Study

Non-inversion tillage has less impact on ground beetles (Carabidae) than ploughing; a replicated controlled trial at the Rugballegaard Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Denmark

  • Published source details Thorbek P. & Bilde T. (2004) Reduced numbers of generalist arthropod predators after crop management. Journal of Applied Ecology, 41, 526-538

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Reduce tillage

Action Link
Farmland Conservation
  1. Reduce tillage

    A randomized, replicated controlled trial in spring 1999 and 2000 at the Rugballegaard Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Denmark (Thorbek & Bilde 2004) found that both soil loosening and non-inversion tillage have adverse effects on ground beetles (Carabidae) and spiders (Araneae), but for non-inversion tillage these are not quite as severe as the effects of ploughing. There were around 20 ground beetles/m2 immediately after non-inversion tillage, compared to around 12 ground beetles/m2 after ploughing and around 18 in untreated control plots. There was no difference between ploughing and non-inversion tillage plots in numbers of spiders or rove beetles (Staphylinidae), or in any of the three arthropod groups 26 days after the treatment. Overall, neither ploughing nor non-inversion tillage immediately reduced the numbers of predatory arthropods significantly, relative to untreated control plots, but all three groups had lower numbers in ploughed or non-inversion tilled plots 26 days later than in untreated control plots (for example <5 spiders and <20 ground beetles/m2 in both ploughed and non-inversion tillage plots, compared to around 25 spiders and 130 ground beetles/m2 in control plots). In a separate experiment, soil-loosening to 8 cm depth with a tined hoe immediately reduced spider numbers by 25% (around 120 spiders/m2 in control plots and 90 spiders/m2 in treated plots) and ground beetle numbers by 51% (around 70 ground beetles/m2 in control plots, 35 ground beetles/m2 in treated plots) but not rove beetle numbers. These differences were statistically significant and persisted in a second sample 18 days later. The treatments were replicated between four and eight times, on 12 x 40 m plots. Predatory arthropods were sampled using emergence traps.

     

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