EXMOOR MOORLAND BREEDING BIRD SURVEY 2002

Report Simon Geary

Fieldwork Simon Geary, Lyndon Roberts, Simon Tonkin

October 2002 RSPB SWRO, Keble House, Southernhay Gardens, Exeter. EX1 1NT

Registered charity no. 207076 SUMMARY

A breeding bird survey was completed of moorland on Exmoor (Section 3 Moor and Heath), covering 153.7 km2 using an adaptation of the Brown and Shepherd (1993) methodology. Survey areas were visited twice, the first visits took place from 16 April–31 May 2002, and the second visits from 1 June–12 July 2002.

Population estimates were obtained for 23 target species. In some instances, where survey data was insufficient, supplementary records from surveyors and other birdwatchers were used to produce best estimates.

Eight species have declined since 1992/93, four species have maintained stable populations, four species have indeterminable trends, six species have increased and there has been one colonist. The decreases were of red grouse, lapwing, curlew, skylark, tree pipit, whinchat, wheatear, and ring ouzel, whilst the increases were of meadow pipit, redstart, stonechat, grasshopper warbler, linnet and reed bunting. Dartford warbler has colonised in the past 10 years. Trends were indeterminable for the previously unsurveyed cuckoo, whitethroat, carrion crow and yellowhammer. Exmoor populations of stonechat and whinchat, are of international importance, whereas the Dartford Warbler population is of national importance. Populations of snipe, curlew, cuckoo, tree pipit, redstart, grasshopper warbler, linnet, and reed bunting are of regional importance.

Meadow pipit and skylark were the most abundant and widespread species, with skylark more abundant on grass moor. Of the remaining species, linnet, then stonechat and whinchat were the next most widespread and abundant heathland species.

Indications are that moorland management prescriptions under the ESA scheme are having a positive effect on most Exmoor moorland bird populations in areas where they are in operation. However, localised overgrazing, swaling and scrub encroachment, is causing habitat change within some combes, which may be contributing to declines in the breeding populations of tree pipit, whinchat and ring ouzel.

Bird populations and population trends on Exmoor moorland 1992/93-2002

Target Species 2002 population Apparent change Importance level estimate (pairs) since 1992/93 of population Hen harrier 0 None Merlin 2-3* Stable Regional Red grouse Extinct? Decline Regional? Quail 2 Stable Regional Lapwing Extinct? Decline Regional? Snipe 8-9 Stable Regional Curlew 5 Decline Regional Cuckoo 65 ? Regional Skylark 1290 Decline Regional Tree pipit 129 Decline Regional Meadow pipit 2640 Increase Regional Redstart 131 Increase Regional Whinchat 292 Decline International Stonechat 468 Increase International Wheatear 57 Decline Regional Ring ouzel 4-5* Decline? Regional Grasshopper warbler 52 Increase Regional Dartford warbler 68 Recent colonist National Whitethroat 129 ? Carrion crow 232 ? Linnet 420 Increase Regional Yellowhammer 73 ? Reed bunting 165 Increase Regional

* based on supplementary records

i CONTENTS

Summary…...... i

List of Tables...... vi

List of Figures...... vii

List of Appendices...... viii

Acknowledgements...... ix

1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1

1.1 Exmoor moorland ...... 1

1.1.1 Physical characteristics...... 1 1.1.2 Conservation designations...... 1 1.1.3 Exmoor moorland habitats ...... 1 1.1.4 Past survey work...... 1

1.2 Aims & Objectives ...... 1

2. SURVEY AREA & METHODS ...... 3

2.1 Survey Area ...... 3

2.2 Field methods...... 3

2.3 Analysis and interpretation...... 4

2.4 Habitat recording...... 4

2.5 Supplementary fieldwork...... 4

2.6 Access...... 4

2.7 Archive ...... 4

3. RESULTS...... 5

3.1 Contents of species accounts...... 5

3.2 Species Accounts ...... 6

3.2.1 Merlin...... 6 3.2.2 Red grouse...... 6 3.2.3 Lapwing...... 6 3.2.4 Snipe...... 7 3.2.5 Curlew ...... 7

ii 3.2.6 Cuckoo...... 8 3.2.7 Skylark...... 8 3.2.8 Tree pipit ...... 9 3.2.9 Meadow pipit...... 10 3.2.10 Grey wagtail...... 11 3.2.11 Dipper...... 11 3.2.12 Redstart...... 12 3.2.13 Whinchat ...... 12 3.2.14 Stonechat ...... 14 3.2.15 Wheatear...... 14 3.2.16 Ring ouzel...... 15 3.2.17 Grasshopper warbler ...... 15 3.2.18 Dartford warbler ...... 16 3.2.19 Common whitethroat ...... 16 3.2.20 Carrion crow ...... 17 3.2.21 Linnet...... 17 3.2.22 Yellowhammer ...... 18 3.2.23 Reed bunting...... 18

3.3 Non-target species...... 19

3.3.1 Quail...... 19 3.3.2 Kestrel ...... 19 3.3.3 Lesser redpoll...... 19

4. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ...... 20

4.1 Population changes since 1992/93...... 20

4.1.1 Population changes 1992/93 to 1996...... 20 4.1.2 Population 1992/93 to 2002...... 20

4.2 Importance of Exmoor moorland for breeding birds...... 21

4.2.1 Internationally important populations...... 21

4.2.1.1 Stonechat...... 21 4.2.1.2 Whinchat ...... 21

4.2.2 Nationally important populations ...... 21

4.2.2.1 Dartford warbler ...... 22

4.2.3 Regionally important populations ...... 22

4.2.3.1 Merlin ...... 22 4.2.3.2 Waders...... 22 4.2.3.3 Redstart ...... 22 4.2.3.4 Wheatear ...... 23 4.2.3.5 Ring ouzel ...... 23 4.2.3.6 Other target species ...... 23

iii 4.3 Important habitats and sites for breeding birds on Exmoor moorland...... 23

4.3.1 Important habitats...... 23

4.3.1.1 Valley mires ...... 23 4.3.1.2 Blanket mire...... 23 4.3.1.3 Upland heath...... 24 4.3.1.4 Combes...... 24 4.3.1.5 Lowland heath...... 24 4.3.1.6 Moorland fringe/bracken/scrub ...... 24

4.3.2 Important sites...... 24

4.4 Comparison of bird populations in Exmoor ESA Grazing Units 1992/93 to 2002 ...... 25

4.4.1 Overview of grazing units and ESA agreements...... 25

4.4.2 Grazing Units with Tier 1(5) agreements (heather moorland)...... 25

4.4.2.1 Grazing Units 1 & 2. Holdstone/Trentishoe Down & Bossington/Selworthy Hill ...... 25 4.4.2.2 Grazing Unit 6. Manor Allotment ...... 25 4.4.2.3 Grazing Unit 8. Molland Common ...... 25 4.4.2.4 Grazing Unit 10. Prescott Down...... 26 4.4.2.5 Grazing Unit 12. Winsford Hill/Common...... 26

4.4.3 Grazing Units with Tier 1(4) agreement (grass moor) ...... 26

4.4.3.1 Grazing Unit 4. Woodbarrow Hangings ...... 26 4.4.3.2 Grazing Unit 7. Verneys Allotment...... 26

4.4.4 Grazing Units without ESA agreements...... 26

4.4.4.1 Grazing Unit 3. Castle Common...... 26 4.4.4.2 Grazing Unit 8. Brendon Common...... 26

4.4.5 Tier 2(1) agreement (not randomly selected)...... 26

4.4.5.1 Grazing Unit 11. Winsford Allotment...... 26

4.4.6 Discussion ...... 27

4.5 Exmoor moorland bird populations compared with Dartmoor and Bodmin Moor ...... 27

4.6 Recommendations for maintaining/enhancing breeding bird populations ...... 28

4.6.1 Exmoor Heaths (candidate) Special Area of Conservation ...... 28 4.6.2 Environmentally Sensitive Area scheme ...... 29

iv 4.6.3 Grazing Pressure ...... 29 4.6.4 Swaling ...... 29 4.6.5 Vehicular access...... 29 4.6.6 Heather moorland management...... 29 4.6.7 Scrub control...... 30 4.6.8 Predator control...... 30

4.7 Improvements to current methodology and suggestions for further monitoring and research ...... 30

REFERENCES...... 31

TABLES ...... 33

FIGURES ...... 53

APPENDICES...... 75

v LIST OF TABLES

1 Changes of ≥ 50% in Tree pipit numbers in squares that held at least three pairs in 1992/93 10

2 Disappearances and declines of Whinchat between 1992/93 and 2002 Disappearances are from squares holding at least three pairs in 1992/93 Declines are of at least 50% in squares that held at least five pairs in 1992/93 13

3 Comparison of the number of territories per moorland subarea 1992/93-2002 34

4 Towards a bird conservation strategy for Exmoor moorland 35

5 Breeding bird populations of Exmoor moorland SSSIs and Exmoor Heaths cSAC 36

6 Recommendations for enhancing populations of target species recently breeding on Exmoor moorland, and current best sites (localised species) and squares with highest counts (dispersed species) 37

7 Comparison of bird populations on 1992/93 with those in 2002 at 11 moorland Grazing Units with long-standing ESA agreements or Non-agreements in 1993/94 40

8 The percentage of the population change within each moorland subarea that can be attributed to the population change in a Grazing Unit within the subarea 41

9 Breeding birds of open moorland in Cornwall, Devon and Somerset 42

10 Bird population comparisons of South West uplands 43

11 Distribution of bird territories on Exmoor moorland by 1-km square 44

12 Population changes from 1992/93 to 2002 of species that may be sensitive 51 to, or indicate, moorland habitat change (listed by moorland subarea)

vi LIST OF FIGURES

1 ENPA Moor and Heath map showing areas covered by the Exmoor moorland bird survey

2 Distribution of breeding territories for snipe, curlew, and ring ouzel in subareas 1 to 7

3 Distribution of breeding territories for snipe and curlew in subareas 8 to 13

4 Distribution of breeding territories for whinchat, stonechat and wheatear in subareas 1 to 7

5 Distribution of breeding territories for whinchat, stonechat and wheatear in subareas 8 to 13

6 Distribution of breeding territories for stonechat and wheatear in subareas 14 to 19

7 Distribution of breeding territories of cuckoo, tree pipit, Dartford warbler and yellowhammer in subareas 1 to 7

8 Distribution of breeding territories for cuckoo, tree pipit, Dartford warbler and yellowhammer in subareas 8 to 13

9 Distribution of breeding territories for cuckoo, tree pipit, Dartford warbler and yellowhammer in subareas 14 to 19

10 Distribution of breeding territories of grasshopper warbler and reed bunting in subareas 1 to 7

11 Distribution of breeding territories of grasshopper warbler and reed bunting in subareas 8 to 13

12 Distribution of skylark individuals in subareas 1 to 7

13 Distribution of skylark individuals in subareas 8 to 13

14 Distribution of skylark individuals in subareas 14 to 19

15 Distribution of meadow pipit individuals in subareas 1 to 7

16 Distribution of meadow pipit individuals in subareas 8 to 13

17 Distribution of meadow pipit individuals in subareas 14 to 19

18 Distribution of linnet individuals in subareas 1 to 7

19 Distribution of linnet individuals in subareas 8 to 13

20 Distribution of linnet individuals in subareas 14 to 19

21 Percentages differences in the abundance of skylark on Exmoor moorland in 1-km survey squares

22 Percentages differences in the abundance of meadow pipit on Exmoor moorland in 1-km survey squares

vii LIST OF APPENDICES

A1 Supplementary records of target and scarce species ...... 75

A2 Squares receiving a first visit only...... 78

viii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The following are gratefully acknowledged for their assistance with this survey.

Many farmers and landowners for allowing access to their land, without their co-operation this survey would not have been possible. Helen Booker (RSPB SWRO) supervised the project; Helene Jessop (RSPB SWRO) provided administrative support; Helen Booker, Deborah Hanlon (RSPB SWRO) and Rhoda Kennedy (RSPB HQ) prepared the distribution maps; Innes Sim (RSPB, Scotland) provided upland bird survey information and support.

Thanks to Exmoor National Park Authority (ENPA) for administrative support and information, in particular Alison Cox and David Lloyd.

Significant contributions were received from the following individuals: David Ballance assisted with fieldwork and provided much information on Exmoor birds; Dave Glaves (DEFRA) provided guidance and information regarding the ESA scheme and upland habitat management; Leigh Lock and Steve Jones (RSPB SWRO) provided additional field support.

The following people also offered consultative support: Roger Butcher, Dave Chown, Mark Darlaston (DEFRA), Brian Gibbs, Richard Gregory and Ian Fisher (RSPB HQ), Paul Lipscombe, Leigh Lock (RSPB SWRO), Mike Raven (BTO), and Pete Reay (DBWPS).

Helen Booker and Leigh Lock commented on an earlier draft of this report.

RSPB is grateful for additional financial support for this survey from DEFRA, English Nature and ENPA.

ix INTRODUCTION

1.1 Exmoor moorland

1.1.1 Physical characteristics Exmoor is one of the three largest areas of moorland in southern England, alongside Bodmin Moor and Dartmoor and is therefore of high conservation importance. Much of the moorland is situated above 400 m and, exposed to moist Atlantic airstream, it experiences high precipitation, and cooler, cloudier weather than the surrounding lowlands. Hill farming is the major land use, and livestock grazing and burning are the main vegetation management methods over moorland areas.

1.1.2 Conservation designations In addition to forming a key area of the National Park, much of the moor and heath is designated SSSI or cSAC status. The National Park was classified an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) in 1993. A main objective of the Exmoor ESA is to protect and enhance wildlife and landscape value. This achieved through grazing and burning management agreements between land managers and DEFRA.

1.1.3 Exmoor moorland habitats Exmoor moorland comprises of a mosaic of habitats, mainly upland and lowland heath, blanket mire, marshy grassland, and bracken, gorse and scrub fringe habitats, covering approximately 163 km2 of the Exmoor National Park. Exmoor moorland has been proven to support bird populations of national and regional importance, including several species high conservation concern (Chown & Robins,1994).

1.1.4 Past survey work The breeding birds of Exmoor were previously subject to a whole moor survey in 1978 (Davies and Jarman,1978) and over a two-year period in 1992/93 (Colombé, Woodland & Robins,1993; Chown & Robins,1994). During subsequent years, smaller scale surveys were undertaken by ADAS (1997) and local amateur ornithologists (e.g. Ballance,1999 & 2001a).

1.2 Aims & Objectives

This report describes a repeat breeding bird survey of Exmoor moorland completed from 16 April to 12 July 2002. The survey is part of the national repeat upland bird survey in 2002.

Population estimates were sought for the following species: merlin, red grouse, lapwing, snipe, curlew, cuckoo, skylark, tree pipit, meadow pipit, dipper, grey wagtail, redstart, whinchat, stonechat, wheatear, ring ouzel, grasshopper warbler, Dartford warbler, whitethroat, carrion crow, linnet, yellowhammer and reed bunting.

The objectives of this survey are as follows:

(i) to repeat the survey carried out in 1992/93 to establish current breeding populations and distribution of priority birds associated with Exmoor’s moorland;

(ii) to determine changes in populations and distribution of priority bird species since previous surveys in 1978, 1992/93 and the 1996 sample survey;

(iii) to relate population and distribution changes to ESA scheme uptake and prescriptions to determine the ornithological impacts of the ESA scheme;

1

(iv) to assess changes in populations within moorland and heathland SSSIs and the Exmoor Coast and Heath cSAC through comparison with previous surveys;

(v) To survey additional areas of Non-Section 3 moorland and marginal land, creating a new baseline for these areas and assessment of their condition for birds;

(vi) to provide information that will contribute to the implementation of the Exmoor Biodiversity Action Plan for Upland and Lowland Heath.

2 SURVEY AREA & METHODS

2.1 Survey Area

Exmoor moorland and heath is defined by the ENPA in its Section 3 (S3) Conservation Map of Moor and Heath. The total area is 163.4km2, comprising of several large discrete blocks and numerous smaller fragments. The main blocks were prioritised for survey by ENPA on the basis of perceived conservation need encompassing possible changes in management, and suspected bird interest, as:

1) North Exmoor SSSI north of Simonsbath.

2) North Exmoor SSSI south of Simonsbath (e.g. Exmoor Forest Estate, Hangley Cleave, Long Holcombe).

3) South Exmoor SSSI: Withypool/Winsford/Molland/Anstey/North Molton Ridge.

4) South Exmoor SSSI: Haddon Hill, Croydon Hill, Tivington-Grabbist Ridge.

5) Coastal Heaths SSSI (e.g. North Hill, Bossington Hill, Holdstone/Trentishoe Downs).

Figure 1 shows the extent of moor and heath, and the areas covered by this survey. In total 153.7 km2 of the 163.4 km2 of S3 Moor and Heath were surveyed (94% of the total), including the bulk of the higher priority blocks (1 to 4 above). Unsurveyed areas have been indicated by diagonal hatching on the distribution maps (Figures 2-20).

The only S3 areas of ≥50 ha which were not surveyed were the coastal heaths at Heddon’s Mouth, Valley of Rocks, Foreland Point, Countisbury and County Gate.

2.2 Field Methods

Squares were surveyed using an adaptation of a constant effort technique developed for censusing upland breeding waders by Brown & Shepherd (1993) as follows:

• Uniform coverage of the survey area, spending a fixed amount of time in each quarter km square and approaching all parts to within 100 m or less.

• Two visits, the first between 16 April and 31 May, the second between 1 June and 12 July.

• The location and behaviour of target species was recorded on field maps.

• Fieldwork was carried out between 0830 and 1800 BST, avoiding poor weather conditions (i.e. winds stronger than Beaufort force 5, persistent rain, or fog).

On Exmoor, approximately 35-45 minutes were spent in each quarter km square (500m x 500m) (proportionally less in part-squares), rather than 20-25 minutes recommended by Brown & Shepherd. The additional time was necessary to achieve adequate coverage for all the key species. It was found that in areas of steep combes (a feature of Exmoor) viewing all parts of the square took longer, owing to the difficult terrain and the relatively high bird densities in these areas.

