APPENDIX 2: TABULAR SUMMARIES OF PROJECT...

1

APPENDIX 2: TABULAR SUMMARIES OF PROJECT REPORTS

CONTENTS

1. Biodiversity .................................................................................................................................... 6

BD1241: Review of Blanket Bog management and Restoration ........................................................ 6

BD1242 Assessment of the Impact of Hefting (Heafing or Learing) ................................................... 8

BD1243: Environmentally sustainable & economically viable grazing systems for restoration & maintenance of heather moorland in England and Wales – continuation study ............................... 10

BD1324: Management of wet grassland habitat to reduce the impact of predation on breeding waders: Phase 1 ................................................................................................................................ 11

BD1326: Wetting up farmland for biodiversity ................................................................................... 14

BD1327: Management of wet grassland habitat to reduce the impact of predation on breeding waders: Phase 2. ............................................................................................................................... 16

BD1444: Study title: Potential for enhancing biodiversity on intensive livestock farms. ................... 18

BD1448: Cereal-based whole crop silages: a potential conservation mechanism for farmland birds in pastoral landscapes. ...................................................................................................................... 22

BD1454: Wide scale enhancement of biodiversity: effects on other resources ................................ 26

BD1455: Grass silage as a new source of winter food for declining farmland birds ......................... 28

BD1456: Role of organic fertilizers in the sustainable management of semi-natural grasslands ..... 30

BD1458: A Literature Review and Gap Analysis of Grassland Restoration Research in the UK and Europe ............................................................................................................................................... 32

BD1467: Spring Grazing in Northern Hay Meadows: Influence of the timing and intensity of sheep grazing on the floristic diversity and restorative potential. ................................................................. 35

BD1468: Sustainable nutrient management of semi-natural neutral grasslands .............................. 38

BD1625: Restoration and management of bumblebee habitat in agricultural landscapes .............. 41

BD1630: Long-term Maintenance of Uncommon Arable Plant Populations in Agri-environment Schemes in England. Phase 1: Scoping Study ................................................................................. 44

BD1631: Defining Condition Criteria for UK HAP priority Arable Field Margins ................................ 46

BD1636: Predicting the impact of future agricultural change and uptake of Entry Level Stewardship on farmland birds ............................................................................................................................... 47

BD1637: Assessing the effectiveness of ELS in delivering resources for birds in arable landscapes ........................................................................................................................................................... 49

BD1639: Quantifying the magnitude of the loss of set-aside stubbles and its impact on the winter ecology and distribution of farmland birds ......................................................................................... 51

BD1641: Assessing the impact of the loss of set-aside stubbles on the winter ecology, behaviour and distribution of farmland birds and their breeding population trends. .......................................... 53

BD1642: Effects of management and configuration of uncropped land on the winter habitat use of birds on arable farm systems ............................................................................................................ 55

BD1643 / 1640: Re-analysis of data in BD1640 using alternative analytical approaches ................ 57

BD2111: Trends, long term survival and ecological values of hedgerow trees: development of populations models to inform strategy ............................................................................................... 58

BD2117: Hedgerow management: A survey of land managers’ and contractors’ practices and attitudes ............................................................................................................................................. 60

BD2303: Biodiversity on farms: a complex systems approach (The Robustness and Restoration of a Network of Ecological Networks. Pocock et al. 2012 Science, 335) .............................................. 62

2

BD5004: Scoping study to develop a monitoring programme for Uplands Entry Level Stewardship 64

BD5202: Effects of environmental stewardship on the distribution and population changes of cirl buntings and other farmland birds in South Devon DRAFT REPORT .............................................. 65

BD5206: Utility of lenient grazing of agricultural grassland to promote in-field structural heterogeneity, invertebrates and bird foraging .................................................................................. 68

BD5301: Restoration of herbaceous hedgerow flora: Review and analysis of ecological factors and restoration techniques: Phase 1. ....................................................................................................... 71

RP0026: Testing agri-environment delivery for farmland birds at the farm scale: the Hillesden experiment. (Hinsley et al. (2010). Ibis,152, 500–514). .................................................................... 77

RP0037: The provision of winter bird food by the English environmental stewardship scheme ....... 79

RP0194: Managing plant symbiosis: fungal endophyte genotype alters plant community composition. ...................................................................................................................................... 81

RP0194 / BD1451: Diversification of grassland through the manipulation of plant-soil interactions: Final report ........................................................................................................................................ 83

RP0196 / BD5207: Utility of lenient grazing of agricultural grassland to promote in-field structural heterogeneity. .................................................................................................................................... 86

RP0199 / BD1425 / BD1459: Techniques to enhance the establishment and persistence of poor-performing species in grassland restoration...................................................................................... 89

RP0201 / BD1466: Wide scale enhancement of biodiversity: effects on other resources. ............... 92

RP0278 / BD2114: Effects of hedgerow management and restoration on biodiversity. ................... 95

RP0610: Survey of higher level stewardship option HK8: creation of species-rich semi-natural grassland ........................................................................................................................................... 97

MA01022: Assessment of the impacts of the entry level scheme on bird populations: results for the baseline year, 2005 ......................................................................................................................... 100

MA01024: Farm Environment Evaluation Plan ............................................................................... 101

MA01028: Evaluation of the operation of environmental stewardship ........................................... 102

MA01040: The condition of lowland heathland: results from a sample of non-SSSI stands in England............................................................................................................................................ 104

MA01041: Estimating impacts of ELS on key biodiversity indicators and diffuse pollution of surface waters by nutrients .......................................................................................................................... 106

MA01042: Hedgerow Survey Review .............................................................................................. 109

NECR102: Ecosystem services from Environmental Stewardship that benefit agricultural production. ....................................................................................................................................... 110

Baker et al (2012) Landscape-scale responses of birds to agri-environment management: a test of the English Environmental Stewardship scheme. ........................................................................... 116

Buckingham et al (2006): Effects of agricultural management on the use of lowland grassland by foraging birds. .................................................................................................................................. 120

Butler et al. (2005) Stubble height affects the use of stubble fields by farmland birds. .................. 122

Cross-references to other summary tables for the same study4: .................................................... 122

Carvell et al (2007a) The conservation and management of bumblebees in intensively farmed landscapes. ..................................................................................................................................... 124

Carvell et al. (2007b) Comparing the efficacy of agri-environment schemes to enhance bumble bee abundance and diversity on arable field margins. ........................................................................... 126

Dallimer et al. (2010) Field-level bird abundances are enhanced by landscape-scale agri-environment scheme uptake. .......................................................................................................... 129

Dillon et al (2009). Assessing the vegetation response to differing establishment methods of ‘Skylark Plots’ in winter wheat at Grange Farm, Cambridgeshire, England. ................................... 131

3

Eglington et al. (2010) Managing water levels on wet grasslands to improve foraging conditions for breeding northern lapwing Vanellus vanellus .................................................................................. 133

Ewald et al. (2010) The effect of agri-environment schemes on grey partridges at the farm level in England............................................................................................................................................ 135

Gardiner et al. (2008). Establishment of clover-rich field margins as a forage resource for bumblebees Bombus spp. on Romney Marsh, Kent, England........................................................ 138

Garratt et al (2011). Foraging habitat selection by breeding Common Kestrels Falco tinnunculus on lowland farmland in England. .......................................................................................................... 140

Gelling et al. (2007). Are hedgerows the route to increased farmland small mammal density? Use of hedgerows in British pastoral habitats. ............................................................................................ 142

Heard et al. (2007). Landscape context not patch size determines bumble-bee density on flower mixtures sown for agri-environment schemes. ................................................................................ 144

Henderson et al. (2012) Effects of the proportion and spatial arrangement of un-cropped land on breeding bird abundance in arable rotations. .................................................................................. 146

Holland et al (2010) The Farm4Bio project: maximising the potential of uncropped land. ............. 148

Holland et al. (2012) Agri-environment scheme enhancing ecosystem services: A demonstration of improved biological control in cereal crops. .................................................................................... 150

MacDonald et al (2012a) Effects of agri-environment management for cirl buntings on other biodiversity. ...................................................................................................................................... 152

McDonald et al (2012b) Effects of agri-environment management for stone curlews on other biodiversity. ...................................................................................................................................... 154

Pywell et al. (2010) Practical management of scarce arable plant populations .............................. 159

Reynolds et al (2010). The consequences of predator control for brown hares (Lepus europaeus) on UK farmland. ............................................................................................................................... 161

Shore et al. (2005) Will Environmental Stewardship enhance small mammal abundance on intensively managed farmland. ........................................................................................................ 163

Whittingham et al. (2006). Altering perceived predation risk and food availability: management prescriptions to benefit farmland birds on stubble fields. ................................................................ 165

Woodcock et al. (2011). Can long-term floodplain meadow recreation replicate species composition and functional characteristics of target grasslands? ....................................................................... 168

2. Soil and Water ............................................................................................................................ 170

BD1241: Review of Management and Restoration Options for Blanket Bog .................................. 170

BD1326: Wetting up Farmland for Biodiversity ............................................................................... 174

BD1466 (WEB) Final Report for the 2009-2010 field seasons ........................................................ 177

BD2301: Scoping study to assess the possible effects of habitat restoration on nutrient losses ... 180

BD2304: Scoping study to assess soil compaction affecting upland and lowland grassland in England and Wales ......................................................................................................................... 191

BD5001: Characterisation of soil structural degradation under grassland and development of measures to ameliorate its impact on biodiversity and other soil functions. ................................... 199

BD5004: Scoping study to develop a monitoring programme for the outcomes of Uplands ELS ... 203

BD5301: Restoration of Herbaceous Hedgerow Flora: Review and Analysis of Ecological Factors and Restoration Techniques. Phase I ............................................................................................. 206

RP0457: Catchment Sensitive Farming: ECSFDI Phase 1 & 2 Full Evaluation Report.................. 208

MA01028: Evaluation of the Operation of Environmental Stewardship .......................................... 212

MA01041: Estimating impacts of ELS on key biodiversity indicators and diffuse pollution of surface water by nutrients ............................................................................................................................ 215

4

NECR102: Ecosystem services from Environmental Stewardship that benefit agricultural production. ....................................................................................................................................... 220

Defra and Environment Agency (2012). A Strategic Framework for Addressing Agriculture’s impact on Water Quality (Defra) .................................................................................................................. 231

Environment Agency - Targeting land use change options to meet water quality objectives in English priority areas ....................................................................................................................... 234

Environment Agency (2011). Environment Agency advice to Defra on Reform of the Common Agricultural Policy. ........................................................................................................................... 236

Forestry Commission - Support for Forestry in the Rural Development Programme ..................... 239

National Audit Office (2010) Tackling diffuse water pollution in England ........................................ 243

Woodland for Water Woodland measures for meeting Water Framework Directive objectives ..... 245

Review of the CSF Project as a Delivery Mechanism for Reducing DWPA. .................................. 249

Inman, A. (2011). A Review of Current Policy Tools and Funding Mechanisms Available to Address Water Pollution from Agriculture in England. Defra ......................................................................... 252

Turner, A.W.B. and Ashworth, P. (2012) Resource Protection monitoring of uptake and management of ES options to address DWPA. .............................................................................. 264

Avery, L.M. (2012) Rural Sustainable Drainage Systems (RSuDS). Environment Agency. ........... 269

Bradbury & Kirby (2006). Farmland birds and resource protection in the UK: Cross-cutting solutions for multi-functional farming? ............................................................................................................ 273

Glaven et al. (2012). Water quality targets and maintenance of valued landscape character experience in the Axe catchment, UK. ............................................................................................ 278

Kay et al. (2008). A review of the efficacy of contemporary agricultural stewardship measures for ameliorating water pollution problems of key concern to the UK water industry. ............................ 282

Posthumus & Morris (2010). Implications of CAP reform for land management and run-off control in England and Wales ......................................................................................................................... 287

Study title: Silgram et al. (2010). Hillslope scale surface runoff, sediment and nutrient losses associated with tramline wheelings. ................................................................................................ 290

Stevens et al. (2009).The effects of minimal tillage, contour cultivation and in-field vegetative barriers on soil erosion and phosphorus loss .................................................................................. 293

3. Historic environment ................................................................................................................. 297

BD1241: Review of Blanket Bog management and Restoration .................................................... 297

BD1705: Trials to identify Soil Cultivation Practices to Minimise the Impact on Archaeological Sites ......................................................................................................................................................... 299

BD1706: Conservation of the Historic Environment in England ...................................................... 302

MA01028: Evaluation of the Operation of Environmental Stewardship ......................................... 305

4. Landscape .................................................................................................................................. 308

BD2111: Trends, long term survival and logical values of hedgerow trees: development of populations models to inform strategy. ............................................................................................ 308

BD5303: Initial Outline Assessment of the Contribution of ELS to maintaining and enhancing Landscape Character and Quality ................................................................................................... 310

MA01024: Evaluation of Farm Environmental Plan Process - Phase 2 ......................................... 313

MA01028: Evaluation of the operation of environmental stewardship ........................................... 315

Quine & Watts (2009) Successful de-fragmentation of woodland by planting in an agricultural landscape? An assessment based on landscape indicators ........................................................... 317

5. Access ........................................................................................................................................ 319

RP0498: Evaluation of Higher Level Stewardship Permissive Access ........................................... 319

5

MA01029: Agri-Environment Schemes Access Monitoring Survey ................................................ 322

MA01032: Evaluation of Access for the Less Mobile in Defra Agri-Environment Schemes ........... 326

MA01033: Evaluation of Educational Access Under Defra Agri-Environment Schemes ................ 328

Forestry Commission (2004) Accessibility of Woodlands and Natural Spaces: Addressing Crime and Safety Issues ............................................................................................................................ 330

Morris & O’Brien Encouraging healthy outdoor activity amongst under-represented groups: an evaluation of the Active England woodland projects ....................................................................... 334

6. Climate change .......................................................................................................................... 336

BD1241: Review of management and restoration options for blanket bog. .................................... 336

BD2302: Research into the current and potential climate change mitigation impacts of environmental stewardship .............................................................................................................. 337

BD2305: Environmental Stewardship and Improved GHG Mitigation - Amending Current, and Introducing New, Options ................................................................................................................ 340

BD5007: A revisit to previous research into the current and potential climate change mitigation effects of environmental stewardship .............................................................................................. 343

RMP5142: Analysis of Policy Instruments for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Agriculture, Forestry and Land Management .................................................................................. 346

BD5104: Restoration of blanket bog vegetation for biodiversity, carbon storage and water regulation ......................................................................................................................................................... 349

7. Operational/Socio-economic .................................................................................................... 350

MA1039: Re-evaluation of ELS pilot scheme. ................................................................................. 350

MA01046: Uplands Entry Level Stewardship (UELS) ..................................................................... 355

MA01047: Estimating the incidental socio-economic impacts of Environmental Stewardship ....... 358

MA01051: Preliminary assessment of the effectiveness of ETIP in influencing ELS option selection ......................................................................................................................................................... 362

RP0033: Monitoring of Higher Level Stewardship: Interim Reports 2009/10 and 2010/11 ............ 365

RP0277/BD2117: Hedgerow management: a survey of land managers and contractors practices and attitudes .................................................................................................................................... 367

FFG 1128 Economics of Co-ordination in Environmental Stewardship ................................... 370

Emery & Franks (2012) The potential for collaborative agri-environment schemes in England: can a well-designed collaborative approach address farmers’ concerns with current schemes? ............ 375

Garrod et al. (2012) Heterogeneity of preferences for the benefits of Environmental Stewardship: A latent-class approach ...................................................................................................................... 377

6

1. BIODIVERSITY

BD1241: Review of Blanket Bog management and Restoration

Contractor: Nottingham Trent University

Study type and theme1: R&D, B

Scope2: HLS and UELS

Indicator3: Farming in the uplands for wildlife; Moorland

Cross-references to other summary tables for the same study4: AES006 –RP, AES0006 H, AES006 CC

Summary of project:

The project used desk based lit reviews and 22 expert interviews.

“principal aims:

To review the current knowledge of the management and restoration of blanket bog mires, particularly with regard to the restoration of hydrological function and Sphagnum growth

To analyse prevailing issues

To identify priorities for possible future field-based research.

The report has used published peer-reviewed and “grey” literature together with interviews and consultations with a wide variety of specialists. The perceived ecosystem drivers of blanket bog, the main threats to its active state and the range of techniques used to conserve or restore blanket bog were investigated. Recommendations and priorities for future field-based research are discussed within the report.”

Summary table

Reference number5: AES0006, B

Option(s)/ Option groups

6

Key messages including reasons for success/failure

Impact (+ve/ -ve & level)

7

Notes incl. context & caveats9

Impacts on the indicator10

Agri-environment payments seen as vital in supporting the management of uplands. Without these payments

++

Desk based lit reviews and 22 expert interviews. No field work was undertaken to assess management

7

the report states that there would be a loss of key knowledge and land managers which would have a negative impact on our uplands.

An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) should be carried out before any restoration projects begin.

In order to get scheme funding, monitoring should be carried out. Pre-restoration monitoring should also take place.

Makes suggestions for areas of further research.

+

+

0

impacts. A wider canvassing of exerts would benefit the study and this could have been carried out using a structured expert elicitation.

Contribution to objectives11

Pre and post restoration monitoring will enable effectiveness to be measured. Continued ES support will enable such measures to go ahead.

++

Impacts on production & rural economy12

Not considered

Impacts on other env objectives13

Farming for the historic environment?

8

BD1242 Assessment of the Impact of Hefting (Heafing or Learing)

Contractor: ADAS UK Ltd.

Project code (if applicable):*


Scope2: All ES

Indicator3: Farming for wildlife; butterflies, bees and vulnerable grassland. Farming in the uplands for wildlife; Moorland

Cross-references to other summary tables for the same study4:

Summary of project:

Assessed via literature review, seven case study farms (covering a wide geographic range and management style).

The project focussed on the female home range tendency in wild and feral sheep and its potential implications for grazing management. The project had two aims;

“1. To review relevant literature and provide a synthesis on the practice and impacts (both economic and environmental) of hefting 2. To identify gaps in knowledge and, if appropriate, recommend appropriate field-based research, prioritised and with suggested general locations”

Report starts with large caveat at top of page in red “The conclusions and views expressed in this report are not necessarily those of Defra” possibly linked to the views expressed by farmers in the case studies although it is not clear.

Summary table



6



7



Suggest encouraging hefted flocks to manage uplands may be beneficial because of the generally even distribution of grazing that results

Problem with disturbance from dog

+

-

No scientific basis for hefted flocks generating even grazing pressure– needs more research.

Assessed via lit review and expert

9

walkers knowledge from case studies.


If hefted flocks generate even grazing pressure, it would encourage uniform grazing and reduce the likelihood of one area being neglected

+ No scientific basis for hefted flocks generating even grazing pressure– needs more research.


Hefting is not profitable without support payments. Significant financial constraint in labour costs.

Pure hill breeds with higher hefting instincts do not produce lambs suitable for market or good quality wool.

Vulnerable to collapse if large culling takes place (e.g. foot and mouth) as replacement animals cannot easily be found.

---

--

---

Defra project BD1228

Evidence from 2001 F&M outbreak.


N/A

10

BD1243: Environmentally sustainable & economically viable grazing systems for restoration & maintenance of heather moorland in England and Wales – continuation study

FINAL REPORT – BUT NOT RELEASED ON DEFRA WEBSITE YET.



Scope2: UELS, HLS

Indicator3: Farming in the uplands for wildlife; Moorland


Summary of project:

An initial short-term, in-field assessment of different grazing techniques was carried out in BD1228. This project aimed to extend this initial work to longer-term impacts. The main aims were to…

“1. Maintain system grazing regimes for a further 3 years 2. To repeat vegetation and invertebrate assessments in 2010 to identify long term effects of different grazing scenarios 3. To monitor heather establishment in 2010, under different grazing regimes from replicated heather restoration plots established in 2002”

In maintenance plots, 4 grazing treatments were applied from 2003 – 2010 (“low sheep (LS; 1.0 ewes per ha for 10 months per year + lamb from May to August), high sheep (HS; 1.5 ewes per ha for 10 months per year + lamb from May to August), cattle only (CO; 0.5 heifers per ha for 2 months in summer only) and mixed sheep plus cattle grazing (SC; low sheep + cattle)”).

In restoration plots, 3 treatments were applied (HA, CO, SC) along with seeded, not seeded, and not grazed.

Summary table

Reference number5: AES028, B Option(s)/

Option groups

6



7



Calluna – when scarce and dispersed, cattle consume but sheep can still selectively avoid in maintenance plots. In restoration plots, young Calluna

Limited study area (ADAS Pwllpeiran). Only applicable to this site as it is dependent on a lot of variables (community structure, climate, other species present).

11

plants fared better when sheep were excluded. Cattle grazing had little impact compared to grazing exclusion plots. Medium stocking densities used here might prevent over grazing of some species (e.g. Nardus), but this may lead to an increase in competitive weeds which can have negative impacts on target sps (Nardus again) Vaccinium myrtillus does well with sheep grazing but can be over-grazed even at these low stocking rates. Restoration of Calluna relied on seed addition and gap creation. More invertebrates under sheep grazing than cattle

+ 0 + ++ +

Treatments applied randomly to blocks and replicated three times.


In situations where Calluna is scarce, cattle grazing should be avoided, however, during restoration when young Calluna plants are present, cattle grazing is less destructive. Careful selection of grazer can lead to effective restoration of Calluna

Impacts on production & rural economy

12

Grazing regimes tested all showed to be economically viable with no statistical difference in livestock performance between grazing regimes.

+

BD1324: Management of wet grassland habitat to reduce the impact of predation on breeding waders: Phase 1

Contractor: Centre for Ecology and Hydrology

12


Scope2: Unclear – possibly all ES

Indicator3: Farming for birds; In-field nesting habitat


Summary of project:

The project aimed to assess if habitat management could be used to reduce predation on breeding waders and so increase their breeding success. It was the first of a 2 phase project and was going to make recommendations on research to be undertaken in the second phase of the project. This would be done through a literature review, data analysis, model creation and creation of testable hypothesis.

Summary table



6



7



Predation rate decreases with increasing distance from field margin Predation rate decreases with increased nest density Predation rates increase with increased predator density Large square fields had lower predation rates (in model) Lower predation when nesting field is lower quality for nesting predators than the surrounding fields (in model)

+ + - + +

Based on a thorough literature review and meta-analysis Based on a thorough literature review and meta-analysis Based on a thorough literature review and meta-analysis Based on modelled behaviour of predator and waders. Based on modelled behaviour of predator and waders.

13



6



7



No recommendations of what farmers and land owners can do to increase wader breeding success .


N/A


N/A

14

BD1326: Wetting up farmland for biodiversity

Contractors: Pond Conservation, Royal Society for Protection of Birds, Game & Wildlife Conservancy Trust


Scope2: All ES

Indicator3: Farming for wildlife; Water voles, dragonflies, newts and toads. Farming for birds; Insect-rich foraging habitats

Cross-references to other summary tables for the same study4: AES026 –RP

Summary of project:

Project objectives:

“1. To develop an existing replicated experiment to measure the delivery of food resources and bird use of small-scale wetland features on the edges of arable and pastoral fields. a. To measure success in delivering open water and bare earth, as a measure of access to food resources for farmland birds b. To measure success in delivering obligate wetland invertebrates, especially those important as a food resource for farmland birds c. To measure use of the created features by foraging farmland birds 2. To make an assessment of the likely costs and benefits associated with accumulated sediment in the studied features. 3. To synthesize results and make recommendations for provision of wet areas in arable land and grassland within agri-environment schemes. 4. To disseminate results and practical advice to farmers and other stakeholders, as results become available.”

Summary table



6



7



The project showed that Bunded Ditches are a way to create small wet features. Could be considered for ELS

Paired Pond creation could be used in HLS as deliver greater biodiversity

++

+++

Limited study site (Leicestershire).

31 bunded ditches matched to controls and also eight field corner Paired Ponds.

15

benefit than Bunded Ditches Evidence for paired ponds only comes from 8 examples.


The study showed an increase in invertebrate abundance in both Bunded Ditches and Paired Ponds. This corresponded to an increase in bird use of sites (specifically Paired Ponds).

Paired Ponds produced a significantly greater biomass of dragonflies and damselflies than did Bunded Ditches

+++ Evidence for paired ponds only comes from 8 examples.


Maintenance of Bunded Ditches = £10 per ditch per year. With little impact on crops.

Paired Ponds not assessed – but thought to be more costly and time consuming to maintain.

+

-


N/A

16

BD1327: Management of wet grassland habitat to reduce the impact of predation on breeding waders: Phase 2.

Contractor: Royal Society for Protection of Birds


Scope2: All ES

Indicator3: Farming for birds; In-field nesting habitat


Summary of project:

This is a follow on from Phase 1. It aims to test the impacts of 2 field manipulations on the breeding success of waders. The field treatments used were:

“a) ‘Sward’ fields - margins (0-50 m from field edge) made less attractive for nesting through lack of mowing and spring fertilising to create taller swards b) ‘Wet’ fields - centres made more attractive by enhancing the extent of wet features”

Summary table



6



7



Nesting success of lapwing and redshank was greatest in sward treatment fields. Unexpected result for redshank as a margin nesting bird (preference for tall swards).

The positive impact of sward treatment on redshank breeding in particular may have been due to anomalous conditions is 2009 (dry summer forcing predators to spend more time in fields thus causing them to miss margin nesting birds)

++ All carried out at one site (Berney Marshes RSPB reserve) so results may have limited applicability to other sites. Also the study was heavily impacted by weather anomalies making the results difficult to interpret.

17


Unclear due to the potential interference from climate anomalies


Maintenance of existing features costs around £30 per ha (creation is more expensive at £100 per ha).


N/A

BD1425: see RP0199

18

BD1444: Study title: Potential for enhancing biodiversity on intensive livestock farms.

Contractor(s): Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research; British Trust for Ornithology; Centre for Agri-Environmental Research, University of Reading

Study type and theme1: R&D, Biodiversity

Scope2: ELS, EE4-7, EE10, EF2, EF4, EG1, HE11,

Indicator3: Farming for birds – seed food during winter and early spring, insect-rich foraging habitats; Farming for wildlife – butterflies, bees and vulnerable

grassland


Summary of project:

Overall aim of the project is to quantify the effects on botanical and faunal diversity of creating heterogeneity in vegetation structure and architecture, in intensively managed grassland farms, by applying simple management techniques to field margins. Specific objectives were: 1) evaluate the effects of vegetation structure on invertebrate and bird populations; 2) determine how the experimental treatments differed in terms of numbers and species composition of plants, insects and birds; 3) identify practical options for enhancing biodiversity on intensively managed livestock farms and 4) determine the cost-benefits of applying these different margin treatments. The range of treatments were designed to provide a sequence of increasing structural and compositional complexity and ranged from simple practical options such as cessation of fertiliser application, raising mowing height, grazing leniently or delaying cutting date, to the most radical option of leaving existing grassland uncut/ungrazed throughout the summer. There were two sown treatments: a spring sown cereal undersown to a structurally diverse legume rich ley and a more complex mix of plant species designed to provide a wide range of seed and nectar resources.

Summary table

Reference number5:


6



7



During the study, the existing dominant species Lolium perenne, declined, particularly in the unfertilized, extensively managed treatments, being largely replaced by creeping bent Agrostis stolonifera.

The sown treatments provided a

+

Study undertaken on four farms in the south west only: two in Devon and two in Somerset.

Although sown options met their

19

greater abundance and diversity of seed and nectar resources than the grass based treatments. The sown treatments were significantly more diverse than the fertilized or the more frequently cut treatments based on the original grassland.

No significant differences in plant species diversity were found between the treatments established on the existing grassland.

The more extensive management treatments on existing grassland, which received either one annual cut or no cut or grazing and no additional nutrients, supported the greatest invertebrate diversity in comparison with the conventionally managed control treatment, which was fertilized, received two cuts and the aftermath grazed. The most extensive treatment also allowed the increase in some plant positive indicators of nature conservation value such as Devils bit scabious Succisa pratensis and sneezewort

++

0

++

objectives in the short-term, they also produced longer-term management issues by allowing the ingress of pernicious weeds into bare soil resulting from patchy establishment. Variation in soil conditions on the field margin led to variable establishment both within and between farms; soil was often compacted, had poor drainage and could contain debris from any adjacent ditch clearance. Uptake by farmers of management options that pose a weed threat are likely to be limited.

Residual soil fertility and restrictions on recruitment niche space can impede change in botanical diversity.

20

Achillea ptarmica.

Within the grass treatments a decrease in management intensity led to a general increase in use by small insectivores such as dunnock, but a decrease in large insectivores e.g. blackbird.

Sown swards had high use by granivorous finches and buntings in winter due to their high seed resource. They were also used by insectivores in winter and summer at a higher frequency than grass swards, even though these swards supported similar invertebrate numbers as the control grass treatment. This is probably due to increased accessibility of prey in patchy open swards.

Sown swards (wild bird cover crop, undersown cereal) provide good foraging for both granivorous and insectivorous birds in winter, as do grass swards left to set seed in the first winter.

Greatest biodiversity gains were from treatments that involved a single cut or no cut during the summer.

+

+

++

+

This probably reflected a balance between prey abundance and accessibility – small insectivores favouring insect-rich taller swards and large insectivores preferring shorter swards with more accessible but fewer invertebrates.

The value of grasslands to birds is likely to be enhanced if they can be managed to provide a combination of tall dense swards and patches of short sward of bare ground.

Sowing flowers will be more effective to support bumblebees. Extensively managed grassland may benefit butterflies and beetles, though for the latter it may take 2-3 years before benefits are seen.


21


Dry matter yield was significantly greater in the unfertilised grass treatment with one July cut compared with conventional management (cut in May and July). However quality, both in terms of %N and digestible organic matter was significantly greater in the conventionally managed treatment. Overall, a 30-40% yield loss would result from implementing a relatively simple measure on the margins of intensively managed grass fields.

+/- Cut foliage from the margin could be readily included in the forage from the rest of the field without compromising the overall quality of the silage – the forage from the margin is readily usable by livestock farmers.

Where nitrogen content and digestibility of the herbage is reduced , the forage could be part of the feed ration of dry cows or forward store cattle during the winter months.


N/A

22

BD1448: Cereal-based whole crop silages: a potential conservation mechanism for farmland birds in pastoral landscapes.

Contractor(s): Royal Society for the Protection of Birds; Centre for Agri-Environment Research, University of Reading; Harper Adams University College

Study type and theme1: R&D, biodiversity

Scope2:ELS – EG4

Indicator3: Farming for birds – seed food during winter and early spring; insect-rich foraging habitats


Summary of project:

General aim was to assess the biodiversity and agronomic costs and benefits of low input cereal-based whole crop silages (CBWCS) in a typical intensive lowland livestock region of England. Existing knowledge of agronomic practicalities, costs of producing wholecrop silage and potential nutritional implications of feeding CBWCS to livestock were reviewed. Agronomic yields and feed quality of three CBWCS were measured: winter wheat and spring barley grown with and without broad-spectrum herbicide application. The relative biodiversity benefits with respect to plants, invertebrates and birds of these three CBWCS plus grass silage and maize were also assessed. Data were collected from 16 livestock farms in the West Midlands.

Summary table

Reference number5: AES159


6



7



EG4 Both barley treatments were strongly preferred by a wide range of farmland birds during summer and winter. The strong preference by granivores, skylarks and meadow pipits for barley stubbles probably reflects the relative abundance of Poa annua and other forbs. Use of barley remained high throughout the winter despite a decline in the abundance and reproductive activity by most forbs by February. P. annua can remain reproductively active during winter and may

+++

23

be particularly important for seed-eating birds at this time. The relatively heavy usage of summer barley by granivores, skylarks, gamebirds, insectivores and hirundines reflects a relatively high invertebrate biomass and late summer grain resources associated with this crop.

Spraying barley with a broad-spectrum herbicide had little or no impact on the abundance of weeds, invertebrates or bird usage during summer or winter.

Wheat fields were strongly avoided by most birds of conservation priority during winter though usage during summer was similar to that of barley fields. Autumn cultivation followed by winter or spring herbicide application probably account for the relative lack of forbs on wheat fields compared to other silage crops. Increasing grain and invertebrate resources probably account for late summer usage of wheat by some bird species.

Effective weed control meant that maize had little forb or grass cover. A general lack of winter seed resources led to low usage of maize stubbles by buntings, skylarks and meadow pipits, and a lack of weed cover probably resulted in a significantly lower invertebrate biomass in summer. Clear access to the ground in winter and early summer probably explains the relatively high levels of usage by some ground-feeding insectiviores, such as thrushes and corvids.

There was little use by most farmland birds of grass fields during summer or winter,

0

+/--

+/-

The apparent lack of impact of broad-spectrum herbicide on forb cover might reflect late spraying (they are most effective on young weed seedlings) or in some instances, dilute application rates.

Lapwings showed a preference for nesting in maize fields. However, the timing of maize usage (following cultivation in early May) suggests that these may be second nesting attempts following failures on other

24

probably due to a lack of forbs and reproductively active grasses. However, grass was favoured for foraging by soil-invertebrate feeding species like thrushes and corvids. There was a strong avoidance of grassland during summer by small insectivorous birds and this might reflect the limited accessibility of invertebrate prey in the tall, dense sward.

Growing CBWCS without the use of broad-spectrum herbicide and leaving stubbles through the winter could significantly enhance the summer and winter food resources for a range of farmland birds. Spring-sown CBWCS will also provide suitable nesting habitat for species like lapwing and skylark.

CBWCS should replace crops like maize and improved grassland, that provide little in the way of food or safe nesting habitat. However, replacing low-input traditional methods of cereal production with CBWCS could reduce feeding and nesting opportunities for farmland birds.

+/-

+++

fields. There is a risk that maize fields will act as a sink habitat for lapwings (high densities and low productivity).

Late summer foraging in or over grass silage may have been promoted by second silage cuts (allowing access to food resources), invertebrate responses to slurry application and aftermath grazing.

Little evidence that avoiding the use of broad-spectum herbicide, or growing barley for two years in succession, promoted the attractiveness of barely fields to birds.


EG4 There was a greater abundance of many seed-bearing plants close to the field boundary. This is probably a consequence of reduced agricultural inputs at headlands plus the greater opportunities for propagule dispersal from neighbouring uncropped areas. As well as benefiting granivorous birds which tend to forage within 10m of field

25

boundaries, these areas may be of benefit for rare arable plants.


12

Production costs of CBWCS (£43-62/t DM) are considerably lower than those of grass silage (ca. £77/t DM) and similar to those of maize (ca. £52/t DM). The high and predictable yields of winter wheat make this the most attractive wholecrop cereal option for livestock farmers (ca. £50/t DM), the equivalent costs for spring barley being about 15% higher (ca. £58/t DM).

Growing spring barley wholecrop without the use of broad-spectrum herbicide reduced yield by 13% and increased production cost by 6% (ca. £61/t DM).

The payments available through ELS for growing up to 5 ha of CBWCS reduce production costs by approximately 40% for spring barley (from ca. £61/t DM to ca. £36/t DM) and by an estimated 33-37% for winter wheat (depending on the reduction in yield from not using broad-spectrum herbicide)

Impacts on other env objectives

13

N/A

26

BD1454: Wide scale enhancement of biodiversity: effects on other resources

Contractors: CABI Bioscience, Royal Society for Protection of Birds, ADAS UK Ltd.


Scope2: All ES

Indicator3: Farming for birds; Seed food during winter and early spring and Insect-rich foraging habitats


Summary of project:

The project aimed to study methods to increase insect prey abundance for farmland birds. Different treatments were applied to sites in a split plot design. Two treatments were tested in different combinations: lenient early season grazing (graze to a sward height of 12-15cm) and early closure (exclude livestock from mid-July until spring).

Summary table



6



7



Range of grazing pressures, early or late grazing closure and different silage management options were studied.

Semi-improved and improved grasslands were considered. Not suitable for species rich grasslands.

Early Closure: Increased invertebrate abundance, grass seed and forb seed heads (decreased flower heads) and increased bird usage, but came with high agricultural costs. Assessed as probably too expensive for whole field AES, but may be suitable for field margins.

++

Test sites limited to mostly Devon, one in Yorkshire and one in Herefordshire. Small sample size for many results. Used a split plot design.

Further recommendations for improving all ELS & HLS options for birds, but not clear what evidence this is based on.

27

Lenient Grazing: Increased invertebrate abundance and grass seed heads in semi-improved grassland (decreased forb seed heads and flower heads) and increased bird usage, with low agricultural costs. Target sward height is 10 – 12cm. Assessed as suitable for AES options.

Silage management: High first cut (8-10cm) and a low second cut, 61 days later recommended. This also leads to an increase in crop yield. On three cut systems, high 1

st

and 2nd

cuts followed by a low cut.

+++

0

Current sward height recommends above / below 7cm. Have other studies contributed to this?

Not taken forwards due to agronomic problems.


Lenient grazing and early closure both lead to increased invertebrate & seed abundance and increase in foraging habitat.

Test sites limited to mostly Devon, one in Yorkshire and one in Herefordshire. Small sample size for many results. Used a split plot design


12

Early Closure: high agricultural costs per ha (between £236 and £417 on semi-improved grassland and £99 - £456 on improved grassland).

Lenient Grazing: low agricultural costs per ha (between £7 and £144 on semi-improved grassland and £0 - £333 on improved grassland).

Silage management: High first cut (8-10cm) and a low second cut, leads to an increase in crop yield of £46 per ha. Increasing the amount of time between cuts, or always using high cuts decreases the yield of the crop.

---

+++

---

Results based on small sample sizes in Devon and Yorkshire only.


13

28

BD1455: Grass silage as a new source of winter food for declining farmland birds

Contractors: Royal Society for Protection of Birds, National Institute of Agricultural Botany


Scope2: ELS

Indicator3: Farming for birds; Seed food during winter and early spring


Summary of project:

Looked at management techniques to promote ryegrass seed production and then restore swards to silage production. A combination of small plot experiments and field-scale experiments were used to assess this.

Summary table

Reference number5:

AES149, B


6

Key messages including reasons for success/failure Impact (+ve/ -ve & level)

7



Recommendations for agri-environment schemes:

“Perennial ryegrass swards: take one silage cut before the last week of May, then leave the plot unmanaged until the following spring. Normal fertiliser applications in spring, but no extra fertiliser after cutting.”

“Italian and hybrid ryegrass swards: take two silage cuts (by mid July), then leave the plot unmanaged until the following spring. Normal fertiliser applications in spring and after the first cut, but no

++

++

Randomised plot design used with 8 replicates. Study sites in Shropshire and Cheshire. The recommendations are only suitable in southern and central England and Wales on livestock rearing farms and mixed farms, but their effectiveness in northern England is unclear.

29

extra fertiliser after the second cut.”

Three options given to manage the plots in spring:

“Option 1 – one-year option prior to reseeding: Plough in the plot during spring, prior to sowing a new crop. The seeded grass plot should be retained until at least the start of April and later if possible. Slurry spreading, grazing or spraying with glyphosate should be acceptable after the end of March. This option should work well ahead of a maize crop.

Option 2 – one-year rotational option, returning to grass production: Mow and remove the accumulated vegetation in March.

Option 3 – two-year option, returning to grass production: Produce seed crops on the same plot for two consecutive years. Take the requisite number of silage cuts and close up the plot in both years. Restore the plot in each March, by mowing and clearing the cuttings.”

Options two and three result in silage yield losses.

+

+

+

Evidence to support sward regeneration is limited and contradictory.

Contribution to objectives

11

The above measures would provide seed for farm birds through winter and so help to sustain farmland bird populations.

++ Although it is unknown if the specific recommendations are suitable for Northern England


12

Options one and two are likely to be affordable under agri-environment schemes. Option 3 less so.

+ Provisional costings. Need confirmation that the swards can be regenerated for silage.


13

N/A

30

BD1456: Role of organic fertilizers in the sustainable management of semi-natural grasslands

Contractors: Institute of Grassland and Environment Research (IGER), ADAS UK Ltd.


Scope2: Unclear – possible all ES

Indicator3: Farming for wildlife; Butterflies, bees and vulnerable grassland


Summary of project:

Identify the impacts of using organic fertilisers (FYM) on unimproved and semi-natural grassland when compared to inorganic fertilisers. The ultimate aim was to provide recommendations for the management of neutral meadows. This was a field study using fully factorial randomised block design and three replicates of each block. Experimental blocks ran from 1999 to 2007.

Summary table



6



7



Most species rich plots were those receiving very little or no fertiliser inputs in any form.

Applications of 24 t ha-1

are not sustainable and reduce species richness

Stopping or drastically reducing fertiliser input can aid in restoration but other methods will also be needed to restore grassland (e.g.

+++

---

++

Study sites in Cambridgeshire and Monmouthshire. Good plot design (“factorialized randomized block design with three replicates of the treatments”)

Long term study but only on a limited number of meadows (2) and in a limited geographical range. However, results are likely to be similar for similar grassland.

31



6



7


seeding)


No or low level inputs of fertiliser (organic and inorganic) can improve species richness on semi-improved grasslands

++


N/A


N/A

32

BD1458: A Literature Review and Gap Analysis of Grassland Restoration Research in the UK and Europe



Scope2: All ES, EK2, EK3, OK3, OK2, EL3, OL3, HJ3, HJ4, HK6, HK7, HK8

Indicator3: Farming for wildlife; Butterflies, bees and vulnerable grassland


Summary of project:

“The aim of this project was to provide an overview of the key limitations on the restoration of botanical diversity to species-poor grassland and suggest research questions that will ultimately result in an increase in the cost-effectiveness and reliability of agri-environment scheme prescriptions. This was achieved through a workshop consultation with key stakeholders and a literature review of UK and European research to provide a comprehensive, evidence-based summary of the current knowledge (and lack of knowledge) of:

1) the key processes constraining the restoration of grassland diversity;

2) the most cost-effective and reliable means of overcoming these limitations within modern farming systems;

3) the future research priorities to meet current and future agri-environment scheme and UKBAP policy objectives for the restoration of species-rich grasslands.”

The project involved a literature review and gap analysis and stakeholder consultation.

Summary table



6



7



Factors highlighted as the most important for grassland restoration are below, along with recommendations for their optimisation: Soil fertility – top soil removal is

++

Evidence gathered from extensive literature review, but importance of each factor to grassland restoration was assessed by only 21 experts via structured questionnaire and one workshop to discuss current research and future research.

33

highly effective but is costly Dispersal Gaps and microsites Seed limitation Soil compaction Hydrology – select species that are suited to the hydrological conditions or have complete control over hydrology Parasitic plants Suggests areas for future research. Recommend that AES should aim for a moderate increase in biodiversity at the landscape scale and across a large number of farms Current AES options that are widely used are considered simplistic, low cost and likely to have limited impact. More ‘interventionist’ approaches are costly and difficult to implement but are highly effective Recommend that a whole farm systems approach should be researched and implemented

+++ + --- + +++


Project gives suggestions of areas to target in future research. Considers that current AES options are unlikely

+++ Lit review highlighting areas that require more research

34

to have high impact. Also rates the importance of different factors in grassland restoration.


Suggests that future research should look at low cost, practical solutions to species rich grassland recreation. This should include work on potential impacts on farm livelihoods.

0


Farming for wildlife: Butterflies, bees and vulnerable grassland

BD1459: see RP0199

35

BD1467: Spring Grazing in Northern Hay Meadows: Influence of the timing and intensity of sheep grazing on the floristic diversity and restorative potential.

INTERIM REPORT.

Contractor: University of Newcastle


Scope2: All ES

Indicator3: Farming for wildlife, Butterflies, bees and vulnerable grassland


Summary of project:

Field study carried out in Wensleydale looking at the impacts of sheep grazing on 2 grassland types (traditional northern hay meadow [MG3b] and restorable grasslands [MG6]). For MG3b plots, treatments included all combinations of shut dates (1

st Feb, 1

st May, 15

th May, 27

th May) and sward heights of 3-4cm or 5-

6cm. For restorable MG6 plots the same as MG3b treatments were applied as well as an extra treatment of either receiving (or not) seed of meadow species after the August hay cut.

Summary table



6



7



In MG3b and MG6 treatments, earlier shut dates (1

st feb and 1 May) and

low grazing intensity led to lower Ellenberg fertility values and increased similarity to MG3b vegetation. Large changes seen in biodiversity of MG6 plots that were sown with meadow species. Feb – June 2009-11 rising

+++ ++ --

Fully factorial random plot design used. On MG6 plots, a split plot design was also used to allow for the additional treatment (addition of seed). Only in one area of England so may not be relevant to the whole country.

36

accumulated temperatures explain 93% of variation in sward height. Sheep are likely to graze this additional growth and so limit the growth of some target species. Early shut plots enabled plants to flower and seed before the hay cut. Later shut dates delayed flowering and seeding happened to a lesser extent before the cut. Suggest low intensity spring grazing Suggest early closure to allow hay crops to grow Suggest earlier tupping to allow earlier removal of sheep from meadows in subsequent years. This would allow earlier growth of plants (due to warmer springs) and would mean hay would need to be cut earlier in the year than currently allowed.

+++ --- ++ +++ ++


Lenient grazing and particularly early closure allow plants to seed before being removed. This can aid in the maintenance of species-rich grassland and also in its restoration particularly when used in combination with meadow seed sewing.

Feb – June 2009-11 rising accumulated temperatures explain

+++ As above

37

93% of variation in sward height. With increasingly warm springs this could have implications for agri-environment policy. Suggest earlier tupping to allow earlier removal of sheep from meadows in subsequent years. This would allow earlier growth of plants (due to warmer springs) and would mean hay would need to be cut earlier in the year than currently allowed.


N/A


N/A

38

BD1468: Sustainable nutrient management of semi-natural neutral grasslands

Contractor: North Wyke Research, ADAS UK Ltd.


Scope2: All ES

Indicator3: Farming for wildlife: Butterflies, bees and vulnerable grassland


Summary of project:

Long-term (12yrs) study looking at the effects of different fertiliser treatments on vegetation composition, soil microbial community and agronomic output at paired species rich and species poor grasslands in Wales and Cumbria.

Treatments: 6, 12, 24 tonnes ha-1 of FYM (annually / triennially) Non-organic equivalent to the above Lime Lime with 12 tonnes ha-1 FYM Control: Continuation of past treatments

A separate study looking at the effectiveness of green hay to promote species richness in the species poor upland meadow also took place. Four meadows were used with a randomised block design and 3 replicates of each block in each site.

Summary table



6



7



Species rich meadows: 24t ha-1 FYM annually led to decreased species richness at upland and lowland site 12t ha-1 FYM annually had no effect at upland site (had received similar

--- ++

Long term study, but limited replicates and geographical area. Study sites were paired so that in each pair there was a species rich and species poor grassland.

39

treatments previously). Some improvement in species richness at lower levels of application 12t ha -1 FYM annually decreased species richness at lowland site (had no fertiliser applied previously) <=4t ha-1 FYM annually at the lowland didn’t negatively impact sps richness Inorganic fertilisers are no more damaging than FYM when applied at equivalent levels Species poor meadows: Sps richness increased more rapidly at upland site when fert. withheld (recent history of fert, application) compared to lowland site (history of no fert. app.) <=6t ha-1 annually upland did not negatively impact increase in sps richness <=12t ha-1 triennially lowland did not negatively impact increase in sps richness Grassland used to low fertiliser inputs will be less tolerant to fertiliser applications (both species rich and poor) Species richness on species poor meadow increased by green hay

--- + 0 + +++ +++ - +++

Differences between the two species rich meadows are likely due to differences in previous management practices (previous fertiliser inputs) rather than the differences in plant communities. This is also the case for the species poor grasslands

40

spreading


Better nutrient management of grasslands results in increased species richness in vulnerable grasslands. Knowledge of the nutrient status of the soil and previous fertiliser management is important in determining what level of fertiliser application will be tolerated.

+++ As above


Levels of application needed to maintain / increase sps richness impacted hay yield

Phosphorus levels were not high enough for optimal livestock production

---

---

As above


N/A

41

BD1625: Restoration and management of bumblebee habitat in agricultural landscapes

Contractor(s): Centre for Ecology and Hydrology; University of East Anglia; Institute of Zoology; Rothamsted Research


Scope2: ELS – EF4

Indicator3: Farming for wildlife – Butterflies, bees and vulnerable grassland


Summary of project:

Project investigates the effects of sown patches of a flower rich mixture on bumblebees across sites varying in landscape characteristics. The aim was to identify the scale of habitat restoration required to sustain bumblebees and develop research-based policy for the regional targeting of agri-environment measures to effectively enhance bumblebee populations in the UK agricultural landscape.

Summary table



6



7



EF4 Sown patches of EF4 had significantly more forage within years than control patches (mean = 4-5.5 fold more forage; 6-25 fold at peak flowering). However, during early and late season (April, May, June and September) there was no difference in forage provision. Recommend increasing the early flowering component of the mixture to provide resources for early emerging males and queens, and queens later in the season.

Patches of flower mix that contain

++

++

Work carried out on eight farms across central and eastern England. Three treatments randomly allocated to each site, consisting of three plots of 0.25ha, 0.5ha and 1ha respectively. Control patch of non-crop vegetation.

