DOCSLIB.ORG

Aquatic Invertebrate Survey at Greylake RSPB Reserve, Somerset

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Aquatic Invertebrate Survey at Greylake RSPB Reserve, Somerset Aquatic invertebrate survey at Greylake RSPB Reserve, Somerset C. Martin Drake 2008 Dr C. M. Drake Orchid House Burridge Axminster Devon EX13 7DF Summary In July 2008, 35 pond-net samples were taken from old and new ditches, new gutters and new ponds on RSPB’s Greylake Reserve. A total of 137 aquatic species and 47 wetland insects were found, of which 60 species were water beetles 20 were molluscs and 14 were bugs. There were 25 nationally scarce and three Red Data Book species (including beetles that are likely to be given lower status in future). There were pronounced differences in the assemblages of the found in the various types of channel, with notably more beetles in new channels and more molluscs and leeches in old ditches. New ditches and gutters were as rich in all species and had similarly high Species Quality Index to old ditches. Blind and connected gutters appeared to support slightly different assemblages but there was no discernible difference in the species-richness of the major groups or in SQI. Ponds were usually the poorest water bodies in all respects but their fauna was also more variable than that of channels. Comparison of results of a recent survey of molluscs suggests that this group is slowly increasing in importance within the reserve, probably as a result of benign management. The diversity of new water bodies clearly increased the range of species and gave many more opportunities for species with clear preferences for different water depths and vegetation structure. Introduction A narrow block of arable and improved grassland at Greylake was bought by the RSPB who began work in 2003 on improving the site to benefit breeding waders. The site links old pasture of Moorlinch SSSI and Kings Sedgemoor SSSI to form a large continuous block with high conservation interest. Twenty square 5 hectare fields are divided by old ditches managed by the RSPB. Boundary ditches are managed by the Environment Agency and IDB. Between 2003 and 2007, RSPB dug a variety of channels which include new ditches deep enough to remain permanently wet, and shallow gutters that dry out in late summer. The gutters are either connected to permanent ditches or isolated. There are also new pools varying in size and connectivity to ditches. The site was surveyed principally for aquatic molluscs in October 2003 and September 2004 before the new ditches and pools had become established (Hill-Cottingham & Smith, 2004). Several rare and scarce species were found then, including the RDB2 snail Valvata macrostoma in the boundary ditches, the soldierfly Odontomyia ornata, and the beetles Hydaticus transversalis and Hydrophilus piceus (Great Silver water beetle). The present survey was designed to give a broader baseline for future monitoring. This will enable the development of invertebrate fauna in response to management of the site, including the proposal to link the site to flood events in the neighbouring floodplain, to be tracked. This survey also aims to indicate the conservation value of the different types of new channels and pools. 1 Methods Samples were collected using the protocol developed by Buglife for grazing marsh ditches (Palmer et al., 2007). The sample is taken using a standard pond-net with 35cm-deep bag and the animals are sorted on the bank on a polythene sheet. Each sample consists of four net-hauls, each of which is sorted for 7.5minutes so that the effort is a standard ½ hour search. Netting is done to catch as much as possible, and is not standardised in any way. Most effort is spent in densely vegetated shallow water and least in open water as experience had shown that this is how most species can be found. Very shallow water and saturated soil with no visible water were sampled by gently trampling to form a pool that could be netted. Species that could be confidently identified in the field were noted on a form. Others were preserved in alcohol. Abundance of recognisable taxa was estimated on the logarithmic scale 1- 9, 10-99, ≥100. Environmental variables were collected following the Buglife ditch protocol and form (Appendix 3); results for selected variables are given in Appendix 5. Each sampling point was photographed. The following types of channel were sampled: Field Established New ditch Connected Blind Pond (‘Old’) ditch gutter gutter 2 + 3 + + 5 + + ++ 6 + + + + 7 + 9 + + + 10 + + 11 + + + + 12 + + + 13 + + + 16 + + + + 17 + + 20 + + Total 10 10 5 5 5 The channels were chosen to ensure a spread across the reserve but different types were chosen from the same field where possible so that variation due to grazing management was reduced. Thus 25 of the 35 samples came from just seven fields (Figure 1). New channels varied in age and some had been cleaned since they were dug so, to reduce variation due to these influences, the selection included only the older ‘new’ ditches and gutters dug in 2003 or 2004 and, with the exception of