No. 10 April 2001
Worcestershire Record No. 10 April 2001 p. 7
Another Soldier Fly Record, Stratiomys potamida
By Mike Averill
Whilst carrying out a dragonfly survey at Croome Park in 2000, a Stratiomys potamida was found in The Croome River. This soldier fly (see Worcestershire Record No 7, Nov 1999 page 19), inhabits marshy areas and has amphibious larvae, according to the RECORDER database. The further description that it lives in shaded seepages and heavily vegetated ponds and ditches exactly fits the description of the location on the Croome River where it was seen. The striking black and yellow insect was egg laying on a sedge stem. Unfortunately that sort of habitat is definitely not what Capability Brown envisaged for the site and so any possible restoration is unlikely to leave it as a secluded shady spot.
Worcestershire Record No. 10 April 2001 p. 18-19
Dragonfly Round-up for 2000
By Mike Averill
Weather wise, 2000 was a repeat of 1999 in that it was generally very wet. The summer months were, however, reasonably dry apart from April which was very wet. Searching for the all-important sunshine was a bit hit and miss as April, but May and August were all right, though June, July and September were fairly dull. In Worcestershire there were good reports of all the usual species and once again there was a new addition to the county list.
The Club-tailed Dragonfly showed good emergence numbers from the River Severn at Bewdley and from the Rivers Avon and Teme. The Common Hawker Aeshna juncea was again seen emerging at a site near Bayton. During a full survey at Croome Park this year, 15 species were recorded, of which ten were breeding. This is a respectable number but the hopes that something unusual would be found were not fulfilled. One species that was very strongly represented was the Ruddy Darter Sympetrum sanguineum. This dragonfly was first recorded in Worcestershire at Croome Park in 1985.
The Black-tailed Skimmer Orthetrum cancellatum continues to increase in numbers throughout the county. Since the first records in the early 1950’s, this dragonfly has become an increasingly common sight at water bodies. They particularly favour the bare edges of new pools or gravel pits. Where there has been standing water for a couple of years at the new gravel workings near Upton-on-Severn, there are hundreds of this blue dragonfly busily skimming the surface of the water.
An unusual form of the Southern Hawker Aeshna cyanea was seen along one of the rides at Monkwood. This individual had the colouring of a Common Hawker with broad yellow thoracic stripes. In addition all the dorsal abdominal spots were blue, not just the last two segments.
Nationally there were two main periods of migration, one during the hot spell in June and the second in late July. The first wave produced two species in Worcestershire, The Red-veined Darter Sympetrum fonscolombei and the Lesser Emperor Anax parthenope. The first was seen again at Kemerton and also at a new site, Pirton Pool. The numbers at Pirton were about 10 to 15 and were fortunately visible from the public footpath. The Lesser Emperor is a first for the county and was well-spotted by Steve Whitehouse – well spotted because I do not think anyone actually saw it land, however the pale blue saddle at the top of the brownish abdomen plus the green eyes confirmed it. The increase in the occurrence of this species nationally is remarkable, considering there were only a handful of records prior to 1996. Interestingly there was a record of this species on Orkney which constitutes the most northerly record of this southern European dragonfly.
Worcestershire Record No. 10 April 2001 p. 11
What do Buzzards Eat? 
By John Clark
From watching Buzzards in the Bredon Hill area over the past twenty years or so, I have noticed that by far the most common prey to see them carrying is rabbit – although I have occasionally seen them with a rat. During the early part of the breeding season you can often see the male displaying with a rabbit, which he sometimes passes to the female in flight. I have commonly seen them feeding on rabbit carcasses. In the early 80’s, when I was putting out carrion to attract kestrels to a photographic hide, a Buzzard came regularly to feed on rabbit, rat and wood pigeon (unfortunately never when I was in the hide!). I have also watched buzzards perching on fence posts and then swooping down on small, unrecognisable prey (presumably beetles (you can sometimes find chitin in regurgitated pellets).
When I lived on a Scottish island there was a very high density of Buzzards and it was quite often possible to reach or to see into, their nests. A friend is carrying out a long-term study of Buzzards there – including prey items. By far the most common prey (somewhere around 80%) is rabbit – followed by rat and then various birds, including on one occasion, Red-breasted Merganser. In winter I have seen them feeding on sheep carcasses, and once on a dead seal. I once saw a Buzzard stoop from the height of around 200 ft and some 300 yds away to take a snipe in dense rushes! On another occasion, I flushed a Buzzard from its nest: it contained two young of just a few days old – plus a complete pipit or skylark nest containing three freshly-hatched young – presumably convenient ‘bite-sized morsels’! At lambing time, Hooded Crows were a real problem and one year I was asked to help by shooting some of the persistent crows that were killing lambs. I hid in some rocks and shot one with my rifle at a range of about 100 yds. Realising that I had only wounded it and that it was flapping around, I was about to go and finish it off when a Buzzard appeared from nowhere, stooped on the crow and killed it, then sat on a fence post nearby. When I went back later the dead crow was not there but I cannot be sure that the Buzzard took it.
So, from my observations, I believe that Buzzards will take whatever is available but they appear to prefer rabbit to other prey. They seem most likely to seek alternative food during outbreaks of myxomatosis and during the breeding season.
And an email
Hello Harry,
While I was ploughing on Friday afternoon, 2nd of Feb, a mixed flock of around 200 Gulls arrived and started to feed on the worms. Shortly after a Buzzard appeared and also began feeding on the freshly exposed worms. The bird stayed for 3/4 of an hour, leaving at dusk. It would let the tractor approach down to 10 yards before flying of a short distance. The bird was mobbed by several Carrion Crows, and up to 13 Magpies, but didn’t seem too concerned. I’ve forgotten to say were I was, the field is at Pepwell at Norchard farm near to the Mitre Oak. The Buzzard and the Moorhen sighting was also at Norchard, (Worc Record No.9).
All the best,
Michael Southall.
Worcestershire Record No. 10 April 2001 p. 11Experimental Monitoring Project at KemertonBy John Clark and Charles Morgan |
Monitoring wildlife on our farmland is often difficult, requires considerable skills and is time-consuming. All too often, conservation schemes are introduced with funding for only baseline monitoring; and when further work is required the financial situation has changed, or new priorities have been set. Using methods such as quadrat monitoring of the flora or detailed entomological surveys may be necessary within individual scientific research projects, but they are not practical in the wider, real world of farming or of managing large numbers of nature reserves.
In 2000, with backing from English Nature and the Environmental Agency, Kemerton Conservation Trust began a ten-year project that aims to demonstrate a simple method of monitoring the effects on wildlife, of changes in farmland management. The project is based on the principle of identifying a few ‘indicator’ species or groups for a particular farm or site. These ‘targets’ should be suitable for monitoring in a relatively short time – and allow the use of field workers with lower or few scientific skills.
The Kemerton project wishes to assess the value for wildlife of changes made in the management of Kemerton Estate under schemes such as Set-Aside and the Countryside Stewardship Scheme. Farmland habitats affected by these and other changes include hedgerows, hedgerow bottoms, a number of grass margins and arable wildflower margins, stream-sides, ponds and woodland edge. A comprehensive monitoring scheme to assess the improvements for wildlife, covering all these habitats – on just one farm – would be huge, expensive, and, practically, unnecessary. However, in order to check the efficacy of the experimental, simplified scheme, it will be necessary to undertake a certain amount of more detailed monitoring.
Kemerton has selected three main elements for the simplified scheme:
| Birds | The indicators are breeding Skylark and Yellowhammer. |
| Invertebrates | The indicators are numbers of Butterflies by species and Bumblebees by family. |
| Water quality |
The methodology is based on available resources but will be constant throughout the life of the project. In simple terms, the birds are surveyed over the whole farm; Butterflies and Bumblebees are counted along selected, representative transects; and water quality is checked in a selected range of sites. Additional surveys include other ‘important’ BAP breeding birds, woodland birds, and in conjunction with the game conservancy and BTO – Crops for Wintering Birds and Grey Partridge Counts. More scientific site-based botanical surveys are undertaken – usually on a five-year rolling programme. Data from recent intensive entomological surveys will be used as a baseline for comparison with future, selected surveys.
The theory is that any improvement in habitat quality for wildlife will be reflected by increases in populations of the target indicators and an improvement in water quality. This information should be verified by the more intensive research.
If this project is successful it is hoped that others will undertake low-level monitoring over a wide area rather than focusing resources on a few sites.
For further information contact the authors John Clark and Charles Morgan, Kemerton Conservation Trust
Worcestershire Record No. 10 April 2001 p. 22-31
Worcestershire Natural Areas
By J.J.Day
Introduction
The concept of Worcestershire Natural Areas was being developed as a framework for the interpretation of the county’s flora. This as part of the treatment for the proposed Worcestershire Flora. It became apparent while reviewing the Worcestershire Wildlife Trust’s consultation document of selection criteria for Special Wildife Site status, that it failed to adequately address the effects of regionality within the county. These elements coalesced and provided the impetus for the framework presented here.
The concept of biogeographic areas is widely accepted and utilised by ecologists in the study of the natural environment. Indeed it has become so well established that its terminology is used as a matter of course throughout society – tropical rain forest, tundra, alpine plants. The concept can be applied at whatever resolution is chosen – microfloral colonisation of the human body or the Eurasian landmass. Recently it has been used by the Countryside Agencies to produce regional Natural Areas for Britain.
The treatment given here aims to apply the Natural Areas concept at the county level. For the purposes of this paper the resolution is the monad (1km squares). There is a duality of purpose. Firstly to provide a framework for interpretation and understanding of the county’s natural environment. Secondly to provide a more rational basis for an integrated conservation policy within the county.
Geographic Coverage
The area covered is the so-called Greater Worcestershire. This is defined as the Watsonian Vice County – VC37, Worcestershire, plus all those additional areas currently within the administrative county. Greater Worcestershire extends over a total of 2177 monads of the national grid. Of these 1707 lie wholly within the area and 470 are part monads. The total area involved is approximately 1933 sq.km.
Previous Treatments
Nineteenth century botanists tended to divide county’s on a river catchment system. These provide firm natural areas and link well with geological and topographical variation. In Worcestershire Edwin Lees used four sub-divisions: Malvern (including the Teme Valley), Severn, Avon and Lickey. English Nature’s treatment described six regions occurring in Worcestershire. Both approaches have substantive validity but the resolution is too coarse for a deeper understanding of the ecological processes operating at the county level. If the two systems are overlaid the emerging polygons correlate exceptionally well with the sub-regions described here. Institute of Terrestrial Ecology (ITE) have developed a series of Land Classes for Britain, based on a range of environmental attributes. This at the monad level.
Theoretical Background
The treatment described here combines the two modern approaches and takes the system a stage further by equating the theoretical land classes/regional areas with the known distributions of vascular plants. It describes the patterns of variation at a more localised resolution based on actual distributions of vascular plants.
So what if any patterns are discernable in the florulas at the monad level? Can these be grouped into natural areas?
In order to have ecological validity, the definition of natural areas (in the sense used here) must stem from the concept of natural vegetional cover. By and large the natural vegetional cover for Worcestershire is woodland. The type and composition varies, due primarily to edaphic factors. Can these wildwood patterns be discerned today and to what extent have they been modified by subsequent human activity? Despite an appalling low woodland cover, in national terms, Worcestershire is essentially a woodland county. Clearance of the ancient wildwood was late. Indeed at the time of the compilation of the Doomsday Book, Worcestershire had the highest percentage cover of woodland in England. My contention and the underlying rationale of this presentation is that the county is in fact still a woodland. Albeit a woodland landscape with exceptionally large glades.
Figure 1 is a coincidence plot at the monad level of forest trees, indicative of ancient woodland (Wild Service Tree, Small-leaved Lime, Midland Hawthorn and its hybrid, Sessile Oak and its hybrid). It is used here as a template of potential ancientness for natural elements in the flora. In broad geographical terms it indicates a link with the wildwood across much of the county. The gaps define the most exploited landscapes: most notably the arable lands of the Vale of Evesham.
Figure 1 Worcestershire Ancient Forest Trees. A coincidence map of Wild Service Tree, Small-leaved Lime, Midland Hawthorn and its hybrid, Sessile Oak and its hybrid
The zones with the strongest links to the wildwood stand out very clearly. The ghost of the ancient wildwood is still very apparent in the landscape. Not all the botanical data be resolved at the monad level so this has reduced the density of plots in the north and central belts of the county. Despite this it provides a valuable indication of the distribution of natural landscape elements.
Figure 2 is a plot of the earliest phases of the Anglo-Saxon settlement of Worcestershire. They settled a heavily wooded landscape. Comparing figs 1 & 2 the imprint of the Anglo-Saxons settlements on the landscape at the start of the twenty-first century is striking.
Figure 2. A plot on earliest Angle-Saxon settlements
This is a strong indication that, despite several millenia of agricultural exploitation, the concept of ancient naturalness is still a valid one in the modern landscape. Furthermore it shows that the botanical data can be utilised to model sub-regional variation.
The Worcestershire Wildwood is not at all lost. The saving grace is in the detail. The county is a rejuvenated glacial outwash zone. The natural variation in soils, geology and landform is very complex. This creates a complex micro-pattern of variation super-imposed upon the broad landscape types. For instance the average 10 kilometre square in the county has ten major soil formations compared with just three for Herefordshire.
The convoluted and crenallated landscape has resulted in a super-abundance of minor landscape features ; the dells and dingles, banks and ponds, green lanes and holloways, ancient hedgelines and lanesides. This, when superimposed on the variation in soils, aspect and relief, creates a landscape with an immense variation of micro-habitats for plant colonisation. Tetrad species totals from the current Flora Project suggest that the county is amongst the richest in Britain in terms of floristic diversity per unit area. It is the variation in microhabitats, within the southern climatic zone, that has created this effect. The small scale features have allowed the survival of metapopulations of national signifacance, whether it be great crested newts or spreading bellflowers.
Superimposed upon the natural variation are the effects of land use. Each succeeding wave of fashion in landscape exploitation, during the past two millenium, has left its imprint on the county’s biodiversity.
The Process of developing Natural Areas.
It is stressed that the results presented here are provisional. In essence they are a best fit by eye. The system can not be fully validated until the whole historical vascular plant dataset is transferred to an electronic database. A multiple regression analysis can then be run against all the environment variables to refine and statistically validate the natural areas.
The process of defining natural areas comprised a series of ordinations.
| First the boundaries of the principal geological formation were defined to give primary divisions. This forms the foundation, the bedrock of the system. | |
The Primary Geological Ordinations
|
|
| Secondly other natural factors were taken into account – soils, hydrology, altitude, relief and climate. Pre-eminent amongst these was was soil type. | |
| This provided a series of overlapping polygons of potential natural areas.These are indicated by the second numeric character in the natural area lists. | |
| Thirdly, in order to establish which of the environmentally ordinated polygons had a meaningful relationship with floristic variation, distribution maps for the flora (about 2000 taxa) were viewed. These are based upon approximately 350,000 post-1970 records. | |
| This having been established, land use was assessed for its impact on the native flora. In essence, how far has the flora shifted from its original natural composition ? This gave a tertiary division based on anthropomorphic factors. These are indicated by the third numeric character in the lists. |
Some notes on land use and its impact on floristics
Much of the pattern of land use both from a socio-political standpoint and an agricultural one, since Anglo-Saxon period, has itself been due to the characteristics of the natural areas. Blocks of landscape frequently retained a unity of tenure and the nature of the soils determined the type and level of agricultural exploitation. The characteristics of modern landscapes can in many instances be traced back to the Anglo-Saxon period. This gives a satisfying unity to the defined polygons when related to anthropomorphic factors.
The natural fertility, workability and hydrological conditions of the various soil types largely determined the nature and level of agricultural exploitation of the various landscapes within different historical periods. Superimposed upon this has been the type of land tenure. For instance, the overall biodiversity of south-east Worcestershire is about 5% less than the rest of the county. If biodiversity is plotted on a map, there is a reasonably clear boundary line. This line corresponds exceptionally closely with the two major ancient landscape types in England – the planned country of medieval strip farming and the the so-called ancient countryside.
This may represent a direct link with the first Anglo-Saxon settlements in the county. The first settlements in the late sixth century were centred on the the Avon Valley. They took place after a major defeat of the British. These settlements may represent the spoils of war for participating soldiery. It is known from place name evidence that there were links with clan groups from eastern England eg Northamptonshire. This presumably established the pattern of land use in this area. Subsequent settlement can partially be reconstructed from charter evidence. This suggests a quite different development based on the rule of law. A top down approach to apportionment: land tenure derived from mainly from royal patronage. A pattern of ownership still traceable in today’s landscape. Occupiers have changed: Mercian kings, the Church, Norman kings and lords, industrial magnates, tenant farmers, owner-occupiers, but for much of our ancient countryside there is a direct lineage of tenure to the Kingdom of Mercia.
This dualist pattern of settlement is still apparent today in parts of the third world. Details vary but the patterns are duplicated. For the land-hungry Brazilian peasants carving their subsistance farms from virgin forest read the first indepedant settlements of the Avon Valley. For the large ranchlands of the wealthy landowners, friends of the ruling elite, read the Mercian Kings and The Church. The point being that the imprint of the first settlements lingers with us, apparent today in the patterns of biodiversity.
Urbanscapes
Urban areas present a conundrum for the definition of natural areas. In this treatment 350 monads (16%) are defined as urbanscapes.
They can not be ignored ecologically. Particularily as biodiversity is frequently higher than in surrounding open countryside.
Natural areas still have validity within urban centres. It is possible to see the natural patterns penetrating through the built environment. Taking Worcester as an example, the garden lawns of Northwick support strong populations of stork’s-bill and the roadsides an abundance of common mallow. These on the river terrace soils. Whereas the mudstones of Warndon support wild service tree and primrose in the relict hedgelines.
In addition to the original florula there is a distinct urban group common to most built up areas. Thus Evesham and Bromsgrove both share a common group of adventives but local variations are also found. Thus the Bromsgrove Sandstones of Belbroughton (the actual Bromsgrove urban flora is pretty dull) have a distinct alpine adventive element, whereas the limestone urbanscape of Evesham has a distinctly Gallic feel. Sunflowers rather than stonecrops.
The urban settlement patterns over most of the county up to 1940 conformed very well with the actual boundaries of the proposed natural areas. Thus Stourbridge was sandstone country, Halesowen on the Carboniferous, Worcester on the river terraces, Bromsgrove on the sandstones. The massive expansion in urbanisation since that time has resulted in a spilling over the natural area boundaries as defined here. Such that all the major population centres now extend over more than one proposed natural area.
In order to minimise sub-division at this stage, urban areas are probably best viewed as a series of adventive flora overlays superimposed on the existing natural pattern. They are therefore shown as black crosses over the original natural area on figure 3.
