DOCSLIB.ORG

Factors Affecting Water Plant Recovery - A

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Factors Affecting Water Plant Recovery - A Factors affecting water plant recovery - A. Overview and sediment influences author: J. Schutten' co-authors: A.J. Davy-,F.J.Madqwick-, H. COOpS3, W. Admiraal', E.H.R.R.Lammens3, G.L. Phillips> Project No LIFE92-3/UKl031 RIZA project EHS*WATERPLANT ISBN 0948119403 'University of Amsterdam, ARISE, Department of Aquatic Ecotoxicolgy, Kruislaan 320, 1098 SM, Amsterdam, The Netherlands 2University of East Anglia, School of Biological Sciences, NR4 7TJ, Norwich, UK 3RIZA (Institute for Inland Water Management and Waste Water Treatment), P.D. Box 17, 8200 AA, Lelystad, The Netherlands 4The Broads Authority, Thomas Harvey House, 18 Colegate, NR3 1BQ, Norwich, UK 5Environment Agency (former National Rivers Authority), Cobham Road, IP3 9JE, Ipswich, UK This report should be cited as: Schutten, J. Davy, A. J., Madgwick, F.J., Coops, H., Admiraal, W., Lammens, E.H.R.R., and Phillips, G.L. (1997) Factors affecting water plant recovery - overview and sediment influences. In Madgwick, F.J. & Phillips, G. L. (eds) 'Restoration of the Norfolk Broads - Final Report', (BARS14) Broads Authority and (P-89) Environment Agency, Norwich UK. Commissioning Organisations: Broads Authority, Thomas Harvey House, 18 Colegate, Norwich, Norfolk, NR3 1BQ, UK Tel: +44 (0) 1603610734 Fax: +44 (0) 1603765710 Environment Agency, Kingfisher House, Goldhay Way, Orton Goldhay, Peterborough, PE2 5ZR, UK Tel: +44 (0) 1733371811 Fax: +44 (0) 1733231840 ©European Commission, Broads Authority, RIZA and Environment Agency 1997. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior permission of European Commission, The Broads Authority, RIZA and the Environment Agency. Statement of Use: This project was commissioned to develop novel techniques to assist in the restoration of shallow lakes. This report provides results of the 'Water plant recovery' research project from 1993 until 1995. The 'Water plant recovery' project aims at finding causes for delayed recovery of aquatic plants in shallow biomanipulated lakes, and designing management answers. Research Partners: This document was produced by The Broads Authority, RIZA WSE, Environment Agency Broads Research Team, University of Amsterdam ARISE (Department of Aquatic Ecotoxicology), University of East Anglia School for Biological Sciences (Population Biology Sector). Funding Organisations: European Commission, Broads Authority, RIZA, National Rivers Authority (now Environment Agency). Project Leaders: The Broads Authority's Project Leader: Jane Madgwick RIZA's project Leader: Dr. Hugo Coops The Environment Agency's Project Leader: Dr. Geoff Phillips - Anglian Region Figure 1: Map of the Broads area, showing the position of the Broads monitored in 1993. ~ North o I mile I I o I kilometre f------ NORFOLK The Broads Great Yarmouth I Alderfen Broad 2 Belaugh Broad 3 Cocks hoot Broad 4 Cromes Broad 5 Hickling 6 Hoveton Great Broad 7 Martham Broad North 8 Ormesby Broad 9 Pound End Broad AI43 10 Upton AI46 SUFFOLK 4 Contents 6 Summary 6 1. Introduction 8 2. Environmental factors influencing submerged macrophyte distribution 8 2.1 Field survey in 1993 8 2.2 Field survey in 1995 17 3. Effects of sediment chemistry and physical properties on submerged macrophyte survival and growth 17 3.1 Experiments with transplanted sediments in a clear-water lake 18 3.2 Effects of sulphide on the survival and growth of 3 species of submerged macrophytes in a microcosm experiment 33 4. Effects of sediment chemistry and physical properties on susceptibility of submerged macrophytes to physical disturbance 33 4.1 Correlative survey in 20 shallow lakes in the Netherlands and the Broads 34 4.2. Effects of natural and artificial sediments on uprooting resistance and root and shoot growth in a microcosm experiment 35 5. Synthesis, management implications and future research requirements 43 6. References FACTORS AFFECTING WATER PLANT RECOVERY - A. Overview and sediment influences This project was jointly financed by the EC-LlFE- Summary fund and RIZA (Netherlands) with the co-operation Nutrient reduction and biomanipulation are of the University of Amsterdam, University of increasingly used as tools to re-create clear water East Anglia and the Environment Agency. in turbid, green, eutrophicated shallow lakes. The next step, stabilising the resulting aquatic community so that fish can be re-introduced, depends heavily on the recovery of the 1. Introduction submerged aquatic vegetation, as shown for Water managers in the Netherlands (Hosper, 1993) example in other reports in this LIFE-series.This and Great Britain (Broads Authority, 1993) aim to project has sought to discover the reasons for restore clear and diverse lakes in currently algal- the varying performance of macrophytes in dominated systems.Water clarification by nutrient different lakes, and to translate the findings into reduction alone takes a long time becauseof management advice. feedback processeswhich stabilise the turbid state (Hosper et al., 1992, Scheffer et el., 1993; Moss, Experience in The Netherlands and the United 1990). In order to speed the recovery process, Kingdom (Norfolk Broads) has indicated that dredging and manipulation of the fish population lakes with a firm and mineral sediment usually have been used (Broads Authority, 1993; Hosper & have a successful recolonisation of aquatic Meijer, 1993). Macrophytes themselves seem to macrophytes, in contrast to the slow and erratic play an important part in the recovery processand recovery in lakes with a soft and organic in the stabilisation of the final clear water stage sediment. An initial survey in 1993 suggested (Blindow et al., 1993; Carpenter & Lodge, 1986; that light, nutrients and propagule availability Scheffer et al., 1993). were not the main limitations. Hence we have focused on the sediment as a limiting factor for Beds of submerged and floating macrophytes macrophyte recolonisation. A combination of provide structure to the water layer and field and glasshouse experiments showed that separate it into different habitats (Den Hartog & the sediment was not inimical to the introduced Van der Velde, 1988; Lillie & Budd, 1992), so propagules, but that high sulphide providing attachment surfaces for sessile concentrations in the sediment seem to impair zooplankton, macro-invertebrates root extension. A 20-lake survey in 1995 showed (Lewandowski, 1983) and periphyton (Carpenter that wind exposure and sediment cohesion were & Lodge, 1986; Den Hartog & Van der Velde, the main factors determining the abundance 1988; Pandit 1989; Rabe & Gibson, 1983). The and diversity of the aquatic community. Fertility macrophyte zone is also a refuge habitat with and alkalinity of both sediment and water were lower predation risk (Lubbers et al., 1990; Rozas of less importance. & Odum, 1988) for different animal groups such as Cladocera (Savino, 1982; Perrow et el., 1997), macro-invertebrates (Beckett et aI., 1992; Heck & The aquatic plant community in lakes with a firm Timothy, 1981), fish fry and young of the year sediment consisted of a combination of firmly fish (Chapman & Mackay, 1984; Grimm, 1991; rooted perennials and annuals whereas in lakes Holland & Huston, 1984). Macrophytes can with a soft sediment in the Broads, the plant indirectly improve the water quality by community consisted of only functional annuals competing for nutrients with limnetic algae that were nearly all easily uprooted. This implies (Blindow et al., 1993; Jorga & Weise, 1979), and that plants in a soft sediment lake are very restricting water-flow so suspended material can vulnerable to physical disturbance such as from settle (Gregg & Rose, 1982; Kemp et al., 1984). wind-induced currents, or bird or fish grazing, The macrophyte roots can improve sediment because of the combination of the reduced root characteristics by preventing erosion and system and the soft sediment. Once dislodged, detoxifying the sediment through oxygen release the whole plant is lost from the aquatic (Blindow et al., 1993).,1naddition macrophytes can community. Plants in lakes with a firm and be a food source for macro-invertebrates, fish cohesive sediment break before being uprooted, (Carpenter & Lodge, 1986) and birds (Carpenter & which leaves a rootstock for the plants to Lodge, 1986; Jupp & Spence, 1977; Kiorboe, 1980; regrow from. In the next stage of this project we Perrow et ai, 1996b; Schutten et al. 1994) plan to investigate how to overcome, in a practical way, the unsupportive nature of some Recent biomanipulation work in European sediments, and how to predict in a given lake shallow lakes shows that the recovery of the probable stability of its recovering vegetation in terms of abundance and species macrophyte community. diversity appears to be rather unpredictable, this is particularly so in the Norfolk Broads. That is why this 'Macrophyte Recovery Project' was 6 developed as a part of the LIFE programme growth or winter-survival. Root length may 'Restoration of the Norfolk Broads' and RIZA's increas with nutrient depletion in the sediment 'EHS-waterplant'. It is a research project that (Mantai & Newton, 1982; McFarland et el., 1992). aims to gain knowledge of the main factors High nutrient availability increases shoot/root controlling macrophyte recovery after or during ratios in Phragmites australis (Boar et el., 1989) large-scale management of shallow eutrophic and arable crops (Salisbury & Ross,1985).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Norfolk Local Flood Risk Management Strategy
