DOCSLIB.ORG

Annex 3: Summary of Evidence ______

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Annex 3: Summary of Evidence ______ Evidence to accompany the Species Biodiversity Indicators – Annex 3: Summary of Evidence __________________________________________________________________________________________ Provision of Evidence to accompany the UK and England Species Trend Indicators and an Overview of the Causes of Biodiversity Change Project Reference BE0112 Annex 3 – Summary of Evidence March 2016 Report authors: Nick Isaac, Mark Eaton, Fiona Burns Contributing authors: Rob Dyer, Tom August, David Roy & Richard Gregory Summary This report is a summary of evidence relating to the eleven species indicators. It is prepared under Defra contract reference BE0112: Provision of Evidence to accompany the UK and England Species Trend Indicators and an Overview of the Causes of Biodiversity Change. The report is arranged into three main sections. Section 1 introduces the eleven species-based measures in the UK Biodiversity Indicators, and the similarities and differences between them. Section 2 describes a work package of the quantitative analyses and section 3 is a literature review on drivers of change. 1 Evidence to accompany the Species Biodiversity Indicators – Annex 3: Summary of Evidence __________________________________________________________________________________________ Contents Technical report – Summary of Evidence .......................................................................................................... 1 Summary ............................................................................................................................................................ 1 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 3 2. Quantitative analysis of the biodiversity indicators ...................................................................................... 7 2.1. Homogeneity (WP 1.1) ........................................................................................................................... 9 2.1.1. Aim ................................................................................................................................................... 9 2.1.2. Background ...................................................................................................................................... 9 2.1.3. Approach ....................................................................................................................................... 10 2.1.4. Results ........................................................................................................................................... 11 2.1.5. Interpretation ................................................................................................................................ 13 2.2. Spatio-temporal biases (WP 1.2) .......................................................................................................... 13 2.2.1. Aim ................................................................................................................................................. 13 2.2.2. Background .................................................................................................................................... 13 2.2.3. General Approach .......................................................................................................................... 13 2.2.4. To what degree are the datasets biased by country and landcover? ........................................... 14 2.2.6. To what degree are sample locations randomly distributed in space? ........................................ 16 2.2.7. To what degree do spatial biases increase over time? ................................................................. 19 2.2.8. Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 20 2.3. Sensitivity to the time-window of assessment (WP 1.3) ...................................................................... 20 2.3.1. Aim ................................................................................................................................................. 20 2.3.2. Background .................................................................................................................................... 20 2.3.3. General Approach .......................................................................................................................... 20 2.3.4. Long-term assessment ................................................................................................................... 20 2.3.5. Length of window for Short-term assessment .............................................................................. 22 2.3.6. Interpretation ................................................................................................................................ 23 3. Literature Review on Drivers of Change (WP2) .......................................................................................... 25 3.1 What evidence is there for changes before the start of the index (WP2.1)? ........................................ 25 3.2 What are the drivers of change? ........................................................................................................... 27 3.2.1 Methods ......................................................................................................................................... 27 3.2.1. C4a. Status of priority species – relative abundance .................................................................... 35 3.2.2. C4b. Status of priority species – frequency of occurrence – insects ............................................. 39 3.2.3. C5a. Farmland birds ....................................................................................................................... 44 3.2.4. C5b. Woodland birds ..................................................................................................................... 47 3.2.5. C5c. Wetland birds ........................................................................................................................ 50 3.2.6. C5d. Seabirds ................................................................................................................................. 53 3.2.7 C5e. Wintering waterbirds ............................................................................................................. 55 3.2.8. C6a. Insects of the countryside - Semi-natural habitat specialists ................................................ 58 3.2.9. C6a. Insects of the countryside - Species of the wider countryside .............................................. 61 3.2.10. C8. Mammals of the Countryside ................................................................................................ 64 3.2.11. D1c. Status of Pollinating Insects................................................................................................. 67 3.3 To what extent are the same drivers operating across indicators (WP2.3)? ........................................ 73 3.4 Consequences of change ...................................................................................................................... 76 3.4.1. What are the broader implications of the changes in the biodiversity indicators for biodiversity more generally? ....................................................................................................................................... 76 3.4.2. What do the trends tell us about ecosystem services and natural capital? ................................. 77 3.5 Bibliography ........................................................................................................................................... 80 4. References ................................................................................................................................................... 81 5. Glossary ....................................................................................................................................................... 85 6. Annex: Aichi Targets relevant to Species Indicators ................................................................................... 86 2 Evidence to accompany the Species Biodiversity Indicators – Annex 3: Summary of Evidence __________________________________________________________________________________________ 1. Introduction The “UK Biodiversity Indicators” show changes in the status of wildlife through a series of trend assessments. Until 2014, these were published under the title “Biodiversity in Your Pocket” (BIYP). Eleven ‘species indicators’ are generated from observations of wild animals (table 1.1). This project, BE0112, was conceived to conduct a formal review of evidence about the species indicators at UK and England levels. Table 1.1: Summary statistics for the 11 biodiversity indicators to be considered in this project. Statistics are for the 2014 version of the indicators: in the 2015 version two indicators (C4b and D1c) were substantially overhauled and others experienced minor changes to methodology and species composition. Total refers to the number of species contributing to the indicator; Unique is the number of species that do not contribute to other indicators. End is the last year for which the indicator was assessed in 2014 (for birds and butterflies there is one extra year of data). Indicator UK reference
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Metamorphosis Naturalis“ – Eine Entomologische Kostbarkeit Aus Der Bibliothek Des „Aquazoo/ Löbbecke- Museum Düsseldorf“
    ZOBODAT - www.zobodat.at Zoologisch-Botanische Datenbank/Zoological-Botanical Database Digitale Literatur/Digital Literature Zeitschrift/Journal: Entomologie heute Jahr/Year: 2012 Band/Volume: 24 Autor(en)/Author(s): Greven Hartmut, Stoll Silke Artikel/Article: Ein Band von GOEDAERTs niederländischer Ausgabe der „Metamorphosis naturalis“ – eine entomologische Kostbarkeit aus der Bibliothek des „Aquazoo/ Löbbecke- Museum Düsseldorf“. A Volume of GOEDAERT‘s Dutch Edition of the “Metamorphosis naturalis” – an Entomological Treasure from the Library of the “Aquazoo/ Löbbecke-Museum Düsseldorf” 217-264 Ein Band von GOEDAERTs niederländischer Ausgabe der „Metamorphosis naturalis“ 217 Entomologie heute 24 (2012): 217-263 Ein Band von GOEDAERTs niederländischer Ausgabe der „Metamorphosis naturalis“ – eine entomologische Kostbarkeit aus der Bibliothek des „Aquazoo/ Löbbecke- Museum Düsseldorf“ A Volume of GOEDAERT‘s Dutch Edition of the “Metamorphosis naturalis” – an Entomological Treasure from the Library of the “Aquazoo/ Löbbecke-Museum Düsseldorf” HARTMUT GREVEN & SILKE STOLL Zusammenfassung: Wir stellen den ersten Band der von dem Miniatur-, Landschafts- und Aquarellmaler JOHANNES GOEDAERT (1617-1668) verfassten und mit kolorierten Kupferstichen versehenen seltenen niederländischen Ausgabe der „Metamorphosis naturalis“ vor. Das Buch befi ndet sich im Besitz der Bibliothek des „Aquazoo/Löbbecke-Museum Düsseldorf“ und stammt aus dem Nachlass THEODOR LÖBBECKEs (1821-1901), dem Gründer des Museums. Es ist, wie auch die beiden anderen Bände des insgesamt dreibändigen Werkes, undatiert; handschriftlich ist jedoch das Jahr 1662 hinzugefügt. Beiträge des Middelburger Arztes und Pfarrherrn JOANNIS DE MEY, der zwei der insgesamt drei Bände der „Metamorphosis naturalis“ ins Lateinische übersetzt und diese mit zahlreichen Zusätzen versehen hat, sind im ersten Band der niederländischen Ausgabe bis auf eine Zusammenfassung der Vorreden aus ALDROVANDIs sieben Insektenbüchern und einem Bei- trag über Ephemeriden nicht einwandfrei zu identifi zieren.
