No. 13 November 2002
DRAGONFLIES IN 2002
Mike Averill
Following the restrictions in 2001, this year was welcomed as an opportunity to get out in the field again. The long term study on the Club-tailed Dragonfly at Bewdley had to be suspended last year but its resumption in 2002 proved worrying with the lowest counts of emergence recorded since the study began in 1987. The reason for this is uncertain but it may be due to the succession of dull June months in recent years. June is the time when the Club-tailed Dragonflies are most active and during this synchronised period good weather is needed for mating.
There have been reports of possible reduced damselfly numbers at sites this year, but this is difficult to prove and it may only be that there has been a lack of favourable viewing weather.
Attention has again been focused on migrant dragonflies this year when the Red-veined Darter arrived for only the second time in Worcestershire. The first sightings were on 1st June when two males were spotted at Ryall gravel pit with a further two males at Kinsham gravel pit, but the most numbers were found at Pirton where 12 individuals were seen. There was also a sighting at Grimley Gravel Pit, but Pirton for some reason proved to be the hot spot with up to 50 individuals being seen later in the same month. Red-veined Darters have been seen before in the county and the question of whether these small influxes can breed successfully is always raised. This year the question was answered when on the 22nd September when seven exuviae were readily found at the margins of Pirton Pool. There was no sign of the adults though and the prospect for them is not good with winter weather approaching, however it can only be hoped that the adults were able to complete their cycle by egg laying. It was interesting that Worcestershire had probably the largest influx of migrant Red-veined Darters in the country because this sort of invasion is usually marked by synchronised influxes in coastal locations.
It would perhaps be interesting to see how easy this dragonfly is to identify in the larval form and it is in fact one of the easiest Darters of all. Once the individuals has been keyed out to one of the Libellulidae (spoon shaped labial mask and cerci less than half the length of the paraprocts), then it is separated from other members of the Libellula or Orthetrum genera by having long hind legs and a tapering area to the rear of the head. At this point it becomes clear that it is the only Sympetrum with no dorsal spines on the abdomen. If this darter does succeed in emerging next year it will be in early June, so please be on the look out.
Pictures from
Gardner A E 1954 A key to the larvae of the British Odonata . Entomologists Gazette 1954, 5:157-171,193-213, with additions to the Sympetrum key, 1955, 6:94-95
DISCOVERY OF ELEOGITON FLUITANS (L.) LINK (FLOATING CLUB-RUSH) ON CASTLEMORTON COMMON
Keith Barnett
Eleogiton fluitans, the Floating Club-rush, is a native aquatic perennial with bright green grass-like leaves, usually found floating in dense mats in still water, mostly on acidic soil. Although it is nationally ‘fairly frequent throughout British Isles, commoner in W’ (Stace 1991), in Worcestershire it is many years since it could be described, as it was by Amphlett in 1909, as ‘not uncommon’ in the county. Indeed, it could not be found (W A Thompson/K Barnett) in July this year in its last known county site on Hartlebury Common, and was feared lost.
In the picture A=flower, B=glume, C=nut,
D=spikelet. Eleogiton fluitans
 |
It is pleasing, therefore, to have a report that during a Worcs BRC Field Meeting on Castlemorton Common (SO73) 10th August 2002, W Watson had noticed a sizeable patch of Eleogiton fluitans in a small pond at the eastern end of the Common. This important find was subsequently confirmed by John Day. The location doubtless broadly corresponds with that formerly known as ‘Welland Common’ from where it was known by Lees in the 19th century.
The Eleogiton site is typical of the many small, botanically rich ponds on Castlemorton Common, some of which contain scarce or rare plants. With the Eleogiton were growing Apium inundatum (Lesser Marshwort), Lythrum portula (Water Purslane) and Veronica scutellata (Marsh Speedwell). In or beside other ponds on the Common can be found Ranunculus peltatus(Pond Water-crowfoot), Ranunculus trichophyllus (Thread-leaved Water-crowfoot) and Oenanthe fistulosa (Tubular Water-dropwort). In one depression which often dries out in summer are Persicaria minor (Small Water Pepper), Centaurium pulchellum (Lesser Centaury) and – discovered on a BSBI Field Meeting led by R Maskew in 1991 – Anagallis minima (Chaffweed). This had been believed to be long extinct in the county, having last been recorded by Lees in the 19th century from a Common now beneath the Birmingham urban sprawl.
References
STACE C 1991. New Flora of Britain CUP
AMPHLETT, J & REA, C 1909. The Botany of Worcestershire.
LEES, E 1867 The Botany of Worcestershire
SUBURBAN INSECTS OF NORTH WORCESTERSHIRE (12TH & 13TH AUGUST 2002)
Mike Bloxham
Working with the Wildlife Trust for Birmingham & the Black Country is a great tonic- occasionally! It may involve visiting some mundane wildlife sites but it turns up is fair share of wildlife surprises. This year’s booby prize appeared to be a visit to Billesley Lane Allotments in Moseley. An assessment of invertebrate value was required and quickly! Normally allotments have only limited allure – the margins and the compost heaps can be good but the general environment usually suggests a wildlife component subjugated by yards of fencing and separated from the oxygen of faunal & floral refurbishment by miles of housing and roads. This one was different. A jumble of old posts and a long rambling hedgerow containing old willows and birch separated it from a golf course with interesting fairways amongst islands of encouraging and varied vegetation. In the distance Moseley Bog of Tolkein fame could just be seen and another whole side of the site was bordered by a woodland sling with old poplars and oaks.
We walked towards some neglected plots adorned with white globes of over-wintered leek flowers on high stems; an unwanted yet exotic waste product of earlier toil. Other admirers were there before us: several large orange and black flies crawled slowly on the florets and left reluctantly but fast on our intrusion. Volucella inanis by name (and nature?). Already it was worth our coming. One flower head unexplored – tenanted by a large and sombre fly which moved and suddenly glowed bronze. The net came down. Driven with emphatic sweep on instant recognition of the rarity, it had detained Callicera aurata. Not bad for the first ten minutes of our odyssey.
 |
 |
Callicera aurata (photo of mounted specimens © Andy Purcell www.focusonwildlife.org.uk )
A deep ditch ran beneath sleeper bridges, dividing the plots. The locals said it carried storm & waste water off the road systems and from errant washing machines. A glance at the source confirmed this as a grey liquid oozed between strands of sewage fungus. After one hundred metres of clinker- filled course a different story was told. The emerging water chuckled crystal clear on its way, joined by a bubbling spring from the golf course and a gravel strand well swept offered up a real dollie – the tiny Teuchophorus monocanthus – normally very local in these situations on some of Britain’s purest streams.
At the end of our work a disgruntled holder working on his plot joined us. Something had got at his asparagus. A sharp tap on the fronds revealed the culprit. An asparagus beetle- Crioceris asparagi. He was not impressed but I was. It was the first time I had ever seen one. One man’s meat is another man’s poison!
Footnote:
Thanks must go to Landcare Associates and EcoRecord ( the wildlife database for Birmingham and the Black Country) for giving me opportunity for this survey. Readers wishing for a full list of findings on the day may contact EcoRecord (Wildlife Trust for Birmingham & the Black Country). An earlier record for Callicera aurata exists for Wolverhampton where Guy Knight (newly appointed director of the Bug House at Liverpool Museum) found it in the back garden of his home.
Editor’s comment
For the un-initiated: RECORDER 3.3 is positively lyrical about Callicera aurata as follows: Designation Red Data Book 3. A hoverfly usually found in ancient forests with over-mature and senescent trees especially Fagus (beech) and Quercus (oak) Adults are primarily arboreal rarely descend to feed at flowers or to drink at streams. Occasionally found at great distances from apparently suitable breeding localities (eg a recent record in a suburban garden in Wolverhampton). Larvae have been found in rot holes high (18 m) in an old beech tree in ancient forest. In Great Britain mainly recorded from ancient forest in southern central England (especially the New Forest) but there are a scatter of records for SW England, Wales and the Midlands, and two records from central Scotland. In Europe the situation is not clear because of confusion with C. aenea, but there are records from Norway, France, south to the Mediterranean and eastwards through central and southern Europe to Turkey.
Volucella inanis is a large black and yellow striped hoverfly. The larvae are commensals in social wasp nests. This species has been confined to SE England but is showing a marked tendency to spread NW. The first records for proper (!) Worcestershire were in Tiddesley Wood near Pershore (the first records for 100 km grid square SO). They have also been found in Solihull this summer. More in our next!
A STUDY OF THE IMPORTANCE OF GARDEN HABITATS FOR TREE SPARROWS
Melvin Butler
(The following is from a personal project undertaken for the University of Birmingham Diploma in Ornithology)
Aim of project
To investigate the use made of gardens by Tree Sparrows Passer montanus by looking at their occurrence in gardens at different times of the year. This would indicate importance for either winter survival and/or breeding success. Local records from north Worcestershire are compared against national data bases.
Introduction
Distribution and behaviour.
There are between 20 and 25 species in the genus Passer with the higher number being based on the phylogenetic species concept. The most widespread species are House Sparrow Passer domesticus and Tree Sparrow. Both are found throughout the Palearctic and Oriental regions and they have also reached other parts of the world, often with the help of man, either by deliberate introduction or accidentally through ship assisted passage.
Both Tree and House Sparrows show a habitat preference for both the built-up environment and the surrounding agricultural land in situations where they do not occur together. “In those parts of the world where the Tree Sparrow is not in competition with its larger and dominant congener, the House Sparrow, it fills the urban role successfully. Yet where the two species overlap, as in Britain and most of continental Europe, the Tree Sparrow is virtually excluded from towns and villages, and occupies instead the rural niches of farmland and lightly wooded countryside. At the northern limit of their range, in Scandinavia, northern Germany and northern Russia, the separation is much less clear and both species tend to occur in towns and villages.” (Marchant et al 1990)
In this country, the Tree Sparrow is mainly to be found on farmland. It breeds in loose colonies and individuals remain faithful to that colony for life, although apparently thriving colonies can dwindle and disappear. A number of studies referred to in Birds of the Western Palearctic (Cramp, 1998) describe the feeding and foraging behaviour as “Foraging flocks stay close to cover, with birds flying into cover every few minutes without obvious reason and then drifting back to the feeding area” and “if there is sufficient snow to cover the food plants, flocks break up into smaller groups that scatter to search for food, particularly near human settlement”
Tree Sparrows had high population levels in this country around the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, followed by a longer period of decrease and a contraction of the range. This became very marked by 1930, but the late 1950s and early 1960s saw an increase and expansion. Common Birds Census data collected from 1962 saw population levels reach a plateau in 1976/77. A steep decline followed, and the population is now below the level prior to 1950. (Marchant et al 1990). These oscillations in the population are not easily explained. It is suggested that the declines (before 1950) followed a significant period of agricultural decline in the 1930s. There was a lag of approximately 15 or 20 years in the resurgence of agriculture in the 1940s and then an increase in the population of Tree Sparrows in the late 1950s. Numbers grew and remained high during the main period when organochlorides were used (1956 -1963), but numbers began to fall some time after that. According to Marchant (Marchant et aI 1990) the decrease in population is not likely to be related to Dutch Elm disease as Tree Sparrows do not depend on Elms for nest sites. There is an alternative view about this in O’Connor and Shrubb (1986) which says that there may have been an effect on the population of Tree Sparrows caused by the loss of Dutch Elms which reduced the availability of nest sites for a number of species. Such trees provided large cavities suitable particularly for species like Kestrel Falco tinnunculus , Stock Dove Columba oenas and owls, but they also were used by other species like Tree creeper Certhia familiaris and Tree Sparrow. Elms also often were the most mature trees in hedgerows and Tree Sparrows are known to use hedgerows and hedge intersections (Lack, 1992). O’Connor and Shrubb refer to Forestry Commission statistics which show that some 16% of the non-woodland elms in southern England were felled in the mid to late 1970s; any loss of such trees near to urban areas may also have affected the occurrence of Tree Sparrows in gardens. Species including Tree Sparrow “showed a short term decrease on CBC (Common Birds Census) plots affected by the disease.” (O’Connor and Shrubb, 1986)
However, the decline in the population may be related to the wide spread use of herbicides in weed control on farmland which reduces the availability of Tree Sparrows’ preferred food, that is, smaller seeds.
Gardens and wildlife.
There has been an increasing interest in gardening throughout the twentieth century. More recently this interest has developed to include gardens as important habitats for birds and other wildlife. A general increased awareness of conservation issues has also encouraged the development of more wildlife gardening with more trees and shrubs being planted and significantly more food being put out during the winter. In particular, garden habitats are seen to provide extra natural food, nest sites, and roost sites. There are also a significant number of gardens where supplementary food, nest boxes and roost sites are provided. (Glue and Muirhead, 1991)
Methods
A literature search was carried out which included the Internet.
Requests were made in Spring of 2001 for local records of Tree Sparrows occurring in gardens to the Worcestershire Wildlife Trust and the West Midlands Bird Club using their newsletters.
Data were also obtained from the British Trust for Ornithology’s Garden Bird Watch scheme.
Results
Local records -Worcestershire and the West Midlands.
The majority of the published local records for Tree Sparrows refer to known breeding or to the observation of winter flocks. Historical records for Worcestershire area refer to Tree Sparrows being a resident species (Willis Bund, 1891) and as “…common in old orchards where it nests in old tree holes. A few colonies may also be found in pollard willows along river banks…” (Harthan, 1947). A revised list of the birds of Worcester shire by Harthan in 1961 still recorded it as a “…local but generally distributed… ” species (Harthan, 1961)
The annual reports from the West Midlands Bird Club throughout 1995-1999 refer to Tree Sparrows as a ” Fairly common, though declining resident“. Breeding records in Worcestershire again appear in the Annual reports from 1995 to 1999 as follows:
“Some breeding records reported throughout Worcestershire” 1995
“Small numbers bred throughout the County” 1996
“Breeding reported near Bordesley at Rowney Green, Bittell, and Berrow Hill (Redditch), and Wythall” 1997
“Breeding at Brockhill Farm (Hewell Grange area)” 1998
“Breeding at Bittell, Tardebigge” 1999 (note: the picture on the front cover for this report is of a Tree Sparrow).
The occurrence of Tree Sparrows is also reported in local newsletters, for example, “A flock of Tree Sparrows at Lea End (Hopwood) numbered 20, and there was another of unspecified size at Wiggins Hill” (West Midlands Bird Club Bulletin, 2001)
Definite breeding has been recorded throughout the West Midlands according to Harrison (Harrison, 1982). There are records in 99% (76) of the 10km squares in each year between 1966 and1972. Harrison also looked at the regional plots for the Common Birds Census in 1978 which showed 10.8 pairs per sq. km. in woodland, whilst on farmland there were 6.92 pairs per sq. km. compared to 4.76 nationally. More information was available on winter flocks where the commonest size reported was between 50 and150, with the mean size of flock being 164 and the largest being over 1,500 at Blithfield in 1961/62.
Some results on Tree Sparrows from Garden Bird Watch were reported by Mead (1998) to show an increase in the recording of Tree Sparrows in gardens, especially in the Midlands and southwest Scotland. This may be linked, according to Mead, to the increased availability of supplementary food, especially the smaller black sunflower seeds. Tree Sparrows are known to have a preference for the smaller weed seeds in the farmland habitat.
Local and national garden records:
see Table 1 for the local data. Garden Bird Watch data for 2000-01 is not reproduced here.
| Location | No. | Winter | Spring | Sum | Aut | Gardentype | Food | Br |
| Bordesley | 8 | Y/O | Y/O | N | N | R/M | Y | N |
| Upton | 1 | N | N | N | Y/R | R/L | Y | N |
| Shenstone | 40 | Y/F | Y/F | N | N | R/M | Y | Y |
| Wythall | 1 | N | Y/O | N | N | S/M | Y | N |
| Draycott | 18 | Y/F | Y/F | Y/F | Y/O | R/L | Y | N |
| Cleobury | 7 | Y/O | Y/F | Y/F | Y/O | R/L | Y | Y |
| Belbroughton | 7 | Y/O | Y/O | Y/O | Y/O | R/L | Y | Y |
| Knowle | 6 | Y/F | Y/F | Y/F | Y/F | R/L | Y | Y |
| Norchard | 5 | N | Y/F | Y/F | N | R/L | Y | Y |
| Fairfield | ? | Y/F | Y/F | N | N | R/M | Y | N |
| St John | 9 | N | Y/F | Y/F | N | U/L | Y | Y |
| Aldridge | 8 | Y/F | Y/F | Y/O | Y/R | R/S | Y | Y |
| Shropshire | 23 | Y/O | Y/F | Y/F | Y/O | R/L | Y | Y |
Table 1. Local Garden Records of Tree Sparrows. Key: Y = yes, N = No. Frequency: F = frequent, O = occasional, R = rare. Garden type: U = urban, S = suburban, R = rural, S = small, M = medium, L = large. Sum = summer, Aut = autumn, Br = breeding
Discussion
Recording Tree Sparrows in gardens
The Garden Bird Watch handbook (Cannon, 1998) acknowledges the potential inaccuracies in recording accurately data on similar looking species such as House and Tree Sparrows, particularly by volunteers with a spread of experience. I believe that it is quite probable that Tree Sparrows are under-recorded as garden birds. They are not distinguished by less experienced, and even by some experienced observers (based on personal comments with bird watching friends and neighbours). Tree Sparrows were identified as a separate species in the first century by Alexander the Myndian. However, it was not until the seventeenth century that Willoughby and Ray drew attention to it as a separate species from the House Sparrow. (Summers Smith, 1995). The Garden Bird Watch scheme, however, feel that the size of the sample would still allow any significant variations in the population to be monitored.
The importance of gardens as habitats
While the average size of a garden in this country is only 186 square metres, it has been estimated that the total area that they occupy is at least 485,000 ha. or 3% of the total land area in England and Wales. They often have a large number of plant species and a wide structural variation and many are close to natural and semi-natural habitats such as parks, railway lines, derelict land or local nature reserves. They can therefore be seen to at least have the potential to support a range of wild life. (Good, 2000)
“the conservation significance of private gardens greatly outweighs their absolute value as bird habitat. They have immense potential to educate and engage their users in concepts of species protection and habitat management” (Cannon, 1999). Gardens, although small are not isolated but are part of a continuum of modified habitats. Many birds use gardens not only for the emergency food in hard weather, but also are establishing territories and successfully breeding. This includes “Amber listed” species (of medium conservation concern) such as Blackbirds Turdus rnerula. Some Red listed species (of high conservation concern) also appear regularly in some gardens, for example Song Thrush Turdus philomelos, Bullfinch Pyrrhula pyrrhula, Spotted Flycatcher Muscipa striata and Tree Sparrow (Cannon, 1999). Cannon also supports the view that there is significant value in engaging people in garden bird monitoring programmes, both in terms of the data produced and engaging people in wider conservation matters.
The initial results of some current research on a population of Tree Sparrows at Rutland Water has shown a connection with willows and rushes at wetland edges. The adult Tree Sparrows were found to feed their chicks on the insects which were abundant in this habitat. (Birds, vol. 18, no 8, 2001). These links between breeding colonies and wetland edges supports and explains the description of Tree Sparrows by Harthan “A few colonies may also be found in pollard willows along river banks…” (Harthan, 1947) and by Nicholson (Nicholson, 1951), who says that they are “more garden birds on the continent than they are with us, but they do come freely into gardens and even breed in them, especially where marshes with pollard willows or other specially suitable sites adjoin”
Local garden records (Table 1 ):
Only 13 records were obtained from the requests in the Worcestershire Wildlife Trust and West Midlands Bird Club newsletters. All are for recent (over last two years) or current occurrences. Only 7 of these are for Worcestershire. Although it is too small a sample to analyse statistically, the data do show some interesting features:
All provided supplementary food in their gardens.
Spring is by far the most likely time of year when Tree Sparrows occur in gardens with 12 of the 13 records reporting Tree Sparrows at this time of year, and of these, there were 9 records where they occurred ‘frequently’. There were similar levels of reporting for the other periods in the year- 9 in winter, 8 in summer and 7 in the autumn. In choosing the four seasons as categories there may have been some confusion in the returns between, for example, winter and spring. The more detailed records I have for my own garden show more detailed records month by month and that February is the peak month each year that I have observed Tree Sparrows in my garden.
Regarding the type of garden -11 out of the 13 returns classify their gardens as rural and only one each as urban and suburban. Only one return is classified as small, but this also had known breeding nearby.
Due to the habit of colonial breeding, it may have been expected that fewer records of garden breeding would be seen, but four of the records have known garden breeding taking place. A further four records refer to known breeding nearby.
Wide variation in maximum numbers were reported (from 1 to 40) and it is difficult to draw any significant conclusions about the numbers occurring. My own more detailed records for the winter of 1999/2000, however, show that numbers built up from two birds in October to eight birds in February 2000.
BTO Garden Bird Watch data
There is a very low reporting rate for Tree Sparrows in the BTO’s Garden Bird Watch scheme and not possible to distinguish data by type or size of garden. For the year 2000 and up to week 13 of 2001, the mean proportion of gardens reporting Tree Sparrows was 0.049 from a mean weekly return of 8752 gardens which means that an average of 429 gardens reported Tree Sparrows each week during that period. However, the peak reporting rate during 2000 (0.057 up to 0.061) occurs in the spring around week 13 (end of March) while the lowest figures (0.034) are in the early autumn at week 37 (mid September).
Gardens clearly provide some important opportunities for Tree Sparrows, especially where supplementary food is supplied during the winter months. This, of course, will not be sufficient on its own, because the breeding population outside gardens may continue to decline. Tree Sparrows do successfully breed in some gardens. It is known, for example, that they readily take to nest boxes (Cramp, 1998) but the importance of nearby wetland edges to breeding colonies as seen at Rutland Water, may be equally important to those Tree Sparrows breeding in gardens. Further investigation is needed to determine the factors involved in the situations where successful breeding is taking place in gardens. The small, but distinct increases in the occurrence of Tree Sparrows in gardens recorded in the Garden Bird Watch scheme and reported by Chris Mead lead him to pose the question at the end of his article “Could the Tree Sparrow become a garden bird conservation success story of the next few years?” (Mead, 1998)
Summary
The importance of gardens as a habitat for Tree Sparrows is examined, both for winter survival and for breeding success. Data on the occurrence of Tree Sparrows in local (north Worcestershire) gardens are compared to national data bases.
In this country, the Tree Sparrow is mainly a farmland bird with a significantly declining population. Historical records show that Tree Sparrows occur throughout Worcestershire. It is known to occur in gardens, especially during winter months and also to occasionally breed in gardens. Only a small number of local garden records were obtained which did not allow a full statistical analysis but did confirm that Tree Sparrows do occur in gardens in north Worcestershire including occasional breeding records. The majority of the local records obtained were from rural gardens and spring was the most likely time for Tree Sparrows to be observed. Supplementary food was provided by all the people who sent in local records
Historical descriptions and recent research at Rutland Water show that successful breeding colonies are close to water or wetland edges which supply insect food for chicks. The information gathered from local records did include known breeding either in the garden or nearby, but did not include a reference to known water. Further study on the proximity of wetland edges to successful garden breeding for Tree Sparrows is required.
Acknowledgements.
I wish to thank the following who sent me records: Tessa Carrick, Carole Wellings, John Humphreys, Jim Martin, D & G Bennett, D Roe, Mike Southall, Robert McCracken, Patrick Taylor, and anonymous of St Johns (Worcester), Draycott-in-the-Clay, and Aldridge.
References
Birds Tree Sparrows -a watery connection. 2001. Birds, vol. 18, no 8, Winter 2001, p63
CANNON, A.1999. The significance of private gardens for bird conservation. Bird Conservation International, 9:287-297.
CRAMP, S.1998 Birds of the Western Palearctic, Oxford University Press.
CANNON, A.1998. Garden Bird Watch Handbook, British Trust for Ornithology.
GLUE, D & MUIRHEAD, L 1991. Garden Bird Studies: Stroud, D. and Glue, D. (eds). Britain’s Birds 1989-90: the conservation and monitoring review. National Conservancy Council and British Trust for Ornithology.
GOOD, R. 2000. The value of gardening for wildlife: what contribution does it make to conservation? British Wildlife 12:77-84, December 2000.
HARRISON, G. 1982 The birds of the West Midlands, West Midlands Bird Club.
HARTHAN, A. 1947 The birds of Worcestershire, Littlebury and Company, (not dated)
HARTHAN, A. A revised list of the Worcestershire birds, Trans. Worcester Naturalists Club, 1961
LACK, P 1992. Birds on lowland farms, HMSO.
MARCHANT, J., HUDSON, R., CARTER, S. &WHITTINGTON P. 1990 Population Trends in British Breeding Birds. BTO and NCC.
MEAD, C 1998 Focus on: Tree Sparrow The Bird Table, No 14, Summer 1998, p5
NICHOLSON, E 1951Birds and man, Collins.
O’CONNOR, R AND SHRUBB M 1986. Farming and birds, Cambridge University Press.
SUMMERS-SMITH, J. D. 1995. The Tree Sparrow, Dennis Summers-Smith.
West Midland Bird Club. Annual reports, 1995 -1999.
West Midlands Bird Club Bulletin, No 407, April 2001, p12
WILLIS BUND, J. 1891. A list of the birds of Worcestershire and adjoining counties. W Leicester.
KEMERTON CUTTINGS, March to end October 2002
John Clarke
Birds
During the first part of March Kemerton Lake (formerly Kinsham Lake) produced a Peregrine, the first Sand Martins (9th), 27 Snipe on the scrapes, nine Little Grebes, and a peak of 26 Gadwall. Later in the month four Little Gulls were recorded (adults, two juvs. on 18th), two Little-ringed Plovers arrived on 23rd, a Black-tailed Godwit was there on 23rd, and 6 House martins passed through on 30th.
Elsewhere a Goshawk was seen over a plantation on 14th and c.20 Redpolls stayed all month around the plantations
In April Kemerton Lake had records of the first Willow Warbler and two Egyptian Geese on 3rd; Common Sandpiper, Yellow Wagtail, White Wagtail and Swallow on 15th, a Cuckoo on 18th, first Whitethroat on 21st, first Reed Warbler – plus Bar-tailed Godwait and a Wheatear 0n 24th. On the 28th an Osprey was hunting and 29th saw Whinchat, Sedge Warbler in song and Lesser Whitethtroat.
Elsewhere, on the 4th five Redpolls were still present and a Nuthatch was watched nest building. A Grasshopper Warbler was singing on the 23rd and 29th. Little Owl nests were found at three sites.
In May at Kemerton Lake three Whimbrel and one Swift were present on 1st. A pair of Greylag hatched 4 young on 4th, and a Common Tern was there on 6th. two Turnstone, one Dunlin and two Ringed Plover turned up on the 8th. There were 4 Common Terns and a Sanderling present on the 13th. A single Garganey and a Wheatear were there on 15th, four Common Terns, one Arctic Tern, a Bar-tailed Godwit and a Hobby were there on 19th. On the 21st a pair of Oystercatchers had two chicks and the 3-4 pairs of Lapwings had chicks whilst a pair of Skylark fledged at least two chicks. On the 30th a Red Kite landed briefly before being mobbed by other birds.
In June at Kemerton Lake a Honey Buzzard flew over on the 2nd, Peregrine and Hobby were seen on 4th In June . Common Terns were seen displaying and mating on nesting platforms at Kemerton Lake on 14th. There was a yellow-legged gull there on 21st.
The autumn passage began with Common Sandpiper,, Greenshank, Dunlin and Redstart on 29th July. On the 30th a Turtle Dove flew over and Sedge warbler was foraging in the reeds. August was busy with a steady trickle of Yellow Wagtails and Common Sandpipers through Kemerton Lake Reserve. Green Sandpipers were there until end October. There was a Hobby there on 15th and 20th, five Barnacle Geese were there on 20th and numbers peaked at 14. two Grasshopper Warblers were seen foraging in Juncus on 20th..
There were three sightings of Ruff in mid-September, a Spotted Flycatcher was there on 13th and three Garganey on 18th. Later in the month large numbers of Snipe, pipits, Skylark and wagtails were moving through. A late Hobby was reported on 26th. On 5th October a Golden Plover was seen. On 15th an adult Little Gull stayed briefly, six Little Gulls and 5 Rock Pipits were there on 31st.
Elsewhere on the estate – the monitoring scheme recorded further increases in populations of Skylark, Yellowhammer, Song Thrush, Linnet, Whitethroat and Bullfinch.
Two Hobbys were hunting over Beggarboys on the 15thMay, the first Spotted Flycatcher was seen on the 16th, and Swifts were displaying around the church tower on 19th. A Barn Owl was found to be regularly roosting in a barn on the estate and later a nest was found in a nearby tree – the first breeding record at Kemerton for many years. A Turtle Dove was seen at a former breeding site. The Nuthatches brought at least two young to a garden bird table in Kemerton . On 25th September Siskin and Redpoll were moving through the estate woodlands. Crossbill were also heard there. By the 30th flocks of up to 50 Siskin were seen and groups of Siskin and Redpoll have been regularly recorded since then.
Butterflies
Large numbers of Holly Blues and Orange tips were seen across the estate throughout March-June. Although a number of other species seemed to be down in numbers the monitoring scheme found increased numbers of several ‘brown’ species along new grass margins. In one field, where Skippers had rarely been previously recorded, 50+ ‘Small Skippers’ were counted on one walk. An injured individual was captured and later found to be an Essex Skipper! This species and Brown Argus were also recorded at Kinsham Lake this summer.
Plants
Kemerton Lake Reserve produced Bee Orchid, Common Spotted Orchid and Pyramidal Orchid and over 50 spikes of Common Broomrape.
Elsewhere, 95 Pyramidal Orchid flower spikes were counted along Westmancote track
John Day visited Kemerton to discuss a number of queries on botanical records since 1983 and efforts will be made to confirm any still considered to be ‘doubtful’. The visiting botanists recorded several new species including Echium plantagineum (Purple Vipers Bugloss) at Kinsham Lake
Mammals
During cutting operations in autumn large numbers of Harvest Mouse nests were found at Beggarboys wetland reserve.
A Polecat was caught in a rabbit trap and released unharmed.
General
John Day, Harry Green, Roger Maskew, John Meiklejohn, John Partridge, Bill Thompson and Geoff Trevis all made visits. Kemerton Conservation Trust is grateful for the great interest shown. The mining bee colony at the lake remains the focus of great interest. A full survey of the various colonies on 19th April found 40,000 holes – though a violent hailstorm on the 18th had obliterated some of the holes!
Buzzard food
With reference to the saga of. ‘What do Buzzards eat?’ Overbury estate reported that one morning in late June a Buzzard had been noticed feeding for some time on a ‘kill’. On further investigation it turned out to be a Grey squirrel which was still warm – so it is assumed that the bird killed it.
We are still trying to get Recorder 2000 up and running – once this is achieved, updated discussions will take place with John Partridge about the transfer of data onto the Worcestershire Biological Records data base.
THE BREDON HILL SPOTTED FLYCATCHER SURVEY
John Clarke
See Worcestershire Record No 11 November 2001 pages 10-11.
The survey expanded in 2002. 40 pairs and 50 nests were located of which 31 pairs and 44 nests were monitored. Because we could closely follow many of the pairs we picked up interesting information about breeding behaviour such as number of breeding attempts per pair, average number of young fledged per pair (per year) and number of pairs failing to breed successfully. I am hoping to write something up on the two year’s results. We also ‘trialled’ some experimental nest-boxes, and a survey that will allow us to look at food availability through the various stages of the breeding season.
In 2003 the survey will focus on a ‘community’ nest-box project.
THE FRESHWATER ALGAE OF WORCESTERSHIRE
John Dodge
If you take a sample in a bottle or specimen tube from any lake, pond, bird-bath, semi-permanent puddle, river, stream or ditch and then examine it with a microscope you are almost sure to find some algae. Whether you can identify them is another matter. Algae are by far the least well recorded of the ‘green’ plants because they are usually small and therefore need microscopy to discern their features. They are also difficult to identify, but more of that later. In general the only time when freshwater algae are noticed is when the occurrence of large numbers gives rise to a brown or blue-green water bloom or green blanket-weed. Then the cry is ‘what can I do to get rid of this nuisance?’
Algae come in various colours: grass-green, blue-green, brown, golden and even, occasionally, red. These colours are all due to the range of chloroplast pigment found in members of the different classes and phyla into which the algae are classified. There were originally only three or so classes but the number has steadily increased over the years as more details have emerged of their structure and biochemistry. Morphologically, algae may be single celled or colonial flagellates or coccoid cells; they may form simple or branched filaments, or may have a primitive thallus. Some are actively motile, some are free-floating whilst many are found attached to a substrate. Most reproduce by asexual division but a variety of types of sexual reproduction are also known.
So, what freshwater algae are present in Worcestershire? We really do not know. There would appear to have been very little work done in this county, although I will be happy to be proved wrong and to be shown that this impression is due to my poor homework. At the start of the 20th century a celebrated algologist, G.S. West, was Professor of Botany at Birmingham University. He and various of his students sampled for algae throughout the Midlands. One, B.M.Griffiths, took regular samples in 1908-9 from Stanklin Pool at Stone, SE of Kidderminster, and identified almost 100 taxa from four algal phyla. He noted how the populations changed with the seasons and with the changes of water temperature. His paper describing this work was published in 1912 (The algae of Stanklin Pool, Worcestershire; an account of their distribution and periodicity. Proc. Birmingham Nat. Hist. and Phil. Soc. 12, no. 5, 1-23.). All the algal records collected by Prof. West and his students over the period 1916-19 were brought together and published after his death (The flagellates and algae of the district around Birmingham, W.B. Grove, B.M. Bristol and N. Carter, 1920. J. of Botany, 53, supp. 3, 1-55.). This contains many records for Worcestershire but generally with only the crudest of locations, eg. the name of the nearest town or village. I have yet to discover any published records from the subsequent 80 years!
Having moved to Ashton under Hill in S Worcestershire in 1997 I decided to look around for freshwater members of the Dinophyceae, a group on which I had researched for almost 40 years, but mainly on marine members. First stop was the garden pond which I had cleared out and repaired in the autumn. In February 1998 I noticed that the water (temperature around 7°C) was brown, and microscopical examination revealed a bloom of a small naked dinoflagellate which I identified as Gymnodinium inversum (Fig. 1). This had never been recorded from the British Isles and had originally been described from Denmark. Regular sampling revealed that as the temperature increased large cells, which were probably motile zygotes, increased in number and then knobbly thick-walled cysts appeared (Fig. 2). Many euglenas, cryptophytes and green flagellates were subsequently found in the pond and the progress of the various main taxa was followed by making counts at intervals. Subsequently this Gymnodinium has appeared at about the end of November each winter.
 |
Some dinoflagellates from Ashton under Hill. Fig. 1. Gymnodinium inversum, motile vegetative cell. Fig. 2. G. inversum cyst. Fig. 3. Gymnodinium pseudopalustre, motile stage. Fig. 4. Peridium palatinum, motile stage of an armoured dinoflagellate. (From J.M.Lewis & J.D.Dodge, Phylum Pyrrophyta. In: The Freshwater Algal Flora of the British Isles.) |
Another exciting discovery came in August 1999 when I was brought a sample from a large spring-fed pond used as an irrigation reservoir by a farmer. Previous sampling had suggested that this was a pretty barren pond so imagine my surprise when the sample was brown with what I eventually identified as Gymnodinium pseudopalustre, (Fig. 3), previously recorded from continental Europe but not from the UK. The water temperature was 19° C so this species is clearly one of warm water. The bloom did not last very long but it has appeared around the middle of August each year since. A few other dinoflagellates have also been found in the autumn of which the most easily recognisable is the armoured species Peridinium palatinum (Fig. 4). A number of interesting euglenoids and chrysophytes have also been seen in this pond.
It would be interesting to begin to collect algal records from various parts of Worcestershire. Until recently the big problem has been that of identification for, although it is not so hard to get to the genus, the literature for keying out to species has been very difficult both to obtain and to use, since the majority of it was in German. Now, with the publication of ‘The Freshwater Algal Flora of the British Isles’ (D.M. John, B.A. Whitton & A.J. Brook, editors; 2002, CUP,702 pp plus CD photo catalogue. ISBN 0 521 77051 3. ) we have a work which covers all the algae, with the exception of diatoms, which are known to have been found in the UK. There are user-friendly keys and clear line drawings of all the species described plus the photographs on the CD, most of which are in colour.
If any one has a problem alga they would like help with please contact me (jdodge3458@aol.com).
A 2002 PINE MARTEN RECORD FOR WORCESTERSHIRE?
Gordon Forrest, Mervyn Needham and Johnny Birks
Dead pine marten in Chaddesley Wood Photo Gorden Forrest
On 15th June 2002 a dead pine marten Martes martes was found and photographed by one of us (GF) on a footpath on the edge of Chaddesley Woods National Nature Reserve. Apparently the corpse had been seen at the same location the previous day by Mr. and Mrs. Kelly, local dog-walkers. GF reported the corpse to MN, who put it in a refuse bag on 15th June and placed it nearby for later collection. Frustratingly, 90 minutes later the bag containing the corpse had disappeared and could not be found despite extensive searching and enquiries over the subsequent few days. Thankfully GF’s photographs were processed safely, and these remain as valuable evidence to confirm that it undoubtedly was a pine marten. Finally, on 14th July 2002, after further searching MN found the corpse (still in its bag that had, apparently, been thrown into thick cover by someone) a few metres away. Having lain in the plastic bag for some 29 days in mid-summer, putrefaction was well advanced and most of the soft tissues had been consumed.
There are reasons for regarding this as a most unusual record that should be treated with appropriate caution. Firstly, although The Vincent Wildlife Trust has gathered sparse but convincing evidence of pine martens surviving in parts of Wales and northern England at the turn of the millenium, there has been no such evidence from Worcestershire (or adjacent areas) since a report of the species observed by George Wright (a gamekeeper) on the Lickey Hills in the period 1897-1907. Even this record, uncovered by T.J. Pickvance (1958) during his survey of West Midland mammals, derives from a time when other authorities regarded the pine marten as already extinct in the Midlands. Currently, the nearest cluster of convincing records of pine martens lies on the Welsh border, some 50-60km to the West of Chaddesley Woods. Whilst this should not persuade us to rule out a natural origin for the Chaddesley animal (because pine martens are capable of dispersing huge distances), under the circumstances we feel especially obliged to consider possible alternative explanations. For example, could the animal be derived from a recent escape or release from captivity? Or could the corpse have been ‘planted’ for some bizarre reason? We have made enquiries among our local contacts, and to date none has admitted any knowledge of an escape or release that might explain the record.
There are elements of the Chaddesley marten’s appearance, visible in GF’s photographs, that raise suspicion. We showed electronic or printed versions of the main image to several naturalists familiar with pine martens (including three with experience of captive martens) in order to canvas their opinions of the record. A notable fact to emerge from this consultation was that the animal appears to be in pelage typical of late winter rather than mid-summer. In Britain pine martens tend to start moulting in April, shedding their fluffy mid-brown winter coat by the end of May so that they typically appear slim and dark in their short summer coat by mid-June. At this time the Chaddesley animal clearly retains most of its winter coat, and shows no sign of the dark summer fur on its head where the spring moult starts. The observation that the Chaddesley animal’s pelage is inconsistent with its mid-June discovery raises questions about when and where it actually died. In the experience of those who have kept martens in captivity, some very old animals may moult extremely late. However, subsequent examination of the Chaddesley animal’s dentition does not suggest a great age, so this explanation for the unusual pelage state seems unlikely.
Other observations prompted by the examination of GF’s photographs include a suggestion that the pine marten’s claws (visible best on its forefeet) appeared rather long for a wild animal (implying that it might possibly have lived in captivity); another suggestion, prompted by a line in the animal’s fur visible in the belly area, is that the animal may have died in a snare. However, these observations must be regarded as speculative.
Regrettably the corpse is no longer in a state to permit some of the analyses that might help us to draw conclusions about its cause of death and likely origin. Nevertheless, it should be possible to extract DNA from the specimen in order to establish whether it has affinities with any of the genetic groupings recently identified among pine martens from different parts of Europe (Kyle et al., in press). This might indicate whether, for example, the animal might have had a Scottish origin or be derived from captive stock from another part of Europe (several of the pine martens currently in captivity in Britain are from Czech stock). The Vincent Wildlife Trust intends to undertake this work at some stage in the future.
There is one piece of evidence that supports the view that the pine marten might have lived and died locally. This concerns an earlier live sighting in Chaddesley Woods by Mrs. Eileen Kelly that has to be considered seriously in the light of the current record. Mrs. Kelly reports seeing “a long dark brown animal with a long tail and gold chest” running across a path in summer 2000. She is convinced it was a pine marten.
The Vincent Wildlife Trust welcomes reports of wild pine martens from England and Wales (‘phone 01531 636441; email johnnybirks@vwt.org.uk).
References
KYLE C.J., DAVISON, A. AND STROBECK, C. (in press). The genetic structure of European pine martens (Martes martes), and evidence for introgression with M. americana in England . Conservation Genetics.
PICKVANCE, T.J. (1958). A note on the pine marten (Martes martes) in Worcestershire. Zoological Society of London. Vol. 131. p. 326-327.
| BRITISH TRUST FOR ORNITHOLOGY SURVEYS
Harry Green BTO Regional Representative in Worcestershire Following on from the dreadful year of Foot & Mouth Disease 2001 which completely disrupted fieldwork, 2002 has been a reasonably good year. Most of the Breeding Bird Survey 1 km squares were surveyed, the Waders in Wet Meadows survey was completed with considerable extension into a complete survey of the Avon and Severn flood plains. Several Water Bird Breeding Surveys were done. In all a lot of good data was collected in Worcestershire. Very many thanks to all volunteer surveyors who plodded lonely transects, some in virtually bird-free farmland. |
| 10 km | Square | name | 1994 | 1995 | 1996 | 1997 | 1998 | 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | BREEDING BIRDS SURVEY
A summary of the national results of the BBS is available as BTO Research Report No 295 The Breeding Birds Survey 2001 by MJ Raven, DG Noble & SR Bailie. It is issued free to all surveyors and is available from BTO for £5. The results are also incorporated The State of the UK Birds 2001 which combines a wide range of information from BTO surveys and other sources and shows national trends for many breeding birds. These analyses produce the red and amber conservation alert warnings if declines are discovered. Species designated Red Alert have declined by over 50% in the last 25 years and the two most astonishing additions to this list are starling and house sparrow. This is readily available on the BTO web site at www.bto.org. Another very useful paper is The population status of birds in the United Kingdom, Channel Islands and Isle of Mann: an analysis of conservation concern 2002-1007 by Gregory RD et al (many authors) 2002 British Birds 95:410-448. BBS 2003. New surveyors will be required for a few 1 km squares and I should be very pleased to hear from anyone who would like to “do a square”. Please contact me if you would like more information on the survey methods and time commitment required of the surveyor. Clear instructions are provided to surveyors. Basically there are two survey visits and the birds are recorded along selected transect routes on the forms provided. Information on habitat is also collected. As things stand at the moment possible squares may be SP0746 (South Littleton), SP0042 (near Elmley Castle), SO9848 (near Wyre), SP0347 (Lenchwick). The squares are of course randomly chosen and there may be others. |
| SO93 | SO9837 | GRM | no | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | FMD | yes | |
| SO86 | SO9861 | Heath | yes | yes | yes | yes | no | no | no | FMD | yes | |
| SO96 | SO9467 | Rick | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | FMD | yes | |
| SO85 | SO8152 | Step | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | FMD | yes | |
| SO97 | SO9878 | Hold | no | no | no | no | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | |
| SO66 | SO6665 | Grun | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | FMD | yes | |
| SO93 | SO9735 | Whe | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | FMD | yes | |
| SO93 | SO9334 | Whe | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | FMD | yes | |
| SO66 | SO6067 | Coat | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes½ | FMD | yes | |
| SP04 | SP0746 | Cott | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes½ | yes | yes½ | FMD | no | |
| SO93 | SO9630 | Cram | yes | no | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | FMD | yes | |
| SO93 | SO9237 | Will | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | FMD | no | |
| SP04 | SP0243 | Hodg | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | FMD | yes | |
| SO97 | SO9476 | Drap | no | yes | yes | No | yes | yes | yesx3 | FMD | yes | |
| SO85 | SO8354 | Jone | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | |
| SO74 | SO7444 | Birk | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | FMD | yes | |
| SP04 | SP0042 | Hodg | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | FMD | No | |
| SO77 | SO7475 | Winn | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | |
| SO84 | SO8745 | Hods | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | FMD | yes | |
| SO86 | SO8462 | Gane | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | FMD | yes | |
| SO77 | SO7374 | JMart | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | |
| SO84 | SO8642 | Lowe | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | FMD | yes | |
| SO77 | SO7472 | Evan | no | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | FMD | yes | |
| SO77 | SO7077 | Robe | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | FMD | yes | |
| SO84 | SO8549 | Step | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | FMD | yes | |
| SO66 | SO6566 | Grun | – | yes | no | no | yes | yes | yes | FMD | yes | |
| SO97 | SO9877 | Hold | – | no | no | no | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | |
| SO94 | SO9844 | Pep | – | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | FMD | yes | |
| SO86 | SO8865 | Mick | – | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | FMD | yes | |
| SO95 | SO9454 | Farm | – | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | FMD | yes | |
| SO94 | SO9647 | Pepl | – | – | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | FMD | yes | |
| SO97 | SO9971 | Hold | – | – | no | no | yes | yes | yes | FMD | yes | |
| SO97 | SO9278 | Hold | – | – | yes | no | yes | yes | yes | FMD | yes | |
| SO95 | SO9057 | Week | – | – | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | FMD | yes | |
| SO94 | SO9840 | Rank | – | – | yes | yes | yes | no | yes½ | FMD | yes | |
| SO84 | SO8249 | LBut | – | – | yes | yes | no | yes | yes | FMD | yes | |
| SO94 | SO9848 | Swan | – | – | – | yes | yes | no | yes | FMD | yes | |
| SO75 | SO7653 | Dunc | – | – | – | yes | yes | yes | yes | FMD | yes | |
| SO66 | SO6160 | Mick | – | – | – | yes | yes | yes | yes | FMD | yes | |
| SO76 | SO7461 | Mile | – | – | – | yes | yes | yes | yes | FMD | yes | |
| SO66 | SO6061 | Mick | – | – | – | yes | yes | yes | yes | FMD | yes | |
| SP04 | SP0347 | Cott | – | – | – | yes | yes½ | yes | yes | FMD | no | |
| S087 | SO8976 | Summ | – | – | – | yes | yes | yes | yes | FMD | yes | |
| SO84 | SO8947 | Hero | – | – | – | yes | yes | yes | yes | FMD | yes | |
| SO83 | SO8935 | Morg | – | – | – | – | no | yes | yes | FMD | yes | |
| SO77 | SO7674 | JMart | – | – | – | – | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | |
| SO84 | SO8847 | ButP | – | – | – | – | no | yes | yes | FMD | yes | |
| SO77 | SO7778 | JMart | – | – | – | – | yes½ | no | yes | yes | yes | |
| SO87 | SO8877 | Need | – | – | – | – | yes½ | yes | yes | FMD | yes |
| WATERWAYS BREEDING BIRDS SURVEY (WBBS) AND WATERWAYS BIRD SURVEY (WBS)
There are five WBBS’s running in Worcestershire: two on the River Teme, one on the Worcester-Birmingham Canal at Worcester, another on the canal near Alvechurch, and one on Dowles Brook in Wyre Forest. This survey is uses similar transect methodology to the BBS and most of the sites have been randomly selected using 1 km squares. Nationally the survey provides data on many water birds which might otherwise be less frequently encountered by the BBS. There is an expectation that this survey will be expanded so there may be more sites requiring surveyors in the future. The 1 km squares surveyed in Worcestershire are SO7778 (Dowles Brook), SO6466 and SO7454 (Teme) SO8757 (Worcester canal), SP0270 (canal at Alvechurch). The WBS is an older survey which began in 1974 on selected waterways. It is a mapping method similar to that used for the old Common Bird Census (CBC) and provides very detailed information on waterbirds. As far as I am aware there is one survey running in the county – along the Dowles Brook, undertaken by Michael Harrison. BREEDING WADERS IN WET MEADOWS 2002. Additionally volunteers covered the Kidderminster Marshes (S Micklewright), Upton Warren and Feckenham (A Warr), Larford near Stourport (D Scott), sites along the Teme and other West Worcestershire sites (R Bishop and B Draper) The Teme sites were disappointing with no waders. Upton Warren provided Little Ringed Plovers, Lapwing, Curlew, Oystercatcher and Redshank. Larford lapwings and meadow pipits. Wilden Marsh Oystercatcher, Little Ringed Plover, Lapwing and Snipe. Stourvale Marsh Kidderminster Lapwing and snipe. The national survey is mainly aimed and cataloguing the changes in wader numbers breeding in wet grassland since 1982 and the results are expected a show a considerable decline in most species. The results for the Severn and Avon flood plains will also be fed into wide-ranging conservation and land management projects aimed at re-wetting large areas. WINTER FARMLAND BIRDS SURVEY This three year survey was expected to finish 2001-2002 winter but much of last winter’s survey work was disrupted by FMD. The detailed field by field part of the survey will therefore continue 2002-2003 winter although the associated Winter Walks and Random Records part of the survey have now finished. Nationally the survey has accumulated data from 18,000 farmed fields with 70,000 bird sightings! Analysis of this data plus that from the coming winter will give good factual information on the use of different field types, crops, farm management and field boundary types by birds. Undoubtedly this is an important survey but it has proved to be less popular to volunteer surveyors than many others. Volunteer surveyors are not keen on tramping fields largely without birds in cold wet winter weather! The survey is based on farmed land with 1 km squares mainly selected from the BBS squares. We have covered ten squares in Worcestershire so at least some information from this district is going into the national pot. |
HERONRIES SURVEY
This very-long running national survey (the longest continuous bird survey in the world!) is of course continuing with annual counts of nests at many heronries. We have two in Worcestershire by the river Severn – one north and one south of Worcester. The survey in Worcestershire is undertaken by Shaun Micklewright. Nationally the coverage by annual counts is patchy and every so often BTO has organised a more complete survey aiming to count all heronries on a national scale including more remote places such a rocky coasts and islands. The last major census was in 1985. 2003 is the 75th year of the annual counts and has been chosen for a new complete census of all heronries in UK. Herons have done well in recent years. Less persecution, more protection and a run of mild winters have helped, and there has been a considerable improvement in river quality. The 2003 census could show herons at an all time high. However, there are concerns about more insidious pollution: there have been well-documented cases of herons producing significant numbers of deformed young in some seasons, without, as yet, any explanation. Within the heron food chain fish have been affected by low levels of contraceptive chemicals in cleaned-up sewage, and in more remotely sited fish farms herons are eating fish containing antibiotics. The value of detailed surveys of herons, at the top of an aquatic food chain, is that changes in their population levels may reveal serious un-seen pollution problems. Monitoring herons could lead to better care as it did for the used of certain farm pesticides 40 years ago. Locally we are unaware of any other than our two main heronries near Worcester, but there may be others with just a few nests, or even solitary nesters we do not know about. Full details of the methodology for the 2003 survey are not yet available but the survey will probably fall into three parts: Counts of known and newly reported heronries I should be very pleased to hear of any nesting herons away from the main sites either in the past few years or next year. Herons do of course start nesting very early in the New Year, often during February and March. If you would like to help please contact me. THE NEXT ATLAS OF BIRD DISTRIBUTION BTO distribution atlases have provided periodic review of distribution, abundance and population sizes of all bird species. Their scientific and conservation value has been immense. The last Breeding Bird Atlas covered 1988-91, and a winter atlas covered 1981-84. The BTO is now starting to plan a new atlas to cover both breeding and wintering birds commencing around 2007 and ending in 2011. Whether those of us involved with all the earlier atlases will see the finished product this time is a question best not thought about! Provisional planning is suggesting that the breeding season work will run from April to July and winter work from November to February. Pilot field work will probably start in about 2005. Readers and birders now know what they will be doing at the end of this decade! Your holidays should only be booked August-October or in February and March! |
NIGHTINGALES 2002
Although 2002 was not an official BTO survey year we are very keen to keep track of Nightingales in Worcestershire. To this end a Press Release was sent out and from this and other publicity a few records were received. I am not sure that all records came my way so if anyone has additional records I would be please to receive them. Records from: Most of these records are from well-known sites. There does seem to have been more birds along the old railway near Broadway. Much of this contains scrub and a closer look along a considerable length of it north and south of Broadway could prove interesting in 2003. The records from Evesham are unusual and need following up in 2003. Birds N of Stourport could be associated with the record of a bird which sand near Burlish Top in previous years. There have apparently been fewer records from the Croome area in 2002 but this could simply be because no-one listened! Thus, there are about 20-25 records for 2002 and if this is correct the documented decline has continued. (see earlier numbers of Worcestershire Record) Although the overall trend in the mean April to June temperature in central England has gradually increased since 1900 the increase has been irregular in pattern. For instance, temperature peaked in the 1940s, decreased between the early 1960s and mid 1980s, and has increased again since then. Nightingale population changes appear to follow this pattern, but because the present period of amelioration has been relatively short, perhaps population numbers and range have not yet responded to improved conditions. However, wet cool weather in spring , despite warmer overall conditions, may be unsatisfactory for nightingales. What is apparent is that we should continue to monitor nightingales in Worcestershire because, if expansion of range occurs, we shall probably be some of the first to see it – if suitable breeding habitat is available. Nightingales require suitably structured scrub both outside and in woods. High numbers of deer may prevent it developing in woods, and present agriculture is not scrub-friendly, although farm Stewardship Schemes may result in some suitable hedges. Reference |
METOECUS PARADOXUS (L)
Harry Green
On the 2nd August 2002 I received an email from Sarah Price of Oldham (greater Manchester) who said that the local council had recently found Metoecus paradoxus in her roof. She wanted to know if it was a rare species and should she be excited about the discovery! Quite why she had contacted me I do not know but guess it was through some internet loop via our web site www.wbrc.org.uk. At the time I knew next to nothing about this beetle but soon discovered it was a parasite of underground wasps’ nests. Wishing to learn more I place a query at the coleopterist e-group and received several very useful responses which led to useful literature (see references).
Metoecus paradoxus was known as a beetle for 130 years before its life-cycle was understood. Elucidation caused vigorous argument and controversy amongst Victorian naturalists in the 1860s and 1870’s. The development of the larvae in wasps’ nests was described by Chapman in 1870 and he finally obtained the missing information in 1890on how the larvae entered the nests (reference list in Edwards 1980). To date I have seen no recent reports of study of the species – most texts repeat earlier observations – which is what I am doing in this article! The life history is reminiscent of that of oil beetles.
The beetle itself is a rather odd-looking almost fly-like insect about 10 mms long with narrow pointed elytra which do not completely cover the wings or abdomen. The larva is first an internal parasite of a wasp larva, soon emerging and wrapping round the larva as an external parasite sucking body fluids from its victim before finally eating the lot! After pupation the beetles emerge and leave the wasps’ nest. The part of the cycle which took so long to discover is that the female lays her eggs on rotting wood in the autumn which is likely to be visited by wasps in the following spring when they seeks wood to chew and convert to nest-building paper. The first larva is a triungulinid about 0.5-0.75 mms long with long legs provided with suckers. The larva hatches in early summer and waits on the wood for a worker wasp to visit. The larva climbs on to the wasp and is carried back to the nest where it actively searches for a cell with a half-grown larvae which it parasitizes. The beetle larva grows rapidly, pupates, and the beetle emerges about 2 days after a wasp should have done.
The early reports and texts suggest that Metoecus parasitizes underground nests primarily of Common Wasp Vespula vulgaris, and sometimes Vespula germanica. The modern reports I have seen by Ives 1991, 1992 and Gillett 1992 reported the beetle emerging from wasps’ nests in roof spaces or other parts of buildings, and of course the email which started me on the trail referred to a nest in a roof space. Interestingly, it turned out that the Oldham occurrence had been referred by Environmental Health to a coleopterist and comment came back to me via another internet loop – the coleopterist e-group! This group also produced a report from Warwickshire with records from 11 sites, and five of those from domestic premises, and mention of near-moribund adults on a first floor windowsill. Apparently my old friend Roger Juckes had reported 150 emerging from a crevice next to a central heating pipe after two wasps’ nests had been destroyed.
The climax of this story came first as a phone message to the Worcs Wildlife Trust Office on 3rd September from Jean Osborne, Selly Oak, Birmingham. “She had got Metoecus paradoxus in her greenhouse – was I interested”! Well, Yes, I was! After contacting her she sent me a few beetles and also wasps to identify – Vespula vulgaris – and the following summary (dated 24th September 2002:
1. Our house is a dormer bungalow as we had a sitting room put in the roof space when we bought it 26 years ago.
2. We tend to get a wasp nest in the roof space almost every year, but live in mutual harmony most of the time.
3. This year the nest is above the kitchen and because of the adjoining lean-to greenhouse some of the wasps exit through the greenhouse while others enter above the greenhouse.
4. If we had beetles previous years we would not have noticed them, but because they turned up on the greenhouse windowsill they did come to my notice, though initially I didn’t realise where they were coming from and thought they were something to do with our ring culture tomatoes.
5. I sent a beetle to Roy Ledbury, President of Birmingham Natural History Society, when it dawned on me that they were beetles and he said that he thought it was Metoecus paradoxus but it couldn’t be as they were associated with underground wasp nests! I had not told him about the wasps.
6. Beetle numbers. They are now not appearing every morning, but for about 6 weeks we were tipping ten to a dozen out through the greenhouse door each morning, some got tied up with plant pots on the windowsill and died but they were quite numerous.
7. We have various plant pots standing on old tree stumps on our patio and some of this wood is getting soft and rotten while our compost heaps up the garden have wood sides that we have to replace as they rot every few years, so there is a source of dead wood available, but how do they know to use it?
Following this I calculate that at lease 500 Metoecus paradoxus must have emerged from a wasps’ nest in her roof!
Worcestershire records.
We have very few local records. One was found in Worcester two years ago, and whilst on an invertebrate foray near Birtsmorton 24th July 2002 John Meiklejohn collected one in his net when sweeping tall vegetation well away from buildings.
The RECORDER 3.3 database describes the species as widely distributed but very local. They must easily be overlooked unless you happen to have a parasitised wasps’ nest in your roof! Please keep a look-out for these curious beetles and let us know if you find any.
Acknowledgements
Very many thanks to Sarah Price and Jean Osborne for starting and finishing this trail! Also to participants in the Coleopterist egroup for useful advice, especially to Matthew Smith who told me of the very useful publication in the Rentokill Library and kindly sent me a photocopy of the section on Metoecus paradoxus.
References
BILY S A. 1990. A colour guide to beetles pages 172-173. Treasure Press
EDWARDS R. 1980 Social wasps, their biology and control. Pages 151-155. Rentokill Library Series
GILLETT MTP. 1992 Metoecus paradoxus (L) (Rhipiphoridae) More parts to the puzzle. Coleopterist 1:4-5
IVES E. 1991 Metoecus paradoxus (L) (Rhipiphoridae) A puzzle. Coleopterist’s Newsletter nos. 44 & 45:9-10
IVES E. 1992 Metoecus paradoxus (L) (Rhipiphoridae) A further note. Coleopterist. 1:17.
LINSSEN EF. Beetles of the British Isles. Pages 92-93. Frederick Warne
STEP E. 1946. Bees, wasps, ants and allied insects. Pages 40-41. Frederick Warne.
WORCESTERSHIRE’S ANCIENT TREE REGISTER.
Harry Green & John Tilt
This scheme was launched with the April 2002 number of Worcestershire Record. A course was run in May 2002 to encourage more people to join in recording and another will be held Saturday 17th May 2003 at Lower Smite Farm. A booking form for this and other courses organised by Tessa Carrick for Worcestershire Wildlife Trust is enclosed and the programme of courses appears elsewhere in this issue.
Those who attended the Worcestershire Wildlife Trust’s Volunteers Conference on 21st September also received great encouragement to record ancient trees through an outstanding lecture by Ted Green and a memorable visit with him to Elmley Castle Deer Park. Many of the points made by Ted were of course typically outrageous, but he did grab everyone’s attention and as a result we hope to receive a great many more records of ancient trees!
Records are slowly accumulating in the data base – so far largely through our own efforts! But we do hope this is simply because the recording forms have not yet arrived in John Tilt’s hands! We do encourage you to join in. If you were unwilling to use our two-form recording system (forms sent out in last issue) we hope you will at least use the enclosed simple form for listing many trees! In that way we shall at least get locations and can visit a tree again. Please note that we should like eight-figure grid references if at all possible, please. This can be done quite easily from the OS Explorer (orange) 1:25000 maps or with a GPS. Trying to find a tree again in a 100 m square of a six-figure grid reference is not always easy.
Three recent discoveries of note are, first, a group of ancient trees near Martley – triggered by an owner who has a fine ancient oak tree in his garden and had been told he should get in touch with us! He also has several others, including an ancient small-leaved lime in his boundary. Within a couple of kilometres of his house we found 15 ancient trees, mainly oaks but also the biggest pollarded ash either of us have ever seen! Second, woodland survey work in the Teme valley has revealed some remarkable pollarded small-leaved limes: there may be as many as fifty of these remarkable trees. Thirdly, Ray Bishop found some remarkable oaks near near Hollybush at the southern end of the Malvern Hills.
The table shows the sites visited so far. We suggest you record elsewhere!
| GRAFTON WOOD | GLENBERROW | CRUTCH LANE, ELMBRIDGE |
| HILLWOOD | LARKINS, MARTLEY | WOODGATE |
| ASTLEY LANE | KINGS GREEN, MARTLEY | FORTHAMPTON ESTATE BUSHLEY GREEN |
| SPETCHLEY DEER PARK | KNIGHTS GROVE WOOD NEAR OMBERSLEY | OLD HILLS, MALVERN |
| HANBURY PARK | BOURNES DINGLE, HAWFORD | MADRESFIELD PARK |
| COWLEIGH PARK | MERE GREEN, HANBURY | WOODSFIELD WOOD |
 |
 |
| A huge ancient oak near Hollybush, Malvern. Photo R. M. Bishop | The map shows the location of sites visited |
CONTINUING THE SEARCH FOR LAND CADDIS ENOICYLA PUSILLA
Harry Green & Brett Westwood
Notes on this interesting and rare species have appeared in earlier Worcestershire Records, reporting on known distribution and asking for records. Over the last few years several people have sent us records and we have searched in many woods ourselves, and are continuing to do so. This work is of course based on earlier work by David Harding and Mike Taylor, and our aim is to exactly delineate the range of the species which is nationally confined to (more or less) north and west Worcestershire with some over the borders into Herefordshire, Staffordshire and Shropshire (especially in Wyre Forest). Land caddis is a Red Data Book 3 species – nationally rare, locally common.
The units of survey are mainly the 1×1 km squares of the national grid, although we are also recording site information. In the last couple of years the presence of land caddis has been confirmed in all the 1 km square of the main Wyre Forest block and in many squares elsewhere. In all we now have records from 135 1 km squares in 14 10 km squares.
As most readers will know the larval stage of this unusual caddis fly lives on dry land amongst leaf litter in woods. When full-grown the larval cases are about 10 mm long by 2-3 mm diameter, and may be slightly curved. The best time to find them is in late winter through to early summer. The larvae are present from around November onwards but in the early stages they are tiny and difficult to see – David Harding describes them as animated All-Bran! After growing through spring and summer they descend through the leaf litter perhaps into cracks in the soil, close-off the case ends with silk, and pupate. The adults emerge in September and October – the females are flightless and the males on the wing for about a fortnight. It is possible to find the old empty larval/pupal cases in leaf litter throughout the year as they seem fairly resistant to decay, especially in dry situations.
So if anyone is scrabbling about in leaf litter and finds anything resembling a caddis case (like the aquatic species it is constructed of small grains of sand, soil, and small fragments of plant material) please collect it and send it to Harry Green. (NB we do not need records from main blocks of Wyre Forest, Shrawley Woods, and Chaddesley Woods (which are well-recorded), but if you visit a wood on the periphery of these sites or elsewhere you may obtain a new record from a place we haven’t visited! If you find and please record an accurate grid reference of the finding site, t+-he date, and a note on the type of woodland and its leaf litter.
Many thanks to those who have already sent us records during the last few years.
References
Worcestershire Record No 2 November 1997
Worcestershire Record No 4 May 1998
OBSERVATIONS OF THE WINTER PRE-ROOSTING BEHAVIOUR OF VARIOUS CORVIDS USING BUNKERS HILL WOOD
Susanna Grunsell and Brian Johnson
(This article is based on work undertaken for the Birmingham University Certificate in Ornithology)
Introduction.
The Corvid roost at Bunkers Hill Wood has for many years being considered to be one of the larger Corvid roosts in the West Midlands. The wood was until 1996 a private shooting area, but was subsequently purchased by the Woodland Trust and opened up to public access. This study on the pre-roosting behaviour of the birds using the roost was carried out to confirm the use of the pre-roosting and roosting areas. The study was carried out over seventeen separate visits during the winter from November 2001 to March 2002 when the roost would normally break up as the birds move into the breeding season.
Methodology
The study site was visited on several occasions prior to the start of the project to determine the best site to observe the Corvid activity around the wood. Eventually agreement was reached on the observation point being 200 metres from the south east end of the wood. This was selected because of the increased visibility of the wood, and its height relative to the surrounding area.
To enable the information to be recorded quickly we produced a standard recording form that allowed us to record the activity while observing the birds. The standard form broke down the various activities such as flying, circling, calling, gliding or actually landing on the ground or in a tree. The form also enabled the flight path to be recorded when the activity occurred.
The information from the seventeen visits that was gathered and then used to identify possible patterns and trends, and to assess the behaviour between the various Corvid species. Analyses of the recorded data were carried out to identify any particular patterns and trends.
Results
The results of the study indicated a reduction both in the number of birds and the size of the flocks using the roost during the last decade. The maximum flock size of 750 Jackdaws Corvus monedula was observed on only one occasion. The maximum flock size of the Carrion Crow Corvus corone was only 60 birds. During our visits there were no recorded observations of Rooks Corvus frugilegus using the roost.
The variation in the number of birds observed in each of the visits ranged from a maximum of 1132 birds observed on the 29th December to a minimum of 108 birds observed on the 14th December. Temperature was at 7 ºC and 6 ºC respectively and weather conditions were similar for both dates.
There are definite flight paths used by the different species to fly to and from the pre-roosting area or return to the roost in the evening. The Carrion Crows flew in a southerly direction to approach or leave the wood 146 times in comparison to the Jackdaw that flew along the same flight path 170 times. When both species flew in a northerly direction the number of observations for the Carrion Crow was 73 and for the Jackdaw was 42. Other directions were used to fly into or over the wood, the Carrion Crows flew into the wood from the east on 20 occasions and from the west on 26 occasions. The Jackdaws flew in from the east on four occasions and from the west on nine occasions. To a much greater degree the north south flight path was used by both species to return to the roosting area. As the breeding season approached behaviours changed, flock sizes decreased, and the Jackdaws returned to the wood to roost.
The flock sizes varied from visit to visit and there was a decline in the larger flock sizes over the five months of visits. The size of the flocks for the Jackdaws started in November with only two flocks, one of three and the second flock was forty. The flock sizes rose steadily throughout December and January when the highest numbers were recorded, one flock of 750 at the beginning of December and the second largest of 550 at the end of December, which also coincided with the largest number of flocks. The number of flocks began to reduce in February and March, with the flock sizes also reducing in February and March to a maximum of 40 birds in any one flock. These flock sizes varied considerably from that of the Carrion Crows where the flock size remained consistently lower throughout the period reaching a maximum of 60 birds on only one occasion. The number of flocks also fluctuated on a visit to visit basis with the maximum number observed on one visit being Jackdaws on 28th December.
The summary of the behaviours observed showed that flying was the predominant activity. The data also suggested that circling increased in both species in March, and during December and January calling was the main activity. Gliding was not a common occurrence in either species. Jackdaws were not seen to land, other than exceptionally, during observations. Carrion Crows were seen to land in the field with other birds throughout the winter period, and this was seen to increase suddenly at the end of February.
Further investigation of the wood as a roost and the surrounding area would be beneficial to determine the relationship between Bunkers Hill Wood and the other local roosts which are being used by the Corvids. These could have an affect on the numbers of birds using the roost, our number of observations of Jackdaws flying over the wood and continuing south towards other possible roosts were significant.
| Total number of birds compared to number of observations | ||||||
| Date | No.of Carrion crows | Carrion Crows observations | Carrion Crows average | No. of Jackdaws | Jackdaws observations | Jackdaws average |
| 3-11 | 253 | 16 | 16 | 43 | 2 | 22 |
| 23-11 | 12 | 2 | 6 | 180 | 3 | 60 |
| 27-11 | 176 | 14 | 13 | 237 | 9 | 26 |
| 01-12 | 13 | 4 | 3 | 1084 | 11 | 99 |
| 14-12 | 72 | 8 | 9 | 220 | 1 | 20 |
| 27-12 | 27 | 3 | 9 | 660 | 8 | 63 |
| 28-12 | 162 | 14 | 12 | 702 | 27 | 26 |
| 29-12 | 87 | 12 | 7 | 1012 | 28 | 36 |
| 30-12 | 24 | 6 | 4 | 289 | 16 | 18 |
| 05-01 | 79 | 13 | 6 | 93 | 6 | 16 |
| 12-01 | 10 | 2 | 5 | 469 | 20 | 23 |
| 26-01 | 136 | 13 | 10 | 251 | 7 | 36 |
| 03-02 | 31 | 6 | 5 | 120 | 7 | 17 |
| 23-02 | 47 | 9 | 5 | 273 | 80 | 34 |
| 02-03 | 80 | 14 | 6 | 80 | 10 | 8 |
| 09-03 | 54 | 13 | 268 | 15 | 18 | |
| 17-03 | 25 | 6 | 4 | 140 | 11 | 13 |
| Totals | 1288 | 155 | 5921 | 189 | ||
BUZZARD STORY
Richard Harbird
After many years of watching Buzzards, apart from watching them wandering about in fields picking up worms, I had never actually seen one catch anything until the other week. From the hide at the Upton Warren Flashes, a group of us watched a Buzzard leave its perch in the big oak tree behind the third flash and lazily glide across the grassland behind the flashes at low level, like a Harrier. It suddenly dropped, from a height of about three feet on an unsuspecting rabbit.
I found it hard to believe that the rabbit could be so dim as to allow itself to be caught in this lethargic manner, and wondered if it was already dead. However, others in the hide confirmed at had been seen making an all-too-late dart for freedom before being caught. The rabbit was consumed on the spot before Crows and Magpies persuaded the Buzzard to leave. I understand that the following week, the same Buzzard performed an identical capture technique on another Rabbit.
An interesting post-script to the first kill is that after the Buzzard had departed, among the first to investigate the corpse, barging Crows out of the way, were two Canada Geese. Our pens were poised ready to record Britain’s first carnivorous Geese, but they must have realised that no bread was involved as they quickly lost interest.
Hodgson, Martyn and Green, Harry - VC37 AND GREATER WORCESTERSHIRE - THE RECORDING AREA FOR THE WBRC
VC37 AND GREATER WORCESTERSHIRE – THE RECORDING AREA FOR THE WBRC
Martyn Hodgson and Harry Green
Maps from Worcestershire Flora Project – Bert Reid
Most people would, quite reasonably imagine, that the Worcestershire Biological Records Centre is interested in biological records from the county of Worcestershire. However, Worcestershire as it is defined today, is a very new county, having been (re)created after its recent separation from Hereford. In fact, county boundaries have been subject to regular change for hundreds of years and there is no reason to believe that this process has stopped.
To maintain continuity, biological recording (along with County Cricket) has largely ignored the decisions made by politicians and administrators over the last 150 years on what constitutes each county. Biological records centres generally remain responsible for what is referred to as a Vice-County. These were defined in 1852 by the botanist Hewett Cottrell Watson, hence the name ‘Watsonian Vice-county’. Watson took the counties as they were defined at the time and split the country up into roughly equal sized areas. The smaller counties, like Worcestershire, were left as a single vice-county, whilst the larger counties were split in two, or even three smaller areas, the formal definition being based on a list of parishes in each vice-county. That is, no parish spanned vice-counties. Worcestershire is known as Vice-county 37, or VC37 for short. Watson’s VCs were defined before the national grid had been prepared, the system now widely used for biological recording. One outstanding feature of the vice county system is that the boundaries referred to often appear on most maps, ancient and modern, and, at least in part, follow real features on the ground: streams, rivers, ditches, banks, and so on, though some features have now disappeared. Nevertheless, there were serious exceptions and in places the Watsonian boundaries were distinctly vague, especially when large counties were divided into smaller units (eg in Yorkshire). Many counties also contained outliers in other counties, and these were naturally included within the surrounding Watsonian VC. For example, Dudley and the area round Shipston on Stour were once parts of Worcestershire!
The vice-counties thus remain fixed, or at least that’s the theory. Since 1852, of course, parish boundaries have changed, so the Vice-county boundaries no longer necessarily follow parish boundaries. Also, some of the features that defined parishes have changed. This is particularly true for the Worcestershire along its northern edge where it is now well into the West Midlands conurbation. Much development and re-development makes tracing the exact route almost impossible.
In 1969 the Ray Society published maps showing the vice-counties at a scale of one inch to ten miles, 1:625,000. These maps are derived from Watson’s original delineations clarified by the Sub-Committee on Maps and Censuses set up by the Systematics Association 1947-48. After much discussion this committee resolved all the points of doubt and disagreement and marked the agreed VC boundaries on a set of one-inch-to-the-mile !:62,500 Ordnance Survey maps which were subsequently deposited at the British Museum (Natural History) in London.
The National Biological Records Centre, at Huntingdon, has acquired the remaining stocks of the Ray Society Maps which are enclosed in a slip-case together with a booklet by J E Dandy. This item also often appears on the second hand natural history book market.
