No. 8 April 2000

Worcestershire Record No. 8 April 2000 p. 8-10

Hopping Mad – An Identification Guide to the Orthoptera of Worcestershire

By Gary Farmer

Identifying Grasshoppers and their allies is relatively easy compared with other groups of Invertebrates. They are a small group and with a little practice all can be recognised in the field without the need for complicated keys. But the unique thing with Orthoptera is that all (except the Groundhoppers) can be identified by their songs. The problem with this is that the high frequencies used by these Insects becomes inaudible to us as our hearing deteriorates with age. The answer comes in the form of high frequency analysers (Bat Detectors). These have been used very successfully in other counties to increase the number of records for distribution maps. A book recently been produced by the Surrey Wildlife Trust (The Grasshoppers and Crickets of Surrey would you believe) deals with the use of Bat Detectors in some detail and is a very good read. There is also an audio tape of British Orthoptera song available from Harley Books. This is very useful for anyone wishing to learn the songs and if you have trouble hearing the high frequencies then just point your Bat Detector at the hi-fi speakers – apparently this really works. I should be interested to hear from anyone who has tried to identify Orthoptera using a Bat Detector or is willing to bring one along to a field meeting in the Summer.

Meanwhile I shall concentrate on identifying Grasshoppers and Crickets by sight.

Editor’s update: Gary has recently bought a modified bat detector and has now discovered how much his hearing has lost its high frequency response, but he is also finding many more grasshoppers.

General Identification

(see figs 1 & 2)

All Orthopteroid Insects have well developed hind legs for jumping, long antennae (1) and a pronotum (a hard shell covering at least the thorax) (2). The length of the wings (5) is an important identification feature as is the shape of the ovipositor (4) of female Crickets and the shape and length of the Cerci (3) of males. Grasshoppers have short cerci (8), females have ovipositor valves (9) quite different to Crickets and males have sub-genital plates (7). The young or nymphs are miniature versions of the adults and Crickets in particular can be identified at any stage. Always take care when catching and handling specimens as they damage very easily. I find small, clear perspex boxes to be ideal as this avoids handling the Insect at all (make sure that the long antennae of the Crickets fit in). There follows a short description of each of the species. I have deliberately used common names to try to broaden the appeal of this fascinating group of Invertebrates, and make no apologies for doing so.

References

BALDOCK, DW 1999 Grasshoppers and Crickets of Surrey. Surrey Wildlife Trust. (Available from Surrey Wildlife Trust, School Lane, Pirbright, Woking, Surrey, GU24 0JN)
BURTON, J & RAGGE DR 1987. A Sound Guide To The Grasshoppers and Allied Insects of Great Britain and Ireland. Tape cassette. Harley Books.
FARMER, G 1999 New orthopteran for Worcestershire – short-winged conehead. Worcestershire Record No.7, page 13.
FARMER, G 1999 The other orthoptera (grasshoppers and crickets) of Worcestershire. Worcestershire Record No 7, pages 13-14

Crickets

Crickets have very long, fine antennae (much longer than body). They ‘sing’ by rubbing their wings together (except the Oak Bush-cricket which ‘tap-dances’ on a leaf). Crickets are omnivorous, feeding on small Invertebrates and herbage. Females have sword-like (fig. 1) or pin-like (fig. 8) ovipositors.

fig1 fig2

Figure 1

Figure 2

Of the eight species of Cricket recorded in Worcestershire, four are very unlikely to be found so I have left three outside of the key – Mole, Wood and House Crickets (the fourth – Great Green Bush-cricket – has been included). Two others included – Long-winged Conehead and Roesel’s Bush-cricket have not been recorded in Worcestershire but their ranges are expanding rapidly and will hopefully soon be with us.

Mole Cricket (Gryllotalpa gryllotalpa)

Nearly 50mm in length. Unlike any other Insect. Hind legs and antennae somewhat reduced compared with other Crickets, front legs enlarged and flattened for digging.
fig8

Figure 8
Wood Cricket (Nemobius sylvestris)

Small (approx. 10mm), dark brown. Wings not longer than half abdomen. Pin-like Ovipositor and long, straight cerci (fig. 8). Found under leaf litter. Not likely to occur in the county any longer.

House Cricket

Pale brown (upto 20mm). Wings as long as body. Pin-like ovipositor and long cerci (fig. 8). Found in heated buildings.(Acheta domesticus)

Great Green Bush-cricket (Tettigonia viridissima)

Very large (upto 50mm) green Cricket. Wings much longer than body. Female’s ovipositor long and straight, sword-like. Short cerci.
fig3

Figure 3

Oak Bush-cricket (Meconema thalassinum)

Pale green Cricket upto 20mm long. Females have slightly upturned ovipositor. Males have distinctively curved cerci (fig. 3).

Dark Bush-cricket (Pholidoptera griseoaptera)

Robust, medium sized Cricket to 20mm in length. Various shades of brown with yellow/green underside. Wings very short or absent. Nymphs have pale back and resemble ‘wolf’ spiders.

Roesel’s Bush-cricket (Metrioptera roeselii)

Similar to Dark Bush-cricket but easily identified by yellow spots along the side of the body behind the pronotum. A yellow ‘U’ around the edge of the pronotum is another identification feature.

Long-winged Conehead (Conocephalus discolor)

A slender cricket about 20mm long. Usually green with brown dorsal stripe and brown wings as long as body. Females have long, straight ovipositor.

Short-winged Conehead (Conocephalus dorsalis)

Very similar to the last species but wings only half length of body. Females have upturned ovipositor.

Speckled Bush-cricket (Leptophyes punctatissima)

Small to medium (10-15mm), plump Cricket. Covered in tiny, black dots (even nymphs). Wings almost absent. Brown dorsal stripe when mature.

Grasshoppers

Grasshoppers have shorter antennae (about half length of body). Their song is produced by rubbing their legs against their wings. Grasshoppers feed on grasses and other vegetation. Females are larger than males and can be separated by the features shown in fig. 2 of the rear of the abdomen. An important identification feature of Grasshoppers is the pronotum and its side keels (figs. 4 to 7). The shape of these side keels are referred to in keys in all publications, but care (and experience) is needed.

My Key includes the five species so far recorded in Worcestershire plus one extra – Stripe-winged Grasshopper (just in case). Colour variation within species is considerable, ranging from browns and greens to pink and purple. Some have very well defined pronotum side keels, others need to be viewed very closely. Confusion between species is most likely as follows :

fig4 fig5

Figure 4

Figure 5

Meadow Chorthippus parallelus (15 – 20mm) and Lesser Marsh C. albomarginatus (15 – 20mm)

The pronotums of these two have almost parallel side keels. In Meadow (fig 4) they are least parallel, in Lesser Marsh (fig 5) most parallel. The female Meadow has short wings where as Lesser Marsh has wings as long as body. Meadow is the more brightly coloured of the two and has dark hind knees, with Lesser Marsh being very subdued in colours and lacking the dark knees. Occasionally female Meadow occur with long wings, so watch for those knees and the general tone.
fig6

Figure 6

Mottled Myrmeleotettix maculatus (12 – 20mm) and Field Chorthippus brunneus (15 – 25mm).

Both are ‘mottled’ in appearance. Field is bigger and hairy underneath. Both have sharply incurved side keels (fig. 6). Mottled have thickened antennae particularly the male’s which are clubbed.
Side keels narrower at front than at rear.

Figure 7
Common Green Omocestus viridulus (15 – 20mm) and Stripe-winged Stenobothrus lineatus (15 – 20mm).

Similar species but Common Green never has any red or orange on the abdomen whereas Stripe-winged does. Both are fully winged and usually green in colour. Stripe-winged have a white line along the bottom of the wings and a white comma shaped stigma towards the rear end of the wings. The latter species has never been recorded in Worcs but I’m sure they’re out there somewhere.

Groundhoppers

Groundhoppers are smaller than Grasshoppers and are distinguished by their extended pronotum (as long as the body or longer). They have no song. Groundhoppers are associated with mosses and can be found through out the year.

Two species occur in the county and are both around 10mm in length :-

Common Groundhopper Tetrix undulata

This has a pronotum as long as the body and a ridge along the back giving an almost ‘hunch back’ look.

Slender Groundhopper T. subulata

This has a pronotum much longer than the body and a flatter back.

The Key

The following key has been kept as simple as possible. I have left out any identification points that require previous knowledge of the group or the need to kill an individual.

First decide whether you have caught a Cricket or Grasshopper by reading the above General Identification.

Then simply read the first question (top left) in the appropriate Key. Answer TRUE or FALSE and follow the arrow to the second question and so on.

I have not included a Key for the Groundhoppers as there are only two and they have been identified above.

I should appreciate any comments after you have tried this Key out so I can make amendments where appropriate.

Crickets

Green body

false
F

Brown body
(Yellow/Green underside)

true
F

Wings more than half length of abdomen. Row of yellow dots along body, behind pronotum.

 true
F

Roesel’s
Bush-cricket

true

  

false
H

  

H

  

Wings very short or absent.
No spots on body.

 true
F

Dark
Bush-cricket
   

Wings as long as body
(or longer)

true
F

 Wings much longer than body.Very large insect (40 – 50 mm). true
F

Great GreenBush Cricket

false
H

  

false
H

  

Body covered in tiny black spots
(use hand lens)

 true
F

Speckled Bush Cricket

   Pale green. Wings as long as body. Much smaller insect (20 mm).Male cerci Fig 3. true
F

Oak Bush-cricket

false
H

  
Wings half length of body. Brown dorsal stripe & wings. Female has upturned ovipositor. true
F

Short-winged Conehead

    
false
F

Wings full length of body. Brown dorsal stripe & wings.Female has straight ovipositor.

 true
F

Long-winged Conehead

Grasshoppers

Pronotum side keels parallel or only slightly incurved
fig’s 4 & 5

false
F

false
F

  

Side keels obviously incurved. Narrowest point appx. half as wide as widest point
fig’s 6 & 7

 false
F

Put it back and try another!

true
H

  

true
H

  

Dark hind knees.
Females short wings.
Pronotum fig 4.

true
F

Meadow Grasshopper

  

Antennae clubbed/thickened tips (very obvious in males).

 true
F

Mottled Grasshopper

false
H

  

false
H

  

Hind knees not dark. Colours subdued, pale brown/green.
Females fully winged.
Pronotum fig 5.

true
F

Lesser Marsh Grasshopper

  

Width of side keels appx. same width at front as at rear of pronotum fig. 6.Hairy ventrally. Orange or red on abdomen (particularly males).

 true
F

Field Grasshopper
 

false
H

    

Stripe-winged Grasshopper
(not yet recorded in Worcs)

Mostly green. Red/orange on abdomen. White stigma and stripe on wings.

false
E

  

Always green dorsally. Width of side keels at front of pronotum narrower at front of pronotum than at rear fig. 7.
Never red or orange on abdomen.

 true
F

Common Green Grasshopper

Worcestershire Record No. 8 April 2000 p. 27

Terrestrial Flatworms

By Andrew Fraser

“Flatworm” is the name normally used for the group of invertebrates called Planarians, an order of the phylum Platyhelminthes. Unlike the true worms, flatworms are not segmented and do not have a linear gut with a mouth and anus. Instead they have a gut with a single opening in the centre of their ventral surface from which they are able to extrude the outer part of the gut to engulf and digest their food externally. Their food is a range of small animals including snails, worms and other invertebrates. As the name suggests, flatworms are flattened dorso-ventrally and have a great capacity to change shape as they can stretch out or contract considerably. They move by a gliding motion using slight muscular contractions aided by cilia on their ventral surface, which move over a thin mucous layer they lay down.

In Britain there are about 29 species of flatworms, of which 23 species are found in freshwater, both ponds and flowing water. Some of these are widespread and can be abundant, others are very restricted in distribution. However, six species can be found living in the soil or amongst leaf litter, of which only two or possibly three are native to Britain. On land, they move through the soil or leaves following cracks or the tunnels of other animals such as earthworms. As they are very vulnerable to desiccation, they are normally found in damp places such as under stones or logs. As the ground dries in summer they move deeper to avoid drying out.

In Worcestershire we have very few records of these terrestrial flatworms. I have found two species in my garden in Alvechurch – Microplanna terristris and Geoplanna sanguinea. The former species is a grey/brown flatworm growing to about 25 mms in length and 1.5-2.0 mms wide and more cylindrical than the usual aquatic flatworms. The second is an introduced species from Australia. It is up to about 35 mms long (80 mms when fully extended) and 4 mms wide. It is a cream colour with a slightly greyish or reddish anterior. Both feed on soil invertebrates such as slugs or worms. I have only found Microplanna in one other Worcestershire site, the Wildlife Trust’s Broadway Gravel Pit Reserve. The Worcs BRC. has no other records of these or any other species of terrestrial flatworms.

If you are a keen gardener keep your eyes open for flatworms, especially when moving stones or in wet weather on the surface of the bare ground. If you find one, I would be interested in the record. As identification is difficult, it is probably best to preserve it in a small amount of, preferably white, vinegar and let me have it at the Trust’s office so it can be checked. They need to be preserved quickly as they will rapidly die and auto-digest themselves.

Finally you may have heard of the dreaded New Zealand flatworm Artioposthia triangulata which is a voracious carnivore of earthworms. This has been accidentally introduced into parts of N. Ireland and Scotland and a few other places where it can cause problems in the soil by killing most earthworms. As yet it has not been found in Worcestershire, but keep your eyes open for a large flatworm, about 50 mms long and 10 mms wide, but which can extend to 150 mms. The colour is dark brown with a pale margin along the sides and a pink anterior tip.

If you are interested in further information on flatworms, the best book for their identification of this in the UK is British Planarians by I Ball and TB Reynoldson. It is published by Cambridge University Press as No 19 in the Synopses of the British Fauna series. ISBN 0 521 23272 1.

Worcestershire Record No. 8 April 2000 p. 28-30

Upton Warren WBRC Survey Day – Additional Records

By Don Goddard

Better late than never! I have finally got around to interpreting my field notes and 1`sorting and identifying the beetles and other invertebrates collected during the BRC recording day at Upton Warren Flash Pools last July 31st 1999.

A range of common and local wetland beetle species were recorded including three species associated with saline habitats; the ground beetle Bembidion varium (Olivier), a scavenger water beetle Enochrus bicolour (F) and an anthicid beetle Anthicus constrictus Curtis. The latter two species are both nationally scarce and are exclusively confined to saltmarshes and these records would appear to be the first for Worcestershire, they probably do not occur anywhere else in the county due to lack of suitable habitat. The only other scarce beetle recorded was the staphylinid Paederus fuscipes Curtis. However this pretty blue and orange beetle was also noted in the previous edition of Worcestershire Record, and is a wetland species rather than a saltmarsh one, although it does show that it can tolerate a range of conditions, many wetland species cannot put up the too much salt. It has also been recently noted at Wilden Marsh.

I spent the whole time at the Flash Pools, knowing that future visits are likely to be few because of the need to avoid disturbing breeding birds. Much of that time was spent trying to capture adult shore bugs running over thick, deep glutinous mud. Inland most shore bugs turn out to be the common Saldula saltatoria (L) or the slightly more local Chartoscirta cincta (Herrich-Schaeffer). Most of the specimens captured proved to be representatives of these two species. However some looked distinctly different, unfortunately these different bugs proved to be the fastest, especially in bright sunshine! Consequently catching them was very difficult, particularly over deep glutinous mud when the bug can easily move faster than the pursuing entomologist!

Eventually I managed to secure several specimens, getting very muddy in the process! Using the only available key (Southwood & Leston (1959), a now virtually unobtainable book) they keyed out to Saldula pilosella (Thomson). This is a saltmarsh species but not exclusively so as it also occurs in the Norfolk Broads. The specimens have been sent to Dr. Peter Kirby for critical examination.

We only really scratched the surface on the recorders’ day. The site really needs to be surveyed in spring and early summer as well as mid-summer. Hopefully we will be able to return later this year.

A full species list is given below with further notes on the scarce and saltmarsh species.

Notes on scarce and interesting species

Beetles

Hydrophilidae

Cymbiodyta marginella (F) (Nationally Scarce Category B) An oval, black, scavenger water beetle, (3.5-4.5mm), with yellowish-brown edges to the thorax and elytra. (Teneral specimens may be wholly yellow-brown). Usually found in lowland localities at the edges of stagnant, eutrophic water bodies either in shallow water or amongst wet vegetation debris, moss and damp mud just above the waterline. This species has a mainly southern and eastern distribution with scattered records up to south Yorkshire. In the west it is particularly sparsely distributed except for the Somerset Levels and Angelsey. In Worcestershire the beetle is widespread but very local. Threatened by pollution and loss of wetlands.
Enochrus bicolour (F) (Nationally Scarce Category B) An oval, scavenger water beetle, uniformly pale reddish to yellowish-brown in colour and between 5.0-6.5mm in size. The scientific name is somewhat inappropriate as the beetle is all one colour. Balfour Browne (1958) suggests that it was so named because Fabricius was colour blind! This is a halophilic species and is normally found in brackish waters in coastal areas although very occasionally on the Continent it has been found at the edges of freshwater lakes. The species is virtually confined to coastal counties and has a mainly eastern distribution with scattered records elsewhere north to southern Scotland. Inland records are very sparse and this would appear to be the first record for Worcestershire. Threatened by pollution and loss of brackish wetlands.

Staphylinidae

Paederus fuscipes Curtis (Nationally Scarce category B) A small blue and orange rove beetle found in marshes, bogs, pond margins and other damp places. Usually found in wetlands amongst reed litter and other plant debris and some times found running around on wet, bare mud in sunny places. Widely distributed but local throughout England, Wales and southwest Scotland. Adults have been recorded in most months. In Worcestershire this species would appear to be scarce, although it may be under-recorded. Threatened by pollution and loss of wetland through falling water tables, agricultural improvement and excessive tidying of ponds and ditches.

Anthicidae

Anthicus constrictus Curtis (Nationally Local) A small (2.5-3.0mm) shining-black beetle with two small red spots at the apex of the elytra. Most species in this genus live in plant refuse and manure heaps. Several species including A. constrictus are confined to salt marshes. This halophilic species is widely distributed but local in coastal counties of England and Wales. Inland records appear to be sparse. Beetles belonging to this family, Anthicidae, are under-recorded in Worcestershire, however as this species is confined to salt marshes the Flash Pools may well be the only viable habitat in the county.

Carabidae

Bembidion varium (Olivier) (Nationally Local) A small carabid beetle, (4.0-5.0mm), black in colour with a metallic bronze lustre, sometimes with a greenish or bluish tinge. Usually found on damp, bare clayey ground near water. This beetle is most frequently recorded from salt marshes but it also occurs at the margins of freshwater. The species has a mainly southern and eastern distribution with most records from coastal counties; however, it is also frequently recorded inland. B. varium is local in Worcestershire; the few records are all from wetland habitats.

Bugs

Saldidae

Saldula pilosella (Thomson) (Nationally Local) A small broad-oval shore bug (4.0-4.5mm), coloured dark charcoal grey with a variable amount of white flecks. The main habitats of this bug are estuarine salt marshes, (where is can withstand periodic immersion in seawater), brackish pools and raised beaches, however it is also found at a number of inland sites such as the Norfolk Broads. This species is widely distributed but local in coastal counties of England and Wales. The Worcestershire status is unknown. Species in this family are difficult to identify and any species other than the three commonest usually require specialist conformation, hence the above record also requires conformation.

Invertebrate species list for The Flash Pools WWT reserve, Upton Warren near Wychbold Worcestershire SO 934666 (visited 31 July1999)

Scientific name

Common name

 Habitat

National Status

Local Status

Coleoptera

Beetles
*Pterostichus diligens (Sturm) A ground beetle Bare damp mud c lc
*Loricera pilicornis (F) A ground beetle Bare damp mud c c
*Bembidion articulatum (Panzer) A ground beetle Bare damp mud l l
*B. dentellum (Thunberg) A ground beetle Bare damp mud lc l
*B. lunulatum (Fourcroy) A ground beetle Bare damp mud c c
*B. varium (Olivier) A ground beetle Bare damp mud l l
*Agonum marginatum (L) A ground beetle Bare damp mud lc l
*Gyrinus substriatus Stephens A whirligig beetle Shallow water lc lc
*Noterus clavicornis (Degeer) A diving beetle Shallow water lc lc
*Agabus bipustulatus (L) A diving beetle Shallow water c c
*Hyphydrus ovatus Aube A diving beetle Shallow water lc lc
*Hydroporus ?angustatus Sturm teneral ? A diving beetle Shallow water lc lc
*Helophorus brevipalpis Bedel A scavenger water beetle Shallow water c c
*Helophorus cf. minutus (F) ? non det. A scavenger water beetle Shallow water c c
*Enochrus bicolour (F) A scavenger water beetle Shallow water NB New ?
*Cymbiodyta marginella (F) A scavenger water beetle Shallow water NB vl
*Cercyon marinus (Thomson) A scavenger water beetle Bare damp mud c c
*Laccobius minutus (L) A scavenger water beetle Shallow water lc lc
*Paederus riparius (L) A rove beetle Bare damp mud l l
*P. fuscipes Curtis A rove beetle Bare damp mud NB ??
*Platystethus cornutus (Gravenhorst) A rove beetle Bare damp mud c c
*Stenus cicindeloides (Schaller) A rove beetle Bare damp mud c c
*S. melanopus (Marsham) A rove beetle Bare damp mud l l
Aleocharinea ?det. pending A rove beetle Bare damp mud – –
*Anthicus constrictus Curtis An anthicid beetle Reed litter l ??
Scaphisoma agaricum (L) A fungus beetle Reed litter l ??
Micrapsis 16-punctata (L) 16-spot ladybird beetle Mixed herbage lc lc
*Anisosticta 19-punctata (L) Water ladybird beetle Reed litter l l
Rhagonycha fulva (Scopoli) A soldier beetle Mixed herbage c c
*Anthocomus rufus (Herbst) A false soldier beetle Mixed herbage lc l
Oulema melanopa/rufocyanea ? A leaf beetle Mixed herbage c c
*Altica lythri Aube A flea beetle Epilobium lc lc
Aphthona atrocaerulea (Stephens) Flax flea beetle Mixed herbage c c
Phyllotreta undulata Kutschera A flea beetle Mixed herbage c c

Hemiptera – Heteroptera

Bugs
*Nabicula limbata (Dahlbom) Marsh damsel bug Mixed herbage c c
*Cymus glandiclor Hahn A sedge bug Mixed herbage lc lc
*Chilcis typhae (Perris) Reedmace bug Reedmace lc lc
Notostira elongata (Geoffroy) A grass bug Mixed herbage c c
Trigonotylus ruficornis (Geeoffroy) A grass bug Mixed herbage lc ??
*Saldula pilosella (Thomson) ? A shore bug Bare damp mud l ??
*S. saltatoria (L) Common shore bug Bare damp mud c c
*Chartoscirta cincta (Herrich-Scheaffer) A shore bug Bare damp mud c lc
*Corixa punctata Illiger A water boatman Shallow water c c
*Sigara lateralis (Leach) A water boatman Shallow water lc lc
*Callicorixa praeusta (Fieber) A water boatman Shallow water c c
*Gerris lacustris (L) Common pondskater Shallow water c c

Hemiptera – Homoptera

Hoppers & Aphids
Neophilaenus campestris (L) A hopper Mixed herbage c c
*Cicadella viridis (L) A hopper Juncus sp. c c
Delphacodes group sp. ?det. pending A hopper Juncus sp. – –

Orthoptera

Grasshoppers & Crickets
Chorthippus parallelus (Zetterstedt) Meadow grass hopper Mixed herbage c c

Diptera

Two-winged Flies
Syritta pipiens (L) A hover fly Mixed herbage c c
Episyrphus balteatus (Degeer) A hover fly Mixed herbage c c
Eristalinus sepulchralis (L) A hover fly Marsh

Hymenoptera

Bees, wasps & ants
Bombus lucorum (L) Small Earth Bumble Bee Thistle flowers c c
B. pascuorum (L) Common Carder Bee Thistle flowers c c
B. pratorum (L) Early Bumble bee Thistle flowers c c

Odonata

Dragonflies
*Aeshna cyanea (Muller) Southern Hawker Flash Pools c c
*A. grandis (L) Brown hawker Flash Pools c lc
*Sympetrum sanguineum(Muller) Ruddy Darter Flash Pools NB l
*Calopteryx splendens (Harris) Banded Demoiselle Flash Pools lc lc
*Ischnura elegans (van der Linden) Blue-tailed damselfly Flash Pools c c

Lepidoptera

Butterfles & Moths
Parage aegeria (L) Speckled Wood Mixed herbage c c
Maniola tithonus (L) Gatekeeper Mixed herbage c c
Nymphalis io L Peacock Mixed herbage c c
Pieris napi (L) Green-veined White Mixed herbage c c
Thymelicus sylvestris (Poda) Small Skipper Mixed herbage c c

Mollusca
*Anisus vortex (L) Whirlpool Ram’s-horn Shallow water c c

Notes on abbreviations and symbols in tables

Species listed in bold type are particularly associated with saline habitats.
Species names followed by ? indicate an uncertain identification that needs conformation by a specialist in that group. In some cases females of certain species cannot be separated in the absence of males.

* Indicates species having some association with wetland habitats.
?? Insufficient information available to give a meaningful assessment of status.
c Common everywhere.
lc Locally common species, distribution may be restricted by food plant, habitat etc.
l Local species, distribution may be restricted by food plant, habitat etc. These species are often more vulnerable to habitat disturbance.
vl Very local species, usually more restricted by food plant, habitat, geographical range etc than local species.
NB Signifies that a species has only been recorded from between 31 and 100 10km squares of the Ordinance Survey National Grid.
New Possible new county record.

References

BALFOUR-BROWNE, F. 1958: British Water Beetles. Vol. 3. Ray Society
SOUTHWOOD, T.R.E. & LESTON, D. 1959: Land and Water Bugs of the British Isles. Frederick Warne, London & New York
WBRC Home Worcs Record Listing by Issue Worcs Record Listing by Subject

Worcestershire Record No. 8 April 2000 p. 26

Ancient Tree Forum (ATF)

By Harry Green

I think most of us who attended the Worcs BRC Annual Meeting on 18th March 2000 were fascinated by guest-speaker Keith Alexander’s talk on Life in Old Trees. Keith spoke mainly as an entomologist who in actively involved with the ATF, an organisation which has done much in recent years to highlight the ecological, historical and conservation importance of old trees. Readers may be interested to read the following information about this Forum:

ANCIENT TREE FORUM

ENHANCING THE MANAGEMENT OF ANCIENT TREES

Purposes

To promote the protection and preservation of ancient trees, and their associated wildlife, for the benefit of the public.
To promote study and research in the biology, ecology and conservation of ancient trees and their associated wildlife and to develop the best techniques for their conservation.
To publish and disseminate information on ancient trees and their associated wildlife, and on techniques for their management and conservation.
To foster understanding and appreciation of the biological, cultural, historic, and aesthetic value of ancient trees.

Membership

Those actively involved in the conservation of ancient trees – managers or advisers

Activities

Regular visits to sites with ancient trees to see and discuss management with a view to increasing the knowledge and experience of the host and members alike.
Regular circular, Ancient Tree Bulletin Board, to keep members in touch with latest developments, for members to share views, and provide news of site visits.
Promotion of occasional publications on the conservation management of ancient trees.

The Ancient Tree Forum is a Company Limited by Guarantee and is registered as a Charity under registration number 1071012.

The AFT has recently established a new address and contact point with the Woodland Trust, Autumn Park, Dysart Road, Grantham, Lincs., NG31 6LL.

Although actual membership of the ATF is intended for those people actually working with old trees there is now a new web site where anyone can find out about its activities. Log on to www.woodland-trust.org.uk/ancient-tree-forum.

Triple boled maple girth, 15 ft

Maple

Drawings from Transactions of Worcestershire Naturalists’ Club 1897-1899

Worcestershire Record No. 8 April 2000 p. 15

Radio Birds

By Harry Green

In response to an RSPB press release and in connection with a natural history phone-in which John Meiklejohn and I undertook for BBC Hereford & Worcester on 11th February the radio station appealed for listeners to take part in a simple garden bird count. So in the week ending 11th February 2000 20 people sent in counts of their garden birds based on watching for about one hour for five days. Participants were scattered across both Worcestershire and Herefordshire.

Although this can hardly be called a scientific study the results were actually quite interesting. In descending order of quantity the species were:

1 Sparrows 737 national 3
2 Blue tits 509 national 2
3 Great tits 353 national 8
4 Starlings 344 national 6
5 Blackbirds 314 national 1
6 Greenfinches 276 national 5
7 Chaffinches 230 national 7
8 Robins 220 national 9
9 Wood pigeons 158
10 Crows 156
11 Dunnocks 127 national 10
12 Collared doves 107 national 4
13 Magpies 102
14 Jackdaws 93
15 Plovers 88
16 Goldfinches 56
17 Coal tits 37
18 Thrushes 36
19 Wrens 36
20 Rooks 31
21 Jays 30
22 Bullfinches 30
23 Fieldfares 24
24 Siskins 18
25 Pheasants 17
26 Pied Wagtails 14
27 Buzzards 14
28 Long-tailed tits 12
29 Woodpeckers 12
30 Sea gulls 9
31 Nuthatches 5
32 Blackcaps 4
33 Linnets 4
34 Sparrowhawks 3
35 Herons 2
36 Goldcrests 2
37 Skylarks 1
38 Hawk 1
39 White wagtails 1
40 Coot 1
41 Willow tits 1
Total 4218
Average/garden 210.90
Average per hour 42.18

The counts reflect the national figures for garden birds shown by the BTO GardenBirdwatch quite well in that most of our top ten are in the national top ten. However, we seem to have more crows and wood pigeons! I never did get to the bottom of the “plovers” but guess they were lapwings flying over! It is also interesting to speculate on some of the records – what was a coot doing in a garden? And reflect on the vast numbers of birds which use gardens in winter – 4000 in 20 gardens in 5 days multiplied by the number of gardens in the two counties is a lot of birds, even if you allow for bird-poor gardens.

The BTO GardenBirdwatch scheme has been running for five years now and is proving to be a very useful monitoring system to be used alongside other BTO surveys. The results are revealing interesting cyclical changes though the year and general population trends. Currently about 250 garden watchers participate in the survey in Worcestershire. If anyone wishes to join in you would be very welcome. Information from BTO, Thetford, IP24 2PU.

Reference

CANNON, ANDREW 1998 Garden BirdWatch Handbook. BTO

Worcestershire Record No. 8 April 2000 p. 3

2000 – The Year of the Grasshopper. Your chance to help in a Great Leap Forward!

By Harry Green

The on-going computerisation of Worcs BRC records is enabling maps to be prepared for some smaller groups so giving an idea of the county status of species, or, more frequently, showing how short of records we are. Following on from Gary Farmer’s articles in Worcestershire Record No 7 November 1999 maps were prepared (by Martyn Hodgson) for Orthoptera – grasshoppers and crickets – and they are printed in this issue. We were quite shocked to see how few records we have for this group, and how much of the county is blank. The shortage of records is unfortunate because some species have probably declined with the loss of unimproved grasslands, rough grassland, and the increase in mangled road verges, and general countryside tidiness

As the Worcestershire species are fairly easily identified, especially as late summer adults, so we think we should all try to help rectify the sad state of Worcestershire grasshopper and cricket records. We have therefore declared 2000 as the YEAR OF THE GRASSHOPPER and request that you hop our there and get some records!

To help you in this Gary has prepared a simplified key for the Worcestershire species which is printed in this issue. This excludes all the unlikely species and makes identification much simpler than following keys covering all national species. The availability of this key removes most of your excuses!

Also, Orthoptera are good subjects for photography because they are quite large and sit still if you approach with care. So if you have become tired of taking endless photos of butterflies and dragonflies we suggest you now concentrate of crickets and grasshoppers. If you get good photos Gary will try and identify the subjects for you, but please be sure to record date and exact location.

Also, if you need to fill the void created by the end of the field work for the butterfly atlas, fill it with grasshoppers and crickets! All those nice butterfly places are probably also good for orthoptera.

To help still further Gary is running an outdoor tutorial near Grafton Wood on 12th August. If you would like to attend please complete the enclosed booking form and send it to Gary so we can keep track of numbers.

NOW CONCENTRATE! – REMEMBER – 2000 IS THE YEAR OF THE GRASSHOPPER AND YOU ARE GOING TO TAKE PART! ENJOY – NEXT YEAR IT MIGHT BE EARWIGS.

Bibliography

BALDOCK DW 1999 Grasshoppers and crickets of Surrey. Surrey Wildlife Trust (This is far more useful than the title suggests – see Gary’s article in this issue).
BELLMAN, H 1988 (English translation) A field guide to grasshoppers and crickets of Britain and Northern Europe. Collins.
BELLMAN H & LUQUET, GERARD C 1993 Guide des Sauterelles, Grillons et Criquets d’Europe Ocidentale. Delachaux et Niestle (in French but excellent photos and sonograms)
BROWN VK 1983 Grasshoppers. Naturalists’ Handbooks No 2. Richmond Press. (This 64 page booklet in the well-known series is a very good introduction to orthoptera. With keys)
BURTON JF & RAGGE DR 1988 Sound guide to the grasshoppers and allied insects of Great Britain and Ireland. Cassette. Harley Books.
HAES ECM & HARDING PT 1997. Atlas of grasshoppers, crickets, and allied insects in Britain and Ireland. ITE research publication no. 11. The Stationery Office.
MARSHALL JA & HAES ECM 1988 Grasshoppers and allied insects of Great Britain and Ireland. Harley Books (the modern bible on this subject)
RAGGE DAVID R 1965 Grasshoppers, crickets and cockroaches of the British Isles. Frederick Warne & Co Ltd. Wayside & Woodland series (Older, but still very useful book).
RAGGE DR & REYNOLDS WJ 1998 The songs of the grasshoppers and crickets of Western Europe. Harley Books. (Currently available at reduced price from NHBS Mailorder Bookstore tel 01803 865913)
RAGGE DR & REYNOLDS WJ 1998 A sound guide to the grasshoppers and crickets of Western Europe . Two CDs 120 minutes playing time. 125 species. Harley Books.(Currently available at reduced price from NHBS Mailorder Bookstore)

All the books in print can be found on NHBS web site http://www.nhbs.com. and can be ordered over the net or by phone 01803 865913.

Worcestershire Record No. 8 April 2000 p. 18

What is the NBN?

By Harry Green

The developing world of biological recording and biodiversity is rapidly producing its own jargon and acronyms. It is difficult enough for those of us who are closely involved with the development of Worcs BRC to keep track, so I guess the occasional reader may be somewhat mesmerised by the flurry of incomprehensible shorthand used by those in the know.

Currently, one of the more important organisations is the NBN – but what is it? The following article may clarify matters for you? It appeared in Biodiversity News No 10 January 2000, a government publication from DETR published by the Biodiversity Secretariat for the UKBG (UK Biodiversity Group – I think!) and we reproduce it with permission.

After reading the article you may well wonder where you and your occasional biological records fit in, and are they of the slightest importance? Well, the NBN project is a pretty amazing conception which places biological records at the very centre of wildlife conservation, even countryside and urban planning. Every accurate record will become even more valuable because it will be used to help further understanding of the natural environment and its conservation And most of the past, present and future records were/will be contributed by amateurs, volunteers, naturalists – and that’s where we all come in. Our work will help direct the way in which our wildlife and its habitat are managed/conserved in a future green and pleasant land! I hope.

Worcestershire Record No. 8 April 2000 p. 12-13

Seabird 2000

By Richard Harbird, County Bird Recorder

Spring is here, and with it comes three new surveys for Worcestershire bird-watchers to consider. It may come as a surprise that the most relevant to the County is to make counts of breeding seabirds on the county’s seabird cliffs.

No I haven’t gone bonkers.

The seabirds are Lesser Black-backed Gulls, and the cliffs…. the buildings of Worcester, Kidderrninster, and Evesham. The gravel islands at Bredons Hardwick can also lay claim to a few pairs. Are there any breeding anywhere else ? If you think there are, please tell me about them. Actually another species, Herring Gull, also bred in Worcester last year.

In fact, the survey has come at rather an opportune time, because the information about the colonization of our urban areas by these species has gone on almost without comment over the last decade. Its time we worked out how many there are.

I have in my possession a horrifyingly detailed form designed by the RSPB, which took me five minutes to read and half an hour to understand. However, once I had filtered out all the other species the form is designed to cater for, it basically comes down to counting Gulls by using two methods:

  1. Standing on the top of the tallest building you can find and scanning about looking for incubating Gulls.
  2. Counting the number of flying adults and dividing by two.

The habitat survey should be mercifully uncomplicated. The word rooftop should just about cover it.

The recommended period for the survey is late May to mid-June.

In fact, there is a third seabird in the county I have not mentioned. Common Terns breed at Upton Warren of course. However, the stalwarts of that fantastic Trust reserve have got those boys sorted out, so I’ll just let them get on with it.

If anyone is interested in taking part in the exercise, I will be very pleased to hear from you.

The other two surveys taking place nationally concern Honey Buzzards and Red Kites.

Concerning the former, a very enthusiastic Welshman called Steve Roberts rang me up and refused to accept my protestations that we didn’t have any Honey Buzzards in the county. There have only been six accepted records in the last 200 years I whined pitifully. They breed in most of the counties around you, there have got to be some boyo, he said. Well I hope he is right. The weekends to find out are apparently 22nd-23rd May, 27th/28th May, and 3rd/4th June. The survey is the responsibility of the Rare Breeding Birds Panel, so if we do find any, the details will have to be treated in strictest confidence.

Obviously this presents something of a double booking problem with the seabird survey, but if anyone has a burning desire to stare for up to four hours across large tracts of woodland, (and feels confident they can tell a Honey Buzzard from a Common Buzzard) again please let me know.

As far as Red Kites are concerned, all that is required is the reporting of any Red Kites seen in the county between March and July 2000. I’ve already heard of four, and its only April. English Nature, Scottish National Heritage, the Welsh Kite Trust, and the RSPB are organizing the survey. Get in touch with me if you see any, and I’ll pass the records on.

Finally, a word of caution: Bird watching is an inexact science. Not for us specimens to be examined under the microscope, or plants growing in the same spot over a number of years. The last two species are both category A rarities in Worcestershire, so I’m afraid any records must be backed up by a written description showing how the bird was separated from the nearest confusion species, i.e. Common Buzzard.

Worcestershire Record No. 8 April 2000 p. 17-18

This article is outdated and remains for Archive purposes only

Recorder 2000: The Waiting is Almost Over

By Martyn Hodgson

Recorder

For most of the last decade, biological recording software in the UK has been dominated by the Recorder program. Recorder was written by Stuart Ball, and runs under DOS (it predates Microsoft Windows by quite some time). Thanks largely to its stability and very detailed species dictionary, most large biological records databases in the UK use Recorder. The largest of these easily exceed a million records.

However, time and computer system have moved on significantly since Recorder was first launched. Possibly the single biggest changes have been the rise the number of users of personal computers, and the dominance of Microsoft operating systems (i.e. the various flavours of Windows). Love them, or hate them, Microsoft software has taught the vast majority of users to expect computer programs to operate in very pre-defined ways. This has become so engrained in most people that they only realise their conditioning when they try to use software that has never seen, or heard, of Windows. Recorder, of course, is one such program. This makes it a difficult program for most people to learn, particularly for occasional users. It should be said that regular users settle down very quickly and find Recorder simple and very fast to use.

Recorder is designed as both a species records system and a site recording system. I guess that this latter aspect is much less widely used than the former. For species recording, Recorder is fairly generic. This has lead a number of specialist interest groups (e.g. butterfly and dragonfly recorders) to develop their own software to run under Windows, tailored to their own specific needs. There are a also a small number of generic systems for species recording which run under Windows, but none of these have the detailed taxon data held by Recorder.

Recorder 2000

In the last couple of years it has become apparent that a replacement for Recorder was required, but one that in essence:

Retained and expanded the Recorder taxon database.
Runs under the various versions of the Microsoft Windows operating system.
Makes full use of the processing power of a modern p.c.
Is capable of supporting very much bigger databases than currently supported by Recorder.
Can be expanded to support specific requirements.
Supports a generic import and export facility.

The full list of requirements is much longer. For details, see the further information section.

The National Biodiversity Network (NBN) took on the project of specifying the new software, which has been entitled Recorder 2000. Recorder 2000 has been developed by an external software company.

 Current status

At present, the final stages of testing are being carried out by a number of volunteers. The software has been demonstrated several times and from what I saw recently looks to be stable and just about ready for release. At the time of writing, release is due for June this year although a number of things need to be done before then.

Pricing

One of the decisions to be made is that of the pricing structure. The current suggestion is that the price per user will work out to be less than that for Recorder. Significantly, for users associated with a record centre, that has a site licence, the cost will be little more than a handling charge. For technical reasons associated with the way Recorder 2000 holds its data, it is vital to understand that making dual copies of Recorder 2000 from the same installation disk will make your data useless beyond your own copy computer.

Transferring data from Recorder

Before you can transfer data from Recorder into Recorder 2000 you will need to run a checker program. At the time of writing, this is not currently available, but its author (Stuart Ball) informed me that this should be available very soon (maybe even by the time you read this). This checks for broken referential links amongst other things. These need fixing before data can be exported. Following that, a new version of Recorder (probably version 3.4, apparently) will be launched. I guess this will be Recorders’ final version and will contain the code to generate the files that are needed to import data into Recorder 2000. According to the NBN, this version of Recorder will be supplied with Recorder 2000.

The data transfer mechanism chosen for Recorder 2000 appears to have been more of a problem than expected. Details are on the NBN web site. However, if you have a large amount of data to import then expect the process to take several hours. This should not be an issue as, hopefully, it will be a one off exercise.

Recorder 2000 Version 2(already!!)

The Recorder 2000 project leader (Stuart Ball) is already talking about Recorder 2000 Version 2 and possible features. This will probably be available next year. The two features already mentioned are the ability to delete a record (I’m not sure why this isn’t in version 1, but I’m sure there are reasons), and support for different database software. Currently Recorder 2000 uses Microsoft Access for its database, but Access is not really suitable for anything other than small databases. The most likely alternative database is Oracle 8i.

It is to be hoped that updates to the taxon database will be made independently of updates to the program software. These should be downloadable from the NBN website.

The WBRC approach to Recorder 2000

The WBRC is currently working on getting the historic data currently held on record cards computerised. This is going well, but it is a long process. Since, there is nothing that can really speed this process up, for now it’s just a matter of grinding our way forwards.

Largely speaking, Recorder does everything we need for data entry. Thus, there is no sense in switching to Recorder 2000 for now. Indeed it would be likely to interrupt the data entry project. However, we will probably buy a single copy of Recorder 2000 to experiment with it shortly after it becomes available. This will allow us to become familiar with the software, and, more importantly, decide on how we want to use it.

Further Information

The NBN sees the internet as its main method of supplying information. Anyone interested in Recorder 2000 should visit the NBN website on a regular basis. The address is www.nbn.org.uk. This site holds a lot of very useful information regarding the NBN and biological recording. Only a small part of which relates to Recorder 2000. The site is updated on a regular basis, with recent updates being listed on a ‘What’s New’ page.

Worcestershire Record No. 8 April 2000 p. 11

The Noble Chafer – Records Wanted

By Julian Jones, Sites and Species Officer at Worcestershire Wildlife Trust

The Noble Chafer Gnorimus nobilis is a nationally scarce species of beetle which was first recorded in Worcestershire in 1985 where it was found on Hogweed at Tiddesley Wood near Pershore. It was recorded from the Defford area in the 1980’s and Monkwood and Tiddesley Wood again in 1998. It is also known to occur in the Wyre Forest where Paul Whitehead has caused out a number of surveys.

chafers
Figure 1. Rose chafer Cetonia aurata LEFT, Noble Chafer Gnorimus nobilis RIGHT

The beetle feeds on nectar from open flowers like umbellifers such as Hogweed on sunny days in July-August. Its larvae live in decaying ancient fruit trees in orchards and also have been recorded in oak and willow. The Rose Chafer Cetonia aurata is superficially similar, the main differences are that the Noble Chafer has longer and thinner legs with the middle and hind legs smooth on the shins, but toothed on the Rose Chafer. There are very small white spots on the thorax of Noble Chafer. The wing cases of the Noble Chafer are much wrinklier and there are differences in the shape of the thorax. The small triangular area between the wing-cases where they join the thorax (the scutellum) is an equilateral triangle in Noble Chafer, but elongated in Rose Chafer. Both beetles vary in colour, from metallic apple green, through blue and emerald green to deep bronze green.

A national focus group co-ordinated by the Peoples Trust for Endangered Species, is working on discovering more about the distribution and ecology of the species. Undoubtedly old mature orchards are important and there could be a link between ancient forests such as Wyre and the Forest of Dean and the orchards adjacent to them.

Any Worcestershire records are invaluable to finding out more about their ecology and so helping to conserve this attractive beetle species. Enclosed in this edition of Worcestershire Record is a postcard to remind you to look out for them this summer.

(Avid readers of Worcestershire Wildlife News No 87 April 2000 may have noticed that the picture on page 5 captioned Noble Chafer is in fact a nice picture of Rose Chafer (apologies!). To see how the printer achieved this please look at the enclosed postcard!).

Worcestershire Record No. 8 April 2000 p. 11

Crayfish Survey

By Kate Linck, Conservation Assistant, Worcestershire Wildlife Trust.

Worcestershire Wildlife Trust and the Environment Agency are just about to start a crayfish survey of Worcestershire. I have recently started working as a volunteer at Worcestershire Wildlife Trust, and my role is as co-ordinator of the Wildlife Trust section of the survey. Such a survey has never been done in the county before, and it is an essential preliminary to the effective conservation of our native white-clawed crayfish, and for the successful implementation of the Species Action Plan for the Worcestershire Biodiversity Action Plan.

The white-clawed crayfish Austropotamobius pallipes is currently under threat from introduced non-native crayfish, particularly the signal crayfish Pacifastacus leniusculus. The signal crayfish was originally introduced into England in the mid-1970s, in an attempt to develop a stock of crayfish immune to crayfish plague Aphanomyces astaci, but with the same culinary characteristics of the European noble crayfish. However, although normally immune to the fungal disease themselves (except occasionally when under stressful conditions), these alien crayfish are carriers of crayfish plague, to which the white-clawed crayfish are highly susceptible. The spores can also be transmitted by water, damp angling equipment, birds, animals, and by fish, (although signal and native crayfish appear to be the only hosts).

The signal crayfish poses another threat to the white-clawed crayfish, as they are also more successful when competing for food and habitat.

Due to the introduction of non-native crayfish, over the past 20 years there have been catastrophic declines in native population numbers. At present the white-clawed crayfish is listed in Appendix III of the Bern Convention and Annexes II and V of the EC Habitats Directive. It is classed as globally threatened by IUCN/WCMC. It is also protected under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 in respect of taking from the wild and sale.

The aim of Crayfish Survey 2000 is to establish the status and distribution of both the native white-clawed crayfish, and non-native crayfish within the county of Worcestershire. The ultimate objective being to gather vital information in order to maintain the present distribution of the white-clawed crayfish by, specifically, limiting the spread of crayfish plague, preventing the spread of non-native species, maintaining suitable habitat, and identifying any potential re-introduction sites.

If you know of any crayfish in Worcestershire, please let me know, (include: location, grid reference, species if known, numbers, and date). Also, if you want to get involved with Crayfish Survey 2000, don’t hesitate to contact me at Worcestershire Wildlife Trust Tel: 01905 754919).

(see also Mike Averill’s article Crayfish in Worcestershire in Worcestershire Record No. 2, pages 4-5, April 1997. This also refers to an article by HOLDICH, D 1991 The native crayfish and threats to its existance. British Wildlife 2, 1, 141-151 which contains good photographs and diagrams to aid identification of crayfish. Both the law and situation have changed considerably since the article was written).

Worcestershire Record No. 8 April 2000 p. 13-14

Village Swallows

By Garth Lowe

(This is a summary of the talk given at the Annual Meeting)

This has been the second year of my study of swallows in the villages of Alfrick, Suckley and Leigh. Once again I am grateful for the help received from residents, who have had swallows in their buildings. Out of the thirty three adults ringed last year, only thirteen came back to breed in our villages, six of which were female. Two exceptional birds, not only returned, but paired up again, and nested in the same place at Stitchings Hill. Here they reared two broods, quite an achievement after flying to South Africa and back.

Of the other returning birds, some moved sites, but never very far. One pair from Patches Farm split up to form new partnerships, setting up homes at Bridges Stone and Luckolds Farm. The remainder all came back to the original sites and found new partners.

One surprise was the non appearance of any of the youngsters that were also ringed. This is a previously documented fact on young swallows, where only around twenty percent seem to make it back to Britain. Adults do much better, probably because after one migration, they are more experienced at avoiding the hazards en-route.

During 1999, new nests have come to light, and more adults were recorded. By early September forty two had been ringed and another thirteen re-caught, one of which was a controlled bird, that was first ringed as a youngster in 1998, near Telford, in Shropshire. This male took up residence at Brockamin, where altogether eight pairs nested, and hopefully he will make this farm his permanent residence.

Most pairs bred singly, only six sites out of twenty one had known multiple nests. The largest concentration was centred on Alfrick Church, where there are eleven sites within a 1.5 kilometre radius, and holds over fifty percent of the study birds. It is generally thought that because swallows return regularly to the same sites, some of which are quite well hidden, such as a small opening into a garage or stable, that they must be the same ones that nested the previous year. This is sometimes not the case, and these sites are found by prospecting birds, who on finding an old nest present, and no other occupants, take it over and do up this old nest.

Previous research has found that these well constructed cups of mud, may last for many years. The average life of a nest was discovered to be around seven years, but one was found to have been in use for forty-eight years. The lining often contains feathers, usually white, and from poultry. Experiments using coloured feathers placed into the cup, found them discarded in favour of the white ones. Around twenty to forty have been counted in most nests and they are quite important as an insulating layer to help in the incubation of the eggs.

From regular visits to these nests, and noting how many chicks are reared, it is easy to work out how productive this summer has been. Data from twenty-six pairs showed that overall this was 5.5 young each. Another researcher in Scotland arrived at a figure there of 5.4 chicks per pair, but these were mainly from single broods. One other comparison was the percentages of returning adult birds from the previous year. In Scotland it was only 29%, and here somewhat higher at 39%. Further study is needed to see how constant these figures are.

Clutch size is another way of monitoring success. From thirty-six broods, where the number of eggs were noted, an overall clutch size of 4.17 eggs was calculated. If first and second clutches are separated, the figures are 4.44, and lower at 3.89 for second nests. In Scotland this year, where only one brood is the norm, a figure of 4.66 was produced. The weather here can be much more inclement than the south, and daylight hours although longer during summer months, rapidly shorten after August, making feeding that bit harder.

Predation of nests was low, with no indication of the main causes. At one site the inner lining of the nest was found hanging out, at others youngsters were found dead on the floor, even though some house holders had tried to put them back. No logical explanation seems possible to explain this phenomena, unless it is done by the swallows themselves. Using DNA testing it has also been discovered, that not all male swallows are the fathers of their offspring!

It has also been observed that unattached males will also try to split another pair up, a female being more ready to take on a new partner if her first nest fails. Eggs also disappeared from some nests, most probably rodents, but most pairs laid again, and reared young. Only at two nests did complete desertion of the site occur after first broods, but at Brockamin, one bird found a new mate, and moved about half a kilometre to another site. There must have been a split up of the original pair at the new site too, since this was a second brood.

At another nest site, after the first brood had flown, the pair were caught again, the male of which was the original owner, but it was with a different female. My curiosity made me investigate this second pair again, and to my surprise, the successful second brood had yet another new female in residence, showing once more that there must be quite a few movements of these birds, that go undetected, unless they are identifiable in some way such as a ring. If these ringed birds are found elsewhere, it does give the finder, the opportunity of discovering where the bird originated, as the ring itself has” The British Museum, London”, stamped on it.

Only one of the study birds has so far been recovered by someone else. This was a youngster from Luckolds Farm in Alfrick, ringed on 12th June 1999, when it was around half grown, so it probably did not leave the nest site, until another ten days later. It was then found on the 10th July, only two to three weeks after fledging, at Hatfield, between Bromyard and Leominster, weak but alive. What was it doing over to the west, instead of a southerly direction? The eighteen kilometres it flew were nothing to the distances they pursue in the autumn. A flight to Hatfield and back in a day is no distance and could be just for feeding purposes.

This study over the next few years should hopefully throw up yet more surprises, besides giving valuable data on the survival of the swallow, which is held dear to many country people.

Worcestershire Record No. 8 April 2000 p. 4-7

Maps of Orthoptera Distribution from Worcestershire BRC Records

The maps have been updated to include 2000 records received at WBRC as at 28/9/2000.
Comments on national distribution from Haes & Harding 1997.
The red dots indicate pre-1995 records. A hashed square indicates a record from that square without a more precise location (all those indicated here are from Wyre Forest).

Acheta domestica House Cricket. Not native. National distribution scattered throughout England acdom
Chorthippus albomarginatus Lesser Marsh Grasshopper. National distribution SE England roughly bounded by Severn-Wash line. Considerable range expansion in last 25-30 years. chalb
Chorthippus brunneus Field Grasshopper. National distribution widespread throughout Britain and Ireland. chbru
Chorthippus parallelus Meadow Grasshopper. National distribution throught Britain (not Ireland). chpar
Conocephalus dorsalis Short-winged Conehead. National distribution coastal and inland wetland areas in S half England and Wales. In Gloucestershire just S of Worcestershire. codor
Gryllotalpa gryllotalpa Mole Cricket. Native and once widely distributed mainly on moist soils. Severe decline but very secretive and records near Pershore not repeated recently. grgry
Leptophyes punctatissima Speckled Bush-cricket. National distribution coastal Wales and S England. Just includes Worcestershire. Fincher (1953) did not report it from Worcestershire. lepun
Meconema thalassinum Oak Bush-cricket. National distribution Widespread in mature deciduous woodland in S Britain . Just includes Worcestershire. metha
Myrmeleotettix maculatus Mottled Grasshopper. A tiny grasshopper with scattered national distribution throughout Britain, apparently scarcer inland but probably under-recorded. mymac
Nemobius sylvestris Wood Cricket. National distribution very restricted to New Forest and part of Devon. Old Worcestershire records not substantiated (Fincher 1953). nesyl
Omocestus viridulus Common Green Grasshopper. Nationally our most widespread orthopteran. omvir
Pholidoptera griseoaptera Dark bush-cricket. Nationally common in S half of England including Worcestershire. phgri
Tetrix subulata Slender Ground-hopper. Widely distributed in S and central England just including Worcestershire. tesub
Tetrix undulata Common Ground-hopper. Widely distributed throughout Britain and Ireland. teund
Tettigonia viridissima Great Green Bush-cricket. Nationally distributed in S half on England especially coastal, and S coast Wales – only one 10 km square in Worcestershire. tevir

References

HAES ECM & HARDING PT 1997 Atlas of grasshoppers, crickets and allied insects in Britain and Ireland. HM Stationery Office.
FINCHER F 1953 Some notes on Orthoptera and Dermaptera in the West Midlands. Ent. Record 65:151-154

Worcestershire Record No. 8 April 2000 p. 22

More Noteworthy Coleoptera from Tiddesley Wood

By Kevin McGee

Ampedus pomorum (Coleoptera, Elateridae)

A second record from Tiddesley Wood, 20.2.2000.

