FARMING

WITH NATURE
Promoting biodiversity
across Europe through
partridge conservation

JEN BREWIN, FRANCIS BUNER & JULIE EWALD

FARMING
WITH NATURE
Promoting biodiversity
across Europe through
partridge conservation

A summary of scientific evidence underlying the

North Sea Region Interreg PARTRIDGE project.
https://northsearegion.eu/partridge

This publication describes how grey partridge conservation

helps to address the farmland biodiversity crisis across
Europe. It summarises the most relevant scientific
evidence regarding grey partridge management and the
biodiversity benefits associated with it. We have selected
what we felt were the best and most thorough studies
and papers available. We cite high-impact peer-reviewed
papers wherever possible, relying on our combined
experience and expertise to quote non-reviewed reports
where published papers were unavailable.

Jen Brewin, Francis Buner & Julie Ewald

P a rtr id g es in a f iel d w i th re d d ead - ne tt le Lami um pur pur e um Rol l i n V e r l i nd e / V i l d a
 CONTENTS

National Farmers’ Union President’s Foreword 7

Europe’s farmland biodiversity problem 10
Interreg North Sea Region PARTRIDGE project 18
Background – the grey partridge 22
Nesting habitat – safe nest sites 32
Brood-rearing habitat – providing chick food 40
Winter cover and food 52
Predation 66
Working together for a common aim 82
References 90
Acknowledgements 100
P A R TRI D GE in f or ma tio n pa n el at O u d e D o or n de m on str at io n si t e , N L L ar s S oe r i nk
 NATIONAL FARMERS’ UNION
PRESIDENT’S FOREWORD
This book is important because it sets out an approach
for successfully combining a viable farming business

Mine tte Ba tters

with increasing biodiversity and other public goods.
It draws on scientific research and demonstration
projects from across Europe and outlines habitat
measures designed to benefit grey partridge, which is
the indicator species for a healthy farmed environment.
UK farmers work hard, both to produce healthy food and deliver many
essential ecosystem services including enriching habitats and improving
soil and water quality. They do this while operating in a global economy,
conforming to a myriad of complex regulations. Measures described in
these pages such as planting wildflower mixes, managing hedgerows,
maintaining grass margins and conservation headlands work because
they are based on an understanding of the practical realities of food
production and integrated into modern farming systems.
The fantastic work of the PARTRIDGE project demonstrates that, when
farmers work together with the right kind of support and advice, they
can achieve impressive conservation successes. It calls for future agri-
environment schemes to go hand-in-hand with farming. Farmers need a
fair contract built on trust with a proportionate approach to bureaucracy,
M a le p ar tri d ge i n a fi el d w it h pu r p le de ad n et t l e Rol l i n V e r l i nd e / V i l d a

a greater degree of flexibility and the right kind of financial support.

I hope this book will inspire farmers and policy makers across Europe
and helps to shape future UK agri-environment policy which, if we get it
right, has the power to achieve wildlife recovery on a much bigger scale.
I know British farmers would be very proud to achieve that outcome for
the benefit of us all.

MINETTE BATTERS, President of National Farmers’ Union of England

and Wales (NFU) and Wiltshire farmer
H a rv es t of c e re al f ie ld L ar s S oe r i n k
 EUROPE’S FARMLAND BIODIVERSITY PROBLEM

EUROPE’S THE BIODIVERSITY CRISIS

Europe’s farmland has been dramatically transformed by modernisation
over the past century. These changes have increased the efficiency of
FARMLAND food production, but they have also contributed to a widespread decline
in ecosystem health, affecting water, air and soil quality as well as

BIODIVERSITY
farmland biodiversity.
Across society, this degradation is widely recognised as a serious
problem, through to the highest political levels in Europe. The targets
PROBLEM set in the European Union’s Biodiversity Strategy aim to reverse these
declines, with Target 3a specifically designed to ‘increase the contribution
of agriculture to maintaining and enhancing biodiversity’1.
The mid-term review on meeting these targets by 20202 clearly states
that this will not be achieved. Therefore, tested working solutions are
urgently needed to ensure that the biodiversity crisis can be halted at
least by 2030.

HOW TO ACHIEVE PROGRESS

Providing real-world examples that reverse the ongoing decline of
farmland biodiversity over large areas, and in different countries and
regions, is crucial to addressing the farmland biodiversity crisis across
Europe. People typically only believe what they see working with their
own eyes, whether they are farmers, hunters, conservationists, local
authorities, policy makers or governments.
The NSR Interreg PARTRIDGE project (referred to as PARTRIDGE
throughout this booklet) was initiated to specifically fill this gap, providing
a way forward to address the farmland biodiversity crisis across Europe.
This project aims to demonstrate how farmland biodiversity can be 11
reversed at 10 real-life demonstration sites, based on scientific grey
partridge conservation knowledge.
 Countries participating in PARTRIDGE

  Belgium
  Denmark
WHY THE GREY PARTRIDGE?
  Germany
The grey partridge is one of the most rapidly declining farmland birds in   England
Europe - its numbers have declined by more than 90% since the 1970s3.   The Netherlands
It has also been the subject of thorough research, so we have a more   Scotland
detailed picture of what is driving the decline in grey partridge numbers   Sweden
than for many other species sharing the same farmland ecosystem.
Labelled a ‘barometer of the countryside’4, the grey partridge is an ideal
indicator of arable farmland ecosystem health: where partridges thrive,
other farmland wildlife also thrives.

WHY THE PARTRIDGE PROJECT?

Several conservation projects across Europe, either at a small scale on
single farms or across groups of farms, have shown that well-designed
conservation measures are effective in helping grey partridges. Research
and practical conservation initiatives from various parts of Europe show
that where partridge conservation measures are introduced, a wide
range of other farmland species benefit.
PARTRIDGE pulls together these management elements into a practical
and effective conservation package that works alongside profitable
farming, as long as those who implement the necessary measures are
adequately compensated for their efforts.
Across Europe financial support is provided by Agri-Environment (AE)
schemes. These AE schemes are the key policy instrument of the EU’s
Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), aiming to reverse the decline of
farmland biodiversity by incorporating wildlife-friendly management into
farming businesses5.
13
Besides farmers, other rural stakeholders also have a part to play in
conserving grey partridges and other farmland biodiversity. PARTRIDGE
demonstrates the feasibility of this in an innovative way, regardless of
state borders.
 EUROPE’S FARMLAND BIODIVERSITY PROBLEM

THE PARTRIDGE PROJECT WHY THIS BOOKLET?

This booklet provides an overview of the grey partridge conservation
BRINGS TOGETHER research from across Europe applied within PARTRIDGE. It briefly

THE KNOWLEDGE AND explains grey partridge biology, the key management measures needed
for this species’ survival and the benefits of grey partridge conservation
UNDERSTANDING FROM for farmland wildlife in general.

INITIATIVES ACROSS It is only through applying well-tested conservation approaches across

regions and countries, and by developing them further, that we will
EUROPE, INTO ONE ensure the recovery of farmland biodiversity today and a healthy future
for us all.
PRACTICAL PACKAGE
FOR FARMLAND WILDLIFE
RECOVERY BASED
ON GREY PARTRIDGE
CONSERVATION

15

2000 FUTURE
P A R TRI D GE p ar tn ers at R ams k ap el le de mon st r at i o n sit e, B e lg i um W i l l e m v an C ol e n
 INTERREG NORTH SEA REGION PARTRIDGE PROJECT

INTERREG
NORTH SEA
T
The PARTRIDGE project is an international collaboration between
13 European partners from within the North Sea Region. Together, we
manage ten 500-hectare demonstration sites (two each in England,
Scotland, the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany), where the project has
established and improved conservation measures developed for grey
partridges, but which can benefit many species.

REGION PARTRIDGE aims for a 30% increase in farmland biodiversity by 2023 in

all of its demonstration sites, measuring farmland wildlife indicators such

PARTRIDGE
as grey partridge, breeding songbird and brown hare numbers. These
support the targets in the EU’s Biodiversity Strategy for agricultural land.
We have tailored our approach to the needs of each country, to

PROJECT demonstrate how to successfully increase farmland biodiversity across

the EU. We actively promote our solutions among a wide range of
relevant stakeholder groups, and seek to influence agri-environmental
policy, especially by holding farm walk events tailored to those different
groups at our demonstration areas. Our Swedish and Danish partners
actively promote our solutions in their respective countries, although we
have no demonstration sites there.
Our approach can be incorporated into standard farming practices
regardless of region or country, which is key to persuading governments
to support these methods through national AE schemes or equivalent
alternatives that may be available in the future.

United Kingdom Belgium

Game & Wildlife Conservation Flemish Land Agency (VLM) -
Trust - Lead partner Co-ordinating partner
Netherlands Research Institute for Nature
BirdLife Netherlands - and Forest (INBO) 19

Co-ordinating partner Inagro

Stichting Landschapsbeheer Boerennatuur Vlaanderen
Zeeland
Flemish Hunters Association
Brabants Landschap (HVV)
Stichting Het Zeeuwse Denmark
Landschap Danish Hunters Association
Germany Sweden
Georg-August-Universität, Odling I Balans
Abt. Naturschutzbiologie
G re y p ar tri d g e p ai r Ma r k u s J e n n y
 BACKGROUND – THE GREY PARTRIDGE

BACKGROUND LIFE CYCLE

Grey partridges are ground-dwelling birds that are site-faithful, spending
their life within a few kilometres of where they hatch. They roost and
– THE GREY nest on the ground and have the largest average clutch size of all birds
(15 eggs in north-west Europe). If the first clutch is lost, grey partridges

PARTRIDGE
will make a second attempt at breeding with a replacement clutch, which
contains fewer eggs. First clutches tend to hatch from the middle of June
and replacement ones up until early August.
When they hatch, the chicks are mobile almost immediately and the
adults move the chicks off the nest within a few hours to suitable areas
nearby where they can find food. Chicks forage on the ground in tall
but relatively open farmland vegetation, eating mainly insects and their
larvae for the first two weeks. Their diet then changes to include seeds,
grains and green leaves of grasses, cereals and flowering plants6–9.

Figure 1 In this guide we

describe the habitat measures
that provide resources for the
partridge’s life cycle throughout
the year.
There are pinchpoints for grey
partridge survival in every
Spring
season. Our habitat measures are
aimed at making improvements
to address each of these 23

Winter

Summer
bottlenecks.

Autu m n
 BACKGROUND – THE GREY PARTRIDGE

Figure 2 Changes in partridge

abundance through time across
Europe. Numbers have generally
The chicks’ early reliance on a high-protein diet made up mainly of insects followed three phases: high
has important implications, both for understanding the needs of the grey and stable numbers historically,
partridge and for designing conservation strategies to support them. followed by a steep decline from
Chicks become capable of flight at around 10-15 days. The family group, around the early 1950s to the
1990s and a continuing, more
sometimes joined by other adults, stays together in a covey through the
gradual decline thereafter. These
summer and winter before breaking up. The young then form pairs with
trends mainly reflect changes in
individuals from neighbouring coveys for the next breeding season. Grey agricultural practice.
partridge pairs stay together throughout the year.

PARTRIDGE DECLINES
Across Europe over the past 150 years, grey partridge abundance shows
three distinct trends (as shown in Figure 2). The general pattern is of
stable high numbers in the late 1800s to 1950s/60s, then a sharp decline,
followed by an ongoing more gradual decline10–14.
These trends coincide with changes in farming methods. In the late 1800s
to mid-1900s, farming methods provided good habitat for partridges and
numbers were high.
The 1950s-1960s saw the widespread introduction of herbicides. This
affected grey partridges and other farmland species by disrupting the
food chain, removing weeds (arable flora) which are the host plants for
insects that partridge chicks depend upon for food (Figure 3)15–18.

POPULATION
Some of the early insecticides whose usage also became common around
this time were directly toxic to partridges19. More recently, although most
insecticide treatments applied to fields are not directly toxic to farmland
birds20, they still affect grey partridges - and other insect-eating farmland
birds - by reducing the abundance of insects important in chick diet18,21.

