DOCSLIB.ORG

ERAMMP Rpt-25 Annex-4B Improved Farmland V1.0 En.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
ERAMMP Rpt-25 Annex-4B Improved Farmland V1.0 En.Pdf Environment and Rural Affairs Monitoring & Modelling Programme (ERAMMP) Sustainable Farming Scheme Evidence Review Technical Annex ERAMMP Report-25: Annex-4B: Building Ecosystem Resilience in Improved Farmland Keenleyside, C.B. 1, Maskell, L.C.2, Smart, S.M.2, Siriwardena, G.M.3 & Alison, J.2 1 Institute for European Environmental Policy, 2 UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, 3 British Trust for Ornithology Client Ref: Welsh Government / Contract C210/2016/2017 Version 1.0 Date 10/07/2020 Version History Version Updated By Date Changes 1.0 Author team 10/7/2020 Published Mae’r adroddiad hwn ar gael yn electronig yma / This report is available electronically at: www.erammp.wales/25 Neu trwy sganio’r cod QR a ddangosir / Or by scanning the QR code shown. Mae’r ddogfen yma hefyd ar gael yn Gymraeg / This document is also available in Welsh Series Environment and Rural Affairs Monitoring & Modelling Programme (ERAMMP) Sustainable Farming Scheme Evidence Review Title ERAMMP Report-25 Annex-4B: Building Ecosystem Resilience in Improved Farmland Client Welsh Government Client reference C210/2016/2017 Confidentiality, © Crown Copyright 2020. copyright and This report is licensed under the Open Government Licence 3.0. reproduction DRAFT UKCEH contact Bronwen Williams details UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology (UKCEH) Environment Centre Wales, Deiniol Road, Bangor, Gwynedd, LL57 2UW [email protected] Corresponding Author Clunie Keenleyside, IEEP [email protected] Authors Clunie Keenleyside 1, Gavin Siriwardena 2, Lindsay Maskell 3, Jamie Alison3, Simon Smart 3 1 IEEP, 2 BTO, 3 UKCEH Contributing Authors Lisa Norton1, Amanda Thomson1, Prysor Williams4, Tom Jenkins5, Dave and Reviewers Chadwick4, Liz Lewis-Reddy6, Amy Thomas1, Ian Dickie 3 1 UKCEH, 2 BTO, 3 eftec, 4 Bangor University, 5 Forest Research, 6 ADAS How to cite (long) Keenleyside, C.B., Maskell, L.C., Smart, S.M., Siriwardena, G.M. & Alison, J. (2020). Environment and Rural Affairs Monitoring & Modelling Programme (ERAMMP): Report-25: SFS Evidence Review Annex-4B - Building Ecosystem Resilience in Improved Farmland. Report to Welsh Government (Contract C210/2016/2017)(UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology Project 06297) How to cite (short) Keenleyside, C.B. et al. (2020). ERAMMP Report-25: Annex-4B Improved Land. Report to Welsh Government (Contract C210/2016/2017)(UKCEH 06297) Approved by Simon Bilsborough James Skates Abbreviations Used in this Report BBS [BTO/JNCC/RSPB] Breeding Bird Survey BGS British Geological Survey BTO British Trust for Ornithology CAP Common Agricultural Policy EAS Environmentally Sensitive Areas eftec Economics for the Environment Consultancy ERAMMP Environment and Rural Affairs Monitoring & Modelling Programme GHG Greenhouse Gas GMEP Glastir Modelling and Evaluation Programme HLS Higher-Level Stewardship IEEP Institute for European Environmental Policy N Nitrogen N2O Nitrous oxide PPP Plant Protection Products SFS Sustainable Farm Scheme UKCEH UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology WBSM Wild bird seed mix Environment and Rural Affairs Monitoring & Modelling Programme (ERAMMP) Sustainable Farming Scheme Evidence Review Contents 1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 2 1.1 Review brief ............................................................................................................... 2 1.2 Interpretation of the review brief ................................................................................ 2 1.2.1 Improved land in Wales ................................................................................................... 2 1.2.2 Ecological resilience ........................................................................................................ 3 1.2.3 Habitat Condition ............................................................................................................. 4 1.2.4 Linking evidence to farm types ........................................................................................ 4 1.2.5 Uncertainty ....................................................................................................................... 4 2 Outcomes ......................................................................................................................... 7 3 Policy Relevance and Policy Outcomes ........................................................................... 