Registrations of target species were plotted on specially enlarged maps of individual 1-km squares (i.e. one km square per A4 sheet; scale 1:6000). The location and behaviour of all species, except

3 skylark, meadow pipit, carrion crow and linnet, were recorded using standard BTO activity codes. For skylark, meadow pipit, crow and linnet the total number of individuals recorded per 1-km square during the first visit was taken as an index of their abundance. This avoided registering large numbers of juveniles (present from early June). This also minimised time and effort spent in counting and mapping these abundant and/or mobile birds.

At the end of each day, field data were transferred to summary data sheets, and onto best maps using black ink for first visit data and red ink for second visit data.

2.3 Analysis and interpretation

Records were analysed using a standard approach (Brown and Shepherd, 1993). Where non- simultaneous registrations of a species were in close proximity, or where it was not possible to determine the number of pairs involved in multiple proximate registrations, they were judged to represent different pairs only where the distance between them was 200m or more (500m for waders). Registrations considered to be of the same birds/territory on both early and late visits were encircled with green ink on the best maps, otherwise registrations were interpreted as separate territories. This analysis was completed by each field surveyor for the squares that they surveyed because of their familiarity with the terrain and the birds.

2.4 Habitat recording

In each km square, basic habitat descriptions were taken, indicating the dominant vegetation cover, levels of grazing, and the extent of any recently swaled areas.

2.5 Supplementary fieldwork

Some of the former snipe sites and other suitable looking mire habitat were visited at least once around dusk in an effort to locate birds which may have been missed during diurnal surveying. This data is not included in the population totals estimated from standard survey visits. Records of target species during any supplementary fieldwork or enroute to or from standard survey squares were noted separately and some are referred to in the species accounts. However, they are not incorporated into the assessments of population change.

2.6 Access

A letter from the RSPB describing the planned survey work and requesting access permission was distributed by DEFRA to ESA agreement holders. An adaptation of this letter was sent to other farmers and landowners by ENPA in advance of the survey. The vast majority of responses were favourable. However, access was denied to c.200 ha (1.2 %) of the moorland and, therefore, this was not surveyed.

2.7 Archive

Best maps (showing registrations/territories of target species), summary sheets, field maps, together with the following Excel computer files are held at the RSPB SWRO:

1. Exmoor 2002 Data from both visits.xls 2. Exmoor 2002 Merlin Import datasheet.xls 3. Exmoor 2002 Scottish Office datasheet.xls

4 RESULTS

3.1 Content of species accounts

See Tables 1 to 12 and Figures 2 to 22.

The species accounts include the following information:

• UK conservation status, including criteria for Red/Amber list qualification, from Gregory et al.2002. UK BBS estimate from Noble et al.2001. Waterways Bird Survey (WBS) 2000, from Marchant 2001.

• Regional status (where available) from Lock,1998 & 2000 based on the two Breeding Bird Atlases of Britain & Ireland; South West (SW) Regional BBS estimate Noble et al.2001.

• Historical status on Exmoor (where available) from Gibbs, B. & Ballance, D. K, (in press); Devon Exmoor from Sitters (1988). Population estimates in 1978 from Davies & Jarman (1978).

• Population estimate and distribution from this survey.

• Recent surveys comparison of the population and distribution from 1992/93 (Chown & Robins,1994) with 2002. The comparison is based on the following:

In total, 153.7 km2 of the 162 km2 surveyed in 1992/93 was resurveyed in 2002. The remaining 8.8 km2 of either S3 or non-S3 moorland, surveyed in 1992/93, was not covered in 2002. This was because of time constraints, imposed due to poor weather during the first visit period. An additional 1.9 km2 of previously unsurveyed lowland heath was covered in 2002. A number of coastal heath squares at Bossington/ Selworthy/ North Hill did not receive a second survey visit in 2002 (see Appendix 2).

Therefore, population and distribution comparisons for skylark, tree pipit, meadow pipit, grey wagtail, dipper, redstart, whinchat, stonechat, wheatear, grasshopper warbler, linnet, and reed bunting, only take into account the 1-km squares (or part squares) surveyed in both 1992/93 and 2002.

• Overall population estimate for 1992/93 and 2002 from the total area surveyed in each survey.

• Interpretation and relevant comments.

5 3.2 Species Accounts

3.2.1 Merlin Falco columbarius

UK conservation status BoCC Amber List (HDrec); No BBS estimate 1994-2000. Regional status Exmoor is only regular breeding area in southern England. Probably stable population with annual fluctuations. Historical status on First proven breeding 1907, but has probably always bred in suitable Exmoor heather moorland. Up to six pairs in past 30 years.

Single birds were registered widely across the moorland. Some earlier birds may have been migrants or non-breeders. The survey did not confirm breeding but the methodology was not best suited to this species. Supplementary information suggested a possible 2-3 territories .

3.2.2 Red grouse Lagopus lagopus

UK conservation status BoCC Amber List (BDMp); 25-49% decline in population BBS 1994-2000. Regional status Declining; confined to Dartmoor and Exmoor. Historical status on Introduced in 19th & 20th Century; common pre-war, decline since. 40 pairs Exmoor 1976 (Sitters,1998); 12 pairs 1978 (Davies & Jarman,1978).

Recent surveys comparison *1992/93 2002 % change Population (pairs) 7 0 -100? Distribution (1-km squares) ? 0 -100?

No birds were registered. The survey method was not best suited to this elusive species. However, there have been very few casual records in recent years, the last being in 2000 (D.K. Ballance, pers.comm.). The species may now be extinct on Exmoor.

Although an adequate area of heather moorland is present to support grouse, it is not primarily managed for this purpose.

* Results from additional winter/spring survey 1992.

3.2.3 Lapwing Vanellus vanellus

UK conservation status BoCC Amber List (BDMp; WI); 13 % decline in population BBS 1994-2000. Regional status Declining; 34% reduction in range between the two Atlases, and tentative estimate of a subsequent 86-89% decline in population (Jeffs & Lock,1998); 64% decline in population 1987-1998 (Wilson,1999); SW BBS 7% increase in population 1994-2000. Historical status on Poorly documented. Since at least 1960s small ephemeral breeding Exmoor population. 100% decline in population and range on Devon Exmoor since the Devon Atlas (Sitters,1988).

Recent surveys comparison 1992/93 2002 % change Population (pairs) 3 0 -100 Distribution (1-km squares) 2 0 -100

6

No breeding birds or post breeding flocks were registered. Part of the enclosure at Lucott Moor, where breeding occurred in 1992/93, appeared to still be suitable breeding habitat. However, it held a high density of sheep, thus increasing the danger of trampling on any nests present. In addition, some of the grassland area had been agriculturally improved and this may have been carried since the last survey.

3.2.4 Snipe Gallinago gallinago

UK conservation status BoCC Amber List (BDMp(c)); No BBS estimate 1994-2000. Regional status 49% reduction in range between the two Atlases, and tentative estimate of an apparent subsequent 11-50% decrease in population (Jeffs & Lock,1998). No SW BBS estimate 1994-2000. Historical status on Low population density, perhaps slight decline since 1970s. Exmoor

Recent surveys comparison 1992/93 2002 % change Population (pairs) 8 8 0 Distribution (1-km squares) 6 8 33 Overall population (pairs) 8 8

Mostly single birds were registered. Supplementary evening visits to several key sites based on the 1992/93 survey and anecdotal records had little success. However, at least one extra pair was located at Winsford Hill bringing the overall total to nine pairs.

Note that a key area for snipe in 1993, Codsend Moors, was not surveyed in 2002. A supplementary visit to this area found no birds, probably due to poor weather conditions. Fewer were found around Dunkery Hill in 2002. However, some birds were found in different locations to those in 1992/93. Bearing in mind that diurnal visits are not the best method of detecting snipe, some birds may have been missed at sites where they were found in 1992/93. Therefore, the true moorland population may be higher than nine pairs.

Valley mire, a favoured habitat on Bodmin Moor and Dartmoor, is relatively scarce on Exmoor because most of the combes are steep-sided and well drained. Thus, habitat is probably the main factor limiting population size on Exmoor moorland.

Evidence of possible predation of a juvenile was found in square SS8341 at Almsworthy Common.

3.2.5 Curlew Numenius arquata

UK conservation status BoCC Amber List (SPEC 2 & 3w, BI,WI). Significant 13% decline in population BBS 1994-2000. Regional status 33% reduction in lowland range between Atlases, and a tentative estimate of a subsequent 70-78% decline in population (Jeffs & Lock,1998). Historical status on More widespread; post-war decline; 30-35 pairs in 1978 (Davies & Exmoor Jarman,1978).

Recent surveys comparison 1992/93 2002 % change Population (pairs) 9 5-6 -33 to -45 Distribution (1-km squares) 9 5 -45

7 No confirmed breeding. The population appears to have declined since 1992/93, particularly around the Dunkery area, although the area between Wilmersham Common, Stoke Pero Common and Codsend Moors is still the stronghold. Single birds were also encountered at North Molton Ridge and Molland Common.

This species is highly mobile and wide-ranging thus breeding sites are difficult to pinpoint using the current survey technique, mainly due to time constraints. The 1-km square references in Table 11 should therefore be treated as approximate breeding locations.

3.2.6 Cuckoo Cuculus canorus

UK conservation status BoCC Amber List (BDMp); Significant 19 % decline in population BBS 1994-2000 Regional status 9 % reduction in lowland range between Atlases (Lock,1998); 36% decline in population SW BBS 1994-2000. Historical status on Suggestion of localised declines but population annually fluctuates. No Exmoor formal survey data.

Recent surveys comparison 1992/93 2002 % change Population (males) Unrecorded 65 males unknown Distribution (1-km squares) Unrecorded 65 unknown Overall population (males) Unrecorded 65 males

Most registrations were singing males. There are many problems censusing this species. It is very mobile with males and females establishing overlapping territories (Sitters,1988). Singing males were often heard but not seen, thus some were allocated to a 1-km square but not mapped. Virtually all cuckoos were located within combes and along river valleys.

Exmoor holds a key regional population, probably at higher density than many lowland areas. Moor and heath habitats are an important breeding habitat (Chown,2000; Geary,2000). Bearing in mind the national and regional trends, this species should not be ignored in future generic surveys.

The only juvenile recorded was at Withypool Common on 9 July, where it was being fed by meadow pipit parents.

3.2.7 Skylark Alauda arvensis

UK conservation status BoCC Red List (BDp,SPEC3); Significant 8 % decline in population BBS 1994-2000 Regional status 3 % reduction in lowland range between Atlases (Lock,1998); Significant 15 % decline in population SW BBS 1994-2000. Historical status on Assumed common. No population estimate until 1800 pairs in 1978 Exmoor (Davies & Jarman,1978)

Recent surveys comparison 1992/93 2002 % change Population (birds) 3253 2573 -21 Distribution (1-km squares) 225 233 3 Overall population (birds) 3393 2577

8 In common with other South West moors, this is the second most common species. The overall population appears to have declined by one fifth since 1992/93. However, some of the difference in population may be accounted for due to squares being surveyed in poor weather conditions in 2002. For example, squares north and west of the Chains, surveyed in windy weather, had lower counts than 1992/93. The resulting difference (underestimate?) was, on average, a decline of 25% in bird numbers (Figures 12,13,14).

However, a true decline in the skylark population cannot be ruled out, especially when in the same area, meadow pipit numbers increased by 12% (cf.18% across the whole moor).

On average, skylark requires a shorter sward height than meadow pipit and these results may indicate a general increase in the sward height across many areas of moorland.

3.2.8 Tree pipit Anthus trivialis

UK conservation status BoCC Amber List (BDMp(c)); 12 % increase in BBS index 1994-2000 Regional status 24% reduction in lowland range between Atlases (Lock,1998); Significant 63% decline in SW BBS 1994-2000 (M Raven (BTO) pers.comm.). Declined on Bodmin Moor (Chown, 2000). Historical status on Unclear. Numbers vary widely from year to year. 35 pairs in 1978 (Davies Exmoor & Jarman,1978).

Recent surveys comparison 1992/93 2002 % change Population (pairs) 162 116 -28 Distribution (1-km squares) 79 58 -27 Overall populations 170 129

There has been an apparent large decline in population and range. The greatest changes in population are shown in Table 1.

The most important areas for tree pipit were again Road Hill/Curr Cleave, Haddon Hill and, previously unsurveyed, Bat’s Castle/Gallax Hill. Seven pairs were also found along the Tivington- Grabbist Ridge.

Codsend Moors was an important area for this species in 1992/93. As this area was not fully surveyed in 2002, apparent declines in squares covering this area were impossible to assess and these are omitted from Table 1.

In addition to the data in Table 1, increases of one pair were registered in four other squares, and single pairs appeared in nine other squares. Declines also occurred in a further seven squares, with total disappearance of mainly single pairs from another 31 squares.

9 Table 1. Changes of ≥ 50% in tree pipit numbers in squares that held at least three pairs in 1992/93

Increases Declines 1-km Area Diff. % 1-km Area Diff. % square (pairs) change square (pairs) change 8933 The Allotment +2 +200 8542 Great Hill -4 -100 7838 Flexbarrow +3 +150 8643 Nutscale -4 -100 9143 Dunkery Hill +2 +100 6942 Radworthy -3 -100 9528 Haddon Hill +2 +100 9939 Rodhuish Common -3 -100 9628 Haddon Hill +2 +66 9940 Rodhuish Common -3 -100 8636 Curr Cleave/ +4 +64 8640 Hoar Moor -4 -80 Road Hill 8834 Winsford Hill +2 appear 9347 Wood Combe -3 -75 8931 South Hill +2 appear 8631 Ashway Side -4 -66 8932 Draydon Knap +2 appear 8536 Room Hill -2 -66 7936 Great Ferny Ball +2 appear 9839 Withycombe -3 -60 Common 7837 Great Woolcombe -2 -50 Single pairs appeared in a further nine squares 7940 Three Combe Hill -2 -50 8732 Winsford Hill -2 -50

3.2.9 Meadow pipit Anthus pratensis

UK conservation status BoCC List (BDMp(c)); 4 % increase in BBS index 1994-2000 Regional status 25 % reduction in lowland range between Atlases (Lock,1998); 16 % decline in population SW BBS 1994-2000. Historical status on Probably very common. Exmoor

Recent surveys comparison 1992/93 2002 % change Population (birds) 4286 5191 17 Distribution (1-km squares) 249 272 8 Overall population (birds) 4286 5286

The most abundant and widespread species, as on other South West moors (Chown,2000; Geary,2000). The higher counts in 2002 probably reflect a real increase in this species. Observer bias may influence the counts to some extent, but increases are noted across squares covered by all three surveyors.

Areas showing greatest increases include Molland Common; Withypool Common; Brendon Common; South Common; Manor Common; Kittuck, Beckham and the Pinfords; the Chains, Ruckham Combe, Benjamy and Pinkworthy; and parts of the North Exmoor SSSI south of Simonsbath (Figures 15,16).

There are declines along the moorland fringe of the SSSI north of Simonsbath, with total disappearance from some squares. Also, declines in squares covering Exe Plain, Cheriton Ridge, Hoaroak Water, Farley Hill and Shilstone Hill. Basic habitat descriptions, gathered during the survey, indicated moderate to heavy grazing and some recent swaling within these squares. Some declines in the Dunkery Hill area may be a result of recent swaling of heather moorland.

10 3.2.10 Grey wagtail Motacilla cinerea

UK conservation status BoCC Amber List (BDMp); significant 42 % decline in population WBS 1975-2000 (Marchant,2001). Significant 41 % increase in BBS index 1994- 2000. Regional status Poorly monitored on other moorlands and lowlands. No SW BBS population estimate. Historical status on Unclear. 38 pairs in 1978 (Davies & Jarman,1978); 44 pairs 1997-2000 Exmoor (Ballance,1999 & 2000)

Recent surveys comparison 1992/93 2002 % change Population (pairs) 37 65 76! Distribution (1-km squares) 32 28 -12 Overall population (pairs) 38 65

The number of registrations of both pairs and single birds is substantially higher than recent surveys but the range was similar to 1992/93. The survey methodology used in 1992/93 and 2002 was not ideally suited to censusing this species because observers could rarely follow watercourses for long distances. Therefore, some duplication of birds probably occurred in adjacent squares. However, the national population shows conflicting trends in the latest results of two national surveys with a significant 42 % decline on WBBS 1975-2000 but a significant 41 % increase on BBS 1994-2000 (Marchant,2001).

The 1997-2000 survey by D K Ballance covered only combes and watercourses and probably therefore offers a more accurate estimate of 44 pairs (with the caveat that it was undertaken over several years).

Fledged young were observed widely from May onwards.

3.2.11 Dipper Cinclus cinclus

UK conservation status BoCC Green List; 14 % decline in population WBS between 1975-2000. Regional status Poorly monitored on other SW moorlands. No SW BBS estimate. Historical status on Possible decline in past 20 years. Exmoor

Recent surveys comparison 1992/93 2002 % change Population (pairs/birds) 11 12 8 Distribution (1-km squares) 11 12 8 Overall population (pairs) 11 12

Perhaps more uncommon than expected, although similar results to the last survey. Ballance (1999 & 2001a) found 14 pairs in a survey of combes and watercourses. A large proportion of Exmoor’s population probably exists below the moorland limits.

No juveniles were seen.

Comments regarding 2002 methodology as for grey wagtail.

11

3.2.12 Redstart Phoenicurus phoenicurus

UK conservation status BoCC Amber List (SPEC2); Significant 45 % increase in population on BBS 1994-2000. Regional status Population increase on Dartmoor (Geary,2000) and Bodmin Moor (Chown,2000); Regionally, a 32 % decline in range (Lock,2000) Historical status on Recorded since 1870s. 40 males in 1978 (Davies & Jarman,1978) Exmoor

Recent surveys comparison 1992/93 2002 % change Population (pairs) 103 129 20 Distribution (1-km squares) 66 75 12 Overall population (pairs) 108 131

In common with other South West moors the population appears to have increased over recent decades. Male song had already began to decline by late May so it is possible that some were missed in first visits to squares at this time. Also, a substantial proportion of Exmoor’s population would breed in woods below the moorland area.

Most were recorded around the moorland edge, with some breeding well into the moorland along mature beech hedges.

Highest counts were along lower Weir Water/Oare Common, East Water, Shillet Wood. Although the population has increased, there has been no change in population in 72% of squares. Increases occurred in 11 squares and 36 squares have been colonised. Colonisation has occurred in edge squares around the whole moor, but particularly along the Barle Valley below Simonsbath, Porlock Common and Dunkery area.

