Study

Effect of herbicide drift on adjacent boundary vegetation

  • Published source details de Snoo G.R. & van der Poll R.J. (1999) Effect of herbicide drift on adjacent boundary vegetation. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 73, 1-6.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Manage ditches to benefit wildlife

Action Link
Farmland Conservation

Leave headlands in fields unsprayed (conservation headlands)

Action Link
Farmland Conservation
  1. Manage ditches to benefit wildlife

    A replicated, controlled paired study in 1991-1992 of ditch banks on arable farms in the Netherlands (de Snoo & van der Poll 1999) found higher plant diversity and more important/rare plant species on ditch banks along unsprayed edges of winter wheat compared to those sprayed with pesticides. Ditch banks next to unsprayed edges of winter wheat had 65 plant species and a floristic value of 2,201 (scoring system based on the importance of different plant species in terms of rarity) compared to those sprayed with pesticides (50 species; floristic value 1,181). There was no significant difference on banks along unsprayed and sprayed edges of sugar beet Beta vulgaris (species: 48 and 41, floristic values: 3,616 and 3,029 respectively) and potato crops (species: 46 and 41, floristic values: 1,961 and 1,864 respectively). Frequency and cover of species and floristic value of vegetation was recorded in two plots on each ditch, one along a sprayed and one an unsprayed edge of sugar beet (seven), potato (eight) and winter wheat (20) fields in June-July.

     

  2. Leave headlands in fields unsprayed (conservation headlands)

    A replicated, controlled, paired study in 1991-1992 of ditch banks on arable farms in the Netherlands (de Snoo & van der Poll 1999) found that plant diversity and the value of the vegetation in terms of species rarity was significantly higher on ditch banks along unsprayed edges of winter wheat (65 species, floristic value: 2201) than those sprayed with pesticides (50 species, floristic value: 1181). There was no significant difference on banks along unsprayed and sprayed edges of sugar beet (species: 48 and 41, floristic values: 3616 and 3029 respectively) and potato crops (species: 46 and 41, floristic values: 1961 and 1864 respectively). Frequency and cover of species and floristic value of vegetation (scoring system based on the importance of different plant species in terms of rarity) was recorded in two plots on each ditch, one along a sprayed and one an unsprayed edge of sugar beet (seven), potato (eight) and winter wheat (20) fields in June-July.

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