9 4 Introductions to the interventions reviewed .................................................................... 10 4.1 Evidence of farming trends, the implications ........................................................... 10 4.2 Intervention categories ............................................................................................. 11 4.3 Evidence to be explored .......................................................................................... 12 5 Interventions ................................................................................................................... 14 5.1 In-field management of the whole crop/grassland ................................................... 14 5.1.1 Grassland in-field management ..................................................................................... 14 5.1.2 Arable land in-field management ................................................................................... 19 5.2 Organic farming ....................................................................................................... 26 5.3 Modified management of strips/plots around or within the field ............................... 29 5.4 Management of agriculturally unproductive land and features ................................ 35 5.4.1 Management of farm ponds ........................................................................................... 36 5.4.2 Management of hedges and wooded linear features .................................................... 36 5.4.3 Management of farmland trees and woodland .............................................................. 37 5.4.4 Management of small areas of semi-natural habitats and features .............................. 37 5.5 Other interventions ................................................................................................... 39 5.6 Cross-cutting issues for all interventions ................................................................. 40 5.6.1 Myth busting .................................................................................................................. 40 5.6.2 Timescale and longevity of impact ................................................................................ 41 5.6.3 Magnitude of impact ...................................................................................................... 42 5.6.4 Spatial context and connectivity dependence ............................................................... 43 5.6.5 Metrics and verification .................................................................................................. 43 5.6.6 Co-benefits and trade-offs ............................................................................................. 43 6 Significance of context, synergy and scale of biodiversity interventions ........................ 47 6.1 Effect of context on the potential benefits of interventions ....................................... 47 6.2 Synergy of interventions on improved land .............................................................. 47 6.3 Landscape-scale planning of SFS management interventions ................................ 49 7 Evidence Gaps ............................................................................................................... 52 8 Summary ........................................................................................................................ 54 8.1 Improved grassland management (infield and field margins) .................................. 55 8.2 Arable management (infield and field margins) ....................................................... 55 8.3 Organic farming ....................................................................................................... 56 8.4 Management of non- agricultural land and features ................................................ 56 8.5 Significance of context, synergy and scale of biodiversity interventions .................. 56 8.6 Synthesis of findings ................................................................................................ 57 9 References ..................................................................................................................... 61 ERAMMP Report-25/Annex-4B: Improved Land v1.0 Page 1 of 81 Environment and Rural Affairs Monitoring & Modelling Programme (ERAMMP) Sustainable Farming Scheme Evidence Review 1 Introduction 1.1 Review brief This section of the evidence review complements ERAMMP Report 4: SFS Evidence Review Annex 4 Building Ecosystem Resilience, which had the remit to focus on management interventions that will deliver broadscale improvements in the biodiversity related features of semi-natural farmland and woodland habitat types - but specifically excluded improved farmland1. The Welsh Government now requires ERAMMP to undertake an evidence review based on the same brief as the earlier review, but this time to focus solely on improved land. The requirement is to identify interventions and review the evidence for their effectiveness in building ecosystem resilience, which in this context
