Study

Effect of predator control on nest survival of skylarks Alauda arvensis breeding on farmland in north Norfolk, England

  • Published source details Donald P.F., Evans A.D., Muirhead L.B., Buckingham D.L., Kirby W.B. & Schmitt S.I.A. (2002) Survival rates, causes of failure and productivity of skylark Alauda arvensis nests on lowland farmland. Ibis, 144, 652-664

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Control predatory mammals and birds (foxes, crows, stoats and weasels)

Action Link
Farmland Conservation

Control predators not on islands for songbirds

Action Link
Bird Conservation

Provide or retain set-aside areas in farmland

Action Link
Bird Conservation

Provide or retain set-aside areas in farmland

Action Link
Farmland Conservation
  1. Control predatory mammals and birds (foxes, crows, stoats and weasels)

    A before-and-after study between 1996 and 1998 at a farmland site in eastern England (Donald et al. 2002) found that daily survival rates of Eurasian skylark Alauda arvensis nests in non-rotational set-aside were significantly higher (96% daily survival for 168 nests) following the introduction of intensive control of mammalian predators than when predator control was either ‘light’ (95.6% survival for 51 nests) or absent (91% survival for 192 nests). There was no significant difference between light control and no control. These differences resulted in average overall survival rates of 41%, 23% and 12% for heavy, light and no control, respectively. The main species targeted were mustelids (Mustelidae), hedgehogs Erinaceus europaeus and red foxes Vulpes vulpes.

     

  2. Control predators not on islands for songbirds

    A before-and-after study between 1996 and 1998 at a farmland site in eastern England (Donald et al. 2002) found that daily survival rates of Eurasian skylark Alauda arvensis nests in non-rotational set-aside areas were significantly higher (96% daily survival for 168 nests) following the introduction of intensive control of mammalian predators than when predator control was either ‘light’ (95.6% survival for 51 nests) or absent (91% survival for 192 nests). There was no significant difference between light control and no control. These differences resulted in average overall survival rates of 40.7%, 23.3% and 12.3% for heavy, light and no control, respectively. The main species targeted were mustelids, hedgehogs Erinaceus europaeus and red foxes Vulpes vulpes. This study also discusses the impact of set-aside plots, described in ‘Provide or retain set-aside areas in farmland’.

     

  3. Provide or retain set-aside areas in farmland

    A replicated study in 1996-98 on 22 farms in southern England (Donald et al. 2002) found that skylark nests had significantly lower survival in set-aside, compared to in cereals (22% overall survival for 525 nests in set-aside vs. 38% survival for 183 nests in cereal fields). There were no differences between set-aside and other crop types (19% survival for 173 nests in grass fields, 29% survival for 60 nests in other field types) or between rotational and non-rotational set-aside. On one intensively-studied farm, over 90% of 422 skylark nests were found on ten fields of well-established, non-rotational set-aside. This study also describes the impact of predator control on skylark nest survival, discussed in ‘Control predators not on islands ‘.

  4. Provide or retain set-aside areas in farmland

    A replicated site comparison in 1996-1998 on 22 farms in southern England (Donald et al. 2002) found that skylark Alauda arvensis nests had significantly lower survival in set-aside, compared to in cereals (22% overall survival for 525 nests in set-aside vs 38% survival for 183 nests in cereal fields). There were no differences between set-aside and other crop types (19% survival for 173 nests in grass fields, 29% survival for 60 nests in other field types) or between rotational and non-rotational set-aside. On one intensively-studied farm, over 90% of 422 skylark nests were found on ten fields of well-established, non-rotational set-aside.

     

Output references

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