Nectar flower mixture contained 20% legumes and 80% fine grasses.

A forage area of 0.25ha, equating to approximately 400 x 6m strip at the field margin can be

42

legume species like Red clover (Trifolium pratense) and Alsike clover (T. hybridum) as major elements are unlikely to last for the 5 years of an ELS agreement due to their short-lived nature. Re-establishment costs on the same location can be high, especially if there is a grass component in the original mixture. It is recommended that sown patches be rotated and grasses are not included in the mix.

Bumblebee densities were significantly higher on sown patches compared to control habitats. The positive effect was robust across years, despite variation in flower abundance and seasonal weather conditions.

Densities of foragers on 0.25ha patches were higher or equal to those on 0.5ha or 1ha patches.

Sown patches had a greater impact in terms of attracting foraging bumblebees, where the proportion of arable land was highest. This suggests that targeting this option to areas of poorer landscape quality and at a regional rather than local level, may have larger benefits.

Significant positive effect of patches on population growth rates in more intensive landscapes (>71%) for red-tailed bumblebee (B. lapidarius) and Common carder bumblebee (B. pascuorum). This suggests that

+++

+++

++

+++

conveniently sites suggested in the ELS handbook (2008), with significant benefits to the bumblebee populations in the area.

Microsatellite DNA analyses showed that low numbers of B.pascuorum and B. lapidarius workers foraging on patches separated by an average of 3km. This suggests foraging distances may exceed the current published estimates of minimum estimated maximum foraging range (450m) for both species, although the locations of the colonies were unknown.

Resulting recommendations:

Where possible, nectar flower mixtures should not include grasses in order to reduce competition and aid re-establishment. Patches should be relocated after 2-3 years. Early and late season flowering species will help to provide forage throughout the season.

For relatively widespread bee species (B. pascuorum), heterogeneous landscapes (with less than 40% arable farmland and greater than 40% cover of forb species at the scale of a radius of 1km), management of existing habitats rather than the creation of new ones may be a better conservation strategy.

Several smaller patches of forage

43

relative numbers of colonies will be increased by sown patches when forage resources are limiting e.g. a high proportion of arable land.

Sown patches provided large amounts of preferred pollen types to foraging workers. Visiting bees showed a high degree of flower constancy and fidelity to sown species, suggesting that many workers were foraging exclusively on sown patches during the July sampling period.

+++

may be more effective than a single large patch. Patches should be distributed across the farm to enhance resource heterogeneity and maximise benefits to colonies within the foraging range (about 1 km).


EF4 Establishment of a nectar flower mix will benefit butterflies and other invertebrates.


EF4 Extra re-establishment costs if plot quality declines over the five years of an ELS agreement.

Recommendation of re-locating plots every 2-3 years will also entail additional costs.


44

BD1630: Long-term Maintenance of Uncommon Arable Plant Populations in Agri-environment Schemes in England. Phase 1: Scoping Study



Scope2: All ES

Indicator3: Farming for wildlife; Arable plants


Summary of project:

“The objectives as required by Defra were to (1) review and assess recommendations for the selection, placement and management of uncropped cultivated plots and margins, (2) update technical guidelines for Natural England staff and farmers, (3) identify knowledge gaps and (4) make proposals for long-term trials for controlling problem species in the presence of uncommon arable plant populations.” Focussed on control of weeds in field margins.

Summary Table



6



7



Produced guidelines titled “Field Management Margin Options for Uncommon Arable Plants” and “Management of Pernicious Weeds in Uncropped Cultivated Margins of Plots” for use by NE officers and farmers.

Suggested weed control measures for 12 common weed species (see table below).

+++

+++

Unsure of impact as the recommendations given have not been tested in the study. They are based on lit review.

45


These recommendations follow current knowledge of weed control in crops and the conservation management of arable plants. They provide species specific management practices to reduce highly competitive plants and so promote the growth of rare species

+++ Unsure of impact as the recommendations given have not been tested in the study. They are based on lit review.


12


46

BD1631: Defining Condition Criteria for UK HAP priority Arable Field Margins



Scope2: All ES

Indicator3: Farming for wildlife


Summary of project:

“The overall aim of this project is to identify attributes and thresholds for determining ‘good condition’ for the Arable Field Margin Priority Habitat. Attributes can include floristic composition, vegetation structure and physical characteristics for which thresholds need to be set. The objectives are to 1) carry out a literature review to identify a draft set of attributes and thresholds that can be used to assess the biodiversity value of a range of arable field margin types, 2) field test the attributes and thresholds for repeatability and sensitivity at three locations and by means of a workshop, 3) assess the suitability of Countryside Survey as a vehicle for carrying out condition assessments and 4) produce a project report containing final recommendations and a set of recording sheets for arable field margin assessment.”

Summary table



6



7



Recommendations for surveys of agri-environment schemes rather than improvements of the schemes themselves

0 Not relevant to this review.




47

BD1636: Predicting the impact of future agricultural change and uptake of Entry Level Stewardship on farmland birds

Contractor: British Trust For Ornithology

Study type and theme1: R&D

Scope2: ELS

Indicator3: Farming for birds, Seed food during winter and early spring, In-field nesting habitat, Insect-rich foraging habitats


Summary of project:

The project had seven aims: “(i) to update the evidence base and identify remaining knowledge gaps of resource requirements and causes of decline of farmland birds (ii) to review knowledge on practical measures to improve quality of ELS options (iii) to review knowledge on optimal ways to deploy options in the landscape (iv) to review knowledge for past value of set-aside for farmland birds and potential impact of its loss (v) to assess the proportion of landscape required under specific management to produce a population increase in relation to current availability of such habitat under ELS (vi) to predict likely future trends in the farmland bird index in relation to a small number of future scenarios (vii) to make recommendations for future research and highlight implications for the design and operational delivery of the scheme. It involved a large literature review followed by expert opinion on the potential to modify existing prescriptions to better help farmland birds.

Summary table



6



7



EB1& 2 EE1 – 6

Makes several recommendations for agri-environment schemes: Extend no cutting period to 31

st August – no

disturbance of nests Use graminicides or scarify margins to open sward – greater access to food for foraging

+++ +++

Recommendations not tested in the project – literature review and expert knowledge used to assess potential improvements. Use of garminicides or scarify margins – based on promising

48

EF1 EF2 & EG2 EF3 EF6, EG1, 3&4 EF8 EK1, EL1 EK2 & 3, EL2 & 3

birds Prevent mowing between 1st March-31st August – no ground nest destruction Introduce restrictions on cutting date of WBCs – food provision in winter Allow cultivation of WBCs in single species strips – improves chances of successful establishment and management Extend retention of stubbles into mid-March – food provision in winter Position away from field buffer strips – reduce nest predation Prevent mowing between 1

st March – 31

st

August – prevent ground nest destruction Introduce grazing restrictions – creates a heterogeneous sward increases foraging opportunities for birds

+++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++

initial results from the SAFFIE study showing bird density was highest along boundaries receiving these treatments. Extension of over-winter stubble based on extensive literature searches.


The above recommendations are expected to increase food provision over winter, decrease predation and nest destruction and produce heterogeneous swards

+++ The contributions are not tested in the report. They are ‘expected’ based on expert opinion and lit reviews.


12

Not assessed


49

BD1637: Assessing the effectiveness of ELS in delivering resources for birds in arable landscapes



Scope2: ELS

Indicator3: Farming for birds; Seed food during winter and early spring and insect rich foraging habitat


Summary of project:

Looking at fine-scale habitat associations to see if ELS management offered a way to increase bird populations.

There were three main aims

“I) to identify key ELS options associated with high bird densities; II) to assess the extent to which 1km squares with high ELS uptake also support high densities of key bird species relative to low uptake squares; III) to provide habitat data for the entire 1km square that will serve to ground-truth transect habitat data recorded under wider ELS monitoring (2000 1km squares).” Intensive field work was carried out to assess any fine scale impacts of ELS. Transects were carried out along all field boundaries and fields in 97 1km squares in East Anglia. Follows on from ‘extensive’ evaluation that found few positive effects of ELS.

Summary table



6



7



ELS boundaries attract some farmland bird species suggesting current ELS might increase populations.

Specifically – ELS hedgerow and ditch management

ELS margins encouraged some species (rook, jackdaw, skylark,

+

+

+

In-depth study with multiple study sites but all in East Anglia (study aimed to intensive to study small-scale effects rather than extensive). Positive effects found could be due to re-distribution of populations rather than population growth.

50

whitethroat)

Wildbird seed associated with increased populations of some seed eating birds.

Recommend that ELS options should be targeted to enhance local populations of rare sps

+

++

Conflicting evidence: this association was not present in the wider ‘extensive’ evaluation.


Current ELS schemes are performing well and demonstrate increased use by farmland birds. More specific targeting of options could help to increase populations of locally rare species.

++



51

BD1639: Quantifying the magnitude of the loss of set-aside stubbles and its impact on the winter ecology and distribution of farmland birds



Scope2: All ES

Indicator3: Farming for birds, Seed food during winter and early spring


Summary of project:

The project aimed to consider the impacts of the loss of set aside and to try and quantify some of these impacts. Carried out via survey work (intensively in East Anglia on birds and habitats, and more generally at the national scale on habitats only). All sites had been surveyed on three previous winters; 2004-05 to 2006-07 for East Anglia and 1999-2000 to 2002-03 nationally.

Summary table

Reference number5:AES019, B


6



7



66% reduction in area of stubble between 2004 and 2008 in East Anglia. Nationally up to 80% decrease in stubble area between 1999 and 2008. Bird numbers in East Anglia did not decline between 2004 and 2008. Could be due to a time lag between environmental change and behavioural response.

--- --- 0

Looked at national and local (East Anglia) changes in bird populations in relation to changes in over-winter stubble. Local scale only involved 20 sites with a limited geographic range. National scale looked for large scale changes (‘high’ strength of evidence). Local scale looked for small-scale changes (medium strength of evidence).

52

From other research stubble loss could impact birds via loss of seed rich foraging habitat in winter. Suggest increasing the quantity and quality of options that provide seed in winter (wild bird cover, over-wintered cereal stubbles). Could potentially increase value of farm margins and boundaries through addition of new options. Options should be extended through to late winter.

--- +++ +++ +++


Would be expected that the above recommendations would increase the availability of food particularly in winter and so help to sustain larger populations of farmland birds, however they have not been tested as part of this study.

In the first year from the loss of set aside, no negative impacts were found.

+++

0

Recommendations not tested as part of this study.

National scale looked for large scale changes (‘high’ strength of evidence). Local scale looked for small-scale changes (medium strength of evidence).


12

N/A


53

BD1641: Assessing the impact of the loss of set-aside stubbles on the winter ecology, behaviour and distribution of farmland birds and their breeding population trends.



Scope2: ELS

Indicator3: Farming for Birds; Seed food during winter and early spring


Summary of project:

Assessment of changes in the patterns of land-use, bird population sizes and breeding bird abundance after the second winter post-set-aside. Used data from 1999 to 2002 and resurveyed 19 2x2km sites in 2008 – 09 (all in East Anglia). Also used Breeding Bird Surveys to assess possible impacts on farmland birds. And used survey work (intensively in East Anglia, and more generally at the national scale).

Summary table

Reference number5:AES029, B


6



7



2008 – 09 stubble areas were similar to those during set-aside, possibly due to a wet autumn, limiting the opportunity for ploughing.

Some evidence to show that stubble change impacted on some bird species (namely House Sparrow, Yellowhammer and Stock Dove).

Decline in Yellow hammer seen in 2007 supporting idea that loss of set-aside impacted this species, but this was not supported by analysis between area of uncropped land and bird populations.

0

-

-

Looked at national and local (East Anglia) changes in bird populations in relation to changes in over-winter stubble. Local scale only involved 20 sites with a limited geographic range.

National scale looked for large scale changes (‘high’ strength of evidence). Local scale looked for small-scale changes (medium strength of evidence).

54

Winter field surveys showed no decline in bird abundance post set-aside.

Breeding season surveys showed some declines that may be attributable to loss of set-aside however these were not on species that use stubble in winter – only carried out in East Anglia

“Chaffinch, yellowhammer and linnet all spent a greater proportion of their time feeding in hotspot areas that were not adjacent to recognized seed-rich habitat than they did in locations next to such habitat” showing such species do use hotspots. – only carried out in East Anglia

Birds tended to spend more time in the field margins on cropped fields than in stubble fields. – only carried out in East Anglia

Suggest increasing seed resource in farm margins by increasing the number of ‘non-injurious weeds and their seeds and sacrificial seed crops’ particularly in late winter

0

--

+

0

+++


This study does not show clear impacts resulting from the loss of set-aside, but does state that it may take time for the negative effects to become clear.

Some suggestion that there are some negative impacts but these are not yet clear.

?

?


12


55

BD1642: Effects of management and configuration of uncropped land on the winter habitat use of birds on arable farm systems

Contractors: British Trust for Ornithology, The Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust


Scope2: All ES

Indicator3: Farming for birds; Seed food during winter and early spring


Summary of project:

“The winter project addresses several fundamental questions concerning the management of farmland for birds. These are: 1) are there relationships between

the proportion of un-cropped land and levels of bird abundance? 2) is active management compared to farm management related to higher levels of bird abundance? 3) is there evidence that the composition or arrangement of un-cropped land influences winter bird numbers at the site level?” Carried out in the field – bird counting, habitat measurements Treatments

1. Each field with a significant proportion of managed* uncropped land totalling above 20% of the total area.

2. Each field with some managed uncropped land, totalling less than 10% of the total area.

3. One in four fields containing a significant area of managed uncropped land totalling above 20% of the total area.

4. One in twelve fields containing a significant area of managed uncropped land totalling below 10% of the total area.

5. Control: each field with some unmanaged** uncropped land totalling more than 20% of the total area.

6. Control: each field with some unmanaged uncropped land totalling less than 10% of the total area.

Summary table



6



7



Increased presence of song thrush and dunnock with increased hedgerow habitat and game cover Decreased skylarks were associated with increased hedgerow length and

+++ ---

Limited geographic range of study (East Anglia, Southern England), not representative of the UK. Treatments were in 100ha blocks across 24 farms.

56

game cover Area of uncropped land had a positive impact on some species – but a weak, modelled relationship that changed depending on model selection No clear relationships between birds and treatments (except Dunnocks) Dunnocks showed a positive response to treatment 3

0 0 +

Modelled relationship is not consistent suggesting covariates are impacting on the bird populations


Only dunnocks responded to the treatments used in this study, so this has limited applicability.

Unclear if the relationship with uncropped land is real, but potentially could aid to increase bird populations.

+


N/A


N/A

57

BD1643 / 1640: Re-analysis of data in BD1640 using alternative analytical approaches

Contractor: British Trust for Ornithology

Study type and theme1:

Scope2:

Indicator3:


Summary of project:

The project aimed to assess the and quantify the impacts of loss of set-aside. Desk based meta-analysis.

Summary table



6



7



NO RECOMMENDATIONS MADE




58

BD2111: Trends, long term survival and ecological values of hedgerow trees: development of populations models to inform strategy

Contractor: Forest Research Agency


Scope2: All ES

Indicator3: Farming for birds (Insect-rich foraging habitats), Farming for wildlife (Bats and dormice)

Cross-references to other summary tables for the same study4: Landscape

Summary of project:

The project aimed to develop a population model for isolated hedgerow trees and review the HAP targets for hedgerow trees and also to review biodiversity value of hedgerow trees.

Summary table



6



7



Isolated hedgerow trees likely to encourage wide range of invertebrate species due to greater niche availability and shelter

Many BAP species benefit from isolated hedgerow trees due to structure (e.g. darkness from canopy), stability and enhanced food supply

+++

+++

Extensive literature review – hedgerows in general are good for invertebrates and more so if there is a variety of structure due to the presence of hedgerow trees. Therefore hedgerow trees will also encourage other animal species (birds and bats). But, this is largely based on anecdotal evidence and not on scientific study.

Some studies on populations of large moth species show they are

59

higher when near hedgerow trees. Also shown for dipteral.


Potential increases in target species (birds and bats) due to increased invertebrate abundance and increased structural heterogeneity provided by hedgerow trees.

+++ Some anecdotal evidence for bat sps (increase in prey items near hedgerow trees is likely to focus bat foraging), and some studies carried out on birds showing some sps rely on these trees. Birds are also likely to be influenced by the increased prey abundance near these trees.


N/A


Landscape value of hedgerow trees.

BD2114 Effects of hedgerow management and restoration on biodiversity: see RP0278

60

BD2117: Hedgerow management: A survey of land managers’ and contractors’ practices and attitudes

Contractors: Risk and Policy Analysts Ltd, Britt Vegetation Management


Scope2: All ES

Indicator3: Farming for wildlife and farming for birds


Summary of project:

Project to determine management practices and reasons behind farmer and contractor decisions. And to provide recommendations to increase the use of good management practices. The project involved a postal survey and follow up visits (including face to face interview and field visits).

Summary table



6



7



Suggest new measures to promote rotational laying or coppicing and support financially. Emphasise measures to... increase height and width of hedges buffer hedges against fertiliser drift, to reduce nutrients in hedge bottom plant up gaps double-fence hedgerows, to protect

++ ++ ++ ++ ++

Based on farmer and contractor opinion rather than scientific research. Recommendations are more geared towards ‘what would encourage farmers to take up more options?’. Only recommend one amendment (financial support for laying), other recommendations involve targeting and promoting existing options.

61

from grazing livestock


The new option that was suggested was based on farmer knowledge e.g. “it would be good for wildlife to get laying again” and it wasn’t clear what the benefits were.


N/A


N/A

62

BD2303: Biodiversity on farms: a complex systems approach (The Robustness and Restoration of a Network of Ecological Networks. Pocock et al. 2012 Science, 335)

Contractor: BBSRC Central Office


Scope2: All ES

Indicator3: Farming for wildlife; arable plants


Summary of project:

Aimed to assess the degree to which food web interactions supported organic farm biodiversity and functioning. Field work based study using sampling of invertebrates and plants at replicated plots on all habitats available at the site (Norwood Farm, Somerset).

Summary table



6



7



A few plants have a high positive impact on biodiversity and should be emphasised in agri-environment schemes. These were (in rank order of importance):

Cirsium vulgare (spear thistle)

Anthriscus sylvestris (cow parsley)

Trifolium pratense / repens (Clover sp.)

Cirsium arvense (Creeping thistle)

Ranunculus repens (Creeping

+++

+++

+++

+++

Worked on a whole farm approach testing 1501 unique interactions between 560 taxa. But, only on one farm (due to logistics) in Somerset. May not be completely transferable to rest of UK, but very good experiment if a little localised.

63

buttercup) Acer pseudoplatanus (Sycamore)

Heracleum sphyondylium (Hogweed)

Urtica dioica (Stinging nettle)

Poaceae (grass sp.)

Rubus fruticosus (Bramble)

The importance of C. vulgare, A. sylvestris, H. sphyondylium, U. Dioica, Poaceae and R. fruticosus were all heavily influenced by their abundance in the study systems.

However, several of these plant species are farmland weeds and could have a negative impact on rare arable target plant species.

++

++

+

+

+

+

---


The plants listed above act as ‘keystone’ plants in the ecosystem and had the largest effect on increasing modelled robustness of networks.


Several of these plant species are commonly thought of as farmland weeds and so the impacts on crop rotation, crop yield and overall profitability need to be considered.

-- Based on expert knowledge. Further work is needed.


64

BD5004: Scoping study to develop a monitoring programme for Uplands Entry Level Stewardship

Contractor: The Food & Environment Research Agency, ADAS, CCRI, CAER, Penny Anderson Associates


Scope2: UELS

Indicator3:


Summary of project:

Project aims to develop a monitoring programme for upland ELS. It makes recommendations on programme structure and predicted costs – NOT RELEVANT TO CURRENT PROJECT.

65

BD5202: Effects of environmental stewardship on the distribution and population changes of cirl buntings and other farmland birds in South Devon DRAFT REPORT

Contractor: Royal Society for Protection of Birds


Scope2: All ES

Indicator3: Farming for birds (all three target areas)


Summary of project:

The project involved surveying 315 tetrads in 2003 and then again in 2009 for cirl buntings and other priority farmland birds. These 315 tetrads were all located in South Devon but represented the range of the cirl bunting. 56 tetrads were chosen at random for a detailed analysis if the crop and habitat composition. This was combined with data on ES option and covered the period of time from the loss of set-aside, use of CSS and introduction of ES.

Summary table



6



7



A 16% increase in cirl bunting abundance was seen across the whole area of the study Decrease in yellowhammers (-18%), skylarks (-9%) and song thrushes (-15%) seen across the whole area of the study Largest decrease in song thrushes in areas where higher level AE was introduced after 2003. No change with other species in

+++ --- - -

Restricted study area, but did cover the entire cirl bunting range Very detailed study but over a very limited area. The results may not be applicable to the whole of the UK. The area used has seen intensive conservation effort for cirl bunting including “special low-input spring barley option and additional resources for on-farm

66

relation to higher-level AE status Cirl buntings and yellowhammers were more abundant on ELS land with agreements between 2003 and 2009 vs Non-ELS land (+48% vs 0% and -5% vs -24% respectively) Weak positive relationship between higher-level arable grass margins (by cirl bunting, yellowhammer & skylark) and higher-level grassland Skylarks were positively associated with CSS special barley option All species preferred non-ES hedges to higher-level ES hedges (maybe due to initial restorative management) Suggests hedgerows and semi-improved grasslands maybe locally important to maintain bird populations. Skylark – associated positively with fallow habitat Increased area of simmer AE options (mainly ELS grassland) related to an increase in cirl buntings and yellowhammers Cirl bunting positively associated with CSS special barley option Skylarks were weakly negatively

+++ ++ ++ --- +++ ++ +++ +++ ++

advice for participating farmers”. This could have skewed the results. Additionally, bird populations were only recorded in 2003 and 2009 meaning the results could be anomalous and not a trend in the population.

67

associated with CSS stubbles in 2003. Positively associated in 2009. Possibly due to the loss of set-aside increasing the importance of this habitat Skylark, yellowhammer and song thrush –very associated with wild bird seed mix Regression models = need 3-4ha of ELS grassland (cirl and yellow) and 3ha CSS special barley (skylark) in every 1km

2 to increase bird pops by

20%

--- +++


Provision of a matrix of correct options can increase the population of target farmland birds. It is important to provide a mixture to overcome the negative effect of certain options on particular species

+++ Only relevant in South Devon. Further research would be needed to show it’s applicability across the rest of England.


12

N/A


N/A

68

BD5206: Utility of lenient grazing of agricultural grassland to promote in-field structural heterogeneity, invertebrates and bird foraging

Contractors: Royal Society for Protection of Birds, ADAS UK Ltd., CABI Bioscience


Scope2: All ES

Indicator3: Farming for birds, insect-rich foraging habitats


Summary of project:

Follow on project from BD1454 looking at promoting heterogeneous sward heights whilst minimising agronomic costs. Used the same study site as BD1454 meaning there were a lot of residual effects from the original experiment. Two treatments were tested (see below) along with a control treatment of continual grazing to TSH of 6-8cm.

1. Continuous lenient grazing (Target Sward Height [TSH] = 9-12cm) 2. Intermittent lenient grazing (Target Sward Height [TSH] = 9-12cm)

Due to drought conditions in 2010 cattle were removed from all treatment sites at times due to poor grass growth. In the second half of the season, the treatments were implemented completely.

Is due to run for 3 years in total – Y1 final report used here.

Summary table



6



7



Lenient grazing resulted in two times more invert. numbers than in controls, with bird specific invert. prey being 50% higher

No difference seen between treatments likely due to problems

+++

0

Test sites limited to mostly Devon, one in Yorkshire and one in Herefordshire.

Experiment badly impacted by

69

with experimental design (using same plots as previous experiment) and poor weather conditions

The larger TSH led to increased heterogeneity believed to allow birds to access increased invertebrate prey

Increased structural heterogeneity and bird prey invert, abundance were independent of carry-over effects from BD1454 so were thought to be caused by the treatments here.

Bird usage was higher (particularly skylarks) on the treatments than on controls when the treatments had been fully implemented (second half of season)

Bunting seemed to prefer Treatment 1 but unclear due to carry-over effects

Foraging site selection:

Yellowhammers – not limited by invert. abundance on treatment plots. Chose patches with more bare ground / short grass. Control fields were not used.

On fields outside the experiment, foraging sites were taller and denser

++

++

+++

+

+

carry-over effects from usage of same sites as BD1454.

Also impacted by drought in 2010 meaning treatments weren’t successfully implemented until the second half of the season. This meant that up until this point, the two treatments were not distinguishable.

70

than treatments (e.g. reversed preferences). These sites were extensively grazed but only from late spring and then lightly leading to tall swards (the sward heights seen in these fields were not reached in treatment fields) and heterogeneous structure. Possible applications in a “rotational intermittently-grazed paddock measure”.


Promotion of a heterogeneous sward increases vertebrate abundance and this seems to then increase target bird abundance on farms.

+++ Experiment badly impacted by carry-over effects from usage of same sites as BD1454. Also impacted by drought in 2010 meaning treatments weren’t successfully implemented until the second half of the season. This meant that up until this point, the two treatments were not distinguishable.


Average cattle live weight did not differ between treatments but was significantly lower on treatments than controls. An average loss of £71/ha and £23/ha were seen on continuous and intermittently grazed fields. This is substantially lower than the loses in BD1454, but will have been artificially inflated by the need to move cattle to overflow fields during the bad growing conditions (only an impact for treatment 1). Needs further work.

- Impacted by drought in 2010 meaning treatments weren’t successfully implemented until the second half of the season. This meant that treatment 1 yields are artificially inflated due to moving cattle to overflow fields during poor grass growth.


71

BD5207 Utility of lenient grazing of agricultural grassland to promote in-field structural heterogeneity. : see RP0196

BD5301: Restoration of herbaceous hedgerow flora: Review and analysis of ecological factors and restoration techniques: Phase 1.



Scope2: All ES

Indicator3: Farming for wildlife; butterflies, bees and vulnerable grassland and brown hare, Bats and dormice. Farming for birds; Insect-rich foraging habitats

Cross-references to other summary tables for the same study4: AES039 -RP

Summary of project:

Farming for wildlife, Farming for birds

Aims to assess possible management options for native flora next to hedgerows. Carried out through a large literature search and review. Made recommendations for restoration.

Summary table



6



7



Avoid using herbicide, fertiliser and high grazing intensity at the hedge base

Retain hedgebanks

In situations where the flora have been severely modified, restoration should aim to destroy the existing vegetation, create a seedbed and re-introduce seed of target sps

In some cases (dominated by Galium aparine or Urtica dioica) regular cutting in

++ ++

++

++

Large literature review was undertaken in order to produce these recommendations, however, they are largely based on evidence from other habitats (sps rich grasslands, woodlands etc) and do not specifically relate to hedgerow management.

72

preparation and in the early stage of restoration could control growth.

Use of a verge of perennial grasses could protect hedge base from disturbance in highly disturbed, eutrophic circumstances.

For hedgerows near woodland, target species should be re-introduced and hedgerows should be managed to not be too narrow.

In cases of high soil fertility, cutting and/or grazing will reduce soil fertility slowly. Turf stripping might also be an option as would excavation and subsequent turn-over of soil (although this could increase the risk of water pollution)

++

++

++


Increase in abundance of native plants in hedgerows. This in turn would provide foraging and nesting opportunities and shelter for invertebrates, birds and mammals

+++ Expert knowledge of species interactions and ecosystem functioning.


12

Some of the recommendations above are not suitable for inclusion in agri-environment schemes:

Turf Stripping – not economically viable on grassland, but could be used on hedgebanks and verges

Excavation and turn-over – time consuming and requires some expert knowledge.

-

---

No economic assessment carried out. Based on common-sense and expert knowledge.


13

Potentially on water quality – if excavation and turn-over is used.

73

RP0026: Quantifying the effects of Entry Level Stewardship (ELS) on biodiversity at the farm scale: the Hillesden Experiment (DRAFT).

Contractor(s): NERC Centre for Ecology and Hydrology; Farmed Environment Company


Scope2: ELS

Indicator3: Farming for birds – In-field nesting habitat, Seed food during winter and early spring; Insect-rich foraging habitats; Farming for wildlife – Butterflies,

bees and vulnerable grassland


Summary of project:

The project was a practical test of effectiveness of ELS option combinations for a range of taxa at farm-scale. It was conceived at the beginning of the ELS scheme to compare the effects on biodiversity of conventional intensive arable farming under cross compliance (intensive arable management subject to the EU rules of cross compliance) with Entry Level Stewardship (a small suite of options selected to replicate a ‘standard’ agreement comprising 1% area out of production) and Entry Level Stewardship Extra (a more extensive selection of options targeted at farmland wildlife of conservation interest comprising 5% area out of production). The experimental design applied combinations of margin options to parcels of land to gain a more holistic view of the impacts on wildlife at a landscape scale, with the added benefit of allowing monitoring of more mobile species that use larger areas, such as bumblebees, mammals and birds.

The following specific objectives were addressed:

i. Establish a farm-scale randomised block experiment to compare the effects on biodiversity of conventional intensive arable farming under cross compliance with: (i) typical ELS option uptake; and (ii) enhanced and targeted ELS option uptake.

ii. Monitor the effects of these treatments on (i) habitat quality and food resources, and (ii) the abundance, diversity and population dynamics of key farmland taxa over a 5 year period;

iii. Use the experiment to promote knowledge transfer between researchers and practitioners (farmers, advisors, scientists, scheme administrators) through training days and workshops.

Summary table



6



7



Over a five year period, the effects on habitat quality and food resources, and the

+++ Work undertaken only on one

74

abundance, diversity and population dynamics of some key farmland taxa were significantly enhanced by both targeted local management and enhancements at the landscape scale.

Clear effects of scale on the responses of different taxa: mobile species like bumblebees, moths, birds and small mammals were more subject to the effects of wider landscape context and showed a net response to whole farm manipulation. The response of other taxa such as plants and some invertebrate groups, were more influenced by local environmental effects and plot level manipulations.

Resource quality was in general higher in the more ‘targeted’ ELS Extra options. A high variability in results reflected species responses to habitats at both local and landscape scales.

The quality of plot establishment and maintenance is important to the success of an option and the ELS agreement. If a sown option is not doing well after the first year, it is unlikely to improve and should be abandoned. Ground conditions at establishment and subsequent weather conditions contributed to high plot variability.

Greater emphasis should be placed on creating a higher proportion and a diversity of field margins, to provide a range of both winter and summer resources for wildlife.

Farm-scale bird abundance increased significantly due mainly as a result of increases in food resources and habitat provided by sown seed patches. These effects were not sustained due to variable weather conditions. Optimum management would provide a range

++

++

++

arable site in Buckinghamshire.

Treatments and options sown:

Cross Compliance (acting as a control):

Hedges cut annually post-harvest;

Protective buffer zones (hedgerows and water).

Entry Level Stewardship (1% of land removed from production to achieve 30 points ha

-1):

EB1 Relaxed hedgerow cutting (once every 2 years);

EE3 6m sown grass margins (4 grasses);

EF2b Biennial wild bird seed mixture.

Entry Level Stewardship Extra (5% of land removed from production to achieve 45-50 points ha

-1):

EB1 Relaxed hedgerow cutting (cutting once every 2 years);

EE3 (+) 6m sown grass margins (5 grasses and 6 forbs);

EF1 Wildflower corners (4 grasses and 25 forbs);

EF2a Annual wild bird mix;

EF2b Biennial wild bird seed mixture;

EF2c ‘Bumble-bird’ mix;

EF4 Nectar flower mixture (4

75

of seed resources through the winter combined with habitats providing higher invertebrate abundance in summer. The provision of structurally and floristically diverse swards would best achieve this.

Biennial hedge cutting (EB1) does not appear to increase berry yield of common hedgerow species and so provides relatively little benefit as a winter food resource compared to annual cutting.

Increased floral resources enhanced both the general abundance of invertebrates and pollinators along with the number of visits they made to flowering plants.

Small mammal abundance increase was linked to increased seed resources and habitat availability.

Evidence that ELS options can increase the abundance and diversity of key declining invertebrate groups, suggests that ELS may have a role in buffering populations from more extreme environmental conditions.

Study highlights that the five year duration of ELS may be insufficient to observe significant benefits in population abundances. Also, it may take some species a long time to colonise newly available habitats created by ELS unless landscape connectivity is also improved.

Guidance for Advisors

ELS as it stands may have limited success at increasing the abundance of farmland wildlife of concern. Its impact and effectiveness could be increased by: increasing areas out of production; improving quality and delivery of options through improved establishment and

0

++

++

++

legumes);

EF8 Skylark plots (20 plots per 10ha field);

EF11 Annually cultivated margins (uncropped).

Indicator taxa:

Hedge berry production;

Seed production in bird plots;

Dicotyledon flower abundance;

General invertebrate abundance;

Pollinator abundance;

Moth abundance;

Small mammal abundance;

Breeding bird territories;

Breeding bird productivity;

Winter bird abundance;

Tree hole bird productivity (nest boxes).

76

maintenance regimes; promoting greater levels of habitat heterogeneity at farm and landscape levels through a wider range of options.

The scheme and option selection should consider the landscape at greater than farm scale. Management/enhancement of existing habitats rather than the creation on new ones may be a better conservation strategy in areas of low habitat diversity.

EF4 nectar flower mixes should not include grasses. The inclusion of Red Clover and Alsike Clover as major elements means they are unlikely to last for the 5 years of an agreement. Patches should be re-located every 2-3 years.

Bird patches – increases in both patch quality and size would be beneficial, supplying more food longer into the winter. Supplementary feeding may help the ‘hungry gap’, but would need a range of seed size to cater for a range of bird species.

Hedges – Managed as EB1 are unlikely to increase food resources. Biennial cutting allows berries to be used thorough the winter but would need wide grass margins to allow machine access.


N/A


12

N/A


13

N/A

77

RP0026: Testing agri-environment delivery for farmland birds at the farm scale: the Hillesden experiment. (Hinsley et al. (2010). Ibis,152, 500–514).

Contractor(s): NERC Centre for Ecology and Hydrology; Farmed Environment Company


Scope2: ELS

Indicator3:Farming for birds (seed food during winter)


Summary of project:

Bird usage of food patches (sown spring 2006) was monitored throughout winter 2007⁄2008 and was related to seed mix and yield under three different treatment regimes: (1) Cross Compliance (control); (2) ELS (1% of land removed from production for wildlife habitat provision); and (3) ELS-X (5% of land used for wildlife habitat). A large variation was recorded between individual patches in both seed yield and bird numbers, and between individual bird species in their use of different seed mixes, suggesting that the availability of a range of patch types is beneficial. Provision of winter food increased winter bird abundance and to led to an overall increase in the breeding bird population. Because settlement to breed requires that sufficient nesting ⁄ foraging habitat is available to support an increase, the management of ES as a scheme must ensure the uptake of a suite of options that provide both winter food supplies as well as spring ⁄ summer nesting and foraging habitat.

Summary table



6



7



EF2 Provision of winter seed patches increases the numbers of birds present in winter at both the sub-farm (bird food patch) scale and the whole-farm scale.

++ This was a well designed study which included replicated plots with controls, and robust statistical analysis. However the experiment was conducted over only a single year at a single (farm-scale) site in Buckinghamshire. The results may therefore reflect local population redistribution rather than a general

Winter seed patch provision, coupled with the availability of other ES habitats, subsequently increases the

++

78

numbers of breeding territories. increase in bird numbers. Further studies at different geographical locations would provide more robust data.

Providing a range of seed patch types benefits a greater range of bird species.

++


The benefits of providing winter seed patches are likely to be felt most acutely by granivorous farmland birds, but spin-off benefits may be observed for other taxa, such as solitary bees and some butterflies. In addition it is not inconceivable to imagine benefits (in terms of an increase in numbers) to omnivorous birds, small mammals, and higher-level predators such as raptors.

++ The benefits to wildlife other than granivorous and omnivorous birds were not investigated during the study, but are based on scientific conjecture.


Not assessed


Not assessed

79

RP0037: The provision of winter bird food by the English environmental stewardship scheme

PAPER: Field, R.H., Morris, A.J., Grice, P.V.& Cooke, A.I. (2011). The provision of winter bird food by the English Environmental Stewardship scheme. Ibis 153: 14-26.

Contractor: Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

Study type and theme1: M&E, B

Scope2: All ES

Indicator3: Farming for birds, Seed food during winter and early spring


Summary of project:

27 HLS, 13ELS and 14 non-ES sites were selected from East Anglia and the West Midlands. Selected using some limitations (e.g. had to have a record of on eof the target birds on the site, minimum distance of 2km). Bird species targeted were; grey partridge, tree sparrow and corn bunting. Farms clustered geographically in to 10 clusters. Farms were matched with in and across clusters such that they had similar holding sized and farming systems. Granivorous songbird densities were estimated on each site. The numbers of the target species recorded on the sites were too low to draw any conclusions about these species and so the wider bird diversity was assessed instead.

Summary table



6



7



Greater abundance and species richness of granivores with wild bird mixes on ES rather than non-ES game covers in cereal dominated East Anglia.

Pastoral dominated West Midlands showed no difference between ES and non-ES game covers.

Suggest increasing uptake in West Midlands and developing methods to

+++ -- +++

Low number of samples in study and limited geographic range mean this may not be applicable across the UK. Additionally, it is unclear if the increased numbers seen on ES options is as a result of population increase or re-distribution.

80

increase food potential of ‘the prevalent pastoral methods’

ELS wild bird mix supported finches (through higher weed densities) but not buntings

Suggest more advice to ELS farmers regarding seed mixture choice to include bunting food resources

The results suggest that HLS wild bird mix supports more species and at a higher density than ELS equivalent, although the trends are not significant.

Both provide food resource for birds in winter

Skylarks prefer ELS stubbles to non-ES stubbles but very weak, non-significant statistical relationship

Suggests that the low numbers of the three target species on HLS options could mean a problem with targeting of options. Revision of FEP process is suggested.

+ +++ +

+++ + ---

Low numbers of samples in the study so hard to say for sure either way Low numbers of samples in the study so hard to say for sure either way.


Provides some seed resource over winter although concern that there are not enough of such options or at high enough densities to cause a real increase in farmland bird populations. Also the limited additional benefit HLS seems to have over ELS is concerning as it suggests it is not currently offering value for money.

++ Low number of samples in study and limited geographic range


12

N/A


N/A

81

RP0194: Managing plant symbiosis: fungal endophyte genotype alters plant community composition.

(Rudgers et al. (2010) Managing plant symbiosis: fungal endophyte genotype alters plant community composition. Journal of Applied Ecology, 47, 468–477)


Scope2: All ES



Summary of project:

In grasses, fungal endophytes can benefit plants by producing alkaloid compounds with anti-herbivore properties. This prompted an investigation to determine the genotypic effects of the foliar endophytic fungus, Neotyphodium coenophialum, a symbiont of tall fescue grass Lolium arundinaceu, on grassland biodiversity. Plots with the ‘KY-31’ endophyte (which produces ergot alkaloids toxic to mammalian herbivores) supported around 10% fewer plant species than non-ergot producing ‘AR-542’ plots or endophyte-free plots. KY-31 also reduced graminoids and forbs more strongly than AR-542, with the greatest response in the ‘Georgia-5’ tall fescue cultivar compared to the ‘Jesup’ cultivar. Endophyte genotype did not significantly alter the prevalence of tall fescue; however, absence of the endophyte reduced the biomass of Georgia-5. Endophyte presence reduced herbivory by mammals (voles), but endophyte genotype had no effect, suggesting that voles were not driving endophyte genotype-mediated changes in plant composition, and that other compounds besides ergot alkaloids influenced vole feeding.

In cases where the increased productivity of endophyte-symbiotic plants is desired, AR-542 in the Georgia-5 background is likely to achieve higher native plant diversity and reduce tall fescue invasion of nearby areas. Conversely, Jesup is recommended for increased tall fescue persistence, as both biomass and reproduction exceeded Georgia-5. The study concludes that symbiont genotype can alter vegetation dynamics and plant composition and should be considered when managing for conservation, restoration, forage, turf, re-vegetation or soil stabilization.

Summary table

Reference number5: AES106b, B


6



7



EK2 Tall fescue with an absence of the fungal endophyte N. coenophialum supports greatest species ricness.

+ The study took place over a 6-year period in replicated field plots at a single location in Indiana, USA.

82

Where endophyte-symbiotic tall fescue is deemed necessary the combination of ergot-free AR-542 and the Georgia-5 tall fescue cultivar has the lowest impact on plant species richness, graminoids, and two native forbs.

++

The lack of geographic replication may reduce the transferability of the results. In any case the results may not be transferable to the UK.


The use of endophyte-free tall fescue, or to a lesser degree ergot-free endophyte-symbiontic tall fescue, is likely to contribute to maintaining or improving grassland habitats and biodiversity.

++ See above


Endophyte absence reduces the biomass of tall fescue, which may have concomitant effects on production and the rural economy.

+

Little information is provided on the level of biomass reduction of endophyte-free tall fescue; the possible impact on productivity or the rural economy is not explored.


Not assessed

83

RP0194 / BD1451: Diversification of grassland through the manipulation of plant-soil interactions: Final report

Contractors: North Wyke Research, University - Reading, Institute of Grassland and Environment Research (IGER), University - Newcastle, University - Lancaster


Scope2: All ES

Indicator3: Farming for wildlife, Butterflies, bees and vulnerable grassland


Summary of project:

Designed to look into the high fungal – bacterial ratio found in low intensity managed unimproved grasslands compared to semi-improved/improved moderately-intensively managed grassland. Experiments were created to look at the impact introduction of certain species had on the microbial community and fungal growth and the impact this had on nutrient cycling and plant diversity. Finally management options were also investigated. Used ester-linked phospholipid fatty acids (PLFA) composition of the soil to assess the soil microbial community.

Summary table

Reference number5: AES106a, B


6



7



Intensive grassland management leads to decreased sps richness and fungal-bacterial ratio. Also causes an increase in soil fertility. Low intensity management is linked to high fungal-bacterial ratio and high sps richness. Biotic factors are potentially more important than abiotic factors in mixed species grasslands. Negative

--- +++ --

Applies to second key finding: Extensively managed sites (those receiving little or no fertiliser) were selected based on species composition and not management therefore some extensively managed sites with low spp-

84

feedbacks were found in species grown in soil that previously supported that same species, probably due to increased levels of species specific microbial pathogens. Plants known as ‘direct fungal facilitators’ (DF) promoted soil fungal growth. ‘Indirect fungal facilitators’ (IF) (Rhinanthus minor) had variable effects most likely masked by differences in soil properties. Removal of IF combined with addition of DF seed did not alter plant sps richness or soil fungal-bacterial ratio. Reseeding with legume T pratense increased soil C and N. Soil fertility, measured as Ellenberg fertility score and increased by application of fertilisers and FYM, is negatively related to fungal-bacterial ratio. High abundance of fungi (promoted by less intensive management and facilitator species) increases “soil N retention, efficient N supply to plants, and reduces N loss from soil” Suggest that fungal-bacterial ratio and abundance of fungus could act as indicators of conservation

++ 0 - + -- +++ ++

richness (maybe due to herbicide treatments) will not have been selected. Applies to all key findings: Cannot use the data collected here to distinguish between cause and effect relationships or to make recommendations on how long it takes for a grassland to move from low fungal-bacterial ratio to high. Can be used to suggest which sites are likely to be successful in a conservation management plan. Initial England wide field survey of grasslands, followed by more localised testing using mesocosms and a randomised plot design with replicates.

85

success.

Fungal PLFA >1 = extensively managed semi-natural grassland of high conservation value Suggest that fungal PLFA of <0.6 and fungal-bacterial PLFA ratio of <0.05 suggest grasslands of lower conservation value. High value sps introduced may not perform well until fungal biomass increases. But – expensive to do PLFA assessments. Could use Ellenberg Fertility score as a surrogate, but this requires full sps list. Suggest measures of soil properties should be included in vegetation measures. Such as soil C content which is cheap to perform and a good predictor of vegetation composition.

+++ + --- + +++


Could use the data collected in this study to locate and target the most suitable sites for grassland restoration and thereby increase the likelihood of success.

+++


N/A


N/A

86

RP0196 / BD5207: Utility of lenient grazing of agricultural grassland to promote in-field structural heterogeneity.

Second year report – NOT FINAL. First year report is provided in a separate project.

Contractors: Royal Society for Protection of Birds, ADAS UK Ltd., CABI Bioscience


Scope2: All ES

Indicator3: Farming for birds, Insect-rich foraging habitats


Summary of project:

Study looking at the impacts of differing grazing intensities on grassland structure and subsequent effects on invertebrate and bird sps-richness and abundance. Three different treatments were used: Continuous Lenient Grazing (CL); Intermittent Lenient Grazing (IL); Continuous Intensive Grazing – the control (CON).

Summary table



6



7



2010 = invertebrate abundance in lenient grazing is double that of control fields. Invertebrate bird prey abundance is 50% higher. 2011 = above difference is much smaller. Abundance of invertebrates in control plots had increased. 2010 and 2011 = No difference in invertebrate numbers between lenient grazing treatments.

+++ + 0

Study was impacted by drought in 2010 and 2011 (although not as severely as in 2010). This meant that treatments could not be applied as early as would have been liked due to poor grass growth. Additionally, the variation in invertebrate and bird abundance and composition was explained to a greater extent by previous treatments than by current treatments.

87

Invertebrate community: 2010 = community related to sward height. Positive relationship between sward height, small-scale structural heterogeneity and bird prey abundance. 2011 = No difference in invertebrate community between treatments. Bird analysis: 2010 results not given. 2011 = Lenient grazing treatments attracted buntings and skylarks (in second half of season), with most preference shown for CL treatments. Continuously grazed treatments seemed to be preferred by buntings and skylarks but these treatments were interrupted due to drought conditions meaning poor grass growth and the need to remove cattle. For obligate seed eaters, CL plots were avoided at first and may have been preferred in the later half of the season but the evidence collected in inconclusive. Buntings selected areas with high invertebrate abundance and high structural heterogeneity.

+++ 0 ++ + 0 +++

88


Potentially some benefits of lenient grazing for invertebrates and bird species, but the reliability of the evidence is low.

+ As above


2011: Average costs of lenient treatments were £-52/ha (IL) and £62/ha (CL), but there was considerable between site variation. This does not include the cost of providing alternative grazing for the intermittent treatment.

Study was impacted by drought in 2010 and 2011 (although not as severely as in 2010). This meant that treatments could not be applied as early as would have been liked due to poor grass growth. Also, cattle were removed from CL to allow grass to grow.


N/A

89

RP0199 / BD1425 / BD1459: Techniques to enhance the establishment and persistence of poor-performing species in grassland restoration.

Draft Report

Contractor: Natural Environment Research Council


Scope2: All ES

Indicator3: Farming for Wildlife; Butterflies, bees and vulnerable grassland.


Summary of project:

Study looks at the impacts of different pre-sowing treatments and post-establishment grazing on the success of grassland restoration (both short and long term). Also looked at impact of Rhinanthus minor on ‘poor-performing grassland forbs’. Three experiments were carried out:

Exp1: treatments = i) undisturbed control, ii) band spraying with glyphosate herbicide to remove around 50% of sward, iii) harrowing to create 40 -50% bare ground, iv) Harrowing to 40-50% and sow R. minor and v) spray glyphosate followed by harrowing. Followed one yr later by: i) summer haycut and cattle grazing, ii) spring grazing with sheep, summer hay cut, autumn cattke grazing, iii) Spring sheep grazing, summer and autumn cattle grazing.

Exp2: treatments = i) undisturbed control, ii) band spraying with glyphosate herbicide to remove around 50% of sward, iii) power harrowing to create 70 - 80% bare ground, iv) v) spray glyphosate followed by 2-directional ploughing to create ridge and furrow. Followed by: i) summer haycut and cattle grazing, ii) spring grazing with sheep, summer hay cut, autumn cattke grazing, iii) Spring sheep grazing, summer and autumn cattle grazing.

Exp 3: treatments = the following were combined in a random block design. 1) Amount of bare ground i) 0-5% from hay cutting and subsequent grazing, ii) 10 – 50% from one pass with scarifier, iii) 50 -100% from 2 passes with scarifier. 2) Sowing density of R minor (30, 150, 300, 900 seeds per m

2) and 3) Ecotype of R.

minor (subspecies’ either minor, calcareous or stenophyllus).

Summary table

Reference number5: AES102,

B


6



7



Random stratified plot design was used. (Exp 1). Also used a split-plot design (Exp 2). Study sites in Bedfordshire and Devon.

90

High levels of disturbance promoted poor-performing sown species establishing (spray followed by harrowing). During restoration – Summer cut is better than summer grazing as it removes woody species that would be left if only grazed. Spring sheep grazing is important for sown species survival at productive sites but may favour lower forage quality species. Rhinanthus minor – Subspecies minor was most able to establish in all conditions. Soil moisture is important (too wet or dry and R minor won’t establish as well). Did decrease host (competitive grasses) biomass, but compensated for this (e.g. increased R minor biomass). May be more important that R minor annually dies leading to gap creation.