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Contribution to the Knowledge of the Fauna of Bombyces, Sphinges And
    driemaandelijks tijdschrift van de VLAAMSE VERENIGING VOOR ENTOMOLOGIE Afgiftekantoor 2170 Merksem 1 ISSN 0771-5277 Periode: oktober – november – december 2002 Erkenningsnr. P209674 Redactie: Dr. J–P. Borie (Compiègne, France), Dr. L. De Bruyn (Antwerpen), T. C. Garrevoet (Antwerpen), B. Goater (Chandlers Ford, England), Dr. K. Maes (Gent), Dr. K. Martens (Brussel), H. van Oorschot (Amsterdam), D. van der Poorten (Antwerpen), W. O. De Prins (Antwerpen). Redactie-adres: W. O. De Prins, Nieuwe Donk 50, B-2100 Antwerpen (Belgium). e-mail: [email protected]. Jaargang 30, nummer 4 1 december 2002 Contribution to the knowledge of the fauna of Bombyces, Sphinges and Noctuidae of the Southern Ural Mountains, with description of a new Dichagyris (Lepidoptera: Lasiocampidae, Endromidae, Saturniidae, Sphingidae, Notodontidae, Noctuidae, Pantheidae, Lymantriidae, Nolidae, Arctiidae) Kari Nupponen & Michael Fibiger [In co-operation with Vladimir Olschwang, Timo Nupponen, Jari Junnilainen, Matti Ahola and Jari- Pekka Kaitila] Abstract. The list, comprising 624 species in the families Lasiocampidae, Endromidae, Saturniidae, Sphingidae, Notodontidae, Noctuidae, Pantheidae, Lymantriidae, Nolidae and Arctiidae from the Southern Ural Mountains is presented. The material was collected during 1996–2001 in 10 different expeditions. Dichagyris lux Fibiger & K. Nupponen sp. n. is described. 17 species are reported for the first time from Europe: Clostera albosigma (Fitch, 1855), Xylomoia retinax Mikkola, 1998, Ecbolemia misella (Püngeler, 1907), Pseudohadena stenoptera Boursin, 1970, Hadula nupponenorum Hacker & Fibiger, 2002, Saragossa uralica Hacker & Fibiger, 2002, Conisania arida (Lederer, 1855), Polia malchani (Draudt, 1934), Polia vespertilio (Draudt, 1934), Polia altaica (Lederer, 1853), Mythimna opaca (Staudinger, 1899), Chersotis stridula (Hampson, 1903), Xestia wockei (Möschler, 1862), Euxoa dsheiron Brandt, 1938, Agrotis murinoides Poole, 1989, Agrotis sp.
    [Show full text]
  • Check List of Noctuid Moths (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae And
    Бiологiчний вiсник МДПУ імені Богдана Хмельницького 6 (2), стор. 87–97, 2016 Biological Bulletin of Bogdan Chmelnitskiy Melitopol State Pedagogical University, 6 (2), pp. 87–97, 2016 ARTICLE UDC 595.786 CHECK LIST OF NOCTUID MOTHS (LEPIDOPTERA: NOCTUIDAE AND EREBIDAE EXCLUDING LYMANTRIINAE AND ARCTIINAE) FROM THE SAUR MOUNTAINS (EAST KAZAKHSTAN AND NORTH-EAST CHINA) A.V. Volynkin1, 2, S.V. Titov3, M. Černila4 1 Altai State University, South Siberian Botanical Garden, Lenina pr. 61, Barnaul, 656049, Russia. E-mail: [email protected] 2 Tomsk State University, Laboratory of Biodiversity and Ecology, Lenina pr. 36, 634050, Tomsk, Russia 3 The Research Centre for Environmental ‘Monitoring’, S. Toraighyrov Pavlodar State University, Lomova str. 64, KZ-140008, Pavlodar, Kazakhstan. E-mail: [email protected] 4 The Slovenian Museum of Natural History, Prešernova 20, SI-1001, Ljubljana, Slovenia. E-mail: [email protected] The paper contains data on the fauna of the Lepidoptera families Erebidae (excluding subfamilies Lymantriinae and Arctiinae) and Noctuidae of the Saur Mountains (East Kazakhstan). The check list includes 216 species. The map of collecting localities is presented. Key words: Lepidoptera, Noctuidae, Erebidae, Asia, Kazakhstan, Saur, fauna. INTRODUCTION The fauna of noctuoid moths (the families Erebidae and Noctuidae) of Kazakhstan is still poorly studied. Only the fauna of West Kazakhstan has been studied satisfactorily (Gorbunov 2011). On the faunas of other parts of the country, only fragmentary data are published (Lederer, 1853; 1855; Aibasov & Zhdanko 1982; Hacker & Peks 1990; Lehmann et al. 1998; Benedek & Bálint 2009; 2013; Korb 2013). In contrast to the West Kazakhstan, the fauna of noctuid moths of East Kazakhstan was studied inadequately.
