DOCSLIB.ORG

Preliminary Ecological Appraisal South Carnforth

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal South Carnforth LANCASTER SITE ALLOCATION – SOUTH CARNFORTH PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL APPRAISAL SOUTH CARNFORTH, LANCASTER Provided for: Lancaster City Council Date: February 2016 Provided by: The Greater Manchester Ecology Unit Clarence Arcade Stamford Street Ashton-under-Lyne Tameside OL6 7PT Tel: 0161 342 4409 LSA – 4 FEBRUARY 2016 LANCASTER SITE ALLOCATION – SOUTH CARNFORTH QUALITY ASSURANCE Author Suzanne Waymont MCIEEM Checked By Stephen Atkins Approved By Derek Richardson Version 1.0 Draft for Comment Reference LSA - 4 The survey was carried out in accordance with the Phase 1 habitat assessment methods (JNCC 2010) and Guidelines for Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (CIEEM 2013). All works associated with this report have been undertaken in accordance with the Code of Professional Conduct for the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management. (www.cieem.org.uk) LSA – 3 FEBRUARY 2016 LANCASTER SITE ALLOCATION – SOUTH CARNFORTH CONTENTS SUMMARY 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 SURVEY BRIEF 1.2 SITE LOCATION & PROPOSAL 1.3 PERSONNEL 2 LEGISLATION AND POLICY 3 METHODOLOGY 3.1 DESK STUDY 3.2 FIELD SURVEY 3.3 SURVEY LIMITATIONS 4 BASELINE ECOLOGICAL CONDITIONS 4.1 DESKTOP SEARCH 4.2 SURVEY RESULTS 5 ECOLOGICAL CONSTRAINTS – IMPLICATIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS 6 CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES APPENDIX 1 – DATA SEARCH RESULTS APPENDIX 2 – DESIGNATED SITES APPENDIX 3 – BIOLOGICAL HERITAGE SITES LSA – 3 FEBRUARY 2016 LANCASTER SITE ALLOCATION – SOUTH CARNFORTH SUMMARY • A Preliminary Ecological Appraisal was commissioned by Lancaster City Council to identify possible ecological constraints that could affect the development of 8 sites and areas currently being considered as new site allocations under its Local Plan. This report looks at one of these sites: South Carnforth. • An ecological data search was undertaken of records held by the Local Record Centre for Lancashire, LERN, together with additional sources such as the Magic website. • An Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey of the site was undertaken on 14th January 2016 by two members of the Greater Manchester Ecology Unit. An assessment was also made of the potential of the site to support protected and priority species. • The proposed site allocation lies within 2km of Morecambe Bay SPA/SAC/Ramsar Site/SSSI. A HRA will be required for this proposed allocation • The site lies within 100m of Thwaite House Moss SSSI and 300m of Crag Bank SSSI. It also lies within the SSSI Impact Risk Zone for Warton Crag. It is recommended that Ecological Impact Assessments are undertaken on any proposals that come forward, particularly in relation to Thwaite House Moss. • There are 22 Biological Heritage Sites within 2km, including 2 within it and 2 directly adjacent. Further surveys are required in these areas. The BHS site may also offer biodiversity enhancement opportunities. • The other areas of the site allocation support agriculturally improved grassland of limited ecological value. However the boundary features and adjacent habitats have ecological value. Further habitat surveys are required to fully assess this interest. • The proposed site allocation also has the potential to support protected species including bats, great crested newt and breeding birds. Additional surveys will also be required for these species before any detailed planning proposals can be brought forward. • There are significant ecological constraints associated with this allocation. LSA – 3 FEBRUARY 2016 LANCASTER SITE ALLOCATION – SOUTH CARNFORTH 1 INTRODUCTION The Greater Manchester Ecology Unit (GMEU) was commissioned by Lancaster City Council in November 2015 to identify possible ecological constraints that could affect the development of 8 sites and areas currently being considered as new site allocations under its Local Plan. This report looks at one of these sites: South Carnforth. 1.1 SURVEY BRIEF The work commission involved: • Desktop surveys for any existing ecological information relating to the sites and areas, particularly concerning the presence of specially protected sites or species. • A ‘walkover’ site survey and appraisal. • The preparation of Reports for each site appraising the ecological value of the sites and advising of any possible ecological constraints that may apply to future developments. The Reports will include: plans showing any areas of potential nature conservation importance; a description of the survey techniques employed and their limitations (if any); the findings of the desktop and site surveys; an appraisal of the nature conservation value of the study areas; recommendations for further ecological surveys that would be required in support of any future planning applications for the sites and areas 1.2 SITE LOCATION & PROPOSAL Carnforth is as small town in the north of Lancashire, north east of Morecambe Bay. As part of its Local Plan Lancaster City Council is proposing a number of strategic sites to meet the needs for jobs and housing. The land currently identified in South