    Appendix A Norfolk Local Flood Risk Management Strategy Consultation Draft March 2015 1 Blank 2 Part One - Flooding and Flood Risk Management Contents PART ONE – FLOODING AND FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT ..................... 5 1. Introduction ..................................................................................... 5 2 What Is Flooding? ........................................................................... 8 3. What is Flood Risk? ...................................................................... 10 4. What are the sources of flooding? ................................................ 13 5. Sources of Local Flood Risk ......................................................... 14 6. Sources of Strategic Flood Risk .................................................... 17 7. Flood Risk Management ............................................................... 19 8. Flood Risk Management Authorities ............................................. 22 PART TWO – FLOOD RISK IN NORFOLK .................................................. 30 9. Flood Risk in Norfolk ..................................................................... 30 Flood Risk in Your Area ................................................................ 39 10. Broadland District .......................................................................... 39 11. Breckland District .......................................................................... 45 12. Great Yarmouth Borough .............................................................. 51 13. Borough of King’s
    [Show full text]
  • Efficacy of Using Electrofishing to Reduce Recruitment of Invasive Common Carp in Malheur Lake, a Large Endorheic Marsh
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Efficacy of using electrofishing to reduce recruitment of invasive Common Carp in Malheur Lake, a large endorheic marsh Final Report May 2017 By William Simpson, Doug Peterson , and Kurt Steinke Abernathy Fish Technology Center Longview, Washington Linda Beck1 Malheur Naonal Wildlife Refuge Princeton, Oregon 1 Current address: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fisheries and Aquac Conservaon, Portland, Oregon Adult Common Carp from Malheur Lake Developing embryos of Common Carp Abstract Concern about electrofishing inadvertently harming the embryos of species of conservation concern has motivated much of the research that describes what electrical conditions can kill fish embryos. As a result, targeted electrofishing might be underutilized as a potential control method to reduce the recruitment of nuisance or invasive fishes like Common Carp (Cyprinus carpio). Common Carp are one of the most widely distributed invasive fish in North America, and biologist are turning to integrated pest management techniques and targeting multiple life stages because control efforts based solely on removal of adults have often been unsuccessful. We examined changes in the survival of invasive Common Carp embryos while manipulating the transfer of electric power to the embryos by shocking them in water from carp-occupied areas using a variety of voltage gradient and waveform treatments produced by commercial electrofishing units and generators. Survival of electroshocked Common Carp embryos was < 50% at power densities (12,700
    [Show full text]
  • Habitats Regulations Assessment of the South Norfolk Village Cluster Housing Allocations Plan