    [Show full text]
  • E-Moth May 2020
    E-moth Moths Count Update May 2020 We hope that this newsletter finds you well in these extraordinary and challenging times. For those fortunate enough to have a garden, moth recording is providing a very welcome wildlife tonic while much of the countryside remains out of reach. Even without a garden, moths will come to an outside light or to a lighted window so there is still some opportunity to enjoy and record sightings. Indeed, moth recording seems to be booming in Britain during the coronavirus lockdown, with increases in orders for traps and other equipment from suppliers. A very mild winter and the recent long warm spell of weather across much of the UK have led to some early emergences of moth species this spring. This forms part of a significant long-term trend of generally earlier emergence among moths. For example, a provisional assessment of single-brooded species in the Atlas of Britain & Ireland’s Larger Moths showed an average advance of 5 days since the 1970s. But while moth recorders might welcome the Emperor Moths (Julian Dowding) early appearance of a favourite species in their garden trap, the implications of these changes for the moths themselves are only just starting to become clear. A recent study of 130 species of moths and butterflies in Britain showed that only species with more than one generation each year benefitted from emerging earlier. In such species, the earlier emergence of the first generation led to greater abundance in the second brood. For single-brooded species, however, there was no clear relationship between earlier emergence and abundance trends.
    [Show full text]
  • 3.2 Conservation Value of Scrub
    ••••••. a a a a a= 11111. a a aaaalaaaa JNCC Report No 308 The nature conservation value of scrub in Britain SR Mortimer.. AJ Turner' VK Brown', RJ Fuller'. JEG Goods SA Bell'. PA Stevens'. D Norris', N Bayfieldn, & LK Ward' August 2000 This report should be cited as: Mortimer. SR. Turner. Al. Brown, VIC,Fuller, RJ, Good. JEG, Bell, SA. Stevens. PA. Norris. D. Bayfield. N & Ward, LK 2000. TI The nature conservation value of scrub in Britain. JNCC Report No. 308. JNCC. Peterborough 2000 For further information please contact: Habitats Advice Joint Nature Conservation Committee Monkstone House. City Road. Peterborough PEI HY. UK ISSN 0963-8091 CYNCOI cm' CWLAD SCOTTISH CYMRU N=77-",\! NATURAL COUNMSIDI HERITAGE COUNCII Mt WU It ENGLISH NATURE 0-4^70, This report was produced as a result of a commission research contract for English Nature with contributions from Scottish Nature Heritage and the Countryside Council for Wales CABI Bioseienee, Sik%ilod Park. A.eoi. Berks. SI.5 7TA 1- British Trust I-or Ornitholouy. The Nunnery. Thcilord. :Sorkin:. IP24 2PU Centre lor EcoioL:y and Hydoilou . Demo! 12ikid. Bangor. Gviy nedd. LL.57 2U1' II Centre tor licidoey and Ilydroloy. I lill uI Brathens. Glasse!. Banchory. Kincardineshire AB3 I 413Y + 53 Nide, Avenue. Sandtord. Wareham. Dorset. 131120 7AS 1 JOINT NATURE CONSERVATION COMMITTEE: REPORT DISTRIBUTION Report number 308 Report title: The nature conservation value of scrub Contract number: FIN/CON/VT998 Nominated Officer Jeanette Hall. Woodland Network Liaison Officer Date received: April 20110 Contract title: A review of the nature conservation value of scrub in the UK Contractors: CABI Bioscience.
