms in Wessex and East Anglia, UK (Holland et al. 2015) found that farms with enhanced agri-environment scheme (AES) habitats, including wildflower strips, had a higher abundance of some butterfly species than farms with simpler AES habitats. In early summer, farms with enhanced AES habitats had a higher abundance of blue (Lycaenidae: 0.05 individuals/100 m) and white (Pieridae: 0.46 individuals/100 m) butterflies along boundaries than farms with Entry Level Scheme (ELS) habitats (blues: 0.04; whites 0.21 individuals/100 m), but a lower abundance of skippers (Hesperiidae) in the AES habitat itself (enhanced: 0.00; ELS: 0.02 individuals/100 m). In mid-summer, enhanced AES farms had a higher abundance of white butterflies (0.69 individuals/100 m), but a lower abundance of brown butterflies (Satyridae: 0.16 individuals/100 m) in the AES habitat, and a lower abundance of blue butterflies (0.05 individuals/100 m) along boundaries than ELS farms (whites: 0.38; browns: 0.49; blues: 0.11 individuals/100 m). In spring 2007, twenty-four farms (12 in East Anglia and 12 in Wessex) were randomly assigned to two treatments: 16 farms with enhanced AES habitat (1.5–6.0 ha of wildflower strips, floristically-enhanced grass mixes, wild bird seed mixes and natural regeneration by annual cultivation); and eight farms with ELS habitat (1.5–6.0 ha of grass margins and game cover (usually maize)). Two additional ELS farms/region, already managed organically with 1.5 ha of ELS habitat, were also studied. From 2008–2010, butterflies were surveyed twice/year on 11 fixed 100-m transects, in mid-May–mid-June and mid-July–early August. Eight transects/site were located in AES habitat, and three transects/site were located on field boundaries away from the AES habitat.

    (Summarised by: Andrew Bladon)

  5. Plant grass buffer strips/margins around arable or pasture fields

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 2007–2010 on 28 arable farms in Wessex and East Anglia, UK (Holland et al. 2015) found that farms with enhanced agri-environment scheme (AES) habitats, including floristically-enhanced grass buffer strips, had a higher abundance of some butterfly species than farms with simpler AES habitats, including standard grass margins. In early summer, farms with enhanced AES habitats had a higher abundance of blue (Lycaenidae: 0.05 individuals/100 m) and white (Pieridae: 0.46 individuals/100 m) butterflies along boundaries than farms with Entry Level Scheme (ELS) habitats (blues: 0.04; whites 0.21 individuals/100 m), but a lower abundance of skippers (Hesperiidae) in the AES habitat itself (enhanced: 0.00; ELS: 0.02 individuals/100 m). In mid-summer, enhanced AES farms had a higher abundance of white butterflies (0.69 individuals/100 m), but a lower abundance of brown butterflies (Satyridae: 0.16 individuals/100 m) in the AES habitat, and a lower abundance of blue butterflies (0.05 individuals/100 m) along boundaries than ELS farms (whites: 0.38; browns: 0.49; blues: 0.11 individuals/100 m). In spring 2007, twenty-four farms (12 in East Anglia and 12 in Wessex) were randomly assigned to two treatments: 16 farms with enhanced AES habitat (1.5–6.0 ha of floristically-enhanced grass mixes, wildflower strips, wild bird seed mixes and natural regeneration by annual cultivation); and eight farms with ELS habitat (1.5–6.0 ha of grass margins and game cover (usually maize)). Two additional ELS farms/region, already managed organically with 1.5 ha of ELS habitat, were also studied. From 2008–2010, butterflies were surveyed twice/year on 11 fixed 100-m transects, in mid-May–mid-June and mid-July–early August. Eight transects/site were located in AES habitat, and three transects/site were located on field boundaries away from the AES habitat.

    (Summarised by: Andrew Bladon)

  6. Pay farmers to cover the costs of conservation measures (as in agri-environment schemes or conservation incentives)

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 2007–2010 on 28 arable farms in Wessex and East Anglia, UK (Holland et al. 2015) found that farms with enhanced agri-environment scheme (AES) habitats had a higher abundance of some butterfly species than farms with simpler AES habitats. In early summer, farms with enhanced AES habitats had a higher abundance of blue (Lycaenidae: 0.05 individuals/100 m) and white (Pieridae: 0.46 individuals/100 m) butterflies along boundaries than farms with Entry Level Scheme (ELS) habitats (blues: 0.04; whites 0.21 individuals/100 m), but a lower abundance of skippers (Hesperiidae) in the AES habitat itself (enhanced: 0.00; ELS: 0.02 individuals/100 m). In mid-summer, enhanced AES farms had a higher abundance of white butterflies (0.69 individuals/100 m), but a lower abundance of brown butterflies (Satyridae: 0.16 individuals/100 m) in the AES habitat, and a lower abundance of blue butterflies (0.05 individuals/100 m) along boundaries than ELS farms (whites: 0.38; browns: 0.49; blues: 0.11 individuals/100 m). In spring 2007, twenty-four farms (12 in East Anglia and 12 in Wessex) were randomly assigned to two treatments: 16 farms with enhanced AES habitat (1.5–6.0 ha of floristically-enhanced grass mixes, wildflower strips, wild bird seed mixes and natural regeneration by annual cultivation); and eight farms with ELS habitat (1.5–6.0 ha of grass margins and game cover (usually maize)). Two additional ELS farms/region, already managed organically with 1.5 ha of ELS habitat, were also studied. From 2008–2010, butterflies were surveyed twice/year on 11 fixed 100-m transects, in mid-May–mid-June and mid-July–early August. Eight transects/site were located in AES habitat, and three transects/site were located on field boundaries away from the AES habitat.

    (Summarised by: Andrew Bladon)

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 19

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