25

1950 1990
 BACKGROUND – THE GREY PARTRIDGE

Figure 3 Grey partridge chicks

rely on insects during their first
two weeks of life. This food supply
can be disrupted directly by the
use of insecticides, which kill the
insects. Or, indirectly by the use

PARTRIDGE CHICKS of herbicides, which kill the plants

that support the chicks’ insect food.

ARE COMPLETELY
DEPENDENT ON
INSECT FOOD DURING
THEIR FIRST TWO
WEEKS OF LIFE

INSECTICIDES
HERBICIDES

27
 KEY FACTORS IMPLICATED IN GREY
PARTRIDGE DECLINES
Extensive research across Europe in the second half of the 20th century
has helped us understand grey partridge declines in more detail. Across
the continent, the three main reasons are:
• Loss of insects from cropped fields because of herbicide and
insecticide use.
– This lack of food led to smaller broods, i.e. fewer surviving
young per nesting female11,22,23.
• Loss of nesting habitat because hedgerows and grass banks were
removed, and fields combined.
– This led to fewer successful breeding pairs in spring24–26.
• Increased predation, especially by generalist predators such as the
red fox, because of land use changes, a reduction in legal predator
control and a change in the behaviour of hunters27.
– This led to higher losses, particularly of nesting females28,29.
This trio of causes was first proposed by the British farmland ecologist Dr
Dick Potts in the 1970s as the ‘three-legged stool’8. His theory, now widely
accepted, was based on his own scientific studies in the UK23, influenced by
other studies of grey partridge ecology6–9, and is supported by more recent
research30–33. Modern farming methods either affect all three legs of the
stool or affect one so much that ‘the whole stool becomes unsteady’.

C o ns e rv a tio n he a dl an d , Su s s e x , E ng l an d Pe te r T hom pso n

Further research suggests a fourth element: poor survival during the late-
winter period. It is thought to be driven by predation and worsened by
the lack of suitable winter cover and food resources20,31,34,35.
The collapse of the three-legged stool has affected both partridge 29

numbers and the wildlife that thrives alongside them. Reinstating

the supporting legs can provide a stable foundation for farmland
biodiversity. Farmland conservation based on this model has been
shown to successfully increase both partridge numbers36,37 and farmland
biodiversity as a whole38–41, by providing nesting habitat, brood-rearing
habitat, winter cover and food, and by managing predation.
These topics are examined individually in the following chapters.
P a rtr id g e f e ma le w it h c h ic k s D av i d M ason
 NESTING HABITAT – SAFE NEST SITES

NESTING HABITAT
– SAFE NEST SITES
G
Grey partridges nest on the ground. The preferred nest site is in unmown
tussocky grasses with old vegetation, typically found along hedgerows,
ditches, dikes or grassy field margins that have plenty of dead grass from
the previous year24,42. Nests can also be found in the crops themselves,
especially cereals43.
In recent years AE schemes have introduced some habitats that can
replace or augment the more traditional grassy nesting habitats that
are now scarce in modern farmland. These include wildflower plots44,45,
beetle banks that provide suitable nesting cover in the middle of large
arable fields and field corners or fallow land8.
Key point
Partridges need plenty of
high-quality nesting habitat. THE EVIDENCE for partridges
Although partridges prefer to nest in vegetation with unmown tussocky
grasses, actual nesting sites vary across Europe depending on the
Provided by
available habitat. For example, in the UK 65% of partridge nests are
Permanent and semi-permanent
found in field margins, including the base of hedgerows, grassy banks
vegetation features such as
or uncut margins24,46. In Germany nearly 95% of grey partridge nests
wildflower plots, hedgerows, grass
were found in similar permanent vegetation, with a quarter in wildflower
margins and beetle banks.
blocks specifically designed to provide nesting and foraging habitat
in the breeding season44. Conversely, in north-central France, 65% of
grey partridge nests were found in cereal crops, with only 13% in linear
features like hedges43.
This indicates that the availability of habitat types influences grey
partridge nest-site selection.

In PARTRIDGE, the quality and quantity of nesting habitats on 33

demonstration sites are increased both through changes in
management of existing habitats and provision of new habitats.
This includes implementing hedgerow management, adding
in new grass margins and beetle banks, and ensuring grass
margins are not mown before chicks can fly. The mowing date
will differ slightly between regions, for example, in Germany it is
recommended not to mow before 15 August. Where appropriate
we are involving agencies such as water boards in Flanders
(Belgium) to adjust their mowing regimes and ensure nests are
not destroyed during the breeding season.
 NESTING HABITAT – SAFE NEST SITES

Partridge breeding density is closely associated with the amount of It is essential not to mow these areas when females are incubating or
available nesting cover: where there is more high-quality cover, there when chicks are very young (May-August). Management of wildflower
are more partridges, and increasing the amount available can increase plots is discussed further on pages 42-44.
partridge breeding densities10,25,33,43,47. Several successful UK partridge recovery projects have used beetle
Five main habitats are known to provide nesting cover across farmland: banks to provide additional nesting habitat48–50. This is because they are
hedgerows, grass margins and ditches, wildflower plots, beetle banks dry and disconnected from the edges of the field, which may reduce
and cereal crops. predation51. Beetle banks are quicker and easier to establish than a
For hedgerows, grass margins and ditches to provide optimal nesting traditional hedgerow.
cover, management is key. For example, in the spring these features However, linear nesting habitats like beetle banks or those along field
should retain enough dead grass or similar vegetation from the previous boundaries are usually not appropriate in areas without lethal predator
year to provide cover for a female grey partridge sitting on a nest8,9,24. This management, because they can act as corridors to concentrate predators
also means that they need to remain uncut during the nesting season to and prey, and lead to more predation rather than less43,44.
avoid destroying the nest and killing the sitting female. Hedges should be
cut in rotation (up to every three years), to allow a dense base to develop24.
Wildflower plots can provide ideal nesting sites because of their open
structure at ground level, combined with vegetation that
provides suitable cover and camouflage. In Switzerland
and Germany, partridges preferred to nest and spend
time in or near wildflower plots44,45.

35
 For other species
Hedgerows are important habitats for farmland invertebrates52,53, being
able to support more than 1,500 different invertebrate species from
70 families. Hawthorn alone has 209 species associated with it54. Many
butterflies such as small tortoiseshell, red admiral, gatekeeper, orange
tip, ringlet, and several whites are commonly found alongside farmland
hedgerows55.
Many declining farmland bird species rely on hedgerows as nesting
habitats, for instance yellowhammer, whitethroat, linnet, and turtle dove56.
Beetle banks were designed to provide overwintering sites for beneficial
insects57, with higher numbers in fields with beetle banks58 than in those
without. Invertebrates such as predatory ground beetles use tussocky
grasses to shelter overwinter, and thousands can be found per square
metre on a beetle bank59,60. These can reduce the number of pest insects,
for example aphids, in the nearby crop in spring and summer58.
Beetle banks are also a haven for other farmland wildlife. Together with
grass margins and wildflower plots, they provide ideal nest sites for small
mammals such as harvest mouse61,62, common vole63, and brown hare64.

Beetle banks are raised banks (0.5m high by 3m wide) that are
sown with a mix of tussocky grasses, typically dividing a field in
two but not connecting to the field edges.
Beetle banks were invented in the UK in the early 1990s where,
based on research, they made it into the English AE scheme in the
mid-1990s, and Scottish and Welsh schemes shortly thereafter.
37
PARTRIDGE introduced beetle banks to the Netherlands in 2017,
Belgium in 2018, and Germany in 2019. They were adopted into
AE schemes in the Netherlands in 2018 as a direct result of the
PARTRIDGE project. PARTRIDGE aims to introduce beetle banks
into the AE schemes of all North Sea member states.
H a rv es t mo us e D av i d K j ae r
P A R TRI D GE f lo w er bl oc k a t Die mar de n de mon st r at i o n sit e, G e r m any Ec k har d G ot t sc hal k
 BROOD-REARING HABITAT – PROVIDING CHICK FOOD

BROOD-REARING
HABITAT
I
In the first two weeks of life, grey partridge chicks eat mainly insects16.
This high-protein diet is very important for chick growth and, if other
factors are favourable, the more insect-food there is, the better chicks
will survive.
Guided by their parents, partridge chicks forage for insects within an area
of 4-10 hectares, depending on how much habitat providing chick food is

– PROVIDING available near the nest45.

It is critical for partridge conservation to provide a rich and accessible

CHICK FOOD supply of insects close to the nest. It is commonly believed that chick
mortality increases if the family group (covey) must travel some
distance to find food, as they are more vulnerable to predation and
bad weather conditions.
Key point
Partridge chicks need insect-rich
foraging habitat, near to where
they hatch, to survive the first few
weeks of life.
THE PARTRIDGE
PROJECT USES
Provided by WILDFLOWER
Wildflower plots, conservation
headlands, annual arable margins. PLOTS TO PROVIDE
INSECT-RICH
FORAGING HABITAT

41
 BROOD-REARING HABITAT – PROVIDING CHICK FOOD

THE EVIDENCE for partridges

In the UK, wildflower plots have been associated with larger grey
The insects that grey partridge chicks eat live on plants within crops, or
partridge broods, more young per adult and improved grey partridge
on the crops themselves18. These plants are known as arable flora or,
survival in winter77. In Switzerland, reintroduced grey partridges chose to
more commonly, weeds. Insect declines across the globe have recently
settle in areas with the most wildflower strips and hedges45.
received great attention65. Removing either weeds with herbicides8,66 or
insects with insecticides67 destroys the chicks’ food supply (see Figure 3,
page 27).
In the UK, before the introduction of herbicides, grey partridge chick
survival averaged 49%. This dropped to 32% once they were widely used11.
Wildflower plots are the key habitat measure recommended
Decreased chick survival was then the main driver of the grey partridge by PARTRIDGE. PARTRIDGE uses blocks or wide strips (at least
decline: not enough chicks were making it to adulthood, so numbers 20 metres wide) sown with a mix of different flower species to
were falling. Increased insecticide use added to the problem, with grey provide good habitat for partridges.
partridge chick survival a third lower in areas of widespread insecticide
Much consideration has gone into developing mixes that
use than in areas with little or no use22. This seminal work from the UK
suit the project’s varying local conditions, ensuring suitable
has been replicated most recently in Poland, where increases in pesticide
nesting, foraging and winter habitat all year round at all the
use are correlated with declining chick survival rates167.
demonstration sites.
Therefore, areas that receive no or only selective pesticide treatments
They are managed in a rotation to achieve this. Alternate halves
during the summer can provide a haven for chicks. On modern farms
of each plot are re-established each year in spring or autumn
these are provided by wildflower plots, conservation headlands (see page
(depending on local conditions), and the differently aged
45), or other forms of open, insect-rich vegetation15,68.
vegetation on the two halves provides habitat variety. Having
It is essential that brood-rearing habitats provided for grey partridge more variety in the structure and composition of the mixes
chicks are not treated with summer insecticides. The accepted results in higher biodiversity overall.
management of weeds varies, with some habitats receiving no herbicide.
The key plants used are sunflower, mustard, kale, chicory,
Selective herbicides that remove only pernicious weeds but do not harm
perennial rye, lucerne (alfalfa), sweet clover and teasel. Various
the plant species that support insects can be used where needed.
other species are added to the mix at different sites to increase
The structure of the vegetation in these areas is also very important. diversity and suitability for farmland biodiversity.
There needs to be a canopy for protection from aerial predators such as
43
raptors and corvids, but the underlying structure needs to be more open
to allow chicks to move freely through the habitat15,68.
The seed mixes used in wildflower plots in PARTRIDGE contain various
flowers and other plant species chosen for their ability to support
insects69,70, produce seeds for adult birds71–74 and give overhead
protection. Four times as many insects have been found in wildflower
strips as in conventional wheat fields75,76. Adding wildflower plots to the
landscape (typically up to 1 hectare but sometimes larger) stabilised the
previously declining grey partridge numbers across a large study area
in Germany44. In one area where these wildflower plots covered 7% of
farmland, grey partridge numbers increased 10-fold44.
 BROOD-REARING HABITAT – PROVIDING CHICK FOOD

