No. 12 April 2002

Worcestershire Record No. 12 April 2002 p. 54

Action For Wildlife – Worcestershire Biodiversity Partnership Newsletter

Spring 2002 No 9 is available from address at the end. It is re-printed here to ensure it reaches the Biological Recording Community.

This issue has joined the others on the web site

In this issue……

Nightingales in Worcestershire
Progress report on the Biodiversity Action Plan
Regional bid success.

Scrub up……encouraging habitat creation for nightingales.

Sixty years ago the rich, fruity song of the nightingale would have been a common sound on warm spring evenings in the woods and thickets of Worcestershire. Sadly numbers have been declining recently – in 1999 singing males were only heard at 59 locations, lower numbers than in previous years – and it seems that the population could have decreased by more than half in the last twenty years. For this reason nightingales were one of the species included in the Worcestershire Biodiversity Action Plan. One of the areas in the county where you might still hear nightingales is at Severn Trent Water’s Water Treatment Works at Strensham. The scrubby vegetation that has grown up around the site provides the ideal conditions for these rather elusive birds. An evening walk was recently hosted by Severn Trent Water to mark the publication of a leaflet which provides advice and information on creating habitat that will attract nightingales.

According to research by the British Trust for Ornithology nightingales have rather particular needs when it comes to scrub. They prefer thickets of young, vigorous blackthorn or hawthorn, especially where a dense canopy of twigs and leaves descends to the ground around the edges, leaving bare or leaf-litter covered ground in the centre. They use the cave-like spaces beneath the scrub for foraging for insects and nesting.

At Strensham scrub habitat of the right structure for nightingales was created as part of a landscaping scheme and was promptly occupied by nightingales. Male nightingales return to the same spot each year to sing, and young males are attracted to breed near older singing males if there is suitable habitat. So, if more land-owners and managers can be persuaded to create similar scrub habitat in the right areas, we could start to see a reverse of the decline of this wonderful bird.

For a copy of the leaflet write to Worcestershire Wildlife Trust, Lower Smite Farm, Smite Hill, Hindlip, Worcester WR3 8SZ, or download a copy from the Worcestershire Biodiversity Partnership web site – www.worcestershire.gov.uk/biodiversity.

Good news and bad news – reporting progress on the Worcestershire BAP

The latest figures for nightingales were just some of the statistics that were reported in the Summary of Progress against Objectives that was recently produced by the Worcestershire Biodiversity Partnership. This document summarises some of the gains and losses of species and habitats, and also describes the wealth of work that has been undertaken in relation to the Worcestershire BAP.

The full report is available on the Biodiversity Partnership web site, but in summary the message is mixed – in some cases habitats are being restored and re-created, and some species are increasing in numbers or stable. Other habitats and species however are not doing so well.

Nightingales, adders, water voles, and high brown fritillaries have all declined, although in most of these cases recent survey work has flagged up where the remaining populations are, and work has started to try to protect them.

For other species, such as bats, stag beetle and hornet robberfly we still do not know enough to be able to tell whether populations are stable, increasing or declining. Several species however do seem to be stable or increasing, for example the club-tailed dragonfly, and brown hairstreak butterfly.

On the habitat side substantial amounts of grant money have been obtained to help fund restoration and re-creation work on lowland heathland and wetland habitats including wet grassland and reedbed. Other projects are still being worked up, such as a bid to the Rural Development Programme for funding for a seed harvesting operation to provide local provenance seed from high quality Worcestershire grasslands.

The Progress report shows that the Worcestershire Biodiversity Partnership has been extremely active over the last couple of years, with many partnership projects underway and more planned, and a good level of support for, and awareness of, the Biodiversity Action Plan for Worcestershire and what it is trying to achieve.

Community Strategies and Biodiversity

Community Strategies are documents that are intended to improve the social, economic and environmental well-being of a community, based on the priorities and needs of the community.

It is important that biodiversity is taken into account when drawing up these documents, and the Biodiversity Partnership, as well as individual conservation organisations such as English Nature and Worcestershire Wildlife Trust, are working with Local Authorities to try to ensure that this is the case.

Success for regional bid!

The West Midlands Biodiversity Partnership has successfully bid for funding from the Environmental Action Fund to help meet the costs of employing a Regional Biodiversity Manager and a Promotions Officer to take forward the Partnership’s three year work plan. The new posts will help ensure that biodiversity is integrated into regional programmes, policies and plans and will raise awareness of biodiversity issues in the rapidly developing regional agenda.

In Brief….

Lowland heathland is a nationally scarce habitat, and here in Worcestershire we have embarked on a three year project to restore the areas of heathland that occur across the north of Worcestershire.
A leaflet has been produced that describes areas of heathland across the UK that can be visited to enjoy this wonderful habitat. For copies of the leaflet contact Alex Preston on the email address at the bottom of the page.
Worcestershire Wildlife Trust is surveying open water and black poplars this spring and summer. The open water survey will include around 50 water bodies across the county which are greater than 1 hectare in area. The information gathered will be used in the review of pool Special Wildlife Sites.
This year’s Meadow Seminar is being held at the Lugg Meadows, Herefordshire. The event is organised by the Grassland Forum for Worcestershire and Herefordshire, and the seminar is aimed at owners of flower-rich grassland.

For further details on any of the above please contact me.
Alex Preston, Biodiversity Action Plan Manager, Environmental Services, PO Box 373, County Hall, Spetchley Road, Worcester WR5 2XG. Tel 01905 766852. Email apreston@worcestershire.gov.uk

Worcestershire Record No. 12 April 2002 p. 18-22

Pintail in the Severn Vale

By Les Brown and Mike Smart

(Although much of this review covers Gloucestershire it doesinclude parts of the Severn and Avon flood plains of Worcestershire, and Worcestershire’s Longdon Marsh. In times of floods the two counties probably contain nationally and internationally important numbers of pintail. In this context it is important that their numbers, distribution and requirements are better understood. Ed)

Introduction

In February/March 2002, unusually high numbers of Pintail were observed in the Severn Vale, notably at the Ashleworth/Hasfield Hams and the Coombe Hill area (the “Severn Hams”), the principal floodplain of the Severn between Tewkesbury and Gloucester, but also at Walmore Common, below Gloucester. Numbers in the Severn Hams were estimated at around 1500, possibly as many as 2000, with over 200 at Walmore, mostly feeding on flooded grassland. These numbers are unusually high for the area, though there has been a general increase in Pintail in the Vale floodlands in recent years. There had already been high counts in the Severn Vale in the previous winter (2000-2001), at Ashleworth/Hasfield, Coombe Hill, Walmore Common and Longdon Marsh (just in southern Worcestershire), not to mention the New Grounds at the top of the Severn Estuary at Frampton/Slimbridge. But the counts in early 2002 have been exceptionally high.

To put these figures in context, the agreed figure for national importance is 280, and for international importance (ie qualifying for inclusion on the Ramsar List of wetlands of international importance) 600, if these figures are reached on a regular basis.

In a review of long term population trends in Pintail between 1966 and 1995, based on the results of the WeBS (the Wetland Bird Survey) counts, Kershaw (1998) pointed out that “Pintail is one of the only two wildfowl species for which the international 1% level for northwest Europe has been reduced in the latest review, following a downward revision of the winter population estimate from 70,000 to 60,000 birds”. Furthermore, “the northwest European wintering population of Pintail is relatively small compared to other areas of Eurasia, but Great Britain holds almost half of these birds, the highest population of any species”. The conservation status of the British wintering populations of Pintail is therefore a matter of national and indeed regional importance.

Kershaw added that northwest England/North Wales is by far the most important region for wintering Pintail in Great Britain, with a mean peak annual count between 1966 and 1995 of 13,907 birds, three times higher than the second most important region, east/central England with a mean of 4061. The mean peak for the southwest England/South Wales region over this thirty-year period was 1842 (about equivalent to the number recently seen on the Severn Hams!). Kershaw noted that in the 1991-95 period the ten main British sites for Pintail were, in order of importance: Dee Estuary, Ribble Estuary, Morecambe Bay, Mersey Estuary, Solway Estuary, Burry Inlet, Ouse Washes, Duddon Estuary, Nene Washes and North Norfolk Marshes. It is evident that most of these sites are estuarine. According to the annual WeBS report for 1999-2000, the most recent available, the Great Britain maximum of 17,333 in November 1999 was the lowest since the late 1970s. However, the “top five” sites remain the Dee with a five year mean (for the 1995-2000 period) of 4900, Morecambe Bay 3830, Solway 3610, Ribble 2982, and Burry Inlet 2783. The Ouse Washes (with a five year mean of 2720) and Nene Washes (1023) are the only inland sites in Britain that met the international criteria between 1995 and 1999. The very large Severn Estuary WeBS site (covering not just the New Grounds at Slimbridge/Frampton but the whole of the Severn Estuary from Newnham (below Gloucester) to Cardiff on the northern shore and Newnham to Bridgwater in the south) just reaches the international threshold with a mean of 641.

Pintail breed in Iceland (about 500 pairs according to Birds of the Western Palearctic), but most of the Pintail wintering in Britain originate from breeding grounds in northern and central Europe, so it is perhaps surprising that the top five British wintering sites should be on the west coast. Numbers wintering in Ireland are small, and the All-Ireland threshold is only 60, so the Severn Vale birds are not likely to be migrants returning from Ireland.

Review of Records

Past records of Pintail in Gloucestershire

Swaine’s “Birds of Gloucestershire” (1982) indicated that “numbers have increased considerably during the past thirty years”. The author noted that the New Grounds formed the main winter resort in the county, and that numbers of 100 to 200 were quite usual there, with counts of 400 in December 1957 and 600 in January 1977. He added that large numbers at Ashleworth, Coombe Hill and Walmore depended on flooding, and that counts of 200 had been made at Coombe Hill and 300 at Ashleworth. Finally, Swaine noted that the Pintail was virtually unknown in the Forest of Dean and the Cotswold dipslope, though up to twelve had been recorded in the Thames Valley gravel pits (now the Cotswold Water Park).

WeBS counts have been carried out at Ashleworth since 1974-75 and at Coombe Hill (not every year) since 1961-62. Before 1992-93, the annual maximum at Ashleworth reached 100 only once, in 1974-75, and was usually less than 50, generally occurring in February or March, though once or twice in January. At Coombe Hill, Pintail were not recorded every year in the WeBS counts and numbers never exceeded 25 birds before 1991-92, with the low peaks reached in any month between December and March.

Numbers of Pintail recorded at Coombe Hill and Ashleworth/Hasfield have increased in the 1990s, both in the WeBS counts and in records from other sites published in the Gloucestershire Bird Reports (GBR) – latest available 1999 – as follows

Ashleworth/Hasfield Coombe Hill
WeBS counts GBR records WeBS counts GBR records
Winter 1991-92:18 (January)   2 (January)  
Winter 1992-93:180 (February)   Nil counts  
Winter 1993-94:170 (February)   25 (February) 115 (March)
Winter 1994-95:245 (March) 245 (March) 26 (January) 500 (February)
Winter 1995-96:245 (January) 245 (January) 55 (February) 300 (January)
Winter 1996-97:94 (March) 94 (March) Nil counts  
Winter 1997-98:135 (January) 185 (January) 50 (January) 70 (January)
Winter 1998-99:125 (January) 520 (February) Nil counts 12 (December)

There are thus indications throughout the 1990s of somewhat higher numbers being recorded at Ashleworth/Hasfield and Coombe Hill (though, since the two sites are close together and birds move back and forth especially when flooding is high, it is important to obtain co-ordinated counts from both sites).

The Gloucestershire Bird Reports also give details of appreciable counts at Walmore Common: 300 in January 1990, 175 in January 1993, 130 in December 1993, 150 in March 1997, 200 in January 1998, and 87 in January and 120 in December 1999.

Pintail numbers in the Severn Vale usually seem to peak in late winter, in February or March, though there are sometimes high counts in December or January.

In the New Grounds sector of the Severn Estuary at Frampton and Slimbridge, maxima from the Gloucestershire Bird Reports are: 245 in March 1990, 275 in February 1993, 238 in December 1994, 350 in January and February 1995, 286 in March 1996, 320 in February 1997, 210 in January and February 1998 and 321 in January 1999. Dave Paynter pers comm has checked the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust’s records of maximum counts and notes that between 1945 and 1977 there was a gradual increase from a maximum of 100 to a maximum of 300, with the high count of 600, mentioned by Swaine, in 1977. The increase has continued since 1977 with the maximum count generally between 300 and 400. The only count of 1000 occurred in exceptional circumstances (see below) in December 2000.

Numbers have remained low at the Cotswold Water Park, rarely reaching 20 individuals, though there was also an unusually high count of 225 Pintail at Pit 41 in the Cotswold Water Park (West) on 19 February 2002 (A. Jayne pers comm).

Recent counts in the Severn Vale

It is important to emphasize the difficulty of obtaining accurate counts in the Severn Hams area when floods are high. Many of the access roads are then impassable, and there is a broad stretch of floodwater some five miles by three miles, the edges of which are exploited by surface feeding ducks. G. Peplow pers comm notes that at Longdon Marsh too, precise counting is difficult in times of flood as some birds are hidden behind partly flooded hedges. If the flood is very high, ducks may decrease in the central area of the Severn Hams, using sites further north in Worcestershire, such as Longdon Marsh and marshes along the Avon. If the floodwater freezes over in a cold spell, these surface feeders may disappear, presumably to the Severn Estuary. WeBS count dates often do not coincide with flood episodes, and so may fail to pick up any large numbers present in time of flood.

In order to throw more light on these numbers, LAB, who carried out the WeBS counts in most of the 1990s and who has visited Ashleworth once or twice a week throughout the period, with more frequent visits to Coombe Hill at the end of the decade, has reviewed his observations over the last ten years, in order to link count dates and periods of flooding. The following paragraph summarizes his observations, giving the period when the floods were high and the highest counts of Pintail in each winter.

In 1991-92, with little flooding, numbers of Pintail did not exceed 35. In 1992-93, with flooding in early December and mid January, peaks of up to 190 Pintail were noted between December and mid-February. In 1993-94, with flooding from mid-December until mid-January, peak Pintail numbers of between 130 and 240 were recorded until late February. In 1994-95, with flooding from mid-December to mid January, then from late January until mid-March, peak Pintail numbers ranged from 165 (late December) to 245 (early March). In this same winter the 1995 GBR notes high counts (by other observers) at Coombe Hill of 140 in January, 500 in February and 60 in March. In 1995-96, with flooding from mid-January to mid-February and a freeze-up in early February, peak numbers of 245 and 205 were noted before the freeze-up (while the 1996 GBR gives a record of 300 at Coombe Hill for this period); numbers after the freeze-up were less than 50. For 1996-97, with a freeze-up in late December and January but little flooding, there were no records of more than 100 Pintail. In 1997-98 there was a high count of 115 in November before the flooding which lasted from late December until early February; the highest Pintail counts of the winter (165 and 185) occurred in late January and early February. Winter 1998-99 brought an early flood in late October/mid-November and a count of 130 Pintail in November, followed by a flood from mid-December to early February, with a count of 520 Pintail in February. In 1999-2000, flooding was from mid-December to early January, with a count of 300 at Ashleworth in January. In the very wet winter of 2000-01, extensive flooding (from late October-December, from mid-January to mid-February and from mid March to early May), plus the effects of the Foot and Mouth outbreak, often made counting very difficult. There were combined counts of 500+ at the two sites in November, over 350 in December, up to 400 in January after a freeze-up in late December, and about 500 in February, with 230 in March. Finally in winter 2001-02 there were brief late October and early December floods, with a freeze-up in early January, followed by extensive flooding from late January until mid-March; numbers of Pintail reached 240 in January then rocketed to figures of nearly 2000 in early March.

In addition, Andy Jayne, who has been watching Walmore regularly since the late 1970s, comments that numbers have definitely increased there since then, and that the high counts occur in periods of extensive flooding. He adds the following counts from Walmore for winter 2000-01: 12 on 3 November, 150 on 18 November, 76 on 19 November, 100+ on 26 November, 90+ on 25 December; records in early 2001 are limited because of the Foot and Mouth outbreak.

The above detailed observations show clearly:

that numbers of Pintail have increased considerably in the Severn Hams over the last ten winters;
that peak numbers each winter occur during or immediately after flood events;
that in years of little flooding numbers remain low;
that in periods of freeze-up numbers of Pintail drop very rapidly.

Increase in numbers:

Whereas numbers of Pintail in the Severn Hams only exceptionally reached 100 birds before the 1990s, counts of over 100 have become commonplace in the last decade, particularly in the last five years. February 1995 saw counts of 300 at Ashleworth and 500 in Coombe Hill (very probably the same birds). Again in February 1999 there was a count of 520. In November 2000, an early date coinciding with early flooding, there were over 500 Pintail present in the Severn Hams), and it was estimated that the numbers of Pintail in late 2000 approached 1000 birds. Finally, winter 2001-02 has produced the highest numbers so far, with at least 800 at Coombe Hill in February and 1500 (and perhaps as many as 2000) round the edges of the flood at Ashleworth/Hasfield in March 2002.

Occurrence after flood events:

Such large numbers of Pintail occur only during and after floods which cover the whole floodplain. In conditions when there is no flood, an area of open water is maintained by a sluice on the Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust reserve at Ashleworth Ham, but numbers on this area of water and marshy vegetation are typically below 100 birds. The large concentrations occur on the edges of the floodwater beyond the boundaries of the Ashleworth reserve and of the new GWT reserve at Coombe Hill.

In November 2000, the whole of the Coombe Hill meadows were flooded, and a set-aside field below Deerhurst Walton proved particularly attractive to ducks and Bewick’s Swans (most of the Bewick’s that normally spend the autumn at Slimbridge were in this area in November-December 2000). On 19 November – an early date for such numbers – a minimum of 330 Pintail were counted over the flooded set-aside, and the total present was probably 500. At the same time, the unusual figure of 190 Pintail was recorded from Longdon Marsh, in south Worcestershire. This illustrates the tendency for Pintail to go to Longdon in numbers when the flood is very deep on the Severn Hams.

At Coombe Hill in 2002, 800 were seen in the area of the same set-aside field on 7 February, soon after the first big flood of the winter, and there were at least 400 there on 9 February. Large numbers were recorded in the Ashleworth/Hasfield area in February with 600 on 9 February, and on 26 February at least 1100, and perhaps 1500, in shallow water around the edge of the floods, just outside the GWT reserve, mainly in the area of Hasfield Ham. Up to 1500 and perhaps 2000 were recorded in early March, by which time the floods at Coombe Hill had gone down, and it seems clear birds from Coombe Hill had moved to the Ashleworth/Hasfield flood. These numbers were maintained as long as there was natural flooding (outside the Ashleworth reserve), until 10 March. By 12 March, however, when the only open water remaining was on the Ashleworth reserve and was not fresh flood water, numbers dropped dramatically and on 16 March there were no more than 350 Pintail left on the reserve.

A similar situation occurred at Walmore Common, in the Severn Vale below Gloucester. In February 2002, as soon as the floods began to rise, large numbers of Pintail occurred. There were 180 on 2 February, 220 on 5 February, 240 on 10 February, about 200 on 12 and 15 February, and 100+ on 18 February; these birds disappeared from Walmore as rapidly as they had arrived when the floods receded after about 20 February, so that only 14 were recorded on 2 March (many records from A. Jayne pers comm).

Low numbers in absence of flood:

There is extensive flooding in the Severn Hams most winters, but outside periods of flooding, the large numbers of Pintail disappear. Similarly in winters like 1991-92, 1996-97 or 1999-2000, when flooding is light or absent, large numbers are not recorded.

Thus the large concentrations coincide with the time of flooding, rather than with any periodic movement. When there is a November or December flood, good numbers of Pintail occur in these months. The most frequent months for flooding are December to February, hence the frequent peaks of Pintail at this time.

Departure in case of freeze-up:

In winter 1995-96, numbers of Pintail dropped from the region of 300 in December before the freeze-up to about fifty afterwards. There was a week’s cold snap in the very wet winter of 2000-01; after counts suggesting the presence of up to 1000 Pintail in the Severn Hams area in November/December, the Bewick’s Swans and Pintail which had been frequenting the set-aside field disappeared in a cold snap between Christmas and the New Year, when most of the floodwater was heavily iced over. It is known (from ring numbers and face patterns) that the Bewick’s returned to the New Grounds. A quite exceptional count of 1000 Pintail on the New Grounds in late December 2000, when there had been no count remotely approaching this figure throughout the preceding autumn (nor at any other time since 1945!), suggests that the Pintail did likewise.

Counts from South Worcestershire

Gavin Peplow pers comm agrees that the trends noted in the Gloucestershire sections of the Severn Vale are mirrored in south Worcestershire, and that the highest counts there occur just at or after the peak of flooding. The following notes on the situation in South Worcestershire have been collated by him. Prior to the 1980s the highest Worcestershire count would appear to have been of only 36 at Bittell Reservoir (NE Worcestershire) in 1949! A count of 110 at Ripple in March 1985 (on the Severn near Tewkesbury) was a record for county of Worcestershire county and West Midlands region.

Longdon Marsh, a basin west of the Severn which floods when the Severn is high, only began to be regularly surveyed in the 1990s. It produced counts of 70 Pintail in February 1990, 112 in January 1993, 70 in December 1993, 26 in January 1995, before another county and regional record o 475 on January 1998 (a period when numbers at Ashleworth were not particularly high). There was a count of 120 at Longdon in January 1999, when the floods at the Severn Hams were at their height, then 50 in late December 1999. In November 2000, there was a count of 190 (probably some of the birds first seen in the Severn Hams), with 100 in December 2000 and 200 on 3 January 2001. Winter 2001-02 produced a count of 600 on 9 February (an all-time county and regional record) just when the floods in Gloucestershire were at their highest. At Longdon, Pintail are generally observed to be feeding actively.

Bredon’s Hardwick Pits, near the Avon just north of Tewkesbury, has had records up to 80 Pintail since 1993, but these are restored gravel pits with fairly deep water, and birds there appear to be loafing rather than feeding.

Elsewhere, there are records of 54 at Pirton Pool (Worcestershire) in February 1998, and of 152 in October 1991 and 68 in September 1999 at Blithfields Reservoir (Staffordshire), a site where higher counts generally occur in autumn and early winter.

Habitat preferences of wintering Pintail

Kershaw’s 1998 study noted that “wintering Pintail are highly aggregated according to habitat type in Britain. Pintail in northwest Europe tend to winter in coastal areas, particularly floodlands, estuaries and wetlands near the coast. The most recent five year peak mean for estuaries and coastal habitats is more than seven times greater than the five year peak mean for the second most important habitat, rivers/freshwater marshes.” However, Kershaw added that “Pintail are extremely mobile, enabling them to use habitats which are temporarily available due to flooding. However this mobility also causes major local changes in distribution and means that numbers tend to fluctuate considerably between years on individual sites”.

Ringing results

Pintail are regularly caught and ringed at Slimbridge. There are a number of recoveries from the breeding area in western Russia and Finland (but no indication of birds of Icelandic origin), together with some more short range recoveries in UK (Dave Paynter pers comm). Recoveries in UK include birds on The Wash, Lancashire, the Mersey, Essex, Northern Ireland, Norfolk, Cambridge, the Ribble, Herefordshire, Dorset (Abbotsbury), and four in Gloucestershire. Two of the latter are at Slimbridge itself, one at Berkeley and one at Walmore Common. There are thus inadequate data to provide new insights into the local movements of the birds.

Disscussion

These large numbers of Pintail have appeared in the Severn Vale marshes in the last few winters, at times when the meadows become flooded (as already noted by Swaine in 1982). Such numbers are generally recorded at, or to be precise, immediately after, times of high flood, when the birds seem to be taking advantage of optimal feeding conditions. They like to feed around the edges of the flood, either upending or dabbling in shallow water. The literature suggests that Pintail feed mainly on vegetal matter, chiefly seeds or parts of plants, by upending or swimming. Perhaps the seeds are easier to find when they float on shallow floods, and uprooting of plants is easier. In March 2002, most of them appeared to have been already paired, and to be feeding as couples. However, as noted by Juliet Bailey (pers comm), the Birds of the Western Palearctic points out that, while plant materials dominate Pintail food in autumn and winter, Hydrobia snails predominated in the food in the Medway from December to February, and that there was a rapid change from vegetal to animal matter after a thaw in the Mologa floodplain. She speculates therefore that flooding may produce a glut of drowned and half-drowned animal prey, on which the Pintail feast.

The distribution pattern of wintering birds in UK indicates that the most important sites are estuarine. But could it be that the estuaries are sub-optimal feeding sites, where Pintail congregate, waiting opportunistically for the chance to move to inland freshwater marshes when optimal feeding conditions occur there? Perhaps the WeBS counts, organized on a regular monthly basis on pre-set dates, identify the areas of concentration in the estuaries, but undervalue the inland feeding areas. If this is the case, there are considerable implications for management of wintering Pintail in Great Britain, and for greater emphasis to be placed on the conservation of these inland feeding sites.

Comparison with other inland marshes favoured by Pintail

Carl Mitchell pers comm notes that at the Ouse Washes in autumn Pintail generally arrive at the WWT centre at Welney from the coast on The Wash in mid-morning and use the relatively small flood of the main lagoon. Annual peaks are very variable and depend on water levels; larger numbers tend to occur with higher water levels, but with some land still showing. In winter 2001-02, numbers at Welney were initially low when the washes were only lightly flooded, but increased as water levels rose. Numbers correlate well with increased water levels, but complete bank to bank flooding, submerging the washes completely, provokes a departure to other sites.

Kershaw (1998) notes that Martin Mere is very close to the Ribble, and like the Ribble, numbers have fluctuated to a large decree. The following additional details have been provided by C. Liggett and C. Tomlinson (pers comm). While numbers at Martin Mere have been declining, those on the Ribble have been increasing; there is a feeling that there is some interchange between Martin Mere and the Ribble but this is unquantifiable. During the 1970s flocks of three to four thousand were recorded at Martin Mere; influxes tended to occur in September/October just after the duck marshes were re-wetted, allowing the seed of sedges, rushes, knotweeds and dock to float on the surface. Since the mid 1980s numbers have decreased to a few hundreds, possibly because of a reduction in plant productivity in the two seasonally flooded duck marshes. However, it is not known precisely what the Pintail were feeding on. These lower peak numbers have been in winter and tend to coincide with severe weather on the coast.

In recent years (Mark Pollitt pers comm) it seems that much greater number of Pintail have been recorded in the inland marshes of the Dee, presumably coming from the northwestern estuaries to feed.

Origin of the Pintail in the Severn Vale

Another question is where such large numbers in the Severn Vale come from. Received county ornithological wisdom is that Pintail winter on the Severn Estuary and move inland to marshes in the Vale for short periods when the floods rise and feeding conditions are at their best. But there is no indication of the numbers recently recorded in the Severn Vale being seen on the Severn Estuary beforehand, nor of a sudden decrease there when the floods rise. On the contrary, it seems that the Pintail from the Severn Vale take refuge in the estuary, as in December 2000, when the floods ice over. If they have not been displaced from the New Grounds, have they come from some other site? Not the Somerset Levels, which does not figure in the sites of national importance in UK, though 570 were recorded in January 2000.

One obvious possibility is the Burry Inlet, the nearest of the big five Pintail estuaries to the Severn Vale, with a five year mean of 2783 birds from 1995 to 2000. Do the Burry Inlet numbers perhaps decrease in the early months of the year when the floods rise inland? Bob Howells (pers comm) has kindly provided extremely detailed information on the situation on the south side of the Burry Inlet. He notes that Pintail numbers there usually build up to 1000 or more in October/November, peaking in January/February, before rapid declines in early March. Regular and detailed monitoring of Pintail numbers is carried out and in general, numbers are increasing. There is no sense that birds are simply sitting there all the winter, waiting for good feeding opportunities to occur inland; on the contrary there is abundant feeding material for the birds on the muddy fringes of the numerous pills that cross the site, and comparatively little disturbance. He suggests however that the increased numbers in the Severn Vale might be due to departures from the Burry Inlet of birds making their return migration to breeding grounds in northern Europe. Thus, a peak of 3000 in November 1999 was followed by a count of 1345 in February 2000; a peak of 4275 in November 2000 was followed by a count of 400 in February 2001, and a peak of 2675 came before a high of 1175 in February 2002. This possibility clearly needs further investigation, but would not explain the occurrence of high numbers of Pintail at times of Severn floods earlier in the winter season (eg November 2000).

Another possibility is that these large numbers in the Severn originate in the nucleus of wintering Pintail in northwest England. If this were the case it might be expected that birds would be observed in larger numbers in the Midlands en route to the Severn Vale, unless they fly “straight over the top” or move at night.

Some Directions for Future Investigations

The authors, in consultation with the Wetlands and Wildfowl Trust hope to develop the enquiries presented above and to seek answers to some of the questions raised. Among the questions that might be raised are the following.

Counts:

There is clearly a need for better co-ordination of future counts, especially at times of high flood, in the Vale floodplain sites to establish the numbers involved with greater precision. Such counts would need to be carried out over and above the current WeBS counts, and to be much more flexible. Co-ordination with the Severn Estuary and Burry Inlet counts would be desirable. It might well be of interest to operate such flexible counting systems in other inland floodland sites.

Feeding ecology:

Little is known about the food taken by Pintail in these inland sites. It would be of great interest to study this question in more detail, either through examination of shot birds, or through examination of birds caught for ringing.

Ringing:

To learn more about local movements of the Pintail, it would be necessary to ring them in the floodplain area, using either rocket nets or swim-in traps, preferably marking them with radio tags or picric dye.

Habitat conservation:

If it should prove that inland feeding areas in the Severn and elsewhere are of more importance to Pintail than was previously thought, some change in management strategies may be required, especially if the birds are (as in the Severn Hams) mainly using only freshly flooded area, rather than permanent water areas.

UK statutory obligations.

Given the importance of British wetlands for wintering Pintail in a northwest European context, this issue takes on national and indeed international significance. There may be a need to look again at UK’s statutory responsibilities under national legislation, and in the context of international conservation instruments.

Acknowledgements

Thanks are due to all those who have provided information for this text and commented on the issues raised. Many field observers have provided information from their own often unpublished notes. These include (in Gloucestershire) Gordon Avery, Eddie Butters, Colin Evers, Rob Homan, Andy Jayne, George Parsons, Dave Paynter, John and Viv Phillips; in Worcestershire Gavin Peplow; from the Ouse Washes Carl Mitchell; from Martin Mere Christine Doyle; from the Burry Inlet Bob Howells who provided a detailed overview of Pintail in the Burry Inlet in the last decade. At the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust, Melanie Kershaw, Mark O’Connell, Dave Paynter and Mark Pollitt contributed greatly to the discussion of the issues. Brian Smith of the Environment Agency contributed greatly to thoughts on monitoring needs in the Severn Vale. Juliet Bailey looked over the text with a botanist’s sharp eye.

References

CRAMP S & SIMMONS KEL (eds) 1977 The birds of the Western Palearctic, volume 1. pp 521-529.
Gloucestershire Bird Reports
KERSHAW M. 1998: Long term trends in wintering Pintail Anas acuta in Great Britain 1966-1995. Polycopied Wildlife & Wetlands Trust Report to JNCC 43pp.
MUSGROVE et al 2001: Wildfowl and Wader Counts. The Wetland Bird Survey 1999-2000.
SWAINE CM 1982 Birds of Gloucestershire. Alan Sutton: Gloucester

Worcestershire Record No. 12 April 2002 p. 23

Fieldfare Orchard

By Stuart Brown

In each of the last two winters Fieldfares have concentrated in very large numbers during hard weather to feed in an area of un-harvested desert apples in a commercial orchard near Suckley, Worcestershire.

The site extends to approximately 30 acres of apple orchards grown in triple rows of trees pruned to 2.5 metres high. The orchard is surrounded and subdivided into three by 7 metre high hedges of Poplar and Alder trees for shelter, and further subdivided into six by a track at right angles to the hedges.

The extent of the Fieldfare flocks became apparent in mid December and the Christmas holiday created an opportunity to try to catch this infrequently ringed Thrush. Four lines of mist nets comprising a total of 1800 feet of netting were erected in one of the six sections of the orchard. The nets were set by 6.45 a.m., before dawn each day, leaving the orchard quiet well before the Fieldfares began to arrive from their roosts. The first birds began to fly in from about 7.30 and arrived in small numbers from several directions, the majority arriving in the next hour, but birds could be seen arriving throughout the day.

The majority of the Fieldfares were caught within a couple of hours of dawn, however when ringers could stay longer useful numbers could be caught all day, particularly when the weather remained overcast and the nets less obvious.

Fieldfares are normally difficult to catch because they take off and land very steeply and stay in the tops of the trees when roosting. The abundant fruit, much of which was still on the trees between ground level and 2.5 metres brought the birds down to net height. This combined with the near invisible nets and the large area of undisturbed orchard, resulted in good catches.

Eleven visits were made and the total number of new Fieldfares ringed was 1771. This compares with the average ringing total for the whole of the U.K. over the last 30 years of 1400 Fieldfares per year! The grand total ringed in the U.K up to the end of 2000 is just over 53,000.

The numbers of Fieldfares using the orchard at any one time was crudely estimated at between three and seven thousand. The daily ringing total for the first ten visits varied between 110 and 350 Fieldfares, only 47 (2.5%) were caught more than once.

In addition 316 other new birds were ringed (see table), including all the usual Thrushes, notably 85 Redwings, but also Blackbirds, Song Thrush and Mistle Thrush. Three Sparrow hawks that came along for a ‘Take Away’ were also ringed.

These numbers of Thrushes consumed massive quantities of apples, stripping the trees in days. The sub zero temperatures stopped at the end of the first week in January and the little remaining fruit began to rot quickly once it thawed. Saturday 12th January saw a good catch of 158 Fieldfares, the next day just three were caught, virtually all the birds had gone and no more ringing sessions were made.

We are still awaiting the details of the Fieldfare caught wearing a Swedish ring. Of the 157 foreign Fieldfares recovered in the U.K. since the ringing scheme began, 128 were originally ringed in Scandinavia (31 from Sweden). 515 U.K ringed birds have been subsequently recovered abroad. 296 were found in Scandinavia, the others included 135 in France and 43 in Italy.

The next few years will bring reports of some of our birds found dead or caught by other ringers to give further clues about their breeding areas, migration routes, life expectancy etc. The majority of the birds we caught were weighed and measured, aged and sexed by their plumage, analysis of this information is underway.

We are very grateful to the orchard owners for their permission to ring in the orchard.
Many thanks also to Sue Adams of the BTO for providing ringing and recovery totals so quickly in order to put our efforts into context and to all the ringers who helped.

Species Number ringed
Sparrowhawk 3
Woodpigeon 2
Robin 10
Blackbird 30
Fieldfare 1771
Song Thrush 2
Redwing 85
Mistle Thrush 1
Long-tailed Tit 9
Coal Tit 1
Magpie 1
Starling 4
Chaffinch 38
Brambling 6
Greenfinch 122
Yellowhammer 2
Total 2087

Table shows numbers of other species ringed in addition to Fieldfares.

(Note: this work was of course undertaken by fully qualified and licenced Bird Ringers working under the National Ringing Scheme administered by the BTO. Interestingly, fieldfares did seem to be present in Worcestershire in larger numbers than usual during the 2001-2002 winter and another large congregation was noticed in an orchard near Evesham. Ed)

Worcestershire Record No. 12 April 2002 p. 53

Kemerton Cuttings – March 2002

By John Clarke (Kemerton Conservation Trust)

Birds

Kinsham Lake produced some interesting sightings – a juvenile Black Tern 1/10/01, 5 Greenshank 4/10/01, a Merlin 6/10/01, a first winter Grey Phalarope 9/10/01. 4 Whooper Swans were present 3/12/01 and a Yellow-legged Gull was seen 13/12/01. In nearby fields the size of the Golden Plover flock increased steadily from about 350 on 30/11/01 to 800+ 9/12/01 before dispersing. During February, significant numbers of Gadwall (12 5/2/02), Pochard (129+ 14/2/02) and Shoveller (20+ 5/2/02) were seen at the Lake. After an absence of about ten years a minimum of three Nuthatches were heard and seen in Kemerton from early September. They have been present at garden feeding stations throughout the winter. During the winter parties of Siskin and Redpoll have been seen in the young plantations and two Reed Bunting roosts were found at Kinsham Lake. On 29/9/01 six Barn Owls were seen in a barn on nearby farmland.

Nestboxes. During cleaning work it was discovered that record numbers of tit boxes had been occupied. However, in some sites, there was evidence of an unusually high rate of failure at the half-feathered stage.

Mammals

Harvest Mouse nests were found during clearing work in a wetland site. In another area, during the past six months Otter spraints has been reported by three separate observers. In Kemerton village a Polecat was trapped and released unharmed.

Flora

John Day visited and discussed queries on botanical records collected by Kemerton staff and visitors since 1983. He also advised on other species to look out for and on name changes etc. Kemerton will check records and draw up a list of comments for circulation.

The only ‘new’ plant recorded for 2001 turned out to be cannabis growing on a stream side!!

Other Records

40-50 Common Newts were found hibernating under a small log at a wetland site.

Mining Bees

During an inspection of the large mining bee breeding site at Kinsham Lake it was discovered that a Mole had been intensively working just beneath the soil surface. As the soil used to build the bank was ‘subsoil’ and contains few invertebrates it seems most likely that the Mole is feeding on the mining bee larvae and their cells.

Further investigations of this mining bee colony in April and May 2002 are mentioned by Geoff Trevis in his article on invertebrate recording elsewhere in this issue of Worcestershire Record. This enormous colony of Andrena flavipes probably contains about 40,000 nests! A. flavipes has only relatively recently been recorded in Warwickshire in fairly low numbers (Steven Falk, personal communication) and its arrival at Kemerton is also fairly recent: the site must be ideal to support such a large and important colony of a scarce species. The high density of nests suggests that the site must also be important for other mining bee species and their parasites. Steven Falk suggested, we looked for the Red Data Book bee fly, Bombylius discolor that should, almost certainly, be present along with the more common cleptoparasites such as the Nomada species. Our first efforts to find the bee-fly were defeated by bad weather at the crucial time! The common large bee-fly Bombylius major was seen ovipositing amongst the Andrena burrows. Closer examination of the ground suggests there may be between 300-400 larvae per square metre of colony! All are provisioned with pollen and many are parasitized.

Worcestershire Record No. 12 April 2002 p. 49-51

River Cliff Woodlands in Worcestershire

By John Day

This note is based on part of work undertaken for Worcestershire County Council which comprised a desk study aimed at pin-pointing suitable habitat, followed by a field survey to search for Sorbus domestica, the True Service Tree (See Worcestershire Record – references at end of article) in Worcestershire. No new Sorbus domestica have been found to date!

The field survey also proved invaluable for the collection of data on the riverine cliff ancient woodland communities of Worcester shire. These ecotones are of outstanding ecological interest. Furthermore, they are fragile, often very small, and ecologically important, and the aim of this article is to place on record a few of their notable features, to give examples, and to list the most important sites. These woods are within the highest possible category of Worcestershire woodlands in their scores for naturalness, diversity, rarity, fragility, recorded history, intrinsic appeal and scientific value.

Wood-edge communities, that is light demanding saum types, combined with ancient provenance and habitat continuity are the primary ecological features which determine their special quality. A novel suite of soils and physical conditions adds to their interest. Ecological gradients are steep. There is considerable natural variation. For instance, bluffs, cliffs, cliff tops and cliff bases vary floristically within a small area. Micro-patterning of plant communities may be intense. The physical character of each site gives a unique fingerprint to each site. These woods are so rare that all remaining examples are worthy of conservation.

The survey did not examine any sites on the Devonian, Carboniferous or Silurian geological formations. That is the areas upstream of Stourport on the River Severn and upstream of Osebury Rock on the River Teme and these are not discussed in detail. However, the Wyre gorge does hold some fine examples. Similarly, a whole series of small and very rich wood-cliff communities occur along the Teme between Knightsford and Little Hereford near Tenbury Wells.

Special reference is made to the limestone woodlands of the Knightsford gap (on ancient river cliffs) and the magnificent Devonian cliff below Berrow Hill.

Marl Cliffs

The outstanding feature of the marl cliffs, those derived from the Mercian Mudstones, is the abundance of Wild Service Tree Sorbus torminalis . It is often confined to a narrow band along the leading edge of the cliff. In such locations individual trunks may be of considerable age, and its favoured niche is at the crumbling cliff top, where it often grows vertically downwards, so that a canopy of ancient Wild Service may curtain the cliff top. These are ancient clones occupying native wildwood habitat, possibly since the dawn of human immigration after the last Ice Age. It is quite feasible that these individuals have occupied the Sabrine cliffs for thousands of years as a single creeping root-mass, moving inland as the cliff crumbled and fell. This woodland community scores as high as possible for naturalness.

Of special interest is the occurrence of wood edge plants of both oligo-mesotrophic soils and of more basic conditions in close proximity. This due to the varying soil conditions, through the vertical exposures, and is a reminder of the variability of mudstone derived soils.

Riparian cliff-base willow woods are a feature of some sites

The rare phenomenon of tufa springs derived from the Mercian Mudstones is exhibited at Rockhill and Cotheridge on the River Teme.

Triassic Sandstones and Breccia Cliffs

The outstanding feature of these cliff is the lime wood communities. Both small- and large-leaved limes, Tilia cordata and Tilia platyphyllos occur. The former is often dominant. Nationally, all ancient semi-natural woodlands with Tilia platyphyllos are of ecological significance, as this is one of Britain’s rarest native trees. Wild Service Tree is also a constant component, but is mainly confined to rock exposures, and therefore may occur at a low frequency. The classic ground flora component on the more skeletal soils is Luzula sylvatica. Nationally uncommon, Festuca altissima occurs on the cliffs in Shrawley Wood.