Readers may recall that I found one of these nationally Notable B ‘click’ beetles previously in Tiddesley; please see issue number 7 of Worcestershire Record: page 20. On that occasion, (18.4.1999), I simply took several photographs thinking it would be relatively easy to identify such a striking species. How mistaken I was! Paul Whitehead had to carefully scrutinise half a dozen different slides under a microscope before he was able to safely determine the beetle as A. pomorum. He advised that all ‘red’ click beetles I found in the future should be brought to him in a tube to establish correct identification; this is important, as all ‘red’ click beetles are rare, indeed some are endangered.

On 20.2.2000, I was lucky to find another red click at Tiddesley. It was just under the bark of a fallen birch at the edge of the wood on the Bow Brook side, a long way from my previous find. This one proved much easier to photograph, after which I popped it into a tube, (alive), before setting off to Paul’s with my prize! The beetle was confirmed as Ampedus pomorum and was safely returned to Tiddesley a couple of days later.

According to ‘A review of the scarce and threatened Coleoptera of Great Britain’ by Hyman & Parsons, Ampedus pomorum is associated with birch, though also with oak and ash, in ancient broad-leaved woodland. The Forest of Dean and Worcestershire are mentioned amongst the known localities.

Carabus granulatus (Coleoptera, Carabidae)

Tiddesley Wood, February/March 2000.

As a dedicated photographer of our ‘larger’ invertebrates, (especially those I immediately recognise as being unfamiliar), its always a tremendous thrill to achieve a personal goal. Many of our most handsome beetles are very photogenic, particularly the ‘Longhorns’. Some of the larger Carabids, (Ground-Beetles), are equally attractive, but can be extremely difficult to approach so its always nice when one decides to co-operate for the camera. Amongst the really big Carabids are the genus Carabus. These include the spectacular Violet Ground Beetle, Carabus violaceus. One species I have always longed to find is Carabus granulatus, a large beetle with wonderfully sculpted metallic bronze elytra. Whilst poking about in a rotting birch log in Tiddesley on 20.2.2000 I found a fine specimen; my first! It was very active and infuriatingly difficult to get a good photograph. A return to Tiddesley on 5.3.2000 revealed another! This was a bigger example, from rotting Scots Pine, and much less agitated so I was able to get just the shots I wanted.

Paul Whitehead informs me that all large Carabus species have declined in number over recent years.

With grateful thanks to Mr. P.F.Whitehead for his expertise and guidance.

Worcestershire Record No. 8 April 2000 p. 22-24

Records from a ‘Local Patch’. Drakes Broughton Orchards

By Kevin McGee

If you are anything like me you probably spend as much of your valuable free time as possible at one of Worcestershire’s prime wildlife ‘hotspots’, in my case Tiddesley Wood; renowned for it’s rich flora and fauna.

However, on occasions it’s only possible to snatch a short half-hour break in the middle of a busy schedule, so what we do is take the dogs for a run across a small network of public footpaths on the outskirts of our village; Drakes Broughton. One path leads through an area of orchards from which I have compiled an interesting list of ‘casual’ records covering the last three years.

The orchards, centred on grid-ref; SO923487, occupy an area of land roughly equating to that of a couple of football pitches, (I’m not intending to get too technical in this article)! At first glance the site appears fairly unremarkable with regimental rows of commercially grown varieties of apple trees. There is however an element of some neglect which gives the place an immediate sense of appeal to the naturalist. By far the best aspect of the site is the presence of a very good hedgerow on its northern and eastern boundaries. I don’t know for certain but I suspect these could be ancient boundaries; there is a ditch system and a healthy variety of overgrown and entangled trees and shrubs including Pedunculate and Sessile Oak, Crab-Apple, Pear, Plum, Damson, Field Maple, Hazel, Holly, Hawthorn, Blackthorn, Dutch Elm (I think), and Sallow. In addition there are entanglements of Ivy, Bramble, Dog-Rose species and the odd Birch sapling. There is an ‘ordinary’ mix of associated hedgerow flowers, Cow-Parsley and Hogweed being very prominent. (I’m no botanist but I haven’t found anything unusual). As I understand it these small neglected corners of Worcestershire’s fruit-growing orchards are fast disappearing, but are home for a wealth of species, often in areas surrounded by ‘deserts’ of agricultural Rye Grass. Indeed, I suspect many of the so-called ‘common’ species are only able to maintain present population levels because of these small scattered corners of ‘neglected’ agricultural land. It could be that these inter-connecting corridors of good wildlife habitat deserve as much attention from a conservation point of view as do our ‘jewels-in-the-crown’ like Tiddesley.

If you can, it’s very worthwhile keeping an eye open for anything unusual at your own ‘local’; as well as it being good fun to maintain a list of species recorded, you can quickly get to know it intimately, rather like keeping a list of birds in your garden. The real thrill comes when you find something of genuine importance, and I’m certain that Worcestershire still holds many surprises that need to be discovered and, above all, preserved.

My own areas of interest are ornithology and entomology. There now follows an account of my findings from casual records at Drakes Broughton Orchards over the last three years.

Birds

A total of 47 species recorded ON-SITE-ONLY. Those overhead or in neighbouring fields do not count.

The most noteworthy records are;

Woodcock Scolopax rusticola One flushed from ditch on 21.3.1998
Turtle Dove Streptopelia turtur Breeding pair each year. May to July
Lesser Whitethroat Sylvia curruca At least one breeding pair each year. July is best month
Hobby Falco subbuteo One present briefly on 31.5.1999. was chased off by a Mistle Thrush!
Bullfinch Pyrrhula pyrrhula At least one breeding pair annually. Up to six present in winter
Linnet Carduelis cannabina Very rare winter visitor only
Yellowhammer Emberiza citrinella Very rare winter visitor only

Other known breeding residents are;

Woodpigeon Columba palumbus
Collared dove Streptopelia decaocto
Cuckoo Cuculus canorus
Great spotted Woodpecker Dendrocopos major
Pied Wagtail Motacilla alba
Wren Troglodytes troglodytes
Dunnock Prunella modularis
Robin Erithacus rubecula
Blackbird Turdus merula
Mistle Thrush Turdus viscivorus
Garden Warbler Sylvia borin
Whitethroat Sylvia communis
Blackcap Sylvia atricapilla
Willow Warbler Phylloscopus trochilus
Chiffchaff Phylloscopus collybita
Blue Tit Parus caeruleus
Great Tit Parus major
Long-tailed Tit Aegithalos caudatus
Starling Sturnus vulgaris
Magpie Pica pica
Chaffinch Fringilla coelebs
Greenfinch Carduelis chloris
Goldfinch Carduelis carduelis

The site is especially important for the large numbers of FIELDFARES, Turdus pilaris and REDWINGS, Turdus iliacus that come to feed on the apples left to rot during the winter months. Christmas is the peak time with Fieldfare numbers reaching 200, Redwings roughly half that amount.

Butterflies

A total of 17 species recorded. The most noteworthy records are:

Holly blue Celastrina argiolus Occasional singletons. Probably breeding resident
Marbled White Melanargia galathea Occasional singletons, probably wanderers from the nearby colony at the Mill Meadow reserve
Ringlet Aphantopus hyperantus Healthy colony exists. For example; up to 20 on 8.7.98

Other species recorded at Drakes Broughton orchards;

Brimstone Gonepteryx rhamni
Comma Polygonia c-album
Gatekeeper Pyronia tithonus
Green-veined White Pieris napi
Large Skipper Ochlodes venata
Large White Pieris brassicae
Meadow Brown Maniola jurtina
Orange-tip Anthocharis cardamines
Peacock Inachis io
Red Admiral Vanessa atalanta
Small White Pieris rapae
Small Tortoiseshell Aglais urticae
Small Skipper Thymelicus sylvestris
Speckled Wood Pararge aegeria

Macro-Moths

All from casual day-time records only.

The ‘Group’ letters are taken from the system devised by Dr. A.N.B.Simpson to determine the status of each species within the county: Group A being common, Group D extinct.

1 Angle-shades Phlogophora meticulosa Group A
2 Buff-tip Phalera bucephala Group A
3 Beautiful Golden-Y Autographa pulchrina Group A
4 Cinnabar Tyria jacobaeae Group A
5 Common Carpet Epirrhoe alternata alternata Group A
6 Common Marbled Carpet Chloroclysta truncata Group A
7 Common White-wave Cabera pusaria Group A
8 Common Footman Eilema lurideola Group A. Larval records only
9 Hebrew Character Orthosia gothica Group A
10 Knot Grass Acronicta rumicis Group A
11 Large Yellow Underwing Noctua pronuba Group A
12 Light Emerald Campaea margaritata Group A
13 Mottled Beauty Alcis repandata repandata Group A
14 Mother Shipton Callistege mi Group B. Adult on 21.6.1998
15 Oak Nyceteoline Nyceteola revayana Group B. Larva on oak, 4.8.1999
17 Silver-Y Autographa gamma Group A
18 Shaded Broad-bar Scotopteryx chenopodiata Group A
19 Scarce Footman Eilema complana Group A. Larval records only
20 Small Yellow Underwing Panemeria tenebrata Group B. Adults on 18.5.1997. & 25.5.1998
21 The Drinker Philudoria potatoria Group A. Larval records only
22 The Vapourer Orgyia antiqua Group A
23 Yellow-tail Euproctis similes Group A. Larval records only
24 Yellow Shell Camptogramma bilineata bilineata Group A

Micro-Moths

One species of note recorded;

Cydia aurana. Tortricidae. One at Hogweed flowers on 24.5.1999.

Odonata

Not surprisingly, this site is of little importance in so far as breeding is concerned, no significant bodies of water occur. This is reflected in the list below, however, it’s worth bearing in mind that it does provide a ‘food & rest’ station for any species prepared to wander between sites.

1 Azure Damselfly Coenagrion puella Frequent
2 Banded Demoiselle Agrion splendens One record, (female) on 19.6.1998
3 Blue-tailed Damselfly Ischnura elegans Scarce
4 >Broad-bodied Chaser Libellula depressa Two records, (imm) on 18.5.1998, (female) on 21.6.1998
5 Common blue Damselfly Enallagma cyathigerum Scarce, occasional male
6 Common Darter Sympetrum striolatum Scarce
7 Emerald Damselfly Lestes sponsa One record, (female) on 14.8.1999
8 Large red Damselfly Pyrrhosoma nymphula Two records, (female) on 25.5.1998, (female) on 6.6.1999
9 Migrant Hawker Aeshna mixta One record, on 16.8.1998
10 Southern Hawker Aeshna cyanea One record, on 2.8.1998
11 White-legged Damselfly Platycnemis pennipes Notable B. Four records of singles. June/July. An indication of how far this species will travel, the nearest breeding habitat must be about half a mile away at Bow Brook

Coleoptera

Records from easily identified species or from slides determined by P.F. Whitehead. National status guides are taken from recognised coleoptera literature.

1 Agonum dorsale. (Carabidae) Common.
2 Anaglyptus mysticus. (Cerambycidae) Notable B. One, at Hogweed flowers, 6.6.1999
3 Cryptocephalus pusillus. (Chrysomelidae) Local. A few at one Sallow
4 Cantharis decipiens. (Cantharidae) Common
5 Chrysolina oricalcia. (Chrysomelidae) Notable B. One photographed on Cow Parsley, 30.5.1998. & 12.6.1998
6 Cantharis nigra. (Cantharidae) Common
7 Calvia quattuordecimguttata. (Coccinellidae) Common
8 Crioceris asparagi. (Chrysomelidae) Synanthropic. ‘Escaped’ asparagus plants flourish in places!
9 Clytus arietis. (Cerambycidae) Common
10 Grammoptera ruficornis. (Cerambycidae) Common
11 Ischnomera cyanea. (Oedemeridae) Notable B. One photographed at Hogweed flowers, 31.5.1998. Also 6.6.1999
12 Lagria hirta. (Tenebrionidae) Common
13 Leptura livida. (Cerambycidae) Local. Two photographed on Mayweed flowers, 3.7.1999
14 Lochmaea crataegi. (Chrysomelidae) Common
15 Molorchus umbellatarum. (Cerambycidae) Notable A. One photographed at Hogweed flowers, 19.6.1998. Known to be associated with fruit trees
16 Melolontha melolontha. (Scarabaeidae) Common
17 Oedemera lurida. (Oedemeridae) Local
18 Oedemera nobilis. (Oedemeridae) Local
19 Phaedon tumidulus. (Chrysomelidae) Common
20 Propylea quattuordecimpunctata. (Coccinellidae) Common
21 Phytoecia cylindrica. (Cerambycidae) Notable B. Pr in- cop, photographed on Cow Parsley, 30.4.1999. Also 25.5.1999
22 Rhynchites aequatus. (Attelabidae) Common
23 Subcoccinella 24-punctata. (Coccinellidae) Common
24 Stenocorus meridianus. (Cerambycidae) Local
25 Tetrops praeusta. (Cerambycidae) Local. Only at a couple of old crab-apples and plums

Hemiptera

A few easily recognised species.