    [Show full text]
  • Bilimsel Araştırma Projesi (8.011Mb)
    1 T.C. GAZİOSMANPAŞA ÜNİVERSİTESİ Bilimsel Araştırma Projeleri Komisyonu Sonuç Raporu Proje No: 2008/26 Projenin Başlığı AMASYA, SİVAS VE TOKAT İLLERİNİN KELKİT HAVZASINDAKİ FARKLI BÖCEK TAKIMLARINDA BULUNAN TACHINIDAE (DIPTERA) TÜRLERİ ÜZERİNDE ÇALIŞMALAR Proje Yöneticisi Prof.Dr. Kenan KARA Bitki Koruma Anabilim Dalı Araştırmacı Turgut ATAY Bitki Koruma Anabilim Dalı (Kasım / 2011) 2 T.C. GAZİOSMANPAŞA ÜNİVERSİTESİ Bilimsel Araştırma Projeleri Komisyonu Sonuç Raporu Proje No: 2008/26 Projenin Başlığı AMASYA, SİVAS VE TOKAT İLLERİNİN KELKİT HAVZASINDAKİ FARKLI BÖCEK TAKIMLARINDA BULUNAN TACHINIDAE (DIPTERA) TÜRLERİ ÜZERİNDE ÇALIŞMALAR Proje Yöneticisi Prof.Dr. Kenan KARA Bitki Koruma Anabilim Dalı Araştırmacı Turgut ATAY Bitki Koruma Anabilim Dalı (Kasım / 2011) ÖZET* 3 AMASYA, SİVAS VE TOKAT İLLERİNİN KELKİT HAVZASINDAKİ FARKLI BÖCEK TAKIMLARINDA BULUNAN TACHINIDAE (DIPTERA) TÜRLERİ ÜZERİNDE ÇALIŞMALAR Yapılan bu çalışma ile Amasya, Sivas ve Tokat illerinin Kelkit havzasına ait kısımlarında bulunan ve farklı böcek takımlarında parazitoit olarak yaşayan Tachinidae (Diptera) türleri, bunların tanımları ve yayılışlarının ortaya konulması amaçlanmıştır. Bunun için farklı böcek takımlarına ait türler laboratuvarda kültüre alınarak parazitoit olarak yaşayan Tachinidae türleri elde edilmiştir. Kültüre alınan Lepidoptera takımına ait türler içerisinden, Euproctis chrysorrhoea (L.), Lymantria dispar (L.), Malacosoma neustrium (L.), Smyra dentinosa Freyer, Thaumetopoea solitaria Freyer, Thaumetopoea sp. ve Vanessa sp.,'den parazitoit elde edilmiş,
    [Show full text]
  • Hymenoptera) in Isparta, Turkey 1969-1984 © Biologiezentrum Linz/Austria; Download Unter
    ZOBODAT - www.zobodat.at Zoologisch-Botanische Datenbank/Zoological-Botanical Database Digitale Literatur/Digital Literature Zeitschrift/Journal: Linzer biologische Beiträge Jahr/Year: 2009 Band/Volume: 0041_2 Autor(en)/Author(s): Gürbüz Mehmet Faruk, Aksoylar Mehmet Yasar, Buncukcu Aysegül Artikel/Article: A Faunistic study on Ichneumonidae (Hymenoptera) in Isparta, Turkey 1969-1984 © Biologiezentrum Linz/Austria; download unter www.biologiezentrum.at Linzer biol. Beitr. 41/2 1969-1984 18.12.2009 A Faunistic study on Ichneumonidae (Hymenoptera) in Isparta, Turkey M.F. GÜRBÜZ, M.Y. AKSOYLAR & A. BUNCUKÇU A b s t r a c t : We have investigated Ichneumonidae fauna of Isparta province between 2001-2007 in Turkey. Totally, 46 species, 36 genera, 12 subfamilies were found; 4 species from Anomaloninae, 6 species from Banchinae, 3 species from Campoplaginae, 4 species from Cryptinae, 14 species from Ctenopelmatinae, 4 species from Pimplinae, 2 species from Ophioninae, 5 species from Typhoninae, 1 species from Cremastinae, Metopiinae, Collyriinae and Diplazontinae. 1 genera and six species, noted in the text by asterisk, are new records for Turkey. The synonyms, general and Turkish distribution and as well as known host of all species were given. K e y w o r d s : Hymenoptera, Ichneumonidae, Fauna, Turkey. Introduction In Turkey, the past studies about Ichneumonidae were inadequate to make precise esti- mations about the existance of species. On the other hand, it is known that Turkey with its high diverse biota is expected to provide a very rich fauna of Ichneumonidae as well as other insects (ÖZBEK et al. 2003). Isparta is one of the most important refugias of Turkey, possessing different topographic conditions and various kind of climates (GRUEV 2002).