    [Show full text]
  • Lepidoptera in Agricultural Landscapes – the Role of Field Margins, the Effects of Agrochemicals and Moth Pollination Services
    Lepidoptera in agricultural landscapes – The role of field margins, the effects of agrochemicals and moth pollination services von Melanie Hahn aus Landau Angenommene Dissertation zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades eines Doktors der Naturwissenschaften Fachbereich 7: Natur-und Umweltwissenschaften Universität Koblenz-Landau Berichterstatter: Dr. Carsten Brühl, Landau Prof. Dr. Ralf Schulz, Landau Tag der Disputation: 22. September 2015 You cannot get through a single day without having an impact on the world around you. What you do makes a difference, and you have to decide what difference you want to make. Jane Goodall Danksagung Danksagung An dieser Stelle möchte ich mich ganz herzlich bei allen bedanken, die mich bei der Durchführung meiner Dissertation unterstützt haben! Mein besonderer Dank gilt: … Dr. Carsten Brühl, der nicht nur meine Begeisterung und Faszination für die Gruppe der Nachtfalter schon während meines Studiums geweckt hat, sondern mich auch in allen Phasen meiner Dissertation von der ersten Planung der Experimente bis zum Schreiben der Publikationen mit vielen Ideen und hilfreichen Diskussionen unterstützt und weitergebracht hat. Danke für die hervorragende Betreuung der Arbeit! … Prof. Dr. Ralf Schulz für die Ermöglichung meiner Dissertation am Institut für Umweltwissenschaften und auch für die Begutachtung dieser Arbeit. … Juliane Schmitz, die mir während der gesamten Zeit meiner Dissertation stets mit Rat und Tat zur Seite stand! Herzlichen Dank für die vielen fachlichen Gespräche und Diskussionen, die mir immer sehr weitergeholfen haben, die Hilfe bei der Durchführung der Labor- und Freilandexperimente, das sorgfältige Lesen der Manuskripte und natürlich für die schöne – wenn auch anstrengende – Zeit im Freiland. … Peter Stahlschmidt für die vielen fachlichen Diskussionen, die hilfreichen Anregungen und Kommentare zu den Manuskripten und natürlich auch für die Unterstützung bei meinem Freilandversuch.
    [Show full text]
  • Species Criteria
    Criteria for the Selection of SINCs in the Mid-Valleys Area SPECIES CRITERIA S1) MAMMALS Those species in bold are afforded ‘European Protected Species’ status through the European Habitats Directive (1992) implemented in UK law by The Conservation (Natural Habitats & c) Regulations 1994. Mammals (excluding Bats) The following will be selected: Any sites supporting breeding (or probable breeding) species (other than bats), which are listed as fully or partially protected on Schedule 5 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), together with any areas that are critical for nesting, foraging (laying up), territorial or other significant use, will be selected. These species currently comprise: water vole (Arvicola terrestris) otter (Lutra lutra) pine marten (Martes martes) dormouse (Muscardinus avellanarius) red squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris) The presence of established breeding populations of the following species, which are nationally declining, regionally important or UK/LBAP Priority Species or statutory protected species, together with any areas that are critical for nesting, foraging, territorial or other significant use are key associated species for SINC selection. These species currently comprise: brown hare (Lepus europaeus) harvest mouse (Micromys minutus) water shrew (Neomys fodiens) yellow-necked mouse (Apodemus flavicollis) badger (Meles meles) Bats The following will be selected: Any significant roosting sites, including vital flight and commuting routes, and important feeding areas attached to roosts. Also included should be any structures such as tunnels, icehouses, basements, gunnery emplacements, pill boxes, etc., which are used as roosts. N.B. ‘Roosts’ include maternity, pre/post-maternity, hibernation, mating and male roosts. Of particular importance are roosts of multi-species occupancy and feeding sites targeted by several species.