In Summary
| Solid geology fixed the broad boundaries. | |
| This was refined by other natural environmental paramaters. The overiding ones being catchments and soil type. | |
| The distribution maps of the flora were superimposed on these polygons. This provided the regional polygons. | |
| The resulting polygons have been subsequently subdivided based on the current florulas. These equate well with land use history. | |
| The resulting natural areas are listed in the synopsis below. | |
| The resulting natural areas are defined on figure 3. |
Synopsis of Worcestershire Natural Areas
| 1 | MERCIAN MUDSTONE GROUP |
| 1.1 | Laugherne Valley |
| 1.2 | Malvern Chase |
| 1.2.1 | The Southern Chase |
| 1.2.2 | The Longdon Basin – Marsh and Ridges |
| 1.2.3 | The Central Chase |
| 1.2.4 | The Northern Chase |
| 1.3 | Hatfield District |
| 1.3.1 | Hatfield |
| 1.3.2 | Warndon and Spetchley |
| 1.4 | The Inkberrow District |
| 1.4.1 | The Eastern Mudstones. |
| 1.4.2 | Bishampton |
| 1.4.3 | Feckenham Bog |
| 1.5 | Salwarpe Valley |
| 1.5.1 | Salwape Valley and Terraces |
| 1.5.2 | Elmbridge Brook Valley |
| 1.5.3 | Hadley Brook Valley |
| 1.5.4 | Hanbury District |
| 1.5.5 | Dordale Valley |
| 1.5.Urban. | Droitwich |
| 1.6 | Arrow Basin |
| 1.6.1 | The Wast Hills and the Weatheroak Ridge |
| 1.6.2 | Mid Arrow Valley |
| 1.6.3 | Arrow Corridor |
| 1.6.Urban. | Redditch |
| 1.7 | Redditch Hills and the Ridgeway |
| 2 | LIAS COUNTRY |
| 2.1 | Avon Vale |
| 2.1.1 | Avon Vale |
| 2.1.2 | The Forest of Horewell |
| 2.2 | Rhaetic Scarp |
| 2.3 | Craycombe and The Lenches |
| 2.4 | Pebworth District |
| 2.5 | The Northern Lias |
| 2.5.1 | Shell Forest |
| 2.5.2 | Kington District |
| 2.5.3 | Hanbury Forest |
| 2.Urban. | Evesham and Broadway |
| 3 | TRIASSIC SANDSTONES AND PEBBLE BEDS |
| 3.1 | Redstone Country – the Bromsgrove Sandstones |
| 3.1 | Urban. Bromsgrove / Catshill |
| 3.2 | The Pebble Beds |
| 3.2.1 | Habberley |
| 3.2.2 | Bissell |
| 3.3 | Bromsgrove Lickey |
| 3.4 | Stour Valley |
| 3.4 | Urban. Kidderminster / Stourport |
| 3.5 | Redmarley |
| 4 | SILURIAN HIGHLANDS |
| 5 | DEVONIAN OLD RED SANDSTONE |
| 5.1 | Teme Gorge |
| 5.2 | The Teme Plain |
| 5.3 | Kyre Forest |
| 5.4 | Gladder |
| 5.5 | Suckley and Mathon |
| 6 | JURASSIC OOLITE |
| 6.1 | Bredon Hill |
| 6.2 | Broadway Scarp |
| 7 | CARBONIFEROUS |
| 7.1 | Wyre Forest Region |
| 7.1.1 | The Wyre Forest |
| 7.1.2 | The Wyre Coalfield |
| 7.2 | Kinver Forest |
| 7.3 | The Halesowen District |
| 7.3.1 | Kenelms |
| 7.3.Urban. | Halesowen and the Black Country |
| 7.4 | Severn Gorge |
| 8 | MALVERNIAN |
| 8.1 | The Malvern Hills |
| 8.2 | The Malvern Commons |
| 8.2.Urban | Malvern |
| 9 | PERMIAN-LICKEY QUARTZITE |
| 9.1 | Clent / Romsley / Waseley Hills |
| 9.2 | Lower Lickey |
| 10 | QUATERNARY. |
| 10.1 | Lower Severn Valley |
| 10.1.1 | Severn Northern Terraces |
| 10.1.2 | The Lower Severn Moors and Meadows |
| 10.1.Urban | Worcester |
| 10.2 | Upper Trent Valley |
| 10.2.1 | Headley Heaths |
| 10.2.Urban | Moseley |
| 10.3 | Avon Plain and Terraces |
Map of Natural Areas
It is stressed that the boundaries are not absolute. Indeed minor changes are incorporated whenever the figure is viewed! The figure itself summarises and lumps the data into monads. The precise boundaries of the natural areas obviously cross this artificial grid. At this resolution the monads have in the main been assigned to that zone occupying the greatest area. One distinct natural area, the Rhaetic Scarp, does not appear on the figure. It disappears at this level of resolution. A precise plot of the actual boundaries is in preparation.
Figure 3 Worcestershire Natural Areas (urban areas shown as black crosses)
(Note: If you have a web browser that supports frames you can view an enlarged version of this map)
Implications for conservation
| Recent work on frequency classes for the native flora highlights a spiral towards extinction within Worcestershire’s native florula as a whole. The accumulation of species at the bottom end of the scale is highly marked. | |
| The majority of the native flora is classed as Uncommon. Half of the flora is classed Scarce or Rare. A third is Very Rare or Extinct. | |
| The decline in the native flora has been on a much vaster scale than is currently appreciated. The trend towards a wholly decimated flora is apparent. | |
| It is very obvious that a conservation system based on the preservation of a relatively small number of special sites is a wholly inadequate method for the conservation of the flora. Even a system with 500 sites would leave three-quarters of monads without any protected areas. | |
| It is of course imperitive that special sites are retained. However SSSI and SWS (Special Wildlife Sites) on their own fail to address the issue of retaining viable native populations for most species. | |
| A dual approach is necessary. | |
| Biodiversity is dependant on the wider countryside. In Worcestershire the web of biodiversity is highly dependant upon the minor landscape features. | |
| Only an approach based on landscapes has a chance of retaining the minimum natural capital. |
Towards a solution :-
| Worcestershire is a temperate forest natural area. | |
| Ecologically it can currently be viewed as a forest with extensive clearings. | |
| What is the deviation of the current flora from its natural type? | |
| Take the wildwood flora as a template of naturalness by constructing a potential native flora list for each natural area. | |
Compare this with the current situation for different ecological groups in the flora.
|
|
| This allows an assesment of the impact of land use since the introduction of agriculture. Neophytes (recent introductions) assess recent changes, especially urbanisation. | |
| Model this against both nineteenth and late twentieth century florulas to assess the current situation and trends. | |
| This gives a quantification of the deviation from naturalness within each region. | |
| Regions of high and low naturalness can be identified. | |
| Identify zones for landscape conservation in the case of high naturalness. | |
| Identify zones for landscape restoration in the case of low naturalness. |
THE NATURAL AREAS
A full characterisation is not within the scope of this article. A brief description is given for each zone, and a few areas are highlighted in more detail.
1. MERCIAN MUDSTONE GROUP
Worcestershire’s principal geological formation, it occupies a broad swathe across the county from Moseley to the Gloucestershire border. The surface geology is not simple, especially within Worcestershire’s rejuvenated landscape. Two major mudstone formations occur plus frequent skerries, a significant strata of sandstone and a halitic group. They all have implications for floristic diversity, drainage, soil reaction, fertility and agricultural potential. The patterns of variation are complex. Landscape unity is disrupted, such that few of the resulting natural areas extend over more than 30 monads.
1.1 Laugherne valley
A very distinct zone with a uniformity of landscape over a large area. This was wildwood in the period of the first Anglo-Saxon settlements. The uniformity of landscape probably relates to early land tenure. Exploitation was late, much of the area was granted to the church in the ninth century. There is an apparent line of descent to the Witley Estates in the northern part of the area. Clearance to this day is only partial. The wildwood element is strongly represented. It confronts one at every turn.
It is an exceptional area of ancient countryside, quite probably of national significance. This is true forest country. An abundance of ancient pollards. A superabundance of wild service – does any other part of Britain have as much ? All the other ancient forest trees in quantity – small leaved lime, hornbeam, sessile oak, midland hawthorn.
The woodland edge/saum communities are both abundant and incredibly diverse. The lanesides here support the richest saum communities in the county. These communities were overlooked in the original NVC volumes.They have consequently recieved scant attention from conservationists. These are one of the most threatened groups of plant communities in Worcestershire. This is due to shifts in woodland management from coppice regimes and in laneside/hedgebank management. The effect can be modelled by the average Ellenburg light scores for Worcestershire’s extinct woodland plants. This is 6.4. It corresponds to plants of partial shade – the edge communities.
Wood margin types are frequent but often very small and highly vulnerable. The superb nature of the saum is epitomised by Bithynian vetch Vicia bithynica. The area is a stronghold for this nationally scarce species. This is the only significant totally inland population in the British Isles.
Other groups also indicate this ancient woodland aspect – a stronghold of the Wood White and Terrestrial Caddis in the county. An exceptionally high breeding density of Little Owls, associated with the abundant pollards. I suspect this could be as dense as anywhere in Britain.
This is ecologically an ancient forestscape of the highest order, a superb woodland resource. It presents problems for conservation. Ancient woodland and veteran trees are frequent but most blocks are very small. They are excluded from formal designations by virtue of their size – they do not show on ancient woodland inventories and are not designated as SWS. Yet these are direct lineages from the wildwood.
This is a unique landscape, a wonderful natural history resource. Special protection should be considered for the whole zone, as a matter of urgency.
1.2 Malvern Chase
This is a very distinct district bounded by the Malvern Hills, the rivers Teme and Severn and the Gloucestershire border. It retained a tenure and landscape integrity well into the modern period. Early exploitation was confined largely to the sandstone ridges of the Longdon area and the spring line of the Malvern Hills. Despite this it is not at all a uniform area. The district as a whole exhibits most of the range of landscape development phases apparent in the county. Its story is a fascinating one. There is an apparent anomaly between late enclosure and biodiversity. Intuitively it might be expected that landscapes surviving say until 1850 would still hold a significantly greater element of their natural biodiversity, than those assarted in 850. This is not normally the case, at least in Worcestershire. Early assarts tended to fix a landscape pattern which has retained much of its integrity to the present day eg the Laugherne region. Late enclosures with greater manpower and machinery tended to wipe the slate clean and produced a very regular field pattern with little semi-natural habitat.
The historical botanical record for the Chase is good and pre-dates much of the enclosures. This was a truly magnificent area for wildlife well into the nineteenth century. Then the axe fell.
1.2.1 The Southern Chase
The southern portion of the area supports a lower than expected biodiversity. Woodlands are sparse, field size moderate to large, agriculture fairly intensive, hedgelines species poor. Most diversity is in the linear features – lanesides and streamsides. A few relic grasslands of great botanical interest survive mainly in the small tenures close to the commonlands. A reminder of the zone’s former glory.
1.2.2 The Longdon Basin – Marsh and Ridges
The biodiversity of this area is now one of the lowest in the county. There are a series of ridge lines in the Longdon area , these on the Arden Sandstones. They have a very long history agricultural exploitation ie at least since the earliest Anglo-Saxon settlement. The derived landscape is one of arable and leys interspersed with species poor hedgelines.
The lower land was formerly a very extensive wetland, drained in the nineteenth century. A scatter of small remnant habitats still occur. The landscape is now overwhelmingly one of heavy agricultural exploitation. The great marsh, a rare habitat, was formerley one of the county’s wildlife glories. Its drainage a very severe loss to the county’s biodiversity. The proposed partial restoration is to be applauded.
1.2.3 The Central Chase
Enclosure was late. It was an incredibly rich area in the early nineteenth century. The current condition is of moderately high biodiversity. There are three principle reasons for this. Firstly the nineteenth century estates, notably Madresfield, buffered the area from a total eradication of woodlands. Secondly at the other end of the social scale, the Upton riots, in which several people laid down their lives in defence of the commons. Their legacy, the preservation of some common land in the area. Thirdly, edaphic factors. Much of the land here is on very heavy soils subject to waterlogging. This has reduced the extent and impact of modern agricultural exploitation. Large parts could be classified as a degraded form of the Malvern Common zone.
1.2.4 The Northern Chase
The northern section has quite a different aspect. The area is reasonably biodiverse. This in part relates to the relief. The stream valleys as they descend towards the Teme are highly incised. In these areas semi-natural habitats have survived. The pattern of both land tenure and farming practice is different. Hop and fruit growing were both widespread. These forms of agriculture were less destructive for wildlife.
1.3 Hatfield District
1.3.1 Hatfield
This lies between the Severn plain and the Lias scarp. Geologically it is on the Twyning Group of mudstones but with frequent bands of sandstone. The derived soils tend to be fertile and well drained. Consequently the land use is mainly arable. The landscape is derived mostly from the planned landscape. The hedges tend to be of enclosure age. Semi-natural habitats are sparse and centred mainly on the old estate lands, especially at Croome and near Spetchley. Biodiversity is moderate to low.
A significant area in the north of the zone is on alluvial soils. Here the drianage is poor below the Lias scarp. In the mid nineteenth century they held significant marshland interest. Now virtually eliminated. A possible candidate for landscape restoration.
1.3.2 Warndon and Spetchley
Most now lies under the city of Worcester. The mudstones here produce a heavy soil subject to waterlogging and it was predominately pastoral country in the past. A transitional type between the planned and ancient landscapes. Hedges mainly date from the enclosures but with pockets of more ancient habitats.
1.4 The Inkberrow District
1.4.1 The Eastern Mudstones.
Geologically this area overlays a mixture of Mudstone and Arden Sandstone. The soils tend to be drier and more fertile than on most of the Mudstones. Arable farming is more evident and semi-natural habitats relatively sparse.
1.4.2 Bishampton
This area has been singled out on the basis of modern land use. It is, perhaps, the most decimated landscape on the mudstones – in terms of biodiversity. Intensive arable farming the causal agent.
1.4.3 Feckenham Bog
After Longdon Marsh this was formerley the most extensive wetland system in the county. It lies on a mosaic of alluvial and mudstone formations. Reconstruction of the plant communities from the known losses suggest a superb basic fen with affinities to the Broadlands of East Anglia. Several NVC communities were lost to the county with its destruction due to drainage. Only a tiny remnant remains – on the WWT Reserve, Feckenham Wylde Moor. Despite this the area can still be isolated from the surrounding landscape by its extant flora.
1.5 Salwarpe Valley
This is the central area of the Worcestershire Mudstones within the Salwarpe catchment.
1.5.1 Salwape Valley and Terraces
A distinitive zone running from Stoke prior to the Severn confluence. The limit is taken as the extent of the river terrace deposits. Where relief allows these tend to be intensively farmed. However much of the valley is steep side especially downstream of Droitwich and a more diverse flora is apparent in association with the valley side – scrub, woodland and grassland. The flood plain habitats are unique in the county. The area was renowned for its salt deposits and there is a distinctive brackish element present throughout the valley system in association with the river, the canal and on the remnant wetland habitats on the flood plain – species such as Wild Celery and Dittander occur. The salinity levels have dropped since the 1960s and several halophytes are now extinct. Pimpinella major has its stronghold here.
1.5.2 – 1.5.4 The Tributary Valleys of the Salwarpe
| 1.5.2 Elmbridge Brook Valley | |
| 1.5.3 Hadley Brook Valley | |
| 1.5.4 Hanbury District |
This zone is relatively uniform floristically. The subdivisions relate to land use and its impact on biodiversity and the quantity of semi-natural habitats. The zone has a relatively low overall biodiversity. Most is concentrated in the valley bottoms. There are significant pockets of ancient woodland scattered through the area.
The low diversity probably stems from a long history of agricultural exploitation. This dates back to at least the Romano-British period in the case of the Hanbury area and to the earliest Anglo-Saxon settlements in the case of Elmbridge. The Elmbridge pocket is on more fertile soils suggesting a link between one of the lowest biodiversity scores outside of southeast Worcestershire and the earliest phase of Anglo-Saxon settlement.
1.5.5 Dordale Valley
This is a very distinct zone of ancient countryside. A landscape of woodlands and meadows sited at the limit of the mudstone lands. It takes in the headwaters of the Hadley and Elmbridge Brooks. It stands in marked contrast to the more planned landscape of these lower valleys. Soils are less fertile, heavier and pockets of drift deposits occur. The relief is higher and the valleys incised. Biodiversity is high and ancient woodland cover very high. The zone is predominately wooded or pastoral. Much of the zone is outwith conventional agricultural practice, which accounts for much of the high diversity. Particularily in regard to the significant concentration of unimproved grasslands. One of the richest remaining zones within the mudstone area.
1.5.Urban. Droitwich
Droitwich lies mainly in the Salwarpe Valley Natural Area. Its principle ecological interest is centred on the Salwarpe corridor, which supports a very interestig range of habitats.
1.6 Arrow Basin
Formerley a part of the Forest of Feckenham. Settlement was based principally on the church lands of Bordesley and Alvechurch. Woodland clearance was late.
A very distinctive glacial outwash basin marked on eastern side by the Wast Hill/Weatheroak scarp and on west by the Redditch hills and Lickey. It supports a northern variant of the mudstone flora characterised by the abscence of a number of species. In particular the basic element such as wild basil, Clinopodium vulgare. Sandstone skerries are frequent giving a more mesotrophic feel to the flora.
Woodland is very sparse indeed. Despite this the ancient woodland element is still strongly represented. Wild Service is more abundant here than in any area other than Laugherne. A characteristic feature is an abundance of marl pits. Their wooded banks are one of the principal elements in the survival of the ancient woodland flora.
The next three sub-zones do not translate well to a monad treatment and are not shown on the figure of natural areas.
1.6.1 The Wast Hills and the Weatheroak Ridge
Largely a landscape of agriculturally despoilt pasturelands with a very low woodland cover. Despite this the late nature of the woodland claearance is still apparent in the flora. These elements are now mainly confined to the holloways, marl pits, hedges and bridleways. An area with a striking potential for landscape restoration. Especially as it forms such a prominent landscape feature.
1.6.2 Mid Arrow Valley
An attractive mudstone landscape, with many minor features of ancient countryside. Despite this biodiversity is relatively low and is, in the main, confined to the minor features. This is consistenet with a phase of clearance and enclosure within the modern period.
1.6.3 Arrow Corridor
The basin floor. This incorporates most of the lower lying portions of Redditch including Ipsley Alders. The principle floristic interest is centred on the Arrow corridor which includes a substantive number of semi-natural habitats, particularily in Redditch.
1.7 Redditch Hills and the Ridgeway
A floristically very distinctive zone. There is a mosaic of mudstone and glacially derived soils. Till and glacial gravels cap the highest ground giving a meso-oligotrophic element to the flora, uncharacteristic of the mudstone florulas eg Calluna vulgaris, Luzula sylvatica, Vaccinium myrtillis. This is a well wooded area extending into the Redditch urban zone on its eastern side. Large leaved lime, Tilia platyphyllos is the outstanding component of the woodland flora. Outlying pockets occur at Rowney Green and Barnt Green.
An important natural area.
1.6.Urban. Redditch
The urban zone extends across several natural areas. Redditch has a fascinating florula. The landscape was effectively frozen in the late 1960s. The area consequently avoided a significant episode of agricultural intensification. Despite the construction of a new town the native florula is largely unaltered from that described by Fincher in 1966. In large part, due to his Ecological Survey most of the important ecological features were retained, along with much of the minor habitat infrastrucure – ponds, hedges, greenways.
Superimposed on this is an incredibly extensive and diverse alien flora, particularily of trees and shrubs. The whole effect is that of a massive ecological experiment – the alien and the native. Already after only 30 years the new town has a highly distinctive exotic flora. The whole aspect of the area is of woodland.
At such an early stage in the succession and within an urban area there are many uncertainties. The biodiversity is already high and the proportion of semi-natural habitats impressive. If the depreciations on the county’s wider countryside continue then it is predicted that Redditch Urban could become one of the foremost hotspots for biodiversity in the West Midland Region.
2. LIAS COUNTRY
The Lias dominates the southeast portion of the county. This is the most intensively farmed part of Worcestershire. The soils are mainly derived from calcareous clays which provide fertile soils on the better drained areas. The microclimate is warmer and more sheltered than most of the county. The area has seen significant agricultural exploitation since the bronze age. Important concentrations of biodiversity occur to the north of the area and around the Lenches. Away from these, this is generally the poorest part of the county for biodiversity.
2.1 Avon Vale
2.1.1 Avon Vale
This is the most intensively cultivated area in Worcestershire. Semi-natural habitats are decidely restricted and biodiversity is the lowest in the county. Soils are calcareous and several ruderal species are restricted or at their greatest abundance here. It is perhaps fitting that probably its most characteristic species is an adventive – wild asparagus. A common weed throughout the Vale landscape.
There is the potential for further sub-division on land use grounds. For instance, the area east of Evesham is to all intents and purposes a diffuse urban zone, with market gardening the dominant land use in the open areas.
2.1.2 The Forest of Horewell
This area stands out from the rest of the Vale in its concentration of semi-natural habitats. Notably the forest remnants of the ancient Forest of Horewell and some unimproved common land. The concentration here of this important series of habitats relates to the tenure of the Croome Estate. It provides a valuable template against which to quantify deviation from naturalness within the Vale landscape.