In contrast, redstarts have declined in 11 squares and mostly single pairs have disappeared from 27. Assuming no widespread habitat loss, this suggests that other factors of the species’ ecology encourage a variable breeding distribution, and perhaps this occurs on an annual basis.

3.2.13 Whinchat Saxicola rubetra

UK conservation status BoCC Green List (SPEC4); 21 % population decline in BBS 1994-2000. Regional status 31 % decline in range between Atlases, mainly in lowland Wiltshire and Somerset (Lock,1998). Decline of Bodmin Moor (Chown,2000), and Quantocks (Booker,2001); undetermined trend on Dartmoor (Geary,2000). Historical status on Unclear prior to 1950s: under-recorded? 450-600 pairs in 1978 (Davies & Exmoor Jarman,1978).

Recent surveys comparison 1992/93 2002 % change Population (pairs) 427 290 -32 Distribution (1-km squares) 149 118 -21 Overall population (pairs) 448 292

Numbers have declined by approximately one third since the 1992/93 survey. The largest declines are in the former core breeding sites; heather dominated combes mostly at the eastern end of the North Exmoor SSSI. For example, in combes such as Ember (-8 pairs), Chetsford (-4 pairs), Nutscale (-3

12 pairs), and Hanny (-9 pairs). Birds have disappeared from many squares around Dunkery Hill area (including 15 pairs from five squares). Birds have also disappeared from areas to the south of Winsford Hill (-7 pairs); also inland and coastal lowland heath at Croydon Hill (-7 pairs), Ley Hill, Haddon Hill, Bossington Hill, Girt, Holdstone & Trentishoe Downs (Table 2).

Whinchat numbers can fluctuate on an annual basis on Exmoor (D K Ballance, pers. comm.). The survey may have simply coincided with poor year for the population. Another reason for the decline may be displacement by Stonechat (Figures 4,5,6) because many decreases are on lowland heath or transition lowland/upland heath. Stonechat has increased greatly and has been described as dominant over the former in territorial disputes (Greig-Smith,1982).

Along the bottom and slopes of many combes grazing levels are higher than the surrounding plateaux, indicating that livestock graze these areas in preference to more exposed sites. Whinchat breeding dispersion tends to be highly aggregated along combes and valleys (e.g. Figures 4,5), for this reason localised habitat change along combes, due to overgrazing or swaling, may have a great effect on numbers and distribution.

Table 2. Disappearances and declines of whinchat between 1992/93 and 2002. Disappearances are from squares holding at least three pairs in 1992/93; Declines are of at least 50% in squares that held at least five pairs in 1992/93.

1-km Area / Combe Number of % Possible cause of disappearance / square pairs change decline Disappearances 9042 Dunkery Hill -5 -100 recent heather burns / competition 9840 Black Hill -3 -100 recent heather burns / competition 9043 Dunkery (Luccombe -3 -100 recent heather burns / competition Hill) 9041 Dunkery (Bin Combe) -3 -100 recent heather burns / competition 8941 Dunkery Hill -3 -100 recent heather burns / competition 6248 Holdstone Down -3 -100 recent gorse burns / competition Declines 8842 Dunkery (Sweetworthy) -6 -86 recent heather burns/competition 7438 Cornham area -6 -86 grazing pressure / swaling 9141 Dunkery (Hanny -11 -85 recent heather burns / competition Combe) 8942 Dunkery (Aller Combe) -10 -83 recent heather burns / competition 8040 Exe Cleave -5 -83 grazing pressure, habitat degraded 7240 Goat Hill -4 -80 grazing pressure / habitat degraded 8640 Hoar Moor -5 -71 grazing pressure / swaling 8140 Exe Cleave -3 -60 grazing pressure, habitat degraded 7541 Exe Head -3 -60 grazing pressure, habitat degraded 8541 Ember Combe area -6 -55 grazing pressure / competition 8543 Nutscale area -4 -50 grazing pressure / competition 7543 Farley Water -4 -50 grazing pressure / competition

13

3.2.14 Stonechat Saxicola torquata

UK conservation status BoCC Amber List (SPEC3); Significant 115 % increase in population in BBS 1994-2000. Regional status No SW BBS estimate. 39 % decline in lowland range in 25 years (Lock,2000). Increases on Bodmin Moor (Chown,2000), Dartmoor (Geary,2000), and Quantocks (Booker,2001). Historical status on Population fluctuations due to severe winters. 150 pairs in 1978 (Davies & Exmoor Jarman,1978).

Recent surveys comparison 1992/93 2002 % change Population (pairs) 243 447 84 Distribution (1-km squares) 109 182 67 Overall population (pairs) 253 468

Stonechat has undergone a large increase in population and range on Exmoor since 1992/93. This is in common with other moorlands (Geary,2000; Chown,2000; Booker,2001). The increase has taken place across all inland lowland and upland heath. Largest increases are around Dunkery Hill, Brendon Common, South Common, and Porlock Common; on the South Exmoor SSSI at Winsford Hill area, Cussacombe-Molland-Anstey Common Ridge and Withypool Common.

Declines on the coastal heath former strongholds of Combe Martin-Trentishoe and Selworthy-North Hill may be because of habitat loss through swaling and overgrazing of western gorse. This is supported by a corresponding decline in linnet numbers.

3.2.15 Wheatear Oenanthe oenanthe

UK conservation status BoCC Green List; 6 % decline in population BBS 1994-2000. Regional status 30 % decline in lowland range and unknown decline in population (Lock,1998); No SW BBS estimate available. Increase on Bodmin Moor (Chown,2000) and Dartmoor (Geary,2000). Historical status on 72 pairs in 1978 (Davies & Jarman,1978). Coastal breeders are poorly Exmoor monitored.

Recent surveys comparison 1992/93 2002 % change Population (pairs) 115 56 -51 Distribution (1-km squares) 64 37 -42 Overall population (pairs) 118 57

The population was approximately half that of 1992/93. However, Ballance (1999) found 72 pairs in a survey of moorland combes between 1997-2000.

There were a large number of migrant birds during the first visit period. Interpretation of which birds were migrants or breeders in each survey may account for some of the difference. Another possible reason, may be a true population decline, which may be due to habitat change, i.e. an increase in sward height. However, the majority of wheatear breed along inland combes, many of which appear to contain suitable but unoccupied areas of heavily grazed grassland. This would indicate that habitat may not be limiting wheatear numbers, but perhaps availability of nest sites is a controlling factor.

14

Five coastal breeding territories were found. It is likely that the coastal population was higher, but some areas of undercliff scree, which may have held further pairs, were not surveyed for health and safety reasons.

3.2.16 Ring ouzel Turdus torquatus

UK conservation status BoCC Red List (BDp; BDMr); No BBS estimate 1994-2000. 39-43% decline in range 1988-91 to 1999 (Wotton et al.2002). Regional status Breeds only on Dartmoor and Exmoor. 47 % decline in range in past 25 years (Lock,2000); Historical status on Probably always a small population; recent decline. 18 pairs in 1966, c.15 Exmoor pairs in 1984 (Gibbs & Ballance, in press); 20 pairs in 1978 (Davies & Jarman,1978); 17 pairs on Devon Exmoor 1985-87 (Sitters,1988).

Recent surveys comparison 1992/93 2002 % change Population (pairs) 13 1 -92 Distribution (1-km squares) 6 1 -84 Overall population (pairs) 13 1

Only one bird was recorded; a male flushed from Bagley Combe. The apparent population crash should be treated with caution because the 2002 survey method was not best suited for surveying this secretive species, although it was similar to the method used in 1992/93. The true population was probably higher, perhaps 4-5 pairs, but this estimate is based on supplementary records that are available at the time of writing. These were at Lang Combe, Sweetworthy Combe, Aller Combe and Chetsford Water during mid/late April (D K Ballance, R Butcher, B Gibbs; pers.comm.).

Consultation with local birdwatchers revealed that there have been relatively few ring ouzel sightings in 2002 despite searches, and thus it may simply be a poor year for the species. However, even accounting for supplementary records, the population is at best half of that in 1992/93 and other factors may be affecting breeding birds. One reason may be habitat change/loss due to grazing pressure along combes. This may also be affecting whinchat breeding success.

3.2.17 Grasshopper warbler Locustella naevia

UK conservation status BoCC Red List (BDp;BDMr); 5 % increase in population BBS 1994-2000. Regional status Massive unquantified decline in lowland population and 51 % decline in range (Lock,1998). Key populations exist in moorland areas, e.g. increase on Bodmin Moor (Chown,2000). Historical status on Poorly monitored prior to 1970s. Enigmatic breeding population. 15 Exmoor territories in 1978 (Davies & Jarman,1998).

Recent surveys comparison 1992/93 2002 % change Population (territories) 11 52 372 Distribution (1-km squares) 11 40 263 Overall population (terrs) 12 52

Grasshopper warbler has probably undergone a real increase, although allowance has to be made for difficulty in surveying this secretive species. The higher population may indicate an increase in

15 sward height of the grass/heather moorland vegetation in certain areas (cf meadow pipit and reed bunting). Largest increases were at Molland Common and on the North Exmoor SSSI, both south and northeast of Simonsbath - mainly to the east of a line from the Warren to Badgworthy Water.

Exmoor moorland is a key habitat for this species in South West England, especially considering the recent decline in the UK population.

3.2.18 Dartford warbler Sylvia undata

UK conservation status BoCC Amber List (HDrec; SPEC2); No BBS estimate 1994-2000 Regional status Increasing population and range. No SW BBS estimate. Historical status on First bred 1994 or 1995. Autumn migrants noted on coastal heaths since Exmoor 1974.

Recent surveys comparison 1992/93 2002 % change Population (territories) 0 62 Colonist Distribution (1-km squares) 0 29 - Overall population (terrs) 0 68

Dartford warbler has become established on several lowland heaths in the past seven years. Key areas are the lower eastern slopes of Dunkery Hill, Bossington Hill - North Hill, Molland Common, Croydon Hill and the Tivington-Grabbist Ridge. It is heavily dependent of western heath habitat and local populations may fluctuate due to short-term management. For example, there was only one pair registered at Allcombe Common in 2002, where there had been a minimum 12 in 2000 (Gibbs & Ballance, in press). However, there had been recent cutting and swaling of gorse in this area.

3.2.19 Common whitethroat Sylvia communis

UK conservation status BoCC Green List (SPEC4); 26 % increase in population BBS 1994-2000. Regional status 32 % increase in population SW BBS. Historical status on Unknown. Exmoor

Recent surveys comparison 1992/93 2002 % change Population (pairs/birds) Unrecorded 123 unknown Distribution (1-km squares) Unrecorded 49 unknown Overall population (pairs) Unrecorded 129

Common whitethroat has not been previously monitored on Exmoor. It was common in lowland heath areas, particularly in western gorse around Dunkery Hill, Ley Hill and along the coastal heaths and scrub.

16 3.2.20 Carrion crow Corvus corone

UK conservation status BoCC Green List; Significant 17 % increase BBS 1994-2000. Regional status 2 % decline SW BBS 1994-2000. Historical status on Probably always present with local fluctuations in game-rearing areas. Exmoor Probable post-war increase in population, as national trend.

Recent surveys comparison 1992/93 2002 % change Population (birds) Unrecorded 460 unknown Distribution (1-km squares) - 177 unknown Overall population (birds) - 464

Carrion crow has not previously been monitored on Exmoor. There is an undoubted duplication of individuals and pairs due to the wide-ranging behaviour of the species. Crows breed on moorland in low hawthorns and beech hedgerows. Non breeding flocks are also present. This survey has established the widespread presence of crows. As a potential predator of wader nests, this information may be useful for future management of moorland breeding waders.

3.2.21 Linnet Carduelis cannabina

UK conservation status BoCC Red List (BDp); 6 % decline in population BBS 1994-2000. Regional status Significant 21 % decline in population SW BBS 1994-2000; 3 % decline in lowland range between Atlases (Lock,1998). Historical status on Unclear. 150 pairs in 1978 (Davies & Jarman,1978). Exmoor

Recent surveys comparison 1992/93 2002 % change Population (birds) 342 802 134 Distribution (1-km squares) 88 143 63 Overall population (birds) 353 840

The 2002 population estimate consists of first visit counts only because a greater proportion of fledged young were present as spring progressed. Although every effort was made to count only adults, distant flying birds are often difficult to sex and virtually impossible to age. The population may be overestimated for the latter reason.

The crude estimate of 170 pairs in 1992/93 was calculated by halving the number of birds recorded. Here the data from both surveys are given as birds. It appears that there has been an increase in the population between surveys, which is in contrast to the trend on lowland farmland.

The majority of the population is concentrated on lowland heath and around the periphery of upland heath on the North and South Exmoor SSSIs. There are large increases over the lowland heath habitat around Dunkery Hill, Rodhuish Common, and coastal sites at Bossington Hill to Selworthy Beacon. Distribution was far from consistent over the North Exmoor SSSI with relatively few birds on the western half. However, there have been small population increases and colonisation of widespread squares across the whole moor. The distribution of linnet is dependent on the abundance and distribution of gorse Ulex spp. The population increase may indicate a spread of gorse in some areas.

17 There were some declines in coastal heath between Combe Martin and Trentishoe. Here declines in stonechat were also noted suggesting loss or degradation of gorse. During the survey recently burnt and heavily grazed areas were noted in some squares.

3.2.22 Yellowhammer Emberiza citrinella

UK conservation status BoCC Red List (BDp); Significant 12 % decline in population BBS 1994- 2000. Regional status 2 % decline in population SW BBS 1994-2000; 3 % reduction in lowland range between Atlases (Lock,1998). Stable or slight increase on Quantocks (Booker,2001). Historical status on Locally common resident. No previous survey data. Exmoor

Recent surveys comparison 1992/93 2002 % change Population (pairs) Unrecorded 64 unknown Distribution (1-km squares) - 31 unknown Overall population (pairs) - 73

The majority of the population exists in a few discrete areas along the lowland heath/farmland ecotone. The main areas are Cussacombe-Molland-Anstey commons ridge, Dunkery Hill, Rodhuish Common, Winsford Hill / Curr Cleave / Room Hill, and coastal heath between Selworthy to North Hill.

3.2.23 Reed bunting Emberiza schoeniculus

UK conservation status BoCC Red List (BDp); 4 % decline in population BBS 1994-2000. Regional status 10 % increase in population SW BBS 1994-2000; 22 % reduction in lowland range between Atlases, mostly in Cornwall and west Devon (Lock,1998). Probable increase on Dartmoor (Geary,2000), increase on Bodmin Moor (Chown,2000). Historical status on Unrecorded breeding on moorland until 1960. Subsequently became more Exmoor noticed. Recorded in nine Devon Exmoor tetrads 1985-87 (Sitters,1988).

Recent surveys comparison 1992/93 2002 % change Population (pairs/territories) 55 162 194 Distribution (1-km squares) 44 87 98 Overall population (pairs/terrs) 68 165

The reed bunting population has increased across the whole moor, with colonisation in 56 squares and three subareas since 1992/93. The largest increases have been across the whole North Exmoor SSSI, particularly the Pinfords, Great Buscombe area, and on the South Exmoor SSSI at Withypool Common and Molland to Anstey Common.

The species likes rank vegetation. In particular wet, rushy grassland and sedge, as at West Pinford, and mature to degenerate heather, as at Haddon Hill. Such habitat may have increased as part of a general increase in vegetation height (cf meadow pipit, grasshopper warbler). Exmoor moorland is a key habitat for this species in South West England, especially considering the recent decline in the UK population.

18 3.3 Non-target species

The following species were not consistently counted on the survey but their status is described here for various reasons. Quail is of high conservation concern in the UK, birds were also found in 1992/93 and 1996 and it may be an annual breeder on Exmoor. Kestrel and lesser redpoll are of moderate conservation concern in the UK and were recorded in sufficient squares to be worthy of comment, kestrel was also assessed in other moorland surveys.

3.3.1 Quail Coturnix coturnix A species of high conservation concern. At least three calling birds were around Larkbarrow Corner area on 5 July. Another was on farmland at Stock Common in late May. Quail have been located during both whole-moor surveys and during the ADAS sample survey in 1996. It is reasonable to assume that the species may breed annually on or close to Exmoor moorland. None were found on recent surveys of other moorlands (Chown, 2000; Geary, 2000).

3.3.2 Kestrel Falco tinnunculus Kestrel is of moderate conservation concern and has been Amber-listed for a second consecutive 5- year period. The species was uncommon over moorland and there was a minimum of 24 birds in 23 squares. The figures indicate a slightly lower density than Bodmin Moor, but considerably higher than Dartmoor.

3.3.3 Lesser redpoll Carduelis cabaret Recently identified as of moderate conservation concern in the UK and placed on the Amber List because of a rapid breeding decline of between 25-49% in the past 25 years, but this decline may well be greater in some regions of the UK (Gregory et al.2002).

The status of lesser redpoll in South West England is unclear, but a declining population trend is likely. The species was present in many moorland fringe squares in 2002 and 29 individuals were recorded in 44 km2 in 1996 (ADAS,1997). In 2002, there was a minimum of 97 individuals in 77 squares. A strong population exists along the heathland/woodland ecotone around the base of Dunkery Hill, and at Withypool Common and Molland Common. The Exmoor population is probably of regional importance. During late April, a large flock in excess of 150 birds was present at Wootton / Hopcott Commons. The species appears to be much more common on Exmoor than on Bodmin Moor or Dartmoor.

19 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

4.1 Population changes since 1992/93

4.1.1 Population changes 1992/93 to 1996 A random sample of Exmoor moorland was re-surveyed by ADAS in 1996 (ADAS,1997). The sample represented 44 km2 (27%) of the total survey area covered by the 1992/93 survey. The results were compared with the 1992/93 moorland survey. It found that with the possible exception of tree pipit, the numbers of moorland bird species monitored had at least maintained their populations, with evidence of increases in meadow pipit, redstart, whinchat, stonechat and linnet.

4.1.2 Population changes 1992/93 to 2002 In common with the findings of recent surveys of uplands in South West England (Chown,2000; Geary,2000; Booker,2001; Stanbury,2002) the populations of many of the target species have fared better on Exmoor moorland than in many lowland areas. However, large declines have occurred in populations of long-distance migrants, e.g. tree pipit and whinchat. This reflects the regional and national trends for these species.