Carnforth lies between the existing urban settlement of Carnforth and land surrounding Thwaite House Farm. Figure 1 shows the areas of land under consideration. It should be noted that in relation to this site, no southern boundary has been determined and therefore an illustrative boundary has been provided. It is therefore important to note that this site provides an indication that growth opportunities should be explored in South Carnforth, the scale of which are yet to be determined and would be subject to the Review of the North Lancashire Green Belt. If fully developed, the land could deliver a range of residential and economic development, including the creation of 1,250 new homes. Figure 1 shows the area under consideration The land identified in South Carnforth is primarily farmland (Figure 2). There are a number of farmsteads within the site with associated buildings. There are a number of telecommunication masts and former quarry works including a number of ponds. 1.3 PERSONNEL All survey work was conducted by Suzanne Waymont MCIEEM Senior Ecologist and Mandy Elford MCIEEM, Ecologist (NE Bat License holder) with the Greater Manchester Ecology Unit. This report was written by Suzanne Waymont. LSA – 3 FEBRUARY 2016 LANCASTER SITE ALLOCATION – SOUTH CARNFORTH Figure 1 – SOUTH CARNFORTH STRATEGIC SITE ©Crown Copyright. All Rights Reserved. Tameside MBC Licence No LA100022697, 2016 LSA – 3 FEBRUARY 2016 LANCASTER SITE ALLOCATION – SOUTH CARNFORTH Figure 2 – Aerial View of South Carnforth 2 LEGISLATION AND POLICY The following UK legislation may be relevant to the proposed site allocations: • The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) • The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) • The Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act (2006) • Countryside and Rights of Way (CROW) Act 2000 • Protection of Badgers Act 1992 LSA – 3 FEBRUARY 2016 LANCASTER SITE ALLOCATION – SOUTH CARNFORTH The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2012 acts as guidance for local planning authorities and decision-takers, both in drawing up plans and making decisions about planning applications. 3 METHODOLOGY 3.1 Desk Study The Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC) collaborative database website (http://magic.defra.gov.uk/MagicMap.aspx) was searched for information on key environmental schemes and statutory designations in January 2016. An Ecological Data search was undertaken from the Local Record Centre covering Lancaster LERN. Information on all protected and priority species within 2km of the site allocations together with the citations for any BHS sites were requested. The information returned from LERN only includes data that they are at liberty to distribute. Therefore the North Lancashire Bat Group and the Lancashire Badger Group were also contacted for data. The results of these studies is found in Section 4 3.2 Field Survey The main survey of the site was undertaken using an extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey methodology. This survey method records habitat distributions, assesses the potential of the site to support protected and priority species and records flora and fauna present at the time of survey. However no detailed surveys for species were undertaken. Invasive non-native plant species stands, as listed under Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, as amended, were also noted. The Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines (3rd edn) (Bat Conservation Trust 2016) were used to assessed the quality of the habitats present on site for bats. The survey was undertaken on the 14th January 2015 by Suzanne Waymont MCIEEM Senior Ecologist and Mandy Elford MCIEEM, Ecologist (NE Bat License holder) with the Greater Manchester Ecology Unit. The weather conditions at the time of survey were cold and sunny. 3.3 Survey limitations The timing of the survey in January is outside of the ideal time to undertake full ecological surveys. Many invasive, non-native plant species die back over winter, although their remains are often visible. Many of the hedgerows had been recently cut. As a result the number of species in some and their species richness may have been underestimated. However the nature of the survey was to provide an initial appraisal of the ecological value of the site, advise on any possible ecological constraints and to provide recommendations for any further ecological surveys that would be required. The limitations listed above did not therefore limit the primary purpose of the survey; areas that supported habitats of potential interest,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Lepidoptera on the Introduced Robinia Pseudoacacia in Slovakia, Central Europe