    Habitats Regulations Assessment of the South Norfolk Village Cluster Housing Allocations Plan Regulation 18 HRA Report May 2021 Habitats Regulations Assessment of the South Norfolk Village Cluster Housing Allocations Plan Regulation 18 HRA Report LC- 654 Document Control Box Client South Norfolk Council Habitats Regulations Assessment Report Title Regulation 18 – HRA Report Status FINAL Filename LC-654_South Norfolk_Regulation 18_HRA Report_8_140521SC.docx Date May 2021 Author SC Reviewed ND Approved ND Photo: Female broad bodied chaser by Shutterstock Regulation 18 – HRA Report May 2021 LC-654_South Norfolk_Regulation 18_HRA Report_8_140521SC.docx Contents 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Purpose of this report ............................................................................................................................................... 1 2 The South Norfolk Village Cluster Housing Allocations Plan ................................................................... 3 2.1 Greater Norwich Local Plan .................................................................................................................................... 3 2.2 South Norfolk Village Cluster Housing Allocations Plan ................................................................................ 3 2.3 Village Clusters ..........................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Genes to Ecosystems: Exploring the Frontiers of Ecology with One of the Smallest Biological Units
    New Phytologist Review Tansley review Genes to ecosystems: exploring the frontiers of ecology with one of the smallest biological units 1 2 2 Author for correspondence: Adam S. Wymore , Annika T. H. Keeley , Kasey M. Yturralde , Thomas G. Whitham Melanie L. Schroer1, Catherine R. Propper1 and Thomas G. Whitham1,3 Tel: +1 928 523 7215 1 2 Email: [email protected] Department of Biological Sciences, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ 86011, USA; School of Forestry, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ 86011, USA; 3Merriam-Powell Center for Received: 9 December 2010 Accepted: 3 March 2011 Environmental Research, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ 86011, USA Contents Summary 19 VI. Gene expression, fish and pollution 28 I. Introduction 19 VII. An emphasis on foundation species and 31 their biotic and abiotic interactions II. Fundamental principles and the community genetics 20 equivalent of Koch’s postulates VIII. Applications to the human condition 32 III. Genes, invasions and competition 21 IX. Conclusions 32 IV. Mutation, resistance and ecosystem consequences 24 Acknowledgements 33 V. Heritable traits, pine cones and climate 26 References 33 Summary New Phytologist (2011) 191: 19–36 Genes and their expression levels in individual species can structure whole commu- doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2011.03730.x nities and affect ecosystem processes. Although much has been written about community and ecosystem phenotypes with a few model systems, such as poplar Key words: climate change, community and goldenrod, here we explore the potential application of a community genetics genetics postulates, ecosystem services, approach with systems involving invasive species, climate change and pollution.
    [Show full text]
  • Broads Water Quality Report: River Thurne 2015
    East Anglia Area (Essex, Norfolk and Suffolk) Broads water quality report: River Thurne 2015 Map showing the location of water quality sampling sites in the River Thurne and Broads. Broads water quality report: River Thurne 2015 Page 1 of 6 Status River: Water quality is good for dissolved oxygen, ammonia and nitrate. Broads: Nutrients (phosphorus and nitrogen – including ammonia and nitrate) are not all meeting the national and international standards High nutrient concentrations have a negative effect on the ecology of the broads. Nutrient sources include internal release from sediments, diffuse sources and tidal mixing of water from downstream. It is estimated that 97% of phosphorus in the Upper Thurne Broads and marshes comes from diffuse sources such as agriculture, minor point sources and septic tanks. Ammonia levels fail the water quality standards in Horsey Mere where concentrations are noticeably higher than the other broads in the Thurne. This is because there is an input of ammonia to the broad from the surface drains via Brograve drainage pump. The water in the Thurne river and broads is brackish. This is caused by sea water percolating through the ground close to the coast which is then drawn through drainage pumps into the broads and rivers. Actions The water catchment around the Thurne is designated as a Nitrate Vulnerable Zone. In this zone limits are set on when and how much nitrogen can be applied to agricultural land to reduce the amount of nitrate reaching the rivers and broads. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/nutrient-management-nitrate-vulnerable-zones Following studies done in 2014, the dominant source of ammonia in the Brograve drain is believed to be from agricultural activity.
