Study

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Leave overwinter stubbles

Action Link
Bird Conservation

Leave overwinter stubbles

Action Link
Farmland Conservation
  1. Leave overwinter stubbles

    A small randomised site comparison study in winter 2004-5 in central England (Whittingham et al. 2006) found that seed-eating songbirds and invertebrate-feeding birds were found at higher density on sections of fields where stubble had been cut short (642 seed-eaters and 1,207 invertebrate-feeders recorded on cut stubble plots vs. 364 and 415 on cut stubble). Eurasian skylarks Alavda arvenis, partridges, pigeons Columba spp., and meadow pipits Anthus pratensis were at higher densities in areas of uncut stubble (241 skylarks, 100 partridges, 37 pigeons and 81 meadow pipits on uncut plots vs. 27, 7, 12 and 9 on cut plots). In addition, skylarks and invertebrate feeders were found at higher densities on scarified (i.e. lightly tilled) sections of fields than control (unscarified) sections (339 skylarks and 1371 invertebrate feeders on scarified plots vs. 241 and 251 on controls). The stubble on one half of each field was cut in the winter of 2004-2005 before the fields were surveyed between December 2004 and March 2005.

     

  2. Leave overwinter stubbles

    A small randomized site-comparison study in winter 2004-2005 in central England (Whittingham et al. 2006) found that seed-eating songbirds and invertebrate-feeding birds were found at higher densities on sections of fields where stubble had been cut short (404 seed-eating birds and 244 invertebrate-feeding birds recorded on uncut stubble plots vs 77 and seven on cut stubble). Eurasian skylark Alauda arvenis, partridges (Phasianidae), pigeons Columba spp., and meadow pipit Anthus pratensis were found at higher densities in areas of uncut stubble (241 skylark, 100 partridges, 37 pigeons and 81 meadow pipit on uncut plots vs 27, 7, 12 and 9 on cut plots). In addition, skylarks and invertebrate-feeders were found at higher densities on scarified (i.e. lightly tilled) sections of fields than control (unscarified) sections (339 skylarks and 1,371 invertebrate feeders on scarified plots vs 241 and 251 on controls). The stubble on one half of each field was cut in the winter of 2004-2005 (late December-early February) before the fields were surveyed between December 2004 and March 2005.

     

Output references
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