2.2 Rhaetic Scarp
The boundary between the Mudstones and the Lias is marked by a narrow scarp. This is too narrow to allow definition on figure 3. Despite this it stands out floristically as a very distinct natural area, with considerable wildlife interest. Bands of limestone has given rise to a highly characteristic calcareous flora. Although now very fragmented, calcareous grassland and woodland are its principal semi-natural habitats. The relief has restricted the level of agricultural exploitation.
2.3 Craycombe and The Lenches
A very distinct landscape area. This is the higher ground on the northeast side of the Vale. Characteristic landscape elements include a varied relief, a large area of woodland and although much reduced fruit production.
Biodiversity is good, the flora calcareous, habitat diversity good. Several species are restricted to this area eg Gentianella anglica.
Whilst still a good area for wildlife, it lost a considerable area of habitat, of county significance, in the late twentieth century.
2.4 Pebworth District
At first sight this area appears very similiar to the rest of the Vale. It is similiarily low in terms of overall biodiversity. However it varies in several respects. Floristically there are subtle differences.The soils tend to be heavier and grasslands more frequent. The ridge and furrow here is of the highest amplitude in the county.
2.5 The Northern Lias
2.5.1 Shell Forest
An area of ancient landscape characterised by – an extensive area of woodland distributed throughout the area as discreet blocks ; a high portion of pasture and meadowland ; small field size interspersed with old hedgelines. The area is on a heavy calcareous clay soil of low fertility. It has high biodiversity and is important for its ancient woods and unimproved meadows. The core area for a number of localised species. An exceptionally fine area of ancient countryside.
2.5.2 Kington District
This is a transitional region. It is similiar to the forest land to the north in regard to landscape infrastructure and shares common floristic elements. It is similiar to the vale landscape in its lack of woodland and a more obvious arable component in the landscape. Its principal floristic interest lies in its remnant grasslands, which includes a strong calcareous element.
2.5.3 Hanbury Forest
The northern outpost of the lias. This area is best viewed as an agriculturally despoilt part of the greater forest area. Field size is large, arable is the prelevant land use and biodiversity low. This in contrast to its early history. The area here defined corresponds very closely with the original Hanbury Park, a royal hunting forest.
2.Urban. Evesham and Broadway
These urban areas stand out floristically for the adventive floras associated with the locally sourced Cotswold limestone. Both exist as small nucleated towns within a diffuse urbanscape extending over a considerable area.
3. TRIASSIC SANDSTONES AND PEBBLE BEDS
There are three principle sandstone formations. The derived soils are light and sandy. Most produce high grade agricultural land. Consequently the intensively farmed landscape has little semi-natural habitat and low biodiversity. The area has also suffered from water abstraction to the extent that the stream corridors frequently support only degraded habitats. The less fertile formations, mainly to the east of Kidderminster, have acid soils with heaths and woodlands.
From the evidence of the remnant ancient woodland, it appears that small leaved lime was a major component of the original wildwood. Clearance was apparently fairly early.
3.1 Redstone Country – the Bromsgrove Sandstones
An irregular belt of red sandstone country running across north-central Worcestershire. The light well drained soils have produced a landscape heavily exploited by agriculture. Woodland is sparse, biodiversity low. Most natural areas are small. They tend to be confined to scarps, bluffs, rock outcrops and the valleys. Special plants include Campanula patula and Hypericum montanum.
3.1 Urban. Bromsgrove/Catshill
This is perhaps the least interesting urban area in Worcestershire. There is very little semi-natural habitat. The flora is very limited.
3.2 The Pebble Beds
3.2.1 Habberley
The lands between the River Stour and the Wyre Forest Coalfield is a distinctive landscape. The relief is varied and the area is well wooded. This is relic Forest country derived from the Forest of Kinver. Biodiversity and the area of semi-natural habitats is high. The wood heath communities are its outstanding feature (Habberley Valley, Devil’s Spittleful and Blakeshall Common). The locus for several rare plants. A national stronghold for Arabis glabra, the nationally rare grass Corynephorus canescens and the county stronghold for the white mullien Verbascum lychnitis.
3.2.2 Bissell
The pebble beds to the east of Kidderminster are heavily exploited by arable farming. Biodiversity is low and semi-natural habitats sparse. On landscape and floristic grounds there may be a case for amalgamation with the redstone landscapes of the Bromsgrove Sandstones.
3.3 Bromsgrove Lickey
There is a distinct zone of pebble beds forming the the foothills to the Permian highlands. The agricultural areas support little semi-natural habitat and have low biodiversity. However a major section has been developed as low density housing on the fringes of the Lickey Hills. The major portion of this ghetto is inaccessible, being within the extensive grounds of private residences. For this reason its contribution to the county’s biodiversity has been overlooked. Landscaping has defiled much of the formerly extensive semi-natural habitats, despite this it is highly probable that the zone still supports significant populations of many acid loving species. Some plant species eg the clubmoss Lycopodium clavatum considered to be extinct in the county could still linger here. The whole area has an aspect of open woodland, with many mature trees. It is predicted that its faunal communities are of exceptionally high conservation significance in a county context.
3.4 Stour Valley
The valley of the Stour and its eastern tributaries present a very distinct natural area. Here are the county’s greatest concentrations of wetland habitats – open water, marsh, fen and carr. Biodiversity is high. Despite this there has been a very significant decline in quality since 1970. The principal components of this are drainage, eutrophication, water abstraction and creeping urbanisation (tips, houses, roads, parks, assarting).
The zone may have national/international historical significance for its place in the earliest phases of the industrial revolution. It is still an outstanding natural zone in county terms but the trends are very obvious.
3.4 Urban. Kidderminster / Stourport
These urban areas have almost coalesced. Most of the wildlife interest is centred on the Stour Valley. In addition there are some valuable grass-heath habitats.
3.5 Redmarley
There is a small pocket of Bromsgrove Sandstone in the extreme south west. Despite its size, it nevertheless supports a most interesting florula. Biodiversity is good and there is a high proportion of semi-natural habitats. The florula is rich and several scarce plants occur – Hypericum montanum, Campanula patula. Away from the Severn Gorge it is probably the most natural landscape area on this geological formation.
4. SILURIAN HIGHLANDS
A very distinctive and well defined natural area. This is the series of hills and low ridges running north from Mathon to the Abberley Hills. The underlying strata are predominately Silurian Limestones such that the flora is predominately basic. The geology is not simple and the presence of sandstones, Permian and even Malvernian rocks adds diversity to an already very rich flora. It is an incredibly rich area. The vast majority of the landscape is clothed in semi-natural habitats with a series of ancient woodlands forming the core interest. These are some of Britain’s most diverse woodlands in terms of their tree and shrub component. Large-leaved lime is present over much of the range and hornbeam is on the edge of its native British limit here.
An exceptionally high quality landscape for biodiversity.
5. DEVONIAN OLD RED SANDSTONE
The florula of this region varies in a number of repsects from much of the rest of the county. A number of otherwise common species are generally absent here Bryonica dioica, Silene latifolia; others such as Geranium pratense are at their most abundant.The different soil characteristics account for much of the variation but climatological differences have some influence. Biogeographically it is a part of the Herefordshire region.
5.1 Teme Gorge
This landscape in terms of both visual quality and biodiversity is quite simply magnificant. It appears quite out of keeping with the landform characteristics of the rest of the county. But a great flood of devasting proportions passed this way. In doing so it carved out a great strath and rejuvenated all the rivulets and streams in its wake. Its outstanding ecological feature are the extensive woodlands. These exhibit the full range of edaphic variation from acid to basic and wet to dry. In addition the tufa springs and deposits are a nationally important resource. These woodlands are superb. Despite this only a small proportion and not all the best examples have been given statutory protection. A most diappointing state of affairs.
5.2 The Teme Plain
The river itself and the valley floor habitats (where they survive) support a very distinctive florula throughout the length from Little Hereford to the Severn confluence. For this reason it is given a sub region of its own. Interestingly there are many common features with river systems of the Scottish Border country – Scirpus sylvaticus, Scrophularia umbrosa but with a distinct southwest British element as typifed by Aconitum napellus. The Teme is the best British river for a number of different groups.
A superb natural zone.
5.3 Kyre Forest
This is the plateau landscape of the old red sandstone. Most of the area drains into the Kyre Brook which flows through a broad basin. The diversity of semi-natural habitats is good with a significant proportion of ancient woodland. Where conditions allow arable is a prominent feature.
5.4 Gladder
The old red sandstone area south of the Wyre Forest. A landscape heavily exploited by arable farming. Biodiversity and semi-natural habitat area are low. The zone is saved from total agricultural annilihation by a a series of rejuvenated valley systems based on the Gladder Brook. These steep often wooded valleys hold a rich flora similiar to the Teme Gorge woodlands.
5.5 Suckley and Mathon
Two small areas to the west of the Silurian highlands. These, from both an ecological and geological perspective, belong with the Herefordshire landscape to the west. The landscape is one of mixed farming, moderate field size and old hedgelines. Biodiversity exists mainly along the stream corridors.
6 JURASSIC OOLITE
This is typical Cotswolds country. The well drained calcareous soils support many species which are restricted to this zone eg Campanula glomerata, Hippocrepis comosa, Polygala calcarea. Differential species between two areas, such as the arable weed flora of Bredon Hill, relate mainly to land use. Both areas have high biodiversity.
The principal lost habitat has been calcareous fens associated with the spring line. This group of species is entirely lost.Grassland is also much reduced.
6.1 Bredon Hill
The scarp slopes hold most of the semi-natural habitats – limestone grassland, woodland, calcareous scrub, parkland. Old quarries and the arable lands also hold significant communities.
6.2 Broadway Scarp
Woods and grasslands support the principal floristic interest.
7. CARBONIFEROUS
There are two blocks of landscape sited on the Carboniferous formations. Their florulas differ quite markedly. The most obvious being due to the more acidic nature of the soils in the Wyre region.
7.1 Wyre Forest Region
7.1.1 The Wyre Forest
The vast majority of this area is woodland, although there are significant areas of forest edge habitat such as umiproved grasslands. The majority is on acid soils although the steam valleys add considerably to the biodiversity in the provision of more basic conditions.
The area is outstanding in a regional context for its woodland communities.The forest area supports significant populations of many county rarities Geranium sylvaticum, Carex montana, Melica nutans. Despite the survival of an extensive area of high value, semi-natural habitat, the forest zone has been severely degraded since the mid nineteenth century. It has experienced a considerable decline in biodiversity over the past 150 years.
In the period up to 1970, at least 54 taxa had been lost from the forest area ; 26 of these are also VC37 extinctions. This represents 25% of all county extinctions from just one site.
The county extinction rate is 11%. If the Wyre Forest could have been frozen in its 1830 condition the county extinction rate would be have been reduced to only 8%. The high loss rate here can be attributed to land use changes within the Forest – the cessation of coppicing, peripheral encroachments and enclosures, sucessional changes, loss of bogs and pools, deer grazing and last but certainly not least coniferisation. The story here is one of steady degredation and a continuing attrition as special microhabitats are lost one by one.
Even within high value wildlife areas the need for conservation of the minor landscape features is highlighted.
7.1.2 The Wyre Coalfield
The agricultural belt southwest of the Forest. Part of the former coalfield area, with some semi-natural habitats derived from mining. An area of mixed farming with a reasonable biodiversity. A plateau area with most of the natural history interest in the well wooded draining valleys.
7.2 Kinver Forest
This is the land east of the River Severn bordering on Staffordshire. It is an ancient landscape, heavily wooded. Geologically complex it includes Carboniferous, Devonian and volcanic formations. It is seperated on floristic grounds from the main block of the forest by a more varied flora with a significant basic group of species.
7.3 The Halesowen District
7.3.1 Kenelms
This is the rural landscape sandwiched between the Permian highlands and the Halesowen urban zone. It is a very fine area of ancient countryside with a high density of ancient woodland sites and a significant number of unimproved grasslands. Although on the carboniferous the florula differs markedly from the Wyre Forest Coalfield. There are more basic soils. The one plant which characterises the area more than any other is Water Avens Geum rivale, currently confined in the county to damp ancient woodland communities within this zone.
7.3 Urban. Halesowen and the Black Country
A geologically and topographically complex area with a fascinating florula. The vast majority of the area is urban but significant pockets of ancient habitat remain such as along the Stour valley. In a county context the outstanding feature is probably the canal system which supports unique and rare species assemblages. Pockets of sandstone country with acidic floras occur – notably around Stourbridge and at Warley.
7.4 Severn Gorge
Between Arley and Holt the River Severn runs through an impressive gorge. This is essentially a wooded landscape with a very considerable wildwood element. Exposures of substrata has allowed the development of a range of woodland communities, some not found within the main block of the Wyre Forest. Small-leaved Lime woodland is frequent and reaches one of its maximum British expressions at Shrawley Wood.
The valley floor is narrow and its wetland interest increased by a series of valley floor wetland habitats of considerable interest. Some of these are the best examples of the swamp woodland habitats left in the county.
Biodiversity is exceptionally high. The proportion of semi-natural habitats is amongst the highest in the county for a natural area. There is the potential on geological grounds for sub-division. A split into two sub-zones based on the sandstone country would make ecological sense. However the area forms a continuous natural unit linked by the river and is probably best viewed as one zone with high natural diversity.
8 MALVERNIAN
On a unit area basis this is the most floristically diverse area of the county. The survival of so much of its distinctive landscape is a testament to the activities of the original Malvern Hills Conservators – one of Britain’s first conservation lobbies.
The Hills form the core element but much of the lower ground is on head derived from the Malvernian rocks. The lower ground florula is very distinct. So much so that it constitutes a distinctive natural zone. As its origins lie with the Hills rather than the mudstones it is included here.
The enclosed Central Chase area is on a mosaic of head and mudstone. It could be incorporated here as a degraded Malvernian type. Most of the Malvernian specialities are entirely lost and in now fits better a mudstone type.
Biogeographically the area is unique. The natural flora, in its juxtaposition of species and communities is unlike any other part of Britain.
8.1 The Malvern Hills
Virtually the whole hill system is semi-natural habitat. Acid grassland, scrub, woodland, grass heath being the dominant types. Most of the area is on acid soils but important pockets of basic conditions are found. The area is very rich botanically and includes several national rarities.
8.2 The Malvern Commons
The majority of these are lost either to urban Malvern or the agricultural enclosures. A significant area yet remains. The Castlemorton/Hollybed/Coombe Green complex is a superb area. The richest botanical area in the county with many rarities, including some of national importance.
All the other remaining commons hold some botanical interest, including rare species. Unfortunately all are also very degraded. There are many causes but paramount on botanical grounds would appear to be eutrophication. It is interesting to note that the Castlemorton complex does not figure in the historical record as being the richest. The full analysis has not been completed but the Malvern/Barnards Green complex was probably the richest.
8.2.Urban. Malvern
The settlement at Malvern and its botanical impact was small up until its development as a spa centre in the Victorian era. It has experienced steady growth since that time.
Malvern was a mecca for early botanists. So much so that virtually all British herbaria hold some early Malvern material. Two of the county’s foremost botanists Edwin Lees and R.F.Towndrow resided here. The consequence of all this activity is a remarkably detailed record of its flora spanning the whole period pre and post enclosure development. This fine historical dataset allows an analysis of the impact of urbanisation within an area still supporting a considerable proportion of semi-natural habitat.
A comparison between SO73 and SO74 is very revealing. The former has a settlement pattern similiar to the mid-nineteenth century, whereas SO74 has seen the growth of a large urban population. They are similiar in other respects – size, geology, soils, climate.
Percentage loss of native flora 1750-2000
| SO74 | 17% |
| SO73 | 7%% |
Worcestershire hectads average: 12%
The losses due to urbanisation are in the order of 10%.
9 PERMIAN – LICKEY QUARTZITE
This is the hill system extending from Clent Hill in the west to Barnt Green in the East. A significant proportion of the area is public open space centred on the country parks. The soils vary from meso to oligtrophic, with acidic substrates predominating on the hill tops. As most of the county is on eu/meso to eutrophic soils this hill series adds a distinctive and valuable contribution to the county’s biodiversity. This can be illustrated by the rills draining the hills. These tend to be very small, often seasonally dry and heavily grazed. They have never been acknowledged as being of any particular conservation value. Yet they provide the county’s main locus for Ranunculus hederaceus (figure 4), often in association with Montia fontana.
The wetland mesotrophic element in the flora has been decimated over the past 50-100 years by eutrophication. These apparently insignificant little rills therefore assume a high conservation value in representing one of the few links to the less defiled wetland landscapes of earlier periods. This pattern of minor landscape features providing the locus for biodiversity is repeated time and time again in the county. The ponds, banks, springs, verges, rills, copses are the foundation of the county’s biodiversity. Yet very few have any formal conservation whatsoever. They are passed over or ignored, their value unrecognised. Yet if Worcesterhire is to maintain its minimum natural capital it is imperitive that they are brought on board. The obsession with site protection, the 999 approach, understandably took precedence in the face of the wanton destruction of the post-war period. Species conservation is now absorbing much time and money. Species and habitats do not exist in isolation. They are sustainable only as part of the landscape. Only when conservationists address themselves to landscape conservation can there be hope for the maintainance of viable wildlife populations.
9.1 Clent-Romsley-Waseley Hills
Much of this hill series is semi-natural habitats. The grasslands, grass heaths and minor wetlands provide the loci for its main contribution to the county’s biodiversity.
9.2 Lower Lickey
The Lickey quartzites give rise to oligotrophic, skeletal soils with a low ph. They hold a very distinctive florula in comparison to the rest of the hill series and are consequently recognised as a natural area in their own right. The species assemblages of the Lickey heaths where not decimated by tree planting are a unique resource.
Figure 4. Ranunculus hederaceus. This figure picks out quite clearly the Permian Hills , Headley Heaths and the Malvern Common Natural Areas. It also defines fairly precisely the tiny remnants of mesotrophic aquatic habitats in the county.
10. QUATERNARY
10.1 Lower Severn Valley
This is the flood plain and river terrace deposits from the confluence with the River Salwarpe to the Gloucestershire border. The flood plain gradually broadens south from Holt as the Severn matures in its lower reaches.
10.1.1 Severn Northern Terraces
The principal defining characteristic of this area is the river terrace deposits. These are enormous. The late glacial Severn, Salwarpe and Teme shed much of their loads of glacial outwash gravels in this area of confluences. The light, well drained soils close to these major watercourses provided the locus for the growth of the City of Worcester. Floristically the gravels are well marked, with the botanical highlight being the main site for Meadow Clary in Worcestershire – a metapopulation deep within the city limits. The River Severn flood plain gradually broadens through this area. Despite development it still holds considerable botanical interest. Outwith the city area the terraces are mainly arable with low biodiversity. Although this is to some extent offset by a series of fine habitats on the scarps above the watercourses.
10.1.2 The Lower Severn Moors and Meadows
The title for this area has a distinct nineteenth century ring to it. In the early nineteenth century it was most probably superb for wildlife. A series of gravel ridges stood out on the flood plain, surrounded by extensive grazed marshland and bog and fronted towards the river by a series of large ham flood meadows. All bordered on the west by a pristine eutrophic river famous for its abundance of migratory fish. Today its glories lie more in the imagination than in the landscape. The gravel terraces are intensive arable fields, the hams ploughed or sprayed out, the bogland drained, the river a navigable canal. Its interest today lies in the remnant examples of these habitats. In terms of the modern county these are still fairly extensive and biodiversity still moderately good. Its characteristic plant, Oenanthe silaifolia, although much reduced still occurs in some quatity at a number of sites. This is another landscape which cries out for restoration.
10.1 Urban. Worcester
The urban area extends mainly over two natural areas, The Northern Terraces and Warndon. That is the terraces deposits on either side of the river and the mudstones to the east. Most of the native floristic interest is centred either along the floodplain or on the series of low hills and ridges to the east of the city.
10.2 Upper Trent Valley
This is the high ground to the north and east of the Lickey watershed. It occupies the valleys of the rivers Rea and Cole. Solid geology is Mercian Mudstones but the majority of the area is overlain by till producing a very distinct flora. There are many plants eg Sanguisorba officinalis, Salix pentandra which it shares in common with the marginal uplands of northern England eg the Pennine fringes. It formerly held the only blanket mire communities in the county.
