Establishment of a monitoring sample of sites being managed under HLS to maintain or restore lowland fen
Report to Natural England
08 April 2016
Belinda R. Wheeler & Philip J. Wilson
Dr Belinda R Wheeler MIEEM Cloudstreet, Brentor Road, Mary Tavy, Tavistock, Devon. PL19 9PY. 01822 810013 / 07801 011150. [email protected]
Dr Philip J Wilson MIEEM Pennyhayes, Shute, Axminster, Devon. EX13 7QP. 01297 552434 / 07803 126929. [email protected]
Page 2
Contents
Acknowledgements ...... 9 Executive Summary ...... 10 1 Introduction ...... 19 1.1 Project objectives ...... 19 1.2 Background ...... 19 1.3 Management of fens under Higher Level Stewardship ...... 20 1.3.1 Management prescriptions under HLS ...... 22 1.3.2 Indicators of success ...... 22 1.4 Lowland Fens – the UK BAP perspective and terminology ...... 23 1.5 Wetland classification – NVC and the WETMECs ...... 24 2 Methods ...... 27 2.1 Site Selection ...... 27 2.2 Prior to survey ...... 27 2.2.1 Landowner contact and permission ...... 27 2.2.2 Management Survey ...... 28 2.3 Field Survey Methods ...... 29 2.3.1 Identifying & mapping the wetland stand ...... 29 2.3.2 Establishment of ‘fixed’ quadrats ...... 29 2.3.3 Common Standards Monitoring condition assessment ...... 31 2.3.4 HLS Indicators of Success ...... 32 2.3.5 Eco-hydrological features ...... 32 2.3.6 Additional field data ...... 32 2.3.7 Soil survey ...... 33 2.4 Data entry ...... 33 2.5 Data analysis ...... 33 2.5.1 NVC classification ...... 33 2.5.2 WETMEC ...... 33 2.5.3 Soil analysis ...... 34 2.5.4 Community variables and analysis of change ...... 34 2.5.5 Species richness ...... 34 2.6 Pen portrait ...... 34
Page 3
3 Sample overview ...... 35 3.1 The finalised sample...... 35 3.2 Sample sites within SSSI units ...... 37 3.3 Parcel size ...... 37 4 The character of the habitat in the fen sample ...... 38 4.1 NVC communities recorded in principal vegetation units ...... 38 4.2 The character of the vegetation recorded in principal vegetation units in relation to NVC community, soil chemistry and hydrotopographical relationships ...... 40 4.2.1 Mire Communities ...... 40 4.2.2 Swamp Communities ...... 49 4.2.3 Grasslands ...... 56 4.2.4 Woodlands ...... 59 4.3 Canonical correspondence analysis ...... 61 4.3.1 Unconstrained analysis of vegetation data ...... 61 4.3.2 Associations between vegetation composition and soil characteristics ...... 65 4.4 Species richness ...... 69 5 The current condition of sites ...... 71 5.1 Assessment of the difference in condition of sites under HQ6 (maintenance) and HQ7 (restoration) of fen options ...... 71 5.2 Condition of sites within SSSI units ...... 73 5.3 Condition of site in relation to area (ha) ...... 73 5.4 Condition of site in relation to NVC community and HLS option ...... 74 6 Progress against Indicators of Success ...... 77 6.1 The proportion of the sample meeting their HLS indicators of success ...... 77 6.2 Indicators of success in relation to their fen management option – HQ6 (maintenance) and HQ7 (restoration) of fen ...... 80 6.3 The relationship between the condition assessment and the indicators of success..... 80 7 Management of sites ...... 82 7.1 Grazing management ...... 82 7.2 Cutting management and weed control ...... 82 7.3 Scrub management ...... 83 7.4 Water management ...... 84 7.5 Other management ...... 84
Page 4
7.6 Capital works...... 84 7.7 Site condition in relation to cutting and grazing management ...... 85 8 Discussion – an assessment of the targeting and delivery of fen options 87 8.1 The aim of the fen options of the HLS scheme ...... 87 8.2 The monetary value of HLS fen option payments ...... 88 8.3 The FEP definition of fen habitat and the relationship with the fen sample ...... 88 8.3.1 FEP fen habitat definition ...... 88 8.3.2 The vegetation (NVC) communities present in the fen sample...... 90 8.4 The appropriateness of fen option targeting in relation to vegetation community ..... 91 8.5 Assessment of the current condition of sites under HLS options for HQ6 maintenance or HQ7 restoration of fen and the appropriateness of option targeting ...... 96 8.5.1 A note on condition assessments of W04 fens ...... 96 8.5.2 Condition of the fen sample ...... 97 8.5.3 Condition of the HQ6 sample in relation to option targeting ...... 97 8.5.4 Condition of the HQ7 sample in relation to option targeting ...... 99 8.5.5 SSSI sites ...... 100 8.5.6 Site condition in relation to NVC community type ...... 100 8.6 Progress against the Indicators of Success set for each agreement and an evaluation of the appropriateness of the indicators set...... 101 8.6.1 Progress against indicators of success set ...... 101 8.6.2 The appropriateness of the indicators set ...... 102 8.7 The relationship between land management and stand condition ...... 108 8.7.1 Management ...... 108 8.7.2 Management of adjacent land ...... 109 8.8 The relationship between soil variables and stand condition ...... 109 9 Conclusion ...... 111 10 References ...... 115 Appendices ...... 117 Appendix 1: MATCH analysis of NVC (sub)communities at each fen site ...... 118 Appendix 2: Results of the soil analysis for fen sites sampled in 2014...... 122 Appendix 3: WETMECs recorded in principal vegetation units ...... 124 Appendix 4: Common Standards Monitoring Site Condition Assessment ...... 127
Page 5
Appendix 5: HLS Indicators of Success ...... 129 Appendix 6: Management information ...... 142 Appendix 7: Individual site reports including distribution map ...... 149 Site 1: Walcot, Lincs ...... 150 Site 2: Manton & Twigmore SSSI, Scunthorpe, Lincs ...... 151 Site 3: Branthwaite, Cumbria ...... 152 Site 4: Oss Mere SSSI, Whitchurch, Shrops ...... 153 Site 5: The Helm, Oxenholme, Cumbria ...... 154 Site 6: Thorncliffe Moor SSSI, Staffs ...... 155 Site 7: Tarporley, Cheshire ...... 157 Site 8: Kenninghall & Banham Fens SSSI, Kenninghall, Norfolk ...... 158 Site 9: Stockbridge, Hants ...... 159 Site 10: Burford, Oxon...... 160 Site 11: Winkhill, Staffs ...... 161 Site 12: The Ings SSSI, Amotherby, N Yorks ...... 162 Site 13: Frome St Quintin SSSI, Dorset ...... 163 Site 14: Much Marcle, Herefs ...... 164 Site 16: Hatfield Forest SSSI, Takely, Essex ...... 165 Site 18: Quoiseley Meres SSSI, Whitchurch, Shrops ...... 166 Site 20: Narborough Bog SSSI, Leics ...... 167 Site 21: Ducan’s March SSSI, Claxton, Norfolk ...... 168 Site 23: Ashberry and Reins Wood SSSI, Old Byland, N Yorks ...... 169 Site 24: Liphook, Hampshire ...... 170 Site 25: Stockton, Wilts ...... 171 Site 27: Alphamstone, Suffolk ...... 172 Site 28: Tuckswood, Norwich, Norfolk ...... 173 Site 29: Bransbury Common SSSI, Newton Stacey, Hampshire ...... 174 Site 30: Wilwell Cutting SSSI, Bridgeford, Nottinghamshire ...... 175 Site 31: Ruan Minor, The Lizard, Cornwall...... 176 Site 32: River Wensum SSSI, Swanton, Norfolk ...... 177 Site 34: Cumwhitton, Cumbria ...... 178 Site 35: Merstone, Isle of Wight ...... 179
Page 6
Site 36: Oswestry, Shropshire ...... 180 Site 37: Ingrebourne Marshes SSSI, South Hornchurch, London ...... 181 Site 38: Clumber Park SSSI, Nottinghamshire ...... 182 Site 39: Shacklewell Hollow SSSI, Empingham, Leics ...... 183 Site 40: Sherringham and Beeston Regis Commons SSSI, Norfolk...... 184 Site 41: Slapton Ley SSSI, South Hams, Devon ...... 185 Site 42: Southrepps Common SSSI, Norfolk ...... 186 Site 43: Attingham Park, Shrewsbury, Shropshire ...... 187 Site 44: Bassenthwaite Lake SSSI, Cumbria ...... 188 Site 45: Hungerford, Berkshire ...... 189 Site 46: Nr Wicken Fen, Cambridgeshire ...... 190 Site 47: Oswestry, Shropshire ...... 191 Site 48: Market Drayton, Shropshire ...... 192 Site 49: Broomscot Common, Norfolk ...... 193 Site 52: Brampton, Cumbria ...... 194 Site 53: Poundsworth, River Hull Headwaters SSSI, Driffield, Yorkshire ...... 195 Site 54: Godshill, Newport, Isle of Wight ...... 196 Site 55: Mottisfont, Hampshire ...... 197 Site 56: Foulden Common SSSI, Norfolk ...... 198 Site 57: Bryan Mills SSSI, Scorborough, N Humberside ...... 199 Site 58: Pike Whin Bog SSSI, Wingate, Durham ...... 200 Site 59: Stoke Floods, Coventry, Warks ...... 201 Site 60: Flitwick Moor SSSI, Bedfordshire ...... 202 Site 61: Lulworth, Dorset ...... 203 Site 62: Great Cressingham Fen SSSI, Norfolk ...... 204 Site 63: St Levan, West Penwith, Cornwall ...... 205 Site 64: Pelsall Common, Walsall, West Midlands ...... 206 Site 65: Bere Stream SSSI, Wareham, Dorset ...... 207 Site 66: Bassenthwaite Lake SSSI, Cumbria ...... 208 Site 67: Upper Thurne Broads & Marshes SSSI, Hickling Broad, Norfolk ...... 209 Site 68: Baston & Thurlby Fens SSSI, Lincolnshire ...... 210 Site 69: Dunnerdale, Cumbria ...... 211
Page 7
Site 70: Horwich, Gtr Manchester ...... 213 Site 71: Yare Broads & Marshes SSSI, Strumpshaw, Norfolk ...... 214 Site 73: Oulton, Cumbria ...... 215 Site 74: Chasewater and Southern Staffordshire SSSI, Staffs ...... 217 Site 75: Hawnby, Yorkshire ...... 218 Site 76: Brook, Isle of Wight ...... 219 Site 77: Broomfleet, Humberhead, East Riding of Yorkshire...... 220 Site 78: Itteringham, Norfolk ...... 221 Site 79: Kelsick, Wigton, Cumbria ...... 222 Site 80: Badley Moor SSSI, Dereham, Norfolk ...... 223 Site 81: Millington Wood and Pastures SSSI, Yorkshire ...... 224 Site 82: Whitchurch, Shropshire ...... 225 Site 83: Betley Mere SSSI, Crewe, Staffordshire ...... 226 Site 84: Ellastone, Derbyshire ...... 227 Site 85: Erewash Meadows, Ironville, Derbyshire ...... 228 Site 86: South Milton Ley SSSI, South Hams, Devon ...... 229
Page 8
Acknowledgements
This project was supported by the Rural Development Programme for England, for which Defra is the Managing Authority, part financed by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development: Europe investing in rural areas. Project Management was by Natural England. We are grateful to the landowners for access permission and to the various landowners, agents and graziers for discussing the management of their sites with us. Most fieldwork was carried out by the authors but we would also like to acknowledge the help of our additional field surveyors: Nick Stewart, Elizabeth Huxton, Gail Quartly-Bishop, Jude Smith, Clive Bealey, Dominic Price and Marian Reed. We particularly thank Andy Cooke (Senior Monitoring Advisor of the Evidence Programme Team for Natural England) for his management of this project and valuable comments on the first draft of this report, and his colleague Kathryn Oddie for assistance with project management of the soil analysis. NRM Ltd carried out all soil pH and nutrient analysis.
Page 9
DRAFT v30.03.2016/Baseline survey of sites under HLS Lowland Fen options Belinda Wheeler & Philip Wilson
Executive Summary Introduction
1. Management of wetland semi-natural habitats is a priority under the England Biodiversity Strategy (Biodiversity 2020), with several habitats and communities identified as Priority Habitats for conservation action, including Lowland and Upland Fens, Reedbed, Lowland Raised Bog and, at the interface of wetland and grassland, Purple Moor Grass & Rush Pasture. Some of these habitats are also afforded protection under Annex 1 of the Habitats Regulations.
2. Agri-environment schemes are the major vehicle for delivering management to conserve and restore high quality wetlands, thus contributing to Biodiversity 2020 and the development of the stronger ecological networks aspired to in the Natural Environment White Paper (NEWP). Of the key habitats described above, fens are the most widespread within the countryside, being associated with springs, headwaters, streams and rivers.
3. The Higher Level Stewardship (HLS) scheme was launched in 2005 to focus on features of high environmental value, including fens. The key HLS options for managing fens are:
a. HQ6 for the maintenance of existing BAP Priority Habitat (PH) fen features in good condition.
b. HQ7 for the restoration of fen features that are not in good condition.
c. HQ8 for the creation of fen in sites of low conservation interest where a need for habitat creation has been identified.
4. In 2014 Natural England let a contract to provide an assessment of a sample of sites being managed under the HLS fen management options HQ6 and HQ7. The project aims were to:
a. Describe and map the National Vegetation Classification (NVC) communities present in each site. b. Provide an assessment of the current condition of a sample of sites under HLS options for maintenance or restoration of fen. c. Compare the current condition of sites in the sample under maintenance with those under restoration management. d. Assess progress against the Indicators of Success set for each agreement and evaluate the appropriateness of the indicators set.
Page 10
DRAFT v30.03.2016/Baseline survey of sites under HLS Lowland Fen options Belinda Wheeler & Philip Wilson
e. Evaluate management, soil and other relevant information, including adjacent management, and explore the reasons for the vegetation condition observed. f. Provide an overall assessment of the targeting and delivery of fen maintenance and restoration options under HLS, with reference to the actual and potential effectiveness at delivering environmental benefits.
Methods
5. The final sample for survey provided by Natural England was n = 80 sites: n = 40 HQ6 and n = 40 HQ7, distributed across England from the South West to the North East.
6. The field approach commenced with a walk-over of the survey site to identify the limits of, and map, the existing wetland habitat. Five ‘fixed’ quadrats were then established within stands of the main fen community type within the site. The quadrat data was augmented by a rapid walkover common standards monitoring (CSM) condition assessment of the whole stand. Digital images of the quadrats were taken.
7. A soil sample was collected following the method specified in Natural England Technical Information Note TIN035. Samples were submitted to Natural England’s soil analysis partner. 8. Management information was collected from the landowner in relation to water level management, cutting, grazing, scrub and weed control, and other management practices. Analysis 9. The quadrat vegetation data were analysed and described using the framework of the NVC (Rodwell 1991–2000). The final diagnoses of NVC communities were based on examination of the quadrat data with reference to the published vegetation tables (Rodwell, 1991, 1992, 1995 & 2000) and with reference to results from MATCH analyses.
10. CANOCO 4.5 (ter Braak & Smilauer, 2002) was used to investigate vegetation composition and to detect groupings of quadrats corresponding to the NVC communities identified and investigate relationships between vegetation composition and soil variables. 11. Where the origin of the water supplying individual sites could be deduced from observations of site topography and vegetation, an assessment of the WETMEC (Wheeler et al., 2009) was made to add to the context within which the ecology and condition of the sites could be assessed. 12. Species richness was calculated for each site. 13. Using the data collected in the field condition assessment the condition of the fen habitat within each site was determined using the FEP HLS Handbook (pp. 150–152;
Page 11
DRAFT v30.03.2016/Baseline survey of sites under HLS Lowland Fen options Belinda Wheeler & Philip Wilson
Natural England, 2010), alongside NE’s latest technical guidance. Sites were assessed as being good condition (A), near-good condition (B) or poor condition (C). 14. Within part 3 of the HLS agreement site specific ‘indicators of success’ are listed. Using data collected in the field each stand visited in 2014 was assessed against its indicators of success to determine progress against objectives. Fen sample overview 15. Of the finalized list of 80 sites, two were withdrawn and the survey team eventually visited 78 sites: 38 HQ6 sites and 40 HQ7 sites. Of the 78 sites only 74 were fully surveyed. One site was mown short, two sites were reedbeds and one site was a series of lagoons: these were withdrawn from the sample. 16. Of the 74 sample sites that were fully surveyed, 36 (49%) fell within (or in two cases, partly within) Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) units: n = 16 HQ6 option and n = 20 HQ7. 17. The area covered by either an HQ6 or HQ7 fen option within each land parcel to be surveyed ranged from 0.1 to 13.3 ha (Mean ± SD: 2.32 ± 2.59 ha), but most were small with 24 sites at 1 ha or less and 63 sites (82% of the total) at ≤ 3 ha.
The character of the fen sample habitat 18. Fens were recorded that were thought to result from: surface water percolation floodplains (WETMEC 6); permanent seepage slopes (WETMEC 10); fluctuating seepage basins (WETMEC 12); seepage percolation basins (WETMEC 13); groundwater-flushed bottoms (WETMEC 16); and groundwater flushed slopes (WETMEC 17). 19. The majority of sites were highly heterogeneous with complex mosaics including not only mire and swamp communities but also dry grasslands and woodlands. 20. In total 23 different NVC communities (Rodwell 1991–2000) were encountered in the principal vegetation units (not including sub-communities) comprising 7 mire, 12 swamp, 2 fen woodland and 3 mesotrophic grassland communities.
a. Mire communities were the principal vegetation type at 36 sites (M6, M13, M22, M23, M24, M25, M27).
b. Tall-sedge swamp communities were recorded at 13 sites (S5, S7, S7-related).
c. Tall-herb fen communities with high cover of large wetland grasses Phragmites australis and/or Phalaris arundinacea were recorded at 7 sites (S24, S26, S28).
d. Open water transition or margin sites were represented by one S27 Carex rostrata basin-fen and one S22 Glyceria fluitans stand.
Page 12
DRAFT v30.03.2016/Baseline survey of sites under HLS Lowland Fen options Belinda Wheeler & Philip Wilson
e. Vegetation of open habitats (OV tall herb vegetation) dominated by Epilobium hirsutum, Urtica dioica or Equisetum telmateia was recorded at 7 sites (OV24, OV26).
f. Stands of cleared woodland (W5) were recorded at 3 sites.
g. Willow-carr (W1) was recorded at 1 site.
h. Two sites were (S4) reed-beds and not eligible for fen options.
i. The remaining 5 sites were mesotrophic grassland and also not eligible for fen options (MG1, MG9, MG10).
j. A 77th site was found to comprise a series of lagoons and a reedbed creation area.
21. These broad habitat distinctions were supported by the initial DCA analysis.
22. The pooled analysis of vegetation from all sites constrained by soil variables showed that there were significant associations between vegetation and pH, (Olsen’s) soil phosphorus and Loss on Ignition (LoI ≡ organic matter) at P < 0.05.
23. Analysis of swamp stands and mire stands separately emphasised the results from the pooled data. For swamp stands, Potassium content and Olsen’s Phosphate were significant at P < 0.05.
24. For grouped vegetation types:
a. M13 and M22 were characterised by high pH and low levels of available phosphate, with M13 in sites with the highest pH and lowest phosphorus level. M13 stands and richer stands of M22 had a higher proportion of peat in the soil.
b. M23 typically had lower pH than M13 and M22: most stands had moderate levels of available phosphorus although some stands had a much higher level. Stands of M23a showed a tendency to occur on soils with higher peat content.
c. M13 and M6 stands had high Nitrogen and LoI, while at M23 sites and the majority of M22 sites they were low.
d. Molinia caerulea-dominated stands M6d, M24 and M25 had low pH.
e. Tall-herb fens, tall sedge-dominated communities and swamps were less clearly related to soil properties, possibly due to the heterogeneous nature of these communities. Soil pH tended to be circumneutral, levels of available phosphorus ranged from high to moderate and the proportion of organic matter was low to moderate.
Page 13
DRAFT v30.03.2016/Baseline survey of sites under HLS Lowland Fen options Belinda Wheeler & Philip Wilson
f. There was a tendency for OV26 stands to occur on soils with a higher level of potassium.
25. The only significant differences between mean species number per quadrat for NVC communities was stands of M13 had significantly higher mean number of species per quadrat than stands of OV26, M23, M27, S26 and Carex acutiformis-dominated vegetation. 26. No pairwise comparisons between mean total numbers of species per site were significant at the P < 0.05 level.
Current condition of sites
27. Of the 74 sites, 51% passed the condition assessment, meeting the targets for all attributes (condition A); 12% were assessed as being in condition B and 37% in condition C (poor). 28. The ranked order of failed condition attributes (most frequently failed first) was: insufficient number and/or frequency of desirable fen species (30%); % cover of woody species (24%); frequency and/or cover of undesirable species (22%); litter cover (12%); water level management (12%); and exposed substrate (1%). 29. Of the HQ6 sample 63% were in condition A, 9% in condition B and 29% in condition C. Of the HQ7 sample 41% were in condition A, 15% in condition B and 44% in condition C. 30. The ranked order of failed condition attributes (most frequently failed first) for HQ6 and HQ7, respectively, was: insufficient number and/or frequency of desirable fen species (29%, 31%); % cover of woody species (24%, 17%); frequency and/or cover of undesirable species (22%, 17%); litter cover (12%, 14%); water level management (12%, 9%); and exposed substrate (3%, 0%). 31. Of the 36 sample sites that were within SSSI units (wholly or partially), 58% were in favourable condition. When considered separately, a higher proportion of parcels in SSSI units that were under HQ6 (81%) were in condition A, compared with those under HQ7 (40%).
Progress against indicators of success 32. Of the 74 sites, 34% passed all indicators of success set. The remaining sites failed one or more of the indicators. 33. The ranked order of indicators of success set (most frequent first) was: wetness, desirable species frequency; scrub cover/structure; undesirable species cover; vegetation height; HQ12 (grazing supplement) indicators; SSSI condition; feature specific indicators; habitat structure; key species cover; and HQ11 (cutting supplement) indicators. 34. The ranked order of failure to meet an indicator (as a proportion of sites set the indicator) was: habitat structure (80%); key species cover (55%); vegetation height
Page 14
DRAFT v30.03.2016/Baseline survey of sites under HLS Lowland Fen options Belinda Wheeler & Philip Wilson
(53%); HQ12 indicators (36%); desirable species frequency (33%); scrub/cover/structure (28%); HQ11 indicators (18%); feature specific indicators (15%); wetness (13%); and SSSI condition (11%). 35. 51% of HQ6 sites passed all indicators of success set compared with 18% of HQ7 sites. Only 23% of HQ6 sites failed more than one indicator compared with 67% of HQ7 sites (13% failed four or more). 36. There was reasonable correspondence between the pass/failure of the condition assessment and the indicators of success with 72% of sites either passing all condition assessment attributes also passing all indicators set, or failing both. 37. Indicators of success set were not always appropriate, with an estimated 46% of sites set at least one indicator that was inappropriate for the habitat or unlikely to be achieved. Site management 38. Of the 74 sites, 70% were grazed: cattle were the most frequent grazing animal, used alone in 51% of sites and in combination with sheep or ponies in a further 7%. The HQ12 wetland grazing supplement was applied to 57% of agreements, and the HR2 native breed grazing supplement in 1% of sites. 39. Whilst only 15% of sites received the HQ11 wetland cutting supplement, 27% of sites had ongoing regular cutting management. Five sites with the supplement HQ11 were not currently under any cutting regime: all were in condition assessment class B or C. 40. Scrub control had taken place at 32% of sites. 41. 24% of sites had active water management – mostly ditch management. 42. 58% of sites received payments for capital works items: 28% to install or restore boundary fences to facilitate grazing; 27% for some form of management of woody species/scrub. Payments for water management infrastructure were made to a total of 14% of sites within the sample. 43. 35% of sites that were grazed alone were good condition (class A) compared with 10% of sites grazed in combination or 4% of sites that were cut only. 89% of all sites in good condition were grazed, either solely or in combination with cutting: 65% were grazed by cattle. Targeting and delivery of fen options 44. The FEP handbook technical guidance on Fens (W04 – Fens – BAP habitat) is very broad in its description of the fen habitat, with no separation of the different types of fen (as with the grassland habitats). There are some grey areas with regard to definition and apparent problems with interpretation. 45. The FEP handbook states: a. Areas of grassland dominated by rushes should not be recorded as fen
Page 15
DRAFT v30.03.2016/Baseline survey of sites under HLS Lowland Fen options Belinda Wheeler & Philip Wilson
b. Vegetation with cover of over 60% common reed should be recorded as W08 – Reedbeds – BAP habitat. c. Fen vegetation above 250–300 m should be recorded as M08 – Upland flushes, fens and swamps – BAP habitat. 46. 16.8% of the fen sample were composed of vegetation communities and/or habitat that, under the FEP HLS manual guidance, should not be recorded as W04 Fens and were therefore considered wrongly targeted by fen options HQ6 or HQ7: a. 6.5% of the fen sample had Phragmites cover over 60% (two S4 reedbeds, one S24 and two S26 tall-herb fens). A further site was reedbed creation site with lagoons. 7.8% of the sample was therefore more suitably targeted by HQ reedbed options. b. 6.5% of the fen sample was mesotrophic grassland and therefore more suitably targeted by HK grassland options. c. 1.3% (one site) was an upland flush above 300 m and should be recorded as Upland flushes, fens and swamps. d. 1.3% (one site) was a poor stand of unmanaged willow carr and offered very low potential for fen targeting. 47. Vegetation with a high cover of Juncus spp. was recorded in 34.2% of the sample – good quality stands which met all other fen eligibility criteria were deemed to be correctly targeted as fen: there is an acknowledged grey area with regard to G07 purple moor- grass and rush pastures versus W04 fen habitat. 46% of condition A HQ6 sites had high cover of rushes (NVC types M13, M22, M23 and M24). 48. Sites were assessed for their suitability for the targeting and delivery of fen maintenance and restoration options with reference to their likely condition at the start of HLS, their current condition and their management potential. 49. For the HQ6 maintenance option sample: a. 55% of HQ6 stands were considered correctly targeted; b. 24% of HQ6 stands were fen but more appropriate for HQ7 restoration; c. 18% of HQ6 stands did not meet the eligibility of criteria for W04 fen but would be suitable for other HLS options (HQ3, HQ4, HQ5; HK7 or HK16). d. 3% of HQ6 stands were unmanaged wet woodland fragments and unsuitable for HLS. 50. For the HQ7 restoration option sample: a. 5% of HQ7 stands were probably suitable for HQ6 at the outset; b. 36% of HQ7 stands are now in good condition but were considered correctly targeted at the outset; c. 49% of HQ7 stands were fen in poorer condition and correctly targeted for HQ7 restoration; d. 8% of HQ7 stands did not meet the eligibility of criteria for W04 fen but would be suitable for other HLS options (HQ3, HQ4; HK7 or HK16).
Page 16
DRAFT v30.03.2016/Baseline survey of sites under HLS Lowland Fen options Belinda Wheeler & Philip Wilson
e. 3% of HQ7 stands were considered too poor to offer potential for fen restoration. 51. For SSSI sites: a. 78% of stands were considered appropriately targeted. b. Two HQ6 stands were thought more suitable for HQ7 (5.4%) and one HQ7 stand would have met the criteria for HQ6 (2.7%). c. The remaining 14% did not meet the eligibility criteria for fens. d. 24% of stands were not yet in suitable management, whilst 8% were partly suitably managed. 52. Sites were assessed for the appropriateness of indicators of success set: i.e. whether meeting the indicator set was likely to demonstrate the successful delivery of environmental benefits. 46% of sites were set at least one indicator of success that was inappropriate for the habitat, or unlikely to be achieved. Unrealistic vegetation height targets were the most frequently failed indicator and the most frequently poorly targeted (33% of sites set this indicator should not have failed it). The desirable species frequency/cover indicator was often misapplied: 11% of sites set an indicator for desirable species should not have failed it. 75% of sites set a target for Sphagnum were composed of non-Sphagnum habitat. Other poorly targeted indicators are also discussed but our general conclusion is that more thought should be given at the outset to the community present on the site and to identifying a realistic aim for the target community, based on history, edaphic conditions, surrounding habitat and hydrology and potential to deliver management approaches.
53. There is a strong indication in the results that for most fen sites grazing management, either alone, or in combination with topping, is required to deliver environmental benefits. The majority of sites in good condition were grazed. Of the 14 sites that were not grazed and not under a regular cutting regime, only one achieved good condition in the CSM assessment with most (71%) assessed as condition C.
Conclusion
54. This project has highlighted successes and failures in the targeting and delivery of fen maintenance and restoration options under HLS.
55. To improve targeting of fen options the habitat feature must be identified correctly at the agreement development stage.
56. It is important to ensure that sites are placed in the correct HLS option – maintenance or restoration – in order to target management of the site correctly.
57. Indicators of success are important tools for assessing the success of site management and the HLS agreement through which it is delivered and so must be chosen and set with
Page 17
DRAFT v30.03.2016/Baseline survey of sites under HLS Lowland Fen options Belinda Wheeler & Philip Wilson
care to ensure that they are realistic and achievable given the resources available to the land manager and the potential to bring about positive changes in habitat condition.
58. If more sites can be brought into grazing management, and grazing intensity can be fine- tuned on those sites that are already grazed there is potential for considerable progress against indicators.
59. Some agreement holders stated that HLS had a negligible impact on their farming practice as they were mostly continuing to manage in the same way as that prior to entering HLS. Although ‘maintenance’ options are targeted at sites already in good condition and management, this does raise questions as to the value for money of HLS in these sites. More pro-active changes to management to enhance biodiversity, even in good condition sites, will potentially deliver greater environmental benefits.
60. A large number of the fens surveyed were located within otherwise intensively managed agricultural landscapes. With 51% of sites in good condition and a further 12% in condition B, there was clearly an indication that fen management is delivering some of the benefits anticipated in the design of HLS with these areas of fen making potentially important contributions to ecological networks.
Page 18
DRAFT v30.03.2016/Baseline survey of sites under HLS Lowland Fen options Belinda Wheeler & Philip Wilson
1 Introduction
1.1 Project objectives The aim of the project was to provide an assessment of a sample of sites being managed under the Higher Level Stewardship (HLS) fen management options HQ6 (maintenance of fen) and HQ7 (restoration of fen). The data required from each site were:
Basic ecohydrological character. Survey of vegetation communities present and their current condition. Identification of site factors that might influence the success of management (including delivery of associated capital works). Structured site management data. The project aimed to:
Describe and map the National Vegetation Classification (NVC) communities present in each site. Provide an assessment of the current condition of a sample of sites under HLS options for maintenance or restoration of fen. Compare the current condition of sites in the sample under maintenance compared with those under restoration management. Assess progress against the Indicators of Success set for each agreement and evaluate the appropriateness of the indicators set. Evaluate management, soil and other relevant information, including adjacent management, and explore the reasons for the vegetation condition observed. Provide an overall assessment of the targeting and delivery of fen maintenance and restoration options under HLS, with reference to the actual and potential effectiveness at delivering environmental benefits. The data generated from the sample will be available to support longer-term evaluation of the impact of fen management within agri-environment schemes, and will also be complementary to wider Natural England surveillance and monitoring activities, including the Long Term Monitoring Network (LTMN) and Habitat Surveillance Project.
1.2 Background Management of wetland semi-natural habitats is a priority under the England Biodiversity Strategy (Biodiversity 2020), with several habitats and communities identified as Priority Habitats for conservation action. These include Lowland and Upland Fens, Reedbed,
Page 19
DRAFT v30.03.2016/Baseline survey of sites under HLS Lowland Fen options Belinda Wheeler & Philip Wilson
Lowland Raised Bog and, at the interface of wetland and grassland, Purple Moor Grass & Rush Pasture. Some of these habitats are also afforded protection under Annex 1 of the Habitats Regulations. The Lawton Report1 and the subsequent Natural Environment White Paper (NEWP)2 identified the need to deliver biodiversity gain through support for healthy, well-functioning ecosystems and coherent ecological networks. The principles for delivering better ecological networks can be summed up as involving the delivery of more, bigger, better and joined up patches of high quality habitat.
Agri-environment schemes, and in particular HLS, are the major vehicle for delivering management to conserve and restore high quality wetlands, thus contributing to Biodiversity 2020 and the development of the stronger ecological networks aspired to by NEWP. Of the key habitats described above, fens are the most widespread within the countryside, being associated with springs, headwaters, streams and rivers.
Because fen options are highly targeted with modest uptake, compared to grassland, moorland and arable options, HLS agreement monitoring has so far provided little comprehensive feedback on the effectiveness of management via these options. However, the relatively few examples assessed by Mountford et al (2013) suggested that fen options were among those where it was felt there was greatest uncertainty around outcomes or indeed risk of failure.
For some HLS options, including those addressing grassland and moorland, the impact of agri-environment management has been tracked over a long period using time-series data from sites monitored in the late 1980’s and 1990’s as part of the ESA and Countryside Stewardship monitoring frameworks. However, for fens, few sites within these existing monitoring programmes offer comparable data or opportunities for analysis3. With a view to monitoring longer-term impacts in the future, this project is intended to address this gap.
1.3 Management of fens under Higher Level Stewardship The introduction of HLS provided, for the first time, a clear framework of management options targeted at fens, enabling agreement holders to undertake management to maintain, restore or create areas of habitat and providing a framework of Indicators of Success against which progress can be objectively measured.
Typically, agri-environment management is designed to ensure areas of fen are brought into active management and ultimately good condition, through support for appropriate grazing or cutting management, scrub or woodland clearance and/or water level management to
1 Making Space for Nature: A review of England’s Wildlife Sites and Ecological Network, Sept 2010 2 The Natural Choice: securing the value of nature, June 2011 3 Although some of the sites selected for survey here have also been the subject of long-term monitoring by Wheeler et al. (2009)
Page 20
DRAFT v30.03.2016/Baseline survey of sites under HLS Lowland Fen options Belinda Wheeler & Philip Wilson maintain or restore a suitable hydrological regime. The core management option may often be supported by additional supplements or capital works, which are used to tailor management. Complex schemes or schemes on the highest value sites (e.g. SSSI, SAC) may also require the production of, and adherence to, a management plan that is consistent with, but provides more detail than, the agreement documentation.
The key HLS options for managing fens are:
HQ6, Maintenance of Fen (503 agreements covering 3,198 ha)4 Fens placed under a maintenance option should have already been identified in the Farm Environment Plan (FEP) as supporting good condition fen features, and management will be aimed at maintaining or increasing the botanical (and sometimes faunal) diversity of the fen through the continuation of appropriate management. It is likely that the management requirements will be similar to the pre-scheme management carried out. However, there is scope within this option for enhancement of additional features of environmental interest and management prescriptions for these may be included.
HQ7, Restoration of Fen (464 agreements covering 2,196 ha)3 Where a FEP has identified that fen features are present, but not in good condition, a restoration option is appropriate. Restoration management prescriptions should be more pro-active or interventionist than the management that the site was subject to pre-scheme. This could include introducing grazing and/or cutting, significant scrub control or the cessation of activities that may be detrimental to the fen feature. Restoration options are only appropriate where the site has the potential to support better condition fen: this will be dependent upon soil variables, site hydrology, and realistic commitments to improved management.
HQ8, Creation of Fen (84 agreements containing 632 ha)3
A third fen management option is available for sites of low conservation interest where the FEP has identified the potential to create a new fen feature. This option is limited and will only apply to sites where a need for habitat creation has been identified, and site suitability will be similar to the requirements of the restoration option (soil variables, hydrology and management potential).
Fen creation sites under HLS were outside the scope of this project.
4 As at 10th Jan 2014
Page 21
DRAFT v30.03.2016/Baseline survey of sites under HLS Lowland Fen options Belinda Wheeler & Philip Wilson
1.3.1 Management prescriptions under HLS
Typical management prescriptions for sites under fen maintenance or restoration management options include: • Follow the agreed capital works programme. • Maintain fen in an open condition, with scattered trees and scrub covering no more than 20% of the fen area. • Graze with cattle and/or ponies extensively. • Maintain culverts in good working order. • Manage existing patches of scrub to maximise the length and shelter provided by the scrub margin, and to maintain a diversity of scrub type and shrub age classes. • Allow movement of water in the system to prevent stagnation in the ditches. • Do not allow any high nutrient load agricultural drains that intercept surface flow or groundwater seepage, to empty into fens. • Do not use poor quality water with high nutrient, salt or pollution concentrations to top up water levels. • Cleaning of existing ditches and foot drains should be done no more than once every 5 years, between 15 September and 31 January, with any spoil to be spread thinly away from the bank. • There must be no application of nutrients such as fertilisers, organic manures or waste materials (including sewage sludge). • There must be no burning of the fen.
Where mowing and/or grazing is appropriate, additional supplements HQ11 (wetland cutting) and HQ12 (wetland grazing) are available under HLS.
1.3.2 Indicators of success
Each land parcel under HLS is provided with one or more ‘Indicator of success’: these link management prescriptions to the intended outcome and should provide achievable goals. Indicators of success allow Natural England and the land manager to determine whether the HLS management prescriptions are working.
Typical indicators of success for sites under fen management options include: • [Where applicable] All SSSI land should be in favourable or recovering condition. • The surface should be 'squelchy' underfoot all year round. • By year 5, at least 2 desirable species [from a specific list] should be at least occasional across the area of fen. • Undesirable species [e.g. Himalayan balsam, Japanese knotweed and Giant hogweed] should be absent. • By year 5, the vegetation should be, on average, less than knee-high. • By year 5, cover of scrub should be less than 10% across the area of fen. • There should be no reduction in the total combined extent of the wetland. • By year 2, wet ditches should have aquatic vegetation cover (submerged, floating and emergent) of between 25% and 75% of water area. Filamentous Algae
Page 22
DRAFT v30.03.2016/Baseline survey of sites under HLS Lowland Fen options Belinda Wheeler & Philip Wilson
should be less than 10% cover, duckweed should be less than 75% cover. Water levels in the main ditch within the fen should have a summer depth of at least 0.5m.
1.4 Lowland Fens – the UK BAP perspective and terminology Fens are wetland habitats in which the water supply is from groundwater and/or surface water (soligenous and/or topogenous) in addition to rainwater, rather than rainwater alone (ombrogenous). This distinguishes them from other wetland habitats such as blanket bogs and lowland raised bogs in which the water supply is entirely from rainwater.
Topogenous fens are mostly peat-forming: water movement is vertical and drainage is impeded, such as in flood-plain fens (alluvial wetland), basin fens and in open-water transitions on the margins of lakes and large ponds. Soligenous fens may be peat-forming or not and receive water from lateral movement: these include spring-fed fens, flushes and valley mires. There can be overlap between these two fen types and both also additionally receive rainwater. Topogenous fens, particularly flood-plain fens, may also have areas where water movement is lateral, such as in percolating wetland or soakways entering the fen.
The plant communities found in topogenous and soligenous fens relate as much to water chemistry and topography as to the hydrology. Fen communities forming in sites irrigated by water from base-poor rocks are generally short-sedge or Sphagnum-moss fens (poor-fen): the soil water is generally acidic. Poor-fen is mostly an upland habitat, although stands are found within lowland heath and fen complexes, whereas fens with a more base-rich water supply support a variety of fen community types such as short-sedge mires, fen-meadow and tall-sedge swamps, and are common in a lowland setting. Many fen sites include wet woodland as an integral part.
The UK BAP5 on Lowland Fens states that the UK is thought to host a large proportion of the fen surviving in the EU – the habitat having decline declined dramatically across the countries of the EU in the past century. The largest continuous area of base-poor fen in the UK is in Scotland (the Insh Marshes, covering an area of 300 ha), but England supports the largest area of base-rich fen: the calcareous fen, fen-meadow and swamp communities of the East Anglian Broads cover 3,000 ha. Large fens can be extraordinarily rich in species with ‘up to 550 species of higher plants, a third of our native plant species; up to and occasionally more than half the UK`s species of dragonflies, several thousand other insect species, as well as being an important habitat for a range of aquatic beetles’ (UK BAP). However, most lowland fens are set within an intensively managed agricultural landscape, where
5 http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-5706
Page 23
DRAFT v30.03.2016/Baseline survey of sites under HLS Lowland Fen options Belinda Wheeler & Philip Wilson surrounding land has been drained, and occupy much smaller areas of often less than 1 ha. Such small areas of fen habitat suffer from the effects of isolation and fragmentation.
1.5 Wetland classification – NVC and the WETMECs Several attempts have been made to disentangle the complex layers of environmental variables that influence the ecology and vegetation of wetlands. In addition to the relatively simple edaphic and climatic factors that must be considered for other habitats, there is the further influence of water – its origin and destination, rate and periodicity of flow and chemical composition. The hydrological aspects of wetland ecology are not always immediately obvious and can be very difficult to study.
Tansley (1949) divided wetland vegetation into four principal categories:
1. Marsh – mineral soil, permanently waterlogged, summer water level at the soil surface. 2. Fen – peaty soil ranging from alkaline to mildly acidic, permanently waterlogged, summer water level at the soil surface. 3. Bog – peaty soil, extremely acidic (including valley bog, raised bog and blanket bog). 4. Swamp – summer water level at or above soil surface level, dominated by tall grasses, sedges and rushes.
This classification of wetland vegetation has formed a foundation for subsequent descriptive frameworks. The National Vegetation Classification (Rodwell, 1991–2000) is based on a rigorous analysis of vegetation composition, and this maintained the major division between swamps (sensu Tansley) and mires (including all other wetland vegetation types). The NVC does not separate vegetation into distinct groups of ‘bog’ and ‘fen’ but rather delineates 30 mire communities (and a further 8 communities of springs) characteristic of a range of wetland situations, of which seven are typically communities of ombrotrophic raised or blanket mires, two are wet heaths, two are drainage soakways, seven are fen-meadow or related tall-herb vegetation, seven are calcareous fens and five are communities of acidic flushes and acidic fen-related vegetation.
The key NVC communities described by Rodwell (1991–2000) that are considered to represent the lowland fen resource in the UK are shown in Table 1.
Page 24
DRAFT v30.03.2016/Baseline survey of sites under HLS Lowland Fen options Belinda Wheeler & Philip Wilson
Table 1. Types of lowland fen with the component wetland types and key NVC community (Rodwell, 1991–2000) types for each, adapted from Wheeler & Shaw (2000) and JNCC (2004).
Lowland Fen Component wetland Key NVC communities Flood-plain fen Alluvial wetland M27 S2 S5 S6 S8 S12 S14 S24 S25 S28 OV26 Sump wetland M1–3 M5 M9 S1–3 S6 S9 S10 S13 S24 S27 Percolating wetland M9 M10 M13 M14 S1 S2 Soakway and water track M29 Basin fen Waterfringe wetland S1–28 OV26 Sump wetland M4–6 M9 M21 S2 S27 Topogenous bog M1–3 M18 Soakway and watertrack M29 Spring-fed wetland M6 M10 M13 M14 M21 Percolating wetland M9 M10 M13 M14 S1 S2 Open water transition S1–28 OV26 fen Valley fen Spring-fed wetland M10 M13 M14 M21 M22 Run-off wetland M6 M23 M25 Soakway and watertrack M24 M29 Percolating wetland M9 M10 M13 M14 S1 S2 Sump wetland M1–3 M5 M9 S1–3 S6 S9 S10 S13 S24 S27 Topogenous bog M1–3 M18 Fen woodland and fen meadow W1–6 M22–26 Springs and Petrifying springs with tufa formation M37 flushes Neutral flushes M32 M35 M36 Sphagnum dominated acid flushes M4 M6 Base-rich springs M10 M13 M14 Fen woodland W1–6 Fen meadow M22–26
An early attempt to classify wetlands by hydrotopological characteristics was that of Goode (1972), subsequently modified by Ratcliffe and incorporated into his Nature Conservation Review (1977). Disadvantages of this classification were that the proposed units were poorly delineated and relied on expert judgement rather than on the analysis of data collected from a wide range of sites.
Wheeler et al. (2009) have used the NVC with the addition of further vegetation data and the hydrotopological classification of Goode and Ratcliffe as a basis for a comprehensive framework for the understanding of wetland ecology. Most importantly they have analysed the mechanisms of water supply to wetland systems (WETMECs, Table 2) and incorporated these using similar techniques to those used in the analysis of vegetation in the NVC to produce a descriptive framework for hydrology within which individual sites and vegetation types can be located. Using the WETMEC system to describe water supply and drainage, together with knowledge of water chemistry (pH, dissolved ions, phosphorus and nitrogen content), the physical characteristics of wetland systems can be comprehensively described. Understanding the water supply to a wetland site and how changes may affect the ecological character of the site is essential to protect and restore sites and determine what activities may enhance or diminish their condition. A functional understanding of wetlands
Page 25
DRAFT v30.03.2016/Baseline survey of sites under HLS Lowland Fen options Belinda Wheeler & Philip Wilson can help when considering responses to climatic change and guide management. It can also assist with the development of conservation strategies for wetland sites, by identifying hydrological and environmental features critical for the maintenance or enhancement of wetland habitats, by distinguishing these from less critical features and by providing a basis for assessing the potential for these strategies to be sustained or enhanced.
Table 2. The 20 WETMECs described by Wheeler et al. (2009)
1. Domed Ombrogenous Surfaces (‘raised bog’ sensu stricto); 2. Buoyant Ombrogenous Surfaces (quag bogs); 3. Buoyant, Weakly Minerotrophic Surfaces (‘transition bogs’); 4. Drained Ombrotrophic Surfaces (in bogs and fens); 5. Summer-Dry Floodplains; 6. Surface Water Percolation Floodplains; 7. Groundwater Floodplains; 8. Groundwater-Fed Bottoms with Aquitard; 9. Groundwater-Fed Bottoms; 10. Permanent Seepage Slopes; 11. Intermittent and Part-Drained Seepages; 12. Fluctuating Seepage Basins; 13. Seepage Percolation Basins; 14. Seepage Percolation Troughs; 15. Seepage Flow Tracks; 16. Groundwater-Flushed Bottoms; 17. Groundwater-Flushed Slopes; 18. Percolation Troughs; 19. Flow Tracks; 20. Percolation Basins.
While the identification of WETMECs and the relationship of these to vegetation was outside the scope of this survey, in some cases the origin of the water supplying individual sites could be deduced from observations of site topography and vegetation. These can be related to site condition and the distribution of vegetation types and add to the context within which the ecology and condition of the sites can be assessed.
Page 26
DRAFT v30.03.2016/Baseline survey of sites under HLS Lowland Fen options Belinda Wheeler & Philip Wilson
2 Methods
2.1 Site Selection A sample of 80 sites and a further 10 reserve-list sites was randomly selected by Natural England from the HLS agreements with at least one land parcel under HLS options HQ6 or HQ7, the samples being equally divided between the two fen options. During the initial stages of the project six of the 80 sites of the main sample were rejected due to issues such as difficulty in securing access, or pending changes in ownership – these sites were substituted with six from the reserve list. For this reason site numbers range from 1–86. The broad location of the final list of sites selected for survey is provided below in Table 3.
Table 3. The broad locations of the randomly chosen survey sites under HLS options HQ6 or HQ7.
Region No. sites per No. sites per county region North West 12 Cumbria (10), Cheshire (1), Greater Manchester (1)
North East 2 Northumberland (1), Durham (1)
Yorkshire 7 North Yorkshire (2), East Yorkshire (3), West Yorkshire (1), North Humberside (1)
West Midlands 14 Shropshire (7), Staffordshire (4), West Mids (2), Herefordshire (1)
East Midlands 9 Lincolnshire (3), Nottinghamshire (2), Leicestershire (2), Derbyshire (2)
East of England 18 Norfolk (13), Suffolk (1), Cambridgeshire (1), Essex (1), Bedfordshire (1), Hertfordshire (1)
South East 10 Hampshire (5), Isle of Wight (3), Oxfordshire (1), Berkshire (1)
South West 8 Dorset (3), Cornwall (2), Devon (2), Wiltshire (1)
2.2 Prior to survey
2.2.1 Landowner contact and permission
Natural England sent out an initial letter to agreement holders notifying them of the intention to survey. All subsequent contact was made by a member of the survey team.
The agreement holder was contacted prior to commencement of the survey by the leader for each survey team, either by telephone or email, to request their kind permission to visit the site. During this contact the following information was also requested:
Information about site access.
Page 27
DRAFT v30.03.2016/Baseline survey of sites under HLS Lowland Fen options Belinda Wheeler & Philip Wilson
Information relating to any health & safety issues on the site (for the site specific risk assessment). Where possible, information on the likely broad habitat type that would be encountered on the site (e.g. tall-herb fen, wet woodland, valley mire, open water etc.) Information on past and present management of the site in the form of a structured conversation (see 2.2.2) either on the phone or on site in person.
2.2.2 Management Survey
In addition to the field data, the contractor spoke to each agreement holder to collect simple structured management information. This was not a formal questionnaire, but a structured conversation to draw out the relevant facts about previous and current site management and the character of the site. The following guidance was provided to team leaders to structure their conversation on site management and HLS.
1. Was the site in stewardship (CSS, ESA etc) before this? 2. What was the site management before entering HLS? 3. How has this changed since entering HLS? 4. Gather details on cutting and grazing management (type of stock, intensity, special breeds, variation from year to year?). 5. Gather information on water management etc. (e.g. ditch clearance/dredging, in-field drains clearance, sluices). 6. Ask about the hydrology of the site. How often does it flood and how deeply? Has this changed since carrying out management under HLS? 7. Have they used capital works money for anything? 8. Explore agreement holder perception of the impact of the agreement. Has it changed for the better or worse in terms of (a) farming practice or (b) structure and composition of the fen. 9. How has the agreement brought about management change, and what would have happened in the absence of the agreement? 10. Do the management prescriptions appropriate/achievable? 11. Are the Indicators of Success achievable/suitable? (Or do they not know what they are?) 12. Are they happy to be in HLS – does it work for them?
Page 28
DRAFT v30.03.2016/Baseline survey of sites under HLS Lowland Fen options Belinda Wheeler & Philip Wilson
2.3 Field Survey Methods
2.3.1 Identifying & mapping the wetland stand
The field survey commenced with a walk-over of the survey site to identify the limits of, and map, the existing wetland habitat.
The boundaries of the component wetland NVC communities/subcommunities were mapped and described. All mapping was carried out with the aid of a hand-held GPS receiver at 1:5000 scale. Mapping was carried out at a sufficient level of detail to show hydro-topographic unit boundaries. Mapping mosaics of habitats was avoided as far as possible, but under some circumstances these were mapped together with an indication of the percentage cover of each (to the nearest 10%).
The main fen community occupying the site was then then selected for establishment of five ‘fixed’ quadrats (see 2.3.2).
The NVC survey was qualified, where necessary, by target notes (located on the site map), where there were ambiguities or where NVC sub-community mapping did not present an adequate picture of the area.
2.3.2 Establishment of ‘fixed’ quadrats
At each site five (or in one very small < 0.1 ha site, three) ‘fixed’ quadrats were established (Figure 1).
The ‘fixed’ quadrats were located well within stands of homogeneous fen vegetation – the main fen community type within the site – and ‘marked’ only by the recording of a 10-figure grid reference using hand-held GPS. The grid-reference recorded was for the centre of the quadrat to remove some of the margin of error associated with repeat surveys of sites using GPS readings with 2–3m accuracy of GPS units (See Figure 1.).
Quadrat locations were subjectively selected (as with standard NVC methods) to be representative of the general vegetation composition in terms of richness and structure. No permanent marker pins were used as these have been found in the past to be of very limited use in wetland habitat as the relocation of markers in often very tall, tussocky wetland vegetation is time-consuming at best or not possible at worst. In a linear site quadrats were sometimes located evenly along a line, ±equidistant, whilst in irregularly- shaped stands five representative stands of vegetation spread across the vegetation unit were selected. Edge effects were avoided where possible. In sites of varying quality an attempt was made to sample stands that represented both good and poor areas – and notes to this effect were made. For example, two areas of open fen in better condition; one in a poorer area; plus two in scrub encroached areas (or similar to represent the ratio of each
Page 29
DRAFT v30.03.2016/Baseline survey of sites under HLS Lowland Fen options Belinda Wheeler & Philip Wilson habitat condition. If most of the site was in good condition with just a small area of poorer habitat, then 4 of 5 quadrats were recorded in the good quality habitat as appropriate. The aim was to represent the stand as it is, so that any change that occurs as a result of management under HLS fen prescriptions is revealed in subsequent resurveys.
Quadrat size and positioning Quadrats measured 2m × 2m except where the vegetation was overwhelmingly dominated by large sedges or reed-grasses, where quadrats measured 4m × 4m (Rodwell, 1991b & 1992). No sites were surveyed where there was a sufficient expanse of fen woodland to be sampled as the principal vegetation unit.
A digital image of each quadrat in relation to the rest of the site was taken, from the south of the quadrat looking north (Figure 1). The image included a site number (1–86) and quadrat number label (roman numerals: I–V) on a sheet of A4 or A4 whiteboard. Additional images were taken where deemed necessary to aid relocation or to show specific site features.
Figure 1. Laying out the quadrat: orientation, location of 10-figure grid-reference recorded and orientation of photographs.
N
x 10-fig grid ref. Quadrat
63 IV
Photo label Take photo
Notes were made in the field of the character of the stand sampled, and the position of any obvious landscape features (e.g. in field tree) were described/mapped in relation to the position of the quadrat (using linear measurements to/from the feature and compass bearings where appropriate).
Vegetation survey of permanent quadrats Within each quadrat, abundance of all vascular plants, bryophytes, bare ground and vegetation litter was recorded as percentage cover (rounded to the nearest 5% above 10%).
Page 30
DRAFT v30.03.2016/Baseline survey of sites under HLS Lowland Fen options Belinda Wheeler & Philip Wilson
For species with cover less than 4% the DOMIN score (1 to 3) was also recorded (for later use in NVC analysis). Sward height at the centre of the quadrat was recorded using a drop disc. Where there was sufficient water, pH and electrical conductivity were measured using hand-held meters (Hanna Instruments or similar), although in many cases this was not possible in the very dry late summer of 2014.
2.3.3 Common Standards Monitoring condition assessment
During the survey, data was collected with the aim of carrying out a common standards monitoring condition assessment. As there were no pre-existing NVC community-specific condition assessment forms (as there are for grassland communities) for the majority of mire, swamp and woodland communities likely to be encountered within the fen sample sites (with the exception of M22, M23, M24 and M25), data from each site was collected relating to the specific attributes and targets of W04 Fens BAP habitat as listed in the HLS FEP Manual (2010). Surveyors had also familiarised themselves with the required attributes for different NVC types from the Lowland Wetlands CSM guidance literature provided to them (JNCC, 2004: Tables 4, 5 & 6). For each survey site, a condition assessment of the main vegetation unit was carried out as follows. A route (generally a ‘W-shaped walk but adapted to suit the stand size and shape) was followed through the site that sampled the whole wetland stand. In relatively small sites recording was carried out at 10 representative sampling points, while in larger sites (most in fact) 20 points were sampled. At each stop the presence of any positive fen indicator species was recorded within a 1m2 radius. The species recorded followed the list in the HLS handbook but this list was supplemented in the field by additional species deemed to be a positive indicator using surveyor experience and professional judgement. The presence of any negative indicator species was also recorded at each stop. At the end of the walk, once the entire vegetation unit had been viewed, further information was recorded for the site as a whole (see condition assessment form in Appendix 4), including: Wetness o Percentage cover of open water across site o Percentage cover of ‘squelchy ground’ across site (i.e. wet enough to push a 6-inch nail in with ease, as per the HLS W04 condition assessment) Habitat structure
Page 31
DRAFT v30.03.2016/Baseline survey of sites under HLS Lowland Fen options Belinda Wheeler & Philip Wilson
o Percentage cover of exposed substrate (target is < 10%) o Percentage cover of litter (target is < 25% continuous cover) Vegetation composition o Percentage cover of individual undesirable species o Percentage aggregate cover all undesirable species o Percentage cover of any key target species for NVC type (e.g. Sphagnum spp. cover) Woody species o Percentage cover of trees and scrub in fen (not in integral wet woodland mosaic stands)
2.3.4 HLS Indicators of Success
In addition to the Common Standards Monitoring condition assessment (2.3.3) any further information or data was collected that was required to make an assessment of whether the vegetation unit met the individual Indicators of Success (IoS) set out in Part 3 of the HLS agreement supplied to each agreement holder. Surveyors familiarised themselves with the individual sites’ IoS prior to visiting the site so that all relevant data could be gathered.
It should be noted however, that the sites in this sample were at different stages of their HLS agreement, having entered stewardship in differing years. Some sites within this sample are new or recent HLS agreements and have had little time in which to meet their HLS IoS. However, it is still of value to assess sites against their IoS as this provides a snap-shot of where individual sites are in relation to their target condition.
2.3.5 Eco-hydrological features
Significant hydrological features influencing the site were noted and mapped (or target- noted). These included noting the main water-supply mechanism (i.e. groundwater, flooding from rivers/streams or surface run-off) and the presence of springs, seepages, in-field drains etc. The general wetness of the entire site was assessed subjectively (for use with Indicators of Success assessment): was the site flooded, damp and ‘squelchy’ or dry and over what area?
2.3.6 Additional field data
Additional notes were made on the site and/or individual quadrats to aid with interpretation of data such as destructive activities (animal excavations, farm vehicle tracks etc.
Page 32
DRAFT v30.03.2016/Baseline survey of sites under HLS Lowland Fen options Belinda Wheeler & Philip Wilson
Notes on site management and management of adjacent land were made as appropriate.
2.3.7 Soil survey
Multiple (25) soil samples were collected (giving a total sample of between 0.5 and 1kg) using a pot auger following the method specified in Natural England Technical Information Note TIN035, designed to sample a wider area within the site. Soil samples were aggregated per site and stored in cool boxes/refrigerators prior to submission for analysis. Soil samples were submitted to Natural England’s soil analysis partner (NRM Laboratories, Bracknell, Berks) in batches of > 10 through the approved courier with a bespoke form for each site provided by Natural England. Batches of < 10 were sent by Royal Mail Parcel Force. It was the role of Natural England staff to prepare the sample information on the Natural England soil submission database.
2.4 Data entry Paper data forms with the raw field data were collected from all surveyors and all data was entered into Excel spreadsheets for later use with statistical analysis packages.
2.5 Data analysis
2.5.1 NVC classification
Data collected from the 5-quadrats were analysed using MATCH 2.1.6 (Malloch, 2000). MATCH is an interpretative tool to supplement or corroborate the interpretation of the data by experienced NVC surveyors using the published tables and descriptions in Rodwell (1991–2000). Whilst MATCH frequently confirms the surveyor’s opinion on NVC community or sub-community, the stand type with the highest (%) similarity in the MATCH analysis is not always considered to be the correct diagnosis. Other factors can be taken into account by the experienced surveyor such as local variation in species composition, the source community where there has been successional (or other) change or anomalous species that may be swaying the data.
2.5.2 WETMEC
Where the origin of the water supplying individual sites could be deduced from observations of site topography and vegetation, an assessment of the WETMEC (Wheeler et al., 2009) was made to add to the context within which the ecology and condition of the sites could be assessed
Page 33
DRAFT v30.03.2016/Baseline survey of sites under HLS Lowland Fen options Belinda Wheeler & Philip Wilson
2.5.3 Soil analysis
The soil analysis package undertaken by NRM included the following variables: soil pH (Water), phosphorus (Olsens P; mg/l and Total P), potassium (soil K; mg/l), magnesium (soil MG; mg/l), nitrogen (Total N %), and two measures of organic content (loss on Ignition and organic carbon).
2.5.4 Community variables and analysis of change
CANOCO 4.5 (ter Braak & Smilauer, 2002) was used to investigate relationships between vegetation composition and soil variables. Several techniques are available within this package.
Detrended Correspondence Analysis (DCA) was used to compare vegetation composition between sites, while Canonical Correspondence Analysis (CCA) was used to study the relationship between vegetation composition and soil parameters. Both sets of analyses were carried out on untransformed data with rare species downweighted. DCA ordination diagrams of vegetation samples were plotted. The relationships between vegetation composition and soil variables are displayed in ordination diagrams by vectors for the environmental variables with their lengths proportional to their importance and directions showing their correlation with each axis.
2.5.5 Species richness
Species richness was calculated for each site, with a measure of mean richness ± Standard Deviation (SD) and total richness (total number of species recorded across the five quadrats within each site).
2.6 Pen portrait As an annex to the report, a short one-page ‘pen-portrait’ for each site was produced, describing:
the context of the site management (from the management questionnaire vegetation composition (from the quadrat survey and walk-over survey) site condition (from the condition assessment survey) progress against Indicators of Success highlighting any evidence for impact of HLS management to date the results of the soil survey and analysis
Page 34
DRAFT v30.03.2016/Baseline survey of sites under HLS Lowland Fen options Belinda Wheeler & Philip Wilson
3 Sample overview
3.1 The finalised sample Of the finalized list of 80 sites (74 from the original list plus 6 reserve sites), the survey team eventually visited 78 sites: 38 HQ6 sites and 40 HQ7 sites.
The two sites that were not visited were for the following reasons:
1. Site 26 (HQ6) – the survey team could not get access permission for this site. 2. Site 19 (HQ6) – this site was withdrawn by NE as the agreement holder had changed.
Of the remaining 78 sites, four were visited but not surveyed for the following reasons:
1. Site 17 (HQ7) – the owner had mown the site extremely short the day before the survey. This site is excluded from any of the data analyses. 2. Site 14 (HQ6) – this site was a series of lagoons and a reed bed creation site (under construction) with very little terrestrial vegetation and no lowland fen. This site is excluded from any of the data analyses. 3. Site 41 (HQ6) – this area supported flooded Phragmites reed-beds and Salix wet woodland but the survey team could not gain access across deeply flooded, silt-filled ditches. It is unlikely to qualify as lowland fen. This site is included in the statistics for NVC community encountered only. 4. Site 77 (HQ6) – this site was the edge of a series of reed-bed creation sites with little terrestrial vegetation and no lowland fen. This site also does not qualify as lowland fen but is included in the statistics for NVC community encountered only.
Sites 14, 41 and 77 were wrongly targeted for Fen HQ options and would be more appropriately targeted and managed under Reedbed HQ options (HQ3–5).
The final sample is for 77 sites (38 of HQ6 and 39 of HQ7) visited and included in the NVC statistics, but only 74 sites (35 of HQ6 and 39 of HQ7) were surveyed fully, with the baseline monitoring survey (five quadrats) recorded.
The geographical distribution of the sample is shown in Figure 2.
Data on the NVC analysis for each site surveyed is shown in Appendix 1; the results of the soil survey analysis in Appendix 2; a summary table of WETMECs in Appendix 3; a summary of the Common Standards Monitoring site condition assessment in Appendix 4; a summary of each site’s performance against its individual Indicators of Success in Appendix 5; management information for each site in Appendix 6; and the individual site reports in Appendix 7.
Page 35
DRAFT v30.03.2016/Baseline survey of sites under HLS Lowland Fen options Belinda Wheeler & Philip Wilson
Due to the uneven number of HQ6 and HQ7 sites in the final sample, some of the data and statistics presented are based on percentage of the final sample number so that the uneven number of replicates is taken into account.
Figure 2. The distribution of the final HQ6 (n = 37) and HQ7 (n = 39) fen sample sites.
Map produced In QGIS 2.0.1 open source GIS. Contains OS data © Crown copyright [and database right] (2015)
Page 36
DRAFT v30.03.2016/Baseline survey of sites under HLS Lowland Fen options Belinda Wheeler & Philip Wilson
3.2 Sample sites within SSSI units Of the 74 sample sites that were fully surveyed, including condition assessment, 36 sites (49%) fell within (or in two cases, partly within) Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) units: 16 of these were under the HQ6 option and 20 were under the HQ7 option. The condition of sites within SSSI units and outside SSSI units is presented in 5.2.
3.3 Parcel size The area covered by either an HQ6 or HQ7 fen option within each land parcel to be surveyed ranged from 0.1 to 13.3 ha (Mean ± SD: 2.32 ± 2.59 ha), but most were small with 24 sites at 1 ha or less and 63 sites (82% of the total) at ≤ 3 ha (Figure 3). There were similar numbers of HQ6 and HQ7 sites within each of the smaller size bands (≤ 5 ha) and a similarly low number (0 or 1 site) of HQ6 or HQ7 in the larger size bands (≥ 10 ha). The size of the fen option area at survey sites is, therefore, not considered to contribute to any differences in condition observed between sites under the HQ6 compared with those under the HQ7 option.
Figure 3. The area of the HLS land parcel covered by either HQ6 maintenance of fen or HQ7 restoration of fen options.
25
20
15
10 No.sites HQ7 (n = 39) 5 HQ6 (n = 37)
0
0‒1.00
1.01‒2.00 2.01‒3.00 3.01‒4.00 4.01‒5.00 5.01‒6.00 6.01‒7.00 7.01‒8.00 8.01‒9.00
9.01‒10.00
12.01‒13.00 11.01‒12.00 13.01‒14.00 10.01‒11.00 10.01‒11.00 Area (ha) of parcel covered by fen option
Where larger land parcels comprised several separate areas of habitat under an HQ6 or HQ7 fen option, one area only was selected for survey. This was the case for 3 sites (sites 2, 12, 78).
Page 37
DRAFT v30.03.2016/Baseline survey of sites under HLS Lowland Fen options Belinda Wheeler & Philip Wilson
4 The character of the habitat in the fen sample
4.1 NVC communities recorded in principal vegetation units The principal fen community present within each of the 74 sites in the survey sample (receiving the full five-quadrat baseline survey), plus 2 sites visited but not surveyed, was determined to be one of the following NVC communities or sub-communities (Table 4).
Table 4. The broad NVC communities recorded within the fen-option sites and the sub- communities recorded where sub-community was evident (after Rodwell, 1991–2000).
NVC community (to community level only) Sub-community (where evident) M6 Carex echinata–Sphagnum recurvum/auriculatum mire M6a Carex echinata M6c Juncus effusus M10-related upland small-sedge mire M13 Schoenus nigricans–Juncus subnodulosus mire M13a Festuca rubra–Juncus acutiflorus M13c Caltha palustris–Galium uliginosum M22 Juncus subnodulosus–Cirsium palustre fen-meadow M22a Typical M22b Briza media-Trifolium spp. M23 Juncus effusus/acutiflorus–Galium palustre rush-pasture M23a Juncus acutiflorus M23b Juncus effusus M24 Molinia caerulea–Cirsium dissectum fen-meadow M24b Typical M25 Molinia caerulea–Potentilla erecta mire M25a Erica tetralix M25c Angelica sylvestris M27 Filipendula ulmaria–Angelica sylvestris mire M27c Juncus effusus–Holcus lanatus S4 Phragmites australis swamp and reed-bed S5 Glyceria maxima swamp S7 Carex acutiformis swamp Other Carex acutiformis-dominated vegetation S22 Glyceria fluitans water-margin vegetation S24 Phragmites australis–Peucedanum palustre tall-herb fen S26 Phragmites australis–Urtica dioica tall-herb fen S26a Filipendula ulmaria S26b Arrhenatherum elatius S27 Carex rostrata–Potentilla palustris tall-herb fen S28 Phalaris arundinacea tall-herb fen S28b Phalaris arundinacea OV24 Urtica dioica–Galium aparine community OV24a Typical OV26 Epilobium hirsutum community OV26d Arrhenatherum elatius–Heracleum sphondylium W1 Salix cinerea–Galium palustre woodland W5 Alnus glutinosa–Carex paniculata woodland W5a Phragmites australis MG1 Arrhenatherum elatius grassland MG1b Urtica dioica MG9 Holcus lanatus–Deschampsia cespitosa grassland MG10 Holcus lanatus–Juncus effusus rush-pasture MG10a Typical
Page 38
DRAFT v30.03.2016/Baseline survey of sites under HLS Lowland Fen options Belinda Wheeler & Philip Wilson
The majority of sites were highly heterogeneous with complex mosaics including not only mire and swamp communities but also dry grasslands and woodlands. While efforts were made to record quadrats within homogenous stands of vegetation, in the majority of cases this was not possible as a result of the small areas of any single fen community present, their fragmentary nature and the difficulty of assigning some stands to any well-defined NVC community. In addition to the stand types described, several others were recorded, none of which was the main community at any site.
NVC community/sub-community was determined using a combination of MATCH analyses and expert opinion, which allows local variation, anomalies and ambiguities to be dealt with more accurately. Results of MATCH analysis of the combined quadrat data for each site are presented in Appendix 1. Included there is an indication of the final NVC community to which each individual site was assigned. However, as a result of the heterogeneity of the vegetation at many sites, MATCH was of limited usefulness in the identification of stands where the five quadrats recorded could contain elements of several different communities. The results of MATCH analysis were therefore treated with caution.
In total 23 different NVC communities were encountered in the principal vegetation units (not including sub-communities) comprising 7 mire, 12 swamp, 2 fen woodland and 3 mesotrophic grassland communities (Figure 4).
Figure 4. The number of sites surveyed under HLS lowland fen options within each NVC community encountered, to broad community-level only (n = 76)
Grassland MG10, 1 Grassland MG9, 3 Woodland W1, 1 Woodland W5, 3 Swamp OV24, 1 Mire M22, 10
Swamp Swamp S27, 1 OV26, 6 Swamp S22, 1 Mire M23, 10 Swamp S28, 2
Swamp S5, 2 Mire M13, 4 Swamp S4, 2 Swamp S24, 1 Mire M24, 1 Mire M10-related, 1 Swamp S26, 4 Swamp Carex Mire M6, 2 Mire acutiformis, 9 Swamp S7, 2 M27, 6 Mire M25, 2
The character of the vegetation in each of these communities is further described in 4.2.
Page 39
DRAFT v30.03.2016/Baseline survey of sites under HLS Lowland Fen options Belinda Wheeler & Philip Wilson
In general, rush-dominated communities were the most frequently encountered (Figure 4) with 10 sites described as M22 fen-meadow plus a further 10 as M23 rush-pasture, 4 sites as M13 and 1 M24 site with dominant Juncus – a total of 26 sites out of 77 or roughly one- third.
Tall sedge- swamps numbered 15 with 11 sites dominated by Carex acutiformis (divided into 2 true S7 communities and 9 atypical Carex acutiformis-dominated communities) plus 3 sites dominated by Carex paniculata (cleared W5 woodland) and a further Carex acutiformis– Carex paniculata rich M27 site.
Tall-herb fen was represented by 13 sites with 6 sites supporting Filipendula ulmaria- dominated M27; 5 sites with Phragmites australis-dominated S24 or S26; 1 S28 site dominated by Phalaris arundinacea; and a single basin fen supporting S27. A further 6 sites with tall-sedge swamp–tall-herb fen mosaics, transitions or successions were found in 6 sites (assigned to OV26).
Phragmites-dominated reed-beds were found at 3 sites and, as they do not meet the criteria of lowland fen, were excluded from the survey.
Molinia caerulea was dominant in only two sites (M25a,c). Other sites surveyed included: flush-bog mires (M6, 2 sites), an upland base-rich flush (M10-related, 1 site), Salix woodland (W1, 1 site) and Glyceria spp. vegetation (S22, 1 site; S5, 1 site).
Several grassland sites were surveyed and included in the baseline data but they were also wrongly targeted for management in HQ6 or HQ7 and would be more appropriately managed under ‘wet grassland’ or ‘grassland for target features’ options. It is recommended that they are removed from the repeat survey (MG9, 3 sites; MG1, 1 site; MG10, 1 site).
4.2 The character of the vegetation recorded in principal vegetation units in relation to NVC community, soil chemistry and hydrotopographical relationships The following descriptions of the survey sites refer only to the principal units recorded during these surveys. For further details on individual sites see Appendix 6. The full soil survey results for each site are shown in Appendix 2.
4.2.1 Mire Communities
M6 Carex echinata-Sphagnum recurvum/auriculatum mire Sites: 43 (M6c), 75 (M6a)
Vegetation: M6 includes vegetation with a wide range of variation in its composition and physiognomy. The two examples recorded here were good examples of M6a and M6c, the two stands having little in common.
Page 40
DRAFT v30.03.2016/Baseline survey of sites under HLS Lowland Fen options Belinda Wheeler & Philip Wilson
The M6c stand was species-poor, dominated by Juncus effusus, Juncus acutiflorus and Agrostis stolonifera with approximately 15% Sphagnum palustre and Sphagnum flexuosum. Dryopteris carthusiana and Polytrichum commune were the main associates, with occasional Pteridium aquilinum.
The stand of M6a at site 75 was typical of this sub-community, although showing great similarities to the typical valley mire type M21a of more southerly parts of England. Sphagnum papillosum is dominant with abundant Narthecium ossifragum and Eriophorum angustifolium. Eriophorum vaginatum is frequent together with several other bryophytes including Polytrichum commune, Sphagnum tenellum, S. palustre, S. fallax and in wetter hollows S. denticulatum and S. cuspidatum. Molinia caerulea, Carex echinata and Drosera rotundifolia were also constant, and Juncus bulbosus was frequent. Carex panicea, Calluna vulgaris, Erica tetralix and Aulacomnium palustre were occasional. The valley mire at site 2 contained small stands of M6a in a matrix of M25a. The composition of this vegetation was similar to that at site 75, but with a greater proportion of Molinia caerulea probably as a result of the lower grazing pressure at this site.
Soil chemistry: Site 75 was acidic (pH 5.1), whilst at site 43 the pH was the most acidic of any sites surveyed; extractable phosphorus was low at both sites, potassium and magnesium levels were low–moderate, and the soil was moderately rich in organic matter.
Site NVC Option Soil pH Olsens Index Soil Index Soil Index Total Loss Total Organic (Water) P P K K MG MG N on P Carbon (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (%) Ignition
75 M6a HQ7 5.1 3 0 122 2- 69 2 0.84 47 480 19 43 M6c HQ7 4.2 10 1 116 1 97 2 1.2 42.8 832 17.3
Hydrotopographical relationships: It is difficult to determine the origins of the water at site 43. At site 75 water drains from the adjacent unenclosed moorland slope through the M6a stand and into the adjacent stream forming a flush line along the upper edge of the site (WETMEC 17).
M10-related upland small-sedge mire Sites: 6
Vegetation: A single stand of a spring-fed small-sedge mire with obvious base-rich influence was recorded in an upland situation. This was dominated by Carex panicea and the bryophyte Calliergonella cuspidata, which together formed a continuous ground cover of 70–100%. Above this Carex nigra, Valeriana dioica, Equisetum fluviatile and Galium uliginosum were frequent; Caltha palustris, Triglochin palustris, Eriophorum angustifolium, Lotus pedunculatus occasional and the base-tolerant Sphagnum squarrosum rare. Juncus articulatus was constant but with only 1–5% cover. Although not described in the NVC this type of small-sedge mire is found widely in upland situations and is described in Averis et al. (2004). It is of high conservation value.
Soil chemistry: The clayey soil, at pH 6.2, is neutral, although surface water sampled on the day gave a higher reading of pH7.3, which is calcareous. Soil phosphorus and potassium are
Page 41
DRAFT v30.03.2016/Baseline survey of sites under HLS Lowland Fen options Belinda Wheeler & Philip Wilson low, whilst magnesium is correspondingly high. Total nitrogen is very high, probably due to the very high organic matter present, although run-off and over grazing should be eliminated as reasons.
Site NVC Option Soil pH Olsens Index Soil Index Soil Index Total Loss Total Organic (Water) P P K K MG MG N on P Carbon (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (%) Ignition
6 M22a HQ7 6.2 7 0 54 0 147 3 1.43 57.7 2195 28.6
Hydrotopographical relationships: Base-rich groundwater from shale outcrops forms linear flush lines at mid-slope on this part of the site (WETMEC 17).
M13 Schoenus nigricans-Juncus subnodulosus fen Sites: 21, 40, 42, 80
Vegetation: Stands of this community were sampled at four sites, and there were small areas at two further sites, 8 and 62. This is typically a very species-rich community dominated by an open cover of tussocky Schoenus nigricans and Juncus subnodulosus with Molinia caerulea and scattered shoots of Phragmites australis. There is a substantial cover of unvegetated wet, peaty soil in most stands. Small Carex species are abundant, the most frequent being Carex panicea, with C. flacca, C. hostiana, C. lepidocarpa, Carex nigra and C. pulicaris, and Carex dioica at one site. Bryophytes are also prominent, most abundantly Campylium stellatum and Calliergonella cuspidata, but also Fissidens adianthoides, Ctenidium molluscum, Pseudoscleropodium purum, Aneura pinguis, Riccardia multifida and Bryum pseudotriquetrum. Other frequent species include Valeriana dioica, Epipactis palustris, Succisa pratensis, Eupatorium cannabinum, Mentha aquatica, Galium uliginosum, Hydrocotyle vulgaris, Potentilla erecta, Dactylorhiza praetermissa, Lotus pedunculatus, Cirsium dissectum, Lathyrus pratensis and Pedicularis palustris. It was difficult to assign stands to sub-communities, and at most sites there were elements of all three, although M13a and M13c were best represented. Wheeler et al. (2009) also found the sub- communities of M13 difficult to maintain and also found it difficult in some cases to distinguish M13a from M24a and b. The richest stands were referable to M13b with a more open sward, more unvegetated wet soil and an additional range of species including Pinguicula vulgaris, Parnassia palustris, Briza media, Triglochin palustris, Carex dioica, Anagallis tenella, Gymnadenia conopsea ssp densiflora and Polygala vulgaris. Site 40 had an unusual intermediate with M24, including frequent Erica tetralix, Drosera rotundifolia, Sphagnum subnitens and Sphagnum inundatum. At all sites, stands of this community graded into vegetation dominated by Juncus subnodulosus, Carex acutiformis or Phragmites australis, usually referable to M22a, M22b, M22c and S24. In all cases efforts were being made by site managers to maintain this high conservation value community.
Soil and water chemistry: Of the four sites in Norfolk at which this was the principal recorded stand type, two were fed by water arising from chalk aquifers while at the other two the water derived from calcareous strata within the Wroxham crag. One of the sites on chalk (80) contains the largest and best-developed tufa mounds known in Britain (Wheeler et al., 2009) and had the highest soil pH (8.4) of any site sampled in this survey. Mean soil
Page 42
DRAFT v30.03.2016/Baseline survey of sites under HLS Lowland Fen options Belinda Wheeler & Philip Wilson pH was 7.9, and levels of extractable phosphorus were very low. Total phosphorus content was also low. Magnesium and potassium levels were moderate to low. Loss on ignition and percentage of carbon were however very high, suggesting a high peat component in the soil at all sites.
Site NVC Option Soil pH Olsens Index Soil Index Soil Index Total Loss Total Organic (Water) P P K K MG MG N on P Carbon (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (%) Ignition
80 M13 HQ6 8.4 7 0 85 1 58 2 1.59 40.3 716 19.4 21 M13a HQ6 7.5 10 1 117 1 49 1 2.07 54.2 923 27.2 40 M13a HQ7 7.7 5 0 124 2- 99 2 1.11 25.9 538 14 42 M13c HQ6 7.9 5 0 139 2- 60 2 1.78 53 923 29
Hydrotopographical relationships: All four of the M13 stands recorded were spring-fed from calcareous aquifers. The small areas of M13 at sites 8 and 62 also marked the emergence of springs from the underlying chalk at these sites. All sites were at valley heads and were the source of small streams. Two stands were situated on or at the base of slopes and were examples of WETMEC 10 (permanent seepage slopes). The other two occupied shallow basins irrigated by marginal groundwater flow and were examples of WETMEC 13 (seepage percolation basins).
M22 Juncus subnodulosus-Cirsium palustre fen-meadow Sites: 8, 10, 16, 32, 46, 49, 56, 62, 79, 81
Vegetation: This is a widespread and highly heterogeneous community characterised by the dominance of a range of moderately tall-growing Carex and Juncus species. The typical dominant is Juncus subnodulosus, although this species is rare in the western half of England, and in many localities it is supplemented or replaced by Juncus inflexus, Juncus articulatus (and hybrids), Carex acutiformis and Carex disticha. Many of the stands described initially in the field as "Carex acutiformis swamp" are likely to be stands of this community impoverished by lack of management and where C. acutiformis has spread by means of rhizomes under conditions of relaxed grazing (Grime et al., 2007). Stands with abundant Juncus acutiflorus can be intermediate in some situations with M23a, while some stands (e.g. sites 8 and 62) in the vicinity of calcareous springs have affinities with M13 although here the presence of Schoenus nigricans was in all cases diagnostic of the latter community.
The composition of the vegetation associated with this cover of bulky monocotyledons is very variable. Rodwell (1991) subdivides the community into four sub-communities, and although three of these were mapped in the field here (M22a typical sub-community, M22b Briza media-Trifolium repens sub-community and M22c Carex elata sub-community), the heterogeneity of the sampled stands meant that sub-community differences were obscured. The richest stands approached M13, although lacking the variety and cover of small Carex spp and bryophytes, with only Carex panicea, Carex nigra, Carex flacca and Calliergonella cuspidata being frequent. Other abundant species include Filipendula ulmaria, Lotus pedunculatus, Eupatorium cannabinum, Mentha aquatica, Cirsium palustre, Galium
Page 43
DRAFT v30.03.2016/Baseline survey of sites under HLS Lowland Fen options Belinda Wheeler & Philip Wilson uliginosum, Galium palustre, Lathyrus pratensis, Centaurea nigra, Hypericum tetrapterum, Angelica sylvestris, Plantago lanceolata, grasses including Holcus lanatus, Agrostis stolonifera, Agrostis canina, Festuca rubra and more locally Valeriana dioica, Succisa pratensis, Lychnis flos-cuculi, Molinia caerulea, Dactylorhiza praetermissa, Caltha palustris, Berula erecta and Hydrocotyle vulgaris.
Relatively species-poor stands where the bulkier rushes and sedges have a high cover were mapped in the field as M22a. These stands often included tussocky grasses such as Deschampsia cespitosa and Arrhenatherum elatius indicative of under-management. Stands with abundant Epilobium hirsutum and Urtica dioica are transitional to OV26 where the grazing of drier stands is relaxed. Richer stands with a more open rush and sedge canopy were mapped as M22b, and these stands tended to have an understorey with a higher cover of grasses and herbs. Two Norfolk sites had well-developed stands of M22c, although no quadrats were recorded in these. This distinctive sub-community is characterised by constant Carex elata and Phragmites australis, and other species indicative of affinities with M13 and S24 including Thelypteris palustris, Pedicularis palustris, Carex rostrata and Menyanthes trifoliata.
Soil chemistry: The water supply to most stands derived from calcareous substrata including chalk and Jurassic limestones, and the pH was consequently high (mean = 7.4). In the majority of cases levels of extractable and total phosphorus were very low, although phosphorus levels were higher at three sites. Magnesium and potassium levels were moderate. Total nitrogen content, loss on ignition and percentage of carbon were all lower than in M13 stands, suggesting that soils at M22 sites had a lower peat fraction.
Site NVC Option Soil pH Olsens Index Soil Index Soil Index Total Loss Total Organic (Water) P P K K MG MG N on P Carbon (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (%) Ignition
8 M22a HQ6 7.4 11 1 289 3 93 2 1.04 24.2 - - 10 M22a HQ6 7.7 12 1 138 2- 124 3 1.31 30.1 1497 29.4 32 M22a HQ6 7.3 14 1 109 1 57 2 1.01 22.2 1-15 12.3 46 M22a HQ6 7.5 16 2 171 2- 138 3 1.69 39.2 - - 49 M22a HQ6 6.5 9 0 121 2- 144 3 0.86 19.2 - - 62 M22a HQ6 7.4 9 0 102 1 52 2 2.05 47.2 903 23.1 79 M22a HQ6 6.7 12 1 245 3 680 7 2.27 72.7 1285 29.6 6 M22a HQ7 6.2 7 0 54 0 147 3 1.43 57.7 2195 28.6 56 M22a HQ7 6.9 9 0 94 1 54 2 1.17 25.9 832 14.8 81 M22a HQ7 7.7 12 1 165 2- 206 4 0.57 16.5 2729 7.93 16 M22b HQ7 8.1 6 0 112 1 52 2 0.75 17.7 833 10.2
Hydrotopographical relationships: A might be expected from the wide distribution and floristic heterogeneity of this community, it can be found in a wide variety of locations and hydrological regimes. While many examples were recorded in valley head situations where they were fed by well-marked soligenous flush systems WETMEC 10, other examples were in flood-plains where they are irrigated by surface-water, ground-water or a mixture of the two (WETMEC 6).
Page 44
DRAFT v30.03.2016/Baseline survey of sites under HLS Lowland Fen options Belinda Wheeler & Philip Wilson
M23 Juncus acutiflorus/effusus-Galium palustre rush-pasture Sites: 5, 18, 34, 35, 54, 64, 65, 66, 69, 73
Vegetation: This community is similar in many respects to M22 being typically dominated by bulky Juncus species, in this case Juncus acutiflorus and/or Juncus effusus. Large Carex species are however more or less absent, and affinities are with the acidic mire communities M6c/d and M25 and the tall-herb fen M27. Molinia caerulea can become prominent in transitions to M6 and M25. The two sub-communities are well-defined in many cases with the dominant Juncus species being differential, Juncus acutiflorus in M23a, and Juncus effusus in M23b. Juncus conglomeratus occurs in some stands. Juncus acutiflorus is not a tussock-forming species and at most (but not all) sites forms a more open canopy with a consequently more species-rich understorey. This typically includes such species as the grasses Agrostis canina, Agrostis capillaris, Festuca rubra, Holcus lanatus and Anthoxanthum odoratum, with Lotus pedunculatus, Mentha aquatica, Filipendula ulmaria, Cardamine pratensis, Rumex acetosa, Ranunculus flammula, Ranunculus repens, Potentilla erecta, Iris pseudacorus, Viola palustris, Hydrocotyle vulgaris and Lychnis flos-cuculi. The most frequently occurring Carex species are Carex panicea, Carex nigra and Carex echinata, while the only frequent bryophytes are Calliergonella cuspidata, Brachythecium rutabulum and Eurhynchium praelongum, although Sphagnum fallax is recorded in some stands. Juncus effusus is a tussock-forming species and frequently forms a dense cover with a resulting decrease in the diversity of the understorey. In drier localities, particularly where there has been some past attempt at drainage or other agricultural improvement, stands can be transitional to MG9 and MG10 grasslands.
Soil chemistry: PH ranged from neutral to acidic, with a mean of 5.5. Juncus effusus is known to be highly tolerant of ferrous ions, and can be very competitive in more acidic and anoxic conditions (Grime et al., 2007). The Juncus acutiflorus sub-community had a mean pH of 5.9, and low to very low extractable phosphorus levels, while the Juncus effusus sub- community had a mean pH of 5.1 and moderate to high extractable phosphorus levels. There were no apparent differences between potassium levels (low to moderate) or magnesium levels (moderate to high), total nitrogen (low to very high), loss on ignition (moderate to high), total phosphorus (moderate to high) or organic carbon (low to high) in the two sub-communities. This suggests that M23 can occur in a wide range of situations on wet neutral to acidic soils, but that M23a is more often to be found in less acidic conditions and where extractable phosphorus levels are lower.
Site NVC Option Soil pH Olsens Index Soil Index Soil Index Total Loss Total Organic (Water) P P K K MG MG N on P Carbon (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (%) Ignition
5 M23a HQ7 5.8 12 1 115 1 132 3 1.01 30.7 1262 16.1 18 M23a HQ7 7.1 12 1 75 1 210 4 1.33 26.3 1307 16.7 34 M23a HQ6 5.4 9 0 135 2- 160 3 1.56 35.7 1083 17.7 35 M23a HQ7 5.1 11 1 184 2+ 156 3 1.34 32.1 1784 14.6 66 M23a HQ7 5.1 9 0 61 1 56 2 0.6 17.5 1361 10.9 69 M23a HQ7 5.9 6 0 77 1 111 3 0.88 29.9 1206 14.6 54 M23b HQ6 4.7 29 3 110 1 99 2 2.07 60 1916 27.5 64 M23b HQ7 6.7 17 2 147 2- 255 5 0.82 21.9 1185 10.5
Page 45
DRAFT v30.03.2016/Baseline survey of sites under HLS Lowland Fen options Belinda Wheeler & Philip Wilson
65 M23b HQ7 4.5 30 3 149 2- 92 2 0.89 22.6 1223 9.81 73 M23b HQ6 5.1 21 2 84 1 152 3 0.73 21.6 904 11.9
Hydrotopographical relationships: M23 can occur in a wide variety of situations. The majority of stands were located in valley slope flush systems irrigated by springs or more diffuse seepages from non-calcareous aquifers. Other stands were in floodplains where water was derived from adjacent water-courses as ground-water or periodic flooding.
M24b Molinia caerulea-Cirsium dissectum fen-meadow, typical community Sites: 71
Vegetation: One field sampled in the Broadland of Norfolk contained M24b. In this field the M24b graded into M22b, and the two vegetation types were clearly closely related at this site. This species-rich community had abundant and locally dominant Molinia caerulea and Juncus subnodulosus with a ground layer of Agrostis canina, Holcus lanatus, Anthoxanthum odoratum, Carex panicea and Carex flacca and locally Agrostis capillaris and Briza media. Other abundant species included Filipendula ulmaria, Vicia cracca, Lotus pedunculatus, Cirsium dissectum, Ranunculus acris and Thalictrum flavum with frequent Centaurea nigra, Galium uliginosum, G. palustre and Succisa pratensis. Wheeler et al. (2009) discussed relationships between M24, M22 and M13, and concluded that there was considerable overlap particularly between M24a/b and M13a. This stand however appeared distinct from M13, showing instead greater affinities to M22b. The principal difference between the M24b and M22b here appeared to be the presence of Molinia caerulea in the former. Small areas of M24b were present at sites 8 and 80 where species-rich stands were associated with M13 and M22.
Soil chemistry: At the single site where soil was collected, the pH was slightly acidic, extractable phosphorus and total phosphorus were very low, potassium and magnesium levels were low. Total nitrogen, loss on ignition and organic carbon content were all moderately high suggesting a peaty soil.
Site NVC Option Soil pH Olsens Index Soil Index Soil Index Total Loss Total Organic (Water) P P K K MG MG N on P Carbon (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (%) Ignition
71 M24b HQ6 6.3 9 0 67 1 49 1 1.31 33.5 767 17.6
Hydrotopographical relationships: Site 71 is located at the upper margin of the broad floodplain of the River Yare. It is likely here that the contribution of flushing and floodplain groundwater is relatively higher than that of flooding from adjacent watercourses.
M25 Molinia caerulea-Potentilla erecta fen-meadow Sites: 2, 4
Vegetation: Only two examples of M25 were sampled. At site 2 this was closest to M25a, while at Site 4 it was closest to M25c. Molinia caerulea was dominant in both stands,
Page 46
DRAFT v30.03.2016/Baseline survey of sites under HLS Lowland Fen options Belinda Wheeler & Philip Wilson forming a moderately dense tussocky canopy. At site 2, Erica tetralix, Juncus acutiflorus, Sphagnum spp.. (S. denticulatum, S. inundatum, S. subnitens, S. palustre, S. fallax) and Aulacomnium palustre are frequent with occasional Potentilla erecta and Eriophorum angustifolium and Hydrocotyle vulgaris marking water tracks. The presence of occasional Viola palustris, Carex echinata, C. nigra and C. demissa indicate affinities with M6a, and stands of M6a were present within the M25a matrix. The M25c at site 2 had frequent Centaurea nigra, Cirsium palustre, Potentilla erecta, Succisa pratensis, Carex panicea, Filipendula ulmaria and Rumex acetosa and occasional Sphagnum palustre.
Soil chemistry: PH at both sites was low (5.2 & 5.3). Extractable phosphorus and total phosphorus was very low. While the potassium content was low, magnesium content was high or very high. Nitrogen content, Loss on ignition and carbon content were all high suggesting the presence of peaty soils.
Site NVC Option Soil pH Olsens Index Soil Index Soil Index Total Loss Total Organic (Water) P P K K MG MG N on P Carbon (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (%) Ignition
2 M25a HQ6 5.2 5 0 47 0 74 2 0.45 14.9 346 9.94 4 M25c HQ7 5.3 8 0 120 1 265 5 1.29 39.6 838 16.6
Hydrotopographical relationships: Site 2 is situated in a shallow basin with water draining in from the surrounding low sandy slopes (WETMEC 16). Site 4 is a gently sloping surface fed by surface run-off and lateral ground-water flow WETMEC 6.
M27 Filipendula ulmaria-Angelica sylvestris tall-herb fen Sites: 3, 23, 24, 28, 31, 44.
Vegetation: This is a poorly defined tall-herb fen with the stands recorded here being closely related to OV26. Typically this vegetation type is defined by the abundance of Filipendula ulmaria and other tall species including Angelica sylvestris, Phragmites australis and Valeriana officinalis but with only a patchy cover of Juncus spp. and large Carex spp. In the samples recorded here however, a range of dominant species was recorded including Filipendula ulmaria, Carex riparia, Carex acutiformis, Phalaris arundinacea and Juncus effusus. Tall herbs were frequent, including Angelica sylvestris, Equisetum fluviatile, Valeriana officinale, Mentha aquatica, Sanguisorba officinalis, Scrophularia auriculata, Lychnis flos-cuculi and Pulicaria dysenterica, scrambling species including Lathyrus pratensis, Galium uliginosum, Galium palustre, Lotus pedunculatus and Agrostis stolonifera, and other tall monocotyledons such as Juncus acutiflorus, Molinia caerulea, Holcus lanatus, Glyceria maxima, Deschampsia cespitosa, Carex acuta and Carex rostrata. These stands were differentiated from the frequently similar OV26 by the lack of Epilobium hirsutum and Urtica dioica.
Soil chemistry: As might be expected from this rather heterogeneous vegetation, soil parameters had a wide range. pH ranged from mildly acidic (5.3) to mildly alkaline (7.0). Extractable phosphorus content was low to very low at all sites, although there was no clear relationship with total phosphorus content. Potassium content was generally very low while magnesium content was moderate to low at all sites apart from 31 which was on
Page 47
DRAFT v30.03.2016/Baseline survey of sites under HLS Lowland Fen options Belinda Wheeler & Philip Wilson serpentine, a rock with a very high magnesium content. Nitrogen content, loss on ignition and carbon content were all very variable.
Site NVC Option Soil pH Olsens Index Soil Index Soil Index Total Loss Total Organic (Water) P P K K MG MG N on P Carbon (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (%) Ignition
23 M27 HQ6 6.6 5 0 122 2- 114 3 0.81 23 775 11.1 24 M27 HQ6 7.0 12 1 112 1 75 2 1.43 50.6 1154 16.3 28 M27 HQ7 6.7 9 0 54 0 26 1 2.28 48.2 1322 23.2 31 M27c HQ6 6.3 14 1 63 1 1080 8 0.85 19.7 1192 9.33 44 M27c HQ6 5.3 13 1 44 0 57 2 0.69 17.2 914 8.93 3 M27c HQ7 5.8 11 1 149 2- 160 3 1.19 40.5 1452 19.3
Hydrotopographical relationships: This vegetation type was found in a variety of situations including floodplains and on flushed slopes. In most cases, most of the water supply appeared to be soligenous, emerging as diffuse or point sources, although in flood-plains some contribution from the adjacent water-course is likely. WETMECS 6, 10 and 16.
Page 48
DRAFT v30.03.2016/Baseline survey of sites under HLS Lowland Fen options Belinda Wheeler & Philip Wilson
4.2.2 Swamp Communities
S4 Phragmites australis swamp and reed-bed Site: 41, 77
Vegetation: Reed-beds of open water with dominant Phragmites australis were recorded as the principal vegetation community at two sites (with an equal expanse of it in a third – site 76). These sites (41, 77) were not surveyed as at both sites access was impossible and the vegetation lay outside the definition of lowland fen (being > 60% Phragmites and not supporting tall-herb fen associates).
S5 Glyceria maxima swamp Site: 25, 85
Vegetation: Glyceria maxima is a very aerenchymatous grass characteristic of highly fertile waterlogged soils and can form consolidating mats of floating vegetation over slowly flowing water (Grime et al., 2007). Small areas dominated by Glyceria maxima were present at several sites. Only two stands of S5 swamp were sampled however. Site 25 was a former water-meadow with vegetation dominated partly by Carex acutiformis and partly by Glyceria maxima. Both stand types were species-poor, and it appears likely that the fen vegetation has developed over agriculturally improved grassland. Glyceria maxima is dominant with Carex acutiformis, Filipendula ulmaria, Iris pseudacorus and Urtica dioica. At site 85, S5 swamp has developed in a partly derelict 18th century canal now managed as a nature reserve. Here, Glyceria maxima forms extensive single-species stands and stands associated with Typha latifolia, Phalaris arundinacea and Sparganium erectum, with Urtica dioica and Epilobium hirsutum where drier. Frequent associated species include Galium aparine, Equisetum palustre, Calystegia sepium, Lycopus europaeus, Scrophularia auriculata and Scutellaria galericulata.
Soil chemistry: pH at both sites is alkaline. Extractable phosphorus level s are high, magnesium levels are high to very high while potassium level is moderate. Total nitrogen and Loss on ignition are high, probably as a result of the input of slowly decomposing leaf litter.
Site NVC Option Soil pH Olsens Index Soil Index Soil Index Total Loss Total Organic (Water) P P K K MG MG N on P Carbon (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (%) Ignition
25 S5 HQ6 7.2 28 3 127 2- 103 3 2.02 37.4 - - 85 S5 HQ7 7.7 26 3 159 2- 457 6 1.2 30.3 - -
Hydrotopographical relationships: Site 25 is on former water-meadows in the floodplain of the River Wylye, a Wiltshire chalk stream. Water is derived by lateral flow from the river and other watercourses in the floodplain and by periodic flooding from the river WETMEC 6. Site 85 is a canal with a very slow flow of water through the mat of Glyceria maxima- dominated vegetation.
Page 49
DRAFT v30.03.2016/Baseline survey of sites under HLS Lowland Fen options Belinda Wheeler & Philip Wilson
Carex acutiformis–dominated vegetation Vegetation dominated by Carex acutiformis or where Carex acutiformis forms a substantial proportion of the vegetation was sampled at 11 sites. In only two cases however could this be considered as true Carex acutiformis swamp, and at all other sites C. acutiformis appears to have been invasive within other vegetation types. Carex acutiformis is a strongly competitive species, spreading rapidly by rhizomes in permanently and seasonally wet soils when grazing pressure is relaxed (Grime et al., 2007).
S7 Carex acutiformis swamp. Sites: 36, 52
Vegetation: True Carex acutiformis was present in only 2 sites. This is a species-poor community overwhelmingly dominated by Carex acutiformis. In the published account of S7 (Rodwell, 1991) there are no constant associates although Juncus effusus is frequent and there are records of a number of other tall-fen species. Here the two S7 stands are species- poor with low covers of tall, mesotrophic fen species including Filipendula ulmaria, Lysimachia vulgaris, Phalaris arundinacea, Iris pseudacorus, Juncus inflexus, Deschampsia cespitosa and Mentha aquatica, and a few other species such as Lathyrus pratensis, Lotus pedunculatus, Agrostis stolonifera, Ranunculus repens and Galium palustre.
Soil chemistry: Soil water pH was neutral at both sites (6.6–7.1), available phosphorus level was very low and low, respectively, although total phosphorus content was very high at site 52. Potassium content was low but magnesium content was high at both.
Site NVC Option Soil pH Olsens Index Soil Index Soil Index Total Loss Total Organic (Water) P P K K MG MG N on P Carbon (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (%) Ignition
36 S7 HQ6 6.6 8 0 106 1 165 3 0.47 12.9 901 6.43 52 S7 HQ6 7.1 15 1 85 1 185 4 1.64 39.1 2259 18.6
Hydrotopographical relationships: Both of these sites were in fields adjacent to watercourses and had standing water at the time of survey. Water was probably derived by lateral movement of groundwater and by periodic run-off from the watercourses WETMEC 6.
Other Carex acutiformis-dominated vegetation. Sites: 13, 29, 30, 38, 45, 48, 57, 83, 84
Vegetation: Carex acutiformis was dominant in nine stands where it appears to have spread invasively within other vegetation types with the relaxation of grazing pressure. It is often accompanied by other tall-growing competitive species including Deschampsia cespitosa, Epilobium hirsutum, Juncus subnodulosus, Filipendula ulmaria, Phalaris arundinacea, Glyceria maxima, Carex riparia and Phragmites australis, which in some cases are co- dominant. In some sites it is possible to make conjectures about the preceding NVC community. At two sites in the valleys of chalk streams in Wiltshire and Hampshire, Carex acutiformis has invaded semi-improved grassland which was probably MG6 or MG9, giving
Page 50
DRAFT v30.03.2016/Baseline survey of sites under HLS Lowland Fen options Belinda Wheeler & Philip Wilson rise to a species-poor community with few typical fen associates. At the majority of sites the preceding community was probably M22, with the highest MATCH coefficients being with the tall-herb fens M27 and OV26. At these sites other frequent tall-fen species include in addition to the above, Iris pseudacorus, Angelica sylvestris, Cirsium palustre, Urtica dioica, Equisetum telmateia, Eupatorium cannabinum, Oenanthe crocata, Juncus inflexus, Juncus subnodulosus, Scrophularia auriculata, Phalaris arundinacea and Valeriana officinalis. Mentha aquatica, Equisetum palustre, Galium aparine, Lycopus europaeus, Hypericum tetrapterum, Lotus pedunculatus, Lathyrus pratensis, Galium uliginosum, Berula erecta and Sanguisorba officinalis are also present. While it is probable that some of these vegetation stands can be considered as degraded examples of M22 or M27 or neglected semi-improved grassland, it may be that others should be considered as a variant of S7 swamp.
Soil chemistry: Soils are diverse in composition as might be expected from this heterogeneous group of sites. The majority of sites have a neutral to alkaline pH of between 6.9 and 7.9, but at one site the soil was moderately acidic. Extractable phosphorus levels were very varied, while potassium levels were low and magnesium levels tended to be high. Nitrogen content, loss on ignition and carbon content range widely, with some sites evidently having a high peat fraction, such as site 57.
Site NVC Option Soil pH Olsens Index Soil K Index Soil MG Index Total N Loss on Total Organic (Water) P (mg/l) P (mg/l) K (mg/l) MG (%) Ignition P Carbon
38 Cx. acuti HQ6 7.7 33 3 107 1 191 4 0.4 10.4 - - 13 Cx. acuti HQ7 7.7 13 1 96 1 75 2 1.19 31 1072 13.4 29 Cx. acuti HQ7 7.2 9 0 109 1 46 1 3.12 58 1871 23.6 30 Cx. acuti HQ7 7.3 7 0 73 1 704 7 1.09 26.7 - - 45 Cx. acuti HQ7 7.9 23 2 54 0 46 1 1.46 27.2 2044 12.2 48 Cx. acuti HQ7 6.9 16 2 81 1 234 4 0.52 13.6 851 7.52 57 Cx. acuti HQ7 7.5 9 0 142 2- 126 3 1.8 60.9 1033 22.9 83 Cx. acuti HQ7 5.6 7 0 58 0 189 4 1.2 43.2 592 18.3 84 Cx. acuti HQ7 6.6 16 2 92 1 118 3 0.73 23.5 1117 10.8
Hydrotopographical relationships: The majority of sites were situated in floodplains where there is both lateral groundwater flow and periodic run-off from adjacent watercourses WETMEC 6. At other sites however Carex acutiformis has become dominant on flushed slopes WETMECs 10 and 12.
S22 Glyceria fluitans water-margin vegetation. Sites: 37
Vegetation: The vegetation at this site is a mosaic of swamp communities (S5 Glyceria maxima, S6 Carex riparia and S22 Glyceria fluitans) at the wetter edge of the fen, grading to an OV28 Agrostis stolonifera–Ranunculus repens community. The vegetation is heterogeneous and is characterised by a number of fen species, particularly Mentha aquatica and Bidens tripartita which are locally abundant and forbs such as Lythrum salicaria, Alisma plantago-aquatica, Polygonum hydropiper, Apium nodiflorum, Lycopus europaeus, Atriplex hastata and Epilobium hirsutum, all of which were locally frequent.
Page 51
DRAFT v30.03.2016/Baseline survey of sites under HLS Lowland Fen options Belinda Wheeler & Philip Wilson
Glyceria maxima was widespread and locally abundant, while Juncus articulatus, Typha latifolia and Urtica dioica were all occasional. Rumex crispus was also widespread and locally abundant.
Soil chemistry: Soil pH was alkaline (7.9). Extractable phosphorus level was the highest recorded in the survey, although total phosphorus level was not exceptional. Potassium and magnesium levels were also high. Total nitrogen, loss on ignition and organic carbon levels were low, indicating a non-peaty, mineral soil.
Site NVC Option Soil pH Olsens Index Soil Index Soil Index Total Loss Total Organic (Water) P P K K MG MG N on P Carbon (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (%) Ignition
37 S22 HQ7 7.9 51 4 212 2+ 507 6 0.65 13.7 1019 6.95
Hydrotopographical relationships: This single site occupies the periodically inundated margins of old gravel workings.
S24 Phragmites australis-Peucedanum palustre tall-herb fen Sites: 67
Vegetation: This community was sampled at only one site in Broadland, although small and impoverished stands were present at three other sites in Norfolk (21, 42, 62). Phragmites australis is dominant with abundant Cladium mariscus (becoming dominant elsewhere in the site and transitional to S2 Cladium mariscus fen) and occasional Typha angustifolia, Phalaris arundinacea and Schoenoplectus lacustris. This forms a dense cover with a canopy up to 2m in height. The understorey is distinctive and richer than in other types of Phragmites australis swamp, with abundant Juncus subnodulosus and Filipendula ulmaria and frequent Carex elata, Peucedanum palustre, Eupatorium cannabinum, Berula erecta, Mentha aquatica, Lythrum salicaria, Calystegia sepium, Lycopus europaeus, Thelypteris palustris, Calamagrostis canescens, Oenanthe lachenalii, Scutellaria galericulata, Lysimachia vulgaris, Eupatorium cannabinum and Filipendula ulmaria. This had closest affinities with S24f (Schoenus nigricans sub-community) although Schoenus nigricans was absent.
Soil chemistry: Soil pH was slightly acidic (6.0), while the pH of standing water was alkaline at 7.0. Extractable phosphorus level was very low, potassium level was also low, but magnesium level was very high. Total nitrogen level, loss on ignition and carbon content were all very high indicating that the soil was very peaty.
Site NVC Option Soil pH Olsens Index Soil Index Soil Index Total Loss Total Organic (Water) P P K K MG MG N on P Carbon (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (%) Ignition
67 S24 HQ6 6 5 0 78 1 314 5 2.34 72.1 973 30.2
Hydrotopographical relationships: The single sampled site is typical of this community. It is located in a Broadland floodplain WETMEC 6 (surface-water percolation floodplain), irrigated by water from the nearby river and floodplain ground-water. The sites where S24
Page 52
DRAFT v30.03.2016/Baseline survey of sites under HLS Lowland Fen options Belinda Wheeler & Philip Wilson was present but not sampled are less typical, being associated with valley head flush systems where the sampled communities were M13 and M22.
S26 Phragmites australis-Urtica dioica tall-herb fen. Sites: 9, 20, 55, 86
Vegetation: Phragmites australis forms a dense, tall canopy here accompanied by a limited range of other tall-growing species including Carex acutiformis, Urtica dioica, Carex riparia and Eupatorium cannabinum. The associated understorey is also species-poor with frequent Galium aparine, Calystegia sepium, Lythrum salicaria, Rubus fruticosus, Filipendula ulmaria, Angelica sylvestris, Symphytum sp., Stachys palustris, Solanum dulcamara and Rubus fruticosus agg. Mosses Brachythecium rutabulum and Atrichum undulatum were frequent.
Soil chemistry: Soil water pH differed greatly between, from 7.7 in the valley of a Hampshire chalk stream, to 5.2 in the floodplain on the River Soar in Leicestershire. Extractable phosphorus levels at both sites were low in all but one site (86) where it was high, while potassium levels were very low to moderate. Magnesium level in the chalk stream site was moderate but high to very high at all others. With the exception of site 86 nitrogen levels and loss on ignition were very high, probably as a result of the accumulation of Phragmites australis litter in the soil.
Site NVC Option Soil pH Olsens Index Soil Index Soil Index Total Loss Total Organic (Water) P P K K MG MG N on P Carbon (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (%) Ignition
86 S26 HQ6 5.7 40 3 78 1 222 4 0.62 13.8 2053 5.79 55 S26 HQ7 7.7 9 0 47 0 56 2 2.8 59.3 1143 24.1 20 S26a HQ6 5.2 7 0 131 2- 488 6 1.42 25.1 - - 9 S26b HQ7 7.9 11 1 98 1 149 3 1.49 34 1606 11.1
Hydrotopographical relationships: All four sites are situated in floodplains where ground- water is probably largely derived from the river and associated watercourses with some seepage from surrounding land and periodic flooding from run-off from the river (WETMEC 6).
S27 Potentilla palustris-Carex rostrata tall-herb fen Sites: 58
Vegetation: This community was present at only one site. Here the vegetation here shows a very marked zonation with relation to distance from the centre of the mire. The S27 zone is situated between rush-pasture on the upper slopes and the seasonally flooded area with S10a Equisetum fluviatile swamp. It is dominated by tall Eriophorum angustifolium with Juncus effusus and Potentilla palustris and constant low cover of Carex rostrata. Also frequent are Equisetum fluviatile, Epilobium palustre, Juncus acutiflorus and Galium palustre. Carex nigra, Filipendula ulmaria and Angelica sylvestris are occasional. Bryophytes are few and largely restricted to Calliergon cordifolium and Kindbergia praelonga.
Page 53
DRAFT v30.03.2016/Baseline survey of sites under HLS Lowland Fen options Belinda Wheeler & Philip Wilson
Soil chemistry: pH was neutral at 6.5. Levels of extractable phosphorus and total phosphorus were very low. Potassium level was low while Magnesium level was high. Total nitrogen content, loss on ignition and organic carbon content were all low suggesting a non- peaty soil.
Site NVC Option Soil pH Olsens Index Soil Index Soil Index Total Loss Total Organic (Water) P P K K MG MG N on P Carbon (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (%) Ignition
58 S27 HQ7 6.5 8 0 114 1 208 4 0.68 18.7 802 9.45
Hydrotopographical relationships: Site 58 is one of very few basin mires in the lowlands of north-eastern England. It consists of a shallow basin within a dry grassland catchment. The upper slopes of the basin are flushed, draining into a central mire with a fluctuating water level to which a small inflow stream also contributes (WETMEC 12).
S28 Phalaris arundinacea tall-herb fen Sites: 11, 70
Vegetation: S28 is generally a species-poor tall-herb fen and is often encountered in open- water transitions or in areas of periodic inundation. It is characterised by the dominance of Phalaris arundinacea with few associates. The vegetation recorded at site 11 was atypical and rather variable in its composition with some areas with mesotrophic grassland species and others more typical of fen. This site does receive periodic inundation but is likely to be in a successional stage in the development from the former aquatic community of a mill leat to a marshy grassland community. Site 70 was Phalaris–dominated vegetation on low-lying land adjacent to a raised bog and also had strong affinities with OV26 due to the associated flora of tall nutrient-demanding herbs and grasses. Both sites had quite high cover of Urtica dioica with occasional Galium aparine, Epilobium hirsutum, Cirsium arvense and Rubus agg. Fen associates were sparse but site 11 had locally abundant Filipendula ulmaria and site 70 occasional Valeriana officinalis, Ranunculus flammula and Angelica sylvestris.
Soil Chemistry: Both sites were acidic. Available phosphorus was low at site 70 but high at site 11, although total phosphorus was high at both sites. Potassium and magnesium were moderately high at both sites. Total nitrogen, loss on ignition and organic carbon were high at site 70 only, indicating that the site has some peat accumulation, which would be expected in a site on the margins of a raised mire (although a refuse tip lies to the south of site 70, which has the potential to alter soil chemistry).
Site NVC Option Soil pH Olsens Index Soil Index Soil Index Total Loss Total Organic (Water) P P K K MG MG N on P Carbon (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (%) Ignition
70 S28 HQ7 5.3 9 0 135 2- 137 3 1.12 35.9 1283 20.4 11 S28b HQ6 5.4 26 3 184 2+ 100 2 0.67 16.5 1676 10.6
Hydrotopographical relationships: Site 11 will have a permanently high water table from its proximity to the river from which it is separated by a weir. It will also receive floodwater in
Page 54
DRAFT v30.03.2016/Baseline survey of sites under HLS Lowland Fen options Belinda Wheeler & Philip Wilson winter. Site 70 may receive water from the refuse tip to the south and from seepage out of the peat mass of the raised mire to the west, in addition to streamwater from the stream flowing through the centre of the site.
OV24 Urtica dioica-Galium aparine community. Site: 27
Vegetation: This was the major community at one site only although a small area was present at one other. Stands recorded here were unusual variants of the community with an overwhelming dominance of Equisetum telmateia. Also present in the dense E. telmateia canopy is abundant Urtica dioica with a tall understory including frequent Cirsium arvense, Galium aparine, Arrhenatherum elatius and Alopecurus pratensis. The only typical fen associate was Angelica sylvestris. Runnels of open mud were present.
Soil chemistry: pH was neutral (6.8). Extractable phosphorus and magnesium levels were moderate. Potassium level however was the highest recorded in the survey. Nitrogen level and loss on ignition were low, reflecting the predominantly mineral nature of the soil.
Site NVC Option Soil pH Olsens Index Soil Index Soil Index Total Loss Total Organic (Water) P P K K MG MG N on P Carbon (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (%) Ignition
27 OV24a HQ6 6.8 18 2 523 4 164 3 0.51 9.8 - -
Hydrotopographical relationships: This site was situated on a slope receiving water from a number of springs and more diffuse flushes (WETMEC 10). The septic tank system of the nearby row of cottages is thought to drain into these, accounting for the extremely high potassium content and moderately high level of extractable phosphorus in the soil. Nitrogen and phosphorus levels are not exceptional, suggesting that the sewage system is operating efficiently and trapping most of these nutrients, although allowing the highly soluble potassium salts to drain away in the effluent.
OV26 Epilobium hirsutum community. Sites: 1, 39, 53, 59, 74, 82
Vegetation: This is a highly heterogeneous group of samples including a wide range of tall- fens related to other mesotrophic fen types including M27, less species-rich variants of M22a and “Carex acutiformis-dominated vegetation”. Stands where MATCH analysis gave a best fit to this community but where Carex acutiformis was dominant and Epilobium hirsutum was rare were assigned to the “Carex acutiformis-dominated” nodum. Epilobium hirsutum is sensitive to grazing (Wheeler, 1983), and this community is better developed in sites that are ungrazed or grazed very lightly. It is likely that some examples of this community are a result of the relaxation of a grazing or cutting regime on suitable soils (see below). Several species were dominant including Phalaris arundinacea, Juncus effusus, Filipendula ulmaria, Carex riparia and Epilobium hirsutum. There is a considerable variety of associated species, although due to the heterogeneous nature of this community few of these are constant. These include Urtica dioica, Galium aparine, Cirsium arvense, Holcus
Page 55
DRAFT v30.03.2016/Baseline survey of sites under HLS Lowland Fen options Belinda Wheeler & Philip Wilson lanatus, Deschampsia cespitosa, Cirsium palustre, Juncus inflexus, Lathyrus pratensis, Lotus pedunculatus, Mentha aquatica, Carex hirta, Angelica sylvestris, Poa trivialis, Agrostis stolonifera, Scrophularia auriculata, Ranunculus repens and Equisetum palustre. Many of these species are typical of soils with high nutrient status (Grime et al.., 2007).
Soil chemistry: Soil chemistry varied widely between samples. Soil water pH was mainly alkaline, between 6.8 and 7.8, although one site (82) was more neutral. Epilobium hirsutum is intolerant of high levels of available ferrous ions, and is therefore restricted to sites with relatively high pH that are not permanently waterlogged (Grime et al.., 2007). Extractable phosphorus levels were mostly very low to moderate, but one was high. There was no obvious relationship between extractable phosphorus and total phosphorus. Potassium levels at all sites were moderate to low. Magnesium levels at all sites were moderate to very high. In all but one site, levels of nitrogen and carbon and loss on ignition were low, indicating that soil was peaty at only one site.
Site NVC Option Soil pH Olsens Index Soil Index Soil Index Total Loss Total Organic (Water) P P K K MG MG N on P Carbon (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (%) Ignition
39 OV26 HQ6 7.7 19 2 164 2- 123 3 0.77 16.4 0 0 1 OV26 HQ7 7.6 6 0 116 1 119 3 0.79 14 0 0 53 OV26 HQ7 7.8 10 1 102 1 135 3 0.76 18.8 1042 9.71 74 OV26 HQ7 7.1 6 0 278 3 195 4 1.36 44.7 1698 29.8 82 OV26 HQ7 6.5 6 0 111 1 464 6 0.37 10.9 847 5.38 59 OV26d HQ6 6.8 29 3 139 2- 281 5 0.61 15.4 1163 8.05
Hydrotopographical relationships: The majority of sites were on level ground or gentle slopes irrigated by ground water and periodic flooding from adjacent water-courses or water-bodies (WETMEC 6). Single stands were recorded on flushed slopes (WETMECs 10 and 16).
4.2.3 Grasslands
MG1biii Arrhenatherum elatius grassland, Urtica dioica sub-community, Epilobium hirsutum variant. Site: 76
Vegetation: This grassland was only recorded at a single site where it was adjacent to a stand of S26 reed-swamp. Arrhenatherum elatius is a typically dominant species of ungrazed grasslands in which it can form tussocky, species-poor, litter-choked swards (Rodwell, 1992). MG1biii occupies wetter situations than most other Arrhenatherum elatius grasslands, but on wetter soils OV26 might be expected to replace it. Arrhenatherum elatius was constant and abundant with frequent to locally abundant Agrostis stolonifera, Holcus lanatus, Festuca rubra, Dactylis glomerata and Elymus repens. Frequent species typical of fen and other wetland included Pulicaria dysenterica, Equisetum palustre, Epilobium hirsutum and Oenanthe crocata, and on the margins of the reed bed Mentha aquatica and Lotus
Page 56
DRAFT v30.03.2016/Baseline survey of sites under HLS Lowland Fen options Belinda Wheeler & Philip Wilson pedunculatus were recorded. Additional species were Potentilla anserina, Heracleum sphondylium, Vicia cracca, Convolvulus arvensis, Cirsium arvense and Galium aparine.
Soil chemistry: Soil at this single MG1 site was mildly alkaline with low extractable phosphorus levels, moderate potassium levels, while magnesium levels are high. Total nitrogen levels, loss on ignition and organic carbon levels are moderate.
Site NVC Option Soil pH Olsens Index Soil Index Soil Index Total Loss Total Organic (Water) P P K K MG MG N on P Carbon (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (%) Ignition
76 MG1b HQ6 6.7 11 1 193 2+ 236 4 0.47 12.4 1064 5.32
MG9 Deschampsia cespitosa-Holcus lanatus grassland. Sites: 12, 47, 68
Vegetation: This is typically a grassland of semi-improved pasture on permanently moist and periodically inundated clay soils, frequently in flood-plains, where a lapse of grazing pressure has allowed the highly unpalatable grass Deschampsia cespitosa to become established, often as large tussocks. Young leaves of Deschampsia cespitosa are readily eaten by grazing animals (Grime et al.., 2007). The roots are aerenchymatous, allowing survival in anoxic conditions (Rodwell, 1991). The three grasslands where this community was identified all correspond to this description although all three are very different. Grassland at site 12 is former MG4 meadow in which Filipendula ulmaria and Deschampsia cespitosa have become dominant in the absence of grazing. There are still species-rich areas, with all the character species of MG4 still present including Sanguisorba officinalis, Silaum silaus, Centaurea nigra, Serratula tinctoria, Potentilla erecta, Galium palustre, Lotus corniculatus and the grasses Alopecurus pratensis, Festuca rubra, Holcus lanatus, Molinia caerulea and Festuca arundinacea. Field 47 may once have held M23 rush pasture, but with a reduction of grazing pressure Deschampsia cespitosa and Agrostis stolonifera have become dominant with associates including Juncus effusus, Potentilla anserina, Juncus acutiflorus, Equisetum palustre, Carex panicea, Cirsium palustre and Ranunculus flammula. Field 68 is traditionally managed flood-pasture dominated by a mixture of grasses including Agrostis stolonifera, Alopecurus pratensis, Deschampsia cespitosa and Festuca pratensis with a limited range of dicotyledonous species including Lysimachia nummularium, Mentha aquatica, Potentilla anserina and Potentilla reptans. Phalaris arundinacea, Juncus effusus and Juncus inflexus are occasional.
Soil chemistry: Soils range from slightly to neutral (pH 5.4-6.5). Extractable phosphorus levels are very low although total phosphorus levels are moderate. Potassium levels are moderate to low while magnesium levels are high. Total nitrogen levels are low for two sites but at site 68 very high (indicating that the soil has a high peat fraction) – these results are reflected in the loss on ignition and organic carbon levels.
Page 57
DRAFT v30.03.2016/Baseline survey of sites under HLS Lowland Fen options Belinda Wheeler & Philip Wilson
Site NVC Option Soil pH Olsens Index Soil Index Soil Index Total Loss Total Organic (Water) P P K K MG MG N on P Carbon (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (%) Ignition
47 MG9 HQ6 6.1 8 0 104 1 211 4 1.1 33.7 1219 14.9 68 MG9 HQ6 6.5 8 0 164 2- 163 3 1.77 40.6 - - 12 MG9 HQ7 5.4 6 0 193 2+ 238 4 0.78 23.1 1008 10.5
MG10a Juncus effusus-Holcus lanatus rush pasture, typical sub-community. Sites: 61 (but see 35 & 54)
This community occurs in similar situations to MG9 where soils are permanently or periodically wet and where the tussock-forming Juncus effusus or Juncus inflexus can become established after a lapse in grazing intensity. Soils tend to be wetter for longer periods than in MG9 stands. This community can be transitional to M23 where agricultural improvement has been less intensive, particularly in wetter sites and at sites 35 and 54 (classified here as poor M23), there was an almost equal argument for calling them MG10 as these sites are really on an MG10–M23 spectrum of vegetation. In MG10a, Juncus effusus forms a variable cover varying from open scattered tussocks to a dense and highly competitive mat, sometimes accompanied by Deschampsia cespitosa. The ground flora is typically that of agriculturally semi-improved grassland, with abundant Holcus lanatus, Agrostis stolonifera, Agrostis capillaris, Cynosurus cristatus, Poa trivialis, Anthoxanthum odoratum, Alopecurus pratensis, Carex hirta, Plantago lanceolata, Ranunculus repens, Potentilla anserine, Cardamine pratensis and Rumex acetosa. Species more characteristic of richer fens include Ranunculus flammula, Lotus pedunculatus, Equisetum palustre, Galium palustre and Filipendula ulmaria, but these are usually at low frequencies.
Soil chemistry: Site 61 was highly acidic with low extractable phosphorus, low potassium and moderate magnesium and nitrogen. When sites 61, 35 and 54 are considered together on this vegetation spectrum, pH varies from neutral to acidic. Extractable phosphorus levels also range from high to low, while total phosphorus levels are high. Potassium levels are moderate to low and magnesium levels are moderate to high. Nitrogen content, loss on ignition and organic carbon content all range from moderate to high, probably a result of the input of slowly decomposing Juncus litter to the soil. Juncus effusus may be more likely to become abundant on more permanently wet soils than Deschampsia cespitosa because of its greater tolerance of ferrous ion toxicity (Grime et al., 2007).
Site NVC Option Soil pH Olsens Index Soil Index Soil Index Total Loss Total Organic (Water) P P K K MG MG N on P Carbon (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (%) Ignition
61 MG10a HQ7 4.6 6 0 54 0 62 2 0.55 16.1 0 0
Page 58
DRAFT v30.03.2016/Baseline survey of sites under HLS Lowland Fen options Belinda Wheeler & Philip Wilson
4.2.4 Woodlands
Sites: 7, 60, 63, 78.
Five stands were located in cleared or early successional woodland. Three of these (7, 60, 78) were areas where the managers were restoring fen from stands of W5a (Alnus glutinosa-Carex paniculata woodland, Phragmites australis sub-community) which had probably developed as invasive Alnus glutinosa within former fen. Site 60 has a rich and varied area of former fen now cleared of Alnus glutinosa and Salix cinerea but with much regeneration. Tussocks of Carex paniculata are abundant throughout, with other constant species including Cirsium palustre, Lythrum salicaria, Dryopteris dilatata, Galium uliginosum. Calliergonella cuspidatum is locally dominant with Carex acutiformis, Phragmites australis, Lotus pedunculatus, Epilobium palustre and Hydrocotyle vulgaris, while Sphagnum tenellum, S. squarrosum, S. papillosum and S. inundatum are abundant in other areas with Aulacomnium palustre and Angelica sylvestris. Site 7 is another area of cleared and regenerating Alnus glutinosa with Betula spp., Salix cinerea, Rubus fruticosus and Ribes nigrum with a similar but considerably less species-rich ground flora. Whilst site 78 was mostly dominated by tall Carex paniculata tussocks with scattered wetland forbs and constant Urtica dioica between, but approximately one quarter of the stand was dominated instead by Carex acutiformis. Rubus agg. scrub is still being cleared from this site (pony grazing has just been introduced) and the site is very much in transition.
Two stands of W1 were sampled, both of which were included in the HQ6 option, although neither was being managed as fen. Site 63 was an unmanaged area of Salix cinerea ssp. oleifolia woodland with tall fen species including Angelica sylvestris, Oenanthe crocata, Sparganium erectum, Mentha aquatica, Rumex acetosa, Urtica dioica and Phragmites australis and a ground flora of Agrostis stolonifera, Ranunculus repens, Hedera helix, Holcus lanatus, Myosotis secunda, Apium nodiflorum, Athyrium filix-femina, Mnium hornum and Kindbergia praelonga. Lemna minor occurred where there was open water (5–10% water). Salix cinerea woodland was also recorded at site 86, where it is of recent origin on former semi-improved grassland and had a ground flora similar to the adjacent Phragmites australis-Urtica dioica reed-swamp. This site is described under S26.
Soil chemistry: Soil could not be collected from site 63 due to the depth of silt and level of waterlogging. At the cleared W5 sites the soil water was fairly uniformly neutral (6.2–6.6), with very low to low extractable phosphorus and low to moderate potassium. Magnesium content varied more, from moderate to very high. Total nitrogen at all three heights was extremely high suggesting highly organic soils and much peat accumulation: this is reflected in the very high values for loss on ignition and organic carbon content.
Site NVC Option Soil pH Olsens Index Soil Index Soil Index Total Loss Total Organic (Water) P P K K MG MG N on P Carbon (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (%) Ignition
78 W5 HQ7 6.2 8 0 91 1 166 3 1.6 42.7 1035 21.8 7 W5a HQ7 6.2 12 1 95 1 306 5 2.36 85.5 915 28 60 W5a HQ7 6.6 12 1 126 2- 100 2 1.82 59.4 - -
Page 59
DRAFT v30.03.2016/Baseline survey of sites under HLS Lowland Fen options Belinda Wheeler & Philip Wilson
Hydrotopographical relationships: All five sites had permanently high water tables and were associated with the floodplain of nearby watercourses.
Page 60
DRAFT v30.03.2016/Baseline survey of sites under HLS Lowland Fen options Belinda Wheeler & Philip Wilson
4.3 Canonical correspondence analysis
4.3.1 Unconstrained analysis of vegetation data
An initial Detrended Correspondence Analysis was carried out including quadrat data from all of the surveyed sites but without including any soil data (Figure 5). The aim of this was to investigate vegetation composition and to detect groupings of quadrats corresponding to the NVC communities identified. NVC communities in the area from which the quadrats were recorded were determined using the judgement and experience of surveyors in the field during the course of vegetation mapping. Sets of quadrats from each site were then analysed using MATCH (ref), to confirm the identity of NVC communities. The final diagnoses of NVC communities are therefore based on examination of the quadrat data with reference to the published vegetation tables (Rodwell, 1991, 1992, 1995 & 2000) and with reference to results from MATCH analyses. Many sites were characterised by extremely heterogeneous vegetation and intermediate NVC types and mosaics were commonly encountered. MATCH coefficients at most sites were consequently low.
The principal division within the data was between sites containing predominantly mire communities and those with vegetation dominated by large Carex species (principally C. acutiformis, C. riparia and C. paniculata), reed-grasses (Phalaris arundinacea, Glyceria maxima and Phragmites australis) and other bulky, tall-growing species (principally Filipendula ulmaria, Epilobium hirsutum, Urtica dioica and Equisetum telmateia).
Two large groups of swamp and tall-herb stands were recognised here. The largest of these is the group of stands dominated by Carex acutiformis. While this includes two sites of true S7 Carex acutiformis swamp, the other sites in this group are probably derived from other vegetation types into which C. acutiformis has invaded following a lapse in grazing or cutting management. MATCH analysis suggests that these sites have affinities with OV26 tall-herb fen, agriculturally-improved mesotrophic grasslands (MG9) and reed-swamps.
Distinct from this Carex acutiformis-dominated cluster, there is a heterogeneous group of tall-herb fen stands with closest affinities to OV26. This is a diverse community, and stands here included vegetation related to rush-pasture, reed-swamp and semi-ruderal communities. In general these stands are characterised by frequent Epilobium hirsutum, Urtica dioica and Filipendula ulmaria and probably result from lack of management of a range of vegetation types.
In addition to these large groups there are also two stands of S26 Phragmites australis swamp and single examples of S5 Glyceria maxima swamp, S22 Glyceria fluitans swamp and unusual vegetation dominated by Equisetum telmateia most closely related to OV24. The single stand of the species-rich Phragmites australis-Peucedanum palustre fen is more closely associated with fen-meadows and rush-pastures. Three outlying sites classified as Carex paniculata swamp in the field were in fact recently cleared W5 woodland.
Page 61
DRAFT v30.03.2016/Baseline survey of sites under HLS Lowland Fen options Belinda Wheeler & Philip Wilson
Figure 5. Detrended correspondence analysis ordination, all sites.
OV26/S28 related S22 M24 S24 M27
M22 S26
M25a S5
S7-related M13 S27 M6a
M10-related M23 Woodland
M6c/d
Several NVC mire communities also formed clearly delineated groups in the ordination diagram. The largest includes all stands containing M22 Juncus subnodulosus-Cirsium palustre fen-meadow, dominated mainly by Juncus subnodulosus and Juncus inflexus. This community ranges from species-rich calcareous, spring-fed mires related to M13, to relatively species-poor rush-pasture dominated by Juncus inflexus. Stands of M22a were not clearly separated from stands of M22b by MATCH. The single stand of M24 Molinia caerulea-Cirsium dissectum fen-meadow was grouped together with the M22 stands. Related to M22 is the group of four very species-rich M13 Schoenus nigricans-Juncus subnodulosus calcareous spring-fed fen stands from Norfolk. Grouped with the M13 stands are the two examples of M25 which share an abundance of Molinia caerulea. An outlying stand of M6a valley mire has affinities with these stands in which Molinia caerulea is abundant.
Page 62
DRAFT v30.03.2016/Baseline survey of sites under HLS Lowland Fen options Belinda Wheeler & Philip Wilson
The base-rich upland flush (M10-related) site has little similarity with other stands sampled and is an outlier from any group.
The other large grouping of mire stands includes stands of M23 Juncus effusus/acutiflorus – Galium palustre rush-pasture. Stands of M23a and M23b were not clearly separated. Outliers to this cluster were single stands of Juncus spp.-dominated M6d and S10.
Five stands of tall-herb vegetation were classified in the field and by MATCH as M27. The CCA analysis positioned four of these between the swamp/tall-herb stands and the mire stands.
Further DCA analyses were carried out on subsets of predominantly swamp and tall-herb stands (Figure 6) and predominantly mire stands (Figure 7). Stands of grassland and woodland were excluded from these analyses.
Analysis of the swamp stands divided the bulk of the samples into two distinct groups. The larger of these included all stands of Carex acutiformis dominated vegetation, while the other included all stands of OV26. Three Carex acutiformis stands identified by MATCH as having affinities with OV26 were positioned between these two main groups, and the single stand of S5 Glyceria maxima swamp was related to these. M27 stands showed no distinct clustering.
Phragmites australis-dominated fen and swamp S24 and S26 were grouped together but were separated from the Carex acutiformis and OV26 groups. S22 and OV24 stands were also outliers.
Separate analysis also enabled additional resolution of mire communities. As in the whole sample analysis, the major division is between M23 and M22 stands. There is however no obvious distinction between M23a and M23b or between M22a and M22b. There is no obvious clustering of M27 stands.
There is an evident relationship between stands of vegetation in which Molinia caerulea is abundant (M13, M24, M25, M6a), although these NVC types were well separated. The four M13 fens were closely associated with M22 fen-meadow, and the two M22 stands (8 and 62) with greatest affinity with M13 were grouped with them.
Page 63
DRAFT v30.03.2016/Baseline survey of sites under HLS Lowland Fen options Belinda Wheeler & Philip Wilson
Figure 6. Detrended ordination of vegetation data (species) for swamp and tall-herb communities only.
S24
S22
S24
S7-related
OV26
S26
M27
OV24
Page 64
DRAFT v30.03.2016/Baseline survey of sites under HLS Lowland Fen options Belinda Wheeler & Philip Wilson
Figure 7. Detrended ordination of vegetation data (species) for mire communities only.
M6d S10
M10-related
M6a
M23 M22
M27
M25
M13
4.3.2 Associations between vegetation composition and soil characteristics
The initial pooled analysis of vegetation from all sites constrained by soil variables showed that there were significant associations between vegetation and pH, Olsen’s Phosphorus and Loss on Ignition (LoI ≡ organic matter) at P < 0.05 (Figure 8).
Stands of M22b and M13 were characteristic of sites with high pH, with pH at M22a sites being slightly lower than that at M13 sites. M23 rush-pasture sites had moderate to low pH. Sites with abundant Molinia caerulea, particularly M6 and M25 had high LoI. OV26 stands had low LoI, and the majority of M23 rush-pasture sites also had low LoI. There is a tendency for M23 sites to have higher levels of extractable phosphorus than other NVC types. Carex acutiformis stands appeared to show no associations, possibly reflecting the extreme heterogeneity of this sample of stands.
Page 65
DRAFT v30.03.2016/Baseline survey of sites under HLS Lowland Fen options Belinda Wheeler & Philip Wilson
Figure 8. CCA ordination performed in Canoco of all sites constrained by soil variables of pH; Olsen’s P (extractable phosphorus) and LoI (Loss on Ignition) for results significant at P < 0.05 only).
M22
M13
OV26
M23
Page 66
Analysis of swamp stands and mire stands separately emphasised the results from the pooled data. For swamp stands, Potassium content and Olsen’s Phosphorus were significant at P < 0.05 (Figure 106).
OV26 stands had higher potassium content than S7 and M27stands. The highest level of potassium was at the OV24 site where water feeding the site originated from a nearby septic tank overflow. While there was a considerable range of extractable phosphorus levels within the two major groups, there was no difference in phosphorus response. The few sites with S5 and S22 however had high phosphorus levels.
Among the mire sites, soils at the Molinia caerulea-dominated stands M6d, M24 and M25 have low pH, with M23 stands having moderate to low pH. M13 stands have high pH and M22 stands have moderate to high pH. Nitrogen level and LoI are closely associated. M13 and M6 stands have high Nitrogen and LoI, while at M23 sites and the majority of M22 sites they are low.
Figure 9. CCA ordination performed in Canoco of swamp and tall-herb fen communities only, constrained by soil variables of P (phosphorus) and K (potassium) for results significant at P < 0.05 only).
S22
S7-related OV26 OV24
M27
S24 S26
Page 67
Figure 10. CCA ordination performed in Canoco of mire communities only, constrained by soil variables of pH, N (total nitrogen) and LoI (loss on ignition) for results significant at P < 0.05 only).
M27
M22
M23
M1 3
M6a M25 M10-related M6d
Page 68
4.4 Species richness Two parameters of species-richness were considered in these analyses, mean species number per quadrat and total number of species recorded across all quadrats at each site. These were compared between broad habitat type (swamp or mire), HLS option (HQ6 or HQ7) and NVC type where sufficient replicates (≥4) were available (OV26, M27, M23, M22, S26, Carex acutiformis-dominated, M13), using the General Linear Model within MINITAB v13.
The only significant differences (Table 5) were between mean species number per quadrat for NVC communities. Stands of M13 had significantly higher mean number of species per quadrat than stands of OV26, M23, M27, S26 and Carex acutiformis-dominated vegetation (0).
No pairwise comparisons between mean total numbers of species per site were significant at the P < 0.05 level.
Table 5. Analysis of variance (1) mean number of species recorded in five quadrats at each site and (2) total number of species recorded in all five quadrats, for (a) broad habitat type, (b) HLS fen options, and (c) NVC community.
(a) Broad habitat type 1. Mean no. of species 2. Mean total no. of per quadrat species for all quadrats Swamp 12.56 26.54 Mire 16.18 33.99 P ns ns
(b) Option 1. Mean no. of species 2. Mean total no. of per quadrat species for all quadrats HQ6 13.25 28.54 HQ7 15.72 32.10 P ns ns
(c) NVC community 1. Mean no. of species 2. Mean total no. of per quadrat species for all quadrats OV26 12.66 30.05 M27 13.15 27.20 M23 14.72 31.74 M22 16.75 34.30 S26 10.49 23.01 Carex acutiformis-dominated 11.18 26.50 M13 24.37 43.66 P < 0.01 ns
Page 69
Table 6. Pairwise comparisons of means for NVC communities using Tukey T-tests, showing probabilities and standard errors of differences (SE).
NVC OV26 M27 M23 M22 S26 C. acuti M13 OV26 ns ns ns ns ns P = 0.014 SE ± 3.23 M27 ns ns ns ns P = 0.015 SE ± 3.12 M23 ns ns ns P = 0.04 SE ± 2.95 M22 ns ns ns S26 ns P = 0.008 SE ± 3.65 C. acuti P = 0.003 SE ± 3.21
Page 70
5 The current condition of sites
5.1 Assessment of the difference in condition of sites under HQ6 (maintenance) and HQ7 (restoration) of fen options The data collected from the structured walk to assess stand condition was used to separate the fen stands into three condition classes, as per the HLS guidance on feature criteria and condition assessment categories (Table 7).
Table 7. Condition assessment category and feature criteria (based on Table 1 in HLS FEP Manual, March 2010).
Condition assessment Number of missed/failed criteria HLS management option category suitable A – very good 0 HQ6 Maintain B – near good 1 HQ6/7 Maintain or restore C – poor 2 or more (or failed on frequency/no. of HQ7 Restore positive fen indicator species)
Of the total sample of 74 sites, 38 sites (51%) passed the condition assessment, meeting the targets for all attributes (condition A). Of the remaining 36 sites, 9 (12%) were assessed as being in condition B and 27 (37%) in condition C (poor).
Figure 11. Percentage of sites that passed the Condition Assessment (condition A, all attributes passed) or failed the condition assessment (condition B, 1 attribute failed; or condition C, two or more attributes failed or site failed to support sufficient positive fen indicator species). Data are shown for all sites, and for HQ6 and HQ7 sites separately.
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% C 50% B 40% A 30% 20% 10% 0% All (n=74) HQ6 (n= 35) HQ7 (n = 39)
Of the 35 sites under the HQ6 option assessed for their condition using Common Standards Monitoring in combination with the generic fen (W04) targets of the HLS handbook, 63% passed (condition A) compared with 41% of the HQ7 option (Figure 11). A further 15% of
Page 71
HQ7 sites were in condition B, indicating that they supported sufficient desirable fen species but failed on a single other attribute and thus restoration to condition A is likely with management.
Failing the condition assessment on a failure to meet targets for desirable fen species within the stand was the most frequent reason for failure (30%) for all sites and for sites under each option (29% of HQ6 and 31% of HQ7 sites, respectively) (Figure 12). After this attribute sites failed (in rank order high–low): (2) on the cover of woody species (invasive trees and scrub); (3) on the frequency of undesirable/negative indicator species such as non-native Impatiens or Cirsium spp. cover; (4) on continuous litter cover; (5) on water level management (i.e. the site being too dry); and (6) on too much exposed substrate (one HQ6 site only).
Figure 12. The percentage of total sites to fail each of the six condition assessment attributes, with data grouped as follows: all sites (n = 74); the HQ6 sample (n = 35); and the HQ7 sample (n = 39), as a proportion of the total number in each group.
35%
30%
25%
20%
15% All 10% HQ6 5% HQ7
0%
In practice few sites were failed on water management (9 in total), despite many being quite dry. 2014 was the warmest year on record and late summer (September) when most surveys were carried out was the driest since 19106, and although many sites were quite dry they were not failed on this attribute if the vegetation community present was strongly indicative of wetland habitat that would normally be waterlogged.
6 Source: www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/ citing the Hadley Centre Central England Temperature (HadCET) dataset.
Page 72
HQ6 sites, when considered alone, after positive indicator species failures, demonstrated equal failure rates on the attributes of cover of woody species and frequency of negative indicator species (17%), followed by cover of continuous litter (14%). Whereas HQ7 sites showed a greater tendency to fail on woody species (31% of HQ7 sites) and negative indicators (26%) – litter cover was less of an issue (10%).
5.2 Condition of sites within SSSI units Of the 36 sample sites that were within SSSI units (wholly or partially), 21 sites (58% were in favourable condition as per our 2014 CSM condition assessment, and 15 sites in unfavourable condition (conditions B and C, 6 and 9 sites, respectively) (Figure 13). When considered separately, a higher proportion of parcels in SSSI units that were under maintenance management (HQ6, 81%) were in condition A, compared with those under restoration (HQ7, 40%).
Figure 13. The percentage of sites that are within SSSI units in each condition class, showing data for HQ6 and HQ7 option sites separately
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% C 50% B 40% A 30% 20% 10% 0% Total (n = 36) HQ6 ( n = 16) HQ7 (n = 20)
5.3 Condition of site in relation to area (ha) No association could be seen between the area (ha) of the land parcel under fen options HQ6 and HQ7 and the condition of the site, as assessed by the CSM condition assessment. Sites in condition A and condition C showed more similarity to each other in size, than either did to condition B sites. When the four very large, outlier sites were removed, the mean area was very similar for all sites that fell in condition A, B or C.
Page 73
5.4 Condition of site in relation to NVC community and HLS option With so many different (23) NVC communities recorded across the 76 sites it is difficult to draw any meaningful conclusions about the spread of option HQ6 or HQ7 sites across them (Figure 14).
Figure 14. The contribution of sites under option HQ6 and HQ7 to the total number of sites per NVC community (HQ6 n = 37; HQ7 = 39).
M22 M23 Carex acutiformis OV26 M27 S26 M13 MG9 W5
S28 S7 S5 S4 HQ6 (n = 37) M25 HQ7 (n = 39) NVC community M6 M10-related MG1 W1 OV24 S27 S24 S22 M24 MG10 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 No. of sites
Of the more commonly encountered NVC communities, M22 sites were more frequently entered into the HQ6 maintenance option. M22 can be a very species-rich community and perhaps more likely to be assessed visually as in good condition at the outset. Of the four M13 stands, which are also typically species-rich – three were under the HQ6 maintenance option. For M23, however, which is a more heterogeneous community, encompassing species rich and more species poor stands (particularly in the case of M23b) more M23 sites were under HQ7 (7 sites) than HQ6 (3 sites).
The Carex acutiformis-dominated vegetation recorded in this survey had a tendency towards tall, rank and species-poor stands and it is no surprise that most sites with this
Page 74
vegetation were entered into HQ7 (seven of eight sites). Sites that we assigned to OV26 – a heterogeneous group of samples including a wide range of tall-fens related to other mesotrophic fen types including M27, less species-rich variants of M22a and some Carex acutiformis-dominated vegetation – also showed a greater tendency to be put into HQ7.
All three sites assigned to W5, which were recent clearance sites now supporting vegetation characterised by abundant Carex paniculata, were also assigned to HQ7 restoration option.
Perhaps more revealing is the number of sites assigned to each NVC community that were assessed as in good condition (i.e. condition A) or in poorer condition (B and C) – see Figure 15. Figure 15 shows the number of sites assigned to each NVC community that were assessed as in good condition (i.e. condition A) or in poorer condition (B and C) for each fen management option.
Figure 15. The number of sites in each NVC community to be assessed as condition A (all attributes passed), condition B (1 attribute failed) or condition C (two or more attributes failed or site failed to support sufficient positive fen indicator species).
M22 M23 Carex acuti OV26 M27 S26 M13 W5 MG9 S28 S5 Condition A S7 Condition B M25 M6 Condition C M10-related MG1 W1 OV24 S27 S24 S22 M24 MG10
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
The majority of the 11 M22 fen-meadow sites were in good condition, with just one site in categories B and C, respectively. M23 rush-pasture was also mostly in good condition with
Page 75
eight of 10 sites in class A. Whilst there were more M22 sites, proportionally under HQ6 than HQ7 (Figure 16), good condition stands of this community were found under both options. M23 had greater representation in HQ7 and good condition stands were also more frequent in HQ7.
There are other examples of choice of option, HQ6 or HQ7, not being a reliable predictor of whether a site passes or fails the condition assessment. This could reflect either sites having improved in condition through management since entering HLS, or the reverse for HQ6 sites failing, or could reflect differences in the tolerances of the initial condition assessments carried out when advisors allocated an option to the site.
Figure 16. The number of sites in each NVC community to be assessed as condition A (all attributes passed), condition B (1 attribute failed) or condition C (two or more attributes failed or site failed to support sufficient positive fen indicator species) under option HQ6 (left panel) and HQ7 (right panel).
Condition A Condition B Condition C Condition A Condition B Condition C
M6 M6 M10-related M10-related M13 M13 M22 M22 M23 M23 M24 M24 M25 M25 M27 M27 S5 S5 S7 S7 Carex acuti Carex acuti S22 S22 S24 S24 S26 S26 S27 S27 S28 S28 OV26 OV26 OV24 OV24 W5 W5 W1 W1 MG1 MG1 MG9 MG9 MG10 MG10 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 No. sites in HQ6 No. sites in HQ7
Page 76
6 Progress against Indicators of Success
6.1 The proportion of the sample meeting their HLS indicators of success The indicators of success applied to sites under options HQ6 and HQ7 can be divided into nine broad attribute categories: SSSI condition, wetness, vegetation height, habitat structure, desirable species, key species cover, undesirable species, scrub, other feature specific, HQ11 wetland cutting indicators, and HQ12 wetland grazing indicators (Figure 18). There were several, sometimes many, different indicator of success targets that fell within each of these broad categories and these are shown in Appendix 5 with an indication of the number of sites that had each indicator set in Part 3 of their HLS agreement. Due to the large numbers of individual targets, the IoS data has been analysed to broad attribute category only.
As stated earlier, the fen sample in this study included sites at various stages in their HLS lifespan with some sites being new or recent entrants to HLS and others of several years’ standing. Sites under HQ7 in particular will require longer to meet their IoS as their starting point is likely to have been that of a poorer condition stand. The analyses presented here are therefore not indicative of whether sites are failing per se but are indicative of how IoS have been applied and where the sample is in relation to target condition.
All of the 36 sample sites assessed that were wholly or partly within SSSIs were given the IoS of meeting favourable or unfavourable recovering condition.
The majority of the whole sample was given an IoS relating to wetness (Figure 18), with 95% of sites being provided with one or more of five different targets to meet. The most frequent of these (88%, see Appendix 5) was simply to achieve surface wetness underfoot but in some sites more specific targets included having at least one flood event per year (11%) or having surface water over a given area (16% of sites).
The majority of sites also had indicators set for the frequency of desirable fen species (88%), although the species varied between agreements from specific named species to those that referred loosely to Table 18 on age 151 of the HLS FEP Handbook. Cover of scrub (77% of sites) and cover of undesirable species (64% of sites) were also frequently used as indicators, although again these varied with % cover (for scrub) or the species concerned (for undesirable species). Half the sites were set targets on the height structure of the habitat but few sites were assigned any other habitat structure targets such as cover of exposed substrate or cover of litter (just 12 sites – 16%). Most sites that additionally had HQ11 wetland cutting or HQ12 wetland grazing supplements also had additional indicators of success relating specifically to these supplements (9 of the 11 HQ11 option sites, and 37 of the 42 HQ12 option sites, respectively.
Page 77
Figure 17. The percentage of the total sample (n = 74) to have an indicator of success in each broad category assigned to it in Part 3 of the HLS agreement.
SSSI condition (n = 36) Wetness Vegetation height Habitat structure Desirable species frequency Key species cover Undesirable species cover Scrub cover/structure Other feature specific indicators HQ11 wetland cutting indicators (n = 11) HQ12 wetland grazing indicators (n = 42)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Figure 18. The total number of sites to have each indicator of success listed (broad wording) included in Part 3 of the HLS agreement, indicating the number of sites within that sample to fail or pass the indicator set.
Total no. sites to fail ≥ 1 SSSI condition (n = 36) Wetness Vegetation height Habitat structure Desirable species frequency Key species cover Fail Undesirable species cover Pass Scrub cover/structure Other feature specific indicators HQ11 wetland cutting indicators (n = 11) HQ12 wetland grazing indicators (n = 42)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 No. sites out of total sample (n = 74 except where stated)
Of the 74 sites, 23 passed all indicators of success set. The remaining 51 sites failed one or more of the indicators (Figure 18). Whilst most sites were set a target for wetness, very few
Page 78
sites within this 2014 assessment were judged to have failed to meet this indicator (9 of 68 sites, or 13.2%). As discussed in the condition assessment results, relatively few sites were failed on water management (9 in total, as with the condition assessment), despite many being quite dry, due to the climatic conditions experienced during the survey period in 2014. Hence despite being dry sites were not failed on this attribute if the vegetation community present was strongly indicative of wetland habitat that would normally be waterlogged. Only sites supporting communities that implied more prolonged dryness were failed. It could not be determined whether sites met the target of ‘The surface should receive at least one flood per year’.
Whilst the indicator of success failed most frequently related to frequency of desirable species (Figure 18), it was also one of the indicators that was used the most. Of 63 sites set a target for this attribute, 21 (one third) failed to meet it (Figure 19). The second most frequent failure was on vegetation height. 29 of the 36 sites set a target for vegetation height, being given the target that ‘[By year 3 or 5], the vegetation should be, on average, less than knee-high’ and 19 of these sites (53%) failed.
The overall success of sites against their IoS targets is best demonstrated by considering the relative proportions of sites that were set an individual (broad category) target and then subsequently failed to meet it. Figure 19 shows that the attribute of vegetation height had the highest percentage failure rate (54% of sites), followed by HQ12 indicators (these were mostly in relation to specific mosaics of vegetation height (40%), key species cover (36%), and then desirable species frequency (32%). A quarter of sites failed on scrub cover and a fifth on cover of undesirable species.
Figure 19. The percentage of sites to be set an indicator within each broad category to fail to meet the target.
Total no. sites to fail ≥ 1 SSSI condition (n = 36) Wetness Vegetation height Habitat structure Desirable species frequency Key species cover Undesirable species cover Scrub cover/structure Other feature specific indicators HQ11 wetland cutting indicators (n = 11) HQ12 wetland grazing indicators (n = 42)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Page 79
6.2 Indicators of success in relation to their fen management option – HQ6 (maintenance) and HQ7 (restoration) of fen Far fewer sites under HQ7 restoration of fen option passed all indicators of success (18%) than sites under HQ6 maintenance option (Figure 20, left). HQ6 sites were not only more likely to pass but also more likely to fail on only one attribute (Figure 20, right), whereas HQ7 option sites had many sites that failed two or three attributes and several site failing more than this.
Figure 20. The percentage of sites under each fen management option (HQ6 and HQ7) that (left) passed all indicators of success, or failed one (centre); or more than one (right) individual attribute targets.
70%
60%
50%
40% HQ6 30% HQ7
20%
10%
0% Passed Failed 1 IoS Failed >1 IoS
6.3 The relationship between the condition assessment and the indicators of success. Whilst 20 sites that passed the CSM condition assessment also passed all indicators of success, a further 16 sites passed the condition assessment but failed on one or more indicators of success (Table 8). Conversely, whilst 33 sites failed the condition assessment and at least one indicator of success, a further five sites that had failed the condition assessment passed all their indicators of success. This either indicates that the indicators of success have a tendency towards more stringency in their attributes and targets than the HLS generic condition assessment, or that the IoS address some issues that are not measured in the CSM assessment. The IoS are certainly intended to be more site-specific and should cover more individualised attributes and targets than a generic CSM can cover. However, the fact that 53 sites in total of the 74 (71.6%) either passed both or failed both assessments demonstrates a good measure of agreement in the attributes and targets used by both.
Page 80
Table 8. The number of sites to pass or fail each of the methods used to assess site condition and management.
IoS pass IoS fail Total CSM pass 20 16 36 CSM fail 5 33 38 Total 25 49 74
All the five sites that failed a condition assessment but passed all their IoS were in HQ6 (all swamp communities: NVC communities S5, S7, S26, S26a, S27), whilst of the 16 sites that passed the condition assessment and all their IoS, 7 were under HQ6 (mostly mire communities: NVC two M22a, and one each of M23a, M25a, M27c plus swamps S7 and a Carex acutiformis community) and 9 under HQ7 option (again mostly mire communities: two M22a, five M23a plus swamp S27 and cleared W5 woodland).
Page 81
7 Management of sites
7.1 Grazing management Whilst only 43 sites had the HQ12 grazing supplement and a further site had HR2 ‘grazing supplement for native breeds at risk’ supplement, a total of 52 sites were subject to some form of grazing management (Table 9). Cattle grazing alone was used on 38 sites, and on a further five sites cattle were used in combination with sheep (three sites) or ponies (two sites) – 43 sites in total. Sheep grazing was much less frequently encountered with only 10 sites in total – five as sheep alone, three in combination with cattle, two in combination with ponies and in combination with goats at one site. A single site was part of a managed deer park. A further site was grazed by a herd of 15 water buffaloes which hard graze the fen for one week per year. Twenty-one sites were not under grazing management.
Table 9. The number of sites under grazing management indicating the type and combination of stock animal used.
Main grazing animal Supplementary grazing animal Cattle Sheep Water Deer Buffalo (managed) + Cattle 38 *3 + Sheep *3 5 + Ponies 2 1 + Goats 0 1 + Water Buffalo 0 1 1 + Managed deer 0 1 1 Total sites for grazing animal 43 10 1 1 *duplicated value
Of the 42 sites receiving the HQ12 wetland grazing supplement, one site had only recently entered HLS (in January 2014) and had not yet implemented grazing management, and a further two sites were only grazed ‘sometimes’ .
7.2 Cutting management and weed control Whilst only 10 sites were receiving payments under HQ11 wetland cutting supplement, a total of 20 sites (Table 10) were under some form of ongoing regular cutting management with an additional five that had been hay-cut or topped in the past but were not cutting on a regular basis.
Five sites with the supplement HQ11 were not currently under any cutting regime. All of these sites were assessed as in condition assessment class C, i.e. failed, with the exception of one site that was in class B. Of the remaining sites under HQ11, one was cut on a 3-year rotation but was in class C and two sites, which were in very good condition (class A), were cut annually – either all or part of the site. One of these sites was also grazed.
Page 82
Table 10. The number of sites under cutting management indicating the frequency of cutting.
Frequency Cutting management Annually Periodically Formerly Hay-cut 3 1 2 Topped 10 5 3 Sections topped 2 Total sites 15 6 5
Four sites were regularly cut for hay or silage. Fifteen sites were topped – mostly to control rushes or as weed control (Cirsium spp., Rumex spp., Senecio spp.). One site was cut specifically to control regenerating scrub. Of the fifteen, five were not topped annually but periodically as required. Two sites were topped in sections on rotation to manage Carex spp. or Phragmites. Fifteen of the sites that were topped were also grazed.
7.3 Scrub management Twenty-four sites (Table 11) had recently had trees or shrubs removed, cut back or coppiced – many, but not all of these had received payments through capital works to undertake scrub management and achieve a reduction in cover, as only 13 sites of the 74 received money for scrub control/management. Managers of four sites indicated that scrub control was being achieved through the grazing and/or cutting management already in place – such as at site 34 where invasive Alnus is controlled by grazing cattle. Two sites were planning scrub control in the near future. This results in a total of 30 sites where scrub management is actively considered and/or being delivered by site managers and 43 sites where no scrub management is being carried out.
Table 11. The number of sites under scrub management
Scrub management Sites Controlled by grazing/cutting management 4 Targeted scrub removal/coppicing 24 Scrub reduction to be carried out shortly 2 Unknown 1 No scrub management 43
In the common standards monitoring condition assessment 18 sites failed on percentage cover of woody species; eight of these were not receiving scrub management. Of the 57 sites set a ‘scrub-cover’ indicator of success target, 15 failed to meet their target; of these, six were not receiving scrub management (five of which also failed the condition assessment).
Page 83
7.4 Water management Only 18 of the 74 sites appeared to have active water management with the most frequent activity being recent ditch/dyke clearance (eight sites). One site had blocked up a ditch to raise water levels and increase wetness. One site had a pond re-profiled and another had several scrapes dug. Two sites were managed to ensure annual flooding. Two (condition A) sites had culverts installed recently: it may be advisable to monitor the effect on the hydrology of the fen habitat in these sites. Seven of the 18 sites had received capital works payments for water management activity.
Of the nine sites that failed to meet the water management indicator of success target, none were actively carrying out water management on their site. This doesn’t necessarily indicate poor management though – as water management is often not wholly in the control of the land manager (e.g. sites subject to seasonal floods, river levels upstream, neighbours ditch management etc.).
7.5 Other management Other management activities carried out included new fences, restoration of fences, restoration of stone walls and installation of field gates – all for grazing management; tree planting at two sites; installation of dipwells; tree surgery (pollarding, limb removal etc.); and pond and scrape creation.
7.6 Capital works Forty-three sites (58%) received payments for capital works items: 21 of these received payments to install or restore boundary fences to facilitate grazing (including one site restoring its stone wall). Twelve sites received payments for scrub control with a further three sites paid for tree or scrub removal, one for coppicing and four for tree surgery; in total 20 sites received payments for some form of management of woody species/scrub. Fencing and scrub control were therefore the most frequent capital works items.
Payments for water management infrastructure (ditches restoration, 5 sites; water penning, 2 sites; culverts, sluice gates, 3 sites) were made to a total of 10 sites within the sample and a further 3 sample sites involved payments for creation of temporary ponds.
Page 84
Table 12. The number of sites receiving payments for each of 19 different capital works items.
Capital works item No. sites Fencing boundaries 20 Scrub control/management 12 Timber field/river gates 8 Ditch, dyke and rhine restoration 5 Professional fees for implementation plan 4 Tree surgery 4 Temporary pond creation 3 Tree/scrub removal 3 Water penning 2 Timber sluice gate 2 Coppicing 1 Livestock handling facilities 1 Removal of eyesore 1 Stone wall restoration 1 Culverts 1 Timber stile 1 Footbridge 1 Special projects (dipwells) 1 Tree planting 1
7.7 Site condition in relation to cutting and grazing management A higher proportion of sites that were under grazing management were assessed as being in good condition (class A) than those in either condition class B or C, or these two classes combined (Table 13, Figure 21).
Table 13. The number of sites in each condition class to be managed by grazing and/or cutting, under management for scrub control only, or are unmanaged.
Condition Grazed only Grazed+Cut Cut only Scrub only Unmanaged Unknown Total A 26 7 3 1 0 0 37 B 8 3 0 3 0 1 15 C 6 2 4 4 6 0 22 Of the 26 grazed sites in condition A, 24 were grazed by cattle or cattle plus one or more other grazing animals (see 7.1).
Sites that have some form of cutting management were fairly evenly spread across favourable and unfavourable sites. However, sites with no grazing or cutting management were largely in unfavourable condition. Only one site in condition class A only had scrub control as a form of management, whilst poorer condition sites included seven with just scrub management and six that were not managed at all. Although not the only factor in site condition, this does point towards lack of cutting or grazing management as deleterious to the condition of a site.
Page 85
Figure 21. The relationship between site condition and cutting and grazing management
30
25
20 Grazed only Grazed+Cut
15 Cut only Scrub only Unmanaged 10 Unknown
5
0 Favourable (A) Unfavourable (B + C)
Page 86
8 Discussion – an assessment of the targeting and delivery of fen options
8.1 The aim of the fen options of the HLS scheme Higher Level Stewardship (HLS) aimed to deliver significant environmental benefits in priority areas with Natural’s England’s highest priority given to the maintenance of existing high-quality sites, followed by restoration then creation: this project was concerned with the first two of these – maintenance and restoration.
Under HLS, the HQ6 maintenance option should be applied to land parcels that support fen features that are already in good condition, as identified in the Farm Environment Plan (FEP) or site visits by the NE advisor. The aim of HQ6 is therefore to maintain existing good quality habitat, but there is also scope within HQ6 management to enhance environmental features.
Typical wording within part 3 of the HLS agreement under General description of the management required is as follows:
This option is targeted at maintaining areas of fen that are typically dominated by rushes, sedges and wetland grasses. Through the continuation of appropriate management this option retains and/or increases botanical diversity. This option will also help protect archaeological sites, particularly organic remains. In addition it may, in the right situation, provide an area of flood storage and benefits to flood risk management. Where mowing and/or grazing is appropriate supplements HQ11 & HQ12 are available.
The HQ7 option should be applied where a FEP/NE advisor has identified that fen features are present, but not in a good condition: here a restoration option is appropriate with more pro-active or interventionist management prescriptions. Restoration options should only be applied to sites that have the potential to support better condition fen in terms of soil variables, site hydrology, and realistic commitments from the farmer/land-manager to improved management.
Very similar wording is generally found in part 3 of the HLS agreement under the General description of the management required, with the main difference being in the sentence:
This item is targeted at restoring areas of fen typically dominated by rushes, sedges and wetland grasses that are in poor condition. Restoration management will restore and enhance the botanical diversity of the site.
HQ11 and HQ12 (wetland cutting and wetland grazing) supplements are available, where appropriate, to both HQ6 and HQ7 parcels.
The HQ11 supplement supports a cutting regime where it is considered the most appropriate form of management for the fen habitat present at a site and management
Page 87
prescriptions in the HLS agreement are individually tailored to each site in relation to proportion of the habitat cut and the frequency of cutting.
The HQ12 supplement is used to support a grazing regime where it is considered the most appropriate form of management for the fen habitat present at a site and management prescriptions in the HLS agreement are individually tailored to each site in relation to stocking rate (LU/ha), the area to be grazed and the timing of the grazing period. Sometimes the stock animal is additionally specified.
Under HLS, sites under options HQ6 maintenance of fen and HQ7 restoration of fen are given site-specific management prescriptions and indicators of success. Indicators of success are attributes and targets that enable the NE advisor and the land owner/manager to measure progress towards achieving the desired end result, i.e. good condition fen.
8.2 The monetary value of HLS fen option payments Land parcels under both the HQ6 and HQ7 options receive payments of £60 per ha. As a comparison, species-rich grassland features receive payments of £200 per ha for both the HK6 maintenance and the HK7 restoration options – considerably more. However, a commitment to cutting or grazing of fens attracts higher reward: the HQ11 and HQ12 wetland supplements receive £350 and £200 per ha, respectively, which is more than the cutting and/or grazing supplements available to HK grassland sites. HR1 grazing supplement for cattle, for example (also available to HQ6/7 sites), attracts up to £35 per ha whilst the HK18 hay-making supplements attracts £75 per ha. In short, the financial return on a fen site under HLS under HQ6 or HQ7 options only is likely to be lower than that for a grassland site: however, with a commitment to cutting or grazing the return on a fen site is likely to be greater than that of a grassland site under a similar commitment.
8.3 The FEP definition of fen habitat and the relationship with the fen sample
8.3.1 FEP fen habitat definition
To recap, in broad terms a fen is a wetland that receives its water supply from groundwater and/or surface water (soligenous and/or topogenous) in addition to rainwater, rather than rainwater alone (ombrogenous). This distinguishes them from other wetland habitats such as blanket bogs and lowland raised bogs in which the water supply is entirely from rainwater.
The FEP handbook technical guidance on Fens (W04 – Fens – BAP habitat) is very broad in its description of the fen habitat, with no separation of the different fen community types; unlike the grassland habitats, which are subdivided into many separate BAP priority habitat types according to soil pH, elevation (lowland/upland), and vegetation community type (G01–G010). Consequently, fens dominated by tall Carex species (NVC swamp
Page 88
communities); tall-herb fens; fen-meadows; short-sedge fens; and fen woodlands are all considered under one umbrella term and FEP category. Eligibility criteria for fen hydrology and fen vegetation can be found on p.150 of the latest 2010 handbook, and for brevity won’t be repeated here: however, there are grey areas within this. FEP guidance (p.152) states:
Areas of grassland dominated by rushes should not be recorded as fen.
This could exclude stands of M6c/d, M13, M22, M23, M24 and some stands of M25: these are flushes, alkaline fens, fen meadows and purple moor-grass and rush pasture stands, which can all be rush-dominated but otherwise meet the definition of fens in terms of hydrology and botanical composition. This ambiguity is acknowledged in the FEP handbook, but not really addressed. Purple moor-grass and rush pastures are frequently included in grassland (HK) options under HLS.
Vegetation with cover of over 60% common reed should be recorded as W08 – Reedbeds – BAP habitat.
S4 Phragmites australis swamp and reed-bed is characteristic of open-water transitions and flood plain mires: the vegetation is typically overwhelmingly-dominated by Phragmites and very species-poor. This is not necessarily the case for S24 Phragmites australis–Peucedanum palustre tall-herb fen, S25 Phragmites australis–Eupatorium cannabinum tall-herb fen and S26 Phragmites australis–Urtica dioica fen where Phragmites may be constant but not always dominant, and where tall-herbaceous dicotyledons play a greater role. S24 occupies fen peats, S25 mineral or organic soils – both irrigated by base-rich, calcareous waters. Both communities can be relatively species-rich. The more species-poor S26 is more characteristic of eutrophic soils. The decision to place these communities in reedbed options rather than fen options will affect the management prescriptions (e.g. cutting regime) and the indicators of success under HLS, such as the target % cover of Phragmites, the desirable high-value plant species that are targeted and the % cover of open water that is requisite. A species-rich S24 fen may support many high-value species that would be ignored by reedbed indicators of success, and may fail on % cover of Phragmites (general target for reedbed is >70%) and cover of open water during the summer months; whereas, it may pass fen indicators on these same attributes. This highlights the need for tailored site-specific management prescriptions and indicators, based on sound knowledge of the site in question and the desired outcome.
The paucity of detail in the FEP guidance, coupled with some ambiguities in the habitats covered, can (and certainly has) led to discrepancies in the types of vegetation communities assigned to fen options.
See below for a discussion of the NVC communities covered by the fen options in this study.
Page 89
8.3.2 The vegetation (NVC) communities present in the fen sample.
One of the primary objectives of the project was to determine the types of vegetation community that were being selected for management under the HLS fen management (HQ6) and restoration (HQ7) options to determine whether they met the FEP definition and eligibility criteria for fen. Given the ambiguities outlined above and the lack of detail in part 3 of the HLS agreement in relation to vegetation community type within the fen, surveyors were often not appraised of what vegetation type they were going to survey at each sample site.
The sample of 76 sites was found to include a broad range of NVC community types, as would be expected due to the range of different situations (in terms of geology, geography and hydrotopography) in which fens are operating. Twenty-three different NVC communities were recorded in the sample (more if sub-community level is considered) encompassing swamps, mires, wet woodlands and wet grasslands (not all of which were appropriately targeted as fens). Given the range of vegetation communities targeted by HLS fen options, the importance of careful tailoring of management prescriptions and indicators of success is highlighted as generic targets are unlikely to meet the conservation needs of, for example, both a tall-herb fen on a flood-plain and a short-sedge alkaline fen associated with a flush.
Not only was there much between-site heterogeneity, but there was much also within-site heterogeneity. The majority of land parcels surveyed had complex habitat mosaics including not only mire and swamp communities but also dry grasslands, woodlands and ponds, occurring in relation to variations in hydrology, topography and management history. This is to be expected particularly in flush systems where fen vegetation develops at the junction of freely-draining and drainage-impeded strata, and where there are typically mosaics of fen and dry grassland with very small areas of any one fen community within the surveyed area.
As far as setting up the monitoring survey was concerned, where such mosaics were present, it was frequently impossible to position five quadrats in uniform stands of vegetation and consequently difficult to assign these heterogeneous stands to a single NVC community using the data collected. In these cases, determination of the principal NVC communities present from the quadrat data could be highly misleading. Analyses of quadrat data using MATCH resulted in quite low similarity coefficient results (< 40%) in the MATCH analysis for some sites and a wide range of potential NVC diagnoses. The analyses were further affected by the invasion of sites by species such as Carex acutiformis and Deschampsia cespitosa, which have the potential to become dominant where grazing or cutting management had been relaxed.
At all sites, however, an NVC community, or where possible a sub-community type, was assigned to the principal vegetation community. A total of 34 NVC syntaxa were identified as principal communities. An additional syntaxon, Carex acutiformis-dominated vegetation
Page 90
was created to accommodate vegetation dominated by Carex acutiformis that did not correspond to S7 Carex acutiformis swamp or any other NVC syntaxon.
The 76 sites surveyed for NVC community were as follows:
Mire communities (sensu Rodwell, 1991) were the principal vegetation type at 35 sites (M6, M13, M22, M23, M24, M25, M27).
Tall-sedge/grass swamp communities (sensu Rodwell, 2000) were recorded at 13 sites (S5, S7, S7-related).
Tall-herb fen communities (sensu Rodwell, 2000) with high cover of large wetland reed-grasses Phragmites australis and/or Phalaris arundinacea were recorded at 7 sites (S24, S26, S28). Three of these have Phragmites cover >60% and are not eligible for fen options.
Open water transition or margin sites were represented by a one S27 Carex rostrata basin-fen and one S22 Glyceria fluitans stand.
OV tall herb vegetation (vegetation of open habitats, sensu Rodwell, 2000) dominated by Epilobium hirsutum, Urtica dioica or Equisetum telmateia was recorded at 7 sites (OV24, OV26).
Stands of cleared woodland (W5) were recorded at 3 sites.
Willow-carr (W1) was recorded at 1 site.
2 sites were (S4) reed-beds and not eligible for fen options.
1 site was an upland (350 m a.s.l.) base-rich flush (M10-related); whilst a second was a base-poor upland flush (M6): upland sites are not usually targeted by HQ options.
The remaining 5 sites were mesotrophic grassland and also not eligible for fen options (MG1, MG9, MG10).
These broad habitat distinctions were supported by the initial DCA analysis.
A 77th site was found to comprise a series of lagoons and a reedbed creation area.
8.4 The appropriateness of fen option targeting in relation to vegetation community All principal stands surveyed, were assessed not only for their NVC community, but also for their eligibility for inclusion within HLS fen options, using the definition of W04 Fen BAP habitat as defined in the HLS FEP handbook.
Page 91
Of the 77 sites visited by the survey team and assessed for its NVC community and appropriateness for inclusion under HLS fen maintenance and/or restoration option, one (1.3% of the sample) HQ6 site visited (site 14) was found to be a series of lagoons with a reedbed creation area for filtering waste-water (from cider production). Whilst the site had an interesting and no doubt valuable habitat creation project underway, it was unsuitable for a fen maintenance or restoration option and removed from the sample. Part of the site was potentially suitable for the HQ5 reedbed creation option.
Two sites were Phragmites australis-dominated reedbeds in, or on the margins of, permanent waterbodies (sites 41, 77: NVC community S4) and did not meet the eligibility criteria for W04 fens. These sites were FEP W08 reedbeds BAP habitat and as such were eliminated from the sample set. There were three further Phragmites australis-dominated fens (S26 sites 9 & 20; S24 site 67) where Phragmites australis had a cover of >60%. It is a moot point as to whether these stands are reedbeds or tall-herb fens (as discussed in 10.3.1) but under the FEP technical guidance these stands should also be recorded as W08 reedbeds, and therefore more appropriately targeted under HLS reedbed options HQ3 or HQ4. (Although it should be noted that stand 67 also had a small area of alkaline fen, S2 Cladium mariscus fen, in one area.) These five Phragmites stands represent 6.6% of the sample of 76 stands. Under HLS HQ3 reedbed options attract the same payment (£60/ha) as the fen options, and are also eligible for HQ11/12 supplements (see 10.2). Mandatory management for reedbeds is more prescriptive than fens with additional requirements of reed cutting, open water provision and ditch, foot-drain and bank management.
Stand 76 also supported a central belt of Phragmites australis-dominated reedbed, with a stand of wet mesotrophic grassland on higher ground above. These stands were closest to S4/S26 for the reedbed and MG1 for the grassland. Whilst a survey was carried out of the wet grassland stand, neither stand met the eligibility criteria for W04 fens and the parcel should be included under reedbed and wet grassland options (HQ3 and HK7 or HK16).
Phragmites australis was a major component of the vegetation in a further two stands (sites 55 and 86) but was not dominant and was <60% cover. These stands met the eligibility criteria for W04 fens and were therefore appropriately targeted from that perspective. However, one of these sites (86) was a SSSI being managed for its avian fauna (reed, sedge and Cetti’s warblers, bearded reedling, for which it was designated) and management practices agreed with the NE advisor were unlikely to achieve the aims of HQ6.
Swamps dominated by other aquatic grasses, e.g. Glyceria maxima, G. fluitans and Phalaris arundinacea were poorly represented in the survey with just five sites (S5, sites 25, 85; S22, site 37; S28, sites 11, 70), but these were appropriately targeted.
A total of 25 sites (32.5%) were dominated by tall-herb and sedge species (Filipendula ulmaria, Epilobium hirsutum, Equisetum telmateia, Carex acutiformis, Carex riparia). These included stands of S7, OV26, M27 and other vegetation dominated by Carex acutiformis.
Page 92
The majority of these stand types were poorly differentiated from each other both in the field and by subsequent DCA analysis. Match coefficients were also low in most cases. While some of this poor definition was due to site heterogeneity, it is also possible that the treatment of some of these tall-herb and sedge communities in the NVC is insufficiently comprehensive. The most frequent dominant species in these fens was Carex acutiformis, frequently forming dense, species-poor stands. In only two sites however did these stands correspond well with S7 Carex acutiformis swamp, either by reference to the published account or in MATCH analysis. This species in particular appears to show great ability to invade other wetland vegetation with any relaxation of grazing or cutting management, and it may be that many of these sites are actually successional communities. However, all 25 stands were appropriately targeted under options HQ6/7, meeting the W04 eligibility criteria.
Three woodland sites were secondary W5 Alnus glutinosa and Salix spp.-dominated woodlands being managed for restoration to fen, and inclusion in the HQ7 option was appropriate. It is likely that these woodland sites will develop into stands of S3 Carex paniculata swamp with continued suitable management. A fourth site, a small parcel of willow-carr (63) with a poor fit to any NVC community, but closest to W1, was poorly targeted under HQ6.
Vegetation dominated by Juncus species can be assigned to several habitat types within the context of agri-environment schemes. Where Juncus spp. have become prominent within poorly-drained pasture, the vegetation is usually species-poor with a high cover of grasses including Holcus lanatus, Agrostis stolonifera and the tussock-forming Deschampsia cespitosa and few of the typical fen indicator species. Three sites surveyed here had MG10 (61) and MG9 (47, 68) grasslands typical of these situations. A further site (12) was a stand of former MG4 grassland in which Filipendula ulmaria, Deschampsia cespitosa and other tall-growing species had become dominant: this stand was part of a series of formerly, traditionally managed flood-meadows of considerable conservation importance that are slowly being brought back into suitable management. While such stands can be restored to vegetation of higher conservation value, they would be more appropriately included within one of the HLS grassland (HK6, HK7) options: together these stands represent another 5.3% of the sample that was poorly targeted.
The separation between purple moor-grass and rush pasture (PMGRP) and fen is harder to define, and as discussed earlier, a persuasive case could be made for considering many PMGRP stands as fen. Conversely, many of the fen stands surveyed here could equally be considered as grasslands within HLS. This difficulty is acknowledged in the FEP handbook. These ambiguities relate principally to the NVC communities M22, M23, M24 and M25 (and to a lesser extent M13) where the vegetation is dominated by a variable mixture of Juncus effusus, Juncus inflexus, Juncus subnodulosus, Juncus acutiflorus, Juncus articulatus and Molinia caerulea. These communities were the most widely represented in this survey (27
Page 93
sites; 35.5% of the sample). PMGRP is typically found in localities with a groundwater or surface-water fed fen hydrology and the list of indicator species in the FEP handbook has a substantial overlap with that for fens. The principal differentiating characteristic of PMGRP given in the FEP manual is that it should have a higher proportion of grasses than fen, and that it should have a history of grazing management. These characteristics are however poorly defined with the result that many of the vegetation stands surveyed here as fen could equally have been entered into HLS as grassland. Conversely, some sites in HLS agreements with PMGRP as feature might potentially have been eligible for fen options. Option-type may be determined by financial gain within these ambiguous stands. Within rush-dominated stands, there was a high take-up of HQ11 and HQ12 supplements. Of the 27 M13, M22, M23, M24 and M25 stands, 23 (85.2%) had an HQ11/HQ12 supplement, with most (21 parcels, 77.7%) under HQ12 grazing supplement. From the perspective of the agreement holder, HQ6/7 plus HQ11/12 may well be more lucrative than a grassland HK6/7 option, even with the addition to HK6/7 of HR1 cattle-grazing supplement (see section 10.2). This potentially greater financial benefit could be very important in PMGRP wetland sites that are often harder to manage than dry grasslands; although it should be noted there are other supplements that may apply to HK grassland and HQ fen sites (e.g. HR2 Native breeds at risk grazing supplement – up to £70/ha; HR7 supplement for difficult sites – £50/ha) so a direct comparison is difficult.
The differences in the management prescriptions between HK6/7 and HQ6/7 are difficult to assess as management prescriptions are tailored and different for each site. However, the following are provided in the HLS guidance.
HK6 and HK7 grassland options management must include:
grazing and/or cutting for hay; no ploughing, re-seeding, or installation of new drainage; and no heavy poaching.
HK6 and HK7 indicators of success will include a different suite of desirable high-value species, and will often include thresholds for soil phosphorus levels.
HQ6 and HQ7 fen options management must include:
maintaining water control structures in good working order; and maintaining fens in an open condition with just a few scattered trees or shrubs.
The indicators of success for fen options HQ6 and HQ7 will include fen species in the desirable high-value species list.
Page 94
The selection of fen versus grassland options for PMGRP stands may therefore have reflected financial considerations, management constraints or simply the habitat definition of the FEP surveyor.
In future agri-environment schemes where management regimes might be more prescriptive, a better definition of fen and grassland should be proposed. It would be preferable to separate wet grassland from fen on hydrological characteristics. Fens could be defined as sites with a water table at or near the surface for most of the year, with water derived from ground or surface sources. Alternatively fens could be defined in NVC terms, with all lowland stands of M13, M22, M23, M24 and M25 considered as fens, while stands of MG9 and MG10 dominated by invasive, tussocky Juncus spp. and Deschampsia cespitosa, and seasonally inundated grasslands including MG8, MG11 and MG13 regarded as grassland. The high-value species present on the site will also point to the most appropriate option to choose.
Base-rich fens dominated by bryophytes were under-represented in this survey. Four stands of M13 were recorded in Norfolk. The M13 stands included the most species-rich vegetation recorded in the survey, with several uncommon species such as Parnassia palustris, Pinguicula vulgaris and Epipactis palustris. These sites are characterised by their position on slopes flushed by highly calcareous groundwater. No stands of M9 or M10 were sampled. This is probably a reflection of their geographical restriction in the lowlands of England and the small size of most examples. However, an upland (c. 350 m a.s.l. stand of a base-rich small-sedge mire was recorded, which does not conform to any NVC community and has been labelled M10-related. This community falls within M08 – upland flushes, fens and swamp and would not normally be targeted by HQ options. This stand was, in part, species-rich and of high conservation value.
A further subset of fen vegetation was undersampled. Sometimes referred to as “poor-fen”, valley mires, flushes and soakways fed by water poor in macro-nutrients include the NVC communities M4, M6, M21 and M29, usually found in association with larger complexes of mire and heathland and are rarely encountered in isolation. In the context of HLS, these heath and mire complexes are usually included in the M03 lowland heath option. Two stands of M6 were surveyed, one of which was on the fringes of a large moorland area but was at an elevation of only 200m and therefore still eligible for W04 and HQ options.
Table 14 summarises the information above with regard to poorly targeted habitats and stands.
Table 14. Summary of vegetation community stands recorded within the survey sample that were considered inappropriately targeted for any fen option, with a proportion of the total sample shown.
Appropriate Habitat poorly targeted n Total HLS option % of sample
Page 95
Lagoons & reedbed creation S4 reedbeds 6 HQ reedbed 7.8% S26 fens - Phragmites >60% options S24 fens - Phragmites >60% MG1 grassland MG9 grassland 5 HK grassland 6.5% MG10 rush-pasture options M10-related upland flush 1 ? 1.3% W1 woodland 1 ? 1.3% Totals 13 16.8%
8.5 Assessment of the current condition of sites under HLS options for HQ6 maintenance or HQ7 restoration of fen and the appropriateness of option targeting
8.5.1 A note on condition assessments of W04 fens
The condition of each site was initially assessed by comparing condition data collected in the field against the specific attributes and targets of the W04 Fens BAP habitat as listed in the HLS FEP Manual (2010). However, the condition assessment for W04 fens lacked a target for the attribute of positive indicator species. The list of indicator species provided in Table 18 of the FEP handbook proved to be only of limited use. The description of fen vegetation provided states that ‘typically you should find some of the following species’ (referring to Table 18). The list was found to be lacking positive indicator species for some fen community types, and it lacked a proposed frequency (or percentage cover). Simply having ‘some’ of the named species was not judged a sufficient measure of condition, so as a general rule favourable condition was deemed to be two frequent plus two occasional indicator species (as with grasslands) but this was by no means rigid and professional judgement was employed for communities that typically have lower species-richness or for those that should be more species-rich. Additionally, whilst it is accepted that all the species within the list in table 18 are wetland species found in fenland habitats, the relative abundance of some species may be considered favourable in one fen community but unfavourable in another. For example, Table 18 lists ‘sedges’. Sedges Carex acutiformis and Carex riparia, whilst indicative of swamp communities S6 and S7 and an important minor component of many other swamp and mire habitats, can be invasive when, for example, grazing or cutting management is relaxed or withdrawn and become overwhelmingly dominant. In this instance low cover of Carex acutiformis may be viewed as a positive whilst high cover may be viewed as a negative. To focus the condition assessment on the specific fen community encountered the attributes for different NVC types from the Lowland Wetlands CSM guidance literature was factored into the assessment of condition (JNCC, 2004: Tables 4, 5 & 6) as well as the surveyor’s professional judgement based on experience. Positive indicator species were on occasion added to the list for a given site, and the relative
Page 96
abundance of some of the more competitive/bulky species was taken into account. For M22, M23 and M24 existing rapid condition assessment forms were used (supplied by Natural England for previous grassland monitoring projects).
8.5.2 Condition of the fen sample
Overall, 51% of sites were in condition A – meeting the target for their NVC community type and W04 Fen as assessed by the common standards monitoring condition assessment; whilst 12% were in condition B (failing one attribute) and 37% were in condition C (failing 2 or more attributes, or supporting an insufficient number or frequency of high-value fen species).
The HQ6 option should be applied to sites that are already in good condition and require management to maintain the site in this condition. One might, therefore, predict that the sites in condition A would be HQ6 sites and those failing to meet good condition would be HQ7 sites for which the objective is to restore to good condition through sympathetic management. However, the evidence from the field survey is that only 63% of sites under HQ6 were in condition A, with the 51% of all sites (n = 74 sites CSM assessed) in good condition being divided between HQ6 (22 of 35 sites, 63%) and HQ7 (16 of 39 sites, 41%). The remaining sites in the sample, failing on one or more attribute, are therefore under both HLS options, HQ6 and HQ7.
As the earliest agreements in this sample date back to a 2007 start date, there was sufficient time for some HQ6 sites to have deteriorated in condition (although this should not occur if sites are targeted and managed appropriately), and sufficient time for some HQ7 sites to improve in condition. However, as already highlighted by the attribution of NVC to the vegetation communities found in the fen sample, there were several cases of sites being poorly targeted as fens where a reedbed or grassland option would have been more appropriate. With 37% of HQ6 sites in sub-optimal or poor condition it is apparent that some sites were also poorly targeted within the fen options available, i.e. sites targeted as HQ6 when they would have been better targeted as HQ7, or vice versa. This is explored below.
8.5.3 Condition of the HQ6 sample in relation to option targeting
Of the 22 sites passing the condition assessment in 2014 (condition A), 20 sites were considered to be correctly targeted under HQ6: they supported stands of a recognised fen community in good condition, under suitable ongoing management. There were no consistencies in the start date for the HLS agreements for this suite of sites; they commenced during the range 2007–2013 but most were initiated around 2010–2011, so sufficient time had elapsed in which these sites could have deteriorated if management had not been suitable.
Page 97
Of these same 22 sites, as discussed in section 10.4, one stand (site 67) did not conform to the eligibility criteria for W04 and would be more appropriately managed under the reedbed option (HQ3): when assessed as a Reedbed it was however in excellent condition. A second site (site 68) was quite poor wet grassland and would be better targeted at the HK7 grassland restoration option. It would not have passed the fen condition assessment.
Of the 20 condition A HQ6 sites, 17 had high cover of rushes (NVC types M13, M22, M23 and M24). As discussed in section 10.4, technically these stands may not meet the eligibility criteria for W04 fens but rather those for G07 PMGRP, in which case they would be eligible for the grassland option HK6. We believe, however, that they should be considered correctly targeted as fens as they meet the hydrological criteria and support sufficient high-value fen species and are better managed as fens than grassland: the eligibility criteria are inadequate here. Removal of these stands would result in a loss of 46% of the HQ6 sample and 23% of the entire fen sample.
One site in condition B was also considered correctly targeted by HQ6 (site 20) as it only failed narrowly on litter cover due to recent lack of grazing.
Of the remaining 12 HQ6 stands assessed as in poorer condition (condition B and C), nine were considered suitable for fen management but required restoration management instead (HQ7) or, for two rush-dominated stands, perhaps a grassland management option (HK7); a further two were definitely wet grassland and considered better targeted under grassland restoration management (HK7 or HK16); the last was a fragment of enclosed W1 wet woodland under no management and questionable whether it should have been in HLS management at all.
It is not possible to state categorically that the poorer condition stands in HQ6 were not in good condition at the start of HLS, and at that time were suitable for HQ6. The nine stands considered suitable for HQ7 entered HLS in 2008 (1 site), 2009 (1 site), 2010 (3 sites), 2011 (2 sites), 2012 (1 site) and 2013 (1 site). Sufficient time had certainly elapsed with those sites entering HLS in 2007–2010, but most of these sites failed the condition on multiple attributes and such a decline is considered unlikely, hence they probably required restoration management from the outset.
Finally, three HQ6 stands were not condition assessed as they supported reedbeds and/or lagoons (as discussed in 10.4).
In summary:
55% of HQ6 stands were considered correctly targeted; 24% of HQ6 stands were correctly targeted as fen but would have been more appropriate for restoration under HQ7; 18% of HQ6 stands did not meet the eligibility of criteria for W04 fen but would be suitable for other HLS options (HQ3, HQ4, HQ5; HK7 or HK16).
Page 98
3% of HQ6 stands were unmanaged wet woodland fragments and unsuitable for HLS
8.5.4 Condition of the HQ7 sample in relation to option targeting
Determining whether sites under HQ7 restoration management are correctly targeted is more complex. Twenty-three sites in HQ7 failed on one or more attribute in the condition assessment: six sites in condition B and 17 sites in condition C.
Of the 17 sites in condition C, 14 were considered to be correctly targeted by HQ7 as they met the fen eligibility criteria but were not representative of good quality stands: of these, only one was judged to be in wholly suitable management; three were part-way there having implemented changes but still lacking some elements of suitable management; and 10 were judged not to be under suitable management lacking either sufficient grazing, cutting or scrub control. Three of these 17 condition C sites were essentially considered unsuitable for fen management; of these two sites did not meet W04 fen eligibility criteria and would be more suitable for management under HQ3 and HK7, respectively. A third site (site 9) was considered to be too poor to offer much potential at all – being mostly composed of bracken stands with occasional damp depressions with rushes.
Six sites in HQ7 failed on one attribute only: woody species cover in the case of three, negative indicator cover for two and litter cover for a one. Three of these sites were under suitable fen management, whilst three needed to implement more pro-active management. These six sites are considered correctly targeted under HQ7.
Sixteen sites under HQ7 achieved condition A in the condition assessment and all met the eligibility criteria for fen (with the above proviso that rush-dominated stands are still considered as fen), although one stand was at 350 m a.s.l. and more correctly defined as M08 upland flushes, fens and swamps. We looked at whether these sites might have been in good enough condition at the outset of HLS to be included in HQ6 or whether HLS management had brought them into good condition and judged that at least two sites would comfortably have fitted within the HQ6 option at the outset of HLS. However, whilst it is potentially detrimental to a site to place it in a maintenance option when its condition is sub-optimal as the risk is that management may provide no further improvement, the same cannot be said of placing a good condition stand under a restoration option. At fifteen of the sixteen sites in HQ7 that were condition A additional management activity has been carried out since entering HLS such as scrub/tree removal or fencing, or implementation of a specific grazing regime. Just one site appeared to have made no changes to site management since entering HLS. As there is no financial incentive to the choice of HQ6 versus HQ7, and the HQ7 restoration option may result in a greater focus on applying suitable management, these good condition stands might not be considered wrongly targeted. There is still scope for further improvement in terms of botanical biodiversity, habitat structure or extent of feature at some sites already achieving ‘good condition’ in CSM assessments and this is more likely to be achieved by restoration management.
Page 99
In summary:
5% of HQ7 stands were probably suitable for HQ6 at the outset; 36% of HQ7 stands are now in good condition but were considered correctly targeted at the outset; 48% of HQ7 stands were fen in poorer condition and correctly targeted for HQ7 restoration; 8% of HQ7 stands did not meet the eligibility of criteria for W04 fen but would be suitable for other HLS options (HQ3, HQ4; HK7 or HK16). 3% of HQ7 stands were considered too poor to offer potential for fen restoration.
8.5.5 SSSI sites
A total of 37 stands within the sample fell within a SSSI unit, although only 36 were condition assessed. One reedbed site, representing 3% of the SSSI sample, was not condition assessed.
As might be expected, the proportion of sites in condition A was higher for sites within SSSI units, but was still only 58% (comprising 13 HQ6 sites and 8 HQ7 sites).
The designation of a site as a SSSI was not a predictor of the maintenance option being selected as there were roughly equal numbers of HQ6 and HQ7 SSSI sites, nor was it a predictor of condition. This reflects the fact that, nationally, not all SSSI sites are in favourable condition and therefore a restoration regime is often needed. Of the remaining stands, 16% failed on one attribute (condition B) and 25% failed on two or more, or supported insufficient high-value fen species.
Most (78%) stands in SSSI units were considered appropriately targeted. Two HQ6 stands were considered more suitable for HQ7 (5.4%) and one HQ7 stand would have met the criteria for HQ6 (2.7%). The remaining 14% did not meet the eligibility criteria for fens.
Nine (24%) SSSI stands were not yet in suitable management, whilst 8% were partly suitably managed.
8.5.6 Site condition in relation to NVC community type
With few replicates for each vegetation type (often only one or two sites per NVC community), it is difficult to draw any meaningful conclusions about condition in relation to vegetation type but with the more frequently encountered community types some observations can be made.
A greater proportion of M22 fen-meadow sites were put into HQ6 (seven of eleven), whilst more M23 fen-meadow/rush-pasture sites were put under HQ7 (seven of ten). However,
Page 100
both these community types had a high percentage of sites in good condition, whether under maintenance or restoration options (six of seven M22 sites and two of three M23 sites under HQ6 were in condition A; and three of four M22 sites and six of seven M23 sites under HQ7 were in condition A).
Most other vegetation community types – species-rich and species-poor – had both HQ6 and HQ7 options applied to them, which is perhaps the reason for the lack of significant difference in species-richness between sites under HQ6 and HQ7. However, more communities that could be described as transitional or undergoing change through management were assigned to HQ7, including the W5 sites (recently cleared W5 woodland), open-water transition communities S22 and OV26, and the community described here as ‘other Carex acutiformis-dominated vegetation’ in which C. acutiformis had invaded other fen communities.
Where sites failed to meet good condition, the main factor driving failure on HQ6 sites was lack of positive indicator species followed by cover of woody species and cover of negative indicators then cover of litter. For HQ7 sites frequency of positive indicators and cover of woody species were the most frequently failed attributes, followed by negative indicator species cover. This indicates that sites flagged up for restoration management suffer more from lack of scrub control and lack of weed control than those in maintenance options – very clear visual signals for advisors to pick a restoration option.
8.6 Progress against the Indicators of Success set for each agreement and an evaluation of the appropriateness of the indicators set.
8.6.1 Progress against indicators of success set
Within HLS agreements indicators of success are typically set to achieve a specific target 3 or 5 years into the HLS agreement. Indicators may be tailored to reflect the objectives of individual sites. For the purposes of this project indicators were assessed irrespective of whether those dates had been reached as the agreements in the sample were of varying age and we wished to assess performance in relation to targets set as a ‘snap-shot’. Clearly, for some HQ7 fens, this involved assessing targets before they were due.
26 of the 74 (35%) sites in the final sample passed all indicators of success set. However, some sites were set more indicators, or harder to achieve targets than others – which may make a comparison of progress within individual sites somewhat difficult as a site with more/harder targets may fail whilst a poorer site with fewer/easier targets may pass. This was too complex to quantify but some simple conclusions can be drawn. The aim of the indicators of success is to describe progress towards good condition, i.e. that would pass a condition assessment. Fifty-three of the 74 sites (71%) were assessed as either passing both the condition assessment and meeting their indicators, or failing the condition assessment and failing to meet at least one indicator – in other words the two methods of assessing
Page 101
condition mirror each other in nearly three-quarters of cases. Assessing sites on their progress against the indicators set, despite the variation in the actual indicators between sites, can therefore be viewed as reasonably robust method of assessing condition.
The 26 sites meeting all indicators set were dominated by sites under the HQ6 option: 19 sites compared with 7 under HQ7. A further 17 sites only failed to meet one indicator (nine HQ6 plus eight HQ7). This means that over half of the fen sample sites were meeting or very nearly meeting all indicators. As might be expected, a greater proportion of sites under restoration (HQ7) failed to meet multiple (≥ 2) indicators: 67% of HQ7 sites compared with 23% of HQ6 sites.
An assessment of progress against indicators in terms of the frequency with which they were met or not met may be complex as some indicators were used more frequently than others and therefore more likely to have a higher number of failures than those that were less frequently set. When analysing the data we therefore looked at the proportion of sites that were set each indicator (broad category only) that passed or failed it.
Individual indicators of success that were set for more than 50% of the sample were (broadly related to) one of the following: wetness/water management (95%); frequency of desirable species (88%); cover of undesirable species (64%); cover/structure of scrub (77%); and/or HQ12 wetland grazing supplement indicators (56%; generally relating to vegetation height mosaics). Within these categories most met their indicators on wetness (89%); two- thirds met their targets on desirable species frequency (68%); most were within limits for cover of undesirable species (79%) and scrub (74%); and well-over half met the HQ12 wetland grazing indicators (64%). However, we observed that more sites would have met these indicators if targets had been more appropriately tailored to the site and/or fen community in question – see below.
Where the sites seem to be failing their indicators is in some of the more specialised attributes, with very specific targets in relation to habitat structure, vegetation height, or cover of key species. The target set for vegetation height was failed in 54% of the 37 sites where it was set; and cover of named key species was failed in 63% of the 11 sites where it was set. However, the suitability of using some of these attributes, or the individual targets and thresholds set for these, was on occasion also brought into question and this is discussed below.
8.6.2 The appropriateness of the indicators set
The list of indicators of success used across the entire fen sample was extensive but essentially fell within the same broad categories as the condition assessment, as might be expected when good condition is the aim. Whilst at many sites the indicators selected appeared to be site specific and well-judged for the community present within the site there were also instances of inappropriate or insufficient targets being set. We estimate that 34 of
Page 102
74 sites (46%) were set at least one indicator of success that was inappropriate for the habitat, or unlikely to be achieved.
Wetness The most frequent target under this attribute was a requirement for the site to have a high water-table at all times (often described as being ‘squelchy underfoot’). Although in general this would be appropriate for a fen site, it would to some extent be subject to the vagaries of climate and seasonal variation, and these factors should be taken into account in assessments. Only one agreement alluded to this. Many sites would have failed this attribute if it had been applied strictly in September–October 2014 as conditions were unusually dry. Other targets set related to frequency of floods, cover of surface water and depth of water table. Whilst it is appreciated that the owners/managers of some sites do have control over water management with, for example, responsibility for ditch maintenance or sluices, many other sites are subject to water regimes dependent upon external water supply such as rivers, over which managers have little or no control. Specifying depth of water table could be viewed as beyond the scope of many agreement holders to either achieve a target depth or indeed measure it.
Vegetation height The targets set for this attribute were failed more often than met. The target used in 29 of the 36 that were set a target vegetation height, was for it to be ‘on average, less than knee- high’. Notwithstanding that ‘knee-high’ is rather vague as a height target, survey teams commented that in 13 cases (one third of sites set the IoS) this was an unrealistic objective for the fen community encountered.
For instance, most fen-meadow communities encountered had a high cover of Juncus spp. including desirable fen species Juncus subnodulosus and/or Juncus inflexus and Juncus acutiflorus (M22, M23, M24, M25), and M13 is characterised by Juncus subnodulosus and Schoenus nigricans – all of which can be well in excess of 50 cm in height. It is therefore easy to see how these species-rich fen communities might fail this attribute. This target was not just applied to fen-meadow sites though; it also appeared in the indicators for some tall- herb fen communities and large-sedge swamps – and even for a stand of W1 fen woodland. In such cases it is clearly being applied inappropriately and, albeit inadvertently, setting up sites for failure if IoS are assessed uncritically.
Other height targets set were only applied to one or two sites each but again were very prescriptive on height to achieve or combinations of different heights. Most seemed overly complicated and rigid and difficult for a land owner/manager to achieve.
It seems that a more realistic target should be set for height, taking the fen community type into account and avoiding being overly prescriptive or complicated. With fen-meadow, for
Page 103
example, aiming for a mosaic of shorter and taller vegetation with an overall percentage for maximum cover of Juncus spp. may be more easily interpreted and achieved by managers.
Habitat structure Only 10 sites were set targets under attributes relating to habitat structure. Five of these addressed cover of bare ground and five related to continuous cover of litter. These indicators are visually obvious to land managers and were appropriate where set, mostly describing successful grazing management.
Desirable species frequency Cover and/or frequency of desirable species (or positive indicators) was a key target in most agreements with 88% of all sites being set an indicator of success. It is entirely appropriate to require restoration or maintenance of botanical diversity – apart from in typically species- poor fen community types such as S6 and S7, although even then a monoculture should be avoided and some level of diversity achieved.
The level of detail provided in the wording of this indicator varied greatly between agreements. Most agreements provided a target for frequency of positive indicators such as ‘at least 2 occasional’ or ‘2 occasional and 3 frequent’. Some agreements described a target list of desirable species (varying from three species to a much longer list), whilst other agreements referred to Table 18 in the HLS FEP handbook, although this list is rather vague with its reference, for example, to ‘sedges’.
Whilst setting an indicator for desirable species frequency is considered appropriate we identified the following issues with how they are being applied:
The list provided was sometimes inadequate – either listing too few species or including inappropriate species for the target habitat. Some sites failed this indicator when they should not have done as they supported other desirable species that were appropriate for the habitat but not listed. For the agreements referring to Table 18: this generic list does not differentiate between broad community types, which would have very different desirable or undesirable species (e.g. a high cover of sedge Carex acutiformis in S7 is diagnostic but in M22 would be undesirable). Discrepancies between the English and Latin names provided, potentially leading to some confusion (e.g. in one agreement Bulbous rush is listed as Juncus inflexus and in another Rosebay willowherb as Epilobium hirsutum – both English names are incorrect and the species whose English names are listed are not desirable fen species).
Surveyors commented on seven occasions that the desirable species list or targets set for a site were inappropriate (11% of sites set this indicator).
Page 104
It should also be noted that in many cases providing a list of specialist plant species is only likely to be of use to the NE advisor or other professional who assesses the site because, as one estate manager pointed out, most farmers and land managers would not recognise either the names of the fen species or the actual plants.
An indicator set for frequency of desirable species is fundamental in the maintenance or restoration of high-value habitat but more thought should be put into tailoring the target species listed and ensuring their appropriateness for the habitat(s) present or at which restoration is aimed.
To assist with assessing progress for botanical targets, it would be most useful to clearly state what broad habitat, or even NVC community type, is the aim of the agreement and ensure targets are correctly aligned with that.
Key species cover Although not that frequently used (11 agreements), an indicator for cover of named key species was mostly used inappropriately. Eight agreements required Sphagnum to be at least frequent across the fen but in six of these (75%) this group represented an inappropriate target as it was not indicative of the habitat encountered nor did it occur in the site or in any habitat bordering the site.
Undesirable species cover This indicator was frequently used (64% of agreements) and more often than not it was met, with only 10 of 48 sites failing to meet a target. The named undesirable species were mostly thistle, dock, or invasive non-native species such as Himalayan Balsam. On occasion agreements listed species that were not noted anywhere on the site and so care should be taken to provide appropriate species lists but generally the use of this indicator was considered appropriate. Two sites were considered to have been set inappropriate undesirable species targets.
Most farmers and land managers are familiar with common weed species of agricultural habitats, e.g. thistle, and are aware of how to take appropriate action for these, but guidance may be required for less obvious species that are undesirable in the context of wetland.
An ambiguity with this indicator, however, is that a species that could be considered undesirable in one habitat may be a natural component of another. For example, Urtica dioica is a typical constant of S26 but could be considered undesirable in many other communities; Carex riparia and Carex acutiformis are desirable and typical associates of many fen communities but can be invasive in neglected stands of such communities as M22, M23 and M27. Again it would be informative to state which fen community is the ultimate aim of HLS management in order to determine the desirability of certain species. If the
Page 105
eventual aim of a stand of S26 is to restore it to S25 then high cover of Utica dioica is undesirable.
Scrub cover Indicators were frequently set (57 sites) relating to the cover of scrub within fen sites. Invasive Salix, Alnus, Betula, Rubus and occasionally Rhododendron or Ulex are a frequent issue in wetlands. Scrub invasion of fenland is a potential threat in most sites and it is therefore appropriate for this indicator to be used frequently. The most frequent target was for less than 20% or less than 10% cover of scrub across the site, although there were variations and additions with some agreements prescriptive on coppicing management, or tree removal.
Failures to meet this indicator were more frequent on sites that were not grazed and where access for machinery to cut scrub was limited by waterlogged substrates and tussocky vegetation.
Feature specific A whole suite of additional indicators were used relating to specific features within individual sites. These included the maintenance of populations of certain groups (Odonata) or certain species (Desmoulins whorl snail, breeding waders etc.) or management of archaeological features. Sixteen sites had indicators for vegetation in ditches associated with the fen feature. Progress against indicators for fauna could not be assessed during this survey as they were beyond its scope, typically requiring bespoke survey (e.g. Odonata, breeding birds). However, most indicators set in this broad group appeared appropriate, albeit as with desirable indicator species, assessments of progress might be beyond the expertise of a farmer/ land manager.
HQ11 indicators For the 11 agreements that included the HQ11 wetland cutting supplement, nine had specific targets to achieve. The other two referred only to the indicators set for the main HQ6 or HQ7 option. Where specific indicators were set they were appropriate: four related to the presence of wetland/breeding birds whilst the rest referred to goals for cutting regimes, undesirable species and cover of scrub.
HQ12 indicators When agreements included the HQ12 wetland grazing supplement the following indicators were often used.
In 33 of the 42 HQ12 sites the aim was specified of achieving a mosaic of taller and shorter plant species, with no specific height targets (in cm) provided. Whilst mostly appropriate, this indicator was occasionally applied to large sedge-swamp communities where it was
Page 106
unrealistic. Occasionally specific heights were provided and these too could be unrealistic and too prescriptive. Sometimes vegetation height targets were set as an indicator for the HQ12 supplement and a further indicator on vegetation height was set for the core HQ6/7 option. Whilst these could be complimentary, on occasion they were somewhat confusing.
For example, the M27 stand at site 1 was set the following indicators of success.
For HQ7 core option:
• By year 3, the vegetation should be, on average, less than knee-high.
For HQ12 supplement:
• By year 3 around 25% of the vegetation should be in tussocks or in patches of 30 cm to 40 cm in height. • By year 2 the vegetation should include a mosaic of shorter (at least 5 cm) and taller (approx. 30 cm – 40 cm) vegetation.
In 24 agreements an additional aim was described that a given percentage of the vegetation should be in tussocks or patches over 40 or 50 cm (it varied). On occasion it coincided with the HQ6/7 indicator of ‘achieving no more than knee-high’ vegetation, and appeared somewhat contradictory.
Whilst often appropriately set, these indicators should be applied with care and with a view to the current and target community, and must be consistent with the objectives for the core option. Multiple targets set for an individual attribute (as above for vegetation height) are more likely to confuse a land manager and hinder rather than aid suitable management.
Conclusion Our general conclusion from assessing the appropriateness and suitability of the indicators set is that more thought should be given at the outset to the community present on the site and to identifying a realistic aim for the target community, based on history, edaphic conditions, surrounding habitat and hydrology and potential to deliver management approaches. It is essential that indicators are only set once a field visit to the site has been made and the site management required to achieve the target community (and therefore meet the indicators set) determined through discussion with the land manager. As an example, setting indicators for less than 5% scrub cover in a W1 fen woodland that is fenced off and neither cut nor grazed demonstrates a lack of familiarity with the site; whilst setting an indicator for Sphagnum spp. cover on the same site probably points to lack of knowledge on the potential of the habitat in relation to its likely community type.
Page 107
8.7 The relationship between land management and stand condition
8.7.1 Management
Two thirds of the sites surveyed were under some form of grazing management. The most frequently used grazing animals were cattle, as a single species at 50% of sites and in combination with sheep or ponies at another five. The use of mixed stocking is frequently considered more beneficial than the use of single species, as different types of stock have different feeding preferences. Specific breeds of stock animal (e.g. hardy traditional breeds of cattle or sheep) can be used to deal with particular plant species, and as a general rule, the more a species is suited to intensive farming, the less suitable it is for grazing sites of conservation value and the less likely it is to thrive (http://www.grazinganimals project.org.uk/breed_profiles_handbook.html). Although information on breeds was not collected in the management questionnaire, it appeared that traditional breeds of cattle were frequently chosen for grazing these sites.
Sites passing all condition targets (condition A) were much more frequently managed by grazing than sites that failed one or more targets. Only four sites in condition class A were not grazed, of these three were cut and one was managed by scrub control. Of the 14 sites that were receiving no cutting or grazing management (apart from some scrub control), most (10) were in condition class C, a few (3) were in class B and only one (OV26 site) was in good condition – class A. It appears therefore that some form of management to remove the bulk of annual vegetation production is an important factor in passing targets for condition. Of the sites in condition classes B and C that were being managed by grazing or cutting, 15 were under restoration management. Nine sites under maintenance management were assessed as being in condition class C, and of these, four were neither grazed nor cut. While the sample size is small, there are clear indications that grazing or cutting is of importance in for maintaining the conservation value of fen.
The management of wetland sites by grazing poses several specific problems that can discourage owners from using livestock and which can therefore have an impact on site condition. Some sites are physically dangerous to large herbivores as animals can become trapped (or drown) in deep, sediment-filled sumps from which they can be very difficult to free. At several sites members of the survey team were told of the loss of cattle and other animals in areas they were about to survey. Deep, steep-sided ditches can also be perilous.
Livestock diseases can also be more prevalent in wetlands. Redwater is a common disease of cattle that can prove fatal if not treated immediately after detection. It is transmitted by ticks Ixodes ricinus and is most frequent in tall, well-structured vegetation such as that present in fens dominated by tall sedges, reed-grasses and tall herbs. It is patchily distributed throughout the UK and the majority of graziers are aware of the problem. Cattle can acquire immunity to their local strain of the disease if they are infected when young. It is therefore a particular problem when moving cattle to graze sites that do not have the
Page 108
immunity that locally reared cattle might have. Liver fluke Fasciola hepatica is a common parasite of ungulates throughout the UK (Anon, 2012). It has a life-cycle that involves water snails of the family Lymnaeidae with several abundant species found in British fens and related habitats. Infection in cattle and sheep results in weight loss and reduction in milk yield, and although it can be treated it is still a constraint to the grazing of some wetland sites. Foot-rot can also be a particular problem for cattle and sheep in wet places. This is a highly contagious infection by anaerobic bacteria with subsequent secondary infections and can eventually lead to euthanasia of infected animals. It can be readily treated but may be a serious deterrent to grazing.
Scrub invasion has been a serious problem at some sites, particularly those that were previously ungrazed and/or not under cutting management; and three sites were being restored to open fen by the complete removal of invasive scrub and secondary woodland.
8.7.2 Management of adjacent land
Wetlands that are supplied by ground or surface water are dependent on the quality of their water source and this may be influenced by management of the surrounding land. Although only a few sites were surveyed where management of adjacent land appeared to be an issue, it could be a potential problem at many others, both by restricting available water supply and through the risk of pollution. At one site in Suffolk, a large flush system was partially supplied by effluent from an adjacent septic tank array, resulting in an exceptionally high level of potassium and very species-poor vegetation. A site in Norfolk including some of the most species-rich vegetation encountered in the survey was at risk from inappropriate ditch management by a neighbouring farmer. Conversely, a nature reserve and SSSI in Leicestershire had experienced severe drying since the construction of the nearby M1 motorway in the 1960s. For effective safeguard of soligenous and topogenous wetlands, conservation and land-management measures need to address hydrotopological units which can cover large areas with complex patterns of ownership.
8.8 The relationship between soil variables and stand condition Results demonstrated some relationships between soil properties and vegetation composition. The major variations in the vegetation were related to pH, phosphorus content and loss on ignition. Loss on ignition and total nitrogen content are co-linear. When taken together they are a measure of the organic matter content of the soil and in these swamp and mire habitats can be considered as the accumulation of partly decomposed vegetation litter and peat.
M13 and M22 were characterised by high pH and low levels of available phosphorus, with M13 in sites with the highest pH and lowest phosphorus level. M13 stands and richer stands of M22 had higher proportions of peat in the soil. Sites for these communities are typically irrigated by groundwater originating in calcareous substrata such as chalk. The low
Page 109
levels of phosphorus may be the result of hydrological isolation of aquifers from neighbouring sources of phosphorus on surrounding farmland, but it is clearly important when considering the management of these communities of high conservation value to ensure that the run-off of nutrient-rich water from adjacent farmland is minimised. M23 here is more typically a community of lower pH than M13 and M22, and although most stands had moderate levels of available phosphorus, some stands had a much higher level. There is a tendency for stands of M23a, normally a more species-rich sub-community to occur on soils with higher peat content.
Tall-herb fens, tall sedge-dominated communities and swamps were less clearly related to soil properties, possibly due to the rather heterogeneous and poorly-defined nature of these communities. PH tended to be circumneutral, levels of available phosphorus ranged from high to moderate and the proportion of organic matter was low to moderate. In general, these vegetation types were species-poor and dominated by tall, rapidly-growing, competitive species (“competitors” sensu Grime et al., 2007), the majority of which are responsive to macronutrients and intolerant of stress. Many of these stands were of recent origin with little opportunity for accumulation of organic matter. There is a tendency for OV26 stands to occur on soils with a higher level of potassium. Exceptionally high potassium levels were recorded at one site where a flush line was supplied partly from effluent from a neighbouring septic tank system.
Page 110
9 Conclusion
This project has highlighted successes and failures in the targeting and delivery of fen maintenance and restoration options under HLS.
The characterisation of vegetation community present within each land parcel in the sample identified that not only did the fen option cover a diverse range of fen community types, and often several communities within one land parcel, but also that in 16.8% of cases fen options have been applied wrongly to habitat that was not fen. Some 6.5% of sites in the sample under fen options would be better suited to grassland options with grassland management prescriptions, one site (1.3%) to a moorland option, and 7.8% to reedbed options. To improve targeting of fen options the habitat feature must be identified correctly at the agreement development stage. Whilst acknowledging the constraints on the time of NE advisors, this is best achieved by a field visit by an adviser familiar with wetland habitats and not by relying uncritically on the results of the FEP survey.
It is important to ensure that sites are placed in the correct HLS option – maintenance or restoration – in order to target management of the site correctly. There were obvious discrepancies in this with some sites placed under maintenance options found to be in poorer condition than some under restoration options. Whilst we could not be certain of the condition of sites when first entering HLS, the interval between the start of HLS and the date of the 2014 survey (seven years maximum but often much less) was not so great that HQ6 sites that failed the condition assessment were likely to have dramatically declined in the intervening years: hence it appeared some sites were placed in the wrong option. A site placed in a maintenance option that in reality requires restoration may not receive the management required to restore the feature. A review of the site condition combined with information on pre- and post-HLS management practices led us to estimate that 55% of the HQ6 sample and 85% of the HQ7 sample were correctly targeted but 24% of the sites under HQ6 would have been better placed in HQ7 restoration management.
Whilst many of the indicators set were appropriate to the site and stand type some were not. Thirty sites (41% of the sample) were deemed by the surveyors to have been set an indicator of success that was inappropriate for the fen habitat within that site. Detailed assessment of the individual indicators set for each agreement exposed that in some cases agreement holders were being asked to achieve outcomes that are impossible at worst or improbable at best. Indicators are important tools for assessing the success of site management and the HLS agreement through which it is delivered and so must be chosen and set with care to ensure that they are realistic and achievable given the resources available to the land manager and the potential to bring about positive changes in habitat condition. One farm was receiving payments for cutting management of a site with very difficult access and with no available machinery to deliver the management (leaving little potential to realise the indicator set for less than knee-high vegetation). Another site was
Page 111
being hand cut by scythe at great time and monetary cost when a small herd of cattle was available (and doing a better job). To achieve the desired outcomes for such specialised and varied sites it is important to tailor site-specific indicators, not just pick from a generic list, and ensure that due attention is paid to listing appropriate targets for frequency and cover of positive indicator species that might realistically benefit from improved management practices. Targets for a large Carex-dominated swamp should be very different to those a naturally species-rich community such as M13 or M22.
There is a strong indication in the results that for most fen sites carefully tailored grazing management, either alone, or in combination with topping, is required to deliver environmental benefits. The majority of sites in good condition were under some grazing management. Of the 14 sites that were not grazed and not under a regular cutting regime, only one achieved good condition in the CSM assessment with most (71%) assessed as condition C. Twenty-eight of the 33 sites that were grazed and in good (class A) condition were receiving the HQ12 wetland grazing supplement. This supplement is worth £200 per hectare (ha-1) to land managers (at time of writing), far more than the £60 ha-1 for annual payment rate for the basic HQ6 or HQ7 option. Thirteen of these had also used capital works payments for fencing, field gates or some other piece of infrastructure related to securing boundaries. If HLS is successful in encouraging land managers to graze their fens then the potential effectiveness of HLS is likely to be high. If more sites can be brought into grazing management, and grazing intensity can be fine-tuned on those sites that are already grazed there is potential for considerable progress against indicators. Some sites were still felt to be under-grazed although care should also be taken not to overgraze; particularly in wet sites liable to poaching.
Take-up of the HQ11 wetland cutting supplement was relatively low, and furthermore five of the ten with the supplement had not yet introduced a regular cutting regime to their sites. This is perhaps indicative that cutting wetland is not easy as fen sites are often inaccessible to machinery and disposing of cuttings potentially a problem. Two HQ11 sites were being cut and grazed. The HQ11 supplement at £350 ha-1 is more financially advantageous to agreement holders than grazing management but, even so, fewer would commit to it. Whilst not dismissing cutting management, as it is successfully used in conjunction with grazing on several sites, it may be less effective on its own at delivering environmental benefit as it is harder to deliver successfully. Fen-meadow communities may be the most straightforward to apply cutting management but in practice most were grazed.
The final component required to determine the potential benefits of the HLS fen options, and one that requires feedback to be evaluated in a qualitative way, is the agreement holders perception of the impact of the agreement – both in terms of their farming practice and the composition of the fen. These can only really be discussed anecdotally as conversations about management with agreement holders can be, and often are, rather tangential.
Page 112
The general consensus amongst the survey team was that most agreement holders were very positive about their HLS agreement in relation to the fen component, and many – particularly those that grazed their sites – stated that it had a negligible impact on their farming practice as they were mostly continuing to manage in the same way as that prior to entering HLS. Although ‘maintenance’ options are targeted at sites already in good condition and management, this may raise questions as to the value for money of HLS in these sites, if farming practice is unaltered by the scheme and the fen would have been managed in an identical, appropriate way regardless. However, it is not possible to quantify this as, by highlighting the conservation value of a fen through the stewardship scheme, subtle changes to management may well occur, or more pride engendered thereby safeguarding the fen, of which a land manager is unaware. It should be highlighted though, that more pro-active changes to management to enhance biodiversity, even in good condition sites, will potentially deliver greater environmental benefits.
As a large number of the fens surveyed were being managed within a commercial farming system, they do appear to have some agricultural value as grazing land but we found that many owners also value them for aesthetic reasons and have a strong sense of stewardship. Many sites had previously been managed under the Countryside Stewardship or Environmentally Sensitive Areas schemes and management under those schemes had been continued under HLS. The ability to deliver improvements to infrastructure through capital works (64% of sites had received a payment for the fen) was mentioned as a positive benefit. Few agreement holders were negative about the HLS fen option per se: negative comments tended to relate more to dissatisfaction with the administration of the scheme or the level of the payments. Only one agreement holder categorically stated that he felt the fen habitat had declined in quality as a direct result of HLS management prescriptions (in particular, the erection of fencing and reduction in grazing pressure). Two agreement holders managed common land with public access and they perhaps lacked support for achieving effective site management in a way that was acceptable to the public – in both cases the sites should ideally be grazed but fencing was opposed by public users. Finally, in a few sites – largely those that were not being managed or were under scrub management only – there was a broader lack of understanding of exactly what they should be doing to the fen and how to achieve it. Although this information is broadly set out in part 3 of the HLS agreement there was a perception of a lack of support to help them identify and deliver what is required. Certainly those sites that were in really active management, and most successful in delivering results, tended to have managers that mentioned good working relationships with their local NE adviser.
With 51% of sites in good condition and a further 12% in condition B, there was clearly an indication that fen management is delivering some of the benefits anticipated in the design of HLS. Areas of fen are often located within otherwise intensively managed agricultural landscapes, and they make a potentially important contribution to ecological networks. If HLS can continue to highlight the importance of these areas to agreement holders and
Page 113
through support and advice encourage improved management of the fen feature or indeed of the land adjoining the feature, then the potential for management to enhance fen habitat further is high. The longer-term effects of HLS fen management will only become clear at a future resurvey point but on the basis of our survey there is reason for some optimism that a greater proportion of the sample will, by that time, be in favourable condition and the instances of ‘no management’ will be zero.
Page 114
10 References
Anon (2012) Herdsure® protocol for liver fluke infection in cattle herds, Version 6.2. AHVLA.
Averis, A., Averis, B., Birks, J., Horsfield, D., Thompson, D. & Yeo, M. (2004) An illustrated guide to British upland vegetation. JNCC, Peterborough.
Bock, R., Jackson, L., Vose, A.D.E. & Jorgenson, W. (2004) Babesiosis of cattle. Parasitology, 129, pp. S247–269.
Goode, D.A. (1972). Criteria for selection of peatland nature reserves in Britain. Proceedings of the Fourth International Peat Congress, I–IV, Helsinki.
Grime, J.P. Hodgson, J.G & Hunt, R. (2007) Comparative Plant Ecology: a functional approach to common British species. 2nd edn. Castle Point Press, Dalbeattie.
JNCC (2004) Common Standards Monitoring Guidance for Lowland Wetland Habitats. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough.
Malloch, A. (2000) MATCH 2.16 for Window/95/NT. Unit of Vegetation Science, University of Lancaster.
Mountford, J.O. & Cooke, A.I. (eds), Amy, S.R., Baker, A., Carey, P.D., Dean, H.J., Kirby, V.G., Nisbet, A., Peyton, J.M., Pywell, R.F., Redhead, J.W. & Smart, S.M. (2013) Monitoring the outcomes of Higher Level Stewardship: Results of a 3-year agreement monitoring programme. Natural England Commissioned Reports, Number 114.
Ratcliffe, D.A. (Ed) (1977). A nature conservation review. Cambridge University Press.
Rodwell, J.S. (ed.) (1991a) British Plant Communities, volume 1. Woodlands and scrub. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Rodwell, J.S. (ed.) (1991b) British Plant Communities, volume 2. Mires and heaths. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Rodwell, J.S. (ed.) (1992) British Plant Communities, volume 3. Grasslands and montane communities. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Rodwell, J.S. (ed.) (1995) British Plant Communities, volume 4. Aquatic communities, swamps and tall-herb fens. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Rodwell, J.S. (ed.) (2000) British Plant Communities, volume 5. Maritime communities and vegetation of open habitats. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Plantlife (2010). Invasive non-native plants. Available at: http://www.plantlife.org.uk/campaigns/invasive_plants/invasive_plants_
Page 115
causing_problems_in_the_uk-1/
Smith, I. R., Wells, D. A. & Welsh, P. (1985). Botanical survey and monitoring methods for grasslands. Focus on Nature Conservation 10. Nature Conservancy Council: Peterborough.
Stace, C. A. (2011) New Flora of the British Isles, 3rd Edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Tansley, J. A. (1949) in the British Isles and their Vegetation. Cambridge University Press ter Braak, C.J.F. & Smilauer, P. (2002) CANOCO Reference Manual and CanoDraw for Windows User's Guide: software for canonical community ordination (version 4.5). Available at http://www.canoco.com
Wheeler, B.D. & Shaw, S. (2000) A wetland framework for impact assessment at statutory sites in Eastern England. Environment Agency R&D Report W6-068/TR1 and W6- 068/TR2. WRC, Medmenham.
Wheeler, B.D., Shaw, S. & Tanner, K. (2009) A wetland framework for impact assessment at statutory sites in England and Wales. Integrated Catchment science programme Science Report SC030232. Environment Agency, Bristol.
Page 116
Appendices
Page 117
Appendix 1: MATCH analysis of NVC (sub)communities at each fen site
Site Wetland type NVC type MATCH similarity coefficient for the top 10 results 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 Fen-meadow OV26 OV26 OV26a M27 OV26c OV26d S26 M27b MG9b MG1b MG1c 56.4 51.8 49.4 48.9 48.5 47.1 46.9 44.3 42.8 42.7
2 Valley fen M25a M25a M6d M25 M6a M6 M15 M15b M21b M29 M25c 54.0 52.8 48.5 45.8 45.6 43.4 43.3 41.5 40.2 39.2
3 Valley Fen M27c M27 M27c M27a M23 M23b M28a M23a M28 OV26a OV26c 59.5 59.0 56.7 51.9 50.9 49.4 48.7 47.6 46.3 45.9
4 Valley fen M25c M25c M25 M25b M24 M23a M23 M24a W4b M24c M13a 61.3 60.0 56.9 51.3 47.5 46.3 45.3 44.3 44.1 43.6
5 Fen meadow M23a M23a M23 M23b M22 SD17 M24c M22b M25 M28a MG8 65.0 62.2 60.7 49.1 48.8 48.5 46.8 46.3 46.1 45.9
6 Spring-fed mire M22a M22a M23b M22 M9b M22b M23 M9 M22c M23a M27 40.5 40.4 40.3 39.3 38.8 37.3 36.7 36.1 36.1 36.0
7 Cleared fen woodland W5a W5a S3 S15b W5 W6b W1 W5c W5b OV26a S15 30.4 29.5 28.4 28.1 27.2 27.0 26.8 25.5 23.5 23.4
8 Fen meadow M22a M22a M22 M22b M24 M24b M24a M13a M22c M26b M26 60.0 57.2 55.5 54.3 51.3 46.5 46.3 46.2 45.5 45.0
9 Flood-plain wetland S26b S26b S26 OV26 S26a S26d S26c OV26d OV24a OV26e OV26b 60.3 55.1 47.7 46.7 45.8 44.6 44.1 42.4 41.1 39.8
10 Fen meadow M22a M22a M22 M22b OV26c M22d M27 M27c M22c M27a M28a 56.5 53.8 52.4 47.8 42.6 42.6 40.7 40.0 37.8 37.8
11 Alluvial wetland S28b OV26a S28b S28 MG10 OV24a MG10a MG10c S26 OV27b M27 44.5 44.0 41.7 41.4 40.6 40.3 40.2 39.4 38.3 38.0
12 Flood-plain fen/fen meadow MG9 MG9 MG9b MG9a M27c M27 M27a M23 M22a OV26a OV26 54.2 52.4 51.9 51.5 51.1 42.8 41.5 41.4 40.3 39.4
13 Valley-fen/Spring-fed Carex acuti OV26b S26 OV26 S26d S25 W5a S25a W6a M27b W6 55.9 48.9 48.0 47.9 44.9 44.2 44.0 43.9 42.7 40.6
16 Flood-plain fen/fen meadow M22b M22a M22b M22 SD15a SD15d SD15a OV26c SD17 MG9 SD15b 52.1 51.7 50.3 49.7 47.2 46.6 46.6 45.4 44.1 43.5
18 Fen meadow M23a MG10a MG10 M23a M23 MG10b M23b SD17d MG9 SD17 MG9a 53.1 50.5 48.9 48.5 46.7 45.7 44.7 42.4 41.5 40.8
20 Spring-fed wetland S26a S26a S26 S26b S26d M27b OV26 S4 S6 OV26b W2a 61.2 60.3 53.6 51.1 48.2 47.6 47.5 43.1 42.3 40.4
21 Alkaline fen/spring-fed wetland M13a M13a M24 M13 M24a M13c M24b M13b M22a M22a M26 56.5 53.0 52.0 49.7 48.6 47.8 43.2 42.9 42.6 42.1
23 Flood-plain fen M27 M27 M22a OV26c M27b M27c M22 OV26 M25c M27a M24 48.3 43.5 42.2 41.2 41.2 41.0 40.7 40.0 38.6 38.0
24 Flood-plain fen/fen meadow M27 M27c S7 M27 SD15a M27b OV26 OV26c OV26b M23a M22a 44.2 43.0 41.4 39.1 38.0 36.7 36.6 34.9 34.8 33.7
25 S5 S5 OV26 OV26b M27b S26 S26d S5a S7 M27b S6 48.2 47.1 46.1 44.2 40.3 39.9 38.9 38.6 36.3 35.2
27 OV24a S26b OV24a OV26 S26a OV24 S26d MG1b OV26e OV26d SD18b 53.5 46.8 45.4 43.7 42.6 41.2 40.6 40.4 39.5 39.2
Page 118
Site Wetland type NVC type MATCH similarity coefficient for the top 10 results 28 Flood-plain fen M27 M27 S6 S26d S26a OV26b M27c M22a M27b S25a OV26c 48.7 47.2 46.2 44.6 44.1 43.7 43.5 43.1 42.8 42.6
29 Flood-plain fen Carex acuti MG9 M27 M27c OV26c MG9b OV26 M27b MG9a M22a MG10 47.5 46.7 46.6 46.4 46.2 45.9 45.0 43.9 41.5 41.3
30 Former railway cutting Carex acuti OV26 OV26a S26d S26 S18 S4 OV26b S18a W6a W2a 44.8 42.3 42.1 41.3 39.7 39.3 39.0 38.2 36.7 35.7
31 Flood-plain fen M27c M27c M27 M23 M28a M23b M23a M27a M28 MG9 OV26c 59.1 57.0 55.7 53.5 53.2 52.9 51.3 48.8 46.7 46.6
32 Fen meadow M22a MG10b M22a MG10a MG9 MG10 MG9a OV26c MG9b OV26a OV26 50.9 47.2 46.4 46.0 45.4 44.2 44.0 42.4 42.4 42.2
34 Rush pasture M23a M23 M23a M23b MG9a MG9b M27c M28a SD17 MG10a M25 55.4 54.5 52.8 45.9 45.6 43.9 43.7 43.4 42.4 42.4
35 Rush pasture M23a MG10a MG10 M23a M23 M27c M23b MG10b MG9a MG10c MG9a 50.5 49.3 46.6 45.4 45.0 44.1 42.3 41.8 41.4 40.1 36 Flood-plain fen/sump wetland S7 S7 S18 S18a S14 S5 S12 S12b MG10a OV26a S12a 51.4 44.7 39.9 37.2 35.6 34.8 33.7 33.5 32.9 32.9
37 Alluvial wetland transition S22 S14 S22b S12 S14c OV28a MG13 S18 S4 OV28 OV26a 39.9 38.5 37.0 36.4 36.3 35.9 35.7 33.9 32.9 32.9
38 Open-water transition Carex acuti OV26 OV26b OV26a OV26e OV26d OV26c S26d S26 M22a S6 49.7 39.9 39.2 37.0 35.9 35.9 33.6 32.9 29.5 28.6
39 Valley-fen OV26 OV26 OV26a OV26b OV26c S26 OV26d W6a W6a S26d OV26e 58.8 56.7 50.4 48.9 48.9 48.9 46.9 44.6 44.5 43.5
40 Fen meadow M13a M24 M13a M13 M24b M24a M13b M13c M25 M26 M26b 46.7 45.6 45.4 44.6 42.8 41.9 41.7 40.4 36.8 35.9 42 Alkaline Fen/Fen meadow M13c M13c M13a M13a M22a M13b M22 M24a M22c M24b M9 55.9 54.5 50.7 48.7 48.6 47.8 47.6 45.9 45.8 44.9 43 Flush M6c M4 W4 M6c MG13 M6 M6d M25 W4a MG10a W4b 40.3 37.2 36.5 35.5 32.4 32.1 29.2 29.1 28.3 27.7
44 Flood-plain fen M27c M27c M27 M28a M28a M27a S11b M23 M23b OV26a W1 49.5 44.9 41.9 41.5 41.5 40.7 39.5 38.9 38.0 38.0 45 Flood-plain fen Carex acuti MG9b OV26 MG9 OV26a MG9a MG10b MG10 MG13 S7 S18 42.9 42.6 42.0 41.3 37.8 37.0 36.4 35.9 35.2 35.1
46 Fen meadow M22a OV26 M27 OV26c S26 M27b OV26a S26d S25a M22a OV26b 54.4 49.1 48.3 47.8 47.2 47.0 46.0 44.9 44.9 43.6
47 Wet grassland MG9 MG9 MG10a MG9a MG10 MG9b SD17 M23a M23 SD17a M23b 59.5 57.5 54.5 53.9 52.6 51.1 50.4 49.3 49.3 48.6
48 Flood-plain fen Carex acuti OV26 S26 OV26a S7 S26d M27b S28b S28 OV26b OV26d 61.5 52.6 51.0 49.6 48.9 48.2 47.8 44.8 43.3 42.0
49 Fen meadow M22a OV26c OV26 M22a M27 M27b M22 S26d OV26b S26b S26d 60.1 56.3 53.9 53.1 51.6 49.9 49.1 47.6 43.6 43.1
52 Valley-fen S7 S7 M27 OV26 S26a M27b S5 M27c OV26b S6 M27a 40.1 28.2 27.0 26.1 25.0 23.1 23.0 22.0 20.4 20.2
53 Flood-plain fen OV26 OV26 S26 S26b M27b S26d OV26b W6a OV26d S26a W6 59.1 55.4 50.8 49.2 48.8 47.5 46.9 45.7 44.5 44.5
Page 119
Site Wetland type NVC type MATCH similarity coefficient for the top 10 results 54 Valley fen M23b MG10a M23 M27c MG9 MG9a M23a MG10 M23b M25b MG9b 50.0 47.4 46.6 46.5 46.0 45.7 44.8 44.2 44.1 41.6 55 Flood-plain fen S26 S26 S26b S26d S26a OV26b OV26 W2a M27b S4 S26c 55.8 52.6 51.6 49.2 43.1 42.5 41.4 41.1 37.6 36.6
56 Fen-meadow M22a MG9b M22a MG9 M22b M22 M24b MG9a M24 M27 OV26c 49.8 49.1 48.7 47.2 45.7 43.7 43.2 43.1 41.3 39.7
57 Spring-fed mire Carex acuti OV26 OV26b M27b S6 S26 S25a OV26c M27 S26d S25 62.8 55.1 51.4 51.3 51.2 51.0 50.1 49.6 49.0 47.4 58 Basin mire S27 S10b S27a S27 S11 S11c S9 S27b S9b S11b S10 57.4 50.9 50.7 49.2 48.8 45.5 41.6 41.3 41.2 40.6
59 Open water transition fen OV26d OV26 S26 OV26d OV26e S6 S26d OV26b OV26a S26b S28b 55.9 53.1 52.9 51.4 49.4 47.9 46.7 46.5 45.5 44.7 60 W5a S25a S25b OV26b S25 M22a W5a S24 W2a W5 W5c 35.8 35.7 34.9 33.5 33.1 31.8 31.7 31.2 30.6 30.5
61 Rush pasture/wet grassland MG10a MG10a MG10 MG9 M27c MG9a M23 M23a MG9b M23b MG10c 58.9 52.6 46.9 45.5 44.3 43.9 43.5 43.2 43.0 42.6
62 Fen-meadow/basin fen M22a M22a M13a M24a M22 M24 M22c M24b M25c SD15d M13 62.3 58.5 58.3 56.2 54.7 50.9 50.0 48.4 48.2 47.8
63 Fen woodland/willow carr W1 MG10a W1 MG10 M27c OV26a OV28a M28b M28a S15b M28 34.2 32.8 32.7 32.6 31.2 30.2 30.1 30.0 29.9 29.5 64 Open water transition fen M23b SD15a M23b M23 SD15a M22a OV26 M27c M23a S27b SD15b 40.9 38.8 38.0 35.8 35.3 35.0 34.7 34.7 34.3 34.3 65 M23b M23b M23 M23a M27c M27b S27a M25c MG10a W1 M22a 66.0 65.9 59.4 57.6 56.6 51.0 50.8 50.8 48.0 45.9 66 Fen meadow M23a M23b M23 M23a M27c MG10 MG9a M28a MG9a SD17 MG10c 50.1 46.9 46.6 39.9 39.6 39.4 39.3 39.2 39.2 39.2 67 Flood-plain fen S24 S24f S25c S24 S24d S25 S24e S4b S24g S24c S25a 53.6 50.2 49.8 47.8 47.1 44.7 44.0 43.7 42.7 42.3 68 Inundation grassland MG9 MG9 MG10 MG13 MG9b MG9a MG10a SD17a OV26a SD17d MG10c 40.6 39.9 39.5 38.6 38.5 37.8 37.8 37.4 35.9 35.5
69 Valley fen - run-off wetland M23a M23a M23 M25 M25c M24c M23b M25b M26b M27c M24 55.7 53.0 50.5 49.1 49.0 48.5 48.5 46.9 46.7 45.9 70 Flood-plain fen S28 OV26 OV26d OV26a M27 S26b S26 M27b MG1b S28 S26d 53.3 53.2 51.3 50.7 49.8 49.7 49.0 48.1 45.9 44.8 71 Fen meadow M22b/M24b M22 M22b M24 M22a M23 M23a M24b M23b M13a MG8 52.0 51.3 50.5 47.7 47.7 46.7 46.4 44.9 44.7 44.4 73 Rush pasture M23b M23 M23b M27c M23a M27 M28a M28a MG10a MG9a M25c 54.0 53.0 52.4 47.7 47.7 44.4 44.3 43.6 42.7 41.3 74 Open water transition fen OV26a M27 OV26a OV26 M27c M23 OV26b M23b S27a OV26c M23a 49.0 47.7 47.0 46.8 45.5 45.2 43.5 43.4 43.2 42.2 75 Valley fen M6a M6a M21b M21 M6 M15b M6d M6b M21a M6c M17a 66.4 59.8 59.7 58.8 53.3 50.8 50.8 49.9 48.2 48.0 76 Neutral grassland MG1b MG1b MG1a MG1c MG9b MG1 W24 MG9a W24b MG1d MG11a 58.8 55.6 52.8 51.5 50.8 48.0 46.6 43.9 43.6 42.9 78 Flood-plain fen W5 OV26b W5a OV26 W5 W6a S26 S26d W6 W2a W5c 55.3 53.7 48.9 46.6 44.0 43.6 43.2 42.3 42.2 42.1
Page 120
Site Wetland type NVC type MATCH similarity coefficient for the top 10 results 79 Basin fen M27c S25a OV26 M27 M27c OV26c S25 OV26b M27b M22a OV26a 49.5 46.9 44.8 43.1 42.0 41.1 40.9 40.3 37.4 37.3 80 Base-rich spring-fed fen M13 M13 M13c M13b M13a M24 M24b M24a M10b M26 M22 62.4 60.7 60.2 55.0 54.8 53.2 51.6 44.7 44.5 44.0 81 Spring-fed mire/Valley fen M22a OV26 OV26c OV26a M22a M27 M22 OV26b M27a OV26d MG9a 46.7 46.4 45.2 39.5 39.3 36.9 36.5 36.1 32.8 32.8 82 Flood-plain fen OV26 OV26 M27b S26 OV26c OV26a M27 S26d S26a OV26b OV26d 57.5 57.1 53.6 53.4 52.7 51.1 48.6 45.8 44.0 43.1
83 Open-water transition fen Carex acuti S25 S25a M27c M27 S7 S24 S25c S24c S27b OV26b 37.2 36.3 35.8 35.7 35.4 35.0 34.6 34.4 34.0 33.6
84 Flood-plain fen Carex acuti OV26 OV26c OV26a S7 S25a OV26b M27a M27 M27b S26d 39.8 37.9 37.5 36.6 34.5 33.7 32.9 32.9 29.9 29.8 85 Silted-up canal S5 S26d S5 S26 OV26 S5a OV26b OV26a S28b OV26d OV26e 50.4 49.8 49.8 47.1 45.3 45.3 43.9 41.1 40.9 40.5
86 Fen woodland/flood-plain fen S26 W6 S26 W6d W6a S26d OV26 S26c W6b M27b S26b 45.1 41.1 39.0 38.0 37.9 37.6 37.4 36.1 35.7 35.4
Page 121
Appendix 2: Results of the soil analysis for fen sites sampled in 2014. Site Option Soil pH Olsens Index Soil K Index Soil Index Total Loss on Total Organic Soil (Water) P P (mg/l) K MG MG N Ignition P Carbon texture (mg/l) (mg/l) (%) 1 HQ7 7.6 6 0 116 1 119 3 0.79 14 0 0 SSiL 2 HQ6 5.2 5 0 47 0 74 2 0.45 14.9 346 9.94 S 3 HQ7 5.8 11 1 149 2- 160 3 1.19 40.5 1452 19.3 SSiL 4 HQ7 5.3 8 0 120 1 265 5 1.29 39.6 838 16.6 SL 5 HQ7 5.8 12 1 115 1 132 3 1.01 30.7 1262 16.1 SL 6 HQ7 6.2 7 0 54 0 147 3 1.43 57.7 2195 28.6 CL 7 HQ7 6.2 12 1 95 1 306 5 2.36 85.5 915 28 LS 8 HQ6 7.4 11 1 289 3 93 2 1.04 24.2 0 0 SL 9 HQ7 7.9 11 1 98 1 149 3 1.49 34 1606 11.1 SL 10 HQ6 7.7 12 1 138 2- 124 3 1.31 30.1 1497 29.4 CL 11 HQ6 5.4 26 3 184 2+ 100 2 0.67 16.5 1676 10.6 C 12 HQ7 5.4 6 0 193 2+ 238 4 0.78 23.1 1008 10.5 C 13 HQ7 7.7 13 1 96 1 75 2 1.19 31 1072 13.4 SL 16 HQ7 8.1 6 0 112 1 52 2 0.75 17.7 833 10.2 C 18 HQ7 7.1 12 1 75 1 210 4 1.33 26.3 1307 16.7 SL 20 HQ6 5.2 7 0 131 2- 488 6 1.42 25.1 0 0 SL 21 HQ6 7.5 10 1 117 1 49 1 2.07 54.2 923 27.2 LS 23 HQ6 6.6 5 0 122 2- 114 3 0.81 23 775 11.1 CL 24 HQ6 7.0 12 1 112 1 75 2 1.43 50.6 1154 16.3 LS 25 HQ6 7.2 28 3 127 2- 103 3 2.02 37.4 0 0 SL 27 HQ6 6.8 18 2 523 4 164 3 0.51 9.8 0 0 SSiL 28 HQ7 6.7 9 0 54 0 26 1 2.28 48.2 1322 23.2 SL 29 HQ7 7.2 9 0 109 1 46 1 3.12 58 1871 23.6 LS 30 HQ7 7.3 7 0 73 1 704 7 1.09 26.7 0 0 SL 31 HQ6 6.3 14 1 63 1 1080 8 0.85 19.7 1192 9.33 SiC 32 HQ6 7.3 14 1 109 1 57 2 1.01 22.2 1015 12.3 SL 34 HQ6 5.4 9 0 135 2- 160 3 1.56 35.7 1083 17.7 SL 35 HQ7 5.1 11 1 184 2+ 156 3 1.34 32.1 1784 14.6 CL 36 HQ6 6.6 8 0 106 1 165 3 0.47 12.9 901 6.43 CL 37 HQ7 7.9 51 4 212 2+ 507 6 0.65 13.7 1019 6.95 SL 38 HQ6 7.7 33 3 107 1 191 4 0.4 10.4 0 0 SL 39 HQ6 7.7 19 2 164 2- 123 3 0.77 16.4 0 0 SSiL 40 HQ7 7.7 5 0 124 2- 99 2 1.11 25.9 538 14 SL 42 HQ6 7.9 5 0 139 2- 60 2 1.78 53 923 29 SL 43 HQ7 4.2 10 1 116 1 97 2 1.2 42.8 832 17.3 SL 44 HQ6 5.3 13 1 44 0 57 2 0.69 17.2 914 8.93 C 45 HQ7 7.9 23 2 54 0 46 1 1.46 27.2 2044 12.2 SL 46 HQ6 7.5 16 2 171 2- 138 3 1.69 39.2 0 0 SL 47 HQ6 6.1 8 0 104 1 211 4 1.1 33.7 1219 14.9 SL 48 HQ7 6.9 16 2 81 1 234 4 0.52 13.6 851 7.52 SL 49 HQ6 6.5 9 0 121 2- 144 3 0.86 19.2 0 0 SCL
Page 122
Site Option Soil pH Olsens Index Soil K Index Soil Index Total Loss on Total Organic Soil (Water) P P (mg/l) K MG MG N Ignition P Carbon texture (mg/l) (mg/l) (%) 52 HQ6 7.1 15 1 85 1 185 4 1.64 39.1 2259 18.6 SL 53 HQ7 7.8 10 1 102 1 135 3 0.76 18.8 1042 9.71 SCL 54 HQ6 4.7 29 3 110 1 99 2 2.07 60 1916 27.5 SL 55 HQ7 7.7 9 0 47 0 56 2 2.8 59.3 1143 24.1 LS 56 HQ7 6.9 9 0 94 1 54 2 1.17 25.9 832 14.8 SL 57 HQ7 7.5 9 0 142 2- 126 3 1.8 60.9 1033 22.9 LS 58 HQ7 6.5 8 0 114 1 208 4 0.68 18.7 802 9.45 C 59 HQ6 6.8 29 3 139 2- 281 5 0.61 15.4 1163 8.05 C 60 HQ7 6.6 12 1 126 2- 100 2 1.82 59.4 0 0 SL 61 HQ7 4.6 6 0 54 0 62 2 0.55 16.1 0 0 SL 62 HQ6 7.4 9 0 102 1 52 2 2.05 47.2 903 23.1 SL 64 HQ7 6.7 17 2 147 2- 255 5 0.82 21.9 1185 10.5 SCL 65 HQ7 4.5 30 3 149 2- 92 2 0.89 22.6 1223 9.81 SL 66 HQ7 5.1 9 0 61 1 56 2 0.6 17.5 1361 10.9 SiC 67 HQ6 6 5 0 78 1 314 5 2.34 72.1 973 30.2 LS 68 HQ6 6.5 8 0 164 2- 163 3 1.77 40.6 0 0 SL 69 HQ7 5.9 6 0 77 1 111 3 0.88 29.9 1206 14.6 CL 70 HQ7 5.3 9 0 135 2- 137 3 1.12 35.9 1283 20.4 SL 71 HQ6 6.3 9 0 67 1 49 1 1.31 33.5 767 17.6 SL 73 HQ6 5.1 21 2 84 1 152 3 0.73 21.6 904 11.9 SL 74 HQ7 7.1 6 0 278 3 195 4 1.36 44.7 1698 29.8 N/A 75 HQ7 5.1 3 0 122 2- 69 2 0.84 47 480 19 CL 76 HQ6 6.7 11 1 193 2+ 236 4 0.47 12.4 1064 5.32 CL 78 HQ7 6.2 8 0 91 1 166 3 1.6 42.7 1035 21.8 SL 79 HQ6 6.7 12 1 245 3 680 7 2.27 72.7 1285 29.6 LS 80 HQ6 8.4 7 0 85 1 58 2 1.59 40.3 716 19.4 SL 81 HQ7 7.7 12 1 165 2- 206 4 0.57 16.5 2729 7.93 CL 82 HQ7 6.5 6 0 111 1 464 6 0.37 10.9 847 5.38 SL 83 HQ7 5.6 7 0 58 0 189 4 1.2 43.2 592 18.3 LS 84 HQ7 6.6 16 2 92 1 118 3 0.73 23.5 1117 10.8 LS 85 HQ6 7.7 26 3 159 2- 457 6 1.2 30.3 0 0 CL 86 HQ6 5.7 40 3 78 1 222 4 0.62 13.8 2053 5.79 C
Key to Soil Texture:
S Sand C Lay L Loam SL Sandy Loam SSiL Sandy Silt Loam SCL Sandy Clay Loam CL Clay Loam SiC Silty Clay LS Loamy Sand
Page 123
SiC Silty Clay
Appendix 3: WETMECs recorded in principal vegetation units WETMEC Description NVC SAC habitats Examples communities (site numbers) 1 Domed Summer-wet, often domed M18 Active raised bogs None Ombrogenous surface, remote from and/or Surfaces (‘Raised elevated well above telluric water Bog’) tables; often over low permeability deposits. 2 Buoyant Quaking, summer-wet surface or M18 Active raised bogs, None Ombrogenous raft elevated slightly above Transition mire and (bordering Surfaces (Quag telluric water tables; often in quaking bogs site 70) Bogs) basins, over potentially high or low permeability deposits. 3 Buoyant Weakly As [2], but surface little above M4 Transition mire and None Minerotrophic influence of telluric water. [2] quaking bogs Surfaces and [3] may both occupy the (‘Transition same basin, [3] as a lagg. Bogs’) 4 Drained Surface ‘dry’ year round – telluric M24, S27 Molinia meadows None Ombrotrophic water in drains well below Surfaces In Bogs surface. No obvious or proximate And GW sources. Often over low Fens permeability material. 5 Summer Dry Surface often fairly summer-dry, S24 Calcareous fen, 25, 67 Floodplains but wet or flooded in winter. May Molinia meadows, experience episodic flooding Transition mire and from water courses. Peat infill quaking bogs ‘solid’ and low K (cf. [6]). 6 Surface Water Surface usually quite wet in S24, S27 Alkaline fens, 20, 67 Percolation summer and wet or flooded in Calcareous fen, Floodplains winter. Peat top-layer often Transition mire and loose, sometimes buoyant and quaking bogs mostly high K. 7 Groundwater Floodplains of GW-fed WCs, often M24, M22 Calcareous fen, 32, 46 Floodplains rather dry. Often complex alluvial Molinia meadows sequence with only shallow peat. Water supply and relationship to river and aquifer mostly uncertain 8 Groundwater- Troughs or basins, usually on M24, M22 Alkaline fens, 1, 8, 62 Fed Bottoms With quite deep peat upon aquitard; if Calcareous fen, Aquitard on floodplains, usually isolated Molinia meadows from river. WT often below solid surface. Often marginal springs / seepages. Distinguished from [16] by topography and deeper peat. 9 Groundwater- Similar to [8] but no aquitard and M24, M22, Alkaline fens, Fed Bottoms marginal springs / seepages often M13 Calcareous fen, less evident. GW supply often Molinia meadows
Page 124
inferred from hydrogeological data. Distinguished from [12] by topography and deeper peat. 10 Permanent Summer-wet surface, usually M10, M13, Alkaline fens, 8, 13, 27, 62, Seepage Slopes sloping and shallow peat; springs M14, M22, Calcareous fen, 65, 40, 42, 80 / seepages usually visible, over M21 Molinia meadows, permeable substratum. Transition mire and quaking bogs, Depressions on peat substrates 11 Intermittent & As [10] but WT well below M24, M22 Alkaline fens, 49, 56, 62 Part-Drained surface in summer or year round; Molinia meadows, Seepages also more often on flat surfaces Depressions on or in sumps. Latter are peat substrates transitional to [9] but have shallower peat. 12 Fluctuating Small sumps with strongly S1, S2 Alkaline fens, Seepage Basins fluctuating WT, often from well Calcareous fen below surface to flooded, which may relate to aquifer levels. Like [11] but topography permits sustained inundation. 13 Seepage Unconsolidated (quaking / S1, S2, M9, Alkaline fens, 8, 62, 80 Percolation Basins buoyant) surface in GW-fed M5, M13, Calcareous fen, basins and sumps etc. Similar S27 Transition mire and surface to [6] but GW-fed, and to quaking bogs, [14] but flatter and more ‘water Depressions on collecting’. peat substrates 14 Seepage Soft or quaking (rarely buoyant) M21, M4 Depressions on Percolation surfaces in GW-fed valleyheads peat substrates Troughs and troughs. More sloping than [13] (which may occupy sumps embedded in [14]). 15 Seepage Flow GW-fed flow paths in mires, often M29, M14, Alkaline fens, 40 Tracks embedded in [14] but M21 Transition mire and occasionally alone. quaking bogs, Unconsolidated watery surface Depressions on peat substrates 16 Groundwater- Surfaces in GW-flushed valley M21, M4 Molinia meadows, 42 Flushed Bottoms heads and troughs. Often similar Transition mire and to [14] but over aquitard and quaking bogs, often with thinner peat. Marginal Depressions on springs / seepages often evident. peat substrates 17 Groundwater- GW-flushed slopes (rarely flats) M10, M14, Alkaline fens, Flushed Slopes with thin peat over aquitard, M21, M4 Molinia meadows, below springs or seepage line Transition mire and (often narrow). quaking bogs, Depressions on peat substrates 18 Percolation Like [14] but fed mainly by RGR M9, S27 Transition mire and Troughs or streams, or importance of GW quaking bogs, not clear. May be some GW Depressions on outflow from a minor, superficial peat substrates aquifer. 19 Flow Tracks Like [15] but fed mainly by RGR M29, M9 Transition mire and or streams, or importance of quaking bogs,
Page 125
GW not clear. May be some GW Depressions on outflow from a minor, superficial peat substrates aquifer. 20 Percolation Like [13] but fed mainly by RGR M5, S27, M4 Transition mire and Basins or streams, or importance of GW quaking bogs not clear. Some inflows may be sourced from GW outflows above the site.
Page 126
Appendix 4: Common Standards Monitoring Site Condition Assessment
Summary of the results of the individual site condition assessments, summarized as passes (Y) or failures (fail) of individual attribute targets with the overall result (Pass/Fail) for each site.
Site NVC Option 1. Water 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Pass/Fail level Exposed Litter Positive Negative Woody management substrate indicators indicators species 1 OV26 HQ7 Y Y Y Fail Y Fail FAIL 2 M25a HQ6 Y Y Y Y Y Y PASS 3 M27c HQ7 Y Y fail Y Y fail FAIL 4 M25c HQ7 Y Y Y Y Y fail FAIL 5 M23a HQ7 Y Y Y Y Y Y PASS 6 M22a HQ7 Y Y Y Y Y Y PASS 7 W5a HQ7 Y Y Y Y Y Y PASS 8 M22a HQ6 Y Y Y Y Y Y PASS 9 S26b HQ7 fail Y Y fail fail fail FAIL 10 M22a HQ6 Y Y Y Y Y Y PASS 11 S28b HQ6 Y Y Y fail fail Y FAIL 12 MG9 HQ7 fail Y Y Y fail Y FAIL 13 Carex acutiformis HQ6 Y Y fail Y Y Y Fail 16 M22b HQ7 Y Y Y Y Y Y PASS 18 M23a HQ7 Y Y Y Y Y Y PASS 20 S26a HQ6 Y Y Fail Y Y Y Fail 21 M13a HQ6 ±Y Y Y Y Y Y ±PASS 23 M27 HQ6 Y Y Y Y Y Y PASS 24 M27 HQ6 Y Y Y Y fail fail FAIL 25 S5 HQ6 Y Y Y Y Y Y Pass 27 OV24a HQ6 Y Y Y Fail Fail Y Fail 28 M27 HQ7 Y Y Y Y fail Y FAIL 29 Carex acutiformis HQ7 fail Y fail fail fail Y FAIL 30 Carex acutiformis HQ7 Y Y Y Fail Y Fail Fail 31 M27c HQ6 Y Y Y Y ±Y Y ±PASS 32 M22a HQ6 Y Y Y Y Y Y Pass 34 M23a HQ6 Y Y Y Y Y Y PASS 35 M23a HQ7 Y Y Y Y Y Y PASS 36 S7 HQ6 Y Y Y ±Y Y Y PASS 37 S22 HQ7 Y Y Y Y fail Y FAIL 38 Carex acutiformis HQ6 Y Y Y Y Y Y Pass 39 OV26 HQ6 Y Y Y fail fail fail fail 40 M13a HQ7 Y Y Y Y fail fail FAIL 41 S4/W1 HQ6 42 M13c HQ6 Y Y Y Y ±Y Y ±PASS 43 M6c HQ7 Y Y Y fail Y Y FAIL 44 M27c HQ6 Y Y Y Y Y Y PASS 45 Carex acutiformis HQ7 Y Y Y fail fail/Y Y FAIL 46 M22a HQ6 Y Y Y Y Y Y pass 47 MG9 HQ6 Y Y Y fail Y Y FAIL 48 Carex acutiformis HQ7 Y Y Y fail fail/Y Y FAIL 49 M22a HQ6 Y Y Y Y Y fail Fail 52 S7 HQ6 Y Y fail ±Y Y Y FAIL
Page 127
Site NVC Option 1. Water 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Pass/Fail level Exposed Litter Positive Negative Woody management substrate indicators indicators species 53 OV26 HQ7 Y Y Y Y fail fail FAIL 54 M23 HQ6 fail Y Y fail Y Y FAIL 55 S26 HQ7 fail Y Y fail fail fail FAIL 56 M22a HQ7 Y Y Y Y Y Y Pass 57 Carex acutiformis HQ7 Y Y Y Y Y Y PASS 58 S27 HQ7 ±Y Y ±Y Y Y Y ±PASS 59 OV26d HQ6 fail fail fail fail fail fail FAIL 60 W5a HQ7 Y Y Y Y Y Fail Fail 61 MG10a HQ7 Fail Y Y Fail Y Y Fail 62 M22a HQ6 Y Y Y Y Y Y Pass 63 W1 HQ6 Y Y Y fail Y fail FAIL 64 M23b HQ7 Y Y Y Y Y Y PASS 65 M23b HQ7 Fail Y Y Y Y Fail Fail 66 M23a HQ7 Y Y Y Y Y Y PASS 67 S24 HQ6 Y Y Y Y Y Y PASS 68 MG9 HQ6 Y Y Y Y Y Y Pass 69 M23a HQ7 Y Y Y Y Y Y PASS 70 S28 HQ7 Y Y Y fail fail fail FAIL 71 M22b/M24b HQ6 ±Y Y Y Y Y Y PASS 73 M23b HQ6 Y Y ±Y Y Y Y PASS 74 OV26/S27 HQ7 Y Y Y Y Y ±Y ±PASS 75 M6a HQ7 Y Y Y Y Y Y PASS 76 MG1b HQ6 fail Y fail fail fail Y FAIL 78 W5 HQ7 Y Y Y Y Y Y PASS 79 M22a HQ6 ±Y Y fail Y Y ±Y PASS 80 M13 HQ6 Y Y Y Y Y Y Pass 81 M22a HQ7 ±Y Y fail fail fail Y FAIL 82 OV26 HQ7 Y Y Y fail Y Y FAIL 83 Carex acutiformis HQ7 Y Y Y Y Y fail FAIL 84 Carex acutiformis HQ7 Y Y Y Y Y Y PASS 85 S5 HQ6 Y Y Y Fail Y Y Fail 86 S26 HQ6 Y Y Y fail Y fail FAIL
Page 128
Appendix 5: HLS Indicators of Success
The total number and percentage of the total number of sites (n = 74) to have each indicator of success listed (broad wording) included in Part 3 of the HLS agreement.
Figures in bold are the total number of agreements to set any one (or more) indicator within each indicator ‘group’.
Indicator of Success used Total %
SSSI condition 34 46% All SSSI land should be in favourable or recovering condition. 34 46% Wetness 68 92% The surface should be [wet/squelchy] underfoot all year round [or from xx to xx]. 64 86% Cover of surface water should be between [X and X %]. 12 16% The surface should receive at least one flood per year 9 12% Seepage should be visible all year round and the soil should be damp 11 15% Water levels should be [between/no lower than Xcm] below mean field level throughout year. 4 5% Vegetation height 36 49% [By year 3 or 5], the vegetation should be, on average, less than knee-high. 29 39% In the cut sections the vegetation should be, on average, less than knee-high across the fen at the end of the 1 1% growing season [By year 3 or 5], the vegetation should be, on average, less than waist-height across the fen. 1 1% The vegetation should on average be more than 30cm high during the growing season. 1 1% The vegetation should consist of a mosaic of taller fen vegetation [>30cm] interspersed with shorter patches 2 3% [<10cm] The sward height during June to August should be, on average, 5 cm or more (excluding rushes) but no more 1 1% than 25% should be greater than 60 cm high (including rushes). Fen species will be less than 0.50m tall in July/ August with varied tussocks and plants at an average between 15 1 1% – 50cm
Page 129
Indicator of Success used Total %
Habitat structure 10 14% [By year X] Cover of bare ground should be between/no more than [X%] 5 7% [By year X] Cover of litter should be no more than 25% of the sward 5 7% Taller rushes and Purple Moor Grass should cover less than 30% of area 1 1% By year 3 total cover of rushes should be less than 80%, and the majority of them should be jointed rushes. 1 1% Phragmites australis (Common Reed) is less than 20 shoots/ m2 1 1% Desirable species frequency 63 85% [By year X] At least [xx] desirable species [from list] should be at least [frequent and/or] occasional across the 63 85% area of fen: Cover of wildflowers in the sward (excluding undesirable species but including rushes and sedges) should be 1 1% between [40 and 90%] Key species cover 11 15% By year [X], bog-moss (Sphagnum) should be at least frequent across the area of fen. 8 11% The key species lesser pond sedge should cover at least 70% of the fen area 1 1% By year 1 purple moor grass should be frequent but less than 80% cover. 1 1% Brown moss covers 15-30% of fen area 1 1% Undesirable species cover 48 65% [By year X] Cover of undesirable species; [xxxx xxxxx] should be less than 5% [or singly should be no more than 47 64% occasional across the sward]. [By year X] Cover of undesirable species [common reed/tufted hair-grass/large grasses/large Carex spp.] should 2 3% be less than 10%. Scrub cover/structure 54 73% [By year X] Cover of scrub should be less than [5/10/20%] across the area of fen. 51 69% By year [X] cover of [invasive tree/shrub species] should be less than X% across the area of fen. 3 4%
Page 130
Indicator of Success used Total %
Other - feature specific 27 36% By year [X], wet ditches should have aquatic vegetation cover (submerged, floating and emergent) of between 16 22% 25% and 75% of water area. This should include at least 2 of the following plant species: [xxxxxx]. [xxxx] should be less than [X%] cover. From year 1, wintering bird species such as [snipe] should be present in the habitat during the winter 1 1% By year 1 purple moor grass should be frequent but less than 80% cover. 1 1% A Record of Management should be completed for the SSSI and submitted with the annual claim form. 1 1% Archaeological features should have suffered no further degradation 1 1% By year 5, cover of scrub should be 1-5% across the area of open fen. Scrub should mainly comprise young 1 1% seedling derived birch up to 2m high, which is of high value to invertebrates. Management interventions must occur as detailed in the management plan produced by XX of Natural England 1 1% Water levels and water quality should be managed in order to maintain a range of mire, swamp and wet 1 1% grassland communities The water level of the mere should be kept constant, apart from natural seasonal fluctuations, in order to 1 1% maintain the surface wetness of the reedbed The extent of the habitats/NVC communities of interest [as identified] should be [maintained/increased] 5 5% Some Willow woodland and the few remnants of dry acid grassland should be maintained 1 1% There should be evidence that the appropriate water regime is being maintained for the Desmoulin’s whorl snail 1 1% and wet grassland and swamp communities. Maintenance of populations of fen ragwort, Cambridge milk parsley, saw-wort and southern marsh orchid 1 1% At least 6 species of odonata should be at least occasional across the area of fen 1 1%
Page 131
Indicator of Success used Total %
HQ11 indicators 9 12% The following [at least 1 of the following] bird species; [Sedge Warbler, Reed Warbler, Grasshopper Warbler and 4 5% Reed Bunting] should be regularly seen or heard [during their breeding season]. The cover of scrub is no more than 20% of the area. 1 1% Following the first cut, at least 10% of the reed-swamp should be in young and regenerating condition 1 1% The cutting programme should maintain and enhance the populations of desirable plant species listed in the 1 1% Indicators of Success for HQ6 Maintenance of Fen. There should be evidence that the fen has been cut according to the requirements listed below 1 1% By year [X], the vegetation should be, on average, less than knee-high 1 1% HQ12 indicators 37 50% [By year X] The vegetation should include a mosaic of [shorter and/or taller] plant species. 33 45% [By year X] Around [X%] of the vegetation should be in tussocks or in patches over [20/40/50cm] high. 24 32% The sward height during June to August should be, on average, 5 cm or more (excluding rushes) but no more 3 4% than 25% should be greater than 60 cm high (including rushes). More than 25% litter cover indicates insufficient removal of biomass from [site] or [By year X] litter cover should 3 4% be less than [15%]. The target species [XXXX] should be present every year [and should be allowed to flower and set seed]. 2 3%
Cattle poaching of the wet areas should be light to moderate to create some bare ground for plants and 1 1% invertebrates to exploit. But poaching should not be so severe that the fen vegetation disappears and is replaced by permanently bare ground or weeds. There should be evidence the fen has been grazed 1 1%
Page 132
Results of the assessment of whether each site met its individual Indicators of Success (IoS) as set out in Part 3 of the HLS Agreement. Not all IoS shown were set for each site: a blank cell against an Indicator means that either the IoS was not set, or the site passes it. The table is to demonstrate where
sites are failing their IoS. ●
SSSI SSSI
Fav/Recov.
Site PASS/FAIL Option Supplement Wetness Vegetation height Habitat structure Desirable species species Key cover Undesirable species Scrubcover Other HQ11/12 indicators Comments Site under restoration. Condition should become favourable with 1 FAIL HQ7 HQ11 ● fail ● fail fail sustained cattle-grazing and further scrub clearance
2 FAIL HQ6 HQ12 Y ● ● ● fail ● ● ● ● Should pass. Desirable species list insufficient.
Desirable species list insufficient. HQ11 IoS are bird related and could not 3 FAIL HQ7 HQ11 ● fail ● fail ● ● be assessed.
4 FAIL HQ7 HQ12 Y ● fail ● ● fail fail Vegetation is more than knee-high with >30% in tussocks >50cm high
Should pass. ‘Knee-high’ height unrealistic for rush dominated habitat. 5 FAIL HQ7 HQ12 ● fail ● ● ● HQ12 IoS conflicts with height IoS. IoS are insufficient in HLS Part 3 – provide list of indicators. The flush 6 FAIL HQ7 HQ12 Y fail fail ● meets IoS whilst the rush-pasture does not. A species poor swamp in a cleared wet woodland but still passes – 7 PASS HQ7 none ● ● ● ● minimal IoS set.
8 PASS HQ6 HQ12 Y ● ● ● ● ● Site in excellent condition.
Fails if Urtica is included (5-year target): consider whether Urtica 9 FAIL HQ7 HQ11 ● fail ● undesirable in Phragmites–Urtica fen. HQ11 IoS are bird related and
could not be assessed. ‘Knee high’ at end of season not assessed.
Page 133
SSSI SSSI
Fav/Recov.
Site PASS/FAIL Option Supplement Wetness Vegetation height Habitat structure Desirable species species Key cover Undesirable species Scrubcover Other HQ11/12 indicators Comments
10 FAIL HQ6 HQ12 ● fail ● ● ● ● Should pass. ‘knee-high’ IoS unrealistic for rush dominated habitat.
There is potential to pass on desirable spp. with management. 11 FAIL HQ6 none ● fail fail ● ● Vegetation is more than 30cm tall – height IoS unrealistic for tall-herb
fen habitat. Vegetation is more than ‘knee-high’. This site should meet the IoS with a 12 FAIL HQ7 HQ12 Y fail fail ● fail ● ● fail return to traditional management. The site is currently an impenetrable stand of tall Carex spp. and cannot 13 FAIL HQ7 HQ12 N ● ● fail ● fail realistically be said to be in favourable condition. Surface should be squelchy underfoot all year round with 5–100% 16 PASS HQ7 HQ12 Y ● ● ● ● ● surface water. Passes when the entire fen area is assessed – the study
area had no open water but 2014 was a drought year Only one of the 9 listed desirable species is currently frequent at the site 18 FAIL HQ7 HQ12 Y ● fail ● ● ● (although several other positive indicator species are present Passes HQ6 IoS for fen although excessive litter cover (would fail HQ3 IoS 20 PASS HQ6 HQ11 Y ● ● ● ● for reedbeds on this).
21 PASS HQ6 HQ12 Y ● ● ● ● ● The site is slightly drier than the IoS but this is due to drought.
23 PASS HQ6 none Y ● ● ● ● ●
Vegetation is more than ‘knee-high’ and not in tussocks/patches (HQ12). 24 FAIL HQ6 HQ12 ● fail ● fail IoS unrealistic for rush dominated habitat, although a reduction in
dominance by Carex acutiformis required.
25 PASS HQ6 HQ12 ● ● ● ● ● ●
Page 134
SSSI SSSI
species
Fav/Recov.
Site PASS/FAIL Option Supplement Wetness Vegetation height Habitat structure Desirable species Key cover Undesirable species Scrubcover Other HQ11/12 indicators Comments This site is partly fed by effluent from an adjacent sewage disposal 27 FAIL HQ6 none ● fail ● system. This is outside the control of the owner. Undesirable species are
not specified in the IoS, but Urtica dioica is abundant. Carex riparia is dominant. Height IoS unrealistic for rush dominated 28 FAIL HQ7 HQ12 ● fail ● fail ● ● ● habitat, although a reduction in dominance by Carex riparia required
Bare ground IoS not met (too low). 8-year aim: desirable species for M22 29 FAIL HQ7 HQ12 N ● ● ● fail fail ● fail ● & M24 not reached –desirable species targets for tall-herb fen may be
more appropriate. HQ12 IoS pass unknown due to recent topping.
30 FAIL HQ7 HR1 N ● Fail ● Fail Species-poor heterogeneous vegetation of former railway cutting
31 PASS HQ6 HQ12 ● ● ● ● Deschampsia cespitosa is invading and grazing should be increased.
Part of the site outside the SSSI is species-poor and Juncus inflexus 32 PASS HQ6 HQ12 Y ● ● ● ● ● dominated Should pass. One of the named species was absent but many more were 34 FAIL HQ6 HQ12 ● fail ● frequent. Insufficient list provided. IoS = Open water should be 10–80%: the vegetation here is not indicative 35 FAIL HQ7 HQ12 fail ● ● ● ● fail of a site that has open water. HQ12 target of vegetation of a range of
ages not met? The IoS seem to be aimed more at a different type of vegetation as 36 FAIL HQ6 HQ12 ● fail ● ● ● ● fail swamps do not usually have a height mosaic and are usually fairly tall Cover of surface water is > 50%. Undesirable species > 10%. Vegetation is 37 FAIL HQ7 HQ12 N fail fail ● fail ● fail fail more than ‘knee-high’ (45–100 cm). SSSI is probably not yet recovering. Vegetation is greater than ‘knee-high’. This is an unrealistic target for 38 FAIL HQ6 HR2 Y ● fail ● ● ● this site
Page 135
SSSI SSSI
Fav/Recov.
Site PASS/FAIL Option Supplement Wetness Vegetation height Habitat structure Desirable species species Key cover Undesirable species Scrubcover Other HQ11/12 indicators Comments
39 N/A HQ6 HQ11 Y ● ● No IoS specified other than to follow NE management plan.
Scrub should be < 10%: cover of Phragmites and Solidago high. Council 40 FAIL HQ7 HQ11 Y ● ● ● fail fail fail are working hard on scrub control but constrained by local opposition to
grazing. Molinia and Juncus targets inappropriate thresholds.
42 PASS HQ6 HQ11 Y ● ● ● ● ● ● HQ11 bird indicators not assessed.
Few indicators set but additionally the site has too few positive fen 43 FAIL HQ7 none fail ● ● indicators and bracken is abundant. Not really a fen. IoS = Vegetation should be in mosaic of > 30cm height and < 10cm 44 FAIL HQ6 HQ12 Y ● fail fail ● ● ● fail height. Target is unrealistic. Should be > 50 cm height and < 30cm height. Vegetation is more than ‘knee-high’: insufficient patchy/tussocky 45 FAIL HQ7 HQ12 ● fail fail fail ● ● fail vegetation. This site suffers from lack of grazing and has been invaded by
Juncus acutiformis IoS minimal but site in good condition. Additional targets for undesirable 46 PASS HQ6 HQ12 ● ● ● ● species and frequency of other fen species, scrub cover could be set. This site should not pass fen IoS as it does not support a fen community 47 PASS HQ6 HQ12 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● but MG9 of poor quality. IoS set do not help to identify this.
48 FAIL HQ7 HQ12 ● fail fail Vegetation is not a mosaic.
Scrub in discrete stand in centre – not necessarily reason for failure. Fen 49 FAIL HQ6 HQ12 ● ● Fail ● ● in the early stages of restoration – should be HQ7. Very minimal IoS set. Should fail on litter cover denoting lack of 52 PASS HQ6 none ● ● grazing/cutting management. Cover of scrub is being addressed by new management plan but cover of 53 FAIL HQ7 HQ11 Y ● ● ● fail fail ● negative species requires greater management effort.
Page 136
SSSI SSSI
Fav/Recov.
Site PASS/FAIL Option Supplement Wetness Vegetation height Habitat structure Desirable species species Key cover Undesirable species Scrubcover Other HQ11/12 indicators Comments There is no Sphagnum on this site or neighbouring land. 54 FAIL HQ6 HQ12 ● ● fail ● ● Unrealistic target? No desirable fen species IoS, which would have shown
not really a fen. Vegetation is more than ‘knee-high’ – IoS unrealistic for Phragmites- dominated habitat. 5-year aim: frequent bog-moss – IoS unrealistic – not 55 FAIL HQ7 HR2 ● Fail fail fail ● ● a Sphagnum community. 8-year aim: 3 occasional desirable species (list provided should be revised). At this site the “knee high” target for vegetation height is probably 56 FAIL HQ7 HQ12 Y ● Fail ● ● ● ● appropriate. The cover of Cirsium arvense is approximately 5% and any
increase is undesirable.
57 PASS HQ7 HQ11 Y ● ● ● ● ● ● Passes all botanical IoS (bird-related IoS not covered)
Vegetation should be a mosaic of shorter and taller. There may be an 58 FAIL HQ7 HQ12 Y ? ● ● ● ● fail issue with water levels and drainage on this site. Grazing pressure is not
enough. This site has high nutrients and is in need of more intensive 59 FAIL HQ6 none fail fail fail fail management. Site in the process of restoration from secondary Alnus glutinosa 60 FAIL HQ7 HQ11 Y ● ● Fail ● woodland. Good progress.
61 FAIL HQ7 none Fail Fail ● ● Rather dry rush-pasture unlikely to ever become fen
62 PASS HQ6 HQ12 Y ● ● ● ● ● ● ● Site in excellent condition
W1 wet woodland. No Sphagnum on site. Unlikely to ever meet IoS – no 63 FAIL HQ6 none ● fail ● fail ● fail ● management.
64 PASS HQ7 none ● ● ● ● ● Monitor non-native species including Crassula helmsii.
Page 137
SSSI SSSI
Fav/Recov.
Site PASS/FAIL Option Supplement Wetness Vegetation height Habitat structure Desirable species species Key cover Undesirable species Scrubcover Other HQ11/12 indicators Comments High cover of invasive Alnus glutinosa. Vegetation height IoS unsuitable 65 FAIL HQ7 HQ12 Y ● ● ● Fail ● for S3 area. Sphagnum should be frequent by year 5 – No Sphagnum was recorded 66 FAIL HQ7 HQ12 Y ● fail fail ● ● ● on this site. Possibly an unsuitable target. List of desirable species too
restrictive. Should pass. Passes HQ6 IoS. Unable to confirm whether HQ12 IoS of mosaic of 67 PASS HQ6 HQ12 Y ● ● ● ● ● ● shorter/taller vegetation met. Access across fen difficult. This is not a fen, and should be assessed as grassland, in which case it 68 PASS HQ6 HQ12 Y ● ● ● would fail a condition assessment. IoS inappropriate and too few. Vegetation should be on average knee-high : vegetation should have 30% more than 50cm high. These two IoS are somewhat contradictory. The 69 FAIL HQ7 HQ12 ● fail ● ● fail list of desirable species and required frequency is too brief and low, respectively. This site should pass. It is excellent.
70 FAIL HQ7 none ● ● fail fail fail Habitat is not typical for Sphagnum – possibly unrealistic target.
71 PASS HQ6 HQ12 Y ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
73 PASS HQ6 none ● ● ● ● ● IoS insufficient to identify that this is more rush-pasture than true fen.
Only required to be in favourable condition. Too few IoS set but in good 74 PASS HQ7 none Y condition. Needs scrub cover targets. Passes HQ7 but fails HQ12: there are two contradictory IoS in the HQ7 75 PASS HQ7 HQ12 ● ● ● ● ● ● fail and HQ12 sections concerning % cover of tussocky vegetation. Assessed
as a PASS. The Phragmites stand fails on ‘knee-high vegetation’ but this IoS is 76 FAIL HQ6 HQ11 fail fail fail ● ● unrealistic. The MG1 stand fails on desirable fen species and wetness.
HQ11 IoS are bird-related and not assessed.
Page 138
SSSI SSSI
Fav/Recov.
Site PASS/FAIL Option Supplement Wetness Vegetation height Habitat structure Desirable species species Key cover Undesirable species Scrubcover Other HQ11/12 indicators Comments Sphagnum should be occasional by 2016 – none present. Scrub should be 78 FAIL HQ7 HQ12 ● ● fail fail ● < 2% for the fen by 2014, its currently 5% Rubus. The vegetation is more than ‘knee-high’. Scrub cover is borderline. This 79 FAIL HQ6 none ● Fail ● ● fail site should fail on soil fertility (N).
80 PASS HQ6 HQ12 Y ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● Very comprehensive IoS. This site is in excellent condition
81 FAIL HQ7 none Y ● fail fail ● The site requires grazing and/or cutting.
82 FAIL HQ7 HQ12 ● fail fail ● ● fail Fails on ‘knee-high vegetation’ but this IoS is unrealistic.
Desirable species are not present at the desired frequency; Phragmites is 83 FAIL HQ7 none Y ● fail fail fail targeted for 70% - this is unrealistic for the tall-herb fen area. Site passes HQ7 indicators but does not yet meet HQ12 target for 84 PASS HQ7 HQ12 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● fail vegetation height mosaic.
85 PASS HQ6 none ● ● ● ● Minimal IoS but habitat typical of its type.
The IoS for occasional desirable species was not met as only the one of 86 FAIL HQ6 none Y ● fail the three occurs. More suitable targets should be set for this site in line
with its management for the breeding birds.
Page 139
Pass or fail results for each site using condition assessment or indicators of success for attributes and targets.
CSM IoS NVC Option
pass/fail pass/fail Site 1 OV26 fail fail HQ7 2 M25a pass fail HQ6 3 M27c fail fail HQ7 4 M25c fail fail HQ7 5 M23a pass fail HQ7 6 M22a pass fail HQ7 7 W5a pass pass HQ7 8 M22a pass pass HQ6 9 S26b fail fail HQ7 10 M22a pass fail HQ6 11 S28b fail fail HQ6 12 MG9 fail fail HQ7 13 Carex acutiformis fail fail HQ7 16 M22b pass pass HQ7 18 M23a pass fail HQ7 20 S26a fail pass HQ6 21 M13a ±pass pass HQ6 23 M27 pass pass HQ6 24 M27 fail fail HQ6 25 S5 pass pass HQ6 27 OV24a fail fail HQ6 28 M27 fail fail HQ7 29 Carex acutiformis fail fail HQ7 30 Carex acutiformis fail fail HQ7 31 M27c ±pass pass HQ6 32 M22a pass pass HQ6 34 M23a pass fail HQ6 35 M23a pass fail HQ7 36 S7 pass fail HQ6 37 S22 fail fail HQ7 38 Carex acutiformis pass fail HQ6 39 OV26 fail n/a HQ6 40 M13a fail fail HQ7 42 M13c ±pass pass HQ6 43 M6c fail fail HQ7 44 M27c pass fail HQ6 45 Carex acutiformis fail fail HQ7 46 M22a pass pass HQ6 47 MG9 fail pass HQ6 48 Carex acutiformis fail fail HQ7 49 M22a fail fail HQ6
Page 140
CSM IoS NVC Option
pass/fail pass/fail Site 52 S7 fail pass HQ6 53 OV26 fail fail HQ7 54 M23 fail fail HQ6 55 S26 fail fail HQ7 56 M22a pass fail HQ7 57 Carex acutiformis pass pass HQ7 58 S27 ±pass fail HQ7 59 OV26d fail fail HQ6 60 W5a fail fail HQ7 61 MG10a fail fail HQ7 62 M22a pass pass HQ6 63 W1 fail fail HQ6 64 M23b pass pass HQ7 65 M23b fail fail HQ7 66 M23a pass fail HQ7 67 S24 pass pass HQ6 68 MG9 pass pass HQ6 69 M23a pass fail HQ7 70 S28 fail fail HQ7 71 M22b/M24b pass pass HQ6 73 M23b pass pass HQ6 74 OV26/S27 ±pass pass HQ7 75 M6a pass pass HQ7 76 MG1b fail fail HQ6 78 W5 pass fail HQ7 79 M22a pass fail HQ6 80 M13 pass pass HQ6 81 M22a fail fail HQ7 82 OV26 fail fail HQ7 83 Carex acutiformis fail fail HQ7 84 Carex acutiformis pass pass HQ7 85 S5 fail pass HQ6 86 S26 fail fail HQ6
Page 141
Appendix 6: Management information
Tabulated information on management practices at each site
Information shown was determined from the informal management survey conducted with the landowner/manager of each site, showing information on NVC community, fen management option and condition assessment class from the 2014 assessment, together with capital works items paid for and the suitability of management for the site.
Site NVC HLS Supp. Condition Grazed Cut Scrub control Weed Water Other Capital works Fen Requirement Option control management payments for… management suitable? 1 OV26 HQ7 HQ11 C cattle no no no no no none yes 2 M25a HQ6 HQ12 A sheep, swiped topped no no fenced none yes goats, 1to2/yr ponies 3 M27c HQ7 HQ11 C no no no no no tree-planting fencing - unfinished no needs cutting management or grazing 4 M25c HQ7 HQ12 B cattle hay/silage no yet, some in 2015 spot spray no no sheep fencing & yes cut docks, pull hedge planting of 1to2/year ragwort wider unit 5 M23a HQ7 HQ12 A cattle, no no no no fenced scrub control, stone yes ponies wall restoration & pond creation 6 M22a HQ7 HQ12 A sheep 1/4 no no no no fencing no needs harder graze rushes/yr to control rushes 7 W5a HQ7 none A no open fen tree removal & no ditch clearance & no construction of yes mown in rhododendron dam construction water penning Sept to removal (dams) 8cm 8 M22a HQ6 HQ12 A cattle no no no no no post/wire fencing & yes livestock handling facilities 9 S26b HQ7 HQ11 C no no no no no no none no requires cutting management or grazing 10 M22a HQ6 HQ12 A cattle no no no no no none yes
Page 142
Site NVC HLS Supp. Condition Grazed Cut Scrub control Weed Water Other Capital works Fen Requirement Option control management payments for… management suitable? 11 S28b HQ6 none C cattle no no no no no scrub no needs harder graze control/management and some scrub control 12 MG9 HQ7 HQ12 C cattle occ. no no no no removal of eyesore no needs harder/more s'times topping & install. of consistent grazing river/field gate 13 S7- HQ6 HQ12 B cattle no no no no no post/wire fencing no needs harder/more related consistent grazing 16 M22b HQ7 HQ12 A sheep no yes, ongoing no no no none yes 18 M23a HQ7 HQ12 A cattle no no no drain blocked to no post/wire fencing & yes increase wetness scrub control 20 S26a HQ6 HQ11 B no no invasive willow cut no no dipwells tree surgery, special yes & stumps treated projects (dipwells) & professional fees for impl. Plan 21 M13a HQ6 HQ12 A cattle no bramble, alder no ditch clearance & no scrub management yes control culverts installed & culverts 23 M27 HQ6 none A cattle no no no no no none yes 24 M27 HQ6 HQ12 C cattle no no no no no coppicing bankside no needs harder graze trees and some scrub control 25 S5 HQ6 HQ12 A cattle no occasional removal no no small scrapes none yes of invasive willow in 2013 spp 27 OV24a HQ6 none C sheep, no removal of invasive no no no none yes ponies alder at the western margin 28 M27 HQ7 HQ12 B cattle no no spot no - but elsewhere new ponds Tree surgery & yes treatment on site creation of of thistle temporary ponds 29 S7- HQ7 HQ12 C cattle topping no topping no used to burn Tree removal & no needs harder/more related weeds post/wire fencing consistent graze 30 S7- HQ7 none C no yes annual scrub control no no no none no related 31 M27c HQ6 HQ12 A cattle no no no no no none yes 32 M22a HQ6 HQ12 A cattle topped to no topped to no no none yes control control thistles thistles
Page 143
Site NVC HLS Supp. Condition Grazed Cut Scrub control Weed Water Other Capital works Fen Requirement Option control management payments for… management suitable? 34 M23a HQ6 HQ12 A cattle no just grazing to no no no none yes control alder saplings 35 M23a HQ7 HQ12 A cattle hay cut or no no no no sheep fencing yes topped s'times 36 S7 HQ6 HQ12 A cattle no no no no no sheep fencing one yes boundary. 37 S22 HQ7 HQ12 B cattle no no no possibly some no Unclear from map. yes work to Fencing and ditch ditch/drains restoration likely. 38 S7- HQ6 HR2 A cattle, before occasional removal no no no none yes related sheep 2012 of invasive trees 39 OV26 HQ6 HQ11 C no annual scrub cut no no management tree surgery, tree yes, although occasionally with of the adjacent planting & scrub this site rest of vegetation field margin control should not really be considered as fen 40 M13a HQ7 HQ11 C no cut on 3- forest mulcher to no occ. ditch none no cutting required yr rotation control willow, clearance ,ore frequently birch, Ulex and/or site requires grazing 42 M13c HQ6 HQ11 A no cut cut with rest of no no Anglian water scrub control in NE yes Site would benefit annually vegetation to mend quadrant of site. from introduction leaking sewage of grazing though. pipe 43 M6c HQ7 none B deer no no no no no none no Not a fen. Bracken (deer dominated with park) two areas of marshy grassland. Requires grazing. 44 M27c HQ6 HQ12 A cattle no no no no no Ditch restoration yes 45 S7- HQ7 HQ12 B cattle topped no thistles no no Timber stile, yes related s'times topped footbridge, field gate.
Page 144
Site NVC HLS Supp. Condition Grazed Cut Scrub control Weed Water Other Capital works Fen Requirement Option control management payments for… management suitable? 46 M22a HQ6 HQ12 A water cut in no no this site is Ditch restoration, yes buffalo 2013 and managed as part of field/river gates & this may a much larger fencing and electric continue scheme which has sheep fencing included flooding of large areas 47 MG9 HQ6 HQ12 B cattle topped no thistles scrapes dug no Post/wire fencing no Harder graze or s'times topped northern boundary cutting required. However - not a fen community - MG9. 48 S7- HQ7 HQ12 B occ. no no no no no Post/wire fencing, no Harder graze or related Cattle field/river gate & cutting requred. temporary pond Nutrient rich. creation. 49 M22a HQ6 HQ12 B sheep no no no no fencing none yes 52 S7 HQ6 none B not not known not known not known not known not known none yes known 53 OV26 HQ7 HQ11 C no no no no no no professional fees for no A management plan impl. plan has been drawn up. If implemented site should improve but cutting and/or grazing still required. 54 M23b HQ6 HQ12 C cattle no trees cut back on no ditch clearance no Ditch restoration & no Requires harder boundary post/wire fencing graze or topping of rushes. 55 S26 HQ7 HR2 C no no clearance to less no pond re-profiled in no Scrub management no Requires than 20% tree/scrub 2006 & tree removal grazing/cutting cover this year management. 56 M22a HQ7 HQ12 A sheep no no no no no none yes (occ. cattle) 57 S7- HQ7 HQ11 A cattle 1/3 sedges no no no no Sheep fencing, field yes Suitable but even related annually gate, professional better with fees for impl. Plan increased grazing pressure 58 S27 HQ7 HQ12 A cattle no no no no fenced none yes Suitable but even better with increased grazing pressure
Page 145
Site NVC HLS Supp. Condition Grazed Cut Scrub control Weed Water Other Capital works Fen Requirement Option control management payments for… management suitable? 59 OV26d HQ6 none C no no Pollarding of willow no no no tree surgery no Grazing is not feasible here but cutting management should be intensified. 60 W5a HQ7 HQ11 B cattle yes, to whole area cleared no no no scrub management yes control of alder/willow scrub secondary woodland regrowth 61 MG10a HQ7 none C no annually whole area cleared no no no none yes mown but of birch secondary not in woodland 2014 62 M22a HQ6 HQ12 A cattle topped to scrub has been cut topped to no no none yes control from one area control thistles recently thistles and ragwort 63 W1 HQ6 none C no no no no no no none no Too small to graze. Occ. coppicing of a few shrubs at a time would benefit site. 64 M23b HQ7 none A no has been willow scrub cleared no ditch blocked to no none 2 years ago increse wetness 65 M23b HQ7 HQ12 C cattle topped to Some control of no no no none yes control invasive alder, more Juncus spp planned 66 M23a HQ7 HQ12 A cattle, no no no no no none yes sheep 67 S24 HQ6 HQ12 A cattle no alder cut at intervals no Dykes cleaned no Dyke restoration, yes periodically field/river gates, culverts 68 MG9 HQ6 HQ12 A cattle hay-cut no no flooded annually no fencing yes annually 69 M23a HQ7 HQ12 A sheep no no no no no field gate only yes
Page 146
Site NVC HLS Supp. Condition Grazed Cut Scrub control Weed Water Other Capital works Fen Requirement Option control management payments for… management suitable? 70 S28 HQ7 none C no no underway no water penning no water penning no water management structures, timber & scrub work is sluice, scrub good but site will management need some cutting management 71 M24b HQ6 HQ12 A cattle formerly no no RSPB maintain SE no sheep fencing newly yes hay-cut boundary ditch restored boundary 73 M23b HQ6 none A cattle no no no no no none yes 74 OV26 HQ7 none A no no cutting back no recent work on no scrub management, yes An occasional cut birch/willow dam to control fencing would benefit fen. drainage - filter beds and drains installed. 75 M6a HQ7 HQ12 A cattle no no no no boundary none yes Although recent fenced and fencing of main west part has block may reduce cattle- grazing level . exclosure fence 76 MG1b HQ6 HQ11 C no no no no no no none none This site requires active cutting management of reedbed and grazing of grassland. (Neither is fen) 78 W5 HQ7 HQ12 A cattle, no Scrub/tree removal no no no Post/wire fencing, yes ponies and ponies being field/river gate & used to control scrub management bramble 79 M22a HQ6 none A cattle no no no no no none yes Although in 2014 (not in site appears under- 2014) managed due to absence of grazing. 80 M13 HQ6 HQ12 A cattle no not since 2006 no neighbours have no fencing of northern yes cleared ditches boundary 81 M22a HQ7 none C no no scrub clearance no no no Scrub management no Site undermanaged ongoing & professional fees - requires grazing for impl. plan (owner planning sheep grazing)
Page 147
Site NVC HLS Supp. Condition Grazed Cut Scrub control Weed Water Other Capital works Fen Requirement Option control management payments for… management suitable? 82 OV26 HQ7 HQ12 B no no willow removed no Stream re-routed, no Sheep fencing no Species-poor. drainage works to Requires increased increase wetness. cutting/grazing to increase biodiversity. 83 S7- HQ7 none B cattle formerly scrub control no no no Scrub management no Cattle graze with related cut & tree/scrub adjoining field and clearance do not eneter enough due to broken bridge. Needs heavier graze. 84 S7- HQ7 HQ12 A sheep formerly no no no no timber sluice yes related hay-cut 85 S5 HQ7 none B no no coppicing shrubs no some vegetation no none yes cleared from adjacent parts of the canal 86 S26 HQ6 none C no no no no no tree planting none yes This site is managed to out-shade for breeding birds, Oenanthe not to maintain crocata open fen.
Page 148
Appendix 7: Individual site reports including distribution map
Distribution map of the individual HQ6 and HQ7 option fen sample sites, shown with site numbers, referred to in the following individual site reports.
Page 149
Site 1: Walcot, Lincs HLS Options HQ7 Grid. ref TF0702 HLS Supplements HQ12 Area (ha) 1.92 (of larger 2.84) Survey Date 15.8.2014 PJW NVC OV26 (M22 E. telmateia fen – OV24)
Site: The area managed under the HQ7 option is in the valley of a small stream that collects water from the surrounding Jurassic limestone. It is divided by a fence into two small fields. Only the western field was surveyed as the eastern field was an impenetrable mosaic of Phragmites australis/Eupatorium cannabinum swamp, Epilobium hirsutum fen and W1 scrub. Two large ponds were excavated in the western field in the 1950s for duck shooting. The rest of the field has dry grassland on the valley slope to the north, with fen and fen-meadow in the valley bottom. The spring-line is particularly evident at the western end of the field where there are several small springs and runnels. The pH of this water is 7.8. Much of the field has become invaded by scrub. Management: One third of the eastern field is cut each year but there is no grazing. The western field is grazed by cattle throughout the year. Three Galloway cows were present at the time of survey. The site manager breeds pedigree Galloway cattle. The estate includes the Southorpe Roughs SSSI and there are large areas under restoration to calcareous grassland within HLS. Vegetation: Dry grassland on the low bank along the northern edge of the site has a species-poor, tussocky grassland dominated by the grasses Holcus lanatus, Festuca arundinacea with Brachypodium pinnatum grading to the west into grassland dominated by Arrhenatherum elatius with abundant Cirsium arvense and Urtica dioica. The gentle slope below this bank in the east has species-poor fen-meadow with locally abundant Juncus inflexus and much Cirsium arvense. Further west the slope is flushed, and there are dense stands of Equisetum telmateia with Poa trivialis, Calystegia sepium, Urtica dioica and Epilobium hirsutum and a ground layer of Kindbergia praelongum, Brachythecium rutabulum, Veronica beccabunga and Lemna minor. More species-rich fen-meadow and tall-herb fen in the valley bottom is dominated by Filipendula ulmaria with local Juncus inflexus, Mentha aquatica, Carex hirta, Deschampsia cespitosa, Angelica sylvestris and Arrhenatherum elatius. Silaum silaus, Galium uliginosum, Centaurea nigra and Sanguisorba officinalis are rare. Stands of scrub in the valley bottom are dominated by Salix cinerea, while on the slope there are dense stands of Rubus fruticosus and Prunus spinosa. NVC: The dry grasslands are CG4c grading northwards into MG1b. Flushed grasslands on the slope are closest to a species-poor M22b, although with affinities to MG9b. The tall-herb fen and fen- meadow in the valley bottom have affinities with M22, M27 and OV26c, but with sustained grazing management will probably develop into M22 fen-meadow. The Equisetum telmateia tall-herb community is not described in the NVC and there are no obvious affinities although it may be closest to OV24. The scrub can be assigned to W1, W22 and W24 on the basis of dominant woody species. Condition Assessment: Fail. Fails on frequency of positive indicator species; one species frequent and three occasional; and on cover of scrub; there is approx. 30% over the whole field. A total of approximately 10% in a discrete managed stand along the southern edge would be acceptable. HLS Indicators of success: This stand fails the following IoS: cover of scrub; there is c. 30% over the whole field. A total c. 10% in a discrete managed stand along the southern edge would be acceptable; Vegetation is more than knee-high over much of the area. This is unavoidable in the area dominated by Equisetum telmateia. Soils: The high pH soil is derived from underlying Jurassic limestone. Total nitrogen and loss on ignition are low indicating little accumulation of peat and a predominantly mineral soil. Extractable phosphorus level is very low, potassium level also very low, but magnesium content is moderate.
Soil pH Olsens P Inde Soil K Index K Soil MG Index Total Loss on Total Organic Soil texture (Water) (mg/l) x P (mg/l) (mg/l) MG N (%) Ignition P Carbon 7.6 6 0 116 1 119 3 0.79 14 0 0 Sandy silt loam
Page 150
Site 2: Manton & Twigmore SSSI, Scunthorpe, Lincs
HLS Options HQ6 Grid. ref SE 9305 HLS Supplements HQ12 Area (ha) 4.20 (of 10.97 in larger parcel) Survey Date 02.08.2014 BRW NVC M25a
Statutory Designation Manton and Twigmoor SSSI, Unit 1 (Keepers Cottage), Favourable
Site: This larger site supports dwarf shrub heath, purple moor grass and rush pasture and lowland bog habitat. The unit selected for survey is a shallow basin fed by acidic springs draining from adjacent sandy grassland and supports a heathy Molinia mire community that largely conforms to the definition of fen.
Management: Managed chiefly by grazing using Hebridean sheep, goats and Exmoor ponies. Ponies are removed in summer due to flies but sheep and goats graze all year round (local tenant grazier). The grassland is swiped once or twice a year. If any scrub comes up that the stock haven’t dealt with it is topped. The site was in ES prior to this and has been managed the same since early 1990s. No clearing of ditches has taken place. Enclosed by fencing. Vegetation: The site is dominated by tussocky Molinia with ground flora that varies from heathy, Erica tetralix dominated to wetter Eriophorum angustifolium/Sphagnum spp. dominated. There are numerous Betula pubescens seedlings but few saplings or trees. Erica tetralix, Juncus acutiflorus, Hydrocotyle vulgaris and Sphagnum spp. (collectively – S. denticulatum, S. inundatum, S. subnitens, S. palustre, S. fallax) are frequent, whilst Potentilla erecta and Eriophorum angustifolium are occasional, and Viola palustris, Calluna vulgaris, Dryopteris carthusiana, Lycopus europaeus, Carex echinata, C. nigra and C. demissa are rare components. In addition to Sphagnum the moss Aulacomnium palustre is frequent. Trees are scattered within the stand but the margins are W4 and W16, and on dry mounds, dry U4 grassland and heath with Erica cinerea. NVC: The stand ranges from near M6 to M16 in wetter stands but the bulk of the stand is closest to M25a: this is confirmed by MATCH analysis which gave the highest similarity coefficient for M25a (54.0%), although M6d was close at 52.8% - probably due to the high constancy and cover of Sphagnum denticulatum and the presence of Carex echinata. However the high constancy of Erica tetralix and the low constancy of Polytrichum commune lead to closer affinities with M25a overall.
Condition Assessment: Passes (assessed against M25 attributes). The site meets the targets for generic fen habitat attributes of water management, habitat structure, negative species and scrub cover; and meets positive indicator targets for M25a habitat (i.e. G07 Purple moor grass and rush pasture). HLS Indicators of success: The site passes all the IoS with the exception of frequency of ‘desirable species’, on which it fails with 2 frequent, 1 occasional and 2 rare species (target 2 x F + 3 x O); however, the list is insufficient and the site would pass if it contained the same species as the HLS condition assessment (i.e. + Eriophorum angustifolium & Hydrocotyle vulgaris). Soils: The soils are acidic and sandy with very low available potassium and phosphorus with moderately high magnesium. Nitrogen and organic matter are low, indicating little peat accumulation and a mineral soil. Total P (reflecting both available and unavailable P) is also low. Low P is required for botanical biodiversity.
Soil pH Olsens P Index Soil K Index K Soil MG Index Total Loss on Total Organic Texture (Water) (mg/l) P (mg/l) (mg/l) MG N (%) Ignition P Carbon 5.2 5 0 47 0 74 2 0.45 14.9 346 9.94 Sandy
Page 151
Site 3: Branthwaite, Cumbria HLS Options HQ7 Grid. ref NY 0525 HLS Supplements HQ11 Area (ha) 0.89 Survey Date 10.08.2014 BRW NVC M27c/a
Site: This small tall herb fen occupies a shallow basin where water collects and then drains via a roughly central water track into a tributary of the River Marron, which flows a few hundred metres to the east. This site is probably flooded for the winter months and the central Salix stand had some open water during the survey. Management: The fen is currently unmanaged. The farm has Hereford cattle, which are not really suitable for this fen habitat, and the boundary fence is incomplete. Capital works allowance for fencing and scrub control applies to the farm in general but not to this unit. Capital works applies to the installation of 2 timber sluice gates though. The fen requires grazing and/or topping and scrub control will be required. Vegetation: The fen is not species-rich (6–19 species per 4m x 4m quadrat, with 30 in total) but nor is it in poor condition. It is overwhelmingly dominated by Filipendula ulmaria with varying quantities of Juncus acutiflorus (15% overall) and Juncus effusus (5% overall), which give it affinities with rush pasture but it is closer to tall herb fen. Desirable fen species Angelica sylvestris, Galium palustre and Equisetum fluviatile are more or less constant, whilst Lotus pedunculatus is occasional. Valeriana officinalis, Hydrocotyle vulgaris and Lathyrus pratensis are present, but rare components. Grasses are represented by frequent Holcus lanatus and very local occurrences of Arrhenatherum elatius, Festuca rubra and Poa trivialis. Deschampsia cespitosa is present but rare. Negative species include small patches of Urtica dioica and a few Rumex obtusifolius plants. A dense stand of Salix cinerea occupies the lowest, central ground at either end (north-east and south-west). Only common, widely recorded bryophytes were present. NVC: The vegetation is a fairly typical example of species poor M27 tall herb fen or fen meadow, and is intermediate in character between M27c and M27a. MATCH analysis put the stand closer to M27c (59.0%) than M27a (56.7%), probably due to localised frequency of Juncus effusus and Holcus lanatus. However, the constant Galium palustre and frequent Rumex acetosa, and the high frequency of Angelica sylvestris are more indicative of M27a. The prevalence of Juncus spp. was responsible for high MATCH results for M23b (50.9%) and M23a (48.7%) rush pasture, but the vegetation is atypical for rush pasture. (Adjacent grassland supports Succisa pratensis, which could colonise the fen in time with appropriate management.) Condition Assessment: Fails (assessed against M27 attributes). The site meets the targets for generic fen habitat attributes of water management and negative species. With two abundant, two frequent, one occasional and three rare positive indicator species; and two rare negative indicator species, the site also passes on botanical attributes. However, scrub cover at 35% and litter cover at 30% are both a little high due to lack of scrub control and recent grazing, respectively. The site fails overall, but marginally. HLS Indicators of success: (For Fen & Snipe) The fen passes on ‘desirable species’ frequency, wetness and cover of undesirable species but fails (just) on cover of scrub as it is >30%. Soils: The sandy silty loam is neutral and has a low soil phosphorus content, suitable for establishing botanical diversity. Potassium is moderate, and magnesium high. Total nitrogen is high, even for long-term grassland, and organic matter are correspondingly high – probably reflecting the lack of grazing in recent years and subsequent high litter deposition in the site.
Soil pH Olsens P Index P Soil K Index K Soil MG Index MG Total N Loss on Total P Organic Soil Texture (Water) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (%) Ignition Carbon 5.8 11 1 149 2- 160 3 1.19 40.5 1452 19.3 Sandy Silty Loam
Page 152
Site 4: Oss Mere SSSI, Whitchurch, Shrops HLS Options HQ7 Grid. ref SJ 5643 HLS Supplements HQ12 Area (ha) 1.30 (of 1.60) Survey Date 19/08/2014 GQB & LR NVC M25c
Designation & Name: Oss Mere SSSI Unit 4 (Midland Meres & Mosses Phase 2 Ramsar site)
Site: This is a large cattle grazed on gentle slopes above Oss Mere. There are several in-field drains, a small pond, Juncus/Deschampsia cespitosa dominated vegetation, Salix scrub and Molinia- dominated fen. The area sampled is the Molinia-dominated fen. This is essentially fen meadow, probably irrigated by surface run-off and lateral water movement. Management: Docks were initially a major problem when the owners bought the field, but now spot spraying rosettes successfully controls them. Ragwort can still be an issue - in 2011 20 tons were hand pulled from the field. The field is cattle grazed (by a neighbouring farmer) providing it is not too wet. The field "grows really fast" and is often cut once for hay/silage as well as grazing. During wet years when grazing is difficult it may be cut more than once. No drainage works have been undertaken in accordance with NE wishes, but there is a conflict between the no drainage works policy and the need to graze the site, as it can be a problem getting the cattle across one of the drains onto the field. In winter the wettest part of the field (i.e. the Molinia area) has knee- height water. Farmer reports that there are two land drains on neighbour's land draining into the pond: since the neighbour did some work on the drains, this field has been much wetter. The farmers are intending to apply for a hedge between double fences at the top of the field this year and will be undertaking some willow cutting. Capital works – sheep fencing & hedge planting. Vegetation: Dominated by Molinia caerulea with Centaurea nigra, Cirsium palustre, Potentilla erecta and Succisa pratensis all constant or nearly so, plus Carex panicea, Filipendula ulmaria and Rumex acetosa fairly frequent. Sphagnum palustre patchy. NVC: The vegetation is a good representation of M25c, which is associated with fen meadow and supports the greatest frequency of tall fen herbs of the three subcommunities. MATCH similarity coefficient 61.3% – higher than for other M25 communities due to the tall-herb component. Condition Assessment: Fail (assessed against fen and M25 attributes and criteria). On generic fen targets the site meets the water management criteria at 100% wetness and passes on cover of negative species, bare ground and litter but fails on cover of scrub (at 40%). The site meets the positive indicator targets for M25 with three positive indicator species which are frequent or above (Filipendula ulmaria, Lotus pedunculatus, Potentilla erecta) plus several occasional and rare indicators. HLS Indicators of success: It is unclear whether the criteria specified refer just to the Molinia fen or to the Juncus/Deschampsia area as well. For the avoidance of doubt, I apply the criteria here to the Molinia area only: Vegetation should be on average knee high with 30% in tussocks >50cm high - Criterion not met, the vegetation is slightly on the short side and it is pretty much all tussocks of Molinia; total scrub is much too high as there are mature willows growing all over the Molinia area; criteria for negative species, bare ground, squelchy ground have been met. Overall unfavourable condition. Removal of some of the willows should help. Soils: Soil is acidic with low soil phosphorus and potassium but very high magnesium and nitrogen. The organic matter component is also very high, indicating some peat accumulation. Recent lack of grazing may be also be responsible for high organic matter and nitrogen.
Soil pH Olsens P Index Soil K Index K Soil MG Index Total Loss on Total Organic Soil texture (Water) (mg/l) P (mg/l) (mg/l) MG N (%) Ignition P Carbon 5.3 8 0 120 1 265 5 1.29 39.6 838 16.6 Silty loam
Page 153
Site 5: The Helm, Oxenholme, Cumbria HLS Option HQ7 Grid. ref SD 5389 HLS Supplements HQ12 & HR2 Area (ha) 3.00 Survey Date 11.08.2014 BRW NVC M23a
Site: The Helm. Owned and managed by a registered charity (Friends of the Lake District) since 2007. Permissive public access. Managed for nature conservation and community use. The Helm is a prominent hill and local landmark. The survey area is part of a larger unit of enclosed pasture on the eastern side of The Helm, occupying gentle to steep west-facing slopes. The survey area occupies a small valley with a tarn at its head and an outflow stream running through the centre. Management: The site has always been grazed but since its purchase in 2007 the charity has reduced the grazing pressure to benefit the vegetation. Stock are excluded from approximately mid- April to mid-August. Current grazing is by 7 fell ponies and 7 head of cattle (shorthorn–Aberdeen Angus crosses), which are opening up the vegetation. Capital works has been used for stone wall restoration of the larger unit and for scrub control and pond creation in/bordering the fen option area. Vegetation: The area of wetland vegetation occupies only a small part of the larger unit, much less than 3.00 ha. The wetland is mostly a Juncus acutiflorus dominated rush pasture along a central watercourse which varies from species poor with high cover of grasses such as Agrostis canina and Festuca rubra, to more diverse areas where Carex nigra, Carex panicea, Galium palustre and Lotus pedunculatus are constant, and Hydrocotyle vulgaris, Ranunculus flammula, Cardamine pratensis, Potentilla erecta and Mentha aquatica are frequent. Viola palustris, Eleocharis palustris, Achillea ptarmica and Dactylorhiza sp. are rare. Bryophytes are represented mostly by Calliergon cuspidatum with occasional Aulacomnium palustre, Rhytidiadelphus squarrosus and Pellia sp. A small area of with additional species Anagallis tenella, Sphagnum spp., Narthecium ossifragum, Pedicularis sylvatica and a Philonotis sp. moss was noted. Marginal vegetation around the tarn is dominated by Juncus bufonius with Juncus bulbosus, Agrostis stolonifera, and Ranunculus omiophyllus. Carex rostrata, Phalaris arundinacea, Juncus effusus and Polytrichum commune feature on side of the tarn. NVC: The main community within the site in the field showed strong affinities with M23a rush pasture, and this was supported by the results of the MATCH analysis in which M23a was the highest similarity coefficient at 65%. It is difficult to separate rush pasture from fen habitat but this site, occupying a small valley and the banks of a watercourse, is fed by groundwater and qualifies as fen. Condition Assessment: The wetland area passes the condition assessment for both G07 Purple moor grass and rush pastures, and the condition assessment for W04 Fens on all attributes and targets. HLS Indicators of success: The site passes three of the four IoS (Squelchy underfoot, > 2 desirable species at least occasional) and scrub is < 10%. However, the fourth IoS (vegetation should be less than knee-high), which the site fails in many areas, is not appropriate for the rush pasture habitat that is present (jointed rushes are included in the desirable species list). Soils: The sandy loan soil is mesotrophic and has low soil P and K and correspondingly high Mg. Organic matter is quite high, which is probably responsible for the high Total N value. The soil is fine for maintenance of species diversity.
Soil pH Olsens P Index Soil K Index K Soil MG Index Total Loss on Total Organic Soil texture (Water) (mg/l) P (mg/l) (mg/l) MG N (%) Ignition P Carbon 5.8 12 1 115 1 132 3 1.01 30.7 1262 16.1 Sandy loam
Page 154
Site 6: Thorncliffe Moor SSSI, Staffs HLS Options HQ7 Grid. ref SK 0258 HLS Supplements HQ12 & HR7 Area (ha) 1.12 Survey Date 13.08.2014 BRW & GQB NVC M10-related small-sedge mire
Statutory Designation Thorncliffe Moor SSSI, Unit 6 – Ley fields. Unfavourable Recovering.
Site: An upland pasture on sloping ground, lying at c. 370 m a.s.l. The FEP map shows a G07/W04 mosaic but both habitats are included in the same HLS HQ7 unit. The majority of the site is poor M23b rush pasture on damp, poorly draining clayey soils subject to surface run-off from the hill above. On the western side several springs give rise to linear flushes with associated base-rich flush vegetation – this is the habitat that we sampled and of high conservation value. The spring-fed mires here are one of the reasons for SSSI designation. Due to the elevation of this site it should be assessed as M08 upland flushes, fens and swamps BA habitat, not W04 fens. Management: The site has only been under the current ownership for 3–4 years. It is grazed by sheep (Texel crosses) from April onwards. The rushes are topped occasionally (approx. 25% per year). The owner feels that the site could do with a short, hard graze by 40–50 head of cattle for 2–3 weeks to control rushes. Capital works money has paid for sheep-fencing of part of the unit’s boundaries. Vegetation: The base-rich flush sampled is dominated by Carex panicea and the bryophyte Calliergonella cuspidata, which together forms a continuous ground cover of 70–100%. Above this Carex nigra, Valeriana dioica, Equisetum fluviatile and Galium uliginosum are frequent; Caltha palustris, Triglochin palustris, Eriophorum angustifolium, Lotus pedunculatus are occasional and the base-tolerant Sphagnum squarrosum is rare. Juncus articulatus is constant at 1–5% cover. The upland rush pasture is dominated by Juncus effusus with locally frequent Juncus acutiflorus. Most of the stand is species poor with frequent Cardamine pratensis, occasional Galium palustre but other desirable species are rare (Caltha palustris, Potentilla erecta). Carex paniculata occurs in the wetter stand to the west. NVC: The flush sampled is characteristic of an upland base-rich small-sedge flush that is not described in the NVC but is a recognised community type (Averis et al., 2004). In the field the flush vegetation community appeared to have closest affinities with a M10 mire due to the abundance of Carex panicea and Calliergonella cuspidata and the presence of several typical associates (Triglochin palustris, Valeriana dioica, Galium uliginosum) but it lacked many of the main associates of that community. It is however of high conservation importance. Condition Assessment: Whilst the flush passes a W04 fen condition assessment it should really be assessed as M08 upland flushes fens and swamps. The wider site (M23b rush pasture) would fail the G07 purple moor grass and rush pasture condition assessment on frequency of positive indicator species and excessive cover of non-jointed rushes: it does not really conform to this community type and should be viewed as a rush-dominated enclosed, upland flush. HLS Indicators of success: The IoS section has not been completed correctly in Part 3 of the HLS agreement and lacks detail (such as the required desirable species). However, as with above, the wider site would fail the IoS on wetness and desirable species but the flush habitat would pass.
Soils: The clayey soil, at pH 6.2, is neutral, although surface water sampled on the day gave a higher reading of pH7.3, which is calcareous. Soil P and K are suitably low, whilst Mg is correspondingly high. Total N is very high, probably due to the very high organic matter present, although run-off and over grazing should be eliminated as reasons.
Soil pH Olsens P Index Soil K Index K Soil MG Index Total Loss on Total Organic Soil texture (Water) (mg/l) P (mg/l) (mg/l) MG N (%) Ignition P Carbon 6.2 7 0 54 0 147 3 1.43 57.7 2195 28.6 Clayey Loam
Page 155
Page 156
Site 7: Tarporley, Cheshire Site Code 7 Grid. ref SJ 5660 HLS Options HQ7 Location Tarporley, Cheshire HLS Supplements none Area (ha) 1.56 Survey Date 18.08.2014 GQB & LR NVC Cleared W5a
Site: The majority of this site is wet woodland with and the clearings created by recent tree removal have created open areas developing into sedge-dominated swamp. The site is winter-wet with surface water across the site approximately 1 foot deep in most years. The woodland comprises Alnus glutinosa, Betula spp, Quercus robur & petraea, Sorbus aucuparia and Salix cinerea with large patches of Rhododendron. The ground flora comprises Dryopteris dilatata, Rubus fruticosus, Juncus effusus, Carex paniculata, Glyceria fluitans, Solanum dulcamara, Ranunculus repens, Galium palustre, Lycopus europaeus, Viola palustris and Lonicera periclymenum. The sedge swamp was sampled for this survey and is described below. The open areas are as shown on the FEP map and so no new map has been prepared for this survey. Management: There have been no inputs to the site for many years. Rhododendron removal is occasionally undertaken by volunteers. Open parts of the site are mown in September to a height of 3 inches by the owner. The arisings are composted on site (open to air). Dams have been constructed with Natural England as part of the capital works plan - no further works are planned at this time. Ditches were previously cleared in 1971 and twice since then. The outflow from the site can be a problem as no access is available to the neighbour's land for ditch clearance. The dams have increased water levels on the site noticeably. At the same time as the dams were put in, tree removal was undertaken. Vegetation: Dominated by Carex paniculata with large amounts of bare mud and open water covered in Lemna minor and Callitriche stagnalis. Other species are fairly low in cover, including Dryopteris dilatata, Cardamine flexuosa, Galium palustre, Lycopus europaeus, Urtica dioica, Solanum dulcamara and Ranunculus sceleratus. The clearings are surrounded by mature woodland and regrowth and/or seedlings of Alnus glutinosa, Betula sp., Rubus agg, Salix sp. and Ribes nigrum was noted during the survey. NVC: The swamp obviously derives from cleared W5 Alnus glutinosa - Carex paniculata woodland (MATCH 30.4%), which is the surrounding community. The vegetation has affinities with a poorly developed S3 Carex paniculata swamp (MATCH similarity coefficient is very low at 29.5%), which is one of the target communities for the site. Condition Assessment: Pass (assessed against generic fen attributes and botanical targets for S3). The site is wet enough, with minimal exposed substrate and litter; scrub regrowth is currently under 10%; and the vegetation just meets the target community with two species frequent (Carex paniculata, Galium palustre) and two occasional (Lycopus europaeus, Solanum dulcamara) although it currently lacks any other tall herbs and is species-poor. HLS Indicators of success: The site meets the indicators of success for wetness, desirable species (Two occasional), scrub cover and Rhododendron cover. Ditches were not surveyed. Soils: The soil is mesotrophic and very waterlogged and peaty – giving rise to the high organic matter and nitrogen content readings. Soil phosphorus and potassium are low but magnesium is very high: whether this is due to magnesium-rich underlying rocks or to soluble magnesium in the water throughput is unclear but it is unlikely to be due to fertiliser.
Soil pH Olsens P Index Soil K Index K Soil MG Index Total Loss on Total Organic Soil texture (Water) (mg/l) P (mg/l) (mg/l) MG N (%) Ignition P Carbon 6.2 12 1 95 1 306 5 2.36 85.5 915 28 Loamy Sand
Page 157
Site 8: Kenninghall & Banham Fens SSSI, Kenninghall, Norfolk HLS Options HQ6 Grid. ref TM 0387 HLS Supplements HQ12 & HR1 Area (ha) 1.56 Survey Date 14.08.2014 PJW NVC M22a&b, 24b, S2a,3,7, MG5b, CG2c
Designation & Name: Kenninghall & Banham Fens with Quidenham Mere SSSI, Unit 8 Favourable
Site: One of a series of fen-meadows in the south-eastern corner of the SSSI. The whole SSSI surrounds one of the headwaters of the River Whittle which rises in springs and flush lines emerging from the underlying chalk. Central to the SSSI is the natural water body of Quidenham Mere. The field slopes gently down from the east to the valley bottom. The upper slopes on the chalk and chalky boulder clay to the south-east and at the southern end of the field are dry. Some raised knolls in the north-east may be relics of marl digging. Lower down the slopes there is a flush line and below this the land is wetter. Springs also arise in the valley bottom. Management: At the time of survey this field and those immediately to the north were being grazed by four steers – fenced under capital works. Up to 16 cattle graze these fields in summer–autumn. The fields are not cut/ topped. Vegetation: The dry grassland is largely relatively species-poor but includes Centaurea nigra, Lotus corniculatus, and locally Ononis spinosa, Carex caryophyllea and Euphrasia nemorosa. The chalky knolls in the north-east have additional species including Cirsium acaule, Campanula rotundifolia, Linum catharticum and Primula veris. In the south the dry grassland grades into species-poor rush pasture. The vegetation on wetter land below the flush line is more complex. In the south, there is a large stand of tall, moderately species-rich fen meadow dominated by Juncus subnodulosus and Carex acutiformis and frequent Lotus pedunculatus, Galium uliginosum, Carex flacca, Mentha aquatica, Filipendula ulmaria and Lathyrus pratensis: this grades in the centre into a species-rich community dominated by Molinia caerulea, Juncus subnodulosus, Carex flacca and Festuca rubra. Other frequent species include Centaurea nigra, Cirsium palustre, Galium uliginosum, Lotus pedunculatus, Potentilla erecta, Vicia cracca, Calliergonella cuspidata, Valeriana dioica and Plantago lanceolata. Small patches of this are very closely-grazed and species-rich with Carex panicea, Carex pulicaris, Carex lepidocarpa, Succisa pratensis, Anagallis tenella, Trifolium pratense, Prunella vulgaris and characteristic calcareous flush bryophytes including Fissidens adianthoides, Campylium stellatum and Bryum pseudotriquetrum. Schoenus nigricans is locally frequent. In the central axis of this flush system is a strip of tall Carex acutiformis swamp with a central patch of Phragmites australis on the site of a former pond. In the north Cladium mariscus becomes dominant in a dense stand, with a more mixed swamp of Carex acutiformis, Carex paniculata, Glyceria maxima, Phalaris arundinacea, Iris pseudacorus and Juncus subnodulosus. NVC: The principal fen-meadow type is M22a where Juncus subnodulosus and Carex acutiformis are dominant in the absence of Molinia caerulea. The spring-fed fen is M24b, although in this stand Cirsium dissectum is absent, with a very small area of M13. On the drier land the major grassland type is MG5b, approaching CG2c on the chalky knolls. The swamp stands include S2a, S3 and S7 depending on the dominant species. Scrub by the pond is W21c. Condition Assessment: This site passes the condition assessment. HLS Indicators of success: This site passes the indicators of success. Soils: Total phosphorus and organic carbon were omitted from the analysis. Total nitrogen content and loss on ignition are moderate suggesting some accumulation of peat in the soil. pH is alkaline as expected from the underlying chalk. Extractable phosphorus level was low, potassium and magnesium levels were moderate.
Soil pH Olsens P Index Soil K Index K Soil MG Index Total Loss on Total Organic Soil texture (Water) (mg/l) P (mg/l) (mg/l) MG N (%) Ignition P Carbon 7.4 11 1 289 3 93 2 1.04 24.2 - - Sandy loam
Page 158
Site 9: Stockbridge, Hants
HLS Options HQ7 Grid. ref SU 3329 HLS Supplements HQ11 Area (ha) 1.0 Survey Date 03.09.2014 CEB & DWP NVC S26b
Site: This is a small part parcel of land close to the River Test at Stockbridge, Hampshire. The field is adjacent to a side channel of the river and is presumably influenced by lateral seepage from the river. Whilst the western side of the parcel, the riverbank, is part of the River Test SSSI, Unit 89, the main fen stand is outside its boundary. Management: There has been no active management since the start of the agreement in 2011 and the owner has no knowledge of previous management. The owner expressed frustration at a lack of guidance from NE over management.
Vegetation: The vegetation is dominated by Phragmites australis and Urtica dioica with Galium aparine, Calystegia sepium and Petasites hybridus all frequent to abundant throughout. Symphytum officinale and Stachys palustris were generally frequent while the sedges Carex acutiformis and C. riparia were frequent to locally abundant. Arrhenatherum elatius was locally frequent. Iris pseudacorus and Galeopsis tetrahit were present but rare. Overall, species diversity was fairly low with a lack of bare ground and locally high litter cover indicating a lack of recent management which would allow positive indicators to establish. NVC: The community is clearly an S26 Phragmites australis- Urtica dioica fen and with the abundance of Galium aparine and lack of Eupatorium cannabinum, it is closest to the S26b Arrhenatherum elatius sub-community, particularly with the relative frequency of the preferential Stachys palustris. The abundance of Petasites hybridus is slightly unusual but can occur at high density due to its ability to reproduce vegetatively from male clones under conditions of low disturbance. MATCH analysis corroborates this interpretation with a very high (60.3%) similarity coefficient for sub-community S26b and for community S26 (55.1%) overall. Condition Assessment: Fail (against S25 attributes/targets). The site passes on cover of bare ground and litter but fails on water level management (too dry overall), overall cover of undesirable species (Urtica, Galium aparine) and scrub/trees (20 per cent), and on frequency of positive indicator species: only Phragmites is constant and Iris pseudacorus plus Glyceria maxima are of rare occurrence). HLS Indicators of success: The site does not yet meet the 5-year IoS on < 5% cover of undesirable species, although it probably already passes on the site-specific measure of Sycamore cover. Targets should be set for positive species. As the fen was uncut the knee-high vegetation height at end of growing season could not be assessed. It is not known if the site passes on the presence of Reed bunting. Soils: This site is irrigated by strongly calcareous water. Soil phosphorus and potassium are low, whilst magnesium is high and nitrogen very high. High nitrogen is note reflected in the organic matter component and may therefore not be due to peat accumulation. High levels of nitrogen will encourage weedier species such as Urtica dioica.
Soil pH Olsens P Index Soil K Index K Soil MG Index Total Loss on Total Organic Soil Texture (Water) (mg/l) P (mg/l) (mg/l) MG N (%) Ignition P Carbon 7.9 11 1 98 1 149 3 1.49 34 1606 11.1 Sandy loam
Page 159
Site 10: Burford, Oxon. HLS Options HQ6 Grid. ref SP 2812 HLS Supplements HQ12 Area (ha) 0.28 Survey Date 20.08.2014 BRW & JES NVC M22a
Statutory Designation Formerly within Upper Thames ESA. Swinbrook Watercress Beds County Wildlife Site.
Site: A very small spring-fed mire on the site of historic watercress beds. The fen occupies a small, narrow valley with multiple springs arising at the head and on both sides (to north and south). The site is surrounded by small belts of scrub and semi-improved pasture with low input.
Management: The fen is not enclosed and forms part of a much larger permanent pasture. A tenant grazier has 20 head of young cattle in the larger 9.85 ha unit. The cattle are on from approximately April to mid-September.
Vegetation: The fen is species-rich calcareous fen meadow dominated by Juncus inflexus with constant, high cover of Filipendula ulmaria and Mentha aquatica. Lathyrus pratensis is frequent, whilst Galium uliginosum, Angelica sylvestris, Valeriana dioica and Lychnis flos-cuculi are occasional. Additional desirable species occurring as rare components include Carex flacca, Ajuga reptans, Caltha palustris and Dactylorhiza praetermissa. Grasses are few but are represented by low cover of Agrostis stolonifera, Festuca rubra, Holcus lanatus and occasional plants of Cynosurus cristatus. Bryophytes include frequent, quite abundant Calliergonella cuspidata with scattered other common bryophytes. Aquatics Apium nodiflorum, Veronica beccabunga and Glyceria fluitans occur in the central part of the watercourse with invasive alien species Mimulus guttatus. NVC: The community has strong affinities with M22a fen-meadow, with Juncus subnodulosus replaced entirely by Juncus inflexus. The MATCH analysis also put this as the highest similarity coefficient (M22a, 56.5%) with tall herb fen M27 the second most similar fen type (42.6%).
Condition Assessment: The site passes the condition assessment for W04 Fens on all criteria, but only just passes the RCA for M22 and the condition assessment for G07 purple moor grass and rush pasture as cover of non-jointed rushes is approx. 50–55%. This M22 fen-meadow is dominated by Juncus inflexus (a non-jointed rush), however this species replaces the more usual associate Juncus subnodulosus, which is quite typical for M22 at some sites. Overall favourable condition. HLS Indicators of success: The site passes the IoS set for cover of desirable and undesirable species, wetness and cover of scrub but fails on the height of the vegetation. The IoS is for ‘less than knee- high’ across the fen, which is unrealistic for a rush-dominated fen-meadow. The site should pass.
Soils: The highly calcareous clayey loam has a low soil P index, suitable for maintaining species diversity. Soil K is moderate and Mg is high. Total N and organic matter are very high – perhaps due to peat accumulation, wetness or lack of grazing and subsequent litter build up.
Soil pH Olsens P Index P Soil K Index K Soil MG Index Total Loss on Total P Organic Soil Texture (Water) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) MG N (%) Ignition Carbon 7.7 12 1 138 2- 124 3 1.31 30.1 1497 29.4 Clay Loam
Page 160
Site 11: Winkhill, Staffs HLS Options HQ6 Grid. ref SK 0650 HLS Supplements none Area (ha) 0.25 Survey Date 13.08.2014 BRW & GQB NVC S28b
Site: The fen is a narrow strip of land between two embankments. It is a man-made feature originally constructed as a mill leat to drive a paper mill wheel at its eastern end. The leat was filled by a dam on the River Hamps which flows along the western boundary. The leat was drained during WWII and has been empty since then, although always damp/waterlogged and never dry.
Management: The site has been in the same ownership since the 1900s. Stock have access to the fen from the adjoining field and sometimes wander into the fen area. Currently 2 cows and their 2 calves graze the fen and adjoining field – mixed beef stock. No other management is carried out. Capital works payment for scrub control/management. Vegetation: The fen supports a tall-herb fen dominated over much of the area by Phalaris arundinacea with frequent and often quite high cover of Juncus effusus. The lower tier of vegetation is quite grassy with frequent Holcus lanatus and locally frequent Alopecurus pratensis, Agrostis stolonifera and Festuca rubra (where drier). Equisetum palustre is more or less constant at low cover. Forbs include constant Epilobium palustre, Ranunculus repens and Urtica dioica (which is very abundant locally). Forbs of sparser occurrence include Epilobium hirsutum, Filipendula ulmaria (locally abundant), Galium aparine, Cirsium arvense, Cirsium palustre and Myosotis scorpioides. At the western end a large stand of Butomus umbellatus was recorded. NVC: With constant and often high cover of Phalaris arundinacea there are obviously strong affinities with S28 tall-herb fen, in particular S28b sub-community due to the frequency of Urtica dioica and Epilobium hirsutum (MATCH similarity coefficient 44.0%). MATCH also returned a high result for the open water transitional community OV26 (44.5%) due to the frequency of Epilobium hirsutum in combination with Juncus effusus but this community generally has little Phalaris in it. Condition Assessment: Fail – assessed against genetic fen targets. This site passes generic tall-herb fen targets on water management, exposed substrate, litter cover and woody species (although scrub from the boundary is invading) but fails on positive indicator species (Filipendula ulmaria, Galium palustre, Mentha aquatica are present but of rare occurrence) and is borderline on cover of negative indicators (Urtica dioica is 5%, Rubus fruticosus 1%, Rumex obtusifolius 2% and Cirsium arvense present.) Phalaris dominated S28 tall-herb fen is typically a species-poor community type. (A suitable aim for this site would be to develop an M27 tall-herb fen.) HLS Indicators of success: The site fails the IoS on desirable species frequency.
Soils: The soil water is acid-neutral. Soil phosphorus is high, which generally prohibits the establishment of botanical diversity, although this is less important in waterlogged sites. Soil potassium and magnesium are moderate–high, but nitrogen is moderate and organic matter quite low indicating little peat accumulation and a largely mineral soil.
Soil pH Olsens P Index Soil K Index K Soil MG Index Total Loss on Total Organic Soil texture (Water) (mg/l) P (mg/l) (mg/l) MG N (%) Ignition P Carbon 5.4 26 3 184 2+ 100 2 0.67 16.5 1676 10.6 Clay
Page 161
Site 12: The Ings SSSI, Amotherby, N Yorks HLS Options HQ7 Grid. ref SE 7575 HLS Supplements HQ12 Area (ha) 3.2 (of larger 12.8) Survey Date 05.08.2015 BRW & PJW NVC MG9 & M27c (former MG4)
Statutory Designation The Ings, Amotherby SSSI, Unit 1, Unfavourable recovering
Site: A wet grassland/fen-meadow site lying on alluvial soils of the River Rye floodplain, some 500m from the current course of the river. The site comprises four meadows separated by flood banks and drains: the meadows are therefore physically isolated from the river and do not flood but retain a high water table. The study site was the south-eastern meadow, which was flat and low lying (20 m a.s.l.). Whether this community qualifies as a fen or a grassland community is open to question. It would be more appropriately targeted under HK options. It is however, a scarce habitat type in N Yorks and of considerable conservation interest for that reason. Management: The meadows have been purchased by a charity ‘Countryside Learning’ with the aim of managing them to provide a learning resource to the local community. A tenant grazier (generally cattle) is used but the site was ungrazed in 2014 as there was difficulty getting stock on the site. Some remedial work has taken place – topping and removing cuttings. A new grazier may be sought and additional grazing by sheep is planned but more fencing is required prior to this. The site appears under-managed. Vegetation: Neglected fen-meadow community dominated by Filipendula ulmaria with a lower tier, which included frequent to locally abundant Deschampsia cespitosa, especially to the (drier) south. Other grasses include Alopecurus pratensis, Festuca rubra, Holcus lanatus, Festuca arundinacea and locally frequent Molinia caerulea. Most typical fen-meadow species are still present, including frequent Sanguisorba officinalis and Angelica sylvestris, with scattered plants of Lotus corniculatus, Centaurea nigra, Galium palustre, Serratula tinctoria, Potentilla erecta, and Silaum silaus. Rushes were sparse with occasional Juncus effusus, J. acutiflorus and J. conglomeratus. NVC: The community probably derives from MG4 floodplain grassland community (MATCH similarity coefficient a low 37.2%) but absence of grazing has led to the community becoming impoverished and developing closer affinity with M27 tall herb fen (MATCH M27c 51.5%) and, where Deschampsia cespitosa is abundant, MG9 (54.2%). With a return to traditional cutting and/or grazing management this community should be restored to MG4 with little difficulty. Condition Assessment: Fail. Assessed against generic W04 fen targets and M27 tall herb fen species attributes: the site was quite dry and probably fails the target for wetness (although this was an extremely dry year); frequency of undesirable species Cirsium arvense and cover of Deschampsia cespitosa were both too high. Positive fen indicator species included three frequent and six of rare occurrence (± pass), and cover of exposed substrate, litter and scrub was within target limits. The site would fail an MG4 grassland RCA on cover of undesirable species and vegetation height. HLS Indicators of success: The site does not meet the IoS targets for wetness, frequency of listed desirable species or vegetation height. It fails HQ12 IoS on structure of heights too. Soils: The alluvial clay soil is mildly acidic with very low soil phosphorus (suitable for restoration/maintenance of botanical biodiversity). Potassium is moderately high and magnesium very high. Organic matter in the soil is quite low and nitrogen levels moderate. The soil is low on organic matter and mostly mineral.
Soil pH Olsens P Index Soil K Index K Soil MG Index Total Loss on Total Organic Soil texture (Water) (mg/l) P (mg/l) (mg/l) MG N (%) Ignition P Carbon 5.4 6 0 193 2+ 238 4 0.78 23.1 1008 10.5 Clay
Page 162
Site 13: Frome St Quintin SSSI, Dorset HLS Options HQ7 Grid ref. ST 5803 HLS Supplements HQ12 Area (ha) 3.18 Surveyor & Date 31.7.2014 PJW, MER NVC S7-related (OV26b), S6
Statutory designation Frome St Quintin SSSI, Unit 2, Unfavourable Recovering.
Site: This site is part of the Frome St Quintin SSSI, a large complex of wet woodland, swamp, fen and grassland in the valleys and on the flushed slopes of headwaters of the River Frome. It is situated on a west-facing slope most of which appears to be very wet, with water emerging in a line of flushes at the top of the slopes and also from springs lower down the slope. The western and southern edges of the field are dry. Management: The named agreement holder has recently sold the field to a new owner. Up until recently the field has been managed by grazing with up to 12 cattle for a few weeks in July and August when the field was sufficiently dry. There has been little other management. Vegetation: The majority of the vegetation is dense, tall fen dominated by Carex acutiformis with frequent tussocks of Carex paniculata in water tracks. Iris pseudacorus, Equisetum telmateia, Eupatorium cannabinum and Oenanthe crocata are all abundant. Carex paniculata is dominant in the north-eastern corner, Phragmites australis, Phalaris arundinacea and Equisetum telmateia are dominant in the north-west and there is a stand of Carex riparia swamp in the centre of the field. Lathyrus pratensis, Lythrum salicaria, Mentha aquatica, and Filipendula ulmaria are occasional. The dry margins of the field in the west and south have scrub and woodland dominated by Salix cinerea and Quercus robur, and there are stands of Pteridium aquilinum. NVC: Although Carex acutiformis is dominant over most of the field, the vegetation cannot be classified as S7 Carex acutiformis swamp. The best fit from MATCH is OV26b, although the characteristic species of the community Epilobium hirsutum and Urtica dioica are uncommon. There are small stands of S6, S3 and S25. The scrubby edges have W10a, W1 and W25. The target is for S3 and M27. Condition Assessment: The site fails the condition assessment for the following reasons: Cover of litter is 45% Although not a reason for failure, it is considered that the cover of tall Carex spp. is too great for favourable condition. HLS Indicators of success: The site passes most indicators of success, however although not a reason for failure, it is considered that the cover of tall Carex spp. is too great for favourable condition. The HQ12 IoS on a mosaic of heights is probably also not met.
Soils: The soil here is derived from the underlying chalk and pH is alkaline. Extractable phosphorus and total phosphorus contents are low. Potassium and magnesium contents are also low. Total nitrogen content, loss on ignition and organic carbon content are moderately high indicating an accumulation of organic matter.
Soil pH Olsens P Index Soil K Index K Soil MG Index Total Loss on Total P Organic Soil texture (Water) (mg/l) P (mg/l) (mg/l) MG N (%) Ignition Carbon 7.7 13 1 96 1 75 2 1.19 31 1072 13.4 Sandy Loam
Page 163
Site 14: Much Marcle, Herefs HLS Options HQ6 Grid. ref SO 6533 HLS Supplements Area (ha) 3.18 Survey Date 22.08.2014 BRW/JES NVC n/a
Site: The site comprises a wetland system (a series of lagoons) created by landowners Weston Cider (and designed by Biologic Design) to filter and clean the waste water that is a by-product of cider production. Previously (15–20 years ago) waste water simply drained into the former field and into the surrounding land. A reedbed is now being constructed, in consultation with WWT Slimbridge, above the lagoons to filter the waste water more efficiently. This site was not suitable for establishment of a baseline monitoring survey as it supported no fen and only a few narrow strips of terrestrial habitat on the bunds between lagoons, plus the excavation that is to be the reedbed. A brief species list was recorded in a walkover survey to benefit the MD of Weston Ciders, Helen Thomas. Management: There is no specific management at the moment. Once the lagoons were excavated the banks/bunds were planted with willow. The bunds were created using woodchip over soil. Natural colonisation by vegetation has taken place.
Vegetation: The lagoons are still quite turbid but there is some marginal vegetation including Phragmites australis, Typha angustifolia and Iris pseudacorus. Mostly the lagoons appear to deep and steeply banked to produce much margin swamp vegetation. The upper banks and bunds supports typical wetland species such as Angelica sylvestris, Eupatorium cannabinum, Lycopus europaeus, Mentha aquatica, Persicaria amphibia, Oenanthe crocata, Pulicaria dysenterica, Juncus effusus, J. inflexus, Urtica dioica, Phragmites australis, Scrophularia auriculata and Lythrum salicaria. Occasional tussocks of Carex pendula, C. acutiflorus were also noted. Hedges surrounding the sites included a wide range of woody species, but internal, newer woody vegetation was mostly Salix spp., Alnus glutinosa, Fraxinus excelsior. NVC: NVC quadrats were not recorded but the vegetation noted has closest affinities to OV26 Epilobium hirsutum community, and the developing reedbed along the lagoon margins to S4.
Condition Assessment: None carried out.
HLS Indicators of success: IoS in the HLS agreement relate only to birds @At least 2 desirable species (barn owl, reed bunting, song thrush, starling, tree sparrow, turtle dove) should be seen each year across the fen. We noted moorhen, blackbird, reed/sedge warbler, mallard, house sparrow but our visit was brief.
The HLS management prescriptions of ‘maintain fen with some open water’ are inappropriate (there is no fen, just marginal vegetation and deep water, although there will eventually be a reedbed), whereas the coppice/scrub management aimed at birds is appropriate. Soils: None collected.
Page 164
Site 16: Hatfield Forest SSSI, Takely, Essex HLS Options HQ7 Grid. ref TL 5320 HLS Supplement HQ12 Area (ha) 1.0 Survey Date 04.08.2014 BRW & PJW NVC M22b
Statutory Designation Hatfield Forest SSSI, Unit 4 – unfavourable recovering (2011); Hatfield Forest NNR
Site: The Shermore Brook was dammed in 1730 to create a lake, which was then raised again in the late 1970s. The existing fen is the recolonization from this latter event. The site lies on boulder clay with sandy gravel seams. The site was managed by Essex Wildlife Trust until 12 years ago when the National Trust took it over. The fen at the northern end is one of the largest island marshes in Essex. The survey area is the fen on the north-east side of the lake. Management: Grazed with sheep from September for a couple of months; these have access to the entire fen apart from reedbed. 30 Manx sheep mostly but also some Speckle-faced Beuler. Management aim is NOT to keep much scrub (contrary to HLS management prescript. of 10–20% as they have enough scrub elsewhere in this large woodland/parkland site: encroaching scrub has been cut back. Apart from that happy with aims of HLS.
Vegetation: Good quality fen-meadow dominated by Juncus inflexus on lower lying land in three distinct areas with spurs of dry spoil between supporting dry grassland of varying quality but mostly good. The fen is species rich with 57 species recorded in the quadrats and a mean of 23–31 in each. Agrostis stolonifera, Holcus lanatus and Festuca rubra are constant with occasional Deschampsia cespitosa. Carex nigra is constant and abundant with frequent Carex hirta and occasional Carex flacca. Forbs are many with frequent Eupatorium cannabinum, Equisetum palustre, Mentha aquatica, occasional Angelica sylvestris, Lathyrus pratensis, Lotus pedunculatus, Centaurea nigra, Hypericum tetrapterum, Dactylorhiza praetermissa (and hybrids) and scattered plants of Iris pseudacorus, Berula erecta, Ranunculus flammula and Galium uliginosum. Negative species are sparse (Cirsium arvense, Urtica dioica). NVC: This fen community is high quality M22b (MATCH similarity coefficient 51.7%) with Juncus inflexus replacing Juncus subnodulosus (plus MG1 and MG5 on the dry spoil). The northern end of the lake supports S7 Carex acutiformis swamp (with frequent tall herbs including Oenanthe fistulosa) and S4 Phragmites reed swamp. Condition Assessment: Pass (assessed against attributes and targets for M22 and W04 fen). Water management is good with the majority of ground wet; habitat structure is within limits; vegetation height is less than 35cm throughout; cover of desirable species (for M22) is above targets; cover of undesirable species is below target; and cover of scrub is low. Favourable condition. HLS Indicators of success: The surveyed area of the site meets all the IoS: positive indicators, wetness, scrub cover and invasive species. HQ12 IoS on birds could not be assessed.
Soils: Highly alkaline boulder clay with low phosphorus and potassium, moderate magnesium and nitrogen and low organic matter, reflecting low peat accumulation or litter accumulation. The soil is suitable for maintenance of botanical biodiversity.
Soil pH Olsens P Index Soil K Index K Soil MG Index Total Loss on Total Organic Soil texture (Water) (mg/l) P (mg/l) (mg/l) MG N (%) Ignition P Carbon 8.1 6 0 112 1 52 2 0.75 17.7 833 10.2 Clay
Page 165
Site 18: Quoiseley Meres SSSI, Whitchurch, Shrops HLS Options HQ7 Grid. ref SJ 5445 HLS Supplements HQ12 Area (ha) 2.14 Survey Date 19.08.2014 GQB & LR NVC M23a
Designation & Name: Quoiseley Meres SSSI, Unit 5 – unfavourable recovering (2011)
Site: One of several fields of damp cattle pasture adjacent to Quoiseley Meres. Rush-dominated with large patches of standing water which was up to knee deep at the time of survey. The meres are ringed with swamp and have mature alder and willows both scattered and in dense stands on their margins. Managed as a unit with other more typical cattle pasture elsewhere on the farm.
Management: No fertilisers, manure etc. are used on the field. The field is grazed by a herd of 80 Hereford beef cattle which are moved around all the pastures on the farm to ensure appropriate levels of grazing in each field. Natural England have undertaken management on the adjacent land including ring-barking, cutting and removing trees from the swamps around the meres to the north to benefit Vertigo moulinsiana, of which there is a good population. Replacement of existing fencing has also been approved as part of the capital works plan and is expected to be done soon. Other management has included blocking the drain west of Big Mere in November 2013, since which time this field has become much wetter and rushes have increased. This is now limiting its value for grazing but the farmer has been in agri-environmental schemes since 1999 and feels that overall it has been well worth it. Vegetation: Dominated by Juncus articulatus and/or Juncus acutiflorus with substantial amounts of Juncus effusus also present. Other species were patchy, occurring, or not, in relation to water levels - three of the five quadrats representing the vegetation had ankle deep water at the time of survey. Quadrats without standing water had Agrostis stolonifera, Cynosurus cristatus, Holcus lanatus and Poa trivialis. Quadrats with standing water had low cover of these grasses, but Glyceria fluitans was up to 40% cover. There was low cover of associated species such as Equisetum palustre, Galium palustre and Ranunculus flammula. NVC: Although there is typically little standing water in this vegetation type, the current vegetation at this site is most similar to M23a (MATCH analysis similarity coefficient 48.9%), although MATCH analysis put MG10 rush-pasture as the strongest MATCH. The stand spans a broad spectrum from the merely damp to the definitely wet. Given the recent increase in water levels apparently as a result of ditch blocking, it seems likely that the vegetation in this field will change rapidly. Condition Assessment: Pass (assessed against W04 generic fen attributes and botanical diversity for M23). The site meets criteria for wetness, habitat structure, scrub and negative species. Two positive indicator species are frequent (Juncus acutiflorus, Galium palustre) and two occasional (Ranunculus flammula, Cardamine pratensis). HLS Indicators of success: Although the stand meets the criteria for scrub, wetness and cover of undesirable species, only one of the 9 listed desirable species is currently frequent at the site (although several other positive indicator species are present, see above). The IoS on desirable species should be amended to reflect the community type. Soils: The site is calcareous, with low phosphorus and potassium and high magnesium content. Total nitrogen is high, which is reflected in the organic matter component.
Soil pH Olsens P Index Soil K Index K Soil MG Index Total N Loss on Total P Organic Soil texture (Water) (mg/l) P (mg/l) (mg/l) MG (%) Ignition Carbon 7.1 12 1 75 1 210 4 1.33 26.3 1307 16.7 Sandy Loam
Page 166
Site 20: Narborough Bog SSSI, Leics HLS Options HQ6 Grid. ref SP5497 HLS Supplements HQ11 Area (ha) 0.12 ha Survey date 21.08.2014 PJW NVC S26a
Statutory Designation Narborough Bog SSSI, Units 1,3 – Favourable/Unfav. recovering
Site: Narborough Bog is a nature reserve owned and managed by The Leicestershire and Rutland Wildlife Trust. It lies in the floodplain of the River Soar (which runs along the eastern edge of the site), to the south-west of Leicester. The majority of the site to the north of the railway is wet woodland dominated by Alnus glutinosa, Salix fragilis and Fraxinus excelsior. There are two open areas. Although these open areas are reedbeds, the water table was very low at the time of survey. The site floods regularly after wet weather especially in the winter. Management: The site is not grazed, but it is cut on rotation so that approximately 1/3 of the site is cut each year. Scrub is removed when it encroaches onto the area of open reed-swamp, and the stumps are treated with herbicide to control regrowth. The site has been drying out for many years since the construction of the M1 motorway, and water levels are being monitored as part of efforts to restore water levels. Dipwells have been installed as part of the HLS project. Vegetation: The open parts of the reserve are dense, 2m tall stands of Phragmites australis with abundant Filipendula ulmaria, Carex acutiformis, Carex riparia and Galium aparine. There are patches of Urtica dioica and Chamerion angustifolium. Angelica sylvestris and Glyceria maxima are rare. The eastern area has abundant Salix fragilis saplings. The three discrete clumps of scrub consist of Viburnum opulus, Salix cinerea and Salix fragilis. NVC: The reedbeds are S26a and the woodland is W6b. Condition Assessment: The site fails the condition assessment for the following reason: continuous cover of litter over more than 25% of the area HLS Indicators of success: The site passes the indicators of success, although it is considered that the cover of litter is excessive (48%). It was not possible to assess the cover of water between November and March. Soils: Total phosphorus and organic carbon levels were not included in the analysis. Total nitrogen content and loss on ignition were moderately high indicating accumulation of organic matter, probably largely Phragmites australis leaf litter. Extractable phosphorus level was very low and potassium level was moderate. Magnesium level was the third highest recorded in the survey.
Soil pH Olsens P Index Soil K Index K Soil MG Index Total Loss on Total Organic Soil texture (Water) (mg/l) P (mg/l) (mg/l) MG N (%) Ignition P Carbon 5.2 7 0 131 2- 488 6 1.42 25.1 - - Sandy Loam
Page 167
Site 21: Ducan’s March SSSI, Claxton, Norfolk HLS Options HQ6 Grid. ref TG 3302 HLS Supplements HQ12 Area (ha) 1.80 ha Survey date 06.08.2014 BRW & PJW NVC M13a
Statutory Designation Ducan’s Marsh SSSI, Unit 1 – unfavourable recovering (2011)
Site: A small, calcareous spring-fed/valley mire in the valley of a tributary of the River Yare. SSSI unit info. states “Wheeler & Shaw (2011) have surveyed this site for the past 3 years as part of the EA RoC process; they have found little change in the M13 community since 1986, though they consider this to show some affinities towards M22; addressing grazing management on this site is reducing the litter component of the fen and improving condition.” Claxton Pits Trust – reg. charity – has owned site for over 100 years. Designated SSSI 20 years ago Management: Historically site was let for grazing and shooting and c. 40 years ago a pond was dug. The site has been actively managed for last 20 years and management not changed since entering HLS but it is now easier to see exactly what they are meant to be doing for compliance. The marsh is being encroached by bramble and alder so in line with HLS woody growth is being cut back. There is a drainage ditch that is choked up but has a rare species in it so the ditch will be carefully cleared manually autumn 2014 to increase flow. Trust. The grazing regime that was originally agreed was not suitable but this has been increased to a more suitable level. The site is currently grazed by a few dry dairy cows belonging to the adjacent farm: the farmer oversees their grazing to avoid overgrazing. The Trust would like highlands or similar (or Hebridean sheep), which would be better suited, but they don’t have anywhere to overwinter their own stock (and possibly too wet for sheep or ponies). Vegetation: To the western side of the central drain is an area of Juncus subnodulosus and Schoenus nigricans calcareous fen in which these two species are co-dominant with Molinia caerulea. Festuca rubra and Agrostis canina are also constant and Phragmites australis is frequent at low cover. Sedges are abundant with Carex nigra, C. flacca, C. panicea, C. hostiana and C. lepidocarpa. Bryophytes include constant, abundant Calliergonella cuspidata and small quantities of typical fen calcicoles Campylium stellatum, Ctenidium molluscum, and Fissidens adianthoides. Forbs in this community include: constant Potentilla erecta, Valeriana dioica, Galium uliginosum; frequent Anagallis tenella, Dactylorhiza praetermissa, Lotus pedunculatus, Succisa pratensis; occasional Mentha aquatica, Cirsium dissectum and Lathyrus pratensis; rare Pinguicula vulgaris. Above this, and on the other side of the central ditch, the community lacks Schoenus nigricans but supports additional species: frequent Filipendula ulmaria, Lychnis flos-cuculi, Centaurea nigra and a greater frequency of some of the occasional species mentioned above. The pond supports Phragmites australis and on the island Thelypteris thelypteroides. NVC: The western side supports a stand of good quality M13a (MATCH similarity coefficient 56.5%), whilst the surrounding community (lacking Schoenus) has greater affinities with M22b. Condition Assessment: The site was a little dry during the survey but this was during a prolonged drought. Both the M22 and M13 communities passed the generic targets set for W04 fens and with seven frequent positive indicators, five occasional and many rare exceeded the desirable species target, and supported no negative species. Scrub cover is only 3% (the young W6 Alnus stand invading from the north is outside the HLS agreement but should be kept in check. HLS Indicators of success: The site passes all IoS apart from a slight (temporary drought induced) dryness in 2014. Soils: Soil water is strongly calcareous. The soil has low phosphorus, potassium and magnesium but very high nitrogen content – organic matter component is correspondingly high indicating substantial peat accumulation on this site.
Soil pH Olsens P Index Soil K Index K Soil MG Index Total N Loss on Total P Organic Soil texture (Water) (mg/l) P (mg/l) (mg/l) MG (%) Ignition Carbon 7.5 10 1 117 1 49 1 2.07 54.2 923 27.2 Loamy sand
Page 168
Site 23: Ashberry and Reins Wood SSSI, Old Byland, N Yorks
HLS Options HQ6 Grid. ref SE 5685 HLS Supplements Area (ha) 1.33 Survey Date 04.08.2014 BRW & PJW NVC M27
Statutory Designation Ashberry and Reins Wood SSSI, Unit 4. Favourable.
Site: A valley fen that is partially spring-fed, supporting a mosaic of calcareous fen, rush pasture and tall-herb fen communities. Fragments of Alnus woodland occur in mosaic and along the boundary of the unit. The site is owned and managed by Yorkshire Wildlife Trust. Management: The site is grazed using Longhorn cattle September–late October (tenant grazier – Ashberry Farm). No scrub control has been required. No topping of rushes, no invasive weeds. Access is very poor for machinery so rushes a little over-dominant in some areas. The site was in CSS before HLS but YWT carried on with same management after entering HLS. No capital works money used. Had to change open access to permissive footpath – not viable for this type of agreement apparently. Vegetation: The main stand is a tall-herb fen dominated by Filipendula ulmaria with constant Deschampsia cespitosa and frequent Molinia caerulea, Carex panicea, Galium uliginosum and Angelica sylvestris. Other forbs of rare to occasional occurrence in this stand include Lotus pedunculatus, Lychnis flos-cuculi, Valeriana dioica, Primula vulgaris, Potentilla erecta, Mentha aquatica, Lathyrus pratensis and Succisa pratensis. Some drier areas have Arrhenatherum elatius, Festuca arundinacea and Brachypodium sylvaticum. Carex acutiformis is constant throughout but at variable cover, although it dominates on the eastern side of the central watercourse at the northern end. Juncus acutiflorus is locally frequent and dominates a small stand to the south of the unit with abundant Molinia caerulea: here Valeriana dioica and Succisa pratensis rise in frequency. Cirsium arvense is rare in the stand. Small springs give rise to flush vegetation with Palustriella commutata, Valeriana dioica, and Plagiomnium undulatum. The alder carr at the extreme southern tip additionally supports Trollius europaeus, and Caltha palustris. NVC: The fen area supports a mosaic of habitats but the main community (sampled) is M27 (MATCH analysis similarity coefficient M27 48.7%) without close affinities to any particular sub-community. The community has a strong calcareous influence, due to flushing by calcareous spring water, and thus the community has affinities with calcareous fen meadow such as M22 (43.5%) but the community lacks Juncus subnodulosus. Juncus acutiflorus and Molinia co-dominated stands have close affinities with M23a and M25c. Condition Assessment: Pass. Assessed against generic W04 fen attributes and targets and M27 tall herb fen for species composition. The fen passed on water management, habitat structure, and scrub cover. With three frequent, two occasional and eight or more rare positive indicator species, the fen also passed its botanical diversity attributes. Negative species such as Cirsium arvense were of rare occurrence. Carex acutiformis is approaching levels where it might be considered deleterious to the habitat – greater grazing pressure may reduce cover and spread. HLS Indicators of success: The fen met all non-specific IoS targets in relation to cover of undesirable species, wetness, frequency of desirable species, scrub cover and maximum waist-height vegetation. Soils: The soil water is alkaline reflecting calcareous flushing from springs. Potassium is moderate, whilst magnesium is high. Total nitrogen is moderately high but within acceptable limits.
Soil pH Olsens P Index Soil K Index K Soil MG Index Total N Loss on Total P Organic Soil texture (Water) (mg/l) P (mg/l) (mg/l) MG (%) Ignition Carbon 6.6 5 0 122 2- 114 3 0.81 23 775 11.1 Clay loam
Page 169
Site 24: Liphook, Hampshire HLS Options HQ6 Grid. ref SU 82 31 HLS Supplements HQ12 Area (ha) 3.1 Survey Date 26.08.2014 CEB & DWP NVC M27 & S7
Site: The site is adjacent to the Holly Water. In field water levels are very much influenced by river levels although lateral ground water also has some influence. Management: The site is usually grazed by cattle in the summer, over a flexible 6–10 week period. A group of 12 Sussex cattle are run over the entire area. No other management has been carried out recently. The field is very wet in the winter and this sometimes delays grazing.
Vegetation: The vegetation is characterised by the high abundance of Carex acutiformis although Filipendula ulmaria and other tall forbs such as Lysimachia vulgaris are also frequent to locally abundant. Where the sedge cover is low, mainly in the southern section which is more heavily grazed, a more open community containing Deschampsia cespitosa and forbs including Mentha aquatica, Lathyrus pratensis, Lotus pedunculatus, Galium palustre and Galium uliginosum are occasional to locally frequent. Spikes of Dactylorhiza spp. (probably D. maculata) were present here. Overall, the vegetation in the open areas is quite species rich and cover of undesirable species is not too high. Fen woodland occupies the central part of the site. NVC: Much of the vegetation is dominated by Carex acutiformis, giving it obvious affinities with S7 swamp (MATCH analysis similarity coefficient 43.0%) but the stand is more species-rich than typical S7 and, where C. acutiformis is less abundant, the community has clear affinities with M23a Juncus acutiflorus-Galium palustre rush pasture (MATCH coefficient 34.8%) or the tall herb fen community M27c Filipendula ulmaria-Angelica sylvestris (highest MATCH result, coefficient 44.2%). It is likely that Carex acutiformis has invaded swampy areas that are less grazed, replacing the former fen- meadow and the affinity of the former M23a to M27 may also reflect freedom from grazing promoting tall herbs over grasses, small sedges and short forbs in a lower tier of vegetation. The fen woodland is probably closest to the W6 Alnus glutinosa-Urtica dioica woodland, typical (W6a) sub- community. Condition Assessment: Fail (Assessed against both M23 and M27 attributes and targets) The site passes on water management, exposed substrate, litter cover and on positive indicator species: Filipendula ulmaria and Lotus pedunculatus are abundant; Mentha aquatica and Galium palustre/uliginosum are frequent; and Valeriana officinalis, Lathyrus pratensis and Angelica sylvestris all occasional. However, Carex acutiformis is overwhelmingly abundant over much of the site, which is undesirable for M23 and/or M27. Cover of woody species is also high at 50%, but this is mainly restricted to the fen woodland in the central area. The spread of woodland should be monitored/controlled. HLS Indicators of success: The site meets the criteria for HQ6 on surface wetness and desirable species but fails on vegetation height which, on average is above knee-height. For HQ12, the site passes on the vegetation mosaic criterion but fails on the 30% of vegetation in tussocks or patches. Soils: The field measurement of water gave the values: pH – 6.84; Conductivity – 190 µs/95 ppm. Soil water was calcareous. Soil phosphorus and potassium were low, magnesium content moderate but nitrogen very high with fairly high organic matter component.
Soil pH Olsens P Index Soil K Index K Soil MG Index Total Loss on Total Organic Soil texture (Water) (mg/l) P (mg/l) (mg/l) MG N (%) Ignition P Carbon 7.0 12 1 112 1 75 2 1.43 50.6 1154 16.3 Loamy sand
Page 170
Site 25: Stockton, Wilts HLS Options HQ6 Grid ref. ST9838 HLS Supplements HQ12 Area (ha) 2.18 Survey Date 28.08.2014 PJW NVC S7, S5
Site: This site is situated in the floodplain of the River Wylye to the north of the village of Stockton. In the past the field was managed as part of a water-meadow system, and relics of this remain in the form of ditches, some of which held water at the time of survey. The main river channel forms the northern boundary of the field. Water supply to this field is probably from groundwater and periodic flooding from the adjacent river.
Management: This site is normally grazed by up to 12 cattle during the summer and autumn when it is sufficiently dry. Grazing had not been possible by the time of survey in 2014 due to the extreme wetness of the preceding winter. Scrub is removed occasionally when necessary. Small scrapes had been excavated in 2013. This field forms part of a much larger HLS agreement including areas of the Wylye valley and adjacent woodland and chalk grassland.
Vegetation: The vegetation in this field is dominated by tall grass and sedge species and is generally species-poor. Carex acutiformis is dominant at the western end of the field with Glyceria maxima at the eastern end with patches of Phalaris arundinacea. Filipendula ulmaria and Iris pseudacorus are abundant throughout.
NVC: The vegetation is divided between stands of S7 (Carex acutiformis swamp) and S5 (Glyceria maxima swamp). MATCH gives a best fit for all five quadrats together of S5.
Condition Assessment: The site passes the condition assessment.
HLS Indicators of success: The site passes the indicators of success.
Soils: Total phosphorus and organic carbon were not included in the analysis. Total nitrogen level and loss on ignition were both high, suggesting an accumulation of peat. Extractable phosphorus contact was high, potassium and magnesium levels were moderate.
Soil pH Olsens P Index Soil K Index K Soil MG Index Total Loss on Total Organic Soil texture (Water) (mg/l) P (mg/l) (mg/l) MG N (%) Ignition P Carbon 7.2 28 3 127 2- 103 3 2.02 37.4 - - Sandy loam
Page 171
Site 27: Alphamstone, Suffolk HLS Options HQ6 Grid ref. TL8735 HLS Supplements Area (ha) 0.71 Survey Date 10.9.2014 PJW NVC OV24
Site: This site consists of two small fields on the north-west facing slope of a valley to the north- west of the village of Alphamstone. It is situated below a spring line which collects at least part of its water as the effluent from the septic tanks of the nearby row of cottages. The water irrigating this fen is therefore expected to be very rich in some nutrients. The fields are separated by a belt of scrub, and the fields are surrounded by scrub that is partly derived from grown-out hedges. There is a small pond between the fields.
Management: The site is grazed by 2 horses through the winter and by c. 40 Shetland sheep for approximately 1 month. Vegetation: Vegetation over nearly the whole of the open part of the site is a tall fen dominated by Equisetum telmateia. Urtica dioica is also abundant in much of this fen, forming pure stands locally. Other locally abundant species include Arrhenatherum elatius, Alopecurus pratensis, Cirsium arvense and Galium aparine, and overall the vegetation is species-poor. A spring at the upper end of the bisecting fence has a small area of species poor fen dominated by Juncus inflexus with Mentha aquatica, Equisetum telmateia, Pulicaria dysenterica, Carex hirta and Veronica beccabunga. The scrub along the boundaries and between the fields includes Salix fragilis, Crataegus monogyna, Sambucus nigra, Rubus fruticosus, Rosa canina, Salix viminalis, Salix cinerea, Humulus lupulus and Alnus glutinosa NVC: The Equisetum telmateia dominated community is not described in the NVC. It is however judged to have the greatest affinity with OV24a (Urtica dioica-Galium aparine vegetation, typical sub-community)(MATCH coefficient 46.8), although this community is not associated with wet conditions. Condition Assessment: The site fails the condition assessment for the following reasons: Only one occasional positive indicator species (Angelica sylvestris) 30% cover of the undesirable species Urtica dioica. It is unlikely that any improvement can be made to site condition without cessation of nutrient input from the adjacent septic tank system. HLS Indicators of success: The site fails the condition assessment for the following reason: Only one occasional positive indicator species (Angelica sylvestris) Soils: Total phosphorus and organic carbon content were not included in the soil analyses. Total nitrogen content and loss on ignition were very low, indicating little accumulation of organic matter and a predominantly mineral soil. pH is neutral. Extractable phosphorus and magnesium contents are moderate, but potassium content was the highest recorded in the survey. It is likely that the very high potassium level is the result of pollution from the nearby sewage outflow. The low solubility of phosphorus ions has probably resulted in these being precipitated as solids in the septic tank and not entering the flush system.
Soil pH Olsens P Index Soil K Index K Soil MG Index Total Loss on Total Organic Soil texture (Water) (mg/l) P (mg/l) (mg/l) MG N (%) Ignition P Carbon
6.8 18 2 523 4 164 3 0.51 9.8 0 0
Page 172
Site 28: Tuckswood, Norwich, Norfolk HLS Options HQ7 Grid. ref TG 2105 HLS Supplements HQ12 Area (ha) 2.65 Survey Date 07.08.2014 BRW & PJW NVC M27
Statutory Designation None (Marston Marshes County Wildlife Site)
Site: A CWS with public access. Traditional grazing marsh with boundary and in-field drains and ditches in the floodplain of the River Yare. The marshes are flat and very low-lying (below 5 m a.s.l.) with a high water table. During later 20th century the site has had a chequered history but Norwich City Council have now owned it for about 30 years. Management: A period of benign neglect followed the Council’s purchase but grazing management commenced in 1999 on a small scale covering an extensive area. The site is now subdivided into smaller grazing units and grazing more dynamic. Cattle – mixed breed of suckler herd, young animals and some with calves (beef cattle). Normally 30 head of cattle on whole site. Drainage under HLS – (originally in ESA scheme). Problem used to be lack of control over water regime with summer drought to winter flooding. Old Victorian water plan management now restored to site (Capital works made this possible) with dykes and water control sluices. Now wet but not excessively (vegetation suffered during the summer floods of 2012). Very occasional spot treatment of weeds (thistle). Vegetation: The most abundant species is Carex riparia which occurs with a suite of grasses of varying cover and frequency including Agrostis stolonifera, Glyceria maxima, Poa trivialis, Phalaris arundinacea and Holcus lanatus. Rushes include occasional to locally frequent Juncus subnodulosus (which is most abundant at the northern extreme). Tall herbs are frequent with constant Valerian officinalis and Filipendula ulmaria with many shorter and scrambling species in the lower tier including frequent Persicaria amphibia, Galium uliginosum, Equisetum palustre plus occasional Mentha aquatica, Lotus pedunculatus, Lathyrus pratensis and Lythrum salicaria. Several species were of rare occurrence: Caltha palustris, Lychnis flos-cuculi, Thalictrum flavum and Berula erecta. The vegetation appears to derive from a fen-meadow community that has been invaded by Carex riparia, rather than derive from Carex riparia swamp community. NVC: The highest MATCH analysis similarity coefficient was for M27 (48.7%) due to the abundance of Filipendula ulmaria but the community lacks the other constant in M27, Angelica sylvestris. S6 returned the second highest result (47.2%) but the community was more species rich and drier than typical S6. M22a, characterised by constant Juncus subnodulosus with a rich suite of other fen- meadow species returned a result of 43.5%. The community is thought to derive from M22a, but has developed affinities with an atypical M27 with high cover of Carex riparia through lack of grazing. Condition Assessment: Borderline fail. Assessed against generic W04 fen targets and botanical attributes for M22. The site met the targets for wetness, habitat structure and scrub. Negative indicators were of rare occurrence although Carex riparia was too dominant for the target community (M22). Positive indicators included three frequent, two occasional and several rare – a pass. HLS Indicators of success: Passes on wetness, positive species and cover of scrub. The vegetation fails on target height (knee-height). The target for undesirable species is < 5%. The site achieves this if Carex riparia is excluded but fails if this species is considered to be too aggressive in the target community. Soils: Soil water is calcareous with very low phosphorus, suitable for high botanical diversity, and similarly low potassium and magnesium. Total nitrogen is, however, extremely high with a high organic matter component.
Soil pH Olsens P Index Soil K Index K Soil MG Index Total N Loss on Total Organic Soil texture (Water) (mg/l) P (mg/l) (mg/l) MG (%) Ignition P Carbon 6.7 9 0 54 0 26 1 2.28 48.2 1322 23.2 Sandy Loam
Page 173
Site 29: Bransbury Common SSSI, Newton Stacey, Hampshire HLS Options HQ7 Grid. ref SU 4141 HLS Supplements HQ12 Area (ha) 3.32 Survey Date 26. 08.2014 CEB & DWP NVC Carex acutiformis
Statutory Designation: Bransbury Common SSSI, Unit 1. Unfavourable recovering.
Site: The site is adjacent to one of the main channels of the River Test. Access to the site is via a ford. In field water levels are highly influenced by river levels although lateral ground water also has some influence. Management: The site is grazed by cattle in the summer, usually over the May-September period. British Longhorns (30 head) are run over the area including the field. Weed management used to be carried out by burning but the owner has recently started topping. The field is very wet in the winter and this sometimes delays grazing until quite late in the season. Vegetation: The vegetation is characterised by constant Filipendula ulmaria and constant and abundant Carex acutiformis, although Deschampsia cespitosa is locally very abundant. Grasses Agrostis stolonifera, Festuca rubra and Holcus lanatus are occasional to frequent at lower abundance levels, whilst locally Glyceria maxima and Phalaris arundinacea can attain quite high cover. Additional forbs include frequent Angelica sylvestris, locally abundant Iris pseudacorus and occasional to locally frequent Lathyrus pratensis and Galium uliginosum. Cirsium palustre, Lotus pedunculatus, Juncus acutiflorus and Mentha aquatica are present but rare. Overall, the vegetation is of low to moderate species richness (27 species in the 5 quadrats with a mean of 10.6 per quadrat) and cover of undesirable species (apart from Carex acutiformis) not too high, although recent topping will have skewed this measure. NVC: MATCH analysis returned the highest similarity coefficients for MG9 (47.5%) and M27 (46.7), although the dominance of Carex acutiformis over much of the site is atypical for both communities and draws comparisons with the S7 swamp community. The stand probably derives from M27 tall- herb fen but has been invaded by Carex acutiformis, which frequently occurs in wet hollows in fen communities, and by Deschampsia cespitosa. This latter species, and the grassy nature of some stands, lends affinities with MG9 but this is more typically a community on the drier margins of fens. Condition Assessment: Fail (Assessed against M27 attributes and targets.) The site fails on water management with very little ‘squelchy’ ground. Cover of litter was high but levels will be greatly inflated due to the recent topping. Although both Filipendula ulmaria and Angelica sylvestris were frequent, the site supported too few other positive species at occasional–frequent occurrence. The site passes on scrub. HLS Indicators of success: The site did not meet the IoS for surface dampness or yet meet the 8-year target of 5 occasional desirable species from the M24 list or 2 frequent plus 4 occasional from the M22 list (although this is only year 6). Named grasses Deschampsia cespitosa, Glyceria maxima, Phalaris arundinacea are >10% - failing this IoS. Large Carex species (C. acutiformis), which should be <20% is at 40%. The site passes on trees and scrub. Bare ground is lower than prescribed. It is not known whether the site passes the HQ12 IOS due to it being recently topped. Soils: The field measurement of water gave the values: pH 6.22; Conductivity 447 µs/223 ppm. Soil pH 7.2 is more alkaline than the field water, indicating that there is a calcareous influence from the underlying substrate or river. Values for K and Mg are relatively low while the value for Total N is extremely high, indicating a local nutrient source, possibly from a treatment plant or similar.
Soil pH Olsens P Index Soil K Index K Soil MG Index Total Loss on Total Organic Soil texture (Water) (mg/l) P (mg/l) (mg/l) MG N (%) Ignition P Carbon 7.2 9 0 109 1 46 1 3.12 58 1871 23.6 Loamy Sand
Page 174
Site 30: Wilwell Cutting SSSI, Bridgeford, Nottinghamshire HLS Options HQ7 Grid. ref SK 5634 HLS Supplements HR1/6 Area (ha) 0.67 Survey Date 22.09.2014 PJW NVC S7-related (W1, S25)
Statutory Designation Wilwell Cutting SSSI, Units 2 & 3, Unfavourable Recovering
Site: This site is part of the Wilwell Farm Cutting SSSI which also includes areas of woodland and species-rich grassland. The central axis of this site is the track bed and cutting of a former railway. Scrub has developed over much of the area of the track and cutting. Clearings have been maintained within the woodland on the track bed, and these contain small areas of tall-fen vegetation. Management: Scrub within the clearings is regularly cleared and the fen vegetation is cut annually. This site has a cattle grazing supplement and should be grazed. Vegetation: Four clearings are maintained within the Salix cinerea and Betula pendula scrub. The southernmost has fen of Carex acutiformis, Equisetum palustre and Filipendula ulmaria with regenerating saplings of Fraxinus excelsior and Rubus fruticosus. The next most southerly clearing has regenerating Salix cinerea scrub. The second most northerly clearing has coppiced Salix cinerea with fen vegetation of Lycopus europaeus, Epilobium hirsutum and Epilobium parviflorum. The most northerly clearing and largest clearing appears more permanent, with stands of Carex acutiformis and Phragmites australis. NVC: Woodland and scrub is closest to W1. MATCH gives a best fit with OV26 (coefficient 44.8), although in reality the vegetation is a mosaic of several tall-herb and reed fens probably including OV26, S26 and M27. Overall it is probably best classified as “Carex acutiformis-dominated vegetation”. Condition Assessment: The site fails the condition assessment for the following reason: Cover of scrub is 20%
HLS Indicators of success: The site fails the indicators of success for the following reasons: Cover of scrub is 20% Only one positive indicator species (Carex flacca) is occasional.
Soils: Total phosphorus and organic carbon were not included in the soil analysis. Total nitrogen and loss on ignition were moderate indicating some accumulation of organic matter, probably as slowly decomposing sedge and reed litter. Extractable phosphorus and potassium levels were very low but magnesium level was extremely high, possibly reflecting the chemical composition of the former railway track-bed.
Soil pH Olsens P Index Soil K Index K Soil MG Index Total N Loss on Total Organic Soil texture (Water) (mg/l) P (mg/l) (mg/l) MG (%) Ignition P Carbon 7.3 7 0 73 1 704 7 1.09 26.7 0 0 Sandy loam
Page 175
Site 31: Ruan Minor, The Lizard, Cornwall. HLS Options HQ6 Grid. ref SW 7117 HLS Supplements HQ12 Area (ha) 0.39 Survey Date 15.08.2014 BRW NVC M27c
Site: A small enclosed field lying on an alluvial terrace in a small stream valley. The site is within the Cornwall AONB but outside The Lizard SAC or NNR. Management: This site has never been ploughed due to its wetness. It has usually been grazed but grazing was withdrawn in recent years as a new boundary fence was required: this has now been installed and grazing will resume. The farm has beef cattle – South Devons, Highlands and Welsh Blacks. Generally it is a couple of South Devons who are put in this small area. This site was previously in CSS. Vegetation: A tall-herb fen of moderate species richness (16–21 species per 2m quadrat) dominated by Filipendula ulmaria and Juncus effusus with constant lower cover of Deschampsia cespitosa. The grass component also includes moderate cover of Festuca rubra and Holcus lanatus with locally frequent Phalaris arundinacea. Other species (Poa trivialis, Agrostis stolonifera) are scarce. Juncus acutiflorus is patchy and at low cover. Fen associates (forbs) are well represented with, in addition to F. ulmaria, frequent Mentha aquatica, occasional Angelica sylvestris, Sanguisorba officinalis and Lotus pedunculatus; and of rare occurrence Iris pseudacorus, Lathyrus pratensis, Centaurea nigra, Galium palustre and Lycopus europaeus, in addition to ubiquitous species such as Cirsium palustre, Rumex acetosa, Pulicaria dysenterica, Ranunculus repens. Negative species include Cirsium vulgare and Rumex obtusifolius are rare. NVC: This vegetation stand has strong affinities with M27c tall-herb fen (MATCH analysis similarity coefficient 59.1%). This community generally occurs in sites protected from grazing allowing tall herbs, in particular Filipendula to become abundant. The vegetation also has a strong association with M23b rush pasture (53.2%) and may derive from this community when it was actively grazed. Condition Assessment: Borderline Pass (Assessed against M27 attributes and targets.) This site passes on wetness, habitat structure (exposed substrate and litter) and on scrub cover. Negative indicators are < 1% (with the exception of Deschampsia cespitosa, whose abundance could be viewed as negative in this community). Positive species include two frequent, three occasional and many rare – a pass. HLS Indicators of success: The IoS for this fen are minimal and relate only to wetness, scrub and frequency of positive species. The site passes all.
Soils: The soil water pH is neutral. Phosphorus and potassium content are low, nitrogen is moderately high nut acceptable with moderate organic matter content. Magnesium levels are extremely high – the highest of all 80 sites surveyed – indicating that the site lies on igneous serpentine rock, which is naturally rich in magnesium (Magnesium iron silicate hydroxide).
Soil pH Olsens P Index Soil K Index K Soil MG Index Total N Loss on Total P Organic Soil texture (Water) (mg/l) P (mg/l) (mg/l) MG (%) Ignition Carbon 6.3 14 1 63 1 1080 8 0.85 19.7 1192 9.33 Silty Clay
Page 176
Site 32: River Wensum SSSI, Swanton, Norfolk HLS Options HQ6 Grid. ref TG 0041 HLS Supplements HQ12 Area (ha) 2.00 Survey Date 7.8.2014 PJW & BRW NVC M22a
Statutory Designation River Wensum SSSI, Unit 36 (part), Unfavourable recovering
Site: Only the northern portion of this field is managed under HLS option HQ6. The southern and western part of the field is much drier and is managed under a grassland option. The northern part is in the floodplain of the River Wensum, and approximately 60% is within the River Wensum SSSI. It is crossed by two drainage ditches. There are dry banks along the edges of the field to the south- east and north-west, and the edge of the floodplain in the south-west is clearly marked by the transition from rush-pasture to dry grassland. Water is derived both as ground-water and run-off from the surrounding farmland and as groundwater and periodic flooding from the adjacent river. Management: The surveyed field is grazed by 10 Lincoln red cows with their calves and a bull between April and October. The animals are moved in dry summers when the grazing is exhausted until the vegetation recovers. The field is usually topped after mid-July to control thistles. There has been no recent scrub clearance, herbicide use or drain maintenance. There have been problems with weed abundance and with rabbit numbers on the drier land. Vegetation: The part of the field outside the SSSI in the south has tussocky and relatively species- poor fen-meadow vegetation dominated by Juncus inflexus with Festuca rubra, Agrostis stolonifera, Poa trivialis, Carex hirta, Cirsium palustre, Galium uliginosum and Lotus pedunculatus. To the north, the part of the field within the SSSI is slightly more species-rich with the addition of abundant Juncus subnodulosus, Mentha aquatica, Filipendula ulmaria and Equisetum fluviatile. Within this area there is a stand of dominant Carex riparia, and a zone of fen meadow including Carex riparia in the north. The dry grassland is rather species-poor, but includes Galium verum. There is a strip of Crataegus monogyna scrub along the riverbank. NVC: The majority of the vegetation within the SSSI is M22a fen-meadow. The less species-rich and more tussocky vegetation may be classified as MG10b, and this was the community ranked highest by MATCH (coefficient = 50.9). Overall however, the vegetation appears to fit most closely with M22a (coefficient = 47.2). The area dominated by Carex riparia is S6. Condition Assessment: The site passes the condition assessment. HLS Indicators of success: The site passes the indicators of success. Soils: Organic carbon and total nitrogen levels and loss on ignition are all relatively low suggesting a largely mineral soil with little accumulation of litter or peat. PH is mildly alkaline, with soil derived from underlying chalk. Extractable phosphorus level is low. Potassium level is low and magnesium level is moderate.
Soil pH Olsens P Index Soil K Index K Soil MG Index Total Loss on Total P Organic Soil texture (Water) (mg/l) P (mg/l) (mg/l) MG N (%) Ignition Carbon 7.3 14 1 109 1 57 2 1.01 22.2 1015 12.3 Sandy Loam
Page 177
Site 34: Cumwhitton, Cumbria HLS Options HQ6 Grid. ref NY 5350 HLS Supplements HQ12 Area (ha) 1.49 Survey Date 17.10.14 ER & SU NVC M23a
Site: The site occupies gentle west-facing slopes of a small valley of the Cairn Beck, which flows along its western boundary. Drainage channels are present within site and there are several springs. There is an access track across site, crossing Cairn Beck. Alnus glutinosa grow along the beck and the south-eastern boundary. This site supports rush pasture but appears permanently wet and is probably affected both by floodwater from the Beck and from surface run-off from the slopes above. Management: The site is cattle grazed with a few bullocks put on for a short time in late summer once the ground-nesting birds have fledged. No cutting or topping takes place as the site is too rough/wet. Pernicious weeds are less of a problem than the scrub – since fencing scrub has increased and the main management issue is keeping grazing sufficient to keep on top of alder saplings and regrowth. Coppicing and/or hand removal will be considered if necessary. The owner is happy with his HLS agreement. Vegetation: The vegetation comprises short grasses dominated by mixtures of Agrostis capillaris, A. stolonifera, Holcus lanatus and Festuca rubra with occasional, low cover of Deschampsia cespitosa. Above this rushes are constant to locally abundant (J. effusus, J. acutiflorus and J. conglomeratus). Carex flacca is present with wetland forbs (Filipendula ulmaria, Cardamine pratensis, Achillea ptarmica, Cirsium palustre, Galium palustre, Caltha palustris and Narthecium ossifragum). Patches of Sphagnum fallax and S. palustre were noted in the eastern part of the site, but Rhytidiadelphus squarrosus was the only bryophyte that was constant throughout. Drainage channels are present across site. These are vegetated and hold standing water in parts. Species present in channels include: J. acutiflorus (F), J. effusus (F), F. ulmaria (O), C. pratensis (A), bryophytes and Sphagnum and Alnus glutinosa saplings. Ranunculus flammula (F) and Veronica beccabunga (A) were in standing water. NVC: The sward is consistent with M23a Juncus acutiflorus – Galium palustre rush pasture, which is supported by the MATCH analysis (top three similarity coefficient results: M23, 55.4%; M23a, 54.5%; M23b, 52.8%) Condition Assessment: Pass for G07/M23 and W04. The site passes generic fen attributes and targets on wetness, exposed substrate, litter cover, scrub cover and negative species. Negative indicator species present include: Cirsium arvense (Total <1 %). Positive indicator species include five frequent (F. ulmaria, G. palustre, J. acutiflorus, R. flammula and C. pratensis); one occasional (C. flacca) and three rare (Caltha palustris, M. aquatic and Succisa pratensis. Cover of non-jointed rushes is (a pass) < 50%. HLS Indicators of success: Fails on one IoS but should pass. IoS are minimal for this site. The site meets the wetness target of the whole surface should be wet from October to April and seepage should be visible all year round. However, the site does not meet the desirable species target as only two species are included (meadowsweet and ragged robin) and ragged robin was not recorded. Many other desirable species are present though. The HQ12 supplement requires that the vegetation should include a mosaic of shorter and taller plant species: this is considered to be met. Soils: The soil water is mildly acidic. Phosphorus content is low, potassium moderate and magnesium high. Total nitrogen is very high with quite high organic matter component.
Soil pH Olsens P Index Soil K Index K Soil MG Index Total Loss on Total Organic Soil texture (Water) (mg/l) P (mg/l) (mg/l) MG N (%) Ignition P Carbon 5.4 9 0 135 2- 160 3 1.56 35.7 1083 17.7 Sandy Loam
Page 178
Site 35: Merstone, Isle of Wight HLS Options HQ7 Grid. ref SZ 53 84 HLS Supplements HQ12 Area (ha) 4.01 Survey Date 05.08.2015 BRW & CEB NVC M23a
Site: A low-lying area associated with a small tributary of the River Yar. The northern part of the site if higher and supports a grassland community, as does a small section in the south-west corner. The central area is lower lying and supports rush pasture rather than true fen habitat, although the water table is permanently high in the central area probably also with some lateral movement of water. The site had partly been topped. Management: This site is managed through a combination of topping and grazing dependent upon season and plant growth. Prior to HLS the site was mostly just topped or a hay crop taken as there were too few cattle. Now the site is in HLS 40 Red Devon and two Charolaise are available and these are used either to graze the aftermath, or occasionally put on for a short period in May if a hay crop is not to be taken. Vegetation: The wettest part of the site (surveyed) was dominated by a Juncus acutiflorus and Juncus effusus with a grassy lower tier of constant Holcus lanatus and Agrostis stolonifera of up to 20% cover. Anthoxanthum odoratum, Agrostis capillaris, Alopecurus pratensis and Phleum pratense were frequent at low cover and Deschampsia cespitosa was locally abundant but not widespread. Sedges were limited to occasional Carex hirta. Equisetum palustre was frequent. Positive species included frequent Ranunculus flammula with occasional Galium palustre, Lotus pedunculatus and rare Caltha palustris, Filipendula ulmaria and Cardamine pratensis. Negative species were few and included just a few plants of Cirsium arvense, Rumex obtusifolius and R. crispus. NVC: MATCH analysis gave the highest similarity coefficient for MG10 rush-pasture (50.5%), although the constant presence of Juncus acutiflorus is atypical for MG10 and more indicative of a species-poor M23a rush-pasture (46.6%). The community lies somewhere between these two communities and hopefully will move further towards M23a with management.
Condition Assessment: Pass. Assessed against generic W04 attributes and targets and M23 for botanical indicators – central wetland area only. The site had 75% cover of waterlogged ground, and low levels of exposed substrate and litter. Negative species were sparse and scrub cover only 1%. Positive species included two frequent (Juncus acutiflorus, Ranunculus flammula) plus two occasional (Lotus pedunculatus, Galium palustre) and two rare. The site passes for M23a rush pasture but it is open to question whether this is a true fen. HLS Indicators of success: The site passes the Ios for cover of ‘squelchy’ ground but fails to meet the target for 10–80% open water. It does (just) meet the target for desirable species. The HQ12 indicator for vegetation of a range of ages is not met – nor particularly appropriate.
Soils: The site is acidic with low phosphorus content, moderate potassium and high magnesium. Total nitrogen is somewhat high and may be due to lack of grazing in the past.
Soil pH Olsens P Index Soil K Index K Soil MG Index Total N Loss on Total P Organic Soil texture (Water) (mg/l) P (mg/l) (mg/l) MG (%) Ignition Carbon 5.1 11 1 184 2+ 156 3 1.34 32.1 1784 14.6 Clay Loam
Page 179
Site 36: Oswestry, Shropshire HLS Options HQ6 Grid. ref SJ 3332 HLS Supplements HQ12 Area (ha) 2.36 Survey Date 27.08.2014 GQB/LR NVC S7
Site: Field at the bottom of the farm close to the course of the river Perry and adjacent to floodplain woodland. Permanently wet and swampy in the centre, damp around the edges. Grazed unenthusiastically by cattle which also have access to the adjacent fields.
Management: No fertilisers or sprays used. Grazed by approximately 15 beef cattle (small breeds including Herefords) which range freely across several fields. The field has standing water all year round and is much wetter in winter. The farm used to be dairy but has never been intensive.
Vegetation: Quadrats were placed in the wettest parts of the field, which are in the centre (areas 2 and 4). Juncus effusus and Carex acutiformis are co-dominant across the surveyed part of the field in large patches. There are few associates, all with low cover: Agrostis stolonifera, Phalaris arundinacea, Juncus inflexus, Juncus acutiflorus, Filipendula ulmaria, Ranunculus repens, Iris pseudacorus and Lemna minor. Area 2 includes a large proportion of standing water, mostly as small pools and channels but with the occasional larger patch. Around this central wet area there is tall tussocky damp grassland dominated by Holcus lanatus with patchy Deschampsia cespitosa, plus pockets of tall ruderal dominated by Urtica dioica.
NVC: Carex acutiformis swamp seems to be the best match for this vegetation, since both Carex acutiformis and Juncus effusus are prominent in vegetation with few other associates, and this is typical of the species-poor S7 Carex acutiformis swamp community. MATCH analysis gave the highest result for s7 (Similarity coefficient 51.4%). Condition Assessment: Borderline Pass. The site passes on habitat structure attributes, cover of scrub and wetness: the habitat is ideal for swamp vegetation having permanent open water and very wet soils throughout the year. One fen associate (C. acutiformis) was abundant, one occasional (Juncus acutiflorus) but several rare (Iris pseudacorus, Valeriana officinalis, Potentilla palustris, Galium palustre, Cardamine pratensis): low frequency and cover of associates is typical for this vegetation type and this is considered a borderline pass. Undesirable species were absent. Favourable condition. HLS Indicators of success: Meets criteria for scrub cover and aquatic vegetation in ditches but vegetation is considerably taller than knee high and the vegetation does not have the required height mosaic. The indicators of success seem to be aimed more at a different type of vegetation as swamps do not usually have a height mosaic and are usually fairly tall. Soils: The soil was highly waterlogged and pH was mildly calcareous. Both extractable phosphorus and potassium were low, whilst magnesium was moderately high. Total nitrogen was moderate and the organic matter component as measured by loss on ignition and organic carbon are indicative of mineral soils with little peat or litter deposition.
Soil pH Olsens P Inde Soil K Index K Soil MG Index Total Loss on Total Organic Soil texture (Water) (mg/l) x P (mg/l) (mg/l) MG N (%) Ignition P Carbon 6.6 8 0 106 1 165 3 0.47 12.9 901 6.43 Clay loam
Page 180
Site 37: Ingrebourne Marshes SSSI, South Hornchurch, London HLS Options HQ7 Grid. ref TQ 5384 HLS Supplements HQ12 Area (ha) 2.35 Survey Date 28.08.2014 CEB & DWP NVC S22 (S5, S6, OV28)
Statutory Designation Ingrebourne Marshes SSSI, Unit 1. Unfavourable – declining.
Site: This is a fringe of fen around old gravel workings adjacent to the Ingrebourne River. Much of the true fen community is in a narrow band (3-5m) between the open water and emergent and the higher ground at the back of the site. Due to flooding, the area selected for survey was mostly in the north of the site although one quadrat was placed in the south-west.
Management: Much of the site is waterlogged for most of the year. Management is by grazing with Redpoll cattle. The grazing period is flexible due to the flooding. The owner has problems managing the site according to the agreement due to the high water levels. Vegetation: The vegetation is varied but is characterised by a number of wet fen species, particularly Mentha aquatica and Bidens tripartita which are locally abundant and forbs such as Lythrum salicaria, Alisma plantago-aquatica, Polygonum hydropiper, Apium nodiflorum, Lycopus europaeus, Atriplex hastata and Epilobium hirsutum, all of which were locally frequent. Glyceria maxima was widespread and locally abundant, while Juncus articulatus, Typha latifolia and Urtica dioica were all occasional. Rumex crispus was also widespread and locally abundant. An alien vetch (possibly Coronilla varia) was very locally abundant on drier ground. Where the conditions become drier as the ground rises, Agrostis stolonifera and Ranunculus repens become locally abundant. NVC: The vegetation is a mosaic of swamp communities (S5 Glyceria maxima but also e.g. S6 Carex riparia and S22 Glyceria fluitans) at the wetter edge of the fen, grading to an OV28 Agrostis stolonifera -Ranunculus repens community. This is probably closest to the OV28a Polygonum hydropiper-Rorippa sylvestris sub-community (MATCH analysis similarity coefficient 36.3%) due to the association of fen-associated species. MATCH analysis gives very poor results for this flooded swamp/fen transition (highest coefficient S14 – 39.9% rejected in favour of S22b 38.5% and OV28a 36.3%). Condition Assessment: Fail. This site does not conform to any NVC community but when assessed against general targets for fen habitat it passes on water management with 95% surface water; passes on exposed substrate and litter but would fail on cover of woody species at 15%. With regard to positive indicator species: Mentha aquatica and Lythrum salicaria are frequent and Alisma plantago-aquatica, Polygonum hydropiper, Apium nodiflorum and Lycopus europaeus were all occasional – probably a pass. However, it fails on undesirable species as Rumex crispus is abundant (10%) and Urtica dioica is occasional (2%). HLS Indicators of success: The site does not meet the IoS on favourable or recovering condition and undesirable species but meets those for desirable species, scrub cover and aquatic vegetation cover. It probably does not meet the criterion for vegetation height but that could be due to the lack of grazing due to flooding. It was not possible to assess the IOS for the HQ12 grazing supplement. Soils: The field measurement of water gave the values: pH – 7.1; Conductivity – 537 µs/269 ppm. The value for soil pH is surprisingly high, indicating that there is a calcareous influence either through the water supply or in the soil itself. Indices for P are extremely high values while those for K and Mg are also relatively high. It must be assumed that these values are strongly influenced by the local water supply from the river, which appears to freely recharge and flood the site.
Soil pH Olsens P Index Soil K Index Soil MG Index Total Loss on Total Organic Soil Texture (Water) (mg/l) P (mg/l) K (mg/l) MG N (%) Ignition P Carbon 7.9 51 4 212 2+ 507 6 0.65 13.7 1019 6.95 Sandy Silty Loam
Page 181
Site 38: Clumber Park SSSI, Nottinghamshire HLS Options HQ6 Grid ref. SK 6375 HLS Supplements HR2 Area 3.89ha Survey Date 23.9.2014 PJW NVC Carex acutiformis vegetation (S7, M22a, S12, S4a)
Statutory designation: Clumber Park SSSI, Unit 31 – Favourable (2009)
Site: Clumber Park is a large property belonging to the National Trust to the south of Worksop. It was formerly part of Sherwood Forest, but was enclosed in 1707. It covers approximately 2000ha. The lake is in the centre of the park and was formed by the damming of the River Poulter. The surveyed fen is at the eastern end of the lake and to the south of the river as it emerges from the dam. The fen has developed around a number of small shallow ponds. The large areas of swamp dominated by Phragmites australis and Typha latifolia were not sampled. Management: This fen is grazed by two cows and three sheep in September and October. The vegetation has been cut in the past but not since 2012, although some small trees have been removed. The only problems that have been experienced here have been cattle and machinery becoming stuck in the wettest areas. This fen forms part of a much larger HLS agreement covering a substantial part of Clumber Park.
Vegetation: There is a mosaic of swamp types surrounding the ponds. Carex acutiformis is the most abundant species throughout and is dominant in several places. Other frequent tall fen species include Typha latifolia, Carex riparia, Eupatorium cannabinum and Epilobium hirsutum. Phragmites australis is locally frequent, but the swamp in the wettest areas surrounding the ponds dominated by this species and Typha latifolia was not surveyed. Juncus inflexus, Juncus acutiflorus, Hypericum tetrapterum, Lycopus europaeus and Mentha aquatica are frequent in areas of shorter fen-meadow vegetation. There are occasional small trees of Salix cinerea, Alnus glutinosa, Betula pendula and Acer pseudoplatanus, and Rubus fruticosus is also occasional. NVC: Although the highest MATCH coefficient is 49.7 for OV26 (Epilobium hirsutum community), the vegetation here is in reality a mosaic of fen and swamp types. The most widespread community is vegetation dominated by Carex acutiformis. Some areas of the fen where Carex acutiformis is most dominant may be true S7 Carex acutiformis swamp. The shorter, more species-rich fen-meadow approaches M22a but is probably closest to OV26b (Epilobium hirsutum community, Phragmites australis-Iris pseudacorus sub-community)(MATCH coefficient=39.9), while the tall swamp stands in wetter areas are S4a (Phragmites australis swamp, Galium palustre sub-community) and S12 (Typha latifolia swamp). Condition Assessment: The site passes the condition assessment.
HLS Indicators of success: The site fails the indicators of success for the following reason: Mean height of the vegetation is greater than “knee-high”. This may not be an appropriate attribute at this site and the site could be considered as passing the indicators of success. Soils: Total phosphorus and organic carbon content were not included in the soil analysis. Loss on ignition and total nitrogen content are low as might be expected for this site that is in the early stages of successional development as fen. PH is alkaline. Extractable phosphorus is high, and may reflect the relatively recent development of the fen on former agricultural soils. Magnesium level is high but potassium level is low.
Soil pH Olsens P Index Soil K Index K Soil MG Index Total Loss on Total Organic Soil texture (Water) (mg/l) P (mg/l) (mg/l) MG N (%) Ignition P Carbon 7.7 33 3 107 1 191 4 0.4 10.4 0 0 Sandy loam
Page 182
Site 39: Shacklewell Hollow SSSI, Empingham, Leics HLS Options HQ6 Grid ref. SK 9707 HLS Supplements HQ11 Area (ha) 0.94 Survey Date 15.8.2014 PJW NVC OV26, S7
Statutory designation: Shacklewell Hollow SSSI, Unit 2, Favourable.
Site: Part (N) of this site lies in Shacklewell Hollow SSSI which extends to the north of the A606 Stamford Road. The area surveyed is managed in its own right as fen, but will also serve a role in buffering the stream that feeds the northern part of the SSSI from agricultural run-off. It consists of a narrow strip of wetland vegetation and regenerating scrub along the western bank of a small stream that is a tributary of the River Gwash. The woodland on the eastern bank of the valley is also within the SSSI. It is probable that the site is fed by water draining from the adjacent arable field. Management: The vegetation is cut annually in August or September. There is no grazing. The rest of the SSSI to the north of the road is also managed under the HLS agreement. Vegetation: Only approximately 20% of the area under the HQ6 option can be considered as fen. The majority of this is dominated by Epilobium hirsutum, with small areas of Sparganium erectum, Carex riparia and Phalaris arundinacea. Urtica dioica is abundant with Cirsium arvense locally frequent. Other frequent species include Poa trivialis, Equisetum palustre, Carex hirta, Calystegia sepium, Mentha aquatica, Scrophularia auriculata, Solanum dulcamara and Galium aparine. Scrub species, principally Rubus fruticosus and Prunus spinosa are frequent, forming dense thickets in places. NVC: The most frequent communities are W24 Rubus fruticosus scrub and OV26 (MATCH similarity coefficient – top result – 58.8%). There are small patches of S6 and S14c where Carex riparia and Sparganium erectum are dominant. Condition Assessment: The site fails the condition assessment for the following reasons: Cover of undesirable species (Urtica dioica, Cirsium arvense) 10% Cover of scrub within the open tall-herb fen areas is 10%. Less than 50% of the whole area is scrub- free.
HLS Indicators of success: Not specified. Soils: Total phosphorus and organic carbon contents were not included in the soil analysis. Total nitrogen content and loss on ignition were low indicating a lack of litter accumulation and predominantly mineral soil. PH was high, extractable phosphorus content, potassium content and magnesium content were moderate.
Soil pH Olsens P Index Soil K Index K Soil MG Index Total Loss on Total Organic Soil texture (Water) (mg/l) P (mg/l) (mg/l) MG N (%) Ignition P Carbon Sandy silt 7.7 19 2 164 2- 123 3 0.77 16.4 0 0 loam
Page 183
Site 40: Sherringham and Beeston Regis Commons SSSI, Norfolk. HLS Options HQ7 Grid. ref TG 1642 HLS Supplements HQ11 wetland cutting Area (ha) 4.54 Survey Date 05.08.2014 BRW & PJW NVC M13a ( & M24, M23a)
Statutory Designation Sheringham and Beeston Regis Commons SSSI, Unit 2, Unfav. Recovering
Site: The common supports acidic wet heathland but springs arise from underlying chalk and along the drainage lines calcareous mire habitat occurs. The area surveyed was the calcareous mire in the centre of Unit 2. The area is owned and managed by Sheringham Town Council and has open access. Management: Fen area is cut on a 3 year rotation. NE are debating whether the cutting should be carried out more frequently, i.e. every 2 years. Originally (30–40 years ago) the site was grazed but then fell into neglect. On entering HLS cutting management started and management has stayed much the same, although it has improved in the last 10 years. HLS is insufficient to cover scrub control costs so the council pay for this: there is an issue with scrub control as the tussocky habitat makes it very hard to use a forest mulcher (brushcutting would be too time-consuming). The council is proud of what they have achieved. The ditches are cleared occasionally and Anglian water has boreholes on the site. The council would like to graze the site but there is local opposition to fencing. Vegetation: The calcareous fen is dominated by a mixture of Schoenus nigricans and Molinia caerulea with variable cover of Juncus subnodulosus. The associated flora is rich with 18–34 species recorded in each quadrat and 49 species recorded across all five quadrats. The main fen supports sedges including frequent Carex panicea, C. flacca and C. pulicaris and occasional C. nigra. Ericoid shrubs include frequent Erica tetralix and occasional Calluna vulgaris. The most frequent forbs are Valeriana dioica, Drosera rotundifolia, Potentilla erecta and Eupatorium cannabinum. Many others occur occasionally across the fen such as Succisa pratensis, Epipactis palustris, Galium uliginosum, Centaurea nigra and Anagallis tenella. Cirsium dissectum and on exposed depressions Pinguicula vulgaris. The bryophyte flora is well developed with 10–50% cover, dominated by Sphagnum subnitens but in flushes Sphagnum inundatum occurs with Drepanocladus fluitans, Campylium stellatum, Calliergonella cuspidata and occasional Ctenidium molluscum and Fissidens adianthoides. A large stand of Phragmites australis occurs to the south of the main fen where it has invaded a Juncus acutiflorus community with Hydrocotyle vulgaris, Mentha aquatica, Lotus pedunculatus, Centaurea nigra and Pulicaria dysenterica. NVC: The main calcareous fen community is closest to M13a (MATCH similarity coefficient 45.6%) but on the eastern side of the site a small stand that has closer affinity with M24 occurs. To the south the community is Phragmites invaded M23a. Condition Assessment: Borderline fail (assessed against generic W04 fen attributes and targets and botanical attributes for M13). The fen was fairly dry during the survey but this was during a drought summer and the general condition of the fen indicates that wetness is not an issue on this site. Exposed substrate and litter cover are within targets. Positive species frequency is extremely good in the main stand of fen vegetation. Scrub cover (Ulex europaeus, Betula pendula, Salix) is approximately 10-12% - a borderline fail. Cover of Phragmites australis is high in the M23 stand but much lower in the sampled, target community of M13. However Solidago canadensis is prevalent in some areas. HLS Indicators of success: The main fen passes the IoS on frequency of desirable species and height of vegetation. However, cover of scrub is probably still too high and cover of Phragmites australis, Pteridium aquilinum, Solidago are still too high. Molinia and Juncus targets inappropriate for M13. Soils: The soil water is calcareous, soil phosphorus is low and both potassium and magnesium are moderate. Nitrogen content is quite high although not problematically so.
Soil pH Olsens P Index Soil K Index K Soil MG Index Total N Loss on Total P Organic Soil texture (Water) (mg/l) P (mg/l) (mg/l) MG (%) Ignition Carbon 7.7 5 0 124 2- 99 2 1.11 25.9 538 14 Sandy Loam
Page 184
Site 41: Slapton Ley SSSI, South Hams, Devon HLS Options HQ6 Grid. ref SX 8144 HLS Supplements Area (ha) 0.41 Survey Date 18.07.2014 BRW/PJW NVC S4 & W1
Statutory Designation Slapton Ley SSSI, Lower Ley – Unit 3 (part of). Unfavourable Recovering.
Site: THIS SITE WAS NOT SURVEYED. This site is part of Slapton Ley, which is a mosaic of coastal, freshwater, terrestrial and transitional habitats. A green lane ‘Marsh Lane’ runs along the northern boundary of the compartment selected for survey but access from Marsh Lane onto the unit was not possible due to a wide stretch of deep, flooded silt between Marsh Lane and the vegetation. From the lane the habitat appeared dominated, at least at the northern end, by Phragmites reedswamp in the open areas and deeply flooded Salix wet woodland. Management: The unit is owned by a local farmer who has owned it for decades. He believes that 70– 100 years ago the reeds were cut but he has never done so because it is so wet. It is also too flooded for stock and not enclosed. The willows are occasionally cut though. The site floods to 3 or 4 feet depth.
Vegetation: From the SSSI citation: “The shores of the Lower Ley have been colonized to a large extent by reed Phragmites australis with important plants growing on areas of exposed mud. Start stream enters the Lower Ley through an area of reed-bed, reed-swamp and fen woodland. “
NVC: From the SSSI citation: “The NVC communities of the Upper and Lower Ley wetland areas are: Phragmites australis swamp and reed beds (S4); Sparganium erectum swamp (S14) including the Phalaris arundinacea sub-community (S14d); Glyceria fluitans water margin vegetation (S22) and Alopecurus geniculatus sub-community (S22c); Phragmites australis - Urtica dioica tall-herb fen (S26), Oenanthe crocata subcommunity (S26c) and Epilobium sub-community (S26d); Salix cinerea - Galium palustre woodland (W1); Alnus glutinosa - Carex paniculata woodland (W5) and Phragmites australis sub-community (W5a); Alnus glutinosa - Urtica dioica woodland (W6) including the Sambucus nigra sub-community (W6d).”
Condition Assessment: Not assessed.
HLS Indicators of success: The SSSI unit is currently Unfavourable Recovering. Cover of undesirable species could not be assessed. However two IoS for this unit can be commented on. The site would fail the IoS for ‘knee-high’ vegetation across the fen. However, this is clearly inappropriate for this type of vegetation community. Scrub is also meant to be less than 10% but the site supports a mosaic of open reedswamp and wet woodland so this may also need to be reviewed. In practice, intensive management of this highly flooded habitat is extremely difficult and unrealistic to expect of the land owner.
Soils: Not sampled but these will be alluvial sediments.
Page 185
Site 42: Southrepps Common SSSI, Norfolk HLS Options HQ6 Grid. ref TG 2635 HLS Supplements HQ11 & HR4 Area (ha) 1.8 Survey Date 05.08.2014 BRW/PJW NVC M13c
Statutory Designation Southrepps Common SSSI, Unfavourable Recovering.
Site: Formerly in Parish Council ownership for 25 years, but now been owned and managed by Southrepps Commons Trust for 10 years. The valley fen site supports purple moor-grass and rush pasture habitat, reedbeds, wet woodland and area of calcareous fen. The fen, which was surveyed, lies in the south-west quadrant of the common to the south of the beck that dissects the site. Management: The site has been in HLS for 5 years and in CSS prior to this. The management has stayed much the same throughout as management prescriptions were set by English Nature when the site was designated a SSSI. The calcareous fen is cut annually in an attempt to control the Phragmites that is invading the stand from the surrounding reedbed. The rush pasture is cut every two years and the reedbed every 4 years. The Trust feels that cutting alone is not sufficiently controlling the invasive scrub and the site needs grazing but there is local opposition to enclosure and grazing. Vegetation: Some areas north of the beck support Juncus subnodulosus-dominated fen meadow of varying quality but some is species rich with short sedges and many forbs including Cirsium dissectum, Pedicularis palustris and Epipactis palustris. Other areas in the north support Phragmites and tussocky Arrhenatherum elatius-dominated grassland. South of the beck in the south-east quadrant is a stand of dense Phragmites australis with Eupatorium cannabinum, Calystegia sepium with Juncus subnodulosus. A similar community occurs in the extreme west. The stand sampled was an area of high quality Juncus subnodulosus mire in the south-western quadrant. Here Juncus subnodulosus was constant although of variable cover (1–30%) with abundant Carex panicea, Festuca rubra and an underlying carpet of bryophytes (15–70% cover) dominated by Calliergonella cuspidata but with many other species at low frequency and/or cover including typical calcicolous bryophytes Ctenidium molluscum, Campylium stellatum and Drepanocladus revolvens. Phragmites was also constant but at relatively low cover at present. The forb component was characterised by frequent Valeriana dioica, Parnassia palustris, Epipactis palustris, Filipendula ulmaria, Potentilla erecta, Centaurea nigra, Galium uliginosum and Hydrocotyle vulgaris. Sedges Carex nigra, C. flacca and Eriophorum angustifolium were locally frequent, whilst grasses Briza media and the invasive Calamagrostis epigejos were also locally frequent: the latter sometimes at high cover. Several other forbs were occasional to locally frequent: Pedicularis palustris, Anagallis tenella, Cirsium palustre, Lotus pedunculatus, Succisa pratensis, Gymnadenia conopsea, Equisetum palustre, Rhinanthus minor and Triglochin palustre. NVC: The surveyed calcareous fen is closest to M13c but lacks the usual constant Schoenus nigricans (MATCH similarity coefficient 55.9%). Other communities on this site are closest to M22a, M24 (although lacking Molinia) S25c (although Cladium is absent), MG1 and W1, W2 & W6 wet woodland. Condition Assessment: Borderline pass (assessed against W04 and botanical targets for M13). Wetness, exposed substrate, litter and scrub all within acceptable limits. Desirable species frequency is very good with nine frequent, five occasional plus several of rare occurrence. Undesirable/invasive coarse species include 10% Phragmites in the M13 plus 3% Calamagrostis epigejos –borderline pass. HLS Indicators of success: The M13 stand passes all IoS: ‘recovering condition’, cover of undesirable species, surface wetness, desirable species frequency, vegetation height and cover of scrub. Soils: The soil water is highly calcareous with low phosphorus. Potassium and magnesium are moderate but total nitrogen and organic matter are high suggesting peat accumulation. There is leaking sewage pipe close to the M13 stand – Anglian Water has agreed to remedy this in 2014–15.
Soil pH Olsens P Index Soil K Index K Soil MG Index Total N Loss on Total P Organic Soil texture (Water) (mg/l) P (mg/l) (mg/l) MG (%) Ignition Carbon 7.9 5 0 139 2- 60 2 1.78 53 923 29 Sandy Loam
Page 186
Site 43: Attingham Park, Shrewsbury, Shropshire HLS Options HQ7 Grid. ref SJ5510 HLS Supplements Area (ha) 3.00 Survey Date 28.08.2014 GQB & LR NVC M6c
Designation & Name: Adjacent to Attingham Park SSSI
Site: The survey site is part of Attingham Park – a large parkland landscape owned and managed by the National Trust. The site lies outside the boundary of Attingham Park SSSI but units 1 (wet woodland) and 6 (parkland) form the western and southern boundaries to the site, respectively. The target area is labelled as "Fox Covert" on the Ordnance Survey map and comprises a large expanse of bracken punctuated by clumps of mature trees and drains full of Juncus effusus. The site lies on very gentle north-west slopes and drains into the River Tern, a tributary of the River Severn. The fen is probably both topogenous and soligenous. Management: The site entered HLS in 2012. No cutting or grazing management at the moment but Attingham Park is a managed deer park and the fen is evidently grazed by deer as multiple laying-up areas and deer paths with droppings were noted during the survey. Pedigree Jerseys and Longhorn cattle also graze the larger parkland – Longhorn would be suitable for grazing this area.
Vegetation: No fen vegetation was found in the target area, which is dominated by bracken with clumps of trees and crisscrossed with deep drains full of Juncus effusus. Two wet areas were found (see map). Area 1 comprised dense Juncus effusus with occasional Dryopteris carthusiana and Agrostis stolonifera scattered throughout. Area 2 was slightly more diverse and was selected for quadrat survey. Here the dominants were Juncus effusus, Juncus acutiflorus and Agrostis stolonifera in vegetation with approximately 15% Sphagnum spp., including Sphagnum palustre and Sphagnum flexuosum (recurvum agg). Dryopteris carthusiana and Polytrichum commune were the main associates, with bracken also frequent.
NVC: This may be best considered a depauperate M6c, with no Carex species and low Sphagnum cover (MATCH similarity coefficient 36.5%). The surrounding habitat is U20.
Condition Assessment: Unfavourable condition - low cover of Sphagnum spp, no Carex species and very low frequency of positive indicator species. Only squelchy on part of the surveyed area. High cover of bracken. Most of this site does not qualify as fen habitat.
HLS Indicators of success: The site just passes the requisite for frequent Sphagnum (it was in 9 stops out of 20) when only the small Juncus area was considered (the wider site would fail), and on cover of scrub, but fails on surface wetness, and favourable condition.
Soils: The soil is highly acidic with low phosphorus content, low potassium and moderate magnesium. Total nitrogen is high but acceptable. Organic matter is also quite high suggesting some peat accumulation over the alluvial mineral soil below.
Soil pH Olsens P Index Soil K Index K Soil MG Index Total Loss on Total Organic Soil texture (Water) (mg/l) P (mg/l) (mg/l) MG N (%) Ignition P Carbon 4.2 10 1 116 1 97 2 1.2 42.8 832 17.3 Sandy Loam
Page 187
Site 44: Bassenthwaite Lake SSSI, Cumbria HLS Options HQ6 Grid. ref NY 2326 HLS Supplements HQ12 Area (ha) 13.32 Survey Date 09.09.2014 BRW NVC M27c
Statutory Designation Bassenthwaite Lake, Unit 8. Unfavourable Recovering 2010.
Site: This land parcel is known as Rough Mire, which is part of a large flood-plain fen at the southern end of Bassenthwaite Lake in the Lake District – as mesotrophic and relatively nutrient-rich lake subject to wide fluctuations in water level with fast throughput of water. Rough mire is situated west of the River Derwent and east of Newlands Beck and is bounded on three sides by drains. It was fortunate that 2014 was a hot, dry summer as this unit is often deeply flooded and not accessible. Management: The land is rented by a local farmer from the NPA. Formerly in unfavourable condition, the management has reversed the decline. Cattle have been used to graze the site since 2001, whilst under the ESA scheme. The cattle (Galloway) are put on the parcel when Phalaris starts to grow as it is most palatable at this time – this can be end of Feb–March and are kept on whilst grazing is suitable and not deeply flooded. The farmer feels that the HLS prescription of prohibiting burning of the fen is detrimental to the management of the vegetation. Himalayan balsam has recently arrived on this site. Vegetation: The bulk is dominated by a Phalaris arundinacea with co-dominant Juncus effusus and constant lower cover Deschampsia cespitosa, Filipendula ulmaria, Valerian officinalis, Equisetum fluviatile, Ranunculus repens and Iris pseudacorus. Juncus acutiflorus was locally abundant. Several other species are frequent or locally frequent such as Potentilla palustris, Epilobium palustre, Galium palustre, Scrophularia auriculata, Scutellaria gallerica and Rumex acetosa. Species of rare occurrence included Mentha aquatica, Angelica sylvestris, Lotus pedunculatus and Caltha palustris. Sedges are sparse in this very tall (> 100cm) stand but both Carex acuta and Carex nigra were recorded in one quadrat each and Carex rostrata in the condition assessment stops (in flooded depressions with Ranunculus flammula and Agrostis canina). Scrub was sparse (Salix) and largely restricted to a wet woodland stand at the west end of the parcel. Negative species Impatiens glandulifera was < 1%. To the west the community was more akin to damp grassland with Deschampsia cespitosa dominant. NVC: The main stand in this parcel is closest to M27c Filipendula ulmaria-Angelica sylvestris tall-herb fen (MATCH similarity coefficient 49.5% - highest result), although the abundance of Phalaris arundinacea is much higher than in the NVC diagnostic tables. The site is however, far too species rich to fall within S28 Phalaris arundinacea swamp community. There is also a resemblance to M23b Juncus effusus-Galium palustre rush-pasture, and the community may derive from this (38.9%) but may have developed into a Filipendulion fen in a period of past neglect and absence of grazing. Condition Assessment: Pass (for W04 and botanical targets for M27). The site has 100% cover of waterlogged ground, low cover of exposed substrate and litter, and <1% scrub in the open fen; cover of undesirable species is <5%. The high cover of coarse grasses Phalaris and Deschampsia are considered a natural component of this community although heavier grazing pressure might reduce their dominance a little. There are 4 frequent positive indicator species plus many of rare/occasional. HLS Indicators of success: The stand is in recovering condition; undesirable species Himalayan balsam is not absent but is at very low cover; the surface meets wetness targets; 4 desirable species are at least occasional and scrub cover is <5% across the open fen. The only IoS that the site does not meet is that of a mosaic of taller >30cm and shorter <10cm vegetation. This is considered unrealistic in this habitat. A mosaic of taller >50cm and shorter <30cm may be more achievable. Soils: The clay soil is slightly acidic, with low phosphorus and potassium and moderate magnesium and nitrogen. The organic component is surprisingly low.
Soil pH Olsens P Index Soil K Index K Soil MG Index Total N Loss on Total P Organic Soil texture (Water) (mg/l) P (mg/l) (mg/l) MG (%) Ignition Carbon 5.3 13 1 44 0 57 2 0.69 17.2 914 8.93 Clay
Page 188
Site 45: Hungerford, Berkshire HLS Options HQ7 Grid. ref SU 3070 HLS Supplements HQ12 Area (ha) 2.93 ha Survey Date 27.08.2014 CEB & DWP NVC Carex acutiformis (S7, MG9b)
Site: This is a 2.93 ha fen adjacent to the River Kennet (SSSI) influenced by lateral seepage from the river as well as overspill from the river. Management: The site is cattle grazed by a tenant grazier at a low density. Grazing takes place during the period April/May to the end of October/early November depending on water levels. The agent wasn’t sure whether the field is cut for hay on occasions. Topping for thistles is undertaken as and when deemed necessary. Vegetation: The vegetation is extremely impoverished and characterised by the abundance of Carex acutiformis and Deschampsia cespitosa, both of which species are dominant in patches over large parts of the field. The grasses Agrostis stolonifera, Holcus lanatus and Festuca rubra were locally frequent and associated with Deschampsia cespitosa. Glyceria maxima and Iris pseudacorus were locally abundant while Juncus inflexus was frequent to locally abundant throughout and Urtica dioica locally abundant. The vegetation is not species rich with only a few positive fen indicator species, such as Mentha aquatica present.
NVC: The community is patchwork of species-poor S7 Carex acutiformis fen and MG9 Holcus lanatus-Deschampsia cespitosa grassland. The sub-community is difficult to define but is probably closer to the species-poor MG9b Arrhenatherum elatius sub-community. Carex acutiformis appears to be invading due to the lack of grazing and cutting management. Due to the patchy nature of the S7 community, where Carex acutiformis has probably established in wet depressions, the MATCH analysis for this community is low overall (35.2%) and the strongest result is for MG9b (42.9%).
Condition Assessment: The site passes for the target W04 on water level management, cover of bare ground and litter and on scrub species. However, it fails on positive indicator species (all are rare) and additive cover of negative indicator species (>10 per cent). Carex acutiformis, although a natural component of fen vegetation, may also be overly abundant in this habitat. HLS Indicators of success: The site passes the criteria for wetness and scrub cover but does not meet the criteria for HQ7 on species diversity. It also fails on vegetation height which is above knee-height on average. The site also fails on the criteria for HQ12 for patchy and tussocky vegetation and favourable or unfavourable recovering condition and is only partially acceptable for the mosaic criterion. Soils: The field measurement of water was not possible as there was none present. The value for pH is relatively high and presumably reflects the origins of the river water. Values for Soil K and Soil Mg are relatively low while value for Total P is very high, presumably reflecting the large amount of material in the upper soil layers coming from the high vegetation biomass.
Soil pH Olsens P Index Soil K Index K Soil MG Index Total Loss on Total Organic Soil Texture (Water) (mg/l) P (mg/l) (mg/l) MG N (%) Ignition P Carbon 7.9 23 2 54 0 46 1 1.46 27.2 2044 12.2 Sandy Loam
Page 189
Site 46: Nr Wicken Fen, Cambridgeshire HLS Options HQ6 Grid ref. TL 5473 HLS Supplements HQ12 Area (ha) 0.98 Survey Date 13.8.2014 PJW NVC M22a, S26
Site: Situated in the floodplain of the River Cam, the wider site of Kingfisher’s Bridge was arable land until 1995, although it included the Upware Pit and Cam Washes SSSIs. In 1995 part of the site was flooded and cut litter from Wicken Fen and Chippenham Fen was spread to encourage plant colonisation. The site is now managed as a nature reserve with considerable success particularly for breeding and wintering birds. Much of the wet part of the site is managed under the HQ3 option for reedbeds, but a small area is managed as open fen – the study site. The Upware Pit SSSI is one of only two native British sites for Teucrium scordium, the population of which has now increased greatly here. The site also includes large areas of open water and dry grassland. Management: The reedbed and fen are grazed together by a herd of 15 water buffaloes for approximately 1 week each year. In 2013 the fen area was cut and cleared in September in an attempt to reduce the abundance of Cirsium arvense. It is likely that this cutting will be repeated in the future. The HLS agreement is an important part of the management of this site. Vegetation: Juncus subnodulosus is dominant over the whole open fen. Other frequent and locally abundant species include Epilobium hirsutum, Eupatorium cannabinum, Mentha aquatica, Angelica sylvestris, Galium uliginosum, Poa trivialis, Agrostis stolonifera and Calliergonella cuspidatum. Galium uliginosum is thought to have arrived at the site in material from Wicken and Chippenham Fens, and other species that have been introduced in this way include Selinum carvifolia and Serratula tinctoria. A single plant of Senecio paludosus had been introduced from native stock grown at Cambridge Botanic Gardens. NVC: All the fen area is M22a (although only 9th MATCH result, similarity coefficient of 44.9%), although this grades into the surrounding S26 reed-swamp (47.8%). The low level of grazing has probably led to the current prominence of Epilobium hirsutum and the diagnosis by MATCH of OV26 (top result 54.4%), although this is probably misleading and temporary. Condition Assessment: The site passes the condition assessment.
HLS Indicators of success: The site passes the indicators of success. Soils: Total phosphorus content and organic carbon were not included in the soil analysis. Total nitrogen content and loss on ignition are moderately high, probably as a result of the rapid accumulation of slowly decomposing leaf litter. PH is alkaline. Levels of extractable phosphorus, potassium and magnesium were all moderate.
Soil pH Olsens P Inde Soil K Index K Soil MG Index Total Loss on Total Organic Soil texture (Water) (mg/l) x P (mg/l) (mg/l) MG N (%) Ignition P Carbon 7.5 16 2 171 2- 138 3 1.69 39.2 - - Sandy loam
Page 190
Site 47: Oswestry, Shropshire HLS Options HQ6 Grid. ref SJ3526 HLS Supplements HQ12 wetland grazing Area (ha) 2.55 Survey Date 27.08.2014 GQB & LR NVC MG9
Site: One of a series of rather wet and rush dominated cattle pastures between the hamlets of Twyford and Sutton, near Oswestry. It occupies land in a valley east of the Montgomery Canal and close to Rednal Moss. The valley has been drained and has several small ponds and numerous drainage ditches bounding the fields. Management: The site is very wet so there is very little grazing now - the cattle are put on in the summer only but there are only a few of them. Occasionally the field is topped to control thistles. No inputs are used and the owner has always farmed in a low intensity way (over 20 years). Usually there is standing water in winter - this April it was still over welly deep. Scrapes were put into the field a few years ago and since then it has been wetter and more rushy. The farmer is hoping to get the fences and gates replaced soon. Vegetation: The field is largely Deschampsia cespitosa–Agrostis stolonifera grassland with associates including Juncus effusus, Festuca rubra, Potentilla anserina, and Holcus lanatus. Positive species include occasional Centaurea nigra, Juncus acutiflorus and Ranunculus flammula. Of rare occurrence are Equisetum palustre, Carex panicea, Filipendula ulmaria, Galium palustre and Lathyrus pratensis. There are five ponds (scrapes) in the field, each with slightly different aquatic/marginal vegetation - see target notes for details. Pond vegetation includes Juncus inflexus, Glyceria fluitans, Alisma plantago-aquatica, Sparganium erectum, Baldellia ranunculoides, Typha latifolia, Potamogeton, Juncus effusus and Carex spp. Each pond is accompanied by a slightly raised area of field, presumably where the spoil from the excavation was deposited, and these areas are thistly with frequent Deschampsia cespitosa and agricultural grasses including Lolium perenne. NVC: The combination of Deschampsia cespitosa and Agrostis stolonifera with scattered Juncus species and other cosmopolitan plants of wet pastures strongly suggests MG9 Deschampsia cespitosa grassland as the best match (MATCH analysis similarity coefficient for top two results = MG9 59.5% and for MG10 57.5%). Condition Assessment: MG9 is considered an agricultural grassland, not a fen habitat, and as such no specific advice on condition assessment exists in the guidance received from Natural England. When assessed against generic W04 fen attributes the site would fail on frequency of desirable fen indicator species, with only 2 occasional and three rare. HLS Indicators of success: Despite not passing a fen condition assessment (above) the site does meet the IoS set for the unit. The substrate is squelchy underfoot, supports low levels of undesirable species, little scrub and does have two fen species occasional across the site (as opposed to 2 frequent and 2 occasional required for a condition assessment). Soils: The soil is mesotrophic with low phosphorus content, low potassium and fairly high magnesium. Nitrogen is high but acceptable.
Soil pH Olsens P Index Soil K Index K Soil MG Index Total Loss on Total Organic Soil texture (Water) (mg/l) P (mg/l) (mg/l) MG N (%) Ignition P Carbon 6.1 8 0 104 1 211 4 1.1 33.7 1219 14.9 Sandy loam
Page 191
Site 48: Market Drayton, Shropshire HLS Options HQ7 Grid. ref SJ6936 HLS Supplements HQ12 wetland grazing Area (ha) 2.32 Survey Date 20.08.2014 GQB & LR NVC S7 & OV26
Site: Long narrow field alongside the River Tern which is well below the adjacent fields and separated from them by a low escarpment. The field is permanently wet and described by the owner as relatively thin soils with a touch of clay which holds the top wet, then sand and gravel layers with peat layers interspersed. Wetting depends on a springline along the hedge (groundwater). Management: There is no management on the land at present - it is considered too wet for grazing and the land manager cannot get a machine on to cut it, although a few heifers are occasionally put on. There are no inputs of fertiliser but the land above is improved grassland used for dairy cattle pasture. Capital works are planned to raise water levels and return the site to water meadow habitat – more like the land above Aqualate Mere – with high sedge cover. Vegetation: On entering the site from the field to the east, the visitor is confronted with a wall of Epilobium hirsutum approximately 6 feet high. The site is a mosaic of Carex acutiformis swamp and tall ruderal species and is overwhelmingly dominated by Epilobium hirsutum with patches of relatively dry grassland. See map and target notes. The swamp vegetation selected for quadrat study was dominated by Carex acutiformis and Epilobium hirsutum and few other associates, including Angelica sylvestris, Cirsium arvense, Cirsium palustre, Equisetum palustre, Filipendula ulmaria, Urtica dioica, Galium aparine and Valeriana officinalis. Butomus umbellatus was abundant in the first quadrat only. NVC: Carex acutiformis is abundant and many of this community's occasionals are present in the vegetation. The large amount of Epilobium hirsutum and the presence of nutrient-loving tall ruderal species probably reflects the quality of the water entering the site from the fields above. The site is a mosaic of OV26 Epilobium hirsutum community (top MATCH analysis result, 61.5%) and S7 Carex acutiformis swamp (49.6%). Condition Assessment: Unfavourable condition. The site supports very few positive fen indicator species – even for species poor communities such as S7 and OV26. Valeriana officinalis occurred in just 2 stops out of 20, and Filipendula ulmaria and Galium palustre in one stop each. The only frequent species were Epilobium hirsutum (12 stops), Carex acutiformis (10 stops) and Urtica dioica (8 stops). The high cover of Epilobium hirsutum and the presence of tall ruderal species may well indicate high nutrient levels – this is reflected in the soil analysis below. HLS Indicators of success: Fail. The soil is certainly squelchy underfoot across most of the field. The height of the vegetation prevented assessment of whether seepage is present but certainly there appeared to be channels through the Epilobium hirsutum indicating water movement. The field fails the positive indicator species criterion as only one species referred to on page 151 of the FEP handbook (‘sedges’) is at least occasional. It cannot reasonably be said that the vegetation is a mosaic of plant species when much of the area is overwhelmingly dominated by Epilobium hirsutum. Soils: The soil is calcareous with high phosphorus content – this can prohibit the establishment of botanical diversity although this of less importance in waterlogged sites where plants are already stressed. Potassium is low, magnesium high (common in calcareous sites) and nitrogen low.
Soil pH Olsens P Index Soil K Index K Soil MG Index Total Loss on Total Organic Soil texture (Water) (mg/l) P (mg/l) (mg/l) MG N (%) Ignition P Carbon 6.9 16 2 81 1 234 4 0.52 13.6 851 7.52 Sandy Loam
Page 192
Site 49: Broomscot Common, Norfolk HLS Options HQ6 Grid. ref TM0080 HLS Supplements HQ12 Area (ha) 1.03 Survey Date 13.8.2014 PJW NVC M22a
Site: The Little Ouse River forms the boundary between Norfolk and Suffolk between the villages of Garboldisham and Redgrave in the east of the Breckland. The Little Ouse Headwaters Project is a charity run by residents of this area which manages 10 areas of grassland, woodland and wetland of national importance for conservation. One of these areas is Broomscot Common. The majority of Broomscot Common is well-drained grassland typical of Breckland, but water flushing from this onto the underlying clay in the north-west corner has formed an area of fen-meadow. The stream that drains this fen-meadow flows northwards to join the Little Ouse. Broomscot Common is a county wildlife site. Management: The common has been undergrazed for several years but was fenced in 2012 and sheep-grazing has been introduced. Vegetation: Vegetation in the fen-meadow area is moderately tall and tussocky, dominated by Juncus inflexus with Carex disticha, Juncus effusus and locally Juncus subnodulosus and Deschampsia cespitosa. Tussock-forming Carex nigra is present in one area. Arrhenatherum elatius, Festuca rubra and Poa trivialis are all frequent, while Filipendula ulmaria, Galium uliginosum, Galium palustre, Lotus pedunculatus, Lathyrus pratensis and Angelica sylvestris are occasional. The undesirable species Urtica dioica and Cirsium arvense are both locally frequent. The scrub in the centre of the fen meadow consists largely of Salix cinerea. NVC: The fen meadow is M22a, with a gradation to dry U1 grassland of MG9. The highest MATCH coefficients are given for OV26, although given the complete absence of Epilobium hirsutum from the site, this diagnosis in untenable. Condition Assessment: The site fails the condition assessment for the following reason: Cover of scrub is approximately 15%. This is however in a discrete stand in the centre of the site and might not be considered a reason for failure.
HLS Indicators of success: The site fails the indicators of success for the following reason: Cover of scrub is approximately 15%. This is however in a discrete stand in the centre of the site and might not be considered a reason for failure.
Soils: Total phosphorus content and organic carbon were not included in the soil analysis. Extractable phosphorus level was very low, while potassium and magnesium levels were moderate. PH was neutral.
Soil pH Olsens P Index Soil K Index K Soil MG Index Total Loss on Total Organic Soil texture (Water) (mg/l) P (mg/l) (mg/l) MG N (%) Ignition P Carbon Sandy Clay 6.5 9 0 121 2- 144 3 0.86 19.2 0 0 Loam
Page 193
Site 52: Brampton, Cumbria HLS Options HQ6 Grid. ref NY 6159 HLS Supplements none Area (ha) 0.80 Survey Date 16.10.14 ER & SU NVC S7
Site: The site lies in a river valley between the high ground of Tindale Fells and Denton Fell, through which the Coalfell beck flows down to the River South Tyne. Relatively flat site, with a slight slope towards the beck in the south. At nearly 200 m a.s.l. the site occupies higher ground than many fens surveyed for the project. The Coalfell Beck flows along the southern boundary of the site and the A689 runs along the northern boundary. The site is a valley fen with both topogenous and soligenous water movement. Management: None apparent. High litter cover denotes absence of grazing. HQ7 may be a better option as management activity should be more proactive than present. (HQ6 usually means no change to current management.) Vegetation: The vegetation is dominated by Carex acutiformis, forming a dense sward. Filipendula ulmaria and Angelica sylvestris were occasional within the stand, whilst Caltha palustris, Equisetum fluviatile, Mentha aquatica, Galium palustre, and Lycopus europaeus were of rare occurrence. Phalaris arundinacea was locally abundant, occurring mostly to the west. Cirsium vulgare and C. arvense were scattered but nowhere frequent. There were two large dry pools/depressions supporting a greater number of species, with similar smaller areas scattered within the sward. Species present in these areas include: Carex acutiformis (LD), F. ulmaria (F), A. sylvestris (O), Juncus effusus (O), Juncus acutiflorus (LA), Mentha aquatica (F), Cirsium palustre (F), Cardamine pratensis (F), Lycopus europaeus (R), Deschampsia cespitosa (O), Chamerion angustifolium (O), Hypericum tetrapterum (R), Brachythecium rutabulum (A) and Calliergonella cuspidata (LA). A group of Alnus glutinosa and Salix caprea in the centre of the southern boundary, adjacent to the river. Scattered stems of Impatiens glandulifera present beneath these trees. Standing water occurred in the SE corner of the site only but very wet/marshy underfoot. NVC: The sward is consistent with S7 Carex acutiformis swamp, which was the top result in MATCH analysis (similarity coefficient 40.1%). Condition Assessment: Fails on litter cover. The site was sufficiently wet with 5% open water and 100% wetness. Bare ground was negligible but litter cover was extremely high denoting a lack of any recent grazing or cutting management. Although negative indicators were sparse there were also few positive indicators of any frequency, with one frequent (C. acutiformis), two occasional (A. sylvestris, F. ulmaria and several rare (Caltha palustris, Galium palustre, L. europaeus, M. aquatica and P. arundinacea. However, S7 is typically species poor and this result is fairly representative and typical of the community. HLS Indicators of success: The sites passes the only two IoS set: The surface should be 'squelchy' underfoot all year round. The whole surface should be wet from October to May: Squelchy across whole site, standing water in south-east corner; At least 2 desirable species such as Common Reed, Marsh Marigold, Meadowsweet, Ragged Robin and Sedges should be at least occasional across the area of fen: this is considered to be met. Overall, the site is considered to meet target. Soils: The fen is calcareous with low extractable soil phosphorus and equally low potassium. Magnesium is high, which is common in calcareous sites. Total nitrogen is also very high with high loss on ignition and organic carbon content – this is likely to be due to peat accumulation.
Soil pH Olsens P Inde Soil K Index K Soil MG Index Total Loss on Total Organic Soil texture (Water) (mg/l) x P (mg/l) (mg/l) MG N (%) Ignition P Carbon 7.1 15 1 85 1 185 4 1.64 39.1 2259 18.6 Sandy loam
Page 194
Site 53: Poundsworth, River Hull Headwaters SSSI, Driffield, Yorkshire HLS Options HQ7 Grid. ref TA 0256 HLS Supplements HQ11 Area (ha) 1.08 Survey Date 03.09.2014 BRW & PJW NVC OV26 (S5, M27b, W24)
Statutory Designation River Hull Headwaters SSSI, Unit 25 – Unfavourable Recovering
Site: Poundsworth Fen comprises two areas of fen swamp within a Populus plantation and sump woodland (S. fragilis, S. caprea) bordered by the Driffield Trout Stream and Driffield Beck. The water level appears permanently high, at least on the eastern and central area, and is inundated by flood water but possibly also spring fed. There are several ephemeral pools within the fen and sink holes. Management: The fen has had little active management in the last 5–10 years apart from maintaining streamsides. The fen is unfenced and considered too wet to be suitable for grazing (although the possibility of hardy traditional cattle breeds was discussed with the landowner during the field survey). A management plan has been commissioned for this land parcel by Wold Ecology. The plan proposes management of the Salix wet woodland as coppice; restoration/creation of shallow pools within the low lying areas of the fen; removal of trees from the centre of the fen. The fen has the wetland cutting supplement but the site is difficult for machinery access. Vegetation: Glyceria maxima is the most abundant dominant with local Phalaris arundinacea and Carex acutiformis. The stand is generally species poor, but Angelica sylvestris and Filipendula ulmaria are frequent and Epilobium hirsutum and Iris pseudacorus rare components. The only other fen species of note are Lotus pedunculatus of rare occurrence and occasional Persicaria amphibia. Urtica dioica and Cirsium arvense are locally abundant. Rubus scrub is dense along the western edge. Drier areas support some Arrhenatherum elatius and Deschampsia cespitosa is locally frequent. NVC: A small area in the north-east of the site is S28 Phalaris arundinacea tall-herb fen but the main stand of fen does not fit easily within a described NVC community. The highest MATCH analysis similarity coefficient was OV26 (59.1%), presumably due to the abundance of Urtica but OV26 is a transitional community of fairly open vegetation with dominant Epilobium hirsutum. There are affinities with M27b Filipendula ulmaria–Angelica sylvestris mire, Urtica dioica-Vicia cracca subcommunity (49.2%), although Glyceria maxima is unusually abundant for this community. The community supports too frequent tall fen herbs to be the riparian reedswamp community S5 Glyceria maxima swamp. The community probably derives from the field layer vegetation of a former very open Alnus glutinosa carr (W6 – MATCH 46.9%) and has high Glyceria maxima as high levels of inundation of this streamside site have encouraged proliferation of this species. Condition Assessment: Fail. The fen passes the W04 generic fen targets on wetness and exposed substrate. Litter cover was around 50%, which is too high and reflects the lack of management long- term. Scrub cover is also high at 20%. Undesirable species Cirsium arvense is at 10% and Urtica dioica 20% - also too high. Positive indicator species for fen include three frequent (Glyceria maxima, Filipendula ulmaria, Angelica sylvestris), and three rare (Lotus pedunculatus, Iris pseudacorus, Carex acutiformis). The site is a borderline pass/fail on desirable species. HLS Indicators of success: The SSSI is in recovering condition; the surface is ‘squelchy’; three species from the target list are frequent across the site; vegetation is ±knee-height – all passes. However, cover of scrub and undesirable species are both >5%. Cover of scrub is being addressed by new management plan but cover of negative species requires greater management effort Soils: A calcareous site with a water retentive clay element to the soil. Spoil phosphorus is low, as is potassium. Magnesium content is moderately high. Nitrogen is moderate and organic matter correspondingly moderate – surprising for a site with high litter cover and no grazing.
Soil pH Olsens P Index Soil K Index K Soil MG Index Total N Loss on Total P Organic Soil texture (Water) (mg/l) P (mg/l) (mg/l) MG (%) Ignition Carbon 7.8 10 1 102 1 135 3 0.76 18.8 1042 9.71 Sandy Clay Loam
Page 195
Site 54: Godshill, Newport, Isle of Wight HLS Options HQ6 Grid. ref SZ 5282 HLS Supplements HQ12 Area (ha) 4.49 (part) Survey Date 06.08.2014 BRW & CEB NVC M23b (MG10 & M23a)
Site: A valley fen lying along the east side of a small tributary of the River Yar. The site includes several in-field drains. The southern section is separately enclosed and is managed as a separate unit – it supports quite dry rush pasture and much woodland and scrub. The northern section is a grazed pasture supporting a rush-dominated community and a woodland stand. This northern section was selected for survey. Management: The survey unit is generally managed by clearing ditches and cutting back trees on margins – Capital Works money has been used for this. The unit is grazed with a neighbouring unit. The Farm Manager commissioned a Fen Management Plan to be drawn up by Hants & IoW Wildlife Trust in 2012. This plan advises scrub removal on the southern part of the unit, and in the northern part ditch clearance (but without removal of any substrate as this site is rich in ochre and release of this into the ditch water is to be avoided). Vegetation: The gently slopes of the valley side on the east of the field support dry, species poor improved/semi-improved grassland but damper ground on the lower slopes and in the valley bottom support rush pasture of varying quality. Most is species poor and dominated by Juncus effusus with constant Holcus lanatus, Agrostis capillaris and A. stolonifera and in the lower tier with frequent Anthoxanthum odoratum and Ranunculus repens. A variety of mesotrophic grasses appear occasionally but no wide-leaved reed-grasses. Juncus acutiflorus is locally abundant on the eastern side of the main drain running through the centre of the stand and quite abundant in the southern margins of the enclosed woodland in the northern end of the site. Wetland associates are sparse but include Lotus pedunculatus, Galium palustre, Ranunculus flammula, Potentilla erecta and Cirsium palustre – all of which are of rare occurrence. NVC: The stand is somewhere between an MG10a Holcus lanatus–Juncus effusus rush pasture, typical sub-community (MATCH analysis top result, similarity coefficient 50.0%) and an M23b Juncus effusus- Galium palustre rush pasture (MATCH M23 47.4%; M23a 45.7%; M23b 44.2%). The stand would represent a very impoverished stand of M23 and although the stand sees a move towards a Juncus acutiflorus rush pasture in some areas (M23a), the stand lacks Molinia and the rich variety of wetland associates of this community. Condition Assessment: Fail. The site does not meet the target for wetness, although it should be noted that 2014 was a hot, dry summer. Exposed substrate and litter levels were fine and the height of the sward acceptable. Negative species were sparse and scrub cover within the open rush habitat low. However, the site failed the botanical targets for M23 on frequency of desirable species and the over-abundance of un-jointed rushes. HLS Indicators of success: The wetness requirement of the IoS was for ‘squelchy’ surface from autumn–spring. This could not be assessed in summer but the site possibly passes. The vegetation height was more or less knee-high. No Sphagnum moss was recorded within the site so the site fails this IoS but this target may be unrealistic. Scrub cover is acceptable within the open rush habitat. It is debatable whether this site qualifies as a fen. Soils: The site lies on acidic soil with very high phosphorus content in the soil, low potassium and moderate magnesium. Nitrogen content is extremely high, as is the organic matter component. Development of a species rich fen may be limited by high phosphorus and nitrogen.
Soil pH Olsens P Index Soil K Index K Soil MG Index Total N Loss on Total P Organic Soil texture (Water) (mg/l) P (mg/l) (mg/l) MG (%) Ignition Carbon 4.7 29 3 110 1 99 2 2.07 60 1916 27.5 Sandy Loam
Page 196
Site 55: Mottisfont, Hampshire HLS Options HQ7 Grid. ref SU 3327 HLS Supplements HR2 Area (ha) 3.44 ha Survey Date 15.08.2014 CEB & DWP NVC S26
Site: This is a 3.44 ha fen around an old duck (flight?) pond in the grounds of the National Trust property at Mottisfont Abbey. The site lies just west of the River Test and is presumably influenced by lateral seepage from the river as well as the ditch system that runs around the site. Management: The site was cleared of c.60% tree cover and ponds re-profiled in 2006. No subsequent management had taken place until the winter of 2014-15. During the winter of 2014-15 (after the survey) all understorey trees in open fen area (capital works items) and clearance to less than 20% tree/shrub cover were completed (commenced November, completed 7th January 2015).
Vegetation: The vegetation is characterised by the abundance of Phragmites australis, Carex acutiformis and Eupatorium cannabinum. Locally, Urtica dioica and the fen form Urtica dioica ssp galeopsifolia, was abundant while Galium aparine, Lythrum salicaria, Calystegia sepium, Solanum dulcamara and Rubus fruticosus agg. were all occasional to frequent. Mosses Brachythecium rutabulum and Atrichum undulatum were frequent/locally abundant under the herbaceous canopy. As well as Rubus, invading/regenerating Fraxinus excelsior and Ligustrum vulgare were present. NVC: The community is clearly an S26 Phragmites australis–Urtica dioica fen and with the abundance of Eupatorium cannabinum, it is probably closest to the S26d Epilobium hirsutum sub- community, particularly with the relative abundance of Calystegia sepium and Solanum dulcamara. Carex acutiformis appears to be invading due to the lack of management rather than being a specific sub-community constituent. MATCH analysis gives very close similarity coefficients for subcommunities S26b (52.6%), S26d (51.6%) and S26a (49.2%) with a higher overall score for S26 community (55.8%). Condition Assessment: Fail (assessed against S25 attributes & targets). The site passes for the generic targets for water level management, cover of bare ground and litter but failed during the survey on its high cover of scrub (this has since been reduced). It also fails on species composition; it lacks sufficient frequent typical tall-herb associates: only Eupatorium cannabinum is frequent, Lythrum salicaria occasional and Lysimachia vulgaris rare. Urtica dioica is a typical associate of S26, but its abundance is overly high locally, and is a negative indicator for ore species-rich fen (S25). Carex acutiformis, at this abundance (50%), is also considered unfavourable. Invasive alien Impatiens capensis is rare to occasional. HLS Indicators of success: Apart from the criterion for surface dampness, the site does not meet most of the IoS criteria, although most are set as 5-year targets (2017). However, most of these criteria are considered unsuitable. The list of desirable species should be tailored to a calcareous tall- herb fen; the bog-moss target is inappropriate for all Phragmites fens and the ‘knee-high’ vegetation target is equally inappropriate. Soils: The field measurement of water gave the values: pH 7.65; Conductivity 473 µs/237 ppm. Soil pH is high due to the influence of the nearby chalk river. Values for P, K and Mg are all relatively low indicating a clean source of soil water and probably high throughput while the value for Loss on Ignition is very high indicating high soil litter content.
Soil pH Olsens P Index Soil K Index K Soil MG Index Total Loss on Total Organic Soil texture (Water) (mg/l) P (mg/l) (mg/l) MG N (%) Ignition P Carbon 7.7 9 0 47 0 56 2 2.8 59.3 1143 21.1 Loamy sand
Page 197
Site 56: Foulden Common SSSI, Norfolk HLS Options HQ7 Grid. ref TF 7500 HLS Supplements HQ12 Area (ha) 1.50 Survey Date 08.08.2014 BRW & PJW Current NVC M22b
Statutory Designation: Foulden Common SSSI, Unit 2 – Favourable (2010)
Site: This site is part of the Foulden Common SSSI which in turn forms part of the Norfolk Valley Fens SAC. Foulden Common contains a wide range of fen, fen woodland and calcareous grassland vegetation types. The Spring Drain rises in this unit and flows south into the River Wissey. It is likely that the water is derived from the underlying chalk.
Management: The field was being grazed by 8 sheep during the survey year, and this has been the typical management in recent years. Cattle have been grazed in the past. No capital work has been used on this site. No scrub control required. In field ditches/drains good.
Vegetation: The sward is predominantly dense and tussocky, but is nevertheless moderately species-rich. Juncus inflexus is the dominant Juncus species in the north of the site with Juncus subnodulosus dominant in the south. Festuca rubra, Arrhenatherum elatius, Molinia caerulea and Lotus pedunculatus are all abundant. Other abundant species include Galium uliginosum, Holcus lanatus, Carex flacca, Carex nigra, Carex panicea, Centaurea nigra, Potentilla anserina, Rumex acetosa, Plantago lanceolata, Mentha aquatica, Lathyrus pratensis and Poa angustifolia. Juncus acutiflorus is locally abundant with Deschampsia cespitosa forming a tussocky sward in the west. The negative indicator species Cirsium arvense was constant.
NVC: All of the vegetation in the surveyed area is M22b – confirmed by MATCH analysis (47.2%). The highest result was for MG9b (49.8%) but this was due to the locally abundant Deschampsia cespitosa and is rejected. Condition Assessment: The site passes the condition assessment, although the cover of Cirsium arvense was 5%, and any increase of this species would lead the site to fail on this attribute.
HLS Indicators of success: The site fails the indicators of success for the following reason: mean vegetation height is greater than “knee-height”.
Soils: Levels of total nitrogen, loss on ignition and organic carbon were all moderate indicating that there was some accumulation of organic matter. Levels of extractable phosphorus and total phosphorus were very low. Magnesium and potassium levels were low.
Soil pH Olsens P Index Soil K Index K Soil MG Index Total Loss on Total Organic Soil texture (Water) (mg/l) P (mg/l) (mg/l) MG N (%) Ignition P Carbon 6.9 9 0 94 1 54 2 1.17 25.9 832 14.8 Sandy loam
Page 198
Site 57: Bryan Mills SSSI, Scorborough, N Humberside HLS Options HQ7 Grid. ref TA 01 46 HLS Supplements HQ11 Area (ha) 2.79 (fen 1.29) Survey Date 03.08.2014 BRW & PJW NVC Carex acutiformis fen (M27b, S7, S4)
Statutory Designation Bryan Mills SSSI, one unit only, Favourable.
Site: A small fen in a triangular field with woodland on its margins. The Bryan Mills Beck flows along northern boundary but there are also spring lines within the fen. Water throughput is from and from emergent springs. (Veteran oak Quercus robur at TA0141246215). Management: This field was traditionally grazed. The margins were planted with trees in the mid-80s. The field then fell into neglect and grazing ceased, apart from roe deer. The site is now fenced (Capital works). The prescribed HLS management is a cutting regime as there was no stock available but cutting this very wet site has been difficult. 1/3 of the reeds/sedges are meant to be cut annually but machinery access is not possible so this has been carried out by hand-scything, which is time consuming. Recently a local farmer has been putting belted galloway cattle on to graze (two dry cows in 2014). This is an easier and more sustainable method of management and the Estate Manager is keen to replace cutting with grazing – more cattle area available. A harder graze with 3–4 cattle for short periods would benefit the site. The farmer can monitor the grazing intensity & vegetation level. Vegetation: Vegetation communities are varied and complex. The central area is flooded (possibly once a pond) and supports a Phragmites australis dominated reedswamp with frequent Filipendula ulmaria, locally frequent Carex acutiformis and Glyceria maxima and self-seeded Fraxinus excelsior saplings. A spring rises on the western side of the site and along the drainage line large tussocks of Carex paniculata occur, extending through the reedswamp, with further tussocks on the margins of the swamp. Rorippa nasturtium-aquaticum and Calliergon cordifolium grow in the spring. The watercourse exits the site along the eastern boundary. The main vegetation stand (surveyed) occurs north and south of the reedswamp and is a Carex acutiformis-dominated tall-fen community, which also has frequent high cover of Filipendula ulmaria, locally abundant Juncus subnodulosus and frequent low cover of Carex riparia. Other fen associates include frequent Equisetum palustre, Cirsium palustre and Scrophularia auriculata plus occasional Equisetum fluviatile, Mentha aquatica, Angelica sylvestris, Epilobium hirsutum, Glyceria maxima, Phalaris arundinacea and scattered plants of Lotus pedunculatus, Lathyrus pratensis, Galium uliginosum, Valeriana officinalis, Persicaria amphibia, Berula erecta and Sanguisorba officinalis. In some areas Glyceria maxima is dominant in a very flooded swamp. The north woodland is Salix spp. and south planted Fraxinus excelsior, Acer pseudoplatanus. NVC: The surveyed vegetation stand has obvious similarities with both S6 Carex riparia (MATCH similarity coefficient 51.3%) and S7 Carex acutiformis (44.8%) swamp communities, due to the frequency of both these riparian sedges in the stand but these are really communities of river edges and open water transitions. The community recorded here derives from a tall herb fen in which these two sedges have become abundant, and is much more species-rich than either S6 or S7. It is closest to M27b (51.4%). Carex acutiformis invaded tall-herb fens are not well represented in the published NVC accounts but are quite a frequently encountered in flood-plain fens where grazing has been relaxed. Condition Assessment: Passes on all attributes although cover of Carex acutiformis is perhaps too high and could be reduced by harder grazing. HLS Indicators of success: This site passes all botanical IoS which relate to wetness, desirable and undesirable species frequency and scrub cover. Presence of named bird species is unknown. Soils: The soil was calcareous as would be expected from the chalk aquifer. Phosphorus is low, potassium moderate and magnesium moderately high. Total nitrogen, loss on ignition and organic carbon were all high as would be expected for a site with substantial peat accumulation.
Soil pH Olsens P Index Soil K Index K Soil MG Index Total N Loss on Total P Organic Soil texture (Water) (mg/l) P (mg/l) (mg/l) MG (%) Ignition Carbon 7.5 9 0 142 2- 126 3 1.8 60.9 1033 22.9 Loamy sand
Page 199
Site 58: Pike Whin Bog SSSI, Wingate, Durham HLS Options HQ7 Grid. ref NZ 4133 HLS Supplements HQ12 wetland grazing Area (ha) 1.82 Survey Date 04.09.2015 BRW & PJW NVC S27 (S10, M27, M23, MG5)
Statutory Designation Pike Whin Bog SSSI, One unit, Unfavourable recovering 2011.
Site: Important as one of few surviving lowland wetlands in the largely agricultural setting of East Durham and one of only a handful of basin mires in NE England. The site (on Pike Whin Moor) occupies a shallow hollow in the boulder clay and supports several vegetation communities in (wetness) zones from the top to the bottom of the basin. Water enters the site through a drain from the east and exits to the west: there are further drains to the south and the site suffered from a lowering in water levels at the latter part of the 20th century (M. Newson, 1993. EN Research Report no. 55). Management: In the same ownership for many years – the site underwent a period of no grazing but recently it has been grazed from September onwards as per the HQ12 prescription with mixed breeds of cattle but these are ineffective – the vegetation gets very coarse and the stock trample it more than graze it. Highlands worked better but kept escaping. The farmer feels that the HLS grazing prescription is causing degradation of the site, which historically was open to the surrounding pasture and stock (sheep and cattle) had access to it all season. Since entering stewardship and being fenced off and grazing restricted to late summer it has become very tall and the vegetation much more coarse. Vegetation: The outer (upper) vegetation is mesotrophic grassland, which varies from species rich with fine grasses and many associated forbs of relatively unimproved meadow through to coarse grassland with Deschampsia cespitosa, Arrhenatherum elatius and Festuca arundinacea. Below this is a zone of rush pasture and tall-herb fen variously dominated by Juncus effusus, J. acutiflorus or Filipendula ulmaria. The next zone and main wetland stand (survey stand) is a sedge fen in which Eriophorum angustifolium is dominant with constant high cover of Juncus effusus and Potentilla palustris and constant low cover of Carex rostrata. Also frequent are Equisetum fluviatile, Epilobium palustre, Juncus acutiflorus and Galium palustre. Carex nigra, Filipendula ulmaria and Angelica sylvestris are occasional. Bryophytes are few and largely restricted to Calliergon cordifolium. and Kindbergia praelonga. The central wettest part supports scattered Salix in a swamp of Carex nigra, Equisetum fluviatile, Agrostis stolonifera and occasional Ranunculus lingua. NVC: The two wettest, inner communities within this basin mire show closest affinity with S10b (MATCH analysis similarity coefficient 57.4%) for the centre and around this a zone of S27 (50.9%, intermediate between S27a and b). Present in the outer zones are M27, M23 and MG communities. Condition Assessment: Borderline pass. This site is presumed to pass the target on wetness (although it was fairly dry during this dry summer); it also passed on exposed substrate and scrub cover but litter cover across the site was noted to be quite high (through lack of grazing). Positive indicator species targets are achieved with six frequent and three occasional. Negative indicator species are few. HLS Indicators of success: The site meets most IoS in terms of favourable condition, cover of willow woodland and acid grassland, and undesirable species. Positive indicator species are more than occasional (Purple Loosestrife has been discounted – Marsh cinquefoil is a better indicator). The IoS on water management may need to be addressed – the site appeared dry but this was difficult to assess in a ‘snap-shot’ visit in a dry summer. Water throughput was noted and the central zone was inundated but the surrounding swamp quite dry and easy to walk on. Grazing supplement targets for vegetation structure are not met. The site feels slightly degraded and in need of harder/longer grazing. Soils: The boulder clay is mildly calcareous, low in phosphorus and potassium and high in magnesium. Nitrogen and organic matter were moderate. The soil chemistry is good.
Soil pH Olsens P Index Soil K Index K Soil MG Index Total N Loss on Total P Organic Soil texture (Water) (mg/l) P (mg/l) (mg/l) MG (%) Ignition Carbon 6.5 8 0 114 1 208 4 0.68 18.7 802 9.45 Clay
Page 200
Site 59: Stoke Floods, Coventry, Warks HLS Options HQ6 Grid. ref SP 3778 HLS Supplements - Area (ha) 2.80 Survey Date 20.08.2014 BRW & JES NVC OV26d (and S6)
Site: This is a Warks Wildlife Trust Reserve. The reserve has a large lake, reed-grass and sedge swamp and scrub next to the River Stowe. The lake is the result of mining subsidence. The reserve is one of the most important wetland sites in Coventry and is located in an otherwise urban area of high intensity housing. Management: Capital works for tree surgery has been granted. Some pollarding of willow has taken place. The site is unfenced and in an urban setting so no grazing is possible.
Vegetation: The wetland vegetation surrounding the lake has two main communities, the inner in which Carex riparia is overwhelmingly dominant and above this on slightly higher ground where the water table is deeper, a community with an open community of wetland and tall ruderal species with co-dominant Carex riparia and Epilobium hirsutum, frequent and abundant Urtica dioica, frequent lower cover of Calystegia sepium and Cirsium arvense and occasional Phalaris arundinacea. Unfortunately Impatiens glandulifera is also frequent and abundant in this stand. Other positive wetland associates are present but sparse including Solanum dulcamara, Glyceria maxima, Equisetum palustre, Filipendula ulmaria, Lathyrus pratensis, Scutellaria gallerica and Lycopus europaeus. Alien species Impatiens capensis is also occasional. Sanguisorba officinalis and Centaurea nigra were recorded in an otherwise species-poor mesotrophic grassland community above the wetland stand. On the western margins of the lake a stand of Glyceria maxima swamp not noted. NVC: The main community sampled on this site is a close fit to the published accounts for OV26 Epilobium hirsutum community (MATCH analysis similarity coefficient 55.9%), although there are also affinities with S6 Carex riparia swamp (49.4%) and S26 Phalaris arundinacea-Urtica dioica swamp (53.1%). Condition Assessment: Fail. This flood-plain fen had only 50% cover of surface wetness (possibly too low), 20% exposed substrate and 40% litter cover (both too high). Cover of alien and undesirable species was an aggregate of 50%, which is far too high. Positive indicator species for fens included frequent Carex riparia and Epilobium hirsutum (which is a natural component of this impoverished type of wetland community) but all other positive species were of rare occurrence only. HLS Indicators of success: This site does not pass the set IoS on surface wetness, frequency of desirable species, scrub cover, surface water or undesirable species. It seems the site has a distance to go before it achieves its targets.
Soils: The clay soil is mildly calcareous with very high phosphorus content, which might prohibit the development of botanical diversity, although this is of less importance in wetland sites where plants are already stressed. Potassium is moderate and magnesium is high. Nitrogen is however moderate. This site is fairly nutrient rich.
Soil pH Olsens P Index Soil K Index K Soil MG Index Total N Loss on Total P Organic Soil texture (Water) (mg/l) P (mg/l) (mg/l) MG (%) Ignition Carbon 6.8 29 3 139 2- 281 5 0.61 15.4 1163 8.05 Clay
Page 201
Site 60: Flitwick Moor SSSI, Bedfordshire HLS Options HQ7 Grid ref. TL0435 HLS Supplements HQ11 Area (ha) 1.08 Survey Date PJW NVC W5a (cleared), now c. S3
Statutory designation: Flitwick Moor SSSI, Unit 5 – favourable.
Site: Flitwick Moor is a reserve owned and managed by the BCNWT. It is the largest remaining wetland in Bedfordshire, formed on calcareous boulder clay, but with several springs emerging from the underlying acidic greensand. These have given rise to a mosaic of fen types and drain into the River Flit. The wetter parts of the reserve owe their origins to peat digging. Much of the site has become invaded by scrub which on the wetter soils of the moor is dominated by Alnus glutinosa. The surveyed area is a spring-fed fen recently cleared of Alnus glutinosa scrub and surrounded by woodland. Management: The whole site is grazed extensively by cattle through the spring and summer. Ungrazed areas are cut by brushcutter and scrub is removed where necessary. Scrub stumps are treated with glyphosate. There has been no recent drainage work. The wildlife trust is happy with their HLS agreement.
Vegetation: Vegetation in the surveyed area is a mosaic of micro-variants of spring-fed fen which has been invaded by Alnus glutinosa and recently cleared of scrub. Cut and regenerating Alnus glutinosa and tussocks of Carex paniculata are abundant throughout, with other constant species including Cirsium palustre, Lythrum salicaria, Dryopteris dilatata, Galium uliginosum and regenerating Salix cinerea. The major variation in the ground flora is characterised by bryophytes. Calliergonella cuspidatum is dominant in the north and centre of the field, while Sphagnum tenellum, S. squarrosum, S. papillosum and S. inundatum are frequent in the south. Particularly associated with Calliergonella cuspidatum are Carex acutiformis, Phragmites australis, Lotus pedunculatus, Epilobium palustre and Hydrocotyle vulgaris, while the Sphagnum spp dominated areas are characterised by Aulacomnium palustre and Angelica sylvestris. NVC: The abundance and constancy of Carex paniculata suggest that this vegetation is related to S3 swamp, but in reality it may be closer to W5a woodland in which the canopy of invasive Alnus glutinosa has been removed by cutting. Diversity is further introduced by springs of acidic water. All MATCH coefficients were low and of little use in evaluating this site. Condition Assessment: The site fails the condition assessment for the following reason: Cover of scrub (Alnus glutinosa and Salix cinerea regenerating after cutting) is c35%. HLS Indicators of success: The site fails the indicators of success for the following reason (as with the CSM): Cover of scrub (Alnus glutinosa and Salix cinerea regenerating after cutting) is c35%.
Soils: Total phosphorus and organic carbon were omitted from the soil analysis. Total nitrogen content is moderately high and the loss on ignition was among the highest recorded in the survey, suggesting that the soil is very peaty. Potassium and magnesium levels are moderate while extractable phosphorus content is low. PH is neutral but this may obscure diversity of pH levels across the site where springs emerge.
Soil pH Olsens P Index Soil K Index K Soil MG Index Total Loss on Total Organic Soil texture (Water) (mg/l) P (mg/l) (mg/l) MG N (%) Ignition P Carbon 6.6 12 1 126 2- 100 2 1.82 59.4 0 0 Sandy Loam
Page 202
Site 61: Lulworth, Dorset HLS Options HQ7 Grid ref. SY 8587 HLS Supplements none Area (ha) 0.54 Survey Date 18.08.2014 PJW NVC MG10a
Site: This site is a strip of grassland adjacent to a minor road joining the B3071 to Bindon Lane, to the south of the village of Wool. The headwaters of one of the smaller tributaries of the River Frome flows along the northern edge of the site and this collects water that drains through this small field from the adjacent forestry land to the south. It is part of the Lulworth Estate. Management: The site has been recently restored to open grassland by large-scale clearance of birch in the winter of 2011-12. Grazing is not currently possible here due to the lack of fencing or road grids, although these are possibilities for the future. The site is usually cut and baled for silage in late summer when the ground is dry enough to permit access by machinery, but was not cut in 2014. The major problems with management here have been the wetness of the site, the lack of fencing and the large amount of fly-tipping. Although the estate are generally happy with their HLS agreement which has enabled the clearance work at this site, they would have welcomed some capital payment for fencing. Vegetation: The vegetation is species-poor rush pasture. Juncus acutiflorus is dominant over much of the field, being replaced by tussocky Juncus effusus with Holcus mollis at the western end. Agrostis stolonifera, Holcus lanatus, Anthoxanthum odoratum and Agrostis capillaris are abundant throughout, with Lotus pedunculatus, Potentilla anserina, Plantago lanceolata and Rumex acetosa locally. NVC: The majority of the site has MG10a (MATCH coefficient = 58.9), although over much of the field, the typical dominant species of this community, Juncus effusus, is replaced by Juncus acutiflorus. Condition Assessment: The site fails the condition assessment for the following reasons: Frequency of desirable species, only one species (Lotus pedunculatus) is frequent. HLS Indicators of success: This site fails the indicators of success for the following reasons: Frequency of desirable species, only one species (Lotus pedunculatus) is frequent. None of the species listed in the HLS agreement is present. Soils: Total phosphorus content and organic carbon content were not included in the soil analysis. Total nitrogen content and loss on ignition were low, indicating that there was little accumulation of organic matter in the soil. PH was
Soil pH Olsens P Index Soil K Index Soil MG Index Total N Loss on Total Organic Soil texture (Water) (mg/l) P (mg/l) K (mg/l) MG (%) Ignition P Carbon 4.6 6 0 54 0 62 2 0.55 16.1 0 0 Sandy Loam
Page 203
Site 62: Great Cressingham Fen SSSI, Norfolk HLS Options HQ6 Grid ref. TF8402 HLS Supplements HR1, HQ12 Area (ha) 2.20 Survey Date 8.8.2014 PJW NVC M22a (M22b, M22c, M13, MG5c, MG9, S3, S6, S24d, W2)
Statutory designation: Great Cressingham Fen SSSI, Unit 1 – favourable. Norfolk valley Fens SAC
Site: This site, on the north-eastern edge of the Breckland, comprises unimproved grassland, fen- meadow, fen, and fen woodland at the head of a valley in which rises a tributary of the River Wissey. The underlying geology is chalk overlain by chalky boulder clay, and the fen is fed by a series of springs and flush lines emerging from the chalk, with the stream exiting the site in the southern corner. A pond was excavated in the centre of the site in the distant past, possibly for duck shooting, but this has now silted up and supports a large area of fen woodland, which has increased in area since 1999 (some has been cleared recently). Several pairs of snipe breed here annually. Management: This fen is grazed by 20–40 cattle during summer–autumn (duration depends on the condition of the vegetation and wetness of the land). Invasive scrub has been cleared from an area of fen to the south of the central carr woodland 2013–2014. The drier parts of the field are topped in the summer before ragwort has flowered to control that species and thistles. Vegetation: The distribution of vegetation types is closely related to the hydrology of the site. Much of the fen basin is dominated by Juncus subnodulosus, although the density of this cover is very variable, in places sharing dominance with Molinia caerulea. Carex acutiformis is locally abundant. Other canopy species include Eupatorium cannabinum, Filipendula ulmaria, Carex disticha and C. riparia. The understorey is generally species-rich but variable, depending partly on the degree of flushing by base-rich water. Carex panicea, Valeriana dioica, Galium uliginosum, Potentilla erecta, Calliergonella cuspidata and Mentha aquatica are abundant throughout, and other fen species include Lotus pedunculatus, Succisa pratensis, Angelica sylvestris, Lychnis flos-cuculi, Dactylorhiza praetermissa and Campylium stellatum. A distinctive sub-community to the south-east of the central woodland has abundant Carex elata with Thelypteris palustris, Carex rostrata, Pedicularis palustris and Menyanthes trifoliata. Schoenus nigricans tussocks are abundant to the north-east of the central woodland where there several springs and there is a similar spring at the western end: these are very species-rich with Epipactis palustris and Cratoneuron commutatum. Other springs are dominated by Carex paniculata. Phragmites australis is dominant to the south of the central wood, accompanied by J. subnodulosus, T. palustris and C. elata. The central carr woodland appears to be of relatively recent origin and the wettest part of the fen; it includes the former pond. Here a dense canopy of Salix cinerea has an understorey of Phragmites australis, C. elata and J. subnodulosus. The higher dry areas surrounding the fen have semi- and unimproved mesotrophic grassland. Much is species-poor, with abundant tussocky Deschampsia cespitosa in one place, but there is also much richer dry grassland with abundant Succisa pratensis and small stands of Prunus spinosa scrub. NVC: The main fen meadow is M22a (highest MATCH coefficient 62.3%) and M22b. The Carex elata variant is M22c. Stands with abundant Schoenus nigricans are M13. There are small areas of S6, S3 and Phragmites australis dominant S24d. The central woodland is W2 and Prunus spinosa scrub is W22. The dry grasslands are species-rich MG5c and semi-improved MG6b and MG9. Condition Assessment: The site passes the condition assessment. HLS Indicators of success: The site passes the indicators of success. Soils: Total nitrogen content, loss on ignition and organic carbon content are all high suggesting peat. Soil water and spring water at the head of the fen are alkaline (pH 7.4 & 7.8 ). Extractable phosphorus and total phosphorus content are very low, Potassium and magnesium also low.
Soil pH Olsens P Inde Soil K Index K Soil MG Index Total Loss on Total Organic Soil texture (Water) (mg/l) x P (mg/l) (mg/l) MG N (%) Ignition P Carbon 7.4 9 0 102 1 52 2 2.05 47.2 903 23.1 Sandy Loam
Page 204
Site 63: St Levan, West Penwith, Cornwall HLS Options HQ6 Grid. ref SW 3722 HLS Supplements Area (ha) < 0.10 Survey Date 06.10.2014 BRW NVC W1
Site: The land parcel is 1.17 ha comprising 0.67 ha grazed pasture under option HQ16; 0.30 ha reedbed under option HQ3; and a very small 0.10 ha of wet woodland under option HQ6. The small wet woodland is the study area. The wet woodland (willow carr) is part of an agricultural landscape with the surrounding land farmed (pasture) and is owned by the same farmer but not actively used. The carr is likely to receive lateral water and floodwater from the stream along its eastern boundary, and surface run-off from the valley slopes above, but the site was highly waterlogged with much surface water, even in October after a long, dry summer. Many springs arise in the vicinity. With a site of < 0.1 ha (approx. a triangle 30 x 40 x 40 m) only three 4m x 4m quadrats of the field and ground layers were recorded (although the cover of the canopy above was also recorded). Management: The wet woodland is enclosed by stock-proof fencing (to keep stock out, not in) and receives no active management. This site would benefit from selective coppicing with just a few Salix coppiced every few years to maintain an age/height structure but otherwise it is too small for cutting or grazing management (and too wet).
Vegetation: The canopy is a moderately tall, dense stand of Salix cinerea ssp. oleifolia (3–5 m tall) with many lateral limbs forming a quite closed canopy cover of 50–75%. A few tall herbs were scattered in the field layer with frequent plants of Angelica sylvestris and Oenanthe crocata, and occasional Sparganium erectum. Beneath this was sparse cover of Mentha aquatica and Rumex acetosa and occasional Urtica dioica. The ground layer had quite a dense cover of a mixture of Agrostis stolonifera, Ranunculus repens and Hedera helix, plus locally abundant Holcus lanatus. Myosotis secunda and Apium nodiflorum were locally frequent. Fern Athyrium filix-femina was frequent (c. 5% cover) and aquatic Lemna minor occurred in two of the three quadrats where there was open water (5–10% water). Phragmites australis (dominant in the reedbed in the next unit) is locally frequent at that (western) end. Mnium hornum and Kindbergia praelonga were the only bryophytes recorded. Exposed mud was 1–5% across the site and litter similar. The mud was deep (30cm) and waterlogged, and very organic. There is a good lichen flora on the Salix. On the higher, drier southern margin there is a stand of W24 underscrub. NVC: MATCH analysis did not return any result over 35% and the results are therefore of little use. The only woodland community in the top ten matches was W1 (similarity coefficient 32.8%) and this species poor stand is probably closest to this, although it is equally close to W6a (but lacking Alnus glutinosa). Condition Assessment: FAIL. If assessed as open fen the community, surprisingly, would only fail on scrub cover and narrowly on desirable species: the site is certainly wet enough, has an acceptable cover of bare ground and litter is minimal; cover of scrub is 75%; positive fen species here would include frequent Mentha aquatica, Angelica sylvestris and Oenanthe crocata with rare Phalaris arundinacea and Apium nodiflorum. If assessed as a wet woodland under woodland CSM guidance the site would fail on the lack of age structure as this appears to be an even aged stand, and is poorly representative of its target NVC community with regard to species represented. HLS Indicators of success: The fen passes the IoS on cover of undesirable species, surface wetness, desirable species but clearly fails the requisite for cover of scrub to be less than 5%. There is also an IoS relating to cover of Sphagnum but this species does not occur on this site. Scrub margins are fine. Soils: No soil sample collected – site was too deeply flooded and unconsolidated with deep litter layer.
Page 205
Site 64: Pelsall Common, Walsall, West Midlands HLS Options HQ7 Grid. ref SK 02 04 HLS Supplements none Area (ha) 0.90 Survey Date 21.08.2014 BRW & JES NVC M23b & S5
Site: The survey unit lies on the east side of Pelsall Common. Prior to the 18th century this was grazed common land but industrialisation of the common took place in the late 18th century with the construction of the canal and a large iron works, which was in use until the 1920s. Now the site is lowland heath with several ponds. The survey unit includes the largest pond (reputedly created by a bomb), and is located between Friar’s Bridge and York’s Bridge. The margins support flood-plain fen and marginal swamp communities. Management: Common was in CSS before that but didn’t include that the survey unit. The fen area was covered in willow scrub but that was cleared off about 2 years ago. The Common is not currently grazed (it needs to be fenced) so it is currently cut. Occasionally Japanese knotweed appears in area of fen. There was a ditch running down either side of the track, which has been blocked up to increase wetness. Vegetation: The western side of the waterbody supports Typha and Glyceria maxima swamps, the northern margins more species-rich wetland transitional from Glyceria maxima swamp to OV26 Epilobium hirsutum tall-herb fen. The area chosen for sampling was the main flood-plain fen vegetation stand to the east of the waterbody, above the Typha swamp. This fen was extremely variable and obviously has a constantly high water table. Whilst Glyceria maxima is constant and often abundant, this community is not a typical Glyceria swamp. Unusually Juncus conglomeratus (rather than the more likely congener J. effusus) is frequent and locally dominant with an under tier of Carex nigra forming a dense carpet up to 80% cover. Tall herbs are represented by frequent Lycopus europaeus and Epilobium palustre, with occasional Typha latifolia, Epilobium hirsutum and Iris pseudacorus but mostly the vegetation comprised short and/or scrambling species including constant Galium palustre, Hydrocotyle vulgaris, Scutellaria gallerica; occasional Potentilla erecta, Cardamine palustre, Carex panicea and Agrostis canina. Open water cover was 1–20% and Lemna minor was a frequent floating plant here. Invasive alien Crassula helmsii was recorded in one area along the north- east water’s edge and Impatiens capensis on the eastern side. Bryophytes were restricted to Calliergonella cuspidata, Kindbergia praelonga and a small patch of Calliergon cordifolium. NVC: This community does not fit easily within a published NVC community account – MATCH analysis put it closest to a coastal community (SD15 dune slack; similarity coefficient 40.9%) due to the abundance of Carex nigra with fen associates, but it clearly isn’t. There are obvious affinities with M23 rush pasture (M23b 38.8%) but the rush species that dominates here is, unusually, Juncus conglomeratus. The most abundant species is Carex nigra, which is tussocky here but Glyceria maxima also plays a prominent role. The blocking up of the ditches to increase wetness is perhaps responsible for what was a drier rush pasture becoming more permanently inundated and the succession to a swampier community. The stand is somewhere between M23b and S5. Condition Assessment: Pass. Regardless of the atypical vegetation stand the community is in favourable condition with surface water up to 40%, 100% wetness, little exposed substrate or litter, < 5% scrub cover and six frequent positive fen indicator species (plus many rare–occasional). Negative species are currently within targets but the two non-natives should be eradicated. HLS Indicators of success: The site passes all IoS set for the site – wetness, desirable species frequency, scrub cover, undesirable species, bare ground. Soils: The site is calcareous (unlike the surrounding acid heathland) and moderately nutrient-rich with moderate phosphorus, potassium and nitrogen plus high magnesium.
Soil pH Olsens P Index Soil K Index K Soil MG Index Total N Loss on Total P Organic Soil texture (Water) (mg/l) P (mg/l) (mg/l) MG (%) Ignition Carbon 6.7 17 2 147 2- 255 5 0.82 21.9 1185 10.5 Sandy Clay Loam
Page 206
Site 65: Bere Stream SSSI, Wareham, Dorset
HLS Options HQ7 Grid. ref SY8592 HLS Supplements HQ12 Area (ha) 1.23 Survey Date PJW NVC M23a/b, S3
Statutory Designation Bere Stream SSSI, Unit 1 – unfavourable recovering.
Site: This site is part of the Bere Stream SSSI which includes land on both sides of the Bere Stream in the floodplain of this small chalk stream. Water also drains from the surrounding sands and gravels and as a result of this there is a mixture of base-rich and acidic mires and fen-meadows. Much of the valley bottom has Alnus glutinosa wet woodland, and this has spread in recent years. The surveyed area is on the eastern side of the Bere Stream. The field includes land in the floodplain and drier grasslands on the gently sloping valley sides. Management: The site is grazed by cattle through the summer in conjunction with the rest of the field and the contiguous field to the west of the Bere Stream. The valley bottom fen-meadow vegetation is topped occasionally to control Juncus spp. Vegetation: The north-eastern part of the field is in the floodplain. Approximately 30% of this now has early-successional Alnus glutinosa woodland with Salix cinerea and Betula pubescens and a ground flora including Molinia caerulea, Carex pendula, Carex paniculata, Juncus effusus, Oenanthe crocata, Galium palustre, Glyceria fluitans and Lycopus europaeus. Immediately to the west of this is a strip of fen-meadow dominated by Juncus effusus, Holcus lanatus, Agrostis stolonifera, Agrostis canina and Ranunculus repens. This becomes richer to the north, and there is a small area of very species-rich spring-fed fen. This has abundant Juncus acutiflorus, Holcus lanatus, Mentha aquatica, Hydrocotyle vulgaris, Galium palustre, Lotus pedunculatus, Oenanthe crocata, Agrostis canina and Carex rostrata. Valeriana dioica and Lychnis flos-cuculi are present. Carex paniculata tussocks are dominant in one place, possibly indicating a spring. The rest of the flood-plain has species-poor rush-pasture that had been topped by the time of survey. NVC: The poorer rush-pasture is M23b, while the more species-rich fen-meadow and spring-fed fen is M23a. Where Carex paniculata is dominant the community is S3. Condition Assessment: The site fails the condition assessment for the following reason: Cover of scrub. The area specified as fen is approximately 30% Alnus glutinosa scrub.
HLS Indicators of success: The site fails the indicators of success for the following reason: Cover of scrub. The area specified as fen is approximately 30% Alnus glutinosa scrub.
Soils: The acidic pH (4.5) was among the lowest recorded in the survey. Total nitrogen, organic carbon content and loss on ignition were low indicating a content of peat or other organic matter. Available phosphorus content was moderately high while total phosphorus content was low. Potassium and magnesium contents were low.
Soil pH Olsens P Index Soil K Index K Soil MG Index Total Loss on Total Organic Soil texture (Water) (mg/l) P (mg/l) (mg/l) MG N (%) Ignition P Carbon 4.5 30 3 149 2- 92 2 0.89 22.6 1223 9.81 Sandy Loam
Page 207
Site 66: Bassenthwaite Lake SSSI, Cumbria HLS Options HQ7 Grid. ref NY 2327 HLS Supplements HQ12 Area (ha) 11.58 Survey Date 08.09.2014 BRW NVC M23a & M9
Statutory Designation Bassenthwaite Lake SSSI, Unit 11. Unfavourable Recovering 2010.
Site: This land parcel is known as Bridges, part of the larger Redness/Bridges SSSI unit. It is part of a large flood-plain fen at the southern end of Bassenthwaite Lake in the Lake District. Bassenthwaite Lake is mesotrophic and relatively rich in nutrients, and subject to wide fluctuations in water level with fast throughput of water. Bridges is on slightly higher ground than some of the neighbouring mires and drier: however, it was still underwater for much of winter 21013/4. It is bounded by the River Derwent on its eastern side and has several in-field drains. Beyond the unit are swamp communities and the lake. Management: The farmer/grazier tries to put cattle in to graze as often as he can but the site is often under water. He uses suckler cows with a bull (mainly limousin) and sheep, which are put on towards end of April until October. Bridges is fully enclosed. The SSSI prescriptions are very exact – 11 cows and calves. The grazier is considering trying traditional breeds. The site was in the ESA before and has been in HLS for 18 months. HLS is not restricting their farming at all – very happy with it. Vegetation: The main community in this unit is rush dominated, with more or less equal cover of Juncus effusus and Juncus acutiflorus, but Deschampsia cespitosa and Iris pseudacorus are abundant within the stand. Agrostis stolonifera and A. canina are both frequent to locally abundant. Phleum pratense is frequent at low cover and Phalaris arundinacea occasional. Positive indicator species are many but only Galium palustre and Iris are constant, most are of rare–occasional occurrence only (Carex nigra, Potentilla erecta, Cardamine pratensis, Sanguisorba officinalis, Ranunculus flammula, Viola palustris, Lotus pedunculatus, and Filipendula ulmaria). The unit has patches of Carex rostrata and Potentilla palustris mire towards the lake where water levels are permanently high, and in depressions and ditches. At the southern end Deschampsia cespitosa becomes dominant. Raised areas and the banks of the River support dry, mesotrophic grassland communities. NVC: The main community is species-poor M23a Juncus acutiflorus-Galium palustre rush pasture (MATCH analysis similarity coefficient 46.6% in mosaic with areas where Juncus effusus dominates that are closer to (M23b 50.1%). Iris and Deschampsia cespitosa are unusually abundant for M23. MG9 Deschampsia cespitosa grassland was also recorded and along the lakeside M9 Carex rostra– Calliergon cuspidatum mire. Condition Assessment: Pass. The site meets the wetness targets, has little exposed substrate or litter build up, and negative species and scrub are within limits. There are three frequent positive indicator species (Juncus acutiflorus, Iris pseudacorus, Galium palustre) and one occasional (Cardamine pratensis) plus six rare. HLS Indicators of success: The site passes the IoS for: SSSI is in recovering condition, surface is wet, scrub is < 5%; however, only two of the desirable species listed in IoS are at least occasional – the rest are rare and several that do occur are not listed (e.g. Marsh bedstraw). Also – the site fails on the target for Sphagnum cover – there is no Sphagnum on this site. Soils: The soil water is mildly acidic, with low phosphorus and potassium with moderate magnesium and nitrogen (nutrient-poor).
Soil pH Olsens P Index Soil K Index K Soil MG Index Total N Loss on Total P Organic Soil texture (Water) (mg/l) P (mg/l) (mg/l) MG (%) Ignition Carbon 5.1 9 0 61 1 56 2 0.6 17.5 1361 10.9 Silty Clay
Page 208
Site 67: Upper Thurne Broads & Marshes SSSI, Hickling Broad, Norfolk HLS Options HQ6 Grid. ref TG 4021 HLS Supplements HQ12 wetland grazing Area (ha) 4.24 Survey Date 06.08.2014 BRW & PJW NVC S24
Statutory Designation Upper Thurne Broads & Marshes SSSI, Unit 12 – Favourable 2013 Hickling Broad NNR; Broads SAC; and SPA.
Site: The broads and marshes associated with the upper reaches of the River Thurne form one of the finest examples of an unreclaimed wetland complex in Britain. The study parcel, located in the north- west corner of SSSI unit 12 to the west of Hickling Broad, is bounded by 3 ditches and Catfield Dyke. It is owned/managed by Norfolk Wildlife Trust. This parcel supports areas of Cladium fen, Alnus scrub and, the community sampled, a rich Phragmites fen characteristic of fen peat seasonally flooded with base-rich, calcareous water. This community is almost entirely confined to Broadland. Management: The Trust graze this fen with 9–12 head of commercial cattle that have access to a much larger grazing unit, supplemented lightly by hardy ponies (Connick, Dartmoors) in years of sufficient food. The timing of grazing varies: in 2014 mid-July–September. Scrub removal takes place at intervals (last cut c. 3 years ago). Dykes are cleaned out periodically (twice in 17 years). No interior ditches. The site is affected by tides and is brackish, always damp but only seasonally flooded. Formerly in Broads ESA fen tier, grazing management has improved under HLS keeping scrub under control and HLS has had positive affect funding dyke work, fencing and infrastructure. Vegetation: The community sampled was tall Phragmites australis-dominated fen with a constant lower tier of Juncus subnodulosus, Cladium mariscus and Filipendula ulmaria with a number of other tall herbs at lower cover. The rare Peucedanum palustre was constant with Oenanthe lachenalii (restricted species favouring base-rich and/or brackish sites) and Eupatorium cannabinum, Berula erecta and Mentha aquatica. Galium palustre was frequent; Typha angustifolia, Phalaris arundinacea, Calamagrostis canadensis, Carex elata, Carex nigra, Schoenoplectus lacustris Lythrum salicaria, Calystegia sepium, Lycopus europaeus and Iris pseudacorus were rare to occasional. The ground layer was characterised by a sparse to dense carpet of Agrostis canina, sometimes with a little Agrostis stolonifera and/or Poa trivialis and by sparse bryophyte cover including Cratoneuron filicinum, Drepanocladus fluitans, Calliergonella cuspidata and the ubiquitous Brachythecium rutabulum and Kindbergia praelonga. Alnus glutinosa (coppiced from recent scrub control) was occasional. NVC: The sampled community is a good example of S24 Phragmites australis–Peucedanum palustre tall-herb fen, which is mostly restricted to East Norfolk. MATCH analysis put the top match for sub- community as S26f Schoenus nigricans community (53.6%) in which the preferential species Schoenus nigricans, Oenanthe lachenalii and Cladium mariscus characterise the stand. The Cladium fen in the, probably more deeply flooded, north of the parcel is almost certainly S2 Cladium mariscus swamp. Condition Assessment: Pass. A structured 20-stop condition assessment was not carried out on this site due to the difficulties in moving through the tall, dense vegetation (with Cladium) and flooded substrate. However, a reasonable area of the stand was seen during the quadrat recording, during which water management, exposed substrate, litter cover, cover of undesirable species and cover of scrub were noted to all be within targets. With 10 desirable fen species frequent in the stand and many rare–occasional the site is in very favourable condition. HLS Indicators of success: The parcel passes all IoS: it is in favourable condition, no non-natives seen, surface is wet, desirable species are frequent, scrub is just about <10%. Ditches not assessed. Soils: The soil water is mesotrophic (surface water measured during the survey was c. pH 7 and obviously brackish; conductivity >3000μs). High nitrogen loss on ignition and organic carbon indicate a deep fen peat. Phosphorus and potassium are low, whilst magnesium is high.
Soil pH Olsens P Index Soil K Index K Soil MG Index Total N Loss on Total P Organic Soil texture (Water) (mg/l) P (mg/l) (mg/l) MG (%) Ignition Carbon 6 5 0 78 1 314 5 2.34 72.1 973 30.2 Loamy Sand
Page 209
Site 68: Baston & Thurlby Fens SSSI, Lincolnshire HLS Options HQ6 Grid ref. TF1317 HLS Supplements HQ12 Area (ha) 2.92 Survey Date 14.8.2014 PJW Current NVC MG11a/MG9
Statutory Designation Baston & Thurlby Fens SSSI, Unit 1 – favourable
Site: Baston and Thurlby Fens SSSI are managed as a reserve by the Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust. It is the only remaining area of regularly flooded washland remaining in Lincolnshire. It consists of a series of fields between the River Glen and the Counter Drain. These include a number of flooded pits with associated swamp vegetation. The field originally nominated for survey was the High Wash, but this was being heavily grazed by cattle at the time of survey, so the adjacent Middle Wash was substituted. Management: The wash-meadows are flooded from the adjacent river and drain between December and March each year. The fields are cut for hay annually. The aftermath is grazed by cattle, largely Lincoln red and crosses which are kept on the reserve until October when the grassland becomes too wet. Vegetation: The vegetation in Middle Wash is typical of seasonally inundated grassland. The majority of the area is dominated by a mixture of grasses including Agrostis stolonifera, Alopecurus pratensis, Deschampsia cespitosa and Festuca pratensis with a limited range of dicotyledonous species including Lysimachia nummularium, Mentha aquatica, Potentilla anserina and Potentilla reptans. Phalaris arundinacea, Juncus effusus and Juncus inflexus are occasional. The northern part of the field has abundant Carex riparia and less Carex acutiformis. Iris pseudacorus, Thalictrum flavum and Filipendula ulmaria are occasional. NVC: All MATCH coefficients for this vegetation are low and therefore are of limited value. The vegetation in the surveyed area all appears closest to MG11a, although Deschampsia cespitosa is abundant, and this results in MATCH giving the highest coefficient for MG9 (40.6%). The area to the north with abundant large Carex spp. is transitional to S6 or S7, but is still probably closer to MG11a. Condition Assessment: The site passes a condition assessment for W04 fens. It should be noted that this site would be better classified as a lowland wet grassland, in which case it would fail a condition assessment due to the low frequency of indicator species.
HLS Indicators of success: The site passes the indicators of success. It should be noted that this site would be better classified as a lowland wet grassland, in which case it would fail an SSSI condition assessment due to the low frequency of indicator species. Soils: Total phosphorus and organic carbon contents were not included in the soil analysis. Total nitrogen content and loss on ignition were high indicating that the soil has a high peat fraction. PH was neutral. Extractable phosphorus level was very low while potassium and magnesium contents were moderate.
Soil pH Olsens P Index Soil K Index K Soil MG Index Total Loss on Total Organic Soil texture (Water) (mg/l) P (mg/l) (mg/l) MG N (%) Ignition P Carbon 6.5 8 0 164 2- 163 3 1.77 40.6 0 0 Silty clay
Page 210
Site 69: Dunnerdale, Cumbria HLS Options HQ7 Grid. ref SD 2094 HLS Supplements HQ12 wetland grazing Area (ha) 0.98 ha Survey Date 12.09.2014 BRW NVC M23a
Site: The land parcel is located in the River Duddon Valley with the river forming the northern and eastern boundary to the site. The part occupies a small side valley with a stream running west–east along through the centre. North of the stream – the larger area – supports semi-improved pasture. South of the stream the valley slopes support rush pasture of varying wetness/quality. There are several soakways running down the valley slope within the wetland. Management: The site has only recently entered stewardship – the first for the farm. The farm has both sheep and cattle but the intention is to graze this unit with sheep together with the adjoining unit. The wetland area is not enclosed separately but the larger unit is fenced. No scrub control has been required as there is no scrub invasion within the wetland. The farmer expressed disappointment at the low return from the HLS payment and considers it insufficient compensation. Vegetation: The vegetation is closest to a Juncus acutiflorus rush pasture on the better drained upper slopes but in the valley bottom the community has strong affinities with a Juncus acutiflorus flush bog community, and is perhaps transitional to this wetter mire community where drainage is impeded. A total of 39 species were recorded in the quadrats with a mean of 23.6 per quadrat. J. acutiflorus dominates the upper tier with abundant tussocky Molinia caerulea but J. effusus was constant at lower cover and J. conglomeratus occasional. Grasses in the lower tier included a carpet of Agrostis canina with locally frequent A. stolonifera and frequent Festuca rubra, Holcus lanatus and Anthoxanthum odoratum. The bryophyte flora was well-developed with 3–30% cover: Sphagnum fallax was frequent, S. palustre occasional but in larger patches and S. subnitens rare; Calliergonella cuspidata and Rhytidiadelphus squarrosus were constant at 1–2% cover and several other species occasional, including Polytrichum commune and Aulacomnium palustre. Sedges were also well- represented with constant Carex echinata and C. panicea and occasional C. nigra. Wetland forbs were represented by abundant Potentilla erecta and Lotus pedunculatus, frequent Filipendula ulmaria and occasional Galium palustre. Several other species were of rare occurrence: Viola palustris, Achillea ptarmica, Sanguisorba officinalis, Lathyrus pratensis and Lychnis flos-cuculi. The soakways support Potamogeton polygonifolius, Eriophorum angustifolium, Carex demissa, C. panicea, Sphagnum denticulatum, Juncus articulatus, Ranunculus flammula and in some Chrysosplenium oppositifolium. NVC: The community is closest to M23a Juncus acutiflorus-Galium palustre rush pasture (top MATCH analysis result, similarity coefficient 55.7%) but the community in the valley bottom with higher Sphagnum cover and constant C. echinata is similar to M6d Carex echinata-Sphagnum recurvum mire, Juncus acutiflorus subcommunity. The stand is M23a–M6d transition. Condition Assessment: Passes on all attributes. HLS Indicators of success: The site meets the IoS on surface wetness, desirable species frequency, scrub cover and undesirable species. The vegetation is meant to be on average less than knee-high, which at 30–40cm it just about is but this is considered an unsuitable target for rush-dominated fen. It is also contradictory as the HQ12 grazing target is for c. 30% of the vegetation to be in tussocks over 50cm high (which it isn’t), although it does have a mosaic of heights and appears well grazed and managed. Soils: Whilst the water within the soakways flushing the site was measured in the field as calcareous (pH >7, conductivity 112 μs), the soil water was pH 5.9 – neutral. Soil phosphorus content was very low, potassium low, magnesium high and nitrogen moderately high.
Soil pH Olsens P Index Soil K Index K Soil MG Index Total N Loss on Total P Organic Soil texture (Water) (mg/l) P (mg/l) (mg/l) MG (%) Ignition Carbon 5.9 6 0 77 1 111 3 0.88 29.9 1206 14.6 Clay Loam
Page 211
Page 212
Site 70: Horwich, Gtr Manchester HLS Options HQ7 Grid. ref SD 6409 HLS Supplements – Area (ha) 3.0 Survey Date 12.08.2014 BRW/GQB NVC S28
Site: This land parcel joins Red Moss SSSI – a lowland (cutover) raised bog – at its south-eastern corner. It is located on the edge of the conurbation of Horwich and the M61 motorway is only a few hundred metres to the west. The setting is therefore both urban and industrial. The western end of the land parcel is a small area of raised bog protruding from the main expanse. To the east of this an area of approximately 4.6 ha, sandwiched between the railway line and the landfill, supports scrub and fen with several ponds. A stream (Middle Brook) flows through the fen and a drainage ditch forms its northern boundary. There are several ‘in-field’ ditches. Lancashire Wildlife Trust manages it on behalf of the landowners, Bolton Borough Council. Management: The raised bog is being managed by blocking ditches and re-wetting. The land surrounding the raised bog is managed to enhance complimentary habitats, such as wet woodland and fen habitat and the aim is to encourage colonisation by rush, sedge and reed with scattered trees. Scrub invasion is a problem though. The site has only come into management recently (18 months). There is no official public access due to H&S issues – deep standing water and ditches – but the site is not fenced off and the public can and do enter. The site is unsuitable for grazing. Cutting management will have to be employed. Vegetation: The main community is a species-poor Phalaris arundinacea dominated tall-herb fen comprising abundant Cirsium palustre and locally abundant Deschampsia cespitosa. Molinia caerulea was recorded only at the western extreme, bordering the raised bog. Arrhenatherum elatius is constant with frequent Urtica dioica and several other weedy species such as Galium aparine, Chamerion angustifolium, Galeopsis tetrahit, Heracleum sphondylium, Elymus repens and Cirsium arvense plus non-native Impatiens glandulifera. Fen associates include moderately frequent Angelica sylvestris and scattered Lotus pedunculatus, Lythrum salicaria, Galium palustre, Valeriana officinalis, Ranunculus flammula, Typha latifolia and Epilobium hirsutum. Rubus agg. scrub was frequent. Areas of Salix cinerea wet woodland have a field layer of Phalaris arundinacea, Deschampsia cespitosa, Juncus effusus, Urtica dioica, Tussilago farfara and locally abundant Impatiens glandulifera. The ponds appear deep and are surrounded by Typha latifolia with Eupatorium cannabinum, Angelica sylvestris, Filipendula ulmaria, Urtica dioica and Juncus effusus. NVC: Although the top result in MATCH analysis (similarity coefficient 53.3%) was for OV26 Epilobium hirsutum community – a community of open water transitions, it lacked the high cover of Epilobium hirsutum characteristic of this community. The community instead is judged to have stronger links to S28 Phalaris arundinacea tall-herb fen (MATCH 45.9%). Condition Assessment: Fail. The site fails on frequency and cover of undesirable species (Cirsium arvense 5%, Impatiens glandulifera 5%); on desirable species (two fen associates are frequent: Phalaris arundinacea, Angelica sylvestris – the rest are all of rare occurrence); and on scrub cover. HLS Indicators of success: The site passes the IoS on surface wetness and also passes on desirable species as both Angelica sylvestris and Phalaris arundinacea are included in the IoS and both are more than the target of ‘occasional’. However, it fails on the target for Sphagnum cover (which is judged to be an inappropriate indicator as it is not typical for this type of community). Scrub cover is also at or greater than the requisite 10% and cover of Impatiens is borderline at 5%. Soils: The site is mildly acidic with low phosphorus, moderate potassium and moderately high magnesium levels. Total nitrogen and organic matter are high indicating fen peat.
Soil pH Olsens P Index Soil K Index K Soil MG Index Total N Loss on Total P Organic Soil texture (Water) (mg/l) P (mg/l) (mg/l) MG (%) Ignition Carbon 5.3 9 0 135 2- 137 3 1.12 35.9 1283 20.4 Sandy Loam
Page 213
Site 71: Yare Broads & Marshes SSSI, Strumpshaw, Norfolk HLS Options HQ6 Grid. ref TG 3405 HLS Supplements HQ12 wetland grazing Area (ha) 2.15 Survey Date 06.08.2014 BRW/PJW NVC M22b/M24b
Statutory Designation Mid-Yare NNR; Yare Broads & Marshes SSSI, Unit 18 – Favourable
Site: A fen-meadow in the floodplain of the River Yare. It has drainage ditches on three sides and is fenced on the forth. Much of the Yare Broads and Marshes were detrimentally affected by parliamentary enclosures and subsequent drainage for grazing land but this parcel of land escaped this as it was formerly one of the historic ‘poor’s marshes’ (land set aside for poor parishioners to graze their stock, harvest fodder etc). The land is still owned by the Strumpshaw Poor Marsh Charity but now leased to Strumpshaw Hall Estate. However, the site is managed by the RSPB (informal verbal agreement) who graze it as part of a larger management unit, which they mostly own. Management: (From the RSPB) The management unit in which this fen is located has been in active management for at least 30 years, with the same herd of cattle for many decades (highlands) but a family fall-out led to a new grazier having to be found. The new grazier is keen and uses cross-bred cattle. The site was part of the former ESA scheme, under which the site was grazed some years, hay- cut in others and sometimes pony grazed. Under HLS the management has been more consistent. RSPB maintain the SE boundary ditch, which is quite good but the other ditches are dry. Vegetation: The site supports a calcareous fen-meadow community in which Juncus subnodulosus is constant and abundant with locally abundant Molinia caerulea (particularly in the northern part) with a lower tier of grass-dominated vegetation characterised by Agrostis canina, Holcus lanatus and Anthoxanthum odoratum and locally abundant Agrostis capillaris and Briza media. Sedges are abundant with constant Carex panicea and Carex flacca. The stand is species-rich (47 species recorded across the five quadrats; mean 23.4 per quadrat) and wetland forbs diverse with constant Filipendula ulmaria, Vicia cracca and Lotus pedunculatus and frequent Cirsium dissectum, Ranunculus acris and Thalictrum flavum with occasional Centaurea nigra, Galium uliginosum, G. palustre and Succisa pratensis. In the southern part Iris pseudacorus is locally abundant with Ranunculus flammula and Lythrum salicaria, but few other wetland species occupying, what are presumably, wetter hollows. NVC: The vegetation has affinities with both M22b Juncus subnodulosus-Cirsium palustre fen- meadow, Briza media-Trifolium spp. sub-community (MATCH similarity coefficient M22, 52.0%; M22b, 51.3%) and M24b Cirsium dissectum-Molinia caerulea fen-meadow, typical sub-community (although Molinia cover is low) (M24, 50.5%, M24b 46.45%). There are also similarities with M13a Schoenus nigricans mire, Festuca rubra-Juncus acutiflorus sub-community (M13a, 44.7%), in which Schoenus can be low cover or even absent (as here), replaced by mixtures of J. subnodulosus and Molinia. Condition Assessment: Pass. Whilst this site passes the generic fen targets for exposed substrate, litter cover, scrub and negative indicator species frequency, it fails the target for wetness. The site was quite dry with very little wetness in the upper soil layer. The survey was conducted during a long hot summer in which sites were uncharacteristically dry but water management of the site should be considered. The positive indicator species for both M22 and M24 (G07) were more than met with four species of frequent occurrence, five occasional and eight of rare or local occurrence. HLS Indicators of success: The site meets the IoS on undesirable species; desirable species; scrub and tree cover. The aim for ‘knee-high’ vegetation is met (15–30 cm) although this IoS is not considered of much merit. Ditches were not assessed. The IoS for surface wetness from October–May could not be assessed. The HQ12 IoS for mosaic of vegetation and 20% in tussocks over 20cm are both met. Soils: The soil water is mildly calcareous. Soil phosphorus is very low; potassium and magnesium are both low; whilst nitrogen content and organic matter are very high indicating underlying fen peat.
Soil pH Olsens P Index Soil K Index K Soil MG Index Total N Loss on Total P Organic Soil texture (Water) (mg/l) P (mg/l) (mg/l) MG (%) Ignition Carbon 6.3 9 0 67 1 49 1 1.31 33.5 767 17.6 Sandy Loam
Page 214
Site 73: Oulton, Cumbria HLS Options HQ6 Grid. ref NY 2551 HLS Supplements - Area (ha) 0.62 Survey Date 08.09.2014 BRW NVC M23b
Statutory Designation None (but adjacent to Oulton Moss SSSI.
Site: The land parcel is located on the very low hills of what was once Tarnrigg Moor. It occupies the southern half of a single enclosed, grazed pasture that lies directly to the north of Oulton Moss SSSI, separated from it only by a drainage ditch. Oulton Moss is a lowland raised peat bog occupying a basin over boulder clay – it is in unfavourable declining condition. The survey site lies on the upper slopes of this basin (at c. 15 m a.s.l.). The community is rush pasture but it represents a transitional community from the raised bog below to the drier grassland above. The site will receive surface run- off from the slope above but probably also has a high water table from the basin below. It is debatable whether it should be included as a fen or as wet grassland. Management: The unit is grazed by stock – usually a couple of suckler cows with calves (Holstein dairy cattle). The field has always been managed by grazing. Prior to HLS artificial fertilisers were sometimes applied but this has ceased in line with HLS prescriptions. Although the farmer finds the HLS prescriptions fine, he is unhappy with the “bureaucracy” and the difficulty in getting HLS payments. Vegetation: The vegetation in this unit was a fairly species-poor Juncus effusus dominated community (mean 40% cover across site), with locally abundant Juncus acutiflorus in the wettest, lowest part of the site – particularly in the south-east corner. Grasses Holcus lanatus and Poa trivialis were the most frequent in the lower tier with occasional additional species such as Alopecurus pratensis, Agrostis stolonifera, Festuca rubra, and in the SE corner Agrostis canina. However, the most abundant species apart from Juncus was Rumex acetosa, which formed dense stands of 15–20% cover. Cirsium palustre was frequent and whilst positive indicator species for wetland were few, both Lotus pedunculatus and Galium palustre were frequent; Viola palustris, Persicaria amphibia and Juncus acutiflorus were occasional; and Lythrum salicaria, Potentilla erecta, Achillea ptarmica and Lathyrus pratensis were rare in the stand. Negative species Cirsium vulgare, Rumex obtusifolius and Rubus fruticosus were present but of rare occurrence with very low cover (< 1%). Only common, ubiquitous grassland bryophytes were recorded, and at low cover. NVC: The vegetation is fairly typical of M23b Juncus effusus-Galium palustre rush-pasture (MATCH analysis similarity coefficient 53.0%), although stands with more Juncus acutiflorus show a move towards M23a (47.7%). The pasture on the slope above the fen option land was species-poor semi- improved rush pasture (MG10). Condition Assessment: Borderline pass. The site passed the W04 targets for surface wetness and exposed ground, negative species and scrub cover. The vegetation included two positive indicator species for M23 rush pasture, plus one occasional and five rare). Litter cover was a little high, slightly more than the 25% limit. HLS Indicators of success: The vegetation meets the IoS targets on undesirable species, wetness, desirable species and cover of scrub. The vegetation was 30–40cm, which is ‘less than knee-high’. The site therefore passes all IoS. Soils: The soil water is acidic. Soil phosphorus content is moderate but higher than that required for botanical biodiversity, and probably a result of previous fertiliser application. Potassium is low, and magnesium moderately high. Nitrogen is moderate and organic matter component is moderate suggesting that there is not much peat away from Oulton Moss.
Soil pH Olsens P Index Soil K Index K Soil MG Index Total N Loss on Total P Organic Soil texture (Water) (mg/l) P (mg/l) (mg/l) MG (%) Ignition Carbon 5.1 21 2 84 1 152 3 0.73 21.6 904 11.9 Sandy Loam
Page 215
Page 216
Site 74: Chasewater and Southern Staffordshire SSSI, Staffs HLS Options HQ7 Grid. ref SK 0407 HLS Supplements None Area (ha) 0.85 Survey Date 21.08.2014 BRW/JES NVC OV26/S27
Statutory Designation Chasewater and Southern Staffordshire SSSI, Unit 7 – Favourable.
Site: This is a landscape-scale SSSI (notified in 2010) that stretches for 7 km. The survey site is part of the unit located below the Chasewater (reservoir) dam. The geology is boulder clay overlying Carboniferous Coal Measures but spoil from the abandoned coal workings influences water chemistry, which can vary greatly across relatively small areas. The survey site is irrigated directly with oligotrophic seepage water from Chasewater but may also receive water from surrounding springs and be influenced by spoil and deposits. The unit comprises: wet woodland, Sphagnum-dominated wet heath/mire, swamp and, the main community, a large, open fen. Management: Recent work on the dam has taken place to control the drainage, water now goes through filter beds and drains. This has affected some of the habitats below the dam, notably the Sphagnum mire, which may now be drier, but the main fen still appears to receive much water directly from the dam. It is certainly very wet and there is much open water in the central area. Scrub control is underway but it is unclear where/how much as there is much wet woodland in mosaic. Vegetation: The open fen below the dam outlet is on a deep layer of organic, unconsolidated peaty soil. The co-dominants are tall Epilobium hirsutum, Eupatorium cannabinum and Angelica sylvestris with abundant Equisetum fluviatile and frequent Typha latifolia with Urtica dioica below. Iris pseudacorus is also present. Juncus acutiflorus was sparse to the north. The lowest tier comprised scattered grasses (Agrostis canina, Holcus lanatus, Festuca rubra, Molinia caerulea) but none were abundant, and a variety of fen associates including Potentilla palustris, Menyanthes trifoliata, Galium palustre, Hydrocotyle vulgaris, Lychnis flos-cuculi, Lotus pedunculatus, Carex rostrata and Dactylorhiza sp., but most were of rare occurrence only, scattered across the site. Calliergonella cuspidata and Brachythecium rutabulum were quite abundant (1–50% cover) in the ground layer. The fen grades into wet heath, Salix–Betula carr and, in the east, a stand of Glyceria maxima swamp. NVC: With such a prevalence of tall herbs this fen community has affinities with M27 (MATCH analysis top result, coefficient 49.0%) but this is rejected as it lacks the usual constant Filipendula ulmaria. The vegetation is much more indicative of an open-water transition community and is best placed within OV26 (OV26a-c, 47.7–43.2%). Abundant Epilobium hirsutum with frequent Urtica dioica is typical for OV26, with an assortment of tall fen herbs at low frequency. However, the published tables for OV26 have low frequency of Typha latifolia, whereas this species is frequent. There are also similarities to S27 due to the abundance of Equisetum fluviatile with Potentilla palustris and Carex rostrata. Condition Assessment: Borderline Pass. The fen area was highly waterlogged with areas of open water closest to the dam outlet; exposed substrate was minimal and there was no litter cover; negative species included <1% Rubus agg. and rare Cirsium arvense and a patch of Pteridium aquilinum; desirable species frequency was good with three frequent, two occasional plus several rare. However, the fen is borderline on meeting the <10% target for scrub cover – Salix cinerea and Betula pubescens from the W4 wet woodland on the margins appear to be encroaching onto the open fen from the south and Betula saplings within the open fen accounted for up to 5% cover. HLS Indicators of success: The only IoS is that all SSSI land should be in favourable condition or should become favourable by the end of the agreement. The land was judged favourable in 2010 and it is assessed as favourable in 2014 through this survey but further scrub control should take place. Soils: The soil water is calcareous. The nutrient component is very low in phosphorus but high in potassium and magnesium. Total nitrogen is also very high, and organic matter correspondingly high.
Soil pH Olsens P Index Soil K Index K Soil MG Index Total N Loss on Total P Organic Soil texture (Water) (mg/l) P (mg/l) (mg/l) MG (%) Ignition Carbon 7.1 6 0 278 3 195 4 1.36 44.7 1698 29.8 n/a
Page 217
Site 75: Hawnby, Yorkshire HLS Options HQ7 Grid. ref SE 5491 HLS Supplements HQ12 wetland grazing Area (ha) 1.00 Survey Date 04.08.2014 BRW/PJW NVC M6a
Site: The survey site was an area of (formerly) unenclosed flush bog on the fringes of a grouse moor. It lies in the bottom of a small stream valley at 200 m a.s.l. There is a spring to the north and stream flows along the valley bottom, forming the western boundary to the site, into the Ladhill Beck further south. On the other side of the valley there are grazed improved pastures. Management: The unit has recently been enclosed with stockproof fencing as part of the HLS agreement (capital works money). Cattle have access to the bog as it is open to the adjoining unit but don’t graze in there very much. The site has never had any scrub to worry about. Vegetation: The vegetation community is a flush bog with very short (c. 10 cm high) vegetation over peat, in good condition with dominant Sphagnum papillosum and abundant Narthecium ossifragum and Eriophorum angustifolium. Eriophorum vaginatum is also present at lower cover and frequency. Several other Sphagnum spp. were present including S. tenellum, S. palustre, S. fallax and in pooled areas S. denticulatum and/or S. cuspidatum. Additional bryophytes included (typical for this community) frequent Polytrichum commune and occasional Aulacomnium palustre. Bryophytes accounted for 70–90% of the ground layer. Although Molinia caerulea was constant it occurred at low cover and was not tussocky. Both Carex echinata and Drosera rotundifolia were also constant, and Juncus bulbosus was frequent with occasional patches of J. effusus up to 10% cover. Carex panicea was occasional. Ericoid sub-shrubs were sparse with occasional Calluna vulgaris and Erica tetralix. NVC: This community is typical, good quality M6a Carex echinata-Sphagnum recurvum/auriculatum mire, Carex echinata sub-community (MATCH analysis similarity coefficient – top result – 66.4%), although there are also obvious similarities to the valley mire community M21b (59.8%) and the wet heath community M15b (53.3%). However, the community lacks the constant ericoid sub-shrubs of M21 and the constant Trichophorum cespitosa of M15. Condition Assessment: Pass. The site is sufficiently wet, the habitat with little exposed substrate and litter cover, and scrub cover is non-existent. There are no negative species and cover of non-jointed rushes is only 1% overall. Positive indicator species for fen habitat include frequent Eriophorum angustifolium, Carex echinata and Sphagnum spp. (cover is c. 70%); occasional Eriophorum vaginatum and rare Carex panicea. Additionally, positive M6 mire species that should be included are frequent Narthecium ossifragum, Drosera rotundifolia; occasional Erica tetralix; rare Potentilla erecta. The site is in excellent condition. *The site only entered HLS in 2012. It is in excellent condition now and probably was then. The erection of stock-proof fencing is of concern – if this site was previously unenclosed and cattle now enter less, the fencing may be having a detrimental effect and lead to deterioration of the community. HLS Indicators of success: The site passes its IoS on surface wetness, vegetation height, cover of Molinia [although this is a natural and typical component] and Juncus effusus, scrub cover and frequency of desirable species. The site is in excellent condition. This site passes on all HQ7 attributes. However, the HQ12 IoS states the site should have 30% of vegetation in tussocks over 50cm high, whereas the HQ7 IoS state that ‘taller rushes and purple moor grass should cover less than 30% of the area’. These two IoS are contradictory. The IoS for this site may need adjusting. Soils: Acidic peat soils (indicated by high loss of ignition and organic carbon content). Soil phosphorus is low; both potassium and magnesium are moderate.
Soil pH Olsens P Index Soil K Index K Soil MG Index Total N Loss on Total P Organic Soil texture (Water) (mg/l) P (mg/l) (mg/l) MG (%) Ignition Carbon 5.1 3 0 122 2- 69 2 0.84 47 480 19 Clay loam
Page 218
Site 76: Brook, Isle of Wight HLS Options HQ6 Grid. ref SZ 3784 HLS Supplements HQ11 wetland cutting Area (ha) 1.67 Survey Date 31.07.2014 BRW/CEB NVC MG1b (& S4/S26)
Site: This small unit lies 120m from the south-west coast of the Isle of Wight. It occupies gentle south- west facing slopes and has drainage ditches on three sides. There are many withy beds on/around this farm and this site may once have been part of that system.
The unit supports a reedbed and an area of damp, rank grassland. The reedbed was discounted for survey because the HLS handbook states that vegetation with cover of over 60% common reed should be recorded as W08 – Reedbeds (i.e. not fen habitat). However, the other community in this land parcel under the fen option was, during survey, found to be an MG1 grassland, albeit a damp one. Its potential to develop as fen is thought to be low. The sense of resurveying this site is questionable. Management: This site was formerly under the CSS reedbed option but put under the fen option under HLS. The site was formerly grazed through spring and summer as required – it was suitable only for rams and dry sheep. The management prescriptions are now to cut the site between mid-July and September. No further grazing or cutting appears to have taken place although the unit is stock- fenced. (I think there may be some confusion over management prescriptions here – the farm manager seemed to think he was meant to be grazing only, and between July/August, when no suitable stock are available. Access for machinery to ‘mow’ this site may be rather difficult.) Vegetation: The reedbed is overwhelmingly dominated by tall and impenetrable Phragmites australis with occasional scattered Salix cinerea, and a strip of Salix along the western boundary ditch. The grassland surveyed is damp with constant Arrhenatherum elatius and frequent to locally abundant Agrostis stolonifera, Holcus lanatus, Festuca rubra, Dactylis glomerata and Elymus repens. Associated wetland/damp flora of included frequent, abundant Pulicaria dysenterica and occasional dense stands of Equisetum telmateia, whilst Epilobium hirsutum and Oenanthe crocata were locally frequent; Potentilla anserina was rare; and on the margins of the reed bed Mentha aquatica and Lotus pedunculatus were recorded. Additional species Heracleum sphondylium, Vicia cracca, Convolvulus arvensis, Cirsium arvense and Galium aparine characterised the stand. NVC: The grassland is MG1b (MATCH coefficient top result, 58.8%), a community of ungrazed circumneutral soils that often develops following cessation of grazing or periods of neglect. The vegetation may derive from MG11 Festuca rubra–Agrostis stolonifera–Potentilla anserina grassland. The reedbed was probably S4 reed swamp. Condition Assessment: The grassland was dry and rank, with 20–75% litter cover and frequent Cirsium arvense. Positive indicator species (either grassland or fen) were few, and only of rare occurrence. The grassland fails any assessment as a species-rich grassland or fen habitat. The reedbed was not assessed but a brief walk through the northern part gave the indication that the stand supported few other fen species and would probably fail on positive indicators. HLS Indicators of success: The grassland habitat would fail the HQ6 IoS on wetness, desirable species, vegetation height but would pass on scrub cover. The reedbed would definitely fail on the (rather unrealistic) target of ‘less than knee-high’ vegetation across the fen – and this directly contradicts the HQ11 requirement of only cutting every 4–6 years. It may also fail on scrub cover. Soils: The soil water is calcareous. Soil phosphorus is suitably low, potassium is moderate and magnesium is high (common for calcareous sites). Total nitrogen is extremely low, and organic matter component correspondingly low denoting no peat accumulation.
Soil pH Olsens P Index Soil K Index K Soil MG Index Total N Loss on Total P Organic Soil texture (Water) (mg/l) P (mg/l) (mg/l) MG (%) Ignition Carbon 6.7 11 1 193 2+ 236 4 0.47 12.4 1064 5.32 Clay loam
Page 219
Site 77: Broomfleet, Humberhead, East Riding of Yorkshire. HLS Options HQ6 Grid. ref SE 8627 HLS Supplements HQ11 wetland cutting Area (ha) 0.25 ha Survey Date 03.08.2014 BRW/PJW NVC S4
Site: No baseline survey – the site supports dry woodland and reedbed creation.
Sandtoft Roof Tiles (Broomfleet Tilers) – now owned by Austrian company Wienerberger – have a large tile factory on the larger site. Land to the south of the works, has many old quarry pits that are now flooded and these and the surrounding reedbeds and scrub are managed by the RSPB for their populations of bitterns, otters, rare Odonata, willow tits, marsh harrier and Cetti’s warbler.
The survey unit is an extremely small strip of land that lies on the southern edge of a relatively new reedbed that is under option HQ4. The survey unit supports a strip of dry scrub along the margins of the reedbed dominated by Crataegus monogyna with Prunus spinosa and Salix cinerea and dry- woodland associates. To the north of this, still approximately within the same unit, is the start of the reedbed creation area with open water and dominant Phragmites. There is no fen habitat and no reason that could be seen to exclude this small area from the HQ4 area above. Management:
Vegetation:
Survey unit is area in background NVC: S4 (reedswamp not fen)
Page 220
Site 78: Itteringham, Norfolk HLS Options HQ7 Grid. ref TG 1431 HLS Supplements HQ12 wetland grazing Area (ha) 1.0 Survey Date 05.08.2015 BRW/PJW NVC W5 (S3)
Site: A very low-lying (25 m a.s.l.) enclosed land parcel along a tributary of the River Bure. The site includes numerous in-field drains, which are substantial in depth and width. The tributary (‘The Cut’) also appears to have been altered historically (possibly channelized centuries ago) – it is part of a system of drains and waterbodies associated with the moat of the medieval country house upstream (to north), the water source originating at a low hill to the north-west. The land parcel is now part of a private farm. The site supports areas of wet woodland, Molinia mire and some drier grassland, but the main community is mixed swamp gradually being opened up and cleared of scrub by the ponies. Management: This is the first time this land parcel has been under stewardship. Prior to HLS the site wasn’t really managed at all. Stock-proof fencing has been installed under Capital works and grazing has been introduced. Grazing is generally by cattle (mostly Longhorns), which are put on in May, but this year ponies have been introduced in an attempt to clear some of the bramble and woody material. In 2014 the ponies went on in June and the cattle will go on in autumn. Vegetation: Some areas are dominated by Carex acutiformis (25% cover) whilst others are dominated by tall Carex paniculata tussocks (35%), but both with abundant Glyceria maxima (25%). Iris pseudacorus also dominated some areas (7%). Juncus acutiflorus is occasional. Apart from local Holcus lanatus no other grasses or sedges were recorded in the main stand (although Molinia caerulea dominated surrounding wet grassland). Urtica dioica was constant at quite high cover with locally abundant Rubus fruticosus and frequent Galium aparine. Wetland species included frequent low cover Filipendula ulmaria with occasional (dense) Iris pseudacorus and Cirsium palustre and scattered plants of Valeriana officinalis, Angelica sylvestris, Eupatorium cannabinum, Galium uliginosum and Mentha aquatica. Ferns were scattered with Athyrium filix-femina, Dryopteris filix- mas and Dryopteris dilatata. ‘Weedy species’ Chamerion angustifolium, Cirsium arvense, C. vulgare were occasional. NVC: The community here is very much a transitional one from, probably, a former area of Alnus glutinosa and Salix cinerea carr. It has strong affinities with cleared W5 Alnus glutinosa–Carex paniculata woodland (MATCH analysis similarity coefficient W5a, 53.7%; W5, 46.6%) and less affinity with true S3 Carex paniculata swamp (38.5%) due to the abundance of Urtica dioica, Carex acutiformis and Filipendula ulmaria. Condition Assessment: Pass. The surface was waterlogged, although without open water; bare ground was 3%; litter cover 20% and vegetative species aggregate cover < 5% – on all these attributes the site passes. Rubus fruticosus scrub is 5% - within limits (only within the swamp stand). Desirable species included two frequent (Carex paniculata, Filipendula ulmaria) plus two occasional (Glyceria maxima, Iris pseudacorus) with six of rare occurrence. HLS Indicators of success: Fail. The fen passes the IoS on wetness and desirable species. It does not meet the target for occasional bog-moss cover (no Sphagnum spp. were observed in the stand). Sphagnum is not particularly associated with either W5 or S3 fen. Cover of scrub (Rubus) is greater than the IoS target of 2%. The HQ12 targets are met. Soils: The soil water is neutral. Phosphorus content of the soil is very low, and potassium is low. Magnesium content is moderately high. Total nitrogen and organic matter content are both very high, probably reflecting a recent lack of grazing, litter build up and peaty top layer.
Soil pH Olsens P Index Soil K Index K Soil MG Index Total N Loss on Total P Organic Soil texture (Water) (mg/l) P (mg/l) (mg/l) MG (%) Ignition Carbon 6.2 8 0 91 1 166 3 1.6 42.7 1035 21.8 Sandy loam
Page 221
Site 79: Kelsick, Wigton, Cumbria HLS Options HQ6 Grid. ref NY 1949 HLS Supplements None Area (ha) 2.42 Survey Date 08.09.2014 BRW NVC M22a/M27
Site: A very low-lying field on an (imperceptible) north-north-west facing slope above the Rook Beck, in the floodplain of the River Waver. A spring arises at the southern end and the site has boundary drains and in-field drains. The site supported three broad habitat types: tall-herb fen, scrub, and rush- dominated fen. The main vegetation unit sampled, occupied the central–southern ground on the west side of the site, and was rush–dominated. It occupied a shallow basin and had some open water. Management: The land has been in the same family for a couple of generations. It hasn’t always been grazed but in recent years it has usually been cattle grazed. Sheep aren’t used as they get caught up in the briars [sic]. The farmer is growing a crop of maize on the field above it (south) this year so it has not been grazed as this is the only access route for stock. Usually cattle are put on towards the end of the season if it is not too wet. HLS is quite new and the farmer hasn’t changed the management yet. Vegetation: The main vegetation unit was overwhelmingly dominated by jointed-rushes. During the field survey a small stand in the extreme south of the unit was recorded as Juncus acutiflorus but the rush in the main stand – which was overwhelmingly dominant but brown, desiccated and mostly flattened to the ground – was recorded as Juncus subnodulosus. However, this species identification must be viewed with caution until confirmed as it has subsequently been discovered this species has not been recorded in this 10 km square previously and records for the species in Cumbria are few. In support of its occurrence, J. subnodulosus favours more base-rich conditions than other jointed- rushes – the site is flushed with calcareous water (pH 6.7) – and supports several known associates such as Galium uliginosum. Filipendula ulmaria was abundant with frequent Galium uliginosum, Valeriana officinalis, Cirsium palustre, Equisetum fluviatile, Epilobium hirsutum and Lythrum salicaria. Lotus pedunculatus was occasional, whilst several additional species were present but rare and local only (Angelica sylvestris, Mentha aquatica, Centaurea nigra, Lathyrus pratensis, and Dactylorhiza sp.). Litter cover was high (35–70%). NVC: The vegetation was atypical of any community. MATCH analysis gave unreliable results with a top result for S25 (a Phragmites community). There are affinities with M27 (MATCH similarity coefficient 44.8%) due to the abundance of F. ulmaria or, if J. subnodulosus is correct, then a Filipendula invaded M22 (MATCH M22a, 37.4%). Condition Assessment: Fail. The unit was borderline on wetness with 1% open water and 50% ‘squelchy’ ground. Litter cover was high (50%) and scrub cover over the whole land parcel was high (10%), although low (2%) in the surveyed stand. Desirable species frequency, undesirable species were good. The site appears undermanaged. HLS Indicators of success: The site passes the IoS on undesirable species (although Cirsium arvense) appears to be increasing in the north. The surface is a little dry but this was a drought year. Desirable species frequency is above targets. Scrub cover is borderline at approx.. 10%. The vegetation is more than ‘knee-high’. Soils: The soil water is calcareous. Soil phosphorus content is low but all other soil nutrients are high: potassium is high, magnesium extremely high (common on sites where the underlying geology is calcareous) and both nitrogen and organic matter very high. The high fertility will encourage the proliferation of species such as Cirsium arvense and Epilobium hirsutum. Soil fertility on this site may need to be addressed. Improved grazing management will help.
Soil pH Olsens P Index Soil K Index K Soil MG Index Total N Loss on Total P Organic Soil texture (Water) (mg/l) P (mg/l) (mg/l) MG (%) Ignition Carbon 6.7 12 1 245 3 680 7 2.27 72.7 1285 29.6 Loamy sand
Page 222
Site 80: Badley Moor SSSI, Dereham, Norfolk HLS Options HQ6 Grid. ref TG 0111 HLS Supplements HQ12, HR7 Area (ha) 1.50 Survey Date 07.08.2014 PJW/BRW NVC M13, M22b, M22c, M24
Statutory Designation Badley Moor SSSI, Unit 1- Favourable. Norfolk Valley Fens SAC
Site: The site is situated in the valley of the River Tud to the south-east of Dereham. The SSSI is particularly notable for the springs that arise from the underlying chalk and which have formed a series of tufa mounds and hummocks capped by accumulations of peat. These are considered to be the best of such formations in Britain. The surveyed field includes the largest of these mounds and quadrats were recorded on its south- facing slopes. These calcareous flush communities are particularly vulnerable to issues affecting groundwater, and several surveys have been carried out here in recent years. Management: The surveyed field is grazed together with the larger field to the east by four cattle between April and end of May (when they are excluded to allow the orchids to flower), then again between end of July and end of August. Thistles are topped on the flatter ground below the tufa mound, but no machinery is used on the steep slopes. There has been no recent scrub control, although possibly some before 2006. Ditches have not been dredged recently, although ditches on neighbouring land have been cleared. The owner has had several problems with the management of this unique area of fen. There has been leakage from nearby sewerage systems and neighbours have cleared adjacent ditches hindering efforts by the owner to re-wet parts of the site. Uncontrolled dogs belonging to walkers using public footpaths have prevented snipe and lapwing from breeding on the moor. Although broadly happy with the HLS agreement, the owner feels that there is insufficient money available for capital works such as fencing, too much emphasis on public access and too little of the flexibility needed to help with management of this very important site. Vegetation: The vegetation here is a complex mosaic related partly to the presence of calcareous springs. Schoenus nigricans and Juncus subnodulosus form an open tussocky cover on the tufa slope with lesser quantities of Molinia caerulea, and with a species-rich ground flora including abundant Carex flacca, C. lepidocarpa, C. panicea, C. hostiana, Calliergonella cuspidata, Campylium stellatum, Ctenidium molluscum, Pseudoscleropodium purum, Hydrocotyle vulgaris, Potentilla erecta, Succisa pratensis and Valeriana dioica. Other frequent species include Epipactis palustris, Briza media, Fissidens adianthoides, Galium uliginosum, Polygala vulgaris and Anagallis tenella, while taller, emergent species include Cirsium palustre, Angelica sylvestris, Eupatorium cannabinum and Phragmites australis. Pinguicula vulgaris is present in more open areas at the base of the slope. On the peat cap on the top of the tufa, the vegetation is less rich, dominated by Juncus subnodulosus and Molinia caerulea although here, Menyanthes trifoliata is abundant. Below the tufa slope the vegetation is still species-rich but lacks Schoenus and Phragmites is frequent, becoming denser to the south. Juncus subnodulosus is abundant with Molinia caerulea locally and a rich associated flora of Mentha aquatica, Galium uliginosum, Carex panicea, C. flacca, C. nigra, C. disticha, Succisa pratensis, Potentilla erecta, Lotus pedunculatus, Ranunculus flammula, Juncus inflexus, Juncus bulbosus and Dactylorhiza fuchsii. Where the Phragmites becomes denser, species-richness declines and larger sedges including Carex elata and C. acutiformis become frequent. There are patches of Rubus fruticosus, Salix cinerea and Prunus spinosa scrub. NVC: Where Schoenus nigricans is abundant on the tufa slope, the NVC community is M13c (Schoenus nigricans mire, Caltha palustris-Galium uliginosum sub-community), grading into M13b (Briza media-Pinguicula vulgaris sub-community) on the lower slopes. The highest MATCH coefficient for the surveyed area was 62.4 for M13. At the base of the slope and on the mound top this grades into M24b (Molinia caerulea-Cirsium dissectum fen-meadow, typical sub-community), although Cirsium dissectum was not recorded. Further south and west the vegetation is closer to M22b (Juncus subnodulosus-Cirsium palustre fen-meadow, Briza media- Trifolium repens sub-community) and M22c (Carex elata sub-community). Condition Assessment: The site passes the condition assessment HLS Indicators of success: The site passes the indicators of success Soils: Soil pH (8.4) was the highest recorded in the survey, although the pH of the water within the M13 stand was only 7.3. Extractable P and total P contents were very low. Total N content, loss on ignition and organic carbon content were all high indicating a high peat fraction in the soil. K and MG levels were low.
Soil pH Olsens P Index Soil K Index K Soil MG Index Total Loss on Total Organic Soil texture (Water) (mg/l) P (mg/l) (mg/l) MG N (%) Ignition P Carbon 8.4 7 0 85 1 58 2 1.59 40.3 716 19.4
Page 223
Site 81: Millington Wood and Pastures SSSI, Yorkshire HLS Options HQ7 Grid. ref SE 8452 HLS Supplements None Area (ha) 0.67 Survey Date 05.08.2014 BRW/PJW NVC M22a
Statutory Designation Millington Wood and Pastures SSSI, Unit 17 (Millington Springs) Favourable
Site: The land parcel selected is a small part of Unit 17 and lies on the south side of the chalk stream between Millington No. 1 Spring and the covered reservoir. It occupies both north-north-east and south-east facing slopes above the stream. The upper ground has dry grassland and scrub but the lower slopes and valley bottom support fen communities. Management: Scrub is slowly being cleared on this site and once it is cleared the aim is to graze, most likely with sheep. No grazing has taken place in the last few years. The landowner would like to see pond creation on this unit but can’t under HLS. No management of the water source is required as it is a natural chalk spring and there are no ditches or culverts etc. to manage. Vegetation: The main fen community is a Juncus inflexus dominated stand on the NNW facing slopes in the northern part of the site. The community is of moderate species-richness with 35 species recorded in total in the quadrats and a mean of 18 per quadrat. The most abundant species in addition to J. inflexus was Angelica sylvestris with a lower tier of Poa trivialis, although bryophytes were also abundant with a ground layer of predominantly Kindbergia praelonga and Calliergonella cuspidata, but also quite high cover of Plagiomnium elatum and P. undulatum. Cirsium palustre, Epilobium hirsutum, Scrophularia auriculata and Equisetum palustre were frequent in the upper tier and scrambling though this much Lathyrus pratensis. Small sedges were occasional with Carex hirta and Carex nigra. Additional desirable species included scattered Dactylorhiza spp., Lychnis flos-cuculi, Valeriana officinalis and Galium uliginosum. NVC: Although MATCH analysis gave the highest similarity coefficient for OV26 (due to the frequency of Epilobium hirsutum), this community has far more affinity with M22 Juncus subnodulosus-Cirsium palustre fen-meadow, although with J. subnodulosus replaced by J. inflexus (MATCH M22a, 39.5%). Condition Assessment: Fail. Whilst the site passes on exposed substrate and scrub cover, it has very high litter cover (c. 30%) and frequent undesirable species (Cirsium arvense 5%, Urtica dioica 5%). Desirable species included one frequent wetland indicator plus several rare. A positive species of drier habitat (Lathyrus pratensis) was also frequent. The ground was dry but this is due to the hot, dry summer. HLS Indicators of success: Although the soil was quite dry in places, seepage was visible and the dryness can be attributed to the hot summer. However, the site failed several IoS: only one species from the list provided was at least occasional – all others were rare; and undesirable species were greater than the 5% target. Scrub was less than the 20% limit Soils: The water irrigating the site is highly calcareous as would be expected. Soil phosphorus is suitably low and potassium is moderate. Soil magnesium is high, which is to be expected for this geology. Total nitrogen was moderate with correspondingly moderate organic matter component to the soil. The clay loam soil will be water retentive.
Soil pH Olsens P Index Soil K Index K Soil MG Index Total N Loss on Total P Organic Soil texture (Water) (mg/l) P (mg/l) (mg/l) MG (%) Ignition Carbon 7.7 12 1 165 2- 206 4 0.57 16.5 2729 7.93 Clay loam
Page 224
Site 82: Whitchurch, Shropshire HLS Options HQ7 Grid. ref SJ 5843 HLS Supplements HQ12 wetland grazing Area (ha) 1.31 Survey Date 20.08.2014 GQB/LR NVC OV26
Site: Located adjacent to one of the feeder streams into Combermere, this site is a mixture of damp grassland and Filipendula-dominated fen with willow scrub, tall ruderal and bracken making up the rest of the mosaic. Management: No management currently. In HLS since January 2014. Drainage works as part of the capital programme have commenced with the aim of making the site wetter. Some willow has been removed as part of work to restore the historic landscape and sight lines. The work has included re-routing of the stream (apparently) and further work will be undertaken in October 2014 towards this aim. The drainage comes from across the farmland (which largely comprises improved grassland) and the site will be part of a reedbed cleaning initiative. Vegetation: Most of the site is occupied by Filipendula ulmaria fen which is dominated by Filipendula and locally abundant Epilobium hirsutum with patchy Juncus inflexus, occasional to frequent Urtica dioica and a range of associates at low cover including Juncus effusus, Cirsium palustre, Equisetum palustre, Lathyrus pratensis, Lotus pedunculatus, Urtica dioica and Galium aparine. The adjacent grassland is species-poor and dominated by Arrhenatherum elatius with Festuca rubra, Deschampsia cespitosa, Angelica sylvestris and Lathyrus pratensis. There is tall ruderal including Urtica dioica and Epilobium hirsutum with Rubus scrub on the northern edge and Salix scrub on the western boundary. The southern boundary is occupied by a strip of Phalaris- dominated vegetation with Salix and Alnus growing over the top, similar to adjacent woodland south of the watercourse. There is a pocket of Pteridium aquilinum at the field entrance. NVC: The vegetation is a somewhat species-poor tall-herb fen, lying somewhere between OV26 Epilobium hirsutum community (MATCH similarity coefficient 57.5%) and M27b Filipendula ulmaria- Angelica sylvestris mire (57.1%). Condition Assessment: Fail. Surface wetness was good, cover of exposed ground and litter low and total scrub was less than 10%. For positive indicators Filipendula is constant but there are few desirable species with only Epilobium hirsutum at all frequent in the vegetation. Lathyrus pratensis was frequent though and Lotus pedunculatus occasional. All other wetland species were rare. Unfavourable condition. HLS Indicators of success: The success indicators include the presence of desirable species. Filipendula is constant but, of the other species required, only Angelica sylvestris is present and this is at low frequency. Most of the site is certainly squelchy. The fen vegetation fails the height criterion as vegetation is requested to be on average less than knee height (this may be an error as it seems more suited to a grassland site). Soils: The soil is mildly calcareous with very low phosphorus content, which is suitable for increasing botanical diversity. Potassium is low but magnesium very high (probably due to underlying geology).Total nitrogen is suitably low.
Soil pH Olsens P Inde Soil K Index K Soil MG Index Total Loss on Total Organic Soil texture (Water) (mg/l) x P (mg/l) (mg/l) MG N (%) Ignition P Carbon 6.5 6 0 111 1 464 6 0.37 10.9 847 5.38 Sandy loam
Page 225
Site 83: Betley Mere SSSI, Crewe, Staffordshire HLS Options HQ7 Grid. ref SJ 7447 HLS Supplements None Area (ha) 0.80 Survey Date 21.08.14 GQB/LR NVC Carex acutiformis swamp
Designation & Name: Betley Mere SSSI, Unit 11 (unfavourable recovering) Midland Meres and Mosses Ramsar site
Site: Mosaic of rush and sedge dominated vegetation with invading willow scrub and dense reedbed adjacent to Betley Mere. Adjacent fields are rushy cattle pasture labelled 'Cracow Moss' on the Ordnance Survey map. The wider area includes typical improved cattle pasture, small pockets of woodland and dwellings. Management: No inputs. Summer grazing by a small herd with a Hereford bull and heifers - the grazing unit includes the adjacent field and the farmer notes that the cattle don't really go into this field as the bridge into the field is unfavourable for stock (one of the planks is missing which is quite off-putting). The field used to be cut but because of the problem with the bridge he can no longer get the tractor onto it. Prior to HLS there were 150 head of cattle on this grazing unit but it is much less now. United Utilities are currently doing some work on the drainage around the Mere. The farmer thinks that the drains are silting up and will need doing soon to prevent the Mere silting up. Vegetation: Adjacent to the mere there is a band reedswamp with co-dominant Carex paniculata plus Iris pseudacorus, Angelica sylvestris and Potentilla palustris. South of this there is a large area of Carex acutiformis swamp with abundant Carex paniculata, patchy Juncus subnodulosus and invading Salix cinerea. This was the area of greatest species-richness and was chosen for quadrat survey. South of the C. acutiformis swamp Juncus effusus is co-dominant with Carex acutiformis (and not much else). The southernmost boundary of the site has a narrowly triangular strip of woodland dominated by Salix cinerea to the west and Juncus effusus/acutiflorus rush-pasture to the east, with patchy brambles around standard trees. Sphagnum spp. were of rare occurrence. NVC: The area within which the quadrats were situated is a mixture of Carex acutiformis, Carex paniculata, Juncus subnodulosus, Iris pseudacorus and Salix cinerea with constant or near constant Lotus pedunculatus, Lythrum salicaria and Viola palustris. This vegetation may derive from a former stand of M22 (MATCH similarity coefficient – 4th highest result – 39.5%) but it now has affinities with S7 (35.4%), although not typical of this community either, being too species-rich. There are also affinities with Phragmites-dominated tall-herb fens (S25 37.2% - top result) but the lack of Phragmites leads to rejecting this result. The community is transitional. Condition Assessment: Fail. Vegetation is diverse structurally and in terms of species present, with positive indicator species frequent or occasional including Juncus subnodulosus, Iris pseudacorus, Lythrum salicaria, Viola palustris, Scutellaria and Lotus pedunculatus. Favourable condition except for the invading willow scrub (40%). HLS Indicators of success: Within the reedbed, cover of common reed is over 70% and dominates over all associated species as per the criterion. This is not true of the rest of the fen area, but seems a bit inflexible given that tall herb fen isn't always dominated by common reed. Cover of willows exceeds 10% and bushes over 1.5m high are common. The required desirable species ‘water mint’ and ‘meadowsweet’ are present but not at the required level - having said that, plenty of other positive indicator species are present. Soils: The soil water is mildly acidic. Soil nutrients phosphorus and potassium are low, magnesium high and total nitrogen very high – reflective of the high organic matter component.
Soil pH Olsens P Index Soil K Index K Soil MG Index Total Loss on Total Organic Soil texture (Water) (mg/l) P (mg/l) (mg/l) MG N (%) Ignition P Carbon 5.6 7 0 58 0 189 4 1.2 43.2 592 18.3 Loamy sand
Page 226
Site 84: Ellastone, Derbyshire HLS Options HQ7 Grid. ref SK 1242 HLS Supplements HQ12 wetland grazing Area (ha) 1.10 Survey Date 13.08.2014 BRW/GQB NVC Carex acutiformis swamp
Site: The site occupies land in the River Dove valley that has been affected by the historical construction of a weir on the river to the east to construct fish ponds and a mill stream. The land is permanently wet and dominated by tall sedges. Management: The site has been in stewardship for 13–14 years, formerly in CSS. The land is shut up for most of the summer and then mixed sheep and 2–3 suckler cows (British White or Murray Greys) are put on towards Autumn. Since entering stewardship the quality of the field has probably got better although the Farmer feels the sward is now too dense and needs opening up to allow better access for birds – there are possibly fewer snipe and these restricted to the fringes. The field used to be mown for hay sometimes but it has become wetter in recent years – probably because the watercourse along the northern boundary (which belongs to a neighbour) has silted up and more water now drains into the site. No ditching works or other capital items carried out. Vegetation: The sward is overwhelmingly dominated by Carex acutiformis (25–90% cover) with locally abundant Butomus umbellatus and Juncus acutiflorus. Tall fen forbs include constant and abundant Filipendula ulmaria, with frequent Equisetum palustre and Epilobium hirsutum plus occasional Valeriana officinalis, Scrophularia auriculata, Cirsium palustre and Caltha palustris. Additional species such as Angelica sylvestris, Dactylorhiza praetermissa and Epilobium palustre were rare and local. Negative species were few with occasional Galium aparine, Cirsium vulgare and Urtica dioica. Fraxinus and Alnus formed a belt along the western margins and there were several Alnus saplings and young trees within the main stand. The southern extent of the site supported damp semi- improved grassland. NVC: The community here probably derives from a neglected M27 Filipendula ulmaria-Angelica sylvestris mire (MATCH analysis similarity coefficient 32.9%) or from a former open water transition community OV26 Epilobium hirsutum community (39.8%), but the community is now an atypical S7 Carex acutiformis swamp-related community (36.6%), with greater species diversity than S7 would be expected to have. Condition Assessment: Pass. The site passes generic fen targets for wetness, exposed substrate, litter cover and woody species. With regard to botanical composition the stand supports two (at least) frequent desirable fen species (Carex acutiformis, Filipendula ulmaria) and three occasional (Valeriana officinalis, Caltha palustris, Equisetum palustre), whilst Carex acutiformis is dominant. Negative species are less than 2% cover and rare in the stand. The site passes the condition assessment but management should aim to open the stand up a bit. HLS Indicators of success: The site meets the IoS on wetness, area covered, cover of key species (C. acutiformis), cover of willow and alder scrub, and cover of invasive species (0%). The two desirable species named (meadowsweet and greater willowherb) reach the target of at least occasional but aggregate cover of these two species is in some areas greater than the 30% target – although probably within this limit overall. Passes HQ7. The site does not yet meet the HQ12 target for a mosaic of taller and shorter species. Soils: The site is irrigated by calcareous water. Soil phosphorus content is moderate (but could be considered too high for the development botanical diversity, although this has less impact in wetland sites). Potassium is low. Magnesium content is moderately high, as is nitrogen. The soil nutrients on this site are acceptable.
Soil pH Olsens P Index Soil K Index K Soil MG Index Total N Loss on Total P Organic Soil texture (Water) (mg/l) P (mg/l) (mg/l) MG (%) Ignition Carbon 6.6 16 2 92 1 118 3 0.73 23.5 1117 10.8 Loamy sand
Page 227
Site 85: Erewash Meadows, Ironville, Derbyshire Site Code 85 Grid. ref SK 4450 HLS Options HQ6 Location Ironville, nr Ripley. HLS Supplements HR7 Area (ha) 1.50 Survey Date 22.09.2014 PJW NVC S5
Site: The Erewash Meadows nature reserve is managed by the Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Wildlife Trusts. The surveyed area is in the Derbyshire section of the reserve. Most of the site is floodplain grassland, there are however the remains of former industrial use associated with nearby coal-mining, including railway embankments and track beds, canal wharfs and the Cromford Canal itself. The canal has largely silted-up, and now supports a mosaic of reedswamp and other wetland vegetation. The southernmost section of the canal within the reserve was surveyed. Management: The canal and canal banks are ungrazed. Shrubs of Alnus glutinosa and Salix cinerea are periodically coppiced. Part of the canal has been maintained as open water, but not the area surveyed. Vegetation: The canal supports a mosaic of reedswamp and wetland types. The most widespread dominant species is Glyceria maxima which forms extensive single-species stands and stands associated with Typha latifolia, Phalaris arundinacea and Sparganium erectum, with Urtica dioica and Epilobium hirsutum where drier. These reed-swamps are species-poor, frequent associated species including Galium aparine, Equisetum palustre, Calystegia sepium, Lycopus europaeus, Scrophularia auriculata and Scutellaria galericulata. Where there is a central channel with open water, the most frequent species include Apium nodiflorum, Lemna minor and Rumex hydrolapathum. In some places where the hydroseral succession has developed further, there is a fringe of Rubus fruticosus scrub between the Glyceria maxima swamp and the canal wall, with Urtica dioica, Chamerion angustifolium and Pteridium aquilinum. In one place there is a stand of coppiced Alnus glutinosa. NVC: The Glyceria maxima-dominated swamp is S5a (MATCH coefficient= 49.8). Condition Assessment: The site passes the condition assessment. HLS Indicators of success: The site passes the indicators of success. Soils: Total phosphorus and organic carbon were not included in the soil analysis. Total nitrogen content and loss on ignition were moderately high, probably indicating an accumulation of slowly decomposing leaf-litter. Extractable phosphorus content was high, potassium content was moderate and magnesium content was very high. pH was alkaline.
Soil pH Olsens P Index Soil K Index K Soil MG Index Total Loss on Total Organic Soil texture (Water) (mg/l) P (mg/l) (mg/l) MG N (%) Ignition P Carbon 7.7 26 3 159 2- 457 6 1.2 30.3 0 0 Clay loam
Page 228
Site 86: South Milton Ley SSSI, South Hams, Devon HLS Options HQ6 Grid. ref SX 68 42 HLS Supplements Area (ha) 1.60 Survey Date 18.07.2014 BRW/PJW NVC S26
Statutory Designation South Milton Ley SSSI, Unit 1 – unfavourable recovering (2013)
Site: South Milton Ley SSSI lies in a shallow coastal valley, separated from the sea by a sand bar; it was designated for its c. 12.5 ha of freshwater reedbed. Springs that arise in nearby Upton and South Milton drain out to sea through the Ley, via streams along the northern boundary of the site, and through the southern section, creating a narrowly triangular land parcel with a permanently high water table. The survey unit is the easternmost (upstream) end of the SSSI. The site is owned and managed as a nature reserve by Devon Bird Watching Preservation Society. Management: The management is mostly non-intervention for the fen area. The major aim is to manage the site for its important breeding bird community (reed, sedge and Cetti’s warblers, bearded reedling) for which it is designated. Some tree planting has taken place in an attempt to out-shade the Oenanthe crocata and the overall aim is to promote alder/willow wood for the birds – not to maintain it as open fen. The DBPS feel that the HLS indicators of success for this site are inappropriate. Vegetation: The fen area is a mosaic of wet woodland stands (mostly dominated by Salix cinerea but also with a small stand of Alnus glutinosa–Salix cinerea) and open areas: of either Phragmites– Phalaris swamp or Juncus effusus-dominated fen. Due to the smallness of the site and the very limited area of open fen habitat, quadrats were positioned across all. The swamp was tall and dense with constant low cover Phragmites australis and with constant and abundant Phalaris arundinacea, Oenanthe crocata, Urtica dioica and Calystegia sepium. Additional species at lower cover included Galium aparine and Cirsium palustre. The rush-dominated area was more species rich and had abundant Juncus effusus, with high cover of Oenanthe crocata and frequent wetland associates Scrophularia auriculata, Pulicaria dysenterica, Persicaria amphibia, Glyceria sp., and tree seedlings and saplings (Salix cinerea, Betula pendula, Alnus glutinosa). The wet woodland supported much Urtica dioica in the field layer with Galium aparine, Hedera helix, Epilobium hirsutum, Phyllitis scolopendrium, Dryopteris dilatata and locally abundant Chrysosplenium oppositifolium. NVC: The mosaic of different vegetation communities made MATCH analysis of the NVC community of the site of limited value. The highest coefficients were W6 Alnus glutinosa–Urtica dioica woodland (45.1%) and S26 Phragmites australis–Urtica dioica fen (41.1%). The fen additionally supported M23b Juncus effusus-Galium palustre rush-pasture and W1 Salix cinerea-Galium palustre woodland. Condition Assessment: Fail. There is 10% scrub within the S26/M23b area and 65% scrub over the entire management unit. Urtica dioica is 15% cover overall, which although an undesirable species in some habitats is a typical component of S26. Desirable fen species were few with only very rare individuals of Iris pseudacorus and Lotus pedunculatus. However, Phragmites and Phalaris are also desirable fen species but although constant in the open fen they were rare in the woodland stands. Bare ground was low in the open fen but high (35%) in the woodland. I do not think either the open fen or the woodland would pass a condition assessment for botanical attributes. The wet woodland might fail on lack of different age classes of tree and shrub. HLS Indicators of success: The site passes the IoS of being in a recovering condition, and of wetness. The IoS for occasional desirable species Iris pseudacorus, Epilobium hirsutum and Glyceria maxima was not met as only the former of these occurs. More suitable targets should be set for this site in line with its management for the breeding birds. Soils: The site is irrigated with neutral to mildly acidic water. The soil phosphorus content is high, but potassium content is low and nitrogen moderate.
Soil pH Olsens P Index Soil K Index K Soil MG Index Total N Loss on Total P Organic Soil texture (Water) (mg/l) P (mg/l) (mg/l) MG (%) Ignition Carbon 5.7 40 3 78 1 222 4 0.62 13.8 2053 5.79 Clay
Page 229
Page 230
Page 231