There were widely differing population trends between the target species. Meadow pipit, redstart, stonechat, grasshopper warbler, Dartford warbler, linnet and reed bunting all appear to have undergone increases, whilst red grouse, lapwing, curlew, skylark, tree pipit, whinchat, and wheatear, have probably declined. Merlin, snipe, dipper and grey wagtail populations were either undetermined or appear to have remained stable. No trend is available for whitethroat, carrion crow or yellowhammer because these were not previously surveyed.

Red grouse and lapwing have probably been lost as breeding species. Red grouse require specialised management of heather moorland and much of Exmoor is currently unsuitable for this species. The last sighting was in 2000 around the favoured area of Dunkery Hill (D.K.Ballance, pers. comm.). Lapwing was not common in 1992/93 and was found at only two enclosure sites in close proximity. Neither site was occupied in 2002, and both were enclosures of improved grassland with high livestock densities. Land management changes over the intervening years may have been responsible for the loss of lapwing from these sites.

One of the most likely causes of population changes is habitat loss or change. There has been no obvious widespread loss or change in habitat on Exmoor moorland since 1992/93. A number of areas have come under ESA management agreements since 1993. Management prescriptions under these agreements should have at least maintained existing habitat and associated bird populations. This is discussed in Section 4.5 below.

Another possible cause of breeding decline in lapwing and curlew, but also other ground-nesting species, is an increase in predation level. The most widespread potential avian predator was carrion crow. This survey was the first to record the crow population but there is no previous population data with which to compare. A suggestion of a population increase would therefore be subjective. Mammalian predators (e.g. fox) were not considered to be common (pers. obs). Livestock carcasses, a potential food source for nest predators, were infrequent compared to other South West moors (pers. obs.), although again these are subjective judgements.

A further possible cause of some of the observed trends is external factors operating on the wider population. This might apply particularly to migrant species, especially those at the edge of their range in Devon, e.g. tree pipit, whinchat and ring ouzel. It is important to note that bird populations may undergo natural cyclic fluctuations over time. Thus, a ten-year ‘snapshot’ of populations may

20 not be the best monitoring method for priority species, and inferences of population declines or increases cannot always be assigned to a change in moorland habitat.

Other caveats There is undoubtedly an element of observer bias within and between surveys, as well as variations in environmental factors such as weather conditions. The routes walked whilst surveying and differences in dates and time of day can also affect recording accuracy.

4.2 The importance of Exmoor moorland for breeding birds

The coverage and the methodology in 2002 were similar to that in 1992/93 (see Section 2.1). Bird data from areas not covered by both surveys are excluded from any population comparisons.

4.2.1 Internationally important populations The status of stonechat has been described as ‘unfavourable’ as it is declining over much of NW Europe and in parts of central Europe due to habitat loss through the intensification of agriculture (Tucker & Heath,1994). For this reason, a suite of important sites across Europe which support the bulk of the European population are to be recognised (Heath & Evans,2000). Within the UK, the threshold for sites of international importance has been set at 90 pairs. Clearly, with a population in the region of 450 pairs, Exmoor moorland not only exceeds this threshold for international importance, but is likely to represent one of the most important sites in the UK for stonechat.

Whinchat is described as of favourable conservation status within Europe, but is concentrated within Europe and vulnerable for that reason. Important sites for this species need to be recognised. Within the UK, the threshold of 140 pairs has been set for international importance. The Exmoor population of c.290 pairs clearly exceeds this threshold

4.2.1.1 Stonechat Despite its continued growth on Exmoor moorland, the population now probably represents proportionally less of the South West upland total than it did in 1992/93. This is because other South West uplands, e.g. Bodmin Moor (Chown,2000) and Dartmoor (Geary,2000), have also undergone a large increase in population. In addition, recent surveys of the Blackdown Hills (Glaves,1998), the Quantocks (Booker,2001) and Salisbury Plain (Stanbury,2002) have contributed towards a more accurate regional population estimate.

4.2.1.2 Whinchat Exmoor moorland is likely to be the second most important area for whinchat in southern England after Salisbury Plain. A recent survey of Dartmoor (Geary,2000) probably overestimated the whinchat population there (pers.obs; M Darlaston, pers.comm.). This was largely due to error in the statistical analysis of Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data. On Bodmin Moor the population has declined, and it is now virtually extinct on the Somerset Levels (Chown,2000).

This species was recently assessed and considered not to be of national conservation concern (Gregory et al.2002). However, in view of its limited breeding distribution in South West England due to the recent population decline in lowland areas, and on Bodmin Moor and Exmoor, whinchat is now of major conservation concern in South West England.

4.2.2 Nationally important populations A threshold of 1% of a biogeographical population is often used as a criterion for identifying important sites (e.g. Pollitt et al.2000). UK population estimates in Mead (2000) derived from Stone et

21 al.(1997) form the basis to allow this method to be used to identify nationally important bird populations on Exmoor moorland.

The estimates in Table 4 exceed or are close to the 1% of the estimated UK population for three species: whinchat, stonechat and Dartford warbler. On this basis, Exmoor moorland may be regarded as nationally important for these species.

4.2.2.1 Dartford warbler The species has undergone a substantial national and regional population increase since the 1994 national survey, and the 1992/93 Exmoor survey. Birds were found to be present on both Bodmin Moor and Dartmoor in recent surveys. Exmoor heaths now probably hold close to nationally important numbers although, as is the case with stonechat, the actual national population and therefore 1% qualifying level for national importance, is in need of review.

4.2.3 Regionally important populations Regional population estimates for many species are less accurate than national estimates (M Raven (BTO), pers.comm.). A number of target species have declining populations on lowland areas of South West England (Lock,1998). The populations of species such as skylark, tree pipit, meadow pipit and whinchat have probably become increasingly polarised towards upland areas over the past few decades. The main upland areas of South West England have all been surveyed in recent years enabling more accuracy to be placed on regional population estimates because many of the target species are concentrated at these sites.

It was suggested by Lock (1998), and subsequently adopted by Chown (2000), that 10% of a regional population is a suitable criterion for identifying regionally important sites. Based on this, the estimates in Table 4 indicate that five species may have regionally important populations on Exmoor moorland: merlin, whinchat, stonechat, ring ouzel, and Dartford warbler. However, because Exmoor is one of the three main moorlands in the region it is likely that moorland breeding species, such as snipe, curlew, skylark, meadow pipit, tree pipit, redstart, grasshopper warbler, linnet, and reed bunting are also present in regionally important numbers.

4.2.3.1 Merlin The Exmoor population is small but is important because it is the only regular breeding site in southern England. Merlin was present, but this survey had poor success at identifying breeding sites and thus breeding success. However, the species has been subject to a more detailed breeding survey since 1992 (RSPB, Exeter). It is estimated that a minimum of two pairs held territory in 2002. Site specific data from this survey is not given in this report but is held by the RSPB Exeter Office.

4.2.3.2 Waders Exmoor moorland is regionally important for snipe and curlew. Although both species’ populations are small, all breeding sites for these species are becoming ever more important as their regional populations and range declines. The majority of breeding snipe in the South West are now confined to Dartmoor and the Somerset Levels.

4.2.3.3 Redstart There has been a probable increase in population on Exmoor since 1992/93, as has been the trend on the other two major South West moors. Like the other moors its true population has been underestimated because large areas of upland oak woodland, its favoured habitat, have not been surveyed.

22 4.2.3.4 Wheatear It is much less common on Exmoor than either Dartmoor or Bodmin Moor. There has been an apparent decline since 1992/93. It is unclear whether this is was related to habitat change. The main factor is likely to be limited nest sites and breeding habitat. Favoured habitats, such as heavily grazed grass moor with associated stonewalls and rock clitter are scarce on Exmoor. Grazing levels are generally lower on Exmoor compared to other moors (pers.obs; D Glaves (DEFRA) pers.comm.), except in some of the combes, resulting in less favoured taller vegetation.

4.2.3.5 Ring Ouzel Exmoor is one of two breeding sites in southern England. This survey was not very successful for recording this species and the population was undoubtedly underestimated. The supplementary records obtained from local birdwatchers and amateur ornithologists, perhaps give a more accurate population estimate. However, it was generally considered that 2002 was a poor year for breeding ring ouzel on Exmoor (D.K. Ballance, pers.comm.). Habitat change due to higher grazing intensity or swaling, particularly around the head of combes on Dunkery Hill, may be affecting this species, and certainly grazing pressure is greater along the bottom and sides of some combes than over the plateaux (pers.obs.).

4.2.3.6 Other target species The remaining target species have wider distributions in South West England, and their regional populations are therefore poorly described. The analysis of distribution and abundance data in Gibbons et al. (1993) for South West England (RSPB, unpublished) provides the only regional estimates. These data have been used in conjunction with national population estimates in Mead (2000) to calculate regional importance (Table 4).

If the decline of most target species on lowland farmland between the atlases (Lock,1998) has continued subsequently, these data will underestimate the proportion occurring on Exmoor. Therefore, the importance of Exmoor moorland for species such as tree pipit, grasshopper warbler, meadow pipit, cuckoo, linnet and reed bunting may be currently underestimated.

4.3 Important habitats and sites for breeding birds on Exmoor moorland

Associations between target species and certain moorland habitats in South West England have been described previously, e.g. Mudge et al.(1979); Chown & Akers (1984); ADAS (1997). In some cases species associate with more than one habitat and zones of habitat integration, further, on Exmoor, steep combes often result in rapid habitat change over short distances. Therefore the following information should only be used for general guidance.

4.3.1 Important habitats

4.3.1.1 Valley mires Valley mires are rare and generally of a small size on Exmoor because of geology, relief and both natural and human induced drainage patterns in moorland areas. As such, these should be of high conservation priority. Such areas include sinks and headwaters of many of the moorland streams and waters. This habitat is important for snipe, meadow pipit, whinchat, grasshopper warbler, and reed bunting.

4.3.1.2 Blanket mire Of limited extent, but important for snipe, skylark and meadow pipit.

23 4.3.1.3 Upland heath A key habitat supporting [red grouse], merlin, curlew, meadow pipit, whinchat, wheatear, ring ouzel, grasshopper warbler, and reed bunting.

4.3.1.4 Combes These are a distinct and important feature on Exmoor. The longest combes generally have upper and lower regions with differing habitats, with upland heath in the higher reaches, grading downstream to lowland heath and scrub. Bracken can be common and extensive at all levels. The majority of chats, breeding on upland heath, and ring ouzel are found along the combes, together with cuckoo, meadow pipit, tree pipit, and dipper and grey wagtail along the rivers and streams. Where combes are broader or shallow-bottomed, rank Molinia or Juncus may support grasshopper warbler and reed bunting.

Declining populations of whinchat and ring ouzel may be linked to habitat change in combes. It was noticeable that grazing pressure was often higher along the bottom and lower slopes of some combes, and loss of heather may have occurred. Swaling of heather moorland may affect habitat on the slopes of Dunkery Hill. Fires may spread into combes, and one such burnt area extended along the upper reaches of Aller Combe in 2002 (pers.obs.).

4.3.1.5 Lowland heath This habitat is much more limited than upland heath on Exmoor, therefore, its correct management is very important. It supports important populations of cuckoo, tree pipit, stonechat, Dartford warbler, whitethroat, and yellowhammer.

Good quality lowland heath exists around the north and east periphery of Dunkery Hill, where heather graded to gorse habitat, and also at Haddon Hill and along the coast. However, the heath at Crawter Hill had been completely lost due to a managed burn that had spread out of control (ENPA, pers.comm). The resulting habitat loss transpired to an 80% decline in stonechat from the area. Management by burning and cutting to clear gorse and birch scrub was in process on heaths along the Tivington-Grabbist Ridge, e.g. Alcombe Common. Loss of gorse/heather habitat was probably the main reason that fewer Dartford warbler were found at Allcombe Common in 2002 (see Dartford warbler account).

4.3.1.6 Moorland fringe/bracken/scrub This habitat borders improved farmland and often extends upwards along combes and grades with lowland heath. It is important for tree pipit, stonechat, whitethroat, and yellowhammer.

4.3.2 Important sites

The comprehensive survey coverage has enabled most important sites to be identified. This does not mean that conservation effort should ignore the wider moorland areas. These areas can and do benefit from the ESA scheme, which in turn will benefit species with both widespread and concentrated breeding distributions.

The current best sites for more localised target species are quoted in Table 6, while the distributions and relative breeding densities of most target species are shown in Figures 2 to 22.

24 4.4 Comparison of bird populations in Exmoor ESA Grazing Units 1993-2002

4.4.1 Overview of Grazing Units and ESA agreements The Exmoor ESA was established in 1993, the final year of the previous RSPB breeding bird survey. A number of moorland Grazing Units (GU) entered into ESA management agreements from 1993. The earliest 10-year agreements have now been running for approximately nine to ten years. Ten of the GUs were selected randomly by ADAS for environmental monitoring purposes (ADAS,1997). The randomly selected sites are probably representative of Exmoor moorland as a whole and are therefore useful for assessing the effects of recent moorland management on moorland bird populations.

Eight of the ten GUs entered into Tier 1 agreements in 1993 or 1994. Only five GUs entered into Tier 1, Part 5 (Heather Moorland & Coastal Heath), this is the only Tier 1 option that specifies maximum stocking levels (0.225 LU/ha in summer and 0.15 LU/ha in winter) in order to maintain existing dwarf- shrub heath cover. Therefore, these GUs should have had most controlled grazing levels and thus should have no detrimental effect on dwarf-shrub vegetation due to grazing. Tier 1, Part 4 is for grass moor management. This should control the frequency of burning, which is detrimental if carried out too frequently. In addition to the ten randomly selected GUs, another GU (Winsford Allotment) was included in the ADAS monitoring programme as the only Tier 2 Part 1 (Heather Moorland and Coastal Heath enhancement) agreement at the time. Tier 2 prescriptions require lower stocking levels than Tier 1 prescriptions.

4.4.2. Grazing Units with Tier 1(5) agreements (heather moorland)

4.4.2.1 Grazing Unit 1 & 2 Holdstone/Trentishoe Down & Bossington/Selworthy Hill In 1992/93 both held a substantial population of stonechat, equating to 38% of the Exmoor moorland population. However, the present survey has found a substantial decline in stonechat in both these areas, at a time when the general population has been increasing. The species is characteristic of South-Western heath characterised by a dense cover of Ulex gallii. Both sites, particularly Site 2, have been colonised by Dartford warbler since the mid 1990s, a species requiring similar habitat to stonechat. Grazing pressure should not have caused loss of dwarf shrubs and other factors may be responsible.

4.4.2.2 Site 6 Manor Allotment A small area of fragmented and varied heather stands. Meadow pipit and skylark data is incomparable due to 1-km squares overlapping with moorland outside the agreement area. There has been an increase in all chat populations, but these species are confined to combes and boundaries, so perhaps are unrepresentative of open moorland vegetation condition. This is one of the few areas where whinchat have increased.

4.4.2.3 Site 9 Molland Common Subjective habitat descriptions gathered during this survey indicate that large areas of the site consist of mature-degenerate heather, with mires dominated by rank Purple moor-grass. There have been substantial increases in several species associated with tall sward heights and dwarf-shrub heath - meadow pipit, stonechat, grasshopper warbler, Dartford warbler and reed Bunting. There was a corresponding decline in skylark numbers here, possibly indicating loss of shorter grassland swards. Dartford warbler is a new colonist since the last survey but it is unclear whether it, together with stonechat and linnet, has increased merely to fill available existing habitat (gorse) or have responded to changing vegetation over the period. There has been some controlled burning of heath since the

25 start of the agreement, probably with a resultant increase in young heather, so there is probably slightly less suitable mature heath habitat.

4.4.2.4 Site 10 Prescott Down This has suffered a recent complete die-back of heather, probably due to heather beetle infestation. The resulting open sward of grass, skeletal heather and bare earth has perhaps created less suitable habitat for meadow pipits but more suitable for skylark. The change has probably been quite recent judging by the heather condition. The valley along the River Quarme has suffered from overgrazing and this may be a factor in the loss of whinchat from the area.

4.4.2.5 Site 12 Winsford Hill/Common Predominantly heather moorland habitat, with localised heavier grazing, particularly around periphery. There are increases in populations of the same species as at Molland Common, but also a similar or slight increase in population of skylark; with the core population located around the summit of Winsford Hill. Whinchat have declined here by 70%, a much higher rate of decline than the moor as a whole, and the small wheatear population has disappeared, again this is difficult to put down to habitat change.

4.4.3 Grazing Units with Tier 1(4) agreement (grass moor)

4.4.3.1 Site 4 Woodbarrow Hangings A relatively small area with few comparable data. Little change in chat numbers, a pair of stonechat have colonised the combe. Meadow pipit and skylark numbers cannot be compared as the 1-km squares overlap greatly with moorland outside the agreement area.

4.4.3.2 Site 7 Verneys Allotment Another small area, but an indication of increases in meadow pipit and skylark on the open moor, with appearances of stonechat, grasshopper warbler and reed bunting along the valley bottoms.

4.4.4 Grazing Units without long-term ESA agreement

4.4.4.1 Site 3 Castle Common A small site showing little difference in meadow pipit and skyark numbers although if anything a slight decline in both. This combined with the appearance of a pair of wheatear may suggest a slight decrease in sward height.

4.4.4.2 Site 8 Brendon Common Although formerly not under ESA agreement, Brendon Common has since entered into ESA prescriptions starting in 2000. Brendon Common is the largest GU considered in this report. The open moor is predominantly heather dominated, but many combes have variable vegetation with heavier grazing along the bottom and sides. The bird populations have changed little with the exception of a 400% increase in stonechat, much higher than the increase over the whole moor. Here, it is likely that stonechat has increased to fill existing habitat.

4.4.5 Tier 2 Part 1 agreement (not randomly selected)

4.4.5.1 Site 11 Winsford Allotment This small site adjacent to Winsford Hill has shown a substantial increase in dwarf shrub heath from only 5% cover in 1993 to dominance over much of the area apart from the combe. This has been

26 accompanied by the appearance of skylark (13 individuals) stonechat (1 pair) and linnet (nine individuals), with little change in meadow Pipit and the loss of one pair of wheatear.

