Fen Orchid Liparis Loeselii Reintroduction Strategy – V 2013

Fen Orchid Liparis loeselii Reintroduction strategy – V 2013

Note: This is a highly confidential document not to be shared without prior permission from Mr Tim Pankhurst.

Background

The purpose of the current conservation programme is to generate a coherent reintroduction strategy that has a high probability of success; success is important as all introduction sites must be monitored and a considerable amount of time and resources can be wasted monitoring sites that have failed. It is recognised that introductions are most likely to work if introduced plants are mature; the time taken to generate a decent stock of mature plants allows for several years within which to devise a robust reintroduction strategy that is founded on an in-depth understanding of the needs of the plant and in which to properly assess the suitability of all potential reintroduction sites.

The conservation programme, as of 2010, is outlined below:

1. Annual surveillance of the surviving populations of Liparis loeselii.

2. Experimental research

This is comprised of two elements:

a. Seed-baiting. Aimed at germinating seeds which can be isolated: benefits are: i. The fungal symbiont can be isolated and identified ii. Liparis germinands can be cultivated and grown on iii. Slides can be set out in such a way as to determine the distribution of the fungal symbiont Identification of the fungi that can form a symbiotic bond with Liparis will potentially enable the suitability of sites for the plant to be assessed by field mycologists. Its isolation and ex-situ cultivation will enable Liparis stock to be generated in the lab; Liparis stock is required both for the generation of large numbers of mature plats for potential reintroductions buut also for ex-situ ecological studies. b. Dispersal research. One of the issues in the conservation of Liparis is the level of importance for the plant of its ability to disperse and take advantage of new opportunities. Dispersal manifestly occurs as seed, both through the air and across water, but plants may also be adapted to disperse as mature growing entities; this ability obviates the need for presence of the fungal symbiont as germination is not required. Vegetative dispersal is intimately allied with vegetative propagation and both of these aspects of Liparis ecology are to be studied through a combination of ex-situ work at CUBG and in-situ experiments as circumstances allow.

However, understanding changes as new facts come to light and the above programme has had to be modified:

1  One fungal symbiont has been identified to genus. There may be other species and genera involved.  Sites may however still be assessed for presence of fungi without symbiont id. The success rate for seed-baiting is however very low – hundreds of traps may be put out with no positive returns – so a negative result does not indicate the absence of the symbiont. The process also takes 18 months or so. Accordingly, given the information, site reintroductions should not be constrained by negative or absent returns from seed baiting.  Presence of fungal symbiont is not now considered essential but helpful for reintroduction site suitability – see below.  Vegetative reproduction is proven; this process generates small groups of clonally generated material around parent plants.  More evidence has been gathered to show the presence of vegetative dispersal, at least within management units. Reintroduction site suitability must therefore be assessed for the presence of suitable processes to facilitate this reproductive activity; if such processes are present, then site does not require presence of fungal symbiont. Presence of both is desirable

Site Assessment

The strategy therefore rests on the suitability of sites for reintroduction based upon:  the current vegetation being appropriate, and subject to appropriate hydrological influences  the presence of appropriate conservation management  either o presence of processes that may stimulate vegetative dispersal or… o the presence of fungal symbiont, but preferably both.  date of last record, the most recent records according greater priority to the site.

Sites that sit high on the table on the first three grounds and have a recent last record are considered for assessment for fungal symbiont, which is a time-consuming and lengthy process. A manageable programme of seed- baiting for site assessment will be undertaken with the programme moving down the list as sites are either confirmed to have the symbiont or fail to qualify for whatever reason.

Sites are not at the moment being considered for pure introduction. Below is a list of former sites with notes about their history, status and fate of Liparis there:

2 Former sites The information below is abstracted and updated from Land R. 1998 Ecology of Liparis loeselii: Unpublished report.

Blo' Norton Fen TM 025787 SSSI Liparis was recorded between 1911 - 1956 "in the floating bogs at Blo’ Norton". In 1956 only 1 plant was seen (NCC site History Dossier). The site had succeeded to mature alder and willow scrub but from 1998 has been undergoing restoration; it now contains c. 1 ha of mown, species-rich fen vegetation.