    Check List 8(4): 709–711, 2012 © 2012 Check List and Authors Chec List ISSN 1809-127X (available at www.checklist.org.br) Journal of species lists and distribution Lepidoptera on the introduced Robinia pseudoacacia in PECIES S OF ISTS L Slovakia, Central Europe Miroslav Kulfan E-mail: [email protected] Comenius University, Faculty of Natural Sciences, Department of Ecology, Mlynská dolina B-1, SK-84215 Bratislava, Slovakia. Abstract: Robinia pseudoacacia A current checklist of Lepidoptera that utilize as a hostplant in Slovakia (Central Europe) faunalis provided. community. The inventory Two monophagous is based on species, a bibliographic the leaf reviewminers andMacrosaccus new unreported robiniella data and from Parectopa southwest robiniella Slovakia., and Thethe polyphagouslist includes 35pest Lepidoptera Hyphantria species cunea belonging to 10 families. Most species are polyphagous and belong to Euro-Siberian have subsequently been introduced to Slovakia. Introduction E. The area is a polygon enclosed by the towns of Bratislava, Robinia pseudoacacia a widespread species in its native habitat in southeastern North America. It was L.introduced (black locust, to orEurope false acacia),in 1601 is Komárno, Veľký Krtíš and Myjava. Ten plots were located in the southern part of the study area. Most were located in theThe remnant trophic ofgroups the original of the floodplain Lepidoptera forests larvae that found were (Chapman 1935). The first mention of planting the species distributed along the Danube and Morava rivers. (Keresztesiin Slovakia dates 1965). from Today, 1750, itwhen is widespread black locust wasthroughout planted (1986). The zoogeographical distribution of the species western,around the central, fortress eastern in Komárno and southern in southern Europe, Slovakia where followswere defined the arrangement following the give system by Reiprichof Brown (2001).
    [Show full text]
  • State of New York City's Plants 2018
    STATE OF NEW YORK CITY’S PLANTS 2018 Daniel Atha & Brian Boom © 2018 The New York Botanical Garden All rights reserved ISBN 978-0-89327-955-4 Center for Conservation Strategy The New York Botanical Garden 2900 Southern Boulevard Bronx, NY 10458 All photos NYBG staff Citation: Atha, D. and B. Boom. 2018. State of New York City’s Plants 2018. Center for Conservation Strategy. The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY. 132 pp. STATE OF NEW YORK CITY’S PLANTS 2018 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6 INTRODUCTION 10 DOCUMENTING THE CITY’S PLANTS 10 The Flora of New York City 11 Rare Species 14 Focus on Specific Area 16 Botanical Spectacle: Summer Snow 18 CITIZEN SCIENCE 20 THREATS TO THE CITY’S PLANTS 24 NEW YORK STATE PROHIBITED AND REGULATED INVASIVE SPECIES FOUND IN NEW YORK CITY 26 LOOKING AHEAD 27 CONTRIBUTORS AND ACKNOWLEGMENTS 30 LITERATURE CITED 31 APPENDIX Checklist of the Spontaneous Vascular Plants of New York City 32 Ferns and Fern Allies 35 Gymnosperms 36 Nymphaeales and Magnoliids 37 Monocots 67 Dicots 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report, State of New York City’s Plants 2018, is the first rankings of rare, threatened, endangered, and extinct species of what is envisioned by the Center for Conservation Strategy known from New York City, and based on this compilation of The New York Botanical Garden as annual updates thirteen percent of the City’s flora is imperiled or extinct in New summarizing the status of the spontaneous plant species of the York City. five boroughs of New York City. This year’s report deals with the City’s vascular plants (ferns and fern allies, gymnosperms, We have begun the process of assessing conservation status and flowering plants), but in the future it is planned to phase in at the local level for all species.
    [Show full text]
  • England Biodiversity Indicators 2020
    4a. Status of UK priority species: relative abundance England Biodiversity Indicators 2020 This documents supports 4a. Status of UK priority species: relative abundance Technical background document Fiona Burns, Tom August, Mark Eaton, David Noble, Gary Powney, Nick Isaac, Daniel Hayhow For further information on 4a. Status of UK priority species: relative abundance visit https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/england-biodiversity-indicators 1 4a. Status of UK priority species: relative abundance Indicator 4a. Status of UK priority species: relative abundance Technical background document, 2020 NB this paper should be read together with 4b Status of UK Priority Species; distribution which presents a companion statistic based on time series on frequency of occurrence (distribution) of priority species. 1. Introduction The adjustments to the UK biodiversity indicators set as a result of the adoption of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity (including the Aichi Targets) at the 10th Conference of Parties of the Convention on Biological Diversity mean there is a need to report progress against Aichi Target 12: Target 12: By 2020 the extinction of known threatened species has been prevented and their conservation status, particularly of those most in decline, has been improved and sustained. Previously, the UK biodiversity indicator for threatened species used lead partner status assessments on the status of priority species from 3-yearly UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UK BAP) reporting rounds. As a result of the devolution of biodiversity strategies to the UK's 4 nations, there is no longer reporting at the UK level of the status of species previously listed by the BAP process. This paper presents a robust indicator of the status of threatened species in the UK, with species identified as conservation priorities being taken as a proxy for threatened species.