4.4.6 Discussion The main objectives of the moorland and heather moor management Tiers are to maintain existing unimproved grassland and dwarf-shrub heath, respectively. The overall trends in bird populations since 1992/93 in areas under long-term ESA agreement suggest that the management prescriptions are having the desired effect on vegetation.

A tentative interpretation of the bird population changes in grazing units since 1992/93 (Tables 7 & 8) suggests that species preferring taller sward heights, such as meadow pipit, grasshopper warbler and reed bunting, have shown variable increases, whilst those that prefer shorter grass swards such as skylark and wheatear have declined.

The chat populations have reflected their general trends across the moor. Most chats breed in combes. In such places the grazing pressure may be greater than over the plateaux (pers. obs.). This has implications for all three chats. Heavier grazed areas along the bottom and sides of combes often benefits wheatear but not whinchat, or ring ouzel. Whilst loss of, or heavy grazing of, dwarf shrubs is detrimental to stonechat.

The substantial increases in stonechat and colonisation by Dartford warbler are reliable indicators of the existence of suitable mature dwarf-shrub heath.. However, bearing in mind the general population trend of these species, it is difficult to assign what proportion of the increase in population is due to maintenance of habitat over the period, and what is simply due to colonisation of existing habitat.

Comparable data on stocking rates and vegetation stand height (ADAS,1997) showed that mean annual stocking rates have been reduced at three of the six Tier 1(5) GUs between 1992/93 and 1995/96, particularly during the winter months. Vegetation height would therefore be expected to have increased at these sites. Stand data for grass moorland at Molland Common showed an increase at three of four stands between 1993 and 1996 (ADAS,1997).

There are difficulties in interpreting whether real changes in bird populations have occurred in some GUs. Counts per kilometre square of the two widespread indicator species, skylark and meadow pipit, cannot be applied to some of the smaller GUs that are surrounded by other moorland. This is because it is impossible to distinguish how many birds were in the GU or on surrounding moorland. The small GUs held small populations of other bird species and it is uncertain whether population changes occurring in these are solely related to vegetation change.

4.5 Exmoor moorland bird populations compared with Dartmoor and Bodmin Moor

Relative populations of target species on all three moors, together with the Quantock Hills and Salisbury Plain grasslands are shown in Table 10. Not all the species listed breed, or were surveyed, on each upland area. Comparative data for some species is therefore unavailable.

Exmoor moorland is of similar total area to Bodmin Moor and both are less than half the area of Dartmoor. In order of increasing altitude Bodmin < Exmoor < Dartmoor. The main effects of this is that higher altitude blanket mire is more widespread on Dartmoor providing breeding habitat for golden plover and dunlin, which do not currently breed on the two lower moors. There is also a

27 greater expanse of upland heath habitat, thus less edge effect, to support red grouse on Dartmoor, although much of the heather is in poor condition, and is not managed for the species.

The grazing regimes on Bodmin and Dartmoor have been more intense in recent decades (pers.obs.; D Glaves (DEFRA), pers.comm.) and this has had a detrimental effect on heath vegetation. Grazing levels are more difficult to control on Dartmoor and Bodmin Moor because of the greater proportion of common land. Dartmoor moorland is 75% common land and Bodmin Moor is approximately 40% compared with only 25% on Exmoor moorland. Overgrazing and its effect on vegetation is probably a reason why the whinchat population on these moors is smaller than on Exmoor, and why Dartford warbler is not more widespread at lower altitudes on Dartmoor and on Bodmin Moor. However, the extent and form of Exmoor combes may provide more favourable habitat for whinchat, than on the other moors.

Another major habitat difference is the relative lack of valley mire habitat on Exmoor compared to Bodmin and Dartmoor. This probably explains the smaller population of snipe on Exmoor. There are differences in the vegetation type (quality?) of valley mire on all three moors. Bodmin is a low altitude moor and its mires often contain willow scrub. As a result these mires support a large population of sedge warbler, a species virtually non-existent on Dartmoor or Exmoor.

Further habitat differences are noticeable. On Dartmoor and Bodmin there are extensive stone walls, tors and clitter slopes. These features combined with the general heavier grazing regime to provide extensive breeding habitat for wheatear.

The three main South West moors provide important ‘island’ habitats for birds in South West England and have widely differing characteristics. Regional and local biodiversity action plans should take these differences into account. Important bird populations and their habitats on each moorland have recently been identified (Chown, 2000; Geary, 2000 & this survey). Co-operative management between landowners and authorities of the three moorlands is needed to maintain and enhance the overall breeding populations of moorland birds within the South West region.

4.6 Recommendations for maintaining/enhancing breeding bird populations

Exmoor supports important local populations of all target species, with the exception of red grouse and lapwing, which are now probably extinct, and perhaps yellowhammer, which is more a bird of lowland farmland. The conservation value of Exmoor in terms of bird populations has been described with reference to the species’ populations in a regional, national and international context and thus qualifying their conservation status. These criteria suggest that the existing moorland species with highest priority are curlew, skylark, whinchat, stonechat, Dartford warbler, grasshopper warbler, linnet and reed bunting.

4.6.1 Exmoor Heaths (candidate) Special Area of Conservation This should bring greater protection to most of the heathland within the National Park. However, there are several areas of lowland heath, which are currently not considered within the designated area – Croydon Hill, Gallox Hill and Bat’s Castle, and heaths along the Tivington-Grabbist Ridge. These areas support a proportion of the populations of two nationally important species on Exmoor moorland and heath – stonechat and Dartford warbler (Table 5), but also a regionally important population of nightjar Caprimulgus europaeus (Ballance,2001b), an Annex 1 and UK BAP species.

Other moorland not protected under the cSAC, includes most of the predominantly grass moor habitat, which holds the majority of the populations of skylark, meadow pipit, wheatear and reed

28 bunting. An important area of marginal wet grassland not protected by SSSI or cSAC designation is Codsend Moors. Although this area was not formally surveyed in 2002, a supplementary visit revealed it to hold breeding populations or provide feeding sites for several target species including curlew, whinchat, grasshopper warbler, and reed bunting. In 1992/93 the site also held breeding snipe (Chown & Robins,1994).

4.6.2 Environmentally Sensitive Area scheme This probably provides the greatest opportunity for holistic moorland management, but this depends upon all the moorland, especially the commons, coming into agreement and suitable management prescriptions being tailored to specific areas of the moor to enhance or maintain preferred habitats for different bird species.

There have already been significant advances since the scheme came into existence in 1993. The most recent available figures from 1999 show that c.112.4 km2 (c.68 %) of Exmoor moorland is currently under ESA agreement (D Glaves (DEFRA), pers. comm.). However, to enhance and increase the area of dwarf-shrub heath will require the establishment of more Tier 2 management agreements.

Not all species would benefit from greater dwarf-shrub heath cover, for instance, skylark and wheatear. Management for these species requires more tailored management prescriptions of some grass moor areas to ensure the appropriate shorter sward height and composition.

4.6.3 Grazing pressure The ESA scheme aims to manage grazing pressure on moorland. In general, grazing pressure is much lighter than other South West moors (pers. obs; D Glaves (DEFRA), pers.comm.). The main reason for less overgrazing on Exmoor is likely to be because of relatively smaller area of common land and therefore more control over livestock numbers. On all moors lack of shepherding can result in localised heavier grazing, especially within sheltered valleys or combes, as on Exmoor. This probably benefits wheatear but may be detrimental to whinchat and ring ouzel. Prescription 42 (Tier 1, Part 4) addresses the issue of not allowing livestock to concentrate their grazing in vulnerable areas. This could be tailored for Exmoor by rewording the prescription to include ‘combes’ as vulnerable areas.

4.6.4 Swaling Swaling can also be managed by ESA agreements and should therefore become more organised on a whole moor scale with further take up of the ESA scheme. Timing of swaling on an annual basis is at present not always conducive to bird populations, especially skylark and meadow pipit. It is recommended that swaling be stopped after 31 March, not 15 April as is presently the case, to protect early nesting birds and other fauna, e.g. reptiles, amphibians and invertebrates.

4.6.5 Vehicular access Uncontrolled access by motor vehicles to remote moorland areas during the breeding season will result in unnecessary disturbance to breeding birds and poses a serious threat to ground nesting species. Excessive off road driving will also damage heathland vegetation and increase the risk of soil erosion.

4.6.6 Heather moorland Although there was evidence of some rotational burning in the existing key areas of heather moorland, it often appeared haphazard in terms of extent and frequency, making it unsuitable for red grouse. Exmoor is not managed as a grouse moor and there are currently no financial incentives to manage the heather moorland in this way. Creation of a grouse moor for shooting would create other management problems for the National Park and possibly for the conservation of other bird species.

29 4.6.7 Scrub Qualitative information suggests that scrub encroachment has increased along many combes in recent years (D K Ballance, pers.comm.). It is possible that this has allowed atypical moorland bird species such as blackbird to penetrate further into the moor. The effects of this are unproven, but it is possible that blackbird may compete with ring ouzel for breeding territory. Rhododendron was established in several areas along Badgworthy Water, particularly in several of the tributary combes. If unchecked this may spread to other combes resulting in further loss of breeding habitat for heathland birds.

4.6.8 Predators There is no evidence that predators are having a serious impact on Exmoor’s bird populations. However, the remains of a juvenile snipe was found on Almsworthy Common, but it was unclear whether the bird had been predated or its corpse scavenged. Consequently, the effect of predation on ground-nesting birds, particularly the small populations of curlew and snipe, is unknown. The survey established that Carrion crow and fox (pers.obs) are widespread over moorland areas.

4.7 Improvements to current methodology and suggestions for further monitoring and research

The Brown & Shepherd (1993) methodology is considered to be more useful in moorland areas compared to distance sampling methods such as the BBS (Gilbert et al. 1998). This is because distance-sampling methods require large sample sizes to obtain accurate population estimates but most moorland bird populations breed at low density, necessitating a large sample of survey squares to obtain a suitable number of bird registrations for analysis. The B&S method is more time consuming but it probably gives a more accurate estimate of population. However, it could be more standardised in terms of fixing transect routes by the use of hand-held GPS units. This would enable routes to be re walked more accurately between survey visits and between surveys.

Several areas of Section 3 coastal heath, including some that are part of the Exmoor Heaths cSAC, have not been surveyed by either RSPB survey. Ideally, these should be surveyed in 2003 to provide a more accurate overall estimate of Exmoor moorland bird populations. The unsurveyed areas are Heddon’s Mouth, Valley of Rocks, Foreland Point, Countisbury and County Gate.

Curlew may benefit from research to establish their preferred breeding and foraging sites, breeding success and factors influencing these. This may also offer information on potential predators/predation and would be useful in guiding management policy with respect to predator control measures.

Dipper and grey wagtail have been ignored by surveys of other upland areas in South West England and were not considered to be adequately covered by this survey. Exmoor Natural History Society undertook a dipper survey in 2002 and data from survey will contribute to this. However, it is suggested that grey wagtail, together with any gaps in coverage in the ENHS dipper survey, be surveyed to obtain more accurate estimates within Exmoor National Park along moorland and non- moorland reaches of rivers, and possible threats to their populations be identified.

In view of their declining national populations, it is recommended that future surveys include kestrel and lesser redpoll as a target species (see Section 3.3).

30 REFERENCES

ANON (1997). Environmental Monitoring in the Exmoor ESA 1993-1996. ADAS Report to the MAFF, April 1997.

BALLANCE, D. K. (1999). Exmoor Upland Birds: A personal survey. Somerset Birds 1999. Somerset Ornithological Society.

BALLANCE, D. K. (2001a). Exmoor Upland Birds: A personal survey. Devon Birds 54(3): 3-9.

BALLANCE, D. K. (2001b).Nightjar Survey: Croydon Hill and other West Somerset Areas 2001. Unpublished Report.

BOOKER, H. (2001). Quantock Hills moorland breeding bird survey 2000. Unpublished RSPB Report, Exeter.

BROWN, A. F. & SHEPHERD, K. B. (1993). A method for censusing upland breeding waders. Bird Study 40(3):189-195.

CHOWN, D. & ROBINS, M. (1994). Exmoor moorland breeding bird survey 1992/93. Unpublished RSPB Report, Exeter.

CHOWN, D. J. & AKERS, P. G. (1984). Survey of the breeding birds of Bodmin Moor. Cornwall Trust for Nature Conservation.

CHOWN, D. J. (2000). Bodmin Moor Breeding Bird Survey 1999. Unpublished RSPB Report, Exeter.

COLOMBE, S., WOODLAND, H. & ROBINS, M. (1993). Exmoor Moorland Bird Survey 1992. Unpublished RSPB Report, Exeter.

CRANSWICK, P., POLLITT, M., MUSGROVE, A., & HUGHES, B. (1999). The Wetland Bird Survey 1997-98: Wildfowl and Wader Counts. BTO, WWT, RSPB, JNCC.

DAVIES, S. & JARMAN, R. (1978). Exmoor Moorland Ornithological Survey. Unpublished RSPB & Somerset Trust for Nature Conservation Report, Exeter.

GEARY, S. (2000). Dartmoor moorland breeding bird survey 2000: Incorporating a survey of Rhôs pasture. Unpublished DNPA Report, Bovey Tracey.

GIBBS, B. & BALLANCE, D. K. (in press). The birds of the Quantocks & Exmoor. Isabelline Books, Falmouth.

GIBBONS, D. W., REID, J. B., & CHAPMAN, R. A. (1993). The New Atlas of Breeding Birds in Britain and Ireland: 1988-1991. T & A. D. Poyser, London.

GLAVES, D. J. (1998). A survey of breeding Stonechat in the Blackdown Hills,1998. Devon Bird Report 1998: 155-158. Devon Bird Watching & Preservation Society.

GREIG-SMITH, P. W. (1982). Interspecific aggression between chats. Bird Study 29: 162-164.

GREGORY, R. D., WILKINSON, N. I., NOBLE, D. G., ROBINSON, J. A., BROWN, A. F.,

31 HUGHES, J., PROCTOR, D., GIBBONS, D. W. (2002). A priority list for bird conservation in the United Kingdom, Channel Islands and Isle of Man: Birds of Conservation Concern, 2002-2007. British Birds 95 (in press).

HEATH, M. F. & EVANS, M. I. (2000). Important Bird Areas in Europe. BirdLife International Conservation Series No.8.

JEFFS, C. & LOCK, L. (1998). Review of breeding waders in south west England. Unpublished RSPB Report, Exeter.

LOCK, L. (1998). Review of Lowland farmland birds and pastoral systems in south west England. Unpublished RSPB Report, Exeter.

LOCK, L. (2000). Important Bird Areas in the RSPB SW Region. Unpublished RSPB Report, Exeter.

MAFF (1998). Exmoor ESA: Guidelines for farmers.

MARCHANT, J. (2001). Waterways bird surveys – latest results, and a new challenge. BTO News 236: 8-10.

MEAD, C. (2000). The state of the nation’s birds. Whittet Books Ltd, Stowmarket.

MUDGE, G. P., CROOKE, C. H., BOOTH, R. G., SMITH, S. E. A (1979). An ecological study of breeding bird populations and vegetation on open moorland areas of Dartmoor 1979. Unpublished RSPB and DNPA Report, Exeter.

NOBLE, D. G., RAVEN, M. J. & BAILLIE, S. R. (2001). The Breeding Bird Survey 2000. BTO Research Report Number 265. British Trust for Ornithology, Thetford.

POLLITT, M. S., CRANSWICK, P. A., MUSGROVE, A. J., HALL, C., HEARN, R. D., ROBINSON, J. A. & HOLLOWAY, S. J. (2000). The Wetland Bird Survey 1998-89: Wildfowl and Wader Counts. BTO/WWT/RSPB/JNCC, Slimbridge.

SITTERS, H. [Ed] (1988). Tetrad Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Devon. Devon Bird Watching & Preservation Society.

STANBURY, A. (2002). Bird communities on chalk grassland – a case study of Salisbury Plain Training Area. British Wildlife 13(5): 344-350.

TUCKER, G. M. & HEATH, M. F. (1994). Birds in Europe: their conservation status. BirdLife International Conservation Series No.3, Cambridge, UK.

STONE, B. H., SEARS, J., CRANSWICK, P. A., GREGORY, R. D., GIBBONS, D. W., REHFISCH, M. M., AEBISCHER, N. J., & REID, J. B. (1997). Population estimates of birds in Britain and in the United Kingdom. British Birds 90:1-22.

WILSON, A. (1999). Tumbling Lapwing populations. BTO News 224:14.

WOTTON, S.R., LANGSTON, R.H.W. & GREGORY, R.D. 2002. The breeding status of the Ring Ouzel Turdus torquatus in the UK in 1999. Bird Study, 49, 26-34

32 Introduction to Tables 3-12

The following abbreviations are used in several tables.

BTO Species Codes:

ML Merlin Q. Quail RG Red grouse L. Lapwing GP Golden plover DN Dunlin SN Snipe CU Curlew CK Cuckoo S. Skylark TP Tree pipit MP Meadow pipit GL Grey wagtail DI Dipper RT Redstart WC Whinchat SC Stonechat W. Wheatear RZ Ring ouzel GH Grasshopper warbler DW Dartford warbler WH Whitethroat C. Carrion crow LI Linnet Y. Yellowhammer RB Reed bunting

Other acronyms

BoCC Birds of Conservation Concern SSSI Site of Special Scientific Interest cSAC candidate Special Area of Conservation BAP Biodiversity Action Plan

33 Table 3. Comparison of the number of territories per major survey area in 1992/93 and 2002

Table 3. Comparison of the number of territories in each sub-area in 1992/3 and 2002

RG L SN CU TP GL DI RT WC SC W RZ GH DW RB Sub- Extent area (km2) 92/93 2002 92/93 2002 92/93 2002 92/93 2002 92/93 2002 92/93 2002 92/93 2002 92/93 2002 92/93 2002 92/93 2002 92/93 2002 92/93 2002 92/93 2002 92/93 2002 92/93 2002 **1 1.2 2 22 2 71 23 22 43 2 16.1 5 1 6 9 13 6 33 29 7 22 22 8 1 3 5 13 3 24.9 1 9 7 13 3 2 9 16 86 66 11 50 35 14 2 6 7 26 4 24.8 1 1 16 11 7 17 2 2 20 25 66 66 15 49 18 12 3 7 13 34 5 22.3 1 3 2 3 5 4 27 15 3 4 1 1 22 29 116 60 56 90 2 2 11 1 5 14 15 5 14 **6 1.0 52 21 67103 26 13 7 1.4 21 22 1 127 1 2 8 17.2 1 1 1 20 23 7 15 5 5 4 16 33 27 2 31 14 10 1 10 10 25 9 3.1 1 1 2 1 6 5 10 10.7 3 1 11 8 2 3 25 19 18 53 3 8 9 2 25 **11 8.4 111171182411148 127.6 2 1719 1315136 4273 1 7 13 1.3 1314 2 1 65 31 12 1 14 1.7 11 19 2 4 2 5 15 3 2 15 1.4 12 3 7 10 12 5 2 16 4.8 1 2 6 1 35 11 12 1 2 17 5.8 10211 1 4 614134 28 *18 0.6 ?6 ?8 *19 0.8 ?5 11 6

TOTAL 153.7 1 0 3 0 5 9 8 5 160 118 37 65 11 12 102 131 429 292 250 449 115 55 13 1 11 52 0 62 53 165 Overall 8 9 170 129 38 108 448 253 468 118 12 68 68

Notes Subarea boundaries are shown in Figures 2 to 22 *Area not surveyed in 1992/93 - data not included in Totals **Only the hectarage surveyed in 1992/93 & 2002 is used for comparison Overall = overall population totals for species in either 1992/93 or 2002 where these have been adjusted in table to allow for differences in survey areas.

