DOCSLIB.ORG

Working Today for Nature Tomorrow

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Working Today for Nature Tomorrow A review of the ecology, hydrology and nutrient dynamics of floodplain meadows in England No. 446 - English Nature Research Reports working today for nature tomorrow English Nature Research Reports Number 446 A review of the ecology, hydrology and nutrient dynamics of floodplain meadows in England David J.G. Gowing1, Jerry R.B. Tallowin2, Nancy B. Dise1, Joanne Goodyear2, Mike E. Dodd1 and Rebecca J Lodge1. 1Open University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes MK7 6AA 2Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research, North Wyke, Okehampton, Devon EX20 2SB You may reproduce as many additional copies of this report as you like, provided such copies stipulate that copyright remains with English Nature, Northminster House, Peterborough PE1 1UA ISSN 0967-876X © Copyright English Nature 2002 Contents Executive summary 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................. 13 1.1 Scope of the review..................................................................................................... 13 1.2 Review methodology................................................................................................... 13 1.3 Current distribution of Floodplain meadows in England............................................ 14 1.4 Perceived threats to the habitat.................................................................................... 15 2. Hydrology of floodplain meadows.............................................................................. 20 2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 20 2.2 Water balance on floodplains...................................................................................... 20 2.3 Soil aeration................................................................................................................. 22 2.4 Soil moisture ............................................................................................................... 24 2.5 Soil temperature.......................................................................................................... 25 2.6 Hydrological management .......................................................................................... 26 2.6.1 Channel management ...................................................................................... 26 2.6.2 Flood defence .................................................................................................. 27 2.6.3 Surface drainage.............................................................................................. 27 2.6.4 Sub-surface drainage....................................................................................... 28 2.6.5 Mineral extraction ........................................................................................... 29 2.6.6 River restoration.............................................................................................. 29 3. Nutrient dynamics ....................................................................................................... 30 3.1 Ecosystem productivity............................................................................................... 30 3.2 Limiting nutrients........................................................................................................ 31 3.3 Mitigation of high nutrient availability....................................................................... 33 3.4 Nitrogen budget........................................................................................................... 35 3.4.1 Sources of nitrogen.......................................................................................... 35 3.4.2 Sinks for nitrogen............................................................................................ 36 3.4.3 Critical loads................................................................................................... 37 3.5 Phosphorus budget ...................................................................................................... 38 3.6 Sulphur budget ............................................................................................................ 40 3.7 Source of floodwater ................................................................................................... 41 3.8 Hay mineral content .................................................................................................... 42 3.9 Trends in nutrient deposition ...................................................................................... 42 3.10 Impact of nutrient supply on vegetation production ................................................... 43 4. Agronomy and vegetation management...................................................................... 46 4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 46 4.2 Traditional management.............................................................................................. 46 4.3 Agronomic data........................................................................................................... 47 4.3.1 Dry matter yield .............................................................................................. 47 4.3.2 Hay mineral content and effects on animal nutrition ...................................... 51 4.3.3 Grazing animal output..................................................................................... 52 4.3.4 Grazing versus cutting..................................................................................... 53 4.4 Summary ..................................................................................................................... 54 5. Vegetation response to hydrology and nutrient availability........................................ 55 5.1 Community composition............................................................................................. 55 5.2 Effect of hydrology on community composition ........................................................ 56 5.3 Effect of nutrient availability on community composition patterns............................ 58 5.4 Rates of community change ........................................................................................ 59 5.5 Restoration of the MG4 community............................................................................ 60 6. Deficiencies in our understanding of floodplain meadow ecology............................. 62 6.1 Botanical data on vegetation change........................................................................... 62 6.2 Nutrient budgets.......................................................................................................... 62 6.3 Community reassembly............................................................................................... 62 6.4 Drivers of community change..................................................................................... 62 6.5 Impacts of eutrophication and climate change............................................................ 63 6.6 Economic analysis of floodplain management............................................................ 63 6.7 The role of flood water in maintaining surface pH ..................................................... 63 6.8 Physiological ecology ................................................................................................. 63 7. Conclusions ................................................................................................................. 64 7.1 Hydrology.................................................................................................................... 64 7.2 Nutrition ...................................................................................................................... 64 7.3 Vegetation management.............................................................................................. 64 7.4 Conservation management .......................................................................................... 65 8. Recommendations for further research ....................................................................... 66 9. Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................... 68 10. Bibliography................................................................................................................ 69 Appendices 82 Appendix 1 List of MG4 sites in England .......................................................................... 82 Appendix 2 Hay yields from North and East Yorkshire flood meadow SSSIs .................. 85 Appendix 3 Site questionnaire for English Nature Local Teams........................................ 87 Figures Figure 1-1 The distribution of sites containing the MG4 flood-plain meadow in England ....15 Figure 1-2 Threats to the integrity of MG4 grassland sites, as perceived by local conservation officers..............................................................................................................................16 Figure 1-3 The proportion of sites which have undergone an alteration to their hydrological system in the past 30 years...............................................................................................17 Figure 1-4 The percentage of sites known to have received fertilizer applications during the past 30 years.....................................................................................................................17
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Local Transport Plan 4 (2015-2030)
    Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening Report Local Transport Plan 4 (2015-2030) Prepared for Oxfordshire County Council June 2015 Burderop Park Swindon, SN4 0QD GB +44 1793 812 479 +44 1793 812 089 Contents Section Page 1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Background ...................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Study Area ........................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.3 The HRA Process .............................................................................................................. 1-2 1.3.1 Overview ............................................................................................................. 1-2 1.3.2 HRA Stages .......................................................................................................... 1-2 1.4 Consultation with Natural England .................................................................................. 1-3 1.4.1 HRA of Oxfordshire’s Earlier LTP3 ....................................................................... 1-3 1.4.2 SEA Scoping of LTP4 ............................................................................................ 1-3 1.4.3 HRA of Oxfordshire’s draft LTP4 ......................................................................... 1-4 2 Oxfordshire’s Local Transport Plan LTP4 .............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Reptiles in Sub-Boreal Forests of Eastern Europe
    ©Österreichische Gesellschaft für Herpetologie e.V., Wien, Austria, download unter www.biologiezentrum.at HERPETOZOA 17(1/2): 65-74 65 Wien, 30. Juni 2004 Reptiles in sub-boreal forests of Eastern Europe: patterns of forest type preferences and habitat use in Anguisfragilis, Zootoca vivipara and Natrix matrix (Squamata: Sauria: Anguidae, Lacertidae; Serpentes: Colubridae) Kriechtiere im subborealen Wald Osteuropas: Präferierte Waldtypen und Habitatnutzung bei Anguisfragilis, Zootoca vivipara und Natrix natrix (Squamata: Sauria: Anguidae, Lacertidae; Serpentes: Colubridae) ANDRIS CEIRÄNS KURZFASSUNG In zwei Nationalparks in Lettland (im Nationalpark von Kernen 1994-1997 und im Nationalpark von Gauja 1998-2000) wurden Daten über Waldlebensräume von Reptilien gesammelt. Die Klassifikation der Waldlebensräume erfolgte auf Grundlage der Typologie lettischer Wälder, die auf Standorteigenschaften basiert. Berechnet wurden für jeden Waldtyp die Abweichungen von den erwarteten Werten der Reptiliennachweise sowie die Nischenbreite und -Überlappung der Reptilienlebensräume. Drei Kriechtierarten - Anguis fragilis LINNAEUS, 1758, Zootoca vivipara (JACQUIN, 1787) und Natrix natrix (LINNAEUS, 1758) - kamen in den Waldlebensräume regelmäßig vor. Anguis fragilis wurde ausschließlich in trockenen und entwässerten Wäldern beobachtet, Z. vivi- para und N. natrix besiedelten die unterschiedlichsten Waldtypen. Für die genannten Arten werden die Präferenzen gegenüber bestimmten Waldtypen und das Ausmaß der Überlappung ihrer Lebensräume diskutiert. ABSTRACT Material on the forest habitats of reptiles was collected in two National Parks of Latvia: Kemeri National Park (1994-1997), and Gauja National Park (1998-2000). Habitats were classified according to the Latvian forest typology that focuses on site quality of the stand. Deviations from the expected proportions of reptile records for each forest type, niche breadth and overlap of the reptile habitats were determined.
    [Show full text]
  • Restoration of Species-Rich Nardus Grasslands Via Phosphorus-Mining
    Restoration of species-rich Nardus grasslands via phosphorus-mining Stephanie Schelfhout ir. Stephanie SCHELFHOUT Restoration of species-rich Nardus grasslands via phosphorus-mining Thesis submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor (PhD) in Applied Biological Sciences: Forest and Nature Management February 2019 Dutch translation of the title: Herstel van soortenrijke heischrale graslanden via uitmijnen Illustration on the cover: Succisa pratensis – Blauwe knoop (front); Mowing management in a post-fertilization field in Vrieselhof, Ranst, Belgium (back) Citation of this thesis: Schelfhout S (2019) Restoration of species-rich Nardus grasslands via phosphorus-mining. Doctoral dissertation. Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium. ISBN-number: 978-946357174-6 Promotors: Prof. Dr. ir. Jan MERTENS ForNaLab, Dpt. of Environment, Fac. Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University Dr. ir. An DE SCHRIJVER, ForNaLab, Dpt. of Environment, Fac. Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University Fac. Science and Technology, University College Ghent Prof. Dr. ir. Kris VERHEYEN ForNaLab, Dpt. of Environment, Fac. Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University Prof. Dr. ir. Geert HAESAERT Dpt. of Plants and Crops, Fac. Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University Board of Prof. Dr. ir. Jo DEWULF (Chairman) examiners: EnVOC - STEN, Dpt. of Green Chemistry and Technology, Fac. Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University Prof. Dr. ir. Lander BAETEN ForNaLab, Dpt. of Environment, Fac. Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University Dr. ir. Frank NEVENS Dpt. of Plants and Crops, Fac. Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University Dr. Tobias CEULEMANS Unit Ecology, Evolution and Biodiversity conservation, Dpt. of Biology, University of Leuven Prof. Dr. Rob MARRS Dpt. of Earth, Ocean and Ecological Sciences, School of Environmental Sciences, University of Liverpool Dean: Prof. Dr. ir. Marc VAN MEIRVENNE Fac.
    [Show full text]
  • Environment Agency Midlands Region Wetland Sites Of
    LA - M icllanAs <? X En v ir o n m e n t A g e n c y ENVIRONMENT AGENCY MIDLANDS REGION WETLAND SITES OF SPECIAL SCIENTIFIC INTEREST REGIONAL MONITORING STRATEGY John Davys Groundwater Resources Olton Court July 1999 E n v i r o n m e n t A g e n c y NATIONAL LIBRARY & INFORMATION SERVICE ANGLIAN REGION Kingfisher House. Goldhay Way. Orton Goldhay, Peterborough PE2 5ZR 1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................... 3 1.) The Agency's Role in Wetland Conservation and Management....................................................3 1.2 Wetland SSSIs in the Midlands Region............................................................................................ 4 1.3 The Threat to Wetlands....................................................................................................................... 4 1.4 Monitoring & Management of Wetlands...........................................................................................4 1.5 Scope of the Report..............................................................................................................................4 1.6 Structure of the Report.......................................................................................................................5 2 SELECTION OF SITES....................................................................................................................... 7 2.1 Definition of a Wetland Site................................................................................................................7
    [Show full text]
  • Coarse Fishing Close Season on English Rivers
    Coarse fishing close season on English rivers Appendix 1 – Current coarse fish close season arrangements The close season on different waters In England, there is a coarse fish close season on all rivers, some canals and some stillwaters. This has not always been the case. In the 1990s, only around 60% of the canal network had a close season and in some regions, the close season had been dispensed with on all stillwaters. Stillwaters In 1995, following consultation, government confirmed a national byelaw which retained the coarse fish close season on rivers, streams, drains and canals, but dispensed with it on most stillwaters. The rationale was twofold: • Most stillwaters are discrete waterbodies in single ownership. Fishery owners can apply bespoke angling restrictions to protect their stocks, including non-statutory close times. • The close season had been dispensed with on many stillwaters prior to 1995 without apparent detriment to those fisheries. This presented strong evidence in favour of removing it. The close season is retained on some Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) and the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads, as a precaution against possible damage to sensitive wildlife - see Appendix 1. This consultation is not seeking views on whether the close season should be retained on these stillwaters While most stillwater fishery managers have not re-imposed their own close season rules, some have, either adopting the same dates as apply to rivers or tailoring them to their waters' specific needs. Canals The Environment Agency commissioned a research project in 1997 to examine the evidence around the close season on canals to identify whether or not angling during the close season was detrimental to canal fisheries.
    [Show full text]
  • Aquatic Ecosystem Delineation for WATER PIPELINE from THE
    Aquatic ecosystem delineation for WATER PIPELINE FROM THE MAGALIES PIPELINE TO MAROELOESFONTEIN MINE March 2018 Compiled by: Mr Bertus Fourie (M.Sc. Aquatic Health, Pr.Sci.Nat) Aquatic ecosystem Report: Maroeloes water pipeline March 2018 1 of 58 pages DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE I, Bertus Fourie, declare that - I am subcontracted as specialist consultant by Galago Environmental cc. for the aquatic ecosystem delineation. I will perform the work relating to the application in an objective manner, even if this results in views and findings that are not favourable to the applicant; I declare that there are no circumstances that may compromise my objectivity in performing such work; I have expertise in conducting the specialist report relevant to this application, including knowledge of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998), regulations and any guidelines that have relevance to the proposed activity; I will comply with the Act, regulations and all other applicable legislation; I will take into account, to the extent possible, the matters listed in Regulation 8; I have no, and will not engage in, conflicting interests in the undertaking of the activity; I undertake to disclose to the applicant and the competent authority all material information in my possession that reasonably has or may have the potential of influencing - any decision to be taken with respect to the application by the competent authority; and - the objectivity of any report, plan or document to be prepared by myself for submission to the competent authority; All the particulars furnished by me in this form are true and correct; and I realise that a false declaration is an offence in terms of Regulation 71 and is punishable in terms of section 24F of the Act.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessment Appendices Biodiversity Character
    BIODIVERSITY CHARACTER ASSESSMENT APPENDICES CONTENTS APPENDIX 1 Datasets used in the Northamptonshire Biodiversity Character Assessment ................................................................. 03 APPENDIX 2 Natural Areas in Northamptonshire .............................................................................................................................................. 04 Natural Area 44. Midlands Clay Pastures ....................................................................................................................................... 04 Natural Area 45. Rockingham Forest .............................................................................................................................................. 09 Natural Area 52. West Anglian Plain ................................................................................................................................................ 14 Natural Area 54. Yardley-Whittlewood Ridge .............................................................................................................................. 20 Natural Area 55. Cotswolds ................................................................................................................................................................ 25 APPENDIX 3 Site of Special Scientifi c Interest Summaries .............................................................................................................................. 26 APPENDIX 4 Wildlife Site Summaries ....................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • East Cambridgeshire District County Wildlife Sites Supplementary
    East Cambridgeshire District County Wildlife Sites Supplementary Planning Document June 2010 © THE WILDLIFE TRUST FOR BEDFORDSHIRE, CAMBRIDGESHIRE, NORTHAMPTONSHIRE & PETERBOROUGH LTD and EAST CAMBRIDGESHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL All rights reserved. No part of the text of this publication may be reproduced, stored in any type of retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means (electronic, photocopying, mechanical, recording or otherwise) without the permission of the copyright owners All mapping is based upon Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Cambridgeshire County Council 100023205 (2005). EAST CAMBRIDGESHIRE DISTRICT COUNTY WILDLIFE STIES REGISTER CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION 1 2 METHODOLOGY 2 2.1 Field Survey 2 2.2 Assessment of Sites 3 2.3 Output Format 3 3 RESULTS 4 3.1 Statistics 4 COUNTY WILDLIFE SITES REGISTER ANNEXE Criteria for the Selection of County Wildlife Sites Version 5 (2009). CONTENTS PAGE EAST CAMBRIDGESHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL COUNTY WILDLIFE SITES SPD 1 Introduction 1.1 The East Cambridgeshire District Council (ECDC) County Wildlife Sites Supplementary Planning Document has been produced to update the East Cambridgeshire District County Wildlife Sites Register 2005 so that it can be adopted as a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) to the East Cambridgeshire Local Development Framework (LDF). 1.2 On the 20th October 2009 East Cambridgeshire District Council adopted its Core Strategy Development Plan Document as part of its LDF. The adoption of the Core Strategy means that most of the policies in the East Cambridgeshire District Local Plan 2000 have been superceded.
    [Show full text]
  • The Rove Beetles of Leicestershire and Rutland
    LEICESTERSHIRE ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY The Rove Beetles (Staphylinidae) of Leicestershire and Rutland Part 1: Sub-families Paederinae, Pseudopsinae and Staphylininae Derek A. Lott Creophilus maxillosus (Graham Calow) LESOPS 24 (2011) ISSN 0957 – 1019 Correspondence: 5 Welland Road, Barrow upon Soar, LE12 8NA VC55 Staphylinids Part 1 2 Introduction With over 56,000 described species in the world, the Staphylinidae are the largest family in the animal kingdom (Grebennikov & Newton, 2009). Around a quarter of the British beetles are rove beetles, so they represent an important component of biodiversity in Britain. However, because of perceived difficulties in their identification, they have not received the attention that they merit. This paper aims to play a part in redressing that imbalance by listing all reliable records from Leicestershire and Rutland for the different species and analysing which species have declined locally over 100 years of recording rove beetles and which have prospered. The subfamilies treated in this first part include the largest and most conspicuous species in the family. The geographical area covered is the vice county of Leicestershire and Rutland (VC55). Some records from adjacent banks of the River Soar that technically lie in Nottinghamshire are also included. These records can be distinguished by the use of Nottinghamshire parish names. Identification Staphylinidae can be easily recognised among beetles in the field by their short wing cases that leave five or six segments of the abdomen exposed and flexible. In fact they look more like earwigs than other beetles. For identification to species, all the members of the subfamilies in this part will be covered by the forthcoming Royal Entomological Society handbook to Staphylinidae parts 6 and 7 due for publication in 2011.
    [Show full text]
  • Area 01 –Wiltshire Upper Thames Clay Vale
    Area 01 –Wiltshire Upper Thames Clay Vale Reproduced from 1:25,000 Scale Colour Raster by permission of Ordnance Survey® on behalf of HMSO. © Crown copyright 2013. All rights reserved. Licence number 100005798. SNA boundaries © Natural England copyright 2005. Priority habitats data © WSBRC 2012, reproduced with permission of WSBRC. Figure 4.1 The Wiltshire Upper Thames Clay Vale Landscape Biodiversity Area indicating priority habitats and the labelled, numbered Strategic Nature Areas within this Area. 4.1.1 Area Profile National Character Areas – Upper Thames Clay Vales (108) Landscaper Character Types – Open Clay Vale (12) Landscape Character Areas – Thames Open Clay Vale (12A) AONBs – None Strategic Nature Areas – There are 17 SNAs and the Rivers Thames and Ray. See here for SNA targets for Area 01 Related BAPs - Cotswolds Water Park BAP Geology – The northern half of the Area is dominated by River Alluvia & River Terrace Gravels laid down by the river Thames and its tributaries. Oxford Clays cover the slightly higher marginal areas in the southern section towards Swindon where it then meets the limestone ridge comprised of ancient corals upon which the town sits. Community Area Boards – Royal Wootton Bassett & Cricklade Area Board, Malmesbury Area Board and Swindon Borough covering the eastern half. 4.1.2 Background Wiltshire Upper Thames Clay Vale is a low lying area centred on the River Thames and its floodplain. It is a largely rural landscape, predominantly level, with lines of willow and other wetland trees. The agricultural use of the area combines arable and wet pasture, with open water ditches as well as hedgerows defining boundaries.