    [Show full text]
  • Somerton Water Level Management Plan Review January 2019
    OHES Project Reference: 12265 Somerton Water Level Management Plan Review January 2019 by OHES on behalf of: Caroline Laburn Broads IDB 11th January 2019 1 This page has been left blank intentionally 2 www.ohes.co.uk Somerton Water Level Management Plan Review. January 2019 Caroline Laburn Environmental Manager Water Management Alliance Kettlewell House, Austin Fields Industrial Estate, Kings Lynn, Norfolk, PE30 1PH Activity Name Position Author Kirsty Spencer Principal Consultant Approved by Andy Went Divisional Manager – Ecology and Environmental Monitoring This report was prepared by OHES Environmental Ltd (OHES) solely for use by Water Management Alliance. This report is not addressed to and may not be relied upon by any person or entity other than Water Management Alliance for any purpose without the prior written permission of the Water Management Alliance, OHES, its directors, employees and affiliated companies accept no responsibility or liability for reliance upon or use of this report (whether or not permitted) other than by Water Management Alliance for the purposes for which it was originally commissioned and prepared. Head Office: Bury St Edmunds: Tewkesbury: Leicester: Exeter: 1 The Courtyard Unit A2, Risby Unit 7 Block 61B, Room 5, Unit 3 Denmark Street Business Park, Gannaway Lane The Whittle Estate, Woodbury Business Wokingham Newmarket Road Northway Industrial Cambridge Road, Park Berkshire Risby Estate Whestone, Woodbury RG40 2AZ Bury St. Edmunds Tewkesbury Leicester, Nr Exeter Suffolk GL20 8FD LE8 6LH EX5 1AY IP28
    [Show full text]
  • The Norfolk & Norwich
    BRITISH MUSEUM (NATURAL HISTORY) TRANSACTIONS 2 7 JUN 1984 exchanged OF GENfcriAL LIBRARY THE NORFOLK & NORWICH NATURALISTS’ SOCIETY Edited by: P. W. Lambley Vol. 26 Part 5 MAY 1984 TRANSACTIONS OF THE NORFOLK AND NORWICH NATURALISTS’ SOCIETY Volume 26 Part 5 (May 1984) Editor P. W. Lambley ISSN 0375 7226 U: ' A M «SEUV OFFICERS OF THE SOCIETY 1984-85 j> URAL isSTORY) 2? JUH1984 President: Dr. R. E. Baker Vice-Presidents: P. R. Banham, A. Bull, K. B. Clarke, E. T. Daniels, K. C. Durrant, E. A. Ellis, R. Jones, M. J. Seago, J. A. Steers, E. L. Swann, F. J. Taylor-Page Chairman: Dr. G. D. Watts, Barn Meadow, Frost’s Lane, Gt. Moulton. Secretary: Dr. R. E. Baker, 25 Southern Reach, Mulbarton, NR 14 8BU. Tel. Mulbarton 70609 Assistant Secretary: R. N. Flowers, Heatherlands, The Street, Brundall. Treasurer: D. A. Dorling, St. Edmundsbury, 6 New Road, Heathersett. Tel. Norwich 810318 Assistant Treasurer: M. Wolner Membership Committee: R. Hancy, Tel. Norwich 860042 Miss J. Wakefield, Post Office Lane, Saxthorpe, NR1 1 7BL. Programme Committee: A. Bull, Tel. Norwich 880278 Mrs. J. Robinson, Tel. Mulbarton 70576 Publications Committee: R. Jones. P. W. Lambley & M. J. Seago (Editors) Research Committee: Dr. A. Davy, School of Biology, U.E.A., Mrs. A. Brewster Hon. Auditor. J. E. Timbers, The Nook, Barford Council: Retiring 1985; D. Fagg, J. Goldsmith, Miss F. Musters, R. Smith. Retiring 1986 Miss R. Carpenter, C. Dack, Mrs. J. Geeson, R. Robinson. Retiring 1987 N. S. Carmichael, R. Evans, Mrs.L. Evans, C. Neale Co-opted members: Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Habitats Regulations Assessment: Draft Scoping Report
    North Norfolk 2016 - 2036 HABITATS REGULATIONS ASSESSMENT Draft Scoping Report May 2017 North Norfolk District Council Planning Policy Team Telephone: 01263 516318 E-Mail: [email protected] Write to: Planning Policy Manager, North Norfolk District Council, Holt Road, Cromer, NR27 9EN www.north-norfolk.gov.uk/localplan All documents can be made available in Braille, audio, large print or in other languages. Please contact 01263 516318 to discuss your requirements. Draft HRA Scoping - North Norfolk District Council – Emerging Local Plan Executive Summary Habitats Regulations Assessment is required in accordance with the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, (amended 2012); in order to ensure that plans and projects do not have a likely significant effect on any European designated sites for nature conservation. Such plans or projects can only proceed if the competent authority is convinced they will not have an “adverse effect on the integrity of a European site”. Where there is uncertainty over the effects then the competent authority will need to demonstrate how these can be avoided and what mitigation can be put in place. A Local Plan is the subject of Habitats Regulations Assessment, which is the responsibility of the plan-making body (in this case North Norfolk District Council) to produce. This scoping report provides the background and review of evidence to support the commencement of screening and the final Habitats Regulations Assessment of the North Norfolk Core Strategy and Site Allocations documents. This report considers: • The European designated sites within and outside the plan area affected. • The characteristics of these sites and their conservation objectives.