    [Show full text]
  • Landscape-Scale Conservation of Farmland Moths
    CHAPTER 8 Landscape-scale conservation of farmland moths Thomas Merckx and David W. Macdonald When through the old oak forest I am gone, Let me not wander in a barren dream John Keats, On Sitting Down to Read King Lear Once Again. 8.1 Scope of agri-environment schemes the ecosystem services (such as crop pollination, pest control, water retention, and soil protection) provided Biodiversity has declined substantially throughout by the adjoining non-farmed land. Nevertheless, some much of the European wider countryside. The most biodiversity of the original ecosystems may be re- promising tools to reverse these declines are widely tained within farmland ecosystems, its amount heavily thought to be agri-environment schemes (AES) (Don- dependent on the spatial extent and degree of farm- ald and Evans 2006). These governmental schemes land intensification. Indeed, although species typic- provide financial rewards for ‘environmentally ally ‘prefer’ one ecosystem, they often occur in, and friendly’ methods of farmland management. However, use resources from, neighbouring ecosystems (Pereira AES do not always produce significant biodiversity and Daily 2006; Dennis 2010). As such, many species benefits (Kleijn et al. 2006; Batáry et al. 2010). For ex- may manage to persist within farmland systems, with ample, in the UK, the broad and shallow ‘Entry Level at least some of them, such as the speckled wood Pa- Stewardship’ has often been unrewarding for wildlife rarge aegeria, originally a woodland butterfly, adapting (e.g. Davey et al. 2010, but see Baker et al. 2012), but, to these ‘novel’ ecosystems (Merckx et al. 2003). As a in many cases, the more targeted ‘higher level’ scheme result, extensively farmed systems can often be char- has exceeded expectations (Jeremy Thomas, pers.
    [Show full text]
  • Conserving Threatened Lepidoptera: Towards an Effective Woodland Management Policy in Landscapes Under Intense Human Land-Use ⇑ Thomas Merckx A,B, , Ruth E
    Biological Conservation 149 (2012) 32–39 Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Biological Conservation journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/biocon Conserving threatened Lepidoptera: Towards an effective woodland management policy in landscapes under intense human land-use ⇑ Thomas Merckx a,b, , Ruth E. Feber a, Daniel J. Hoare c, Mark S. Parsons c, Caroline J. Kelly c, Nigel A.D. Bourn c, David W. Macdonald a a Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, The Recanati-Kaplan Centre, Tubney House, Abingdon Road, Abingdon OX13 5QL, UK b Theoretical Ecology and Biodiversity Change Group, Centro de Biologia Ambiental, Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, Campo Grande, 1749-016 Lisboa, Portugal c Butterfly Conservation, Manor Yard, East Lulworth, Wareham, Dorset BH20 5QP, UK article info abstract Article history: Although intensive forestry practices have greatly reduced the biodiversity of native woodland, Received 7 November 2011 sympathetic management offers much potential to reverse these negative trends. We tested, using a Received in revised form 1 February 2012 species-rich group, whether woodland conservation management practices could be of overall benefit, Accepted 7 February 2012 for threatened generalists and specialists alike. Our landscape-scale light-trap experiment compared presence/absence, abundance and species richness of macro-moths at 36 repeatedly sampled sites from six experimental ‘woodland management’ treatments. We recorded 11,670 individuals from 265 species. Keywords: Our results show that the sheltered, dark, humid, late-successional, high deciduous forest biotope is Coppicing characterised by high numbers of both individuals and species of moth, and is especially important for Landscape-scale Moths some scarce and specialist species of conservation concern.
