Study

Establishment of vegetation in broadened field boundaries in agricultural landscapes

  • Published source details Bokenstrand A., Lagerlöf J & Torstensson P.R. (2004) Establishment of vegetation in broadened field boundaries in agricultural landscapes. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 101, 21-29.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Plant grass buffer strips/margins around arable or pasture fields

Action Link
Farmland Conservation

Create uncultivated margins around intensive arable or pasture fields

Action Link
Farmland Conservation

Plant nectar flower mixture/wildflower strips

Action Link
Farmland Conservation
  1. Plant grass buffer strips/margins around arable or pasture fields

    A replicated controlled study in 1988-1997 in south-central Sweden (Bokenstrand et al. 2004), found that experimental plots sown with a clover Trifolium spp. and grass mix in a re-established field boundary on an organic farm had lower plant species richness than plots planted with rose bushes Rosa canina and/or sown with meadow plants or allowed to regenerate naturally one year after establishment. In two other (widened) field boundaries in a conventional system, clover and grass plots had fewer plant species nine years after establishment than plots with meadow plants. Seven years after establishment, total weed cover at the organic farm was higher in plots sown with a clover and grass mix, in natural regeneration plots and in reference boundary sections compared with plots with rose bushes and/or meadow plants. In two field boundaries total weed cover decreased in all treatments, except the clover and grass mix where it remained stable or increased. Four replicates of three or four treatments were established in experimental plots at the site of each field boundary in 1988 or 1990, either by widening an existing boundary or re-establishing a previously removed dirt road (organic site). All plots were cut annually in late summer and the cuttings removed. Vegetation surveys were carried out twice in experimental plots (1991-1993 and 1997) and once in reference boundaries (1997) in three to five 0.25 m2 quadrats. It is not clear whether the results for clover and grass plots were a direct result of planting nectar flowers or grass.

  2. Create uncultivated margins around intensive arable or pasture fields

    A replicated controlled study between 1988 and 1997 in Sweden (Bokenstrand et al. 2004), found higher plant species richness in experimental field margin plots allowed to regenerate naturally than in plots sown with a clover and grass seed mixture after one year. Seven years after establishment, naturally regenerated plots, clover and grass plots and control boundaries had higher cover of weeds in total and of couch grass Elytrigia repens than plots planted with rose bushes Rosa canina and/or meadow plants. Couch grass increased in all treatments but significantly so in naturally regenerated plots and plots with clover and grass. Plots with meadow plants and naturally regenerated plots had similar species richness but quite different species compositions due to a high cover of annual weeds in the latter. In 1990, four replicates of each treatment (naturally regenerated, planted with rose bushes and/or sown with meadow plants, sown with clover Trifolium spp. and grass mixture) were established randomly along the stretch of a previously removed dirt road. All plots were cut annually in late summer and the cuttings removed. Vegetation surveys were carried out twice in experimental plots (1991 and 1997) and once in control boundaries (1997) in three to five 0.25 m2 quadrats. It is not clear whether the results for clover and grass plots were a direct result of planting nectar flowers or grass.

  3. Plant nectar flower mixture/wildflower strips

    A replicated controlled study from 1988 to 1997 in south-central Sweden (Bokenstrand et al. 2004), found higher plant species richness in two plots sown with wildflowers (32 wildflower and grass species) than in plots planted with rose bushes Rosa canina, sown with a clover Trifolium pratense and grass seed mix, or in adjacent untreated field boundaries (control), nine years after establishment. At the third site (organic), plots sown with wildflowers and/or planted with rose bushes had lower weed and couch grass Elytrigia repens cover compared with untreated field boundaries, naturally regenerated plots and plots sown with a clover and grass mix, seven years after establishment. In two of the field boundaries, total weed cover decreased in all treatments except ‘clover and grass’ where it remained stable or increased. Couch grass cover increased in all treatments in two of the boundaries. Plant species richness tended to decline in most treatments over time, however in experimental plots sown with wildflowers and/or planted with rose bushes, 14-20 of the original 32 wildflower species were still present seven or nine years after establishment. In ‘clover and grass’ plots the clover component decreased or totally disappeared, while sown and unsown grasses and weeds increased. At the organic site, wildflower sown plots and naturally regenerated plots had similar species richness but different species compositions due to a high cover of annual weeds in the naturally regenerated plots. Four replicates of three-four treatments were established in experimental plots on each field boundary in 1988 or 1990, either by widening an existing boundary or re-establishing a previously removed dirt road (organic site). All plots were cut annually in late summer and the cuttings removed. Vegetation surveys were carried out twice in experimental plots (1991-1993 and 1997) and once in untreated field boundaries (1997) in three to five 0.25 m2 quadrats. It is not clear whether the results for clover and grass plots were a direct result of planting nectar flowers or grass.

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