It is subdivided into two zones. Headley is a rural landscape. The northern part, Moseley, is urban and forms the southern portion of the Birmingham conurbation.
10.2.1 Headley Heaths
This is that part of the area not yet absorbed within the conurbation. The so called urban fringe. Land use is varied as agriculture has retreated in response to people pressure. The small pockets of arable produce a distinctive weed flora. The early post-war agricultural retreat has left many traditional habitats in its wake. Its botanical highlights are the damp areas and old meadows with such county notable species as Cirsium dissectum and Carex elongata. Mesotrophic wetland remnants are commoner here than anywhere else in the county.
10.2. Urban Moseley
Despite a rather poor PR image the urban zone has a relatively high biodiversity. There is still quite a substantive area of semi-natural habitats, particularily associated with the river valleys. It is perfectly possible to walk all day within greenspace over much of this zone. The adventive element in the flora is strongly represented. Floristic subdivision may be possible – seperating the till areas from those on the valley sides and bottoms where the mudstones have been denuded.
10.3 Avon Plain and Terraces
This forms a very distinctive floristic zone through the Vale. Not only in the wetland species associated with the valley floor but with the flora of the terrace deposits. In effect this natural area is equivalent to the late glacial river. Floristically the Avon is the richest eutrophic river system. It banks and flood plain hold some important meadowland and wetland sites. A significant population of the nationally scarce Large Dodder is found along the banks. The terraces are mainly arable. This supports a ruderal community not found elsewhere within the Lias zone. It provides a welcome enclave of biodiversity within a heavily exploited landscape.
Sorbus torminalis
Worcestershire Record No. 10 April 2001 p. 8
Worcestershire Terrapins
By John Day
In April 1993 whilst out surveying for the Flora Project in Norton juxta Kempsey SO85V, I sat down on the bank of a pond for a cup of coffee. My attention was drawn to an odd shape on a large fallen trunk within the pond. On inspecting the object through binoculars it turned out to be a (Red Eared) Terrapin about 9″ long, sunning itself and appearing quite content.
I was in the area again in August 1999, so decided to revisit the site. Sure enough Terrapin was still there, apparently in the same position on the same log. It seemed somewhat larger. I viewed it from as close as possible to ascertain that it was not nailed down! It was certainly alive and the red ear marks were clearly visible.
So if anyone is keen to assess their Worcestershire status then I would suggest that medium-sized, shaded field ponds with wild service trees and plenty of large fallen timber are targeted for survey. Perhaps they can be encouraged to colonise new sites by the careful placement of suitable dead tree trunks.
I remember hearing of one caught by a fisherman on the Leigh Brook in the early 1980s and know there were some other reports around the same time . Is 6 years a county longevity record?
(Don’t forget – it is against the law and an offence to release terrapins either into your garden or elsewhere! Ed)
Worcestershire Record No. 10 April 2001 p. 7.Calling All CuckoosBy Andrew Fraser |
It is a warm spring morning at Long Meadow, on the bank above the meadow the bee flies are hovering with their high pitched hum at the base of the old crab apple. At the Knapp a kingfisher gives its high pitched call as it swoops close over Pivany Bridge. The pool in the middle of Hunthouse Wood is filled with male frogs croaking as they vie for the few females present. Spring is always the best time to hear wildlife. Yet something is missing, something we have taken for granted, until suddenly it isn’t there.
No sound epitomises Spring more than the call of the cuckoo, can a Spring be Spring without them? Soon we may have no choice as the British Trust for Ornithology reports a national decline of 29% over the last 25 years. However, I am sure that this hides a much greater loss in Worcestershire where reductions in numbers of host species for the cuckoo such as dunnock, pied wagtail and meadow pipit have occurred. This may be combined with the decline of the favourite food of adult cuckoos – big hairy caterpillars such as the garden tiger moth – or problems of habitat loss in central Africa where they over winter.
We would like to find out how many cuckoos there are in Worcestershire, recording them through the spring and summer.
You can help by providing records of cuckoos anywhere in the county. Sightings or just hearing them calling, both give an indication of where they occur, especially if you hear them calling regularly in the same area, suggesting they have set up a territory. Only the males ‘cuckoo’; the females have a lovely bubbling call, so you can separate them in the records.
Phone in records to the Trust office 01905 754919 when you hear them (there is a special form to hand to be filled in when a phone call is received), or keep records and send them to us later in the summer or send in for a recording form that you can return. We need the following information for each time you see or hear a cuckoo:
Date of record(s)
Location (grid reference or description of where heard e.g. 1/2 mile north of Hall Farm, Naunton Beachamp).
Number of times heard at that location
Male or female
Any other information. e.g. habitat where heard
Your name, address and telephone number.
cuckoo….cuckoo……cuckoo…….cuckoo………its Andrew!
Worcestershire Record No. 10 April 2001 p. 8
Hedwigia ciliata var. ciliata, Fringed Hoar-moss on the Malvern Hills
By Lorna Fraser
Hedwigia ciliata is illustrated in many of the bryophyte books and was reported as recently as 1994 in the Atlas of Bryophytes as being “common and locally frequent ……… on boulders in moorland …….”. It had been found mainly in the North and West of Britain, but was nevertheless widespread and there was an old record for the Malverns area. It is robust, distinctive, and very attractive moss, easily identified in the field by its bushy, bristly appearance, hoary when dry and yellowish with red stems when wet. Using a hand lens just two features (hyaline leaf tips and lack of any midrib) are sufficient to identify it as H. ciliata using various identification keys. There is a very good photograph in the Collins field guide.
Nevertheless, as a beginner with bryophytes, I’d never seen it before. It was therefore very pleasing, but not totally surprising, to come across it one foggy day last autumn on a wet boulder on the Malvern Hills. Checking a small tuft under the microscope revealed young rounded capsules buried in the shoot tips and papillae (small lumps) on the cells, which helped to confirm the species.
However, since 1994 (in Sweden) and 1995 (in Britain) it seems that the H. ciliata (originally described by Hedwigia in 1801) has been split into three taxa. In Britain the new Hedwigia stellata is the common species, while Hedwigia ciliata var. ciliata is rare, and Hedwigia ciliata var. leucophaea is very rare. The differences between the taxa partly concern the nature of the papillae, but can also be seen in the field since Hedwigia stellata has recurved leaf tips when dry giving the stellate appearance.
I hadn’t seen this recent literature, so I was puzzled by the new names in the recent Census Catalogue (1998) and sent the specimen to the BBS. (British Bryological Society) referee (Ron Porley) and recorder (Gordon Rothero) for checking and clarification. It was subsequently confirmed as Hedwigia ciliata var. ciliata, and hence considered rare as well as a new VC37 record. Well, whatever its name or rarity, let’s hope it remains on the Malverns and doesn’t get engulfed by the invading scrub.
This record shows the value of taking a (small) tuft of moss home to check under the microscope. And how relatively easy it is, even for a beginner like me, to stumble upon a new (or revised) record without really trying, especially in Worcestershire with its lack of recent bryophyte recording. It’s encouraging to note the current surge of interest in bryophytes in the county – I hope it results in a lot more records of both old and new species and an additional trigger for habitat conservation.
References
| JAHNS, H M. 1980. Collins Guide to the Ferns Mosses and Lichens of Britain & North & Central Europe. Collins | |
| WATSON, E V. 1981. British Mosses and Liverworts 3rd edition. CUP. | |
| SMITH, A J E 1978. The Moss Flora of Britain and Ireland C.U.P. | |
| BLOCKEEL, T L & LONG, D G 1998. A Checklist & Census Catalogue of British & Irish Bryophytes British Bryological Society. | |
| HEDEN, LARS 1994. The Hedwigia ciliata complex in Sweden, with notes on the occurrence of the taxa in Fennoscandia. Journal of Bryology 18: 807-810 | |
| CRUNDWELL A C 1995. Hedwigia stellata and H. ciliata in the British Isles. Journal of Bryology 18: 139-157 |
Worcestershire Record No. 10 April 2001 p. 9BTO SurveysBy Harry Green, BTO Regional Representative |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Foot & Mouth Disease has seriously curtailed survey work because many BTO surveys are based on random selection of blocks of countryside and all rural areas have been out of bounds with rights of way closed to help prevent the spread of disease.
Fieldwork was suspended for winter projects:
| Winter Farmland Birds Survey | |
| Crops for wintering birds | |
| Organic farms and birds project. |
The proposed national 2001 surveys of breeding peregrines and waders breeding in wet meadows have both been postponed until next year.
The complete two-visit fieldwork for the on-going Breeding Birds Survey (BBS) is only possible in a few of our 50 1xkm squares – in urban Worcester and south Birmingham, and in the depths of Wyre Forest. There is some hope that one late visit (between mid-May and end June) may be possible but to date (12th May) there is no sign of footpaths opening and there appears to be considerable resistance to any path opening. The same problem is effecting the two Worcestershire sites for the sister Waterways Breeding Birds Survey.
Waders Breeding in Wet Meadows 2002
This is a repeat of the survey carried out in 1982. The aim is to assess changes in breeding wader numbers on wet grassland in the last 20 years, thereby indicating changes in the quality of this important habitat. The primary objective is to survey the same sites as in 1982. In addition to also survey any new wet grasslands have appeared since then. Most of the Worcestershire sites are on the Avon and Severn flood plains, with a few in the Teme valley and near Kidderminster.
Surveyors will be provided with a map showing the boundaries of the site and it is important to cover all of that area to produce a result comparable with 1982. The survey method is to visit the area on three occasions between mid-April and the end of June, with the visits about two weeks apart. Ideal dates are first between 14th to 30th April, second between 1st to 21st May, and third between 22nd May and 24th June. Each part of the area is to be visited and waders seen marked on the map using the codes given in the survey instructions. Although the prime targets are waders, surveyors are asked to count ducks and note and yellow wagtails or meadow pipits.
Full instructions and recording forms are provided.
Surveyors are needed! If you would like to take part in this survey please contact me quite soon.
Nightingales – Records Wanted
The results of the BTO 1999 survey have been reported previously in Worcestershire Record and show that we have fewer nightingales than in the past and that these are mainly in the south of the county with a cluster of breeding birds in SO84 around Croome, and at Langdale Wood near the Three Counties Show Ground. Worcestershire is of course on the NW boundary of the birds’ range: it is much commoner in SE England and Europe. Nationally the 1999 survey showed a general retraction in range towards the south and east with few birds beyond a line joining South Yorkshire and Somerset. The reasons for the decline are not known but there has been a great loss of habitat such as coppiced woodland and especially scrub. Patches of scrub and old over-grown scrubby hedges are now scarce and many scrub species of plants and animals are declining.
Recent research by BTO has shown that ideal nightingale scrub consists of dense young thicket with thickly vegetated, often with tall grass, edges. Shading-out of other plants under the scrub leaves an almost cave-like structure. The birds feed on the open ground under the scrub, searching amongst leaf-litter for invertebrate food. Hawthorn and blackthorn are the main scrub species
There is a possibility that ways will be found to encourage landowners to create scrub habitat suitable for nightingales, perhaps through Countryside Stewardship and Forestry Schemes. Nightingales tend to return to breed at the same sites each year providing the habitat remains suitable, and there is some suggestion that young males may be attracted to the general area where older birds are already established. Therefore it seems sensible to start to create habitat in the districts where nightingales still occur. With this in mind it would be useful to receive any records for singing nightingales in 2001 or later especially in south Worcestershire and north Gloucestershire
If you fancy spending a few days or nights systematically scouting round in that area and listening for nightingales I should be very pleased to hear from you. Please contact me by phone, letter or e-mail. Contact details on page 1.
The BTO have prepared a useful leaflet Creating and Managing Habitat for nightingales and information is also available on the BTO web site www.bto.org
Worcestershire Record No. 10 November 2001 p. 12
Worcestershire Biological Records Centre Annual Meeting 31st March 2001
By Harry Green
The final programme was as follows
| 10.00 | Arrival and coffee/tea and biscuits |
| 10.30 | Welcome and introduction on development of the WBRC Geoff Trevis (Chairman WBRC steering committee) |
| 10.40 | Proposals for the development of Worcestershire BRC following consultant’s report – Pauline Homer (Worcestershire County Council) |
| 11.10 | Progress in computerisation of WBRC records – John Partridge |
| 11.20 | Worcestershire Record – Harry Green (Editor) |
| 11.25 | Bees, wasps and ant – records of common species required – Geoff Trevis |
| 11.30 | GUEST SPEAKER …..Dr MIKE ARCHER |
Bees, Wasps and Ants at Worcestershire’s Heathlands
Mike Archer is a national and international hymenopterist based in York. He has visited Hartlebury Common and the Devil’s Spittleful for over ten years to find and record their bees, wasps and ants. He has found many rare and important species, and these areas are probably the most important of Midland heaths. Amongst the species are the Bee Wolf and wasps that stock their nest holes with paralysed spiders, beetles or caterpillars.
| 12.30 | Worcestershire Heathland moths – Dave Scott |
| 12.55 | BTO Surveys – Harry Green |
| 1.00 | LUNCH bring your own sandwiches! |
| 2.00 | New hectad moth atlas for Hereford & Worcester.- Tony Simpson (County lepidoptera recorder) |
| 2.20 | Narrow-leaved helleborine in Wyre Forest – Rosemary Winnall |
| 2.35 | Conifer dormice – Phil Rudlin |
| 3.00 | The proposed new Worcestershire Mammal Survey |
| 3.15 | Photos from Mill Meadow.-.Kevin McGee |
| 3.35 | From the Worcestershire Flora Project – Bert Reid |
| 3.50 | Natural areas of Worcestershire – John Day |
| 4.15 | Ends |
Hopefully most people found more than one item of interest! Mike Archer’s methods for the assessment of a “value index” for heathland based on his studies of Aculeate Hymenoptera at the Devil’s Spittleful and Hartlebury Common was well received and he has promised to write an article for a future Worcestershire Record. His methods reveal that these two Worcestershire heathlands are of national importance. John Day’s fact-packed presentation delivered at break-neck speed fascinated us all and he has written a very useful article on Worcestershire’s Natural Areas in this issue. I am also pleased to include the maps etc on Worcestershire Flora Project by Bert Reid. Phil Rudlin’s account of dormice is available in the Wyre Forest Study Group Report for 2000 – information from Rosemary Winnall.
Norton & Lenchwick Village Hall was a good venue with much better acoustics than previous venues. We may return there next year or try for a modern hall nearer the centre of the county.
Very many thanks to all those who helped make this event a success, especially those who presented a paper. Ideas for next year would be welcome – suggestions to Harry Green.
Worcestershire Record No. 10 April 2001 p. 42-43
Tetrading in SP05 15th April 2001
By Harry Green, John Meiklejohn & John Partridge
Having seen the list shown in the previous article we decided to do something about increasing the number of records in poorly covered tetrads. There were several reasons for this. First we were tired of being corralled by the Foot & Mouth epidemic and the spring urge to get out and about was strong! So we decided to visit one site in each tetrad for 30-60 minutes or so and search for invertebrates. With restrictions on movements in the countryside the only sites we could visit were road verges and we had to take care that no farm animals were in the vicinity. We chose SP05 mainly because it was between Redditch (where JP lives) and Pershore (near homes of HG & JWM). Also the numbers of records were quite low.
On the day the weather was overcast, mainly dry with a few showers, occasional brief glimpses of sun, and a cold N wind. Hardly any insects on the wing. Typical early spring weather!
During the day we managed to visit six sites.
The number of records for each tetrad before we started was as follows (molluscs not available yet):
| Tetrad A: | 2 beetles and 14 spiders only |
| Tetrad B: | rather better (see table) with 47 inverts plus 29 spiders because of records from Yeald Wood. |
| Tetrad C: | 15 inverts plus 15 spiders |
| Tetrad F: | 1 beetle, 1 bee, 20 spiders |
| Tetrad G: | 44 inverts, 31 spiders, thanks to records from Slade Wood. |
| Tetrad H: | No records at all, not even spiders! |
The relatively large number of spider records were almost all seen on previous visits by JP who has worked hard to transform spider recording in Worcestershire in the last few years.
As you can see from the following lists we improved the situation with relatively little effort. We also found some interesting things. An ancient oak at site 6 (Radford) had a big colony of shing black ants Lasius fuliginosus and also the brown tree ant Lasius brunneus. The latter appears to be more widespread that expected with a steady increase in records. Litter at the base of the same tree also contained the scarce woodlouse eating spider Dysdera erythrina.
Site 2 contained a another small tree ant Leptothorax nylanderi which is also quite scarce.
Sites 1 and 3 both contained Androniscus dentiger the Rosy Woodlouse which is not often seen
Site 4 was in rather bleak cereal country but skylarks were singing high above the un-ploughed fields.
We were very surprised to find adult Tetrix subulata, the slender groundhopper, at several sites. It is not often recorded, and few orthoptera are at an adult stage in spring – we now know from the books that adult groundhoppers are seen in spring!.
We did not record flowering plants. JWM noted some lichens, mosses and fungi.
JP identified the Araneae, Collembola, Opiliones. JWM identified all the Coleoptera and most of the rest! HG named some snails and woodlice (and birds) and spent many hours trying to work out the mysteries of centipede keys.
We obviously cannot identify everything we see! Some specimens await identification.
To encourage you to have a go John Meiklejohn’s simplified woodlouse key follows this article. HG has actually learned to do woodlice this year – if he can, you can!
