The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository
Warning ePrints Soton is experiencing an issue with some file downloads not being available. We are working hard to fix this. Please bear with us.

Supporting local diversity of habitats and species on farmland: a comparison of three wildlife-friendly schemes

Supporting local diversity of habitats and species on farmland: a comparison of three wildlife-friendly schemes
Supporting local diversity of habitats and species on farmland: a comparison of three wildlife-friendly schemes
1. Restoration and maintenance of habitat diversity have been suggested as conservation priorities in farmed landscapes, but how this should be achieved and at what scale are unclear. This study makes a novel comparison of the effectiveness of three wildlife-friendly farming schemes for supporting local habitat diversity and species richness on 12 farms in England.
2. The schemes were: (i) Conservation Grade (Conservation Grade: a prescriptive, nonorganic, biodiversity-focused scheme), (ii) organic agriculture and (iii) a baseline of Entry Level Stewardship (Entry Level Stewardship: a flexible widespread government scheme).
3. Conservation Grade farms supported a quarter higher habitat diversity at the 100-m radius scale compared to Entry Level Stewardship farms. Conservation Grade and organic farms both supported a fifth higher habitat diversity at the 250-m radius scale compared to Entry Level Stewardship farms. Habitat diversity at the 100-m and 250-m scales significantly predicted species richness of butterflies and plants. Habitat diversity at the 100-m scale also significantly predicted species richness of birds in winter and solitary bees. There were no significant relationships between habitat diversity and species richness for bumblebees or birds in summer.
4. Butterfly species richness was significantly higher on organic farms (50% higher) and marginally higher on Conservation Grade farms (20% higher), compared with farms in Entry Level Stewardship. Organic farms supported significantly more plant species than Entry Level Stewardship farms (70% higher) but Conservation Grade farms did not (10% higher). There were no significant differences between the three schemes for species richness of bumblebees,
solitary bees or birds.
5. Policy implications. The wildlife-friendly farming schemes which included compulsory changes in management, Conservation Grade and organic, were more effective at increasing local habitat diversity and species richness compared with the less prescriptive Entry Level Stewardship scheme. We recommend that wildlife-friendly farming schemes should aim to enhance and maintain high local habitat diversity, through mechanisms such as option packages, where farmers are required to deliver a combination of several habitats.
1365-2664
171-180
Hardman, C.J.
1ef51ac0-f837-4d2d-9793-3ad73e4d4c0a
Harrison, D.P.
28ef8ca3-0c98-4b16-a0ae-5652d0585237
Shaw, Peter
935dfebf-9fb6-483c-86da-a21dba8c1989
Nevard, T.D.
19dd363c-267b-43c8-9be1-2378203c076b
Hughes, B.
afaa61cf-7c4f-4315-80cf-8a6a285a031d
Potts, S.G.
1073ce12-424b-4f3d-a329-09eae6a3e861
Norris, K.
95a5d04d-8f38-4601-976a-925ee472e9ab
Hardman, C.J.
1ef51ac0-f837-4d2d-9793-3ad73e4d4c0a
Harrison, D.P.
28ef8ca3-0c98-4b16-a0ae-5652d0585237
Shaw, Peter
935dfebf-9fb6-483c-86da-a21dba8c1989
Nevard, T.D.
19dd363c-267b-43c8-9be1-2378203c076b
Hughes, B.
afaa61cf-7c4f-4315-80cf-8a6a285a031d
Potts, S.G.
1073ce12-424b-4f3d-a329-09eae6a3e861
Norris, K.
95a5d04d-8f38-4601-976a-925ee472e9ab

Hardman, C.J., Harrison, D.P., Shaw, Peter, Nevard, T.D., Hughes, B., Potts, S.G. and Norris, K. (2016) Supporting local diversity of habitats and species on farmland: a comparison of three wildlife-friendly schemes. Journal of Applied Ecology, 53 (1), 171-180. (doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12557).

Record type: Article

Abstract

1. Restoration and maintenance of habitat diversity have been suggested as conservation priorities in farmed landscapes, but how this should be achieved and at what scale are unclear. This study makes a novel comparison of the effectiveness of three wildlife-friendly farming schemes for supporting local habitat diversity and species richness on 12 farms in England.
2. The schemes were: (i) Conservation Grade (Conservation Grade: a prescriptive, nonorganic, biodiversity-focused scheme), (ii) organic agriculture and (iii) a baseline of Entry Level Stewardship (Entry Level Stewardship: a flexible widespread government scheme).
3. Conservation Grade farms supported a quarter higher habitat diversity at the 100-m radius scale compared to Entry Level Stewardship farms. Conservation Grade and organic farms both supported a fifth higher habitat diversity at the 250-m radius scale compared to Entry Level Stewardship farms. Habitat diversity at the 100-m and 250-m scales significantly predicted species richness of butterflies and plants. Habitat diversity at the 100-m scale also significantly predicted species richness of birds in winter and solitary bees. There were no significant relationships between habitat diversity and species richness for bumblebees or birds in summer.
4. Butterfly species richness was significantly higher on organic farms (50% higher) and marginally higher on Conservation Grade farms (20% higher), compared with farms in Entry Level Stewardship. Organic farms supported significantly more plant species than Entry Level Stewardship farms (70% higher) but Conservation Grade farms did not (10% higher). There were no significant differences between the three schemes for species richness of bumblebees,
solitary bees or birds.
5. Policy implications. The wildlife-friendly farming schemes which included compulsory changes in management, Conservation Grade and organic, were more effective at increasing local habitat diversity and species richness compared with the less prescriptive Entry Level Stewardship scheme. We recommend that wildlife-friendly farming schemes should aim to enhance and maintain high local habitat diversity, through mechanisms such as option packages, where farmers are required to deliver a combination of several habitats.

Text
2016 Journal of Applied Ecology (Hardman et al) - Version of Record
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.
Download (327kB)

More information

Accepted/In Press date: 13 October 2015
e-pub ahead of print date: 18 November 2015
Published date: 18 November 2016

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 438816
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/438816
ISSN: 1365-2664
PURE UUID: 66b66a94-2ce0-4a80-9482-7f5f1b8364f6
ORCID for Peter Shaw: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0003-0925-5010

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 24 Mar 2020 17:52
Last modified: 18 May 2021 01:35

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: C.J. Hardman
Author: D.P. Harrison
Author: Peter Shaw ORCID iD
Author: T.D. Nevard
Author: B. Hughes
Author: S.G. Potts
Author: K. Norris

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×