We are fortunate that in Worcestershire the Flora Project tackled the problem of knowing the exact county boundary. Members of the Project examined the definitive set of one-inch maps and from them marked the VC 37 boundary on modern 1:25,000 maps (2½ inches to the mile, 4 cms to one km). To cope with modern administrative areas they also took into account those areas added to or subtracted from Worcestershire in fairly recent boundary changes. All those directly adjacent to a county boundary are now included in GREATER WORCESTERSHIRE (VC37 plus extras!) which is the unit of recording adopted by the Worcestershire Flora Project and the Worcestershire BRC. . The WBRC is thankful that the Flora Project kindly allowed it to copy the boundaries from their maps.
If you are interested in seeing the boundary of VC37 you could either contact the National BRC, or arrange to visit the WBRC to see the maps showing the boundary in more detail.
On a day to day basis if you are submitting records to the WBRC, so long as you are within a tetrad or monad that is covered by at least a part of VC37/Greater Worcestershire please submit your record. If in doubt send in the record anyway! As with all records, please include a 6-figure grid reference and the nearest place name marked on a map (preferably 1:25,000). Rest assured, no record will be discarded just because it lies 50m outside the vice-county! Indeed, if you find a species little recorded in VC37, within a hectad (10 km square) of the county please tell us. Records are, in any case, also sent to adjacent record centres when possible. (Although the Worcestershire Flora Project collects records from the old VC37 within the depths of the West Midlands conurbation, a separate BRC collects all biological records from the conurbation. The links between it and the WBRC have yet to be discussed – data will probably be transferred electronically in both directions!)
Wyre Forest
Following recent discussions with Wyre Forest Study Group and others it now seems highly likely that the Worcestershire BRC will act as recording centre for the whole of the Wyre Forest, which of course straddles the VC boundaries of Worcestershire, Shropshire and Staffordshire as well as modern county boundaries. The great advantage of this is that data from a well-defined and important natural zone will be gathered in one place. As appropriate, modern IT will allow the records to be sorted however they are required in the future – grid squares, county, or vice-county boundaries.
References
The main modern reference is:
DANDY JE 1969 Watsonian Vice-counties of Great Britain. The Ray Society, London (Case with booklet and two maps 1:62,500)
The following may be of interest:
www.brc.ac.uk/brcMaps.shtm
www.mda.org.uk/info23c.htm
www.rbge.org.uk/data/BSBI/Coordinators_Office/botanical_recording.htm
LESSER SPOTTED WOODPECKERS – A NEW BIRD AT UPTON WARREN.
Arthur Jacobs
Lesser-spotted woodpecker is a new bird at Upton Warren Wetland Reserve. On 1st October 2002 a male appeared by the East Hide and started to dig a hole in a dead alder. He spent two days digging the hole. Within an hour of the hole being finished a male Great-spotted woodpecker appeared, enlarged the hole and dispossessed the Lesser-spot.
We were very disappointed – we thought the Lesser-spot was going to roost in the hole over the winter, then (DV) attract a mate in 2003, and we would have a breeding pair.
The male Lesser-spot is still about (November 2002), but (as far as we know) is not trying to re-take the hole.
Is this behaviour commonplace? If so it might explain why the Lesser-spot is in decline, while the large bird is doing very well.
Editor’s note
I read somewhere fairly recently that one of the major predators of Marsh and Willow Tit nests (low down in rotting stumps) were Great-spotted Woodpeckers, destroying over half the breeding attempts by killing and eating the young, if my memory serves me correctly! Arthur’s note came to hand as we went to Press and I have not yet found the reference! Lesser-spots and the two tits often use somewhat similar nesting sites. – Harry Green
GLOW-WORMS AT WINDMILL HILL RESERVE, NORTH LITTLETON 1982-2002
Terry Knight
| In 1979 Windmill Hill was purchased by the Worcestershire Wildlife Trust for a nature reserve. It is a Site of Special Scientific Interest situated in open arable country and is readily accessible to the public from its entrance on the south side of the B4510 at SP 071476.
The site consists of a west facing escarpment 900 metres long having a thin band of White Lias limestone at its crest below which there is about 5 metre thickness of Rhaetic beds on top of Mercian Mudstone. The topsoil derived from this is calcareous and clayey. In summer it bakes hard and shrinks to form rough hexagonal areas, typically 800 mm along the slope and 600 mm down, surrounded by a crack up to 50 mm wide and 600 mm deep. These cracks provide daytime refuges for glow-worms. A bridleway runs along the top of the escarpment and along the bottom is a strip of mature hawthorn scrub 20 to 25 metres in width. The land between consists of grassland dominated by Tor-grass and is generally about 60 metres wide. This grassland has been enclosed to give five end-to-end paddocks, the northern one and the southern three being grazed by sheep from time to time, the other remaining un-grazed. Scattered mature hawthorn trees occur in the paddocks and young hawthorn is constantly invading but this is removed by hand on a four or five year rotation in order to prevent the grass being shaded out. The reserve has a rich mollusc fauna to support the established colony of glow-worms. The glow-worm colony extends onto the banks and verges of the adjacent B4510. Further small outlying colonies exist at 200 metres east of the north end and 150 metres east of the south end. Other than this the nearest known significant colony is 2.3 kilometres away to the south east plus a smaller colony 2 kilometres away to the south, both on man-made habitat. |
|
In 1982 when a butterfly transect was started it was also decided to carry out a similar survey of glow-worms. The method adopted was to commence the walk between 10.45 and 11.00 pm and proceed along 700 metres of bridleway and 760 metres through the centre of the paddocks recording all glowing females seen from the path. This has been done weekly each year during the glowing season (June to August).
Both the maximum weekly count and the total of weekly counts in a season have tended to increase since recording began (see graphs). Regression analysis indicates that over the 21 seasons the average rate of increase is 8 percent per annum. The largest weekly count in a paddock occurred on 16th July 1998 when 52 females were seen in 215 metres across the north paddock.
 |
 |
However, the numbers seen in the un-grazed paddock have generally been less than in the grazed paddocks and the average rate of increase is smaller. From regression analysis the increase seems to be less than a quarter of that in the other paddocks. This has led to the factor (total per km in the un-grazed paddock) I (total per km in the grazed paddocks) falling from 63% to 30% during the 21 years (see graphs).
The difference between the un-grazed and grazed paddocks might be accounted for in part by the females being easier to see in the shorter grass. However, this would not explain the sustained difference in rate of increase over the long time interval. It is suggested from experiments at Aston Rowant National Nature Reserve that grazing affects glow-worm numbers, too little or too much being detrimental (Tyler 1994).
 |
 |
It is probably more than sixty years since previous owners of the site employed regular grazing to manage it. Since then they have just controlled scrub invasion by irregular burning of the grass. When the Trust took it over it was decided to re-introduce grazing. To prepare for this, perhaps unwisely, it was decided to carry out large scale burns of the grass during the early spring of 1981 and 1982. However, burning is considered highly damaging to slower moving animals, eg molluscs (Crofts and Jefferson 1999). In 1982 the glow-worm counts were relatively high but in 1983 (season 2) they were the lowest on record followed by the next lowest records in 1986 and 1987.
It would appear that the records at Windmill Hill support the view that controlled grazing is beneficial, but burning detrimental, to glow-worms. An explanation of the findings might be as follows. The irregular burnings over forty years or so reduced the population below that in pre-burning days. The large scale burnings over the two winters in the early 1980’s reduced this even further by almost eliminating one generation. After this no significant burning took place and the population in the un-gazed paddock slowly recovered while in the grazed paddocks the recovery has been much quicker. The recovery is still continuing and it will be interesting to see how long this takes and what the stable population will be.
REFERENCES
TYLER, JOHN 1994 Glow-worms. Tyler-Scagell
CROFTS, A AND JEFFERSON, R G (Eds) 1999 The Lowland Grassland Management Handbook, 2nd Edition. English Nature &The Wildlife Trusts
| WBRC Home | Worcs Record Listing by Issue | Worcs Record Listing by Subject |
MOSSES AND LIVERWORTS IN THE WEST MIDLANDS
Mark Lawley
Why study bryophytes?
Mosses and liverworts make rewarding subjects for study by amateur naturalists because:-
1) The geographical distributions of bryophytes are poorly known compared with those of larger, more conspicuous plants and animals. Recording the hectad (10 km squares) – distributions of vertebrates and vascular plants in Britain nowadays consists of repeating earlier studies in order to elucidate changes in distributions during the intervening years. But the distributions of cryptogams and inconspicuous invertebrates are much more sketchily known, even in England, where natural history is traditionally popular. Away from the south-east, naturalists may easily find bryophytes not previously recorded for a county, or not recorded there for many years, and establish that some species are much commoner than hitherto realized.
2) It is also more rewarding to elucidate the geographical distributions of bryophytes than vascular plants because bryophytes are neither deliberately controlled nor planted by humankind. Not only do conservationists try to eradicate trees, shrubs, herbs and ferns from where they are considered “undesirable”, they also plant native species of vascular plants where conditions are thought “suitable” for them. The present geographical distributions of such species in Britain may therefore be as much consequences of human prejudice as of their own environmental requirements, and to deduce putative environmental requirements from the geographical distributions of these species is a tautological nonsense. (Really, does anyone still imagine these endeavours are leading inexorably to some new and wonderful law of biogeography?). Bryophytes and other cryptogams, on the other hand, grow where they do largely without human interference, so their geographical distributions indeed offer reliable clues to their environmental proclivities.
3) Another advantage of studying mosses and liverworts is that they provide round- the-year interest for naturalists, unlike many flowering plants, which die back between autumn and spring. Indeed, many annual bryophytes are visible only during the winter months, so the flower-lovers’ close season is a time of considerable interest for real botanists.
4) But if neither spotty maps nor the discreet charms of nature’s winter greenery are for you, realize that from a global perspective, Britain is a land of bryophytes, not pretty flowers. Mosses and liverworts are much more ecologically important constituents of vegetation in Britain (particularly in the west, where rainfall is high) than on the continent, where fewer species can survive the drier conditions. Britain has two thirds of all European bryophyte species, but only a sixth of the vascular plants. Furthermore, bryophytes constitute much of the biomass of vegetation along the Atlantic seaboard of western Europe, whereas further east bryophytes become less ecologically significant. This makes the West Midlands and Welsh Marches a fascinating region for studying the occurrences and distributions of bryophytes, on the border between drier regions to the east where many species cannot survive (the Breckland of East Anglia, for example, has a notably continental vegetation) and wetter districts to the west where many more species thrive in the mild, moist conditions.
So why aren’t there more bryologists?
……….because we do not live in the best of all possible worlds, and several difficulties discourage faint-hearted naturalists:-
1) Many bryophytes are so small that they cannot be identified with the naked eye. Botanists may be lucky even to notice the smallest species in the field, and have to use a lens to identify many more. Even then, a hard core of , “difficult” species remains, whose differences are so slight and minute that they can only be determined microscopically after returning home, so naturalists must possess or have access to a stereoscopic and a compound microscope in order to identify all the bryophytes they find. You need a stereomicroscope in order to dissect leaves from stems, open up gametangia and capsules, etc., and a compound microscope for examining and measuring cells in these structures. Microscopes of poor quality are more of a hindrance than otherwise, while good microscopes cost several hundred pounds, an outlay which deters indigent naturalists from taking up bryology. Moreover, the unavoidable delay between initial discovery in the field and later determination at home may dissuade the impatient and the indolent from taking up bryology.
2) A second difficulty for bryologists is the lack of well illustrated, up-to-date, comprehensive field-guides for identifying British species. This makes it difficult for beginners to get a feel for recognizing plants in the field, leaving bryologists much less well served than lichenologists and mycologists.
3) Bryological beginners also suffer from having few competent field-bryologists they can call upon to help them identify plants which they find. The British Bryological Society has only 600 members, of which perhaps hardly 40 are active in the field. So less than one in a million Britons know their bryophytes, and it’s not surprising that few counties have active local groups to which beginners can look for assistance. This deters people from taking up bryology.
Local field-bryology
Yet existence of a local interest group for easing the progress of beginners from initial uncertainty to eventual confidence and competence in the field becomes all the more important because of the lack of a published field-guide and a dearth of competent field-bryologists. Worcestershire is fortunate in having a group which is actively recording in the county, and in addition, the Border Bryologists meet regularly nearer the Welsh border. Their combined activities currently make the West Midlands one of the most vibrant regions in Britain for field-bryology. Local support has never been so good, so now’s the time to make the plunge if you’re thinking of taking up mosses and liverworts. As further incentive, the British Bryological Society’s meeting in spring 2004 will be in Worcestershire, offering local naturalists a week- long opportunity to learn from many of the country’s top field-bryologists without having to travel far.
The Border Bryologists’ programme of meetings is available from Mark Lawley and is also advertised on the web-sites of the British Bryological Society and Herefordshire Botanical Society (see below). Our meetings are specifically designed to help beginners learn their species, rather than as high-powered recording sessions. In addition to meeting regularly in the field, we hold an annual workshop at Ludlow Museum to familiarise participants with keys, microscopic techniques, and to help them overcome difficulties they have encountered with their gatherings.
Here are some useful contacts:-
British Bryological Society
Hon. Membership Sec:
Mr Mark Pool, 91 Warbro Road, Babbacombe, Torquay, Devon, TQ13PS.
Web-site address: http://www.rbge.org.uk/bbs
Worcestershire bryophytes
BBS recorder for VC 37:
Lorna Fraser, 26 Hinton Avenue, Alvechurch, Birmingham, B48 7L Y
Border Bryologists
Mark Lawley, 12A Castleview Terrace, Ludlow, SY8 2NG. Tel: 01584 876564
e-mail: m.lawley@virgin.net.
Programme of meetings available on-line at http://ralph.cs.cfac.uk/HBS/Border.htm
Herefordshire Botanical Society
web-site address: http//ralph.cs.cf.ac. uk/HBS
Or contact Mark Lawley for details.
CROSSBILLS
By Garth Lowe
To birdwatchers in Britain, this is always an interesting bird to find and observe. Crossbills are elusive and unpredictable, but are often at ease when they are feeding, on their exclusive diet of pine seed. The endemic Scottish crossbill is confined to N Scotland, but the common crossbill may be found throughout Britain and N Ireland. Their dependence on conifers for pine seed means that in some years they may have to move large distances to stay alive. Pines only produce seed as they mature, and some of these crops vary annually. Often only short distances are travelled, but occasionally Britain sees large numbers arrive in the late autumn. They erupt from Europe, sometimes in large numbers, and may be spread over many parts of Britain.
The autumn of 2002 saw such an increase, with parties being seen in many of our pine forests in Worcestershire and Herefordshire. Usual spots were the Wyre Forest, with other sightings from Queens Wood, near Dymock, the High Vinnals and Wigmore Rolls near Ludlow, and also Wapley Hill, beyond Leominster.
Larch seed is also taken when available, which is how I came to be at Ravenshill Nature Reserve, one morning in early October, following a grateful call from another member of Wychavon Ringing Group. They had been noticed there, feeding in larches, so an attempt was made to try and catch them for ringing as part of normal activity, carried out under the British Trust for Ornithology’s ringing scheme.
Their diet of pine seed has one feature that the birds cannot avoid. They get quite thirsty! On this food supply, they are forced to come down regularly to drink. The pools at this reserve were an obvious choice, and to encourage them down to one spot, a recording of their song and chirrups was played.
This was successful, and six birds were eventually caught in a mist net, set up along the pool margin.
The big surprise was that the first bird taken out of the net already carried a ring! It proved to be a bird from Norway – a first year bird, which may have been ringed as a nestling early in the year. Details of its capture will eventually find its way back to us once this control, as it is called, is sent in to the BTO.
An interesting comparison, is the fact that here was one bird out of six, already having a ring on, whereas in the winter of 2001/2002, when a large catch of fieldfares was made, not far away in Suckley, and only one was found to be ringed, out of a total of 1771 birds (Brown 2002).
The ages and sex of this small group was also interesting. One of them was a male, aged as an adult, born in 2000, or earlier, the other male was a this year’s (2002) bird. Of the other four, all were sexed as females, two born this year and two the year before.
This irruption from Europe raises some interesting questions, one being – how do these birds know that Britain is away to the south west, and has an alternative supply of food? Do any of them miss us, and when do they give up flying further into the Atlantic Ocean? Other migrating species, that also winter here, have been proven to have on occasions overshot us, again by the fact that they were ringed, and their country of origin discovered. Bird migration continues to be a fascinating subject!
Reference
BROWN, S. 2002. Fieldfare orchard. Worcestershire Record No 12 April 2002.
COLEOPTERA, RECORDS OF NOTE, 2002
Kevin McGee.