Tetrad SP05B SITE 1. SP 007532 STOCKUMFORD BRIDGE
COLEOPTERA
Achenium depressum
Anthicus antherinus
Anthobium unicolor
Bembidion harpaloides
Chlaenius vestitis
Metabletus obscuroguttatus
Ocalea picata
Propylea 14-punctata
Psyllobora 22-punctata
Tachyporus hypnorum
COLLEMBOLA
Orchesella cincta
HYMENOPTERA
Lasius flavus
ACARI
Aceria aceriscampestris
ARANEAE
Harpactea hombergi
Segestria senoculata
CHILOPODA
Cryptops hortensis
Lithobius borealis
Lithobius forficatus
DIPLOPODA
Julus scandinavius
Tachypodoiulus niger
ISOPODA
Androniscus dentiger
Oniscus asellus
Philoscia muscorum
Platyarthrus hoffmannseggi
Porcellio scaber
MOLLUSCA
Azeca goodalli
Arion hortensis
Cepaea hortensis
Clausilia bidentata
Cochlodina laminata
Discus rotundatus
Ena obscura
Lauria cylindracea
Monacha cantiana
Trichia striolata
AMPHIBIA
Frog tadpoles
BIRDS
Chaffinch
Chiffchaff
Green Woodpecker
Carrion Crow
Rook
Wren
LICHENS
Physcia adscendens
Xanthoria parietina
MOSSES
Grimmia pulvinata
Tortula muralis
Tetrad SP05A. SITE 2. SP 017515 AB LENCH ROAD
COLEOPTERA
Agonum albipes
Agonum obscurum
Bembidion harpaloides
Bembidion obtusum
Demetrias atricapillus
Dromius linearis
Plagiodera versicolora
Pterostichus vernalis
Tachyporus hypnorum
Tachyporus nitidulus
PLECOPTERA Stone fly
Nemoura cinerea
COLLEMBOLA
Orchesella cincta
Tomocerus longicornis
HEMIPTERA
Drymus sylvaticus
Scolopostethus affinis
HYMENOPTERA
Leptothorax nylanderi
ORTHOPTERA
Tetrix subulata
ISOPODA
Armadillidium vulgare
Oniscus asellus
Porcellio scaber
Trichoniscus pusillus
MOLLUSCA
Anisus leucostoma
Azeca goodalli
Balea perversa
Cepaea hortensis
Clausilia bidentata
Cochlicopa lubricella
Discus rotundatus
Ena obscura
Helix aspersa
Lauria cylindracea
Oxychilus cellarius
Trichia hispida
Trichia striolata
ARANEAE
Diplocephalus cristatus
OPILIONES
Nemastoma bimaculatum
Rilaena triangularis
PSEUDOSCORPION
Neobisium muscorum
MAMMALS
Clethrionomys glareolus
BIRDS
Great tit
Blue tit
Dunnock
Wren
Rook
FUNGI
Ganoderma applanatum
LICHENS
Diploica canescens
Tetrad SP05G. SITE 3. SP 027522 CHURCH LENCH
COLEOPTERA
Bembidion aeneum
Cidnorhynchus quadrimaculatus
Coccinella 7-punctata
Megasternum obscurum
Phaedon tumidulus
Psyllobora 22-punctata
Stilbus testaceus
Tachyporus chrysomelinus
DIPTERA
Bibio johannis (det DMG)
DERMAPTERA
Forficula auricularia
HYMENOPTERA
Lasius niger
ORTHOPTERA
Tetrix subulata
CHILOPODA
Strigamia crassipes
DIPLOPODA
Julus scandinavius
Tachypodoiulus niger
ISOPODA
Androniscus dentiger
Armadillidium vulgare
Oniscus asellus
Philoscia muscorum
Porcellio scaber
MOLLUSCA
Arion subfuscus
Balea perversa
Candidula gigaxii
Cepaea hortensis
Clausilia bidentata
Cochlicopa lubrica
Discus rotundatus
Ena obscura
Trichia striolata
ARANEAE
Ero cambridgei
Bathyphantes gracilis
Pelecopsis parallela
Lepthyphantes pallidus
Diplostyla concolor
Lepthyphantes tenuis
Oedothorax fuscus
Porhomma microphthalmum
OPILIONES
Rilaena triangularis
COLLEMBOLA
Tomocerus longicornis
Orchesella villosa
Orchesella cincta
Dicyrtoma fusca
BIRDS
Great tit
Blue tit
Chaffinch
Wren
Blackbird
Tetrad SP05F. SITE 4. SP 031501 ATCH LENCH
COLEOPTERA
Agonum dorsale
Agonum obscurum
Amara aenea
Anotylus rugosus
Astenus immaculatus
Badister bipustulatus
Bembidion quadrimaculatum
Chaetocnema concinna
Demetrias atricapillus
Dromius linearis
Lathrobium fovulum
Sepedophilus marshami
Stenus bimaculatus
Stenus clavicornis
Stenus geniculatus
Stomus pumicatus
Tachyporus chrysomelinus
Tachyporus hypnorum
Trichocellus cognatus
HYMENOPTERA
Myrmica rubra
HEMIPTERA
Scolopostethus affinis
ORTHOPTERA
Tetrix subulata
ARANEAE
Harpactea hombergi
Tegenaria silvestris
Microneta viaria
Micrargus herbigradus
Diplostyla concolor
COLLEMBOLA
Tomocerus longicornis
Orchesella villosa
Orchesella cincta
OPILIONES
Rilaena triangularis
PSEUDOSCORPION
Neobisium muscorum
DIPLOPODA
Cylindroiulus britannicus
Cylindroiulus punctatus
Julus scandinavius
Polydesmus angustus
Polydesmus denticulatus
Tachypodoiulus niger
ISOPODA
Oniscus asellus
Philoscia muscorum
Porcellio scaber
Trichoniscus pusillus
MOLLUSCA
Aegopinella nitidula
Azeca goodalli
Discus rotundatus
Lauria cylindracea
BIRDS
Skylarks x3 singing
Tetrad SP05 H Site 5. SPO29545 ABBOTS LENCH
COLEOPTERA
Agonum albipes
Astenus immaculatus
Ceutorhynchus pollinarius
Demetrias atricapillus
Dromius linearis
Epurea melanocephala
Metabletus obscuroguttatus
Metabletus truncatellus
Phyllotreta nigripes
Stenus levies
Stilbus testaceus
HYMENOPTERA
Myrmica rubra
COLLEMBOLA
Orchesella cincra
HEMIPTERA
Scolopostethus affinis
ORTHOPTERA
Tetrix subulata
ARANEAE
Pisaura mirabilis
Trochosa terricola
Diplostyla concolor
Episinus angulatus
Walckenaeria nudipalpis
Porhomma microphthalmum
Porhomma pygmaeum
COLLEMBOLA
Tomocerus minor
OPILIONES
Rilaena triangularis
DIPLOPODA
Cylindroiulus punctatus
Polydesmus angustus
Tachypodoiulus niger
ISOPODA
Armadillidium vulgare
Oniscus asellus
Philoscia muscorum
MOLLUSCA
Arion ater
Azeca goodalli
Clausilia bidentata
Discus rotundatus
Helix aspersa
Limax maximus
Oxychilus helveticus
Trichia stilt
Tetrad SP05C. SITE 6. SP 008546 RADFORD
COLEOPTERA
Bembidion quadrimaculatum
Paederus litoralis
Tachyporus chrysomelins
HEMIPTERA
Acanthosoma haemorrhoidale
HYMENOPTERA
Andricus quercuscalicis
Halictus sp (ID follows)
Lasius brunneus Na
Lasius fuliginosus
CHILOPODA
Lithobius forflcatus
DIPLOPODA
Cylindroiulus punctatus
Glomeris marginata
Julus scandinavius
Polydesmus angustus
Tachypodoiulus niger
ISOPODA
Porcellio scaber
MOLLUSCA
Discus rotundatus
Helix aspersa
Oxychilus cellarius
ARANEAE
Microneta viaria
Lepthyphantes minutes
Harpactea hombergi
Dysdera erythrina
Metellina mengei
OPILIONES
Nemastoma bimaculatus
COLLEMBOLA
Orchesella villosa
Orchesella cincta
Dicyrtomena minuta
PS
The number of Mollusc records for the county are listed as species, number of records, and year of last record on our web site www.wbrc.org.uk
Worcestershire Record No. 10 April 2001 p. 18
Have You Seen A Shelled Slug Called Testacella!
Stimulated by a double-page spread of excellent slug drawings and a comment on page 32 of the April issue of BBC Wildlife magazine, we issued the following Press release in the hope of bringing Testacella to the surface.
“We hardly need to be told that the wet winter has saturated soils! Waterlogged gardens and fields are not ready for spring sowing and most vegetable plots are soggy morasses. One unusual outcome of all the water is that slugs living in the soil have been forced out as the air spaces where they live have filled with water. In some parts of southern England this has brought up the unusual and rare soil-living shelled slugs. So the question is: have they appeared in Worcestershire?”
Harry Green of the Worcestershire Wildlife Trust said:
The shelled slugs (scientifically called Testacella) are very odd animals. Up to two inches long and rather broad in the beam they are yellowish-white and on their tail end is perched a small ear-shaped shell up to half an inch long. They burrow into soil and are predatory, feeding on earthworms and other slugs. They like rich well-manured soils and usually turn up in gardens. We had one record about three years ago but none since. We want to know if these rarities are still sliding around the county!
So, if you have seen such slugs this winter (or in past years) or find them in your garden, please give the Worcestershire Wildlife Trust a ring on 01905 754919 or write to us at Lower Smite Farm, Hindlip, Worcester, WR3 8SZ.
For further information contact Harry Green on 01387 710377 or 07778 198476
Did we receive any reports? Only one. Roger Daniel phoned to say he had found them near Boughton Avenue, St Johns, Worcester 5-6 years ago. I have photographs of several sent to BBC Hereford & Worcester several years ago but cannot remember their origin – we think they were from Gloucestershire. We should be very please to hear of any sightings.
There are three species of Testacella: T. maugei, T. haliotidea and T. scutulum. They are rather similar – maugei has a grey body, the others are yellower. The small ear-shaped shell on the hind end is brownish.
References
| BBC Wildlife Magazine April 2001, pages 12, 13 &32. Colour drawings of many species. | |
| CAMERON, RAD, JACKSON, N & EVERSHAM, B. A field key to the slugs of the British Isles. Field Studies Council. | |
| KERNEY, M 1999. Atlas of the land and freshwater moluscs of Britain & Ireland. Harley Books | |
| KERNEY MP & CAMERON RAD 1979 and subsequent reprints. Collins Guide to Land Snails of Britain and Western Europe. Harper Collins |
Worcestershire Record No. 10 April 2001 p. 4-5
This article is outdated and remains for Archive purposes only
Development Plan for The Worcestershire Biological Records Centre
By Pauline Homer, Conservation and Heritage Officer, Worcestershire County Council.
‘Do we need to develop the Local Record Centre?’ is a question that many of you may ask. I would answer YES for many reasons, not least of which is to help you the recorders. All the species records which you go out and collect are not just an end in themselves, but a means to find out what an important resource for biodiversity there is in the county, so that mechanisms can be developed to retain, enhance and create the specific habitats which individual species need. We also need the Centre developed for other individuals and organisations within the county who need access to data in order to look after the habitats and species present. ‘Do you want to see all the species and more that you are recording in the county still there in twenty or more years?’ I believe the development of the Local Record Centre will make this more likely.
I am therefore writing this article to give a brief summary of the content of the Development Plan for the Worcestershire Record Centre and to outline how the Study Steering Group propose to move forward. Those of you who attended the AGM of the existing Worcestershire Biological Records Centre at the end of March will already have heard me talk about the Development Plan.
The initiative is being progressed by a Study Steering Group which consists of representatives from English Nature, the Worcestershire Wildlife Trust, the existing Worcestershire Biological Records Centre, the Worcestershire Biodiversity Partnership and Worcestershire County Council. The ‘we’ in this article refers to this group, which comprises David Heaver (EN), Geoff Trevis (WWT), John Partridge (Worcs BRC), Alex Preston (County BAP Officer – Worcs Biodiversity Partnership), Colin Raven (administrative support) and me, Pauline Homer (Worcestershire County Council) acting as Chair.
As I am sure you are aware, the purpose of the Biological Records Centre is to collect, collate, manage and then disseminate the biological data for the county. We envisage a centre which provides a service which is independent, objective and works on a not-for-profit basis.
Last summer, we asked Somerset Environmental Records Centre (SERC) to act as Consultants to prepare a Development Plan. They used questionnaires, interviews and workshop to assess the level of interest and commitment within the county for the development of a centre which will meet the accreditation levels for the National Biodiversity Network.
SERC identified a vision for the centre and looked at a range of user needs and products. They provided a brief resume of the existing data and asked consultees about the range of services and activities they would require. Their report contains recommendations about how the centre could be structured, from the institutional arrangements and management systems, to the staff who would be needed to run it. In addition they have costed a two year establishment phase to set up the centre and looked at the potential funding mechanisms.
The report has provided us with options for the way forward. We have already decided to go ahead in the ways outlined below:
| To send a copy of the report to all the consultees | |
| To prepare a summary document for other interested parties | |
| To get advice about the best institutional structure | |
| To assess in greater detail the level of commitment by potential partners | |
| To help the existing WBRC by providing finance for equipment and training |
If you would like to obtain a copy of the report, copies are available from the Wildlife Trust at a cost of £3.00. John Partridge is also hoping to put a copy on the Worcs BRC web site (www.wbrc.org) for those of you who have access to the Web.
One final question ‘Do you have any comments or questions on the Development Plan?’ If so, please contact me – do use snail mail (with apologies to Consignia alias Royal Mail), electronic mail (alias email) or even by telephone. You, the Voluntary Recorders are an essential element of the Biological Records Centre in the County, providing as you do, the majority of the species information. The development of the centre will not only enable you, the recorders to be able to manipulate your data more easily, but will also mean that the records you collect can be used to help protect biodiversity in the county for future generations.
Pauline Homer, Conservation and Heritage Officer, 01905 766730
phomer@worcestershire.gov.uk
Environmental Services. PO Box 373, County Hall, Spetchley Road, Worcester WR5 2XG
If you prefer you can contact any other member of the Steering Group.
Worcestershire Record No. 10 April 2001 p. 3-4
This article is outdated and remains for Archive purposes only
Improving Biological Information Management Systems in Worcestershire Final Report Summary – March 2000
Introduction
This important report on the possible ways of development for the Worcestershire Biological Records Centre is available to any reader. It can be obtained from Colin Raven, Director, Worcestershire Wildlife Trust, Lower Smite Farm, Hindlip, Worcester, WR3 8SZ. Please send a cheque for £3 (payable to WWT) to cover the cost of photocopying and postage.
We very much want you to read this report and make any comment you think fit. Although it is unlikely that everyone will be completely pleased with whatever structure is adopted for the Worcs BRC it is important that all volunteer recorders and also likely users of the BRC make their views known to the steering committee. The future development of the BRC is dependent on users, funding, and the volunteer recording network. It cannot develop satisfactorily without all the component interests working in partnership. The Report sets out how this can be achieved through service level agreements with local aauthorities and others and input of biological records from the volunteer and professional network.
The future BRC will have to have a structure and the proposal is for an independent company to be formed in which all parties would be involved, especially individual recorders. We suggest that you should all be aware of the implications of this proposal.
Here follows the Table of Contents, Figures and Annexes of the Report and also the Executive Summary which will give you the flavour of the Report, but cannot fully replace reading it yourself! It actually contains a great deal of interesting information on biological recording which may be new to many readers.
Then follows an article by Pauline Homer enlarging on the background to the Report.
Table of Contents
| 1 | Executive Summary | 6 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2 | Background | 8 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2.1 | Introduction | 8 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2.2 | The National Biodiversity Network | 8 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2.3 | Scope | 9 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2.4 | Consultation | 9 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2.5 | Purpose of Development Plan | 10 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 3 | Vision for WBRC | 12 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 4 | User Needs and Products | 14 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 4.1 | Business Needs | 14 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 4.2 | Voluntary Recorders’ Needs | 25 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 4.2.1 | The existing WBRC | 25 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 4.2.2 | Worcestershire Recorders’ Workshop | 26 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 4.2.3 | Views expressed by recorders through questionnaires | 28 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 4.3 | Products | 29 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 5 | Existing Data | 34 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 6 | Records Centre Services and Activities | 36 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 6.1 | Overview | 36 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 6.2 | Survey | 36 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 6.3 | Biodiversity planning | 37 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 6.4 | County Wildlife Site system | 38 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 6.5 | Interpretation and Evaluation | 39 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 6.6 | Education | 41 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 6.7 | Planning | 42 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 6.8 | Policies and Procedures | 43 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 6.9 | Role of the WBRC in the National Biodiversity Network | 47 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 6.10 | Activities | 48 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 7 | Structure | 50 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 7.1 | Overview | 50 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 7.2 | Institutional Structure | 50 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 7.3 | Management System | 55 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 7.4 | Staff | 56 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 7.5 | Office Location | 57 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 7.6 | Means of accessing Records Centre data | 58 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 7.7 | The need for an establishment Phase | 59 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 8 | Costs | 60 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 9 | Funding | 62 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 9.1 | Service Level Agreements | 62 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 9.2 | Potential for Service Agreements | 62 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 9.3 | Pay as you use | 64 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 9.4 | Free Service | 65 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 9.5 | External Funding Sources | 65 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 9.5.1 | Heritage Lottery Fund | 65 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 9.5.2 | Landfill Tax | 66 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 9.5.3 | Charitable Trusts | 67 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 9.5.4 | Business Sponsorship | 67 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 9.6 | Partners’ Contributions to Establishment Phase | 67 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 9.7 | Support in-kind | 67 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 10 | Decisions on the future | 68 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 10.1 | Options | 68 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 10.2 | Conclusion | 68 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Table of Figures
| Figure 1 | A definition of a Local Records Centre | 8 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Figure 2 | Consultees | 10 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Figure 3 | Benefits of a Records Centre to Users | 13 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Figure 4 | Business Needs for Biodiversity Information | 15 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Figure 5 | Statutory Requirements on local authorities for biodiversity / nature conservation | 17 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Figure 6 | Planning Policy Guidance with biodiversity /nature conservation requirements | 18 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Figure 7 | Some extracts from the legislation | 18 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Fiigure 8 | Some extracts from planning policy guidance | 19 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Figure 9 | Local authorities needs for biodiversity data | 20 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Figure 10 | Community Strategies | 21 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Figure 11 | Best Value Review of Local Authority Services | 21 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Figure 12 | Local Authority Service Delivery | 22 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Figure 13 | Increasing Demandfor Biodiversity Information | 23 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Figure 14 | Characteristics of Biodiversity Data – relative priority | 23 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Figure 15 | Focus on Special Sites | 24 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Figure 16 | Voluntary Recorders’ Needs | 28 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Figure 17 | Voluntary Recorders’ Expertise and Time | 29 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Figure 18 | Information Product Priorities Identified by Users | 30 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Figure 19 | Information Product Priorities | 33 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Figure 20 | Existing Datasets | 34 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Figure 21 | Data collected by voluntary recorders | 34 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Figure 22 | Surveys | 36 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Figure 23 | Biodiversity Planning | 37 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Figure 24 | Wildlife Sites System | 38 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Figure 25 | Interpretation and Evaluation | 39 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Figure 26 | The Advice Issue | 41 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Figure 27 | Education | 41 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Figure 28 | The potential role of WBRC in the planning system | 43 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Figure 29 | Policies and Procedures requiring development | 44 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Figure 30 | Activities needed to generate information products – example | 48 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Figure 31 | Institutional Structure | 50 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Figure 32 | Some advantages and disadvantages of hosting and independence | 52 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Figure 33 | A potential management system under an independent Records Centre | 56 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Figure 34 | Outline job descriptions | 57 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Figure 35 | Running Costs | 60 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Figure 36 | Establishment Costs | 61 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Figure 37 | Service Level Agreements | 62 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Figure 38 | Potential for Service Level Agreements | 63 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Figure 39 | Funding Sources | 65 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Table of Annexes
| Annex 1 | Potential Information Products | 69 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Annex 2 | Case Studies of Other Record Centres | 71 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Annex 3 | Neighbouring Record Centres | 73 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Annex 4 | Existing Data | 74 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Annex 5 | Activities and Staff Resources Required | 78 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Annex 6 | Basis for financial calculations | 80 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Annex 7 | Guidancefor content of service level agreements | 81 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Annex 8 | Extracts from DRAFT LRC Accreditation Guidance | 89 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Annex 9 | House of Commons Select Committee on Biodiversity | 93 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Executive Summary
- A Local Records Centre is a not-for-profit service run in partnership for the public benefit, which collects, collates, manages and disseminates information of known quality relating to the wildlife, wildlife sites and habitats for a defined geographical area.
- This report recommends that the development of a Local Records Centre for Worcestershire, comprising professional staff working with the existing network of volunteers, should be formally proposed to a wide range of potential partners.
- The Development Plan process has examined in detail the demand from user organisations for the type of information products and services that a Records Centre is potentially able to offer. The demand is found to be high, growing and reasonably consistent between organisations.
- For the local authorities, for example, access to high quality biodiversity information is essential to support a wide range of statutory and non-statutory activities. It is highly probable that this requirement will be raised still further in planning policy guidance currently undergoing revision. For government agencies and others, commitment to the Biodiversity Action Plan process underpins much activity.
- Data on Worcestershire’s biodiversity comprises over a million species records and relatively strong habitat datasets. For want of a coherent system, very little of this data is being used currently to inform decision-making.
- It is technically feasible for a Records Centre to develop a cost-effective service that can be delivered to a wide range of partner organisations.
- The preferred option for the institutional structure of the Records Centre is as a not-for-profit independent company working in partnership for the public benefit. A new company should be established for this purpose.
- The proposal should be promoted by the three principal organisations represented on the Steering Group: Worcestershire County Council. Worcestershire Wildlife Trust and English Nature.
- The Records Centre should cover the county of Worcestershire only. It should operate within the firamework of the National Biodiversity Network and work towards accreditation, so supplying information on the county’s heritage within a regional and national scale.
- The principal funding mechanism should be through contractual Service Level Agreements between the Records Centre and partner organisations, with defined levels of service.
- A two year establishment phase is recommended to develop the Records Centre to a capacity with which it is able to deliver effective services. If strong partnership comitnent is secured then the chances are high of obtaining a significant proportion of these establishment costs from external sources such as the Heritage Lottery Fund. It is recommended that application is made to the Heritage Lottery Fund for the major part of the costs of the establishment period and the development of public services in the first five years.
- The decision on whether to proceed with the establishment of a Worcestershire Records Centre on this basis is entirely dependent on the level of commitment received from potential partners. A rninimum size threshold operates, below which it is not possible to deliver satisfactory services to a wide range of users. If insufficient commitment is received to secure the Records Centre’s viability in the medium term then establishment should not proceed.