Subareas: 1 – Shoulsbarrow Common – Goat Hill; 2 – Challacombe – Hoaroak Water; 3 – Hoaroak Water – Badgworthy Water; 4 – Badgworthy Water – Exford/Porlock road; 5 – Exford/Porlock road – Robin Howe; 6 – Hoar Moor – Codsend Moor; 7 – Crawter Hill & Ley Hill; 8 – South of Simonsbath; 9 – Barcombe Down – North Molton Ridge; 10 – Cussacombe Common – East Anstey Common; 11 – Withypool Common & Halscombe Allotment; 12 – Winsford Hill – discrete area, includes Ashway Side/Varle Hill; 13 – Room Hill/Road Hill; 14 – Haddon Hill; 15 – Rodhuish Common & Black Hill; 16 – Holdstone Down – Trentishoe; 17 – Bossington – North Hill; 18 – Wootton Common & Alcombe Common (previously unsurveyed).

34 Table 4. Towards a bird conservation strategy for Exmoor moorland

Exmoor Exmoor BoCC as a % of as a % of Exmoor Red or SW SW as a % of Conservation Amber- UK upland regional British priority Species listed BAP pop pop pop Notes H M L Merlin A c .100 c .100 < 1 Only regular breeding area in southern England + Quail R < 1 < 1 < 1 Ephemeral population + Red grouse < 1 < 1 < 1 Probably extinct. Formerly one of two breeding + sites in southern England Lapwing A < 1 < 1 < 1 Probably extinct + Snipe A 5.1 5.0 < 1 Regionally important population + Curlew A 22.7 1.0 < 1 Continued decline + Cuckoo A 32.0 > 3 < 1 Regionally important population + Tree pipit A 30.6 > 1 < 1 Regionally important population + Skylark R + 8.4 > 1 < 1 Regionally important population + Meadow pipit A 11.2 > 7 < 1 Regionally important population + Grey wagtail A ? > 2 < 1 Regionally important population + Dipper ? > 1 < 1 Regionally important population + Redstart A 30.6 2.2 < 1 Regionally important population + Whinchat 39.5 32.5 1.4 Internationally important population (>140 pairs) + Stonechata A 19.9 16.4 3.1 Internationally important population (>90 pairs) + Ring ouzel R 25.6 17.2 < 1 One of two breeding sites in southern England + Grasshopper warbler R 32.7 3.8 < 1 Regionally important population + Dartford warblera A 43.9 14.3 4.0 Nationally important population + Linnet R + 27.9 1.4 < 1 Regionally important population + Yellowhammer R 10.7 < 1 < 1 + Reed bunting R + 18.1 1.4 < 1 Regionally important population + Notes 1) Red and Amber-listed species from Gregory, R. D. et al . (2002). 2) H – High, M – Medium, L – Low indicate suggested conservation priorities for Exmoor moorland birds 3) Exmoor populations as a % of SW regional population estimates are derived from Lock (2000) and RSPB unpublished data (Ian Fisher, pers.comm.). 4) ? = Where SW upland or regional populations are unknown 5) a Large national population increase over past decade; estimates of proportions of population are tentative

35 Table 5. Breeding bird populations of Exmoor moorland SSSIs and Exmoor Heaths cSAC showing the percentage of moorland bird populations occurring within the SAC

SSSI subareas % Pop. SpeciesNorth South# Coast 15+18+19 cSAC* moorland Merlin na na na na na na Snipe 3600888 Curlew 32005100 Cuckoo1 36 28 1 0 48 74 Skylark2 1726 730 115 6 993 39 Tree pipit 30 83 2 14 79 61 Meadow pipit2 3187 1731 319 49 2549 48 Dipper 5700758 Grey wagtail 46 18 1 0 31 48 Redstart 87 44 0 0 95 72 Whinchat 225 66 1 0 202 69 Stonechat 258 127 52 31 273 58 Wheatear 39 11 5 0 26 46 Ring ouzel 4-50000100 Grasshopper warbler 30 22 0 0 28 54 Dartford warbler 17 10 30 11 57 84 Whitethroat 68 5 42 14 106 82 Carrion crow2 312 134 13 5 188 41 Linnet2 283 214 213 95 623 74 Yellowhammer 17 39 6 10 62 85 Reed bunting 93 72 0 0 70 42

Notes 1) Red-listed species are in bold text 2) *cSAC totals exclude subareas 1,8,15,18,19 and many whole or part 1-km squares of grassmoor habitat along the southern edge of the North Exmoor SSSI, north of Simonsbath 3) #South Exmoor SSSI totals exclude subareas 15,18,19 4) na = not available. Confidential information available from RSPB, Exeter 5) 1Singing males 6) 2Individuals

36 Table 6. Recommendations for enhancing populations of target species, and current best sites (localised species) and squares with highest counts (dispersed species)

Species Recommendations (top line) and current best sites (bottom line) Red Grouse Manage heather moorland by cyclic strip burning to appropriate timescales and dimensions. Further reintroduction may be necessary. Probably extinct. Formerly Dunkery Hill, Molland Common, Withypool Common, Brendon Common. Merlin Maintain heather moorland suitably for both breeding and prey species.

Lapwing Create habitat along moorland fringe in topographically open areas around mires by heavier grazing, e.g. Molland Common, Gourt Mires, Worth Hill, Lakehead Combe. Target areas with limited scrub or remove existing scrub. Revert improved pasture on reclamations toward unimproved grassland with suitable grazing regime, particularly where bordering valley mires. Probably extinct. Formerly bred Lucott Moor. Curlew Avoid heavy grazing (>0.4 LU/ha?). Maintain rank and unimproved damp grassland around moorland fringe. Research into breeding ecology on Exmoor. Wilmersham Common, Rowbarrows, Dunkery Hill, Codsend Moors, North Molton Ridge, Cussacombe/Molland Common. Snipe Avoid further artificial drainage and heavy grazing of mires. Light grazing desirable, not winter. Prevent encroachment of scrub/gorse. Madacombe, Long Breach Bottom, Alderman's Barrow Allotment, Soakey Moor, Codsend Moors (based on 1992/93 data). Cuckoo Likely to benefit from Meadow pipit numbers breeding in combes and lowland heath areas Widespread at low density in combes Skylark Maintain suitable sward conditions through moderate grazing levels on grassmoor and rotational burning on heather moorland will provide pioneer/building heather/grass mix, with open sward structure. Widespread. 8041,7642,7643,7042,7338,8242,7342,7941 Tree pipit Light/moderate grazing on lowland heath/moorland fringe, especially where scattered scrub/trees on drier slopes. Bracken cover seems important? Also uses young or recently felled plantations. Ashway Side, fringe of Winsford Hill, Barle Valley (Cornham-Picked Stones and tributaries), Kinsford Water, Dunkery Hill, Room/Road Hill/Curr Cleave. 8636,7937,9628,7838,9728 Meadow pipit Light grazing of mires and drier habitats. Grazing pressure below 0.3 LU/ha should be particularly beneficial. Control extent, annual timing and long- term large scale distribution of swaling over open moorland. Widespread. 8041,7637,8334,7941,7042,8541,8642,8234,7143,8130,7643 Uses crevices under old stone bridges for nesting and roosting. Renovation of Dipper old bridges should be carried out sympathetically, avoiding total infilling and pointing of stonework. Fast-flowing rivers and streams, with frequent riffles, this habitat is unlikely to change, however monitoring and control of agricultural runoff and its constituent compounds, from moorland enclosures may be important. Waters: Badgworthy, upper Exe/Barle, Hoaroak, Farley, Weir, Chalk

37 Table 6. Recommendations for enhancing populations of target species, and current best sites (localised species) and squares with highest counts (dispersed species)

Species Recommendations (top line) and current best sites (bottom line) Grey wagtail Fast-flowing rivers and streams, with frequent rocks and riffles, and overhanging banks for nesting. This habitat is finite and unlikely to change in near future. Other comments as Dipper. Widespread at low density along rivers and streams Redstart Maintain Beech hedgerows with mature trees, tree clumps, stonewalls/old buildings, scrub/woodland edge along fringe of moor. Provision of nestboxes at farmsteads were natural hole nest sites are limited. Weir Water (below Lyncombe/Oare Common). 8246,8146,8545,8842,8636,7945,8942 Whinchat Open shallow-sloping hillsides with bracken/mature heather/scattered scrub and fences - used for songposts and feeding. Heather and bracken lined slopes in combes, with scattered scrub. Lightly grazed mires grading to drier heath, with thinly scattered scrub or fences Combes: along Dunkery Hill, Ember/Chetsford/Nutscale. Waters: Farley, Hoaroak, Badgworthy and tributaries, Weir, Chalk, upper Exe/Barle valleys and tributaries. 8542,7943,8742,7143,7843,8642,7838,7745 Stonechat Maintain encourage dry, lowland heath, Ulex gallii/Calluna mix by grazing at no more than 0.225 LU/ha. Bracken/gorse/heather slopes in combes, with scattered scrub for song perches and feeding. Increase ESA Tier 2 agreements. Lower slopes of Dunkery Hill, Bossington/Selworthy Hill, Holdstone/ Trentishoe Down, Croydon Hill, Porlock Down, and widespread combes/ waters and tributaries: Badgworthy, upper Barle/Exe, Weir, Chalk, Hoaroak, Farley, and Thornworthy/Shallowford Commons. 8229,9048,8546,8833,8742,9528 Wheatear Increase/retain grazing pressure in areas with stonewalls, and rock outcrops in combes, along undercliffs on coast. Management likely to conflict with needs of other species. Waters/Combes and tributaries: Chalk, Badgworthy, upper Barle/Exe, Hoaroak, Farley. 7943,7442,7443 Ring ouzel Mature/degenerate heather at head of steep combes, with rock outcrops/ walls/ derelict buildings, scattered trees/scrub. Dunkery Hill east to Chetsford Water, Badgworthy Water and tributaries (1992/93). 8742 Grasshopper warbler Minimal grazing of mires/ rank Molinia in valley bottoms. Maintain some mature/degenerate heather. Dunkery Hill, Wilmersham Common, West Pinford, Molland Common, and thinly distributed across North & South SSSIs. 8742,8541,7741,7538,8229, 8642,9628,7641,7337,7941,8029 Dartford warbler Maintain/increase area of south-western heath by mean annual grazing at <0.225 LU/ha, reduced in winter. Increase ESA Tier 2 agreements. Dunkery Hill, Ley Hill, Croydon Hill, Grabbist-Tivington Ridge, Bossington/Selworthy Hill, Holdstone/Trentishoe Down. 9147,9048,8229, 9142, 9148,9247,9143,9447,9547,9242 Whitethroat Maintain/increase area of south western heath by grazing at <0.225 LU/ha, and coastal scrub.

38 Table 6. Recommendations for enhancing populations of target species, and current best sites (localised species) and squares with highest counts (dispersed species)

Species Recommendations (top line) and current best sites (bottom line) Lowland heath Dunkery Hill, Bossington/Selworthy Hill, Trentishoe/Holdstone Down, Croydon Hill, Ley Hill. 9043,8844,9143,8848,8542,9141,9547,9348 Linnet Encourage expansion of south-western heath by grazing at < 0.225 LU/ha or less, limited rotational swaling or cutting gorse, particularly along moorland/farmland ecotone. Dunkery Hill, Bossington/Selworthy/North Hill, thinly distributed along much of moorland fringe and in combes. 9939,9347,9049,9247,8229,9143, 9342,6347, 9142,8429 Yellowhammer Maintain gorse/scrub moorland/farmland ecotone, with bracken understorey and bushy hedgerows.

Dunkery Hill, Ley/Crawter Hill, Winsford Hill. 8428,8528,9744,9143,9243,8536 Reed bunting Minimal grazing of mires, encourage willow scrub. Control extent, timing and large scale distribution/timescale of swaling over open moorland. Widely distributed on open moor. Upper Exe/Barle, north of the Warren, 7941,8230,7741,8229,7841,8442

39 Table 7. Comparison of bird populations in 1992/93 with those in 2002 at 11 moorland GUs with long-standing ESA agreements or Non-agreements in 1993/94

ESA Species Agreement Sub S. TP MP WC SC W. GH DW LI RB Grazing Unit Tier Area 92/93 2002 92/93 2002 92/93 2002 92/93 2002 92/93 2002 92/93 2002 92/93 2002 92/93 2002 92/93 2002 92/93 2002 11 Winsford Allotment 212 133489 11 9

1 Holdstone/Trentishoe 1(5) 16 57 52 94 92 6 1 20 7 7 1 2 20 27 2 Bossington/Selworthy 1(5) 17 52 40 3 98 126 4 41 32 3 4 20 35 153 6 Manor Allotment 1(5) 4 ? ? ? ? 4 8 2 3 4 1 9 Molland Common 1(5) 10 132 103 7 6 152 292 18 14 8 31 7 7 12 40 1 21 10 Prescott Down 1(5) 6 5 8 2 31 11 4 1 2 2 12 Winsford Hill 1(5) 12 79 85 4 6 118 148 13 4 4 26 2 1 3 17 7 Sub total 325 288 16 14 493 669 39 26 74 100 15 9 7 30 70 239 1 29 4 Woodbarrow Hangings 1(4) 2 ? ? ? ? 3 3 1 2 7 Verneys Allotment 1(4) 8 4 12 1 1 9 20 1 1 1 1 1 2 Sub total 4121192044 12 1 2 2 3 Castle Common NA1 2716 1613 1 8 Brendon Common* NA 3 243 275 3 294 359 44 43 6 30 11 5 13 2 Sub total 270 291 3 310 372 44 43 6 30 11 6 13 2 All GUs Overall total 599 604 23 19 820 1070 87 73 80 132 29 15 8 30 72 261 1 33 Notes Bird numbers are pairs except S., MP, LI, which are individuals NA = No agreement ? = No comparable data * S., MP & LI comparison for 18 of 24 squares or part squares No comparable data for GUs 5.Oare House Allotment & 13.The Foreland

40 Table 8. The percentage of the population change within each moorland subarea attributable to the population change in a Grazing Unit within the subarea. If ESA prescriptions are havin the desired effect on vegetation then for all species, except Skylark and Wheatear, there should be no negative changes. Only grazing units where it was possible to compare Skyla and Meadow pipit populations are included

Skylark Wheatear

Sub Sub area 92/3 2002Grazing Unit 92/3 2002 % area 92/3 2002Grazing Unit 92/3 2002 % 16 78 59 1 Holdstone/Trentishoe 57 52 -26 16 12 1 1 Holdstone/Trentishoe 71-55 17 71 56 2 Bossington/Selworthy 52 40 -80 17 3 4 2 Bossington/Selworthy 3433 10 228 129 9 Molland Common 132 103 -29 10 3 0 9 Molland Common 000 12 81 97 12 Winsford Hill 79 85 38 12 3 0 12 Winsford Hill 20-66 3 515 449 8 Brendon Common* 243 276 ?+ 3 35 14 8 Brendon Common 11 5 -29 Meadow pipit Grasshopper warbler

Sub Sub area 92/3 2002Grazing Unit 92/3 2002 % area 92/3 2002Grazing Unit 92/3 2002 % 16 104 99 1 Holdstone/Trentishoe 94 92 -40 16 0 0 1 Holdstone/Trentishoe 00na 17 173 171 2 Bossington/Selworthy 98 126 ?+ 17 0 0 2 Bossington/Selworthy 00na 10 238 429 9 Molland Common 152 292 73 10 0 8 9 Molland Common 0788 12 142 190 12 Winsford Hill 118 148 63 12 0 0 12 Winsford Hill 00na 3 465 655 8 Brendon Common* 294 359 34 3 0 6 8 Brendon Common 000 Tree pipit Dartford warbler

Sub Sub area 92/3 2002 Grazing Unit 92/3 2002 % area 92/3 2002Grazing Unit 92/3 2002 % 16 0 0 1 Holdstone/Trentishoe 00na 16 0 2 1 Holdstone/Trentishoe 02100 17 10 2 2 Bossington/Selworthy 30-38 17 0 28 2 Bossington/Selworthy 02071 10 11 8 9 Molland Common 76-33 10 0 9 9 Molland Common 0778 12 17 19 12 Winsford Hill 46100 12 0 1 12 Winsford Hill 01100 3 9 0 8 Brendon Common 30-33 3 0 0 8 Brendon Common 00na Whinchat Linnet

Sub Sub area 92/3 2002Grazing Unit 92/3 2002 % area 92/3 2002Grazing Unit 92/3 2002 % 16 6 1 1 Holdstone/Trentishoe 61-100 16 57 53 1 Holdstone/Trentishoe 20 27 ?+ 17 4 0 2 Bossington/Selworthy 30-75 17 59 160 2 Bossington/Selworthy 35 128 92 10 25 19 9 Molland Common 18 14 -66 10 45 107 9 Molland Common 12 40 45 12 13 6 12 Winsford Hill 54-14 12 5 18 12 Winsford Hill 31592 3 86 66 8 Brendon Common 44 43 -5 3 12 23 8 Brendon Common* 61691 Stonechat Reed bunting

