Study

Arthropods in grassy field margins in the Wieringermeer: Scope, population development and possible consequences for farm practice

  • Published source details Canters K.J. & Tamis W.L.M. (1999) Arthropods in grassy field margins in the Wieringermeer: Scope, population development and possible consequences for farm practice. Landscape and Urban Planning, 46, 63-69.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Plant grass buffer strips/margins around arable or pasture fields

Action Link
Butterfly and Moth Conservation

Plant grass buffer strips/margins around arable or pasture fields

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

    A replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in 1996 in arable farmland in the Netherlands (Canters & Tamis 1999) found that mowing planted grass margins did not affect the abundance of moths and butterflies. After mowing, the abundance of moths and butterflies generally, and diamondback moth Plutella xylostella specifically, was similar to before mowing. Ten grass margins (3 Ă— 900 m) on five farms were sown with grasses, including giant fescue Festuca gigantea, timothy Phleum pratense and cocksfoot Dactylis glomerata. Grassy margins were mown on approximately half of the farms at the beginning of July 1996. Moths and butterflies were sampled using two pyramid traps/margin, installed for a three-week period five times during the 1996 growing season.

    (Summarised by: Andrew Bladon, edited from Farmland synopsis)

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

    A replicated study in 1996 in the Netherlands (Canters & Tamis 1999) found that different arthropod populations responded differently to mowing. After mowing, populations of bugs (Heteroptera), aphids (Aphidoidea), parasitic wasps (Ichneumonidae), hoverflies (Syrphidae) and rove beetles (Staphylinidae) increased to between >1.5 and nearly 2.5 times their population size prior to mowing. Mowing had the opposite effect on populations of spiders (Araneae), harvestmen (Opiliones), and moths and butterflies (Lepidoptera), reducing these populations by half or more. Ten grass margins (3 m x 900 m) on five farms were sown with grasses, including giant fescue Festuca gigantea, timothy Phleum pratense and cocksfoot Dactylis glomerata. Grassy margins were mown on approximately half of the farms at the beginning of July. Arthropods were sampled using two pyramid traps/margin installed for a three-week period five times during the 1996 growing season.

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 21

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 ProgrammeRed List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Mauritian Wildlife Supporting Conservation Leaders
Sustainability Dashboard National Biodiversity Network Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Bat Conservation InternationalPeople trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust