Hedgerow Management in Pastoral Landscapes

hedge Management in plain LandscapesAbstractHedgerows atomic progeny 18 an essential part of the British bestowscape, providing some(prenominal) feed and render for a come in of taxa. As part of the UK governments Environmental Stewardship (ES) Scheme, farmers atomic matter 18 granted subsidies for, amongst other things, enhanced hedging concern. Although hedge concern under ES is expected to comport in topic(p) effectuate for taxa much(prenominal) as invertebrates and birds, slight is known about the effectuate ES counselling leave behind call for on microscopical mammalianianianian communities. The figure of this study was to investigate whether this enhanced hedging attention is affect hedging temperamentistics in boorish landscapes and whether pocket- sized mammal abundances argon change magnitude under ES managed hedgerows. Conservation soften despoils (2m+ unbetter sedgelike margins) were investigated as a possible improvement to ES hedgerow circumspection. Using love frameping methods, I investigated polished mammal abundances in ES managed hedgerows comp ard with non-ES managed hedgerows. woodswind instrumentwind mice Apodemus sylvaticus and till expanse mouses Clethrionomys gl beolus were the most luxuriant species, with some fetchs of orbital cavity voles Microtus agrestis and common shrews Sorex araneus. flyspeck mammal abundances were increased in ES managed hedgerows, however, the carriage of a saving yield cartoon denude was more than signifi goatt in increasing comminuted mammal densities. ES management showed no definite effect on the hedgerows characteristics.IntroductionAgricultural intensification since the mid-forties has led to wide circularise and crucial reductions in the bio renewal of m either agricultural knowledge domains. This hinge upon for greater yields has been linked with the population decreases seen in many species of farmland specialists and non-specialists who frequently inhabit farmland (Robinson and Sutherland, 2002). Farmland home footholds can be categorised into non- elongated home grounds such(prenominal) as right-aside, cropped athletic orbital cavitys and woodland argonas, and bianalogue home grounds, mostly depicted object boundaries, such as ditches, buzzwords, streams and hedgerows. These field boundaries remain relatively undisturbed beas and are so pregnant wildlife corridors deep down otherwise inhospitable agricultural landscapes (Tew, 1994).Although in that location keep to be a reduction in derive area of hedgerows at heart the UK during the 80s and early 90s, the last decade has seen dispirited increases in the area of hedgerow as their conservation significance became more documented (Barr and Gillespie, 2000). This increase in the number of hedgerows has been driven by government backed grants. Countryside Steward (CS), lay out up in 1991 supercharged selected farmers to enhance and conserve the wildlife inwardly their farms, a vainglorious part of this knotted the laying of new hedgerows. The CS schemes break now been superseded by the Environmental Stewardship Schemes. More recently, hedgerow grant buff schemes hold back been set up in a number of regions to encourage landowners, two farmers and non-farmers to manage their hedgerows more effectively these grants are available to ease up for gapping up, hedge laying or coppicing.Small mammals in boorish land are largely confined to hedgerows or other non-crop features and are thus particularly vulnerable to intensification (Bates and Harris, 2009). Small mammal species constitute the main fair game bio mess hall for a number of species of mammals and birds, and on that pointfore small mammal abundance at present influences the abundance and diversity of predator species contributing to the complexity of local nutrition webs (Korpimaki and Norrdahl, 1991). at that place remains some debate on the importan ce of linear habitats for small mammals, with some suggesting that they can non support viable populations, that those order in hedgerows are sink populations (Tattersall et al. 2004). However, there is evidence that small mammal abundance and diversity does not depend on the linear or non-linear character of the habitat and that linear habitats can support viable populations (Gelling et al. 2007). Thus, in large expanses of unlivable pastureland, field boundary hedgerows are of great importance for fighting small mammal populations in an agricultural landscape, but differing e evince practices can lead to a huge variety in the quality of these habitatsAs the emphasis of farming has shifted there bemuse been a number of agri-environment schemes introduced across Europe with the aim of reversing the effects of previous intensification and enhancing agricultural land for wildlife (Kleijn and Sutherland, 2003). The UK introduced a new set of farming standards in 2005 with farmers now guaranteed subsidy payments, known as cross-compliance, as long as they follow a set of incontrovertible conditions aimed at improving the environmental harbor of their farms. A compulsory code of good practice will preclude farming land indoors 2 m of the centre of a hedge (DEFRA, 2005a). Beyond cross-compliance subsidies, farmers can as good as apply to put their farmland into Environmental Stewardship (ES). ES is a tiered system, with Entry-Level ES designed to allow most farmers access to the payments by compilation a farm management plan that aims to improve the features of their farm for wildlife and to maintain/improve the scenic value of the British countryside. The enhanced hedgerow management option at heart ES requires that the farmer cut the hedge no more than once every 2 years, that hedgerows are cut during the spend and that cutting be staggered across the farm. The combined aim of these prescriptions is to ensure that at least some of the hedgerow is all owed to flower every summer (Defra, 2005b). mighty managed hedgerows are valuable features, playing a key role in enhancing the wildlife value of farmland. Flowering hedgerows are an important source of food and hold dear for a number of birds (Hinsley and Bellamy, 2000). Studies suggest that the ES schemes will have a honorable effect, mainly for taxa such as invertebrates and birds (Kleijn and Sutherland 2003), Whittingham (2007) emphasizes the importance of monitoring the effects of ES to ensure that the schemes prescriptions meet the posits of a greater range of species. It is much less well understood how the changes to hedgerow management will effect small mammal abundance, and it is important that there is greater understanding of the factors that influence small mammal populations since small mammals raise the major(ip) source of prey biomass for many larger predators (Love et al., 2000). Small mammals besides play a role in a range of important ecosystem processes (Ha yward and Phillipson, 1979).Previous studies have tryed the main effects of varying hedgerow management indoors arable landscapes (Shore et al. 2005). Arable environments provide strain for small mammals due to the height and concentration of the crop. Small mammals have been shown to make unanimous use of the field at certain times of the year (Tattersall et al. 2001 Tew et al. 2000 Todd et al. 2000). However, no small mammal species have been shown to make use of agriculturally improved pastorale fields at any time of year (Montgomery and Dowie 1993). Grazed pastoral land provides very pocket-size grasp, restricting the movements of resident small mammal communities. Therefore, hedgerow management in predominantly dairy and cattle areas will likely have a large influence on the advantage of small mammal populations (Gelling et al. 2007). In particular, the aim of earth blind phytology along the hedgerow and the presence of some form of non-farmed margin can authorita tively affect the small mammal abundance (Bates and Harris 2009, Gelling et al. 2007). The 2m margin prescribed by cross compliance is irrelevant in equipment casualty of providing offer within pastoral landscapes. Although the 2m margin remains uncut and clear of psychological disorder from the farmer (no fertilisers), year round grazing will signify that little cover is offered right up to the base of the hedgerow. Therefore, whereas ES management whitethorn boost small mammal numbers within arable areas (Shore et al. 2005), the value of ES hedgerow management within pastoral landscapes is less well understood. I utilised a number of hedgerow sites to compare hedgerow structure and small mammal communities on ES farms versus non-ES farms. For to each angiotensin converting enzyme farm, peerless site was selected to be representative and one to include a significant (2m plus) conservation break strip of ungraded, non-grazed grass/shrubland. I aimed to investigate (i) how ES management effects the hedgerow characteristics, in particular the direct of aim cover for small mammals (ii) whether these ES prescriptions are providing any significant good for small mammal densities and (iii) as the movements of small mammals within pastoral landscapes are so restricted, could small mammal assemblages in hedgerows be significantly improved by including an unimproved, non-grazed, grassy margin or conservation buffer strip (2+m from the edge of the hedgerow).MethodsSitesThe study was conducted over 20 antithetic farms spread across County Durham and Northumberland. The farms were selected due to their suitability for this study, each farm containing both a hedgerow site with a conservation buffer strip and at least one without. All farms selected were representative in terms of habitat of those within the local area. A hedgerow was defined as a continuous line of woody flora no more than 3m tall.Hedgerow SurveyThe farms were diametric, with one ES farm ne ighbouring a non-ES farm, qualification 10 farm pairs and 20 farms in total. Hedgerow go offs were carried out passim June 2009. 10 hedgerows were randomly selected on each farm. All hedgerows on each farm were surveyed victimization an edited version of the Defra Hedgerow Survey resile and handbook (DEFRA, 2007). to each one hedgerow was measured to prepare its cross- sectional area. The character of the hedgerow was scored by reference to a series of standard diagrams, noting the level of available ground level cover for small mammals (1=little or no vegetation cover at ground level, 2=gappy cover at ground level, 3=constant vegetation cover from hedgerows at ground level). Additional variables were recorded, including whether the hedge had been flailed (mechanically cut) recently, i.e. during the previous winter, the number of standard and vet trees and the number of woody species within the hedgerow. The selective information sets for cross-sectional area, level of ground vegetation cover and the number of woody species were averaged to produce an boilersuit stand for value for each farm. The number of flailed hedgerows was summed to give an overall office of hedgerows flailed on each farm.Trapping ProcedurePrevious trapping studies have shown that, different in arable land, small mammals within pastoral land brook almost entirely within the hedgerows and therefore hedgerows can be enured as linear habitats (Gelling et al. 2007). Trapping was carried out in both major trapping sessions, mid-April to June and mid-July to August, 2009. Within each of the 20 farm sites I selected a representative hedgerow and a hedgerow flanked by an unimproved 2m+ grassy margin, designated a conservation buffer strip, making a total of 40 trapping sites. Where possible the hedgerow sites were selected randomly, however, each ES site was involve to have been managed according to the prescriptions of Stewardship farming, i.e. the hedgerows were cut not more than once every two years and the farmers adhered to the prescribed 2m margin of non-interference (2m from the centre of the hedge) (DEFRA 2005a, DEFRA 2005b). Every hedgerow selected was flanked by improved or semi-improved grassland for the grazing of dairy cattle and/or the production of silage. At each site, a 104m section of isolated hedgerow (not directly connected to woodland) was selected.13 Longworth traps were placed at ground level within the hedgerow, at 8m intervals. Traps were provisioned with hay, apple, oat grains and dried mealworm. The traps were set at dusk and checked at dawn and dusk for three days. All targeted animals that were captured were fur-clipped to help identify re-captures. Species, depend upon and weight were recorded for each animal before release at the point of capture.AnalysisHedgerow characteristics were recorded and analysed using a paired measures multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) (SPSS 17.0.2). I had multiple strung-out variables that I wished to analyse, however, using multiple one-way ANOVAs to try to do this would have increase the probability of a Type I error (Gibson et al. 2007). Therefore the selective information was investigated using a MANOVA which controls the experiment-wide error rate. Multiple dependent variables that were related (e.g. ford sectional area of hedge and amount of ground cover, etc.) were analysed in one test, with the hedgerow management (ES managed or non-ES managed) being treated as the two levels of the treatment factor (Gibson et al. 2007). There was a total of 4 dependent variables the mean cross-sectional area, the percentage of flailed hedgerows, the average number of woody species and the mean level of ground cover.For each trapping session the relative density was estimated as the minimum number alive (MNA), or the total number of privates caught over the three days. Species richness was calculated as the number of different species caught. Using General Linear Modelling (GLM Minitab 15), I examined the relationships in the midst of small mammal densities and a number of predictor variables. The dependent variables I investigated were the overall total small mammal density (MNA) and the total biomass of all small mammals caught within 104m. I also investigated the density of each individual species, constructing like models for the number of captures and biomass for each individual species. I focused on wood mice Apodemus sylvaticus and bank voles Clethrionomys glareolus. There were also some captures of field voles Microtus agrestis and common shrew Sorex araneus, these information were not investigated singly but were included in the total density of small mammals and the total biomass. The predictor variables considered were the presence/absence of ES management, the presence/absence of a conservation buffer strip and the number of standard and veteran trees within the hedgerow. The relationships were analysed using a backward step-by-step G LM, with all main predictors and their offshoot order interactions initially included within the model. The insignificant interactions were then removed. Each trapping session was carried out over 3 days on 4 sites on neighbouring farms, the variation between trapping locations and times was taken into account by including the variable block within the initial model, however, it was be to have no significance and was therefore removed from the final model. There are well documented seasonal variations in small mammal abundance (Alibhai and Gipps 1985 Flowerdew 1985 Butet et al. 2006), therefore, as there were two major trapping seasons (mid-April to may and Mid-June to July) I included the variable season in all models. The number of captures of field voles and common shrew were too low to allow stark(a) analysis however, the number of captures for each species was investigated using a Kruskal-Wallis test (Minitab 15) to determine the relationship between the presence of a buf fer strip and their individual abundance.ResultsThe total number of catches was 276 individual small mammals of four different species, during 240 trap sessions (dusk till dawn and dawn till dusk). The most abundant species were wood mice, making up 45% of the captures, 11% of which were youngs, with a total capture of 122 individuals (61 in the first season of trapping and 61 in the mho season). 32% (89 individuals) of captures were bank voles, none of which were juveniles, with 26 captures in season 1 and 53 captures in season 2. 17% of captures (48 individuals) were common shrews and 6% (17 individuals) were field voles.Table 1. Summary of the number of captures for each speciesTotal wood mice Captured appease 1 (juveniles) / gentle 2 (juveniles) depository financial institution vole Season 1 / Season 2 Field vole Season 1 / Season 2 Common shrew Season 1 / Season 2 Total Season 1 / Season 2 Total N trapped throughout study 122 61 (2) / 61 (11) 89 36 / 53 17 4 / 13 48 28 / 20 276 129 / 147 Percentage of total 44 33 6 17 ampere-second Percentage of hedgerows present 93 46 23 45 core of ES Management and fan stripsA total of 40 hedgerows were surveyed with 20 hedgerows under ES hedgerow management and 20 hedgerows under non-ES management. ES sites had been under ES hedgerow management for 2 years or more. The measured dimensions of the hedgerow were used to estimate the hedgerow cross sectional area. Analysis using a paired measures MANOVA found no significant difference in the size of ES managed hedgerows to the size of non-ES managed hedgerows (F(1,9)=0.847, P=0.381). ES management also had no significant effect on the percentage of flailed hedgerows within the farm (F(1,9)=0.019, P=0.889). The woody species diversity within hedgerows was not significantly different between ES managed hedgerows and non-ES managed hedgerows (F(1,9)=3.047, P=0.115). There was a significant positive stand of the presence of ES hedgerow management with the l evel of woody vegetation cover at ground level (F(1,9)=10.613, P=0.010).Table 2. Comparisons of hedgerow characteristics on ES managed farms versus non-ES managed farms. Data were analysed using a paired MANOVA.Mean (SE) Hedgerow characteristic Description of mensuration ES Non-ES F(1,9) P Area Average cross sectional area/m2 2.99 (0.12) 2.83 (0.14) 0.847 0.381 Flailed Percentage of hedgerows that had been recently flailed (flailed during previous Winter) 26.00 (2.21) 25.00 (6.54) 0.019 0.893 Species diversity Number of woody species 3.16 (0.24) 2.73 (0.27) 3.047 0.115 Small mammal cover Average Area of small Mammal cover (1=little or no vegetation cover at ground level, 2=gappy cover at ground level, 3=constant vegetation cover from hedgerows at ground level) 2.63 (0.87) 2.13 (0.11) 10.613 0.010Small Mammal AssemblagesBackward step by step world(a) linear modelling was used to analyse the data. The results showed that buffer strips have a significant effect on the total number caught within the hedgerow (F(1,35)= 16.29, PA GLM for total biomass showed similar results with Season (F(1,34)=0.83, P=0.369) and the number of standard trees (F(1,34)=1.12, P=0.298) both having no significant effect on the total biomass. ES management had a positive knowledge with total biomass (F(1,34)=4.92, P=0.033), as did the presence of a buffer strip (F(1,34)=27.62, PWood mice were the most common species trapped, contributing 45% of the captures. The factors affecting wood mice captures were analysed using a backward stepwise GLM. Season had no significant effect (F(1,34)=2.36, P=0.134). Unlike the model involving total captures, ES management (F(1,34)=0.07, P=0.798) and Buffer slipperiness (F(1,34)A backward stepwise GLM was constructed for both bank vole captures and the total bank vole mass, both models produced similar results. Season had no effect on bank vole captures (F(1,35)=2.06, P=0.160) and total bank vole mass (F(1,35)=1.66, P=0.206). The presence of ES manag ement on the hedgerow had a significant positive effect on the number of bank vole captures (F(1,35)=7.15, P=0.011) and on the total bank vole mass (F(1,35)=5.91, P=0.020). The presence of a buffer also had a significant effect, increasing the number of bank vole captures (F(1,35)=34.90, PTable 3. Summary statistics from general linear modelsModel Variables F P Adj. R2 Total Captures Season F(1,35)=1.09 0.305 53.79% ES Managed F(1,35)=5.23 0.028a Buffer Strip F(1,35)=16.29 streamer Trees F(1,35)=0.91 0.346 Total Biomassc Season F(1,34)=0.83 0.369 65.32% ES Managed F(1,34)=4.92 0.033a Buffer Strip F(1,34)=27.62 Standard Trees F(1,34)=1.12 0.298 Season*Buffer Strip F(1,34)=3.18 0.083b Wood Mice Captures Season F(1,34)=2.36 0.134 79.72% ES Managed F(1,34)=0.07 0.798 Buffer Strip F(1,34) Standard Trees F(1,34)=79.65 Season*Standard Trees F(1,34)=4.81 0.035a Total Wood Mice Massd Season F(1,35)=1.36 0.252 69.06% ES Managed F(1,35)=0.26 0.616 Buffer Strip F(1,35)=0.05 0.831 S tandard Trees F(1,35)=49.03 0.003a Bank field computer slip Captures Season F(1,35)=2.06 0.160 54.76% ES Managed F(1,35)=7.15 0.011a Buffer Strip F(1,35)=34.90 Standard Trees F(1,35)=4.41 0.043a Total Bank Vole Masse Season F(1,35)=1.66 0.206 50.74% ES Managed F(1,35)=5.91 0.020a Buffer Strip F(1,35)=28.11 Standard Trees F(1,35)=2.32 0.137a of import to the 95% confidence level b Significant to the 90% confidence level c Total Biomass was unbent al-Qaeda transformed before analysis. d Wood Mice Mass was square finalise transformed before analysis. e Bank Vole Mass was square root transformed before analysis.A total of 17 field voles were captured, with all 17 trapped in hedgerows flanked by a conservation buffer strip. A total of 48 Common shrews were trapped, 81% of which were caught in hedgerows not flanked by a buffer stripTable 4. Non-target species captures. heart and soul of buffer strip, analysed using Kruskal-Wallis test.Total Captures Species Buffer Stri p Present No Buffer Strip H P (adjusted for ties) Field vole 17 0 8.30 0.004 Common shrew 9 38 12.73 DiscussionHedgerow characteristics are known to affect small mammal numbers. Hedgerows with many gaps and a lack of ground cover support significantly lower small mammal populations (Gelling et al. 2007). Small mammals will select against hedgerows with a lack of vegetative cover due to the increased risk of predation (Orrock et al. 2004). Our results suggest that ES farms produce denser hedgerows with more cover at the ground level than non-ES farms. This is reflected in the small mammal survey which shows a somewhat strong association between small mammal numbers and ES hedgerows. However, having surveyed the farms and the farmers, I accommodate that a wide number of variables affect the characteristics of the hedgerow. I suggest that the state of the hedgerows for small mammals is more significantly affected by the mindset of the farmer. Those farmers who have moved onto the Ent ry level ES scheme are generally those who most actively manage their farm. One supporting piece of data for this theory, is the number of flailed hedgerows on ES farms compared to non-ES farms. The hedgerow survey found that there were no differences in the number of recently flailed hedgerows within ES farms compared to non-ES farms, therefore, flush though the cutting of hedgerows on ES farms is restricted, it still occurs as a great deal on the ES farms within this survey than on the non-ES farms. The suggestion is that those farmers who are on the ES scheme are more actively involved in managing their farm, including their hedgerows, therefore hedgerows on ES farms comm solo provide denser vegetation, less gaps and more cover at ground level. The typical ES farmer is more actively managing the hedge as a boundary or barrier to cattle than the typical non-ES farmer. The author suggests this finding having discussed hedgerow management with the farmers as part of the hedgerow survey and having a background in agriculture, however, it is also recognised that this topic goes beyond the scope and available data of this investigation.Hedgerows can be thought of as corridors linking woodland habitat, allowing small mammal migration (Soule and Terbough 1999), however, within the British pastoral landscape, hedgerows are often acting as the sole habitat for small mammals (Fitzgibbon 1997). My investigation found that the ratio of juvenile to adult wood mice increased during the season, with greater numbers present afterwards in the summer, this is consistent with the observations of others (Alibhai and Gipps 1991, Flowerdew 1991). The breeding season for most small mammals begins in spring and ends in late summer, therefore it is natural that more juveniles are present in hedgerows as the summer progresses and they motivate outward to establish their own home ranges. The presence of fully grown, breeding adults in both seasons of trapping indicates that anima ls are resident within the hedgerows, providing support for the argument that linear habitats can provide suitable habitat to support viable populations of small mammals.My results show that the total small mammal abundance and therefore the approachability of prey biomass for predators is increased in hedgerows under ES management. The results of the hedgerow survey suggest that there is greater ground level vegetation cover in ES hedgerows. An increase in the amount of physical habitat creates greater foraging opportunities and can increase small mammal abundance (Gelling et al. 2007). Small mammals prefer hedgerows with greater ground level cover as they provide better refuge from predators (Orrock et al. 2004).Whereas the benefits of ES management for small mammal abundance remain unclear, this investigation highlights the importance of buffer strips. The value of unimproved grassy margins, in arable landscapes, for small mammal numbers has already been shown (Shore et al. 2005 ). This study suggests that the presence of a buffer strip along a hedgerow can provide a much improved habitat to support larger small mammal numbers in hedgerows within pastoral landscapes. Grassy margins are a refuge for small mammals beyond the hedgerow they allow increased safety for foraging and greater shelter (Orrock et al. 2004).To understand the variation in the numbers trapped of each species, we need to establish an understanding of the differing ecological requirements for each species. The two most abundant species were the wood mouse and the bank vole. The results show that wood mice are found in greater numbers in hedgerows containing standard/veteran trees. This conclusion is supported by previous studies which have shown that trees within hedgerows are beneficial for wood mice (Montgomerie and Dowie, 1993). Mice often take shelter in burrows formed infra trees/within tree roots which may suggest why this species was found more commonly within hedgerows containing standard/veteran trees (Montgomerie and Dowie, 1993). Wood mice are a generalist species directing a wide variety of habitat (Flowerdew 1993). They general occupy a relatively large home range and travel extensively, consuming a wide range of food sources depending upon season and handiness (Flowerdew 1993). This is reflected in the results, with wood mice having been trapped in 93% of all the hedgerows. The results also show that wood mice abundance is not affected by ES management for hedgerows, nor is it significantly improved by the presence of a buffer strip. Wood mice have been shown to avoid hedgerows with major gaps, and wood mouse captures have been shown to increase with proximity to woodland (Gelling et al. 2007). Wood mice have relatively large home ranges and the suggestion is that individuals rarely stay long within any one hedgerow rather they travel through, utilising hedgerows for foraging and shelter between woodland (Montgomery and Dowie 1993 Gelling et al 2007 Todd et al 2000 Tew et al. 2000). Therefore, ES management and the presence of buffer strips have little effect on the number of wood mouse captures more important is the proximity to woodland or the presence of trees within a hedgerow which provide the preferred shelter for the wood mouse (Todd et al. 2000 Tew et al. 2000).Bank voles are a more specialist species, and generally occupy much smaller home ranges than do wood mice. They are burrowers, using ground vegetation to create runs and pathways in deciduous habitats (Morris 1982 Alibhai and Gipps 1985). Bank voles are a major prey resource for a number of raptors and bank vole abundance has been shown to significantly affect raptor populations (Korpimaki and Norrdahl, 1991). Other studies have found that bank vole numbers are positively associated with the size of hedgerows (Pollard Relton, 1970 Tew, 1994 Bellamy et al., 2000). Grassy margins of 2m plus have been shown to significantly increase bank vole numbers in arable fiel ds (Shore et al. 2005), my results show that this conclusion extends to pastoral landscapes with bank vole numbers being significantly increased by the presence of an unimproved grassy margin or conservation buffer strip. The results also suggest that ES management improves hedgerows for bank voles, with bank vole abundance found to be significantly higher on ES hedgerow sites. Bank voles are found in much greater abundance in areas which provide thick ground vegetation and anguish little disturbance (Tew 1994), my results suggest that this is partially provided by ES management, however, the cosmos of grassy margins along hedgerows could significantly improve bank vole abundance in pastoral landscapes.The creation of margins could also be significant in the conservation of field voles. Field vole numbers in the UK are in decline believed to be due to the loss of rough grass habitat in intensively managed arable regions (Harris et al., 1995 Love et al., 2000). Field voles are speci alists and depend upon rough, ungrazed grassland within woodland and hedgerows. Field voles are generally only found within areas of long grass (Alibhai and Gipps, 1991b). Very few captures of field voles were recorded within this experiment, however all field voles captures occurred within hedgerows flanked by conservation buffer strips. The presence of a buffer strip may provide the field voles