Flower power Conservation headlands are currently supported by AE schemes in the

UK and Switzerland. They are strips around the edge of cereal fields,
In PARTRIDGE, the mixes were developed taking into consideration
usually 6-12 metres wide, which are part of the crop but managed
seed prices, to ensure that the cost of the mix was acceptable
with no or only selective pesticides during the summer. They may also
to farmers, while also including as many native species as
be sown at lower densities and may have a lower nitrogen input. This
possible. The seeds of native species are usually more expensive,
allows arable plants (weeds) to grow, and supports the insects that grey
so although an entirely native mix would be desirable, a
partridge chicks need15,78.
compromise was needed for PARTRIDGE.
More than twice as many insects have been found in conservation
The literature describing wildflower plots varies in how they are
headlands compared with headlands sprayed as normal15. This more
named. Sometimes they are referred to as wildflower mixes, in
plentiful food supply can improve chick survival15,68,78–80.
other cases as wild bird seed mixes. In this document, we use
wildflower mix when referring to seed mixes, and wildflower plot Annual arable margins, also called cultivated margins and including
when referring to the area once it is sown. Where size, shape floristically-enhanced margins, are uncropped strips around fields that
or species composition is important, we highlight that. Where are renewed each year. They are usually 3-6 metres wide and aim to
we refer to a paper that mentions such plots, we use the same provide habitat for arable plants, in particular those that are rare or
terminology as the paper. endangered. In the case of cultivated uncropped margins, they are
ploughed and left unsown to allow natural regeneration of weeds from
the seeds in the soil, while sown/floristically-enhanced arable margins are
sown with native arable flora.
P A R TRI D GE f lo w er bl oc k a t Die mar de n de mon st r at i o n sit e, D , Eck har d Got t s chal k

They are expected to give good foraging habitat for partridge chicks
and may act as a substitute for, or addition to, conservation headlands
because they benefit chick-food insects81–83. Sown weed strips
(floristically-enhanced margins) are very attractive to insects82.
The conservation value of field margins sown with a seed mix compared
with naturally regenerated strips will vary greatly, depending on the soil
type, the seeds present in the soil and the management approach. Arable
margins are also supported by AE schemes in several European countries.

45

In PARTRIDGE we provide brood-rearing habitat mainly using

wildflower plots and arable margins – both cultivated and sown.
The key is to provide a lightly managed vegetation, rich in floral
resources, that will support the necessary chick-food insects,
with an open structure to allow chicks to forage.
R oe d ee r i n Sw i s s w i ld f lo we r pl ot Mar k us J e nny
 For other species
Wildflower plots provide good habitat for a variety of species, many of
which are found in higher numbers than in adjacent conventional crops84.
These include the common vole85,86, a range of farmland birds87 such as
skylark88, corn bunting89, kestrel86, and long-eared owl86. Many insects
and spiders90,91 can also benefit, including ground beetles92, hoverflies93,
butterflies and moths74,82, and wild bees74,82. Wildflower plots also contain
high numbers of beneficial predatory insects, which can help control pest
outbreaks in nearby crops94,95.
Although conservation headlands were originally designed to aid
grey partridge numbers, they are also beneficial for other species.
Many invertebrates including butterflies are more abundant in these
areas15,96,97. More food is available for butterflies in conservation
headlands, so feeding is more efficient and butterflies are able to spend
more time resting and interacting with each other98. The increased
number of flowers39 in conservation headlands attracts hoverflies, whose
larvae eat crop pests such as aphids99. Conservation headlands also
provide ideal habitat for small mammals such as wood mice, who actively
seek out these areas100.

B u mb le be e B o m bu s p r a t or um on ma rsh t hi st l e Ci r siu m p al ust re Pe t e r T hom p son

Cultivated arable margins and extensively managed cereals were
developed to aid arable flora. Cultivated arable margins were deemed to
have the potential to conserve up to 40 species of rare arable flora101 and
a system of cereal fields managed with little or no agricultural chemicals
(‘extensively’ managed) has been used to create mini-nature reserves for
arable flora across Germany in the ‘100 Fields for Diversity’ programme102.
In addition to arable flora, more spiders and ground beetles are found in
cultivated arable margins compared with conventionally cropped margins
in spring81,103, and they are known to be beneficial to other farmland birds 49
such as corn bunting89,104.
Another role that wildflower plots, conservation headlands and other AE
scheme measures can fulfil is that of a buffer for agricultural chemicals.
Where there are areas of unsprayed vegetation such as conservation
headlands or wildflower plots at the edge of fields, there is less pesticide
drift onto adjacent hedgerows, ditches and bodies of water. This reduces
the effects of pesticides on insect populations in field boundary
features105,106 and on nearby aquatic life107.
P a rtr id g e i n w i nt er c ov e r D ic k F or s m a n / A gam i
 WINTER COVER AND FOOD

WINTER COVER
AND FOOD
M
Measures to improve grey partridge winter survival are an important part
of partridge conservation packages. These consist of providing winter
cover, which gives protection from severe weather and predators108,109.
Lack of food over winter can also be a problem because seeds are scarce
on modern farmland in winter110, particularly during the period known as
the ‘hungry gap’, which runs from January to early May in north-western
Europe111.
Key point
Wildflower plots sown for nesting and brood-rearing can also provide
Winter survival is improved by
seed resources and cover in winter for grey partridges and other
cover and food.
farmland wildlife34. This requires careful selection of the species included
in these mixes because they need to hold seeds until early spring.
Provided by Although grey partridge adults eat mainly leaves and other plant matter
Wildflower mixes, winter stubbles, in winter112, additional feeding with grain is often used to supplement
supplementary feeding. their natural food.
For some countries in north-west Europe, where comparatively few plant
species bear seeds into early spring, it may be difficult to grow plants that
provide seed into mid-February. In these cases, supplementary feeding
may be even more important.
The thinking on supplementary feeding is two-fold: firstly it could reduce
foraging time and hence predation risk108, and secondly high-energy food,
such as seeds, may lead to better breeding condition113.

THE EVIDENCE for partridges

A review of scientific evidence from across Europe found that winter
survival of females was a key factor in population growth29,35. Because
grey partridges stay in the same area all year round, they must find
enough food and cover from predators during winter. 53

Radio-tracking studies carried out during the winter months in Germany

and Switzerland have shown that grey partridges spend most of their
time in the middle of arable fields, in particular cereal fields, stubbles and
oilseed rape44,45. During this time, they feed mainly on the shoots of short
winter crops, while taller vegetation provides cover from predators.
 WINTER COVER AND FOOD

Winter stubbles Cover

Winter stubbles are crop stalks left in the ground over winter. Winter Cover is needed to help partridges avoid predation in winter. Grey
stubbles, especially weedy ones or those sown with a structurally open partridge winter losses across Europe range from 30-81% of autumn
cover crop, provide a valuable resource for partridges and other seed- partridge numbers31,34,117,118, with particularly high losses seen in late
eating farmland birds110,114. In the past, cereals were sown with ley crops winter and early spring34,108. Grey partridges are five times more likely to
(grass/legumes), resulting in undersown green stubbles post-harvest. experience predation in winter on days with snow cover than on snow-free
This practice had benefits for sawfly larvae – important chick-food insects days44. This is assumed to be because they are much easier for predators
– but has largely been abandoned4. to spot when they lose the protection provided by their camouflage.
The diet of grey partridges feeding in stubble fields is more varied
than those feeding in winter-sown cereal fields or oilseed rape, with Supplementary feeding
more grain and seeds compared with mostly leaves112. Although a
predominantly leaf-based diet is sufficient for grey partridges, it is Seed food for farmland birds can be scarce during the hungry gap in late
generally thought that seeds provide a more nutritious diet8. winter111. Providing supplementary seed food during winter has become
commonplace on shooting estates across Europe, where it is thought
Stubble fields also provide cover for grey partridges during the winter, to help maintain partridges in good condition into the breeding season.
another important factor in their overwinter survival108. Unfortunately, The effect of this has not been scientifically tested for grey partridges,
winter stubbles are now uncommon on farmland, following changes in but it is known to help another gamebird, the pheasant, gain better body
cropping and management of cereal fields115. Where they still exist, they condition during the breeding period119,120.
contain lower seed resources owing to intensive management of the crop
preceding the stubble, as well as more efficient harvesting techniques116. Supplementary feeding may also decrease foraging time, and therefore
reduce vulnerability to predation. During times of high snow cover,
supplementary feeding may also reduce winter mortality, however,
neither of these aspects have been scientifically tested. It is known that
partridges utilise feeders and that some areas with extensive winter
feeding in France have high partridge densities121.

55
 THE PARTRIDGE
PROJECT ADOPTS
MEASURES TO
For other species
Breeding populations of many farmland birds are in decline, and the
IMPROVE SURVIVAL
reduced amount of seed available to them in modern farming systems OF FARMLAND BIRDS
contributes to this72,115. Stubble fields, particularly weedy ones, may provide
a good source of grain and weed seeds in early winter122, and many species IN WINTER
of farmland birds are known to feed in them, including skylark, linnet,
yellowhammer and reed bunting as well as grey partridge123. A loss of
weedy stubble fields is one of the factors contributing to their decline115.
A comparison of seed-bearing crops with conventional crops across

G re en f in c h a nd b r amb l in g s f ee di ng in P A RT RI D G E fl owe r b l o c k at B ur g h S l ui s d e m o nst r at i o n si t e , N L J anni e Timmer

192 farmland sites in the UK found that overall, winter bird densities
were more than 12 times higher on these plots. When the analysis was
confined to the ‘most preferred’ of those seed crops, this rose to 50 times
higher73. This is just one of many studies that show the value of seed-
bearing crops in winter to many farmland bird species72.
In Scottish plots sown with mixes consisting of kale, triticale, mustard and
quinoa, up to 100 times as many songbirds per hectare were recorded
during the winter compared with set-aside, stubble or conventional
crops. The plots in this study attracted 50% more bird species than
set aside or cereal stubble, and 91% more species than conventional
crops, including linnet, reed bunting, tree sparrow and song thrush71.
Researchers in the Netherlands found a much higher density of farmland
birds within winter food plots than on the farmland nearby124.
Overwintering arthropods were found in higher densities in sown
wildflower strips in Switzerland than in arable fields125. In the UK, small
mammals (mainly wood mouse) have been shown to use wild bird cover
crops more than conventional cereals in the winter126. In Switzerland
kestrels and long-eared owls benefit from this, with wild bird cover being
their preferred hunting habitat over winter due to an increased density of 57
field voles86.
Providing extra seed for birds during winter can help increase their
winter survival and breeding condition127. In the UK, when grain feeders
were provided for gamebirds in winter, they were also visited by many
other species including dunnock, blackbird and yellowhammer128.
At one site in the UK, the years with no winter feeding had fewer seed-
eating songbirds, particularly in late winter129–131. In this study, songbirds
accounted for 38% of visits to the feeder. Thanks to this research,
supplementary feeding in late winter is now supported by AE schemes in
England. At the Allerton Project study area at Loddington, the abundance
of songbirds decreased after winter feeding was stopped131.
 The PARTRIDGE flower plots provide suitable cover and food
for partridges and other farmland birds at least through early
winter as they include sunflowers, teasel and chicory. The hollow
stems of sunflowers and teasel make ideal overwintering or
nesting sites for wild solitary bees and other insects. The flower
plots also attract small mammals that are food for wintering
raptors and owls. Providing supplementary winter food helps
partridges and other farmland birds to bridge the hungry gap
during winter months.

