Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27570258›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of applied ecology2016

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

Chloe J Hardman, Dominic P G Harrison, Pete J Shaw, Tim D Nevard, Brin Hughes, Simon G Potts, Ken Norris

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of applied ecology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Chloe J HardmanCentre for Agri-Environmental Research School of Agriculture, Policy and Development University of Reading Reading RG6 6AR UK.
Dominic P G HarrisonEngineering and the Environment University of Southampton Highfield Southampton SO17 1BJ UK.
Pete J ShawEngineering and the Environment University of Southampton Highfield Southampton SO17 1BJ UK.
Tim D NevardResearch Institute for the Environment and Livelihoods Charles Darwin University Darwin NT 0909 Australia; Conservation Grade2 Gransden Park Abbotsley Cambridgeshire PE19 6TY UK.
Brin HughesConservation Grade 2 Gransden Park Abbotsley Cambridgeshire PE19 6TY UK.
Simon G PottsCentre for Agri-Environmental Research School of Agriculture, Policy and Development University of Reading Reading RG6 6AR UK.
Ken NorrisInstitute of Zoology Zoological Society of London London NW1 4RY UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Restoration and maintenance of habitat diversity have been suggested as conservation priorities in farmed landscapes, but how this should be achieved and at what scale are unclear. This study makes a novel comparison of the effectiveness of three wildlife-friendly farming schemes for supporting local habitat diversity and species richness on 12 farms in England.The schemes were: (i) Conservation Grade (Conservation Grade: a prescriptive, non-organic, biodiversity-focused scheme), (ii) organic agriculture and (iii) a baseline of Entry Level Stewardship (Entry Level Stewardship: a flexible widespread government scheme). Conservation Grade farms supported a quarter higher habitat diversity at the 100-m radius scale compared to Entry Level Stewardship farms. Conservation Grade and organic farms both supported a fifth higher habitat diversity at the 250-m radius scale compared to Entry Level Stewardship farms. Habitat diversity at the 100-m and 250-m scales significantly predicted species richness of butterflies and plants. Habitat diversity at the 100-m scale also significantly predicted species richness of birds in winter and solitary bees. There were no significant relationships between habitat diversity and species richness for bumblebees or birds in summer.Butterfly species richness was significantly higher on organic farms (50% higher) and marginally higher on Conservation Grade farms (20% higher), compared with farms in Entry Level Stewardship. Organic farms supported significantly more plant species than Entry Level Stewardship farms (70% higher) but Conservation Grade farms did not (10% higher). There were no significant differences between the three schemes for species richness of bumblebees, solitary bees or birds.

Indexed as

agri‐environment schemesbeesbirdsbutterflieslandscape heterogeneityorganic farmingplantspollinators

Identifiers

PMID27570258
PMCPMC4982055

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.