Study

Management options for the establishment of communities of rare arable weeds on set-aside land

  • Published source details Neve P., Mortimer A.M. & Putwain P.D. (1996) Management options for the establishment of communities of rare arable weeds on set-aside land. Aspects of Applied Biology, 44, 257-262

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Sow rare or declining arable weeds

Action Link
Farmland Conservation

Delay mowing or first grazing date on pasture or grassland

Action Link
Farmland Conservation
  1. Sow rare or declining arable weeds

    A replicated, controlled, randomized study in 1993 and 1994 of set-aside at a site in England (Neve et al. 1996) found that the establishment of common corncockle Agrostemma githago and interrupted brome Bromus interruptus depended on cover crop, cultivation, management and year. Common corncockle density was significantly higher on the two sown grass covers consisting of 95% or 67% grass (125-135 common corncockle plants/m²) than on naturally regenerated plots (120/m²) or wheat crops (105/m²). The reverse was true in year two (natural regeneration: 600/m², crop: 1100/m², grass covers: 400-500). Reproductive output was higher on wheat crop cover and natural regeneration plots (275 seed capsules/m²) than sown grass cover (210-250 seed capsules/m²). Cover crop did not affect interrupted brome establishment in year one (4-5/m²), but in year two density was higher on natural regeneration (24/m²) and wheat crop (23/m²) covers, than on grass covers (10-15/m²). Both species increased from year one to two. No cultivation in year two resulted in the only decline in density of common corncockle between year one and two (70/m²). Interrupted brome density was highest with no cultivation in the second year compared to cultivation or cultivation and re-sowing of rare arable weeds (29 vs. 10-15). An early year one cut (1st August) resulted in significantly lower densities of common corncockle (440/m²) compared to a later cut (30th August) or no cut (750/m²). A late cut increased year two interrupted brome density compared to the early cut (28 vs 17/m²), but no cut significantly decreased the density (9/m²). Re-sowing common corncockle had no effect on year two densities (860-1000/m²). The trial comprised a split plot (2 x 2 m) randomized block design with three replicate blocks each containing 36 treatment combinations. Wheat (drilled), grass crop and rare weeds (hand sown) were planted in October-November 1993 and 1994. Rare arable weeds were sampled in 1 x 1 m quadrats in the centre of each plot. Seed bearing capsules were counted on 10 individuals/plot.

  2. Delay mowing or first grazing date on pasture or grassland

    A replicated, controlled, randomized study of set-aside at the University of Liverpool Horticulture and Environmental Research Station, England (Neve et al. 1996) found that delaying cutting resulted in higher densities of common corncockle Agrostemma githago and interrupted brome Bromus interuptus. An early year one cut (1st August) resulted in significantly lower densities of common corncockle (440/m²) compared to a later cut (30th August) or no cut (750/m²). A late cut increased year two interrupted brome density compared to the early cut (28 vs 17/m²); no cut significantly decreased the density (9/m²). The trial comprised a split plot (2 x 2 m) randomized block design with three replicate blocks each containing 36 treatment combinations. Wheat (drilled), grass crop and rare weeds (hand sown) were planted in October-November 1993 and 1994. Plots were cut (to 10 cm, vegetation left in situ) on 1st or 30th August, or not at all. Rare arable weeds were sampled in 1 x 1 m quadrats in the centre of each plot.

     

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 18

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