one gutter, none that had been cleaned since dug. Samples were taken close to water sampling points in three old ditches and one new ditch in fields 5, 6 and 20. No samples were taken from the boundary ditches. The position of gutters in Figure 1 is indicated since it was sometimes difficult to be sure which was which in the tall vegetation in midsummer, and 2 there was slight discrepancy between the base map or ditches that were marked as cleaned and the actual position of gutters in fields 3, 12 and 13. The position of symbols in Figure 1 is the actual sampling point. Appendix 1 gives the grid reference of each sampling point. Sampling took place on five days between 17 and 23 July 2008. While midsummer may not be the ideal time for ditch sampling, it was decided that the survey would be better done earlier than later in the season in case the gutters dried out. Most macro-invertebrate groups were identified to species, and only groups that could be identified to species level were collected since no useful information about conservation status of sites can be gleaned from higher taxa. Flatworms, most fly larvae and mites were therefore ignored. Pea mussels (Pisidium) were not identified to species. Dragonfly larvae were taken as far as practicable but current keys do not reliably separate some species that may have been present. Some wetland species not included in the traditionally recognised ‘aquatic’ groups were collected, such as leaf beetles (Chrysomelidae), some rove beetles (Staphylinidae) and marsh beetles (Scirtidae). The numbers of each species were counted. Estimates of abundance made in the field for taxa that were not collected in large numbers (e.g. hoglice) were converted to the numerical values 2, 20 and 110 for the purpose of ordination. Figure 1. Sampling points at Greylake Reserve. O – old ditch, N – new ditch, G – gutter, P – pond. The position of gutters is marked by a black line to avoid confusion on the ground. 3 Analysis Non-parametric statistics were used when analysing the results since the sample points were not randomly selected. Medians were compared using the Kruskall-Wallis statistic. DCA and CCA ordinations were done on abundance data with downweighting of species that were scarce in the dataset, using software by Pisces (2002, 2004). Species Quality Score was calculated for all aquatic grazing marsh species listed in Palmer et al. (2007); this excludes wetland species such as donacine reed beetles. The individual scores allocated to each species are shown with the raw data in Appendix 4. Rarity statuses are those used in Recorder 3 (DOS version) and in the JNCC website of species of conservation concern (definitions given in Appendix 2). Proposed IUCN statuses are those of Foster (in prep.) which have been in circulation for many years but not formally published. Taxa such as immature individuals or females that could not be identified to species were included in counts of species and in ordination only if they did not duplicate species-level identifications. Results Species richness A total of 184 species of invertebrates was recorded, of which 137 were conventionally recognised aquatic species and the other 47 were wetland insects (Appendix 4). Both freshwater sticklebacks were frequent, and smooth newt (Triturus vulgaris) was also recorded. Water beetles formed the most speciose group (60 species), followed by molluscs (20 species) and bugs (14 species). Nationally rare and scarce species were well represented (Table 1). There were 25 scarce species, including four wetland beetles not in the usually recognised water beetle families, and three Red Data Book species (or provisionally RDB). These are the old JNCC statuses, and seven or eight of the beetles are likely to be given a lower status using the IUCN statues (Foster, in prep.). Those thought to be no longer of conservation concern are Hydroglyphus pusillus, Rhantus suturalis, Helophorus griseus, Anacaena bipustulata, Cercyon convexiusculus, Cercyon tristis and Helochares lividus which all occur in more than 100 hectads (the threshold for inclusion as nationally scarce). The single specimen of the tiny beetle Chaetarthria was a female which cannot be identified to species, but the commoner of the two British species is scarce. Some of the nationally rare or scarce species were clearly frequent at Greylake, including the three rarest species, the Great Silver water beetle (Hydrophilus piceus), the diving beetle Hydaticus transversalis and the large soldierfly Odontomyia ornata. These are ‘flagship’ species of grazing marsh where they are common, but are scarce in other habitats. Scarce species, other than those due for downgrading, that were particularly frequent at Greylake were the diving beetles Hydaticus seminiger and Rhantus grapii, the crawling water beetle Limnoxenus niger and the soldierfly Odontomyia tigrina; these are all moderately large species.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Water Beetles