+++ ++ + + - 0 ++

Fully factorial, randomised block design was used at four sites(Exp 3). All experiments include replicates. Only at one site. Unexpected and significant re-growth of grass after initial disturbance treatments. Not clear if this is an anomaly or if it is standard. Again only relevant to one site. Unsure of application to wider UK. Impacts of grazing regime may only truly come to light in longer-term studies. More applicable to UK as more sites were used, but all were based in Southern England.

91

Ridge and furrow – Good on calcareaous grasslands as could create gaps for “low-structured species of low competitive ability normally associated with anthills or south-facing topography”. Work less well in heavy grazing areas particularly with cattle as they damage the structure. Seed – Suggest the underlying reason for failure of poor-performing species is failure of env. Conditions to break seed dormancy.

+++ -- 0

Again only relevant to one site. Unsure of application to wider UK. No experimental investigation of theory.


Suggests potential ways to improve target species establishment through high levels of disturbance. Although should be wary of this due to high degree of re-establishment after initial clearing. Also suggests timing specific management options such as ridge and furrow to benefit plants associated with anthills or south-facing topography, summer cutting to remove woody biomass and the possibility of using sheep grazing (although this is likely to favour lower forage quality species).

++ Impacted by small number of study areas limiting the relevance of the study to wider England. Also, needs further work looking at impacts of grazing on grassland restoration success.


12

N/A


13

N/A

92

RP0201 / BD1466: Wide scale enhancement of biodiversity: effects on other resources.

Report for the 2009-2010 field season.

Contractors: Institute of Grassland and Environment Research (IGER), North Wyke Research, Natural Environment Research Council


Scope2: All ES

Indicator3: Farming for birds; Insect-rich foraging habitats and Seed food during winter and early spring. Farming for wildlife; Butterflies, bees and vulnerable

grassland.


Summary of project:

The project used a randomised, hierarchical split-split-split plot design of 24 treatments to assess the impacts of “different seed mixtures, subsequent management of the sward, the timing of management and the initial cultivation practice used to establish the different seed mixtures”. The impacts on wider biodiversity, soil structure were assessed. Two sites were used for the assessment; one in Devon and the other in Berkshire. INTERIM REPORT.

Summary table



6



7



No consistent impact of different seed mixtures, management, or cultivation practice on soil penetrability. Possibly due to short observation period. Legume presence doubled herbage dry matter yields compared to grass only plots at both sites in the first year and at one site in the subsequent year.

0 +++

Well designed randomised split plot study. Only covered a restricted area of England.

93

Shallow cultivated treatments had higher herbage phosphorus compared to ploughed treatments. Non-legume forbs increased herbage magnesium and sodium content. Persistence over 2 years was greatest and higher numbers of non legume forbs with ploughing and conventional seed bed prep rather than shallow cultivation. A higher sward was present when grazing was rested compared to conventional grazing management. Rested grazing in mid-summer led to increased winter grass and seed resource. Pollen and nectar resource was higher in cutting than grazing management and generally higher in rested grazing. Butterfly species richness: Higher in rested plots and seed mixtures that contained legumes and/or forbs for one site. Higher on cut plots in the second site. Bumblebee species richness: Highest with seed mixtures with legumes / forbs and rested plots.

? ? +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++

Contradictory evidence. Needs further investigation and may become clearer in third year of study.

94

Pollinator abundance: Positively related to presence of legumes / forbs particularly on rested plots. Beetles: Biomass – positively associated with legume presence and potentially with rested sites (but not in the 2

nd year at

one site). Species richness and abundance – increased with presence of legumes and/or forbs.

+++ +++ +++


Generally, swards that achieved the greatest abundance and persistence of forbs and legumes had the greatest positive impact on nectar feeding invertebrates and beetles. Ploughing appears to be the best way to ensure persistence.

The success of shallow cultivation requires extensive controlling of existing sward to reduce competition.

+++

+++

+


N/A


N/A

95

RP0278 / BD2114: Effects of hedgerow management and restoration on biodiversity.

FINAL REPORT NOT YET AVAILABLE. PAPER PUBLISHED: Staley et al. (2011) Long-term effects of hedgerow management policies on resource provision for wildlife. Biological Conservation 145, 24-29



Scope2: All ES

Indicator3: Farming for Wildlife; butterflies, bees and vulnerable grassland, bats and dormice and brown hare. Farming for Birds.


Summary of project:

Five year project looking at the impacts of cutting frequency and time of cutting on hedgerow flowers and berry resources. Cutting was carried out once every 1, 2 or 3 years in autumn or winter. All hedges used were on one site in Cambridgeshire. Two control hedges were also included; these had never been cut for 15yrs and were not cut throughout the experiment. Hedges were randomly assigned to a cutting treatment and replicates were used.

Summary table



6



7



Cutting (compared to control hedges) decreased flower abundance by 75% and winter berry abundance by 83%. Reduced frequency cutting (every 3 yrs) increased flower abundance by 2.1 times and berry biomass by 3.4 times. Cutting every 2 years had intermediate impacts on flower

+++ ++ +

Factorially designed random plot study over 5 years therefore looks at longer-term impacts of the study. But only covering one local site in Cambridgeshire.

96

abundance but increases in berry biomass depended on winter cutting and not autumn. 32% of the length of managed hedgerows in England are cut once every two years. Switching to cutting once every three years could increase berry biomass by 40%.

+++


Switching management of cut every 2 years to cut every 3 years would provide food resource for birds and mammals in winter. Lepidoptera eggs layed in late summer/autumn will be allowed to develop (with winter cutting)

+++


N/A


N/A

97

RP0610: Survey of higher level stewardship option HK8: creation of species-rich semi-natural grassland

Contractor: Hewins Ecology


Scope2: HLS, HK8



Summary of project:

The project used a combination of field survey and desk based work to assess the effectiveness of the targeting and delivery of HK8. The study included an assessment of the targeting; progress towards BAP priority grassland status (for 36 grasslands previously surveyed); to survey land managers, advisors and stakeholders regarding the management practices used and planned; assess the appropriateness of the indicators of success (IoS) and suggest alternatives if deemed not suitable; if the IoS are suitable, assess the likelihood of the agreement meeting the objectives and its IoS.

Summary table



6



7



54% of areas surveyed are likely to qualify as good quality BAP habitat by the end of the HLS agreements BUT lack of establishment of positive indicator species is a major problem In general, species found were ones known to be good competitors, with poor competitors less frequent Around 75% of the areas were correctly targeted for HK8

+++ --- --- ++

Small sample of only 36 areas was used to base all the conclusions on. However, the sample did extend over a large geographic area. The areas were not chosen by stratification but were randomly selected. Thorough assessments undertaken at these sites.

98

14% of areas fail to demonstrate the potential to achieve good quality semi-improved grassland Management factors influencing establishment: Seed source, seed mix, ground preparation, current management Particularly concerned where no mention of nutrient addition is given in management prescription – could allow for unrestricted nutrient additions Suitability of IoS varied greatly. In some cases IoS were not at all suited to the grassland managed or were not clear in how they should be measured 55% failed to meet more than half of the IoS HK8 has created some semi-natural grasslands “Some potential for good quality grassland to develop with time and appropriate management before the agreements expire.” Recommend: improved guidance for advisers and other NE staff introduction of a quality assurance

--- + --- --- --- +++ +++ +++ +++

99

scheme (to target and establish successfully, share best practice and outcomes) Better quality and relevant IoS are set

++


HK8 has helped to create some semi-natural grasslands with more likely to achieve good quality grassland status before the HLS agreements end.

+++ As above


N/A


N/A

100

MA01022: Assessment of the impacts of the entry level scheme on bird populations: results for the baseline year, 2005

Contractor: British Trust for Ornithology


Scope2: ELS

Indicator3: Farming for birds


Summary of project:

To assess the baseline populations of farmland birds at the start of ELS, with the long-term aim of assessing the impact in 2011. Around 2,500 1km survey squares were used for the assessment and to create the baseline. These squares were split between arable and pastoral environments.

Summary table

Reference number5: AES055B


6



7



No recommendations – aimed to establish a baseline to assess future change against




101

MA01024: Farm Environment Evaluation Plan

Contractor: Central Science Laboratory

Study type and theme1: M&E

Scope2: HLS

Indicator3:


Summary of project:

Assessment of the Farm Environment Plan. Carried out via surveys to stakeholders.

Assessment of FEP rather than the ES options. Based on farmer opinion

Summary table

Reference number5: AES054B


6



7



.




102

MA01028: Evaluation of the operation of environmental stewardship

Contractor: Central Science Laborotoary

Study type and theme1: L

Scope2: ELS, OELS, HLS,

Indicator3: Farming for Landscape


Summary of project:

This project evaluated the operation of ES during its first two years. This was achieved through a 1) Questionnaire survey of participants (postal + visit) and non-participants (postal); 2: Analysis of uptake (statistical & spatial); 3: Delivery of environmental outcomes - a: Validation of FERs and FEPs (field survey); b: Baseline environmental assessment of ELS/OELS (field survey + interview); c: Survey of stakeholder views (on-line questionnaire) and: Modelling of environmental outcomes (based on expert judgement)

Summary table

Reference number5: MA01028, L


6



7



Survey participants considered ELS/OELS impacts would be greatest for wildlife and landscape. Most organisations thought that the ES scheme would make a positive contribution to scheme targets. In general, contributions to biodiversity and landscape were thought to be greater than to resource protection and the historic environment.

++ ++

It was not possible to model the impact of ES on landscape within this project. Results for landscape based entirely on survey

103

Landscape impacts were most highly rated by LFA – SDA participants.

Only 36% of NE Advisors stated that HLS agreements contained options suitable for landscape. Additional comments related to no proper targeted approach for whole JCA and only minor, isolated benefits; very subjective, difficult to address and not well understood; options tend to avoid negatively affecting landscape rather than positively addressing it; usually a secondary benefit of other options; tends to be benefited by capital works plans.

17 stakeholders thought that the HLS would make a major contribution to wildlife conservation, but only ten thought it would make a major contribution to the landscape.

++ + +


Most respondents thought that ELS would make a positive contribution to the landscape, this was particularly the case for LFA participants. However, fewer stakeholders thought that HLS would make a major contribution to landscape and only 36% of NE Advisors stated that HLS agreements contained options suitable for landscape

+

As above


12

N/A


104

MA01040: The condition of lowland heathland: results from a sample of non-SSSI stands in England

Contractor: Just Ecology Ltd


Scope2: HLS

Indicator3: Farming for Wildlife: Butterflies, bees and vulnerable grassland


Summary of project:

104 English non-SSSI lowland heathland stands were surveyed to assess their quality and create a baseline. Land both in and out of agri-environment schemes was considered. Covered stands in 3 argi-environment schemes (Environmentally Sensitive Areas, Countryside Stewardship Scheme and Wildlife Enhancement Scheme). All sites were assessed against a range of attribute targets designed to assess if the stand was in a favourable condition or not. Three sets of targets were assessed; 1) standard common standards for monitoring (CSM) targets, 2) CSM species poor sites targets and 3) a “less stringent” set based on the HLS scheme.

Summary table



6



7



No stand passed all attribute targets (standard or species poor) <5% of dry heathland passed HLS targets (43% when targets for dwarf shrub structural diversity were removed) 41% of dry heathland stands failed to meet the requirement to have 25 –

--- + --

Well structured study covering a large geographic area. Perhaps could have included more stratified site selection process. They stratified based on inclusion (or not) in agri-environment schemes. Perhaps could have looked at heathland type, option type etc.?

105

90% dwarf shrub cover Commonly, wet heaths failed due to low dwarf shrub cover, low frequency of desirable forbs, low graminoid diversity and high frequency of Molina caerulea Land was more likely to be managed for conservation if it was in an agri-environment scheme Suggest targeting agri-environment schemes at lowland heathland and providing advice to land managers

-- + ++


Land was more likely to be managed for conservation if it was in an agri-environment scheme

Continued management in agri-environment schemes may bring about eventual recovery of lowland heathland and bring it into a good or favourable condition.

+ Expert knowledge. Not based on experimentation.


N/A


N/A

106

MA01041: Estimating impacts of ELS on key biodiversity indicators and diffuse pollution of surface waters by nutrients



Scope2: ELS

Indicator3: Farming for wildlife: Butterflies, bees and vulnerable grassland and arable plants


Summary of project:

Assessment of ELS option impacts based on the option uptake compared to the optimal uptake. The project focuses on biodiversity and water quality. A modelling approach was used to estimate the impact of each option on some environmental variables. In the case of biodiversity indicators (rare arable flora, brown hairstreak butterfly and bumblebees), experts able to provide the necessary knowledge for the model were limited and so an alternative approach based on lit review and expert knowledge was created.

Summary table



6



7

Notes incl. context & caveats

9


Several improvements were suggested including: Arable plants:

Encourage uptake in key areas of EF10 + 11 (Assessed as being the most beneficial)

Allow control of pernicious weeds in uncropped, cultivated strips to reduce prevalence of competing

+++ +++ +++

Based on lit review and expert knowledge rather than field experimentation.

107

weed spp

Allow use of graminicides to control grass weeds

Increase of point allocation (costs associated with managing weeds) reduced concern over weeds impacting crops

Allow conservation headlands outside the cropped area

Brown hairstreak:

Target advice within range of butterfly

An option that combines enhances hedgerow management and mature hedgerow trees

Combined options for enhanced hedgerow management by field corners/buffer strips containing nectar producing plants (to provide breeding habitat next to nectar plants)

Bumblebees:

Allow pollen nectar mixes to be created on permanent grassland receiving medium / high levels of fertiliser

+ + +++ +++ +++ +++

108

Recommend use of non-agricultural varieties as agricultural varieties tend to be short-lived

Restrict on area rather than number of pollen / nectar mixtures as experts suggested that smaller strips would be more beneficial than larger ones

Give recommendations of which perennial sps in buffer strips / field corners benefit bumblebees

Combined options for feeding and nesting habitat

+++ ++ +++ +++


Benefits as described above


Some consideration made of costs of management and increases in point allocation are suggested.


Water quality

109

MA01042: Hedgerow Survey Review

Contractor: Colin Barr


Scope2: All ES

Indicator3: Farming for wildlife,


Summary of project:

The project aimed to gather data on hedgerow surveys and assess how useful it is to UK Hedgerow HAP Steering Group. 80 surveys were included in the assessment. Information on the 80 surveys was sought via questionnaires with reliable returns from 51 of these. Assessment criteria (based on scientific rigour, relevance, relationship to HAP objectives and quality and interpretation) were used to assess how useful each of these 51 surveys would be to the steering group. In some cases, there was missing information in the 51 survey responses that could not be filled using project reports, in these cases a below average score was given. The authors list surveys that are likely to be most useful to the steering group – usually those that are county or nationally based and use the Defra standard survey technique. NOT REALLY RELEVANT TO THE STUDY.

Summary table

Reference number5:


6



7



Recommendations:

Use BRCs to archive data

Website for collation of survey metadata

Surveys should use the standard Defra methodology

+

+

+

Large effort in collating survey metadata but project impacted by poor returns from some surveys.


Standard methodology for monitoring hedgerows and collating metadata could lead to the surveys having more impact and usefulness in forming future ESS recommendations.


12


110

NECR102: Ecosystem services from Environmental Stewardship that benefit agricultural production.

Contractor(s): The Food and Environment Research Agency; The Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust

Study type and theme1: R&D; Biodiversity

Scope2: ES

Indicator3: Farming for wildlife – butterflies, bees and vulnerable grassland (pollinators, pest predators)

Cross-references to other summary tables for the same study4: AES170 - RP

Summary of project:

A review of the ecosystem services provided by ES and is particularly concerned with those that are of benefit to agricultural (especially crop) production. The report identifies ecosystem services associated with crop production benefits, describes the relationships between ES options and ecosystem services, scores options for their contribution to key ecosystem services and maps the provision of these services through ES across England. Key ecosystem services considered include soil formation, nutrient cycling, carbon sequestration, water regulation and purification, genetic resources, pest regulation and pollination.

The objectives of the study were:

To identify ecosystem services associated with crop production benefits that can be provided or enhanced by Environmental Stewardship and the relevant ES options, building on those identified in the project specification;

To describe and document the relationships between ES options, services and benefits to agricultural production based on the scientific literature, case studies and ongoing research;

To allocate the services identified to farm production systems and describe the relationship between them, plus any interactions that may result when considered in a landscape scale;

Describe as far as possible how ES options could be deployed to maximise ecosystem service benefits;

Identify and review research that quantifies the relationship between ES option and services that support agricultural production, as far as possible based on the information available;

To map ecosystem service provision by ES that is of relevance to agricultural production.

111

Summary table

Reference number5: AES170 B


6



7



Pollinators:

ES options with the potential to provide suitable habitat and resources for pollinators include: hedgerow and ditch management (especially enhanced management), floristically enhanced headlands, nectar and wild bird seed mixtures, species- rich grassland and other grassland options that result in flower-rich swards.

Organic management favours pollinators such as bumble bees because it relies on rotations involving legumes such as clover. Organic farms are also more likely to contain unimproved grassland which is a good habitat for pollinators.

A bundle of options should include undisturbed ground for nesting cover, in hedge bases, ditch banks, buffer strips and/or beetle banks, a source of early pollen and nectar, such as hedges with early-flowering shrubs and trees of traditionally managed orchards, and habitats that provide floral resources throughout the rest of the season, such as nectar mixtures, florally enhanced margins and species-rich meadows.

Options scoring and mapping show that pollination is more relevant for arable and horticultural producers. Service delivery in

+++

++

+++

Apart from bees (honey, bumble and solitary bees), other pollinators include hoverflies, thrips, beetles, Lepidoptera and other Hymenoptera.

Map for pollination services is very similar to that for pest regulation. However, for pollination there is slightly more emphasis on species-rich grassland and less on buffer strips unless they are floristically enhanced. Traditional orchards are also important for pollinators.

A high level of pollination delivery in the northern Pennines probably results from the presence of options for the management of species-rich grassland and moorland.

112

some areas important for these sectors is low, suggesting that improved targeting of options could be beneficial.

Pest Regulation:

Resources required by natural enemies include pollen and nectar, shelter, alternative prey and an appropriately structured environment.

These resources can be provided by ES options for hedgerows and banks, buffer strips on cultivated land (especially if floristically enhanced), wild bird and nectar mixes, undersown spring cereals and enhanced stubbles, beetle banks, low input and species-rich grasslands and upland meadows.

Good evidence that these options contain natural predators at higher densities and diversities than in the crop, but studies of the impacts of ES options on natural enemy densities in crops or the effects on pest levels are few.

To maximise the potential for pest predators, a ‘bundle’ of options comprising hedgerow or ditch management, buffer strips, beetle banks and one or more options providing floral resources (nectar mix, conservation headland, uncropped wildlife strip, wild bird seed mix including nectar-bearing plants, wild flower margin) is suggested.

Options scoring and mapping show that pest regulation is more relevant for arable and horticultural producers.

There is scope for further development of options to extend the provision of ecosystem services, for example, the availability of a

++

++

++

No studies were found that investigated the effects of ES options on crop yields or damage, probably because most options are designed for other purposes. However, there are numerous studies that link habitat creation to improved pest control.

For pest regulation, farmers are aware of the benefits of encouraging biological control but more information on how to achieve the best impacts is required.

113

wider range of options to provide floral services for pollinators and pest predators, such as wild flower field margins.

Research on impacts of ES at a landscape level, and the optimal location and arrangement of options within the landscape, is a priority.


Options to benefit pollinators and pest predators are also likely to benefit other invertebrates which in turn will provide forage resources for birds.


12

In Britain and the rest of Europe, insect pollinators contribute to the production of over 80% of crop species. Estimates of the economic value of pollination services to UK agriculture range from £186m-567m/annum.


13

Other key ecosystem services considered include soil formation, nutrient cycling, carbon sequestration, water regulation and purification, genetic resources and pest regulation.

114

Askew et al. (2007). Agri-environment schemes and foraging of barn owls Tyto alba.

Askew, N.P., Searle, J.B., Moore, N.P. (2007), Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 118, 109–114

Study type and theme1: M&E; B

Scope2: Farm woodlands, permanent set-aside, and both 2 and 6 m field margins from the CSS.

Indicator3: Farming for birds – small mammal prey


Summary of project:

A comparison was carried out of mature grasslands provided by agri-environmental schemes to better understand which hold the greatest prey numbers and how new areas of grassland targeted at barn owl conservation should be created and managed.

Summary table



6



7


EE1; EE3; EE4; EE6; HE11;

Environmental Stewardship is likely to increase the area of suitable foraging habitat for barn owls.

++ A well-designed study with good replication and a high number of trapped individuals. It does, however, only represent 2 years data.

No direct measurement of barn owl numbers was undertaken, so any expected increase is based on an assumption that more foraging habitat/prey items leads to increased owl numbers. However this is likely to be dependent on suitable owl nesting sites.

Wood mice (Apodemus sylvaticus), common shrews (Sorex araneus)


Small mammal numbers are positively associated with taller swards in permanent set-aside, and 2m and 6m field margins.

+++

For 2 and 6m field margins and set-aside, swards greater than 20 cm contained the greatest numbers of potential barn owl prey.

+++

Areas cut every 2 or 3 years supported more individuals and

++

115

species than areas cut annually. and bank voles (Clethrionomys glareolus) accounted for 89% of all individuals sampled, hence sward height and cutting frequency were determined for these three species only.

Field voles are the most important prey species for barn owls, but few field voles were captured during the study.

The trend of increased individual and species was only significant for common shrews.

EC4; HC7 - HC10

Farm woodlands have significantly greater numbers of small mammals in shorter swards.

++


Wider benefits may be achieved in terms of greater numbers of prey items for other birds of prey and carnivorous mammals, and possibly native British reptiles such as snakes.


N/A


N/A

116

Baker et al (2012) Landscape-scale responses of birds to agri-environment management: a test of the English Environmental Stewardship scheme.

Baker, D.J., Freeman, S.J., Grice, P.V. & Siriwardena, G.M. (2012). (Journal of Applied Ecology, 49, 871–882.


Scope2: ES (incl. B, EE1 to EE6, EF2; EF6; K)

Indicator3: Farming for birds: in-field nesting habitat; seed food during winter and early spring; insect-rich foraging habitats


Summary of project:

Breeding Bird Survey data was used to investigate the efficacy of ES in driving changes in national farmland bird populations. Strong evidence was found for positive effects of providing winter food resources (i.e. ES stubble and wild bird seed crops) on population growth rates across multiple granivorous species, at various landscape scales. This provides the first evidence for landscape-scale responses of biodiversity to AES management. Conversely management aimed at providing breeding season benefits (i.e. grassland, field margin and hedge/ditch management) showed mixed positive and negative associations, and indicates the importance of management context in driving unforeseen predation or competition effects.

The study demonstrates that agri-environment scheme management has the potential to have national-scale effects on avian population growth rates, although some components of the scheme may have little effect on bird populations, underlining the importance of targeting population limiting factors such as winter food resources. A combination of low uptake of key in-field options that provide winter seed and a failure to cover the late-winter period effectively explains the lack of national population responses.

Summary table



6



7



B, E, F, K

Overall message: Farm management that provides winter food resources results in positive effects on the population growth rates of multiple granivorous bird species.

In order to reverse national declines the results greater farmer uptake is

+++

The assessment, using BTO⁄JNCC⁄ RSPB Breeding Bird Survey data, took place over the period 2002–2010 at three landscape scales, 1 km

2, 9 km

2 and 25 km

2.

Low uptake prevented testing of some options, such as skylark plots.

117

needed, coupled with enhanced management effectiveness.

EF6

ES stubble management: significant positive associations were found between population growth rates and stubble management for three quarters of the granivorous species tested, including: corn bunting (P), goldfinch (A), linnet (A, M, P), grey partridge (P), reed bunting (A, P), skylark (M) and yellowhammer (A, P). All were positively associated with the presence of ES stubble management at the 1-km

2 scale.

Goldfinch (P) showed a negative association

1.

(For key to letters see Notes column)

+++

--

Species results are presented by landscape type, using the following abbreviations:

A = arable; P = pastoral; M=mixed. 1Goldfinch (P) is a partial migrant

so local winter habitat may be only a weak influence on local breeding birds, but there is no clear explanation for these results.

EF2

ES wild bird seed management: population growth rates of corn bunting (P), reed bunting (P), skylark (M), tree sparrow (A) and yellowhammer (A) were positively associated with the presence of ES wild bird seed management at the 1-km

2 scale with 0.1 ha km

-2 under ES

WBS management. The results suggest that increased seed availability relaxes population limits on many granivorous species.

Chaffinch (P) and tree sparrow (M) showed a significant negative association

2.

+++

---

2Where seed resources are rare,

such as in pastoral and mixed landscapes, it may be that smaller species are attracted to a food source and then excluded competitively by dominant species, such as greenfinch and woodpigeon. Alternatively concentrations of birds in seed-rich habitats may lead to concentrations of predation pressure and a net negative effect on the survival of vulnerable species.

A management solution would be to increase the number or diversity of WBS patches in an ES agreement in order to reduce concentrations of dominant or predatory species.

118

K

ES grassland management: population growth rates of chaffinch (A), lapwing (M), linnet (P), skylark (A) and yellow wagtail (M) all showed significant positive associations with ES grassland management.

There were negative associations for chaffinch (P), lapwing (P), meadow pipit (A), reed bunting (P) and yellow wagtail (A).

++ to +++

--

Significant positive and negative associations with grassland management were equally common. This suggests grassland options do not address many species’ key limiting factors, which may reflect a lack of a real management effect from options. It is also possible that, within farms, these options simply cover areas too small to provide effective benefits.

E

(e.g. EE1, EE2, EE3).

ES arable margin management: population growth rates of corn bunting (P), dunnock (M), linnet (M) and turtle dove (A) were positively associated with ES arable margin management.

The population growth rates of corn bunting (M), goldfinch (P) and yellow wagtail (A) showed negative results.

++

--

Arable and grassland margins can provide nesting and spring foraging habitat for many species, but are unlikely to address population-limiting factors. A failure of the options to deliver prey availability as well as abundance could also limit their benefits. A positive association between ditch management in arable landscapes and corn bunting, reed bunting and tree sparrow numbers may indicate a genuine management benefit, although the lack of species-specific significance means that this result should be treated with caution.

Evidence for positive effects on bird populations of grassland, margin and boundary options is mixed.

E

(e.g. EE4, EE5, EE6).

Grassland margin management: grassland margin management was positively associated with the population growth rates of chaffinch (A, P), dunnock (A), greenfinch (P) and whitethroat (M).

There was a negative association with the growth rate of corn bunting (A).

++

--

B

(e.g. EB1, EB6)

Boundary management (hedgerow and ditch options): The population growth rates of bullfinch (M, P), house sparrow (P), reed bunting (M) and song thrush (A) were

++

ES boundary (hedgerow and ditch) options should improve breeding and spring foraging habitat for birds, but these do not currently limit the populations of most

119

significantly positively associated with ES hedgerow management.

Negative associations were found for goldfinch (P), tree sparrow (M, P) and yellowhammer (P).

The population growth rate of reed bunting (M) had a significant positive association with ES ditch management.

Tree sparrow (P) had a negative association with ES ditch management.

--

++

--

farmland passerines, so it is unsurprising that few species showed significant associations with boundary management.

The study incorporates multiple statistical tests, increasing the likelihood of type 1 errors. However, the number of significant effects and their consistency in direction indicate that the general patterns in the stubble and WBS results are likely to be robust.


The measures are likely to contribute to maintaining or improving wildlife habitats and general biodiversity.

A key ES scheme improvement would see stubble and WBS options providing more resources in late winter, when demand is highest and population bottlenecks are most likely. Possible solutions include planting crops that retain seed into spring or are supplemented with additional seed, and stubbles that are retained until summer.

++

Despite the positive effects of AES management, national declines continue in the species concerned, as most effects were insufficient to turn population declines into increases. In order to reverse the decline the results suggest that greater farmer uptake is needed, coupled, where possible, with enhanced management effectiveness.


N/A


N/A

120

Buckingham et al (2006): Effects of agricultural management on the use of lowland grassland by foraging birds.

Buckingham, D.L., Peach, W.J. and Fox, D.S. (2006) Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 112, 21-40

Study type and theme1: M&E, biodiversity

Scope2: ES grassland options

Indicator3: Farming for birds – seed food during winter and early spring; insect-rich foraging habitats.


Summary of project:

A field-scale correlative study was used to identify which factors had the greatest influence on the usage of agricultural grassland by foraging birds in the West Midlands. It is concluded that excessive defoliation of grassland, associated with intensive grazing and mowing regimes, impacts upon granivorous birds by reducing prey abundance. Reductions in grazing and the avoidance of weed control should increase food availability for granivorous and insectivorous on grass fields.

Summary table

Reference number5:


6



7



Sward structure had more influence on bird usage than botanical composition. Sward height and bare ground (mainly in winter) influenced the widest range of species. Bird species fell into two groups based on their sward structure preferences, which reflected where they obtained their food. Species that fed on soil-dwelling invertebrates (thrushes, starlings and corvids) selected short swards, probably due to increased visibility, prey accessibility and mobility. Species that fed on sward-dwelling invertebrates or seeds selected taller swards with greater heterogeneity in the form of patchy bare ground. Food abundance

+/- (depending on bird species)

The region and the study sample were dominated by fields grazed by cattle in summer and sheep in winter, so the results from the work might not readily extend to regions with year-round sheep grazing (e.g. Wales).

The study area was in mixed farmland and not a grassland dominated area where bird declines are more severe. This was done in order to ensure adequate samples of declining bird species such as

121

is likely to be greater in taller grass swards, supporting a greater abundance and diversity of invertebrates and most plants attain maximum height at seeding. However, most bird species preferred intermediate sward heights, suggesting that the tallest swards hinder foraging efficiency. Patchy bare ground was a better predictor of sward accessibility to foraging birds than sward heterogeneity.

Grazing had a greater influence on grassland usage than sward age and other management practices. Birds tended to respond positively to grazing, especially by cattle. Intensive grazing systems created and maintained short, uniform swards that favour species foraging for soil-dwelling invertebrates, but not those reliant on seeds or sward-dwelling invertebrates.

Weed control by both herbicides and mechanical methods reduced the usage of grass fields by granivorous birds during summer and winter. Such management reduces the production of seed and the amount of invertebrate food for birds.

++/-

-

buntings. Also, the study was only undertaken in one year and will not reflect inter-annual variation in farming practice, sward condition or bird responses.

Extensification of grazing regimes could enhance food abundance for granivorous passerines. Reducing grazing intensity (stocking rates and duration) and increasing rest periods between grazing periods would favour the production of seeds and invertebrates.



12


13

122

Butler et al. (2005) Stubble height affects the use of stubble fields by farmland birds.

Butler, S.J., Bradbury, R.B. and Whittingham, M.J. (2005) Journal of Applied Ecology, 42, 469-476


Scope2: ES – EF6, EF15, EF22, EG4, HG5

Indicator3: Farming for birds – seed food during winter and early spring


Summary of project:

this study investigated the effects of stubble height reduction on seed depletion and the within-field distribution of farmland birds. On 20 fields, half the stubble was topped to lower vegetation height (5.9 ± 0.29 cm) whilst the other half was left untouched as a control (14.1 ± 0.33 cm). Increasing the structural heterogeneity of over-wintered stubble is likely to increase its value as a foraging habitat, making it better suited to the foraging requirements and predator escape strategies of a greater diversity of species.

Summary table

Reference number5:


6



7



EF6, EF15, EF22, EG4, HG5

The abundance of granivorous passerines and invertebrate feeders was higher on plots where stubble height had been reduced, while the abundance of skylark and partridges was higher on control plots. Topping had no effect on within-field distribution of either corvids or pigeons.

Seed densities on both topped and control plots fell between November and March, but there was no significant difference in levels of depletion between treatment and control plots.

0/++/+++

0

No significant change in relative abundance of any bird group on treatment and control plots between early (November) and late-season (February) surveys.

Stubble height manipulation may have influenced a number of other factors that influence seed depletion levels besides foraging birds e.g. topping may have suppressed some over-winter seed

123

For many species, both granivorous and insectivores, food accessibility and detectability are likely to have been higher and thermo-energetic and mobility costs lower on treatment plots. Stubble height reduction could have led to either an increase or a decrease in predation risk; granivorous passerines which flee to cover are likely to have benefited from the increased visibility, while partridges and skylarks which rely on blending into the environment will have benefited from the longer vegetation on the control plots. This could explain the higher abundance of these species on control plots.

production; differences in microclimate between plots may have caused differential seed germination or rotting rates.

Taller or denser vegetation is likely to retain more moisture and thus will be more difficult to move through.

The effect of stubble height reduction on predator detectability could vary with the size of the bird; visual obstruction differences are likely to have been smaller for larger-bodies species such as pigeons and corvids. This, plus the broader diets of these species could explain why there was no treatment effect on the within-field distribution for these species.

Increased structural heterogeneity could also be achieved through rolling, discing or low intensity grazing, and may be used on other farmland habitats, such as grassland and cereal crops to increase their value to a range of species.



Vegetation height may affect predator behaviour. Sparrowhawks hunt according to the vulnerability of their prey and the foraging activity and hunting success of kestrels are higher over less densely vegetated habitats.


12

N/A


13

N/A

124

Carvell et al (2007a) The conservation and management of bumblebees in intensively farmed landscapes.

Carvell, C. Pywell, R. & Meek, W. (2007). Aspects of Applied Biology


Scope2: All ES

Indicator3: Farming for wildlife, butterflies, bees and vulnerable grassland


Summary of project:

Literature review of research looking at declines in bumblebee forge plants, followed by field work to assess impacts of AE and ELS options at the national scale on bumblebee abundance.

Summary table



6



7



Bumblebee forage plants have declined significantly more than other plant species in 20

th century.

At 1km scale, forage plants declined in freq by 76% including those valuable to threatened bumblebee species. Agri-environment schemes developed to increase these forage plants and nesting resources. Pollen and nectar mix (legume

--- --- + +++

Thorough literature review and subsequent meta-analysis to assess loss of forage plants. Looked at a mix of AE options on 6

125

based) sown along field margins has been shown to increase the abundance and diversity of bumble bees. Recommend, for successful scheme implementation: Farmer training Technology transfer between policy, scientific and agronomy

+++ +

farms in central and eastern England and at a national scale through surveying of 4 x 10km sample squares in each government office region.


The use of sown pollen and nectar mix that is based on legumes has caused an increase in foraging bumblebees, which is expected to continue, should the options be taken up further.

+++ as above


12


126

Carvell et al. (2007b) Comparing the efficacy of agri-environment schemes to enhance bumble bee abundance and diversity on arable field margins.

Carvell, C., Meek, W.R., Pywell, R.F. Goulson, D. and Nowakowski, M. (2007b). Journal of Applied Ecology 44, 29–40

Project code (if applicable):*.


Scope2: ES - EE3, EF4, EF9, EF11, HE10, HF20

Indicator3: Farming for wildlife – butterflies, bees and vulnerable grassland


Summary of project:

A comparison of the efficacy of different ES options for field margins on arable land in enhancing the abundance and diversity of flowering resources and foraging bumblebees. Results suggest that legume-based pollen and nectar flower mix can provide an attractive forage resource for bumblebees. However, there are some issues with seasonal flowering phenology and longevity of the seed mixture.

Summary table

Reference number5:


6



7



EE3, EF4, EF9, EF11, HE10, HF20

EF4, HE10

Uncropped margins sown with mixtures containing nectar and pollen-producing plants were more effective in providing bumblebee forage than margins sown with a grass mix, allowed to regenerate naturally or managed as conservation headlands.

A mixture of agricultural legumes established quickly and attracted on average the highest total abundance and diversity of bumblebees, including rare long-tongued species

+++

++

The use of different options not assessed for bumblebee nesting sites because of the difficulty of locating nests of all species and the limited area under study. The interactions between the nesting and foraging components of habitats need further investigation.

Differences in responses between bumblebee species and sexes probably due in part to differences in their foraging preferences. The legumes tested did not appear to

127

EE3, HE10

EF4, HE10

such as Bombus ruderatus and Bombus muscorum. However, there were marked differences between species and sexes in their responses to field margin management over time.

A diverse mixture of native wildflowers attracted more of the shorter-tongued species and provided greater continuity of forage resources, especially early in the season. Allowing Cirsium spp. to flower also increased their attractiveness to male bumblebees.

It appears that it is the composition and seasonal flowering patterns of seed mixtures are the most important factors influencing the abundance and diversity of bumblebees visiting sown margins.

++

++

be totally suitable for shorter-tongued species or for males. ELS option EF2( wild bird seed mixture) gives the opportunity to grow forage plants such as Borage officinalis which may benefit these species if established on other parts of the farm

Leaving injurious weeds such as Cirsium spp. to persist is unlikely to be popular with farmers.

A diverse mixture of native wild flowers has the potential to cater for a wider range of species than the pollen and nectar mix. Although the wildflower mix took longer to fully establish, the resulting vegetation is likely to persist over a 5-10 year time scale.

The pollen and nectar flower mix had at least three legume species (20% of mix) and non-aggressive grasses (80%) had low abundance of flowers in May and June and so would not cater for colonies in the early stages of their development. Alternative varieties of Trifolium or changes in the cutting management could extend the flowering time. Also, a reduction in flower abundance of two Trifolium spp. in the third year could necessitate resowing as the grass component

128

becomes dominant.


Removing arable field margins from the cropping system could potentially increase forage resources and a greater diversity of habitats for other invertebrates.

Allowing natural regeneration on uncropped cultivated margins could create opportunities for rare arable plants.


Some loss of production if areas taken out of cultivation.

Some extra expense if re-sowing is required.


N/A

129

Dallimer et al. (2010) Field-level bird abundances are enhanced by landscape-scale agri-environment scheme uptake.

Dallimer, M., Gaston, K.J., Skinner, A.M.J., Hanley, N., Acs, S. And Armsworth, P.R. (2010) Biology Letters, 6, 643-646


Study type and theme1: M&E, Biodiversity

Scope2: ELS – EK5, Options for grassland and moorland inside the Severely Disadvantaged Areas; HLS – Options for moorland and upland rough grazing

Indicator3: Farming in the uplands for wildlife; Farming for birds


Summary of project

Using field-level surveys the effectiveness of agri-environment schemes in enhancing bird abundances in an upland area of England were assessed. It is predicted that bird abundances will co-vary with both field- and landscape-scale measures of implementation. The work involved carrying out field-level bird abundance and habitat surveys across farmlands in the Peak District and determining the relative importance of AESs (mainly Peak District ESA) versus habitat type and field and landscape scales. Measures of the success of AESs should consider landscape-wide benefits as well as localized impacts.

Summary table



6



7



EK5, EL1-6, HL7-11

Field-level bird abundances are higher where more of the surrounding landscape is included in an AES.

Although overall the abundance of birds of conservation concern increased with AES provision, some species such as the swallow and skylark may not benefit from AES options, such as lower livestock densities, commonly used in the

++

++

Work undertaken only in the Peak District National Park.

130

upland landscape.

Habitat is a more influential predictor but landscape-scale implementation resulted in enhanced bird abundances. Re-establishing seminatural habitat and returning improved grassland to a more seminatural status will provide the greatest benefit for bird abundances.

++


N/A


N/A


N/A

131

Dillon et al (2009). Assessing the vegetation response to differing establishment methods of ‘Skylark Plots’ in winter wheat at Grange Farm, Cambridgeshire, England.

Dillon, I.A., Morris, A.J., Bailey, C.M. & Uney,G. (2009) Conservation Evidence 6, 89-97


Scope2: ELS

Indicator3: Farming for birds - Insect-rich foraging habitats / In-field nesting habitat


Summary of project

crop-free plots were established in wheat fields, either by turning off the drill or by herbicide application after crop establishment, and vegetation assessments carried out (weed cover and type). Sprayed cereal plots had less vegetation cover than undrilled plots, particularly February-sprayed plots, with likely consequences on the abundance and accessibility of invertebrate prey available to skylarks during the breeding season. The conclusion of the study was that, where possible, plots should be created at the time of sowing (turning off the seed drill) in autumn; if spraying is the favoured method of creation then this should take place no later than the end of December.

Summary table



6



7



EF8 Undrilled skylark plots have greater vegetation cover than sprayed plots, and are therefore are likely to have greater abundance of invertebrate prey during the skylark breeding season.

+++ If implemented no later than the end of December, creation of plots using herbicide can provide added control of pernicious weeds (and thus plot establishment is more amenable to the farmer) whilst successfully creating areas more open than the surrounding crop but not bereft of vegetation. These results suggest that the current ELS guidelines should deliver benefits

Differences in vegetation cover are likely to subsequently impact the abundance and accessibility of

+++

132

invertebrate prey available to skylarks during the breeding season.

for skylarks but there is unlikely to be any gain if the spraying off period is extended beyond December, as resultant swards were too sparse to deliver suitable nesting or foraging habitat.

For skylark plots to have any influence on skylark populations they must be adopted on a wide scale.

A well designed study, with a large number of replicates (121 plots were used in total), and used robust statistical techniques. It was, however, only conducted in two fields on the same farm (in Cambridgeshire, over a two year period.

Due to resource limitations, no monitoring of invertebrates or skylark use of each plot was undertaken.

Where possible, plots should be created at the time of sowing (turning off the seed drill) in autumn; if spraying is the favoured method of creation then this should take place no later than the end of December.

+++

Vegetation cover within sprayed plots is generally very low, but especially so in February-sprayed ones.

++


EF13 Additional benefits may be achieved in terms of habitat for other ground-nesting birds, and greater numbers of prey items for other insectivorous and granivorous birds.


N/A


N/A

133

Eglington et al. (2010) Managing water levels on wet grasslands to improve foraging conditions for breeding northern lapwing Vanellus vanellus

Eglington, et al. (2010) Journal of Applied Ecology, 47, 451–458


Scope2: HLS: HK9 - HK14; HQ1 – HQ10

Indicator3: Farming for birds: Insect-rich foraging habitats


Summary of project:

The assessed the effect of wet feature provision on invertebrate abundance and the growth rates and body condition of northern lapwing Vanellus vanellus chicks, on grazing marshes in eastern England. Wet features supported more than double the biomass of surface-active invertebrates and a greater abundance of aerial invertebrates than the vegetated grazing marsh. Chick foraging rates were also two to three times higher in wet features than in the grazing marsh, as was the estimated biomass intake per food item.

Summary table



6



7



HLS:

HK9 - HK14;

HQ1 – HQ10

Wet pools and footdrains supported a greater biomass of terrestrial invertebrates and a greater abundance of aerial invertebrates; chick foraging rates and estimated biomass intake rates were also higher in wet features than within grazing marsh.

+++ The study was carried out on nine study sites all of managed wet grasslands within the Broads Environmentally Sensitive Area, from March to July in 2005 to 2007.

Statistical testing showed the most important factors influencing chick body condition were: rainfall; footdrain density; hatch date; hatch date x footdrain density; clutch volume and; year. The potential link between invertebrate biomass and chick survival was less clear.

The installation of wet features on grasslands provides valuable foraging locations for lapwing chicks, particularly later in the season when these features are likely to be the

+++

134

main source of water available. The biomass of surface-active invertebrates and the abundance of aerial invertebrates varied significantly across the five habitat types, probably due to differences in the type of wet features.

Predicted changes to the seasonality of precipitation at temperate latitudes means that provision of wet features is likely to be increasingly important for maintaining breeding wader populations.

++




135

Ewald et al. (2010) The effect of agri-environment schemes on grey partridges at the farm level in England.

Ewald, J.A., Aebischer, N.J., Richardson, S.M., Grice, P.V. and Cooke, A.I. (2010) Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 138, 55-63



Scope2: ES

Indicator3: Farming for birds: in-field nesting habitat; seed food during winter and early spring, insect-rich foraging habitats


Summary of project

Land managed by members of the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust’s Partridge Count Scheme used to determine how ES and other predecessor schemes have performed for the grey partridge. One hundred and fifty agri-environment scheme options in place were classified into groups based on the habitat they provide grey partridge at different stages of their life cycle, with the focus on spring pair density, productivity, overwinter retention rates, young:old ratio and mean brood size. Beetle banks, conservation headlands and wild bird cover had consistently positive effects; options including grass and scrub management had consistently negative effects.

In the table below, only the ES codes have been included, even though ESA and CS equivalents were also covered. Options in red are no longer current.

Summary table



6



7



Arable flora management HF16, HF20

Beetle banks

Lower young:old ratio of birds associated with higher percentage of land in arable flora management. Increase in percentage areas related to a decrease in mean brood size.

Beneficial for retaining grey partridge on farmland over winter rather than for

-

+++

Arable flora options, along with crop management options, were the least popular among participants. Only studied for 2 years of the 4 year study

136

EF7, HF7

Conservation headlands EF9, EF10, HF9, HF10, HF14, HF19

Crop management HF15, HF18, HG7

Field corner management EF1, EK1, EL1, HF1, HK1, HL1

Grass strips EE1-6, HE1-6, HE10

Grassland and scrub management EL5, HC15-

nesting cover. Improvement in young:old ratio may be due to reduction in predation for in-field strips compared to margins.

Positive relationship with more chicks per pair on farms with conservation headlands. Increased area of these options also associated with higher spring pair density and overwinter retention rates. Weedy understory may provide overwinter as well as chick food.

Contradictory findings for these options maybe due to management at different stages of the grey partridge life cycle.

Appeared to provide overwinter cover but negatively related to changes in spring bird density.

Contradictory results. Provide some nesting and winter cover, but may have a detrimental effect through increased predation of chicks. Dense vegetation can retain moisture during wet weather and may lead to increased chick mortality.

Lack of any significant positive association suggests this option type should be reclassified as being of no

+++

+

++

+

0

The apparent benefits of conservation headlands may be indicative of sites that generally have a package of options present to suit all stages of the grey partridge’s life cycle. Conservation headlands have a low uptake due to a perception of being difficult to manage in some farming situations.

137

16, HK6-8, HK16-17, HL5, HL7-8

Spring cropping EG1, HG1

Wild bird cover EF2-3, EG2, EF11, HF2-3, HF11-12, HG2

Overwinter stubbles EF6, EG4-5, HF6, HG4-6

importance to grey partridge.

Contradictory results. Good brood-rearing habitat but management produces bare fields in February and March which grey partridge are vulnerable to predators. Large blocks of this management could be detrimental to retaining grey partridge in the spring, giving rise to a negative association with breeding density and overwinter retention rates.

Increased grey partridge numbers in winter and improved productivity, probably by providing brood rearing habitat.

Contradictory results. Options provide winter cover and some nesting cover but may have a detrimental effect on chick numbers due to predation. Management may involve silage management which can destroy nests. Options containing brassica fodder crops do not provide a good brood rearing habitat.

++

+++

++

Need crop mixtures containing a variety of plant species to provide food and cover at the different stages of the grey partridge life cycle



12


138

Gardiner et al. (2008). Establishment of clover-rich field margins as a forage resource for bumblebees Bombus spp. on Romney Marsh, Kent, England.

Gardiner, T., Edwards, M. And Hill, J. (2008) Conservation Evidence, 5, 51-57


Scope2: ES – EF4



Summary of project

Arable field margins were created by natural regeneration or sowing with a legume seed mixture. Natural regeneration margins had low species richness of forage plants, dominated by weed species unlikely to be used extensively as forage plant by bumblebees. In the sown margins, the abundance of red clover Trifolium pratense and alsike clover T. Hybridum was high in the first year. Clover-dominated margins were invaded by perennial grass species in the third year, which suggests that legume swards need to be re-sown every three years due to the poor persistence of Trifolium species.

Summary table



6



7



EF4 The legume-grass mix sown margins had a much higher species richness of bumblebee forage plants in all four years of the project, compared to those margins established by natural regeneration. The naturally regenerated margins resulted in vegetation comprising almost entirely of persistent common agricultural weeds. In both treatments, species richness peaked in the second year and declined in the third and fourth years.

The sown plots had almost 100% cover of clover one year after establishment, which

+ Work was undertaken only on one farm in Kent.

Re-sowing of the margins, possibly every three years, might be needed to retain a clover-rich sward, though this would make this option quite expensive. Spreading clover-rich hay as a seed source might be a more cost-effective solution than buying seed mixtures.

Cutting management of the margins one or two years after establishment, when the clover is taller (30-50cm) is

139

as well as providing good bumblebee forage also prevented the establishment of few weed species. By the third year Trifoium pratense had become dominant; T. hybridum was outcompeted and unable to grow through self-seeding in the dense sward conditions.

In the third and fourth years the sown margins were invaded by perennial grasses such as False oat-grass Arrhenatherum elatius.

A cutting regime (either 3 or 6 cuts, cuttings left or 3 cuts, cuttings removed) in the establishment year, had no significant impact on the cover of any of the forage species. This might be due to the poor germination and the low height of many species at the time of cutting.

Very little clover was present on the natural regeneration plots, and by the second and third years had a high ground cover of creeping thistle Cirsium arvense and bristly ox-tongue Picris echioides. However, thistles do have some value as a nectar-provider for some bumblebee species, such as the red-tailed bumblebee Bombus lapidaries.

likely to have more of an impact, and a late cut (August/September) will allow seed set.