1 Acanthosoma haemorrhoidale. (Hawthorn Shieldbug) One record, on 14.5.1999
2 Coreus marginatus Two records on 27.9.1997, and one at blackberry fruit on 3.10.1998
3 Deraeocoris ruber 20
4 Leptopterna dolobrata Two photographed on 19.6.1998. (male & female)
5 Miris striatus LOCAL. Up to three on Oak foliage, 23.5 & 25.5.1998. A very striking species
6 Sehirus bicolour. (Pied Shieldbug) Frequent on White Deadnettle during April
7 Palomena prasina. (Green Shieldbug) 20

Miscellaneous

1 Stoat Mustela nivalis One seen on 15.3.1997

With grateful thanks to Mr. P.F.Whitehead for his determination of some of my slides.

Worcestershire Record No. 8 April 2000 p. 27

Glow Worms?

By John Meiklejohn

NO, not the female beetles that advertise their presence at night by emitting a bright green light from their abdomens, but real worms – earthworms.

In early January 2000 I had a phone call from Andy Storey of Pershore. He related how he was working in a garden in Crowle and decided to move a compost heap before he finished for the day. As he did so, in the dark, he was amazed to see a mass of small, twinkling, bright green lights at the bottom of the heap. On close inspection he found that the lights were coming from very small earthworms several of which he brought to me.

The worms were white, about 30 mms. long and just over 1 mm. in diameter, with about 85 segments, real miniature earthworms. By the time they had reached me they had stopped glowing!

Using keys in ‘Earthworms’ – Synopses of the British Fauna No.31. R.W.Sims & B.M.Gerard.

The worms are a species introduced from South America early in the last century :-
Microscolex phosphoreus (Class – Oligochaeta, Family – Acanthrodrilidae)

There are records from market gardens in Nottinghamshire, Jersey and Worcestershire.

If you are contemplating moving your compost heap, do it in the dark! I would be pleased to hear of further findings.

Worcestershire Record No. 8 April 2000 p. 19

New Millipede for Worcestershire

By John Meiklejohn

Whilst scrabbling through leaf litter looking for the Land Caddis on the steep slopes of the woodland in Old Storridge opposite the Knapp and Papermill reserve with Harry Green, I kept finding a millipede, like a smaller snake millipede, that at first I took little notice of. Eventually it dawned on me that it was quite different from the species I am fairly familiar with in the south of the county.

The striking feature was the very swollen, bulbous appearance of the ‘cheeks’. It is one of the two species of the genus Chordeuma, in all probability from its distribution, C. proximum. I need to find an adult male to confirm its identity , but the other species C. sylvestre has only been recorded from the Cornwall/Devon boundary. The females cannot be separated.

C. proximum has been recorded from The Forest of Dean, a few areas in Wales and in the Surrey area.

References

BLOWER, JG 1985 Millipedes Synopses of the British Fauna No. 35. Linnean Society of London

Worcestershire Record No. 8 April 2000 p. 16

What do Buzzards Eat?

Dear Harry

In response to your request in the November 1999 issue of Worcestershire Record asking for information regarding feeding habits of Common Buzzard, I have two records which may be of interest.

The first involved a bird carrying a grey squirrel to a perch from a roadside at Shrawley. The squirrel was almost certainly a fresh road casualty (being observed dead earlier). I did not witness the bird actually feeding, it merely stopped to re-adjust its grip before flying to a nearby wood.

The second bird was observed foraging amongst horse dung in a roadside field at Holt. I watched for several minutes as it shuffled in rather ungainly fashion , making stabbing attempts at the dung, before being mobbed by jackdaws who were feeding nearby. I hope these two records are a help, do let me know if you get any other records.

I did observe an amazing sight involving buzzards last June (1999) while travelling home form work again through Shrawley (where there is a good breeding population). Two birds, both adults, sat splayed in the middle of the road ahead. Having stopped the car just feet from them I got out to have a closer look, thinking they had been hit by a passing car. The birds were sitting opposite each other, glaring at one another, and totally unaware of me. I then noticed they were firmly locked by their talons, and clapped my hands, at which, after some more struggling, they managed to free themselves. This behaviour has been noted before (eg Brown L 1976 British Birds of Prey, Collins New Naturalist) where there is a report of an unfortunate farmer who had two talon-locked birds fall on top of him from a height!

It is thought that the younger males disputing territory (the Shrawley area is heavily populated) having locked talons in aerial display are unable to free themselves.

Shaun Micklewright

Worcestershire Record No. 8 April 2000 p. 18-19

The NBN

By Dr James Munford, Programme Director

We have a national Biodiversity Action Plan and its local expression through Local Biodiversity Action Plans, but what data will inform the process of decision making and where will it come from? When the plans are implemented, how will we know if we are on the right track? How can the individual be a part of the process? Are there spin-offs that will help us in other areas such as land management, statutory planning control, Local Agenda 2 1, education or the Natura programme?

We believe the National Biodiversity Network, the NBN, is an important initiative that will help in the development of answers to these questions. The idea behind the network is quite simple. We already have notebooks, filing cabinets and computer databases full of biodiversity information. This information is being added to daily, although often in an ad hoc fashion, by about 60,000 recorders, most of whom are volunteers. The Internet offers a way in which those who want to know, or need to know, could access a good proportion of this information. Simple, but like all simple ideas the devil is often in the detail.

The NBN is a consortium of public agencies and the voluntary sector who share a vision to establish a publicly accessible computerised network across the UK which links together national and local custodians of biodiversity information. The network will allow and encourage people to participate in the NBN and increase their awareness of our natural heritage. This will be achieved by simplifying public access to the available biodiversity information and increasing the capacity for members of the public to contribute to decisions that affect the natural heritage. The improved validation and mobilisation of information will maximise its value for educational, research, conservation and recreational use.

The present partnership consists of.

Joint Nature Conservation Committee (representing English Nature, Scottish Natural Heritage, Countryside Council for Wales, Environment and Heritage Service)
Natural Environment Research Council
Royal Society for the Protection of Birds
The Wildlife Trusts
The Natural History Museum
National Federation for Biological Recording (representing Association of Local Government Ecologists, Biological Recording in Scotland, Biology Curators Group)

With observers from:

Marine Biological Association, Environment Agency, Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions, Farming and Rural Conservation Agency and soon we hope to include the Improvement and Development Agency for Local Authorities.

In the very near future, this partnership will be established as a company limited by guarantee, the NBN Trust, at which time the present observers have indicated that they may wish to become founder members. We hope the principal scientific and natural history societies throughout the UK will also become members of the Trust.

Our proposed development programme has been broken down into four themes containing 17 inter-linked projects, which can be further sub-divided into individual more focused outputs for the purposes of securing funds. These are:

Co-ordinating Development

Programme Management
Communication
Membership and accreditation

Standards for contributing data

Access terms
Data standards
Collect/collate software
Checklists and Identification Standards
Meeting information needs

Access to Biodiversity Information

Linking national schemes and societies
Linking local record centres
Linking national biodiversity organisations -general
Linking national biodiversity organisations – RSPB Griffin pilot
Linking national biodiversity organisations – IFE
Linking national biodiversity organisations – MBA/MarLIN
Linking national biodiversity organisations – BRC
Developing public access and education services

Using and applying wildlife information

Network index and gateway

Already the major holders and users of biodiversity information in the public sector are members of, or are linked to, the consortium. Together, we have been able to achieve a great deal on comparatively slender resources. The Wildlife Trusts have been able to secure funds from the Esmée Fairburn Trust to assist in their development of a model approach to the creation and development of Local Record Centres. The public sector members have been able to channel some of their internal resources towards creating the network. We have also been able to make progress by sharing expertise. For example we have a good and fruitful relationship with the National Geospatial Data Framework (www.ngdf.org.uk) initiative led by the Ordnance Survey. We have also developed tentative links into some of the expertise residing within the Global Biodiversity Information Forum (GBIF) partners such as CONABIO in Mexico (www.conabio.gob.mx).

The JNCC has released a Beta version of the new Recorder 2000 software for recording species and habitat information, which will help in standardising electronic data holdings and thus case exchange. I am confident that this new software will become the UK standard, as its precursor was before it with over 700 licence holders. It is also an area where I am confident that the UK holds a global lead.

The important web gateway, index and dictionaries (species and habitat) have been started in pilot form, which can be used for demonstration of concept. The JNCC, NERC through the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology and Biological Recording Centre at Monkswood, are developing the gateway and index. The Natural History Museum and JNCC are developing the important dictionaries used in searching for data. Holders of data will be asked to participate in these projects as they progress.

We are hoping to develop educational applications for the mobilised data. This project is being led by the RSPB with co-operation form other members of the consortium who have the necessary expertise such as the Natural History Museum.

These are exciting times with the level of activity being stepped up as solutions are developed. You can keep abreast of developments by visiting our web site at www.nbn.org.uk.

Worcestershire Record No. 8 April 2000 p. 25

Biological Recording Techniques Course

By John Partridge

We, Gary Farmer and John Partridge, recently attended a course entitled Biological Recording Techniques at Preston Montford Field Centre. This is the core module of the Post-Experience Certificate in Biological Recording and Species Identification. The course was attended by fourteen assorted individuals of widely differing ages and backgrounds, which made for a very interesting and informative week.

The topics covered included:

What can go into a single biological record?
What can we say about a site?
What’s in a species list?
Who owns records?
Some useful terms about databases
Some information on biological recording computer programs.
What sort of recording package to choose
What should a record centre do?
Atlases – Traditional Floras and mapping projects
Guidelines for recording arable species
Who’s who in biological recording

Two site surveys were also carried out during the course.

We gathered a lot of information that was useful to us personally, but also many ideas on how the record centre might (ideally) develop, and what we could do to improve the usefulness of the records coming in.

It was suggested that the ideal pattern for the flow of information is:

Recorder > County Recorder > Local Record Centre
National Society > National BRC

and if the information comes straight to the Local Record Centre, then it is passed to the County Recorder for that group for validation, before being accepted as a record.

This ‘ideal’ situation poses problems:

  • are recorders going to be offended by being asked to have their records validated?
  • are County Recorders willing to cope with the extra work load?
  • what happens when we have no County Recorder for that group?
  • some National Societies do not pass on their records to the National BRC, e.g. BTO because the form of survey records rarely fits the typical records centre formats.

It was suggested that we should think carefully about the purpose served by our recording, especially if we would like it to be of use to future generations of naturalists, so that it is should be detailed enough for comparisons to be made between now and then. In many cases this could be done by site lists, so long as the more interesting species are commented upon, and more detailed references are given as to their location. Doubt was thrown on the usefulness of keeping locations confidential, and cases were mentioned where this has been counter-productive, and resulted in loss of the species from a site. I would also comment that a good grid reference would help in those cases where a location name has changed, or the site has been obliterated by a housing estate, for example.

It was pointed out the new version of Recorder asks for the reference work that has been used to identify the species; this would solve some of the problems that we are having computerising the present records, where no reference to the name used can be found in the books at our disposal.

The other interesting point raised was that the Local Record Centres that are at present being funded can never generate enough income to be self-sustaining, so we may as well accept that now and leave the running of the Centres in the hands of local naturalists, and not charge for information given out to third parties, on the understanding that any records that they collect will be sent to the LRC.

This led to the thorny topic of who owns records, which was discussed without reaching a conclusion, but it seemed to be agreed that it was better not to accept records that were sent in with caveats as to whom they could be passed to. (This tied in with the idea that data that is not used is not worth collecting). Perhaps we should now be asking our recorders to give the LRC the power to use their records as is thought fit.

And in case you were wondering, we had very good en-suite accommodation, plenty of good food, and a bar to relax in when we had finished work – at 9-30 each night.

Worcestershire Record No. 8 April 2000 p. 12

Birds in Worcestershire – November 1999 to April 2000

By Gavin Peplow

Another rather mild winter gave way to a very wet April but the whole period witnessed a good array of birds to satisfy all interests.

Two Whooper Swans typically only stayed half a day at Westwood in mid-November and disappointingly very few of their normally commoner and smaller relative, the Bewick’s Swan, were found. White-fronted Geese were seen in reasonable numbers with 17 over Kinsham in mid-January and then a large party of up to 79 at Bredon’s Hardwick a few weeks later.

Other wintering wildfowl included a Scaup briefly at Westwood in February following one at Bredon’s Hardwick earlier in the winter. A hybrid American/European Wigeon at this site was the third such individual there – leaving local birders still awaiting a true-bred vagrant from across the Atlantic! A pair of Red-breasted Mergansers put in an all too brief appearance at Bittell in early April. Migrant Garganey appeared from late March at the new Gwen Finch reserve at Nafford, Ryall, Bredon’s Hardwick and Westwood, and there followed another good passage of Black-necked Grebes with parties of three at Bittell and the same number a few days later at Westwood.

Little Egret at Lower Moor at the end of April provided one of the few records for that time of year – most birds having visited the County in late summer and autumn, but as records increase, could this in the course of time become a local breeding species?!

Wader passage commenced in earnest in April and despite very high water levels and localised flooding, a good variety of species were found. An Avocet at Grimley was the first site record though it soon relocated to nearby Upton Warren for a nine day stay after being given ‘grief’ by the local Mute Swans! Gwen Finch hosted Knot, Grey Plover and Black-tailed Godwit whilst 27 of this last species (a county record) circled over the Bredon floods in late April. A Spotted Redshank also flew north there a few days later.

Only a couple of Ospreys were reported by late April though there was a scattering of Red Kite sightings, mainly involving wing-tagged individuals, presumably from the various reintroduction schemes. Untagged birds included a first-year around Wolverley and another in the Teme Valley though both of these eluded most birders’ attempts to catch views of them!

A Short-eared Owl proved more obliging at Upton Warren, providing excellent views around the Moors Pool over several nights in spring.

