Study

The value of planted grass field margins as a habitat for sawflies and other chick-food insects

  • Published source details Barker A.M. & Reynolds C.J.M. (1999) The value of planted grass field margins as a habitat for sawflies and other chick-food insects. Aspects of Applied Biology, 54, 109-116.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Create beetle banks

Action Link
Farmland Conservation

Plant grass buffer strips/margins around arable or pasture fields

Action Link
Farmland Conservation
  1. Create beetle banks

    A replicated study in the summers of 1997-1998 in three regions (southern England, East Anglia and the Midlands) across the UK (Barker & Reynolds 1999) found no difference in the average catch of sawfly (Hymenoptera: Symphyta) larvae between beetle banks and grass strips planted along existing field margins. The total percentage cover of grass in planted grass strips affected the abundance of sawfly larvae positively. There were non-significant trends for sawfly larvae numbers to increase with strip age and to decrease with the amount of cock’s-foot Dactylis glomerata. Numbers of gamebird chick-food insects increased with strip age and area, but there was also a significant difference between farms. There was a non-significant trend for chick-food insect numbers to increase with the proportion of red fescue Festuca rubra. Cock’s-foot, red fescue and perennial rye grass Lolium perenne were the predominant grasses in most strips, being most common in 35, 25 and 17 strips respectively. A total of 116 grass strips (83 along pre-existing field margins and 33 beetle banks) on 32 farms were surveyed. For the overall analysis, the 11 strips on three of the farms were excluded. Grass strips had been established 0.5-12 years previously, both along pre-existing field margins and across cropped fields (beetle banks). Invertebrates were sampled by sweep-netting at the base of the vegetation in mid-June to mid-July. Percentage cover of all plant species and vegetation height was measured in 0.25m2 quadrats. Apart from where stated, this study does not distinguish between the effects of creating beetle banks and planting grass buffer strips/margins around arable or pasture fields.

     

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

    A replicated study in the summers of 1997-1998 in three regions across the UK (Barker & Reynolds 1999) found that the total percentage of grass cover in planted grass strips affected the abundance of sawfly (Symphyta) larvae positively. Sawfly larvae numbers were found to increase with strip age and to decrease with the amount of cocksfoot Dactylis glomerata (both trends non-significant). There was no difference in the average catch of sawfly larvae between beetle banks and strips planted along existing field margins. Numbers of insects used by gamebirds as chick food increased with strip age and area, but there was also a significant difference between farms. There was a non-significant trend for chick-food insect numbers to increase with the proportion of red fescue Festuca rubra. Cocksfoot, red fescue and perennial rye grass Lolium perenne were the predominant grasses in most strips, being most common in 35, 25 and 17 strips respectively. A total of 116 strips were sampled on 32 farms. Grass strips had been established 0.5-12 years previously, both along pre-existing field margins and across cropped fields (beetle banks). Invertebrates were sampled by sweep-netting at the base of the vegetation in mid-June to mid-July. Percentage cover of all plant species and vegetation height was measured in 0.25 m2 quadrats.

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