The clover plants on the natural regeneration plots were probably the result of accident import of clover seed on machinery.

The seed bank at the study farm appeared to be impoverished due to years of arable cropping and herbicide use and this is probably representative of much of lowland arable land in England. Thus, naturally regenerating margins are unlikely to have little value as a means of providing foraging resources for bumblebees.



12

EF4 Extra costs may be incurred if seed mixtures have to be re-sown every three years.


13

N/A

140

Garratt et al (2011). Foraging habitat selection by breeding Common Kestrels Falco tinnunculus on lowland farmland in England.

Garratt, C.M., Hughes, M., Eagle, G., Fowler, T., Grice, P.V. and Whittingham, M.J. (2011) Bird Study, 58, 90-98


Scope2: ES Grassland options.

Indicator3: Farming for birds - kestrels

Cross-references to other summary tables for the same study4

Summary of project

Aim of the project was to identify habitat and prey of Common Kestrels during the breeding season. Seven pairs of kestrels were observed during the breeding season over three years, with all foraging attempts being recorded along with habitat and prey data. Results highlight the importance of areas of long and short grass in close juxtaposition to provide conditions suitable for prey and access to them respectively.

Summary table



6



7



Grassland options

Kestrels select habitat non-randomly, with cut grass (≤5cm, all cut less than two weeks previously) being the most used relative to availability. Likely that cut grass is attractive to foraging birds due to the flushing out and sudden exposure of both invertebrates and mammals caused by the cutting itself.

Prey taken varied with grass height: the ratio of mammals to invertebrates was greater on cut grass (4.36 mammals: 1 invertebrate) than on longer, uncut grass swards (1.73

+++

++

Only seven pairs of birds studied, all in northeast England.

Foraging in some habitats e.g. woodland was difficult to see and so the number of hunting attempts in this habitat may be under represented.

Benefits of cutting operations are likely to be limited and short-lived, with prey soon dispersing to areas where conditions are more favourable e.g. longer swards. However, some resident common

141

mammals: 7 invertebrate).

voles do not leave their territories even after mowing so targeted cutting of patches or strips of grass margins could increase accessibility to voles for kestrels whilst not necessarily affecting their abundance. However, cutting grass for kestrels may cause conflict with the need to retain long grass for ground-nesting birds.

Due to the small sample size of both birds and prey captures, the prey-type analysis may not be robust and requires further study.




142

Gelling et al. (2007). Are hedgerows the route to increased farmland small mammal density? Use of hedgerows in British pastoral habitats.

Gelling, M., Macdonald, D.W. Mathews, F. (2007) Landscape Ecology, 22, 1019-1032


Scope2: EB1-3, EB8-10, HB11-12

Indicator3: Farming for wildlife – small mammals, hedgerows


Summary of project

A survey of 180 hedgerows on 12 dairy farms in four geographical areas. Their small mammal communities were surveyed to examine the effect of physical hedgerow attributes on the abundance of small mammal species. The relationships between the relative abundance of small mammals and hedgerow connectivity, total habitat availability and local habitat complexity were tested. The total amount of habitat available (hedgerow width, height and length) was a positive indicator of total small mammal biomass. The preservation of hedgerows may therefore be important in maintaining metapopulations of the small mammal species studied.

Summary table



6



7



EB1-3, EB4-5, EB8-10, HB11-12

Hedgerow connectivity, habitat availability and local structure may be important predictors of the density of small mammal populations. Small mammals appear to be resident in hedgerows rather than just using them for migration. Bank voles and wood mice were the most commonly trapped and for these species a level of connectivity to adjoining hedgerows were preferred. All small mammal species increased in relative abundance with

+ Differences in the natural histories of small mammal species can influence the utilisation of hedgerows. For example, wood mice have larger home ranges than voles and so gaps in hedgerows are of less importance to them. Bank voles have smaller home ranges and so gaps may occupy a larger proportion of the available habitat, leading to a preference for hedgerows with few gaps so that food and resource availability are

143

increased hedge width; a wider hedge contains more habitats and provides increased protection from predators. The presence of an adjacent conservation buffer or ditch also increased abundance, probably by providing an increased area of beneficial habitat. The presence of hedgerow trees were not important for yellow-necked mice but provided extra feeding opportunities for wood mice. Over-managed and under-managed hedgerows both provide unsuitable habitats for small mammals. Cutting in rotation will provide a wider range of habitats to suit more species. Overall, wider and more complex hedgerows with adjacent habitats should be encouraged.

maximised.


EB1-3, EB4-5, EB8-10, HB11-12

Maintaining and enhancing hedgerows will also be beneficial to bats. An increase in small mammals may benefit predators such as raptors.


N/A


N/A

144

Heard et al. (2007). Landscape context not patch size determines bumble-bee density on flower mixtures sown for agri-environment schemes.

Heard, M.S., Carvell, C., Carreck, N.L., Rothery, P., Osborne, J.L. and Bourke, A.F.G. (2007) Biology Letters, 3, 638-641


Scope2: ES – EF4



Summary of project:

The effects of sown forage patches on bumblebees across sites varying in landscape characteristics were investigated. Bumblebee densities were higher on sown patches (sown with a mixture of 20% legumes and 80% fine leaved grasses) compared with control habitats (typical non-crop vegetation for a site) but did not vary with patch size, that is, total forager numbers were proportional to patch area. Results suggest that restoring forage resources can enhance bumblebee densities, especially on intensively managed agricultural landscapes.

Summary table



6



7



EF4 Bumble bee density was significantly higher on the sown forage treatments than on the control patches but did not differ significantly with sown patch size for any species, suggesting that total bee numbers increased in proportion to patch area.

Individual bee species or groups showed variable responses to sown patches. The strongest positive response was from longer-tongued species; Bombus lapidaries and B. pascuorum were 15-35 times more

+++ Results focus on densities of individuals and do not reflect impacts on populations. This would require more direct measurements of either colony density or colony performance.

145

abundant on the sown forage patches than control areas. However, Psithyrus spp. and Apis mellifera did not show any significant response to sown forage patches.

The mean density of visited flowers was significantly higher on the sown forage patches than the control, but did not differ significantly between sown forage patches within or between sites.

Significantly more bumblebees were found on sown forage patches in landscapes where the proportion of arable land was highest. Data suggests that this is due to a lack of forage resources in the surrounding habitats – increasing arable area led to a reduction in both quantity and quality of semi-natural forage resources for bees. Thus sown patches are relatively more exploited.

Many bee species, especially the longer-tongued and narrow diet species showed a positive response to the sown mixture of legume species.


N/A


N/A


N/A

146

Henderson et al. (2012) Effects of the proportion and spatial arrangement of un-cropped land on breeding bird abundance in arable rotations.

Henderson, I.G., Holland, J.M., Storkey, J., Lutman, P., Orson, J. and Simper, J. (2012), Journal of Applied Ecology 49, 883-891


Scope2: ES – EF2, EF4, EF11, EF13, HE10, HF12, HF20

Indicator3: Farming for birds


Summary of project

Bird abundance was examined at a scale consistent with many national monitoring schemes. Bird counts were undertaken on 28 farm sites of about 100 ha, representing cereal-based and organic rotations. Sites were surveyed in summer, from 2007-2010, to assess the effect of the percentage cover and spatial arrangement of un-cropped land (fallows, grass-flower or wild bird areas) on bird abundance, with data analysed at the whole-farm and not patch scale.

Summary table



6



7



EF2, EF4, EF11, EF13, HE10, HF12, HF20

Uncropped-land area had significant effects on the abundance of key species (those with a high dependency on farmland), when controlling for effects of semi-natural habitats and management. On farms with <3% (and to a lesser extent, <5%) of their total area as un-cropped land, the densities of birds were significantly lower than on farms with >10% area of uncropped land. A two-fold increase in the area of uncropped land had an average 16-53% increase in the relative abundance of key species.

Positive significant effects of percentage

+++

Uncropped land was, on average, under a low level of management for biodiversity. There were indications that birds responded more positively to the availability of patches of uncropped land which were specifically managed to enhance biodiversity, where the total proportionate area of these habitats was maintained.

It is possible that management activities meeting the requirements of skylark, linnet and yellowhammer would help improve conditions for

147

area on uncropped land were found for lapwing, skylark, linnet and yellowhammer, and for all highly farmland-dependent species combined. The relationship between uncropped land and bird abundance was stronger on conventional compared with organic farms, suggesting a greater importance of uncropped land on conventional farms.

Uncropped land patch arrangement was significant for skylark and linnet abundance but generally weak amongst species compared with the availability of uncropped land. Skylarks were positively associated with a larger relative edge effect amongst patches, whereas linnets were more associated with larger block of contiguous habitat.

+++

++

other bird species.

Habitats arranged optimally for territorially dispersed species such as skylark, would be discovered by roaming, aggregating species provided that the total area of availability was maintained.

Although abundance is the most readily used and best-perceived metric of population change, it does not necessarily represent demographic processes such as productivity, survival and immigration.


EF2, EF4, EF11, EF13, HE10, HF12, HF20

Areas of uncropped land could be beneficial to other biodiversity indicators, such as arable plants, bees and other invertebrates.


12

EF2, EF4, EF11, EF13, HE10, HF12, HF20

Possible loss of production due to leaving areas uncropped.


13

148

Holland et al (2010) The Farm4Bio project: maximising the potential of uncropped land.

Holland, Henderson, Lutman, Martin, Orson & Storkey. 2010. Aspects of Applied Biology 100, Agri-environment schemes – what have they achieved and where do we go from here? pp. 253-260.


Scope2: All ES

Indicator3: Farming for Wildlife; butterflies, bees and vulnerable grassland and arable plants. Farming for Birds; Seed food during winter and early spring


Summary of project:

Looking at the biodiversity benefits gained from uncropped land on conventional vs organic farms. Baseline data was collected in 2006/07 and treatments were monitored from 2008 to 2009. 28 farms were included in eastern and southern England. Treatments = sown plots (wild bird cover, insect rich cover, floristically enhanced grass and natural regeneration) managed for biodiversity (1.5 or 6ha) either sown in strips or blocks. 4 farms per treatment split between each region. Control = organically managed blocks.

Summary table



6



7



Plant species richness = positively related to heterogeneity of uncropped land Butterfly and bumblebee species richness and number of seed eating birds were positively related to area of uncropped land Treatments led to: increased plant, bumblebee and butterfly diversity.

+++ +++ +++

Increases in butterfly, bumblebee and birds could be due to redistribution rather than increased populations.

149

At least 4% uncropped land in 100ha areas was needed to see an increase in bird numbers.

+++


Managing land on conventional farms for biodiversity can result in increases in birds, bees and butterflies although it is unclear if this is due to increases in populations or population re-distribution.

++ as above.



150

Holland et al. (2012) Agri-environment scheme enhancing ecosystem services: A demonstration of improved biological control in cereal crops.

Holland, J.M., Oaten, H., Moreby, S., Birkett, T., Simper, J., Southway, S. and Smith, B.M (2012) Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 155, 147-152



Scope2: ES - EE1-3, EE8, EE9, EC24, HE10



Summary of project:

The impact of epigeal and aerial predators on levels of cereal aphids in winter wheat was examined on farms with contrasting proportions of grass margins. Results indicate that the provision of grass strips enhanced aphid control.

Summary table



6



7



EE1-3, EE8, EE9, EC24, HE10

In year 1, after 14 days aerial natural enemies had caused a substantial reduction of 88% in numbers of cereal aphids compared to where no natural enemies were present. Epigeal predators achieved a 31% reduction but his reached 88% after 28 days. In year 2, both sets of predators achieved over 87% control after 14 days.

Predatory Diptera and Linyphiidae (Araneae) made up most of the aerial natural enemies. Epigeal predators were largely Carabidae and some

+++

Work undertaken on 14 farms in Dorset and Hampshire in 2006 and on 12 farms in 2007.

Aerial predators capable of a rapid and effective control whereas epigeal predators had a reduced and slower impact.

Epigeal predators are likely to be less effective than aerial ones because when aphid populations start to build up epigeal are already distributed across fields and although they can make small scale

151

Staphylinidae.

Levels of control were positively related to the proportion of linear grass margins within 250, 500 and 750 m radii of the study areas. There was weaker evidence that hedgerows decreased aphid control by epigeal predators.

++

movements to locate prey, control is largely dependent on the local abundance.

Grass margins are used my some aerial predators for overwintering, especially Staphylinidae and Linyphiidae and so influence abundances in adjacent crops.

The reduced effectiveness of epigeal predators near hedgerows may be due to this habitat providing more favourable resources than the adjacent crop.


EE1-3, EE8, EE9, EC24, HE10

Grass strips may benefit resource protection as well as providing feeding resources for birds and mammals


EE1-3, EE8, EE9, EC24, HE10

Loss of production with implementation of grass strips, but increased production with a reduction in aphid damage and possible financial gain due to a lower input of pesticides.


152

MacDonald et al (2012a) Effects of agri-environment management for cirl buntings on other biodiversity.

MacDonald, M.A., Cobbold, G., Matthews, F., Denny, M. J. H., Walker, L. K., Grice, P. V. & Anderson, G. Q. A. 2012. Biodiversity Conservation. 21 (6), 1477 – 1492.


Scope2: All ES

Indicator3: Farming for wildlife; butterflies, bees and vulnerable grassland and arable plants


Summary of project:

Field surveys of sites under AES for cirl buntings and matched control sites to assess differences and impacts on wider biodiversity (vascular plants, butterflies, bumblebees, carabid beetles, foliar invertebrates and bats). Sites were chosen from 32 farms in South Devon and were split as follows: 25 AES pasture fields and 22 AES spring barley fields with 33 control fields. Mainly looked at land still managed under the countryside stewardship scheme and a few under environmental stewardship due to the time the field work took place.

Summary table



6



7



Carabid beetles – Increased species richness and activity-density under AES spring barley (compared to non AES spring barley) fields Forb cover – Increase in AES spring barley fields compared to winter cereals (no difference to non-AES spring barley fields) Butterfly and bumblebee abundance – Increased in AES spring barley fields

+++ ++ +++

Small sample size with a restricted geographic range. Other, potentially important factors not captured by the study design (landscape impacts, pre-selection bias)

153

compared to winter cereals (no difference to non-AES spring barley fields) Plant sps richness – Higher is AES pasture fields than controls Butterfly abundance – Higher is AES pasture fields than controls No difference in remaining taxa studied. AES spring barley fields – Benefits due to AES management But may be due to spring-sown barley and landscape AES pasture fields – Benefits due to no fertiliser or pesticide inputs But may also be some pre-selection bias especially in older agreements (fields that hadn’t been ploughed would have been chosen etc.).

+++ +++ 0 +++ - +++ -

Unclear how much of this effect is due to AES management and how much is due to landscape effects Unclear how much of this effect is due to AES management and how much is due to pre-selection bias


The AES options showed increased invertebrate species richness and abundance (ofselect sps) and increased forb cover. Unsure if these benefits are directly related to AES options or if they are brought about by other factors.

+++ Other, potentially important factors not captured by the study design (landscape impacts, pre-selection bias)


12

N/A


13

N/A

154

McDonald et al (2012b) Effects of agri-environment management for stone curlews on other biodiversity.

MacDonald, M. A., Maniakowski, M., Cobbold, G., Grice, P. V. & Anderson, G. Q. A. 2012. Biological Conservation. 148 (1), 134 – 145.



Scope2: All ES

Indicator3: Farming for wildlife; butterflies, bees and vulnerable grassland and arable plants, Brown Hares. Farming for Birds; Insect rich foraging habitats, and

seed food during winter and early spring


Summary of project:

Unsown, tilled fallow plots managed under AES for stone curlews were surveyed for wider biodiversity (other bird species, brown hares, carabid beetles, vascular plants, butterflies and bumblebees). Control plots were crops with-in the same field and in neighbouring fields. 36 fallow plots were chosen all in central and southern England. Involved a mix of Environmental Stewardship and Countryside Stewardship Scheme plots.

Summary table



6



7



Increases abundance, likelihood of being recorded or increased species richness for all groups (not carabid beetles) in AES plots compared to within the crop. Plant species richness and forb cover was significantly higher on fallow plots than controls. Stone curlew plots thought to perform comparably well compared to other AES options specifically designed to increase rare arable plants.

+++ +++

Limited sample size and geographic area and no randomised plot design used. However, 36 replicates used and would provide a good representation of the study area.

155

Skylarks were more abundant on the plots than in the crop Linnet, yellowhammer and corn bunting were more likely to be recorded on the plots than the crop. Lapwing almost exclusively recorded on plots and favoured those classed as being in good condition for stone curlews. Carabid beetles – no difference in species richness or activity density between plots and crops. In fact, the activity-density of predatory carabid beetles was lower on plots than in the crop. These changes (or lack of) are possibly due to carabid beetles being sensitive to frequent spring tillage. Clear positive impact on not only stone curlew but on a wider range of biodiversity including lapwings. Probably due to the re-introduction of fallow land to the landscape.

+++ +++ +++ 0 - -


Increase in abundance, species richness and likelihood of being recording for a range of taxa in stone curlew plots. Also increases seen in other taxa.

However, carabid beetles show no response with one functional group displaying a negative response to stone curlew AES management.

+++

-

Well executed study but limited sample size and geographic area.

156

Appropriate siting and management of the option should reduce the negative impacts and bespoke options for certain taxa (carabid beetles) may be needed.

+++

Would need to be further researched for clarification.


N/A


N/A

157

Merckx et al (2012): Hedgerow trees and extended-width field margins enhance macro-moth diversity: implications for management.

Merckx, T., Marini, L., Feber, R.E. and Macdonald, D.W. (2012) Journal of Applied Ecology, 49, 1396-1404

Study type and theme1: M&E, biodiversity

Scope2: ES, EB1-3, EB8-10, EC23, EC24, EE1-6, HE10

Indicator3: Farming for wildlife – macro-moths


Summary of project:

Data on abundance and species richness of farmland macro-moths, and trait-based analyses on their feeding guild, mobility and conservation status, was used to explore local- and landscape-scale effects of extended-width field margins, hedgerow trees, and surrounding farmland intensification. Overall results suggest that the presence of these features possibly promoted by agri-environment schemes targeting their implementation at relatively small spatial scales (0.8 km), may help mitigate negative effects of agricultural intensification on macro-moths.

Summary table



6



7



EB1-3, EB8-10, EC23, EC24, EE1-6, HE10

Hedgerow trees and extended-width field margins locally increased species richness, but not abundance, of macro-moths, irrespective of each other’s presence. The positive effect of hedgerow trees is likely to be due to the shelter provided in typically exposed agricultural landscapes. Extended-width margins provide a relatively undisturbed breeding habitat and they also act as buffer zones against the impact of agricultural chemicals on moth larvae and their host plants. Also, floral resources in the margins can provide nectar.

++

Work carried out on 16 farms over 4 years within a 1200-km

2 area of

lowland UK farmland. Three sampling sites per farm.

Extended width margin is 6m wide.

Hedgerow trees had a minimum height of 15m.

Farms divided into 4 study groups which differed in their combination of hedgerow tree presence and field margin width: hedgerow tree + extended width margin; hedgerow

158

Overall, species richness and abundance were not affected by agricultural intensification, as measured by the amount of arable land in the surrounding landscape.

Sedentary moths showed double the species richness, but were half as abundant as mobile moths. Both groups responded positively to extended-width margin and hedgerow tree presence. The effect of hedgerow trees was particularly strong for shrub- and/or tree-feeding species. Trees may also provide shelter and roosting sites.

Analyses based on the conservation status of moths showed that agricultural intensification lowered the species richness of nationally severely declining UK Biodiversity Action Plan priority species and the abundance of both nationally moderately declining and priority species. These effects were most pronounced at the 0.8 km radius scale.

++

tree + standard margin; no hedgerow tree +extended-width margin; no hedgerow tree +standard margin.

Five circles (radii: 200, 400, 800, 1600 and 3200m) were constructed around each of the three sampling sites within each farm and the percentage of arable land within each of these circles calculated. These five spatial scales were selected to roughly cover the extent of foraging movements for a gradient of sedentary to mobile species, and the variable percentage of arable land was chosen as a proxy for the degree of agricultural intensification.


EB1-3, EB8-10, EC23, EC24, EE1-6, HE10

A wide range of other taxa that feed on macro-moths may indirectly benefit from the presence of extended-width field margins and hedgerow trees.


12

EB1-3, EB8-10, EC23, EC24, EE1-6, HE10

Pollination success and resilience are likely to be aided by higher numbers of pollinating moth species. This could lead to increased fruit set and yields of insect-pollinated crops.


13

159

Pywell et al. (2010) Practical management of scarce arable plant populations

Pywell, R.F., Hulmes, L., Meek, W.K. and Nowakowski, M. (2010) Aspects of Applied Biology, 100, 375-380


Scope2: ES, EF9, EF11, HF20

Indicator3: Farming for wildlife – arable plants


Summary of project:

Competition from perennial and grass species can restrict the long term success of management options to conserve and enhance populations of scarce arable plants. This two year study examined the effects of herbicide weed control measures and time of cultivation on the survival and spread of a sown arable plant community. Autumn and spring graminicides significantly reduced the cover of competitive grasses and increased the species richness of arable plants. Autumn cultivation significantly increased the cover and species richness of scarce arable plants and reduced the cover of grasses. In conclusion, whilst cultivations had the greatest effect in the short term, autumn or spring graminicide application are potentially valuable practical management tools for the long term in situ conservation of scarce arable plant populations.

Summary table



6



7



EF9, EF11, HF20

The number of sown scarce arable plant species per m

2 was significantly

higher in the treatments receiving autumn and spring graminicide, and no treatment compared with glyphosate in the autumn. Also, total grass cover was significantly higher in the unsprayed control and glyphosate treatments compared with graminicide treatments. Autumn and spring application of graminicide was effective in reducing competition

+++ Work carried out only on one site.

It is likely that the effects of competition will increase in the longer term.

The shallow cultivation used in the experiment may have aided the increase in grass cover.

160

allowing the scare arable plants to establish. Autumn glyphosate treatment was less successful probably because it eliminated a proportion of the late germinating scarce arable plants.

Timing of shallow cultivation had the largest number of significant effects on the composition of the vegetation. Autumn cultivation significantly increased the number of scarce arable plant species m

-2 and total

percentage cover compared with spring cultivation. It also increased the total percentage cover of all annuals and forbs. This reflects the ecology of the dominant scarce arable plants in the seed mix and the destruction of some of the autumn germinating plants by cultivation in the following spring. However, spring cultivation significantly increased total species richness and that of grasses and forbs, and the percentage cover of grasses and bare ground.


N/A


N/A


N/A

161

Reynolds et al (2010). The consequences of predator control for brown hares (Lepus europaeus) on UK farmland.

Reynolds, J.C., Stoate, C., Brockless, M.H., Aebischer, N.J.& Tapper, S.C. (2010). European Journal of Wildlife Research 56(4): 541-549.



Scope2: ES in lowlands

Indicator3: Farming for farm wildlife - brown hare


Summary of project

Data are used from three consecutive studies (a mixture of formal designed experiment and demonstration projects), during which the abundance of several common predator species was controlled by a gamekeeper. The three studies (conducted between 1993 and 2006) form a chronological sequence in which a professional gamekeeper was employed to carry out predator control. Hare count methodology used the spotlight count method. The paper explores the relationship between hare density and predation control across all three studies, and concludes that predator control has a significant positive effect on hare abundance, amounting to an approximate doubling of the annual population growth rate.

Summary table



6



7



See above

Predator control is a key component of the game management package that leads to greatly increased hare densities. Specifically, removing predators without habitat improvement led to increased hare densities; a combination of habitat improvement and predator control led to still higher hare densities.

In general, hare abundance increased wherever predator control

+++ The study was conducted at multiple (i.e. 3) sites, over a reasonably long time period, and the conclusions were reached on the basis of sound experimental/observational techniques and robust statistical methodology.

Although the study was more concerned with hare population growth rates rather than density per

162

was implemented, while comparison areas often showed no increase or showed a decline.

se, there was some estimation of densities.

Control efforts were concentrated in the period February-July to protect game species during the breeding season.

Predator control was aimed at suppressing numerically common predator species known to be predators of small game birds and mammals.


An increase in small mammals due to reduced predator pressure may benefit birds such as raptors.



163

Shore et al. (2005) Will Environmental Stewardship enhance small mammal abundance on intensively managed farmland.

R. F. Shore, R.F., Meek, W.R., Sparks, T.H., Pywell, R.F. and Nowakowski, M. (2005) Mammal Review, 35, 277-284


Scope2: ES 3 and 6 metre grass margins

Indicator3: Farming for wildlife – small mammals


Summary of project:

Comparison of small mammal abundance and biomass in spring and autumn on two widths of grass margin with conventionally managed, intensively cultivated field edges with no margin.

Summary table



6



7



EE1-3; EE9; EC24

Total small mammal biomass increased between spring and autumn on 3m and 6m grass margins but decreased on 0m margins. Total biomass in autumn three times higher on 6m margins compared with 0m margins.

+++ Study only undertaken at one study site in North Yorkshire.

The same grass margins were trapped in both years but the location of some of the conventional margins changed due to agricultural rotations.

Benefit of grass margin may be influenced by adjacent boundary and density of ground cover e.g. bank vole numbers highest on margins adjacent to hedgerows and

164

where ground cover more dense.

Grass margins may have been too young for colonization by some species such as field voles.


EE1-3; EE9; EC24

Increased abundance of small mammals may benefit predators such as raptors.


EE1-3; EE9; EC24

Some loss of agricultural production. Amount will depend on width of margin.


N/A

165

Whittingham et al. (2006). Altering perceived predation risk and food availability: management prescriptions to benefit farmland birds on stubble fields.

Whittingham, M.J., Devereux, C.L., Evans, A.D. and Bradbury, R.B. (2006) Journal of Applied Ecology, 43, 640-650


Scope2: ES, Overwinter stubbles - EF6, EF15, EF22, EG4, HG5

Indicator3: Farming for birds – seed food during winter and early spring


Summary of project:

Energy intake, which is a key determinant of habitat quality, is also affected by food accessibility and perceived predation risk. Work was undertaken to investigate the effects of changing vegetation height (by topping) and scarification on vegetation structure, seed density and distribution of farmland birds, and also the temporal effects of scarification on bird distribution. Scarified plots supported higher abundances of invertebrate feeders and the most recently scarified plots were used more by both invertebrate feeders and granivores; scarification temporarily increased prey accessibility. Due to differing any-predation strategies, shorter stubble was preferred by granivorous passerines and invertebrate feeders, whilst skylarks, partridges, pigeons and meadow pipits preferred taller stubble. Combining treatments on stubble fields throughout winter could provide optimal feeding conditions for a range of species. The consideration of predation risk and access to food is likely to apply to other farmland habitats.

Summary table



6



7




Cutting of the stubble led to greater use by granivorous passerines and invertebrate feeders, whereas skylarks, partridges, pigeons and meadow pipits all preferred longer stubble. These differences are likely to be due to perceived predation risk; granivorous passerines and invertebrate feeders are likely to rely on early detection of predators to retreat to protective cover, and so often feed near field edges and use

+++ Topping had a greater effect and affected more bird species than scarification.

Scarification should not be used as a single solution to alter vegetation height and food accessibility but should be used in combination to provide optimal conditions for birds.

Not known how scarification and

166

hedgerows and trees as refuges. Partridges, skylarks and meadow pipits do not retreat to cover but remain still to avoid predators, with longer stubble offering greater protection.

topping might affect other taxa such as insects, small mammals and weed populations or whether there might be consequences for soil erosion risk.

Scarification and topping carried out on farms where the soil type was mainly clay. Repeating these treatments on lighter soil types might have different effects on food accessibility for birds.

Scarification altered vegetation height but did not reduce it to the same extent as topping. Invertebrate feeders such as thrushes and corvids made more use of scarified plots compared to control plots, probably due to greater access to invertebrates in freshly disturbed soil. The effects of scarification are short-lived; these species also used scarified plots more soon after treatment than after a few weeks, again probably due to increased prey access.

Skylarks and granivorous passerines also showed positive response to scarification possibly due to buried seeds being brought to the surface.

Meadow pipits preferred the non-scarified plots as they contained the most vegetative cover.

Although partridges prefer longer stubble, scarification created small-scale ridges and furrows in the earth which might have increased cover from predators.

167



Behaviour of raptors such as kestrels and sparrowhawks may be influenced by stubble height and vegetation structure – they are more likely to be successful when hunting over less densely vegetated habitats.


12

N/A


13

N/A

168

Woodcock et al. (2011). Can long-term floodplain meadow recreation replicate species composition and functional characteristics of target grasslands?

(Woodcock, B., McDonald, WA and Pywell, RF. (2011) Journal of Applied Ecology, 48, 1070–1078).


Study type and theme1: R&D / M&E: landscape / biodiversity

Scope2: HD11 (also HD10, maintenance). Potential options include: HK9 - HK14

Indicator3: Farming for wildlife: arable plants; butterflies, bees and vulnerable grassland


Summary of project

To understand the long-term potential for the recreation of species-rich floodplain meadows a former floodplain meadow, converted to arable agriculture in 1982, was converted back to its pre-existing status. The experiment commenced in 1985 by growing a barley crop without fertilizers, and re-seeding the site with seeds harvested from a local floodplain meadow. In 1989 the field was divided into nine experimental plots with three recreation treatments: (i) control, with no grazing following the hay cut; (ii) cattle grazing and (iii) sheep grazing. From 1987 to 2009 plant community surveys were conducted which over time showed an increase in similarity to the target grasslands, but a failure to replicate the relative rooted frequencies of plant species characteristic of the target floodplain meadows. Given the probable divergence between historical conditions under which floodplain meadows were formed, it is possible that recreation would be more likely to form novel communities with at best similarities to extant ancient target grasslands.

Summary table



6



7



HD11; HD10; HK9 - HK14

Even with meticulous management, floodplain meadow restoration takes an extremely long time. Under typical grazing management, colonization by the majority of species that characterize floodplain meadow habitat is predicted to take over 150 years.

+ The recreation was attempted on only one site - Somerford Mead, Wytham, UK.

Long-term factors relating to the historical conditions under which communities developed may limit the potential for recreation to replicate what we now consider to

169

Recreation of functional trait structure can occur over a much shorter time-scale (>70 years), therefore the potential to provide functionally equivalent grasslands that deliver analogous ecosystem services to those of the target habitat type is therefore a more realistic goal for recreation.

++ be high-quality examples of floodplain meadows.

The time-scale needed to recreate grasslands puts into question the benefits of compensation schemes that allow grasslands to be lost to development (such as gravel extraction) in exchange for future recreation at other sites.

Recreation should serve as a tool to augment and buffer existing areas; as a compensatory measure its value should be carefully considered in the light of other options.


Increase in abundance of native meadow plants; this in turn could provide foraging opportunities and shelter for invertebrates, birds and mammals.

+ No animal assessments carried out; hypothesis based on common-sense/expert knowledge.


N/A


Conversion from arable to pastoral could bring potential improvements in water quality.

170

2. SOIL AND WATER

BD1241: Review of Management and Restoration Options for Blanket Bog


Study type and theme1: Resource Protection

Scope2: UELS and HLS

Indicator3: Farming for cleaner water and soil (all sub-themes)

Cross-references to other summary tables for the same study4: AES0006, B

Summary of project:

In the last 20 years a significant programme of restoration has been undertaken on blanket bog within the UK, focused upon restoration for conservation and wildlife functions. The principal aims of this work were:




The report used published peer-reviewed and “grey” literature together with interviews and consultations with a wide variety of specialists. The perceived ecosystem drivers of blanket bog, the main threats to its active state and the range of techniques used to conserve or restore blanket bog were investigated. Recommendations and priorities for future field-based research were discussed.

Climate change was considered to be the over-riding threat to the continued existence of blanket bog which may affect the success of projects should the forecast changes in climate occur. Re-establishment of hydrological function was considered fundamental to the recovery and restoration of blanket bog. “Active” blanket bog should contain wet mosses including sphagnum which should be encouraged by natural re-colonisation or re-introduction. The authors considered that agri-environment schemes were essential in supporting and manipulating land management practices and that removal or reduction of payments may encourage farmers and landowners to sell-up resulting in a loss of knowledge base and the potential for scrub invasion.

171

Summary table

Reference number5: AES006 -

RP Option(s)/ Option groups

6



7


9


UX3 Moorland requirements Avoid overgrazing and undergrazing

maintain a minimum stocking rate of 0.05 livestock units (LU) per hectare for a period of 4 months between 1 June and 30 September.

Over grazing can make localised areas more vulnerable to soil losses through erosional weathering processes. Also, heavy trampling and poaching contribute to increased run-off and flooding incidents downstream. Where moorland grazing units are dominated (more than 75 per cent by area) by blanket bog and/or mountain grazing above 600 m there is likely to be benefits from more refined grazing and are a high priority for Higher Level Stewardship (see below).

Grazing livestock can include cattle, sheep and ponies but all stock must be acclimatised to the conditions of the moor.

UX3 Moorland requirements Maintain wetlands including peat bogs, other mires and hillside flushes

Restrict

Direct drainage of bogs will alter water flow patterns. The presence of dense gully/grip networks creates rapid runoff. This results in increased sensitivity of runoff

Drainage and rainfall-runoff relationship will vary between peat types due to different hydraulic conductivity properties of peat soils

172



6



7


9

installation of new land drains or modification of existing drainage

Allow drain blocking

to storm events with higher peak flows occurring earlier. .

HL9 Maintenance of

moorland

Restoration may include grip blocking or temporary fencing, in order to reduce or exclude grazing.

This option is used to

maintain or restore moorland

habitats to benefit upland

wildlife, retain historic

features and strengthen the

landscape character. In

addition, in the right situation

they may provide an area of

flood containment and some

benefits to flood risk

management.

Management will include

grazing the moorland

following an agreed stocking

calendar. It will indicate how

many and what type of

livestock will be allowed to

graze the moorland in each

month of the year.

HL10 Restoration of

moorland

As above

HL7 Maintenance of

rough grazing for birds

Restoration will be individually tailored to the site, but may include blocking existing surface drains, ditches and grips to create or extend areas of wet, marshy grassland vegetation

173



6



7


9

HL8 Restoration of rough grazing for birds

HL13 Moorland re-wetting supplement

Grip-blocking and re-wetting may help to reduce diffuse pollution by reducing surface run-off from the re-wetted area. This may, in certain locations, help to reduce flooding downstream

HL16 Shepherding supplement

This supplement aims to support a grazing regime that will prevent damage to vulnerable soils or vegetation by overgrazing or

undergrazing and poaching.

HR7 Supplement for difficult sites

This supplement aims to compensate for the increased costs of managing particularly difficult sites, such as bogs, where there is a risk of abandonment.


AES are an essential tool in supporting and manipulating blanket bog land management practices, supporting and funding practices such as grip blocking, livestock exclusion, and shepherding which will reduce run-off and alleviate grazing pressures

It was also considered that many of the restoration programmes would not go ahead without the continued support of AES.

174



6



7


9


12

The financial support of AES allows farmers/land owners to continue to manage blanket bog habitats. Without this support much of this habitat would be invaded by scrub.

.


Management and restoration options for blanket bog will have important influences on local biodiversity.

The report does not explicitly consider the effects of climate change, however, changes in climate such as a rise in summer temperatures and prevalence of prolonged droughts, followed by intense rain, may be expected to bring about changes in biomass, peat accumulation and nutrient cycling associated with a lowering of the water table and increased desiccation, humification and erosion in summer.

BD1326: Wetting up Farmland for Biodiversity

175

Contractors: The Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust, RSPB, Pond Conservation

Study type and theme1: Research and development. Resource Protection and biodiversity

Scope2: Potential ELS and HLS measures

Indicator3: Farming for cleaner water and soil (all sub-themes) and farming for wildlife and farming for birds


Summary of project:

Follows on from BD1323

The project objectives were:

1. To develop an existing replicated experiment to measure the delivery of food resources and bird use of small-scale wetland features on the edges of arable and pastoral fields.

a. To measure success in delivering open water and bare earth, as a measure of access to food resources for farmland birds b. To measure success in delivering obligate wetland invertebrates, especially those important as a food resource for farmland birds c. To measure use of the created features by foraging farmland birds

2. To make an assessment of the likely costs and benefits associated with accumulated sediment in the studied features. 3. To synthesize results and make recommendations for provision of wet areas in arable land and grassland within agri-environment schemes.

4. To disseminate results and practical advice to farmers and other stakeholders, as results become available. The experimental infrastructure comprised 16 Bunded Ditches associated with arable fields and 15 Bunded Ditches associated with pasture. Each Bunded Ditch had a control section of ditch in which there was no bund and which was surveyed in the same way as bunded sections. As in the previous phase of the project, eight field corner Paired Ponds were also surveyed. Birds and emergent insects were surveyed in all Bunded Ditches and Paired Ponds. Water depth and area of bare mud were also monitored in all Bunded Ditches. Accumulated sediment was dredged from half the Bunded Ditches in autumn 2008 in order to assess whether the performance of these features would be restored in the following breeding season.

176

Summary table



6



7


9


Bunded ditches considered as an option for ELS

Demonstrable but limited benefits to insects and birds. In addition, to the biodiversity benefits the retention of sediments in bunded ditches has the potential to limit sediment and nutrient losses from farms to river systems.

Paired ponds considered as an option for HLS

Demonstrable but limited benefits to insects and birds. In addition, to the biodiversity benefits the retention of sediments in ponds has the potential to limit sediment and nutrient losses from farms to river systems.

The potential of paired pond systems to reduce transport of sediment and nutrients to watercourse is being investigated in collaboration with WQ0127 (MOPS2).


N/A


12

None .


The focus of this report was on bunded ditches and corner paired ponds for bird and insect numbers and species diversity.

177

BD1466 (WEB) Final Report for the 2009-2010 field seasons

Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research, NERC, North Wyke

Study type and theme1: Research and development - Resource Protection

Scope2:



Summary of project:

The project has four scientific objectives:

1. Quantify the success of establishing a limited number of plant species into seedbeds (ELS/HLS creation option) and existing grassland (currently HLS restoration option) to provide pollen, nectar, seed, and/or spatial and structural heterogeneity.

2. Quantify the effects of grassland creation and sward restoration on faunal diversity/abundance, forage production and quality, soil properties and nutrient losses.

3. Develop grazing and cutting management practices to enhance biodiversity, minimise pollution and benefit agronomic performance. 4. Liaise with Natural England to produce specifications for new or modified ES options, and detailed guidance for their successful management.

The experiment was replicated at two sites - Jealott’s Hill, Berkshire and North Wyke, Devon using a split-split-split plot design replicated four times in separate blocks which were established in autumn 2008. The experiment looked at the effects of different seed mixtures (grass only, grass + legume mix, grass + legume + non-legume forb mix), subsequent management of the sward (cattle grazing or cutting for silage), the timing of management (grazing (typical - moderate grazing with beef cattle from April to October; rested - no grazing from June to August with moderate grazing by beef cattle for the rest of the growing season) cutting (typical - 1 to 3 silage cuts; rested - involved a period in mid-summer with no cutting) and the initial cultivation practice (Deep or shallow cultivation) used to establish the different seed mixtures.

This report does not fully cover soil responses to the different treatments, as these were still developing at the time that this report was published in March 2011. Objectives 2 - 4 will be covered in more detail in the report on phase 2 of this project, which will be completed in 2013.

178

Summary table

Reference number5:

AES021 -RP Option(s)/ Option groups

6



7


9


Grassland restoration/creation options. Options relating to seasonal removal of livestock.

At Jealott’s Hill, in the second year after establishment, soil penetrability at the soil surface was typically higher where legumes and non-legume forbs were included in the seed mix. This may have been as a result of the greater surface density of the surface vegetation. In addition, increased vegetation may have caused greater evapotranspirational loss of soil water creating a drier less penetrable soil. In the first year the pressure required to penetrate the soil was greatest when shallow cultivation had been applied under cutting management. The rate of increase with soil compaction was not consistently related to any treatment and it was recognised that one of the key drivers of this was likely to be soil moisture content, over which the project had no control.

Not fully quantified at this stage.

Soil responses to treatments and subsequent nutrient losses are not fully covered in this report.

At North Wyke, bulk density (0-10 cm) was higher when ploughing was used to establish the seed mixes compared to minimum cultivation. In contrast, bulk density (10-20 cm) was lower when ploughing was used to establish the seed mixes compared to minimum cultivation.



Measured soil carbon was highest when shallow cultivation had been

Not fully quantified at

Soil responses to treatments and subsequent

179

Reference number5:


6



7


9

used - 36% more and 8% more at North Wyke and Jealott’s Hill respectively.

this stage. nutrient losses are not fully covered in this report.

Shallow cultivation techniques helped maintain soil nitrogen levels better than under deep ploughing.


The drop in soil N in the top 7.5 cm of the soil in the ploughed treatments probably simply reflects the burial of the organic matter rich surface soil (and with it the N).

Shallow cultivation techniques maintained higher soil total P compared with ploughing and at Jealott’s Hill also of Olsen P. At both sites an overall reduction in soil P was measured.





12

Impacts on production were not fully investigated as dry matter yields from ‘grass only’, ‘grass + legume’ and ‘grass + legume + non-legume forb’ seed mixes were only compared under a zero N fertiliser regime. Dry matter yields therefore reflected the ability of legume species to fix nitrogen.


13

Effects on plant community structure, provision of seed and insect bird food resources, insect pollinator and invertebrate communities is investigated.

180

BD2301: Scoping study to assess the possible effects of habitat restoration on nutrient losses


Study type and theme1: Resource Protection

Scope2: ELS and HLS all options



Summary of project:

The primary objectives of this study were to establish the extent to which habitat restoration occurs in England under AES and identify which types of land and/or species are most commonly affected and identify processes or models that describe or predict likely impact of habitat restoration on nutrient losses. The report includes sections on 1) evidence base review, 2) modelling the impact of nutrient losses, 3) stewardship schemes on the national scale, 4) financial implications and 5) mitigation options and recommendations. For each AES option considered to be a risk to water quality through N and P losses four mains themes were identified through which N and P contamination could occur - erosion, reduced plant uptake, nutrient sources (FYM, excreta etc) and buffer strips and level of significance was assigned to each theme

NB: Some options specifically focus on reducing soil erosion or nutrient losses (e.g. EJ2 Management of maize crops to reduce soil erosion; EM02 Nutrient management plan). Such obvious options are excluded from this scoping study which identifies any inadvertent impact on nutrient losses during attempts to restore habitats.

Summary table

Reference number5:


6



7



ELS Options that may adversely impact on the environment

EK05 Mixed stocking (assuming rise in cattle numbers)

Erosion- Grazing

Nutrient source - Excreta

−−

−

Given as the option with greatest potential risk, but no consistent direct evidence that mixed grazing is any worse than sheep grazing at equivalent stocking rates

181

Reference number5:


6



7


(livestock units per hectare). Only likely to be problematic if cattle replace other animals and there is an increase in actual cattle numbers. 80,000 ha covered

EF06 Over-wintered stubbles Increased risk of N pollution

Increased risk of P pollution

−

−

Given as one of the options with greatest potential risk. At the time of the study, there was no data on the level of vegetation cover on Stewardship stubbles. A number of UK studies indicate greater nitrate leaching on cultivated winter cereals compared with uncultivated over winter stubbles. Defra guidance on controlling erosion and field evidence (Chambers et al. 2000; Evans 1990) suggests that cereal stubbles are often less prone to erosion than fine seedbeds or even coarse seedbeds until a winter cereal crop cover of around 25-30% has been established. The latest ELS guidance favours management (e.g. sub-soiling on compacted tramlines and headlands) to reduce erosion risk on overwintered stubbles: 53,000 ha covered

EE03 6m buffer strips on Increased risk of N pollution −− Literature suggests that

182

Reference number5:


6



7


cultivated land Increased risk of P pollution

−− buffers can be a source as well as a sink for nutrients, depending on management, buffer age, drainage status and buffer width. Potential to reduce nutrients present in run-off but no effect on sub-surface flow/drains. Width may be inadequate, depending on slope angle and configuration. Buffer strips may allow nutrients to accumulate and these could become a nutrient source if disturbed. Limited evidence to assign an overall negative impact. See Collins et al. (2009).

EE02 4m buffer strips on cultivated land

Increased risk of N and P pollution

−− As EE03 above – limited evidence to assign an overall negative impact. See Collins et al. (2009).

EG05 Brassica fodder crops followed by over-wintered stubbles

Erosion from grazing and reduced vegetation cover

Nutrient source, excreta particularly in winter

−−−

−

No longer an ELS option. Option with greatest potential risk.

EG01 Under sown spring cereals

Increased risk of P loss and erosion from reduced vegetation cover

Nutrient source N from

−

Given as one of the options with greatest potential risk. The benefits of establishing an undersown crop were not considered; only the impacts

183

Reference number5:


6



7


legumes −− of incorporating the undersown crop (in the year following incorporation). Some undersown crops may be retained for a number of years, thereby increasing the benefits of its establishment.

EK04 Management of rush pastures (outside of LFA)

Erosion from grazing

Nutrient source from excreta in wet areas

0/−

−

There may be a risk of increased erosion and pollutant loss if the option results in the use of cattle trampling to control rushes in the wettest areas.

EF04 Pollen & nectar flower mixture (introduced into a previously arable area)


Reduced plant nutrient uptake

Excreta - nutrient source

−

−

−

Negative impact is based on the assumption that grazing is introduced into a previously ungrazed (i.e. arable) area. Primarily at risk due to possible winter grazing compared to the alternative of no grazing of this arable land. Late autumn/early winter grazing is allowed, but is unlikely to be carried out unless livestock are available. There was no data on the extent of grazing of this option at the time of the study.

EE01 2m buffer strips on cultivated land


−− No longer applicable as this is now part of Cross-Compliance.

184

Reference number5:


6



7


EE06 6m buffer strips on intensive grassland


−− As EE02 above – limited evidence to assign an overall negative impact. See Collins et al. (2009).

EG04 Cereals for whole crop silage followed by over-wintered stubbles

Increased risk of N pollution

Increased risk of P pollution

−

−

As EF06 above.



−− As EE02 above

EF11 6m Uncropped, cultivated margins on arable land

Erosion from reduced vegetation cover

−− THE ELS Handbook does not recommend this option where runoff is a problem – “a grass buffer should be considered”.


Buffer −− As EE02 above

EF05 Pollen & nectar flower mixture on set-aside land


Reduced plant nutrient uptake

Legumes - nutrient source

−

−

−

No longer applicable as set-aside land is no longer required.

EF08 Skylark plots Erosion from reduced vegetation cover

−/−− Skylark plots create areas of bare ground that can lead to locally enhanced (leaching and erosion), but the overall maximum area that they can cover is relatively small and overall impacts on water

185

Reference number5:


6



7


quality are likely to be negligible in most circumstances.

EG03 Pollen and nectar seed mixtures in grassland areas


−

Permitted autumn/winter grazing of newly established pollen and nectar mixtures could potentially increase erosion and P/sediment loss on sloping land. Cultivation to establish seed mixtures could potentially increase nitrate leaching by a small amount.

HLS Options that may adversely impact on the environment

HL12 Management of heather, gorse and grass by burning, cutting or swiping

Erosion from reduced vegetation cover

Reduced nutrient uptake

−

−

Burning can increase erosion and run-off. Few studies specifically examining the effect of burning on nutrient exports.

HF13 Fallow plots for ground-nesting birds (rotational or non-rotational)

Nutrient source - excreta 0/−

Bird droppings can be a source of nutrient inputs but more specific studies would be needed to investigate this. Cultivation combined with no vegetation to take up nutrients may enhance the risk of nitrate leaching losses.

HG07 Low input spring cereal to retain or re-create an arable

Erosion from reduced − Low input may be sufficient to create adequate

186

Reference number5:


6



7


mosaic vegetation cover

Reduced nutrient uptake

Nutrient source - legume

0/−

−−

establishment (also largely dependent on sol nitrogen supply) and vegetative cover for erosion control, cf. a conventionally fertilised, spring cereal crop. See Natural England TIN107.

HK11 Restoration of wet grassland for breeding waders


Nutrient source -flooding/wetting

−

−/−−

Encouraging birds to an area with high hydrologic connectivity could increase nutrient inputs in bird droppings but more specific studies would be needed to investigate this.

There may also be implications for nitrous oxide emissions.

HK12 Restoration of wet grassland for wintering waders and wildfowl



−

−/−−

As HK11 above

HK13 Creation of wet grassland for breeding waders



−

−/−−

As HK11 above

HL11 Creation of upland heathland

Erosion from reduced vegetation cover and land disturbance

Nutrient source - flush each burn and bracken control

−−

−/−−

Requires substantial disturbance to the soil and will inevitably provide an enhanced source of nutrient in the short term, through mineralisation and sediment;

187

Reference number5:


6



7


whether this impacts on water quality will depend on the hydrological connectivity at the time of disturbance.