    [Show full text]
  • Diversity of the Moth Fauna (Lepidoptera: Heterocera) of a Wetland Forest: a Case Study from Motovun Forest, Istria, Croatia
    PERIODICUM BIOLOGORUM UDC 57:61 VOL. 117, No 3, 399–414, 2015 CODEN PDBIAD DOI: 10.18054/pb.2015.117.3.2945 ISSN 0031-5362 original research article Diversity of the moth fauna (Lepidoptera: Heterocera) of a wetland forest: A case study from Motovun forest, Istria, Croatia Abstract TONI KOREN1 KAJA VUKOTIĆ2 Background and Purpose: The Motovun forest located in the Mirna MITJA ČRNE3 river valley, central Istria, Croatia is one of the last lowland floodplain 1 Croatian Herpetological Society – Hyla, forests remaining in the Mediterranean area. Lipovac I. n. 7, 10000 Zagreb Materials and Methods: Between 2011 and 2014 lepidopterological 2 Biodiva – Conservation Biologist Society, research was carried out on 14 sampling sites in the area of Motovun forest. Kettejeva 1, 6000 Koper, Slovenia The moth fauna was surveyed using standard light traps tents. 3 Biodiva – Conservation Biologist Society, Results and Conclusions: Altogether 403 moth species were recorded Kettejeva 1, 6000 Koper, Slovenia in the area, of which 65 can be considered at least partially hygrophilous. These results list the Motovun forest as one of the best surveyed regions in Correspondence: Toni Koren Croatia in respect of the moth fauna. The current study is the first of its kind [email protected] for the area and an important contribution to the knowledge of moth fauna of the Istria region, and also for Croatia in general. Key words: floodplain forest, wetland moth species INTRODUCTION uring the past 150 years, over 300 papers concerning the moths Dand butterflies of Croatia have been published (e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8).
    [Show full text]
  • Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation Wales Guidance (Pdf)
    Wildlife Sites Guidance Wales A Guide to Develop Local Wildlife Systems in Wales Wildlife Sites Guidance Wales A Guide to Develop Local Wildlife Systems in Wales Foreword The Welsh Assembly Government’s Environment Strategy for Wales, published in May 2006, pays tribute to the intrinsic value of biodiversity – ‘the variety of life on earth’. The Strategy acknowledges the role biodiversity plays, not only in many natural processes, but also in the direct and indirect economic, social, aesthetic, cultural and spiritual benefits that we derive from it. The Strategy also acknowledges that pressures brought about by our own actions and by other factors, such as climate change, have resulted in damage to the biodiversity of Wales and calls for a halt to this loss and for the implementation of measures to bring about a recovery. Local Wildlife Sites provide essential support between and around our internationally and nationally designated nature sites and thus aid our efforts to build a more resilient network for nature in Wales. The Wildlife Sites Guidance derives from the shared knowledge and experience of people and organisations throughout Wales and beyond and provides a common point of reference for the most effective selection of Local Wildlife Sites. I am grateful to the Wales Biodiversity Partnership for developing the Wildlife Sites Guidance. The contribution and co-operation of organisations and individuals across Wales are vital to achieving our biodiversity targets. I hope that you will find the Wildlife Sites Guidance a useful tool in the battle against biodiversity loss and that you will ensure that it is used to its full potential in order to derive maximum benefit for the vitally important and valuable nature in Wales.