Bottisham Fen c. TL5561 no location Last record 1835. Site probably drained and destroyed

Burwell/Reach Fen TL5666 Last record 1842. Site drained and destroyed Calthorpe Broad, Harvey's Marsh TG 412258 SSSI Robert Gurney reports citing 2 plants in 1924, however they could not be found the following year or since.

Chippenham Fen TL 647692 SSSI/NNR Last record 1928. Whole site manged for nature conservation and yet supports large areas of species-rich fen vegetation. However, the whole site is degraded by water abstraction which is still an issue, and many species have been lost. Dilham, Broad Fen TG 343253 SSSI The southern part overlies the basin of Dilham Broad, a former peat cutting. Much of the botanical interest has been lost to scrub, with some reversal due to recent management. Until the late 1950's it supported a thriving Liparis community which is now extinct as a result of successional change to scrub and dessication. Abstraction in the surrounding 2 km area removes 33 million gallons per year. In the 1950's it was reported as "... open fen supporting a wide assemblage of flowering herbs and bryophytes... Liparis grew in abundance... a small area of rich mixed fen with an imposing species list and very interesting community structure." In 1958 burning and cutting and removal of alder carr resulted in regeneration of Schoenus-Juncus subnodulosus fen with Liparis, the clearance and regular mowing and burning of litter appears to have produced good conditions for Liparis and apparantly small pools were also created. By the 1980's it had degraded through lack of management over the past 20 years. In 1983 turf ponds were created and clearance of scrub began again. In 1991 abstraction appeared to be affecting the site. Liparis was found in the northern end of the site until the late 1950's (Parmenter1993). It was this northern area that has been particularly affected by abstraction. The turf ponds were cut on the site of an old

3 basin, but it is not thought that Liparis actually occurred in that area (Lambley pers comm). East Ruston, King's Fen TG 343283 SSSI A valley fen and former site for peat digging. The site was grazed extensively and the common used for producing hay, reed and rush. Once these practices died out scrub invaded but more serious changes have occured from abstraction with a licence to remove 226 million gallons from boreholes and wells in a 2 km radius. Ninety-eight percent comes from a borehole only 100m from the southern boundary of the fen. Burning in the 70's and 80's has also been a problem. By the mid 80's dessication was causing a problem to various plant communities and creating changes. "On the valley floor the mixed fen with abundant Peucedanum has given way to reed, nettle, bramble, Calamagrostis... and Epilobium...the peat surface is very dry and puffy to walk on and is clearly oxidising". In the late ‘90’s the site underwent restorative management which involved the removal of large quantities of oxidised peat and the creation of small shallow lakes which are colonising with fen vegetation.

Liparis loeselii occured on the site in the more alkali areas near Hundred stream (Parmenter 1993).

East Ruston Mown Fen TG 341275 SSSI A valley fen and part of East Ruston Common, the fen itself overlays large 19th century peat cuttings along the stream. Cutting ceased in the 1920's and these became terrestrialised, providing hay, reed sedge, rush and some grazing. Discontinuation of these practices has allowed successional processes to proceed but the site has been seriously affected by water abstraction with 226 million gallons removed within a 2 km radius of the site and most abstracted within 50 metres of the northern boundary. In the late ‘90’s the site underwent restorative management which involved the removal of large quantities of oxidised peat and the creation of small shallow lakes which are colonising with fen vegetation. Records for the site are extensive because of its botanical interest. Liparis recored on the site and thought to occur in the more alkali areas near Hundred stream. Dates are: 1918. (Parmenter 1993.)

Fordham Fen TL66/67 location unknown. Last known 1896. Site probably drained and destroyed.

Fulbourn Moor TL 529560 SSSI Last record 1820. This site still supports species-rich vegetation but has declined due to drainage over many decades. The fen vegetation here has changed to one of wet grassland and many species have been lost. It has however still managed as a nature reserve by the Cambridgeshire Wildlife Trust

4 Hinton Moor TL45 No location Last known 1806. Site drained and destroyed

Honing Common TG 340270 A site which appears to have been rough grazing marsh/fen and transition to heath. A former Liparis site it has undergone deterioration through a combined lack of grazing and dessication. It has mostly succeeded to woodland with small remnant fen areas. Liparis was recorded in1900, 1918, 1919 and in the 60's.