    [Show full text]
  • Yorkhill Green Spaces Wildlife Species List
    Yorkhill Green Spaces Wildlife Species List April 2021 update Yorkhill Green Spaces Species list Draft list of animals, plants, fungi, mosses and lichens recorded from Yorkhill, Glasgow. Main sites: Yorkhill Park, Overnewton Park and Kelvinhaugh Park (AKA Cherry Park). Other recorded sites: bank of River Kelvin at Bunhouse Rd/ Old Dumbarton Rd, Clyde Expressway path, casual records from streets and gardens in Yorkhill. Species total: 711 Vertebrates: Amhibians:1, Birds: 57, Fish: 7, Mammals (wild): 15 Invertebrates: Amphipods: 1, Ants: 3, Bees: 26, Beetles: 21, Butterflies: 11, Caddisflies: 2, Centipedes: 3, Earthworms: 2, Earwig: 1, Flatworms: 1, Flies: 61, Grasshoppers: 1, Harvestmen: 2, Lacewings: 2, Mayflies: 2, Mites: 4, Millipedes: 3, Moths: 149, True bugs: 13, Slugs & snails: 21, Spiders: 14, Springtails: 2, Wasps: 13, Woodlice: 5 Plants: Flowering plants: 174, Ferns: 5, Grasses: 13, Horsetail: 1, Liverworts: 7, Mosses:17, Trees: 19 Fungi and lichens: Fungi: 24, Lichens: 10 Conservation Status: NameSBL - Scottish Biodiversity List Priority Species Birds of Conservation Concern - Red List, Amber List Last Common name Species Taxon Record Common toad Bufo bufo amphiban 2012 Australian landhopper Arcitalitrus dorrieni amphipod 2021 Black garden ant Lasius niger ant 2020 Red ant Myrmica rubra ant 2021 Red ant Myrmica ruginodis ant 2014 Buff-tailed bumblebee Bombus terrestris bee 2021 Garden bumblebee Bombus hortorum bee 2020 Tree bumblebee Bombus hypnorum bee 2021 Heath bumblebee Bombus jonellus bee 2020 Red-tailed bumblebee Bombus
    [Show full text]
  • Polygonaceae of Alberta
    AN ILLUSTRATED KEY TO THE POLYGONACEAE OF ALBERTA Compiled and writen by Lorna Allen & Linda Kershaw April 2019 © Linda J. Kershaw & Lorna Allen This key was compiled using informaton primarily from Moss (1983), Douglas et. al. (1999) and the Flora North America Associaton (2005). Taxonomy follows VAS- CAN (Brouillet, 2015). The main references are listed at the end of the key. Please let us know if there are ways in which the kay can be improved. The 2015 S-ranks of rare species (S1; S1S2; S2; S2S3; SU, according to ACIMS, 2015) are noted in superscript (S1;S2;SU) afer the species names. For more details go to the ACIMS web site. Similarly, exotc species are followed by a superscript X, XX if noxious and XXX if prohibited noxious (X; XX; XXX) according to the Alberta Weed Control Act (2016). POLYGONACEAE Buckwheat Family 1a Key to Genera 01a Dwarf annual plants 1-4(10) cm tall; leaves paired or nearly so; tepals 3(4); stamens (1)3(5) .............Koenigia islandica S2 01b Plants not as above; tepals 4-5; stamens 3-8 ..................................02 02a Plants large, exotic, perennial herbs spreading by creeping rootstocks; fowering stems erect, hollow, 0.5-2(3) m tall; fowers with both ♂ and ♀ parts ............................03 02b Plants smaller, native or exotic, perennial or annual herbs, with or without creeping rootstocks; fowering stems usually <1 m tall; fowers either ♂ or ♀ (unisexual) or with both ♂ and ♀ parts .......................04 3a 03a Flowering stems forming dense colonies and with distinct joints (like bamboo
    [Show full text]
  • The Entomologist's Record and Journal of Variation