The wet water meadows in the Avon valley proved very attractive to a variety of gulls with at least eight Mediterranean’s passing through between February and April whilst a couple of Little Gulls lingered there later in April. Earlier in the year an Iceland Gull was seen one evening at Westwood whilst a first year Glaucous Gull proved a little more obliging whilst visiting this site and Throckmorton Tip over a few days in February.

This winter proved a good one nationally for ‘invading’ Waxwings from Scandinavia and Worcestershire didn’t miss out with first one then two visiting berry bushes in Droitwich before a party of five were found in Kidderminster during April. Arriving from a similar origin were up to twenty Mealy Redpolls at Wadborough at the beginning of the year whilst more surprising were three ‘Siberian’ Chiffchaffs found wintering at Lower Moor. These proved very popular with birders, even from outside the area, with considerable discussion as to whether this race may one day become a species in its own right as a clearer understanding of its relationship with our more familiar nominate race emerges.

A Dartford Warbler was found on the North Malverns in December – the fourth in the last five years and another potential County colonist with our apparently continuing milder winters. Other-wintering passerines included two Firecrests at the Nunnery Wood Countryside Centre just outside Worcester, up to 120 Bramblings gathering in April near Larford and a belated report of a Great Grey Shrike on Castlemorton Common in February.

This spring has proved excellent for Ring Ouzel passage with at least nine on Bredon Hill, up to six on Clent, along with a ‘one-dayer’ at Upton Warren. Other interesting spring visitors included two Black Redstarts – one on North Hill and another in Longdon and, unusually, a Snow Bunting on Worcestershire Beacon in early March. A Blue-headed Wagtail was also found at Grimley during April.

Records compiled from reports received by Birdline Midlands. Please phone through details of all your interesting sightings to the 24-hour Hotline on 01905 754154 (free on application to regular callers). For all the latest information on birds currently within Worcestershire and the Midlands Region, call 09068-700247 (calls charged at 60p per minute).

Worcestershire Record No. 8 April 2000 p. 17

Progress on the Worcestershire Biodiversity Action Plan

By Alex Preston Biodiversity Action Plan Manager

Readers of the Worcestershire Record will be only too familiar with the idea of a Local Biodiversity Action Plan, and the fact that the Worcestershire BAP was launched in April 1999.

Now that the Worcestershire BAP has been produced, the effort turns to trying to ensure that the BAP is implemented – targets are met, actions are carried out. This is no simple task. The Worcestershire BAP contains 843 actions, each of which has combinations of lead and partner deliverers. One of the most urgent jobs I have had, as Biodiversity Action Plan Manager, is to try to ensure that all those with actions in the plan at least know what their actions are, i.e. what is expected of them. This process has been started with the larger organisations – Environment Agency, the County Council, and local authorities in particular. However, it is not as simple as just depositing a list of actions with an organisation, and then leaving them to get on with it – well, we COULD take this approach, but I feel that if we are really going to fulfil the aspirations of the BAP process, we should be working closely with these organisations on an on-going basis, building up working relationships.

A frequent concern for those with actions to implement is reporting back. In this age of performance indicators, best value, targets etc., the last thing most managers want to see is an extra pile of report forms to fill in from the Biodiversity People. To avoid this, I am trying as far as possible to incorporate reporting back on BAP actions within existing reporting systems.

Paralleling the work with organisations there is the project-based approach to creating or restoring habitats. Much of this work is already being carried out by English Nature, the Worcestershire Wildlife Trust, the Environment Agency and local government organisations etc. We will however need to keep a close eye on all this activity to ensure that we are on line to hit the BAP targets – perhaps even passing them, and again we need adequate reporting systems for this.

Having information on the abundance and location of BAP habitats and species is crucial to the whole process. The major common theme that comes out of every meeting I have with managers or officers in relation to implementing the BAP, is requests for information on where things are, closely followed by a demand for straightforward guidance on what they should be doing about it. We, i.e. the conservation movement, have a clear duty here to remove all possible obstacles to the preservation of our wildlife – and this of course applies equally to wildlife which doesn’t happen to be included in the Worcestershire BAP. The message that I am hearing is that managers, and others with influence, are perfectly willing to try to ‘do the right thing’ for wildlife, but in order to do this they need to know firstly where things are, and secondly, what it is they are supposed to be doing about them.

All this underlines the importance of the role of county surveyors in providing crucial information on what wildlife we have where, coupled hopefully, eventually, with a Biological Records System that makes this information easily accessible to all.

For further information on Worcestershire BAP implementation please contact Alex Preston, based in Environmental Services at County Hall in Worcester, email apreston@worcestershire.gov.uk

logo

Worcestershire Record No. 8 April 2000 p. 21

Joint BRC/Butterfly Conservation Millenium Atlas

By Richard Southall and Digby Wood

Records for the Millennium Atlas came in thick and fast at the end of the summer as five years of intensive effort came to their conclusion. Not only effort by BRC and BC (Butterfly Conservation) Members, but also very many recorders from county Wildlife Trusts and divers other wildlife groups. BC were amazed and delighted at the excellent level of support received from these outside organisations especially during the final year when much of the effort was directed at poorly recorded areas such as the arable areas of Cambridgeshire and remote areas like Cape Wrath, County Mayo and the Lleyn peninsular. Volunteers from the Dublin Naturalist’s Field Club have enabled the Republic of Ireland to be included, and there has been similar coverage of the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. Altogether some 1.5 million records are expected when all the returns have been entered.

Worcestershire’s recording has been a great success with 496 of our 497 tetrads being covered. This last tetrad would have been recorded but for the unfortunate fact that our intrepid recorder fell and broke his ankle whilst out recording. Happily he has now recovered.

We offer our grateful thanks to all Worcs. BRC and WWT Members who sent in their records. We regret that it is not possible to acknowledge all contributions individually but West Midlands Branch will be publishing a local atlas and we hope to acknowledge all contributors in this when we have found a way to get this information out of our computer.

The National Millennium Atlas will be published later in the year by Oxford University Press and, apart from the distribution maps, it will include a wealth of recent ecological information together with results from the Butterfly Monitoring Scheme and an analysis of this information leading to plans for combating species decline.

Worcestershire Record No. 8 April 2000 p. 25-26

Abstract Centre of Organisation – A Reply

By Geoff Trevis

I read David Green’s article in Worcestershire Record No 7 with interest and would agree that for many aspects of the scientific work of a biological records centre a distributed data base will function effectively. As he says, the experts in a particular field are best placed to hold, catalogue and analyse the data in their field. However, as he also postulates very strongly, analysis of the total requirements of a centre must be carried out in order to provide for the most effective use of resources and the highest quality of output. I hope, as somebody who has been put through the mill of having to attend many courses on management theory ,and who has had to work in a variety of management styles, I am going to avoid the trap of taking the easy option of following the herd. Analysis might start with the report prepared in 1995 for the Department of the Environment and Joint Nature Conservation Committee called Biological Recording in the United Kingdom – Present practice and future development, which should be read by anyone interested in recording. In its introduction the report states:

‘The UK is fortunate in possessing exceptionally rich holdings of contemporary and historical records of its variety of wildlife. In many cases these are irreplaceable. Their importance is not always fully recognised, in part because their extent and quality has never been fully documented nor their accessibility and utility objectively assessed’.

The report goes on the note that there are probably 2000+ organisations, agencies or societies concerned with record collection; at least 60,000 individuals (predominantly voluntary) actively involved in recording; and over 60 million (probably an underestimate) species based records. In order fully to assess their extent and quality and to provide for their accessibility and utility the report concludes that a structured organisation based on a national centre with linked local centres is required. A conclusion with which I find it hard to disagree. Much of the value of records is lost because nobody knows where they are or how to access them. The LRC provides a focus for recording and for co-ordinating the many, diverse sources of information in its area. The centre needs hardware, software and, ultimately, staff. I believe it extremely wise, however, that county recorders and specialist societies for various taxa should maintain their own data bases in order to provide analysis and up to date advice. A records centre is also a vital means of providing security for data. As the report notes, much of the information is irreplaceable. The records can easily be lost through accidents and a properly backed-up data base in a records centre minimises the possibility of this happening. Regrettably, many people holding computerised data all too frequently omit back-up to a medium which can be stored separately from their computer. Furthermore, records may be lost on the death of the expert (e.g. much information gathered by the late Fred Fincher) or when a person moves to another part of the country. Nationally the bulk of records identified by the JNCC/DoE survey were found to be birds (42%) and vascular plants (14%). A centralised data base, easily accessible to appropriately trained staff, can be used to identify such imbalances and provide pointers to taxa which are seriously under recorded and in need of special attention.

Additionally, in this very brief overview, we need to think about the functions of a records centre. Providing valid data on the distribution of species and long term trends in their populations is one very important element in the output. However, the centre should also provide a public service which links species, habitats and sites. Site based data is the bread and butter of local authority planning departments and much of what is required by private consultants and developers. An integrated information repository is only likely to be possible for a properly organised and constituted records centre with access to other centres locally and nationally. A centre should also provide data to educational institutions and the public about wildlife in the county and be able to suggest projects for students and commission surveys if the money is available. Services require individuals on site to whom clients can address their queries and who can prepare reports and manage the associated finances.

I hope that this response gives at least an overview of some of the reasons why I believe that LRC’ s staffed to do a job of work and linked to a national network operating to agreed and transparent standards is vitally important. To this end WWT Council has given its approval to making a fully functioning, independent LRC the objective for Worcestershire. Initially the current arrangements will be maintained whilst we continue building the data base and putting the finances and resources on a sound footing. During this phase we will continue to depend on volunteers to manage the centre (John Meiklejohn with the help of John Partridge), to input data (Martyn Hodgson and his team) and to continue to provide data (everyone reading this). Also, we need communication between recorders which is largely provided by Harry Green and Worcestershire Record. Later we can move to a company wholly owned by WWT with a paid staff member and finally launch the BRC as a fully fledged NBN linked LRC operating as an independent company. WWT will, of course, remain deeply involved with the centre and be a major user of its data to promote, publicise and implement scientifically based conservation in the county.

As a final thought, the work of expert, volunteer recorders, professional and amateur, will always be needed. It is never going to be possible for commissioned survey work to provide more than a fraction of the data needed by an up to date LRC. We hope, therefore, that you enjoy working with the Worcestershire BRC and with the recording community in the county and will continue to provide the species data which underpins the science of conservation and the long term success of the biodiversity action plans. We would be more than pleased if you could let us know your views about the centre and its development and about how we may better stimulate and support biological recording.

Worcestershire Record No. 8 April 2000 p. 31-32

 Worcestershire Hymenoptera

By Geoff Trevis

The current total number of species of hymenoptera recorded in the British Isles is around 6600. As with all such figures it is a moveable feast. New species are constantly being added to the list and lumping and splitting of species changes the total. For example, the bumble bees Bombus terrestris and B. leucorum are thought to be variants of the same species and recently a similar situation has arisen in respect of B. ruderatus and B. hortorum. Table 1 shows the approximate totals for various groups in Britain and the numbers of recorded species in the Worcestershire BRC. The total of 251 species comes from 1671 individual records. It is immediately obvious that the majority of species nationally belong to the Parasitica whilst the bulk of BRC records are for the Aculeata. This is because the Parasitica are particularly difficult to identify, belonging as they do to families of Chalcids, Braconids, Ichneumonidae, etc. within which many individual species are almost identical, whilst the aculeata contain the more familiar wasp-waisted social and solitary bees, wasps and ants. It will be seen that 20 out of 26 recorded species of Parasitica in the BRC are of gall-forming Cynipidae which can be identified by the plant galls they produce.

Order Sub-order Family No. Records in BRC.
Hymenoptera (6600) Symphyta (470) Sawflies Cimbicidae 2
Dipronidae 1
Argidae 3
Tenthredinidae 16
Wood Wasps Siricidae 2
Apocrita Aculeata (570) 201
Parasitica (5500) Cynipidae 20
Ichneumonidae 4
Pteromalidae 2
Total 251

Table 1. Analysis of hymenoptera species records in the BRC. Numbers in brackets indicate approximate number of species recorded in Britain. No families are given for the aculeata as the analysis is not yet complete.

The total of 201 aculeate species from a national total of about 570 looks a good proportion. However, it hides a site based bias. For several years Dr. M.E. Archer, a nationally recognised authority on hymenoptera, has been visiting the Worcestershire heathlands at Devil’s Spittelful and Rifle Range and Hartlebury Common and by 1998 he had recorded 116* species which makes the sites of regional importance. The list includes several rare, nationally notable species. If these records were to be removed from the Worcestershire list it will be seen that coverage for the rest of the county is relatively meagre. It will be important to monitor how the heathland populations respond to site management.

My present concern is to address the problem of under recording in the wider county and here we have one invaluable source of information. In the mid to late 19th century J.E. Fletcher established a national reputation as an entomologist and made a collection of hymenoptera and diptera plus a few other groups. This is the collection on which Harry Green and I have been working and it will clearly provide an important baseline from which changes can be identified. These records are not yet in the BRC but as our work in restoring and cataloguing the collection, which unfortunately is in very poor condition, is completed we must ensure that they are added to the database. My contribution to date has been to complete the work on two boxes which have been found to contain at least 66 species of hymenoptera collected from 22 sites and there are several more boxes to go. I have included a list of the aculeate species and sites as appendices. There is still some uncertainty as to the identity of some specimens which do not seem to relate to labels in the box and also some names used by Fletcher do not seem to appear in the current R.E.S. checklist of hymenoptera.

During 1999 I began my own survey of the hymenoptera and the first impression gained is of a significantly lower diversity than was found by Fletcher, which accords with other national data. I accept that since this was my year one, my lack of experience and the very limited number of sites visited almost certainly resulted in serious under recording. Furthermore, the identification of the solitary bees is not helped by the lack of keys and I have many specimens awaiting definite identification. A key by Mr. George Else of the Natural History Museum is eagerly awaited but the last information was that it is probably still two years away. In the meantime a scattered literature going back to the late 19th century has to be used.