Hoveton, Crabetts Marsh. TG 335176 Liparis was recorded first in 1885, then c1943 - 1949. By 1958 none could be found. Numbers recorded were between 20-30 plants in 1949. The site deteriorated as a result of dessication and sucession. "The area is now very dry and becoming overgrown with Urtica dioica and Rubus spp among the Cladium, Phragmites , and much has progressed to the early carr stage." (Rose 1974).

Hoveton Little Broad and the Lowes TG 327174 Much of the site overlies former peat cuttings. The area was managed for traditional marsh crops such as reed, litter and sedge until the 20th century. Some species indicate that this site may be a raised bog or result from an acid seepage. The site has deteriorated due to dessication, scrub encroachment and eutrophication and has largely succeeded to mature carr. Liparis was found on the site in 1948; 1949 and 1965 (Rose, Parmenter 1994).

Lopham Fens (and Redgrave Fen ) TM 050797 SSSI/ NNR The area comprises a spring-fed fen (headwaters of the Waveney), with Redgrave to the South, and Lopham Fens to the North (Little, Middle and Great Fens). This area has supported a diverse range of communities; wet heath, seepage fens and taller fen vegetation. Water has been abstracted from 5 licensed boreholes within a 2km radius. The site has been degraded, and is vulnerable to water loss and reduced water levels. However, efforts to reduce the damage by abstraction culminated in the borehole immediately adjacent to the reserve being moved in 1999. Subsequent restoration works have included reinstating parts of the old course of the Waveney, stripping oxidised peat in some areas, introducing permanent grazing, and removing scrub. There has been a startlingly good recovery of some of the fen vegetation and many species have been recorded which were not previously known from the site. First recording of Liparis was made in 1857 at Lopham Fen and Redgrave in 1860, and they were noted in the floating bog at S Lopham. In 1957, Rose (pers comm) noted 4 spikes of Liparis in moss on open peat cuttings at Lopham. Between 1963 - 64 no Liparis could be found and not since 1969

5 (Rose pers comm). Site apparently suitable in 1984 but none seen; however in that year the degrading effects of the borehole abstraction were already clearly evident. Neither of these sites now supports floating bog. However, as part of restoration, both sites now contain large areas of shallow open water which is beginning to be colonised by bog species. In a some years, it may be that floating bog vegetation redevelops on these water bodies, which would represent an opportunity of high potential for the reintroduction of Liparis.

Ranworth Broad Marshes TG 354158 SSSI/NNR Area comprising species rich sedge beds, carr woodland and fen meadow. Peat diggings comprise two main phases; the 13th and 14th centuries and later in the 19th century. It was later managed for reed, sedge and litter. The site deteriorated due to changes in management, increases in scrub and eutrophication. Liparis was present on two locations at Ranworth; on the west side of Ranworth dam, and to the North west end of the broad near decoy pipes. Records include: 1882, 1884, 1885, 1900, 1901, 1902, 1945. (Parmenter 1994).

Ranworth Broad Marshes, Woodbastwick, no GR. See Ranworth Broad NNR above. Liparis was recorded on the marshes in 1882. A record from 1884 stated "...in great quantities and bearing seed vessels in some cases of two years before, going with Carex stricta and C. paradoxa. The specimens I gathered at Ranworth are the largest I have seen of the species; two or three of them measure nine and a half inches in height..." 1945 "Ranworth marshes, as recently as 1945 a marvellous sedge fen with Carex appropinquata, C lasiocarpa, Pyrola rotundifolia and Liparis loeselii". By 1969 the Liparis site "now acres of Phragmites" occasionally grazed by cows.

Ranworth Floods and Leists Marsh TG370148 SSSI/NNR An area of former flooded grazing marsh, originally supporting a rich fen community. Much of the site was drained by the end of the 19th century but was later flooded in the 1920's and managed as commercial reed beds. Records exist for Liparis in 1969 (Parmenter 1994). Ranworth Floods is a reed bed used for commercial reed cutting, and Leists marsh is a herb rich grazing marsh (Doarks pers comm).

