FEBRUARY1994 rssN0952-7583 Vot.T,$nl?L,l
BRITISH IOURNAT W ENTOMOTOG AND NATURAL HISTORY
PublisM by thc Brittuh Entomological and Natural History Socicty and inoorporsting its Procecdings and Transactions
hioc:16.S SUPPLEMENTTO BRITISH JOURNAL OF ENTOMOLOGY AND NATURAL HISTORY
lnvertebrates in the landscape:
invertebrate recording in site evaluation and countryside monitoring
Proceedingsof the National Federationfor Biological Recording Annual Conferenceheld at the Universityof Sussex5th July 1991
Supplement edited by Paul T. Harding BR.J. ENT.NAT. HIST.,7(SUPPL. l): 1994
PREFACE
Invertebrateshave recentlygained in importancein the evaluationof sitesand the monitoringof chaqgesin the.countryside.There are still many difficulties in using invertebratesas indicatorsof sitequality and environmental changes, but, as the paper.s in this publicationshow, considerable progress has been made in iecentyears. Centralto this progresshave been two closelyallied develoDments:the national recording_schemesfoi invertebrates.organized iir collaboration'withthe Biological RecordsCentre, and the InvertebrateSite Register. Also, the establishmentof local recordscentres, most of which arebased at mus6ums,is havinga significanteffect on the availabilityof authoritativeinformation on invertebratesat countyand districtlevels. Vascularplants and birds are likely to remain the first priority for site evaluationand environmentalmonitoring_fbr many years to come. However,there are some ecological featuresfor which invertebratesare already acknowledged to be sensitiveand reliable indicators,for examplerelic forestareas with old treesand lowland wetlands. The difficulties of usine invertebratesinclude the sheer number of snecies.the taxonomicproblems of many groups,the lack of experiencedtaxonomists and iield workers and the scarcityof truly replicablesampling techniques for many groupsor biotopes. Although the speakersat the 1991 Annual Conferenceof the National Federationfor Biological Recordingcould only touch on many of thesetopics, the publishedaccounl of lheir presentati6nsprovidei up-to-datereviews and plenty of iood for thousht. The l*991conference was organized, at shortnotice, by DerekLott andAlex Tait. I am gratefultothe3qtlors l-or responding, more than a yearafier the conference. to my request. 6n behalfof NFBR, to provihea wr'ittenversion Paul T. Hardins Biolosical RecordsCentre Glossaryof abbreviations: BBCS - British Butterfly ConservationSociety (now Butterfly Conservation); BRC - BiologicalRecords Centre (Monks Wood); DC - DevelopmentControl: tSR - InvertebrateSite Register: JNCC - Joint NatureConservation Committee; LNR - Local NatureReserve; LRC - Local RecordsCentre; NCC - NatureConservancv Council: NNR - NationalNature Reserve; RDB - Red Data Book; RSPB- Royal Societyfor the Protectionof Birds: SSSI- Site of SpecialScientific Interest; UDP - Unitary DevelopmentPlans. BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST.,7 (SUPPL.l): 1994 THE INVERTEBRATESITE REGISTER- OBJECTIVES AND ACHIEVEMENTS STUART G. BALL Joint Nature ConservationCommittee, Monkstone House, City Road,Peterborough PEI LJY. INTRODUCTION Background Information on the status,distribution andbiology of speciesunderpins_much of nature .ont"*uiioo practice.The unavailabilityof suchliforniation for invertebrateshas been ind'",il"i"-.""1" of itt.it telative neglecfby conservation-bodies. {. lqge majority of oractitionersin thestatutory "Iiconservation agencies and voluntary bodies have little or no [ip.iiit.-i"-i"u"ii"Urit"r. they areto co-nsiderinvertebrates when selectingsites for ioiseruation undmaking decisionson their management,it is esseltial that the.necessary irfo.-uti.r iJ ivailable"in an immediatelyusabldform. In collating information from a er.ut ;iny diversesources and interpreting and disseminating it, ihe lnvertebrateSite R.""iiii iisCl aitemptsto fill this inforriationgap. The inclusionof unpublished infbrmationfrom ama'teur specialists is importantin thisrespect as it wouldnot otherwlse be" available. ffr. iSn is thelargest and longest running in-house nroiect concerning terrestrial and freihwaterinverrebr[tes unA.iiu.kin Uy ttre"Nature Conseivancy CounciltNCC)and.its u.,il,ir"iU"ai"t tttt" Joint Nature C6nservationC_g41ni1te9, English Naturg, Scottish Nutuiut H".itage ind the CountrysideCouncil fo1 Wales)- It staited-in1980 with two "*t.*t o.ilo,inei basedin Englandand one each in Scotlandand Wales. From 1983 ;;ffi4; ih. ;hole teamwas bised centrallyin the Chief Scientist'sDirectorate of the t iCCr Cr.ut BritainHeadquarters. A substantialincrease in personneloccurred in 1985 ;il,f1grrteiSaO..orpriterizationofthedatabasebecameacentralissue.WhenNCC riur ipiit up ln teei, the iSR movedto the SpeciesConservation Branch of JNCC. Obiectives The obiectivesof theISR weredefined as follows by Palmerand Ball (1992): I toideniify,documentandevaluatesitesofimportancelortheconservatlonotterrestrlal ^rj-fr"*tr*ii"r inuerteU.atesin Great Britain, in order to provide national and local overviews of the resourceand set this in a Europeancontext; I io oiovlae a clear statementon the invertebrat^efauna of individual sites,which canbe r."J io it Ln-sitt;nitre scientific basisof site defenceand managementplanning, with the aim of retain-inq"up-io-Ait"this fauna; l'^i. i""-iiii"it itatements on the national and regional status,ecology and conservationof []ritish invertebratespecies; +-lo .oniiibute to the productionof Red DataBooks. and revision of Schedule5 of the Wiafii" ara b"unt.vria" Act (1981) and implementationof the requirementsof the EC Habitatsand SpeciesDirective; BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST.,7 (SUPPL.l): 1994 5 to increase liaison between invertebrate zoologists and staff of the conservation agenciesand to fac.ilitatetheinterchange of adviceand information,particularly " so that futureresearch and surveyeffort canbE encouraged where it is most needed; 6 to supply progressreports on invertebrateconservation to invertebratezoologists and otherinterested people. Related projects on invertebrates . oth.er projects have been funded separately from the ISR, but complement its oDlectlves: I ihe ENrscA PE entomologicalbibliography - a compurerizedbibliography of the Britishnational and regional.entomological liteiature from ig:0. wittrkeyw6rds c'overing taxonomicgroup, geographical area and subiect: 2 the publiiatitin of Fed'DataBooks on inv"ertebrates. METHODS Information has been collated from many sourcesincluding publishedliterature, museumcollections, national and local biological record centres and the files ofstatutorv conservationagencies and voluntarybodies. A specialeffort hasbeen made to involve amateursp.ecialists and to tap their considerableknowledge and experience,which are often unoublished. Two main typesof reporthave been produced: I Narional^speciesgroup.revlews.These^cov€rat4xonomicgroupandidentifythescarcer species.Information on the status,distribution, biology an-dcoirservation management -of requirementsof thesespecies is collatedand eventualiypublished in the form data sheets. 2 County ISRreports. Thesecover a geographicalarea based on modernEnelish and Welshcounties and Scottishregions. but brokendown into smallerunits in th6 caseof largercounties or regions.Inventories ofscarcer species are collated forconservation sites (SSSIs.NNRs, County Wildlife Trust and RSPB ieserves, LNRs, etc.) and for siteswhich localnaturalists consider sisnificant. The ISRdatabase One of the featuresof the ISR project is that the information collected to assesssites andspecies is closely.interlinked.A relationaldatabase is theobvious way to organizethe dataso that they may be examined in termsof bothspecies distribution anil the occurrence of speciesat a location.Storage of ISRinformation in a relationaldatabase began in I 986. Assessment of species statuses and the production of data sheets Definitions of and the criteria for the various status categoriesare siven in the Appendix. The methodby which statusesare allocatedis asTollows. dchecklist is annotatedwith statusessuggested_by distribution ryaps, if available,or by taxonomic works such as the Royal Entomological Society Handbooks for the ldeitification of BritishInsects. This provisionallist is circulatedto specialisis.both profedsional and amateur.for comment.A revisedlist is produced.based on theseinitiai comments, and is usedas a basisfor furtherresearch. Museum collections are visited, a more extensive literaturesearch is madewith thehelp of ENTSCAPEand data on distributionand biolosv areabstracted for eachof thescarc-ei species. This processusually results in adjustmeritl to thepreliminary statuses. Data sheets are then compiled by collatineinformat"ion under headingssuch as Distribution, Habitat and Ecology. Statis, ThreaE, andManagement BR.J. ENT.NAT. HIST.,7(SUPPL. l): l,994 4 and Conservation.Finally, the data sheets are sent to appropriatespecialists for comment and correctionbefore publication. Production of ISR county reports Naturalistsresident in therelevant area are contacted using membership lists from local and nationalsocieties, and contactlists maintainedby local recordscentres and regionaloffices of thecountry agencies. They are asked to identifysites that they consider to-beof importanceand to inilic"atewhat they havefound there(the useof sketih mapsto locatefeatirres of particularinterest is encouraged).Information is also soughtin the literature(accesseil via ENTSCAPE),the files of the regionaloffices of the country agenciesand voluntary bodies, national and local biological record centres and the records afid collectionsof specialists.A summarysheet is Eompiledfor each site (Figure 1) indicatingwhat recording has been carried oul andcommenting on managementissues. tosetherirrith a list of thJscarcersoecies that havebeen found there. Site evaluation The importanceof sitesis evaluatedon a four-pointscale: A nationallyimportant; B regionallyimportant (equivalent to a recommendationthat the site should be considered for SSSIstatus); C potentiallyimportant, sites which may,rate A or B, but arenot well enoughknown to jucige- amountsto a recommendationfor furthersurvey; D no morethan locally imporlanl. Many sites remain ungraded. These are localitiesabout which there is minimal informationor only old information. The site evaluationprocess is the result of expertjudgement by an experience.d invertebratezoologist, on the basisof the availableinformation. This evaluationis assessedin relationto thesequestions How well recordedis it? Siteswhich havereceived very limited recordingeffort cannot I 'C'. begraded higher than Reasonablywell recordedsites (those which havebeen visited by"severalIpecialists over more thln one season,using severaldifferent collecting techniques)ian be consideredfurther. However,many sites are exceptionallywell recordtidbecause they happento be convenientfor specialiststo visit (for ex.am_ple,the groundsof lieldstations ).'Such sites require downgrailing if theyhave no special fbatures beyondintense recording effort. 2 Whatare the specialJbatures of thesite? Oneof themain features which canbe readily assessedis thepiesenci: of an assemblageof scarcerspecies associated with thehabitats presenron theiite. lt is.however. neceslary to applyciitical judgement to thespecies li-st io decidewhether the site is likelyto supportviable resident populations. There is rarely directproof of breeding,orestimates of populationsize, but it is oftenpossible to gain some insightby consi-deringwhat is kriownof the biology,distribution and habitat requiremc'ntsof each speciesl Forexample, is thelocation within the known ranges of the sp6ciesanddoesitprovidethenecessaryniches?Iftherearerepeatedrecordsofaspecies. this providescircdmstantial evidence ihat it is resident,whilst an isolatedrecoid of a speciesin a wellworked group might suggest that it isa vagrant.If a siteis reasonably well r6corded,but hasno speiial ieatu-res,a -D' gradingwould bejustified. Are thespecialfeatures adequately represented on conservationsites in thearea? NCC 3 'The has stated: brimary obiettive of natureconservation is to ensurethat the natural heritageof wild launaand fiora andgeological and physiographic features remains as largeind diverseas possible' (NCe, 1984)and tfiai'ThE blological SSSI seriesis BR.J. ENT. NAT. HIST..7 (SUPPL. l): t994 INVERTEBRATE SITE REGISTER MASTER FORM ARCOT HALL DAMDYKES MARSH County(s) NorthunberLmd A subsidence pond in & area of unimproved, danp pasture vith associated hedgerows and patches of undisturbed decid.uous woodlmd with an abundace of dead wood. The richest areas are west of the nain pond where there is herb rich, danp meadow with a series of small pools choked with a variety of emergent vegetation. hvendate Interest - Cover6oe Jim Parrack-has been visiting this site recently ad provid.ed both Diptera ad Lepidoptera records. Tim Merling has recoided the Least Minor (RDB3) at one of its few non-coastal sites in the region anJ Mick Eyre's smples of the waterbeetle fauna resulted in the longes.c species list for a site in the region (33 species) including Ala6us unduiculari.s. site is adjacent to the golf club clubhouse md has been threatened by a proposal to build a e,oLf centre md tidy up and lmdscape the area generally. "master Figure 1. A form" from the ISR report for Northumberland, BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST.,7 (SUPPL.l): 1994 6 intendedto form a nationalnetwork of areasrepresenting in total thoseparts of Great il;ihi" it;hiiti tttef"ututes of nature,and espeiially those of greateslvqlue to wildlife i""i.i"iii""lai"."st t'igt'iyconcentiated or'of highest quality' (NCC, 1989). Thus. if "^iiiiirlar."ii'".blaees of-sc;rcer invertebrates are n--ot ade!uatdly represented atexisting in uEounty. region or countrythis justifies graQi.ng the best examples in a ;;i;;iil ii.r 'B' '4" lountrv or reqion at and the bestexamples natlonally at In nearly all cases.werl i.i*iia6aiiiii*. iit"ty rocontain some sp'ecies,which arenot recorded elsewhere in the i"sion o. counrry,but iites arerarely schbduled as SSSI on thebasis of individualrare ;;?;i;t: ffiAi;s i" iie Guidetines.for the selection of biolosicalsssls (NCC,1989) ffii; t-ii;;;ith pop-uiuti-tof specieslisted in Schedule5 of theWildlife and Countryside X;? 198i *outfu,iuitifv as.aniidates for selectionas SSSIs on thisbasis, except in the .ui" of totn. tpeciesofbutterfly and dragonfly where more specific guideline-s ?59 ^91"11 speiiii*itiittar" inbjecito specificguidelineslRed Data Book and e-o*ii.or theisefew .;ft"Id ;ifi;iffi;;';-p"g.i; beconiervedhs part bf a richfaunal assemblage'. RESUIJISAND DISCUSSION- THE EXTENT TO WHICH OBJECTIVES ARE BEING MET Obiective I - to document qnd evaluate important sites Countv [SR reportsdocument and evaluateimportant sites on a county-by-county prepared all countiesin and Walesand reglons^ln basis. RtiOortshave been for 'masterEngland Scotland.'Figure I showsan exampleof a tbrm- tor a slte ln the re^p_ortlor il;;i'h;'b.;ff.i. e*Ji.r ISR countyreports. produced between l98l and 1985.were ;i;;;1fi;?;I"nfiO.niiii' undare thi:refbre noiavailable outside the statutoryagencies' f-- iSSS onwardsinformation was collectedon the basis that it was not contrdentlal s,ubsequently.producedin two iri,iiir'io..ined by the oiiginuto.. County reportswere 'ncin-confidential' ;;;i,;r,ff.ffifid'"nilittGision for internalriseonly, and a version. ;;i;h;; aiitriUuGOto otherorganization, including museums, local recordcentres. ;;;i; -iriiariiJ't-tii, nSpe. thi li;tional Trust.and,ii somecaseslocal authoritiesand utilitiessuch as water compinies. Two reports(West Midlands and Warwickshire) were completed,but werenot pioducedin hardcopy torm. Objective 2 - to provide a statement of the fauna of sites for use in site selection, defence and management county reportsinclude a list of speciesfrom each site in the areacovered by the ISR 'iingie ."oori unbu sitereport' can be produced from theISR database on request'Reports -Iu'U. "nnou6d with d brief accoirntof the status.distribution and biology ol each roiti"t(Figure2). Listsofthistypehavebeenprovidedtoreservemanagersandother slafi in dotfi ttrecountry agencies ahd voluntary6odies. for.use in.site managemTlqlq: ;,jl;;ii; a"i;nce, inclirdingpublic inquiries. Ii is alsopossible to interrogatethe database i" "iii"iO.lirf"rmarion on fti"i" itt" particularspecies, o-r assem.blagesbf.spec.ies. have tne be6nrecorded in a county.region or co-untry.This typeof analysls,whlch hlgnllgnts specialinterest of a site.has proved etfecttve ln the detenceor sltes. Siteselection blii"ueo"t working at the regional offices of NCC and its successorbodies have ."r#;"'i[?ilil,;113-itsilil rir"'.ijil?,iri,iii-s^ssi;.-rl"*mmendationsroisttrJariirg SSSIs. Recommendationsfrom rhethe rSRISR have been'A taken ilffi;il;;fseriously"cL,hr"*,,t"4;{6l"T9l1rg":1Y,*"^l**:9.ep"'*: ;;"-fi "f iiteshave been scheduled directly as.a result of or.'B' theISR, although, more typically, the invertebrate_s_are jfJust one element oI Ine fir";;;?;I;it..i;'ffis.radingin Wri"iiu'i't"l'nj9e..',"11-1i- 19',11,:1.^'l-tfl:tf::i,n::*ifl[31?11 **:.*f i::"j:}i il;;;;;,y 6 O"t"imineitt" 5p;Ei"lit6.;st of thesite and define its boundaries.This BR.J. ENT. NAT. HIST..7 (SUppL. t): t9q4 ISR database Glasbury Shingle Beds (SO1840) t4 AUG 1992 pRDB 2 Negastrius sabulrcola (Boheman,1853) Col:Elateridae. 1986 Lrsted in the publlshed Red Data Books as RDB l Snall clrck beetfe Lrving among shlngle on northern and lestern rivers. Verv Tachydromia acklandr Chvala Olp:hDididae 1986 Lrsted rn (he prollshed Red Ddta Books as RDB l SnalI fly runnrng raprdly ower the surface of mud at the srde of upland rivers- Very rare, with records only from a fee sites in Scotland and one in Wales. More realrstrcally should be consrdered RDB2, RDB 3 Bidessus minutrssrnus (Germar,1824) COL:Dytrscrdae 19Bj -- -- additional record 1985 A very smaff black and yellow rater beetle. Found in sandy sha_Llows of rivers and at the margins of fakes e.g. Slapton Ley, Devon. Very rare, though recorded from England, Scotland and Wales with all records being in the w€st. Only recently noted rn the Iasr named county. Na Fleutiauxellus maritimus (Curtis,1840) Col:Elateridae 1986 11 SmaLl black cfick beetle living anong shingle on rlwer banks (not coastat as the name would suggest). Northern and Festern species. Very toca1. Georissus crenulatus (Rossr, l 794) COL:Hydrophrlidae T906 SmalI water beetle found an trickles and flushes in muddy conditions. Widespread but very local. Hydraena rufipes Curtis,1830 Col:Hydraenidae 19Aj 6 -- -- additional record 1985 t0 A small black watea beetle, most often recorded fron ilonqst moss and on stones in swift-flouing rivers; a-Iso knom froh fen condrtrons I; the north. Perileptus areolatus (Creutzer,1799) COL:Carabidae 1985 Small (2.5m) ground dark brown beetle Iiving ilong riverrne shingle,-Marches. often at depth wrthin the shin91e. Western speci.es, SW penrnsula, Wales & Lancs, SW Scotfand. Apparently very local but secretive habits may lead to under - recoading . Phifonthus atratus (cravenhorst, tS02) Col:Staphyflnidae 1906 tO Predatory metallic btue or green/black rove beetle found in dmp fitt€r etc. Engladd N to yorks, very local and rare. ThaLassophilus foigicornis (Sturm,t825) Col:Carabidae t9O6 g Small (3.5-4m) flattened red/brom ground beetle living dong riverine shingle. North western species. Wales & Marches, Cumbria t W Scotland. Rare. Notable/Nb Benbidion fluviatrle Delean,1831 Col:Carabidae t9g6 g 5-5-5.5 m Long black ground beetle with 4 orange spots, Irving on fine sands and mud by northern & western rrvers. Wales, N England & Scotland. Always wery IocaL - I rulth.r !rci.! lirt.d h.!. .... l 2e Sources of lecords: l. Bowestead, Mr S. 48 crimshaw Lane, Ormskirk, Lancs, Tel. 0695 13A14. 2. Carter, I.C. 1 waterfield Close, Cheltenhe. l. Drane. Mr A.B. 14 Rockingham Road, Cottinghan, uarket HarL6rough, Leics. 4. Eccles, Mr ?. 59 Linkstor Road, Lrverpool, IeI. 051_4282G65- 5. Henson, Mr H,E. 35 Thornfergh Drive, Orton LongueviI.Le, peterborough, pE2 OAL. 6. Hodge, Mr P.J. 8 Harvard Road, Ringner, Lewes, East Sussex. 7. Hyman, Dr P. Luton Museum, Wardown park, Luton, Beds, LU2 7HA. 8, Johnson, Mr C. Entomol.ogy Dept, Manchester Museum, The University, Ox{ord Road, Manchestei, M]3 9PL. 9. Key, Dr R.S. Species Branch, English Nature, Northinster House, Petertbrough PE1 2TU. 10. Lott, Mr D. NaturaL History Dept, Leicester Museum and Art Gal1erv, 96 New Walk, Lercester, LEl 5TD. 11. Mendef, Mr H. Suffolk Biologlcal Records Centre, The Museum, fpswich, Suffolk, IPI 3QH. Figure 2.Part of an annotatedspecies list for a site. BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST.,7 (SUPPL.1): 1994 8 usuallvrequires detailed survey work and,beiore NCC wassplit up,ISR personneloften ili;iltd'*ii;nutioii"ieu"t by identifyingsuitable specialisti to carryoui suchwork and ;;;;;d-ii"dine for sfiallc Site"""i"management i6h"rate therequirements o[invertebrates in management.plans,site managers needto know the requirbmentsof significanlspecies and alsothe habltatleatures wlln *friifiitt"o .. uttoiiut"d. lnformationon thehanagem.entrequiremenls of .particular soeciesand any perceivedthreats has been a priority whtlst complhngdata sneets- -rry ;[ii;.d;1";Jniori"i oi]tt.-oi.uo"n.. of siarcer"specieson sites,and by providing annotateilists (Figure2) and data sheets(Figure 3) to site managers,lt rsposslDle Io providethem with-theinput they need. For example,th^e manag-ement.plan Ior vloccas F;k Ni{R;;tr"."niiv i,i-piii6owitn suustantialinputfrom the-IsR,wliich documented ihe internationally imiortanl saproxylic fauna at this site' Objective 3 - to maintain up to date statements on status and ecology of species Nationalreviews of speciesgroups have been produced covering a wide rangeollaxa' Theseinclude data sheet-s for4 f40 scarcerBritish species. An examplets^shown.ln tslgure j.'A ili;T;*asraph on thi status,distribution andbiology on over-10000 speciesis also held on ttr'edalab^ase. Figure 2 showsexamples o[lhese paragraPhs-.barly.natlonal 'confidential' not ;1;;; r;,iit",lit ""i.ly TSR county reports,classified as and are ;;;ii;tl"'6;,itsiae uooi"r. They inciudedreviews of non-marinemolluscs,.orthoptera, ;;;:Lfiddi"ii unamicro-Li:pidoptera. All recentreviews are published documents ffi;"*$,d6sfVe.ritt, 1990),EphehopteraandPlecoprera(Brauon,'leeq\ 1990).NeuroPtera ffirb"-ldeTi;-i;i;ir;ptiu 1'Waila"e, Hemiftera(Kirby,. -tee2a). aculeate iifi#d6; teuk,Isbtul,Diptera (Falk' 199-lb)^and Coleoptera (Ilvman & Pq:91:: pv.itiOniottrs (Pirsoirs, 1993). Part 2 of theDiptera and Coleoptera revrews idd)i i"'Ct ln and a revisionthe macro-Lepidopteraand remainingmicro-Leplcloptera revlews are preparationand a review of sawfliesis planned. BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST.,7 (SUPPL.l): 1994 TAPHR,OPELTUSLIMBATUS RARE Order HEMIPTERA Family LYGAEIDAE Taphrope lats linbaas (Fietrrrl Idcntification Southwood& trston (1959). Distribution South Brilqin, panicularly the south-west.The specieswas first recordedin Britain from Sourhsea, Hampslrire, in 1870, and has since b€€n fomd in Bewdley Fqest, Worcesr€rshire,in l8Z9; Bowes part, Middles' around lhe tum of the Htury; Windsq Fdest, Bskstrire, in 1933; at lest five localiries in Dq.set, lhe mofi r€qlt in t98l; the New Foresl, Hampshire,a number of recads over sevsal decadesto lhe late 1950s, and two localities in Devoo, the Meavy Valley in 1909, and near Dunsford in the 1950s. It appearslo be an ur@mmm south-weslem species elsewhere in Europe, and is recq'ded from Spain, f-tuiui, France and Germany. Habitat and ccologr This speciesis associatedwith ants, bul the exact nature of the relationship is not clear. Cmtin€ntal work€rs have tinked it with severaltypes of ants, irrcluding speciesas far removed in taxanmy and nest s|ructureas.ly'/zrzica scabrindis andFormica rufa. Antsleave the bug unmolested,lhough rhey attack olher specic of Heteropt€raplaced near lheir nests.If $e bugs spendnuch rime within the nesri this might in part explain the rather sporadic and inegular recads of the speciesin Britain, and the appar€ntlack of ccrsistent hsbitat prefer€nces. Il has been famd in wet moss besidea stream, in Sphagnun, anatgst thick vegeation oo chalk downland' beneatha stone on a chalk cliff, amoogsls?arse vegetation in a derelici garden in a wood, 6gr a dry hedgebank, "in and a sandyplace", The food is unknown; menbers of rhe zubfamily ie genenlly believed to be se€d{eed€rs' It appearsto ov€rwinter as an adult. Mating has been observedin May, a'ndovipoeiricr in June. Nynphs in lhe last instar have been found in eady to mid-August, so th€re is probabiy me generationper year, rnaturing in mid- to lale August. Strtus Very local' but exact statusunclear. Recordsare few, scatt€red,from a rather wide nnce of habitats.and usually of ctly one or two individuals. This would suggeslthat the speciesis usually pr".61riin small numbers end may easily be overlooked, particularly in the soulh-west,whicl is not a well-woried area fgr Haeroprer.a. Thrcats Uncertain. In lhe current state of knowledge of the biology of the speciesir is difficulr to derffrnine *tat facltrs might be damaging to i1. The mly commm factor linking the recordedhabia$ s€ems!o be thal they are opar ard unstraded.h.:f open cmdirions, particutarly as a result of neglecr of previously managed ry$ sites, may be significant. The Middlesex site was destroyedby urban developmenirnany yelrs 8go. Conscrvation FoUr records fall certainly a probably within SSSIs: Windsd Forcst, B€rkshfue;New Foresr, Hampchire, and the Pwbeck Ridge, Dorset. It is difficuh to suggesrpositive conser.vationmeasures fc the speciesin the crrrent stale of knowledge.More infamation oo the biology and ecology of the speciesis needed. If it is genuinely a spociesof spd-adicoccurr€oce, associated with a number of anr r?oio, and ofterwise with no slrong habitat preferenc€s, it may be impcsible lo suggesloverall consen'atioo measures.Managemen ar known sites should aim to relain open coflditions: m most sites this may be best achieved by lighr gazing. Rcferenccs (1923a), Butler,E.A. Champion,G.C. (1919),Douglas, J.W. (lg75a),Groves, E.W. (1965),Massee, A.M. (1955a),Saunders, E. (1892a), (1955), Scudder,G.G.E. Scudder,c.c.E. (l957b), Shirr,D.8., ed. 0987), southwood, (1959), T.R.E. & I-estan,D. Srichel,w. (1955),Thomas, D.c. (1955b),walker. JJ. 0916). Figure 3. An exampleof a data sheetfor a speciesfrom Kirby (I992a). BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST., 7 (SUPPL l): 1994 10 Objective 4 - to contribute to Red Data Books and legislation at British and European level 'Insects'. Two Red Data Books have been publishedcovering (Shirt 1987).and 'Invertebratesotherthaninsects'(Brattbn,l991).ThelsRwasusedinpreparingadvice Uolnfor tnequinquennial review of theWildlife andCountryside Act andin commenting uponsp".iei proilosedfor theannexes of the EC Habitatsand Species Directive and the BernConvenilori lgatt, tSgZ). Objective 5 - to increase liaison between invertebrate zoologists and staff of the statutoryagencies Contactsestablished by personnelworking on the ISR have been important.in cncouragingand directing w6rk on invertebratestowards sites and species of parl.lcular interestio tFestatutory agencies. Many smaller projects have been commisstoned lrom 6otfturol.ut anOprdiesiional speciaiists-. to survey particular sites (e-g. parklands in DevonandLeicestershire).ortosurveyandmonitorpartlcular-specles.Where.maJorgaps in knowledgehave been identified, r6search has been commissioned either in-house or with otheri-nstitutions such as universities or the Instituteof TerrestrialEcology., ISR personnelare encouraged to participatein eve.ntsorganized by volu.ntarybodtes andto Sarrve on their councils. Currently, personnel are I nvolved In thecouncl ls ol tneJolnI Cjo--itie" for theConservation of BrilidhInsects, the National Federation for Biological n..orJi"e,the gritish Entomologicaland NaturalHistory Society (BENHS) and the ij;iii;h Ai;.;;"l"tia;i Society.Aisistance h.as !qe.n provided in.organizing and running field meetinssof t-heBENHS. Central Panel of DipteraRecording Schemes and Bees' Woiosind A-ntsRecording Scheme. Such activities-allow personnel to establishcontacts *ttft'o"6iA" .tpicialists,pr'ovide training opportunities for 6othISR personneland outside andspecies' ro..iolirtt' anbprovide 6xperience ol a widerrange ofhabitats nn tnu.rt.biateNetwork has been established-to facilitate communication between inu.ii.U.ti. tp.iiolittt in JNCCand lhe county agencies and a preliminarymeeting was held- in Marcti 1992with personnelfrom theISR in attendance. ISR personnelhave cbntributedto a seriesof one-dayseminars on invertebrate .onr"iuition *hich have been held over the last 3 to 4 yi:arsfor a variety,of -bodies i*iualng ."gional staff of the former NCC, county.wildlife trusts,the WoodlandTrust, nSFg, N"ri6nal Trust. ForestryCommission. Biitish Waterw.aysBoard and several utilities in the water and powei industries(49 eventsso far with approximately?0.00 itien6ees).These evenrs piovide a meansof introducingawider audicnce to the principles of invertehrateconservaiion. In thelast year. personnel have also assisted wllh tralnlng eventsorganized by two countytrusts, RSPB and an agriculturalcollege. Objective 6 - to supply progress reports on invertebrate conservatiLtn A oroiectto produce-ii regional overviews of the informationcontained in the ISR was tturt.t'lii-iS8d waiTnrended to producereports on the sa.lie.ntfeatures of the i"""iG6iit" f"una of eachof theformei NCC regidns,each report being a distillationof ;;i; i;ld 6t itteiSn andwritten for thenon-spec-ialist. The mbmberof staffresponsible ioiitri. oroiectleft for a permanentappointment with theCountryside Council 1or Wales i;'A;;iii9'9r. Ai ttratst'age, overviews for threeWels,h.regions ivere complete and dralt i.*ii"u.t'r.ray for four e"ngtistrregions. The threeWelsh-reviews will be publishedby JNCC as a singlevolume. An 'lSR Pr6sress'newsletter is in preparation,initially for useprimarily in Scotland andWales, to cbntactformer contributois to the ISR in thesecountries and to ask Ior iu.ln"i"otitiibutions of up-to-dateinformation. It is intendedthat this newsletterwill eventualtygo to all contributorsand to staffof the countrycouncils' BR.J. ENT.NAT. HIST..7 (SUPPL.t): tq94 II hgpt the ,, fqf mostimportant publicati_o_n on invertebrate conservation in recentyears is H_ahitatmonagementforinvertebrates(Kirby.1992b). Thisworkoriginatedaspaitof the l5R proJect.but was.completld^ts_anexternal contract with sponsoishipfroni National Powerand was publishedby RSPB. CONCLUSIONS The ISR hasconcentrated on thescarcer species of invertebratesand those sites which havebeen found to contain the largest assembiage ofsuch species. The obiectives as stated ( by Palmer9Ball 1.992) apply to all invertebrai*es.soro this extenr rhey cin ontyUipiiity 1r!t,by.theISR. Otler mechanisms.such as the National Recording Sctremesiun 6y ttri tsiologicalRecord.Centre. which potentially cover all speciesandlll sires,can fuliil at leastsomeoftheobjectivesinthefullnessoirime.Asfaiasthescarcerspeciesandmost slgnlllcantsites are concerned. the ISR is achieving its obiectives as demdnstrated above. However.most o[ theobjectives relating to thed-issemination of information.rhroush publications.whichare availableto everybody, have only recentlybeen achieved, wittr-i spateof publicationsin rhelasl. three ye-ars. REFERENCES Bafl, S.G. 1992. Bern Convention Invertebrates in the united Kingdom. JNCC Report No. -58. Peterborough: Joint Nature ConservationCommittee. Unpublished. Bratton,J.H.1990. Areviewof thescarcerEphemopteraandPlecopteraofGreatBritain.Research& survey in nature conservationNo. 29. Peterborough: Nature conservancy council. Brafton,J.H. ed.1991. British Red Data Books: 3. Invertebratesotherthan insects.Peterboroush: Joint NatureConservation Committee. Falk,S.J. l99la. Areviewofthescarceandthreatenedbees,waspsandantsofGreatBriraln.Research & survey in nature conservationNo. 35. Peterborough: Nature conservancy council. Falk,S.J. l99lb. A reviewofthescarceandthreatenedfliesofGreatBritain(part l). Research&survey in natureconservation No. 39. (reprinted1 992). Peterborough:Joint Natur; ConservationCommittee. Hyman,P.S.&Parsons,M.S. 1992.AreviewofthescarceandthreateneclColeopteraof GreatBritain (partl).UKNatureConservationNo.3.Peterborough: JointNatureConservationtlommittee. Kirby, P. 1991. A review of the scarcer Neuroptera of Great Britain. Research& survey in nature conservationNo. 34. Peterborough: Nature ConservancyCouncil. Kirby, P. 1992a. A review of the scarce and threatened Hemiptera of Great Brjrcjn. UK Nature ConservationNo. 2. Peterborough: Joint Nature ConservationCommittee. Kirby, P. 1992b.Habitat managementfor invertebrates:a practical handbooft.Sandy: Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. Merrett,P.1990.AreviewofthenationallynotablespidersofGreatBritain.ContractSurveysNo.127. Peterborough: Nature ConservancyCouncil. Unpublished. NCC. 1984.Nature Conservation in Great Britain. Peterborough: Nature ConservancyCouncil. NCC. | 989. Galdelines fo r the selectionofbiological S.9S1s.Peterborough: Nature Conseivancy Council. Palmer, M, & Ball, S.G. 1992.A review oJ the workof the SpeciesConservation Braru:h. JNCC Report No. 59. Peterborough: Joint Nature ConservationCommittee. Unpublished. Parsons,M.S.1993. A reviewof thescarceandthreatenedpyralidmothsofGreatBrilain. UKNature ConservationNo I l. Peterborough: Joint Nature ConservationCommittee. Shirt, D.B. ed 1987.British Red Data Boctks:2.Insects. Peterborough: Nature ConservancyCouncil. Wafface, I.D. 1990. A review of the Trichoptera of Great Britain. Research & survey ln narure conservationNo. 32. Peterborough: Nature ConservancvCouncil. BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST.,7 (SUPPL.1): 1994 t2 APPENDIX:STATUS CATEGORY DEFINITIONS Red Data Book Category1. RDB 1- ENDANGERED Definition Taxa in dangerof extinction and whose survival is unlikely if casualfactors continue operating. Included are thosetaxa whosenumbers have been reduced to a critical level or whose habitatshavebeen so dramaticallyreduced thatthey are deemed to be in immediatedanger of extinction. Also included aresome taxa that arc oossibly extinct. Criteria Specieswhich are known or believedto occur as only a single population within one l0-km squareof the National Grid. Specieswhich only occurin habitatsknown Lobe especiallyvulnerable. Silecieswhich hav-eshown a rapid or continuousdecline ovdr the last 20 yearsand are novvestimated to exist in five or fewer 10-km squares. Specieswhich are possibly extinct but haie been recordedthis century and if rediscoveredwould needprotection. Red Data Book Category2. RDB 2 - VULNERABLE Definition Taxa believed likely to move into the Endangeredcategory in the near future if the casualfactors continue operating. Includedare taxaofwhich mostorall ofthepopulations are decreasing -disturbance;becauseof over- exploitation, extensivedestruction of habitaf oi other environmental taxa with populationsthat have been seriously depleted and whose ultimate security is not yet assured;and taxa with populationsthat are still abundantbut areunder threat from serious adversefactors throughouttheir range. Criteria Speciesdeclining throughouttheir range. Speciesin vulnerablehabitats. Red Data Book Category3. RDB 3 - RARE Definition Taxa with small populationsthat arenot at presentEndangered or Vulnerable,but are at nsK. Thesetaxa areusually localizedwithin restrictedgeographical areas or habitatsor are thinly scatteredover a more extensiverange. Criteria Specieswhich areestimatedto existinonly l5 orfewerpost-197010-km squares. This criterionmay be relaxedwhere populations are likely to exist in over l5 l0-km squares but occupy small areasofespecially vulnerablehabitat. Red Data Book Category4. RDB 4 - OUT OF DANGER Definition Taxa formerly meetingthe criteria of one of the abovecategories, but which are now consideredrelatively securebecause effective conservationmeasures have been taken or the previous threat [o their survival has beenremoved. BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST.,7 (SUPPL.l): 1994 13 Red Data Book Category5. RDB 5 - ENDEMIC Definition Taxawhich are not known to occur naturally outsideBritain. Taxawithin this category may alsobe in any of the otherRDB categoriesor not threatenedat all. Thereare lew truly endemicspecies in Britain.Most that havebeen identified are in tatrly obscuregroups which arerelatively poorly known andmay eventuallybe discovered elsei'vherein Europe. Red Data Book Appendix.RDB App. - EXTINCT Definition Taxa which were formerly native to Britain but have not beenrecorded since 1900. Red Data Book CategoryI. RDB I - INDETERMINATE Definition Taxaconsidered tobe Endangered,Vulnerableor Bare, but where there is not enough information to say which of the three categories(RDB 1 to 3) is appropriate. Red Data Book CategoryK. RDB K- INSUFFICIENTLY KNOWN Definition Taxa.tha.t are susp^ectedbut ^notdefinitely known to belong to any of the above categories,because of lackof information. Criteria . Taxa recently discovered or recognized in Britain which may prove to be more widespreadin the future (althoughsome recentdiscoveries may tje placed in other catggories.i.[ the group to which thty belongis thoughtnot to be uirder-r'ecorded). I axawlth very tew orperhapsonly a singleknown locality but which belongto poorly recoroeoor taxonomlcallydllllcult. fRgcieswith very few.6rperhaps only a singleknown locality.inhabiting inaccessible or inlrequentlysampled but widespreadhabitats. Examples include s6me northern moorlandspecies, ones associated with agriculturalsituations and ones which are adult only during the winter. Specieswith very fe^w.grpelhapsonly a singleknown locality and of questionablenative status.but not clearlylalllng lnto thecategory ol'recent colonist, vagrant or introduction. Nationally Notable(Scarce) Category A. Na - NOTABLE A Definition Taxawhich do not fall within RDB categoriesbut which are none-the-lessuncommon in GreatBritain and thoughtto occurin 30-orfewer l0-km squzuesof the NationalGrid or, for less well-recordedgroups, within sevenor fewer vice-'counties. Nationally Notable(Scarce) Category B. Nb - NOTABLE B Definition Taxawhich do not fall within RDB categoriesbut which arenone-the-less uncommon in GreatBritain and thought to occur in between3 | and100 l0-km squaresof theNational Grid or, lor less-wellrecorded groups between eight and 20 vice-counties. BR.J. ENT.NAT. HIST.,7(SUPPL. l): 1994 t4 Nationallv Notable(Scarce). NOTABLE Definition Specieswhich areestimated to occurwithin therange of 16to 100 lO-km squares.The subclividingof thiscategory into NotableA andNotable B hasnot been attempted because insufficientinformation is available. BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST.,7 (SUPPL.l): 1994 THE INPUT OF INVERTEBRATE RECORDSFOR SITE IDENTIFICATION, ASSESSMENTAND CONSERVATIONAT A LOCAL RECORDSCENTRE W.A.ELY Clifton Park Museum, Clifton Lane, Rotherham, south yorkshire s65 2AA. INTRODUCTION Thereare certain basic principles which underscore the activity of biologicalrecordins. In additionLo the academic or iritellectualvalue that biologicat t6co.Oi trai. i" i.t;l;il;"; to understandmore about rhe starus. distribution and ecol6gy of animaliind piilir. ii;; arealso useful for practicalpurposes such as siteprotectiori6na consiiuaiion: il;,;i;; or conservea sltelt ls lmportantto usewhatever knowledge is available- thereare no in not havingjnformarion ld]u1,,,1g,-g: and rhereare no advinrugit in noiuriltli *h;;l; ts avatlable.Although it is possibleto usedata to contesta conlervationcase"on a site,it makesa prospective,developer go thetr^ouble and cost of attackingthat case land therefore tneeconomlcs.are sltghtly in lavourof theconservationist and may assistin preventins lul.ure.pro^posals)and conservationists can use the same data to defendtheir siance.lt ii essenttallor a localrecords centre (LRC) to establisha reputationfor honesty and fairniii if its informationand advice are to be usedconstructiveiy, tt ir. Gi.io-r{necessary for its i,:.-*lt_ilryl":enrarion,and advice ro be seento ue uiruiaseauna ii ir itot a.cepiauii lor a conservationistto be givendata which is deniedto a developer.It is rmporrantto qgglleto provide comprehensive data and sensibte, wen-iriroimeAh6fo-rdil.;; oI^LlflJg tnose data. LR9s needto be populist. as well as elitist, in theiroutlook.Amenity value and amenirv conslderatlonsare as important as Ihose of heritage.Politicians. who h6ld the purse strinet a.noultlmately declde on.the policies adopted by localauthority LRCs, wili understaid tneseamenlty constderatlons more easily than those of heritageand we mustbe seento De servrngthe whole community.rather than the naturalistswho lorm only a tiny proportion of. the commtr,r.rity.The educational value of wildlife is alio rmDormnr. Notwithstandingthis populist-approach, it is imporranrforan lnd to h"ia "ia rii,ii".i"li covenngas wlde alaxonomlc_range as possiblebecause different taxa are valuablef,or qltI erenr purposes. some maybe important in generatingpublic sympathy - for a sitewhile ornersmay be morelmportant ln assessingthe significance of theslte. THE BACKGROUND 'greel The revolution' which, we are assured,has reachedthe highest levels of ggvernme!!, is the latestmanifestation of increasingpublic interestin an? awarenessof wildlife. This processhas gained strength over aifeast the last-rw-oleiaOes and hai percotatedlnto.many, areas whtch werepreviously impervious to persuasion.The term -econutwa.sortgtnallycoinedtodescribesomeonewhofeltthatecrilogywasareasonable basrsIor a.trfe-style,.buris now moreappropriately applied to rhoiewho believeihii economtcsls lnewnole baslsol our exlstence.A sympatheticapproach to wildlife is now a commonfeature of activitiessuch as planning aird fand mana'g!ment, whether thev are undertakenbv central sovernment,locar goVernm.nt,priuii. i"d;;ky;;;iir-,it"rv bodies. BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST.,7 (SUPPL.l): 1994 t6 In 1986 the Metropolitan Districts, such as thosein South and West Yorkshire, were instructedbv Her Maiesty'sGovemment to developUnitary Development Plans (UDPs) io reolacethe StructurePlans of the abolishedcoirnty councils. This instructioncame iniiifiiv*ltt outthebenefitofany guidanceon whatthd UDPshouldorshould not contain. if *uiitt"" and a half yearsafttirlhe UDP processstarted that the Secretaryof Statefor the Environmentissueil his draft StrategicGuidance. which indicatedthat UDPs should includepolicies aimed at safeguardingthe envir,onment while providing.fordevelopment whichwill contributetothe strategic obiectivesol economic growth anclurbanregeneratlon. ln oarticular.this euidancespecifiedthat they shouldsafeguard and enhanceareas of ii USERNEEDS Planners,conservationists, land ownersand land mangersare the main consumersof site-basedinformation. They are normally concernedw-ith current (or at least recent) Itrfffi;iid;ti.t ttteycan i,se in decidin!-onthe future use or futuremanagement of a tit* ftt"V needto know the significancedf thatsite within the contextof other,similar sitesin the neighbourhood,so thatthey canassess its importance. Site Protection planninsdepartments and landowners, whether individuals or organizations,-private o. ouUti.,#e cbncernedinitially with siteprotection. lf a siteis to be safeguardedit must b;I&;iiiGd iJ triuine somevilue andthis valuemust be assessed.It iJimportant that iftl JiuiJof "onservatlonis not weakenedbyincluding large nu,mbers of low qualitysites because"-nunrinsthere are no criteria for objectively assessingtheir.value' iCiivltl"s cover two differenf types of 6peration - development control rpbll*ttli-ttiiihe aecisionsmade on planniir! applications.and forward.plans in which io"e;t t"i. iipicts suchas housing ne'eds andiniireral extraction are considered over, Ior ;;i;i[;;i g-'yearperiod. The forirer is very much a reactionto initiatives takenby other BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST.,7 (SUPPL.l): 1994 t7 people whereasthe latter allows a framework to be constructedwithin which DC can operate.LRCs can havean input into both theseareas of work, but in different ways. For DC purposesa reportis requiredat shortnotice (often a coupleof weeks)outlinine the wildlife valueof a siteand comparing it with othersites. Fe* of thesesites are like'iv to Q.].*g*.n to be significantin wildlifelerms,they are often quite small and they will hive definiteboundaries. For mostof thesesites it is likely thatrione of theLRCs r-ecords can be definitely associatedwith them and the only way of obtaining information is for a lpecificvisittobeu-ndertakenforsurveypurposes.Iniorwardplann'ing,ontheotherhand, thewildlife sitesof a fairly largearea can be considerediointiy. theiivalue assessedand prioritiesdetermined. This is a far lessfrenetic exercise and s-ite boundaries are usually lessprecisely defined than thoseof siteswhich arethe subjectof planningapplicationi. A proportionof the sitesare likely to be well knownto localnaturilists anE it is easierto use natural history data in this type of assessmentthan in DC work. . Jh_ereis scopewithin theforward planning process to identify sitesof heritagevalue, both humanand natural.These sites-can thenbe incorporatedinto a list of sitEswhere developmentis to be discouragedor evenbanned. Local plansand green belt plans,for instanc-e,will includemaps where such sites can be marliedand thin usedtohssisf the planners' in DC when consideringplanning applications. For boththese types of plannin"gactivity]and for liaisingwith landowners, the need is for informationwtiilh canbeusedin reaching decisions. Tlie presenceof raresoecies. rare habitatsor rarecommunities, i.e. the scientilicor naturalhisiorv interest on a site.is one factorto be takeninto consideration,but wildlife is becominqincreasinsly important as anamenity resource and this amenity value is asimportant asicientific v-alueiri plannine terms.Information on thepopulations on thesite andthe way they use that site are ielevanf, as are the dateswhen the recordswere made. The LRC's role in site protection involves three stages: I identification of a site as having some wildlife significance, and determining the boundariesof each site; 2 assessmentof the amenity,educational and heritasevalue of each site: 3 presentingthe results of theseactivities to thedecision makers in a way thatallows them to understandthe value of the site. Site management Sitescan be protectedin a variety of ways, someof which aremore securethan others, dependingon the individualcircumstances. There is oflicial protection,where a site is assigneda formal status,such as Site of SpecialScientific-lnterest or Local Nature Reserve,and there is unofficialprotection where damagins develooment is excludedas part of an overall plan. Sitesar-e rarely stableand the! fill chanle over time, so site i2rotectionis not enough. Managem_eniis neededto preventthe haE'itatsdegrading with time or to direct the c[angestoiards definedobjectives. Land owners and managersneed information about each of the units they have to manage.These units include stretchesof hedgerow,ditches orwalls and discrefeareas of grasslandor scrub,and therefore a sitewill be dividedup into a numberof compartments for managementpumoses. A siteis not a uniformentifu to be manasedas a s'ineleunit using a sihgle priicess,and recordsfrom that site areof little useto a iranager if t"heyare not localized.This degreeofdetail hasrarely been achieved by amateurnaturalists ih the pastbecause there has been no reasonto collect it andlittle chanceto useit. LRCs can be in the forefront in undertakingor encouragingsurveys directed to thesetypes of need. Land managersneed to monitdr their manafed-entactions to seehow the reirilts compare with their aims so that their work can be kept under review. Therefore. thev need quantitativeas well asqualitative data relating to individualcomDartments. Thele data ian only be collectedif site visits areundertdken for the specificpurpose of obtaining them. The difficulties of obtaining standardizedinformation whi-chivill be useful foi managingthe vertebratesand flowering plantson a site aredifficult enough,but trying to BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST.,7 (SUPPL.1): 1994 l8 do it for invertebratesis even more daunting. The needsof practical userscan be summarizedas follows: f j"i-"'"ii"li"i.t with discrete sites and preferably with discrete compartmentsand habitatswithin thosesites; j-"" i-^ii,am"*t"ae" of other similar sitesso that a context can be createdagainst which each"individualsite can be assessed; ;;;;;i;ti;;-;;;-;hi"h ain be'usea to support site protection and enhance site management. INVERTEBRATEDATA AtanearlvStaqeintheexistenceofanLRC.thestaffhavetorr.I+eanumberof i"r;;;;;irld..iiiont-uUoui iis methodsof operation.Its geographiccoverage. for i;;i;;;;;i;; faCtor*trich *ilt allo* thestaff to concentrateon thearea *h.gtq jhg1r-.,l-l *u-f..-i6il..utestimpact. Most LRCs cover one or morecounties. ln SouthYorkshlre iil; I{a;-.;;Grii.'.i Uvthe district councils and therefore cover much smaller areas. usually""Xir6tir"iin more detail than those covering larger areas' al"ition ionC"rnJthe taxonoriic c6verage of theLlC, whichis relatedto the f;"ii;; ;i ih" LRC ut unlnlotrnitionresource forits-users. Planning decisions and, to alesser extent. .unug.rn"nideciiions *itttin alocal authority are made-by politicians and' il;i;;;i;G;;i;; on tti" roadto Damascus(or,'at least to. ih.e next.general eteaionl.most politicians have little interest in wildlife and know even less about lt. I ney il;i;#;;;";iJio ".iipiitit"ments onsite qualitv if theseare made bv anappropriate ilili;f;;";;t;r E;;Ii;i Nrt"i" ""0. incr,iasingly,by LRCs. rhe.y-.alsoiefleit the il?;ili.;;;'il6ii;l;t"."-Jlnitre enuironmentand-tliereTore view wildlife ?sa public ;8;iW.-ltitinouiint"teststoencouragethisattitude.FewsitesinanLRC'sareaare fii;ly i{;u. "iii.i"itiv-iig"iii.i"t andth"erefore justifv orotection on scientificsrounds iiio"onrerveawrderang. ot*ildtiGsites. ratherthan asmalliumber l'i"-tii*a"ii"*uir :-istanait,puUlic oi"nut"i"i"r""r". amenityiI a usefuljustification.Most.reports,from an LRCwill qoto otherofficdrs rather than directly to theelected counclllors ano wlll De ii,]"-.dfr"tEo;r"'ih; g.n.rut uauisoryprocess.. We have,therefore' to convincelhe politic-i-ans' ^oioi.iiionut planners ind landmanag6rd as much as.the Thisbrinss us, at last, fairly close to thetitle of thispaper. Whlchlaxonomlc grouPs aremost usiful for advisingplanners and land managers and where do lnverteDralesllI i"i" ih. "t.*ll picture?-ffid ansrerswill varydepending on circumstances.but some ;;il;i;i;;.in u" .u4.. specieswhich have English ri'ames are far moreacceptable iniiitf.b!"'ii,ttiitrOo not. Both officers and councill-orsfeelthat.they ought to knowan uniruf oi pfunt if it hasou"tnu.ui. nameand thus they feel that they can ielate to it' The S"liiirit.'i{i*" of r'rp..i"i *hi.h hutonly a scientifiiname.No matter how obscure the ;ii""k:;;;"kilir.'u", itr" n"g"i.a r.og. orit e dingyskipper may be, they are.'acceptable' 10 thesedecilion makers. SomeLRCs do restrictthemselves to deallngtowaros """ri.Uiut"i-unAflowering plants. and the only concessions they make with invertebrates *;'tii.;l;i" b; buuerftiEs'ind,perhaps, dragonflies. The animals and plants in these i'riill?l it"". "*ni."iar narnbiand ire, asIresult, easier to-incorporate into reports to ii * uCvantageinthis approach that we shouldbe aware of, because fi;;:6iJ;;ilr. ftt.i.: ffi";;;;:i;;lt """.pi"Oti[.niti Sont".utibhbecom-es' agood thing'. There is no need whena sitecan ;;;#ii; ili,ii"g nEOD"t" Bookor Notablestatus for eaihorganism i,"it.tiir"i"a'"n ttiJbasisofiiruft"Uiitr,Uluetits andblue-taileddimselflies. This attitude ir ;ij;iri;h;;ihouia uiro"ncourage. I supportmoves to allocatevernacular names to ,Lm" ofit e furqerand more noticeaSle inse6fs as it thenbecomes easier to interestnon- ;;il;i;;iti;i;ihd undto us"them for siteprotection. .The adjective common in an il;iilh'ffi;;;; b;;^ifta *it' iauintug.*hbreve-r_possible; coinmonspotted orchid' cofimonblue damselfly and common frog will notsuff-er fiom such ety.mologtgaLtlE".,tyr ;-il;l;;iiib"nent fr6m it andwe will-notweaken our own caseby arsuingtor the conservatrono, u ,o..,"t *ii.tt'*oufA oih"*ise Ui namedas commoi' H-oweier'such BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST.,7 (SUPPL.l): 1994 l9 use of vernacular names must not be allowed to mask poor taxonomy or ambiguous nomenclature. The identilicationof a siteof wildlife interestwill resultfrom an input from a varietv of individualsand organizations.Local naturalhistory societies will havea list of their lhvouritesites and thesewill be augmentedby specialistcontributions, including those l-romthe LRC staff themselves. Siteassessment is often subjectivebecause our knowledgeof the sitesin our areasis alwaysimperfect. The criteriafor assessingamenity value, dducational value or heritage valueare not necessarily the same. 'best' andthis is wherea goodtaxonomic coverage is usefril. Many of the wildlife.sites.and a largenumber of otherswhich aremorE important for their amenityor educationalinterest tfian for theirheritage value can be defeniedbv using the recordsof flowers, birds andbutterflies. The plantl havea specialvalue in that they createthe habitats within which the animalslive. Botanistshave g6t 'special' their acttosether to_averygreat extenL and can now arguethat a siteis becauieofthe comri'unity of plantswhich it holds.None of theipecies need to be'rare,but their associationmav bi: rare. Our knowledge of invertebrdtesdoes not often allow us to evaluateintect communities.Ornithologists have managed to raisethe public appreciation of birdsto the 'special' positionwhere bird preservationis universallyaccepted-and a sitb'can be because it holdsgood populhlionsof commonspecies or la'rgenumbers of winteringwaterfowl. Somemammals. such as bats and badgeis, are also valuable in 'enshriiredputtingforwaid arguments lor site protection. Much o[ this priblic awarenessis now in natidnaland internationallesislation. 'shop ^ My own vierriisthat these populargroups have a vitalrole to playas the windows' of conservation.and the sites which are protected because of thdmwitt alsooroiect the host of invertebratesand non-flowering plarits which inhabit the same sites. lnftirmation on the otherinvertebrales on thesesites usually provides a supportingargumenl. by indicating thatthe sitehas a heritageas well asan imenity valuedf to emlhalize the bieadthof iti scientificinterest, and it heJpsin theprocess ofeducating the deiision makersof theneed for a wider view of wildlifr! protection. Notall siteswhich arevaluable to an.entomologist,however, willbecoveredinthis way becausenot all will be importantfor birdsand flowering plants. Some of thesesites may be very small, even individual rrees,or have virtuaTlyno other wildlite value. f? invertebrates,other than dragonfliesand butterflies and fossibly macro-moths,are to be used.other criteria need to be developed. As noted-above, a context is essential. Invertebratescannot be successfullyused for siteprotection unless the LRC hasa volume of recordssufficient to allow comparisonsto be madewith other sitesin the area. We do not have the luxury of a sympatheticaudience and need to use rather unsatisfactory arguments,such as rarity, to persuadethem that protecting a sitefor its insectsis losical. Jhe g1t1tg1c9of publishedreports from theInv-ertebrate3ite Register, now includ-edin the RECoRDER package,from which we can quote RDB anl Notable statuses,is extremely.useiul.. !t-te. ISR initiativeof theInvertebrate lndex is alsohelpful as it gives a moreobjective definition of thevalue of a site. While theflowering plairts are the-best guideto thetype o.f habitat, the invertebrates are often the best guide t6 its quality,and the carefuluse of indicatorspecies can alsobe valuable. CONCLUSIONS Insectrecords can be broughtinto theprocess of siteprotection. either on their own or in supportof inlormationon birdsand plants. The protecfion of thesame site can be argued on amenityand heritage grounds at differenttimei, dependingon theopportunities w-hich the planningprocesses.offe.r. The ggiding princip,lemust alwaysbehonesty. with no attemptto overstatesignificance. The LRC staff must be preparedto deiend their statements,at public inquiry if necessary,and should be ableto withstandthat scrutiny. Thereis no_advantagein trying to makea siteappear more important than it reallyis: such actionis likely to haveadverse consequenceilfa less valuhble site is protecGdat the BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST.,7 (SUPPL.l): 1994 20 exDense'sitemanagement,i.e.conservation,w6rksinasimilarway.of a more valuablebut currently non-threatenedone. Becauseoftherelativeease with which fToweringplants and birds can be surveyed,counted and monitored they are thetaxa which arenorin'ally used to determinemanageinent aims and practices. Manageinent for flowering plants can, however,be very different from managementfor invertebrate oonulations."ahdwe needto providestateinents on the requiremEntsof particularinsect lroups or guilds. Partof the value-addedfactor of thewoik of an LRC is to identify the tabitat re[uirementsof the significant speciesand then to encourageappropriate manageme'ntactivities. The pre"senceof a dead-woodcommunity. for ii'stan-c'e,can be usedio insertappropriate conservation measures into themanagemi:nt aims of a particular wood and alsoas a generalinput to plansfor otherwoodland sites. A local records Eentre cari mak6 use of entomological data in site identification, assessment.protection and conservation. but the importance of thosedata will vary. They are.justas important as other types of datafor siteidentification and are often amon-gst the most valuabl-efor site assessment.They haveto be usedjudiciously in arguingfor site protection,particularly if developmentbf thesite is favouredby plahnersor politicians. it is easierto usethe c THE USE OF SAPROXYLIC INVERTEBRATES IN THE SELECTION AND EVALUATION OF AREAS OF RELIC FORESTIN PASTURE.WOODLANDS PAUL T. HARDING Biological RecordsCentre, Institute of TerrestrialEcology, Monks Wood, Abbots Ripton, Huntingdon, CambridgeshirePE17 2LS. eNnK.N.A. ALEXANDER TheNational Trust,33 SheepStreet, Cirencester, Gloucestershire GL7 tQW. INTRODUCTION Types of woodlands andforest relics Traditional woodland managementthroughout most of Britain has been mainly 'standard' by coppicing or by a combinationbf coppicing-with maiden or trees. Untii thi: 1970s woodland conservation poliCy in lowland Britain was concentratedtowards coppice/coppice-with-standardswoodland, thesebeing the most prevalentand best documentedtypes of woodland.Such woods were recognized as beini importantfor their distinctive vascularfloras and, in some cases,for t-heirbutterflie--s. Almost all the woodland areas p-rotecte^dby statu-torylegislation or by the voluntary conservation movement,up to the 1970s,were of this type. Thesetypes of