Study

No clear beneficial effects of ecological compensation areas on spider and butterfly communities found in a case study in two different arable regions in Switzerland

  • Published source details Jeanneret P., Schüpbach B., Steiger J., Waldburger M. & Bigler F. (2000) Evaluation of ecological measures: Spiders and butterflies. Agrarforschung, 7, 112-116

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Reduce management intensity on permanent grasslands (several interventions at once)

Action Link
Farmland Conservation

Plant nectar flower mixture/wildflower strips

Action Link
Farmland Conservation
  1. Reduce management intensity on permanent grasslands (several interventions at once)

    A replicated, controlled study in summer 1997 and 1998 in 109 sites of two arable regions in Switzerland (Jeanneret et al. 2000) found mixed effects of reduced management intensity on grasslands on butterflies (Lepidoptera) and spiders (Araneae). For butterflies, species richness did not differ significantly between low-intensity or extensively managed meadows and intensively managed meadows, however butterfly species richness was higher in extensively managed meadows (but not in low-intensity meadows) than in cereal fields. The number of spider species was found to be higher in low-intensity meadows (but not in extensively managed meadows) than in cereal fields, but no difference was detected between extensive, low- and high-intensively managed meadows. Spider community composition differed between the intensively managed meadows and the two meadow types with reduced management intensity. The investigated habitat types were forest edges, arable fields (winter wheat and intensively managed meadow) and ecological compensation areas including hedgerows, extensively managed and low-intensity meadows, wildflower strips on set-aside land and orchard meadows. Spiders were collected in pitfall traps in May and June 1997. Butterflies were observed during six visits (10 minutes, covering 0.25 ha) in each site in 1998. This was part of the same study as (Jeanneret et al. 2003a, Jeanneret et al. 2003b).

     

  2. Plant nectar flower mixture/wildflower strips

    A replicated, controlled study in summer 1997 and 1998 in Switzerland (Jeanneret et al. 2000) found that the number of spider (Araneae) and butterfly (Lepidoptera) species in wildflower strips sown on set-aside areas did not differ significantly from winter wheat fields. The number of spider species in wildflower strips was among the lowest reported (average 20 species), significantly lower than in low-intensity meadows (more than 25 species) and forest edges (more than 35 species). Butterfly species richness in the wildflower strips (more than 6 species) differed significantly only from forest edges (less than 4 species). However, for both taxa, wildflower strips attracted some species that were never or only rarely found in other habitats. The investigated habitat types were forest edges, arable fields (winter wheat and intensively managed meadow) and ecological compensation areas including hedgerows, extensively managed and low-intensity meadows, wildflower strips on set-aside land and orchard meadows. There were 109 sites in two arable regions. Spiders were collected in pitfall traps in May and June 1997. Butterflies were observed during six visits (10 minutes, covering 0.25 ha) in each site in 1998. This was part of the same study as Jeanneret et al. 2003.

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, terrestrial 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 17

Go to the CE Journal

Subscribe to our newsletter

Please add your details if you are interested in receiving updates from the Conservation Evidence team about new papers, synopses and opportunities.

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