Sub Sub area 92/3 2002Grazing Unit 92/3 2002 % area 92/3 2002 Grazing Unit 92/3 2002 % 16 35 11 1 Holdstone/Trentishoe 20 7 -54 16 0 0 1 Holdstone/Trentishoe 00na 17 61 41 2 Bossington/Selworthy 41 32 -45 17 0 0 2 Bossington/Selworthy 00na 10 18 53 9 Molland Common 831 77 10 2 25 9 Molland Common 12191 12 4 27 12 Winsford Hill 426 96 12 0 7 12 Winsford Hill 07100 3 11 50 8 Brendon Common 630 62 3 7 26 8 Brendon Common 0211 Notes Data are pairs except skylark, meadow pipit & linnet which are individua *Meadow pipit, skylark and linnet are compared in 18 of 24 squares or part squares covering this commo na = not applicable ? = conflicting population trend

41 Table 9. Breeding birds of open moorland in Cornwall, Devon and Somerset

Upland BoCC Red-listed species BoCC Amber-listed species BoCC Green-listed species Q. S.* RZ LI* Y. RB ML L. DN SN CU CK TP MP* GL RT SC GH DW RG GP DI WC W. Exmoor (15,560 ha) 2 1290 10 840 73 165 X 0095651292640 65 131 468 52 68 0 0 12 292 57 % British pop < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 0 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 3.1 < 1 4 0 0 < 1 1.4 < 1 % SW upland pop ? 8.4 25.6 27.9 10.7 18.1 X 0.0 0.0 5.1 22.7 32.0 30.6 11.2 ? 30.6 19.9 32.7 43.9 0.0 0.0 ? 39.5 2.0 Dartmoor (48,000 ha) 0 13300 29 1800 526 600 0 16 12 150 4 115 250 19800 / 263 1600 75 65 24 6 / 350 2500 % British pop < 1 1.2 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 0 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 1 < 1 < 1 10.6 < 1 3.8 < 1 < 1 < 1 1.6 4.5 % SW upland pop 0.0 86.8 74.4 59.9 76.8 65.8 0.0 35.6 100.0 85.2 18.2 56.7 59.4 83.6 ? 61.4 68.2 47.2 41.9 100.0 100.0 ? 47.4 86.1 Quantock Hills (2,000 ha) 078093860000001034210?812801800 /220 % British pop < 1< 10< 1< 1< 100000< 1< 1< 1< 1< 1< 10100< 1< 10 % SW upland pop 0.0 0.5 0.0 3.1 12.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.9 8.1 0.9 ? 1.9 5.5 0.0 11.6 0.0 0.0 ? 3.0 0.0 Bodmin Moor (20,000 ha) 0 648 0 274 / 147 0 29 0 17 13 13 8 1026 / 26 151 32 4 0 0 / 75 348 % British pop 0 < 1 0 < 1 < 1 < 1 0 < 1 0 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 1 < 1 < 1 0 0 < 1 < 1 < 1 % SW upland pop 0.0 4.2 0.0 9.1 ? 16.1 0.0 64.4 0.0 9.7 59.1 6.4 1.9 4.3 ? 6.1 6.4 20.1 2.6 0.0 0.0 ? 10.1 12.0 SW upland total (86,000 ha) 2 15316 39 3007 685 912 X 45 12 176 22 203 421 23676 65 428 2347 159 155 24 6 12 739 2905 SW upland as % British 0.7 1.5 0.5 0.6 0.1 0.4 X 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.4 1.2 0.2 0.5 15.6 1.5 9.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 3.5 5.3 British pop estimate (000s) 0.3 1046 8 520 1200 220 1.3 126.3 9.5 55 35.5 19.5 120 1900 34 90 15 10.5 1.7 250 22.6 14 21 55 Notes Areas in parentheses are Section 3 Moorland and Heath taken from Section 3 Conservation Maps (under Section 3 of Wildlife and Countryside (Amendment) Act 1985) X Confidential data; available from RSPB SWRO where appropriate. / Believed to have bred, no population estimate available. *Species populations are estimated pairs by dividing estimated number of birds by two. BoCC Lists from: Gregory, R. D. et al . (2002). The population status of birds in the United Kingdom, Channel Islands and Isle of Man: an analysis of conservation concern 2002-2007. British population estimates from: Mead, C. (2000). The state of the nation’s birds . Whittet Books Ltd, Stowmarket. SW upland estimates are most recent, or best, from following sources: Booker, H. (2001). Quantock Hills moorland breeding bird survey 2000 . Unpublished RSPB report, Exeter. Geary, S. (2000). Dartmoor moorland breeding bird survey 2000 . Unpublished DNPA report, Bovey Tracey. Chown, D. J. (2000). Bodmin Moor breeding bird survey 1999 . Unpublished RSPB report, Exeter. Estimates relate to birds of open moorland but the rules for excluding fringing habitats are variously defined. 42 Table 10. Bird population comparisons in South West uplands

Species Upland area Salisbury Bodmin Dartmoor Exmoor Quantock Plain Combined total Quail 2 36 38 Red grouse 18-30 18-30 Merlin < 10 < 10 Golden plover 6 6 Lapwing 29 11-16 40-45 Dunlin 12 12 Snipe 18 100-200 9+ 127-227 Curlew 13 4 5 21 Cuckoo1 13 115 68 20 216 Skylark 648 13000 14612 28260 Tree pipit 8 249 129 34 217 637 Meadow pipit 1028 20000 210 8869 30107 Dipper 12 12 Grey wagtail 65 65 Redstart 100-200 268 131 8 507-607 Whinchat 75 577* 292 22 586 1552 Stonechat2 151 1612 468 128 223 2582 Wheatear 348 3000 55 1 3404 Ring ouzel 29-41 4-5 34-46 Grasshopper warbler 38 77 52 264 431 Sedge warbler 95 1 2 98 Dartford warbler 4 65 68 18 155 Whitethroat 129 41 4008 4187 Carrion crow 464 464 Linnet 548 1800 420 93 2294 5155# Yellowhammer 8 526 73 86 1409 2102 Reed bunting 147 601 165 267 1180

1Singing males 2Up to 45 pairs breed on the Blackdown Hills (Glaves,1998) #Overall population close to national importance *Considered a substantial overestimate Bold numbers indicate populations of national importance Italic & bold numbers indicate populations of international importance

43 Table 11. Distribution of bird territories on Exmoor moorland by 1-km square

SURVEY KMSQ AREAYEAR Q. L. SN CU CK S. TP MP GL DI RT WC SC W. RZ GH DW WH C. LI Y. RB SS/ST ha 92 93 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 5847 10XX00000000000 0 00 2 1 0000000011000000000201390000 5848 16XX00000000001 0 00131 0000000031110000000100530000 5947 8 XX00000000005 2 00106 0000000010000000000000910000 5948 18XX00000000002 0 00112 0000000020000000000200600000 6047 53XX00000000007 4 00162110000001510000000001011080000 6048 39XX00000000006 0 0012180000001030400000000100410000 6147 66XX0000000000135 0018310000000020200000010002210000 6148 39XX00000000007 0 0016110000000012300000000000100000 6247 73XX000000000017270027280000100052000000000002130000 6248 50XX00000000008 3 00163 0000003062000000000000260000 6346 1 XX00000000000 0 00 0 0 0000000000000000000000000000 6347 76XX00000000011217001719000010003201000000000210170000 6348 28XX00000000000 1 00107 0000002030200000010000440000 6842 16XX0000000000124 0012140000000000000000000000000000 6843 37XX0000000000210 0025100000001000000000000000200000 6939 [20] X 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 5 ? 0 ? [5] ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 2 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 6942 47XX0000000001100 3016120000115332300000000001250000 6943 49XX0000000000237 0021250000001011000000000001010000 7038 1 XX00000000000 0 00 0 0 0000000000000000000000000000 7039 49XX0000000000377 0030200000011000000000000000000000 7041 7 XX00000000004 4 00 2 8 0000000000000000000000000000 7042 100XX000000000043380045540000002101000000000003200001 7043 81XX000000000028220033320000000000200000000002000000 7044 50XX0000000000161 0015120000002001100001000000000000 7045 2 XX00000000000 0 00 0 0 0000000000000000000000000000 7046 8 XX00000000002 0 00 7 0 0000000000000000000000200000 7139 34PPX000000000027160016130000000000010000000000000000 7140 7.5XX00000000008 2 00123 0000000000000000000001000000 7141 30XX0000000000165 0012100000000000100001000000000011 7142 95XX000000000043330037420000001100000010000002030000 7143 97XX000000000026222138600100214812300001000001010010 7144 74XX000000000025140025381000105313200000000004060011 7145 53XX000000000020120013150000000000010000000001640000 7146 21XX00000000002 5 00 2 9 0000000000000000000001120000 7237 14X X00000000000 2 00 0100000000000000000000001000000 7238 79X X000000000030240024390000000000000000000004000000 7239 57PPX000000000030120023150000101000100001000000000000 7240 34XX0000000001297 2020192200015123220000000001000043 7241 60X X000000000026120010150100011002010000000002000013 7242 100X X000000000027210025470100001000010000000008000013 7243 100X X000000000113120015431100006413200000000000000000 7244 62XX000000000012160023340100304302000000000001060003 7245 2 XX00000000000 0 00 0 2 0000000000000000000000000000 7336 44X X000000000017170015220000000001000000000000000000 7337 94X X0000001000309 0031440010002102100002000000000012 7338 97X X000000000046400032420000000001000000000007000001 7339 8 X X00000000000 1 00 0 4 0000000002000000000000000000 7340 [2]X 0?0?0?0?0? 0 ? 0? 0 ? 0?0?0?0?0?0?0?0?0?0?0?0?0?0? 7341 69X X000000000021330017140000000000000000000001000000 7342 100X X000000000032560013200000000000100000000002000000 7343 100XXX0000000000237 0016310000000201400000000000000000 7344 89XX0000000000111600 9111000200100200000000004000000

44 Table 11. Distribution of bird territories on Exmoor moorland by 1-km square

SURVEY KMSQ AREAYEAR Q. L. SN CU CK S. TP MP GL DI RT WC SC W. RZ GH DW WH C. LI Y. RB SS/ST ha 92 93 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 7345 34XX00000000000 2 10 1 3 1100310000000000000000030000 7346 5 PPX00000000000 0 00 0 0 0000100000010000000000010000 7431 1 X X00000000000 0 00 0 0 0000000000000000000000000000 7436 53X X000000000010120016150000000000000000000000000001 7437 62X X000000000012270018270000000000000000000002000001 7438 97X X000000000021222220321211007102220000000004020012 7439 16X X00000000004 0 00102 0000004101000000000000000000 7441 61XX000000000018260019150000002010100000000001000001 7442 100X X000000000024260020121110001114430000000000040000 7443 94XXX0000000000151300166 0300222501030000000000000000 7444 93X X000000000022190017251101214405310000000005010000 7445 60X X0000000000154 00 9 0 0100012210200000000009000000 7446 [0.87] X ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? [1] ? 0 ? [2] ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 7531 37X X00000000003 2 0017190000000013000000000000000000 7532 5 X X00000000000 0 00 0 2 0000000000000000000000000000 7535 19X X0000000000100 00133 0000000000000000000002000000 7536 55X X00000000007 1100 7240100000002000000000001000002 7537 54XXX0000000000111300 9410000000000000000000000000000 7538 92X X00000100017 272228331100011011110002000008010000 7541 44XX000000000021140020140000005200000000000005400022 7542 100X X000010000150140019120000001001210000000002000001 7543 100X X0000000001215 0019261000018413220000000001000000 7544 100X X000000000027221031341100024516000000000004000000 7545 100X X0000000000302700298 0100005514000000000003000000 7546 47X X00000000006 130018150000000000000000000000000000 7631 19X X00000000004 3 00 7 7 0000000101000000000200010001 7632 34X X00000000009 5 0016130000000000000000000000000000 7635 61X X0000000000104 00164 0000000000000000000003000002 7636 45X X00000000002 2 00116 0100001000100001000000000001 7637 71X X000000000021320012510000000000000000000005000002 7638 81X X000000000017220020311101010100000011000001000011 7639 1 X X00000000000 0 00 0 0 0000010000000000000000000000 7640 2 XX00000000000 0 00 0 2 0000000000000000000000000000 7641 34XX0000000000151010162300000042121000020000010400003 7642 99X X000000000040360018480000000001000001000002000002 7643 100XX0000000000363600307400000021022000000000013000003 7644 100X X0000000000123000 1200000001000000000000003010000 7645 100X X000000000026320021300000001101000000000002000000 7646 54X X000000000010140011130000110000000000000000000000 7647 [2.49] X ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? [1] ? 0 ? [2] ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 7732 77X X000000000035120034200000000000000000000000000000 7733 12X X00000000000 1 00 0130100000102000000000001000000 7734 60X X00000000004 8 00 4140000000000100000000002000002 7735 100X X00000000018 8 00 7250000110000000000000000000000 7736 49XXX0000000000282 1024150010101101000000000000000010 7737 98X X000000000030200024240000000000000000000005000011 7738 86X X0000000000137 3224280100112100210000000002010003 7739 2 X X00000000000 0 00 0 0 0100000000000000000000000000 7740 [6.49] X ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? [1] ? 0 ? [10] ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 1 ? 0 ? 0 7741 91X X100000000017110017270000002103010002000000000016 7742 100X X000000000035150018160000003101000000000003000020 7743 100X X000000000029210023380000003301100000000000000011

45 Table 11. Distribution of bird territories on Exmoor moorland by 1-km square

SURVEY KMSQ AREAYEAR Q. L. SN CU CK S. TP MP GL DI RT WC SC W. RZ GH DW WH C. LI Y. RB SS/ST ha 92 93 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 7744 100X X00000000006 310018471000006500000000000000000000 7745 100X X000000000015310025450000005612100000000005000000 7746 61X X000000000018160027290000020102000000000004050000 7747 3 XX00000000000 0 00 0 0 0000000000000000000002020000 7832 45X X0000000100158 0025120000000000000000000000000000 7833 11X X00000000000 1 00 0 4 0000000102000000000000000002 7834 36X X00000000000 4 11 5 6 1100011101000001000000000001 7835 35X X00000000000 0 12 4 9 1000003102100000000000000010 7836 4 X X00000000010 0 00 0 3 0010010101000001000000030000 7837 90X X000000000118144217242111024304110000000005030022 7838 28X X00001000001 0 25111101010326131200000000000100011 7840 24X X00000000000 2 00 6140100112212000000000000000000 7841 100X X0000000000288 1033380000012001100010000000060015 7842 100X X0000000000469 1023260100103102200000000000000012 7843 100X X000000000041170021241200006811420000000000000001 7844 100X X00000000017 232012170000003200600000000000000001 7845 99X X00000000007 8 00 7241100004201102000000005000000 7846 100XX000000000017120035470000001002010000000004000000 7847 59XX0000000000144 00202200000321121000000000064140000 7929 10XX00000000005 2 00 1 4 0000000000000000000000000000 7930 29XX00000000009 1110 41500000010020000000000003100200 7936 8 X X00000000000 0 02 0 2 0100010100000000000000000000 7937 54X X00000000015 1 45151402010245052200010000040110011 7938 31 X00000000000 0 00 0 5 0000020200010000000000000001 7940 50XX00000000000 5 42 3 7 1100214311110000000005020000 7941 97X X000000000048340025540000001000000002000000000028 7942 100X X000000000019320042440000002113100000000000000013 7943 100X X0000000000281400123723100031006370001000006040001 7944 100X X0000000001139 20197 1110213200400000000000000000 7945 57XX00000000008 8 20148 0101040001000000000101000000 7946 43XX00000000013 5 0016110100113114000000000203630000 8029 36PPX00000000018 6 00 7160000000000000002000000040000 8030 87PPX000000000119140014210000110001000000000000220001 8031 27XX00000000016 2 00103 0000000000100000000000040101 8035 34X X00000000007 1 00 0130000000000010000000003010000 8036 41X X00000000003 3 00 8 6 0000002101000010000000000001 8037 18X X00000000003 2 0012100000000000000000000000000000 8039 16XX00000000000 3 00 2100100001101000000000000020001 8040 67PPX00000000001 1332 92510002361121000100000012550020 8041 100X X000000000027350014500000001200000001000003000013 8042 100X X000000000024150017320110004203310000000006020010 8043 96X X000000000018220013340000002401010000000002010000 8044 60XXX000000000011170011260000002105000001000001000000 8045 39XX00000000006 9 0015180000002001000000000001000000 8047 [26] X 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? [1] ? 0 ? [7] ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? [3] ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? [2] ? 0 ? 0 ? 8129 68X X00000000016 5 0211250000004214000001010003790201 8130 100XXX000001000221211122650000005334000001000002010013 8131 91X X000000000212300127420000000006000001000000010003 8132 [57] X 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? [21] ? [1] ? [19] ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? [4] ? [2] ? [2] ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? [3] ? 8133 [54] X 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? [20] ? 0 ? [21] ? 1 ? 0 ? 0 ? [2] ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? [3] ? 8134 82XX000000000015100023200000000000000000000004000001 8135 100X X0000000000411600483900000042020000000000012000012