woodland managementieisulted in little habitatfor the fauna and flora particularly associatedwith the older age-classesof treeswhich would have occurredin (unmanaged)forest.in lalulal these_lafitudes(see, for example,Warren & Key, l99l). Evjdenceof sub-fossilremains from Holocenesites suggest thht naturalforest with mixed speciesand ageclasses of treessurvived in someareas-until at least3000 years before the present. A noticeablefeature at someof thesesites is that there were larse. old trees. In thefew caseswhere sub-fossil insectremains have been studied, a variedslproxylic fauna has beenrecorded in associationwith evidenceof abundant,and often laiee. uees. Severalof the saproxylicspecies recorded in Holocenedeposits no loiser occur in Britain(Girling, 1982). Othershavebeen recorded in the l grharid 20th centuries at a small number of sites (1977)inthe 'mixed characterizedby Ratcliffe Nature conservationreview as deciduouswoodland: ancient parks and overmature woodland'. The imoortance of thesesites as refugia for a hithertoneglected component of theBritish flora airdfauna wascoming to be recognizedin the 1970s.At thistime, two leadingBritish woodland ecologists,oliver Rackhamand George Peterken, were (largely indepeidently) developing their knowledgeqld ideason the role of woodlandmanigeinent history 'The'wood iir'inRuenbln! present-daywoodland. communities. pasture'form of woodlahdmanagemen*t wasrecognized by bothRackham and Peterken as an importanl. and distinctive wo-odland type. Also, Francis Rose had been developingan inllex of ecolosicalcontinuitv in woodlands,using epiphytic lichens, mainly in areaswith largeand old-trees such as pirks andother areas managed as pasture-woodlands. BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST.,7 (SUPPL.l): 1994 'mature A survey of the timber habitat' Inl975,P.T.H. wascommissionedby the then Nature Conservancy Council (NCC) to 'mature -The examinethe extentof the timb6r habitat' in lowland Britain. project, which extendedover four years,was primarily to identify areaswhich were known to be o[ importance.or which may haveiotentiai, for saproxylicinvertebrates. A laterpart of the 'prdiect looked at the problemsof managementof such sites. An initial inventoryof siteswas compiled by P.T.H.in I 975,based largely on published and anecdotalinformation on the occurrenceof saproxylicspecies and on information aboutsites with numbersof large,old trees.ln 1976an[ l9]7, he visitedabout 100such sitesto assessthe extentand qiualityof the habitatpotentially available for saproxylic fauna.The proiectdid not includeopportunities for systematicsampling at thesesites in the way thai th-ecomplementary surveys of lichenswere being made by FrancisRose. A list of saprorylic invertebrates As nart of the proiect,the help of severalof the most experiencedentomologists in gritairi wasenlist6d to compilea iist of (mainly)saproxylic species which wereregarded as being characteristicof sitesalready accept6d as being rich in saproxylics.This self- prophecywas developed wiih refeienceto thework of Palm( 1959)and related tulfillin"e 'index groirps,for exam-pleRose's of ecologicalcontinuity' (using lichens) work on-othei 'ancient (Rose. 1974,1976), peterken'-s woodlandindicators' (using vascularplants) (Peterken.1974) and ancientwoodland molluscs (Paul. 1979).The list of beetles. oublishedinareport(Hardine,1978),wastestedoverseveral yearsandarevisedversion. ior saproxylicColeoptera oily. was eventuallypublished in Harding & Rosg(1986). However.the orieinallistof Coleopterawas compiled from thecombined knowledge and exDerienceof A.i. Allen, P.M.H6mmond, F.A. Hunter, c. Johnsonand P.Skidmore. to wfiom full acknowledgementmust be given. Previouslv.comnar-ative lists o[ a few speciesand a small numberof siteshad been compiledby Allen'(1966; and Welch& Harding(1974). After the publicationof the originallistin Harding( 1978),several authors have compared or evaluatedsites using the lis(Hammond, 19791Welch& Cooter,l98l; Atty, 1983;Garland. 1983). itre tg6 speciesincluded in Annex 2 of Harding & Rose(1986) was.regardedas tentative.They emphasizedthat the list couldonlybe usedto evaluatesites with the followinslimitations in mind: I it is aiist of saproxylicspecies believed to be associatedwith dead-woodhabitats in ancientDasture-wbodlands;' it is nota list of woodlandindicators; 2 it is a hationallist for lowland Britain in which regionalvariations can be accommodated to onlv a limited extentl 3 the'ecology and distribution of many speciesis relatively poorly understood. INDEX OF ECOLOGICAL CONTINUITY FOR SAPROXYLIC COLEOPTERA o[ the Royal EntomologicalSociety at Leicesterin ln a naoerto a regionalmeeting 'index 1987.R.N.A.A. pro'posedthe deielopment6f an of ecologicalcontinuity for saproxyliccoleopieri' basedon thelisf publishedin Harding& Rose( 1986)(Alexander, 1988). This index complementedthat developedfor lichens.but with the addedadvantages thaiilareersuite of specieswas used 1195 beetles as against 30lichens), the list was,graded enablinimorerefine'd usage and the species are not sosensitive to atmosphericpollution. Disadvintageswere that,-unlikelichens. beetles are seasonaland many speciesare difficult to s'ample.In a recentpaper, Hammond & Harding(1991) described the range BR.J. ENT. NAT. HIST.,7(SUPPL. l): 1994 z) of samplingtechniques used in conductingqualitative and quantitativesurveys of saproxylici-nvertebrdtes. More detailed infor"maiion on techniqu6s(in a tropicalcoitext) is given by Hammond(1990). The 195saproxylic species (one non-saproxylic was omitted)listed by Hardingand Rose were categorizedin three groups accordingto the extent to which they have been consistentlyrecorded from areasof ancientwoodland with continuity of dead wood habitats.F-or example Group I specieswere regarded to be themost faithful to suchsites andGroup 3 thosewhich could occurwidely in woodedland. K.N.A.A.proposed that these three groups should form the basis of a scoringsystem, on a presence/absencebasis. to interpretlists of speciesrecorded at a siteand to provide anevaluationofthesitebasedonthespeciesofsaproxylicColeopterarecorded.Thevalue ofeachof thethree groups, as related io theothers, is subjective,but Group1 specieswere regardedto be more"impbrtant(for reasonsof scarcityand apparent faithfirlneis to known aniientpasture-woodla-nds)thanthoseinGroup3andthereforemeritahigherscore.Thus thepresence ofa Group1 species scores 3, a Group 2 speciesscores 2 andiGroup 3 species scoresl. A decisionwas madeto excludehistorical records in the calculationof the index and only recordssince 1950 have been used. The indexis intendedto be usedin evaluation for natureconservation and thereforeshould reflect the currentand recent nast interest of thesites being considered. Many of theanecdotal records available for sites^are historical. Includins suchrecords would biasthe index to selectsites which wereimDortant in the early 20th century,but many of which subsequentlyhave beendestroyeb or severely degiadedas re[cd of forest witn ota trees. The curo?f datefor recordst]o be usedin th'e indexwas settled at 1950,following theexample of theNCC's InvertebrateSite Register. The generalpaucity of recordsfor many sites,and the absence of any systematicattempt to survJythe beetles of a largenumber of sites,inevitably means thafcomparisons of oie sitewitli othersare subiect lo considerablebias. The orieinalindex valu6scalculated in I 987have been subjectio ongoing revision as new recordsTor sites have been incorporated andas completely riew siteshave-been surveyed. However, it is possibleto placed siteon a scaleof ihporiancerelative to othersites providing the abovecaveats are accepted. TableI is a liStof themost important pasture-woodlan-d sites in lowland 'index Britain asse-ssed usingthe of ecologicalcontinuity' (IEC). Index values of 20 or more appearto identify the most important sites of a national series,but this thresholdmay needto be raisedas more surveylesults become available. The siteslisted in Table-I shouldbe consideredas prioiity areasfor conservation measuresto protect and perpetuatethe habitat. GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF SITES IN BRITAIN The list of sitesin Table I has a clearbias towardsthe lowlandsand the south-east. Ecologicalconsiderations suggest that this bias reflects the probable range of thelargely therm6philousspecies includl? in the assemblage,but rec Table l. The most important nationalsites for the saproxylic Coleopteraof ancient woodlands,especially pasture-woodlands,graded using the index of ecologicalcontinuity (IEC) Area* Number of recordedspecies Site Name Calculated (Ha) in eachgrade** IEC 'n0 Windsor Great Park & Forest 48 22 45 233 New Forest 3800 25 22 64 r83 Moccas Park 140 LJ 12 36 129 Epping Forest 1150 10 11 47 99 SherwoodForest 525 14 9 34 94 RichmondPark 940 10 9 26 74 BurnhamBeeches 453 3 13 31 66 Clumber Park 1500 6 8 31 65 Calke Park 80 6 6 J+ 64 Arundel Park 109 7 6 30 63 Knole Park 383 6 9 26 62 Wytham Woods 230 2 10 J+ 60 Monks Wood r57 f f 28 .lJ Staverton Park 85 5 ) 24 49 Bredon Hill 8 f l3 47 Dunharn Massey Park 78 2 6 26 44 KedlestonPark 819 J 3 27 42 BlenheimPark 900 7 3 IJ 40 West Walk, Bere 2 25 39 DuncombePark 78 5 2 a/ )l Attingham park c.150 3 A 18 Jf Buxted Park c.90 J 17 35 Box Hill 1 4 24 J) Grimsthorpe Park 92 I 3 26 J) Icklingham Plains c.180 5 2 t5 34 Hatfield Forest 360 t 4 t4 34 AshteadCommon c.2OO 6 4 1 -tJ Donington Park c.120 / 3 l5 JJ SavernakeForest 930 l 3 t2 33 Forest of Dean c.8000 L 2 23 JJ Thorndon Park c.200 I 3 z) )z Stockton'sWood c.15 I 3 19 28 BramptonBryan Park 175 I 25 28 LullingstonePark 260 I 15 28 Cirencester Park Woods c.800 J 22 28 Rockingham Castle Park 60 1 3 18 27 A ShrublandPark 80 J 10 27 Croft Castle c.400 1 2 t9 26 Chatsworth Park 630 J 2 t2 25 Lower River WeaverWoods c.100 2 1 16 24 Nettlecombe Park c.80 3 t'l 23 Dinefwr Deer Park 97 23 23 Thorne Moors 2 19 23 Harewood Forest 650 / I 8 22 CastorHanglands c.100 I I 16 2l 70 2 16 tn + Approximateareas, where known. ** Gradedin Harding & Rose(1 986) BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST.,7 (SLPPL. 1): 1994 25 A EUROPEANPERSPECTIVE In 1980,the Council of.Europe set up a Consultants'Group to identifyprojects related to invertebrateconservation which nueht ue.supportedbyihe councitl A projecf on saproxylicinvertebrates was selectedto provide!insight into the decomposeisdctor in eco_systems.A_n advantage of this projectwas that additionalinformation dn theremnants of the natural forestsof Europe wbuld be acquired. The projectbegan in 1982with theestablidhment of criteriafor usein the selectionof thesaproxylics to be usedas bio-indicators of sitequality. The criteria.Iisted bv Soeisht ( 1989),resulted in a list of 33 insectspecies. This'list was soonabandoned Uetau'iJftre specieswere already so localized within their Europeanrange that only a few forests would be identified as a result,although those sites wbuld probably havebeen thecrime dela crime. Noneof thespecies listedis known to haveoccuned in Britaininrecent times. Based on the original criteria, a revised and considerablyexpanded list of about 200 speciesoI coleopter4 Diptera,Hemiptera and Hymenopter-a was prepared (speight 19g9, Annex l). uslng rnls llst oI speclesand a stmple questionnaire.Speieht sousht infbrmation on the sitesregarded by nationalspecialis-ts to be themost imDdrta;t for thEse and similar species.Four ielic declduousforest siteswere selectedfrom^the information collated by Speight: Windsor, New Forest, Epping Forest and Moccas park. The Caledonianpine forestat Abernethywas alsointludEd. CONCLUSIONS The evaluation of sites for wildlife conservationhas traditionally been based on botanical and ornithological assessments.In the caseof relic woodlhnds formerly or currently managedby the wood-pasturesystem, vascular plants (primary producers)-and birds(secondary producers) are unlikely toprovidemeaniniful measuresoftheimooiance ol'suchsites. Decomposers, such as saproiylic Coleoptera-, are especiallv associdted with suchrelic areasand provide a morereliablsmeasure oTthe biodiv'ersity rif sites. A simole method to assessdeciduous pasture-wo^odlan$s jq lowJandBritain has been develofed which usesavailable data, oftbn derivedfrom thebiologicai recordinsaitiUtieJof i irfiatt glolpgroup of 9f lpecialists.specialists. More data areneededare neededto develop-and-improve-thepresentdevelop-andimprove-the present ir,rdexindex of ecologicalcontinuity of saproxylic Coleoptera,but th^epreliminary resuftsshow that it is possibleposslDleroto ldenuty.andidentify and rank sitessrtesat a nationalnatronal level. HammonaHammond a& HardingHardine fl991)(lggl) olscusseqways inln whichwnlcn present (tbr 9l*Lr,r:9ylyt thep.resentlistoftne llStot sgeciesSpecles coul4beimprovedcould be rmproved (forexampieby examnlebv the 199i,::Il:g,T-.:!:fl":?Xd-l!9auuil.ronol some speclesanq rne o1nlgsion,g{orhers)..rheyomlsslon oI otners). I hey alsbalso propoiedproposed thattiStsthat llsts ofrareol.rare non-saproxylic woodland Coleoptera could be compiled for usein the evaluation of sites. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .PT.H.,isgrateful to the entomologists,mentioned above, who helpedto compilethe original list o[coleoptera and to the then NCC which funded his'work on 'theDasture- woodlands.K.N.A.A. is gratefulto the staffat the InvertebrateSite Register of then NCC for accessto their databasein the compilation of site lists for the c-alculationof the IEC. REFERENCES Alexander,K.N.A.1988. Thedevelopmentofanindexofecologicalcontinuityfordeadwoodassociated beetles. In: Insect indicators of ancient woodland compiled by R.C. Welch (East Region Regional News). Antenna 12: 69-7O. Alfen,A.A. 1966. TherarerSternoxia(Col.)ofWindsorForest. Entomologist'sRec.J.Var.78:74-23. Atty,D.B. 1983. Coleopteraof Gloucestershire. Cheltenham: Privatelypublished. BR.J. ENT.NAT. HIST.,7(SUPPL. t): 1994 Garland, S.P. 1983. Beetlesas primary woodland indicators. Sorby Rec.2l:3-38. Girling, M.A. 1982. Fossil insect faunas from forest sites. ln: Archaeological aspects of woodland ecology. Ed. M. Bell & S. Limbrey, pp 129-146.(BAR international series 146). Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. Hammond,P.M.1979. BeetlesinEppingForest.ln: Thewildlifeof EppingForest.Ed.D.Corke. Esse-r Naturalist 4:43-60. Hammond, P.M. 1990. Insectabundance and diversity in the Dumoga-BoneNational Park,N. Sulawesi, withspecialreferencetothebeetlefaunaofthelowlandrainforestoftheTorautregion.ln'. Insects and the rainforests of south East Asia (wallacea). Ed. w.J. Knight & J.D. Holloway, pp 191-254. London: Royal Entomological Society of London. Hammond, P.M. & Harding, P.T. 1991. Saproxylic invertebrateassemblages in British woodlands:their conservationsignificanceanditsevaluation.ln:Pollardandveterdntreemanagement. Ed.H.J.Read. pp 30-37. Bumham Beeches: Corporation ofLondon. Harding,P.T. 1978. Abibliographyof theoccurrenceof certainwoodlandColeopterainBritain: with speiiol re|er"rre to timber-utilising species associated with old ftees in pasture-woodlands. (CST report no. 161). Banbury: Nature ConservancyCouncil. Harding, P.T. & Rose, R. 1986. Pasture-v)oodlandsin lowland Britain. Huntingdon: Institute of Terrestrial Ecology. Palm, T. 1959. Die Holz- und Rinden-Kiifer der siid- und mittelschwedischenLaubbaiime . Opuscula EntomoLogica SuppL.16. Paul, C.R.C. 1979. Theecology of Mollusca in ancientwoodland. 3. Frequencyof occunence in West Cambridseshirewoods. J. Conchol. 29: 295-300. Peterken,G.F . 1974. A method of assessingwoodland flora for conservationusing indicator spectes. B iol. Conse rv at io n 6: 239-245. Ratcliffe, D.A. (Ed.) 1911. A nature conservationreview. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rose,F. 1974. The epiphytesof oak. In: TheBritish oak, itshistory andnatural history. Ed. M.G. Morris & F.H. Perring, pp.250-273. Faringdon: Classey. Rose, F. 1976. Lichenological indicators of age and environmental continuity in woodlands. In: Lichenology: progress and problems. Ed. D.H. Brown, D.L. Hawksworth & R.H. Balley' pp 219- 307. London: Academic Press. Speight,M.C.D.1989. Saproxylicinvertebratesandtheirconsematlon.NatureandEnvironmentSeries, No. 42. Strasbourg:Council of Europe. Warren, M.S. & Key, R.S. 1991. Woodlands:past, present and potetial for insects.In: The conservation of insectsantltheir habitats. Ed. N.M. Collins & J.A. Thomas,pp. 155-21| . London: Academic Press. Welch, R.C. & Cooter,J. 198| . The Coleopteraof MoccasPark, H erefordshire.Abbots Ripton: Institute of Terrestrial Ecology. Unpublished. Welch,R.C.&Harding,P.T.l974. ApreliminarylistofthefaunaofStavertonPark,Suffolk. Part 2. Insecta: Coleopter a. Suffo Ik N at. H ist. 16: 287-304. BR.J. ENT. NAT. HIST.,7(SUPPL. 1): 1994 2'7 INVERTEBRATESIN MONITORING ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND CHANGE M.D.EYRE NERC/ESRC Land Use Project, Department of Agricultural and Environmental Science, The University, Newcastle upon Tyne NEI 7RU. INTRODUCTION Environmentalmonitoring, of wildlife ratherthan chemicalfactors, has tendedto concentrateon plantsand birds as indicatorsof quality (e.9.Ratcliffe , l91l; authorsin Goldsmith,1991), with relativelylittle regardbeing taken of invertebrates,which make up by far the largestnumbers of speciesin any given environment. As there are considerablenumbers of invertebratesat any given site, it is very likely that some invertebrategroups will be usefulin environmeitalmonitoring. Therehas been recent work on a numberof groupsof invertebrates,both tenestrial and freshwater,with a view to their use in assesiing'environmentalquality and investigatingchange with time. Invertebratescan be usedto assesssites for conservation(Luff, 1987;Foster, l99l), for pollutionmonitoring (e.g. Moss et al.,1987),for investigatingland management effects (e.g.Rushton et al., 1989)and there is somework indicatingthe possibility of their use in investigatingchanges brought about by, for instance,climate change (Watt, Ward & Eversham,1990). SITE QUALITY ASSESSMENT Severalof the conservationcriteria outlined by Ratcliffe (1977) are difficult or impossibleto quantify,but for routinesite assessment criteria must be quantifiable, so that sitescan be ranked;some criteria can be quantifiedusing invertebrate data. Diversity There are many diversity indices which take into accountboth the number of individualsand the numberof species.The simplestmeasure of diversity is species richness,but this, and diversity indices, still presentproblemswhen used forinvertebrates. The numberof invertebratespecies recorded from a particularsite tendsto be dependent on the amountof samplingeffort, andcomparisons of sitelists can be misleadingif the samplingtechniques and effort havenot beenthe same.Thus, standardized techniques arerequired using the same time period. Onesuch method is pitfall trapping,as outlined by Luif. Eyre& Rushton(199D: Othertrappingtechniques.'such asinierieption traps. mayalso be applicable, but care needs to betaken as to thegroup ofinvertebrates for which they areused. It is essentialto havesufficient knowledge of the taxonomy,ecology and bioiogy ofthe groupbefore they canbe usedin siteassissment. Rarity Rarityis themosteasily understoodandmost'political'assessmentcriteria, andtheone wherebiological recording can be usedto bestadvantage. Ball (1986)produced a list of the rareinvertebrates in GreatBritain, which couldbe usedin an invertebrateindex, but BR.J. ENT.NAT. HIST.,7(SUPPL. l): 1994 28 eood distribution data are essentialfor such an index and this factor will restrict the iumber of invertebrategroups which can be used. Work on the quantification of rarity, and on the productionofrarity indices,has been carried out for water beetlesand ground beetles.Foster(1987)proposedtheuseofaspeciesrarityindexbasedontheUKnational waterbeetlerecording scheme and this wasusedby Foster et al.