The MAFF 'SCARAB' project: long-term consequences for farmland arthropods of pesticide use in the UK

  • Published source details Frampton G.K., Cilgi T. & Wratten S.D. (1994) The MAFF 'SCARAB' project: long-term consequences for farmland arthropods of pesticide use in the UK. IOBC wprs Bulletin (Bulletin OILB srop), 17, 245-257.


This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Reduce fertilizer, pesticide or herbicide use generally

Action Link
Farmland Conservation
  1. Reduce fertilizer, pesticide or herbicide use generally

    A replicated controlled study of seven arable fields on three farms in England (Frampton et al. 1994) found that reduced pesticide inputs tended to result in higher numbers of arthropods. Applications of chlorpyrifos spray in the conventional plots resulted in decreased numbers of ground beetle species (Carabidae: Bembidion aeneum, B. lunulatum, B. obtusum), one water scavenger beetle species (Hydrophilidae: Helophorus aquaticus), springtails (Collembola: Entomobrya multifasciata, Isotoma viridis, Sminthurides signatus, S. viridis) and money spiders (Linyphiidae: particularly Erigone spp.). Some of these species disappeared from sprayed plots and did not recover for a year. Spraying with deltamethrin also resulted in a decrease in water scavenger beetles Helophorus spp., several money spider species and one ground beetle species B. lunulatum, the latter did not recover for 15 months. Fields were divided in half with one receiving conventional pesticide applications, and the other reduced pesticides, i.e. lower herbicide and fungicide and no insecticides (1991-1996). All other practices were the same. Arthropods were monitored using a D-Vac suction sampler and pitfall traps. In each plot, four samples were taken, each comprising five sub-samples (total area 0.46 m²) between 25 and 125 m from the shared field margin. Four pitfall traps (9 cm diameter) were also located in each field half (12 m apart) and were operated for 7-day periods. This study was part of the same project (SCARAB – Seeking Confirmation About Results At Boxworth) as (Frampton 1997, Tarrant et al. 1997).


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