    [Show full text]
  • Submission Cherwell Local Plan Incorporating Proposed Modifications (August 2014)
    Cherwell District Council Submission Cherwell Local Plan incorporating Proposed Modifications (October 2014) Habitats Regulations Assessment: Stage 1 – Screening October 2014 5073978.200 Cherwell District Council Submission Cherwell Local Plan incorporating Proposed Modifications (August 2014) Habitats Regulations Assessment: Stage 1 - Screening Record of Assessment of Likely Significant Effect on a European Site Required by Regulation 21 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) August 2014 Notice This report was produced by Atkins Limited for Cherwell District Council in response to their particular instructions. This report may not be used by any person other than Cherwell District Council without Cherwell District Council’s express permission. In any event, Atkins accepts no liability for any costs, liabilities or losses arising as a result of the use of or reliance upon the contents of this report by any person other than Cherwell District Council. No information provided in this report can be considered to be legal advice. Document History JOB NUMBER: 5073978.100 DOCUMENT REF: Cherwell Local Plan - Submission Draft - HRA Stage 1.doc C Sellars Draft Report for Client C 01 M Tooby J Sheppard Approval Wansbury M Tooby C Sellars C 02 Final Issue M Tooby J Sheppard Wansbury M Tooby C Sellars C 03 Update from 2014 M Tooby J Sheppard Wansbury M Tooby Revision Purpose Description Originated Checked Reviewed Authorised Date 5073978.200 This page has been left intentionally blank 5073978.200 Plan Design Enable Submission Cherwell Local Plan (August 2014) Habitat Regulations Assessment : Stage 1 - Screening Cherwell District Council Contents Section Page Executive Summary 1 1.
    [Show full text]
  • West Oxfordshire Habitat Regulations
    West Oxfordshire Pre-Submission Local Plan Habitats Regulations Assessment March 2015 Prepared for: West Oxfordshire District Council West Oxfordshire District Council – Final Version Pre-Submission Draft Local Plan REVISION SCHEDULE Rev Date Details Prepared by Reviewed by Approved by 1 18/12/2014 Pre-Submission Draft Isla Hoffmann Graeme Down James Riley Heap Ecologist Principal Ecologist Ecologist 3 17/03/2015 Final Version Pre-Submission Isla Hoffmann Graeme Down James Riley Draft Local Plan Heap Ecologist Associate Director Ecologist URS Scott House Alençon Link Basingstoke Hampshire RG21 7PP HABITATS REGULATIONS ASSESSMENT March 2015 1 West Oxfordshire District Council – Final Version Pre-Submission Draft Local Plan Limitations URS Infrastructure & Environment UK Limited (“URS”) has prepared this Report for the sole use of West Oxfordshire District Council (“Client”) in accordance with the Agreement under which our services were perfo rmed. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this Report or any other services provided by URS. This Report is confidential and may not be disclosed by the Client nor relied upon by any other party without the prior and express written agreement of URS. The conclusions and recommendations contained in this Report are based upon information provided by others and upon the assumption that all relevant information has been provided by those parties from whom it has been requested and that such information is accurate. Information obtained by URS has not been independently verified by URS, unless otherwise stated in the Report. The methodology adopted and the sources of information used by URS in providing its services are outlined in this Report.
    [Show full text]