(1989) to assessthe quality of drain sitesin easternEngland and by Foster& Eyre (1992) to rank sitesin a numberof areasof the UK. On a regionalbasis, Eyre & Rushton(1989) producedrarity indices for both water and sround beetlesin north-eastEnsland. A calculationof rarity association was also attemp'ledwith regionaltetrad (2 x 2 kin; data (Eyre, Ball & Foster,1985; Eyre, Luff & Ball, 1986),to emphasizethose sites with rareassemblages. Using theseindices, sitescan be rankedin water andground beetle habitat types generated from classifications (Eyre, Ball & Foster,1986; Luff, Eyre & Rushton,1989). A classificationof British grasslandground beetle habitats (Eyre & Lufi 1990a)should enable a national rarity index,based on theforthcoming carabid atlas, to be usedto rank siteson a nationalbasis. Typicalness One of the objectivesoutlined by Ratcliffe(1977) was to conservegood examples of habitat type. This is a difficult criterion to quantify without the complex ordination techniqueused by Eyre and Rushton(1989), which may precludegeneral application. Usher(1980) asserted that there was a relationshipbetween rarity andtypicalness, in that thepresence ofrare speciesat a sitemeant that a sitecould not be typical, but this wasfound notto be the case(Eyie & Rushton1989) because rare speciescairbe archetypical in a rare habitat. Naturalness For an assessmentof site naturalnessto be made,knowledge is neededof a previous, more 'natural', situation. In north-eastEngland considerableentomological recording was ciuried out by JamesHardy and ThomasBold between 1843 and 1875. They publishedinformaiion for severalsites, so that lists of beetlespecies can be compiledfrorir a time before the sites were developedfor agriculture,mining or building. The recent classificationsofboth waterandground beetles in north-eastEngland can be usedto place historicalrecords into a perspectiveofhabitat andtemporal change. Foster ( I 992) showed the changesthrough time at two sitesin north-eastEngland (Figure l). Boldon Flats changedTroma la[e in the 1850sto a pondin the l930sIo tempor"arywater in the 1980s wherEasPrestwick Carr went from a tiansition mire in the 185^0sto a pond in the 1970s to a marsh in the 1980s. There has been attempts,at Boldon Flats, to constructa more 'natural' situation by digging a permanentpond and the resultscan be monitored using water beetles. ASSESSING ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE Land management Land manasementhas been shown to affect the distribution of speciesin several invertebrategbups and thereis potentialfor using theseanimals to honitor land use change. Mo-stwork has been iarried out using-pitfall traps and on the effects of manigementon groundbeetles and spiders. Rushtdn, Luff & Eyre( 1989)investigated the effectiof uplandlastureimprovement by physicalmeans and by pe'sticid'eapplicition and found that'both ground be'etleand spiiltlr lssemblagesreflei:t'ed change.'Agricultural managementdiciites the distribution^ofground beetles(Rushton, Eyre? LJtr, tggOa; Evre.Luff&Rushton.1990),spiders(Rusihton&Eyre, 1989, 1992)and,toalesserextent, w'eevils(Luff & Eyre,I988; Eyre et a.I.1989). The inanagement o[ narurereserves is also BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST.,7 (SUPPL.l): 1994 29 PrestwickCarr, Norlhumberland BoldonFlats, Durham ii4 o o CI = o o8 o g6 g o Oz o, o o @ o Or (Jo (5 .9 O1 123456789 123456759 Water beetle assemblage Figure 1. Changeswith time in the waterbeetle assemblages at two sitesin north- eastEngland to the nine habitatgroups recognized; 2=lakes, 3=lowland ponds, 4=transitionmires, 5=marshes,7=temporary water (from Foster,1992). BR.J. ENT. NAT. HIST..7(SUPPL. ts: 1994 1q!e9t9dby spiderand ground beetle assemblages (Rushron, I 988;Rushton, Eyre & Luff, 1990b). .,_8. tit" Countryside^1990 Survey,canied out by the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology (ITE), theincidence of waterbeetlespecies in 1-kmnational grid squareshas been shoiir to reflectland coverat the l-km squarelevel andFoster ( 19-92tdescribed how land use praclicesaffectwaterbeetledistribuiion.Thisworkopensupthepossibilityof usingwater beetlesto monitorland usechanges at the landscapescale. Pollution monitoring The possibilityof usingriver and streaminvertebrates for monitoringthe effectsof waterpollution and for assessingthe environmental effects of acidprecipilation has been investigated.TheworkofWn{htetal.(1984)wasdevelopedbyli{ossera/.(1987)and Wrightel d1.( 1989)to produce-asystem to predictinvertebrate assemblages given a ser of environmentalfactori. Th,is system i.s nowin use in each of theNational RTveiAuthority regionsto identifylengths of riv-erwhich are polluted, so thatremedial action can be takeri. Wateracidification in Waleshas been investisated usins streaminvertebrates (Ormerod & Edwards1987: Ormerod & Wade.1990t s'o that pre"dictions of changecan be made (Wade,Ormerod & Gee 1989). Climate change The potential for using invertebratesfor assessmentof changesdue to climate fluctuationmust be great given the ability of somegroups to adapt rapi'dly by colonization. Watt,Ward & Everiham[l 9901outlined some polsibl'e chanses anb no'teci a relationship betweenthe distributionof numbersof dragonflyspecies ind a springisotherm. Th'e distributionof waterbeetles has been related to climaGin northernEnsla-nd and southern Scotland.The distributionof Colvmbetesfuscus, based on a climateindex derivedfrom temperature.rainfall. windspeed and surishinehours. is shownin Figure2. Potential changesin distributionbroulht about by anincrease in temperature.suishine hours and windlpeedand a decreasein r"ainl-allcan be predictedand the irotential changes in C.fuscus distributionare shown in Figure3. Howevdr,the effects of climatechange ire morelikely to be at theecosystem level*(Cannell & Hooper,1990) with considerabiechanges in lanb use(Parry&Carter,1989). Thesechangeswilleffectnicheavailabilityandenviionmental factors such as water availability, water acidity, soil structure and land cover. An understandingof the environmenlalfactors whiih limit speciesdistribution is required andthis will limit theuse of invertebratesto thosegroup for whichknowledge is adequate. One changelikely to occur if thereis an ove-ralliise in temperature,"andther'efore evapotranspiration,is a changefrom permanentto temporarywater. Eyre et al. (1992) haveshown that water beetle species differ in theirresponse to temporarywater conditions and differ betweenlarval and adult stages.Species preferring temporarywater are likely to be favouredby a temperatur€incrEase dnd peimanentivater'species detrimentally affected.Changes in soiI chemistryare probabie with climatcchdnge. with increasel turnoverof organicmatter and rock weathering(Ineson & Stevens,1990). This may lead to a reductionin acidic waterconditions. Water pH is a major factor affectinginvertebrate distributionin both static(Eyre, Foster & Fost-er,1990) and running watel(Sutcliffe & Hildrew, 1989)and a chang'eiway from acidcondiiions will favour grSupsof invertebrates suchas mayflies. Soil turnover ratesand evaporationwill also affect the distribution of sround beetle species.Rushton, Luff & Eyre( 199| t andLuff. Eyre& Rushton( 1992)ha"ve shown rhat soilwaterisamajordeterminantofcarabidbeetledistribution.Eyre&Luff(1990b)have shownthat the continental distribution of somespecies of groundbeetle is differentfrom the British distribution.Species found on coastalsand-in Britain, such as Broscus cephalores,are lound in themiddle of theEuropean land mass on verydry, brittle soils and it maybe that these conditions willbe producedin inlandBritain and distiibutions of some BR.J. ENT.NAT. HIST.,7(SUPPL. l): 1994 ffiffiIlillr Figure 2. Interpolationof the distributionof Colymbetesfuscus derivedfrom the climateindex. BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST..7 (SUPPL.l): 1994 32 * *NNX>! arj-r> --a I:^1 ---r tr--ffi Ill ffi ti il Hw ::iltM illlll Figure 3.Interpolation of the potentialdistribution of Colymbetesfuscusgiven a changein climate(see text). BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST.,7 (SUPPL.1): 1994 33 beetlespecies changed. If climate changesaffect land use,land cover will changeand this will also be reflected in ground beetledistributions. CONCLUSIONS I The potentialfor usinginvertebrates in environmentalmonitoring is considerable. 2 Invei'tebratescan be-used for both assessingsite quality and for investigating environmentalchanse. -srouns 3 Soeciesin some are good indicatorsof site relic statusand the information gath'eredby both naiiondland l-ocalrecording schemes is of paramountimportance in assessingsite quality. 4 There is a requirementfor adequateknowledge of an invertebrategroup's taxonomy, biologyand ecoiogy belore they chn be considerEdin monitoringenviionmental changi:. 5 Th"euse of inviriebrategroups for environmentalmonitoring will be limited to those which can be sampledwitlireldtive easeand identified accurat-ely. 6 Environmental-changebrings about habitat modification and the most important reouiremenlis for a kndwlededoi the distributionalstrategies of individual spetiesor sp6ciesassemblages- Changes-in invertebrate distributions cIn thenbe related to ihanging envlronmentalcondltlons. REFERENCES Ball, S.G. 1986. Terrestrial and freshwater invertebrates with Red Data Book, Notable or habitat indicator status. Invertebrate Site Register Report, 66. Peterborough: Nature Conservancy Council. Cannell, M.G.R. & Hooper, M.D. (eds) 1990. The greenhouse effect dnd terrestrial ecosystemsof the UK.lTE ResearchPublication,4. London: HMSO. Eyre,M.D.,Ball,S.G.&Foster,G.N. 1985. AnatlasofthewaterbeetlesofNorthumberlandandCounty Durhnm. Newcastle upon Tyne: Hancock Museum. Eyre, M.D., Ball, S.G. & Foster,G.N. 1986. An initial classificationof the habitatsof aquaticColeoptera in north-east England. J. AppI. Ecol. 23: 841-852. Eyre, M.D., Carr, R., McBlane, R.P. & Foster,G.N. 1992. The effects of varying site-waterduration on the distribution of water beetle assemblages,adults and larvae (Coleoptera: Halipidae, Dytiscidae, Hydrophilidae). Arch. Hydrobiol. 124: 281-291. Eyre, M.D., Foster, G.N. & Foster, A.P. 1990. Factors affecting the distribution of water beetles assemblages in drains of eastern England. J. Appl. Ent. 109: 21'l -225. Eyre, M.D. & Lufl M.L. 1990a. An initial classification of the habitats of grassland ground beetles in the United Kingdom. Entomologist's Gaz. 4l: 197-208. Eyre, M.D. & Luff, M.L. 1990b. A preliminary classification of European grassland habitats using carabidbeetles.In: Groundbeetles:theirrole inecologicalandenvironmentalstudies.Ed. N.E. Stork, pp. 227-236. Andover: Intercept. Eyre, M.D., Luff, M.L. & Ball, S.G .1986. An atlas of the Carabidae (groundbeetles) of Northumberland and County Durham. Newcastle upon Tyne: Hancock Museum. Eyre, M.D., Luff, M.L. & Rushton,S.P. 1990. The groundbeetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) of intensively managedagricultural grasslandsin northem England and southem Scotland. Pedobiologia34:71- 18. Eyre, M.D., Luff, M.L., Rushton,S.P. & Topping, C.J. 1989. Ground beetlesand weevils (Carabidaeand Curculionoidea)asindicatorsofgrasslandmanagementpractices.J.Appl.Ent.107:508-517. Eyre, M.D. & Rushton, S.P. 1989. Quantification of conservation criteria using invertebrates. J. Appl. Ecol.26'.159-171. Foster,G.N.1987. Theuseof Coleopterarecordsinassessingtheconservationstatusofwetlands. In: The use of invertebrates in site assessmentfor consertation. Ed. M.L. Luff, pp. 8- 18. University of Newcastle upon Tyne: Agricultural Environment Group BR.J. ENT. NAT. HIST.,7(SUPPL. 1): 1994 34 Foster,G.N.1991. Conservinginsectsofaquaticandwetlandhabitats,withspecialreferencetobeetles. In: The conservationof insectsand their habitats. Ed. N.M. Collins and J.A. Thomas. pp.237-262. l5th Symposium ofthe Royal Entomological Society ofLondon. London: Academic Press Foster, G.N. 1992. The effects of changesin land use on waterbeetles. In: Biological recording oJ changesin British wikllife. Ed. P.T. Harding, pp.21-30. London: HMSO. Foster, G.N. & Eyre, M.D.1992. Classification and ranking of water beetle communities. UK Nature Conservation,l. Peterborough;Joint Nature ConservationCommittee. Foster,G.N., Foster,A.P., Eyre, M.D. & Bilton, D.T. 1989. Classificationof water beetleassemblages in arable fenland and ranking of sites in relation to conservation va|ue. Freshwater Biol.22 (1990): 343-354. Goldsmith, F.B. (ed.) 1991. Monitoring for conservationand ecology. London: Chapman and Hall. Ineson,P. & Stevens,P.A. 1990. Soil processes.In'. The greenhouseeffect anrl terrestrial ecosystems of the UK. Ed. M.G.R. Cannell & M.D. Hooper. ITE ResearchPublication, 4. HMSO: London. Luff, M.L. (ed) 1987. The use of invertebrates in site assessmentfor conservarlon. University of Newcastle upon Tyne: Agricultural Environment Group. Luff, M.L. &Eyre, M.D. 1988. Soil-surfaceactivity of weevils (Col., Curculionoidea) in grassland. P edobioLog ia 32: 39-46. Luff, M.L., Eyre, M.D. & Rushton,S.P. 1989. Classificationand ordination of habitatsof ground beetles (Coleoptera,Carabidae) in north-eastEngland. J. Biogeog. 16:121-130. Luff, M.L., Eyre, M.D. & Rushton,S.P. 1992. Classificationand prediction of grasslandhabitats using ground beetles(Coleoptera, Carabidae). J. Environ. Management35: 301-315. Moss, D., Furse, M.T., Wright, J.F. & Armitage, P.D. 1987. The prediction of the macroinvertebrate fauna of unpolluted running-water sites in Great Britain using environmental data. Freshwater Biol. 17:41-52. Ormerod,S.J. & Edwards,R.W. 1987.The ordinationand classification of macroinvertebrateassemblages inthecatchmentoftheRiverWyeinrelationtoenvironmentalfacrors. FreshwaterBiol.lT:533-546. Ormerod, S.J. & Wade, K.R. 1990. The role of acidity in the ecology of Welsh lakes and streams. In: Acidwaters inWales. Ed. R.H. Edwards,A.S. Gee,& J.H. Stoner,pp.93-119. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Pany, M.L. & Carter, T.R. 1989. An assessmentof the effects of climatic change on agriculture. In: Climatic changeand plant geneticresources. Ed. M.T. Jackson,B.V. Ford-Lloyd & M.L. Parry, pp. 73-84. London: Belhaven Press. Ratcliffe, D.A. (ed) 1977. A nature conservationreview. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rushton,S.P.1988. Theeffectsof scrubmanagementregimesonthespiderfaunaofchalkgrassland, Castor HanglandsNational Nature Reserve,Cambridgeshire,UK. Biol. Conserv.46: 169-182. Rushton,S.P. & Eyre, M.D. 1989. The spiderfauna of intensivelymanaged agricultural grasslands.J. Appl. Ent 108:291-291. Rushton,S.P. & Eyre, M.D.1992. Grasslandspider habitats in north-eastEngland. ./. Biogeog.19:99- 108. Rushton,S.P.,Eyre,M.D.&Luff,M.L. 1990a.Theeffectsofmanagementontheoccurrenceof some carabid species in grassland. In: Ground beetles : their role in ecologicaL and environmental studies. Ed. N.E. Stork, pp.209-216. Andover: Intercept. Rushton,S.P., Eyre, M.D. & Lufl M.L. 1990b. The effects of different scrub managementregimes on the ground beetlefauna of oolitic limestonegrassland at CastorHanglands National Nature Reserve, Cambridgeshire,U .K. B io L Cons e rv. 5l: 97- | 11. Rushton,S.P.,LuflM.L.&Eyre,M.D. 1989.Effectsofpastureimprovementonthegroundbeetleand spider communities of upland grasslands.J. Appl. Ecol. 26: 489-503. Rushton,S.P.,Luff,M.L.&Eyre,M.D. 1991. HabitatcharacteristicsofgrasslandPterostichusspecies (Coleoptera, Carabidae). Ecol. Ent. 16: 91 - 104. Sutcliffe, D.W. & Hildrew, A.G. 1989.Invertebrate communities in acid streams.ln: Acid toxicity and aquatic animals. Ed. R. Monis, E.W. Taylor, D.J.A. Brown, & J.A. Brown, pp. 13-29. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Usher,M.B. 1980.AnassessmentofconservationvalueswithinalargeSiteof SpecialScientificlnterest in north Yorkshire. Field Stutlies5:323-348. BR.J. ENT. NAT. HIST.,7(SUPPL. l): 1994 35 Wade, K.R., Ormerod, S.J. & Gee, A.S. 1989. Classification and ordination of macroinvertebrate assemblagesto predict stream acidity in upland Wales. HydrobioLogia l7l: 59-78. Watt, A.D., Ward, L.K. & Eversham,B.C. 1990. Invertebrales.ln: Thegreenhouse effect and terrestrial ecosystemsof the UK. Ed. M.G.R. Cannell & M.D. Hooper. ITE Research Publication, 4. London: HMSO. Wright, J.F.,Armitage, P.D., Furse,M.T. & Moss, D. 1989. Predictionof invertebratecommunities using streammeasurements. Ragal. Rivers. Res.Management 4:147-155. Wright, J.F.,Moss, D., Armitage, P.D. & Furse,M.T. 1984.A preliminary classificationof running-water sitesin Great Britain basedon macroinvertebratespecies and the predictionof community type using environmental daIa. F res hw ate r B iol. 14: 221-256. BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST.,7 (SUPPL.1): 1994 USING INVERTEBRATBS TO MONITOR LAND USB CHANGB AND SITE MANAGEMENT BRIAN C. EVERSHAM Biological RecordsCentre, Institute of TerrestrialEcology, Monks Wood, Abbots Ripton, Huntingdon,Cambridgeshire PE17 2LS. BACKGROUND Invertebraterecording can be done at various levels, from national schemes(most of which wereoriginally ai-med at speciesmapplng), to regularweekJy counts of specieson a measuredtransect at a sinqlesite. Even the simplest survey can have some potentlal role in monitorine.-iaree-scale Provided tf,e nature of datacolfection, anrj its inherentbiaies, are fully understood. chanses should be detectable. The more refined the data collectionmeth5ds used, the flner the scaleof changeswhich may be studied. Table I summarizesthe range of surveymethods currently in use. This paperaims to reviewthe differentlevels of rdcording,aid to illustratethe iorts of changewhich eachmay detect. Examplesare chosen from the past,the presentand - speculatively- the future;and from four major forms of environmentalchange: I Land use chanseftabitat loss and creation); 2 Pollutionand imeliorationof pollution: 3 Climate and weatherl 4 Site management. HISTORICAL DATA FOR MONITORING PAST CHANGES National Formany groups of invertebrates,the historical records held by theBiological Records Centreare delailed enough to illustratethe extent of habitatlossor degradation and some regional variations. Unc-ommonor threatenedspecies, such as those included in national Rid Data Books, may show this most clearly; but even-cgT4ol speciesmay have declinedor becomeeftinct in thoseparts of thecountry in which theirhabitats have been most affected bv developmentand modern agriculture.The three following examples show a rangeof patternsof changewhich are-discerniblein nationaldistribution data. The shin*insrim's-horn snallSesmentinanitida (Gastropoda:Planorbidae) lives in unpollutedpoids andditches, usuafly with a rich macrophyteflora. It waswidespread in lowland Eriglandin the last century(Figure l). lt has declineddue to pollution and eutrophicati"on,and is now confinedto I few small areas,mainly ditchesin grazing marshes,and the Norfolk Broads(Kerney, 1976). The laree marsh srasshortDerStethophvma Lrossum (Orthoptera: Acrididae) occurs mainlv in duakins -allpe-atbogs iriC in ttrewbtti:st parts of fens(Figuie 2). Drainagein the l9th centuryde'stroyed its sitesin easternEngland. Since 1950, commercial peat extraction haser6atlv reduced its populationsin theSomerset Levels (Marshall & Haes,1988). T"heblick darter dragoirfly Sympetrumdanae (Odonata:Libell-ulidae) _is widespread and abundantover muc-hof Bri[airi (Figure 3). It has a strongpreference for acid water, BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST.,7 (SUPPL.1): 1994 Table 1. Levels ofinvertebrate data gathering. Type Characteristics Examples Historical Unplanned Most museum Mainly'popular'groups and literature Very patchy sources Individual I or few species Glow-worm survey Fixed, usually shod, time Firethorn miner Repeatable Chequeredskipper Potentially wide coverage National Recording Most groups Orthoptera Schemes: routine Can be patchy Fleas Varies over time National Schemes: Species showing change Conocephalus targetedspecies Limited time in Orthoptera Potentially rePeatable scheme National Schemes : Limited no. of sites Odonata Key targeted sites Thorough coveragein Sites Project limited time BSBI Monitoring Option of resurveY Scheme Regular monitoring Limited no. of sites Butterfly with agreed High commitment from Monitoring protocol recorders Scheme Continuously detects chanses andis usuallyfound on heathsand peatlaqds (Hammond,l!8-5; Askew 1988).This habitathas declined most severelyin eistern Englandand the Midlands,both throughthe drainage and reclamation of weilands for agrlculture, and through eutrophication by aericufturalfertilizers.Asaresult,S. danaeisiowrareorabsentoverawidearea(Moore, 1-986;Merritt, et al. in press). HISTORICAL DATA FOR MONITORING PAST CHANGE Local For certain well-recorded sites, historical data, in the literature and in museum collections, may be detailed enough to identify changesin the invertebratefauna over time, which can be relatedto land usechanges. Thorne andHatfield Moors in SouthYorkihire arethe two largestlowland raisedmires in Britain.each exceeding I 200ha. Over3000 species ofinvertebrates have been recorded on the moors, including Iix specieswhich are linown nowhereelse in Britain (Skidmore et al., 1987;Eversham"er a/., in press). At leastthree of these,the muscid fly Phaonia -Curimopsisiaroschewskii (Skidmore, 199I ), theephydidfly Pelinaguttipennis and the byrrhid beetle nigrita, are believed to be rare throughoutEurope' BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST.,7 (SUPPL.1): 1994 38 :l -A $: 0 X. 100 A( Q_----_$-bs-____=-]-Po wI t '+-l t--d;--tl I R:) Figure 1. National distributionof the shiningram's-horn snall Segmentina nitida (Gastropoda:Planorbidae). Open circles refer to recordsbefore 1 950; filled circles representpost- 1 950 records(from Kemey,197 6). BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST.,7 (SUPPL.l): 1994 39 l trJ1 0 x. 100 t( q------q.L!