Important and fairly well-known examples of this group of woodlands are Shrawley Wood and the outliers at Blackstone Rock, and on the Breccias at Osebury Rock. However reference must be made to the series of woodlands on the bluffs above the flood plain between the confluences with the rivers Stour and Salwarpe on the left (east) bank of the Severn. These are an outstanding limewood resource in size, rarity (species and communities), diversity, scientific resource and intrinsic appeal. The stands are generally richer in species and often have a better structure than those in Shrawley Wood.

The almost constant occurrence of Tilia platyphyllos is a distinct feature of these woods. The population here is certainly of regional significance and provides a contrast to the populations on the more basic soils of the Silurian formations.

Sites of High Scientific Interest

These sites are known from this or previous surveys by the author to support exceptionally fine examples of riverine cliff, woodland communities. Within their geological formations, they are considered to be the best examples examined to date, within Worcestershire. Only sites with features of high scientific interest are listed below.

Mercian Mudstone / Marl Cliffs

Red Cliff & Hayley Dingle: SO7554, SO7654, SO7553.
Rockhill Covert: SO7953, SO7952, SO7853.
Clevelode Cliff: SO8346
Cliffey Wood: SO8344, SO8444
CliffWood: SO8542
Bevere Cliff: SO8459
Cotheridge Cliff: SO7854

Triassic and Sandstone Cliffs

Blackstone Rock: SO7871, SO7971.
Redstone Rock: SO8169
Lincomb Wood: SO8168, SO8269
Winnall Coppice: SO8166, SO8167.
Shrawley Wood: SO8165, SO8166
Mutton Hall & Lineholt Woods: SO8166, SO8165, SO8164.
Hawford & Bournes Dingle: SO8460, SO8461, SO8362

Breccia Cliff

Osebury Rock: SO7455

Acknowledgements

Grateful thanks to the Worcestershire County Council for permission to publish note arising from commissioned work.

References

GREEN H 1999 The Whitty Pear alias the Old Sorb Tree alias the True Service Tree Sorbus domestica L in Worcestershire. Worcestershire Record No 7 page 27. November 1999
CLAXTON F 1999 The Whitty Pear Sorbus domestica L. Worcestershire Record No 7, page 28-30. November 1999.

Worcestershire Record No. 12 April 2002 p. 51

The Ancient Woodland Resource of Worcestershire

By J.J.Day

There is some concern amongst conservation organisations that the county Ancient Woodland Inventories, produced by Nature Conservancy Council/English Nature, fail to identify the total resource. To be included in the inventory sites had to be at least 2ha in area. Worcestershire was forest country well into the Anglo-Saxon period. The pattern of woodland clearance has resulted in many small ancient semi-natural woods.

It is the small sites which contribute so much to the biodiversity of Worcestershire. In order to retain extensive and viable woodland populations of wildlife maintenance of the countywide matrix is vital. For example, most of the woodlands in the Laugherne basin are ancient semi-natural. Most are not in the Ancient Woodland Inventory. Virtually all support wild service tree Sorbus torminalis. The density of wild service tree is probably as high as anywhere in northwest Europe.

In 1983 I produced an Ancient Woodland Catalogue for use by the then Worcestershire Nature Conservation Trust. The method was the same as the Nature Conservancy Council’s approach but differed in that it included all woodland regardless of size.

The statistics for ancient woodland sites are of interest:

Survey by Number of sites Total Area ha
N.C.C. 486 6222
W.N.C.T. 1135 7292
Discrepancy 649 1070

Well over half, 57%, of Worcestershire’s ancient woodland sites have no conservation designation. A total of 15% by area is unprotected.

References

DAY J.J. 1983 Ancient Woodland Catalogue WNCT (unpublished)
WHITBREAD A. 1986 Worcestershire Inventory of Ancient Woodlands. Nature Conservancy Council.

Worcestershire Record No. 12 April 2002 p. 46-49

The Use of Old Records – Some Worked Examples

By J J Day

Nearly, half a million flora records have now been entered into an electronic database. These break down, approximately, as half for each period : 1965-1986 and 1987-2002. Interrogation of the data can now be rapid and change can be analysed with greater versatility.

A) Measuring Habitat Loss using an Indicator Species

Alchemilla filicaulis subsp.vestita, Lady’s Mantle

In Worcestershire, this species is a good indicator of certain unimproved grassland communities principally the NVC type MG5c (Rodwell, 1994). This is a threatened and declining habitat throughout lowland Britain. Worcestershire supports a significant proportion of the national resource.

Division of the records into date classes allows a rapid assessment of habitat loss. This is indicative of a loss of approximately 18% in MG5c grassland between 1970 and 2001. Figure 1 indicates monad distribution: records are divided into two date classes – 1970 -1986 and 1987-2002.


Figure 1 Alchemilla filicaulis subsp.vestita 1970 – 2001
= Records 1970- 1986 only
= Records 1987 – 2002

Changes in Species Distribution

Cochlearia danica, Danish Scurvy Grass

The first record, for Worcestershire was in 1977 by a disused brine pit at Stoke Works. It has not been re-found at that site. The population has not contributed to the current expansion.

The pattern of colonisation :-

In 1989, it appeared on the M50 motorway, in the extreme southwest of the county.
By the mid-1990s it had colonised most of the motorway and dual carriageway network. The order of colonisation being M5, A449(T), A456, A448, A38.
By the late-1990s it had spread to other A-roads and some B-roads.
There is now a spread into urban areas.

The rate of colonisation, for a vascular plant, in the period 1989 – 2002 is dramatic. There are currently records from 346 monads. If the remote populations are linked along the roads, then the known spread of colonisation extends to 427 km. This gives a rate of colonisation of 30.5 km./year. or 3.5 m/hour., over this period. Clearly in a favourable habitat, Cochlearia danica is a mobile species, highly efficient at locating suitable micro-niches over fairly long distances.

The pattern of colonisation, on individual roads, is of interest. It can be viewed in detail by examining records on a year by year basis. A number of phases are apparent :-

  1. Initial colonisation – often a single colony on a new road system, remote from any other colonies, which remains stable for two-three years. The longest leap along a road system, which can be reliably extracted from the data is 18km. The leaps of initial colonisation, on A roads, have been recorded as up to 17km. A distance of 10-15km. is frequently observed. This suggests that a single colony can broadcast its seed production over a distance of 15km. on major roads, under current traffic levels and management regimes, (e.g. verge cutting, salt application).
  2. Several new colonies appear with a disjunct distribution, often several kms. apart, after two-three years.
  3. Rapid infill between colonies, all suitable micro-niches occupied. On the most, favourable road systems, such as A-class Trunk roads, infill progresses very rapidly, often over the course of a single year. Phase 2 may be obscured or missing: this occurred on the A449(T). The phases 2-3 on the M5 are not documented in the records. These phases were missed by botanists. Once the seed bank is fully operative and at saturation levels, all suitable micro-niches are occupied.
  4. Spread into urban areas; becoming apparent (2001-02). Favoured niches are wall bases, alongside principal roads.

The individual pattern of colonisation for each road is unique.

Seed dispersal appears to be, mainly, on currents of turbulence. Both wind and water are utilised as dispersal agents. Long distance dispersal is probably wind borne – stages 1 and 2. The slower rate of these phases is due to the degree of chance. The rapid phase 3 may be largely water borne as colonies coalesce over micro- and macro-catchments.

The micro-niche requirements can be determined by the pattern within initial colonisations. This is most apparent in the earliest phases of colonisation before seed saturation is reached.
Soils are important. In the colonisation of the A-road network there is a bias towards light well drained soils, such as the Triassic sandstone area and the gravels of river terrace deposits. Clay and calcareous soils are generally avoided, even occasionally, on dual carriageways. On less favoured soils, colonisation of the road network may stall after initial colonisation, or be very slow, such as the A44 east of Worcester.

Other soil characteristics :-

Fine silts and stony ground feature as favoured substrates.
A tendency for water accumulation, puddling, in wet weather.
Bare ground – including vehicle tracks.
High water stress in summer – this reduces competition from perennials and therefore helps maintain open areas, suitable for germination.

Slope is important. Initial colonies on new roads, tend to occur on down-slopes or in valleys. This is, presumably, due to down-wash phenomenon – of seed, salt and fine silts. A good place to look for new colonies on roads is around bridges over watercourses. Drip from motorway bridges accounts for some colonies, such as on the canal at Offerton and the B4090 at Hadzor. Changes in carriageway direction, such as bends and roundabouts, are frequent sites for initial colonisation. Turbulence, bare ground, silt and seed accumulation are causal factors.

The micro-topography of the profile, across a carriageway, is very important. Bare ground is often a feature. Flat open areas, particularly if puddling is likely, alongside carriageways facilitate rapid colonisation. Loose hard shoulders, such as on A449(T) Worcester northern link, provide prime sites. Central reservations with bare areas are similarly favoured. The 15cm. zone back from kerb tops can be important. In rural, locations farm gateways with bare, puddled, areas by main roads, are preferential niches.

The distribution map can be used, as a quick indicator, of the zone of greatest urban pressure even though colonisation of strictly urban roads and streets is only beginning to show. In urban settings niches of soil are a scarce resource amid a frequently inhospitable environment. The seed bank must have reached high levels to facilitate urban spread.

Roads have a significant local impact, on the physical and chemical properties of soils. Compounds other than salt may also play a role. Concentrations of heavy metal ions may be important, for instance in reducing competition. Current management is creating a novel suite of soils. The vegetation of the British Isles has responded.

Knowledge of the biology of mobility may prove crucial for the retention of biodiversity. Particularly in a landscape with an increasingly fragmented network of semi-natural habitats. Clearly, habitat corridors can be important, in aiding rapid colonisation.

The three figures show the distribution plotted as monads at the end of 1989, the end of 1995, and up to April 2002.


Cochlearia danica all records up to end of 1989


Cochlearia danica all records up to end of 1995


Cochlearia danica all records up to April 2002

C. SITE CHANGE

Old Mill Pool, Beoley SP057681

This pool was described by Fincher (1966) as one of the finest natural sights in the district. In the mid-1980s it was made available for angling. It is relatively small, about 0.6 ha. It is of county significance for wildlife. What has been the impact of the change in management on its natural history interest? Can the old records illuminate change?

The database holds records from six survey dates with varying degrees of completeness. In order to utilise all the records they were plotted on a matrix against time. Points were joined to give a minimum date range for each species. This allows all records, including those for single species, to be used.

Biodiversity

A total of 60 wetland plant species have been found on the site since 1966. Twenty three, approximately 40% of the flora, are lost. This is inclusive of the natural turnover rate, which in aquatic/wetland communities can be high. It is a function of micro-habitat availability, niche number and loading. The totals for previous dates give a better comparison for assessing change. A figure, for total carrying capacity in any given year, is found, by counting down a column. This, partially, offsets the problem of site recording. No single visit will record all taxa present.

There has been a decline from a mean of 40 species for three surveys in the mid-1980s, to 34 species in 2000. This indicates a decline in wetland species diversity of 15%.

Species Richness

Utilising, the county rarity score as outlined in Day J.J. (2001):-

mean score for the three surveys in the 1980s is 1.85
score for 2000 is 1.70

Applying, a similiar method from a national system, National Pond Survey (1993), the Species Rarity Index is :-

mean score for the three surveys in the 1980s is 1.23
score for 2000 is 1.21

The national ranking has fallen from very high quality in the 1980s to a high quality pond in 2000.

The species richness has declined

Table

Beoley Pool Temporal Distribution of Wetland Species in Phytosociological groupings

(* = non-native)

Year
65          70                     80                       90                        00
Aquatic-  
Chara sp.
                                   X
Potamogeton pectinatus
                                   ---------------------------------------------------
Ceratophyllum demersum
                                                                                   -----
*Elodea canadensis
                                                 ---------------------------------------
*Elodea nuttallii
                                                            ----------------------------
Nuphar lutea
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Nymphoides peltata
                                                 ---------------------------------------
Lemna minor
                                   -----------------------------------------------------
Persicaria amphibia
                                   -------------------------
Callitriche sp.
                                                           X
Open swamp / Water margin  
Veronica beccabunga
                                   X
Apium nodiflorum
                                   -------------------------
Alisma plantago-aquatica
X
Mentha aquatica
                                   -----------------------------------------------------
Myosotis scorpioides
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rorippa amphibia
------------------------------------------------------------
Rorippa nasturtium-aquaticum
                                                            ----------------------------
Lycopus europaeus
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carex otrubae
-----------------------------------
Carex pseudocyperus
                                                        X
Inudation  
Glyceria fluitans
                                     ---------------------------------------------------
Persicaria hydropiper
                                                        X
Bidens cernua
                                   X
Ranunculus sceleratus
                                   -----------------------
Agrostis stolonifera
                                   -----------------------------------------------------
Alopecurus geniculatus
                                                        X
Juncus bufonius
                                                        X
Reedswamp  
Carex acutiformis
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carex riparia
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iris pseudocorus
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solanum dulcamara
                                   ----------------------------------------------------
Sparganium erectum
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Typha latifolia
                                                           X
Backmarsh / Fen  
Scutellaria galericulata
                                                         X
Galium palustre subsp. palustre
                                   X
Juncus effusus
                                   -----------------------------------------------------
Juncus inflexus
                                   -----------------------------------------------------
Lotus pendunculatus
                                   X
Achillea ptarmica
                                                        X
Cirsium palustre
                                   -----------------------------------------------------
Deschampsia cespitosa
                                   -----------------------------------------------------
Epilobium hirsutum
                                   -----------------------------------------------------
Epilobium parviflorum
                                                        X
Eupatorium cannabinum
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Filipendula ulmaria
                                   -----------------------------------------------------
Angelica sylvestris
                                   -----------------------------------------------------
Myosoton aquaticum
                                   -----------------------------------------------------
Scrophularia auriculata
                                   -----------------------------------------------------
*Impatiens glandulifera  
Conium maculatum
                                                        X
Trees / Shrubs
                                   -----------------------------------------------------
Alnus glutinosa
                                   -----------------------------------------------------
Salix cinerea subsp.oleifolia
                                   -----------------------------------------------------
Salix alba
                                                            X
Salix caprea
                                   X
Salix fragilis
                                   -----------------------------------------------------
*Salix x sepulcralis
                                                                                       X
Populus nigra subsp. betulifolia
                                   -----------------------------------------------------

Community change

By arranging the flora records into broad phytosociological groupings (see table), it is possible to pinpoint some of the impacts and their causes. 

The losses and change are not evenly distributed, across all habitats/communities.
There has been little change overall in :-

species composition amongst the principle trees
in reedswamp composition.
Robust perennials are at least risk.

The aquatic community has altered significantly.

The assemblage in 1986 was a Lake Type 9 (Palmer et al 1992). This is equivalent to an unimproved, eutrophic community. Such sites are rare and declining in England.
The assemblage in 2000 is a Lake Type 10 (Palmer 1992). This is the equivalent of a eutrophic weed assemblage. They are common throughout much of England.

Biodiversity has risen but alien species are now dominant.

The quality has declined.

The mean Ellenberg score (Hill, 1999), for nitrogen requirement, has increased from 6.2 in the mid 1980s to 6.4 in 2000. The mean of the lost species is 6. This shift is indicative of an increase in eutrophication, particularily, in phosphate levels. This is a characteristic of angled sites compounded here by the small size of the pond. The likely origins of eutrophication, associated with the fishing include

ground baiting
disturbance of bottom sediment through clearance
disturbance of bottom sediment by introduced carp
disturbance of bottom sediment by fishing tackle
use of aquatic herbicides
faunal load – repeated fish introductions

Alien species are another characteristic problem associated with angling

accidental introduction, of the alien Elodea pondweeds, through agencies such as infected tackle or fish introductions
deliberate introduction – fringed water-lily, Nymphoides peltata

There is a cycle of inappropriate management. The ecological dynamics of the pond, have not been understood. Rather than working with the capabilities of the resource, the anglers have relentlessly pursued their own vision.
It serves as an example.
This was a yellow water lily pond. These are rare in Worcestershire. Anglers do not like fishing around lily beds. It gives the fish an advantage. They attempted to destroy the water-lilies. Herbicides and clearance were used. The chemistry of the water was altered. Fringed water-lily was introduced. This filled the floating species niche. This became rampant. Herbicides were used. This further disrupted the ecology.
Yellow water lilies are protected by a powerful rhizome, these can grow to significant dimensions, in effect they are subterranean, underwater trunks. They are still present, although much reduced. Meanwhile, the angler’s cycle of management continues.

Open swamp species and water margin vegetation – there has been a highly significant loss. These communities have been severely disrupted or entirely destroyed.
The decline of open swamp species is 71% and of inundation grassland species 60%.

These species tend to be easily uprooted annuals or short lived perennials. The loss due, principally, to trampling of edges, disturbance and intentional clearance.

Backmarsh, Fen, Damp Grassland community
The loss is significant, with a decline of 35%, mainly amongst damp grassland species.
These communities are scarce in Worcestershire.

The cause of loss is concentrated people pressure, such as trampling, disturbance, and direct clearance. There is even an annual burn, by a well meaning ornithologist/angler. The problem is exasperated, by the density of fishing pegs and through access onto an island. The later holds an alder fen woodland type W5b (Rodwell, 1991). This is a rare type in the county.
The more robust species have survived best. Small perennials are at greatest risk

Conclusion –

The temporal distributions of a series of site based records have enabled the extent and causes of ecological change to be identified.
There has been a marked decline in ecological quality, due to people pressure.
There has been too much angling, over too much of the site and for too long.
The declines are liable to continue if current management remains the same.

References

DAY J.J. 2001 Checklist of the Worcestershire Flora. Worcestershire Wildlife Trust .
FINCHER F. 1966. Ecological Survey. Redditch Development Corporation
HILL M.O.et al. 1999. Ellenberg’s indicator values for British plants.
NATIONAL POND SURVEY. 1993 Methods Booklet. Pond Action.
PALMER M., BELL S.L., BUTTERFIELD I. 1992. A botanical Classification of standing waters in Britain. Aquatic Conservation Vol.2, pages 125-143.
RODWELL J.S. (ed) 1991. British Plant Communities Vol.1 Woodlands and Scrub, CUP
RODWELL J.S. (ed) 1994. British Plant Communities Vol.3 Grasslands. CUP

Worcestershire Record No. 12 April 2002 p. 39

Water Beetles

By Garth Foster

There are currently 1,207 records of 166 species of water beetle in Worcestershire, a significant improvement on when I reported in Worcestershire Record 9 November 2000.

Harry Green invited me to give a talk at the WBRC Annual Meeting at Crowle on 13th April 2002, and I was able to spend the rest of that weekend searching for new sites, and, as it turns out, three species apparently new for the county. A group of us visited several ponds at Grimley on Sunday 14th April, and it took a botanist, John Day, to find the first specimen of the most interesting species, Hydrochus elongatus. I might also admit that I had worked the same pond in the same place the previous day without success – talk about beginner’s luck! This beetle, which is about 4 mm long, sluggish, black and stick-shaped, is easily overlooked – and is frequently found on the sorting tray after everything else has been thrown back into the pond. This beetle, which is associated with ponds with emergent vegetation, appears to be wholly new for Worcestershire, was found in two more of the ponds at Grimley, again with John taking a leading role.


Hydrochus elongates

Another interesting species was the 2mm long diving beetle, Graptodytes granularis, which is black with yellow stripes just visible to the unaided eye. This beetle was in a reedmace marsh in a pond at Grimley. The only earlier records for Worcestershire are from Moorcroft (I know the ceramics but I don’t know the place -any offers? (See below – Ed) by J.E. Fletcher in the 19th Century, and by the late Don Goddard at Mosely in April 1982. Worcestershire is in the thin skein of sites between this species’ stronghold around the Wash to outposts scattered around Wales and Ireland.

Grimley also yielded a single specimen of Haliplus flavicollis, again new for the county. It is supposed to live on stoneworts as a larva, switching to the eggs of plume midges (the bloodworm-type midges of muddy pools) as an adult. The minute Hydraena rufipes was found in the Leigh Brook at Leigh. I pointed out in my talk that the running water Hydraena species are nearly all endangered, with much evidence of decline, presumably because they are hypersensitive to pollution. I know of only two earlier records of rufipes in Worcestershire, but it can be abundant in the upper reaches of the Teme in Herefordshire. I was shocked to find that Hydroporus incognitus, of which one specimen was seen at Grimley, had not been recorded from the county before; certainly the habitat, shaded pools, is not often worked as it rarely looks inviting.

The drawing of Hydrochus elongatus is one prepared by Mrs Rosemary Wise. The map shows much of the distribution of Graptodytes granularis across Britain and Ireland, black symbols being from 1980 onwards.