46 Table 11. Distribution of bird territories on Exmoor moorland by 1-km square

SURVEY KMSQ AREAYEAR Q. L. SN CU CK S. TP MP GL DI RT WC SC W. RZ GH DW WH C. LI Y. RB SS/ST ha 92 93 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 8136 63X X0000000000133 00234 1101003313000000000001200011 8137 41X X00000000010 6 00 0220000000001000000000007010000 8139 29XX00000000006 1100 52000000000000000000001010000000 8140 48XX00000000007 103312171100205202000000000005000010 8141 94XX000000000034220022210000000100010000000004000001 8142 68X X0000001000251900 5310100101201010001000004000000 8143 86XX000000000036230023420000001000000010000002000013 8144 58X X00000000000 1000 0150201001401210000000003000000 8145 44X X0000000000186 00 9 7 1110130201220000000004030000 8146 54XX00000000004 9 0117250100150112110000000003440000 8147 [32] X 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? [15] ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? [1] ? 4 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? [3] ? 0 ? 0 ? 8229 70X X0000000000207 22 941000001451110000020400051180105 8230 100X X0000010000259 1023430000002322000000000000050006 8231 79X X0000010001123 2018140000001002000000000000000001 8232 [60] X 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? [23] ? 0 ? [17] ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? [2] ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? [1] ? 8233 [100] X 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? [34] ? 0 ? [33] ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? [1] ? 8234 100X X000000000015160017600000002303000000000000020013 8235 51X X00000000000 1500 03300000010010000000000010000000 8236 27X X00000000000 1 00 0 4 0000000023000000000000130000 8237 24X X00000000005 5 00287 0000000011000000000000330000 8241 37X X0200000000131600 8140000000000000000000000000000 8242 99X X000000000143450023420000012301000001000002030012 8243 100X X000000000043290025230000004512000000000000000023 8244 100X X00000000006 2 0021100100004412000001000002000000 8245 100X X000000000011160010260000002201000000000000000000 8246 66XX00000000017 1 32 6131200662113000000000000070000 8247 5 XX00000000000 ? 11 0 0 0000010000000000000000000100 8329 81X X0000000000203 1115170000001033000000020002960201 8330 43X X00000000009 8 1121250000002110000000000004200000 8331 [2]X 0?0?0?0?0? 0 ? 0? 0 ? 0?0?0?0?0?0?0?0?0?0?0?0?0?0? 8332 [85] X 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? [28] ? [3] ? [33] ? 0 ? 0 ? [1] ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 1 ? 8333 [55] X 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? [32] ? 0 ? [34] ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? [5] ? [1] ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? [2] ? 0 ? 3 ? 8334 100X X000000000113150022530000002224000001000002010103 8335 14X X00000000010 0 00 0130000000000000000000000020000 8341 6 X X00000000000 2 00 0 3 0000000000000000000000000000 8342 89X X000010000129210037330000011301000000000000000001 8343 100X X000000000051120019120000000200000000000000000001 8344 95X X00000000014 8 00145 0100103403000000000000020000 8345 43X X00000000000 2 00 2 8 0101312402000000000000000000 8346 [8]X 0?0?0?0?0? 0 ? 0?[2]? 0?0?0?0?0?0?0?0?0?0?0?0?0?0? 8347 [2]X 0?0?0?0?0? 0 ? 0? 0 ? 0?0?0?0?0?0?0?0?0?0?0?0?0?0? 8428 15X X00000000010 3 00 4 6 00000000020000000100025150600 8429 100X X000000100118151022360000012133100001010005270200 8430 12X X00000000012 3 00 5110000000300000000000003030000 8432 [25] X 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? [8] ? 0 ? [5] ? 0 ? 0 ? [1] ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 8433 17X 0000000000[11] ? 0 0 13 0 0000000000000010000000400010 8434 61XX000000000025100017290000001021000000000002230001 8435 11XX00000000005 0 00 6150000002002000000000000100110 8441 49XXX00000000019 131116251000001100000000000008030000 8442 93X X100000100012120055460100102405000000000006010024 8443 91PPX202000000145110035410000007403000001000005000002 8444 85PPX000000000013150024381000001203200000000002020001

47 Table 11. Distribution of bird territories on Exmoor moorland by 1-km square

SURVEY KMSQ AREAYEAR Q. L. SN CU CK S. TP MP GL DI RT WC SC W. RZ GH DW WH C. LI Y. RB SS/ST ha 92 93 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 8445 54X X00000000013 4 0012240000000204000001000002040000 8446 31XX00000000006 1 2021400000110011000000000000210000 8528 42X X00000000007 0 10129 00000000101000000000019130601 8529 85XXX0000000000258 0012120000001124000000000000040011 8530 3 X X00000000000 0 00 0 0 0000000000000000000000000000 8534 3 X X00000000000 0 00 0 0 0000000000000000000000000000 8535 9 PPX00000000000 0 00 0 0 0000000000000000000000000000 8536 42XX00000000006 0 31 6100000203101100000000000350400 8537 3 XX00000000000 0 00 0 2 0000000000000000000000000000 8539 [0.56] X ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 8540 49XX00000000016 100031310000000101000001000008010002 8541 99XX00000101013 2700305700000011524012002000002000021 8542 96XX00000010018 1340378 111141191334015011000501100011 8543 60XX0000000000119 0021241000108412000010000103400010 8544 64XX101000000016102018370000111002000000000002200000 8545 39XX0000000001133 2018200100253115000000000000120000 8546 58XX00000000007 6 00293400000010390000000000033110000 8628 42X X0000000001115 00176 0000000004000000000001130001 8629 15X X00000000010 0 00 0 1 0000100003000000000000000000 8630 1 X X00000000000 0 00 0 0 0000000000000000000000000000 8631 7 XX00000000000 0 10 3 0 0000000000000000000000000000 8633 10X X00000200010 2 00 0 4 0000000000000000000003000001 8634 79XXX00000000016 4 0014180000011001000000010000020300 8635 35X X00000000021 3 01 3110000000002100000000000070301 8636 62XX00000000013 1 7115 5 0201340011000000000000120200 8637 21XX00000000000 0 32 0 4 0000110000000000000000000000 8639 35XX00000000005 8 0031110000010001000000000006020000 8640 28XX0000000000154 5137111000338212000000000002000002 8641 73XX000011110011170040440000001122000011000007000001 8642 99XX000000010013310032570000109733002002000205010000 8643 61XX000000000014124013180100004201100000000109040000 8644 12XX00000000002 3 00 2140000000000000000000000020000 8645 4 XX00000000000 0 10 0 0 0000030001000000000000410000 8646 22XX00000000005 1 0011160000000021000000000000190000 8728 21X X00000000005 4 00116 0000001012000000000000430000 8731 32XX00000000004 1 1113150000012012000000000000000002 8732 14XX00000000004 1 51 6 2 0000222100000000000000000000 8733 37X X00000000006 3 00116 0000000001000000000001000001 8734 99X X00000000019 114217450000020102000000000000040001 8735 6 X X00000000000 0 01 0 3 0000010000000000000000020000 8737 3 XX00000000000 0 00 0 0 0000000000000000000000000000 8739 34XX00000000012 5 1023180000211011000000000002260000 8740 6 XX0000300001180 31280 0100225001000000000000000010 8741 56XX00000000003 7 0123300000000100000010000000010001 8742 90XX00000010019 4 1126350000325827101103000200210000 8743 14XX00000000001 1 00 5130000000001000000000005070100 8744 4 XX00000000002 0 00 2 0 0000020000000000000000020000 8831 34XX00000000007 4 2113110000322013000000000100020001 8832 39PPX00000000008 6 10 0 9 0000102011000000000102000000 8833 75X X0000000000121001167 0000102118000000000000000100 8834 69X X00000000008 9 0215200000101100000000000000000000 8839 [5]X 0?0?0?0?0? 0 ? 0? 0 ? 0?0?[1]?1?0?0?0?0?0?0?0?0?0?0?

48 Table 11. Distribution of bird territories on Exmoor moorland by 1-km square

SURVEY KMSQ AREAYEAR Q. L. SN CU CK S. TP MP GL DI RT WC SC W. RZ GH DW WH C. LI Y. RB SS/ST ha 92 93 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 8840 3 XX0000000000110 20202 1000201010100000000002100010 8841 79XX00001010008 5 0040340000101004001001000205070000 8842 44XX00000001010 1 0024140000157156000010000404020000 8843 23XX00000000011 1 00 4100000110000000000000103080000 8844 57XX0000000000102 0025130000101045010000010604240000 8845 32XX00000000001 1 10 9 4 0000000041000000010401570000 8931 29X X00000000012 8 0213110000120100000000000000200000 8932 72X X000000000114210210170000121005100000000000300100 8933 86X X00000000010 1113 6 4 0000210002100000000001000100 8934 13X X00000000000 2 00 0 5 0000000100000000000001000000 8940 39XX00000000000 2 00 8280000000121000000000000020000 8941 100XX00000000011 6 0010100000003001000000000000020000 8942 73XX00000000010 8 34232100003412234000001000200200000 8944 [2]X 0?0?0?0?0? 0 ? 0? 0 ? 0?0?[1]?0?0?0?0?0?0?0?0?0?0?0? 8945 42XX00000000000 0 11 7 2 0000000041000000000300640300 8946 2 XX00000000000 0 00 0 0 0000000000000000000000020000 8948 12XX00000000000 0 00 0 8 0000000002000000000600080000 8949 1 XX00000000000 0 00 0 1 0000000000000000000100000000 9031 3 X X00000000000 1 01 0 2 0000000000000000000000010000 9033 18X X00000000000 0 21 2 0 0000110000000000000000000000 9040 29XX00000110010 0 00 1 0 00000100010000000000003100001 9041 99XX00000000006 8 0011140000003020000000010100230000 9042 98XX00000000005 121132390000005022000000020203220001 9043 77XX00000000001 3 23162300001130410000000007036140100 9047 9 XX00000000000 0 10 3 2 0000000022000000000100020000 9048 95XX00000000001615003724000000208101000000500001090000 9049 6 XX00000000000 0 00 0 6 00000000000200000000000240000 9140 3 XX00000000010 0 00 0 2 00000000000000000000010100000 9141 79XX00000000015 2 101522000001132310000000005018100100 9142 100XX00000000023 1300122700000001260000000403023150000 9143 74XX00000000002 1124101400000110560000000306025170400 9147 44XX0000000000115 10131000000010650000000600004130100 9148 54XX00000000001310002626000000001052000000403008120000 9149 9 XX00000000000 0 00 2 6 0000000000020000000000000000 9241 3 XX00000000000 0 00 0 0 0000100000000000000000000000 9242 40XX00000000013 0 10 2 6 00000200410000000303007170300 9243 28XX00000000000 1 00 3 2 00000000320000000204006140400 9247 65XX00000000007 1010132500000000430000000401006200100 9248 58XX00000000005 0 0015110000000062000000010204480000 9249 8 XX00000000000 0 00 3 0 0100000012000000000100010000 9347 36XX00000000000 0 00 4 7 10000000410000000002003390100 9348 35XX00000000000 0 10126 0000100021000000000500520000 9428 5 XX00000000000 0 11 0 6 0000010001000000000100250001 9444 [4] X?0?0?0?0?0 ? 0 ?[2]? 0 ?0?0?0?0?[1]?0?0?0?0?0?0?0?0?0 9446 [4.97] X ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 2 ? 0 9447 68XX0000000000129 2133170000001095000000030300500100 9448 27XX00000000002 3 00 8 7 0000000040000000010000320000 9528 52XX0000000000124 24212300001310270000000000004120001 9543 [4] X?0?0?0?0?0 ? 0 ?0 ? 0 ?0?0?0?0?0?0?0?0?1?0?0?0?0?0 9544 [17] X ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? [2] ? [3] ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? [3] ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 2 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 9546 22XX00000000002 3 00 3 6 00000000200000000103003120000 9547 50XX00000000003 1 41 1 7 0000000033000000030500840000

49 Table 11. Distribution of bird territories on Exmoor moorland by 1-km square

SURVEY KMSQ AREAYEAR Q. L. SN CU CK S. TP MP GL DI RT WC SC W. RZ GH DW WH C. LI Y. RB SS/ST ha 92 93 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 92/3 02 9548 2 XX00000000000 0 00 0 2 0000000000000000000100010000 9628 52XX0000000000192 3522130000001013000002000000480000 9629 12XX00000000000 0 01 4 3 0000000010000000000000030000 9643 [10] X ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? [1] ? [2] ? [3] ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? [2] ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 1 ? 0 ? 0 ? [6] ? 0 ? 0 9646 2 XX00000000000 0 00 0 ? 0000000000000000000101030000 9728 39XX00000000012 3 55 4 5 0000100013000001000000260000 9729 [0.67] X ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 9743 [43] X ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? [1] ? [2] ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? [5] ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 2 ? 2 ? 4 ? [6] ? 3 ? 0 9744 [6] X?0?0?0?0?0 ? 0 ?0 ? 0 ?0?0?0?0?[1]?0?0?0?0?2?0?[4]?4?0 9828 5 XX00000000000 0 01 0 0 0000000000000000000000000000 9839 43XX00000000008 0 52212 0000001023000000010000400010 9840 25XX00000000001 2 11 9 8 0000003013000000010300480000 9841 [1] X?0?0?0?0?0 ? 0 ?0 ? 0 ?0?0?0?0?0?0?0?0?0?0?0?0?0?0 9842 [48] X ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? [4] ? [2] ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? [4] ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 2 ? 0 ? [4] ? 0 ? 0 9939 59XX00000000009 2 302318000000104500000002030010390210 9940 11XX00000000000 1 30 41000000020210000000102006130100 9941 [2] X ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? [3] ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? [13] ? 0 ? 0 9942 [7] X?0?0?0?0?0 ? 0 ?[2]? 0 ?0?0?0?0?[1]?0?0?0?0?0?0?[4]?0?0 0039 6 XX00000000000 0 00 1 1 0000000010000000000000500000 Total 15367 523089950653215 2573 166 116 4095 5196 38 65 11 12 104 131 434 292 247 447 116 57 13 1 12 52 0 68 0 129 0 464 346 803 0 73 60 163 Density 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 20.9 16.7 1.1 0.8 26.6 33.8 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.7 0.9 2.8 1.9 1.6 2.9 0.8 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.8 0.0 3.0 2.3 5.2 0.0 0.5 0.4 1.1 Max 22203211025156711557423116619131011675113060701310390648 Min 0000000000 0 0 00 0 0 0000000000000000000000000000 Notes 1) S., MP, LI are counts of individuals 2) CK are counts of singing males 3) ? For squares not covered in both surveys totals are unknown as opposed to zero 4) Areas in parentheses are not incorporated in the total area surveyed because squares were not covered by both surveys 5) Bird counts in parentheses are not included in total and density calculations because the squares were not covered in both surveys

50 Table 12. Population changes in habitat indicator species by subarea 1992-2002

Sub Species Trend % change Detail Area Area name S. - -83 Down 1 Shoulsbarrow Common-Goat Hill TP - -100 Disappear 1" MP - -43 Down 1" WC - -86 Down 1" SC + 50 Up 1 " RB - -25 Down 1" S. - -25 Down 2 Challacombe-Hoaroak Water TP - -80 Down 2" MP + 29 Up 2 " WC - -14 Down 2" SC + 214 Up 2 " W. - -64 Down 2" GH + 200 Up 2 " RB + 160 Up 2 " S. - -13 Down 3 Hoaroak Water-Badgworthy Water TP - -100 Disappear 3" MP + 44 Up 3 " WC - -23 Down 3" SC + 355 Up 3 " W. - -60 Down 3" RZ - -100 Disappear 3" GH + (6 pairs) Appear 3 " RB + 271 Up 3 " S. - -11 Down 4 Badgworthy Water-Exford/Porlock Rd TP - -31 Down 4" MP + 66 Up 4 " SC + 226 Up 4 " W. - -33 Down 4" GH + 133 Up 4 " RB + 162 Up 4 " S. + 22 Up 5 Exford/Porlock Rd-Robin Howe TP - -45 Down 5" MP + 32 Up 5 " WC - -48 Down 5" SC + 79 Up 5 " RZ - -91 Down 5" GH + 180 Up 5 " RB + 180 Up 5 " S. + 86 Up 6 Hoar Moor-Codsend Moor TP - -60 Down 6" MP - -46 Down 6" WC - -70 Down 6" SC + 300 Up 6 " RB + 200 Up 6 " S. - -77 Down 7 Crawter Hill & Ley Hill TP - -50 Down 7" MP - -56 Down 7" WC - -100 Disappear 7" SC - -42 Down 7" W. + (1 pair) Appear 7 " S. - -15 Down 8 South of Simonsbath TP +13Up8 " MP + 37 Up 8 " WC - -18 Down 8" SC + 1450 Up 8 " W. - -29 Down 8" GH + 900 Up 8 " RB + 150 Up 8 " S. - -19 Down 9 Barcombe Down-North Molton Ridge MP + 26 Up 9 "

51 Sub Species Trend % change Detail Area Area name WC + (2 pairs) Appear 9 " SC + 600 Up 9 " RB + (5 pairs) Appear 9 " S. - -43 Down 10 Cussacombe Common-Anstey Common TP - -21 Down 10 " MP + 80 Up 10 " WC - -24 Down 10 " SC + 294 Up 10 " W. - -100 Disappear 10 " GH + (8 pairs) Appear 10 " RB + 400 Up 10 " S. - -43 Down 11 Withypool Common MP + 44 Up 11 " WC - -35 Down 11 " SC + 200 Up 11 " W. + (1 pair) Appear 11 " RB + 100 Up 11 " S. + 20 Up 12 Winsford Hill, Ashway Side/Varle Hill TP +11Up12 " MP + 34 Up 12 " WC - -54 Down 12 " SC + 575 Up 12 " W. - -100 Disappear 12 " RB + (7 pairs) Appear 12 " S. - -89 Down 13 Room/Road Hill TP + 7 Up 13 " MP + 91 Up 13 " WC - -66 Down 13 " SC + 100 Up 13 " W. - -100 Disappear 13 " S. - -73 Down 14 Haddon Hill TP +42Up14 " MP - -2 Down 14 " WC - -100 Disappear 14 " SC + 200 Up 14 " GH + (3 pairs) Appear 14 " RB + (2 pairs) Appear 14 " S. - -72 Down 15 Rodhuish Common & Black Hill TP - -75 Down 15 " MP - -33 Down 15 " WC - -100 Disappear 15 " SC + 20 Up 15 " RB - -100 Disappear 15 " S. - -24 Down 16 Holdstone-Trentishoe Down MP - -12 Down 16 " WC - -66 Down 16 " SC - -69 Down 16 " W. - -92 Down 16 " S. - -21 Down 17 Bossington-North Hill TP - -80 Down 17 " MP - -1 Down 17 " WC - -100 Disappear 17 " SC - -33 Down 17 " W. + 33 Up 17 "

See Figures 2 - 22 for subareas

52

Fig 6: Distribution of breeding territories for stonechat and wheatear in subareas 14,15,16,17,18,19

Fig 9: Distribution of breeding territories for cuckoo, tree pipit, Dartford warbler and yellowhammer in subareas 14,15,16,17,18,19