    Ireland Red List No. 1 Water beetles Ireland Red List No. 1: Water beetles G.N. Foster1, B.H. Nelson2 & Á. O Connor3 1 3 Eglinton Terrace, Ayr KA7 1JJ 2 Department of Natural Sciences, National Museums Northern Ireland 3 National Parks & Wildlife Service, Department of Environment, Heritage & Local Government Citation: Foster, G. N., Nelson, B. H. & O Connor, Á. (2009) Ireland Red List No. 1 – Water beetles. National Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Dublin, Ireland. Cover images from top: Dryops similaris (© Roy Anderson); Gyrinus urinator, Hygrotus decoratus, Berosus signaticollis & Platambus maculatus (all © Jonty Denton) Ireland Red List Series Editors: N. Kingston & F. Marnell © National Parks and Wildlife Service 2009 ISSN 2009‐2016 Red list of Irish Water beetles 2009 ____________________________ CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................................................... 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...................................................................................................................................... 2 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................................ 3 NOMENCLATURE AND THE IRISH CHECKLIST................................................................................................ 3 COVERAGE .......................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Crossness Sewage Treatment Works Nature Reserve & Southern Marsh Aquatic Invertebrate Survey
    Commissioned by Thames Water Utilities Limited Clearwater Court Vastern Road Reading RG1 8DB CROSSNESS SEWAGE TREATMENT WORKS NATURE RESERVE & SOUTHERN MARSH AQUATIC INVERTEBRATE SURVEY Report number: CPA18054 JULY 2019 Prepared by Colin Plant Associates (UK) Consultant Entomologists 30a Alexandra Rd London N8 0PP 1 1 INTRODUCTION, BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY 1.1 Introduction and background 1.1.1 On 30th May 2018 Colin Plant Associates (UK) were commissioned by Biodiversity Team Manager, Karen Sutton on behalf of Thames Water Utilities Ltd. to undertake aquatic invertebrate sampling at Crossness Sewage Treatment Works on Erith Marshes, Kent. This survey was to mirror the locations and methodology of a previous survey undertaken during autumn 2016 and spring 2017. Colin Plant Associates also undertook the aquatic invertebrate sampling of this previous survey. 1.1.2 The 2016-17 aquatic survey was commissioned with the primary objective of establishing a baseline aquatic invertebrate species inventory and to determine the quality of the aquatic habitats present across both the Nature Reserve and Southern Marsh areas of the Crossness Sewage Treatment Works. The surveyors were asked to sample at twenty-four, pre-selected sample station locations, twelve in each area. Aquatic Coleoptera and Heteroptera (beetles and true bugs) were selected as target groups. A report of the previous survey was submitted in Sept 2017 (Plant 2017). 1.1.3 During December 2017 a large-scale pollution event took place and untreated sewage escaped into a section of the Crossness Nature Reserve. The primary point of egress was Nature Reserve Sample Station 1 (NR1) though because of the connectivity of much of the waterbody network on the marsh other areas were affected.
    [Show full text]
  • The Formation of Water Beetle Fauna in Anthropogenic Water Bodies
    Oceanological and Hydrobiological Studies International Journal of Oceanography and Hydrobiology Vol. XXXVII, No. 1 Institute of Oceanography (31-42) University of Gdańsk ISSN 1730-413X 2008 eISSN 1897-3191 Received: July 03, 2007 DOI 10.2478/v10009-007-0037-y Original research paper Accepted: January 17, 2008 The formation of water beetle fauna in anthropogenic water bodies Joanna Pakulnicka1 Department of Ecology and Environmental Protection University of Warmia and Mazury Plac Łódzki 3, 10–727 Olsztyn Poland Key words: water beetles, clay-pits, gravel-pits, succession, Poland Abstract Studies on the fauna of water beetles inhabiting anthropogenic water bodies were conducted on 44 clay-pit and gravel-pit ponds. A total of 125 water beetle species were identified. The dominant species were Scarodytes halensis and Laccobius minutus, representing the argillophilous component. Eurytopic, lake and riverine, and peatland species were also identified. Among the environmental factors determining the diversity of the water beetle fauna in particular types of habitats, the most significant role was played by the substratum and succession stage. 1 e-mail: [email protected] Copyright© by Institute of Oceanography, University of Gdańsk, Poland www.oandhs.org 32 J. Pakulnicka INTRODUCTION Anthropogenic water bodies, formed as a result of mineral extraction, are an important element of a hydrographical network. However, they have not aroused much interest among hydrobiologists. Polish literature on aquatic Coleoptera provides scant information on artificial reservoirs, although the ecology of water beetles is relatively well-known. Noteworthy works devoted to this subject include those by Łęgosz-Owsianna (1955), Tranda (1959), Biesiadka (1977), Mielewczyk (1997, 1997a) as well as by Kowalik and Buczyński (2003).