HK14 Creation of wet grassland for wintering waders and wildfowl


Nutrient source -flooding/wetting and excreta

−

−/−−

As HK11 above

HO03 Restoration of forestry areas to lowland heathland

Erosion from reduced vegetation cover and land disturbance

Nutrient source -

−−

−

Requires substantial disturbance to the soil and will inevitably provide an enhanced source of nutrient in the short term, through mineralisation and sediment; whether this impacts on water quality will depend on the hydrological connectivity at the time of disturbance.

HQ12 Wetland grazing Erosion from grazing

Nutrient source

−

−

Wetlands are generally located on flat land where erosion risk is low.

HG06 Fodder crop management to retain or re-create an arable mosaic (rotational)

Erosion from reduced vegetation cover and grazing

Nutrient source

−−−

−

The main risk is associated with winter grazing on land with a potentially low cover of vegetation.

HQ08 Creation of fen Nutrient source −/−− Requires substantial disturbance to the soil and will inevitably provide an enhanced source of nutrient in

188

Reference number5:


6



7


the short term, through mineralisation and sediment; whether this impacts on water quality will depend on the hydrological connectivity at the time of disturbance.

Mixed literature evidence on release of P

HD11 Restoration of traditional water meadows

Erosion from grazing and land disturbance

Nutrient source -

−

−/−−

As HK11 and HQ12 above

HQ05 Creation of reedbeds Erosion from land disturbance

P nutrient source -

−

−

Requires substantial disturbance to the soil and will inevitably provide an enhanced source of nutrient in the short term, through mineralisation and sediment; whether this impacts on water quality will depend on the hydrological connectivity at the time of disturbance.

Mixed literature evidence on release of P

HP07 Creation of inter-tidal and saline habitat on arable land

Erosion from land disturbance

Nutrient source -

−

−/−−

Inter-tidal and saline habitats are generally located on flat land where erosion risk is low.

However, the option requires substantial disturbance to the

189

Reference number5:


6



7


soil and will inevitably provide an enhanced source of nutrient in the short term, through mineralisation and sediment mobilisation.

HP08 Creation of inter-tidal and saline habitat on grassland

Erosion from land disturbance

Nutrient source -

−

−/−−

As HP07 above.

Overall

Out of a total of 172 options, only 33 were identified as having an adverse impact on water quality, assuming a worst case scenario. There may be a reduction in water quality associated with introducing some of the options aimed at enhancing biodiversity. The increased risk is partly due to encouraging practices such as grazing in wet areas and/or winter.


The majority of AES options will be beneficial to the environment and biodiversity. The area of land adopted under the options listed above having an impact on water quality are small (<0.5% of the total farmed area).

190

Reference number5:


6



7


The risks posed by poor nutrient, soil and manure management (where this occurs) are likely to have a far greater impact on water quality than the options identified in this study as a potential risk.


12

None identified


13

Detailed above

Chambers, B. J., Garwood, T. W. D. and Unwin, R.J. 2000 Controlling soil water erosion and phosphorus losses from arable land in England and Wales. Journal of Environmental Quality 29, 145-150.

Collins, A.L., Hughes, G., Zhang, Y. and Whitehead, J. 2009. Mitigating diffuse water pollution from agriculture: riparian buffer strip performance with width. CAB Reviews. Perspectives in Agriculture,.Veterinary Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources 4, No. 39.

Defra 2005 Controlling Soil Erosion – A Manual for the Assessment and Management of Agricultural Land at Risk of Water Erosion in Lowland England. Published by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. 56pp.

Evans, R. 1990 Water erosion in British farmers’ fields – some causes, impacts, predictions. Prog. Phys. Geog. 14, 199-219.

Natural England 2012. Environmental Stewardship and Climate Change Mitigation. Technical Advice Note 107, 14pp.

191

BD2304: Scoping study to assess soil compaction affecting upland and lowland grassland in England and Wales

Contractor: University of Cranfield

Study type and theme1: Desk-based literature review – R&D. Biodiversity, Resource Protection, Climate Change/GHG

Scope2: Options & option groups


Cross-references to other summary tables for the same study4: also relevant to B and CC – AES014-B & AES014-CC

Summary of project:

The project focuses on the impacts of soil compaction in grassland on the maintenance of biodiversity and protection of the water and air environments. There are sections on mapping the extent of soil compaction in grasslands (using a modelling approach); the causes of compaction; the impacts of compaction on biodiversity (plants and soil flora and fauna), water quality, air quality and run-off volumes; and relevance to existing and potential ES options.

Summary table

Reference number5: AES014-RP

Option(s)/ Option groups6



7


Impacts on the indicator10 Existing ES options

Ancient trees in intensively managed grass fields – HC6 Crop establishment by direct drilling (non-rotational) – HD6 Maintaining high water levels to protect

Restricts access to trees and has the potential to reduce compaction around the trees. Reduced impact of machinery use in wet weather Restricted access may reduce poaching.

+ + +ve for water

There is a high degree of uncertainty both in terms of how the option is implemented and the effect that the option has on grassland compaction and the impacts of compaction. Very little evidence that direct drilling as a means of establishing grass reduces compaction. Ammonia emissions may increase due to longer housing periods for

192





7


archaeology – HD8 Arable reversion to grassland – HJ3, HJ4 Preventing erosion or run-off from intensively managed improved grassland – HJ6 Seasonal livestock removal on grassland with no input restriction – HJ7 Hedge management – EB1-EB3, OB1-OB3,

Reduced soil compaction, erosion and run-off. Reduced soil compaction, erosion and run-off Restricted livestock access reduces poaching Reduced cutting frequency and therefore vehicle

quality ++/+++ + to +++ + +

livestock and greater storage and spreading of manures. There is a high degree of uncertainty both in terms of how the option is implemented and the effect that the option has on compaction and the impacts of compaction. For reversion to low fertiliser input extensive grazing, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and losses of faecal indicators (FIOs) will increase. Good evidence provided from scientific literature, particularly for infiltration and surface run-off effects. There is a degree of uncertainty in terms of how well the option is implemented, but the option is normally tailored to site objectives so should be effective. Ammonia emissions may increase due to longer housing periods for livestock and greater storage and spreading of manures. Should result in reduced compaction and reduced surface

193





7


HB12 Buffer strips in intensive grasslands - EE4-EE6, OE4-OE6, HE4-HE6 Soil protection – EJ1, EM1, OJ1, OM1, HJ1, HM1 Take field corners out of management – EK1, OK1, HK1 Permanent grasslands with (very) low inputs – EK2, EK3, OK2, OK3, HK2, HK3 Mixed stocking – EK5, OK5, HK5

movement along hedgerow Restricted vehicle access along Boundaries Reduced soil compaction, erosion and run-off. Reduced machinery activity (agro-chemical application, cultivation). Reduced machinery activity (agro-chemical application, cultivation). “Reduced machinery activity, grazing and poaching”

+ + + + +

run-off, but no direct evidence. Should result in reduced compaction and reduced surface run-off if effectively implemented, but no direct evidence provided. Field margins are often very compacted from preferential trafficking, but compacted buffer strips can also create a problem with associated run-off and nutrient loss. Could potentially result in reduced compaction and reduced surface run-off, but no direct evidence. There is a degree of uncertainty in terms of how well the option is implemented, particularly with respect to machinery traffic on field corners. There is a degree of uncertainty both in terms of how the option is implemented (dead weight and efficacy) and the effect that the option has on grassland compaction and the impacts of compaction. There is no stocking rate restriction. Sward lifting is encouraged by the

194





7


Field corner management (LFA land) – EL1, OL1, HL1 Manage in-bye grassland with (very) low inputs (LFA land) – EL2, EL3, OL2, OL3, HL2, HL3 Management of rush pastures (LFA land) – EL4, OL4, HL4 Enclosed rough grazing (LFA land) – EL5, OL5, HL5 Moorland and rough grazing – EL6, HL6

Reduced machinery activity (agro-chemical application, cultivation). Reduced machinery activity (agro-chemical application, cultivation). Reduced machinery activity (agro-chemical application, cultivation). Reduced machinery activity (agro-chemical application, cultivation). Reduced machinery activity (agro-chemical application, cultivation).

+ + + + +

option, but the level of payment (9 points per ha in ELS) provides no incentive. Moving feeders at regular intervals may have some effect if implemented effectively. There is a degree of uncertainty in terms of how well the option is implemented, particularly with respect to machinery traffic on field corners. There is a degree of uncertainty both in terms of how the option is implemented (dead weight and efficacy) and the effect that the option has on grassland compaction and the impacts of compaction. As above As above Effects on resource protection uncertain and likely to be negligible. Not using ring feeders or troughs may have localised effects (benefits).

195





7


Maintenance, restoration and creation of semi-natural grasslands – HK6-HK8 Maintenance, restoration and creation of wet grasslands – HK9-HK14 Maintenance, restoration and creation of semi-improved grasslands or rough grassland – HK15-HK17 Shepherding supplement – HL16 Management of archaeological features on grassland– ED5 Potential remediation measures / ES options

Match machinery

Reduced machinery activity, grazing and poaching. Reduced machinery activity, grazing and poaching Reduced machinery activity, grazing and poaching Reduced grazing and soil compaction Reduced machinery activity, grazing and poaching

+ + + + +

Ammonia emissions may increase due to longer housing periods for livestock and greater storage and spreading of manures. As above – also, alleviation of compaction may be effective, but how widespread and how effective this is under this option and in this context (wetlands) is less certain.

Wetting up grassland can also result in increased compaction.

Fertiliser spreading and supplementary feeding is tailored to each site. Little to no evidence presented. Ammonia emissions may increase due to longer housing periods for livestock and greater storage and spreading of manures. Measures to protect archaeology can have antagonistic effects if the soils become compacted.

196





7


operations to the nature and condition of the soil

Adjust tyres, inflation pressures and loads

Loosening of soil

Guidelines to prevent soil compaction occurring

Maintenance of good surface drainage

Biodiversity monitoring and responsive management

Adaptive management where compaction has occurred

Reduce or prevent treading damage

Use of plant species with desirable rooting characteristics

Use water management to encourage soil shrink-swelling leading to restructuring

Remediation of diffuse pollution from compacted grasslands

+ + ++/- + + ?? + + ? ? +

Very little information on how these measures might be implemented on farm. No clear relationship between plant species diversity and compaction has been established. Already included in some ES options. ‘Reduce or prevent treading damage’ is already included in some ES options. Limited evidence – see BD5001. Limited evidence. All encompassing, including

197





7


controlling sources, pathways and receptors.


Many of the existing ES options listed above will have benefits for resource protection that are additional to the effects of reduced compaction. For example, buffer strips and field corners provide barriers in the landscape that can protect the receptor.

Lack of flexibility - Currently a lack of flexibility in some ES schemes can be seen as presenting conflicts for soil compaction. For example, windows of opportunities for farmers to correct soil problems may conflict with payment schemes. Fixed timing limits for grazing species-rich grasslands can also be a problem in years with extreme weather conditions.


12

ES options that reduce soil compaction in grassland can increase production, but effects are inconsistent. For example, mechanical loosening can reduce productivity (as well as increase it or have no effect – see BD5001) and reducing stocking rates will reduce productivity.


Reducing soil compaction could potentially have an effect on biodiversity:

Microflora - wide range of biotic responses to

+/0 Most of the evidence linking compaction to biodiversity is associated with arable soils. In grassland studies, surrogates such as stocking rate and grazing intensity have been used rather

198





7


compaction

Microfauna - may change the proportion of different types of nematodes rather than the overall numbers

Collembola - compaction reduction in total abundance

Mites - data inadequate

Enchytraeids - compaction reduction in total abundance

Earthworms - reduction in density and biomass

Plant communities: compacted soil can affect the relative abundance of species

To date there has been no consideration of the impact of soil compaction on birds. Based on foraging ecology and conservation status song thrush, starling, lapwing, snipe and redshank are considered at greatest risk from compaction.

than direct measurements of soil compaction.

199

BD5001: Characterisation of soil structural degradation under grassland and development of measures to ameliorate its impact on biodiversity and other soil functions.


Study type and theme1: R&D - Biodiversity, Resource Protection, and Climate Change/GHG

Scope2: Potential options for ELS or HLS

Indicator3: Farming for birds (implications for invertebrate foraging); Farming for wildlife (soil flora and fauna); Farming for cleaner water and healthier soil (all

sub-themes); Farming and climate change (investigate and reduce emissions)

Cross-references to other summary tables for the same study4: relevant to biodiversity and climate change

Summary of project:

The premise for the project was that soil structural degradation (or compaction) in grasslands may be hindering the achievement of agri-environment scheme objectives in England and Wales, including those related to biodiversity, flood management and water resources, soil, water and air quality.

The first part of the project assessed the extent and degree of soil structural degradation through a field survey of 300 grassland fields in England and Wales and a more detailed survey of 30 of the more ‘compacted’ sites (as defined by 0-10 cm bulk density – BD). Both surveys were stratified to represent the range of farm types, soil types, grassland types, agro-climatic zones, and grassland management (fields that are ‘mainly cut’ or ‘mainly grazed’) in England and Wales. Overall, the results indicated that approximately 10% of fields were in poor condition and around 60% in moderate condition; that is, between 500,000 and 750,000 hectares of grassland in England and Wales could be in poor physical condition and that 2 to 3 million hectares may be in moderate condition.

Work package 2 produced two reviews; one focused on the principles of and research into mechanical loosening (e.g. aeration/slitting and sward lifting) and the other reviewed evidence in the literature on the ability of grassland plant species to resist or alleviate soil compaction.

Work package 3 involves four field experiments in England and Wales to investigate the impact of mechanical loosening, and its interaction with the introduction of deep-rooting herbs and legumes, on soil physical properties and soil functions such as water regulation and habitat support (invertebrate abundance and bird foraging). All four sites were moderately ‘compacted’ and typical of the degree of structural degradation found in the survey of 300 grassland fields. One of the objectives of the field experiments is to investigate whether or not there is any potential for mechanical loosening or the introduction of an appropriate seed mix (with deep-rooting herbs and legumes) to be introduced as an Environmental Stewardship option for biodiversity, resource protection or climate change mitigation. Some data from WP3 has been presented in Annual Reports to Defra, but a Final Report is not due until autumn/winter 2013.

200

Summary table



6



7



Mechanical loosening

Introduction of deep-rooting herbs and legumes

Very effective at increasing water infiltration rates: at 3 out of 4 sites, saturated water infiltration rates were four to seven times the control for at least 18 months post loosening.

The measure did not have a significant effect on water infiltration rates.

+++

0

Evidence from four experimental sites – all light to medium soils and moderately compacted (as defined by 0-10 cm BD and visual soil assessment).

On some soils with artificial under drainage, higher infiltration rates may not reduce flooding risk significantly if connectivity with subsurface drains is very high.

On the site with light, sandy soils, water infiltration rates were increased on plots where soils were mechanically loosened and deep-rooting herbs and legumes were introduced. However, baseline water infiltration rates on the ‘compacted’ soils were relatively high compared with other sites.


Mechanical loosening

Mechanical loosening could be effective in reducing mobilisation and transport of water borne pollutants via the surface pathway (e.g. loss of phosphorus, faecal indicator organisms, ammonium and sediment to water). However,

The WP2 review indicates that mechanical loosening should only be carried out on grassland soils where there is clear evidence of compaction. The timing of operations is also critical. Topsoil loosening in conditions which are too wet can lead to increased

201

mechanical loosening could also increase connectivity with drains, thereby increasing the loss of pollutants via the subsurface pathway in some circumstances.

There is also some evidence to suggest that the effect of mechanical loosening on phosphorus loss is likely to vary depending on soil drainage status with soluble P loss reduced on well drained soils and possibly increased on poorly drained soils. Topsoil loosening is not recommended in poorly drained soils if there is no effective drainage system present.

Mechanical loosening can be effective in reducing ammonia emissions following the application of organic materials to land.

damage through smearing and wheel slip. Equally, under dry soil conditions excessive surface heave and root damage can occur. The suitability of soil moisture conditions for successful soil loosening can only be assessed in the field on the day of operation


Results from the limited number of studies evaluating the effects of grassland soil loosening in the UK, ROI and overseas have been variable, with many measuring no annual yield benefits, along with some yield increases and some decreases.

Where yield increases were measured these were generally at sites where there was evidence of compaction at the outset. Where yield decreases were measured these were generally at sites where there was little (or no) evidence of compaction at the outset of the experiment and loosening resulted in sward and root damage.

202


WP3 will provide evidence on the impact of mechanical loosening and the introduction of deep-rooting herbs and legumes on plant diversity, invertebrate abundance, bird foraging, microbial biomass/activity, and, for mechanical loosening only, nitrous oxide emissions following nitrogen fertiliser application (i.e. climate change mitigation).

203

BD5004: Scoping study to develop a monitoring programme for the outcomes of Uplands ELS

Food & Environment Research Agency, ADAS, CCRI, CAER, Penny Anderson Associates

Study type and theme1: Monitoring and Evaluation - Resource Protection

Scope2: UELS



Summary of project:

The Hill Farming Allowance was replaced in 2010 by the Uplands Entry Level Stewardship (UELS), which pays farmers with land in Severely Disadvantaged Areas (SDAs) for environmental benefits provided on their land. It was intended that a monitoring programme would be carried out to assess the outputs in terms of scheme uptake, and outcomes in terms of management changes, environmental deliverables, farmer attitudes and effectiveness of advice.

The aim of this scoping study was to develop a specification for the UELS monitoring programme, including the establishment of a baseline. The project specified alternative monitoring methodologies, with indicative costs including possibilities for the direct and indirect measurement of outcomes, modelling and the use of case studies. A workshop was held at which each aspect of the monitoring programme was examined, and potential approaches considered, along with the necessary timescales and estimated costs involved. The report considered a range of options at different levels of costs, which were analysed according to their relative advantages and disadvantages to assist with selection of the most appropriate methods. Types of methodology considered included analysis of UELS uptake data, farmer surveys and field surveys. A range of monitoring approaches ranging from remote, indirect to on the ground were assessed for cost and level of confidence to allow optimal choices to be made. The study also considered the potential for use of various datasets to assist with scaling up results from surveys to regional and national level.

Summary table



6



7


9


UELS This scoping study looked at developing a monitoring programme that would contribute to the evaluation of the success of UELS.

Not applicable

204



6



7


9

Uptake analysis Not applicable Proposal to use existing data from UELS application/approval process. Spatial analysis would also be possible (at extra cost) using Natural England GIS data.

Farmer attitude survey Not applicable Two tier approach

Large scale telephone survey (1500)

In depth interview and field monitoring of 104 farms stratified according to region and category of AES membership, selected from amongst respondents to Farm Practices Survey.

Environmental assessment

Not applicable For resource protection water quality is the key aspect through soil condition and erosion is also important. It was recommended that an indirect approach should be taken based on a survey of the landscape, including fencing, stock number etc. Another recommended approach was to use geochemical tracing pre and post UELS options to assess effectiveness in protecting water quality.

205



6



7


9

Detection of change

Not applicable Comparison with non-scheme farms (where available) will indicate whether similar management is being followed outside UELS. The extent to which change occurs will depend on the condition at the start as assessed by the baseline

Baseline monitoring

Not applicable Ideally prior to the start of UELS. Second baseline assessment carried out at the time of peak transfer from existing schemes (e.g. ELS) to UELS.

Sampling frequency

Not applicable Five and ten-years after each baseline. If required a re-survey could be carried out in 2013 for policy purposes to inform the next round of CAP reform in 2014.


Not applicable


12

Not applicable


Monitoring strategy for other objectives such as climate change, biodiversity is also considered.

206

BD5301: Restoration of Herbaceous Hedgerow Flora: Review and Analysis of Ecological Factors and Restoration Techniques. Phase I


Study type and theme1: Research and development using existing datasets. Biodiversity, resource protection

Scope2:



Summary of project:

This project aimed to improve understanding of the ecological characteristics of hedgerow vegetation and potential management techniques. The specific project objectives were:

1. To obtain existing data sets containing information on the herbaceous flora of the UK’s hedgerows and assemble information on functional attributes of component species from existing reference sources.

2. To characterize the UK’s herbaceous hedgerow flora using these existing flora data sets into practical groups that can be used in objective setting, planning and implementation of restoration projects.

3. To search for existing soils information relating to hedgerow plants or groups.

4. To review available information on the effects of hedgerow management on the herbaceous flora.

5. To review and summarize potential restoration techniques relevant to the herbaceous hedgerow flora, including other comparable habitats.

6. To estimate likely timescales for restoration based on technique and ecological constraints.

7. To develop a framework for representative sampling of hedgerow flora groups and their soils and management, and provide recommended sample sizes.

Data on the herbaceous flora were obtained from hedgerows that had been surveyed in 1990, 1998 and 2007 as part of the Great Britain Countryside Survey. Data were also obtained from local hedgerow surveys after screening for quality against a set of standard criteria. In total, data on plant species from 4147 vegetation quadrats were obtained. Cluster analysis was then used to produce a classification of the herbaceous flora according to the characteristics of the plant species present, including their habitat and environmental preferences, grazing tolerance and life histories.

207

Summary table



6



7


9


No specific resource protection options are mentioned.



12

N/A .


Some non-option specific references to ES impacts on biodiversity in relation to hedgerow flora and fauna.

208

RP0457: Catchment Sensitive Farming: ECSFDI Phase 1 & 2 Full Evaluation Report.


Study type and theme1: M&E: Resource Protection

Scope2:

Indicator3: Farming for cleaner water and healthier soil


Summary of project:

The study evaluates the first five years of the England Catchment Sensitive Farming Delivery Initiative (ECSFDI). ECSFDI has met its primary objectives, namely to: 1) increase awareness amongst relevant parties of the impact of diffuse water pollution from agriculture (DWPA); 2) improve soil and land management practices amongst farmers within Priority Catchments, and 3) reduce the pollution of water caused by farming within Priority Catchments. Farmer engagement was considered highly effective, with some 17% of all farm holdings within Priority Catchments and 45% within targeted sub-catchments receiving direct advice, and over 80% of those confirming their knowledge of water pollution had increased and they had taken, or intended taking, action to reduce water pollution.

Significant improvements to soil and land management practices have been brought about through voluntary uptake of advice and a capital grant scheme, and over 93,000 farm-specific recommendations have been made for improving soil and land management, with an uptake rate of over 50%. Modelling indicates that improvements in management practices will result in significant reductions in pollutant losses (predicted to be between 5 -10% across Target Areas, but possibly up to 36%). Water quality monitoring has demonstrated reductions in pollutant loads and concentrations up to around 30% within representative catchments and, for pesticides, across targeted catchments. Extension of ECSFDI activity across existing Target Areas will deliver significant further reductions in diffuse pollutants.

Summary table

Reference number5:


6



7



ELS code J

ECSFDI as a model system: the England Catchment Sensitive Farming Delivery Initiative (ECSFDI) provides a useful model for reducing the impact of diffuse water

++

Although the authors state there is clear evidence to demonstrate that the initiative has met its key objectives the report contains little

209

pollution from agriculture (DWPA).

The key themes of ECSFDI are:

ensuring effective farmer engagement;

increasing farmer awareness and influencing farmer attitudes;

providing advice and support re. measures to control DWPA;

monitoring and modelling pollutant losses and water quality

monitoring & evaluation of ECSFDI as a whole.

in the way of primary evidence to support this; the ‘impact and ‘strength of evidence’ assessments are therefore based on the assessment inferred in the report.

Key attributes of scheme:-

Farmer awareness/attitudes: increasing farmer awareness and changing farmer attitudes are key to securing acceptance that DWPA is an important issue affecting farmers, and in helping drive changes in farming practices.

Ensuring measures are effective: many of the methods for controlling DWPA rely on farmers making appropriate judgements and decisions (e.g. when to apply pesticides); with an understanding of, and a will to control, DWPA the effectiveness of such measures is greater.

Advice provision: voluntary advice can make a significant contribution to reducing diffuse water pollution from agriculture. Communication of the benefits is likely to be important to secure future buy-in of stakeholders

Financial incentives: free advice, reduced running costs (e.g. through reduced fertiliser applications) and capital grants are important drivers for reducing diffuse water

++

Despite the increase in knowledge of water pollution there is only limited acceptance from farmers that agriculture makes a significant contribution to water pollution. The key drivers for change are financial incentives (i.e. free advice, reduced costs and grants).

The report concedes there is a high level of confusion amongst farmers over what is required of them in relation to controlling DWPA.

Implementation increases with time (at least over relatively short timescales) and further engagement, underlining the importance of the farm adviser role and the need to develop a working relationship with farmers in order to deliver behavioural change.

210

pollution from agriculture.

Effective measures: the most effective ECSFDI measures across all pollutants are:

Construct bridges for livestock crossing rivers/streams;

Move feeders at regular intervals;

Cultivate land for crops in spring rather than autumn;

Reduce field stocking rates when soils are wet;

Reduce dietary N and P intakes;

Fence off rivers and streams from livestock;

Establish riparian buffer strips;

Reduce overall stocking rates on livestock farms;

Do not apply P fertiliser to high P index soils;

Integrated fertiliser and manure nutrient supply;

Minimise the volume of dirty water produced;

Establish in-field grass buffer strips;

Adopt reduced cultivation systems;

Manage over-winter tramlines;

Do not apply manure to high risk areas;

Do not apply fertiliser to high risk areas;

Cultivate and drill across the slope;

Incorporate manure into the soil;

Increase the capacity of farm manure (slurry) stores to improve timing of slurry applications;

Establish cover crops in autumn;

Allow field drainage systems to deteriorate;

Change from a slurry to solid manure

+++

Water quality monitoring has demonstrated reductions in pollutant loads and concentrations resulting from the ECSFDI. These reductions were up to around 30 per cent across targeted sub-catchments within representative catchments and, for pesticides, across targeted catchments. The authors are confident these reductions represent real improvements associated with the initiative.

Initial analysis of ecological monitoring data, from rivers within Priority Catchments, found no evidence of any response, with a clear need to assemble longer-term data records.

Longer-term datasets are needed to robustly analyse and confirm trends at the individual catchment scale.

211

handling system;

Loosed compacted soil layers in grassland fields;

Establish new hedges;

Site solid manure heaps away from watercourses/field drains;

Use a fertiliser recommendation system;

Do not spread slurry or poultry manure at high-risk times;

Early harvesting and establishment of crops in the autumn;

Transport manure to neighbouring farms;

Avoid spreading fertiliser to fields at high risk times;

Establish and maintain artificial wetlands;

Cultivate compacted tillage soils.


The measures undertaken as part of ECSFDI have the potential to contribute significantly to maintaining or improving water quality in vulnerable catchments.

In addition there is potential for a number of the measures specified above to contribute to maintaining or improving soil quality.

+++

+++


12

N/A


13

N/A

212

MA01028: Evaluation of the Operation of Environmental Stewardship


Study type and theme1: Monitoring and Evaluation, including a section on modelling of environmental indicators using expert opinion.

Scope2: ELS/OELS and HLS

Indicator3: Farming for birds, farming for wildlife and farming for cleaner water and soil (all sub-themes),

Cross-references to other summary tables for the same study4: AES058 H; AES058 L

Summary of project:

In June 2005, the Central Science Laboratory was commissioned by Defra to undertake an evaluation of the operation of ES during its first two years. The objectives, in brief were as follows:

Identification of the main factors influencing uptake of the scheme, its separate strands and individual measures;

Evaluation of the response of scheme participants and non-participants to ES;

Evaluation of the attitudes of existing CSS/ESA/WES (Wildlife Enhancement Scheme) agreement holders to ES, and of the dynamics of land leaving these schemes;

Evaluation of the effectiveness of scheme information and advice provided to potential applicants;

Assessment of how external factors in agriculture e.g. CAP reform, are influencing the attitudes of potential applicants to entering ES;

Evaluation of the impact of OELS on the organic sector, including the role of the scheme in facilitating commitment and conversion to organic farming;

Evaluation of the effectiveness of the environmental audit process;

Evaluation of the likely impact of ES management on land transferring from WES;

Evaluation of the additionality provided by the ELS/OELS;

Evaluation of the potential of ES, and its component strands, to meet its environmental objectives;

Assessment of the likely contribution of ES to Defra PSA targets and other high level strategic policy. The evaluation was structured into four modules, with the third being broken down into four sub-modules, as follows:

1. Questionnaire survey of participants (postal + visit) and non-participants (postal). 2. Analysis of uptake (statistical & spatial) 3. Delivery of environmental outcomes: 4. Holistic overview

Field work was carried out on the farms selected for the interview survey, to enable linkages between interview and field data to be analysed where appropriate. This was particularly relevant for the baseline environmental assessment, where evidence from both field data and interviews were used.

213

Summary table



6



7


9


Biological quality of rivers in England Nutrient levels in rivers and lakes in England Pesticides in fresh waters Control of soil erosion & sedimentation

Achieve good biological quality Achieve levels at or below 50mg/l N, 0.1 mg/l P Achieve levels at or below 0.5 μg/l (all), 0.1 μg/l (individual pesticides) Prevent sedimentation in watercourses

Water quality indicators could not be evaluated using the full model, but the simplified model indicated high scores for these indicators relative to others, suggesting that ELS has the potential to deliver useful benefits in this area.

It was not possible at this early stage of scheme operation (two years) to measure environmental outcomes directly, therefore a modelling approach was used to predict outcomes for key indicators in relation to agreed targets For each option experts provided a score indicating the potential of that option and an estimate of the optimal amounts (area?) required to achieve the agreed targets. For the RP options, a simplified approach was developed, where all options were assumed equivalent and only the presence or absence of options was accounted for. Scores were weighted according to the number of options taken up by the farm in question, on the basis that the more options taken up, the lower the amount of each option would be. The maximum score was always 10.

214



6



7


9


Options above No conclusions can be

drawn.


12

N/A .


The modelling approach, detailed above, was also used on a number of options relating to biodiversity.

215

MA01041: Estimating impacts of ELS on key biodiversity indicators and diffuse pollution of surface water by nutrients


Project code (if applicable):* Study type and theme

1: Monitoring and Evaluation (Resource Protection and Biodiversity)

Scope2: ELS

Indicator3: Farming for cleaner water and soil (all sub-themes) and Farming for wildlife


Summary of project:

Options for reducing pollution are to either lessen the quantity of the initial source, and/or to retard (thus providing time for other processes (e.g. uptake; demineralisation) to occur), or prevent, the mobilisation and transport of the pollutant to surface water. Phosphate and nitrate losses from agricultural land were adopted as the water quality indicators to be studied, because they are likely to be affected by a range of options, and the mechanisms underlying their movement to watercourses differ. The differences in N and P dynamics mean that the effect of introducing an ES option is likely to impact on either N, or P, but not significantly on both (with the exception of reduced inputs). Two key reviews were identified as highly relevant to this project; namely: An inventory of measures to control diffuse water pollution from agriculture (DWPA), Cuttle et al., 2006, and the Defra funded project PE0203 which in itself was used in Cuttle et al., 2006. The values of N and P losses given in Cuttle et al. (2006) and those in PE0203 provide the basis for quantifying the impact of ELS on water quality in this project. The general approach to estimating the impact of ELS on N and P losses was to assign an analogous mitigation measure or farming type from Cuttle to the land to which the ELS is implemented. The estimates of the individual ELS options on N and P losses were combined with ELS uptake data to provide an indication of the impact of ELS options at the national scale. Overall, there was a reduction in total N losses of between 2 and 4% for lowland farms with ELS options that affected water quality and a 4% reduction in total P losses. In contrast, implementation of a soil, nutrient or manure management plan reduced N losses by c.42%, c.44% and c.44%, respectively. Similarly for P, implementation of a soil, nutrient or manure management plan reduced P losses by c.22%, c.5% and c.5%, respectively.

For the biodiversity component of the project three biodiversity indicators were selected: (i) Rare arable flora, (ii) Brown hairstreak butterfly, and (iii) Bumblebees.

216

Summary table



6



7


9


ELS

EB01-11: Hedge and Ditch management

The overall impact of these options on N and P losses is considered to be negligible for the purposes of this study.

0

EC01-04: In-field trees and woodland boundaries

The impact of these options on N and P losses are considered to be negligible.

0

ED01-05: Protection of archaeological features.

Efforts to protect archaeological features include taking land out of cultivation and reducing the depth of cultivation. These practices therefore have some potential for reducing N and P losses.

+/++ ED2: N -60%, P -44% ED3: N -0 to10%, P -29% ED5: N -60%, P -28%

EE01-08: Buffer strips

Calculations for buffer strips in the current study have assumed the buffers are riparian.

+/++ EE1: N -0-2%, P -20% EE2: N -2-6%, P -40% EE3: N -2-10%, P -60% EE4: N -20-30%, P -0.5% EE5: N -20-30%, P -1.4% EE6: N -20-30%, P -2.3% Although values of N and P losses are given for implementing buffer strips, buffers have variable effectiveness and may have a limited lifespan. Where buffers have acted as a sink for nutrients, they could become a source under heavy rainfall

217



6



7


9

conditions.

EF01-11: Arable land

Field corner management, wild bird seed mixture and beetle banks are suggested to have a small impact on N and P losses through input reduction and provision of an in-field buffer respectively.

+/++ EF1: N -90%, P -59% EF2: N -20-30%, P -2.4% EF7: N 0%, P -25% EF10: N -20-30%, P -2.4% EF11: N -20-30%, P -2.4%

EG01-05: Encouraging a range of crops

No benefit to water quality identified in any option

0

EJ1-2: Protecting soils

Ceasing to farm outdoor pigs or root crops in fields at risk of soil erosion or run-off (EJ1 - no longer an ELS option) and managing maize to reduce soil erosion are likely to reduce nutrient losses to water.

+/++ EJ1: N -50%, P -1.8% EJ2: N -17-75%, P -30%

EK1-5: Grassland The implementation of these options is likely to have a small impact on N and P losses, where field corners are taken out of management.

+/++ EK1: N -90%, P -28% EK2: N -0-20%, P -2.3% EK3: N -20-30%, P -2.3%

EL1-6: Less favoured areas

It was considered unlikely that any of these options would have a measurable impact on water quality.

0

Soil, nutrient and manure management plans (no longer part of ELS)

Specifically aimed at protecting soil and water rather than enhancing biodiversity, which is the aim of many ELS options.

++ Points are awarded simply for having a plan in place and there is no additional benefit to the agreement holder related to the extent of management implemented under the plan.

218



6



7


9

As management plans were based on the Soil and Water Code and RB209 these practices should already be implemented and so do not necessarily provide additional benefit to the environment.


The majority of options

in the ELS have limited impact on water quality; however, many are targeted at other objectives.

Impact on water quality could be improved by targeting high risk areas.

The points system could be modified so that farmers have to chose a range of options addressing different issues - e.g. biodiversity, water quality etc.

Efficiency of delivery will be increased by measures to achieve uptake or targeting of relevant options in appropriate locations.

May be beneficial to

219



6



7


9

provide incentives to farmers to, for example, quantify N and P content in manure to calculate crop requirements more accurately.


12

Not considered


ELS options for biodiversity indicators are also discussed.

220

NECR102: Ecosystem services from Environmental Stewardship that benefit agricultural production.

Contractor(s): The Food and Environment Research Agency; The Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust

Study type and theme1: Monitoring and evaluation - Resource Protection

Scope2:

Indicator3: Farming for cleaner water and soil (all sub-themes).

Cross-references to other summary tables for the same study4:AES170-B

Summary of project:

This report contains a review of the ecosystem services provided by Environmental Stewardship (ES). It is particularly concerned with those that are of benefit to agricultural (especially crop) production, thus supporting the Defra departmental priority of supporting British farming and encouraging sustainable food production. Key ES options for resource protection (nutrient cycling, water regulation and purification) were those for winter cover crops, arable reversion, grassland creation, seasonal livestock removal from grassland, especially next to watercourses, maintaining traditional orchards, protecting archaeology under cultivated soils, buffer strips and field corners, nectar mixtures, management of intensive grassland and maize to reduce erosion, and bracken control. Organic farming can benefit soil organic matter and the payment for organic production provides support for this. Taking land out of production or converting to grassland also benefits soil macrofauna including organisms responsible for decomposition, which improves soil organic matter contents. Options involving the sowing of legumes (e.g. nectar mixtures) could potentially increase soil nitrogen and organic matter contents and stimulate the soil biota. ES options were scored on a 0-3 scale for each of the key services or groups of services identified. Because direct evidence of the value of ES options for agriculture is not usually available, benefits were inferred based on their known or probable contribution to the relevant ecosystem services.

221

Summary table

Reference number5: AES170 –


6



7


9


Hedgerow planting (HLS capital item PH) and gapping up (HLS capital tem HR)

Skinner and Chambers (1996) examined nearly 400 fields for evidence of erosion in lowland England and Wales and they noted that erosion was marginally greater in fields where the hedges had been removed in the last 20 years.

+ Evans (2006) reported on a farm that had been monitored for decades: where field boundaries were removed to create larger fields, erosion was common, but, following a change of ownership, field boundaries of hedges and trees were replanted with the effect that water no longer moved from field to field, and connectivity with the surface water was broken. Owen et al., (2007) provide quantitative evidence of the ability of hedges bounded by grass margins to trap sediment (0.07 – 0.19 g/cm

2).

Stone-faced hedgebanks, stone walls & earthbanks

It is assumed that they will have a similar impact to hedges.

+

Ditches and Hedges & Ditches combined

There is also evidence that hedges can reduce wind erosion (as discussed above) and there is a vast amount of evidence that grasses can reduce wind erosion in susceptible areas (e.g. Li et al., 2007; Ravi et al., 2010; Bohner et al., 2003; Lancaster & Baas, 1998).

+ Grasses are particularly effective at stabilising banks (Laubel et al., 2003) and scour can be reduced by 90% compared to bare soil (Pollen- Bankhead & Simon, 2010). Grasses can also protect the soil from erosion (Hopkinson & Wynn, 2009).

Creation of wood pasture (HLS option

Trees can increase the rate of infiltration (Broadmead &

+++

222



6



7


9

HC14) and restoration and maintenance options (HC12 and 13) will have benefits in terms of maintaining the ecosystem services provided by these habitats.

Nisbet, 2004) which will assist in water regulation. Work in the Pontbren region in Wales has demonstrated that areas of sheep pasture planted with trees can increase the infiltration rate by up to 60 times after 6 years, although significant increases were observed after only two years (Carroll et al., 2004).

Option HC21, creation of traditional orchards, and options HC18, HC18 and HC20.

These options will have major resource protection benefits if created from more intensively managed land.

+++

Archaeology under grassland & moorland

Hodgkinson and Withers (2007) reported a decrease in particulate phosphorus (i.e. nutrient loss) when arable land was reverted to grassland.

+++ Auerswald et al., (2009) used measured data from about 100 studies to predict soil losses in Germany and they calculated that soil losses from grassland were about one-tenth of that from arable.

Archaeology under cultivated soils

Over a 14-year period, McGregor et al. (1999) studying soybean, demonstrated that during extreme rainfall events (65 mm/h) runoff from no-till plots was 11 to 35% less than from conventional-till and soil loss 23 to 77% less.

++

Non-riparian, edge of field buffer strips,

Non-riparian buffers can trap sediment, though it is difficult to

+ The retention of sediment by a buffer is not just a measure

223



6



7


9

& enhanced buffer strips

predict under what circumstances and to what levels this may occur.

of the efficiency of the buffer; it is also a function of how easily the field upslope is eroded and the relative size of the buffer to the land upslope.

Riparian buffer strips

Impact is variable depending on soil type, land management practices and slope angle, length and configuration. The quantity of runoff can be reduced by 63% (Lowrance & Sheridan, 2005). A recent review by Arora et al., (2010), who examined only field data, reported that 45% of runoff volume was retained within buffers (range of 0-100%).

++(+)

Pollutant losses can also be reduced: dissolved P, 58 – 80% (Lee et al., 2003, 66 - 90% (Vought et al.,1994).

Conservation headlands

When unharvested (EF10), the year-round vegetative cover of a dense crop could assist with preventing erosion and providing a reservoir for soil biota.

+

Field corners

Impact is variable depending on soil type, land management practices and slope angle, length and configuration.

++(+) Field corner management in arable fields, in essence, is a buffer strip.

Seed mixtures sown for birds & insects

Whilst there is no direct evidence of their benefit to soil, it is reasonable to assume that the benefits will be similar to reversion to grass. Great care is needed to prevent compaction if the land is grazed in autumn/early winter and the soil

++

224



6



7


9

is wet – as advised in the ELS handbook.

Low input cereals & undersown spring cereals

Soil erosion from spring-sown crops is typically lower than from winter-sown crops (Chambers & Garwood, 2000). Erosion potential can be further reduced where crops are undersown with a grass/legume mixture.

++ Chambers & Garwood (2000) reported that a cover crop (50 – 100% cover) on a soil of moderate risk of erosion prevented any erosion occurring on the first winter rainfall event > 10 mm/h, and even a 15% cover reduced erosion.

Overwintered stubbles, including whole crop silage and fodder crops

Robinson & Naghizadeh (1992) conducted rainfall simulation studies in SE England showed that soil losses from stubble plots were consistently lower than from shallow cultivated and ploughed plots (0.1 g/h cf. 4.3 and 13 g/h on unwheeled soil and 1.7 g/h cf. > 20 g/h on wheeled soil). Turtola et al. (2007) reported a 14% reduction in erosion from fields with winter stubble with shallow cultivation compared to autumn mouldboard ploughing, whereas untilled land showed a reduction in erosion of 48%.

++ Puustinen et al (2005) reported lower losses of total suspended solids (around half) from uncultivated stubble compared to normal ploughing or winter wheat, and shallow cultivated stubble still gave marginally lower losses than winter wheat or normal ploughing. There were corresponding reduction in particulate phosphorus, but dissolved reactive phosphorus in runoff was higher which was attributed to release during decomposition of the straw material.

Maize crops and resource protection

Laloy & Bidders (2010) investigated the use of rye and ryegrass on runoff and erosion from maize in Belgium over two-years and recorded a reduction in soil loss of 40 – 90% compared to soil left bare

++ A reduction in runoff of 90% was also reported in the Defra-funded study “Soil Erosion Control in Maize”, although this was not apparent at all sites studied and only when drilling

225



6



7


9

during the intercropping period. occurred across the slope. The study highlighted the fact that a single solution does not always suit all and management practices must be matched to the needs of the land.

Arable to grassland +++

In-field buffers

There has been at least one study in England which demonstrated a reduction by an order of magnitude in runoff and soil loss from 1-m wide grass plots compared to bare soil (Melville & Morgan, 2001). This was attributed to ponding on the upslope side of the grass strip.

++ There is also evidence that siting in-field buffers on natural drainage areas within a catchment can reduce losses of nitrate, dissolved P and sediment (Blackwell et al., 1999; Ulen et al., 2008). There is also some evidence from France that a grass cover can enhance the sorption and degradation of pesticides entering from upslope thus contributing to water purification.

Preventing erosion or run-off from intensively managed improved grassland (HJ6)

Seasonal livestock removal on grassland with no input restriction (HJ7)

Sediment losses from extensively grazed pasture have been shown to be lower than from compacted grassed areas (van Dijk, 1998) and runoff can be halved when overgrazed areas are subsequently only lightly grazed (Heathwaite et al., 1990, Defra project BD2304). In the latter, the heavily grazed areas had an 80% lower infiltration capacity – which would have a

+++ Bartley et al. (2010) reported a reduction in sediment load of ca. 70% when grazing regimes were improved, but, they noted that losses were not reduced where rills were present. The reduction in grazing intensity will also reduce the potential for nitrate leaching (Cuttle et al., 1998) due to a reduction in the deposition of excreta and urine which contains more

226



6



7


9

significant impact on water regulation.

water-soluble forms of nitrogen. More evidence required on the effectiveness of modern mechanical loosening machinery on different soil types and on different levels of compaction.

Fencing off water courses

Collins et al., (2010) investigated sediment losses in six rivers in SW England. The findings indicated that riparian fencing can reduce sediment losses to water.

+(+)

Beetle banks (also see “in-field buffer strips” above)

The limited work that has been conducted on beetle banks in the UK demonstrated a trend towards reduced losses of runoff, sediment and P.

++ The results were highly variable and the evidence was not conclusive (Stevens et al., 2009). It was noted that disruption of tramlines had a far greater impact on reducing sediment and P losses.

Low input grassland Cuttle et al., (1998) compared nitrate leaching losses from grass/clover plots (6 to 34 kg/ha/yr) and from fertilised (200kg N/ha) grass plots (2-46 kg/ha/yr) and concluded that the fertilisation rate did not make a significant difference to the quantity of nitrate leached, but the grazing intensity was of more relevance.

0/+

Species rich grassland

Benefits similar to “low input grassland” above.

0/+

227



6



7


9

Wet grassland Posthumus et al., (2010) investigated the impact on ecosystem services of different land management practices on a lowland floodplain in England, and they demonstrated that creating flooded areas such as wet grasslands could have both positive and negative impacts on water regulation, depending on the exact land management practices.

+/-

Mixed stocking (EK5)

Native breeds at risk supplement (HR2)

Cattle grazing on upland grassland and moorland (UL18)

Cattle grazing supplement (HR1)

Seasonal livestock removal supplement (HL15)

Cattle exert approximately twice as much static pressure on soil (160-192 kPa) than sheep (83 kPa) (Drewery, 2006) thus their potential for compaction is greater. Trampling cattle can potentially damage blanket bog and old Calluna (Defra project BD1228). There is therefore the potential for disbenefit to ecosystem services through soil degradation where cattle replace sheep numbers.

- There are other ecological benefits to cattle grazing, and it may be possible to negate the aforementioned risks by matching the stocking density to the soil condition (which may be lower than in the Handbook).

Upland grassland & moorland

Re-vegetation of eroded peat reduced sediment loads from 112 t/km

2/yr in 1962/63 to 44.5

+(+) Others have reported that restoration of peat areas can almost halve the export of

228



6



7


9

t/km2/yr in 2001/2 (Evans et al.,

2006). In the same study, sediment loss in 2001/2 for a catchment still subject to erosion was 267 t/km

2/yr.

carbon and dissolved organic carbon (Waddington et al., 2008; Wallage et al., 2006).

Shepherding In an experiment on Kinder Scout, shepherding gave an effective reduction in stocking level from 2.5 ewe/ha to 0.18 – 0.43 ewes/ha and vegetation cover increased from 49% to 92% on average over an 8-yr period. On the mineral soil, 90% coverage was gained in 5-yrs whereas on the steeper slopes in the most heavily eroded areas, plant cover only reached 76% (Anderson & Radford, 1994).

++

Lowland heathland Beneficial if burning is not carried out.

+

Coastal saltmarsh The maintenance of saltmarsh may prevent its reversion to more intensive forms of agriculture and hence be beneficial to ecosystem services. However, there are some concerns over the impact of saltmarsh grazing on losses of FIOs to coastal waters.

+/-

Existing ponds There could be some benefit to water regulation if the options prevent the reversion of the pond back to arable or grassland.

+(+) The collection of runoff could also prevent erosion

downstream of the pond.

229



6



7


9

Reedbeds, Fens & Lowland raised bogs

Reedbeds could have greater role in relation to water purification as they retain nutrients to a greater extent than semi-natural vegetation due to the ability to reduce the flow of water and enhance sediment deposition (Olde Venterink et al., 2006).

+ There could be benefits from reduced flooding for farmers downstream

Basic payment for organic management

Mondelaers et al. (2009) conducted a meta-analysis of peer-reviewed data from developed countries comparing organic and conventional agriculture.

0 There was less nitrate leached from organic farms, but when the nitrate leached was assessed in relation to the mass of product produced (i.e. kg NO3/kg product/ha) there was no significant difference; nitrate losses tended to increase with increasing productivity.

Upland management requirements

Requirements relate to grazing, retaining scrub, maintaining wetlands, retaining woodland, careful placement of supplementary feeding i.e. avoiding compaction which have all been discussed elsewhere.

+


It is important to recognise that, while Environmental Stewardship options can make a valuable contribution to maintaining healthy soils and reducing diffuse water pollution from agriculture, they will do this most effectively within a

There are some options for crop management (undersown cereals, management of maize crops, cover crops), but management needs to be considered on a whole-farm basis and this can be

230



6



7


9

context of good management practice across the farm (Ramwell & Boatman, 2010). Many ES options relate to non-cropped areas at field margins, such as buffer strips, but it is also important to tackle soil erosion and loss of nutrients at source (as recognised in Natural England advice).

achieved through diligent application of the cross-compliance Soil Protection Review (SPR) and adherence to the requirements for Nitrate Vulnerable Zones. If the appropriate cross-compliance actions are implemented in conjunction with strategically located ES options, the greatest benefits are likely to be achieved.


12

The greatest impact is in taking land out of production. However, some options, such as in-field grass used on a rotational basis as short-term leys, can be applied within a productive mixed farming system

Some options, such as winter cover crops and maize management (e.g. early harvesting) do involve some significant practical limitations for production on some soil types and in some years.


The key ecosystem services considered in the report were soil formation, nutrient cycling, carbon sequestration, water regulation and purification, genetic resources, pest

regulation and pollination.