Alphabetically by Family.
| Platyrhinus resinosus (Anthribidae, notable B). One in flight landed on me! Mill Meadow, Drakes Broughton, SO919483, on 24.4.02.Rhynchites aeneovirens (Attelabidae, local). One collected from a Birch trunk at Tiddesley Wood, SO930455, on 26.3.02. Confirmed by P.F.Whitehead.Rhynchites caeruleus (Attelabidae, local). One collected from Hawthorn foliage at Drakes Broughton Orchard, SO923487, on 5.4.02. Confirmed by P.F.Whitehead.Aromia moschata (Cerambycidae, notable B). One photographed on Pendulous Sedge foliage at Tiddesley Wood, SO930455, on 18.8.02. |
 |
 |
Phytoecia cylindrica (Cerambycidae, notable B). One briefly in our garden at Drakes Broughton, SO928486, on 19.4.02. One at Mill Meadow, Drakes Broughton, SO919483, on the late date of 7.7.02.Pogonocherus hispidulus (Cerambycidae, local). One collected from the foliage of Devil’s-bit Scabious at Tiddesley Wood, SO930455, on 8.9.02.Longitarsus dorsalis (Chrysomelidae, notable B). One collected from the foliage of Ragwort at Mill Meadow, Drakes Broughton, SO919483, on 24.3.02. Confirmed by P.F.Whitehead.Sermylassa halensis (Chrysomelidae, local). One collected from Grasses at Windmill Hill, SP071475, on 8.8.02.Thanasimus formicarius (Cleridae, local). Two on a log-pile comprised mainly of Ash at ‘Highclere’, Wood Norton, SP012479, on 1.6.02.Curculio villosus (Curculionidae, notable B). One collected from an Oak trunk at Mill Meadow, Drakes Broughton, SO919483, on 27.3.02. Confirmed by P.F.Whitehead.Magdalis cerasi (Curculionidae, notable B). One photographed & collected from Hazel foliage at Mill Meadow, Drakes Broughton, SO919483, on 2.5.02. Confirmed by P.F.Whitehead. |
| Melandrya caraboides (Melandryidae, notable B). One male collected from an Oak stump at Mill Meadow, Drakes Broughton, SO919483, on 4.5.02. Confirmed by P.F.Whitehead.Platypus cylindrus (Platypodidae, notable B). One collected from an Oak stump at Castlemorton Common, SO790396, on 6.8.02. Confirmed by P.F.Whitehead. One on Oak at the log-pile, Tiddesley Wood, SO930455, on 18.8.02. One on an Oak stump at Mill Meadow, Drakes Broughton, SO919483, on 24.8.02.Onthophagus joannae (Scarabaeidae, local). One collected from closely cropped ground herbage at ‘Highclere’, Wood Norton, SP012479, on 1.6.02. Confirmed by P.F.Whitehead.Aleurostictus (Gnorimus) nobilis (Scarabaeidae, RDB2). Four adults were very active during hot & sunny conditions at Tiddesley Wood, SO930455, on 29.7.02. All were feeding at the flowers of Meadowsweet, short flights were made intermittently between suitable flowers, one specimen was noted making higher flights before circling down to resume feeding. Several photo’s were taken.With grateful thanks to Mr.P.F.Whitehead for his assistance with identification. |
 |
DIPTERA, RECORDS OF NOTE, 2002
Kevin McGee
Alphabetically by Family.
| Choerades marginatus (Asilidae, local). One collected from Bramble foliage at Mill Meadow, Drakes Broughton, SO919483, on 14.7.02. I have subsequently recorded it from the same site on several more dates since, the last being of one on an Oak stump on 29.9.02. This species is also present at Tiddesley Wood, SO930455, with one on trackside foliage on 29.7.02.Conops ceriaeformis (Conopidae, local). One male was collected from a Thistle species at Tiddesley Wood, SO930455, on 18.8.02. This may comprise the 1st County record as no earlier records have thus far come to light. It appears very similar to the much more widespread Conops quadrifasciatus, so it is well worth capturing anything suspect to check for further records of C.ceriaeformis.Myopa testacea (Conopidae, local). One male was collected from our garden on low growing plants alongside the lawn. Drakes Broughton, SO928486, on 13.4.02.Oxycera rara (Stratiomyidae, local). One female was collected from a flower-rich poolside at Ashmoor Common, SO850470, on 6.7.02. |
 |
 |
Oxycera trilineata (Stratiomyidae, local). One collected from site as above on 21.7.02.Pipiza austriaca (Syrphidae, local). One female was photographed on low herbage at Mill Meadow, Drakes Broughton, SO919483, on 8.6.02.Volucella inanis (Syrphidae, local). One female was collected from the flowers of Devil’s-bit Scabious at Tiddesley Wood, SO930455, on 1.9.02.Volucella inflata (Syrphidae, local). One female was photographed on flowers of Devil’s-bit Scabious at Tiddesley Wood, SO930455, on 18.8.02. |
Tabanus autumnalis (Tabanidae, local). One female was collected from an Oak trunk at Castlemorton Common, SO786394, on 10.8.02. The specimen shown in the photograph below was taken alongside the canal at Briar Hill Coppice on 27.7.01. |
 |
HETEROPTERA, RECORDS OF NOTE, 2002
Kevin McGee
Elasmostethus tristriatus
(Acanthosomatidae, local).
One on Willow foliage at Diglis Lock, Worcester, SO849539, on 30.9.02.
Metatropis rufescens (Berytinidae, local).
One collected from Oak foliage at Mill Meadow, Drakes Broughton, SO919483, on 26.8.02.
Megacoelum infusum (Miridae, local).
One collected from Oak foliage at Mill Meadow, Drakes Broughton, SO919483, on 31.8.02. One on an Oak trunk at the same site on 29.9.02.
Oncotylus viridiflavus (Miridae, local).
One on Knapweed at Windmill Hill, SP071475, on 8.8.02.
LEPIDOPTERA, RECORDS OF NOTE, 2002
Kevin McGee
| BUTTERFLIES.
Essex Skipper. |
 |
 |
MACRO MOTHS.
Red-tipped Clearwing. |
| Oak Eggar. Lasiocampa quercus (Lasiocampidae, local). One male in rapid flight at Castlemorton Common, SO790396, on 2.8.02.Rosy Footman. Miltochrista miniata (Arctiidae, notable B). One photographed on Nettles at Mill Meadow, Drakes Broughton, SO919483, on 14.7.02. |
 |
 |
Broom-tip. Chesias rufata (Geometridae, notable B). One photographed at an MV light-trap, Wyre Forest, SO753765, on 19.4.02. |
| The Blackneck. Lygephila pastinum (Noctuidae, local). One photographed at Ashmoor Common, SO850470, on 6.7.02. |
 |
SYMPHYTA, RECORDS OF NOTE, 2002
Kevin McGee
| Arge gracilicornis (Argidae, local). One female collected from Bramble foliage at Drakes Broughton Orchard, SO923487, on 30.7.02.Zaraea fasciata (Cimbicidae, local). One female photographed on Teasel foliage at Tiddesley Wood, SO930455, on 5.8.02. |
 |
 |
Amauronematus puniceus (Tenthredinidae, local). One female collected from Aspen foliage at Mill Meadow, Drakes Broughton, SO919483, on 2.5.02. One female collected from Aspen foliage at Tiddesley Wood, SO930455, on 12.5.02.Rhogogaster chambersi (Tenthredinidae, local). One female collected from closely cropped herbage in a calcareous meadow at ‘Highclere’, Wood Norton, SP012479, on 1.6.02. Xiphydria camelus (Xiphydriidae, local). One female photographed ovipositing in what is probably a Birch log at ‘Highclere’, Wood Norton, SP012479, on 1.6.02. |
BYCTISCUS POPULI: THE STATUS AND BIOLOGY OF A RARE SPECIES ACTION PLAN (SAP) WEEVIL IN WORCESTERSHIRE.
Jon Mellings
 |
 |
LEFT: B. populi adults constructing leaf roll, Monkwood, Worcester, June 2001
RIGHT: Aspen sucker with leaf rolls and new roll in the process of construction, Monkwood, Worcester, June 2001
Introduction
Byctiscus populi (Coleoptera: Attelibidae) an attractive, metallic green or coppery coloured, leaf-rolling weevil associated with Aspen Populus tremula and White Poplar Populus alba, has suffered serious decline in the UK in the past few decades. It is now classified as RDB3 ‘rare’ and is the subject of its own SAP – ‘Species Action Plan’ (Morris,2001). In response to specifications in the SAP, research is currently being carried out at Leeds University, English Nature’s lead partner for this species. Many former, extant and potential sites have been surveyed to update records, and a truer picture of the species’ current status has emerged. Results from this survey together with research into aspects of the biology and habitat preferences of this weevil, will be used to advise practical management actions necessary to aid recovery of B. populi‘s UK populations.
Site surveys
During the summers of 2001 and 2002 more than twenty sites were surveyed nationally. Of only six sites where B. populi survives, two have been located in Worcestershire. Whereas the remaining U.K. populations of this weevil, one in Warwickshire and the remaining three in B. populi‘s former stronghold of south east England, are very small and in danger of extinction, both Worcester populations are thriving.
Worcestershire sites
A common feature of historic and extant B. populi populations is that they have, with very few exceptions, occupied ancient woodlands or common land with a history of coppicing. Interestingly, there are several parallels between the two Worcestershire sites. Monkwood and Trench Wood have very similar management histories; they are both ancient coppice woodlands that were managed by Harris the brush-makers in the post war period, before being taken over by Worcestershire Wildlife Trust and Butterfly Conservation.
Identification
B. populi is one of only two British representatives of the genus. Both are compact, metallic weevils with squarish elytra and straight rather than elbowed antennae. Byctiscus males are characterized by the presence of a conspicuous, forward-pointing spine on the lower margin of the pronotum in the anterior third on each side. This feature is a particularly useful identification aid, being unique to Byctiscus in this group. B. populi’s sister species B. betulae is very similar to B. populi which can be distinguished by the inky blue-black underside contrasting markedly with the typically greenish or coppery coloured upper surface. B. betulae is normally a uniform metallic blue in the male and metallic green or golden green in the female, the underside being concolorous with the upper surface in both sexes. Whereas the elytral apices are entirely glabrous in B. populi, in B. betulae these are sparsely clothed with fine, pale pubescence. B. betulae tends also to be a somewhat larger species of 4.8-7mm compared with 4-5.5mm in B. populi.
Life History
Adult beetles appear around the beginning of May and can be found from this time onwards until the end of September. The weevils then feed on the developing aspen leaves before commencing to construct neat, cigar-like leaf rolls into which 1-4 pearly white eggs are deposited on the innermost edge. Prior to rolling, the female weevil punctures the petiole causing the leaf to wither. The eggs hatch after about a week and the creamy white larvae begin to feed in earnest on the decaying leaf. At some point during the larval development the roll falls to the ground, the larva continues to feed before burrowing beneath the soil to pupate.
Leaf rolls are continually produced throughout the summer but peak activity is between June and July, activity trailing off considerably and ceasing around mid-September. In captivity, B. populi specimens were found to take as little as one month to develop from egg to adult at room temperature, so it seems probable that peak activity at the end of June and beginning of July corresponds to the emergence of individuals developed from eggs laid by the over-wintering brood in May. Captive reared adults emerging in August were successfully hibernated in outdoor conditions in late October. Given a choice of rough bark and sandy soil, weevils hibernated both just beneath the soil and within cracks in the bark. Despite this, the lack of late season records of B. populi adults, may indicate that the majority of late brood weevils remain beneath the ground until the following year. Bily (1990) states that this is the case with B. betulae.
Habitat choice
B. populi‘s need to produce leaf rolls is evidently important in determining the weevil’s choice of habitat as it is linked to the early successional stages of aspen. The weevil almost exclusively uses newly regenerating aspen ‘suckers’ for leaf rolling. In contrast to more mature aspens which produce few new leaves after the initial Spring bud-burst, in their first two years of growth suckers produce a continual supply of new leaves throughout B. populi‘s flight season. Importantly, pliable new leaves are much easier to roll than older ones, furthermore, the leaves of young suckers tend to be much larger than those of mature aspens and older suckers. Interestingly, a study by Evans (2001) of B. populi in Latvia, showed that more eggs tended to be laid in longer leaves. Meanwhile, in Monkwood two or more females were occasionally observed to cooperate in the rolling of a single large sucker leaf.
The low sucker growth is also beneficial in providing a warm, sheltered microclimate. Like many thermophilous invertebrates, B. populi becomes more active as temperature increases. Although sexual activity and roll production continues throughout periods of cooler weather and even in moderately wet conditions, in periods of direct sunlight activity speeds up markedly, weevils fly readily in such conditions and have been observed to fly for 100 metres or more on occasions. In June and July they are active for long hours, continuing to produce rolls throughout the day from early morning until dusk.
Habitat management
B. populi is another example of a species which suffered greatly from the decline of traditional woodland practices in the latter half of the last century. Surveying has revealed that the beetle has disappeared from former strongholds which have become shaded. A good example in Worcestershire is Worcestershire Wildlife Trust owned Randan Wood near Kidderminster where B. populi was recorded in 1951 by Fred Fincher. Whilst both mature aspen and suckers still occur, albeit thinly on this site, the lack of light penetration evidently led to the demise of the weevil. (Fred Fincher allowed parts of the wood to develop naturally long before it became a WWT reserve – Ed)
Being a species associated with early successional re-growth, B. populi seems well adapted to survival in a dynamic habitat. The rotationally managed ride and coppice system of Monkwood and Trench wood seems very suitable for the insect and in mid-summer ride edges and young coppice stands in parts of the reserve are festooned with B. populi leaf-rolls. The weevil may have benefited from the open habitat created during the Harris brush era at a time when many other former coppice woods were neglected. At Monkwood the beetle may also have inadvertently benefited from management for the Wood white butterfly Leptidea sinapis which favours a patchy ride edge habitat of tall grasses and light scrub. An overall impression is that the weevil is perhaps more at home on ride edges than in all but the earliest stages of the coppice cycle. This may partially explain why this species has died out in sites like Bradfield Wood in Suffolk. Although this site has been continuously coppiced since mediaeval times, the ride edges are regularly manicured and kept almost entirely scrub-free.
At present a report detailing work completed over the past two field seasons at Monkwood and other sites is being prepared for English Nature. Plans for the next year include a large scale G.I.S. habitat mapping project to establish the whereabouts and condition of habitat suitable for B. populi, in woodlands in the areas surrounding core sites such as Monkwood and Trench wood. Any information regarding Byctiscus populi records in the Worcester area would be gratefully received.
References
BILY, S.,1990. A colour guide to beetles, ed. London: Hamlyn.
EVANS, L. 2001, A study on Byctiscus populi (L.1758) (Attelabidae) in Latvia and implications for conservation management in the UK. Unpublished MSc. project, University of Leeds.
MORRIS, M.G., 1999, Byctiscus populi (a leaf-rolling weevil) Action plan. In UK Biodiversity Group Tranche 2 Action Plans, Vol 5: Invertebrates (March 1999). Peterborough: JNCC.
Contacts:
Jon Mellings. Email: jonmellings@btopenworld.com
Dr Steve Compton. Email: pab6sgc@leeds.ac.uk
Or locally Helen Woodman or Harry Green at Worcestershire Wildlife Trust.
The map below shows national distribution of B. populi (all records)
ASPEN LEAF ROLLS
On a Management Committee visit to Monkwood on 6th June 2002 we noticed the leaf rolls on young aspen as shown in the pictures. At that time we were not sure what Bycticus populi rolls looked like so I sent a picture to Jon Mellings for comment – see the footnote to his article. Following his response I sent the pictures to Tony Simpson who said that the most likely causer was a micro-moth Anacampsis populella (Fam Glechidae) which produces 95% of aspen leaf rolls. Less likely was one of two species of Tortricinae, which also make aspen leaf rolls. If any reader sees rolls in Worcestershire resembling B. populi please let us know as a matter of urgency – thank you. Harry Green
 |
 |
 |
CHADDESLEY WOODS BIRD SURVEYS
Mervyn Needham
The bird survey was instigated by Eric Pithers, Regional Reserves Warden with the then Nature Conservancy Council (NCC), in 1983, and conducted by the author as voluntary Warden of Chaddesley Woods National Nature Reserve from 1983 to the present (2002), with gaps between 1996-1998, and again in 2001 due to the Foot & Mouth Disease outbreak.
The method used has been to follow the same route during spring each year with up to nine weekly visits commencing mid-March, recording both bird song and sightings, and noting the species on a weekly map. At the end of the survey period each species record has been transferred to single or double species map. From the maps a picture of concentrations emerged enabling an estimate of species breeding territories to be assessed. The method is similar to that used by BTO Common Bird Census but relied on interpretation by the author only. Some scarcer species records have not provided enough evidence of breeding but do serve to indicate species presence.
An initial idea of matching breeding patterns with woodland management was found to be too complex and was abandoned.
The following table summarises the numbers of territories recorded each year (when possible) and also indicates species recorded, which could not be confirmed as having breeding territories, by s + seen, or h = heard. A dash indicates not recorded.
| Year | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 99 | 00 | 02 |
| Species | ||||||||||||||||
| Blackbird | 21 | 11 | 14 | 9 | 7 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 4 | 5 | 9 | 5 | 7 | 8 | 12 | 9 |
| Blackcap | 11 | 7 | 11 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 8 | 7 | 4 | 7 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Blue Tit | 12 | 10 | 12 | 11 | 8 | 11 | 11 | 12 | 11 | 4 | 11 | 6 | 8 | 14 | 18 | 16 |
| Bullfinch | – | s | 3 | 2 | 2 | s | s | 2 | s | 1 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | s |
| Chaffinch | 11 | 10 | 12 | 12 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 13 | 15 | 10 | 10 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 5 | 8 |
| Chiffchaff | 5 | 8 | 11 | 12 | 12 | 11 | 16 | 19 | 13 | 16 | 14 | 13 | 14 | 8 | 12 | 9 |
| Coal Tit | 6 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 6 | 5 | 2 | 5 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 3 |
| Carrion Crow | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | s | 1 | s |
| Dunnock | s | s | s | s | – | s | 3 | 3 | 2 | – | – | – | – | s | s | s |
| Grasshopper Warbler | – | – | 1 | 1 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Great Tit | 9 | 5 | 12 | 8 | 9 | 5 | 8 | 8 | 9 | 8 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 11 | 11 |
| Great Spotted Woodpecker | 1 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 2 |
| Green Woodpecker | 4 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
| Garden Warbler | 2 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 7 | 5 | 7 | 6 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| Goldcrest | – | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 6 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 7 |
| Jay | 4 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 4 | s | 4 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| Long-tailed Tit | – | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 4 |
| Magpie | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | s | s |
| Mallard | – | s | s | s | 1 | s | s | s | 1 | s | – | s | s | s | 2 | s |
| Moorhen | 1 | 1 | – | 1 | 1 | – | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Nuthatch | 2 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 4 |
| Pheasnat | 3 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 |
| Partridge | – | – | – | s | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Robin | 18 | 12 | 15 | 14 | 11 | 11 | 13 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 12 | 12 | 11 | 17 | 16 | 17 |
| Song Thrush | 3 | 6 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 5 | 6 | 3 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 5 | 7 |
| Mistle Thrush | – | 1 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 |
| Sparrowhawk | – | – | s | – | – | s | – | – | s | – | – | – | – | – | – | s |
| Spotted Flycatcher | – | – | 1 | 1 | 1 | s | 1 | 2 | – | 1 | 1 | – | – | – | – | – |
| Starling | – | 1 | 4 | s | s | s | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | s | s | s |
| Tree Pipit | 1 | 1 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | s | – | – | – | – |
| Turtle Dove | 3 | 3 | s | 3 | 3 | s | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Wren | 13 | 19 | 16 | 14 | 14 | 20 | 24 | 16 | 18 | 21 | 17 | 16 | 21 | 21 | 20 | 18 |
| Willow Warbler | 15 | 14 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 7 | 9 | 7 | 12 | 2 | 5 | 3 | 6 | 4 | 4 | 2 |
| Wood Warbler | 2 | 1 | 1 | – | 1 | 1 | 1 | – | 3 | 1 | – | – | – | – | s | – |
| Tree Creeper | – | s | s | 2 | 2 | 1 | s | s | – | s | 2 | s | s | 2 | 1 | s |
| Woodcock | – | s | s | s | s | s | s | s | – | – | – | – | – | – | s | s |
| Whitethroat | – | – | – | – | 1 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Pied Flycatcher | – | – | – | – | 1 | – | – | – | – | – | s | – | – | – | – | – |
| Lesser Spotted Woodpecker | – | – | – | – | 1 | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | 1 | – | – | – | s |
| Tawny Owl | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | s | s | – | – | 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Willow Tit | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 2 | 1 | 2 | 4 | s | s | s | s |
| Heron | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | s | – | – | – | 1 | s | – |
| Goshawk | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | 1 | – | – | – | – | – |
| Buzzard | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | s | s | 2 |
| Tufted Duck | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | s |
| Kestrel | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | s |
| Cuckoo | h | h | h | h | h | h | h | h | h | h | h | h | h | h | h | h |
| Wood Pigeon | h | h | h | h | h | h | h | h | h | h | h | h | h | h | h | h |
(Editors note: the value of publishing the results of a survey of this type is partly in the long term. Some noticeable changes can be seen now, but, hopefully, in 50 years time someone will be delighted to have the data to compare with the situation in 2050!)
