Effects of agri-environment management for cirl buntings on other biodiversity

Abstract

Agri-environment scheme (AES) management has increased populations of cirl buntings (Emberiza cirlus) in South Devon, England, and might be expected to provide benefits for other declining biodiversity, due to less intensive farm management. Fields managed under AES for cirl buntings (low-input spring barley or permanent pasture without inputs) were contrasted with control fields under conventional management (spring barley without management restrictions and winter cereals, or grazed without management restrictions) to identify such benefits for vascular plants, butterflies, bumblebees, carabid beetles, foliar invertebrates and bats. Activity-density and species richness of carabid beetles were both higher in AES spring barley fields than in control spring barley and winter cereal fields. Forb cover and abundance of butterflies and bumblebees were higher in AES spring barley fields than in winter cereals, but did not differ between AES and control spring barley. No difference was observed in plant species richness between any of the arable field types. Plant species richness and butterfly abundance were higher in AES pasture fields than in controls. Abundance, activity-density and/or species richness of other taxa did not differ between AES and control pastures. Benefits observed in AES spring barley fields arise from management specific to AES agreements, and also, we suggest, from the maintenance of spring-sown barley in the landscape. Benefits in AES pasture fields are ascribed to the absence of fertiliser and pesticide inputs, and reductions in stocking arising from this; there is also likely to have been some pre-selection for older pastures to be entered into AES management agreements. Agri-environment measures for cirl buntings have benefits for a range of taxa beyond the target species, and therefore, largely through reduction of management intensity and maintenance of land-use diversity, improve the overall biodiversity of the farmed landscape where they are present.

Moth responses to sympathetic hedgerow management in temperate farmland

“…This study provides strong evidence of the value of targeted AESs in improving habitat conditions of non-target species as suggested by other studies ( MacDonald et al, 2012a , b ; Wilkinson et al, 2012 ; Helden et al, 2015 ). While the conservation of moths in farmland may require specific tailored management actions (but see Merckx et al, 2010b ), our findings indicate that moths may also benefit from sympathetic hedgerow management targeting R. ferrumequinum , a bat species of major conservation concerns.…”

“…Because HLS prescriptions were implemented in targeted high-priority areas where the most threatened farmland species occur ( Natural England, 2013b ), we conducted our study on farms where sympathetic hedgerow management was mainly carried out to enhance greater horseshoe bat ( Rhinolophus ferrumequinum ) populations. Hence, this study design also allowed us to assess whether a targeted AES that mainly focused on a single threatened species may have wider biodiversity benefits as suggested by other studies ( MacDonald et al, 2012a , b ; Wilkinson et al, 2012 ; Helden et al, 2015 ).…”

Tillage and herbicide reduction mitigate the gap between conventional and organic farming effects on foraging activity of insectivorous bats

“…Moreover, results diverged according to studies, showing significantly positive effects of organic farming compared to conventional farming on activity (Fuller et al., ; Wickramasinghe, Harris, Jones, & Jennings, ; Wickramasinghe, Harris, Jones, & Vaughan, ), species richness, and diversity (Fuller et al., ). It was also found that there were no differences (Pocock & Jennings, ) but driven differences in boundaries between organic and conventional, as well as two cases of significant negative effect on diversity (Fuller et al., ) and activity (MacDonald et al., ). In all these studies, the activity of strictly insectivorous bats was measured during their foraging activity, known to be driven by arthropod availability (Charbonnier, Barbaro, Theillout, & Jactel, ; Hayes, ).…”

“…Several species identified as threatened by the International Union for Conservation of Nature are largely affected by intensive agriculture (Azam, Le Viol, Julien, Bas, & Kerbiriou, 2016). Moreover, AES do not seem to encourage conservation of such species in conventional farming (Fuentes-Montemayor, Goulson, & Park, 2011;MacDonald et al, 2012;Park, 2015) even having negative effects sometimes (Fuentes-Montemayor et al, 2011) that accentuate the urgent need to assess the effects of farming practices.…”

Field‐based grassland management for cirl buntings (Emberiza cirlus L.) and its effect on plant‐ and leafhoppers (Hemiptera: Auchenorrhyncha)

“…Nevertheless, by 1989 it was largely restricted to a small area of south Devon (Sitters, ; Evans, ; Wotton et al ., ). Concern for the species' survival at the national level gave rise to a programme of research into its ecological requirements, which led to the development of a special option within the Countryside Stewardship Scheme in 1993 (one of the AES schemes operating within England at that time) specifically to reverse the decline in the cirl bunting population (Jeffs & Evans, ; MacDonald et al ., ). Since 1993 there has been a considerable reversal of fortune, with an increase in the breeding population from a probable 118 pairs in 1989 to an estimated 862 pairs in 2009 (Evans, ; Davies et al ., ).…”