231

Defra and Environment Agency (2012). A Strategic Framework for Addressing Agriculture’s impact on Water Quality (Defra)


Scope2:



Summary of project

The strategic framework proposes a means of delivering sustainable intensification, by establishing a structure to focus on the most critical actions that should be adopted to reduce the negative environmental effects of food production on water across the board, and to encourage targeted additional action in certain areas to protect ecosystems. It embeds the principles of “polluter pays” and “payments for ecosystem services” in one framework to take forward the economic and social changes that the Foresight report proposed were necessary. Recent analysis under the Water Framework Directive (WFD) has increased our understanding of the scale of the pressure agriculture puts on the water environment. Losses of nutrients, sediment, pesticides, and faecal pathogens from farming are impacting on the health of water bodies and the range of services that water bodies can provide to society. River catchments are a logical basis for managing agriculture’s impact on water and in recognition of this, the Government committed to taking forward the catchment based approach in March 2011. The strategic approach outlined here focuses on reducing agriculture’s impact on water quality, and seeks to ensure that the measures being advocated (e.g. better nutrient management) also reduce greenhouse gases and contribute to air, soil and biodiversity outcomes where possible. The 4 aims, that sit below the vision set out what will be done and how.

What

1. Identify basic measures that address pollution at source, which we expect to be taken up by all farmers. This will be delivered through a polluter pays approach.

2. Target additional measures to high priority areas so that the water environment with a high public use value is protected (e.g. nationally identified as WFD protected areas and locally identified additional priorities). This will be delivered through a Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) approach.

How

3. Basic and additional measures will be delivered as part of an integrated catchment plan, with clear roles and responsibilities for the Defra network and other partner bodies, including the farming industry. Measures will be delivered in partnership, and will be resilient to climate change.

4. Evidence will underpin the need for action and inform the targeting of delivery within catchments. Progress both at a local and national level will be monitored and evaluated and this will inform future Government policy.

232

Summary table



6



7


9


AES will be one of the mechanisms used to deliver the Draft Strategic Framework, although delivery mechanisms will also form part of requirements under the SFP and in NVZs.

1. Basic measures consistent with good practice provide minimum levels of protection for the environment.

Measures identified with relevance to AES are, for example: Not letting livestock have unrestricted access to watercourses and managing livestock to minimise poaching especially near water courses (EJ11 maintenance of water course fencing)

2. Additional measures are targeted on land where there is a known issue, or risk to water bodies of highest local importance.

AES are seen as having a greater role at this level of protection and measures identified with relevance to AES are, for example: Buffer strips of > 6 m (EJ9 12 m buffer strips for water courses on cultivated land) Constructed wetlands (e.g. HQ6/7/8 maintenance/restoration/creation

.

233



6



7


9

of fen) Woodland creation (HC9/10 creation of woodland in (outside) severely disadvantaged areas) Non intensive agriculture with minimal fertiliser and pesticide application (e.g. EF9 unfertilised headlands, EF15 reduced herbicide cereal crops followed by overwintered stubble)


No evidence given – the report presents a strategy for addressing water quality issues associated with agriculture.


12

Through better planning and targeting of actions the approach aims to improve water quality and to deliver multiple environmental and societal benefits.


Implemented measures should be resilient to climate change.

234

Environment Agency - Targeting land use change options to meet water quality objectives in English priority areas


Scope2:



Summary of project

The merits of new highly targeted agri-environment options are being considered to facilitate land use change in certain discreet areas within priority catchments. These changes will enable improvements in the quality of WFD protected areas identified as failing due to agricultural pollution and should work alongside other agri-environment schemes, such as Catchment Sensitive Farming (CSF) or Environmental Stewardship (ES) agreements. The proposal is to introduce land use change options in priority areas where best practice measures will not reduce agricultural pollution to required levels. Land use change options are likely to be costly and difficult to implement, therefore are only a viable option in a limited number of areas.

The project aim is to identify the area (ha) of land where ‘land use change’ options could be used to deliver improvements to WFD protected areas. This work represents a ‘proof of concept’ aiming to determine whether the brief is possible and what magnitude of land could be eligible for such a scheme. The method has been designed to be flexible, and the authors have produced three sets of results that show how the total area of land could vary depending on key policy decisions. The work aimed to identify areas where intervention would produce disproportionate benefits rather than simply to identify areas with the highest risk.

The report considered the relative risk and value of reducing five diffuse agricultural pollutants in England; nitrates, phosphates, sediment, faecal indicator organisms (FIOs) and pesticides. The assessment was carried out at the field scale and converted to single points using ArcMap Spatial Analyst toolbox. Initial results suggested that the method had potential, and that it would be possible to identify areas of land that would be suitable for additional high impact mitigation measures on top of those recommended by the catchment approach. It was estimated that between 2% and 8% of the total assessed agricultural land contributed significantly more than the average risk within their catchments, equating to between 200,000 ha and 800,000 ha of agricultural land in England.

235

Summary table



6



7


9


No information relevant to AES options.



12


236

Environment Agency (2011). Environment Agency advice to Defra on Reform of the Common Agricultural Policy.

Study type and theme1: R&D. Resource Protection




Summary of project

This paper sets out the Environment Agency’s (EA) advice to Defra on priorities for Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) reform, to aid negotiations around the European Commission’s proposals. The focus of this paper is on high level priorities and principals rather than on detailed measures and management prescriptions, which will follow to inform implementation once the future shape of CAP has been determined. The EA have provided evidence of the impact of farming activities on the water environment (quality, quantity and flood risk) and on climate change, as well as related impacts on biodiversity. We have considered the effectiveness of measures and delivery mechanisms, and have suggested the types of interventions that can help address these impacts, including examples of where these have already proved successful.

Summary table

Reference number5:

AES014-RP Option(s)/ Option groups

6



7



In England, c. 6.5 million ha of land is in a Pillar 2 AES. In 2009 only 25% of ES options were capable of delivering water or soil protection benefits, and these needed to be implemented with resource protection in mind (the right option in the right place) for them to maximise their potential benefit. In 2011, 81% of ES options contributed to

The report suggests that ES is limited in how successful it can be in tackling water issues because

There are no options designed specifically to tackle pesticides.

There are no measures for water efficiency

There are limited measures to reduce run-off and to increase the water holding capacity of a catchment to ease potential flooding.

There are no options to significantly reduce nitrate loss in grassland systems;

ELS does include an option for maintaining fencing (EJ11), but not for the installation of new fencing.

HLS does have a few options - arable reversion and extensification of grassland which are targeted at land where there is a high risk of soil erosion or runoff.

Arable reversion to grassland can reduce the loss of nitrate by over 95% and phosphate by 50%, because phosphate and nitrate losses from arable land

237

Reference number5:


6



7


delivering water quality and 85% contributed to delivering soil quality However, according to the National Audit Office survey “there is limited take-up of options which are primarily for water quality”.

There are no options to restrict livestock access to watercourses or control farm stocking density in ELS, in order to reduce faecal indicator organism (FIOs) losses to water;

There is a potential conflict between salt marsh grazing (sometimes paid for/encouraged under ES schemes) and failing Bathing Waters where FIOs from grazing animals are causing Bathing Water Directive failures; and

The focus in uplands has been on moorland Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) in unfavourable condition, rather than on in-bye and marginal areas between in-bye and moorland for WFD delivery;

There is little or no consideration for multi-objectivity;

There is limited effort on catchment use of ES for water quality objectives.

are generally greater than from grassland.

HLS options are currently focused on semi-natural habitat rather than water quality but similar measures could offer scope in any future scheme.


11

The report suggests that ES schemes have had limited impact on resource protection


12

None noted.


13

Impacts on climate change and related effects on biodiversity are also considered in terms of CAP reform, however, these are not

238

Reference number5:


6



7


considered in relation to ES.

239

Forestry Commission - Support for Forestry in the Rural Development Programme

Study type and theme1: General evaluation of the potential contribution of forestry towards multiple ecosystem services

Scope2: scheme – ELS and HLS

Indicator3: Farming/forestry for cleaner water and soil (all sub-themes)


Summary of project:

The main objective of the report is to consider how the adaptation, sustainable management and expansion of the woodlands of England (to maintain and, where possible, enhance the wide range of ecosystem services they provide) can be facilitated.

It is noted that the EU Water Framework Directive requires that all water bodies achieve good status. Woodland creation has a role in helping to tackle diffuse pollution and may have a function in addressing flood risk.

Woodland cover in England is low at only 10%, but woodland creation in appropriate locations can achieve water management and water quality objectives, this includes tackling diffuse pollution through both barrier and interception functions. However more work and evidence is needed on cost effectiveness compared to other interventions. Riparian and floodplain woodland can protect river morphology and moderate stream temperatures, while a good case can also be made for mitigating downstream flooding. Afforestation of soils susceptible to erosion can help reduce sedimentation.

Although currently the only major market available to woodland owners is that for wood and timber, markets for wider ‘ecosystem services’ are being developed; such as some water companies supporting land management activity to improve water quality.

There is very limited economic rationale for woodland creation and support is likely to be required for woodland establishment where clear ecosystem services can be provided, e.g. WFD commitments, biodiversity enhancements and increased recreational provision.

Woodland creation. Articles 23 & 24 provide support for afforestation of agricultural and non-agricultural land and ago-forestry. Also Article 31 may support land-use change from agriculture to woodland for the requirements of the Water Framework Directive by providing income foregone payments.

The Mid Term Evaluation of the RDPE noted the relatively high levels of ‘dead weight’, i.e. beneficiaries would have done the work anyway, particularly associated with the Woodland Management Grant. This should not be unexpected as it is unusual for financial incentives to dramatically alter the attitudes of forest owners although they may amend management practices.

The majority of woodland established in England is supported through RDPE payments, primarily under EWGS but also small areas under HLS; a small percentage is funded by local authorities and the Changing Landscapes Scheme within the National Forest. Even such schemes as the Jubilee Woods Project promoted by the Woodland Trust are heavily dependent on EWGS funding. Some small-scale woodland planting is undertaken without any public sector grants and a small number of larger scale projects are in development, although these still require public sector involvement through the provision of advice or because of regulation.

240

The Mid-term evaluation of the RDPE pointed out that the contribution of woodland creation to the delivery of the objectives of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) have not been fully realised. Until recently addressing water quality has not been a target for woodland creation and there was therefore very limited promotion of the benefits. Additionally forestry was not identified as a pressure in the first cycle of River Basin Management Plans; as a result, it was not considered as a solution. With the publication of the joint FC/EA report ‘Woodland for Water’ there is now increasing emphasis being placed on woodland planting to address diffuse pollution, reduced sedimentation and flood mitigation, indeed the increased rates of support referred to above will be available for woodland creation schemes specifically aimed at addressing WFD issues.

Summary table

Reference number5: AES0XX -


6



7


9


ELS and HLS A small area of woodland establishment in England is supported under HLS

+ The contribution of woodland creation to the delivery of the objectives of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) has not been fully realised.

Woodland creation in appropriate locations can achieve water management and water quality objectives, this includes tackling diffuse pollution through both barrier and interception functions. However more work and evidence is needed on cost effectiveness compared to other interventions.

+ Until recently addressing water quality has not been a target for woodland creation and there was therefore very limited promotion of the benefits. Additionally forestry was not identified as a pressure in the first cycle of River Basin Management Plans; as a result, it was not considered as a solution.

Riparian and floodplain woodland can protect river morphology and moderate stream temperatures, while a good case can also be made for mitigating downstream flooding. Afforestation of soils susceptible to erosion can help

+ With the publication of the joint FC/EA report ‘Woodland for Water’ there is now increasing emphasis being placed on woodland planting to address diffuse pollution, reduced sedimentation and

241



6



7


9

reduce sedimentation. flood mitigation.


The ‘Lawton Report’ Making Space for Nature highlights the role of habitat, including woodland, fragmentation and isolation in the serious decline of many species groups.

++ In considering any expansion of woodland cover, the environmental impact of the displaced land use is as important as the impact of the woodland itself.

An increase in woodland area can achieve a number of government objectives for example increased habitat resilience for biodiversity (as highlighted in the Lawton review) and for carbon sequestration.

++ Woodland extension and defragmentation would improve resilience to climate change

1, and would probably

have significant biodiversity benefits

2, particularly if semi-

natural woodland is involved.


12

Although a full understanding of the reasons why woodland owners do and, conversely, do not currently manage their woodlands is lacking, a key issue is known to be the low value of wood and timber and the relatively high cost of management activity

3.

Most of the above weaknesses could be addressed by increased and improved management of existing woodland and through appropriate woodland expansion.

1 Spiecker, H (2003). Silvicultural management in maintaining biodiversity and resistance of forests in Europe - Temperate zone. Journal of Environmental

Management 67, 55-65

2 Defra (2011). Biodiversity 2020: A strategy for England’s wildlife and ecosystem services

3 Nicholls, D & Young, M (2006) The Estate Owner's Perspective on Forest Policy. Proceedings of ROOTS rural research conference Wadham College,

Oxford

242



6



7


9

Improving the economic viability is likely to lead to increased woodland management.

Whilst there is limited, if any, justification for government intervention in woodland creation purely for timber production, as highlighted earlier the lack of economic markets in recent decades has been one of the reasons for a reduction in woodland management. Any significant woodland creation must therefore consider the potential for wood production as an economic driver for subsequent management.

At present only about 40% of the annual increment of England’s woodland is harvested

4 and that from

broadleaved woodlands is considerably lower, there is therefore the potential to significantly increase wood and timber production if markets are developed.


Forestry provides a wide range of public goods and as such increasing forestry resilience through increased levels of forestry management and cover contributes to a number of government priorities.

Increases in the forested area could result in a reduction in the nation’s agricultural capacity.

4 Forestry Commission (2007) A Woodfuel Strategy for England

243

National Audit Office (2010) Tackling diffuse water pollution in England

National Audit Office (2010). Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General. HC 188 Session 2010-2011, 8 July 2010. London: The Stationery Office. DP Ref: 008958-001. 35pp.

Project code (if applicable): Study type and theme

1: Monitoring and evaluation - Resource Protection

Scope2:



Summary of project

In 2000, the UK agreed to work towards new standards for water and ecological quality in all water bodies as set out in the European Water Framework Directive. The Directive requires Member States to aim to achieve ‘good status’ in all natural water bodies by 2015. In 2009 Defra and the Environment Agency published 10 River Basin Management Plans, which set out the current status of England’s water bodies along with targets up to 2015. Defra has estimated the cost of water pollution in England and Wales to be between £700 million and £1.3 billion. The Directive explicitly requires Member States to introduce, among other things, controls on diffuse pollution, where such measures are required to meet environmental objectives. The Environment Agency’s work has focused on reducing the impact of diffuse pollution from agriculture, through encouraging the voluntary uptake of better farming practices and the application of existing regulatory powers. This report therefore examines whether the Environment Agency:

Has a good understanding of the sources of diffuse pollution and the reasons why the standards are not currently being met so that it can target its resources at those responsible for the pollution;

Has succeeded in raising farmer awareness and encouraging the voluntary uptake of better farming practices; and

Has made good use of existing regulations within the farming industry.

Summary table



6



7


9


Over 70% of agreements under ES included land management options for farmers, such as

Many resource protection options are primarily for biodiversity benefit, but can also reduce diffuse pollution if targeted effectively. Hedgerow management, for example, could help reduce

244



6



7


9

taking land out of production and installing buffer strips near water courses, which can help to reduce diffuse pollution, there is, in practice, limited take-up of options which are only or primarily for water quality.

As at September 2009, less than 2% of the Entry Level Scheme agreements in place, contained options, which had resource protection as their primary objective

soil runoff, and therefore diffuse pollution, but only where this option is used near water bodies. To date, however, there has been a narrow uptake of options primarily aimed at resource protection options by farmers.

In January 2010 the Defra and Natural England initiated a Training and Information Programme, which is aimed at encouraging farmers whose scheme agreements are coming up for renewal over the next three years to take up specific options that benefit local water quality.


. Limited impacts on resource protection due to low take-up of options with the primary aim of resource protection


12

None noted.


None noted.

245

Woodland for Water Woodland measures for meeting Water Framework Directive objectives

Study type and theme1: A Review of Evidence for the Benefits and Risks of Woodland for Resource Protection

Scope2: scheme – considers potential for the wider incorporation of woodland options into Environmental Stewardship.

Indicator3: Farming/forestry for cleaner water and soil (all sub-themes)


Summary of project:

The report considers the:

Benefits and risks to water quality associated with woodland creation and management

Key issues relating to woodland and the Water Framework Directive (WFD) in England and Wales, but has application to Scotland and Northern Ireland.

The aims of the review were three-fold:

To collate existing scientific research and policy options to increase our understanding of how woodland can be used to improve water quality and water management to help meet WFD objectives of achieving ‘good ecological and chemical status’ in all water bodies, where possible;

To provide a robust evidence-base for developing woodland and environmental policies; and,

To review relevant studies that could inform the development of a cost-benefit analysis of proposed measures, summarising available valuations of those ‘ecosystem services’.

Despite strong policy support for woodland expansion for water benefits, the scope for woodland planting remains limited by insufficient financial incentives and wider land use constraints. There is a need to increase incentives for woodland planting by making these better reflect the full range of water and other benefits.

There is a need to raise awareness amongst policy makers and planners of the benefits of woodland for water. In particular, the potential of woodland to aid water management merits a much greater profile within River Basin Management Plans (RBMP) and Catchment Flood Management Plans (CFMP).

The report calls for closer integration of forestry and water policy to enable better decisions to be made and available incentives and regulatory controls used more effectively to secure woodland opportunities for water. It also highlights the need for more research to quantify water benefits and evaluate how woodland can be best integrated with agriculture and urban activities for water and wider environmental benefits, while minimising any water trade-offs.

246

Summary table



6



7


9


Potential for woodland options in Environmental Stewardship

The review provides evidence to support new proposals to expand woodland in appropriate locations for soil and water benefits.

++ Main drivers for woodland expansion include sustainable flood management, water bodies remaining at risk of failing good water status despite improvements in agricultural land practices, and the need to mitigate the effects of climate change.

Targeted woodland buffers along mid-slope or downslope field edges, or on infiltration basins appear effective for slowing down run-off and intercepting sediment and nutrients but the evidence base is limited.

+ Wider woodland planting in the landscape is known to reduce potential pollutant inputs compared to agriculture in the form of fertiliser and pesticide loadings, as well as protect the soil from regular disturbance and so reduce sediment delivery to watercourses.

Buffer strips are recognised within the Environmental Stewardship (ES) scheme options, but only for grass strips, with no reward for the establishment of woodland buffers. Points are awarded irrespective of location within the landscape.

N/A Greater prominence for woodland creation and management for mitigating diffuse pollution in River Basin Management Plans, plus stronger and targeted financial incentives in national Rural Development Programmes, including greater support for riparian woodland buffers?

247



6



7


9

Riparian and floodplain woodland are proposed as potential nutrient soaks adjacent to surface waters.

++ Various studies demonstrate the nitrate reduction potential of woodland buffers, although the debate over whether trees or grass provide the greatest protection for surface waters remains unresolved.

Targeted woodland creation can be an effective measure for reducing the risk of pesticide pollution.

++ Quantitative evidence is lacking for the UK.


ES has the potential for further development to encourage the use of woodland to intercept surface run-off and reduce associated sediment losses. The creation of shelterbelts and riparian woodland buffers are not currently included in the scheme but do appear to offer potential benefits for both water and ecology.

++ In considering any expansion of woodland cover, the environmental impact of the displaced land use is as important as the impact of the woodland itself.


12

Grade 1 or 2 agricultural land is likely to be too expensive and better suited to food production.

Food security has recently come to the fore as another major constraint and is likely to become an increasingly important limiting factor on future land use change.


Large woody debris can increase flood risk in

The need to protect open wetland habitats also restricts

248



6



7


9

catchments with ‘pinchpoints’ and planting of riparian woodland within flood zones could have an adverse effect on flood defences. Woodland can also weaken flood embankments due to windblow and pose problems for maintenance by restricting access.

the scope of woodland planting, as will the presence of buried archaeology that could be damaged by tree rooting or windblow. Planting below flood risk sites would obviously confer no benefit for flood management.*

*The main circumstances where the planting of floodplain and riparian woodland should not be encouraged are where the backing-up of floodwaters upstream of the woodland could threaten local properties, there is a risk of LWD being washed downstream and blocking key structures such as bridges and culverts, or where there is a threat to existing flood defences, buried archaeology or important open wetland habitats.

249

Review of the CSF Project as a Delivery Mechanism for Reducing DWPA.



Scope2:



Summary of project

This project reviewed the Catchment Sensitive Farming Project as a “delivery mechanism” for reducing diffuse water pollution from agriculture (DWPA). It identified the relative strengths and weaknesses of the CSF Project and its constituent elements (compared to alternatives) and thereby informed understanding of the future fit and role of the different elements of the CSF Project within the wider policy framework (of advice, incentive and regulation) for reducing DWPA.

The work reviewed each of the different elements of the CSF Project – as well as reviewing the CSF Project “as a whole”. Key areas considered were:

Clarity of (realistic) objectives, relative priorities and any trade-offs.

Extent to which the project is underpinned by understanding of causes, trends, opportunities, threats and possible futures.

The role of evidence and evaluation (including targeting of advice delivery).

The CSF Project as a (wider) “knowledge-base” for DWPA mitigation.

Delivery approaches: (i) CSFO, contractor, partnership; (ii) focussed delivery, general awareness, wider communications.

Whether the CSF Project has all the necessary elements to be successful.

Engagement and co-operation of different agricultural sectors.

Division of project budget/resources between the different elements.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of delivery.

The role of (and impact on) stakeholders and partners in development, design and delivery.

Flexibility of delivery, to reflect different local situations/issues.

The ability of the project to permit creativity, to adapt, and improve over time.

Use of advocacy through steering groups, stakeholders and partners.

How well the different project elements are integrated.

The role of incentives, advice and regulation (e.g. referrals to the EA or RPA within the CSF Project)

The relationship between CSF and other incentive, advice and regulatory mechanisms (e.g. Nitrate Vulnerable Zones and Anti-Pollution Works Notices) / the overall policy framework.

How CSF currently fits within the wider Catchment Based Approach.

250

Strengths and weaknesses are identified (i) across the different elements of the project; (ii) in comparison with alternative ways of delivering advice and incentives; and (iii) the “fit” with other elements of the wider policy framework (i.e. Environmental Stewardship (incentive) and regulatory mechanisms).

Summary table



6



7


9


No information on specific options, however, the link between CSF and ELS/HLS is considered, although not in detail.

The CSF project encourages integration with other policy instruments such as cross compliance, agri-environment schemes and with objectives such as nutrient, soil and flood risk management and the wider ecosystems approach. CSFOs have a role in encouraging farmers to select ELS and HLS options that provide benefits to water quality. Catchment partnerships also assist farmers in applying for ES and have encouraged uptake of resource protection options (Entec 2011). Despite successful signposting to these schemes, there have been criticisms over the efficacy and desirability of the actual resource protection options within them. However, there are some elements of these external delivery mechanisms which mean their potential to

Additional work is needed to ensure complementarities between the advice and support offered by the CSF project and other schemes, notably Environmental Stewardship.

251



6



7


9

work in synergy with the CSF project is limited. To overcome such issues, Inman (2011) recommended that consideration be given to fully integrate CSF, ELS and HLS advice provision within Natural England.



12


252

Inman, A. (2011). A Review of Current Policy Tools and Funding Mechanisms Available to Address Water Pollution from Agriculture in England. Defra

Strategic Evidence and Partnership Project. Component B Report.





Summary of project

This report contains the findings from ‘Component B’ of a Defra Strategic Evidence and Partnership project designed to assess the ability of current policy tools and funding mechanisms to address water quality impacts from agriculture and offer policy relevant recommendations for any changes required to the current system. The evidence and analysis originates from participatory research with on-the-ground practitioners and farmers in three case study catchments on the western side of England: Caudworthy Water (Tamar), the Lugg (Wye) and the Rea (Severn). It is, therefore, important to note that the analysis and conclusions from this project have been derived from a sample of predominantly livestock and mixed farming catchments, albeit with arable farming having a significant presence in particular sections of the Lugg and Rea catchments. An assessment of particular problems associated with intensive arable catchments, where agro-chemical pollution can predominate, has not been the focus of this project. Specific objectives were effectively two-fold:

To assess the ability of current policy instruments (regulation, agri-environment incentive payments, advice) to deliver water quality improvements within the three catchments selected for the study

To assess the potential for private sector funding to compliment publicly funded agri-environmental payments targeted at water quality improvement

A bottom up approach was adopted to ensure information was obtained from either individuals directly involved in the delivery of current policy instruments or individuals on the receiving end of these policies (currently or potentially), most notably members of the farming community. Information gathering was achieved through the following four-stage process undertaken between January and September 2011:

Stage 1: Initial kick-off workshops in each of the three study catchments to explain the objectives of the project and gain buy-in to the initiative

Stage 2: Problem identification and solutions workshops

Stage 3: Assessment of current policy tools

Stage 4: Assessment of Potential Private Sector Funding

Stakeholders reached broad agreement across all three study areas that sedimentation and excessive phosphorus entering watercourses were the two key problems that need to be addressed.

253

Summary table

Reference number5:

AES014-RP


6



7



Options to address the risk of growing crops in high risk areas ELS The report considers that the following ELS measures have the potential to combat soil erosion from high risk arable land.

EJ5 In-field grass areas to prevent erosion and run-off (New in 2010),

Measure EJ9 12m buffer strips for water courses on cultivated land (New 2009),

Measure EJ13 Winter Cover Crops (New in 2010)

Measure EE9 6m buffer strips on cultivated land next to a watercourse (New 2010) and

Measure EE10

Land management experts interviewed across the case study catchments were of the view buffer strips, unless very wide (12m+) are not capable of preventing soil reaching watercourses from fields with anything greater than a 7-10 degree slope.

Most buffer strips within ELS are, therefore, not capable of preventing soil erosion from sloping potato, maize and cereal fields across the three study catchments

Given the views expressed above only the new options EJ9 (buffer from 12m minimum up to 24m) and EJ5 (up to a third of any given field can be

+

It is reported that where farmers have entered land into buffer strip management, evidence from the farmer interviews shows they have only been prepared to give up marginal land which is difficult to farm anyway and produces low outputs from an agronomic perspective. Soil erosion issues cited by stakeholders primarily arise from intensively farmed agricultural land where buffer strip management is uncommon. Geographical data on the distribution of ELS buffer strips within the project study areas indicates that buffer strip options are not necessarily situated in areas at greatest risk from soil erosion. It was suggested that one way to engage farmers to adopt effective resource protection measures within ELS would be to re-weight the allocation of points away from hedgerow management options towards resource protection measures. Currently, the majority of farmers derive most of their points from hedgerow management

254

Reference number5:

AES014-RP


6



7


6m buffer strips on intensive grassland next to a watercourse (New 2010).

These newer options are in addition to the existing suite of 2m-6m buffer strip options EE1 to EE6.

sown to grass) are likely to offer adequate protection from soil erosion in anything other than low risk fields.

However, evidence suggests (from farmer interviews) that take up of these options will be low because the loss of income from implementing these measures is perceived as too high due to the extensive loss of productive land involved (no direct evidence to date).

Take up rates for the buffering options which have been in ELS for some time (which involve taking land out of production), have been very low across all three study areas (<1%-3% of watercourse bank in the catchment areas are buffered under ELS).

and do not need to undertake broader land management options. However, farmer opinion pointed towards a scenario where they would choose not to enter the scheme at all if they were required to undertake measures involving taking productive land out of agricultural production.

HLS The report considers that the following HLS measures have the potential to combat

Many arable farmers do not consider the financial payments available a sufficient incentive to stimulate adoption,

+

The report noted that aside from payment levels, HLS option uptake can be strongly influenced by the preferences of individual HLS advisors who may or may not

255

Reference number5:

AES014-RP


6



7


soil erosion from high risk arable land.

HF14 Unharvested, fertiliser free conservation headlands with a width of 6m-24m (£440/ha), measure

HJ3 Arable reversion to unfertilised grassland to prevent erosion or run-off (£280/ha) and

HJ4 Arable reversion to grassland with low fertiliser input to prevent erosion or run-off (£210/ha).

particularly with high projected prices for cereals over the medium to long term.

The costs of reverting prime arable land are not considered to be offset by the overall income from the HLS agreement and the value of the new grazing land created.

Other farmers with a mixed farming system do appear to view the HLS reversion payments as sufficient provided they are not asked to give up their prime agricultural land.

The costs of reverting marginal arable land are considered to be offset by the overall income from the HLS agreement and the value of the new grazing land created.

The take up of HLS soil protection measures has not been widespread across the study catchment (e.g. <0.5% of land in arable rotation was in HJ2, 3, 4 or 5).

prioritise resource protection measures within a given HLS application. There was a lack of enthusiasm to promote resource protection through fear of losing farmer buy-in and, therefore, failing to hit HLS scheme adoption targets. Discussions with Natural England HLS officers also suggest they view HLS as a multi-outcome scheme and tend not to focus on resource protection accordingly. As a result, the evidence points to a situation where HLS officers rarely concentrate on resource protection outcomes or working up HLS applications on farms where biodiversity or heritage outputs are unlikely. Feedback also suggested that whilst HLS target statements can theoretically permit an HLS application to focus on resource protection outcomes, it was felt unlikely such an application would be successful.

Options to address overstocking of

NA

256

Reference number5:

AES014-RP


6



7


livestock ELS The report considers there are currently no ELS options that target the alleviation of poaching on intensive livestock farms.

HLS The report considers that the following HLS options can target the alleviation of poaching on intensive livestock farms

HJ6 Preventing erosion or run-off from intensively managed improved grassland (£280/ha) which requires restricted supplementary feeding

HJ7 Seasonal livestock removal on grassland with no input restriction (£40/ha) which applies on a whole field basis.

HK7 Restoration

Despite their existence, the evidence shows the coverage of these measures has been very low in the study areas.

Insufficient payments are the key reason why so few intensive livestock farms have adopted HLS measures capable of preventing soil erosion from their livestock operations.

Feedback from HLS officers also suggests it is difficult for intensive livestock farms to meet the necessary criteria to qualify for entry onto the HLS scheme.

Insufficient data to determine impact due to low uptake in study area

Poaching and compaction of land can often be particularly acute around drinking and feeding areas. The CSF grant scheme provides two funding options to tackle this problem, CSF07 Hard bases for livestock drinkers and feeders and CSF010 Livestock troughs with associated pipe-work. However, take up of these options has not been high thus far.

Agri-environment payments are not currently available for winter housing, considered by many farm advisors as extremely important for keeping animals away from vulnerable fields during the wetter (winter) months of the year. Insufficient housing means farmers are often forced to place their stock in fields at times when a heightened risk of poaching and compaction exists. Subject

257

Reference number5:

AES014-RP


6



7


of species-rich, semi natural grassland (£200/ha) which precludes any heavy poaching by livestock.

to state aid rules, there would appear to be an argument for adopting this mechanism within the CSF grant scheme

Options addressing animals poaching And breaking down river banks ELS There are currently no ELS options that target this or any grant available under the ELS scheme for new fencing although financial assistance is possible to obtain through the ELS scheme for fencing maintenance

.

An obvious solution to the riverbank degradation problem is precluding animals from accessing watercourses with stock fencing. This, however, is expensive to erect and maintain which is why many farmers do not voluntarily adopt this management option

Insufficient data to determine impact due to low uptake in study area.

HLS There are currently no HLS options that target this. However, there is grant funding available for sheep fencing (£1.80/m) and post and wire fencing (£1.20/m) for farmers managing to get into the HLS scheme

This fencing is mainly used for keeping animals out of hedgerows and other non-riparian habitat restoration projects and is rarely used as a water protection measure.

Insufficient data to determine impact due to low uptake in study area.

Options to address Given that the HLS grant Insufficient Take up of measures under HLS

258

Reference number5:

AES014-RP


6



7


farm tracks funnelling water Into fields HLS Grant assistance is currently available to remedy erosion problems from tracks under both the CSF programme and the HLS scheme

pools is competitive schemes, farmers are not guaranteed access to the funds which means an individual with an erosion problem caused by a farm track may well not be able to gain sufficient funding to fix the problem.

data to determine impact due to low uptake in study area

(or CSF) to manage farm tracks has not been widespread across the study catchments thus far. It is uncertain whether this is due to lack of demand from farmers or lack of availability of funding for these measures.

Options to address mechanical compaction Mechanical compaction is not specifically targeted within the Environmental Stewardship Scheme.

Within the CSF grant scheme, there is financial assistance for measures that will reduce machinery traffic across fields which reduces the likelihood of these fields becoming compacted.

There is also funding within CSF to put in place hardcore farm tracks which has the potential to reduce compaction from farm traffic by diverting machinery movements away from vulnerable soils, particularly in wetter weather when compaction is most likely to occur.


Given the apparent lack of awareness of soil compaction expressed by many farmers, there is a distinct need for extensive advice and training on this issue, both in terms of compaction recognition but also management of the problem post recognition. Evidence from farmers suggests face-to-face and hands-on training is the best form of knowledge transfer which has considerable cost implications in terms of providing sufficient training and demonstration resource

Options to address the build up of

Reducing phosphorus levels in soils is not an explicit

No data The difficulty with these measures is that they tend to be adopted by

259

Reference number5:

AES014-RP


6



7


phosphorus levels In the soil surface ELS Habitat options which prohibit manure application will indirectly address this aim and include:

EK1 Take field corners out of management

EK2 Permanent grassland with low inputs

EK3 Permanent grassland with very low inputs

EK4 Management of rush pastures.

There are also stipulations within the ELS maize management options (EJ2 and EJ10) which require appropriate rates and timings of manure applications both to the maize crop and the subsequent crop planted

objective of the Environmental Stewardship programme but there are measures within the schemes which stipulate a reduction in or cessation of manure applications.

farmers who are already extensive in their operations and are unlikely to have high phosphorus indices on their farms.

260

Reference number5:

AES014-RP


6



7


HLS Within the HLS scheme, there are a range of measures specifying a reduction in or cessation of manure applications including

HJ6 Preventing erosion or run-off from intensively managed, improved grassland and

HK6 Maintenance of species-rich, semi-natural grassland

No data

Options to address the timing and method of phosphorus application ELS A small number of ELS measures influence the timing of manure application to land.

EJ2 Management of maize crops to reduce soil


The difficulty with these measures is that very few farmers appear to have adopted the maize management options (mainly because of the 01 October harvesting deadline) and those farmers adopting the grassland management options tend to place these options on fields which are being farmed extensively and are unlikely to have high phosphorus indices.

261

Reference number5:

AES014-RP


6



7


erosion,

EJ10 Enhanced management of maize crops to reduce soil erosion and run-off,

EK2 Permanent grassland with low inputs and

EK3 Permanent grassland with very low inputs


11

For the three catchments under consideration in this study AES options have had minimal effect on resource protection, mainly due to low option take-up.

ELS is seen as an entitlement payment for delivering basic environmental standards under cross compliance, not a payment which is sufficient to warrant adopting additional activities which involve taking land out of production.

To take land out of production farmer respondents were adamant that payments rates will need to be considerably higher than current levels which are, firstly, not considered to accurately reflect income forgone; and, secondly, are not considered high enough to compensate for the inconvenience of ELS option management. Furthermore, several respondents mentioned

262

Reference number5:

AES014-RP


6



7


current payments do not warrant ‘the risk of taking land out of production for the five year duration of these schemes’ i.e. a reduction in production potential might significantly compromise farm profitability if commodity prices significantly rise during the term of an ES agreement

Irrespective of funding streams and payment levels, there seems little argument that resource protection payments should be targeted at those farms where most protection is likely to be delivered. This in turn requires the involvement of local scheme administrators with on-the-ground knowledge (e.g CSF Officers) of where best to allocate funds.

To facilitate the optimal allocation of agri-environment spend it is also likely that better co-ordination between CSF, ELS and HLS staff within Natural England is required. Alternatively, that CSF, ELS and HLS programmes and operational staff should be fully integrated into one operational unit, an idea which may well warrant

263

Reference number5:

AES014-RP


6



7


further consideration within Natural England management circles.


12

None noted.


13

None noted.

264

Turner, A.W.B. and Ashworth, P. (2012) Resource Protection monitoring of uptake and management of ES options to address DWPA.

Contractors: ADAS UK Ltd, Food & Environment Research Agency

Final report on project 23768

Project code (if applicable):* Natural England project 23768 Study type and theme

1: Resource Protection

Scope2: ELS and HLS resource protection options



Summary of project:

This study examined the degree to which Environmental Stewardship (ES) scheme options are used to address relevant Diffuse Water Pollution from Agriculture (DWPA) issues that are present within selected catchments. The objective of the study was to determine the relative effectiveness of ES options in controlling DWPA (based on their uptake, placement and management) and suggest potential improvements to increase their effectiveness.

The study consisted of an attitudinal survey to record the factors influencing the choice and location of ES options, and a field survey within selected catchments for the rivers Tone (Somerset), Wear (Durham) and Welland (Leicestershire/Rutland). The study assessed the quality of option management and effectiveness in addressing site specific DWPA risks. ES options were assessed for their effectiveness in controlling risk of pollutant at source, via pathways and in protecting the receptor by examining risks such as mobilisation (soil erosion and runoff, flooding and land use).

It was clear that many farmers recognised that ES can make a significant contribution to reducing DWPA but did not relate this to the effectiveness of ES options they had chosen and their placement. In the majority of cases option management and location was adequate or better and therefore potentially effective in dealing with DWPA issues.

A significant number of farmers did not recognise the impact ES could have in relation to DWPA. This suggests that an ongoing programme of advice to raise awareness is required. However there is also scope to recognise the contribution made by well chosen options in the right location and to help famers value and understand the contribution they are making. There are instances where good options have been chosen but then located in the wrong place. Whilst advice should be able to address this there is also scope for scheme modification to deal with this.

265

Summary table

Reference number5: AES009 -RP Option(s)/ Option groups

6



7



ELS Options

Buffer strips next to water courses.

The ‘dead-weight’ percentage of buffer strip options was 30%, although some of these ‘dead-weight’ buffers may have been implemented as part of previous agri-environment scheme or set-aside requirements, so should not really be considered as ‘dead-weight’.

N/A The results indicate that over 70% of ES buffer strips represent true ‘additionality’, i.e. over and above what the farmer would have done in the absence of the agri-environment scheme.


34% of farmers cited the desire to reduce runoff / erosion / protect water quality as a factor in choosing this option.

N/A


Only 2% of buffer strip options failed on management.

Only 8% of buffer strip options were inappropriately located (such as at the top or edge of a slope).

49% of buffer strips had ‘good’ or ‘very good’ placement.

N/A Standard of option implementation, placement and management was based on expert assessment and knowledge of option requirements and optimal design (n = 149).

50% of buffer options were highly effective against runoff risk; and 34% were highly effective against sediment

++

266


6



7


delivery to a watercourse.

EF1 & HF1 - Field corners Three out of the 8 farmers that had implemented field corners on arable land (38%) had taken the corner out of production prior to ES. Six out of 8 cited difficult in farming the field corners taken out of production.

N/A Low base (n = 8). The results indicate that about 60% of ES field corners represent true ‘additionality’, i.e. over and above what the farmer would have done in the absence of the agri-environment scheme.

EF1 & HF1 - Field corners Only 4% of field corner options failed on management and only 4% were inappropriately located (such as at the top or edge of a slope).

79% of field corners had ‘good’ or ‘very good’ placement.

N/A Standard of option implementation, placement and management was based on expert assessment and knowledge of option requirements and optimal design (n = 149).

EF1 & HF1 - Field corners 87% of field corners were highly effective against runoff risk; and 87% were highly effective against sediment delivery to a watercourse.

++

Low or very low input grassland

Fourteen out of the 24 farmers (58%) cited the pre-existence of low/very low input grassland or that they did not have to change current practice to implement this option.

N/A The results indicate that about 40% of ES low/very low input grassland represents true ‘additionality’, i.e. over and above what the farmer would have done in the absence of the agri-environment scheme.

Only 8% of low input grassland failed on management. The

Standard of option implementation, placement

267


6



7


majority of failures for low input grassland were associated with poaching or soil compaction.

and management was based on expert assessment and knowledge of option requirements and optimal design (n = 149).

Field corners and low input grassland

Only 5% of farmers cited the desire to reduce runoff / erosion / protect water quality as a factor in choosing these options.

N/A

The highest scoring ES options for mitigation of diffuse pollution risk were wide buffer strips, field corners and low input grassland. Low input grassland consistently scored highest and against all of the diffuse pollution risks addressed in this study. This is probably due to removal of risky activity as opposed to treatment or capture of pollution. Therefore, although this option potentially had the highest dead-weight, it was the most effective in controlling risk.


This study did not consider broader themes within the ES schemes.


12

None identified

268


6



7



None identified

269

Avery, L.M. (2012) Rural Sustainable Drainage Systems (RSuDS). Environment Agency.

Study type and theme1: Desk-based literature review – R&D. Biodiversity, Resource Protection, Climate Change/GHG




Summary of project

Traditional drainage to manage surface water runoff is designed to carry water away quickly, without treatment, and can rapidly transfer pollutants and large volumes of water to streams, rivers, lakes and estuaries. Rural sustainable drainage systems slow down or prevent the transport of pollutants to watercourses by breaking the delivery pathway between the pollutant source and the receptor. By intercepting runoff and trapping sediment before it leaves the field they help maintain and manage the provision of good water quality by preventing the loss of soil, chemicals, nutrients and faecal organisms. A further benefit is their ability to temporarily capture water and slow down flow. The report provides a list of existing land management options and reviews their cost and effectiveness in helping to meet the objectives of the Water Framework Directive, to reduce flood risk and adapt to climate change. Options explored in the report include trenches, wetlands, retention ponds and buffers. These measures that can be created with minimum loss of agricultural production and should be used as part of a systemic approach to managing runoff, lowering flood risk and increasing water adsorption. The measures are good examples of being able to deliver multiple benefits but need to be planned and targeted as part of future catchment management.

The aim of this report is to list existing land management options that fit the definition of sustainable drainage and to review their effectiveness as a measure to help meet the objectives of the Water Framework Directive, to reduce flood risk and adapt to climate change. Specific objectives are to:

Create an inventory of sustainable rural drainage system measures that are appropriate for use in agricultural systems;

Review existing relevant studies on the cost-effectiveness of proposed measures;

Review the evidence base to enable the Environment Agency to provide more effective advice to policy makers in Government departments;

Provide the basis for a guidance document for farmers and land managers to install Rural sustainable drainage systems that are effective and beneficial

To communicate the principles of rural sustainable drainage systems to Environment Agency staff, key stakeholders and the farming industry.

270

Summary table

Reference number5: AES014-

RP


6



7



ELS ELS Options for boundary features: EB1 Hedgerow management on both sides of a hedge EB2 Hedgerow management on one side of a hedge EB3 Enhanced hedgerow management Options for trees and woodland: EC24 Hedgerow buffer strips on cultivated land EC25 Hedgerow tree buffer strips on grassland HLS HLS options for boundary features: HB11 Management of hedgerows of very high environmental value (both sides) HB12 Management of hedgerows of very high environmental value (one side)

Hedges can intercept over-land flow or erosion and improve infiltration and sedimentation Hedges can retain eroded particles carrying pesticides and phosphorus; oxygen depleted conditions may occur in the soil

+ Flow (decrease in flow velocity and increase in infiltration) + (Suspended solids, total phosphorus, total nitrogen, pesticides, pathogens)

Hedges/dykes will never exist in isolation, part of their performance relates to the buffer area that exists on either side, which remains uncultivated.

ELS EB6 Ditch management EB7 Half ditch

A number of in-ditch management options are included in the report such

+ Flow (some flow

May be more appropriate to HLS than ELS

271


RP


6



7


management HLS HB14 Management of ditches of very high value

as swales, infiltration trenches, filter drains, and barriers/traps

attenuation) + (Suspended solids, total phosphorus, total nitrogen, pesticides, pathogens)


Agri-environment schemes are available to encourage and fund land managers to adopt rural SuDS. While rural SuDS may be more complex to create compared to a simple buffer strip, this is off-set by a number of additional benefits for the landowner. They can make existing features such as buffer strips, walls and new hedgerows even more effective; they are not demanding on space and by trapping sediment can save a valuable resource.

Rural SuDs should be used as part of a systemic approach to managing runoff, lowering flood risk and increasing water adsorption. They are good examples of being able to deliver multiple benefits but need to be planned and targeted as part of future catchment management.

Impacts on production & rural Rural SuDS can be

272


RP


6



7


economy12

created with minimal loss of agricultural production.


13

The measures identified in this report may in the longer term enable land managers to adapt to intensive rainfall that may be more likely in a changing climate.

273

Bradbury & Kirby (2006). Farmland birds and resource protection in the UK: Cross-cutting solutions for multi-functional farming?

Bradbury, R.B. and Kirby, W.B. (2006). Biological Conservation 129, 530-542

Study type and theme1: Resource Protection and Biodiversity

Scope2: ELS and HLS resource protection options – particularly buffer strips and small wetland features (e.g. HB14 Management of ditches of very high

environmental value)

Indicator3: Farming for cleaner water and soil (all sub-themes), Farming for birds (all sub-themes) and Farming for Wildlife (Water voles, dragonfles, newts

and toads)


Summary of project:

This paper reviews the potential for diffuse water pollution from agriculture (DWPA) mitigation measures to both improve water quality (through reducing pollutant losses from agricultural land) and provide habitat for invertebrates and birds.

The Water Framework Directive aims to reduce the impact of DWPA. A variety of solutions to diffuse pollution, such as conservation tillage, buffer strips at field edges, and small constructed wetlands, could simultaneously provide some of the resources required by farmland birds. The authors suggest that agri-environment schemes, if they are to be truly multifunctional, should focus on bringing these diverse objectives together.

Summary table


6



7



Conservation tillage – part of ELS options, such as ED3 (Reduced-depth, non-inversion cultivation on archaeological features)

Can help to reduce the risk of runoff and erosion and therefore the sediment, nutrient and pesticide pollution of surface waters (Holland, 2004; Quinton and Catt, 2004), though effects may vary between particle-bound and dissolved reactive substances (Puustinen et al., 2005).

++ Evidence is drawn from a review of European studies and research on a sandy soil in southern England.

The measure may result in increased losses of total dissolved phosphorus (TDP).

274


6



7


Buffer strips Most studies agree that buffer strips can sometimes be effective in reducing the volume of suspended solids, nitrates and phosphates that enter watercourses from agricultural surface runoff (Daniels and Gilliam, 1996; Gilliam, 1994; Verchot et al., 1997).

++ In cases where there is efficient under-field drainage, the filtration potential of the buffer strip is largely by-passed (Blackwell et al., 1999).

Small wetlands They have been shown to be effective in removing many pollutants (including phosphorus, sediment, pesticides and nitrates) through a variety of methods, such as natural vegetated channels, detention basins, retention ponds and small constructed wetlands – SCWs (Braskerud, 2001; Braskerud, 2002a, b; Braskerud and Haarstad, 2003; Brix et al. 1994: Lawrence et al., 1996).

++ SCWs can also be used to recycle valuable nutrients, such as phosphorus, to agricultural land, when pond sediments are spread on the surrounds after dredging.

However, if ponds are not dredged regularly pollutants can be remobilised and transported from the wetlands into neighbouring water courses.


No evidence provided in this paper, but reduced cultivation can reduce mineralisation of soil organic matter and related nitrate leaching losses.

Small constructed wetlands

Small wetlands can also be very effective in reducing losses of faecal indicator organisms, for

275


6



7


example in runoff from dairy hardstandings.


12

Conservation tillage Only the reduced energy costs associated with reduced cultivation are considered. Impacts on weed control and implications for production are not mentioned.

Buffer strips The cost of taking land out of production is not considered, but the measure is reviewed in the context of ES in which there are payments for ‘income foregone’.

Small wetlands The size of wetlands is considered (e.g. “comprising only 1% of catchment area”), but not the impacts on production or rural economy.


Conservation tillage Damper soil with more diverse and abundant soil invertebrates could benefit probing species such as thrushes and lapwings.

A greater abundance of seeds and surface-active arthropods on the soil surface could benefit granivorous birds in winter (Cunningham et al., 2005)

+ Conservation tillage is often accompanied by winter cover crops, such as Italian Rye Grass, to enhance infiltration rates and reduce run-off. This could present a conflict between soil and water protection interests and birds, as the vegetation could limit access by some birds to any food resources on the soil

276


6



7


surface (Butler et al., 2005).

Buffer strips All buffer zones would help increase heterogeneity at the farm/catchment level and would therefore likely benefit wildlife (Benton et al., 2003). Grassy margins, in particular, benefit a range of farmland bird species, providing both nesting locations and a source of invertebrates, and are a key prescription in many UK agri-environment schemes (Vickery et al., 2004a). Excavations within the rank vegetation of wider buffer strips can provide habitat for a range of species.

++ Evidence based largely on two review papers that are both UK relevant.

Small wetlands Emergent rank vegetation associated with small wetlands can provide habitat for aquatic invertebrates and a source of terrestrial arthropods and molluscs. It also provides a nesting substrate for species such as reed bunting.

The margins are the most important locations for invertebrates and bare mud, as well as attracting surface-active invertebrates, affords enhanced access to invertebrates for a range of foraging bird species.