W i nt er as p ec t o f PA R TR I DGE a ut u mn-so wn m ix at Di ema rd en d e m o nst r at i o n si t e , G e r m any Ec k har d G ot t sc halk

59
P a rtr id g e c ov ey a t fe ed er C h r i s K n i ght s
 WHAT DOES THE IDEAL PARTRIDGE HOW BIG DOES THE PROJECT AREA
LANDSCAPE LOOK LIKE? NEED TO BE?
There is no strict ‘correct’ way to arrange partridge-friendly habitats For grey partridge conservation projects, the area can vary from as
in the landscape, although there are some guiding principles. little as 400 hectares139 (the minimum recommendation), to as large
The objective is to provide all necessary habitat requirements as 100,000 hectares44. PARTRIDGE demonstration sites are the result
summarised in this booklet (nesting, brood-rearing and winter of a compromise between the desirable and the feasible. Therefore,
cover) in the territory of a grey partridge pair. the project partners decided on an area of 500 hectares for each
Ideally brood-rearing cover, which could be a first-year PARTRIDGE demonstration site.
wildflower plot, arable margin or conservation headland, should Depending on the country, this can mean that up to 30 neighbouring
be next to nesting cover, provided by either a hedge, unmown farmers must cooperate to implement 7% high-quality wildlife
grass margin or beetle bank. A sterile or bare strip nearby allows habitat across the 500-hectare demonstration area. This is a huge
chicks to dry in the sun after a summer rain shower and search for challenge in itself. It can only be achieved by the collaboration and
insects. The illustration on the following page shows an idealistic involvement of many different stakeholders including farmers,
layout, that can be applied with local adjustments at any farmland hunters, local, regional and national conservation organisations,
biodiversity recovery project across Europe44,45,80,121,130,132. volunteers from the local communities, farm advisors, scientists and
government bodies.

HOW MUCH SUITABLE HABITAT DO WE NEED?

Early work from Switzerland on the area of land needed to maintain
biodiversity on farmland concluded that between 12% and 15%
needed to be managed for conservation to maintain the existing
biodiversity on lowland farmland133,134. The EU set targets for 5%
of arable land to be used for ecological focus areas, with little
consideration for the quality of this area135.
PARTRIDGE recommends managing a minimum of 7% of the total
arable area for grey partridges, made up of high-quality habitat
61
distributed as evenly across the project area as possible. This figure
is based on several scientific studies examining the effect that
increased nesting and brood-rearing cover may have on partridge
chick survival8,15,24,25, as well as the effect of non-cropped areas136,
natural areas, or ‘Ecological Compensation Areas’ on farmland birds
or biodiversity more broadly138.
Ditch

Flower-rich tussocky
grass margin 3 metres

Arable crop
100-200 metres

PARTRIDGE wildflower plot

min. 20 metres

Sterile strip
1 metre

Beetle bank
3 metres

Conservation headland
min. 4 metres

Arable crop
100-200 metres

PARTRIDGE wildflower plot

min. 20 metres
to recover.

Flower-rich tussocky
Figure 4 An idealised

grass margin 3 metres

all year round and allow
projects in Europe. When

farmland wildlife generally

conservation measures for
arrangement of PARTRIDGE

applied together, they provide

farmland biodiversity recovery

for the needs of grey partridges

Hedgerow
63
P a rtr id g e c ov ey i n f li g ht J a r i P e lto mä k i / Aga m i
 PREDATION

PREDATION
Key point
P
Partridges are particularly vulnerable to predation because they nest,
forage and roost on the ground. Up to three-quarters of the potential
reproduction for a year can be lost through egg predation8,44. We know
that predation has become more of a problem for many farmland
species in recent decades, particularly ground-nesting birds28,29,140 and
hares40. This may be because the number of generalist predators (those
Partridge abundance is heavily
that eat whatever food is available to them) has increased overall during
affected by predation; reducing
that period28, or because the farmed landscape has become simpler,
the effect of predation helps to
with fewer hedgerows and other features, or a combination of both. This
increase numbers.
simplification means that predator and prey species increasingly share
the same areas and resources, and are therefore more likely to meet,
Provided by with prey less able to hide141.
Habitat and predator management.

GREY PARTRIDGES ARE VULNERABLE

TO PREDATION
The grey partridge is a very short-lived species in comparison with
other birds of similar size – its average life expectancy is thought to
be only around 1.5 years142. This is because its life is typically curtailed
through predation6–8 . This means that most partridges will have only one
opportunity to breed in their lifetime. During the breeding season the
main partridge predator is the red fox8 – but during the winter months,
particularly during times of heavy snow, birds of prey are the main
threat, especially sparrowhawk and goshawk34,117,143,144. As well as this,
a range of other European predators also kill partridges. The famous
German naturalist Alfred Brehm summed it up in the 1860s as follows: ‘If
one visualises the threats to which a grey partridge is exposed including all
predators, it is hard to comprehend why partridges are actually still around’ 145.
The nesting female is particularly vulnerable to predation. In unmanaged 67
areas, more than half of the females present may be lost during the
breeding season109,142,146. Nesting success is therefore heavily influenced
by predation20,30. Nest predation by generalist predators is generally
density-dependent, which means that nest losses are relatively higher in
areas with higher partridge densities compared to where there are fewer
partridges, all else being equal8. Predation can suppress the growth of a
low-density partridge population141. Local conditions, such as the density
of other prey species, the distribution of nesting habitat and predator
searching may counteract this. The most convincing study highlighting
the influence of predation on partridge breeding numbers comes from an
experiment carried out in England. There, where predator management
 PREDATION

Figure 5 Schematic representation

of fluctuation in grey partridge
numbers over the course of a year.
Adapted from Pegel142. The exact
timing and proportion of losses will
vary depending on local conditions.
was carried out during the breeding season, grey partridges produced
more chicks and autumn numbers increased by 75% each year (this
included all predators legally controllable under UK law, including foxes,
corvids and mustelids). This increased spring breeding numbers, which
were nearly three times higher on average after three years, compared to
a nearby comparison area where breeding success was much lower147.

Within PARTRIDGE we are very aware of the sensitive issues

1.
revolving around lethal predation management. The partnership
includes those with different views, working within different
legal frameworks in different countries with different socio-
cultural backgrounds, reflecting the diversity found across

PARTRIDGE NUMBERS
European society. Therefore, the conservation methods
used within PARTRIDGE are designed to be applied alongside
either of the main predation management approaches. Each 2.
demonstration site chose the predation management approach
that was most suitable for its particular situation and aims.

3.
HABITAT MANAGEMENT TO LIMIT PREDATION
In grey partridge conservation projects where lethal predator
4.
management is not carried out, the effects of predation may be reduced
through habitat improvements. This improvement is directed towards
the amount, types and layout of nesting, brood-rearing and overwinter
habitat to increase partridge survival. How these are implemented varies
between sites. Up until now, there has been little scientific investigation 5.
into how exactly habitat management alone can best support sustainable
partridge populations in the long-term.
a • m • j • j • a • s • o • n • d • j • f • m • a
One exception to this is a demonstration site in the UK, where low grey
partridge numbers recovered and could be maintained with habitat
management alone. This occurred in an area with low background 1. 50% nest losses – eggs destroyed before hatching
predator densities130. The important things to consider are the size of the
area being managed for conservation and how fragmented the areas of 2. 50% of hatched chicks lost
suitable nesting, brood-rearing and overwinter habitats are, as well as the
background density of predators. The presence of partridges nearby is 3. 30% of adults lost during the summer
also likely to play an important role in buffering numbers148.
4. 60% autumn and winter losses

5. The remaining partridges

 PREDATION

THE EVIDENCE for partridges

Adjusting habitat can help manage predation pressure. In a simple
open landscape with fewer areas for wildlife to use, it is more likely that
predator and prey will meet, than in a more complex landscape with many
areas of suitable habitat141. Both the amount of good-quality habitat and
its layout are important to reduce predation risk for partridges.
Computer modelling of UK partridge populations has predicted that
numbers could be stabilised without predator control if 3% of the total
arable area of the UK comprised insect-rich brood-rearing habitat and if
there were 4.3 kilometres of nesting cover per 100 hectares8,25. The results
of this modelling have, to date, not been experimentally demonstrated.
In Germany, the Göttinger Grey Partridge project, covering an area of
100,000 hectares, managed to hold the local grey partridge population
stable at two pairs/100 hectares between 2007 and 2018, while in the
rest of Lower Saxony numbers fell by half. This was achieved by adding
540 hectares of wildflower plots in blocks of up to one hectare to the
suitable partridge habitat that already existed in the area. Lethal predator
management was not part of the project, but fox control did occur at
low levels as local hunters culled foxes during the winter as part of
their existing routine44. Partridge numbers fluctuated greatly between
years and between local areas, with some areas losing their partridges,
then being re-colonised by partridges from nearby areas. A nine-fold
increase from 0.6 to 5.6 pairs/100 hectares was recorded in one area of
approximately 600 hectares, where the amount of newly-created high-
quality habitat was 7%44.
Nesting success can be heavily influenced by the structures provided for
nesting habitat. In the Göttinger study, 62% of nests in linear structures
P a rtr id g e f e ma le b ur ie d by f o x F r an ci s B une r

such as hedgerows or field margins (10 metres wide or less) were 71

predated. Wider structures provided more safety, with only 24% of the
nests predated if they were located in structures more than 20m wide
such as wildflower plots44. Narrow strips of good-quality partridge habitat
can concentrate the birds into corridors, allowing ground predators to
easily find them51, with the nesting corridors acting as what is commonly
called a ‘predator trap’49,149.
However, success based on habitat measures alone is not always
possible, as a partridge recovery project in Switzerland showed. In the
canton of Geneva, where lethal predator management is forbidden by
law all year round, an attempt to minimise nest predation using electric
 PREDATION

fencing was unsuccessful despite increasing hatching success150. The grey

partridge could not be saved from extinction, even with the provision of
5.3% high-quality insect-rich habitat, across an area of 10,000ha132,148,168.
Notwithstanding habitat measures undertaken over a 15-year period, the
project area was too isolated from the next known partridge population
70 kilometres away to be sustainable. Despite the release of reared grey
partridges to supplement the wild population, from a starting point of
two wild pairs on the study area in 2007, only three pairs were present in
2016148,151 and the species was considered extinct in Switzerland in 2020168.
HIGH PREDATION
RISK
For other species
The same Swiss study that failed to increase partridge numbers with
habitat measures and nest fencing, did result in higher numbers of some
other farmland birds. Six of twelve species studied increased over the
study period: whitethroat, melodious warbler, stonechat, yellowhammer,
red-backed shrike and cirl bunting132.
One RSPB-run demonstration farm in the UK, where predator densities
were relatively low, increased numbers of farmland birds through habitat
management alone (including winter feeding)130.
Excluding predators from nest sites of other species using physical
barriers such as fencing has also been trialled and has been successful
in some cases, for example protecting lapwing chicks in Switzerland152,153,
various meadow bird species in the Netherlands and waders across other
parts of Europe154.
LOW PREDATION There is also growing evidence that AE scheme measures, such as
RISK unimproved field margins155–157 and wildflower blocks lead to reduced
predation pressure, which benefits hares64, 155-157.
73

PREDATOR MANAGEMENT TO MINIMISE

Figure 6 Schematic example of
the relationship between the
PREDATION
spatial distribution of suitable As well as providing habitat to limit predation, where there are high levels
nesting habitat and the location of generalist predators, direct (i.e. lethal) predator management is widely
of partridge nests. Narrow
used to protect vulnerable prey species. This is particularly the case in
breeding habitats (figure above)
result in a high risk of predation.
ground-nesting species such as seabirds, waders and gamebirds28. In
Bigger block-shaped habitats the case of grey partridges, creating a shootable surplus is often the
(figure below) have a much lower motivation behind the predator management10,36.
risk of predation. Based on
Gottschalk & Beeke44.
 PREDATION

Grey partridge recovery programmes that do not have shooting as scientifically documented have used direct predator management, in
motivation also use lethal predator management41. How this is done addition to providing good-quality habitat across a suitable area.
and which species are involved depends on the legal framework, which Examples of successful reintroductions include one in Ireland41 and one
varies across European countries. Where legally permitted, predator in the UK161. These reintroductions made the decision to undertake direct
management aims to reduce the density of generalist predators such predator management in light of IUCN guidelines for introductions162,163.
as red fox and crow during the nesting season to ensure good partridge These state that the original reasons for extinction must be removed
reproduction80. This type of management can be carried out successfully before reintroduction takes place. For the grey partridge, this includes
across relatively small areas, resulting in high grey partridge spring pair high rates of predation as well as loss of habitat, and both must be
densities of up to 40-80 pairs per square kilometre41,80,158. suitably addressed for reintroduced birds to be able to persist139.

