Study

Diversity of plant and butterfly species on organic farmland field margins in relation to management.

  • Published source details Feber R.E. & Hopkins A. (1997) Diversity of plant and butterfly species on organic farmland field margins in relation to management. British Grassland Society Fifth Research Conference, University of Plymouth, Devon, UK, 8-10 September 1997, 63-64.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Plant nectar flower mixture/wildflower strips

Action Link
Butterfly and Moth Conservation

Create uncultivated margins around intensive arable or pasture fields

Action Link
Butterfly and Moth 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 nectar flower mixture/wildflower strips

    A replicated, site comparison study in 1994–1996 on an arable farm in Gloucestershire, UK (Feber & Hopkins 1997) found that the abundance and diversity of butterflies was higher in margins sown with wildflowers than in naturally regenerated field margins, and that margin management affected butterfly diversity. Sown wildflower margins had a higher abundance (15–16 individuals) and diversity (6–7 species) of butterflies than naturally regenerated margins (abundance: 5–10 individuals; diversity: 3–6 species). Cutting and subsequent grazing of the sown margins decreased butterfly diversity (5.6 species) but not abundance (14.6 individuals) compared to margins which were not cut or grazed (diversity: 6.8 species; abundance: 16.3 individuals). In 1994, two-metre margins were established around two organically managed arable fields by either sowing a seed mix (containing five grasses and six wildflowers) or by natural regeneration. In 1996, half of the margins were cut in June and grazed in July. The rest were left unmanaged. From May–September 1996, butterflies were monitored weekly along transects.

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

  2. Create uncultivated margins around intensive arable or pasture fields

    A replicated, site comparison study in 1994–1996 on an arable farm in Gloucestershire, UK (Feber & Hopkins 1997) found that the abundance and diversity of butterflies was lower in unsown naturally regenerated field margins than in margins sown with wildflowers, and that margin management affected butterfly diversity. Unsown, naturally regenerated margins had a lower abundance (5–10 individuals) and diversity (3–6 species) of butterflies than sown wildflower margins (abundance: 15–16 individuals; diversity: 6–7 species). Cutting and subsequent grazing of naturally regenerated margins decreased butterfly diversity (3 species) but not abundance (5 individuals) compared to margins which were not cut or grazed (diversity: 6 species; abundance: 10 individuals). In 1994, two-metre margins were established around two organically managed arable fields by either natural regeneration or by sowing a seed mix containing five grasses and six wildflowers. In 1996, half of the margins were cut in June and grazed in July. The rest was left unmanaged. From May–September 1996, butterflies were monitored weekly along transects.

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

  3. Create uncultivated margins around intensive arable or pasture fields

    A replicated study in 1994-1996 in Gloucestershire, UK (Feber & Hopkins 1997) (same study as Hopkins & Feber 1997) found that plant species richness as well as abundance and diversity of butterflies (Lepidoptera), was lower in naturally regenerated margins than in sown wildflower margins (for plants: 19 vs 23 species). Cutting and subsequent grazing of naturally regenerated margins significantly decreased butterfly diversity (3 vs 6 species) but not abundance (5 vs 10 individuals). Margins were established around two organically-managed arable fields by either sowing a seed mix (containing five grasses, six forbs) or by natural regeneration in 1994. In 1996, part of the margins were cut in June and grazed in July. The rest was left untreated. Butterflies were monitored along transects weekly from May to September 1996. Abundance of all plants present as well as flower abundance at the time of the survey was recorded in May and in September 1996.

  4. Plant nectar flower mixture/wildflower strips

    A replicated study in 1994-1996 in Gloucestershire, UK (Feber & Hopkins 1997) found higher plant species richness (23 vs 19 species) as well as higher abundance and diversity of butterflies (Lepidoptera) in sown wildflower margins than in naturally regenerated margins. Cutting and subsequent grazing of the sown margins significantly decreased butterfly diversity (5.6 vs 6.8 species) but not abundance (14.6 vs 16.3 individuals). Margins were established around two organically-managed arable fields by either sowing a seed mix (containing five grasses, six wildflowers) or by natural regeneration in 1994. In 1996 part of the margins were cut in June and grazed in July. The rest was left untreated. Butterflies were monitored along transects weekly from May to September 1996. Plant species and flower abundance were recorded in May and September 1996.

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