Redgrave Fen TM043 790 SSSI/ NNR See Lopham Fens above

Sawston Moor TL492487 (probably) SSSI Last record 1820. This site still supports species-rich fen and wet grassland vegetation but has declined due to drainage over many decades. The fen

6 vegetation here is changing to one of wet grassland and many species have been lost. Shallam Dyke TG 411164 SSSI There is little information on the site and what there is tends to be sporadic. It appears to have supported quite a diverse communtiy, but has declined probably as a result of cessation of traditional management practices, together with drainage of the surrounding land in 1948 leading to desiccation and encouragement of scrub. The water has become more eutrophic. Liparis as recorded on site in 1884, 1889, 1900, 1902, 1947, 1948 (Parmenter 1994.)

Smallburgh Fen TG 327246 SSSI Small area of spring fed calcareous valley fen and carr woodland bordering a tributary of the River Ant. This site was grazed or mown until the mid 1940's. The central area was kept open for shooting (mowing preventing the formation of tussocks) and a species rich bryophyte lawn has been maintained. In 1990 water levels were particularly low "the water level in open fen around 9cms below the surface, 20cm below in parts of the alder carr" (Parmenter 1991). The core area of this site is now mown annually by NWT. Liparis loeselii was recorded in 1947/8, 1950 but is not found there now (Parmenter 1993). There is some doubt as to the authenticity of early reports (Lambley pers comm.)

Teversham Moor c. TL5058 Last known 1820. Site probably drained and destroyed

Thelnetham Middle TM 015787 and Old Fens TM 019787 SSSI Old Fen had an area of floating Schwingmoor until 1970, around the wet edges Drosera rotundiolia, Pinguicula and Liparis were present. Water levels collapsed following a catastrophic failure of the river bank, although they subsequently recovered. The site became extensively scrubbed over but has now been restored and supports a large area of species-rich fen vegetation, some of which is floating. Middle fen was the better site from 1938-50. It was the least altered Waveney-Ouse fen and Rose (pers. comm.) was not clear why Liparis did not occur. The surrounding scrub woodland has been knocked back and there is considerably more fen vegetation at Middle Fen than in the 80’s. Both sites are mown on annual and biennial rotations and are of very high quality. Thelnetham Middle Fen, was assessed for the presence of fungal symbiont in the 18 months up to autumn 2012 but none were found. By comparison, similar and less extensive sampling at the extant site at Upton in Norfolk did produce positive results.

7 Wicken Fen TL 553704 SSSI NNR Last record 1947. The site is managed as a nature reserve and supports extensive areas for species-rich fen vegetation. Recent works to raise water levels may have caused the decline of some species but the site remains of top quality. The species probably disappeared there as a consequence of succession; much of the site has now been restored and more is being done. The site is also the hub of a much larger area of fenland restoration from agriculture.

Other former sites with limited information:

East Walton Common TF 734165 SSSI Foulden (probably Foulden Common SSSI c. TF 760001) Lakenheath (probably c. TL 7082) Newton St Faith’s (probably c. TG 2316) Old Buckenham Fen (TM 049920 SSSI) Stow Bedon (probably c. TL9496) Tuddenham (probably Tuddenham Fen TL 747733. Site destroyed)

8 Site Assessment

The strategy rests on the suitability of sites for reintroduction based upon:  the current vegetation being appropriate,  the presence of appropriate conservation management  either o presence of processes that may stimulate vegetative dispersal or… o the presence fungal symbiont, but preferably both.  date of last record, the most recent records according greater priority to the site.  Proximity to other potentially suitable sites

The table below provides a priority list based on this assessment. This is a guide only; there may be other reasons why sites are unsuitable or unsuitable, but it does provide a starting point for considering sites.

