Study

Impact of some agricultural practices on carabidae beetles

  • Published source details Chabert A. & Beaufreton C. (2005) Impact of some agricultural practices on carabidae beetles. IOBC/wprs Bulletin, 28, 101-109.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Reduce tillage

Action Link
Farmland Conservation

Reduce fertilizer, pesticide or herbicide use generally

Action Link
Farmland Conservation
  1. Reduce tillage

    A small replicated trial at an experimental farm in Normandy, France (Chabert & Beaufreton 2005) (same study as (Cortet et al. 2002)) found more spiders (Araneae) and ground beetles (Carabidae), but fewer rove beetles (Staphylinidae) in arable plots managed without deep ploughing than in plots with conventional ploughing. The unploughed plots were also managed with limited used of herbicides and fungicides, and no insecticides, so it is difficult to separate the effects of ploughing from the effects of reducing pesticide use. However, both ground beetles and spiders were also more abundant in subplots that restricted pesticide and herbicide use even more, whereas rove beetles were not. There were three replicates of each treatment. Management was over eleven years from 1990 to 2001. Insects and spiders were monitored in May and June from 1999 to 2001.

  2. Reduce fertilizer, pesticide or herbicide use generally

    A small replicated trial at an experimental farm in Normandy, France (Chabert & Beaufreton 2005) (same study as (Cortet et al. 2002)) found more spiders (Araneae) and ground beetles (Carabidae), but fewer rove beetles (Staphylinidae) in arable fields managed with limited use of herbicides and fungicides, and no insecticides, than in control conventionally managed fields. The experimental plots were also managed without deep ploughing, so it is difficult to separate the effects of ploughing from the effects of reducing pesticide use. However, both ground beetles and spiders were also more abundant in subplots that restricted pesticide use entirely (no fungicides) and restricted herbicide use even more, whereas rove beetles were not. The authors suggested that spiders and ground beetles were sensitive to both pesticide application and ploughing, with spiders being the most sensitive, while rove beetles are less sensitive to pesticide application and prefer deep-ploughed fields. Management was over eleven years from 1990 to 2001. Insects and spiders were monitored in May and June from 1999 to 2001.

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