    M DC, — _ CO ^. E CO iliSNrNVINOSHilWS' S3ldVyan~LIBRARlES*"SMITHS0N!AN~lNSTITUTl0N N' oCO z to Z (/>*Z COZ ^RIES SMITHSONIAN_INSTITUTlON NOIiniIiSNI_NVINOSHllWS S3ldVaan_L: iiiSNi'^NviNOSHiiNS S3iavyan libraries Smithsonian institution N( — > Z r- 2 r" Z 2to LI ^R I ES^'SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTlON'"NOIini!iSNI~NVINOSHilVMS' S3 I b VM 8 11 w </» z z z n g ^^ liiiSNi NviNOSHims S3iyvyan libraries Smithsonian institution N' 2><^ =: to =: t/J t/i </> Z _J Z -I ARIES SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NOIiniliSNI NVINOSHilWS SSIdVyan L — — </> — to >'. ± CO uiiSNi NViNosHiiws S3iyvaan libraries Smithsonian institution n CO <fi Z "ZL ~,f. 2 .V ^ oCO 0r Vo^^c>/ - -^^r- - 2 ^ > ^^^^— i ^ > CO z to * z to * z ARIES SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NOIinillSNl NVINOSHllWS S3iaVdan L to 2 ^ '^ ^ z "^ O v.- - NiOmst^liS^> Q Z * -J Z I ID DAD I re CH^ITUCnMIAM IMOTtTIITinM / c. — t" — (/) \ Z fj. Nl NVINOSHIIINS S3 I M Vd I 8 H L B R AR I ES, SMITHSONlAN~INSTITUTION NOIlfl :S^SMITHS0NIAN_ INSTITUTION N0liniliSNI__NIVIN0SHillMs'^S3 I 8 VM 8 nf LI B R, ^Jl"!NVINOSHimS^S3iavyan"'LIBRARIES^SMITHS0NIAN~'lNSTITUTI0N^NOIin L '~^' ^ [I ^ d 2 OJ .^ . ° /<SS^ CD /<dSi^ 2 .^^^. ro /l^2l^!^ 2 /<^ > ^'^^ ^ ..... ^ - m x^^osvAVix ^' m S SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION — NOIlfliliSNrNVINOSHimS^SS iyvyan~LIBR/ S "^ ^ ^ c/> z 2 O _ Xto Iz JI_NVIN0SH1I1/MS^S3 I a Vd a n^LI B RAR I ES'^SMITHSONIAN JNSTITUTION "^NOlin Z -I 2 _j 2 _j S SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NOIinillSNI NVINOSHilWS S3iyVaan LI BR/ 2: r- — 2 r- z NVINOSHiltNS ^1 S3 I MVy I 8 n~L B R AR I Es'^SMITHSONIAN'iNSTITUTIOn'^ NOlin ^^^>^ CO z w • z i ^^ > ^ s smithsonian_institution NoiiniiiSNi to NviNosHiiws'^ss I dVH a n^Li br; <n / .* -5^ \^A DO « ^\t PUBLISHED BI-MONTHLY ENTOMOLOGIST'S RECORD AND Journal of Variation Edited by P.A.
    [Show full text]
  • Quantifying Dispersal in British Noctuid Moths
    Quantifying dispersal in British noctuid moths Hayley Bridgette Clarke Jones Doctor of Philosophy University of York Biology September 2014 1 Abstract Dispersal is an important process in the ecology and evolution of organisms, affecting species’ population dynamics, gene flow, and range size. Around two thirds of common and widespread British macro-moths have declined in abundance over the last 40 years, and dispersal ability may be important in determining whether or not species persist in this changing environment. However, knowledge of dispersal ability in macro-moths is lacking because dispersal is difficult to measure directly in nocturnal flying insects. This thesis investigated the dispersal abilities of British noctuid moths to examine how dispersal ability is related to adult flight morphology and species’ population trends. Noctuid moths are an important taxon to study because of their role in many ecosystem processes (e.g. as pollinators, pests and prey), hence their focus in this study. I developed a novel tethered flight mill technique to quantify the dispersal ability of a range of British noctuid moths (size range 12 – 27 mm forewing length). I demonstrated that this technique provided measures of flight performance in the lab (measures of flight speed and distance flown overnight) that reflected species’ dispersal abilities reported in the wild. I revealed that adult forewing length was a good predictor of inter- specific differences in flight performance among 32 noctuid moth species. I also found high levels of intra-specific variation in flight performance, and both adult flight morphology and resource-related variables (amount of food consumed by individuals prior to flight, mass loss by adults during flight) contributed to this variation.