For other species

Lowering predation pressure contributes to partridge and other Reducing predator numbers using legal lethal management to help
farmland wildlife conservation. It can be achieved by making grey partridges, eases the pressure on other species. Direct predator
habitats more predation-proof and limiting predator access to management for grey partridge conservation resulted in higher numbers
nest sites, with the highest level of protection involving lethal of birds of conservation concern in two project areas in the UK4,161 and
predator control. The highest density of partridges is achieved on areas managed through the GWCT Partridge Count Scheme38. Direct
where all of these management techniques are combined. predator management resulted in greater nesting success for five of six
species nesting in hedgerows, including yellowhammer164.
THE EVIDENCE for partridges The usefulness of lethal predator management depends on the
Where it is permitted, and carried out to the highest possible standard, background density of predators present. In areas with high predator
combining lethal predator management with habitat measures leads to densities, predator management was required for songbird numbers
higher grey partridge numbers80,158. Early studies in the UK indicated that to recover, whereas where there were fewer predators, habitat
partridge numbers were higher where there was more gamekeeping23,159. management was enough without predator management130,164.

These results were followed by a replicated controlled experimental This has also been shown for lapwing, which bred better where generalist
field study where predator management was carried out only during the predators were removed in areas with a high background level of these
partridge breeding season. Grey partridge breeding success was higher predators165. In a recent review of whether predation can limit prey
and autumn numbers increased. This increased spring breeding numbers, populations, removing predators allowed prey populations to rise in 80%
of studies that looked at seabirds, 81% looking at gamebirds, 45% of 75
which were on average nearly three times higher after three years,
compared with a nearby reference area without predator management147. those studying waders and 40% focusing on songbirds28.

More recent analyses using computer models predict that combining Reducing the density of common generalist predators such as foxes can
habitat management with predator management as described above also benefit brown hares. A combined analysis of three separate UK
results in faster and higher grey partridge recovery than habitat studies showed that in all three, brown hare densities increased rapidly
measures alone25,160. This has been demonstrated several times in the UK, and were always higher when predators were controlled than when they
France and Ireland41,48,80,121,158. were not40.

In cases where grey partridges are reintroduced after they had gone
locally extinct, predator control is paramount for success. All known
successful reintroductions of grey partridges in Europe that have been
B ro w n ha re a lo ng S w is s w il df l ow er p lo t M a r k us J e nny

77
 PREDATION

Ethics and science

Predator management is a highly debated topic across Europe.
For many people, including much of the general public, the
killing of one or more species for the benefit of others is ethically
unacceptable. To others, such as some species conservation
managers, lethally managing common predators to protect red-
listed prey species is necessary to help these more vulnerable
species to survive. For others still, such as hunters, lethal
predator management allows high enough numbers of their
quarry species for shooting, acting as a motivation for the
habitat and predator management carried out to achieve this166.
Ethics are beyond the scope of this booklet. Nevertheless,
PARTRIDGE is very aware of the ethical issues that revolve
around predator management. We therefore simply provide
as concise and balanced a summary as possible of the current
evidence concerning the effects of indirect and direct predator
management practices across Europe.

79
F a rm w a lk a t R oth er f ie ld d emo ns t ra ti on si t e, E n g la nd I an G oul d
 WORKING TOGETHER FOR A COMMON AIM

WORKING
TOGETHER FOR
S
Successful conservation projects understand and respect the views of
different groups with different priorities, values and ideas. Bringing
together and uniting a wide range of stakeholders working together
towards a common goal is what PARTRIDGE is all about. The main roles
of the seven key stakeholder groups that need to work together are
summarised below. Many people or groups fulfil several of these roles.

A COMMON AIM The following is based on characteristics of stakeholders involved in this

project and others. It represents an ambitious, aspirational interpretation,
but those who wish to restore numbers of grey partridges and other
farmland wildlife should live up to these expectations to ensure success.

The role of the farmer

Farmers are the core component of PARTRIDGE. Those who manage the
land have the ability to create and manage habitats for biodiversity. Many
farmers have an intrinsic interest in wildlife and biodiversity. However,
they must also run a profitable business and produce food. This is where
AE scheme funding is extremely important as it compensates farmers
for the income that is lost when they choose to use land for conservation
rather than production.
Farmers and landowners working together, in farmer collectives in the
Netherlands or Farmer Clusters in the UK, can produce conservation
benefits over a large area.
Almost 100 farmers across our 10 demonstration sites manage all the
PARTRIDGE habitat measures, while helping to showcase how farmland
biodiversity can be restored alongside running a modern farm business.

The role of the hunter 83

Hunting and shooting organisations from several countries are key

partners in PARTRIDGE. Hunters of small game (gamebirds and hares)
have a strong motivation to conserve and support their quarry species,
and other associated wildlife. Many hunters are keen conservationists
and as such manage their quarry sustainably. Their understanding of and
investment in the countryside can contribute to conservation projects.
 WORKING TOGETHER FOR A COMMON AIM

In the UK, where the shooting rights lie with the landowner, this is The role of the general public
straightforward. In other parts of Europe, such as France and Germany,
PARTRIDGE unites around 300 volunteers from the general public
the hunter may rent land from farmers to plant and manage wildlife
engaging in habitat management, monitoring activities (citizen science
habitats that benefit their quarry species, or may pay the farmer to
such as bird surveys), media campaigns and lobbying. They are typically
provide these services.
members of conservation organisations, helping both financially and
Arrangements will vary, but hunters often make a contribution to by adding a voice to the cause of conservation through support for
management for quarry species. When this management is done in line conservation-friendly policy choices.
with the appropriate guidelines and codes of practice, it benefits many
Pressure from our volunteers and the wider public is one of the most
other farmland species.
effective tools in achieving change and steering regional, national and
international policy. Public appreciation for the work done by farmers
and hunters can go a long way towards motivating land managers to
undertake conservation work.
Sustainable shooting is an important aspect of how hunters
manage quarry species. One example from the UK recommends
that no grey partridges are shot unless there are more than 20 The role of the advisory body
birds per 100 hectares in autumn, and that hunting stops for the
Within PARTRIDGE, advice on AE schemes, wildlife and management
year if that threshold is reached. In the UK, on areas with habitat
is provided by a group of experts with different strengths. These
management providing both nesting and brood-rearing cover,
advisors work together to offer a wide range of expertise and real-
together with legal predator control, grey partridge numbers can
world experience, acting as a link between scientific and conservation
sustain moderate shooting of 20% of autumn stocks48,166. In the
organisations and land managers.
modern farmed environment, there are unlikely to be that many
wild partridges without either seven percent of high-quality They understand both wildlife requirements and the details of running
habitat, direct predator management, or both. a farm business, effectively integrating new farming methods or
conservation measures into a working farm. They help and support the
application process for AE schemes, the financial support which makes
P A R TRI D GE p ar tn ers w it h loc al s t ake ho ld er s F r anci s B une r

implementing conservation measures possible for most farmers. It is

important that advisors are respected and trusted by farmers, not only for
their knowledge but also for their practical approach to implementation.

85

The role of the scientist

PARTRIDGE includes several scientific organisations that have researched
and developed new techniques and conservation measures directed
towards farmland conservation, as summarised in this publication.
Producing the evidence that conservation measures are effective is
crucial to the successful conservation of farmland biodiversity, but it
must be combined with demonstrating how these measures can be
incorporated into farming practice without hampering operational
efficiency or business profitability.
 P A R T R I D G E pr o j e c t

Within PARTRIDGE, existing scientific evidence has guided the selection

WHERE CAN I LEARN MORE?
of measures implemented at the 10 demonstration sites. Monitoring
biodiversity indicators provides the evidence that our measures work under All the latest news and results of the PARTRIDGE project can be found on
a range of circumstances irrespective of borders and regional differences. the following webpages:
www.northsearegion.eu/partridge

The role of the conservation organisation www.gwct.org.uk

Conservation bodies forge partnerships across different groups, are https://twitter.com/PARTRIDGE_NSR

influential in directing policy and thus play a critical part in PARTRIDGE. In the UK, the PARTRIDGE wildflower mixes mentioned in this booklet are
They often manage nature reserves themselves so can demonstrate available from Oakbank Game & Conservation and Kings Crops.
best practice and they can create connections that will lead to www.oakbankgc.co.uk/wild-game
conservation change.
www.kingscrops.co.uk/products/conservation-crops/wild-bird-seed-
Conservation bodies effectively communicate to policy makers and mixes
the general public the benefit and importance of conservation. In
PARTRIDGE they educate policy-makers on the researched conservation
approaches used, so that these measures can be rapidly integrated into
governmental policy and AE schemes.

The role of government

PARTRIDGE highlights the benefits of partridge conservation for
policy makers in government and provides the evidence that they
need to support farmland conservation. Policy makers are key to
ensuring that the enthusiasm and resources provided by all the other
PARTRIDGE partners results in widespread and long-lasting conservation
improvements. Policy makers that understand the science and its
application will enact appropriate legislation and provide financial
support, allowing funding for techniques that give maximum benefit.

87

Co-operation
Co-operation - between groups and across countries - is a core value of
PARTRIDGE, enabling us to achieve our joint vision of the best outcomes
for wildlife and people. There are complex challenges when working
across many countries. Not only language but traditions, culture and
perspectives differ. However, the successful establishment of PARTRIDGE
demonstrates the rewards that can come from international co-operation
within conservation, based on science.
C h il d w it h c or n fl ow e r L ar s S oe r i n k
 REFERENCES

1 European Commission. (2011) The EU 14 Sovon Partridge. Available at: https://www.

REFERENCES Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. Luxembourg.

2 European Commission. (2015) Mid-term

sovon.nl/nl/soort/3670.

15 Sotherton, N.W. (1991) Conservation

review of the EU biodiversity strategy to 2020. Headlands: a practical combination of
intensive cereal farming and conservation. In:
3 European Bird Census Council (EBCC). Ecology of Temperate Cereal Fields: 373–397.
(2017) Trends of Common Birds in Europe, (eds. Firbank, L.G., Carter, N., Darbyshire,
2017 Update. Available at: http://ebcc.birdlife. J.F. & Potts, G.R.) British Ecological Society
cz/trends-of-common-birds-in-europe-2017- Symposium, Blackwell Scientific Publications.
update/. Oxford.

4 Potts, G.R. (2012) Partridges. Countryside 16 Southwood, T.R.E. & Cross, D.J. (2002)
barometer. New Naturalist Library Book 121. Food requirements of grey partridge Perdix
Collins. London. perdix chicks. Wildlife Biology, 8: 175–183.

5 European Environment Agency. (2004) 17 Ford, J., Chitty, H. & Middleton, A.D.
High Nature Value Farmland – Characteristics, (1938) The food of partridge chicks (Perdix
Trends and Policy Challenges. Copenhagen. perdix) in Great Britain. The Journal of Animal
Ecology, 7: 251–265.
6 Birkan, M. & Jacob, M. (1988) La Perdix
Grise. Hatier. Paris. 18 Potts, G.R. & Aebischer, N.J. (1991)
Modelling the population dynamics of the
7 Dwenger, R. (1991) Das Rebhuhn. Die Neue grey partridge: conservation and manage-
Brehm-Bücherei, Band 447. Ziemsen Verlag. ment. In: Bird Population Studies: Their
Wittenberg Lutherstadt. Relevance to Conservation and Management:
373–390. (eds. Perrins, C.M., Lebreton, J.D.
8 Potts, G.R. (1986) The Partridge. Pesticides,
& Hirons, G.J.M.) Oxford University Press.
Predation and Conservation. Collins. London.
Oxford.

