Study

Arthropod abundance and diversity in differently vegetated margins of arable fields

  • Published source details Thomas C.F.G. & Marshall E.J.P. (1999) Arthropod abundance and diversity in differently vegetated margins of arable fields. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 72, 131-144

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Plant grass buffer strips/margins around arable or pasture fields

Action Link
Farmland 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 grass buffer strips/margins around arable or pasture fields

    A randomized, replicated controlled trial between 1993 to 1996 in Bristol, UK (Thomas & Marshall 1999) found that 4 m-wide field margins sown with rye grass Lolium perenne did not have more suction-sampled invertebrates, over-wintering invertebrates in the soil or ground beetles (Carabidae) than control cropped margins. There were 110-130 invertebrates/sample on control (cropped) and grass-sown plots. There was no difference in the number of ground beetle species (average of 8 species/plot), nor in the numbers of the four most commonly caught ground beetle species, between margin types. Wolf spiders (Lycosidae) were more abundant on grass and wildflower-sown margins than on control or naturally regenerated margins (numbers not given). Three field margins were established in spring 1993. Experimental plots 10 x 4 m were either sown with arable crop (control), rye grass or a wildflower and grass seed mix, or left to naturally regenerate. There were three replicate plots in each margin. All plots were cut annually after harvest, and cuttings left in place. Ground beetles were sampled in eight pitfall traps in or near each margin, for one week in June for four years, 1993-1996. Invertebrates were sampled using a vacuum sampler on plots of two of the three margins in June 1994. Arthropods were extracted from soil samples taken from plots of one margin in December 1993 and February 1994.

  2. Create uncultivated margins around intensive arable or pasture fields

    A randomized, replicated controlled trial from 1993 to 1996 in Bristol, UK (Thomas & Marshall 1999), found that 4 m-wide field margins left to naturally regenerate had more suction-sampled invertebrates but not more ground beetles (Carabidae) than control cropped margins or margins sown with grass. There were around 180 invertebrates per sample on naturally regenerated margins, compared to 110-130 invertebrates/sample on control or grass-sown plots. There was no difference in the number of ground beetle species (average of 8 species/plot), nor in the numbers of the four most commonly caught ground beetle species, between margin types. In a 2 m-wide margin, there were more over-wintering invertebrates in the soil of the wildflower sown half than the naturally regenerating half, but this difference was not found in 4 m-wide replicated experimental plots. Three field margins were established in spring 1993 at one site. Experimental plots 10 x 4 m were either sown with arable crop (control), rye grass Lolium perenne or a wildflower and grass seed mix, or left to naturally regenerate. There were three replicate plots in each margin. All plots were cut annually after harvest, and cuttings left in place. Another 100 x 2 m wide field margin, with 50 m sown with a wildflower mix and 50 m unsown, was used to monitor wintering invertebrates. Ground beetles were sampled in eight pitfall traps in or near each margin, for a week in June for four years, 1993-1996. Invertebrates were sampled using a vacuum sampler on plots of two of the three margins in June 1994. Arthropods were extracted from soil samples taken from plots of two margins in December 1993 and February 1994.

  3. Plant nectar flower mixture/wildflower strips

    A randomized, replicated controlled trial from 1993 to 1996 near Bristol, UK (Thomas & Marshall 1999) found that 4 m-wide field margins sown with a nectar flower mixture had more suction-sampled invertebrates, but not more ground beetles (Carabidae), than control cropped margins or margins sown with grass. There were around 200 invertebrates/sample on margins sown with a wildflower/grass mix and naturally regenerated margins, compared to 110-130 invertebrates/sample on control or grass-sown plots. Wolf spiders (Lycosidae) were more abundant on grass and wildflower-sown margins than on control or naturally regenerated margins (numbers not given). There was no difference in the number of ground beetle species (average 8 species/plot), nor in the numbers of the four most commonly caught ground beetle species, between margin types. In a 2 m-wide margin, there were more over-wintering invertebrates in the soil of the wildflower-sown half than the naturally regenerating half, but this difference was not found in 4 m-wide replicated experimental plots. Three field margins were established in spring 1993. Experimental plots 10 x 4 m were either sown with arable crop (control), rye grass Lolium perenne or a wildflower and grass seed mix, or left to naturally regenerate. There were three replicate plots in each margin. All plots were cut annually after harvest, and cuttings left in place. Another 100 x 2 m wide field margin, 50 m sown with a wildflower mix and 50 m unsown, was used to monitor wintering invertebrates. Ground beetles were sampled in eight pitfall traps in or near each margin, for one week in June for four years. Invertebrates were sampled using a vacuum sampler on plots in two of the three margins in June 1994. Arthropods were extracted from soil samples taken from plots in two margins in December 1993 and February 1994.

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

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