Study

Numbers of Carabid species, but not abundance, was higher in arable fields with compost rather than inorganic fertiliser applications in eastern Austria

  • Published source details Idinger J., Kromp B. & Steinberger K.H. (1996) Ground photoeclector evaluation of the numbers of carabid beetles and spiders found in and around cereal fields treated with either inorganic or compost fertilizers. Acta Jutlandica, 71, 255-267

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Use organic rather than mineral fertilizers

Action Link
Farmland Conservation
  1. Use organic rather than mineral fertilizers

    A small controlled study in three fields on an organic farm at Obere Lobau, Austria (Idinger et al. 1996) (same study as (Idinger 1995, Idinger & Kromp 1997)) found that numbers of species, but not abundance of spiders (Araneae) and ground beetles (Carabidae) were higher in arable fields with compost rather than inorganic fertilizer applications. Numbers of ground beetle species were higher in compost and unfertilized plots (18 species) than inorganic plots (12), as was species diversity (Shannon’s H: unfertilized 2.1, compost 1.8, inorganic 1.2). Ground beetle abundance did not vary with treatment (4-5 individuals/trap). There were variations in the responses of different species with treatment. Numbers of spider species were higher in compost and unfertilized plots (30) compared to inorganic plots (21), species diversity did not differ (Shannon’s H: 2.2-2.3). Seven money spider (Linyphiidae) species made up approximately 85% of spiders in all treatments, thus numbers of additional species varied. Spider abundance did not vary with treatment (6-7/trap). Two plots (185 x 10 m) in a 4 ha wheat/rye field were either unfertilized since 1989 or fertilized with compost (80 t/ha in 1989 and 1991). A 7.6 ha field (potatoes/bean/cereal) received inorganic fertilizer (1990: 30 N, 75 P, 120 K kg/ha, 1991: 112 N, 104 Ca kg/ha) and herbicides. Five ground photoeclectors (0.25 m²) were placed 20 m apart in the centre of plots to sample arthropods. Traps were moved each month and emptied every two weeks, 5-6 times between May-November 1991-1992.

     

Output references

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, 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