DOCSLIB.ORG

Eu Habitat Action Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Eu Habitat Action Plan EU HABITAT ACTION PLAN Action plan to maintain and restore to favourable conservation status the habitat type 4030 European dry heaths European Commission, 20 20 Compilers: Concha Olmeda 1 , Viera Šefferová 2 , Evelyn Underwood 3 , Lucía Millan 1 , Teresa Gil 1 , Sandra Naumann 4 . 1 The N2K Group / ATECMA . 2 The N2K Group / Daphne Institute of Applied Ecology . 3 Institute of European Environmental Policy (IEEP). 4 Ecologic Institute EU . Contributors: Alena Vydrova ( Nature Conservation Agency, Czech Republic); Anamaria Roman (Institute of Biological Research Cluj - NIRDBS, Romania ; Axel Ssymak (Federal Agency for Nature Conservation, Germany); Bruno E.L. Cerabolini (University of Insubria, Italy); Caitriona Douglas (National P arks and Wildlife Service, Ireland); Douglas Evans (EEA ETC Biodiversity); Fernando Ojeda (Cadiz University, Spain), Geert De Blust (University of Antwerp, Belgium); Geert Sterckx (Agency for Nature and Forest, Belgium): Gergely Király (University of Sopro n, Hungary); Götz Ellwanger (Federal Agency for Nature Conservation, Germany); Graham Sullivan (Scottish Natural Heritage, UK); Isabel Alonso (Natural England, UK), Ján Šeffer (Daphne Institute of Applied Ecology, Slovakia), Joost Dewyspelaere (Natuurpunt, Belgium); Jørgen Lissner (Danish Environmental Protection Agency); Leonor Calvo (León University, Spain); Martin Willing ( Conchological Society of Great Britain and Wales ), Mihail Mihailov ( Ministry of Environment, Bulgaria); Mike Edwards ( Bees, Wasps and Ants Recording Society, UK); Mike Smedley (Scottish Natural Heritage), Pawel Pawlaczyk ( Klub Przyrodnikow, Poland); Philip Perrin (Botanical, Environmental and Conservation Consultants, Ireland), Philippe Frankard ( Nature and Forest Department, Belgium). Milestones in the production of the Plan: First draft: 18 April 2019 Expert group Workshop: 26 April 2019 Second draft: 16 August 2019 Third Draft: 29 Octobe r 2019. Consulta tion with national authorities , experts and stakeholders : December 2019 - February 2020 . Final Draft: 20 March 2020. Recommended citation : Olmeda C., Šefferová V., Underwood E., Millan L., Gil T. and Naumann S. (compilers). 2020. EU Action plan to maintain and restore to favourable conservation status the habitat type 4030 Europ ean dry heaths. European Commission . Picture on the front cover: coastal dry heaths in Ireland. Philip Perrin . Disclaimer: this document is aimed at providing information and guidance for the implementation of conservation measures by relevant organisations and stakeholders but it is not of a binding nature. Produ ced under: Service contract for supporting the delivery of t he Action plan for nature, people and the economy in relation to actions 4, 5 & 7 ( European Commission ENV/D3/SER/2017/0023) . INDEX SUMMARY ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 1 FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 3 1. INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 13 1.1 Action plan geographical scope ................................ ................................ ............................. 14 2. DEFINITION, ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION AND DISTRIBUTION ................................ ........ 15 2.1 Habitat definition ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 15 2.1.1 Habitat definition according to the Interpretation Manual of European Union Habitats ..... 15 2.1.2 Habitat definition according to the EUNIS habitat classification ................................ .......... 16 2.1.3 Habitat definition based on the European checklist of vegetation ................................ ....... 17 2.1.4 Habitat description from the Red list of European habitats ................................ ................. 18 2.2 Differences across countries and regions. Interpretation problems ................................ ....... 18 2.3 Ecological requirements and management needs ................................ ................................ .. 19 2.3.1 Lowland, upland and coastal dry heaths ................................ ................................ ............. 20 2.4 Related habitats ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 21 2.5 Related species ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 24 2.5.1 Plants ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 24 2.5.2 Birds ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 25 2.5.3 Amphibians and Reptiles ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 27 2.5.4 Invertebrates ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 27 2.5.5 Mammals ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 31 2.6 Ecosystem services and benefits ................................ ................................ ............................ 31 2.7 Geographic distribution ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 34 3. CONSERVATION STATUS, THREATS AND PRESSURES ................................ ............................... 39 3.1 Conservation status and trends ................................ ................................ ............................. 39 3.2 Conservation status of the habitat in Natura 2000 sites ................................ ......................... 42 3.3 Methodologies for conservation status assessment ................................ ............................... 43 3.3.1 Favourable Reference Values ................................ ................................ ............................. 45 3.4 Threats and pressures ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 46 3.4.1 Identification of main threats and pressures for the habitat ................................ ............... 46 3.4.2 Abandonment of traditional grazing and unsuitable grazing by livestock ............................ 46 3.4.3 Eutrophication and nitrogen deposition ................................ ................................ ............. 48 3.5 Climate change effects ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 54 3.6 Conclusions and Recommendations ................................ ................................ ...................... 57 4. HABITAT CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES ................................ .................... 59 4.1 General framework and context ................................ ................................ ............................ 59 4.2 Overall objective of this action plan ................................ ................................ ....................... 59 4.3 Setting objectives at biogeographical and country level ................................ ......................... 60 4.4 Setting objectives at the national level ................................ ................................ .................. 61 4.5 Setting conservation objectives in Natura 2000 sites ................................ ............................. 63 4.6 Setting objectives outside Natura 2000 sites ................................ ................................ ......... 64 4.7 Determining objectives and management approaches in a particular area ............................ 65 5. CONSERVATION AND RESTORATION MEASURES ................................ ................................ ..... 67 5.1 Key management practices for maintenance of the habitat in good condition ....................... 67 5.1.1 Grazing ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 67 5.1.2 Cutting ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 69 5.1.3 Burning ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 70 5.1.4 Management of Nitrogen deposition impacts ................................ ................................ ..... 74 5.2 Heathland restoration and defragmentation ................................ ................................ ......... 75 5.3 Conservation management and restoration for wildlife ................................ ......................... 78 5.4 Planning for conservation management in a specific area ................................ ...................... 82 5.5 Criteria to prioritise measures and to identify priority areas for action ................................ .. 84 5.6 Main stakeholders to define and implement the measures ................................ ................... 84 5.7 Challenges, difficulties and possible solutions ................................ ................................ ........ 85 5.8 Conclusions
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Green-Tree Retention and Controlled Burning in Restoration and Conservation of Beetle Diversity in Boreal Forests
    Dissertationes Forestales 21 Green-tree retention and controlled burning in restoration and conservation of beetle diversity in boreal forests Esko Hyvärinen Faculty of Forestry University of Joensuu Academic dissertation To be presented, with the permission of the Faculty of Forestry of the University of Joensuu, for public criticism in auditorium C2 of the University of Joensuu, Yliopistonkatu 4, Joensuu, on 9th June 2006, at 12 o’clock noon. 2 Title: Green-tree retention and controlled burning in restoration and conservation of beetle diversity in boreal forests Author: Esko Hyvärinen Dissertationes Forestales 21 Supervisors: Prof. Jari Kouki, Faculty of Forestry, University of Joensuu, Finland Docent Petri Martikainen, Faculty of Forestry, University of Joensuu, Finland Pre-examiners: Docent Jyrki Muona, Finnish Museum of Natural History, Zoological Museum, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland Docent Tomas Roslin, Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences, Division of Population Biology, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland Opponent: Prof. Bengt Gunnar Jonsson, Department of Natural Sciences, Mid Sweden University, Sundsvall, Sweden ISSN 1795-7389 ISBN-13: 978-951-651-130-9 (PDF) ISBN-10: 951-651-130-9 (PDF) Paper copy printed: Joensuun yliopistopaino, 2006 Publishers: The Finnish Society of Forest Science Finnish Forest Research Institute Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry of the University of Helsinki Faculty of Forestry of the University of Joensuu Editorial Office: The Finnish Society of Forest Science Unioninkatu 40A, 00170 Helsinki, Finland http://www.metla.fi/dissertationes 3 Hyvärinen, Esko 2006. Green-tree retention and controlled burning in restoration and conservation of beetle diversity in boreal forests. University of Joensuu, Faculty of Forestry. ABSTRACT The main aim of this thesis was to demonstrate the effects of green-tree retention and controlled burning on beetles (Coleoptera) in order to provide information applicable to the restoration and conservation of beetle species diversity in boreal forests.
    [Show full text]
  • Methods and Work Profile
    REVIEW OF THE KNOWN AND POTENTIAL BIODIVERSITY IMPACTS OF PHYTOPHTHORA AND THE LIKELY IMPACT ON ECOSYSTEM SERVICES JANUARY 2011 Simon Conyers Kate Somerwill Carmel Ramwell John Hughes Ruth Laybourn Naomi Jones Food and Environment Research Agency Sand Hutton, York, YO41 1LZ 2 CONTENTS Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................... 8 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................ 13 1.1 Background ........................................................................................................................ 13 1.2 Objectives .......................................................................................................................... 15 2. Review of the potential impacts on species of higher trophic groups .................... 16 2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 16 2.2 Methods ............................................................................................................................. 16 2.3 Results ............................................................................................................................... 17 2.4 Discussion .......................................................................................................................... 44 3. Review of the potential impacts on ecosystem services .......................................
    [Show full text]
  • Managing for Species: Integrating the Needs of England’S Priority Species Into Habitat Management
    Natural England Research Report NERR024 Managing for species: Integrating the needs of England’s priority species into habitat management. Part 2 Annexes www.naturalengland.org.uk Natural England Research Report NERR024 Managing for species: Integrating the needs of England’s priority species into habitat management. Part 2 Annexes Webb, J.R., Drewitt, A.L. and Measures, G.H. Natural England Published on 15 January 2010 The views in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of Natural England. You may reproduce as many individual copies of this report as you like, provided such copies stipulate that copyright remains with Natural England, 1 East Parade, Sheffield, S1 2ET ISSN 1754-1956 © Copyright Natural England 2010 Project details This report results from work undertaken by the Evidence Team, Natural England. A summary of the findings covered by this report, as well as Natural England's views on this research, can be found within Natural England Research Information Note RIN024 – Managing for species: Integrating the needs of England’s priority species into habitat management. This report should be cited as: WEBB, J.R., DREWITT, A.L., & MEASURES, G.H., 2009. Managing for species: Integrating the needs of England’s priority species into habitat management. Part 2 Annexes. Natural England Research Reports, Number 024. Project manager Jon Webb Natural England Northminster House Peterborough PE1 1UA Tel: 0300 0605264 Fax: 0300 0603888 [email protected] Contractor Natural England 1 East Parade Sheffield S1 2ET Managing for species: Integrating the needs of England’s priority species into habitat i management.
    [Show full text]
  • List of UK BAP Priority Terrestrial Invertebrate Species (2007)
    UK Biodiversity Action Plan List of UK BAP Priority Terrestrial Invertebrate Species (2007) For more information about the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UK BAP) visit https://jncc.gov.uk/our-work/uk-bap/ List of UK BAP Priority Terrestrial Invertebrate Species (2007) A list of the UK BAP priority terrestrial invertebrate species, divided by taxonomic group into: Insects, Arachnids, Molluscs and Other invertebrates (Crustaceans, Worms, Cnidaria, Bryozoans, Millipedes, Centipedes), is provided in the tables below. The list was created between 1995 and 1999, and subsequently updated in response to the Species and Habitats Review Report published in 2007. The table also provides details of the species' occurrences in the four UK countries, and describes whether the species was an 'original' species (on the original list created between 1995 and 1999), or was added following the 2007 review. All original species were provided with Species Action Plans (SAPs), species statements, or are included within grouped plans or statements, whereas there are no published plans for the species added in 2007. Scientific names and commonly used synonyms derive from the Nameserver facility of the UK Species Dictionary, which is managed by the Natural History Museum. Insects Scientific name Common Taxon England Scotland Wales Northern Original UK name Ireland BAP species? Acosmetia caliginosa Reddish Buff moth Y N Yes – SAP Acronicta psi Grey Dagger moth Y Y Y Y Acronicta rumicis Knot Grass moth Y Y N Y Adscita statices The Forester moth Y Y Y Y Aeshna isosceles
    [Show full text]
  • Biodiverse Master
    Montane, Heath and Bog Habitats MONTANE, HEATH AND BOG HABITATS CONTENTS Montane, heath and bog introduction . 66 Opportunities for action in the Cairngorms . 66 The main montane, heath and bog biodiversity issues . 68 Main threats to UK montane, heath and bog Priority species in the Cairngorms . 72 UK Priority species and Locally important species accounts . 73 Cairngorms montane, heath and bog habitat accounts: • Montane . 84 • Upland heath . 87 • Blanket bog . 97 • Raised bog . 99 ‘Key’ Cairngorms montane, heath and bog species . 100 65 The Cairngorms Local Biodiversity Action Plan MONTANE, HEATH AND BOG INTRODUCTION Around one third of the Cairngorms Partnership area is over 600-650m above sea level (above the natural woodland line, although this is variable from place to place.). This comprises the largest and highest area of montane habitat in Britain, much of which is in a relatively pristine condition. It contains the main summits and plateaux with their associated corries, rocky cliffs, crags, boulder fields, scree slopes and the higher parts of some glens and passes. The vegeta- tion is influenced by factors such as exposure, snow cover and soil type. The main zone is considered to be one of the most spectacular mountain areas in Britain and is recognised nationally and internationally for the quality of its geology, geomorphology and topographic features, and associated soils and biodiversity. c14.5% of the Cairngorms Partnership area (75,000ha) is land above 600m asl. Upland heathland is the most extensive habitat type in the Cairngorms Partnership area, covering c41% of the area, frequently in mosaics with blanket bog.
    [Show full text]
  • Lepidoptera in Cheshire in 2002
    Lepidoptera in Cheshire in 2002 A Report on the Micro-Moths, Butterflies and Macro-Moths of VC58 S.H. Hind, S. McWilliam, B.T. Shaw, S. Farrell and A. Wander Lancashire & Cheshire Entomological Society November 2003 1 1. Introduction Welcome to the 2002 report on lepidoptera in VC58 (Cheshire). This is the second report to appear in 2003 and follows on from the release of the 2001 version earlier this year. Hopefully we are now on course to return to an annual report, with the 2003 report planned for the middle of next year. Plans for the ‘Atlas of Lepidoptera in VC58’ continue apace. We had hoped to produce a further update to the Atlas but this report is already quite a large document. We will, therefore produce a supplementary report on the Pug Moths recorded in VC58 sometime in early 2004, hopefully in time to be sent out with the next newsletter. As usual, we have produced a combined report covering micro-moths, macro- moths and butterflies, rather than separate reports on all three groups. Doubtless observers will turn first to the group they are most interested in, but please take the time to read the other sections. Hopefully you will find something of interest. Many thanks to all recorders who have already submitted records for 2002. Without your efforts this report would not be possible. Please keep the records coming! This request also most definitely applies to recorders who have not sent in records for 2002 or even earlier. It is never too late to send in historic records as they will all be included within the above-mentioned Atlas when this is produced.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Report 1
    Sand pit for Biodiversity at Cep II quarry Researcher: Klára Řehounková Research group: Petr Bogusch, David Boukal, Milan Boukal, Lukáš Čížek, František Grycz, Petr Hesoun, Kamila Lencová, Anna Lepšová, Jan Máca, Pavel Marhoul, Klára Řehounková, Jiří Řehounek, Lenka Schmidtmayerová, Robert Tropek Březen – září 2012 Abstract We compared the effect of restoration status (technical reclamation, spontaneous succession, disturbed succession) on the communities of vascular plants and assemblages of arthropods in CEP II sand pit (T řebo ňsko region, SW part of the Czech Republic) to evaluate their biodiversity and conservation potential. We also studied the experimental restoration of psammophytic grasslands to compare the impact of two near-natural restoration methods (spontaneous and assisted succession) to establishment of target species. The sand pit comprises stages of 2 to 30 years since site abandonment with moisture gradient from wet to dry habitats. In all studied groups, i.e. vascular pants and arthropods, open spontaneously revegetated sites continuously disturbed by intensive recreation activities hosted the largest proportion of target and endangered species which occurred less in the more closed spontaneously revegetated sites and which were nearly absent in technically reclaimed sites. Out results provide clear evidence that the mosaics of spontaneously established forests habitats and open sand habitats are the most valuable stands from the conservation point of view. It has been documented that no expensive technical reclamations are needed to restore post-mining sites which can serve as secondary habitats for many endangered and declining species. The experimental restoration of rare and endangered plant communities seems to be efficient and promising method for a future large-scale restoration projects in abandoned sand pits.
    [Show full text]
  • England Biodiversity Indicators 2020
    4a. Status of UK priority species: relative abundance England Biodiversity Indicators 2020 This documents supports 4a. Status of UK priority species: relative abundance Technical background document Fiona Burns, Tom August, Mark Eaton, David Noble, Gary Powney, Nick Isaac, Daniel Hayhow For further information on 4a. Status of UK priority species: relative abundance visit https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/england-biodiversity-indicators 1 4a. Status of UK priority species: relative abundance Indicator 4a. Status of UK priority species: relative abundance Technical background document, 2020 NB this paper should be read together with 4b Status of UK Priority Species; distribution which presents a companion statistic based on time series on frequency of occurrence (distribution) of priority species. 1. Introduction The adjustments to the UK biodiversity indicators set as a result of the adoption of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity (including the Aichi Targets) at the 10th Conference of Parties of the Convention on Biological Diversity mean there is a need to report progress against Aichi Target 12: Target 12: By 2020 the extinction of known threatened species has been prevented and their conservation status, particularly of those most in decline, has been improved and sustained. Previously, the UK biodiversity indicator for threatened species used lead partner status assessments on the status of priority species from 3-yearly UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UK BAP) reporting rounds. As a result of the devolution of biodiversity strategies to the UK's 4 nations, there is no longer reporting at the UK level of the status of species previously listed by the BAP process. This paper presents a robust indicator of the status of threatened species in the UK, with species identified as conservation priorities being taken as a proxy for threatened species.
    [Show full text]
  • CHECKLIST of WISCONSIN MOTHS (Superfamilies Mimallonoidea, Drepanoidea, Lasiocampoidea, Bombycoidea, Geometroidea, and Noctuoidea)
    WISCONSIN ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY SPECIAL PUBLICATION No. 6 JUNE 2018 CHECKLIST OF WISCONSIN MOTHS (Superfamilies Mimallonoidea, Drepanoidea, Lasiocampoidea, Bombycoidea, Geometroidea, and Noctuoidea) Leslie A. Ferge,1 George J. Balogh2 and Kyle E. Johnson3 ABSTRACT A total of 1284 species representing the thirteen families comprising the present checklist have been documented in Wisconsin, including 293 species of Geometridae, 252 species of Erebidae and 584 species of Noctuidae. Distributions are summarized using the six major natural divisions of Wisconsin; adult flight periods and statuses within the state are also reported. Examples of Wisconsin’s diverse native habitat types in each of the natural divisions have been systematically inventoried, and species associated with specialized habitats such as peatland, prairie, barrens and dunes are listed. INTRODUCTION This list is an updated version of the Wisconsin moth checklist by Ferge & Balogh (2000). A considerable amount of new information from has been accumulated in the 18 years since that initial publication. Over sixty species have been added, bringing the total to 1284 in the thirteen families comprising this checklist. These families are estimated to comprise approximately one-half of the state’s total moth fauna. Historical records of Wisconsin moths are relatively meager. Checklists including Wisconsin moths were compiled by Hoy (1883), Rauterberg (1900), Fernekes (1906) and Muttkowski (1907). Hoy's list was restricted to Racine County, the others to Milwaukee County. Records from these publications are of historical interest, but unfortunately few verifiable voucher specimens exist. Unverifiable identifications and minimal label data associated with older museum specimens limit the usefulness of this information. Covell (1970) compiled records of 222 Geometridae species, based on his examination of specimens representing at least 30 counties.
    [Show full text]
  • An Annotated List of the Lepidoptera of Alberta, Canada
    A peer-reviewed open-access journal ZooKeys 38: 1–549 (2010) Annotated list of the Lepidoptera of Alberta, Canada 1 doi: 10.3897/zookeys.38.383 MONOGRAPH www.pensoftonline.net/zookeys Launched to accelerate biodiversity research An annotated list of the Lepidoptera of Alberta, Canada Gregory R. Pohl1, Gary G. Anweiler2, B. Christian Schmidt3, Norbert G. Kondla4 1 Editor-in-chief, co-author of introduction, and author of micromoths portions. Natural Resources Canada, Northern Forestry Centre, 5320 - 122 St., Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6H 3S5 2 Co-author of macromoths portions. University of Alberta, E.H. Strickland Entomological Museum, Department of Biological Sciences, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2E3 3 Co-author of introduction and macromoths portions. Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Canadian National Collection of Insects, Arachnids and Nematodes, K.W. Neatby Bldg., 960 Carling Ave., Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1A 0C6 4 Author of butterfl ies portions. 242-6220 – 17 Ave. SE, Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2A 0W6 Corresponding authors: Gregory R. Pohl ([email protected]), Gary G. Anweiler ([email protected]), B. Christian Schmidt ([email protected]), Norbert G. Kondla ([email protected]) Academic editor: Donald Lafontaine | Received 11 January 2010 | Accepted 7 February 2010 | Published 5 March 2010 Citation: Pohl GR, Anweiler GG, Schmidt BC, Kondla NG (2010) An annotated list of the Lepidoptera of Alberta, Canada. ZooKeys 38: 1–549. doi: 10.3897/zookeys.38.383 Abstract Th is checklist documents the 2367 Lepidoptera species reported to occur in the province of Alberta, Can- ada, based on examination of the major public insect collections in Alberta and the Canadian National Collection of Insects, Arachnids and Nematodes.
    [Show full text]
  • E-News Spring 2019
    Spring e-newsletter March 2019 Welcome to Spring! Green Hairstreak - Iain Leach Orange-tip - Iain Leach Garden Tiger caterpillar - Roy Leverton INSIDE THIS ISSUE: Contributions to our newsletters Dates for your Diary……………………….2 The Wish List…………………….…13-14 are always welcome. Borders News...........................................3 Our Conservation Strategy…….….15-20 Please use the contact details Munching Caterpillars Scotland.…………4 Carrion Beetles…………….……….21-22 below to get in touch! Peatlands for People………..…………….5 Moth Equipment - for sale...............23 If you do not wish to receive our Recording butterflies using Apps………...6 SW Branch Events 2019……….....24-25 newsletter in the future, simply Adopt a Transect………………………......7 Highland Branch Events 2019..….26-29 reply to this message with the Rare migrant on Islay!..............................8 East Branch Events 2019..….…...30-34 word ’unsubscribe’ in the title - Coul Links Update……………………….9-10 thank you. Northern Brown Argus, Kincraig………11-12 Contact Details: Butterfly Conservation Scotland t: 01786 447753 Balallan House e: [email protected] Allan Park w: www.butterfly-conservation.org/scotland Stirling FK8 2QG Dates for your Diary Wildlife Recorders’ Gathering - Saturday 30th March 10.30 - 4.30pm - Dumfries An informal day of talks, presentations, networking and displays covering the wonderful wildlife of SW Scotland. Contact SWSEIC at [email protected] for more details. Highland Branch AGM - Saturday, 13th April 2019 Our Highlands & Island Branch will be holding their AGM on Saturday, 13th April at the Kingsview Christian Centre, Balnafettack Road, Inverness, IV3 8TF. See Highland Branch Events (Page 27) for more info. South & West Branch Members’ Day/AGM - Saturday, 27th April 2019 Our Glasgow & Southwest Branch will be holding their Members’ Day/AGM on Saturday, 27th April at Chatelherault Country Park.
    [Show full text]
  • Scottish Macro-Moth List, 2015
    Notes on the Scottish Macro-moth List, 2015 This list aims to include every species of macro-moth reliably recorded in Scotland, with an assessment of its Scottish status, as guidance for observers contributing to the National Moth Recording Scheme (NMRS). It updates and amends the previous lists of 2009, 2011, 2012 & 2014. The requirement for inclusion on this checklist is a minimum of one record that is beyond reasonable doubt. Plausible but unproven species are relegated to an appendix, awaiting confirmation or further records. Unlikely species and known errors are omitted altogether, even if published records exist. Note that inclusion in the Scottish Invertebrate Records Index (SIRI) does not imply credibility. At one time or another, virtually every macro-moth on the British list has been reported from Scotland. Many of these claims are almost certainly misidentifications or other errors, including name confusion. However, because the County Moth Recorder (CMR) has the final say, dubious Scottish records for some unlikely species appear in the NMRS dataset. A modern complication involves the unwitting transportation of moths inside the traps of visiting lepidopterists. Then on the first night of their stay they record a species never seen before or afterwards by the local observers. Various such instances are known or suspected, including three for my own vice-county of Banffshire. Surprising species found in visitors’ traps the first time they are used here should always be regarded with caution. Clerical slips – the wrong scientific name scribbled in a notebook – have long caused confusion. An even greater modern problem involves errors when computerising the data.
    [Show full text]