Scoring criteria are listed below:

Score Current vegetation Score Management 1 Top quality fen vegetation 1 Managed well for fen vegetation 2 Good recovering fen vegetation 2 Managed but not for fen vegetation 3 Degraded fen - succeeded 3 Unknown 4 Degraded fen - damaged 4 Not managed 5 Degraded - no longer fen vegetation 6 Destroyed

Score Dispersal processes Score Proximity 1 Present 1 Close to suitable sites 2 Unknown 2 Moderate distance to suitable sites 3 Not present 3 Isolated from suitable sites

Date scores are assigned simply by ranking most recent as 1, next recent as 2 etc.

There is also a column showing whether the site has been assessed for the presence of symbiont, and one for whether that sampling has been successful or not.

9 Fen Orchid Reintroduction Priorities

symbiont? Fungal for ssessed Rank Rank Score date score Vegetation score Management Dispersal processes sites ot other Proximity A Symbiont found? found? Symbiont 1 Thelnetham Old Fen 5 1975 1 1 1 1 1 Y N 2 Lopham Fens, S Lopham 8 1965 3 2 1 1 1 N 2 Redgrave fen 8 1965 3 2 1 1 1 N 4 East Walton Common 9 1965 3 1 1 1 3 N 5 Ranworth Floods and Leists Marshes 10 1969 2 4 2 1 1 N 6 Blo' Norton Fen 12 1956 8 1 1 1 1 N 7 Hoveton Little Broad and the Lowes 13 1965 3 4 3 2 1 N 8 Smallburgh fen 17 1950 9 4 1 2 1 N 9 Honing Common 18 1960 7 4 4 2 1 N 9 Ranworth Broad marshes 18 1945 14 1 1 1 1 N 9 Woodbastwick Marshes 18 1945 14 1 1 1 1 N 12 Dilham, Broad Fen 19 1950 9 4 3 2 1 N 12 Wicken Fen 19 1947 13 1 1 1 3 N 14 Shallam Dyke 20 1948 12 4 2 1 1 N 15 Hoveton, Crabett's Marsh 22 1949 11 4 4 2 1 N 16 Chippenham Fen 25 1928 16 4 1 1 3 N 17 East Ruston, Mown Fen 26 1918 18 3 2 2 1 N 18 Calthorpe, Harvey's Marsh 27 1924 17 3 4 2 1 N 19 Thelnetham Middle Fen 31 27 1 1 1 1 N 20 Fulbourn Moor 32 1820 23 5 1 1 2 N 21 Sawston Moor 33 1820 23 5 2 1 2 N 22 Fordham Fen 34 1896 19 6 4 3 2 N 23 East Ruston, King's Fen 35 27 3 2 2 1 N 23 Foulden 35 27 3 1 1 3 N 25 Burwell/Reach fen 36 1842 21 6 4 3 2 N 26 Old Buckenham Fen 36 27 3 2 1 3 N 27 Bottisham Fen 37 1835 22 6 4 3 2 N 28 Teversham Moor 38 1820 23 6 4 3 2 N 29 Stow Bedon 40 27 3 4 3 3 N 30 Hinton Moor 41 1806 26 6 4 3 2 N 31 Lakenheath 43 27 6 4 3 3 N 31 Newton St Faith's 43 27 6 4 3 3 N 31 Tuddenham 43 27 6 4 3 3 N

10 Current Action

Seed baiting experiments, to either assess for reintroduction potential or to test the technique as a means of assessment, at Thelnetham, Catfield and Upton were collected in autumn 2012. A summary of result is presented below:

Seed baiting returns 2009-10 2011-12 No. samples +ves No. samples +ves Catfield A 9 0 Catfield B 20 1 Upton* 9 2 6 2 Thelnetham 10 0 * all returns from same spot

Seed-baiting is a technique used by other workers elsewhere and positive returns are generally very low in proportion (fractions of a per cent). We have however had positive results at two sites, on the first attempt at Catfield B and twice at the same spot at Upton. These returns suggest that the method is reliable and that negative results truly indicate a low incidence of the fungus. This in turn suggests that the orchid can exist in the absence of the fungus which may in any case have an occasional or episodic incidence linked to stochastic events, such as flooding or drought. These observations indicate that vegetative reproduction may be disproportionately important as a means of sustaining within-site population levels.