-----lro wt s r=1...F: \ Figure 2. National distribution of the large marsh grasshopperStethophyma grossum(Orthoptera: Acrididae). Open circles refer to recordsbefore 1970; filled circlesrepresent post- 1 970 records. BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST.,7 (SUPPL.l): 1994 40 j J1 $r T 0 x. 100 ,-& tr Q------!1!!---- o et 'El t5 t li *\ Figure 3. National distribution of the black darter dragonfly Sympetrumdanae (Odonata:Libellulidae). Opencircles represent pre-1975 and filled circles post- 1975 records. Cross-hatchingindicates the approximatearca within which S' danaehas become extinct in 5OVoof the squaresit is known to have occupiedin the past. BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST.,7 (SUPPL.l): 1994 4l Table 2. Dates of last record for extinct Odonata and Orthoptera at Thome and Hatfield Moors, South Yorkshire Order and species Last date Odonata Cordulia aenea 1823 Anax imperator 1837 Leucorrhinia dubia 1890 Coenagrion pulchellum 1950s Libellula depressa 1966 Orthoptera Conocephalusdorsalis t83'7 Tetrix subulata t837 Cho r thipp us alb omar g inatus t975 Historical observations on the invertebratesof Thorne and Hatfield Moors are sufficient to documentmany of the changeswhich have occurredsince 1820,when the visits of the first entomolosistswere recoided(Eversham & Skidmore, 1991;Skidmore, 1992). The extinctions wf,ich are known to have occulred in two orders,Odonata and Orthoptera,are shownin Table2. The history of the peatextraction industry on the two moorshas also been documented (Limbert,1965, 1986;Eversham, l99l). Pe-atdiggingbeforel850wasforuseasfuel,and causedthe drainageof most of the deeperbog pools,and the lossof someof the fenny marginsof the mir!. At the sametime, riroreintensive farming aroundthe moorsreduced the fenlandbelt still further.Large scale extraction of peatbetween I 890 and I 920 was for useas animal lirter (bedding ii stables)lthis modifieit the mire surfacefurther. but also creatednew bogpools anda mdrevaried topography. Until 1963,allpeatwas dugby hand, and transportedby horse-drawnwaggons or barges. Mechanicalpedt extraction beganin-the I 960s, io supplythe new market for horticultural Thi'shas now remov6doverJ\Vo of the veieiation from thetwo moors. The comDosts. 'milling' mosirecent technology, of thepeat surface, lias kept over 1500ha baregnq dry since1985. Pumped- INDIVIDUAL SURVEYS prominent If thestatus of a particularly speciesis believed to bechanging 'one-off'drastically, individualsor orsaiizationsmay be prompied to carryout a limited surveyto assessits distrib-utionand abuhdanieat-that time.-Most often, this will involvean uncommonorputativelydecliningspecies.Forinstance,Fanell(1975)organizedatwo- BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST.,7 (SUPPL.l): 1994 42 year survey o[ the previous English sites for the chequeredskipper butterflv (Car.tero.cephal.uspalaemon). None.wasfound in England.'confirming'thesuspected declinein Pngland.S^ut populations in Scotlandappearto be stable(Tiomson.'l9g0; Emmet& Heath.| 989). Apracticalconsequence bi thissurvey was Drotecrion for the speciesunder the Wildlife and Countryside Act 198L Anotherspecies which hasattracted several surveys over the past 25 yearsis theglow- worm (Lampy.ris.noctiluca).--Th_e_BritishNaturalisis' Association hls surveyed this species'distributionrepeatedly(wootton, 1969,197 1,1972, 1974):anothersurveywas carriedout in the late 197^0_s(Tyler,. 1979): and in June l99l BBC Wildtde magazine advertiseda survey.The difficulty in interpretingthe results ofsurveys ofthis ad hicktnd arises from the considerable16ut unm6asure?;differences in recorder eff,ort and distribution(and. possibly_also.compelence) between one survey and the next. The glow- worm is alsoincluded in the BiologicalRecords Centre scheme for theCantharoide"a and Buprestoidea(A.lexander,.1992), so a completecollation of datafrom the various sources mayeventually be possible. _, Recently,individual.surveys of _expanding or colonizing species have been proposed. The most intensiveis that for thefirethorn lEaf-miner (Ph-ytfonorycter leucogi"aphelta), organizedby staffat theCentre for PopulationBiology, Imberial Collese. Silivood part. The species.hasreached Britain re^centiy, and it.is hope-d to modelits inv-asionand spread. with the help of large.numbersof non-spegjalistobservers, reached through television, newspapersand popularmagazines. as well asthe naturalhistory literature. Researchecologisrs will usuallygather some.distributional data while undertakingany autecologic-alstudy.Inthecaseofveryrarespecies,thismayamounttoacompleteceisuJ, e.g. cherrill and Brown's researctrinto ihe ecology- oi the wart-biter bush-cricket (Decticusverrucivorus) (Chenill & Brown, 1990). NATIONAL RECORDING SCHEMES .. Jhe currentrange.of nationalrecording sciemes is describedby Harding & Sheail ( 199?].andupdated lists are produced annually by the BiologicalRecords c"entre. The use of national schemesfor ihvertebratesin natuie conservafionhas been reviewed by Harding *jversham (1989),and the role of schemesin monitoring is describedby Harding(1990). . Many nationalrecording schemes arecollating museum and literature records thoroughly, whichenablesthe long-term changes in statuJofspecies tobe assessed,as in theihrde examplesabove.. National rycordingschemes can also reveal short-termchanges in speciesrange or abundance.The recentrange expansions ofseveral butterflies halbeen monitoredby theBRC/BBCS bunerfly recoiding'scheme; the northward spread of hedge brown(Pyronia tithonus) has been arialysed by-Pollard (199 1, 1992). Targeting species An activerecording scheme may produceone or morenewsletters for recorderseach year. Theseprovide a meansof drawingattention to possiblechanges, and encouraging recordersto concenl.rateon parl.icularspecies. This methodof guidiig recorderefforlhal not yet.beenwidely used.,but the orthopterascheme.succeslfully"followed the range expansionand increasedfrequency of long-winged lorms (mlcropters and extia- mdcropters)in Roesel'sbush-ciickeG (Merriiptera'roeselii) and,long-'ivinged conehead (Conocephalusdiscolor) in 1989-199I (Haes, 1990). Simitarly.the Spid-erRecording Schemehas recently sought informalion about the largeand coiourful species.ArgiopT bruennichi,,whichmay haveexpanded its rangein re-sponseto two hot summerslahd subsequentlydeclined-in 1992 (Merrett, l99D: BR.J. ENT.NAT. HIST.,7(SUPPL. l): 1994 43 Targeting sites Certainexceptional sites have always figured prominently in invertebraterecording. Sincethe estabiishment of naturereserveslthese have also provided a focusfor man"y recorders.At thesesites. invertebrates in a wide rangeof groips may be usedto monitor changesin thesite, and are proving the most sensitive indicators of sitemanagement. For instance,at ThorneMoors, among the muscid flies, the declinein werpeatspecies, such as Phaonia iaroschewskii.disculsed above.was accomDaniedbv a niarkeciincrease in flies typical bf dry heathland,such as Helina evecta. This provided the first unequivocal sign that the national naturereserve was drying out becauseof adjacentpeat extraction (Skidmore,1992). The OdonataKey SitesProject, launched in 1988(Menitt, 1987),attempts to direct recordersto the most important sites. Key sitesare defined by the presenceof nationally or regionally rare species,or a regionally important assemblhgeoT species. A databasi: of over 100 000 recordsof Odonataalready exists, so the broad patternsof species distribution are well known (Merritt et al., in press). This large databasehas been used to identify potentialkey sites,which recorderswill visit. The aim of the projectis to provide proof of breedingof the importantspecies, and if possible,some estimate of numDers. The BotanicalSociety of the British Isles' monitoringscheme operated from 1987to 1989.Itestablishedabaselineforfuturemonitoring,andresurveyeda l-in-9sampleof thelO-kmsquaresof theO.S. grid.forcomparison"withthe 1950-l960survey(Perring & Walters,1962). Three tetrads (2-km squares)were selected within each10-km square andwere surveyedin more detail. By limiting andstandardizing the effort requiredin this way (Rich & Woodruff, 1990,1992),a surveyis more likely to be repeatablein the future, to monitorchanges. REGULAR MONITORING - THE BUTTERFLY MONITORING SCHEME All thesurveys discussed above rely mainlyon amateurrecorders working voluntarily, anddo not atteniptto lay down in detaiihow aridwhen recorders should do thdir fieldwork. The Butterfly MonitoringScheme (BMS) operatesto a morerigorous protocol (Pollard, 1911;Hal| 1981). It requiresrecorders to count all the individualsof eachbutterfly speciesalong a measuredtransect, and to walk the transectin suitableweather conditions once each week, every week from April to October,and to repeatthis every year. The schemereceives data from around100 sites each year, and many ofthe siteshave been providing information for over 10 years. Most recordersare naturereserve wardens. Detailedmonitoring of this kind has many advantagesbecause a reliable index of abundanceo[ each spEciesis produced.and-year-to-ydar changes at eachsite can be detected. These may be related to national trends, which may be causedby weather patterns(Pollard & L-akhani,1985; Pollard, 1988), or bedue to theeffects of mahagement at an individual site (Pollard, 1982). The researchapplications of a long-term monitoring data-setsuch as the BMS areconsiderable (Pollard & Yates,1993). The greaterinput ofrecorder effort, andthe necessarylack offlexibility over timing of visits and the method of recording makes the BMS approachless suited to amateur 'official' recorders.In additionto the 100or so BMS transectsthere are manv others. operatedby amateurs,but few of thesemeet the requirements of weekly visits thioughout the season,and most do not operateeffectively for more than three or four years. No other invertebrateshave been subiect to the degreeofdetailed monitoring provided for butterfliesby the BMS. However,a iecentsurvey-of monitoring activitiessfr' CONCLUSIONS Provided that the historical record is adequate,invertebrates are as valuable as plants andvertebrates in thedetection of long-termchanges. This resultmay be achievedwithout the data beins collected with this Da"rticularaim in mind. Unlike mdst plants and vertebrates,many invertebratesrespond very rapidly to environmentalchanges, and this responsemay be reflectedin their national distribution. If thesuite of speciesformonitoring is well chosen,invertebrates may be usedtodetect very subtlechanges within a site,changes so slight that vascularplants and vertebrates may not respondmeasurably to thechange for manyyears. Ideally,the suiteof species will include some which respond positively (increasein numbers) and others which respondnegatively to the changein question. There are so many speciesof invertebratein Britain that thereare likely to be suitable speciesto monitor aimbst any changein land use or site management.Tiris diversity of pbtential usesemphasizes th-e valui of data collection for the-widestpossible rang6 of species. REFERENCES Afexander,K.N.A. 1992.The Cantharoidand BuprestoidRecording Scheme. The Coleopteristl(3):21- 26. Askew, R.R. 1988, The dragonflies of Europe. Colchester: Harley. Chenill, A.J. & Brown, V.K. 1990. The life cycle and distribution of the Wart-biter Decticus verrucivorus (L.) (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae) in a chalk grasslandin southem Engl and. Biol. Conserv. 53:125-143. Croucher,P.J.P . 1992. The status of terrestrialand freshwater invertebrate population monitoring in Britain and Ireland. English Nature Research Report24. Peterborough: English Nature (report from Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, Monks Wood). Emmet, A.M. & Heath, J. (eds.) 1989. The moths and butterJlies of Great Britain and lreland. T (l) Butterflies. Colchester: Harley. Eversham, B.C. 1991. Thome and Hatfield Moors: implications of land use change for nature conservation. Thorne Hafield Moors Papers 2:3-18. Eversham,B.C. & Skidmore,P.1991. Changesin the invertebratefauna of Thorne and Hatfield Moors. Thorne Hatfteld Moors Papers 2:25-38. Eversham, B.C., Skidmore, P. & Buckland, P.C. in press. Invertebrates as indicators of lowland bogs in eastem England: some British bogs in a European context. Ini Threatened species and bioindicators at the pan-European level. (Proceedings ofthe 9th Colloquium ofthe European Invertebrate Survey, Helsinki, 1993). Fanell, L. 1975. A survey ofthe status ofthe chequered skipperbutterfly (Carterocephalus palaemon) (Pallas) (Lep., Hesperiidae) in Britain 1973-74. Ent. Gaz26: 148-149. Haes, E.C.M. 1990. Notes on individual speciesin 199O. Orthoptera Recording Scheme NewsletterlT'. 2-7. Hall, M.L. 1981. Butterfly Monitoring Scheme. Instructionsfor independent recorders. Huntingdon: Institute of Terrestrial Ecology. Hammond, C.O. (2nd ed., revised R. Menitt) 1985. The dragonflies of Great Britain and lreland. Colchester:Harley. Harding, P.T. 1990. National speciesdistribution surveys. In: Monitoringfor conservation and ecology. Ed. F.B. Goldsmith, pp. 133-154.London: Chapman and Hall. Harding,P.T.&Eversham,B.C. 1989. TheroleoftheBiologicalRecordsCentreinnatureconservation, withspecialreferencetoinvertebrates. In: Utilisationdesinventairesd'invert4brispourl'identification etlasurveillnnce d'espacesdegrandintdrAtfaunistique,pp.l4l-147. (MuseumNationald'Histoire Naturelle, Inventaires de faune et de flore, 53). Paris: Secretariat de la faune et de la flore. BR.J. ENT. NAT. HIST.,7 (SUPPL. l): 1994 45 Harding,p.T. & Sheail,J. 1992.The Biological Records Centre: a pioneerindata gathering and retrieval. In: Eiological recordingof changesin Britishwildlife. En.P.T.Harding, pp. 5-19.(ITE symposium no.26). London: HMSO. Kerney, ful.p. gle. Atlasof the non-maine Mollusca of the British Isles. Cambridge:Institute of TerrestrialEcology. Limbert,M. 1985.An outlinehistory of HatfieldMoors. Old WestRiding 5: 1-6' Limbert,M. 1986.The exploitation of peatat Thome. OId WestRiding G 9-16' Marshali,J.A. & Haes,E.a.M. 1988. Grasshoppers,crickets, cockroaches and allied.insects of the British I sles.Colchester: Harley. Meade,R. 1992.Moors conservation and water management. Thorne Hatfield Moors Papers 3:7l-76. Merrett,P. 1992.Argiope bruennichiin Britain. SpiderRecording Scheme Newsletter 15: 1-2. Menitt, R. 1937. Th; OdonataKey SitesProject. OdonataRecording Scheme Newsletter 10. tr.lenitt,R., Moore, N.W. & Eversham,B.C. in press.Atlas of the dragonfliesof Britain and lreland' London: HMSO. Moore,N.W. 1986.Acid waterdragonflies in easternEngland. Theirdecline, isolation and conservation. Odonatologica 15: 377-385. perring,F.H. & Walters,s.M. 1962.Atlas of theBritishflora. London: Nelson/BSBI. poilari,g,.1977. Amethodforassessingchangesintheabundanceofbutterflies.Biol. Consem.12:ll5- 134. pollard, E. 1982. Monitoring the abundanceof butterfliesin relationto the managementof a nature reserve.Biol. Conserv.24: 317-328. pollard,E. 1988.Temperature, rainfall and butterfly numbers. J. AppLEcol.25:819-828. pollard,E. 199 1 . Changesin theflight periodofthe hedgebrown butterfly, Py roniatithonus,during range expansion.J. AnimnlEcol. 60: 737 -'7 48. pollard,n.l992. Monitoringpopulationsofabutterflyduringaperiodofrangeexpansion.ln: Biological recordingof changesii-nri*nwi6life. Ed. P.T.Harding, pp.60-64. (ITE symposiumno.26). London:HMSO. pollard,E. & Lakhani,K.H. 1985. Butterflymonitoring scheme: effects of weatheron abundance. Institrte oyTerrestrial Ecology, Annual ReportI 984,pp. 54-56. Cambridge:Institute of Terrestrial Ecology. pollard,d.&Yates,T.J.1993. MonitoringbutterfliesforecoLogyandconsewation.London:Chapman & Hall. Rich, T.C.G.& Woodruff,E.R. 1990. BSBIMonitoring Scheme /987-88. Peterborough:Nature ConservancyCouncil. Rich,T.C.G. &Woodruff, E.R. 1992.Recording bias in botanicalsurveys. Watsoniq19:'73-95. Skidmore,P., Limbert,M. & Eversham,B.C. 1987.The insectsof ThorneMoors. Sorby Record23: (supplement),89-153. Skidmbie,p.1991. phaoniajaroschewskiiSchnabl(Diptera: Muscidae)the'HairyCanary'. Naturalist 116,69-'7l. Skidmore,p. lgg2. Balaam's donkey and the hairy canary:personal reflections on the changing invertebratesof Thome and Hatfield Moors. ThorneHatfield Moors Papers3,66-70. Thomson,G. 1980.The butterflies ofscotland: qnaturalhistory.London: croomHelm Tyler, J. ig7g. Th" ecologyand conservationof theglow-wormLampyis noctiluca.unpublished MSc Thesis,University College, London, Wootton,A. 1969. is the glow-wormreally a southerner?Country-side 2l: 162-3' Wootton,A. 1971 . The British Naturalists'Association glow-worm survey . Country-side2l: 456-463. Wootton,A. 1972.The B.N.A. glow-wormsnrvey. Country-side 2l: 572-574' Wootton,A. 1974.The B.N.A. glow-wormstrvey. Country-side22:266-271' BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST.,7 (SUPPL.l): 1994 46 OPERATINGA RECORDINGSCHEME G.N.FOSTER TheBaffour-Browne Club, 3 EglintonTerrace, Ayr KA7IJJ. INTRODUCTION The waterbeetle recording scheme was officially launched1n l9l9 underthe auspices of both the BiologicalReco"rds Centre (BRC) anil the Balfour-BrowneClub. a group devotedto the studyo[ waterbeetles. Preparatory work for the schemehad beengoing on rln.. 1972,whd.nthe prospect of a nationalslheme. as opposed to a,seriesollocal ri'f,..ii, *ut firstcontemplated. Initial work involved transfdf o[as muchas possi9]e 'l'hus.of ProfessorF. Balfour-Browne's vice-county recording data onto BRCrecord cards. a e.oodbase of records,albeit mainly pre- 1950. was quickly acquiredso thatthe prospect ofcomplete coverageof Britain andIreland was possible. TAXONOMY Water-livinsbeetles occur in severalfamilies of which a few areexclusively aquaric - tHaliplidae,H'ygrobiidae, Noteridae, Dytiscidae, Gyrinidae the Hydradephaga.:plus ihe Hvdraeniil-aeand Elmidae) anclsome are almost exclusivelyamphiblous (Hvdr6philoidea.Dryopidae). Smaller groupings such as the Donaciinaeand aquatic weLvils'havelater be6n added to therecord card so asto getfuller sitelists, andothers (e.g' Microsporidae,Georissidae.lhavebeen added forthe sake of convenienceandcompletele.ss' 'l'hts Others.oarticularly the Scirtidae, have been left off for thesake of conveniencetool fotto*iitt. traditi5nof Balfour-Browne,who ignoredaquatic Cercyon and riffle beetles iEimlaaefdurinsalifetimeoffieldwork. Howeverdesirableitmightseemtotheoutsider io have a record'insscheme based on habitat, most of the beetle recording schemesare based- on oarticulaifamilies. It is noi easyro specifyhow many waterbeetles species^th^ere are if one re99LS9y habitatiather tiranUy ianiity. The pr-esentrecord card lists 323 species.Since 1972'l4 Sevenspecies reckoned to be soecieshave been discoveied ne',v lo the British fauna. 