    [Show full text]
  • A Manual for the Survey and Evaluation of the Aquatic Plant and Invertebrate Assemblages of Grazing Marsh Ditch Systems
    A manual for the survey and evaluation of the aquatic plant and invertebrate assemblages of grazing marsh ditch systems Version 6 Margaret Palmer Martin Drake Nick Stewart May 2013 Contents Page Summary 3 1. Introduction 4 2. A standard method for the field survey of ditch flora 5 2.1 Field survey procedure 5 2.2 Access and licenses 6 2.3 Guidance for completing the recording form 6 Field recording form for ditch vegetation survey 10 3. A standard method for the field survey of aquatic macro- invertebrates in ditches 12 3.1 Number of ditches to be surveyed 12 3.2 Timing of survey 12 3.3 Access and licences 12 3.4 Equipment 13 3.5 Sampling procedure 13 3.6 Taxonomic groups to be recorded 15 3.7 Recording in the field 17 3.8 Laboratory procedure 17 Field recording form for ditch invertebrate survey 18 4. A system for the evaluation and ranking of the aquatic plant and macro-invertebrate assemblages of grazing marsh ditches 19 4.1 Background 19 4.2 Species check lists 19 4.3 Salinity tolerance 20 4.4 Species conservation status categories 21 4.5 The scoring system 23 4.6 Applying the scoring system 26 4.7 Testing the scoring system 28 4.8 Conclusion 30 Table 1 Check list and scoring system for target native aquatic plants of ditches in England and Wales 31 Table 2 Check list and scoring system for target native aquatic invertebrates of grazing marsh ditches in England and Wales 40 Table 3 Some common plants of ditch banks that indicate salinity 50 Table 4 Aquatic vascular plants used as indicators of good habitat quality 51 Table 5a Introduced aquatic vascular plants 53 Table 5a Introduced aquatic invertebrates 54 Figure 1 Map of Environment Agency regions 55 5.
    [Show full text]
  • Sovraccoperta Fauna Inglese Giusta, Page 1 @ Normalize
    Comitato Scientifico per la Fauna d’Italia CHECKLIST AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE ITALIAN FAUNA FAUNA THE ITALIAN AND DISTRIBUTION OF CHECKLIST 10,000 terrestrial and inland water species and inland water 10,000 terrestrial CHECKLIST AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE ITALIAN FAUNA 10,000 terrestrial and inland water species ISBNISBN 88-89230-09-688-89230- 09- 6 Ministero dell’Ambiente 9 778888988889 230091230091 e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare CH © Copyright 2006 - Comune di Verona ISSN 0392-0097 ISBN 88-89230-09-6 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, without the prior permission in writing of the publishers and of the Authors. Direttore Responsabile Alessandra Aspes CHECKLIST AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE ITALIAN FAUNA 10,000 terrestrial and inland water species Memorie del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Verona - 2. Serie Sezione Scienze della Vita 17 - 2006 PROMOTING AGENCIES Italian Ministry for Environment and Territory and Sea, Nature Protection Directorate Civic Museum of Natural History of Verona Scientifi c Committee for the Fauna of Italy Calabria University, Department of Ecology EDITORIAL BOARD Aldo Cosentino Alessandro La Posta Augusto Vigna Taglianti Alessandra Aspes Leonardo Latella SCIENTIFIC BOARD Marco Bologna Pietro Brandmayr Eugenio Dupré Alessandro La Posta Leonardo Latella Alessandro Minelli Sandro Ruffo Fabio Stoch Augusto Vigna Taglianti Marzio Zapparoli EDITORS Sandro Ruffo Fabio Stoch DESIGN Riccardo Ricci LAYOUT Riccardo Ricci Zeno Guarienti EDITORIAL ASSISTANT Elisa Giacometti TRANSLATORS Maria Cristina Bruno (1-72, 239-307) Daniel Whitmore (73-238) VOLUME CITATION: Ruffo S., Stoch F.