In 2013, areas of Catfiel B that have been newly exposed to mowing management will be searched for Liparis; if Liparis is found we will be able to say with confidence that plants survive for some years as protocorms in seemingly unsuitable vegetation. This is an important issue since it affects the way we consider derelict fen vegetation, i.e. either as not containing Liparis, or as containing a non-visible proportion of the population, much like a seedbank.

Kew have so far failed to raise ex-situ stock from the germinands returned from seed-baiting experiments. Emphasis will change to a more direct means of propagating stock to generate reintroduction material.

Despite the failure to find sign of the symbiotic fungus at Thelnetham, it is still at the top of the list for reintroduction. Further refinements may be made to the reintroduction plan, in concert with partners, while reintroduction stock is generated but it is highly likely that Thelnetham Old Fen will be the first site, not least because the fen supports floating bog vegetation.

T. Pankhurst March 2013

11 Update 2016:

Conservation of Fen Orchid Liparis loeselii var. loeselii in East Anglia

Status and distribution

Liparis loeselii has a circum-boreal distribution. Its distribution includes South Fenno Scandia, southwards to SW France, S. Romania and South Russia and North America. It is in decline throughout its European range. Liparis loeselii now occurs in Britain only in East Anglia and South Wales. There are two eco-types: Liparis loeselii var. ovata occurring in sand-dune slacks in South Wales and was also formerly known from Braunton Burrows in Devon; Liparis loeselii var. loeselii is only now known from East Anglia, has a different ecology and occurs in fens. The account below relates only to the fen variety.

Liparis is now confined to only three sites in England (at Catfield, Sutton and Upton in Norfolk) and a number of factors have contributed to its severe decline in both the number of sites and total population. These include: changes in landuse; abandonment of traditional management, an increase in drainage and water abstraction, and decrease in water quality.

Former sites in East Anglia include: Blo Norton Fen; Calthorpe Broad, Broad Fen (Dilham); Crabetts Marsh (Hoveton); East Ruston and Honing; Little Fen, Lopham and Redgrave Fens; Old Buckenham Fen; Ranworth Marshes; Sutton Broad Big Bog; Sutton Broad Old Decoy; Sutton Broad Berry Hall; Dubeck and Shallam Dyke; East Walton Common; Foulden Common; Stow Bedon; Newton St Faiths; Roydon Fen (Diss); Old Fen (Thelnetham); West Fen (Thelnetham); Hinderclay Fen; Little Broad (Hoveton); Tuddenham (Suffolk).

According to the UK Biodiversity Steering Group, the plant was considered in 1995 to have declined in Great Britain by between 50-100% in numbers/range in the previous 25 years. It is was included as Endangered in the first Red List of Vascular Plants of the UK in 1977 and has remained so in the two subsequent reviews (1995 and 2005).

It was this decline that prompted in 1994 listing of the species as eligible for funding under English Nature’s (now Natural England) Species Recovery Programme.

Liparis loeselii is also listed in the  Bern Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Appendix 1)  Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) (Appendix II)  The UK Wildlife and Countryside Act (schedule 8) making it illegal to uproot, pick or sell.  The Conservation (Natural Habitats, etc) Regulations (annexes IIb/IVb)

Conservation

12 Early work

Liparis loeselii was included within the Species Recovery Programme in 1994. Under the UK Biodiversity Action Plan, Norfolk Wildlife Trust (NWT) took on the role of Lead Partner for Liparis and initiated a programme of research to form the basis for conservation plan. This research generated a number of reports, including an autecological account, which was updated regularly as new data became available and, in 2000, a reintroduction strategy which assessed all former sites and proposed a programme of experimental reintroductions, using plants raised from seed at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. Unfortunately this culminated in a failed reintroduction attempt to Thelnetham Old Fen. The reasons for failure were unclear at the time but it called for a re-evaluation of the premises underlying the reintroduction strategy.

