Study

The effect of cereal headland treatments on carabid communities. Arthropod Natural Enemies in Arable Land Ii - Survival, Reproduction and Enhancement

  • Published source details de Snoo G.R. (1996) The effect of cereal headland treatments on carabid communities. Arthropod Natural Enemies in Arable Land Ii - Survival, Reproduction and Enhancement. Pages 209-219 in: Acta Jutlandica.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Leave headlands in fields unsprayed (conservation headlands)

Action Link
Farmland Conservation
  1. Leave headlands in fields unsprayed (conservation headlands)

    A replicated, controlled, paired study of arable field edges from 1990 to 1992 in the Netherlands (de Snoo 1996) found that unsprayed field margins had greater plant cover, broad-leaved species, butterfly (Lepidoptera) abundance and insect groups than sprayed margins. Plant cover was significantly higher in 6 m (outer 3 m: 35%, inner 3 m: 26%) and 3 m unsprayed margins (36%) than sprayed margins (outer 3 m: 6%, inner 3 m: 3%). Numbers of broad-leaved species were also higher in 6 m (outer 3 m: 13 species, inner 3 m: 11) and 3 m (12) unsprayed strips than sprayed edges (outer 3 m: 3, inner 3 m: 2). Grass species did not differ (2-3). Numbers of butterfly species were significantly higher in unsprayed margins (6-7/300 m²) compared to sprayed margins (1-2/300 m²). Density did not differ between 3 m (6/300 m²) and 6 m (7/300 m²) unsprayed margins. Numbers on adjacent ditch banks were also higher for unsprayed (18-20) than sprayed margins (9-11). The number of insect groups in the upper vegetation was higher in the unsprayed (12-14) than sprayed margins (8-11). The predominant groups were flower-visiting insects, such as hoverflies (Syrphidae) and ladybirds (Coccinellidae). Insect density was also significantly higher in unsprayed (3 m: 53/100 m, 6 m: 31/100m) compared to sprayed margins (3 m: 20/100m, 6 m: 12/100m). Margins 3 m x 100 m and 6 m x 400 m were left unsprayed by herbicides and insecticides and compared to sprayed edges in the same field. Plant species were sampled in 75 m² plots within margins in June. Butterflies were sampled on 3 m (eight farms) and 6 m (six farms) margins 11 times between mid-May-July. Insects in the upper parts of plants were sampled twice/plot at the end of June with a sweep net. This study was part of the same experimental set-up as (de Snoo et al. 1994, de Snoo & de Leeuw 1996, de Snoo 1997, de Snoo et al. 1998, de Snoo 1999).

     

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