    [Show full text]
  • The Addition of Artificial Macrophytes to Provide Macroinvertebrate Refugia at Alderfen Broad, Norfolk, England
    Conservation Evidence (2006) 3, 58-60 www.ConservationEvidence.com The addition of artificial macrophytes to provide macroinvertebrate refugia at Alderfen Broad, Norfolk, England Hoare D., Jackson M.J. & Perrow M. The Broads Authority, 18 Colegate, Norwich, Norfolk NR3 1BQ, UK SUMMARY Nylon Italian cobweb brushes were added to Alderfen Broad to provide a refuge for zooplankton and other invertebrates. These were colonised quickly, initially largely by chironomids but then by a greater diversity of taxa. In the second year, there was a vigorous build-up of sponges. BACKGROUND further inputs of catchment-derived nutrients from entering the broad. Also, in 1992 a The Broads is an area of man-made, suction dredging operation was undertaken to interlinked shallow freshwater lakes in Norfolk remove nutrient rich mud from the bed of and Suffolk, eastern England. There are over Alderfen Broad to reduce phosphorus release 200 km of navigable waterways, with many (which encourages algal growth). more connecting small waterways such as streams and dykes. These link a variety of The purpose of artificial macrophytes: The habitats that support a rich diversity of flora Broads Authority, along with partners (English and fauna, including some of the rarest wildlife Nature and the Norfolk Wildlife Trust), in Britain. The main habitats are the rivers and initiated a project in 2000 to further restore broads (shallow lakes) themselves, fen, carr Alderfen Broad. Nutrient overload (nitrogen woodland and grazing marshes. Much of the and phosphorus) had lead to excessive growth water in the Broads has been affected by of algae and occasional 'blooms' of blue-green excessively high levels of phosphates and algae.
    [Show full text]
  • The Norfolk & Norwich
    L c£H£RAl * 3 may ,*,UBRARY^ x TRANSACTIONS OF THE NORFOLK & NORWICH NATURALISTS’ SOCIETY Vol. 24 PART 4 APRIL 1978 ISBN 0375 7226 : : OFFICERS OF THE SOCIETY 1977-78 President: Ms D. M. Maxey ‘Greenfields’, Swanton Road, Dereham. President-Elect Mr P. J. Trett Victoria Road, Great Yarmouth Vice-Presidents: P. R. Banham, A. Bull, K. B. Clarke, E. T. Daniels, K. C. Durrant, E. A. Ellis, R. Jones, M. J. Seago, J. A. Steers, E. L. Swann, F. J. Taylor-Page General Secretary: R. E. Baker 25 Southern Reach, Mulbarton, NR14 8BU Tel. Mulbarton 70609 Assistant Secretary: (Membership and Publications) Ms J. Wakefield Post Office Lane, Saxthorpe, NR 11 7BL Assistant Secretary: (Minutes) P. W. Lambley Castle Museum, Norwich Excursion Secretary: Ms J. Robinson 5 Southern Reach, Mulbarton NR14 8BU Tel. Mulbarton 70576 Treasurer: D. A. Dorling St. Edmundsbury, 6 New Road, Hethersett Tel. Norwich 810318 Assistant Secretary: J. E. Timbers The Nook, Barford, Norfolk Editor: E. A. Ellis Wheatfen Broad, Surlingham, Norwich Auditor: E. L. Swann 282 Wootton Road, King’s Lynn, Norfolk Committee: M. J. Baker, G. Dunmore, Dr A. Davy (University Representative) Dr S. Cole, Ms C. Gurney, G. Hart, R. Hancy, P. W. Lambley (Museum Representative), J. Secker, Ms J. Smith, P. M. C. Stevens (Norfolk Naturalists’ Trust), P. Wright (Nature Conservancy Representative). ORGANISERS OF PRINCIPAL SPECIALIST GROUPS Birds {Editor of the Report) M. J. Seago, 33 Accacia Road, Thorpe, Norwich Mammals (Editor of the Report) R. Hancy, 124 Fakenham Road, Taverham NR8 6QH Plants: P. W. Lambley and E. L. Swann Fungi: E.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2019–2020