    [Show full text]
  • Integrated Management of Biodiversity in Slatioara Gravel Pit”
    FINAL REPORT OF THE PROJECT ”INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT OF BIODIVERSITY IN SLATIOARA GRAVEL PIT” ”The Quarry Life Award” Scientific and Educational Contest, 4th edition (2018) 0 1. Contestant profile Contestant name: Marcel ȚÎBÎRNAC Contestant occupation: Ecologist expert University / Organisation Independent candidate – freelancer Number of people in your team: 3 2. Project overview Title: Integrated management of biodiversity in Slatioara gravel pit Contest: (Research/Community) Research Quarry name: Slatioara Pit 3. Abstract The project „Integrated management of biodiversity in Slatioara gravel pit” is based on 3 incorporated approaches: i) inventory, mapping and detailed evaluation of habitats and species of wild flora and fauna, ii) identification of proper solutions for the ecological restoration and rehabilitation of the site (insurring the conditions for the quality improvement of biodiversity aspects) and iii) promoting suitable ethics for a proper/sustainable management of the exploitation of natural resources that would lead to a strong sustainable development at a local and regional level. In this context, the project entailed the study of biodiversity (habitats, plants, invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles, fish, birds and mammals) and the pressure/threats existing/developing on these biodiversity groups, as well as the study of degrated habitats with high ecological potential for the biodiversity elements within Slatioara gravel pit (feeding, reproduction and rest habitats for fauna species). The project also includes solutions
    [Show full text]
  • The Lepidoptera of Formby
    THE RAVEN ENTOMOLOGICAL — AND — NATURAL HISTORY SOCIETY FOUNDED 1946 THE LEPIDOPTERA OF FORMBY Price: TWO SHILLINGS & SIXPENCE THE RAVEN ENTOMOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY SOCIETY FOUNDED 1946 THE LEPIDOPTERA OF FORMBY — B Y — M. J. LEECH H. N. MICHAELIS With a short biographical note on the late G. de C. Fraser by C. de C. Whiteley For us the wide open spaces, the mountams and valleys, the old walls and the hedges and ditches, wherein lie adventure and interest for to-day, to-morrow, and a lifetime. n Printed by T. B unci-e & Co. L td., Arbroath. GKRALI) i)E C. FRASER rOHEWORl) FOREWORD BY AI,LAN BRJNDLK TT was in August, 1939, that T first liad the pleasure of meeting the Frasers. Together with a small party of entomologists from N.E. I.ancashire. invited to eollect at light near the shore at Formby, I experienced the somewhat overwhelming enthrisiasm and hospitality extended to all at “ Warren Mount” . Fed, feted, and equipped, we were taken by cars to the shore, sheets were laid down in front of the headlights, and a memorable night ensued. The night was dark and warm, the moths arrived in great numbers and, true to the Fraser tradition, work did not cease until a few minutes before the last train left Formby, when a hurried dash to the station deposited a happy party of entomologists on the first stage of the journey home. The next meeting was long delayed. The following week-end saw the black-out in force, and it was not until 1946 that T found the Frasens, still enthusiastic, establishing the Eaven Society.