Graptodytes granularis distribution map

Where is Moorcroft

– Harry Green

John Edward Fletcher 1836-1902 lived and worked in Worcester all his life and was, according to his Obituary, ….. a man of rare intelligence ….. of considerable education, probably largely self-taught. Reserved and retiring in the extreme, he did not mix with others of similar tastes, even in his own locality, and his doings and acquirements were more known to the wider circle of British entomologists at large rather than at home. His entomological studies started when he was age 15 and continued almost until his death. He wrote many short notes to Entomologist’s Monthly Magazine and virtually the whole section on Insecta in the Worcestershire Victoria County History. His insect collection was sold to the Worcester Museum after his death. Apparently in Lepidoptera and Coleoptera were integrated with other collections and looked after, but Geoff Trevis and I discovered masses of old cigar boxes in the bowels of the museum containing specimens of all Orders, which are almost certainly his collection, ravaged by museum beetle and thickly coated with industrial grime. The meticulous labelling shows that he worked around Worcester St Johns and out into the countryside beyond for about ten miles.

In the context of Garth Foster’s comment, Don Goddard found Graptodytes granularis at Mosely which is about 1 km S of the centre of Monkwood (SO810595) while Moorcroft Farm (SO811605) is about 1 km N of Moseley, between Monkwood and Sinton Green village on the modern 1:25000 map. This is surely the Fletcher site?

Obituary John Edward Fletcher1902 Entomologist’s Monthly Magazine 38:134-135.

Worcestershire Record No. 12 April 2002 p. 15-16

Cuckoos in Worcestershire – 2001

By Andrew Fraser

Introduction

For a number of years I have been increasingly concerned at an apparent decline in the numbers of cuckoos I hear in Worcestershire. When talking to other people they have confirmed this, commenting that they have declined in numbers and in some areas have disappeared altogether. I decided to ask members of the Wildlife Trust to record any cuckoos they heard or saw over the spring and summer of 2001.

Method

In the Trust’s spring newsletter of Worcestershire Wildlife News I asked members to record and send me the following information on cuckoos:-

the date(s) of records
location
number and dates of times seen or heard
the habitat where recorded

Results

Seventy-four different people sent in information, some single sightings, others a series of records, altogether totalling 147 separate sets of records. Some of the records sent in by different people were obviously the same birds recorded in the same place about the same time. In processing the records I ignored these duplicates, ending up with 107 records. 68 of these were single or in a few cases two records and 39 were three or more records of birds in the same place or extremely close together. These are plotted on the map.

I have made the assumption, based on no particular evidence, that where there were three or more records from the same locality a male cuckoo was holding a territory. Some of these territories were much more convincing with many records of birds calling, or pairs of birds or in one case a fledgling being fed by a dunnock. Obviously some of the single records may also have been birds holding territories, which were only recorded as someone “passed by”. Others may have been birds trying out an area to see if they could attract in females and moved on when this proved unsuccessful. Having made this assumption I plotted the “territories” and the single records on the attached map. On only five occasions were a male and female cuckoos recorded together, on five occasions females were seen/heard separately and on only sixteen occasions were two males heard calling against each other.

This year the earliest male cuckoo was recorded on 9th April at Alvechurch and the last on 17th July last heard at Guarlford near Malvern

One of the main concentrations of potential cuckoo territories in Worcestershire is in the Salwarpe valley with three territories in close proximity, probably using the concentration of reed warblers, a favourite host, in the Droitwich Canal. The other is along the River Avon, again where there are good numbers of reed warblers. Elsewhere in the county they are dotted around rather randomly at a spacing seldom closer than three to four kilometres apart.


Distribution map of cuckoo records in Worcestershire 2001

Observers also sent me other information on cuckoos in Worcestershire. Phillipa Swanborough of Wyre Piddle sent the first dates on which cuckoos were recorded at her home by herself and her husband (table follows 1989-2001)

’89 ’90 ’91 ’92 ’93 ’94 ’95 ’96 ’97 ’98 ’99 ’00 ’01
23/4 29/4 5/5 8/5 3/5 30/4 27/4 19/4 24/4 19/4 20/4 24/4 24/4

However, Phillipa’s records of the first cuckoo of the year are eclipsed by Dorothy and Margaret Honeybourne, and prior to them, their father who started recording at Moorgate Road, Stoke Prior in 1916 when Margaret was born. Table below. This amazing recording marathon continues today. (See Worcestershire Record No 11, November 2001, page 11-12). This shows that the date for the first record of cuckoos is actually getting later averaging about 16th April in the 1920s whilst it is now nearer 26th April. Phillipa Swanborough also said they are arriving later. 60+ years ago they used to arrive around 12 April and “I think that the arrival of the cuckoo is getting later and later”

Dates of cuckoo returns Moorgate Road, Stoke Prior
1916 20 April 1945 12 April 1974 24 April
1917 1 May 1946 4 May 1975 26 April
1918 8 April 1947 13 April 1976 16 April
1919 18 April 1948 14 April 1977 25 April
1920 25 March 1949 11 April 1978 2 May
1921 20 April 1950 16 April 1979 4 May
1922 18 April 1951 14 April 1980 25 April
1923 18 April 1952 22 April 1981 4 May
1924 14 April 1953 20 April 1982 25 April
1925 10 April 1954 22 April 1983 25 April
1926 10 April 1955 15 April 1984 20 April
1927 20 April 1956 18 April 1985 22 April
1928 24 April 1957 19 April 1986 30 April
1929 16 April 1958 22 April 1987 25 April
1930 12 April 1959 18 April 1988 18 April
1931 26 April 1960 15 April 1989 20 April
1932 14 April 1961 20 April 1990 30 April
1933 16 April 1962 11 April 1991 2 May
1934 17 April 1963 22 April 1992 27 April
1935 14 April 1964 18 April 1993 25 April
1936 22 April 1965 30 April 1994 24 April
1937 24 April 1966 26 April 1995 27 April
1938 26 April 1967 23 April 1996 28 April
1939 13 April 1968 16 April 1997 30 April
1940 20 April 1969 18 April 1998 27 April
1941 22 April 1970 14 April 1999 25 April
1942 22 April 1971 18 April 2000 22 April
1943 22 April 1972 2 May 2001 30 April
1944 6 April 1973 24 April    


Data from Stoke Prior – see table

The prize for the most detailed records has to go to Elisabeth Jackson of Thorn Farm at Inkberrow who heard her first cuckoo this year at 6 pm on 24 April. On 13 May she first heard the calls at 4.40 am and the last one at 3.30 pm, in between she recorded the male calling 836 times! She heard the last male calls on 28 June. In between she heard and recorded thousands of male cuckoo calls, but no female bubbling calls. Does this mean that the male spent two months trying to attract a female and did not succeed during the whole of the two months?

Discussion

Lord and Munns (1970) recorded the cuckoo as “fairly numerous” across the West Midlands counties (Staffordshire, Warwickshire and Worcestershire). It was considered to be or breeding in five and probably breeding in twelve of the twenty-one 10 kilometre squares the book records in Worcestershire. This survey recorded it as definitely breeding in only one (young being fed) 10 kilometre square and possibly breeding in thirteen others. These records are based on un-coordinated records in one summer, the previous work by Lord and Munns was based on more co-ordinated recording over three years.

Lord and Munns suggest between 200 and 2,000 pairs for the West Midlands. Sharrock (1976) suggested national breeding densities of 5-10 pairs per 10 kilometre square would be a “modest” estimate, but obviously this is a considerable generalisation. National Common Bird Census records from British Trust for Ornithology surveys give a density of 1.34 pairs per square kilometre of farmland and 2.81 pairs per kilometre square of woodland. However the CBC records for the West Midlands show 4.8 pairs per square kilometre of woodland in the West Midlands. Harrison (1982) suggests that that a “regional population in the order of 4-6,000 pairs is probable”. Gibbons et al (1993) also suggest that the average figure of 5-10 pairs per 10 kilometre square is likely across the country.

The Gibbons figures would give between 90 and 180 pairs of cuckoos for Worcestershire, the Harrison figures would give considerable more. Obviously the records I received are only a selection of the actual distribution of cuckoos across Worcestershire in 2001. However, few people recorded more than a couple of cuckoos, most heard birds from only one or two places. Many people have told me that they heard none last year and many others said the numbers have declined considerably, especially in recent years. I suspect therefore that at least in the central area of the county where many members live, many of the cuckoos holding territories have been recorded.

This creates a fairly depressing picture, but perhaps one that should not surprise us as it mirrors the problems of many more species of birds in the countryside. So what are the factors most likely to have caused the decline?

As a migrant, cuckoos are potentially at risk from changes in the over-wintering grounds in Africa or on the route to and from the UK. There has been no suggestion that this might be a problem for cuckoos, although it has certainly been for some other species such as sand martin.

One of the major changes in Britain has been the alteration in the management of the countryside due to intensive agriculture that has had a severe impact on many bird species. Tree sparrows, yellowhammers, grey partridge and many other species of birds of agricultural land have declined drastically as breeding sites and food supplies have declined. The main lowland hosts of cuckoo are dunnock and reed warbler with robin and sedge warbler used as alternatives. Some of the hosts have shown national declines in breeding numbers although dunnocks, the most important host, has had reasonable increases across the UK. Whether this is true in all farmland, is more difficult to judge. It is therefore difficult to show that declines in the main hosts have caused a reduction in cuckoo numbers.

The final factor may be food supply. Adult cuckoos feed mainly on large caterpillars of moths, species that have almost certainly declined drastically in the countryside due to intensive agricultural systems, but which may still be present in larger numbers in woodlands where more cuckoos appear to breed. The young cuckoos make enormous demands on their foster parents and it is possible that they are not able to provide adequate food for them to complete their development.

Whatever, the cause cuckoos must now join the depressing catalogue of species that has declined in the UK. Perhaps we should try to use it as a rallying call to persuade more people to manage their land in a more environmentally friendly manner. It would be so sad if future generations could not hear one of the most delightful and welcome sounds of the countryside in summer.

Acknowledgements

I am very grateful to all the people who sent me records or phoned them through to the Trust office. If anyone else recorded cuckoos last year (2001), but did not forward them I would still like to hear about them. They can be added to those that I have already received, provided they are accurate, to give a better picture of the cuckoos in Worcestershire last year. I need to know the information I mentioned at the start of this paper.

References

GIBBONS D W, REID J B, CHAPMAN R A (Eds.) 1993 The New Atlas of Breeding Birds in Britain and Ireland. BTO: T & AD Poyser
HARRISON G H (Ed) 1982. The birds of the West Midlands. West Midland Bird Club
LORD J AND MUNNS DJ (1970) Atlas of the breeding birds of the West Midlands. West Midlands Bird Club
SHARROCK JTR. 1976. The Atlas of the Breeding Birds in Britain and Ireland. BTO

Worcestershire Record No. 12 April 2002 p. 24

Bombardier Beetle

By Harry Green

(click image for enlargement)

The Bombardier Beetle Brachinus crepitans (Linnaeus, 1758). Photo Roger Key

Serendipity strikes again! I was browsing through some old entomological journals and noticed the following article:
C A Collingwood 1958 Notes on Coleoptera in the Midlands. The Entomologist’s Record 70, 4-6. A glance showed a few records for Worcestershire and, amazingly, the following: “Brachinus crepitans L at Eldersfield in October 1954 is a new county record according to B P Moore 1957 The British Carabidae (Coleoptera) part 2, Ent Gaz 8 171-181″. So following our discovery in 2001 (see Worcestershire Record no 11) we now have one modern and two historical sites – near Honeybourne, at Brotheridge Green, and now Eldersfield. Bearing in mind Bombardier Beetle’s habitat is open, usually chalky ground with scattered stones and plants, it is difficult to imagine where it might have occurred at Eldersfield in 1954. No old railway there, although I have seen occasional patches of gravely soil (glacio-fluvial deposits probably) with old anthills and I suppose low-input arable cultivation on such sites might have created sites for the beetle in the past.

Worcestershire Record No. 12 April 2002 p. 24

What do Buzzards Eat?

By Harry Green

The saga continues…..keep sending in your observations.

E-mail from Gary Farmer:

We keep a Records Book at the Redditch Group indoor meetings (Worcs Wildlife Trust) and the following was entered a little while ago “Buzzard swooped down with pigeon in its claws in Crumpfields Lane (Webheath). Flew off again into field”

From Les Brown.

The aerial manoeuvres of large flocks of Starlings at dusk as they prepare to dive into nearby bushes to roost is a sight well worth witnessing, and also of interest is the behaviour of the various raptors that usually attend such gatherings hoping to catch their evening meal. I witnessed a roost of about 10,000 Starlings at Corse Wood Hill near Gloucester last February and during the time I was present Peregrine, Merlin, Kestrel, Sparrowhawk and Buzzard were in attendance at various times.

The peregrine and merlin did what these falcons do best, dashing in at high speed and catching a bird without much difficulty. The Kestrel circled and hovered above but in spite of numerous attempts was not seen to catch anything . It should stick to rodents! The sparrowhawk flew in low beneath the wheeling Starlings and timed its climb to coincide with the descending birds and had little difficulty in snatching one in an up and under movement. It was the two Buzzards that were of particular interest though. These birds lazily circled overhead and slowly drifted into the side of an approaching flock in an attempt to catch a starling in passing. I watched numerous such attempts by the buzzards to catch in this way without success, but perseverance paid off and eventually one was successful. It carried the bird to the ground, presumably to kill it, and later flew off with it towards nearby woodland.

From Mark E Turner

I have read with great interest observers’ notes sent in for Harry’s continuing saga of “What do Buzzards eat?”

During the past ten years or so, many of us have enjoyed the appearance of buzzards taking up residence in our local countryside/neighbourhood as their range expands and population grows. This has been of particular interest to me as buzzards have enthralled me since my youth.

Following my participation in the 1997 Worcestershire Buzzard survey and the publication of my first book, “Birding Buzzard Country”*, many people have shared their own experiences of the species with me, and that includes Buzzards’ eating habits.

Carcasses are obviously a common attraction, ranging from corpses of rabbits, pheasants, fox and crow in the road, to dead sheep in the fields.

The most worrying and indeed controversial incident I have learned of was through over-hearing a conversation between a gamekeeper and a local farmer. It was of a buzzard dropping out of a tree onto a live pheasant poult.

Buzzards though are highly adaptable, they have learned to take advantage of easy meals made available by Man working the land. On many occasions I have seen buzzards taking worms in the wake of the plough and small rodents flushed out by the harvester. But, as I have learned through watching active nest sites around Broadway, when youngsters are in the nest, rabbit is top of the menu. It’s an amazing sight to see a buzzard returning with a full-size rabbit hanging by the scruff from its talons.

Birding Buzzard Country: hawk watching in the North Cotswolds and the Vale of Evesham by Mark E Turner and available from the author.

Worcestershire Record No. 12 April 2002 p. 3-5

Worcestershire’s Ancient Tree Register
A new recording scheme

By Harry Green & John Tilt

Your help is needed!

Worcestershire contains many ancient trees and we want to know where they are.

Why are ancient trees important?

Entomologists have long been aware that large ancient trees growing in open situations such as parkland (wood pasture) contained important communities of rare invertebrates dependent on decaying wood. Such trees may also support important epiphytic communities, especially lichens. Large communities of these groups and other organisms also use all parts of the tree. Fungi play a key role in causing heartwood decay so making a food resource available to insects, and some of the fungi are themselves rare. Fungi also provide house and home for some invertebrates. Furthermore, ancient trees are of great landscape and cultural significance and are part of our ancient countryside. These trees are the oldest inhabitants of the countryside, apart from some fungi. (Harding & Rose 1986, Alexander 1998, 1999)

Where are they?

Some of the historically best known collections of ancient trees are at Windsor Park, in the New Forest, and at Moccas Park in west Herefordshire (for the latter see Harding & Wall 2000). In more recent times there has been a rising awareness that large numbers of ancient trees occur in other parts of the country and that the British Isles probably contains more ancient trees than elsewhere in Europe. Further studies are revealing that trees in various parts of Britain contain invertebrate and fungal communities as important as those at historically known sites. The Ancient Tree Forum, a group interested in promoting awareness, conservation, management and study of ancient trees in Britain and elsewhere, is playing an important role in raising interest in old trees, and interested persons can visit their website www.woodland-trust.org.uk/ancient-tree-forum

Why do ancient trees need special attention?

As awareness of the trees has increased so has awareness of the vulnerability of the trees themselves, and also of the invertebrate communities using them. Many people may think of old trees as “dangerous”, “habouring pathogens” (a forestry view), “past their best” (who is’nt!), or need to be removed because they shade grassland and crops and so reduce productivity, or they simply get in the way of farming. With modern machinery ancient trees can be removed easily and quickly. Also the most valuable trees for invertebrate and other communities are post-mature and look decrepit even if they are hale and hearty, and in forestry practice trees are usually harvested long before decay commences and the tree ages naturally. A rotten tree is not much use for producing timber. However, if new post-mature trees do not become available there will be nowhere for the dependent invertebrates to go when the present ancient trees finally die and disappear.

In this context management of ancient trees is important. Many were pollarded many years ago to provide branch timber, and pollarding may have been the route by which fungi entered the tree so starting the wood-rot process, leading to loss of heartwood and a healthy but hollow ancient tree. The cylinder of outer wood lives for many years and carries out the transportation of nutrients etc within the tree perfectly well, but if the weight of branches may become too great for the trunk to support the tree may collapse (see article on the Mawley Oak in this issue). To avoid collapse new pollarding may be needed to reduce the weight, but this must be done with great care and skill to avoid killing the tree. The internal transport system up and down the tree must not be broken

Why record ancient trees in Worcestershire?

In recent years investigations on Bredon Hill, (Whitehead 1996), Croome Landscape Park (Lott 1996) and elsewhere have revealed many ancient trees in both relatively ordinary countryside and especially in old parkland. Examination of the trees is revealing important invertebrate communities and uncommon fungi. The main concentration of these trees is in south Worcestershire according to current information, and the ancient tree zone includes north Gloucestershire in the Severn valley. Ancient trees are also being found in other parts of the county. West Worcestershire woodlands are important for veteran limes both Tilia cordata and Tilia platyphyllos.

The Worcestershire Register

The aim of this brief review (see Reference list for further information) is to explain the reasons and need for establishing a Register of Ancient Trees in Worcestershire. We know we have many ancient trees but we don’t know where they all are, or whether they support important invertebrates and fungi. If we can gather this information we shall be in a better position encourage better understanding of their importance, management and conservation. All this is admirably expressed in the Worcestershire Biodiversity Action Plan for Lowland Wood Pasture and Veteran Trees which can be viewed on the website www.worcestershire.gov.uk/biodiversity/Habitats1-10/woodpastvettrees.

Commencement of the Worcestershire Register after several years thinking about it, is largely due to John Tilt’s retirement! Various of us have discussed the project for several years but could not make progress. John’s computing expertise, retirement, and enthusiasm for old trees have enabled us to make a start! The scheme is run by volunteers.

When Does A Tree Become Ancient?

This is actually quite difficult to define. THEY LOOK ANCIENT is not as silly as it sounds! They seem to exhibit ancient vigour – a concept in the eye of the beholder – but naturally aging trees look quite different from trees which have been recently killed. The diameter of the trunk is often great – but not always! The tree shows signs of regression – dead branches, stag headed (but beware because many young oaks are stag-headed because of severe environmental problems such as changed drainage, and intensive agriculture). The tree carries dead wood in both branches and trunk. The tree may show signs of past damage such as pollarding and lightening strike. The latter often shows scars running down the trunk to the ground. The tree is hollow although this may not always be obvious as the hollowed-out centre may be encased in living outer tree: the hollow centre can often be seen round the base or through holes. Bark-less areas of solid wood may be visible, often riddled with beetle emergence holes. Bracket fungi may sprout from the trunk, often near the base, indicating that internal rot is in progress.

Good examples of ancient trees can be seen at Pipers Hill Common Reserve near Hanbury. Here there are ancient oaks and sweet chestnuts. There are also old beeches which are important for fungi and invertebrates,but in this species “old” is probably about 200 years rather than over 500 years. There are also ancient oaks on parts of the boundary to Grafton Wood Reserve.


Ancient oak in the boundary of Grafton Wood (photo J Tilt)


Ancient oak in Croome Landscape Park (photo J Tilt)

Which Species?

Oak is the commonest ancient tree is south Worcestershire; Ash is next; beech is scarce.
Ancient field maples Acer campestris also occur in small numbers.
Both species of lime can be found in west Worcestershire especially in ancient dingle woods which have not be subject to intensive forestry.
Large sweet chestnut trees occur in some places.

We are not setting out to record ancient yews or pollarded willows at present.

The Register

The recording methods are based on a protocol prepared by English Nature’s Veteran Tree Initiative.

Collecting The Information

Two recording forms are to be used and copies are included with this Worcestershire Record:

They are:

  1. Site Recording Form
  2. Tree Recording Form.

Please photocopy the enclosed examples for your use. A site may obviously include several trees.

USE ONE TREE RECORDING FORM FOR EACH TREE. The reason for this is to make computer entry easy and to avoid making mistakes during entry. Clip the site form and its tree forms together when you send them in.

How To Record

Guidance notes for filling in the forms follow this article. We can also supply these separately on request.

Please fill in as much information as you can – there needs to be an entry in each box and don’t forget notes..

Perhaps the most important information is to record the exact site of each ancient tree as accurately as possible. If you are able please mark them on a map and send this with the form. Please try to record grid references accurately to eight figures (ie to 10×10 m square accuracy.

If possible take a photograph preferably with a digital camera, or send prints. Whichever you use please label with exact tree details. The photos will be included in the database.

Send your records directly to John Tilt – address etc on the forms. He is maintaining the database copies of which will also be kept at the Worcs BRC Office and elsewhere.

Access

Some trees can be visited from public Rights of Way or if they are in places where public access is allowed, others require an owner’s permission. You do need to get close to a tree to check its girth and height.

References and selected bibliography

If you follow-up these references they will lead you into the world of ancient trees ….!

ALEXANDER KNA. 1998. The links between Forest History and Biodiversity: the invertebrate fauna of ancient pasture woodlands in Britain and its conservation. In KIRBY KJ & WATKINS C (Eds) The Ecological history of European Forests. CAB International
ALEXANDER K. 1999. The Invertebrates of Britain’s Wood Pastures. British Wildlife 11(2), 108-117.
GREEN T. 1992. The forgotten Army – Woodland Fungi. British Wildlife. 4(2) 85-86.
HARDING PT & ROSE F. 1986. Pasture Woodland in lowland Britain: A review of their importance for wildlife conservation. NERC (ITE); Huntingdon.
HARDING PT & WALL T. 2000. Moccas: an English Deer Park. English Nature.
KIRBY KJ & DRAKE CM. 1993. Dead wood matters: the ecology and conservation of saproxylic invertebrates in Britain. English Nature.
KIRBY P. 1992 reprint 2001. Habitat management fo invertebrates: a practical handbook. JNCC/RSPB.
LOTT D 1996 Report on Beetle survey at Croome Park 1996. National Trust unpublished report.
NACONEX PROJECT TEXT BOOK. 2002. Tools for preserving woodland biodiversity. Available from Corporation of London..
RAYNER ADM. 1993. The fundamental importance of fungi in Woodlands. British Wildlife 4(4) 205-215.
READ H. 2000. Veteran Trees: A guide to good management. English Nature.
READ H. 1991. Pollard and Veteran Tree Management. Corporation of London.
READ H. 1996. Pollard and Veteran Tree Management II. Corporation of London.
ROSE F. 1993. Ancient British Woodlands and their epiphytes. British Wildlife 5(2) 83-93.
SPEIGHT MCD.. 1989. Saproxylic invertebrates and their conservation. Nature and Environment Series No 42. Council of Europe: Strasbourg.
THOMAS P 2000. Trees: Their natural history. CUP.
VERA FWM. 2000. Grazing ecology and Forest History. CABI Publishing.
WHITEHEAD PF. 1996 The notable Coleoptera of Bredon Hill, Worcestershire, England. Coleopterist 5:45-53.


Veteran pollarded oaks at Longdon Marsh (Hill Court Farm Worcestershire Wildlife Trust Reserv. Preliminary survey work is showing that oaks at Hill Court are host to uncommon decaying wood invertebrates. (photo Harry Green)


Scant remains of ancient small-leaved lime in Crews Hill Reserve. Still alive and well! (photo Harry Green)


Ancient pollarded small-leaved lime in Suckley Wood (owned and managed by Bob Steele). Arboricultural work to reduce the weight on the old trunk is being done over several years. About one-third of the heavy limbs will be shortened each 1-2 years. (photo Harry Green)

Worcestershire Record No. 12 April 2002 p. 28-34

Hoverflies in Worcestershire

Text Harry Green
Table Gary Farmer
Maps John Partridge – NOTE The original article contains distribution maps of all the species listed. In the interests of not using up large amounts of disc space, these have been omitted from the end of this article for the present at least. We are exploring other ways of making this data available, but at present the best way is to subscribe, or ask John Partridge to arrange a copy, either on paper, or via e-mail.

The publication of British Hoverflies: an illustrated identification guide by Alan Stubbs & Steven Falk in 1983 greatly increased interest and recording of these Diptera. Subsequent supplements helped still further and the book was re-issued with these included in 2000, A brand new edition is in preparation by SG Ball & RKA Morris, Alan Stubbs having been banished to a darkened room to do for crane flies what he has done for hoverflies and other groups! Hoverflies in the Naturalists’ Handbooks series (Gilbert 1986) also helped to increase interest. Hoverflies are often the first group tackled by budding dipterists as some at least are attractive, easily seen, insects. This activity helped increase the flow of records into the national hoverfly recording scheme resulting in the Provisional Atlas (Ball & Morris 2000).

Most of this activity seems to have passed Worcestershire by, certainly as far as records in the Worcestershire BRC are concerned. The maps, which John Partridge has prepared from records in the Worcs BRC (using DMAP), and the table, show that the number records available for even common species is poor. I (HG)started trying to identify and record hoverflies after I retired about 5 years ago. Its been hard graft, especially with some groups (Platycheirus), but with a fairly low level of activity I find I have made an impact, perhaps raising the number of records from one (even zero) to three for a few species! John Meiklejohn, and more recently Mick Blythe, have also sent in records of course, and I know that several people have hoverfly records but have not (yet) sent them to the Worcs BRC. It is very encouraging that Gary Farmer and Patrick Taylor are now taking an interest in the group. And Rosemary Winnal has been on a course! We expect a flood of records for 2002!

Gary has prepared the table which lists the number of Worcestershire records with brief indication of flight period, preferred habitat, etc, largely derived from the Provisional Atlas.

The purpose of this article is to encourage readers to have a go at hoverflies in Worcestershire. Surely we can do better?

Species Number of WBRC Records Flight Period Habitat Remarks, name changes
         
Anasimyia lineata 2 5 (6-8) 10 wet  
Baccha elongata 10 4 (5-9) 11 wo, h, ga now only 1 Baccha sp. not two
Brachyopa scutellaris 2 4 (5-6) 8 wo, (sap runs)  
Brachypalpoides lenta 1 5 (6-7) 8 wo (beech) B. lentus
Chalcosyrphus eunotus 1 4 (5-6) 7 small streams  
Chalcosyrphus nemorum 4 4 (6-8) 10 wet wo  
Cheilosia albitarsis 11 4 (5-6) 8 wet Buttercups.
Cheilosia antiqua 3 4 (5-6) 9 wo, h  
Cheilosia bergenstammi 2 4 (5)(8) 10 wo, wasteground 2 peaks. Ragwort.
Cheilosia honesta 1 4 (5-6) 9 wo C. lasiopa
Cheilosia illustrata 7 5 (7) 9 h hogweed
Cheilosia impressa 1 4 (9) 10 wet wo, river bank  
Cheilosia intonsa 1 4 (5-9) 10 dry gr C.latifrons
Cheilosia pagana 8 3 (5-8) 10 wo, h, rough ground white umbellifers
Cheilosia scutellata 2 5 (7-9) 10 wo  
Cheilosia variabilis 13 4 (5-6) 9 wo  
Cheilosia vulpina 2 5 (8) 9 wo, unimproved gr umbellifers
Chrysogaster chalybeata 2 5 (7-8) 9 wet, wo C. cemiteriorum
Chrysogaster hirtella 8 5 (6-7) 8 wet Melanogaster hirtella
Chrysogaster solstitialis 6 5 (6-8) 10 wo  
Chrysotoxum arcuatum 2 4 (6-9) 11 wo, unimproved gr  
Chrysotoxum bicinctum 23 5 (7-8) 9 h, wo  
Chrysotoxum cautum 5 (5-6) 8 h, dry gr  
Chrysotoxum elegans 2 4 (6-8) 10 gr  
Criorhina berberina 3 4 (5-7) 9 wo  
Dasysyrphus albostriatus 4 4 (5-6)(8) 11 wo, h, ga 2 peaks
Dasysyrphus lunulatus 1 4 (5-7) 11 wo, h D. pinastri
Dasysyrphus tricinctus 4 4 (5-6)(8-9) 10 wo 2 peaks
Dasysyrphus venustus 9 4 (5-6) 9 wo, h, ga  
Didea fasciata 5 5 (9) 11 wo  
Epistrophe eligans 10 4 (5-6) 8 wo, h, ga  
Epistrophe grossulariae 6 5 (7-8) 11 wo  
Epistrophe nitidicollis 4 4 (5-6) 9 wo  
Episyrphus balteatus 127 2 (7-9) 11 ubiquitous  
Eristalinus sepulchralis 2 4 (6-8) 10 wet  
Eristalis arbustorum 40 3 (7-9) 11 ubiquitous  
Eristalis horticola 9 4 (6-8) 10 wet, ga  
Eristalis intricarius 8 3 (7-8) 11 wet, wo  
Eristalis nemorum 26 3 (7-9) 10 wet E. interruptus
Eristalis pertinax 82 3 (7-8) 11 wet, ga  
Eristalis tenax 75 2 (8-9) 11 wet, ga  
Eumerus strigatus 1 3 (6-8) 10 wet, ga larvae feed on bulbs
Eumerus tuberculatus 1 4 (6-8) 10 ga larvae feed on bulbs
Eupeodes corollae 17 4 (7-9) 11 ubiquitous  
Eupeodes luniger 13 3 (8-9) 11 ubiquitous  
Ferdinandea cuprea 8 3 (5-6) 11 wo, h  
Helophilus hybridus 4 4 (7-8) 10 wet  
Helophilus pendulus 45 4 (6-9) 11 ubiquitous, esp wet  
Helophilus trivittatus 1 5 (8) 10 wet  
Lejogaster metallina 1 5 (6-7) 11 wet  
Leucozona glaucia 10 5 (7-9) 10 wo, h  
Leucozona laternaria 9 5 (6) 9 wo, h  
Leucozona lucorum 12 (5-6) 10 wo, h  
Melangyna cincta 1 4 (5) 11 wo, h  
Melangyna labiatarum 1 4 (6-8) 11 wo  
Melangyna lasiophthalma 1 3 (4) 10 wo  
Melangyna umbellatarum 1 4 (8-9) 10 wo  
Melanostoma mellinum 32 4 (7-8) 10 gr  
Melanostoma scalare 31 4 (5) 11 gr  
Meliscaeva cinctella 5 4 (8-9) 11 wo, scrub  
Merodon equestris 6 5 (6) 9 ga larvae feed on bulbs (eg bluebells)
Metasyrphus latifasciatu 3 3 (8-9)10 wet Eupeodes latifasciatus
Metasyrphus nitens 2 4 (5-8) 10 wo Eupeodes nitens
Myathropa florea 21 5 (6-8) 10 ubiquitous  
Neoascia meticulosa 4 4 (5-6) 10 wet  
Neoascia obliqua 1 4 (5-6) 10 wet, wo streams  
Neoascia podagrica 12 4 (5-8) 11 ubiquitous  
Neoascia tenur 3 4 (6-7) 11 wet  
Orthonevra brevicornis 1 5 (6) 10 wet  
Orthonevra nobilis 1 5 (6-8) 9 wet  
Orthonevra splendens 3 5 (6-7) 10 wet  
Paragus haemorrhous 1 5 (7-8) 10 gr, heath  
Parasyrphus annulatus 2 4 (6) 9 wo  
Parasyrphus mallinellus 2 (5) 10 conifer wo  
Parasyrphus punctulatus 2 3 (5) 8 wo, gr  
Parhelophilus frutetorum 3 4 (6-7) 9 wet, wet wo  
Parhelophilus versicolor 1 5 (6-7) 9 wet  
Pipiza austriaca 3 5 (6) 9 wo  
Pipiza bimaculata 1 (5-6) 9 wo  
Pipiza luteitarsis 1 4 (5-6) 8 wo  
Pipiza noctiluca 3 4 (5-6) 9 wo, h  
Pipizella varipes 3 5 (6-7) 9 dry gr P. viduata
Platycheirus albimanus 31 3 (5-9) 11 ubiquitous  
Platycheirus ambiguus 1 4 (5) 9 wo, h, scrub  
Platycheirus angustatus 2 5 (6-8) 10 wet  
Platycheirus clypeatus agg. 4 4 (8-9) 11 wet  
Platycheirus clypeatus s 12 4 (7-8) 10 wet  
Platycheirus manicatus 2 4 (5-6) 11 gr  
Platycheirus peltatus 6 4 (6)(8) 11 wo, h 2 peaks
Platycheirus peltatus ag 1 4 (6)(9) 11 ubiquitous, esp wet  
Platycheirus podagratus 1 5 (6) 8 boggy moorland  
Platycheirus scambus 1 5 (6-7) 10 wet  
Platycheirus scutatus 12 4 (5-6) 11 wo, h, ga  
Platycheirus tarsalis 6 4 (5) 9 wo,h  
Pocota personata 1 4 (5-6) 8 wo, park (old trees)  
Portevinia maculata 2 4 (5-6) 8 wo Larva lives in Ramsons
Pyrophaena granditarsa 6 5 (7-8) 11 wet Platycheirus granditarsus
Pyrophaena rosarum 5 5 (6-7) 9 wet Platycheirus rosarum
Rhingia campestris 38 4 (5)(8) 10 ubiquitous 2 peaks
Rhingia rostrata 2 5 (9) 10 wo  
Scaeva pyrastri 21 5 (8) 11 ubiquitous umbellifers
Sericomyia silentis 3 5 (7-9) 11 wo edge  
Sphaerophoria batava 1 5 (7-8) 10 wo clearings  
Sphaerophoria menthastri 2 5 (7-8) 10 wet gr S. menthastri
Sphaerophoria philanthus 1 5 (8) 9 heath, moorland  
Sphaerophoria rueppellii 1 5 (7-8) 10 gr  
Sphaerophoria scripta 32 4 (7-9) 10 ubiquitous  
Sphegina clunipes 1 5 (6-7) 10 wo (sap runs)  
Sphegina kimakowiczi 3 5 (6-7) 9 wet wo S. elegans
Syritta pipiens 56 4 (7-8) 11 ubiquitous  
Syrphus ribesii 50 3 (7-9) 11 ubiquitous  
Syrphus torvus 8 3 (7) 11 wo, ga, park  
Syrphus vitripennis 32 3 (7-9) 11 wo, h, scrub  
Tropidia scita 1 5 (6-7) 9 wet  
Volucella bombylans 18 5 (6-7) 9 wo, h, scrub  
Volucella inflata 3 5 (6-7) 9 wo  
Volucella pellucens 32 5 (7) 9 wo, h, park  
Xanthogramma citrofasciatum 2 4 (5-6) 8 wo, meadows associated L. flavus ants
Xanthogramma pedissequum 8 5 (6-7) 9 gr associated L. niger ants
Xylota segnis 10 5 (6-7) 11 wo, scrub  
Xylota sylvarum 5 5 (7) 10 wo, h  
Xylota xanthocnema 1 5 (7)10 wo  

Notes relating to the table:
Legend for habitat preferences of Adult hoverflies:
ga = gardens, gr = grassland, h = hedgerows, wet = wetlands, wo = woodlands
The flight period is taken from the Provisional Atlas Ball & Morris 2000
Any names in the remarks column are from the Provisional Atlas
Figures in the WBRC column refer to the number of Worcestershire records held by WBRC

References

BALL SG & MORRIS RKA 2000 Provisional Atlas of British Hoverflies (Diptera, Syrphidae) JNCC (Biological Records Centre).
MORRIS RKA 1998 Hoverflies of Surrey. Surrey Wildlife Trust (The information in this book, and its value to a beginner, extends well beyond Surrey. There are excellent photos).
STUBBS AE & FALK SJ 2000. British Hoverflies: An illustrated identification guide. British Entomological & Natural History Society. (This edition contains the two supplements to the original 1983 edition, and also Updates to the British List).
GILBERT FS 1986. Hoverflies. Naturalists’ Handbooks No 5 CUP (This series is now prepared by the Richmond Publishing Company.

Worcestershire Record No. 12 April 2002 p. 51-53

The Border Bryologists, 2001

By Mark Lawley

“The mind is a moving picture, according to which we are ceaselessly painting. But it takes in at a glance what the painter’s brush executes gradually, and to see an object, to decide that it is beautiful, to experience a sensation of pleasure, and to desire possession of that object are all parts of a single and instantaneous state of mind.”

Botanists attest the truth of Diderot’s sublime insight as they quarter the countryside for new plants: at the moment of pleasurable discovery they admire their forms, colours, scent, taste and texture, and also covet their quarry for herbaria or albums of photographs. Yet the Border Bryologists did not begin their year’s programme in the field, but with a now-traditional January day at the microscopes in Ludlow Museum. Local bryologists set store by this annual opportunity to share and solve bryological problems – whether recalcitrant gatherings, or difficulties with a key or techniques for examination.

February fog cloaked the Wye valley as seven hardy souls set out to explore woodland on Capler Hill (SO 5932) south of Hereford. A shy sun eventually burnt off the vapours, daffodils in early bud made a cheerful portent of spring, and we lunched in pleasant sunshine on a south-facing bank in a pasture near the top of the hill. Both species of Pseudocrossidium and Ephemerum serratum var. minutissimum grew nearby.

Rather as we had found at Dinmore two years ago, the wooded upper parts of Capler Hill are acidic and bryologically rather tedious, but minerals draining from above endow the steep lower banks between the lane and river with a more varied and calcicolous flora. Masses of Hart’s-tongue Fern spoke of base-rich conditions, and several old sandstone quarries carried Anomodon viticulosus, Homalia trichomanoides, Mnium stellare, Zygodon viridissimus var. stirtonii, Campylophyllum calcareum, Eurhynchium pumilum, and Rhynchostegiella tenella. Lorna Fraser found a patch of Taxiphyllum wissgrillii, and further searching would surely reveal many more plants of interest. Nearby, a few minutes inspecting the flood-zone of the River Wye at the end of the day brought Didymodon nicholsonii, Schistidium rivulare and Cinclidotus fontinaloides to notice. A high water-level probably hid more species from view.

After the floods of early winter, the pestilence arrived, and restrictions on access to the countryside brought about by the epidemic of Foot and Mouth Disease caused us to shift our ground in March, April and May. On a bitterly cold day in March we bryologized in Ross-on-Wye (SO 52/62), where a car park near Wilton Bridge was growing Didymodon luridus in abundance around the margin of tarmac, with smaller quantities of Encalypta streptocarpa on a kerbstone, and the much less common Tortula protobryoides on gravelly soil. The Reverend Augustin Ley found this moss on a garden path at Pengethley in February 1888. One can imagine him pausing to gather it on his way to visit a parishioner. Pengethley is only two or three miles west of Ross, so it was good to discover that T. protobryoides remains in the district, and may be readmitted to Herefordshire’s list.

Mortared walls across the road from the car park carried Pseudocrossidium revolutum and Schistidium crassipilum, the latter distinguished from S. apocarpum s.s. by elongated exothecial cells in the lower half of its capsules. It is beginning to look as though S. crassipilum is much the commoner of the two species in this part of the country. Alder trees by the river gave us Syntrichia latifolia, Orthotrichum sprucei and Leskea polycarpa.

After a bowl of life-saving soup at Les Smith’s, we thawed out sufficiently to nose round his garden, finding Didymodon luridus and D. sinuosus, Dicranella staphylina, Orthotrichum affine, O. diaphanum, and Les was like a dog with two tails to wag when O. lyellii turned up on his lilac tree, with Didymodon nicholsonii on the tarmac drive.

April’s meeting was conducted in ceaseless rain, so it was just as well that the epidemic of Foot and Mouth disease had obliged us to forsake exposed ground on the Long Mynd for the relative shelter of Bishop’s Castle churchyard (SO 3288), which by the most fortuitous of circumstances lies directly opposite the Six Bells Inn. Mortared walls around the churchyard sprouted Bryum radiculosum and Didymodon sinuosus, and Scleropodium cespitans and Didymodon nicholsonii grew on the tarmac path to the church. After an hour in the rain we felt able to retreat without loss of face, substituting bucolic for botanic pleasures with some Cloud Nine in the Six Bells, in which happy circumstance the day passed into hazy remembrance.

Of our finds that day, Scleropodium cespitans and Didymodon nicholsonii have for long tolerated the scarifying action of particles of soil and other debris swept by water past riverbanks, but they can also withstand a similar attrition from feet and wheels on paths and driveways. One small consolatory benefit of the Foot and Mouth epidemic may be a rash of records of mosses from tarmac drives, pavements, building sites and other habitats in towns and villages. Indeed, in some districts D. nicholsonii seems to be a widespread and abundant suburban weed. Not a particularly charismatic cryptogam, it is probably overlooked, and may not merit its elevated status as “Nationally Scarce” for much longer.

Platygyrium repens is another moss which, like Didymodon nicholsonii, has recently turned up several times in Herefordshire and Shropshire, and also seems to like damp or humid conditions – on oak and ash by a pool in Lower Bolstone Wood (SO 53) south of Hereford, on an old apple tree by the River Teme in Downton Gorge (SO 47), in great quantity on alder, silver birch, crack willow and hazel in the damper parts of Incham Coppice (SO 57) near Ludlow (but not in the drier part of the wood), and on ash by the River Rea downstream from Cleobury Mortimer (SO 67).

Still in the throes of Foot and Mouth, we rearranged our meeting for May to Chaddesley Corbett (SO 8873) in north Worcestershire. There we looked over Mervyn and Rose Needham’s commercial nursery garden, where the bryological weeds reminded us again how many species we pass by when ignoring disturbed habitats. The sandy ground was very dry, and Mervyn had been zealously protecting his livelihood with a spray-gun, but we rounded up the usual suspects from the soil and concrete kerbs, and added Campylopus pyriformis from peat in some of the pots. After demolishing Rose’s wonderful buffet lunch, we ambled across the road to examine some sandstone exposed by a stream. Conditions there were sufficiently damp for a quite different suite of species, and here may be told the best finds of the day – Amblystegium fluviatile and A. varium, Fissidens crassipes and F. pusillus (the latter plant new to Worcestershire), with Hookeria lucens nearby.

Our October meeting took place at Featherknowl (SO 5170), a private house and grounds two miles south of Ludlow. This meeting combined al fresco exploration of the garden and orchard with the opulent ambience of a large drawing room for microscopic examination of our finds, a mixture which proved particularly popular for several children, and will be worth repeating should similar opportunities arise again in future. The advantages of promptly confirming the identities of plants found only a few minutes previously helped to fix in our minds the connections between habit and form as revealed to the naked eye or lens and microscopic details of the same plants once their leaves and capsules had been mounted beneath coverslips.

A gravel and brick drive by the house had a sward of Didymodon luridus and D. nicholsonii (both species superficially similar in form, but the former having unistratose margins to the leaves, while the latter has bistratose margins). Tiles on the roof sprouted Grimmia pulvinata, G. trichophylla and Racomitrium fasciculare, while in the orchard behind the house we noticed great differences between the epiphytic bryofloras of the various kinds of tree. The trunks of old cherry trees were entirely devoid of moss, with damson and pear hardly more rewarding, and much the best trees were apple. In addition to plentiful Hypnum cupressiforme, Brachythecium rutabulum, Amblystegium serpens, Dicranoweisia cirrata, Orthotrichum affine and O. diaphanum, a large colony of Syntrichia papillosa grew on one trunk, showing its characteristic combination of gemmae and inrolled leaf margins, while more modest quantities of Brachythecium salebrosum grew on another. This uncommon moss has sufficiently plicate leaves to have one suspecting a Homalotheciumat first glance, but the dimensions of the basal cells of the leaves differ from the cells above. Bryologists have paid little attention to the still-numerous old orchards of Herefordshire and neighbouring counties, and our findings at Featherknowl left us wondering how important old apple orchards may be as refugia for uncommon epiphytes requiring adequate light and a neutral or basic bark – a bryological equivalent of the rich lichen-flora on tree trunks in old country parks in the region such as at Moccas and Brampton Bryan.

Worcestershire has been enjoying a bryological renaissance recently, and 16 people met up in the Wyre Forest (SO 7476) west of Bewdley for our last meeting of the year on a mild Sunday in November. Rosemary Winnall guided us to north-facing banks on the Worcestershire side of Dowles Brook, where damp ground and humid air suited the liverworts Riccardia multifida, Saccogyna viticulosa (this in considerable quantity) and Scapania nemorea, with the moss Hookeria lucens in attendance too. As so often happens in these affairs, the best ground was not reached until a few minutes before lunchtime, and would repay less hasty inspection. Nearby, concrete on the bridge over the brook held Didymodon rigidulus, D. sinuosus and D. tophaceus, with Amblystegium fluviatile and A. tenax growing on stones by the water.

After a picnic, we moved a quarter of a mile up to the forest’s “Great Bog” , immediately south of a long-disused railway-line. Choice vascular plants once found there by George Jorden, Edwin Lees and others 150 years ago and reported in old issues of the Phytologist and Transactions of the Worcestershire Naturalists’ Club include Summer Lady’s Tresses Spiranthes aestivalis, Scented Orchid Gymnadenia conopsea and Marsh Helleborine Epipactis palustris, as well as Bog Pimpernel Anagallis tenella, Broad-leaved Cotton-grass Eriophorum latifolium and Alder Buckthorn Frangula alnu). But the place has suffered greatly from subsequent drainage, and is not the botanical hot-spot it once was. Nevertheless, a number of calcareous flushes remain, and local naturalists have recently cleared many trees and shrubs in an attempt to restore some of the former botanical character. We found the flushes to be full of Palustriella commutata var. commutata, with Campylium stellatum var. stellatum, Cratoneuron filicinum and Ctenidium molluscum for company round the edges of the water. A patch of Leucobryum juniperoideum grew on damp soil by one of the felled trees, and sufficient timber remained nearby for Dicranum montanum and D. tauricum to go on the list. Lorna Fraser found a colony of Trichocolea tomentella, and Sphagnum inundatum turned up in a drainage-ditch on the edge of the bog. Of these, the Leucobryum was new to Worcestershire, and the Trichocolea and Sphagnum had not been recorded in the county for over 50 years.

In these ways we added fresh details during 2001 to our pictures of nature in the Silurian (and Permo-Triassic) region, and derived much pleasure from tracking down, observing, and taking into possession the plants we found.

Shropshire Bryoflora

A Bryological Tour through Shropshire and An Annotated Check-list of the Bryophytes of Shropshire are now available on the British Bryological Society’s web-site (www.rbge.org.uk/bbs/vc40list.htm and www.rbge.org.uk/bbs/vc40site.htm) and will be brought up to date annually. If you would like a copy of the Bryoflora but do not have access to the internet, I can supply it on soft disk or as an unbound paper copy. There is no charge for this, but please offer a donation payable to the British Bryological Society to cover the costs of copying, packing and postage.

The Border Bryologists’ programme of meetings is also available on the BBS’s web-page and on the Herefordshire Botanical Society’s pages at ralph.cs.cf.ac.uk/HBS/Border.htm

Mark Lawley,12A Castleview Terrace, Ludlow, SY8 2NG

Worcestershire Record No. 12 April 2002 p. 22-23

Swallows in 2001

By Garth Lowe

This has been the fourth year following the progress of known swallow breeding sites in our parishes, and I am extremely grateful to all those kind land owners and householders who have allowed me to continue with my studies. Especially so in this difficult year, with much hardship in our farming community due to Foot & Mouth Disease.

The number of pairs that I monitored last summer dropped to twenty seven, five less than 2000, and seven less than 1999. The previous year was a very productive one, with 198 young fledging compared to only 131 this year. In 1999, 160 young were ringed and eventually fledged. Productivity from pairs seems to be related to weather conditions, this year it averaged out at 5.7/pair, 6.2 in 2000 and only 4.7 in 1999. These figures include the multi-broods they have, and also the failures, through a number of causes.

A recent study in Holland has shown a decline in swallow numbers where the cattle population has dramatically reduced, and there may be a similar effect here.

From a total of fifty-seven adults caught this year, twenty-two had been caught in previous years, giving a good return rate. It is becoming obvious that birds which have bred here before appear to be more successful. In the last two years, at the same location, two pairs had started early enough to have young a week old by the end of May. In one case both adults had bred previously, and in the other just one was an experienced bird. The weather in April and May is quite important for early breeders, on looking back to 1999, there were no young available for ringing until the 6th June, whilst in 2000 and 2001 young were ringed on the 27th May.

Three adults caught again are now all four years old, and have returned to breed at the same location where they were first caught in 1998. This shows just how faithful they are to a site once they have overcome the rigours of migration.

Four birds of this years catch were also first ringed in 1999, three faithfully returned to the same site again each year, but the other, ringed as a nestling down Folly Lane, moved to a stable near the south end of Hopton Lane. It could also have bred here in 2000, as this was the first year birds had nested there, and the site was not monitored then.

Another nestling ringed in 2000 at Brockamin, returned this year to the same farm, and teamed up with an un-ringed female (now ringed). In all the study years very few nestling have returned to the area. This does not necessarily mean they perished: they moved elsewhere to breed, and so keep the gene pool stronger.

There were only three movements from last year, with distances of 0.5, 0.6, and 1.9km. This last bird, a female, from the White House, was obviously courted strongly by a male from Brooklands, near Mousehole, most probably while the swallows were socialising in the air.

Yet another pair returned to exactly to the same nest, and then went on to have three broods, sending eleven youngsters out into the world. Two other pairs also laid clutches of six eggs, instead of the usual five, but only one of them actually reared all six to fledging.

There were two unusual occurrences this year, both worth recording: First, finding a change of pairs in one situation. And, second, catching an extra male at another site. In the first case, by luck I was up a ladder, close to the second nest, when a bird came into feed and perched close enough to see it had no ring. Further catching showed there a completely different pair to the original occupants of the site.

At the second site, on Garway Bank, three birds were caught at the same time. All were previously un-ringed, but catching another, second, male was quite extraordinary. Also strange was the fact that the rightful pair had young around a week old. In 2000 and 1999, the same pair had bred here, but both failed to turn up at this year.

The last young of the year were ringed on 14th September, giving swallows a very long breeding season, but there was a total of twelve young altogether, from four nests, that must have fledged from around the middle to the end of the month. When visiting a nest site in early Oct., I discovered one fledged young, still near the nest, awaiting an adult, which was then observed flying in, probably with food. It does seem that the parental duties can outweigh the call of migration southwards!

A worrying feature was the low productivity this year; if this is repeated elsewhere, there are likely to be a future fall in the number of breeding pairs, when the older birds die, and are not replaced. Next year’s study may show whether this has taken place or not!

Worcestershire Record No. 12 April 2002 p. 25-27

Ladybirds in Worcestershire

Text by John Meiklejohn
Maps from the Worcs BRC data base prepared by John Partridge using DMAP software. The outline is of the Worcestershire Vice-county, which is roughly the Victorian county, and now includes parts of the West Midlands.

The coloured square shows that we have a record from that 2 km x 2 km square. The blue lines are motorways, the red A-roads, and the dotted lines rivers and canals.

In Britain there are 46 beetle species in the Coccinellidae, the ladybird family. Of these, 26 species in three sub-families can be called ladybirds: Coccinellinae, Chilocorinae & Epilachninae. The remaining 20 species, which do not resemble ladybirds, form three further sub-families: Rhyzobiinae, Scymninae & Platynaspinae

In the Worcestershire Biological Records Centre there are records for 19 of the ladybird species. The distribution maps show that we need more records!

Most ladybirds are carnivorous, both adults and larvae feeding on aphids and other small, soft-bodied invertebrates. The 24-spot and the recently introduced Henosepilachna argusare herbivorous; both are hairy too. The 22-spot, 16-spot and Orange ladybirds feed on mildews.

Common. Unlike the 7 spot, there are several different colour forms of this species The commonest variant is black with four irregular red spots

Common. The females are generally much larger than the males

Common. Many different colour forms but the pronotal markings are fairly consistent

Usually in plant litter, commoner in coastal areas

Elytra yellow with distinctly squarish black markings. Probably our commonest ladybird widely distributed in Worcestershire. Less conspicuous than the 7 or 2 spot

A very small ladybird with a black line down the suture of the elytra. Large numbers sometimes found together in winter hibernacula

Small, bright yellow. Not very active, usually close to the ground

Small, hairy, phytophagus species usually in rough grassland

Uncommon species usually on sandy soils

Seven whitish spots on each elytron, brown or reddish-brown ground colour

Uncommon species on Scots Pine

A large ladybird usually with white edges to the elytral spots. Coniferous woodland.

A heathland species similar to the Kidney-spot, much smaller, 3 or 4 spots in a row

Uncommon. Heather heathland. (Worcs. record swept from Ling, Lickey Hills, 1991 )

A coniferous woodland species. No spots, a distinctive M-shaped mark on pronotum

One of three black ladybirds with red markings and with a definite lip around sides of elytra. Often found on deciduous tree trunks

Eight whitish spots on each orange elytron. Considered nationally scarce ten years ago and associated with Sycamore, now more common. Overwinters in leaf litter

A coniferous woodland species similar to the Kidney spot but with two spots only

A long, narrow ladybird found in Reed and Bullrush beds

 

An Alien ladybird Turns Up In Worcestershire – Cheilomenes lunata

In the first week of January 2002 a very unusual ladybird arrived at the Worcestershire Wildlife Trust Headquarters at Lower Smite Farm. Glenys Anderson from Worcester had found it in a bunch of grapes that she had bought from a Tesco store. It was identified by Paul Whitehead as Cheilomenes lunata, an African species. This was the first sighting outside the Thames catchment area.

E-mail correspondence revealed that three specimens had been found by 14th January, all in grapes sold by Tesco. By the 8th. February there were seven reports of it including one from Wales, one from Essex and then one from Perth in Scotland. This last specimen was found in grapes from an Asda store. It has been established that the distribution centre for Welsh grapes was in Sheerness in Kent. Were all the finds from one importation?

There is no telling just how many of these ladybirds may have found their way into the wild but it is unlikely that they will be able to survive.

(As we go to press a short report has appeared: Mabbott, Paul, 2002 Reports of Cheilomenes lunata (Fab.) (Col.:Coccinellidae) in Britain – winter 2001-2002. Ent. Record & J. Variation. 114(3):121-122. Apparently it is an aphid-eating Afro-tropical species which is found as far south as Cape Town. All the British records appear to stem from a batch of grapes imported into Sheerness, East Kent, and there were many in some boxes).

Its main plant food in Britain appears to be White Bryony but it has been swept from dense Ivy with Honeysuckle

Cheilomenes lunata. African ladybird found in Worcestershire.
In the picture the pale areas are orange and the dark areas black. See text.

A Ladybird To Look Out For –Henosepilachna argus.

This ladybird was first seen in Surrey in May 1997 where is has now established a strong breeding colony and one has been found near Stratford-on-Avon. It is a relative of our 24-spot ladybird, a plant feeder and with hairy elytra. It is 6-8 mm long, bright amber in colour with eleven black spots.

If you would like learn how to identify ladybirds, and more about them, an excellent book is Ladybirds of Surrey by Roger D Hawkins. Published by the Surrey Wildlife Trust 2000

The value of this book extends far beyond Surrey. There are excellent colour photos, including the Bryony Ladybird.

Also Majerus MEN & Kearns PWE 1989 Ladybirds. Naturalists’ Handbook 10. Richmond Publishing, also contains much information and a complete identification key.

Worcestershire Record No. 12 April 2002 p. 55

News and Information

A collection of requests for information and other matters of interest.

Nuthatches (Harry Green)

The BTO Garden Bird Watch revealed a dramatic increase in the numbers of nuthatches visiting gardens during winter 2001-2002 where they had never been seen before. This may be due to poor supply of winter food in woods, especially beech mast, though this is less likely in Worcestershire. Nuthatches are also regarded as a species likely to do well in mild winters and to benefit from global waring. Their British distribution is expected to extend north. I heard of several reports of unexpected nuhatches in Worcestershire gardens last winter but did’nt make note of them. I should be pleased to hear from anyone who has unusual records.

Hawfinches (Harry Green)

Langston, R, Gregory R & Adams R 2002 The status of hawfinches in the UK 1975-1999. British Birds 95:166-173 suggest that hawfinches have decelined considerable over the last 20 years but data are scarce. They probably breed in small numbers in West Worcestershire woods. I should be interested to hear of any records, summer or winter. They are strongly associated with hornbeam, feeding on the seeds in winter.

Land Caddis Enoicyla pusilla (Harry Green & Brett Westwood)

We are still very keen to receive records of this odd woodland leaf litter insect. Readers can refer to various reports in earlier Worcestershire Record. The search for them was severely curtailed by Foot & Mouth Disease in 2001, but we have already added around 20 1 km squares to the distribution map this year. If you find them please let us know as soon as possible (contact Harry Green – see page 2 for details). Our plan is to determine their distribution more exactly. More details to follows.

Freshwater Invertebrates

In his talk at the April Annual Meeting Garth Foster mention a well illustrated French book. It was Tachet, H. Richoux P, Bournaud M & Usseglio-Polatera P 2000. Invertebres d’eau douce. Systematique, biologie, ecologie. CNRS Editions. Available from CNRS Editions, La Librairie, 151 bis rue Saint-Jacques, 75005, Paris. Can be purchased by email (in Euros) libraire@cnrseditions.fr.

Sudden Oak Death _ A New Fungus Disease

Dr Chris Prior – Plant Pathologist has commented on Press reports

Host range and the threat to European oaks. DEFRA and EPPO both suggest that European oaks may be resistant. EPPO states that white oaks are resistant. White oaks and European oaks are in the same sub-genus. The susceptible Californian oaks are in a different sub-genus. It is also worth noting that the disease has been recognised in Netherlands and Germany on rhododendrons since 1993, but there have been no records of it attacking European oaks in those countries.
Recognition of the problem if European oaks are attacked. Bark cankers caused by Phytophthora spp. occur on many different trees. A common symptom of Phytophthora canker is bleeding of a dark red or brown liquid from the cankered bark: we see this in UK on sweet chestnuts, horse chestnuts, apples, etc. The liquid dries on the surface to a black, tarry deposit. The bleeding is not a specific symptom of Phytophthora, other diseases such as honey fungus can also cause bleeding. Another common symptom in many countries including California is that cankers are attacked by various beetles that are attracted to dead or dying wood. In California, these include scolytids (bark and ambrosia beetles) and buprestids. There is therefore a frequent association of Phytophthora canker with beetle attack. In the case of bark beetles, there can be copious wood frass on the outside of the bark as a result of their wood boring activities. In UK thebuprestid Agrilus pannonicus is sometimes found breeding in bark beneath tarry spots on the bark of oaks which have been stressed, and the beetle may be responsible for these tarry spots. Phytophthora is not present in the bark in these cases. To add to the confusion, another Phytophthora attacking oaks in Europe has been described recently: this is P. quercina, which only attacks fine roots. It occurs in UK, but is not known to cause cankers. However, it may be involved in the complex of stress factors leading to oak decline syndrome, in which Agrilus is also implicated. This could cause a lot of false alarms, now that there is concern about Phytophthora ramorum, these Agrilus-associated tarry spots on oak bark are quite common. QUARANTINE Phytophthora ramorum is notifiable in the UK and all suspect cases must be reported by law. This applies to everybody, not just the horticultural trade. For viburnums and rhododendrons, ring the Plant Health Inspection Service (headquarters in York, 01904 455174) and for trees, ring Forestry Commission Plant Health Service on 0131 314 6414. If appropriate, the inspection services will visit the site and samples may be taken for testing. The fungus is subject to eradication and affected plants will be destroyed if the disease is confirmed. DEFRA has also taken steps to prevent the import of some plants and timber from some parts of the USA. USEFUL WEBSITES www.defra.gov.uk/planth/pestnote/sudden.htm. www.eppo.org/QUARANTINE/Alert_List/Fungi/oak_death.html This site has many links to NAPPO, Sabine Werres’ own site, many north american sites, etc., some of which have additional photos or information. www.forestry.gov.uk/website/oldsite.nsf/ByUnique/WCAS-4Z5JLL

Oil Beetles Records Wanted – Past and Present

The new insect conservation charity BUGLIFE is appealing for records so that the current national situation can be defined and conservation action taken as Oil Beetles are declining. See Worcestershire Record No 5 November 1998 pages 10-12.

Noble Chafer

If you see any please contact Harry Green immediately! This rare beetle probably occurs in some of Worcestershire’s old orchard and may have a predilection for rotting plum trees. There is much national activity to promote conservation of this species. See Worcestershire Record No 11 November 2001 page 7 where there are pictures etc.

BTO Migration Atlas

This important atlas will be on sale in September 2002 at retail price £55. There is currently a pre-publication offer to BTO members and Bird Ringers at £39.50. There never was a better time for you to join the BTO! See www.bto.org for information.

Migration Watch

More than 1000 observers have contributed records to this innovative internet based system which has logged spring migration. Well worth a visit www.bto.org/migwatch to see then changing distribution maps charting the northward surge of migration

Worcestershire Record No. 12 April 2002 p. 17

Birds in Worcestershire – November 2001 to April 2002

By Gavin Peplow

Another mild winter has passed with only a couple of brief colder snaps. After a very wet February, conditions have been the opposite through most of March and into April. A good selection of winter visitors were recorded prior to a steady passage of scarcer migrant species at the end of the review period.

During November the Scaup lingered at Bredon’s Hardwick, whilst a Great Northern Diver was at Bittell for a few hours at the end of the first week: the first County record for four years of the most regularly occurring Diver species. Four adult Whooper Swans pausing at Kinsham were presumably on their way south to winter in Gloucestershire or perhaps even Somerset.

As always at this time of year, a lot of birders pay closer attention to the increasing numbers of gulls occurring in the County. Efforts were rewarded with Mediterranean Gulls being found at Upton Warren and Throckmorton Tip whilst this last site also hosted at least seven Yellow-legged (Herring) Gulls along with a ‘Caspian’ Gull, the eastern race of Yellow-legged Gull. Neither of these forms has yet been accredited with full specific status by the British Ornithological Union but this is expected in the fairly near future, thereby following the lead of several other European Birding Authorities.

Elsewhere, two Snow Buntings were located on North Hill, Malvern, one of these obligingly allowing approach to within a few feet !

December witnessed several Merlins, another Mediterranean Gull at Westwood, a Ruff at the Gwen Finch Reserve at Nafford and, most surprisingly, a Little Egret near Crowle at the year’s end. Reflecting the general mild weather, a pair of Herring Gulls were noted taking up territory around Worcester’s chimney pots again around Christmas!

January started with another, or perhaps the same Little Egret, this time near Harvington. A Grey Plover at Bittell was un-seasonal whilst two adult White-fronted Geese dropped in for a few days at Holt, not however joining up with a first year bird of this species at nearby Grimley. Gulls were again much in evidence with another ‘Caspian’ Gull along with a Glaucous briefly at Throckmorton landfill, a Little Gull at Westwood, and three different Iceland Gulls were seen at sites between Bredon’s Hardwick and Westwood.

The star bird of the month however was an Arctic Redpoll, identified at Habberley Valley amongst a flock of about a hundred Lesser Redpolls with also one or two Mealy’s present. Although this has not been an exceptional winter nationally for these attractive finches, this observation was a clear demonstration of what can be found through careful scrutiny of wintering finch flocks. On the same theme single Twites were found amongst Linnets at both Wyre Piddle and then Lineholt. This first site also hosted a very respectable flock of up to 20 Tree Sparrows in an area that will shortly accommodate the village bypass. Hawfinches have been typically elusive this winter but birds were found in the Wyre Forest and at Chase End Hill (Malvern) and a flock of 30 Crossbills were reported from Eyemore Wood. Elsewhere a Whooper Swan at Lower Moor one evening was the first site record and two Ruff at Bredon’s Hardwick were seen intermittently during the month.

February started wet, with floods encroaching the lower Avon and Severn valleys and attracting yet another record number of Pintail at Longdon Marsh – this time around 600 being counted in the second week. Other wildfowl included a female Scaup which moved between Upton-upon-Severn Ham, Bredon’s Hardwick and Westwood whilst gulls were represented by four Kittiwakes and further first winter Iceland Gulls, found at Lower Wick and Wildmoor Tip. The former roosted on the floods at Upton-upon-Severn whilst at least four different Mediterranean Gulls were located. A Red Kite must have been a pleasant surprise for Worcestershire Wildlife Trust staff as it drifted over Smite and at least six Jack Snipe provided a good count at Castlemorton Common.

Early March started quietly but began to warm up, both literally and in terms of the birds appearing in the County. Short-eared Owls were found at Bittell and then Bredon’s Hardwick, a Little Egret also spent a short period at the former locality whilst a Whooper Swan there was very unusual. A Pink-footed Goose appeared with Greylags at Bredon but didn’t linger, and Black-tailed Godwits were also seen there and at Kinsham. A female Red-breasted Merganser was an unexpected find on the river at Upton-upon-Severn and followed the discovery of two Egyptian Geese at nearby Ryall the previous day. These Geese, although only of feral origin, are a rare sight in the west of the Country and proved popular with local birders whilst they remained at Ryall for a few days before wandering around to various other South Worcestershire localities.

As the month progressed a second Twite joined the bird already at Lineholt whilst early-returning summer migrants included a drake Garganey at Lower Moor and then Gwen Finch, a Tree Pipit in the Wyre Forest and single Ospreys over Castlemorton Common and Upton Warren on their way north. Five Little Gulls and two Mediterranean Gulls were seen before an adult Ring-billed Gull was located amongst Common Gulls at Bredon’s Hardwick at the end of the month. Unexpectedly, this bird – only the third multi-observer record of this species in the County – was joined by a second adult the following day !

April began in the same vein with the two Ring-billed Gulls again visiting Bredon’s Hardwick daily before amazingly a third adult was found at Ryall Gravel Pits, all three birds being present at their respective localities at the same time. Incredibly, a few days later a second summer bird of this North American species was then also located at Bredon. It can only be presumed that these birds were part of a larger than normal influx of this species into south-west England this winter, moving north on spring migration as they would normally instinctively do on the other side of the Atlantic!

Ring Ouzels stopped over in good numbers at the usual upland localities of Malvern, Bredon Hill and Clent/Walton, and eleven Common Scoter were seen briefly at Upton Warren. A Little Tern was a welcome arrival at this last site, unusually remaining for a full day, whilst another Little Egret spent a few hours at Ryall. The other major highlight of the month was a female Ring-necked Duck at Beckford, only the second ever seen in the County but sadly only staying one evening before relocating over the border to Warwickshire. Just to demonstrate the vagaries of birding, this last species was probably only located as a result of observers searching the water in the area for a drake Red-crested Pochard seen on a nearby pool a day or two earlier!

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

Worcestershire Record No. 12 April 2002 p. 40-43

Records Obtained During Field Visit to Grimley Brick Pits.

On Sunday 14th April 2002, the day following the indoor Annual Meeting, about ten of us were able to spend the day in the field with Garth Foster, which he reports in the previous article. He demonstrated techniques of catching and identifying water beetles. At the same time we also gathered many other records, which are listed below.

Amphipoda Gammaridae Gammarus pulex Meiklejohn, J.W. SO86F Grimley
Araneae Linyphiidae Bathyphantes gracilis Partridge, W.J. SO841608 Grimley
Araneae Linyphiidae Gnathonarium dentatum Partridge, W.J. SO841608 Grimley
Araneae Linyphiidae Hypomma bituberculatum Partridge, W.J. SO841608 Grimley
Araneae Linyphiidae Hypomma bituberculatum Partridge, W.J. SO834611 Grimley
Araneae Linyphiidae Neriene montana Partridge, W.J. SO841613 Grimley Brickpits
Araneae Linyphiidae Oedothorax apicatus Partridge, W.J. SO835609 Grimley
Araneae Lycosidae Pardosa amentata Partridge, W.J. SO834611 Grimley
Araneae Lycosidae Pardosa amentata Partridge, W.J. SO841608 Grimley
Araneae Lycosidae Pirata piraticus Partridge, W.J. SO841608 Grimley
Araneae Theridiosomatidae Theridiosoma gemmosum Partridge, W.J. SO841608 Grimley
Carnivora Mustelidae Lutra lutra Day, J.J. SO840614 Grimley Brickpit
Carnivora Mustelidae Meles meles Day, J.J. SO842612 Grimley Brickpit
Carnivora Mustelidae Meles meles Day, J.J. SO835611 Grimley Gravel Pit
Coleoptera Carabidae Agonum marginatum Meiklejohn, J.W. SO86K Grimley
Coleoptera Carabidae Bembidion dentellum Foster, Prof G.N. SO835609 Grimley
Coleoptera Carabidae Bembidion dentellum Meiklejohn, J.W. SO86K Grimley
Coleoptera Carabidae Bembidion quadrimaculatum Meiklejohn, J.W. SO86K Grimley
Coleoptera Carabidae Pterostichus cupreus Meiklejohn, J.W. SO835609 Grimley
Coleoptera Chrysomelidae Aphthona nonstriata Meiklejohn, J.W. SO86F Grimley
Coleoptera Chrysomelidae Aphthona nonstriata Meiklejohn, J.W. SO86K Grimley
Coleoptera Chrysomelidae Aphthona nonstriata Foster, Prof G.N. SO840607 Grimley
Coleoptera Chrysomelidae Aphthona nonstriata Foster, Prof G.N. SO840607 Grimley Brickpits
Coleoptera Chrysomelidae Galerucella sagittariae Foster, Prof G.N. SO833608 Grimley
Coleoptera Chrysomelidae Galerucella sagittariae Meiklejohn, J.W. SO86K Grimley
Coleoptera Chrysomelidae Phaedon armoraciae Foster, Prof G.N. SO840607 Grimley
Coleoptera Coccinellidae Adalia decempunctata Meiklejohn, J.W. SO86K Grimley
Coleoptera Coccinellidae Psyllobora vigintiduopunctata Meiklejohn, J.W. SO86F Grimley
Coleoptera Coccinellidae Tytthaspis sedecimpunctata Taylor, P.L., Meiklejohn, J.W. SO86F Grimley
Coleoptera Curculionidae Cidnorhinus quadrimaculatus Meiklejohn, J.W. SO86K Grimley
Coleoptera Curculionidae Notaris acridulus Meiklejohn, J.W. SO86K Grimley
Coleoptera Curculionidae Notaris acridulus Foster, Prof G.N. SO834611 Grimley
Coleoptera Curculionidae Poophagus sisymbrii Foster, Prof G.N. SO86F Grimley
Coleoptera Curculionidae Poophagus sisymbrii Foster, Prof G.N. SO840607 Grimley
Coleoptera Curculionidae Poophagus sisymbrii Meiklejohn, J.W., Foster, Prof G.N. SO86K Grimley
Coleoptera Curculionidae Poophagus sisymbrii Foster, Prof G.N. SO840607 Grimley Brickpits
Coleoptera Dytiscidae Agabus bipustulatus Foster, Prof G.N. SO834608 Grimley
Coleoptera Dytiscidae Agabus bipustulatus Foster, Prof G.N. SO842612 Grimley
Coleoptera Dytiscidae Agabus bipustulatus Foster, Prof G.N. SO834611 Grimley
Coleoptera Dytiscidae Colymbetes fuscus Foster, Prof G.N. SO836609 Grimley
Coleoptera Dytiscidae Copelatus haemorrhoidalis Foster, Prof G.N. SO836609 Grimley
Coleoptera Dytiscidae Graptodytes granularis Foster, Prof G.N. SO836609 Grimley
Coleoptera Dytiscidae Hydroglyphus pusillus Foster, Prof G.N. SO833608 Grimley
Coleoptera Dytiscidae Hydroporus angustatus Foster, Prof G.N. SO836609 Grimley
Coleoptera Dytiscidae Hydroporus angustatus Foster, Prof G.N. SO86F Grimley
Coleoptera Dytiscidae Hydroporus angustatus Foster, Prof G.N. SO840607 Grimley Brickpits
Coleoptera Dytiscidae Hydroporus erythrocephalus Meiklejohn, J.W., Foster, Prof G.N. SO86K Grimley
Coleoptera Dytiscidae Hydroporus erythrocephalus Green, G.H., Meiklejohn, J.W. SO834608 Grimley
Coleoptera Dytiscidae Hydroporus erythrocephalus Foster, Prof G.N. SO836609 Grimley
Coleoptera Dytiscidae Hydroporus incognitus Foster, Prof G.N. SO842612 Grimley
Coleoptera Dytiscidae Hydroporus palustris Meiklejohn, J.W., Foster, Prof G.N. SO86K Grimley
Coleoptera Dytiscidae Hydroporus palustris Foster, Prof G.N. SO833608 Grimley
Coleoptera Dytiscidae Hydroporus palustris Foster, Prof G.N. SO840607 Grimley
Coleoptera Dytiscidae Hydroporus planus Foster, Prof G.N. SO842612 Grimley
Coleoptera Dytiscidae Hydroporus planus Foster, Prof G.N. SO840607 Grimley Brickpits
Coleoptera Dytiscidae Hyphydrus ovatus Foster, Prof G.N. SO833608 Grimley
Coleoptera Dytiscidae Ilybius ater Foster, Prof G.N. SO840607 Grimley
Coleoptera Dytiscidae Ilybius ater Meiklejohn, J.W., Foster, Prof G.N. SO86K Grimley
Coleoptera Dytiscidae Ilybius ater Foster, Prof G.N. SO840607 Grimley Brickpits
Coleoptera Dytiscidae Laccophilus minutus Foster, Prof G.N. SO833608 Grimley
Coleoptera Dytiscidae Rhantus exsoletus Foster, Prof G.N. SO833608 Grimley
Coleoptera Dytiscidae Rhantus exsoletus Foster, Prof G.N. SO836609 Grimley
Coleoptera Dytiscidae Suphrodytes dorsalis Foster, Prof G.N. SO836609 Grimley
Coleoptera Haliplidae Haliplus flavicollis Foster, Prof G.N. SO833608 Grimley
Coleoptera Haliplidae Haliplus lineatocollis Foster, Prof G.N. SO834611 Grimley
Coleoptera Haliplidae Haliplus ruficollis Foster, Prof G.N. SO833608 Grimley
Coleoptera Haliplidae Haliplus ruficollis Foster, Prof G.N. SO836609 Grimley
Coleoptera Hydraenidae Hydraena riparia Foster, Prof G.N. SO840607 Grimley
Coleoptera Hydraenidae Ochthebius minimus Foster, Prof G.N. SO833608 Grimley
Coleoptera Hydraenidae Ochthebius minimus Foster, Prof G.N. SO836609 Grimley
Coleoptera Hydraenidae Ochthebius minimus Meiklejohn, J.W., Foster, Prof G.N. SO86K Grimley
Coleoptera Hydraenidae Ochthebius minimus Foster, Prof G.N. SO840607 Grimley
Coleoptera Hydraenidae Ochthebius minimus Foster, Prof G.N. SO842612 Grimley
Coleoptera Hydraenidae Ochthebius minimus Foster, Prof G.N. SO840607 Grimley Brickpits
Coleoptera Hydrophilidae Anacaena globulus Foster, Prof G.N. SO840607 Grimley
Coleoptera Hydrophilidae Anacaena globulus Foster, Prof G.N. SO840607 Grimley Brickpits
Coleoptera Hydrophilidae Anacaena limbata s. str. Foster, Prof G.N. SO836609 Grimley
Coleoptera Hydrophilidae Anacaena limbata s. str. Foster, Prof G.N. SO842612 Grimley
Coleoptera Hydrophilidae Anacaena limbata s. str. Foster, Prof G.N. SO834611 Grimley
Coleoptera Hydrophilidae Anacaena limbata s. str. Foster, Prof G.N. SO833608 Grimley
Coleoptera Hydrophilidae Cercyon convexiusculus Foster, Prof G.N. SO840607 Grimley
Coleoptera Hydrophilidae Cercyon convexiusculus Foster, Prof G.N. SO840607 Grimley Brickpits
Coleoptera Hydrophilidae Cercyon littoralis Meiklejohn, J.W. SO86K Grimley
Coleoptera Hydrophilidae Cymbiodyta marginellus Foster, Prof G.N. SO842612 Grimley
Coleoptera Hydrophilidae Cymbiodyta marginellus Foster, Prof G.N. SO840607 Grimley
Coleoptera Hydrophilidae Enochrus coarctatus Foster, Prof G.N. SO836609 Grimley
Coleoptera Hydrophilidae Enochrus testaceus Foster, Prof G.N. SO836609 Grimley
Coleoptera Hydrophilidae Helochares lividus Foster, Prof G.N. SO86F Grimley
Coleoptera Hydrophilidae Helochares lividus Foster, Prof G.N. SO840607 Grimley
Coleoptera Hydrophilidae Helochares lividus Foster, Prof G.N. SO836609 Grimley
Coleoptera Hydrophilidae Helochares lividus Foster, Prof G.N. SO833608 Grimley
Coleoptera Hydrophilidae Helochares lividus Foster, Prof G.N. SO840607 Grimley Brickpits
Coleoptera Hydrophilidae Helophorus aequalis Foster, Prof G.N. SO840607 Grimley Brickpits
Coleoptera Hydrophilidae Helophorus brevipalpis Foster, Prof G.N. SO833608 Grimley
Coleoptera Hydrophilidae Helophorus grandis Foster, Prof G.N. SO834611 Grimley
Coleoptera Hydrophilidae Helophorus grandis Meiklejohn, J.W. SO86K Grimley
Coleoptera Hydrophilidae Helophorus grandis Green, G.H., Meiklejohn, J.W. SO834608 Grimley
Coleoptera Hydrophilidae Helophorus grandis Foster, Prof G.N. SO842612 Grimley
Coleoptera Hydrophilidae Helophorus grandis Foster, Prof G.N. SO840607 Grimley
Coleoptera Hydrophilidae Helophorus griseus Meiklejohn, J.W. SO86K Grimley
Coleoptera Hydrophilidae Helophorus minutus Foster, Prof G.N. SO834611 Grimley
Coleoptera Hydrophilidae Helophorus minutus Foster, Prof G.N. SO840607 Grimley
Coleoptera Hydrophilidae Helophorus minutus Foster, Prof G.N. SO840607 Grimley Brickpits
Coleoptera Hydrophilidae Helophorus obscurus Foster, Prof G.N. SO834611 Grimley
Coleoptera Hydrophilidae Helophorus obscurus Foster, Prof G.N. SO840607 Grimley
Coleoptera Hydrophilidae Hydrobius fuscipes Meiklejohn, J.W., Foster, Prof G.N. SO86K Grimley
Coleoptera Hydrophilidae Hydrobius fuscipes Foster, Prof G.N. SO86F Grimley
Coleoptera Hydrophilidae Hydrobius fuscipes Foster, Prof G.N. SO840607 Grimley
Coleoptera Hydrophilidae Hydrobius fuscipes Foster, Prof G.N. SO842612 Grimley
Coleoptera Hydrophilidae Hydrobius fuscipes Foster, Prof G.N. SO840607 Grimley Brickpits
Coleoptera Hydrophilidae Hydrochus elongatus Foster, Prof G.N. SO842612 Grimley
Coleoptera Hydrophilidae Hydrochus elongatus Foster, Prof G.N. SO836609 Grimley
Coleoptera Hydrophilidae Hydrochus elongatus Foster, Prof G.N. SO840607 Grimley
Coleoptera Hydrophilidae Hydrochus elongatus Meiklejohn, J.W., Foster, Prof G.N. SO86K Grimley
Coleoptera Hydrophilidae Laccobius bipunctatus Foster, Prof G.N. SO834611 Grimley
Coleoptera Hydrophilidae Laccobius minutus Foster, Prof G.N. SO833608 Grimley
Coleoptera Hydrophilidae Laccobius minutus Green, G.H., Meiklejohn, J.W. SO834608 Grimley
Coleoptera Hydrophilidae Laccobius striatulus Foster, Prof G.N. SO834611 Grimley
Coleoptera Noteridae Noterus clavicornis Foster, Prof G.N. SO836609 Grimley
Coleoptera Noteridae Noterus clavicornis Foster, Prof G.N. SO833608 Grimley
Coleoptera Noteridae Noterus clavicornis Foster, Prof G.N. SO837603 Grimley
Coleoptera Noteridae Noterus clavicornis Foster, Prof G.N. SO86F Grimley
Coleoptera Scarabaeidae Aphodius prodromus Foster, Prof G.N. SO835609 Grimley
Coleoptera Staphylinidae Anotylus rugosus Meiklejohn, J.W. SO86K Grimley
Coleoptera Staphylinidae Lesteva heeri Meiklejohn, J.W. SO86F Grimley
Coleoptera Staphylinidae Lesteva longoelytrata Meiklejohn, J.W. SO86K Grimley
Coleoptera Staphylinidae Paederus littoralis Meiklejohn, J.W. SO86K Grimley
Coleoptera Staphylinidae Stenus juno Meiklejohn, J.W. SO86K Grimley
Coleoptera Staphylinidae Stenus pallitarsis Meiklejohn, J.W. SO835609 Grimley
Diptera Cecidomyiidae Dasineura crataegi Day, J.J. SO920558 Crowle
Hemiptera Cimicidae Anthocoris nemorum Meiklejohn, J.W. SO86K Grimley
Hemiptera Corixidae Callicorixa praeusta Meiklejohn, J.W. SO86K Grimley
Hemiptera Corixidae Cymatia coleoptrata Green, G.H., Meiklejohn, J.W. SO834608 Grimley
Hemiptera Corixidae Sigara lateralis Meiklejohn, J.W. SO86K Grimley
Hemiptera Gerridae Gerris thoracicus Meiklejohn, J.W. SO86K Grimley
Hemiptera Hydrometridae Hydrometra stagnorum Meiklejohn, J.W. SO86F Grimley
Hemiptera Naucoridae Ilyocoris cimicoides Green, G H SO831608 Grimley
Hemiptera Nepidae Nepa cinerea Meiklejohn, J.W. SO86F Grimley
Hemiptera Notonectidae Notonecta marmorea Green, G.H., Meiklejohn, J.W. SO834608 Grimley
Hemiptera Pleidae Plea minutissima Meiklejohn, J.W. SO86K Grimley
Hemiptera Saldidae Saldula pallipes Meiklejohn, J.W. SO86K Grimley
Hymenoptera Formicidae Myrmica rubra Meiklejohn, J.W. SO86K Grimley
Insectivora Talpidae Talpa europaea Day, J.J., Green, G.H. SO834606 Grimley Gravel Pit
Lagomorpha Leporidae Lepus capensis Day, J.J. SO837616 Arable field adjacent to Grimley Brickpit
Lagomorpha Leporidae Oryctolagus cuniculus Day, J.J. SO825625 A4133 Holt Fleet
Lagomorpha Leporidae Oryctolagus cuniculus Day, J.J. SO835608 Grimley Gravel Pit
Pisces Esocidae Esox lucius Green, G.H., Foster, Prof G.N. SO834608 Grimley
Mollusca Arionidae Arion silvaticus Meiklejohn, J.W. SO86K Grimley
Mollusca Helicidae Helix aspersa Meiklejohn, J.W. SO86K Grimley
Mollusca Limacidae Deroceras reticulatum Meiklejohn, J.W. SO86K Grimley
Mollusca Limnaeidae Lymnaea auricularia Meiklejohn, J.W. SO86F Grimley
Mollusca Limnaeidae Lymnaea palustris Meiklejohn, J.W. SO86F Grimley
Mollusca Limnaeidae Lymnaea peregra Meiklejohn, J.W. SO86F Grimley
Mollusca Planorbidae Anisus leucostoma Meiklejohn, J.W. SO86F Grimley
Mollusca Planorbidae Planorbis planorbis Meiklejohn, J.W. SO86F Grimley
Mollusca Planorbidae Planorbis planorbis Meiklejohn, J.W. SO86K Grimley
Mollusca Zonitidae Oxychilus cellarius Meiklejohn, J.W. SO86F Grimley
Neuroptera Sialidae Sialis lutaria Meiklejohn, J.W. SO86K Grimley
Pharyngobdellida Erpobdellidae Erpobdella octoculata Green, G.H., Meiklejohn, J.W. SO86F Grimley
Rhynchobdellida Piscicolidae Pisicola geometra Green, G.H., Meiklejohn, J.W. SO86F Grimley
Thoracostei Gasterosteidae Gasterosteus aculeatus Foster, Prof G.N. SO86F Grimley

Worcestershire Record No. 12 April 2002 p. 13-14

The Demise of the Mawley Oak[Nat Grid Ref; SO 6975 7565]

This article was developed from Wyre Forest Study Group Report 2001

By B M Stephens

The mighty Mawley Oak collapsed at about 9.00am, Monday, 29th October, 2001, after a long period of increasing weakness. There had been some strong SW winds for several days preceding but, on this morning, not exceptional, W to NW, about force 5 perhaps gusting 6. Possibly the change of wind direction was significant and the extra strain more than the tortured trunk could stand. Witnesses, at the garage opposite, heard a loud crack and down it came, “Just like that!” narrowly missing the main road.