Plantlife involvement

The wild plant conservation charity Plantlife was, in 2007, invited by NWT to take over the lead role in Liparis conservation. A review of past work was undertaken and, in 2008, a new conservation strategy drafted, comprised of seven strands of research and other work aimed at rebuilding the population and distribution of the orchid over a period of seven or so years. (see ‘Conservation strategy timeline 2008 England’ – attached).

In partnership with Cambridge University Botanic Gardens, Kew Gardens, RSPB, Butterfly Conservation, Norfolk Wildlife Trust and Natural England, Plantlife have subsequently carried forward these work strands, reviewing progress each year and adjusting the strategy accordingly. The strategy seeks ultimately to restore the distribution and populations of the plant such that it can be taken off the Red List for England. To do this, it is necessary to address not only the number of sites at which Liparis occurs but also the populations at those sites - in the decades running up to 2008, numbers have been consistently low at all three sites – and the quality and status of the habitats which they occupy, in all cases fen vegetation of the highest quality and of such fragility that it merits protection itself under UK and European law.

Research under the strategy therefore addresses these issues:

 Trends in population o Populations at each site are assessed each year if possible to detect change over time– this is resource hungry work as the plants are small, inconspicuous and occur over large areas in dense vegetation in areas which can be both isolated and treacherous.  Reproductive activity o Both sexual and vegetative reproduction occur but their effectiveness at a) maintaining and enhancing populations, and b) colonising new/former sites are affected by a large suite of poorly understood environmental factors. Considerable effort has been made to elucidate this area of Liparis ecology because it is fundamental to:

13 o Devising improvements to management so that existing populations may grow and thrive, and… o Assessing reproductive potential at candidate reintroduction sites – reintroductions will not be successful if plants cannot effectively reproduce.  The effects of different management regimes – a long term experiment is underway at Sutton to examine how different regimes affect the orchid and regular observations are made at the other sites.  The ecology of the fungal symbiont that the orchid requires for germination  The ecology of the brown mosses upon which the orchid grows as an epiphyte.  Vegetation studies, to: o Better understand the ecological process at work within the mires occupied by Liparis to explain the subtle variations evident in top quality vegetation such as this o Understand why the orchid is confined to certain types of vegetation and identify the critical features o Aid the formulation of management that sustains the vegetation as well as helping the orchid to thrive. o Track the expansion of Sphagnum within which Liparis will not grow.  Experimental reintroductions – after eight years of concentrated and integrated research, we believe we can now make successful reintroductions. This is an important milestone because making unsuccessful reintroductions takes up time and resources and does not result in forward progress. o A translocation trial is currently underway and, assuming it is successful, we intend to make an experimental reintroduction next year. This experiment will require monitoring for at least a three years before it might tentatively judge it a success or otherwise. If successful, we will be in a position to roll out a programme of reintroductions. o Assessment of candidate reintroduction sites involves more detailed work than previously undertaken to ensure that appropriate management protocols are place, that the receptor vegetation is of appropriate quality and structure and that the necessary ecological processes are in force to allow effective reproduction of the orchid. Those candidate sites at the top of the priority list have benefited from restorative management applied by conservation bodies over some decades and costing hundreds of thousands of pounds.

Much of this work takes a long time to bear fruit and the strategy is updated each year as new information comes to light (see Conservation strategy timeline v 2016 England – attached). This has seen planned reintroductions put back a few years until we could be more sure of success.

14 The seed-baiting experiments used to illuminate the sexual reproductive ecology of the plant take at least 18 months to generate data. Changes to management may not generate positive outcomes for several years. Despite this, there have been successes. The application of mowing management at Sutton has seen a significant increase in numbers since 2008; this will hopefully continue as there is more apparently suitable habitat which is unoccupied by the orchid at present.

The survival, and preferably expansion, of existing populations is of paramount importance because of the uncertainties attached to any reintroduction programme. Even if, in due time, planned reintroductions are deemed successful, maintaining thriving populations at existing sites will remain an important priority, not least because they include the largest and most intact remnants of suitable high quality fen in the country, but also because the purpose of the strategy is to restore former status not mitigate for further losses.

T J Pankhurst Conservation Manager, East of England Plantlife

Nominated lead – Species Recovery Programme, Fen Orchid Recovery