    [Show full text]
  • MOTH CHECKLIST Species Listed Are Those Recorded on the Wetland to Date
    Version 4.0 Nov 2015 Map Ref: SO 95086 46541 MOTH CHECKLIST Species listed are those recorded on the Wetland to date. Vernacular Name Scientific Name New Code B&F No. MACRO MOTHS 3.005 14 Ghost Moth Hepialus humulae 3.001 15 Orange Swift Hepialus sylvina 3.002 17 Common Swift Hepialus lupulinus 50.002 161 Leopard Moth Zeuzera pyrina 54.008 169 Six-spot Burnet Zygaeba filipendulae 66.007 1637 Oak Eggar Lasiocampa quercus 66.010 1640 The Drinker Euthrix potatoria 68.001 1643 Emperor Moth Saturnia pavonia 65.002 1646 Oak Hook-tip Drepana binaria 65.005 1648 Pebble Hook-tip Drepana falcataria 65.007 1651 Chinese Character Cilix glaucata 65.009 1653 Buff Arches Habrosyne pyritoides 65.010 1654 Figure of Eighty Tethia ocularis 65.015 1660 Frosted Green Polyploca ridens 70.305 1669 Common Emerald Hermithea aestivaria 70.302 1673 Small Emerald Hemistola chrysoprasaria 70.029 1682 Blood-vein Timandra comae 70.024 1690 Small Blood-vein Scopula imitaria 70.013 1702 Small Fan-footed Wave Idaea biselata 70.011 1708 Single-dotted Wave Idaea dimidiata 70.016 1713 Riband Wave Idaea aversata 70.053 1722 Flame Carpet Xanthorhoe designata 70.051 1724 Red Twin-spot Carpet Xanthorhoe spadicearia 70.049 1728 Garden Carpet Xanthorhoe fluctuata 70.061 1738 Common Carpet Epirrhoe alternata 70.059 1742 Yellow Shell Camptogramma bilineata 70.087 1752 Purple Bar Cosmorhoe ocellata 70.093 1758 Barred Straw Eulithis (Gandaritis) pyraliata 70.097 1764 Common Marbled Carpet Chloroclysta truncata 70.085 1765 Barred Yellow Cidaria fulvata 70.100 1776 Green Carpet Colostygia pectinataria 70.126 1781 Small Waved Umber Horisme vitalbata 70.107 1795 November/Autumnal Moth agg Epirrita dilutata agg.
    [Show full text]
  • Raspberry Breeding and Protection Against Disease and Pests I
    391 Bulgarian Journal of Agricultural Science, 20 (No 2) 2014, 391-404 Agricultural Academy RASPBERRY BREEDING AND PROTECTION AGAINST DISEASE AND PESTS I. TOTIC State University of Novi Pazar, Novi Pazar, Republic of Serbia Abstract TOTIC, I., 2014. Raspberry breeding and protection against disease and pests. Bulg. J. Agric. Sci., 20: 391-404 The raspberry (Rubus idaeus) is a very important type of small perennial berry. Based on the extent of its production, it comes second only to the strawberry and currant, and based on its economic importance, it is second only to the strawberry. Considering that the first raspberry cultivars in the true sense of the word originated from the beginning of the 17th century, polmology has managed to this day to register and systematize over one thousand raspberry cultivars. The raspberry belongs to the group of products, which have the greatest degree of marketability, and in some countries (the Republic of Serbia) over 99 % of the overall production is meant to be sold on the market. In suitable agro-ecological and technical conditions (a profes- sional staff, processing and freezing capacities, organized purchase locations, high quality roads and means of transportation, a sufficient workforce needed to harvest the crop), it is possible to achieve a yield of up to 35 tons per acre. Raspberry canes meant for planting need to be formed in suitable soil and must be healthy. Raspberries are traditionally cultivated in open ar- eas, and lately also in high tunnels. The canes are susceptible to disease caused by different types of pests and weeds. In order to protect them, it is necessary to regularly resort to pomotechnic and agrotechnic measures in order to prevent cane decay and a poor harvest.
    [Show full text]
  • REPORT on APPLES – Fruit Pathway and Alert List
    EU project number 613678 Strategies to develop effective, innovative and practical approaches to protect major European fruit crops from pests and pathogens Work package 1. Pathways of introduction of fruit pests and pathogens Deliverable 1.3. PART 5 - REPORT on APPLES – Fruit pathway and Alert List Partners involved: EPPO (Grousset F, Petter F, Suffert M) and JKI (Steffen K, Wilstermann A, Schrader G). This document should be cited as ‘Wistermann A, Steffen K, Grousset F, Petter F, Schrader G, Suffert M (2016) DROPSA Deliverable 1.3 Report for Apples – Fruit pathway and Alert List’. An Excel file containing supporting information is available at https://upload.eppo.int/download/107o25ccc1b2c DROPSA is funded by the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration (grant agreement no. 613678). www.dropsaproject.eu [email protected] DROPSA DELIVERABLE REPORT on Apples – Fruit pathway and Alert List 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 3 1.1 Background on apple .................................................................................................................................... 3 1.2 Data on production and trade of apple fruit ................................................................................................... 3 1.3 Pathway ‘apple fruit’ .....................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]