    Norfolk Wildlife Trust Annual report 2019–2020 Saving Norfolk’s Wildlife for the Future Norfolk Wildlife Trust seeks a My opening words are the most important message: sustainable Living Landscape thank you to our members, staff, volunteers, for wildlife and people donors, investors and grant providers. Where the future of wildlife is With your loyal and generous in the School Holidays. As part of our Greater support, and despite the Anglia partnership we promoted sustainable protected and enhanced through challenges of the current crisis, travel when discovering nature reserves. sympathetic management Norfolk Wildlife Trust will continue to advance wildlife We have also had many notable wildlife conservation in Norfolk and highlights during the year across all Norfolk Where people are connected with, to connect people to nature. habitats, from the return of the purple emperor inspired by, value and care for butterfly to our woodlands, to the creation of a Norfolk’s wildlife and wild species This report covers the year to the end of March substantial wet reedbed at Hickling Broad and 2020, a year that ended as the coronavirus Marshes in conjunction with the Environment crisis set in. Throughout the lockdown period Agency. Many highlights are the result of we know from the many photos and stories partnerships and projects which would not we received and the increased activity of our have been possible without generous support. CONTENTS online community that many people found nature to be a source of solace – often joy – in The Prime Minister had said that the Nature reserves for Page 04 difficult times.
    [Show full text]
  • Cambridgeshire & Essex Butterfly Conservation
    Butterfly Conservation Regional Action Plan For Anglia (Cambridgeshire, Essex, Suffolk & Norfolk) This action plan was produced in response to the Action for Butterflies project funded by WWF, EN, SNH and CCW This regional project has been supported by Action for Biodiversity Cambridgeshire and Essex Branch Suffolk branch BC Norfolk branch BC Acknowledgements The Cambridgeshire and Essex branch, Norfolk branch and Suffolk branch constitute Butterfly Conservation’s Anglia region. This regional plan has been compiled from individual branch plans which are initially drawn up from 1997-1999. As the majority of the information included in this action plan has been directly lifted from these original plans, credit for this material should go to the authors of these reports. They were John Dawson (Cambridgeshire & Essex Plan, 1997), James Mann and Tony Prichard (Suffolk Plan, 1998), and Jane Harris (Norfolk Plan, 1999). County butterfly updates have largely been provided by Iris Newbery and Dr Val Perrin (Cambridgeshire and Essex), Roland Rogers and Brian Mcllwrath (Norfolk) and Richard Stewart (Suffolk). Some of the moth information included in the plan has been provided by Dr Paul Waring, David Green and Mark Parsons (BC Moth Conservation Officers) with additional county moth data obtained from John Dawson (Cambridgeshire), Brian Goodey and Robin Field (Essex), Barry Dickerson (Huntingdon Moth and Butterfly Group), Michael Hall and Ken Saul (Norfolk Moth Survey) and Tony Prichard (Suffolk Moth Group). Some of the micro-moth information included in the plan was kindly provided by A. M. Emmet. Other individuals targeted with specific requests include Graham Bailey (BC Cambs. & Essex), Ruth Edwards, Dr Chris Gibson (EN), Dr Andrew Pullin (Birmingham University), Estella Roberts (BC, Assistant Conservation Officer, Wareham), Matthew Shardlow (RSPB) and Ken Ulrich (BC Cambs.
    [Show full text]