royal portbury dock ecological monitoring 2011 …...royal portbury dock ecological monitoring 2011...

ROYAL PORTBURY DOCK

ECOLOGICAL MONITORING 2011 and 2012

for THE BRISTOL PORT COMPANY

January 2013

© The Landmark Practice 2013

All rights reserved. No part of this document may be produced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording or otherwise without the prior permission of The Landmark Practice.

Landmark Ref: 2378/EC/TBPC

Client: The Bristol Port Company

This document was produced under Landmark contract for The Bristol Port Company

WRITTEN CHECKED AUTHORISED

INITIALS DATE INITIALS DATE INITIALS DATE

PE 23.01.2013 JD 01.02.2013 RNR 04.02.2013

Rev A

Rev B

Rev C

Tel: 0117 923 0455 Fax: 0117 925 3702

The Bristol Port Company Ecological Monitoring Royal Portbury Dock 2011 and 2012

The Landmark Practice Summary

Non-Technical Summary

The main findings from the 2011/2012 ecological monitoring surveys are summarised below.

Flora

The abundance of most floral target species have remained relatively stable since the previous monitoring period with the notable exceptions of grass vetchling and stiff saltmarsh-grass, both of which have displayed rapid increases since 2010. Several other species appear to be no longer present within RPD, including sea barley, slender hare’s-ear and brackish water-crowfoot.

Water Voles

Evidence of water voles was recorded along Drove Rhyne. Presence/absence could not be determined within Vole City, due to the density of vegetation around the water bodies, although for the purposes of management, water vole presence is assumed in these areas.

Pond Conditions

All the ponds within Vole City are becoming inundated with common reed, which hinders ecological surveys. It is recommended that some clearance of these reeds is undertaken (management schedule is provided in Section 5.0 of this report).

Woodland Condition

The area of semi-natural woodland adjacent to the main RPD entrance road was found to contain a range of species including oak, goat willow and alder. The understorey is currently very limited due to overshading from standard trees and browsing by deer. Recommendations for future management are provided in Section 5.0 of this report.

Breeding Birds

The abundance of target bird species within Vole City, Drove Rhyne and the Directors’ Pool has remained relatively stable since the last survey in 2010. This indicates that habitat for breeding birds (in particular scrub and reed habitats) are in healthy condition.

Amphibians

There continues to be an increase in the number of great crested newts recorded within Vole City from 19 individuals in 2009 to 33 individuals in 2011. Once again, no great crested newts were recorded in ponds 4, 5 and 7 and management recommendations are presented to address this.

Invertebrates

The 2012 invertebrate survey season was severely hampered by continuous inclement weather conditions. This meant that even common species were not recorded in the same abundance as previous years. It would, therefore, be irresponsible to derive conclusion or change management prescriptions based on these survey results.


Contents The Landmark Practice

CONTENTS Page

Non-Technical Summary

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 Background 1 Current Monitoring Strategy 1

2.0 METHODS 3 Flora 2012 3 Water Voles 2011 3 Pond Condition 2012 3 Woodland Condition 2012 3 Breeding Birds & Sand Martin Bank 2012 3 Amphibians 2011 4 Invertebrates 2012 4

3.0 RESULTS 5 Flora 2012 5 Water Voles 2011 7 Pond Condition 2012 7 Woodland Condition 2012 8 Breeding Birds & Sand Martin Bank 2012 8 Sand Martin Bank – breeding 10 Amphibians 2011 10 Invertebrates 2012 12

4.0 DISCUSSION 13 Flora 2012 13 Water Voles 2011 14 Pond Condition 2012 14 Woodland Condition 2012 14 Breeding Birds & Sand Martin Bank 2012 14 Amphibians 2011 15 Invertebrates 2012 16

5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 17 Flora 17 Ponds 17 Woodland 18 Other target species 18

REFERENCES 19

FIGURES Figure 1: Location of ponds within Vole City Figure 2a & 2b: Distribution of floral species Figure 3a – 3e: Distribution of target bird species

APPENDICES Appendix 1: Conservation status of recorded

invertebrates


The Landmark Practice Page 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Background

1.1 Ecological monitoring of key species within Royal Portbury Dock (RPD) commenced in 1993 in accordance with the Landscape and Wildlife Masterplan for RPD (Landmark Environmental Consultants Ltd, 1992) and was conducted annually for five years until 1998 when the Masterplan was reviewed. Further monitoring was undertaken five years later in 2003 (Landmark Environmental Consultants Ltd, 2004) to inform the review of the 1998 Masterplan in 2004. Annual monitoring has been undertaken since then, which informed the production of a dedicated Biodiversity Management Plan for the RPD estate in 2011.

1.2 The previous monitoring strategies considered the biodiversity value of the habitats and species within the site and made recommendations for appropriate management and monitoring. Suggested methods were based on monitoring the status of indicator species. These are specially chosen plants and animals that require specific habitat conditions that can provide an early warning of inappropriate management and potentially damaging activities or, conversely, indicate health and vigour of their environment (i.e. where management is appropriate and beneficial).

1.3 A range of species were selected as indicators of management success and habitat condition, according to the following parameters:

• Indicator species should be accessible to monitor without requiring a high time input or specialised equipment;

• Results gathered should be comparable from year to year;

• Species selected should be indicative of a particular habitat or habitats so that fluctuations in their populations broadly reflect the response of the habitat to management;

• As far as possible, the range of species chosen should reflect the desired range of microhabitats within each habitat type.

1.4 In many cases the species chosen are rare or uncommon, since they are species that have particular habitat requirements. Rarity has not been used as a criterion for selection, however, because populations of many rare species are known to appear and disappear for reasons unconnected with the condition of the habitat.

1.5 The latest Management Plan covers the period 2012 - 2016 inclusive and is more specifically focussed on habitats within the RPD estate, which could offer significant benefits to biodiversity. For this reason, the ecological monitoring strategy has changed accordingly, with the current strategy outlined below.

Current Monitoring Strategy

1.6 The indicator species selected for monitoring in the 1998 Masterplan have provided a valuable picture of biodiversity within the RPD Estate. The monitoring strategy described in the 2012 – 2016 Biodiversity Management Plan (The Landmark Practice, 2011) recommends the following changes:


Page 2 The Landmark Practice

• No further monitoring is required of the nest boxes, which have been installed within the RPD estate, although monitoring of the sand martin bank (as detailed in DP003) is being undertaken to inform ongoing maintenance/ management.

• Ponds within Vole City are being monitored to inform management works. The results of the ongoing, biennial, great crested newt (Triturus cristatus) (GCN) surveys will also help to assess the success of pond management.

• Breeding bird surveys are restricted to the areas covered by the 2012 – 2016 Biodiversity Management Plan to inform required changes to the management regime.

• Dragonfly monitoring is no longer required as the assessment of pond condition coupled with GCN and bird surveys will provide a suitable assessment of aquatic quality.

• The condition of the semi-natural broadleaved woodland is being monitored to inform ongoing management.

1.7 The following table illustrates the Monitoring Strategy and surveys undertaken during the 2011/12 period.

Table 1: 2011/12 Ecological Monitoring Strategy

Selected species Year(s) undertaken Action: Monitor selected species of aquatic and terrestrial plants

Brackish water-crowfoot (Ranunculus baudotii) Grass vetchling (Lathyrus nissolia) Sea barley (Hordeum marinum) Sea clover (Trifolium squamosum) Sea rush (Juncus maritimus) Slender hare’s-ear (Bupleurum tenuissimum) Spiked water-milfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) Stiff saltmarsh-grass (Puccinellia rupestris) Incidental sightings of Autumn lady’s-tresses (Spiranthes spiralis)

2012

Action: Monitor water vole (Arvicola amphibius) distribution

2011

Action: Monitor selected species of breeding birds and check condition of artificial sand martin bank

Barn owl (Tyto alba) Cetti’s warbler (Cettia cetti) Kestrel (Falco tinnunculus) Linnet (Carduelis cannabina) Little owl (Athene noctua) Long-eared owl (Asio otus) Reed bunting (Emberiza schoeniclus) Reed warbler (Acrocephalus scirpaceus) Ringed plover (Charadrius hiaticula) Sedge warbler (Acrocephalus schoenobaenus) Short-eared owl (Asio flammeus) Tawny owl (Strix aluco) Common whitethroat (Sylvia communis) Garden warbler Sylvia borin) – woodland only Blackcap (Sylvia atricapilla) – woodland only Chiffchaff (Phylloscopus collybita) – woodland only Wood warbler (Phylloscopus sibilatrix) – woodland only

Breeding birds – 2012 Sand martin bank – 2012

Action: Monitor amphibian populations, including GCN, in ponds within Vole City

2011



Selected species Year(s) undertaken Action: Monitor selected species of invertebrates (and general terrestrial invertebrate monitoring)

General invertebrate surveys also looking for former target species: Four-spotted chaser (Libellula quadrimaculata) Hairy dragonfly (Brachytron pratense) Short-winged conehead (Conocephalus dorsalis) A solitary bee (Hylaeus cornutus) Incidental sightings of long-winged conehead (Conocephalus discolor), a parasitic solitary bee (Sphecodes crassus), and a hoverfly (Volucella zonaria)

2012

Action: Monitor condition and vegetation cover of ponds within Vole City 2012

Action: Monitor condition of semi-natural woodland 2012

1.8 This report presents the findings of the 2011 and 2012 ecological monitoring.

2.0 METHODS

Flora 2012

2.1 The flora survey was undertaken on 25 and 27 June 2012. All accessible areas were surveyed on foot. Locations of target species were plotted onto a site map. Any other plant species of particular note were also recorded.

Water Voles 2011

2.2 All ponds within Vole City were checked for evidence of water vole activity, including actual sightings, burrows, runs, latrines and feeding stations (as detailed in the Water Vole Conservation Handbook, 2006). Due to the extent of watercourses that required surveying, a repeatable sampling methodology was adopted. This involved spot searches for water vole activity at 5 m intervals along the length of each water course.

Pond Condition 2012

2.3 The ponds located within Vole City were surveyed in May 2012 for their general condition, including percentage cover of emergent aquatic vegetation.

Woodland Condition 2012

2.4 The area of semi-natural woodland was surveyed in June 2012. The assessment included identification of standard trees, understorey species and ground flora. Also recorded was percentage canopy cover, evidence of regeneration and browsing/grazing damage.

Breeding Birds & Sand Martin Bank 2012

2.5 The breeding bird survey in 2012 focussed on the key management areas identified in the 2012 – 2016 Biodiversity Management Plan (The Landmark Practice, 2011). These areas are: saltmarsh, Vole City, semi-natural woodland, the ‘area east of the M5’ and the Directors’ Pool (as defined in the Management Plan). Drove Rhyne and the sea wall were also surveyed due to their good quality bird habitat.



2.6 Due to its large size, the site was divided into two for the purpose of the breeding bird surveys. Each half of the site was visited on consecutive days (resulting in paired visits) or two surveyors were used on a single visit. Site visits were made on 27 April, 10/11 May, 24/25 May and 20/21 June 2012. Surveys were carried out between 07.00 and 11.00 hrs in order to record the main song and activity periods. The majority of birds were identified by song or call and periods of bad weather were avoided.

2.7 The condition of the sand martin bank was assessed on 21 June, whilst evidence of breeding/attempted breeding activity (presence of birds, droppings outside tunnels etc.) was surveyed for on 27 April, 10 May, 24 May and 21 June.

Amphibians 2011

2.8 All ponds in Vole City (Figure 1 refers) were surveyed for the presence of amphibians (particularly GCN) between March and the end of May 2011. In total six monitoring surveys comprising bottle trapping and torch searches were undertaken.

2.9 Bottle-traps, made from 2 litre plastic bottles, were secured to the pond beds along the margins by means of sticks. Bottles were angled downwards to allow a reservoir of air to form. Where possible, one bottle per 2 m (approximately) of pond margin was deployed, so that a total of ten bottle traps were deployed in each of the ponds during each trapping night (Pond 7 had 20 traps). The bottle trapping method and designs followed that set out in the Great Crested Newt Mitigation Guidelines (English Nature, 2001) and the Herpetofauna Worker’s Manual (Gibson and Gent, 2003). Traps were set in the evening and retrieved the following morning. Any newts or other wildlife captured were recorded and then released. The bottle-trapping surveys were carried out by suitably licensed surveyors.

2.10 Torch light surveys comprised slowly walking around the perimeter of each pond once checking for great crested newts using a 500,000 candlepower torch. The surveys were undertaken during suitable conditions (i.e. night-time air temperature >5°C, no/little wind and no rain).The surveys were carried out when the minimum temperature was above 5°C, with no/little wind. Due to the presence of water shrew (Neomys fodiens) bottle trapping was suspended part way through the survey season. This is further detailed in the results section of this report.

Invertebrates 2012

2.11 Terrestrial invertebrate samples were taken using a butterfly net and sweep net on 27 July 2012. Beating was used to sample invertebrates visiting hedgerow flowers and foliage, and direct searching was used to record invertebrates on the ground. Where possible, species identifiable in the field were recorded and released. Other specimens were killed with ethyl acetate for subsequent identification, with specimens being identified to species level. A collection of voucher specimens has been retained for the majority of the scarce and local species identified, the exceptions being Lepidoptera and Odonata where field identification was used in all cases.



3.0 RESULTS

Flora 2012

3.1 Figure 2 shows the distribution of the indicator plant species recorded.

Sea clover

3.2 Reasons for monitoring/habitat requirements: requires bare ground and damp conditions within an unimproved grassland sward along the coastline.

3.3 2012 monitoring results: The known population of this nationally and locally scarce species - at the northern end of the Severn Estuary seawall - was found to be in generally good condition although there has been a slight decline since 2010. 34 flower heads on five plants were recorded (as opposed to 45 foreheads on six plants in 2010); a dead plant was also recorded. All records were within a 1.5 m square area approximately 8 m south of the edge of the sea lock. A new location for this species recorded for the first time in 2010 - on the irregular ground forming the seawall on the northern side of Chapel Pill – was not re-found in 2012.

Sea rush

3.4 Reasons for monitoring/habitat requirements: requires tall, undisturbed, upper saltmarsh.

3.5 2012 monitoring results: Showed some change from its 2010 distribution with regard to the loss of a small population formerly recorded at ST4943 7773. A new population (small clump) was, however, recorded at ST49255 77622.

Stiff saltmarsh grass

3.6 Reasons for monitoring/habitat requirements: requires bare ground on upper saltmarsh or close to sea wall.

3.7 2012 monitoring results: Continues to be one of the notable successes of this programme of monitoring. From a very small, apparently relict, population in 2008 it is now present as approximately 480 distinct plants under the Avonmouth Bridge on the interface of bare disturbed ground and sparse upper saltmarsh vegetation. It is likely that vehicle disturbance, either official (e.g. bridge repairs) or unofficial (e.g. motorbike scrambling) have created ideal conditions for this species.

Grass vetchling

3.8 Reasons for monitoring/habitat requirements: requires herb-rich unimproved grasslands; will disappear if grassland becomes excessively tall and rank.

3.9 2012 monitoring results: Was notably more abundant in 2012 compared to data gathered on this species during the 2010 monitoring programme. In 2012 it was present in almost all previously recorded locations and appeared to have expanded in range and population density along the Severn Estuary sea bank. Its range and abundance within Vole City appears to equal that in 2008 - the previous year of abundance. The only location where it appears to have been lost is from the small area of rough grassland at the south-western end of the Avonmouth Bridge.



Sea barley

3.10 Reasons for monitoring/habitat requirements: requires freely drained soil with bare ground and exposure to saline spray, a habitat for several uncommon plant species.

3.11 2012 monitoring results: Was not recorded at any location. The habitat requirements for this annual saltmarsh species – such as pools and other ephemeral water bodies that dry up to leave bare ground in the summer – were notably lacking from the saltmarshes.

Slender hare’s-ear

3.12 Reasons for monitoring/habitat requirements: requires diverse, short, upper saltmarsh with bare ground, a habitat for many plant and invertebrate species.

3.13 2012 monitoring results: Not recorded during the 2012 or 2010 monitoring programmes but recorded on the River Avon saltmarsh on 21 August 2010. During that survey, two locations were recorded for slender hare’s-ear: ST51894 76780 (under the Avonmouth Bridge) and ST51831 76874 (on a damp section of bare track atop part of the low sea bank). The first record was for a single plant whilst the second record was for a group of 12 plants.

Spiked water-milfoil

3.14 Reasons for monitoring/habitat requirements: previously the most widespread submerged water plant at RPD; acts as an indicator of the health of the aquatic habitat.

3.15 2012 monitoring results: The pond where this species was recorded (in 2003) was still inaccessible for survey in 2012 –as it has been since 2008. The status of this species thus remains unknown.

Brackish water-crowfoot

3.16 Reasons for monitoring/habitat requirements: requires brackish water, a unique habitat on which several other species of plant and many specialised invertebrates depend.

3.17 2012 monitoring results: Was not recorded at any location. Dense reed (Phragmites australis) growth continues to be an issue in most of the rhynes, ponds and ditches where this species was once recorded (Vole City) and may have obscured any residual populations. There is also the possibility that the species may be lost from the site.

3.18 Other notable plant species recorded or absent during the 2011 and 2012 surveys:

• Fen bedstraw (Galium uliginosum). It is possible that this plant was previously over-looked and misidentified as marsh bedstraw (Galium palustre). Recorded in 2012 at three locations: 1. Between the sea clover and spiny restharrow populations on the Severn Estuary sea wall; 2. On the northern side of Chapel Pill; here it is found at the base of the bank; and 3. Around the southern end of the pond at ST495771.

• Bithynian vetch (Vicia bithynica). First recorded in 2008 on the rough undulating ground on the northern side of Chapel Pill this species appeared to undergo a range and population reduction in 2010. However the abundance and distribution of this species in 2012 had demonstrated a marked increase in the Chapel Pill area with



particular range extensions to the south-east where it had not previously been recorded.

• Grey club-rush (Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani) was not recorded in 2012. Its sole known station on this site was on the eastern side of a small backwater / pond associated with a field boundary ditch in Vole City. Approximately 30 flowering stems were recorded here in 2010; however, in 2012 this site entirely comprised dense common reed.

• Narrow-leaved bird’s-foot trefoil (Lotus glaber). This species was still widespread along the Severn Estuary sea wall as well as, sporadically, on the upper reaches of the upper saltmarsh here. However its abundance and distribution in this area appeared to be considerably enhanced when compared to the 2010 population levels.

• Spiny restharrow (Ononis spinosa). The abundance and area covered by this species appears to have increased since 2010 when it was recorded as approximately thirty bushes over a 4 m square area just south of the main sea clover population. In 2012 approximately 45 bushes covering a six metre square area were recorded.

• A patch of sea buckthorn (Eleagnus rhamnoides) is spreading, by rhizomes, along the area of sea wall where most of the notable plant species on this side of the estate are located.

• The hare’s-tail (Lagurus ovatus) was not relocated on the sea wall trackway inland of the River Avon saltmarsh where it was recorded in 2008.

• The population of yellow bartsia (Parentucellia viscosa) discovered on this site in 2008 as a large population within rabbit-grazed short turf had been destroyed in 2010 by the creation of a car park and loading bays. Other populations were not recorded on suitable habitat during the 2012 survey.

• Long-bracted sedge (Carex extensa) is abundant along the Severn Estuary upper saltmarsh and to a lesser degree at the foot of the sea wall here; this population has increased markedly since 2012. It is also now common within the upper saltmarsh of Chapel Pill and locally common on the River Avon saltmarsh.

• The sea fern grass (Catapodium rigidum) recorded in 2008 and 2003 was not found within the rough ground on the northern side of Chapel Pill despite a thorough search.

• Approximately 26 spikes of southern marsh orchid (Dactylorhiza praetermissa) were recorded on the southern banks of the pond at ST495771. This is a considerable reduction from the estimated 300 spikes recorded here in 2010.

Water Voles 2011

3.19 The water vole survey within Vole City was constrained due to the overly vegetated nature of the watercourses and water-bodies, which restricted bankside access and obscured many water vole signs. No evidence of water voles was recorded within Vole City and the ditches in this area do not have the steep bank profiles, which water voles favour for burrowing.

3.20 Surveys of Drove Rhyne discovered evidence of water voles, including latrines and feeding remains, among much of its length. The extensive beds of common reed present along part of the rhyne hindered survey efforts and it is, therefore, not possible to estimate a population size based on these results.

Pond Condition 2012

3.21 Figure 1 shows the location and reference numbers of the ponds within Vole City that were subject to a condition assessment.



3.22 The seven ponds included in the survey, are all located within Vole City and are heavily inundated with common reed. Whilst this habitat provides good nesting opportunities for breeding birds (including reed, sedge and Cetti’s warblers), when left uncontrolled, it is detrimental to the long-term quality of the aquatic habitat. Reeds are fast growing and quickly establish dense mats of vegetation. These naturally break down, increasing sediment levels in the pond. Over time, natural succession means that scrub species such as alder and willow become established, changing the pond into a wet scrubby woodland habitat to the detriment of aquatic species.

3.23 Table 2 gives the percentage of open water recorded within each pond, alongside the target breeding bird species recorded during 2012 and recent GCN survey results.

Table 2: Pond condition survey results

Pond Reference

Open Water (%)

GCN recorded since 2005?

Target breeding birds recorded in 2012

1 40 Yes - 2 60 Yes Reed warbler 3 50 Yes - 4 20 No Reed warbler 5 20 No Reed warbler, reed bunting 6 40 Yes - 7 10 No Cetti’s warbler, reed warbler

3.24 Management recommendations, based on these results, are provided in Section 5.0.


3.25 The canopy of semi-natural woodland is composed predominately of oak (Quercus robur) and is fully closed (100% canopy cover). The woodland is low-lying and fairly wet, as evident by the presence of goat willow (Salix caprea), alder (Alnus glutinosa) and soft rush (Juncus effusus). Several other ground flora species were present, including cleavers (Galium aparine), and common nettle (Urtica dioica). Bramble (Rubus fruticosus agg.) is also present. No ancient woodland indicator species were noted.

3.26 The woodland supports a very limited understorey, which comprises mainly goat willow, hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna) and holly (Ilex aquifolium). This understorey is in poor condition resulting mainly from a lack of light due to the closed canopy and also from browsing pressure by roe deer (Capreolus capreolus). Many of the understorey specimens have died, presumably as a result of falling light levels as the canopy closed and any re-growth that is present shows signs of deer damage.


3.27 Figure 3 illustrates the location of where singing males were recorded, indicating the general distribution of the target bird species at the Port.

Cetti’s warbler

3.28 Reasons for monitoring/habitat requirements: a Schedule 1 species under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) subject to additional protection during the



breeding season and, therefore, monitoring of this species would inform the Port’s general operations.

3.29 2012 monitoring results: Five singing birds were considered to be holding territories alongside Drove Rhyne (2) and within Vole City (3).

Sedge warbler

3.30 Reasons for monitoring/habitat requirements: requires reedbed vegetation, one of the key natural habitats for wildlife in RPD.

3.31 2012 monitoring results: The surveys in 2010 recorded a peak count of 17 sedge warblers. A total of 18 breeding bird territories were recorded in 2012, located in Vole City (2), Drove Rhyne (10) and the Directors’ Pool (5).

Reed warbler

3.32 Reasons for monitoring/habitat requirements: requires tall reedbed vegetation, one of the key natural habitats for wildlife in RPD.

3.33 2012 monitoring results: The surveys in 2012 recorded a peak count of 16 reed warblers, located in Vole City (6), Drove Rhyne (4), Directors’ Pool (3) and the area east of the M5 (3).

Common Whitethroat

3.34 Reasons for monitoring/habitat requirements: requires dense scrub for nesting and feeding. This species appears on the Amber list of Birds of Conservation Concern 3.

3.35 2012 monitoring results: a peak count of 22 common whitethroats was recorded in 2012, distributed in Vole City (9), along Drove Rhyne (8) and in the area east of the M5 (5).

Linnet

3.36 Reasons for monitoring/habitat requirements: requires dense scrub for nesting and feeding, and tall herb and grassland for feeding. This species is on the Red List of Birds of Conservation Concern 3.

3.37 2012 monitoring results: linnet was only recorded in 2012 along the sea wall, with a peak count of seven singing males.

Reed bunting

3.38 Reasons for monitoring/habitat requirements: requires dense vegetation on water-logged soils. This species is on the Amber List of Birds of Conservation Concern 3.

3.39 2012 monitoring results: reed buntings were recorded at the Directors’ Pool (2) and in Vole City (2).

3.40 No proof of breeding was noted for any of the above species, but it is presumed that breeding took place for all species.



3.41 Other notable species recorded within the site in 2012 include: blackcap (Sylvia atricapilla), lesser whitethroat (Sylvia curruca), willow warbler (Phylloscopus trochilus), chiffchaff (Phylloscopus collybita), tufted duck (Aythya fuligula) and a single grasshopper warbler (Locustella naevia).

Sand Martin Bank – breeding

3.42 The artificial sand martin bank, installed in early 2012 adjacent to the Directors’ Pool, was not utilised by sand martins during the 2012 breeding season. No evidence was noted of any breeding activity despite records of sand martin being present in the local area.

Sand Martin Bank – condition

3.43 The condition of the artificial sand martin bank was assessed during June 2012 and the following observations were noted:

• The face of the bank was heavily eroded and several of the nesting tubes had fallen out. This is likely to be due to the bank’s recent excavation/construction, coupled with the unseasonably heavy rainfall recorded during 2012.

• A screen of common reed had grown up along the front of the bank, screening it from the Directors’ Pool. This is likely to deter sand martins from nesting, as they require an open vista at the front of the bank.

3.44 Recommendations for ongoing repair and management of the sand martin bank are provided in Section 5.0.

Amphibians 2011

3.45 Table 3 provides the results from the 2011 survey and Figure 1 shows the locations of the ponds.



Table 3: 2011 Great Crested Newt Survey Results

Date Pond 1 Pond 2 Pond 3 Pond 4 Pond 5 Pond 6 Pond 7

21.04.11 22.04.11

No newts caught/seen

8 M GCN 8 F GCN 1 SN

5 M GCN 4 F GCN


2 SN No newts caught/seen

1 SN

27.04.11 28.04.11

1 F GCN 10 SN


3 SN 5 SN 2 SN 1 F GCN 4 SN


05.05.11 06.05.11

6 SN 22 M GCN 6 F GCN

2 M GCN 1 F GCN




11.05.11 No newts caught/seen


1 F GCN 3 SN





5 F GCN 4 SN



1 SN


4 M GCN 7 SN

1 M GCN 2 SN






3.46 During the bottle trapping survey on the 05/06 May 2011, two water shrew mortalities in ponds 2 and 4 triggered a reassessment of the survey technique. Natural England guidelines state that “should water shrews be trapped inadvertently, the licensing authority should be informed and trapping halted”. It was, therefore, decided that subsequent surveys would comprise torching only.

3.47 Torching is considered to be comparable with bottle trapping although, due to the overgrown nature of the ponds in the management area, this method was somewhat restricted.

3.48 GCN were recorded in Ponds 1, 2, 3 and 6, with peak counts of 1, 28, 9 and 2 respectively. Smooth newts were recorded in all ponds.

3.49 Other species noted during the survey include great diving beetle, water boatmen, damselfly larvae, mayfly larvae, water stick insects and a water beetle (Dytiscid albomarginatus).

Invertebrates 2012

3.50 A total of 68 species of invertebrate were recorded during the survey including 12 species with Local distributions.

3.51 Table 4 provides a summary of the number of species and conservation status for each order of invertebrates. A full species list, short notes on the scarce and notable species and a definition of the criteria for the various conservation statuses are provided in Appendix I.

Table 4: Numbers of invertebrate species recorded and conservation status from each taxonomic order

Total Notable A Notable B Local Order

Species Species Species Species Odonata – Dragonflies & Damselflies 4 - - - Orthoptera – Crickets & Grasshoppers 1 - - - Hemiptera – True Bugs 1 - - - Lepidoptera – Butterflies & Moths 12 - - 2 Diptera - Flies 26 - - 5 Hymenoptera – Bees, Wasps & Ants 18 - - 4 Coleoptera – Beetles 6 - - 1

Total 68 - - 12



4.0 DISCUSSION

Flora 2012

Target flora species

4.1 Table 5 below summarises the general trends in the survey results.

Key → stable ? status uncertain ↓ decline ↑ gradual increase ↓↓ significant decline ↑↑ rapid increase ↓↓↓ possibly now absent

Table 5: Floral species trends since 1998

Species Trend since 1998 Trend since 2010 Sea barley ↓↓↓ absent → absent

Sea rush → stable → stable Slender hare’s-ear ↓↓↓ absent (although present nearby) → absent

Grass vetchling ↓↓ significant decline ↑↑ rapid increase Spiked water-milfoil ? status uncertain ? status uncertain Stiff saltmarsh-grass ↑↑ rapid increase ↑↑ rapid increase Brackish water-crowfoot ↓↓↓ absent? → absent?

Sea clover → stable ↓ decline

4.2 The increased population of stiff saltmarsh-grass is likely to be due to vehicle movements under and adjacent to the Avonmouth Bridge over the six months prior to the monitoring.

4.3 The considerable increase in numbers and distribution of narrow-leaved bird’s-foot trefoil, grass vetchling and Bithynian vetch along the Severn Estuary sea wall is notable and potentially linked to climatic variables favouring seed germination of these leguminous species, or a high point of a cyclical regime of expansion and contraction. Equally the localised abundances of grass vetchling in some of the Vole City fields may be due to these variables; the lack of apparent management over any of the sites where grass vetchling occurs, for example, suggest a wider and more general influence prevailing over this species.

4.4 The recording of three small populations of fen bedstraw from the site is most likely to represent a greater degree of survey effort rather than the arrival of a new species onto the site.

4.5 The main population of sea clover has declined by approximately one sixth due to the death of one of the plants. The sea clover plant, new in 2010, from the sea bank on the northern side of Chapel Pill, could have been overlooked during the 2012 survey rather than lost.

4.6 The significant reduction in southern marsh orchid numbers may represent a normal fluctuation typical in orchid spices and largely dependent upon climatic factors.



4.7 The apparent loss of grey club-rush from the Vole City pond may be due to the marked increase in density of common reed within this pond; the club-rush may have been suppressed by reed.

Water Voles 2011

4.8 The 2011 survey was the first year that Landmark has collected data on the distribution of water voles within RPD. The survey shows that water voles are still active on Drove Rhyne (the original release site) and they were recorded in this area by a study undertaken in 2009. Vole City was not surveyed in 2009 and, due to dense bankside vegetation, surveys in 2011 were unable to prove presence or absence of water voles in this area. For the purposes of informing management, it would be prudent to presume the presence of water voles in the water-bodies/watercourses within Vole City as well as along the length of Drove Rhyne.

Pond Condition 2012

4.9 The ponds within Vole City are becoming inundated with common reed. Ponds 4, 5 and 7 have not supported GCN since before 2005 and can possibly now be considered unsuitable for this species due to reed encroachment. The density of reed growth also hindered water vole and floral survey efforts during this monitoring period and, therefore, management works are recommended in Section 5 to address this issue.


4.10 The condition of the woodland has not previously been monitored, so there is no existing data to compare the 2012 results against. It is recommended that the woodland is surveyed every two years and the following data recorded:

• Percentage canopy cover;

• List of standard, understorey and ground floral species; and

• Evidence of browsing/grazing.


4.11 The 2012 breeding bird survey was the first time that monitoring focussed on the key management areas of RPD and, therefore, some of the results are not directly comparable to previous years. In particular, the ‘area east of the M5’, ‘semi-natural woodland’ and ‘sea wall’ were surveyed in 2012 to provide a baseline against which ongoing management works can be assessed.

4.12 The results gathered from Vole City, Drove Rhyne and the Directors’ Pool, can be assessed against the breeding bird data gathered in 2010. Trends in these management areas are shown in Tables 6a – 6c below.



Table 6a: Breeding bird trends – Vole City

Species 2010 2012 Trend Cetti’s warbler 4 3 -1 Reed warbler 3 6 +3 Sedge warbler 1 2 +1 Common whitethroat 6 9 +3 Reed bunting 2 2 -

Table 6b: Breeding bird trends – Drove Rhyne

Species 2010 2012 Trend Cetti’s warbler 3 1 -2 Reed warbler 4 4 - Sedge warbler 6 9 +3 Common whitethroat 6 9 +3

Table 6c: Breeding bird trends – Directors’ Pool

Species 2010 2012 Trend Cetti’s warbler 4 1 -3 Reed warbler 2 3 +1 Sedge warbler 2 5 +3 Reed bunting 0 2 +2

4.13 The results show slight variations in the populations in several species between 2010 and 2012. This is likely to be due to natural population variations. Considering Cetti’s, reed and sedge warblers together, (as they are all indicator species for the same habitat type), there has been an increase in one territory in both Drove Rhyne and the Directors’ Pool, whilst Vole City has seen an increase of three territories. This can potentially be attributed to the increased nesting habitat now available due to the spread of common reeds in this area.

4.14 The lack of evidence of usage of the artificial sand martin bank is disappointing, but not surprising. The structure was constructed shortly before the start of the 2012 breeding season and is likely to require at least two seasons to ‘settle in’ and be discovered by migrating birds.

Amphibians 2011

4.15 Great crested newts were once again recorded in Pond 1 during 2011, having being absent during 2009. Table 7 below compares the peak count and total number of individuals caught during this and previous years’ surveys, and shows that the peak count of great crested newts has increased from 19 individuals in 2009 to 33 individuals in 2011. The results also suggest that Ponds 4, 5 and 7 are not suitable for great crested newts, possibly due to the density of reeds in these water-bodies.



Table 7: Comparison of survey years and total number of great crested newts caught

2005 survey results

2007 survey results

2009 survey results

2011 survey results

Peak count 5 7 19 33 Change to previous year - + 2 + 12 + 14

Total caught during all surveys

9 23 79 99

Population size class Small Small Medium Medium

Pond numbers recorded in 2, 3, 4 1, 2, 3, 6 2, 3, 6 1, 2, 3, 6,

4.16 Caution should be taken with direct comparisons as results may be influenced by

weather conditions at the time of survey and between years. Nevertheless it appears that the great crested newt meta-population in Vole City is gradually increasing.

4.17 Smooth newts were recorded in all ponds (1-7), showing no restriction in distribution since the 2009 surveys.

Invertebrates 2012

4.18 Invertebrate surveys commenced in 2004, with further visits made to the site in 2006 and 2008, though surveying in 2008 was greatly hampered by poor weather. The more general invertebrate monitoring strategy (rather than just focusing on the target species) commenced in 2008 during which a total of 73 invertebrate species was recorded. In 2010, a total of 111 species were recorded, an increase of 38 species, although it likely that this is due to the improved survey conditions. In 2012, only 68 species were recorded, although only a single survey visit was possible due to poor weather conditions.

4.19 None of the target species chosen for monitoring were recorded during the 2012 survey. The reduction in the overall species diversity and lack of records of target species is likely to be due to the abnormally poor climatic conditions encountered during the 2012 survey season. It was noted by the field surveyor that even the abundance of common invertebrate species was also lower than in most previous years.

4.20 Table 8 below shows the results of monitoring the ‘target’ species that were also monitored in previous years.



Table 8: Invertebrate trends since 2006

Species Status 2006 (one visit only)

Status 2008 (one visit only)

Status 2010 Status 2012 (one visit only)

Short-winged conehead → Stable ? Uncertain (not

recorded) → Stable ? Uncertain (not recorded)

Solitary bee - Hylaeus cornutus

? Uncertain / declining (not recorded)

? Uncertain (not recorded)

→/↑ stable /increasing


Parasitic solitary bee Sphecodes crassus





Hoverfly Volucella zonaria





5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 The RPD Biodiversity Management Plan was updated in 2011 and it is, therefore, too soon to notice any significant changes in the site’s overall biodiversity. Taking this into account, recommendations for management changes are limited.

5.2 The following amendments to the management plan are, however, considered appropriate based on analysis of the survey data.

Flora

5.3 To limit further loss of target floral species, the recommendations presented in the 2012 - 2016 Biodiversity Management Plan should be implemented as per the recommended management regime.

Ponds

5.4 To restore open water habitats within the ponds at Vole City and to prevent further decline in these habitats, the following management prescriptions are recommended.

Ponds 1, 2, 3 & 6

• Year 1: remove 50% of the common reeds in each pond during the winter months & remove any scrub species present;

• Year 2: remove the remaining 50% of common reeds in each pond and any scrub species;

• Year 3 onwards: repeat above cycle on annual basis.

Ponds 4, 5 & 7

• Year 1: remove 50% of the common reeds in each pond during the winter months & remove any scrub species present;

• Year 2: remove the remaining 50% of common reeds in each pond and any scrub species;

• Year 3: no management works undertaken;

• Year 4 onwards: repeat above cycle.



5.5 The above management regime should ensure that open water is restored to the ponds and that future reed growth is managed. Ponds 1, 2, 3 & 6 should be cut annually to maintain more open water areas due to the presence of great crested newts in these water-bodies. Given the lack of newt records in ponds 4, 5 & 7, reeds in these ponds should be cut on a longer rotation to provide increased opportunities for nesting birds.

Woodland

Selective Woodland Thinning

5.6 The monitoring has highlighted that the woodland understorey is being restricted by lack of light and pressures of deer browsing. It is recommended that the oaks within the woodland are thinned to provide approximately 50% canopy cover. The trees to be felled should be selected by an ecologist and the presence for protected species considered first. The increase in light levels resulting from this thinning operation should encourage both natural regeneration of understorey tree species and woodland ground flora.

5.7 If no natural regeneration is noted after two years, additional planting of understorey species should be implemented. Understorey species should include a mix of hazel and goat willow depending on ground conditions.

Deer Exclusion

5.8 Evidence of deer browsing was noted and, to protect regenerating woodland trees and ground flora, it is recommended that deer fencing is erected around the perimeter of the woodland. This fencing should be of sufficient height to prevent entry by roe deer.

Other target species

5.9 Considering the abnormal weather conditions that affected surveys undertaken in 2012, it is recommended that no management changes are implemented for breeding birds and invertebrates at the current time (i.e. the management prescriptions detailed in the 2012 - 2016 Biodiversity Management Plan should be followed). The management recommendations provided for the Vole City ponds and the semi-natural woodland should benefit water voles, great crested newts and woodland birds.



REFERENCES

Cheffings C.M. and Farrell L. (Eds) (2005). The Vascular Plant Red Data List for Great Britain. Joint Nature Conservation Committee

Eaton, M.A., Brown, A.F., Noble, D.G., Musgrove, A.J,, Hearn, R., Aebischer, N.J., Gibbons, D.W., Evans, A. and Gregory, R.D. (2009). Birds of Conservation Concern 3: the population status of birds in the United Kingdom, Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. British Birds 102: 296–341

English Nature (2001). Great Crested Newt Mitigation Guidelines. English Nature.

Gent T. and Gibson S (2003). Herpetofauna workers’ Manual. Joint Nature Conservation Committee

Green I.P, Higgins R.J. et al. (2000). The Flora of the Bristol Region. Bristol Regional Environmental Records Centre

Moat, J. (2010). To what extent have the reintroduced water voles at The Royal Portbury Docks dispersed and have they established a successful and stable population since their release? BSc (Hons) dissertation for Geography and Environmental Management at the University of the West of England

Landmark Environmental Consultants Ltd (1992). Landscape and Wildlife Masterplan for the Royal Portbury Dock 1992

Landmark Environmental Consultants Ltd (2005). Royal Portbury Dock Wildlife Management Plan 2005-2009

The Landmark Practice (2010). Royal Portbury Dock Ecological Monitoring 2007 and 2008

The Landmark Practice (2011) 2012 – 2016 Royal Portbury Dock Biodiversity Management Plan

The Landmark Practice (2011). Royal Portbury Dock Ecological Monitoring 2009 and 2010

The Landmark Practice (2011). Bleadon Level farmland 2008-2010 monitoring report


The Landmark Practice Figures

FIGURES

22 J

an 1

3S

:\PR

OJE

CTS

\237

8 - R

PD

201

2, P

E\G

RA

PH

ICS

\237

8 R

PD

201

2

E n v i r o n m e n t a l P l a n n i n g • E I A • L a n d s c a p e A r c h i t e c t u r e • E c o l o g y • D e v e l o p m e n t P l a n n i n g

ROYAL PORTBURY DOCKWILDLIFE MONITORING REPORT

2011 & 2012

FIGURE 1Pond locations and identification

7

5

3

4

2

1

6

1:2,0000 50 100 150 20025

M

pond locations

0 250 500 750 1,000125Meters

7

5

3

4

2

1

6

1:2,0000 50 100 150 20025

M

pond locations

0 250 500 750 1,000125Meters

Pond

Scale: NTS

Rep

rodu

ced

with

the

perm

issi

on o

f the

con

trolle

r of H

er M

ajes

ty’s

Sta

tione

ry O

ffice

. © C

row

n C

opyr

ight

- Li

cenc

e N

o. A

R10

0017

235

7

5

3

4

2

1

6

1:2,0000 50 100 150 20025

M

pond locations

0 250 500 750 1,000125Meters

22 J

an 1

3S

:\PR

OJE

CTS

\237

8 - R

PD

201

2, P

E\G

RA

PH

ICS

\237

8 R

PD

201

2



2011 & 2012

FIGURE 2aDistribution of floral species

1:5,5000 50 100 150 20025

M

Flora 2012

<all other values>

type, Abundance

J mar, a

L niss, a

L niss, s

L niss, v

Orchid, s

P rup, a

V bit, a

0 250 500 750 1,000125Meters

1:5,5000 50 100 150 20025

M

Flora 2012

<all other values>

type, Abundance

J mar, a

L niss, a

L niss, s

L niss, v

Orchid, s

P rup, a

V bit, a

0 250 500 750 1,000125Meters

Sea rush

1:5,5000 50 100 150 20025

M

Flora 2012

<all other values>

type, Abundance

J mar, a

L niss, a

L niss, s

L niss, v

Orchid, s

P rup, a

V bit, a

0 250 500 750 1,000125Meters

Grass vetchling (abundant)

1:5,5000 50 100 150 20025

M

Flora 2012

<all other values>

type, Abundance

J mar, a

L niss, a

L niss, s

L niss, v

Orchid, s

P rup, a

V bit, a

0 250 500 750 1,000125Meters

Grass vetchling (sporadic)

1:5,5000 50 100 150 20025

M

Flora 2012

<all other values>

type, Abundance

J mar, a

L niss, a

L niss, s

L niss, v

Orchid, s

P rup, a

V bit, a

0 250 500 750 1,000125Meters

Grass vetchling (very scarce)

1:5,5000 50 100 150 20025

M

Flora 2012

<all other values>

type, Abundance

J mar, a

L niss, a

L niss, s

L niss, v

Orchid, s

P rup, a

V bit, a

0 250 500 750 1,000125Meters

Southern marsh orchid and Pyramidal orchid

1:5,5000 50 100 150 20025

M

Flora 2012

<all other values>

type, Abundance

J mar, a

L niss, a

L niss, s

L niss, v

Orchid, s

P rup, a

V bit, a

0 250 500 750 1,000125Meters

Bithynian vetch

Scale: NTS

Rep

rodu

ced

with

the

perm

issi

on o

f the

con

trolle

r of H

er M

ajes

ty’s

Sta

tione

ry O

ffice

. © C

row

n C

opyr

ight

- Li

cenc

e N

o. A

R10

0017

235

1:5,5000 50 100 150 20025

M

Flora 2012

<all other values>

type, Abundance

J mar, a

L niss, a

L niss, s

L niss, v

Orchid, s

P rup, a

V bit, a

0 250 500 750 1,000125Meters

22 J

an 1

3S

:\PR

OJE

CTS

\237

8 - R

PD

201

2, P

E\G

RA

PH

ICS

\237

8 R

PD

201

2



2011 & 2012

FIGURE 2bDistribution of floral species

1:2,5000 50 100 150 20025

M

Flora 2012

<all other values>

type, Abundance

J mar, a

L niss, a

L niss, s

L niss, v

Orchid, s

P rup, a

V bit, a

0 250 500 750 1,000125Meters

1:5,5000 50 100 150 20025

M

Flora 2012

<all other values>

type, Abundance

J mar, a

L niss, a

L niss, s

L niss, v

Orchid, s

P rup, a

V bit, a

0 250 500 750 1,000125Meters

Stiff saltmarsh-grass

Scale: NTS

Rep

rodu

ced

with

the

perm

issi

on o

f the

con

trolle

r of H

er M

ajes

ty’s

Sta

tione

ry O

ffice

. © C

row

n C

opyr

ight

- Li

cenc

e N

o. A

R10

0017

235

1:2,5000 50 100 150 20025

M

Flora 2012

<all other values>

type, Abundance

J mar, a

L niss, a

L niss, s

L niss, v

Orchid, s

P rup, a

V bit, a

0 250 500 750 1,000125Meters

22 J

an 1

3S

:\PR

OJE

CTS

\237

8 - R

PD

201

2, P

E\G

RA

PH

ICS

\237

8 R

PD

201

2



2011 & 2012

FIGURE 3aDistribution of target bird species

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!SW

SW

SW

SE

SW

SW

SW

SW

SW

BC

CCBC

BC

BC

RB

RB

WH

RW

RW

RW

RW

CW

CW

SW

RW

WH

1:3,0000 50 100 150 20025

M

Breed_bird _2012

<all other values>

Breeding

! N

! P

! Y

0 250 500 750 1,000125Meters

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!SW

SW

SW

SE

SW

SW

SW

SW

SW

BC

CCBC

BC

BC

RB

RB

WH

RW

RW

RW

RW

CW

CW

SW

RW

WH

1:3,0000 50 100 150 20025

M

Breed_bird _2012

<all other values>

Breeding

! N

! P

! Y

0 250 500 750 1,000125Meters

Confirmed/probable breeding!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!SW

SW

SW

SE

SW

SW

SW

SW

SW

BC

CCBC

BC

BC

RB

RB

WH

RW

RW

RW

RW

CW

CW

SW

RW

WH

1:3,0000 50 100 150 20025

M

Breed_bird _2012

<all other values>

Breeding

! N

! P

! Y

0 250 500 750 1,000125Meters

Possible breeding

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!SW

SW

SW

SE

SW

SW

SW

SW

SW

BC

CCBC

BC

BC

RB

RB

WH

RW

RW

RW

RW

CW

CW

SW

RW

WH

1:3,0000 50 100 150 20025

M

Breed_bird _2012

<all other values>

Breeding

! N

! P

! Y

0 250 500 750 1,000125Meters

Non-breeding

Scale: NTS

Rep

rodu

ced

with

the

perm

issi

on o

f the

con

trolle

r of H

er M

ajes

ty’s

Sta

tione

ry O

ffice

. © C

row

n C

opyr

ight

- Li

cenc

e N

o. A

R10

0017

235

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!SW

SW

SW

SE

SW

SW

SW

SW

SW

BC

CCBC

BC

BC

RB

RB

WH

RW

RW

RW

RW

CW

CW

SW

RW

WH

1:3,0000 50 100 150 20025

M

Breed_bird _2012

<all other values>

Breeding

! N

! P

! Y

0 250 500 750 1,000125Meters

BC - BlackcapCC - ChiffchaffCW - Cetti's warblerLI - LinnetRB - Reed buntingRW - Reed warblerSW - Sedge warblerWH - Common whitethroat

22 J

an 1

3S

:\PR

OJE

CTS

\237

8 - R

PD

201

2, P

E\G

RA

PH

ICS

\237

8 R

PD

201

2



2011 & 2012

FIGURE 3bDistribution of target bird species

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!SW

SW

SW

SW

SWWH

WH

WH

WH

RW

RW

WH

WH

WH

1:3,0000 50 100 150 20025

M

Breed_bird _2012

<all other values>

Breeding

! N

! P

! Y

0 250 500 750 1,000125Meters

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!SW

SW

SW

SE

SW

SW

SW

SW

SW

BC

CCBC

BC

BC

RB

RB

WH

RW

RW

RW

RW

CW

CW

SW

RW

WH

1:3,0000 50 100 150 20025

M

Breed_bird _2012

<all other values>

Breeding

! N

! P

! Y

0 250 500 750 1,000125Meters


!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!SW

SW

SW

SE

SW

SW

SW

SW

SW

BC

CCBC

BC

BC

RB

RB

WH

RW

RW

RW

RW

CW

CW

SW

RW

WH

1:3,0000 50 100 150 20025

M

Breed_bird _2012

<all other values>

Breeding

! N

! P

! Y

0 250 500 750 1,000125Meters

Possible breeding

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!SW

SW

SW

SE

SW

SW

SW

SW

SW

BC

CCBC

BC

BC

RB

RB

WH

RW

RW

RW

RW

CW

CW

SW

RW

WH

1:3,0000 50 100 150 20025

M

Breed_bird _2012

<all other values>

Breeding

! N

! P

! Y

0 250 500 750 1,000125Meters

Non-breeding

Scale: NTS

Rep

rodu

ced

with

the

perm

issi

on o

f the

con

trolle

r of H

er M

ajes

ty’s

Sta

tione

ry O

ffice

. © C

row

n C

opyr

ight

- Li

cenc

e N

o. A

R10

0017

235

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!SW

SW

SW

SW

SWWH

WH

WH

WH

RW

RW

WH

WH

WH

1:3,0000 50 100 150 20025

M

Breed_bird _2012

<all other values>

Breeding

! N

! P

! Y

0 250 500 750 1,000125Meters


22 J

an 1

3S

:\PR

OJE

CTS

\237

8 - R

PD

201

2, P

E\G

RA

PH

ICS

\237

8 R

PD

201

2



2011 & 2012

FIGURE 3cDistribution of target bird species

!!!

!!

!

!!

!

!WH

WH

WH

RW

RW

WH

SW

RWWH

SW

1:3,0000 50 100 150 20025

M

Breed_bird _2012

<all other values>

Breeding

! N

! P

! Y

0 250 500 750 1,000125Meters

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!SW

SW

SW

SE

SW

SW

SW

SW

SW

BC

CCBC

BC

BC

RB

RB

WH

RW

RW

RW

RW

CW

CW

SW

RW

WH

1:3,0000 50 100 150 20025

M

Breed_bird _2012

<all other values>

Breeding

! N

! P

! Y

0 250 500 750 1,000125Meters


!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!SW

SW

SW

SE

SW

SW

SW

SW

SW

BC

CCBC

BC

BC

RB

RB

WH

RW

RW

RW

RW

CW

CW

SW

RW

WH

1:3,0000 50 100 150 20025

M

Breed_bird _2012

<all other values>

Breeding

! N

! P

! Y

0 250 500 750 1,000125Meters

Possible breeding

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!SW

SW

SW

SE

SW

SW

SW

SW

SW

BC

CCBC

BC

BC

RB

RB

WH

RW

RW

RW

RW

CW

CW

SW

RW

WH

1:3,0000 50 100 150 20025

M

Breed_bird _2012

<all other values>

Breeding

! N

! P

! Y

0 250 500 750 1,000125Meters

Non-breeding

Scale: NTS

Rep

rodu

ced

with

the

perm

issi

on o

f the

con

trolle

r of H

er M

ajes

ty’s

Sta

tione

ry O

ffice

. © C

row

n C

opyr

ight

- Li

cenc

e N

o. A

R10

0017

235

!!!

!!

!

!!

!

!WH

WH

WH

RW

RW

WH

SW

RWWH

SW

1:3,0000 50 100 150 20025

M

Breed_bird _2012

<all other values>

Breeding

! N

! P

! Y

0 250 500 750 1,000125Meters


22 J

an 1

3S

:\PR

OJE

CTS

\237

8 - R

PD

201

2, P

E\G

RA

PH

ICS

\237

8 R

PD

201

2



2011 & 2012

FIGURE 3dDistribution of target bird species

!

!

!!!

!

!LI

LI

LILI

LI

LI

1:3,0000 50 100 150 20025

M

Breed_bird _2012

<all other values>

Breeding

! N

! P

! Y

0 250 500 750 1,000125Meters

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!SW

SW

SW

SE

SW

SW

SW

SW

SW

BC

CCBC

BC

BC

RB

RB

WH

RW

RW

RW

RW

CW

CW

SW

RW

WH

1:3,0000 50 100 150 20025

M

Breed_bird _2012

<all other values>

Breeding

! N

! P

! Y

0 250 500 750 1,000125Meters


!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!SW

SW

SW

SE

SW

SW

SW

SW

SW

BC

CCBC

BC

BC

RB

RB

WH

RW

RW

RW

RW

CW

CW

SW

RW

WH

1:3,0000 50 100 150 20025

M

Breed_bird _2012

<all other values>

Breeding

! N

! P

! Y

0 250 500 750 1,000125Meters

Possible breeding

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!SW

SW

SW

SE

SW

SW

SW

SW

SW

BC

CCBC

BC

BC

RB

RB

WH

RW

RW

RW

RW

CW

CW

SW

RW

WH

1:3,0000 50 100 150 20025

M

Breed_bird _2012

<all other values>

Breeding

! N

! P

! Y

0 250 500 750 1,000125Meters

Non-breeding

Scale: NTS

Rep

rodu

ced

with

the

perm

issi

on o

f the

con

trolle

r of H

er M

ajes

ty’s

Sta

tione

ry O

ffice

. © C

row

n C

opyr

ight

- Li

cenc

e N

o. A

R10

0017

235

!

!

!!!

!

!LI

LI

LILI

LI

LI

1:3,0000 50 100 150 20025

M

Breed_bird _2012

<all other values>

Breeding

! N

! P

! Y

0 250 500 750 1,000125Meters


22 J

an 1

3S

:\PR

OJE

CTS

\237

8 - R

PD

201

2, P

E\G

RA

PH

ICS

\237

8 R

PD

201

2



2011 & 2012

FIGURE 3eDistribution of target bird species

!!!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

! !

! !

!

!

!

! !

!SW

SWRB

WH

WH

WH

WHWH

WHWH

RW

RW

RW

CW

CW

WH

WH

RB

RWRW RW CW

1:3,0000 50 100 150 20025

M

Breed_bird _2012

<all other values>

Breeding

! N

! P

! Y

0 250 500 750 1,000125Meters

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!SW

SW

SW

SE

SW

SW

SW

SW

SW

BC

CCBC

BC

BC

RB

RB

WH

RW

RW

RW

RW

CW

CW

SW

RW

WH

1:3,0000 50 100 150 20025

M

Breed_bird _2012

<all other values>

Breeding

! N

! P

! Y

0 250 500 750 1,000125Meters


!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!SW

SW

SW

SE

SW

SW

SW

SW

SW

BC

CCBC

BC

BC

RB

RB

WH

RW

RW

RW

RW

CW

CW

SW

RW

WH

1:3,0000 50 100 150 20025

M

Breed_bird _2012

<all other values>

Breeding

! N

! P

! Y

0 250 500 750 1,000125Meters

Possible breeding

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!SW

SW

SW

SE

SW

SW

SW

SW

SW

BC

CCBC

BC

BC

RB

RB

WH

RW

RW

RW

RW

CW

CW

SW

RW

WH

1:3,0000 50 100 150 20025

M

Breed_bird _2012

<all other values>

Breeding

! N

! P

! Y

0 250 500 750 1,000125Meters

Non-breeding

Scale: NTS

Rep

rodu

ced

with

the

perm

issi

on o

f the

con

trolle

r of H

er M

ajes

ty’s

Sta

tione

ry O

ffice

. © C

row

n C

opyr

ight

- Li

cenc

e N

o. A

R10

0017

235

!!!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

! !

! !

!

!

!

! !

!SW

SWRB

WH

WH

WH

WHWH

WHWH

RW

RW

RW

CW

CW

WH

WH

RB

RWRW RW CW

1:3,0000 50 100 150 20025

M

Breed_bird _2012

<all other values>

Breeding

! N

! P

! Y

0 250 500 750 1,000125Meters



The Landmark Practice Appendix 1

APPENDIX 1

INVERTEBRATE SPECIES LIST AND CONSERVATION STATUS


Appendix I The Landmark Practice

APPENDIX I: INVERTEBRATE SPECIES LIST AND CONSERVATION STATUS

Invertebrate Species List

The invertebrate species recorded from the survey are listed below. The current conservation status for each species is shown, further details for each of the Notable and Local species are provided in the Species Notes section of the report.

Odonata

Aeshnidae

Aeshna cyanea Southern Hawker Common

Coenagriidae

Enallagma cyathigerum Common Blue Damselfly Common

Ischnura elegans Blue-tailed Damselfly Common

Libellulidae

Sympetrum striolatum Common Darter Common

Orthoptera

Acrididae

Chorthippus brunneus Common Field Grasshopper Common

Chorthippus parallelus Meadow Grasshopper Common

Omocestus viridulus Common Green Grasshopper Common

Tettigoniidae

Conocephalus dorsalis Long-winged Conehead Notable A

Leptophyes punctatissima Speckled Bush-cricket Common

Dermaptera

Forficulidae

Forficula auricularia Common Earwig Common

Hemiptera

Aphrophoridae

Philaenus spumarius Cuckoo-spit Insect Common

Miridae

Calocoris norvegicus Common

Leptopterna dolabrata Common

Nabidae

Nabicula limbata Marsh Damselbug Common

Pentatomidae

Dolycoris baccarum Sloe Bug Common


The Landmark Practice Appendix I

Lepidoptera

Arctiidae

Tyria jacobaeae The Cinnabar Common

Hesperiidae

Thymelicus sylvestris Small Skipper Common

Lycaenidae

Celastrina argiolus Holly Blue Local

Lycaena phlaeas Small Copper Common

Polyommatus icarus Common Blue Common

Nymphalidae

Aglais urticae Small Tortoiseshell Common

Inachis io Peacock Common

Polygonia c-album Comma Common

Vanessa atalanta Red Admiral Migrant

Pieridae

Pieris brassicae Large White Common

Pieris rapae Small White Common

Satyridae

Maniola jurtina Meadow Brown Common

Melanargia galathea Marbled White Local

Pararge aegeria Speckled Wood Common

Pyronia tithonus Gatekeeper Common

Zygaenidae

Zygaena filipendulae Six-spot Burnet Moth Common

Diptera

Calliphoridae

Lucilia caesar Greenbottle Common

Conopidae

Sicus ferrugineus Local

Muscidae

Graphomya maculata Common

Sarcophagidae

Sarcophaga carnaria Common

Stratiomyidae

Chloromyia formosa Common

Syrphidae

Cheilosia illustrata Common



Cheilosia proxima Common

Cheilosia soror Notable B

Chrysogaster solstitialis Common

Chrysotoxum bicinctum Local

Episyrphus balteatus Common

Eristalis abusivus Local

Eristalis arbustorum Common

Eristalis horticola Common

Eristalis interruptus Common

Eristalis intricarius Common

Eristalis tenax Drone Fly Common

Eupeodes corollae Common

Helophilus pendulus Common

Helophilus trivittatus Local

Leucozona glaucia Local

Melangyna compositarum/labiatarum

Merodon equestris Greater Bulb-fly Common

Myathropa florea Common

Pipiza noctiluca Local

Riponnensia splendens Local

S caeva pyrastri Common

Sphaerophoria scripta Common

Sphaerophoria interrupta Local

Syritta pipiens Common

Syrphus vitripennis Common

Volucella inanis Notable B

Volucella pellucens Common

Xanthogramma pedissequum Local

Tabanidae

Haematopota pluvialis Common Cleg Common

Tachinidae

Eurithia anthophila Common

Pales pavida Common

Phryxe vulgaris Common

Siphona geniculata Common

Tachina fera Common

Tipulidae

Tipula paludosa Common



Hymenoptera

Andrenidae

Andrena flavipes Yellow Legged Mining Bee Local

Andrena minutula Common

Andrena trimmerana Trimmer's Mining Bee Notable B

Apidae

Bombus hortorum Small Garden Bumblebee Common

Bombus humilis Brown-banded Carder-bee Local

Bombus lapidarius Large Red-tailed Bumblebee Common

Bombus lucorum White-tailed Bumblebee Common

Bombus pascuorum Common Carder Bee Common

Bombus pratorum Early-nesting Bumblebee Common

Bombus sylvestris Four Coloured Cuckoo Bee Common

Bombus terrestris Buff-tailed Bumblebee Common

Bombus vestalis Vestal Cuckoo Bee Common

Colletidae

Colletes fodiens Common

Hylaeus annularis Local

Hylaeus communis Common Yellow Face Bee Local

Hylaeus cornutus Notable A

Eumenidae

Ancistrocerus nigricornis Local

Ancistrocerus parietum Wall Mason Wasp Common

Symmorphus gracilis Local

Formicidae

Lasius niger Black Ant Common

Halictidae

Lasioglossum calceatum Slender Mining Bee Common

Lasioglossum morio Brassy Mining Bee Common

Megachilidae

Megachile ligniseca Wood-carving Leaf-cutter Bee Common

Pompilidae

Anoplius caviventris Notable B

Sphecidae

Ectemnius continuus Common

Passaloecus gracilis Common

Trypoxylon attenuatum Common



Vespidae

Vespula germanica German Wasp Common

Vespula vulgaris Common Wasp Common

Coleoptera

Cantharidae

Cantharis nigra Common

Rhagonycha fulva Red soldier beetle Common

Carabidae

Harpalus rufipes Strawberry Seed Beetle Common

Cerambycidae

Strangalia quadrifasciata Local

Coccinellidae

Adalia bipunctata Two-spot Ladybird Common

Coccinella 7-punctata Seven-spot Ladybird Common

Harmonia axyridis Harlequin Ladybird Naturalised

Propylea 14-punctata 14-spot Ladybird Common

Oedemeridae

Oedemera lurida Local

Oedemera nobilis Common



Notes for rare or notable invertebrate species.

Short notes for the Notable, Local and UK BAP species recorded from the survey are given below. Species are listed alphabetically within each order.

Orthoptera – Crickets & Grasshoppers

Conocephalus dorsalis. Notable A. Short-winged Conehead. A small brown and green bush cricket found amongst rushes, sedges and reeds. Particularly frequent in coastal areas and often found in the vicinity of saltmarshes. Largely southern and eastern in distribution and has been extending its range inland in recent years.

Lepidoptera – Butterflies & Moths

Celastrina argiolus. Local. The Holly Blue. A small powder blue butterfly with two generations per year. The spring brood usually lay on holly, the summer brood on ivy. This butterfly is known to go through periodic fluctuations in abundance. Found throughout southern Britain.

Melanargia galathea. Local. The Marbled White. A chequered black and white butterfly whose larvae feed on a variety of grasses, with long grass areas being essential.

Tyria jacobaeae. BAP Species. The Cinnabar Moth. A black and red moth, widespread throughout much of England and Wales, rather local and mainly coastal in the southern half of Scotland. The orange and black caterpillars feed on Ragwort (Senecio sp, especially S.jacobaea).

Diptera – Flies

Cheilosia soror. Notable B. A scarce hoverfly strongly associated with chalk and limestone areas, where it is often found visiting umbels in glades of woods. It has been reported to breed in truffles. Mainly recorded from southern England south of a line from the Severn Estuary to the Wash.

Chrysotoxum bicinctum. Local. A distinctive, medium sized, black and yellow hoverfly with strongly clouded wings. Found in grassy situations, usually in sheltered places near trees and scrub. Larvae may be predatory on root aphids or occur in ants nests.

Eristalis abusivus. Local. A hoverfly most often found in coastal districts, especially where marshland habitat is available. Larvae have been recorded from the mud at the edge of a pond.

Helophilus trivittatus. Local. A large black and yellow hoverfly with aquatic larvae, usually encountered as a single individual. Most often recorded by grassy ponds in meadows and by ditches on coastal flats but with records from across England. Widespread but uncommon.

Leucozona glaucia. Local. A hoverfly associated with woodlands, the larvae feeding on aphids in the ground layer. Widely distributed in wooded areas throughout Britain, though very uncommon in eastern England.

Pipiza noctiluca. Local. A widespread hoverfly which occurs in several forms. It is frequently found along woodland edges and hedgerows. The larvae are predatory on aphids.

Riponnensia splendens ( = Orthonevra splendens). Local. An iridescent green hoverfly found in wet meadows, marshes and fens. Most common in the south, though its range extends into Scotland. The larvae are be semi-aquatic and are reported to occur in organically rich mud by ponds and streams in woods. The adults are particularly fond of umbels growing in sheltered places.



Sicus ferrugineus. Local. A medium sized reddish-brown Conopid fly whose larvae are solitary internal parasites of bumblebees (Bombus sp.). Widely distributed in the UK but uncommon.

Sphaerophoria interrupta. Local. A small black and yellow hoverfly. Widely but infrequently recorded from across the UK. Adults are most often recorded from damp grassland, but it has been found on chalk grassland and coastal dunes.

Volucella inanis. Notable B. A large black and yellow hoverfly. The larvae are commensal in the nests of social wasps, particularly Vespula germanica and the Hornet, Vespa crabro. Confined to southern England and most frequently recorded in the Greater London area, though there are indications that the species is extending its range at present.

Xanthogramma pedissequum. Local. A distinctive black and yellow hoverfly. Scarce but widespread in grassland and in open woodland rides, especially where the turf is short and some bare ground is present. Larvae may be predatory on root aphids.

Hymenoptera – Bees, Wasps & Ants

Ancistrocerus nigricornis. Local. A large black and yellow solitary wasp nesting in a variety of pre-existing cavities of many kinds. Nest cells are stocked with caterpillars, particularly of tortricid moths, and occasionally chrysomelid beetles. Widespread and common in southern Britain north to Yorks, but much scarcer and more local in the northern part of its range.

Andrena flavipes. Local. A large, conspicuously banded solitary bee nesting in large compact colonies. Widely distributed but very local throughout southern England and Wales but becoming rare in the north.

Andrena trimmerana. Notable B. A large, double-brooded solitary bee. The spring brood forage at Sallow (Salix) and Blackthorn (Prunus spinosa), the second brood at a range of plants including thistles and Rubus. Widely recorded from England from a variety of habitats, this species is very local and has declined over much of its range, particularly on inland sites. There are records for this species from a total of about 75 post-1960 localities.

Anoplius caviventris. Notable B. A black spider-hunting wasp. Found in bushy places, particularly riversides and reed marsh. It stores Clubionid spiders in serial cells in hollow stems (eg. of Phragmites). This species has a very local distribution across southern Britain.

Bombus humilis. Local. Brown Banded Carder Bee. An uncommon bumblebee whose range has declined markedly in the UK in recent decades. Nesting occurs on the surface of the ground, most modern populations are found on areas of coastal grassland. A BAP species, nowadays mostly recorded from coastal areas in southern England and Wales.

Hylaeus annularis. Local. A small yellow-faced bee nesting in hollow stems and twigs. Adults forage at a range of plants and are on the wing in early and mid-summer.

Hylaeus communis. Local. A minute yellow faced solitary bee. Females nest in dead stems of bramble and dock and are often found foraging at bramble.

Hylaeus cornutus. Notable A. A Small black solitary bee collecting pollen from a range of flowers. Females are unusual in that the collected pollen is carried back to the nest on the lower part of the face. Nests in the dead stems of herbaceous plants.

Symmorphus gracilis. Local. A small black and yellow mason wasp, nesting in existing cavities such as plant stems and old beetle borings in wood. It stocks its nest cells with the larvae of the Local leaf beetle Chrysomela populi and the weevil Cionus hortulanus. Widespread but local in the southern half of Britain.



Coleoptera – Beetles

Oedemera lurida. Local. An elongate, dull metallic-green beetle. The larvae develop in plant stems and the adults frequent flowers, particularly hawthorn and umbellifers. Widely distributed and can be locally common in the south of England.

Strangalia quadrifasciata. Local. A large, conspicuous, black and yellow longhorn beetle. The larvae feed in the stumps and logs of deciduous trees, particularly birch. Adults are most often encountered on hawthorn or umbel flowers. Widespread but local.



RED DATA BOOK STATUS CATEGORY DEFINITIONS AND CRITERIA.

The methodology used for the selection of species for inclusion in various Red Data Book categories are based on criteria developed by the IUCN. In the UK, these follow the examples of Shirt (1987) and Hyman & Parsons (1992). Criteria for the selection of Nationally Notable species generally follow Eversham (1983). For the purposes of site evaluation for the selection of SSSIs, the term Nationally Notable is replaced by the term Nationally Scarce, but the selection criteria remain unchanged. These criteria have been superseded by the 1994 revisions to the IUCN system but are still used for species or groups of species where a review of the status has yet to be carried out using the new criteria.

Red Data Book Category 1. RDB I - ENDANGERED

Definition. Taxa in danger of extinction in Great Britain and whose survival is unlikely if casual factors continue operating.

Included are taxa whose numbers have been reduced to a critical level or whose habitats have been so dramatically reduced that they are deemed to be in immediate danger of extinction. Also included are some taxa that are possibly extinct.

Criteria. Species which are known or believed to occur as only a single population within one 10km square of the National Grid.

Species which only occur in habitats known to be especially vulnerable.

Species which have shown a rapid or continuous decline over the last twenty years and are now estimated to exist in five or fewer 10km squares.

Species which are possibly extinct but have been recorded this century and if rediscovered would need protection.

Red Data Book Category 2. RDB 2 - VULNERABLE

Definition. Taxa believed likely to move into the Endangered category in the near future if the casual factors continue operating.

Included are taxa of which most or all of the populations are decreasing because of over-exploitation, extensive destruction of habitat or other environmental disturbance; taxa with populations that have been seriously depleted and whose ultimate security is not yet assured; taxa with populations that are still abundant but are under threat from serious adverse factors throughout their range.

Criteria. Species declining throughout their range or whose populations are low.

Species in vulnerable habitats.

Red Data Book Category 3. RDB3 - RARE

Definition. Taxa with small populations that are not at present Endangered or Vulnerable, but are at risk.

These taxa are usually localised within restricted geographical areas or habitats or are thinly scattered over a more extensive range.

Criteria. Species which exist in only fifteen or fewer 10km squares.



Red Data Book Category K. RDB K - INSUFFICIENTLY KNOWN

Definition. Taxa that are suspected but not definitely known to belong to any of the above categories because of lack of information.

Criteria. Taxa recently discovered or recognised in Britain which may prove to belong to be more widespread in the future (although some recent discoveries may be placed in other categories if the group to which they belong is though not to be under-recorded.)

Taxa with very few or perhaps only a single known locality, but which belong to poorly recorded or taxonomically difficult groups.

Species with very few or perhaps only a single known locality, inhabiting inaccessible or infrequently sampled but widespread habitats. Examples include some northern moorland species, ones associated with agricultural situations and ones which are adult only during the winter.

Species with very few or perhaps only a single known locality and of questionable native status, but not clearly falling into the category of recent colonists, vagrant or introduction,

Nationally Scarce (Notable) Category A. Na - Notable A

Definition. Taxa which do not fall within RDB categories but which are none-the-less uncommon in Great Britain and thought to occur in 30 or fewer 10km squares of the National Grid.

Nationally Scarce (Notable) Category B. Nb - Notable B

Definition. Taxa which do not fall within RDB categories but which are none-the-less uncommon in Great Britain and thought to occur in between 31 and 100 10km squares of the National Grid.

Local

The term local is not rigidly defined, but loosely means species confined to a particular habitat type (usually associated with better quality examples of that habitat), a particular geographic area, or species that are too widespread to warrant Nationally Scarce (Notable) status but are nevertheless infrequently encountered.

Common

Common or very widespread species, frequently recorded. Abstracted from Shirt (1987), Hyman & Parsons (1992) & Key (1994).



References & Key Works

Atty, D.B. 1983. Coleoptera of Gloucestershire. Cheltenham, D.B. Atty

Ball, S.G. 1996 RECORDER 3.22 - An Environmental Recording Package for Local Record Centres. Peterborough, Joint Nature Conservation Committee

Ball, S.G. & Morriss, R.K.A. 2000. Provisional atlas of British hoverflies (Diptera, Syrphidae). Huntingdon, Biological Records Centre

Belshaw, R. 1993. Tachinid Flies, Diptera: Tachinidae. Handbooks for the Identification of British Insects. Vol 6, Part 3 (c). London, Royal Entomological Society

Bolton, B. & Collingwood, C.A. 1975. Hymenoptera: Formicidae. Handbooks for the Identification of British Insects. Vol 10, Part 4a(i). London, Royal Entomological Society

Duff, A. 1993. Beetles of Somerset. Taunton, Somerset Archaelogical & Natural History Society

Edington, J.M. & Hildrew, A.G. 1995. Caseless Caddis Larvae of the British Isles. Ambleside, Freshwater Biological Association, Scientific Publication No 53

Edwards, R. [Ed.] 1997. Provisional atlas of the Aculeate Hymenoptera of Britain and Ireland. Part 1. Bees, Wasps and Ants Recording Society. Huntingdon, Biological Records Centre

Else, G.R. 1994. Social Wasps. British Wildlife, 5: 304-311

Evans, M. & Edmondson, R. 2005. A Photographic Guide to the Shieldbugs and Squashbugs of the British Isles. WGUK

Eversham, B. 1983. Defining Rare and Notable species - a discussion document. Peterborough, Nature Conservancy Council, Invertebrate Site Register report No. 49, unpublished. (CSD report No. 481)

Haes, E.C.M. & Harding, P.T. 1997. Atlas of grasshoppers, crickets and allied insects in Britain and Ireland. London, The Stationery Office

Hawkins, R.D. 2003. Shieldbugs of Surrey. Pirbright, Surrey Wildlife Trust

Key, R. 1994. Species Conservation Handbook. Peterborough, English Nature

Lomholdt, O. 1984. The Sphecidae (Hymenoptera) of Fennoscandia and Denmark: Fauna Entomologica Scandinavica, Vol 4, 2nd ed. Leiden & Copenhagen, E. J. Brill/Scandinavian Science Press

Luff, M.L. 2007. The Carabidae (ground beetles) of Britain and Ireland. 2nd ed. Handbooks for the Identification of British insects. Vol 4, Part 2. London, Royal Entomological Society

Shirt, D.B. [Ed.] 1987. British Red Data Books: 2. Insects. Peterborough, Nature Conservancy Council.

Stubbs, A.E & Falk, S.J. 2002. British Hoverflies, 2nd Edition. Hurst, British Entomological & Natural History Society

Yeo, P.F. & Corbet, S.A. 1995. Solitary Wasps: (Naturalists Handbooks 3). Second edition, revised. Slough, Richmond Publishing

royal portbury dock ecological monitoring 2011 …...royal portbury dock ecological monitoring 2011...

Documents