Nest box scheme
After the Worcestershire Wildlife Trust began management of Chaddesley Woods NNR on a 99 year lease a team of volunteer workers was formed. In 1999 they constructed nest boxes which were erected in the wood and data collected for the BRO Nest Records Scheme. For 1999 nesting season 60 boxes were erected – 45 with holes and 15 open-fronted. In 2000 this was increased to 100 boxes. The open-fronted boxes have not been used at all up to and including 2002.
1999: 45 holed boxes, 39 used, 3 empty, 3 abandoned (average clutch size 8)
2000: 94 boxes inspected, 63 used successfully, 4 abandoned: 45 blue tits, 12 great tits (average clutch size 8.34)
2001: 99 boxes inspected, 75 used but FMD prevented visits.
2002: 99 boxes inspected, 55 used, 4 abandoned: 39 blue tits, 14 great tits, 2 nuthatches. (average clutch size 8.5)
SKILLS ON SHOW 2002
John Partridge
Skills on Show is a two day event, open to the public, which has been held at County Hall for the past few years. It attracted about thirteen thousand visitors last year. It includes a Discovering Worcestershire marquee, and seeing this last year gave me the idea of a WBRC stand, designed to raise the profile of the WBRC in the county.
After overcoming what seemed to be a large number of obstacles, we eventually managed to get ourselves on the list, mainly due to the help of Alex Preston, the county BAP Officer, and I was persuaded that it would be far better to have an interactive stand rather than just the static display that I had been considering.
We ended up with a patch of 3m x 4m. The background contained posters of what we are trying to do, together with a Worcestershire map, laminated pictures of invertebrates and mammals, and a plug for Worcestershire Record.
On the tables we had two computers – one with GIS which gave a list of butterflies found round any chosen point, the other with aerial photographs of the county, on which I could superimpose the mammal records. This was used as a recruiting aid to get more people helping send in records for the proposed Mammal Atlas. Next to these was a stereo microscope, showing people mosses and lichens, and then a quiz on twig and leaf recognition, with a bran tub of prizes for the children who had a go.
On the second table John Meiklejohn had a display of ladybirds, stag beetles and moths, together with distribution maps, and behind that Will Watson had kindly provided some water bugs for a tank loaned by the Countryside Section of WCC.
The stand was busy for most of the time, with up to five helpers engaged in conversations, old friends were met, and we made ourselves known to many people. Joy had fun with the quiz, watching the reactions when children were told that their parents could help them, Harry found a seven-year old map-reader, John collected some likely-sounding sightings of Stag Beetles, and met an amazing young lady who could recall and draw a shield-bug that she had found, and I some badger records. We recruited a decent number of people to help with the mammal survey, and hopefully a few more readers for the Worcestershire Record.
My grateful thanks to Alex Preston, for ideas and liaison work, to Kate Westlake of the Countryside Service for her on-site organisation, and for pushing the interactive idea, and to the recorders who helped set-up, take down and staff the stand – Geoff Trevis, John Meiklejohn, Shaun Micklewright, Harry Green, Will Watson & Joy Ricketts – in order of appearance on stage. Amazingly, they all seemed to enjoy it and want to get involved again. For any that would like to join them, we are hoping that we can be involved again, and next year the dates are 12th & 13th July, 2003. I am also considering doing something similar on Tiddesley Wood Open Day.
SPIDER NOTES
John Partridge
The request in the last issue for records for the white crab spider, Misumena vatia, produced just three records for the year, none of them from the edge of the distribution, so that was rather disappointing. I rather feel that the spiders have not been so prominent in recent years.
At a Bromsgrove Group meeting in October I was given an orange-red spider with very few markings, which from its size and habitat seemed most likely to be the Garden or Cross Spider, Araneus diadematus. Closer examination verified this, but more interestingly, it laid and cocooned its eggs in the box overnight. I transferred the spider, now much shrunken, and the egg cocoon to a bush in the garden, where the spider then added more silk to roughly surround the cocoon with leaves. An interesting example of normal behaviour continuing after an interruption.
Theridiosoma gemmosum, which I reported as new to the county in the last issue, after finding it at Grimley, produced a second record from Kemerton Gravel Pits. This is a minute globular-bodied spider, with a silvery abdomen.
Agyneta subtilis is one of many small money spiders that need a microscope for identification. It was recorded by T. H. Savory in his 1933 list, but has not been taken again, as far as I know, until my finding it at Kingswood in July 2002.
Ballus chalybeius is a jumping spider that has a very scattered distribution outside the Thames area. The National Atlas puts it in Dean and Wyre, so it is rather specialised. It lays its eggs on oak branches. I was fortunate enough to find both male and female on a day out with Bob Steele in his Suckley Wood, giving a first county record for this species. The site also produced a specimen of the harvestman Megabunus diadema – see below
While trying to collect harvestmen for my identification course I became more aware of how few records we have for one of the most striking of these – Megabunus diadema. Although little is found in the books on the habits of this group, this species appears to like mossy spaces, so perhaps our Bryologists could keep a look out for it. The ‘crown’ over the eyes is diagnostic, but unfortunately it is only just about big enough to be visible to the adult naked eye – children might do better.
 |
Megabunus diadema (modified from illustration in Harvestmen by P D Hillyard and JHP Sankey.1989 (No 4, 2nd edition. Synopsis of British Fauna (New series)).
BIRDS IN WORCESTERSHIRE – April 2002 to October 2002
by Gavin Peplow
Another summer has passed with a mix of early season wet weather before drying out into a very warm and rain free September, before the rainfall and strong winds came back with a vengeance later in October. This was perhaps a less spectacular season than of late for unusual visitors, though a few more scarce migrants were reported towards the end of the period.
Late April saw a fairly typical though always welcomed flush of passage waders and returning summer visitors, with highlights including a Sandwich Tern at Upton Warren, an Arctic Tern for several days at Grimley New Workings and a Bar-tailed Godwit at Kinsham.
Early May witnessed the discovery of a first year Shag at the Gullet Quarry, Malvern Hills, that had reportedly been first seen during January. It surprisingly remained tolerant of considerable human disturbance into at least July. The month continued to pick up pace with wader passage featuring three Bar-tailed Godwits at Wilden sludge lagoons (before their sad demise/infilling in the autumn) with further birds at Grimley and Ryall. Turnstones were seen at Bredon’s Hardwick, Throckmorton Tip, Grimley and Kinsham, whilst Wood Sandpipers at Upton Warren and Grimley provided an attractive alternative to the passage Green Sandpipers at that time. A White Stork circled low over Lower Moor before soaring steadily north mid-month but despite the apparent lack of any human handling (in the form of metal or plastic rings !) could needless to say not be certainly assigned to origin with ever-increasing numbers of escaped birds known to be roaming the Country. Two Sanderlings paused briefly at Grimley and a Little Stint visited Upton Warren.
As summer progressed into June, an adult Honey Buzzard was an exciting find drifting over Kinsham and led to thoughts that this could one day conceivably become a breeding species in the County, with increasing numbers being recorded each year nationally. The rest of the month was fairly quiet with the breeding season well under way for common and scarcer species alike A Little Egret was still unusual at Upton Warren, but this time stayed over a few days before re-locating to the west of the River Severn in the Grimley/Hallow area at the beginning of July.
A Quail showed to a few patient observers near Chaddesley Corbett at the start of the month, whilst breeding species included Oystercatchers with three young at Bredon’s Hardwick, and for the second year Great Black-backed Gulls raised two chicks there and Common Terns nested for the first time, rearing three juveniles. Nearby Greylag Geese were successful at Kinsham again, further establishing their westward spread across the Country. It was also encouraging to hear of six juvenile Barn Owls being seen during the month near Pershore. Later in the month six separate Mediterranean Gulls were seen at Upton Warren and Yellow-legged Gulls returned to Throckmorton Landfill site.
August arrived with a glut of Garganey, six being seen at Upton Warren and three at the Gwen Finch Reserve, Nafford. The Little Egret lingered in the Grimley area and was joined by a second bird for a short period. A Common Scoter was seen during a period of thunderstorms at Westwood Pool and Wood Sandpipers appeared at Grimley and Ryall Pit. This month also saw the arrival of several parties of Crossbills, including at least forty in the Wyre Forest and ten in the Lenches, whilst a Wryneck paid a brief visit to a High Green garden in the last week.
Early September yielded an adult Spotted Crake at Grimley Old Workings, perhaps even the same bird that was seen there a couple of years ago?! Anyway, it found the reed bed fringe habitat to its liking and stayed there over two weeks. Four Curlew Sandpipers paused a while at Upton Warren and two Knot were seen along the Bittell shoreline whilst a Spotted Redshank proved elusive in the virtually dry habitat comprising the Gwen Finch Reserve at this time.
This has proved to be a very good autumn for Rock Pipits with several multiple sightings culminating in a group of five seen at Kinsham at the end of October. A controversial eclipse drake Scaup at Westwood promoted debate at the time, whilst a Ferruginous Duck at Grimley and then Westwood, proved popular. The second half of the month gathered pace with a double figure total of Little Gulls being recorded around the County, and returning wild Swans included up to five Bewick’s at Westwood, joined by an adult Whooper for a couple of days. A family party of this last species also visited Bredon’s Hardwick a short while later.
Brief glimpses of Bitterns were reported at Podmoor Pool, Kidderminster and at Westwood, whilst a Grey Phalarope visited Bittell after strong winds. The review period finished on a high note with a female Long-tailed Duck again at Westwood, whilst two or three Grey Plovers were recorded around the County and a pair of Red-breasted Mergansers dropped into Upton Warren at the months’ end.
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).
MORE BUZZARD FOOD
E-mail from Michael Southall 29th November 2002
My brother told me of an unusual Buzzard sighting he had last week. He was driving towards Drakes Broughton from Pinvin when he saw a dead badger by the side of the road. As he approached it a Buzzard flew from the right hand side towards the badger. The Buzzard managed to avoid a collision with the car.
I came across two Buzzards together today, at Pepwell near Hartlebury, where at least one was feeding on a Wood Pigeon. The breast meat had gone and most of the internal organs. During last season’s ploughing I was joined by a worm eating Buzzard on only one occasion. A pair successfully fledged two young this year, the first recorded breeding on Norchard farm.
ADDERS IN THE WYRE FOREST 2001 – Sylvia Sheldon
The following is taken from Sylvia Sheldon’s report for 2001, with her permission. For further information, including the detailed weather report, please contact her directly at the address given. The information is her copyright and should not be used without permission.
Summary
If 2000 set a record for rainfall (the wettest since 1872), 2001 was almost equally wet, and secured its own place in the records as the warmest since records began in 1766.
But 2002 will be remembered in the UK for more than the weather pattern. On February 24th, Foot and Mouth Disease was confirmed in Northumberland and Essex, and spread rapidly throughout most of Britain.
As a result the countryside was closed four days later, including the Wyre Forest. The usual reptile and amphibian surveys that are summarised annually in this report’s predecessors were immediately curtailed. Only a few sites were visited with their owners permission. As a reslul a full report of adder numbers cannot be presented for the year.
Over the 7 months following its detection FMD affected thousands of farms, with 2030 cases confirmed and over 4 million animals slaughtered. By the time restrictions began to be lifted, the reptile and amphibian year was virtually over.
HERPETOFAUNA DATA
PHENOLOGY
| First male adder | February 7 |
| First frogspawn | February 21 |
| First common lizard and slow-worm | March 13 |
| First femal adder | March 31 |
| First grass snake | April 1 |
| First great crested newt spawn | April 6 |
| First male adder slough | April 17 |
| First adder courtship | April 30 |
| First adder combat and mating | May 7 |
| Last adder mating | May 12 |
| Last adder | September 17 |
|
Table 3: 2001 Data |
|
| Year | First Sighting | Air Temp C | Grass Temp C | First Slough |
| 1990 | February 5 | 13.0 | 14.0 | April 8 |
| 1991 | February 23 | 14.0 | 17.0 | April 19 |
| 1992 | February 23 | 13.0 | 15.0 | April 22 |
| 1993 | February 17 | 10.7 | 12.5 | April 16 |
| 1994 | February 10 | 10.0 | 15.0 | April 18 |
| 1995 | February 12 | 11.4 | 11.0 | April 10 |
| 1996 | February 16 | 12.2 | 15.0 | April 24 |
| 1997 | February 15 | 8.6 | 11.0 | April 8 |
| 1998 | February 11 | 13.6 | 12.5 | April 17 |
| 1999 | February 16 | 8.0 | 9.0 | April 16 |
| 2000 | February 19 | 6.3 | 12.5 | April 7 |
| 2001 | February 7 | 10.0 | 11.5 | April 17 |
|
Table 4: Cumulative Data |
||||
POPULATION DATA
| Year | Sites Surveyed | Sites with Adders | Mature Males | Mature females | Total | Average per Site |
| 1990 | 56 | 50 | 185 | 55 | 240 | 4.8 |
| 1991 | 76 | 61 | 211 | 56 | 267 | 4.2 |
| 1992 | 78 | 55 | 159 | 33 | 192 | 3.5 |
| 1993 | 80 | 59 | 186 | 70 | 256 | 4.3 |
| 1994 | 76 | 50 | 153 | 29 | 182 | 3.6 |
| 1995 | 76 | 44 | 103 | 14 | 117 | 2.6 |
| 1996 | 80 | 41 | 112 | 32 | 144 | 3.5 |
| 1997 | 84 | 44 | 102 | 31 | 133 | 3.0 |
| 1998 | 85 | 42 | 103 | 34 | 137 | 3.3 |
| 1999 | 67 | 35 | 100 | 20 | 120 | 3.4 |
| 2000 | 87 | 24 | 69 | 13 | 82 | 3.4 |
| 2001 |
Data incomplete due to FMD |
|||||
|
Table 5: Adder Numbers |
||||||
|
Year |
Grass Snakes |
Slow-Worms |
Lizards |
|||
| Mature | Juvenile | Mature | Juvenile | Mature | Juvenile | |
| 1990 | 30 | 6 | 23 | 3 | 22 | 2 |
| 1991 | 16 | 4 | 24 | 11 | 20 | 0 |
| 1992 | 22 | 8 | 27 | 8 | 10 | 3 |
| 1993 | 45 | 4 | 57 | 5 | 35 | 3 |
| 1994 | 18 | 2 | 36 | 10 | 22 | 1 |
| 1995 | 19 | 4 | 23 | 13 | 11 | 0 |
| 1996 | 18 | 4 | 32 | 16 | 15 | 0 |
| 1997 | 25 | 3 | 42 | 11 | 42 | 0 |
| 1998 | 20 | 1 | 34 | 8 | 37 | 0 |
| 1999 | 26 | 8 | 32 | 9 | 18 | 1 |
| 2000 | 11 | 1 | 21 | 3 | 23 | 0 |
| 2001 |
Data incomplete due to FMD |
|||||
| Table 4: Other Reptiles recorded in Wyre during Adder Census | ||||||
| Acknowledgements
I would like to thank:
|
Address for Communications
Ms Sylvia Sheldon |
FUNGAL NOTE
Justin Smith
In the grounds of the old Aymestry School, near Broadheath, is a patch of what I believe to be semi-improved/unimproved neutral grassland, unimpressive botanically if it wasn’t for the rich biota of fungi recorded in an area no bigger than 150 x 50m.
In approximately 5 years of recent study of the site (usually only one day in October per year, as I do not live in Worcester), I have recorded 60+ species of Agarics (mushrooms and toadstools) plus numerous coral fungi and gasteromycetes. Of particular interest are 15 species of ‘waxcap’, including Hygrocybe calyptriformis, H. puniceus, H. citrinovirens and H. intermedia, all regarded as nationall rare (according to the 1991 RDB fungi list). Hygrocybe calyptriformis (the Pink Meadow Cap) has a schedule 8 BAP listing.
It would be interesting to find out who now owns this site (the school closed, I believe, a few years ago) and whether the site is/will be managed sympathetically.
BRC DEVELOPMENTS AND RECORDING
Geoff Trevis
The BRC development continues apace with regular meetings of the Board. Most significantly, after two advertisements, we have applicants for the managers post and interviews are to be held on 12th November. (SEE BELOW). The initial appointment will be on a one year, short term contract, funded by the County Council, English Nature and Worcestershire Wildlife Trust but we anticipate that if it is successful the post will become established for the longer term. The manager will be based at the Centre at Lower Smite Farm but will liaise closely with the Trust, the County Council and the County Recorders to begin the process of bringing the centre up to NBN standards and establishing a viable funding base. He/she will be accountable to the Board to whom reports will be regularly submitted. Meanwhile, the application for charitable status is in preparation and issues relating to finance, governance and company law are being resolved.
Most importantly, the centre continues to function under the joint management of John Meiklejohn and John Partridge and the database is growing. A number of new people are now involved in transferring data to the Recorder database for addition to the computerised records. However, keep the records coming – we never have enough and even for common species there are clearly gaps whilst repeat records will become increasingly important as we try to monitor the state of wildlife in the county.
In addition to the BRC, there have also been developments with respect to recording. The BRC Board has three nominees from the recording community and there now needs to be a mechanism for the nominations to be made democratically. Please note that I use the term “nominees” and not “representatives”. Once appointed to the Board a person’s legal responsibility is to implement decisions in the best interests of the BRC. They cannot be mandated to vote for a particular proposal. However, they will be the main channel of communication between recorders and the Board and it will be their responsibility to ensure that your views are properly considered.
Because of this new requirement, a meeting was held at Lower Smite Farm to which people known to be active in recording were invited. It was decided that a formal organisation will be needed from and through which nominees will be elected. The organisation will also have as its objective support for the BRC by promoting recording in the county through field meetings, workshops and other educational activities and through publications. It will be known simply as “Worcestershire Recorders” and its members will be those subscribing to the Worcestershire Record.
Clearly some form of Executive will be needed to administer the elections, to organise the events and projects and to act as channel of communication between the BRC and the recorders. At the moment this function is carried out by an ad hoc working group with the following members, Geoff Trevis (chairman), Harry Green, John Meiklejohn, John Partridge, Martyn Hodgson, Patrick Taylor, Gary Farmer and Bert Reid. It was agreed that this group should form the basis of the new committee, to be called the Worcestershire Recorders’ Committee, that will carry on co-ordinating and supporting recording but that will also draw up a constitution for Worcestershire Recorders. The proposed constitution will be widely circulated for comment before its adoption.