+ There have been few ditch-based studies of species richness (Defra, 2002), and virtually all have considered large drainage channels, such as those which facilitate drainage in fens or levels, rather than the small seasonal ditches which surround many arable and pasture fields.

277


6



7


Finally, damp soil around the edges of the water-body can benefit probing species such as thrushes.

Small wetlands In holding up water, SuDS can also reduce the risk of downstream flooding at times of peak water flow.

+

Benton, T.G., Vickery, J.A.,Wilson, J.D., 2003. Farmland biodiversity – is habitat heterogeneity the key? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 18, 182–189.

Blackwell, M.S.A., Hogan, D.V., Maltby, E., 1999. The use of conventionally and alternatively located buffer zones for the removal of nitrate from diffuse agricultural run-off. Water Science and Technology 39, 157–164.

Braskerud, B.C., 2001. The influence of vegetation on sedimentation and resuspension of soil particles in small constructed wetlands. Journal of Environmental Quality 30, 1447–1457.

Braskerud, B.C., 2002a. Factors affecting phosphorus retention in small constructed wetlands treating agricultural non-point source pollution. Ecological Engineering 19, 41–61.

Braskerud, B.C., 2002b. Factors affecting nitrogen retention in small constructed wetlands treating agricultural non-point source pollution. Ecological Engineering 18, 351–370.

Braskerud, B.C., Haarstad, K., 2003. Screening the retention of thirteen pesticides in a small constructed wetland. Water Science and Technology 48, 267–274.

Brix, H., 1994. Use of constructed wetlands in water-pollution control – historical development, present status and future perspectives. Water Science and Technology 30, 209–223.

Butler, S.J., Bradbury, R.B., Whittingham, M.J., 2005. Stubble height manipulation causes differential use of stubble fields by farmland birds. Journal of Applied Ecology 42, 469–476.

Cunningham, H.M., Chaney, K., Bradbury, R.B., Wilcox, A., 2004. Non-inversion tillage and farmland birds: a review with special reference to the UK and Europe. Ibis 146 (Suppl. 2), 192–202.

278

Glaven et al. (2012). Water quality targets and maintenance of valued landscape character experience in the Axe catchment, UK.

Glavan, M., White, S.M. and Holman, I.P. (2012). Journal of Environmental Management 103, 142-153

Study type and theme1: R&D - modelling scenarios. Resource Protection




Summary of project

There is a need to establish whether achieving ecological standards for water bodies are compatible with maintaining desired landscape value. This paper uses the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model (Arnold et al.,1998) to investigate whether the application of controls on agricultural diffuse source pollution to meet WFD targets are compatible with farming systems which maintain desired landscape values, using the Axe catchment in south-west England as a case study. The baseline scenario was based on field observation and interviews with the Environment Agency and farmers; it was run with and without point sources. Three different mitigation scenarios, designed to maintain the landscape of the catchment, were then tested. Field buffer strips (FBS), extensive land use management (EXT) and sheep land use management (SHP), were used to assess the effectiveness of the measures in reducing nutrient loads in the river Axe, UK.

Given that much of the landscape of the catchment is covered by national (Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty) and county (Areas of Great Landscape Value and Special Landscape Areas) protective landscape designations, it is considered whether fundamental changes to the farming systems, and associated changes to the landscape character, are likely to be necessary to meet the requirements of the WFD.

279

Summary table



6


Impact (+ve/ -ve &

level)7



Field buffer or filter strips (FBS), defined as riparian barriers with planted or indigenous bands of vegetation (usually grassland) that are situated between pollutant source areas and receiving waters - the FBS scenario

The FBS scenario Four metre wide buffer strips were simulated, which represents a compromise between pollutant interception efficiency and productive land loss. Buffer strips were added on the edge of each of the arable and grassland Hydrologic Response Units.

Although filter strips on the edge of the fields are an attractive option because of the low establishment costs, they represent a loss of productive land which becomes more significant in the smaller field sizes which typify the Axe catchment.

Results for the Lower Axe showed a high reduction in average annual total nitrogen transported with surface runoff (54%) into the river when buffer strips were simulated.

The FBS scenario led to a 50% reduction in total phosphorus in surface runoff, mainly as a consequence of reductions in organic phosphorus and sediment attached phosphorus in surface flow.

++ There are three important limitations to the treatment of edge of field filter strips within SWAT which may over-estimate their efficiency in this study.

Firstly, the SWAT algorithms relate the fraction of the nutrient load trapped by the buffer to the buffer width, so that additional factors such as slope, vegetation type etc are not included.

Secondly, SWAT simulates reduction in pollutant transport across the entire length of a buffer strip, which is unlikely to be the case in reality, as surface flow can concentrate and overwhelm at certain points along buffer strips.

Finally, SWAT assumes that

280



6


Impact (+ve/ -ve &

level)7


buffer strips capture the range of particle sizes equally, but buffer strips may trap coarser sediment with lower P concentrations than the contributing topsoil, suggesting that the finer fraction, enriched in total-P, may preferentially pass through the buffers towards river channels.

Farmer uptake: the scenarios assume that all farmers in the catchment take up the structural measure or the changes in land use and management.


Despite the ambitious assumptions, the scenarios simulated by SWAT failed to achieve the required water quality improvements through nutrient reductions, especially phosphorus, in the river Axe


12

The results of this study suggest that there may be a fundamental incompatibility between the delivery of WFD targets and the maintenance of viable agricultural systems necessary to maintain managed grassland landscapes, which are highly valued for their

281



6


Impact (+ve/ -ve &

level)7


aesthetic, recreational and economic value.

How these catchments should be managed in the future will depend on the relative or even on absolute value that society places on landscape character, food production and the ecological status of rivers.


None detailed.

282

Kay et al. (2008). A review of the efficacy of contemporary agricultural stewardship measures for ameliorating water pollution problems of key concern to the UK water industry.

Kay, P., Edwards, A.C. and Foulger, M. (2008) Agricultural Systems, doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2008.10.006

Project code (if applicable): Study type and theme

1: Literature review - Resource Protection

Scope2:



Summary of project

The UK water industry faces a number of water quality issues which mean that capital must be spent on treating raw water in order to meet regulatory standards. Moreover, other policies exist that require improved water quality (e.g. the Water Framework Directive) and contemporary regulation is encouraging water companies to deal with the problem at source, rather than relying exclusively on ‘end-of-pipe’ treatment solutions. Given that much of this pollution results from agricultural practices, agricultural stewardship measures (including AES, cross compliance and COGAP) could offer a means of source control. Although numerous schemes are available that encourage farmers to adopt environmentally friendly farming practices, uncertainty exists as to the specific impacts of these measures on water quality. This study has, therefore, reviewed the peer-reviewed scientific literature to establish those agricultural stewardship measures that have been proven to impact water quality for three pollutant groups of key concern to the UK water industry, namely dissolved organic carbon, nutrients and pesticides. It has been found that, whilst for many measures there is little or no evidence for impacts on water quality, a range of stewardship practices are available that have been proven to improve water quality. Their effectiveness is subject to a number of factors though (e.g. soil type and pollutant chemistry) and so they should be implemented on a case-by-case basis. Further research is needed to ascertain more fully how contemporary agricultural stewardship measures really do impact on water quality.

283

Summary table

Reference number5: AES –RP


6



7


9


UELS UX3 Moorland requirements

Grip blocking, which can be used as part of the management strategy used under UX3, can be used to reduce dissolved organic carbon (DOC) concentrations. Blocking raises the water table, slows peat degradation and reduces the transport of DOC (Worrall et al., 2007).

Work by Wallage et al. (2006) and Armstrong et al. (2008) have shown that grip blocking can reduce DOC concentration by 70%

++ In some cases DOC can increase after blocking (Worrall et al., 2007).

ELS EF6 overwintered stubbles EF22 extended overwinter stubble EJ13 winter cover crops

Planting a green cover crop is an effective way of decreasing the risk of nitrate leaching. Cover crops can lead to 50% reduction in nitrate leaching losses compared to a winter sown cereal (e.g. Shepherd et al., 1993; Lord et al., 1999)

++

EJ11 maintenance of watercourse fencing

Parkyn et al. (2003) reported that soluble reactive phosphorus decreased by up to 33% and total N by up to 40% in some fenced off streams. Line (2003) also reported reductions in total N of 78% and total P by 76% following watercourse fencing.

-/+ Parkyn et al. (2003) reported that soluble reactive phosphorus increased by up to 20% and total N by up to 31% in some fenced off streams.

Options for buffer The installation of ‘edge of field’ --/-/+/++/+++ Unfortunately, the maximum

284



6



7


9

strips EE1 to EE10

measures (i.e. buffer zones and wetlands) could potentially offer significant water quality gains. However, a number of management issues need to be considered for buffer zones as their effectiveness for reducing concentrations of nutrients in surface waters is very variable and actual operational efficiency will be highly season and location specific. Important factors include soil properties, climate, vegetation cover, physical dimensions, sediment characteristics etc. Reported nutrient removal efficiencies for buffer zones are:

Total N 100% reduction - 217% increase

Nitrate 100% reduction - 232% increase

Total P 98% reduction - 41% increase

Soluble P 16% reduction - 475% increase.

Reported effects of buffer zones on mass loss of pesticides, include:

Atrazine 30-90% reduction

Metolachlor 40-85% reduction.

For the same pesticides concentrations in run-off have

delivery period of nutrients (i.e. winter) overlaps with the least efficient period for many buffer zones due to a combination of high local water tables, reduced infiltration capacities and poor plant growth/cover (Uusi-Kämppä et al., 2000). The highest rates of suspended solids deposition (and, therefore, particulate-associated phosphorus) occur in the upper part of the buffer strip, and retention rates decline with increasing width when expressed as an amount per unit area. Other studies have found that wetlands do not offer an effective way of stripping pesticides from runoff. High concentrations of atrazine, metolachlor and chlorpyriphos (2.5, 0.25, and 1 mg/l, respectively) were not degraded at all in one particular study (Mazanti et al., 2003), although at lower concentrations (2, 0.2, and 0.1 mg/l) some loss was observed, with detection of degradation products showing that breakdown of the

285



6



7


9

also decreased due to the creation of buffer zones:

Atrazine 25-53% reduction

Metolachlor 30-61% reduction.

compounds was occurring rather than sorption alone.

HLS HJ3 arable reversion to unfertilised grassland to prevent run-off or erosion HJ4 arable reversion to grassland with low fertiliser input to prevent run-off or erosio

Reversion of arable land to grassland has been shown to reduce pesticide application to land generally (Herzog et al., 2006).

+

HK13 creation of wet grassland for breeding waders HK14 creation of wet grassland for wintering waders and wildfowl

Wetlands have often been shown to be very effective at removing nutrients from runoff, although operational efficiencies again vary seasonally and with time. For example, seasonal removal percentages of nitrate by a wetland were 100%, 35%, 55%, and 96% of the autumn, winter, spring and summer loads, respectively, with a total removal of 55% (Larson et al., 2000)

++


Whilst those Research that quantifies the

286



6



7


9

measures detailed above have been proven to improve water quality the success of all of these will be site specific due to factors such as soil type, hydrology and pollutant chemistry and so measures should be implemented on a case-by-case basis. However, there is a dearth of information quantifying the impacts of many stewardship measures on water quality, which is perhaps not surprising given that many were developed for terrestrial ecology gain rather than from a water quality perspective.

impacts of agricultural stewardship on farm incomes is largely lacking and is urgently needed if farmers/land managers are to be convinced that environmental stewardship represents business sense. Overall, despite significant attention from many stakeholders, there is a striking lack of scientific evidence to underpin the use of agri-environment measures for water quality management.


12

Not applicable


Not applicable

287

Posthumus & Morris (2010). Implications of CAP reform for land management and run-off control in England and Wales

Posthumus, H. and Morris, J. (2010) Land Use Policy 27, 42-50





Summary of project

In April 2005, the new common agricultural policy (CAP) reform came into force in the United Kingdom, decoupling financial support to farmers from agricultural production. Farm income support payments were linked to compliance with standards (cross-compliance rules) which protect the environment, animal health and welfare. In the light of these policy changes, semi-structured interviews were carried out with 36 farmers in five catchments (The Laver and Skell catchments in North Yorkshire; the Parrett catchment in Somerset; the Eden catchment in Cumbria; the Upper Severn catchment in Montgomeryshire, Wales; and the Hampshire Avon catchment in Wiltshire) in the UK to explore interrelationships between CAP reform, agricultural land management and runoff-related problems. The authors recognised that the sample of farmers interviewed was small and therefore cannot be considered representative of the entire farming population in the UK. However, the general aim of this research was to gain a first understanding of farmers’ views on recent policy changes and issues around land management and runoff. The uptake of agri-environment schemes by individual farmers has increased since the CAP reform. However, additional impacts are limited as there is a tendency among participants to enter these schemes based on existing features and practices. Although most farmers interviewed for this study appear to recognise the need to reduce soil erosion and diffuse pollution, they are less convinced they should be held responsible for controlling storm-water runoff from farmland that might contribute to flooding downstream. Recommendations are made for improvements to the current agri-environment schemes and to promote land management practices with less environmental burden.

288

Summary table

Reference number5: AES014-RP Option(s)/ Option groups

6


Impact (+ve/ -ve &

level)7



General Environmental Stewardship was popular amongst the farmers interviewed, and many considered entering the ELS.

Many farmers confirmed that their reason to participate in ES was to obtain an additional source of income from AES.

None of the farmers interviewed was willing to make capital investments larger than the AES payments on the farm in order to be eligible for ELS. For this reason, many were sceptical about any extra environmental benefits

Many farmers suggested that ELS management options rules were too strict and not always applicable or appropriate for their own farm.

Many applicants have tried to

get an agreement based on existing features, and they were not anticipating any changes on their farm due to the ELS.

And if changes are made, farmers usually ‘sacrifice’ less productive land, keeping more productive land for intensive agriculture.

Even though farmers did not always agree with the practices prescribed by the AES (e.g. cutting of hedgerows every other year), they participated because the financial benefits were attractive.

Flood risk management Farmers considered the current AES inappropriate for this purpose. It was thought that targeted funding to tackle hotspots would be more appropriate. It was also acknowledged that engaging farmers and

289

Reference number5: AES014-RP Option(s)/ Option groups

6


Impact (+ve/ -ve &

level)7


bringing stakeholders together to facilitate the promotion of flood risk management practices was needed, something that AES lacked to-date.


The uptake of AES by individual farmers has increased considerably. However, the impact of these schemes is likely to be limited, as most participants enter these schemes based on existing features, without changing farming practices.

It was noted that if soil and water conservation policies could contribute to multiple objectives such as prevention of soil erosion and diffuse pollution whilst increasing soil fertility it was more likely these practices would be adopted on a large scale.


12

Some farmers expressed concerns that buffer strip options would reduce production levels.


None detailed.

290

Study title: Silgram et al. (2010). Hillslope scale surface runoff, sediment and nutrient losses associated with tramline wheelings.

Silgram, M., Jackson, D.R., Bailey, A., Quinton, J. and Stevens, C. (2010) Earth Surface Processes and Landforms.

Study type and theme1: R&D - field research. Resource Protection




Summary of project

This paper addresses the need for practical, affordable, and targeted management of fields with cereal crops to help reduce losses of soil, phosphorus and nitrogen from land to water courses. EU Member States have implemented a wide range of agri-environment policies aimed at reducing these losses. In the UK, AES have initially focused on improving biodiversity and limiting the ecological impacts of land management. However, such AES could be modified to incorporate practical and cost-effective management techniques for controlling diffuse pollution to water. The research outlined in this paper explores specific potential pollution mitigation options for reducing surface losses under cereal cropping systems which have the potential to be incorporated into commercial farming practices.

Tramline wheelings are the unseeded lines left bare in autumn which are used to facilitate spraying operations, for example in cereal cropping systems. These tramlines comprise of a pair of adjacent parallel wheel marks often around 30–35 cm wide, which in UK agriculture are typically spaced 18–24 m apart depending on the type of machinery used. Recent research has identified that tramlines can represent an important pathway in the loss of sediment and phosphorus.

The project extends the body of literature concerning the role of tramlines to test (i) whether tramline wheelings are important in influencing surface runoff, sediment, nitrogen and phosphorus losses across a broader range of soil textures, over multiple years, and on unbounded hillslope-scale sections on moderate slopes; and (ii) whether relatively simple tramline management and/or crop residue management can function as effective mitigation techniques suitable for integrating into AES aimed at reducing erosion and loss of sediment and phosphorus from land to surface water systems to help achieve water quality targets.

291

Summary table

Reference number5:

AES014-RP Option(s)/ Option

groups6


Impact (+ve/ -ve &

level)7



Options to reduce runoff, sediment and nutrient losses This paper investigates losses from tramlines and makes recommendations for their management and inclusion in AES.

Research on both sandy and silty clay loam soils across two winters showed that tramline wheelings represented the dominant pathway for surface runoff and overland transport of sediment, phosphorus and nitrogen from cereal crops on moderate slopes.

Results indicated 6-16% of rainfall lost as runoff, and losses of 0.8–2.9 kg TP/ha and 0.3–4.8 t/ha sediment in tramline treatments, compared to only 0.2-2% rainfall lost as runoff, and losses of 0.0–0.2 kg TP/ha and 0.003–0.3 t/ha sediment from treatments without tramlines or those where tramlines had been disrupted.

The shallow disruption of tramline wheelings using a tine following the autumn spray operation consistently and dramatically reduced surface runoff and loads of sediment, total nitrogen and total phosphorus to levels similar to those measured in cropped areas between tramlines.

Results suggest that options for managing tramline

++ The conclusions are specific to fields with cereal crops on moderate slopes.

The measured losses from conventional tramline wheelings measured on these moderate slopes would not be considered agronomically significant

However, these losses are highly ecologically significant

The measured losses do not include sub-surface losses (e.g. losses via drain flow)

292

Reference number5:

AES014-RP Option(s)/ Option

groups6


Impact (+ve/ -ve &

level)7


wheelings warrant further refinement and evaluation with a view to incorporating them into spatially-targeted farm-level management planning using national or catchment-based agri-environment policy instruments aimed at reducing diffuse pollution from land to surface water systems.


11

None specified.


12

Not applicable


13

Not applicable

293

Stevens et al. (2009).The effects of minimal tillage, contour cultivation and in-field vegetative barriers on soil erosion and phosphorus loss

Stevens et al. (2009).The effects of minimal tillage, contour cultivation and in-field vegetative barriers on soil erosion and phosphorus loss. Soil Tillage Res. Doi:10.1016/j.still.2009.04.009

Project code (if applicable):* Defra project PE0206 Study type and theme

1: Resource Protection

Scope2: ELS and HLS resource protection options – particularly beetle banks



Summary of project

This study examined the effects of four mitigation measures on surface runoff, sediment, total phosphorus (TP) and total dissolved phosphorus (TDP) losses in overland flow:

Minimum tillage

Contour cultivation

Contour cultivations with a beetle bank

Mixed cultivation (cultivation and drilling conducted up and down the slope and all subsequent operations conducted on the contour.

Only one of the methods (beetle banks – EF7) is currently an ELS option. The economic implications of the different treatment options were also investigated.

Summary table


6



7



Minimum tillage – part of ELS options, such as ED3 - Reduced-depth, non-inversion cultivation on archaeological features

No significant reduction in runoff, sediment losses or total phosphorus losses compared to conventional ploughing, but there were increased losses of total dissolved phosphorus (TDP).

- Single site study - the literature suggests that minimum tillage commonly results in a significant reduction in surface runoff and sediment losses (e.g. Strauss et al., 2003), but reductions were not observed

294


6



7


at this site.

Mixed direction cultivation (not an ES option)

Increased surface runoff and losses of sediment and phosphorus compared with other treatments.

-- Single site study on clay soil. Other sites may respond differently.

Contour cultivation Increased surface roughness with contour cultivation reduced surface runoff, sediment and phosphorus losses compared to up and down slope cultivation in both the plough and minimum tillage treatment areas, but this trend was not significant.

+ Single site study. Results were not statistically significant.

Contour cultivation with a beetle bank (EF7)

No significant difference in surface runoff, sediment TP and particulate phosphorus (PP) losses between beetle banks and cultivation up and down slope.

Only marginal additional benefits to water quality from beetle banks compared with contour cultivation alone.

0 Single site study on a clay soil. Other sites/soil types may respond differently.

The paper cites a “clear trend towards reduced losses” when comparing up and down slope cultivation with a combination of contour cultivation and a vegetative barrier (beetle bank).


No evidence provided in this paper, but reduced cultivation can reduce mineralisation of soil organic matter and related nitrate leaching losses.

Beetle banks could potentially

295


6



7


reduce the use of insecticides and related losses to water.

The “clear trend towards reduced losses” where a beetle bank was installed also has implications for reduced FIO losses associated with manure applications.

On drained clay soils, drain flow rather than surface runoff cane be the major pathway for FIO, ammonium and P losses, particularly those associated with manure applications.


12

Contour cultivation There are additional associated costs, primarily additional time spent in the field which will increase operational costs compared with traditional cultivation. Many farmers are reluctant to adopt contour cultivation because of difficulties with cultivation and spraying operations (Quinton and Catt, 2004), but with the right incentive this measure could be cost-effective.

Contour cultivation with a beetle bank (EF7)

Beetle banks are potentially problematic for farmers, not only requiring contour cultivation, but also resulting in a loss of land and potentially introducing weeds in the areas at the end of banks that cannot be cultivated. They also result in additional cost to the farmer both through increased operational costs and

Beetle banks can provide habitat for insect predators, potentially reducing insecticide application frequency and quantity.

296


6



7


a loss of productive land.


Beetle banks do have a proven benefit for invertebrate diversity (Thomas et al., 2002).

+

Quinton, J.N., Catt, J.A., 2004. The effects of minimal tillage and contour cultivation on surface runoff, soil loss and crop yield in the long-term Woburn soil erosion experiment on a sandy soil in England. Soil Use Manage. 20, 343–349.

Strauss, P., Swoboda, D., Blum, W.E.H., 2003. How effective is mulching and minimum tillage to control runoff and soil loss?–a literature review. In: Proceedings from ‘25 years of Assessment of Erosion’, Ghent, 22–26 September, pp. 545–550.

Thomas, S.R., Noordhuis, R., Holland, J.M., Goulson, D., 2002. Botanical diversity of beetle banks: effects of age and comparison with conventional arable field margins in southern UK. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 93, 403–412

297

3. HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT

BD1241: Review of Blanket Bog management and Restoration



Scope2: HLS and UELS

Indicator3: Farming for the historic environment

Cross-references to other summary tables for the same study4: AES0006, B; AES0006 –RP

Summary of project:

The project used desk based lit reviews and 22 expert interviews.

“principal aims:




The report has used published peer-reviewed and “grey” literature together with interviews and consultations with a wide variety of specialists. The perceived ecosystem drivers of blanket bog, the main threats to its active state and the range of techniques used to conserve or restore blanket bog were investigated. Recommendations and priorities for future field-based research are discussed within the report.”

Summary table

Reference number5: AES0006 H


6



7



Agri-enviroment payments seen as vital in supporting the management of uplands. Without these payments the report states that there would be a loss of key knowledge and land

++

Desk based lit reviews and 22 expert interviews. No field work was undertaken to assess management impacts. A wider canvassing of exerts would benefit the study and

298



6



7


managers which would have a negative impact on our uplands.

An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) should be carried out before any restoration projects begin.

In order to get scheme funding, monitoring should be carried out. Pre-restoration monitoring should also take place.

Makes suggestions for areas of further research.

+

+

0

this could have been carried out using a structured expert elicitation.


Pre and post restoration monitoring will enable effectiveness to be measured. Continued ES support will enable such measures to go ahead.

++


No


Has a clear impact on Farming for the historic environment. The EIA would include the need to minimise soil disturbance. The study notes the ‘Paucity of information on historic land management – studies required to determine if changes in management have occurred and the relationship with degraded blanket bog conditions’.

299

BD1705: Trials to identify Soil Cultivation Practices to Minimise the Impact on Archaeological Sites

Contractors: Oxford Archaeological Unit and Cranfield University

Study type and theme1: Research & Development (R&D)

Scope2: option group (arable cultivation), archaeology under cultivation (ED2/OD2 and ED3/OD3)


Cross-references to other summary tables for the same study4: None

Summary of project:

The research focuses on a series of experimental studies in order to answer the following scientific research questions:

The effectiveness and viability of minimal cultivation and differing soil management techniques in preserving archaeological resources, and comparing these techniques to conventional arable/soil management systems.

Combine these results with those from previous studies to understand the full implications of adopting these studies on the archaeological resource and farm-based agronomics.

Use the findings of both elements to recommend a series of agricultural and soil management options to protect archaeological sites covering a wide range of differing soils, topography and arable regimes.

Develop cost-effective methods for monitoring the effectiveness of such techniques.

The results show that for earthworks, direct drilling and managed pasture were the only feasible options for sustainable protection. Where there are slopes, neither deep or shallow mouldboard ploughing should be undertaken. Non-inversion tillage, or any tillage, is seen as damaging it might be suitable in certain situations where there is a slope but with a range of caveats.

In terms of monitoring a combination of coloured glass and radio transponders was shown to be effective in determining depths of cultivations.

300

Summary table



6



7



ED2/OD2 and ED3/OD3

Assessment of the effectiveness and viability of minimal cultivation, and differing soil management techniques, in preserving the archaeological resource and to compare these techniques with conventional arable/soil management systems.

Recommending a series of agricultural and soil management options suitable for protecting archaeological sites covering a range of differing soils, topography and arable regimes.

Developing cost-effective methods for monitoring the effectiveness of such techniques.

Key finding is that non-tillage (direct drilling) was found to offer the only

long-term sustainable protection for most earthworks if they remain in cultivation.

Six areas were studied:

- Sub-soil pressures resulting from tillage implements and vehicle loads

- Buried artefact breakage laboratory trials

- Pressure at depth in the field

- Studying the effects of different cultivation systems on flat archaeological sites

- Studying the effects of different cultivation +++

Studies were undertaken to look at sub-soil pressures resulting from tillage implements and vehicle loads and the effect these could have on archaeological artefacts. A series of experiments were carried out both in the soil bin laboratory at Cranfield and in the field to study the sub-surface pressures exerted at depth by a range of arable farming operations. These included, for example, cultivation, harvesting and spraying, transmitted via both tyres and rubber tracks.

One of the key stumbling blocks to introducing non-inversion tillage agriculture is the perceived need for subsoiling to accompany these techniques to prevent the build up of pans and deep soil compaction. The project therefore also studied the relationship between tractor passes and soil compaction and degradation over an accelerated 30-year period.

301



6



7


systems on archaeological earthworks

- Investigating practical methods to monitor disturbance depths


ED2/OD2 and ED3/OD3

All of the report’s recommendations support the principles of good soil management which help to sustain good agricultural practices by minimising compaction and promoting crop growth. The report found these were entirely compatible with attempts to preserve buried archaeological sites. ++

The lowest ‘damage’ thresholds were exceeded by the pressure achieved from the ploughsoil by the drill, ‘Simba Solo’, sprayer, combine harvester, tractor and trailer and both shallow and deep mouldboard ploughs.

The study shows little development of compaction pans away from the wheelings in any of the plots including the direct drill and non-inversion tillage.


12

ED2/OD2, ED3/OD3, ES4/OD4 & ES5/OD5:

The recommendations apply to all soil types, but note that the quoted “erosion losses” may be higher on the sandy soil used in this study than on soils with higher clay contents. Similarly the deeper subsoil pressures in the clay field were marginally less than those in the sandy loam soil in the laboratory. ++

ES4/OD4 & ES5/OD5: Managed pasture forms the only other sustainable protection for earthworks, although increased bioturbation may be an issue.


13

ED2/OD2 and ED3/OD3

All of the recommendations support the principles of good soil management, which help to sustain good agricultural practices by minimizing compaction and promoting crop growth whilst attempting to preserve the buried archaeological resource. +

302

BD1706: Conservation of the Historic Environment in England

Contractors: ADAS UK Ltd

Study type and theme1: Research & Development (R&D)

Scope2: option group (upland focus) ES4/OD4 & ES5/OD5


Cross-references to other summary tables for the same study4: None

Summary of project:

The project examined the available evidence for the effects of upland vegetation and its management on the historic environment through a literature review, an assessment of case studies and a survey of a selection of the main stakeholders. These findings were used to identify gaps in knowledge and research needs and an initial management tool developed to guide land managers towards best practice in the upland historic environment. The case studies covered the impact of tree roots, scrub and bracken. The key aim is to maintain vegetation cover to reduce erosion, as a result various vegetation cover regimes were assessed, namely grazing, controlled burning, cutting and drainage on different habitats. The lack of knowledge about the historic environment, and the lack of awareness of landowners and land managers about features of archaeological interest on their land were identified as important issues.

Summary table

Reference number5:

AES013 H


6



7



ES4/OD4 & ES5/OD5

The assessment looked at the rooting characteristics of vegetation in different settings covering grass, heather, bracken gorse and threes/scrub. Only trees, scrub and bracken were seen to be harmful. Some, like Sphagnum species help stabilise peat and thus any archaeological features.

The study considers the management of vegetation by livestock, burning, cutting and other mechanical operations as well as plant introductions and water management.

++ Study is based on literature review and interviews (phone and face-to-face) with key stakeholders. Four case studies were used to consider the issues raised, Fylingdales Moor (North York Moor), Anglezarke Moor (South Pennines), Langdale Fells (Lake District National Park) and Dartmoor National Park. These three sources inform the development of a management tool but there is not testing of the

303

Reference number5:

AES013 H


6



7


Impacts can be variable and localised meaning that management needs to be considered carefully on a site by site basis. Lack of management or abandonment is negative for a range of reasons.

The main issues for the conservation of the upland historic environment are:

Lack of information on the archaeological/historical resource in the landscape, which is exacerbated by an emphasis on individual sites and features, with insufficient consideration of their context and the value of the historical landscape as a whole.

There is often a lack of dialogue between archaeologists and ecologists and archaeological issues are often not fully considered in preparing landscape management plans.

There are gaps in our knowledge of the extent of some of the threats to the historic landscape, and the most appropriate way to manage these.

management options on the ground.


ES4/OD4 & ES5/OD5

All of the report’s recommendations support the principles of good upland vegetation management which help to sustain good agricultural practices by minimising erosion or under grazing and encroachment by less desirable species such as bracken, scrub and trees. The report found these were entirely compatible with attempts to preserve

++ The research concluded that there still needs to be better informed decision making about vegetation management issues in the historic environment in the uplands. This is because of the need to reconcile the needs of the historic environment, a healthy economic

304

Reference number5:

AES013 H


6



7


archaeological resources in upland environments.

landscape and biodiversity. The aim of the management tool is to provide initial guidance for non-archaeological advisers on the management of the archaeological resource within the uplands and to sign post archaeological curators for more detailed consultation. The management tool was not tested as part of this research.


12

ES4/OD4 & ES5/OD5

The recommendations apply to all upland landscapes, but will very significantly from one locality to another.

++ May also be relevant to ES2/OD2 & ES3/OD3, where there are any cultivations.


13

ES4/OD4 & ES5/OD5

All of the recommendations support the principles of good upland vegetation management, which help to sustain good agricultural practices by minimizing erosion and promoting the management of vegetation whilst attempting to preserve, and enhance the accessibility of, the archaeological resources in the uplands.

+

305

MA01028: Evaluation of the Operation of Environmental Stewardship

Contractors: Central Science Laboratory (CSL) [now the Food and Environment Research Agency (FERA)]

Study type and theme1: HE



Cross-references to other summary tables for the same study4: AES058 –RP; AES058 L

Summary of project:


Summary table



6



7



ED2-5

Survey participants considered ELS/OELS impacts would be greatest for wildlife and landscape. At least 60% of respondents thought that all agreements contained the correct options to meet historic environment and access objectives, Most organisations thought that the

++ ++

Spatial analysis revealed significant positive associations at national level between option location and target for diffuse pollution by nitrate, phosphate and pesticide, rare arable flora and two key bird species, though not historic features. The modelling of environmental objectives was not appropriate for landscape or historic objectives. Assessment of the success of

306



6



7


ES scheme would make a positive contribution to scheme targets. In general, contributions to biodiversity and landscape were thought to be greater than to resource protection and the historic environment. Ten percent of ELS options ED 2-5 were within 200m of an historic site. There is a high chance that these options are located on sites referred to in the database. 21% of ELS options for historic and landscape features were within 500m of an historic site, and 6% of historic sites on the database were within 500m of relevant options. Between 9 and 15% of grasslands entered into the schemes had evidence of historic or archaeological features present. A much larger proportion of grasslands entered into all four options for management with low or very low inputs showed evidence of archaeological features than comparable control sites.

++ + +

scheme in relation to the historic environment would require comprehensive data on the historic and archaeological resource with which to compare uptake.


ED2-5

However, because the Selected National Heritage Dataset (SNHD) is not a fully comprehensive database,

+

As above

307



6



7


this does not mean that ELS is not achieving its objectives for the historic environment; however, if it is assumed that SNHD sites are the most important, some method of targeting these options (e.g. through provision of advice) could be beneficial suitable for landscape.


N/A


308

4. LANDSCAPE

BD2111: Trends, long term survival and logical values of hedgerow trees: development of populations models to inform strategy.

Contractors: Forest Research


Scope2: ELS, HLS,



Summary of project:

The project developed a population model for isolated hedgerow trees in order to review, and if necessary amend, the 2006 HAP targets for hedgerow trees, It also collates and reviewed existing information on the biodiversity value of hedgerow trees with emphasis on invertebrates, comparing where possible the role of isolated hedgerow trees and lines of trees. During a workshop held as part of the research the wider role of trees in the landscape were discussed.

Summary table

Reference number5: AES065 L


6



7



A review showed how hedgerow trees had been included in National Character Area descriptions. This led to the conclusion that that trees in hedgerows remain essential features of the landscape which are not just visual but provide links between local and regional landscape types

+

Based on review of National Character Areas and discussion of wider roles of trees in the landscape during end of project workshop.

309



6



7



A review of National Character Areas revealed that that trees in hedgerows remain essential features of the landscape which are not just visual but provide links between local and regional landscape types

+

As above


N/A


Studies main objectives was to explore the impact of hedgerow trees on biodiversity

310

BD5303: Initial Outline Assessment of the Contribution of ELS to maintaining and enhancing Landscape Character and Quality

Contractor(s): Land Use Consultants


Scope2: ELS



Summary of project:

The paper summarises key early findings on the contribution of Entry Level Stewardship (ELS) to the conservation and enhancement of landscape character and quality at the level of Agricultural Landscape Types (ALTs). The assessment is only a very partial analysis as it is based on the proportional area of uptake of different ES options compared to the total area of ES uptake in each ALT. A more detailed assessment will be produced by June 2013.

The assessment is based on 3 levels of study: ES uptake (ELS, UELS and HLS) at the level of the six Agricultural Landscape Types (ALTs); assessment of ES uptake relative to relevant key characteristics at the NCA level, based on an analysis of 18 sample NCAs (three per ALT); and field assessment of the landscape effects of individual ES options (both ELS and HLS) across 18 Study Areas, one per sample NCA, and three per ALT as above.

Summary table

Reference number5: MA01028, L


6



7



ED5

EE3

Significant uptake of Management of Archaeological Features Under Grassland option is found across all ALTs. Has the potential to have a very positive landscape effect, for example, helping conserve barrows and earthworks as prominent landscape features. This (and other wide buffer strip) option(s) are beneficial in very large-

+++ +++

Assessment only very partial analysis as it is based on the proportional area of uptake of different ES options compared to the total area of ES uptake in each ALT. It does not take account of the area of each ALT or the area of the different land covers currently found in that ALT. Assessment confined to 20 most popular ES options in terms of areas of uptake in the different ALTs

311

EL6: EK2 / EK3 and EK5 EF6 EF1 EB1 and EB2

HLS EJ11

scale landscapes (e.g. Chalk and Limestone ALT and Eastern Arable ALT), helping to strengthen the field pattern, particularly in areas where hedgerows have been lost or where field boundaries are largely demarcated by ditches However, the use of Wide Buffer Strips in small-scale landscapes –can detract from organic small-scale field patterns, as found in the South East of England and be detrimental to the landscape Unenclosed Moorland Rough Grazing, which has significant areas of uptake in the Upland Fringes and the Uplands has the potential to have a very positive landscape effect. helping retain moorland character.

Low input grassland and Mixed Stocking are helping to retain areas of grassland in the predominantly arable landscapes of the Chalk and Limestone ALT and the Eastern Arable ALT. They are equally helping retain the pastoral character of the other ALTs. Therefore they have the potential to have a positive landscape effect Over-wintering Stubbles brings winter texture and colour to arable landscapes and have the potential to have a positive landscape effect

Management of Field Corners option in the wrong location, can be detrimental to the landscape by disrupting the dominant field pattern

-- +++ ++ ++ --

Assessment of linear options confined to 10 most popular ES options in terms of length of uptake in the different ALTs as these make up the vast majority of all linear option uptake

312

These hedge management options make a strong positive contribution to maintaining characteristic boundary features in the landscape in all ALTs New fencing can create new fence lines that can disrupt traditional field

boundary patterns and may create new isolated enclosures. Can also disrupt traditional boundary patterns, however, levels of uptake for this option are currently relatively low.

+++ - - -


At the ALT level, options ED5, EE3, EL6 and EB1 and EB2 all have the potential to make a very positive contribution to the landscape. Other potentially beneficial options are EK2, 3 and 5 and EF6. Wide buffers in small-scale landscapes and new fence lines and option EJ11 all have the potential to disrupt traditional landscape patterns

++

As Above


N/A


313

MA01024: Evaluation of Farm Environmental Plan Process - Phase 2

Contractor: Central Science Laboratory (CSL) [now the Food and Environment Research Agency (FERA)]


Scope2: HLS,



Summary of project:

The project provided an evaluation of the Farm Environment Plan (FEP) process introduced in 2004 to support the HLS. The FEP forms a summary of all the important environmental features, with recommendations for the appropriate management and an overall assessment of the environmental value at the farm scale. The research involved a postal survey of 69 surveyors who had conducted FEPs.

Summary table



6



7



FEP

27% of surveyors said they needed more training in landscape issues The majority of the criticism of the Landscape Character section of FEP focussed on the irrelevance of the section because many aspects were not under the farmers' control, JCA characteristics were not applicable to the farm, condition assessments for some features were inappropriate and there was simply no purpose to the data collection.

- -

Postal survey of 69 surveyors. Nearly half (48%) of responses from FWAG

314

Only 5% stated that the best aspect of FEPs was that it placed farm in wider landscape context

+


The Landscape Character of the FEP was criticised because the assessments were often not applicable to the holding and surveyors were asked to record information on features over which the farmer had no control.

-

As above


N/A


315

MA01028: Evaluation of the operation of environmental stewardship





Cross-references to other summary tables for the same study4: AES058 -RP; AES058 H

Summary of project:


Summary table



6



7



Survey participants considered ELS/OELS impacts would be greatest for wildlife and landscape. Most organisations thought that the ES scheme would make a positive contribution to scheme targets. In general, contributions to biodiversity and landscape were thought to be greater than to resource protection and the historic environment. Landscape impacts were most highly rated by LFA – SDA participants.

++ ++ ++

It was not possible to model the impact of ES on landscape within this project. Results for landscape based entirely on survey

316

Only 36% of NE Advisors stated that HLS agreements contained options suitable for landscape. Additional comments related to no proper targeted approach for whole JCA and only minor, isolated benefits; very subjective, difficult to address and not well understood; options tend to avoid negatively affecting landscape rather than positively addressing it; usually a secondary benefit of other options; tends to be benefited by capital works plans.

17 stakeholders thought that the HLS would make a major contribution to wildlife conservation, but only ten thought it would make a major contribution to the landscape.

+ +


Most respondents thought that ELS would make a positive contribution to the landscape, this was particularly the case for LFA participants. However, fewer stakeholders thought that HLS would make a major contribution to landscape and only 36% of NE Advisors stated that HLS agreements contained options suitable for landscape

+

As above


12

N/A


13

317

Quine & Watts (2009) Successful de-fragmentation of woodland by planting in an agricultural landscape? An assessment based on landscape indicators

Quine, C.P. & Watts, K. (2009). Journal of Environmental Management 90, 251-259

Project code (if applicable):* ??

Study type and theme1: Landscape

Scope2: The JIGSAW scheme (Joining and Increasing Grant Scheme for Ancient Woodland) and WGS

Indicator3: Farming and climate change?


Summary of project:

This study assessed the degree of de-fragmentation achieved by woodland expansion on the Isle of Wight and in particular the success of spatial targeting of new woodland planting implemented through grant aid in the JIGSAW (Joining and Increasing Grant Scheme for Ancient Woodland) scheme. Five steps in the re-development of broad-leaved woodland were tested using eight indicators - six commonly used landscape metrics, and two ecologically scaled indicators derived from application of least-cost network evaluation. The study found that only half of the measures indicated de-fragmentation over the whole sequence of five steps. However, the spatial targeting did appear successful, when compared to equivalent WGS woodland expansion, and resulted in positive change to six of the eight indicators.

Summary table

Reference number5: , O/SE


6



7



JIGSAW

Half of the measures indicated de-fragmentation over the whole sequence of five steps. These indicators were associated with an increase in habitat area (including core area), general proximity of one habitat patch to another, and size of functional network.

The other four indicators suggested that

+ --

Landscape metrics - structural connectivity: Area: No. of patches; Total edge; Patch size; Core area with 50 m edge; Nearest neighbour Network analysis – functional connectivity: No. of habitat networks; Mean network size

318

WGS

further fragmentation had occurred under JIGSAW because there were more patches and networks, a reduced median patch size and an increase in total edge. Spatial targeting under JIGSAW did appear successful, when compared to equivalent untargeted WGS woodland expansion, and resulted in positive change to six of the eight indicators. Substantially more new woodlands were created by WGS than by JIGSAW, and the total edge of woodland produced by WGS was almost twice as much. The preponderance of small new woodlands means that WGS reduced median patch size and mean core area.

+ -


JIGSAW did not contributed to de-fragmentation as it led to creation of new woodland of small patches that are unconnected to pre-existing woodland and thus resulted in new, and small, fragments. However, compared to WGS spatial targeting through JIGSAW reduced the number of woodland patches, consistent with the aim of the scheme to join together existing fragments, and increases core area and functional network size.

-

+


12

N/A


13

N/A

319

5. ACCESS

RP0498: Evaluation of Higher Level Stewardship Permissive Access

Contractors: Countryside and Community Research Institute (CCRI)

Study type and theme1: M & E Access

Scope2: HLS

Indicator3: to ‘enable people to see and enjoy the landscape, wildlife, history of an area, or the conservation improvements under the scheme; and/or provide

new or improved opportunities for quiet recreation, leisure and relaxation in the countryside’ (TAN 45).

Specific Objectives (from TAN45):

1. Create new access routes to currently inaccessible features...and areas of wildlife or landscape interest.

2. Improve access for a range of users (including those with limited mobility) by creating routes that bridge gaps in the Public Rights of

Way (PRoW) network; give access to landlocked areas of open access land created under the CRoW Act; join CRoW areas of open

access land or link to long distance footpaths, and where possible link to public transport networks.

3. Create new areas of open permissive access

4. Provide facilities on farms that promote greater understanding of the countryside, its history, landscape, wildlife, economy, culture and

agriculture.


Summary of project:

An evaluation of permissive access under HLS options was carried out over the period October 2011 – March 2012. The evaluation included telephone and face-to-face interviews with a sample of HLS permissive access agreement holders, and face-to-face interviews with a range of national and local level stakeholders representing user groups and other interested bodies such as local authorities. A sample of 221 agreement holders randomly selected from eight evaluation areas were contacted by telephone, an additional 20 ‘ex-agreement’ holders who provided access under classic schemes were also contacted by telephone. Face-to-face interviews were carried out with 32 agreement holders and 32 other stakeholders in the eight selected ‘evaluation nodes’. Evaluation nodes were selected to ensure coverage of different farm types in upland and lowland areas of England

320

Summary table

Reference number5:AES107


6



7



HN1, HN2, HN3, HN4, HN5, HN6, HN7

additional access to the countryside,

Approx 40% had some sort of public access before HLS

Better relations between farmers and the public

Strong element of altruism in provision

Use is mainly by walkers and dog walkers but horse riders have also benefited

Lack of publicity outside local area

Quality and waymarking generally good but with some exceptions

Use varies depending on situation of access

+++

_

+

++

++

--

Not all ‘new’ access and not well publicised outside local area

HLS provided increased access and peace of mind to users

Based on interviews with farmers, some good may be reversed if access ends

Makes it more likely that access will continue when agreement ends

Temporary nature of agreements makes publicity harder

Farmers did not always know how much their access was used


1

2

2.

2.

New access routes created to areas and features of interest

Mixed picture on bridging of gaps in PROW network and links to long distance paths

Some new disabled access created

+++

+

++

Some thought it could have been more strategically targeted

321

2.

3.

4.

Some links to public transport

New areas of open access created

Some evidence for providing greater understanding of the countryside

+

++

++

little evidence that public transport is used to access routes

Based on farmers’ and stakeholders’ views


Most farmers did not think that their access impacted on production

Most farmers and stakeholders saw little impact on the rural economy except where the access was directly related to a business such as a farm shop

0

+


Some evidence that access impacts positively on the environmental aspects of HLS agreements, in particular by enabling control of where people go

Use of field margins (or areas adjacent to them) for access is controversial

+

-

Based mainly on farmers’ perceptions

322

MA01029: Agri-Environment Schemes Access Monitoring Survey

Contractors: Ask for Research

Study type and theme1: M & E access

Scope2: CSS and ESA

Indicator3: to ‘enable people to see and enjoy the landscape, wildlife, history of an area, or the conservation improvements under the scheme; and/or provide

new or improved opportunities for quiet recreation, leisure and relaxation in the countryside’ (TAN 45).

Specific Objectives (from TAN45):

5. Create new access routes to currently inaccessible features...and areas of wildlife or landscape interest.

6. Improve access for a range of users (including those with limited mobility) by creating routes that bridge gaps in the Public Rights of Way (PRoW)

network; give access to landlocked areas of open access land created under the CRoW Act; join CRoW areas of open access land or link to long

distance footpaths, and where possible link to public transport networks.

7. Create new areas of open permissive access

8. Provide facilities on farms that promote greater understanding of the countryside, its history, landscape, wildlife, economy, culture and agriculture.

[NB these post date the schemes but the objectives for CSS and ESA were not available.]


Summary of project:

‘The objective of the survey can be defined as; “To assess the degree and success of the use made of sites” through: • Determining whether routes and sites are placed with locations which meet a public (or latent) demand, including suitability for users with disabilities • Determining whether current levels of publicity are reaching target audiences, resulting in use of sites • Obtaining feedback from users as to whether they would be prepared to pay to visit if permissive access were not available • Obtaining feedback as to whether users think there is a need for more permissive access in the area • Canvassing public opinion as to what improvements could be made.’ (p.7)

200 randomly selected sites with access options under CSS and ESA in Devon, Norfolk and Northumberland were surveyed on Saturdays and Sundays between July and September and 268 visitors were interviewed.

323

Summary table



6



7



‘The random selection of survey sites covered all access end dates from 2004 through to 2013. The two main dates for access end are 2011 and 2012, with each accounting for around one fifth of the sites surveyed.’

‘Where path lengths were detailed on the website, virtually two thirds of paths were 2 Kilometres or less in length’ The main features for the sites are a link with another path, a circular walk and wildlife, with around three quarters of all sites having these

features. The main type of site access identified by interviewers was a footpath, with just over three fifths of sites having this type of access. Just under one third had bridleway access and just under one quarter had open access. Just 1.5% of interviewers observed disabled access at the sites.

an average of 4.1 visitors

per site. The number of visitors

The peak for agreements ending was last year and this year

Most paths are short

Based on one visit per site.

There was evidence of use at

324



6



7


per site ranged from 0 to 157

visitors. Just over half of the

sites received at least one

visitor.

Over three quarters of visitors live locally

The two main purposes of the site visit were dog walking, accounting for just over half of visitors, and rambling/walking for pleasure, accounting for just over one third

The vast majority of visitors found the entrance point without any difficulty and also found the approach to the site to be clear.

The vast majority of visitors stated that the site had met their expectations.

Over 90% of visitors each rated as positive the following aspects of the site; their enjoyment, the scenery, gate/stile maintenance and wildlife. Over 80% of visitors each rated as positive; the path maintenance, car parking and information.

++

++

+++

some of the sites where no

visitors were observed.

Visitors were interviewed on sites where there were visitors on the day of the visit

325



6



7



Access agreements under ESA and CSS contributed to access to the countryside, especially providing short (under 2 km) footpaths, used mainly by local people and by dog walkers.