    [Show full text]
  • 6. Survey and Monitoring
    6. Survey and monitoring Survey and monitoring are essential components of good Surveying management. Surveys of the scrub itself give information on extent, species composition and structure, and are essential ‘Survey’ is the recording of qualitative or quantitative for planning management. By using standard, repeatable biological data using easily repeatable standardised techniques for the initial surveys, they become the techniques over a restricted period without preconception baseline against which further monitoring is done. of the results. Surveys of species associated with scrub provide ‘Monitoring’ is the comparison of repeated surveys. It is information on their distribution and status, which is critically important that initial (baseline) surveys are done essential when planning management. Many scrub to a standard, described method and that the results are dependent species are now rare, due to loss and fully documented so that they can be repeated. fragmentation of their preferred scrub habitat. Management decisions made without regard to rare Baseline information should be gathered to inform species could damage or extinguish them; for example, management decisions and ongoing monitoring is needed eradication of willow scrub to prevent succession on a to continuously refine management techniques. This is wet heath could cause the local loss of the rare Dingy especially important on sites designated for nature Mocha moth. conservation. In England and Wales, targets have been set to ensure that SSSIs are in, or moving towards, It is theoretically possible to survey everything within the favourable condition. It is the responsibility of the statutory scrub community but this would take a great deal of time nature conservation body to assess whether this is the and money.
    [Show full text]
  • Noctuidae, Noctuinae, Hadenini)
    Dtsch. Entomol. Z. 64 (2) 2017, 133–160 | DOI 10.3897/dez.64.21455 museum für naturkunde Revised taxonomic check list of the Eurasiatic species of the subtribe Poliina (Noctuidae, Noctuinae, Hadenini) Zoltán Varga1, Gábor Ronkay2, László Ronkay3 1 Department of Evolutionary Zoology and Human Biology, University of Debrecen, H-4010 Debrecen, Hungary 2 Heterocera Press Ltd., H-1137 Budapest, Szent István krt. 4, Hungary 3 Department of Zoology, Hungarian Natural History Museum, H-1088 Budapest, Baross u. 13, Hungary http://zoobank.org/48A44E23-7C73-45A5-A86E-F391F0C9383F Corresponding author: Zoltán Varga ([email protected]) Abstract Received 5 October 2017 Accepted 13 November 2017 The revised checklist of the subtribe Poliina Hampson, 1902 is presented; one new genus, Published 30 November 2017 Multisigna gen. n., three new subgenera (Atropolia, Leuconephropolia and Protopolia subgen. n.) and a new species (Polia (Atropolia) posterodiluta sp. n.) are described. Academic editor: The taxonomic position of the recently described subgenus Metallopolia is discussed. Wolfram Mey The subtribe Pachetrina Beck, 1996 is synonymised with Poliina; two genera (Kollariana Hacker, 1996 and Spiramater McCabe, 1980) are transferred to the subtribe Mamestrina Hampson, 1902. A number of lectotype designations and new combinations are given; Key Words the newly designated lectotypes and the genitalia of the disputed taxa are illustrated. Classification subtribes Poliina genera Pachetrina synonyms Mamestrina genital structures new genus new subgenera new combinations lectotype designations illustrations Introduction re-defined the subtribe Poliina Beck, 1996 and also provid- ed a short differential diagnosis of the subtribes Poliina and The subtribe Poliina Hampson, 1902 was originally de- Mamestrina Beck, 1996.