Whilst an executive will be necessary to undertake the administrative work it was agreed that bureaucracy will kept to a minimum and meetings of the committee should be open to a wide constituency of recorders. Further details will be published as soon as possible but, in the meantime, if anybody would like further clarification or would like to comment on the proposals I would be pleased to hear from them by writing to me at the Worcestershire BRC or by telephone (01905 774952) evenings or weekends, or by e-mail geoff.trevis@btopenworld.com. I will also give an update at the annual meeting in March and will be happy to discuss matters then.
BRC BOARD AND COMMITTEES
In summary there are two sides to the activity and management of the Worcs BRC. The Centre is managed by a Board whose membership is:
Geoff Trevis (chairman) Nominated by WWT
David Heaver Nominated by EN
Harry Green Nominated by Worcestershire recorders
John Partridge Nominated by Worcestershire recorders
Bert Reid Nominated by Worcestershire recorders
In attendance:
Colin Raven Company secretary
Ian Bamforth From Worcestershire County Council (we are waiting for a formal nomination by the Council)
Alex Preston Worcestershire BAP manager
BRC manager When appointed.
The Board has sole responsibility for running the Centre and its members are not representatives.
Active recording is vital to the success of the Centre and this is recognised by the presence of three recorders’ nominees on the Board.
The county recording community has set up an organisation, Worcestershire Recorders, to promote recording work in the county, to support the BRC and to elect the Board nominees. Worcestershire Recorders is intended to support the BRC but it is not run by the BRC and an executive committee, Worcestershire Recorders Committee, has been set up to administer the elections and organise its work. Current committee members are Geoff Trevis (chairman), Gary Farmer, Harry Green, Martyn Hodgson, John Meiklejohn, John Partridge and Bert Reid. One of its primary tasks is to set up a constitution for the new organisation and to oversee its implementation. The constitution will be widely circulated and, once agreed, we will be looking to elections in 2003.
MANAGER APPOINTED
We are very pleased to report that following interviews in November Simon Wood has been appointed at first manager of the Worcestershire BRC. He has worked at Devon BRC and most recently as IT Officer at RECORD, the Local Biological Records Centre established at Chester to work on many aspects of establishing record centres meeting the criteria required by the NBN (National Biodiversity Network). Simon will be responsible to the Worcs BRC Board and will work closely with all partners to help establish a modern, efficient and financially viable BRC. More in our next! Simon is expected to take up the post in early January 2003 and will (hopefully) attend the Recorders Annual Meeting in March 2003 when you will be able to meet him.
COMPANY SECRETARY WANTED
A Company Secretary is required for the Worcestershire BRC Board. This is an Honorary post and the incumbent will be expected to deal with tasks required by law for a Registered Company limited by guarantee, and (eventually) a registered Charity. The Secretary will of course attend Board meetings and be involved in the usual tasks of producing agendas and minutes. If any reader is interested in this post please contact the current Chairman. Geoff Trevis, for further discussions.
EGRETS OF WORCESTERSHIRE
Andy Warr, Worcestershire County Bird Recorder
Little Egrets Egretta garzetta
It was not many years ago, observing a Little Egret brought a touch of excitement to a day’s birdwatching on the southern coast of Britain. How times have changed, with hundreds now resident throughout the southern counties and even breeding colonies being discovered in recent years. In consequence, it seemed only a matter of time before it made an appearance on the Worcestershire list, especially as the odd birds were already being reported from other West Midlands Counties.
Since its first occurrence at Bredon’s Hardwick Gravel Pit on May 6th 1992, its status in Worcestershire has gone from strength to strength, being reported during subsequent years in ever-increasing numbers, with the exception of 1995, when it was absent. By the end of 1999 at least 23 individuals had been record in the county, twelve of which came from Bredon’s Hardwick, but the years 2000 and 2001 revealed the true extent of this species success in Britain, with unprecedented numbers reaching the county. Up to 25 individuals were reported during this period, including small flocks of five at Gwen Finch reserve near Nafford on August 4th 2001, and then three at both Gwen Finch and Upper Bittell the following day. Regular sightings have continued this year 2002, with at least three individuals at Upton Warren, Two at Ryall Pits, one at Bittell Reservoir and one in the Grimley area.
Site totals of Little Egret in Worcestershire (to September 2002)
11 at Bittell Reservoir
14 at Bredon’s Hardwick
Five at Defford
A single bird visited Droitwich Canal, Redditch, Upper Bentley, Feckenham, Callow Hill, Crabbs Cross and Oakenshaw.
One at Foxmere Court
Two at Grimley
One at Holt
Two at Kinsham Pool
Two at Lower Moor
Eight at Gwen Finch Reserve, Nafford
Three at Ryall Pits
One at Strensham
One at Throckmorton Tip
One at Trimpley Reservoir
Six at Upton Warren
Two at Westwood Pool
Cattle Egret Bubulcus ibis
The county has also hosted both Cattle Egret and Great White Egret in resent years. A Cattle Egret present in 1980 was considered a probable escape and was subsequently rejected as a wild bird by the British Birds Rarity Committee (BBRC). A second individual discovered feeding amongst cattle at Besford between October 25th to November 14th and again from December 4th to 26th 1993, was accepted by the BBRC as being of wild origin and was last reported in the county at Bredon’s Hardwick on December 27th 1993.
Great White Egret Ardea alba
The sole record for Great White Egret in the county came from Westwood Pool, where one roosted during the late evening of September 11th 1999 and was seen to depart at dawn the following day. The bird was colour ringed yellow-pale green-yellow on the left leg and has only recently been traced as a young bird ringed at the nest at Lake of Grand-Lieu, Loire Atlantique, France in May 1999. It was also realised to be the bird seen at a site near Salisbury, Wilts, during the previous week and, remarkably, it returned to Salisbury the following day.
References
West Midland Bird Reports 1990-2000.
GARDEN HOVERFLIES
Brett Westwood
Recently I moved to Stourbridge, to live in the network of Victorian terraces and semi’s close to the town centre. With their extravagant poetic licence, local estate agents call the area the “Old Quarter” which to me has exotic overtones of Baghdad or Jerusalem. The far from exotic reality is a network of long thin gardens with some established trees and shrubs and neatly cropped lawns. I hate mowing , so most of the grass I inherited has become flowerbeds and a table-top sized wildflower “meadow “. In a rare fit of enthusiasm I also dug a tiny pond, which attracted a southern hawker to oviposit on the day after it was filled.
In 2001 and again in 2002 I kept an informal record of the hoverflies which appeared in the garden. Most I could have predicted but there were a few surprises too. First to appear are the Eristalis droneflies, both E. tenax and E. pertinax which seem to be active even on midwinter days if there’s enough sun. They are closely followed by another over-winterer, the Marmalade Hoverfly Episyrphus balteatus. Numbers of this species build up throughout the summer, boosted by immigrants, until it becomes one of the most regular species in the garden. By mid April, large “bumblebees” buzzing round the Spanish bluebell leaves turn out on closer inspection to be Narcissus Flies Merodon equestris. The adults come in two colour forms in my garden, a black and orange version which mimics the red-tailed bumblebee, and a tawny one which looks rather like the carder bee Bombus pascuorum. They lay their eggs on the bluebell leaves and the hatching grubs burrow into the bulb tunics.
As spring turns to summer, the hoverfly total mounts. In the last two years, I’ve been surprised to see the unmistakably dapper species Xanthogramma pedisequum which is testament to how badly I take care of the lawn. This smart citrus and black fly hovers very low down in long grass looking for flowers or possibly ant nests in which its larvae have sometimes been found. This June saw another surprise in the form of Chrsyotoxum festivum, a superb wasp mimic with curved yellow bars on its abdomen and yellow stripes on its thorax. It hovers a few feet above the ground, changing station every few seconds or so and is hard to observe until it settles. Like Xanthogramma, larvae have been found in ant nests, which means that mature gardens are a good place to look for the adults.
Mature hedges and dappled shade under trees in gardens stand in for the woodland edge habitats preferred by many hoverflies and a morning stroll down the garden reveals several species sunning on the Forsythia shrubs. In May I normally find Epistrophe eligans looking rather like a small drone fly with a shining bronzy thorax. In mid June Dasysyrphus albostriatus appeared, a classic wasp mimic with parallel whitish bars on its thorax, and soon after Leucozona lucorum, with a black and cream abdomen. One woodland edge species which may have bred in local compost heaps is Xylota segnis which has a black and gold abdomen and banded black and white legs. It rarely visits flowers unlike the large fly Volucella pellucens which spent several days on the globe heads of Allium christophii. This species lives up to its name when it hovers in bright light: you can see through the white translucent upper half of its abdomen. Using the hedge and the layer of duckweed on the pond was Helophilus pendulus.
As summer turns to autumn, migrants build up. Lots of Marmalade hoverflies are joined by Syrphus ribesii which spend their time in the sycamores at the end of the garden. The undersides of the leaves are coated in aphids by midsummer which explains the attraction. The yellow-dusted Myathropa florae is common in small numbers. Spires of late-flowering Mullein proved a real hoverfly Mecca in late 2001, drawing in the migrant Scaeva pyrastri, striped like a zebra, and Syritta pipiens, plus a number of syrphids which I lazily didn’t identify. All the species I’ve seen so far are relatively easy to name , especially if you’re armed with British Hoverflies ( Stubbs and Falk 1983, 2002) , but I suspect I’m missing the hovers which are a lot more bovver ….. they ‘re a challenge for next season
AN ASSEMBLAGE OF 13 COMMON BUZZARDS BUTEO BUTEO (L., 1758)
Paul Whitehead
The visibility on the morning of Monday May 27th 2002 was exceptionally clear, the sunlight strong and the atmosphere humid. At 1106 hrs BST at Little Comberton (SO94), hearing the resonant concerted call of a Carrion Crow I glanced up to see a Common Buzzard heading strongly east at about 25m height. To the north of it were two others also circling to the east.
I then noticed two spirals of raptors mostly near the tops of high thermals, thought to be at about 700m in height, also in the east. Using binoculars I could not make these into anything other than Common Buzzards; the birds were in close contact, tumbling and swirling together off the thermals.
Birds of the Western Palaearctic refers to Common Buzzards assembling in numbers during the breeding season, and with their increasing population in midland England, it is something that has already been noted elsewhere, and that might be observed more often. It is their great visual acuity and marked site fidelity that may bring them together in this way in the breeding season, probably as part of the mechanics of territory maintenance, or the testing of territories by non-breeding individuals.
The ten birds on the thermals were in no hurry to go anywhere and were watched for some 10 minutes after which they gradually dissipated and became harder to track. One bird of this group, which was tracked, demonstrated interesting behaviour known by glider pilots as ‘porpoising.’ This bird came off the top of its thermal in a steep closed-wing dive of perhaps 20m, heading north towards Pershore, accelerating upwards each time a new thermal was encountered, a process repeated several times during which it eventually covered a couple of kilometres rapidly with no visible wing-action and minimal energy-expenditure.
P.F. Whitehead, Moor Leys, Little Comberton, Pershore, Worcestershire WR10 3EH
A FURTHER UNUSUAL ENCOUNTER WITH A SPARROWHAWK ACCIPITER NISUS (LINNAEUS)
Paul F Whitehead
There have been numerous observations in recent years of the unusual behaviour of Sparrowhawks, particularly with regard to settlements.
Our property in Little Comberton is bounded on a lane-side by a deciduous enclosure field hedge cut with a geometrically flat top. At about 10.25 GMT on 3 November 2002 a female Sparrowhawk Accipiter nisus (L.) landed on the top of it, where it remained for some five minutes. It then descended to an open grassed area adjacent to the hedge where it proceeded to walk with some deliberation, eventually entering the structure of the hedge, which it appeared to examine in some detail, finally perching on an old layered hawthorn stem near ground level in the middle of the hedge. It remained there for at least a further 10 minutes before returning to the grassed area, where it’s further perambulations were accompanied by ‘wing-flicking.’ Having other things to do, the matter was forgotten. Entering a front room of the house 25 minutes later my wife Joan was surprised to be confronted with the same bird standing ‘like an owl’ in full sun on the windowsill.
On 9 November 1992, whilst tidying the car, I noted a large bird impact print covering most of the inside of a window, evidently resulting from a collision whilst the car door was open, as it was here for part of the morning of 3 November. Sparrowhawks routinely navigate close to buildings at low levels, utilising angles and contours to their advantage in the chase. Was it this Sparrowhawk on its familiar route that collided with the unexpectedly open car door and subsequently became disorientated?
P.F. Whitehead, Moor Leys, Little Comberton, Pershore, Worcestershire WR10 3EH
Addendum
On 29th November 2002 Mrs Joan Peel arrived on my doorstep with a dead sparrowhawk in a bag.. She had found the bird on a path in her garden and on picking it up discovered a male chaffinch beneath it – also dead. The sparrowhawk was a small first-winter male with rather brown plumage. It had apparently caught a chaffinch in mid flight and then collided with a greenhouse and killed itself. The chaffinch’s feet were plastered with papillomatous growth – a not uncommon condition in chaffinches, caused by a virus. This incident occurred about 400 metres south of Paul Whitehead’s house! Harry Green
WREN (TROGLODYTES TROGLODYTES L.) FEEDING AT PEANUT FEEDER
Paul F Whitehead
At 08.05 hrs on July 18th 2002 my wife commented that a Wren was pecking tiny fragments of peanut from a cage feeder suspended about 1.5 metres from the ground in the garden at Little Comberton. As I had no previous knowledge of such an observation, the circumstances appear to be worth recording.
We have three suspended not feeders which are used by birds throughout the year; they can consume up to a kilogram of nuts a fortnight from them. The maximum distance between the feeders is eight metres.
The Wren observed on July 18th first fed at a feeder fleetingly, after which it was almost immediately pursued by a House Sparrow. The effect of this was somewhat comical, the Wren flying directly in level flight from feeder to feeder, with the sparrow in continual pursuit. The Wren landed on each of the three feeders, but apart from the first occasion, was always prevented by the House Sparrow from consuming further nut particles.
It will be interesting to see whether this is a perhaps unlikely prelude to local behavioural change in Wrens. Until 2002 I had never, over an observation span of 41 years, seen Hedge Sparrows feeding on (but very frequently below) bird tables. Here this is now of almost regular occurrence, especially, it seems, during late spring.
P.F. Whitehead, Moor Leys, Little Comberton, Pershore, Worcestershire WR10 3EH 21.7.2002
WORCESTER BARN OWL SOCIETY
Since 1990 Roy Fowler and members of Worcester Barn Owl Society have undertaken conservation work to support the BARN OWL. Unfortunately due to other commitments Roy’s team of helpers has reduced to worryingly low numbers.
WE NEED HELP to carry on our work by protecting the BARN OWL.
OUR MEMBERSHIP support us in our work by giving financial help.
The committee strive to undertake many educational talks to schools, local clubs etc. We now excel in this field of public awareness. However our much needed conservation work is simply not being done to an acceptable level. This is where you come in: please use your skills and knowledge to help us.
From April 2003 onwards after the breeding season, we need to monitor some 50 owl boxes. To be protected by our licences you need to be a member. So come on, please join.
For more information ring Nick Dyson, Chairman on 01905 330162. If unavailable please leave a message and I’ll return your call. Many thanks.
WORCESTERSHIRE RECORDERS’ RECORDING DAYS
Three Recording Days were arranged in 2002:
Saturday 1st June: High Clere woods, Tunnel Hill Woods and Dukes Orchard, Wood Norton, near Evesham.
Saturday 6th June Ashmoor Common, near Kempsey.
Saturday 10th August Castle Morton Common, Malvern.
The results for these dates are given in the following tables. There will be further records to add. Lichen records for two sites are on their way to us and some water beetles have yet to be identified.
In the tables note that
“Status” refers to national status when known.
“No.*” refers to the number of records on the WBRC computerised database. Computerisation of all available records is not complete. For birds we know that many of the species are very common but the decision on how to handle bird records has not been reached and few have therefore been computerised. We also have many more records for Lichens and these are in the process of being transferred either from paper or another database to WBRC database. For Bryophytes many new records are being computerised but work has barely started on transferring the old records from paper to computer. Most invertebrate records have been computerised
Acknowledgements
We are most grateful for permission to visit these sites. In the High Clere/Tunnel Hill area: High Clere and woods (Ann Albright), , the BBC Woodlands (Roger Carter), Worcestershire Wildlife Trust (Tunnel Hill Meadow) and Mr Hughes (Dukes Orchard) were most helpful. All this land is in private ownership and not often surveyed. Kempsey Parish Council (Mrs Halford Clerk to the Council) allowed us to visit Ashmoor Common, and the Malvern Hills Conservators (Ian Rowitt, David Whitehorn) gave us every encouragement to record at Castle Morton Common.
All these sites are of outstanding importance for wildlife and hold many species not seen elsewhere. Our visits have barely scratched the surface for invertebrates and we hope we can return again at a later date. The success of a recording day depends on both the weather and experts available on the day. The weather was not ideal for any of these visits – rather cool at Tunnel Hill and somewhat cool at Castle Morton! Lower temperatures make insects less easy to find but at least they don’t move so fast!
One of the aims of these Recording Days is to concentrate on poorly recorded groups, depending on the expertise available. We have obtained many new records of insects, mosses and lichens, many common, some rare. All the sites have been fairly well covered for flowering plants and ferns by the Worcestershire Flora Project so lists for these groups are not included in the tables. Bert Reid did obtain some useful plant records from the Tunnel Hill area.
Records of note
A good many local or notable species appear in the lists.
Ashmoor Common
Conocephalus dorsalis Short-winged Conehead: a species which is spreading from SE England. Previous records in Worcestershire only from Ipsley Alders, Redditch.
Xanthandrus comtus a hoverfly which was scarce and seems to be becoming commoner. Also recorded in Tiddesley Wood, Pershore, 4th August 2002.
Anasimyia lineata Local but widespread hoverfly.
Tunnel Hill
Myopa extricata RDB 3 This is a rare and interesting Conopid fly was found on a patch of buttercup flowers within the woodland. It is a reddish brown fly usually recorded on chalk grassland near the coast. Larvae of this family are parasitoids of solitary bees, though the host is unknown for M extricata. The nearby field as High Clere is close-cut limestone (Rhaetic) grassland and much of the area was once sheep grazed.
It was also interesting to find the hoverfly Rhingia rostrata, previous found at four Worcestershire woods – the larval stages may be associated with badger latrines.
Castle Morton Common
One of the most interesting records was the Floating Club rush Eleogiton fluitans found in a pond and reported elsewhere in this issue.