    [Show full text]
  • Issue Full File
    BİLGE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH VOLUME: 4 ISSUE: 2 2020 ISSN: 2651-401X e-ISSN: 2651-4028 Owner: Dr. Hamza KANDEMİR Editor in Chief: Prof. Dr. Kürşad ÖZKAN Co-Editor: Editorial Advisory Board: Editorial Board: Dr. Mustafa KARABOYACI Ahmet AKSOY, Prof. Dr. Ali Cesur ONMAZ, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Akdeniz University, Turkey Erciyes University, Turkey Technical Editors: Res. Asst. Abdullah BERAM Amer KANAN, Prof. Dr. Asko Tapio LEHTİJÄRVİ, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Instructor Serkan ÖZDEMİR Al-Quds University, Palestine Bursa Technical University, Turkey Cüneyt ÇIRAK, Prof. Dr. Halil GÖKÇE, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Layout Editors: Ondokuz Mayıs University, Turkey Giresun University, Turkey Instructor Doğan AKDEMİR MSc. Tunahan ÇINAR Ender MAKİNECİ, Prof. Dr. Kubilay AKÇAÖZOĞLU, Assoc. Prof. Dr. İstanbul University, Turkey Niğde Ömer Halisdemir University, Turkey Cover designer: Instructor Serkan ÖZDEMİR Gülcan ÖZKAN, Prof. Dr. Şule Sultan UĞUR, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Süleyman Demirel University, Turkey Suleyman Demirel University, Turkey Press: Kutbilge Association of Academicians İbrahim ÖZDEMİR, Prof. Dr. Ahmet MERT, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Distribution, Sales, Publisher; Certificate Isparta University of Applied Sciences, Turkey No: 42086 Isparta University of Applied Sciences, Turkey 32040, Isparta, TURKEY Kari HELİÖVAARA, Prof. Dr. Ayşe KOCABIYIK, Asst. Prof. Dr. University of Helsinki, Finland Suleyman Demirel University, Turkey Contact: Kutbilge Association of Academicians, Kırali MÜRTEZAOĞLU, Prof. Dr. Fecir DURAN, Asst. Prof. Dr. 32040, Isparta, TURKEY Gazi University, Turkey Gazi University, Turkey Web : dergipark.gov.tr/bilgesci Mehmet KILIÇ, Prof. Dr. Kubilay TAŞDELEN, Asst. Prof. Dr. E-mail : [email protected] Suleyman Demirel University, Turkey Suleyman Demirel University, Turkey Mehmet KİTİŞ, Prof. Dr. Nuri ÖZTÜRK, Asst. Prof. Dr. Suleyman Demirel University, Turkey Giresun University, Turkey Mohamed Lahbib BEN JAMAA, Prof.
    [Show full text]
  • Hymenoptera) from Turkey
    Turkish Journal of Zoology Turk J Zool (2016) 40: 625-629 http://journals.tubitak.gov.tr/zoology/ © TÜBİTAK Short Communication doi:10.3906/zoo-1510-10 A new and additional records of the Ichneumonidae (Hymenoptera) from Turkey Saliha ÇORUH*, Önder ÇALMAŞUR Department of Plant Protection, Faculty of Agriculture, Atatürk University, Erzurum, Turkey Received: 05.10.2015 Accepted/Published Online: 22.02.2016 Final Version: 09.06.2016 Abstract: Faunistic data of 13 Ichneumonidae species from Turkey, including Artvin, Bayburt, Erzincan, Erzurum, Kars, and Trabzon, are presented from 2005–2010. A total of 25 specimens belonging to Acaenitinae, Anomaloninae, Banchinae, Campopleginae, Cryptinae, Metopiinae, Ophioninae, Orthocentrinae, Pimplinae, and Tryphoninae have been recorded. Orthocentrus marginatus Holmgren is newly added to the Turkish fauna and Buathra laborator Thunberg is a new host for Malacosoma neustria (L.) in Turkey. New distribution data of 12 known species are added. Key words: Hymenoptera, Ichneumonidae, new records, Orthocentrinae, Orthocentrus Parasitic hymenopterans, a big insect group having The present study is based mainly in the northeastern wide significance in terrestrial ecosystems (Shaw and part of Anatolia, including Artvin, Bayburt, Erzurum, Hochberg, 2001), constitute a specialized group of Erzincan, Kars, and Trabzon provinces, during 2005–2010. Hymenoptera, one of the mega insect orders (Stevens et. The material was collected via various methods: by sweeping al., 2007). Ichneumonidae is the biggest hymenopteran vegetation, especially flowering plants, with an insect net; family with 1579 genera and 24,281 described species by Malaise trap, which was used in Karakurt (Sarıkamış, (Yu et al., 2012). This family is probably the most diverse Kars Province); and by rearing and collection in laboratory animal family (Grissell, 1999).
    [Show full text]
  • Landscape-Scale Conservation of Farmland Moths
    CHAPTER 8 Landscape-scale conservation of farmland moths Thomas Merckx and David W. Macdonald When through the old oak forest I am gone, Let me not wander in a barren dream John Keats, On Sitting Down to Read King Lear Once Again. 8.1 Scope of agri-environment schemes the ecosystem services (such as crop pollination, pest control, water retention, and soil protection) provided Biodiversity has declined substantially throughout by the adjoining non-farmed land. Nevertheless, some much of the European wider countryside. The most biodiversity of the original ecosystems may be re- promising tools to reverse these declines are widely tained within farmland ecosystems, its amount heavily thought to be agri-environment schemes (AES) (Don- dependent on the spatial extent and degree of farm- ald and Evans 2006). These governmental schemes land intensification. Indeed, although species typic- provide financial rewards for ‘environmentally ally ‘prefer’ one ecosystem, they often occur in, and friendly’ methods of farmland management. However, use resources from, neighbouring ecosystems (Pereira AES do not always produce significant biodiversity and Daily 2006; Dennis 2010). As such, many species benefits (Kleijn et al. 2006; Batáry et al. 2010). For ex- may manage to persist within farmland systems, with ample, in the UK, the broad and shallow ‘Entry Level at least some of them, such as the speckled wood Pa- Stewardship’ has often been unrewarding for wildlife rarge aegeria, originally a woodland butterfly, adapting (e.g. Davey et al. 2010, but see Baker et al. 2012), but, to these ‘novel’ ecosystems (Merckx et al. 2003). As a in many cases, the more targeted ‘higher level’ scheme result, extensively farmed systems can often be char- has exceeded expectations (Jeremy Thomas, pers.
    [Show full text]
  • The Lepidoptera of Bucharest and Its Surroundings (Romania)
    Travaux du Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle © 30 Décembre Vol. LIV (2) pp. 461–512 «Grigore Antipa» 2011 DOI: 10.2478/v10191-011-0028-9 THE LEPIDOPTERA OF BUCHAREST AND ITS SURROUNDINGS (ROMANIA) LEVENTE SZÉKELY Abstract. This study presents a synthesis of the current knowledge regarding the Lepidoptera fauna of Bucharest and the surrounding areas within a distance up to 50 kilometers around the Romanian capital. Data about the fauna composition are presented: the results of the research work beginning with the end of the 19th century, as well the results of the research work carried out in the last 15 years. The research initiated and done by the author himself, led to the identification of 180 species which were unknown in the past. Even if the natural habitats from this region have undergone through radical changes in the 20th century, the area still preserves a quite rich and interesting Lepidoptera fauna. The forests provide shelter to rich populations of the hawk moth Dolbina elegans A. Bang-Haas, 1912, one of the rarest Sphingidae in Europe, and some other species with high faunistical and zoogeographical value as: Noctua haywardi (Tams, 1926) (it is new record for the Romanian fauna from this area), Catocala dilecta (Hübner, 1808), Tarachidia candefacta (Hübner, [1831]), Chrysodeixis chalcites (Esper, [1789]), Aedia leucomelas (Linnaeus, 1758), and Hecatera cappa (Hübner, [1809]). We also present and discuss the current status of the protected Lepidoptera species from the surroundings of the Romanian capital for the first time. Résumé. Ce travail représente une synthèse des connaissances actuelles concernant la faune de lépidoptères de Bucarest et de ses zones limitrophes sur un rayon de 50 km autour de la capitale de la Roumanie.
    [Show full text]
  • Policy and Legislation Summary
    © Ian Wallace Policy and Legislation Summary Legal disclaimer Whilst every effort has been made to be accurate in explaining complex legislation in layman’s language, this document does not constitute legal advice and neither the authors nor Buglife can guarantee the accuracy thereof. Anyone using the information does so at his/her own risk and shall be deemed to indemnify Buglife from any and all injury or damage arising from such use. SPECIES STATUS: LISTS OF INVERTEBRATE SPECIES COVERED BY POLICY AND LEGISLATION IN THE UK The following tables list the invertebrate species covered by the UK’s domestic wildlife legislation, national biodiversity policies and relevant international statutes. Most of these measures aim to protect vulnerable species, but some invasive alien species are also covered by legislation. The tables are as follows: 1. UK invertebrate species protected by international statutes 2A. Invertebrate species listed on Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) for England and Wales and the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004. 2B. Invertebrate species protected under the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 (as amended) 3A. Invertebrate species listed under Section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act for England and under Section 42 for Wales 3B. Invertebrate species of principal importance for the conservation of biodiversity in Scotland 4. Invertebrate species endangered by trade and listed under the EU CITES Regulations 5A. Invertebrate species listed on Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 9 (as amended) 5B. Invertebrate species listed on Schedule 9 of the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order (as amended) Further information For up to date information on UK legislation visit http://www.legislation.gov.uk.
