Search

Agri-environment schemes (AES) are one of the most significant mechanism for delivering environmental policy within England, both in terms of expenditure and coverage of land. AES are multi-objective, primarily addressing conservation of wildlife, landscapes and the historic environment and providing public access as well as addressing broader environmental issues such as climate change and flood management. This project contributes to evaluation of the Higher Level Stewardship (HLS) AES, which was designed to achieve the highest standards of environmental management and target features of the greatest conservation value, including Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs). Monitoring is a key element of scheme delivery in order to assess the efficacy of AES, and determine which factors contribute to successful AES outcomes. Here, we resurveyed a sample of HLS agreements (surveyed 6-7 years previously), to assess environmental outcomes and in particular change in plant communities over time in relation to AES management. The assessment of change over time allowed the effects of AES management to be quantified against defined objectives, as opposed to drawing conclusions from a single assessment where the conservation value of land entered into an AES can be confounded with AES management effects.

Hedgerows can provide key semi-natural habitat within intensively farmed landscapes, and can deliver habitat and resources for a range of important wildlife, in addition to supporting ecosystem services. The value of hedgerows in supporting wildlife varies, depending on the management applied. Hedgerow management options have high uptake within agri-environment schemes (AES), both historically in Environmental Stewardship (ES) and in the current Countryside Stewardship (CS) scheme, including the Hedgerow and Boundaries grant. Previous studies on hedgerow management have shown substantial potential effects of hedgerow management regimes on the provision of resources for overwintering wildlife (Sparks and Croxton, 2007), and some indication of benefits for wildlife (Maudsley et al. 2000), but have not been quantified or rigorously tested. Here, results from three large-scale manipulative field experiments are presented, to assess different hedgerow management and rejuvenation methods in relation to the provision of resources for wildlife, and the response of invertebrates. The aims of this study were: 1) To examine the effects of simple hedgerow cutting regimes promoted by CS and ES, and the potential for cutting to allow incremental growth, on the quality and quantity of wildlife habitat, and food resources in hedgerows. 2) To identify, develop and test low-cost, practical options for hedgerow restoration and rejuvenation applicable at the large-scale under both CS and ES. Methods Two experiments were conducted to assess hedgerow cutting treatments. Experiment 1 consisted of replicated cutting frequency (every year vs. every two years vs. every three years) and timing (autumn vs. late winter) treatments, applied to replicate sections of hawthorn-dominated hedgerow at a single site in Cambridgeshire. Experiment 1 pre-dated this research project, and so it provided initial findings on these cutting regimes early in the project, which informed the revision of ES hedgero

Hedgerows can provide key semi-natural habitat within intensively farmed landscapes, and can deliver habitat and resources for a range of important wildlife, in addition to supporting ecosystem services. The value of hedgerows in supporting wildlife varies, depending on the management applied. Hedgerow management options have high uptake within agri-environment schemes (AES), both historically in Environmental Stewardship (ES) and in the current Countryside Stewardship (CS) scheme, including the Hedgerow and Boundaries grant. Previous studies on hedgerow management have shown substantial potential effects of hedgerow management regimes on the provision of resources for overwintering wildlife (Sparks and Croxton, 2007), and some indication of benefits for wildlife (Maudsley et al. 2000), but have not been quantified or rigorously tested. Here, results from three large-scale manipulative field experiments are presented, to assess different hedgerow management and rejuvenation methods in relation to the provision of resources for wildlife, and the response of invertebrates. The aims of this study were: 1) To examine the effects of simple hedgerow cutting regimes promoted by CS and ES, and the potential for cutting to allow incremental growth, on the quality and quantity of wildlife habitat, and food resources in hedgerows. 2) To identify, develop and test low-cost, practical options for hedgerow restoration and rejuvenation applicable at the large-scale under both CS and ES. Methods Two experiments were conducted to assess hedgerow cutting treatments. Experiment 1 consisted of replicated cutting frequency (every year vs. every two years vs. every three years) and timing (autumn vs. late winter) treatments, applied to replicate sections of hawthorn-dominated hedgerow at a single site in Cambridgeshire. Experiment 1 pre-dated this research project, and so it provided initial findings on these cutting regimes early in the project, which informed the revision of ES hedgero

Agri-environment schemes (AES) are one of the most significant mechanism for delivering environmental policy within England, both in terms of expenditure and coverage of land. AES are multi-objective, primarily addressing conservation of wildlife, landscapes and the historic environment and providing public access as well as addressing broader environmental issues such as climate change and flood management. This project contributes to evaluation of the Higher Level Stewardship (HLS) AES, which was designed to achieve the highest standards of environmental management and target features of the greatest conservation value, including Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs). Monitoring is a key element of scheme delivery in order to assess the efficacy of AES, and determine which factors contribute to successful AES outcomes. Here, we resurveyed a sample of HLS agreements (surveyed 6-7 years previously), to assess environmental outcomes and in particular change in plant communities over time in relation to AES management. The assessment of change over time allowed the effects of AES management to be quantified against defined objectives, as opposed to drawing conclusions from a single assessment where the conservation value of land entered into an AES can be confounded with AES management effects.