    [Show full text]
  • Foster, Warne, A
    ISSN 0966 2235 LATISSIMUS NEWSLETTER OF THE BALFOUR-BROWNE CLUB Number Forty October 2017 The name for the Malagasy striped whirligig Heterogyrus milloti Legros is given as fandiorano fahagola in Malagasy in the paper by Grey Gustafson et al. (see page 2) 1 LATISSIMUS 40 October 2017 STRANGE PROTOZOA IN WATER BEETLE HAEMOCOELS Robert Angus (c) (a) (b) (d) (e) Figure Parasites in the haemocoel of Hydrobius rottenbergii Gerhardt One of the stranger findings from my second Chinese trip (see “On and Off the Plateau”, Latissimus 29 23 – 28) was an infestation of small ciliated balls in the haemocoel of a Boreonectes emmerichi Falkenström taken is a somewhat muddy pool near Xinduqao in Sichuan. This pool is shown in Fig 4 on p 25 of Latissimus 29. When I removed the abdomen, in colchicine solution in insect saline (for chromosome preparation) what appeared to a mass of tiny bubbles appeared. My first thought was that I had foolishly opened the beetle in alcoholic fixative, but this was disproved when the “bubbles” began swimming around in a manner characteristic of ciliary locomotion. At the time I was not able to do anything with them, but it was something the like of which I had never seen before. Then, as luck would have it, on Tuesday Max Barclay brought back from the Moscow region of Russia a single living male Hydrobius rottenbergii Gerhardt. This time I injected the beetle with colchicine solution and did not open it up (remove the abdomen) till I had transferred it to ½-isotonic potassium chloride. And at this stage again I was confronted with a mass of the same self-propelled “bubbles”.
    [Show full text]
  • Beetles) of the Sandwell Valley
    A checklist of the Coleoptera (Beetles) Of the Sandwell Valley M.G.Bloxham August 2019 1 Summary 1095 Beetle Records 59 families 535 species 2 A provisional List of Sandwell Valley Beetles The list is the product of some 40 years of recording in the 20 one Km SP squares shown on the map. Records have not been gathered in any systematic way, but are the product of numerous visits to the area by individuals and field meetings when SANDNATS members carried out general recording events. A reference collection of nearly all the beetles discovered is held by Mike Bloxham. A few specimens are held by other entomologists. Mr Paul Edwards has a small unit of rove beetles and the late Mr Eric Brown (Coleoptera Recorder for Staffordshire) who checked nearly all the weevils and some beetles from other families, retained a few specimens for his collection. These are now located in The British Museum of Natural History (South Kensington). The collection probably reflects the ecology of the Sandwell Valley with its characteristic and varied mosaic of habitats reasonably well. It is also to some extent indicative of its history. A number of species included in the Index of Ecological Continuity and Saproxylic Quality index (marked in yellow in the lists) have been discovered in the fragmented woodlands on the old estate of the Earl of Dartmouth, with remnants of its surrounding deer park. These are probably survivors from a rather richer fauna that existed before the industrial revolution began to transform the area and the estate fell into disrepair.