- The Records Centre should explore the potential for a hosting arrangement with one of its principal partners, the Worcestershire Wildlife Trust, at Lower Smite Farm, Worcester. The arrangements would involve payment by the Trust for services delivered to it by the Records Centre and payment by the Records Centre to the Trust for office accommodation and administrative services.
- If this initiative founders the risks of losing the support of hundreds of dedicated voluntary recorders are high and a timely, cost-effective opportunity to invest in Worcestershire’s environment will have been missed. The preferred option is to commit to a sustainable Records Centre. which can deliver the services that users require.
Worcestershire Record No. 10 April 2001 p. 6
The New Worcestershire Mammal Survey
By Shaun Micklewright, County Mammal Recorder.
Background
In 1982 Worcestershire Biological Records Centre carried out a survey of the county’s mammals. Records from this survey together with historic records held on the BRCs database were used to produce a atlas which mapped mammal distribution within the county on a tetrad basis. Sadly the atlas was never published although from four examples were printed in Worcestershire Record No 6 April 1999, and some maps from the survey were presented at the annual recorders meeting in March 1999. The maps contain many gaps, and it now seems an appropriate time to try and fill these gaps whilst updating the information to take into account the rapid changes which have occurred in mammal distribution since 1982.
At the beginning of March 2001 an informal meeting of mammal recorders was held to discuss a proposed new mammal survey for Worcestershire. The general feedback from this meeting was that a new survey should go ahead, as Worcestershire was an area where rapid changes in mammal distribution were taking place, and these should be documented as far as possible.
The New Survey
Geographically the survey will be based on Greater Worcestershire, the combined VC37 and the administrative county as used for the Flora Project. The survey will run for five years with data collected from this period being added to data from the last five years to give a ten year time period.
At the end of the five years it may be possible to publish a new atlas.
The Recording Process
A new recording form and validation system have been produced with a list of species likely to be encountered in Worcestershire together with guidelines on evidence needed to support records. – see recording form enclosed with this Worcestershire Record.
Record collection will be managed by the county mammal recorder and WBRC volunteers who will collect and collate records with all data going directly onto the WBRC Recorder database.
The Way Forward
It is hoped that in the near future a county mammal group will be established through the Mammal Society network to help generate interest in mammal recording and study. I would be very pleased to hear from anyone interested in helping set up such a group. It is hoped that am inaugural meeting of all those interested will be arranged in the autumn.
I look forward to receiving your mammal records.
Worcestershire Record No. 10 April 2001 p. 21
The Jet Ant – Lasius fuliginosus
By John Partridge
While out with Harry Green and John Meiklejohn looking for specimens to record on some road verges, I noticed streams of these black ants going up and down a tall oak tree. John recognised it as Lasius fuliginosus, but hadn’t noticed it before. WBRC had records from seven places, this was the eighth, and I then found it on a large oak in Redditch’s old cemetery. Putting the photograph on the web site has produced another record from Michael Southall in Crossway Green, who reports : “A colony of these ants has been in my garden every year I have lived here, since 1988. They seem to look after the aphids which are on a variety of trees and shrubs, none of which are oak.”
The distribution maps in “Ants” (M.V. Brian – Collins New Naturalist) show it as mainly southern, south of the usual Severn-Wash line. The same book reports that they nest in the roots of old trees, and that the queen is incapable of founding a colony on her own – she makes use of an existing Lasius umbratus nest, which in turn would have been founded in a Lasius niger nest, so it is not surprising that the colonies are not that common- unless you know different – so please send in records.
The ant is fairly easily recognisable from the shiny jet black colour, together with its heart-shaped head if your eye-sight or lens is good enough. I can check out tentative records if you are not sure.
Lasius fuliginosus on oak bark. Photo John Partridge
National distribution of Lasius fuliginosus as shown in Edwards R ed 1991 Provisional Atlas of the aculleate Hymenoptera in Britain and Ireland. Part 1 JNCC/ITE. Solid dots 1970-1995 records, open circles 1900-1969 records, crosses before 1900. This up-dates the map mentioned in the article above.
Worcestershire Record No. 10 April 2001 p. 7
Distribution and Status of Freshwater Fish Populations in the UK
By Graeme Peirson (Project scientist in the National Coarse Fish Centre, Environment Agency, Kidderminster
Traditionally, most amateur naturalists and conservation and wildlife bodies have focused upon birds, plants, the more charismatic insect groups such as dragonflies and moths, and mammals, and have overlooked one of our most important and ubiquitous species groups fish. This tendency is high-lighted by the fact that fish are the only species group for which there is no modern UK distribution atlas of the kind familiar to amateur specialists in birds, plants and invertebrates.
Freshwater fish are of considerable importance to society as a whole. Fisheries are of considerable economic value: commercial salmon and eel/elver fisheries in inland waters in England and Wales are thought to be worth up to £4 million annually; however this figure is dwarfed by the total value of recreational fishing which is estimated at £2.7 billion per annum. In addition, the market value of fishing rights is estimated at over £3 billion.
Fish are also of considerable social and cultural importance. Whilst commercial inland fisheries exploiting salmon, eels, and formerly other species for food are in decline in the UK, in historical times they supported distinctive communities in much the same way as marine fisheries have done. Currently, there are approximately three million freshwater recreational anglers in England and Wales, comprising people of all ages and from all walks of life.
Fish species and communities are arguably the best indicators of the well-being of aquatic ecosystems, not just in terms of water quality but water quantity and the physical environment. Fish are relatively long-lived and are mobile, choosing not to occupy waters which might not be lethal to them, but which are nevertheless environmentally degraded.
So why do mainstream conservation interests generally overlook fish? The answer is probably one of perception: normally, fish cannot be seen. Only under clear-water conditions in the height of summer are fish generally apparent and even then not in any detail: the casual observer gains only a tiny insight into complex and exiting world beneath the water surface. Even in the dark icy waters of winter floods the daily battles for survival and supremacy continue unabated. Only the angler has any appreciation of this drama as he uses skill, understanding and experience to present the bait naturally to the feeding fish.
Fish do have considerable conservation value in their own right. 64 species of fish have been recorded in UK fresh and brackish waters. A number of these have been introduced, such as the grass carp (for weed control), rainbow trout (for aquaculture and sport), goldfish (for aquaria and ornamental ponds) and sunbleak (accidentally). 13 species of fish are considered rare or threatened and some, notably the burbot and the common sturgeon, are believed to be extinct in British waters. Fish species and fish communities are under threat from the continuing impacts of pollution, land-use changes, global warming, alien species and over-fishing.
The Environment Agency, in conjunction with CEH (Centre for Ecology and Hydrology) and JNCC (Joint Council for Nature Conservation) are compiling the first fully comprehensive and up-to-date freshwater fish atlas for the UK., utilising datasets from a variety of sources notably the Environment Agency and equivalent bodies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The database currently has over 150 000 records. It will be available to the general public via the National Biodiversity Network (NBN) and will also be produced as an attractive hard copy publication during 2002.
Worcestershire Record No. 10 April 2001 p. 10
Birds in Worcestershire – November 2000 to April 2001
By Gavin Peplow
A very wet winter with extensive and near record flooding of the river valleys also included two or three cold snaps later in the period. Birding from February became considerably more difficult with the closure of virtually all footpaths and Nature Reserves as a precautionary response to Foot and Mouth disease, though thankfully this didn’t lead to a complete drought of interesting bird sightings!
After the excitement of a multitude of scarce species last autumn, birding settled into a more typical pattern from November, the highlight of that month being a Great Grey Shrike seen briefly near Habberley valley. A Fulmar was picked up exhausted near Droitwich whilst a party of eight Hawfinches on the south Malverns were found most probably in correlation to an exceptionally good Hornbeam crop there
Elsewhere two Common Sandpipers settled in to winter at Grimley, a Mediterranean Gull was found at Westwood and a browner, Scandinavian race Chiffchaff was found at Upton Warren. Merlins were seen briefly at four sites
December continued very wet though the first few days produced a Smew at Westwood and a brief sighting of a Bittern at Upper Bittell. Parties of twelve and nine Bewick’s Swans were seen on floodwater at Longdon and Kempsey respectively whilst late Little Gulls were located at Westwood (two) and Kinsham. Other gulls included another Mediterranean at Westwood and a Kittiwake at the same site around Christmas.
Birds of the northern ‘Siberian’ race of Chiffchaff were found at Lower Moor and Kempsey Sewage Works and were joined on both sites by both Scandinavian and nominate race birds to continue an increasing trend both in the County and nationally of overwintering by this species. Other interesting birds during the month included a couple of Crossbills over the Abberley Hills, a Black Redstart at Defford and a Mealy Redpoll at Ripple. A Red Kite drifted over Tibberton and a Ruff was seen into the New Year at Bredon’s Hardwick.
As the floods rose again in January, a family party of five Whooper Swans joined up to 14 Bewick’s at Longdon Marsh whilst counts of other wintering duck there soared with Pintail reaching 200 Other notable wildfowl included two redhead Smew at Bittell for a few days, these birds being joined by 21 Goosander. A Mediterranean Gull was also seen intermittently at this site over a period of several weeks and a Glaucous Gull roosted at Westwood over a couple of nights. Mid month witnessed the discovery of a party of seven Waxwings at Lower Broadheath for about a week, though surprisingly in view of the number of this attractive winter visitor around nationally, there were no further county sightings. Hawfinches continued to show well at Chase End Hill whilst a flock of 20 Tree Sparrows at Lea End near Bittell was sadly notable as this species becomes increasingly difficult to find anywhere.
Up to four Ruff were seen on and off at Bredon’s Hardwick and Shelduck numbers rose to 26 as they found the feeding on the muddy fields there very much to their liking.
February highlights included a drake Scaup at Bredon’s Hardwick and up to 41 Shelduck at this site by the end of the month. Up to eight Hawfinches were found in the Wyre Forest along with a handful of Bramblings and a couple of Crossbills. A flock of 70 Lesser Redpoll found at Redstone near Stourport contained a few birds resembling Mealy Redpoll – the slightly larger and greyer continental form that has recently been awarded full specific status. A Mediterranean Gull roosted on floods at Upton upon Severn and a Kittiwake visited Westwood. Two Bewick’s Swans at this last location were also noteworthy.
As always March heralded the arrival of the first returning early migrants and despite cold northerly winds, witnessed a typical arrival of Little Ringed Plovers, Wheatears and Sand Martins. Either migrant or overwintering Blackcaps and Chiffchaffs started singing whilst a second bird believed to be a ‘Siberian’ Chiffchaff was found and trapped at Kempsey and adjudged to be an intergrade between this and an adjoining form, on the basis of traces of yellow colouration in its plumage!
Mediterranean Gulls were seen at Arrow Valley Lake and Westwood ant Shelduck numbers peaked at a County record 45 at Bredon’s Hardwick. Three Red-crested Pochard briefly at Bredon’s Hardwick, appeared wild enough amongst a thousand or so Wigeon but suspicions are always raised as to this species’ true origin due to its popularity in captivity and the existence of various feral flocks!
A count of 120 Snipe at Gwen Finch provided a very good recent winter total for the species whilst Black-tailed Godwits were seen at Bredon, Gwen Finch, Kinsham and Lower Moor and Red Kites were watched mid month near Bewdley, Ladywood and Tibberton.
March finished with a bit of a flourish with a Black Redstart proving typically elusive around the new Hospital development in Worcester, a Sandwich Tern lingering for a short while at Grimley and the first Garganey of the year at Lower Moor. Another Mediterranean Gull and the earliest County record of a Common Tern followed at Bredon’s Hardwick.
April started barely any warmer though summer migrants such as Yellow Wagtails and Willow Warblers continued trickling in. A probable immature male Hen Harrier drifted around the Gwen Finch reserve for a short while early month and was followed a day later by a summer plumage Black-necked Grebe at Westwood.
A Firecrest was an unexpected find on the fringes of Ombersley Golf Course but sadly didn’t linger and a Knot at Upton Warren was similarly ‘unobtainable’ due to access restrictions. A Bar-tailed Godwit at Lower Moor demonstrated what can turn up if suitable wetland habitat is maintained – it is only hoped that an area may be set aside for wildlife there to compensate the large scale ‘incursion’ of caravans and chalets currently proceeding on this formal gravel extraction site.
Further migrants included a couple of Ring Ouzels in the extreme north of the County near Wassell Grove and Grasshopper Warbler and Redstart on scrubby ‘wasteland’ at Diglis, Worcester. The period was concluded with the undoubted ‘star bird’ arriving in the form of an overshooting Red-rumped Swallow which showed for a couple of hours around Westwood the second ever County record and perhaps the same bird as seen further south at Slimbridge, Gloucestershire five days previously?
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).
| There are probably more hawfinches in Worcestershire that we suspect, although there is some evidence of a decline. Any records, especially of breeding birds would be of interest. In winter there is a close association with hornbeam trees as the birds are partial to the seeds. There is also a lot of hornbeam scattered through the county as shown by Worcestershire Flora Project. The birds at Chase End Hill use hornbeam, as they do at the famous Ludlow site. – Harry |
Worcestershire Record No. 10 April 2001 p. 6Desk Confinement and Databases. A Report from the BAP Manager |
By Alex Preston, Biodiversity Action Plan Manager, Worcestershire.
One of the less fortunate aspects of my job is that it does not involve directly working in the field carrying out survey work or talking to landowners. Since my previous posts all had a strong element of fieldwork – usually in the pouring rain half-way up a hill in deepest Wales mind you – I have really missed getting out and about. A more important consequence than my quality of life is however that it is sometimes difficult to keep up to date with what is really happening on the ground.
Not suprisingly, those who do have jobs which allow them to get out and about generally prefer to spend their time doing this, rather than responding to requests for information from paper-clip pushers such as myself. (Whilst on the topic of paper clips I was horrified recently to find myself actually complaining to our admin department about the lack of paper clips in the office – I had presumably got bored with re-arranging my desk and shuffling papers.)
However, I am at the moment getting my own back and am making un-ashamed use of the fact that field-workers have being prevented from going out by the foot and mouth outbreak. I don’t want to make light of this horrendous situation – the latest issue of the biodiversity partnership newsletter talks about some of the negative impacts of this outbreak – but I have to say that two individuals at least have been kept busy compiling information relating to the Worcestershire BAP during this grim period.
This information has been in two separate but related areas habitat created or restored, and general activity relating to the various BAP habitats and species. The former, once complete, will be used to start reporting back on how we are progressing towards the numerical targets in the BAP, whilst the latter will be added to an area of the Worcestershire biodiversity website (as part of a general re-vamp) that will provide up to date information on what is going on under the BAP ‘umbrella’ in the county.
Reporting back on Biodiversity Action Plans is a tricky issue for all BAPs, both national and local. I have just spent several days trialing a new database that will track progress on BAP actions and targets – including numerical ones. The intention ultimately is that this database will be available over the internet, and local BAPs will be able to use it to track progress of their own documents. In addition national BAPs will also be plugged into the system, and connections will be made between relevant national and local objectives. For the first time the prospect of activity towards local BAPs being seamlessly tied into the national reporting picture seems possible.
So, hopefully, in the not too distant future reporting on BAP activity at both the local and national level will become much easier, and I can return to pushing paper clips around my desk, and those lucky field workers can get back to the great outdoors.
Lastly, a copy of the latest edition of the Biodiversity Partnership newsletter is enclosed with this issue of The Worcestershire Record. If you would like to be added to the mailing list for this, which is sent out quarterly, then please let me have your name and address. If you have email and would be willing to receive the newsletter via this medium then please also provide me with your email address, as I do hope to be able to do electronic mailings in the not too distant future.
Worcestershire Record No. 10 April 2001 p. 32-36
Progress with the Worcestershire Flora Project
By Bert Reid
The Worcestershire Flora Project has been operating since 1987 with the aim of producing a comprehensive new flora of the area. Nothing comparable has been attempted since Amphlett and Ray’s 1909 flora. After 14 years, considerable progress has been made. General recording is more or less complete with all tetrads in the recording area well covered. Most of the critical groups such the roses, brambles, hawkweeds and dandelions have been given special attention and our coverage here compares well with anywhere in the country.
The remaining fieldwork is now to be concentrated on selected sites and species. There are a number of early records, which have not yet been re-found, and we wish to check if these are genuine losses within the flora. We will concentrate on records from the 1970s and early 1980s. Another outstanding task is to look at those plants that have had recent taxonomic revisions. Where taxa have been split it is desirable to revisit our earlier aggregate records to re-determine them if possible. Unfortunately, the foot and mouth restrictions seem likely to cause us to change our immediate plans.
Away from the field, the main task has been getting the records on to a computer database. The bulk of post 1987 records have been entered and we will have all records to the end of 2000 completed by this autumn. A start has been made on earlier records, mainly those between 1970 and 1986 and this date class is more than half completed. Little work has been done so far on pre-1970 data.
A few selected maps follow to give some idea of where we are up to. The darker dots are records from 1987 onwards and the paler dots represent earlier records. The data is not complete. Some records from 1998 onwards have yet to be entered to the database and the pre-1987 records are very incomplete.
Not all maps tell a lot. The map for the alien willow Salix aegyptiaca shows the one county record, where the bush by the Berwick Brook was probably planted. The Annual Meadow-grass Poa annua map has lots of data but little information. This plant is clearly at home throughout the county. The map for the variegated garden form of Yellow Archangel Lamiastrum galeobdolon ssp argentatum looks more interesting but is hard to relate to any natural features. This increasing garden escape will compete well in many habitats (woodland, plantations, roadsides, ruderal) and the map simply shows the incidence of chance discards. I predict that in future this species will show a much greater coverage
The map for Flowering Rush Butomus umbellatus shows clearly that this is a plant of linear water features. The Rivers Avon, the Severn north of Worcester, and the Teme are all picked out clearly while the records from the Worcester to Birmingham Canal show that still waters are utilised as well as flowing. The concentration of pre-1987 records along the Teme suggests that the plant may have declined in this area. The steep banks with little edge vegetation probably cause the shortage of records from the Severn below Worcester.
The nationally scarce Greater Dodder Cuscuta europaea is another plant of riverbanks, but has a more restricted distribution within Worcestershire. Apart from a very few records on the Lower Severn, the plant is concentrated on the River Avon. The map picks out the curve of the river around Birlingham very clearly. The plant is parasitic on nettles and rarely grows more than a few metres from the water edge. The number of plants varies considerably from year to year, probably related to riverbank clearance. There were no records for Greater Dodder on the Avon before the flora project.
Danish Scurvygrass Cochleria danica is a recent addition to Worcestershire’s flora. This coastal plant has spread along the salted verges of major roads throughout Britain. The map picks out the M50, M5, A449 etc. This map is rather incomplete. Many records are awaiting entry: the missing chunks of the M5 in particular will be filled up once the database is up to date. When complete, the map will be a usable major road map of Worcestershire.
The next three maps are all of plants with a strong preference for acid soils. On these soils, Wavy Hair-grass Deschampsia flexuosa and Heath Bedstraw Galium saxatile are quite common and widespread. They are found across the north of the county, being equally at home on the Lickey Hills, the sandy heaths around Kidderminster, and the more open areas of the Wyre Forest. The also reach the far west of the county on the more acidic areas of the Malverns. Heather Calluna vulgaris has much the same distribution but is generally scarcer. It is unable to withstand heavy grazing and competes poorly on the better soils.
The next three calcifuge species are more demanding. Bilberry Vaccinium myrtillus will not grow on the dry sands but is reasonably shade tolerant. It has its stronghold in the Wyre Forest with smaller populations on the Lickey Hills and Malverns. It is absent from the sandy heaths around Kidderminster. Knotted Clover Trifolium striatum and Sheep’s-bit Jasione montana have the opposite preference, needing well drained open soils. For these plants, the Kidderminster area is the main centre.
These are followed by a map shows the coincidence of the six calcifuge plants shown above. The dot size is determined by how -many of the six taxa have been found in each tetrad with larger dots signifying more species. The absence from the centre and southeast is very striking even the few records around Pershore are only non-persistent records introduced with building sand etc. Otherwise the map is a pretty accurate representation of the acid soils of the county.