    [Show full text]
  • Cyclopelta Robusta, a New Species of Dinidorid Bugs
    P O L I S H JOU R NAL OF ENTOM O LOG Y POL SKIE PISMO ENTOMOL OGICZ N E VOL. 80: 83-116 Gdynia 31 March 2011 DOI: 10.2478/v10200-011-0007-2 Contribution to knowledge of the butterflies and moths (Lepidoptera) of north-eastern Poland with a description of a new tineid species from the genus Monopis HÜBNER, 1825 JAN ŠUMPICH *, JAN LIŠKA **, IVO DVOŘÁK *** * CZ-582 61 Česká Bělá 212, Czech Republic; e-mail: [email protected]; ** Forestry and Game Management Research Institute Jíloviště-Strnady, CZ–156 04 Prague 5 – Zbraslav, Czech Republic; e-mail: [email protected]; *** Tylova 23, CZ-586 01 Jihlava, Czech Republic; e-mail: [email protected] ABSTRACT. This work contains faunistic data on the occurrence of 677 butterfly and moth species found during 2000-2008 in north-eastern Poland (Podlasie Province). The species Monopis fenestratella (HEYDEN, 1863), Amphisbatis elsae SVENSSON, 1982, Coleophora ptarmicia WALSINGHAM, 1910 and Epermenia falciformis (HAWORTH, 1828) were found in Poland for the first time. Recent data are provided for five other species – Monochroa servella (ZELLER, 1839), Teleiodes aenigma SATTLER, 1983, Dichomeris limosella (SCHLÄGER, 1849), Aethes rutilana (HÜBNER, 1817) and Eana derivana (LA HARPE, 1858) – known in Poland only from historical data. The occurrence in Podlasie of 75 species is reported for the first time, and the occurrence of 6 other species is confirmed for this area after more than 50 years. This work also describes a new species, Monopis bisonella ŠUMPICH, sp. n. A number of species are very rare in Poland and occur only locally.
    [Show full text]
  • Ireland Red List No. 9: Macro-Moths (Lepidoptera)
    Ireland Red List No. 9 Macro-moths (Lepidoptera) Ireland Red List No. 9 Macro-moths (Lepidoptera) D. Allen1, M. O’Donnell2, B. Nelson3, A. Tyner4, K.G.M. Bond5, T. Bryant6, A. Crory7, C. Mellon1, J. O’Boyle8, E. O’Donnell9, T. Rolston10, R. Sheppard11, P. Strickland12, U. Fitzpatrick13, E. Regan14. 1Allen & Mellon Environmental Ltd, 21A Windor Avenue, Belfast, BT9 6EE 2Joffre Rose, Clone, Castletown, Gorey, Co. Wexford 3National Parks & Wildlife Service, Department of the Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, Ely Place, Dublin D02 TW98 4Honeyoak, Cronykeery, Ashford, Co. Wicklow 5Zoology, Ecology and Plant Science, Distillery Fields, North Mall, University College Cork 6Knocknarea, Priest’s Road, Tramore, Co. Waterford 7113 Dundrum Road, Newcastle, Co. Down, BT33 0LN 8Natural Environment Division, Northern Ireland Environment Agency, Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, Klondyke Building, Cromac Avenue, Belfast, BT7 2JA 95 Forgehill Rise, Stamullen, Co. Meath 1042 Beechdene Gardens, Lisburn, Co. Antrim, BT28 3JH 11Carnowen, Raphoe, Co. Donegal 1222 Newtown Court, Maynooth, Co. Kildare 13National Biodiversity Data Centre, WIT west campus, Carriganore, Waterford 14The Biodiversity Consultancy, 3E King’s Parade, Cambridge, CB2 1SJ Citation: Allen, D., O’Donnell, M., Nelson, B., Tyner, A., Bond, K.G.M., Bryant, T., Crory, A., Mellon, C., O’Boyle, J., O’Donnell, E., Rolston, T., Sheppard, R., Strickland, P., Fitzpatrick, U., & Regan, E. (2016) Ireland Red List No. 9: Macro-moths (Lepidoptera). National Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, Dublin, Ireland. Cover photos: Bottom left to top right: White Prominent Leucodonta bicoloria—photo: Brian Nelson; Burren Green Calamia tridens—photo: Brian Nelson; Figure of Eight Diloba caeruleocephala caterpillar—photo: Geoff Campbell; Thrift Clearwing Pyropteron muscaeformis— photo: Eamonn O’Donnell; Yellow Shell Camptogramma bilineata—photo: Geoff Campbell.
    [Show full text]