    [Show full text]
  • Coleoptera of Rye Bay
    THE COLEOPTERA OF RYE BAY A SPECIALIST REPORT OF THE INTERREG II PROJECT TWO BAYS, ONE ENVIRONMENT a shared biodiversity with a common focus THIS PROJECT IS BEING PART-FINANCED BY THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY European Regional Development Fund Dr. Barry Yates Patrick Triplet Peter J. Hodge SMACOPI 2 Watch Cottages 1,place de l’Amiral Courbet Winchelsea 80100 Abbeville East Sussex Picarde TN36 4LU [email protected] e-mail: [email protected] MARCH 2000 i ii The Coleoptera of Rye Bay This Specialist Report Contains Species Statements of 75 Red Data Book Coleoptera, the beetles. P.J.Hodge and B.J. Yates February 2000 Contents page number Introduction to the Two Bays Project 1 Coleoptera of Rye Bay 6 Coleoptera Species Statements Omophron limbatum (F., 1777) (Carabidae - a ground beetle) 8 Dyschirius angustatus (Ahrens, 1830) (Carabidae - a ground beetle) 9 Dyschirius obscurus (Gyllenhal, 1827) (Carabidae - a ground beetle) 10 Bembidion octomaculatum (Goeze, 1777) (Carabidae - a ground beetle) 11 Pogonus luridipennis (Germar, 1822) (Carabidae - a ground beetle) 12 Amara strenua (Zimmermann, 1832) (Carabidae - a ground beetle) 13 Harpalus parallelus (Dejean, 1829) (Carabidae - a ground beetle) 14 Badister collaris (Motschulsky) (Carabidae - a ground beetle) 15 Panagaeus cruxmajor (Linnaeus 1758) (Carabidae - a ground beetle) 16 Dromius vectensis (Rye, 1872) (Carabidae - a ground beetle) 17 Haliplus variegatus (Sturm, 1834) (Haliplidae - a water beetle) 18 Haliplus varius (Nicolai, 1822) (Haliplidae - a water beetle) 19 Laccophilus poecilus
    [Show full text]
  • Policy and Legislation Summary
    © Ian Wallace Policy and Legislation Summary Legal disclaimer Whilst every effort has been made to be accurate in explaining complex legislation in layman’s language, this document does not constitute legal advice and neither the authors nor Buglife can guarantee the accuracy thereof. Anyone using the information does so at his/her own risk and shall be deemed to indemnify Buglife from any and all injury or damage arising from such use. SPECIES STATUS: LISTS OF INVERTEBRATE SPECIES COVERED BY POLICY AND LEGISLATION IN THE UK The following tables list the invertebrate species covered by the UK’s domestic wildlife legislation, national biodiversity policies and relevant international statutes. Most of these measures aim to protect vulnerable species, but some invasive alien species are also covered by legislation. The tables are as follows: 1. UK invertebrate species protected by international statutes 2A. Invertebrate species listed on Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) for England and Wales and the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004. 2B. Invertebrate species protected under the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 (as amended) 3A. Invertebrate species listed under Section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act for England and under Section 42 for Wales 3B. Invertebrate species of principal importance for the conservation of biodiversity in Scotland 4. Invertebrate species endangered by trade and listed under the EU CITES Regulations 5A. Invertebrate species listed on Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 9 (as amended) 5B. Invertebrate species listed on Schedule 9 of the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order (as amended) Further information For up to date information on UK legislation visit http://www.legislation.gov.uk.
    [Show full text]
  • Dumfries & Galloway Local Biodiversity Action Plan
    Dumfries & Galloway Local Biodiversity Action Plan Written and edited by Peter Norman, Biodiversity Officer, with contributions from David Hawker (Flowering Plants Species Statement), Nic Coombey (Geodiversity & Traditional Orchards) and Clair McFarlan (Traditional Orchards). Designed by Paul McLaughlin, Dumfries and Galloway Council Printed by Alba Printers Published by Dumfries & Galloway Biodiversity Partnership, April 2009 Production of this LBAP has been made possible through funding by Acknowledgements Thank-you to all members of the Dumfries & Galloway Biodiversity Partnership Steering Group and Habitat Working Groups, especially Chris Miles of SNH, Alastair McNeill of SEPA, Chris Rollie of RSPB and Sue Bennett of DGC. Thanks also to Liz Holden for invaluable assistance with all things fungal and Andy Acton for advice on lichens. Numerous publications were consulted during preparation of this plan but in the interests of brevity and readibility individual comments are not referenced. Galloway and the Borders by the late Derek Ratcliffe and The Flora of Kirkcudbrightshire by the late Olga Stewart were particularly useful sources of information. Valuable discussions/comments also received from David Hawker, Jim McCleary, Richard Mearns, Anna White and the Dumfries & Galloway Eco-Schools Steering Group. Assistance with proof-reading from Stuart Graham, Chris Miles, Fiona Moran, Mark Pollitt and Chris Rollie. Photographs Thank-you to all photographers who allowed free use of several images for this document: Greg Baillie, Gavin Chambers, Gordon McCall, Maggi Kaye, Paul McLaughlin, Richard Mearns and Pete Robinson. Other photographs were provided by the editor and partners. All images are individually credited. Additional photography: Laurie Campbell www.lauriecampbell.com, Paul Naylor www.marinephoto.org.uk, Steven Round www.stevenround-birdphotography.com, John Bridges www.northeastwildlife.co.uk .