    [Show full text]
  • Pest List for the Importation of Fresh Fruit of Apple, Malus
    Pest List for the Importation of Fresh Fruit of Apple, Malus domestica, and Pear, Pyrus communis, into the Continental United States from seven countries in the European Union (Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, Portugal, Spain, the Netherlands) July 2, 2014 Version 4 Agency Contact: Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory Center for Plant Health Science and Technology United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Plant Protection and Quarantine 1730 Varsity Drive, Suite 300 Raleigh, NC 27606 Pest List for Apples and Pears from the European Union 1. Introduction 1.1. Initiation The Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory of the United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine, Center for Plant Health Science and Technology prepared this pest list to examine potential pest risks associated with the importation of fresh fruit of apple, Malus domestica, and pear, Pyrus communis (Rosaceae), from the European Union (EU) states of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, Portugal, Spain, and the Netherlands into the continental United States. This pest list is commodity-based or “pathway-initiated” because apples and pears are potential pathways for the introduction of plant pests. The movement of fruits and vegetables from foreign countries, such as those in the EU, into the United States is regulated in 7 CFR §319.56 (2011). Currently, the entry of fresh apple and pear from the Belgium, Germany (apple only), France, Italy, Portugal, Spain, and the Netherlands into the continental United States occurs through a preclearance program; the governments of those countries seek a change in the Federal Regulation to allow entry using a systems approach.
    [Show full text]
  • Distribution of Some European Lepidoptera
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by University of Belgrade - Faculty of Biology: Open Journal Systems Acta entomologica serbica, 2019, 24(2): 11-41 UDC: 595.783(4) 595.783-169(4) DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.3529669 DISTRIBUTION OF SOME EUROPEAN LEPIDOPTERA BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF THEIR NON-ADULT STAGES PRESENTED THROUGH TROPHIC ASSOCIATIONS AND A QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF THEIR PARASITOIDS VLADIMIR ŽIKIĆ1*, RUDOLF RITT2, MARCO COLACCI3, BOŽENKA HRIC4, SAŠA S. STANKOVIĆ1, MARIJANA ILIĆ MILOŠEVIĆ1, MAJA LAZAREVIĆ1, KATARINA KOS5, DAWID MARCZAK6, YERAY MONASTERIO LEÓN7, MIHAILO VUJIĆ8, ROMAN MAGLIĆ9 and JOSEF DE FREINA10 1 Faculty of Sciences and Mathematics, Department of Biology and Ecology, University of Niš, Višegradska 33, 18000 Niš, Serbia E-mail: [email protected] (corresponding author) 2 Sonneneck 7, 94051 Hauzenberg, Germany 3 Department of Agriculture, Environmental and Food Sciences, University of Molise, Via de Sanctis, 86100 Campobasso, Italy 4 Jovana Popovića 72, 22300 Stara Pazova, Serbia 5 Biotechnical Faculty, Department of Agronomy, University of Ljubljana, Jamnikarjeva 101, 1111 Ljubljana, Slovenia 6 Faculty of Engineering and Management, University of Ecology and Management in Warsaw, 12 Olszewska Street, 00-792 Warsaw, Poland 7 Asociación Española para la Protección de las Mariposas y su Medio (Zerynthia) Madre de Dios, 14-7D. 26004 Logroño, La Rioja, Spain 8 Bulevar Revolucije 33, 11224 Vrčin, Serbia 9 Krležina 31, 52100 Pula, Croatia 10 Museum Witt, Tengstraße 33, 81541 Munchen, Germany Abstract We examined 638 Lepidoptera specimens on the territories of 13 European countries in our search for parasitoids. We collected eggs, larvae and pupae.
    [Show full text]