Action

Restrict certain pesticides

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    50%
  • Certainty
    5%
  • Harms
    not assessed

Source countries

Key messages

  • A small scale study in the UK found that using the fungicides Propiconazole and Triadimefon reduced chick food insect abundance less than using Pyrazophos. A replicated, controlled trial in Switzerland found that applying metaldehyde slug pellets in a 50 cm band along the field edge adjacent to wildflower strips provided equivalent crop protection to broadcasting the pellets across the whole field.

 

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 small scale study in 1984-1985 of cereal fields treated with foliar fungicides (fungicides for fungal leaf diseases) in the UK (Sotherton & Rands 1987) found that chick food insect abundance was reduced to a greater extent following applications of Pyrazophos compared to other fungicides. Compared to untreated crops, chick food insects were reduced by 31-70% in crops treated with Pyrazophos, 10% with Propiconazole and 3% with Triadimefon applications. The effect of Pyrazophos was greater when applied to crops at an earlier growth stage (GS) (GS37: 70% reduction in chick food insects, GS50: 45%, GS60: 31%). Following Pyrazophos applications, total predatory arthropods were reduced by 25-48%, aphid-specific predators 35-84% (17% with Triadimefon) and parasitoids 34-55%. Fungicides were sprayed at GS50 in winter wheat in 1984. Pyrazophos was also sprayed at GS60 in spring barley (1984) and GS37 in winter barley (1985). Chick food insects were sampled by sweep nets or suction sampling.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A replicated, controlled trial of slug (class: Gastropoda) control techniques in autumn 1996 in two oilseed rape Brassica napus arable fields near Bern, Switzerland (Friedli & Frank 1998), found that metaldehyde pellets applied in a 50 cm band alongside wildflower strips provided equivalent crop protection to broadcasting pellets across the entire field. Untreated control plots suffered severe crop damage. Slug sampling showed that Arion lusitanicus caused the majority of damage in plots 1 m from wildflower strips. The treatments trialled were broadcasting pellets across the entire plot at a density of 10 kg/ha, 50 cm of pellets alongside wildflower strips at 20 kg/ha and at 40 kg/ha, and control plots with no metaldehyde applied. Slugs were sampled on eight nights using bait stations.

    Study and other actions tested
Please cite as:

Dicks, L.V., Ashpole, J.E., Dänhardt, J., James, K., Jönsson, A., Randall, N., Showler, D.A., Smith, R.K., Turpie, S., Williams D.R. & Sutherland, W.J. (2018) Farmland Conservation Pages 245-284 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

Farmland Conservation

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Farmland 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