Search

Agri-environment schemes (AES) are the main policy mechanism available to reverse the widespread losses of farmland biodiversity across Europe. Previous examples of AES enhancing the abundance of farmland birds have been restricted to targeted species recovery programmes, often with bespoke habitat management and high levels of advisory support for landowners. Here, we tested whether standard higher-tier AES agreements targeted at multiple species and with lower levels of advisory support than targeted species recovery programmes can enhance the breeding densities of farmland birds. Surveys of breeding birds were undertaken during 2008 and 2011 on 65 farms under higher level stewardship (HLS) and 21 farms lacking AES interventions, in three regions of England. After allowing for any impacts of predator control, changes in density were more positive on HLS farms in at least one region for six priority species. Five of the six species had mixed diets and were predominantly associated with field edges; the other (lapwing) probably responded to the provision of field-centre fallow plots. Changes in bird numbers were not consistently related to the extent of AES habitat provision. This is the first study to demonstrate that standard AES management without substantial ongoing advisory support can increase or maintain the densities of widespread declining species.

Conserving farmland birds is a key objective for agri-environment schemes (AES) across Europe, with a number of management options aimed at providing invertebrate food and nesting habitats. We analysed territory settlement by two widespread but declining farmland buntings with contrasting nesting requirements: the Yellowhammer Emberiza citrinella, a boundary-nesting species, and the Corn Bunting Emberiza calandra, a ground-nesting species. The study was conducted on farms participating in the English Higher Level Stewardship scheme to test whether territory settlement is influenced by the provision of key arable AES options. Both species settled preferentially in localities containing sown arable field margins, while Corn Bunting also settled in localities containing nectar flower mixtures. These preferences are likely to reflect foraging rather than nesting habitat requirements. Yellowhammer selected territories containing hedgerows under AES management, which are nesting rather than foraging habitat but may also provide food. Uptake by land owners of several AES options likely to provide limiting resources for farmland birds was very low, and because uptake at the landscape scale is also low, wider-scale population level benefits are likely to be constrained. However, this is one of few studies demonstrating selection of widely applied arable AES options by breeding farmland birds.

Capsule Bunting densities decreased in winter wheat stubbles between November/December and January/February, but not in spring barley stubbles.Aims We investigated bird use and vegetation in relation to Agri-Environment Scheme over-winter stubble type and preceding crop.Methods We surveyed 15–17 fields each of: ‘standard’ Agri-Environment Scheme stubble on Entry Level Stewardship farms (EF6); ‘standard’ Agri-Environment Scheme stubble on Higher Level Stewardship farms (HF6); stubble preceded by low-input cereal (HF15); extended over-winter stubble (EF22) and non-Agri-Environment Scheme stubble in November/December 2011 and January/February 2012. Stubbles were preceded by spring barley or winter wheat crops.Results Previous cropping and time of year were the main factors influencing bird densities: bunting densities declined in winter wheat stubbles between surveys, but not in spring barley stubbles.Conclusion The main factor limiting the ability of over-winter stubbles to reverse national population trend...

Two conservation strategies have been put in place in Europe to address precipitous population declines of wading birds that breed on lowland wet grasslands. These are site protection and agri-environment schemes (AESs) and the two are rarely compared, or their synergy assessed. Increasingly, efforts to recover populations of previously widespread species follow a landscape-scale approach whereby habitat improvement takes place at key sites through partially overlapping protected area management and AESs. To investigate whether site protection and AESs improve the conservation status of breeding waders and how these interact, we partially repeated a 2002 survey of breeding waders on protected areas (nature reserves and Sites of Special Scientific Interest) and sites with wader-specific AES options in England in 2009 and 2010. We then assessed the individual and combined effects of these delivery mechanisms on field occupancy, breeding density and population change of four species of declining wader (Northern Lapwing Vanellus vanellus, Common Snipe Gallinago gallinago, Eurasian Curlew Arquata numenius and Common Redshank Tringa totanus). Although results for Curlew differed from the other species, in general field occupancy was positively influenced by conservation delivery mechanisms, with the highest occupancy and breeding densities on land where site protection was combined with wader-specific AES options. Field occupancy varied between different types of AES, with higher occupancy associated with higher-level options in fields, particularly those on nature reserves. Outside nature reserves, the history of AES management did not influence wader populations, but within nature reserves and on fields that gained AES management between 2002 and 2009–2010, populations of Curlew and Snipe were more likely to have persisted and population change in Snipe and Lapwing was more positive. We conclude that the conservation of breeding waders will be most effective when site protection and AES management are combined on the same land. Using limited AES money to support management for breeding waders on, around and between the existing network of protected sites will protect remaining populations while presenting opportunities for population expansion in future.

Environmental Stewardship (ES) is the main mechanism for reversing the decline in farmland birds in England, and includes a range of options designed to provide winter foraging for seed-eating species. We estimated granivorous songbird densities on ES options designed to provide winter food, on farms within the Entry Level (ELS) or Higher Level (HLS) strata of ES. ES Wild Bird Mixtures (WBMs) hosted higher densities and a wider range of granivores than non-ES game covers, although in East Anglia the enhanced HLS WBM was used no more than the basic ELS WBM. In the West Midlands there were low densities of granivores on all WBMs and game covers. The widespread ELS WBM appeared to provide little food for buntings but supported finches, partially through greater weed burdens. There was a weak, non-significant trend for Skylarks Alauda arvensis to make greater use of ELS cereal stubbles than non-ES stubbles, possibly because of post-harvest herbicide restrictions allowing overwinter weed growth. At the field scale, this work demonstrates that although some ES options provide winter food resources for birds, there is limited evidence for additional benefits of Higher Level vs. Entry Level Stewardship to wintering farmland songbirds.

In this study results from land managed by volunteer members of the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust's Partridge Count Scheme (PCS) were used to determine how well Environmental Stewardship (ES) and its predecessor schemes have performed for one intensively studied farmland bird, the grey partridge (Perdix perdix) between 2005 and 2008. The individual agri-environmental scheme (AES) options that PCS members chose to implement were classified into groups based on the habitat that they provide for grey partridges at different stages of their life cycle. Three groups of options had consistently positive effects—beetle banks, conservation headlands and wild bird cover, all in-field options. Options with consistently negative effects were those including grass and scrub management. Unfortunately for grey partridges, beetle banks and conservation headlands currently have very little uptake within AES; of non-PCS agreements 1.9% include beetle banks and 2% conservation headlands. Non-PCS agreements have a slightly higher uptake of wild bird cover (12.9%).