'de-lump_ed'. .'*iin.t havebeen rediscovered. Of the new speciessix havebeen i.e. lumpedtogether by Balfour-Browne. recognizedas havingspecific status in complexes'mondspeciilcs'.i.e. A iofirceofunexpecfednew species has been the speciesconsidered to be sodistinct that no-one inihe pasthad checked wheth-er they might comprise a cryptic species-pair.There have been s6veral examples among water beetles. the mostrecent d"iii U'ii*rhus megaphallusvan Berge Henegouwen, recognized as distinctfrom H. Lri:iit i'iiittxvan Be'rseHenesouwei. 1988): The subtlelabitat and distributional i.si"eiii,oniriociated wTthsuch Iibling speciesmake them the most interesting to record oria riationalbasis. Mostrecordersare only toowilling to accepttheneedforname changes if theseinvolve uOOiiionito the fauna.b'ut they are-lessinilined to a_cceptthe endlessseries of name ifiuneit-r"naered necessaryby interpretationof the InternationalCode of Zool:tFical since1972 and Nil-.;;I"lile (ICZN). Therehave bben l7 changesin- specific epithets '-i' '-ii'. itrii O"Li""iinclude ihecomparatively trivial chinge from name!ending.in to ii."i.io"r "f generahave resuited in eijht generic.nailechanges, one of,which has caused ;;d;i;ai"l,rie itsnamecompletely whenit coincided with achangein thespecific epithet BR.J. ENT.NAT. HIST.,7(SUPPL. l): 1994 47 - aswef l. One genus,Potamonectes has recently changed in namefor the-secondtime ri tliUriipir,Tr iNiirton & Angus. tggZl. Suttr changesshould be welcomedas th^eY a.ro"riiit. ihe intensityof ac"ademicstudy on tlle grqup An importantvictory for .iotoeists in 1990was cbnservationof the riameHelophorus brevipalpis Bedel for the ."-ni"rerisritish water beetlewhen ICZN suppressedan earlier-,.unusedname that inoriO truu.had priority (ICZN, 199I ). Taxonomisiscare about stability and they change namesonly whenabsolutely necessary. QUALITY OF RECORDS Recordquality is one of the mosttime-consuming.aspects of.running a,scheme and it to makesome generalizationi about it. Theability to usekeys isdangerou's, but"necessary, - u.iuru-t.tvupp.*t to be a lift notnecessari=ly associated with academicability perhaps ii ii ror.'to',io wirh eitheipatienceor focai length!However, willingness to acceptthat onecould have made a misfake.and that therefoie it is necessaryt9 ke.epvouchers and to iuUmiLthem for expert identification,must surelybe asso-ciaiedwith some aspectof intellisence.Coleopierists keep voucher material because, tbr most.the collectlon ls an ,rJ.ifir"e ..iJn-foi ttreactivity. It hasto be saidthat the worstquality recordsappear in som'ele"arned journalsl many professional ecologisls attempt to cove.rtoo TqnIFP9g: of organismswiihout seekingexpert guidance; voucher matenal, ll retalnedat all. tenqs journals i" Ui"6rl Jtn" *a of u .ese."arctiprollct or contract.,Editors of learned would ao *"if io "it"nd refereiing to ihclirde the correct identification and preservationof vouchersPecimens. Voucherpreservation Coleopteristsmount on cardsor pin driedmaterial and accumulateseries of each ro.ii.i. iirit 14 "l io*p*ison betw'eenspecimens very easy, but thesefragile husks are djfticult to dissect.Professional ecologists tend to preservesrte collectlons ol aquatlc ;;i.ti;i in eitheralcohol or formalin. eompromisei betweenthese two approachesare unsafiriaitorv. Specimensstored loose in tdbesachieve only the main purposeol long- termstorage irf vouchers.Specimens stored individually in spirlttake up too muchspace and*'ih"are no'[easily comPare-I. b"aap"ti"i rnurfu" to haveborh a dry-mounredcolledion organizedby spqciesand "f""iiot:pi6i"*"'A material, even of the coinmonerspecies, .for eachsite.visit. Constant ;;i;;;;;5i; th. orv mai.tiat maintainsawareness of speciesdiflerences whereas the spirit ;;i;;ii;.;[i"ttir.iA not n..upy muchspace, prov'es invaluable when cryptic species- pairsand similar problemsare later recognlzed. Co r rec t i d entific ati on provide.key.b_1t1d The streamlinedshape of manywater beetles ryqkes. i.t difficult to on S.eneralappearance. Size is, however,of considerablevalue ln reduclngtne numDer "f"?iiitilltibi whenrunning a specimenthrough a key.M,any beginners do.not appreclate thii andmistakes in usingLauri-e Friday's keys ( 1988)olten stem trom tallureto usetne size- chart provided. Simole'kevsdo not work within many genera,and somespecies cannot be identified *iii1""io'i.i.tiion oi ttr" e"nitalia. Usually-themale genitalia ire themore distinctive' but ;;;;ililily i;i""f. g."t-t.ii^, particularlyin whirligig beetles(Gyrinus spp.), are also of value.-Fi.fa experienceallows one to recognizeeach speciesby a seriesof characters ".il;;J';ithioroui,iir" unOshape. Oc"casionally ad'ded to thisarray are the behaviour .it".i,i.y".n. thewavin whichsome species hide iir netteddebris whereas others attempt i.i."..i'p]il. ttn"";;y i; *tri.rt *ii.r ruhs off the body (e.g.in streaksover the elytra of BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST.,7 (SUPPL.l): 1994 48 Agabuswith elongatedreticulation patterns) and even characteristic smells, such as those of llybiusfenestratusandl. aenescens.Withthis experiencecomes the ability to assemble large lists at siteswithout the needto destroymany of the commonerspecies. I dentific at ion se rv i c e This free serviceto Club membersis important in maintaining interest. In the period September1984 to August \992,47 438 specimensin 382batches were identified by the auihor, to which must 5e addedthe voluntary identification work of other members.The scaleof the exerciseunderlines the risk of seneratingelrors. Even if identification was 997oaccorate. about one beetlehas been m-isidentifGd each week lor l0 years. To this must be addedthe risk of clerical error, usually committed when transcribing data, by striking through the wrong speciesnames on the card. Record age Theusefulnessofadata-basevarieswithhowitisused.Thedecision-makerconcerned with habitat protection wants to know about the presentstate of a site, though he or she might be pr'eparedto overlook the age of reiords i[ intent on making a case for coiservation.'Therapidity with which"sitesof conservationvalue have b6en damaged from the 1970sonwirrds has causedconservationists to questionthe value of m-aps distinguishingrecords before and from 1950onwards. Narrowing the distinction to post- 1970,or as oTtenrequested now, post- 1980records, usually demonstrates the patchy decanalcoverage rather than providing usefulinformation on theextent to which a species is changingin distribution. The best way of distinguishingthe traditionalamateur entomologist from the one primarily concernedwith Eonserv"ationought to be the weight placed-onrecords. The bnthusia.stundoubtedlv reveres the first reiord for an areaivhe?eas the conservationist shouldsurely value most the last record. This logic might force us to the disagreeableconclusion that we areall mere collectors rather than true-conservationists.However, there are not enoughrecorders to monitor sites,and someof us rarely visit the samesite twice, claimingas an excusethe needto achieve better coverage. The compromise must be for rarer speciesto be repeatedly 'rediscovered'in orderto maintaininterest, and this is preciselywhat happens. The other compromiseis that more effort hasbeen put into acquiring new recordsfor the schemerather than scouringmuseum collections and journals for old records. The entomologistadopting the tradilional approach will alwaydbeable to identify gapsin the mapsbased on olderrecords. Quality and the computer The problemsof inputtingand retrieving data are beyond the scopeof this article, largelybeiause none of the estTmated170 000 records*is computerizdd,except for the puipo'.sesof assemblageanalysis. This is not becauseof anyLuddite attitude. birt simply x Note added in proof Since this paper was written, about I 5 000 water beetle records have been entered on computer using the RECORDER package (Ball, S.G. 1992. RECORDER Version 3.1. Peterborough:English Nature). These records cover north-west England and the work was supported by JNCC. Henceforth, all newly acquiredrecords will be computerisedas soon as they arereceived. Funding is being soughton a regional basisto computerisethe remaining 155 000 records. BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST.,7 (SUPPL.l): 1994 49 throushlack of sufficientresources at BRC. Havinesaid that, it is importantto notethat 'backlog' thereis no suchthing as a in the senseoT data awaiting input to a computer. Recordsreceived are immediately transferred to dot mapsby hand,and the filing cardsare soon storedin order of srid reference.site and date. Recordsfor a site can be retrieved asquickly from a filing c"abinetas from a computerdata-base. Unfortunately, one decision takin as l short cut atlhe outsetof the scherirewas not to keep mapsfor ihe commoner species.To attemptto assemblesuch maps without the aid of a computerwould now be absurd.The othermain reasonfor datainput to a computer,despite the potentialfor yet further transcriptionerrors being incorporatedinto the data-base,is to replr.catethe information. Network accessto the data-base,if that involvesinterpretation of databy uninformed staff, is looked upon as a disadvantagerather than an advantage. QUANTITY AND COMPLETENESS Recordsofaquatic Coleopteraare acquiredby severaltypes ofpeople. The tradition ofamateurcolleCtingofColeopteraisbestdevelopedinBritainandGermany.Professional entomologistsvisiting the UK usually expresssurprise and envy at the intensity of beetle recordinglThe accuricy with which ainatiur coleoilteristsidentify beetlesis unfbrtunately oftenoffiet by proprietorialityand a reluctanceto revealthe secrets of whatis essentially a secretiveaird in^diviOualpirrsuit. Another problem is that suchenthusiasts have nb interestin commonspecies-and so fail to makecomplete lists during sitevisits. Professionallimnologists, on the other hand,usually attemptto record all taxa at each site.and rarelv spendenoush time searchingfor Coleoptera,many species of which are confinedto eitrdmely shaliowwater not ealily workeciby sweepingwith a pond net. The most comprehensivelists areprovided by specialistenthusiasts, of whom the first ProfessorBaifour-Browne. Within any deiade this century,rarely more than two or was 'inner threesuch recorders have been active. Even now. the core'of thosewhose site visits arealmost exclusively dedicated to waterbeetlesis small.Some of themost effective are visitorsto Britain.Britain, who recordmore avidly than local entomologists,justiust as a British the most ofrf a stavstay abroad. The water beetledata-base is best used collector might make 'snapshot' asan accumrllationof records;we aren6t really in a positionto provide srJrveys of common speciesthough recent collaboratirin with the Instituteof TerrestlialEcology's Countrysidei990 Survelhasdemonstratedthatthis is possiblewith sufficientresourcing. REASONS FOR RUNNING THE SCHEME One is always temptedor evencoerced into providing a rationalefor one'sactions. As far asassembling a largerecording database is concerned,it is importantto identify natural curiosity as the Firstr6ason for re"cordingactivity, the secondb6ing that such aroutdoor pursuitfirovidesasubstitutefortheatavis'ticpleaiureofhunting.TdquoteCharlesDarwin 'Whenever it SZt;:^ I hearof the captureof iare beetles,I feel-likean old warhorseat the soundof a trumpet'. The collectins instinct, for the beetles,the recordsor both, should be addedand the 'fun'. whole summariied as If recording can in someway be usedto insure that future generationsalso enjoy the samedegree ofpleasure then there is plenty ofjustification for ihe activity. Howevei, if the mapplngschdme organizer contribirtes mosf of the time and 'Why 'Why?' effort without charge, not?' is as good a reply as any to What follows is a oonus. Speculation about distribution Some people,including scientists,appear to derive pleasurefrom speculation. Speculationai to why anim"alsare distribute'd in theway that'theyare is a popuiaractivity. BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST.,7 (SUPPL.l): 1994 50 unfortunatelyoften rendered disagreeably contentious by adherenceto a favourite^theory. It can be cliimed that waterbedtte Oisiributions fall into a limited numberof types. Balfour-Browne(1940) recognized five (British.English, South-East. South-West and Scottish)as a resultof his Briiishvice-county recording.programme.for Hydradephaga. Despiteintensive recording since then. with manyexciting discoveries. the distribution of niostspecies still conform to thetypes identified by Balfour-Browne.Certain unusual distributionsdetected by Balfour-Biirwne.e.g. that ol Agabusdidym,us (Olivier) being found much further north on theeast side of Britain thanon the west(Figure 1), arealmost present maps(Figure 2). Balfour-Browne(1950) commented on identicalto the 10-km 'iradually A. didvmusas air example of a spe'cies spreadingwestwards and northwards'. The commonnessof thbspecies'on Angl-esey lwheie Balfour-Brownecould not find it in recordsfbr Lancashirdmightbe seen as fulfilling this prophecy. Balfour- l9 l4) andrecent 'would Brownealso stated that he not be surprisedif. within a few years,the species.is recordedfrom south-eastScotland, if anyoneis enthusiasticenough to do somespecial collectingin thatarea.' He did notthen kirow of specimenstaken aLColdingham in 1939. but not identifieduntil much later(Owen, 1952)' At thattime, Balfour-Browneentered into controversywith DorothyJackson, whos-e (Jackson, thdtmany species were not at all studieson flieht capacity 1952)indicated 'flightless' dvnamicin rhEirdisiribuiions. Subsequently many of Jackson's specieshave bi:enfound to includeindividuals capable of flight. However,the basic idea remains that some distributions can be explainedas the residue of wider ones associatedwith optimal conditionsfor many warmth-loving.species occurrinsafter the retreatof theic-e cap. Balfour-Browne's ideas of constantreinvasion andmovEment hold good for pioneersfecies, with at leastone well-documentedexample of a speciescolonizi'ng Britain (Coelambus nigrolineatus) (Steven) in man-madequarry pondi and gravelpitsifirst found in 1983by ean (1984)in EastKent, and now known irom EastSussex, Oxfordshire, Suffolk andNorthamptonshire). Special recording problems Certain distributions,in particularthose of some subspecificforms, are of -special interestand have potential for interpretingthe ways in which Britain hasbeen colonized by insects.These lorms provide an opportunitylor enthusiaststo contributeto studies o'tdisrributional phenomina, supplenidntary to specialiststudies of Holocenesubfossil material and geneticdiversitY. Two forml ol Nehriopoius(formerly Potamonectes),lepressus Fab. and elegans (Panzer)can be differentiatedwith confiilenceonly by referericeto the aedeagus,b_road- andblunt- ended in theformer and narrowly tapering in the latter.Where these lorms coexist,in southernScotland (Balfour-Browhe, i 9 t g fandin northernGermany (Franck. morphology,with somesites characterized by partijulargrades 1935).they intergrade in 'depressus-elegans withiii wliat has"become knownls the complex'. The true N. depressusoccupies relict lochs (and Talkrn Tarn in Cumbria)andN. elegans may occupy neiehbouringrirnning water and man-madelakes. the presenceof intergradingfo1ls suelestinga?ynamiCbalance between the two (Shirt. 198 I ).This idea is strengthened by the"irueNl elegansbeingabsent from lreland.where N. depressusoccupies a muchwider rangeof habitats. Somedvtiscids have females with two differentforms of microreticulation.The finely reticulate,inattformstendtobenorthernindistribution,e.g.Agabusuligi.nosusvar.dispar Bold, wiih the shiny, male-like forms bei-ngsouthern.. An interesting.e.xception,is Hvdrooorusmr^noniut Nicolai,the mattfoim ol which (caslcneusAube) beingthe cdmmbnestBritish form, with themale-like form beingrestricted to lreland.Anglesey. mostof Scotland,and somesites in Walesand the Lake District. The transitionzone is in thearea of theScottish/English border with both lorms coexisting over a widearea' This sueseststhat the matt form"colonized Britain laterthan the shiningform. It is thus im"p-ortantto record Suchforms, particularlyin the caseof H. memnonius,where the shiningform canbe regardedas having greater conservation value. BR.J. ENT.NAT. HIST.,7(SUPPL. l): 1994 5r Figure 1. The vice-countydistribution of Agabusdidymus (Olivier) (Coleoptera, Dytiscidae)as recorded by F.Balfour-Browne ( 1950).Black areas represent vice- countiesfor which Balfour-Brownehad confirmedrecords; hatching represents unconfirmedrecords. BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST.,7 (SUPPL.t): 1994 j -n $-{Y nf' Sr 0 Km 100 L:q, Q------!ils:-,_____llo \,dg FI F '+-l t d'. tl t.. 8..1 Figure Z.The l0-km squaredistribution of Agabus didymusas known in 1992. Open circles refer to recordsbefore i950; filled circles representpost-1950 records. BR.J. ENT.NAT. HIST.,7(SUPpL. l): 1994 53 ^ The most-interestingex3,mple of cryptic speciesalso illustratessome of the problems of the recordingschenie. -vari Be_rge Henegciuwen tissoiipliiih! .omronrv o..uiiinn nyoropnilroAnacaena ltmbata (Fab.) lnto two species.A. limbatas.s. and A. lutesceni (Stepfg.n; ).inainly on thebasis ofthe haircoveroithehind femora, an underside characrer marerial(and l9^1_u]:]!.l.,ln$,ry-mounred 'Anacaenao.ften obscured by glue when a specimenii orsmounted).I hus recordsol limbata'previoris to this discovbrylargely becameredundanr. This,is.an important reason foi datingthe io,npi.ri."-r'r;*.";;i somethingthat is still not beingdone!_ Laborious reinspecti"on of dry-infunted museum possible.bursuch common speciet are not usurilty wiii * ;;;;;G; 1{:f1].t,r:-"19911.:It hasproved fl,.91l99ltgnt. far moreeffective to re-examinealcohol- pieserueamateiiaI lor whichthere is lessinhibition about accumulating common materia'|, and whicli;;n b; rag11t-i5O,moreeasily than card-mounted specimen"s. It wilt be iniei..iing to seeto whar nuvg,begg.n :i::,1,,:gl.^.p_r.li..!,!|tl9r.s. ro.mounr hydrophilids on rheiiside or upside oownrn tnelnterests ol asststlng-notedldentitication. erge , )la1.f Henegouwenalso thatmales.were generally rare in A. lutescens,and hadnot beendetected in acid waters.Shaarawi and Angus (j991 ) havesubsequentlv demonstratedthat a dark femaleform hasa different karydtyperrom e. lri;;;;;i"^;l;, associated with males.one chromosome pair beingheteiozygous. with i hlgh ;;o;";ri;; of individualsbeing rriptoid.Thus our irypric sp"eciespair"appiriniiy i#t"[;;;ihi;; member.the.parthenogenetic l.emale lorm of A. lutescens.Thi's raisei anotherproblem lortherecorder.Astheaedeagiof.Anacaenahavenotproveduseful inidentiiication,thiv arerarely dissected;dry-mounted materialcan somerimes ue se*ia, u"i;;;;;ll;;;rl a sertesol specimensfiom eachsite in orderto increasethe probability of prouing'irtrettrei or not a populationis bisexual. The distributions of A. limbata andA. lutescens(Figures 3 and 4;, derived from a :mallerdata-base than for mostwater beetle species, are c'iearly differeni, *itn e. ftmbai beingthe fenlard drain spgci-e_s.A. !utescens'is the morewidtily aittriu,iteo,p;i;;. ;;; males,although.common in Northern Ireland, havenot yet beehdetected frofu scoifana or northernEnsland. Other reasonsfor recording Apart from the pleasureof acquiringand speculatingabout records. a rationalefor runnrng.a.scnemewhlch results rn speciesmapping can,be summarized easily: I Lovalidate rarity/vulnerability statuses of sfiecie"sand sites; i to ald lnterpretatlonof species'requirements: 3 to providea data-baseso that changescan be detected; -l to identify and thusto promotethe-study of unrecordedareas; ) to llnK to otherb,uropean mappins schemes. , It is alsoimportant to identifiihe-way in whicha fulleruse can be madeof rhedata- baseby analysingspecies lists.' Assemblage analysis The well-definednature of mostaquatic sites, and the diversity of beetlesassociated with virtually.all.non-marine_aquati'chabitats, provide ttre poieniiiiio evaluateall wetlanosln a slngleanalysls of walerbeetle site lists. Some 2 i 00 listshave so farbeen analysedon a regiona.l_basisin Britain (Foster& Eyre, 1992).About 300have also been anaiysedtor lreland.(Fosterzl-a1...L992-),fhg classification of listsinto groupscan be achievedqbjectivelybyuseofTWlNSPAN(Hill.1979a)andotherproeramsStrnriltiu-lut" analys_ls.Unce dtvided into groups..thesitelists can be ranked using a Ipecies-qualityscore andother.attributes(Fosteietal...19.89.1992).ltisthuspossibl6tobtierirationalefor slteselectlon rorconservatlon.lncludtns a structure within which to place Iists from newly recordedsites and damagedsites. 54 BR.J. ENT. NAT. HIST.,7(SUPPL I): 1994 j _f) ,*ru; AF .-"$tr O Kn 100 \8{ u_j- *rF------:-po F9 fl t -s-l |_z-l F -"\ r.. . , ,:. . I Figure3.Thel0-kmsquaredistributionofAnacaenalimbata(Fab.)s.s. (Coleoptera,Hydrophilidae).Filledcirclesrepresentallrecordsregardlessofdate. BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST.,7 (SUPPL.l): 1994 j wA 0 lr 100 # e------!!-!!------l,o wl H ffi Figure4.The 10-km squaredistribution of Anacaenalutescens (Stephens) Coleoptera,Hydrophilidae), males being indicatedwhere recorded, by a filled square.Open circles represent records before 1950; filled circlesrepresent post- 1950records. BR.J. ENT.NAT. HIST.,7(SUPPL. l): 1994 The multivariateapproach is also importantin identifying the ecologicalvariables dictatingcommunity iipe andspecies preference. Detrended correspondence analysis (DECORANA - Hill; ISZ9U)can be us-ed to ordinatesites and species on a seriesof axes which representthe hierarchyof environmentalgradients dictating community type. Obvious'environmentalfactois, such as salinity.flow and substratumare identified as importantin mostsuch analyses, but thisobjective method of analysisoften identifies the imbortanceof waterpermanence and distancefrom permanentwater bodies. GLIM lGbneralizedLinear Ihteractive Modelling - Baker & Nelder,1978) has been used to analysethe probability of occurrenceof individualspecies as adults and larvae in relation to siiewatei duration-(Eyre er al., 1992). In the absenceof experimentalevidence to validatesite managementpolicies, these multivariateanalvses of simplepresence/absence data provide a basislor soundadvice on management.Much of whatii advisedabout aquatie insect conservation is at present basedonpreconceptions and anecdote(Foster, 1991). COVERAGE AND FINANCIAL SUPPORT The extentof coverageof thescheme is betterthan for mostinsect recording. Gaps are mainlyin lreland,northern Scotland and the drier parts of England.The situation would bewoise were it notfor financial support from The Environmental Research Fund to cover intensivelyasricultural parts of th6 drainageinto the WashlFoster el 41..1989). the PraeserFund"and the Department of theEnvlronment for NorthernIreland to surveysites in Iriland (Fosteret al..'1992).and the British Ecological Society to surveyparts o[ the WesrernScottish Mainland (Foster. Spirit & Counsell,l99l). By offering financial suDDortto cataloguecollections, some museum services have beeninstrumental in improvinghistoricll coverageof certainareas, butusually notthose in whichthe museums arebasedl In its day, the ManpowerServices Agency (and relatedprogrammes) supported biologicalsirrveys whiih occasionallyproduced excellent results. in particularthat in Caithiressand Sutherland(McCann & Moran, 1986). The erstwhile Nature ConservancyCouncil (NCC) generatedmany records for the scheme,by staff employedas entomologistsand by occasionalfunding of surveys(eg Islay-F6ster&Eire.-1988). NCC'sstaffhaveb-eenparticularlyactiveinsurveysof threatenedfenlands (e.g. the Somerset Levels - Drake,Foster & Palmer,1984). Latterly NCC supportedthe cladsification and ranking of sitesusing water beetle assemblage data acquiredforthe recording scheme, subsequently published by theJoint Nature Conservation CoinmitteelFoster & Efre, 1992).ltremains fobe seen whether the country agencies will continueto supportstudies on waterbeetles. It is importhirrto acknowledgethe help of staffof the BiologicalRecords Centre in productioriof recordcards and ihose Balfbur-Browne Club newllettersconcerned with bresentation' of preliminarveditions of maps. Havingackn6wledged financial and logistic support from other organizations. and in Darlicula;fromcertain"Club members, it hasto beiaiA that.as with mostother recording Schemes,this one relies for its financialsupport and continuity on oneindividual, usually with a long suffering family. REFERENCES Baker, R.J. & Nelder, J.A. 1978. The Generalized Linear Interactive Modelling Systen. Oxford: Numerical Algorithms Group. Balfour-Browne, W.A.F. 1919.On DeronectesdepressusFab. and elegansPanzer. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (Ser. 9), 3:293-308. Balfour-Browne, W.A.F. 1940, 1950.British water beelles,Volumes I & 2. London: Ray Society. BR.J. ENT.NAT. HIST.,7(SUPPL. l): 1994 57 BergeHenegouwen, A.L. van I 986.Revision ofthe Europeanspeciesof Anacaena Thomson (Coleoptera: Hydrophilidae). Ent. Scand. 17: 393-4O7. Berge Henegouwen,A.L. van 1988. Hydrochus megaphallus,a new and widespreadEuropean water- beetfe describedfrom the Netherlands(Coleoptera, Hydrophilidae). Balfuur-Browne Club Newsletter 42: 18-21. Carr, R. 1984. A Coelambusspecies new to Britain (Coleoptera:Dytiscidae). Ent. Gaz.35: l8l-184. Darwin, C. l87l . The Descent of Man. London'. John Murray. Drake,C.M., Foster,A.P. & Palmer,M.A. 1984.A surveyof the invertebratesof the SomersetLevels and Moors. Nature ConservancyCouncil internal report. Unpublished. Eyre, M.D., Carr, R., McBlane, R.P. & Foster,G.N. 1992. The effectsof varying site-waterduration on the distribution of water beetleassemblages, adults and larvae (Coleoptera:Haliplidae, Dytiscidae, - Hydrophilidae). A rchiv filr Hy drobio Logie 124: 281 29 | . Foster,G.N. I 99 | . Conserving insectsof aquaticand wetland habitats,with specialreference to beetles. ln: The conservationof Insectsand their habitats. Ed. N.M. Collins, & J.D. Thomas. pp.237-262. | 5th Symposium of the Royal Entomological Society of London. London: Academic Press. Foster,G.N. & Eyre, M.D. 1988. The water beetlesof lslay. Glasgow Nat. 2l: 423-431' Foster, G.N. & Eyre, M.D. 1992. Classification and ranking of water beetle communities. UK Nature Conservation,1. Peterborough: Joint Nature ConservationCommittee. Foster,G.N., Foster,A-P., Eyre, M.D. & Bilton, D.T., 1989. Classificationof water beetleassemblages in arablefenland and ranking ofsites in relation to conservationvalu.e. Freshwater Biol.22(1990): 343-354. Foster,G.N., Nelson, 8.H., Bilton, D.T., Lott, D.A., Merritt, R., Weyl, R S.& Eyre,M.D. 1992' A classificationand evaluation oflrish waterbeetle assemblages.Aquatic Conservation:Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 2: 185-208. Foster,G.N.,Spirit,M.G.&Counsell,D. 1991.AsurveyofwaterbeetlesintheWesternHighlandsand on Mull. Clasgow Nat.22:21-29. Franck,P- 1935.DeronectestlepressusF.undelegansPanz.alsRasseneinerArt. Ent. Bl. Biol. Syst.Kafer 3l: 234-240. Friday, L.E. 1988. A key to the adults of British water beetles. Field Studies,T: l-151. (Published separatelyas AIDGAP Publication 189. Taunton: Field StudiesCouncil). Hill, M.O. 1919a. TWINSPAN - a FORTRANprogram, for arranging multivariate data in an ordered two-way tabLe by classiftcation of the individuals and attributes. Cornell University, New York. Hill, M.O. 1979b. DECORANA - a FORTRANprogramfor detrendedcorrespondence analysis and reciprocal averaging. Cornell University, New York. InternationalCommittee of Zoological Nomenclature. 1991. Opinion 1629. HeLophorusbrevipalpis Bedel, l88l (Insecta,Coleoptera): given precedenceoverHelophorus creticus Kiesenwetter, 1858. Bull. ZooL.Nomen. 48:76-17 . Jackson,D.J. 1952. Observationson the capacityfor flight of water beetles.Proc. Royal Ent. Soc.Lond. (A) 27:57-70. McCann, A. & Moran, S. (eds) 1986. Freshwater invertebratesof Caithness.Caithness & Sutherland District Councils, Community ProgrammesAgency. Unpublished. Nilsson, A.N. & Angus, R.B. 1992. A reclassificationof the Deronectes-groupof genera(Coleoptera, Dytiscidae) basedon a phylogenetic study. Enr. Scantl.23:275-288. Owen, J.A. 1952. Some records for Dytiscidae (Col.) including Hydroporus longicornis Sharp from south-eastScotland. Entomologist's Mon. Mag. 88: 37. Shaarawi,F.A. & Angus, R.B. 199| . A chromosomalinvestigation of five EuropeanspeciesofAnacaena Thomson (Coleoptera:Hydrophilidae). Ent' Sc and. 2l: 41 5-426. Shirt,D.B. lg8l. Potamonectesdepressus-elegansintheBritishlsles.Bafo,r-BrowneClubNewsletter 2l:2-6. BR.J. ENT.NAT. HIST.,7 'SUPPL.l1: 1994 THE ROLE OF LOCAL MUSEUMSIN TAXONOMIC SUPPORT D.A. LOTT LeicestershireMuseums Service, 96 New Walk, Leicester LE12 BNA' INTRODUCTION Taxonomicoroblems are often cited asan obstacleto the useof invertebrategroups for siteevaluation and environmental monitoring. Thqse problems vary from group to group. Forsome groups. Protozoa bei ng an example. a large proportlon ol speclesare undescn becl onaurii6rUu'sictaxonomicreiearchprogramme*isieq'uiredtClark.1976).Howeverthe Britishfduna of mostmacro-invertebr-ate groups is muchbetter known and the taxonomy of ^oirsroups hasprogressed beyond thE deicriptive phase' Recentprogress has been .itfr.i nfir.ti.taturdl o; involved"thesplitting of a reiativelysmall number o[ closely i.iui.Aro.Ci.s (see, for example,Foster ihis coiference). The main problems with theuse oi*ii"iinueriebrate groups'relateto lackof accessibleidentification keys and shortage oi-inu"it"U.ute specifiists with the necessaryknowledge of sampling methods or identification'--Unfo.rrnutely.skills. the popularityof taxonomyhas undoubtedly declined and it is now ro*.ii*ii rieuiO.aai oid-lashionedand in thecase of invertebratestediously difficult. Heppel( lgTginotedthat in zoologythere has beena trend away from taxonomy and a lack of hwarenessof its importanceto othertypes ol zoologicalwork. Ltut.polnts out tnat rii.ntifl. workcan be r6ndered inelevant iiits taxonomy-isinaccurate.or lmprecise' The failureto appreciatethe importance of taxonomyto ecolog!caland envlronmental studles i;;lir;;;iid"";uUititie. t6 understandthe environmental changes which are becoming increasingly"'-itr. apparent and which are culrently giving cause tor publicconcern' "i6tiri.'.ht roleof thenational and univ-er-sity museums in puretaxonomic research is *iAiiv oittrowledged(Smith. 1979). Less weil undersloodi.s the taxonomic.supPo.rl providedby localmriseums. which are run mainlyby local.authorities..It is in thefield [i;;;iGd i"ionory. ratherrhan pure taxonomiciesearch. that local museumshave i*Oliflon"ttvoperate'd and it is in this areathat they havemost to offer in the future' INVERTEBRATE STUDIES AT LEICESTER MUSEUM 1845-MuseumsAct which Local authority museumsfirst appearedfollowing the 'the ull;;a-;;;iiipi'titt.. to levy a half:pennyrate, to run museumsfor instructionand ur*.*init ol'the public. Howevei.mahy of themhave their origins in.literary and ofriforopti.utsocietiesandsimilarorganizationswhichappearedintheearly l9thcentury. Fr"- tri. iiurr, io."i rnut"umswere involved with the iricreasinginterest in local faunas ;hi;ir6."dthe basisof manynotes published in newjournals such as the Zoologist and the Entomologist. At variouslimesin itshistory the museum at Leicester_hasplayed an impo^rtantpart tn encouras.insand enabling local naturalists to study naturalhlstory. ln thel64Us. Lelcester M;;;;"it;r associated"withdeveloping the int6rests of theyoung Henry Walter Bates who befriendedrhe curator John Plarit. Eates left schoolat 13.but continued his studies at-iheMicfranic's Institute whilst working from 7.00 am to 8.00pqr ea-cfr day as.a hosiery aoorentice.At 17,Bates began to studythe local beetles belore embarhng on hlstamous ub'vaseto the Amazonwitti AlfredWallace (Moon. 1976). BR. J. ENT. NAT. HIST.,7 (SUPPL.l): 1994 59 Entomologistsfrom a variety of social origins continued to use the resources 'Mr at the museumin orderto pursuetheir interest.In 1875, G. Robson,the artisanNaturalist hasundertaken to studyand collect the Water-Beetles,and the Societyhas supplied him with apparatusfor thepurpole' (Mott. 1876).At thesame time, Mr T. BurberryForrest. a gentlemanfrom a quitedifferent walk o[ life.was engaged in therearrangement ol lhe Coleopteracollectio'ns. tn the 1890s,the museumw:as"associated withihe resurgent entomologic,alactivity at Leicesterand most of the l9th century material in the preient museumcollections date from this time. Formuch of the20th century, there has been no entomolosicalsocietv in Leicestershire and the museum becameth6 place where budding ento;nologistsmet the previous generationand first had their enihusiasmskindled. Ii the l950slthe museumsiarted to actas a local biological recordscentre and formation of theCountv Leoidopterarecordins schemein 1975,by Don Hall-Smith,stimulated a major increasein iocai recordingand interest.The LeicestershireEntomological Society was formed in 1988and the muieum hasprovided support for meetingsand-publications. The involvementof LeicesterMuseum in local invertebratestudies is not unique; greateractivity can be found in the historiesof someother local museums.The main efforts of the museumat Leicesterhave often beendirected towards the study of plants and vertebrates.Local museumshave provideda vital service,especially to amateur naturalhistorians who haveplayed such-an important role in the stuhyof iirvertebrates. TAXONOMIC SERVICES AT LOCAL MUSEUMS The servicesprovided by local museumsinclude the use of equipmentand libraries, publishing,and support for localsocieties, but perhaps the two muSeumresources of most value are the collectionsand staff expertise. A high proportionof most invertebrate museumcollections come from localamateur collectori. eonsequently, they constitute avaluablestoreofhistoricalrecords.Comparisonwithmodernrec-ordschnsuggestfaunal changes.They also act as vouchersfor recordspublished by the collectorsl-Themost frequentuse of invertebratecollections however is asreference material. Identification of specimensis more likely to be correct when they are comparedwith reliably named materialthanwhen they.aie identifiedusing only k'eys: this is especiallytrue for those inexperiencedin identification. Staffexpertise is a museumresource which is easyto overlook. However,individual staff with an infective enthusiasmcan have a dynamiceffect on the local scene.There are rnanyactive invertebrate specialists, both professional and amateur, whose interests were first encouragedand then sustainedduring visits to the local museum. The role of museumsin developingthe taxonomicskills of youngspecialists is especiallyvaluable giventhe decreasingcomponent of taxonomyin universitycurricula. MUSEUMS IN CRISIS Local authority serviceshave come under increasingfinancial pressure in the last decade. To iustiiy their expenditure.museums are no-wrequired io demonstratethe relevanceotiheirlervices tci the public in increasinglyrigorous ways. Cutsin budgets havebeen suffered in recentyears by almstall museumswith naturalhistory collections. The taxonomicservices piovided by local museumshas never enjoyed'a high public profile. With the exceptionof public healthenquiries. it is undoubtecilytrue ihai these servicesareoftenunder-used.Itisunfortunatethatmanvinvertebratecollectionsofvalue for taxonomicservices are not very usefulfor thesemuseum functions, such as display, which have a broaderand more dilect public appeal. Consequentlylocal natural history museums are facing a crisisespecially with respect to theprovision of taxonomicservices. According to a surveyin 1983(Williams, 1987), of thel2'l museumsin theUK with naturalhistory collections only 64 employedfull-time specialiststaff and only 49 were not constrictedby staffingin providing"aneffective BR.J. ENT. NAT. HIST.,7(SUPPL. l): 1994 60 service.OnthisbasisoverhalfofallBritishnaturalhistorymuseumsareunabletoprovide an effectivetaxonomic service. POTENTIALFOR THE FUTURE Naturalhistory departments at local museumshave responded to thesepressures by takingon functionsbeyond their traditionalroles. In the field o[ taxonomythis has invol"vedtwo main iniiiatives,both basedupon the developmentof local biological recordscentresatmuseums.Theemergenceof governmenttrainingschemesinthe 1980s gave the opportunityto employ young peopleto conductbiological surveysand to Ircmputeriz'e'thedata form. This iesulledin'a spateof localatlasEs showing the local speciesdistributions of a widerange of taxonom'icgroups. At thesame time-local site- baseddata-banks were set up andthese have evolved into operationsgiving ecological advicetoplanningdepartments.Inasimilarveinmuseumsareworkingwithconservation organizationson site evaluationsand managementprescriptions. In recent years, Le'icestershireMuseums Service has undertakei work, using invertebrates, to monit-orthe effectsof engineeringworks on a localriver system,to monitorgrasslands restored after open-casemining, to evaluatenumerous sites subject to developmentproposals and to rdviewthe conservation interest of localsites within severalhabitat categories. Many museumshave now built up a valuabledistributional and ecological data-base to complementtheir taxonomic resources. There is now abundantpotentialfor an increase environmentaland educationalorganizations. If your local museum in theii use by 'use providesa taxonomicservice then one can only say it or loseit'. REFERENCES Clark, R.B. (chairman) 1976. The role of taxonomy in ecological research. Report of the NERC working 'B', par4,. NERC publications services no 14. London: Natural Environment ResearchCouncil. Heppel, D. 1979. Biological collections,systematics and taxonomy. MuseumsJournalT9:71-'72. Moon,H.P. 1976. HenryWalterBatesF.R.S. 1825-1892.Explorer,ScientistandDarwinian. Leicester: LeicestershireMuseums, Art Galleriesand RecordsService. Mott, F.T. I 876. Report of the Natural History Sectionin Report of the Council of LeicesterLiterary and Philosophical Society. Smith, E. (chairman) 1979. Tct-xonomyin Britain. Report by the Review Group on Taxonomy set up by the Advisory Board for the ResearchCouncils. London: HMSO. Williams, B. 1987. Biological collections UK. Report on the findings of the Museums Association working party on natural sciencecollections. London: Museum Association.