Study

Meadow harvesting techniques and their impacts on field fauna.

  • Published source details Humbert J.Y., Ghazoul J. & Walter T. (2009) Meadow harvesting techniques and their impacts on field fauna.. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 130, 1-8.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Raise mowing height on grasslands to benefit farmland wildlife

Action Link
Farmland Conservation

Use mowing techniques to reduce mortality

Action Link
Farmland Conservation
  1. Raise mowing height on grasslands to benefit farmland wildlife

    A 2009 literature review (Humbert et al. 2009) found that cutting height has a large influence on mowing impact, with a raised cutting height being less damaging to field-dwelling animals. Three studies reported higher cutting heights were less damaging to invertebrates and amphibians (Löbbert et al. 1994, Classen et al. 1996, Oppermann et al. 2000).

    Additional references:

    Löbbert M., Kromer K.-H., Wieland C.C. (1994) Einfluss von Mäh- und Mulchgeräten auf die bodennahe Fauna [Influence of mowing and mulching equipment on ground fauna]. Pages 7–26 in: Forschungsberichte ‘‘Integrative Extensivierungs-und Naturschutzstrategien’’ H. 15. Universität Bonn, Institut für Landtechnik, Bonn.

    Classen A., Hirler A., Oppermann R. (1996) Auswirkungen unterschiedlicher Mähgeräte auf die Wiesenfauna in Nordost-Polen [Effects of different mowing equipment on meadow fauna in northeast Poland]. Naturschutz und Landschaftsplanung, 28, 139–144.

    Oppermann R., Handwerk J., Holsten M., & Krismann A. (2000) Naturverträgliche Mähtechnik für das Feuchtgrünland, Voruntersuchung für das E & E – Vorhaben [Nature-friendly mowing for wet grassland, preliminary study for E & E projects]. ILN Singen, Bonn.

  2. Use mowing techniques to reduce mortality

    A 2009 literature review (Humbert et al. 2009) of thirteen studies found marked differences in the number of small mammals, reptiles, amphibians and invertebrates killed or damaged by different meadow harvesting techniques. Highest mortality was caused by flail and suction flail mowers, which killed or damaged on average 60% and 49% of the invertebrates studied, respectively. Rotary mowers with a conditioner were the next most damaging, killing/damaging on average 21% of amphibians and 35% of invertebrates studied. Bar mowers were the least damaging, with on average 11% mortality among amphibians and 18% among invertebrates. A single study showed that rotary disc mowers with conditioners caused double the number of small mammal deaths compared to double blade mowers (Oppermann et al. 2000). Three studies reported higher cutting heights were less damaging to field-dwelling animals (Löbbert et al. 1994, Classen et al. 1996, Oppermann et al. 2000). The review notes that later harvesting stages also have a considerable impact, especially the removal of baled grass. The collection of lines of mown grass for baling, had a greater impact on grasshopper (Orthoptera) populations than mowing (Oppermann et al. 2000). The review recommends leaving uncut grass strips when mowing to benefit field-dwelling organisms. It also notes that several of the studies reviewed were poorly replicated or designed.

    Additional references:

    Löbbert M., Kromer K.-H., Wieland C.C. (1994) Einfluss von Mäh- und Mulchgeräten auf die bodennahe Fauna [Influence of mowing and mulching equipment on ground fauna]. Pages 7-26 in: Forschungsberichte ‘‘Integrative Extensivierungs-und Naturschutzstrategien’’ H. 15. Universität Bonn, Institut für Landtechnik, Bonn.

    Classen A., Hirler A., Oppermann R. (1996) Auswirkungen unterschiedlicher Mähgeräte auf die Wiesenfauna in Nordost-Polen [Effects of different mowing equipment on meadow fauna in northeast Poland]. Naturschutz und Landschaftsplanung, 28, 139-144.

    Oppermann R., Handwerk J., Holsten M., & Krismann A. (2000) Naturverträgliche Mähtechnik für das Feuchtgrünland [Nature-friendly mowing for wet grassland, preliminary study for E & E projects]. In: Voruntersuchung für das E & E - Vorhaben, ILN Singen, Bonn.

Output references
What Works 2021 cover

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, 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