The map for Common Rock-rose Helianthemum nummularium is very different. This plant is virtually restricted to well-drained calcareous soils, and the map shows the limestone areas very clearly. The records are concentrated on the Cotswold edge above Broadway, Bredon Hill, and the western areas around the Suckley Hills. Other records pick out similar soils such as the Rhaetic limestone of Bishampton Bank and limestone bands in the Lower Lias around Trench Wood.
The Dwarf Thistle Cirsium acaule has similar requirements to the Rock-rose with the same concentrations on the Broadway Cotswolds and Bredon Hill but with many fewer records on the western hills. It is also found in some Lias clay meadows, especially on the ridges of old ridge and furrow meadows.
The Hairy Violet Viola hirta is less concerned about good drainage and can be found on the more calcareous marls, giving it a wider distribution in the county. Woolly Thistle Cirsium eriophorum cannot tolerate very heavy grazing, but can compete well in the taller vegetation of rough grassland. Tor Grass Brachypodium pinnatum has a marked southeastern distribution: outside this stronghold it tends to be restricted to habitats such as churchyards and railway banks. Each of these calcicoles have slightly different preferences which are mirrored in their distributions.
Moschatel Adoxa moschata is widespread in the north of the county, though only very locally common. It is also found in woodlands around Broadway in the southeast, and in the southwestern tip of the county, but is entirely absent from the marls and clays of the centre. Toothwort Lathraea squamaria is much more restricted with not one record from the whole southeast half of the county. This plant is parasitic on Hazel, which is common throughout our area. It is not obvious why the plant is so restricted, especially since it is not uncommon in its core area.
Narrow-leaved Water-dropwort Oenanthe silaifolia has a very specific habitat requirement. It is found on unimproved meadows within the Severn and Avon flood plains and can be abundant in the best spots. This is a nationally scarce species, and our populations are of national importance.
Dwarf Spurge Euphorbia exigua is an arable weed. Like many once common weeds it has suffered a severe decline throughout Britain as a result of agricultural intensification. As the map shows, it is still quite widespread in Worcestershire, especially in the southeast, though it is usually only present in small numbers. The records for this and for other scarce weeds suggest that Worcestershire has suffered a little less than most parts of the country from excessive agricultural herbicide use.
Canadian Fleabane Conyza canadensis is an alien found mainly in ruderal habitats, though it occasionally appears in arable. The map shows the main cities and towns with almost compete coverage, but with many fewer records from the most rural areas.
The distribution of Toothed Medick Medicago polymorpha is difficult to interpret. At first glance it might be thought that it is a scarce native of river terrace soils but it is almost certainly not native in the county. The true explanation for its distribution requires a knowledge of past cultivation practices. It probably arrived with wool shoddy, which was once used to improve low fertility soils. The map mainly shows where wool shoddy was used in the county.
The final map is of Narrow-leaved Bird’s-foot-trefoil Lotus glaber. This has an unusual distribution in the county centred on the area in SO95 around Grafton Flyford. This is typical ancient countryside on Lias clays, with many small hedged fields, winding lanes and small woods. The plant typically grows on green lanes or species rich verges. The Lias areas to the south in SO94 are quite different in character, having a long history of cultivation, and the Lotus is absent from here.
These few maps are intended to give a brief indication of the use to which the data collected over 14 years can be put. Worcestershire is a county of great contrasts, with complex geology, land use, climate and history. When the flora is written, the interpretation of distribution patterns will be much more comprehensive and rigorous than my brief un-researched comments here, but I hope this taster will whet a few appetites for the main course.
Worcestershire Record No. 10 April 2001 p. 19
Worcestershire Moth Report 2000
By Dr.A.N.B.Simpson
Macros.
Resident species.
The highlight of last year was the discovery of the Pauper Pug E. egenaria , when two worn males came to light at Shrawley wood on 3/6/00. Attempts to find it amongst the Small-leaved Limes there on three previous occasions had failed, perhaps because flowering Limes on which it feeds are local in the huge area of lime coppice. This is an RDB3 species only otherwise found in the U.K. in the Wye Valley and in Norfolk.
Dotted Chestnut C.rubiginea was recorded again at Malvern Wells by Peter Holmes, and for the first time at Upper Welland by Ian Duncan. Mike Southall had a single Barred Hook-tip D.cultraria at Crossway Green, a local species in the county. Kevin McGee photographed a Sycamore A.aceris on a tree trunk at Drakes Broughton on 24/7/00 . This is the first confirmed record this century, although there have been three other unconfirmed records since 1970. Ian Duncan had a Tawny Pinion L.semibrunnea at light at Upper Welland on 2/10/00, a rare moth with only four other records since 1970. Buff Footman E.deplana continues to spread, with records in Shrawley Wood, Wyre Forest, Malvern Wells, and at Bredon Hill. A single Red-necked Footman A.rubricollis was found in the bottom of a moth-trap as the county moth group was rushing to pack things up in torrential rain at the end of a night at Shrawley Wood, and was almost missed! This could have been a migrant or possibly a resident as it was in the middle of the wood close to some conifers, which I am told is a favourite habitat of this species in Northern Ireland.
The County ‘Mothers’ Group, as it likes to be called!, had a regular light-trapping programme at various sites throughout the county last year, and Neil and Corrinda Gregory have an even more ambitious programme planned for this year. Rosemary Winnall organised regular light-trapping meetings at Park Farm in Wyre Forest which recorded most of the Wyre Forest specialities e.g. Alder Kitten, Satin Lutestring, Bilberry Pug, Lead-coloured Pug, Great Oak Beauty, Angle-barred Sallow in good numbers, and has planned another recording programme based around the Lodge Hill Farm area for this year.
Migrants.
Last year was better than usual in our landlocked county for passing visitors! There was an influx of migrants from early June, with good numbers of common migrants such as Silver Y and the Pyralids Nomophila noctuella and Udea ferrugalis, and a Small Mottled Willow S.exigua at Bransford on 20/6/00, and Mike Southall had a Bordered Straw H.peltigera at Crossway Green on 3/7/00. There were a number of Vestal R.sacraria recorded from 20 to 29/August; Rosemary Winnall at Bliss Gate, Mike Southall at Crossway Green, and by me at Bransford, including several flushed from arable fields in daylight. Then I had a Scarce Bordered Straw H.annigera at Bransford on 10/9/00, and Mike Southall another at Crossway Green on 511 0/00. There were at least six Humming-bird Hawk-moths M.stellatarum records scattered throughout the county, and David Green had a Convolvulus Hawkmoth A.convolvuli at Little Comberton in September, and Harry Green was called to see another at Longdon in the same month. Finally on 18/12/00 Peter Gamer noticed an unfamiliar moth in his house, some four days after leaving open his upstairs windows in the unseasonal warm wet weather. This turned out to be a new county record. At first thought to be a Tunbridge Wells Gem, we finally decided it must be a female Golden Twin-spot C.chalcites, which although not as rare is still a very nice record for our inland county. This species may now be breeding in heated greenhouses in the U.K., but this moth came to us at the end of a long spell of warm southerly winds which might well have brought it up from the Canaries where it is common.
Micros.
There were seven new microlepidopteran species recorded in VC 37 last year; Opostega crepusculella, Metzneria lappella, and Piniphila bifasciana at Tiddesley Wood, Pammene albuginana at Wyre Forest and Shrawley wood, Acrolepiopsis assectella at Bransford possibly a migrant or adventitious on Allium spps., Cochylis dubitana at Kings Heath specimens collected by Dave Grundy, and Plodia interpunctella infesting a bag of birdseed in my garage.
Other records of note were; Incurvaria praelatella in Wyre Forest second county record, Triaxomera fulvimitrella in Wyre Forest only previous record by Stuart Carlier also in Wyre Forest in 1929, Elachista luticomella in Wyre Forest (last records in 1800’s), and Schoenobius forficella amongst Glyceria maxima in a marsh at Stourport (only second modem county record).
Worcestershire Record No. 10 April 2001 p. 13-17
Wintering Gulls in Worcestershire
By Peter Stewart
During the period January 1976 to December 1996 two independent gull groups, but with similar aims, collected data relating to the numbers, movements and migration of gulls feeding at landfill sites. Both groups’ cannon-netted birds on landfill sites and fitted the birds with British Trust for Ornithology (BTO) supplied rings. For the Worcestershire and Warwickshire Wintering Gull Project (1976 – 1988), research was carried out on landfill sites in Worcestershire, Warwickshire, and parts of the West Midlands. Many individuals were involved in this project; too many to list here but included members of the Worcester Gull Group, Arden Ringing Group, and the Coleshill Ringing Group. Most of the findings from this project were published, including valuable data relating to the incidence of Salmonella in gulls. This involved cloacal swabbing and the collecting of faecal samples for microbiological examination. The Severn Estuary Gull Group (SEGG) netted birds on landfill sites in Gloucestershire, Hereford & Worcestershire during the period 1986 – 1996. This small group is still very much active, but confines its activities to landfill sites in Gloucestershire. This paper combines the results of the work carried out by both groups, for the County of Worcestershire, and for the period 1976 – 1996 only, and referred to hereafter as this study. It gives the number of birds caught and ringed and summaries of all known recoveries, controls and retraps. It also includes personal observations of the author who is a member of the Severn Estuary Gull Group, and has made a study of gulls at landfill sites and elsewhere for the last 18 years.
Part 1. The Black-headed Gull L. ridibundus
Foreign breeding birds heavily supplement the breeding population of the Black-headed Gull in Britain that winter in the Country. The total number of wintering birds that winter in Britain and Ireland is in the order of 3,000,000 birds, with some two thirds of foreign origin. It is the most commonly ringed gull in Britain, 330,000 from 1909 – 1998 (Clarke et al 2000), with some 17,000 recoveries, mainly abroad. This study has established that a large number of foreign birds winter in Worcestershire, and particularly birds from the Low Countries. Retraps have shown that many are faithful to this wintering area, both in the same year and subsequent years. There is also a strong tendency to use the same landfill site. One individual coloured ringed in Denmark in 1988, with a White Darvic inscribed U15, is a regular visitor to this area, and was last observed at Throckmorton in January of this year. Many birds ringed during the 1976 – 1988 project were being caught by the Severn Estuary Gull Group up to 18 years later. Those that do not stay in the area during winter tend to remain in the Midlands or move to coastal areas (Stewart 1995, 1996).
Number of birds caught
A total of 4345 Black-headed Gulls were caught at landfill sites in Worcestershire during this study. Of this total, 142 birds were already ringed, including 83 birds that were ringed elsewhere by other groups or individuals (controls), and 59 retraps of own birds.
Foreign controls
A total of 51 foreign ringed birds were controlled, 82% of these were ringed as pulli on nesting sites. The oldest bird controlled had been ringed as a pullus in June 1975 in Poland and caught at the ripe old age of 16 years 8 months in February 1992 at the Throckmorton landfill site. A summary of all controls is given in Table 1 and the geographical distribution of ringing sites for pulli controlled in the study area are shown in Figure 1.
Controls of British ringed birds
During the 1976 – 1988 project 22 BTO ringed birds were controlled, 45% of these had been ringed as pulli on nesting sites. The oldest control was 15 years 7 months and involved a bird ringed as a pullus in June 1966 at Powys in Wales, and controlled at Madeley Heath in January 1982. Seven of the 10 birds controlled by the Severn Estuary Gull Group (SEGG) had been ringed during the 1976 – 1988 project, including a bird that was ringed at the Evesham landfill site in January 1978 and caught at nearby Throckmorton in December 1996. Another individual, ringed in February 1979 at Throckmorton, was caught there again in December 1990. Of the three remaining birds controlled by SEGG only one was ringed as a pullus in Britain. The ringing sites for those ringed as pulli are shown in Figure 1.
Retraps
Site fidelity for this species was established during this study. A total of 59 birds were retrapped, 36 birds at the same site where ringed, seven in the same winter. Of those retrapped at another site, five were in the same winter.
Recoveries
Recoveries includes birds found and released by members of the public, rings read in the field, and recaptures by other ringers some distance from the ringing site. A total of 361 recoveries have been reported up to the end of 1998, a recovery rate of 8.6%. There were 199 recoveries abroad (Table 2), and 162 in Britain. The oldest recovery is 18 years 3 months. This bird, ringed at Madeley Heath in January 1980 and observed in Finland in May 1998, created a new longevity record for this species from BTO ringing at that time. However, the new holder of the longevity record is a bird that was ringed in March 1972 at a reservoir in Surrey and observed in Holland in June 1998, still very much alive 26 years 3 months after being ringed. While 85% of foreign recoveries involve dead or dying birds, or birds deliberately shot or killed by man, only 75% are recovered in Britain in similar circumstances. Man deliberately takes large numbers of birds in Finland and Sweden, in particular those involved in Mink farming (Kjeld Pedersen). The longest distance travelled is 2565 km, involving a bird that was ringed in January 1979 at Hallow, Worcester, and recovered dead in June 1982 near Solnechnogorsk, Moscow. This is the longest distance travelled by any gull ringed during this study. Figure 2 shows the geographical distribution of all foreign recoveries. Figure 3 shows that the life span of birds from ringing to recovery is 0-18 years, with an average life span of 4.6 years, with only 40% of the recoveries exceeding this figure. Thirty birds (8%) were recovered in the same year as ringed.
Table 1. Controls of foreign ringed Black-headed Gulls
| Country ringed | Fin | Nor | Swe | Bal* | Pol | Den | Ger | Hol | Bel | Fra |
| Site controlled | ||||||||||
| Evesham | – | – | – | 1 | – | 1 | – | 2 | 1 | – |
| Throckmorton | – | 4 | – | 4 | 2 | 2 | – | 2 | 4 | 1 |
| Hallow Worcs | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | – | 3 | – | – | 2 | – |
| Martley, Worcs | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | – | – | – | – |
| Droitwich | – | – | – | 2 | – | 1 | 1 | – | – | – |
| Madeley Heath | 3 | – | 1 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | – |
| Totals | 4 | 5 | 2 | 12 | 3 | 9 | 2 | 5 | 9 | 1 |
* Estonia, Latvia & Lithuania
Table 2. Foreign recoveries of Black-headed Gulls by region and month of recovery.
| Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Total | |
| Region | |||||||||||||
| Finland | – | – | 1 | 6 | 9 | 13 | 8 | 3 | – | – | – | – | 40 |
| Norway | – | – | – | 1 | 2 | 3 | 2 | – | – | – | – | – | 8 |
| Sweden | 1 | – | – | 3 | 6 | 8 | 7 | 1 | 1 | – | – | – | 27 |
| Baltic | – | – | 1 | 1 | – | 1 | 1 | – | – | 1 | – | – | 5 |
| Russia | – | – | – | 1 | – | 3 | 1 | – | – | – | – | – | 5 |
| Poland | – | – | 1 | – | – | – | 1 | – | – | – | – | – | 2 |
| Denmark | – | – | 6 | 6 | 10 | 7 | 6 | 6 | 3 | 2 | – | 1 | 47 |
| Germany | 1 | – | 3 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 6 | – | 1 | – | 2 | – | 26 |
| Holland | 1 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 8 | 12 | 4 | 2 | – | 1 | 1 | 1 | 37 |
| Belgium | 1 | – | 1 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 2 |
| Total | 4 | 2 | 16 | 23 | 43 | 49 | 36 | 12 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 199 |
Part 2. The Herring Gull L.argentatus
In addition to British breeding birds L.a.argenteus, this study established that birds from northern Norway and NW Russia L.a.argentatus, also winter in the study area (Stewart 1995). These large and darker mantled birds usually arrive in late October, occasionally in September, but are not observed in any numbers until late December and then depart again in February. The number of birds involved and the timing of arrival and departure is very much dependent on weather conditions. Birds showing the ‘thayeri’ wing tip patterns are also caught and observed (see below). A small number of immature/non-breeding northern birds are also observed at the landfill sites in summer.
Number of birds caught
Only 414 Herring Gulls were caught during this study, including two controls and four retraps. The two controls were adult birds of the British race, and neither originally ringed at their breeding sites. The first control was ringed at a landfill site near Strathclyde, Scotland in October 1979 and caught at Hollow, Worcester in January 1980, and the second bird was ringed at Barwell, Leicestershire in October 1980 and caught at Throckmorton in November 1987. Of the four birds retrapped, all had been ringed at another site.
In addition to the BTO metal ring, individually inscribed coloured Darvic rings are now being fitted to gulls, and in Europe many organisations only use Darvic rings. This has very much increased the recovery rate of gulls. From my own observations of colour-ringed gulls at the Throckmorton landfill site it has been established that Herring Gulls, ringed as pulli at nesting sites on the rooftops in Bristol, are frequent visitors with 43 sightings of 28 bird individually colour-ringed birds. A bird coloured ringed as a pullus in Weymouth, Dorset also visited Throckmorton in October 1997.
Recoveries
A total of 30 Herring Gull recoveries have been reported, a recovery rate of 5%. Eight of the recoveries were abroad, all involving L.a.argentatus, and 22 in Britain and Ireland. A bird, ringed at Madeley Heath in January 1980 and shot at a ‘Garbage Dump’ near Alta, Finnmark, Norway in May 1986, had travelled a distance of 2353 km. The geographical distributions of all recoveries are shown in Figures 4 & 5.
‘Thayeri’ wing tip patterns (Figures 6 & 7)
According to Barth (1969), 27% of Herring Gulls breeding in northern Scandinavia show the ‘thayeri’ wing tip pattern (Figures 6 & 7). It has been found in Herring Gulls from NW Russia; 27% (of 59) skins examined in the Zoological Museums of Leningrad and Moscow Universities (Coulson et al. 1984). Many bird are caught which show characters in their wing patterns typical of those shown by hybrid argenteus x argentatus in Iceland, but the subject is too complex and lengthy to deal with here.
Figure 6. The ‘thayeri’ pattern is usually characterised by the grey area on the inner web on the 9th primary extending uninterrupted by black pigment into the white mirror.
Figure 7. (a) Wing tip pattern of a Herring Gull caught in January 1992. This bird exhibited the ‘thayeri’ wing tip pattern typical of those from the breeding populations of northern Scandinavia and NW Russia. (b) Wing tip pattern typical of British Herring Gull L.a.argenteus. Wing tip patterns for both can be highly variable.
| (a) L.a. argentatus | (b) L.a. argenteus |
Part 3. The Yellow-legged Gull L. cachinnans

The Yellow-legged Gull L. cachinnans also occur in small numbers, most typical of the Mediterranean race michahellis, but occasionally birds showing characters typical of ‘ponticus’ (Black Sea-type) cachinnans are observed. Some authorities treat these ‘Black Sea-types’ as a full species, Caspian Gull L. cachinnans. Wing tip patterns for both types are shown in Figure 8. As with northern argentatus small numbers of immature/non-breeding michahellis are also present at the landfill sites in summer. A Yellow-legged Gull colour ringed as a pullus on Plane Island, Riou Archipelago, Marseille, and SE France in May 1999 was observed two months later at the Throckmorton landfill site. Birds ringed in Switzerland and Berlenga Island, Portugal have been caught in nearby Gloucestershire.
Figure 8. (a) Wing tip pattern of L.c. michahellis of unknown origin. (b) Wing tip pattern typical of ponticus (Black Sea-type) cachinnans. Like argentatus, wing tip patterns for both types can be highly variable.
| (a) L.c. michahellis | (b) Black Sea-type cachinnans |
Breeding
There is one instance of an adult male Yellow-legged Gull L.c. michahellis successfully breeding with a Lesser Black-backed Gull L.fuscus in the County. This was not an unexpected event as colonisation of a new area by gulls usually begins by hybridisation with closely related forms. In Germany and France the expansion of Yellow-legged Gulls also led to hybridisation with either Herring Gull or Lesser Black-backed Gull. However, in Holland only hybrid pairs have so far occurred (Van Swelm 1998).
To be continued…..
Worcestershire Record No. 10 April 2001 p. 20
Social Wasps and Bumble Bees
By Geoff Trevis
The two distribution rnaps show the current state of the BRC records for the Common Wasp, Vespula vulgaris and the Hornet, Vespa crabro. Clearly something is wrong as at face value the two species are equally common and widespread. In reality, of course, the Common Wasp could almost certainly be found in every tetrad whilst the Hornet is much more restricted. These records go back to the 1950’s and, I suspect, will be over-estimating the occurrence of the Homet. The situation with Bumble Bees is probably even worse though I have not yet plotted their distributions.
Map showing tetrad records of common wasp Vespula vulgaris
Map showing tetrad records of hornet Vespa crabro
I think we should be able to update the records fairly easily and I am asking for your help in doing so. First, if you feel confident in making an identification then I would be very grateful to receive any records of social wasps and bumble bees which can be sent to me by post or e-mail (details below). Second, if you could send me any specimens you may collect, even if they have been extracted from the jam pot or your glass of beer I will identify them. I will also send details to the BRC, and let you know what you have found. It should be possible to identify even specimens that have received the rolled up newspaper treatment, provide they are not too mashed! Also, look out along the edges of roads as many bumble bees end up there after having been hit by cars. If you do send anything, please remember of include your name, the date and where you found the specimen, preferably with a grid reference (though not essential).
Whilst I would like to concentrate on updating the records for the social wasps and bumble bees, if any entomologists have aculeate hymenoptera (including ants), which they obtain in the course of their collecting and do not want, I would be very glad to receive them.
Records can be sent to Geoff Trevis: email geoff.trevis@btintemet.com.
Worcestershire Record No. 10 April 2001 p. 5
This article is outdated and remains for Archive purposes only
The BRC – Building an Effective Database
By Geoff Trevis
The future of the BRC depends critically on the development of its management structure, on funding and on putting in place the protocols to achieve NBN accreditation. Other articles in this edition of the Record deal with these aspects but without an extensive, detailed and well managed database all else is doomed to failure. The database and its management have been in the hands of volunteers, including John Meiklejohn, the BRC Manager, virtually since the inception of the Centre and, more recently, John Partridge has been a regular at Lower Smite Farm.
Shortly after transferring the records to Lower Smite Farm I felt it was vital that voluntary recorders had a strong input into the decisions about how data is collected, used and stored and what the minimum data set for a record should be. To this end I invited a representative selection of active recorders and computer database experts to a meeting to discuss these issues. Initially we met in a pub which I hoped would provide a relaxed and informal atmosphere in which problems could be aired and everybody could have a say. It quickly became apparent that something more formal was needed and a setting required which allowed everybody to participate. We, therefore, transferred to the Trust H.Q..
Several meetings have been held covering vital issues about data input and collection and the information required. Contacts have been made with people holding databases regarding particular groups or geographical areas and agreement reached about lodging data with the BRC. These other groups include Mike Averil’s dragonfly records, Butterfly Conservation’s records and records from the Wyre Forest Study Group. We hope that data from other groups will follow. We have also discussed the concept of site definition and naming for use with the definitive BRC data, using Recorder 2000, and we will be dealing more fully with matters of release and use of data. At the same time we have been dealing with questions of what data needs to be collected, where the gaps are and what we can do to address the problems. You will also be aware of the recording days organised for the group by Harry Green, the public appeals which have gone out for data and that Harry is developing a project to update and publish the Mammals Atlas. We try to keep you up to date with progress through the Worcestershire Record and the annual recorder’s meeting.
The Group is myself (chairman), Harry Green, John Meiklejohn, John Partridge, Bert Reid, Martyn Hodgson, Patrick Taylor and Gary Farmer. Our objective is to ensure that the input from volunteers is of the highest quality and is providing data in the most efficient way to maximise the value of your work. If you have any ideas about the centre or any other matters you would like to raise please do contact me or any other member of the group. I should stress that we are not the formal management team of the centre but rather an informal group meeting to provide the forum for volunteer input.
Worcestershire Record No. 10 April 2001 p. 9
Merlin Falco columbarius in SE Worcestershire
By Mark E Turner
Although this species over-winters in our area annually it is often overlooked and I suspect regularly mistaken for Sparrowhawk Accipiter nisus.
09.15 hrs on 29th January 2001. Whilst driving along Broadway to Leamington Road, a fast moving, ground-hugging bird of prey caught my eye as it sped across a large lawned area. Its tiny size instantly narrowed the possibilities to male Sparrowhawk or Merlin. Although the observation was brief, the image was clear. Underparts appeared pale and not barred and short pointed wings angled back. There was no suggestion of flickering wing-beats, interspersed with short glides as per Accipiters, but continuous purposeful, powered flight. The plumage was not coarsely patterned, therefore I ruled out female/juvenile Merlin. In conclusion I am happy my bird was an adult male Merlin.
The same week I received a report of a “small blue bird of prey” with pointed wings flying across the road ahead of the observers near Saintbury.
Interestingly on 5th February at 07:35 hrs, Christine, my wife, described a fast, hedge-hopping, thrush-sized bird of prey near Childswickham, which she is convinced bore no resemblance to a Sparrowhawk.
Other sightings I have made in recent years have been Harvington February 1996, Bretforton December 1996 and March/April 1997, and Harvington October 1997.
Worcestershire Record No. 10 April 2001 p. 12
Wintering Chiffchaffs, Phylloscopus collybita, and its sub-species, At Worcestershire Sewage Works.
By Andy Warr
The last few years have seen a heightened interest in the identity of chiffchaff races visiting Britain in the winter months. For the second consecutive winter Worcestershire has been firmly placed on the ornithological map for its status in hosting eastern race chiffchaffs, with the race Phylloscopus collybita tristris, otherwise known at the Siberian Chiffchaff, creating much excitement throughout the birding fraternity.
Again (in winter 2000-2001) all three races were observed, with exceptional numbers of the northern nominate chiffchaffs, Ph. collybita collybita plus a good sprinkling of Ph. collybita abietinus, named Scandinavian Chiffchaff, and the much rarer Ph. collybita tristris Siberian Chiffchaff, as annual vagrants to our shores.
The recent phenomenon seems in part due to the increasingly mild winters, but their choice of habitat is dictated solely by a ready and consistent supply of food and shelter and some of our sewage farms fit all these requirements. The old-style rotary filtration pans attract an abundance of insect life throughout the year and although greatly reduced in the winter months, can still sustain a handful of birds, even during a hard frost period.
A surprise is, despite extensive searching for eastern chiffchaffs at sewage farms throughout the west midlands, all other counties have drawn a total blank. In fact the majority of records come from the south-western counties of England, where this trend has been around for some years.
Just four of the sixteen sewage farms explored in the county this winter held chiffchaffs, indicating not all are appropriate. A main factor appears to be their proximity to a main river course, with the additional benefits of a sheltered location. Filtration pans with a high brick wall surround or in close proximity to thick vegetation is also favourable. Conifers such as leylandi and dense hedgerow also provide considerable shelter and an ideal roosting site
By mid October Worcestershire summering chiffchaffs had departed for a warmer climate in southern Europe or Africa, but another couple of weeks saw the arrival of our first wintering nominate chiffchaffs from northern Britain and south-west Scandinavia. The sub-species abietinus arrived by mid November followed by tristris in mid December.
Three out of the four sewage farms recorded eastern race chiffchaffs: Kempsey and Upton-upon Severn, both along the Severn valley, plus Lower Moor in the Avon valley. The final location in Malvern held small numbers of chiffchaffs, but the races were undetermined.
Kempsey sewage works became the most popular destination for visiting bird watchers this winter, holding two tristris type, one of which was subsequently believed to show characteristics at sub-tristris intergrade after being trapped and ringed. Named fulvescens, this sub-race is better lumped with tristris rather than abietinus. Three abietinus and a dozen nominate chiffchaffs were also present. The Lower Moor site attracted one tristris, accompanied by three abietinus and at least four nominate. Finally one tristris, two abietinus, and a dozen nominate frequented Upton-upon-Severn.
The identification of eastern race chiffchaffs.
ssp tristris (Siberian chiffchaff). From the Ural area, Siberia.
Size similar to nominate, but can appear rather bull-necked. Overall pale looking, with brown-grey upper parts and white under parts, so looking sandy when compare with other races. Shows a prominent buff supercilium, dark eye-stripe, and rustic ear coverts and axillaries. Has a black alula and an indistinct eye ring. The nape becomes greyer as the winter progresses and olive-green tinges are present on the rump, back, scapulars plus edge of wing and tail feathers. The flanks are buff, legs and bill dark and often shows a pale wing bar.
Call is reminiscent of a bullfinch, a mournful straight or down-slurred call.
ssp abietinus (Scandinavian chiffchaff) From north and north-east Scandinavia.
Larger on average than nominate, with more greyish green upper parts, and whiter under parts, showing less yellow throughout. Ear coverts, sides of breast and flanks washed buff. Supercilium yellow-tinted and much less prominent behind eye. Shows a prominent eye-ring and often has a pale wing bar. Always looks darker and greyer than a pale sandy tristris type. Legs tend to be dark, but can on occasions be quite pale. Bill dark, with pale base to lower mandible. Call similar to nominate.
Sub-tristris intergrade, tristris x abietinus.
Tristris intergrades over a wide area with abietinus, producing birds of variable characteristics. Birds with any apparent tinged olive-green on the crown, nape or mantle plus yellow on eyelid, supercilium, sides of throat and breast should be referred to as a sub-tritris or tristris x abietinus.
The sub-tristris birds trapped at Kempsey showed a yellow tint on the upper eyelid and a few olive-green flecks to the crown and mantle, but these features were only visible with the bird in the hand, proving that extreme care is required when identifying true tristris
Site references
Kempsey Sewage Farm. Access via Old Road south, Kempsey, two miles south of Worcester. SO 847484
Upton-upon-Severn sewage farm. Access via public footpath half a mile west of Upton. SO 845405
Malvern sewage farm. Access via public footpath just east of Great Malvern. SO 800448
References
If you are unfamiliar with Chiffchaff subspecies and similar Phylloscopus warbler species try Cramp, S (ed) 1992 The Birds of the Western Palearctic, volume 6 for a start! (Ed).
Ph. collybita tristris Siberian Chiffchaff drawn by Andy Web
Worcestershire Record No. 10 April 2001 p. 36-37
An Unwelcome Aquatic Invader!
By Will Watson
[The purpose of this article is to remind readers about the problems caused by alien water weeds. Anyone creating a pond should take great care not obtain them and to complain if they see them at pond suppliers, garden centres etc. Crassula helmsii is potentially one of the most serious aliens as it smothers everything else and is very difficult to eradicate. Worcestershire Flora Project would also like any records from the reasonably wild!]
Crassula helmsii, is commonly known as New Zealand Pigmyweed or Australian Swamp Stonecrop. Just to confuse things further it was sold! under the name Tillaea recurva in 1927 as a submerged oxygenating aquatic and it is this name which is still used by the nurseries selling it. In the New Flora of the British Isles (Stace), which follows the new standard list of vascular plants by Douglas Kent, it is referred to as New Zealand Pigmyweed – so this is the name we will use.
Crassula helmsii (drawing adapted from Information Sheet 14 from Centre for Aquatic Plant Management
New Zealand Pigmyweed is a succulent aquatic perennial herb from Australasia. In recent decades it has become a highly invasive plant in the British Isles. It has a creeping growth form, which produces roots from the nodes. It has the ability to reproduce rapidly by vegetative means in the process producing dense mats of vegetation. Submerged populations remain in the vegetative state. The stems have pairs of unstalked opposite leaves (4-20 mm) attached to rigid stems. Where the leaves join the stem there is a collar about 1 mm high. This is a distinctive characteristic which allows the plant to be distinguished from other plants such as Callitriche spp. (Dawson). The leaves have a sharp or bluntish tip. Flowers appear in the emergent growth form only. They are stalked and solitary, forming at the base of the leaves, and four-petelled, white with filaments and black anthers and appear between July and September. It is a well rooted plant and can reach a maximum depth 1.3m in clear water. In water depths of less than 0.5m growth usually becomes dense, with much branching. In summer when the water level draws down the stems become emergent. Under these conditions, the plant forms typical dense mats with sprawling stems with many side shoots.
Competition between New Zealand Pigmyweed and other species often results in total suppression of native plants. Very few plants can out-compete New Zealand Pigmyweed. It has the ability to colonise a variety of different habitats and occurs in both acid and alkaline waters. The smallest stem fragments of this plant strike in moist conditions. It is spread into wildlife ponds by well meaning gardeners, transferred by anglers or occasionally by naturalists pond dipping. It has even known to have been transferred on people’s boots. It is currently known from over 1, 000 (Mendick) sites in the British Isles. It is now widespread but local within Worcestershire (the Worcestershire Flora Project has, to date, records from 29 terads (2×2 km squares – see map). It is more common within garden ponds than within the wider countryside since it is sold as an aquatic plant from nurseries. However, because of its rapid means of dispersal it is becoming increasingly common within semi-natural still water-bodies.
Once established it causes all sorts of problems. Having being introduced, by accident or design, into the pond at Berrow Down, Castlemorton Common, it outcompeted all the native aquatic plants. The pond was the only recorded site within the county with all three species of newt. Great Crested Newts Triturus cristatus have now failed to breed within the pond because they cannot lay their eggs on the succulent leaves. In Surrey it is threatening the existence Starfruit Damasonium alisma one of Britain’s rarest aquatic plants. The latter is known from only nine locations and at five of the them Pigmyweed is threatening to swamp it. There are many other such examples that could be cited.
Tetrad (2×2 km square) map showing records to date of Crassula helmsii held by Worcestershire Flora project. Although there are relatively few records they are (worryingly) scattered throughout the county. The species undoubtedly also occurs in garden ponds not seen by the Project.
If you find this plant and are thinking of control do not try and remove it manually, as it is likely you’ll do more harm than good, because the plant easily breaks up and each fragment can grow into a new plant. Get further information first. You can obtain the leaflet Crassala helmsii – Focus on control from English Nature. If you still need further advice the Worcestershire Wildlife Trust may be able to help.
References
| Centre for Aquatic Plant Management. Control of Crassula helmsii (Australian Swamp Stonecrop). Information Sheet 14. Long Ashton Research Station. | |
| DAWSON, F.H. Crassula helmsii – Focus on control. English Nature, Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Institute of Terrestrial Ecology. | |
| DAWSON, F.H. & LEACH, J. April 1999. British Wildlife. Crassula helmsii in the British Isles. | |
| KENT, D.H. 1992. List of vascular plants of the British Isles. Botanical Society of the British Isles. | |
| MENDICK, R. 23rd April 2000 Independent ‘Alien invasion destroys pond life.’ | |
| PRESTON, C.D., & CROFT, J.M. 1997. Aquatic Plants in Britain and Ireland. Harley Books, Colchester. | |
| STACE, C. 1997. New flora of the British Isles. (Second Edition). Cambridge University Press. | |
| WATSON. W.R.C. 1999. Froglog. Newsletter of the Declining Amphibian Task Force. Number 3 1. ‘Amphibians and Crassula helmsii. |
Worcestershire Record No. 10 April 2001 p. 47
Wolves in Worcestershire (Never mind the big cats – keep a look out for Wolves)
By Will Watson
One of the more surprising facts, which emerged from Derek Yaldon’s excellent book ‘The History of British Mammals’, were that the Wolf Canis lupus was still quite common within the Worcestershire countryside and large parts of lowland Britain in the 13th Century. That is until concerted efforts were made to eradicate them. Indeed the reason we know anything about their distribution at all is due to these campaigns funded and patronised by the royalty.
In the reign of Henry III (1216-1272), wolves were sufficiently numerous that he gave grants of land to various individuals upon the express condition that they take measures to destroy Wolves wherever they could be found. They were also common enough to be hunted for sport, as foxes are today, except of course this right was reserved for the King and his entourage.
However, as sheep farming, particularly in lowland England became more lucrative in the 13th Century, due to profits made from the sale of wool, more intensive farming methods were employed. Inevitably conflicts between sheep and Wolves became more commonplace (This pattern has been repeated throughout Europe. Currently Wolves are under threat in Transylvania because of changing farming practices. (BBC The Natural World 25th March 2001 Living with Carnivores).
There is little doubt that it was for economic reasons that Edward I (1272-1307) commissioned Peter Corbet in 1281 to destroy all the Wolves he could find in the counties of Worcestershire, Herefordshire, Gloucestershire, Shropshire and Staffordshire. This was a serious matter and bailiffs within the region were directed to be ready to assist him. He was obviously quite successful because he ended being paid handsomely and knighted for his services! It wasn’t only Wolves which were hunted, Foxes Vulpes vulpes and Wild Cats Felis silvestris were also treated as ‘vermin’. It is very likely that Wolves disappeared from Worcestershire around this period because all later reliable references of Wolves being hunted come from counties to the north. Just for the record Wolves were still being hunted in Lancashire in the early 14th Century and were considered to be still common within the Caledonia pine forests of Scotland in the reign of Mary (1547-1587). Wolves were finally driven to extinction in Scotland around 1700 (Yaldon).
Circumstantial evidence for Wolves also comes from Wolf place-names. Unfortunately Wolverley and Wolverton in Worcestershire are, according to the English Place-names dictionary, not associated with Wolves but with personal names. However, Wolvey in Warwickshire is thought to originate from the Old English wulf-hege ‘an enclosure to stock from sheep’. Coincidentally, eleven years ago I was responsible for the supervising the restoration of two ponds at Little Tolladine Farm, now contained within the Warndon Villages. The ponds followed the line of a curving boundary. When the archaeologists carried out an excavation of the site they found a broad ditch system on the line of the current hedge encircling the entire farm. However, they found no evidence of earlier buildings on this site. They concluded that this was a rare example of a medieval pound to enclose stock. The answers remains for what and what were the stock being protected from – were there Wolves in the Warndon Countryside?
References
| EKWALL, E. 1960. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Place-names. (Fourth Edition). Clarendon Press, Oxford. | |
| HARTING, J.E. 1880. British Animals extinct within Historic Times. Chapter on the Wolf pages 115-205 Trubner, London. | |
| RACKHAM, O. 1986. The History of the British Countryside. Dent. London. | |
| TAYLOR, C. 1975. Fields in the English Landscape. Archaeology in the Field Series. Dent. London. | |
| YALDON, D.W. 1999. The History of British Mammals. T & A. D. Poyser Ltd. London. |
The wolf as illustrated in J E Harting’s book of 1880! The other illustrations are from the same source.
Worcestershire Record No. 10 April 2001 p. 18Looking for Bert the Gorilla |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
By Brett Westwood
Somewhere deep in Worcestershire’s countryside, Bert the Gorilla is lurking . He’s more likely to be in your garden or greenhouse than in the more rural spots, so while the foot-and-mouth restrictions remain, you could do worse than take up the challenge and start a ‘gorilla hunt’ this summer.
The more perceptive of you will have cottoned on to the fact that we’re not talking primates here. Bert the Gorilla is really a slug, the worm slug to be precise, and glories in the name of Boettgerilla pallens. It’s a small creature, up to 4cm when fully extended when it looks remarkably worm-like . It’s mostly pencil- grey on the back and head with a pale yellow sole and colourless mucus and looks immediately different to the other slugs you’re likely to meet in the garden.
Worm slugs are recent introductions to the British Isles from their native haunts in south-eastern Europe and have probably spread as adults through nurseries, as eggs on the soles of shoes or in garden rubble. In Germany Boettgerilla is now one of the commonest slugs and it has even reached the United States where biologists are worried that it may become a serious pest. The first British record was from the Lake District in 1972 and since then it has spread rapidly throughout Britain and southern Ireland.
Worcestershire records are apparently absent (we have discovered one record in Worcs BRC files – in 1982. See our web site for a list of Mollusc records – Ed), but worm slugs are certainly present in the vice-county and waiting to be unearthed. They can burrow deep into the soil like earthworms but also occur at the surface under wood and stones. Greenhouses and cold-frames are a popular habitat and allow the slugs to survive in otherwise unfriendly climates; in Finland most records are from these places.
So, there’s the challenge. Can any Worcestershire recorder locate Bert this year? Fame ,and for all I know, fortune, awaits the lucky finder. Please send your records to the Biological Records office and we hope to bring you an update on findings this time next year.
