Study

A Swiss agri-environment scheme effectively enhances species richness for some taxa over time

  • Published source details Roth T., Amrhein V., Peter B. & Weber D. (2008) A Swiss agri-environment scheme effectively enhances species richness for some taxa over time. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 125, 167-172.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Increase the proportion of natural or semi‐natural habitat in the farmed landscape

Action Link
Butterfly and Moth Conservation

Increase the proportion of semi-natural habitat in the farmed landscape

Action Link
Farmland Conservation

Increase the proportion of natural/semi-natural vegetation in the farmed landscape

Action Link
Bird Conservation

Pay farmers to cover the costs of conservation measures (as in agri-environment schemes or conservation incentives)

Action Link
Butterfly and Moth Conservation
  1. Increase the proportion of natural or semi‐natural habitat in the farmed landscape

    A replicated, site comparison study in 1998–2005 in mixed farmland in Aargau, Switzerland (Roth et al. 2008) found that areas of semi-natural habitat initially supported more butterfly species than farmed land, but over time the number of species decreased in both semi-natural habitat and farmed land. When initially surveyed, there were more species of butterfly in sites managed as Ecological Compensation Areas (ECA, 7.3 species/plot) than in non-ECA sites (5.6 species/plot). However, between the first survey and the second survey, the number of butterfly species decreased overall, but the decreases were similar on ECA and non-ECA sites (both -1.1 species/plot). Most ECA sites were established between 1992 and 1998. Sites were surveyed twice, five years apart, with the first survey taking place in 1998–2000 and the second in 2003–2005. At 52 ECA sites and 35 non-ECA sites, butterflies were surveyed along a 10 x 250 m transect 11 times/year. The authors noted that ECAs were typically established on farmland with potential for maximum biodiversity gain, which may have affected the relative numbers of species found in the first survey.

    (Summarised by: Andrew Bladon, edited from Farmland synopsis)

  2. Increase the proportion of semi-natural habitat in the farmed landscape

    A 2007 site comparison study of 516 survey points across the canton of Aargau, Switzerland (Roth et al., 2008) found no consistent effects on biodiversity across taxa. For birds, plants and butterflies, but not for snails, there were more species on Ecological Compensation Area (ECA) than non-ECA sites in the first survey (9.7 vs 7.7 bird species, 19.2 vs 14.6 plant species and 7.3 vs 5.6 butterfly species on ECA and non-ECA sites respectively). There were 4-5 snail species on both ECA and control sites. Changes over time were different on ECA plots than non-ECA plots for plants and snails, but not for birds and butterflies. Between the first survey (1996-2000) and the second survey (2001-2005), numbers of vascular plant and snail species increased on ECAs (by 5.1 and 1.4 species, respectively) but not on non-ECA fields. Across the whole landscape, the number of bird species increased and the number of butterfly species decreased between the two surveys, but the changes were similar on ECA and non-ECA sites. Sampling was based on a regular 2 x 2 m grid system across the entire 1403 km² of the canton of Aargau. Plants, birds, butterflies and snails were surveyed at each grid point. Whether the land or some of the 100 m radius circle plot (for the bird survey) were designated as ECA was recorded. All plots were surveyed twice, five years apart, with the first survey taking place in 1996-2000 and the second in 2001-2005. The authors note that ECAs were typically established on farmland with potential for maximum biodiversity gain, which may have affected the relative numbers of species found in the first survey.

  3. Increase the proportion of natural/semi-natural vegetation in the farmed landscape

    A 2007 site comparison study of 181 plots in the canton of Aagau, Switzerland (Roth et al. 2008), found that, on average, two more bird species were identified in ecological compensated areas (10 species on average) than in non-ecological compensated areas (9 species).  Although on average two more bird species were found in the second set of surveys (carried out from 2001-2005) than in the first set (1996-2000), this increase was uniform in both ecological compensated areas and non-ecological compensated areas. One hundred and twenty 100 m radius circle plots that contained some land designated as an ecological compensated area were compared with 61 plots not containing any ecological compensated areas. The authors note that ecological compensated areas were typically established on promising farmland with the potential for “maximum biodiversity gain”, which may have affected the relative species richness of ecological compensated areas and non-ecological compensated areas.

  4. Pay farmers to cover the costs of conservation measures (as in agri-environment schemes or conservation incentives)

    A replicated, site comparison study in 1998–2005 in mixed farmland in Aargau, Switzerland (Roth et al. 2008) found that Ecological Compensation Areas (ECAs), which farmers were paid to create, initially supported more butterfly species than farmed land, but over time the number of species decreased in both ECAs and farmed land. When initially surveyed, there were more species of butterfly in ECAs (7.3 species/plot) than in non-ECA sites (5.6 species/plot). However, between the first survey and the second survey, the number of butterfly species decreased overall, but the decreases were similar on ECA and non-ECA sites (both -1.1 species/plot). Most ECA sites were established between 1992 and 1998, and were managed for wildlife for at least six years under the Swiss agri-environment scheme. Sites were surveyed twice, five years apart, with the first survey taking place in 1998–2000 and the second in 2003–2005. At 52 ECA sites and 35 non-ECA sites, butterflies were surveyed along a 10 x 250 m transect 11 times/ year. The authors noted that ECAs were typically established on farmland with potential for maximum biodiversity gain, which may have affected the relative numbers of species found in the first survey.

    (Summarised by: Andrew Bladon, edited from Farmland synopsis)

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 19

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