They were rated positively by most of the people using them

++

+++

Some sites did not appear to be well used


None mentioned


None mentioned

326

MA01032: Evaluation of Access for the Less Mobile in Defra Agri-Environment Schemes



Scope2: HLS, CS and ESA

Indicator3: ‘...to create new permissive routes for people with restricted or reduced mobility, such as wheelchair users or those with pushchairs. The intended

route should be across flat or gently sloping ground, and there should be parking close to the start of the route.’ (Defra, HLS Handbook 2010)


Summary of project:

This evaluation by ADAS with the Fieldfare Trust was based upon site assessments through site visits and interviews with land managers of 44 sites providing access under the ‘easy access’ option of agri-environment schemes. The Fieldfare trust used this data to assess sites against the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act.

Summary table



6



7



HN5/ HN7 Significant level of improved access

Some paths could have been surfaced better for the same cost

Some slopes could have been reduced by choosing an alternative route

++

--

-

Based on surveys of 44 of the 46 sites in the ‘easy access’ option in Aug and Sept 2006.

327



6



7


Advisers need training in disability accessibility awareness


HN5/ HN7 ‘Has delivered a significant level of improved access and opportunity for disabled and less mobile people’. (p.viii)

benefits have not always been maximised

++

-

Based on surveys of 44 sites

Surface work has always been good quality and in some cases could have been made better without spending more money


None mentioned


None mentioned

328

MA01033: Evaluation of Educational Access Under Defra Agri-Environment Schemes



Scope2: CSS and HLS

Indicator3: ‘The Educational access option is aimed at encouraging site visits by schools and colleges for curriculum studies at all levels, and by a wide range

of other interest groups. It provides the opportunity to explain the links between farming, conservation and food production.’ (Defra, HLS Handbook, 2010)


Summary of project:

This evaluation by ADAS of educational access under agri-environment schemes uses telephone surveys of farmers and teachers and in-depth telephone interviews with farmers and teachers to:

Determine the effectiveness of Defra’s educational access in meeting the expectations of users • Evaluate the recent improvements made

Evaluate the current criteria that Natural England (NE, formerly the Rural Development Service) advisers use to approve the inclusion of educational access in an agreement, and suggest improvements, e.g. eligibility

Examine how educational access within agri-environment schemes relates to wider provision of educational access in England,

Provide recommendations for future development of the option, including a ‘value for money’ assessment of Defra’s current arrangements.

Summary table



6



7



HN8/HN9 Valued by teachers who use the scheme

High level of repeat visits but farmers new to the scheme may have difficulty making contacts

Need good planning and clarity on

+++

+

Valued slightly higher than non-Defra-funded access

Failure to attract enough visits was most cited reason for lapsing

329



6



7


responsibility (teacher or farmer)

Costs to schools (transport and teacher cover) may be prohibitive

Curriculum coverage not maximised

-

-

+

Farmers said they took the lead in 90% of cases

Whilst teachers using other access schemes were interviewed, teachers who did not use access at all were not

Teachers tended to concentrate on particular subjects


Visits deliver ‘a range of educational benefits, including personal development and enriching life experiences’ (p.viii) but not clear to what extent these would be found elsewhere if the scheme did not exist.


None specified


None specified

330

Forestry Commission (2004) Accessibility of Woodlands and Natural Spaces: Addressing Crime and Safety Issues

Contractors: Forest Research

Study type and theme1: Seminar report. Access, crime and safety

Scope2:

Indicator3:


Summary of project:

‘In 2004 Forest Research, with backing from Lancashire Constabulary, CABE Space and English Nature organised a one-day seminar to explore and debate the accessibility of woodlands and natural spaces1 with particular reference to crime and safety issues.’ (p.5) ‘The seminar set out to address five themes: 1. Access and risk perception 2. Access and exclusionary behaviour 3. Access and liability 4. Crime reduction and the rehabilitation of offenders 5. Location and design of accessible woodland.’ (p.12)

A summary table is given for each presentation that is considered relevant

Summary table 1: Space for people: a strategy to increase public access to woodland Nick Collinson, Conservation Advisor, Woodland Trust

Reference number5:


6



7




The work highlights the fact

that existing woodland is not enough to meet these [WASt} standards and that new woodland creation is needed in specific areas.

_ _ Based on mapping of accessible woodlands. Adds: ‘if there are other psychological or

perceptual barriers that are preventing people making the most of access then these issues also need to be addressed.’ (p.16)


Not mentioned


Not mentioned

331

Summary Table 2: Whose space? Is one person’s use another person’s abuse?

Simon Bell, OPENspace, Edinburgh College of Art/Heriot-Watt University

Reference number5:


6


7


9



‘The research (Bell et al., 2003: 97) raised three areas of tension that

stood out as particularly important: • Tensions between parents and children in terms of protection versus the need to play freely. • Tensions between different age groups of children/teenagers over their desires to use woodlands for play and social activities. • Tensions between adults and children/teenagers over the kinds of activities that fall into the categories of use and abuse. Simon highlighted the importance of childhood experiences of woodlands and natural spaces and described how children who used these spaces were more likely to become adults who enjoyed woodlands. ... Finally, a greater management presence can make a big difference to people’s feelings of safety, as the signs of abuse are less likely to be present. The visible appearance of woods that are unmanaged or only occasionally maintained seems to be linked to higher levels of abuse. However, management does not necessarily have to be carried out by formal owners or authorities, as local people’s sense of ownership is also important. (p.23)


12

Not mentioned


13

Not mentioned

332

Summary Table 3: Can access be managed safely?

Chris Probert, Forestry Commission

Reference number5:


6


7


9



‘As far as access is concerned the risks include: • Abandoned infrastructure • Falling in quarries • Forestry operations • Mineshafts • Pest control and farm machinery • Swimming in quarry lakes • Shooting • Unexploded ordnance • Walking with dogs in proximity to suckler cows and calves.’ (p.26) ‘Research for the Countryside and Rights of Way Act safety study outlined that in 1998 there were 1.26 billion countryside visits (TNS Travel and Tourism, 2004). Indications from research based on the DTI (Department of Trade and Industry) Leisure Accident Survey System are that there is a 1 in 17 000 chance of having an accident. ‘ (p.25) ‘Coupled with these data, Health and Safety Executive figures for 1991–2000 show that there were just 27 incidents in England and Wales involving walkers and livestock. The Association of British Insurers has commented that claims relating to the countryside are a very minor aspect of their work. Also, the National Farmers Union Mutual do not in general have a serious claims history in respect of members of the public on farmland.’ (p.25)

_

++

Whilst focused on woodland access, this presentation also covered access to the countryside in general


12

Not mentioned


13

Not mentioned

333

Summary Table 4: Engaging with communities: problems and opportunities in urban woodland

Steve Metcalfe, Education Officer, English Nature

Reference number5:


6



7




‘The results highlighted that wildlife was high on the list of why people visited the site. They also enjoyed the beauty of the NNR and welcomed the opportunity to undertake exercise and to relax. What people disliked were anti-social activities and some had difficulty with access because the site is steep. People’s suggestions for improvements included providing better access to the site, reducing fly-tipping and improving site quality.’ (p.28) ‘... suggested that one agency cannot tackle the problems on its own and a partnership approach was needed in order to share knowledge and ideas.’ (p.28)

+ _ Based on research at an urban NNR but maybe also be relevant to rural areas


Not mentioned


Not mentioned

334

Morris & O’Brien Encouraging healthy outdoor activity amongst under-represented groups: an evaluation of the Active England woodland projects

Morris J and O'Brien E (2011). Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 10 323- 333.

Study type and theme1: Article based on M&E. access, health

Scope2:

Indicator3: ‘The overall aim of the [Active England] programme was to increase community participation in sport and physical activity. 241 projects were

funded over a four-year period across England. There was a particular focus on increasing participation for six target groups, including: • People on low incomes. • People with disabilities. • Women and girls. • Black and minority ethnic (BME) groups (BME is a demographic category used to refer to people who do not define themselves as being White using the UK Census definitions). • People over 45 years of age. • Young people under 16 years of age.’ (p.324)


Summary of project:

‘This paper presents an evaluation of five Active England woodland projects that took place at sites in England over three years from 2005. The research was funded by the Forestry Commission. The Active England projects, funded by Sport England and The Big Lottery, set out to improve health through promoting physical activity amongst under-represented target groups. The paper aims to draw out specific recommendations for projects aiming to encourage under-represented groups to use green space, and for the evaluation of such projects.’ .(p.323) There is no reference to Environmental Stewardship. ‘The research shows that organised, led activities and facilitated access are essential for encouraging participation by some target groups. These interventions should be adequately supported and resourced. Adequate staff allocation, training and support is needed for targeted outreach and community engagement work.’ (p.332)

335

Summary table

Reference number5:


6



7




‘all the projects had some successes in encouraging use amongst target groups.

At some sites, there was an increase in ‘high intensity physical activity’ to achieve health benefits

For Pakistani women, visiting a forest was ‘almost unthinkable’

++

++

_ _ _

Partly due to organised activities and facilitated visits and partly to new infrastructure

Attributed at least partly to new infrastructure and organised activities

‘For these respondents, lack of confidence to make solitary visits or to travel on public transport alone, fear of dogs, and a lack of awareness of accessible greenspaces were combined in a way that made it almost unthinkable to make a woodland visit.’ (p.331)


Not mentioned


Not mentioned

336

6. CLIMATE CHANGE

BD1241: Review of management and restoration options for blanket bog.


Study type and theme1: Biodiversity, Resource Protection, Climate Change

Scope2: all of ES

Indicator3:

Cross-references to other summary tables for the same study4: AES006, B; AES006 –RP; AES0006 H

Summary of project:

The last 20 years has seen significant programmes of restoration on blanket bog sites. Traditionally this has been undertaken due to their recognition as important wildlife/conservation sites, however recently their importance as a carbon store to combat the effects of climate change have also been recognised. In view of the very great costs in time and resources to restore extensive areas of degraded blanket bog, this project was commissioned with the principal aims:



To identify priorities for possible future field-based research. The report has used published peer-reviewed and “grey” literature together with interviews and consultations with a wide variety of specialists. The perceived ecosystem drivers of blanket bog, the main threats to its active state and the range of techniques used to conserve or restore blanket bog were investigated. The report has highlighted a number of areas where existing policy may need to be altered to more clearly define blanket bog and the options available for its management. The outcomes of this report, in the main have been policy options without quantifiable change to existing AES. The project ran from March to November 2006.

337

BD2302: Research into the current and potential climate change mitigation impacts of environmental stewardship

Contractor: Hertfordshire University

Study type1: Research and development

Scope2: All environmental stewardship (ELS, OELS, HLS)

Indicator3: Farming and climate change – Investigate and reduce emissions


Summary of project:

This project looks at the potential impact the environmental stewardship might have on greenhouse gas emissions, both positive and negative. This project does not account for any displacement of emissions associated with taking land out of production (e.g. margins) and increased reliance on imports to cover that reduction in production. Winter wheat was used as the baseline, so reductions in emissions on arable land were calculated assuming that if the land was not in ES it would be used to grow conventional wheat. Any changes in emissions are compared to the emission that would have occurred if the land grew conventional winter wheat. Four grassland baseline scenarios were also created ranging from intensive grassland through semi improved, to unimproved grazed grass. The project ran from 2006-2007.

(from Appendix 3).

Summary table

Reference number5:

AES010 CC Option(s)/ Option groups

6



6



Options with the most potential for reductions by net CO2e emissions per unit of option after 5 years.

Buffer strips on intensive grassland at 2,4 and 6 M.

+++17.54 t CO2e unit

-1

year -1

Does not include LUC emissions on alternative land used for production. Loss of land for arable production could lead to increased imports, or intensification of other areas in the UK. Assessments made on a per hectare rather than per tonne basis

338

Reference number5:


6



6


therefore not looking at emissions from production.

Archaeological features on grassland +++12.77 t CO2e unit

-1

year -1

Take field corners out of management ++ 8.85 t CO2e unit

-1

year -1

Buffering in-field ponds in improved grassland

++ 8.76 t CO2e unit

-1

year -1

Management of woodland edges ++ 7.48 t CO2e unit

-1

year -1

Buffer strips on cultivated land at 2,4 and 6 M

++ 7.13 t CO2e unit

-1

year -1

Field corner management

++ 7.13 t CO2e unit

-1

year -1

Beetle banks

++ 7.13 t CO2e unit

-1

year -1


10

Overall reduction in emissions from ES

+ (reduction in emissions estimated to

Reduction in emissions occurs over a period of 1-100 years, assuming no other Does not include displaced

339

Reference number5:


6



6


be 0.44%-0.49% compared to 1990 Kyoto baseline)

production.


11

Greatest benefits identified as being those options that take land out of production and apply low inputs – significant reduction in production would result if these options had a wide spread uptake.


12

340

BD2305: Environmental Stewardship and Improved GHG Mitigation - Amending Current, and Introducing New, Options


Study type and theme1: Review – Climate change mitigation

Scope2: ES, HLS, OELS, HLS



Summary of project:

When submitting the Rural Development Programme for England (RDPE) to the European Commission, Defra made a written commitment that climate change would be added as an overarching theme to environmental stewardship (ES) alongside its current objectives. Project ran from December 2007 to March 2008.

The objectives of this project were fourfold:

Look at current ES options and suggest changes which could increase their climate change mitigation impact

Consider planned new ES options (time of writing 2008) for their likely impact on climate change.

Review mitigation methods put forward in projects AC0206 and BD2302 and suggest how they could be incorporated into ES schemes.

Suggest further research that may be needed to further improve the climate change mitigation of ES schemes in the future.

Options in the below table are proposed by the authors of this study.

Summary table

Reference number5:AES018 CC


6



7


9


Cutting hedgerows on a longer cycle with cuttings used for

Cutting on a longer cycle will allow for cuttings to be used as a renewable fuel Authors also suggest that cutting on a 10 year cycle will aid carbon

+++ Not costed, or specifically planned out. Not clear the level of adoption amongst

341



6



7


9

fuel. sequestration.

May provide possible competition effects on crops nearby (10 metres).

the farming community.

Management of lowland peat soils in arable cultivation.

Adoption of minimum or no- tillage systems for arable crops.

Reduces soil carbon losses and N inputs to high demand crops, and as such de-nitrification.

Water management must be sustained or increased potential for CC gases to be emitted.

+++ (immediate)

Not suitable for use in some crops such as potatoes and sugar beet. Deeper cultivations may be used as a tool for weed management.

Delaying spring fertiliser N applications to combinable crops.

Do not apply spring dressings of N until risk of de-nitrification has decreased.

Has the possiblity of reducing nitrous oxide emissions unless future rainfall returns soil to above field capacity.

Possiblity of causing yield loss if applications are delayed too much.

++/+++ (immediate)

Delaying spring fertiliser N applications to grassland.

As above ++/+++ (immediate)

Avoid (overwinter) sacrifice areas for livestock

Do not intentionally leave stock in one area which leads to poaching or permanent loss of grass sward and slurried topsoil.

+++ (immediate).

Could be considered standard ‘good agricultural practice’.

342



6



7


9

Reduces loss of soil carbon and emissions of methane and nitrous oxide (from reduced accumulation of excreta in area).

Improve climate change knowledge amongst the farming community through workshops and other methods.

Unable to quantify effect. ++/+++ Difficult to quantify the effect of increasing capacity for increased knowledge on actual mitigation.


The measures would complement existing ES options to promote CC mitigation.


12

Measures may be defined as ‘good agricultural practice’ and as such may have a positive benefit on good farming practice.


Some measures may have positive effects on soil and water management.

343

BD5007: A revisit to previous research into the current and potential climate change mitigation effects of environmental stewardship


Study type and theme1: Research and development

Scope2: All environmental stewardship (ELS, OELS, HLS)



Summary of project:

This project builds on its precursor, BD2302 and revisits the climate change mitigation scenarios to ensure they continue to be robust, and up to date parameters are incorporated into the calculations. As well as updating the impacts given in BD2302 (see AES010) new options have been introduced which were not included in the original work.

Displacement risk: the risk of simply moving emissions from one source to another as a result of intervention. ↓ indicates a reduction in potential for measures to reduce GHG emissions from the revised figures in the report. ↑ Indicates a increase in potential for measures to reduce GHG emissions from the revised figures in the report (from Table 3.2). Project was carried out in 2011. Arrows ↑↓ indicate either greater or less impact forecasted than figures quoted in the previous study (BD2302).

Summary table


CC Option(s)/ Option groups

6 Key messages

including reasons for success/failure


7


9


Buffer strips on intensive grassland at 2,4 and 6 M.

+++11.48 (t CO2e unit

-1

year -1

) ↓

Displacement risk (DR) Medium.

NEW OPTION- 6m buffer strips on intensive grassland next to a watercourse.

+++11.59 t CO2e unit

-1

year -1

↓

DR Medium

Archaeological features on grassland +1.36 t CO2e DR M/L

344



6 Key messages



7


9

unit-1

year -1

↓

Take field corners out of management ++ 8.04 t CO2e unit

-1

year -1

↓

DR M

Buffering in-field ponds in improved grassland

++ 6.19 t CO2e unit

-1

year -1

↓

DR M

Management of woodland edges ++ 6.54 t CO2e unit

-1

year -1

↓

DR M

Buffer strips on cultivated land at 2,4 and 6 M

++7.48 t CO2e unit

-1 year

-1↑

Field corner management

++7.48 t CO2e unit

-1 year

-1↑

Beetle banks

++7.48 t CO2e unit

-1 year

-1↑


All options proposed have some mitigating effect on GHG emissions whilst providing a beneficial effect on biodiversity.


12

Land for AES measures is taken out of production.


Many options include extensions to existing AES scheme options, thus

345



6 Key messages



7


9

provide greater benefits for biodiversity.

346

RMP5142: Analysis of Policy Instruments for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Agriculture, Forestry and Land Management

Contractor: ADAS, RPA and CJC Consulting

Study type and theme1: Policy development, evaluation – Climate change / GHG

Scope2: Environmental Stewardship, voluntary



Summary of project:

Study building on marginal abatement cost curves created in RMP4950 and identifies policy instruments that could lead to the abatement of GHG emissions in the Agriculture, Forestry and Land Management sector. Work reviewed mitigation measures, selected policy instruments and evaluated abatement potential and costs for these.

Summary table

Reference number5:

AES299 CC




7



Nitrous oxide mitigation Do not exceed crop N requirements Make full allowance for manure N supply

Spread manures at appropriate times / conditions

Increase livestock nutrient use

Minimise nitrate leaching losses, reducing indirect emissions. Optimal N for crop Making full allowance for N content can reduce requirement for artificial N & decrease nitrate leaching losses Avoiding spreading high readily available N manures at times when crops have a low requirement reduces the surplus N available for direct emissions and loss of N to leaching

+ (5% reduction) + (5% reduction) +++ (50% reduction)

A reduction of approximately 50% in direct N2O emissions from the N in slurries has been achieved when slurry was applied to free draining grassland soils in spring compared to autumn (Thorman et al., 2007). An increase in livestock N use efficiency of up to 10% has been estimated to reduce direct N2O emissions from livestock manures and slurries by about 6% (Del Prado and Scholefield, 2007). In addition, reduction in crude protein fed to dairy cows

347

efficiency Avoiding excess nitrogen in the diet, correctly balancing protein with energy requirements and/or making dietary N more available for digestion enables the N content of feed to be reduced without affecting animal performance. These methods reduce the amount of N excreted and minimise the amount of surplus N available for loss by diffuse pollution.

+ (6% + reduction)

has been estimated to reduce nitrate leaching losses from livestock manures and slurries by 5-6% (Cuttle et al., 2007) and 2-3% on pig/poultry farms.

Methane utilisation Make use of improved genetic resources Anaerobic digestion

Lead to an increase in longevity & fertility. Reduce enteric methane and N2O from manures & slurries. Utilise methane from livestock manures to produce energy

+ (3-7% reduction) ++ (90% reduction in methane from stored manures)

Further research is required to quantify the ammonia and nitrous oxide emissions during storage and land spreading of the digestate before the impacts of anaerobic digestion on greenhouse gas emissions can be fully quantified

Livestock management

Land use change Establish permanent grasslands / woodland Grow biomass crops

Remove CO2 from atmosphere – can be transient unless it is a permanent change Partially covered in ELS already through buffer strip options.



12

Majority of measures are cost positive (i.e. the farmer benefits from implementing them). The

348

exception is establishment of permanent woodlands / grassland, which will not be as productive as fertilised cultivated alternatives might be.


13

Water quality benefits from reduction in leaching N. Biodiverstiy benefits from established permanent grass / woodlands.

349

BD5104: Restoration of blanket bog vegetation for biodiversity, carbon storage and water regulation

Contractor: York University

Study type and theme1: BD, RP, CC

Scope2:

Indicator3:


Summary of project:

In the UK, many blanket bogs are managed for grazing having been drained for this purpose, often combined with regular burning, which frequently leads to increased dominance of heather (Calluna vulgaris). Over dominance by heather tends to dry the peat further as well as causing underground erosion („peat

pipes‟) and suppressing „active‟ peat forming plants such as Sphagnum spp. mosses (Lindsay, 2010). Whilst the drains, (called grips) can be blocked to

raise the water table and help restore active peat accumulation, there is still a widespread need to reverse the dominance of heather which impedes this process. Wetter conditions also tend to benefit bird populations feeding on soil animals (e.g. crane flies) that rely on wet peatlands. However, certain heather reduction strategies currently in use may have detrimental effects on, for example, peat C stocks and air quality (burning) or water quality (herbicides). Therefore, restoration schemes must also consider these environmental consequences, which are linked to fundamental ecosystem services provided by UK peatlands for many millions of people. Recent studies by Defra (and elsewhere) have highlighted these issues. Importantly, the consequences of changes in management practice are likely to be slow to emerge so that long-term monitoring is needed.

This project will consist of a thorough literature review and a comprehensive set of long-term field experiments investigating how different restoration

measures affect heather dominance and their comparative financial and environmental „costs‟, in terms of GHG emissions and water quality. The rigorously

designed field experiments will be carried out at three sites, two in Yorkshire (Yorkshire Peat Partnership) and another at the Forest of Bowland (United

Utilities). At each site, after a „pre-treatment‟ period, one sub-catchment will remain as a „control‟ treatment whilst another is subjected to a large-scale

mowing regime (~30 ha) with additional replicated smaller „treatment‟ plots. Over the subsequent four years, vegetation composition/cover, GHG fluxes,

water-table depth, meteorological variables, dissolved carbon fluxes and peat pipes (using ground penetrating radar) will be monitored within the various treatment and control areas. Empirical and process models will also allow up-scaling of the findings making them more policy relevant. The combination of the

field and modelling work will thus identify those restoration options of greatest benefit to restoring „active‟ peatland and the associated ecosystem services.

Project started in 2011 and runs to 2016

350

7. OPERATIONAL/SOCIO-ECONOMIC

MA1039: Re-evaluation of ELS pilot scheme.

Contractors: Central Science Laboratory (CSL) [now the Food and Environment Research Agency (FERA)]

Study type and theme1: M&E, O/SE

Scope2: ELS

Indicator3: All


Summary of project:

In 2003 four areas of the UK were chosen to pilot the ELS scheme. This re-evaluation uses participant questionnaires, financial case studies and field surveys to assess the overall impact of the pilot scheme. 135 surveys were sent out and 113 were chosen (selected by pilot area stratification) for site visits.

Financial info was collected from five holdings for each pilot area.

Field surveys carried out in 2003 on a sample of the pilot ELS farms. This study repeated these surveys on 119 farms that had been visited during the questionnaire and interview section of the study and that had already been surveyed in 2003.

Summary table

Reference number5:


6



7



Positive aspects of the scheme were considered to be benefits to landscape/environment, to wildlife/conservation and financial reward although there was a lot of variation between the four areas. Negative aspects were considered to be bureaucracy, specific problems with options

+++ --

Good coverage of pilot areas and extensive consultation with farmers to get understanding of their behaviours.

351

Reference number5:


6



7


prescriptions. Most would re-new but would consider dropping options that are difficult to implement / maintain. Majority of prescriptions were easy to follow ; some concern over a few specific ones hedge options – infrequent and timing of cutting in-field trees – not leaving fallen wood in-situ farm buildings – change of use, low points allocation wild bird / pollen and nectar mixes – issues with establishment over-wintered stubble – difficult to accommodate each year. Options not chosen: Usually due to lack of opportunity or due to already met point targets. Management: generally followed prescriptions some explanations not clear so sometimes difficult to assess Recommendations: Contact pilot scheme, with a personalised letter, 6mnt before agreement ends Hold meetings for pilot scheme and supply telephone advice from Defra. Strengthen feature descriptions.

+++ - +++ -- -- -- -- -- -- 0 +++ - +++ +++

352

Reference number5:


6



7


Suggest promoting idea of natural regeneration of field corners and margins rather than sowing. Guidance needed on establishing wild bird seed and pollen and nectar mixes Keep list of allowed herbicides up to date for use on conservation headlands. Many holdings would need to implement more options to meet points targets in the main ELS scheme – notify current pilot participants when inviting them to apply to new scheme. Encourage farmers to cut hedgerows less frequently and allow additional hedge growth. Ensure incorrect ditches don’t enter schemes so avoiding incorrect management. Should state fallen wood on in-field trees can be stacked around the base. Increase in point allocation for stone walls. Changing wheat prices alter impact of some arable options therefore point allocation should be flexible Hedge and stone options included in the field survey were in good condition but would benefit from inclusion of capital works in the ELS scheme, to allow for feature repair

++ ++ ++ ++ + + ++ ++ + ++

Only 5 holdings per pilot area were used in this part of the study so findings may not be representative.

353

Reference number5:


6



7


Additional option for tree lines should be considered (some ‘hedgerows’ were actually tree lines) newly planted hedges should not be included in the enhanced hedgerow management option due to value for money (these hedges would not be cut in 3 yr period anyway) Non-native hedges should not be entered into agreements. Improve description of wet ditch to ensure dry ditches with no ‘aquatic’ vegetation are not entered. Ditch banks should be cut periodically to avoid non-aquatic vege. Alter in-field tree prescription to clarify that the three should be ‘protected to the full extent of the canopy’ Wild bird and pollen and nectar mixtures – problems with establishment. Need to encourage uptake of these options and provide more advice. In some cases low / very low input grassland was reverting to scrub / bracken (not the desired outcome). An additional option to include this might enable the environmental benefits of this habitat and value for money to be realised.

+ + + + ++ ++ ++ +

Good coverage of pilot areas, 119 farms surveyed across the 4 pilot areas.

354

Reference number5:


6



7



Many of the recommendations suggest increasing the level of advice to / communication with farmers or clarification of option descriptions. This would increase the likelihood of future uptake of correct / desired options and would allow the opportunity for the expected environmental benefits to be realised. Stricter guidance on which features are suitable for entry in to schemes will mean money is not being diverted to unsuitable features that are unlikely to bring environmental benefits. Encouraging uptake of some of the options that require considerable management or impact on the established farm management will ensure continued uptake of these options (hedgerow management, wild bird mixtures, pollen and nectar mix, in-field trees).

+++


12

10% of the people responding to the questionnaire though that the payments were too low. Generally, the financial balance of options was more positive than perceived by farmers. Stonewall management and maintenance of farm buildings had high costs. Overall, agreement costs were between 0 – 198% of the payment.

- ++ --- 0

Only 5 holdings per pilot area were used in this part of the study so findings may not be representative.


13

N/A

355

MA01046: Uplands Entry Level Stewardship (UELS)



Scope2: UELS

Indicator3: Farming for wildlife in the uplands


Summary of project:

In preparation for the change from HFA to UELS in 2010, this study was commissioned to assess the ability of LFA farmers to meet the points requirements, the understanding of LFA farmers and the interest of farmers in the UELS scheme. A postal survey to 99 farmers was sent out. These farmers are representative of the farm types in the SDA. Interviews with 66 of these took place.

Summary table

Reference number5:


6



7



83% of farmers felt they would achieve the points targets without large changes to farm management. 12 farmers surveyed could not reach point requirements, 11 of them because they were already in HLS. In the interviews, 6 failed to reach points targets (5 reached 93%). Recommendations: Advice - Advice is integral part of a

+++ 0 - ++

Farmers that received the questionnaire were representative of the SDA.

356

Reference number5:


6



7


successful scheme. Farmers already on HLS should receive a visit to enable compatible UELS options to be identified. Forms – need land parcel size from NE. Few alterations to forms suggested. Scheme – ensure payment rates for stone wall, stone hedgebanks and hedge restoration (UL4, UL5 and UL6), and provision of riparian fencing (UL7) cover cost of work. Commons – need guidance on how commons can enter the scheme HLS – HLS holders have a reduced number of options to apply UELS to. Scale of problem needs assessing and addressing Extended Farm Environmental Record (FER) – consider points for additional time needed to add UELS options to maps New option – Corn dykes – allow payment for maintenance of both sides. Options – suggestions on changing

++ + + + ++ - + + ++

357

Reference number5:


6



7


wording and clarifying some options to make them easier to understand and interpret.


Recommendations would enable a smoother transition to and uptake of UELS allowing the expected environmental benefits of such schemes to be realised.



358

MA01047: Estimating the incidental socio-economic impacts of Environmental Stewardship

Contractor: Countryside and Community Research Institute (CCRI)

Study type and theme1: R&D, O/SE

Scope2: ELS, HLS, all option groups

Indicator3: Socio-economic


Summary of project:

The project estimated the local multiplier, employment and social benefits to the local economy from undertaking activities under the Environmental Stewardship schemes. The research involved a telephone survey with 288 agreement holders and face-to-face interviews with 72 agreement holders to collect financial, social and attitudinal data required to feed into a local economic multiplier model and to analyse the social benefits of ES schemes.

Summary table

Reference number5: AES065, O/SE


6



7



All option groups

At the national level the derived income multiplier for all the ES schemes was 1.42. Thus, a £1 expenditure on ES activities could results in a total output in the local economy of £1.42 80% of all ES expenditure by agreement holders is spent locally. The same is true for the purchases made by the contractors, suppliers and advisors sampled. 0.015 additional direct FTE jobs were

++ +++ +

Sample of 360 agreement holders and 85 local businesses across all regions. Assumed co-efficients were applied to calculate the indirect and induced employment effects

359



6



7


HB

EK

created per agreement holder, which suggests farms were able to absorb much of the additional workload generated by the scheme without recruiting additional staff. HLS generated the highest income multiplier of 2.23 in the local economy HB generated both the highest income multiplier and employment multiplier of 2.28 and 2.28, respectively.

The lowest income multiplier of 1.21 was for the ELS grassland option group (EK) which mainly required land management changes, rather than the purchase of additional inputs and services.

The lowland livestock farms generated the highest income multiplier of 1.50. The highest multiplier impacts on the local economy were for the mainly livestock dominated North West and West Midlands regions, with income multipliers of 1.48, The arable dominated East of England produced the lowest income

++ ++ + ++ ++ +

360



6



7


multiplier of 1.33. ES schemes have contributed positively to the management skills base of farmers and increased their environmental knowledge, and general awareness of the environment ES has had the greatest positive impact in terms of skills and knowledge development on arable agreement holders, Of the advisors used by agreement holders, 40% were not known to them previously, which indicates that these agreement holders had to reach out beyond the established social networks around their farm or business for this expertise. This was particularly the case for HLS agreement holders and for the lowland dairy and livestock farms.

++ ++ ++


The research confirms that ES schemes have a significant impact on the local economy. Due to the nature of ES requirements, much of the income and employment benefits are retained locally. This appears to be a particular characteristic of agri-environmental activities undertaken by the agricultural community.

++ As above

361



6



7



See above


N/A

362

MA01051: Preliminary assessment of the effectiveness of ETIP in influencing ELS option selection

Contractor: Cumulus Consultants Ltd.

Study type and theme1: M&E, O/SE

Scope2: ELS

Indicator3: All


Summary of project:

Summary table

Reference number5:


6



7



Mostly, respondents not renewing chose not to attend an event or 1:1 visit. Those attending events / 1:1 visit had already decided to renew agreements but had not firmed up option choice. Therefore ETIP is influencing option choice in farmers already likely to renew. ETIP influenced 12-18% of respondents (1:1 visits influencing more) ETIP influencing renewal choice in 10% of respondents.

0 + + +

The project methodology was based principally on a telephone survey to capture data from farmers renewing (or choosing not to renew) their ELS agreements in the period August – December 2010. Some focus groups were also undertaken to assist in the questionnaire development. The stratification of the sample was intended to include farm size (3 categories; by labour equivalents); farm type: (5 categories; cereals and general cropping, dairy, lowland grazing, upland grazing, mixed and other) and farm tenure

363

Reference number5:


6



7


ETIP may have had an impact on uptake of difficult to implement options, but at a low level. It does not look like the events and 1:1 visits are working synergistically. Involvement in ETIP doubles the likelihood of farmers altering option choice. Farmers more aware and understand more about the options and specifically those related to their land. 1:1 visits are twice as effective as events but reach half as many farmers Recommendations to improve ETIP: Clearer objectives / key messages – communicated to all staff to give a clearer message Greater focus on option selection – less emphasis on renewing. Larger effectiveness of 1:1 visits – increase number of 1:1 visits or improve events Improving delivery / overcoming

+ - + ++ 0 + ++ +++ +++

(2 categories; tenanted and owner-occupied) using a minimum cell size of 24 for each farm size*farm type*tenure combination to provide robust estimates of the impacts of ETIP, on the assumption that each cell would be randomly distributed in terms of (i) length of exposure to ETIP of between 0 and 4 months, (ii) level of exposure to ETIP, (iii) geographic regions and (iv) farmers of different behavioural types. The total intended sample was 720 completed farmer interviews from a sample of 1,622. In the event 653 surveys were undertaken. Of these 14% were event only, 34% 1:1 visit, 20% both, 32% neither.

364

Reference number5:


6



7


inertia – emphasise ease of implementation of desired options. Better co-ordination of events, visits and literature - ETIP events and visits could be better focused and co-ordinated. Change in the scheme design of ELS – likely to have more impact than changes to ETIP.

++ +


ETIP has been shown to have influence over option uptake and farmer decision making, if only at a low level. However, the general increase in awareness and understanding of options, specifically those related to individuals land, generated by ETIP events and visits is likely to increase the establishment and management of options and so have a positive impact on environmental outcomes

+++


N/A


N/A

365

RP0033: Monitoring of Higher Level Stewardship: Interim Reports 2009/10 and 2010/11

Contractors: Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (CEH) with Natural England

Study type and theme1: M&E

Scope2: HLS

Indicator3: Farming for birds, Farming for wildlife, Farming for cleaner water and healthier soil,


Summary of project:

Natural England and CEH collaborated in a study with four objectives:

To provide an independent evaluation of the potential of HLS to deliver against each of its objectives;

To provide an independent quality assurance function for the delivery of HLS; To provide a baseline against which the success of HLS can be tracked through follow-up visits during the course of the agreement;

To contribute to building internal capacity for Agreement Enhancement Monitoring through:

Testing and developing novel techniques for data capture

Developing field assessments for wider use in ES monitoring.'

The study This table is based on the interim report on 2009/10 programme and the draft interim report on the 2010/11 programme. The studies covered 100 HLS agreements in 2009/10 and 50 agreements in 2010/11. They consisted of field assessments of 'the key environmental features and their management with a structured appraisal of the potential effectiveness of each agreement in delivering against its objectives'.

Summary table

Reference number5:


6



7 Notes incl. context & caveats

9


'Farm Environment Plans (FEPs) have generally provided a valuable and accurate basis for agreement building, with the only significant problem being an absence of the

++

366

feature condition information in several cases. The comprehensive nature of the FEP ensured that few opportunities were missed for positive action.'

Evidence of mismatch between options and features

Indicators of success not always relevant

- -

-

Higher in 2010/11. Attributed partly to the using of high value options where these were not justified


'the overall quality of agreements ... was judged likely to be effective in achieving most outcomes, with both some additionality and/or synergy between objectives.' (2010/11 report)

Most agreements made at least some important contributions to the objectives, with over a quarter of agreements making a sizeable input to scheme success. The panel did identify a few missed opportunities when comparing the agreements with the Target and Theme statements. (2010/11 report)

++

++

The earlier report was slightly less positive


Not covered


Not covered

367

RP0277/BD2117: Hedgerow management: a survey of land managers and contractors practices and attitudes

Contractors: Risk and Policy Analysts Ltd, Britt Vegetation Management

Study type and theme1: O/SE

Scope2: ELS, HLS,

Indicator3: Socio-economic


Summary of project:

This research project aimed to determine current hedgerow management practices and the reasons that underlie decisions by farmers and contractors. It investigated differences in attitudes and management according to geographical location, farm type or other factors and also identified any recent changes in management practices, and assessed the influence of agri-environment schemes, conservation advice and other factors on hedgerow management. The research involved a postal survey of 3,000 farmers in England and Wales, a postal survey of 782 agricultural contractors in England and Wales, and face-to-face interviews with a sub-sample of 128 farms in four counties (Devon, Leicestershire, North Yorkshire and Powys).

Summary table

Reference number5: AES065,

O/SE


6



7



HB

Farms in agri-environment schemes had slightly shorter hedges (mean 2.6 m) than those not in a scheme (mean 3.0 m). Farms in agri-environment schemes trimmed hedges less frequently than those that were not. Every 2.1 years while those with no agreement trimmed

- ++

Postal survey of 3,000 farmers and 782 agricultural contractors in England and Wales 67% of farms were all or partly in an agri-environment scheme This excluded untrimmed hedges

368

every 1.5 years. 26% of farmers had altered the timing of their hedge trimming as a consequence of an agri-environment scheme. 44% of farmers had changed the frequency of hedge trimming because of an agri-environment scheme agreement, mostly to two-yearly (74%) or three-yearly (23%) cuts. Most farmers who had changed their hedgerow management thought that this had brought benefits for the hedgerows and wildlife. Some farmers did not believe that current „good practice guidelines‟ represented sound advice for hedgerow management. These included some who were implementing agri-environment scheme options despite their personal objections. A majority (63%) of farmers thought that annual trimming was good for hedges, but 20% thought that it was bad for hedges. Only 27% of farmers, however, thought that annual hedge trimming was good for wildlife, but 44% thought that it was bad for wildlife.

+ ++ ++ - - -


Agri-environment schemes have increased the proportion of hedges left

++

As above

369

untrimmed for at least two years since 1999/2000. There has also been a move away from July/August trimming, and an increase in winter trimming

Many farmers, however, remain unconvinced that „good practice‟ guidelines are practical in their situation and many argue that annual trimming and late summer/ early autumn cuts are better for the hedge and/or for wildlife.

4ome farmers who have changed their hedgerow management practices as a result of an agri-environment scheme are unhappy with what they are now being required to do, suggesting that without continued funding these might be likely to revert to annual trimming in late summer or early autumn.

_

__


12

N/A


N/A

370

FFG 1128 Economics of Co-ordination in Environmental Stewardship

Contractor(s): Countryside & Community Research Institute, University of Gloucestershire


Scope2: All of ES

Indicator3: SE/O

Cross-references to other summary tables for the same study4: Objective 2

Summary of project:

There is increasing recognition of the greater potential that may come from managing land at larger scales, and Environmental Stewardship (ES) has clearly had a role to play in this. In particular, conservation experts believe that large-scale restoration and enhancement action that involves shared environmental objectives and cohesive and co-ordinated delivery is likely to be of far greater benefit to biodiversity than the current ‘piecemeal’ impact of single farms. The project explored the financial, environmental and social costs and benefits of different approaches to delivering agri-environment schemes involving varying degrees of: 1) targeting at a landscape-scale; 2) co-ordination of intended outcomes; and 3) collaboration between agreement holders.

The project aim was achieved through 3 main objectives:

• A literature review of different co-ordination approaches delivering landscape-scale benefits, including case studies to illustrate the approaches used in the UK and globally.

• Detailed examination through 8 case studies of the financial, environmental and social costs and benefits of different approaches to co-ordination, including identification of the income foregone, additional costs and transaction costs and the personnel involved.

• Identification of the elements of co-ordination which best delivers ES landscape scale co-ordination objectives, including consideration of the circumstances where these would be appropriate and their limitations.

An extensive literature review of different aspects of agri-environment landscape co-ordination delivery encompassed the following delivery approaches: Group Supplements; scheme targeting, training and support, local engagement in decision making/governance/facilitation, formal group/collective agreements (voluntary); agglomeration bonus payments; public/private partnerships; and geographically targeted auctions. Four different circumstances were identified where landscape co-ordination is required: core sites, buffering, connectivity and threshold benefits.

Five of the 8 case studies were in the UK: Integrated Local Delivery (ILD) (Local engagement in decision-making); Dartmoor Farming Futures (DFF) (Local engagement in decision-making, Collective agreement; Crosby Ravensworth (Collective agreement); Limestone Country Project (LCP) (Spatially targeted project); SCaMP/ScaMP II (Public/private partnership; Spatially targeted).

371

Summary table

Reference number5:


6



7



ES generally

Governance structures: in some case studies this transferred scheme decision-making to local communities and/or local landholders compared to standard approaches. This is underpinned by 4 key points:

• Facilitation involving co-ordinated action of a group of farmers in a targeted area appears to provide the greatest efficiency gains for the government and agreement holders through economies of scale.

• Facilitation skills required will vary depending on local context

• Bottom-up approaches where the farmer is involved in the design of the scheme provides the greatest opportunity for achieving landscape-scale environmental objectives.

• Bottom-up approaches reduce monitoring and enforcement costs

Targeting: The case studies highlighted the need for targeting to achieve co-ordinated action, as all of the case studies had a defined

+++ The facilitation costs are reduced significantly when there is a local acceptance towards the need for a commonly agreed way forward (as in ILD and DFF) rather than a predetermined outcome being implemented by an external agency (as in CR). Often the costs for facilitation can be contained within the existing options for advice within ES, or by match funding from other budgets (as in ILD). The approach can include existing providers but the key individual should be known to and trusted by both local and national stakeholders.

This approach provides the flexibility to respond to a range of issues as they occur on the ground within the context of a single agreement. This suggests that locally designed schemes might be most effective if they operate within clear strategic guidelines.

For example, good baseline data in order to identify the key species that are characteristic of the local area, or habitats that have the potential for improvement through

372

geographical target area in which they operated. This is underpinned by 3 key points:

• Good scientific evidence and knowledge needs to underpin the selection of target areas and the desirable spatial configuration of management and the thresholds of management required to achieve specific objective.

• Local community input helps identify local priorities and ensures that schemes reflect local conditions, whilst recognising that this needs to be integrated with national priorities.

• Greater coordination among those agencies seeking to effect outcomes on targeted areas could yield more efficient and effective outcomes.

Scheme payments: A number of case studies highlighted the effectiveness of using financial payments to encourage co-ordinated action and collaboration between farmers at a landscape scale. This is underpinned by 4 key points:

• The use of an agglomeration bonus payment is particularly appropriate for achieving connectivity and threshold objectives, but perhaps less so for other landscape-scale

connectivity.

Achieving this aim requires a shared vision and an understanding of each other’s goals and interests. It involves not just those agencies that deliver environmental outcomes, but also those with economic and social goals.

Caution on auctions: The outcomes required for these auctions need to be kept simple and ideally single objective. Accepting all bids in a spatially targeted area until a fixed budget is achieved could result in co-ordinated threshold effects with no explicit collaboration. However, as the auction approach is based on competition amongst agreement holders it may not be appropriate in situations which are trying to find landscape-scale collaborative

373

environmental objectives.

• Geographically targeted auctions could provide the opportunity to secure co-ordination across specific geographical areas and deliver buffering, threshold or connectivity environmental objectives.

• The value of outcome-orientated payments is that it encourages greater engagement of the agreement holder in identifying the most cost-effective management practices to achieve the required outcomes.

• Private funding in combination with AES payments can be a cost-effective way of delivering ecosystem services at a landscape-scale.

solutions.

Appropriate outcome indicators must be developed prior to implementation of the scheme and should be transparent and administrable, to ensure that recognition is easy for both farmers and enforcers. Also rules need to be devised in the event that agreement holders fail to meet the outcome targets due to external factors outside their control, such as adverse weather conditions.

As payments from private companies are not subject to WTO rules, able to capital grants crucial in engaging farmers in the programme. Private funds can also contribute to on-going payments for land management and incorporate incentives payments.


Where simple landscape-scale environmental objectives are sought, such as connectivity of a single habitat feature, or achieving threshold levels for a particular species, then financial payments, through agglomeration bonus payments or reverse auctions could be cost-effective approaches.

If ES is to be used as a mechanism to achieve management at a landscape-scale in England, adaption of its design and delivery is required to ensure a more co-ordinated approach. A clear message emerging from the case studies is that to achieve this cost-effectively will depend on the target

374

In situations where more complex or multiple landscape-scale environmental objectives are sought on core sites or in target areas where full landholder participation is required, such as raising water levels, a facilitated approach would be more cost effective in delivering these objectives.

area and the required environmental outcomes, which will impact on the choice of using financial incentives or more innovative, facilitated approaches. This implies that ES should avoid a ‘one size fits all’ approach to achieving co-ordinated action. A mechanism for landscape-scale delivery that might work for an upland common might not succeed on a lowland floodplain which is trying to deliver different environmental objectives. Without this local sensitivity, ES may well fall short of achieving cost-effective co-ordinated action amongst farmers across the variety of likely target areas.


n/a


n/a

375

Emery & Franks (2012) The potential for collaborative agri-environment schemes in England: can a well-designed collaborative approach address farmers’ concerns with current schemes?

Emery, S.B., & Franks, J.R. (2012). Journal of Rural Studies 28 (2012) pp218-231


Scope2: ELS, HLS, CSS

Indicator3: ???


Summary of project:

The paper examined the receptivity of farmers to the idea of landscape-scale, collaborative agri-environment schemes (cAES). The findings presented in the paper were based on semi-structured interviews with 33 farmers in three English case study areas. The sample ensured an even distribution of AES non-participants, lower tier participants and higher tier participants. During the interviews respondents were asked to state, in principle, whether or not they would object to the idea of working collaboratively with other farmers on an AES. They were then asked to consider a series of nine hypothetical landscape-scale schemes. The study found that ‘in principle’ the vast majority of respondents (81%) were not opposed outright to the idea of cAES. However, there was greater variability in the landscape-scale options that respondents were willing to support. The findings found that a lack of communication and mutual understanding between farmers; a cultural imperative for independence and timeliness, and alternative interpretations of risk amongst farmers presented potential barriers to cAES. The paper concluded that cAES are likely to gain support from farmers where they are seen to offer greater flexibility; scope for farmer involvement in scheme design; locally targeted and clearly defined aims, and; demonstrable benefits that can be monitored as a record of success.

Summary table



6


7


9


Hypothetical scheme

Hypothetical landscape-scale options

‘In principle’ the vast majority of respondents (81%) were not opposed outright to the idea of cAES There was greater variability in the landscape-scale options that respondents were willing to support. Creating a network of hedges was viewed most positively by the sample (77% of respondents)

No impact – as scheme and options presented in interviews were hypothetical.

376

Allowing land to revert to semi-natural habitat was viewed least favourably (14% responding positively). There was no relationship between ‘in principle’ favourability to cAES and AES participation. Non participants were willing to engage in fewer of the hypothetical landscape-scale options than participating farmers. Furthermore, those participants in HLS and CSS were willing to engage with more of the scheme options than those respondents in ELS. The study found that a lack of communication and mutual understanding between farmers; a cultural imperative for independence and timeliness, and; alternative interpretations of risk amongst farmers presented potential barriers to cAES. 80% of the farmers in the study thought that a cAES would be best overseen by an external organisation rather than being farmer-led


N/A


12

N/A


13

N/A

377

Garrod et al. (2012) Heterogeneity of preferences for the benefits of Environmental Stewardship: A latent-class approach

Garrod, G., Ruto, E., Willis, K.& Powe, N. (2012). Ecological Economics 76: 104-111.


Scope2: ELS, HLS,

Indicator3: ???


Summary of project:

This study investigated individual preferences for the benefits associated with ES across five broad landscape types. A choice experiment survey of over 1000 respondents sampled across England was used to derive data on relative preferences for ES benefits across landscape types and this data was analysed using a latent class approach that enabled the study to test the hypothesis of homogenous preferences for the benefits of ES across the sample. A key finding is that higher levels of benefit are often associated with the operation of ES in landscapes close to where respondents live. This leads to the suggestion that, in order to maximise the benefits of ES, its implementation could take this result into account by encouraging greater uptake from farmers whose land is close to large populations.

378

Summary table



6



7



Demonstrated heterogeneity of preferences for the benefits of ES. 58% agreed that the benefits they would get from ES would vary across the five landscape types Demonstrated higher preferences for ES benefits in the landscapes nearest to where respondents live. These findings provide support to the proposition that AES funding should be further targeted at specific spatial areas Most respondents placed a higher value on benefits that are generated closer to where they live, therefore there is some merit to increasing the funding available to land closest to areas of high population.

+ ++ +

Possibility that the cost of delivering equivalent levels of environmental improvement may differ across landscapes, suggesting that spatially disaggregated information on the cost of delivering biodiversity conservation is required before any substantive changes to targeted spending are made.


N/A


12

N/A


13

N/A

APPENDIX 2: TABULAR SUMMARIES OF PROJECT...

Documents

Transcript of APPENDIX 2: TABULAR SUMMARIES OF PROJECT...