The importance of the of the hymenoptera lies in their use as indicator species. Michael Archer (1996) states:

Solitary bees and wasps can be readily surveyed in the adult stage without environmental damage. Their abundance and distribution is very sensitive to countryside change, particularly the decline of traditional countryside. These characteristics make this group particularly suitable for site assessment for wildlife conservation.

His paper goes on to discuss why the solitary species are under such threat and how an index of diversity for a site has been developed.

I hope to continue recording in the coming years and to try the diversity index calculation. However, it is clearly beyond the scope of one person to achieve a great deal in less than a few decades! I would be grateful, therefore, to receive any hymenoptera records and doubly thankful for any specimens which you can spare. I am intending to restrict my activities to the aculeates and will not be getting involved with parasitica or symphyta. I will try to let you know the identity of any specimens you can send but the answers may be a long time coming as I have a long way to go before I will feel really comfortable with identifying beyond genus level to species level.

References

ARCHER, M E 1996 in Environmental monitoring, surveillance and conservation using invertebrates. Edited by M.D. Eyre, EMS Publications.

*Further analysis of the records has revealed 158 species of aculeates for the combined Hartlebury Common, Devil’s Spittleful and Rifle Range.

Appendix 1. Aculeate species in the J.E. Fletcher collection.

Andrena
A.labiata, A.haemorrhoa, A.pilipes, A.florea, A.rosea, A.trimmerana, A.cineraria, A.pubescens, A.fulva, A.nigroaenea, A.flavipes, A.varians, A.chrysosceles, A.fulvago, A.labialis, A.minutula, A.gravida
Halictus
H.rubicundus, Lassioglossum leucozonium, L.zonulus, L.quadrinotatum, L.laevigatum, L.calceatum, L.albipes, L.fulvicorne, L.villosulum, L.nitidiusculum, L.tumulorum, L.smeathmanellum, L.leucopum
Crossocerus
C.megacephalus, C.cetratus, C.podagricus, C.annulipes, C.palmipes, C.varus, C.ovalis, C.westmaeli, C.elongatus
Tropoxylon
T.figulus, T.clavicerum, T.attenuatum
Mellinus
M.arvensis
Crabro
C.cribrarius, C.peltarius
Enteromognathus
E.brevis
Oxybelus
O.uniglumis, O.mandibularis, O.argentatus
Colletes
C.succinata, C.fodiens, C.marginatus, C.davensiana
Prosopis
P.cornutus, P.annularis, P.puctulatissima, P.signatus, P.hyalinatus, P.confusus, P.pictipes
Hyleaus
H.communis
Sphecodes
S.crassus, S.ephippius, S.pellucidus, S.puncticeps, S.monilicornis, S.gibbus

Appendix 2: Sites mentioned by J.E. Fletcher

Crown East Wood, Powick, Worcester (his home in St. John’s), Bransford, Old Hills, Henwick, Cotheridge, Martley Road Nr. Worcester, Pole Elm, Middleyard Coppice, Oldbury Farm (Worcester), Hallow, Eastbury, Grimley, Whitehall (pub.?), Little Oldbury, Boughton, Monk Wood, Tibberton, Sinton Green, Spetchley, Crown Park Wood.

Worcestershire Record No. 8 April 2000 p. 16

Windmill Hill Hymenoptera

By Geoff Trevis and Don Goddard

Several hymenoptera from the BRC Recording Day 29th May 1999 have now been identified with certainty:

Nomada flava
Nomada marshamella
Nomada rufipes
Nomada goodeniana
Nomada fabriciana

Worcestershire Record No. 8 April 2000 p. 16

A Summary of my findings during the 1999 Breeding Season Survey of Common Buzzards Buteo buteo around Broadway, Worcestershire

By Mark E Turner

Common Buzzards are known to have bred on the wooded hillsides that surround Broadway at least since the post second World War years, albeit then in very small numbers.

The Buzzard has survived here to the present day as a very successful species, a well established and familiar sight around Broadway’s picturesque countryside.

Occasions such as 23.02.99 and 11.04.99 showed me just how well the local Buzzard populous was fairing with counts of eight and ten birds respectively, grouped together at one time.

First evidence of breeding behaviour occurred on 22 03 99 with a territory-holding bird carrying a sprig of green pine back to a traditional nest site. This is often done to decorate a completed nest, be it old or new, a sigh perhaps to others that the nest site is occupied and chosen by the resident pair as their home for the coming season.

On 31 03 99 1 saw this particular pair mating at the nest site late in the morning. Yet again on 11.04 99 the pair were mating at the nest site at midday

Late afternoon on 27 05 99 at another nest site in another local wood I watched a pair collecting fresh larch branches to decorate a huge nest built in a sycamore tree.

Past surveys have shown how difficult it is to prove successful breeding if nest sites remain undetected. Often identification of juveniles is only possible with good close/clear views. However, during the summer of 1999 I managed to identify three fresh juveniles, all at different sites around Broadway.

Worcestershire Record No. 8 April 2000 p. 20-21

The High Brown Hills Project

By Digby Wood

High Brown Fritillary

The Malvern Hills have historically been an attractive habitat for many species, the lower slopes and commons grazed by cattle and sheep produced a mosaic of grass, herbs and bracken that provided suitable conditions for a wide range of plants and invertebrates to flourish. Notable among the invertebrates were no less than five Fritillary species, the High Brown, the Dark Green, the Pearl Bordered, the Small Pearl Bordered and, if woodland edges were included, the Silver Washed.

In the mid 80’s it became clear that the High Brown was fast becoming very rare nationally and in ‘86 Butterfly Conservation obtained funding from English Nature for a survey of High Brown breeding sites on the Malvern Hills. This was carried out by Matthew Oates (now Conservation Adviser to the National Trust.) and it showed the existence of a number of strong breeding colonies spread over the southern hills, confirming that the Malverns were one of the few national strongholds of this now rare species. In view of its national importance BC set up a Transect Walk in ‘87 covering the main breeding areas on Castlemorton Common and Eastnor Park so that a check could be kept on the butterfly’s status.

These transect walks are now well known, but briefly within prescribed limits of temperature, sunshine duration and wind force, the observer walks a set route counting all species of butterflies entering an imaginary box extending 5m in front and 5m each side. The Malvern Hills walk is some 3.3km, thus the area swept by the observer is about 3.3ha, and since the total breeding area is of the order of 30ha it is evident that only some 11% of the total area is sampled although the best breeding sites are included. Further, since the transect takes on average about 70 mins to walk, each 5m by 10m area is in view for about six seconds. The method is therefore a sampling process and it is statistically valid to compare the aggregate number of sightings of any species during a year (known as the Annual Index) with that obtained in other years. It is also important to understand that a zero Annual Index does not mean that there are no butterflies of that species on the site.

By ‘93 the Annual Index had declined to about 10% of the ‘87 figure so BC negotiated a Species Recovery Programme contract with EN to study site ecology and to recommend a site management programme. Next year BC volunteers commenced annual bracken management in Eastnor Park and BC’s Conservation Officer agreed a bracken management plan for Castlemorton SSSI with EN and supervised its implementation by Malvern Hills Conservators. Test plots were set up on both sites to monitor the effects of the management on plant growth and distribution. Both programmes continued until 1999. The transect walk also continued and the Annual Indices are shown in Fig.1, the top figures are those for the whole Malvern Hills Transect walk, the Eastnor figures are for the best breeding site in the park and the Castlemorton figures are for the breeding sites on east Swinyard and Castlemorton Common. Figures for Chase End Hill (supplied by Ledbury Natural History Society) are included for comparison purposes although collected on a rather less rigorous basis. It can be seen that all four graphs have similar characteristics although different management regimes were employed on the Eastnor, Castlemorton and Chase End sites. The major cause of fluctuation in the Index is almost certainly the weather, particularly cold damp weather during the emergence period in June and this is the subject of a separate investigation. Other factors such as bird predation and parasitism can also cause local variations. The overall picture is one of decline, the ‘95 peak being only 50% of the ‘87 peak and the current trough being the lowest ever.

Figure 1

fig 1

Figs. 2 and 3 show similar data for the Pearl Bordered and the Small Pearl Bordered but it is interesting to note the peaks occur in different years from the High Brown and that they also differ between the Eastnor and Castlemorton sites. However the overall picture is also one of decline.

fig 2
figure 2

fig 3
figure 3

By ‘98 the seriousness of the situation was clear, the management programmes which appeared to be beneficial in ‘94 and ‘95, were not working. BC obtained a further contract with EN to repeat the survey of ‘87 and engaged Simon Barker of WWT to carry it out. The report makes depressing reading with a catalogue of sites overrun by scrub and ever increasing bracken density. EN grasped the nettle, spurred on by the High Brown’s nationally scarce status, its position in the Regional Action Plan, and an unexpected chunk of Government money, and sprang into action. A partnership was formed between MHC, EN, local landowners, NT, BTCV and the MHAONB Office to draw up a plan to restore the Malvern Hills. The plans include the restoration of archaeological sites and a number of the historic well-heads situated on the Hills, but the major part of the expenditure will be for scrub removal and bracken management and the construction of cattle grids to the south of British Camp to allow the re-introduction of grazing by animals. Grazing is expected to re-create the ecological conditions required by the High Brown and other Fritillaries. The total cost of the project is estimated to be £600,000 largely provided by the Heritage Lottery Fund, and the major part of this expenditure has been justified by the need to save the High Brown Fritillary. Thus 13 years of patient but enjoyable work may at last be paying off.

Worcestershire Record No. 8 April 2000 p. 14-15

Woodpeckers of Rock Coppice

By Rosemary Winnall

(This is a summary of a talk given at the Annual Meeting 18th March 2000)

Between 1987 and 1990 I conducted a study of woodpeckers in Rock Coppice, a 65 hectare woodland just south of the main Wyre Forest block near Bewdley. It is ancient semi-natural woodland and a Site of Special Scientific Interest.

During the early spring of 1987 I started to map all observations of drumming and woodpecker interactions in order to ascertain territories. In addition I surveyed the wood for trees showing woodpecker excavation of vertical shafts. These holes were examined three times during the breeding season, in May, June and July and the use of these holes was noted.

The difficulties and dangers of examining holes in trees cannot be understated! Most of these holes were in dead trees and a ladder was required for their examination. Although some were inaccessible, great care had to be taken when ascending those that were! In addition dead branches above occasionally posed a threat, especially in wind! The possibility of an owl being present, although unlikely, was always possible, especially in some of the rot holes.

Special equipment had to be devised for hole examination, and the following were invaluable:

A specially constructed extendible pole with a swivelable mirror on the end. This was made from an old carbon-fibre fishing rod. The mirror was clipped onto the end when it was extended to a length of 2 metres. This piece of equipment was useful to check that the hole visible from below led to a vertical shaft. It also doubled as walking stick, and one metre rule.
A dental mirror with extended handle to 18 cms.
A swivelling jointed book-lite torch adapted to a 4.5 volt battery.
A lead weight on a string which acted as a plumb line to measure the depth of the hole.
A tape measure used to record various dimensions of the holes and the girth of the tree.
A compass used to record the direction of the holes.
A metal tape to establish the height of the hole.
A portable ladder extendible to 4 metres.

During 1987 207 holes were found with an excavated vertical shaft, 20 of which were excavated by woodpeckers during that year. 173 of these were accessible for checking and the following nests were discovered:

Great Spotted Woodpecker 8
Lesser Spotted Woodpecker 2
Green Woodpecker 1
Blue Tit 6
Great Tit 4
Tit sp. (nest predated) 9
Wren 2
Redstart 1
Spotted Flycatcher 1
Robin (nest from previous year) 1
Nuthatch (nest from previous year) 1
Grey Squirrel 1
Wasps (pendulous nest intact) 1
Other occupants: Bat -1, Bumble Bees – several

The history of one hole is of interest. On the 9th May the drumming of a Great Spotted Woodpecker resulted in the discovery of a partly excavated new hole in an old live Wild Cherry tree. On the first approach the adult flew off. There were lots of fresh wood chippings on the ground below the hole. Inspection on the 16th May however, showed that the hole had been extended, but a small breakthrough into a lower hole had occurred. This lower hole had contained Tit eggs on the 2nd May but these had later been predated. On the 24th May and for the next two evenings, a Great Spotted Woodpecker adult was observed entering the hole to roost at about 20.45 hrs. On 30th May nesting material started to appear in the base of the hole. A pair of Great Tits proceeded to nest successfully fledging five young. The clutch of eggs was unusual because of the presence of at least one white unmarked egg.

During the 4 years of study, the same ratios of woodpecker was found annually:

8 pairs Great Spotted Woodpeckers, 2 pairs Lesser Spotted Woodpeckers and 1 pair Green Woodpeckers (although in one year a second Green Woodpecker nest was found in an adjoining orchard, and the pair used the woodland for some of their courtship displays.) In 65 hectares, this was an average territory size of 8 hectares for Great Spotted Woodpeckers, and 32 hectares for Lesser Spotted Woodpeckers.

During the 4 year study insufficient data was collected about Lesser Spotted and Green Woodpeckers, but observations might be made about Great Spotted Woodpeckers (from the 28 nests followed):

The territories stayed approximately the same from one year to the next.
25% of nests found were in a nest hole used by the same species in the previous year.
64% of nests were in a tree that already contained a previously excavated woodpecker hole.
93% nests were in dead trees.
89% of nests were in dead birch trees.
Many of these nest site dead birch trees also showed the presence of the fruiting bodies of the bracket fungus Piptoporus betulinus, the Birch Polypore.
Almost all of the dead birch trees checked showed evidence of Honey Fungus Armillaria mellea, with black bootlace mycelia being evident under the bark.

The study yielded much data, but it also allowed a privileged insight into a fascinating group of birds which are often admired, but little studied.