This is not an obituary. Demise is a more suitable term than death. The tree is far from dead, although, for the time being, a shattered fragment of its former self. The SE portion survives intact with a tall upright branch and several long branches spreading at various angles, from the original crown. The short main trunk has split through its diameter on a SW-NE axis down to ground level. The half nearest the road is again split down its radius, leaving the tree in three huge sections, with the fallen boughs spread over a wide area on the ground.

So, the roots are intact, the branches remain attached even if some are split, the original height remains (almost, but looking vulnerable), and there would seem no reason why the tree can not continue to grow. One would expect new shoots to arise next spring from dormant buds and the fractured edges. Like a coppiced stool, there will be many young shoots but, left alone, or even selected, we could hope that strong new branches will grow upwards eventually developing an even greater tree. It would be a most regrettable loss should the fallen branches be removed.

Demise, from the Old French demise, to lay down, refers to the transfer of a sovereign’s crown to a successor. Young trees from acorns of the Mawley Oak are already established, and new growth will flourish from the extant tree. The habit of the tree suggests that it was pollarded years ago and now we can see the effect. Dead leaves collected in the crown of branches, rain drained down and from this mass of accumulated humus, rot spread into the heart.

Dr. Norman Hickin describes the Mawley Oak in his book The Natural History of an English Forest (Hutchinson 1971 page 6). He recorded, to within ten days of the collapse, exactly, thirty-three years ago.

“This tree is situated near the junction of the B4202 road from Clows Top and the A4117 road from Far Forest to Cleobury Mortimer…… measuring the tree on 19th October,1968 ….. The girth at head height, over a very rough trunk, was 23 foot 6 inches,giving a diameter of practically 7 foot 6 inches. The area on the ground covered by foliage was 1,417 square yards, well over a quarter of an acre …… Perhaps the most outstanding point about this tree is the very.large number of main branches, although difficult to count these were made out as thirty and all arose from between 12 and 15 feet from the ground. So that the Mawley Oak has a broad but very short trunk, but with a magnificent head. The height was reckoned at 86 feet. The bark was extremely crevassed to the extent that it held the nest of a wren and one small branch was rotten and a colony of honey bees were flying in and out of a hole in it.”

Although more accessible, the branches are still confusing to count. Since 1968 some have been lopped and others fell in 1974. Of Dr.Hicken’s thirty, twenty four can be identified, (including cut stumps). The standing section has eight, the fallen NE part seven and the fallen NW part nine, suggesting that six fell in 1974. The main trunk is just twelve feet to the base of the branching. The girth of several fallen branches can be measured at their base. On the NE section the girth of three branches can be measured as 7 ft 6 in, 7ft and 6 ft 6in. To the NW the most distinct branch is 8 ft 6 in girth. At the equivalent of 32 feet above ground, three other branches measured 5ft 2in, 4ft 8in, 4ft 9in. giving some idea of the massive scale of this tree.

Estimates of age from girth measurements can only be approximate. Some comparisons are possible with other oak trees in the forest, but growth rates will be variable, affected as they will be by ground water supply, shading and soil in particular. Two specimens as standards grown from old stools in Lord’s Yard coppice felled in the winter of 1990-1991 gave ring counts of 100 years and girths of 4ft 9in and 4ft 10in. Thus having grown since 1890, arithmetic suggests growth rates of 0.73 inch and 0.87 inch, respectively, per ten years. Of course one needs a larger sample to determine a better estimate.

Bordering the road (B4194) at Clogs Bank, to the SW, there is a stand of oak of varying sizes shown on the Stock Map as of 1890, while across the road to the NE is a similar stand of 1905 oaks. The girth, at chest height, of eighteen of the largest specimens with straight clear trunks, was measured from each stand.

Cloggs Bank: March 2002. Girth at chest height. Feet and inches.

Planted 1890

Compartment            
8059c 6’2″ 5’3.5″ 6’3″ 5’6.5″ 5’6.25″ 5’8.5″
8058f 5’11” 4’7″ 5’6″ 6’1″ 6’5″ 6’2″
8057b 5’11.5″ 5’6″ 5’5″ 5’1″ 6’1″ 5’4″

Average girth = 5.69ft = 5′ 8.25″. Standard error of sample mean = 0.110ft = 1.32″

Planted 1905

Compartment            
8049b 6’4″ 6’2.5″ 5’1″ 6’6.5″ 5’8.5″ 5’11”
8048b 5’7″ 6’2.5″ 5’5″ 5’8″ 7’6.5″ 5’11”
8045e 6’3.5″ 7’5.25″ 8’0.5″ 5’7″ 6’2″ 6’8.5″

Average girth = 6.24 ft = 6’3″. Standard error of sample mean = 0.185ft = 1.54″

The average girth of the older trees was 5ft 8¼ in. (5.69 ft,), and that of the trees fifteen years younger was 6ft3in. (6.24 ft). These figures correspond to growth rates of 0.97″ per ten years over 111 years, and 1.24″ per ten years, over 96 years.

From this sample the younger trees have grown faster. However, if the larger tree from Lord’s Yard was still growing at 0.87inch per ten years it would now have a girth of 5ft 0in., still smaller than the samples from Button Oak. Clearly, as can be seen, Wyre Forest oaks grow at different rates in different parts of the forest, but girth is not an accurate indicator of age.

The Mawley Oak in its open, well-watered position, could be assumed to have a good growth rate. The girth of branches, cited above, is similar to the finest specimens in the 1905 sample. It would seem fair to conclude that the pollarding occurred around 1900, or the latter part of the nineteenth century.

With higher and lower estimates of growth rate the figures can be applied to Dr. Hickin’s measure of the trunk of the Mawley Oak in 1968. This gives a radius for the trunk of 42.25 inches. The lower estimate of 0.073 inch growth per year divided into 42.25 would give an age of 578 years, plus the 33 to the present equalling 611, suggesting that the tree may originate from 1390. Using the higher estimate of 0.124 inches per year, similar calculation gives an age of 373 years, and an origin about 1628. This latter might seem more plausible, but without any study of growth rings we can only make very rough estimates.

In 1974 the tree suffered some loss of branches from the NW side. A large section of wood from the tree was set up at the, then newly established, visitor centre at Callow Hill, and a plaque set on the fence to the west. The notice reads:

The Mawley Oak
April 1975
Estimated age                         240 years
Height                                       90 feet
Girth breast height              24 feet
Max. spread of canopy           130 feet

In August 1974 several large branches broke away
from the main trunk, probably due to an earlier lightening
strike coupled with the great weight of the lower limbs.
Local residents and supporters of the Cleobury Mortimer Branch
of the Shropshire Conservation Trust, raised a sum of £343 to
carry out the necessary work for the preservation of this
fine tree. Young oaks were also planted near it.

Work has been done on the tree from time to time and the last few years have shown some stag’s heading.

In recent years other local great and significant trees have suffered. The Seckley Beech and Preacher’s Tree have gone. The Royal Oak at Boscobel has suffered storm damage (its ancestor acquired fame just 350 years ago) and the Mitre Oak is but a remnant. The Goodmoor Oak thrives and the giant Sweet Chestnut at Kate’s Hill continues to spread. In contrast, the once unique, Witty Pear has received enhanced prestige with many successful propagations and newly discovered specimens in other parts of the Country. The survival of these special trees emphasises the constant need for long term and sustained measures for conservation of all species.

(The Wyre Forest Study Group Review 2001 contains pictures of the Mawley Oak and the front cover is graced by a magnificent picture of the multi-stemmed Seckley Beech taken 1973 before that tree collapsed. The Ancient Tree Forum web site also contains (and hopefully still does) an account of the recent collapse of the Mawley Oak and a photo: www.woodland-trust.org.uk/ancient-tree-forum. The photo is reproduced here with Roy Finch’s permission. Although the Mawley Oak is just across the border into Shropshire I feel sure any information about the Wyre Forest will be of interest to readers of Worcestershire Record, hence this article. Ed)


The Mawley oak photographed 27th November 1991 showing the tree before its collapse (photo B M Stephens)


The Mawley Oak after its collapse 3rd December 2001 (photo Roy Finch). This was shown on the Ancient Tree Forum website.

The photo above (taken by Harry Green) shows the ivy-clad remnant of the Mitre Oak in the summer of 2000.

Worcestershire Record No. 12 April 2002 p. 43-44

Invertebrate Recording in Site Evaluation and Monitoring Countryside Changes: The Hymenoptera

By Geoff Trevis

“If nature conservation is not working for parasitic hymenoptera, then nature conservation is not working as it should”. (Shaw and Hochberg, 2001)

A considerable literature exists describing and evaluating the use of invertebrates for monitoring countryside change and the achievement of conservation objectives. However, the paper from which the quotation at the head of this article was taken started me thinking about invertebrate recording in Worcestershire and, particularly, about my chosen group – the hymenoptera. As a starting point I used the British Journal of Entomology and Natural History, Vol. 7, supplement 1, 1994 that contains a series of papers under the general title of “Invertebrates in the landscape: invertebrate recording in site evaluation and countryside monitoring”.

A quick survey of the BENHS papers revealed a wide range of organisms being used for monitoring. For environmental quality and change there is a significant literature from Foster and others on water beetles and from other workers on ground beetles, spiders and weevils. Water beetles and other stream invertebrates have been used to assess water quality whilst climate change has been monitored using dragonflies and mayflies. Long term monitoring schemes such as that run by Butterfly Conservation have also proved useful. In some cases the spread (or otherwise!) of individual species has been followed, including the Firethorn Leaf-miner Phyllonorycter leucographella, Roesel’s Bush-cricket Metrioptera roeselii, the Long-winged cone-head Conocephalus discolor and the spider Argiope bruennichi. Individual species have also been employed in evaluating the effects of land-use change and management of individual sites. Species cited in the literature include Shining Ram’s-horn Snail Segmentina nitida, Large Marsh Grasshopper Stethophyma grossum, the Black Darter Dragonfly Sympetrum danae, the Chequered Skipper Carterocephalus palaemon, the Glow-worm Lampyris noctiluca and, at Thorne and Hatfield Moors, the muscid fly Phaonia jaroschewskii, the ephydrid fly Pelina guttipenis and the byrrhid beetle Curimopsis nigrita. However, references to hymenoptera were absent or, if present, so deeply buried I failed to find them!

At a conference in 1996 Dr. M.E. Archer drew attention to the value of solitary wasps and bees in wildlife assessment. At this conference many groups of invertebrates were discussed and the reasons Archer gave for the use of hymenoptera were:

  1. Solitary species have a low reproductive rate of 8-12 per generation. Most species have only one generation per year though this is not universal. Any reproductive failure will, therefore, be reflected in a decline in the species.
  2. Each species has a complex mixture of resource requirements in terms of nest sites, microclimate and a nearby habitat with flowers for food and prey. These resource requirements are particularly associated with traditional countryside patterns.
  3. As traditional countryside disappears, species have become increasingly restricted to habitats which are not undergoing intensive agriculture.
  4. Most species have limited powers of dispersal so that, as suitable habitats become fragmented, re-colonisation of isolated patches becomes less likely.

It was following this conference that I became interested in the Aculeate Hymenoptera but I gave little thought to the “parasitica” which seemed a group of almost impossible complexity and often of morphological similarity which made identification to species level difficult. The second point remains a problem. However, the Shaw and Hochberg paper I acquired at the parasitic hymenoptera workshop organised by Rosemary Winnall for Wyre Forest Study Group this year caused a radical re-think.

The basic proposition of the paper is that the omission of hymenoptera from evaluation for conservation is a grave one since these insects have a disproportionately large role in maintaining the diversity of other plants and animals. This results from the profound and often highly specialised interactions between hymenoptera and other organisms and the fact that they are a large and ramified group. Current estimates are that about 25% of the entire British insect fauna is parasitic hymenoptera. Many groups of hymenoptera are also particularly sensitive to environmental disturbance which makes their populations especially prone to extinction. The threats to the parasitic hymenoptera come from two directions. They are intrinsically extinction prone because of their specialisation and high trophic level, and extrinsically vulnerable owing to our disregard for them.

Shaw and Hochberg summarise the situation in terms of these intrinsic and extrinsic threats. The intrinsic threats are:

Their genetic reproductive system can lead to male dominance at low densities which adds to the problem of finding a mate.
Many show high resource specificity and, therefore, have no fall back to alternative hosts when prey species density is low.
Adult parasitoid behaviour can depend strongly on climatic conditions, with the result that already vulnerable populations can rather easily be put over the brink of extinction simply by experiencing a string of bad weather conditions at crucial times. Thus, in response to climate change, in addition to having to adapt to the abiotic influences per se, parasitoids will inevitably be extremely sensitive to changes at the lower trophic level.

Extrinsic threats are easily summarised as:

Our lack of knowledge means they are easily ignored and their needs excluded from approaches to insect conservation that come to be dictated by the attributes of better understood groups.

The conclusions of this fascinating and important paper are best summarised by three direct quotes:

Because approaches to conservation are increasingly knowledge based, ignorance of a group places it in real danger as conservation effort becomes targeted to more well known groups with different requirements. Our ignorance of parasitic hymenoptera places them under real and specific threat. The bleeding away of our parasitic hymenoptera must be happening at a rate that would surely be considered alarming if only it could be noticed!
The brief statement in the Insect Red Data Book says that parasitic wasps must be considered among the most threatened of British insects, but that attempting a listing of endangered species would be quite hopeless in view of our poor knowledge.
If we have to accept a general land management strategy of conservation by proxy – hoping, that is, that getting it right of one set of organisms will also get it about right for most others within the habitat frame – it would seem only logical that the analysis and monitoring criteria should be pitched at the highest trophic level at which substantial organism-dependent specialisation exists, not (as at present) at a trophic level below that.

So, where does that leave us in Worcestershire? The problem of ignorance is present to an extreme extent. We have little knowledge of the common hymenoptera such as social wasps, bumble bees etc., next nothing of the solitary bees and wasps except for the historical records of J.E. Fletcher from the mid to late 19th century (which cover a very restricted number of sites) and the recent work of Dr. Archer on our north Worcestershire heathlands and as close to nil as you can get regarding the parasitic hymenoptera (except for records from John Mieklejohn and others on gall forming wasps).

We know that Hartlebury Common and Devil’s Spittleful and Rifle Range are of national importance for aculeate hymenoptera but recent evidence that the Bredon area may also be of very high value has come as something of a surprise. John Clarke drew attention to colonies of a mining bee on the Kemerton Estate. John Meiklejohn, Harry Green and I have had the opportunity to visit the site and discovered the presence of staggering colonies of Andrena flavipes. An estimate by John Clarke suggests the colony contains about 40,000 nests! But is this a recent arrival or a long established colony? We have no way of knowing. Since A. flavipes has only relatively recently been recorded in Warwickshire in fairly low numbers (Steven Falk, personal communication) the probability is that its arrival in our county is also fairly recent and that the Bredon area is ideal for it. Also, the high density of nests suggests that the site must also be important for other species, including parasites. Steven Falk has suggested, for example, that we look for the Red Data Book bee fly, Bombylius discolor that should, almost certainly, be present along with the more common cleptoparasites such as the Nomada species. As for the rest of the county – who knows?

To help to address this situation I would like to encourage people to take up the study of this fascinating group, the hymenoptera. I would also be pleased to receive any specimens collected, with details of when, where and by whom plus anything else of interest such as the habitat type and plant from which the specimen came. I would also be pleased to swap specimens with anybody interested, to help each other to get to grips with identification. Many hymenoptera are difficult but as more recorders take up their study and more keys become available life is getting easier. And if you are interested, do join the Bees, Wasps and Ants Recording Society which is doing important work in addressing the current state of ignorance. I will let anyone who wants them have membership details.

The key message is – let’s try not to ignore the hymenoptera any longer!

References:

SHAW, MARK R. & HOCHBERG, MICHAEL E. 2001 The neglect of parasitic Hymenoptera in insect conservation strategies: The British fauna as a prime example., Journal of Insect Conservation 5: 253 – 263.
ARCHER, M E 1996 The use of solitary wasps and bees in site assessment for wildlife conservation. In
Environmental Monitoring, Surveillance and Conservation Using Invertebrates. M.D. Eyre (Ed.). EMS Publications.

Worcestershire Record No. 12 April 2002 p. 13-17

This article is outdated and remains for Archive purposes only

WBRC Developments Update

By Geoff Trevis

There is little new information to share following my previous reports in the Worcestershire Record and the notification of setting up a shadow Board for the independent BRC. The Board is now in place with David Hever nominated by English Nature; John Partridge, Harry Green and Bert Reid representing the recording community; myself nominated by Worcestershire Wildlife Trust, and Colin Raven acting as company secretary. The only nominee missing is from Worcestershire County Council. The Council is currently represented by Alex Preston (BAP Officer) pending a final decision by appropriate officers.

Colin Raven is filling in as company secretary on a temporary basis until somebody can be found to take on the role for the longer term. We would very much welcome anybody who would like to take on this important, though not too time consuming, role for the BRC as Colin needs to concentrate on his work for the Worcestershire Wildlife Trust. If you feel you could help in this way I am sure Colin would be only too pleased to hear from you to discuss what is involved.

As this goes to press we can confirm that WORCESTERSHIRE BIOLOGICAL RECORDS CENTRE is now a private Limited Company Company No. 4416182. It is a company limited by guarantee and not having share capital. An application is being made for it to become a Registered Charity

English Nature, Worcestershire County Council and Worcestershire Wildlife Trust have all continued their financial support meaning that we can afford to appoint a manager to oversee the development phase of the centre. The exact nature of this post will depend on the results of the consultant’s report about long term support and funding. The report should be nearing completion by the time you read this and, hopefully, we will be making decisions on the next stage very soon.

In practice, very little will change in the short term. Your records are desperately needed to expand our database and knowledge of the county and we will be continuing arrangements for recording days and workshops to help with this. You will be kept informed of progress via the Worcestershire Record. Above all, in the short term, the mammals atlas is our focus of attention so please keep the mammal records coming.

Worcestershire Record No. 12 April 2002 p. 6-12

Veteran Trees

The following have been adapted from English Nature’s Ancient Tree Recording form.