9 Szederjei, A., Szederjei, M. & La’szio, S.

19 Carson, R. (1962) Silent Spring. Houghton
(1959) Hasen, Rebhühner, Fasane. Deutscher
Mifflin Company. Oxford.
Bauernverlag. Berlin.
20 Bro, E. & Millot, F. (2013) Bilan de l’étude
10 Kuijper, D.P.J., Oosterveld, E. &
PeGASE sur la perdrix grise. Faune Sauvage,
Wymenga, E. (2009) Decline and potential
298: 17–48.
recovery of the European grey partridge
(Perdix perdix) population – a review. European 21 Ewald, J.A., Wheatley, C.J., Aebischer,
Journal of Wildlife Research, 55: 455–463. N.J., Moreby, S.J., Duffield, S.J., Crick,
91
H.Q.P. & Morecroft, M.B. (2015) Influences
11 Potts, G.R. & Aebischer, N.J. (1995)
of extreme weather, climate and pesticide
Population dynamics of the grey partridge
use on invertebrates in cereal fields over 42
Perdix perdix 1793–1993: monitoring,
years. Global Change Biology, 21: 3931–3950.
modelling and management. Ibis, 137: S29-37.
22 Aebischer, N.J. & Potts, G.R. (1998)
12 Bijlsma, R.G., Hustings, F. &
Spatial changes in grey partridge (Perdix
Camphuysen, C.J. (2001) Algemene en
perdix) distribution in relation to 25 years of
schaarse broedvogels van Nederland. Avifauna
changing agriculture in Sussex, U.K. Gibier
van Nederland, 2. GMB Uitgeverij/KNNV
Faune Sauvage, 15: 293–308.
Uitgeverij. Haarlem/Utrecht.
23 Potts, G.R. (1980) The effects of modern
13 Sovon. (2018) Vogelatlas van Nederland.
agriculture, nest predation and game mana-
Broedvogels, wintervogels en 40 jaar
gement on the population ecology of partridges.
verandering. (Dutch Bird Atlas). Kosmos
Advances in Ecological Research, 11: 1–79.
Uitgevers. Utrecht/Antwerpen.
 REFERENCES

24 Rands, M. (1986) Effect of hedgerow 33 Meriggi, A., Saino, N., Montagna, D. & 43 Bro, E., Reitz, F. & Clobert, J. (2000) Nest- 53 Dover, J.W. (2019) The Ecology of Hedge-
characteristics on partridge breeding Zacchetti, D. (1992) Influence of habitat on site selection of grey partridge (Perdix perdix) rows and Field Margins. Routledge. Abingdon.
densities. Journal of Applied Ecology, density and breeding success of grey and red- on agricultural lands in North-Central France.
23: 479–487. legged partridges. Italian Journal of Zoology, Game and Wildlife Science, 17: 1–16. 54 Kennedy, C.E.J. & Southwood, T.R.E.
59: 289–295. (1984) The number of species of insects
25 Aebischer, N.J. & Ewald, J.A. (2004) 44 Gottschalk, E. & Beeke, W. (2014) How associated with British trees: a re-analysis.
Managing the UK grey partridge Perdix perdix 34 Buner, F.D. & Aebisher, N.J. (2011) Grey can the drastic decline in the grey partridge The Journal of Animal Ecology, 53: 455–478.
recovery: population change, reproduction, partridge winter losses. GWCT Annual Review, (Perdix perdix) be stopped? Lessons from ten
habitat and shooting. Ibis, 146: 181–191. 43: 36–37. years of the Grey Partridge Conservation 55 Dover, J.W. & Sparks, T.H. (2000)
Project in the district of Göttingen. Berichte A review of the ecology of butterflies in
26 Teunissen, W., Roodbergen, M., van den 35 Roodbergen, M. (2013) Het Jaar van de zum Vogelschutz, 51: 95–116. British hedgerows. Journal of Environmental
Bremer, L., Sierdsema, H. & de Jong, A. Patrijs: kennisupdate. Sovon-rapport 2013/12. Management, 60: 51–63.
(2014) Jaar van de Patrijs 2013. Sovon-rapport Nijmegen. (Report in Dutch). 45 Buner, F.D., Jenny, M., Zbinden, N.
2014/26. Nijmegen. (Report in Dutch). & Naef-Daenzer, B. (2005) Ecologically 56 Dunn, J.C., Gruar, D., Stoate, C., Szczur,
36 Aebischer, N.J. & Ewald, J.A. (2012) The enhanced areas - A key habitat structure for J. & Peach, W.J. (2016) Can hedgerow
27 Tapper, S.C. (1999) A Question of Balance grey partridge in the UK: population status, re-introduced grey partridges Perdix perdix. management mitigate the impacts of
- Game Animals and Their Role in the British research, policy and prospects. Animal Biological Conservation, 124: 373–381. predation on songbird nest survival? Journal
Countryside. The Game Conservancy Trust. Biodiversity and Conservation, 35: 353–362. of Environmental Management, 184: 535–544.
Fordingbridge. 46 Aebischer, N.J., Blake, K.A. & Boatman,
37 Sotherton, N.W., Aebischer, N.J. & N.D. (1994) Field margins as habitats for 57 Thomas, S.R., Goulson, D. & Holland,
28 Roos, S., Smart, J., Gibbons, D.W. & Ewald, J.A. (2014) Research into action: game. In: Field Margins: Integrating Agriculture J.M. (2000) The contribution of beetle banks
Wilson, J.D. (2018) A review of predation grey partridge conservation as a case study. and Conservation: 95–104. (ed. Boatman, to farmland biodiversity. Aspects of Applied
as a limiting factor for bird populations in Journal of Applied Ecology, 51: 1–5. N.D.) BCPC Monograph No. 58, British Crop Biology, 58: 31–38.
mesopredator-rich landscapes: A case study Protection Council. Farnham.
of the UK. Biological Reviews: doi:10.1111/ 38 Connor, H.E. & Draycott, R.A.H. (2010) 58 Collins, K.L., Boatman, N.D., Wilcox, A.,
brv.12426 Management strategies to conserve the grey 47 Panek, M. (1997) Density-dependent brood Holland, J.M. & Chaney, K. (2002) Influence
partridge: the effect on other farmland birds. production in the Grey Partridge Perdix perdix in of beetle banks on cereal aphid predation
29 Bro, E., Sarrazin, F., Clobert, J. & Reitz, Aspects of Applied Biology, 100: 359–363. relation to habitat quality. Bird Study, 44: 235–238. in winter wheat. Agriculture, Ecosystems and
F. (2000) Demography and the decline of the Environment, 93: 337–350.
grey partridge Perdix perdix in France. Journal 39 Ewald, J.A., Aebischer, N.J., Moreby, S.J. 48 Aebischer, N.J. & Ewald, J.A. (2010)
of Applied Ecology, 37: 432–448. & Potts, G.R. (2015) Changes in the cereal Grey partridge Perdix perdix in the UK: 59 Tillman, P.G., Smith, H.A. & Holland,
ecosystem on the South Downs of southern recovery status, set-aside and shooting. J.M. (2012) Cover crops and related methods
30 Panek, M. (2005) Demography of grey England, over the past 45 years. Aspects of Ibis, 152: 530–542. for enhancing agricultural biodiversity and
partridges Perdix perdix in Poland in the years Applied Biology, 128: 11–19. conservation biocontrol: successful case
1991-2004: Reasons of population decline. 49 Rantanen, E.M.I., Buner, F., Riordan, studies. In: Biodiversity and Insect Pests:
European Journal of Wildlife Research, 40 Reynolds, J.C., Stoate, C., Brockless, P., Sotherton, N.W. & Macdonald, D.W. Key Issues for Sustainable Management:
51: 14–18. M.H., Aebischer, N.J. & Tapper, S.C. (2010) Habitat preferences and survival in 309–327. (eds. Gurr, G., Wratten, S., Snyder,
(2010) The consequences of predator wildlife reintroductions: an ecological trap W. & Read, D.) Wiley-Blackwell. Oxford.
31 Faragó, S., Dittrich, G., Horváth-Hangya, control for brown hares (Lepus europaeus) in reintroduced grey partridges. Journal of doi:10.1002/9781118231838.ch19
93
K. & Winkler, D. (2012) Twenty years of the on UK farmland. European Journal of Wildlife Applied Ecology, 47: 1357–1364.
grey partridge population in the LAJTA Project Research, 56: 541–549. 60 Thomas, M.B., Wratten, S.D. &
(Western Hungary). Animal Biodiversity and 50 Buner, F.D., Aebisher, N.J. & Brockless, Sotherton, N.W. (1991) Creation of
Conservation, 35: 311–319. 41 Buckley, K., Kelly, P., Kavanagh, B., M.H. (2010) The Rotherfield demonstration ‘island’ habitats in farmland to manipulate
O’Gorman, E.C., Carnus, T. & McMahon, project. GWCT Annual Review, 42: 22–25. populations of beneficial arthropods:
32 Carroll, J.P. (1992) A model of Gray B.J. (2012) Every partridge counts, successful predator densities and emigration. Journal of
Partridge (Perdix perdix) population techniques used in the captive conservation 51 Šálek, M., Kreisinger, J., Sedláček, F. Applied Ecology, 28: 906–917.
dynamics in North Dakota. In: Perdix VI: First breeding programme for wild grey & Albrecht, T. (2009) Corridor vs. hayfield
International Symposium on Partridges, partridge in Ireland. Animal Biodiversity and matrix use by mammalian predators in an 61 Bence, S.L., Stander, K. & Griffiths, M.
Quails and Francolins; Gibier Faune Sauvage: Conservation, 35: 387–393. agricultural landscape. Agriculture, Ecosystems (2003) Habitat characteristics of harvest
9: 337-349. (eds. Birkan, M.G., Potts, G.R., and Environment, 134: 8–13. mouse nests on arable farmland. Agriculture,
Aebischer, N.J. & Dowell, S.D.) Office National 42 Kuijper, D.J.P. (2007) De Patrijs in Ecosystems & Environment, 99: 179–186.
de la Chasse. Paris. Nederland. Oorzaken van achteruitgang en 52 Maudsley, M.J. (2000) A review of the
mogelijkheden voor herstel. A&W-rapport 931. ecology and conservation of hedgerow
Veenwoude. invertebrates in Britain. Journal of
Environmental Management, 60: 65–76.
 REFERENCES