    [Show full text]
  • Diving Beetle Assemblages of Flooded Wetlands in Relation to Time, Wetland Type and Bti-Based Mosquito Control
    Linköping University Post Print Diving beetle assemblages of flooded wetlands in relation to time, wetland type and Bti-based mosquito control Thomas Z. Persson Vinnersten, Jan O. Lundström, Erik Petersson and Jan Landin N.B.: When citing this work, cite the original article. The original publication is available at www.springerlink.com: Thomas Z. Persson Vinnersten, Jan O. Lundström, Erik Petersson and Jan Landin, Diving beetle assemblages of flooded wetlands in relation to time, wetland type and Bti-based mosquito control, 2009, Hydrobiologia, (635), 1, 189-203. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10750-009-9911-9 Copyright: Springer Science Business Media http://www.springerlink.com/ Postprint available at: Linköping University Electronic Press http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-51233 Diving beetle assemblages of flooded wetlands in relation to time, wetland type and Bti-based mosquito control Thomas Z. Persson Vinnersten1,2, Jan O. Lundström1,2, Erik Petersson3,4, Jan Landin5 1 Department of Ecology and Evolution / Population Biology, Evolutionary Biology Centre, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden. 2 Swedish Biological Mosquito Control Project, Nedre Dalälvens Utvecklings AB, Gysinge, Sweden 3 Department of Ecology and Evolution / Animal Ecology, Evolutionary Biology Centre, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden. 4 Institute for Freshwater Research, Swedish Board of Fisheries, Drottningholm, Sweden. 5 Department of Physics, Chemistry and Biology, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden. Correspondence: Thomas Z. Persson Vinnersten, Department of Ecology and Evolution / Population Biology, Evolutionary Biology Centre, Uppsala University, Norbyvägen 18 D, SE – 752 36 Uppsala, Sweden. E-mail: [email protected] Keywords: diving beetles, aquatic predatory insects, flood-water mosquitoes, temporary wetlands, Bti This paper has not been submitted elsewhere in identical or similar form, nor will it be during the first three months after its submission to Hydrobiologia.
    [Show full text]
  • STRIVE Report Series No.80
    STRIVE Report Series No.80 Freshwater Biodiversity in the Irish Agricultural Landscape: The Significance of Ponds STRIVE Environmental Protection Agency Programme 2007-2013 Comhshaol, Pobal agus Rialtas Áitiúil Environment, Community and Local Government EPA Inside Pages NEW_Blue Text 08/09/2011 11:09 Page 1 Environmental Protection Agency The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is REGULATING IRELAND’S GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS a statutory body responsible for protecting n Quantifying Ireland’s emissions of greenhouse gases the environment in Ireland. We regulate and in the context of our Kyoto commitments. police activities that might otherwise cause n Implementing the Emissions Trading Directive, pollution. We ensure there is solid involving over 100 companies who are major information on environmental trends so that generators of carbon dioxide in Ireland. necessary actions are taken. Our priorities are protecting the Irish environment and ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ensuring that development is sustainable. n Co-ordinating research on environmental issues (including air and water quality, climate change, The EPA is an independent public body biodiversity, environmental technologies). established in July 1993 under the Environmental Protection Agency Act, 1992. STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Its sponsor in Government is the Department n Assessing the impact of plans and programmes on of the Environment, Community and Local the Irish environment (such as waste management Government. and development plans). ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING, EDUCATION AND OUR RESPONSIBILITIES GUIDANCE n Providing guidance to the public and to industry on LICENSING various environmental topics (including licence We license the following to ensure that their emissions applications, waste prevention and environmental do not endanger human health or harm the environment: regulations).
    [Show full text]