Action Synopsis: Bird Conservation About Actions

Relocate nests at harvest time to reduce nestling mortality

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
  • Certainty
  • Harms

Source countries

Key messages

A replicated controlled study from Spain found that clutches that were temporarily removed from fields during harvest and then replaced had higher hatching and fledging rates than control clutches. Effects were greater on clutches that were older when moved.


About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

  1. A replicated, controlled study from 1987-91 in five areas of cereal fields in southwest Spain (Corbacho et al. 1999) found that nestling mortality of Montagu’s harriers Circus pygarus was significantly lower, and fledging success significantly higher, for clutches that were removed from fields before harvesting, and returned within an hour, compared to control (unmoved) clutches (28% mortality  and 75% of nests fledging at least one chick in 72 managed clutches vs. 67% mortality and 29% fledging success in 39 controls).  Outcome was highly dependent on clutch age at time of harvest:  no clutches less than ten days old at harvest fledged young, whilst nest management increased the proportion of successful clutches aged 11-20 days at harvesting from 14% to 75%. The average harvest date of barley fields was later than for wheat or oat fields, but the small number of clutches (13) in barley fields made it impossible to assess the influence of nesting habitat on unmanaged clutch success.  The nature of the crop (wheat and/or oat vs. barley) did not influence breeding success in managed clutches.

    Study and other actions tested
Please cite as:

Williams, D.R., Child, M.F., Dicks, L.V., Ockendon, N., Pople, R.G., Showler, D.A., Walsh, J.C., zu Ermgassen, E.K.H.J. & Sutherland, W.J. (2018) Bird Conservation. Pages 95-244 in: W.J. Sutherland, L.V. Dicks, N. Ockendon, S.O. Petrovan & R.K. Smith (eds) What Works in Conservation 2018. Open Book Publishers, Cambridge, UK.


Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

Bird Conservation

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Bird Conservation
What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation assesses the research looking at whether interventions are beneficial or not. It is based on summarised evidence in synopses, on topics such as amphibians, bats, biodiversity in European farmland, and control of freshwater invasive species. More are available and in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
Our Journal: Conservation Evidence

Our Journal:
Conservation Evidence

A unique, free to publish open-access journal publishing research and case studies that measure the effects of conservation actions.

Read latest volume: Volume 16

Special issues: Amphibian special issue

Go to the 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 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