62 Vickery, J., Carter, N. & Fuller, R.J. (2002) 71 Parish, D. & Sotherton, N.W. (2004) 80 Ewald, J.A., Potts, G.R. & Aebischer, 88 Weibel, U. (1999) Effects of wildflower
The potential value of managed cereal field Game crops and threatened farmland N.J. (2012) Restoration of a wild grey strips in an intensively used arable area
margins as foraging habitats for farmland songbirds in Scotland : a step towards halting partridge shoot: a major development in the on skylarks (Alauda arvensis). Swiss Federal
birds in the UK. Agriculture, Ecosystems and population declines? Bird Study, 51: 107–112. Sussex study, UK. Animal Biodiversity and Institute of Technology, Zurich. PhD thesis.
Environment, 89: 41–52. Conservation, 35: 363–369.
72 Stoate, C., Henderson, I. & Parish, D.M. 89 Brickle, N.W., Harper, D.G.C., Aebischer,
63 Aschwanden, J., Holzgang, O. & (2004) Development of an agri-environment 81 Meek, B., Loxton, D., Sparks, T., Pywell, N.J. & Cockayne, S.H. (2000) Effects of
Jenni, L. (2007) Importance of ecological scheme option: seed-bearing crops for R., Pickett, H. & Nowakowski, M. (2002) agricultural intensification on the breeding
compensation areas for small mammals in farmland birds. Ibis, 146: 203–209. The effect of arable field margin composition success of corn buntings Miliaria calandra.
intensively farmed areas. Wildlife Biology, on invertebrate biodiversity. Biological Journal of Applied Ecology, 37: 742–755.
13: 150–158. 73 Henderson, I.G., Vickery, J.A. & Carter, Conservation, 106: 259–271.
N. (2004) The use of winter bird crops by 90 Frank, T. & Nentwig, W. (1995) Ground
64 Hummel, S., Meyer, L., Hackländer, farmland birds in lowland England. Biological 82 Frank, T. (1998) Attractiveness of sown dwelling spiders (Araneae) in sown weed strips
K. & Weber, D. (2017) Activity of potential Conservation, 118: 21–32. weed strips on hoverflies (Syrphidae, Diptera), and adjacent fields. Acta Oecologica,
predators of European hare (Lepus europaeus) butterflies (Rhopalocera, Lepidoptera), wild 16: 179–193.
leverets and ground-nesting birds in 74 Parish, D. & Sotherton, N.W. (2004) bees (Apoidea, Hymenoptera) and thread-
wildflower strips. European Journal of Wildlife Game crops as summer habitat for farmland waisted wasps (Sphecidae, Hymenoptera). 91 Haaland, C., Naisbit, R.E. & Bersier,
Research, 63: 102–115. songbirds in Scotland. Agriculture, Ecosystems Mitteilungen der Schweizerischen Entomo- L.F. (2011) Sown wildflower strips for insect
and Environment: 104: 429–438. logischen Gesellschaft, 71: 11–20. conservation: a review. Insect Conservation and
65 Hallmann, C.A., Sorg, M., Jongejans, Diversity, 4: 60–80.
E., Siepel, H., Hofland, N., Schwan, H., 75 Lemanski, K. (2008) Vergleich der 83 van Alebeek, F. (2015) Duurzaamheids-
Stenmans, W., Müller, A., Sumser, H., Arthropodenzusammensetzung in der effecten van akkerranden. Wetenschappelijke 92 Frank, T. (1997) Species diversity
Hörren, T., Goulson, D. & De Kroon, H. Krautschicht auf Acker, Brache, einjährigen en praktische onderbouwing van duurzaam- of ground beetles (Carabidae) in sown
(2017) More than 75 percent decline over und mehrjährigen Blühstreifen in Hinblick heidsaspecten van akkerranden.Wageningen UR weed strips and adjacent fields. Biological
27 years in total flying insect biomass in auf die Nutzung als Nahrungsgrundlage von - PPO-AGV, 21 pp. Agriculture and Horticulture, 15: 297–307.
protected areas. PLoS ONE, 12: e0185809. Rebhuhnküken (Perdix perdix L.) im Landkreis
Göttingen. Universität Göettingen. 84 Dicks, L.V., Ashpole, J.E., Dänhardt, J., 93 Frank, T. (1999) Density of adult hoverflies
66 Potts, G.R., Ewald, J.A. & Aebischer, James, K., Jönsson, A., Randall, N., Showler, (Dipt., Syrphidae) in sown weed strips and
N.J. (2010) Long term changes in the flora of 76 Maas, D.W. & van der Arend, I.E. (2018) D.A., Smith, R.K., Turpie, S., Williams, adjacent fields. Journal of Applied Entomology,
the cereal ecosystem on the Sussex Downs, Insecten als voedselbron. Insecten- D.R. & Sutherland, W.J. (2018) Farmland 123: 351–355.
England, focusing on the years 1968–2005. onderzoek binnen het Interreg-project Conservation. In: What Works in Conservation:
Journal of Applied Ecology, 47: 215–226. PARTRIDGE. NatureToday bericht 3 juli 2018, 245–284. (eds. Sutherland, W.J., Dicks, L.V., 94 Scheid, B.E. (2010) The role of sown
Insectenexplosie bij PARTRIDGE, met bijlage. Ockendon, N., Petrovan, S.O. & Smith, R.K.) wildflower strips for biological control in
67 Ewald, J.A., Wheatley, C.J., Aebischer, Open Book Publishers. Cambridge, UK. agroeco-systems. University of Göttingen.
N.J., Duffield, S. & Heaver, D. (2016) 77 Ewald, J.A., Aebischer, N.J., Richardson, PhD thesis.
Investigation of the impact of changes in pesticide S.M., Grice, P. V. & Cooke, A.I. (2010) The 85 Briner, T., Nentwig, W. & Airoldi, J.P.
use on invertebrate populations. Natural England effect of agri-environment schemes on grey (2005) Habitat quality of wildflower strips 95 Nentwig, W., Frank, T. & Lethmayer, C.
Commissioned Report, NECR182. York. partridges at the farm level in England. for common voles (Microtus arvalis) and (1998) Sown weed strips: artificial ecological
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, its relevance for agriculture. Agriculture, compensation areas as an important tool
95
68 Rands, M.R.W. (1986) The survival of 138: 55–63. Ecosystems and Environment, 105: 173–179. in conservation biological control. In:
gamebird (Galliformes) chicks in relation to Conservation Biological Control: 133–153. (ed.
pesticide use on cereals. Ibis, 128: 57–64. 78 Rands, M. (1985) Pesticide use on cereals 86 Aschwanden, J. & Buner, F.D. (2006) Barbosa, P.) Academic Press. San Diego.
and the survival of grey partridge chicks: a Ökologische Ausgleichsflächen, Kleinsäuger,
69 Ullrich, K.S. & Edwards, P.J. (1999) The field experiment. Journal of Applied Ecology, Turmfalken Falco tinnunculus und 96 Dover, J.W., Sotherton, N.W. & Gobbett,
colonization of wildflower strips by insects 22: 49–54. Waldohreulen Asio otus. Der Ornithologische K. (1990) Reduced pesticide inputs on
(Heteroptera). In: Heterogeneity in landscape Beobachter, 103: 57–58. cereal field margins: the effects on butterfly
ecology: pattern and scale: Proc 8th annual IALE 79 Sotherton, N.W., Robertson, P.A. & abundance. Ecological Entomology, 15: 17–24.
(UK) conference: 131–138. (eds. Maudsley, M. & Dowell, S.D. (1993) Manipulating pesticide 87 Redhead, J.W., Hinsley, S.A., Beckmann,
Marshall, J.) University of Bristol. use to increase the production of wild B.C., Broughton, R.K. & Pywell, R.F. (2018) 97 Rands, M.R.W. & Sotherton, N.W. (1986)
gamebirds in Britain. In: Quail III: National Effects of agri-environmental habitat provision Pesticide use on cereal crops and changes
70 Ullrich, K.S. (2001) The influence Quail Symposium 92–101. on winter and breeding season abundance in the abundance of butterflies on arable
of wildflower strips on plant and insect of farmland birds. Agriculture, Ecosystems and farmland in England. Biological Conservation,
(Heteroptera) diversity in an arable landscape. Environment, 251: 114–123. 36: 71–82.
ETH Zurich, PhD thesis.
 REFERENCES

98 Dover, J.W. (1997) Conservation 107 Carluer, N., Tournebize, J., Gouy, V., 116 Evans, A. (1997) The importance of 125 Pfiffner, L. & Luka, H. (2000)
headlands: effects on butterfly distribution Margoum, C., Vincent, B. & Gril, J.J. mixed farming for seed-eating birds in the Overwintering of arthropods in soils of arable
and behaviour. Agriculture, Ecosystems and (2011) Role of buffer zones in controlling UK. In: Farming and birds in Europe: 150–177. fields and adjacent semi-natural habitats.
Environment, 63: 31–49. pesticides fluxes to surface waters. Procedia (eds. Pain, D.J. & Pienkowski, M.W.) Academic Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment,
Environmental Sciences, 9: 21–26. Press. London. 78: 215–222.
99 Cowgill, S.E., Wratten, S.D. & Sotherton,
N.W. (1993) The effect of weeds on the 108 Watson, M., Aebischer, N.J. & 117 Watson, M., Aebischer, N.J., Potts, G.R. 126 Pywell, R.F., Shaw, L., Meek, W., Turk,
numbers of hoverfly (Diptera: Syrphidae) Cresswell, W. (2007) Vigilance and fitness in & Ewald, J.A. (2007) The relative effects of A., Shore, R.F. & Nowakowski, M. (2007) Do
adults and the distribution and composition grey partridges Perdix perdix: the effects of raptor predation and shooting on overwinter wild bird seed mixtures benefit other taxa?
of their eggs in winter wheat. Annals of Applied group size and foraging-vigilance trade-offs mortality of grey partridges in the United Aspects of Applied Biology, 81: 69–76.
Biology, 123: 499–515. on predation mortality. Journal of Animal Kingdom. Journal of Applied Ecology,
Ecology, 76: 211–221. 44: 972–982. 127 Siriwardena, G.M., Stevens, D.K.,
100 Tew, T.E., Macdonald, D.W. & Rands, Anderson, G.Q.A., Vickery, J.A., Calbrade,
M.R.W. (1992) Herbicide application affects 109 Reitz, F., Bro, E., Mayot, P. & Migot, 118 Rymešová, D., Šmilauer, P. & Šálek, M. N.A. & Dodd, S. (2007) The effect of
microhabitat use by arable wood mice P. (1999) Influence de l’habitat et de la (2012) Sex- and age-biased mortality in wild supplementary winter seed food on breeding
(Apodemus sylvaticus). Journal of Applied prédation sur la démographie des perdrix Grey Partridge Perdix perdix populations. populations of farmland birds: evidence from
Ecology, 29: 532–539. grises. Bulletin Mensuel de l’Office National de Ibis, 154: 815–824. two large-scale experiments. Journal of Applied
la Chasse, 240: 10–21. Ecology, 44: 920–932.
101 Still, K. & Byfield, A. (2010) Is Environmental 119 Draycott, R.A.H., Woodburn, M.I.A.,
Stewardship working for rare and threatened 110 Holland, J.M., Smith, B.M., Southway, Carroll, J.P. & Sage, R.B. (2005) Effects of 128 Sanchez-Garcia, C., Buner, F.D. &
plants? Aspects of Applied Biology, 100: 279–286. S.E., Birkett, T.C. & Aebischer, N.J. (2008) spring supplementary feeding on population Aebischer, N.J. (2015) Supplementary winter
The effect of crop, cultivation and seed density and breeding success of released food for gamebirds through feeders: which
102 Meyer, S., Wesche, K., Leuschner, addition for birds on surface weed seed pheasants Phasianus colchicus in Britain. species actually benefit? Journal of Wildlife
C., van Elsen, T. & Metzner, J. (2010) A densities in arable crops during winter. Weed Wildlife Biology, 11: 177–182. Management, 79: 832–845.
new conservation strategy for arable plant Research, 48: 503–511.
vegetation in Germany - the project ‘100 120 Hoodless, A.N., Draycott, R.A.H., 129 Stoate, C. & Szczur, J. (2009) Predation,
fields for biodiversity’. Plant Breeding and Seed 111 Siriwardena, G.M., Calbrade, N.A. & Ludiman, M.N. & Robertson, P.A. (1999) winter feeding and songbirds. GWCT Annual
Science, 61: 25–34. Vickery, J.A. (2008) Farmland birds and late Effects of supplementary feeding on Review, 41: 56–57.
winter food: does seed supply fail to meet territoriality, breeding success and survival
103 van Alebeek, F., Visser, A. & van den demand? Ibis, 150: 585–595. of pheasants. Journal of Applied Ecology, 130 Aebischer, N.J., Bailey, C.M., Gibbons,
Broek, R. (2007) Akkerranden als (winter) 36: 147–156. D.W., Morris, A.J., Peach, W.J. & Stoate, C.
schuilplaats voor natuurlijke vijanden. 112 Orlowski, G., Czarnecka, J. & Panek, M. (2016) Twenty years of local farmland bird
Entomologische Berichten, 67: 223–225. (2011) Autumn-winter diet of Grey Partridges 121 Bourdouxhe, L. (2002) Cent quintaux, conservation: the effects of management on
Perdix perdix in winter crops, stubble fields cent perdreaux. Chasse et Nature, 94: 21–24. avian abundance at two UK demonstration
104 Vickery, J.A., Feber, R.E. & Fuller, and fallows. Bird Study, 58: 473–86. sites. Bird Study, 63: 10–30.
R.J. (2009) Arable field margins managed 122 Eraud, C., Cadet, E., Powolny, T., Gaba,
for biodiversity conservation: a review of 113 Draycott, R.A.H., Hoodless, A.N., S., Bretagnolle, F. & Bretagnolle, V. (2015) 131 Stoate, C. (2012) Filling the hungry gap -
food resource provision for farmland birds. Ludiman, M.N. & Robertson, P.A. (1998) Weed seeds, not grain, contribute to the diet late-winter supplementary feeding of farmland
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, Effects of spring feeding on body condition of wintering skylarks in arable farmlands of birds. Conservation Land Management, 10:4–7.
97
133: 1–13. of captive-reared ring-necked pheasants Western France. European Journal of Wildlife
in Great Britain. The Journal of Wildlife Research, 61: 151–161. 132 Meichtry-Stier, K.S., Duplain, J., Lanz,
105 Longley, M. & Sotherton, N.W. Management, 62: 557–563. M., Lugrin, B. & Birrer, S. (2018) The
(1997) Measurements of pesticide spray 123 Moorcroft, D., Whittingham, M.J., importance of size, location, and vegetation
drift deposition into field boundaries 114 Wilson, J.D., Taylor, R. & Muirhead, L.B. Bradbury, R.B. & Wilson, J.D. (2002) The composition of perennial fallows for farmland
and hedgerows: 2. Autumn applications. (1996) Field use by farmland birds in winter: selection of stubble fields by wintering birds. Ecology and Evolution, 8: 9270–9281.
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, an analysis of field type preferences using granivorous birds reflects vegetation cover
16: 173–178. resampling methods. Bird Study, 43: 320–332. and food abundance. Journal of Applied 133 Broggi, M.F. & Willi, G. (1997)
Ecology, 39: 535–547. Abklärung Mindestbedarf von naturnahen
106 Longley, M., Čilgi, T., Jepson, P.C. & 115 Robinson, R.A. & Sutherland, W.J. Ausgleichsflächen in landwirtschaftlichen
Sotherton, N.W. (1997) Measurements of (2002) Post-war changes in arable farming 124 Hammers, M., Müskens, G.J.D.M., van Gunstlagen des liechtensteinischen
pesticide spray drift deposition into field and biodiversity in Great Britain. Journal of Kats, R.J.M., Teunissen, W.A. & Kleijn, D. Alpenrheintals. Berichte der Botanisch-
boundaries and hedgerows: 1. Summer Applied Ecology, 39: 157–176. (2015) Ecological contrasts drive responses Zoologischen Gesellschaft Liechtenstein-Sargans-
applications. Environmental Toxicology and of wintering farmland birds to conservation Werdenberg, 24: 237–302.
Chemistry, 16: 165–172. management. Ecography, 38: 813–821.
 REFERENCES

134 Broggi, M.F. & Schlegel, H. (1990) 142 Pegel, M. (1987) Das Rebhuhn (Perdix 151 Knaus, P., Antoniazza, S., Wechsler, S., 160 Ewald, J.A., Aebischer, N.J. & Brockless,
Minimum requis de surfaces proches de l’état perdix L) im Beziehungsgefuge seiner Um- and Guélat, J., Kéry, M., Sattler, N. & Strebel, M.H. (2009) Grey partridge recovery project:
naturel dans le paysage rural: illustré par Mitweltfaktoren. Arbetskreis Wildbiologie und T. (2018) Schweizer Brutvogelatlas 2013-2016. final update. GWCT Annual Review, 41: 28–29.
l’exemple du plateau Suisse. Zürich. Jagdwissenschaft an der Justus-Liebig-Universitat Verbreitung und Bestandsentwicklung der Vögel
Giessen, 18: 121. in der Schweiz und im Fürstentum Lichtenstein. 161 Buner, F.D., Brockless, M.H. &
135 European Commission. (2013) Regulation Vogelwarte. Sempach. Aebischer, N.J. (2016) The Rotherfield
(EU) No. 1307/2013 of the European 143 Dudzinski, W. (1990) The impact of demonstration project. The GWCT Annual
Parliament and of the Council of 17 December predators on a partridge population in winter. 152 Rickenbach, O., Grüebler, M.U., Review, 48: 32–33.
2013 establishing rules for direct payments In: Transactions of the 19th IUGB Congress, Schaub, M., Koller, A., Naef-Daenzer, B.
to farmers under support schemes within the Trondheim Vol 1: 209–212. (ed. Myrberget, & Schifferli, L. (2011) Exclusion of ground 162 IUCN/SSC. (2013) Guidelines for
framework of the common agricultural policy S.) Norwegian Institute for Nature Research. predators improves Northern Lapwing Reintroductions and Other Conservation
and repealing Council Regulation. Official Trondheim. Vanellus vanellus chick survival. Translocations. Gland, Switzerland.
Journal of the European Union, L 347: 608–670. Ibis, 153: 531–542.
144 Bro, E., Reitz, F., Clobert, J., Migot, 163 IUCN/SSC & World Pheasant
136 Henderson, I.G., Holland, J.M., Storkey, P. & Massot, M. (2001) Diagnosing the 153 Schifferli, L., Rickenbach, O., Koller, Association. (2009) Guidelines for the Re-
J., Lutman, P., Orson, J. & Simper, J. environmental causes of the decline in grey A. & Grüebler, M. (2009) Nest protection introduction of Galliformes for Conservation
(2012) Effects of the proportion and spatial partridge Perdix perdix survival in France. from agriculture and predation to improve Purposes. Gland, Switzerland and Newcastle-
arrangement of un-cropped land on breeding Ibis, 143: 120–132. nest and chick survival of the northern upon-Tyne, UK.
bird abundance in arable rotations. Journal of lapwing Vanellus vanellus in Swiss farmland.
Applied Ecology, 49: 883–891. 145 Neumann, C.W. (1924) Brehms Tierleben Ornithologische Beobachter, 106: 311–326. 164 White, P.J.C., Stoate, C., Szczur, J. &
in Auswahl. Band 5, Vögel 2. Verlag von Philipp Norris, K. (2014) Predator reduction with
137 Cormont, A., Siepel, H., Clement, J., Reclam jun. Leipzig. 154 Malpas, L.R., Kennerley, R.J., Hirons, habitat management can improve songbird
Melman, T.C.P., WallisDeVries, M.F., van G.J.M., Sheldon, R.D., Ausden, M., Gilbert, nest success. Journal of Wildlife Management,
Turnhout, C.A.M., Sparrius, L.B., Reemer, 146 Panek, M. (2002) Space use, nesting J.C. & Smart, J. (2013) The use of predator- 78: 402–412.
M., Biesmeijer, J.C., Berendse, F. & de sites and breeding success of grey partridge exclusion fencing as a management tool im-
Snoo, G.R. (2016) Landscape complexity and (Perdix perdix) in two agricultural management proves the breeding success of waders on 165 Bolton, M., Tyler, G., Smith, K. &
farmland biodiversity: evaluating the CAP systems in western Poland. Game and Wildlife lowland wet grassland. Journal for Nature Bamford, R. (2007) The impact of predator
target on natural elements. Journal for Nature Science, 19: 313–326. Conservation, 21: 37–47. control on lapwing Vanellus vanellus breeding
Conservation, 30: 19–26. success on wet grassland nature reserves.
147 Tapper, S.C., Potts, G.R. & Brockless, 155 Zellweger-Fischer, J., Kéry, M. & Pasinelli, Journal of Applied Ecology, 44: 534–544.
138 Meichtry-Stier, K.S., Jenny, M., M.H. (1996) The effect of an experimental G. (2011) Population trends of brown hares in
Zellweger-Fischer, J. & Birrer, S. (2014) reduction in predation pressure on the Switzerland: the role of land-use and ecological 166 Aebischer, N.J. (1991) Sustainable yields:
Impact of landscape improvement by agri- breeding success and population density of compensation areas. Biological Conservation, gamebirds as a harvestable resource. In:
environment scheme options on densities grey partridges Perdix perdix. The Journal of 144: 1364–1373. Proceedings of the International Conference
of characteristic farmland bird species and Applied Ecology, 33: 965–978. ‘Wise Use as a Conservation Strategy’; Gibier
brown hare (Lepus europaeus). Agriculture, 156 Holzgang, O., Heynen, D. & Kéry, M. (2005) Faune Sauvage: 8: 335–351. (eds. Potts, G.R.,
Ecosystems and Environment, 189: 101–109. 148 Lanz, M., Michler, S. & Duplain, J. Rückkehr des Feldhasen dank ökologischem Lecocq, Y., Swift, J. & Havet, P.) Office National
(2012) Projet de conservation de la perdrix grise Ausgleich? Schriftenreihe der FAL, 56: 150–160. de la Chasse. Paris.
139 Buner, F.D. & Aebischer, N.J. (2008) Perdix perdix dans le canton de Genève. Rapport
99
Guidelines for re-establishing grey partridges final de la phase de project 2007-2012. 157 Petrovan, S.O., Ward, A.I. & 167 Panek, M. (2019) Long-term changes in
through releasing. Game & Wildlife Wheeler, P.M. (2013) Habitat selection chick survival rate and brood size in the grey
Conservation Trust. Fordingbridge. 149 Bro, E., Mayot, P., Corda, E. & Reitz, F. guiding agri-environment schemes for a partridge Perdix perdix in Poland. Bird Study,
(2004) Impact of habitat management on grey farmland specialist, the brown hare. Animal 66/2: 289-292.
140 Roodbergen, M., van der Werf, B. & partridge populations: assessing wildlife cover Conservation, 16: 344–352.
Hötker, H. (2012) Revealing the contributions using a multisite BACI experiment. Journal of 168 Vogelwarte Sempach (2020) https://
of reproduction and survival to the Europe-wide Applied Ecology, 41: 846–857. 158 Draycott, R.A.H. (2012) Restoration www.vogelwarte.ch/en/projects/population-
decline in meadow birds: review and meta- of a sustainable wild grey partridge shoot trends/state-of-birds/grey-partridge-another-
analysis. Journal of Ornithology: 153: 53–74. 150 Homberger, B., Duplain, J., Jenny, M. & in Eastern England. Animal Biodiversity and farmland-bird-has-disappeared
Jenni, L. (2017) Agri-evironmental schemes Conservation, 35: 381–386.
141 Panek, M. (2013) Landscape structure, and active nest protection can increase
predation of red foxes on grey partridges, hatching success of a reintroduced farmland 159 Tapper, S.C., Green, R.E. & Rands,
and their spatial relations. Central European bird species. Landscape and Urban Planning, M.R.W. (1982) Effects of mammalian
Journal of Biology, 8: 1119–1126. 161: 44–51. predators on partridge populations. Mammal
Review, 12: 159–167.
This edition has been made possible by
the North Sea Region Interreg programme,
the Edwin Bouw Foundation, Oakbank
Game & Conservation and Kings Crops.

Written by
Jen Brewin, Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust, UK
Francis Buner, Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust, UK
Julie Ewald, Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust, UK

Edited by
Eckhard Gottschalk, University Göttingen, Germany
Jules Bos, BirdLife, Netherlands
Frans van Alebeek, BirdLife, Netherlands
Thomas Scheppers, Research Institute for Nature and Forest
(INBO), Belgium
Kathleen Vanhuyse, Flemish Hunters Association, Belgium
David Parish, Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust, UK
Nicholas Aebischer, Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust, UK

Illustrations
Anne-Lieke Struijk-Faber, BirdLife, Netherlands

Graphic design
Saiid & Smale, Amsterdam. Alterations for English version:
Chloe Stevens, Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust, UK

PARTRIDGE Steering committee members and supporters

United Kingdom: Natural England, NatureScot, Oakbank Game
& Conservation, Kings Crops. The Netherlands: BoerenNatuur,
Province Noord-Brabant. Belgium: Natuurpunt. Germany:
Staatliche Vogelschutzwarte Niedersachsens, Deutscher Verband
für Landschaftspflege, Deutsche Wildtier Stiftung, Deutscher
Jagdverband, Manfred Hermsen Stiftung, Heinz Sielmann Stiftung,
NABU. France: Association Nationale de Conservation du Petit
Gibier. International: North Sea Region Interreg programme,
Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP), European
Landowners Organisation – Wildlife Estates Label (ELO), European
Federation for Hunting and Conservation (FACE), International
Association of Falconers (IAF).

ISBN number: 978-1-901369-38-0

Reference recommendation: Jen Brewin, Francis Buner and

Julie Ewald (2020). Farming with nature – promoting biodiversity
across Europe through partridge conservation. The Game & Wildlife
Conservation Trust, Fordingbridge, UK
 PARTRIDGE

Printing of this edition was kindly co-sponsored by: